Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-03-21 Support Documentation Town Council Regular SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1989 in the VAIL MUNICIPAL BUILDING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1989, second reading, an ordinance amending various sections of Chapter 18 of the Vail Municipal Code and repealing and reenacting Section 18.58.310, Short Term Rental Accommodation Unit of the Municipal Code to provide for bed and breakfast operations under certain provisions and circumstances and to define bed and breakfast and setting forth details in regard thereto. 2. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1989, second reading, an ordinance repealing and re-enacting Ordinance 5, Series of 1986, a Special Development District {known as SDD No. 14) and the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. 3. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1989, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 10 of the Town of Vail Investment Policy. 4. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1989, first reading, an ordinance amending Section 5.04.020 I., 5.04.040 B.2)a)iii), 5.04.040 B.2)b)iii), 5.04.040 6.3)b), 5.04.040 6.4)a), 5.04.040 B.4)b), 5.04.040 B.12), and 5.04.120 of Chapter 5.04, Annual Business License, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. 5. Gunn request for variances to allow for the construction of a primary/secondary residence on Lot 10, Block 1, Uail Uillage First Filing (342 Mill Creek Circle) 6. McCue variance appeal: Lot 3, Bighorn Estates (4269 W. Nugget Lane) CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 7. Adjournment VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1989 in the VAIL MUNICIPAL BUILDING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 1. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1989, second reading, relating to Peter Patten bed and breakfast operations Larry Eskwith Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1989, on second reading. Background Rationale: Council tabled the ordinance on second reading to allow bed and breakfasts in multi-family zone districts, decrease parking requirements, disallow any signs, and to state that PEC action can be appealed to Council. These changes have been made. Staff Recommendation: The Community Development Department does not support the changes but still requests approval of the ordinance in an effort to allow for bed and breakfasts in Vail. 8:30 2. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1989, second reading, Special Rick Pylman Development District No. 14, Doubletree Hotel Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1989, on second reading. Background Rationale: Vail Holdings Inc., owners of the Doubletree Hotel, have applied for SDD #14 in order to add 92 accommodation units, 5 condominiums, and 3,300 square feet of meeting room facilities. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1989, on second reading. 9:15 3. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1989, second reading, amending Steve Thompson the Town of Vail investment policy Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1989, on second reading. Background Rationale: This amendment will allow us to purchase certificates of deposit marketed by brokers, at staff's discretion. We will be able to take advantage of better interest rates and still verify in-house that the bank or savings and loan meets our standard selection criteria. Per the Town Council request, before we use a new bank or savings and loan we have given the Council an opportunity to approve or reject using the proposed bank or savings and loan. This process has never been required in the investment policy. This process will further restrict the Town's opportunity to take advantage of high yielding certificates of deposit. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1989, on second reading and allow staff to choose new banks or savings and loans at their own discretion. 9:30 4. ordinance No. 8, Series of 1989, first reading, amending Dani Hild the business license ordinance Larry Eskwith Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1989, on first reading. Background Rationale: Additional amendments have been found to be necessary for effective administration of the annual business license ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1989, on first reading. 9:50 5. A request for variances from the 20 foot front setback Mike Mollica requirement and from the 30 foot stream setback requirement, to allow for the construction of a primary/secondary residence on Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Uillage First Filing (342 Mill Creek Circle) Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny the variance requests. Background Rationale: The PEC, at their February 27, 1989 public hearing, approved by a vote of 4-3 the variance requests. The Council, at their February 28, 1989 work session, has requested a review of the variance requests. Staff Recommendation: Approve both variance requests. 10:30 6. McCue Variance Appeal: Lot 3, Bighorn Estates Kristan Pritz Action Requested of Council: Review the PEC's decision to deny the variance request. (Applicants: Harriet and Robert McCue) Background Rationale: On February 13th, the PEC reviewed side setback variances for a deck and second story addition. The applicant is utilizing the 250 ft. ordinance to allow for the expansion. The PEC moved to approve the request. However, the vote was 3-3 which results in a denial decision. Staff Recommendation: Deny the variance request. CITIZEN PA{2TICIPATION 11:10 7. Adjournment -2- 4 ~ v ._ MEMORANDUM TOe TOWN COUNCIL AND RON PHILLIPS FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATEo MARCH 16, 1989 SUBJECTo SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO BED AND BREAKFAST ORDINANCE. Due to some misunderstandings of the intent of the Bed and Breakfast ordinance by some members of the public attending the Council's hearing on first reading, we felt a need to supply you with some additional information. Attached please find a Conditional Use Permit application form which we have amended to reflect the specific requirements for a Bed and Breakfast. Please note that besides the written description of the proposed use that the only plans required for submittal will be a site plan to determine the adequacy of proposed parking arrangements and building floor plans to determine compliance with the three bedroom and 900 square foot maximum requirements. If an applicant is unable to locate these plans from the owner or the architect we would be more than happy to supply copies of these from the Town of Vail plan archives, Furthermore, the staff and Planning and Environmental Commission have discussed and agreed upon a streamlined process wherein existing Bed and Breakfasts would submit applications all at once within the next several months. The staff would then review each of these proposals .for compliance with the criteria and forward them to the Planning and Environmental Commission on a consent agenda type of process. The staff would work closely with those applicants whose proposals were not in compliance with the adopted ordinance so that the problems could be worked out and approval could be quickly obtained. Finally, the ordinance has been revised according to the council direction at the February 21st meeting. Multi-family zone districts have been added and parking has been revised so that there are no special requirements for parking at a bed and breakfast location. Also, the ordinance has been revised so that signs are prohibited and that it is clear that PEC's decisions on Conditional Use Permits may be appealed to the Town Council. Larry Eskwith has also amended the ordinance so that adjacent onwers on duplex lots are required to give their approval only if there is a proposal to utilize common or jointly owned property or facilities. d c ~-O 6- Although the staff does not support the revisions relating to multi-family, parking or signs, we feel the ordinance should be approved so that Bed and Breakfasts can be legalized as a positive influence on Vail's lodging based APP:kmc 0 O ORDINANCE NO. 2 Series of 1989 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 18 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE AND REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 18.58.310, SHORT TERM RENTAL ACCOMMODATION UNIT OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR BED AND BREAKFAST OPERATIONS UNDER CERTAIN PROVISIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND TO DEFINE BED AND BREAKFAST AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. y ~ . ~WH-EREAS; •the Town Got~nci.l wishes .to allow. bed and breakfast operations under certain conditions and in certain locations within the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that bed and breakfast operations operated under certain conditions provide high quality and desirable lodging appropriate for a resort community; and WHEREAS, policies within the Town of Vail Land Use Plan support the provision of high quality lodging utilizing existing facilities; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has unanimously recommended approval of the zoning code changes contained herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWSe Section 1. Section 18.10.030 Single Family (SFR) District--Conditional Uses shall be amended to add the followings G. BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION 18.58.310. Section 2. Section 18.12.030 Two Family Residential (R) District--Conditional Uses shall be amended to add the followings G. BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION 18.58.310. Section 3. Section 18.13.030 Primary/Secondary (P/S) District--Conditional Uses shall be amended to add the followingo F. BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION 18.58.310. Section 4. Section 18.14.030 Residential Cluster (R/C) District -- Conditional Uses shall be amended to add the following: H. BED AND BREAFKAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION 18.58.310 18.58.310. Section 5. Section 18.16.030 Low Density Multiple Family (LDMF) District -- Conditional Uses shall be amended to add the following: H. BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION 18.58.310. Section 6. Section 18.18.030 Medium DE:nsity Multi-Family (MDMS) District -- Conditional Uses) shall be amended to add the following: H. BED AND BREAFKAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION 18.58.310. Section 7. Section 18.20.030 High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) District -- Conditional Uses shall be amened to add the following: L. BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION 18.58.310. Section 8. Section 18.22.030 Public Accomodation (PA) District -- Conditional Uses shall be amended to a.dd the following: O. BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION 18.58.310. Section 9. Section 18.24.060 Commercial Core I (CC1) District -- Conditional Uses - Generally shall be amended to add the following: E. BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION 18.58.310. Section 10. Section 18.26.040 Commercial Core II (CCII) District -- Conditional Uses - Generally shall be amended to add the following: H. BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION 18.58.310. a ~. Section 11. Section 18.27°030 Commercial Core III (CCIII) District -- Conditional Uses shall be amended to add the following: P° BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION 18.58.310. Section 12° Section 18.28.040 Commercial Service Center (CSC) District -- Conditional Uses shall be amended to add the followings K° BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION 18.58.310° Section 13° Section 18.29.030 (A) Arterial Business District (ABD) -- Conditional Uses shall be amended to add the following: BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION 18.58.310. Section 14: Section 18°39.050 (A) Ski Base/Recreation District -- Conditional Uses shall be amended to add the following: 12 BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION 18°58.310. Section 15° Chapter 18.40 Special Development District of the Vail Municipal Code shall be amended to add Section 18.40.160 as follows Section 18.40.160 Bed and Breakfast -- Conditional Use Permit ANY SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CONTAINING MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR A BED AND BREAKFAST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 18.60 AND AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION 18.58.310. Section 16° Section 18.09.030 Hillside Residential (HR) District -- Conditional Uses shall be amended to add the following: E. BED AND BREAKFAST AS FURTHER REGULATED BY SECTION 18.58°310° Section 17° Section 18.58.310 Short Term Rental Accommodation Unit shall be repealed and re-enacted as follows: r v ~ic3,-r-ee~t i~-a-~~st~~ett~~e-~e~-~}1-~i~~~~e~e~i~-~--~i~tg1-e~:_.,~-~~-- ~~ae ~~-e~-ga~fseee~r~e~~~=-e~-~w-its-~r-t-k~te~ Section 18.58.310 BED AND BREAKFAST OPERATIONS A. DEFINITION BED AND BREAKFAST' MEANS A BUSINESS WHICH ACCOMMODATES GUESTS iN A DWELLING UNIT IN WHICH THE BED AND BREAKFAST PROPRIETOR LIVES ON THE PREMISES AND IS IN RESIDENCE DURING THE BED AND BREAKFAST USE. A BED AND BREAKFAST OPERATION MAY SHORT TERM RENT SEPARATELY UP TO 3 BEDROOMS OR A MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 900 SQUARE FEET OF THE DWELLING UNIT. BED AND BREAKFAST OPERATIONS SHALL ONLY BE PERMITTED TO ACCOMMODATE A FAMILY AS DEFINED IN SECTION 18.04.110. B. LOCATION AND CRI'T'ERIA BED AND BREAKFAST OPERATIONS MAY BE ALLOWED AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THOSE ZONE DISTRICTS AS SPECIFIED IN TITLE 18 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE. IF PERMITTED AS A CONDITIONAL USE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 18.60 OF THIS CODE, BED AND BREAKFAST OPERATIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: 1. OFF STREET PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52. 2. ENCLOSED TRASH FACILITIES AND REGULAR GARBAGE REMOVAL SERVICE SHALL BE PROVIDED. 3. REMOVAL OF LANDSCAPING FOR THE PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL PARKING IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. 4. SIGNS SHALL BE PROHIBITED. 5. IF A BED AND BREAKFAST OPERATION SHALL USE PROPERTY OR FACILITIES OWNED IN COMMON OR JOINTLY WITH OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS SUCH AS PARKING SPACES OR A DRIVEWAY IN DUPLEX SUBDIVISIONS, BY WAY OF EXAMPLE AND NOT LIMITATION, THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNER OR OWNERS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. .. Ce VIOLATION IF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DETERMINES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION 180580310 OR ANY CONDITION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ARE BEING VIOLATED, HE SHALL GIVE NOTICE OF REVOCATION TO THE BED AND BREAKFAST PERMITEE IN WRITING DESCRIBING IN REASONABLE DETAIL THE VIOLATION ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.OR TO E:YIST AND SHALL SERVE THE NOTICE ON THE PERMITTEE IN PERSON OR BY FIRST CLASS MAIL AT THE ADDRESS LISTED IN THE APPLICATION FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITe IF THE PERMITTEE DISAGREES WITH THE DETERMINATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THAT A VIOLATION EXISTS, HE MAY APPEAL SUCH DETERMINATION BY FILING A WRITTEN NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE TOWN OF VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION NO LATER THAN 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE NOTICE OF REVOCATIONo AT SAID HEARING THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHALL BE WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO PROVE THE NOTICE OF REVOCATION BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCEo AFTER THE HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHALL CONFIRM OR REVERSE THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTe IF ANY PERMITTEE FAILS TO EXERCISE THE RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE NOTICE OF APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SHALL BE CONSIDERED A FINAL ORDER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVOKING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. Section 18e It shall be unlawful for a bed and breakfast operation to do business without a conditional use permit from the Planning and Environmental Commission or in violation of any of the provisions of the Vail Municipal Codee Section 19. Discontinuance Any bed and breakfast operation which is discontinued for a period of twelve months, regardless of any intent to resume operation of use, shall not be resumed thereafter, and any future use of the site or structures thereon shall conform with the provisions of this title. Section 20. The Town Council may call up for review any decision made by the Planning and Environmental Commission regarding a Conditional Use Permit for a Bed and Breakfast as per Section 18.60.070. Section 21. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 22. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 23. The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of 1989, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of , 1989 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of ATTEST: . 