The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1989-05-16 Support Documentation Town Council Regular SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 7:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1989, second reading, an ordinance requesting a rezoning from High-Density Multiple F=amily Zone District to Commercial Service Center with a Special Development District to allow for additional parking, loading and an expansion of the Vail National Bank Building. 2. Resolution No. 23, Series of 1989, creating the Town of Vail Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee. 3. Robert Gunn Request for a Front Setback Variance and Modification of the 100-year Mill Creek Floodplain - 342 Mill Creek Circle. 4. Fritzlen and Pierce appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission decision to deny a side setback variance request - 2998 S. Frontage Road West. 5. Landmark Condominium sign variance request. 6. Adjournment VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 7:30 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 1. Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1989, second reading, an Rick Pylman ordinance requesting a rezoning from High-Density Multiple Family Zone District to Commercial Service Center with a Special Development District to allow for additional parking, loading and an expansion of the Vail National Bank Building. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 9, on second reading. Background Rationale: This process is required to allow reconfiguration of the existing parking and access area, as required by CDOH to allow access to the VUMC parking structure, as well as to allow minor additions to the bank building. This ordinance was adopted on first reading. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1989, on second reading. 7:45 2. Resolution No. 23, Series of 1989, creating the Town of Vail Transportation and Stan Barryman _ Parking Advisory Committee. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Resolution No. 23, Series of 1989. Background Rationale: The Task Force has been functioning since 1984. It has analyzed and formulated recommendations on a variety of transportation and parking issues (parking structures fees and procedures, Transit Development Plan, new I-70 Interchange Signage Improvement Program, and the Ford Park parking lot). The Town Council requested staff to draft a resolution formalizing the Task Force as an Advisory Committee to the Council and staff. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 23, Series of 1989. 7:55 3. Robert Gunn Request for a Front Setback Variance and Mike Mollica Modification of the 100-year Mill Creek Floodplain - 342 Mill Creek Circle. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny the requests. Background Rationale: A request for a variance from the 20' front setback requirement and a request to modify the West Mill Creek 100-year floodplain, to allow for the construction of a primary/secondary residence on lot 10, block 1, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Robert Gunn. Staff Recommendation: Approve the variance request and approve the floodplain modification request. 8:20 4. Fritzlen and Pierce appeal of the Planning and Environmental Mike Mollica Commission decision to deny a side setback variance request - 2998 S. Frontage Road West. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny the applicants' request. Applicants: William Pierce/Lynn Fritzlen Background Rationale: The variance request was for a 4 foot encroachment into the required 15 foot side yard setback. This variance, if approved, would have allowed for the construction of stair tower on the east side of the existing structure. The purpose of the stair was to provide access to a secondary, rental unit which has been proposed over the garage area. the PEC, at their March 27, 1989 public hearing, unanimously denied the applicants' request. the vote was 7-0. Staff recommendation was also for denial. Staff Recommendation: Uphold the PEC decision for denial of the request. 8:45 5. Landmark Condominium sign variance request Betsy Rosola.ck Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny the request for a sign variance. Background Rationale: On May 3, the Design Review Board recommended approval of the request by a 5-0 vote. The Landmark is requesting a 3rd sign (2 permitted) and 24 square feet with signage (20 square feet permitted). Staff Recomrendation: The staff recommends approval. The extra signage does not depart drastically from the allowed signage. The 3rd sign is necessary to identify the building from the east side. 9:00 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 9:05 6. Adjournment -2- ,R ORDINANCE NO. 9 Series of 1989 AN ORDINANCE REZONING A PARCEL OF LAND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE VNB PARCEL, ACCORDING TO A PLAT TO BE RECORDED WITH THE EAGLE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE FROM HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY TO COMMERCIAL SERVICE CENTER AND ESTABLISHING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 23 FOR A PARCEL OF LAND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE VNB PARCEL, ACCORDING TO A PLAT TO BE RECORDED WITH THE EAGLE COUNTY CLERK AND AND RECORDERS OFFICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Special Development Districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land; and WHEREAS, application has been made for Special Development District approval for certain parcels of property within the Town known as a parcel of land legally described as the VNB Parcel, according to a plat to be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorders Office to be known as Special Development District No. 23, commonly referred to as the Vail National Bank Building; and WHEREAS, application has further been made to rezone a parcel of land legally described as the VNB Parcel, according to a plat to be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorders Office from High Density Multiple Family to Commercial Service Center in order to allow for the range of uses and activities proposed for Special Development District No. 23; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the proposed zoning amendment and the proposed SDD, and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the appropriate parties; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THATe Section 1. The Town Council finds that the procedures for a zoning amendment as set forth in Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the -1- Town of Vail have been fully satisfied, and all other requirements of the Municipal Code of the Town relating to zoning amendments have been fully satisfied. Section 2. The Town Council hereby rezones the property more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto, from High Density Multiple Family to Commercial Service (:enter. Section 3. The Town Council finds that all the procedures set forth for Special Development Districts in Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied. Section 4. The 'T'own Council finds that the development plan for Special Developmer,~t District No. 23 meets each of the standards set forth in Section 18.40.080 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail or demonstrates that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. In accordance with Section 18.40.040, the development plan for ~>pecial Development District No. 23 is approved and Special Development District No. 23 is hereby approved for the property described in Exhibit A. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Sidney Schultz - Architect AIA, and consists of the following documents: 1. Architectural Plans designated as Sheet Al through A5, dated April 10, 1989 2. Landscape Plan drawn by Dennis Anderson Associates, Inc., dated April 10, 1989 Section 5. The development standards for Special Development District No. 23 are approved by the Town Council as part of the approved development plan as follows: A. Setbacks Setbacks shall be as indicated on the site plan set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. -2- ,~ B. Hei ht Building heights shall be as indicated on the elevations and roof plans set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. C. Coverage Site coverage shall be as indicated on the site plan set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. , D. Landscaping The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as generally indicated on the preliminary landscape plan set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. E. Parking Parking demands of this development shall be met in accordance with the off street parking requirements for specified uses as stated in Section 18.52 of the Vail Municipal Code. Section 6. Following are conditions of approval for Special Development District No. 23e 1. The owners receive a Colorado Department of Highways approval for their access permit request before a building permit is released for the proposed bank expansion. 2. The uses allowed under Special Development District No. 23 with the underlying Commercial Service Center zoning shall be limited toe A. Professional offices, business offices, and studios. B. Banks and financial institutions. C. Business and office services. D. Travel agencies. E. Additional offices, businesses, or services determined to be similar to permitted uses. Retail businesses are specifically not allowed as a use with Special Development District No. 23. -3- 1 3. Any landscaping that dies within 2 years of the transplanting shall by replaced with a similar size and type material by the owners of the bark. In respect to the cottonwoods, if they die, three neTs trees having each a diameter of 8 to 12 inches shall replace the existing trees. The height o:f the new trees shall be a minimum of 25 feet. 4. If tree loading zone is relocated in the future, the new location shall be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council using the major amendment to a Special Development District review process. Section 8. Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance may be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commissior.~ at a regularly scheduled public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060. The Community Development Department: shall be solely responsible for determining what constitutE~s a change in the substance of the development plan. An application for an amendment to this Special Development District which changes the substance of the development plan shall comply with the requirements of Section 18.40.030 except that the Community Development Department shall determine which property in the Special Development District is being directly affected by such amendment and the consent of only those owners of said property shall be required to be included in the application. Section 9. If arty part, section, subsection, sentence, clause of 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 ordinances 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 by declared invalid. -4- Section 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. Section 11. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. -.. -5- 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 1989. Kent R. Rose, Mayor 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 ` ~. a TOe Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 16, 1989 SUBJECTe A request for a variance from the 20 foot front setback requirement and a request to modify the West Mill Creek 100-year floodplain, to allow for the construction of a primary/secondary residence. Applicants Robert and Francis Gunn Backqround° The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the above named requests on April 24, 1989 and made the following motions: 1. To approve the front setback variance requests. The vote was 5-0 for approval. 2. To approve the stream modification request with the three conditions as recommended in the staff memo. The vote was 5-0 for approval. 3. To table the 250 request until the next PEC meeting at the applicant's request. The PEC was opposed to the applicants 250 request and was about to motion for denial of the 250 request when the applicant requested tabling. The vote was 5-0 for tabling. At this meeting, it was understood by the PEC that they had the authority to act on all three requests. However, after further review was made of the 250 Ordinance, it became evident that all 250 requests shall be reviewed and acted upon by a combination of the staff and the DRB. The PEC has no specific jurisdiction over the granting of additional square footage under the 250 square foot ordinance. However, they may use the fact that an applicant is requesting additional square footage in deciding upon variance requests. This was explained to the PEC at their May 8, 1989 meeting. The majority of the PEC members felt if they had known they could not vote on the 250, they would have voted for denial. of the variance requests. On April 25, 1989, the Town Council called up for review the PEC decisions stated above. i"v' ~~. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 24, 1989 SUBJECTe A request for a variance from the 20° front setback requirement and a request to modify the West Mill Creek 100-year floodplain, to allow for the construction of a primary/.secondary residence° Applicanto Robert and Francis Gunn I° DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTS 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° A° The proposed building would require the following variances Front Setback° 1) To allow a building encroachment of 12 feet into the required 20 foot Setback° 2) To allow a patio and exterior steps to encroach 6 feet into the required 10 foot Setback° It should be noted that the existing residence on this lot currently encroaches it feet into the front Setback° B° The second request is to modify the 100-year West Mill Creek floodplain by relocating the creek channel to the east (30 foot relocation at the furthest point)° This relocation would enable the proposed structure to be constructed entirely out of the 30 foot creek setback and the 100-year floodplain° II° CHRONOLOGY The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the above named variance requests on February 27, 1989, and by a vote of 4-3 approved of the requests with the following conditions 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° ~~ P.., ~Yh ~On March 7, 1989, the Town Council requested a review of the :PEC decision, however, subsequent to the Council review, the applicants formally withdrew their variance application and have submitted a revised request as stated above. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS lone District: Primary/Secondary Residential Lot Size: 0.4052 acres/17,651 square feet Maximum GRFA: 4015 sq ft (+250 sf; Ord #36/1988 = 4265 sf) Proposed GRFA: 4188 sq ft IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS LJpon 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: Consideration of Factors: 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 "open space" 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. B. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation 1s necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of .A ~ bA 'C treatment objectives privileges or to attain the t of special 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 sites Staff believes that approval of the requested variance would not be a grant of special privilege due to the unique development restrictions on this lot and the historical building sitings on the circles Co The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safetya 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 space1° view corridor area, immediately north of the residence< a V e FINDIY~IGS monq sites in the vicinit` of this title without Arai other factors and criteria as the commission deems .caAle zo _z. 'd variance The Planning and Environmental C following findings before granti mmission shall make the 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 districto 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 vicinityo That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasonso 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 titles 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 ~oneo 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 districto c Ci °'e t VI. FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION '.the TOV hazard regulations specify the criteria for modification to the floodplain: Section 18.69.040 (E) Development Restricted "The zoning administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to modify the floodplain by fill, construction, channelization, grading or other similar changes, to submit for review an environmental impact statement in accordance with 18.56 to establish that the work will not adversely affect adjacent properties, or increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters." An environmental impact report has been submitted by Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (dated March 31, 1989) and the pertinent sections of the report are as follows: "Storm Runoff Greater Than Design The proposed creek alignment and cross section are designed to carry the storm runoff from the 500-year storm event. In the case of a more severe storm with greater discharges or due to blockage of the existing 60" RCP, there is the possibility of damage occurring from the discharge exceeding the capacity of the channel or from overtopping of the Mill Creek Circle. Due to the local terrain, the flows would spread out as shallow flow and meander throughout the property. Because the proposed structure is closer to the original creek location and in more direct line with the upstream creek, flooding of the structure is possible. Construction Related Sediment Construction of a new channel may provide a source of additional sediment. Sediment sources will be from the actual construction of the new channel and from the channel itself, until a stable condition is reached over time. This process will be reduced by the use of rock lining in erosive areas of the channel. In addition, the small pools created by the rock drops will help to collect the sediment until the channel has a chance to stabilize." An addendum to the environmental impact report, dated April 6, 1989 concludes: "Based on our assessment of the West Mill Creek, the proposed relocation will not adversely affect adjacent properties, or increase the discharge or velocity of the 100-year floodwater in the Creek." VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation is for approval of both the variance request and the floodplain modification. Variance Requesto The applicant has shown that this site possesses a unique physical hardship with the location of the stream corridor on the lot and the mature trees. Staff believes that a hardship would be imposed upon the applicant if the strict interpretation of the zoning code were to be enforced. Floodplain Modification: The Department of Community Development agrees that this site presently exhibits some very difficult development restrictions, given the location of Mill Creek as it bisects the lot. The relocation of Mill Creek to the east would allow for construction of a new primary/secondary residence completely out of the 30 foot creek setback and the conclusion of the EIR is that adjacent properties would not be negatively impacted. The applicants have also agreed to complete extensive landscape improvements along both stream banks throughout the length of their lot and to never develop their property on the east side of Mill Creek. The staff recommendation for approval of the floodplain modification includes the following conditionse 1) That a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, either an Individual or a Nationwide Permit, be obtained prior to the issuance of any building permit for the property. 2) ~ That approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency be secured prior to the issuance of any building permit for the property. 3) That a groundwater analysis be completed, as an addendum to the EIR, prior to the issuance of any building permit for the property. Said analysis shall conclude that there will be no adverse affect on adjacent properties regarding the issue of groundwater. ar: arm ~~ ~ -;~, <.. ORDINANCE N0. 36 •, Series of 1988 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.71 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE _ TOWN OF VAIL TO PROUIDE THAT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WHICH ARE TOTALLY REMOVED AND REPLACED SHALL BE ENTITLED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ACCORDING 70 THE 7ERMS OF SAID CHAPTER; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. . :~: `-p -~.d - klHEREAS, 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 d-aalling 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 ~` i~ '~;:~ ~, a#istin9 GRFA or the allowable GRFA for the site. Before such additional GRFA •• - con be 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 a1T Towri 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 accompany the application under this Chapter, and sha?1 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 Uail 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 in accordance with this Chapter, the staff shall review the maintenance ~ ,. r P • ~ ~ r~ - sand upkeep of the existing single family dwelling or dwelling unit and site. including landscaping to determine whether they comply with the Design Revie-d 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 18.71.030 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 ~ ,. ,~ e r_ ~® ape-Vail Municipal Code. General maintenance and upkeep of existing buildings and $'~ sites, including the multifamily dwellings, landscaping or site improvements (i.e., trash facilities, bermirtg 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 far 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 and 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 shall 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 18.7I.040c is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.71.040 Procedure C. If the Community Development Department staff determines that the site far 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 • 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 fnr_ and/~r 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. 1. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper far 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 Cam. Kent R. Rcse, Mayor ATTEST:~~ 1 v~. f1 Pamela A. Brandmeyer, T wn Clerk -5- 9 ~ 4 = "~. TOo Vail Town Council FROMo Community Development Department DATEa May 16, 1989 SUBJECTS The applicants have requested an appeal of a PEC decision which resulted in the denial of their variance request. The original request was for a side setback variance to the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district in order to construct an addition to a residence on Lot 2, Block 5, Ineetmountain Subdivision. Applicantse William Pierce and Lynn Fritzlen I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE RE UESTED The applicants are owners of Lot 2, Block 5 of the Vail Intermountain Subdivision, which is situated immediately east of the Flussheim Townhouses and west of the Interlochen Condominiums. A single family dwelling of 2,534 square feet is located on the lot. The applicants are requesting a variance from the side setback requirement to allow for the construction of a stair tower on the east side of the existing structure. The purpose of the stair is to provide access to a secondary, rental unit which is proposed over the garage area. The variance request is for a 4 foot encroachment into the required 15 foot side yard setback. II. CHRONOLOGY A. A variance request was approved by the PEC on January 23,. 1989, to allow this property to be considered for rezoning by the Town Council, The approved variance was for a 6,620 square foot shortage in the minimum lot size of the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district. B. The Town Council approved a rezoning request, from RC to P/S on March 7, 1989. This rezoning has allowed for the addition of a secondary, rental unit on the lot. C. The PEC, on March 27, 1989, unanimously voted (7-O) to deny- the applicant's side setback variance request. The PEC found that the request would be a grant of special privilege and that the applicant's stated hardship was self-imposed. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factorso ~. Consideration of Factors: e relationship of the requested variance to other isting or potential uses and structures in the vicin t ,. .,~_. ~.. 'The addition of a stair tower in the proposed location should not create any problems to existing or potential uses or structures in the vicinity. The property most likely to be affected would be the Interlochen Condominiums to the east, on which a parking lot and a distance of 1.00 feet exists between the applicants' structure and the nearest Interlochen residential building. IV. B. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified requlatic 1s necessary to achieve comoatibility and uniformity of treatment amoncx s~.tes in the vicinity or to attain the ob-iectives of this title without errant of special privilege. Staff has been unable to determine a physical hardship regarding this variance request and feels that approval of the request would constitute a grant of special privilege. Ale also feel that the applicant has not given full consideration to other design solutions for access into the secondary unit which would not require a variance. C. The effect of the re ested variance on li ht and air distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and ublic ss a~~ Staff finds that the requested variance will have no significant effect upon any of the above considerations, Such other factors a a licable to the nr FINDINGS criteria as the commission dee osed variance. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall 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 c:tassified 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: make the 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:~trict- interpretation..or_ enforcement_.of the _ _ ~ _ s.p.ecified_regulation.~+lould deprive. ahe__.applicant of _ pri_v.ileges .enjoyed by _the. _owners . of other properties in the.same district< V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is for denial of~the requested 4 foot encroachment into the side setback. Without being able to identify a physical hardship, staff cannot support the applicants' requests :~, : f; , :6` . e s 0 .~ p '~ TO% Design Review Board FROMe Community Development Department DATEo May 3, 1989 SUBJo Sign Variance Request for the Landmark Condominium Association Applicants Landmark Condominiums Io THE REQUEST The Landmark Condominiums are requesting a sign variance for the number of signs and a variance to the amount of sign area in order to add a sign on the east, or pedestrian side of the Landmark Condominium Buildings The sections of the code which relate to the variance request are listed belowa 16°20°050 Signs, Single Business Use Be Sizes One square foot for each five front lineal feet of building with a maximum area of 20 square feet, with a horizontal dimension no greater than l0 . ~ feetee,ecombined maximum area for more than one sign shall not exceed 20 square feete Do Numbers One sign per vehicular street or ma'o ~ r pedestrian way on which the business abuts as determined by the administrator, with a maximum of two signs, subject to review by the Design Review Boards According to the sign code, the Landmark Condominium is allowed a maximum of two signs having a combined total square footage of 20 square feeto The developments existing signage includes: Ao One sign on the north tower of 14.7 square feet Bo One sign to the west of 5 square feet Total square footage existinga 1907 square feet The applicant wishes a variance to add a third sign of 4 3 square feet for a total of 24 square feet IIa FINDINGS AND STAFF RESPONSES Before the Board acts on a variance application, the applicant must prove physical hardship and the Board must find that, ~" Ao There are s ecial circums tances •r conditions applying ~o the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within /'' ~ ~ i the adjacent right-of-way which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question; rovided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. Staff Response The Landmark does have an identification problem due to the size of the building and the fact that for the entire project, they are allowed only two signs having _a combined area of 20 square feet. Some of the large hotel_projects.such as the Marriott,_Holiday~Inn, and Raintree have also received sign variances due to the .size of their projects. Staff feels ..that the Landmark has similar special circumstances that warrant an increase in the combined square footage and number of signs._.The east side of the Landmark is approached by pedestrians and there is no way at the moment for a pedestrian to be able to identify the building. We feel that a 4.3 square foot sign at this side of the building .is reasonable. B. That special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone In privy to the applicant Staff~Response: Special circumstances were not created by the applicant. C... That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of this title and will not be .:materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in tlZe vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general Staff ,.Response:. Staff feels that the proposed signage is in harmony with the purposes of the sign code which states that the ..'!sign location,_ .configuration, design, ._materials _anii~colors should be harmonious with the majestic mountain setting and the alpine village scale of the town." Section 16.16.010. The proposed sign will be ~3 inch_ brass letters 22 feet above the ground for a total of 4.3 square feet. This is not a large sign. It is subtle in its design and it is compatible with the~sign code's general purpose. The scale of the sign is appropriate for the purpose and location within the project. D. The variance applied for does not depart from the .• ;_ ~ ~ C provisions of this title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. Staff Response: The applicant is requesting an additional 4 square feet beyond the allowable 20 square feet. The staff believes that a third sign of 4.3 additional square .feet is not unreasonable for a building of this size and is necessary to identify the building from the pedestrian west sidee The applicant is not requesting a departure from the provisions of the sign code any more than is truly required to identify the building. III. STAFF RECOMPgENDATIONSo The staff supports the variance request for a third sign of 4.3 square feet. The square footage request does..not depart. drastically from the allowed signage. Staff feels that the proposed sign is harmonious with the sign code requirement that signage not call undue. attention to itself._ We recommend approval and feel that the applicant has made.a strong attempt to work with the staff to develop an acceptable sign variance request. .(./V~-- TOWN OF VAIL MEMORANDUM TOe Ron Phillips Council Members FROM: Steve Thompson DATE: May 11, 1989 REe Investment Report Enclosed is the investment report with balances as of April 30, 1989. The balance of the portfolio went up in April $2.3 million bringing the balance at 4/30/89 to $13 million. I looked back at the balance in the portfolio a year ago and found that we have 30% more cash and investments than we did last year at this time. During the month of April we saw short-term interest rates begin to fall in response to some indications that the economy is slowing down. We continue, however, to earn on average 9.42% on open repurchase agreements. If interest rates continue to drop we will continue to extend our maturities to lock in some of the higher yields. In April, we purchased $1.1 million in CD°s with an average maturity date and yield of 365 days and 10.08% respectively, and $1.6 million of agency discount notes with an average maturity and yield of 213 days and 10.05% respectively. All investments, of course, are in conformance with the Town investment policy. It appears that the average interest rate we have earned on the portfolio during 1989 is within or exceeds the targeted yield range set for 1989, by the Investment Committee, of between 8.50% to 9.00%. I will be giving you an update on how well actual interest income is compared to budget with the the next investment report. Please let me know if you have any questions. I am going to be setting up the next Investment Committee meeting next week. cc: Charlie Wick S~ Town of Vail, Colorado Investment Report Summary of Accounts and Investments For the Month Ending April 30, 1989 Funds For