Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1990-12-11 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
UAIL TOWN COUNCIL ~ WORK SESSION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1990 1:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. Discussion and Approval of Transfer of Ownership of the Carriage Rides of Vail 2. Discussion of Proposed Air Quality Ordinance 3. Town Council/Planning and Environmental Commission/Vail Valley Consolidated Water Districts Board/Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation Districts Board Joint Meeting to Discuss Water Quantity/Water Quality 4. Discussion regarding Uiew Corridors 5. Discussion of the Proposed Amendments to the Municipal Code regarding Adjustments to the Fee Schedule for Planning, Building, and Fire Department Reviews of Development Proposals; also Included are Proposed Adjustments to the CCI and CCII Pay-in-Lieu of Parking Fees 6. Planning and Environmental Commission Report 7. Design Review Board Report 8. Information Update 9. Other 10. Executive Session - Personnel Matters f VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1990 1:00 P.M. EXPANDED AGENDA 1:00 1. Discussion and approval of transfer of ownership of the Larry Eskwith Carriage Rides of Vail Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny sale or assignment of Carriage Rides business. Background/Rationale: Darwin McWilliams wishes to sell his carriage ride business. His contract with the Town requires TOV approval of any assignment of the contract. 1:15 2. Discussion of proposed air quality ordinance Susan Scanlan Action Requested: Review draft ordinance for consistency with Council policies and position in relation to wood burning fireplaces. Direct staff to make any necessary changes prior to first reading of the ordinance Dec. 18th. Background/Rationale: Staff has been working with the Planning Commission and Town Council to develop a new ordinance relating to fireplaces. Staff has completed the draft of the ordinance and is seeking additional input or comments to create a well supported ordinance. The PEC reviewed the proposal at their Dec. 10th meeting. Staff Recommendation: Approval of draft ordinance so it may be continued on to the formal first reading Dec. 18th. 2:00 3. Town Council/Planning and Environmental Commission/Vail Merv Lapin Valley Consolidated Water Districts Board/Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation Districts Board joint meeting to discuss water quantity/water quality 3:00 4. Discussion regarding View Corridors Kristan Pritz Action Reauested of Council: No action required - presentation is informational only. Background/Rationale: This will be a brief presentation regarding the establishment of 2 new view corridors, one of which is the view east toward the Gore Range from a point in front of Frivolous Sal's. At the November 27, 1990 Town Council meeting, Councilmembers directed the Community Development staff to make the establishment of these view corridors a priority of the Community Development Dept. 3:30 5. Discussion of the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code Kristan Pritz regarding adjustments to the fee schedule for Planning, Gary Murrain Building, and Fire Department reviews of development proposals; also included are proposed adjustments to the CCI and CCII pay-in-lieu of parking fees Action Requested of Council: None required at this time. Background/Rationale: The Council has directed the staff to analyze the existing fee structure to ensure that fees charged are in line with expenditures of staff time and materials. Please see enclosed memos. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments. 4:30 6. Planning ,and Environmental Commission Report Kristan Pritz 4:40 7. Design Review Board Report Shelly Mello 4:50 8. Information Update Ron Phillips 4:55 9. Other 5:00 10. Executive Session - Personnel Matters -2- ORDINANCE NO. 42 Series of 1990 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 8.28 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO EXPAND, STRENGTHEN, AND CLARIFY CODE PROVISIONS RELATING TO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL. WHEREAS, the setting of the Town of Vail in a valley between two mountains restricts air movement through the valley; WHEREAS, the movement of air through the Gore Valley is further restricted in cold times of the year thereby causing the increased buildup of pollutants in the air caused by solid fuel burning devices; WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the pollution caused by solid fuel burning devices is exacerbated by the altitude, topography, climate and meteorology of the Town of Vail; WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that these sources of air pollution may be minimized by existing, practical and economical technologies; WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that is necessary to encourage environmentally beneficial technologies to prevent further degradation of the air quality of the Vail Valley. WHEREAS, the Town Council considers visually clean air to be an irreplaceable asset enjoyed by guests and residents of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT; Section 1. The Vail Municipal Code Chapter 8.28 "Air Pollution Control" be amended to read as follows: 1 t 8.28.010 Purpose and Applicability These regulations are enact~ad for the purpose of promoting the health, safety and general welfare of the residents and visitors in the Town of Vail. These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes: 1) To protect the air quality in the Town of Vail; 2) To reverse the continuing trend toward increased air degradation in the Town of Vail; 3) To provide heat sources that are efficient and have a reduced polluting effect; 4) And to generally protect the air for the purpose of the public's overall health, safety and welfare. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all areas of the Town of Vail. 8.28.020 Definitions 1) Solid Fuel Burnina Device: shall mean any fireplace, stove, firebox or device intended and/or used for the purpose. of burning wood, pulp, paper or other non-liquid ar non-gaseous fuel. 2) Certified Solid Fuel Burnina Device: shall mean a solid fuel burning devices which is certified by the Air Pollution Control L?ivision of the Colorado Department of Health to meet the Emissions Standards set forth in Section IV of Regulation No. 4 of Volume I of Colorado Air Quality Control ` Commission. 3) Fireplace: shall mean ari open hearth or fire chamber or similar prepared place in which a fire may be made and which is built in conjunction with a chimney. 4) Gas Apt~liance: shall mean a fully self- contained, U.L. listed and A.G.A. "fireplace" unit 2 which does not require venting through a chimney and which does permit the use of solid fuel. 5) Gas Loa: shall mean an A.G.A. and U.L. listed artificial log unit which is approved for the burning of natural gas and must be placed within a fireplace as previously defined. 6) Dwelling unit: means any room or group of rooms in a two-family or multiple-family building with kitchen facilities designed for or used by one family as an independent housekeeping unit. 7) Accommodation unit: means any room or group of rooms without kitchen facilities designed for or adapted to occupancy by guests and accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through another accommodation unit or dwelling unit. 8) Refuse: means all solid wastes, garbage and rubbish, whether combustible or noncombustible, including rubble. 8.28.030 Solid Fuel Burning Devices It shall be unlawful for any person to construct, install, maintain or operate any solid fuel burning device within the Town of Vail in a manner not in compliance with this section. A) No building permit shall be issued for or including the installation of any solid fuel burning device(s) or component(s) thereof unless f the number of such device or devices in each structure is less than or equal to the following: 1) Each dwelling unit may have one solid fuel burning device or one certified solid fuel burning device per unit. This will not apply to restricted units in primary/secondary, duplex or single family zone districts where 3 the restricted unit cannot be subdivided or sold separately. In the case of such a restricted unit, no solid fuel burning devices shall be permitted. 