HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-05-29 Support Documentation Town Council Work SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, MAY 29, 1990
2:00 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Vail Village Criterium Request for Funds
2. Discussion on Zoning Code Revisions
3. Report on Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Action
regarding Census Problems
4. Information Update
5. Other
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, MAY 29, 1990
2:00 P.M.
EXPANDED AGENDA
2:00
Ted Martin
1. Vail Village Criterium Request for Funds ($10,000)
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ted
Martin's request for up to $10,000 for Vail Village
Criterium Bicycle Race.
Background Rationale: Ted Martin's trying to save the
bicycle race, which was being handled by John Horan-Kates
for EuroFaire on the weekend of July 7. Vail Associates has
committed $10,000, and Ted is asking the Town for $10,000.
The Council asked last week that Ted refine the proposed
budget.
2:15
Tom Braun
Kristan Pritz
2. Discussion on Zoning Code Revisions
Action Requested of Council: Provide comments on amendment
alternatives presented for five "high priority" amendments
(SDD's, GRFA, site coverage, pay in lieu parking program,
and CCI zone district).
Background Rationale: This is the first "series" of
amendments in a process that will run throughout the
summer. As directed by the Council, the zoning code is
being addressed first, with the design guidelines and sign
code to follow. See enclosed memos.
4:15
Tom Steinberg
4:30
Ron Phillips
3. Report on NWCCOG Action regarding Census Problems
4. Information Update
4:35 5. Other
MEMO T0: Town Council, PEC/Zoning Code Task Force, Staff
FROM:- Tom Braun
DATE: May 25, 1990
RE: Amendment Alternatives for Commercial Core I (Vail Village)
Commercial Core I issues were not included in the Council's
original list of high priority items. However, in reviewing the
code, there are a number of issues that when considered
collectively, may constitute CCI being a high priority. These
issues include:
1) The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan is technically
applicable only in the CCI zone district. However, the
Plan was designed to cover surrounding areas such as WI,
Crossroads, The Sonnanalp and Village Center.
2) Generally, the entire CCI chapter is disorganized and in
places redundant.
3) There are no quantified limits on the development of
commercial square footage in CCI. This puts incredible
pressure on the design guidelines as the only control of
building bulk and mass.
4) Development standards (density, setbacks, site coverage
and landscaping) are ambiguous with regard to how the
Urban Design Guide Plan is used as a criteria in
reviewing development proposals.
5) There is no longer a need to not have a minimum setback
in CCI. Flexibility should still be maintained, but the
perception that the "Village has no setbacks" should be
changed.
6) There are a variety of complications with regard to how
building height is calculated in the Village.
7) Numerous problems are found in the chapter's use section.
8) There are special criteria to be used for reviewing
conditional use .requests. These are in need of
updating and refinement.
9) There are really no adequate criteria for reviewing
proposals that remove, relocate or reduce in size an
outdoor dining patio. Specific criteria would be helpful
to review the merits of these types of proposals.
10) A conditional use permit is required to remove an
accommodation or dwelling unit. However, this is only
required for units on the second floor. The process
should be amended to include units on all floors.
While some of these amendments are very straight forward, others
are quite complex. Since these issues have not been identified as
a priority, specific alternatives are not presented. These
alternatives will be developed in the near future if CCI is deemed
a priority by the Council. Obviously, it is recommended that these
items be made a priority.
wp:cciintro
5/25/90
MEMO T0: Town Council, PEC/Zoning Task Force, Planning Staff
FROM: Tom Braun
DATE: May 22, 1990
RE: Amendment alternatives for the "Pay in Lieu" Parking Program
Two issues have been raised with regard to the "pay in lieu"
parking program. This program was established to minimize
vehicular traffic in the Village and Lionshead by prohibiting the
construction of parking spaces required for new development. In
lieu of providing spaces on site, a developer is required to pay
the Town for each new space.. These funds are then earmarked
specifically for the maintenance or expansion of parking
facilities. The issues raised with regard to this program are the
fees charged per space and whether all aspects of the program are
justified in the Lionshead area.
PARKING FEES
Current parking fees are $3, 000 per commercial space and $5, 000 per
residential space. In 1988, the Council approved a rate increase
to $8,000 (for any space) at first reading. However, the ordinance
was withdrawn at second reading to allow for the completion of a
parking study.
Proponents of the increase argued that the $3-5,000 rate was less
than half the cost of constructing a space, and that the Town
should not be subsidizing parking. Opponents argued that the
increase would prevent the redevelopment of property and that if
an owner paid the full cost of a space, the owner should be granted
full use of a space.
Amendment Alternatives
The degree of increase is a policy decision to be made by the
Council. The arguments for and against the rate increase are
valid. The original proposal for rate increases was $10,000.
During discussion at first reading, this was reduced to $8, 000
in response to opponents arguments. If a rate increase is to
be made, it should be done with consideration given to the
actual parking requirements and the impact of fee increases
on future building upgrades and infill development.
LIONSHEAD AREA
The Lionshead Mall area is very different from Vail Village. In
Lionshead, vehicular access is available to every property on the
Mall, without impacting pedestrianized areas on the Mall. Other
properties zoned CCII are eligible for the parking program, but
are not adjacent to the Mall (i.e., Antlers, L'Ostello, Lionsquare
Lodge). The issue that has been raised is whether the vehicular
access afforded certain properties in Lionshead should preclude
them from being eligible for this program. Additionally, should
a property be permitted to convert existing parking to another use
and compensate for the lost parking by paying into the fund (this
issue applies to both the Village and Lionshead)?
The parking program was adopted as an element of the Village and
Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plans. These plans recommended a
number of commercial infills in both areas. The parking program
provided an alternative for satisfying increased parking demand for
properties that physically could not accommodate more parking, or
in locations where it was undesirable to introduce more traffic.
While many of these expansions have been completed in the Village,
few have been done in Lionshead. The elimination of this
alternative for Lionshead would effectively eliminate the
possibility of infill projects because most properties cannot
physically add new spaces to existing parking structures.
Amendment Alternatives
One alternative is to address the Lionshead area by
eliminating CCII from the Parking Exemptions section of the
zoning code (this is the section that establishes the pay in
lieu program). However, this would create the problem
outlined above, the future expansion of existing developments
in Lionshead would in all likelihood no longer be possible.
A second, and more effective alternative would be to prohibit
the use of the parking program for proposals that remove
existing parking spaces. This would directly solve one
problem that has occurred in the past - the conversion of
existing parking spaces to another use. However, this
alternative would still allow the use of this program for
parking demand created by new development. Additionally,
amendments should be made to eliminate properties that are
located off the Mall from being eligible for this program
altogether. This could be accomplished by adopting an overlay
district outlining the properties that may pay in lieu of
providing parking on site. The end result of these amendments
is that only those properties fronting on the Mall can pay in
lieu of providing parking, and only for parking demand created
by new infill development.
Given the different characteristics of the Village and
Lionshead, it may be valid .to consider allowing the removal
of spaces in the Village. Any reduction of spaces in the
Village will minimize vehicular traffic, a benefit for the
entire community.
wp:parkintr
5/23/90
MEMO T0: Town Council, PEC/Zoning Code Task Force
FROM: Tom Braun
DATE: May 24, 1990
RE: Development Code Revision Project
The purpose of this work session is to update the Council on the
progress of the development code revision project, discuss
preliminary alternatives for addressing five high priority
amendment items and begin discussions on the long range priorities
for this project. The Council has selected the zoning code as the
first element to be addressed during this revision process and the
items to be discussed at this worksession are limited to zoning
issues. Revisions to the design guidelines and sign code will be
initiated after the zoning code is substantially completed.
INVENTORY OF THE ZONING CODE
A comprehensive inventory of the zoning code was completed over the
past three weeks. The main product of this effort is a report that
inventories approximately 70 issues or problems that were
identified in the code. Each inventory summarizes the problem,
states the objective of amending the code section, and presents
preliminary amendment alternatives.
The issues inventoried were selected based on the following
considerations:
1) Interpretation Is the code written or presented in a
manner in which it may easily be interpreted a number of
different ways?
2) Conflict Are any sections of the code in direct conflict
with other sections?
3) Consistency Are common issues .dealt with- consistently
throughout the code, and is the code generally consistent
with the Vail Master Plan?
4) Clarity Is the code written in a clearly understandable
manner free of ambiguities?
5) Organization Are code sections and other pertinent
provisions of the code found in logical locations?
6) Experience Has past use of the code raised issues or
problems that can be addressed through this amendment
process?
The purpose of this inventory is to see where we stand in terms the
number-and types of amendments that may be required, to begin
identifying the inter-relationships of various amendments and to
provide a basis for prioritizing future actions. The amendment
alternatives are not intended to advocate or recommend certain
amendments. Rather, these alternatives are provided to prompt
dialogue on how existing code problems could be handled
differently. It should be understood that for each of the issues
that have been inventoried, a valid alternative may well be the "no
action alternative", in which the code would remain unchanged.
Finally, this list is not all inclusive and will be modified based
on dialogue with the Council, Commission, staff and the community.
Due to technical difficulties, this report will not be ready for
distribution until next week.
PUBLIC PROCESS
Participation of people directly affected by the development codes
and process, the community, is critical to the success of. this
process. Over 400 invitations were sent out to architects,
developers, contractors, real estate agents, individuals and
special interest groups for a series of meetings that were held
Wednesday through Friday of last week. While the response to these
invitations was low, continued efforts will be made to keep people
involved throughout the code revision process.
