Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1990-01-16 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1990 7:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Presentation of Plaques to Former Councilmembers 2. Approval of Minutes of December 26 and 29, 1989 Special Meetings 3. Aquatic Center Final Presentation by the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District 4. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance rezoning a parcel of land legally described as Parcel D, Stephen's Subdivision, according to the amended plat thereof recorded March 19, 1985 in Book 409, at Page 160, as Reception #305440, with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office from residential cluster to high density multiple family and establishing Special Development District No. 24 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. 5. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance repealing and re-enacting Ordinance 7, Series of 1989, a Special Development District (known as SDD No. 14) and the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. 6. Resolution No. 2, Series of 1990, a resolution approving the Vail Village Master Plan for the Town of Vail; and setting forth details in regard thereto. 7. Action on the Michael Barber Contract for the Village Transportation Center Expansion 8. Action on Town Attorney and Town Manager Compensation CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 9. Adjournment VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1990 7:30 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 1. Presentation of Plaques to Former Councilmembers 7:40 2. Approval of Minutes of December 26 and 29, 1989 Special Meetings 7:45 3. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1990, first reading, a request Mike Mollica for rezoning from Residential Cluster to High Density Multiple Family with a Special Development District for Parcel D, Stephens Subdivision Applicant: Faessler Realty Action Requested of Council: Approve/modify/deny Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1990, on first reading. Background Rationale: The PEC, at their January 8, 1990 public hearing, unanimously recommended denial (vote of 7-O) of the request for a zone change to HDMF, and also unanimously recommended denial of the SDD request (vote of 7-0). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendation is for denial of Ordinance No. Z, per the enclosed memo. 9:15 4. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1990, first reading, regarding Peter Patten the Doubletree SDD 14 Action Requested of Council: Approve/modify/deny Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1990, on first reading. Background Rationale: The Doubletree Hotel, SDD 14, has been purchased by Jerry Katzoff, owner of several resort spa hotels in the U.S. He wishes to construct the addition to the hotel as previously approved, but change the uses to accommodate the spa. See enclosed memo. Staff Recommendation: Both PfC and staff recommend approval of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1990, on first reading. 9:45 5. Resolution No. 2, Series of 1990, a resolution approving the Peter Patten Vail Village Master Plan Action Requested of Council: Approve/modify/deny Resolution No. 2, Series of 1990. Background Rationale: The Village Plan has evolved over the past 5 years with active participation from staff, the PEC, the Council, and the public. The PEC recommended approval of the Plan by a 6-0 vote. The accompanying memo outlines two minor changes requested by the Council at the January 9 Work Session. Approval of this Resolution will formally adopt the Plan as a tool to be used by the staff, PEC, Council, and public as the Village develops over the next decade. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2, Series of 1990. 10:00 6. Aquatic Center Final Presentation by the Vail Metropolitan Pat Dodson Recreation District Action Requested of Council: Hear the presentation on the project. No formal action is requested. 10:30 7. Action on the Michael Barber contract for the Village Larry Eskwith Transportation Center expansion Stan Berryman Action Requested of Council: Discuss the contract and ask questions as desired. Background Rationale: Staff has been negotiating with Michael Barber to execute a contract for architectural and engineering services to develop construction plans and specifications for the Village Parking Structure expansion and renovation. Construction management services are included in the contract. 10:45 8. Action on Town Attorney and Town Manager Compensation Kent Rose 11:05 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 11:15 9. Adjournment -2- MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 26, 1989 3:00 P.M. A special meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, December 26, 1989, at 3:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro Tem Jim Gibson Merv Lapin MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Lynn Fritzlen Robert Levine Peggy Osterfoss Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Before items on the agenda were discussed, Ron Phillips reviewed the history of the project for land for recreational and employee housing plans. He gave chronological background information up to date. He then gave a summation of the negotiations over the last several months up to now. At this time, Larry Eskwith asked for a few minutes to speak to Nola Dyal of Vail Associates, Inc. Merv Lapin commented he appreciated the sign that was put up stating the Village parking structure was full, but still felt there should be a sign directing people to Lionshead parking structure. Ron Phillips stated it would be taken care of. There was then some discussion regarding the number of bus drivers and the possibility of extended hours of service. It was learned it would not be possible at this time, as the bus department was down several drivers. Council recessed for a few minutes. When the meeting reconvened, Larry Eskwith introc and Weinshienk, who was helping the Town. with the the Berry Creek 5th Filing property. Larry then the assignment which Vail Associates wanted remol would not be signed until the conditions were mei their ramifications, and potential risks to the Council, and Larry answered questions. Larry sty financing at this point, as there was no final di He stated there would have to be another special December 29, 1989. He then went over the condit~ some discussion and questions by Council, Larry Town would be required to do after the purchase. regarding rezoning the property for employee ho u: questions of Council regarding the due diligence commented the intergovernmental agreement betweei and the Town of Vail was being worked on, but way discussion by Council regarding a special meeting no quorum; Merv Lapin was the only one who would Rose stated he understood the risks the Council problem going forward. Larry stated there was n• agenda for vote until Friday; the Council would I financing until Friday anyway. There was then s~ property, and the five acres of the June Creek p' cunnnccrlly ho nivcn to tha Tnwn of Ilai1 hecause uced Jim Kurtz-Phelan, of Berenbaum due diligence for the purchase of noted some conditions included in ed, but they agreed the contract Larry reviewed the conditions, own. There was some discussion by ted the Council could not approve aft of the promissory note done. meeting and recommended Friday, ons that needed to be met. After hen reviewed the conditions the There was some discussion ing. Jim Kurtz-Phelan answered and development costs. Larry the Town of Avon, Eagle County, not completed yet. There was some for Friday and the possibility of have a problem attending. Mayor hould be aware of, but saw no risk putting off the items on the ave to wait to vote on the ~me discussion regarding the Miller operty (Parcel B) which will, of access eroblems. At th1S time, Ron Phillips suggested the Council act on the assignment without the three conditions - 1) the boundary dispute, 2) the Eagle Association deed of trust, and 3) the right of first refusal. He suggested they approve the assignment with these things: Items C, D, and F on page 2 of the assignment be deleted, and add the condition that we obtain a satisfactory opinion from our special water counsel, Dave Robbins, that there is sufficient irrigation rights to develop the property as we intend to do. Larry Eskwith stated the conditions would have to be satisfied before the Council could executed the assignment, and he would tell Council Friday if the conditions had been satisfied. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the assignment of the contract between George Gillett and the Town of Vail, without conditions C, D, and F on page 2 of the assignment, but add the condition that approval was subject to obtaining satisfactory opinion from our water attorney, Dave Robbins, that there are sufficient irrigation rights to develop the property as we intend to do, and that the conditions deleted must be met, but would not be a part of the contract, before the contract is signed. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 4-0. Mayor Rose announced there would be a special meeting of Council Friday, December 29, 1989, 3:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, considering the resolutions and financing ordinance for the purchase of Berry Creek 5th Filing. At this time, Jim Gibson remarked the people involved in this should be commended - Jim Stovall, Jerry Davis, John Slevin, Ron Phillips, Larry Eskwith, Don Welch, and Jim Fritze - for their outstanding effort. Larry added that John Slevin had done an incredible effort in the negotiations. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman -2- town 0 75 south frontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 479-2136 PUBLIC NOTICE To be published in THE VAIL TRAIL Friday, December 22, 1989. PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Council of the Town of Vail will hold a Special Meeting to be held on Tuesday, December 26, 1989, at 3:00 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, 75 South Frontage Road West, Vail, Colorado. To be considered at this Special Meeting are-the following items: 1. Resolution No. 65, Series of 1989, a resolution approving an assignment of a purchase contract for the purchase of Berry Creek 5th Filing; and setting forth details in regard thereto. 2. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1989, an ordinance approving financing for the purchase of Berry Creek 5th Filing and the Miller Ranch Parcel; and setting forth details in regard thereto. 3. Resolution No. 66, Series of 1989, a resolution approving financing for the purchase of Berry Creek 5th Filing and the Miller Ranch Parcel; and setting forth details in regard thereto. 4. Resolution No. 67, Series of 1989, a resolution approving the Agreement for the Miller Ranch Purchase Contract; and setting forth details in regard thereto. 5. Resolution No. 68, Series of 1989, a resolution approving an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Avon, Eagle County, and the Town of Vail, outlining issues such as future public use and financing contingencies for the Berry Creek 5th Filing and the Miller Ranch; and setting forth details in regard thereto. All members of the public are invited to attend and be heard. TOWN OF VAIL ,d . ~~wz~,u,~f(1.~~~c~-~ Pamela A. Brandmeyer Town Clerk MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 29, 1989 3:00 P.M. A special meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Friday, December 29, 1989, at 3:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Lynn Fritzlen Jim Gibson Merv Lapin Peggy Osterfoss MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro Tem Robert Levine Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Merv Lap in was not present at the time the meeting began. Mayor Rose asked that before discussing the resolutions and ordinance on the agenda, he would like general discussion with Ron Phillips and Larry Eskwith concerning the land purchase. Ron Phillips stated there had been some question of the inclusion of Parcel B, and the question of right of first refusal conveyed to the Town of Vail at the time of closing; the Town would give an access easement to June Creek Ranch if they would give the others. Steve Barwick spoke about the general terms of the note from FirstBank of Vail for two million dollars. He then discussed short-term financ ing. Larry Eskwith commented he felt things were in reasonably good shape. He then went through the key issues that still existed: 1) the potential dispute over the overlapping boundaries with the Miller Ranch, and 2) the problems with the Parcei 3 deed of trust, because there was no promissory note. There was some discussion by Council regarding the possible dispute on both items. Larry then reviewed the water rights, stating they were not terrific, only adequate, because they were junior water rights only. At this time, Merv Lapin arrived. Larry reviewed the acre feet of water available and needed. He stated it may be necessary, if the Council decided to go forward, that they would have to purchase additional water rights, for the possible cost of $100,000, to insure we would have all the water we needed. There was some discussion of the worst and most likely case scenarios, and more discussion regarding the water issue: Larry stated the environmental hazard assessment, done by Woodward-Clyde, was resolved to his satisfaction. He also noted there were numerous easements on the property, all utilities easements. He stated they had such old, bad legal descriptions that a surveyor could not locate them. Larry added this could cause problems, but most likely, not. He then stated the Town had received a letter of commitment from FirstBank for $2 million. Larry stated at this time he would like to go into Executive Session with Council to review possible litigation problems regarding the property. After he answered questions of Council, it was moved to enter into Executive Session for a few minutes. When the meeting reconvened, Larry discussed the revised assignment Council had just received today, and explained the changes from the original assignment document. He then reviewed the restrictions to the Town under the assignment. Larry also noted the intergovernmental agreement had not been executed yet by all the parties. He then explained both resolutions and the ordinance,. what they were. for and what they would do. The first item on the agenda was Resolution No. 65, Series of 1989, approving an assignment of a purchase contract for the purchase of Berry Creek 5th Filing. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the resolution, which Jim Gibson seconded. Peggy Osterfoss noted the Council was acting on this because it was important to have a large piece of property secured for use for employee housing. Larry requested Merv add to the motion: On the condition a clause be added to the assignment, if George Gillett fails to exercise his right within six months, the Town of Vail can sell to anyone. Merv amended his motion, and Jim amended the second. Diana Donovan felt there was some land in the Town appropriate for the Town of Vail, and felt the County should be doing this, not the Town. John Slevin noted there were no real estate transfer tax funds used to buy this property, so those are still available for use. Hermann Staufer felt-the Council should be concerned with Vail, not the county and down valley. He felt the Council was gambling with the Town's funds; he would be willing to buy one or two employee housing units as he felt others would, too, but not to share with the county; the Council was not a bank or savings and loan; he felt we could solve our problem internally. Don Welch stated if the county election fails, the Town could sell to George Gillett or someone else, there was no risk. There was some discussion by Council regarding these concerns. Dalton Williams questioned-what would happen if the vote failed and George Gillett did not buy the property back; what was the worst case scenario, to which Merv Lapin responded. Al Weiss commented the publicity for this public hearing had been poor and should have been held at night. He also felt the land was too far away for the Town's use, and the lack of enough water was important. He felt the purchase of the Berry Creek property was not a vital issue. Lynn Fritzlen, Merv Lapin, and Mayor Rose responded to Al's concerns. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 5-0. The second item was Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1989, emergency reading, an emergency ordinance approving short-term financing for the purchase of Berry Creek 5th Filing. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the emergency ordinance, which Jim Gibson seconded. Larry Eskwith asked that a condition be included in the motion, is to not sign the commitment letter until the assignment is executed. Merv amended his motion, and Jim amended the second. Al Weiss stated he felt the proposed ordinance was illegal and in violation of the Charter, as it did not fall under an emergency. Larry responded this was not an appropriation, but was for borrowing money, and it was impossible to do two readings before the closing January 5, 1990. After some discussion by Council, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 5-0. Since the intergovernmental agreement had not yet been signed by all parties, Resolution No. 68, Series of 1989, was postponed. The last item was Resolution No. 69, Series of 1989, establishing a tax anticipation note fund ("TAN fund") of the Town. Larry Eskwith stated this would establish a tax anticipation note fund required to make the tax anticipation note proper. Steve Barwick answered questions of Council and explained what the fund would do. A motion to approve the resolution was made by Merv Lapin and seconded by Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 5-0. At this time, Larry Eskwith requested the Council make a general motion waiving any defects in the public notice given to the public. Merv Lapin made a motion to waive any defects given in the public notice presented to the public and. ratify as presented. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 5-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: .Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman -2- ~. lows o uai '~ 75 south frontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 479-2105 office of town manager P~iBLIC t~IOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Council of the Town of Vail will hold a Special Meeting to be held on Friday, December 29, 1989, at 3:00 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, 75 South Frontage Road West, Vail, Colorado. To be considered at this Special Meeting are the following items: 1. Resolution No. 65, Series of 1989, a resolution approving an assignment of a purchase contract for the purchase of Berry Creek 5th Filing; and setting forth details in regard thereto. 2. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1989,. an emergency ordinance approving financing for the purchase of Berry Creek 5th Filing; and setting forth details in regard thereto. 3. Resolution No. 68 ,. Series of 1989, a resolution approving an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Avon, Eagle County, and the Town of Vail, outlining issues such as future public use and financing contingencies for the .Berry Creek 5th Filing and the Miller Ranch; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Al1-members of the public are invited to attend and be heard. TOWN OF VAIL Pamela A. Brandmeyer 'town Clerk To: Town Council From: Mike Mollica Date: January 12, 1990 RE: Faessler Realty The Planning and Environmental Commission, at their January 8, 1990 public hearing reviewed the Faessler employee housing project, proposed in Intermountain. The PEC, by votes of 7-0, unanimously recommended denial of both the zone change request, -" from Residential Cluster to High Density Multiple Family, and the Special Development District overlay. The PEC made the following findings with regards to the motions: 1) Zone Change - Findings per Section 4,A of the staff memorandum, dated January 8, 1990. 2) SDD - Findings per Section 4,B of the staff memorandum, dated January 8, 1990. It was noted that only one of the nine design criteria was met by the applicant. ~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission ~' FROM: Communit Develo ment De artment Y P P DATE: January 8, 1990 SUBJ: A request to rezone Parcel D of the Steven's Subdivision, from Residential Cluster to Special Development District, with an underlying High Density Multiple Family zone district. Applicant: Faessler Realty I. Description of the Request This rezoning request has been proposed in order to allow for the development of a 48 unit multi-family/employee housing project. A 3,000 square foot day care center which was originally proposed, has been deleted from the project. The 1.99 acre parcel is located immediately north of buildings A, B, C and D, of the Meadow Creek Condominiums, and just south of Gore Creek. Access. to the parcel is proposed via an existing 40' access easement, connecting the southeast corner of the property with Kinnickinnick Road, (between buildings C and D of the Meadow Creek Condominiums). Phase I of the project calls for the construction of the eastern C , building, which would include 25 one-bedroom units and two two- bedroom units. Phase II would include 18 one-bedroom units and three two-bedroom units, located in the western building. The one-bedroom units are proposed to be approximately 400 square feet in size and the two-bedroom units are proposed to range in size from 660-800 square feet. Tenant storage facilities are proposed at the ground floor level, adjacent to the covered parking, and some additional storage is proposed on the second and third floors. Laundry facilities are proposed in the basement of each building. Section 18.40.010 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code describes the purpose of Special Development Districts, and reads as follows: "The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of new development within the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive c -1- Plan. An approved development plan for a special development C district, in conjunction with a property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district." The Town Code also states that any uses permitted in the Special Development District shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the property's underlying zone district. In order to meet these requirements of the Special Development District chapter, the applicant has applied to rezone this property from Residential Cluster to High Density Multiple Family, and has simultaneously applied for a Special Development District overlay. This memorandum will address both the rezoning to High Density Multiple Family as well as the Special Development District application. II. Zoning Analysis A summary of the proposed development is as follows: A. Lot Area Total: 86,580 Floodplain: 18,828 40% Slope: 2,716 Net Buildable Area: 65,036 B. Proposed Floor Area Residential, Phase I: Residential, Phase II: Total: square feet square feet square feet square feet 11,237 square feet 9,363 square feet 20,600 square feet C. Proposed Building Heights Phase I - maximum ridge height: 45' Phase II - maximum ridge height: 37' D. Proposed Site Coverage 12,712 square feet or 14.7 E. Proposed Parking 21 Covered Spaces or 35% 39 Surface Spaces or 65% (25% will be compact car spaces) 60 Total Spaces F. Adjacent Land Uses North: Gore Creek and RC zoned property north of the Creek. West: Undeveloped portion of Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Condominiums. South/East: Meadow Creek Condominiums, Building A-E, zoned RC. -2- III. Zoning Com arisons RC HDMF SDD - PROPOSED 1. PERMITTED USES -Single-family -Same as RC -Multiple-family residential zone with the residential dwellings. addition of -Two-family lodges. residential dwellings. -Multiple-family residential dwellings. (no more than 4 units/bldg.) 2. SETBACKS Front: 20' Front: 20' Front: 20' Sides: 15' Sides: 20' Sides: 15' Rear: 15' Rear: 20' Rear: 15' 3. HEIGHT Flat Roof: 30' Flat Roof: 45' Flat Roof: N/A Sloping Roof: 33' Sloping Roof: 48' Sloping Roof: 45' 4. DENSITY Allowable Allowable Proposed D.U.'s: 8.9 D.U.'s: 37.3 D.U.'s: 48 GRFA 16 259 f FA 39 0 f : , s : , GR 22 s GRFA: 20,600 sf 5. SITE COVERAGE 25% = 21,645 sf 55% = 47,619 sf 14.7% = 12,712 sf 6. LANDSCAPING 60% = 51,948 sf 30% = 25,974 sf 55% = 47,619 sf 7. PARKING -1 Space/D.U. -75% shall be -35% covered. shall be covered. covered. -25% compact car -25% compact car -25% compact car spaces. spaces. spaces. -75 total spaces -75 total spa ces -60 total spaces required for this required for required for this project. this project. project. IV. Criteria To Be Used in Evaluatina This Proposal There are two sets of criteria that must be used when evaluating this proposal. The first set of criteria to be utilized will be the three criteria involved in the evaluation of a request for a zone change. The second set of criteria to be used will be the nine development standards set forth in the Special Development District chapter of the Zoning Code. The criteria are as follows: -3- C A. Evaluation of Zone Change Request from Residential Cluster to SDD, with an underlying High Density Multiple Family zone ~ictrir.t~ 1. Suitability of pro osed zoning. The existing RC zoning allows for a maximum of 8 dwelling units on the site. The staff recognizes the environmental constraints imposed upon this site with the presence of Gore Creek, and its associated floodplain, along the north boundary. We do believe that with proper site planning, the 2 acre parcel could accommodate some additional density without compromise to the environment or have a negative impact upon the adjacent neighborhood. However, the staff believes that the request for 48 dwelling units would exceed the carrying capacity of this site. Also, the projected peak hour traffic volume on South Frontage Road, west of the interchange, is estimated to increase by 11.2% as a result of the additional 48 dwelling units. Although at first glance this percentage may appear to indicate a significant increase in traffic, the actual impact of the increase should be reviewed according to the "Highway Capacity Manual" and the level of service. Page 5, Table 1, of C TDA's traffic impact assessment shows the level of service at South Frontage Road and Chamonix road. This analysis, however, includes the originally proposed day care facility. It is impossible for the staff to determine impacts upon the levels of service for just the apartment complex with this .information. Staff would recommend that the traffic impact assessment be amended to reflect the actual proposal which is before the PEC (ie. 48 dwelling units). 2. Is the amendment presenting a convenient, workable relationship within land uses consistent with municipal objectives. Staff believes that with the deletion of the day care facility from this proposal, that the proposed residential use would be in harmony with the existing uses in the area. Intermountain is strictly a residential neighborhood and the proposed uses for this parcel would not be inconsistent with existing development. -4- 3. Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly, viable community. The staff acknowledges that employee housing is in very short supply in Vail and that such housing is a crucial element in Vail's continuing to be a viable resort community. We believe that the employee housing concept proposed here is a sound concept and that it would generally be a positive contribution to the community as a whole. However, even though we agree with the concept, we still maintain that the proposed density would exceed this site's carrying capacity. B. Design Standards in Evaluating Special Development District Proposals• 1. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. The staff generally feels that the proposed architectural style would be in keeping with the character of the immediate area. In fact, the architectural style is very similar to that of the adjacent Meadow Creek Condominiums. We are concerned with the proposed ridge height of the Phase I building, which is 45 feet. We feel that 45 ft. is excessive for this site and would be out of character for this area. Surrounding properties have approximate ridge heights of 28 - 32 feet. The staff is most concerned with the proposed GRFA for the project. We believe that the current GRFA which is allowable under the RC zone district should be maintained. The proposal calls for 4,341 square feet over that amount. We feel that by reducing. the overall GRFA, as well as the proposed density, the scale of the building (ie. mass and bulk) could also be reduced. -5- C 2. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. In reviewing this type of housing request, the staff has taken the position that some incentive should be provided for the development of employee housing (see Section C of this memo). The applicant is proposing employee housing and has proposed restricting the units "for the life of the buildings". However, we feel that the restriction placed upon such employee units should be more long term and should be consistent with previous Town approvals (ie. the life of Tiffany Lowenthal + 20 years). Regarding the issue of density, the staff is willing to work with the applicant on this development standard as an incentive to providing employee housing. The applicant has maintained that 48 dwelling units are required to make this project feasible. As stated above in the zone change criteria, the staff cannot support a 500% increase. in density over existing zoning on this site. 3. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. The proposal calls for a total of 60 parking spaces, 350 of which will be covered. The Town zoning code requires a total of 75 parking spaces, of which 75% shall be covered. Based upon past experience with parking for employee housing, the staff strongly believes that the parking requirements in the code need to be met. We also feel that the proposed 35% covered parking is inadequate and would present an eyesore to the adjacent residents. See attached "Employee Housing Project".statistics. 4. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town .policies and Urban Design Plans. The applicable sections. of the Land Use Plan are discussed in Section C of the Zone Change Criteria. -6- 5. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. There are no geologic hazards which have been identified on this site. The building has been removed from the 100 year floodplain. 6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic duality of the community. 7. 8. The proposed layout of the structures have been modified so that they no longer encroach into the 50 foot creek setback. All of the large evergreen trees on-site will be preserved. The site coverage numbers are well below the allowed maximum, and the landscaping percentage is also acceptable. A stronger landscape buffer is necessary along the south side of the project facing Meadow Creek Condominiums. Design solutions should be proposed to screen more parking. The height of the east building should be decreased to insure the project is compatible with surrounding structures. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Internal circulation is adequate, and it appears that the proposed access from Kinnickinnick Road can be constructed to Town standards. A copy of .the Traffic and Parking Assessment (by TDA Colorado) is attached. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Staff believes that the proposed landscape plan should have additional planting and berming along the south property line to screen parked cars. We also feel that pedestrian access along the creek would be an amenity for the project's residents as well as the neighborhood residents. We would propose that an easement, dedicated to the Town, be provided along the length of the property, adjacent and parallel to Gore Creek. This easement could be utilized as a pedestrian walkway to the proposed Steven's Park site to the west. -7- C ~ 9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development ~ictrirt_ As discussed in Section I, Description of the Request. C. Land Use Plan: The Land Use Plan should be utilized as a guideline in any request for a zone change. This property has been identified in the Land Use Plan as suitable for "Medium Density Residential" use. This category includes housing which would typically be designed as attached units with common walls. Densities in this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre. The following goals, from the Land as policy guidelines in the review GOAL STATEMENT 5.3: Affordable employee housing should private efforts, assisted by limit the Town of Vail, with appropriate GOAL STATEMENT 5.5: Use Plan, should be used of this proposal: be made available through =_d incentives, provided by restrictions. The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. GOAL STATEMENT 5.4: Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. GOAL STATEMENT 5.1: Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. We feel that the proposal goes well beyond the "limited incentives" referred to in 5.3 and the Medium Density Residential provisions of 3-14 units/acre. Thus, we find the proposal not in compliance with the Land Use Master Plan. -8- c c STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation is for denial. While we are generally supportive of the overall concept of employee housing on this site, we believe that the applicant's requests for additional density, additional GRFA, increases in building height, and reductions in required parking spaces would be in conflict with the purpose section of Special Development Districts. More compromise needs to occur on the project particularly in the areas of number of units and GRFA. Reductions in these areas will allow for development that is compatible with surrounding projects. Staff also believes that it is important to use the Land Use Plan as a guide in rezoning. In this case, the Land Use Plan calls for incentives to encourage employee housing. Staff could support limited incentives and would like to continue to work with the owner to develop a compromise solution. -9- /" :~- . ------ /- - ~ Gore Creek --~ ~_.______ .orerx- ~'- ~ Ecr~i ar .-.- - - -''' -~- ,,a. ------ --------------- ~~~ ~~ -..._.~ / / ~~-------------------- _.L ~_..._....... -- i ~~ d.~ ~ - ~-~ ~.! - - - - - I I j~- / --~--• ~ ~~- . ~'' / / i` \ \ \ ~ \` Phase II ~ ' Sr ~~ ~. -.~ --------------- I ~ ~ _ _ / ~ ,+' / ~ / If:w: oE'r / / / / / 1 / Phase I / / / / / `1 I --- / ~ / 1 / / ~ , / I I / ./ I I / _ , , .z , ,y I I / 9 7 11 ' 3) f 6 ~ 11` is 1 / ~ il~ 1.1 21~ 21~ L~ I I I.PI it tfu // ~/ / + / / / 'W '1{ j'/ ~t~ 12~ 21 ~. I rt ~/ ~'I / I / / 4! ~ 4• d 11• . . `~ - i / ., ~/./ ~ ®SITE PLAN2p ALTER~JA?~ "A" Meadow Creek Condominiums PARCEL D - STEPt1ENS SUBDIVISION A PART OF THEN 1/2 S'JV ti4, SECTIOtJ 14, TO'NNSHIF 5 SOUTH, RANGE 81 `A'E5T OF THE 6th PRINCIPAL A!ERIDWN TOP,'N OF V.41L, COLORADO 60 PARK I tdG SPi.~ES 50' CREEK SE'!"6A.CK 01/11/90 EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROJECTS PARKING PARKING UNITS/ PARKING SPACES/ SPACES/ PROJECT ACRES UNITS ACRE GRFA SPACES UNIT BEDROOMS BEDROOM Timber Ridge 10.05 199 19.8 149,943 345 1.73 398 .87 (Valli-Hi) Pitkin Creek 8.29 156 18.8 126,000 221 1.42 244 .90 Park Bighorn Lodge -------------- 0.77 ------------ 25 ------- 32.5 -------- N/A ----- - 43 1.72 25 1.72 Faessler 1.49 48 32.2 -- - 20,600 ---------- 60 -------- 1.25 ---------- 53 ---------- 1.13 Project (buildable) BARCLAY TOWERS VENTURE TEL No.3038936553 C ~~ CpLORAdO 1NC, Tronsportatipn Consultants 1675 ~onmer St. Swte 600 pan~rer. CO 80202 (303)825.7107 January 4, 1990 Sidney Schultz Sidney Schulte - Architect Inc. 1.41 East Meadow Drive Vail, CO. 61657 Jan 05,90 11 ~21 P.C~2 Re: Faessler Apartment and Day Caze Center Traffio Impact Assessment. Dear Sidney,. As agreed, we have reviewed the proposal for developing 5q apartment units and 'a day care center off Lupine Street in the intermountain area. As we understand the proposal, the apartmen*~ will be used primarily by employee$ of Sonnenalp Hotel properties in Vail Village and the day care facility will be used exclusively by Sonnenalp employees. We further understand a number of Sonnenalp employees currently Live in the Intermountain area. The 3,400 square foot day care center will have 3 to 4 employees. On the basis of this information we have prepared this assessment of potential traffic impact associated with the Faessler Apartment and Day C2~re Center proposal. Ex~,sting Conditions The Faessler Realty 'project wquld~be developed in a residential area that. is ess4ntially at .the westerly end of development in the Gore Creek Valley. South Frontage Road connocts the Intermountain area with cascade, Lionshead and Vail Villages. The West Vail Interchange with I-7o is about ij2 mile west of the project. Norte Frontage Road and South Frontage rtoad connect via the West Vail T-70 diamond interchange. The next. connection for local frontage road movements oaaurs almost three miles farther east at the Main Vail. Interchange. south. Frontage Road is ~a two lane rural toad serving as a collector-distributor tax regional trips to and from T-70 and for access to abutting paxools. Between the West and Main Vail intersect~.ons, south Frontage Road is under the maintenance ants access jurisdiction o~ the Colorado State Highway Department. Traffic volumes on south ,Frontage Road are much higher east of the West vain. interchange as much ~ot the Interstate movements ar.~• oriented •~o the commercial areas of Cascade and Lionshead v3.].lages . Volumes on South Frontage Road in the vicinity of the project is estimated to be about 2,300 vehicles per day. This is based on 1.9.86 evening peak hour Counts at the South Frontage Road/Chamanix Road intexsectian by Centennial Engineering. BP,RCLRY TOIJERS VENTl1RE TEL No .3038936553 Jan 05 , 90 1122 P . 03 C Mr. Sidney Schultz January 4, 1990 Page 2 Daily volume fluctuates annually based oil levels of occupancy in Intermountain. It is estimated that about 50~ of the dwelling units are owner-occupied, 20~ used by second home purchasers and the remaining 30$ are long term or seasonal renters. There are no commercial short term or overnight lodging units in Intermountain. Occupancy levels would likely be highest during Christmas Week, Spring Brea::, and summer holiday periods when second home user and seasonal employment use add to the year round population. Wc~ would estimate daily traffic volume on South Frontage Road in the Intermountain area could reach 3, 000 vehicles per day during a peak time such as Spring Break week. The Sntermountain area is served well by public tranBit. Town buses on the West Vail South Route run all day from 6:20 A.M. to 12:45 A.M. The route connects Intermountain with the three villages. Transfers to other town routes are made at the Val]. Transportation Center in Vail Village. The "Meadow Creek" bus stop is a short walk from the proposed project site. Pro~ert Tra: giC The pxopoaed project has two basic sources of additional traffic generation: 1. The SO apartment units 2. The 3,440 square foot Day Care Centex At full occupancy we would expect the predominantly one-bedroom apartments to generate an average oP about six vehi.a].e trips per day per unit, ox a total of,300 additional vehicle trips per day. This generation rate is derived from numerous studies in mountain resort communities and is comparable to the rate publ~.shed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the 1987 publication "Trip Generation" for "Low Rise Apartments". The same publication suggests Day Care Centers average 67 v~±hicle trips per daf ppr 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area. For the proposed 3,400 square fnot center this would equate to 228 vehicle trips per day generated by the day Care Center. Simply adding the two individual trip generation numbers would overstate the net additional traffic generation as some of the residential trips would be oriented to the Day Care Center. Furthermore, each child dropped and subsequently picked up from a day care center represents four daily vehicle trips -- entering and leaving the sire each represent a "vehicle trip". BARCLRY TOWERS VEfdTURE TEL fdo .3038936553 Mr. Sidney Schultz January 4, 1990 Page 3 Jan 05 , 90 1122 P . 04 Assuming five Sonnenalp households living in Intex~~tlountain use the Day Cara Center each day we would expect South Frontage Road trip generation would be otherwise reduced by 20 trips per day (5 households x 4 daily day care vehicle trips per household). The proposed seven two-bedroom units included in tho 50-unit complex could account for another half dozen children using the day care center. 't'hese on-site users could reduce the daily volume by a similar 20 vehicle trips per day. Hence, the net effect og the Day Care. Center would be to add 188 vehicle trips to South ~'rvntage Road as follows: Vehicle Trinsf Dav Trio Generator 228 Fxee-Standing Day Care Center (TTE) - 20 Existing Intermountain Sonnenalp Household Trips - 20 On-Site Proposed Household Trips 188 = New Vehicle trips on South Frontage Road Added to this would be the new non-day care trips generated by the apartment dwellers. This would equal 280 vehicle trips (300 - 20 an-site day care). Total net trip generation would then be 468 vehicle trips on south Frontage Road. Day Care Center 188 Vehicle trips per day 50 Apartment units = ~Q Vehicle Trips per day Total 468 Vehicle Trips per day This addition would be about a 19~ increase over the estimated existing average .daily volume of 2,500 vehicles on South Frontage Road west of the interchange. Approximately 10~, or 47 trips, .can be expected to occur during the PM peak hour. Typically, about fi0~ will be inbound and 40~ will be outbound from the project during the evening peak. These trips are then distributed to the surrounding roadways using prevailing traffic distzibution patterns. Figure 1 displays PM peak hour interseotion volumes with and without the Faessler Project. " BARCLRY TOWEP.S VENTURE TEL hJo.303~936553 Jan 05,90 11 23 P.05 C Mr. Sidney Schult.2 January 4, 190 Fage 4 Chamonix Rand "Chamonix Road (I '~ ~lndarpass) (I 70 Jndernass) N;ORIH I"_~ 20 395 146 2!