2) A hotel, motel, inn or lodge may have one solid fuel burning device per lobby. Solid fuel burning devices in individual guest rooms, accommodation units and lock-offs are hereby prohibited. 3) A restaurant or bar may have one solid fuel burning device per restaurant or restaurant/bar combined. B) All solid fuel burning devices shall be constructed, installed maintained and operated in such a manner that their operation will result in an increase in heating energy, i.e. that the heat supplied to the living area will be greater than that lost through air exchange during combustion. 8.28.040 Gas Fireplaces The restrictions of Section 8.28.030 shall not apply to a fireplace fitted with a gas log set and fueled by natural gas, as long as said fireplace is designed and constructed so that said fireplace cannot be used or easily modified to burn solid fuels. A) No building permit shall be issued for or including the installation of gas log fireplaces unless the number of such devices in each structure is less than or equal to the following: 1) Each dwelling unit, excluding restricted units, may construct up to three (3) fireplaces exclusively for the installation of gas log sets and thereby give up the right 4 to burn wood at anytime. The installation of one gas log fireplace shall be permitted in restricted units as described in Section 8.28.030(A) (1) . 2) Accommodation units shall be allowed to install one gas log in accordance with all pertinent building codes of the Town of Vail. All equipment shall be subject to a periodic inspection by reasonable notice by the Town of Vail Environmental Health Officer. The owner of any commercial property containing such equipment shall pay to the Town of Vail the amount of thirty dollars ($30.00) per year on the first day of the year following the year in which said equipment was installed for each solid fuel burning device, and the first day of each year thereafter during the time said equipment remains installed. The owner of any such device shall allow the Town of Vail Environmental Health Officer access into the area where such device is located for the purposes of doing such an inspection. Such equipment shall have fixed a means to prohibit access to the firebox by casual means and unauthorized persons. There shall be a sign on the fireplace reading: "Caution - Gas Fireplace Only". Access to the firebox shall f be for maintenance and repair, testing or inspection only. The device utilized to prohibit access shall be permanently closed by means of tamper resistant screws or other suitable means. 5 8.28.050 Gas Appliances The terms of this section shall apply only to those gas appliances which are self contained fireplace units and not to other gas appliances such as hot water heaters, :kitchen ranges and the like. Gas applicance shall be approved for installation in accordance with applicable Town of Vail building codes. Gas a;pplicance shall be permitted for installation in addition to those solid fuel burning devices described in Section 8.28.030(A)(1) or gas log fireplaces described in Section 8.28.040(A)(1) in the following numbers: 1) Each dwelling unit shall be permitted to install up to but no more than three (3) gas appliances. 2) Restricted units as described in Section 8.28.030(A)(1) shall install no more than two (2) gas appliances. 3) Accommodation units shall be permitted to install no more than one gas appliance per unit. 8.28.060 Modification, Alteration oz• Remodel If anv number of separate d'.welling units are combined to form one larger dwelling and each dwelling unit previously cc>ntained some form of woodburning fireplace or certified wood stove the following shall apply: A) All but one approved woodburning unit must be removed and if the woodburning unit is not approved it must be upgradE:d so as to operate in an energy efficient manner., B) All woodburning units may remain (not to exceed three (3)) if all units are converted to gas, either by the installation of listed gas logs or 6 if the fireboxes and dampers are modified to accommodate a gas appliance. C) If units are to be considered separate for the purposes of consideration for two (2) woodburning fireplaces they must be completely separate and have no interconnecting doors. 8:28.070 Coal Usaae Prohibited The burning of coal within the Town of Vail shall remain prohibited. 8.28.080 Refuse Burnina Prohibited The burning of refuse in any solid fuel burning device is prohibited within the Town of Vail. 8.28.090 Penalties It is unlawful for any person to violate any provision of this Chapter or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter. Any person performing any act prohibited of declared to be unlawful by this Chapter or failing to perform an act required by or otherwise made mandatory by this Chapter shall be punished by a fine of not more than four hundred ninety-nine dollars ($99). Any such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which a violation of any provision of this Chapter is committed, continued, or f permitted by such person and shall be punished accordingly. In addition to penalties provided in this Section, any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any provision of this Chapter shall be deemed a public nuisance, and may be by this Town similarly abated as such, and each day that such condition continues shall be 7 regarded as a new and separate offense. Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of t:he remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hez-eby 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 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the ]health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and inhabitants thereof. Section 4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. 8 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 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 9 r TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 11, 1988 RE: Proposed Amendments to Section 18.52 of the Municipal Code pertaining to fees charged for parking requirements in Commercial Core I and II. In a recent work session, the Town Council directed the staff to initiate an amendment to the parking section of the Zoning Code. Specifically, this amendment involves increasing the rates charged for new parking demand created by development in the Village and Lionshead areas. At the present time, the fees for development in these areas are $3,000 per commercial space and $5,000 per residential space. These fees are established in the Zoning Code within Chapter 18.52. 