1989. Kent R. Rose, Mayor Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of 1989. ATTESTa Kent R. Rose, Mayor Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk TOe Planning and Environmental Commission FROMe Community Development Department DATEo February 27, 1989 SUBJECTe A request to re-zone Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing to Special Development District #14, in order to allow an additional 92 lodge rooms, 5 condominiums and 3,350 square feet of meeting rooms and conference space at the Doubletree Hotel. Applicanto Vail Holdings, a limited partnership I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: In April of 1986 following a full Planning and Environmental Commission review and two hearings in front of the Town Council, Ordinance 5, Series of 1986, an ordinance approving Special Development District Number 14 was adopted by the Vail Town Council. Special Development District Number 14 was a proposal from Vail Holdings, Ltd. to allow expansion of the existing Doubletree Hotel. That expansion consisted of an additional 92 lodge rooms, 5 condominiums, 3,350 square feet of meeting room and conference space and a total of 200 structured parking spaces and 11 surface spaces. The required parking according to Town of Vail standards for the proposed development was a total of 261 spaces. The developer felt that 211 parking spaces was adequate to meet their needs. The Town Council required that the Doubletree pay into the Town of Vail parking fund the amount of $235,000.00 which was equivalent, according to the Town of Vail parking fund formula to the 50 parking space short fall that the Doubletree had proposed. Ordinance Number 5 of 1986 also contained an expiration clause that stated if no building permit was issue or construction commenced within an 18 month period that the Special Development District approval would expire. The Town Council, on the 16th of June, 1987 approved a 12 month extension to Special Development District Number 14. That approval expired on September 18th, 1988. Vail Holdings Inc., with some proposed amendments, is now requesting a re-approval for Special Development District Number 14. The requested density in the current proposal is identical to the original 1986 proposal. There are, however, two major changes in the current proposals 1 1. The Doubletree: Hotel and the Vail Valley Medical Center wish to~ conduct a shared parking arrangement in a parking structure that will be built by the Vail Valley Medical Center on property owned by the Doubletree Hotel. This parking arrangement allows the Doubletree exclusive use of 213 on site parking spaces and shared use of 48 parking spaces in the Vail Valley Medical Center structure. The Doubletree would be allowed to use the parking spaces from 5:30 pm until 6:00 am. Vail Valley Medical Center would use those 48 spaces plus another 20 provided by the Doubletree from the hours of 6:00 am to 5:30 pm. 2. The Doubletree would like to utilize the transient residential unit concept that was originally defined and approved in the Cascade Village Special Development District. The Doubletree Hotel would like to construct the 92 additional lodge rooms as transient residential units. The same definition as was used in the Cascade Village Special Development District would apply. The owners agree to maintain the units under single ownership, and agree to keep the units in the short term rental pool. They have also agreed to the restriction that no fireplaces will .be allowed in those units. The definition of a transient residential dwelling unit as found in the CascadEa Development District reads as follows: 01Transient residential dwelling unit or restricted dwelling unit" shall be defined as a dwelling unit located in a multi-family dwelling that is managed as a short term rental in which all such units are operated under-a single management providing the occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilities. A short term rental shalla be deemed to be a rental foz- a period of time not to exceed 31 days. Each unit shall not exceed-645 square feet of GRFA which shall include a kitchen having a maximum of 35 square feet. The kitchen shall be designed so that it may be locked and separated .from the rest of the unit in a closest. A transient dwelling unit shall be accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through another accommodation unit, dwelling unit, or transient residential dwelling unit. Should such units be developed as condominiums, they shall be restricted as set forth in section 17.26.075- -17.26.120 governing condominium conversion. The unit shall not be used as a permanent residence. Fractional fee ownership shall not be allowed to be applied to transient dwelling units. For the purposes of determining allowable density per acre, transient 2 residential dwelling units shall be counted as one -. half of a dwelling unite The transient residential dwelling unit parking requirement shall be Oe4 space per unit plus Oel space per each 100 square feet of GRFA with a maximum of le0 space per unite IIe BACKGROUND In the original 1986 Doubletree expansion proposal there were two major issues that the town staff felt were of great concern and which resulted in the staff recommendation of denial for the Doubletree expansion. Those two issues were the increase in density above the allowance of the HDMF Zone District and the short fall of on-site parking spaces to be provided by the Doubletreeo The adoption of the Land Use Plan in November of 1986 eased the staff concerns regarding the increase in densitye This position is reflected in the memo to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated June 1987 regarding the approval of the extension of Special Development District Number 14o The Land Use Plan showed the need for continued growth in guest accommodation services and identified the potential areas for that large scale hotel growtho The Doubletree site was within that area identified in the Land Use Plan as showing potential for increased densities in guest related servicesa The staff was never comfortable with the parking provisions that were a part of the approval of the original Special Development District Number 14e The staff has been consistent with the position that private development should meet their own parking demands on site, with the exception of course of development within the Commercial Core I and IIo We felt that the provision allowing the Doubletree to pay into the Town of Vail parking fund in lieu of meeting the on-site parking requirements was inconsistent with our planning objectiveso We believe it is better to provide parking spaces on site then to provide private purpose parking in the Town of Vail structures. The parking arrangements in the current Doubletree/Nail Valley Medical Center proposals relieve a great deal of that staff concerns The Doubletree, according to studies provided by their staff, will meet their parking requirements during their peak parking demand hours, We have confirmed this conclusion with our own studieso These studies have all shown that the Doubletree parking demand is greatest when the bar and restaurant are in full operations At these times, from 5030 pm to 6:00 am, the Doubletree is able to provide all 261 of their required parking spaces within their parking structure and the shared parking structure that will be constructed by the Vail Valley Medical Centers 3 f During the daytime hours of 6:00 am to 5:30 pm the hospital when it is at its peak staffing level and parking demand will have the use of those 48 spaces plus another 20 spaces provided by the Doubletree. This shared parking arrangement leaves both the Doubletree and the Vail Valley Medical Center 48 parking spaces short of their requirement during their non peak hours. The following chart: represents the parking requirements and provisions of the Doubletree and the Vail Valley Medical Center during existing, interim and build out phases. PHASE I PHASE II (VVMC EXPANSION (DOUBLETREE EXPANSION) 6:OOAM-5:30PM 5:30PM-6:OOAM 6:OOAM-5:30PM 5:30PM-6:OOAM REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED DBLTREE 167 167 167 167 261 193 261 261 HOSP 278 279 278 279 278 299 278 231 The following table illustrates how this proposal relates the existing development on site as well as that allowed under the previously existing high density multi-family zoning. ZONING ANALYSIS OF DOUBLETREE HOTEL Site area 2.6298 acres o'r 114,554 square feet ALLOWED DEV. EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL UNDER EXISTING DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT HDMF ZONING Units: 65 du's 25 units/ac 8 3 du' :~ (19 condos 128 lodge rooms) 31.5 units/ac 51 du's 5 condos 92 lodge rooms) 134 du's (24 condos 220 lodge rooms) GRFA: 68,732 sq ft Meeting room space: 19 units/ac 50.95/ac 73,577 sq ft _._ 42,576 sq ft 116,153 sq ft 4,040 sq ft 3350 sq ft. 7350 sq ft While this table illustrates some of the more significant elements related to this proposal there are other zoning considerations to be made in evaluating a new Special Development District: application. These and other aspects of this development plan will be highlighted throughout this memorandum. 4 III. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSALe As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of Special Development Districts is toe 18.40.010 PURPOSE The purpose of the Special Development District is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design, character and quality of new development within the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with a properties underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development in uses of property included in the Special Development District. The elements of the development plan shall be outlined as in Section 18.40.060 of the Vail Municipal Code. Section 18.40.080 of the Vail Municipal Code addresses the design criteria for Special Development Districts.This chapter states that °1The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the marriage that the proposed Special Development District. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material in the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. 1. Design Compatibility and Sensitivity to the Immedia Environment, Neighborhood and Adjacent Properties Relative to Architectural Design, Scale, Bulk, Building Height, Buffer Zones, Identity, Character, Visual Integrity and Orientation. Staff Response: Staff feels that the design of the addition has been completed in such a manner as to relate very well to the existing structure. The additions are done in a way that helps reduce the mass of the existing tower and with the help of the grade change from the Frontage Road to the site present a design that does not appear to add considerable bulk to the site. The design also serves to enhance the overall visual quality of the existing development. 5 The siting of the proposed additions work well with the existing tower the extension of the building helps step the building off the Frontage Road and reduces the effect of the bulk and mass. The specific considerations of materials, color, texture, signs and lighting will all be addressed at the Design Review Board level if this project is approved. 2 Uses, Activity and Density Which Provide a Compatible Efficient and Workable Relationship With Surrounding Uses and Activity. This proposal, although presenting a significant increase in density above the allowances of the HDMF Zone District is in harmony with the concept of the Land Use Plan and its suggestions for providing and recognizing the need for additional accommodation units within the Town of Vail. The Land Use Plan does suggest locations for these proposed expansions and this site is within that proposed area. 3. Compliance With Parking and Loading Requirements As Outlined In Se<:tion 18.52: This new propo:~al, which includes the shared parking arrangements with the Vail Valley Medical Center represents a great leap forward from the original Special Development District approved in 1986. The shared parking arrangement allows an expansion of both the Doubletree and the Hospital while providing the required parking for both developments at their peak parking demand periods. 4. Conformity With Applicable Elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town Policies and Urban Design Guide Plans- As previously ~;tated, this application is in harmony with the land use plan, specifically the Town policies regarding expansion of guest services and accommodation Linits. The proposal relates specifically to the goals number 2.1, 3.2, 4.2 and 4.4 of the Vail Land Use Plan. These goals refer to the community role as a destination resort and the fact that the Vail Village and Lionshead areas are the best locations for hotels to serve the future needs of destination skiers. There is no application of this project to the Vail Urban Design Guide Plans. 5. Identification and Mitigation of Natural and/or Geologic Hazards That Effect The Property on Which the Special Development District is Proposed. 6 Although this property does border Middle Creek on the west side there are no flood plain encroachments or implications, nor are there any other applicable natural or geologic hazards that effect the property. 6. Site Plan, Building Design Location and Open Space Provisions Designed To Produce a Functional Development Responsive and Sensitive to Natural Features, Ve etation and The Overall Aesthetic Quality of The Community. Yn general the staff feels that the proposed design of the Doubletree expansion is in harmony with the requirements of this criteria. 7. Circulation System Design for Both Vehicles and Pedestrians Addressing On and Off Site Traffic Circulation. Due to the consolidation of the existing Doubletree accessways into a new entrance, along with the Vail Valley Medical Center parking structure access, new State Highway Department access permits will be required. The extent of the improvements proposed by the Doubletree consist of a deceleration lane for the Doubletree main access, The approval of this request will be conditional upon receipt of the access permit. 8. Functional and Aesthetic Landsca in and O en S ace in Order to Optimize and Preserve Natural Features, Recreation, Views and Function° We feel that with one minor exception the design of the Doubletree is in compliance with this criteria. We would take exception to the encroachment of the new construction on the northwest portion of the site. The construction of a new pre-function area for the meeting rooms is proposed to be built right up to the property line. The staff had in the previous approval of the Special Development District requested this area to be re-evaluated to reduce this encroachment on Middle Creek. We still feel it is important to maintain some amount of setback of buildings from the property line in this area and encourage the owners of the Doubletree to review this situation during the final design phase. 9. Phasing Plan or Subdivision Plan That Will Maintain a Workable, Functional and Efficient Relationship Throughout The Development of The Special Development District. - 7 The relationsriip of the Doubletree and Vail Valley Medical Center expansions and their phasing does have an impact on the proposed parking. The Doubletree and the Hospital have submitted existing, interim and final build out parking scenarios which have been presented earlier in this memo nd which the staff finds acceptable. IV. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL: 1. Fire Department Issues: This concern is a carry over from the 1986 approval and as the site plan has not significantly changed, neither has this issue. The Fire Department has not signed off on this design because of inadequate access and operational widths to the additional development proposed on site. Final determinations regarding code requirements will be made at the building permit review if this project is approved. Any significant changes to the site plan that may result from this review would require Planning Commission approval if made. 2. Easements. As proposed, underground parking structures and portions of the lodge addition will encroach on existing utility easements. If approved, the design of this parkinq structure will allow access to these utility lines. Construction on these easements will require approvals of all utility companies prior to the issuance of: any building permit for the project. 3. Restrictions Ori Lodqe Rooms and Condominiums• The staff has requested and the applicant has agreed that the accomodation units proposed in this plan would be developed as lodge rooms or as transient residential units. This would mean that if a proposal to convert these units to condominiums were to be made, they would be reviewed with respect to the criteria outlined in the condominium conversion ordinance. In addition, the applicant has agareed to restrict the conversion of these units to a time share form of ownership for 20 years. The staff has also requested that the use of the 5 condominiums be limited by those restrictions outlined in the condominium conversion ordinance. This would assure the Town that these units would be in the rental pool for 48 weeks of the year. 8 Vo STAFF RECOMMENDATIONo Staff recommendation for the proposed Special Development District Number 14 is for approvals This proposal is essentially the same in density and design as the proposal that was previously approved by the PEC and Town Council as 1986 Special Development District Number 14e The issues at that time that concerned the staff and resulted in a staff recommendation of denial have been resolvedo The staff is comfortable with both the density issue and the parking solution that is proposed by the joint agreement between the Vail Valley Medical Center and Vail Holdings, Ltde We feel that the proposal to provide parking spaces on site is a superior solution to the 1986 proposal and are pleased with the work that has been done to date between the Vail Valley Medical Center and the Doubletreeo We would like to add to our recommendation of approval some requested conditionso Those conditions read as followso Ae The development contained within SDD14 shall not be converted to any form of time share ownership for a period of 20 years from the date of building permit issuanceo The applicant agrees to limit the use of any new dwelling units approved to this development plan to those restrictions outlined in Section 17o26s075A Condominium Conversion of the Vail Municipal Codeo Notwithstanding the foregoing, the restrictions set forth in Section 17°26°075 of the Municipal Code at the Town of Vail shall not apply to the dwelling units during any period during which they are owned by any individual who is also a .owner of the Doubletree Hotels Bo The 92 additional accommodation units approved with the approval of SDD14 shall be developed as lodge rooms or transient residential units under a single ownerships Any proposal to condominiumize the accommodation units or transient residential units would require approval as per the subdivision regulations of the Town of Vaile_.._ Ca The applicant shall bear all cost related to the design and construction of the deceleration lane improvements required for the Doubletree access permit as submitted to the State Highway Departmento These improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for any new residential units developed on this sites 9 D. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall demonstrate that all required approvals from the State Highway Department for changes to access off of the south Frontage Road have been obtained. E. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any improvement in SDD14 the owner, or owners of SDD14 shall provide to the Town of Vail documentation of the agreement between the Vail Valley Medical Center and Vail Holdings, Ltd. that allows the Doubletree Hotel its designated employees or guests the right to use a minimum of 48 parking spaces in the Vail Valley Medical Center structure from the hours of 5:30 pm to 6:00 am. This parking agreement must be in a form that may not be amended or rescinded without the approval of the Town of Vail. 10 s ORDINANCE NOo 7 Series of 1989 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING ORDINANCE 5 SERIES OF 1986, A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (KA1OWN AS SDD NOa 14) AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18°40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETOe WHEREAS, Chapter 18°40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes special development districts within the Town; and WHEREAS, SDD Noe 14 for development of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing was originally approved by Ordinance 5 of 1986; and WHEREAS, The applicants wish to make extensive amendments to SDD 14; and WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SDD 14 will ensure unified and coordinated development within the Town of Vail in a manner suitable for the area in which it is situated; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed SDD; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants and visitors to establish said Special Development District Noo 14; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THATo Section to Repeal and Re-enactments Ordinance 5, series of 1986 is hereby repealed and re-enacted with amendments to read as set forth belowo Section 2e Amendment proceures Fulfilled, Planning Commis- Sion Reports The approval procedures prescribed in Chapter 18040 of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the report of the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending approval of the proposed development plan for SDD 14e 1 e Section 3. Special Development District 14. Special Development District 14 (SDD 14) and the development plan therefore, are hereby approved for the development of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing, within the Town of Vail, consisting of 2.6298 acres of 114,554 square feet, more or less. Section 4. Purpose. Special Development District 14 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail and to promote the upgrading and redevelopment of a key property in the Town. The development is regarded as complimentary to the Town by the Town Council and meets all design standards as set forth in Section 18.40 of the Municipal Code. There are significant aspects of Special Development District 14 which cannot be satisfied through the imposition of the standards in the High Density Multiple Family zone district. SDD 14 is compatible with the upgrading and redevelopment of the community while maintaining its unique character. Section 5. Definitions. A. "Transient residential dwelling unit or restricted dwelling unit" shall be denied as a dwelling unit located in a multi-family dwelling that is managed as a short term rental in which all such units are operated under a single management providing the occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilities. A short term rental shall be deemed to be a rental for a period of time not to exceed 31 days. Each unit shall not exceed 645 square feet of GRFA which shall include a kitchen having a maximum of 35 square feet. The kitchen shall be designed so that it may be locked and separated from the rest of the unit in a closet. A transient dwelling unit shall be accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through another accommodation unit, dwelling unit, or transient 2 residential dwelling unit. Should such units be developed as condominiums, they shall be restricted as set forth in section 17.26.075--17.262.120 governing condominium conversion. The unit shall not be used as a permanent residence. Fractional fee ownership shall not be allowed to be applied to transient dwelling units. For the purposes of determining allowable density per acre, transient residential dwelling units shall be counted as - one half of a dwelling unit. The transient residential dwelling unit parking requirement shall be 0.4 space per unit plus 0.1 space per each 100 square feet of GRFA with a maximum of 1.0 space per unit. Section 6. Development Plan. A. The development plan for SDD 14 is approved and shall constitute the plan for development within the special development within the special development district. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Anthony Pellecchia, Architects as dated December 27, 1985, and consists of the following documentse 1. Site plan 2. Preliminary landscape plan by Berridge and Associates, Inc. 3. Typical floor plans 4. Elevations and sections 5. The Environmental Impact Report dated January, 1986 as prepared by Berridge and Associates, Inc. 6. Revised parking plans dated December 5, 1988 by Anthony Pellechia, Architects. B. The Development Plan shall adhere to the followings Setbacks Setbacks shall be noted as on the site plan listed above. Height Heights of structures shall be as indicated on the elevations listed above. 3 Coverage Site coverage shall be as indicated on the site plan listed above. Landscaping The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated on the preliminary landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for their approval. Parking and Loading Parking and loading shall be provided as indicated on the site plan and floor plans as listed above. In no case shall the parking provided on site be less than 193 spaces, and there shall be no less than 68 spaces available to the Doubletree, its designated employees and guests in the Vail Valley Medical Center parking structure. These 68 spaces shall be available to the Doubletree from the hours of 5:30 pm to 6:00 am. Section 7. Density. Existing development on the site consists of 128 accommodation units and 19 dwelling units consisting of 73,577 square feet of gross residential floor area. The approval of this development plan shall permit an additional 92 accommodation units or transient residential units and 5 dwelling units, consisting of 42,576 square feet of gross residential floor area. The total density permitted with the approval of this development plan consists of 220 accommodation units (92 of which may be transient residential units) and 24 dwelling units with a total of 116,153 square feet of gross residential floor area. Section 8. Uses. Permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be as set forth in the High Density Multiple Family zone district. In addition to these uses, Transient Residential Units shall be allowed as a permitted use. Section 9. Amendments. Amendments to the approved development plan shall follow the procedures outlined in Section 18.40.100 of the Vail Municipal Code. 4 Section loo Conditions of Approvals for Special Develo mp ent District 140 Ao The development contained within SDD 14 shall not be converted to any form of .time share ownership for a period of 20 years from the date of the approval of this ordinances The applicant agrees to limit the use of any new dwelling units approved with this development plan to those restrictions outlined in Section 17.26o075aA, Condominium Conversion, of the Vail Municipal Codeo Notwithstanding the foregoing, the restrictions set forth in Section 17e26v075 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail shall not apply to the dwelling units during any period during which they are owned by any individual who is also an owner of the Doubletree Hotelo Bo The 92 additional accommodation units permitted with the approval of SDD 14 shall be developed as lodge rooms under a single ownerships Any proposal to condominiumize the accommodation units would require approval in acordance with the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Vail. Co Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the building department all required approvals from the State Highway Department for changes to access off the South Frontage Roads Prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for residential units constructed on site after the effective date of this ordinance all improvements required by the State Highway Department access permit shall be completede De Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any improvement in SDD 14 the owner, or owners of SDD 14 shall provide to the Town of Vail a copy of an agreement between the Vail Valley Medical Center and Vail Holdings, Ltdo allowing the Doubletree Hotel, its designated employees or guests the right to use 5 a minimum of 48 parking spaces in the Vail Valley Medical Center structure from the hours of 5:30 pm to 6:00 am. This parking agreement must be in a form that may not be amended or terminated without the approval of the Town of Vail. Section 11. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 12. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 13. The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any-other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS 7th DAY OF March , 1989 at ~~30 pm in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building in Vail, Colorado. 6 e Ordered published in full this 7th day of March , 1989. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST Pamela A. Brandemeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED THIS DAY OF , 1989. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST Pamela A. Brandemeyer, Town Clerk 7 ORDINANCE N0. 6 Series of 1989 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10 OF THE TOWN OF VAIL INVESTMENT POLICY. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: 1. Section 10 Portfolio Diversification is hereby amended to read as follows: The Town will diversify use of investment instruments to avoid incurring unreasonable risks inherent in overinvesting in specific instruments, individual financial institutions. Maximum Percent of Portfolio Diversification by Instrument: Money Market & Interest Bearing Checking Accounts with Commercial Banks 50% Money Market Accounts 50% U.S. Treasury Obligations (Bills, Notes & Bonds) 100% U.S. Government Agency Securities (per Section VI.4) 100% Repurchase Agreements 75% Certificate of .Deposit Commercial Banks 100% Certificate of Deposit Savings & Loan Association 25% Local Government Investment Pool 100% Diversification by Financial Institution: Repurchase Agreements No more than 50% of the total investment portfolio shall be secured in Repos with any one institution. Certificates of Deposit - Commercial Banks No more than 20% of the total investment portfolio shall be secured in any one commercial bank's CDs. ni„ ~,~,.i,,,~,.a ~+; ~; .,~,.~ „f ate..., ; ~ If the amount of any of the above investments are in excess of the percentage allowed, it is not considered a violation of this Policy if the amount is corrected within thirty (30) days. 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or b,y virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING this 7th day of March , 1989, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 7th day of Marcl-i 1989, at '7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this 7th day of March Kent R. Rose, Mayor . 1989. ATTEST: Pamela A. Br~andmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk . 1989. Kent R. Rose, Mayor _2_ March 17, 1989 TO: TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS RON PHILLIPS FROM: DANI HILD AND CHARLIE WICK RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE BUSINESS LICENSE MARKETING FEE ORDINANCE 1. 5.04.040 FEE 3.(b) Construction should be $243.75 (75% of Zone 1) 2. 5.04.040 FEE P.( Realtors) We need to extend this explanation so it specifically includes all realtors holding an active license. In real estate offices a realtor can hang his license under an active status although he no longer resides here, refer a sale to the firm, and receive a commission. Per the internal review committee, all realtors with an active license, whether full-time or part-time need to be counted. 3. 5.04.040 FEE 2)b) iii) Taverns -- This definition needs to be extended to include 3.2 beer license, Beer and Wine license, and a Club license. 4. 5.04.040 FEE 12)(Businesses operated under same premises) This needs to state all businesses owned by the same person or group of persons. 5. 5.04.040 FEE 10) Home occupation category should also include the Bed and Breakfast type of business. 6. We need to include verbage that explains what will happen when a business changes hands. Points we need include: a) The person(s) holding title to the business on January 31 of any year will pay the licensing fee for that year. b) When a business changes hands, there will be a $100 transfer charge for the new person(s) to obtain a Business License. The intent of the Ordinance we believe is to collect the Business License Marketing Fee only once per year per organization. Under the former ordinance the basic Business License Fee was $100, and it was charged again when a business changed hands during the year to cover administrative costs for the transfer of a license. Transfer fees will be accounted for in the Business License fund for marketing purposes. Q ORDINANCE N0. 8 Series of 1989 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.04.020 I., 5.04.040 6.2)a)iii), 5.04.040 B.2)b)iii), 5.04.040 B.3)b), 5.04.040 6.4)a), 5.04.040 6.4)b), 5.04.040 B.12), AND 5.04.120 OF CHAPTER 5.04, ANNUAL BUSINESS LICENSE, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town Council reenacted the annual business license ordinance of the Town of Vail with major amendments on December 6, 1988; and WHEREAS, during the administration of that ordinance, the Town staff has suggested that certain amendments to the ordinance should be made; and WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that such amendments would benefit the health, welfare, and safety of the inhabitants of the town. NOW, THEREFORE,. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: 1. Section 5.04.020 I. is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.04.020 I. "Home Occupation" means a business which is conducted within a residence and is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the residence for dwelling purposes AND SHALL INCLUDE BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS AS DEFINED BY SECTION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL. 2. Section 5.04.040 B.2)a)iii) is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.04.040 6.2)a)iii) ~~„~-ESTABLISHMENTS WITH A STATE OF COLORADO TAVERN LICENSE, 3.2 BEER LICENSE, BEER AND WINE LICENSE, OR CLUB LICENSE shall pay a minimum fee of three hundred twenty-five dollars ($325), and in addition, a fee of four dollars ($4) per seat located indoors. 3. Section 5.04.040 B.2)b)iii) is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.04.040 6.2)b)iii) ;~=e-r„T ESTABLISHMENTS WITH A STATE OF COLORADO TAVERN LICENSE, 3.2 BEER LICENSE, BEER AND WINE LICENSE, OR CLUB LICENSE shall pay a minimum fee of two hundred forty-three dollars and seventy-five cents ($243.75), and in addition, a fee of three dollars ($3) per seat located indoors. 4. Section 5.04.040 6.3)b) is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.04.040 6.3)b) Construction service businesses located in Zone Z shall pay a fee of two hundred +~•~°^}~~-f~~~° FORTY-THREE dollars AND SEVENTY-FIVE CENTS `-~- ($243.75). 5. Section 5.04.040 B.4)a) is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.04.040 6.4)a) Real estate sales and/or management and/or development businesses in Zone 1 shall pay a minimum fee of three hundred twenty-five dollars ($325), and if there is more than one (1) person with aN ACTIVE real estate sales or broker's license employed or doing business on the premises, a fifty dollar ($50) fee for each additional sales person or broker. 6. Section 5.04.040 6.4)b) is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.04.040 6.4)b) Real estate sales and/or management and/or development businesses located in Zone 2 shall pay a minimum fee of two hundred forty-three dollars and seventy-five cents ($243.75), and if there is more than one (1) person with aN ACTIVE real estate sales or broker's license employed or doing business on the premises, a thirty-seven dollar and fifty cents ($37.50) fee for each additional sales person or broker. 7. Section 5.04.040 6.12) is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.04.040 B.12) Where more than one business is operated in the same premises AND IS OWNED BY THE SAME PERSON, PARTNERSHIP OR CORPORATION, the business license fee shall be paid as follows: a) Only one business license fee shall be paid for all businesses in the same category of the business categories set forth in paragraph 5.04.040 B(1)-(10) hereof. b) A business license shall be paid for each business in different categories of the business categories set forth in paragraphs 5.04.040 B(1)-(10) hereof. 8. Section 5.04.120 is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 5.04.120 TRANSFER OF LICENSE IF A BUSINESS IS SOLD OR TRANSFERRED TO A DIFFERENT INDIVIDUAL, PARTNERSHIP OR CORPORATION AFTER THE BUSINESS LICENSE FEE FOR ANY GIVEN YEAR HAS BEEN PAID, THE NEW OWNER SHALL PAY A ONE HUNDRED DOLLAR ($100) TRANSFER FEE, AND UPON PAYMENT OF SAID FEE, SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A NEW LICENSE OR PAY AN ADDITIONAL LICENSE FEE FOR THE YEAR OF SAID TRANSFER. 9. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the -2- validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 10. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 11. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING this day of 1989, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of 1989, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of 1989. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of 1989. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk -3- TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 7, 1989 SUBJECT: A request for variances from the 20' front setback requirement and from the 30' stream setback requirement, to allow for the construction of a primary/secondary residence. Applicant: Robert and Francis Gunn I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES RE UESTED The applicants are the owners of Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing, which is located at 342 Mill Creek Circle. The property has an existing single family residence located upon it, with a building footprint of 1040 square feet. The owner is proposing to demolish and remove the existing structure, and to construct a new primary/secondary residence with a footprint size of 2,111 square feet. The applicant has requested the use of Ordinance #36/1988 for an additional 250 square feet of GRFA. The proposed building would require the following variances: 1) Front Setback _ The request is to allow an encroachment of 14 feet into the required 20 foot setback. 