The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1988-04-05 Support Documentation Town Council Regular SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 1988 7:30 p.m. AGENDA 1.~ Ten Year Anniversary Awards to Jacque Lovato and Corey Schmidt 2. Approval of Minutes from March 1 and 15, 1988 Meetings 3. 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 21 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. 4. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1988, second 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 DECEMBER 31, 1992 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 election prior to said expiration date; and setting forth details in regard thereto. 5. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1988, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 3.40.130 (2) of Chapter 3.40 Sales Tax of the Municipal Code of the Town of Uail 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 Uail 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. 6. Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission Decision to Deny the Rose Subdivision Request (Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing} CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 7. Town Manager's Report 8. Adjournment VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 1988 7:30 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 1. Ten Year Anniversary Awards to Jacque Lovato and Corey Schmidt 7:35 2. Approval of Minutes from March 1 and 15, 1988 Meetings 7:40 3. 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 is for denial because of the view corridor issue.. All other issues have been resolved. 8:00 4. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1988, second reading, increasing Larry Eskwith sales tax by .3% for marketing Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1988, on second 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. $:20 5. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1988, second 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 second 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 second reading. 8:30 6. Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission Decision Tom Braun to Deny the Rose Subdivision Request Action Requested of Council: Uphold or overturn the PEC's decision. Background Rationale: The lot is presently zoned Primary/ Secondary. The request would create 2 lots with zoning in both to remain Primary/Secondary. The staff memo provides more background and conditions of approval pertaining to this application. 9:15 Staff Recommendation: memorandum. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 7. Town Manager's Report 9;20 8. Adjournment -2- Approve the request, as per the staff MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 1, 1988 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, March 1, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor John Slevin, Mayor Pro Tem Eric Affeldt Merv Lapin Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal Gordon Pierce Tom Steinberg MEMBERS ABSENT: None TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first order of business was approval of the minutes from the February 2 and 16, 1988 meetings. There was no discussion by Council or the public. Tom Steinberg made a motion to approve the minutes as presented, which John Slevin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. The next item was an appointment to the Local Liquor Licensing Authority Board. Mayor Rose noted there was only one applicant, Bill Bishop. There was no other discussion by Council or the public. A motion to appoint Bill Bishop to the Board was made by Merv Lapin and seconded by Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. The third order of business was Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1988, second reading, amending the Vail Municipal Code regarding the Ski Base/Recreation Zone District. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Rick Pylman noted changes made to the ordinance from the first reading - Section 1, B 2, "Children's" ski school services and programs and Section 2, paragraph 1, line 6, adding "With regard t;o the recreational path relocation south of tennis courts 3-6, Sheet 3 shall be amendfed by Matthews Associates Sheet L-1 dated February 8, 1988.". Larry Lichliter, Executive Vice President of Mountain Operations, Vail Associates, stated he was there to support the application; Vail Associates had agreed to the requirements specified by the Council; and was requesting approval. Bill Bours, an owner in they Manor Vaii Condominium Association, also President of the Condo. Association and was representing all the owners, and representing Northwoods and Howard Torgove, President, stated they were in favor of the Children's Ski School„ but had a problem with the location. He requested Council postpone action on the ordinance for 30 days so the Association could work with Vail Associates on other possible sites. He then read a letter to Council from Kit Cowperthwaite against approval of the ordinance. Dave Schnegelberger, Manager of All Seasons Condominium Association, stated all its owners were in agreement with Bours' statement. Bob Buckley, a resident of Vail and employee of Vail Associates, gave reasons why he felt strongly in favor of approval. Larry Lichliter gave. concluding comments and urged Council to pass the ordinance. Bill Bours argued they wanted the Ski School,. but not at that location. Bob Buckley again supported his position in favor of the project. Nancy Nottingham explained the criteria used when Vail Associates was planning the location of the building and remarked the opposition was a surprise to her. Chris Ryman, Director of Vail/Beaver Creek Ski School, supported Nancy, and noted they had spent a lot of time and energy to resolve the situation, and if i~t could not be done now, the schedule would fall behind. Elaine Kelton was for the Ski School, but that green space was ultimately important. Paul Johnston made remarks about .children being safe in Vail and urged Council to move ahead. Dan Corcoran felt there were good points on both sides, but the problems should be resolved by the property owners, not Council. He felt Council should approve it on the merit of the center and let the other issues be resolved in a different arena. Larry Lichliter stated if the ordinance was approved, Uail Associates would work with the neighborhood to work out the problems. He then answered questions from Council. Jack Hunn, Project Manager, Vail Associates, explained why he was not in favor of waiting 30 days and urged Council to take action. Bill Bours gave additional comments. Peter Patten and Larry Lichliter answered questions from Council. Jack Hunn responded to a proposal by Bill Bours. At this time, Eric Affeldt made a motion to approve the ordinance including the changes noted by Rick Pylman, and John Slevin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. The next item was Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1988, first reading, rezoning 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. Mayor Rose read the full title. Tom Braun stated the ordinance required three separate actions - 1) a minor subdivision, 2) exterior alteration review and 3) rezoning with the SDD No. 20. Ron Riley, heading the efforts of the project, gave background information on the project. Peter Jamar and John Perkins gave a slide presentation on existing conditions, proposed plans and discussion of Tract E - the Golden Peak House redevelopment and the Village ski base facility. Peter Jamar then reviewed the twelve conditions - the six already in the ordinance and the six additional recommended by the Planning and Environmental Commission. He then reviewed these recommended conditions and explained their intentions. Tom Braun presented the staff's position and explained why staff recommended approval. Peter Patten spoke about rezoning and changed circumstances, consistency with the land use plan, and this project would be the last step in the remodeling of Vail Village. Jack Tweedy made a statement on the initial intent of the founding fathers and noted he agreed with all the plans except not to build on the green belt or build underground. Howard Head stated he felt the older property owners in the area did not want the project and gave his reasons why. Ellie Caukins and Howard Berkowitz explained why they were against the project. Greta Parks read a letter she had written to the Council in opposition to the project. Frankie Tang agreed with the plans for the Golden Peak House, but on a smaller scale. Joe Staufer questioned the zoning and SDD. John Trtanj, who has a business in the Golden Peak House, the Sportsstalker, stated he does well and will continue to do well, and did not understand why people were blocking this project. He felt that everyone had to look at the community and not be selfish, and gave his reasons why he supported the project. Teak Simonett, manager of Vail Ski Rentals, presented photographs of delivery trucks in the area to Council and stated why she was opposed to the project. Gordon Brittan stated he was against the use of open space. Bill Wilto explained he supported the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House, that conditions have changed; agreed to the need to use open space for skier space, and the deck area would be for the public, so all in all, he endorsed the project. Harry Frampton explained that zoning and planning were not an exact science and that he supported the project because the benefits outweighed the problems. Ray Kelley read a letter he wrote to the Council opposing the project. Fred Greene stated the Council had to deal with the concept of change, and that Council should not let the issue of open space be the deciding point. Andy Norris explained he was concerned about the capability to handle visiting skiers, that the Vista Bahn area would have to be able to accommodate them, and that the compromises were acceptable. Hadley Cox, an owner in the Golden Peak House, stated he did not like the encroachment, that it would hinder family life; he was in favor of the upgrade of the Golden Peak House, noted his concern of the ski area, and requested the rezoning not be done. Dick Georgie, an owner in the Golden Peak House, was not in favor of the deck or underground buildings, but did like the remodeling plans for the Golden Peak House. Paul Johnston addressed some problems brought up, noted he strongly supported the plans, and read a letter from Linda and Berry Craddock in support of the project. Dan Corcoran stated he felt this was an opportunity to get the base facilities needed and to remodel the Golden Peak House; it was a good proposal in the best spot, and he hoped it would be approved. Jack Curtin, representing Mrs. Hill, spoke about open space and zoning and why they were against the project. Pepi Gramshammer gave his reasons why he was against the project. Tom Ragonetti, an attorney representing several residents in the area, felt the majority of comments stated the facility was needed, but was not in the right place; there would be a problem with the increase in traffic, parking and more noise; and it would be an incompatible use with what was around it. Sarah Rockwell, an associate of Mr. Ragonetti's, noted two procedural irregularities which seemed important. Peter Jamar and Tom Braun responded. Paul Johnston noted that 85% of the Golden Peak House residents had approved the remodeling. Dan Minzer stated that 100% of the first mortgage lenders also had to approve the plans. Jerry Parmin, owner of Vail Village Sports, supported the project. After much more discussion by Council, Eric .Affeldt made a motion to deny the ordinance, which was seconded by Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion failed 2-5, with John Slevin, Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal, Tom Steinberg,. Mayor Rose and Gordon Pierce opposing. Another motion was made by Tom Steinberg to -2- 4 approve the ordinance with all the additional conditions requested by the Planning and Environmental Commission, except item No. 2, as stated in the memorandum from the Community Development Department to Town Council dated March 1, 1988. John Slevin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-2, with Merv Lapin and Eric Affeldt opposing. It was decided that Council would take a site visit to the Golden Peak House and the Los Amigos deck area to review the areas. The fifth order of business was Resolution No. 5, Series of 1988, adopting the Town of Vail Transit Development Plan Update 1988-1992. Ron Phillips gave a brief explanation as to what the plan update would do. Stan Berryman gave additional information. Eric Affeldt made a motion to approve the resolution as submitted, which Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. There was no Citizen Participation. There was no Town Manager's Report. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman -3- MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 15, 1988 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, March 15, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor John Slevin, Mayor Pro Tem Eric Affeldt Merv Lapin Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal Gordon Pierce Tom Steinberg None Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first order of business was a ten year anniversary award to Hignio Romero. Ron Phillips recognized Hignio for his years of service. Ron noted that Hignio started working for the Town in March of 1978 and is now a Maintenance Worker II in the Street Division of the Public Works Department. Stan Berryman stated Hignio really took care of the whole town. Ron, Stan and Mayor Rose thanked Hignio for all his hard work. The next item was Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1988, second reading, rezoning Tract E- 1from 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. Mayor Rose read the full title. Larry Eskwith explained he had received a written request by the attorney for Ron Riley to postpone second reading of this ordinance until the Evening Meeting April 19, 1988. Larry noted Mr. Ragonetti and Mrs. Hill had agreed to the postponement. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal made a motion to table the item until April 19, 1988, and John Slevin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. The third order of business was Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1988, first reading, increasing the Town of Vail sales tax by three-tenths of one percent (.3%) for marketing. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Larry Eskwith explained what the ordinance would do and recommended an effective date for the tax to cease be in four years. Tom Steinberg thought the tax should be voted on at a regular election in 1991; there was no reason for a special election, and a regular election would save money. John Slevin agreed. Merv Lapin felt a non-governmental entity would be the ideal for marketing Vail. Neal Donaldson commented against the sales tax increase and his concern over non-marketing for the World Championships. Lou Meskiman stated he felt the Council should do nothing until the residents realize they must commit themselves to the idea. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the ordinance with the addition of the following dates - a special election to approve/deny the tax increase set for June 21, 1988; the effective date of the tax to begin August 1, 1988; the general election scheduled for November, 1991 to continue/discontinue the sales tax; and if the general election fails, the tax would cease on December 31, 1991. There was much discussion by Council and the public at this point. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion with the deletion of "special election" in the wording of the ordinance. Mike Cacioppo questioned changes the Council could make in the ordinance, to which Larry Eskwith and Ron Phillips responded. Eric Affeldt gave reasons why he was opposed to the ordinance. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal agreed with the hope that plans would be made to study the possibilities and things move forward. Mayor Rose explained why he was opposed to the ordinance, too. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-3, with Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal, Mayor Rose and Eric Affeldt opposing. The next item was Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1988, first reading, amending Chapter 3.40 of the Municipal Code relating to sales tax collections. The full title was read by Mayor Rose. Larry Eskwith explained the changes proposed to the sales tax chapter. There was no discussion by Council or the public. A motion to approve the ordinance was made by Eric Affeldt and seconded by Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-O. The fifth item of business was Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1988, first reading, rezoning the area at the Amoco Station at the Vail Gateway. The full title was read by Mayor Rose. Rick Pylman explained the ordinance was to request a zone change from Heavy Service District to Commercial Core I and also to set up a Special Development District No. 21. He then gave background information on the process. He then reviewed zoning and SDD criteria used to evaluate the proposal. He stated that staff was generally in support of the zone change, but still had concerns regarding 1) the twenty foot setback from the Frontage Road, 2) view considerations, 3) urban design issues concerning pedestrian entrance and 4) urban design issue concerning flat roofs. He commented staff's recommendation is to table the item for two weeks, otherwise denial unless issues can be resolved. Peter Jamar, representing the Palmer Development Company of Boulder, introduced his project associates. He stated they felt the redevelopment proposal was very positive and gave background information on how the project got to this point. He then reviewed how the applicant had revised plans to accommodate the Planning Commission and staff requirements. Buff Arnold, of Arnold Gwathmey Architects, explained how the building would function and how it was designed to accommodate certain requirements. Richard Foy, of Communication Arts in Boulder, explained how each area in the building would work, and felt if the problems were only design issues, they could be resolved. Peter Jamar wrapped up their presentation by listing the positive aspects of the proposed plans and requested approval of the ordinance. Peter Patten showed slides of proposed building plans from previous proposals. After some discussion by Council, Matt Carpenter explained he felt the view was not important and the building should be approved. Jim Viele, Chairman of the Planning and Environmental Commission, felt that, based on an informal meeting they had Monday, the Planning Commission votes would have been positive and the issues resolved. Terry Hardwig, Mayor of North Little Rock, Arkansas, stated he looked at the town from the top of the mountain and never drove in town, a1 ways used the bus. Joe Staufer of the Vail Village Inn, explained his concerns with the building. Peter Jamar stated that Palmer would agree to a letter of agreement with the Vail Village Inn.. Cuny Sterkl, owner of the Amoco Station, felt the timing of the project should be considered. Chuck Crist, a local realtor, was basically in favor of the project, and the view from the Gateway was not important, it was more important from the Interstate. Steve Trombetta stated he was in favor of the building. At the request of Peter Jamar, Council stated items to be worked on were: the sidewalk should go through the berm, setbacks on the north and west sides needed to be enlarged, the traffic report should be redone because they felt the report they had was incorrect, increase and enhance the landscaping, camouflage the pedestrian area at the corner, shorten the canopy area in front, environmental issues should be addressed, employee housing was a concern, the alley way was a safety concern, and dwelling units were a concern. Tom Steinberg felt only two stories should be allowed. Gail Wahrlich- Lowenthal requested a picture of the view corridor be redone. Merv Lapin suggested there be no variance on the parking requirements except a cash variance. Kent Rose stated he would like the alley way eliminated by butting the buildings together. Peter Jamar then requested the ordinance be tabled until the next Evening Meeting, with the suggestion the applicant and Council meet at a Work Session before the Evening Meeting to review and revise the proposed plans. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal suggested the Planning Commission also be invited to the Work Session. John Slevin then made a motion to table the ordinance until the next. Evening Meeting, and Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal seconded. A vote was taken and the mot ion passed unanimously 7-0. The next business was Resolution No. 6, Series of 1988, supporting the Vail Consolidated Water Districts' Black Lakes proposal. Larry Eskwith explained the reasoning for the resolution and what it would do. Peter Patten gave additional background information. Mayor Rose felt this would be a good start at maintaining what we have. After some discussion by Council, Eric Affeldt made a motion to approve the resolution and direct the staff to research the issue and report back to the Council. Gordon Pierce seconded the motion. After more discussion, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-O. The seventh item was action on the Bravo! Colorado contract discussed at the Work Session that afternoon. Larry Eskwith stated that no changes had been made from the Work Session. There was no discussion by Council or the public. Eric Affeldt made a motion to approve the contract, which Merv Lapin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0, with Tom Steinberg abstaining. -2- There was no Citizen Participation. Under the Town Manager's Report, Ron Phillips stated bus ridership in January was up four percent in the Village, and in February, up eight percent in the Village. It was noted the outer routes were up slightly or down from 1987 figures. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman -3- TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 5, 1988 SUBJECT: Request to rezone a part of Lot N, and a portion of Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing from Heavy Service District to Special Development District with underlying Commercial Core I district. Applicant: Palmer Development Company 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. The proposed Vail Gateway project is a mixed use development containing retail, office, commercial and residential uses with parking requirements provided in an underground structure. The Vail Gateway project, Special Development District No. 21, as proposed in Ordinance 9, Series of 1988, was tabled by the applicant at the first reading on March 15th. The Town Council raised several issues and concerns with the project. The developer tabled the project in order to complete revisions that would address concerns of the Town Council and staff. The applicant has amended the project in six areas: 1. Parking requirements: The parking requirement of 95 spaces is met by the provision of 95 covered parking spaces. 2. Building orientation: Emphasis has been redirected to the southern entrance. 3. East setback: The alley has been eliminated by the creation of a zero setback at the first floor. 4. North setback: This has been increased to 17 feet. 5. Landscaping: The landscaping has been increased in some areas. Specific details will be presented to Design Review Board. 6. Architectural details: The revisions to the building have resulted in positive changes in the architectural details. These revisions address concerns that were voiced by two or more Town Council members. Community Development staff, along with our Urban Design consultant, Jeff Winston, have reviewed the revisions and feel that they are positive additions to the project . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department is generally supportive of the concept of this redevelopment. We have listed many issues and concerns with this project throughout the process, and the majority of these issues and concerns have been adequately addressed by the developer. We do, however, still have serious concern with the Vail Gateway building encroachment into the view of Vail Mountain as presented by the Vail Village Inn development. It has been the position of the staff throughout this process that this proposal should not encroach into that view corridor. Without resolution of this issue, the Community Development Department must recommend denial of this project. ORDINANCE N0. 9 Series of 1988 AN ORDINANCE REZONING A PART OF LOT LOT 0, BLOCK 5D, VAIL VILLAGE FIRST SERVICE DISTRICT TO COMMERCIAL CORE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 21 AND A PORTION OF LOT 0, BLOCK 5D VAIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN N AND A PORTION OF FILING FROM HEAVY I AND ESTABLISHING FOR A PART OF LOT N, VILLAGE FIRST FILING THE VAIL MUNICIPAL 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 a part of Lot N, and a portion of Lot 0, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing to be known as Special Development District No. 21, commonly referred to as the Vail Gateway; and WHEREAS, application has further been made to rezone a part of Lot N, and a portion of Lot 0, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing from Heavy Service District to Commercial Core I District in order to allow for the range of uses and activities proposed for SDD No. 21; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental Commission had a public hearing on the proposed zoning amendment and the proposed SDD, and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the appropriate parties; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The Town Council finds that the procedures for a zoning amendment as set forth in Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied, and all other requirements of the Municipal Code of the Town relating to zoning amendments have been fully satisfied. Section 2. The Town Council hereby rezones the property more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto, from Heavy Service District to Commercial Core I. Section 3. The Town Council finds that all the procedures set forth for Special Development Districts in Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied. Section 4. The Town Council finds that the development plan for Special Development District No. 21 meets each of the standards set forth in Section 18.40.080 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail or demonstrates that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. In accordance with Section 18.40.040, the development plan far Special Development District No. 21 is approved and Special Development District No. 21 is hereby approved for the property described in Exhibit A. The development plan is comprised with those plans submitted by Buff Arnold, Ned Gwathmey, Architect, PC, and consists of the following documents: 1. Site plan, dated March 28, 1988 2. Floor Plans dated March 28, 1988 3. Elevations dated March 28, 1988 4. Landscape Plan dated March 28, 1988 5. Special Development District Application and Environmental Impact Report as prepared by Peter Jamar Associates, Inc., dated January 1988, and revised March 9, 1988 Section 5. The development standards for Special Development District No. 21 are approved by the Town Council as a part of the approved development plan as follows: A. Setbacks Setbacks shall be as indicated on the site plan set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. B. Height Building heights shall be as indicated on the elevations and roof plan set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. C. Coverage Site coverage shall be as indicated on the site plan set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. -2- D. Landscaping The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as generally indicated on the preliminary landscape plan set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for final approval. E. Parking ` Parking demands generated by this development shall be met in accordance with the developer's proposal to provide 95 parking spaces. F. Density The density allowed in Special Development District No. 21 shall be 12 dwelling units consisting of not more than a total of 13,000 square feet of GRFA. Section 6. The uses of Special Development District No. 21 are uses permitted by right, conditional uses or accessory uses in the Commercial Core I zone district. Section 7. 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 approved in accordance with Sections 18.66.110 through 18.66.160. The Community Development Department shall be solely responsible for determining what constitutes a change in the substance of the development plan. An application for a amendment to this Special Development District which changes the substance of the development plan shall comply with the requirements of Section 18.40.030 except that the Community Development Department shall determine which property in the Special Development District is being directly affected by such amendment and the consent of only those owners of said property shall be required to be included in the application. Section 8. The applicant must begin construction of the Special Development District within 18 months from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward completion of the project. If the applicant does not begin and diligently work toward 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 -3- 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 9. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause of phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to of the remaining portions it would have passed this clause or phrase thereof, sections, subsections, se Section 10. be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, ntences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 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. Section 11. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of 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, Uai1, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of . 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk -4- INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk -5- MEMORANDUM T0; Town of Vail Design Review Board FROM: Gordon R. Pierce, Council Member DATE: March 29, 1988 SUBJECT: Gateway Project I am recommending that this project have a very substantial look and be very carefully detailed, i.e., the first level facade should be treated in stone similar to that used on Phase III of the U.V.I. The large entry sky light snow/water/ice problem should be treated with heated gutters drained to the inside of the building. Landscaping should be coordinated with the frontage road/highway/Town of Vail entry plan, etc. I would be happy to meet with you if you would like my comments first hand. GRP/bsc 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 7HE 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 DECEMBER 31, 1991 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 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, 8E 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 the four percent (4%) of the total 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 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 ~~~e~e~+~T 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 -2- r RAISED BY SAID THREE-TENTHS PERCENT (.3%) OF THE SALES TAX RATE NOT EXPENDED ON MARKETING IN ANY GIVEN YEAR MAY BE 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 THROUGH 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 DECEMBER 31, 1991 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 ELECTION PRIOR TO SAID EXPIRATION DATE. 4. Section 3.40.290 Amendments of the Municipal Code of the Town of Uail is hereby amended to read as follows: The Town Council may amend, alter or change this ordinance, ^~~°„+'~~ +^ ° 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 June 21, 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 ingreased from four percent (4%) to four and three-tenths percent (4.3%) for the purpose of -3- ,_ - providing revenues for marketing of the Town of Vail and its environs all in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1988, at the Town of Vail said sales tax increase to become effective on August 1, 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 Uail 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 15th day of March , 1988, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 15th day of March 1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this 15th day of March 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 ~b-}-(2). 3. Section 3.40.170 Exemptions, paragraph (2) is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.40.170 Exemptions (2) All sales to -~=eg~~r E~q~--itab-l° ~'~~^^+~^°^ °^~' °^+~~^}~°°-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 court, 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~at~-OR if the purchaser of such materials gives to the retailer a building permit NUMBER. ~ea^-~~er ~^^~~m°h+°+;^K °rs +..~,,,. +,. _+-~o;;,;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 15th day of March , 1988, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 15th day of March 1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipa Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this 15th day of March ~ lggg, 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- r TO: Town Council FROM: Planning and Environmental Commission DATE: February 16, 1988 SUBJECT: Appeal of a Planning requested subdivision Village 3rd Filing. Appellants: Ben and Commission decision to deny a at Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Martha Rose Stated in simplest terms, this request would create two Primary/Secondary lots where there presently exists one. The request is not for zoning, but rather for a subdivision of the existing lot. Staff has spent considerable time working with the applicants on this proposal. While originally opposed to the request, changes to the proposal have resulted in the staff's supporting the application. The January 25th memo to the Planning Commission outlines the staff's response to~this proposal. It is important to understand that the staff's position is based on the fundamental premise of subdivision: the basic measure for _evaluatinq subdivisions lie in the minimum standards established for lot size. Other considerations in the evaluation of subdivision are intended to ensure the duality tibility of the proposed subdi proposal would not be harmonious with adjacent land uses. The motion for denial cited three specific purposes of subdivision as outlined in Town regulations (17.04.010 C 2,3, and 4). on. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to deny the request. Concerns cited by the Commission included estab-lishment of precedent, conflict with adjacent properties, effect on property values in the neighborhood, and concern that the 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land. 3. To provide and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. 4. To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town zoning ordinances, to achieve an harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 25, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to create two Primary/Secondary lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing, 443 Beaver Dam Road Applicants: Ben and Martha Rose I. INTRODUCTION TO THE REQUEST This proposal involves the subdivision of an existing Primary/Secondary lot into two Primary/Secondary parcels. In September of 1987, a work session was held with the Planning Commission and applicants to discuss this proposal. The application was scheduled for formal review later that month, but was tabled to allow the applicants time to reconsider their request. Since that time the staff has worked with the applicant in trying to resolve a number of issues staff had identified relative to last fall's proposal. This memorandum will outline the issues relative to the request before the Planning Commission. It is important that the Planning Commission understand that this request involves a subdivision, and not a request for zoning. As established by numerous examples of case law, the basic premise of subdivision regulations is that if minimum standards are met, the requested subdivision is essentially to be approved. Minimum standards typically deal with zoning considerations such as minimum lot size, frontage, etc. As a result, these standards establish the first set of review criteria to be considered with this request. Relative to this request, proposed Parcel A includes 15,020 square feet of site area and Parcel B contains 15,010 square feet of site area. Both lots satisfy the minimum 15,000 square feet of buildable area, as well as providing lots capable of enclosing an 80 foot by 80 foot box and a minimum of 30 feet of frontage along a Town right-of-way. Clearly, the lots meet the minimum standards established in the Primary/Secondary zone district. The other set of criteria to be considered in a request of this type involve the general purpose section of the subdivision regulations. This section includes seven factors that are intended to ensure that a subdivision is promoting the health, safety and welfare of the community. It was with these criteria that the planning staff had difficulty with the previous proposal. While more subjective than the quantifiable standards expressed in the zoning requirements, these considerations address other issues relative to the appropriateness of a requested subdivision. The staff's previous recommendation of denial was based on these seven considerations. However, through redesign and negotiation, staff feels that the proposal is now in compliance with the basic purpose and intent of the Town's subdivision regulations. IT. BACKGROUND ON PROPOSALS OF THIS TYPE There have been questions raised concerning similar proposals that have been made in the past, as well as the potential for additional requests of this type. There have been three comparable proposals submitted to the Planning Commission over the past four or five years. These include the following: 1. Resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Bighorn Filing. This subdivision approval divided one Primary/ Secondary lot into two Single Family lots. The net result was no increase in the total number of units on the site. Because GRFA was restricted on each Single Family parcel, there was only a nominal increase in floor area permitted on each new lot. Because of the size and nature of this parcel, it was fairly unencumbered in terms of accessibility and other site planning considerations. 2. Resubdivision of Pitkin Creek Meadows. This parcel had a long history in terms of previous attempts to subdivide the property. About the time East Vail was annexed to Vail, applications were made to create three Primary/Secondary lots on this property. At the time, minimum lot standards required 17,500 square feet of buildable area per lot. Because of this requirement, only two lots were approved on the parcel. Following the reduction of the minimum lot size to 15,000 square feet, a new application was submitted to the Planning Commission last year. Approval by the Planning Commission at that time resulted in the creation of three Primary/Secondary lots. While the parcel contains significant amounts of area over 40% slope, it was the finding of the Planning Commission that the lots were both accessible and buildable. In addition, the newly created lot was bordered by residential development on only one side with Forest Service property on two sides of the parcel and I-70 bordering on the other. 2 3. Resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Referred to as the Tennen- baum subdivision, this approval created two Single Family lots and one Primary/Secondary lots on what were two Primary/Secondary parcels. This subdivision resulted in no increases in total number of units nor in GRFA, as restrictions were placed on these parcels so as to not increase either types of density through .the subdivision. The staff has been asked to research the lot sizes within the neighborhood of this proposal. We have researched lot sizes in Block 7 of Vail Village lst and Blocks 1,2,3 and 4 of Vail Village 3rd. This encompasses what is commonly known as the Village side of the Forest Road area. The results of this research found that the average lot size in this neighborhood is 22,723 square feet, with a mean lot size of 24,025 square feet. In addition, there are a total of five lots in the neighborhood greater than 30,000 square feet (this includes the applicants' parcel). These lots range in size from 30,945 square feet to 37,769 square feet. All of these lots are zoned Primary/Secondary. By way of comparison, 14 of the 42 Primary/Secondary lots in Potato Patch are over 30,000 square feet. Nine of the 52 Primary/Secondary lots in the Glen Lyon .subdivision exceed 30,000 square feet. Because of the various factors involved in determining buildable area of a site, staff is unable to specify exactly how many of these lots could meet the quantitative standards for potential subdivision. III. STAFF RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSAL Planning Commission review criteria are outlined in Section 17.16.110 of the Subdivision Regulations. This reads as follows: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town of Vail policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environ- mental integrity and compatibility with surrounding land uses. 3 One of the key aspects of this statement refers to "compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter." Seven specific purposes are outlined in 17.04.010 (Purpose section) of the subdivision regulations. Within these seven specific purposes, reference is made to other criteria that may be applicable to subdivision requests. The issues and concerns of the staff, many of which involve other policies and planning related tools the Town has adopted, will be identified within the parameters established by the seven specific purposes of the subdivision regulations. These purposes are the following: 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated, and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. One of the underlying purposes of subdivision regulations, as well as any development controls, are to establish basic ground rules with which the staff, the Planning Commission, applicants, and the community know will be followed in public review processes. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict of development on adjacent land. While the required 80 foot square within a newly created lot is intended to provide for an adequate building envelope, the previous proposal raised questions relative to the lot's ability to accommodate development within this building area. This proposal provides for building areas in excess of the required 80 foot square. This should minimize the need for subsequent setback variances when this property is developed. While originally subdivided prior to the incorporation of the Town of Vail, Town zoning has guided development in this area for over 15 years. This proposal's compliance with minimum standards implies consistency with the Town's overall development objectives. While previous subdivision proposals for this .site created potential impacts on adjoining parcels (particularly Lot 2 to the east), the proposed lot line creates buffers which will limit impacts on views, privacy, and the changing character of this area. 4 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. The value of a lot, and to a greater extent the value of a neighborhood, is in large part dependent on the level and type of development within it. Staff opposition to previous proposals were, to a degree, based on this consideration. It is the staff's position that this proposal's compliance with lot standards, along with efforts to address other issues raised by the staff, demonstrate that this proposal is not detrimental to the value of land throught the Town. 4. To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinance, to achieve an harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. In order to remain consistent with similar requests (the Summers and Tennenbaum applications), the staff initiated dialogue with the applicants on what types of restrictions would be amenable to both parties. By virtue of this subdivision, the property stands to gain approximately 2,150 square feet of additional GRFA than would be permitted under existing conditions. In addition, the property would be permitted four units (as opposed to two under existing zoning). The Planning Commission should keep in mind that there are presently four legal nonconforming units on the property at this time. The staff suggested to the applicants that the GRFA on both parcels A and B be .limited to a total of approximately 5,335 square feet of GRFA. Prior to this time, the applicant had offered to restrict the secondary units on both parcels to restricted employee housing units. As a result, discussion took place concerning restrictions on both the amount of square footage and the nature of the residential units that could be built on these lots. Staff considers these types of "decentralized" employee units to be very beneficial to the community. This feeling is substantiated by the results of the Eagle County housing survey which 5 identified stand-alone employee housing units as the most desirable. As an incentive for these units to be built, the staff and applicant have agreed to what is essentially a 500 square foot "credit" to allow for the construction of the employee housing units.. Simply stated, both Parcel A and Parcel B would be permitted approximately 2,667 square feet of GRFA if single family residences are developed on each parcel. If the right to build the secondary unit is exercised, an additional 500 square feet of GRFA will. be allocated to that parcel for the secondary unit. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. This purpose of the subdivision regulations is intended to address large scale subdivisions as opposed to this proposal under consideration. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. This is another inherent goal of subdivision regulations that has 1 ittle specific reference to this application. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of the land. There is the potential that the development of proposed Parcel B may impact the natural features of the lot that may otherwise not be impacted if this lot were developed as existing. Specifically, staff concerns center around the mature stand of pine trees at the northerly end of the lot and the transition this lot makes in leading to the Gore Creek stream tract. As is the case with other issues previously cited by the staff, the proposed lot line serves to 6 mitigate staff concern. It is the feeling of the staff that the building envelope proposed for Parcel B will allow for the siting of a home while. remaining sensitive to the natural features found at the northerly portion of this lot. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is no secret that the staff has looked very critically at this proposal. While at one time opposing this application, the applicant and staff have worked together to resolve issues previously identified by the staff. As a result, the staff is recommending approval of this subdivision as requested. Conditions of approval include the following: 1. The existing structure on Lot 4 be demolished, removed from the site, and the site revegetated prior to the signing of the minor subdivision plat by the Community. Development Department. The staff would allow the opportunity for the cost of revegetation to be bonded in the event that the lots were to be developed shortly after the existing structure is demolished.. The details of this could be worked out between the owners and the staff. The staff's intent is to ensure that the lot is either redeveloped or restored to previous natural conditions when the existing structure is removed. 2. The .second condition of approval involves restrictions imposed upon the level and type of development for proposed parcels A and B. The following table shall be the development regulations relating to density and employee units: Development Summaries Proposed Parcel "A" 2667 sq ft of GRFA permitted if only a single family residence is constructed 3167 sq ft of GRFA permitted if a secondary unit is constructed. This unit will be restricted to employee housing as outlined in 18.13.080 B.10. Proposed Parcel "B" 2667 sq ft of GRFA permitted if only a single family residence is constructed 3167 sq ft of GRFA permitted if a secondary unit is constructed. This unit will be restricted to employees housing as outlined in 18.13.080 B.10. 7 Staff recognizes that this is somewhat cumbersome, but feels the value of the employee housing units outweighs any .difficulties in establishing this condition of approval. To ensure these conditions are met, staff would recommend that the following language be recorded with the land records of Eagle County: 1. Gross Residential Floor Area (as defined by Section 18.04.130 of the Vail Municipal Code) of Parcel A shall be limited to a maximum of 2,667 square feet and Parcel B shall be limited to a maximum of 2,667 square feet. 2. A Gross Residential Floor Area credit of 500 square feet is permitted on both Parcel A and Parcel B for the exclusive purpose of constructing a secondary unit. 3. Secondary units constructed on either Parcel A or Parcel B shall be restricted to use as long term employee housing units as permitted under Section 18.13.080 B.10 of the Vail Municipal Code. These restrictions prohibit the secondary unit from being sold, .transferred, or conveyed separately from the primary unit, require rental only to tenants that are employees in the Upper Eagle Valley for periods not less than thirty days, and prohibit any form of time share, interval ownership or fractional fee. 4. These covenant restrictions cannot be repealed or amended without approval of the Town Council of the Town of Vail. -8- PARISH ASSOCIATES 415 WEST MICHIGAN AVENUE KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN 49007 'January 20, 1988 The Planning & Environmental Commission The Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: A Request For A Minor Subdivision To Create Two Primary/Secondary Lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village, Third Filing, 443 Beaver Dam Road Dear Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of and at the request of my children, Barbara Parish Gibbs, Katharine Parish Miller, P. William Parish, Preston L. Parish and David C. Parish, who own the residence at 338 Rockledge Road, in opposition to the referenced minor subdivision. As former limited partners of Vail Associates., my wife and I acquired and built upon the above Rockledge Road. property in 1962. Since that time my family has watched with dismay the continuing encroachment on open space in the residential and other areas of Vail V~.llage. The granting of subdivisions and variances has had an adverse environmental impact and is not in keeping with the recorded covenants. A case in point is a similar .minor subdivision opposite our children's house which has destroyed the character of the lower end of Rockledge Road. Increased density in the residential areas is'particularly disturbing and this letter is to register our vigorous opposition to the aforementioned application. .Sincerely, ___- /G~~~ Preston S. Parish PAP/f 1 Ed Hicks Imports Authorized Mercedes•Benz Dealer National Dealer Council 3026 South Padre Island Drive Corpus Christi, Texas 78415 Phone: 512.854.1955 January 20, 1988 Planning Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail, Co. Please accept this letter of protest regarding the variance request of the City code made by Ben and Martha Rose to create two Primary/Secondary lots on lot 4, Block 4 Vail Village 3rd Filing - 443 Beaver Dam Road. _ . ,.. As a resident at 225 Forest Road in Vail, We have all lived by and complied. with the City codes for many years for the preservation of the City Environ- ment and to protest our investment we have made in the City. For the record, I strongly protest this request for a variance and would request my name be listed as one who wishes to be notified either directly or through our Attorney Firm as to any variance request in the City that would affect the home owners in Vail. P.espectfully Yours -''~ J .:'_7 ~' ~~~ Ed Hicks Sr. >,. Attorney Firm: Head & Kendrick 1020 First City Bank Tower Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 ~%~~ ~~ Cam' ~~~ ~~ ~ ~L~~~~~~ ~~~i ~m.,~~ ~~ ~~ _. -/ ~ ~ -~ C%~~ ~~`~ ~~ ~~ C~ ~~ ..~~~ -cam ~~~~~ l/ Jack R. Lilienthal 701 Watson Lane Littleton, Colorado 80123 _}-,• _ a - -_~ _ ~_ ., _ ~ l l I._. ~,ca ,' 0 _ ,~ ~ '..~ 1 ..' O'..' i7 C _,, _ ~_ ;Jil ~. ii-.~ _. V ~ \ .I_ _.~_ ~ _~1:_'~- . i 1. _ w ~ ~. ~). '1 ~_l '"~ Imo` ~1 ~ ~. '.- '• ~•1 __ 7 ~ 1 ~ ~ \T ... - - • ~ l _~,_ii ~! .o ~ ~~ l~S _ c _ ~ r ,_ n, _. ~ _ r i ..J S __ ~ 1. U t ~ .. ~~ ~.~.il;? CG~ .. _ ~~ - _...... 1-...___1. ..`.Thy) 'n. ,- .' -- ?? - •' - - ~ Y_L_._f~_J is `.. ~_lL1f~ __~...: __ ln_ ,~ .,~ ~ - _ `~~/-- ~, Charles L. Biederman 5 Sunset Drive Englewood, Colorado 80110 January 20, 1988 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail Municipal Building Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: 443 Beaver Dan Road - Rasberry House - Proposed Creation of Two Primary/Secondary Lots Out of One Such Lot Gentlemen: We are the owners of 254 B Beaver Dam Road and have become aware of the proposed application for the subdivision of 443 Beaver Dam Road. We strongly object to the request because of the following reasons. The proposed plan will double the number of dwelling units on the property and thereby create a precedent for future activity on all other sites along Beaver Dam Road. As property owners we feel that the traffic on Beaver Dam should not be increased. Further, the subdivision plan will violate the protective covenants covering the entire Vail Village 3rd Filing. It was our understanding when we purchased our property that the Town of Vail would not permit violation of those covenants. It would be most disappointing at this juncture to find a contradiction to what was expected by us. We urge you to reject the application on behalf of ourselves and the neighborhood in general. Ver tru yours, - i C-P~d?~l s L. iederman for CAPELL SSOCIATES CLB:caw cc: Lawrence L. Levin, Esq. Holme Roberts & Owen • \~ ~-~ -~, 8182 MARYLAND AVENUE ST. LOUIS. MISSOURI 63105 (314) 889-9625 January 20, 1988 Mr. Thomas A. Braun Town of Vail Community Development Department Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Braun: In response to the recent Public Notice given by the Planning and Enviornmental Commission of the Town of Vail, I would like to voice my opposition to the request submitted by Ben and Martha Rose. Their request for a minor subdivision to create two Primary/Secondary lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd filing, 443 Beaver Dam P.oad, I feel, will be detrimental to our neighborhood. First, I feel the plan will have an adverse impact on vegetation and natural features of the property. Secondly, approval of this request will increase the gross residential floor area, and the property cannot accommodate that increased density. I have been a property owner in Vail, (666 Forest Rd.), for several years now and am concerned about the future of our neighborhood. I would appreciate your and consideration with regards to this matter. Sincerely, P. Novelly PAB/kb Fed. Exp: 2742366561 Jack R. Lilienthal 701 Watson Lane Littleton, Colorado 80123 -~ _ 1"rtor~aS ~. ~rC~ln, ~e~iicr =Manner ~e~:artli,e~zt of ~emmunity ~e~rel~p~~e~zt 75 ~cuti~ ~rol7ts,~e Road _ - ~ !s / r ~ rear :r. -'~ro~•rn a;~: a resident of '.:..i ;_ 1~~4 ~at,eT ~;_.,r ~~„ ,~ 'gave dust l od ~ ~~ e ~ ~ ._, .a...~, - _ earn tr_a ~ t~~ r~s i e,~~~ ~f '~ ct :1. ~ rl~ ~~ r --., rczcr.e ±'cr cclnr,ercial u:~e i.ll lod~in~. 7 a @Y.tr°17ie_I V O~I~OS?r~ to t'_"' n i s ~ (~-.:15.. 1i2 tii~ .1@~ 11bOr1'1_OCd. ~a did ;'lot l;aZr t1JU ts_^C, (`.f`TC10^T~`Te~~y a a 'reuse newt tc arc tei. ~ ~. ~ _. r^,r2~1~: ~rUU fCr ;~rOt?r t]_r,ie. v / `~J~' 1 / ~ ' V `ck ~ ;lei c1'1t~~~~.~- 1~`n- ~ea v ~~ ~ ra l J~ .~L~ ~~rl _-o~~.~ r, ~- ~-. ~ /? // vim. . ~/~~ ~~ ~~ , ~ ~u~ ~t r~i 3 a Gam' ~~ ~1~s? . n~ ~ G /~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~-~ ,~.L~ ~~ ~ /lam ~~ .~-~ vim- ~~ ~',c-r~1•~ `I~ ~'~j`~ _•~ `L~ r ~ , ~ . ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ -,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~G,,l~ ~~ L ~ ~- G~/ .~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ``~~ ~~ ,,..~ ~y~ u~ C~~ ~ .~«u'`'f ~~-1-H.- ~~~- ,` ~~ c/ October 05, 19' t~lr. Thomas A. Braun Senior Planner Department of Community Development Tovan of Vai 1 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81557 RE: Request for subdivision to create tavo (2) Primary/Secondary lots on lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing, 443 Beaver Dam Road Dear Mr. Braun, Regarding the above proposed subdivision my wife and I are strongly opposed to this re-subdivision. 6Je have been long time residence of this area and feel that the development would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 4Je feel we would loose the beauty of the area and our property values would definitely suffer. Please refuse this request that would so negatively change our neighborhood. Please keep us informed as to the progress of this request. Sincerely, Edward 64. Iasi no 332 Beaver Dam Circle Vail, CO 81657 ~~~ ~~ ~ ti ,r''= ~. Y,. ~~~., ~- 'o ;;;"~ x,~ C PEASE INDUSTRIES, INC., 7100 DIXIE HIGHWAY,. FAIR FIELD, OHIO 45014 U.S.A. 513-870-3600 November 17, 1987 ;•ir. Tom Brauu Planning Commission TOWN OF VAIL 75 Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Tom: I am writing to express some concern over a proposed zoning change in Vail Village. As you may recall, we are relatively new property owners at 454 Beaver Dam Road, almost directly across the street from the Ben Rose "raspberry" property. Our concern is that we understand there is some movement afoot to permit the construction of more than two dwelling units in the improvement to that pro- perty. It is our strong and considered opinion that deviating from the normal two-unit construction in this area of Vail would be very unwise. We believe that Vail has ample high-density construction areas and all too few controlled-density areas. We believe that the character of Vail needs to be formed in part with some lower density residential areas and we be- lieve certainly that the portion of Beaver Dam and Forest Roads in question is falling into this category. And, further, the type of construction there and the addition that it is making to the tax base of Vail is significant. In short, we feel that a three or four dwelling unit, multi-building structure would seriously detract from the neighborhood and would work a hardship on those people who in good faith thought they were building in a zone of primary secondary zoning. We would appreciate very much, Tom, if we could be kept up to date on the pro- gress of this matter so we may pursue our interests as we are able to do so. Very best regards, David H. Pease Jr. President DHJ: j bb EVER-STRAIT DOOR SYSTEMS • ROLLING SHUTTERS Post Office Box 3210 Vail, Colorado 81658 September 10, 1987 Mr. Thomas A. Braun,Zoning Administrator Community Development Department Town of Vail, Colorado Dear Sir: As a homeowner at 344 Beaver Dam Road in Vail, I hereby submit my objection to ::the request for a subdivision to create two Primary/ Secondary lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing, at 443 Beaver Dam Road, such request made by the applicants, Ben and Martha Rose. My husband Byron and T bought our lot in this particular area of Vail to have space and openness for our home and we felt the exist- ing zoning benefited this desire. To divide lots in this area and allow more housing will be detrimental to the natural beauty and to the monetary values of present owners. T would object to this pro- posed change and any others that might be requested in the future in this area of town. Sincerely yours, /,~~ /~~J Diana G. Williamson «~z~~~~ Post Office Box 3210 Vail, Colorado 81658 September Z0, 1987 Mr. Thomas A. Braun,Zoning Administrator Community Development Department Town of Vail, Colorado Dear Sir: As a homeowner at 344 Beaver Dam Road in Vail, I hereby submit my objection to~the request for a subdivision to create two Primary/ Secondary lots on Lot 4, .Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing, at 443 Beaver Dam Road, such request made by the applicants, Ben and Martha Rose. My husband Byron and I bought our lot in this particular area of Vail to have space and openness for our home and we felt the exist- ing zoning benefited this desire. To divide lots in this area and allow more housing will be detrimental to the natural beauty and to the monetary values of present owners. I would object to this pro- posed change and any others that might be requested in the future in this area of town. Sincerely yours, Diana G. Williamson \. t ~~!~•? cou'~_h L~Ji..l ]. i ~.~~i•1 fJt . L~~.~nvc~r q ~;ry ~3c_a~' 1. i a I~'Ir. Thom~~:~ ~a. Ir?r;~t_tn Senior F'7. ~nnc~r )3r.}f-? ~r-t.mc~nt caf ~~c3~_ti-it y r1e~'~tire? ;~~inont T r:3 ~:~a nC o.~ V a. i. 1 tai l R ca ~~ir}~ P~:~•~~tir"' t~lr . Mfr-:=at ~.n „ t~'.:ti. 1 tai 1 1::.iF~~~ .~'rd Fi .l i nth ~i~{'. :'t.r"'oni 1 `~ 01:3 7 e~i~t tt-, tht? I"~:i~t_!E? ~:"~ ~`'ot'` r!=.':.~ on:L t F?~~:?i"t~•'rl~_C=Cj ~.7P"~".3j.~C-?i"t`•~. ~i5 or7.t~7.{i ~.]. ot~Jni"r;a clnCj I~rCal:.a=:rt-y 1. o~'~:t~~rl .a.t ~ ''. ~i?v~~r ~z'1'' .~ afTl 1'~{:].z5f~ 4 thtra re;~oniri~~ for- t~:,zo (~) rrirr~=pry c.o~oni:iv.r;r home ryl.tl.a ~'"(:.::1.nt:L :~l 1 tt i;~-~ -i't_i~j_ ~~~~~•• yFaWtk?t;l 7. n'~::.C?I`"k:.'ri'~:'.:s. h~ ti I Cis=rte o; r= o ~!. ~. ci Thi:~ ~roE3o•~~;. re~~~_tE=~'t=~ <~. _a>_a.b=_-.t_,.n't i.~~1. Clr~,~ia.ti.i~i-i •fr-r_3m 'thy C3r:l.t~:LI'lr~.~ {yC?i"i'•iC:'n.7I"at .:_ln~'I C.an7.l1C~ r`f?C:1l.t:Li''M'"!iYIF'nt:.i 'scar" rs(._ca~~~.~I`-.~..~f, o~aa-ter=_ship in •thi_, n}•~ieahhorhood. fihe ~1it,{ o.' {.Jf~.i.]. I-a:~~~a :~.n C7l:3.~:Lt~~tt7.on to rri'~].lit~alri the C3i'"7.Q:Lii•-ll nS~'l~l'l~rraf'"1°ji7[:]i:l~.a' int.f~tYjrit;. h•,~ deri;ring ~~t_t~-h ifi•frin~~c:~T~ent~. St..!~h arc=rc3dk~nt ~t~~tti.ng L~1_t:i. on i+ai 1 1 r~i~e_~~L-1 "~ :i. in~?.art ri_i of ni n~~ ri%:L ttl-i to rare. l°r-a;~-F i c rRnd p l r !•~: i r1 ~~ ~ ~. {_7n ~~ iti~ e ra. •4~ r~ r r c1 fri ~: C3 •~ d h a. ~ 7. n C r L c!. r_.~ t:~ d ~! t i~ :'_~ ~:::_. i 1 'r 1 :a ~. l ~J t7V(C?r 'fl-}F=? yk~?:=1.r`:~. F'r I V ~C jf ;.rid ~11t't ~~{: ("~i3':~ia•:~.s1.:=)n o~ '~{"l~? I~roFaerties ire mor-a o•fi_en beincl +-.h~allc=a-agod ;ris tr~',o~ are I'-F?iTa(7`:'~t=1 A ~E'ctV?r d:=11T1S ~J?Stl' o~ji f?y_I q ~nCa n~=1t:U1`" ll f 1 or•<:+. c~trl~~ '~.~Una care end:-•~n~~ered . Ifi.: :i•, !-i~~•~r~=try f~•e~t_t~:=meted th~~t c!trr-ent ~r3n:in~~ :l ~t{a ~ :~n~~ c~on~,frn:~.nt3 L~t~ ~_t~held grid •th_a.t no ~a~a.r-i~~.nc_e be ~7.1t:3t~aed ..~ or r~?",•'. t7n 1 n{~ o-f' ='1•~!•.::~ :r~~~'ct'v t=.~1"' 1_1c`tiTl 11~=~s=tC1 , Si rac_~~~rE•al y, ~ ~~! ~~~~ l"y l i•~r Fti ~~ i 1 y r'F/!-as ~1e~al'-c~=.ent~~t i ve ~"- ~~ . `~ \~ ~~ 9,~~8~ 1q,,,,-r^,-. 3~-~- - ti,,,~q~ ~ ~9 ~ s-~ e--4 ._ -cCc~; ~--- ice- ,~ a.B4,_~~, . G~eF t.-,-~.pv ~~9 ~ G~~¢,~x~e_d ~~~~~~~~ ~ . ~~ ~° ~~ ~ ,,~~,. 3 . ,~s.,~. r~~.-gas r~- BERNARD H. MENDIK 330 MADISON AVENUE NEW PORK, NEW YORK 10017 February 5, 1988 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Application of Ben and Martha Rose 443 Beaver Dam Road Gentlemen: I am the resident owner of 265 Beaver Dam Road, Vail, Colorado, and I would like to voice my support for the captioned application subdividing the captioned property into two primary-secondary lots or to two single family lots with a caretaker unit located on each lot. Yours t Bernard H. Mendik cc: Jay Peterson, Esq. Mr. Ben Rose ~p e,ct ~ Z ~ l ~ ~ 1`' ~ ~ RON BYRNE & ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE 2B5 BRIDGE STREET VAIL, COLORADO 8'1657 303/478-1887 September 11, 1987 TOWN OF VAIL 75 S. Frontage Road; West Vail, Colorado 81657 Gentlemen: It has come to our attention that there is a proposal pending before the Town to subdivide Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing on Beaver Dam Road in such a manner as to permit the construction of four living units on such property. We are the owners of a home at 254 Beaver Dam Road and object strongly to such subdivision or zoning variance to permit the construction of more than two living units on any lot on Beaver Dam Road, Forest Road or Rockledge Road. Would you please inform us of the date and time of any hearing on this matter so that we may attend. ~ c~-Cd _~_ _ ___ Paula Byrne N `may ~? t3. b~4M1 _ 3 - Y': >• ~, 4 , ,~ _ a s .'. ~ ~- t ~,~,,, ~` ~ ~. _ ,~ ., . ~ t ~ _ {T +~ ~ ~; J b Y. ~; ~ . ~; ..~ .~ _ r ,.a~. .K x .. ~ ~ <<} ; ~ f :F r ~; ~ _ ~wr r _ ~;~r* ~ ~` ~~, v a: ~ _ ~e ~ k 4~ir ~"ti , ~ h i " .~ ~~ ~ ~W W- _ ~~ sT' ,~ x ~ -_ ~ ~ ~~ , ~. ° - ~` ~: ~; # ~~~ ,4 ids y ~ttz > ~ `: ~ ~~ ~ gr~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n _ _ u ~- t~ -= st ~~ `~ Tom- ri r ~~" - - ,. .;_ f ~~:~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ n i „~ .~ - f ~~:, k - .~ 4 , .: ~ x _ ~ ~> ;::.,.,,~~e~. ~~_..:~~.~ ~ , ~, ~- , ~,~oraco 1 t~,~ , ~aptember 3, 1987 Mr. , Thomas A. Bra~.r, yt,~~ior Planner l)<?k~artment of Comu,~a~s f,ry Deve1~~E~gs+,st~ ~l~t,wrt of Vai_ ~1 ~~ South Frontage ;~~~ac] V,i l1, CO 81657 ldl~;: Request facer ;~'sr,~livision t.c~ ct ++,-~te two (~' ) Pr~.ma_y/S~~or,,j,iry lots oil lt,t ,~, Block: ~L, Vail Vilage ".rrl Filing, •I.~;l k`+, Road. Applic~~1nts: Ben ~ ever. Dam M`gt';+Ita Rose ll~ar Tom: wit~pmeclesterdar t1,me and cout.l:u.s1' in meeting Y Y oncerning gist, +ti,,~ve. fly wife and I vary much opLat~;~n i ise grant of t:hi.s re-subdivsi t,rs that wc,ss itl allow the ,construction of fr,i~r (4) houat,rs c, Cl~r the .last 2S yt~ars, wots i tJ s~ ~~ -Lot, that ESL imary/secondary cJt,velopment, ~~~~ lY allow a ~Qe~ purchased our kst,me at 48f~ 1!~ur.t~ tst ~~aar. We have Road last ,i substaisi, I_,a I ,~l~proximately 10 c) yards fr:usn investment ;tsbdivi.sion. Suc h a devel.os>uitrnl_~ Ise proposed t.h~ construction ~E four wou~id al.l.ow ktc,isct ~ ) ;~uta.ll lots, and es on very rr~present3 ~ ' ~ ~Jt?velopment from d different s what has }>~rc~r~ this area for thc~ doing on in l.,~st 25 ye~ik~rs ~;~> bargained foss , ' , It woul~ s'~~ from what r`'k'resent poor planning, and without a douhr th+: neighborhood, _ We are ag;1 k nrsty/ ( ~ rs -: hi change ~:~- ~- ,~ ,~~ x'11 ~•'.1 f- ~ .1, '{~ w.$2~ ~ ~7 =a ti ~ =~ ~ ~'~.:~ ~ r~ a. 1 ~ C ~ ~Y. ~x,. ~ ` s y .; w~ ~` e „~ ' 9 r `' '' ~ ~ rY ~ „~, ~ ~ - Y y+. ~ l o- a -.. ~ ~~ ~~ { ,_K ,`A s _ ~ Y ~; - ., - -, ~` i t i-, _ - - ~° ~ F »3 _, ~ `a' ,,~, ~ .. .. .. "91 ? ~ Z _ n ,rte "`. _ - ...,St ` wa , - ~ h ry' ~ a: ayF ~ ,".~. ~ - ?r ~- ~~ ~. ~ ~,,': `a: ' "` 't f- .s ' ~ ';1 t ~t x _ ~~ ; R ,~ «s~;~ _ :, ,.~, ~- r -:~ y ~ - - -- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~- ~~ ,~ L '; r,'~' ~, ,> ~ z ~, M ,., ~ ~ ~,:_ ,,~,~r r3 ~ ,~ ~~ q ,' ir~ .,~ t '. y11y ,,fir. »c'+a- ~~ ~_ a r' >,~ ; e~, - ~,, to '- 5.~. , mss: ~ y ~~'c~` ~y+ - ~~' ~ ~ Cy x< ~ ~. "~ r ` ~~. 1 ~{ 4 ~!a lv .k _ 3. _.. _ .. .. . , .. ., r ~..,. • ~ Mr. Thomas A. Braun September 3, 1987 Page 2 4- S 1i~. n ... Y is ~'~`~`. We caould attend the hearing on 9/14,'37, however, we will be out of town. We would appreciate it if other property owners in this area would be informed of this request. Please turn down this request that would change our ne;.ghborhood, and kindly keep us informed as to the developments concerning this request. Many thanks. Very truly yours, `~~ ,. ~ r i t ~ ~r.~ 7~ ~ v . ~~`~. H. Lindley Grubbs r ±/ ~~ izdia C. Tubbs HLG:ccj VIA CER'~IFIED MAIL ~~~~ L ;~ ~s ~+?,e~ '~ 'x-.