PRIORITY ITEMS
The Council has identified four high priority items to be addressed
early in this process. These include:
1) Special Development Districts
2) Gross Residential Floor Area
3) Site Coverage
4) "Pay in Lieu" Parking Program
Memos addressing each of these issues, and a memo outlining
significant issues in the CCI zone district (Vail Village), have
been prepared. These memos outline a range of alternatives for
dealing with these issues. A goal of our discussion is to reach
some consensus on how we want to resolve these problem areas in the
code.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Following this work session, the PEC Task Force will meet to begin
refining alternatives for the five high priority amendments.
Members of this task force include Diana Donovan, Kathy Warren,
Dalton Williams and Jim Shearer. It is anticipated that the formal
review process for these amendments will begin in late June or
early July. The Council and task force will be asked to review
the Inventory Report and make recommendations for priortizing other
code amendments. The next "series" of amendments will initiated
in July.
wp:wsmemo
5/24/90
MEMO TO: Town Council, PEC/Zoning Code Task Force, Planning Staff
FROM: Tom Braun
DATE: May 18, 1990
RE: Amendment alternatives for Gross Residential Floor Area
(GRFA)
Problems with the GRFA system are well documented. The majority
of these problems stem from the manner is which GRFA is defined and
how the system is implemented. As written, permitted residential
floor area is established by a ratio of building area to lot size.
Over the years, this relatively simple ratio system has become very
complex by a definition that excludes many types of interior spaces
from square footage calculations. This "credit system" is
difficult to interpret, poorly defined and at times an
unenforceable method of controlling bulk and mass.
It is the premise of this report that the underlying goal of these
amendments should be to simplify this system by establishing an
efficient and enforceable means for .limiting building size.
BACKGROUND ON BULK AND MASS CONTROLS
Controlling the type and intensity of development is one of the
basic goals of land use planning. Location of land uses,
development standards and density are the primary land use controls
implemented through zoning. These land use controls are designed
to limit the degree to which land is used, or developed. The
"intensity" of residential development has typically been measured
in terms of density, or units per acre. Setbacks, site coverage
and building height have historically been used to control the bulk
and mass of residential development.
The reliance on setbacks, site coverage and height have proven to
be inadequate tools for regulating bulk and mass. The purpose of
setbacks is to provide space between buildings. By themselves,
setbacks do nothing to control bulk. Site coverage limits the
footprint of buildings, but it only measures two of the three
dimensions necessary to define bulk. Building height is directly
related to bulk, but is only a piece of the puzzle. Together these
tools establish some control of bulk and mass, but this control is
not without limitation.
Floor area ratio (FAR) was developed to provide a more precise and
adaptable measure for controlling the intensity of development.
FAR permits a certain amount of square footage based on the amount
of site area. For example, an FAR of .5 on a site 10,000 square
feet would allow 5,000 square feet of development. However,. just
as setbacks, site coverage and height alone cannot control bulk,
neither can a floor area ratio system. While there are other
systems in use, collectively these four "tools" provide the most
effective (and most commonly used) , system for controlling bulk and
mass.
PROBLEMS WITH VAIL'S GRFA SYSTEM
Fundamentally, Vail's methodology of controlling building bulk is
sound - site coverage, setbacks, building height and square footage
controls are all in place. Problems center around the manner in
which GRFA is defined.
1) The system is convoluted. Over the years, credits have
been established or interpretations have been made that
make it very difficult to understand what counts as GRFA
and what doesn't. Storage areas, garages, mechanical
rooms, airlocks, overlapping stairs, crawl spaces, bay
windows and attics are all discounted to varying degrees.
These credits, or exclusions, make GRFA an inherently
difficult concept to understand.. This becomes painfully
evident in dealing with an architect or property owner
unfamiliar with the "system".
2) Terminology used throughout the code is ill defined.
What constitutes a storage area, garage or mechanical
room? While the example is extreme, plans for a new
duplex were once submitted to the Town for review that
included a second floor space, complete with windows on
two walls, labeled as "storage area". With no definition
of what a storage space is suppose to be, the staff has
little alternative but to credit this space as storage.
3) Far too many interpretive decisions must be made in
reviewing plans for compliance with GRFA. This is in
large part due to the lack of definitions. This puts
pressure on both the staff to not be the "bad guy" by
drawing a hard line on the credits, and the project
architect, who is pressured by .the client to maximize
square footage. The review process essentially comes
down to a game of cat and mouse.
4) The present system is ripe for abuse, and it is being
abused. As property values have increased, architects
and builders have become increasingly aggressive in their
pursuit of square footage. A commonly used tactic with
basement space is to excavate a full basement and
partition off as much space as necessary with a wood
frame wall in order to meet the lot's GRFA. After final
inspections, modifications are made to the wall to make
the "void space" accessible and useable. There have even
~~
been cases of developers installing electrical and
plumbing improvements in these purportedly inaccessible
spaces. Their intention is all too obvious, but as long
as this "preliminary" work is done in compliance with the
Building Code, there is no basis in the zoning code to
stop it. Another method of circumventing GRFA is to
enclose a space on only three sides or leave a small
opening in one wall. This technically makes the space
unenclosed so it does not count as GRFA. The burden is
then on the staff to watch these sites for future
enclosure.
ALTERNATIVES OF MODIFYING THE GRFA SYSTEM
The following are five alternatives for revising addressing bulk
and mass controls. While there may be other systems that could be
implemented, these five are probably the most viable.
ALTERNATIVE #1 - Refine Existing System
Refining the existing system essentially comes down to clarifying
the terminology used to define GRFA. Standards could be
established for credits - i.e., mechanical room limited to 50
square feet to accommodate plumbing, heating, air conditioning,
ventilation or other mechanical system. A procedural section is
also warranted. This section would outline the methodology used
to award credits - i. e. , all habitable space within enclosing walls
of structure is measured, then credits are applied to each unit for
square footage that meets the standards outlined for credits.
Pros Definitions would go a Long way toward minimizing the
need for interpretations and would clarifying the entire
process. The procedural section is important to clearly state
the conditions in which credits are awarded. It is generally
assumed that all credits are automatically factored into GRFA
calculations.
Cons This alternative would clarify the intent of the
credits, but it would do nothing to solve enforcement issues
and the inherent complexity of the system. It really begs the
question of why anyone needs to worry about whether space
designated storage is used for a bedroom? The purpose of
these controls is to limit bulk and mass, not control how
interior space is used. Refining the system could make it
better, but it would not eliminate the cumbersome manner in
which square footage is calculated.
ALTERNATIVE #2 - Eliminate Square Footage Controls
This alternative is as simple as it sounds - leave bulk and mass
control to setbacks, site coverage and building height. This is
not without precedent. While it is more the exception than the
rule, not all communities have square footage controls. Beaver
Creek is one example on a jurisdiction that does not regulate
residential square footage.
Pros This alternative would clearly eliminate difficulties
with the existing system. Significant amounts of time would
be saved "haggling" over square footage, and enforcement would
become a non-issue.
Cons Any legitimate control over the maximum size of
buildings would be lost. Site coverage and height would
certainly provide limitations on development, but the
potential impact of bulk and mass would be very significant.
This system could dramatically change the scale of development
in established neighborhoods (i.e., what has already happened
in the Forest Road neighborhood). This. system is feasible
under certain conditions. Beaver Creek is a good example, but
this planned development has formally established building
envelopes and the entire subdivision was designed to be
developed without square footage controls. Another example
of when this system could work is in communities where market
forces do not create the demand for maximizing square footage.
ALTERNATIVE #3 - Count All Square Footage
Like Alternative #2, this is a "clean" alternative in that it would
make the GRFA system very simple. With this alternative, all space
within the enclosing walls of a structure and all substantially
enclosed space would be calculated. Potential wording could be:
GROS5 FLOOR AREA: The sum of horizontal areas of all
floors of a building on a lot, measured from the interior
face of exterior walls. Gross floor area shall include
all enclosed space and all substantially enclosed space.
Gross floor area shall include all basements, elevator
shafts at their lowest level, stairways and landings, bay
windows, mechanical and storage areas, lofts, attics with
structural headroom of five (5) feet or more and any
excavated areas with structural headroom of six (6) feet
or more, whether or not a floor has actually been laid.
This wording was modified from language used in Fairfax County,
Virginia. It does not represent proposed wording, rather, an
example of language designed to count all interior space.
Additional work is needed to define "substantially enclosed space".
Pros This alternative would eliminate the "cat and mouse"
game during plan review, and would also help solve enforcement
issues by eliminating the potential "void spaces".
Cons This would essentially be a down-zoning of residential
zoned properties. With current regulations, a single family,
duplex or primary/secondary lot is eligible for the following
credits:
200 sq. ft./unit - storage
600 sq. ft./unit - garage
50 sg. ft./unit - mechanical
25 sq. ft./unit - air lock
Add approximately 150 square feet for overlapping staircases
and a unit may have nearly 1,000 square feet of space in
addition to allowable GRFA. On a duplex or p/s lot, that
comes to 2,000 square feet that this alternative would "take
away" from a property. This system would also create a
disincentive to construction garages. Finally, an argument
against this alternative will be made that there is no
justification in calculating excavated basement space because
these spaces are generally below grade and do not contribute
to building bulk.