Reserve Balances Percentage Percentage Operating ------------ Funds * ------------ 4/30/89 ------------ of Total Allowed --------------------- Money Market Accounts (see page 1) Commercial Banks $2,499,741 $169,759 $2,669,500 20.43% 50% Colorado Investment Pools $11,358 - -- $11,358 ----------- 0.09% 100% - ------ Total ------------ $2,511,099 ------------ ------------ -------- - $169,759 ------------ ------------ $2,680,858 ----------- ------------ 20.52% - ------ ------ Commercial Savings & Banks Loans Certificates of Deposit (see page 2) Eagle County Institutions $210,992 $200,000 $10,992 $210,992 Other Colorado Institutions $99,000 $99,000 $99,000 National Institutions $693,000 $990,000 $1,485,000 -- $198,000 ----------- $1,683,000 ------------ 'Total ----------- $1,002,992 ------------ ----------------------- $990,000 $1,685,000 ------------------------ $307,992 ----------- 51,992,992 ------------ Percentage of Portfolio in Savings & Loans U.S. Government Securities (see page 3) Repurchase Agreements Treasury Notes GNMA's U.S. Savings Bonds Federal Agency Discount Notes Total $2,655,367 $1,202,000 $3,857,367 $680,000 $680,000 $189,382 $189,382 $16,884 $16,884 $3,651,279 $3,651,279 ------------------------------------ $6,512,912 $1,882,000 $8,394,912 ------------------------------------ Total Portfolio Maturing Within 12 Months Maturing Within 24 Months Maturing After 24 Months * $2,359,751 is reserves that the Town does not have access to for operations $10,709,011 $2,359,751 $13,068,762 $11,191,762 $1,244,000 $633,000 $13,068,762 1.61% 0.76% 12.88% 15.25% 7.58% 100% 25% 29.52% 5.20% 1.45% 0.13% 27.94% 64.24% 100.00% 85.64% 9.52% 4.84% 100.00% 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% 5/2/89 sjt invsm904 Money Market Accounts as of April 30, 1989 --For the Month of April-- Account Institution Balances Type of Accounts --------------------- High Low ---- --------------------- Average ------------- 4/30/89 ------------- First Bank of Vail - Operating Literest 9.230% 7.650% 8,702% Balance 527,402,304 $541,950 51,413,967 $2,192,741 First Bank of Vail - Insurance Interest 9.230% 7.650% 8,702% Balance ______________ __________________ $166,676 Colorado Trust (Investment Pool) Interest 9.140% Balance $11,358 Central Bank of Denver Reserve Accounts Interest 5.000% Balance $3,083 Central Bank of Denver Operating Account Interest 8.794% Balance $307,000 --------------- 2,680,858 --------------- --------------- 5/11/89 s,it invmm904 Page 1 Certificates of Deposit as of April 30, 1989 Bank Name, Location Days to Rates Purchase Maturity Maturity Maturity Ins ----- Coupon Yield ------- Date Date at Purchase Value First --------------- American Bank, Boston ---------- Mass ----------- ------------- ----------- FDIC 10.000% 10.000% 12-Nov-87 12-Nov-90 1096 $99,000 Vail National Hank FDIC 8.750% 8.750% 04-Apr-89 04-Apr-90 365 $10,992 FDIC 9.250% 9.250% 03-Tan-89 03-Jan-90 365 $100,000 FDIC 9.250% 9.250% 26-Jan-89 26-Jan-90 365 $100,000 Central Bank of Denver Reserved Funds FDIC 8.400% 8.400% 05-Oct-88 05-Oct-89 365 $99,000 Coral Coast Savings Bank, Boynton Beach Florida FSLIC 10.250% 10.250% 30-Mar-89 27-Sep-89 181 $99,000 Security Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City Kansas FDIC 10,000% 10.125% 30-Mar-89 28-Jun-89 90 $99,000 First Federal of the Carolinas, High Point North Carolina FSLIC 10.250% 10.250% 30-Mar-S9 30-hiar-90 365 $99,000 Investors of Florida Savings Bank, N. Miami Beach Florida FSLIC 10.250% 10.250% 30-Mar-89 Z6-Sep-89 180 $99,000 Firstate Financial, Orlando Florida FSLIC 10.493% 10.493% 31-Mar-89 02-Apr-90 367 $99,000 Farmers State Bank, Denton Montana FDIC 10.000% 10.000% 04-Apr-89 05-Jul-89 92 $99.000 Bank of Horton, Horton Kansas FDIC 10.500% 10.500% 12-Apr-89 10-Oct-89 181 $99,000 Hawthorne Savings and Loan Association, Oceanside California FSLIC 9.750% 9.750% 18-Apr-89 30-Nov-89 226 $99,000 First National Bank of Glens Falls, Glens Falls New York FDIC 9.750% 9.750% 18-Apr-89 30-Nov-89 226 $99,000 Exeter Banking Company, New Hampshire FDIC 9.900% 9.900% 18-Apr-89 30-Nov-89 226 $99,000 San Antonio Federal Savings Bank, Weslaco Texas FSLIC 10.500% 10.500% 03-Apr-89 03-Apr-90 365 $99,000 Security Savings and Loan, Chicago Illinois FSLIC 9.950% 9.950% 18-Apr-89 18-Apr-90 365 $99,000 Midstate Savings and Loan Associaton, Baltimore Maryland FSLIC 10.100% 10.100% 21-Apr-89 18-Oct-90 545 $99,000 First Savings and Loan, Beverly Hills California Reserved Funds FSLIC 10.250% 10.250% 10-Apr-89 03-Jun-91 784 $99,000 Franklin Hank, Menlo Park California FDIC 10.00% 10.00% 17-Apr-89 16-Oct-89 182 $99,000 Sterling Savings and Loan, Irvine California Reserved Funds FSLIC 10.250% 10.250% 10-Apr-89 02-Dec-91 966 $99,000 Avg Yield 9.954% $1,992,992 5/11/89 sjt invcd904 page 2 Government Securities as of April 30, 1989 ***Treasury Notes*** Years to Rates Purchase Maturity Maturity Years to Par Coupon Yield Date Date ----- at Purchase ------------ Maturity ------------ Value ------------ ------------------ 8.875% -------- 7.470% ----------- 11-Mar-86 ------ 15-Feb-96 9.94 6.80 $230,000 8.875% 9.067% 02-Dec-88 30-Nov-90 1.99 1.59 $250,000 9.375% 9.630% 28-Feb-89 28-Feb-91 2.00 1.83 $200,000 $680,000 ***Repurchase Agreements*** Average Purchase Maturity Par Institution Yield Date Date Value - -------------------------- Central Bank 9.280% ----------- 12-Oct-88 ----------------------- Open ----------------------- 51,097,000 8.980% 12-Oct-88 Open $105,000 Prudential Bache 9.510% 20-Dec-88 Open $2,655,367 $3,857,367 ***GNMA'S*** Years to Estimated Purchase Maturity Maturity Years to Principal Pool Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturity Outstanding ---------- 5803 -------------- 8.000% -------- 8.480% ----------- 14-Nov-86 ----------- 15-Oct-O5 ------------ 19.10 ---------- 17.00 -------------- 545,688 13003 8.000% 9.500% 24-Oct-86 15-Oct-06 20.20 18.00 $70,781 14659 8.000% 9.200% 24-Oct-86 15-Jan-07 21.20 19.00 $72,913 Avg Yield 9.138% ***U.S. Savings Bonds*** Issue Maturity Series Yield Date Date ------ ------------------------------- EE 7.170% O1-Oct-86 O1-Oct-96 ***Federal Agency Discount Notes*** Purchase Maturity Yield Date Date FHLB 10.120% 27-Mar-89 28-Jun-89 FHLB 9.651% 09-Mar-89 12-May-89 FHLB 9.239%' 15-Dec-88 O6-Jun-89 FHLB 9.704% 09-Mar-89 02-Jun-89 FHLB 10.353% 03-Apr-89 30-Nov-89 FHLB 10.069% OS-Apr-89 O1-Dec-89 FHLB 9.851% 19-Apr-S9 20-Oct-89 FHLB 9.940% ZO-Apr-89 26-Oct-89 FHLB 10.060% 23-Mar-89 13-Jun-89 FHLB 9.981% 03-Mar-89 23-Aug-89 $189,382 Years to Maturity Years to Book Maturity at Purchase Maturity Value Value ------------ 10.U0 ------------ 7.43 - - ------------ $16,884 ------------ ------------ ----------- $30,000 ----------- ----------- Days to Maturity Days to Book Maturity at Purchase Maturity Value Value ------------ 93.00 ------------ 59.00 ------------ $243,716 ----------- $250,000 64.00 12.00 $147,504 $150,000 173.00 37.00 5239,512 $250,000 85.00 33.00 $146,685 $150,000 241.00 214,00 $233,816 $250,OD0 240.00 215.00 $234,300 $250,000 184.00 173.00 $238,168 $250,000 189.00 179.00 5950,965 $1,000,000 82.00 44.00 $977,906 51,000,000 173.00 115.00 - $238,707 ------------ $250,000 ---- - - $3,651,279 ------------ ------------ ------- $3,800,000 ----------- ----------- Total $8,394,912 5/11/89 sjt invtr904 Page 3 Iown of uas 75 sou4h 9ron4age roac9 veil, coloraclo 81 fi57 (303) 47g•2135 T0: VAIL COUNCILME ERS FROM: PAM BRANDMEY~ DATE: 08MAY89 RE: COMMITTEE/TASK FORCE APPOINTMENTS I have attempted to gather all committees/task forces to which Council members have been appointed or for which they've volunteered. It is my understanding that all assignments run to the next Regular Municipal Election, November 21, 1989. If you note I have left something out, please contact me as soon as possible so I may complete this list accurately. COMMITTEE/TASK FORCE COUNCILMEMBERS I. Swimming Pool/Aquatic Center John Slevin 2. NWCCOG Kent Rose Tom Steinberg, alternate 3. CAST Kent Rose Tom Steinberg, alternate 4. TV Translator Mike Cacioppo 5. VMRD/Council Committee Eric Affeldt Tom Steinberg 6. Cemetery John Slevin 7. Parking/Transportation Merv Lapin John Slevin Kent Rose 8. VRA Eric Affeldt \v ' X AGENDA REGULAR MEETING VAIL METROPOLITAN RECREATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 1989 3x00 PNI - VAIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Call to order - 3000 PM 1 min 2. Approval of Minutes, April 24, 1989 1 min (see attached) 3. Financial report - Brian Jones 7 lnin -sign new bank card 4. Volleyball Courts - Barb Masoner 7 min 5. VMRD recreation plan - Jeff Winston 15 min 6. Tennis 20 min A. Ford Park - Payne & Pierce 7. Swimming Pool - Morter Contract 15 min 8. Capital Improvement Projects/TOV - Dodson 8 min 9. Approval of 1989/1990 Wage & Salary Classification Plan (see attached) 10 min 10. Golf Sub committee report (see Dodson memo) 7 min 11. Approval of PO°s 5 min 12. Adjournmento Attachments: Minutes 4/24/89 1989/1990 Wage & Salary Classification Plan Dodson memo - Golf sub committee proposal Pat Dodson°s evaluation - please complete and - return to Dodson 1 aC ~ s: e ~ '~~~'. :, i crnrN~~x~ 1 ~ ~. K }~ .. _ 'r +.~ ^1 -- ~ ~2 ~~~+.~ ,,~j'fF~ ."R~~~'.., + i' . ice`,] ~;~:5 - rz~ 4 ~-~ +`h ~r-.ar .~''c~ ~. :. 'S ~ f` ~ ~ _y,a ti- '3-~r~ 3,r r~~l r1 ~„"~z'I }``M f 4V' +, tl~~-11 ~[~iJ6.[<G[~lia.l~ AJLL~716\A6.i ~ ~ ~ ~~.~• ~'S. '~~, . APRYY~ 24, 1989 ~ . e Ken Wilson, George Knox, Tlm Garton, Gall Moller P 'I'o , ' A~ Lapin ~~~ZS pat Dodsoal C~1, TO ~o The meeting was called to order at 3 e 13 PM. ~P~VAI, OF ~ila[Tffi% Knox made a motion to approve the minutes from April 12, 1989 second by Molloy, passed unanimottisly. SY1"~~TY OF Spa Dodson thanked the Boan-i for their belief in the staff, financial support arr3 Ceil Folz for her quality of work, long hours and the positive response frcen Sob, the cc~rnuzity and staff. Thanked Tom Salasky, Dennis Jerger, Fritz Allen and Inri Aker and especially Holly Turner for a very successful event, Holly thanked VMRD and stated she is very, very impressed with the VNgtD staff. Wilson arrives Holly wants to return again next year - 3 days, possibly in June. Lever Brothers was absolutely thrilled over the success of this event and they possibly want to tie the event into their sales meeting next year. Holly will get in touch with VMRD by the end of June to negotiate a contract for next year. Wilson wants Dodson to write a thank you letter to the Vail Town C~ncil for their dollar donation and write Lever Brothers too. Lydia Stephon wants a Dopy of the sym}~ony in Gina Boial tape to give to Gillett. ~D ZCld FLT J~ o Jeff Winston joins the meeting. 3e28 PM. Garton and Ibdson have tried to develop a masher plan for VMf2D and realized they need help to aoax~lish this project m thus the Jeff Winston pro~sal. Garton wonders if the Winston proposal is trying to cover too many topis. VMRD has held many public meetings already and the public is ~rned out on atterxlir~g meetings. 