~ 595 4~, ~ ~, y S . Pronta~e Rd. 5 -~ ~'~9 88 ~ ~"~i9 ~6 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1'S «1 '~ ~ ~ '~ ~ 1 18 ° 1 13 8 BACRGRU'.3:~ID t~I'TII PRgJBC'~' Figure 1 P.?4. Peak w4ur Traffic VolumeG {vith ~ ;Without Faessler Project 1990 . Trip Distribution Daily vehicle trips .generated by the Faessler development will disperse over the surrounding roadway netwozk. All vehioles will pass through the 4-way stop sign at the South Frontage Road/Chamonix Road a.ntersection. Bawd on 19$~ traffic counts at the intersection, existing trips from the Intermountain area disperse at this intersection as follows: Vehic~.e -Trips o/From vii; _ ~ of Total East S. Frontage Road 25$ East I-70 30~ North/East Underpass 30~ West Underpass i5~ Total 100 Faessler Apartment and Day Caxe Center development trips, heavily oriented to Vai]. Village, are expected to demonstrate a strong orientation to the east as do current Intermountain motorists. Impacts / A level o.f service computer analysis of the four-way stop sign (` intersection was performed in accordance witty procedures described in the 1985 Highwr-y capacity Manuai, Transportation Itssearch Board Special Report #209.. BARCLAY TOIJERS VENTURE TEL No.3038936553 Jan 05,90 11 24 F'.06 Mr. Sidney Schultz January 4, 1590 page 5 Level of service is an indication of duration of delay with level of service (Lc7S) "A" being the highest level. Tt represents little ar no matori~3t dcslay. Level of service "E" signi.fys long delays and no resAr~r~ capacity far that particular approach to the intersection. At 3.evel of service C average traffic delay can be expected and the approach could handle another 200 to .300 vehicles in the peak hour before reaching capacity. Upon reaching level of service D the capacity reserve is reduced to 100 to 199 vehicles and long delays can be expected. LOS D is commonly used as "de3ign capacity" for urbanized areas. Table 1 summarizes the LOS analysis results for the unsignalized 4-way-stop intersection of S. Frontage Road az~d Chamonix Road during a PM peak hour. Tt shows the left turns from S. Frontage Road to operate at a very high LnS A under the 1990 background traffic conditions. Right and left turns from Chamanix Road are LOS A and C, respectively. The through movements across S. Frontage axe both LOS C. TABLE 1 P.M. Pgak f3our Level of Service Operation at South Frontage Road & Chamonix Road (west veil interchange) for 1990 Estimated Traffic Volumes project w/ Background w/ Faessler Revised Turning Movem~~~ ~'x'affl.c: g~ojeGt Geometry (1) Left Turn from S. Frontage to Chamonix Rd. A A A Left Turn from S. Frontage to Streamside ~ 1~ A A Left Turn from Chamonix Rd. to S. Frontage G D D Left Turn from Streamside to S. Frontage C C g Right Turn from Chamonix Rd. to S. Fro~~L-age A A A Through from Chamanix Rd. to Streamside C D D SOURCE: TDA, Based on "Highway Capacity Manual", 1985, Analysis for stop sign controlled intersection. 1. Revisions include restripin:J, minor widening. 4 ~" BAR~LR`r' TO~JEP,S t~ENTURE TEL fdo . 3Ci3S93~`~5.'~ Jan 05 , `:~0 11:24 P . 0? C Mr. Sidney Sc~.hu~.'.;~.z January 4 , ~.`.? ~ 0 page 6 With the ac:~~litic7tx df the Faes;;l.~:x 'x'oject vehicle trips L-}xe LnS at the S. Frc~rtt•:,~~P/Chamorli., i:~atersectivn remains the same excaF7t the left turn x~,ct through movements glom Chamonix Road whicr. chap from LOS C to A. The small increase ~.n eastbound volumes on S. Frontage Road r~~7.uces the. amount of time available for coniClictizxcx tra.Cfi.c flown to cross a. Fronta{3e Road. However, level cif snr~~ic~ fox Intermountain, trips does not change from .t}rc exist~.ng con~.itiran z~T~.th thA additj.on of Faessler Project. Th3 exist~_n~.~ get~nietr.~' of the S. Frontage/Chamonix intersection has traffic lanes strilaed to include ono cozrbined left, thru, and right turn lane at each of the four approaches. However, th© expansive interseotir?n c-~rrently operates as having a separate right turn lane vn the north, south and east approaches. Restripinr~ of the intersection to include separate left turn lanes an L'he north and west approaches, rather than right turn, would better facilitate traffic flow. Analysis of this revisaci geometry shows .<mpraved LOS for the wtx-eamside approach legs wit.li this mirYOr. ian~xx`s~vement. Conclusion Additional. vetil.c:le trips generated by the Faessler Apartment ~.zxd Day Care Project will not have a significant impact on traffic operations at the West Vail interchange. The expected 47 peak hour vehicle trips generated by the development will further disperse beyonr_i the four-way stop int®rsection adjacent to thin diamond interchange,. If the Day Care Center were to be eliminated from t'he proposal the remaining 48 apartment units could be expect~•7 t4 generate about 20 to 30 peak hour trips -- the lower value .refxresenting some Sonnenalp employees residing j.r. the apartment: h•~inq shuttled to and from work via a Sonnenalp courtesy van. Iaot all employees would use. the shuttle due, in part, to ofi'~~~it:e day care travel requirements. The 24 additional tzi.p~~ wou],d constitute a 1.3~ increase in the numhe~r of vehicles e±~.:-gyring the aCc~ur-way Chamonix/S. Frontage Road intersection during the PM peak hour. This change would not }ae. readily percPa.v?ci. T trust this adertuately regarding the 1a,essler you have any ctu~stions. covers the traffic related issues Development project. Please call me if Sincerely TDA COLOP~IDO .T~.P~L. ~. David D. Leahy, P.~. Principal 1 C Iowa of uai 42 west meadow drive vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-2200 fire department * * * * * .~4 E !~i O R A I`~ D U td * * * * ~` TO: °~1i'ce ~',ollica, Community Development FP.O~4: =iichael 'McGee, Fire Iars;~al ~r'~ DATE: January 4, 1990 °.^: Fessler's Employee Sousing Project I have met :~~ith Sid Schultz and we came to the follo~•~ing understanding and agreements ree~arding the orojnct. These items constitute conditions of approval by the Fire Department. 1. The entire project will be plan checked and constructed under the 198F3 Uniform Building and Fire Codes. 2. The entire project will be equipped :-pith fire sprinklers. 3. The entire project will have an approved fire detection system. 4. Fire truck access ~~~ill be in accordance with Article 10, Section 10.20 of the Fire Code, ~•~hich recruires sufficient space to turn a fire truck around. These turn arounds ~•~ill be required to be maintained, marked, signed and secured. Turn around points are required :ashen the access road is in excess of 150 feet from the public street. 5. Fire access roads will be a minimum of 20 feet ~~~ide and will be required to be maintained free and clear of snoc~~, parked vehicles, etc.. 6. Adequate snow removal and snow storac;e shall be provided. 7. A water main shall pass through the project in such a manner as to be looped and connected to the neighborhood distribution system at t:~~o points. '_,'ire hydrants are reauired to be installed at designated locations. ,f P~ETdO ^lO i~4IKE P~OLLICA Vail Fire Department Page 9. The design, use and operation of the day care center ~~~ill conform to the National Fire Protection Association Life Safety Code requirements and meet State licensing requirements, ~f~hether licensed or not. 9. ido wood vurning fireplaces will sae installed in any portion of the project. 10. Trash dumpsters shall be located a minimum of 5 feet from any combustible structure as *~er the Fire Code. C ORDINANCE NO. 2 Series of 1990 AN ORDINANCE REZONING A PARCEL OF LAND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS PARCEL D, STEPHEN'S SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE AMENDED PLAT THEREOF RECORDED MARCH 19, 1985 IN BOOK 409, AT PAGE 160, AS RECEPTION #305440, WITH THE EAGLE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE FROM RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER TO HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY AND ESTABLISHING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 24 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 a certain parcel of property within the Town known as a parcel of land legally described as Parcel D, Stepehen's Subdivision, according to an amended plat recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorders Office to be known as Special Development District No. 24, commonly referred to as the Faessler Realty Property; and WHEREAS, application has further been made to rezone a parcel of land legally described as Parcel D, Stephen's Subdivision, according to an amended plat recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorders Office from Residential Cluster to High Density Multiple Family in order to allow for the range of uses and activities proposed for Special Development District No. 24; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental Commission on January 8, 1990, 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, THAT: Section 1. The Town Council finds that the procedures for a zoning amendment as set forth in Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the -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 as Parcel D, Stephen's Subdivision, from Residential Cluster to High Density Multiple Family with a Special Development District overlay. Section 3. The Town Council finds that all the procedures set forth for Special Development Districts in Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied. Section 4. The Town Council finds that the development plan for Special Development District No. 24 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 Special Development District No. 24 is approved and Special Development District No. 24 is hereby approved for the property described in Section 2 above. 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 Alternate "A", and sheets 1-9, dated December 21, 1989. 2. Landscape Plan drawn by Dennis Anderson Associates, Inc., dated November 18, 1989, revised December 6, 1989. Section 5. The development standards for Special Development District No. 24 are approved by the Town Council as part of the approved development plan as follows: A. Density Control Total density shall. not exceed 48 dwelling units and not more than 20,600 sq.ft. of Gross Residential Floor Area shall be permitted as indicated on the plans set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. -2- B. Setbacks Setbacks shall be as indicated on the site plan set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. C. Height Building heights shall be as indicated on the elevations set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. D. Coverage Site coverage .shall be as indicated on the site plan set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. E. 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. F. Parking Parking demands of this development shall be as indicated on the site plan set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. G. Employee Housing Restriction All dwelling units shall be restricted pursuant to Section 18.13.080 (B,10) of the Vail Municipal Code. Section 6. Following are conditions of approval for Special Development District No. 24: 1. The uses allowed under Special Development District No. 24 with the underlying High Density Multiple Family zoning shall be limited to: A. Multi-family residential dwellings. Retail businesses are specifically not allowed as a use with Special Development District No. 24. 2. Any landscaping, as indicated on the site plan set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance, that dies within 2 years of installation shall by replaced with a similar size and type material by the property owner. Section 7. Amendments to the approved development plan may be granted pursuant to Section 18.40.100 of the Vail Municipal Code. -3- Section 8. If any 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 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 by declared invalid. Section 9. 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 10. 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. -4- INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of , 1990, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of 1990. Kent R. Rose, Mayor Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1990. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk - 5- t DES - 1'~-:_;'~ TL~E '~ _4 P _ -32 ~~ 1~ RICHARA AND KRISTEN THOMPSON MEADOW CREEK CONDOMINIUMS VAIT~, COLORADO December 18, 1989 Kent Rose, Mayor City of Vail RBD, Inc. 953 S. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657- '' Dear Mayor Rase: I have-read with interest the current employee housing situation in Intermountain. I am all in favor of employee housing but not at this location and not at this density with the variances that these developers are asking for. Intermountain has been a very high quality place to live and we worked hard over the gears to improve the quality of the Intermountain neighborhood. I simply feel that you and your council members need to address this problem as a whole and not in pieces. I am sure you know better than I, but I can say that as-one individual, I will personally pursue this with my own personal staff of lawyers, if necessary, to protect our quality of life~in Intermountain if any of the variances are granted. I simply want to go on record with my position. Thank you .for your attention to this matter. Best regards, ~~~ Richard C. Thompson cc: Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Meadow Creek Homeowners Association T l December 29, 1989 Planning and Environmental Commission Vail, Colorado Dear Commission Members, Recently I was informed that Mr. Sid Schultz and Faessler Realty have requested variances in the present zoning regulations to allow for construction of high ., density (HDMF) housing. I do feel that employee housing is needed and have no objections to any development within the present zoning regulations which is zoned residential cluster (RC) . In my opinion, there is not adequate room for HDMC housing in the requested area. Traffic, noise and air pollution would significantly increase. In my opinion, rezoning to HDMC would not be logical. ~~ ~G~~~J . Ronald L. Murray p Intermountain Property Owner Meow C'~ ~'oNr~iNivMv M•3 L C, 1. - ~ V - ~ '? VJ C L 1 ~1 - - 1~ C. L 1 H j' 1 ~ . I, V K C 1•• K H 1.1 C 1-•' ~ v, G an . r. !? . DELTA ~'1L~T UKt t'KHNI~ ~v. Manufacturers of Frames & Mouldings Aecei~ibe~• 2u, ~ a,~o~ Tn erhnm i t may rnn~orn.~ T .~ >, ...~. ......., ti.,.,.,, n•.~, t.. t ~ ..n,~,- . ~ ± t a.n t i.n n c ..t h a.t.. t h.e.rp ~S_ 1 V 11 FYJ Vvr~a V~vv.b •• - ~- a possibility of a zoning change in the Intermountain area to allow mult~l-family dwellings. We wish to be put on record against this proposed rs~ zoning. We specifically bought our Townhouse at Meadow Creek because of i,ts secluded and quiet location. We have a large family with many Grandcha.ldrezi that spend much time in Vail. If there were to be more traffic and population in this area, it would not be as safe in and around the houses as it is now. Si~erel rs, ~n n r and 1 Margit andel Unit G-3 Meadowcreek Condos _~ 6520 N.W. 77 Court, Miami, Florida 33166 FNB TUL1H, Ir', ,', t'' December i9, ~.g8g Kent R. Rose, Mayor City Commission Zoning Commission Vail, Coiorado 8.65? L~ e .. _~ ~ _ _i 1 ~ ~ '_~ r ' Dear Sirs, We are strongly opposed to zone changing, as a.t will increase traffa.c in our area and decrease the value oi' our property making it less desirable to own property in Meadow Creek. Holland E. and Mary Toles E-1 Meadow Creek Condominium "1 t . _._ 505 ~oa9~sa. f 1~. uve : ' _ • .. ,. ~ ~, .:~ ; .~cS~ZUVe~io2f; . ~ocuaiana. , 7110 6 _. '> .~ • _ ~~~~., ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ i //, • ' / / , ~~ ~~ ~• s ~ ~ ~~~ ~- ~ -~ ' 7f,o ~ ~ ~-o'~ ~~ ~ • ,~' T~ ~~ ~ `~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ 1 ~ 1 r ~~ 1 - ~.~_~/ . ~. ~~ _' ,n^ l • ` / i /• ~. _...: •. . '• ''.~ ~~ ., 581 Phillip Lane Watchung, N.J. 07060 December 4, 1989 Town of Vail Planning Commission Vail, Colorado 81658 Dear Mesdames and Sirs: This is to abject strenuously to the construction of high density housing proposed for the property situated behind Building C, Meadow Creek Condominiums in West Vail. It is our understanding that the plans stipulate fifty housing units with uncovered parking designated for employee housing to serve Sonnenalp. This plan is inappropriate and destructive for the following reasons: 1. It introduces a major source of noise and air pollution to the presently quiet and stable residential community. 2. Fifty uncovered parking spo+.s constitute a visual blight in a presently attractive neighborhood. 3. The proposed acces=• to the property, between Buildings C and D, is totally inadequate to handle rush hour traffic. In addition, the narrow space will not permit safe access for emergency equipment. 4. The placement of high density housing so close to Gore CreeK creates yet another polluting influence on a significant Vail resource. 5. The existing bus transportation is inadequate to handle the influx of new residents. . 6. Quality of life and community stability will be adversely affected, further damaging already weakened property values. r ~ Town of Vail Planning Commission, Page 2 .t If Sonnenalp requires housing for its service employees, it is incumbent an Sonnenalp to provide that housing in a manner that does not damage existing neighborhoods. We acknowledge the need for employee housing but feel that the employer must seeK out property that is already appropriately zoned, preferably within walKing distance to the hotel. It is not acceptable to spoil a quiet residential neighborhood. . }/ ~/D r u ~ ~ • ~~~4o1J Stephanie L. Pinson Elliot N. Pinson Owners, MeadowCreeK Unit C2 December 5, 1989 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail Municipal Building Vail, Colorado 81657 Gentlemen: I am the property owner of Unit E-5 in Meadowcreek Condominium located at 2633 Kinnikinnick Road in Vail. I am also a member of the condominium association board. I have been a property owner in Vail for the past fifteen years and have supported the Town of Vail through payment of real estate and sales taxes; but I cannot support the proposal for the Stevens Park Project in Intermountain to rezone the property to "High Density Multiple Family". The "Stevens" property is contiguous to our condominium property. I am certainly in favor of employee housing, but this proposal to rezone this property from Residential Cluster to High Density Multiple Family would be highly detrimental to the property owners of Meadowcreek Condominiums. Some of the potential problems that I see-that will be created are: 1. The easement through our property to Kinnikinnick Road is the only access to and from this project and could be a major fire hazard. In fact the easement itself is probably too narrow for a fire truck to pass through. 2. The parking would not conform to zoning requirements and the number of units requested would create major traffic congestion on Kinnikinnick Road (this road is presently a much traveled road that runs through the center of our complex). 3. Air. pollution as a result of the type of parking created. 4. A day care center with the present housing configuration of two bedroom apartments would mean that this center would be a commercial enterprise in the middle of a residential condominium complex. Although I agree that affordable rental housing is desperately needed, the site picked does not have the required zoning~is in a quiet residential neighborhood with limited access to roadways; will not meet the parking as zoning requires; and certainly is not similar to the type of residential units in Meadowcreek; and for these reasons I am opposed to this proposal for rezoning that will dramatically change our quiet residential neighborhood and quality of life. Yours very truly, RICHARD I. B HREN UNIT E-5 2633 Kinnikinnick Road Vail, Colorado 81657 International Business Machines Corporation 3500 Blue Lake Drive Birmingham, Alabama 35243 December 5, 1989 Ms. Bobbie Salzman 2560 Kinnikinnick Rd. Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Bobbie: Thank you for informing me last night of the proposed rezoning of the property adjacent to the Meadow Creek Condominiums. As I understand it the proposal is to rezone the property from the curz•ent 12 unit zoning to 50 units on this small parcel of land. As the owner of Meadow Creek D-3 for the past 6 years, I want to voice my strong opposition to this rezoning. Cramming this many units into such a small place will have a significantly negative impact in a numbez• of ways which will lower the quality of life in our neighborhood. This many additional units will dramatically increase the traffic in our area, resulting in a safety hazard. In addition, there will be an increase in pollution which will mar the beauty of Gore Creek. Having these units plus a day care center will result in a safety hazard for the children in the neighborhood. Overall I feel that this proposed rezoning will have a negative impact on the quality of life at Meadow Creek and will result in lower property values for all of the owners who have invested in this area. Sincerely, ~~~ John G. Todd 3753 Shady Cove Drive Birmingham, AL 35243 December 10, 1989 Dear Vail Planning 8 Environments Commission Members, This letter is being written in order to express my strong concern about the proposed Sonnenalp rezoning application for a high-density, multi-family project. In May, 1989, I purchased a un careful concideration. Part of my that the area in Intermountain was high-density, multi-family. It is it is being proposed to change the neighborhood. it at Meadow Creek after decision was based on the fact zoned residential-cluster, not very upsetting to now find that zone and our beautiful Everyone is aware of the need for more housing. There are alternate non-residential areas that could hold such a high- -density project a few miles west. Please don't ruin our area with a 50 unit project allowed to be built on an area designed to hold only 12 units. Tha t i Z Lori Ziegler 2753 Kinnikinnick B-4 P.O. Box 3173 Vail, Colorado 81658 (303) 476-7032 .THE SKIfNG GRANQMOTHERS 10027 CEDAR CREEK HOUSTON, TEXAS 77042 ~~:~.' ~ . ~~-~, ~, lQ.~~ ~~' ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ %Z - 9 - ~~ ~ ~7~ ~ L~~ o. _. ~~y /~ ~~ ~~~ ~?~~O ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ .~~~ r_ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~• ~~ -_•,_- ~~ ~ ~y ~ ~ ` ~.w X990 . G~~ «~, ~ . ~~ '~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~-. ~ ~J~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ I ~"~~ ~a Dc•?cr?miaca•r '7, 1`){x`3 I>c:<:~•r V<<il E~'1<<r•,ria.iiq <~rici ~:rivi'rc;iiricii'i~:z~]. l'.c;nirni<.:>s:>i.c7i°,~ i~~ <.:> ~, 1-~ ca ii i rr ca w i ; c?'r ~a't; ~? t) a 3 1! :i. i°~ n i (_ i;.:i. ri :i i. I•'. 't c; r ~~_ 1 ~ c= p c•~ :~'L- c? a. I:I I-, 'l; yr•~r:~•r<_>y T ~~r,i vr:•r•y much oppci~:•e-c1 'l: c; •rc~r--zc;r,i.';iil •l~l°,~Z'b VJC;ll1CI ~Z7.lova i; I-. c~a h is'L c_ 1 a ca i-, ri c?', i c; :L p 'L- ca la u i :I. d c? rip 1 u y c? c~ h ~ u _~ m y ca 'f 'f i f 'L y ui~:i.'~~>. T i°, c.' :i. I ; i E; << c: •i:. c:• f f i..(. t~ y u i i i 't =_. c c ; u 1 cl q cc• n e:• r a'tr ca << <> ro u c; i°, 'tr •r ~~ '(' f ~. c: ~(~: •i: ta~ ca I~i (.t ii ij 'r ~:.~ d c~ <; ;, <:> ,il c, •r c, r~ i~? 'r a <t y is i : 'l: I-; c~ a is a ~~ h }= r ca i-~'l:::t is E? P: is t; d ~ ~L w ca I'i u i i d r ~: cI m a •r• Ea p ~: c~ p :~ ~ (.( u~ i i", q t: I", c:i i:; a 9> y a ; ~ d 'L f~ E~: p c; ~t c ~ i", ~ a. X41 f a'r V~tll(:1(?l:L'.5ri V3(aUl(~ c~~Sa(a inc•rc?asp Wa'C~11 '~e?awVii~1:L'L-y ca 'f 't;li(1's~ :I: lat.trc:hi~c~>e~ci my prc;E;e:•'rt~;• in Ii;i;c•;r•rnc;ui°, •l;<:,i.ii i;e:•e~~~u~>Ea a'(' '!:tif? . ac~i.. lJ~.;l~ira'r` 1i•?<a'('°-,•i.ii.lt'1(~ i~r~~:1:1t_~1'i'l•y _ c~'i`i•-•'~ c'I~l~:~t; :I:i°rl:c:•rriuuii~t«ii°~ p•r~7vicJe~~, aricf clc; i°,c;-G w~ci",'t: 'L-li~~: ~:c; ctis~r,ge ]. 'ii O~_i~ F't ca la r~_ r'L- W . ('r ni c•? ~:> .~ i - ,/'~ i J ~: .. ~~%~ -- ;;; ;;; ~~~ .. - ,; ~,~ . ~, ROBERT J. DYER, III R. GREGORY STUTZ CHARLES A. MILLER PAUL G. URTZ January 5, 1990 225 Wall Street Vail, Colorado 81657 Telephone (303) 476-5276 Telefax (303) 476-6232 S1886/2 BY TELECOPY TO 479-2157 Office of Community Development Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Parcel D Stephens Subdivision - Meadow Creek Condominium Assn. - Faessler/Sonnenalp Rezoning Dear Sirs: This law firm represents Meadow Creek Condominium Association regarding the application for rezoning and special development district of Faessler Realty Apartments and day care center. The Meadow Creek Condominiums is a property adjacent to the parcel that is requesting the rezoning, and this letter will set out the position of the Association to the proposals. It should be pointed out that the Association. certainly wishes to support the provision of adequate employee housing child care services in the Vail area. These are vitally important to the Town and its residents. However, development should occur within the existing zoning .plan. Any proposed down-zoning or other substantial change in the zoning plan must be approached cautiously and with due regard to the rights and concerns of all adjacent property owners. The major change being requested is to increase the number of buildable dwelling units from twelve to fifty. Residential Cluster requirements are contained in Chapter 18.14, and High Density Residential in is Chapter 18.16. This is a major increase in density, and not simply a variance. The effect will be to change the entire character of the vicinity. There will also be a significant increase in the height of the buildings (from 33 feet maximum to 48 feet maximum). Although it is not clear from the submissions of the applicant, there could also be significant changes in the landscaping and building coverage of the site. High Density Residential reduces the landscaping requirement from 60% to 30% of the total site, and permits the buildings to occupy 55% of the total site area rather than 25% as required by Residential Cluster zoning. STUTZ, DYER & MILLER Attorneys at Law 825 Logan Street Denver. Colorado 80203 Telephone (303) 861-1200 Telefax (303) 830-0115 In addition, the developer is asking for a significant decrease in the amount of covered parking spaces to be required. The Office of Community Development S1886/2 Town of Vail January 5, 1990 page 2 theory is that the apartment units will be used primarily for employee housing, and that the employees will not have the need for parking. The developer has provided no evidence that this theory is correct, and there is no assurance that all of the units will in fact be used for employee housing. If the units are inhabited by two adults per unit, it is quite likely that each will have separate vehicles, and the need for parking greater than would otherwise be the case. By lowering the covered parking requirement, the visual effect of the development will be even more striking. Finally, the proposed day care center is not a permitted use in either Residential Cluster or High Density Residential areas. Thus, the developer has applied for a special development district. Our question is why should a day care center be built at this particular location? The 400 square foot units being proposed will not allow any space for children, so the day care center is for other developments rather than for this one. As the use is not a permitted one, the developer will be granted a special privilege if the proposal is allowed. There has certainly been no showing that exceptional or extraordinary circumstances exist that require the day care center at this location. There are many other possible locations for a day care center in areas already appropriately zoned for such use. The requested zoning change and the special development district should both be denied. The character of the particular area involved would be dramatically and irrevocably changed for the worse by the proposals requested. The developer has not shown that the site cannot be used in conformance with the existing zoning, or that there is no other location for his proposed employee housing or the day care center. The Planning and Environmental Commission should deny both of the requests. Very truly yours, Charles A. Miller cc: Meadow Creek Condominium Association Joseph B. Blake 6225 East 17th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 Mr. Peter Patten Community Development Director Town of Vail Vail, CO Re: Sonnenalp Hotel Employee Housing Project Dear Peter: I am a partner in Col-Car Ltd. Partnership which owns the C-6 CvndOiulrilliTCi iri t~'ic ~'~" building at :Meadow Cz'eek (Stepharis Sub- division Parcel D). It is my understanding from the informa- tion I have received from the Meadow Creek Condominium Associa- tion, as well as through the discussion I had with you last week, that the property immediately behind the "C" building has been purchased by the Sonnenalp Hotel for the purpose of building employee housing and a day care center. The purpose of this letter is to respectfully request that the Vail Planning Commission disapprove the requested zoning change to High Density Multi Family. I am very much aware that the Vail Planning Commission and its staff have received a consid- erable amount of personal written opposition to this project. I would like to add our personal words of written opposition, based on the following: 1. I recognize that there is a certain NIMBY mentality with regard to all property owners when it comes to the ques- tion of the location of building employee housing in Vail. Nonetheless, I think the Vail Planning Commission needs to develop a proposed policy with regard to the location of employee housing in the Valley. Developing a comprehensive policy on that question, including such subjects as not only location, but also how such housing might be financed to keep the rental costs at an affordable price, would al- low all residents and taxpayers in the Vail community to comment upon such a comprehensive program. The effort to develop employee housing should not be done on a piecemeal basis. Doing it piecemeal will result in the situation you have today: Meadow Creek/Intermountain property owners violently reacting to an employee housing project which is so outrageous in light of the existing low density zoning in the area -- and the only apparent benefit is to the owner of the Sonnenalp Hotel. Obvious- ly, you have a problem where people have purchased proper- ty in reliance on existing zoning conditons reasonably Mr. Peter Patten Page 2 proximate to that property -- and if you are going to up- set that apple cart, you'd better do it on a more compre- hensive basis. Thus, I would strongly urge the staff to recommend to the planning commission that before this project is approved, the overall question of employee housing needs to be ad- dressed so that we can have consensus in the Valley on that question, rather than this sort of vitriolic reaction. 2. Clearly, the requested zoning change is way out of line insofar as current densities in the area are concerned. As you know, this property is currently zoned RC for the development of eight units. This project proposes 50 units -- an absurd impact on the preexisting Meadow Creek/ Intermountain community. You simply can't squeeze that number of units into that confined a property area for whatever laudable purpose. Again, I believe this proposal is benefitting the employer/owner of the Sonnenalp Hotel project to the clear detriment of the Meadow Creek residents. 3. As if to add insult to injury, this proposal also requests the creation of a day care center. Again, this is clearly a mix of uses which is inconsistent with what exists at Meadow Creek today, and what should exist with regard to that area's future down the line. There is no current re- quirement from within the Meadow Creek/Intermountain home- owners today for any sort of day care center. This proposal would generate a completely unreasonable number of new employee housing units, and then turn around and generate a need for a day care center! Clearly, there has to be more thoughtful, rational planning in Vail than to permit such an absurd result. In conclusion, I really believe that it is incumbent on the planning commission to take the high road and clearly set forth a long-range program for employee housing in Vail and its envi- rons. Let everyone who has an interest -- and who may be ad- versely affected -- have the opportunity, up and down the Valley, to help fashion a policy with which everyone can live with some pride and comfort. S n ely, Joseph B. Blake January 5, 1990 ~~ ~~t ,~ ~ ~ o t I~ r ~~~w-~~ l 2 ~ 26.8'9 To: Town of Vail, Planning Commisssion Comments and questions regarding the proposed hi-density apartments on parcel "D", Stephens subdivision in Vail Intermountain, requiring a zoning change. At thi s time a petition i s before the planning staff to change parcel "D" from Residential cluster, allowing 8 dwellings on this property, to a Hi-density multi-family zoning, overlaid by a special development district, meaning further deviations beyond hi-density - in fact "anything goes", request. The application is submitted by Faessler Realty, on behalf of the Sonnenalp Hotel, asking for permission to build 50 apartments, a day care center and open parking for 77 vehicles. Johannes Faessler owns Faessler Realty and the Hotel. At this time I question his possession of a deed to Parcel "D". The purpose of the existing zoning - quoting directly from Ord #18.16.010 is ----"to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the district"--etc. The present zoning does not make provisions for commercial enterprises such as a day care center. The general purpose of zoning laws requires that regulations are made in accordance ~vith a. comprehensive master plan, designed to lessen congestion in the streets, to secure safety from fire, to promote the general welfare, to prevent the overcrowding of land, to avoid undue concentration of population or traffic flow. Zoning and planning is made with reasonable consideration among other things, to the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses, and with a view to conserving the value of lands and buildings. Re-regulation under the guise of re-zoning, which results in diminishing of property values must necessarily fail. Courts in the interest of justice and equity may pertinently inquire into the validity of re-zoning. To permit unbrideled development (special development district) of land in accordance with special interests of an individual owner is bound to be reflected in the depreciated value of surrounding properties. Legislation in the form of "spot" zoning, so that the zone of one particular property is changed, is not favored (by the courts). Based on the existing zoning, now over 10 years old, my neighbors and I have invested into their homes and should not be put into a position to see them rendered less enjoyable, their privacy and quiet infringed upon. Just because the Sonnenalp hotel, needing housing for their employees want to jam as much housing onto a minimum of land to reduce their costs. They can have employee housing within the existing zoning. There is no hi-density zoning in Intermountain anywhere. The property under discussion here is totally surrounded by "residential cluster" zoning. The only other zoning in Intermountain is 2 family primary and secondary zoning. Thus this project would be entirely out of context with the rest of the subdivision and would be spot zoning of the worst kind. The application makes reference td~'the Bighorn Lodge and tries to draw some comparisons. The Bighorn Lodge was a motel; long ago, situated on the then highway, now Frontage Read. This is quite different from Parcel "D" in Intermountain. The comparison is not valid. ,~e Q The proposed project fails to meet the requirements of low density multi-family designation and even fails to meet hi-density zoning. For example: Parking: is to be 35% and 75~ (respectively) within the building and hidden from public view. The proposed parking spaces are mostly uncovered and none are hidden from public view. No parking shall be located in any front set back area (Ord. 18.20.140) There are numerous parking spaces planned in the front set-back area, right under the windows of neighboring buildings. Set-back from Gore Creek (#18.58.300): shall be fifty feet. The porposed project is considerably less. " The flood plane boundary shown on the site plan is not complied with on the ground. (Why?) The fire department is concerned about the fact that there is only one access into the property and inadequate turnaround for the big fire engine(s). This is of particular concern due to the proposed children center. We do not need a tragedy. Furthermore, the application is flawed: An environmental impact report was not submitted; I realize that the planning staff waived this requirement, because a report was• submitted some years ago. However, the then report was based on 4 duplex buildings on this site. The present application is for a much higher density plus a commercial entity. Anew environmental impact report is now in order. A traffic study was promised. I hope we will have an opportunity to review same in detail. So far no real explanation of the operation of the children's center has been submitted. It appears that the center for 30 children is intended for partial use by residents of the 5 or so families in the 2 bedroom apartments and partially by employees from other communities dropping off their children on the way to work and pick-up on the way home. {more traffic!) All the above is just to show that this site is simply not suitable for a hi-density apartment complex and day care center, was never intended for such use, is not zoned for such use and therefore should not be rezoned for such use now. Hi-density apartments and a day care center just do not belong in a quiet residential neighborhood. I plead with the planning officials to protect us from such an incursion. Very truly y urs, Erwin Bachrach " 2701 Snowberry Drive Vail Intermountain 476-2636 ~q,g9 .. F - +.) I. ! i_1 .i '^: I") t_.• ~. _+Y : 4._+ I i 1:+? ~;~ I~i i..a i" ~ ' . c,•.:` ~ i'.I fl ti ~. i,. r~: ]. 1"irl ::. ~:: i•; i-iC:~ctt~ ~j .'d! c:t 1 .L „ f... V! .1. r i }'" i=t Ca i~~ i:~l .~ [:Y;J ._.~ . ... 1 i.iaai? ti 1 . 'r' ~:i :i. 4':iit :}. _ 1..: i'.i. 171` r!t:a !J ._, 1. i~', .,J; >"Jt.:~:tl- t.''i.-irriirii :~ -.i cil ~ 1'`it=riiii=_YY-~~ A ... .1. ti=;!',~E»r i:iE'.(y.fl ij!4"a/1 `.WF.::i~{ r++`,i {'`i'i- e ~T~l~+l.!1:.+:1 :w~c't ~. 1=:=~t~.r"! ~ li~aC'iC.+ : 3 i7i%~"i"ic`.+.7E?S t•t•;i=:' ;"it~,Ki1t.7G'a ~_:Y"t-{=?i•: k.i:ii'7i"iC!iii?.l'i:].Lilii "-°--~':".. c'±_:?.t+'"' a k: t ! c! +_ t_ i"t 1--_ !-• . ca , i 1-I '1 i'°i Ci ~... [: i f.i i?1:1 ?c: ?F1 'i. l.:! E`! J. ~~• _. i:~+l-i f3 . -'~''" 1. Il CI _: .: i'i:_':`.!'}~I? ri+:~ ~ rll2l1 ~i (~]l.-!!_Nri l_ L. c, Ot,t i' ~'iY !:_+1:]i~'Y '1=V #t:J F' j'_f i f, i 1. i Y- L iT+ ~. t-, i:i ..r !... t_~ l' i r~'1:. Y" t. ~ t:~ '~:. 7. r7 !~ F2 fTT i ~ ~. i<+.,v i.~ t ~ i...i t_ L..'._ _ ! .. ~' i::l; . .~~?:.?f'ii'i!='~ lr.{. [:i i t1~'i_I(_'~i11.'~:<3~:.7. i'il"'r- ~. citiYi C~+f?7. riCa ct+~'~i -.r~t~i '~: iict'1~ '~" t i i=: ~'~ I-~ ~ :!. 'F. `y t~+'i" { i f=+l_! ::1 r'1 %! tea 7..~. 1 i::i r? .+•-'11 r:] I"i 7. T ' ~ E+. r! 'C: 1 ;r' .. .. _. ._P~ ~ ..._. _ .'_ { ,-+ -.._ ^ ' j ~ ~ t. ... ! _. ~~• 'y tY:.a. 1.:. I'1 L.'. ct 1'. t~ f ~ J Y .i. !:t .. ~ .. 1I EL. ."~,+. :.a~i.:'t.. .. ._ c~.t. i-i ..~'... ci b', =i, f _ ,...._ .. _ .. _ _ ^ ~ ._ _ i.,. ., ~' I'_+ i t..!+_ C ~ i.!.I"' tcy+= ~" C.i!" 7. I'1 ?:~ t. ~ Y" 7. !-i tJ <=t G? .1. l=t l_i f.i 4 i' i:i <..41-1 ~ _ _ I t t=~ e. !. t".~[:~vF~'± (::i~](tl'=ril... ~=i 2. Cpl"'t 7.';":1 i_%:~r'i~~.i. 'J 3 rl~::i"i=:':~'.::il. I"C_j +`_i'i!=, I.:E+:~ri'~:1 ~~' .1, +!<C!'..: c-..~ - <-. bti :1 1 1 i"i ct ••:!t' r_'t'; , k-::!_ (-. 4Jr'f ~i tqt l`"{•[.l _i,1 ~ 1;'+t,ts .... _. t... '" i-t _ _ ' _ t Y•• ri _. ,:; .;... , :. i ,. __ ... l .)_ _. = C.i :: I'7 .^ Y- ._ ,:t.... c.'_ 1 .. '1 sdi i ._ 1~7 __ C.! .... Y"' !..., y` cd.. t. t-:' _ _a ;-:. lr:t;::y i t- ,~ t..l ~• ~. r 4:.! r"i;ti t~'ri '{-. •:-! ?. :1 '=>':~ a+-:" s .. ii%J l"1 ti'i. lhj .j, ~~~. .!_ _. _ _., ,.»; Y t:5 •~ -•i 'i t,,l 1 rte" _i . i ..., ... ... ~. _ ! I 4_ t.:! i-~ (: C" ... P" ..' .. r' c.. IW !'" .::.::! ....._ i i i ~~ _t I'" s=. ». i C!"' iV+~a{~ ~~ +_!-; :al i cti t~:~i+Vc~'i ,. L !"'4..:•:n!. r~~ iE f _ a i.. , +"~ .1. ?:•~ rE N tr i:j ri' i ~i •, t..!+ !_+t L Y_. .w' ~.t i. ~. r: '.: ~ k:i ! t'+.'_ ~ i:d f'1 'k: { i t C+i_ 1"i r_? I'" hir."! I'i C~; q :i: ~ . ~_t r. rt ,-; i~ _, i_.; r'~ ;W3 i_i r-' is ]. ri C: f t= ~ ~ =~ 3.1"i !J t~ is=' I'i w:::. j= 'V fJ ,~' ~ : ~. !:=1J. ~. %Ml i'.' ~. ',.~ ..: .. y.:: tom: ~.' "sl` '1 t't k.: .. - r"it :-!1". ....+E..4~: _ ~ _ .1 1' ! !_ s i .1 tEii I"1 .._ .i. t:.! i'i 1`I i._ : i-i i_..... i :i 4v .i. k_ I '! _ ._t'C . ,.! L':i i•"' !._ k_ 1 =! ! r"4'~risl (j l:i Y" ci. 1:. :f. i.Jfi'~: l.!'i ".i •{ ._ ~. .1' `.: ~. .k 3 L r C:i I'l c^I ~. '~; !:? 1-! ! -+ r.,?r.'d ~•~ i...! .,~; i ;i! ~.:1 i~ F (::. i' i c! 1-i i:~ c=i 3 I ~ _ ~! i'1 :1 1...! __1 ..: cjl'it:~ ! c:1iTi `~t_yl'"''v t~cti:.lf.=.'Y" iTif i;!=:'t`i~?s~i( itiC.tY...a~„ ~.i"1'-=i i'fir;'i"1 ±~il 1-j'{i• .. ''r +::. i._ 'tw r_. r.~ ! ~ ! ! +:!... .1 r i E_ c. l !..._ .f. E= _.. _ ._ 1 r'! u; <_. ~, . ! ! 4~ wt i"i J. 1"3 i:1 !~L+~•tit~+-:'.1'!'2:. ;~ielt"~ :L 11 ('t~{'"i71~=:t:~ y!_:'C:1 ~? t:"t{-•I„ c•!Sil CL?~1'~: ~ i!!..1 !'i: ~•„ ~~s:~.. k: . lil;»•!.i! 'k'. 1..! I."~:'r~l'"+=,'`:: i•'r!'C_ "s~;~' :l. l"1 'i-:.'Y"{•~~t t.. s'.t {:. \,,. ~ ~ t t!'" 3-I i?::' : '... iTi iz'!3y. ~". 1i"i i:7 1 !"1 '~':. !_i .-%'1= ~.. 2•V ]..i .1. : "; ,_ ~ 1~! i. ~' <~{ \i :_a i. 1 t~. i.:i .i. i•:=' 'k:. i:a :::!'t ~C:. 1. I-! i:J o :i i'-i ci '~' ti' ~..,. '•! tz. i::) .I. I'l P , rc a! l..i i::!?•`a C, t•- ~! E:i' ...-.::i. {"1 i::: f.? _ ! <?.''i t: .. `~ !!i'`d i'" ]. i~{•='1 ~t.,C:' r..+.ri i1 I r.!!TI V'i='1""'d f. t~+i iL`;Y"rlE:~'C'~ cti:?C?1.i•~ ' ., " , , ::~t f'l '~' C t i i;~t i"i i:l !::' ?=~ 7. !-1 :!. r'i C 1`" t--:: ~-! mt :!. fl i~l 'r r1 F G f:: f:> i. 'k:. 'v 6~a ~ L V'i i : t_t'k: ci.+.:i !-J; r_;!_I'"1 %a.i:i=> t~.i~!I'i~7 ]. {:~t:=: Y.. c;. j.=7.!:.iil f_!'~r' r'.'ic ]. .~. 'k'.~ir? 1SSt_t t=??. .. k:a (=' :1. ri is :ct i'~ ''v .!. ? i 4~' i:a is t ? ^ l t=~ e i i_, l'':i C cl I-I ' k7 i~? t:~ i_!+Ti t_' i71 t:J Y_ ic? 7. f'i '7• t:"~ I'" i'f! r?q t;~ i~. i_? r' i t._ i-: }'..1'l :f. l"i ~ 'r. '1.1 1. 4. 1 ~ 51_t i-_? ~. r- .L r'1 i:: ii~i't'- ici' .~ ``per ~ " ~ ~/~ ~,( i 11_l C~ i. ~~ i"1 1..: f.:) Y" r.:. ;~: h 4'1 Nc l; j ,; :~ I". i ~:_ ...: ~... i'~.:.... i ! :,. t_. ,~...1 1 t r'1 !. i:: i~C {-i 4... r „ ij: I - ~ _.. t Dec. 11 ,1989 2664 Larkspur Lane Vail, Co. 81658 Dear Planning Member: ~,,.g~ As longtime residents of Intermountain, we are concerned about the proposed employee housing for the Sonnenalp Hotel. This project solves one employer's private housing needs. At the same time it is according to the plan the lowest income project in Vail for its proposed size and cost of living. Would this be allowed to be built in East Vail or along the golf course? Traffic is a constant problem in Intermountain and on the South Frontage Road. On our street alone there are 13 children, 10 of whom are under eight-year-old. Mothers and fathers must now "patrol" where their children can safely ride or walk. Mothers with young children must dodge cars that abuse the speedlimit of 15 mph. 