2) Stream Setback v The request is to allow an encroachment of 8 feet into the required 30 foot setback (measured from the center of the stream), It should be noted that the existing residence on this lot currently encroaches 10'-6t0 into the front setback. II. CHRONOLOGY The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the above named variance requests on February 27, 1989, and by a vote of 4e3 approved of the requests with the following condition: That the northeast section of the lot be deed restricted to prohibit any future development. The three dissenting votes were cast primarily due to the applicant's request for an additional 250 square feet of GRFA. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation requests. The applicant unique physical hardship corridor on the lot and that a hardship would be strict interpretation of is for approval of both variance has shown that this site possesses a with the location of the stream the mature trees. Staff believes imposed upon the applicant if the the zoning code were to be enforced. ,~= , ~ . TOe Planning and Environmental Commission FROMa Community Development Department DATEt February 27, 1989 SUBJECT: A request for variances from the 20' front setback requirement and from the 30' stream setback requirement, to allow for the construction of a primary/secondary residence. Applicants Robert and Francis Gunn I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES RE UESTED The applicants are the owners of Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing, which is located at 342 Mill Creek Circle. The property has an existing single family residence located upon it, with a building footprint of 1040 square feet. The owner is proposing to demolish and remove the existing structure, and to construct a new primary/secondary residence with a footprint size of 2,111 square feet. The proposed building would require the following variances: 1) Front Setback - The request is to allow an encroachment of 14 feet into the required 20 foot setback. 2) Stream Setback - The request is to allow an encroachment of 8 feet into the required 30 foot setback (measured from the center of the stream). It should be noted that the existing residence on this lot currently encroaches 10'-61° into the front setback. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zone Districts Primary/Secondary Residential Lot Sizes 0.4052 acres/17,651 square feet Maximum GRFAo 4015 sq ft (+250 sf; Ord #36/1988 = 4265 sf) Proposed GRFAo 4188 sq ft III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS __ Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: i-' ~° Consideration of Factorso A. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Front Setback Variance Residences along the interior of Mill Creek Circle have historically been located in close proximity to their front property lines which are nearest the road. Many of the existing homes in this area encroach into their respective front setbacks and a few structures are even located across property lines. The effect of maintaining these structures on the outer edge of the Circle is the creation of a large B°open space1° area on the interior of the Circle. This °°open space" area is utilized as a view corridor toward the Gore Range by some of the property owners. The Department of Community Development believes that the requested front setback variance would not adversely affect the privacy of use of any adjacent properties. The majority of the existing trees along Mill Creek Circle will be maintained in their present location and a few will be slightly relocated, thereby preserving the strong landscape buffer along the south property line. Allowance of a front setback encroachment on this site would also ensure the preservation of the mature evergreen and aspen trees located immediately north of the existing residence. Stream Setback Variance The Department of Community Development agrees that this site exhibits some very difficult development restrictions, given the location of Mill Creek as it bisects the lot. The encroachment into the 30 foot stream setback has been reviewed closely by the staff, and it is our opinion that the proposed encroachment, which will maintain a distance of 12 feet from the 100 - year floodplain, would still allow for the development of a healthy stream tract. The applicant has agreed to complete extensive landscape improvements along both stream banks throughout the length of this lot. B. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The 30 foot stream setback has reduced the buildable area of this lot by approximately 52%, and has certainly created a physical hardship upon redevelopment of the site. Staff believes that approval of the requested variances would not be a grant of special privilege due to the unique development restrictions on this lot and the historical building sitings on the circle. C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. This variance request, if approved, would not block any light or air on adjacent properties and its overall effect would be to preserve the "open space" view corridor area, immediately north of the residence. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems ~~licable to the proposed variance. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. F ~ e. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOI~ENDATION The staff recommendation requests. The applicant unique .physical hardship corridor on the lot and that a hardship would be strict interpretation of is for approval of both variance has shown that this site possesses a with the location of the stream the mature trees. Staff believes imposed upon the applicant if the the zoning code were to be enforced. ~~ . ,. .~a.o e.. ' ORDINANCE N0. 36 ~' Series of 1988 ~e AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.71 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE • _ TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE THAT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WHICH ARE TOTALLY REMOVED AND REPLACED SHALL BE ENTITLED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF SAID CHAPTER; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. • HHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to specify that Single Family Dwellings that have been completely removed and replaced shall be entitled to be considered for additional GRFA pursuant to the terms of Chapter 18.71 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: 1. Section 18.71.010 is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.71.010 Purpose The purpose of this Chapter is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of single family dwellings and dwelling units which have been in existence within the Town of Vail for a period of at least five (5) years by permitting the addition of up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area ("GRFA") to such single family dwellings and dwelling units, provided the criteria set forth in this Chapter are met. This Chapter does not assure each single family dwelling or dwelling unit located within the Town of Vail an additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet, and proposals for any additions hereunder shall be reviewed closely with respect to site planning, impact on adjacent properties, and applicable Town of Vail development standards. The 250 square feet of additional GRFA may be granted to single family dwellings, two family and multi-family dwelling units only once, but may be requested and granted in more than one increment of less than 250 square feet. Upgrading of a single family dwelling or a dwelling unit under this Chapter shall include additions thereto or renovations thereof, and in regard to single family dwellings, the complete removal of the building and its foundation and the replacement thereof with a new foundation and building. 2. Section 18.71.020 is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.71.020 Single Family Dwellings and Two Family Dwellings Any single family dwelling or dwelling unit in a two family dwelling not restricted by the Town of Vail to housing for full time employees of the Upper Eagle Valley shall be eligible for additional GRFA not to exceed a maximum of 250 square feet of GRFA per single family dwelling or two family dwelling unit in addition to t ,.' ~, ' ~ existing GRFA or the allowable GRFA for the site. Before such additional GRFA can pe granted, the single family dwelling or dwelling unit shall meet the following -° criteria: r~ A. At least five years must have passed from the date the single family -~ . dwelling or two family dwelling unit was issued a temporary certificate of occupancy or a minimum of six years must have passed from the date the original building permit was issued for the construction of the dwelling unit. B. The single family dwelling or dwelling unit shall have received its final certificate of occupancy. C. Proposals for the utilization of the additional GRFA under this provision shall comply with all Town of Vail zoning requirements and applicable development standards. If a variance is required for a proposal, it shall be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant to Chapter 18.62 before an application is made in accordance with this Chapter. Any single family dwelling or two family dwelling which is totally removed shall: 1) be replaced with any prior existing nonconforming uses or development standards totally eliminated; 2) obtain a building permit within one year of final Design Review Board approval or the approval for additional GRFA shall be voided; 3) be allowed a maximum of the GRFA allowable by zoning plus a maximum of 250 additional square feet. D. Adjacent property owners and owners of dwelling units on the same lot as the applicant shall be notified of any application under this Chapter that involves any external alterations to an existing structure. Notification procedures shall be as outlined in Section 18.66.080 of the zoning code. E. If any proposal provides for the conversion of a garage or enclosed parking area to GRFA, such conversion will not be allowed unless anew garage or enclosed parking area is also proposed. Plans for a new garage or enclosed parking area shall acrompany the application under this Chapter, and shall be constructed concurrently with the conversion. F. Any increase in parking requirements as set forth in Chapter 18.52 due to any GRFA addition pursuant to this Chapter shall be met by the applicant. G. All proposals under this Section shall be required to conform to the Design Review Guidelines set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Any single .family dwelling or dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall be required to meet the minimum Town of Vail landscaping standards as set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Before any additional GRFA may be permitted 1n accordance with this Chapter, the staff shall review the maintenance _. c~ 0 .. ~ ~ `® . vand upkeep of the existing single family dwelling or dwelling unit and site, including landscaping to determine whether they comply with the Design Review Guidelines. No temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any expansion of GRFA pursuant to this Chapter until all required improvements to the site and structure have been completed as required. H. The provisions of this Section are applicable only to GRFA additions to single dwelling units. No pooling of gross residential floor area shall be allowed in single family dwelling or two family residential dwellings units. No application for additional GRFA shall request more than 250 square feet of gross residential floor area per single family dwelling or dwelling unit. 3. Section 18.11.030 of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.71.030 Multi-Family Dwellings Any dwelling unit in a multi-family dwelling shall be eligible for additional GRFA not to exceed a maximum of 250 square feet of GRFA in addition to the existing GRFA or the allowable GRFA for the site. Any application for such additional GRFA must meet the following criteria: A. At least five years must have passed form the date the building was issued a temporary certificate of occupancy or a minimum of six years must have passed from the date the original building permit was issued for the construction of the building. B. Proposals for the utilization of the additional GRFA shall comply with all Town of Vail zoning requirements and applicable development standards. If a variance is required for the additional GRFA, it shall be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant to Chapter 18.62 before an application is made in accordance with this Chapter. C. The building has received its final certificate of occupancy. D. Portions of existing enclosed parking areas may be converted to GRFA under this ordinance if there is no loss of existing enclosed parking spaces in said enclosed parking area. E. Any increase in parking requirements due to any GRFA addition pursuant to this Chapter shall be met by the applicant. F. All proposals under this Section shall be reviewed for compliance with the Design Review Guidelines as set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Existing properties for which additional GRFA is proposed shall be required to meet minimum Town of Vail landscaping standards as set forth in Section 18.54 of ~,.- ,. J .. _ sites r~ ~ ~ i~~ `°' she Vail Municipal Code. General maintenance and upkeep of existing buildings and ;r`' sites, including the multi-family dwellings, landscaping or site improvements (i.e., trash facilities, berming to screen surface parking, etc.) shall be reviewed by the staff after the application is made for conformance to said Design Review Guidelines. This review shall take place at the time of the first application for additional GRFA in any multi-family dwelling. This review shall not be required for any subsequent application for a period of five (5) years from the date of the initial application and review, but shall be required for the first application filed after each subsequent five (5) year anniversary date of the initial review. No temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any expansion of GRFA pursuant to this Chapter until all required improvements to the multi-family dwelling site arnd building have been completed as required. - G. If the proposed addition of GRFA is for a dwelling unit located in a condominium project. a letter approving such addition from the condominium association sharp be required at the time the application is submitted. H. No deck or balcony enclosures, or any exterior additions or alterations to multi-family dwellings with the exception of windows, skylights, or other similar modifications shall be allowed under this Chapter. I. The provisions of this Section are applicable only to GRFA additions to individual dwelling units. No "pooling" of GRFA shall be allowed in multi-family dwellings. No application for additional GRFA shall request more than 250 square feet of gross residential floor area per dwelling unit. 4. Paragraph 18.71.040c is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.71.040 Procedure C. If the Community Development Department staff determines that the site for which the application was submitted is in compliance with Town of Vail landscaping and site improvement standards, the applicant shall proceed as follows: 1) Application for GRFA additions which involve no change to the exterior of a building shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department staff. 2) Applications for GRFA additions involving exterior changes to a building shall be reviewed by the staff and the Design Review Board in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.54. 5. Chapter 18.71 is hereby amended with the addition of Section 18.71.050 to read as follows: ~- ,. e e ~e ~ .. ® ~® 18.71.050 Application /- In the event the owner of any single family dwelling made application for additional GRFA and was denied under prior Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, because the ~/ existing foundation of the single family dwelling was not being retained, such single family dwelling shall be deemed to be in existence and the owner thereof shall be entitled to apply for additional GRFA hereunder for such single family dwelling regardless of whether or not such single family dwelling and its foundation were destroyed or voluntarily demolished prior to the owner thereof making application for and/or receiving additional GRFA for such structure hereunder. 6. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 7. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 8. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING this 6th day of December 1988, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 6th day of December 1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this 6th day of December 1988. . ~~ v C~~- Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, T wn Clerk ~ _ f q d: v TOS Planning and Environmental Commission FROMS Community Development Department DATES February 13, 1989 SUBJECTS A request for side setback variances in order to construct additions to a residence located on Lot 3, Bighorn Estates. Applicantst Harriet and Robert McCue I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES RE UESTED The applicants are requesting a side setback variance of 5 feet in order to add a deck beyond the 7 1/2 ft. setback allowed for decks. This encroachment maintains 2'61° from the deck to the property line. The ,second request is for a 14'6°° side setback variance in order to construct a second floor addition. The existing structure already encroaches 9'6°° into the side setback. The expansion will encroach an additional 5 feet. The proposal will maintain 6°° from the property line. The applicants are utilizing the 250 Ordinance for the 178 square feet. The board may recall that the applicants came before you on November 14 with a request for front and side setbacks and site coverage variances in order to construct a trash enclosure, deck, and to enlarge the kitchen. That request included asking for 48 square feet of GRFA under the 250 square foot rule. The request was approved. The proposed 178 square feet added to the previous 48 square will result in a total request of 226 square feet under the 250 square foot rule. Allowed GRFA is 1103, existing GRFA is 1252 or 150 square feet over allowable. Zoning for this property is Two Family Residential (duplex). Bighorn Estates, Lots 10 and 11 were subdivided several years ago into townhome sites (small lots numbered 1 through 7). This subdivision created legal non-conforming lots smaller than that which would be allowed in present day zoning. The minimum size of a duplex lot today is 15,000 square feet. Lot 3 contains only 4415 square feet. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the side setback variances based upon the following factorst 1 Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The side setback variance request of 5 feet added to the existing encroachment of 9' 6" makes the resulting setback 6" from the property line. Although the existing structures in the vicinity do encroach into required setbacks, none encroach to this extent. The adjacent residence is 4 feet from the property line at its closest point. The staff feels that a one foot setback for the second floor addition is not acceptable and reduces to a great degree the already small amount of open space that presently exists between this dwelling and the adjacent residence. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The sites in this development are generally small and nonconforming. Since the subdivision was completed after the structures were built, the sites are all overdeveloped. The staff feels that to add to the nonconformance to the degree proposed does not follow the intention of the 250 ordinance. As far as the deck encroachment is concerned, it would seem that the deck addition could be modified so that it followed the setback line and no variance would be needed. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The encroachment does affect the light and air with respect to the distance between buildings. There is no effect on any of the other factors. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. III. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of.the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation specified regulation would privileges enjoyed by the the same district. IV. STAFF RECO1~lENDATION or enforcement of the deprive the applicant of owners of other properties in The staff recommends denial of the side setback variances. In approving the 250 Ordinance, the Town Council directed the staff to look very carefully at variances requested in connection with requests under this ordinance to prevent overdevelopment. The staff feels that the first side setback request in November was warranted, as it allowed for a trash enclosure (which is encouraged). The variance was also only encroaching 3.2 feet into the side setback. However, a request to encroach within 6°° from the neighboring property is pushing the intent of the ordinance. It appears that additions could be made to the rear of the home without encroaching into the side setback. It would also seem that the deck could be constructed within the deck setback allowance without hardship to the applicant. 3 (~ ~~~ ~~~ I~eda~or~ PARTNERS November 11, 1988 ;,.: ., ~:,~~.- John V. Seeman ~ :.- ~.~.C,~e%:4~ Cdr - Partner ~" ~`P•'~a` ^~~iC.~;r.~'Y a ~'r . ; ~.r,z - =~ -: - -'s,;,: Mr. William Pierce Intratect P. V. Lox 57 Vail, CO 81658 REe McCue Residence Expansion ,Lot 3, Bighorn Estates 4269 Nugget Lane (West Half) Vail, CO 81658 Dear Williamo This. letter is written to give my approval to the McCue residence a~~~pa~:,irn as outlined in the drawings dated 11/3/88 for their residence located at Lot 3, Bighorn Estates, 4269 Nugget Lane, Vail, Colorado. I have spoken with Bob McCue and based upon the plans as submitted to me % see nothing that causes a problem for me or that would .cause me to protest the construction. `{~~`~• Sincerel hn Vo Seeman _ ___ ~ <. -." .. ,:.:. JVS/ j o ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ _ - ~ a :':;..,; 6 o 3200 Chc.~~ r'r, .icuth ~..v@ `'~•'e 570 Carner, C_tor3~., 00209 (303r T~2.1~. jp ,• \ ;r',p: ~'-• ,.'r. ::r~; >..c:~-' '"•F:^-.Mt C~: '~1:-w•;A:C?YF~•T:'..~..1 i.TyL:: j,li•;~i:•7~C~~: :.;~{`:-~:,;`•'^'a;;:jai{- ~`;:~``~r ~`oi. `i4~'--.. ii Y < ;~ December 8 1988 ,~ , 'N'~~`~';~`a~ ~ . , . r t' ~ T ~ '76 V r; ~. q. r-, a . . ~r ~ ~ {_ Mr William Pierce 1; '. ~' '~ ~' ' •"' ""'~` fir ' . , . : ...r•. Intratect 4~ -~ P ~ ~ 5 t ,. ~ :+ Y' r . . yww y.t ,.a J . e ! J BoX ,, Vail, Colorado 8165$' f: ~ r *h ~ .,r A ~ ~. :.,- ,. ~ii'v,': i:~~'Y'~ ~ t~. ri .~;, ~, ~ r -rJ wti J - sn~~ 1.1 r t?'s~~k, ~.~j t•,"`',~.'•~i . r c~V wl~~ s J ~ s ~ m ' :' - ~ ? - ter . k ~ •~ _ ._ • Y ~ .~ . .. Dear Bill. - ~ ,. ~.,.. ~,: ....Y~.,.;.,....~,~~~.:.:i ,•.. . ;• . ,~ r.?p'. ~.< _r ~' ~!~ •'.. L. ,` 1 ;, , ~- .. S ':'. F:,;-~•• .. ; 4. 1 d . t , We ' .fd h ~ S~ST7 " ~ J,~ ~ i - ~ We feel that the planned d t w : • . ... secon s or . '. ti...~ y ~- ; < 4Q~ . . .addition to the west side of our duplex, ;~;> - i~-:a°:;~'N _ as explained to us, will be a benefit to ..,.. -~ `~"'~~•~~ '' the neighborhood. - ... ;. ~:; ~;,;;~:`-',~_f.,.., . _ We are confident that the city will _ ~~ ' approve this additi n o as directed - ~~~' c.:<.::! :~;^;t>~~~;~•~,T: , ~ `{'~`' •`~"- "'''~'° , .Since a r 1 Y ,:>~~ :..~:;,.'~:' ~Y,s ~ ::' ~;;~. ,~?::_.. :' s I.. , ~ ~4')'aJ ~ :y ~ : . yy~~ J) 'I'i:.~ i . . ~ , ' N ~.. „t M1\'. '.i ~.. . . .. , . .. ..• , .. " )+ . v 41• ~~ i 44`~ 11.iS::i.d ,y A.r T\~ "~'~~ ` Brenda and Alan Himelfarb ~ w'"tt '~ ~ • . ":~ _ _ , .• , :4269 Nugget Lane :~ _ ,. ~• ,; .% r ,.-~~ , , ' •~ Vail, Colorado 81657 •~ r , , , ~''• -`' •'~ ~"~.~:~~:`~s r /S'..'. . a.•: _ ~•. .. . . .. .. i . .. .. .-. ~~-•~. ., ., • . :. .•. .'. .. ... ..." _. ~ "• fi ' .. .. .. .. .. .. ... • r , .. . t. - . ~~:.ati.. ~. ~ ..r.. .i ~ ' ',:J ~: ~~. -:t. ~.~.r. .~r'.'r': .~~: • •P'r'.•r`~ ''``' y i• . . '' ~ .:~.' : V ' •. G'.r ,~ 11' S • ! ' ` ~ ~ ' M `• 4 '~<:'.. .~~ iJ` r. 'f.:.s{ . ~,:.!'~, .~M.P:'.t1w .•••,n'.,. '.:e-' I~•. ~ :till ~~•. ~6 •/!' M • .: ~ - . . . f . N . ~ I . M L .I: \ 1 ~ ? ' ~«'T' +'(~;. ~f"~.~w.. .L J~.:. ' <Y' •a i.;.~vi!nf.~ .l. ~A . . . . ' ,. •P .T "N'Y,. . .~.. T;.~\....J ~', . ~`~ f .r` b ^ F'eggy osterfoss =Seconded the motiono Discussion of the . - motion followeda ~. - Clarification of Moti.ono. Until we~,(PEC) find out what^the State Highwa De t y par ment wants-and will approved ~- . Votes 3 for, 1 against, 2 abstain ~ ~'~~ '' -.-,y^ -. ,;_ a - Ray McMahan =Asked for a clarification •of the PEC •motion ~ - •'- o _ - He would like clear direction as to what information the - hospital should presents - ,- i .. .' :T:.. D1SCLdSSlon O$ th1S 1sSUe fOllowedo . ?'; - .~.... - -~ ~ decision was made to have a work session on this issue on 3/27/890 . ... - . . 3 o McCue Varian eo . .;,. - ~r : ,~ .'' r , .. - ~. ~ - esentation by Kristan Pritzo Staff recommends deni l ^~ ~ a per staff memo regarding criteria and findingso - McCue. o ..-. °„ 5 :. ~ ~+' •!; -°:;`.' .. `a . ~12obert Applicant~and•owner gave~•his~presentation ~= requesting approvalo All neighbors agree that the variance -will i '•~ .- mprove property values. in the areao None~are ' „~: ~ o osed o This - PP ~s not a special privilege,-.many adjacent. . homes already have .., ., many , additions o ~ ~ ,,;, ~ ~ ::, ~,,~ : ~ • dill Pierce e Property was zoned ~while~, in~ ~Eag1e,County ` , • ~t ~ ,~ ;,;~ , .- annexed to Town, and may not be properly zonedo: , Deck x xs . , encroachment is not visible except to adjacent owners who • have n0 bl ` ' 1e .e ~ ~ r~,F, , ' ~,~" r+ar~ ~. ~~ r'~ yy ,~?~ pro a, ,, ;, emo ~,, '' ` Sidney -Schultz A ,. _ ~~ .., : - r;, > • ,: ,^; • pparentl % w t ' . - ~ ~ y as no present at PEC during ~ - ••the previous McCue variance request® however, do feel that ~ ` ... ,.,,..-z S;~ :. :. ,.: ,_. .. addition could be handled without this degree of - , encroachmento ;. - Diana Donovan e F'eels~direction from .council was that 250 '~ - . square foot addition should not allow variances to this ~ . , degreeo Distance between buildings is too closed `~ :;Peggy osterfoss =Agree with Diana®s comments regarding the. 250 v. .... :.. square foot ordinanceo .. .. Grant Riva o Agrees with direction given from Council and , staff, however, given attitude of neighbors and low impact ' I ld ' -- ,. ; wou vote in favor of thiso ~~ - • -'~' - . ~: Jim Viele =Agree with Grant for a little different^ • ~' - ~~; '~..::; : .:.:. .. .. ,~ - .. .. . reasono .; Persuaded that variance criteria are being met so could a .. ... . vot for it a . . :.. ,. .. .. .. .. _. . ~ ,Tw 1 - _ .. •~ ~ ~ - ~: ~ _ ;~: 4 ,~~ Motion: Grant Riva -Move that request be approved as submitted ~-~,~, Y~ . ~, ' -with ~ . findings of no grant of .special privilege, no detriment to ~„ry ~ , ~ c,,,, public health or welfare. ~: ~ tl ~' N y y.. ~ p ~ - f ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ Second: Pam Hopkins' z ~ ,. '' ~'"'. 5 s. ~s .Vote : r _ 3 - 3 (Note: A tie vote is deemed a denial) ~. s r~, Y ~.. .; :. . .... ~ i'Y 4 ~~ • ~ - Pierce/Fritzlen - Rez~oning• t ~ .. ? '. v' ~~ r,' Presentation by Mike Mollica. ;Recommendation for approval ~ ~'' ~ ~ `'~=~' based upon Land Use Plan, surrounding zoning and allowance " , ' s } ~ ;' ~ »~~ for an employee housing unit. ~. ', ~i,'!~ Y p ~n V ' : . ,.. .. ~ .:. x ~ r Y ~~ r`Motion. ~ ..,~, ,~ Diana Donovan - Move recommendation .of approval per '' a _;,~,~; i~ staff memo. '~. y Y ' , yr ~ ~ ~_ Second: Sidney Schultz Vote: „. 6 - 0 _ - - `; ~,~:,:, :;, 5. .:; . . Pierce/Fritzlen Variance to Minimum Lot Size: - . ;t . . , . ,' : <; . . . . ` ~~ `. s ~ ...~ : r Staff presentation~by Mike~Mollica• 'Recommend approval, ~ `• : ~ : feels there is a benefit to adding an employee unit with ' 4 '''' ` ~ , a condition that 'the. Town Council approve. the above ,:.: ' S y ~~ ~ iy" ~ , . referenced re zoning. ~ T ~ ~ w ,,~ ~,4 _ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~+ ~ ~ ~ ~A ~'.~ ~~~ ",Motion: Donovan -Approve per staff memo, noting the x -~~ `~ ` ~ - ~ - 'conditions of approval . ' ~A ' ~ ~"" ~ +-~ Second:. Peggy Osterfoss ;; - -~ `Vote : 6 -~ 0 ,:, •: . { , '~ 6. 'Y: _ ,.:-. - ,:;' ' Sitzmark Lodge Exterior Alteration: :> ,, ~ '~ ~ .. }~• Staff presentation by Mike Mollica.'.Recommendation for. 't N~ ~ approval with condition'that.the existing. large spruce tree = ` r R ~ °, . be relocated on site. r by : r :~ ~ ~'~ ~' + , ~ .:bhp .. y. ~ -<, . l ~ ~:e f ~ * ''-:rY v -~ 'a t ~•- 7~ ., Duane Piper Representing the applicant, `made a brief s ;, :t ~ ` , '~ . presentation regarding maintenance and space needs . :The ~ ~ - ~ - : , , existing tree .does need to be; removed to accommodate the ~: ~?-~` ~ ~~'`'"'' ~.,,;: _ addition..~The applicant wishes to expand the alpine garden :;:. 'landscape concept and feels smaller trees would compliment ' . that type of landscaping better. -With regard to parking • Duane feels that the creation of a new parking space by ..: ~ removing the boiler should cover the required parking of . the addition. Bob Fritch, the Sitzmark owner spoke to the .~ ;. :` landscaping issue.. - - "~ . . t~ :. . ; , ,.. , .; :, ,:. .. ~,~ ~ < < : Diana Donovan -Feels the building needs some tall vertical ~- • , G: t~ ;. landscape elements.: DRB should examine this ~;~ ~~' ~~ ~ ?~~'^ .. . ~ ' _ .~ '.: • .'. I ~ ~ ~ ..+ .. i .. IUWn 0 75 south frontage road bail, Colorado 81657 (303)476-7000 M~rnu ermTrnr T0: RON PHILLIPS ,-~ FROM: PAM BRANDMEY~' DATE: 16MAR89 RE: STREET ENTERTAINMENT/SUMMER 1989 office of the town manager A committee composed of five members, those being Sylvia Blount, Karen Morter, Kristan Pritz, Mickey Poage, and myself, met this morning to review four proposals submitted regarding street entertainment for the summer of 1989. To gauge the quality of each proposal, a rating sheet had been prepared listing all criteria from the original Request for Proposal. Although the committee did discuss weighting certain criteria, eventually we opted not to do this. For your further information, I have attached the rating sheets from each of the committee members. This includes comments as well as specific number totals which are a reflection of two general categories, i.e., MEETS RFP and EVALUATION. Our results are as follows: AGENT MEETS RFP EVALUATION TOTAL B. Quayle Productions 84 184 268 ProEvent 88 215 303 Skyline 111 270 381 Winterset 87 164 251 The committee was extremely concerned the local proposer be given consideration for past performances, stability, and quality of enter- tainment. However, it is clear from these ratings we were visibly impressed by the creativity, diversity, and probable excellence of programming offered by Skyline. We are excited about the infusion of energy and divergence from the norm that is being presented. I look forward to explaining these results in greater detail, should you wish me to do so. ~;; - AYW',r - I :,3 C :~ The battle a~ntai~ High ~chaai Theatre Departirnent is -`~`' :`~ '.~~. o ~raus~ to ~re~er~t the musical : _~ :,.` ~ .~ ~ ~ ~<° - :. ~, I T C: The stark of at ~®~ arphas~ girl searching far a Mace to ~ ~ °~~ - ~it ire. the fa~.ta~~gc ®rici of a ~ar-a~.vai_ I~ her ssar~h she is ~, ` T: ~arcea~ to gimme app her chiidhaaci dreams arxci eater the . ,,.~;,; ~.~ ~ , ~ - ....:~ adult ~arid a~ anger, de~ressian as~d heart~real~. - - - ~tarrir~g: ~ilisa~ Phillips, Steve ~ahi~ir~g, Jarred. ~'hiili~s, - . ~ ~ , Jer~~.i~er Speer, Tadd I3ceruur~, ~ea~ ~a~er ar~d a straz~g , . - ~t~ppart cast. . ~irectec~ ~~ : . ~ ne Faster ., ., ~, ~ ..N '~~'. f~ Time: 7.~~ ~~. Tickets may ~e purchased at the daar_ ~~_5~ student ~~.~~ adult ~: . . .. a et,. ~ ~, DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 87CV931 ORDER I~AR 1 5 1989 ;. MICHAEL A. FRENCH, Plaintiff, vs. TO[aN OF VAIL, RONDALL V. PHILLIPS, VAIL POLICE DEPARTP4ENT, Defendants. This matter is before this Court as the result of the post-judgment recusal by Judge Richard H. Hart to whom the case was originally assigned. The undersigned Court has considered the entire file in this case, including all pleadings, the findings and conclusions of a hearing officer on plaintiff's appeal of his discipline, the decision by the Defendant Rondall V. Phillips (Town r4anager), and the applicable municipal rules. After thorough review of this file and special attention to the possible impartiality of the previous judge, this Court concludes that there is no reason to change or significantly modify the judgment previously entered by Judge Richard H. Hart. The essence of this case is whether or not the town personnel had reasonable suspicion to believe that Plaintiff Officer French was violating the Town's rules against intoxication on duty. There is a-basis in the record for such a finding, and such a finding was, in fact, made by the town manager. Accordingly, this Court again affirms the ruling. made by the tcwn manager and orders this action dismissed with prejudice. Done and signed this 14th day of rlarch 1989. BY THE COURTS /~'~ J~`~ ~ /Ar Wm. L J _es Yom" Chie J dqe Fifth Judicial District .~ g ti,-d 4i CERTIFICATE OF MAILING e I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoinq ORDER was placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid, on the 14th day of March 1989, addressed to the following: Lawrence J. Eskwith Attorney at Law 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Mr. Edward P. Carlstead Attorney at Law 1120 Lincoln Street Suite 1300 Denver, Colorado 80203 / . %. - ~ -- _ /. dOWn 0 ~'::~~. 75 sou4h 9ron4ag® road ball, Colorado 89 857 (303) 478.7000 office of 4he 4ovun manager TM March 14, 1989 Mr. William B. George General Manager Vail Valley Consolidated Water Districts 846 Forest Road Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Proposal regarding exchange of properties Dear Bill: VAII.,~989 Thank you for your letter discussing the Water District's proposal on exchanging the Lion's Ridge and Gore Creek water treatment plant sites for the Old Town Shops parcel west of the sewer plant. I also appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and Ed Drager Monday to discuss the issue further. The Town Council discussed your proposal in executive session last Tuesday and I believe the Council members are interested in the proposed exchange. However, there are some conditions which the Council would like to see considered as part of the exchange. 1. The present use of the Old Town Shops building would need to continue for at least five years from January 1, 1989 because of the Town's lease with UMRD. 2. We would like to see documentation of legal access to the Lion's Ridge treatment plant site. 3. We would like to review recorded documents on the two treatment plant sites and receive verification from you that there are no deed restrictions on either property which would prevent future development or sale of those properties. Mr. William B. George March 14, 1989 Page 2 4. The Old Town Shops parcel would carry a reverter clause providing that the property would revert. to the Town if the sewage disposal plant is not expanded onto that parcel within a reasonable time. 5. The Town of Uail would retain the air rights over the expanded sewage disposal plant and would require that foundations of the expanded plant would be designed and built to accommodate at least two additional stories of building above the plant. 6. The Town of Uail would retain design approval authority of any expansions of the sewage disposal plant and any other improvements on the property. 7. The Town would require that the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation Districts build 10,000 square feet of building space above the expansion of the sewage disposal plant and provide adequate parking for that additional space to replace the Old Town Shops building and parking which now exist. The building space we are now occupying on the Old Town Shop property has been effectively used by the Town for many years and has substantial value to the Town. Consequently, the Council feels they could not meet the public interests of the community by exchanging this property for the two surplus parcels without maintaining or rebuilding the existing floor space which has substantial value to the Town. Representatives of the Town Council and I will be glad to meet with you and members of your Board to discuss this further. We will, of course, in any probable transaction, accept formally the responsibility for clearing snow from the fire hydrants in Vail. Sinc a y, Rondall V. Phillips Town Manager RUP/bsc cc: Vail Town Council Larry Eskwith .. RECD MAR ~ 5 ~~9 [1 nr1"1 Ci~ :~('rtJ.Ce G{ ~F'.'~,-i('F? P;_~zn TiE'.ar1nC.(~ STF~TR nF COLQP~~nC } } 5 :, . CCI?'_vT~' OF ~.11GLr ) T T `Tli,2 -(• T T^, liL i?~'r<<' T~IT`n7 ~.. ~_ {-1 , r-: ~ „a .,,i,j-1?''.}?C? rG1.1T't:=,:` ~~ E'I"}: ar:C' REyCOrdP.Y_ GL T;c <7=:' ~OLIn~:`r, CO~_O?"aC':O (t11e "~:Cll;?1:•.'") , ,'x ~;e?:'~"_CF Plan 2nC~ ?"f:i_u~.eC', C':`Cl.l- 1~F'.^.+_~- "(lY '..ti ^'-G1:'C~t_C ~rlt.~i. ~•7c_i~c~:' ~'~,' ~~f?t?^~?n.7~ ~it-:.^_ ~i.cit:~1~.~.. (L}1e '~ :1...:1"_.C':rr) `.T'1~,.. ~E'_r'1_CP_ _':-c:.. ~triC'~ rCi.c~iC'd (7OC11T:;P.:1'~:E~ E1rF rO(~' On rl ~ E_' 1i1 t}1e nF' 1CE' O ~ t}1C? ~Ollnt`J ClAri: c rd Reoorder and are uVai la}:;I.E? X01^ Ill?}711C 1n3pP.Ct1Gn. r1OTICE IS FURTI3ER GT_VF.?~? that=, b`,' order of t}le Faard or Counter COT:lI'.li ssioners of Eagle CountJ, Colorado, a publi C hC'-a?"i nC7 Cil SaIC~. ~erV1.Ce Plan cZnd relatE'C~ CIGC11?*lerit3 jai l l J-je }1e'_d at the EaCIIF_' COUnt,,r CGllrt}1OUSe, 551 }3rGa d(~Jc::V, Eagle, Colorado, at 3:15 r,, m., on Nonda;r, the 10th day of Apr;? in89. - .. The rurpcse o ~_hA he r~ :!g shall be ~c~ consider the ad P. C;llcrtr Of t.