7y*_1 •~ 5~try~« w 3 .. s .. ~ .. ~~~w~ 1- ~*# . ~.; ~'~=i~: ~~, Winst~ agrees arxi wants to hold wr~rk sessions with VMRD board members, not the public. He wants to use preexisting survey informatioa~ available frcea Vail A_s~sociation, Town of Vail, Q~amber Services, etc. If additional information is needed, then a supplemental survey can be corxlucted. Garton wants to know where the $13,000 for the Winston study wil]_ come from in the budget. Dodson said $10,000 can come frcan the tennis operating budget as resurfacing the GP ax.irts will not be VMRD's expense. Winston thinks the most important part of the master plan will be the policies that will be developed. Developing policy will enable the study to becc~ne a usable tool and - not scxnetYung that will be outdated in a short period of time. Dodson should keep an ongoing list of VMRD acccx~l isYu~ents . The board does not want this study to be "just another study" -they want the study to be genexal so it can be very adaptable. They want a mission statement. Winston has planned three workshops with the Bowl to help develop this plan. The orientation of the original Winston proposal needs to be changed. The Board wants Winston to reevaluate the approach to this study and address the changes in a letter to .the board at their next meeting. Winston agreed to redirec-t his proposal to meet the Board's request. Dodson asked if the revised study can be done for the original bid of $13,000. Winston stated yes, but is concer~~ed with how much business aspects VMRD wants tied to this study. Garton wants another 2 weeks before allocating the $13,000. Winston w-ints the four board members to mark up their current pz:~opo_sal with margin notes, return these canunent-s to Dodson and Winston will take and make revisions. Garton said, "yes the board will do this and have the cx~pies back to Dodson by the er~d of the week" . Wilson, Knox and Molloy all indicated they need a new ~'Y of the proposal so they can write their comments. Iron will mail them a copy tcanorrow. SL~I(~i RIDE-STEVE JDNES; Steve Jones joins the meeting 4:40 PM. He will pay to VMRD $2,333.02 which is based on 2.5~ of $53,320.60 \t ~' .l n ~ Ste( ~ Y .'}~ (~P MC~ .. 1 ii. grass. Plus he will pay the $1,000 per year oi'! the snow Cat. - . indicated ~ had no problems or sur~gestionss for next year regardiax~ the Sleic~ Ride aper-atirno Joys c~rreaitly has $5, 000 on deposit with V~2D® Wilson would like an ice rink oai the driving range next year. He asked Jones and Sattersts~an if a rink would ber~fit their business? Both ?~;cated it would be ber~ficial. Wilson wants to pn~rsue an outdoor natliial ioe rink, imm~liately so it will be ready for next winter. Jones indicated the $53,320.69 may not be accurate. There possibly oo~ild be ~re revenue. Satterstrom has not cca~~leted the books for the final week of the sleic~ ride operation and there may be a small adjustment, He will let Dodson know the change if any. Alloy moved to renew Jones contract for 1990 at the 2.5$ rate, second by Wilson, pa`~sed w~animous° T~ISo FIORD PARKe FYank Payne and Bill Pierce join the meeting at 4:58 PM. They stated they will obtain approval for all ten courts when they go through the Town processes . Pierce reviewed the revised building and site plan with the Board. The board wants the clock to be placed higher and a green roof. Alloy wants samples of the various green shingles (metal, asphalt and shake) in her office to look at before next meeting. Wilson asked the ether board members if the construction should start after Iabor Day. No, the other board ~mbexs do not want to delay the start e they wish to proceed ASAP, P~olloy made a motion to proceed with the tennis oce~lex oorbstn2ction project without the 2 east tennis courts and authorized the spending of $375,000 on the project, secorx~ by Wilson, passed unanimously. Dodson reviewed the loan rates (see attach~l sheet). GOIA PEAKe See attached Lmdson mew ~ the repairs to these ccurts by the Vail Valley Foundation as per our agreement with VVF. Dodson rexxied to VNIl~D they pay $1,680 at this syt.. :.3 ;~ .: time to upgrade the fencing.' Knox moved to spend $1,680 on the new fencing, second by Wilsc~, passed unanimously. Repairs will start on the courts this week. S~TII~R+iII1G POOL: See attached revised Dodson memo and attactuner~ts . The soil test will be much less than originally thought .$1,500 vs. $3,000. The bad news i.s the soils test must be performed on the SB field. DocL~on warrts to proceed now so 'the field can be repaired ASAP. The site survey map will cost $25 instead of the original $2,500. Dodson stated if VNiFZD chores to use Kirschner's services prior to the election and if the bond is successful VMF2D most likely would have to use their services after the election. CIP PF~I7ECI'S: Garton wants to develop a rational, philosophy to give to the Town Cotulcil for the submitted projects. If VMRD asks for too much or becat~es too diverse in their < requests, VNIRD has a greater chance of losing TOV's support/money. The board wants Dodson to submit to the Taan Council the aquatic center for $353,700 and the tennis courts for $58,575. Garton wants to look at the list of CIPs and note which items on the list would fall under the guise of the transfer tax rules. Need to make two lists: a) Real Estate Transfer tax - su}~nit now b) CIP projects RESOIITI'ION ZC) CF~NGE Vt~2D'S NAME: The board declined to change VMRD's name at this time. GOLF SUB ~: RESTAURANT" EI~IAYEES: Garton stated there are two types of employees -restaurant am3 starter house. Wilson stated these ~loyee reccxrnnendations on restaurant employees benefits came frran Satterstrran. Satoh recoed the restaurant receive 2 passes arxi he will then take care of all his o~-her restaurant employees golf needs. Zhe Board wants Dodson to draft a letter to Sattexstrrom explaining how this policy was developed and ask it be distributed to his employees. TaWN OF VAIL EN~'Z(JYEES: Dodson indicated these are not passes VA'lFtD gives away, the TOV pays for each pass. So noted by the board members. • ~ t~. r ~ t -i7 W~~C .>."'~-r.~+~Yfhce{} ~, ~ ~t T~ t`~tv~~t."}^d'2 ~ . ~ A t :+~ a M1~lLW Wig W~Jd\JSJ LL~1L"1JJ1~aC~o ww.~WC b~raiM dia.o ilaWO ~_~~~~.•.' ~"` . Wilson made a motion to approve the Golf Stiib Ocarsnitt®e ° s tion memo, second by Mollolr, pas-sed unan~nouslyo ~~ o board will give $1, 000 to the Vail Cross Training camp at the time they shad'pr~f of paid registrants and i~a.lfi.ll the terms that were agreed upon last yearn ~~~ ~.. ~ • ~Pr ~'R' o Atiolloy leaves 6 0 41 Pik Garton stated the board had previously voted to stay with the ZUV°s employee system and VMFtD should continue with this motion until a time they feel it i.s warranted to change. I, OF PO°So Knox made a motion to approve the POs, second by Wilson, Passed unani~LSly. I]AI~d I~'I~2 (adciitional item)e See attached mew frcan Dalton Williams to the Lionshead N~xrhants and Earployees < 'Ihe bo~arri instructed godson to write a response to Williams and carbon copy the letter to the Editor of the papers, ~DJ . Wilson moved to adjourn the meeting 6:48 PM. Gail Molloy, Secretary T+~ o ~g8g pV~d'1~dptfD BO~D d'1L1d'1BERa7 s RQA'd °o /rAd DODs~~BQ DATE % APR%ga 12 ®. 1989 SUBJECTo SYSTEM F'OR EMPLOYEE INCREASES Need approval on the followings All employees of the VMRD will be following the same classification and pay plan as the TOVa This means all regular full time VMRD employees would be eligible for only a merit pay increase based on their annual evaluation and limited to the maximum amount currently listed in the 1989 TOV wage and salary classification plans No employee will be eligible for any cost of living increase. VMRD will also adopt the 1989/90 rating for all categories (outstanding, excellent, meets basic expectations, needs improvement and unacceptable) as the TOV. All recreation supervisors will evaluate their full time employees and the Director will evaluate all the supervisors. Board members will evaluate the Director of VMRD. These evaluations and performance awards are scheduled to be completed before June 1, 1989. All merit increases will be issued starting June 1, 1989. All changes in salary the wage classification plans for 1989/90 will be submitted by the Director of VMRD for Board approval. (.~eP~~~ec~. b~ ~m~~ ~c~ccJ~ a.~ ~Qc~~ o~~i 158`7 mee~~n , ~J 1989/1990 WAGE AND SALARY CLASSIFICATION PLAN OFFICE TECHNICAL 1988/1989 1989/1990 Current Range Range Chancre Adm. Clerk II (6504) 15,083/19,909 15,306/20,196 Executive Sec (6518) 18,416/24,454 18,684/25,000 LABOR TRADE Mtc Worker I (_-`i534) ~ 13,494/18,076 13,707/18,345 Mtc Worker II (5542) 15,840/21,219 16,078/21,528 Mtc Super I/S.f;. Coord (5554) 18,719/25,063 19,281/25,563 Mechanic I (5556) 18,719/25,063 19,281/25,563 Mtc Super I/Irz-ig Spec (5562) 20,`500/27,489 21,132/28,038 Asst Superintendent ( ) 19,801/27,498 22,400/30,022 Mtc Super II (Fi574) 22,400/30,022 23,500/35,000 PROFESSIONAL Youth Supervise>r Worker (3620) 16,326/21,746 16,494/22,068 Nature Center Coord (3620) 16,236/21,746 16,236/21,746 Asst Program Coord (3620) 16,236/21,746 16,236/21,746 Rec. Program Coord (3624) 21,216/28,270 24,553/32,112 Youth Service N[anager (3622) 22,736/29,726 24,553/32,112 MID MANAGEMENT' Business Manager (2650) Dobson Arena Manager Supt of Golf Course 26,710/34,650 30,846/39,790 28,416/42,396 31,315/40,385 31,315/40,385 28,416/42,396 UPPER MANAGEMErfT** District Manager 37,817/47,271 40,740/50,928 *Compared with TOV mid management position **Compared with TOV directors (PW/transportation, chief of police and asst TOV manager) Note: For a comparison of current salary please see attached sheet. The Board is only approving the ranges for each position, not salary increases for any employee. Employees move trirough the range by percentage of merit increases based on annual evaluations. The salary ranges allow VMRD to be competitive with other similar agencies. RepoP~ PRR22Q ~<<( TOWN OF VAIL 04 MAY 1989 ~ SALARY LISTINIG 9Y DEPARTFIENT I; _ -.. -_ .. _- . . -DEPT NAP4E STP MONTHLY HOURLY PAV REOVLAR PAY -- - -- - ---------------------- J08 CLASS/TYTLE ------.. .. .. ---------- R6E ST BIWEEKLY RATE CDE PAY CDE DESCRIPTYON ~^ 6100 AKER, LORELEY L 10518 ------------------------ EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ------ 1 ----------- ------- 10.7300 -a10 ----10 73----------------- . _. 6100 DODSON, PATR$CK J 80700 DYRECTOR OF REC 1 3. 996. 96 23. 0395 202 3, 996. 98 - - _ .: =_ __ _----- --... __._.._.. -..--- ---.... --- . - ..... 1 1. 998. 49 6100 JONES. BRIAN R 80687 BUSYNESS MANAGER 1 2, 833. 32 Ib. 3461 202 2, 833. 32 ~, _ . - - - - -- ------ - - - --- - -- -~_ --_-_----___ ._._-..._ 1 1.416. 66 ~° 6100 MASONER, BARBARA J flOba;i REC. PR06. COOK/NAT. CTR. DIR 1 2. 390. 16 13. 7894 202 2, 390. 16 - - _.... ._.-.--._....- ._ . ... -.. i 1. 193. 08 .e 6100 O'BRIEN-FOLK. CECYL%A J 10624 REC. PROD. COORDYNATOR 1 2. 268. O1 13. 0647 202 2. 268. O1 - ~i9 - ----- - - ._ ~----------------...~---N~M~-~ ---------------- ---__,.._.._..- ---... ~~-------. 1 1. 134.01 ° ' 1 6100 VANDEFORD. MARY FO 10310 ~~.----------------~----- ~. ADM. CLERK I Y ------- 1 ----~----- ------ ~~ 6. 