'With the addition of a new park in Intermountain, more people will be frequenting the roads. Is the town of Vail prepared to place a sidewalk to the park on Kinnicknick to the park? With the proposed day care, which will be used by ALL the Sonnenalp'. emloyees and the addition of say 100 more residents, what is this going to do to our already bad traffic problem? - These proposed units have the potential of becoming an eyesore to the neighbor~l•In Avon, the Christie Lodge units, which are prefab trailer style are at least 600 square feet. These units which 80 percent will be 400 square feet, violate both height and density restrictions. Why should these variances be waved to create an eyesore? As single family homeowners we are also concerned about property devaluation. One reason we bought our house in Intermountain was because of the stability of the residents and the current revitalization in the neighborhood. As longterm 'residents of Inter- mountain, we view our neighborhood as a solid family community. The proposed project would be made up of a transitory pop ulation. The project also puts the neighborhood at an increase for crime. For these reasons, we urge the commission not to approve• the proposed project. Sincerel..yl, ~5 Jackie and Tom Higgins ~~~ ~~ ~?~2(~ GRANT, BERNARD, LYONS SC GADDIS WALLACE H. GRANT ATTORNEYS AT LAW DANIEL F. BERNARD 515 KIMBARK STREET RICHARD N. LYONS, II JEFFREY J. KAHN POST OFFICE BOX 978 H. WILLIAM SINS, JR. LONGMONT, COLORADO 80502-0f~78 JOHN W. GADDIS LONGMONT (3031 776-9900 THOMAS J. OVERTON SUZAN D. FRITCHEL DENVER METRO (303) 571-5506 BRETT J. LAMBERT TELECO PIER (303) 772-6105 December 8, 1989 Vail Planning Commission City of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81b57 Re: Proposal For Employee Housing At Intermountain Dear Planning Commission: DENVER OFFICE 1801 YORK STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80206 (303) 399-1122 I am the owner of Unit E-6, Meadow Creek Condominiums. We strongly object to the location of employee housing to the west of the Meadow Creek Condominiums. The whole Intermountain Area is somewhat overcrowded already. The narrow space between Interstate 70 and the mountainside needs as much-open space as remains. Any further apartments or other large structures will have a tremendously negative effect on the aesthetics of the area. Any future construction in the area should be limited to single family detached residences. I appreciate your consideration of this letter. JJK: pkf JJK\ADMIN-4L.VPC r~~r Western Gas Marketing USA Ltd. 600 N. Pearl Street Suite 2230, LB 1 27 Plaza of the Americas Dallas, Texas 75201 12 7 41 954-1 788 December 19, 1989 Rondall V. Phillips P.O. Box 1322 Vail, CO 81658 Dear Mr. Phillips: I have recently learned that the Sonnenalp Hotel has purchased the property immediately behind the "C" building at Meadow Creek in West Vail and have applied to rezone the property from RC to HDMF (High Density Multi Family) with a Special Development overlay, and plan to build 50 units in two phases. I strongly object to such rezoning! I purchased my unit, C1 in Meadow Creek approximately 5 years ago both for the quality of life in Intermountain and the investment potential. This proposed rezoning will have serious negative impacts on both these items. As you know the valley in Intermountain is very narrow and a high density project will dramatically increase the pollution in this sector of the valley. In addition, there are no adequate parking facilities for the existing owners let alone for the new project. The inrreased traffic and noise from a transient population will have a significant impact on both the property value and the rental income from existing units. When I originally invested in the Vail valley, one of the prime reasons was because of the supposed premier quality management of Vail. To change zonings in a residential community such as has been proposed is damaging to both the image of Vail and to the investment climate for the valley. It smacks of switch and bait tactics. I purchased the property based on the surrounding zoning being maintained and I would view any such change negatively, environmentally, legally and ethical- ly. I would like to be kept informed on all matters relating to this procedure and I want the existing RC zoning for the Stephens Subdivision Parcel D maintained. Yours truly, David G. Hanson 1 cc: Bruce P1artindale/Gedwin, Carlton & Maxwell \ Craig Denton/Christopher, Denton & Sheahan ~~2 R„~~,~.~,( ~ _ 3 ~ ~a ZWIG, NOBLE. D.D.S.. P.C. EDWARD E. ZWIG, D.D.S. DAVID A. NOBLE, D.D.S. PERIODONTICS S UITE 8O1 -DECATURNORTH PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 755 COMMERCE DRIVE DECATUR, GEORGIA 30030 bir. Kent Rose, i~iayor P.O. Box 2120 Vail, Co. 81658 Dear Ivlr. Rose, December 21, 1989 As a homeowner in Meadowcreek I must object to the proposed zoning change of the two acres adjacent to Stephens Park. I don't feel the proposed employee housing units as proposed by the Sonnenlap Hotel would benefit Intermountain. The proposed development would cause increased traffic, polution and noise in a low to medium density zoned area. We would like to keep our retirement homesite in the area as the planning and zoning commission originally sited the area. Thank you for your consideration. Si erel; ,, `'~ ~~~~ -- Edward E. Zwi TELEPHONE 378-4245 Copies: Planning and Evironmental Commission~Town Council Members. P.O. Aox 2767 Vail, Colorado 81658 December 6, 1989 Department of Community Development Vail Town Government 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Ladies and Gentlemen; I have been a property owner irl Intermountain since 1978• t?y first reaction to the proposed rezoning of the Stephens Subdivision Parcel D was that it is totally inappropriate for our neighborhood. Intermountain property own ers, including myself, have been constantly upgrading their properties. I feel that we would all like to see our community upgraded rather than downgraded. It is a fact that employee housing and~or low income housing will create a transient population. Transient populations are known to breed crime. Housing is a problem in our valley, there is really no good place for high density multi-family zoning, and we certainly don't want it in our neighborhood. Growth has been far too rampant as it is. Why should we further pollute and populate the narrowest part of the valley? If any type of building on this parcel be considered at all, the number of units sh ould be limited to residential-cluster zone guidelines. Further_ more, the buildings should be limited to two stories, underground parking should either be mandatory or there should be no parking at all to encourage bus ridersh ip. The. traffic implications for tYuis development are horrendous, with hundreds of additional trips a day being generated in the neighborhood. I hope you will unconditionally deny the request for rezoning of this parcel. Sincerely, ~~~G.~t~. ~~~~ Elizabeth Kuehn ~'~ JAN - 5 1990 Mr. & Mrs. Paul R. Banos 561 Moreno Avenue Los Angeles, Ca 90049 213/394-1078 303/476-2269 January 3, 1990 Mr. Rondall V. Phillips, Town Manager P.O. Box 1322 Vail, Co 81658 Dear Mr. Phillips: We are distressed to learn Stephens Subdivision, Parcel D has been purchased by the Sonnenalp Hotel for the purpose of building 50 high density multi-family units. The parcel is currently zoned for eight units ,consistent with the rest of the Intermountain community. When we purchased our condominium in Meadow Creek, we specifically asked and were assured that no high density housing, no schools or day care centers, and no commercial development would take place. We support the concept of carefully planned employee housing and day care centers in areas already zoned for such use. The Intermountain community is a low density residential area, and we strongly feel that it should be kept that way. Kinds regards, Judy Warren Bartos Paul R. Banos Meadowcreek J4 ~~~ _ayb6 ROBERT M. KENDALL I~~jp(~ 2785 BALD MOUNTAIN ROAD • VAIL, COLORADO 81657 + It lJ ~t aS y~ January 4 , 1990 S' ~s; P t C~ ~~-~~ Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission ll~l Town of Vail Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81658 I would like to add my voice to the rising chorus of concerned and outraged property owners opposing the development proposed by Faessler Realty of Stevens Park in Intermountain.. I own Condominium Unit B-3, Meadow Creek Condominiums. My unit will look directly into the back, the parking area, of the proposed development which I find offensive. Particularly disagreeable to me is a letter from Kristan Pritz dated October 19, 1989 wherein she states that the staff recommends a rezone of the property to HDMF from Medium Residential Zone, as it is designated in the Land Use Plan for the area. Further, the staff recommends use~of a Special Development District designation to increase the density and type of use. Since there is no HDMF zoning in Intermountain Subdivision, I find this recommendation for higher density zoning not at all in the interest of the neighborhood, and something the staff should should not be recommending. Outward appearances would certainly suggest an attempt to appease the politically prominent Faessler family and an effort to accommodate Planning and Environmental Commission member Sidney Schultz, who is the architect for the project. Having Sidney Schultz design the project and present it to the Planning and Environmental Commission, of which he is a member, should be avoided. I am under the impression that the staff and the Planning and Environmental Commission have a duty to protect neighborhoods from this sort of rape and pillage type development. I think that is the reason these bodies are created. It appears that the staff is in the Faessler corner on this. A recommendation for rezoning of this kind by the staff I find particularly inappropriate for this area. r- Y~u ~ cordiallyr,~ ~Z~G~; ~~%l~'~2~/' o ert M. Kendall RMK/meb 6 December 1989 Planning & Environmental Ccxr¢nission Town of Vail Municipal Building Vail, Colo. 81657 RE: Rezoning -Stevens Park Project -Intermountain Gentlemen: This letter is to protest any rezoning of the proposed Stevens Park Project in Intermountain to "High Density Multiple Family" zoning. I am aware that the developers plan to use this proposed project for employee housing. While I personally welcome any and all attempts to provide Employee Housing in Vail, I strongly protest this area for the following reasons: 1. The proposed installation. of a day care center for only four two bedroan units per phase is a farce. People who will live in a four hundred square foot unit do not have children....particularly in a one bedroom apartment. Forcing employees who have childred to live in a 400 s.f. unit is similar to migrant workers quarters, certainly not in keeping with the image of the Town of Vail. 2. The day care center will most certainly be used by outside persons who do not live in the apartment buildings. Despite what the developers tell you, other employees or employees living in Edwards and other out-lying areas will be encouraged to use this facility. The area is certainly not zoned far commercial use and the allowing of a day care facility will be cca~nercial . 3. The fire department will not have sufficient rocsn in the event of a fire to bring their equipment i.n to service this new facility. 4. The street (Kinnikinnick) should not be burdened with fifty additional cars or more. Currently, we have poor traffic rounding the road leading on to the bridge from Unit E of Meadow Creek Condo, and adding fifty or more cars to this area entering the South Frontage road will create a hazard to traffic. SAC CONSTRUCl10N G®MPANY, INC_ 9501 OLD SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY! MIAMI, FLORIDA 33156 /TELEPHONE 667-8866 P.O. BOX 5601751 MIAMI 33156 lL' n- ~7 5. By eliminating the need for covered parking, this area will look like a low rent housing district. If you do allow this rezoning, you must certainly insist on covered parking (a minimum of one perunit). 6. Although you may have some assurances from Sonnenalp that they will operate a van, what could happen if an employee leaves the employment of Sonnenalp or if Sonnenalp happens to go out of business. We will be left with an unthinkable parking situation. 7. The maximum height restrictions should not be amended so as to create a visual obstruction to the other units west of this area. 8. The air pollution created by this proposed complex is completely unacceptable to me and. to all of the tenants and owners surrounding this complex. What you are creating here is a menace and an eyesore. The Town of Vail certainly does not. need to have employee housing in this area, particularly when there is so much unused space north bf 3=70 that can be utilized. I trust you will take all of this into consideration and deny this zoning application. nick Road 81657 SAC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC_ 9501 OLD SOLfT}i DIXIE HIGHWAY) MIAMI, FLORIDA 331561 TELEPHONE 667-8866 P.O. BOX 560175 (MIAMI 33156 Vail, Colo. DON C. PEETE and ASSOCIATES, INC. Mortgage Bankers and Financial Consultants ,~~ (Z,15 Representing Major Life Insurance Companies W. L. EMBREE, MAI (1902-1987) DON C. PEETE, MAI, President KENT L. WOOTEN, RM, SRA EDWARD L. STEVENS JACK W. ROBISON WILLIAM W. MANTZ December 13r 1989 Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Intermountain Employee Housing Project 7301 Mission Road, Suite 209 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 6b208-3005 913-831-2115 Dear Members of the Planning and Environmental Commission: I was surprised and shocked to read in the December 8, 1989 "Vail Trail".that a plan. is proposed to change the zoning in Intermountain to allow for a high density housing project ostensi- bly to provide low cost housing for people employed in the Vail Valley. First, let me say, low cost housing is not a problem limited to Vail, but every city in the United States and throughout the world has a need for cheaper places to liver and except for government subsidized projects, economics must be the controlling factor in deciding when and if a project is affordable for the community, the developer and the tenants. It is blatantly unfair to a person who buys a unit believing the property will be protected by the current zoning in the neigh- borhood, and then find out later the zoning can be changed down- ward and the value of the property is adversely affected. If this is the case, your zoning codes should be discarded and open Individual Memberships: American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers Mortgage Bankers Association of America\ Metropolitan Kansas City Board of Realtors • Johnson County Board of Realtors LLL+++ ~ L~ ~ ~-~ Vail Planning and Environmental Commission December 13, 1989 Page 2 zoning allowed (like in Houston) so when a person buys a unit he can bid a price that anticipates a lower quality neighborhood in the future. There is plenty of land available in the general area of Vail to provide all the low cost housing needed. The problem is the land is not in quite as convenient location as Vail Valley. If the first construction in a neighborhood is low cost housing, then it is up to the buyer to decide if he wants to buy a unit next to the project and the price can be set accordingly. How- ever, if the neighborhood is established first, then it is not fair or economically sound to allow construction of a project which ultimately hurts the entire area. The case against .low cost housing in an established neighbor- hood is purely economics because: 1. Cheaply built units deteriorate .more rapidly than well- constructed buildings. 2. Low rent units generate low income which provides little or no money to the owner to maintain the property and get a return on his investment. 3. There are no owner tenants so there is no pride of owner- ship, so many times the units both inside and out become eyesores. 4. Often there is very little discipline among the tenants and many times they have little regard for the feelings and the rights of their neighbors. Vail Planning and Environmental Commission December 13, 1989 Page 3 5. High density in a residential neighborhood adversely affects value because of the increased congestion. The reason for the lower density zoning in the first place was because the planners recognized the adverse affect of higher density use. Vail is the prettiest little mountain town we have ever seen and we love to visit Vail and stay in our unit in Interlochen. The planners have done a wonderful job in controlling development both architecturally and economically, and as a result we have seen values stay strong through the years. Please do not make the mistake of starting a trend to make exceptions to the rules that have worked successfully for the last 25 years. Please help keep Vail a strong, vibrant town where the owners and buyers know we can depend upon the enforcement of zoning and all the other laws that are currently on the books. Thank you very much. Best r gards, ~~ ~~~ ` '~ '~~ Don Peete DCP/bb P.S. The courtesy of a reply advising the current status of the case and the position of the Commission would be appreci- ated. ~.a :~ ~:. .. ~ T., ---- ,;~~ t.~e undersigned individu:~.ls~ ar_e highly o~~pr?:~eri to the rezoning of :. t.: r~hens subdivision Farce]. h also known a"r~'~-.'1_. o.frt;heLStheFrincipa.l ,;',; ~ , 4~ection 14, 2'owrisliip 5 ,south, Ra.ngL' 81 = i^~,r1~'-:.;1, 7,'oWTl of Vail, Colorado," from resid.enti-~1 -cluster zone to ni~,il-~'~nsity multiple-family zone. '1'~~ i:~ r. ezoning wo~~~ld deaf initel,y affcc~ t our gil'.11 i t;,° of life. ~ ~.'ew of the reasons we are oE~posed to ttie rezone ng: tr~~f'f'ic congestion, transient occupancy, a dr. ol~ i.n real-estate property v~aJ.ue, noise and pollution, a. lack ,of c ~r'~'aYkirnr;,ohavin~;hbuildingG 1 ,n~ng;, asking to be exempt j:x•om cc,verF ~ hi~;~_.er than what is allowed in re:-i_dent i.'a.l c ~u~l t•`~(1~1hehroadginto the commercial enterprise {day-ca.r~e center) in tlri~, a.re-i i_s not adenua~e to accor~~ina=~ti~= eme.x•~;E.~n~.=5' v~=t~' c'~-es • Ttie traffic ccn„estion in this residential area would be phenomenal. ;~IGlii1'URE PRIT I~iil°lI I ~ -x3 S ~~'' ~ ~~ ~.u 11c S rr'L'r ~ K-~..,~ J~ c S ', _ .~ ,. ~-~ ~ ~- I~<<~~~ .~i n `v /~ 3 ~ : ~ . ~- /r ~~- f ., ~' ,,~ /~~ l _~ ~1 fir) Y F. 4Je tie undersigned individuals are highly opposed to the rezoning of Stephens Subdivision Parcel. D :also kno~•an as "A Part of the N ;;',t 4~ ,section 1~1, Township 5 South, Range F31 'rJest of the 6th Principal ~~~rldan, Town of Vail, Colo.rado," from residential -cluster zone to tii[Th-density multiple-family zone. 7'ir~s rezoning would definitely affect our quality of life. A f'ew of the reasons we are opposed to the rezoning: t.r•~~ffic congestion, transient occupancy, a drop in real-estate property ,,-clue, noise and pollution, a lack of condideration of the present ~~~~r~ing, asking to be exempt from covered parking, having buildings !i~Ther than what is allowed in residential cluster, and having a cc~nmercial enterprise (day-care center) in this area.The road Into the ~~r~a is not adequate to accomirloc~ciYC: emergency vehicles. The traffic ,:ongestion in this residential area would be phenomenal. :;TGIIATURE PRINT NAME AGE STREET ADDRESS DATE ~~ ~ %~ ~ 75 i Z . ~ ~ ~~ .~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ o 1 ~ ~ Ll r /~...- l l ~ ~ ~ ~ ` 1V / ._i~ ~ ~.I ,j . 1 ' rte{ f ,., ,_~ ..• 1 1 -~... ~ __ %/ ~~ /. / i,f I//C.~ ,,., ),., ~_1 /cl/L I ~, lam, L. i. 1~~.1(t %~ ~%7 %7 ~)~~ ._ . -~--- -, --- , . 1 _ .~-,,, _ - ~ 5~- / !.r1\ ~ \ ~ ~'~t-~:, \ ~ _ ~'~ , ~ r r ~ ~l ~ 1 ~1 '> ~ ~ i~ ~ ..~. ~~ L .,.,v....a c~ I„_ ~ Z_. _~~i ~o~l r ` / ~1` 1f ~/ ' _ ., „ ~ , _ ~ / / ) ~ i ~ ~L` ~ ` ~/ ~ Z ~ l s~- iZl <<~ I~~ `~1_ _ ~.-~.- ,.-,.-.~-.T-~- ,. ~,.,~. ,. , Vie tyre undersigned individuals are high].,y opl~osecl to the rezoning of Stephens Subdivisiozi Parcel D also known as "11 i'~irt of the N ;;'~, , ,section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 'nest of the 6th Principal F9f,ridan, Town of Vail, Colorado," from residential -cluster zone to high-density multiple-family zone. `i'bis rezoning would definitely affect our qualii;,y of life. A few of the reasons we are opposed to the rezoning: traffic congestion, transient occupancy, a drop in real-estate property vs•.1ue, noise and pollution, a lack of condider_ai;i.on of the present zoning, asking to be exempt from covered parkin~~, having buildings higher than what is allowed in residential c]_uster, and having a commercial enterprise (day-care center) in this ~~.rea.`1'he road into the area is not adequate to accominoc~.Ye emergency vehicles. The traffic conk estion in this residential area would be phEnomenal. ~`~~. 1~oxl ~'>~ 1 ~ c ~~~~~ ~~1~(. ~ _S , ___._ ~--' }~~; ~ ~ L. ~ ~ ~' ~n , lo, l `~ ~'`~ ~. ' <--~ c, ~` !~~I ,~?~ /D j ~c/ ~, l ~~ ~~~rr~'~ ~ n I rr ~~~i~~ ~~~ fl °il' ~,G'~', l'i~ ~'~' ~ ~ ~~ '' -~~~ ~~~`l ~~,fl, '~ ~i 11P11 ~JIt 1i1( It ~~1(lt/~11 ~~)(llll~ll ~I I :~r~~~' ~~'.~i~i~~~ Irl~)I~~~~ ~~~~~ I ~.k=~~ f~rl~~1SI i;X\I l l' ~' ~~`) 'i ~~'~~ ', i;~~~,,,r(~<<<,~;c~t, l~ '> /~~lF 1~''~ I'1 :, 1 , ~~ ci , ~``X~ i / ~~'1~~i~~(1 ~j,-tl~Cl h1(•~<'t' ( ~ (~~f ~~ ~~) n~ , ~~t~~~~~~ ~ t~~~~~1'~~ ,/~ ) ~((~ ,Ir^~~~~~~ < <~ `s `~. G~j I~1 i''` 1 SJ.CPIATURE PRINT NAME AGE STREET ADDRESS DATE i~ 'rye the undersigned individuals are highly op~~osed to the rezoning c,f ~ tephens Subdivision Parcel D also known as "rl Fart of the N '; ;!r;. a,, ,section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 7Je;t of the 6th Principal P~9eridan, Town of Vail, Colorado," from residential -cluster zone to hi~ti-density multiple-family zone. 't'his rezoning would definitely affect our_ qualit:,y of life. A few of the reasons we are opposed to the rezoning: ti•.~f'fic congestion, transient occupancy. a drop in real-estate property value, noise and pollution, a lack. of condidcrat;i.on of the present zoning, asking to be exempt from covered parkinEr, having buildings higher than what is allowed in residential c7.uster, and having a commercial enterprise (day-care center) in this r:~rea.The road into the area is not adequate to accornirloc~cik: emerY;enc,y vehi_c7es. The traffic congestion in this residential area would be phc~rlomenal. SICrI1ATURE PRINT NAME AGE STIZIE`r A1~.llRESS .DATE ii . t ' _ . ,~. •. U '~. - ~_- .T ~.. s .r ~ c: ~~.I.LL ~' `~~~X, ~'~~l'~..`~t'iLt,~,~ ~--N=~~ '.~~i.~ i•~ ~-INfJ~l~INNlC1<, ~~tZ ~ {?c..~ <_~I ~.~~, . ,. ,- ~ -~~` ~-~-!.~-~ `r T +T~ _/~' c ~ ~~ ~~I ~//f ~~ /G '~ ~1 ~~~, _ ~', Z/~J/r ~~~. / t~~ ;;~• tie undersigned individuals ~~.re tr:i.~hl•y opi~o:>eci to the rezo~ing "~1. I'~lr t of the N ~; of ~t~T~hens subdivision Parcel v also known a.~ iii, 4,~ section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 'rJest of the 6th Principal Mc;r.tdan, Town of Vail, Colorado," from residential -cluster zone to high-density multiple-family zone. `Phis rezoning would definitely affect our qualii,,y of life. A few of the reasons we are opposed to the rezoning: traffic congestion, transient occupancy. a drop i.n real-estate property vn.] ue, noise and pollution, a lack of conc~i~lerai;i.on of the present zU1rii~g, asking to be exempt from covered parkinf~, ho.ving buildings higher than what is allowed in residential c].usi;er, and having a comurercial enterprise (day-care center) in this ~trea.2'tl~}reotdraffic the area is not adequate to accomnloch-k= emergency vehicles . congestion in this residential area would be phr~nomenal. SIGNATURE PRINT NAME AGE S`i'REFT A.U1)RESS DATE _ 1;...., •r~ k ( (,~t)t'7i /~ q __ __ j .~= __ ~., ~~_ 1`_ ") . - r-7 rc ~ ' ' ~ ~ I ~ - C~ ~ r ~ ~h~~l r' ~ it c /lam .n ~ ~yjd~~ ~ ~ E?~aC~l ~ 1 ~ f ~ ~ ~~ t~ U~ l s . ~ rCi?1Z1Lj~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~> ~ (- ~ ~ ~~ ~~' ~Gd v 1 ~S Y~~ F ~ j ~ i~:~C 5~L (` ~ ll`` I ,~ _ ~_ ME m. V~WC~ ~- /::~// ~, J11 ,~ ~~~ t, ~~~ ~'iLi ~ (. "l~ 2 Lunn ~~ ~, rz~ V'a ~ I ~ I ~'7 _ ~z~ %/~ ~ -~ ~ G ~. ~ r1 (~ -cu' . ~ j ~C` ~~ r~ ~~ r // i. f ~'~/ :~ P tyre undersigned individuals are higtrl,y opj~o:;ec3 to the rezoning nf' ;., Le~~hens subdivision Parcel D also known as "~1 F-~.rt of the N ;Y; 3,~ ,aection 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 ~~ie:;t of the 6th Principal ricridan, Town of Vail, Colorado," from residential -cluster zone to high-density multiple-family zone. 'I'hi. rezoning would definitely affect our qualit;,y of life. A f'c:w of the reasons we are opposed to the rezoning: traffic congestion, transient occupancy. ~ drop in rea.1-estate property value, noise and pollution, a lack of cone~ider•~li;i.on of the present zoning, asking to be exempt from covered parkin~~;, hs~.ving buildings hid he.r than what is allowed in residential c7.u,t;er, and having a commercial enterprise (day-care center) in this a.rea.The road into the area is not adequate to accomxrtoc~CiiC: emergency veh isles . The traffic congestion in this residential area would be phenomenal. ~~) /<` -~~~~~_, '377 " ~'C~IC-~~.~-t1' ~`` /-3 % ~?/7 ~i i) 7 ~ ,i i .C ~ ~i ~7~ ~~ J~ /~ /,~/ ~ ~ ~_~ , ~, ~~ ~ ~ ~~ - - .- ,', ~~ ~ ~. ~~~ SIGPI4TURE PRINT N~iM ~ AGE ~ S'i'iZ}~~ET I11~UIZI?SS DATE .~~ rr / ' ~ -Vv _ 1~~-?~=1 j "~~,~/v</-~~c ~~~-~Z~~S (c,C, ~tlt~'rUl. ~~N.h7l~:~~ _ _~ c~r _'~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '' ~, c-~C~'t.A~t. Wo the undersigned indivic3uals~ crre Yrighl•y opt~osecl to ttie rezoning cif _;teptrens subdivision Parcel y also known as "~ 1'.~rt of the Id '~ ;;'r,,_ ;,, .y~ection 14, Township > South, Range Y31 'r!r>^ L of the 6th Principal t~1~ri.~lan, Town of Vail, Colorado," from residential -cluster zone to t;: ~•ti-density multiple-family zone. 'i'~~is rezoning would definitely affect our qualii:y of life. 1'. f'ew of the reasons we are opposed to the rezoning: traffic congestion, transient occupancy, a drop in real-estate property v~l ue, noise and pollution, a lack of conc~ider.c;t;ion of the present 7c!nlIlg, asking to be exempt from covered parkin€~, having buildings hit;lter than what is allowed in residential c7_ust;er, acid having a commercial enterprise (day-care center) in this c~.rea.The road into the area is not adequate to accorniriochk= emergency vehicles . The traffic congestion in this residential area would be phc;nomenal. T ~ ., ~ / I ~ .~. ~-Y ? ~~ 7c-- _ C-~ iC~/ ~ j ~,. , '-~ 1 ~: ~ /<:~~~; ..~ - ~ / ~ i 117_--- ~ %, SlCiiiA`1'URE PRINT NAME AGE STRIF;'i' A.U.URESS DATE ~~~e the undersigned individuals are hi~Thl,y opposed to the rezoning of. Stephens Subdivision Parcel I) also known as "A Flirt of the N '~ 4,, section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 'NO^ t of the 6th Principal (~;c~~•idan, Town of Vail, Colorado," from residential -cluster zone to tiii•-r-density multiple-family zone. 'Phis rezoning would definitely affect ou.r qualit;,y of life. ,1 few of the reasons we are opposed to the rezoning: tr:~ffic congestion, transient occupancy, ~ dr.op in real-estate property vr~,.lue, noise and pollution, a lack of conc~ider.ai;i.on of the present zc;r,ing, asking to be exempt from covered park i_n~r, having builditl~;s higher than what is allowed i.n residential cluster, and having a commercial enterprise (day-care center) in this ~zrea.The road into the ar. c~a is not adequate to accornsxia-~cik emer_ gency veh i c7.es . The traffic congestion in this residential area would be phenomenal. S l.l~ MATURE PRINT NAME AGE S`T'REET AI~UIZESS DATE ~.~~, -^s y...--- ~ .i n P ~~. ~, .t ~~ ~ PLC ~. ,- ~ ~ .-~~ /,~~~,~. _.~~1 -~ ~ .t/~~7? / fr'~/?/,~G~% ).~~el.?O/~ ~`~ r~ (I1.~1 iii Cin~'C~R-Lf J~f U~~() t1~Ci ~~`Z•'~ i r ~ C~ n ~~ i~' it ~ ~J t , ~'1 ~~ ~, `~~C, /~~ Cam, ~ J/ ,~/ ,~4' c% ~/ 3 ~ ~'~ ~S / '~` ~r ~ ~~> ;?~. ~ / <-~~ /G~ 6 i~.~i,r s~ i i ;~ i i i _iar ,-,.i _ic ~ ~T..~~ ~n-~ tir-~«1~1 ~ p~~~-y~,~ 1t>-}y [~c~~~KSk'1~~~ '~~ U~~' `1 ~~~ °-~ •r` - - ~ / ' !~~ ~ i 'r.e the undersigned individuals, are highly op~~osec] to the rezoning of ;;tephens Subdivision Parcel D also known as "11 Part of the N ,~~ S';~ , ,section 14, 2'ownshlp 5 South, Range 81 'rJest of the 6th Principal i'1^ridan, Town of Vail, Colorado," from residential -cluster zone to high-density multiple-family zone. `I'~~is rezoning would definitely affect our qualii;,y o.f life. A few of the reasons we are opposed to the rezoning: traffic congestion, transient occupancy, a drop i.n real-estate property value, noise and pollution, a lack of condicter_ati.on of the present zoning, asking to be exempt from covered parking, having buildings higher than what is allowed in residential cluster, and having a commercial enterprise (day-care center) in this area.The road into the area is not adedual;e to accomirtoc~cik; emergenr.•y veh isles . The traffic congestion in this residential area would be phenomenal. SIGNATURE PRINT NAME AGE STIiEE`1, A1~hKESS DATE ,~ .~ , ~2 ~.c . ~... ,t:., . R ;1 \ r~~; ~.~,. ;~..~- ;~~ 3~'~ ~l ! ~ ~~. ~-?-~ Fall 5 ~~~ ~~~'-c G 1`t ~~' ~,~~ /~'lC~ ~ C~~~]Gf.S ~~.- ,''~ ~,~, .~7 ~ Cr~-t-l(s ~,~• GN 1 Z 1y~1. ~. TO THE TOG!N OF VAIL PLANNING CONIIv1ISSI0N: AFTER REVIEWING THE PROPOSED PLANS SUSIDERED ARE NOTIIN THEY BESTDINTERESTTOF INTERMOUNTAINRNED T~~AT THE CHANGES IN ZONING BEING CON RESIDENTS AND THE TOWN OF VAIL. OF MAJOR CONCERN TO ME ARE THE CHANGES IN THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING. 48 FEET OF HEIGHT WOULD MAKE THIS STRUCTURE STAND OUT, OBVIOUSLY NOT CONFORMING WITH THE EXISTING BUILDINGS. THIS EVERLYUDIMINISH THEVVIEWSEOFRNEIGHBORINGPPROPERTIESTHE INTEgM~JUNTAIN AREA AND WOULD S SECONDLY, CHANGES IN THE PARKING REQUSRZEENT50 IINIDSDWOULDOREQUIREETHENPARKINGGPROPOSEDULD HAVE BEE:: ?EQUIRED FOR A BUILDING OF THIS IF NOT MORE, AND IF THE TOWN ALLOWS THFORULBMITED NUMBERGOFPPARKING SPACESUCEWETWILL FINDNETL WILL BE A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH CARS VYING THEM PARKING ON THE STREET AND ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. COVERED PARKING IS ESSENTIAL. THIRD, THE TOWN MASTER PLAN STATES THAT ROPOSEDROPZONINGHLAWS AREDENACTEDDTOOKEEP DEVELOPEDNITS THAT IS ROUGHLY HALF OF WHAT IS BEING P PROPERTY IN LINE WITH WHAT IS BEST SEIUIREMENTSHANDLBUILD THESE PROPERTIEOAWITH THELBESTT~ IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT WE FOLLOW ZONING R Q INTEREST OF ALL PEOPLE THAT WILL BE AFFECTED AND NOT GO BY THE WISHES OF THE DEVELOPER. EMPLOYEE HOUSING IS OBVIOUSLY A MAJOR COWITHNTHE DEVELOPMENTROFIEMPOLYEEAHOUSINGBINVTHECEDWAP.DS PERHAPS, WE SHOULD SEE WHAT WILL EVOLVE AREA, WHICH IS BETTER LOCATED TO SERVE HEEZNOTERMOUNTAINSNEIGHBORHOODWLY'CREATED JOBS, BEFORE WE DETERIORATE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN T PROPERTY VALUES WILL OBVIOUSLY BE REDUCHEAVEBHADLTOWDEALTWITHEA SUBSTANDIALELOSSROFAPROPERTYA COMPLEX OF THIS TYPE. MANY RESIDENTS Vi1LUE ALREADY, ALLOWING THE REZONING WOULD ESSENTAILLY BE INSULT TO INJURY. VERY CONCERNED, ~, ` ~._-_ ` ~_ ~ ~-~` ~ -! DANIEL J. FREDERICK '~'' /~~ ~ U«-~ ~1~-t l~ia~Y~t'~t ,~ ~ •, ~ ~~ 7~.,~. ~~ ~' ~~~ ~'.~ / ~ ~ (~f C ~~~1<.~lil'L n ~ ~j~y~~Ltl ~~~ 7 ~ /~ a- ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ t` :~ ~ ~. 1a ~:~ . ~'"7 2y ~ Zap- '`t~71 ~ ~~_~ ~~.~r'tC~~-~ (/~ ,~~~~._ ___ ___ r _ __ ___ _ _ i TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 16, 1990 SUBJ: Ordinance No.l, Series of 1990 amending SDD #14, Doubletree Hotel Please find attached a proposed ordinance amending SDD #14, Doubletree Hotel. The proposal is described in the attached memorandum. Basically, the proposal is to construct the addition as previously approved but to rearrange uses to accommodate a resort spa facility. The PEC voted 7 - 0 to approve the SDD amendment. ORDINANCE NO. 1 Series of 1990 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING ORDINANCE 7 SERIES OF 1989, A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (KNOWN AS SDD NO. 14) AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes special development districts within the Town; and WHEREAS, SDD No. 14 for development of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing was originally approved by Ordinance 5 of 1986; and has been amended by Ordinance No.7, Series of 1989; and WHEREAS, The applicants wish to make amendments to SDD 14; and WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SDD 14 will ensure unified and coordinated development within the Town of Vail in a manner suitable for the area in which it is situated; and •WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed SDD; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants and visitors to establish said Special Development District No. 14; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: SECTION 1. REPEAL AND RE-ENACTMENT. ORDINANCE 7, SERIES OF 1989 is hereby repealed and re-enacted with amendments to read as set forth below. Section 2. Amendment .Procedures Fulfilled, Planning Commis° lion Report. The approval procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the report of the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending approval of the proposed development. plan for SDD 14. Section 3. Special Development District 14. Special Development District 14 (SDD 14) and the development plan therefore, are hereby approved for the development of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing, within the Town of Vail, consisting of 2.6298 acres of 114,554 square feet, more or less. Section 4. Purpose. Special Development District 14 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail and to promote the upgrading and redevelopment of a key property in the Town. The development is regarded as complimentary to the Town by the Town Council and meets all design standards as set forth in Section 18.40 of the Municipal Code. There are significant aspects of Special Development District 14 which cannot be satisfied through the imposition of the standards in the High Density Multiple Family zone district. SDD 14 is compatible with the upgrading and redevelopment of the community while maintaining its unique character. Section 5. Definitions. A. "Transient residential dwelling unit or restricted dwelling unit" shall be defined as a dwelling unit located in a multi-family dwelling that is managed as a short term rental in which all such units are operated under a single management providing the occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilities. A short term rental shall be deemed to be a rental for a period of time not to exceed 31 days. Each unit shall not exceed 645 square feet of GRFA which shall include a kitchen having a maximum of 35 square feet. The kitchen shall be designed so that it may be locked and separated from the rest of the unit in a closet. A transient dwelling unit shall be accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through another accommodation unit, dwelling unit, or transient residential dwelling unit. Should such units be developed as condominiums, they shall be restricted as set forth in section 17.26.075 A-G governing condominium conversion. The unit shall not be used as a permanent residence. Fractional fee ownership shall not be allowed to be applied to transient dwelling units. For the purposes of determining allowable density per .acre, transient residential dwelling units shall be counted as one half of a dwelling unit. The transient residential dwelling unit parking requirement shall be 0.4 space per unit plus 0.1 space per each 100 square feet of GRFA with a maximum of 1.0 space per unit. SECTION 6. DEVELOPMENT PLAN. A. The development plan for SDD 14 is approved and shall constitute the plan for development within the special development district. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Pellecchia Olson Architects as dated as follows: 1. Site and landscape plans by Pellecchia Olson Architects dated January 8, 1990. 2. Floor plans and parking plans by Pellecchia Olson Architects dated December 7, 1989. 3. Elevations and sections by Pellecchia Olson Architects dated January 8, 1990. 4. The Environmental Impact Repart dated January, 1986 as prepared by Berridge and Associates, Inc. B. The Development Plan shall adhere to the following: Setbacks Setbacks shall be noted as on the site plan listed above. Height Heights of structures shall be as indicated on the elevations listed above. Coverage Site coverage shall be as indicated on the site plan listed above. Landscaping The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated on the preliminary landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for their approval. PARKING AND LOADING Parking and loading shall be provided as indicated on the site plan and floor plans as listed above. In no case shall the parking provided on site be less than 184 spaces, and there shall be no less than 68 spaces available to the Doubletree, its designated employees and guests in the Vail Valley Medical Center parking structure. These 68 spaces shall be available to the Doubletree from the hours of 5:30 pm to 6:00 am. SECTION 7, DENSITY. Existing development on the site consists of 128 accommodation units and 19 dwelling units consisting of 73,577 square feet of gross residential floor area. The approval of this development plan shall permit an additional 62 accommodation units or transient residential units and 5 dwelling units, consisting of 33,450 square feet of gross residential floor area. The total density permitted with the approval of this development plan consists of 190 accommodation units (62 of which may be transient residential units) and 24 dwelling units with a total of 107,027 square feet of gross residential floor area. ALSO, a SPA FACILITY OF APPROXIMATELY 18,000 SQUARE FEET SHALL_BE ALLOWED. SECTION 8. USES. Permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be as set forth in the High Density Multiple Family zone district. In addition to these uses, Transient Residential Units shall be allowed as a permitted use. SPA FACILITIES SHALL BE ALLOWED AS AN ACCESSORY RECREATIONAL USE TO A LODGE AS PER THE HDMF ZONE DISTRICT. Section 9. Amendments. Amendments to the approved development plan shall follow the procedures outlined in Section 18.40.100 of the Vail Municipal Code. Section 10. Conditions of Ap royals for Special Development District 14. A. The development contained within SDD 14 shall not be converted to any form of time share ownership. The applicant agrees to limit the use of any new dwelling units approved with this development plan to those restrictions outlined in Section 17.26.075.A, Condominium Conversion, of the Vail Municipal Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the restrictions set forth in Section 17.26.075. of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail shall not apply to the dwelling units during any period during which they are owned by any individual who is also an owner of the Doubletree Hotel. B. The 62 additional accommodation units permitted with the approval of SDD 14 shall be developed as lodge rooms under a single ownership. Any proposal to condominiumize the accommodation units would require approval in acordance with the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Vail. C. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the building department all required approvals from the State Highway Department-for changes to access off the South Frontage Road. Prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for residential units constructed on site after the effective date of this ordinance alb. improvements required by the State Highway Department access permit shall be completed. D. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of-any improvement in SDD 14 the owner, or owners of SDD 14 shall provide to the Town of Vail a copy of an agreement between the Vail Valley Medical Center and Vail Holdings, Ltd. allowing the Doubletree Hotel, its designated employees or guests the right to use a minimum of 68 parking spaces in the Vail Valley Medical Center structure from the hours of 5:30 pm to 6:00 am. This parking agreement must be in a form that may not be amended or terminated without the approval of the Town of Vail. Section 11. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 12. The Town Council hereby finds,- determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 13. The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS DAY OF , 1990 at pm in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building in Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of 1990. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED THIS DAY OF 1990. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 10, 1990 SUBJ: Resolution No. 2 of 1990, approving the Vail Village Master Plan As decided at the Janaury 9th Town Council Work Session, a resolution adopting the Vail Village Master Plan is scheduled for consideration by the Council on January 16th. The plan to be acted on by the Council is dated December 18, 1989 and was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission in December. The PEC approval was made following a series of over 20 public meetings held over an 8 month period. The Town Council's input during Work Sessions over the past two weeks has resulted in two changes in the Goals, Objectives, and Policy section of the plan. These changes affect Policy 1.2.1 regarding additional development as identified by the. Action Plan and Objective 2.6 regarding employee housing. Changes to these elements of the plan .are as follows: 1°0 2 ,~1 :. F+orla:cy a e ~® Ad:;Zitional r~~v~l~pmen`~ may ~aa: a11~~wed gar dPn~~-ifed by the Action Plan and is.'can~sistent with the Vail Village Master-Plan and the Vail Village Urban Design Guide, 2 . 6 • ~ ~ t3b~ e'cf:ive (page 12 D Encourage the development of affordable housing units through .the efforts of: the private sector. Employee housing units may be required -as•paric of any 37ew .or' redevelopment project requesting- density over the allowable by ~~sting zoning. 2,6,2 .-- Policye -Employe housing shall Abe developed with ~approp.ria~~:e restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability •co the lecal•work force. 2 0 6. 3' _ ~Policlra The Town of Vail may participate in the development of affordable housing by providing limited assistance when feasible. After a careful review of Objective 2.6, it became clear that the existing wording includes both objectives and policy statements. Simply stated, the objective of 2.6 is that the private sector is encouraged to develop affordable housing units. To further state that restructions may be applied and the Town m_y offer assistance are actually policy statements. For this reason, Objective 2.6 has been restructured to include two additional policy statements. It is difficult to understate the significance of the efforts made by the Planning Commission and public participants over the past month in reviewing this plan. Revisions and clarifications have undoubtedly strengthened the plan's purpose and ultimate role it will play in shaping future development in Vail Village. As a staff, we are confident this plan will guide the future growth of Vail Village in a sensitive manner with consideration given to high quality developments. The staff is proud to recommend the adoption of the Vail Village Master Plan as an element of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. RESOLUTION N0. 