Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-10-04 Support Documentation Town Council Regular SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1988 7:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes from September 6 and 20, 1988 Meetings 2. Information Update on the Proposed New Main Vail Post Office located on Lot 1, Block 1, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing No. 3 (Applicant: United States Postal Service, Mr. Dennis Groom) 3. Born Free Express Quad Chair Lift Sign Variance Request 4. Raintree Inn Sign Variance Request 5. Due Date for Sales Tax Receipts CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 6. Adjournment VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1988 7:30 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 1. Approval of Minutes from September 6 and 20, 1988 Meetings 7:35 2. Information Update on the Proposed new Main Vail Post Kristan Pritz Office located on Lot 1, Block 1, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing No. 3 Action Requested of Council: Review and comment on the proposal. Background Rationale: The site is located just to the west of Valli Hi along the North Frontage Road. The facility is 2 stories and contains 27,100 sq. ft. of usable space. The PEC reviewed the proposal on September 26th. Their rip •mary concerns are that a retail postal facility be provided in one of the Core areas and that a bus stop be provided to serve the Post Office. (Applicant: United States Postal Service, Mr. Dennis Groom) 8:00 3. Born Free Express Quad Chair Lift Sign Variance Request Rick Pylman Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny the request. Background Rationale: Lift structures are not addressed in the sign code. Any signage request for lift signage requires a variance procedure. Staff Recommendation: Approval. 8:30 4. Raintree Inn Sign Variance Request Rick Pylman Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny the request. Background Rationale: The Raintree Inn is seeking to amend their existing signage, approved by variance in 1985. The Design Review Board recommended denial of the request by a vote of 3-0, citing noncompliance with Sections 16.16.020 and 16.16.040 of the sign code. Staff Recommendation: Approval. 9:00 5. Due Date for Sales Tax Receipts Steve Barwick Dani Hild Action Requested of Council: Reconfirm or change the Town's policy regarding the due date for sales tax. Background Rationale: A local business person wishes to personally request that the Town change the due date for Vail sales tax remittance. The Town of Vail currently requires that remittance of Vail sales taxes be received by the Town by the 20th of the succeeding month. This policy is different from the State of Colorado collection system wherein remittance of sales taxes must be postmarked by the 20th of the succeeding month. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 9:25 6. Adjournment MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, September 6, 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 James Overcash, who is an employee of the Vail Fire Department. Mr. Overcash was present and remarks were made by Ron Phillips, Dick Duran and James Overcash. The second order of business was presentation of a plaque to Gordon Pierce for his service on the Vail Town Council. Remarks were made by Kent Rose and Gordon Pierce. The third order of business was a consent agenda, and Kent Rose, Mayor, read all items by title. A. Approval of minutes from August 2 and 16, 1988 meetings. B. Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1988, second reading, an ordinance approving Special Development District No. 22, in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto. C. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1988, second reading, an ordinance amending the plan document of the Town of Uail Employees Pension Plan; and setting forth details in relation thereto. D. Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1988, second reading, an ordinance amending the Town's Police and Fire Pension Plan document, subject to approval by sixty-five percent (65%) of the Town's Police and Firemen; and setting forth details in relation thereto. E. Resolution No. 32, Series of 1988, a resolution designating Banco de Bogota, 375 Park Avenue, 23rd Floor, New York, New York, as a depository for the funds of the Town of Vail as permitted by the Charter of the Town, its ordinances, and the statutes of the State of Colorado. F. Resolution No. 33, Series of 1988, a resolution designating American State Bank of Olivia, Box 10, Olivia, Minnesota, as a depository for the funds of the Town of Uail as permitted by the Charter of the Town, its ordinances, and the statutes of the State of Colorado. G. Resolution No. 34, Series of 1988, a resolution designating First Service Bank, 15 Monument Square, Leominster, Massachusetts, as a depository for the funds of the Town of Vail as permitted by the Charter of the Town, its ordinances, and the statutes of the State of Colorado. H. Resolution No. 35, Series of 1988, a resolution designating National Bancshares Corporation, P. 0. Drawer 121, San Antonio, Texas, as a depository for the funds of the Town of Vail as permitted by the Charter of the Town, its ordinances, and the statutes of the State of Colorado. At this point, Mayor Rose requested that any items Councilmen wish to remove, be removed from this consent agenda. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal indicated she would be abstaining from Item B, Ordinance No. 23, but it was decided she would abstain and this item could still remain on the consent agenda. Item E, Resolution No. 32, a resolution designating Banco de Bogota as a depository for funds of the Town of Vail, was removed from the consent agenda by Eric Affeldt. A vote was then taken on items A through H, disallowing Item E. Gordon Pierce made a motion to approve the consent agenda; Tom Steinberg seconded that motion. A vote was taken and it passed 6-0 in favor of the motion, except for Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal abstaining from voting on Item B, Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1988, which was 5-0-1 in favor. The next order of business was a discussion of Resolution No. 32, Series of 1988. Eric Affeldt expressed concerns about banking with an international institution, posing questions as to whether it was FDIC and FSLIC insured and whether it was registered in New York. Charlie Wick responded by saying this institution had been represented by a broker, but that the staff would be double checking the broker's background information on this particular institution. A question was also raised as to whether funds could be seized should Columbia have internal problems. Eric further asked that Charlie check with the Feds on their position in regard to a foreign based bank. Charlie indicated that all the questions asked would be answered through a due diligence process and through a written opinion. At this time, John Slevin moved to approve Resolution No. 32, Series of 1988; Tom Steinberg seconded that motion. A vote was taken and the motion was passed unanimously 6-0. The next item of business was Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1988, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 5.20.100 B. of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail expanding the types of events which may obtain a special events exemption from the transient dealers license; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Larry Eskwith clarified this amendment stating that the amendment to this would allow events such as Ride the Rockies or the Coors Classic to simplify the process of obtaining a transient vendor's license for vendors who .wish to sell goods or services related to the event. Following discussion, Tom Steinberg moved to approve this ordinance. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal seconded that motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. The next item of business was the reading of Resolution No. 31, Series of 1988, a resolution setting forth the rental rate for deck space located on property owned by the Town; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Larry Eskwith indicated that during February of 1988, the Town passed a motion setting a deck rental fee of $2.00 per square foot per month used. He indicated staff wauld like to have the fee set forth in a written resolution that can be then mailed to licensees in helping the enforcement and collection of that rent. Following discussion, Gordon Pierce moved to approve this resolution. Eric Affeldt seconded that motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. At this point, Merv Lapin arrived. Following the introduction of a revised agenda, the Mayor read the title in full of what should have been Item 5 on the revised agenda, which was Resolution No. 36, Series of 1988, a resolution making certain findings of fact and reaching certain conclusions relating to the annexation of a portion of the area of West Vail generally known as the Ulbrich property; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Larry Eskwith gave a brief background on this resolution. In response to Larry Eskwith's questions, Jay Peterson, attorney for Mr. Ulbrich, set forth the following: A. That at lease one-sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the Town of Vail, Colorado, the annexing municipality. The area proposed to be annexed was shown on the annexation plat. B. That a community of interest does exist between the territory proposed to be annexed and the annexing municipality. The territory proposed to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near future. The territory proposed to be annexed is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the Town of Vail. C. That in establishing the boundaries of the territory proposed to be annexed there was no division of any parcel of land therein held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate of two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate, or that has been divided into separate parts or parcels without the written consent of the landowners thereof. -2- D. That the territory proposed to be annexed did not include any land held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or .parcel of real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate, comprising twenty (20) acres or more (which, together with the buildings and improvements situated thereon would have a valuation or assessment in excess of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000 for ad valorem for the year next preceding the annexation). E. That no annexation proceeding concerning any part of the territory proposed to be annexed had been commenced by any other municipality. F. That the annexation of said territory will not result in the detachment of any area from any school district. G. That no election was required for the annexation of said territory under Section 31-12-107 (2). H. That the County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, by Resolution No. 88-29, waived preparation by the Town of Vail of an annexation impact report required by Section 31-12-108.5, C.R.S., as amended. Further, Larry Eskwith called Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk for the Town of Vail, who testified she had published the notice of the hearing and had proof of said publication, which then became Exhibit A. Larry introduced a plat of the area to be annexed which was designated as Exhibit B. Merv Lapin requested proceedings begin to include this newly annexed area into. two other special districts, i.e., Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation and Vail Metropolitan Recreation District. Jay Peterson stated Jim Collins, attorney for the Recreation District, was already working toward this goal. Gordon Pierce moved to approve the resolution; his motion was seconded by John Slevin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Item six on the agenda was Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1988, first reading, an ordinance annexing a portion of an area generally known as the Ulbrich property; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Following a brief introduction by Larry Eskwith, a motion to approve on first reading was made by Gordon Pierce, with a second from Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. The next item was the 1988-89 parking fee schedule and expansion of the Village Parking Structure Design Request for Proposals. Stan Berryman, Director of Public Works, indicated the Vail Transportation and Parking Task Force had presented a short and long term parking recommendation at the August 16 Council meeting. The Council had acted on several of the recommendations. He was now ready to propose a final fee schedule for the 1988-89 season. He also included comments regarding Vail Associates upgrading on the mountain and their intent to not pay for Town of Vail infrastructure improvements. He also indicated it had been three years since the last fee increase. Joe Macy, a representative from Vail Associates, reminded those in attendance that the land for each structure had been donated by Vail Associates, a large contribution by VA, and that additionally, Vail Associates made a large voluntary contribution each year which amounted to 2% of their revenues. Therefore, VA is not interested in upgrading any parking facilities with the Town of Vail. Stan indicated this would be a $1.00 increase across the board for all designated time periods for parking and that additional revenues generated from this fee increase will be earmarked for potential use for a new parking facility. After discussion, Merv Lapin moved to approve the 1988-89 parking fee schedule. This motion was seconded by Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken with Tom Steinberg, Merv Lapin, Kent Rose and Gordon Pierce voting for the motion; Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal, Eric Affeldt and John Slevin voting against. Therefore, the motion passed 4-3. In regard to the Village Parking Structure Design Request for Proposals, there is no cost to the Town at this time and there being no objections to this being mailed out, Stan Berryman was directed to solicit proposals for this design. Item No. 7 was the Tivoli Lodge expansion appeal. Peter Patten gave background information on this appeal and explained what the Planning Commission decision had been and what the basic project involves for the Tivoli renovation. He specifically cited factors from a Community Development Department