0000 ---- 210 -----... -----------•~-------~ B. 00 - ,e ~ ~ _ I - . ------------------------------ - - ------- ---------------------------- ----1-- ---------- -------- ---- -------------------------- ~ • 3 .G li) :1 12 _ ' JI 'I , r,~ Page 1 i~ I'~ AMOUNT I'l . ~ ~~, ~ i _. +' ~~ I, 'I - ~---------- ~ 1~ I.I® ------------ I , i ~ I,~ ', '. i~r ~~ ~ ;': ~ I '1I 1 f •I 1 I ,.. By 12 CCSPR.VMRD Por 1? JAC(flUE on 86:39:08 04 MAY 1969 Report PRR220 ~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL ' SALARY LISTING BY DEPARTMENT ~~ ~"" J 04 MAY 1989 Page 2 I` r STP MONTHLY HOURLY PAY REGULAR PAY ' EPT. NAME _-~..._ .N1A ri_eaaiTTTi c RGE ;ST BIWEEKLY RATE CDE _. PAY CDE DESCRIPTION ~ .y 6200 ANDERSON, DREW W 10500 SEASONAL/ICE ARENA 1 5.5000 213 5.50 i° - .- -- -- ----~-- - 3 - _ . .. - _ . I' -------------------- ---- ---~ _~~------ ---------------------- -------- ---- -_--___---------=--9~=-~ee= ~° 6200 BENNETT, LEE N ~ 10500 SEASONAL/ICE ARENA 1 5. 5000 213 3. SO _ _... ..... --- --_...... 3 ~ f- ------------------ 2 ------..~__-------~----------------- ---------------------- -------- ---- ---- --- -----------~------- " V 6 00 BOS6ACK, DENNIS L 10534 MAINT. WKR. I 1 7. 7300 210 P v 7. 73 215 Hourl /Tem PT '' 1 -----------------------~. _~_~~_~_M_ ------------------------------------ ~" 6200 BRYANT, DAVE C 30500 SEASONAL/ICE ARENA 1 6.5000 213 Si ---- -- -...---.....-.._.._._ ..., 3 AMOUNT 9. 3B S l- n ~~ r ~, ~," !' ~ 6. 50 215 Hourly/Temp PT 9.38 $ ---- 6200 -------- CLARK, -------------- ANDREW ROBERT ---------- 10500 ------------- SEASONAL/ICE ------------ ARENA ------------------- 1 --- 7. ----- 0000 ----- 212 -------- 7.00 ----------~----P----- 215 Hourl /Tem PT ~d - --- -. _. _.. -------- ------- -- __--_..... 3 , - 'O 6200 EYKYN, TROY M 10500 SEASONAL/ICE ------- ARENA --------- 1 9. 5000 213 5. 50 '~ 3 6200 OAINE3 JR, LEWIS P - !0500 SEASONAL/ICF ------ ARENA ----- 1 7. 0000 - 213 --------- 7.00 ----- --- -- - -- - - - - - -- ---- - -._. __ ....- 3 -- -------------- ------~__. ~~__------ ----------- ------------------- ---- ---- ----- --------- --------- ---- ----- ;~ ~ZOO CLADSTONE. IRVINC A 10374 MAINT. SUPR II 1 8. 4000 210 8.40 y 215 Hourl /Tem PT P _ __ _._...__ .--..... ___._.- .._. __ .._ _. _ .._ . _ - .. 1 6200 HOVEY; JASON SCOTT 10500 SEASONAL/ICE ARENA ~ 1 5. 5000 213 5 50 - - _ . _ .. ---- - ------ -- ___ .._ ._ .. 3 ~i7~ 6200 JACOHS, RUSTY C 30562 MAINT. SUPR. I/ ICE 1 12. 5000 212 12. 50 ~~I _ - _--- .._- ~. ---- ... .. 3 6200 JEROER, DENNIS C 10574 MAINT. SUPR iI 1 2,938.27 14. 6439 202 2,53H.27 215 Hourly/Temp PT _. ---- - ------- - 1 1.269. 14 ~al ,, I _. . , ~~ I 9 3@ $ ~, _ L.. I ..~ ------ ~~ i~ ,I 9. 38 $ ------ ! i ______ i~ 9 38 s ~ i.: , i I •i ;r ~,.i~ I; I Y ~ ~ i ~ .' ~ By 12 CCSPR.VMRD 4or 12 JACOVE on 16:39:10 04 MAY 1989 t• 1 ~' RepoP~ PRR~20 TOWN OF VAIL 04 MAY 1969 Page 3 ' SALARY LISTING RY D€PARTt~ENT . ~~ a _ _...__... . ~ EP-T NAME .. _.-- _-_.~ - f..._.____--__ .. fnxt r. Acc/4 Y41 IC - = _ ~. . STP MONTHLY OURLY PAV EGULAR PAY ,~~ a -=- ---- ---- R6E ST BIIdEEbtLY RATE CDE PAY-CDE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT n ° a 6300 KUHR, LAVON C 10800 8EASONAL/%CE ARENA 1 7.0000 212 7.00 ~ ~ __ _____. 3 _. ... _ ..__.._ . ._.. _ 9 :. 6300 CARSON, STEVE A ~. '• 1®~~ SEASONAL/ YCE~ ARENA . ..., . 1 5. 5000 213 5. 50 ~~ i ° __ _ - .. .. _ . _. _.- ._ ... - 3 _ ~~ ~~ 6200 LUNDREN, ERYC C ~ 10335 PIAYNTENANCE ~JORKER I% 1 7. 7300 210 7. 73 a13 Hourly/Temp PT ---- 9. 38 ~ ~ u _._._. .....-_. ._. 1 ,. „ ~~ ~ 6x00 MARJORA~rI, DAV%D E `~` 10934;%NT: EdKR. 8 1 7. 1400 213 7. 14 313 Hourly/Tomp PT 9. 38 sS ~~ I ie ~____--__~__~__-______ ..w ~__ _ - ------------- -'-~~ 3 ------------- ------------ ------- ._. ..... ~I 3 ------------------------------------------- ~° 6200 FiURPHY, JAY TODD 10900 SEASONAL/%CE ARENA 1 7.0000 213 7.00 315 Hourly/Tomp PT 9.38 O w -- ~ r•. iz~ -- 6200 ----------°-_--__--- PATZER. CLAY E _ -----______---- 10900 SEASONAL/%CE ARENA --------- 1 ---------- -------- 5.5000 ---- 213 --------- 3.30 __ -°-------~----p------------ 315 Hourl /Tem PT 9.38 5 I..I~ + ~- •< - _...___- ~.-_____ , 3 i., ~_ 6200 PAYNE. CODY T --- 10500 SEASONAL/ICE ARENA ------- 1 ---- 5. 5000 ----- 213 -------- 3. 50 ------------------------------ ~ I~ {{ - - _... - ----- -- 3 zO ~_,, 6300 ~~ POPECK. JUDY L _ 10310 ADM. CLERK I I 1 B. 5000 212 8. 30 ~ "' _ ~-J - ..- •~--~ _ •----~---__--~_--______ _ .. r `b 6200 w SALASKY, THOMAS CHARLE8 ____~___~~-------------------- 10680 YCE ARENA MOR --------- 1 ---------- 3. 000. 00 --------- 17. 3077 ---- 202 --------- 3. 000. 00 ----------------------------- i . I'o °~--- -------------- - - - ~ ~ 1 1 _ 500_00 _ I~~ 6a00 SITYP8TAD. EDWYN J .._ _~_ ~---- 10680: %CE ARENA MAR ------- - 1 - - 3, 303. 76 --------- 19. 0602 202 3, 303. 76 pia i - -"--- .. _ __ - . --------------------- __----.... 1 1, 651. 88 ~ .. _ . . t° 6200 ---r SHIPSTAD, WELLYAM JOSEPH _________----------------------- 10500 SEA80NAL/ICE ARENA --------- 1 ---------- --------- 6.5000 ---- 213 --------- b. 50 ---------y----P-------------- 215 Hourl /Tem PT 9. 3B 8 '~ ~„ _.. _ . _. _ -. ~ _.. 3 I' ~ 'J L ~ „~, L.. !. I ~ ,~ ~~ Ir ~ ~, !~ ~ ~' .1,I ~ Iii By 12 CCSPR.VMRD ¢or la JACQUE on 16:39:11 04 MAY 1989 r C Report PRR220 TOWN OF VRIL 04 h1AY 1989 Page 4 SALARY LISTING BY DEPARTP9ENT J .____ - STP MONTHLY HOURLY PAY REGULAR PAY EPT. NAME __.___ JOB.~c~aaQiTlTic __,~_-__ ROE ST BIWEEKLY RATE CDE PAY CDE .DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ~' '' _-_____~-__ _..~r._-_~---_-- ----------------- '" 6200 SHIPSTAD JR. EDWIN 10500 SEASONAL/ICE ARENA 1 6.5000 213 6.50 215 Hourly/Temp PT 9.38 $ r ~ ~e _.. . __ - ----- ----- 3 ~~ ~,;.I D ,/f 200 &IMPSON: GRIN !' 10310 ADM. CLERK II i 7. z7~00 210 7. 97 ~ ~~ ., ~ 1 I" 6200 SLEVIN, CHRISTOPHER D 30500 8EA80NAL/ICE ARENA 1 5.5000 213 5.50 ,- b ~~z ,, ~_- ----.... - -~_ ------------.. _..- 3 " 6200 TAL80T, JOSEPH D 10500 SEA60NAL/ICE ARENA 1 5.5000 213 5.50 ,~ - --------------------------------°--- - ----- --- ------------------ 3----------------------- ------------------------------------ i. '" 6200 WALKER, JOHN T 10500 BEASONAL/ICE ARENA 1 5. 5000 213 5. 50 215 Hourly/Temp PT 9. 38 t ~1 '' ° 3 _.........__. v.. 'O 6200 WARD. STACEY E 10500 SEASONAL/ICE ARENA 1 b. 5000 213 6. 90 ~~ ~ 3 --- ---- ---- - _ ._. I 6200 WESTFALL. KEVIN J 10500 8EASONAL/ICE ARENA 1 9.5000 213 5.50 215 Hourly/Temp PT 9.38 $ .. ~ - -- . _ 3 ------------- -- - bZ00 YOUNG. CHRISTIAN E 10800 SEASONAL/ICE ARENA 1 5.7500 213 5.75 . n 3 ,, :.. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=---------------------y----------_------ 6200 ZAOORBKI. JAMES 10900 SEASONAL/ICE ARENA 1 6.5000 213 6.50 212 Hourl /Seas FT 7.00 f ~ ~ 3 ~ ,, ~~z -----------~-------..____~~__~~._.~_..~__~~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I^II~ Rip®~$ PRR2~0 ~~ ~, TQWN OF VAIL 04 NAY 1989 Page 5 ' SALARY LISTING RY DEPARTN€~T - 2 3 ~-~ EPT NAME .. ~ ~ ~ g ~ STP MONTHLY HOURLY PAY RE®ULAR PAY ja ~_~-_- -________~___-------•_•-~-~~ ~ _ ,~ g/y~~-_- ~_~___` - ~~-- R6E ST BIWEEKLY RATE CDE PAY CDE DESCR%PTION AMOUNT . i' ' 6210 BEUTEL. HRET J SOg05 ___M SEASONAL SET ___ UP 1 5. 3000 213 _____ 5.90 _____________________________ 213 Hourly/Tamp PT 9.38 4 j- ~_ -. -_ 3 _ ....-- -.. !o ~ u 6210 BEVTEL. LANCE L - %0505 SEASONAL SET UP 1 9.3800 215 9.38 • 3 '~~ ,Z 6210 BEUTEL. RIC L 1090°1 SEASONAL SET UP 1 9. 3800 215 9.38 i13 -- - __ _ -- - -- 3 .. .. -.- -"-.._ ,~~ 6210 DOOHER. C1iR%STOPHER E 1090$ SEASONAL SET UP 1 9. 3800 213 9.38 -- - - ------ ----------------------f~~__ ---- ~---- -- --_.._.._.. 3 e 6210 FOLY, BTEVEN P ~ 10909 ~._----------- 8EABONAL 8ET ------------ VP ------------- ------- 1 --- 9. ----- 3800 ---- 219 --------- 9.38 ------------------- ---------- 9 __--_ ___ _---~.._._.. ._ 3 2O ~~ 6210 HENRY. JAC®VEL%NE 10901 SEASONAL CONCE88%ONS 1 6. 0000 213 6.00 _._.___~.__ ___. -- -.--__-.-- . 3 6210 YOELE. ANDRE6d 10909 SEASONAL SET UP 1 9. 3800 215 9.38 ~s __ - -- - - - 3 .._ 'O ., 6210 JEROER. P9ATTHEW 10905 SEASONAL SET UP ~ 1 9. 3800 215 9.38 -- - _ _._~ _ .. ~..__.... 3 r., 6210 WEAVEF@. JOHN C 10909 SEASONAL SET -- UP ----- ----------- 1 --- 9. 3800 - 213 ----- 9.38 - -- - ------- 3 ,~ ~:, '' i- _.. ~~ ee ij By 12 CCSPR.VMRD 9'or 12 JAC®VE on fl6:39:16 04 MAY 1989 i~ ~® ~•~ in ~~ _ If ..... .. 1 ~~ j,~, i~ ~,. ,~. Report PRR2~O ~ TOWN OF VAIL 04 MAY 1989 Page SALARY LISTING BY DEPARTMENT STP MONTHLY HOURLY PAY REGULAR PAY PT NAME ____ ulna C. ~euRiTiT~ RGE ST BIWEEKLY R + --------------- ------° -------- _. -- _ ATE CDE. ._._.. PAY CDE DESCRIPTION I ~d 6290 CUMMINGS. KATHY SUE 03329 SEASONAL RECREATION 1 6. 0000 215 6.00 _. _ - - 3 _ ~__ .. _ I~ J 6290 H4P[CQ~'K 9RYON T r ~nrann + ...... °EA^a0N ~~~~~.N~~~~~~.~ . o Ai% ICE ARENA ~_____________~__~___ 1 __ 6. _____ 0000 _____ 213 ________~~~~~___~~___~~_____. b. 00 i;o i _ .. --- _. . 3 _ . _ :~r 6290 KEOGH. MAUREEN •30501 SEASONAL CONCESSIONS 1 6. 0000 213 6.00 i ~~ ~" ~~ 6290 KEOGH. RANDY 10301 8EA80NAL CONCEBSIONS 1 6. 0000 213 6.00 _.. ---~-- 3 ~n - - --_ .._ .._ ____ .-. 'iu 6290 LINCKE. TOM 10301 SEASONAL CONCESSIONS 1 6. 0000 213 6.00 ------------------------~~~ ~~__ ___~ ,"' 6290 MARTSCHINSKE. SANDRA L 10300 _--_---------------- BEASONAL/ICE ARENA --------3------------ 1 -•-- 6. ----' 0000 ---- 213 ----------------------------- 6.00 6290 NOVOSAD. STEPHANIE.- 10301 SEASONAL CONCESSIONS 1 6. 0000 213 6.00 _.. _._~ -_-.~ 3 :3 - __- ----_~_ -----.._. . . ~° _, 6290 SCANIAN. SUSAN 10301 SEA60NAL CONCESSIONS 1 b 0000 213 b.OO ---- -- -------- 3 ~.1I - -------------------3------------------------------------------y----P-------------- I 6290 SHORT: ALICE K 10301 SEASONAL CONCESSIONS 1 7.0000 213 7.00 215 Hourl /Tem PT 9.38 $ ,~ - -~ --- - _. 212 Hourl /Seas FT 7. 00 S ------------------------ '' 6290 SHORT. LEE ANN 10310 ADM. CLERK I I 1 7. 5000 213 7. 50 ~~-'----------------------~ _ ---°---------------------- ------------3----------------------------------^--------------------------- -~---- C 6 ~ I' AMOUNT . .. I" n ~~~~~~~~ Iii. i1' • 1 -------- -------- . `.I ~ i,~l ~_~~~~~~ ~~ ~.~a ~I I, I. i. i I,!' i.;~ I,. i i. ~, ~!I i ,I ,.,i By 12 CCSPR.VMRD Vor 12 JAC~VE on 16:39:18 04 MAY 1989 r D R~po~~ PRR2~0 _ .. ~~ TOWN OF VAIL 44 MAY 1999 Page 7 SALARY LISTING RY DEPARTf~t~T ID -APT STP MONTHLY HOURLY PAY RE®ULAR PAY ~ - - -- -•-- - ---- --- - • - RGE ST BIWEEKLY RATE CDE PAV CDE DE8CR YPT%ON AMOUNT 6430 6{ARTON. CHRY8TINE E fl090a SEASONAL AYMNAST$C8 1 10.0000 212 10.00 313 Hourl /Sooo PT 6.00 cs - --- «_____-- _ 3 '~ 6430 LESSfVYCK. DAV%D F7 $0~ SE/IBONAL 8YF4NA8T%CS 1 9 0. 0000 213 10. 00 ----------------------- -_ _ 3 " ~I 6430 RUSSO. ANTHONY J fl030a SEASONAL OYMNAST$CS 1 13.0000 213 13.00 ~~ 3 '^ R~go~~ PRR~~O - T9WN OF VAIL SALARY LISTING BY D€PARTM€~1T 0~ f~Y 1989 Page 9 ' STP MONTHLY HOURLY PAY REGULAR PAY -DEFY NAME _ _..__, olQ~ CLfB~?!?/4YT1 F RGE ST BIWEEKLY RATE CDE PAY CDE DESCRYPTION AMOUNT 6434 ALLEN. FRANCIS E - ~ ~ 10803 SEASONAL REC 1 7. 3000 213 7. 30 _ - --- -- - --- - - -- ------ -. 3 -, n lv ~i ~~ -- 1.