18.52.160 B.5. The parking fee for uses listed in Section 18.52.100, with the exception of dwelling units or accommodation units, shall be $3,000 per space. The fee for dwelling units and accommodation units shall be $5,000 per space. The Town Council will establish fee rates for uses not listed in Section 18.52.100. These fees are established as an element of the zoning code, and as such, require Planning Commission recommendation to the Council before action on any ordinance to amend these rates. Your recommendations will be passed along to the Council when they consider this ordinance on first reading at their July 19th meeting. BACKGROUND ON THIS FEE Provisions for paying in lieu of providing parking on site were first adopted in 1973. This step was taken to reduce vehicular traffic in the Core, while at the same time assuring that private development shoulder some of the responsibility of providing parking for these two areas. Money paid into the parking fund is used for the sole purpose of conducting parking studies or evaluations, construction of parking facilities, the maintenance of parking facilities, the payment of bonds or other indebtedness for parking facilities, and administrative services relating to parking. At the present time, the parking fund has a balance of $261,000 (as of 12/31/87). Following the payment of all current accounts, an additional $113,000 will be paid into this fund. While exhaustive research was not conducted as a part of this zoning amendment, the only substantial funds removed from the parking fund was approximately $56,000 for the purchase of landing mats at Ford Park. Assuming no additional withdraws or payments into this fund, the balance of` this account will be approximately $375,000 in 1991. The majority of projects that have paidl into this fund has been small remodels and additions to existing properties in the Village. While individually the number of spaces "sold" are small, cumulatively the numbers are considerable. While the staff has not kept a cumulative total of the spaces, it is estimated that between 100 to 140 spaces have been provided by payment into this fund over the years. PROPOSED FEE INCREASE The Town Council has requested an increase to $10,000 per space regardless of whether the use is commercial or residential. This increase is based on the following assumptions: o Over time, the incremental increases in development results in an incremental increase in parking demand. o The private sector is responsible for bearing the responsibility of this increase of demand. o The premise of not encouraging additional vehicle trips into the Core areas should be encouraged to maintain the pedestrian experience. o At the present rates, the Town is essentially subsidizing development and the fees charged for parking spaces should be adjusted to more accurately reflect the costs of constructing structured parking spaces. o The proposed fee of $10,000 per space was essentially established by the Town Council. Their rationale for this fee is based on a number of considerations. Foremost among these are the general assumption that structured parking spaces cost in the area of $10,000 per space, that the estimated cost of the Vail Village Structure addition is expected to be approximately $8,000 per space (excluding landscaping, entry gates, and a few other features), and the estimates of constructing spaces in a new ;structure in downtown Aspen range from $12,000 - 15,000 (it should be noted that Aspen's new Pay In Lieu :Program charges $15,000 per space). STAFF RECONIIKENDATION Staff would recommend approval of the proposed amendments. While the actual dollar figures could be debated, there is little doubt that the current charges are significantly less than cost involved in actually constructing parking. Staff agrees with the premise that the Town is no longer in a position to be subsidizing parking demand created by private sector development, and would support the rate increases that are proposed. f ' ~ Planning and Environmental Commission July 11, 1988 PRESENT ~ STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Bryan Hobbs Tom Braun Pam Hopkins Rick Pylman Peggy Osterfoss Betsy Rosolack Grant Riva Sid Schultz Jim Viele The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele. 1. A request for exterior alteration at the Hill Building located on Lot L. Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Blanche C. Hill Rick Pylman explained that the request was for a bay window of 225 square feet. The staff recommendation was for approval with 4 conditions, including the fact that the parking space that is partly on Town property be removed, that the awnings not be in place during the ski season, the ski racks should not be allowed the length of the display window, along with the usual stipulation that the applicant agrees not to remonstrate against any special improvement district that may be formed. Jay Peterson, representing Mrs. Hill, agreed with the staff with the exception of the removal of the parking space. He felt this was improper. Jay stated that in 1979 the staff felt that this was the best place for parking space. He felt that the requested exterior alteration was minor and did not justify eliminating the parking space. Jack Curtin stated that there was room on the other side of the easement to park a car, as well as other places on the property. Mike Staughton stated that sometimes he has seen the car parked in front of some gardens, and added that sometimes in the winter time there was a problem getting around the car. Grant stated that he was not overly concerned about the parking, but he was concerned about what was going to happen at the Golden Peak House and the space between the Golden Peak House and the Hill Building. Peggy felt that the addition would make the retail more visible and wondered if there would be some way to have some winter landscape to avoid the appearance of coaxing out every possible inch of space on the property. Jack stated that if he put a tree on the property, it would block the view to the mountain and would be in a position to incur damage. Peggy suggested asking the Town to hand shovel snow in that area. She stated that she had heard from others that t:he Town is allowing every property to be maxed out, and just wanted to think of ways to make the property look more attractive. Jay replied that a bay window was a little different from a rack of clothes where people walk and added that Mrs. Hill continually upgraded the building. Peggy stated that the building looked very nice in the summer but she wanted to pass on her concerns. Bryan Hobbs stated that he would like to see the ski racks gone and felt that the store would look stark in the winter, especially with 1-1/2 stories. He felt that the parking space was in an inappropriate place. He asked if the space was on private property and was told it was about half on private property and half on public. Diana Donovan said she had mixed emotions. She liked the summer facade, but not the winter. She admitted that the building was well kept up and appreciated the fact that Mrs. Hill would keep greens in the flower boxes in the winter, but wondered what would happen when Mrs. Hill was gone. She suggested the window be reduced by half and the other half be a planter. Diana felt the windows pushed too much into the narrow area, and felt the improvement could be done just as effectively if the wall. did not protrude so far. Jack replied that the passage between the Hill Bui:ding and the Golden Peak Building looked block off anyway. Peter stated that the staff had looked at other options and felt it would be a good idea if about 3 feet of garden could be saved as a compromise. Diana felt that: this was almost like the Lionshead Center, where the PEC did not allow the applicant to build out to the property line. She i°elt the design needed more work and that the car looked "tac:ky." Jay stated that in trying to open up the whole area, keeping a 2-1/2 foot planter in the summer did not make much sense. Diana asked that one condition of approval be that the flower boxes be filled with flowers in the stammer. Jack stated that they could put greens in the flower boxes in the winter with Christmas lights. Peter said that a condition of this type was nearly unenforceable. Diana asked the' staff whether or not the DRB should vote on this specific exterior alteration, and Peter stated that the PEC would be approving the specific changes as presented. Sid felt the real problem has been the: parking space. The parking problem was discussed further. Peter explained that in 1979 when the garage was moved, the Hill Building was given a conditional use permit with the condition that two existing parking spaces on the east side of the: building would be eliminated. Jack stated that there had been 3 spaces, and that 2 were eliminated. Peter asked for a written agreement permitting the parking space outside of the