2 Series of 1990 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Section 2.24.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail provides that the Planning and Environmental Commission shall make and adopt a Master Plan for approval by the Town Council for the physical development of the town; and WHEREAS, the Vail Village Master Plan was developed through extensive participation by the public, the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Plan is a reflection of the goals, desires, and objectives of the citizens of the Town of Vail for the long term planning of the development of Vail Village; and WHEREAS, the Vail Village Master Plan was adopted by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regular meeting and is hereby submitted to the Town Council for its approval; and WHEREAS, the Town Council is of the opinion that the Vail Village Master Plan is an appropriate long range planning document guiding growth and development within the Vail Village area set forth in the Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: The Town Council hereby approves the Vail Village Master Plan as submitted by the Planning and Environmental Commission. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1990. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk E"~ERTA1~11~EPVT • Outdoor swimming and toddler pools • Family pools and activities • Wave action pool • Tubes and flume rides * Water slides • Climbing elements • Dive-in movies • Party accommodations wcAT~o~ • Zero-depth infant activities • Toddler-scaled features • School programs • Scuba diving programs ~1~ • Secluded indoor spa • Secluded outdoor spas i~ ~~ ~~r~~r • 50 m x 25 yd heated pool • Year-round lap swimming • 1 meter springboard through 10 meter diving platform • Water polo • Synchronized swimming • Water aerobics V ~~ • Restaurant • Snack bar • Locker facilities Bus drop-off Automobile drop-off • Climate control FULL LOCKER/DRESSING FACILITIES TODDLER AREA Educational and , recreational water activities scaled for toddlers. INFANT AREA r. "Zero-depth" pool ADULT INDOOR/ OUTDOOR SPAS ____- Connected with heated water walk 50 METER POOL Year-round use `"`° Adjacent children's pool 0 10 20 40 UAIL, COLORADO ASSORTED TUBE RIDES, FLUMES, SLIDES, WATER DROPS WAVE-ACTION POOL INDOOR/OUTDOOR RESTAURANT AND SNACK BAR CATCH POOL FOR TUBE RIDES HIGH SPEED OTTER SLIDE H ACTIVITY POOL CANNONBALL DROP -"`"`~ ARCTIC BLAST! Indoor/outdoorjindoor water slide FAMILY POOL HEATED WATER WALK TO 50 METER POOL QUIET ADULT INDOOR SPA o <~;g ~ " ~~. ~ °' ~ ~. . ~N. CIS b, _.. p r t & r r e oq ~~~~~'~t` JF~'3 TI ~ '~ PROJECT COST ;r. - .. ,~ ~ - 1 Construction $4,627,000 ~~~'' +• ~ "'~ ~ ~ n Landscaping & Parking (411 $ 275,750 k~ ~,, ~ ,~ s~~ Furnishings $ 50,000 ~" }~' ' Y" ,. J. Sub-Total $4,952,750 ',.; ~ Q Professional Fees $ 294,135 ' '~~"`' Bonding Costs $ 198,115 ~~~ rt TOTAL BOND $ 5,445,000 Bond retirement in 15 years. OPERATIONS Operation Revenue $ 1,356,465 Cost of Operation $ 954,810 Excess Revenue $ 401,655 Based on 1992 Opr. Proj. ELECTI®N INF®RIVI.ATI~N WHEN: February 6, 1990 WHERE: Vail Town Hall VOTER MUST BE: • Registered to vote in the State of Colorado. • Resident of VMRD not less than 32 days. • Owner (spouse) of taxable Real or Personal Propertywithin VMRD. ABSENTEE VOTERS: • Available from VMRD after December 23, 1989. • Last date for absentee vote - January 29, 1990. AQUATIC CENTER A 30,000 Square F®ot, Year-Round, indoor/Outdoor, Water Park f~R9VIDING • An indoor alpine setting A full range of water activities for Vail's guests and residents • Activities for all ages • Entertainment, education, relaxation, exercise, competition • An important element in being a complete resort community `h ~~ 1~Q[AI~TIC CENTER - ~ i ~ ~ _-~, ~- _ __ It's an idea that may take a little getting used to. ou are probably used to paying for contractor's surety bonds, Builder's Risk, and general liability, but not design professional's insurance. But changing times and circumstances require change. A new look at old situations. The fact that high insur- ance costs have forced many design professionals to "pass through" their insurance costs, in one way or another, means you may very well pay less when you pay for the insurance directly. There are a lot of people who think project insurunce is an idea whose time has come. Enough people to have persuaded DPIC Companies to develop TeamCover - a system of design professional liability insurunce, loss prevention and claims services... designed to work to minimize problems on your projects, and ultimately reduce your costs by providing: ~ Insurance coverage priced for your job - to accurately reflect the risk and reduce your "invisible costs of insurance". ~ Certainty about the amount of coverage that will be available on the project and in the future. ~ Specialized loss prevention per- sonnel and educational materi- als -unique in their comprehensivurtess - to help you and your designer; avokl problems. ~ Specialized personnel to help you work oul coverage q UCStIUns. ~ A smoother, better working environment. ® Access to a greater number of skilled design professionals. When you buy TeamCover, you know the costs of insurance will be accurately matched to the risks of the project. ~o arrive at a TeamCover proj- ect policy premium, we study the construction cost of the job, the location of the project, the complexity of the tasks involved, and o number of other compo- nents. The premium is calculated for that specific project, and the rate Ithe cost per thousand dollars of construction cost) is guaranteed for the life of the policy. The pre- miunt is paid annually during con- struction and remains the some unless the construction costof the project Changes. As we mentioned earlier, it's important that owners fully recog- nin: how the cost of professional liability is bring passed ul~mg. Onr~ rr,~cent ACEC survciy showed that only 7`% of design firms bill insurance costs directly as a raim- burxrble item. Yau could argue that the other design professionals are absorbing these costs them selves. Yet, overall billing rates for design professionals increased almost 10% in 1986, which may mean designers are bundling increased insurance premiums by making them a"hidden cost" to you. Buying insurance on your specific project may well reduce those charges. TeamCover insures the design professionals on your project for the lim- its you need (up to our maximum). eamCover offers you the assurance that professional liability insurunce covering the design team is in place. The policy cannot be cancelled by DPIC except for non-payrlrent of pre- mium, breach of policy conditions, or misrepresentation or conceal- ment of information on the application. It's a (act that increasing numbers of architects and engi- neers 122% according to one recent ACEC study) are going without insurance today. Some have hod their coverage can- celled. Others have lost their cov- erage when the fin»s with which they ware ins~~irad vrent curt of business. Some-~ say IhCy sinq~ly can't afford is pay the premiums. Others are unable to buy insuranr_r. Obviously, when ihcry don't have coverage for their liability, you don't either. Using design profession- als without coverage can have unpleasant consequences for you. here are some good design professionals who don't have insurance. But you aren't able to use them if you choose to deal with fiscally responsible firms. And, if you do decide to use uninsured designers, lack of insurance (or lack of enough insurance) leaves you very vulnerable. This is an era where injured third ponies go after the individual or organization with the deet~est pocket. And that is often the owner and/or developer of the project. Sure, you have liability. and Builder's Rislc insurance. But They may not cover you. And, if they do, and those insurers have to defend or pay a claim that ought to have been paid for by the design professional's insurer, don't expect them to reward you for it. As you probably know, deterrrunlilg whether your designers have adequate insurance is a project in itself. ou start by collecting certifi- ~' Cates of insurance. But, to be safer, you should also ask each firm about its claims history, policy limits, deductible, exclusions, and quality assurance program. And since owners often receive little or no warning when their design pro- fessionals' policies are about to be depleted, cancelled or not renewed, you need to keep ask- ing. Because, if your design professional's insurance disap- pears in the middle of a project, claims not filed before the policy expires are not covered (due to the claims-made provision of the policy). You also need to think about post-completion coverage. You'd like to be sure your design professionals maintain the level of coverage you feel is necessary. Bui, realistically, you have little control over that, and design problems frequently emerge otter completion. When you buy TeamCover project liability insurance, you can assure yourself continuing protection. There are other ways a project policy works for you. ~,t~~!"hen a project policy is °°~~ evaluated by our under- writers, we consider, among other factors, the ratio of fees to con- struction values, the scope of work to fie performed by design pro- fessionals and the capabilities of the designers involved. We can tell if these factors are favorable, or likely to cause trouble in the future by referring to our extensive records and claims data. So when we offer a TeamCover quotation, our under- writer is putting our insurance wis- dom on tl~e line, and telling you this is an acceptable project from the insurance viewpoint. We have built our repu- tation on using loss prevention techniques to reduce the overall costs of insurance for our customers. ur company was started by ~' design professionals. Design professionals who wanted to keep their insurance premiums under control by controlling losses on the job. We still follow that philoso- phy. And we believe the "team play"spirit which is promoted by TeamCover offers .increased opportunities to resolve differences through mediation, and other methods developed to save you time and expense. We provide our TeamCover insureds with regular loss preven- tion communications and materials. Our loss prevention program - widely regarded as the best in the industry -has helped many of our insureds to attain loss-free records. And that translates into smoother running projects and fewer claims for you. TeamCover services begin when we assign a representative to assist the design professionals during their work on your project. ur representatives conduct a . pre-construction conference to make sure everyone involved understands the project policy coverage. Issues like communica- tions about disputes and alterna- tive forms of dispute resolution are also discussed, as our loss preven- lion expertise goes to work for you before the project even begins. The representatives ore only one port of our team. Our agents are also available to help you and your insurance advisors. DPIC agents ore unique because they specialize in providing the insur- ance used by design profession- als. You will be dealing with an agent who won't waste your time - because each understands the construction process and can anticipate your needs. Project policy insurance could be the key to smoother performance on your next project. And we'd like to give you more information on exactly how it can work for you. ~Alease ask a member of your ~ ~ /design team to contact our Customer Services Division. Or call us directly. We'll. answer general questions and put you in touch with the specialized agent for your area for more specific advice, including the names of design pro- fessionals in your area who are likely to qualify for TeamCover. c Is the premium cost stable? Yes and no. The rate Ithe cost per thousand dollars of con- struction cost) is guaranteed for the life of the policy. You provide us with the con- struction cost when you request the policy. There is an annual review and an audit at the end of the policy period to determine the actual construction cost that will be used to compute the policy pre- mium. Premiums will be adjusted, if necessary, up or down. The cost of the premium will not vory unless the construction cost changes. r ~, What happens alter the project policy expires? ' The policy typically continues to provide protection fora 2-year period after substantial completion of the project. This two-year "extended reporting period" can be lengthened for an additional premium; an eight- year, construction-plus-extended- reporting period is available. ~' n. 1` Does the policy have to be renewed each year? '~ No. The policy is in effect during construction and through the s extended reporting period. It cannot be cancelled except for non-payment of premium, breach of policy conditions, misrepresenta- tion or concealment of information on the application. A ~. How are premiums paid? Premiums are usually paid annually over the period of construction. l 1 How are deductibles handled? Your design prafessionals are responsible for the policy's deductibles, so they have a vested interest in reducing problems. The overall size of the policy deductible is determined after considering the size of the project and the design team's financial capacity. How large (or small) a proj- ectcon behandled on aproject policy? I ~~ TeamCover is designed to accommodate fhe types of projects usually done by our policyholders, from small ones of a few million dol- lars to large ones of up to; perhaps; $75,000,000. What are the advantages of working with a specialized agent on the project policy? ' r~ A DPIC specialized agent offers on-the-spot expertise in work- ing with construction projects and dealing with unusual coveroge prob- lems. These insurance experts are trained in loss prevention for design professionals, and offer important resources to help you control losses and reduce the costs of professional liability. These DPIC agents are avail- able to answer any coverage ques- tions you may have related to TeamCover. ~' f °~ What are the advantages of working with specialized claims peo- ple on the project policy? /~ DPIC's whole philosophy is based on the belief that many claims can be prevented by early coopera- lion between parties. Specialized claims representatives who under- stand this and are sensitive to where and how claims begin ore in an excellent position to tell you how to ovoid problems before they happen. When your project is insured by TeamCover and trouble does occur, our claims. people are trained to respond immediately to find the best possible solution. How far in advonce of the project should insurance be arranged? 11 is not too early to begin talking to a DPIC agent when you are issuing your request for propo- sal. Terms and conditions of insur- ance and contract language can be arranged far earlier than the date on which the policy goes in force. -~ What kind of help con I receive before the project snorts? ~~ With TeamCover, our exper- tise con go to work for you early. Our underwriting deportment pro- vides our agents with a preliminary estimate of underwriting acceptability and premium cost, subject, of course, to verification prior to start of con- struction. Our claims staff will conduct a design team meeting after the pol- icy goes into force. This pre- construction meeting is designed to make sure the (undarnental aspects of coverage are clear. And, of course, we're at the other end of the telephone line whenever we are needed. Do you have questions we haven't answered? We want to help. The number of our Customer Services Division is 18001 682-3400 (in Cali- fornia) or 18001 227-4284 (for the rest of the United Stated. The name and phone number of the special- ized DPIC Companies agent in your area is available from our Marketing Division, also at the toll-free numbers listed above. Please give us a call. We'll give you even more information on how TeamCover con work for you. i ~~ "-- + -. M I C N A E L BARBER A R C H I T E C T U R E 8 January 1990 Mr. Stan Berryman Town of Vail Department of Public Works~Transportation 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Vail Transportation Center Expansion Project Number 22289 Dear Mr. Berryman: Attached is our current bill for professional design services of the Vail Transportation Center expansion in accordance with the fee identified in the contract. The final signed contract was delivered by Michael Barber to Larry Eskwith on 18 December 1989. It was our understanding that there were no outstanding contractual issues and that the contract would be executed immediately. A number of additional items have been requested in the past few weeks. With this letter you should have all the information Vail has requested: 1. Larry Eskwith had requested a copy of the contract indicating the differences between the final contract and the previous draft be sent to him for his convenience in reviewing the contract. This information was conveyed to Larry Eskwith by our attorney, Tyrone Nolt, via telephone on 27 December 1989 and again by FAX on 2 January 1990. 2. The estimated cost of 'Team Cover' project insurance was sent by our attorney to Larry Eskwith 14 November 1989. A copy of the estimate is included here. Of the total .project policy Michael Barber Architecture and the design team will pay $10,000. 3. The fee for construction phase services is $155,894 as stated on page 9 of AIA Document 8141 of the contract. 4. The basis of fee calculations has been consistent since our original proposal was submitted to Vail 14 October 1988 prior to our interview for the job. Because of the increased volume of work the fee identified in the contract since 14 November 1989 has been reduced to 6% from the original 14 October 1988 fee of 6-1/2%. Added to this is the cost of the a full time field representative during MICHAEL BARBER ARCHITECTURE P R O E E S S I O N A l C O R P O R A T I O N 1290 BROADWAY SUITE 600 DENVER ('OlnRnnn Rn9n3-SRna TFI FPH(1NF '2117 A'i7 f1555 FArV1Al1 C vno oov n<nn ~!' Mr. Stan Berryman 8 January 1990 Page 2 the construction adminsitration phase, charged to Vail at the cost .of the person to Michael Barber Architecture, with no overhead or profit added. Sincerely, MICHAEL BARBER ARCHIT CTURE Kathryn Harhai enclosures cc: Vail: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney MBA: File 22289 Vault 22289 F, T ; ' a i D ~P S ~ C t~ M S~3 r'~ t,i rT ~,:. ~ '~' ~ . , S'I' _~`. f~s '-~" rv F-? ~: ;; ~ `'~ ~ 1:. r'~ ?' :~ .~'.~ 3`a : ~ J 0 2 ~ `~~ ~ ~-~ .~'' .h 1 3 ,~ _._.._ ... __,__ _.._..... ~ J~. Ci c. ,~ ~ ~ __,_ ~ ~, Ea}imatsg ors °h~ abnvs~ Ta~sfi~©v~r ~.-o~~~t ~r'r e;.~r a`alloa~: _ ~~=~`L~,.cJ, rte! ~ 4~ +v G~ ~ ~ -~' Lj ~ J L Y i1 z r EXT ~Y5C'1 ~ ...w~ ...... ..~~.r~~iC"r~DL~.u...:,.:.,.,~~..~•;:.;t°.~' ~ tJt~~ ~ ~'L~ ~ ~ ~ _____ ~~ ~r ~, rte' ~ ,'..,, _ ,~, ~~_ LIMx'S'' Ekr DY~C`,~ +, .:~~,~-~ti~....,....~~»~ij:L~i1t:,'I'ZBLES~W»~~,...,.~.~;~.,.,,w ~ . .. - ._......_...~...__ Y.`._.Y___._. -- . -~-~--------- Ples~o nctm t?~~t 4.he BF,~Iic~t~aan~ end c~:-Lraat~s -- - - _._._. ___._r_.._r_.w ~ _.__ -- ~b~7v~ qu+~t~ 1.~s ,gn ~~T~?fRTz arty. h'a+ r:~~~;irs~ . L : ~_~ Pldoaa el~o a~ot~a t:~~t batnr~ ~: are ~:ot~i-~:tr.~ ~ ~xr:, qurt~~ bbl T~~~ua~;ter' ut~.liwi~~ m~a~~. ~~ Lo-~T,~~ . oon~rtu~tic~n ~te,rt~. . 7~ yap h~v~ e3hy gU~~"s3.CfS+~, pl~L~sr t~'o 9~~,~t YirniYata to ~:~il. C ~ ~ ~ '.t ~~ .~fiH ~ A M E R I C A N I N S T I T U T E O F A R C H I T E C T S AIA Document B141 Standard Form of Agreement ~3etween Owner. and .Architect 1987 EDITION THIS DOCUMENT HAS IMPORTANT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES; CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY IS ENCOURAGED WITH RESPECT TO ITS COMPLETION OR MODIFICATION. AGREEMENT made as of the day of in the year of Nineteen .Hundred and Eighty-Nine BETWEEN the Owner: Town of vail (Name m:d address) 75 SOUth F`rOntage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 and the Architect: Michael. Barber Architecture, P.C. (Na»te and address) 1290 Broadway, SUlte 600 Denver, Colorado 80203-5606 (/r:clude derailed description ojProject, location, address a~:d scope.) An expansion of the existing facility with a four level addition plus fifth level overpass accommodating about 451 cars, new service facility, enclosed ramp connect- ing Levels 2 and 3, renovatioh of existing parking garage & transit terminal including new fire stair & re- located mechanical shaft, restructuring & reconfiguration of transit deck, new visitor information center of 1000 s.f., pedestrian. walkway & stair at Level 4 with exit tunnels & toilet rooms, widening of E, meadow Dr. & S. Frontage Rd., reconstruction of the garden stair area with 4000 s.f. of core & shell space, & side- walks at Frontage Rd., Blue Cow Chute, & E. Meadow Dr. The project is based on "Scheme Two" of the 28 August 1989 Concept Design Report approved by Uail Town Council on 5 September 1989 & revised in the. Project Cost Summary approved by Uail Town Council on 5 December 1989. For a more expansive description, see Exhibit A attached hereto. For the following Project: Vail Villiage Transportation Center Renovation and Expansion The Owner and Architect agree as set forth below. Copyright 1917, 1926, 1948, 1951, 1953, 1958, 1961, 1963. 1966, 1967, 1970, 1974, 1977, ©1987 by The American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Avenue, N.W., Washing[on, D.C. ?0006. Reproduction of the material herein or substantial quotation of its provisions without written permission of the AIA viola[es the copyright laws of the United States and will be subject to legal prosecution. AIA DOCUMENT 6141 •OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • FOURTEENTH EDITION • AlA° • ©1987 THE AMERICAN INSTITCTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVEN[JE, N.V('., WASHINGTON, D.C. X`006 6141-1987 1 "`, TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ARCHITECT ARTICLE 1 ARCHITECT'S RESPONSIBILITIES 1.1 ARCHITECT'S SERVICES 1.1.1 The Architect's services consist of those services per- formed by the Architect, Architect's employees and Architect's consultants as enumerated in Articles 2 and 3 of this Agreement and any other services included in Anicle 12. 1.1.2 The Architect's services shall be performed as expedi- tiously as is consistent with professional skill and-care and the orderly progress of the Work. Upon request of the Owner, the Architect shall submit for the Owner's approval a schedule for the performance of the Architect's services which may be adjusted as the Project proceeds, and shall include allowances for periods of time required for the Owner's review and for approval of submissions b}' authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. Time limits established by this schedule approved by the Owner shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Architect or Owner. 1.1.3 The services covered by this Agreement are subject to the time limitations contained in Subparagraph 11.5.1. ARTICLE 2 SCOPE OF ARCHITECT'S BASIC SERVICES 2.1 DEFINITION 2.1.1 The Architect's Basic Services consist of those described in Paragraphs 2.2 through 2.6 and any other services identified in Anicle 12 as pan of Basic Services, and include normal sttvc- tural, mechanical and electrical engineering services. 2.2 SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE 2.2.1 Owner to ascertain th e Project and shall The design program is based on the scheme approved by Uail Town Council 9/S/89 & revised by- 2.2.2 The Architect shall provide a preliminary evaluation of the Owner's program, schedule and construction budget requirements, each in terms of the other, subject to the limita- tions set forth in Subparagraph .5.2.1. 2.2.3 The Architect shall review with the Owner alternative approaches to design and .construction of the Project. 2.2.4 Based on the mutually agreed-upon program, schedule and construction budget requirements, the Architect shall prepare, for approval by the Owner, Schematic Design Docu- ments consisting of drawings and other documents illustrating the scale and relationship of Project components. 2.2.5 The Architect shall submit to the Owner a preliminary estimate of Construction Cost based on current area, volume or other unit costs. 2.3 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE 2.3.1 Based on the approved Schematic Design Documents and any adjustments authorized by the Owner in the program, schedule or construction budget, the Architect shall prepare, for approval by the Owner, Design Development Documents consisting of drawings and other documents to fix and describe the size and character of the Project as to architectural, sttvc- tural, mechanical and electrical systems, materials and such other elements as may be appropriate. 2.3.2 The Architect shall advise the Owner of any adjustments to the preliminary estimate of Construction Cost. 2.4 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE 2.4.1 Based on the approved Design Development Docu- ments and any further adjustments in the scope or quality of the Project or in the construction budget authorized by the Owner, the Architect shall prepare, for approval by the Owner, Construction Documents consisting of Drawings and Specifica- tions setting forth in detail the requirements for the construc- tion of the Project. 2.4.2 The Architect shall assist the Owner in the preparation of the necessary bidding information, bidding forms, the Condi- tions of the Contract, and the form of Agreement between the Owner and Contractor. 2.4.3 The Architect shall advise the Owner of any adjustments to previous preliminary estimates of Construction Cost indi- cated bychanges in requirements or general market conditions. 2.4.4 The Architect shall assist the Owner in connection with the Owner's responsibility for filing documents required for the approval of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. 2.5 BIDDING OR NEGOTIATION PHASE 2.5.1 The Architect, following the Owner's approval of the Construction Documents and of the latest preliminary estimate of Construction Cost, shall assist the Owner in obtaining bids or negotiated proposals and assist in awarding and preparing contracts for construction. General Contractors & Subcon- tractors for major trades will be prequalified by the Architect and Owner. 2.6 CONSTRUCTION PHASE-ADMINISTRATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 2.6.1 The Architect's responsibility to provide Basic Services for the Construction Phase under this Agreement commences with the award of the Contract for Construction and termi- nates at the earlier of the issuance to the Owner of the final Certificate for Payment or CO davs after the date of Substan- tial Completion of the Work. with the exception of 1 on-site review of the Architect 11 mos. after the date of substan- 2.6.2 The Architect shall provide administration of the Con- tial tract for Construction as set forth below and in the edition of AIA Document A201, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, current as of the date of this Agreement, mess .and as provided in Pparaqraph 12.12. Z.6.3 -Duties, responsibilities and limitations of authority of the Architect shall not be restricted, modified or extended without written agreement of the Owner and Architect with consent of the Contractor, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. completion. AIA DOCUMENT 8141 • OWNEK-AKCHITECT AGREEMENT • FOUKTEENT EDITION •AIA° • ©19K? THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.~i' .WASHINGTON, D.C. 2001X~ 6141-1987 2 Uail Town Council 12/S/89. Xr: ~) 2.6.4 The Architect shall be a representative of and shall advise and consult with the Owner (1) during construction until final payment to the Contractor is due, and (2) as an Additional Ser- vice at the Owner's direction from time to time during the cor- rection period described in the Contract for Construction. The Architect shall have authority to act on behalf of the Owner only to the extent provided in this Agreement unless otherwise modified by written instrument. as provided in paragraph 12.12 2.6.5 The Architect shall visit the site) or as otherwise agreed by the Owner and Architect in writing to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the Work completed and to determine in general if the Work ' • when completed will be in accor- dance with the Contract Documents. However, the Architect shall not be required to make exhaustive or continuous on-site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work. On the basis of on-site observations as an architect, the Architect shall keep the Owner informed of the progress and quality of the Work, defects and deficiencies in the W extensive site representatio eed to as an Additional Service, as 2.6.6 The Architect shall not have control over or charge of and shall not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the Work, since these are solely the Contractor's responsibility under the Contract for Construction. The Architect shall not be responsible for the Contractor's schedules or failure to carry out the Work in accor- dance with the Contract Documents. The Architect shall not have controi over or charge of acts or omissions of the Contrac- tor, Subcontractors, or their agents or employees, or of am• other persons performing portions of the Work.. 2.6.7 The Architect shall at all times have access to the Work wherever it is in preparation or progress. 2.6.8 Except as may othernise be provided in the Contract Documents or when direct communications have been spe- cially authorized, the Owner and Contractor shall communicate through the Architect. Communications by and with the Archi- tect's consultants shall be through the Architect. 2.6.9 Based on the Architect's observations and evaluations of the Contractor's Applications for Payment, the Architect shall revieR- and certifi~ the amounts due the Contractor. 2.6.10 The Architect's Certification for payment shall consti- tute arepresentation to the Owner, based on the Architect's observations at the site as provided in Subparagraph 2.6.5 and on the data comprising the Contractor's Application for Pay- ment, that the Work has progressed to the point indicated and that, to the best of the Architect's knowledge, information and belief, quality of the VZ'ork is in accordance with the Contract Documents. The foregoing representations are subject to an evaluation of the Work for conformance with the Contract Documents upon Substantial Completion, to results of subse- quent tests and inspections, to minor deviations from the Con- tract Documents correctable prior ro completion and to spe- cificqualifications expressed by the Architect. The issuance of a Certificate for Payment shall further constitute a representation that the Contractor is entitled to payment in the amount certi- fied. Hon•ever, the issuance of a Certificate for Pa}•ment shall not be a representation that the Architect has (1) made exhaus- tive or continuous on-site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work, (2) reviewed construction means, meth- ods, techniques, sequences or procedures, (3) reviewed copies of requisitions received from Subcontractors and material sup- pliers and other data requested by the Owner to substantiate the Contractor's right to payment or (4) ascertained hoa• or for what purpose the Contractor has used money previously paid on account of the Contract Sum. to advise the Owner 2.6.11 The Architect shall have authority`to reject Work which does not conform to the Contract Documents. Whenever the Architect considers it necessary or advisable for implementa- tion of the intent of the Contract Documents, the Architect will have authority to require additional inspection or testing of the Work in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Docu- ments, whether or not such Work is fabricated, installed or completed. However, neither this authority of the Architect nor a decision made in good faith either to exercise or not to exer- cise such authority shall give rise to a duty or responsibility of the Architect to the Contractor, Subcontractors, material and equipment suppliers, their agents or employees or other per- sons performing portions of the Work. 2.6.12 The Architect shall review; ~ approve or take ~kieF appropriate action upon Contractor's submittals such as Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples, but only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. The Architect's action shall be taken with such reasonable promptness as to cause no delay in the Work or in the con- struction of the Owner or of separate contractors, while allow- ing sufficient time in the Architect's professional judgment to permit adequate review. Review of such submittals is not con- ducted for the purpose of determining the accuracy and com- pleteness of other details such as dimensions and quantities or for substantiating instructions for installation or performance of equipl'tlent or systems designed by the Contractor, all of which remain the responsibility of the Contractor to the extent required by the Contract Documents. The Architect's review shall not constitute approval of safety precautions or, Mess of construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures. The Architect's approval of a specific item shall not indicate approval of an assembly of which the item is a component. When professional certification of performance characteristics of materials, systems or equipment is required by the Contract Documents, the Architect shall be entitled to rely upon such certification to establish that the materials, systems or equip- ment will meet the performance criteria required b}' the Con- tract Documents. 2.6.13 The Architect shall prepare Change Orders and Con- struction Change Directives, with supporting documentation and data if deemed necessary by the Architect as provided in Subparagraphs 3.1.1 and 3.3.3, for the Owner's approval and execution in accordance with the Contract Documents, and may authorize minor changes in the Work not involving an adjustment in the Contract Sum or an extension of the Contract Time which are not inconsistent with the intent of the Contract Documents. on-site reviews 2.6.14 The Architect shall conduct` ir~eetfr~ to determine the date or dates of Substantial Completion and the date of final completion, shall receive and forward to the Owner for the Owner's review and records written warranties and related documents required b}~ the Contract Documents and assem- bled by the Contractor, and shall issue a Final Certificate for Pay- ment upon compliance with the requirements of the Contract Documents AIA DOCUMENT B141 O~'NER•ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • FOURTEENTH EDITION • AIA~ • 0198? 3 8141-1987 THE.4MERICAN tNSTITt'TE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW' YORE AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20(NK~ t~ 2.6.15 The Architect shall interpret and decide matters con- cerning performance of the Owner and Contractor under the requirements of the Contract Documents on written request of either the Owner or Contractor. The Architect's response to such requests shall be made with reasonable promptness and within any time limits agreed upon. 2.6.16 Interpretations and decisions of the Architect shall be consistent with the intent of and reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents and shall be in writing or in the form of drawings. When making such interpretations and initial deci- sions, the Architect shall endeavor to secure faithful perfor- mance by both Ovvner and Contractor, shall not show paniality to either, and shall not be liable for results of interpretations or decisions so rendered in good faith. 2.8.17 The Architect's decisions on matters relating to aesthe- tic effect shall be final if consistent with the intent expressed in the Contract Documents. 2.6.18 The Architect shall render written decisions within a reasonable time on all claims, disputes or other matters in ques- tion between the Owner and Contractor relating to the execu- tion or progress of the Work as provided in the Contract Documents. 2.6.19 The Architect's decisions on claims, disputes or other matters, including those in question between the Owner and Contractor, except for those relating to aesthetic effect as pro- vided in Subparagraph 2.6.17, shall be subject to arbitration as provided in this Agreement and in the Contract Documents. ARTICLE 3 ADDITIONAL SERVICES 3.1 GENERAL 3.1.1 The services described in this Article 3 are not included in Basic Services unless so identified in Article 12, and they shall be paid for by the Owner as provided in this Agreement, in addition to the compensation for Basic Services. The services described under Paragraphs 3.2 and 3.4 shall onl}• be provided if authorized or confirmed in writing by the Oa•ner. If services described under Contingent Additional Services in Paragraph 3.3 are required due to circumstances beyond the Architect's control, the Architect shall notif}• the Owner prior to com- mencing such services. If the Owner deems that such services described under Paragraph 3.3 are not required, the Owner shall give prompt written notice to the Architect. If the Owner indicates in writing that all or part of such Contingent Addi- [ional Services are not required, the Architect shall have no obli- gation to provide those services. 3.2 PROJECT REPRESENTATION BEYOND BASIC SERVICES 3.2.1 _. ." ,"j'he Architect shall provide one or more Project Representatives to assist in carry- ing out such additional on-site responsibilities., as provided in 12.18. 3.2.2 Project Representatives shall be selected, employed and directed by the Architect, and the Architect shall he compen- sated therefor as agreed by the Owner and Architect. The duties, responsibilities and limitations of authority of Project Representatives shall be as descrihed in the edition of AlA Document B352 current as of the d:rte of this Agreement, •• "'""°'°" ' '"'• attached as paragraph 12.18. 3.2.3 Through the observations by such Project Represen- tatives, the Architect shall endeavor to provide further protec- tion for the Owner against defects and deficiencies in the Work, but the furnishing of such project representation shall not modify the rights, responsibilities or obligations of the Architect as described elsewhere in this Agreement. 3.3 CONTINGENT ADDITIONAL SERVICES 3.3.1 Making revisions in Drawings, Specifications or other documents when such revisions are: .1 inconsistent with approvals or instructions previousl}• given by the Owner, including revisions made neces- sary by adjustments in the Owner's program or Proj- ect budget; .2 required by the enactment or revision of codes, lams or regulations subsequent to the preparation of such documents; or .3 due to changes required as a result of the Owner's fail- ure to render decisions in a timely manner. 3.3.2 Providing services required because of significant changes in the Project including, but not limited to, size, qual- ity, complexity, the Owner's schedule, or the method of bid- ding ornegotiating and contracting for construction, except for services required under Subparagraph 5.2.5. 3.3.3 Preparing Drawings, Specifications and other documen- tation and supposing data, evaluating Contractor's proposals, and providing other services in connection with Change Orders and Construction Change Directives. 3.3.4 Providing services in connection with evaluating substi- tutions proposed by the Contractor and making subsequent revisions to Drawings, Specifications and other documentation resulting therefrom. 3.3.5 Providing consultation concerning replacement of ~~'ork damaged by ftre or other cause during construction, and fur- nishing services required in connection with the replacement of such Work. 3.3.6 Providing services made necessary b}• the default of the Contractor, b}' major defects or deficiencies in the ~X'ork of the Contractor, or b}• failure of performance of either the Owner or Contractor under the Contract for Construction. 3.3.7 Providing services in evaluating an extensive number of claims submitted by the Contractor or others in connection with the Work. 3.3.8 Providing services in connection with a public hearing, arbitration proceeding or legal proceeding except where the Architect is party thereto. 3.3.9 Preparing documents foi• alternate, separate or sequential bids or providing services in connection with bidding, negotia- tion or construction prior to the completion of the Construc- tion Documents Phase. 3.4 OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES 3.4.1 '' -- ..,. .~ .,_.. „_ . _ _ , n" . 3.4.2 Providing financial feasibility or other special studies. 3.4.3 Providing planning surveys, site evaluations or com- parative studies of prospective sites. AIA DOCUMENT 8141 •OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • FOURTEENTH EDITION • AIA~` • ©19H? THF. A:11F.RICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1?35 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.Vt'., WASHINGTON, D.C. 2tHNKi 6141-19s7 a ~ti other than as defined in paragraph 12.13 3.4.4 .Providing special surveys,l environmental studies and 4.2 The Owner shall establish and update an overall budget for submissions required for approvals of governmental authorities the Project, including the Construction Cost, the Owner's other or others having jurisdiction over the Project. costs and reasonable contingencies related to all of these costs. 3.4.5 Providing services rela[ive to future facilities, systems and equipment, other than as provided in paragraph 12.17. 3.4.6 Providing services to investigate existing conditions or facilities or o make measured d w~ s thereofl other than as provi~ed in paragraph ~~2.~ 3.4.7 Providing services to verify the accuracy of drawings or other information furnished by the Owner. separate contractors or by the Own ces and coordi- nation of servi In connection with construction 3.4.9 Providing services in connection with the work of a con- struction manager or separate consultants retained by the Owner. 3.4.10 Providing detailed estimates of Construction Cost. 3.4.11 Providing detailed quantity surveys or inventories of material, equipment and labor. 3.4.12 Providing anal}•ses of owning and operating costs. 3.4.13 Providing services required for or in connection arith the selection, procurement or installation of furniture, furnishings and related equipment, tth than as provideid ir] ~ara rah 12.14. ~4.~~ Providing services or p a mn~te ant or rental spaces, beyond those provided in paragraph 12.14. 3.4.15 Making investigations, inventories of materials or equip- ment, or valuations and detailed appraisals of existing facilities. ing significant changes in the Work g construction based on mark - ravings and other data furnished 3.4.17 Providing assistance in the utilization of equipment or systems such as testing, adjusting and balancing, preparation of operation and maintenance manuals, training personnel for operation and maintenance, and consultation during operation. 