~ "~C~ ~~ ~ e ~`~'z d~ ~ ~~ ~ S ~ ~y'~• ~"~ f4 t~r ~''~'. ~c ~'~- "' iii yrr- yr rr t 1 ~ Y .'v~ ?,w~ ~A ~..y y '+v ~ ~ ~.u 5 '4+~1 .~tiy~ ~ ;'M1 'v" r w, {~„~, "~'^a P ~ ~'Jt.. h 1 ~ f ~aa '.,~ ~ti,~si. ~ ~7 a v { .k ,fi ~ ~ . _ ~ 4 ~ Y i ~ ~ ~ ~ - .~ '~ .r5 °~.r 7~.. "',} J t4 X43 t~' yr "~ r'"k' - i , ... +. °`+ r r r k'. }~,, .,, F K :., tF e r F t~O .t,' ~'~ z. Ei ~..! < <tifi~ Ns d ,-` F ~`~ ,(,~ ~ ~ ~i c b T ~ ~ ~ '~ `' I _ ~ J. Iii - ~ ~ ~t.~.cLy.,~ ~_ 'Y ~~ ~9 v ~ r tF y s.' y !~~ /l,.t i~j~/L~tj ~~ %/j/l'~/C~J ~ =~ ~ y 1, ,l „ w ! _ ,,%,~ zy_, ~ ~ Y ti4 ' ~ i -,~ ,. ~ , t ~~. ~ ~ ~~1~ _ . ~ ~~,~~~~ '3 .~ ~~ . ~~"~ ~ ~ _l ~ ,,ems /b~-~-~-L' C~-~~ _ t .. ~~3 ,. - %~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ i y~: ra ~L/2~~ ,~. ~. <- ~, ~ 7v ",~ a %~ t ~ ~h _ ~ ~ ~~ .~ _~~-, f ~ ~ - L~~ ~ ~~-~~~ } 4 g //, ~ ~/ ~^ ~ Jit ~h ([~C U~- ~ v 1 yi w y ~ ~ '~" `. ~ s ~ ~, ~ 3 ~ ~~ ~ ~`~ ~. ~ ~~ - ~~ x - {~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' r tc. S ~+l .-} ~ ti ..a. ~` T v ,~ ~ a s y r 1;` r 'i .! Lam; t Yr ~~_~ F~ _.-.t ~r -' { ~ ~s 3+e~ 1 .a ~ ~7 ~'-` s ( _ a { k J - -Si: ~r i~ ~, ~ ,_ ~ M t 3 .~ ~ . y .E ~ ~ ~ tW Y~~.1 .} ~ ~ , _'f v, h 4 +~' '_ ~''' ~Y 5 ~ N §" r 4y .r x c"`~ ~ r `~~ ~"'F k `i.-'--~ Jam. .. t. '~ 4 ~ L~ ~.4 ~at S' } i 4'~ r i '~ _ y 3a^ _ - ; ~~ _1 ., 4. X~ `` ~~~ y~ 1 ~~ :. ~ _~; K.'fr S ~- Y -<c:~ ~ ~ _ '(' ,, ,~ i; 4 K _~ j ~ z, } c ~, ~ , s' ~ - a _ ~ ~ 3 ~+ :S J ~: .~: ~ y ~~.. ~ ~.. ~° ~* 7 ~ - ! :' ~ S nc -'s .t F - ,~.r A 4 ~ to : ;- " ,,~ ,~''', f: ~^nyj }~ ~~ _ ~- J`1 a __ rte. U y` P 1,k i Y `~ I 'v k ~ ,~ ,r tt a ~ b ~ ,. ~ f a '~ _ d ~fz a ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ 1 51 2 WoodchPf SE, Grand Rapids, Micniga~~.79505 _ Te!en!~one (61 BJ 957-7998 GX Q~~'J ~rln, ~ ~ ~(~ vi~GnY~~~L L-v~~1 l SS (u n TL LS-~'1 ~ ~~~ ~~.~~ I L ~ ~l~l~rl S r ~ ~ ~~tiLa s ~ f~ ~ `~ Gr) cam, r~ c~ ~ n ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~-f~~~~ ~~ ~~ I ~ti'!~ ~ ~ Lv ~ ~i~'~Z ~I c~,~ ~'~ ~ ~~ ~~~-~ ~ ~~U~+~ _ ~ S~L~k C~~fi ~~,~ w~~ ( S ~C~~n ~-~.~ , c~~d y~ ~Y-e; ~-~ ~1 ~,L~~~ ~/'~ ~~~ ~. fir. ~{`f -~ ~-~,-~~ ~~~, ~~ . ~~ U~~ ~ _~ ~,,~ ~ w~ ~ ~ ~- i ~~, o ~,~ ~ Z J (~~~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ 1 ~i U ~~ d C' ~U nQ~ S JOiIN I.. TYLER 160 Hi7Ml30LDT STREET DENVER. COLORADO 8O2I$ P ~~ ~ - ~, ~ ~~, ~~ ~ ~.~ ~~~,z~ ~° „`~ - -~ ~~P~~ ~~ ~`,~~_ ~ BURTON E. GLAZOV 875 NORTH MICHIGAN AVENUE. SUITE 3900, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60611 September 10, 1987 Mr. Tom Braun Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado .81657 Re: Proposed Resubdivision of Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village, Third Filing (Property located on Beaver Dam Road, known as "Raspberry House") Dear Mr. Braun: I am the owner of a home located at 454 Forest Road (which fronts on Beaver Dam Road) (Lot A, Lot 5, Block 2, Vail Village, Third Filing). I am advised that a proposal is being made concerning the above referenced property to permit the building of two primary-secondary residences, or a total of four single family homes where only one presently exists. I am very concerned about the impact of what this increased density will have on this area and feel strongly that the property owners near to this site should have the opportunity to be made aware of the details of the proposal as well as to express their concerns. I would appreciate receiving notice, at the address listed below, of any hearings or materials filed regarding this proposal. Yours very truly, ~ _~ d Burton E. Glazov 875 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3900 Chicago, Illinois 60611 BEG:mj PETER $. HITCHCOCK THE HOMESTEAD BERKSHIRE FARM MENTOR, OHIO 44060 Planning and Environmental Commission The Town of Vail Jan. 2p,1988 Eagle County ,.Colorado Re: Public Notice of public hearing in accordance with Sec 18.66.!?J6~1 of municipal code of the Town of Vail on Jan 25,1988 at 3:fdPlPM in the Municipal Building. With reference to the above item no.l --a request for a minor subdivision to create two Primary / Secondary lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing,443 Beaver Dam Road - Applicants Ben and Martha Rose -- I wish to,as owner of the lot adjoining this property to the east, OBJECT strenuously. To identify myself, I am Peter S. Hitchcock and am the sole owner of Lot 3, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing and have been since I bought the property in June of 1964. I built my in 1966 and it has been most enjoyable even tho my neeighbores to the west had a Duplex and the traffic has done nothing but increase which has been not to my liking. The open space which we now have is limited and if this proposal is approved will remove it all. The Town of Vail is saturated with dwelling units now and we certainly don't want any more. Let's keep what open space we have and keep our town not a jammed-packed bunch of dwellings. Please record my objection to the request made by the Roses.! Sincerely ~' ' ~~ G'0 :~--c~ Peter S. Hitchcock .i yrty '•_ f kw .~ ar . ~ ~~ ... i =~ r +a ~ _,~ _ 't ~' ~+ v} _a > - ~ ~ f ; - ~v ~ ,~ "4 ,, _ ,~ r- _ `~ k a ~r r. Z r ~., r L rx 4' , f r 4~ ~, ~ '~_. r r w. ~. .y ~_.; ~,.., ' z '•T d..~ '°i tt p ,t , - Yi.:h4 ~ ^ Y ~ 1. ~~ ~ _ . 5 ,4 ' ~ x ~. r C c.~ c a s .~,~ zyti?~~ i x ~ 'k a t +k >~ 1 kJ . •N _ ~ t '1 , f ~ r;l1 s. it f ~` _ " y r" ~ r °~ ,. . i K ~ ~ t~ ~ r y "`~-. k ' 3' M -:a~~ ~ x ~ { ,~ ~ ,~ ~ T v~ Y ~ ~ i• 'ter v ~d~;~ -„ ~Y~ ~~_ T T' j~ ~t~L.- ... ~ ~ r~e Jr~;;.b r M ~ _ I 4'~ t, c ~:""~ t ~x ~ s o- - z, t' L~$ ~ i x^47<, " +t Mti ~ ~'J $ ~ f { ~ r ~,~ r- ~ '~ f ~ ~ s E ~~,kb c , , ^! r JA- ~i t s }~ r . r ~ - ~ ~ tt "~i s K ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '' 7 3~~ '' ' ~ h ~ ~w . r ~ ~`/~~~ 1( r{. ..` i ~~ _ -i i~i~ f~ /i~ ~ ,.' .ilk ~ 1 < i,l,. ~~'~.~. ~"'{~~--~ .. ,,.f~-~~r ,~} 5 ~~ J- { ~ ~ , 1, _.::f g ic:1~ T ~, ~ `7 i / ~/ -Yr-r, - ~/ ~ / ~ ~ Z . i rr I ,~~~ C ~7-"'- /~ .. _S<._ - ~`' i _+ ' ~ 'i ~~ ~~ ~ 'f, r S"~ . 4i. ~iw~ ~i .~ k .J • ~ ~} ~ k;, ~ ,~ ~f: ~ t f 4 Z ltl• ~~ .., ~ ~ ~;-~ "' R. nT Sa ~ 1~ Zp ' !.- ~n { '- ~. ? ~ - Y A: ~T ms's ~..( ~{~ 4 y ~ a~ -+C ~ ~ hJ' ,~ ~ r 'Y "~ ~ Y~Y ,~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i a ,z a~ iz 14' ,~~. ~3 ; ~ r-. ? ~ o- " ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~~ ti~ _,~, t ' _ „ _~ 8r' ~ _ i.- a ~~ ' ~ _ z - r _ ,_ __ e >=~.= _ ~~ 7:"~ u - , h ~~ ~_'. ,. ._ . ,. ~ {~~, ru ~ - ~.~ ~ ~': - -~, 2'_ _ k n L'l 1' ~ y - i ..; _ ;i ~ ,F V ~ { t ~_, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,, ~. `_ x a*~ ~~~ ~ - _ ~ ~ '~ ~ . ~,; ~. } .~~ ~ _ ~. i, _~~ , ~ _ ,. ~~ ~,; u ~- ...r, tt -1^ b ~~ - y ". .r a,,..x „ ~ - ~ y t t i FYI ~~ l ~ . I$' ~ 1. ~ y ,{ ~; _ -* _ - _~, - s* ~°' I t~ ~~v ~`~ /f /1 ) 1 ^ ~ (G/~ GI/ /~C C~.~IG~_ ~~ ~ ~v~~ ~~ ~~ ,~ ~ y ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ o,~~s~` ~~'~ N;r. & 1~irs ~'. . '."o~s~~n 143Q~ E _.cs. Avenge ~~~a` ~ ~ BURTON E. GLAZOV 875 NORTH MICHIGAN AVENUE, SUITE 3900, CHICAGO, 1LLIN015 60611 January 20, 1988 Mr. Thomas A. Braun Zoning Administrator Community Development Department Town of Uail Municipal Building Vail, Colorado 81568 Dear Mr. Braun: We are the owners of a residence at 454 Forest Road (west property), which fronts on Beaver Dam Road. This letter is in response to the Public Not ice of a January 25, 1988 hearing of the Planning and Environmental Commission, as we will be unable to attend the hearing. We strongly oppose the request listed as Item No. 1 (to create two primary/secondary lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing, 443 Beaver Dam Road). Technicalities aside, the creation of four living units where only two would now be permissible is simply a bad idea. Increased density in this residential community is contrary to rational land use plans. A very significant and harmful precedent would be set for future similar variances in this community. From an economic view, it is understandable why a landowner would want to double the permissible number of buildings on his property; ho4rever, this is not an acceptable basis for land use planning. We can assure you that we did not purchase our home in 1986 with the expectation that the Town of Vail would be permitting the doubling of density virtually across the street from us. In fact, homeowners rely upon the Town of Vail to protect them from such events based upon -its reputation for sensible land use restrictions. Please note our opposition to this request. Yours very truly, r ~ /, Trc-~ ~ l Burton E. Glaz v ~~ .~ Adrienne G. Glazov `...1 ~c~.u,000~, C~ ~1I b ~~ , ~ ~o~ ~ v ~~~ ~u.Cac~,~ ~~, iSgFr ~S 1. ,S ~ ~-, bppo~ ~ ~ `l~-~ 4u,~c~w~sc~ c a~ X93 ~cuu,1 ~cA,v~ ~,aa~~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ri COU~I.~I'C~i o-cc_. n.~ `~zu~ t,tu.i'~ tvo u..Qc~ ~ ~ C~-~- ui~v, o~u,~ s~~,~e , (..a.~ ~.u.e.~o~+~u--~~ee~ (u,G.~cl ~1-~-- (~.,a-~.u.~ . 4.n s~- ~a,P~P , w,-e _ c.,cnu.~.l.e.-~CL e~ (~~- out- ~t ~- vw-o..~ `~-(~.u~- cu~ ~ `~-~e,~. , i ~ c~c cu~;-k- `I-~i w o u.Cc~ S.e~ l3~tt. ut~`~~u 6~ I~a~,~ ~,~e,~,e/~~~ ~ (~.o~,~. d.e4t.d.i a,~.~ ti~ecu c~u.eP.e~ ~~~ u~ - ~ ~o6_a~- i s ~c.~.w one o~ Vd-= ~ fAla&S uA Ua:.P Lu~~ Ses+~ ~ s~aex. °~c~cic2zua's aam~ vI~~~s1t~V.w~' s a.P.~ I~y~.e~'~. vs.~y a-~ Vd~_ epza- spa.ez- ~wLC_ DW.. Y "I ~ ~~ U ~e~ n~ec~ antd. ~ Cv~ Imo. r~l~a~e, ~e,~,~y eoux:de~$ a~ ~ Doti s;~- -net spy ubued- V~w~ SuP7 u.W-~-e-eu mum Ui~w ~ wouFd- ~"~ ~ir~''ALt~e VaP~ VI... ¢,k$w- ~ a,~z a . l,Vz ~vu a e~ a P~ wl~a~-- w~. ca,~ V.o - V#-v- ~~1''k' S~ fps-, ~9-~o~,c- 4~-w-~-ee-u- ~^-<-e rJ 0.n `1~-u,~a~ N+.6.u.tti~¢,.u~ Q-ts-c~ (s~~ OucL 9oo~C- o-~ V#z ~[aurv-. ~~C ~mic~ }~ `` \ ~~~~ ~ ~/ ~ : ;~~; ~/ I ::'i'/ 1~~~ c~ ~n~iv~~c~QO C~~,~~~~ o~n~ v~0 I` „ .. ~ c~~, .~M uti,.n c ~~ C~~,u~a~~ ZZ, I R&F~ CI r ~~~U~ ~~F~.~ ~- ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~oh G-ttw~ u51~e o4~. w~ d/~a-ho~5.,. KELLY & STOUALL, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 48 EAST BEAVER CREEK BOULEVARD. SUITE 202 LAWRENCE J. KELLY f JAMES WM. STOVALL AVON, COLORADO 81620 ~~C'g MAR 3 1 1988 MAILING ADDRESS P. O. DRAWER 5860 AVON. COLORADO 81620 (303) 949-4200 March 31, 1988 HAND DELIVERED Vail Town Council Attn: Ron Phillips Town Manager RE: Rose Subdivision Appeal Dear Mr. Phillips: Please be advised that our firm has been retained by Mr. and Mrs. Rose for the purpose of representing them before the Town Council on April 5, 1988. This matter involves an appeal from the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), wherein the PEC rejected the Rose's application for a minor subdivision. It is believed by our office, that we do not presently have sufficient information concerning the requested subdivision to adequately represent Mr. and Mrs. Rose at the April 5, Hearing. Therefore, the Roses's hereby request that their appeal be tabled for a period not to exceed 30 days. Should you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at your earliest convenience. JWS%pfj Ver,~ r ours , oval cc: Larry Levin Art Abplanalp .~ •< r' I2~7QTLAR 1~3G -- VA~II, ME~F~L~I'AN ~ DI~ICr F~7ARY 14, 1988 ME~~ Pf2ESII~: Bob Ruder, George Knox, Merv Zapin, Gail Molloy, Tim Garton (~II3Ef2S PRESF2JT: Pat Dodson C~I~,'Il~ CRS: Zhe meeting was called to order at 2:30 PM EX~CtTI'IVE SF~SION: 'Ihe Boarri gent into executive session to discurss Director of Tennis, Director of Golf and Head Golf Professional's 1988 season contracts. _- Gail Molloy joins meeting - 2:35 PM Merv Iapin joins meeting - 2:45 PM End executive session: 3:44 PM AFL OF MI2JCTI~: Molloy motioned to approve the minutes fresn the January 13, 1988 meeting, second by-Lapin, passed ply. ASSI~.SID ~~: Lapin made a motion to appn~ve the assessed valuation of $319,948,240 and the mill .levy of 1.262, second by Garton, passed unanimously. JOINT 2*iF~I'INNG T7V/VP'~2D: Ruder reported he met with the sub committee. They will be serxiing out the RFP's to .,.consultants .._to study who should manage Vail Recreation. Dodson said he spoke to fbllins and asked if there were any legal reasons that would prevent transferring recreation to ~V or TOV to VMRD. There would be no problems transferring v~~IRD to ~V, but there nay be some problems transferring all facets of recreation from the TOV to VMRD. He will send ---- a letter. Zapin and Garton feel there is no reason for the RFP's because they feel the decision is obvious - all recreation should go to Vt~2D. Lapin wTants to disqualify any applicants (consulting finis) ~~~o have future e~npioynent opportunities with the TOV. Zapin eaants discussions with other upper Eagle valley districts regarding ~~ fining districts into one "super district" to start i~,:r~ediately. Lapin moved to have Ruder go and talk to H~~~ard Gardner of the Eagle Vail District, second by Garton, passed unanil~ausly. The topic of discussion shall be corbining the t~ao districts. _~'-~'GfiIC~t I2~~~~TI0~1: Fam Brar_~~yer joins the meting. She handed out a memo fr .~ Jint Collins and information sheets on who is eligible to Vote in the VI•~ZD election (see attached 1r ~ handout). She indicated R~r3er and 2~lloy are up in their terms. ~e last day for a petitioner to turn in their _ Nomination Petition is N~arch 21, 1988. She will be handling the election with Lr~ri's assistance. Pam reviewed all the rules with VMRD on who is .eligible to -vote in this election. F12TAAI~IAL RF~ORT: Steve Thomason joins the meeting 4:05 PM. See attached cash flew projection. Thomason stated January property taxes have come in at $5,000 .and not $10,000 as projected. Lapin tianted to know why term insurance is being provided for the district e<-ployees and wants the break dc7~an per person on their insurance coverage. 'Ilzcxrpson and Brar~eyer leave the meeting 4:25 PM - E<'-~GI~ COUt~fl'Y ACPIQN PF~N: Kristin Pritz joins Meeting 4:26 Pt~i. Note: Pritz handed to Garton & Ruder the finalized RFP for the joint ~V/V,Ng2D ccarnnittee. Ruder told Pritz they would like all further correspondence to go out on generic letterhead -not ~V letterhead. Fritz gave the Board "Reaction Action '88" (see attached) . This hand out is . a , produe-t of the Eagle County Action Plan Parks & Recreation. She thanked the Board for attending the action Plan Meeting two weeks ago. Approximately 90 people attended that meeting. Currently the oo~n:~ittee is going to various Boards asking if they have any changes/ revisions to the Eagle County __ . - .Action Plan. Garton wanted to }~~ who is funding the recreational path connection bett~~een Eagle Vail and Arrcrahead? Pritz stated the County is contributing $75,000, Eagle Vail area is contributing $25,000. Dodson revie~r~ed the softball land issue in Ed;aan~s. This land*nay no longer be available, but they are still pursuing the possibility. Garton said he attended the issioner meeting while Singletree was being developed and this land was to be preserved as green belt or recreation uses. Pritz will check this with the County cor~issioners. Lapin wants the idea of combining recreation districts to be revie~;'ed. Reaction Action 1989. RE: Policy Action - ~~~ork on the sst:e of ~;fiether or not Eagle county needs a specific recr~.:ation depart~:nnt to manage recreation for the ., . ~~ County. 'Ihe Boan3 feels this is wrong. Ierv's idea of a oarbined district k~ald work better. Garton wants the Reaction Action 88 - project action - which reads "Support the Town of Vail in its effort to aoocx;~lish the construction of the Aquatic Center". He indicated the Texan of Vail has turned this project over to V2•g2D and therefore the statement should read "support Vt~2D". Fritz will .make this change. Ruder would like the softball issue moved up from 1989 to 1988. Fritz leaves the rseeting at 5:12 Hyi. IRRIGATION UPDATE: Ben Krueger joins the rieeting 5:12 PNI Krueger indicated he currently has a single row irrigation syste-n. He will use the existing system and 1°T11 off from it. Work will be done in I~~y, June, Septe*~ber and October so that golf play internzptions will be held ~..o a minimum. He will chaix~e all the heads and finish up next spring. He is looking at hiring his own crew and supervise them with in-house staff. Materials will be approxirately $150,000 and he has no labor estimates at this time. Ruder asked haw much money was... in the budget for this project. Dodson indicated $50,000 is in the 1988 budget and the rer:~ainder will have to be borrrf~ed. The RFP for the equip:~?ent bid will be done in the next couple creeks. Pd0 NAME GOI~' ~~~~~: Dodson revie:~.ed the points of the contract (see attached). The Bcatd indicated they want the money to co.~e directly to ~T•~2D to be used for charitable contributions approved by them. They do not t~ant the Honey to go directly to Tom Whitehead. Jr. golf foundation. Dodson will have the contract changed to reflect this. COID ~1D0 ~X~~t' S GOLF l~~s:7OCTATIC~*T (ADiJIfiIG CAI, ITl~•~ . Ruder aske3 if the $5 green fee ~•,-as correct? The board would like Dodson to refer to tY:e tape and verify their motion fry the January, 1988 meeting. In the r.~._.antir.~e, the Fscarri rediscuss2d this issue and decided the green fees should be increased to $25. They also did not t•:ant this group, using the course the fourth week of June. Knox moved to increase the $5 fee for the j;~omens Golf Association to $25 and allow them use of the course the first three :reeks of June or after the first tcro F:eeks in Septer;~ber, second by Molloy, unani.riously. ~. '' VAII., CftCJS.S ZRAIl~TI23G CAMP: Dodson stated the C<'~~k is on hold pending I?avis' performaixz of certain terns of the contract. The 2987 _ Vail Athletic Club bill has not been paid. 1988 ~I~ P~P06AL: Kathy Payne arrives at meeting 5:50 PM. See attached hand out of 1988 <i Budget Needs. Wric~t and Payne feel a tennis hostess marketing the tennis programs would be a grnat advantage. Zhey also want to attract some pro tennis players to Vail which in turn would attract other tennis players. Hopefully Martina Navratalova from Aspen will be able to visit Vail this stiu:a~ner. Marketing dollars are needed to increase tennis exposure. Lapin made a motion to transfer $1,500 from the contribution aocaunt in administration to a tennis hostess budget, second by Knox, passed unanimously. Kathy spoke to Bill Wright and he feels 2 courts above courts 4 & 5 at Gold Peak are much better than the existing three courts 7, 8, and 9. These courts have bad water proble.~ amt are a maintenance problem. riolloy leaves 5:55 PM Lapin requested a proposal on haw tennis marketing dollars would be spent before any additional funds would be considered. RC3D SH~~N (ADDITIQI~L T~*~ : Dodson indicated Rod Shernan has 7 rolls of film fr+cen Financial Naas P3et:aork which can be produced into a 10 minute promotion film for beto;een $500 - $750 anti Sherman is willing to split this cost 50/50. lapin does not wish to work with Sherman. Dodson can produce the tape locally with Sedlack if the Bca~ would like. Shernan is still willing to pick uP half the exist if it is produced locally. Garton made a motion to spend up to $750 on the pra3uction of a tape AFTFF~2 a certified check arrives from Sherman for half the cost and only if it is determined by Dodson this film can be used en Vail's public access TV or other medium 4~.ich will show it for free. 1~~~VAL OF P<.'3's: i~_~olloy :roved to approve the ms's as presented, second by Knox, passed unanir.~ously. G,~il ;,iolloy, Secretary ~~C'D ~%iAR ~ ~ ~~~~ NATURAL ENERGY RESOURCES COMPANY March 29, 1988 ~ b ~ •~ ~ ~ m ~ boa, ~ w .-a o v s~, ~ .c~ a rn m ~ ~ v a~'i ro v ~ .~, ~ ~ ~~~x v ~ ~ ~ :", U ~ ss ~ ~ o v o ~ Q u cz o o~+~ ~ ~ o +~ o ~ U ~ ~ ~~ ~ ro .~ ~~ rno-~ ~ ~ w o ,~ a~ n +~ ~ c. •,~ b +~ u -~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ o ~ ~ ~" '~ ~ m ro 0 O Dl O N >•~,A m + a'~i ~, ~~ c~,o -~C+.~ ~ ro uoi v a~i~~z~ ~~ou ~ u cz v -~+ a~ ~ o ~ ~ ,~ ~m n.ro ~ -aim NiC ~ Li .i w E u ~+ 'o x° ~, ~ ~, v~o~ ~ ~~ v u a~i •a 00 Ufz.~ m o ~ ro •• ~ cn ~c~~,~ ~~ Governor. }boy RonK>r St-.ate Capitol F3uilding Ix>nver, Colorado £30203 liar Governor Rorner: The Denver Water Department plans to continue their traditional dell;ructive dewatc~ring of the Colorado River headwaters by diverting more water to their controversial `Itao forks Reservoir on the South Platte River. The enclosed 1972 Water Supply Study of the Central Colorado Project clearly shows why the extensive, untapped, surplus waters of the Upper Gunnison taould be a more efficient -- environmentally sound water source for Colorado's East slope growth. Ik'c'alase of the inordinate political clout of the Denver water c~5l.al~1 islurx~nt and their narrow transmountain experience with only the Upper c'c>Ior~rdc~ Il~i~;in, I,hc> p,~rt,icipating local., state; and federal staff officials accepted the Upper Colorado/South Platte Reservoir scenario as a political fait; de accompli. As an unfortunate result, the viable, Upper Gunnison options were not considered in the environmental study and permitting process. 'T'his obvious omission puts the Corps of Engineers' Final I?nvironn>nntal Impact Study in a patently deficient category, as defined by the National invironmental Policy Act. Because of this serious oversight and the Two forks threat to Colorado and Nebraska's economy and environment, decisive intervention by the governor of Colorado is imperative to protect the public interest. Sin erely, Allen D. (Dave) Miller A~`I/bm President Enclosure: 64ater Supply Study, Central Colorado Project cc: Honorable Donald P. Hodel, Secretary of interior honorable Richard 1. Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture honorable John O. Marsh, Secretary of the Army Mr. Lee Thomas, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency Mr. C. Dale Robertson, Chief, U. S. lorest Service Lt. General V. Heiberg III, Commander, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Brig. General Robert H. Ryan, Commander, Missouri River Div., C. of L. Mr. Gary I?. Cargill, Rocky Mtn. Kegional forester, U. S. forest Service Mr. James J. Sc}rerer, Regional Dir., 1~vironmental Protection Agency Governor Kay Orr, Nebraska Mr. Hamlet Barry, Director, Colorado Department of Natural Resources Mr. Bill McDonald, Director, Colorado >iJater Conservation Board Mr. Uli Kappus, Dir., Colorado iJater Resources and Power Dev. Authority Colorado and Nebraska local, state, and federal representatives Economic development and environmental organizations I~ditors, Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News, Omaha ~~orld Herald, etc. P.(~. R„x rR~ , n.~t,E~rr !:+_'.~, !',x'i+e~~ir- It~133 • ~~'~ 48t ?~~3 NATURAL ENERGY RESOURCES COMPANY ~; March 22, 1988 ~,, r~u-. lili Ka,~t,us v I?~ecutive C?i rector " Co]or<.uto t~'<~t:.er [?c~scnrrces and ~ I'ocaer I>evelopment 1luthority ,~ I ~'~?n T,ogan StrE>~t, Ceti to 620 l>E.,nvcr, Colorado 80203 0 TS Q) '~) .~ 0 0 ;~ ro Q. 0 i 'U +~ u v ~o ~., r~. 0 .