garage, and Jay Peterson stated that they were looking for one. ,4 Pam agreed with the idea of the planters. She added that the drawings did not reveal the extent the awnings protruded into the corridor, and this was of concern to her, because the corridor was 6 feet wide, but the awnings extended 4 feet. Peggy added that she also felt the awnings were a significant encroachment into the view corridor. Pam felt there should be something done with landscaping in the winter time, perhaps with barrels. Jim Viele agreed with the staff that the proposal did comply with the Urban Design Guide Plan intent. Jim felt that there was enough history regarding the parking space that the staff could work with the applicant on a better solution. Peter pointed out that without a written agreement, it was the staff's position to enforce the "no parking" on Town of Vail . land in the core. Peter felt that this was a very important issue related to the streetscape in this proposal, and the parking is_not appropriate in this area. Without a written agreement, the Town would enforce the parking laws. Pam moved to approve the requested exterior alteration per the staff memo dated July 11 with all conditions except the one pertaining to parking. Bryan Hobbs seconded the motion and the vote was 5-2 in favor. 2. A request for an exterior alteration and for side and stream setback variances in order to expand the existing dining room and add an exterior deck at the Up the Creek Restaurant in the Creekside Building. Applicant: Up the Creek Restaurant The applicant asked to table this item until July 15. Hobbs moved and Donovan seconded to table and the vote was 7-0. 3. A request to amend .Section. 18.52 of the Municipal Code regarding parking requirements. - Applicant: Town of Vail Tam Braun explained that the Council had directed the staff to research the cost of parking spaces and parking fees, and initiate-the process for fees to be changed from $3,000 per - space for commercial square footage and $5,000 per space for dwelling and accommodation square footage to $10,000 per space for both. Tom asked for a recommendation from the PEC for the Council's July 17th meeting. Peter added that in looking at the whole code on parking, a number of revisions are needed and they would be addressed as part of the upcoming parking study and code revisions. Jay Peterson felt that costs had gone up somewhat, but that he felt it was not the intention for the parking fees to pay the total cost of parking spaces. Jay stated that in the past, the payment was only a portion of what a space actually cost, not payment for the total cost, and the Town knew they were subsidizing parking. He reminded then Board that the purchasers did not have any priority because they did not receive designated spaces. Jay felt that a !`ee of $10,000 would discourage many developers from improving their property. He felt that providing parking was one function that the Town should do. Peter Jamar felt that $10,000 was a little high and suggested that there be more research. His big concern was that a parking study get underway. Pam Hopkins said that she did see developers who had a problem with the cost of development. Sid was not in favor of a flat $10,000, because it was as though the: private sector had to take the full responsibility for providing parking for the Town. Diana felt the fee should be raised. She felt that those adding square footage should "tote their load." Jay felt that adding 300-400 square feet did not add a need for more parking. He felt that this would discourage upgrading of property. Bryan Hobbs wondered why the difference in the two original fees, and was told it was to encourage commercial activity. He did not feel that $10,000 should be charged, but felt he could support an increase. Peggy Osterfoss felt that there should be research done to find out many things, including which people were actually using the parking structures, which people are profiting most from the fact that certain people use the structures, etc. She wondered if the developers who added to their buildings were the primary beneficiaries of the parking spaces. Peggy supported a stop- gap measure of an_increas_e.un_til the .research could be done. She felt that the funding source for ;parking should be equitable. _ _ _ Grant Riva agreed with most of the.co~tnments and felt more extensive research should be done on the cost of construction, and whether or not the developer should bear the cost. Grant felt that to increase the fees without the research was slowing "strangling the goose that laid the golden egg." Jim Viele agreed with Grant and Peggy. He supported some increase and wanted additional research on parking user patterns. Diana stated that parking studies could be done, and when the studies were done, she was not sure the studies would give any answers. She felt the fees should be increased. Pam felt the day skier had put a burden on the guest staying for a week. Tom summarized the comments of the Commission and stated that if the PEC did decide not to vote in favor of the $10,000 fee, they would want to know the reasons why. Ron Phillips felt the $10,000 number was easily justifiable in light of the studies and of the cost estimates of the Doubletree. Sid pointed out that the case of the Doubletree was a good example of a large developer who could not afford to build parking spaces at an estimate of $10,000 per space and wondered how a small developer could afford it. Jim pointed out that $10,000 represented a 330$ increase in the fee with an absence of parking studies. Diana felt it would be of interest to have a list of businesses who have paid into the fund, what they have constructed, etc. Motion by Grant Riva to recommend to the Town Council that the amendment not be passed as presented. Reasons cited for the recommendation were: 1) lack of documentation on parking space costs; 2) need to analyze parking user patterns; and, 3) a change in philosophy on who pays for parking in Vail. Second by Bryan Hobbs. Vote was 5 in favor of motion (of denial) and 2 (Diana and Peggy) against. The Commission's discussion continued and an additional motion was made by Peggy and seconded by Pam that PEC recommend raising the parking fee to $6,000/per space now, that a study be made to ascertain present use of parking spaces, what percentage of the cost of parking should be borne by the Town, and then decide if $6,000 should continue to be charged, or whether it should be changed. Added to the motion was a -suggestion from Pam that in conjunction with a fee increase, consideration should be given to assuring the purchaser the right to use the space. The vote was 5 in favor, 1 (Diana) against, with Hobbs abstaining to add these comments to the PEC's formal recommendation. Kristan introduced Bob Krohn who updated the Board on the planning efforts for the 1989 World Alpine Championships. f ` EAGLE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ICE 5OJ P.O. BOX 740 • EAGLE, COLORADO 81631 • (3031 328-6321 OR 949-5310 " PATRICIA C. CONRAN SUPERINTENDENT September 17, 1990 Kent Rose, Mayor - Town of Vail Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mayor Kent Rose: Colorado Revised Statute 30-28-133 (4)(a) requires that subdividers of land in residential subdivisions or portion of a subdivision intended for residential use shall "allocate and convey sites and land areas for schools and parks when such are reasonably necessary to serve the proposed subdivision and the future residents thereof." This letter is to request that the Town of Vail adopt a resolution that would provide land dedications or cash-in-lieu-of land dedications to the Eagle County School District when subdivisions are located within the town limits of Vail. The formula that is presently used by Eagle County is as follows: ~Sinele Familv and Dunlex Units: Number of Units x .014495 =Dedication Requirements in Acres Multi-Familv: Number of Units x .002676 =Dedication