memorandum dated August 8, 1988, directed to the Planning and Environmental Commission. Additionally, he specified items within the Vail Village Master Plan and an Action Plan and Policy statements that have been agreed to in the past. He cited letters that had been received from surrounding neighbors of the Tivoli and he spoke to the staff -3- recommendation on page 5 of this memorandum. The staff recommendation specified approval of the requested variances for the addition to the Tivoli Lodge. He indicated PEC approval for this project was garnered through a 7-0 vote for the expansion and renovation of the project. The next speaker was Jay Peterson, an attorney representing the applicant, Bob Lazier, and Gaylen Aasland, the architect for this project. Mr. Peterson read letters from Dave Garton, owner of the Ramshorn Lodge, and Danny Corcoran, owner of Eagle Valley Surveying, indicating approval of said project. He offered verbal support from individuals who were unable to attend this meeting, that support coming from Bill Hanlon, owner of the Emporium, Dave Gorsuch, owner of Gorsuch, Ltd.; Kaiser Morcus, former developer and owner of the Christiana, Garden of the Gods, Villa Cortina, and now current owner/developer of the Marriott Mark Resort; Jack Curtin representing Mrs. Hill and Gretta Parks. He provided various testimony as to the reasons the five variances were being requested and why a special development district had not been pursued. He also cited references to the land use plan and the Vail Master Plan. Reid Lichtenfels was the next speaker and acted as attorney for the appellants in this particular appeal. In opposition to the project, he first called Harry Davidson, owner of a unit in the Valhalla Lodge. The second individual to speak against the project was Dave Schnegelburger, who is the registered manager for the All Seasons Condominium Association. Mr. Schnegelburger read a letter from Frank H. Wyman, President of this Association. The third individual called was Pepi Gramshammer; the fourth was Mary Parker, daughter of a Mr. Parker who owns unit 9 in the Valhalla. She indicated her father was totally against this because it indicated he could not rely on zoning within the Town of Vail. The next individual to speak was Rosalie Lier, who has been an owner in the Valhalla for 22 years. Mr. Lichtenfels next spoke about the Vail Village Master Plan, site 24, and the issues involving stepping down and the clarifications that had been given. He indicated the Vail Village Master Plan, although used somewhat within the Town of Vail, had never been formally accepted or adopted by the Town Council, so that this plan should not be used in scrutinizing criteria for renovations in Town. He spoke about impacts of views on numerous condominium owners in the surrounding area and the concept that if you live in the Core, private views could be extinguished at any time and owners were luckless in this situation. He spoke to the question of five variances being requested and whether this was feasible. He spoke to parking and what the Council could permit. He spoke about analogous projects that had been drawn into the discussion, but felt that they were inaccurately being compared to this particular project. And he also indicated that letters and conversations with individuals who Jay Peterson had represented were for approval of this project were in fact in conflict with conversations he had had. In summary, he indicated the Council needed to weigh independently the intent of the Vail Village Master Plan and what is best for this site and to weigh independently why so many variances and encroachments are being required in order to complete this project. The next speakers were Andy Norris, who had worked with the Economic Development Commission. Andy indicated every land use decision was a compromise within the Town of Vail; that the driving force in Vail is Vail Mountain, but the number 2 driving force is the hotel industry and that this project needed to move forward. Peter Jamar spoke in favor of the proposal and indicated Council needed to take a broader view in approving this for community-wide goals and policies. At this point, there being no further presentation by either attorneys involved in the matter, Eric Affeldt requested a definition for the term "materially injurious". Larry Eskwith indicated that this could apply to economics. Merv Lapin asked whether a nonconforming building becoming more nonconforming was appropriate for Council approval. Following lengthy discussion, John Slevin made a motion to uphold the .Planning and Environmental Commission decision and restating the findings of fact of the Planning Commission on page 5 of the August 8 memorandum specifically relating to the fact that no special privilege is being given in this particular matter and that this approval would not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the surrounding neighbors. Included in the motion were the following findings: 1. The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Title. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance, but do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. -4- Gordon Pierce seconded this motion. At this point, Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal indicated the Council must seriously look at formally adopting the Vaii Village Master Plan. Secondly, she stressed there is a strong. need for family-owned lodges in the Village and in Lionshead and that this unique ownership adds to the ambiance and environment of our Village and is something we must strive to protect. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-2, with 5 members voting yes, except Eric Affeldt and Merv Lapin, who voted no. Under Citizen Participation, there was none. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Pam Brandmeyer -5- MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 1988 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, September 20, 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 Michael Cacioppo Merv Lapin Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal Tom Steinberg None Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first order of business. was a consent agenda consisting of the following: A. Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1988, second reading, regarding special events exemption from the transient dealer's license B. Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1988, second reading, an ordinance annexing a portion of an area generally known as the Ulbrich property Mayor Rose read the full titles of both ordinances. There was no discussion by the public or Council. Eric Affeldt made a motion to approve the consent agenda, and Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. The next item on the agenda was Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1988, emergency reading, to approve the World Alpine Ski Championships planning report and special review process for temporary improvements for the event. The full title was read by Mayor Rose. Kristan Pritz stated the Vail Valley Foundation was requesting two approvals in this ordinance - 1) the planning document, and 2) the special review process. She explained the requests and the reasoning for them; also, that staff would be working with the Foundation. Kristan commented when the two items were reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, it was voted unanimously to approve both requests, same as the staff recommendation. Also, the Design Review Board agreed wholeheartedly to relax the standards and that they be passed over in the process. Mike Cacioppo stated he had a problem with the ordinance being an emergency ordinance, but had not problems with anything else. Larry responded to Mike's concern. Ron Phillips and Bob Krohn, of the Uail Valley Foundation, answered questions of Council. A vote to approve the ordinance on emergency reading was made by Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal and seconded by John Slevin. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-l, with Mike Cacioppo opposing. The next item was Resolution No. 37, Series of 1988, congratulating Maya Walker, Miss Colorado, for becoming First Runner Up in the Miss America Pageant. Mayor Rose presented the resolution to Maya and commented how proud everyone was of her. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the resolution, and John Slevin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. The fourth item on the agenda was the Chester appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission decision to uphold the staff interpretation that a residence may not be demolished and rebuilt to utilize an additional 250 square feet as described in Chapter 18.71 of the Municipal Code. Peter Patten stated this was an appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission and staff decisions to deny the request. They felt it was not the intent of the ordinance to allow the demolishment and rebuilding of a residence to utilize and additional 250 square feet, and wished direction to clarify the language in the ordinance. Jay Peterson stated he was representing the applicant, E. B. Chester. Mr. Chester introduced . himself and expressed his feelings regarding the project. Jay gave background information and his interpretation of the ordinance; he also commented on the unfairness of the ordinance. Gordon Pierce, architect of the project, noted when construction got to fifty percent of the structure, they have to work to bring the building up to code. He then commented on potential problems - the house had been added on to several times and the foundation was not to be trusted for a new house. With a completely new structure, nothing would have to be grandfathered in, they could do it right the first time. Diana Donovan, a member of the Planning and Environmental Commission, felt the applicant's interpretation of the ordinance did not have any relationship to the discussion the Planning Commission had. She gave some definitions as she remembered. She felt the additional 250 square feet was meant to accommodate the needs of older properties. She commented since Mr. Chester was rebuilding, he had removed all restrictions and why couldn't he work within the confines of the required gross residential floor area (GRFA); he was asking for a gift of 250 square feet. After much discussion by Council, Peter Patten and Jay Peterson, Peggy Osterfoss, a member of the Planning and Environmental Commission, discussed her interpretation of the ordinance which was that for buildings at least five years old a bonus of 250 square feet was given to make improvements. She suggested Council should consider the language of the ordinance or all buildings would be adding 250 square feet. Diana added a few more reasons why she felt the request should be denied. Jay Peterson commented why he felt the request should be granted. Mayor Rose remarked on some background issues the Council had problems with the request and he believed the original intent was very well written in the Community Development memorandum to the Planning Commission dated September 12, 1988. He felt Council should deny or approve the Chester request to overturn the Planning Commission decision, and then have Council consider whether or not to change the ordinance. After much discussion by Council, Peter Patten and Jay Peterson, Council members commented on their interpretations of the ordinance. Mike Cacioppo made a motion to uphold the Planning and Environmental Commission decision and deny the request. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-2, with Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal and John Slevin opposing. At this time, Mayor Rose opened discussion to change the ordinance to allow the additional 250 square feet. He felt it probably was unfair the way it is and in the best interest of the town to allow it; also, people should be allowed to tear down as much as needed to improve their building; and he suggested Council direct staff to proceed in that direction. He stated new buildings on vacant lots should not have the extra 250 square feet, but at five years and older, yes, they should be allowed. Eric Affeldt suggested Larry Eskwith and Jay Peterson get together to work on a solution. Peggy Osterfoss stated this was not an isolated case, .and a change is needed in the ordinance; she also felt if the change occurred, the Chesters should benefit. E. B. Chester thought they had certain rights under the ordinance and could take it to a higher court. After some discussion, Council directed staff to work on changing the ordinance for 1) no additional 250 square feet for a total remodel of the building, and 2) allow the additional 250 square feet for small additions and improvements to existing buildings. Gordon Pierce asked if staff would please notify him when the updated ordinance would be presented at a Work Session. The fifth order of business was restriction for parking passes and coupons during the World Alpine Ski Championships. Ron Phillips, the Chairman of the Municipal Services Committee and a member of the World Championships Organizing Committee, stated the committees recommended the Town consider total restriction of coupon usage during the total 15 days, and blue passes be used only at the Lionshead structure. They were working on outlying parking in West Vail and a special shuttle bus system. After some discussion by Council, Jo Brown commented she was concerned over the stress that would be placed on the people who live and work here. Mayor Rose stated the coupons and blue passes would be allowed only in the Lionshead structure during the Championships, January 29-February 12, 1989. John Slevin made a motion to approve coupons and blue passes only be allowed in the Lionshead Parking Structure during the Championships, and Tom Steinberg seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. There was no Citizen Participation. Mayor Rose noted he had signed a proclamation concerning the World Wide Church of God in appreciation of their business. He stated that Sunday, September 25, is proclaimed as World Wide Church of God Day in Vail as recognition of this appreciation. -2- Ella Knox commented she heard the Town digs up their pansies, throws them away, and plants new ones every year. She stated that pansies were perennials and would bloom every year. Mayor Rose stated that Stan Berryman would look into it and if they are thrown out, Public Works would notify Ella, so she could take some for herself. Mayor Rose noted lastly that Jo-Brown was voted as Chairman of the Board of the Vail Board of Realtors last week. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman -3- TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 4, 1988 SUBJECT: Information update on the proposed Main Vail Post Office located on Lot 1, Block 1, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing #3 Applicant: United States Postal Service, Mr. Dennis Grooms I. THE PROPOSAL The United States Postal Service (USPS) plans to construct a postal facility (main Vail Post Office) on Lot 1, Block 1, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing #3. This property is currently zoned Medium Density Multi-Family. When the new building is completed, the USPS will cease all service at its present location and will operate only at the new facility. The new postal facility will operate in the same fashion as the existing facility in terms of hours and services. The new facility will be approximately 4 times the size of the existing facility (27,100 square feet). Building Area: A. Lower level = + 10,400 sq ft B. Upper level = + 10,500 sq ft C. Parking for postal vehicles = + 5,300 sq ft D. Mezzanine mechanical room = + 900 sq ft Total 27,100 sq ft The facility will be on two levels and includes covered parking for 11 postal carrier vehicles. The public box lobby will remain open 24 hours a day, while the service lobby will operate under the new schedule now in place. Most of the employees work shifts from 7:00 AM to 4:30 AM daily, although at least one employee will be in the building throughout a 24 hour period 7 days per week. Sixty-three parking spaces will be provided for customers, with an additional 32 spaces assigned to employees. In Section 18.18.030 of the Town of Vail zoning ordinance under Conditional Uses, "Public buildings, grounds and facilities" are permitted in the MDMF zone district, subject to a conditional use permit. The USPS plans the following measures to make the property compatible with other properties in this area: A. The USPS daily hours will mean that most traffic (noise) on-site will be limited to that time period. Evening and weekend traffic will be minimal compared to the traffic generated if it were MDMF (as zoned). (At current zoning, 18 units per acre are permitted which means 68 units - 18 X 3.789 a. - could be constructed on this site).* * An annexation agreement limits the property to 45 du's. B. Site lighting will be kept to a residential scale with low light standards and maximum cut-off on the fixtures. USPS standards require a minimum of 1 foot candle for parking and traffic lanes which is comparable to residential parking areas. C. The building will be of materials and colors which will help it fit into the site. An exterior the will be used which is in the Red Sandstone range of hues to have the building blend into the background. D. The USPS does not want high maintenance landscaping and therefore intends to return the majority of the site back to the natural grasses and vegetation existing on the site and neighboring sites. .Some formal landscaping will be developed at the entry to the site. E. Finally, acceleration and deceleration lanes will be added to the north frontage road at the road cut to minimize congestion during peak periods. II. REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE REQUEST The Postal Service provided the staff with a memo on applicability of state and local laws to the United States Postal Service. This memo has been attached to the staff memo for your information. Basically, the courts have determined that the Postal Service is not required to comply with local zoning ordinances. In respect to building codes, the memo states that it is not the intent "of the Postal Service to ignore basic requirements of local building codes. Postal Service architects are instructed to prepare specifications as good as or better than local standards unless there is an 2 overriding Postal Service policy against the use of particular methods or materials for whatever reason. Courtesy copies of plans and specifications are furnished to local authorities for their review." The USPS has expressed a commitment to explain the project at two public hearings for the benefit of the community. The proposal will also be presented at the October 4th evening Town Council meeting. Although a representative from the Postal Service was unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Dennis Grooms will be at the Town Council meeting to represent the Postal Service. III. ZONING STATISTICS Site Area: 165,048.84 s.f. M~1MF 7.nnc Height 35' flat roof Floor Area Not Applicable Site Coverage (.45) 74,272 Setbacks 20' all sides Proposed 34' 25,700 s.f. 15,220 Front: 20' with parking encroaching into setback Side: 20' Rear: 20' Parking 50% of parking to be in a structure or hidden from public view with a landscaped berm. No parking allowed in front setback. 63 public spaces 32 employee spaces No specific Parking Reg. listed in T.O.V. Code 18.52 for Post Office Use Landscaping 49,5155 s.f. O.K. (. 30) The only section of the MDMF district that is not complied with is the parking section. All other MDMF site development standards are under what. is allowed. 3 IV. STAFF COMMENTS The Town of Vail Community Development Department appreciates the United States Postal Services effort to cooperate with the Town in the informal review of the proposed main Vail Post Office. Below are our comments on the project: A. Given the Postal Service requirements for this facility, we feel that a good effort has been made to integrate the building into a difficult site. The building materials also relate well to the surrounding landscape. B. It is very positive that the Postal Service is proposing intersection improvements to the North Frontage Road. The channelization of traffic on and off the site appears to work well. This is particularly important, as Gary Swetish has informed us that the facility will service 1,500 customers per day, as well as 11 carriers and 6 tractor trailers for mail delivery and service. The official Colorado Department of Highways access permit has not been signed. However, the permit was forwarded to KKBNA and to Grand Junction for the Highway Department's signature. It is our understanding that the permit merely needs to be signed by the appropriate parties. C. BUS STOP: A bus stop adjacent to the facility along the North Frontage Road will be necessary. We would request that the Postal Service provide the bus pull-off and shelter. The Town of Vail Public Works Department would provide the bus service and maintain the bus shelter. Post Office Response: There is no money in the budget for a bus stop. D. BIKE PATH SIGNAGE: Pavement marking and/or signage should be added in the area of the bike crossings to identify on-coming bikers to motorists entering and exiting the site. Post Office Response: Pavement marking and signage for the bike path will be provided. 4 E. RETAINING WALLS: F. G. The building design and site plan require a large number of retaining walls. The walls at their highest point appear to be around 23 feet high. It is our understanding that you propose to use colored concrete for the walls which will allow them to blend into the site. The Town Engineer would also like to review the engineering for the retaining walls before a building permit is issued. We would recommend that you look at terracing the retaining walls. If the walls are terraced, landscaping could also be added on the terraced levels. Postal Service Response: The budget does not allow for terracing of retaining walls. If you would like, I will have our structural engineer send a copy of his calculations. BERMS/BUILDING MASS: The visual impact of the building mass from the Frontage Road could be minimized if a berm was created to the west side of the site adjacent to the Frontage Road. We would also ask that you not decrease the berm to a great degree on the east side of the site, as it also helps to screen the building and parking. We understand that the building needs some degree of visibility from the Frontage Road. However, the berms on the front portion of the site will soften the appearance of the 25,700 square foot building and parking lot. Postal Service Response: From an architectural and engineering standpoint with the budget in mind, the grading for these areas will be as indicated on Sheets C-1 and C-2. PARKING/ASPHALT/LANDSCAPING: The amount of parking and asphalt seems excessive. It is our opinion that some of the asphalt could be replaced by landscaping without creating a parking space or circulation problem. We would also like to see additional spruce added to the landscaping plan, especially in the main berm north of the entrance. Spruce provide color and screening throughout the year. It also appears that there are certain areas that already have enough space for additional landscaping which do not affect any parking or 5 loading areas. As an example, on the northwest corner of the loading dock where the 22 foot retaining wall is located, planting could easily be added in front of the wall to minimize the visual impact of the retainage. Postal Service Response: The number of parking spaces shown are the required number, with the amounts of driveway, servicing, parking and loading dock being necessary. The amount we show is according to the Postal Service program for a 10 year future plan. We have provided the amount of landscaping that the budget would allow. H. CONSTRUCTION POLLUTION/PARKING LOT RUN-OFF: The pollution from the construction of the project and runoff from the parking lot once the facility has been completed, will require that you submit a discharge and erosion control plan. Please see the attached section of the Town of Vail zoning code, 18.54.040 I & J which outlines the type of information that should be included in the plan. Postal Service Response: Sheet C-1 of plan 1 shows how we will handle on site water. An erosion control plan cannot be provided at this time by the Postal Service, and if the Town requires it, then the contractor will provide it. If any further information is required I will do my best to provide it. I. FENCE: A chain link fence is proposed to provide safety for the building. To minimize the appearance of the fence, we would ask that you use a vinyl clad fence and landscape in high visibility areas along the fence. The fence should be designed to include angles or curves in its layout so that it is compatible with the terrain of the site. The fence is particularly close to the Valley High Apartment Project. Staff encourages you to pull back the fence as far as possible from the eastern property line and landscape in this area to decrease the impacts on the Valley High Project. We understand your concern for protection against vandalism and safety. However we do feel strongly that there. are many ways to decrease the visibility of the fence while still allowing for the concerns of safety and vandalism protection. 6 Postal Service Response: Chain link fence has been indicated in specification to be vinyl clad. The amount of landscaping indicated is all that the budget would allow. J. ROCKFALL: The proposed site for the main Vail Post Office is in a high severity rock fall area. The rock fall report from KKBNA appears to be very .inconclusive. The last three paragraphs of the report are of concern to the town engineer and planning staff: "Our. approach to the problem is to provide a barrier that will dissipate the given amount of energy from a `design boulder.' Using practical approaches and common sense we have made recommendations for a practical solution to this problem, but not an all encompassing solution that will stop every rock under all circumstances. We believe our approach to be valid and consistent with the level of knowledge and design information currently available. In short, all of our assumptions and solutions can be wrong, and a failure of the barrier system can occur. We have not attempted in our recommendations to eliminate all risk to people and property associated with this problem. If it is the owners' intent to achieve a level of little or no risks from rockfall hazard, then our recommendations herein are not valid." Due to the fact that this building will be used heavily by the public, it is our opinion that the Post Office should endeavor to achieve a "level of little or no risk" for workers or users of this facility. We are pleased that the Postal Service is willing to construct the proposed mitigation design by KKBNA. However, the conclusion of the report leaves a great deal of uncertainty as to whether or not the protection will be adequate for a facility heavily used by the public. 7 Postal Service Response: K. L. M. Based on the available information, the structural engineer designed a system to eliminate most of the risk to people on property. Because the size and direction which a falling rock might take is impossible to predict 100% accurately, it would be nearly impossible to make a 100.% safe system. We feel we have done our best to protect people and property. (Please see the attached letter to Gary Swetish from KKBNA concerning the staff comments.) REGRADING: All regrading of the berms, particularly in the front portion of the site should be completed on Postal Service property. If grading occurs on Colorado Division of Highway right-of-way property or Valli Hi property, their approval will be required. From the site plan, it appears that some grading will occur in the area of the Highway right-of-way and perhaps even on the property owned by Valli Hi. The Town Engineer has requested that the 2 under drains be installed as per page 12 of Chen report, November 3, 1987. Postal Service Response: Our grading on highway right-of-way has been approved. Should we have to grade on Valli Hi property, we will get approval from them. PAVING: The paving sections on page 14 of the Chen report for vehicle traffic should be followed per the report. Postal Service Response: Our paving is based on their recommendations. RETAIL POSTAL FACILITY: Attached is a letter dated October 25, 1985 from the Town of Vail to the U.S. Postal Service. In the last paragraph on the first page, we encourage the retention of a retail postal service facility in the Village or Lionshead. The satellite facility would be in a location that could provide service for guests and locals. We continue to feel this is valid for Vail's resort orientation and look forward to working with you on these arrangements. (Please see the attached October 25, 1985 letter to Mr. William C. McEnery.) 