ALTERNATIVE #4 - Count All Square Footage Increase FAR
This alternative would be the same as #3, but it recognizes the
GRFA penalty on properties and also would make some concessions
for garages. The loss of square footage that would. be created by
the new definition of floor area could be offset by increasing the
permitted floor area. Currently, the Duplex and P/S districts
permit .25 GRFA (25 square feet per 100 square feet of site). On
a 15,000 square foot lot, this equates to 3,750 sq. ft. Add to
that the potential "credit square footage" of 2,000 square feet,
and a lot may have up to 5,750 square feet of space - a ratio of
.38 (building area to site area). While to what degree is unknown
at this time, this alternative would increase the permitted
building ratio to compensate for the loss of these credits. It may
also be beneficial to maintain some credit to encourage garages.
Pros This alternative provides all of the benefits outlined
under Alternative #3. In addition, it is responsive to the
existing development rights that have been afforded these
properties.
Cons The alternative does not answer the argument of why
excavated basement space should be included in square footage
calculations when it does not contribute to building bulk.
ALTERNATIVE #5 - BUILDING VOLUME RATIO
Building volume is a system that calculates the actual volume of
building on a site. This is calculated by a very complex formula
that incorporates roof height, wall height, length and depth, and
coverage to establish a building's volume. This system is not
widely used, primarily due to the complex and time consuming
process of the calculations. Efforts are underway to locate
examples of this system.
RECOMMENDATIONS
There is no question that something needs to be done to the
existing GRFA system. Additionally, it is fairly obvious that some
square footage control is necessary. To eliminate square footage
controls in a predominately developed community like Vail would
create the potential to dramatically change the building scale and
character of established neighborhoods. Alternatives #3 and #4
represent the most viable alternatives for modifying this system.
Of these two alternatives, Alternative #4 is clearly the most
equitable because it recognizes the inherent "penalty" of taking
away GRFA credits.
With each of these alternatives, many detailed questions would have
to be addressed. For example, are measurements made to the inside
or outside of exterior walls, what are reasonable head heights for
attic spaces and crawl spaces, should there be a credit for
garages, and how would GRFA definition changes affect multi-family
buildings? At this point, our objective is to identify which one
of these alternatives has the greatest potential for solving GRFA
problems. Once we narrow our options down, we can begin looking
at these more detailed issues.
wp:grfaintr
5/20/90
MEMO TO: Town Council, PEC/Zoning Task Force, Staff
FROM: Tom Braun
DATE: May 25, 1990
RE: Amendment Alternatives for Site Coverage Control
Site coverage, building height and square footage limitations are
the three primary tools that control building bulk and mass.
Problems with square footage control are documented in another
memo. There are many similarities between GRFA problems and the
problems with site coverage. .Simply stated, as presently defined,
there are many ways to "design around" the site coverage rules.
The end result of this situation is that site coverage limitations
are not effectively controlling building bulk.
Within each zone district, site coverage is addressed with language
that reads: "Not more than X% of the total site area shall be
covered by buildings". Three terms in the definition section,
"building", "structure" , and "site coverage" must then be referred
to in order to define how this regulation is to be implemented.
Specific problems with these definitions are:
BUILDING "means any structure having a roof supported by
columns or walls, or any other enclosed structure, for the
housing or enclosure of persons, animals, or property".
If this were the only definition of what is to be included in
site coverage calculations, there would probably be very few
interpretive problems. Virtually any improvement would fall
under this definition or the definition of "structure" (see
below). However, this definition would not limit the building
bulk added from an interior courtyard surrounded by buildings
on three or four sides.
STRUCTURE "means anything constructed or erected with a fixed
location on the ground, but not including poles, lines,
cables, or other transmission or distribution facilities of
public utilities, or mailboxes or light fixtures. ."
Clean and simple,. anything fixed on the ground would count as
site coverage. However, the definition of building does
qualify the use of the term structure by referring to
"enclosed structure".
SITE COVERAGE "means the portion of a site covered by
buildings, excluding roof or balcony overhangs, measured at
the exterior walls or supporting members of the building at
ground level".
By clearly defining site coverage, this definition supercedes
the definition of structure and building. Definitions for
structure and building are to be used only for clarifying this
definition. Problems with the site coverage definition are
that there is no limit to the amount of roof or balcony
overhang, and the portion of site that is covered is measured
at ground level only. As written, cantilevered portions of
a building would not be included in site coverage
calculations.
Alternatives for addressing this issue have not been developed.
Research is now underway to see how other communities calculate and
define site coverage. Site coverage is dealt with many different
ways. For example, it is not uncommon for regulations to calculate
all impervious surfaces as site coverage. In most communities,
limitations are placed on the balconies and roof overhangs. Patios
and decks are sometimes considered site coverage.
The goal of this amendment should be to establish regulations that
will effectively control the amount of buildings and improvements
on a site. It is important that site coverage regulations be
developed in conjunction with GRFA regulations (and any changes to
height regulations). Collectively, these are the tools used to
control building bulk.
wp:sitecov
5/23/90
TO: Town Council, PEC/Zoning Code Task Force, Staff
FROM: Tom Braun
DATE: May 20, 1990
RE: Amendment Alternatives for Special Development Districts
The SDD section of the zoning code was totally rewritten in 1987.
However, a number of issues have been raised over the past few
months that necessitate the review of this chapter. The majority
of these issues deal with philosophical questions regarding the
purpose of SDD's and under what conditions it is appropriate to
adopt SDD zoning. The issues, or questions, that have been raised
include the following:
DENSITY
There is no maximum limit on density or GRFA that can be approved
through a SDD. This has troubled both Commissioners and Council
members during the review of SDD proposals. With no limitation on
density, it is felt that most SDD's are proposed for the sole
purpose of obtaining development levels beyond what is permitted
by underlying zoning.
Amendment Alternatives
SDD's are referred to as PUD's in most communities. Zoning
codes from 1.3 resort communities have recently been obtained
and research is currently underway to see how these
communities deal with density in PUD's. Generally, density
is handled one of three ways: 1) There is no established
maximum density; 2) Density is established by the property's
underlying zone district; and 3) A percentage increase in
density is permitted. This last method is usually tied into
some type of performance evaluation. For example, a 10%
density increase may be possible if landscaping or open space
requirements are exceeded by 10%. This performance system can
be expanded to include other considerations such as design,
public off-~~ite improvements or public art.
Each of these options represent viable alternatives for
amending the' SDD process.
MINIMUM STANDARDS
Council members have stated that there should be minimum standards,
or conditions, that must be met in order to propose a SDD. The
purpose of these standards would be to establish some degree of
control, or limitations, on where and when SDD's may be proposed.
Examples of minimum standards that have been suggested include
minimum lot size, permitting SDD's in certain zone districts, and
prohibiting SDD's from low density residential districts.
Amendment Alternatives
Each of the examples could be implemented. It is very common
for communities to require a minimum parcel size for PUD's.
It is also common for communities to have separate PUD
processes for residential development, commercial development
and mixed use projects. However, PUD's are generally
permitted in any established zone district.
Any of these alternatives could be adopted. However, it is
important to consider to purpose of this type of amendment.
There have been examples of very legitimate SDD's in low
density residential neighborhoods and other examples on very
small lots. To establish arbitrary standards designed to
limit SDD's could prevent valid SDD proposals in the future.
The best way to prevent SDD's that are not appropriate is to
deny them. This alternative is discussed in greater detail
below.
DESIGN CRITERIA
The Design Criteria provide the basis for decision-making during
the review of SDD proposals. Suggested changes to these criteria
include modifying parking requirements to enable the Commission or
Council to mandate parking in excess of what is required by code,
adding criteria to address the appropriateness a SDD's underlying
zone district, and establishing criteria to evaluate whether the
development proposed by the SDD could be achieved within underlying
zoning, or whether requested flexibility to underlying zoning
development standards is consistent with the intent of this title.
Amendment Alternatives
Design criteria pertaining to parking requirements currently
stipulates that proposed parking meet the standards outlined
in the parking section of the code. Simply rewording of this
criteria could give the Town the flexibility to require
parking in excess of code requirements. The PEC's
justification for this amendment is that an applicant can
request flexibility with other development standards, why
can't the PEC have flexibility with parking requirements?
Underlying zoning plays an important role in SDD's. First,
the permitted and conditional uses in an SDD are limited to
the permitted and conditional uses of the underlying zone
district. Secondly, the underlying zoning provides an
informal "benchmark" for evaluating the development standards
proposed in the SDD. Uses and development standards are both
addressed in the SDD Design Criteria, but a new criteria
specifically referencing how uses and standards relate to
underlying zoning should be added.
~r
a
The intent of SDD's is often questioned. Specifically, what
is the reason for requesting flexibility in the underlying
development standards, and what is unique about the
development that could not be accomplished with the property's
underlying zoning? Recently, the staff and PEC opposed a new
SDD based partly on the proposal's inconsistency with the
purpose of special development districts. This issue should
be addressed during the review of any SDD and can be
accomplished by adding a new criteria to this effect to the
Design Criteria section.
In many respects, the problems, or percieved problems with the
SDD process can be addressed through the Design Criteria. It
is through these criteria that decisions are to be made on the
merits of a proposal. These criteria should be written to
address all pertainent issues with the use of SDD's, from both
a philosophical point of view (i.e., relationship to community
goals), and from a site specific point of view (building
height, density, relationship of uses, etc.).
UNDERLYING ZONING
Not all of the established SDD's have an underlying zone district.
This is in large part due to the fact that .previous SDD ordinances
did not specifically address the issue of underlying zoning. A
decision on how to deal with these situations should be made.