~ 0 0 U ro a U W 0 0 U l.k~ar Mr. Kappr_rs: Ede are enclosing a copy of the ]ipril 1972 Ventral Colorado Project St.ucty of a major transmountain diversion from the Upper Gunnison for Metro I_k~nver and East S_Lope growth. This classic work should be of significant L~>netit to yorar ongoing Upper Gunnison Diversion Study. l It; i nq h i ~:I_crr i r•a l river flows and thr? future needs of the nest Slope, this study predicts as much as 600,000 acre feet for annual diversion to the East Slope, while guaranteeing adequate stream flows for senior water rights, fish, recreation, and the Colorado River Compact requirements. The Central Colorado Project was conceived by Marvin Greer, our company's foun;3er_, teased on his extensive experience with the Bureau of Re<-lcmntion and as ~)irector of Colorado's Big Thompson Project. Greer's ~ti'or.Ic was ahead o[ its time, and the project was too large for the Central Cotc~rado Water Con:;ervancy District. however, Greer's vision of the water and hoeaer potential of the Gunnison was the primary reason our company was f-ornrc,d in 19132. Since then, our engineers and our major participating enc3ineering firms have been studying the water and power potential of the Upper. c:r.rnni:,on, with particular concentration on Greer's ideas for the high altitude `Taylor Park/Union Park Reservoir area. 11s a result of our efforts, we are making good progress with the 1,000 rrreyawatt Rocky Point Pumpr`~d Storage hydroelectric phase of the project. "in adc3i.l:ion, 1lrapahoc County, the City of Gunnison, and the Town of Parker have ot~tained the Cedera.l permit to develop the Union lfirk Water Supply Project. We hope this Central Colorado Project Study will be of benefit to your Gunnison Study, and we would appreciate being on the mailing list for your phased results as they become available. We are also sending copies of the Central Colorado Project Study to the Bureau of Reclamation for use in their planned environmental investigation of the Gunnison's surplus water for Last Slope growth. Ver trul ~ ours, ~~ . ~? Allen D. (Dave) Miller President 11DM/bm Irrcl: Central Colorado Project Study P.O E'~sr rr~ , 1'ajoT~lY ~.Y•~• (`r~1-'<$Ctr;11 • I'~"i6 4Yi1 :f'!n'~ ~r April 1, 1988 DENVEEt' S LOST «1TER OPTIONS T}le five year, $37 million Metro Denver `dater Supply Study is finally available for public review and- comment. The Army Corps of hngineers did a good job of evaluating Denver's proposed reservoir sites on the South Platte River. Unfortunately, the study is fatally flawed because several superior alternatives were not evaluated. The National Lnvi-ronmental Policy Act (N1PA) specifically requires a thorough consideration of all reasonable alternatives. If the Corps had uniformly applied its environmental, economic, and implementing criteria to all of Denver's reasonable water options, the relative order of merit for project development would be: 1. dater Conservation Measures - - Metro Denver 2. Union Farh Reservoir & Siphon - - Upper Gunnison 3. Blue Mesa Reservoir Pumpback - - Upper Gunnison ~l. farm-to-City Recycling & I?xchanges - - Platte/Arkansas 5. Green Mountain Pumpback - - Upper Colorado 6. }enlarged Taylor Park Reservoir & Siphon - - Upper Gunnison 7. Collegiate Range Reservoirs & Siphon - - Upper Gunnison 8. Homestalce :I:I Diversion - - Upper Colorado 9. 1?nlarged Cheeseman Reservoir - - South Platte 10. Two lorlcs Reservoir - - South Platte This development list is based on a review of Colorado's overall water scene, including old Bureau of Reclamation studies and current data available on these viable options. Although the order of merit is :subject to further study, the real point is that Colorado has many reasonable options for bast Slope growth that were not seriously considered. The background behind the Corps' deficient study is rooted in the Denver 6dater Department's 50 year obsession with their Two forks Dam idea. In 1983, D~dD finally had the political clout to convince the Governor's Round Table Committee that more water from the Upper Colorado tributaries for South Platte storage was Colorado's only real choice for fast Slope growth. The Gunnison was not considered, in spite of numerous earlier studies showing its potential. After the Round Table's decision, the Corps and other officials quickly fell into line behind the Upper Colorado/South Platte scenario. Denver's deficient water study is the unfortunate result. After release of the Corps' Draft Study in January 1987, the l~;nvironmental Protection Agency, environmental community, and many water e~:perts openly rejected the effort, largely because of its inadequate treatment of known less damaging alternatives. Instead of correcting this major flaw in a Supplemental Draft, as recommended by GPA, the frustrated Corps chose to release their final Study with only a cursory, uneven review of a few of the options. Although these newly discovered options met the Corps' basic screening criteria, they were all t~ 2 conveniently disqualified from detailed study because of possible long delays to resolve water right matters. This rationale, however, is not valid because NEPA does not require resolution of all institutional and political matters before viable alternatives are selected for detailed study. In fact, water right matters can be quickly resolved when a consensus is reached. Also, ~•rith the slower population growth and the adoption of limited water conservation measures, the need date for a major Denver water project has now been extended. at least 5 years to early 2000. This gives ample time to carefully consider Denver's lost options to insure against a major environmental blunder for Colorado and Nebraska. fortunately, the Colorado jJater Resources and Power Development Authority has already initiated a Gunnison transmountain diversion study. The President's 1989 Budget also has funds for a major Bureau of Reclamation study of the Gunnison's surplus water for Colorado's Iss"ast Slope growth. Preliminary studies already show that a major Gunnison reservoir at Union Park can be used to enhance the Gunnison, Arkansas, and Soutll Platte river environments in critical drought periods, while economically providing for east slope needs. DtiJD is fully aware that their Two Lorks dream is in serious trouble. In fact, they have already initiated proceedings in water court to clear the ~aay for development of their Green Mountain Pumpback option. Ur_til now, DL~ID has kept this superior alternative under wraps and out of the study for fear of compromising Two forks. Green Mountain was to be one of Denver's follow on projects to Taro Iorks. However, the 64est Slope should be very concerned, because either or both of these projects would continue Denver's relentless dewatering of the same Upper Colorado tributaries. Meanwhile, the extensive, untapped waters of the Gunnison are being lost to down river states. Colorado needs to carefully balance the use of its natural water resources to protect its environment and tourist oriented economy. The Denver water establishment has already upset the balance, and its future plans for the Upper Colorado and South Platte will only make it worse. The Corps readily admits that Governor Romer could put a hold on the controversial Two forks Project with a simple stop order or request to study the ignored alternatives. If such a step is not forthcoming, Colorado's energy will continue to be sapped and its image tarnished from an escalating environmental battle that will soon be in the national arena. The time is ripe for the public to be heard. Allen D. (Dave) Miller President Natural i:~ergy Resources Co. P.O. Box 567 Palmer Lake, Colorado 80133 (719) 481-2003 The Learning Tree P.O. Box 3224 Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-5684 RECD MAR 3 0 9988 March 30, 1988 Vail Town Council 75 South FYontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Vail Town Council Members: We at The Learning Tree would like to express our gratitude for your generous support to our building project. We are lucky to have a very active and supportive community which responds to many pleas from organizations dependent on fundraising. We all know that quality early childhood programs are expensive to operate, but, their importance to our community cannot be underestimated. Our ground breaking will commence April 16 -- weather permitting. We are hoping to have our addition in operation by July I. The Learning Tree is proud to serve and be supported by the Vail community. Again, we thank you for your support. Sincerely, ~, T~ ~,,C.,t~ ~. f~-~~:., _., i Cricket Pylman, Moe Mulrooney, and The Parent Advisory Board kl ~EC'D MAR ~ 1 196 # i.. - ' .. .~ .. .... i'~ ._ 1 _ '} __. i.._ ,, ! . .` •:::! •_., t:, i_t ~~ E`? {"~ ("• ! it '~::. t-..'t t::~ +? ~ t. [:J _~. l=E c~ a o L t~ t '-r ; ~ S. ~ L ~: Y - ~~t~,. 3 ~. V ~ 3 3. ~ L; ~ .I , ~ r~... ' r ~. ':s '_ s.. ... '.::: _.' :.. `•=+ ~... ::: s t .._;iit'St ; .E. , u i..y};t... {_} E'i .. ... i"} 7'i ~~ t r't Il T; i^, .. E.y i•d tf, } ;7+:~}}' W;+ l ... .... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... .._ . ;..... ~~• ,...: , : t ! ;•:::. ~..., ' • r '... } ~(:: ; ~ ::.: ~ ~. i:? ? S `v' T:a ._.:°~ I::} is a. r:} I"t EFY i:{ ~ "i i'" C:?'::} +}z' ~" - ,. ? ~,: t::.. t...:•._:~ :. 'r ~..L'i '~ _+[-.}F..+ E'':L :'i,C.,l'i:L }...Sri 1c1+."i+_.I }::.i ; .i :L it C%: iF:r:;,E..t'E::.1=t :!. •_.,G_fii:il.f. - .~tli.~7[...':°. ._ ..; ... _. ._... _..t . ,~. ,,• .,•(-.i::5;~, E.::+~:: r„ lt :: _.. __ __ 'i' .. 1. 'c; Y-+~;'_"j [.[:c'is'~::. *•';i.i["'1"i :E. u ]-E', 4:3 ~~' .~}~'~ ' mot'-i ~._.~: '~~+ :•_t_[ '_ .... _... I:)._.,~]:L `.t 7. 'c~7. !7 }..i ''+^?t_. .1_. I'i? .._ }-i r•;-1f:.},ra#'"'~:" #P•1+~}#_ ]. i_i i~=: s.l"i ._ .. .. i ._. 4 ;_.... , ., . _ ....~ ... ~ .y ;.... +._. +:J I"t -i .~ ~ ,._. ~_ b°:.c 1_ (I :_, + E ..1 :o. ~_..1:a _ T_i ~t:: :E.:.:5 F i t t :.'..... ..5;::',.,'.~ ua ~ ' •f ,f '1:: 4~; t~} [_[ .'. (:' I"` i:J'E:. i:1'ii.. :;. I'1 .... ,:~ - ' I<: __ .._ {..} .,. } # ,,,; #.::; :;. t:: (-i ~ h :=:} t:.: i"" ::~. .. "" L~a. C~ '!_' +_• }Y 1~ s t- r j r::, 4-i ?~> :C .. '~:' ' j j=j'i 1:: ~ ~i +~ 1...t ~':i i. t:.~ h~t I:~ '~t }r• E~ ~'t r:, : j :, .._., n..'....Ii.Lli f•..} ....}{-3.'j.{.}"Si::iiit_.C:'::`::»„ ... -_ ,.] ry _? f._} f } I:~ •:_ I t t.. ]. s i~J ~.. •r ~ r? ]''::' ] . ._: ,:.. _' _,j -.-. •; 7 :.i __ ~_.. t # (i .:. i ' :: t } i. l.J .. _. } { '- i-'y c, ' a '-s r°, ; " ~ -, _.. i " ' ~ .t. L, 1::. , [.. t~ t:j ~ , . `: {' t 1;'}i-]_a ~:: i,~~}}'~ Y}i.'+.iii t~~'..}:~. i..Iµ .1 t.., ... f ~... t•.. I..~t i!_.}1. '. {...i t'.. ,-~,::1 +._} : [..[ >... i._} 1~}t,;'j?\/ .,Y #...{.i. ':::i t 7::Y ,...E#..[!':~'::»[. ... •r 1_, . 1 ,_ ': . RECD MAR 3 0 1988 March 28, 1988 Councilmembers Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Honorable Members of the Town Council: The purpose of this letter is to inform you of my opposition to the zoning request that you will be hearing on April 5, 1988. The request is on property at 443 Beaver Dam Road, Primary/ Secondary Lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village. As owner of the property at 394 Beaver Dam Road, T strongly oppose this requested change. Tn my opinion the request does not fit into the what is now an environmentally and aesthetically pleasing neighborhood. We must consider-what kind of an impact a change might have on the property not only now but also in the future. Please register and consider my opposition. Sincerely yours, C~ti'~-~ ~ . ~ . ~~--~~5 James H. W. Jacks, owner 394 Beaver Dam Road Vail, Colorado /ps cc: Lawrence L. Levin James and July Kelley, Joint owners of 394 Beaver Dam Road James H.W. Jacks 2715 Fairmount Street Dallas, Texas 75201-1912 214/871-8827 A Profess ;real i~r,rr;cra:ion ~ ,, ,F3 ~,~~;~P rows . ~.J. C„10 300 b~ 6~? JO~.~i 47~j-~;iOJ MORTERARCH ITECTS April 1, 1988 PROGRAM FOR THE VAIL VISITOR INFORMATION CENTER Vail, Colorado GOALS 1. INCREASE CAPTURE RATE of visitors to Vail. 2. INCREASE SALES of rooms, meals, activities, retail. 3. INCREASE LENGTH OF STAY through education about Vail's offerings. 4. SIMPLIFY the visitor's experience, with ONE-STOP in- troduction to the Vail area. 5. CREATE appropriate FIRST IMPRESSION of what Vail is and has to offer. 6. CREATE a truly comfortable, pleasant, inviting HOSPI- TALITY CENTER. 7. PROVIDE EASY ACCESS for the pedestrian , as well as for the visitor arriving in a vehicle. SPACES AND FUNCTIONS 1. Entry vestibule(s) 2. Concierge station 3. Displays Audio-visual; touch-screen computers; photographs; brochures; maps; graphics; Vail's history, present, and future; Vail's offerings, recreation, entertain- ment, events, arts, facilities, activities, services, shops, restaurants, accommodations, parking, emergency facilities. 4. Seating and lounging 5. Sales and reservations area 6. Restrooms 7. Snack area MORTER PROGRAM FOR THE VAIL VISITOR INFORMATION CENTER April 1, 1988 Page Two 8. Office space, storage, mechanical, and other support areas. 9. Community conference room. 10. Decks 11. Circulation Items 1 through 7, above, total roughly 3,500 square feet. Item 8, above, totals roughly, 1,500 square feet. Item 9, above, totals roughly 500 square feet. Item 11, above, totals roughly 600 square feet. OTHER C.GNSIDERATIONS 1. Top-quality design, furnishings, display, and execu- tion. 2. Maximize views of Vail and its surroundings. 3. Dedicated parking for 15 to 20 cars. OLORAD~ W S VOL. 3, NO. 2 A PUBLICATION OF CLUB 20 .MARCH 1988 HIGHWAYS R~~'~ APR - 4 19~~ If you think of a state's governor as a leader, you were pleased by the luncheon speaker at Club 20's annual meeting. If you expected a dictator you were pleasantly surprised. Governor Roy Romer flew in a bit late from a Steamboat Springs meeting to find an overflow crowd at lunch in the Holidome at Holiday Inn. Blue sky was overhead, sun streaming through the dome skylights, news people on the alert and TV cameras in place. The lunch was elegant, chatter pervasive, intro- ductions brief and Romer primed for his task. The task was to prsent ways of finding money for highways, asking across-section of Western Slope people their druthers. "Would you rather spend $120 million this year or wait a year? Would you like to raise it this way or that? How much of the state highway money should be passed on to bcalities for their own repair and construction? Let me see your hands!" Romer's background as a legislator, state treasurer and farm machinery salesman was evi- dent. He has been on international trips selling Colorado and now he was in Grand Junction sell- ing highways. He handed out a folder with maps and charts outlining 42 backlogged highway construction projects, giving economic and safety reasons for doing them. They are statewide, including many in the hub area near Denver. He launched into the topic with no time lost. The blackboard was in place, two highway com- missioners at his beck and call for brief remarks. To be competitive with other states and other nations, he said "We've got to invest in the tools of production, and on the public side it's infra- a ~ .x _ k .~ . .~ , 'F ~ F~ ~~ r ~, t ~ ~\ ~ y:r r k : 'y k r ~~ ,t- r"~ w:.t ,y,,: z k r ~ , ~ ~;.,» ti~.~, ~~ ~. ~ structure. We've simply got to have adequate air- ports, highways, surface transportation and water projects for this state," was his comment. He said that population is up, the number of cars registered and the miles driven are both up, yet the highway construction budget is down by 2/10ths of a percent. He called the highway system "behind the curve; simply not adequate." The highway depart- mentlisted the critical projects estimated to cost $954 million with only $235 million available from present sources. The question becomes "What new sources will raise the lacking $719 million, about $120 million per year for the next six years?" Jim Golden, highway commissioner repre- senting the central counties of the Western Slope, was called on to spokk of speclric projects affect- ing cr~ls area. He used another brochure show- ing these, saying "These have my 100 percent support and the projects listed statewide have my 100 percent support." He called the 16 miles from Basalt to Aspen 'the worst stretch of road in my district. It's killer Highway 82." That cost is estimated at $87 million. Another critical road is the 10 miles of U.S. 50 from Fools Hill to North Delta: $7 million. One other project affecting Club 20 is just east of Durango on U.S. 160, four miles at $8 million. Also on 160, 20 miles of the east side of Wolf Creek Pass to be upgraded at $30 million. Karl Mattlage spoke of projects directly affect- ing the northwest corner of the state, his area as a highway commissioner. On the plan is a $22 million improvement of six miles on U.S. 40 on the east side of Berthoud Pass and $5 million for two miles of U.S. 40 at Rabbit Ears Pass. Romer defended the 42 projects as the worst in the state, and definitely not picked for political reasons. Turning to the blackboard he listed funding package "A", possible ways to raise part of the $120 million per year needed. It looked like this, the figures in millions: Increased license plate fees, say an average of 25, newer cars higher than older ones ..... $68 Double drivers license fees to $13 for four years ............................ 6 Gas tax, now at 1B cents, raised by 2 cents ...................... 32 $tos And if shared in the traditional 60/40 proportion, state and locality, this would mean $63 million for the state, $43 million for localities. "In my opinion," Romer said, "these users fees are not enough. You .gotta do what Dan Noble did years ago, so back on the same track as you, Dan." Option 1 was written on the blackboard with income like this: By broadening the sales tax base, taxing labor as well as parts on repair jobs, for example, and things like ski lift tickets, admissions, cable N ............. $65 This is "not a way to be popular, but I gotta lay this option on the table," Romer said, and he gave Option 2. By raising the state sales tax 1/4 of one percent ....... ... ......... $65 And discussing this option he would keep all of this increase for state use in highway construc- tion. He said he was not capable of determining whether localities truly needed 40 percent of all highway taxes raised by the state. "1 can prove that Colorado needs these 42 projects and needs the $120 million a year," he said, "but as gover- nor Icannot prove to you that all cities and all counties need this very substantial jump in highway revenue." If the traditional split of 60/40 were fully in place it would take $200 million in taxes and fees to pro- duce $120 million for state highways and would leave $80 million for local use. Confined on page 10 .. . ti~ ~` ~~~ ~ ~ l~ G ,k~, ~~ ~~ r ri ~'~ ~'_ i., r4 1 f; , ''~, ";~}/p +. ~` ~ E Y h ~ ~f'}«& _~~'' - ti '~~ ~ `' ~" Y '~ i r ~;q .~ ytyh~ x r~h' . _ r r . Lt z _: ,. ~ ~ ~° a 5 _~ ~~ ~,~' .tys .a. ~ l~7 ~, ,s ~,, ~ °.. ~,~ R .: ,~ +~ 1sL'~ HELLO TO ALL MY FRIENDS ~T1 by Dan Noble ' ~ ; ,~ Club 20 Chairman <.~ ~' ~- f Ih b' ~= ~ ~, ~. ~ r,.... . This first column in my role as Chair- man of the Board for Club 20 gives me a chance to say hello to an awful lot of friends throughout the state. I remember Wayne Aspinall saying one of the greatest rewards of public office-holding is the number of friends you make. He was so right. In addition to saying hello, let me give you some thoughts as I presided over my first Board meeting and shared the responsibility for keeping the annual meeting rolling along throughout the day. The board meeting was a busy one as we got an update on the activities of Club 20 over the past year from the outgoing chairman, the president and the committee chairmen. It had been a fairly good year by all accounts. Club 20, after weathering several tough financial years, was looking at a healthy budget. As the Club 20 annual report pointed out, it had been a busy year with Club 20 playing a very active role in the Governor's Rural Economic Develop- ment Task Force. That's as it should be, it seems to me. If the Governor, or anyone else, wants a single organiza- tion to work on Slope-wide matters, the only place to turn is Club 20. Then we took up close to a dozen issues under "new business" and I must say it was kind of fun being back in a position where I could let the discus- sion "air out", as they say, or move it to a conclusion when it was called for. Those issues touched on education and rural health, highways, royalty rates, severance tax, tourism, railroads and Trout Lake -and if those aren't Club 20 and western Colorado issues, I don't know what is. On Saturday, we had a good selec- tion of speakers -people who were going to have something to say about Colorado's future. The head of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management in our state both talked of a new emphasis on outdoor recreation on the lands they manage. My good friend Jean Tool gave a persuasive talk on our need to make an investment to preserve and enhance that great Colo- rado natural asset we have called wildlife. Exports and imports; CACI's Blueprint for Colorado's future; and marketing our tourist attractions by regions all got a spot on the program. But the highlight of the day for me was during Governor Romer's luncheon talk when the Governor turned to me and said, "I made a mistake, Dan. I should have vetoed the bill that wiped out the Noble funds for highways." Per- mit me to take some satisfaction from that although 1 understand what the Governor was being told about windfall money and .other pipe dreams at the time. Finally, it was interesting just to reflect on the 35-year history of Club 20. I knew it as a businessman in Norwood and then throughout my years in the Colo- rado State Senate. Here I was putting my name on resolutions being sent to our legislators -just as I used to receive them over all those years. Are those resolutions important? Do they mean anything? You bet they do. When a Board made up of directors from 21 western Colorado counties takes a position, that's important. As Chairman of Club 20, I'm looking forward to a year in which the reputa- tion of Club 20 keeps on growing. gveryd~~ We give you the news`~in Club 20 territory. The Daily Sentinel ~_r~ -~" ~ ~' a 'A ea`r'" ~J ~ rf ~ a . 4' ~ `f~~ i ,~,~gr~~~,~, ~` "~ ~` ~. ~ ,;,w}j ~ ~ .`'~! f Y~ ,'I'~'y.~~[RyX~'.'I '''n~,~y(,.