8 Postal Service Response: There was no money in the budget to provide a remote facility. V. CONCLUSION The staff will not make a formal recommendation on the project. We have made an effort to list areas of concern which we feel should be addressed. Staff's primary concerns are the need for: 1. Adequate rockfall mitigation: Issue J 2. A retail facility in the Core Area(s): Issue M 3. A bus stop adjacent to the facility: Issue C 4. Additional landscaping and berming: Issue G The intent of the information update is to give the Planning Commission the opportunity to become familiar with the project and to list any additional concerns which the Planning Commission feels that the Postal Service should consider. Again, the staff would like to state our appreciation for the Postal Service's effort to work with the Town staff, Planning Commission and Town Council on the project. VI. PEC REVIEW The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the proposal on September 26, 1988. In general, the Planning and Environmental Commission agreed with the staff on the. primary concerns related to the project. Their primary recommendations were as follows: 1. A retail facility is desperately needed in the Village or Lionshead. Vail is a tourist community, and it is absolutely necessary to look at a location in one of the core areas that is both accessible to our guests and locals. One Planning Commission member suggested that the Town of Vail assist the Postal Service in trying to find a reasonable location for the retail facility. 2. The bus stop is critical to this project. If possible, the bus shelter should be located close to the building so that customers will not have to walk up the hill all the way to the front door which is approximately 400 feet. The accessibility of the post office is critical, and therefore a bus stop is essential. 9 3. Irrigation is necessary for your plant materials. It ` was suggested that perhaps lodgepole pines could be used instead of Colorado spruce, as lodgepole require less water. Two commissioners felt that perhaps the green vinyl clad fence would be more visible than a plain chain link fence. They felt that whatever is least conspicuous should be used. One commissioner also asked that the entry sign for the project not block visibility of oncoming cyclists on the bike path. In conclusion, several commissioners mentioned that they felt that the site was an unfortunate choice for the location for the new post office and reflected bad planning. The commissioners complemented the architects, Tom Briner and Danny Swertfeger of Briner/Scott Architects on their efforts to create a building that was compatible with the site, given the difficult natural constraints and strict building requirements. There was no vote taken on the proposal. 10 . r.. ... .>ti, APPLICABILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL LAWS _. - RELATING TO ZONING AND BUILDING CODES, ~\~ TO THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ~:., ' The United States Posta] Service was created as an independent establishment in the executive branch of the government of the United States. Title 39, U.S. Code, Section 201. The effective date of the establishment of the Postal Service was July 1, 1971. As such, it is an integral part of the federal government and is afforded all of the priveleges and immunities granted by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. In construing the supremacy clause, courts have consistently followed the rule announced in the early case of McColloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, that the function of the federal governmen an ~ s ins rumentalities should be free from interference by state and local agencies. See also:- Mayo vs. U.S., 319 U.S. 436; Johnson vs. P~aryland, 254 U.S. 51; Arizona vs. Ca ~ ornia, U.S. 423. ZONING ORDINANCES The rule of sovereign immunity has been applied with respect to zoning ordinances. In the case of Crinello vs. Board of Adjustment, 183 F. Supp. 826, the court said: -.. "... if the Postmaster General contemplates the erection of a Post Office on the proposed site, his authority may not be ~,.,.~ restricted by 1 ocal ordinance..." In Stewart vs. United States Postal Service, 508 F. Supp. 112, an action was broug t to enjoin construction o a post o fice in a California city. The injunction was denied with the court stating at page 116: "Finally, to the extent that plaintiffs claim entitlement to injunctive relief by virtue of the Postal Service's failure to comply with the City's zoning ordinances, the court is of the opinion that-the Supremacy Clause obviates the need for such compliance where the ordinances conflict with federal law. Since the functions of the Postal. Service are hampered by compliance with such local zoning requirements, the Postal Service need not comply with Saratoga's local ordinances." The issue of the applicability of local zoning regulations to post office- - construction was addressed even more recently in Middletown TP vs. N/E Reg. •Off., U.S. Postal Service, 601 F. Supp. 125, wherein a cour quo ing rom an ear per case, state "CI]f the Postmaster General, pursuant to and in the - exercise of the authority vested in him by congressional enactment, contemplates the erection of a post office on the r._ proposed site, his authority may not be restricted by local ordinance." ~.~_ -~~ a-. In the case of Thanet Corporation vs. Board of Princeton Township, 249 A 2d. 31, the court say " ..the United States Government whether as owner or lessee, is immune from local zoning ordinances." See also: Metzenbaum, Law of Zoning, Vol. II, page 1280; Anderson, American Laws of Zoning, Vol. II, Section 9.07, page 119. BUILDING CODES/PERMITS There is a consensus of judicial opinion that a state or municipal action evincing an effort or intent to regulate or control a federal construction project would not be sanctioned by a federal court. Johnson vs. Maryland, supra; Leslie h1iller, Inc. vs. Arkansas, 352 U.S. 187; U.S. vs..C~ty o Chester, F. U. vs. ~ adelphia, 56 F. Supp. I Zs, of course, not the intent of t e os a erv~ce to ignore basic requirements of local building codes. Postal Service architects are instructed to prepare specifications as good as or better than local standards unless there is an overriding Postal Service policy against the use of particular methods or materials for whatever reason. Courtesy copies of plans and specifications are furnished to local authorities for their review if requested. ~~ _.:/ z.. ~~~~~ NpgrpprfteQ Conwhlnp Yrplrwun- Gorysonanliaed0usrtxs eauinghem o0itOn CnVcaQa Caerado BprVnp. Danver Now Ywk SI LOui, Ball Lak. City VYnCOUvar 125+ Ki hng Wn,.c P~agga Coiorado00032 303 ~~+ 6+00 April 28, 1988 I~r. Gary Swetish Briner/Scott Architects 143 E. Meadow Drive ~N4O Vail, CO 81557 Re: Vail Post Office Rockfall Dear Gary: As you requested I am responding to comments made in item 9 of a letter dated April 4, 1988 to Dennis Grooms from A. Peter Patten, Jr., Community Development Director for the Town of Vail. In this letter item 9 refers to the KKBNA rockfall report, and states that the report appears to be inconclusive, and the conelusion of the report leaves a great deal of uncertainty as to whether the protection will be adequate for a facility heavily used by the public. We do not disagree with these statements as they relate to risk associated with this type of structure, and the way the structure will perform under a]1 passible rock fall events during its existence. The main problem with designing rockfall barriers is to define the design problem that a particular barrier will hopefully mitigate. Parameters that contribute to the "design boulder" properties include size, shape, weight, speed, height above grade at impact, boulder material, ground slope, surface roughness, path of travel, etc. Since all of these parameters can vary greatly for every rock that comes down the slope, we believe that it is difficult if not impossible to determine how accurately a "design boulder" will represent actual rocks that fall and impact the barrier. This leads us to believe that it is also next to impossible to assign a quantitative level of risk to our particular problem and our solution. We have attempted to use current information available to us in developing our report and our final barrier design. We believe our solution will provide safety to the site, building and its occupants for many rockfall events that could occur. However, we realize that there are rockfall events that can occur, (such as if r 64 ton boulder rolls down on the site as one already has , that will penetrate our barrier if the energy in the boulder s greater than the energy from our design boulder. We believe that providing for rockfall mitigation is much more of an art than a science at this point in time. Erglnawlnp E:collena tins N16 .:~ Mr. Gary 5wetish Griner/Scott Architects April 28, 1988 Page 2 The cost to provide a barrier of little or no risk is probably well over a million dollars and probably net esthetically pleasing. It would probably be a massive reinforced earth ar concrete wall structure extending entirely across the site north of the building and extending above the building roof line. This type of solution is not within the budget capabilities of this project, and would probably have a mayor negative esthetic impact on the post office site and surrounding sites. We believe that our design provides superior protection compared to either of the occupied sites east and west of the post office which appear to have little in the way of protection barriers. Although it is not all encompassing, we believe our solution to providing rockfall protection to the site is a good vne. We cannot state or claim more in our report more than we believe based on our professional knowledge and opinions. I hope this helps to clarify sane of the questions in item 9. Sincerely, Neil F. Dunbar, P.E. Principal NFD:kk ,~9~ 1` r ~ ; ~~.J" .. .~, . ~_ ~ti. -"' ~Ok'i~ Of V81 75 south frontage road • vail, Colorado 81657 • (303) 476-7000 office of the mayor October 25, 1985 Mr. William C. McEnery Regional Director Real Estate and Buildings Department United States Postal Service Western Regional Office San Bruno, Califo--nia 94099-0001 Dear ~1r. ~icEnery: Since our meeting with Mr. Chapman in late September and our previous letter of October 1, 1985, the Vail Town Council has been discussing further the various proposals for locating new postal facilities in Vail. After further thought and discussion concerning the type of facilities being proposed and the various impacts on the Town and traffic patterns, it is felt by the Council that so long as a retail site is located near the main commercial areas, a major operational facility such as proposed for Vail would be better located at a remote location than at the present Post Office and Municipal Building site. We feel the kind of truck traffic the operational facility will be generating would be better removed to a remote location than at the busiest intersection in Vail. In light of this, we encourage the Postal Service to build the opera- tions acs ~ a a remote site an main a~ e e ac> > y or a roximately 5.000 s uare eei near t e main commercia ar ail. As we stated in our October etter, the Town of Vail will be amenable to continuing the lease on the existing facility until the new remote facility is in place. Upon completion of your new opera- . tions facility, a new lease «ould be negotiated for up to 5,000 square feet of mutually agreed upon space at a fair market lease value until long term arrangements for space could be made by the Postal Service. O \ s! (((___ / ~._~• ' Mr. tai 11 i am C. McEnery October 25, 1985 Page 2 The Town Council is withdrawing its offer to sell 65,000 land for X2,500,000.00 including the present Jost Office the present Municipal Building. We very much appreciate of the Postal Service to maintain a retail facility near town and look forward to working with you and your staff of that arrangement. Sincere ~ ,~ Paul R. ~o nston J°layor ;~~ ;,, -t,, .. square feet of Building and the willingness the center of on the details PRJ/bsc TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 4, 1988 SUBJECT: Request for a sign variance for the Born Free Express Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Vail Associates, Inc. is proposing to locate the Born Free Express at the base of Vail Mountain, the location of the previously existing Chair 8. Due to the fact that the Town of Vail sign code does not specifically address this type of structure, it is necessary for Vail Associates to request a variance to the sign .code for signage on the lift structure. The signage for the Vista Bahn in Vail Village went through a similar variance process during its construction. The request to the Design Review Board is for three Vail Associates, Inc. logos, 4 square feet each; three numeral 8, 16 inches high; and three each Born Free Express signs with 16 inch letters. The proposed signage would be located on the east, west and north elevations of the Born Free Express structure. The Design Review Board approved the request with a reduction of letter size from 16 inch to 14 inch. The staff recommendation is for approval. ~- C T0: Design Review Board FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 21, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a sign variance for the Born Free Express APPLICANT: Vail Associates, Inc. I. THE REQUEST Vail Associates, Inc. is proposing to locate the Born Free Express at the base of Vail Mountain,at the location of the old Chair 8. Due to the fact that the Town of Vail sign code does not specifically address this type of structure, it is necessary for Vail Associates to request a variance to the signage on the lift structure. The signage for the Vista Bahn in Vail Village went through a similar variance process. Vail Associates requested a total of 47 square feet and the Design Review Board, due to concerns expressed by a neighboring property owner, approved a reduced signage program that consisted of 32 square feet. The proposal for the Born Free Express is identical in size to the signage that was requested for the Vista Bahn, with the inclusion of three Vail Associates logos. The request is for 3 each Born Free Express signs of 16 inch letters, for a total of 42 square feet, 3 each Vail Associates, Inc. logos, for a total of Z2 square feet, and 3 each numeral 8 16" letters for a total of 3 square feet. When added up, these signs create a total square foot signage request of 57 square feet. The east, west and north elevations of the Born Free Express would each contain one Vail Associates logo, one Born Free Express sign, and one numeral 8 for a total signage of 19 square feet per elevation. II. FINDINGS AND STAFF RESPONSES Before the Board acts on a variance application, the applicant must prove physical hardship and the Board must find that, A. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right-of- way which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question; provided, however, that such special circumstances or -, ° conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprises to which the applicant desires to draw attention and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. C Staff Response Staff does feel that the Born Free Express deserves special consideration due to the fact that it is a structure and use that is not addressed in the Town of Vail sign code. The Born Free Express must be easily identified by many visitors to Vail who are often unfamiliar with the layout of the ski mountain and the base area. Staff considers the Born Free Express to be a special circumstance that is unique to the business of running the ski resort. The new signage communicates effectively the name of the lift without drawing undue attention to the structure. The proposed signage is in scale with the lift structure. Staff believes that there are special circumstances which justify allowing this signage for the Born Free Express. B. That special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the applicant. C Staff Response• Some type of variance is necessary in order to allow any type of signage for the Born Free Express. Staff does feel that the Born Free Express is a special circumstance. C. That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the pur ose of this title, will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. Staff Response• The 57 square feet of signage is compatible with the intent of the sign code. Distribution of 19 square feet per elevation is in scale with the building and presents the information adequately. The code states: Section 16.16.010 Harmonious with Town scale. Sign location, configuration, design, materials and colors should be harmonious with the majestic mountain setting and the alpine village (~ scale of the Town. Section 16.16.020 Not dominating. The sign should not visually dominate the structure to which it belongs or call undue attention to itself. Section 16.16.140 Architectural Harmony The sign and its supporting structure should be in harmony architecturally with the surrounding structures. Staff feels that the signs are in harmony with the purposes of this title. D. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. Staff Response• Staff agrees that the proposed variance is within the general intent of the sign code. Signage must be visible from several sides of the structure, as C skiers are arriving at .the lift from many different directions. The Signage is also in scale with the size of the structure. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends approval of the 57 square foot sign variance for the Born Free Express. Staff agrees with the applicant that there are special circumstances unique to this particular structure due to the fact that the name of the lift must be clearly identifiable to skiers in the general vicinity of the Born Free Express. Staff believes that the signage on the lift is in compliance with the Town of Vail sign code and provides necessary identification for skiers. T0: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 4, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a sign variance for the Raintree Inn Applicant: Vail Holdings Group, Inc. The Raintree is requesting a sign variance in order to amend the design of the existing signage currently displayed at the hotel. The current signage was approved through a variance procedure by the Town of Vail in 1985. The variance received was for size (90 sq ft), height (as existing), and number of signs (2, one Raintree Inn and one Best Western). These signs in the previous design were flush wall-mounted signs on the south elevation. The Raintree Inn has now ended their Best Western affiliation and is therefore eliminating that sign from the building. They are requesting to maintain the existing height allowance, the existing size allowance, and amend the sign to a double-sided projecting sign as shown on the attached drawing. The staff recommendation is for approval. On a technical basis, the Raintree Inn is actually reducing the degree of variance which had been previously approved. The technical criteria in reviewing the sign variance has not changed since 1985, and is therefore assumed to be valid regarding the 1985 approval. The Design Review Board recommended denial of the sign variance. The DRB felt that the new design and configuration of the signage was inappropriate, and cited non-compliance with Section 16.16.020 and Section 16.16.040 of the Design Review Guidelines in their unanimous recommendation for denial. Section 16.16.020: Not Dominating The sign should not visually dominate the structure to which it belongs or call undue attention to itself. Section 16.16.040 Architectural Harmony The sign and its supporting structure should be in harmony architecturally with the surrounding structures. i , C- TO: Design Review Board FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 21, 1988 SUBJECT: A request for a sign variance for the Raintree Inn APPLICANT: Vail Holdings Group, Inc. I. THE REQUEST The Raintree Inn is requesting a sign variance in order to amend the design of the existing signage currently displayed at the hotel. The current signage was approved through a variance procedure by the Town of Vail several years ago. The variance received was for size (90 square feet allowed), height (as existing) and number of signs (2, one "Raintree Inn", one "Best Western"). The Raintree Inn has now ended their Best Western affiliation and therefore is eliminating that sign from the building. They are requesting to maintain the existing height allowance, and existing size allowance, and amend the design to a double-sided projecting sign as is shown on the attached drawing. II. FINDINGS AND STAFF RESPONSES Before the Board acts on a variance application, the applicant must prove physical hardship and the Board must find that, A. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters o_n adjacent lots or within the adjacent right-of- way which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question; provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprises to which the applicant desires to draw attention and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. • Staff Response The circumstances that apply to the Design Review Board and Town Council's original findings in the granting of a variance of size and height for the size for the Raintree Inn have not changed. The Raintree is not proposing to increase the size or the height, merely amend the design. So we feel that these conditions do apply and feel that the application responds to these criteria. B. That special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the applicant. Staff Response• Special circumstances were not created by the applicant. C. That the granting of the variance will be in eneral harmony with the purpose of this title will not be materially detrimental to the adi the Staff Response• While this application represents'signage that is grossly above and beyond the allowances of the sign code, staff feels that the granting of C the previous variance for size and height laid the ground work for this change in design. During the original variance application for the Raintree Inn, there was much discussion involving the size and scale of the building,. its highway orientation and the general business orientation and climate for the West Vail area. Staff and Council at that time discussed amending the sign code and adding a special section for the West Vail area. A subsequent de-annexation alleviated the urgency of this project. Staff feels that many of those conditions discussed at that time are still valid, and therefore the staff is comfortable with the proposal. D. The variance applied for does not depart from • the provisions of this title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. Staff Response• -- Again, this application does greatly exceed the / provisions of the sign code, yet, in previous C discussions of the Raintree Inn and the West Vail area in general, we have felt that this size and height of signage is not more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Several years ago, the staff spent a great deal of time working with the West Vail businesses and the Town of Vail sign code. A lot of time and discussion was involved in . the original Raintree Inn variance that was subsequently granted by the Design Review Board and the Town Council. This variance determined the allowable size and height of the existing signage at the Raintree Inn. This application does not amend the height, or size but changes the design. The staff is therefore supportive of this request. We would like to note, however, ghat in our review of the application, we did feel that the original variance approval was, in part, based an the design of the existing sign as a wall sign. It is our belief that a wall sign is much less obtrusive that a projecting or hanging sign, especially at the magnitude of size that is being currently requested by the applicant. While the criteria for a sign variance does not address this specific design, we would like to point that fact out to the Design Review Board and remind you that that is a legitimate factor in your review of this application. ~X~gY~Na Si4~J l.co,o.r,oN ?R o Po QED N~t~ 514N LoGI.-T~o~,f r'~ `~ "~~~J~~~I~CV ~~nr J i ~Lil~i "~ - 1 ----1 L~ N 0 _~ O ~~ -i --i p~opoSEp IJEW 90 ~,I'. P/~~1 cN,aNN~L 5 ICS N LOGro'T IOIJ W/ M4.1'o~41NCI WOaD------` - ~-8^ ~, ---- -51 cif 3~' d1,.1 Rao o,tt, SHaWN ~o--EJ ~,~ --- LINE of E~ 1y71rlc, ~-l.L F~c~ I _~, __ r~~~ ~- VAIL TOWN COUNCIL BUDGET WORK SESSION THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Police Department 2. Fire Department 3. Library VAIL TOWN COUNCIL BUDGET WORK SESSION THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1988 7:00 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 7:00 1. Police Department 8:30 2. Fire Department 9:30 3. Library ~~' :. PUBLIC NOTICE TO TOWN OF VAIL BUSINESSES A Marketing Committee appointed by the Town Council in 1987 to develop a marketing plan has been working on new formulas to raise monies for the marketing of Vail and the Vail Valley. A portion of the monies would be raised by Vail businesses through a proposed business license fee. The Town would serve as the agent to collect these-fees and then pass the monies through for marketing. A meeting has been set up for any interested business person to learn about this proposal and to offer feedback to the committee. Meeting specifics are as follows. We hope you can attend. WHEN: Tuesday, October 11, 1988 TIME: 7:00 p.m. WHERE: Westin Hotel MARKETING PLAN COMMITTEE: Tom Boselli Jim Gibson Mike Sansbury Beth Slifer Mark Smith Jan Strauch Dan Telleen Jeff Bowen Dick Gustafson Dave Tyrrell Jerry Davis 9-28-88 ~~~~~~ 21 i i North Frontage Road Wesi • Yail, Colorado 81657 • (303) 476-3762 Mr. Ron Phillips Town Manager Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Ron, REC'0 S E P 2 9 1988 September 28, 1988 I wanted. to comment to you directly on what I feel was a great yob by our emergency services during the recent Vail das Schone fire. I was in a position to watch this potentially calamitous incident from start to finish and I can report the fire department, police department and ambulance service reacted very well in a difficult situation. The situation was, of course, made difficult by the large numbers of people and vehicles in and around this commercial area. Brian Terrett did a fine job of removing vehicles to allow the fire trucks access, and of deploying the officers for crowd control. He was also very understanding in allowing those of us with businesses to reopen as soon as possible. Dick Duran and. the entire fire crew did a magnificent job in isolating this fire and extinguishing it ctuickly. While it seems minutes turn to hours when you are watching a fire such as this burn, I am told it took the fire department only six minutes to have a truck on the scene. It certainly did not take very lone for this highly trained. crew to begin putting this fire out after they did arrive. What a comfort it is to have such well trained e*n.eraency professionals and state of the art equipment available.. Incidents such as this spotlight how truly .fortunate we are in Vaill.. Ron. Please pass on a well ?one from all of us in West Vail S' cerely. tr- ~ and.y arman cc:Vail Trail Vail Daily _i IOWA 01 V81 ~~ 75 south frontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303)476-7000 department of public works/transportation f c~~ IJF~.-v`.