Requirement in Acres Mobile Homes: Number of Units x .022300 =Dedication Requirement in Acres When dedications of land are not feasible or appropriate, the Eagle County School i}istrict ilas used the above formula and a $5,000 per acre cost to calculate cash-in-lieu-of land dedications. Enclosed is a copy of the amendments to Eagle County's subdivision regulations. We request that the Town of Vail adopt similar regulations. I shall be happy to meet with your Council if you feel this would be helpful to your deliberations. Sincerely, ~Z7,~~GCI~ [ ~ ~6~'rt~l~- Patricia C. Conran Superintendent ~i town of nail 75 south frontage road office of community development vail, Colorado 81657 (303)479-2138 (303)479-2139 October 25, 1990 Ms. Pat Conran Superintendent, Eagle County School District RE50J P.O. Box 740 Eagle, CO 81631 RE: Letter dated September 17, 1990 concerning La ications to Eagle County School District Dear Pat: I wanted to let you know that the Town Council will be discussing the issue of fees and review processes within the Town of Vail Community Development Department in late November. At that time, you may wish to present your request that the Town adopt a resolution that would provide land dedications or cash in lieu of land dedications to the Eagle County School District. Z will let you know when this issue is going to be p~:-esented to the Council. At that time, we can coordinate your presentation with our proposal. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 479-2138. You-may also want to call me: mid November just to follow up on the specific date for the meeting. Sincerely, 1 ~(`5 n ~ ~ Kristan Pritz Community Development Director KP/PP cc: Ron Phillips . f~ AMENDMENTS TO THE EAGLE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 14 October 1980 A Amendment to: Page # Section 3 1.08.02 Addition of; (j The property division is for the purpose of perpetual open space. 5 1.17 Amended to Read: - DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 'TEAM An interdisciplinary review team advisory to the Board of County Commissioners thru the Secretary composed of representatives from local, state and federal agencies, 7 2,06 EXEMPTION Delete present (a) thru (e) and amend to read: (a) Rural tiomesite provision of Section 3.01.02(7) of the Eagle County Zoning Resolution. (b) The subdivision is for the purpose of changing the size of an existing lot or parcel and does not create an additional building site. 13 3.06.04 Delete entire paragraph regarding School District 13 3.06.04 New paragraph to read: - Notice of the date and time of ttie.hearing of the preli:mi:nary plan by the Planning Commission shall be sent to the subdivider, th.e record owners of land contiguous to the subdivision and any other party which has requested to be notified of such proceedings, at least five(.5).~days prior to the date set for such hearing. 17 3.10.02 Amended to read as follows: As improvements are completed, the Subdivider may apply to the Board of County Commissioners fora release of part or all of the collateral deposited with said Board. A REGISTERED ENGINEER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO CERTIFY THAT IPIPROVEMENTS ARE CONSTRUCTED IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH T1iE FINAL PUBLIC IhiPROVEftENTS DRAWINGS. Balance of paragraph wil] remain the same. 18 4.01.02 IPJFORP1ATION: Amended to read: A letter from the subdivider requesting sketch plan review accompanied by check in the amount of the re~uirc fee, a SUBDIViSIOPd SUP1MAP,Y FORP•1 and those requirements listed in Section 4.01.04 above. 19 4.02.01 PRELIP~INARY PLAN: Amended to read: Add Heal sentence after "component Darts of the subdivision. THE APPLICATIOPJ FOR PRELIMIPdARY PLAPd SOUL BE ACCOP•1PANIED BY A SUBDIVISION SUP•1MARY FORM. Balance of paragraph tivill remain the same. . Amendment to: ~ Page ~ Section ~ Addition of: 21 4.02.01 (m) School Land Dedication or Cash in Lieu Thereof. Pursuant to Section 30-23-133 (4) (a), C.R.S. 1973, as amended, the subdivider of land in each residential subdivision or portion of a subdivision which is intended for residential use, shall allocate and convey for school purposes that portion of land required by the application of formulas set forth below: Single Family and Duplex Number of Units x .014495 = Dedication Requirement in Acres. Multi-Family Number of Units x .002676 = Dedication Requirement in Acres. Mobile Home Number of Units x .022300 = Dedication Requirement in Acres. At the option of the Board, the subdivider shall, in lieu of such conveyance of land, pay to the Board, in cash, an amount equal to the present value of the raw land. Raw land excludes utilities - streets, or other improvements. l+lhen land is dedicated, it shall be that which is useable by the respective School District for the intended purpose, and shall be maintained by the School District in a reasonable manner until developed. Said land shall be held by the County for the School District until required by the School District, tlhen money in lieu of land is required, it shall be held by the Board for the acquisition of said school sites or land areas. Payment of dedication shall be made prior to or at the time of approval of the final plat. Said subdivision school dedications shall apply only once to the same land area. Dedications shall not be required of resubdivisions of the same land - when a dedication has previously been made. If the Board and the Subdivider fail to agree on the present value of the land, such value shall be , fixed and established by a qualified appraiser wino is a member of the ~~1.A.I. selected by the Board and the Subdivider. If the Board and the Subdivider are unable to agree upon an appraiser, each shall receive an appraisal from an P~1.A.I. appraiser and the average of the taro independent appraisals shall be the present value. The Board and the Subdivider shall equally share in the cost of such appraisal. The Board's half of said cost shall be paid from funds received. Amendment to: ~ Page # Section # 26 4.03 FINAL PLAT REQUIREMENTS: Amend last two sentences to read: Scale of the Final Plat shall be consistent with that of the preliminary plan. Five copies or the Final Plat and supplemental information shall be submitted to the Secretary on the first working day of the month in which it is to be heard. The original mylar must be submitted on Monday of the creek of the Planning Commission hearing. A SUBDIVISION SUhiMARY FORM should accompany application for Final Plat. 26 4.03 (a) Amend second sentence to read: Bearings, deflection angles, arc lengths, CHORD BEARINGS, CHORD LENGTHS, tangent distances and central angles of all curve shall be shown. Balance of paragraph will remain the same. 28 4.03.02(d) Add new sentence to paragraph. The above referenced drawings shall be labelled as Final Public Improvements drawings and shall have a signature block for the Board of County Commissioners. 28 4.03.02(f) Amended to read: Adequate evidence of water in sufficient quantity for both domestic and irrigation use which shall be transferred to a legalV.entity which sha~il be established to operate such system. 23 4.03.02 Add (g) Show compliance with 4.02.01(m) regarding School Land Dedication or cash in lieu thereof. 