}-.e ~E'rVi C'P_. Plan G~ tL1P_ 1~rC1~GSed P,istri Ct and t:~ ' Or?': cx :.JC~1S _;; GI- a~:G;~t1I1C1 ~: ;_^2iC?lut?.Gn cT~prO;ri 71C~ r C: O.!C:?;:~C~i:~ti~~' cTJi:~?.^G`:~~t-;C7, Ci. Q?Saj?'7?'C~~.'~;1CJ t}?? S°_Y;,_'_CE? P~ ??. }:C, Lnlliia-" %]:C: ~E'_1r:-.~i~.~v -_..._11C1r.~ ~ , f;" ~ ~_ r~~` _. _ r. ~ r,^.i:T ~ Gl;~: T1'dt:E.i S tdtC`- 1: F.i'iC: thE? l~aC7~_F' T~. ~~'I?,^ r:~'Ct~~, (J-`-~~Sl'.':. ~C' _..c-'...'. ~:%Ei__1 ~:.:~i' _;:~~ '=!1(da:' Qr ri.t=•C~ r'' - rr - r..- '-'„_'_ T1ZE° Tl:_~1-----:.._ _.. ..i:'J= ~ ri•??''_ ~r:LS'_c°tr'`; C~p~ %c: ~ ~. •~ ~ '~ .,. . >~ri c. a~ .. -----~'~. rJ~:1"CE'1 Cir lG.i'i1 (~1.~"_'1Cj,];'7(=~.'~~1]_il TGW~~1Cii1i Ti •"•_ cG:i+,:}1 • p~:iICTF-'~ V ~ . 33 , (,-~ C!::(: t: S i'it~':''~, 4:T?C: ~.:1 Ta(:~r.sh_p 5 South, RdngP_i 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 undu'J ~'~ei}, ar.d 1I1 TGt:;iii}11TH G ~Citl''L., ~.:?'1C,F? ~,Cl c;7!C; E1 ;';'e:>t of tht~ Si:_th I'rinc?_pal '~4erj_dj.ar., Zagle Count_%, Cn~ orado, more part icularly described a:; rGIiOW.f-i Beainr.ing at the Northeast corner or Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 79 Wept of the Sixth Princi~lal P~ieridian; t}lence southerl~r along the Fast section lines of Section 7 and 18 to the southeast corner of said Section 18; thence westerly along the south line o~ said Section 18 to the southwest corner of said Sectior. 18, said corner being on t11e rar.geline bet~•Jeen Ranges 79 west and 80 Pest; thence continu_r.r westerly along the south line of Socti_on 13, TG(,-r.sllii 5 South, F.ange 80 I'lest to the southwest cGrneY of sai d SeCt?.Cn 7.3; the.lcP Wort}?r.;w-'_tr alone the (•:e^t 11r.e - ~ -- C ~ ~r ~~~« SF~ctio-: 13 t~ the ~~ CtiC)n COr?lE'r CU^L..,On t0 SC-'C't:0i1S ~., ]. ~/ 1? c'nC~ ~ ,`- ~c-~- 1 d a hE.,l._C? h'~.>._F_',i l ~.' r11 nnC t}7f? Soll~~}1 1 :ne-: O~ ~~(;t10nS 11, 1 ~, g, Fi an(i ~ .? t0 ~)1F? ,'',Ollt}11•T(_'St CC)r:?Cr (fir ,~;z(~ ~C'C't'1C%I1 7, ,c.~ c', i d corker Y)einr_, or. the rangeli_ne bet~•:een Ranges 80 ':':F'st ar.c? 81 ;•.,e~l_; the:~ce ;,nu.t}, ._? _ o. ~r... ae:_:,,~.~en n.`nr,~=s "'} ~:r.c? . 8i. ?F~s~..tc, the southe~:.:~t.: Corh(~r or Sec.ticn 36, ~'r.••~,•~lsh~~~ 5 ~o -}, r'8nC (1 T~''?~'- ~. .. tit ~ ., .~=i1F?,'~E'tl.) `, r ~ ~-?l C7 ~.:C.'. :-c l';.iC}l.l;: t: E:. I'pt.)nc}Z ~~:;; _ SClllt}1 - E'.rA~'tP..rl~/ unc cOU`}i; t:}:(?nCC? .. alc~nr the north ? ~.ne ~L SeCti')^ , c- , ~ Cnll•`}, / ~r'==:C'{~? J1 :'vnc-i• to t11E' 'iOrj:~:E'c"1St (:or,Zer o~ said Section 1 thence southerly/ done the ranc7ol_.~ne betl.:een Ran(Ps 7 r-~ ~ - to the ~OlltI1P_c?S r t corner o.. Section 13, Too:nshin 6 South, Rance 81 ?~;est; thence easterl~~ acres the north lines o` Section 19 arc? 20 to t}1P. nc;rtheast cor_n_er o{ Ser_t:ion 20, Tot.-nship 6 S~,uth, P.ar.ge 80 T:1est; thence southerl:j/ alone the e:ISt line o'= Suctions 20 and 29 to the one-r:uarter corker bets,=een Suctions 28 <-lyd 29; thence ~:este~-1•, ,~ the east-~•~e_,t 1;,, r y .: ``'-°°•Q cer.ter..__.es oy Ser.tion ?_g ~3nd 30 to the west ~1.~.artQr-corner n Section 30 Sout17, Ranee 80 i~,o;-t• tr "'oc:%ns11i^ (, 1., ~ , ,ence cc:ntinu~na l:P_Si_rri~% E'1..,~--wF'_St C(lntt?r?.i;10S C?r `=eC',:iQn ?j, ?E ~:nG ~ ~ t0 t}7? C,Il .rtpr_C'OrnC'r ~.'F't~•leP..,, c i 'l.c -'~ i. T~,~•r ,-, ~ i~ i n 6 L• ~ L ~., ,~ J n0 ~_ _ ~ it OJ. , ~.`n(.~ C, T,~E;r-ii ~-}lfr_':;C:• rn !'. - Y_ r: 1. f .. .' - - :.-~ r_- - .~ t _ :~ ~.: C: !) _ :: li ~ ~; t. : ~ ,=. ~ C'. ,. C- ,-, -'~~' ~ i_ U r• i ETC ~ ~ •J' 1 - ". .j ^~ L ,C ~r`1.,~-l,E)~l ~~}~ }~.c:n - "`- `- r `;~:1C C'O~ nC:_ ~~C__ r 4,,, .,:(' ~ - -- ~~ C- ~ rll:~~~ r ~7Lt:ti; ~.~iE~i. :C, .. _ ... •c. .~ 1'_,1 f? C'Or~nr fir. c ,.__ - GIF=c'f- •,-~ _ - -, ._ .l. .. C t: ~n _~ illl? r'.C E:, ? ~} -~' a--or.c~ ~.le sc~llth loi•;:1::':~,.,, l; •- Y .nt ~h, F.~,nr,~ S~ ~:CE~s+~ to t~he sol<'~h~~:c~.~;'.. corner o ~~ ~'•;C: tn~':ns}lii%; 'hence COntiJ1L'1nQ ;-Je~';.E?r1•.~ ~^ r~~ - ~._:1C-? SnU Wit? ? i ne O~ - c..LO..c RGn,-e 33 ;~Ie L , ~ : 1~-p 5~ Soutrl, s~ to t,~e :=outhl:f~s'~ corne~• o. r~2'iC' Secticn 3G; thence norther. 1 y a1.o;,g the west ~ iIleS o~ Sections 36, 25, 24, 13, 12 and 1 to the nerthh~est corner of Section 1, Ran e 83 T~Te~-~ Township 5 South, g ~~; thence ~aesterl~~ along the south to~•~nship line of Township 4 Sough, Range 83 west to the southwest corner of said township; thence southerly along the rangeline between Ranges 83 and 84 West to the southeast corner of Section 24, ToFmship 5 South, Range 84 6Je~t; thence westerly along the south line of Sections 24, 23, 2?., 21+ and ~0 to the s~uthl~~est corner or Ser.tion 20, To~~: r. s h i p 5 South, Range 84 t~'est; th~nre ncrthe;.-l~, along the 1•~est line o~ Sect; on ~~ - 1 % anc? 8 to the: nc?rth~•.esy co~nel of Sectic,n 8, 7'c.;l•;nship 5 ~Ollth, R.an~e 84 f•,~c.s •_, ,_htncA 1.,~,::,:ter? ~, ,, 1 oac- ~.hP ~~.,lt~, ,- line of Sectior. 6 to the southwest coiner o_ Sect~.on E, Tc~•Jnship 5 South, Rar.ge 24 West; thence ~rJest.F.rl~~ along the. south line o` S~ctior_s 1, 2, 3, " 4 4nd 5 to th.e south~•Jest corner of Section 5, To~•Jr,ship 5 South, Range 85 WE~st; thence northerly • a'one7 the :;=est line of ;pair? Section 5 +~o the ncrth~:F t cerrer of sai c? Section 5 on the township line bets;=eer. Tn~:=nshi.ns 4 and 5 South; t}i~nce cc'r.yinuinc; i_ort>Zerlt= alone the ~;est iir.c_ o{ Section 3? to tht nc~r.th~~=e, t corner cr Sectior. 3?, '"own shin 4 South, Range 85 [^.'est; thence e~ stei-l~~ along the north li nfi or Sections 32, 33, 34 , ~5 anE: 3E to the northeast corner of Section 3G, 'Ic.~~Jnship 9 South, Range 85 ia'est nn the r.ar.reline between Ranges 85 a1id 84 West; thence northerly along said rargelir~e to the northwest corner of Section 19 , Township 4 Soutli, Rar_ce 84 ;hest; thence easterly along the north lire of Sections 19, 20, 2]. and 22 to the northeast corner of Section 2;?; thence northerly along the west lire o~ Sections 14 and 11 to the northwest corner of Sectior. 11; thence easterl;~ along the north line of Sections 11 and 1?_ to the northeast corner of Section. 1'', To~~mship -". South, Rar.ge 84 .•~est on the ranceli ne bets:=eon Ranges 83 a:~d 84 West; thenr:e cor.tinuinc~ ea..=.~erl_~, crossing said rangeline, ain;7o the north 1 ire or SECticns 7 through 12 to the northeast corner o= secti or: 1?., Town~hi.p 4 South, Range 83 '^,est on the ranrelinF beL;:~e.^. P.an;c~s ~'~' anu 83 ~:'est; thence southerl~:~ along paid ~i=T:C?elli7t' t(i t11f? :'!Orthfiest COrnE'r Or SF?CtlOn 31, Tc~an:~n'.p 4 Sclth, Rangy 22 t':eSt; t}'?G.i~CP_ ec1Sa:Er~" ~~.ionr, the' north ling of Section, 31 thr~uch 36 to '.he "lOrt}1°~tSt COr'iFr Cr SE?Ct~.On 3G, TG~'JnS}?gip d South, F.ange 82 ;',•cst on the ranc~e].i ne bet~:=een R.angc~s 2? and 21 hest; t}iPnce set~r_herl=~ alon, laic] rangeline to the southPas'~. corner oL said Section 36 , said corner al ,o being t},e northeJe ~t cornor o= Section G, Towns}yip 5 South, Range 81 i~Jest; t}zence easterl.v alone the township line betoJeen Towns}lips 4 and 5 South to the northeast corner of Section 1, Township 5 South, Range 81 West; thence continuing easterl~~ along the said to~onsliip line to the northeast corner. of Section 2, Township 5 South, Range 80 West; thence southerl1~ a~ong the east line of said Section 2 to the southeast corner of said Section 2; thence easterl',J along the north line of Section 12 to the northeast corner of Sectior. 12, Township 5 South, Range 80 West, said corner being on the ranc~eline between Range 80 and 79 ~^;est; thence continuing easterly along the north line of Section 7 to the northeast corner. of Section ?, Toc-Jnshin 5 South, Rar.cte 79 _ _. 4~est of the Si~;th Pr. i ncipal A4eric~i.nn anc? the Point of F?egin~:inq, containing 157.5 square miles, more or less. Pursuant~to Section 32-1-203 (3.5), Colorado Revised Statutes , as amender'. , and- person ocaning property in the pro~;osed Di strict may file a rec;uest that his property ::e es;cli:ded .from i_he p.r.cposeci District pri c-,r ~to approval of th° Scr~:~ice t~~_a'•7. ~li~h a revues+~ must }7 t? :;L','~P?ittP.C~ t0 the ~~nard or County Commi ssioner:~ r,o '.ater than ten (10) c~a~~s prier to the da~T fi;:ed ror the public bearing on the Service n._an. Purstiai~t to Section 3~ -1-305 (3) , Colorado Revised Statutes, as amenc'ed, the owner cf real property within the proposed District may file a petition with the District Court in and for Eagle Count;, requesting that such real property be e;;cluded from the proposed District. Such petition may be filed any time after the ~Ptition f_or the organization of the District is filed with the District court, but net later thar. ten (10) da~~s before the da~,~ fixed for the hearing on the organizational petition. THIS NOTIC?' GIV~\ RY ORDER OF THE Board o` Count~• co~?missioners of Eagle Count~~, Colorado, this --f~-- day of ~:-.rch, 1989. Eci~lE' Cr,unt~~, Color~r'o ~rnra Form of ~'c;t ice] -• f• - ~. MINUTES VAIL VALLEY MARKETING BOARD Thursday, March 9, 1989 7:30 a.m., Town of Vail ATTENDEES: Committee Members Mike Beckley Jerry Davis Frank Johnson Kevin Payne Jan Strauch Alternate Members Tom Britz Others Sylvia Blount K.T. Gazunis John Giovando (Bravo! Colorado) Bill James Rob Levine Charles Wick ABSENT: Alan Aarons Kent Myers Minutes of March 3, 1989 meeting were approved as amended. Frank Johnson motioned and Jan Strauch seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended. Kevin Payne was nominated by Jerry Davis and seconded by Mike Beckley to serve as Vice Chairman for the Board. All members present voted yes to this nomination. BRAVO! COLORADO Tom Britz asked John Giovando from Bravo! Colorado to give a report to the Board on what Bravo! has scheduled for the summer of 1989. The Board also exchanged a few ideas with John as to how the Marketing Board can best assist Bravo! in marketing, advertising, and public relations. Nothing conclusive was decided. COMMITTEE REPORTS Special Events: Mike Beckley distributed minutes to the Board of the committee's 3/8/89 meeting. Mike said the committee wants to increase the quality of "The Guide" which is produced by Karen Morter. Mike asked if there is money currently available to be used to produce an upgraded product. Mike said the master schedule of events is being developed by the committee. Mike also asked that the Board give direction to the committee regarding whether marketing dollars will be available to the committee. Regarding "The Guide", Jan Strauch agreed that a professional guide needs to be developed and perhaps sponsors can be found to help pay for it. Mike also said he would like to get a Bravo! Colorado representative on the committee. At this time, Jerry Davis motioned with Jan seconding that: COMMITTEES HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPOINT WHOMEVER THEY WANT TO SERVE ON THE COMMITTEE. All members voted yes on the motion. ~ -: Advertising: Jan Strauch distributed copies of the Request for Proposal which was mailed to approximately 40 firms on Wednesday, March 8. Kevin Payne asked Jan if the news release was sent out and Jan said it was taken care of. Sales Promotions: Call-to-action criteria area was discussed. Frank Johnson motioned with Jerry Davis seconding that: THE SALES PROMOTIONS COMMITTEE WOULD DEVELOP PROPOSED CALL-TO-ACTION CRITERIA TO BRING BACK TO THE BOARD. All members voted yes on this motion. The Board also assigned to the Sales/Promotions Committee to explore the feasibility, etc. of using and expanding Vail's low power radio tune-in for summer marketing purposes within the confines of the Vail Valley. Jerry Davis talked about the possibility of summer marketing tradeouts between the Colorado Broadcasters Organization and other State broadcasting associations. The Board assigned to Research to work with the State Highway Department to get signs that refer to Uail as a year round resort and not just a ski area. K.T. Gazunis said she would start this process by talking with the Highway Department. Finance: The Finance Committee has not met since their last report, but has set Wednesday, March 15, as their next meeting date. Jan Strauch brought up the idea of looking at American Express dollars as a long range financial opportunity for the Marketing Board. Public Relations: The Public Relations Committee has not yet met, but Kevin Payne said he would have one as soon as he could contact all the members. Kevin suggested the P.R. Cormittee may have to do an RFP like the Advertising Committee. Jan Strauch said that was probably not necessary as the RFP went to a number of P.R. firms. Kevin also said a two tier P.R. plan should be worked on. One tier directed for the 1989 summer and the second tier directed for the summer of 1990 with a lot of work donE~ this summer. It was then stated that John Dakin (UUF) would be asked to serve on the P.R. Committee. Bob Knous is to be contacted regarding John's appointment. i Jerry Davis wanted general consensus of the Board to ask Jerry Jones and David Kanally to be on the Sales Promotion Committee even though Board approval is not needed. Board consensus was given. OTHER Jerry Davis initiated discussion of the Board on the film "Where Eagles Soar". He said a grouK> of the original people involved in this project were going to meet with Roger Brown to make a marketing film at no additional cost since "Where Eagles Soar" does not meet that purpose. Jerry also made a motion for purposes of discussion and Kevin Payne seconded the motion "THAT THE MARKETING BOARD SET FORTH SOME MARKETING CRITERIA FOR THE SPONSORS OF THE "WHERE EAGLES SOAR" MOVIE FOR PURPOSES OF MARKETING." After discussion, Jerry withdrew his motion which was on the floor. Jan Strauch made a new motion with Jerry seconding the motion to adopt the letter written by Frank to be sent to the film's sponsors. The letter and motion reads, "THE VAIL VFILLEY MARKETING BOARD HAS VIEWED THE FILM "WHERE EAGLES SOAR". THE BOARD FEELS THE FILM, IN ITS PRESENT FORMAT, IS UNUSABLE FOR MARKETING PURPOSES. SHOULD FUTURE NEGOTIATIONS REGARDING THIS FILM OR FUTURE SIMILAR PROJECTS ARISE, THE BOARD FEELS IT IS THE APPROPRIATE ENTITY TO PROVIDE INPUT AND DIRECTION IN SUCH EFFORTS -2- AND REQUEST THAT OPPORTUNITY. PLEASE INFORM THE BOARD AS TO HOW WE CAN BE OF ASSISTANCE." All members voted yes on this letter and motion. Minutes Approved K.T. Gazunis said that pre-Columbian artifacts will be on display in the atrium of the County's Justice Center. A preliminary agenda was developed for the next meeting. This agenda is as follows: Preliminary Agenda 1) Call to Order 2) Minutes of March 9 Meeting 3&4) Discussion Regarding the Board's Philosophy and Operating Procedures and Process - Budget and Disbursement Process - Outlines for Committee Operation 5) Special Event Funding Discussion and Philosophy 6) RFP Process Discussion and Evaluation 7) Committee Reports 8) Update Reports Meeting was adjourned. P ~~ ~~ ~ ~ Motion l Second ,% 3 /~/~~ C irman Date -3- ! .. 1 MINUTES VAIL VALLEY MARKETING BOARD Thursday, February 23, 1989 7:30 a.m., Town of Avon ATTENDEES: Committee Members Alan Aarons Mike Beckley Jerry Davis Bill James Frank Johnson Kent Myers Alternate Members Tom Britz Others Ron Phillips K.T. Gazunis Kevin Payne Charles Wick ABSENT: Jan Strauch Minutes of February 15, 1989 were approved. MISSION STATEMENT A draft mission statement was produced which reads, "The Vail Valley of Colorado is a premier year round mountain resort. The mission of the Vail Valley Marketing Board is to broaden public awareness of the magic of the mountains through a comprehensive marketing program." The draft mission statement is to be finalized and adopted at the Board's next meeting. Subcommittee reports were given by the Advertising, Special Events, and Sales Promotion. ADVERTISING: Alan Aarons will present a draft advertising RFP to the Board at the March 2 meeting. SPECIAL EVENTS: Special Events reported on their subcommittee's activity. Minutes were presented regarding the first meeting of this subcommittee. Mike Beckley presented the Board with the proposed mission statement of the Special Events subcommittee. The Board made several changes to the draft mission statement which will be finalized at a later meeting. Mike presented to the Board a request by UMRD to fund $16,500 toward a Symphony of Sports program. The Board decided any funding of this type is inappropriate at this time as they do not have a marketing plan developed. Jerry Davis motioned; second by Mike Beckley to deny request for money but support UMRD's efforts to host this event. SALES PROMOTIONS: Frank Johnson presented the minutes of the Sales Promotions subcommittee which included an overview group meetings - Uail Valley group meetings, Denver pre- and post-convention, and special promotions. No action by the Board was taken. SUMMER MARKETING GOALS Three draft goals of the Marketing Board were discussed for implementation of the mission statement. i 1. Increase summer tourism related sales and sales tax growth in the Vail Valley an average of in real sales and an average of in sales tax growth after multiplier effect per season (CPI adjusted) over the current 1988 benchmark of $ in sales and $ in sales tax for the next three years. May-October is the measurement period. 2. Positively position the image of the Vail Valley in the market place targeted at four major market segments: 1) Out of state destination vacationers 2) Colorado weekend and/or day visitors 3) Transit I-70 travelers 4) Groups/meetings/conferences 3. Maintain credibility through a strong ongoing reporting/public relations and communications programs. The three draft goals will be finalized by the Board at subsequent meetings. The Board's next meeting will be Thursday, March 2, at 7:30 a.m. in Vail at the Municipal Building. ,~~ // Minutes Approved J~~'YI ~/ ~"~r~~~l K ~Ud~ ~~~~ ~~ C Mntinn Carnnrl -2- Date O MINUTES VAIL VALLEY MARKETING BOARD Thursday, March 3, 1989 7:30 a.m., Town of Vail ATTENDEES: Committee Members Alan Aarons Mike Beckley Frank Johnson Kent Myers Kevin Payne Jan Strauch Alternate Members Tom Britz Others Sylvia Blount K.T. Gazunis Charles Wick ABSENT: Jerry Davis Minutes of February 23, 1989 meeting were approved. MISSION STATEMENT The mission statement was adopted to read: THE VAIL VALLEY OF COLORADO IS A PREMIER YEAR ROUND MOUNTAIN RESORT.