~ v~Ll9g9 MEMORANDUM To: Stan Berryman FROM: Mike Rose DATE: September 23, 1988 RE: Parking Structure Cleaning .And Maintenance Programs In response to questions concerning the cleanliness and maintenance of the parking structures, I would like to take this opportunity to explain the cleaning and maintenance programs at the Village and Lionshead Parking Structures in greater detail. Winter Cleaning Both structures are entirely vacuumed with the air sweep truck from 12 midnight to G:OOA.M. seven days a week. The total dust and dirt picked up by the machine is 1/2 yard per day (approximately 1,000 lbs/day - 3.5 tons per week). .This sweeping operation is done by one man. This does not include the hand picked trash or the trash cans. The trash cans are emptied twice/day in the parking area and terminal building. BFI picks up approximately 32 yards of trash from our dumpsters per week (this doesn't include the above mentioned 3.5 tons per week of silt & dust). This operation is also done by one man. In addition, the day lot janitor is responsible for emergency breakdowns of our parking equipment that services 1 million transactions per 6 month ski season. He also drains our fire system daily to keep from freeze damage and helps with traffic direction when needed. Summer Cleanings The structures are picked up by hand 6:OOA.M. At the same time the trash summer and winter policy is that we the size of a cigarette butt. The seven days a week starting at cans are also emptied. Both hand pick any debris down to rest is picked up by the _. ~ f STAN BERRYMAN September 23, 1988 Page 2 sweeper. Sweeping in the summer is done every Friday from 2:OOA.M. to 8:OOA.M. since the traffic volume is less in the summer. Both lots are completely hosed down (walls, ceilings & floors) twice a year. It is done in the spring to wash all the salts from the deck and then in the fall to clear the decks of dust for our deck sealer application. Structural Maintenance Program - Epoxy resin repairs - ongoing project with approximately 10,000 feet of hairline cracks per building done in house. - Expansion joint maintenance program done in spring to minimize leakage in buildings. - Concrete slab and step replacement - 70 yards of concrete were installed last year alone. - Caulking and control joints - an ongoing project. Annual Painting And Sealing Program - Parking decks are sealed with 50-50 mix of linseed oil/mineral spirits (approximately 500 gallons per year). - All wood surfaces are painted in Terminal Building (50 gallons chocolate brown).. - New for 1988 will be the painting of all interior walls at the VTRC (500 gallons). - TRC graphics touch-up painting (100 gallons miscellaneous colors). Annual Electrical System Maintenance As you are aware, the majority of the Town electrician's time is spent at the parking structures dealing with our electrical system. - Emergency generator must be started once/week - serviced once/month. - Light bulb replacement - approximately 200 high pressure bulbs and ballasts per year - 200 miscellaneous length fluorescent light tubes are replaced. This also includes VRA Offices. - Exit sign replacement. ~ 1 - 4 STAN BERRYMAN September 23, 1988 Page 3 Mechanical System Boiler And Ventilation The VTRC is equipped with a hot water boiler system that holds approximately 1,650 gallons of anti-freeze. It heats the Terminal Building and the main car entry ramp in the Village Structure. The following is annual maintenance on the boiler: - The boiler is opened and cleaned inside. Jets are inspected for peak performance. - Glycol level is kept at 35 degrees below zero and checked every fall. - During winter operation, boiler temperature, pressure and cycle is checked daily at 7:OOA.M. - All boiler pumps are serviced monthly. - All ventilation motors are oiled and serviced monthly. - All filters in air handling systems are replaced monthly in the winter. - Fire system is drained daily for condensation to avoid freeze- ups. In 1988 we spent $10,000 on a gauge, pump, valve and boiler modernization project. We should see an increase in heat and a decrease in fuel consumption. Elevator Maintenance ~, This has been contracted out with Continental Elevators. Our elevators are inspected weekly and as the industry makes improvements, we have upgraded. This year we have put in transistorized electronics instead of mechanical switches - self oiling rails with teflon wear pads and a teflon collar on the main hoist pump. We received a clean bill of health from the State of Colorado on their 5 year inspection of elevators. The programs I have listed are the areas that most effect our guests safety and comfort. I have not addressed our snow removal program which has given us three years without a single slip and fall incident at the parking structures, our parking operation or our projects our crews do other than building maintenance. ~ .. STAN BERRYMAN September 23, 1988 Page 4 I believe that the staff at the parking structures have done an outstanding job in the cleaning and maintenance areas and we are always open for suggestions in improving our operations. MR/slh cc: Ron Phillips ~ / VAIL ALPINE GARDEN ~~~ PROPOSED BUDGET EXPENSES* PHASE I PHASE II Fund Raising Expense Brochures, Printing, Postage, Telephone, Travel Exp. $ 7,500 Site Development Fill & Topsoil, Peat, Sand, Gravel, Equipment & Labor Rock Placement Rock & Gravel, Transportation, Equipment & Labor Water Features Water Systems, Sand & PVC Liners, Irrigation & Drainage, Equipment & Labor Planting Trees & Shrubs, Herbaceous material, Equipment & Labor Other Construction Costs Material Acquisition Architectural Fees Bridges & Stairs Specialized Labor Greenhouse Fabrication Greenhouse Utilities/Supplies Construct. Trailer Rental Contingency Administrative Expenses Director Salary/taxes Vehicle Expense Insurance Printing Telephone Membership fees Books Conferences Supplies Postage Miscellaneous TOTAL EXPENSES 113,845 81,000 3,100 4,000 7,400 1,500 3,000 19,424 2,050 3,500 300 1,000 100 300 1,300 275 600 1.806 $252,000 $151,250 115,000 1,900 11,000 10,000 11,520 20,000 4,600 1,200 2,000 38,850 3,600 3,500 700 2,400 100 1,800 300 1,200 830 $381,750 * Construction costs and salaries and expenses related to' construction may be deferred to succeeding years, contingent upon funds raised during 1986. ~, VAIL ALPINE GARDEN PROPOSED BUDGET INCOME 1986 1987 Seed Money Campaign $ 7,500 Memberships 12 500 $ 18,750 Individual Donations 100,000 150,000 Corr~orate Gifts 50,000 50,000 Foundation Grants 30,000 60 000 Donations in Kind , 50 000 Challenge Grant 50,000 , 50 000 Fundraising Events 2 000 , 3,000 TOTAL INCOME $252,000 $381,750 OPERATING BUDGET (First Two Years After Completion) L~VTTwtr-~r~~ Salaries $ 50,000 Garden Materials & Supplies 3,000 Plants 3,000 Greenhouse Operations (Maintenance) 4,000 Office Supplies & Postage 3 000 Office Rent 3,000 Insurance 1,500 Vehicle Expense 3,000 TOTAL EXPENSES PER YEAR $ 70,500 INCOME Gate Donations. $ 15,000 Memberships 37,500 Individual & Corporate Gifts 40,000 Fundraising Events 5,000 TOTAL INCOME PER YEAR $ 97,500 I ~_ !'~ 1, M~ • Revenue Worksheet J County/Program EAGLE Fiscal Year 1988-89 (1) Revenue CateRor~ 1. Client Pa 2. Insurance 3. Medicaid 4. Veteran's Admin. 5. DUI 6. County 7. City 8. In kind revenue 9. EAP 10. State Allocation 11. ADAD 12. Bad Debt 13. Contract c2~ 1988' 1989 Detait Re: Projections Pxo7ection 1) annualized 87-88, $72,500. Vigorous collecting of outstanding balances; "Pay as you go policy," 0-25~ fee in treatment for 3 months maximum. Additional extended time payments. 2) Staff increase of 2 FTE will. increase client revenue and insurance revenue. 3) Annualized 87-88, $31,000. With continued Dept. of Social Services and School District work a 35~ increase) is realistic. 4) No increase expected. 5) Annualized 87-88, $16,300. Increase of 31%. '6) No increase requested. il) Avon $2,500 Economic conditions have improved, Eagle 1,500. however, it is doubtful if Avon, Gypsum 1,000 Eagle and Gypsum will increase ~~ Vail 12,500 contributions. 17,500 8) ,County office space/county janitoria l ~, $3,600 + 1,200 = $4,800 9) Vail Associates $39,000 County 4,500 School 4,000 Town of Avon 1,000 ~, Town of Vail 1,650 50,150 I Increased substance abuse services available Dept. of Social Services $1,500• Criminal Justice (testing) 1,000 BOCS 1,000 Detention Center w/ anticipated increase. 18,000 21,500 ~~ $ 109,625 50,000 31,000 14,000 21,000 18,000 17,500 4,800 50,150 137,895 18 , 000 (5,000) 21, 500 488 470 r ~ IV Expenditure Worksheet County/Program EAGLF (t) (2) Expenditure Category Detail Re: Projections Fiscal Year 88-89 1. Salaries 2. FICA 3. Workers Comp. 11 FTE's & insurance 4. Consultants/ .Contractors 5. Council Expense Monthly meetings/Quarterly - Colorado West will furnish sandwiches. 6. Marketing KZYR; Brochures; (EAP - Schools) 7. Staff Education FTE 7 x $400; 1/2 TE $200; 2 secretaries $400 8. Food/staff Weekly staff meetings meetings 9. Interest Lumping into Note Payment 10. In Kind Rent & Janitorial 11. Leases Copy machine in Vail 12. Postage 13. Therapeutic Testing; Play Therapy equipment. Supplies 14. General Supplies 15. Small Furnishing File Cabinets (3); replacement of dictating equipment. 16. Rent Vail $6,030 until 3/19/89; $3,600 from 4/89 17. R&M Equipment 18. Telephone Existing service + 1 time connection for answering service: $700 answering service for $65/month 780 19. Travel/Staff Adm 92 FTE + .5 shared staff with Summit County @ average of $125/ ea. 20. Overhead Spread 21. Profit • ~.. ^ ,j ^I (3) 1988 - 1989 Projection $ 289,643 ' 21,723 21,880 23,008 300 3,500 -~ 3 , 400 800 4,800 1,800 800 1,000 7,000 500 9,630 700 10,500 15,000 50,066 22,191 $.488,241 ~~~°D SEP ~ ~ i~~~ vail valley ~' medical cenfier September 26, 1988 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-2451 Dear Eagle County Provider: We are writing to update you on our progress in the regionalization assessment and study for improvement of medical care in Eagle and Summit Counties. Through the Rural Healthcare Initiative of the Colorado Trust and with the cooperation of coalitions in each county (see the attached list of par- ticipating communities and organizations), we are engaged in a long range process of evaluation, needs analysis, planning and implementation of a regionalized health care plan. Over the last year, we have been involved in gaining a multi-community commitment to improving health services in this region. Having achieved this, we are about to embark on the identification of health care issues through a comprehensive analysis. This analysis will define the concerns each of us have, and will identify the spectrum of health related services our region should and can provide. The Colorado Trust's involvement includes support for consultants who provide professional advice to assist us in developing solutions to the health care delivery issues in our region. The consultants' role is to help us facilitate. the regionalization process, and to provide guidance and data. To date, these consultants have provided more than .$10,000.00 in technical assistance to each county. It is anticipated that an additional $20,000.00 in support will be provided to complete this study. All of the participating communities and organizations, in cooperation with you and ,dour business, agency, or medical practice will be asked for your opinion of 4;hat the health care needs in this region are, and how we can best address those needs. WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING To date, each county has submitted and has had approved a Letter of Intent to the Colorado Trust. This letter preliminarily outlines our goal and direction for the health care system in our area. A copy of this letter is available to you upon your request. Ray McMahan Administrator Update Letter September 26, 1988 Page two We have been designing needs analysis questionnaires tailored for the unique issues in our communities. These survey instruments will be dis- tributed to all physicians, other medical providers, area organizations and businesses, and select resident consumers. This will be the most compre- hensive needs analysis for medical care ever undertaken in this area. In addition to the needs analysis survey, our consultants have been gathering information to determine the County's utilization of medical care and to better understand who is getting treatment, what kinds of treatment are being provided locally, and what kinds are being referred out of the local area. Eagle and Summit County participants in this project have already met a number of times to discuss this long range project, and ongoing meetings are planned. WHERE WE'RE GOING: We are in the. final stages of completing the survey questionnaire and plan to pre-test in early September and distribute them in the latter part of the month. We are also collecting additional data and will soon be analyzing it. After the survey data is collected and analyzed, we will be asking for your participation in regional meetings where we will review the results and determine the process for effective regionalization, system development, and improvement of quality of care. We will then implement that regional planning process, and pursue outside funds (such as the Colorado Trust) to assist us in implementing the plan. HOW YOU CAN HELP: We request that you read the enclosed material regarding the purpose and scope of the Colorado Trust so that you have. an understanding of the intent and scope of our work, as well as the requirements we must meet to be considered for eventual Colorado Trust funding. Your help is requested by thoroughly and thoughtfully completing the surveys you will receive in September. We will also be requesting your help by attending regional planning meetings . I f you woul d 1 i ke to get more i nvol ved i n thi s process , please contact us. Update Letter September 26, 1988 Page three Thank you for giving us the opportunity to share this information. with you and we hope that you will participate in this worthwhile project. We're looking forward to working together with you. Sincerely, ~,t~~c.