35 5.03.02 FLOOD PLAIN DEFIPIED: Amended to read 100 year flood plain is defined as that area that can be anticipated to tie inundated by the 100 year frequency storm. DELETE REMAINDER Of~ SECTiOiI Also see Flood plain Regulations • ~ SUBDIVISIOP~ SUPIPIARY FORP~1 f'~ r (1) Name of Subdivision (2) Stage of Subdivision Sketch Preliminary Final Plat (3 ) Property O~vr:er _ Name Address Tele. Number (4) Subdivider Name . Address Tele. Number (5) Designer Name Address Tele. Number (6) Location of Subdivision Township Range Section Quarter Section (7) Project Informat ion Hoiasinq Type Number of Lots Number of Units Lot Size Single Family Duplex Multi Family (8 ) Tota i PJur;ber of Dwe17 i ng Units (9) Total size of project (10) Size of dedicated open space (11) Proposed source of water (12) Proposed r^ethod of ~•raste disposal (13) Ad.lacent Praoert~: fhvners (if more space is needed please attach to this form) i•~ame Address Flame Addres s Name Address Name Address . ~ - • . Book 31~~ _ 208297 Recorded at I :30 P.AI. October 29,1990 loo Fee ~ Page 919 Recorder; Johnnette Phillips Eagle County +~y ^ 4 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COF1FtISSI0NER5 _ _ COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO ' - RESOLUTION N0. ~±-=SF~ A RESOLUTION READOPTIP:G AND APIENDING THE SUBDIVISI011 REGULATIONS OF 7HE COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO, 1972, AS 14fENDED, _ ~ WHEREAS, Sections 30-28-110, 30-28-133 and 30-28-137, respectively, - ~ - C.R.S. 1973, as amended, provide for the adoption and amendment of all sub- division plans and plats and the adoption and amendment of regulations governing - such plans and plats by the Board of County Commissioners: and WHEREAS, on 3rd day of Sept.. 19 80 ,the Eagle County Planning _ Commission did consider amendments to the Subdivision Regulations of the County ;~,;.,;~-.~:yc-.,...._u . „ of Eagle, Colorado, 1972, as amended, as set forth in Exhibit °A", attached - ~ hereto and incorporated 'Herein by this reference; and _ i WHEREAS, on the da of ~ 14.th. Y Oct._, 19 Q_, a public hearing Sias held before the Board of County Co missioners, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, to consider the adoption of the amendments set forth in Exhibit ~ - ..A.. and WHEREAS, notice stating the time and place of the public herring ~•~as duly given by one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in ' = the County of Eagle at 7easL thirty deys prior to said public hearinc; and Y WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that f - j such ar::ende,ents to the Subdivision ?egulat'ions are necessary and designed for the purpose of pro,.^oting the health, sari*_y, morals, convenience, order, _ _ prosperity, ar.d welfare of the present and future inhabitants or the County of -:=..--t..._. Eagle by establishing minimum standards for• the design and deve!op,:.ant of i subdivisions. H041 fHEREFURE, be it resolved by the Board of County Conraissioners, Cnunt.y of Eagle, State of Colorado: i ?HAT, th? Subdivision Recuiations of the County or Eacie, Colorado, 1912, as amended, is hereby an~endcd as set forth in Ewhlblt "A". . 1- - ( ~ 'r. 1 J - _ _ I THAT, the entirety of the Subdivision Reaulations of the County of Eagle. Colorado, 1972, as amended, and as herein amended, is hereby readopted. • THAT, this amendment and readontion of the Subdivision Regulations of _ the County of Eagle, Colorado, 1972, as amended, shall not constitute or be <,<„-.-: construed as a waiver of any violations existing aL the time of adoption of this Resolution. - - THAT, any subdivider, or agent of a subdivider, who transfers or - _ sells or agrees to sell or offers to sell any subdivided land before a final - - _ _ _ plat for such subdivision land has been approved by the Board of County Comm- _ issioners and recorded or filed in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder - - is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars for each parcel or interest in • subdivided land which is sold or offered for sale. _ ~ THAT, the Board of County Commissioners has the power to bring an _ action to enjoin any subdivider from selling, agreeing to sell, or offering to _ sell subdivided land before a final plat for such subdivided land has been approved by the Board of County Commissioners. THAT, should any section, clause, provision, sentence or >:ord of this Resolution, including the attached exhibit, be declared by a court of the _ _ corpetent jurisdirtion to be invalid, such decision shalt not arfect the - validity of t^is Pesolution as a ~vhole, or any parts thereof, other than tite • part so declared to be invalid. `or this purpose, this Resolution is declared to be severable. 1 - - THAT, this Resolution is necessary for the health, welfare and - _ . safety or the Citizens of Eagle County. - THAT, the provisions of this Resolution shall be dee~ed in full sorce - and effect on the day of f7~r~ 19_~ o_. i t1G:ED HEAD Ai1D Uh:AilIt1GUS!Y ADGPTED by the Board of County Commissioners. County of Eagle, Colorado; at its regular meeting held 'his " ~ day of L:rL. 19 sr u . CUUiITY OF Ei,uLE. STATE GF ~DLGRADD By and through its BUARU CF CUU?dTY CUi',ISS(G:_6tS ~ Dilp F. ,rant;, C'nairran ATTEST: ~ i Urn Ytliiars, t,onxais;tcner ; BY: i ~ Ctert, or ;n~ t;uarn cr Ty.., _ Count y CCr-ttssicners Kc,th lroxel• CoTis~toner • • - P AMENDMENT 'I'O 'I'tch SUBDIVISICIN RT:(;ULATIONS .~ldopt.c~d 1.:3 Apri 1 1951 Page ~ School Land Dedication or Cash in Lieu Thereof. ' 21 Pursuant t~ § 30-28-133 (~1) (a.), C.R.S. 1973, as .amended, the subdivider of land i.n each Section residential subdivision or portion of a 4.02.01.(m) subdivision which is intended for residential use, shall a]lr~onte and convey sites and land are,is for sch<~c~ls when such are reasonably necessary t.o serve the proposed subdivision and the future residents thereof, by the application ul' fr~rmulati ~:et forth helo~c~: Single Family and Duplex Number of Uni t:s X .01.1•'}95 = Dedication Requirement i.n acres A9ulti-Family Dedication Requirement Number of Units X .002676 in acres ~tol.~i 1 t}c~met = Dedication Requirement Number ~f Unit.s X .0223300 in Acre:; 11'hen land is dedicated for the purpose of providing, a sclu~~l sii:e, i1: ~hal.l br t.h1t which is use-~ahle by i:he respective School District for such purpose, and shall be maintained by the School District: in a reasonable manner until developed. Saul land shall be held by the County for the school District anti]. required by the School Dist.ri c.i.. l.n the event: that the School District determines subsequent to Dedication that such school site is not reasonably necessary, the Hoard may, at the redtrest of the School District, sell such land. When situ:, and land areas for schools are not reasonably necessary to serve the proposed subdivision and the future residents thereof, the Board with recommendations from the School District. anti other affected entities, shall require, in lieu of such conveycnce of land, the payment in cash by the subdivider of an amount not to exceed the full market value of such sites and ].and areas for schools. • ~ Full market value steal]. mean the current market value of unimprovcci land. Thiti value shall. be set annually by the Boarci of Count}~ Commissioners on an acre basis with recommendations from the School District. The slime v;llll<` pc~r ac~t•c~ tihall be used thrqug2iout the County. If a subdivider dons not agree with the value per acre, such subdivider can submit a report by a qualified appraiser, who is a member of the M.A.I., which establishes a new value. The Board of County Commissioners shall review such report and determine of said value is reasonable. Based upon their review, the Board will determine the value of such land. tVhen money in lieu of land is required or when moneys have been paid to the Board from the sale of such dedicated sites for schools, it shall be held by the Board for the acquisition of reasonably necessary sites for the construction of school facilities or employee housing;, for the purchase of housing units for the School District employee housing, or for the development of said sites. If housing; units are purchased, a deed resCriction restric.ting their use to School District employee housing shall be required and ownership shall remain in the name of the School District. Said subdivision school. dc~dicaLi.on shall apply only once to the same land area. Dedications shall not be required of resubdivisions o.f the same land when a dodi cal; i on lt:ts prc~vi rnatil y br<~n macl<~ . ' CONSTRUCTION FEE SCHEDULE A. BUILDING PERMIT FEES { Total Valuation - Fee $1.00 to $500.00 ...........................;ZQ.