Amendment Alternatives
Each SDD. should have an underlying zone district that is
formally recognized in the property's SDD ordinance. This can
be dealt with one of two ways; 1) Establishing an underlying
zone district can be required for an existing SDD as a part
of any amendment request, 2) The staff can research each SDD
ordinance, identify SDD's without underlying zoning, and
initiate the process to adopt an underlying zone district.
There are a variety of issues and questions relative to each of the
amendment alternatives outlined for these four subjects. Following
the public input sessions on May 23-25, meetings are scheduled with
both the Planning Commission Task Force and the Town Council. The
goal of these meetings is to identify the most viable alternatives
for addressing these issues.
During the discussion of SDD's it is important to consider not only
the purpose of SDD's, but also how they have been used in the past.
Clearly, SDD's have been used as a means for obtaining increased
density. However, in virtually every case, the goals of the
specific SDD proposal have been consistent with community goals
(i.e. employee housing, increasing overnight bed base). Any
decisions on modifying the SDD process should be made with
consideration given to the long range goals of the community.
wp:sddintro - 5/19/90
TOPIC
8/8 WEST INTERMOUNTAIN ANNEXATION
request: Lapin)
2/20 JOINT MEETING COUNCIL/VMRO
2/27 SATELLITE POST OFFICE (request:
Osterfoss)
3/21 COMPENSATION FOR PEC, DRB,
LIQUOR AUTHORITY
4/10 CML CONFERENCE/Colorado Springs
5/8 TENNENBAUM RESOLUTION
5/1 RECYCLABLE PAPER PRODUCTS
(request: Rose)
5/1 ANNUAL CHUCK ANDERSON YOUTH
AWARD (request: Lapin)
5/1 UNUSED COMMON GRFA IN CONDOMINIUM
PROJECTS (request: Lapin)
ESTIONS
WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP
LARRY: Proceeding w/legal requirements for
annexation.
PAT: Apply in writing to Council re: ground lease
of Booth Creek 9 hole par 3 golf course.
RON: Pursue station "in town" and/or increase
summer bus service?
RON/KRISTAN/LARRY: Should additional compensation
be considered for appointed, standing Town
boards?
COUNCILMEMBERS: Conference will be held June 20-23
this summer - reservations should be made as soon
as possible.
RON: Contact entities re: similar resolution signed
by Eagle County Commissioners.
STEVE BARWICK: What is cost differential and degree
of difficulty involved in purchasing all
recyclable paper products? Has the TOV already
pursued this?
BRIAN JONES/JOANNE MATTIO/PAT: Apparently this.
youth award fell through the cracks last year;
pursue selection and presentation far BOTH years.
LARRY/KRISTAN: Devise notification procedure for
individual owners in condo. projects where
collective GRFA may be required on an individual
case-by-case basis. EXAMPLES: Crossroads,
Northwoods
SOLUTIONS
5/25/90
Page 1 of 2
A new advocate far petition circulation is being sought.
Cindy Callicrate to be contacted.
Kent sent letter outlining proposed process to Tim Garton.
UMRD has revised and TOV/VMRD Committee will tentatively
meet Tuesday, June 5, 10:00 a.m., in the Downstairs
Conference Room.
Meeting to be set up with Ernie Chavez.
Will prepare alternatives and recommendation for Council
by 6/15/90.
Ron and Tom signed up so far.
Send similar resolutions for their adoption to Aspen,
Crested Butte, CAST, TOA, etc., re: transfers of
publicly held land far personal gain.
Staff will investigate.
Set up meeting w/Kent Rose to select individuals and schedule
for evening Council meeting in June. Caroline Fisher to
submit application.
Schedule for June 19 Work Session.
TOPIC
5/1 AMEND CODE, 12.04.240, STREET CUT
PERMITS
5/15 REDUCTION OF COUNTY-WIDE LONG
DISTANCE TELEPHONE RATES (request:
Steinberg)
5/15 SITE VISIT FOR MARRIOTT'S MARK
(request: Gibson/Lapin)
5/22 STATUS REPORT FOR PARKING
STRUCTURE (request: Gibson)
5/22 GATEWAY PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
5/22 SITZMARK REQUEST FOR SUMMER
PARKING
5/22 CENSUS FEEDBACK (request:
Steinberg)
WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP
STAN/LARRY/KRISTAN: Per Council direction, proceed.
CHARLIE/STEVE B.: Investigate why the telephone
company is "dragging its collective feet" in
lowering rates for county-wide usage?
KRISTAN/MIKE: Alert Council to the PEC site visit
schedule for the proposed Marriott Mark addition.
CAROLINE/KEN/STAN: Council would like a biweekly or
weekly status report to the public - is it on
schedule/what's happening, etc.? They would also
like this to be a PR type of piece, not just a
list of facts.
GARY MURRAIN: Will the Gateway Building
construction be out of the street by July 4th?
RON: This letter has been referred to the Parking
and Transportation Task Force for review and
recommendations.
RON: Tom will speak about this since it's slated
for review at the NWCCOG meeting 5/23/90. Ran to
follow up w/CAST re: our local concerns and a
request to redo in this area.
5/25/90
Page 2 of 2
-UP SOLUTIONS
Will be developed by July, 1990.
Will do.
I Tentatively scheduled for Monday, June 11. Council to
receive notice.
Plan being formulated.
No. Two lanes remain for usage. Cannot be completely
reopened until steel super structure is up and area back
back filled.
Parking and Transportation Task Force denied the request and
suggested cooperating with other private lot owners and/or
provide his own valet service.
Scheduled far Work Session Tuesday, May 29.
5/22 VAIL CULTURAL ARTS FACILITY ~ RON: Proceed w/preparation of resolution. ~ Resolutions to be presented June 5.
TO:
FROM : ~ ~ Pat
Dodson
SUBJECT: Eurofaire criterium
DATE: May 16, 1990
~o
M~n~~~
~~ K~"`'
As you know, Eurofaire has postponed their event for one year. Ted
Martin, Mike Beckley and myself have met and discussed ways of
keeping the bicycle criterium. We all felt it might be
advantageous if the bicycle criterium could be salvaged in any way,
and as always, it gets down to dollars.
Ted is currently trying to get sponsorship which could amount to
$5,000, leaving an operation shortfall of $10,000. If he does not
get the sponsorship, it could be as much as $15,000.
My questions are, is the Town of Vail interested in keeping the
criterium? Would they consider allowing the Coor's Classic dollars
to go towards this event? Would the in kind services be donated
from the Town, such as police, street sweeping, etc.?
Vail
,000. and may some
financial assistance,
Resort Associa ion
lodging that would be
cold cash.- I have not approached
but would have no problem doing
required.
L
of
amount of
The race has already been advertised and is on the USCF official
schedule. It is setup to be a men's category I or II (a top pro's
race), and is tentatively scheduled for 2 hours on July 6 from
10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. The race would be approximately 60 laps
and would use the same course as the Coor's Classic.
Ted Martin has a drop dead date of May 21, 1990. We all realize
this is extremely short notice, but thought it would be worth the
attempt, especially since there is no other event scheduled during
that weekend.
Please let me know your thoughts and feelings on this matter.
Thanks.
Ron Phillips
:sl
h1a y L"c', i 33tc7
Ed McMa ri cr s
4b ~(•7 /Y/eadt=rw ~t'.I k'E'
4~ai 1, Col crrado Sia5;'
.gear' Ed.
Thanks for youcrr r'rotes on the air'pc-rrt. I decided nt~t tc~
scr,c}por't the Towri of Vail fi nand all y backing the Sto1 port for a
ncrmber' ~-~f reasons. First, the Town of Auorr has an optit~n or, the
1 arid, a,~rd the 1 ocat i on ~, f the ai r'port appear's to them to be i t'r
conflict wi th the deuel opmer,t of the 1 and. Since the town of Auon
was crr,willing to ct~ntr'ibcrte to the Continental E:~press ret7uest for
fonds - I dons t see h`~w Vai 1 Carr. Also, Vai 1 Associates and the
matijor 1 odges at Feaver Creek c~ver'e not interested i rr contributing.
Second, the main reasc-~ns I was interested i n tryi ng to r,rake
the Sto1 pt~rt ui abl e i s i f i t would redcrce the ricrmber of car's
needing to park i n Vai 1 ~~r' i f the air' servi ce wool d prcaduce
meaningful scrrnnter bcrsi mess which 4'ai 1 mi ght otherwise nett recei ve.
I coal d not cz~rne crp wi th ncrmbers w/-ri ch would supp~~rt ei ther
pt-~si t i on.
Third. In general I am opp~~sed to g~-~uernnrent subsidizing
private busiriess - especiall ~' whet, there are other priuate
alterrratiues accomplishing the same task. Trr particcrlar I am
op,o~-~sed t~~ scrbsidizing an airline which appears tot be in poor
fi nand a1 shr=-r,cre and i s unwi I 1 i rrg t~? prctui de nre cui th its fi na nci aI
statements. The type of guarantees Gz?ntinental E.xpr'ess was
requesting coal d be i n the hcrrrdreds c-~f thocrsarrds erf d~~11 ars on an
annual basis. Althocrgh yocr might be correct that the scrccess t~f
the service could reduce the subsidy. I dL~ not feel that i t i s ar-,
appropri ate ri sfr for the TL-+wn of Vai 1.
Fi nal I y I wc.~u1 d 1 i ke to assure yc-~er that my 4lc~X ~-~wner'shi p i n es
partnership that owns 3~ acres north cif the Ea~g1e airport since
.t 37i p1 ay~~d rt7 part i n m_y~ decision. I di sc1 aced this ownership to
the Vail Town Council crpon being appointed to the Stolport
conrnti t t ee.