- THE MISSION OF THE VAIL VALLEY MARKETING BOARD IS TO BROADEN PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE MAGIC OF THE MOUNTAINS THROUGH A COMPREHENSIVE SUMMER TOURISM MARKETING PROGRAM. All members except Alan Aarons voted yes to the final mission statement. Alan's objection was the inclusion of "summer tourism" to the mission statement. Jan Strauch motioned with Kevin Payne seconding the motion. The 3 marketing goals were approved with the following provisions and amendments: FINANCIAL GOAL The Board will approve the proposed financial figures to be included in the formula of the financial goal as they are derived by the Finance Committee. IMAGE GOAL will read as amended: ---- POSITIVELY POSITION THE IMAGE OF THE VAIL VALLEY IN THE MARKET PLACE TARGETED AT FOUR MAJOR MARKET SEGMENTS: A. OUT-OF-STATE DESTINATION VACATIONERS B. COLORADO WEEKEND AND/OR DAY VISITORS C. TRANSIT I-70 TRAVELERS D. GROUPS/MEETINGS/CONFERENCES CREDIBILITY GOAL will read as amended: MAINTAIN CREDIBILITY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY THROUGH STRONG ONGOING REPORTING/ PUBLIC RELATIONS AND COMMUNICATION PROGRAMS. Jan motioned and Frank seconded the motion to approve these goals as amended with the financial figures yet to be finalized. All members voted yes. Kent brought forth a discussion on what call to action to use. After a general discussion, it was generally agreed by the Board to set up criteria so one of the two existing call-to-action numbers in the Vail Valley will be used whick will be determined on a case by case basis as the Board gets further into the marketing plan. All members generally agreed to this concept. ADVERTISING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Alan presented the draft RFP and News Release announcing the RFP to the Board. Jan is going to prepare a cover letter, review and modify the RFP, and get same to Charlie for typing and immediate mailing. SALES PROMOTIONS Frank reviE~wed in detail the subcommittee report submitted at the February 23rd meeting. Kent suggested sales promotions work on a summer TV ad with no call to action on it which can be placed with a call-to-action by any entity that wants to put their call of action on the ad. SPECIAL EVENTS Mike said this subcommittee did not meet this week. Mike sent a letter to Pat Dodson of UMRD notifying him that the Marketing Board would not participate in the Symphony o~f Sports program as an overall marketing program has not been developed. FINANCE Tom gave the report of the financial subcommittee and submitted the minutes of the subcommittee to the Board. RESEARCH K.T. distributed research materials from the Colorado Tourism Board. The Board watched the video of Steamboat's summer marketing film as well as the local video "Where Eagle's Soar." Meeting was dismissed at 10:40 a.m. Minutes Ap roved ~~ Seco l ,~ ~~ D e -2- a ~ MINUTES VAIL VALLEY MARKETING COMMITTEE Wednesday, February 15, 1989 7:30 a.m., Town of Vail ATTENDEES: Committee Members Alan Aarons Mike Beckley Jerry Davis Kent Myers Jan Strauch Alternate Members Frank Johnson, Vail Alternate Others Sylvia Blount Tom Britz K.T. Gazunis Bill James Rob Levine Kevin Payne Jack Rush Charles Wick ABSENT: Jim Gibson Minutes of February 1, 1989 were approved as amended. f 1_ ~ 'rlC~.~ '~~ILL~ U MISSION STATEMENT The mission statement was discussed with recommended changes to be made by Wick and brought to the next meeting. ADVISORY COMMITTEES Myers proposed six advisory committees be established and members assigned to each committee. The committees are: ADVERTISING: Aarons, Strauch PUBLIC RELATIONS: Gibson, Blount SALES PROMOTIONS: Davis, Johnson, Blount RESEARCH: Myers, Wick, Rush, Gazunis FINANCE: Britz, James, Wick SPECIAL EVENTS: Beckley, Payne, Morter, UMRD The purpose and definition of these committees will be completed at the next meeting. MISSION STATEMENT GOALS Myers proposed having goals tied into the mission of the Board. Identified goals are: 1) Financial Goal: Maximize sales tax growth throughout the valley. 2) Image or Positioning Goal 3) Credibility Goal Myers is going to further develop these goals and will bring to the next meeting. The Board members spoke to what is being planned by various entities for the summer of 1989. The Board established Thursday mornings at 7:30 as the official meeting days and times. Meetings will be alternated between the Avon Council Chambers and the Administrative Conference Room at the Vail Municipal Building or perhaps an alternate site. The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, February 23rd, in Avon. Minutes ~ ed ~~ ~~ lZ~ airman Date DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA ]MARCH 15, 1989 3x00 P.M. SITE VISITS 1:30 P.M. 4 1. 2 2. 1 3. Vail Gateway Building (Final) Motion-Hopkins Second-Sante VOTE 4-0-1 Approve as Submitted. Ned Gwathmey abstained. Lauterbach Residence (First-Final) Lot 2, Glen Lyon Subdivision Motion-Sante Second-Herrington VOTE 5-0 Approved as submitted and amended. King Residence (Final) Lot 1, Block 2, Lionsridge 4th Filing Motion-Herrington Second-Sante VOTE 4-0-1 Jamie McCluskie abstained. Approved as submitted contingent upon engineer approval. 7 4. Heartwood Residence (Final) Lot 1, Vail Meadows Motion-Sante Second-Herrington VOTE 5-0 Approval as submitted with landscape addition. 3 5. Vail International Garage Motion-Sante Second-Herrington VOTE 5-0 Siding change to lx8 channel lap cedar siding, stained 'to match building. 6 6. Ford Park Tennis Courts & Pro Shop Conceptual 7. Erickson Residence (Final) Lot 51, Glen Lyon Subdivision Motion-Hopkins Second-Herrington VOTE 5-0 Approved as amended (Landscaping additions) subject to staff approval of stone retaining wall cap. 5 8. Sitzmark Lodge Exterior Alteration & Landscaping Consent approval with condition that 15' evergreen trees be relocated to the north side of the property, southeast of the pedestrian bridge. VOTE 5-0 MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT• Pat Herrington Ray Sante Pam Hopkins - Ned Gwathmey Jamie McCluskie STAFF APPROVALS: Harris Duplex, new window - 4289 Nugget lane iou~n o8 uai 75 south 4rontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 479-2116 MEMORANDUM TO: Ron Phillips FROM: Steve Barwick i~.c~d„~ DATE: March 13, 1989 RE: 1988 Year End Financial Report Please find attached the 1988 Town of Vail Financial Report. Please note that these figures are unaudited and thus subject to change. GENfERAL FUATD The Town's General Fund revenue sources experienced very substantial growth in 1988. While a 6.3% growth in revenue was budgeted; the actual growth rate was 9.9%. All categories of General Fund revenue showed an increase over 1987 levels except Construction Fees and Charges for Services. The largest growth occurred in sales taxes, which were $333,476 over budget for the year. General Fund expenditures were $216,497 under budget in 1988. The largest savings occurred in the category of professional fees. This line item was $79,395 under budget due to several consulting contracts which were not undertaken in 1988. Other significant savings occurred in salaries and overtime, motor fuel, the Vail Symposium, Council Contingency, and electricity costs. Please see page seven for a detailed listing of these savings. 1988 FINANCIAL REPORT MARCH 13, 1989 PAGE 2 The net results of the higher than budgeted revenue and lower than budgeted expenditures is a fund balance increase in the General Fund of $525,982. The year end fund balance of $2.6 million is $1 million higher than the recommended minimum fund balance of $1.6 million. $400,000 of this is earmarked for usage in the next few years to maintain our street improvement schedule. We recommend, in line with the policy set by Council during the 1989 budget process, that an additional $400,000 be applied to street improvements to accelerate the current schedule and $200,000 be applied toward downpayment for expansion of the Village parking structure. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUMD The Capital Projects Fund showed a fund balance increase of $471,339 in 1988. However, this increase is offset by the need for $378,769 in rollforward expenditures needed to complete projects authorized in 1988. (Please see page six for a detailed list of needed rollforward funding.) The net increase in fund balance, after completing projects approved in 1988, is approximately $93,000. REAL ESTATE TRANfSF'ER TAX Real Estate Transfer Tax revenue in 1988 amounted to a record $1,619,47.1 - a 58% increase from the prior year. The additional revenue has allowed the Town to plan another phase of important open space projects for completion during the summer of 1989. CORTCLUS IOAf 1988 was another very successful fiscal year for the Town of Vail. The Town substantially completed $3.7 million of capital projects and also paid off a total of over $2.3 million in debt principal. The Town's fund balance also increased by over $711,000 in 1988 after taking needed project rollforward funding into consideration. Overall, strong performance by the continued slow growth in operating large and growing proportion of the capital improvements. Town°s revenue sources and expenditures, have enabled a Town°s budget to be used for SHB/ds TOWN OF VAIL 1988 FINANCIAL REPORT March 13, 1989 89FNDBAL TOWN OF VAIL - UNAi1DITED - STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE (Operating Funds Only) 1/1/88 - 12/31/89 RFvieed: 3/13/1989 REAL ESTATE SPEC. PARKING HEAVY GENERAL CAPITAL TRANSFER ASSESSMENT EQUIPMENT ; FUND PROJECTS FUND TAX FUND FUND FUND TOTAL ; Fund Balance 1/1/88 2,102,740 554,695 2,051 774 261,970 51,110 5,022,289 ; 1988 Revenue 11,536,776 6,040,027 1,860,241 134,108 1,423,315 20,994,467 ! 1988 Expenditures 11,010,794 5,568,688 1,936,427 94,635 1,168,188 ; 19,778,732 ; Gain/(Loss) 525 982 471,339 ( 76,186) 39,473 255,127 1,215,735 ; Fund - Balance 12/31/88------- ------------------------ --------2,628,722- ------------------ ----1,026,034__ --------------- ---1,975_588__ -------------- ----_301,443--_ --------------- _---306,237_ ------------ _'-_ ---- __6,238,024 ------------ ; -- 8YEI~PT TOWN OF VAIL 1988 Fiscal Year Financial Report 1988 1988 VARIANCE GENERAL FUND REVENtTE BUDGET ACTLIAL OVER/ (LTNDER ) --------------- Taxes ------------- ------------ -------------- Property & Ownership Taxes 1,625,ClUC- 1,699,373 74,373 Retail Sales Tax 4,843,000 5,176,476 333,476 Ski Lift Tax 570,000 633,124 63,124 Franchise Fees 340,000! 398,311 58,311 Penalty & Interest --------------------------------- 15,000! ------------- 8,283 ------------ (6,717) - 7,393,000 7,915,567 ------------- 522,567 Construction Fees 139,60C1 219,3CJ5 79,705 Licenses & Permits 97,600 93,Cl19 (4,581) Charges for Services 210,020 233,122 23,102 Transportation Centers 1,039,410 1,1CJ7,892 68,482 Dobson Ice Arena 427,1(10 426,824 (276) Recreation Programs 258,82(1 282,076 23,256 Intergovernmental Revenue 651,668 708,437 56,769 Fines & Forfeitures 121,300 179,11(1 57,810 Other (incl. interest earnings) 311,30,(1 371,424 60,124 TOTAL GF REVENUE 10 649,818 11,536,776 886,958 REVISED 1988 1988 VARIANCE GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES - BUDGET ACTtTAL OVER/(UNDER) ---------------- Town Officials -------------- 1,027,878 ------------ 1,02(!,555 ------------- (7,323) Administrative Services 814,586 809,322 (5,264) Community Development 536,781 438,982 (97,799) Police 1,784,267 1,765,113 (19,154) Fire 825,461 816,492 (8,969) Public Works 1,484,876 1,469,467 (15,409) Transit 1,279,508 1,207,720 (71,788) Transportation Centers 810,903 774,391 ~ (36,512) Dobson Ice Arena 617,585 641,582 23,997 Recreation Programs 613,243 608,894 (4,349) Library 439,718 429,126 (10,592) Contributions & Events 515,438 498,770 (16,668) Employee Benefits 78,0()0 63,1(12 (14,898) Insurance 377,900 467,278 89,378 Contingency 21,147 C1 (21,147) TOTAL GF EXPENDITURES 11,227,291 11,(110,794 (216,497) SURPLUS/(SHORTFALL) (577,473) 525,982 1,103,455 ... _. _ . 2 .._... 1988 1988 VARIANCE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND REVENUE ----- BIIDGET ACTt]AL OVER/(UNDER) ----- Retail Sales Tax - -------- 4,587,000 --------- -- 4,85(),328 -------------- ----- 263,328 County Sales Tax 137,000 139,407 2,407 Ski Lift Tax 570,000 633,124 63,124 Street Use Tax 58,000 C1 (58,000) Recreation Amenities Fees 20,000 34,669 14,669 Earnings on Investments 65,000 136,621 71,621 UMTA Grant Revenue 0 32,773 32,773 Miscellaneous 107,662 49,1(15 (58,557) Transfer from General Fund 0 164,C1C1U 164,000 TOTAL REVENUE 5,544,662 6,04C1,C-27 495,365 REVISED _--CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND EXP. 1988 BUDGET 1988 ACTUAL VARIANCE OVER/(UNDER) I-70 Interchange 160,600 1C-8,99C1 (51,610) Forest Road Bridge 5,000 4,937 (63) Black Gore Bridge 5,000 1,389 (3,611) Athletic Club Bridge 0 5,962 5 962 Street Maintenance & Improvements 1,021,760 995,885 , (25,875) Street Lights 30,00.0 37,133 7,133 Bus Grant Lobbying Expense 40,000 45,OOU 5,000 Bus Grant Expenses 300,000 47,281 (252,719) Fire Station Bay Improvements 20,000 9,755 (10,245) Dobson Arena Safety Improvements 8,000 11,134 3 134 Misc. Bldg. Maintenance 100,000 72,943 , (27,057) Parking Structures Improvements 105,000 113,222 8 222 Communications Equipment 131,000 126,276 , (4 724) Recreational Paths Maintenance 70,000 60,237 , (9 763) Municipal Building Remodels 164,000 174,417 , 10 417 Village Improvement Dist. Design 25,000 0 , (25 000) Signage Project Information Booth Expansion 198,700 50,000 156,715 79,766 , (41,985) 29 766 Bus Interior Refurbishment 26,000 25,131 , (869) Helipad Dobson Arena Equipment 25,000 57,500 U 1(1,553 (25,000) (46 947) Transfer to Computer Project 240,000 243,732 , 3 732 Transfer to Debt Service ----------------- 3..,250,780 3,238,230 , (12,550) TOTAL EXPENDITURES ------ --- 6,033,340 ____________ 5,568,688 _____________ (464,652) St1RPLUS/(SHORTFALL) (488,678) 471,339 960,017 3 1988 19.88 VARIANCE LOTTERY FUND BUDGET ACTUAL OVER/(UNDER) --------------------------------------------------------- REVENUE 7,000 8,710 1,710 EXPENDITURES 7,000 8,710 1,710 SURPLUS/(SHORTFALL) 0 0 0 REVISED 1988 1988 VARIANCE REAL ESTATE TRANS TAX_FUND_______BUDGET ACTiIAL OVER/(TINDER) REVENUE RETT Taxes 1,002,000 1,617,026 615,026 Golf Course Lease/VMRD 70,(100 70,000 O Earnings on Investments 145,(100 153,215 8 215 ___Miscellaneous ------------------ 0 ------- 20,00() , 20,000 TOTAL RETT REVENUE --------- 1,217,000 -------------- 1,860,241 ----------- 643,241 EXPENDITURES Purchase of Open Space 395,932 411,412 15,480 Transfer to Debt Service Fund 788,662 788,662 O ___Projects ----------- 813,17.0 736,353 (76,817) _ TOTAL RETT EXPENDITURES _____________ 1,997,76.4 ______________ 1,936,427 ___________ (61,337) SURPLUS/(SHORTFALL) (780,764) (76,186) 704,578 REVISED 1988 1988 VARIANCE SPECIAL PARRING ASSESSMENT FUND BUDGET ACTUAL OVER/(UNDER) REVENUE Special Parking Assmnt Fees 45,000 63,663 18 663 Daily Parking Fees 0_ 52,004 , 52 004 ___Earnings_on Investments_________ -- ____17,000 18,441 , 1,441 TOTAL SPAF REVENUE _ -- 62,000 -------------- 134,108 ---- 72,108 EXPENDITURES ___Parking Projects 9,000 90,402 81,402 SURPLiIS/(SHORTFALL) 53,000 43,706 (9,294) 4 1988 1988 VARIANCE HEAVY EQUIPMENT FUND BUDGET ACTUAL OVER/(UNDER) REVENUE 1,174,400 1,423,315 248,915 EXPENDITURES 1,222,325 1,168,188 (54,137) SURPLUS/(SHORTFALL) (47,925) 255,127 303,052 5 ;88RF Revised: 3/13/1989 TOWN OF VAIL Project Rollforwards needed in 1989 REQUIRED IN FUND PROJECT 1988 BUDGET 1988 EXPENSES 1989 FOR COMPLETION Gene ral Master Transportation Plan 18,000 0 18,000 Gene ral Air Qualit Study Y ------------------ 9,000 0 8,000 SU BTOTAL: --- GENERAL FUND ---------- - 27,000 ---------- 0 ------------ 26,000 Cap. Proj. Bus & Facil. Grant Match 300,000 47,281 252,719 Cap. Proj. Communications Equipment 131,000 126,276 4,700 Cap. Proj. Fire Station Bay Improv. 20,000 9,755 10,250 Cap. Proj. Dobson Arena Safety Improv .8,000 11,134 6,900 Cap. Proj. Misc. Building Maintenance 10,0,000 72,943 24,000 Cap. Proj. Information Booth Expan. 50,000 79,766 5,400 Cap. Proj. Municipal Bldg. Remodels 164,000 174,417 ~ 7,800 Cap. Proj. Village Improv. Design 25,000 0 25,000 Cap. Proj. Signage Project 198,700 156,715 42,000 SUBTOTAL: CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND ----- 996,700 ----------- 678 287 ----------- 378,769 RETT Ford Park Construction 500,000 452,000 38,500 RETT Bighorn Park 37,000 7,000 31,000 RETT Pedestrian Path 130,000 70,000 30,000 SUB __ TOTAL: _____________________________ RETT FUND __________ 667,000 ___________ 529,000 ___________ 99,500 GRAND TOTAL $1,690,700 $1,207,287 $504,269 6 The following is an analysis of why General Fund expenditures were under budget by $216,497 for - the year 1988. The items are listed in order of savings produced. ITEM 1988 BUDGET 1988 ACTUAL SAVINGS EXPLANATION Professional Fees 205,272 125,877 79,395 Majority of savings were in Community Development Dept. Salaries and Overtime 5,283,015 5,235,107 47,908 Actual = 99.1% of budget Motor Fuel 150,000 115,947 34,053 Lower than expected fuel prices. 1989 budget is $130,000 Symposium 45,000 19,945 25,055 Both revenue and expenses ~ were less than budgeted. Council Contingency 150,000 128,853 21,147 Council did not spend all of contingency. Utilities/Electric 284,050 267,606 16,444 Actual = 94.2% of budget TOTAL 224,002 ~A~'UR~~. E~ERGV RES®URCES C®NBPANY ~,~ ~ 3 9~8~ ®_®®®®s--------- " P. O. eott 567 o Palmer lake, Colorado 80133 ~ (719)481-2003 ~ FAX (719) 481-4013 March 8, 1989 Governor Roy Romer and Colorado State Legislators State Capitol Building Denver, Colorado 80203 Dear Governor Romer and Legislators: The recent rash of Colorado water bills is symptomatic of the public°s frustration with state water development in general, and Two Forks in particular. Unfortunately, all of these bills avoid the state's most pressing water need. .