~~ .$~:..8@~ ;3.00 $501.00 to $2,000.00 ;20.00 $i~.80• for the first 500.00 plus wi.~ for each additional $100.00 or fraction therec to and including $2,000.00 ;io.oo $2001.00 to $25,000.00 ~i:~S..AA . for the first $2,000.00 plus for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 ;7.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 i~3.5..A4~ for the first $25,000.00 plus-;fr-5£ for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 ;6.00 $50 ,001.00 to $100,000.00 i.49D.AA. $~i~.-~ for the first $50,000.00 plus for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 ;4.0( $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 .....................i7.4D.0A.$fr39•.ss6 for the first $100,000.00 plus$3:E for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof. $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 ................iz.3~0.00..$~39-56 for the first $500,000.00 plus 4.00 $3~:~9 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including 1 millit $1,000,001.00 and up ........................;1~.360.00..$~~8 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus ;3.00 $x-88-for each additional $1,000.00 o r fraction thereof. B. ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES 1. NEW RESIDENTIAL - This includes Modular Homes, Mobile Homes & Travel Trailer, also Duplexes & Condominiums. Construction b extensive remodeling & additions to (based on enclosed living area). Not more than 1,000 square feet ......................................z$44-:~ ;50.00 Over 1,000 sq. ft. and not more than 1,500 sq. ft . ;72.00 Over 1,500 sq. ft. and not more than 2,000 sq. ft . ;89.00 Per 100 sq. ft. in excess of 2,000 sq. ft . 5~ ; 4.00 REINSPECTIOfVS ARE ...................................................:.~4~4-$6- ;50.00 2. OOMMERCIAL - AND ALL OTHER FEES, including ADD,ALT,REP,REM,.except for inspection in mobile homes & travel trailer darks shall be computed on the dollar value of the electrical installations, including fixtures & installation costs thereof, & such fees shall be as follows: Valuation of Work - Contract Costs Fee Not more than $300.00 ..........................~42.A(1. More than $300.00 but not more than $2,000.00. ~.~00~ . ~4~4,r9(~ More than $2,000.00 but not more than $50,000..~18.~4 . r$I~~ per each $1,000 valuation or fraction thereof of tatal valuation. More than $50,000.00 but not more than $500,000~L7..D~0~ $1§~•per thousand or fraction thereof of total valuation PL US~bB~.~A8.;s7.oo Mobile homes and travel trailer parks per spacei4~.AA..$3~.-90- Reinspections on all the above .................iSA.AD..$~44:6~- SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR OTHER FEES 1 r .r C. PLUMING PERMIT FEES ;15.00 $}6:$E~•per $1,000 valuation Valuation = 500.00 P/T ~ PER. TRAP OPENING . D. NECHa'~ICAL PEF~MIT FEES ;20.00 $~}5:~9-per $1,000 valuation Valuation = 500.00 P/ D ~ PER. DUCT OPENING E. PLAN CHECK FEES • 65Z 1. Residential = -5~ of Building Permit Fee 4. Plumbing 25x of Plumbing Permit. 2. Other than Resid. 65X of Building Permit Fee 3. Fast Track - 100x of Building PerejCt Fee 5. Mechanical 25x of F. OESIGN REVIEW BOARD FEES Mechanical Permit. YALU~TION FEE $ 0 - $ 10,000 -~-~?.~3- ;ls.oo or ;2s.oo $ 10,001 - $ 50,000 ~ ~E.'DO ;40.00 $ 50,001 - $ 150,000 g `7.A0 ;75.00 $ 150 , 001 - $ 500 ,000 -$~99~9-;150.00 $ 500,001 - $ 1,000.000 -$g@6-Q@ S3oo.00 Over - $ 1,000,000 -$r386-69 ;400.00 CLEAN-UP DEPOSIT $ 2,000 to $ 25,000 $100.00 $ 25,001 to $ 100,000 $250.00 $ 100,001 to $ 500,000 $500.00 $ 500,001 to $ 1,000,000 $750.00 Over $1,000 ,000 $1,000.00 H. RECREATION FEES Zone District Tax Rate per Square Foot of Floor Area SFR 10 R .15 R P/S .15 RC . 30 LDMF .35 MDMF .70 HDMF 1.00 PA 1.00 CC1 1.00 CC2• 1.00 CC3 1.00 CSC 1.00 HS 1.00 A .10 , S DD Rate of zone district applicable to density of project. Conditional IIses .............................;100.OQ or ;200.00 Special Development District .................;500.00 Minor Subdivision ............................;100.00 Major Subdivision ..............*..~..........~8A-~8 ;500.00 Rezone .......................................~98~~A- ;200.00 Single Family Subdivision ....................~A9a/8-;100.00 Secondary Dnit ...............................;100.00 Variance Application .........................;100 ~0 or ;200.00 Bed 6 Breakfast ..............................;100.1)0 Sign Application .............................#-A ;1 per sq. ft. of sign + ;20.00 Additional GRFA .................,...........,100.00- Condo. Conversion ............................~AAs~A ;500.00 Duplea Subdivision ...........................;100.1]0 Sign Variance ................................;100.00,.or ;200.00 NOTE: Exception on Clean-up Deposits - All roofing; projects require at least the minimum deposit. ' + . _ I 1 UUlLU1NG 1'L'R119f1' PL'L'S l U1 hL'Vi1J UA1 lC)N; 1 LI S 1.00 TO SS00 . s2o.oo SSUI.OO.T0.3Z,000.00.;;;::'.;;;.:::; ;';::>::i.;:z': (20.00 FOR TIIE FIRST' 5500.00 rLUS 37.00 FOR EAC11 ADDI'PIONAL f 100.00 OR PR ACTION TIIEREOF,TO AND INCLUDING 52,000.00 32,OO1:W'1~O325,0OO:OU,;:''i:;;':'.i,:i!i,<;'.''`;:,;'` f6S.U0PORT1IEFIRST52,000.OOPLUSE]O.OOFOREACIIADUITIONALf1,000.00 ' ' OR FR ACTION'FIIEREOF,TO AND INCLUUING S25,n00.p) 3Z5,001.00'1'U 350,000.00 (715.00 I~OR T'llli FIRST E2S,1)00.00 PLUS E7.00 PUR EACII ADDITIONAL f (!)00.00 UR PR ACTION'1'IIEREOF,'I'O AND INCLUUING (50,000.00 SSO;WO.Ol TU. 310U,O(IO,UO ,i. :i;;.;! (490.00 FOR TI I L' FIRST f c0,000.00 PLUS E5.00 FOR EACH AUDII'IONAL f 1,000.00 I OR FR ACT'ION'I'IIEREOF,TO ANU INCLUDING 5100,000.OU $100,001.00 TO $500,000 00 I (740.00 FOR THE FIRST 1100,000.00 PLUS f4.00 POR EAC11 ADDITIONAL 51,000.00 > UR FRACI'IONTIIEREOF,TO AND INCLUUING (500,000.00 5500,0,01.00 TO 51,000,000.00 52,740.00 PUR TI IE I'IRST 5500,000.00 PLUS f4.00 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL (1,000.00 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OR FR A_(:'ITON'1'lllflt l?OI~,'I'U ANh IN(:I. 114WG f I,000,OIY).00 $1,000,001.00 A~11) lll' --s.i,i•iunn FoR ~riilt i nts•rs i,iuro,ua).rm rLUSi.l.oo roll En<:II nuorrwNnL Sl,ono~ro UIL PIi AC"1'ION'1'III.IiEW~. L Ullllilt INSI'LC;l1UN PLIiS: _ 1. INSPECTIONS OUTSIDE NORMAL I)USINESS HOURS (MINIMUM CHARGE T1V0 IIUURS) $40.00 IIR. 2. REINSPECTION PEE ASSESSED UNDER rROVISIONS OF SECTION JO$ (R) OP T'HE DEC. $40.00 1112. 7. INSPECTIONS FOR WIIICII NO FEE IS SPECIFICALLY INDICA'I'EU INCLUUEING SPGCIAL INSPECTIONS. ST'Or WORK ORUEI2S AND ZONING. $40.00 IIR. 3 PLAN RLiVILsW I~L'L•:S Bl11LUING'';;i.<:: ;:i::':;::::. : PLAN REVIEW FEE SIIALLItE6S^o OP'I'llliISUILDING I'C•ILMITPLai. PLUMBING.:!.:::.'.;:<.>;::;_ :.;..I r1.nNREV1eWFEESnnLL11E25`100E'1'IICI'LUMUINGI'ERMI'I'1'EE. ML'CIIANICAL.::::.><>.':; PLAN REVIEW FEESIL\LL,OH257OFTllIiMECIIANICALPERMITFEE. ~.i WIIhNEVEF2 ANY WORK FOR \VIIICII A Plil(M11' IS REQUIRED IIAS COMMENCED \VFFIIOUT I'IRS'1' INVES'PIGATIUN.;<.,'i;:^'' . 06'1'AINING SAID PERMIT'.'PHE INVL?STIGA'I'ION FEE SIIALL 13fi EQUAL TO TIIE AMOUNT' OF TIIE UUII,DING, PhUMDING, MECHANICAL, OR F.LEC'i'RICAL I'I:ItMI'FFEE. ALLO'I'IIER FEES SIIAt,L OE IN ADDIT'ION'1'U T'lIE IN\'ES'FIGAT'ION FEE. FAST, 1'12AG~_;;;;::;; < Pl,r\N RliV1EW I~UR A FASTTRACK PERMIT, WIZEN PLANS AR F. NOT'FOTALLY COMPLETE SHALL PAY A CLAN REVIEW FEE EQUAL TO TIIE LIUILDING PERMIT FEE. RLs5'1'AURAN'1' hG13 I rn.nL'Fn ularnlrrhH:N'r PLAN REVIEW FUR KI'fCIlENS SHALL 6E A PhAT FEE OF $75.00 PICI3CUN$'1'ICUC.I~IUN A FEE MAl' 6L' CIIARGEU WIZEN TIMESI'ENT IS DE"I'ERMINED TO DE EXCCSSIVE DYTLIE 6UILDING OFFICIAL. MGL'•TINGS (HxcP.sslvn Rnvmw Is oVRR'I'WO Mnl?l'INOS OR FOUR HOURS) 340.00 1IR. AUllI'1'tUNAL PLAN nourrwNnl,rLnN REVIEW Rr:QUn(ED nYCUnrlces,nuun'lorls S40.OO llli. REVIEW. ;:;':;.;;;a::;a;,::';,. OR REVISIONS 1'O AI'PILOVED PLANS. • OR TFIE TOTAL IIOURhY COST, WIIICIIE\'ER IS TIIE GREA'I'ES'1'. 'FI11S COST' SHALL INCLUDE SUPERVISION, UVERIIC•AU. EQUIrhII:NT, IIOUIthS' WAGES AND FRINGE 11ENEFI'1'S OI' ALh EMPL05'C•,ES INVOLVED. 4 IiLLI;'1'ItICAL fliLiS ~ ' NLiW Rl?SIUGN"1'IAI. T'IIIS INCLUDI?S hN.