~yy'~y ~. A BUSY BOARD MEETING Business for 1987 was wrapped up at the Fri- day afternoon board meeting of Club 20 with Bob Beverly reporting on "interesting, rewarding and encouraging" 12 months. There are signs of new blood, new spirft, coupled with an improving financial situation. "Its an increasingy busy role for the president in the office," Bevery said, mentioning needs for the future. Club 20 needs to be seen more, have face-to-face meetings, be in local papers more. "The president can't be out there doing those things'rf he's doing those things in the office which are so essential to our goals," he said, "so I've concluded, and I think the executive committee agrees, that we need another staff person." Wfth this thinking the "Forward Club 20" com- mittee had been formed to plan ways of adding one more person to the present staff of two, and finding funding for the first two years. Sam Suplizio, co-chairman, reported that the goal of having 20 companies or organizations make two-year contributions of $2,500 per year - a $100,000 fund - is on its way. "So far we've got about six commftments and we're going to make all the calls it takes until we get to 20," he said, although "we can fly with a minimum of $80,000.00." In his report of the past year, President Bill Cleary pointed out highlights in his printed Annual Report, and added comments on the work of the state's task force for economic development. Three reports came out of lt, tourism, agriculture and business development. In the last, the recom- mendation to the governor was the development of an attitude toward mining that should encourage this in western Colorado. Committee reports for 1987 inc/uded.• - Economic Development, by Stan Broome, co- chairman. The catalog of western Colorado pro- ducts is not being reprinted but remaining copies of the 1986 catalog were sent to Japan which led to inquiries about Indian ahd handcraft hems. Also pulled together is an economic development group in the mountain area, MAED, complement- ing the governor's committee. For 1988 Broome asked for a MAED meeting under Club 20 in the fall; co-sponsorship of a series of forums beginning with the one April 27; encouraging use of the Club 20 logo; and hav- ing astrong position supporting the retirement "industry" on the Slope. Broome also presented the idea of a golf tournament around the area in 1989 "culminating with a grand slam finale" at the annual meeting a year from now. Summit meeting in Leadville and paRicipation in the Denver Post's debate on coal vs gas use in Denver's power plant. - Transportation, Stan Dodson, also read by Cleary. Dodson would not be surprised to see a federal proposal resurface to increase gasoline taxes for general deficit reduction - an idea already opposed by Club 20. He is still asking that the highway trust fund be removed from the general federal budget -another wish of Club 20 in the past. He feels that ethanol should not be exempt from the federal gasoline tax, but com- ment around the room took note of feelings in the agricultural community. He is anxious for oil devebpment in Alaska and for reduction of highway accidents. Cleary presented the budget, with an income in 1988 of $122,000 and expenses of $120,100. The carryover beginning the year is $17,883 and $19,783 is projected for the end of 1988. This was adopted by the new board later in the meeting. - Natural Resources, by Ival Goslin, read by Bill Cleary. Time has been consumed by work on the Animas-LaPlate project, hoping to reduce opposi- lion by sister states down the Cokxado River. Also mentioned was co-sponsorship of the Mining - Tourism committee action, reported by Dave 'Anderson, covered two issues, the first concern- ing the shaky position of the Western counties' membership on the state tourism advisory board. The upshot was the request for a definite seat assigned to the Western area. More discussion came on the second topic, the way lines will be drawn for tourism promotional regions of the state. There was no answer to this except the desire that the 20 counties not be split apart too severely. - The Agriculture committee report, presented by chairman Mark Harris, mentioned the solid inclusion of agriculture in the economic develop- ment report by the task force. "One of the best things Club 20 can do for agriculture is the kind of thing it has been known to do for other industries on the Western Slope," Harris said. The seminar of the Colorado Ag Leadership Council, organized by Club 20, was greatly appre- ciated, and especially the keynote address by Sam Suplizio. A forum is needed, and this can be the impetus, Harris said, to bring together pro- ducers and agribusiness people on the Slope. One more action by the 1987 board was the ratification of new members of the Board for ten counties and this was done without dissent. Continued on page 10 .. . Barbara Nelson of the Small Business Assistance Council was the first speaker at the 35th annual meeting of Club 20 that Saturday in February. She discussed ways that the SBAC helps to sell Colorado products overseas. This is only one facet of the council's agenda whose team of experienced business professionals stand ready to serve any new or expanding Colo- rado firm. It works with those already exporting by its counseling, help with government bidding and as a clearing house of information. More help comes from some 30 major companies in the state, large manufacturers who have long records of international business. These are ones developng 45 percent or more of their business overseas and with an internal international division. Some have agreed to meet with heads of other com- panies which are complementary but non- competitive, introducing them to people in distribu- tion channels. Business expertise which often comes along with this cooperative action will often let a really small company enter this market without prohibitive expense. The SBAC also seeks to help firms wishing to enter the export market. It is "a rather large task" to can- vass the state to find companies which can fit into the program and Ms. Nelson welcomes the efforts by Club 20 to find interested firms. But she warned that no company should attempt to get into international markets as a bail-out for falter- ing sales. "They have to have a strong enough com- pany with a strong enough management and revenue base so that they can be looking at building international markets as a natural extension of their growth," she emphasized. Added to this is the necessity of making export a lifetime commitment - or at least a long term one. "Please don't go in, sell off surplus, and then pull out," she said. In its report for the second year of the Colorado Agricultural Export Project there are 49 companies listed as involved during the 12-month period. There was a diversity of products from fortune cookies to sunflower seeds, vinegar, baking mix, crackers, sauces and Iamb products. Overseas sales for the year totaled just over $1 ~/z million and several of the same firms developed better domestic marketing pro- jects and higher sales as a result of the experience. The speaker cited one producer of a nut butter whose label seemed too narrowly health-oriented. A new design and sharper appearance made domestic sales spurt and won it a place on super- market shelves. During the second year there was contact with over 500 individuals bringing more than 250 inquiries about exporting. Contacts were made in 25 foreign countries with numerous sample sales which can be expected to develop into steady markets. Of the 49 companies listed in the annual report, 18 are in Colorado West, and Ms. Nelson is looking for more firms in the region which can benefit from exporting programs. Are you going down the tubes from foreign competition? Is there hope for your firm? Yes! Sandra Robnett told Club 20 and cited chapter and verse to tell how it is being done. She heads the six-state region of the Rocky Moun- tain Trade Adjustment Council (TAAC) and has an especially wide background in business and finance, including research and teaching in such fields as agriculture, securities and health. This TAAC is one of 12 such centers and covers North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colo- rado and Utah. It is based in Boulder, sponsored by Colorado University and funded by the International Trade Administration, apart of the Department of Commerce. As she found out, there is no local economy, nor any Colorado economy as such, but a world economy to be considered as affecting business interests here. About 20 firms within Colorado are being served by TAAC, ones that are impacted by imports. This is long-term technical help in marketing, pro- duction and accounting, either through in-house staff or outside consultants. A question often asked is "Why help U.S. manu- facturers and producers?" Her answer is that "Basically we want to avoid restricting international trade, so we look to improve American productivity and keep the jobs in the U.S.A." There might be a need to retrench, to realign products or to market more effectively in a highly competitive import market. TAAC can fund 75 percent of consulting fees in help- ing a firm make changes to more effectively compete. Most often her group would come in when it is shown that import competition is up, sales are going down, and employment is down. When the facts are established "We can help in a variety of ways," she said."We have the Depart- ment of Commerce industry experts, consultants within our Rocky Mountain TAAC, external con- A TRADITION WITH CLUB 20 MEMBERS ~~i ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~ of Grand Junction 243-6790 755 HORIZION DRIVE sultants we are able to hire and the resources of the University of Colorado, both research intormation and the faculty as well." Club 20 can have a great value to the program, Ms. Robnett said, by referring industries and groups to the Trade Adjustment Council. "As the program is set up, we are not able to go directly to manufac- turers - we must use a third source." One of the pro- visions of the Trade Act requires that no solicitation can be done "so we need help in getting the word out." TAAC has worked with jewelry, electronics, farm equipment, tableware, sporting goods, lighting fix- tures, apparel and in the mining equipment industry. One of the firms has increased its sales market "tremendously" by slightly changing the product, as an example. As she outlined it, there is a rather uncomplicated system for seeking help, a logical time schedule for action, and then skilled assistance in forming a plan for successful competition. - ~ ~ ; ~• ~~,. WILDLIFE ~ ~~ ~~ ' '' 1 Jean Tool, native Coloradan, WW II bomber pilot, former member and chairman of the Wildlife Com- mission and now in the advertising and public rela- tions field, held down the mid-morning spot of Club 20's annual meeting. Speaking as chairman of the group called Wild- life 21 he painted a broad view of wildlife, calling it a "mural that is about 40 years wide and a genera- tion high." Rather than the usual short view, the idea of a long view crept in, with Governor Lamm appoint- ing atask force on the future of wildlife. Tool nicknamed it the "Paul Revere Panel," spreading the alarm about things to come. Out of the membership of 20, only 3 were people with a direct interest, while the 17 others were leaders in business, industry and government. "They didn't know much about wildlife, but did know that it was a tremendous asset for Colorado," Tool told his audience. It is enough of an asset, he said, that it directly contributes "a billion and 30 million dollars" a year to the state's economy. Beyond this, possibly well over half the tourists come for outdoor reasons and sowildlife-oriented visitors account for another billion in the economy. As the population grows there becomes less space for wildlife, increasing the need for preservation efforts. Of the 960 species in the state only 213 are COLORADO ROCKIES ADAM'S RIB HUNTING RANCH a 5 Day Trophy Deer & Elk Hunts • Private Pheasant Over 5500 Acres of Private Land • Drop Camps Licensed • Bonded Guides & Out fitters Great Facilities • Excellent Food SUPER HUNTING! P.O. Box 659 (303) 328-2326 Eagle, Colorado 81631 game for hunters and fishermen, leaving 747 that Tcol counts as "watchable creatures" needing help to survive and prosper. The Colorado budget of a little less than $40 million, supported almost entirely by hunting licenses, can realistically do little, he said. Tool therefore moved his discussion into ways to find money for this part of the wildlife population, believing that the state Division has done an admir- able job with deer and elk. Even so, more owned land is needed, along with a fish hatchery. The hunting population -the money source - is declining because of aging and urbanization; fishing revenue is miniscule. The panel studied other revenue ideas, including a version of a bottle bill which would be workable. Even here, other press- ing needs would dilute the income from such a program. But being considered is a wildlife users tax ear- marking pennies on outdoor gear like cameras, binoculars, boots, fishing jackets or camp stoves. A tax on off-road vehicles, bird feed and such could be logical. Tool proposed a referendum, say in 1989, to see what voters would say about an extra $20 million for those 747 species. Some of the groups out of the 60 different organizations which had been left out of the panel to avoid bias are now being asked to join and see if this program and its basis for financing cah be arranged. State tax people say that this is the right track. He suggested that Club 20 people can help by looking at the big picture, his mural "40 years wide," to see that wildlife endures as an economic value and from a lifestyle viewpoint. "Find some pathway to the future of wildlife in Colorado, walk with us up that path, joining us at the polls in saying 'yes, we want to save wildlife in Colorado," was his concluding plea. TOURISM "Come, give us some advice on tourism," Chair- man Dan Noble asked Dennis Van Patter in introduc- ing him to Club 20. Van Patter, Iowa born, experienced in journalism, economic development and tourism, spoke from his position as manager of public affairs for the Colo- rado Tourism Board. His principal topic was the regional marketing pro- gram. Ever since the Tourism Board was created in 1983, the effort has been to form a state marketing program with a visible presence in the national and international field. The theme has simply been to advertise Colorado as the place to be, a state with a wide range of interesting things for one and all. Now with a slight change of direction the board is trying to meet the comment that the localities can- not see direct benefits from the program. "We studied that sentiment and one of the things we have come up with which seems to be received very positively by the people across the state is the regional marketing program," he explained. By this the various regions of the state would be promoted for the things that are there. Mountainous regions would have scenery, skiing, camping, festivals to tell about .The earliest settled valleys have a heritage of history, plains have a different aura and each region could promote its own appeal to a segment of visitors. Van Patter spoke of "regional" as not splitting up the state by arbitrary lines on a map, and went into the cooperative sense as "perhaps the key thing." All in a region would be working to promote itself. What the Tourism Board envisions would be reasonably large regions -maybe of a few counties combining for the effort. Hopefully all of the larger players in the region would be taking part, "Minds together, resources together, to do something that in the past has been tried alone;" this would match the Board's thinking, he explained. "Our point is to get you to look around at your neighbors and say 'Our product is about the same. How can we work together to reach some common goals?' Then the state would be pleased to put some of its dollars into your project," he explained. This addition of state money, "injection," he called it, is an important part of the plan. "The Board has set aside $180,000 for this fiscal year which will end the last day of June, for regional activities," he said. Preferably a regional proposal would bring local funds with it, including private cor- porate money and sponsorship. With those dollars and state money added the plan could be followed through, marketing the region by such things as brochures, media relations and publicity along with advertising on TV, radio and in newspapers. He spoke of three goals. First is to work together. He spoke of Colorado's pleasant problem, with the diversity of cultures, history and geography as its strong point, but perhaps because of this same feature never having worked as closely together as some other states have done. A second point is for all to know marketing better, and that this is something that can be learned. And third for regional success is to have state money available to help. In response to a question about packaged tours, he cited the effort going into the Lions Club Inter- national convention coming to Denver in June. "This is the largest single convention that has ever come to Colorado, in excess of 35,000 registered delegates. We are looking at ways to encourage those people to see Colorado before or after the con- vention," he said. A set of specific packages touching all of the state has been put together for that use and is being adver- tised in the May and June issues of the Lions magazine. That same set of packages can later be used for year-round promotions. MADE IN COLORADO WITH COLORADO COAL BY COLORADO -UTE Colorado • Ute Electric Association, Inc. Mentioned as learning opportunities was the March workshop in Montrose and the Denver tourism con- ference April 20-22. This will include ahands-on workshop on regional promotion and the first statewide meetings of representatives of the new regions. Its aim is in finding ways to work together. Proposals for regions had already been discussed at Club 20's board meeting, with encouragement at keeping this western area as near intact as possible. Dividing this area into north and south regions was looked on with reasonable favor, with possibilities of adding mountain counties at the Divide which have things in common with the Western Slope itself. BLUEPRINT F :~,}. _= ~° ~. ~ , '_ The change in "Casey" during the last five years was the topic for Duane Pearsal, last speaker of the forenoon at the annual meeting of Club 20. Properly the organization he heads is "CACI," Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry. "It's quite a different organization than you may have remembered it before," he said. During these few years CACI has been reorganized, the staff increased, membership built to about 1700 and finances brought into the black. George Dibble is president, aided by four other lobbyists. With the changes, Chairman Pearsall said, CACI is now mrce than a metropolitan Denver big-business organization and is meeting the needs in all areas of the state. As a point, Girts Krumins of Montrose is chairman-elect. One part of CACI is its Educational Foundation, a non-profit wing which funded the "Blueprint for Colorado," its plan for growth. The plan is the brain- child of a group of 35 people from many business organizations across the state who came together in 1986 to develop a document for 1987 and beyond. As examples, Club 20 was represented, a group from the plains, Colorado Forum, Colorado Concern and CACI. The slide presentation which Pearsall showed picked out the highlights of the 15 pages in the printed "Blueprint". He invited listeners to get a copy there or by mail from CACI at 1860 Lincoln St., Suite 550, Denver 80295. Eight points are in the plan. They touch on: 1. Economic Development, with the private sector taking the lead, the state in an "essential role". Have a state-funded management information system; pro- mote keeping existing companies; find venture capital; streamline employee benefit programs; enhance technology transfer. 2. Transportation, especially formation of a state Department of Transportation. Develop rural and the international airports; fund highway construction and maintenance; work toward a mass transport system for the Denver area. 3. Water, to fund and plan water projects and the defense of water rights. 