~ . ~I Report PRR220 TOWN OF VAIL ~ SALARY LISTING RY DEPARTMENT 04 MAY 1999 Page 9 - _ ... r '-~EPY NAFI& ___ STP MONTHLY HOURLY PAV RE®ULAR PAY R6E ST DIWEEKLV RATE CDE - -----°-°---------- - --- -- PAY CDE DESCR%PT%ON AMO 310 FOSTER. STEPHERI L ~~-~~----------------------------- 10631 A88'T. FIAT. CTR. DIR ------------------------- ---- --- -- - 1 1, g00. 00 8. 6339 203 1, 900. 00 ~- _ _ . _ 3 750. 00 -- -- -- ~ ---------------- ------ ----------------------------------------------------__ ----w~--------------____ ,'- ' -' ._._~_.__ ~ ~o _. 1i ~~ ~ -- - .. - ~ .. _ _..._ _-- .__.._.. le . __.---- Iii i "--------~ .-__------~ -• .. .. 111 ~.,~ ~...I I, . - -- - (: - .. _ .... ~ _ --._ ~• - -- ---~- -- I_, ;: ~~ i _RepOrt PRR220 Ur~° TUWN OF VAIL I' `SALARY LISTING BY DEPARTMENT ~° c~V1 . ~• " -DEPT NAME _---- ---------- ------------- ---- -.JOB-._GLAS8/_TIILE---_-.-~ ------------- - - - 6600 BRANDEN, ROBERT C 1 ------- 10620 YOUTH SERVICES ------------- WORKER Ie / '~ 6600 CHASTAIN, RICHARD S 10620 YOUTH SERVICES WORKER " 6600 CONARD, CURTIS D 10620 YOUTH SERVICES WORKER 6600 FREELAND, SHARON •~ 10620 YOUTH BERVYCE8 WORKER 6600 OUERRERO, JOANN ALENT 10504 SEASONAL YOUTH -- - --- - CTR ~ 6600 MATTIO, JOANNE 10626 YOUTH SERVICES MANAGER ~ , ,~, ' ~ ,~, 600 OLSEN, ROBIN L ~ i. __- ~ ; ~ I ~ _ 10620 YOUTH SERVICES • WORKER ,' ' , I _ I - -- --- I -- - 04 MAY 1989 Page 10 i~ STP MONTHLY HOURLY PAY REGULAR PAY -RGE-ST--BIWEEKLY RATE CDE -PAY_CDE- DESCRIPTION 1 6. 7500 213 6. 75 3 - -_. ._....__.. 1 e. o000 21 a 6. 00 3 _.._ ._. -- ---- 1 7. 0000 213 7.00 3 _....._- - -____... 1 B. 4500 213 B. 45 3 1 4. 6500 213 4. 65 3 1 2, 507. 84 14. 4683 202 2, 507. B4 -1 1, 253. 92 1 1:638. 27 ! O. 6064 202 1.636. 27 -----1----919_14--------------------------------------- _. ;~ ---- AMOUNT-_ _....... ^ _ ~ `;; r IJ 11 ie - -- - -_ ~~ ------------- ~" ~ :ir ' -I~<I ------------- ~'`r -----°------. I .~ ~, I „j - `.,, I! ~.I r ~. ~. _, ,,~. _ ,`~ r ~,, ~ i~ ,~ _~ r -"~ ~ By 12 CCSPR.VMRD Por 12 JACOUE on 16:39:21 04 MAY 1989 R e p o t PRRZ20 ~~1~-- TQWN OF VA I L SALARY LISTING 9Y DEPARTM~RIT ~J - - ----------~----___.._._ __.~._ __ . STP MONTHLY HOURLY PAY APT NA~'lE _ _.._ _..._:...gg~g~y~.__., -.-, -_. ___-,_ __---R6E_ST BYWEEKLV RATE CDE 801 AORDON. ALEIt 10694 NMRD GOLF (STEVEI 1 13.2200 210 `~... . _ . -- - _~~.-------- 1 04 MAY 1989 Page 11 REGULAR PAY PAY CDE DE3CRBPT%ON AMOUNT 13. 22 ' ~ 9101 JARAP9YLL0. EVERETT 08996 ~lECHAN%C % 1 1O. 0000 210 10 00 F-- - --- ~ . + - - ------------- _... - -- 1 _ . -- - -- . l 9101 JARAM%LLO. MATTHEW ROBERT ------------- 80307 SEASONAL 80LF MAINT ------ 1 ------------ ---------- B 0000 212 ---------_~_ _----------------- 8.00 - - - 3 - -- --._ ._...~ .. `~SO1 GLRUEAER, BERNARD 80694 VPiRO GOLF (STE4fE) 1 3. 533. 00 30. 3837 202 3 . , 933. 00 - --------- = -- ..._ 1 1.766. 50 9801 MCENANY, SEAN P 10907 SEASONAL GOLF MAINT 1 9 5000 213 9.50 - ..._..- -----___.... 3 _ . .--- .. 9101 REHM. KAY F7 10907 8EASONAL GOLF MAINT 1 7. 3500 213 7.35 _ ... _ ..... r.---- ___ .....- ---.. . _ _ .. _ 3 9101 SANDERS. JAMES R 03563 MAINT. SUPR. Y/IRRIGATION 1 10. 7500 210 10. 75 __. - = - --- - -~ .._....~ .. -- -- - -- .__ .... 1 9101 SERNA. HILLY 10563 MAINT. SUPR I/®OLF .. 1 10.3000 210 10.30 ~ 9101 I SPADAFORA. CECIL A %0807 SEASONAL GOLF MAINT 1 B. 5000 212 8.50 - -- --- - - 3 . .....- - _.. 9101 STEPHENSON, ARTHUR A 05556 FIECHAN%C % 1 11. 6900 213 l i. 69 -__ . - --- --., ~.--- ___.._. .. 3 _. ~ 9101 VALENCYA. JOE LEROY 10563 MAINT. SUPR %/GOLF 1 10.3000 210 10."30 -_ _.. _ 1 Repot PRR220 ~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL SALARY LISTING 9Y DEPARTMEi~T - ~ STP MONTHLY HOURLY PAY PT NAME --.-..~__JOB__CLAS8lsYTLE_- ._.-_ _._ ... RGE ST BIWEEKLY RATE CDE -------------------M~_~~~---------------------------------------------------- 9101 WALTER, R%CHARD F 10307 SEASONAL GOLF MAINT 1 7.7500 213 ----------------------:. --- -- wM ----`------------------3----------------------- •~ i I__-.. .. __.._ ... ~~ Q4 MAY 1989 Page 1~ I~ I. e __ . o .n ~~ ~., ~q 1 ~ 1. , ~~..i II® I; ~~® ,~ ,~, ,: C REGULAR PAY PAY CDE DESCR%PTION AMOUNT .. 7. 75 n +I I, I...~ .. rv _Report PRR~20 ~;~ TQWN OF VAIL 04 MAY 1989 Page 13 SALARY LISTING DY DEPARTMENT ~r~ ~ i ~ _. . ~- ' L~ _ STP MONTHLY HOURLY PAY REGULAR PAY ~ d .. DEPT NAME ------ --JOB-CLASSI~.ITLE - RGE ST BIWEEKLY RATE CDE PAV CDE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ' 9110 FERGUSON, DIANE KAV 10308 SEASONAL PRO SHOP 1 7.2500 212 7.23 213 Hourly/Seas PT 6. 00 b ~~ ._ . _.. _- --- --° ---------------- ------ _ .- --- - -- -. 3 _ ..... _ _ _. .. - Q --------------------~--__ Sri 10 CARNSEY, VICKY KAY __---_~__------------------- 10308 SEASONAL PRO BHOP ---------- 1 ---------- -------- 9. 0000 --- 212 --------- 9. 00 ----- -------~~-e-==-°---- ----- ~,~, ~ 3 ' --- ---------------- 4110 MECKSTROTH, JEAN C -------------------------------- 10908 SEASONAL PRO SHOP ---------- 1 ---------- -------- 7.0000 L-- 12 --------- 7.00 ----- -------------------- ----- ~. '~ . . _ . .. ._ ---- -- - - 3 - ' --- - -------- - _ ___ 9110 SATTERSTROM, STEVEN H 10681 DIRECTOR OF GOLF 1 2,704.16 15.6010 203 2,704.16 _ _- --- _ -- --------- __ ---- - - -. __ . _ . ... 3 1.352. 08 i! ~ { "I ----------------------------- 9110 STEIN, CRAIG S -------------------------------- 10623 GOLF PROFESSIONAL ---------- 1 ---------- 1, 768. 00 --------- 10. 2000 ---- 203 -------- 1, 768. 00 ----- --------------------- ---- . I.~ ~ i .. .. _ _ _ ....- _~. __---------... _ ..... ....- ----.. 3 864. 00 ~ . - - ' i ~! 110 STEIN, LYNDA HAIN 0508 SEABONAL PRO SHOP 1 .2500 12 .25 f `. I ;~ .. _ _ ......_ 3 9110 SUTHERLAND, JEANNE M 10623 60LF PROFESSIONAL 1 1, 300. 00 7. 5000 203 1, 300. 00 2,3 Haurl /Seas FT 6. 00 S I I ~~~~ {- .. ~ . . . ... .. ..... .. _ - --..-_ ... ___- -- --- -._ 3 650. 00 i ~ _. _ ~' r ,~ ,~ ,: ~ ~~ a. ,. ~ I .. __... ___..._...__.--------_-....---.._....._.... i ; l ~ . ~ _ i .' Ii 1_- 1~ r ,, I ---. .' I, ~._- . . - I. .,. I i ~~I 'i _. ).1 le ~ I 'G Hy 12 CCSPR.V MRD Por 12 JACQUE on 16:39:26 04 MAY 1989 G r tl TO: VMRD BOARD MEMBERS FROMe ~~~ PAT DODSOAT DATEo MAY 3, 1989 SUBJECTe GOLF SUB COMMITTEE PROPOSAL The golf sub committee would like to make the following proposal for the Board°s approval. 1. Young life fund raiser. Paul Johnston requested he use the Vail Golf Course as a fund raiser for high school students ages 13 to 17 years of age. There are approximately 15 to 25 kids that would benefit from the donation. The sub committee. recommends the following. -A night golf tournament -Wednesday, June 21, 1989 starting at 8 PM -$10 cart and green fee -program offered to adults - it is not anticipated the high school kids would participate in the program -Satterstrom will work with Paul Johnston on all the arrangements to make the tournament successful. 2. Colorado Women's Golf Association. The sub committee recommends the following. -Vail Golf Club host the Colorado Women's Golf Association stroke play championship in June, 1990. -We charge for the practice rounds at $50 or current full 1990 green fees rate. -We charge $5 green fees for each golfer during the 3 day tournament. -We encourage the tournament take carts and pay full price. -The tournament starts at 7 AM each day. Practice round is June 11 and the tournament is June 12, 13, 14, 1990. -We would be on a no less than 8 year rotation basis. VAIL INFORPlATION BOOTH VISITORS STATISTICS ~&~k~--- ?lonth PHIS PEAK 0 LionsHead Village Mall Total Visitors 3445 +14% 7950 +19% 2753 +17% 14,148 +18% Phone Calls 597 -35% 1293 -32% 0 1,890 -35% Total Contacts 4042 +3% 9243 +8% 0 2753 +11% 16,038 +8% g.AST REAR LionsHead Village Mall Total Visitors 3014 6636 2356 12,006 ~hone~Calls 922 1897 0 2,819 Total Contacts 3936 8533 2356 14,825 o Hours of Operation LionsHead Village Mall Total Same hours each year, ®~ ~®o~erce lay 9, 1959 Dear Chamber liRember, RECD MAY 1 1 i~~~ On liRay 2~th ,the Vail Chamber of Commerce and the Avon Beaver Creek Resort Association will co-host a luncheon for members of both associations, as well as for the public. The purpose of this luncheon is to allow Kent 1Vleyers of Vail Associates to present the new Vail Valley 1Vlarketing Plan in its final form. This presentation has been formulated through the efforts of the Vail Valley 1Vlarketing Committee and the marketing firm of Schenkein Associates from Denver. Frank Johnson, President of the Vail -Chamber has been an active member of this committee, and should be congratulated for a job well-done. The luncheon will be held at the Westin Motel on Wednesday, IV~ay 24th. Cocktails at 11:30, lunch at noon. $9 for Vail Chamber members, $10 for non-members. Please R.S.V.P. by l~i[ay 23rd to Joy at 476-1000 ext.165. We feel this is a verv. important presentation and we encourage all Chamber members to attend. Sincerely, ~C~,~c~~- ~~~~ v aren 1Vi[orter, Executive Director Vail Chamber of Commerce K1V1/jw 241 East Meadow Drive, Vail, Colorado 81657 ~ 303/476-10~ A ~ p.o. box 420 1055 cottonwood pass road gypsum, coloredo 81837 u.s.a. 303/524-0769 May 4, 1989 Mr. Ron Phillips Manager Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 c ®N1AY ~ ~g~9 ~ummif films'nc Dear Ron: Could you please make sure a copy of this letter gets to the Town Council and all members of the marketing committee. Than s. Roger C. Brown p.o. box 420 1055 cottomvood pass road gypsum, Colorado 91637 u.s.a. 303/5249769 May 4, 1989 summit films'nc Gentlemen (Ladies): Now that winter has passed, at least the skiing has passed, and the daffodils are blooming, it may be time to reflect on the summer promotional efforts that went on during the World Champion- ships and thereafter. We made a short summer promotional film called WHERE EAGLES SOAR: VAIL, BEAVER CREEK AND EAGLE COUNTY, and it was shown at the Championships, although probably not as much as we had hoped. I think the basic problem was that the sponsors were too busy to focus on the project, during both its production and distribution. I was left to do what I could with very little direction. So I made a film similar to hundreds of others I have made for Vail Associates (all of their films since 1961 except for one Warren Miller production), for Colorado Tourism, for United Airlines inflight, for TWA, and for the networks; I have received 20-plus CINE Golden Eagles, which is the clearing house festival for the U.S. Information, Service, numerous national and international festival grand prizes, including an Emmy for one of these productions. I say this not to toot my own horn, but in answer to the remark coming back to me that WHERE EAGLES SOAR is not a marketing film. If it isn't, I have spent 30 years making non-marketing films and many large corporations have been making a big mistake giving me so much repeat business. _ -. So, if I may be presumptuous, I will say that WHERE EAGLES SOAR is definitely a marketing film (tape). What it is not is a "hard sell" rarketing tape. Please remember the initial direction, which was to reach the international press and public attending the World Championships to let them know what is available