I, however', do appreciate the time and input youcr haue made to
the committee and directly to nre personal 1 y, I thi rik that i r, 1394
when the Denver' ai rpt~r't wi I 1 6e Ek~t mi notes fcrr'tJ~er' away from Vai 1
there wi 11 be compelling arguments f~~r' want i n;g the Sto1 port i n
Avon, bcrt fz~r' the above reasons. I don't see how we can take that
ri sk cri th Ct,rrti rental E;cpress at this time.
Si ncerel y,
l~~erv Lapin
P. S. The ct~mnri ttee did not even get int~~ the safet y' and nuisance
rarrratlcatsons ttf i5 to c47 flights per day over residential areas.
tuwo 0
75 south frorrtage road
vaii, Colorado 81657
(303) 479-2105
office of town manager
May 23, 1990
Mr. Robert F. Fritch
Sitzmark Lodge
183 Gore Creek Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Bob:
Thank you for coming to the meeting a week ago Friday to
express your concerns about parking in the Village this summer.
We all understand that the necessary construction in the parking
structure is causing inconveniences to both our guests and
business owners, and we apologize for that. However, we feel we
can make this summer a very positive experience for all concerned
in spite of the difficulties incurred by the construction
project.
I am sorry if I reacted to you inappropriately during the
meeting. I was surprised by your request and probably should
have had better control of my response. Stan Berryman, the Town
Council, and I have received your letter. We will be doing a
staff review of your request and then have the Parking and
Transportation Task Force act on your request as soon as possible
as I mentioned to you on the phone.
LETTER TO ROBERT FRITCH
MAY 23, 1990
PAGE 2
We all understand the anxiety this major construction
project causes for everyone in the Village this summer, and
reiterate our desire to work to the best of our ability to make
this summer a positive experience. Thank you again for your
input. We will let you know of the Parking and Transportation
Task.Force decision as soon as it is made.
Since a y,
Rondall V. Phillips
Town Manager
RVP/ds
cc: Vail Town Council
Stan Berryman
Kristan Pritz
~`~
PRESENT:
Steve Simonett
Bill Bishop
' Kevin Cassidy
Mitzi Thomas
AGENDA
LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY
SPECIAL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 1990
10:00 A.M.
ABSENT:
Larry Eskwith
SWEARING IN OF gW9-MRMBRR',i MITZI THOMAS,
w/second member selection occurring
6-5-90 meeting of Council,
1. Consideration by the Board of the following
modifications of premises:
a. Red Lion Inn, Inc., dba, the Red Lion Inn
Restaurant
b. Up the Creek Bar and Grill, Inc., dba, Up
the Creek Bar and Grill
c. Woo's Co., Inc., dba, the May Palace Restaurant
d. Sweet Basil, Inc., dba, Sweet Basil
e. Lancelot, Inc., dba, the Lancelot Restaurant
f. M.E.L. Enterprises, Inc., dba, David's Deli
2. Consideration by the Board of a manager
registration for Steven Satterstom, Inc., dba,
Satch's Restaurant at the Clubhouse - Dennis
Michael Wilcox.
3. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration by the Board of an
application for a Special Events Permit, Malt/Vinous/
Spirituous Beverages, by the Vail Valley Foundation,
a Colorado nonprofit corporation, in conjunction with
Eurofaire, on July 6, 7, and 8, 1990, from 8:00 A.M.
to midnight daily, at the location of Gerald R. Ford
Park, 530 South Frontage Road East, Vail, Colorado.
Officers for this event are as follows:
President - Robert L. Knous
Event Manager - Melodee Kennington
4. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration by the Board of an
application for a Special Events Permit, Malt/Vinous/
Spirituous Beverages, by Vail Alpine Garden, Inc., a
Colorado nonprofit corporation, dba, the Vail Alpine
Garden, on July 1, 1990, from 10:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M.,
at the location of Gerald R. Ford Park, 530 South
Frontage Road East, Vail, Colorado. Officers for this
event are as follows:
President - Helen S. Fritch
Events Manager - Helen S. Fritch
Continued to 6-13-90.
Continued to 6-13-90.
Continued to S-29-90.
Continued to 6-13-90.
No anticipated change.
No anticipated change.
Unanimously approved.
Application withdrawn.
Unanimously approved.
5. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration by the Board of a 1007 Unanimously approved.
transfer of ownership of the Hotel/Restaurant Liquor
License currently held by Cascade Lodge Hotel/Mansfield)
Ltd./Nail Ventures, Ltd., dba, ttie Westin Hotel - Vail,
to Hotel Food Co., dba, the Westin Hotel - Vail, at the:
location of 1300 Westhaven Drive, Vail, Colorado. The
officers, directors, shareholders, and registered manager
are as follows:
a. President/33-1/3~ Shareholder/Director - Laurel Ames
b. Secretary-Treasurer/33-13~ Shareholder/Director -
Frank Freyer
c. 33-1/3~ Shareholder/Director - Herbert A. Meistrich
d. Registered Manager - Laurel Ames Unanimously approved.
LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY
SPECIAL MEETING
MAY 16, 1990
PAGE TWO
6. PUBLIC HEARING - Change of class of of liquor license Application withdrawn
from Hotel/Restaurant to Tavern for JWT 1987 Limited
Partnership, dba, the Vail Hotel and Athletic Club.
7. Consideration of the Board of administrative detail
regarding the following licensees:
a. Notification of Optional Premises use by Vail
Food Services, Inc., dba, as the following
licensees:
1) Golden Peak Restaurant
2) Frasiers at LionsHead/Trail's End
b. Eagle Restaurant Corp., dba, Cyrano's - Corporate
Structure Change
c. Gary Haubert/Steve Buis, ETAL, dba, the LionsHead
Bar and Grill - Settlement of Estate
d. Koumbaros, Inc., dba, CJ Capers - Late March STAR
8. Notification of the Board of recent renewals:
a. J.S. Ho, Inc., dba, Szechwan Lion Chinese
Restaurant
b. Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., dba, the Sonnenalp
Restaurant
c. Off the Wall Investments, Inc., dba, Clancy's
9. Any other matters the Board wishes to discuss.
So notified.
Larry to follow up with
procedure for applicant.
Letter of concern from
Board re:time delay.
Board to review April
submittal prior to calling
S/R Hearing. 5-29-90
Unanimously approved.
Unanimously approved.
Unanimously approved.
a. Scheduling of a special meeting for the transfer Set for 10:00 A.M.,
of the Hotel/Restaurant Liquor License currently Tuesday, 5-29-90.
held by M.E.L. Enterprises, Inc., dba, David's
Deli - Tuesday, May 29, 1990.
( \b~
1
~ ,S ~S
~uc c t ~~
~.~ ~ ~. c
~~
- _~,1
~~~ ~. ~'
x~,~.
cz~~t..
Q~tn 4~- ~iS~-I .
c"'~d~..~~a~.tn~.wt ~ud.t~
°~ 0°"G~mwn.g~n
May 15, 1990
Town Managers: Bill James
Ron Phillips
Bill Sweeney
~EC'4 MAY 17 199u
Please be advised that the Channel 23 Board is planning to move
the offices of the channel down valley. The space that the
channel currently leases is no longer adequate due to the
substantial increases in programming.
Our decision for considering another location is based upon the
need to upgrade the studio, improve the signal transmission and
obtain a larger space for a reasonable lease. All of these
requirements can be met with a down valley location. The Board
.feels that all decisions need to be prudent and fiscally
conservative due to the public status of the channel. We are
open to any suggestions from the town managers. Please feel free
to contact me or any Board member regarding the move. The
current plan is to obtain a new location some time this summer.
Sincerely,
~\ ~~JW
Re O'Brien
President
®,_ 5 .~ ~ ya cvs ~ i
-~
_ ~--
_ ~
~~
SPORT
MARKETING & MANAGEMENT
1990 VAIL VILLAGE CRITERIUM BUDGET
Income:
Sponsors Vail Assoc,/Am. Airlines 10,000 ~ h~ 50D ~ CQ6 ~ ~ ~ ~~ Qua ' d,SOd'
Town Of Vail 10,000 "~"~' ~ ~ k~-
Entry Fees 5,000 (100 X &50) ~~"g
~. $25,000
Expenses:
Prize Money (minimum) $ 10,000
Primes Airline Ticket Trade
Insurance 750
$10,750
Race Expenses:
Marshall T-shirts 75x6
Start/Finish Banner
Rider Numbers
Permit Fees
Police, Public Works
450
750
350
150
In Kind Trade/down of Vail
$1 ,700
Equipment Rental
Sound System 350
Computer Results/Foro Finish Camera 300
Staging Truck 500
$1,150
Administrative Expenses:
Office Expenses 1,000
Contract Fee 2,500
USCF Permit Fee 25
USCF Officials Fee 600
USCF Fee (6~ of Prize Money) 600
Est. Milage USCF officials 360
Advertising 1,500
Awards 500
Photography 400
Announcer 300
PR/Artwork 750
Miscellaneous 1,000
$9,535
TOTAL $23,1.35
Optional Items:
Rider T-shirts 100x6 $ 600
Water Bottles 200x2.50 500
Corporate Offices: Post Office Box 477 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: 303/949-5710 / 949-5199 FAX 303/949-5050
23911 Dory Drive, Suite 1500 Laguna Niguel, California 92677 Telephone: 714/493-3947
.,_
-~
~_
~~r
SPORT
MARKETING & MANAGEMENT
1990 EUROFAIRE CRITERIUM BUDGET
Income:
Sponsors
Entry Fees
Miscellaneous
Total
Expenses:
Prize Money (minimum}
Automobile (giveaway)
Ins. (Hole-in-One Type)
Race Expenses:
Marshall T-shirts 75x6
Start/Finish Banner
Rider Numbers
Race course set-up & strike
Permit fees
Equipment Rental
Sound System
Computer Results & Foto Finish Camera
Administrative Expenses:
Office Expenses
Contract Fee
USCF Permit Fee
USCF Officials Fee
USCF Fee (6~ of Prize Money)
Est. Mileage USCF officials
Miscellaneous
~ ``~ ~.v~c,~lddC~
~" Z
U ~. ~ ~, 5'ae - as-v~-~
a SD 0 - ,~-t°-d~U-
,~~ ~, ~ ?