3.4.18 Providing services after issuance to the Owner of the final Certificate for Payment, or in the absence of a final Cer- tificate for. Payment, more than 60 days after the date of Sub- stantial Completion of the Work. except for the on-site review of the Architect 11 mos. after the date of tectural, structural, m nc engineering por- this Agreement or n nls ed in accordance substantial completion. ARTICLE 4 OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES 4.1 The Owner shall provide full information regarding requirements for the Project, including a program which shall set forth the Owner's objectives, schedule, constraints and cri- teria, including space requirements and relationships, flexi- bility, expandability, special equipment, systems and site requirements. 4.3 If requested by the Architect, the Owner shall famish evi- dence that financial arrangements have been made to fulfill the Owner's obligations under this Agreement. has designated Stan Berryman as its 4.4 The Ownerle~gr~e-tr representative authorized to act on the Owner's behalf with respect to the Project. The Owner or such authorized representative shall render decisions in a timely manner pertaining to documents submitted b}' the Architect in order to avoid unreasonable delay in the orderly and sequential progress of the Architect's services. Owner may change designee by advising the Architect in writing. 4.5 The Owner shall famish surveys describing physical characteristics, legal limitations and utility locations for the site of the Project, and a written legal description of the site. The surveys and legal information shall include, as applicable, grades and lines of streets, alleys, pavements and adjoining property and structures; adjacent drainage; rights-of--way, restrictions, easements, encroachments, zoning, deed restric- tions, boundaries and contours of the site; locations, dimen- sions and necessary data pertaining to existing buildings, other improvements and trees; and information concerning available utility services and lines, both public and private, above and below grade, including inverts and depths. All the information on the survey shall be referenced to a project benchmark. 4.6 The Owner shall furnish the services of geotechnical engi- neers....w __ _._..~. _~_.:..~_ .._~ _., l..e_...a ~....r,~ ~~,.~;..,,... Such services may include but are not limited to test borings, test pits, determinations of soil bearing values, percolation tests, evaluations of hazardous materials, ground corrosion and resis- tivity tests, including necessary operations. for anticipating sub- soil conditions, with reports and appropriate professional recommendations. 4.6.1 The Owner shall furnish the services of other consul- tants when such services are reasonably required by the scope of the Project and are requested by the Architect. 4.7 The Owner shall furnish structural, mechanical, chemical, air and water pollution tests, tests for hazardous materials, and other laboratory and environmental tests, inspections and reports required by law or the Contract Documents, or upon the reasonable request of the Architect or General Contractor. counseling services as may be necessary at e for the Project, including auditing service .v~ner may require to verify the Contractor' ations for Payment or to ascertain how or f purposes the Contractor has used the money p. j=ar etZ 13e1Zia€-e€-tie-~.:-;,~.~. 4.9 The services, information, surveys and reports required by Paragraphs 4.5 through 4.8 shall be furnished at the Owner's expense, and the Architect shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness thereof. 4.10 Prompt written notice shall be given by the Owner to the Architect if the Owner becomes aware of any fault or defect in the Project or nonconformance with the Contract Documents. 4.11 The proposed language of certificates or certifications requested of the Architect or Architect's consultants shall be submitted to the Architect for review and approval at least 14 days prior to execution. The Owner shall not request certifica- tions that would require knowledge or services beyond the snipe of this Agreement. AIA DOCUMENT 8741 • Ou'NER-ARCHITECT AGREEDIENT • FOURTEENTH EDITION •AIA° • C` 1987 5 6141-1987 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NE~Y' t'ORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 21KK16 e ARTICLE 5 CONSTRUCTION COST 5.1 DEFINITION 5.1.1 The Construction Cost shall be the total cost or esti- mated cost to the Owner of all elements of the Project designed or specified by the Architect. 5.1.2 The Construction Cost shall include the cost at current market rates of labor and materials furnished by the Owner and equipment designed, specified, selected or specially provided for by the Architect, plus a reasonable allowance for the Con- tractor's overhead and profit. In addition, a reasonable allow- ance for contingencies shall be included for market conditions at the time of bidding and for changes in the Work during construction. 5.1.3 Construction Cost does not include the compensation of the Architect and Architect's consultants, the costs of the land, rights-of--way, Financing or other costs which are the respon- sibility of the Owner as provided in Article 4. 5.2 RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION COST 5.2.1 Evaluations of the Owner's Project budget, preliminary estimates of Construction Cost and detailed estimates of Con- struction Cost, if an}•, prepared by the Architect, represent the Architect's best judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. It is recognized, however, that nei- ther the Architect nor the Owner has control over the cost of labor, materials or equipment, over the Contractor's methods of determining bid prices, or over competitive bidding, market or negotiating conditions. According]}•, the Architect cannot and does not warrant or represent that bids or negotiated prices will not vary from the Owner's Project budget or from any estimate of Construction Cost or evaluation prepared or agreed to by the Architect. 5.2.2 No fixed limit of Construction Cost shall be established as a condition of this Agreement b}• the furnishing, proposal or establishment of a Project budget, unless such fixed limit has been agreed upon in R•riting and signed by the parties hereto. If such a fixed .limit has been established, the Architect shall be permitted to include contingencies for design, bidding and price escalation, to determine what materials, equipment, com- ponent systems and types of construction are to be included in the Contract Documents, to make reasonable adjustments in the scope of the Project and to include in the Contract Docu- ments alternate bids to adjust the Construction Cost to the fixed limit. Fixed limits, if any, shall be increased in the amount of an increase in the Contract Sum occurring after execution of the Contract for Construction. 5.2.3 If the Bidding or Negotiation Phase has not commenced within 90 days after the Architect submits the Construction Documents to the Owner, any Project budget or fixed limit of Construction Cost shall be adjusted to reflect changes in the general level of prices in the construction industry between the date of submission of the Construction Documents to the Owner and the date on which proposals are sought. 5.2.4 If a fixed limit of Construction Cost (adjusted as pro- vided in Subparagraph 5.2.3) is exceeded by the lowest bona fide bid or negotiated proposal, the Owner shall: .3 if the Project is abandoned, terminate in accordance with Paragraph 8.3; or .4 cooperate in revising the Project scope and quality as required to reduce the Construction Cost. 5.2.5 If the Owner chooses to proceed under Clause 5.2.4.4, the Architect, without additional charge, shall modif}• the Con- tract Documents as necessary to comply with the fixed limit, if established as a condition of this Agreement. The modification of Contract Documents shall be the limit of the Architect's responsibilit}• arising out of the establishment of a fixed limit. The Architect shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with this Agreement for all services performed whether or not the Construction Phase is commenced. ARTICLE 6 USE OF ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS 6.1 The Drawings, Specifications and other documents pre- pared by the Architect for this Project are instruments of the Architect's service for use solely with respect to this Project and, unless othervaise provided, the Architect shall be deemed the author of these documents and shall retain all common law, statutory and other reser<~ed rights, including the cop}•right. The Owner shall be permitted to retain copies, including repro- ducible copies, of the Architect's Drawings, Specifications and other documents for information and reference in connection with the Owner's use and occupancy of the Project. eke-greki- used by the Owner or others on other projects rtions to this Project or for completion of lect by others, unless the Architect is adjud e in default under this Agreement, except h • ment in writing and with appropriate compen- 6.2 Submission or distribution of documents to meet official regulatory requirements or for similar purposes in connection with the Project is not to be construed as publication in deroga- tion of the Architect's reserved rights. ARTICLE 7 ARBITRATION parties to this Agreement arising our of or relati gree- ment or breach thereof shall be su and decided by arbi- tration in accordance • e Construction Industry Arbitra- tion Rul erican Arbitration Association currently in other party to this Agreement and with the Amer bitra- tion Association. A demand for arbitration ~ e made within a reasonable time after the cl ' 'pure or other matter in question has arisen. Inn nt shall the demand for arbitration be made after ate when institution of legal or equitable proce s based on such claim, dispute or other matter in .1 give written approval of an increase in such fixed limit; .2 authorize rebidding or renegotiating of the Project shall include, by cons ur rn any other manner, within a reasonable time; , AIA DOCUMENT 6141 •OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • FOURTEENTH EDITION • AIA® • ©1987 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 B7 41-1967 s this Agreement signed by the Owner, Architect, and ther person or entity sought to be joined. Consent arbitration involving an additional person or entit ~ 1 not constitute consent to arbitration of any claim 'pure or other matter in question not described in the tten consent or with a person or entity not named or cribed therein. The foregoing agree- ment to arbitrat d other agreements to arbitrate with an additional on or entity duly consented to by the parries to this cement shall be specifically enforceable in accordance Five .2 fee-percent of the total compensation for Basic and Additional Services earned to date if termination occurs during the Design Development Phase; or .3 Five percent of the total compensation for Basic and Additional Services earned to date if termination occurs during any subsequent phase. ARTICLE 9 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS final, and judgment n ]t ]n accordance with ARTICLE 8 TERMINATION, SUSPENSION OR ABANDONMENT 8.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon not less than seven days' written notice should the other parry fail substantially to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of the party initiating the temvnation. 8.2 If the Project is suspended by the Owner for more than 30 consecutive days, the Architect shall be compensated for ser- vices performed prior to notice of such suspension. When the Project is resumed, the Architect's compensation shall be~tlt -adjusted to provide for expenses incurred in the interrup- tion and resumption of the Architect's services. 8.3 This Agreement may be terminated by the Owner upon not less than seven da~•s' written notice to the Architect in the event that the Project is permanently abandoned. If the Project is abandoned by the Owner for more than 90 consecutive days, the Architect may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice. 8.4 Failure of the Owner ro make pa}•ments to the Architect in accordance with this Agreement shall be considered substantial nonperformance and cause for termination. 8.5 If the Owner fails to make payment when due the Archi- tect for services and expenses, the Architect may, upon se~~en da}•s' written notice to the Owner, suspend performance of ser- vices under this Agreement. Unless payment in full is received by the Architect within seven days of the date of the notice, the suspension shall take effect without further notice. In the event of a suspension of services, the Architect shall have no liability to the Owner for dela}• or damage caused the Owner because of such suspension of services. 8.6 In the event of termination not the fault of the Architect, the Architect shall be compensated for services performed prior to termination, together with Reimbursable Expenses then due and all Termination Expenses as defined in Paragraph 8.7. 8.7 Termination Expenses are in addition to compensation for Basic and Additional Services, and include expenses which are directly attributable to termination. Termination Expenses shall be computed as a percentage of the total compensation for Basic Services and Additional Services earned to the time of ter- mination, as follows: Ten .1 ~i-rrttr percent of the total compensation for Basic and Additional Services earned to date if termination occurs before or during the predesign, site analysis, or Schematic Design Phases, or 9.1 Unless otherwise provided, this Agreement shall be gov- erned by the law of the -~;~. State of Colorado. 9.2 Terms in this Agreement shall have the same meaning as those in AIA Document A201, General Conditions of the Con- tract for Construction, current as of the date of this Agreement. 9.3 Causes of action between the parties to this Agreement pertaining to acts or failures to act shall be deemed to have accrued and the applicable statutes of limitations shall com- mence to run not later than either the date of Substantial Com- pletion for acts or failures to act occurring prior to Substantial Completion, or the date of issuance of the final Cenificate for Payment for acts or failures to act occurring after Substantial Completion. 9.4 The Owner and Architect waive all rights against each other and against the contractors, consultants, agents and employees of the other for damages, but only to the extent cov- ered by property insurance during construction, except such rights as they may have to the proceeds of such insurance as set forth in the edition of AIA DocumentA201, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, current as of the date of this Agreement. The Owner and Architect each shall require similar ~•alvers from their contractors, consultants and agents. 9.5 The Owner and Architect, respectively, bind themselves, their partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party to this Agreement and to the partners, succes- sors, assigns and legal representatives of such other pan} with respect to all covenants of this Agreement. Neither Owner nor Architect shall assign this Agreement without the written con- sent of the other. 9.6 This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agree- ment between the Owner and Architect and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either writ- ten or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both Owner and Architect. 9.7 Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contrac- tual relationship with or a cause of action in favor of a third party against either the Owner or Architect. 9.8 Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Architect and Architect's consultants shall have no responsibility for the discovery, presence, handling, removal or disposal of or expo- sure ofpersons to hazardous materials in any form at the Project site, including but not limited to asbestos, asbestos products, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) or other toxic substances. 9.9 The Architect shall have the right to include representa- tions of the design of the Project, including photographs of the exterior and interior, among the Architect's promotional and professional materials. The Architect's materials shall not include the Owner's confidential or proprietary information if the Owner has previously advised the Architect in writing of r,~ AIA DOCUMENT 8141 • Ou'NER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • FOURTEENTH EDITION • AIA • ©1987 7 B14~-1987 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 2(HA>G the specific information considered by the Owner to be confi- dential or proprietar}°. The Owner shall provide professional credit for the Architect on the construction sign and in the pro- motional materials for the Project. ARTICLE 10 PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHITECT salaries of the Architect's personnel engaged on th ect and the portion of the cost of their mandat customary con- tributions and benefits rela ereto, such as employment taxes and other ry employee benefits, insurance, sick leave, ys, vacations, pensions and similar contributions tion for Basic and Additional Services a e expenses incurred by the Architect uect's employees and con- sultants in st of the Project, as identified in the follow- Project; expenses in connection wi out-of--town travel; lon -dis umcations; and fees paid for secur- v ..... .. v..~ i~ . ~e-9trr~ ~ . ~. , including professional liability ins ested by the Owner in exc urmallti• carried by the Architect and 10.3 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF BASIC SERVICES 10.3.1 An initial payment as set forth in Paragraph 11.1 is the minimum payment under this Agreement. 10.3.2 Subsequent payments for Basic Services shall be made monthly and, where applicable, shall be in proportion to ser- vices performed within each phase of service, on the basis set forth in Subparagraph 11.2.2. 10.3.3 If and to the extent that the time initially established in Subparagraph 11.5.1 of this Agreement is exceeded or extended through no fault of the Architect, compensation for any ser- vices rendered during the additional period of time shall be computed in the manner set forth in Subparagraph 11.3.2. 10.3.4 When compensation is based on a percentage of Con- struction Cost and any portions of the Project are deleted or otherwise not constructed, compensation for those ponions of the Project shall be payable to the extent services are per- formed on those portions, in accordance with the schedule set forth in Subparagraph 11.2.2, based on (1) the lowest bona fide bid or negotiated proposal, or (2) if no such bid or proposal is received, the most recent preliminary estimate of Construction Cost or detailed estimate of Construction Cost for such por- tions of the Project. 10.4 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES 10.4.1 Payments on account of the Architect's Additional Services and for Reimbursable Expenses shall be made monthly upon presentation of the Architect's statement of services ren- dered or expenses incurred. 10.5 PAYMENTS WITHHELD 10.5.1 No deductions shall be made from the Architect's com- pensation on account of penalty, liquidated damages or other sums withheld from payments to contractors, or on account of the cost of changes in the ~Y~ork other than those for which the Architect has been found to be liable. 10.6 ARCHITECT'S ACCOUNTING RECORDS 10.6.1 Records of Reimbursable Expenses and expenses per- taining to Additional Services and services performed on the basis of a multiple of Direct Personnel Expense shall be avail- able to the Owner or the Owner's authorized representative at mutually convenient times. ARTICLE 11 BASIS OF COMPENSATION The Owner shall compensate the Architect as follows: 11.1 AN INITIAL PAl'I~IENT of Dollars ($ shall be made upon execution of this Agreement and credited to the OR•ner's account at final payment. 11.2 BASIC COMPENSATION 11.2.1 FOR BASIC SERVICES, as described in Article 2, and an}' other services included in Article 12 as part of Basic Services, Basic Compensation shall be computed as follows: (h7ser! basis Of COlrlper7slllt(n3, t)lL~nd7rl~ s7ipulured sang, //tu/trp(es ur percer7ru~;es, and ider7liJ)~ phases [u u~bicb purtiadur nu~l/wds of cumperrsation apph•, rj necessary'.) r'~y 1- r J_ 1L.- ...-! L. .-. -~.._J ...4.1~...... .-7..11.. (CC/.c c10 nn\ ac Six hundred eight thousand four hundred twenty dollars ($608,420) AIA DOCUMENT B141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT' • FOURTEENTH EDITION • AIA~ • ~Jl9fi? 8141-1957 8 T1IE .AAIFRICAN INSrITt!TF. OF ARCillT1:CTS, 1'15 NEW' YORK AVENUE, N.~Y'„ WASHINGTON, D.C. 2(N)(K, ~l 11.2.2 Where compensation is based on a stipulated sum or percentage of Construction Cost, progress payments for Basic Services in each phase shall total the following percentages of the total Basic Compensation payable: (Insert additional phases as appropriate.) Schematic Design Phase: _ $149 , 431 Design Development Phase: $105 , 631 Construction Documents Phase: $211, 263 Bidding or Negotiation Phase: Construction Phase: $142 , 095 Total Basic Compensation: $608 , 420 11.3 COMPENSATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES a-~8,~+~ -~efeet~t-F--max,} ~ 1~~ ~~~' a.~.8c3t~ .p€~sgnt~ °:} $646T&9.8' one hundred percent (100%) 11.3.1 FOR PROJECT REPRESENTATION BEYOND BASIC SERVICES, as described in Paragraph 3.2, compensation shall be com- puted as follows: Compensation shall be either a stipulated sum amount or a fee based on the hourly rates shown below, as agreed for the service prior to the commencement of services: Principal $100.00 Associate Principal $ 85.00 Senior Associate $ 70.00 Associate $ 55.00 Senior Technician $45.00 Technician $40.00 Intern $25.00 11.3.2 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF THE ARCHITECT, as described in Articles 3 and 12, other than (1) Additional Project Representation, as described in Paragraph 3.2, and (2) services included in Article 12 as part of Basic Services, but excluding services of consultants, compensation shall be computed as follows: (/revert bnsis ojamrpensatiort, indudi«g rates a«d/ur nru/tip(es ojDirect Persornrel F.lpell5e jOr /'YIACrpalS alld C'Atpl(IpC'eS, and tdentijP /'rhrcipals and classijr empt(n'ecc ij require'd. /deltNjl' sped/ic serr•ices to « •bab pnr'tiarlnr methods of conrpensaNon applit ij uecessan:) For each additional service, compensation shall be either a stipulated sum amount or a fee based on the hourly rates shown below, as agreed for each such service prior to the commencement of the services: Principal $100.00 Associate Principal $ 85.00 Senior Associate $ 70.00 Associate $ 55.00 Senior Technician $45.00 Technician $40.00 Intern $25.00 11.3.3 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF CONSULTANTS, including additional structural, mechanical and electrical engineering services and those provided under Subparagraph 3.4.19 or identified in Article 12 as part of Additional Services, a multiple of one and 10/100 ( 1.10 )times the amounts billed to the Architect for such services. (Identijti~ specific t}pes of consultants in Artrcte 12, ij required.) 11.4 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES beyond those provided for as Basic Services 11.4.1 FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES!as described ' in Anicle 12 as Reimbursable Expenses, a multiple of one and 10/100 ( 1.10 )times the expenses incurred by the Architect, the Architect's emplo}'ees and consultants in the interest of the Project. Reimbursable expenses shall be a lump sum of $25,000, in 11.5 ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS accordance with 12.17. except for warranty review services 11.5.1 IF THE BASIC SERVICESICOVered by this Agreement have not been completed within eighteen ( 18 ) months of the date hereof, through no fault of the Architect, extension of the Architect's services beyond that time shall be compensated as provided in Subparagraphs 10.3.3 and 11.3.2. 11.5.2 Pa}'ments are due and payable thirty ( 30 )days from the date of the Architect's invoice. Amounts unpaid thirty ( 30 )days after the invoice date shall bear interest at the rate entered below, or in the absence thereof at the legal rate prevailing from time to time at the principal place of business of the Architect. (Irttert rate of interest agreed upon.) One and one-half percent (1.5~) per month. (Usurti~ laws and requirements under the Fedora( Truth irr Lending Act, similar state arul local consumer credit larcc a«d other regulations at the O:e•ner ;c and Arc'hi- re~t •s pR,rapal places of b«sv:ess, the location of the Project and elseu~bere mat' affect the oalidity of this provision. Specific legal advice should be obtained with respect to deletions or modifications, and also regarding reyuiremerets such ac urttterr disclosures or maieers.) AIA DOCUMENT 6141 •OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • FOURTEENTH EDITION • AlA® • ©1987 9 8141'1957 THE AMERICAN INtiTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 11.5.3 The rates and multiples set forth for Additional Services shall be annually adjusted in accordance with normal salary review practices of the Architect. ARTICLE 12 OTHER CONDITIONS OR SERVICES (/assert descriptions of other sen~ices, identify Additional Services included within Basic Compe~zsation and modifications to the payment and compensation terms included in this Agreement.) See attached Article 12. This Agreement entered into as of the day and year first R~ritten above. OVt~NER (Signature) Randall V. Phillips, Town Manager Town of Vail, Colorado (Pruned name and tint) ARCHITECT (Sigtutture) Michael R. Barber, President (f rimed name and title) IAIA DOCUMENT 8741 •OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • FOURTEENTH EDITION • A[A® • ©1987 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS. 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE,N.u'., WASHINGTON, D.C. 200(1( 6141-1987 1Q EXHIBIT A SYNOPSIS OF THE PROJECT Major components of the project approved by Vail Town Council on 5 December 1989 consist of the following: 1. Parking facilities a. The four-level expansion with level five overpass extended approximately 270 feet to the east provides about 450 new parking spaces. The structural system is precast double tees, with a ramping system mirroring the existing ramps to allow one-way automobile circulation throughout. The facility is mechanically ventilated and fully sprinklered on levels one through three and at the level four ramp. b. Anew service core connectsfour floors of the parking addition. The service facility contains stairs, two elevators, toilet rooms, lockers, and waiting areas, and connects to a pedestrian tunnel system. c. Anew covered automobile ramp connecting levels two and three at the west end of the existing TRC will complete the transition to one-way automobile circulation. The ramp will be constructed on grade with adjacent walls bermed. d. Renovation of the existing parking structure of about 69,120 square feet per level consists of expanded mechanical ventilating capacity, a doubling of light fixtures, repair of cracks, recaulking of joints, resealing of concrete deck at level 4 only, new signage, and installation of an emergency generator. Cleaning and painting and resealing of concrete deck at levels 1 through 3 will not be done as part of the construction contract, but will be done in-house by the Town of Vail as part of the maintenance program. e. Anew fire stair and relocated mechanical supply air shaft will be provided at the existing parking garage. 2. Transit Center Components a. .Interior renovation of the existing 7000 square foot transit terminal consists of providing. new finishes, a new ticket counter, renovated toilet rooms. b. Reconfiguration and strengthening of the transit center deck consists of new curbs to define bus lanes and taxi/van waiting areas. Short-term visitor parking will be provided at one end of the transit area. c. Restructuring of the level four transit area will be done to provide sufficient structural capacity for a maximum of 20 buses and six taxis/vans at one time. d. A pedestrian walkway is added along the south side of existing level four, connecting to a stair and pedestrian tunnel system, with public toilet rooms at the southwest corner of the existing parking facility. 3. Visitor Information Center and Garden Stair a. The current visitor information center is removed and replaced with a new 1000 square foot building located at the south side of the top level of the parking structure. Interior design of the display area, counter, office space and toilet facilities is included. b. The garden and garden stair will be rebuilt, with 4000 square feet of unfinished core and shell space provided at level three. 4. Site Improvements a. East Meadow Drive is widened with a sidewalk along the north side of the street. b. The South Frontage Road is expanded to provide two lanes for through traffic in each direction, either a left turn lane for westbound traffic or a right hand turn lane for eastbound traffic, curb and gutter at both sides, and two bike lanes three feet wide each. c. A five foot wide detached sidewalk will be provided at the berm adjacent to the South Frontage Road. d. A five foot wide attached sidewalk will be provided at the east and south sides of Blue Cow Chute, with crosswalks of brick pavers connecting to the Vail Athletic Club and the Vail TRC. e. Exterior graphics and signage will be provided f. Exterior site furnishings wilt be provided. MICHAEL BARBER ARCHITECTURE VAIL VILLAGE TRANSPORTATION CENTER OWNER ARCHITECT AGREEMENT (Continuation of Article 12 -.Other Conditions Or Services) 12.1 INSURANCE The Architect presently maintains Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability insurance of a form and in an amount as required by state law; comprehensive General Liability and Automotive Liability insurance with limits of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) and Professional Liability insurance with a limit of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000). Upon request and at the option of the Owner, Architect will exercise its best efforts to increase the limits on its current Professional Liability insurance or obtain a "Project Policy" covering the professional errors, acts and omissions of the design professionals on the Project, provided however, that the costs of such insurance beyond the currently maintained limits shall be borne by the Owner. It is understood that the Architect's current professional liability policy is annually renewable, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The Owner shall cooperate with the Architect as necessary to complete any insurance applications or forms necessary to obtain any additional professional liability insurance. 1 12.2 INDEMNIFICATION 12.2.1 The Architect shall indemnify and hold the Owner harmless from the negligent errors, acts and omissions of the Architect which arise out of or relate to the Project, including reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses of litigation. 12.2.2 The Owner shall indemnify and hold the Architect harmless from the negligent errors, acts and omissions of the Owner which arise out of or relate to the Project, including reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses of litigation. 12.3 5th & 6th LEVEL EXPANSION 12.3.1 Basic Services for the 5th & 6th Level Expansion will include an analysis of the possible 5th & 6th Level Addition as set forth in Scheme Four of the August 28,.1989 Concept Design, only to the extent reasonably necessary to .maintain structural sufficiency of the lower levels to accommodate the anticipated 5th & 6th level additions at a later date as set forth in the August 28, 1989 Concept Design. 12.3.2 The Owner may exercise its option. to have the scope of Basic Services expanded to include the 5th and .6th Level Expansion carried through and included in the construction documents phase of the Project including the Bidding and Construction Phase services as set forth herein by advising the 2 . Architect in writing, in which case the stipulated fee shall be increased by the sum of 316,200 for a total fee of $924,619. 12.4 CONSULTANTS Michael Barber Architecture will engage the following consultants to perform normal design services for the Project as described in this Agreement: 1. Landscape Architecture 2. Structural Engineering 3. Mechanical Engineering 4. Electrical Engineering 5. Elevators 6. Civil Engineering 7. Parking 8. Traffic Engineering 9. Graphics Each consultants will be responsible for the coordination of work within its own disciplines. Michael Barber Architecture will - coordinate the work of the consultant with the work of Michael Barber Architecture. .Architect and consultants will exercise reasonable professional efforts to achieve proper coordination of -• the design of the Project, including coordination with Vail Signage • Standards and Vail Transportation Plan. However, it is understood and agreed that it will be necessary to make design clarifications, 3 interpretations, revisions, modifications or adjustments during the construction phase for any coordination errors or omissions which are not caught or corrected by the Architect prior to the construction of the Project. The Architect shall submit it's consultants' agreements to the Owner for their review and information. 12.5 DESIGN MODIFICATIONS During the course of the design and/or construction of the Project, the Owner may request that MBA and/or its consultants make modifications to the design of the Project in the interest of cost reduction and/or upon the request of the General Contractor, for other reasons. It is understood that upon request of the .Owner, MBA and/or its consultants will make such modifications, provided that such modifications shall be considered Additional Services and neither Michael Barber Architecture nor its consultants shall be responsible nor legally liable for the consequences of such modifications provided that Michael Barber Architecture or its consultants have recommended that such modification not be made. 12.6 CODE COMPLIANCE As a design professional, Architect will endeavor to .produce drawings and specifications in accordance with applicable building codes and ordinances. However, it is understood and agreed that certain issues of code compliance are subject to subjective or 4 discretionary interpretation or application by code enforcement agencies or officials. .Architect will exercise reasonable professional efforts to obtain compliance with applicable codes applicable to the plans and specifications prepared by it, but it shall have no responsibility or liability for adverse code interpretations, rulings or determinations where they are subject to ambiguous, discretionary, subjective or unpredictable interpretation, application, review or inspection by code enforcement officials or agencies. 12.7 MODIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS Owner has retained Architect as a design professional to provide design services in accordance with generally accepted design .practices. The drawings and specifications prepared by Architect are instruments of service prepared in accordance with such standards. It is understood and agreed. that a need for some modification, revision, interpretation and/or clarification of the plans and specifications during the Construction Phase of the Project is anticipated.. When the need fore such modifications, revisions, .interpretation or clarification becomes known to the Architect, the Architect. shall promptly. investigate and take appropriate action. 5 12.8 CONTRACTOR-ARCHITECT RELATIONSHIP Owner and Architect do not intend that this agreement shall benefit the General Contractor or its subcontractors, nor is it intended that any legal relationship of any kind is created by this Agreement between the Architect and General Contractor or its subcontractors. In this regard, it is specifically agreed that this Agreement shall nat create nor serve as a basis for creating any liability or responsibility whatsoever by the Architect to any contractor or subcontractor for: 1. any alleged design deficiencies, acts or omissions; 2. any alleged delays, interruptions or interference with the construction work; 3. any failure of the contractor or subcontractors to complete all or any portion of the work within the limits of any budgets or cost estimates whether established by the contractors, subcontractors, the Owner or any third parties; 4. any damages, expenses or losses of any and every kind associated with the performance of the work by the contractor and subcontractors. 6 12.9 CONTRACTOR REVIEW 12.9.1 Prior to the execution of a contract between the Owner and General Contractor, Owner shall exercise its best efforts to cause the contractor to make a thorough and detailed review of the Contract Documents, including but not limited to the construction drawings, specifications and any addenda or amendments thereto. As a part of such review, the Owner shall request that the General Contractor represent that the Project can be constructed in accordance with such Construction Documents. If the contractor finds any alleged omissions, errors or deficiencies in the construction drawings, specifications and any addenda or amendments thereto, and during its review, the General Contractor shall advise the Owner of any alleged omissions, _errors or deficiencies. The Owner shall provide the Architect with the contractor's listing ("Listing") promptly. 12.9.2 Upon being presented with the Listing, the Architect shall.,. at no additional cost or expense to-.the Owner,. promptly revise its. drawings and specifications or, in its discretion, issue addenda, in order to remedy; any alleged errors or deficiencies which are found by the Architect, in good faith, to warrant such action. At the time of execution of a contract between the Owner and contractor, the Owner shall exercise its best efforts to cause the contractor to represent and warrant that the Project is 7 "buildable" within the established budget and time schedule set forth within the contract, using normal construction techniques. 12.9.3 Architect shall acknowledge Owner's compliance with the terms of 12.9.2 in writing upon being advised by Owner of it's efforts at compliance with same. 12.10 CONTRACTOR CONTRACT CLAUSES 12.10.1 Owner shall exercise its best efforts to obtain the following clauses in each construction contract with a Contractor: 1. Owner and Architect shall have no responsibility or liability for Project safety or compliance with any rules, regulations or ordinances governing safety, safety equipment or safety precautions on the job site for anyone other than the employees of Owner, Architect and Architect's consultants. Contractor shall indemnify, save and hold Owner and. Architect harmless, and defend the Architect~at Contractor's sole cost and expense against any claim or liability for any injury or death to any person or damage to any real or personal-.property arising out of or relating to any alleged violation of any safety rule, regulation, ordinance, policy, standard or custom. 2. Contractor is an independent contractor. Contractor acknowledges that it has no contractual, tort or other legal 8 relationship of any type with the Architect and the Architect owes - no duty of any kind to it. 3. Contractor has not acted or relied upon any express or implied representation or warranty of Architect. Architect has not established or determined the construction schedule or budget for the Project. 4. 9~ris%z-EriTei' Architect shall have no liability to Contractor for delays in the review of Shop Drawings, Product Data or Samples unless at .the commencement of the construction phase Contractor has submitted a written schedule for all Shop drawings, Product data and Samples reviews to Architect, which Architect accepted in writing and Architect intentionally failed or refused to review Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples in accordance with such schedule. Contractor shall make reasonable revisions to the schedule at the request of Architect. 5. Contractor acknowledges and agrees-that Owner and Architect shall not under. any circumstances .have any liability or responsibility to it or its subcontractors for delays in the performance of the work, ,or for any acceleration, interruption or suspension of the construction schedule or progress of .the worko nor .for any damages, expenses, losses or claims due or allegedly due to delays, interruptions, accelerations or suspensions of all or any part of the work. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and 9 and Owner hold ArchitectAharmless for any losses, expenses or claims which it incurs as a result of any claims by its subcontractors and third parties for alleged delay, interruption, acceleration or supervision of the work or contractor's schedule. 12.11 SCHEDULE The target schedule for the Project is as follows: Completion of Schematic Design Completion of Design Development Completion of Contract Documents Bidding and Contract Negotiation Start of Construction Punch List and Closeout 12.12 CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES 24 October 1989 15 January 1990 15 March 1990 15 March-16 April 1990 16 April 1990 1 Dec 1990-1 Jan 1991 1. Architect shall provide a Project Representative on site during the seven and one-half month Construction Phase in accordance with Paragraph 12.18 hereof. 2. In addition to the Project Representative, Architect and its consultants have included the following Construction Phase. observation time allowances within Basic Services. All site visits in excess of the allowances or which are made during any period of 10 construction which exceeds the originally established dated for completion of the Project, shall be considered Additional Services unless required to remedy or correct an error or omission of Architect or its consultants: Architectural Two 4-hour visits per week Structural Six 4-hour visits Mechanical. Four 4-hour visits Electrical Four 4-hour visits Elevator Two 4-hour visits Civil Four 4-hour visits Parking Two 4-hour visits Graphics Two 4-hour visits Landscape .Two 4-hour. visits 12.13 EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY As part of Basic Services, an existing condition survey, consisting of the following components will be provided: 1. Review structural drawings of the existing parking facility to determine areas that are "at risk" with regard to their potential for environmental deteriorationo 2. Perform a half-cell potentiometer survey in "at risk" areas of the concrete topping as well as on double tee stems, 11 ledger beams, and walls in area of extensive water leakage to detect possible areas of subsurface corrosion activity. 