in Eagle County during the summer. A marl~eting film necessarily has to be a delicate balance between entertainment and information. Pure entertainment will pull a large audience and sell nothing, pi,rre information won't pull any audience at all. We knew the competition for attention at the World Championships was going to be fierce, so I tried to keep the show light and humorous. The narration was there for continuity, not for information. I can understand that many of the County's business people might find the show too light and folksy with the cowboy narration. Vail, and particularly Beaver Creek are more serious than that. On the other hand, the primary reason people come here is to relax and have fun In this sense the film is correctly directed. Again it's a matter of input. Various people we screened rushes for liked the humorous golf sequences. This response led me in the direction we finally took. The second problem is more political. Minutes for money. Avon definitely feels short changed. Vail also felt short changed at one point in the editing. The Commissioners wondered why Basalt wasn't included. All good points. All points that could have been corrected with more time and sponsor input. If we had gone through the sponsor input process however, we would have missed the World Championships. So, what do we do now? First, the show can be changed to satisfy the sponsors. It will cost money, not a lot for simple changes like the narration, more for re- editing the visuals and still more for new shooting. We can tell you the costs as soon as we know what needs to be done. We should go through this process. It won't cost the sponsors anything but time to figure out the changes they want and get cost estimates on those changes. Second, realize the existing show can do a good job and take a positive attitude towards it. The Chamber of Commerce Inforn-ation Centers, the local businesses, etc. could be having showings and encouraging the sale of the video tape. With only a few exceptions I ran into a brick wall when I tried to get retail stores interested in carry- ing or showing the tape. I admit I'm not a very good tape wholesaler. But I did try. Anyway the breakdown as I see it is between the Towns and the tax paying businesses. The Town Councils have to get the businesses to realize that the tapes' primary purpose is not for the profit on the sale of the tape, but to create more summer business. To sum up, we want to make this project a total success for everyone involved, and we are willing to take whatever reasonable steps are necessary towards that end. Sincerely, Ro r C. Brown M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 10, 1989 T0: Vail Town Cou cil FROM: Ron Phillips RE: Meeting with Heritage Cablevision on Franchise Agreement I contacted Kevin Rice concerning the council's request to meet with him on May 23rd and he informed me that he would be in Dallas Texas for three days and cannot be here on that date. Due to Kevin's schedule problems we have set the meeting with Heritage for Tuesday, May 30th at 2 p.m. He understands that this will be an informal discussion of the proposed franchise agreement and ordinance and that the actual public hearing will be held later. cc: Larry Eskwith ~ .4.. L down 0 75 sou4h 4ron4ag® road bail, Colorado 89 657 (303) X76.7000 ofgic® oP 4h® mayor IM May 4, 1989 Mr. Michael D'Anci General Manager Vantage Point, Vail 508 East Lionshead Circle Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. D'Anci: Thank you for your letter of April landscaping on the west end of the receive your letter last fall, and then. The town staff has been wor improve the situation somewhat. I letter last fall, and hope that we satisfactory. 25th discussing your concerns about the Lionshead Parking Structure. We did the Council discussed the situation king this spring on what may be done to apologize that no one acknowledged your can come to a solution that is mutually As you mentioned in your October letter, this area is used in the winter for snow storage and certain kinds of vegetation will not thrive in the summer after being impacted by. that type of use for many months of the year. We do think some improvements can be made, however, and the staff is in the process of developing some recommendations to be implemented this spring or early summer. The difference between the berm on the west end of the Lionshead Structure compared to those areas on the north and south side is that they are not used for high impact snow storage throughout the winter and the landscaping can be preserved. I believe that the west end of the Lionshead Structure is not substantially different from much of the bermed areas on the west, south and east sides of the Village Parking Structure which are also in a natural state of unmown natural grasses. As you know, we attempt in Vail to have some highly groomed landscaped areas, but also maintain some natural landscaped areas because of our mountain environment. I believe the solution to your area of concern lies somewhere between what exists now and a highly groomed state which exists on the north and south sides of the structure. p , . <~:- • Mr. Michael D'Anci May 4, 1989 Page 2 Again, I apologize for our lack of communication with you after receiving your previous letter. Since none of the council members nor I keep office hours at the Municipal Building, you may want to include the Town Manager as one to receive copies of any future correspondence as he provides the staff support for the Council and helps us keep track of the day to day correspondence needs that we should be addressing. Thank you again for your interest and willingness to communicate with us on this issue'. Sincerely, ~~~J~~ Kent R. Rose Mayor cc: Vail Town Council Ron Phillips /rmc -1~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ .~ 7856 Arlington Drive Boulder, Colorado 80303 May 2, 1989 Town Council 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Ladies and Gentlemen: I am the President of the Sandstone Park Condominium Associ- ation. I am writing to you to ask your consideration to buy and landscape a small piece of property that is, at present, an eyesore. The property in consideration is that parcel on Red Sandstone Road, bounded on its other sides by Red Sandstone Creek, the Brooktree-Sand- stone Park property and bridge, and the Water District water intake plant, As you know, this is presently owned by the Upper Eagle Valley Water District, which wants either to sell the property (to the Town of Vail), or to have it re-zoned so that it could be sold for developement of some sort. It really is not large enough for any substantial project. Your consideration in this matter will be appreciated, It is my feeling that this property, whether left as is, or re-zoned, would not be as much as an asset to the Town of Vail as if it were purchased and, at least, landscaped, Sincerely, Robert A. Lowry, Pre 'd Sandstone Park Condominium Association `~ f~A~UR~a~. ENERGY RES®URCES COMPANY P. O. Box 567 ~ Palmer Lake, Colorado 80133 ~ (719)481-2003 ~ FAX (719) 481-4013 RECD MAY g 'a iqa~ May 5, 1989 Senator Bill Armstrong `dashington, D. C. 20510 Senator Tim girth 6~ashington, D. C. 20510 Representative Hank Brown `~ashington, D. C. 20515 Representative Ben Campbell ~Jashington, D. C. 20515 Dear Senators and Representatives: Representative ~Jashington, D. Representative ~~ashington, D. Representative ~~ashington, D. Representative ~dashington, D. Joel Hefley C. 20515 Dan Schafer C. 20515 Pat Schroeder C. 20515 David Skaggs C. 20515 Request an immediate Congressional investigation into the omission of several major ongoing alternatives in the Metro Denver bdater Supply Final Environmental Impact Statement. This alternatives "oversight" is a gross violation of the Congressional mandated National Environmental Policy Act. The Union Park Reservoir and Siphon, City-Farm Recycling, and Green Mountain Pumpback alternatives were improperly screened by the Corps of I~ngineers from detailed 3IS review, while being aggressively pursued ~by Arapahoe County, City of Thornton, and the Denver dater Department respectively. Valid engineering studies show that each of these overlooked water projects would be substantially more economical and less environmentally damaging than Denver's controversial 50 year Two Forks Dam proposal. Because of the national environmental significance of Two Forks, a Congressional investigation would serve as an important adjunct to EPA's pending veto of the project. Please advise. Sincerely Allen D. (Dave) Miller President ADM/bm cc: U. S. Congressional Delegates, EPA, Governor Romer, Colorado Legislators. ,,~ L ~IATURA~ ENERGV RESOURCES CO~/IPANY ~ M Air ~ ~~, i989 ~~c P. O. Box 567 ~ Paimer Lake, Colorado 80133 ~ (719)481-2003 ~ FAX (719) 481-4013 May 5, 1989 Mr. Gary E. Cargill Regional forester, U. S. lorest Service Rocky Mountain Region 11177 6~est 8th Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 80225-0127 Dear Mr. Cargill: Thank you for your letter of April 27, 1989, requesting our input for the U. S. lorest Service's updating of its Rock Mountain Planning Guide. ire believe the most pressing lorest Service need is adoption of a clear policy that requires balanced use of the region's renewable water resources. This policy would serve as a basic screening criteria for all water projects requiring 1•'orest Service participation in the environmental review process. If Colorado and the lorest Service had a balanced water use policy, Denver's .proposed Two forks Dam would not be considered a viable project. All of Colorado's nineteen transmountain diversion projects are already seriously dewatering the Upper Colorado Basin. Meanwhile, the untapped Gunnison Basin loses almost a million acre feet of Colorado entitled water to the down river states. This serious water development imbalance would only be worsened with Two forks and its follow-on Upper Colorado expansion projects planned by the Denver ti~ater Department. Highly competent engineering studies show Arapahoe County's ongoing Union Park Reservoir and Siphon Project from the untapped Gunnison to the South Platte can economically meet Denver's future needs. This massive, high altitude, off-river reservoir will enhance the environment, because it will also provide needed drought protection for Colorado's major rivers on both slopes. The Corps has confirmed that Union Park's unique multiplier effect can increase the safe annual yield of Denver's existing system 40% more than Two forks for about 60% of the cost. Two forks is the best case for a balanced water use policy for Colorado and the U. S. lorest Service. The Two forks EIS is not a valid decision document, because the Gunnison and other superior alternatives were purposely ignored to protect an obsolete concept. Two forks seriously violates the time honored principle requiring balanced use of our natural resources. Sincerel ~~ r Allen D. (Dave) Miller, President ADM/bm cc: Gov. Romer, Colorado Congressional Delegation, EPA, US1S.