~ simple statewide water plan is urgently required to serve as an advisory guide for future Colorado water development. The permanent, unnecessary environmental damage of Two Forks provides the best case for modest statewide water planning. Governor Romer was seriously handicapped in making his yes/but Two Forks decision, because there was no planning reference that gave a statewide water perspective.' Colorado's i4ater and Power Authority and `Vater Conservation Board were not involved, since these state water planning agencies have concentrated on less controversial issues, such as minimum fish flows and small water projects. The much more important, but emotionally charged, trans-basin questions are largely avoided by the state's water planning experts because of the complex political implications. Now that the Bureau of Reclamation is phasing out of regional water development, the Denver Water Department (D`VD) is strengthening its de facto role as Colorado's primary water planning agency. Because of,D~VD's current-unchallenged planning power, and near monopolistic control of Upper Colorado and South Platte water rights, Colorado's political forces are largely captive to the views of D~VD's management. These nonelected DtiVD officials are not about to voluntarily drop their outmoded Two Forks Dam that will destroy a nationally treasured canyon, degrade the state's water quality, and over deplete the same 6Vest Slope tributaries. Nor are most of the dependent Denver suburbs, who had little choice but to heavily invest in DtiVD's 50 year vision. The 6Vest Slope's Colorado River Water Conservancy District's "co'mperation" on Two Forks is detrimental to its own seriously depleted headwater area and the state's overall interests. However, this district's coalescence with D6VD is not surprising, as it can no longer depend on a free Bureau ride for its future water projects and extensive staff overhead expenses. Although Colorado's water laws are basically sound, it is a travesty that state water development has" become mired in nonproductive confusion"and controversy. As the tiVest's headwater -x 2 state, Colorado has more than enough water. The problem is balanced distribution. Because of the visceral political biases of Colorado's divergent river basins, Colorado continues to suffer in a self-imposed water planning vacuum. The basic constitutional notion that Colorado's water belongs to all of its people has been largely lost in the emotions of inter-basin politics. It is a well known fact that the other western down river states are taking advanl:age of Colorado's unique Byzantine approach to water resource management. Instead of more bills that tend to inhibit water planning and balanced distribution efficiency, our water .development company respectfully suggests legislation to consolidate state water planning undE~r the Colorado `~<~ter Conservation Board. This agency's board members and staff should be largely independent natural resource engineers and planning experts, who do not specifically represent the political interests of individual river basins. These professionals would draft an advisory type water planning guidE~ for review and approval- by state agencies, the governor, and legislature. ~Jater developers and local, state, and federal off~~.cials would then have a meaningful statewide perspective of Colorado's overall water needs, resources, water quality, and environmental concerns, that could be used as a reference throughout each water project's development, including the critica~_ conceptual and permitting stages. Tf Colorado provided this facilitating planning service, water development efficiency would be greatly improved. State financing would not be required ~~Then the economically viable water projects are compatible with the state's basic development guidelines. Also, this planning agency's unbiased experts would be in a good position to Yielp mediate the ad hoc balancing of equities between divergent int;erests, instead of resorting to the traditional energy sappinc; legal battles. , The dryer- western states have been able to efficiently temper their established water laws with some balanced water resource planning. Colorado would have an even greater potential for enhancing its environment, water quality, recreation, agriculture, and economic development, if better planning were available. We surely can avoid costly mistakes, such as the destruction of a treasured canyon and over depletion of one basin, while an untapped sister basin loses much of Colorado's entitled water to_ down river states. Sincerely, ~iy C:=~ Allen D. (Dave) Miller President ~- ADM/bm ~ ~ . cc: LPA Administrators Reilly and Scherer; Secretaries Lujan, Yeutter, and Marsh; Colorado Congressional Delegation; COL. WHILE AMERICA SKIED, THE WORLD DIALED UP VAIL AND SAW THE CROWNING OF SKIING'S NEV/ CHAMPIONS An Assessment by John Fry here are more Alpine skiers in America than in any country in the world. American skiers are among the world's most enthusiastic. But most of us ski, in preference to watching ski races, and in the arena of international competition, the U. S. and neighboring Canada are rather small potatoes. This reality is nowhere more evident than at the biennial staging of the Feder- ation Internationale de Ski's (FIS) World Alpine Ski Championships. It is very much a European affair, with the language of command largely running to German and broken English. The World Championships are direct- ed by officials who work out of Bern, Switzerland, as little-known to Ameri- cans as employees of the United Nations Secretariat. Indeed, bringing the World Alpine Ski Championships to Vail, Colo- rado, in February was not unlike locating the United Nations in New York City: good for tourism, but institutional- ly unconnected to the place. Despite some evidence of waning pub- lic interest in ski racing, holding the FIS Alpine Championships every couple of years is necessary to reassure millions of recreational skiers around the world they are participating in a sport that really does have champions. The "Worlds" are also needed by manufac- turers of skis, boots and bindings for .technical R&D, and because the races generate measurable results. As yet, no one seems to have found a more credible way to rate the performance of ski prod- ucts which, like the champion racers, are mostly made in Europe's Alpine coun- tries and exported to the.U.S. and the rest of the world. At the 1989 World Championships, Vail did a magnificent job of providing the trails for the FIS to run its races and house the athletes and officials. As at the Super Bowl and the U.S. Opens of golf and tennis, big corporations entertained clients. Occasionally empty seats in the grandstands were not unsold; the ticket holders were out skiing Vail's bowls or had gone home to Denver and New York. Meanwhile, millions of European TV viewers saw, for the fast time, the image of a big-time U. S. ski resort com- parable to St. Moritz or KitzbueheL The manicured snow and wide slopes, which American skiers take for granted, dazzled hundreds of foreign journalists and officials who came to Vail for the 32nd FIS Championships. Contrasting SNOW COUNTRY/M1IARCH 1989 9b Tamam McKinney's Combined gold. Just please don't call it a comeback for her. McKinney's secondplace finish in the Combined Slalom (abode), plus her third- place win in the Combined downhill, made her the best all-around woman skier at the Championships. She won America's only two medals. SHIING'S NEW CHAMPIONS 'a the occasional brusqueness of their own race officials and lift attendants, the Eu- ropeans were awed by the courtesy and friendliness of their American hosts. And Vail, a 25-year-old American copy of an Austrian village, often seemed better to the Euros than the real thing at home. The races themselves, though, belonged to the Europeans. And when they finished beating their way through the flags on February 12th, the world's best skiers-Swiss, Austrians, Yugo- slavs, French, Germans-packed their medals and left. And the U. S. returned to recreational skiing, which we do as well as anyone in the world. U. S. Ski Team officials talked a great deal about the improved performance of the American racers at Vail, but they would have done better to let the results speak for themselves, and save the upbeat publicity for another year. Origi- Starebgnight:ice ,~ -~ sculptures, torchlight parades. Stara by dag: ~ ~ i Vail ow r ne e G e a'9 Gillett (below right, in blue) with Austria's ;~ Toni Sailer, whose feat ~ ` , of winning seven out ad ~~ ~~ •.:• eight FlS Championship '~ '~'r,': ~,'! gold medab in 1956 and ~ _;..~ ~~'-' i''. 1958 has Heuer been matched. Bob Beattie, ABC and ESPN commentator (aboue right), with Egon Zimmerman, who was the Olgmpic downhill gold medalist in 196! when Beattie coached the U.S. Ski Team. 36 SNOW COUN7'RY/MARCH 1989 ` ~.~•. :.•.l• Italg's Alberto Tombs (above) dis• covered you can't chase girls and medals, too. Zurbriggen was the star, but Alare Gimrdelli was the winner. A second in the Combined davnhiU (!eR), plus a third in the Slalom, gave him the Combined gold, and a good claim to the title, world's best aU•around skier. nally, they told us to expect very little of the Team this winter because along- range junior development program is un- derway. And they were right. The only American medalist from this World Championships. was Tamara McKinney, 26,. who, far from being a product of a "new" U. S. program, is a comeback from the early 1980's when she and Phil Mahre dominated the World Cup. "I'm happy for you to think it's a new Tamara," she told me, "but it really isn't." She disavows any notion of a "comeback," citing her bronze medals in the two previous World Championships. Injuries have simply hampered her per- formance, that's all. Almost in the same breath, however, she confesses to hav- ing lost faith in herself at one point, but that family and "people I love" helped her through. What about the rest of the team? Tamara believes the cure is confidence, the kind that comes from a top f-finish. "They need strength, belief, inspiration, plus freedom-not over-analysis." No question, the World Champion- ships at Vail boosted the confidence of U.S. Ski Team veterans and newcomers. In the Women's Slalom, in which McKin- ney overcame frostbitten feet to win a bronze medal, Eva Twardokens, who was out most of the previous season re- covering from knee surgery, posted an eighth, her best World Championship re- sult since Bormio, Italy in 1985. Then in the Giant Slalom, teammate Diann Roffe m placed 10th, standing perfectly over her skis, turning with a balletic grace remi- niscent of her silver medal win four years ago. The U. S. racers, at times, looked shaky on their legs near the bottom of the courses, an impression at odds with the claims of U.S. coaches, and trainer John Atkins, that Team members have been subjected to unprecedentedly hard physical training. The Team also claims to have worked hard on concentration. But of 16 U.S. starters in the technical races of Giant Slalom and Slalom, nine did not finish. I talked at Vail with Colorado Univer- sity Athletic Director Bill Marolt, who left the top Alpine coaching job at the Ski Team after America's greatest-ever medal-winning Winter Olympics at Sara- jevo in 1984. He was, at the time, embroiled in a storm of controversy over his insistence that the name of the game in skiing is winning, and anyone not qual- ified to race in a World Championship shouldn't be there. Marolt still thinks the U.S. Team doesn't demand enough of the racers. But present team braintrusters, like former racer Chuck Ferries and Bob Beattie, disagree. "We are also talking about winning all the time,° Ferries told me, "but we're putting the kids in events where they can win. You don't ask racers to win when there's absolutely no chance of doing so. And you don't ask them to improve 100 percent in a single season.° Two newcomers who improved impor- tantly at Vail were Tommy Moe of Alas- kaand Kyle Wieche of Connecticut. Moe, 18, hailed as one of the promising new talents on the Ski Team in the Novem- ber, 1988 1SSUe Of SNOW COUNTRY came out of the third-seeded group to place 12th in the Downhill, just behind Cana- da's Rob Boyd, 23. Meanwhile Wieche, 21, a product of the Killington (Vermont) Mountain School, finished 9th in the Giant Slalom, well ahead of Ski Team veterans Felix McGrath and Tiger Shaw, who was in- The U.S. Ski Team's junior devel- opmentpro9-nmpaid oli'when Tommyhloe (right), placed 12th in the Downhill at the young age of /8. jured. Then Wieche replaced the injured Shaw in the Slalom. With a bib number of 42, he made the 14th fastest first run, but skied badly in the second and did not finish. Wieche says he relaxes by singing to himself before the race. Switzerland's Vreni Schneider plugged into a Walkman and listened to country music before the start of the Women's Giant Slalom, emerging with a gold medal. But it was the only one of the three golds she had been expected to win. McKinney took away her Combined gold, and Mataja Svet of Yugoslavia, the Slalom gold. I also talked at Vail with FIS Presi- dent Marc Hodler, recipient of the 1989 AT&T Skiing Award for outstanding contributions to the sport, who agreed with me that 15 days for the World Championships is too long. Especially r; Switzerland's Peter Mueller tried to get the Downhill results to go to his head. He took sUuer, not the predicted gold. r ` M~ M S W ~~ ~~ j . EDAI ON F., . ~ dY a NATIONS u }~s u 3 r' ~~~~ ~ ~~ ,, ~ ~ SWITZERLAND ~ h t~ ;., a ~.r ; ~ ,. 3 gold, b silver; 3 bronze ll total FRANCE' ~~ v~i4~' ~ ~ ~;, 1 il , i y . 1 fro, ( ~ i ki3 k{p.~ } S'I ~ G. ~Y ; ' s ver; l bronie 2 total. l: ~~i,,.' riC'~l'f '}1' ~ Y. ~~, ~ ~ ~ : J s ~ r{ ?~ >< { AUSTRIA °• ::: . , ~ '~ -- . LUXEMBOURG ~ := ~ ,.~4 ~i ~'' .. . . ... 3 gold; 2 silver, I bronze, 6 total ~ }; ' 1 gold l bronze •2 t t l , . 6V ~~ ~ ~ ; , o a . GERMANY :;- ~- a YUGOSLAVIA - ~'i+,hnu :: 1 gold; l silver; 2 bronze; 4 total •' ~ 1 gold; 2 bronze; 2 total ' U.S.A. ~ , ~ r r { , ~, I r ~ ; ' l CANADA ,~ . : 1 ld l bro ,~ ;t , , go , nze, 2 total ~;;z}~Y < ~,, ....~a~...... r.... .,.. itu". .... ..... .. .....~.._. 1 shyer; l total.;r,.,t~~;,,, 3y`~~° ._ _. ~ ,., .... 3 ~~,.: . SNOW COUNTRY/MARCH 1989 37 a a SKIING'S NEW CHAMPIONS Just a domn•home girl. Switzerland's Vreni Schneider used Walkman-injected music ' to prep forhergold medal GiantSlalom. ~ ~~~;~- Martin Nangl,Switzerland, Men's Super G, gold. this year. After six days during which only two Combined events had been run, wet snow fell at Vail, followed by tem- peratures of minus 25 degrees Fahren- heit. The nature of the events changed completely. Racers taped their faces to battle frostbite. Technicians were lost for ideas on how to prepare and wax skis for snow that felt like Velcro scraping the bottoms of recreational skis. Was it a coincidence that the Men's and Women's Downhills, following the cold snap, were won on the same brand of ski? Volkls earned an instant reputa- tion as cold weather skis. But former World Cup champion Andy Wenzel, head technician for Atomic, told me, no. Volkl technicians had simply found the right way to "structure" the skis, a pro- cedure of altering the molecular struc- ture of the polyethylene running sur- HOW GOLD MEDALSITS WON E17~ WINNER, AGE NATION NU ABER ]PLACE Men's Combined (Gold) Marc Girardelli, 25 Lux. 8,5 2nd Women's Combined (Gold) Tamara McKinney, 26 U.S.A. 16,2 3rd faces. Whatever. The next two races, Super Gs, were won on Wenzel's Atom- ics. Had he found Volkl's secret? Maybe, but most observers noted the curious fact that both Super G winners, Ulrike Maier of Austria and Martin Hangl of Switzerland, started first. Maria Walliser of Switzerland, who may just be the most beautiful world champion in the 50-year history of wom- en's Alpine skiing (she has been ap- proached about signing a movie con- tract), won the Downhill. Other superstars didn't fare as well. World Cup champion Pirmin Zurbriggen of Switzerland fell in downhill training and hurt his ribs, but managed a silver (Super G) and bronze (Giant Slalom). Marc Girardelli, the Austrian who races with a Luxembourg passport, eclipsed Zurbriggen as the world's best all- Ulrike Afaier, Austria, Women's Super G, gold. SLALOM PLACE 3rd 2nd EVENT WINNER AGE NAflON NUMBER PLACE WMARGIN PLACE MARGIN Men's Giant Slalom Rudolf Nierlich, 22 Austria 15 1st .97 sec 1st .45 sec Women's Giant Slalom Vreni Schneider, 24 Switz. 5 1st .51 sec 1st .62 sec Women's Slalom Mateya Svet, 19 Yugo. 4 2nd + 1.43 sec 3rd -.82 sec ELAPSED-TIME PLACE WINNING MARGIN EYENP WUVNER, AGE NATION NUMBER p ~R ~CBSE(TION~OF~000RSE~ ?tee Distance Men's Downhill Hansjoerg Tauscher, 21 W.Germ 9 29th 11th 1st 1st .19 secs. 16 ft Women's Downhill Maria Walliser, 25 Switz. 9 . 2nd 1st 1st 2nd 1.50 secs. 110 ft Men's Super G Martin Hangl, 26 Switz. 1 1st 2nd 2nd .28 secs. 19 ft Women's Super G Ulrike Maier, 21 W. Germ. 1 12th 2nd 2nd .03 secs. 2 ft 38 SNOW COUNTRY/MARCH 1989 around skier by winning the Combined gold medal, but after that he could scrape only a bronze out of the snow in the Slalom, a race in which 61 of 92 start- ers failed to finish. Alberto Tomba, 21, spent so much time attending receptions, talking with agents and chasing willing and unwilling girls around Vail that even the fawning ;; e - ~~ADING M~DAI WINNING.. `` :~~ , SKI D~NDS s v§ '' ` =`Gold, Silver, Bronze Totals a ,. Skis. Atomic 9; Rossignol6, Volk13 w •Dynamic 3; Elan 3, Kastle 3, Bhz zard2 ` Y« .,„ , ~~.~ , Boots Raichle 8; Lange 6;.Koflach;~; . 6; Nordics 3; Tecnica 2. ~E_ ° ~;~P L. ~'. ~~ Bindings: Salomon 12; Marker 6; ~ '1'{ Tyrolia 6; ESS 5.'. ;::,. ;;~...,;<;~; ;;,`:;`_~_'•`.t;;~ Information on products used by racers euppbed by ,;'r+ `~`•' SalamoR FYance. Medal totals compiled by Sxow,; ., ;._~ COUNTRY magazme. ,:4f::': s,•4 Italian press wound up denouncing him for his lack of concentration. Tombs was a double gold-medal winner at the Calga- ry Olympics and the reigning World Cup champion. He now appears to play Sampson to a host of snowblind Delilahs. Another young racer who faces a dis- tracting future of lucrative product endorsement contracts and pursuing groupies, is Austria's Rudi Nierlich, 22, the only double gold-medalist at Vail. Nierlich's first international victory, incidentally, took place. five years ago when he won the 1984 Junior World Championship Giant Slalom at Sugar- loaf, Me. At the final press conference of the Vail Championships, he said wistful- ly: "I hope my life won't change too much now that I'm a world champion." Aus- tria, which treats its ski heros like the Athenians treated their gods, is unlikely to cooperate. Although it was repeatedly announced that the Vail FIS Championships were the first hosted in the U. S. since Aspen in 1950, on paper that is not quite true. Both the Olympics at Squaw Valley and at Lake Placid were simultaneously ', ~r^ ~ ~ ®, . ~ - •. •` ,,., ~. _ -- ~ , Ahead schedule in recovering from 1987 knee aurgerg, Eua 7toardokens of the U.S. recorded the fourth fastest time in the sec- ondSlalom run here, and placed eighth. World Championships, and the medalists are so listed by the FIS. But Vail will go down in history with the greatest of them. Set against a backdrop of the Rock- ies,the events were organized with pre- cision and charged with emotion, from the tragedy of the accidental death of a Spanish prince at the beginning, to the crowning of champions who represent a new generation of the sport, and the final championship race of Ingemar Sten- mark, retiring after winning more major Slalom and Giant Slalom races than any skier in history. Perhaps not everyone in America saw or cared. On television, ABC's Wide World of Sports got a 10 to 14 percent share of the viewing audience. But four times as many Italians followed the escapades of their countryman Tombs on television. More than 200 million news- paper readers and skiers in Europe and Japan watched, while the couch potatoes here were glued to college basketball. Their loss. For what those of us at Vail saw was a celebration of winter sports that expanded on Walt Disney's inspired orchestration of the original 1960 Squaw Valley Games, as nearly as can be imag- ined. ~ John Fry is editor-i~t-clcief of SNOW COUNTRY. SNOW COUNTRY/MARCH 1989 39