3. Perform a chain-drag survey and/or impact-echo soundings to determine general areas and quantities of delaminated concrete. 4. Sample ten areas of the concrete floor for chloride-ion contamination. Drill samples will be taken by an independent testing laboratory with the concrete dust collected at 1/2 inch increments to a depth of 2 inches. The chloride-ion content will then be profiled at each location to the 2 inch depth. 5. Sample five areas of concrete beams and/or tee stems in areas of existing water leakage and/or areas of high corrosion potential to determine the presence of chloride-ion contamination. Samples will be taken at 1/2 inch increments similar to above. 6. Determine existing concrete cover over embedded reinforcing steel with a pachometer in major areas subject to possible chloride-ion contamination. 7. Take three concrete cores on the roof level and determine the entrained air content parameters in accordance with ASTM C457 and examine petrographically in accordance with ASTM C856. 12 8. Map areas and width of existing cracks and determine nature of crack (i.e. active or inactive, structural or non- structural). 9. Examine existing control joint sealant system and determine corrective action recommended. 10. Examine existing expansion joints and determine corrective action recommended. ~11. Prepare a report illustrating the test results, sketches showing areas of recommended corrective work, recommendations concerning preventative maintenance action, and a preliminary cost estimate for this work. 12. On site survey by structural engineer to evaluate the adequacy of existing facility to accommodate the modifications contemplated by this Project. It is recognized that the results of some- or all of the components of the survey of existing conditions could impact the feasibility, cost and/or schedule for the Project as presently contemplated. 13 12.14 SPACE PLANNING AND INTERIOR DESIGN The Architect will provide space planning and interior design services for the Visitor Information center and the transit center terminal, consisting of one space plan and one revision thereto. 12.15 RECORD DRAWINGS The Architect will prepare a set of reproducible record drawings showing significant changes in the work made during construction based on marked-up prints, drawings, and other data furnished by the Contractor to the Architect. 12.16 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETINGS The Architect will attend one preliminary meeting and two design review meetings with the Vail Design Review Board. All meetings with the Design Review Board in excess of this allowance will be considered Additional Services. 12.17 BASIC SERVICES REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES A lump sum payment of $25,000 for reimbursable expenses is included within the stipulated lump sum fee to the Architect and is based upon the scope of Basic Services as set forth herein and 14 includes the following categories of reimbursable expenses to be incurred by the Architect in the interest of the Project: 1. Long distance communications 2. Postage 3. Mileage between Denver and Vail for the site visits, meetings and other in state travel for Basic Services. 4. Reproduction for Owner As Follows: a. Six (6) sets of prints of Schematic Design b. Fifteen (15) sets of prints of Design Development c. Two sets of prints of Construction Documents, plus one set of reproducible mylars for printing of Construction Documents for bidding. .d. Two sets of prints, plus one set of reproducible mylars, or .addendum issued during Bidding. Owner shall compensate Architect for any reimbursable expenses incurred ,for the Project incurred in connection with any Additional Services. Owner shall also reimburse Architect for any expenses incurred by it in the :interests of the Project which are not specifically included in the lump sum such as out of state travel, expenses of renderings, models or mock-ups, additional insurance and computer-aided design or drafting.. To the extent reasonably possible, Architect shall advise Owner of any reimbursable expenses which are not included in the lump sum prior to incurring such expenses. 15 The Owner shall provide housing or a housing allowance for the Architect's Project Representative in a location- reasonably convenient to the Project during the term of the Project. In the event that the Owner is unable to provide housing or a direct housing allowance to the Project Representative, the costs of living accommodations in the Vail area incurred by Architect for the Project Representative shall be reimbursed by the Owner. Not to exceed $5,000. 16 12.18 DUTIES, RESPONSlB1LITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARCHITECT'S PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE AIA DOCUMENT 8352 Recommended as an Exhibit DVhen an Architect's Project Representative is fmp(oyed 1. GENERAL 1.1 The Architect and the Architect's Project Represen- tative have authority to act on behalf of the Owner only to the extent provided in contractual agreements to which the Architect is a party. The Project Representative shall confer with the Architect at intervals and on occasions appropriate to the stage of construction. The Project Rep- resentative shall communicate with the Owner through, or as directed by, the Architect; and shall not communi- cate with Subcontractors unless authorized by the Con- tractor and the Architect. 2. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2.1 Observe the progress and quality of the Work as is reasonably necessary at that stage of construction to de- termine in general that it is proceeding in accordance -vith the Contract Documents. Notify the Architect immediately if, in the Project Representative's opinion, Work does not conform to the Contract Documents or requires special inspection or testing. 2.2 Monitor the construction schedule and report to the Architect conditions which may cause delay in comple- tion. 2.3 Review Contract Documents with the Contractors superintendent. Obtain necessary interpretations from the Architect and transmit them to the Contractor. 2.4 Consider the Contractors suggestions and recom- mendations, evaluate them and submit.them, with recom- mendations, to the Architect for a final decision. 25 Attend meetings as directed by the Architect and report to the Architect on the proceedings. 2.6 Observe tests required by the Contract Documents. Record and report to the Architect on tese. procedures and, where applicable, the results. Verify testing invoices to be paid by the Owner. 2.7 Maintain records at the construction site in an or- derly manner. Include correspondence, Contract Docu- ments, Change Orders, Construction Change Authoriza- tions, Architect's Supplemental Instructions, reports of site conferences, lahop Drawings, Product Data, Samples, supplementary drawings, color schedules, requests for payment, and names and addresses of contractors, sub- contractors and principal material suppliers. 2.8 Keep a diary or log book recording the Project Rep- resentative's time and activities related to the Project, weather conditions, nature and location of Work being performed, verbal instructions and interpretations given to the Contractor, and specific observations: Record any oc- currence or Work that might result in a claim for a change in Contract Sum or Contract Time. Maintain a list of visitors, their titles, and time and purpose of their visit. 2.9 Assist the Architect in reviewing Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples. Notify the Architect if any portion of the Work requiring Shop Drawings, Product Data or Samples is commenced before such submittals have been approved by the Architect. Receive and log Samples which are required to be furnished at the site, notify the Architect when they are ready for examination, and record the Architect's approval or other action. A1ain- tain custody of approved Samples. 2.10 Observe the Contractor's Record Drawings at in- tervals appropriate to the stage of construction and notify the Architect of any apparent failure by the Contractor to maintain up-to-date records. 2.11 Review Applications for Payment submitted by the Contractor and forward them to the Architect with recom- mendations for disposition. 2.12 Review the list of items to be completed or cor- rected which is submitted by the Contractor with a re- quest for issuance of a Certificate of Substantial Comple- tion. Inspect the Work and if the list is accurate, forward it to the Architect for Tina( disposition; if not, so advise the Architect, and return the list to the Contractor for correction. 2.13 Review and report to the Architect on conditions of the portions of the Project being occupied or utilized by the Owner or separate contractors, to minimize the pos- sibility of claims for damages. 2.14 Assist the Architect in final inspection of the Work. Receive from the Contractor and prepare for transmittal to the Owner the documentation the Contractor is re- quired to furnish at the completion of the Work. 3. LIMITATIONS OF AUTHORITY The Project Representative shalt NOT: 3.1 Authorize deviations from the Contract Documents. 3.2 Approve substitute materials or equipment except as authorized in writing by the Architect. 3.3 Personally conduct or participate in tests or third party inspections except as authorized in writing by the Architect. 3.4 Assume any of the responsibilities of the Contractor's superintendene or of Subcontractors. 3.5 Expedite the Work for the Contractor. 3.6 Advise on, or issue directions concerning, aspects of construction means, methods, techniques, sequenees or procedures, or safety precautions and programs in con- nection with the Work. 3.7 Authorize or suggest that the Owner occupy the Project in whole or part.. 3.B Issue a Certificate for Payment or Certificate of Sub- stantial Completion. 3.9 Prepare or certify to the preparation of Record Draw- ings. 3.10 Reject Work or require special inspection or testing except as authorized in writing by the Architect. 3.71 Order the Contractor to stop the Work or any por- lion thereof. AIA DOCUMENT B3S2 • ARCHITECT'S PROTECT REPRESENTATIVE MAY 1979 EDITION • AIAA . m 1979 THE AMERIUN INSTITUTE OP ARCHITECTS, 1735 NE1V YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. X006 6352 - 1979 ADDENDUM TO OWNER ARCHITECT AGREEMENT FOR VAIL VILLAGE TRANSPORTATION CENTER OWNER AND ARCHITECT AGREE THAT THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO THE TERMS AND AGREEMENTS SET FORTH IN THAT CERTAIN OWNER ARCHITECT AGREEMENT BETWEEN MICHAEL BARBER ARCHITECTURE, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AND THE TOWN OF VAIL COLORADO, DATED AS OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1989. TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS ANY INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THIS ADDENDUM AND THE BASIC AGREEMENT WHICH CAN NOT BE RECONCILED, THIS ADDENDUM SHALL GOVERN. ARTICLE 1. BASIC SERVICES 1.1 .QUALIFICATION AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1.1.1 .The Architect may cause any portion of the Basic Services and Additional Services hereunder to be performed by other engineers or consultants retained by Architect and approved by Owner. 1.1.2 The services shall be .performed by Architect or by engineers and/or consultants licensed or registered by the State of Colorado as required by law. 1.2 SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE 1.2.01 Upon completion o,f.the Schematic Design Phase; Architec t shall: 1 1. Provide all appropriate reviewing agencies with copies of all drawings and such other documents as may reasonably be required. 1.2.2 The Architect shall also prepare and submit to Owner a written report, in written and/or graphic form, setting forth the following: 1. .Analysis of the Project as it relates to applicable codes; 2. Scope of Site Development 1.2.3 The Architect shall be required to discuss the Schematics with Owner and Owner's Team, and make all changes thereto requested by Owner within the general scope of the Project, and submit to Owner for its approval, all other information which Owner, in its judgment, may reasonably require of Architect in order to determine whether to proceed with Project. 1.3 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 1.:3.1 I1pon completion of the Design Development Phase, Architect shall: 2 1. Provide all appropriate reviewing agencies with copies of'all drawings and such other documents as may reasonably be required: 1.3.2 .Should the Architect deviate from any applicable codes, regulations, laws or ordinances, without written authorization to do so from Owner, then it shall at its own expense make such corrections in the Construction Documents as may be necessary for compliance. 1.4 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE 1.4.1 .Throughout the progress of the Construction Documents Phase, Architect shall provide. Owner with copies of all materials,. documents, and studies reasonably necessary to permit Owner to monitor, review, give input to and any necessary approvals of, the work in-progress and any completed components thereof. 3.4.2 'The Construction Documents, when submitted for approval, shall include: 3. Complete bidding documents including, architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical specifications. .The format for these technical specifications shall be the latest edition of "The CSI Format for Construction Specification" published by the 3 Construction Specification Institute as modified by Architect with the written approval of Owner; 2. The title sheet shall contain the U.B.C. occupancy type, construction type, gross square footage and net square footage; and 3. Be of sufficient detail to allow the contractor(s) for construction hereinafter refereed to as "Construction Contractor(s)" to enter into an agreement(s) for the execution of the Work based on a Lump Sum Price. 1.4.3 The Architect and it's consultants shall affix their professional stamps to the "Permit Set" of construction documents in accordance with the requirements of the appropriate governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the issuance of construction permits for the Project in accordance with applicable statutes, rules and regulations governing the use of such stamps. 1.5 BIDDING AND NEGOTIATION PHASE 1.5.1. In cooperation with Owner, Architect shall attend any prebid conferences with prospective bidders for the purpose of familiarizing potential bidders with the general scope of the project, the bidding documents and requirements of the Project including an explanation, if applicable, of any materials pre- 4 ordered by Owner, any unique or special materials or methods to be incorporated in the project, and other aspects of the Project. 1.5.2 At any time, until three (3) days prior to the last day on which bids may be submitted, Architect shall respond to all questions asked in good faith by potential bidders, maintain a written log of these questions and review the same with Owner. The Architect shall prepare for issuance by Owner, responses to questions in the form of written interpretations and clarifications of the Drawings and Specifications which may consist of alternates, addenda, amendments and/or supplementary drawings required in connection with the bidding process, which shall be issued to all potential bidders. No such documents shall be issued during the three (3) days preceding the last day on F~hich bids may be submitted, unless specifically authorized by Owner. 1.5.3 Upon request by Owner, Architect shall assist Owner in analyzing bids, and making recommendations to Owner with respect to the rejections of bids. and/or .the awarding of contracts to proposed Construction Contractor(s) and subcontractor(s). 1.5.4 The Architect shall assist Owr~~r in conducting pre-award conferences with .successful bidders 5 1.6 CONSTRUCTION PHASE CONTRACTORS 1.6.1 The Architect shall keep accurate accounts with respect to its observations of the work on the Project, prepare appropriate written reports thereof, and promptly submit copies of the same to Owner. In the course of it's observations, the Architect shall exercise due diligence to safeguard Owner against defects, deficiencies, and noncompliance with the Contract Documents, in accordance with it's observations. 1.6.2 The Owner may also have a representative observing the Project and its progress. Nothing contained herein shall in any way relieve Architect of its responsibilities for contract administration as described in this Agreement. 1.6.3 The Architect's Representative shall attend weekly or periodic job progress meetings. Architect shall cause its appropriate engineers and consultants to attend periodic job progress meetings with Owner and representatives of Construction Contractor(s) and .attend such other meetings as Owner may reasonably request in connection with the Project, subject to the terms of this Agreement. 6 ARTICLE 2. TIME 2.1 SCHEDULE 2.1.1 The Architect shall perform all Basic and Additional Services as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Project. Architect and Owner agree that time is of the essence with respect to the Architect's performance of it's obligations hereunder, except that Architect shall not be responsible for acts, omissions,. circumstances or delays beyond it's reasonable control. 2.2 ARCHITECT'S PROGRESS SCHEDULE 2.2.1 The Architect shall prepare and submit for Owner's approval, an Architect's Progress Schedule for the performance of Architect's services, which shall: 1. Contain a level of detail reasonably acceptable to Owner showing the different design elements of the Project and the Target Completion dates for each of them; " 2. The dates for bidding, reviewing of bids and awarding of contracts to the Construction Contractor(s); and 3. Reasonable allowances of .time for Owner's review and approval of submissions, and for approvals of authorities having 7 jurisdiction over the Project, such as the Vail Council, Vail Design Review Board and other such agencies or boards. ARTICLE 3. COMPENSATION 3.1 BILLINGS 3.1.1 Architect shall submit to Owner, an Application for Payment on or before the first day of each month for Basic Services performed during the preceding month and shall be in proportion to services performed within each phase of services. 3.1.2 All monthly billings shall also include all charges for any Additional Services and Reimbursable expenses due Architect, and Owner's obligations to make payment on account thereof shall be subject to the same restrictions as are applicable to the compensation for Basic Services. 3.1.3 Each Application for Payment shall be accompanied by valid lien waivers executed and notarized by Architect and all of its engineers and consultants, waiving all lien rights for sums paid for the preceding Application for Payment. 8 3.2 PAYMENT TO ENGINEERS 3.2.1 Architect shall promptly pay to its engineers and consultants, the appropriate sums due each such engineer and consultant under their respective agreements with Architect. If a lien is filed against the Project or any portion thereof, by any of Architect's engineers or consultants, Architect shall promptly cause such lien to be discharged of record by payment, bonding or otherwise. If Architect shall fail or refuse to discharge any such lien within twenty (20) days after notice of the filing thereof from Owner, the same may be paid or otherwise discharged by Owner, at Architect's expense, and all sums expended and expenses incurred by Owner in connection therewith (including Owner's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) at Owner's election, either shall be (a) paid by Architect to Owner on demand, or (b) offset and withheld from any amounts payable hereunder to Architect. 3.3 FINAL PAYMENT 3.3.1 The acceptance by Architect of final payment under this Agreement, or any final payment due on earlier termination of this Agreement, shall constitute a full and complete release of Owner from any and al.l claims, demands, and causes of action whatsoever which Architect, its successors and duly approved assignees, its engineers and consultants, have or may have against Owner for compensation due under the terms of this .Agreement. 9 3.4 CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT 3.4.1 Financial obligations of Owner payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for the purpose being appropriated, budgeted, and otherwise made available. 3.4.2 In accordance with the conditions imposed in the appropriation authorizing the construction of the Project herein contemplated, the total for all architectural, engineering and consulting services and all sums otherwise due Architect as set forth throughout this Agreement are expressly subject to the foregoing limitations, and nothing herein contained shall be construed or understood to commit Owner to a total expense greater than that which is provided in the appropriation. Further, no funds appropriated for any other purpose shall be expended for such services or other sums due. 3.4.3 It is expressly understood that the Owner may terminate this Agreement and have no further financial obligation to Architect or it's consultants in the event that the Project is determined by .Owner to be financially unfeasible or not capable of being funded in a manner acceptable. to the Owner, except that in the event of such termination, Owner shall be obligated to pay Architect. and it's consultants for all services and reimbursable expenses incurred prior to the termination. 10 9 ARTICLE 4. INSURANCE 4.1 ARCHITECT'S LIABILITY INSURANCE 4.1.1 With respect to any additional insurance which the Architect may be required to obtain by Owner, Architect shall purchase and,~to the extent reasonably practical from an economic standpoint,ishall maintain in a company or companies authorized to do business in the State of Colorado and with an AM Best Rating of A+, such insurance as will protect it from the claims set forth below which may arise out of or result from Architect's operations under this Agreement, whether such operations be by itself or by any of its consultants or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them, or by anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable: 1. Claims under workers' or workmen's compensation, disability benefit or other similar employee benefit acts which are applicable to the services to be performed; 2e Claims for damages because of bodily injury, occupational sickness. or disease,. or death of Architect's employees; 11 3. Claims for damages because of bodily injury, sickness or disease or death of any person other than Architect's employees; 4. Claims for damages insured by usual personal injury liability coverage which are sustained (1) by any person as a result of an offense directly or indirectly related to the employment of such person by Architect or (2) by another person; 5. Claims for damages, other than to the Work itself, because of injury to or destruction of tangible property, including loss of use resulting therefrom; and 6. Claims for damages because of bodily injury or death of any person or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of any motor vehicle. 4.1.2 The Architect's Comprehensive General and Automobile Liability Insurance shall be written for not less than limits of liability as follows: a) Comprehensive General Liability 1. Bodily Injury $1,000,OOOeach occurrence $1,000,000 annual aggregate 12 • 2. Property Damage $ 500,000 each occurrence $ 500,000 annual aggregate b) Comprehensive Automobile Liability 1. Bodily Injury $1,000,000 each person $1,000,OOOeach occurrence 2. Property Damage $ 500,000 each occurrence 4.1.3 Comprehensive General Liability Insurance may be arranged under a single policy for the full limits required or by a combination of underlying policies with the balance provided by an Excess or Umbrella Liability policy. 4,1.4 The Architect shall promptly advise Owner in the event the annual aggregate requirements are reduced for any reason, and furnish to Owner, a new certificate of insurance showing such coverages to be in force, to the extent available and consistent with reasonable economic principles for Architect. 4.2 WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE 4.2.1 Evidence of such insurance shall be by the issuance of either a Certificate of Owner Compensation Insurance Fund or, if 13 a ~~ issued by a private carrier, the completion of a Certificate of Insurance in a form acceptable to Owner. 4.2.2 The Architect shall also require each of its engineers and consultants to furnish `to it, Workers' Compensation Insurance, including occupational disease provisions, for all of the latter's employees. employees. 4.2.3 The Architect shall furnish Owner an appropriate certificate, including any endorsements directly relating to this Project, identifying Architect's Professional Liability Insurance Coverage and stipulating amounts of coverage and deductible. 4.2.4 If Owner, on review of the policy stipulations including monetary limits, requires Architect to modify the current terms or limits beyond those set forth in paragraph 4.2.1 and 12.1, Architect's compensation will be increased by the premium difference caused by the change and similarly increased on every policy and anniversary thereafter until completion of the Project or on reversion to the original terms should this occur prior to Final Completion. 14 -~; Siv .. 4.3 CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE 4.3.1 Completed certificates of insurance, in forms reasonably acceptable to Owner, showing all such coverages to be in force shall be filed with Owner. 15 WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP TOPIC U 8/1 BANNER POLES IN THE VILLAGE AND LIONSHEAD-(request:. Slevin) 8/1 STREET ENTERTAINMENT 8/8 UTILITIES UNDERGROUNDING FOR ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 8/8 WEST INTERMOUNTAIN ANNEXATION (request: Lapin) 8/15 UVCWD/TOV LAND CONTRACT 8/15 NO SMOKING ORDINANCE 9/5 CALL UP PROCEDURE FOR PEC AND DRB DECISIONS (request: Steinberg) 10/17 UVF FINANCIAL REPORT 11/7 SURVEY CREW BUDGET ITEM (request: Steinberg/Rose) PETER: Arrange location and placement of permanent banner poles at any. location other. than Pepi's and in Lionshead. PAM: No more rack 'n roll. Perhaps no more jazz? KRISTAN: Provide costs to individuals to convert to underground. Provide firm number for TOV's portion by budget time. Inventory all above- ground wiring. LARRY: Proceeding w/legal requirements for annexation. RON: Contract in final stages of negotiation. LARRY/SUSAN: Organize study group to examine voluntary options. LARRY/PETER: Work out warding to disallow the call up procedure for PEC and DRB decisions to be allowed without consensus. RON: Request financial report from VVF. STAN/STEVE: Bring back survey crew issue before hiring. 1/12/90 Page 1 OW-UP SOLUTIONS Ampersand has photo study for banner poles completed. Meeting with consultant held Jan. 11. Stan will present design to Lionshead Merchants Association. Review meeting held September 20. Business survey mailed 12/19/89. Available at front desk, now through 1/20/90. Report on results expected in mid-February. Received letter from New Electric detailing costs for each property. Community Development will write letters to property owners for their response. Council will discuss when we have a response. AMOCO has agreed to participate in writing. Annexation map is being produced. Susan has completed research and submitted updated plats to Dan Corcoran. 'Discuss annexing Interstate. Meet with petition circulators by Feb. 1. Larry and Jim Collins are working. on contract. Kent Rose met with UVCWD Board on Dec. 21 and final contract is being drafted. Group to include Safeway and other retail outlets in their scrutiny. Draft ordinance for public places other than restaurants has been done by Susan and she is waiting for Larry's review. Resolution is being developed. Larry and Peter will have a solution by Jan. 19. 'Received financial statements.. Will discuss with Merv. Second staff discussion held Dec. 21. Wi11 be discussed with Council on Jan. 16. 11/14 SALES TAX FOR FUND RAISING ISTEUE/DANI: Bring back to Council for moreWill be discussed Feb. 6. EVENTS FOR NON-PROFIT ENTITIES discussion. WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP 1/12/90 TOPIC UESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS P 12/5 COUNCIL COMPENSATION LARRY/RON: Explore possibilities for raising Report to Council by early Feb. compensation of Councilmembers. 12/5 LOCALIZED TOWN MEETINGS RON: Time is opportune to call neighborhood, local To be discussed by Council at goal setting session on Jan. (request: Gibson) ized, limited agenda public meetings. Orchestra a 30. West Vail breakfast meeting scheduled for Feb. 7. same. '1 will discuss in goal setting session Jan. 30. (request: James Johnson) citizens in the TOV. 12/5 TIME PARAMETERS FOR COUNCIL LARRY: Define time procedure for conduct of Larry is preparing to present to Council. MEETINGS (request: Rose) meetings. 12/5 TASK FORCE ON HOUSING (request: RON/CHARLIE: Discuss county-wide task force. Council, PEC will meet with Rosall, Remmen & Cares on Jan. 16 Gibson) Develop formal charge and review possibility of to further refine the scope of services. TOV taking lead role. 12/12 TOU HEALTH INSURANCE (request: Lapin) 12/12 CONFUSING STREET NAMES (request: Lapin) 12/12 SKIER SAFETY ACT (request: Rose) 12/12 EXPANSION OF FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES (request: Lapin) 12/19 2:00 A.M. BUSES CHARLIE/CATHIE: Provide bid figures for single & Charlie will complete a detailed anaylsis with explanations married benefits/coverage to support Lincoln Jan. 16. National's selection (detail on permanent dis- ability, short-term, life insurance, etc.) STAN/DICK/PETER/KEN: Although it is a complex and Will be discussed at Interdepartmental Jan. 15. A memo emotional process, should we consider renaming will be given to Council with staff's recommendations. confusing streets? I.E., East/West Meadow Drive, etc. BUCK/LARRY/KEN: Contact Brian McCartney regarding ~ Internal meeting will take place. Item will be discussed at implementing the SAA within TOV limits (outside a future Council Wark Session. of Forest Service areas) to enable violations to be handled in Municipal Court. RON/DICK: At what point does the TOV need to consider its present fire protection system/ facilities and expansion of those? Research and analysis of requirements being developed. Will discuss recommended steps with Council Jan. 23. STAN: If staff levels return to normal, attempt to transportation for late night workers. We are currently 4 bus drivers down. We are unable at this rime to imnlcmcn+ additional service but we are still recruiting. Will shoot for implementing in February. TOPIC WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP ESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 1/12/90 1/10 UTRC DEDUCTS STAN: Prepare background information so Council ma Wili be done at Jan. 16 joint meeting with PEC. prioritize order of inclusion following bid process. t MEMORANDUM T0: Town Council FROM: Ron Philli p DATE: January 11, 1990 SUBJECT: Proposed Constitutional Amendment on Open Meetings The Colorado Press Association is proposing to initiate an amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Colorado Constitution dealing with open meetings of public bodies in Colorado. A copy of the proposed amendment is attached along with comments developed by the Colorado Municipal League. The comments were shared in writing with the Colorado Press Association, but only the first comment changing "two or more members" to "three or more members or a quorum, whichever is less," was made a part of the final draft of the proposed amendment. The Colorado Municipal League Board of Directors and other associations of public bodies throughout Colorado are concerned about this proposed amendment. It has been drawn up by the Colorado Press Association with very little input from the public bodies it affects and, if put on the ballot and approved by the voters, will become a very onerous procedural problem for public bodies throughout the state. Even the Board of Directors of Common Cause has concerns about many of the provisions of this proposed amendment. There are many problems with the proposed amendment, but a couple of the worst are: 1. The way the proposed amendment is drafted, it could be construed that this proposal would apply to all administrative meetings within public bodies such as staff meetings. 2. The most critical aspect of the proposed amendment to many of us in municipal government is the fact that it would remove the historical powers of Home Rule municipalities to set their own rules in this area by Charter. Home Rule powers have been defended many times over the years and have been upheld repeatedly in court cases throughout the country, and these powers should not be affected detrimentally by an end run Constitutional amendment dealing with open meetings. This information is being provided to help keep you up to speed on this issue. We can discuss it further in a Council Work Session if you so desire. RVP/bsc cc: Department Heads Colorado Municipal League ~' ~ ~~ - _ DEC Z 1 ~~8.. ~ ROPbSED AMENDMENT TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS -~ v OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION •. ~: .-_ _ IE`is declared to be a matter of statewide concern and the policy of this state that the formation and implementation of policy by public bodies is public business and may not be '• conducted'in secret. 'All~tneetings of a quorum or three or more members, whichever is less, of every public body at which public business is discussed or formal action may be taken are open to the public at all times acid shall be held only after full and timely notice to the public. A~ meeting is any kind of gathering whatsoever, regardless of whether convened in .. person, by telephone, or through other means of communication. A public body is any board, committee, commission, or ocher policy-making, rule-mak- ing, or decision-making body of any state agency, authority, institution, Institution of higher edu- cationincluding the Regents of the University of Colorado, or of the General Assembly, or of any political subdivision of the state, including, but not limited to, any county, city, city and county, town,:homc rule county, home rule city, school district and special district, or of any other public or private body that a governmental enriry has authorized to perform a public function or to spend public funds. The.General Assembly may enact laws to permit any public body to conduct a closed ses- Sion only when: (a) disclosure of the information being discussed would constitute an invasion of the constitutional right to privacy of an individual; (b) the information being discussed is required to be kept contadendal by Federal law; (c) discussing strategy in preparation for labor negotiations or negotiations for purchase of rcal P.T~Penyl (d) consulting an attorney representing the public body with respect to pending litigation; (e) disclosure of the information being discussed would compromise security measures necessary to prevent violation of law. .(f) discussing the condition of a bank or other financial institution and disclosure of the information being discussed would cause substantial harm to the public interest. Closed sessions authorized by the General Assembly shall be held only upon atwo-thirds vote of the entire membership of the public body, taken at a regular or special meeting, and only after prior announcement of the nature of the business to be discussed. No final action shall be taken in any session not open to the public. All county courts and district couru of this state shall have jurisdiction to issue injunctions to enforcc the purposes of this Section upon application by any person. In any action in which the court finds a violation of this section, the coup shall award the plaintiff costs and reasonable at- torney fees. This Section shall not apply to the Judicial Department established under Article VI of this Constitution. All existing legislation or charter provisions of any public body that limits or bars public acccss to any mccting arc hereby deciared~void and of no further effect. Effcctivc daft: July 1, 1991 For information: Sandra Eid or Manic Thomas, X71-5117 Pagc 1/12!21/89 ~~%~~/~l .. C'O~nm~nrS on U~~%y ~•~lror~S rl/i-u(/-Tel/ulr°P /"r~e~/a~~?!~~/ Chan •- or more members" to "three or more • r a quorum,.;-whicheve Ass." (A chanrr needed so as to r / exclude conversations bet;-re officials ;rho do not ~~rfPCIPCf c.on~stitute a uoru q erc~~ise, violate the amendment will be asive or "one on one" conversations-~il_1 be Change "at ;which public business is discussed or formal action may betaken" to "at c~rhich public business is discussed -and formal action may be taken." !A change is suggested to prevent the amendment from being overly broad. Otherarise, e~ren conversation at a social event would be illegal.) Limit the prior "full and timely notice" reauirement to "meetings ;where for:~al action occurs or where a majorit•/ or quorum of the body is in attendance." (j~~ithout this revision the amendment will impose impractical and burdensome prior notice requirements on all conversaticns bets-Teen t;-ro or more officials >>here "public business is discussed" even though no ' gove~rr_mental action can or gill occur. ) Clarify t.1at statq ar.d local e:;ecutive and staff ager.c~es ~;re not, public bodies ;~rh~ch are covered by the amendment. (The def-niticn of public body -- particularly the inclusion of "decision-making body" and the specific exclusion of the Judicial Depart:~ent -- imply that e.;ecutive and administrative agencies of state aP.d lOCal government are subject to the prior notice and open meetings requirements. Language needs to ,be added clarif_~incr that executive and administrative agencies of state and local government are not covered.) w,~/~11boi7~/~~"i.S~/AC~f, CI NU Lf'CPmIX~G' (!~~(l ~S Change "t*.~ro-thirds vote of the entire membership of the public body" to "t;•ro-thirds of the members present". (Often, because of vacancies or absences,, the goy;erasing body is unable to achieve a vote of two-thirds of its entire membership.) Clarify and expand t!:e tiersanr.el exemption which is limited to situations ;There the "disclosuLe of the information being discussed would constitute a clearly un;•rarranted invasion of the personal right to pri:~acv of an individual." (The exclusion is exceedingly unclear and apparently very narrocv in scope. It should be re;ar~tten to alloor excluding of discussions of such aersonnel ,;utters as appointment or employment, dismissal, discipline, evaluation,- promotion, ~ demotion, or compensation o~ ~uLlic officials or employees as s~rell as the investigation of :;;ar:;~s or complaints against public of~icials or emploYre?s. 7ccountability and productivity in t:~e public sector ;rill be difficult to achieve ;rithout a realistic exclusion of Personnel matters. Internal investigations and response thereto by public entities mill also be impaired.) `~ ~ .- " Clarify and expand the labor negotiations exclusion. {The exclusion is ambiguous and possibly too narrow to ensure that the public and ta:~payers are not placed~at a disadvantage. L-a~n~.uag-e similar to that contained in the current local government open meetings law is suc:,ested to cover discussions - f.or- the purpose of determining a governing body's position relative to issues that may be subject to negotiation., to receive reports -on negotiations' develop sttate ~ Progress and status, to gy, and to instruc~ negotiators.) '` Clarify and expand the purchase of real estate exclusion to cover acquisition and disposition of real estate. (The allowed exemption is too narroc-~. By mentioning only "purchase" of real estate, leasing by or to a public entit•r apparently c-could be excluded as would "sales" of real estate by a public entity. 2leaotiation of settlements in condemnation proceedings might also not be excluded. suggested language c•JOUl~.-. cover "conveyance by Or t0 d pL:;~ll:', eP.tity Or the condemnation by a public entity.°} '` Clarify and e::pand the attorneT -olio 1 nt exemption. (Limit~nq • the exempti Cn t0 "pending ? 1tiG'3ti0:1' ;IOUId seem t0 e:;C~ "` . "1mm1nel7t' Or thre~t2ned` 1 i ~ - .:u . ~ ~ _ ~igat_on as cJell as deprive the litigat-~~a,~ ~ 'egai acvice re__tive to avoidi^g s~.. won e prcblam could b~ 3VOlued by deleting ~'~ +~, ~:: respect to pending litigation" or changing it to "with respect to pending legal -sues.") ~,dd e:~clusion r_i~ting to :^.egotiation of contracts other t..an real estate and labor relations contracts cJhich are covered elsecdl-ier°_. (~`"-OT%?r^.^,lent.: ?nter i.^.t0 a Slide Variety Oi contracts ;;hick do not involve real estate or labor relations. ~:~amples include construction contracts and contracts for purchase of goods or services. t•Tithout the ability to disc;:ss terms and negotiations in private, the public entity and its taxpayers are at a disadvantage. town al rai 75 south frontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 479-2113 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Rose Vail Town Council FROM: Charlie Wick <<~.'~ DATE: January 12, 1990 RE: Town of Vail Employee Health Insurance - Per Merv Lapin's Request Attached are two comparative analyses which were completed for the Town by our insurance benefit consultant from our recent bid process for employee medical insurance. The spread sheet contains information relating to the six A+ Insurance Companies which responded to our bid request (eight companies declined to bid) . The second handout relates to the 1990 cash flow projections relating to each of the six bids. Lincoln National was the company selected for the Town's health insurance. Following are some of the pertinent facts relating to the bid process and the selection of Lincoln National. o Companies Pre-qualification: An A+ rating o There is a limited marketplace for health providers for municipal employees. Reasons: A. Many companies do not want to .underwrite police and fire employees. B. Many A+ companies have recently left the health insurance underwriting business because of its volatility. HEALTH INSURANCE MEMO JANUARY 12, 1990 PAGE 2 o Fourteen companies were interested in receiving bid packages. o The bids were prepared on a Co-sharing or Co-payment basis. o Through the bid process, try to maintain a process for apples-to-apples comparison although difficult as companies have different programs and variations to those. o Top three bids were Lincoln National, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and Pacific Mutual. Reasons Blue Cross/Blue Shield was not selected: 1. Higher annual retention after factoring in the one-time 15% retention discount. 2. Does not have an established PPO program. 3. The terminal liability account to be established is non-refundable. 