~1~---- Ray McMahan, CEO VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER Rural Health Care Initiative Steering Committee Member /lrp enclosure PARTICIPATING COMMUNITIES AND ORGANIZATIONS IN EAGLE AND SUMMIT COUNTIES EAGLE COUNTY Vail Valley Medical Center - Vail, CO (App]icant) Breckenridge Development Foundation - Breckenridge, CO Summit County Medical Center - Frisco, CO Snake River Clinic - Keystone, CO Eag]e County Ambulance District - Vaii, CO Eagle Community Ambulance Association - Eagle, CO Copper Medical Center - Copper Mountain, CO Robert Gerner, M.D. - Vail, CO Vail Center for Sports Medicine, P.C. - Vail, CO Vail Internal Medicine, P.C. - Vail, CO Vail Mountain Medical, P.C. - Vail, C0 The Kids's Klinik - Vail, CO Breckenridge Medical Center - Breckenridge, CO SUMMIT COUNTY Breckenridge Development Foundation - Breckenridge, CO (Applicant) Vail Valley Medical Center - Vail, CO Fairplay, CO Summit County Medical Center - Frisco, CO Summit County Ambulance Service Alma, CO Blue River, CO Breckenridge Ski Area Fisco, CO Breckenridge Medical Center - Breckenridge, CO Snake River Clinic - Keystone, CO SUMMARY THE C QLDRADO TRUST The Col orado Trust is a private grantmaking foundation providing support for Colorado institutions and organizations seeking to improve the health and well -being of the people of Col orado. Current areas of funding priority include rural health, Indian health, chil dren~s and el derl y issues, heal th promotion, and indigent heal th pol Icy. Rural Healthcare Initiative Healthcare systems in rural Col orado are affected by an uneven quality of medical care, varying access to emergency medicine, migration of patients to urban medical centers, and a host of rel ated probl ems and issues. In 1987, the Trust inaugurated the Rural Healthcare Initiative to assist communities in Bevel oping high qual ity, 1 ocall y accessibl e regional healthcare systems. The program is intended to assist qualified organizations to acquire both the information and resou rces necessary to Bevel op 1 ocall y designed regional solutions to probl ems confronting rural Col orado. The Col orado Trusts approach entails a mul ti-community based regionalization strategy, including: 1. Multi-community commitment to maintain and improve health services; 2. Identification of infra-community and inter-community issues; 3. A comprehensive analysis to define the problems and the spectrum of health services the region .can provide; 4. Devel opment of a formal pl an to address these probl ems. The Trust expects .grass roots, community efforts which seek regional consumers. Th© Col orado Trust pays technical consul tants to provide professional advice in order to assist the region in developing solutions to the health care del ivery probl ems in your region. They also provide a mechanism to help the region develop solutions, and help facilitate the process while providing professional advice and data. Conceptual Background of the Initiative Rural heal thcare in Col orado in the 1 ate eighties is not what is used to be only a few years ago. Col orado~s rural areas were generally well-endowed with healthcare resources in the past, but today+s situation is b1 eak 1n comparison. Overall , a surpl us of hospital bed capacity now exists in rural Colorado. Modern medicine practice has reduced the lengths of hospital stays, and improved out-patient care now keeps many patients out of the hospital altogether. Decl fining demand for rural hospital beds is al so expl ained by the migration of rural patients to urban medical centers, but rural hospitals woul d still be far from full even if every rural patient requiring hospitalization were admitted to a local hospital. Medical care everywhere is shifting toward outpatient settings, so the ru ral hospital built for the inpatient care of the fifties is in some ways heading toward technological obsolescence. The futu re, however, is not necessarily a 1 ogical extension of the past. Ru ral residents may be able to meet their 1 ocal needs more efficiently and more effectively by pursuing new approaches to healthcare. Several alternatives to more of the same are now. avail able for consideration, and the Ru ral Healthcare Initiative will permit the pursuit of alternatives that move communities toward a more efficient and effective healthcare system. A partial list of new approaches that could be eligible to receive funding under the initiative would include: -Emergency care. The new foundation of emergency care is stabilization of the seriously ill or inured patient at the scene of the illness or injury for subsequent transport to the nearest hospital that is fully qual ifed to meet the patients needs. Emergency care 1n many areas of rural Colorado could be improved through the development of state-of-the-art ambulance systems to transport critical patients to a regional hospital with enhanced capabiities in its Emergency Department.. -Primary care is an area where some rural communities might get improved healthcare if resources were used to support medical clinics, not hospitals. For example, a few small towns might get more healthcare for the dollar 1f they devoted their limited resources to the recruitment and retention of doctors by providing them locally with a modern clinic and facilitating their access to a goad regional hospital . -Infirmary care is attracting interest as a viable option for addressing healthcare probl ems in sel ected rural communities. Al ready, some hospitals in rural Col orado are essentiall y operating as infirmaries while incurring the expenses of 1icensure as full-service hospitals. Money now being spent to save an inefficient, small hospital might be put to better use if the hospital were converted to an infirmary or other downsized lnstitution more appropriately scaled to 1 ocal resources. a r -Home healthcare may also give some communities an opportunity to improve the 1 ocal base of an efficient healthcare system. Visiting nurses may appear to be an expensive frill to a community that is struggi ing to support its 1 ocal hospital , but the opposite point of view may be-more appropriate in a few situations, i.e, more people would get improved healthcare if instead home health were subsidized. These examples - singly, or in combination - illustrate specific options that may qualify for funding under the Rural Healthcare Initiative of The Colorado Trust. They are al so intended to stimulate creative thinking. Neighboring communities are encouraged to develop their own innovative responses to the plight of rural heal. th i n Colorado i f these examples .(above ) do not ful 1 y respond to local needs. However, responsive change is a precondition for an award under this initiative. Efforts to preserve the existing system and to defend it against change are not consistent with the obJectives of The Colorado Trust's Rural Healthcare Initiative. Proposal Requirements The general purpose of The Colorado Trusts Rural Healthcare Initiative is to assist clusters of rural communities in the devel opment of high qual ity, 1 ocall y accessible regional healthcare systems. Models proposed for develoment and implementation under this initiative must address three specific aspects of heal th care in rural Colorado: regionalization, system development, and qual ity of care. Regionalization of healthcare services is a fundamental requirement. An examination of existing acute care facilities in rural Col roado revel as more than a dozen established regional market areas served by two or more underutilized hospitals where one of the existing hospitals could more efficiently meet the in-patient needs of the entire region. Not all existing facilities within any identifiable region can afford to provide the critical mass of modern inpatient hospital care. In regions served by two ~r more underutil ized hospitals, the possibl ity of hospital consolidation and conversion must be considered. However, when consolidation and conversion are considered and found inappropriate, the proposal then must demonstrate that the regionalization efforts are supported by each healthcare provider. Unnecessary duplication of efforts must be eliminated. In cases where a hospital is not located in the defined region, a proposal for healthcare regionalization should address the primary care and emergency care needs of the region. In .all cases, a plan for evolution toward more efficient and effective allocation of inpatient hospital resources on a regional basis is a requirement under this initiative. System development is also required. Many advanced healthcare services cannot be provided economical) y and safel~y~ in even the 1 argest regional hospitals in rural Colorado: Therefore, in order to insure continuity of care that will make patients willing to enter the system 1 ocal l y, the regional ization of ru ral healthcare services must be accompanied by the development of a systematic approach to insure the provision of services that are beyond regional capabilities and resources. Full-service healthcare must be locally accessible, but some of the most advanced services will necessarily be made available to rural residents through arrangements between regional healthcare services and one or more of the tertiary hsopital s 1 ocated throughout the state. Qual ity of care must al so be an identifiable component of any response under this initiative. Rural Colorado residents are known to express some concerns about the quality of their local healthcare. Therefore, regional efforts must include formal, high) y v9sibl a programs to insu re that the qua) ity of hometown medicine is as good as the quality that people expect to find when they go elsewhere for comparable care. The Colorado Trust w it l accept g rant requests for u p to $500, 000 to be distributed over one or more years. Proposals will be .evaluated competitively on the efficient use of requested funds with respect to the scope of ob,~ectives to be accomplished. All proposals, regardless of the dollar amount requested, will be given serious consideration. Therefore, The Trust welcomes grant requests in any amount up to a maximum of $500,000 for its Rural Healthcare Initiative. Project Requirements (Scope of Work) Although each proposal must address the three required areas described, no two projects are expected to be the same due to the diversity of problems and prospects in each region. Therefore, applicants are strong) y encouraged to tailor a plan to their own needs and to develop a proposal that maximizes local potential for more efficient and more effective healthcare. Specific issues that must be addressed in a final project proposal include; -Definition and Description of Region to be Served. -Assessment of Needs and Resources Nithin the Proposed Region. -Organization of Providers within the Proposed Regional System. -Provider Responsibil ittes for Llocall y Accessible, Full -service Care. -Configuration of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) System. -Llinkage Arrangements for Communications and Transportation. -Mechanisms for Quality Assurance within the Entire System. -Expected Improvements in Efficiency and Effectiveness. -Proposal for Viable Alternate Uses for Converted Facilities. -Details of Health Promotion/Disease Prevention Plan for the Region. -Plan for Post-Grant Support of the Regional System. c r° -Project Budget with Expenditures and Narrative Descriptions. -Protocol and Objective Criteria for Project Evaluation. Guidelines The Trust accepts only those proposals that are of high professional qual ity and currency that: -primarily support Colorado institutions and organizations, and improve the health .and well -being of the people of Colorado. However, projects not based in Colorado having the potential of broader socletal benefit, such as health pol icy research, will be considered;. -demonstrate the prospect of a successful outcome that will have a significant and long lasting benefit to the community; -are relevant to The Trusts mission and major concerns, presenting an innovative treatment of a specific problem; -focus on the solutions of problems rather than the treatment of symptoms; -stimulate cooperative efforts by various sectors of the society, building upon other financial and community resources; -promote comprehensive, integrated programs and services. Appl icant~s Qual ifications The Trust will evaluate each applicant organization to determine its financial stability, strength of board commitment, qual ification of staff, clarity of purpose and history of service. -Organizations must either be tax-exempt under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or be governmental agencies conducting qual ified activities to be el igibl a for funding. -The appl leant should reveal plans tc achieve financial self-sufficiency of the program when the grant expires. Exclusions Normally The Trust will not make grants: -for medical or biomedical research; -for direct subsidization of care to the medically lndigent; -for medlcal education (i.e, scholarships, fellowships, and degree programs); -directly to individuals; -for fund-raising drives, testimonial dinners, or advertising; -for endowments; -to religious organizations for religious purposes; -to support candidates for political office or to influence 1 egisl ation, directly or indirect) y; -to discharge operating deficits or to retire debt; -for building construction or real estate acquisition; -to one organization to support the programs of another. ~ azna s~zi use oegrns ana ends in Colorado? Park City is a resort comptete u itb three exciting ski areas-Park City, Leer Valley, and ParkWest-ptus haute cuisine, chic fashion and bistros as tivelt as you find anywhere. s ,q ~ ~ r L " r ~ _ k~ `' ~~° ~ ~~~ l'Rsc~. ~'fi' ~ --g .~__ ~ .,,~ __ .__ _... t- __~ ~} _~ -- _ 4 '( ~ r °', ,;. y~ ° ~ r~~l G t k l~~d~ ~,~~{~ ~¢-73 B r r~ ~ r Sv~r~ ti '~i_ f .~~' ~d i ~I,;~_ t .~. _.. ~l ,' l 1, {' ,~l,:~ .a /t ~ c ttl~~. ~~ y '~~~aC~~~t2~ t ,~:, u_3s; ~~i ~.~ ~.~.CG ~~}~€'~' -~-~ti~. ' X ~ ~N. ~' ~ ..T - ~ _ ._ . - How many restaurants can you sample iu a ski week? There's as much to do off the stopes as on. Try snowmobiting, We have SO deticious options ice skating, hot-air baltooning, indoor swimming and tennis, that never fail to ptease. shopping ... even a tour of a brewery. ~ ~~ .,t ~ ~.~t ti~ v '°~'r'1' ~;,,~ ~ t I a ~~ ~ r <... 4. _ 1, , ,. ~ ~q~S;.'s ~ ~ f 3' a ~~ . Mites of cross-country skiing await at three groomed courses and thousands of acres of ungroomed wilderness. Three mountains with 175 runs and over 4, 000 skiable acres await just 45 minutes from Salt Lake International Airport. And one of over 255 daily Rights can get you here from,just about anywhere. How much is Park City like Cotorado ski towns? Even peopte who've stayed here have ,~ ~°~ sent their thanks ~ and regards to us-in Park City, ~~~," Colorado! ,~cl .lz.,,,,u_ ~~ ~ _ pct ~-~ `~° f h'',,e ago ~~-"~ ~°~- mac.. ~ ~~ ~~ ~-Lo~acPa ~ ~f ~ c.ce.- /},y~v PARK CITY s UTAH ~ ~ . ,~ G~j We wrote the book on ski vacations. t~~'' f ~ And we'd like to send it to you. For a free Winter Vacation Planner, ~ ~g complete the attached card or ~ write to: Chamber /Bureau ~'^ Dept. W11, P.O. Box 1630 , ~ ~ Park City, Utah 84060 or call: , ,..,~ ~ .-~ ~ (soo) 453->36oi(sol) 649-6100 ° _ ~- .,... P ~ ~~ ar Cl ~~ The town in the state of Utah with a different state of mind. Nightlife? In Park City, you can bit two bars or clubs a night and not tip your hat to the same bartender for a week! THE MAN WHO NAMED "CHINA BOWL" AND "SIBERIA' TELLS HOW VAIL'S FAMOUS DOWL SKIING WILLTRIPLE By BOB PARKER ne April day in 1961 I stood at the top of what was to become Vail Mountain with the resort's founders, Pete Seibert and Earl Eaton, and a profes- sional ski racer from Austria named Pepi Gramshammer. By way of snowcat and skis we had been showing Pepi what we hoped would become his new "home" mountain, but so far, the daredevil downhiller just was not impressed. Then we slid out of the summit trees, last comment foreshadowed the response and stared down at the glistening open of thousands of skiers since. slopes of one of Vail's as yet unnamed "Macht nicht, ve haff to valk out!" he back bowls. With a shrill alpine yodel, Pepi exclaimed. "For this kind of skiing, I valk flung himself down the inviting expanse-of foreffer!" corn snow, unaware that our under- Thus, Sunup Bowl's "Forever" slope powered snowcat couldn't haul him out! was christened, and Pepi Gramshammer Carving crisp racing turns, Pepi rapidly became the first and most eloquent am- dropped out of sight into the lower depths bassador for Vail's fabulous back-bowl of the bowl, leaving us no choice but to skiing. follow. When we'd skied down to where he Almost 30 years later, a skier's first ex- was standing, grinning from ear to ear, and perience in those awesome ski basins nev- told him we'd have to walk out, Pepi's jubi- er fails to have the same exhilarating r ~ ,~ =.