$ 25,000
5,000 (100 x $50)
$~s~.ou~
10,000
Sponsor Trade
TBD
-~ ~$10,000~
450
750
350
2,000
100
In kind Trade/'Town of Vail
350
300
500
2,500
25
600
600
360
1,000
$~ 3,650
C$ 650?
~$ 5,585
TOTAL ~a:~2 ; l6(TJ
-~---
Optional Items:
Rider T-shirts 100x6
Water Bottles 200x2.50
Awards-Allowance
600
500
500
Corporate Offices: Post Otfice Box 477 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: 303/949-5710 / 949-5199 FAX 303/949-5050
23911 Dory Drive, Suite 1500 Laguna Niguel, California 92677 Telephone: 714/493-3947
. ~_
. ~
~_
~~r
~o~~~
MARKE>-ING & MANAGEMEN7-
EVENT: VAIL VILLAGE CRITERIUM
DATE: Friday July 6th, 1990
U.S.C.F. PERMIT #90-0394
APPLICATION APPROVED BY: Yvonne Van Gent
PROMC7rED BY: U.S. Sports Cycling / Vail Colorado
REGISTRATION: Field limited to 125 Riders
s ~~ ~ o ~
ups ~ r
LOCATION: Vail Village, Vail Colorado. Take Interstate 70 to the
Vail exit. For parking information call 476-PARK.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
50 lap Criterium, with a $10,000.00 purse. The Vail
Village Criterium is open to all Category A, Sr. 1 & 2
Pro Men.
ENTRY: $50.00 per U.S.C.F. licensed racer. This includes a $1.00
U.S.C.F. insurance charge and a $2.00 BRAC charge. There
will be an additional $5.00 charge for unattached riders,
and a $5.00 fee for all entries post marked after June 26,
1990. Make checks payable to U.S. Sports, Inc. and send
with entry form to:
U.S. Sports, Inc.
P0. Box 477
Vail, Colorado 81658
REGISTRATION: Competitors' registration will be held Thursday, July
5th, 1990, noon to 6:00 pm at a site to be determined
at a later date. Call (303) 949-5199 for Location
There will be no registration Friday July 6th, 1990
race day. The Vail Village Criterium is limited to
125 riders. There is no minimum number of riders.
STARS TIMES AMID PRIZES:
Class Start Time Distan e #of Prizes
Cat. A Sr. 1&2 10:00 am 50 mi. 50 laps 20 places
$2,500 1st
The Vail Village Criterium will be run rain or shine. There is no
alternate date. All U.S.C.F. rules will be inforced. There will be
a free lap rule for legal mishaps. Lapped riders will be pulled at
the discretion of the chief referee.
COURSE: The Vail Village Criterium is the same course that was used
by the Coors Classic the last year it was held. It is a 50
mile, 50 lap course with a 125 foot elevation gain per lap.
For more information call U.S. Sports, Inc, at (303) 949-5199.
Corporate Offices: Posi Office Box 477 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: 3031949-5710 ;' 949-5199 FAX 303; 949-5050
23911 Dory Drive. Suite 1500 Laguna Niguel. California 92677 Telephone: 714%493-3947
lowo
75 south frorrtage road
veil, Colorado 81657
(303j 479-2100
office of mayor
May 29, 1990
Mr. Andy Wiessner
Kogovsek & Associates, Inc.
1420 Trinity Place
1801 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80202
Dear Mr. Wiessner:
During the May 21, 1990 debate concerning the Tennenbaum land exchange
you made an allegation which is of grave concern to the Vail Town
Council and which must be clarified for the benefit of all involved in
the issue. In reference to the apparent unavailability of one of the
parcels proposed for the land exchange, you alleged that someone in Vail
had coerced or pressured one of the owners to change their mind about
the exchange agreement.
As you know, we received a letter from Mrs. Queeda Mantle Walker, one of
four owners of the Mantle property, which stated the Mantle property was
not for sale. This, of course, contradicts your contention that the
owners of each proposed parcel were committed to the deal. Your
inference that a Town Counciimember, or any other party opposing your
proposal, pressured Mrs. Walker into writing this letter is absurd., We
ask that you retract this false allegation, in writing, based on the
actual facts of the situation. You are inevitably aware of these facts,
however, I will clarify them once again:
Possible problems regarding the availability of the Mantle property were
brought to our attention by Mr. Lou Livingston, a part-time Vail
resident, following Vail's first public meetings concerning the
Tennenbaum proposal. Mr. Livingston indicated he had learned from a
conversation with Mrs. Walker that she knew nothing about the
Tennenbaum's possible purchase of the Mantle Ranch, to be exchanged for
land in Vail.
Mr. Andy Wiesner
May 29, 1990
Page 2
Because her statement did not match the information you had given the
Town Council publicly, we felt it was important to have Mrs. Walker give
us that information in writing. Her first letter, a copy of which you
have, was written at Mr. Livingston's request to Vail Town Manager Ron
Phillips.
Ron Phillips made contact with Mrs. Walker by telephone the week before
the May 21 Eagle County Environmental Alliance debate to try and clarify
the matter further. The result of that telephone conversation was her
second letter, copies of which were handed out at the debate.
Since that time, Ron Phillips has also talked with Mr. Tim Mantle by
telephone in an effort to further clarify the Mantle family's position.
I must emphasize that at no time did the Town of Vail contact a member
of the Mantle family, or any other owner, in an effort to change their
mind about making their land available. Our only interest and only
discussions have been an effort to determine the facts in this case and
to clarify what their actual position is regarding the disposal of their
property. Again, we resent your allegation that we have worked to
change anyone's mind, and request that you clarify the facts in this
matter to the Town Council and the news media.
Sincerely,
Kent R. Rose
Mayor
KRR/bsc
ROBERT F. KROHN
1427 SOUTH 85 AYE.
OMAHA, NE. 68124
Apri121,1990
Mr. Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Town of Vail
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Proposed Vail Valley Cultural Arts Center
Dear Ron ,
The following observations are made for the Town's consideration for the proposed Cultural
Arts Facilities in the Vail Valley. I am trying to address the technical aspect of the facility as
well as the Valley questions and the donors concerns. Permit me to address them in that order
and then I will recommend some actions for the Town of Vail to consider.
JONES & PHILLIPS' PROPOSAL FOR THEATRICAL CONSULTING SERVICES:
1. HDR, my previous employer, worked with Jones & Phillips on three previous performing
arts projects. I have no personal experience with them and have not checked their references
beyond HDR.
2. There are three uses proposed for the Center; Performing Arts, Visual Arts Gallery and
Conference/ Meeting Facilities. The center should be considered a multi_t~gfacility and not a
shared use ie. Dobson Arena.
3. The Performing Arts, "Performance Hall" portion is probably the most unique for design,
construction and operation, It therefore seems reasonable to look at the feasibility, cost, etc
before integrating the other uses. Also, the initial donor has highlighted an interest in the
Performing Arts.
4. The "Performance Hall" is a total unit in concept and can be used in a number of potential
configurations. (would in fact encourage the Architect to provide 2-3 concepts of the center.
5. Jones & Phillips will need an Architect for collaboration during the initial phase of the
project. It would be good to have an Architect with theatre experience and also in Vail. I do not
know whether one exists. The options are to use a Vail Architect or have Jones & Phillips work
with one of the firms close to them and knowledgeable of this type of facility and have asked Van
Phillips for a cost estimate. I have not talked to the Vail Architect who has worked with Nerb but
I intend to do so as soon as possible.
The Town should understand that there is a risk in proceeding with this study as there are two
major areas still needing action. The principal decisions in the Valley still need to be made and
the agreement developed for the donor and a Vail entity. My comments concerning these two
issues are based on my observations, phone calls and visits when I was in Vail last month.
Obviously, there are probably some discussions and actions of which I am unaware.
VALLEY DECISIONS:
A. Deciding the Yail or Beaver Creek issue. There is now planning and discussion
concerning two "Cultural Arts Facilities" in the Palley. Unfortunately, both are in the
embryonic phase with nothing to compare. Based on my discussion's and phone calls, the two
proposed facilities have very tittle in common. There is concerns that the plans are competitive,
however they may well turn out to be complimentary and together with the Gerald R. Ford
Amphitheater provide the Valley a needed asset for its continued growth. It is not unusual to have
competitive issues early 1n development. All parties seem willing to resolve overlapping issues,
however there is no process established to resolve the issues. The Consultants will address the
site issue in Vail and Beaver Creek and hopefully this will help in discussing the site issues. I
have asked Yan about their experience with Summer Theatres and the feasibility for Beaver
Creek. Based on that discussion, he has included an item in the proposal, (A.1 d). Beaver Creek
with available Summer housing could host a resident group with the facility available for other
entertainment in the busier Winter season. Van has some ic~as on this and how they relate to a
University. if this is economically and technically feasible then with Yail Associate's approval it
may be a win-win situation for the Arts and the Valley. Obviously, this will take some time and
reliable information to discuss with the key participants.