4. Cash flow analysis was not in their favor. Reasons Pacific Mutual was not selected: 1. Open ended retention schedule. 2. On paper, there is a lower annual retention rate even after factoring in the one-time 25% retention discount. However, there is a much higher risk imposed on the claim liability. Also, the open ended retention schedule makes it difficult to compare costs evenly. 3. The Town used to have its dental insurance with Pacific Mutual and our service experience was poor. 4. PPO program in the metro area is not as good as Lincoln's. 5. Cash flow analysis was not in their favor. HEALTH INSURANCE MEMO JANUARY 12, 1990 PAGE 3 Not only did Lincoln come out on top after the comparative analysis, there were several other factors which entered into my decision when selecting Lincoln National. They were: 1. Overall, an outstanding claims service history. Excellent service is important to maintain responsiveness and credibility of the program with employees as well as to maintain a good client relationship with the many medical providers our employees and the Town work with. 2. Administrative costs associated with getting Lincoln's PPO program established in our organization and among Eagle County pharmaceuticals in 1990 and not having to repeat that time and cost. 3. Administrative and employee cost associated with a change-over of this magnitude. o Employee education process o New enrollment process o Administrative and employee re-training process o Our time and the medical provider's time in switching the Town's account to a new insurance company. CRW/ds cc: Ron Phillips TOWN OF VAIL GROUP IIfE, HERLTH AND DENTAL GROUP INSURANCE PREPARED: I1-Nov-B9 1991 CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ASSUMES USING 518 OF LINCOLN TERMINAL lIABIIITY FOR THE MINIMUM ILLUSTRATION NO tIAIMS CLAIMS AT lJl TO 12J31 MAX LIABILITY lINC01M MINIMUM .MAXIMUM RETENTION 399,143.92 299,143.92 CIAINS 31.11 ;396,156.24 TERMINAL lIABIIITY =1.81 31.1! LINCOLN TERM CHARGE 31.11 38./1 TOTAL 399,143.92. ;495,21/.16 GREAT-WEST MINIMUM MAXIMUM RETENTION 3124,739.52 3124,739.52 CLAIMS 31.11 3356,478.48 TERMINAL LLABIIITY 3131,643.88 3131,843.86 LINCOLN TERM CHARGE (371,185.12) 3142,31.1.15 TOTpI 3185,398.38 3755,431.93 BCJBS MINIMUM MAXIMUM RETENTION 395,213.28 395,213.28 CIAINS 31.11 3368,312.56 TERMINAL lIABIIITY 3111,115.34 3111,115.34 LINCOLN TERM CHARGE (371,165.12) 3142,371./5 TOTAL. 3125,143.61 371.6,911.23 NOME LIFE MININUN MAXIMUM RETENTION ;138,532.16 1138,532.18 CIAINS ;1.11 1411,351.56 TERMINAL IIABIIITY 198,618.88 198,618.81 LINCOLN TERM CHARGE , (111,185.82) ;142,311.15 TOTAL 1165,955.86 ;186,861.49 PACIFIC MUTUAL MINIMUM MAXIMUM RETENTION ;83,168.96 183,161.96 CIAINS ;8.11 =463,152.96 TERMINRI IIABIIITY 1126,852.56 1125,152.56 LINCOLN TERM CHARGE (=11,185.82) 1142,371.15 TOTAL 1138,828.58. ;814,136.53 PRINCIPAL MUTUAL MININUN MAXIMUM RETENTION 1118,969.84 1118,969.84 CIAINS 18.88 1291,428.64 TERMINAL LIABILITY 192,542.87 192,542.81 LINCOLN TERM CHARGE (111,185.12) 1142,378.85 TOTRI 1138,326.89 .1635,311.68 SUMMARY AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED, LOW CLAIM LIABILITY IN THE FIRST YEAR WITH R NEW CARRIER IS NOT NECESSARILY A 600D DERI. IF YOU HAVE A GOOD YEAR AND DO NOT E%CEED YOUR _ MAXIMUM CLAIM LIRBIIITY, IT IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE. IF YOU HAVE A BAD YEAR, YOUR- OUTLAY IS LIMITED TO MA%IMUM CLAIM LIABILITY FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, BUT THE CARRIER Wlll HAVE TO RAISE LIABILITY FOR THE COMING YEAR FOR E%PECTED CLAIMS ANR DEFICIT RECOVERY. SINCE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO CHANGE CARRIERS EVERY YERR, YOU EVENTUALLY END UP PAYING THE COST OF YOUR PLAN ANYWAY. ADDITIONALLY, DON°T FORGET THAT CLAIM IIABLIITY IS AIWpYS DISCOUNTED THE FIRST YEAR REC06NIZIN6 CLAIM LA6 WHEN CHANGING CARRIERS. RETENTION IS ALSO DISCOUNTED BY SOME CARRIERS IN THE FIRST YEAR REFLECTING LOWER COST OF PAYING CLAIMS. GONPRNY; TOWN OF URII RDORESS; 15 SO UTH FRONTROE RORD CONTRCT; CHRRIIE WICK( CRTNIE JRRNOT VRII, CO 81658 TEIEPNONE; 1-513-6114 FAX 1-414-2151 VOLUME; IN TOTRI IN TOTRI IN EIIOIBIE IN ELIOIBIE COMPOSITE 162 EMP 1@@ DEP fRCE RMOUNT BENEFIT(WEEK NOMTNIV PRYROII PRRTICIPRNIS SPAT N(R SPOUSE SPLIT N(R GN1lD~REN) N(R 1 DEP 162 EMP I I I NRJOR MEOICRI DENTRI SPLIT NJR SPOUSE 6 CHILD{REM) M(R 2+ DEP'S I I I ICOMPRNY(RNMIV IIIFEJRD6D I IINDIVIDURI IDEDUCTIBLE(STOP LOSS IMRTERNITYISUPP ACC ICNIROPRCTI IDEDVCTIBIEjSTOP LOS S ( IRET(EMP ICLRIM(EMP ITOTRL(EMP I IPREEXISTIN6I ICONTRCT IMRXINUN ( ISTOPIOSS ICO-INSURRNCEJSTOP LOSS INURS (R68 IPCS CRRD 124 NOUR I I I IRET(DEP ICIRIN(DEP ITOTRL(DEP I IRILOWRNCE I ITEIEPHONE i (DEP LIFE I I IIIFETIME MRXIMUN IMURS (INPTIWELI CRREIUND@ISSUEI IDIR6JPREVIBRSIC INRJOR IORTHO CjRI I I I I IRRTE 6URR I (BEST'S RRTINfi IRRTE(=1@!@ I ( I I (COST CONTIUND RFTERI ICO-INS ICO-INS ICO-INS LCD-INS I IRET(MONTH ICIRIM(NOMTN ITOTRIjMONTH I ICIRIMS I ITOTRI(NONTH I 1 I IPPO RVRIIIPNYS THPYI3 MNTN C01 I I I I I IRET(YERR ICIRIM(YERR ITOTRI(YERR I ITOtI FREE t l I I I I I I I I I I 1 IIINCOIN 11(83 I=1@,@@@ I Is5@,@II 1$15@ CRIENDRR YERR(2XR) IVES _ I;5@@ Is5@8(YR I I1@@8 ICONBINED MEOICRI(DENTRL IEMPIOYEE I 21.43 I 65.11 ( 1@1.14 I I3(3(12E I (NIKE fUIK GlU Isl@,@@@ ( I IB@8 NEXT 32@@@{2XR) IVES I;38056 IMO I I IB@t I5@i I6@8 RDUITIDEPENDENTI 41.82 I 191.28 I 239.1@ I I#11@@ ( 185@-54@1 I I I 111@4 TO SI,@@@,1@@ IVES IND IMO I IyiS@@ pNNUR1 MRXINU M I~15@@ I I I I I 112 MONTHS ( IR+ I @.36@ I I I ( IYES IMO I I I I IIIFETIME I I 26,253.66 I ;33,@13,12 I #41,266.fi8 I ICO SPRINGS I I X683.2@ I I 1 IYES i~2@@@(YR IYES I I ( ( INRXIMUM I I t99,@43,92 I~396,166.24 IS495,21@.16 I IVES I I INONTNIY CEIlINB I I I IIIMITED TO (RET+CIRIN) I IOEFICIT CRRRYFORWRRD i I I I_I I WITH INTEREST REDUCED BY AMY CREDIT IN FUTURE MONTHS I i l I I I I I I ITERNINRL I I I '~ IRNNURI STOP-LOS S IIIMITED TO (RET+CIRIN)"12 (DEFICIT CRRRYFORWRRD TO NEXT YERR EMD WITN NO INTEREST(CREDIT STAYS WITH TOV WITN NO CRRRY I I I IIIRBICITY I (TERMINpI LIABIL ITY IFUIIY INSURED IIIMITED TO 28.15k Of IRST 11 MONTHS DF FRET+CIRINS)+UNUSED CURRENT CREDIT FORWRRD I I I ITOU MOLDS ( I I I I 1 I 1 I I (REFUNORBII I IREIENTION IS R1 I S0 E%PERIENCE RRTED I I I I 1x142,31@.@5 IESTIMRTEDI I I ~ I I I I I i I I I ~ I6RERT-WEST isl@,@@@ I I~5@,@@@ ISRME RS CURRENT CONTRRCTI I I I I I I I IEMPIDYEE 131.58 I 16.11 I 1@1.16 (NOTE IPR)3E(12E I IRMOY IRTTRNiI I;1@,@@8 I I )WITH LINCOLN EXCEPT ( I I I I I I I (DEPEMOENTI 52.19 I 113,61 I 226.46 I25t I$1@@B I 1839-111@ I I I ISEPRRRTE DENTRI OED- I I I I I I I I I I I I (DISCOUNT 112 MONTHS I Ip+ I @.3@@ I I IDDTIBIE I I I I I I I ( I I ;1@,394,96 I ~29,I@6.54 I ;4@,1@1.5@ (RET 6 IOENVER ( I I ;466.@@ I I (VISION IS INCLUDED IYES ( I I I I I I I I~124,139.52 I~356,418.48 I~481,218.@@ (CIRIN IYES I ~ I I I I I I I I I_I I I I I I I I I 1 I ~ INONTHLY CEIlIN6 IIIMITED T4 (RET+CIRIN) (DEFICIT CRRRYFORWRRD .WITN MO INTEREST REDUCED BY RNY CREDIT IN FUTURE MONTHS I I 21.1@ I i@5,68 ITERNINRL I I I IRNNURL STOP-LOS S IIIMITD TO (RET+I.ICLRIN)'12 1DEFICIT GRRRYFORWRRD TO NEXT YEAR BE6INNINfi WITH NO INTERESTJCREDIT STRYS WI TN TOV WITH MO CRRRY( I 31.14 I 24@.94 IIIRBIIITY I I I ITERNINRL LIRBII ITY IFUIIY INSURED IIIMITED TO (TERNINRI MPF)+(TE RNINRI TRf)+UNUSED CURRENT CREDIT FORWRRD I (MIN PREMIUM. (TERM RTTRCN I6W NOIDS I I I i I ( IFRCTOR IFRCTOR IW(INT CREOITIREFUMDRBII i I I i I X8,2@1,4@ I~123,642.48 I~131,843,86 IESTIMRTEDI IBC(BS Itl@,@@@ I Is5@,@@@ I~1S@ CRIENDRR YERR(2XR) IYES Its@@ (LIMITED I I1@@t I~25 CRIEN DRR YERR(3XR} IENPLOYEE I 23.62 I 91.24 I 114.86 (NOTE i6-6E-12E I (JERRY MUTCHLER I~1@,@@@ I IFRMIIY IB@8 NEXT;2@@@~2KR) IYES I~5 IMO I I 18@i 15@8 I5@E CHIIDIDEPENDENTI 41.@B I 159.11 I 2@@.19 I15Y I;1@@@ i I1-8@@-634-8161 I I I 11@@8 NEXT X1,@1@,@@@ IYES IMO IMO (I;15@@ RNNURI MRXINU M I~11@4 ( I I I (DISCOUNT 112 MONTNS I INDT RRTED I @.3@5 I I IMO PPO RURIIR@lE I IYES IMO I I I I (LIFETIME I I X1,934.44 I ~3@,691.88 I ;36,626.32 ICIRIM IDENUER I I I =494.1@ I ( I IMO IYES IYES I I I I IMRXINUM I I X95,213.26 0368,3@2.56 I Ij463,515,84 I IONIY I IYES ( IMONTNIY CEIIINO IIIMITED TO FRET+CIRIN) (DEFICIT CRRRYFORWRRD WITN NO I_I I INTEREST REDUGED BY RNY CREDIT IN FUTURE MONTNS I I I I 1~@.19 ~ TERNINRI IRMNUaI STOP-LOS S IIIMITED TO (RET+CLRIM)'12 IOEFICIT CRRRYFORWRRD TO NEXT YERR BE6INNINO WITH NO INTEREST(CREDIT STRYS WI TN TOV WITH NO CRRRY 114.41 IIRBIIITY ITERNINRL tIRBIL ITY IFUIIY INSURED .IIIMITED TD (TERMIMRTION RRTES) FORWRRD I I ITERNINRTIDM ITOV HOIOS I I I I I I I I (RRTES I IMON-REF I I I I I I I Isl@l,@15.34 11@1,@15.34 IESTIMRTEDI I ~ I I ~ I I I I I I I 'i I (NOME LIFE I#15,!19 I I#35,61! ~#161 CALENDAR 4EAR(2%R) IVES I#5Q1 I#1111~YR 1 I1lIg I#51 Cpl YEAR(2% A) 1518 AOUITIENPlOYEE I 3Ll1 I 93,24 I 124.31 INOTE I3-3-6-12 f ICNUCK fiRAY 1$15,11! I ( IBB~ NENT #21l1(2IA) IVES I#36~;56 IMO I 1 I8l3 ISla I#151! IDEPEMDEMTI 65.11 1 186.41 ( 153,52 I25S (NONE I 1155-1111 I I I 1111E TO #2,!11,1!1 IVES IMO 1N0 I 1#1518 RNNUAI NRIINUN (LIFETIME I I I I IDI$GDDNT 112 MONTHS 1 1A+ I 1,381 I I I I IVES IMO I I I I 1MRIINUN I I #11,544.34 I #33,945,88 I #45,491,22 IRET 6 (RTIANTR I I I #129,16 1 I I 1N0 IYES IVES I I I I I I I#138,532.68 I#411,356.56 (#546,882.64 ICLAIMS IVES I 4~ I I I I I I I I I_I I I I I I I I I I I ~ (MONTHLY CEIIINfi IIIMITED TO {REi+CLRIN) (DEFICIT CRRRYfORWARD WITH NO INTEREST REDUCED BY ANY CREDIT IN FUTURE MONTHS I I 1 21,21 ITERMINpI ( I I IRNNUAI STOP-LOSS IIIMITED TO (RET+CLRIN)'12 IMO DEFICIT CpRRYFORWRRD I I I 41.83 1lIpBIIITY I I I (TERMINAL IIRBIIITY IfUIIY INSURED (LIMITED TO (RESERVE fUNDINfi)+UNUSED CURRENT CREDIT I I (RESERVE 1HL NOIDS I I I ( I I I I IFDNDINfi IW~INT GREDIT INOM-REF I I I I I I I #1,11 I #98,6!6,8! I #98,6!8,81 1ESTINRTEDI I i I I I I I I IPACIfIC MUTUAL i#1!,111 I I#58,1!1 ISRME RS CURRENT CONTRRCTI I I I I I I I I I 31,34 I 99,34 1 136.68 (NOTE 13~3J12E I (JOHN WOOD I#11,!11 I 1 (WITH LINCOLN EXCEPT I I I I I I I I I I 8,81 I 225,13 ( 233.84 125E I#1111 I 1196-251! I I I ItINGDIN'S PPO COUERR6E I ( I I I I I I I I I I IDI6GDDNT 112 MONTHS I IA+ I 1,35! I I IIS MUCH BETTER I ) ( I I ( I I I 1 #6,931,!8 I #36,69b,IB 1 #45,526,16 1ClAIM IPHOENII ( f 1 #561.1! I f I (YES I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I #83,161,96 i I#463,152.96 I I#546,313.92 I (ONLY IYES i I i i I IMONTHtY CEItIN6 I I IIIMITED TO (RET+CLAIM) i I I I I_I IOEFICIT CARRYfORWRRD WITH NO INTEREST REDUCED 8Y RNY CREDIT IN FUTURE MONTHS I 1 21.12 I 99,34 ITERNINpI ( I I IANNURI STOP-LOSS 1LIMITEDTO (RET+CIAIM)"12 IMO DEFICIT CARRYFORWRRD~CREDIT STAYS WITH TOV WITH NO CARRYFORWRRD 1 1 1,11 i 225.13 ILIABIIITY I I I (TERNINRC IIRBIIITY (FULLY INSURED IIIMITED TO (RETENTION RUNOUT + ATTRCNNENT RUNOUT) 1 (RETENTION IATTACHNENT 1TOU NOt6S I I I I I (SET-UP RNO PRINTING COSTS ARE ESTIMATED TO BE RPPROXIMATEIY #2811 THE FIRST YERR 1 1RUNOUT IRUNOUT 1 1REFUNDABII 1 I IPRCIFIC MUTUAL'S RETENTION IS ESTIMRTED AND OPEN ENDED AHD WIII INCREASE WHEN tlNDE RWRITINfi 1 1 #1!,264.32 1#115,188,24 1#126,152,66 IESTINATE01 I kN0 OTHER SERVICES ARE REQUIRED WHICH ARE NOT NOW INCLUDED 1 • I I r I I I I I I I I IPRINCIPRL FIN I#15,111 I (#65,111 I#1! CO-PRY OffICE UISiT (YES 1N0 IIIMITED 11191E (#61 CRl YERR j51E CHIlO1 1 26.61 I 11.56 I .98.11 (NOTE I3-3-12E i LOAN HEMMERS I#16,161 I ( (#2!! CALENDAR YEAR(3RA) IYES I$5 IMO I 1 (618 161E 1#111! 1 I 41,1! I 126.93 I 111,53 1251 1#2111 I (831-1126 I I I IBIS NEMT #6611(2%A) (YES IYES IMO I 1#16Q! ANNURL NRRINUM IANNUAt I I I I )DISCOUNT 112 MONTHS 1 IR+ I 1,214 I I I11l8 UNLINIIEO 1 IYES IMO I I I I IMR%IMUN I I #9,181,82 1 #24,265.12 I #33,366,64 (RET 6 (DENVER I I I #665,82 I I IPPD pVRIIpBIE(OENVER IYES IYES IYES I I I I I I I I I I I#196,969,84 I I#241,428.64 I 1#411,398,48 I (GIRIMS IYES I I I I I (MONTHLY CEIIINfi I I (LIMITED TO (RET+CLRIN) I I I I i_i IDEFICIi CARRYfORWARD WITH NO INTEREST REDUCED BY ANY CREDIT IN FUTURE MONTHS I I I 21.36 ITERNINRI I I ~ I (ANNUAL STOP-LOSS. IIIMITED TO (RET+CLRIN)"12 (DEFICIT CRRRYfORWARD TO NE%T YERR BEOINMIN6 WITH NO INTEREST~CREDIT STAYS WITH TOU WITH NO CARRY( I 1 38,15 1LIRBIIITY ( I I ITERMINAI LIpB1LI1Y 1FUllY INSURED IIIMITED TO {INCURRED RESERVExI.ib)+UNUSfD CREDIT FORWARD I I IINGURRED (TOU HOLDS I I i I I (NOT€: SEPRRRTE NEOICAI~DENTAL DEDUCTIBLE (#211#51) I I (RESERVE 1 IREfUNOpBI) i I ( I 1 I #!.!1 I #81,3!3.84 I #92,542,!1 IESTIMATEDI I i +~ ! I I I I I I I I I I ~ PREPARED. 11-Nov-89 REVISED, !6-Nav-89 RETENTION =FINED COSTS (OUERHERD) OF OPERRTINfi YOUR GROUP INSURANCE PIpN, E Of TOTRL NET PREMIUM 6.b1E STOP-LOSS CN RR6E STEUE BRRTA ClU (RET) THESE CHRR6ES RRE PRYRBIE REOARDtESS OF CLAIMS INCURRED. INCLUDED 1,518 TAXES CUCUER ANO COMPANY IN THESE CHRR6ES ARE; 3,558 RDNINISTRATI ON 4895 RIVERBEND RORD-SUITE A 4,22$ BENEFIT PAYM ENT E%PENSE BOULDER, CO Bl311 LINCOLN NATIONAL RETENTION 1.388 COMMISSIONS Tft€PHONE; (313)442-3611 ESTIMATES FOR 1984 "3.631 LINCOLN RISK b PROFIT 1,628 MAXIMUM TERN INRI LIRBILITV RETNR DECLINED 1,618 COST CONTROI (PREGERTIfICATION) NUTURt BENEFIT DECLINED GIRIMS IIRBIIITY =THE TOWN'S NpIINUM IIRBIIITY PER MONTN~YEAR EVEN If CLAIM S EXCEED THIS AMOUNT, 16,668 TOTRL STATE MUTUAL DECLINED (CLAIMS) If GIRIMS RRE BELOW MAXIMUM IIRBIIITIES THE TOWN SAVES AC CORDINfitY. If TRAVELERS DECLINED GIRIMS EXCEED NRXINUN IIRBIIITY, CARRIERS WIII INCREASE P REMIUM FOR THE " ALLOWS THE TOWN TO TERM INATE THE CONTRRCT UNUM DECLINED COMINfi YERR TO START R RECRPTURE Of DEFICIT, RND DEFICIT MAY OR MRY NOT WITH LINCO LN WITH6UT RD DITIONAt IIABILIITY CIONR DECLINED CARRYOVER, fDR RNY CU RRENT OR PAST DEFICITS 1st INSTRTE NO WORD NERITN INTERNEDIRRES NOT COMPETITIVE TERMINAL IIRBIIITY =A RESERVE FUND ESTABLISHED THE. FIRST YEAR WITH A CRRRIER TO FUND RUNOUT OF GIRIMS INCURRED BUT N01 PAID AT TERNINRTION. THE CURTIS W. Mc CRAW FOUNDATION MAILING ADDRESS POST OFFICE BOX 627 PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08540 December 15, 1989 r, r Ms. Annie Fox Vail Public Library 292 West Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Ms. Fox: I am pleased to inform you that the Trustees of The Curtis W. McGraw Foundation have approved an unrestricted grant of $2,000.00 to your organization. Enclosed is the Foundation's check for $2,000.00. At your convenience, would you please confirm receipt of this check by signing and returning the enclosed copy of this letter. Should you feel that further acknowledgment is necessary, please communicate directly with the Foundation at its mailing address. Very truly yours, `~, ~ ~1V Elizabeth M. Webster President Enclosures P.S. This Foundation has no connection to the publishing company McGraw-Hill, Inc., nor to any other foundation bearing the name "McGraw" in its title. _.,a, taws o rai " 75 south frontage road vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 479-2105 office of town manager January 11, 1990 Ms. Nancy Rondeau 930-B Fairway Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Ms. Rondeau: Thank you for your letter to members of the Town Council along with the attached information on the Westminster pool. The proposed Vail Aquatic Center is the project of the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District and if approved, will be built and operated by the UMRD. Therefore, I am sending your letter and the attached information on to Pat Dodson, Executive Director of the VMRD. Thank you for taking the time to share this information and your concerns with us. Sincere y, ~~~ ~ v~ ~~ Rondall V. Phillips Town Manager RUP/bsc cc: Vail Town Council Pat Dodson, VMRD RECD JA N - 9 1990 . -~;~,,.~.cz.,.~~~ y / j y~ ~C ~.ti~n,~(~ ~~ V ~ "Lt~N~-<~ ~ CL-' ~~'/L~r~ ~~ ~~ ',~--'~~..1~ '/~j ~ ., ,!-iC CC. L., ~--Z ~~ i Ci ,~ J ~ ~, (;Jj / ~/~ 1, Y ~~ ~~~ k ~~ (~ ~~ MEMORANDUM REVISED T0: Town Council FROM: Pam Brandmey~r~ DATE: January 9, 1990 SUBJECT: Committee/Task Force Appointments This is a list of all-committees/task forces to which Councilmembers have been appointed or for which they have volunteered. It is my understanding that all assignments run to the next Regular Municipal Election, November 1991. If you notice I have left something out, please let me know as soon as possible so I may complete this list accurately. COMMITTEE/TASK FORCE COUNCILMEMBERS 1. NWCCOG Kent Rose 2. VRA 3. Parking/Transportation 4. CAST 5. Swimming Pool./Aquatic Center 6. UMRD/Council Subcommittee 7. Art in Public Places 8. Cemetery 9. TV Translator 10. STOLport 11. County Recreation Complex 12. Bravo! Colorado Tom Steinberg, alternate Jim Gibson Merv Lapin Peggy Osterfoss Lynn Fritzlen Kent Rose Tom Steinberg, alternate Rob Levine Tom Steinberg Jim Gibson Tom Steinberg Peggy Osterfoss Rob Levine Merv Lapin Lynn Fritzlen Merv Lapin (until election) Lynn Fritzlen (after election) Peggy Osterfoss Tom Steinberg PAB/bsc TOWN OF VAIL MEMORANDUM T0: Ron Phillips Council Members FROM: Steve Thompson DATE: January 11, 1990 RE: Investment Report Enclosed is the Investment Report with balances as of December 31, 1989. The balance of the portfolio at December 31, 1989 was $14.9 million which includes $9 million in bond proceeds. Excluding the bond proceeds, our balance would be $6 million which is about $244 thousand less than we had at December 31, 1988, that's good considering we used $3.1 million of our cash in December to defease the RETT bonds. Bond proceeds were deposited in Fidelity Investment's government money market portfolio. We decided to use this portfolio prior to the President signing the arbitrage relief bill. We will only be required to rebate arbitrage on earnings on our bond reserve funds. Our construction funds will not be subject to arbitrage rebate thus allowing us to earn more interest on those funds and use all the earnings for construction. However, we are subject to a 1.5~ penalty on the balance of unspent bond proceeds if we don't spend 10~ of the proceeds by June 27, 1990. We don't anticipate having to pay the penalty. Please let me know if you have any questions. cc: Charlie Wick Town of Vail, Colorado Investment Report Summary of Accounts and Investments For the Month Ending December 31, 1989 Money Market Accounts (see page 1) Commercial Banks Money Market Account Colorado Investment Pools Total Commercial Savings & Banks Loans Certificates of Deposit (see page 2) Funds For Reserve Balances Percentage Percentage Operating Funds * 12/31/89 of Total Allowed 5962,274 5219,324 5681,598 4.56 508 58,972,867 58,972,867 60.05 1008 5433,588 5933,588 2.90 1008 5895,862 59,192,191 510,088,053 ~~e~®~~mves~~~~~~s=sa~aas®mm=ae~~e~e~ 67.518 am~e~~ Eagle County Institutions $210,992 5200,000 510,992 5210,992 1.41 Other Colorado Institutions SO 0.008 National Institutions 51,485,000 51,386,000 52,178,000 5693,000 52,871,000 19.21'k Total $1,695,992 S1,386,000 52,378,000 5703,992 $3,081,992 20.62 es~~m~~=~~~me=asasaess=,o~e~__a~~~aasaaaam~a=as~~~sa~®,~~~s sev~~e Percentage of Portfolio in Savings & Loans 9.28 U.S. Government Securities (see page 3) Repurchase Agreements Treasury Notes GNMA's U.S. Savings Bonds Federal Agency Discount Notes Total SO 0.00 5480,000 5600,000 51,080,000 7.23 5175,149 S175,149 1.17 516,884 516,884 0.11 5500,000 5500,000 3.358 51,172,033 $600,000 51,772,033 11.868 Total Portfolio Maturing Within 12 Months Maturing Within 24 Months Maturing After 29 Months 54,945,895 510,496,163 514,942,078 100.00 ~~~assea~~e~m=s~emme®a~=~sa=a~~vaa~me ~va~~m_ 513,128,045 87.868 51,293,000 8.65 5521,033 3.99$ 514,992,078 ~ssaa~es~eaaa 100.008 Qe~aaa~ * 510,496,183 is reserves that the Town does not have access to for operations 100 25~ 758 100 100 1008 1008 1/10/89 slml invsm912 Money Market Accounts as of December 31, 1989 --For the Month of December-- Account Institution Balances Type of Accounts High Low Average 12/31/89 First Bank of Vail - Operating Interest 7.6658 7.480 7.680$ ________________________________ Balance $1,077,504 5902,911 5779,105 5379,927 First Bank of Vail - Insurance Interest 7.865$ 7.9808 7.680$ Balance =______________________________= 5217,699 Colorado Trust (Investment Pool) Interest 8.320b Balance 5433,588 Central Bank of Denver Reserve Accounts Interest 5.000 Balance 51,630 Central Bank of Denver Operating Account Interest 7.592 Balance 582,347 Federated Securities Corp. U. S. Treasury Trust Reserve Account Interest 8.390$ Balance 558,300 Fidelity Investment Government Money Market Reserve Account Interest 8.9808 Balance 58,914,567 -------------°- 10,088,053 1/10/90 slml invmm912 Page 1 Certificates of Deposit as of December 31, 1989 Bank Name, Location Days to Rates Purchase Maturity Maturity Maturity Ina Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Value First American Bank, Bosto n Mass FDIC 10.2901 10.290$ 12-Nov-87 12-Nov-90 1096 599,000 Vail National Bank FDIC 8.7508 8.7501 04-Apr-89 04-Apr-90 365 510,992 FDIC 9.2501 9.2501 03-Jan-89 03-Jan-90 365 5100,000 FDIC 9.250$ 9.2501 26-Jan-89 26-Jan-90 365 5100,000 First Federal of the Carol inas, Hiqh Point North Carolina FSLIC 10.2501 10.2501 30-Mar-89 30-Mar-90 365 599,000 Firstate Financial, Orlando. Florida FSLIC 10.5001 10.2501 31-Mar-89 02-Apr-90 367 599,000 San Antonio Federal Saving s Bank, Wes laco Texas FSLIC 10.5001 10.5001 03-Apr-89 03-Apr-90 365 599,000 Security Savings and Loan, Chicaqo Il linois FSLIC 9.9501 9.9501 18-Apr-89 18-Apr-90 365 599,000 Midstate Savings and Loan Associaton, Baltimore Maryland FSLIC 10.3501 10.1001 21-Apr-89 18-Oct-90 545 599,000 First Savings and Loan, Beverly Hills California Reserved Funds FSLIC 10.3751 10.1251 10-Apr-89 03-Jun-91 784 599,000 Sterling Savings and Loan, Irvine Cal ifornia Re served Funds FSLIC 10.5001 10.2501 10-Apr-89 02-Dec-91 966 599,000 Bay Loan & Investment Bank , East Greenwich, RI, Reserved Funds FDIC 9.3001 9.0501 11-Jul-89 02-Lac-91 874 599,000 Homestead Savings Associat ion, Middletown, PA, Reserved Funds FSLIC 9.1001 8.9001 21-Jul-89 02-Dec-91 869 599,000 Security Pacific State Ban k, Irvine, CA FDIC 9.1501 8.9001 11-Jul-89 11-Jul-90 365 599,000 East Bank, New York, NY FDIC 9.0001 8.9001 11-Jul-89 11-Jul-91 730 599,000 Westside Savings and Loan Association, CA FSLIC 9.2001 8.9501 03-Aug-89 12-Mar-90 221 599,000 51,997,992 Page 2 Continued Certificates of Deposit as of December 31, 1989 Bank. Name, Location Days to Rates Purchase Maturity Maturity Maturity Ins Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Value - ------- --------------------------------------------------------------- - Brentwood Square Savings and Loan, Los Angeles California Reserved Funds FSLIC 10.1508 9.900$ 09-May-89 OB-May-91 729 599,000 First Chesire Bank, Keene New Hampshire FDIC 10.100$ 9.850$ 15-May-89 14-May-90 369 599,000 Trustcorp Bank, Toledo Ohio FDIC 9.750$ 9.890$ 12-May-89 14-May-90 367 599,000 St. Edmond's Savings and Loan Association, Philadelphia Pennsylvania FSLIC 10.250$ 10.000$ OS-May-89 05-Nov-90 549 599,000 Monadnock Bank, Jaffrey New Hampshire FDZC 10.000$ 9.750$ 12-May-89 14-May-90 367 599,000 Fidelity Federal Savings Bank, Richmond Virginia FSLIC 10.000$ 10.000$ 05-May-89 07-May-90 367 599,000 Klslak National Bank, North Miami Florida FDZC 9.700$ 9.700$ 25-May-89 25-May-90 365 599,000 Standard Pacific Savings and Loan, Newport California Reserved Funds FSLIC 9.875$ 9.670$ 26-May-89 28-May-91 732 599,000 Century Bank and Trust, Somerville Massachusetts Reserved Fun ds FDIC 9.450$ 9.450$ 26-May-89 26-Nov-90 549 599,000 Century Bank of Suffolk, Suffolk Massachusetts Reserved Funds FDZC 9.450$ 9.450$ 30-May-89 29-Nov-90 598 599,000 Republic National Bank, Phoenix Arizona Reserved Funds FDIC 9.750$ 9.500$ 30-May-89 29-Nov-90 548 599,000 Lyndonville Savings Bank & Trust, Lyndonville, VT, Reserved F unds FDIC 9.250$ 9.050$ 26-Jul-89 O1-Jun-92 1041 599,000 Souheqon National Bank, Milford, NH FDIC 9.350$ 9.100$ 07-Jul-89 03-Jan-90 180 599,000 Mission Viejo National Bank, Mission Viejo, CA FDIC 9.400$ 9.150$ 10-Jul-89 OS-Apr-90 269 599,000 Coast Bank, Lonq Beach, CA FDIC 9.250$ 9.000$ 10-Jul-89 10-Jul-90 365 599,000 Charter Bank for Savings, Santa Fe, NM FSLIC 9.250$ 9.000$ 10-Jul-89 13-Jul-90 368 599,000 Avq Yield 9.590$ 53,081,992 Avg Days to Maturity 278 invcd912 1/10/90 slml Page 2 Government Securities as of December 31, 1989 ***Treasury Notes*** Years to Rates Purchase Maturity Maturity Years to Par Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturity Value ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8.875$ 7.970$ 11-Mar-86 15-Feb-96 9.99 6.13 $230,000 8.875$ 9.067$ 02-Dec-88 30-Nov-90 1.99 0.92 5250,000 9.375$ 9.630$ 28-Feb-89 28-Feb-91 2.00 1.16 5200,000 8.250$ 8.259$ 31-Auq-89 31-Auq-91 2.00 1.67 5400,000 Average Maturity Years 2.47 51,080,000 Average Yield 8.53$ °°°°°°°°°°°°° ***Repurchase Agreements*** Average Institution Yield ------------------------- ***GNMA'S*** Pool Coupon Yield ------------------------------- 5803 8.000$ 8.980$ 13003 8.000$ 9.500$ 19659 8.000$ 9.200$ Avq Yield 9.116$ ***U.S. Savings Bonds*** Purchase Maturity Par Date Date Value -------------------------------------------------------- Years to Estimated Purchase Maturity Maturity Years to Principal Date Date at Purchase Maturity Outstanding 19-Nov-86 15-Oct-OS 19.10 16.00 544,806 24-Oct-86 15-Oct-06 20.20 17.00 558,687 24-Oct-86 15-Jan-07 21.20 18.00 571,656 5175,149 Years to Issue Maturity Maturity Years to Book Maturity Series Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturity Value Value ------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EE 7.170$ O1-Oct-86 O1-Oct-96 10.00 6.76 516,884 530,000 °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° ***Federal Agency Discount Notes*** Days to Purchase Maturity Maturity Days to Book Maturity Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturity Value Value ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FHLB 9.400$ 25-May-89 25-May-90 365.00 145.00 5500,000 5500,000 Average Yield 9.90$ Average Maturity Days 195 Total 51,772,033 1/10/90 slml invtr912 Page 3 ~~ BOARD AND ADMINISTRATOR ~ Published by Center for Board and Administrator Relations Advising over 100,000 board members and administrators Box 208, Sioux City, Iowa 51102 January 1990 Dear Government Board/Council Member, Government Edirion A new decade has just begun ! Perhaps the best part about a new decade is the fresh start it offers everyone. No matter what your board or council did during the 80's, you can use the new decade as a starting point for the things you've always wanted to do. As a board member myself, I know there area few things I'd like to do to help my board get a fresh start on the decade... First, I'd change my seat at board meetings and vow never to sit in the same seat twice in a row. 1've been on my board for years and each meeting I sit in the same chair. The other board members do the same. It's a small issue, but symbolic of the rut that boards get into. Board members need to view things from the other side of the table once in awhile--literally and figuratively. I'd also get to know the people who sit around that table with me. It's much easier to work with friends than with- strangers. I'd start listening harder to one of my colleagues across the table. l tagged him as "the opposition" before he was elected and I haven't really listened to anything he's said since. 1 wonder how many of the other board members have me tagged. It's a wonder we agree on anything! Another thing needs to be changed. We talked everything to death last year and it took us several meetings to make up our collective mind on anything. You might say we had a bad case of "analysis paralysis." No matter how much information we had, we tabled the issue and kept it around for another meeting or two in case we missed a detail! This year we need to realize that board members don't have to be experts in everything, and we should make better use of the expertise of our administrator and his staff. The final change I'd like to see in our new board year should be easy. I want to have fun! It should be fun and exciting to make decisions about the future of our community, but we take ourselves too seriously. Humor might relieve the tension that builds in our meetings. Speaking of humor--will the press ever get the story right? Did you hear about the board member whose name appeared in the obituary column of the newspaper? The paper was supposed to announce his election as board chairman. He was very upset and complained to the newspaper editor. (More... ) WARNING: ~ THE NEWSLETTER YOU ARE READING IS A PHOTOCOPY, THE PERSON WHO MADE THE PHOTOCOPY IS VIOLATING OUR COPYRIGHT. Under no circtrrnstanoes do we allow photocopying of this Board Report. Violators will be prosecuted. To pun4tase subsmpdans for each board member, phone (712)568-7A33. Copyright John C. Siefer, 1990. Board and Administrata~r (ISSN 0748-9471) is published monthly by Center for Management Systems, 230 Rued Street, Akron, IA 51001. Second Class postage paid at Akron, Iowa 51001. POSTMASTER: Send address change to Board and Administrator, PO Box 208, Sioux City, I.4 51102. "Look, fella," the editor said after enduring the board member's wrath for several minutes. "How about if I put your name in the birth announcements and give you a fresh start?" A good way to defuse board meeting tension. _Government boards face a staggering array of controversial decisions that occasionally are bound to cause tension among board members. Whatever the cause, you should be ready to defuse the tension. Board Chair Mic Kenney (Cody, WY) says when his board had to consider budget cuts, the room was full of concerned citizens and the atmosphere was tense. But his board was ready with a simple plan to clear the air. Kenney simply called a break when things got hot. Short breaks are a part of every meeting and can be called at any time. "Sometimes I call two or three a meeting," Kenney says. "When we come back, everyone's more relaxed. "It's amazing how we can come to a decision after a break." Board members want to know... QUESTION : "What's the best way for a board to approve payment of bills?" asks a council chairman. "Our board looks at each bill and the chairman has to initial each voucher. It takes a lot of time out of our meeting. Any suggestions?" ANSWER : Of course you'll want to observe any regulations that dictate how you approve bills, but a council can generally fulfill that responsibility without combing though every bill. Spend your time analyzing the budget and annual audit if you're worried about finances. If council members still feel they must approve each bill, a list of bills sent out before the meeting should be enough. That way council members can call the administrator before the meeting with any questions. Your meeting should not be bogged down with petty questions like why someone bought a box of bolts. QUESTION : "A constituent has called me several times with the same complaint. Each time I tell him to talk to the administrator about his complaint. He's done that, but says he can't get a satisfactory response from the administrator. Is this now a board issue? Should I bring it up at a board meeting to get it settled?" ANSWER : When a constituent says he can't get a "satisfactory response," that could well mean the administrator won't do what the constituent wants. I suggest you talk the issue over with your administrator just so you understand what's going on--not so you can referee the situation. Tell the constituent that the organization must operate for the good of all citizens, not just one. You can listen to everyone, but you simply can't make everyone happy. Dan Cain, Editor (and board member) Board and Admmbttrator is publishe cash mmth. Send mbsaiprim mquira:s m: Board and A~inistnaaor, FO Bmr 206, Sioux City, U 51102, lahn C. Siefer, Fttbiiaher. This puhlicatimr desiBred m provide accurate and authoriative mfamtatim m regard co the subject maror covered. I[ is add with the understanding that the publisher is net eagsgedm legal, aocauming or other pro(esimal services. If kgal m other expert assiatagc u tequirod, dtc aerviaa of a msrrpctem prof®aimal peram ahodd be amght. (From a Declararim o[ Prmdpies Jointly adopted by a catfIIpitla of the Americas Bar Aaaociatim sad a coa>mitlee of pablishers.) Board a~ Administrator does sot mceoarily e~otae arty products or services meatioad. r rn w.. i w ~ v.,~~i ~ .4 - ~4rF.n. f e. + i i ce. ~G s1.7F 4.t~Y~:-1 b , . ~ r w .' w~,_ .a .. 34 "fMti ~.~y ~'i^~'. y, 4-.' '+~ 9 .. F: f ~) ~ ~ 'W ti:{, A x ~ ~•~~~'~, ~~ t~.F ~,~~ Avs ; . .. Y _n.. ., a..,. ro ,~..-- .,.~- .r., ... ~} . ~ / k y lY~ r Jam- uq.._~..?U r d ~ ` ..~,~ M l~ ~ .L ~ , w..j..K ;. .. -.^b.w~ ..... .r .rte. i AY..- BARCLAY TOWERS VEPlTURE ~~ COIORAbO ~ INC. Transportation I Cc7n5UitpntS 1G1a La!Imer St. s~ir9 eou uenv?r, CO 80?0 January 15, 1994 TEL hJo . 3~~38936553 Sidney Schu1L•z Sidney Schu?tz - Architect Inc. 141 East Meadow Drive Va~.l, CQ- Ii1657 Jan 16 , 9u 16 54 Re: Faessler Apartment and Day Care, Canter Traffic Impact Assessment.: . . .~ ;' Dear Sidney, P.O.; We have revised our January 4th. report to reflect elimination og a day care renter as part of the proposed Faessler developmen~:.. As we and+?ratand the proposal, 3:kie apartments will be us+~_ti primarily key employees of Sonnfina].p Hotel properties in Vail. Village. The propos ~l •now ~ r~ reek and Kii?.nickinik Road,n seerF gureul, t, s ituated b ~ t.~een ~ on the basis of this infoz-~nation we have prepared this assessment of potential traffic impact associated with tre Faessls~r Employee proposal. Existing Ccnditians The Faessler Realty project would be developed in a residential area that is essent,z~-11y at the westerly and of develalament in the Gore Creek Valley. South Frontage Road coniYects the T~termauntai.n area with Cascade, Lionshead and Vail Villages. The West Va~i. Interchange with T-70 is about 1/2 mile west of the project. Nox.•~.ii Frontage Road and South Frontage F.oad connect via the West Va i 1 I--70 diamond interchange. The ne'~ t: connection for local ~rontac~e road movements occurs almost threes miles farther east at the Mz~.n Vail. interchange. ~ °~ South Frontage Road is a two lane rural road .serving as a collector-distril~utor fo.r region~~. tzips to and from T-70 and fc~r access to abutting parcc~Ts. Between the West and Main Vail intersections,,. South Frontage Road 3.s under the maintenance and access jurisdiction of the Colorac:lc~ State Highway Department. Traffic volumes on South Frotitaye Read are much higher east of the West Vail interchange as much Q:C the Interstate movements ~.r_e oriented to the commercial areas o* Cascado and Lionshead villa~t~s• Volumes on South Frontage Road iz~ the vicinity of the project Ks estimated to be about 2 X00 vehicles per day. This is based ran 1.986 evening peak hour Counts at the South Frontage Read/Chamo.zix Road intersection by Centennial Engineering. BARCLRY TOIJERS VEhJTURE TEL ~~Jo . ~038~+ ~655::~ , OR2 Y `~=1000 ~ ,,. Jan 16 , 90 16 ~ 54 P .':~'~~ c~rr~^~;w~~,~~q, >. t r,':. <: aE ~ ~~ [':: ,I l2, ~S 1: ~~ ~ -+. aF ' ~ ~~ i } i-: i + ~: ' ~ m ~~ ~' _ f,.~ _ , tea, :.~;. ,. ~ ~ ~. ~r/ ~~ ~c $~~~ .~ 70 f1 ~,. ' 4- ~~ l ,e,_. ~,~ r £° ~~,"' ~; w' r u ~~ ~~' rJ< 'i r .~ ~: >~ ~,; ,_s¢::: ;~'; ''1`. °-~_ ~ . f 1~: ~.:;: t,, ~` ~' ~` 1'' ~fyj~ ~~~} ~ ~ ~~~ ~Y••~ ;,} '~ ~~ Xi :~ py SITS LOGATIt~N jrAkr'd ~;L~R DEVELpPMEN~ 'i~~:. ,: Z, Cm Zor~:do pi~ur~.. 1 B`~8 ,~ BARCLAY T01~1ERS VENTURE TEL .'do . 30.~~>`~+ ~65~:~ Jan 16 , 90 1~ ~ ~~ P . i=~`_~ Mr. Sidney Schultz January 15, 1990 Page 2 Daily volume fluctuates an~zually based on levels of occupanc~• is: Yntermountain. It is estimated that about 50~ of tiie dwellin~3 units are owner-occupied, 20~ used by second hr~me purchasers and the remaining 30~ are-long term or seasonal renters. There are no commercial short term or.avernigh.t lodging units in Intermountain. Occupancy levels would likely ba Highest during Christmas Week, Spring Break, and summer holiday periods when second home user and seasonal employment use add to the year round population. We would estimate clail,y traffic vc~l'an~e on South Frontage Road in the Yntermountain 'area could reach 3, 000 ve~ic],es per day during a peak time such as Spring Break wee?t. Kinniakinik Road Kinnickinik Road is a~ two-lane lose], loop access road serving intermountain residential properties, connecting to, South Frontage Road at two tpe intersection locations. Of the 2,500 dail~~ vehicles ~tsir_g South Frontage Road an .estimated 7., 500 use thr~ easterly connection and the remaining 1,000 vehicle^ use t11t-~. wester~.y intersection. fl?sed on the proposed Faessler Development site plan, virtually all project traffic will use Kinnickinik at the east intersection. South Frontage Road/West Vaii xnterChang~ The existing 4-way step intersection is in very close proximity to the eastbound 2-'7a on and off ramp terminals and to Gore Creek. Hence, there is very little room for vehicles to store and maneuver (weave} when travelling between South Frontage Raad and the I-70 on and off ramps. The predomi..an~ movement at the intersection as Shawn in Figure 2 is ` ,the satlt:h-tQ-east. left turn and the corresponding west-to-north right turn. Each of these legs of the intersection function as a two-lane apl~rarach, i.e. the southbound l+~ft turn is separate from the shared straight through/right turn lane and the westbound right tuxn lane is separate from the adjacent left/L-hrat.i<~{h lane . A ~~otal. of 1, 512 vehicles pass through tl;.p intersection iii the P.M. pea', ho~.~r. In accordance with the 19f35 "highway Capacity Manual", this f:~~k4~~,~tage volume split and lane confiaur<~t~i_an would reflect a level of service C operating condition. TY.a.s ~vould sugg~:rt "average" delays far P.M. peak period matoris~.c. Capacity would be reached when the total volume entering the intersection reaches about 2, :~~G~0 vets t c:les in the peak Maur pe ~:• the manual. At capacity long dnla,res ~,~rvuld bP expected ~.n~t len{thy queues of vehicles woul;l e.~~'~~~d bac3c from the intersection, particularly far the two major movements discussed above. BF~RC(_HY TOLJERS VEl•JTIJRE TEL I~d~.-~..~~~389~6553 _7an 1h,~+C~ 1~~:5~; P.r~'; Mr. Sidney Schultz January 15, 1990 Page 3 Th•~ Intermountain area is served well by public trmnsit. Town buses on the West Vail South Route run all day from 6:20 A.M. to 12:45 A. M. The rout^~ connects Tnte~xaountain with the three villages. Transfers to other town routes are made at the Vail Transportation Center in Vail Vi.llaga. , fihe "Meadow Creek" bus stop is a chart walk from th3 p.ropo~~1 project.site. Project TrarfiC A.t full occupancy we wa~.~ld expect the .predominantly one-bedropm apartments tv~generate an av~esage of about six vehicle trips per day per unit, ar a Iota, of 288 additional vehicle trips per day. This generation rate icy c7,erived from numerous studies in mountain resort communities and is comparable to the rate published by the institute of Trar~sg~ortation Engineer3 in the 1987 publication "Trip GenQration" for ":[,~,a Rise Apartments'. This addition wc7tilci be about a ~.2 ~ increase aver the estimated existing average daily volume of F,~00 vehicles an South Frontage Road Est of the interchange. Approximately 10~, or 28 trips, can be expected to occur during the PM peak hour. Typically, about 60~ twill rn inbound and 40~ will be outbound f rain the prod ect during the evening pea]. These trips are then distributed to the surrounding roadways using prevailing traffic distribution patterns. Figure 2 displays PM peak hour intersection volumes with and withoury. the Faessler Project. Cham~nlx ,.. Road ~...~ (I 7') Jn ~erpas5,) NpR'IN 124 20 395 75 ~ 749 33^~ "''s5 1'y ~6 ~ ~ ~ 1 18 8 t? ~iCP,GROUNb Chamonix Road (I 70 Underpass) 138 831 37 "+"' 1 ~, 1 20 395 ~. i,# S~Frontage Rd, '7 - ~+74 9 '~"' 3 9 6 ~~ 18 R KITH PROJIlCT r~ ure Z P.}1. Peak dour Traffic Volumes {with ~ tYithout Faessicr Project 1990 ! ~~ r BRRCLA`r' TLb1ERS 'JEhdTU!E TEL hJo .3038936556 Jan 16 , 90 16 56 P . 0 Mr. Sidney Scli+.~ltz January 15, 19130 Page 4 Trip Distribution Daily vehicle tr~.;~s generated by the Faessler development wily disperse aver the surrounc~•~_ilg roadway; Network. All vehicles will. pass ttarougxx the `; 4-wad • ~ step ` sign at the South Frontage Road/Chamonix F~oad '~.ntars~ct;;c:n. Based on 19x3 traffic counts at the intersection, existing ~txips from the Intermountain area disperse at this intersection as follows: Vehicle Tripn To rim 4:~~ `~ of Tit East s. Frontage Road 25~ Easi~ I-? 0 3 0 North/East Undez•pa.<~~; 30~ West Unde~~~°a^ ~ 15 2'oL-al 100 Faessler development trips, h~;avi?.y oriented to Vail Village, are expected to demonstrate a strong orientation to the east as da current Intermountain motor3ts. Future Traffic Vo3.um~3s Future develc.;pment in the study a~~,°~a w~.ll add txaific to the "Background" c~?ndition shown in F;ig~t~:~e 2. There as very little data for tract: i.ng recent changes in traffic volumeo f~~r ;:roadway in this vicin~ ~:-;T. :The Town of -Vtti?., ~.n updating the 5-Peer Transit bevelapment Plan, suggests ov~r~ 1], c;c~~nmunity growth averaging 2~ per year for the next F-years. Far the 4-way intersection, 2~ growth would add 30 vehicles to t1aA ~±nak hour intersection volume. At this growth rate, the intersection would- exceed the level of service C volume ~iy 1996. :By 2000 grra•~th would bring the peak hour total to 1,83o vehicles and another 15 years would be needed to reach capacity, 2,500 vehicles per hour, if a Constant 2~ per year growth rate is assumed. Impacts The proposed 48-unit Faessler Apari:s~r;~t ~ara~ect would add about 30 pea]: hour vehicles to the 4-way stop i;3.tersection at South Frontac;e Road at the West Vail interchange. 'Phis addition in itself wou~.cl net; rAsult: in a change xn level of service of the intersection which waulcl remain at level of ser~,•ice C, i . e. "av4rage" peal: period de17.~~s. Congestion at the West Vail interchange is net so much a prc~!~l_em of °.r~lume as it is one of substandard geometry. BARCLA''r' TOWEF.:~ 'JEi'dT!_!i:.E Mr. Sidney Sc:titil. t January 15, 1990 Page 5 .. , .7a.n 16 , ~~L 16:57 P . C~' Through and t:urzl~.z~g veh.R.cles have little separation between ramp and frontage x-c~aci ~.vcations to ir_teract in distinct, separate .merge and weave movAlt~er~t^. Faessler cl~velopment traffic (car any oth=.~x• Intermountain L'rip ~) wiill not aria dix~-:~ctly to the dominant P.M. peak directional valumPs• ~ ,--~ t~xrns , to and from Chamonix Read oriented to the ea FL~tux~~ growth in 1.hese particular movements, not develc~r meet iti ttie Intermountain area, will be the key determinant of ,congestion at this intersection. Improved operatit~n at the four-;aay stop intersection, if left in its current configuration,`cvuld be achieved througll a combination of: 1. An intex.-mediate I-7q intryrchanga between the West Vail and ?'