4. Environment, especially air quality. Set diesel standards; improve street cleaning; campaign in communities that are on the verge of air quality prob- lems; study (cure!) the brown cloud; manage water quality programs; put in place aself-help program for small businesses, aided by big ones. 5. Higher education, funding the second step in the five-year plan for quality and efficiency; continue the customized training program called FIRST; support research centers; reduce duplication; search for O Western Slope Signals Mountain Bell Issue VIII The thaw has finally begun and so, too, has the economy of the Western Slope started to green after a long, cold winter. This issue of Western Slope Signals will focus on some of the sprouts, some carefully cultivated, some volunteer and some that are growing like weeds. KEEN ON QUINOA -What the United Nations considers one of the perfect foods is being grown in higher elevations in western Colorado. QUINOA, pronounced keen-o-a, is a South American fruit that resembles sorghum or millet. It tolerates arid conditions and grows best at higher altitudes where the falls are dry and the temperatures rarely get above 85 degrees. Quinoa has been harvested from sites in Fruita, Telluride and Dove Creek, but the largest grow- ing area so far, says Colorado State University agronomist Dr. Dwayne Johnson, is in the SAN LUIS VALLEY. Johnson says quinoa has a nutritional quality equal to that of whole, dried milk. Protein comprises about 14% of the grain. Its calcium content is four times higher than that of barley, corn or wheat ...the amount of mag nesium is twice as high. Quinoa is low in sodium and has an impressive amount of iron ..205 parts per million as com pared to 50 for barley and 21 for corn. Most of the quinoa seed in the state comes from White Mountain Farm in MOSCA, north of Alarnosa. Farm owner Ernie New expects the number of growers to double this year. Almost 1,200 pounds of quinoa seed is produced an acre if it is irrigated, 70 pounds if there is no irrigation. New is enthusi- astic about the uses of quinoa. The greens can be eaten fresh in salads or cooked like spinach. It can be boiled or toasted like wheat and made into cereal or ground like flour. The seeds can be sprouted and, when cooked, used like rice. There are only two eating establishments in the state serving quinoa on the menu, The Fort out- side of Denver and the Dunes Cafe in Mosca. New said they had a special gathering at the Dunes last month where 19 different dishes using quinoa were served. New has perfected a process using a rice polishing machine that removes the grain's bitter coating. He is being kept busy trying to send seed to those request- ing it. Producers in West Germany just ordered 2,200 pounds. Quaker Oats is researching the grain now. The only other place in the U.S. where quinoa is being tried is in Washington, says Johnson. He feels the conditions in western Colorado are prime. Growers have run into a problem that was not anticipated ...the deer and elk love the grain and have demol- ished some fields just before harvest. Colorado State University is continuing the effort to find alternative crops that do well on the Western Slope. In the Delta, Olathe and Grand Junction area, three crops are being examined, black beans, edible soybeans and pyrethrum (better known as painted daisies, which create a potent natural pesticide). Par- ticipating growers contract with the University. `7 chose Carbondale because the price was right and the economic development struc- ture to provide support was in the right place. " Ann Masunaga -Founder, Analii Bodywear All the production costs are paid and the profit on the crop, if any, goes to the grower. The three counties involved have contributed money towards the experimental program. CRYSTALIZE - An estimated 20% of the bottled water market in Colorado has been cap- tured by Colorado Crystal, a product produced in ORCHARD CITY. According to Ray Murtha, executive vice president of Crystal's parent company, Rocky Mountain Beverages, Colo- rado Crystal is number two only to Perrier in the state. That data came from scans of grocery store computers by the A.C. Neilson firm. The product has only been on grocery shelves for a year. As of December 31, the company had shipped 914,472 ten-ounce bottles and 277,668 one-liter bottles. All of the major grocery chains in the state are now carrying the product. Murtha says the bottled water has been a very successful seller in the ski areas. Two side busi- nesses have developed. Restaurants are offer- ing the water, non-carbonated and unflavored, to customers for drinking water. Murtha says they are looking to see if that part of the business should be expanded. Murtha is amazed to find that they are filling a lot of mail orders for people who "get hooked" on Colo- rado Crystal while they are visiting the state and then cannot find it when they return home. Even though the shipping charges on a case are two and a half times what the product sells for in the store, Murtha says they have sent many cases to Texas, Virginia, California and around the country. The company had planned a stock offering in October, but the behavior of the market then postponed plans until this summer. The stock offering was earmarked for expan- sion capital. Because it was postponed, officials obtained interim financing through a venture capital firm in New York. Murtha says they bypassed Colorado lending institutions because they knew they could get what they needed more easily in New York. Colorado Crystal employs 14 workers. now. Murtha says they hope to expand by six more workers if they are able to broaden their markets with thg stock capital this year. Murtha notes the employees are "extremely good." He feels the quality work force has been the most pleasant thing about doing business on the Western Slope. UPHILL GROWTH -The annual economic forecast published by the University of Colorado predicts that, for 1988, a total of 14,300 new jobs will be created in the state. Almost half of those total jobs (6,200) are expected to be added in the service industries. The Westem Slope e~n- omy relies heavily on tourism based services. Will some of the new jobs be created because of the following efforts? They could. Five percent of the national forests in the United States are in Colorado but 20% of all the visitor use in the country occurs in the state. Colorado leads the nation in the number of vis- itors to the forests for skiing, says head of the Rocky Mountain Region Forest Service Office, Gary Cargill. Colorado is second only to Cali- fornia in the total number of visitors to the forests. Colorado is second in the country for the number of fishermen in the forests, third for the amount of hikers, fourth for hunters and fifth for campers. "Skiing is a good opportunity to use public lands beneficially," comments Cargill, "because skiing occurs in areas uniquely suited for the activity." Several expansions and new areas are proposed for the Western Slope. Here is a sum- mary of the activity, compiled with the help of the recreational specialist for the White River National Forest, Bob Miller. ADAM'S RIB -south of Eagle -Developers are seeking an area with a 9,000 skier capacity. The Forest Service Environmental Impact State- ment (EIS) has been completed and a permit has been issued, but another EIS is underway by the Army Corps of Engineers for wetlands entry. RIFLE -between Rifle and Rulison -The EIS has been completed for the 3,400 acres of forest land being sought fora 14,000-skier area. The permit will be allocated when developers demonstrate they have the financial capability to construct the area. QUAIL MOUNTAIN - south of Leadville -The EIS is underway for a request including 3,535 acres and a 14,000- skier acapcity. The EIS is a joint effort between the Forest Service and the BLM because both are involved in the site jurisdiction. EAST FORK - outside Durango -The EIS is underway for out of state developers wanting to create a 13,500-skier capacity area on 4,662 acres of public land. WOLF CREEK VALLEY -The Forest Service withdrew its support of the pro- ject when the backers declared bankruptcy. LAKE CATAMOUNT -south of Rabbit Ears Pass - a skier capacity of 12,000 is being sought on 6,600 acres. The EIS is in progress. FISH CREEK -Steamboat Mountain - Devel- opers of the area are currently involved in a law suit with the Steamboat Ski area over land ownership. The Forest Service has stopped considera- tion of an expansion of the LITTLE ANNIE area in Aspen beyond the requirements of the exist- ing permit. Money apparently dried up for those developers. An EIS is underway now for a request to expand further, but within the limit More Western Slope Signals of the permits they already hold. No special studies are required. Miller indicates those areas include Telluride, Powderhorn, Crested Butte, and Purgatory. Cargill believes that it is not the ski areas that usually exceed the point where the environment in the forests is harmed, but rather "the effects of the growth and development associated with a ski area." Cargill hopes they can manage the 14.5 million acres in Colorado wisely enough for all its multiple uses without tipping the balance. The Forest Service is sponsoring a forum in Montrose about economic develop- ment and national forests on April 27th. ANASAZI -The southwestern corner of Colo- rado saw a record amount of visitors last year. Besides the scenic wonders, many came to team more about Indian cultures. There will be an additional attraction this summer for visitors, the ANASAZI HERITAGE CENTER two miles west of DELORES. The grand opening of the Center, which is administered by the Bureau of Land Management, is set for August. The public will view an exhibit about women anthro- pologists in the Southwest, called Daughters of the Desert, starting in June. The artifacts for the Center came from the construction area for McPhee Reservoir. BLM spokeswoman Sharon Frell says that over 1,600 building sites were surveyed in the area before construction of the dam began. Of those, 160 were tested, sampled and finally excavated. The eight-year project was the single largest archaeological contract ever awarded in the United States. About $3.3 million was spent to construct the building to house the exhibits. Included as part of the site is the Escalante Ruin, thought to be the first archaeological site recorded in Colorado. From the top of the ruin, visitors can survey the entire Montezuma Valley floor and contemplate what happened to the Anasazi so long ago. CROW CANYON -Study of the Anasazi has proven to be a boon to the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center outside of CORTEZ. The center offers classes for adults, teachers and high school students from April io October. The bulk of the participants take part in the excava- tion of Sand Canyon Pueblo. Crow Canyon Director Cheryl Swartzlander relates that Sand Canyon is believed to be an Anasazi ceremonial site dating from 1250 A.D. Crow Canyon is sup- ported almost totally by participants' fees. The site was owned by Northwestern University until three years ago, when the local board was able to purchase the operation. About 18 months ago, a third of the dwell- ings in the town of MEEKER were empty. As part of the economic development plan for Meeker, townspeople hope to rent those dwell- ings to people taking part in summer college classes being offered by Colorado University, says EDC head Ed Nickel. Teachers can earn three hours towards their re-certification during the courses. Up to twelve courses may be offered. Head of the Meeker Chamber, Linda Steel, comments that they are offering many more activities this year than last. Among them is a repeat of the world championship sheep dog trials. The Colorado Trappers' Association has chosen Meeker as the site of their annual rendezvous over Labor Day weekend. The town is also seeking funds from the Colo- rado Initiatives program to do advertising in desert communities. The goal would be to attract people to rent some of the empty dwell- ings to escape from the heat in the summer. More than 40 applications for Initiative funds have been received state-wide. The final deci- sion on •the program participants should be made by April 1. A new ENTERPRISE ZONE has been desig- nated in western Colorado. The counties of Moffat, Rio Blanco, Routt and Garfield are included. The zone designation allows tax in- centives to be offered to businesses relocating or expanding into the zone. Three other zones were designated on the Western Slope last year - in parts of Mesa County, in the southwest around Durango and Cortez, and with the Region 10 counties around Montrose. Reed Howey of the Rio Blanco Development Depart- ment will be the new zone administrator. Officials from the National Mining Hall of Fame in LEADVILLE are working on members of the House of Representatives to try to get approval for a federal charter for the museum. The Senate has already approved the charter. The documents are rarely granted. Museum head Robert Reeder says the charter would go a long way in attracting people to the site. The Hall of Fame would be included on all official maps and road maps. There would be signs on the interstate indicating the museum's loca- tion. That kind of advertising, notes Reeder, cannot be bought. Work is continuing on exhibits but the facility is not yet open to the public. UPGRADES AND ONWARD -The second largest telephone upgrade in the state is slated by MOUNTAIN BELL for DURANGO in 1989. All 3,384 party-line customers will be given the option to convert to single-party lines as part of the company's five-year, $100 million rural service upgrade program. The company will upgrade complete force eight-party lines in the state during 1989. New digital telephone cen- tral office equipment will be installed by Moun- tain Bell in ASPEN and SNOWMASS and in ERASER this summer. The new system will cost $4.4 million for the 13,000 customers and 70,000 visitors to Winter Park. The system will provide features such as Call Waiting and Call Forwarding, as well as direct international dialing. Mountain Bell customers in Colorado are learning new long-distance area codes. In March, Mountain Bell added a new area code for southeastern Colorado. The northern and western areas of the state retained the original area code of 303, while the southeastern part of the state, including Leadville, switched to 719. The change provides 640 new prefixes for Colo- rado's future. More than 330,000 customers will be using the new area code. Mountain Bell is adding 21 employees to its Grand Junction billing office beginning in April. "We are impressed with the quality of life and people here on the Western Slope," said Curt Reimer, director of Mountain Bell's marketing operations in Grand Junction. The phone com- pany is Colorado's largest private employer. About 600 of the 12,300 employees in the state are in western Colorado. STRETCHING - "I design and manufacture body wear because I enjoy doing it, not because I plan to make lots of money." So says the founder of the ANALII Company, Ann Masunaga. Masunaga recently relocated her company from an in-home operation in Aspen to CARBONDALE. The president of the ex- panded company is her fiance, Mark Kwiecien- ski. Masunaga's business has expanded like her stretch leotards, swim suits and bike shorts. Orders have increased 150% since 1986. The 20 different styles of what Masunaga terms "close-fitting body wear" are being sold nation- wide through retailers. A catalogue and mail order operation is being examined. There are six full-time seamstresses employed at the fac- tory in Carbondale's indusrial park. The com- pany has orders they are trying to fill with their current staff, but four more workers are needed. Masunaga has had trouble getting qualified seamstresses. She is working with Colorado Mountain College to test possible workers for aptitude before training them. Masunaga is applying for a loan for her expansion through the Garfield County EDC. Why call the com- pany "Analii"? "It's sentimental," says Masunaga. "It means 'little Ann' in Hawaiian." She does not feel the business would be the success it is without all the local support she has received. JUST ADROP -Congress allocated .some money for oil shale research this year ... $9 million, says Ron Cattany of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. However, on- ly about $450,000 of that will be applied to research into Western oil shale. About $2 million more will go to fund ongoing programs at the Western Resarch Institute in Laramie, Wyo- ming. The DOE will use the rest of the funds in the eastern U.S. While the amount is small, Cattany hopes it is a "foot in the door" that will allow them to obtain more funds in future years. There has been some legislative work done towards getting Congressional support for an oil shale research center. Cattany notes the cost would be about $200 million. He also indicates that some oil companies are lobbying against such a center because the information from it would be public. Most of them, Cattany observes, would not want to share information they consider proprietory. Meanwhile, bids are being solicited for the money that was allocated. What might be a more cost-effective way of mining OIL SHALE will be tested on the Western Slope this spring. The DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, as part of a $1.5 million contract, plans to use water jet technology or mechanical miners in an oil shale mine. The technology has long been proven effective in coal mining, ac- cording to Robert Ivey, the Grand Junction pro- ject officer for the DOE. The tests will show whether or not the machines can be used on the harder shale. Half of the contract amount is being provided by industry participants in the projects, spearheaded by Alpine Equipment Corporation in Pennsylvania. Negotiations are underway with Exxon for use of their idle mine in Parachute. Ivey notes that, once a mine is found, testing the equipment will take about ten months. BITS AND PIECES -More than 50% of the tax base in MONTEZUMA COUNTY. comes from the bill paid by SHELL WESTERN. Shell extracts 465 million cubic feet of carbon dioxide a day from the field outside Delores, making that field the largest producer of COZ in the continental United States. Shell spokesman Tom Denman says they plan to stay at the cur- rent production levels. The 24hour-a-day, com- puterized operation is run by employees from the Delores and Cortez area. There are more than 30 producing wells at the site plus three processing facilities. Written by Linda Skinner ...Continued from page 5 waste; reorganize community college system to make the best use of dollars. 6. Kindergarten - 12th grade education, reforming the school finance act for fairness and equality; become active in reducing dropouts. 7. Health, especially aimed at less threats, better care, in rural areas. Increase access to the system; promote wellness and preventive care; reduce costs by reforms of the civil justice system and professional self-regulatory mechanisms. 8. Taxation/Finance. Establish a more reasonable tax system; eliminate the gross ton mile tax in favor of increased license fees on trucks; expand sales tax baase; seek tax credits for air and water quality con- trols; include mail-order buying in sales tax program. In his comments on the slide show, Pearsall emphasized the need for $30 million for higher education, along with the search for $35 million there in savings by shifting priorities. He doubted the $5 billion shortfall in our highways, saying "I have trouble accepting that but I don't have any trouble at all in accepting the governor's need for $120 million a year for the next five years," adding "We haven't taken any position on where the money is coming from." He agreed with the need for prisons. "We're behind the curve on that; we've let something slip," and for water, he agreed on the necessity fora long- term plan for storage and for action on water rights. Four pages in the Blueprint booklet show the 1987 goals set against the 1987 accomplishments. Many thigns were done but some remain in the 1988 want list. As a man involved in venture capital, Pearsall spoke about seed money for businesses which are not necessarily high-tech, but are start-up firms with growth potential. With private sector money -risk money - at hand, and only then, would public match- ing money be available. An example could be a business in an Alamosa or a Craig to do sub-assembly work with 5 or 10 jobs. This would give one more opportunity for employ- mentoutside the metropolitan area, pleasing to CACI, the community, the state. ~_,_,~ FOREST _, - SERVICE _ i i The afternoon session of Club 20's 35th annual meeting kicked off with Gary Cargill, regional forester of the U.S. Forest Service, telling of the importance of outdoor recreation to the economy of Colorado West. He has worked in other areas of the country but now is involved with five states, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota and eastern Wyoming. Educated in upstate New York, he has worked in California, New Mexico, Arizona and in Washington D.C. itself. He explained tha the Forest Service is under the Department of Agriculture, not involved in parks nor monuments nor fish or wildlife things. It has the mis- sion of forest research, helping private landowners and managing 191 million acres of government- owned forest and grassland. This is managed for its resources, he said, tick- ing off grazing, tree cutting, exploration and develop- ment of oil, gas and minerals, hunting, hiking, camp- ing, picnicking and more. "Not all of these can be on every acre at the same time, but some combina- tion wlll occur on every acre," he said. In the region there are some 1600 permanent employees, 1500 temporaries and 7000 volunteers. As he recounted his past year's work he told of his own pleasures the past week in skiing to the Polar Star Inn in the White River Forest of Eagle County. Later he skied at Crested Butte, learned how to ride a snowmobile on a trip to Irwin Lodge on their groomed trails, then seeing the integrated downhill, cross country and snowmobile operation at Powderhorn. He remarked on the nasty job (translation: wonder- ful) he has, and that "This state is blessed with an enormous range of recreational opportunities on the National Forest." The public responds. "Last year there were over 31 million visitor days spent in the Rocky Mountain Region and last year nearly 10 million lift tickets were sold. The 450-mile Colorado Trail was firy'shed thanks to hundreds of volunteers. It's appropriate, for we are entering a new era for recreational programs," he said. This agency plays host to nearly as many visitors as all the other federal agencies combined, Cargill said, and the management plan takes this into consideration. People visiting Colorado's forests are second in number of all states in the nation, only California hav- ing more. It is second in fishing, fourth in hunting, fifth in camping and as far as national forests are concerned, Colorado is oven!vhelmingly number one. In fact the skiing numbers are so big, Cargill said, that "we have one ranger district, that if it were a state it would be third in the nation. And driving for pleasure is the number one recreational pursuit in the national forests," he added. "In the five-state area there is an income of $2.6 billion for the private sector and 96,000 jobs. Colo- radohas about $521 million annually in income pro- duced by the national forests," his charts showed. He is proud of the budgeting, for out of the total budget of $105 million, less than $14 million is used for administration. "And I'll put that 13 or 14 percent up against the overhead of any large corporation," he said. Cargill spoke of several continuing challenges: - Water is the first, needing "close scrutiny" and hav- ing apotential for increasing the usable flow. - Access is another issue, needing cooperation between private owners and other government agencies. -Marketing of forest products should be pursued. - Management of grasslands is important, especially concerning living snow fences and windbreaks. - Implementation of plans should narrow the gap between cost and revenue. - Rural economic development is a challenge, diversifying the swings, softening the boom and bust cycles. In closing he invited participation of local private groups and local government to make the best use of national forests for all citizens. ,~ ~ it": BUREAU OF ,~~ ~; ~l, `, LAND ~~~~,: '~~ MANAGEMENT '~'. " ':. .W/ Neil Morck, native of Plentywood, Montana, is state Director of the Bureau of Land Management follow- ing his appointment in 1986. Speaking to Club 20 he paid compliments to its members for their interest in the balance between protection and development of the land. "Those who coopoerate in wise resource management can pnly benefit the community and themselves," he said. By this we have the beauty, the habitat for wildlife, and things like ranching country, ski slopes and flowing rivers. "To put our work in perspective, of the 66~/z million tota{ acres in the state of Colorado the BLM manages 6.8 million acres in your 21 western counties out of the 8 million we manage in the state," he explained. "We also have mineral responsibilities on an addi- tional 17 million acres." He finds it interesting that the two Denver papers hardly mention the public lands even though many of the users come from there, while in contrast the area papers show the interest and concern by local people by the frequent news stories. "Not only are you users of public lands but I also see your role as caretakers," he said. "Partners happens to be a favorite word of mine, for we cannot go it alone." As an example, the resource mangement plan for the Uncompahgre drew 175 