-- S .v,.~ ~ A F~~~ vai~~ Bows . ~~=~ ~~ ~ ~- d 3 .~ ~ ~~.; 4~ t~t ,_ _ _ x; ` TIN PANTS, ETC ~~ GAME CREEK BOWL - ` T0, VAIL VILLAGE _ _ SUMMIT -•. GORE RANGE w ' _ _ _ --- _,+-l'_ .~I F:` ~ y - a•'~i`~F~j~. ~.- • "I-S~a _7~a"~"t.rtiP~'10~3 ~~ -- ~~ r"vim y ~{s~~} r ~` ~'ti~,i {: ~ `~s• ~ - a ~a a ti` 7 r~°'"~ ~~ ~. h `4~~,~' ,,~ , ~ ~ ,"`~ ~ ` " - - The Far EA,st CHINA BOWL _ ~2 _ , ,~ ,, xz ,~ ~"' SUN UP'BpWL ,F#~5taurart~; ~<, ~ •_ 9~ MONGOLIA ~ ` a ,x~ ~ ~ a, ~ .. ~ . ~ y.~ ,_ SIBERIA ~~ -BOWL ~ `~' 4 •. ,~ ,. ~ .. ~ , . ,a r . F ~., c°y .,, ,:'.r .BOWL { ~.` - ,,~ ae SUNDOWN,B~WL ~ , ,~,.~~e' ~~ ~,.,~r*` ,+~ ~P": ~, a'' ~. ~"`'~ .. ~~~ ~~.~., ~' .R~ "B'" ~ti.. • ~''4, ' ~ "~ -~~` - .. ~s z •~.TEACUP BOWL ~ '' ... SV Pµ ~; y ~ •~ 3 ## 4 y _ ..~y ,. o.- Ff~(J~ ~~`,E~ ~s r~~ ~~lkidi ~'7 ~~'a. ^- «. ~~ ~~"ryp~~ ~ ;r~, I3 e ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ } {S~Yj - _ ~ ~ l .~ ~... CC ~ ~, 3 . ~~ ~ -- ~~+~ [[ ~(( W _ ~ _ off S K ~~ _ `IY~ 1 +{ t • ~1 ,., v i ~ ', _~ ~ ~ ~ p~, `n rti. ~_~_ .~~ _.~.-.,_ ~, -- _ ~~.4 ~~.._ 28 SNOW COChTRYIOCTOBER 1988 NEW ALPINE TERRAIN I effect. First, there is the scale: each bowl a mile across, a thousand feet deep, 500 acres of open-slope skiing. Then, the set- ~ tang: seemingly limitless, treeless slopes, framed on the north by the jagged peaks of the Gore Range, on the west by the timeless silhouette of 14,000-foot Mount I' of the Holy Cross. From its opening in 1962, Vail's "back bowls" have given an otherwise superb ski mountain extra dimension, a special ca- chet. Now, to the delight of open-slope '~ skiing fans, both present and future, Vail's back-bowl skiing is about to double with the long-awaited opening of China Bowl, and the pristine powder slopes beyond. "Long-awaited", because the untracked ', slopes of China Bowl have lain for years, like a forbidden kingdom, in full view. of skiers lunching at Far East restaurant, or skiing Chair 14's slopes. So near, and yet- out of bounds! ~ Now,. thanks to Vail owner George ~ Gillett's love affair with untracked pow- ~ der, two lifts and a clever network of con- nector trails will open 1,900 acres of al- pine skiing in four new bowls: China, Tea Cup, Siberia and Mongolia. A word about these bowl names. China Bowl was named when I likened the mas- sive gray limestone wall on its northern rim to the Great Wall of China. From Chi- na $owl, it was a logical step to the minia- ture Tea Cup Bowl, and then to the vast it empty quarter beyond, known simply as Siberia. For 22 years, Vail's Asiatic expanses re- mained beyond the ski permit boundaries. Last year, the Forest Service expanded Vail's Special Use Permit from 6,450 acres to 12,500 acres, including the new China Bowl. Another potentially giant develop- ment area to the south, known locally as Super Vail, is included in the permit, but is not yet approved. All this new alpine terrain will be served economically by just two lifts. A 2,400-ski- er-per-hour detachable quad called the Orient Express Lift will go from the bot- tom to the top of China Bowl, and a 400- per-hour surface lift will serve Siberia and Mongolia bowls. Now, a party of skiers can start the day with a hearty breakfast at Far East restau- rant, sample China Bowl's slopes by way of the Jade Glade and Shangri La, ride the Orient Express, explore the far reaches of Siberia and Mongolia by way of Rasputin's Revenge, or the more gentle Gorky Park, then slide down the Trans-Siberian con- nector, and ride back to the top of China Bowl. If all this sounds like something Walt Disney might have dreamed up for a Rocky Mountain Disney World ...well, ru- mor has it that Vail's boss George Gillett is growing a drooping mustache. And didn't we see Mickey and Goofy sneaking a run down China Bowl even before the new lifts were built? ~ I3ob Parker, after a budding career as editor of Skiing Magazine,,jozned Pete Seibert ira tlae,founding q/'Vail. iu the early 1960s. He is stud~irtg a.iathropolo- gz1 at tip Urz'ive~rsitg of Nora Mexico. He lives iii. Santa Fe, but skis hail's bowls every u~n.ter. S/G®E/PS EDGE r~ There is no other exercise machine that duplicates the After the ~' Skier's Edge, - ~ ,' " ~ it's all downhill! ~ ~r~;_ ~! "~ ~ s ~; 1 ~~, ,,. motion of downhill skiing like the SKIER'S EDGE. ~~ ~ Get in 10 runs and 1400 turns every day before '~ you hit the slopes this season. K,T _ ~ ~~'- ~ ~ vlticiai Suppiiur or .~•- ~~_ ~~~ -~°~'~~^'~.. 01/idal Supplier o! the P.S.1.A. ~ - ,+,~ ?the US. Skr Tc3am Ski your first run this season in shape and in style. The SKIERS EDGE exercises the exact muscles that skiing does. Atwenty-minute workout will make you feel like you've skied ten of your favorite runs. Dramatically improve your skiing through perfect physical patterning. You71 master correct technique, balance, stance, edging, timing and rhythm off the slopes for more control and confidence on the slopes. You'll feel a remarkable improvement in your skiing. Stay in peak condition year-round with a challenging, non-impact aerobic workout. Preliminary studies at a major university show a caloric burn of 204 calories per 15-minute workout. That's equivalent to 816 calories per hour! The SKIER'S EDGE is adjustable for everyone, from child to adult, from bumps to cruising. !t comes with a dynamic demonstration video, special ski poles, user's manual, and conditioning program. Try Our 30-Day No-Risk Trial. ~-^'~ __ - ~° ~ :_. n _. ~ . ~ .. ra \ ~- ~s ~- • ~~ -~:; ~, __ - To Order or request FREE, Brochure, Call 1-800.225-9669, ext. 4108 --._ Or write: Scientific Sports Systems Dept. 4108 ~ 503 Seaport Ct, Port o/Redwood City, CA. 94063 The SKIER'S EDGE is easy to use, portable and made in the U:S.A. SNON COUNTRY~'OCTOBER 1988 29 :~~~ ~~`"`' ~~}.~ °FROM: The Baggage Claim of Vail, INC. >r 4.~~- '~ .~~~'~ 244 Wall Street x~" P . 0 . Box 1416 -~- , Vail, CO . 81658 . ~"r ~~ F TO s Town of Vail, Sales Tax Administrator ;~ a~: ; ~~~~ RECD OCT - 3 1988 ,,> ~;~ ..; :;~ ~~ ~~~~ ' Date s October 3, 1988 j~ .L }J~~ ~~Subject: Intrest and Penalty Assassment for August Sales Tax. ,~,, .. , ~, Enclosed is check #8085, in the amount of $72.29. This is be~rig paid under Protest. ~a~i ~x~~~~"' ~ , I am petitioning you for a hearing on this matter . My ~,.~'a~P ~,~, reasons for this request are as follows. 1. My payment was mailed ~~ by my accountant, from Glenwood Springs,CO., where she has her place 'f~ of business, on the 19th or 20th of the month. My accountant g ,~~ ~,: has `8 other clients she prepares sales tax forms for. All are x PAY , '~~ '`" mailed at the same time no other clients have received penalties "` from thier various sales tax collection agencies. 2. The incon- sstency of your office to enforce the oridance #31 series of 1987. ,~ '`` °~._ By your own admission over 100 sales tax reports an~ checks were t ~~~, `',~~j~ received on the 21st of the month, none of which... were penalized. ~~ x~°3.,-. I also have knowledge of '2 businesses that actually hand carried ~~ ~. .: their checks to your office on Friday, August 21st. These could ~~° ~ ~ ~ not have had an U. S . Postmark. `~ Y 3. The Federal Government as well ~- ` ~~~ as-the State of Colorado, both accept a postmark•as evidence of ~~~ time`ly payment. With referance to your example of how a mortage ~, ~~~'~ -;,company works re ardin tmel r~ ~ g g y payment, they do accept a U.S. Postmark and in most cases allow fora 10 day grace period. This ~':.; information was given to me by Kevin McDonald, 1st Bank of Vail. I will await your response for time and place for such a hearing. ,~;~ ^----~-- ~~ / ~~p~ ~ L ~ a tic. ~.~ ~~c~a ocT - ~ ~9~s 1 ~' ti~~ . / ~ ~~We the undersl~;ned Vail Businesses, feel the current collection ~~ procedures for sales tax, collected by us, for the Town of Vail, ~~ imposes an unnecessary hardship (Oridance X31, series of 1987 section 3.40.130 subsection 2) . This inconv~At.~,~has been created by the interpretation of the Town of Vail's sales tax administration definition of "Timely Payment". We ask that a U.S. Postmark be accepted as timely payment, to be consistent with other sales tax collection agencies, as well as our Federal Government. NAME(print) BUSINESS/ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE ,NAME print) ~ BUaINESS/ADDRESS SIGNATURE• DATE lows of rai 75 south Irontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303)476-7000 office of the town manager VAIL 1989 October 3, 1988 Mr. and Mrs. Emmet Mossman 166 Forest Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Mossman: Thank you for your recent letter concerning the working relationship you had with Rick Pylman and Betsy Rosolack in assisting you with tax research issues. We really appreciate hearing from residents and guests who have positive experiences with Town employees as this type of feedback is important to the employee value system we have adopted and the resident and guest relations program we have been working on for some time. Thank you for your interest in the community and for taking time to write. Sincer ly, r Rondall V. Phillips Town Manager RVP/bsc cc: Pete r, Patten R ..~~~rZ~ ~ >b~ s~ ~Y'~-ice ~,~'~~//,~~ ~EC'D SEP 2 ~ 1988 ~fvH /~~-,.,,c~res~~ `~~ fl/GS'7 ~~v ~~~~~~~~~; l~L i ~ .~~'~~ ~~1 ~/~.~~ ...L'.~ ,~ CSC-~'~ ~;'!~'~'~ ~~ ~ " G~~~~~I «~ ~~:~/~ TM IOWA 0 V 18 TS south frontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303)476-7000 office of the town manager VA~IL 1989 October 3, 1988 Mr. and Mrs. Morgan D. Douglas, Jr. P. 0. Box 476 Vail, Colorado 81658 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Douglas: Thank you for your letter concerning traffic on West Meadow Drive. We appreciate your observations and suggestions and will be studying those to see how we can best implement change. You may be aware that the Town has been undergoing extensive study and recommendations for a new signage program, both vehicular and pedestrian, and we will take your suggestions into consideration as this program is being implemented. Your interest in the community is much appreciated, and we would be glad to hear from you at any time concerning problems or suggestions you may have. Sincerely, %/,," " `~' Rondall V. Phillips Town Manager RVP/bsc cc: Peter Patten Stan Berryman .~ ~~ ~, - .. -~ ..-, -._„ ., r ~. --s - - - ~. - REC'0 SEP 2 6 1988 dYl~.. ~0~9~ 1~.. 1~. ouyLas, az. Box 476 ~v~c, eoco~o 81658 September 23, 1988 Mr. Ron Phillips Town Manager Town of Va i 1 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Ron: As long time residents of Vail, residing at 142 West Meadow Drive, we are aware that the Town of Vail is concerned with the amount of traffic that uses this street. May we please bring two matters to your attention. 1. The Dead End sign is not visible until the driver has committed himself to making the turn on 4Jest Meadow Drive, so he continues on and turns around wither in our circular driveway, or at the cul-de-sac. 2. A driver may be trying to get to the Lions- head parking structure. Two signs are needed at the stop signs, pointing to West Meadow Drive: NO OUTLET and NO PUBLIC PARKING, ors HOSPITAL PARKING ONLY.. Another suggestion is to put a traffic counter on the south side of the cul-de-sac and one going into the hospital to determine how many people are lost, sight- eYl~.. dYlozy~ ~. ~ouyLa.s, az. 1r3ox 476 ~aic, eo~ouuco &165s seeing, or going to the Vail Valley Medical Center. Very truely yours, ~/~~~ ~- ~ ,J~ ~~~ Catherine and h~organ Douglas ,~ A REC'~ OCT - 3 1988 HARRISON F. KEPNER 5181 JUNIPER ROAD LITTLETON. COLORADO 80123 October 1, 1988 Town of Vail Town Planning Director Vail Colorado, 81658 ~~"'~ - -- Attention : Mr . Peter Patten Dear Mr. Patten, This is to protest any further hospital expansion _ or increased traffic along West Meadow Drive. I have lived. on this street for twenty-five years (Skaal Hus Condominiums and private home on 252 6d> Meadow drive), which means starting there before there were any other buildings on the street. As you know, the hospital land was originally zoned residential, and we helped re-zone it to allow a small hospital/clinic for the good of the Town of Vail. Additions since have gone way beyond the original scope and "promises" to the then property owners nearby. Traffic is now such that tourists walking between main Vail and Lionshead are severely bothered. This is the only stretch between these Town centers that - is open for general traffic, and is certainly a negative tourist attraction for our beautiful Town. A seperate entrance for current hospital traffic would be in our best interest to promote-Vail as a "walking" village. Your kindness is considering these concerns will be most appreciated. Sincerely, Hal Ke er V CC: ail Town Council :.Imitation is the~sincerest messy e- in . g Utah ski=~.a'd: ~. _, PARK CITY, Utah {AP) -This ` "Utah is known for its incredible ski community in. northern Utah snow, but often overlooked as a seems anxious to show potential . place to have an overall fun time," out-of-state customers that it is an .said Joan Peets, the chamber's island of good times in a state with ;marketing director. "We wanted to a conservative religious bent: -' ~ get the message across that, Park An advertisement appearing in .City is._ a little differentthan the the fall issues of Skiing, Ski and rest of Utah and that it offers a ski Snow Couatry magazines is head- vacation equal to the fun that Cola lined "Park City, Colorado." ~ :redo offers." ': J," ' •-' A red, squiggly line is drawn ~ .Some state officials seemed of- through "Colorado" with the mes- . - fended by the ad, but others were sage "An easy mistake ,to make" ' unfazed. "If it helps take away ski- written next to it. ~ °"~a'urs from Colorado, I'm for it, be- `Underneath is another headline,". "-cause Colorado is our mein Compe- "The town in the state.of Utah with tition," said Gov: Norm Bangerter, a differenk state. of mind." _ ,~~.... ~., ,,. r;: a~ .. - Research shows that many ski- The Convention and Visitors Bu because they feel ers avoid Utah reau and the Winter Marketing , the state has little night life to Committee of the Park City Area offer,--said Bob Bailey, director of "Chamber of Commerce wrote the the Utah Ski Association. The state ad with help from Gillham Adver- is largely Mormon, and the sale of tising. They got the idea after re- - liquor ~ tightly controlled. °~ i~ing~ Iette ~s; ~~ • tourists muses i ; , ~~YiTessedd~to'~~',`ar>c'~Cty,~~, "I~d't~t~inI~~h~~~tderoga- Colo:.•.,~~~.~„ ' ' ,~43,. ~ ~-.~~~.'to tlte'state", Bailey, sai~t,~ ,: _~