[ain Vail. locations, and/or 2 . An i 2ltermedi.ate grade separated collneotion between Norttl and r~~u+:,h Frontage Road so that local movements between the t:ao would net; have to entirely funnel through the two interchange locations as they do today. The projects 2sv daily vehicle t:l"ips -will increase traffic on Kinzyickinik Road at the proposal. access location by at 19~. The resultant volume of about 7.,800 vehicles per day is well below the capacity of a two-lane residential roam. For safe operation, the proposed access drive should be situated to ensure adequate sight distancQ is available along Kin:~ickinik Roa~:l. Far 25 mph operation this would suggest 250 feet r~S eight distance iz1 both directions along the Road. Conclur~ion Additional vehicle ~ triips generated by they Faesr~ler AZaartment and will not have a igni.l_,rant ..impact on traffic operations at the West Vail intet:cliazige. The Pxpect~.l 30 peak hour vehicle trips generattad by the developsnAzit will fu~~ther tllsperse beyond the fc~ur- way stop in~.ersection a~?jacezYt to the diPmond interchange. 2 trust this adequately covers the traffic related irr~ues regarding the Faessler DevelopmerYt project. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely 'FDA COLORADO IP1C. David D. Leahy, P.lJ. Principal i TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 8, 1990 SUBJECT: Amendment to SDD #14, Doubletree Hotels I. BACKGROUND OF THE PROPOSAL The Doubletree Hotel has been purchased by Gerald Katzoff, owner and developer.o~f several spa resorts throughout the country. Mr.'Katzoff'c~esires to construct the renovation and addition to the Doubletree Hotel as previously approved in 1986 and ,as amended in early 1989. However, the proposal is to revise the interior uses of the property to accommodate an 18,000' square foot spa while reducing the number of accommodation units. The major elements of the proposal are as follows: --Reduction of 30, accommodation units/transient residential units--92 to 62 --Reduction of 9,126 sq.ft.= of GRFA--42,576 to ~~ 33,450 sq. ft. --Addition of approximately 18,000 sq.ft. = of spa and spa related facilities --Reduction of 9 parking spaces--261 to 252 spaces (including 68 spaces within the proposed WMC parking structure) --Conversion of an existing spa in the southwest corner of the hotel to new accessory retail of 900 sq. ft. --Elimination of 7 surface parking spaces on the north side of the site and converting the area to landscaping --Minor revisions to proposed elevations --A slight easterly shift of the building addition adjacent to Middle Creek to enlarge the creek setback ~ ' ` --A relocation o'f the 5 approved condominiums retaining the same square footage of 6585 sq. ft. of GRFA; previously approved in the proposed north wing, these are now proposed to be located in the south wing on the east side top floor --No revision to the location or square footage (3,350 sq.ft.) of meeting/conference space Special Development District #14 was created in 1986 with an approval to expand the hotel with respect to numbers of accommodation units, condominiums, meeting/conference space and underground parking. The Special Development District was approved for an extension in 1987 and then revised with Ordinance No.7 in 1989 creating the shared parking facility with the Vail Valley Medical Center. Please find attached a draft of revisions to Ordinance No.7 of 1989 which include provisions for the project now proposed by Mr. Katzoff. II. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA Section 18.40.080 of•,~he zoning, code sets forth design criteria to be used iri;evaluatirrg the merits of a proposed Special Development District. It is the burden of the applicant,~to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards', or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. Only those criteria which are affected by the proposed revisions will be addressed. A. Desian compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. With the exception of minor changes to the elevations, the proposal has no effect upon these elements. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. ~. The spa and spa,-related-facilities are considered to be accessory recreational uses to a lodge as permitted under high dens i'ty,multi-family zone district (the underlying zone `district for the SDD). We do not. foresee any regative effe~~ts of the spa use of the hotel property. C. Compliancy with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. The following are the new parking calculations: Existing parking spaces 167 New Parking Requirements 62 accommodation units at 400 sq.ft. 50 Meeting space 14 Condominiums @ 2 spaces/unit 10 New accessory retail @ 900 sq.ft. 3 Parking for spa facilities 12 TOTAL 89 Less 5% mixed use credit (as per previous SDD) -4 TOTAL NEW REQUIRED. 85 TOTAL REQUIRED.~'QR ENTIRE PROJECT 252 VVMC structure spades -68 TOTAL PARKING SPACES REQUIRED ON SITE 184 Thus, there is a loss of only 9 total parking spaces on site with the reduction of 30 accommodation units. The allocation of 12 spaces for the spa comes from the owner's estimation that the spa facility can handle approximately 40',people at a time. A conservative estimation tYiat 25% of the 40 people (10) are non-hotel guests would result in an excess of parking provided for the spa facilities (12 proposed). i D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. The revisions proposed retain the project's compliance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which this Special Development District is proposed. There are no geologic hazards that affect this site.. ,;. F. Site plan,'build'ing design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The only revision to the site plan is to eliminate 7 surface parking spaces and to replace the asphalt with landscaping. At previous discussions of this project it was requested by the Planning Commission that the applicant attempt to accomplish this revision. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. The circulation system remains unchanged from the previous approval. An additional level of parking is proposed due to a change of use from previously approved parking spaces to spa facilities. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Again, there wil-1 be a net increase in landscape area as a result ' of the proposal.... ` I. Phasing or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the Special Development District. ' No phasing plan has been proposed for the addition. III. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Please find the proposed development standards in the proposed revisions to Ordinance No.7 Series of 1989. With the exception of the parking revisions there are no changes to the previously approved development standards. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval to the proposed amendments to Special Development District #14 - Doubletree Hotel. We feel. that overall, the proposed development should improve the architectural and landscaping quality of the hotel property as well as provide the community with a high quality destination resort facility . The proposal actually changes very little f~oii'r what has been previously approved. Conditions of a~prova`l shall be consistent with the previous conditions adopted as part of Ordinance No.7 Series of 1989 as attached. - ~~,~. ~s ~~~~ ~ ~a h'~O~~t~IL 595 East' VaiC Va(recY 1~rive-- JANUARY 16, 1990 Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-5651 fax (303) 476-4982 TOWN COUNCIL THE TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST VAIL, COLORADO 81657 DEAR MAYOR ROSE AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL: FOLLOWING ARE MY CONCERNS WITH REGARD TO THE PROPOSED VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN. SINCE JUNE OF 1989 WE HAVE ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED AT ALL PUBLIC REVIEW SESSIONS CONDUCTED BY THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION CONCERNING THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN. WE WISH TO EXPRESS OUR GRATITUDE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION OF OUR MANY CONCERNS. WE APPRECIATE THEIR INCLUSION OF MANY OF THESE CONCERNS IN THE FINAL DRAFT COPY OF THE DOCUMENT. AFTER A REVIEW OF THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN, IT IS OUR CONCLUSION THAT THERE REMAIN SEVERAL UNRESOLVED ISSUES THAT WE FEEL HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED IN THE PROPOSED DOCUMENT. APPROVAL OF THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN IN ITS ENTIRETY, AT THIS TIME, IS PREMATURE. WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN IS A VERY COMPLEX DOCUMENT. IT CONTAINS MANY FAR REACHING IMPLICATIONS THAT MAY NOT BE READILY APPARENT TO THOSE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN THE PUBLIC REVIEW OR MASTER PLANNING PROCESS. WITHOUT DETAILED REVIEW AND DISCUSSION, THE SUBTLETIES OF THE MASTER PLAN ARE NOT APPARENT. THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN IS NOT SOLELY ADVISORY OR CONCEPTUAL. IN MANY INSTANCES IT IS OBLIGATORY AND EXPLICIT. IF ADOPTED AS SUBMITTED, THE CONCEPT OF DENSITY INFILLING, ADVOCATED IN THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN, WILL SET IN MOTION UNPRECEDENTED CHANGES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. DENSITY INFILLING IS BEING USED AS AN UP-ZONING INCENTIVE TO ENCOURAGE REDEVELOPMENT THAT WILL RESULT IN AN UNDETERMINED AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL SHORT TERM HOUSING FOR VISITOR AND TRANSIENT EMPLOYEES. TOWN COUNCIL PAGE TWO JANUARY 16, 1990 DENSITY INFILLING UPON SITES WITH COVENANT PROHIBITIONS PRESENTS A TROUBLING PROSPECT FOR AN AREA OF THE COMMUNITY WELL KNOWN FOR ITS CONGESTION. FOR AREAS THAT ARE UNANNEXED AND UNDEVELOPED ADJACENT TO VAIL VILLAGE, DENSITY INFILL ESTABLISHES AN UNSETTLING AND PERHAPS IRREVERSIBLE PRECEDENT. THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN FAILS TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT DATA OR DOCUMENTATION ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF DENSITY INFILL, BEYOND PRESENT ZONING LIMITATIONS, WHICH IS DESIRABLE. THE AVAILABILITY AND SUBSTANTIATION OF PRECISE INFORMATION IS ESSENTIAL BEFORE ADOPTING SUCH AN UNPRECEDENTED UP ZONING CONCEPT AS DENSITY INFILLING. WE HAVE SERIOUS RESERVATIONS ABOUT MANY OF THE DENSITY INFILL RECOMMENDATIONS FOUND IN THE ACTION PLAN. PROPOSALS FOR DENSITY INFILL ON SPECIFIC SITES ARE SO DETAILED THAT THEY LOCK IN DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS WITHOUT ADEQUATE EVALUATION AS TO THEIR PRACTICALITY OR AFFECTS UPON SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS OR NEIGHBORHOODS. EVEN WITH STRIDENT AND PROLIFIC DISCLAIMERS OF NON-BINDING GUARANTEES, SPECIFIC SITE IDENTIFICATION OBLIGATED THE TOWN OF VAIL TO CONSIDER DEVELOPMENT ON THESE SITES WITHIN THE PARAMETER FOUND IN THE ACTION PLAN. THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT DATA OR DOCUMENTATION TO DESIGNATE SPECIFIC INFILL SITES AT THIS TIME. A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF DEMOGRAPHIC AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED TO DECIDE HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL DENSITY INFILL, BEYOND THE LIMITS OF PRESENT ZONING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CAN BE ABSORBED IN THE MASTER PLANNING AREA. RESEARCH AND DATA DOCUMENTATION SHOULD INCLUDE THE IMPACT OF INCREASED MOUNTAIN SKIER CAPACITY ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF VAIL VILLAGE. IT IS THE GOLDEN PEAK NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS AFFECTED FAR MORE DRAMATICALLY BY THE RECOMMENDATION FOUND IN THE ACTION PLAN. THE MASTER PLAN SHOULD MORE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY THE GOLDEN PEAK NEIGHBORHOOD AS A SEPARATELY IDENTIFIED MASTER PLANNING UNIT. IT IS OUR OPINION THAT TT IS NOT PROPER MASTER PLANNING PROCEDURE TO APPLY ANALYTICAL STANDARDS APPROPRIATE FOR VAIL VILLAGE, WHICH IS A COMMERCIAL CORE, TO THE LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE GOLDEN PEAK NEIGHBORHOOD. _ NO DATA OR DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH INFORMATION IS PROVIDED AS TO THE CONSEQUENCES OF INCREASED DENSITY INFILL WILL HAVE UPON THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION SYSTEMS IN THE EXISTING GOLDEN PEAK NEIGHBORHOOD. WE FIND THIS A SERIOUS DEFECT IN THE ACTION PLAN AND ITS RELATED SUB-AREA REQUIREMENTS. RECOMMENDATIONS FOUND IN THE ACTION PLAN ARE NOT PREDICATED ON THE SAME LEVEL OF DETAILED ANALYSIS THAT WAS CONDUCTED FOR PORTIONS OF VAIL VILLAGE. ALL AREAS SHOULD HAVE THE SAME LEVEL OF ANALYSIS BEFORE THE ACTION PLAN AND RELATED SUB-AREAS ARE ADOPTED. BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE ACTION PLAN, THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN SHOULD BE COMPLETED FOR AREAS NOT PRESENTLY HAVING SUCH A PLAN. TOWN COUNCIL PAGE THREE JANUARY 16, 1990 WE BELIEVE THE CONCEPTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT PLAN SHOULD NOT MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INCREASES IN BUILDING HEIGHT OVER EXISTING CONDITIONS. IT SHOULD ONLY DOCUMENT EXISTING SITUATIONS AND IDENTIFY BUILDINGS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH PRESENT STANDARDS. INCREASES IN HEIGHT SHOULD NOT BE USED AS AN INCENTIVE TO ENCOURAGE DENSITY INFILL BEYOND THE LIMITATION OF PRESENT ZONING STANDARDS. THE DETERMINATION OF HEIGHT SHOULD BE A POINT OF NEGOTIATION SUBJECT TO THE QUALITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED. PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF THE ACTION PLAN, THE PROSPECT OF ADDITIONAL MAJOR PARKING AND ACTIVITY FACILITIES ON FORD PARK SHOULD BE GIVEN GREATER SCRUTINY AND DOCUMENTATION. PARTICULAR ATTENTION SHOULD BE CONCENTRATED ON THE IMPACT UPON PEDESTRIAN AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION WITHIN THE GOLDEN PEAK NEIGHBORHOOD. WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THE TOWN COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS IN CONSIDERING THE APPROVAL OF THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN. A. APPROVE GOAL STATEMENTS WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: "SHALL" CHANGED TO "SHOULD" THROUGHOUT THE MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT. THE MASTER PLAN DOES NOT CARRY THE FORCE OF A ZONING ORDINANCE. THE USE OF "SHALL" OR "ARE REQUIRED" IN THE MASTER PLAN CANNOT BE USED TO REQUIRE CONFORMANCE. THE CHANGE TO "SHOULD" ELIMINATES POTENTIAL INTERPRETIVE MISUNDERSTANDINGS OR ABUSE. GOAL #1, 1.2.1: EXCLUDE OR REWORD TO: "ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN." GOAL #1, ACTION STEP #1: EXCLUDE OR REWORD TO: "STUDY AN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTING THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN". GOAL #2, 2.3.1: SHOULD ELIMINATE AMBIGUOUS SECOND SENTENCE OR REWORD TO: "DWELLING UNITS WITH ACCOMMODATION UNITS THAT ARE DEVELOPED ABOVE ALLOWABLE DENSITIES SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE DESIGNED OR MANAGED IN A MANNER THAT MAKES THEM AVAILABLE FOR SHORT TERM OVERNIGHT RENTAL". GOAL #2, 2.6.1: SHOULD BE ELIMINATED SUBJECT TO FURTHER STUDY AND ANALYSIS. _, THERE ARE A VARIETY OF ADDITIONAL AMBIGUITIES IN THE STATEMENT OF GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND ACTION STEPS THAT DESERVE FURTHER DISCUSSION AND AMENDMENT. TOWN COUNCIL PAGE FOUR JANUARY 16, 1990 B. REJECT THE CONCEPTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT PLAN. THERE ARE SUFFICIENT DEFICIENCIES IN THE CONCEPTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT PLAN THAT TT SHOULD BE REJECTED. C. REJECT OR ACCEPT THE ACTION PLAN; BUT DO NOT "ADOPT" THE ACTION PLAN. THERE ARE SUFFICIENT DEFICIENCIES IN THE ACTION PLAN THAT IT SHOULD BE REJECTED. HOWEVER, AS AN ALTERNATIVE, THE TOWN COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER "ACCEPTING" THE ACTION PLAN SUBJECT TO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION AND REVIEW. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT FOR THE TOWN COUNCIL TO "ACCEPT" RATHER THAN "ADOPT" THE ACTION PLAN, TT LIMITS THE DEGREE TO WHICH ZONING CHANGES CAN BE CONSIDERED UNTIL THE COMPLETED VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN IS APPROVED. WE WOULD REQUEST SUFFICIENT TIME, BEFORE ADOPTION OF THE ACTION PLAN AND RELATED SUB-AREAS, THAT A DIGEST CAN BE CIRCULATED TO PROPERTY OWNERS SO THAT THEY MAY RESPOND BY LETTER OR THROUGH THEIl2 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVE. WE FEEL THAT A FOUR WEEK TIME PERIOD SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS AND CIRCULATE THESE DOCUMENTS. ONCE AGAIN, WE DO WISH TO OFFER OUR SINCERE APPRECIATION TO THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AND THE STAFF FOR THEIR EFFORTS IN PRESENTING THIS PLAN. SINCERELY, MANOR VAIL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION ~" JAC H, CHA AG G AGENT -MICNAEI BARBER ARCNITECTURE VAIL TRANSPORTATION CENTER PROJECT NUMBER 22289 MEETING MINUTES TOWN OF VAIL COUNCIL WORK SESSION Date of meeting: 5 December 1989 Date of issue: 11 December 1989 Location: Town of Vail Council Chamber Attendees: Vail Council: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro Tem Lynn Fritzlen Jim Gibson Merv Lapin Rob Levine Peggy Osterfoss Vail Staff: ' Stan Berryman Ron Phillips MBA: Michael Barber Kathy Harhai Prepared by: Kathy Harhai This portion of the Vail Town Council work session was devoted to review scope and estimated construction cost of renovation and expansion of the Vail Transportation Center and to establish the direction to be pursued by Michael Barber Architecture in development of the project design. 1. Review of the project to date a. Following an introduction by Ron Phillips, MBA distributed a summary of estimated cost and illustrations of the project scope. b. M. Barber reviewed the process to date, which began with the traffic and parking study for which MBA was contracted a year ago. That study led to establishment of a scope of work and budget for the project, approved by Town Council 5 September 1989. The budget, listed in the first column of the attached Project Cost Summary, was the result of extensive work sessions with Vail representatives and pricing exercises by general contractors. MICHAEL BAR 8 E R ARCHITECTURE PROFESSIONAL C O R P O R A T I O N 1290 BROADWAY SUITE 600 DENVER COLORADO 80203-5606 TELEPHONE 303 837 0555 FACSIMILE 303.837 0600 Vail Transportation Center Meeting Minutes 5 December 1989 Page 2 c. One of the larger issues identified at the time the budget was being established was the allowance for renovation of the existing garage. It was decided by Vail Council that $1.5 million worth of renovation would be done on the parking structure. d. At the time the budget was set, the level four transit facility accommodated about 7 buses in a single row on the deck itself and over-the road buses in a single row off the deck in the Frontage Road right-of-way. Taxis and vans occupied the main portion of the deck west of the transit terminal. e. Pedestrian improvements at East Meadow Drive were allotted $100,000 for construction. Overall a budget of about $7 million was established for physical improvements alone. Costs identified in addition to this included acquisition of the Cornice Building site, needed for possible long term expansion of the parking structure with a full fifth and sixth level. 2. Estimate of 11-29-89 for basic scope of work a. The most recent costing done by general contractors working with MBA is identified under the three columns of the Estimate 11-29-89 of the attached project cost summary. b. The column 'Basic Scope of Work' identifies the updated estimated construction cost of the same scope items that were identified in the original project budget. Comparing identical scope items, the project is estimated to be below budget. 3. Proposed revisions to project scope Through the design process involving MBA, engineering consultants, and Vail representatives, the scope has been revised to include a number of new elements. M. Barber reviewed the recommended scope revisions as follows: a. A roof is added to the radius ramp at the west end. b. A level five overpass with parking has been added c. Restructuring of the level four transit deck is necessary because of the significant programmatic change in the number of buses. The original plan called for 7 buses on the deck itself, current plans call for 21 buses on the deck. As recently as three weeks ago MBA presented to Vail Vail Transportation Center Meeting Minutes 5 December 1989 Page 3 schemes which did not require restructuring of the deck. It was agreed at that time that the optimal use of the area by buses requires restructuring. d. The existing condition study being undertaken concurrently with the design process is finding extensive corrosion of reinforcing steel in concrete beams at the garden. The long term fix of this problem is to rebuild the garden area by removing the existing planters and stairs, rebuilding the stairs, and moving planted areas off the parking structure to minimize the opportunity for water leakage directly into the building. MBA has discussed with Vail staff a range of options from $200,000 to $600,000 in cost, and an allowance of $400,000 has been recommended. e. A second elevator is added at the transit terminal. This elevator will be relocated from the shaft just east of the garden stair area. The facility will have a total of four elevators, two at the terminal and two at the new service core. Public toilets at the southwest corner of the existing facility are being included in the project now, but were not in the original scope. g. Site furnishings are being provided at the rebuilt garden stair area and at the pedestrian improvements along East Meadow Drive. h. The existing condition study has indicated that the concrete topping at level four is in need of shotblasting and resealing to limit water and salt intrusion. The same resurfacing should eventually be done at levels one through three, but this can be deferred from the capital improvements and done instead as part of the long term maintenance of the facility. Shot-blasting and resealing is not a permanent fix to the problem of water infiltration, but is one method of minimizing the risk of water damage. A new fire stair is needed at the existing parking structure and mechanical shafts for supply air must be relocated because of layout of the transit deck. The visitor Information center has been reduced from 2000 square feet to 1000 square feet. Vail Transportation Center Meeting Minutes 5 December 1989 Page 4 4. Recommended community Improvements Identified in the 11-29-89 cost estimate are general community improvements, added to the project scope at the request of the PEC and DRB. These are two 3' wide attached bike lanes and a 5' wide detached sidewalk at the South Frontage Road, a 5' attached sidewalk at Blue Cow Chute, brick paver crosswalks at Blue Cow Chute, and exterior signage. 5. MBA recommendation re scope/budget MBA recommends designing the scope of work defined here, but also identifying afternatas which could be deducted at the time a construction contract is awarded. Given the competitiveness of the construction bidding market, some or all of the alternates are likely to be achievable within the project budget. If after bid opening the accepted bid is too high, Vail can opt to take one or more deductions to bring the construction cost into line with funds available for the project. THis provides a margin of safety while enabling Vail to get the maximum value for the dollar. 6. questions and discussion regarding recommendations a. In response to a question regarding the pros and cons of adding the level 5 overpass, M. Barber explained that it will provide an additional 116 parking spaces, eliminates dead ends at level 4, and provides a roof over the entry/exit ramps. b. There was discussion about the tradeoffs made by locating the entrance ticket dispensers inside the parking structure on the level four ramp. While this provides more queuing space wthin the garage and reduces back-up of traffic onto the Frontage Road, the arrangement sacrifices about 40 parking spaces at the level four entry ramp. It was agreed that the ticket dispensers will be moved part way up the level four entry ramp to recapture some of the lose parking spaces while still providing some queuing space within the garage. c. The density of buses shown at the transit deck was questioned. Vail staff responded that they feel strongly that the bus lanes shown are needed, based on current peak demand and moderate projections for expansion of bus service. d. The size of the visitor information center was discussed. The square footage of the structure has ranged from 1000 Vail Transportation Center Meeting Minutes 5 December 1989 Page 5 square feet to 7000 square feet at various points in the design process. The recent decision by Vail staff to scale the building down to its current 1000 square feet was made within the context of overall project priorities. e. MBA recommends that the project contingency to be carried forward at the time of bidding is 2-1/2°~. 7. Identification of scope by Council The following decisions were made by Council regarding the basic scope and deduct alternates to be pursued in design development and construction documents. a. Included in the base scope are: 1) Four level parking expansion 2} New service facility 3) Ramp with roof connecting levels 2 and 3 4) Renovation of the existing parking facility 5) Reconfiguration and restructuring of the transit deck 6) New 1000 square foot visitor information center 7) Level four walkway and stair, with toilets at the west end 8) Expansion of South Frontage Road 9) Rebuilding garden and stairs with 4000 square feet of core and shell space 11) Site furnishings 12} New fire stair and relocated mechanical shaft at transit deck b. The project components to be carried as deduct alternates are: 1) Renovation of the existing transit terminal 2) Widening of East Meadow Drive for pedestrians 3) Level 5 overpass parking 4) Relocation of elevator from east of garden stair to the transit terminal 5) Community improvements of two 3' attached bike lanes and a 5' detached sidewalk at the Frontage Road, 5' attached sidewalk and brick paver crosswalks at Blue Cow Chute, exterior signage c. Deleted from the project scope are: 1) Resurfacing of concrete topping at levels 1, 2 and 3. This procedure will be deferred at this time and done at a later date as part of the ongoing maintenance program. Vail Transportation Center Meeting Minutes 5 December 1989 Page 6 These meeting minutes reflect our understanding of subjects discussed and decisions reached. Please advise us of any corrections or additions. cc: Vail: Kent Rose, Mayor Stan Berryman MBA: File 22289 Vault 22289 VAIL TRANSPORTATION CENTER 05-DeC-89 MICHAEL BARBER ARCHITECTURE PROJECT COST SUMMARY BUDGET ESTIMATE 9-5-89 11-29-89 BASIC SCOPE BASIC SCOPE BASIC SCOPE FULL SCOPE OF WORK OF WORK OF WORK WITH DEDUCT WITH ALTEANATES REVISIONS 8 REDUCED CONTINGENCY CONSTRUCTION COST (2-v2~,6) BASE SCOPE OF WORK Four level parking expansion 53,400,000 53,755,538 53,755,538 53,755 538 New service lacility 5780,000 5424,024 5424,024 , E424 024 Ramp connecting levels 2 and 3 5315,000 5304,420 5304,420 , 5304,420 Renovation of existing parking Iacilily S1,SOO,D00 51,500,000 51,500,000 51,500,000 Renovation of existing trans(1 laciilty `~ (10,000 sf @ S30/sQ 5300,000 5300,000 5300,000 (deducq Re:onliguralion of iranist deck 5275,000 E23,000 E23,000 523,000 New visitor center (2,00051 @ E100/s0 5200,000 5200,000 S200,000 5200,000 Level 4 pedestrian walkway 3 slab 558,000 593,653 593,653 593.653 Widening East Meadow Dr, for pedestrian 5100,000 5156,506 5156,506 5156,506 Expansion of South Frontage Road E31,000 581,891 581,891 581,891 Sublolal of base scope 56.959,000 5&,839,032 56,839,032 S6,539,032 REVISIONS I Add roof @ level 210 3 radius ramp 50 ~ SO 541,507 541,507 Add Ieve15 overpass parking SO 50 5569,753 (deduct) Restructure Transit deck for 280 psi SO 50 5254,300 5254 300 R~:build garden b garden stairs with , - x,000 sf core 8 shell spaco 50 50 5400,000 5400,000 -AdA second elevator at Iranlsl terminal v SO SO 525,000 525,000 Add public toile) rooms @ west end stair SO 50 568.400 568,400 r Add site furnishings 50 SO 557,172 S57,172 Delete resurlacing of levels 1, 2, 3 of existing garage 50 EO (5172,597) (5172,597) Add new Ilre stair ~ relocate mechanical supply shaft at existing garage SO SO 5300,000 5300,000 Delete 1,000 sl of program space from visitor center EO SO (5100,000) (5100,000) Subtotal of revisions 50 SO 51,443,535 5873.782 COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS Add Iwo 3' bike lanes at Frontage Rd. SO SO SO 521,725 Add 5' detached sidewalk @ Frontage Rd 50 SO SO 514,293 Add 5' attached sidewalk @ Blue Cow Chute SO SO SO 55,717 Add 2 brkk paver crosswalks @ Blue Cow Chute SO 50 SO 59,147 Increase 575,000 allowance to 5125,000 for signage 6 exterior graphics SO SO SO 550,000 Subtotal of community Improvements 50 SO SO 5100,882 Subtotal 01 construction cost 56,959,000 56,839,032 58,282,567 57,513.696 Contingency on construction cost 5347,950 5341,952 5414,128 5187,842 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 57,306,950 57,180,984 58,696,695 57,701,538 OTHER DIRECT COST Acquire Cornice Sile 5350,000 (not acquired) (nd acquired) (not acquired) sails and survey 510.000 510,000 slo,ooo slo,ooo Construction testing ~ 535,000 535,000 535,000 535,000 Architectural R engineering services 5450,000 5572,929 5600,000 5600,000 Re+mbursable cost 525,000 525,000 525,000 525.000 Subtoal 5870,000 5642,929 5670,000 5670.000 Contingency on direct cost _543,500 532,146 533,500 516,750 TOTAL DIRECT COST 5913,500 5675.075 5703,500 5686,750 TOTAL PROJECT COST 58,220,450 57,856,059 59,400,195 58,388,288 VAIL TRANSPORTATION CENTER _ MICHAEL BARBER ARCHITECTURE PROJECT NUMBER 22289 29 NOVEMBER 1989 PARKING CALCULATIONS Net Current Count Renovated and Expanded St ructure Increase at Existing Over Structure Renovation Expansion Total Existing Levell 234 243 56 299 Levell 300 299 113 412 Level 3 249 (1) 274 111 385 Level4 132 70 (2) 55 (3) 125 Subtotal 915 886 335 1221 306 Level 5 0 0 116 116 Total Garage 915 886 451 1337 422 NOTE: For the purpose of these calculations, a level is considered the flat portion of the deck together with the entire ramp to the level below. FOOTNOTES: (1) Count for existing Leve13 includes 89 spaces within the enclosed rental car area. (2) Count for renovated Level 4 includes 13 visitor spaces. 12 spaces were lost when visitor parking separated and transit deck is expanded to the east. 40 spaces were lost because of new interior ticket dispensing equipment and queuing at the existing ramp. (3) Area is provided at the new ramp for interior cashier equipment and exit lanes which would otherwise accommodate 50 spaces. Page 7 110 100 90 v c 0 N 80 0 t 70 60 SO TOWN MANAGER 1989 Salary Survey - Anrttrol Salary A B C D E F G H I J K ~ M N 0 P 0 R S T U V W X Cities A - COLORADO SPRINGS $102,996 B - AURORA $93,444 C - WESTMINSTER $81,396 D - BOULDER $78,576 E - ENGLEWOOD $78,540 F - ASPEN- $78,072 G - ARVADA $77,580 H - FT. COLLINS $74,100 I - BROOMFIELD $72,504 J - BRECKENRIDGE $69,996 K - LOVELAND $69,960 L -,::,NAIL $68,004 M - LONGMONT $67,200 N - GREENWOOD VILLAGE $67,200 O - LITTLETON $65,592 P - NORTHGLENN $64,500 Q - GREELEY $62,796 R - AVON $62,196 S - CHERRY HILLS $61,212 T - GRAND JUNCTION $59,988 U - ESTES PARK $59,484 V - FEDERAL HEIGHTS $59,052 W - DURANGO $55,008 TM399 CITY MAfIAGERS 1994 SALARY S~~RVEY SORTED 8Y TOTAL APlNUAL 5ALARY: 3RD COLUMN ;MOST CF THESE CITIES GIt'E THEIR SALARY IP~CREASES Or. 1lANUARY i} CURRENT TOTAL 89 1989 CITY OR 99 M4. TOTAL ACTUAL SALARY PLUS GTHER PAID SLRY PLUS CMPSTN MUNICIPALITY ------------------ MC/SALARY ANNUAL FICA RTRMNT INS. bEP;EFITS ANNUAL AUTO -- CCLORADC SPRINGS --------- 8583 --------- U12996 --------- 4 ---------- 87C ------- 227 ----------- 9685 ----------- 116225 ----------- YE5 AURORA 7781 93444 344 359 345 8821 145956 25GlMC. klESTMINSTER 6783 81396 4 695 224 7742 92427 YE5 flOULDEPI 6545 7857b 4 668 264 7484 89759 244/MD. ENGLEFJCCD 6545 78544 340 655 226 7726 92746 444/MO. ASPEtd# b54b 78472 304 325 345 7475 89716 254; MC. AR'YADA 54b5 7758±! 0 695 830 7994 95994 344/MO FT. CCLLIfS 6175 74144 344 843 137 7415 88971 34/MO. BRCCMr"IE~D 6442 r'2544 344 269 282 6893 92722 YES 6RECk:ENRIDGE 583: 59995 344 448 354 6891 $2b96 404iM0. LCL'ELAND 534 69964 340 354 348 0788 81454 175/MC. ::NAIL#3 565' 684t~~ 4 941 317 6981 83777 YES LCNGMCNT 5644 57244 4 791 299 c684 84154 YES GREET?F:L'!r: t'ILLAGE 544 J 6"~"; %L:~s 'hit J~~: nor! LY t '~6 Ll L456 v 'T5~'' ,! L Y~" LJ :TT' CT k' L' ,~.;C+ C! ~~r66~ CC~t~ 6.;~1,L ~(1 1 :.;~G I f ~ q Ll '1_~ t:t :'It r~ ,:~::~ 51 A71 7 ~~1~ ~~ri LLV/MO. t,?r,TH:;LEt,t; 5i T5 v4Jvt! t1 443 t34 b41r 7i'146 .;4o/MOs GF;EELEY 5233 62'96 344 252 122 5917 71444 2U4/MC. A'dCN 5183 62195 4 415 384 5978 71732 YES UC":-,V C :l~rr l HI L,: 51t!i SI212 344 344 344 L X441 T7's 7 ~L!.1L 'S~ J1lM~ LvVI lilt. (RAND JUNCTION 4999 59988 344 644 285 6194 74247 344/MC. ESTES FARE; 4957 59494 344 546 143 5956 74397 325/MC. FECERAL HEIGHTS 4921 59452 34G 149 184 5549 65584 YES DURANGO 4594 55446 4 468 252' 5344 63643 YES NHEATRIDGE 4563 54995 344 229 219 5334 63962 254/MO. EAGLE COUNTY. 5417 65444 344 163 s'68 6268 7521) YES ES~ CNT7 SC IL.DJTRCT 5254 75444 4 754 1{'4 '14!1 85244 YES LAENCCD CliRRENTLY 'JACANT #ASPEtd CUF'REPITLY VACANT #ASPEt~ AtlD ':'AIL F'RCVIDE HCUSINS 120 110 TOWN MANAGER 1989 Salary Survey~/knnuat Compensation 100 c 0 N 90 0 t ._. 80 70 60 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P O R S T U V W X Cities A - COLORADO SPRINGS $116,226 B - AURORA $105,856 C - ARVADA $95,880 D - ENGLEWOOD $92,706 E - WESTMINSTER $92,427 F - BOULDER $89,759 G - ASPEN $89,716 H - FT. COLLINS $88,977 I ~ - VAII; $83 , 777 r J - BROOMFIELD $82,722 K - BRECKENRIDGE $82,696 L - LOVELAND $81,454 M - LONGMONT $80,160 N - GREENWOOD VILLAGE $77,592 O - LITTLETON $75,140 P - GRAND JUNCTION $74,207 Q - NORTHGLENN $72,146 R - CHERRY HILLS $72,012 S - AVON $71,732 T - GREELEY $71,004 U - ESTES PARK $70,387 V - FEDERAL HEIGHTS $66,584 W - WHEATRIDGE $63,962 X - DURANGO $63,643 TN2~9 CITY NAti'GERS 1989 SALARY SiR~'EY SGRTED 8Y TGTAL ANMUAI CGfiDENSATIGM: STH CGLUMtd (NEST Gr" TNESE CITIES GI4'E TNEiR SALARY INCREA5E5 GN JANUARY 1) L~~~ :L. ; 1939 ACTUAL SALARY NUNICI'r'ALITY - --- -- NG/SALARY --- ----- AtdtdUAL -------- --- ------ -- --- I tt' t;G nn IGC L UL Ui1t5 t~ JI~~.I tl (.J - y 3 ~U j/~~00/'. LL!'4: AIRGRA 777 93444 ae Innn r,;;4~il,, s 646.. 7?SP.r ~ Et3LERGG~! 6545 7354E NESTMINSTER 6?33 8I39b .~L'! BER 6541 13576 ASP~N# 65=6 78672 FT. CGLLI°~5 6175 ?41UU 'VAILN 566' 63GG4 UiVJ U:fi Li. UV~IG ~ L'CLi:L~(itiL i:L 5v 'J v9 f /6 ~''rL LW'L AID 533? 699b0 rrt- ~ LJIS~~'t~ y X6.1_' ~`- 6r ,~1) -~c atl;,~r. :~. -rte G%L t;e t#L _L' ..LLrur r,% 56v.t ~` '11(1 Lli- LITTLETG 54-~ ~ 65592 or.strt -t;r -Ti ~~1 G;tnt.L uL;d4:.t„~ ooc 4;:: 5q~33 CST iI-. "..f At 57'~ UE~ki;it v+/.. ~;, cvLu 11:1 L`: 'c AaGt. 518;, 62196 GREELEY 5233 62796 CCTCC E.„4~ Lv i LJ n/. 4957 59484 FEDERAL HEIGHTS 4921 590152 aHEATRiDGE 458? 54995 DURAN6G 4584 55GG3 EAGLE CGUt?TY 5417 65GG4 EGL CtdTY SCHL.GSTRCT 625x' 750G~~ LAk:E~GGD CURRENTLY 4'ACAhT TGTAL 89 CITY CR 39 NG. TGTRL PLUS ETHER PAID 5LRY PLUS CPI~5Th FICA RIRNtdT ItdS. 3ENEFITS ------- - Al+t~UAL ------------ RUTG --------- -------- U ---------- 375 ------- 227 -- - 9685 116226 YE5 3GG 339 345 3321 10535b 250/MG. U 695 330 799E 95330 3UU/NG 300 655 22b 7726 92766 4U0lNG. U 695 224 7702 92427 YE5 0 668 264 743E 39759 206/MG. 300 325 345 7476 39716 25U/NG. 36:1 8U3 131 ?415 33977 3U/NG. l1 997 317 6931 33777' YE5 300 269 252 6393 32722 YES 360 468 356 b391 82b96 4UG/MG. 3GG 35U 368 6739 31454 175/NG. 0 791 239 668E 30160 YE5 3UG 236 286 6463 77592 YE5 300 219 217 b262 1514E 226/MG. 3GG 6UG 235 6184 7420? 3tsa/NG. U 463 234 b~J12 12146 3GG/NG. 3t1G 3GG .3GU bOGl 72012 256/NG. 0 415 386 5978 ?1132 YE5 306 262 122 5917 71004 260/MG. 3c10 506 iG3 5866 76387 325/NG. 3GG 148 180 5549 66534 YE5 3GG 229 218 533E 63962 250/NG. U 463 252 5364 63643 YES 3GD 163 338 b268 7521E YE5 U 756 1GU 7100 852GG YE5 f ASFEtJ CURREtdTLY 'v'ACAtdT lASPEt; ~ MAIL E'RGt`IDE HGUSItiG t .. N C O 0 r TOWN ATTORNEY 1989 Salary Survey - Annual"Salary 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 0 P Cities A - COLORADO SPRINGS $72,900 B - BOULDER $71,412 C - ADAMS COUNTY $70,200 D - BROOMFIELD $67,500 E - AURORA $66,732 F - ARVADA $66,012 G - ARAPAHOE COUNTY $65,004 H - LONGMONT $64,476 I - LITTLETON $63,828 J - ENGLEWOOD $61,488 K - LOVELAND $60,060 L - BOULDER COUNTY $60,000 M_- VAILp $58,740 N - FT. COLLINS $57,996 O - WESTMINSTER $53,544 P - GRAND JUNCTION $50,004 1 ,. TA289 CITY ATTORNEYS AP1D CML SURVEYED COUNTY ATTORNEY5 (SORTED BY TOTAL ANNUAL SALARY : 3RD COLUMN (MOST OF THESE ENTITIES GIVE THEIR RAISE5 ON JANURARY 11 MUNICIPALITY COLORADO SPRINGS BOULDER ADAMS COUNTY BROOMFIELD AURORA ARVADA ARAPAHOE COUPITY LONGMONT LITTIETON ENGLEWOOD LOVELAND BOULDER COUNTY 'VAIN FT. COLLINS WESTMIPdSTER GRAND JUNCTION A5PEN AVON HRECKELdRIDGE BRIr,HTON CHERRY HILLS DURANGO ESTES PARK FEDERAL HEIGHTS GREELEY GREENWOOD VILLAGE LAY-..EWOOD NORTHGLENP! SNOWMASS VILLAGE WHEATRIDGE CURRENT 1989 CITY ACTUAL SALARY PLUS OTHER FAIO MO/5ALARY --------- ANNUAL --------- FICA -- - RTRMNT ----- - IPdS. b075 12900 --- --- 0 - - -- b2U ------- 227 5951 71412 0 6~}1 270 5850 70200 3UU 468 245 5625 675QiJ 3UU 251 273 5561 b6732 3UU 3Ub 345 5501 66012 i} 625 395 5417 65004 3UD 190 1B4 5373 b4476 0 699 289 5319 63628 300 213 277 5124 61488 300 512 321 5Ui~5 60060 3u0 275 308 5000 60000 300 300 lIi 4895 5874p 0 862 317 4833 57996 3UU b28 137 4462 53544 0 457 300 4161 50004 300 500 285 TOTAL 89 OR 89 M0. TOTAL 5LRY PLUS CMPNSTN BENEFITS ---- ANNUAL ---------- AUTO ----------- ---- -- b922 - 83060 YE5 6828 81936 NO 68b3 82356 NO 6449 77387 NO 6512 18142 25U/M0. 6521 78252 250/MO 6091 73487 YES 6361 76332 175/M0. 6109 73305 1bU/M0. 6257 75089 4UU/M0. 5888 70654 115/M0. 5711 b8532 NO b014 12882 YES 5998 70779 30/MO. 5214 62b32 190/M0. 5252 63024 300/MO. NAVE BEEN IN 5IX MONTH PROCESS OF HIRING RETAIN A FIRM ~3000/MO ROUTINE #110/HR. NON-RHR. NON-ROUTIPIE 99 BUDGET 57500 CONTRACTS ~95/HR.3951HR. 1990 HiDGET .72000 RETAIL! A FIRM RETAIN A FIRM 32500/MO. FOR B HRS. R WEEK + 1 NEEK + 1800/MO PROSECUTION RETAIN A FIRM CDNTRACTS X85/HR. CONTRACTS 1i8ra/HR. VACANT CONTRACTS X85/HR. 1990 8UD1990 BUDGET 165000 CONTRACTS CONTRACTS 1990 BUDGET 195000 CONTRACTS 5100/HR. CONTRACTS 885/HR. TOWN ATTORNEY N U c 0 m 0 s ._. A B C D E F G H Cities 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 1989 Salary Survey-knnyGlCo ,p¢rt~-ation ., ,. A - COLORADO SPRINGS $83,060 B - ADAMS COUNTY $82,356 C - BOULDER $81,936 D - ARVADA $78,252 E - AURORA $78,142 F - BROOMFIELD $77,387 G - LONGMONT $76,332 H - ENGLEWOOD $75,089 I - LITTLETON $73,305 J - ARAPAHOE COUNTY $73,087 K - VAII~ $72, 882- E - FT. COLLINS $70,779 M - LOVELAND $70,659 N - BOULDER COUNTY $68,532 O - GRAND JUNCTION $63,024 P - WESTMINSTER $62,632 I J K L M N 0 P TAiu9 CITY ATTCRNEYS RNG CML SUR4'EYED CQUNTY ATTORNEYS SQRTEG BY TQTAL ANNUAL CGhfFENSATIQN: $TH CQLUMN (MCST QF THESE ENTITIES GI,'E THEIR KRISES CN ~ANURARY 1) CURRENT 1999 RCTUAL SAL ARY M~!NICIFALITY ------------- --- MC/SRLARY ----------- ANNUAL ---- -- CCLCFADC SF'RIP.GS - bU75 --- 72900 n r rAl RL'R!15 ~Qt!11TY 4'S' .,t..:t! 7U::~!0 BCUL DEFT 5951 71412 ARVAGA 5501 bb0i2 RUFQRR 5561 66732 BRCCMFIELG 5625 675r1i! LQNGMCNT 5373 b4476 ENGLEaCQG 5124 614$5 LITTLETCN 5319 6382$ e~~~ urlG rr• it 1\r'1~A,\,__ L~+talY ca; Jya7 Fc-:;• JJL!:: r! 4'AI~t 4$95 5B74i! FT. CQLLI"~5 4533 57995 LCVELRP;G 50:!5 60!60 BCUL GER CCL!MTY J ;.;: (1 `i~ ~' ii 60G_0 li ?IlA '`~T ~I IL S-~-r a~STMIP;~TER 442 5544 TOTAL $9 CITY CR 89 MU. TOTAL FL!DS OTHER FRIG 5LR'i FLUS CNFNSTN FICA RTRMNT -- IPdS. ---- BENEFITS ---------- ANNUAL ------------ AUTQ ---------- ------- 0 -------- 620 ---- 227 b922 B30bU YES 300 466 245 6$63 $2356 NQ U 607 ?70 b$2$ $193b P:C U 625 395 6521 7$252 250/MQ 3UU 305 345 6512 7$142 25v/MQ. 3i!U 251 273 6449 773$7 NQ 0 699 2$9 6361 76.32 I75/MC. 300 512 321 6257 750$9 400/MQ. 3i!0 2i3 271 6it79 73'05 1b0/MQ. 300 190 1$4 5091 730$7 YES 0 $62 317 bii74 72$$2' YES 300 62$ 137 5$9$ 70779 30/"1Q. 300 275 3{!B 5$B$ 70659 175?M;1. J;;O 3G+.! 111 5711 b$5J2 P;Q J~~~: JUG ~'! ~t51 rJ.t~c4 •~0~'M;,. U 457 TLU ,r 5~1o c r L~6', uc :'c lo~i.Mn r nu. ASFEN HA.'E BEEP. ILr" SIY MC;TH FRQCESS OF HIRING RVQN RETAIL; A FIRM #JUt+OiMC ROUTINE #110iHR. NCN-RHR. NQ~-RGL!TINE $9 BUDGET 57500 BRECP:ENRIDGE CONTRACTS #95/HR.f95/HR. I99U BUDGET 7E`!UO BRIGHTON RETAIN R FIRM CHERRY HILLS RETAIN A FIRM #25G'O/MO. FOR 9 HRS. R i~EEft + 1 MEEK. + 1$Ui!/MC FROSECUTION DURANGQ RETAILd A FIRM E5TE5 FARM: CONTRACTS #$5/HR. FEDERAL HEIGHTS CONTRACTS #$U/HR. GREELEY VACRNT GREEP1kQOG 4'ILLRGE CCPlTRACTS #$5/HR. 1990 RUDf990 BUDGET 1b5UUr, LAKENOOG CONTRACTS PdORTHGLENN CONTRACTS 1990 BUDGET 195000 SNC;JMA55 ;"ILLAE CCP~TRACTS f1~rJ1HR. k~ERTRII!SE CONTRACTS =~'S/HR. 14 January, 1990 ~~'~ ~A~ 1 5 •i'~:: , Dear Vail Town Council Members, I regret that I am not able to be in attendance on Tuesday evening, but I will be attending a Legislative Reception in Denver from 5:00 to 8:00 P.M. so doubt I will be able to make it to the Town Council meeting unless it turns out to be one of your longer ones. I do want you to know, however, that I am absolutely opposed to a c}~arige in zoning on the Stephens parcel in Vail Intermountain Subdivision as proposed by Fessler Realty. Intermountain is a lovely area, surpassed in beauty in this valley only by the rock cliffs and waterfalls in East Vail. It is special - and the subject parcel is also special. How many creek frontage parcels are still available in the area? It is right for a few ,quality homes not a high density condominium complex. Our family has lived at 2952 Bellflower for more than 18 years; most of those years we were the onl}* family on the street. A number of years ago a gentleman built a number of duplex houses at the end of Bellflower and rented them out. For a number of years no family would consider living there. Only single people, huge dogs and junk cars lived there. Just re- cently young couples have purchased the run down houses and have started to bring them back. We are thrilled! For 18 years we have worried about our children and then our granc}iildren getting near the street in front of our house because people living at the end of our street drive too fast in a residential area. As young couples with children move in up the street, that seems to be getting better. Seventeen or eighteen years ago investors came in from outside the valley, built rental condominiums in Intermountain, rented them out and went back to where they came from. More dogs and junk cars. Finally cae are attracting permanent residents and property values are coming back. We have been through annexation and de-annexation and annexation again. Our need for parks, bike paths, etc. have been the last to be addressed and now we are asked to stand back and take another swat? NO! We live in Intermountain because it is a low density residential subdivision; cae re- lied on the zoning that is in place. The Town down-zoned when we ~•~ere annexed for the betterment of the area. Don't change that now. There are areas much better suited and already being planned for high density housing to supply employee housing needs. Please don''t solve someone else' problem by giving it to us. for a-mo vote. tfu ' ~~~__./