B. The owner-managing group still needs to be decided. I still feel a Separate Board under
the Vail Palley Foundation is the most viable. The Foundation is the only group with a track
record in the Valley. This will take some time to evolve, however the leaders will all be in Vail
this Summer and perhaps this idea can be pursued further. The new Foundation President
selection will have some impact on the viability as there will need to be some interest in the
Arts for it to work. I do think the Foundation must have the Chairman and a majority of the
Subsidiary Board. The other members should be Arts oriented. This would also help the
Foundation expand Its scope in other Valley activities. If this is not done there will be other non-
profitgroups initiated to address the Arts question and others which the Foundation may not
choose to aggressively pursue. This would not be an unusual move as it happens in most other
communities as they grow and mature. The unique characteristics of the Valley cause me to think
an expanded role for the Ysil Valley Foundation is preferable at the present time.
DONOR AGREEMENT:
Finally, I have called Herb Wertheim to discuss this proposal and the potential for his sharing
one half of the front end costs. He said he is not interested in providing dollars up front. He feels
the Town of Yail or other interested local parties should provide the front end money and become
more aggressive in pursuing the project if they want his Foundation's participation. Again
because of the Valley's young age there is no group organized and capable of receiving a major
contribution like Dr. Wertheim's. There are usually groups out aggressively seeking funds and
react immediately when an unexpected benefactor appears. The existing situation is unfortunate
but understandable. It 1s my understanding there 1s no written agreement for the agreement and
no formal actions have been taken by any Palley entities. Herb and I have discussed this subject
at length. He has now left for Europe for a month. I told him of my plans and told him I would
mail his office this letter along with the consultants proposal. He is also aware of, in general
terms, the actions called for in this letter.
PROPOSED PLAN OF ACTION;
Based upon the information I have available, I recommend the Town of Vail consider the
following plan of action:
1. Consider a resolution by the Town stating their interest in a Cultural Arts Center that may
contain, a. A Performing Arts Hall, b. Gallery spaces for the Visual Arts, and c. Conference and
meeting space for the future. Acknowl~ge Dr. Wertheim's Foundation has offered a one million
dollar donation for the facility if certain conditions are met. Also, you should make reference to
previous marketing studies completed for the Conference Center and the need to closely
coordinate management and use with the Dobson Arena and Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater.
2. Consider accepting and funding the proposed consultant contract of Jones & Phillips. There
are two copies of the proposal between the Town of Yail and Jones & Phillips Associates, Inc. for
first phase Theatrical Consulting services. The cost of these services are $10,920 plus four
man trtps to Yail, say $1,000 each. There will be Conceptual Architectural services required
and probably some miscellaneous costs. I think you should plan on the $30,000 total that I
estimoted os cosh flow requirements to October 1 ,1990.
3. Officially designate a person to meet with George Gillett, owner- Vail Associates, and Harry
Frampton, Chairman of the Board- Ya11 Palley Foundation, to start a formal dialogue on the
Valley issues identified in this letter and set a schedule to make the ~cisions no later than
October 1 ,1990.
4. Write a letter and mail a copy of the Town's action to Dr. Wertheim along with a request for
the need to enter into a written agreement for his offered contribution of $ t ,000,000.
I will help you as much as possible by phone. My time through Julyl 41s tight but may be able
to squeeze in a short trip if you desire. We do plan to spend a week there the end of July. I think
the facility is desirable and will be needed desperately in the near future. A copy of this letter
and the Jones & Phillips letter has been mailed to Georg Gillett, Harry Frampton and Herb
Wertheim so everyone will be aware of the items being discussed.
Best Wishes for a great Summer and pass on my regards to the other Town of Vail staff. I really
enjoyed working with them during for the World Alpine Ski Championships.
Sincerely,
ob Kro
JONES & PHILLIPS ASSOCIATES, INC.
THEATRICAL CONSULTATION AND DESIGN
534 S. Seventh Street
Lafayette, Indiana 47901
(317) 423-1123 or 742-6481
SERVICES AND CONTRACT PROPOSAL
Project Title: Vail Valley Cultural Arts Center
Owners Town of Vail
Vail, Colorado
Project Director: Mr. Ron Phillips
Town Manager
Jones and Phillips Associates, Inc. (Theatrical Consultant) are pleased to submit
the following proposal for theatrical consulting services to be rendered for the
Town of Vail (Owner) in connection with the new Vail Valley Cultural Arts Complex
being planned for Vail, Colorado.
A. Services to be Rendered - General Description
~1. Programming and Program of Uses
a. Provide on-site reviews of the existing facilities and their theatrical
equipment systems for evaluation related to needs and relationships to the
proposed Vail Valley Cultural Arts Center.
b. Attend public and private sessions for Town of Vail and the Vail Valley
Foundation or their designated representatives on the potential future
usage of the complex of spaces.
c. Establish a program of arts uses and groups that would use the
facility. Analyze the potential for arts and other programming and the
< ability to provide revenue for the operation of the complex.
d. Investigate potential summer operations in Vail Valley that could help
establish a permanent relationship between the community and a theatrical
producer. We will describe the method of operations in relationship with
.the Vail Valley Cultural Center.
e. Provide input to help determine the operating costs of the complex.
f. Provide input to help establish management for the facility and a
logical owner/operations management arrangement.
q. Assist the Town of Vail in the programming of the Vail Valley Cultural
Arts Complex and the requirements needed to assist in the proper function
of the facility, equipment, and to evaluate potential performance aspects
of the facility for the Owner.
2. Architectural
a. Consultation and recommendations relating to the interior and exterior
design of the proposed Vail Valley Cultural Arts Complex and related
support spaces including: stages, stage floors, fly lofts, wing spaces,
orchestra pits, and stage traps; lighting positions, lighting catwalks,
lighting control and projection booths; lobbies, ticketing, and audience
spaces, backstage traffic patterns including personnel and material flow
paths; storage areas, and loading and unloading spaces; seating and
sightliness stage arrangements (portable and permanent); portable seating;
orchestra pit covers; dressing and assembly areas, "stage door" entrances,
actors', musicians' and stagehands' areas; and lobby audience control.
b. Review of adjoining areas, particularly those intended for usage with
the performance areas such as conference and meeting spaces, exhibit
areas, art areas and galleries, storage areas, equipment rooms, projection
booths, dressing rooms, loading and unloading spaces, and light booths.
c. Transmit recommendations and suggested specifications via conferences,
letters and sketches to the Owner to be coordinated with other aspects of
the project.
3. Stage Rigging and Structural Systems
a. Select the desired theatrical stage rigging and potential drapery
systems and design the layout of rigging elements for the complex.
b. Furnish cost estimates for the selected stage rigging elements.
4. Stage Lighting and Electrical Systems
a. Plan stage and performance lighting arrangements for distribution of
branch circuit locations.
b. Plan lighting control systems to be compatible with the production
lighting design for performance functions in the Theatre.
c. Furnish cost estimates of the selected stage lighting and dimming
systems.
5. Orchestra Pit Covers and Portable Staging
a. Plan orchestra pit covers as required for the stage area design.
Plan any required portable staging for use anywhere in the complex of
spaces.
c. Furnish cost estimates of the selected orchestra pit covers and
portable staging elements.
6. Architectural and Engineering Services
a. It is assumed that any architectural or engineering services required
will be furnished by the Owner and the cost of same are not included in
this proposal. Such services include professional certification of such
items as site evaluation, soil conditions, mountings, and attachments of
structural members, and that all normal architectural and engineering
design services are provided by others.
b. If it is deemed necessary for any such architectural or engineering
services to be furnished under this consultation agreement, they will be
provided as an extra service at cost.
7. Time Table
The following time table is proposed to meet the October 1, 1990
time frame being considered as the "Go/No Go" Deadline:
Meetings at Vail with Local Representatives May 7, 1990 or
for three days the week of: May 14, 1990
Work on the programming recommendations: May 7, 1990 to
June 20, 1990
Presentation of DRAFT recommendations by mail: June 22, 1990
Work on the final programming and operations
budgeting:
Fresent final program recommendations:
Work on a schematic design concept:
Present final program and schematic design:
Local review of the program and schematic
design concept:
July 9, 1990 to
July 20, 1990
July 23, 1990
July 24, 1990 to
August 24, 1990
August 31, 1990
August 31, 1990 to
September 30, 1990
Go/No Go Deadline for the Town of Vail: October 1, 1990
B. Comaensation for Services Rendered
1. Professional Services
a. Services of Ted W. Jones and Van Phillips,
principals of the firm, per hour: $ 95.00
b. Services of associates of the firm,•
per hour: ~ $ 60.00
c. Services of junior associates and
draftspersons, per hour: $ 35.00
2. Reimbursement for the following expenses:
a. Long-distance telephone calls.
b. Postage and express shipments.
c. Drawing and specification reproduction.
d. Travel and living expenses incurred in the performance of services at
locations other than the business addresses of the Theatrical Consultant.
Whenever possible, travel expenses will be shared with other projects in
the same geographical area.
e. Other expenses incurred with prior approval.
3. Billing and Payment Interval
a. The Theatrical Consultant will invoice the Owner once each month for
services rendered during the previous thirty (30j days.
b. Payment will be due within thirty days of the submission of each
invoice.
c. Interest will be charged at 1.5 percent per month on amounts due and
not received.
