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