comments concerning stream areas, potential ski development, off-highway vehic{e use and hydro-electric development in wilderness areas. "Those are hard decisions and not everybody will be happy when they are resolved, but they will reflect your input and I believe the decisions will be sound," he said. Morck's presentation was detailed, covering many of the Bureau activities in the state, especially in the trans-mountain area. Some of the items covered include: -Concerns over wilderness, interesting but confus- ing. The BLM has no managed wilderness although now the Powderhorn area in Hinsdale County has been recommended for inclusion. "We expect it to be designated," he announced. Also there is a pro- posal to expand an area near the Black Canyon, and the Black Ridge near the Colorado National Monu- ment. "We think water rights can be agreed on," he added. - Regarding tourism, three areas have now become potential super attractions of the state: the Anasazi Indian heritage, Mesa Verde, and the dinosaur lore within a few miles of Grand Junction. - In Hinsdale County, BLM has aided in marking river areas for fishing, signing them, with the highway department arranging pullouts and steps over highway fences. Another point of pride is the San Juan brochure with tourist information and tips. - At times there must be restrictions on fourwheel drive to protect the environment and the same is true for snowmobilers to prevent disturbance of deer and elk. - Rafting is fast becoming one of Colorado's biggest summer recreation booms, bringing decisions on how to manage this resource. For example, there is a moratorium on commercial rafting on the Dolores for this summer season. Recreation has doubled each year for a decade so'steps had to be taken to protect this resource and still allow use. - The region's dinosaur heritage is gaining promi- nence and by partnerships in the Grand Junction area a trail and brochure for the "Trail Through Time" has been accomplished. The Anasazi Center is being opened to complement Mesa Verde. -The BLM has worked on the fourwheel races and the motorcycle event in Craig, and the bobsled course in Fairplay. Historical landmarks have been marked in Hinsdale County. - At Cross Orchards in Grand Junction the museum has set in place the Whiskey Creek trestle from the historic Uintah Railroad. The BLM, Army Reserves and Mountain Bell were involved. - Hunter information booths have helped greatly. - The Mining Summit meeting in Leadville was another event the BLM•was involved in. - Mining materials have been sold at a fair market price with money returned to the counties from 31 sales of 105,000 tons of gravel for $100,000. Thera were free permits to local highway departments for 1.1 million tons worth $900,000 last year. - Mining claims are followed up. Oil shale claims must be monitored. Coal production is of great con- cern to the BLM. Grim facts must be faced, that the state's coal is expensive because of the great amount of dirt to be moved to get it. "We are sympathetic; however we are limited by law in granting reductions of fees," he said. In the end, Morck invited his listeners to under- stand his wish for cooperation and to be free to make personal contact whenever possible. horizon," Atchison said. He remembers that the Inter- state system took 50 years from a vision in the '30s, design in the '40s and now in the 1980s is ready for completion by 1993. When Governor Romer unleashed his program of 42 projects, the tip of the iceberg, he called atten- tion to 9200 miles in the state highway system. Atchi- son called the present value of the system, some 30 billion if it were to be bought today, a value to build on. "When you look at Colorado you realize the significance of our transportation system, especially highways," he said. He emphasized that the east and the west parts of the state are dependent on each other, neither one able to afford ignoring the other in highway needs. Looking to the year 2001, "What is interesting is that adding up the approved plans and identifying the expectations the total in 1985 came to some 20 billion dollars -and most of those needs have been equested for the past 35 years," he said. So start- ing in 1985 they have looked at present conditions compared with apparent future Weds. About nine things were studied in determining needs and costs: 1. The surface of present roads: potholes, minor or major bumps, noisy surface, slick encounters. Work must be done to prevent more deterioriation. 2. Bridges, and in response to a question Atchison said that Colorado is better than most as all are safe. Some are deficient but these are posted, and many are not as wide as the highway itself. 3. Capacity, simply whether wide enough and with passing lanes to take care of cars, trucks and recrea- tion vehicles now and in the near future. 4. Interstate completion, now 98 percent done and the target date for Glenwood Canyon is 1993. 5. Maintenance to keep up the system. 6. Interchanges, where traffic from state highways enter or leave major state and Interstate routes. "These are big-ticket items, when you consider something like the mousetrap in Denver which may take 170 million," he said. 7. Railroad separations where safety and delays are the problems. 8. Rest areas, for safety and comfort. 9. Noise barriers, as living is less bearable when high- traffic areas are too close. All of the figures are in the millions of dollars, adding up to the "B for Billion" range. The 2001 plan could be looked at in three levels. At the best, all traffic would be easy. One could drive with virtually no delay in safety and comfort. A medium quality would come close but not perfect, while a low level would bring acceptable surtaces, design and speed, the least that Colorado natives and visitors would accept. Work on any of thse three levels has been laid out in three blocks of time, the next five years followed by two blocks of four leading up to the year 2001. Atchison's slides laid out the levels of quality and the costs saying that "We would have to invest -and the public is going to have to decide on the service level to have - up to $5.9 billion just for resurfacing between now and the year 2001. "I don't think those figures are accepted by the public, and probably somewhere around medium to low is what we will wind up with." Even the low side would take $1.4 billion for resurfacing work during these 13 years. So the total, to do everything, might come to nearly $12 billion for state highways, possibly $15 billion in local needs. Or it could be down to $4.3 billion for a low level of performance. "Our current level of fund- ing is below low," he said. "On the level of high expectations between now and 2001 the total figure is around $30 billion, the low around $14 billion, excluding transit," he commented. "The order of magnitude is unbelievable -but t want you to believe it!" he remarked, "The shortfall in 1987 dollars is some $1.5 billion just to keep even a low level of expectations," Atchison concluded. 1 HIGHWAYS ~~~~:.>.~.:. ,,,1`'~~'t, _ If Harvey Atchison had been a school teacher, introducing "Highway 101" to a bunch of college students, he might have made his hour presenta- tion to Club 20 into a semester course. But with a late afternoon group and a 5:05 plane to catch, he went through a "reason why" and a "how much" view of Colorado roads and showed why billions and billions of dollars are needed in the next 13 years, counting up to year 2001, the turn of the century. Atchison is director of development for the state Highway Department and came in place of Ray Chamberlain, department director, who was recover- ing from surgery. Chamberlain is seeking the efficiencies and plan- ning that he was familiar with as a university administrator. "He is looking into a high priority in establishing a strategic plan for Colorado's transportation sys- tems, looking not into the immediate 10, 15 or 20 years but would like to move this out into a 50-year i' ~' r.' ~ ~, '^ ~~~ r;,,}~,,1, ~ , ~ .. . SCHOOL FINANCING Vicki Armstrong came late, thanks to airline delays, but brought board members back from the hall to hear her proposal for school financing. Along with her was state representative Paul Schauer and a sheaf of papers and charts of the proposed act. In her plan, the 176 school districts in the state, all of which admittedly "could be said to be unique in some respects," are grouped into eight types or "setting categories". Four funding formulas are figured in for each of these eight categories. These cover the per pupil costs, classroom funding, school site funding, and central district costs. There were many questions put to Armstrong and Schauer form Club 20 board members. .~ ... Continued from page 1 "So before 1 go out and defend the $200 million figure I need your help," he said. "Tell me two things. One, is lt needed? Two, does everybody need it the same?" At this point he gave another option, Option 3. Increase the sales tax 1/2 of one percent .......................... 5130 Splk this: 340 million for Wort-highway state capital projects such as colleges, juvenile detention facilities, buildings and 90 million for highways, Splitting this into 70 million for state highways, and 20 million for bcal highways, He spoke of another suggestion from others, Option 4: A six-cent increase in gas tax rather than other bits and pieces. The show of hands went something like this: For doing it ........................ Yes For doing it now .................... Yes For items "A" ...Yes for license plate increase. Yes for drivers license fee increase. Maybe for gas tax increase. For Option 1 .... A faltering Yes. Option 2 .... So-so Option 3 .... So-so, but preferring the 1/2-cent rather than the 1/4, and for keeping the 60/40 split. Option 4 .... No. It was a strenuous luncheon session. The out- come was an opinion survey not unfavorable to raising money for highways, preferably by general taxation rather than so hefty reliance on users fees. ... Continued from page 3 The 1988 Board Meeting Sam Suplizio presented nominations for the new offices. They were elected and Chairman Dan Noble took the chair. The newest name was that of Joe Prinster who was elected Chairman-elect. The budget was approved and the Board immediatey took up Tom Oliver's request to form an education committee. The discussion of the schools and colleges as a factor in the Slope's economy led to the vote to form this committee. It also brought up the needs for rural health care and the formation of a sub-committee for this under the Economic Devebpment committee. Jim Evans spoke of the Highway Users Trust Fund, asking Club 20 to go on record opposing the shift of funds under a new formula. Despite one point of view that this group should take no action on the delicate compromise arranged by Colorado Counties Inc., the vote was taken. Because the effect on 19 of the Western counties would actually be damaging, the lengthy discus- sion brought opposition to the proposed change. The next point was the request for help from Club 20 in reducing federal royalties on coal pro- duction. Fairness is the problem, George Mitchell and Jim Evans contended, and the result could be loss of coal companies. The resolultion for sup- port was unanimous. In a related matter the state severance tax on coal was discussed. A resolution asking for a 40 percent reduction of this tax was approved, think- ing that it woukf lose short-term revenue but increase long-term production and revenue. A brief discussion led to a letter to be sent to the Interstate Commerce Commission supporting the merger of the Rio Grande with the Southern Pacific. In another railway matter, Board action sup- ported the rail passenger service to resort areas such as the Roaring Fork Valley. The Rio Grande will be asked to reconsider its cool reception to this access proposal. Also approved was a request to state regulatory agencies to restudy Trout Lake near Telluride, owned by the Colorado Ute Electric Company. Now surrounded by homes, this mountain lake is not needed by the power company and the dam is considered unsafe. Rather than let the lake become a muddy pond, the request is to find ways to keep its value at lowest cost. Cobrado has the opportunlty to place a second statue in the U.S. capitol, added to the one now there of Dr. Florence Sabin, a public health doctor in the '30s and '40s. From several names men- tioned, the name of Wayne Aspinall will be suggested. Board business had been long, sometimes complicated, but Chairman Noble had pushed ahead and the many items were accomplished in good spirits. LOTTO One more thing was on Romer's mind at the Club 20 luncheon -Lotto. "I have said that if they pass a Lotto bill I will veto it. I want you to know why." He inherited the lottery and does not quarrel with it. it takes $100 million dollars off Main Street, but it is a small ticket game and for the most part the money comes back into Colorado, he believes. But if an electronic game is added it will take another hundred million to be paid out in big pots and "I tell you if anyone wins those Lotto prizes the dollars won't come back to a Delta or Cortez but they will go to somebody's yacht in the Bahamas, to a vacation in Australia, to a trust account in some bank in New York," said the governor. "I've been trying to get money out on Main Street, Colorado; this would be a giant vacuum cleaner sucking up a hundred million out of there." The next problem he sees with Lotto is the overhead cost of dedicated phone lines and the high price of machines needing to be placed in high-traffic stores. The state would be in partnership with the big stores, hurting the many that now sell lottery tickets. Third, it would mean that the state was in a position of pressing gambling on the public. "The state ought to be neutral on that question," he added. And for the next issue on his mind, this is not a fair way to raise taxes. "It's not fair or right. It's ironic - do we want to teach people to gamble to raise money to build prisons!" "I know I'm swimming upstream on this, but I'm going to veto it and would like your help to sustain the veto," he concluded. Position 1987 Name Club 20 Executive Committee AddrESS Phone-work home Chairman Dan Noble P.O. Box 71, Norwood 81423 327-4255 327-4384 Chairman-elect Joe Prinster 1302 Chipeta, Grand Junction 81501 245-3836 245-2659 Secretary LaMoine Brown P.O. Box 730, Montrose 81402 249-2000 249-3385 Treasurer Kay Hayashi 1280 Canell Ave., Grand Junction 81501 242-2494 Past Chairman Bob Beverly P.O. Box 1284, Grand Junction 81502 242-2753 Reg 9 Vice Chairman Jasper Welch 950 E. Second Ave., Durango 81301 247-5212 247-0320 Reg 10 Vice Chairman Jerry Kempf P.O. Box 1149, Montrose 81402 249-4501 249-1194 Reg 11 Vice Chairman Flaven Cerise P.O. Box 97, Carbondale 81623 963-2634 Reg 12 Vice Chairman Bill Haight P.O. Box 308, Steamboat Springs 80477 879-1319 879-1319 Special Appointees Fred Collett Bob Simillion P.O. Box 326, Gypsum 81637 P.O. Box 770071, Steamboat Springs 80477 524-7777 879-1160 879-1263 Sam Suplizio P.O. Box 100, Grand Junction 81502 243-6600 1987 Club 20 Directors Position Name Address Phone-work home Archuleta Medray Carpenter - A P.O. Box 422, Pagosa Springs 81147 731-2467 Delta' Roger Blouch - D 1090 A St., Delta 81416 874-8710 Harmon Lowman - A 993 Hwy. 65, Austin 81410 835-8162 Dolores Wayne Magness - D P.O. Box 176, Cahone 81320 677-2811 562-4521 Eagle' Ken Norman - D P.O. Box 97, Eagle 81631 328-6914 Roy Robinson - A P.O. Box 450, Eagle 81631 328-6656 Gartield Bob Richardson - D 109 8th St., Su 300, Glenwood Spgs. 81601 945-1377 825-3990 _. ___ George Wear - A 533 Hyland Park Dr., Glenwood Spgs 81601 945-8908 Grand' Bill Needham - D P.O. Box 286, Granby 80446 887-3154 Dick Leonard - A P.O. Box 94, Fraser 80442 725-3347 726-5498 Gunnison Bob Decker - D 2 Irwin St., Gunnison 81230 943-2118 641-1196 Ralph Walton - A P.O. Box A, Mount Crested Butte 81225 349-2200 Hinsdale' Don Berry - D P.O. Box 144, Lake City 81235 944-2225 944-2742 Perk Vickers - A P.O. Box 96, Lake City 81235 944-2249 Lake Carl Miller - D 505 Harrison Ave., Leadville 80461 486-1410 Elaine Kochevar - A P.O. Box 861, Leadville 80461 486-0418 LaPlata Fred Klatt - A 946 Main, Durango 81301 247-4455 Mesa' Lana Turrou - D 2186 Buffalo Dr., Grand Junction 81503 245-2926 Marietta Benge - A 118 Hillcrest Manor, Grand Junction 81501 242-3284 Moffat Chuck Powell - D P.O. Box 1147, Craig 81625 824-6325 Pome Camilletti - A 22i W. Victory Way, Craig 81625 824-5484 824-6764 Montezuma" Bill Bauer - D 19501 County Road P, Cortez 81321 565-7742 Jerry Wiltgen - A 29 East Main, Cortez 81321 565-4000 Montrose LaMoine Brown - D P.O. Box 730, Montrose 81402 249-2000 249-3385 Dave Logan - A 67180 E. Miami Rd., Montrose 81401 249-5533 249-9231 Ouray' Mike Kern - D P.O. Box 367, Ouray 81427 325-4484 Chick Rahm - A P.O. Box 133, Ouray 81427 325-4415 (4609) Pitkin Tom Oliver - D P.O. Box 3626, Aspen 81612 925-5757 925-1118 Eve Homeyer - A 810 Cemetery Lane, Aspen 81611 925-1120 925-7142 Rio Blanco' Nick Theos - D 6909 County Road 49, Meeker 81641 878-4485 878-4485 Peg Rector - A P.O. Box 299, Rangely 81648 675-2087 Routt Joe Boyd - D P.O. Box 683, Hayden 81639 276-3731 879-7332 Bob Simillion - A P.O. Box 71, Steamboat Springs 80477 879-1160 879-1263 San Juan' Lew Parcell - D 104 Duncan St., Montrose 81401 249-5080 San Miguel John Arnold - D P.O. Box 964, Telluride, CO 81435 728-3263 728-3779 Summit' Tom Glass - A P.O. Box 387, Frisco 80443 668-5046 Warren Gardner - D P.O. Box 1849, Frisco 80443 468-8287 Denotes directors serving 1988-1989, installed 2-88 Club 20 Office Staff: Bill Cleary, Sherry Phillips, P.O. Box 550, Grand Junction, CO 81502 (845 Grand Ave.) Phone (303) 242-3264 1~` ;~ ~j •~~- , ~~ , pn I SL ~Z i ti9l 'oN liw~ad 00 `lof Pue~O dltld a6etsod 'S'fl 3~va Dina but Chairman Wattenberg directed the vote in such a manner that the bill was killed for this session. While dire threats were made concerning future legislation, it seems reasonable people should be able to fashion a bill that will be fair to the urban counties without taking away scarce road and bridge funds from the rural counties. Club 20 is ready to work for such a compromise. Two resolutions pertaining to tourism were passed by the Board of Directors. Club 20 made a formal request for a permanent, designated seat on the Colorado Tourism Advisory Council. In addition, the Board sup- ported adivision of the state into travel regions along lines that would keep western Colorado counties in the two western regions. Thanks to the help of Senator Tillie Bishop and Represen- tative Scott McInnis, both members of the Colorado Tourism Board, Club 20 was granted both of its requests. b9Z£-ZbZ-£0£ `uolfoun~ pue~~ 099 Xo8 'O'd OZ qnl~ WE SURE TALKED -NOW WE ACT: by Bill Cleary President A quick check of the story else- where in this issue of the recent Club 20 Board meeting will show we had a full plate of "new business". Board action covered a range of issuees from education to highways to tourism. Thanks to the help of several good friends 4f Club 20, we already have some results. A resolution opposing legislation which would re-allocate Highway Trust Fund monies was directed to the appropriate legislators. In addition, presented the Club 20 position in an appearance with other rural counties before Senator Dave Wattenberg's Transportation committee. Our testimony didn't change any minds 0950-20518 'oloD Advisory Council and will also be active as the Northwest and South- west travel regions begin to organize. This regionalization may be the most important event in western Colo- rado tourism promotion since the first brochures were printed years ago. By combining the resources within a travel region, such as is done in Utah, a greater effort can be made with greater results. The Southwest Region has already taken the first organization steps. Key people in the Northwest Region are making plans to hold that first meeting. The road will not be without barriers and pitfalls but I believe regionaliza- tion is the way to go in tourist promotion. Club 20 will have a role to play, par- ticularly as a liaison betwen the two western Colorado regions. David Anderson, Club 20 Tourism We will have more on this in future Chairman, will represent us ofi the issues of Colorado News. a'~~ '~ APR - 5 1988 ~;~ ~ ~~~t ~~ . ~~., ,, ~~~~ ,~ F~ a •~ ~ ~: ~~ PEASE INDUSTRIES, INC., 7100 DIXIE HIGHWAY, FAIRFIELD,OHIO 45014 U.S.A. 513-870-3600 April 4, 1988 Town Council TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Gentlemen: I am writing to again go on record as opposing the petition to the Town Council by Mr. and Mrs. Ben Rose, owners of the Raspberry House on Beaver Dam Road, for special zoning. As a property owner at 454 Beaver Dam Road, almost directly across from the Rose property, we do strenuously object to the proposed special zoning requested by the Roses. And, we fundamentally feel that there is enough high density housing in other parts of the Vail Village and that the neighborhood in question would be best served by continuing the zoning practices adhered to by other properties in the immediate area. We have previously written a letter to the Town Planning Commission on this subject with additional information. However, we wanted to go on record as feeling the Commission made the right unanimous choice to deny the zoning request and that the Town Council should do likewise. Sincerely, A David H. Pease Jr. President DHJ:jbb EVER-STRAIT DOOR SYSTEMS • ROLLING SHUTTERS ~~ ~~ 8182 MARYLAND AVENUE ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63105 ,(314) 889-9625 March 16, 1988 Town Council Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd. West Vail, Colorado 81657 Ladies and Gentlemen: ~,F~G APB ~ '~ 1~~~ I am writing to you in response to the Notice of Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, April 5, 1988 in which you will again review the request by Mr. S~ Mrs. Ben Rose. I have been a property owner at 666 Forest Rd. in Vail for many years and have written to oppose their request to create two Primary/Secondary lots at 443 Beaver Dam Rd. last January. Upon receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing in which the Roses plan to appeal, I felt it necessary to write to you again and strongly oppose their request. As stated in my previous letter, I am very concerned about the future of our neighborhood. The natural features and the beauty of the land is one reason I purchased the property and I still feel that the proposal_by__the:_Roses__would__have__an adverse effect on the natural vegetation and features of the property. My other concern is that the approval of such a request will increase the gross residential floor area and the property cannot accommodate that increased density. Again, I would appreciate your consideration in this matter. s S ince r ~ P.A. N PAN/kb