4. Maximum Professional Fees
a. Fees for professional services will be calculated using the hourly
rates stipulated herein. Fee charges for travel time will be made only
during normal working hours. Time spent enroute or during layovers which
occur before or after the normal working day will not be billed.
b. Total professional fees through completion of work described, and
excluding reimbursable expenses, will not exceed $ 10,920.00. Total
manpower breakdown is attached as Example "A" (See calculations based on
time expenditure).
c. Reimbursable expenses are to be billed at cost. All travel will be
authorized by the Owner.
d. Every effort will be made to limit the fees and expenses to a minimum
amount consistent with consulting services in the best interests of the
Owner. Only hours worked and expenses incurred will be billed. The Owner
is not responsible for payment of any unused balance left in the contract
at the conclusion of the project.
e. The hourly rates and maximum fees expressed in this proposal apply to
services rendered through the calendar year 1991. Hourly rates and
maximum are subject to negotiation for services rendered after 1991.
5. Additional Consultation. Any additional consultation specifically
requested but not included in the scope of this proposal will be billed at
the standard hourly rates stipulated herein. Additional trips
specifically requested but not included in Example "A" (attached) will be
billed at cost as stipulated in the note in Example "A".
C. Other Terms
1. The Theatrical Consultant's services shall be performed in character,
sequence and timing so that they may be coordinated by the Owner with
other consultants for the project.
2. The Theatrical Consultant shall recommend to the Owner the obtaining of
such investigations, surveys, tests, analyses, and reports as may be
necessary for the proper execution of the Theatrical Consultant's
services, provided however, that the Theatrical Consultant assumes no
responsibility for recommending structural, electrical or any other
investigations or tests not pertaining to the theatrical aspects of the
Project.
~ ,
3. The Consultant shall provide progress copies of drawings, reports,
specifications, and other necessary information to the Owner and other
consultants. The Consultant shall become familiar with the work designed
by the Architect as necessary for the proper coordination of the
Consultant's part of the Project.
4. The Consultant shall cooperate with both the Owner and Architect in
determining the proper share of the construction budget to be allocated to
the Consultant's part of the Project.
5. Termination
a. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven (7) days'
written notice should the other party fail substantially to perform in
accordance with its termts through no fault of the party initiating the
termination. In the event of termination, not the fault of the Theatrical
Consultant, the Theatrical Consultant shall be compensated for all
services performed to termination date, including work in process,
together with reimbursable expenses then due.
b. This Agreement is terminated if and when the Agreement between the
Owner and the donor for the design of the Project is terminated or in the
event that the Project is permanently abandoned. The Owner shall
promptly notify the Theatrical Consultant of such termination. The
Theatrical Consultant shall be compensated for all services and expenses,
including work in process, performed to the date of notification, together
with reimbursable expenses then due.
6 . Insurance
a. The Theatrical Consultant's responsibility is not limited by its
insurance .
b. The Theatrical Consultant, before his work is commenced and at his sole
cost, shall provide insurance in the amounts and types as follows:
(1) Worker's Compensation covering all employees of the Theatrical
Consultant perforning services under this Agreement and complying
with all laws of the State where the Project is to be performed.
(2) The Theatrical Consultant will provide an umbrella liability
policy which combined with the primary insurance will provide a limit
of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00),in general
liability.
(3) The Theatrical Consultant will provide a professional liability
policy of not less than Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00)
covering their specific work.
c. Upon request, the Theatrical Consultant shall furnish the Owner with
certificates or other documentary evidence that the Architect may require
showing the insurance to be carried in accordance with the requirements
set forth in Paragraph 12. Such certificates shall provide that thirty
(3@) days written notice shall be given to the Owner prior to the
effective date of any cancellation of any policy.
7. Non-discrimination Procedures
a. During the performance of this Contract, the Theatrical Consultant
agrees that he will not discriminate against any employee, or applicant for
employment because of race, color, religion, sex, affectional orientation
or preference, national origin, ancestry, age (except in compliance with
age requirements of retirement plans or state and federal laws and
regulations), marital or familial status, handicap, unfavorable discharge
from the military, or status as a disabled veteran or veteran of the
Vietnam era.
b. No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color,
religion, sex, affectional orientation or preference, national origin,
ancestry, age, marital or familial status, handicap, unfavorable discharge
from the military, or status as a disabled veteran or veteran of the
Vietnam era be excluded from participation in, be denied proceeds of, or
be subject to discrimination in the performance of this contract.
This document is the entire Agreement between the Owner and the Theatrical
Consultant. Changes or additions in this Agreement must be in writing and must
be signed by both the Owner and Theatrical Consultant.
If this Agreement is satisfactory, please sign, date, and return one copy to us
as our authorization to proceed.
Respectfully submitted:
Accepted by:
Jones and Phillips Associates,
Incorporated
Date GrPRlG l % / l9 O
Town of Vail
Date
Secretary-Treasurer
MANPOWER BREAImUWN
FOR
THEATRICAL CONSULTING SERVICES
PROJECTS Vail Valley Cultural Arts Complex
DATE: April 16, 1990
sssssssssssssasssssssssasssss:ssmsssssssasssssssssssssssssasassssm:ssssssssa
Professional Services: PHASE I
I. Services of the principals, per hour:
Phase:
Programming with Client
Schematic Design
Design Development
Construction Documents
Total Principals Hours and Fees
II. Services of the associates, per hour:
Phase:
Programming with Client
Schematic Design
Design Development
Construction Documents
Total Associates Hours and Fees
III. Services of the junior associates, per hour:
Phase:
Programming with Client
Schematic Design
Design Development
Construction Documents
Total Junior Asscoiates Hours and Fees
TOTAL PROFESSIONAL FEES FOR PROJECT:
$95.00
Req. Hours
40
24
0
0
64
$60.00
Fees
$3,800.00
$2,280.00
$0.00
$0.00
$6,080.00
Req. Hours Fees
40 $2,400.00
8 $480.00
0 $@.00
0 $0.00
------------
48 ------------
$2,880.@0
$35.00
Req. Hours
24
32
0
0
56
Fees
$840.00
$1,120.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,960.00
$10,920.00
All reimbersable expenses are billed at cost.
May 20, 1990
Mr. Kent Rose and
Members of the Town Council
Town of Vail
7 5 S . Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Kent and Council Members:
~~~ ~ MAY 2 21990
Enclosed is a copy of a proposal that I am making to Stan
Berryman to meet the summer parking needs of the Sitzmark
Lodge. While the Town staff has located a substantial number
of additional parking spaces surrounding the core area, the
spaces that have been identified are not at all convenient for
guests at the Sitzmark.
While I understand the need to close the Village Transportation
Center to summer parking, I am sure that it will have a
significant effect on businesses in the Village core. I would
hope that the Town staff will consider all plans that maximize
the use of the limited parking spaces that we have in the core
area, not just for the Sitzmark Lodge but for all Village
businesses.
Sincerely,
Robert F. Fritch
Owner
Year Around Resort Lodging
183 Gore Creek Drive • Vail, Colorado 81657 • (303) 47Cr5001
r
/~
Sitzmark
Lodge
May 20, 1990
Mr. Stan Berryman
Director of Public Works & Transportation
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Stan:
I have reviewed the town parking plan for this summer as it
relates to the needs of our guests at the Sitzmark Lodge.
While the Town is providing temporary parking spaces to meet
the needs of employees and businesses, none of these temporary
spaces are located within a reasonable distance of the Sitzmark
Lodge from the standpoint of our overnight guests.
To review our problem: In the last few years, we have made
additions to the Sitzmark which, by ordinance, have required
additional parking spaces. Since we are located in Commercial
Core I, these spaces could not be provided on the property,
again by ordinance, and we have paid $63,790 into the Town's
parking fund. During the summer season, when our parking needs
are greatest, we send some of our guests a block away to park
overnight at the Transportation Center. This summer we will
not have that convenience.
I would like to propose an alternate parking plan that would be
convenient for Sitzmark Lodge guests and that would not
interfere with other daytime visitor parking for Commercial
Core I: The loading zone on the west side of Willow Bridge
Road is usually empty late at night. In the evening it is
often used for restaurant parking, and cars parked there are
sometimes ticketed, sometimes not. I am proposing that
Sitzmark Lodge guests cars (with appropriate identification
visible on the dashboard) be allowed to use these empty spaces
at night without the risk of being ticketed.
Our maximum need for overflow parking is seven spaces, although
we rarely use more than five. If my plan is approved, we would
Ysar Around Resort Lodging ~~
183 Gore Creek Drive • Vail, Colorado 81657 • (303) 476-5001 ~°"~
Sitzmark
Lodge
Mr. Stan Berryman, Town of Vail
May 20, 1990
Page 2
tell our guests at the time of check-in to fill our garage
first and to park on the street only if we have no spaces left.
For the most part, we would use space on the street only at
night since summer guests depart fairly early in the morning.
Our orange parking pass on the dashboard would easily identify
overnight guest cars.
It will not be necessary for our employees to use any of the
temporary summer. parking set up by the Town. We are able to
double park employee cars on our own property.
Please call me with any questions you may have about this
proposal. For the convenience of our guests, I feel that it is
important to consider creative and flexible approaches to
maximizing the usage of parking spaces that are available
within the core area .
Sincerely,
~~
Robert F. Fritch
owner
cc. Mr. Ron Phillips
Members of the Town Council