>Dl1LAR IIUhtIiS, MUIiILI? IIUMIiS AND'1'ItAVE1,TRAILP:R, ALSO UUI'LEXES ~ FL`1:~ :':I ANU CON DUMINIUMS. (OASBU UN HNCLOSRU LIVING ARHA) NOT' MUR1:7'11CN 1,000 SQUARE 1'El~l' $50.00 OVER 1,000 SQ. F'f. ANU NU'C MUItE 7'l1EN 1,500 SQ. F'F. $72.00 OVER 1,500 SQ. FT. AND NOT MORE THEN 2,000 SQ. F'F. $89.00 PER 100 SQ. FT. tN EXCESS OF 2,000 SQ. F'1'. $4.00 COMMI'RCIAL I COMMERCIAL AND ALhO'FHER FEES, INCLUUING ADD, ALT, REP, ANU SIIALL RE COMPUTED ON FCES TIIE DOLLAR VALUE OF TIIEELEC'fRICAI. INSTALLATION, INCLUDING FIXTURES AND INSTALLATION : COST' THEREOF, AND SUCH PEE SIIALL UE AS FOLLOWS: NOT MORE THEN fJ00,00 $42.00 MORE T'lli?N (300.00 i3U'1' NOT MOIiE'I'1113N f2,000.00 $50.00 MORE Tt1EN (2,000.00 DUT NO'F MORN THEN (50,000.00 (flf.M PCR 1?ACII (1,000.00 VALUATION OR PR ACTION TIICRUP OF TO'ML VALUATION. MORE7'IIENf50,000.00 DUTN01'MORE'1'III3N (500,000.00 (317.OOP1?RPSC11f1,001).OOORFRACI'IONTIICROPOFTO'fALYA1.UAl'IONPI,lISS57.M MOEILE HOMES AND TRAVELTItA1LL'R rARKS PER SPACE $42.00 TEMPORARY rOWER $50.00 RCINSPL'CTIONS ON ALL UF'I'lIE AEUVE $42.00 ~ YLUMllING 1'L'KM11 1'LL•5 ~i : $15.00 PGIi 31,000.00 VAL UAlIO N. (VALUATION 3500.00 PI.H l'RnP OII?NINO) 6 MliC11AN1CAL I'LRMIT hL'L'S ; 320.00 1'GIC 1,(100.00 VALUA'1'IUN. (vnulnTloN = ssoo.M rlsR OPP.NINO) y . 'i u1s1uN lu;vll:w uonltu r•1:1: . I::: . :v:::::: :v::: :v: :..:.~N.........I•:. V l,_~i::isY,.i;::i:::::::'ii:::tii::i:::i::i::: ~ ~ : LLS : . ;':''..::.,.$0.00 i>: <sTU:.>:':`.>::':::::;>:!<::::>:$10,000.U0 $15.00 ;$10,001,00 `>::ii::.'1'O;<:;:;:>.':>::;<5;:;;;::$50,000.00 $40.00 <•:$50,00L:00:;:>::>TU:;:: ;'':«><».$150;000:00 $75.00 :.$150,001 00 TU .'::.3500;000.00 $150.00 %3500,00100 10 >.$1;000;OOOs00 $300.00 ::.:..:OVER : ::»>.........::...s>:...:..;:<>$1:000.000:00 $400.00 8 CLLiAN-UP ULPUSI'1' y " ; ......t?:A1«:[3,Eli'1;tO.N....;>::>:>:z::::::!<':^.;::>:::.:.. i;. :TEC5 i::.. $2;000.00, 1'0;:;';:;,>'_.;;;:>:>: $25;000.00 $100.00 >:::S25,U01:00':>:: TO::::::<:>::::>:>::::` $100,000.00 $250.00 ..5100;001 00 TO ;$500,000.00 $500.00 5500,001:00;;.;;:::,T,O.;:>:>';:;; $1}000,000:00 $750.00 :.OVER x1;000;000:00 $1,000.00 N0T71; HX GT?PTION ON CLRAN-UP UHPOSITS - ALL RR-ROOI'INO 1'ROII?C7'S RnU l11RH AT LUA SP '1'118 MINIMUM UHPOSIT. 9 AI'!'LICAT'IUN PliliS t0 KECRfiA'I'IUN FIiE 1'EI( SU. I~'1'. CONUIf IUNAL 058 SIOO.INI VANIANCIi (100.00 SfR f0.101'~~:::.:. HUMP 31.(1(1 SPnCU1L DRVHLOPMI?NT DIS'T'RICT 5)310.00 SICN (20.00 ~ Rn5 f0.15 PA 31.00 MINOR Sl1BUIVISION fI00.M AUDIT"IUNALO i (100.00 RPlS 50.15 I~<::: ~CC 1,2,) 31.M MAIOR SUBUI VISION f500.00 CONDO. CON VR 1 f500.00 RC 30.)0 I ~ ~ CSC SL00 SINGER FAMILY SUBDIVISION f200.00 UUPLI?X SUBUI Y 3100.00 ~ LDMF f0.]S ITS f1.M SHWNUARYUNI'P SI00.00'RIiT,UNU (200.00 ~ MUMF (0.70 ~ lA 30.10 :i:::.: A'I'P OF DIS'I'RICI'APPLICAOLH TO bI?NSITY OF PRO1BCf. SUD R r" TODAYSftiliS r ` keVl!Nile'I'O7'tIWN 1 111111.UIN0 PLAN' PLAN II AN I!LI!(:. PI IlMllr:.: MI!CII. Utl51(1N - YLNMIT 1 CIIUCK. ( (Ill!CK ':I CIII CK' ~ I'I!+'MI'P. I PI'kMIP ~ ' PI!ItMI'f l kkVll!W NI{I. II1111.DINO' IIUMU.. MCL'll.' ILC Nl,li PeR : Illil;:` (161.167 1 ftl9,8U l 501 f01 US,2Ui l f20.26f f76,U66 ~ fIO~ISS ~:TOTA'1!S"`::3z!: flS2,ri0 f' :~::a~::.':;&i:: ;5:; New IjP.e Iv91 kl?V@Nlll!'I'(l'I'OWN t'u'I'AI, I'1!ItCI!N'I' ON INCItI!ASe OVIlIt TOI)AYS I'I!I!S )I% i _ IIIIILUIN(I I PLAN', I !'I.AN ~ "'.AN ~ .i'> I"i u7.fn. rvfl tai. bl!SIQN Pl!ItMI'I' CIIECK CIIHCK UIIiCK 11'kMll 1'I kMll' Il°RMI'I' kl!VII!W NI!l! ' ~ It1111.UIN0 I I'LIIMII, ~ MI!CII. ~ J9?I! ~ Il!e~T' Ille~'NLe-: (192,112 1 (124,9121 (6,6261 f10,11f f)3,9U91 (70,128 ~f48,1261 (15,185 I.OTAi:S':fii::>] (461,532 INCIiI!ASep kl!Yf!N111! (7111091 (75,0781 (6,6261 (111,1751 (7021 (10,1631 (12,0601 ff,070 11 {I ~U,802 INCI(IlASG 19%I J9%I N]A I NIA I 2%I 50%I ]3%1 SO% I?XAMI'LI? 1 A NI!W Itl?S.IINIII?It'1'OI>AYS NI?I!S. IIUILUING SU. NT. UP ' " VALUATIONS < 'COST' OP II1111.UING I'LIIMI}ING MI?CIIANICAI. I!LLC'I'kICAI: .I'LUMUIN4 pi~C11ANICAL URII TOTAL COS'( IIOMI! 111' I!LLG 1 I'LIIMD. MI!fll: 1'I?ItMI'I' PLAN lall!CK PLAN CIII!CK PLAN CIIUCK I1 I'I!NMI'I' ,I'BkMIT > 1'I!kMl'f . Nkl!S FI?eS (606,0001 7,8211 (21,5001 (14.5001 tS6,S001 S2.)S8 fl,l~ ~ N!A ~ NIA 1~ 71691 iI/S ~ f84R f2U0 fS.D99 I?XAMI'I,I! 2 A NI?W Itl!S. I1NOI?It NI!W Plll?SAND NOT A I°AS'1"I'1(Al:'I'. UI111.UINCi SO.P'f.O~ VALIATIONS :C(lSt'ON IIIIILDINO i'LUM61N(1 MI!CIIANIUIL I;LCCI'ItICAI, PLIIM111N0IMCCIIANIGL `.DI16 TOTAI. COS"( IIOMI! PLI?G I'LIIMU. MLCII. I'I!i(Afl'I' I'I,AN CIII!f,K 1'I:AN CIII?CK d'LAN CIIL'(:K I'el2MIT PCRMIT PBItMIT FOPS I'ELS _ (606.0001 7,821 ~ ~ ~ , (21.5001 514,5001 (56,5001 f2~G6A I (1,7)2 ~ 5541 f2Rll flit) (218 f1.17U ~ f)nn 56,707 N!Rf.CNI'OP IN(:kl!Aff!ON~N NXAMI'l)! 1 1;1'L 47% NIA N]A -17% 50%I ]J%I 50% 91% I'.XAMI'I.I°. 7 A NI?W Itl?ti. IINI>I?It NI{W I'I?I?S AS A I'AS'I' 'I'1(A(:I'. IIIIILDINO SU.I''I'.O11 VALIIA'I'IONS- COS'( OP II1111.UINl1 I'Ll1MIIIN(i MI!CIIANI(1AI. I?I,GCI'kICAI, Yl.I1MI11NQ MCCIIANICAL ' DI(II TOTAI. _ (:OSt' IIOMI! 1?I.li(:. 1'I.IIMIS: "Mlic;il. I'lil(MI'I' JII'I.AN l:II1:CK I'I.AN CIII!(:_K I'I.AN CIII?CK I'IiltMl'f t'L1kMIT I Pel(MI'I' NI?IiS NliliS i006,UDU1 T,A21~ (11(01) (14,5110 iSA,SUU.I (2,6641 i2'L641 fSAI f2N) f)22~ (2181 fI,IJO fJ00 f]h!f - .I-..---.-.-.~ ~ ` If!IICI!N'f ON IN':NLASI.Irif!Il 1!XAMI'LI. 1 11% 1 NIA. NIA -17% 50% 37% fi0% 50 i ~ 1. . ~ ~ 304 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE Fees ° Sec. 304. (a) General. Fees shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions ; of this section or shall be as set forth in the fee schedule adopted by the jurisdic- - lion. ~ ~ (b) Permit Fees. The fee for each permit shall be asset forth in Table No. 3-A. The determination of value or valuation under any of the provisions of this code . ~ shall be made by the building of5cial. The value to be used in computing the building permit and building plan review fees shall be the total value of all construction work for which the permit is issued as well as all finish work, painting, roofing, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire- extinguishin~ systems and any other permanent equipment. (c) Plan Review Fees. When a plan or other data are required to be submitted by Subsection (b) of Section 302, a plan review fee shall be paid at the time of submitting plans and specifications for revie~.i~. Said plan review fee shall be 65 percent of the building permit fee as shown in Table No. 3-A. Where plans are incomplete or chanced so as to require additional plan review, an additional plan review fey shall be charged at the rate shown in Table No. 3-A. (d) Expiration of Plan Review. Applications for which no permit is issued within 180 davs following the date of application shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building official. The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 davs upon request by the applicant showins that circumstances be~•ond the control of the applicant have prevented action from being taken. No application shall be ex- tendedmore than once. In order to renew action on an application after expiration, the applicant shall resubmit plans and pay a new plan review fee. (e) Investigation Fees: Work Without a Permit. 1. Investigation. Whenever any wort: for which a permit is required by this code has been commenced without first obtaining said permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued for such work. 2. Fee. An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collected whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the permit fee reyLired by this code. The minimum investigation fee shall be the same as the minimum fee set forth inTable No: 3-A. T're payment of such investigation fee shrill not exe:*~~t anv person from compli- ance with all other provisions of this code nor from any penalty prescribed by law. . (f) Fee Refunds. 1. The building official may authorize the refunding of anv - fee paid hereunder which was erroneously paid or collected. 2. The building official may authorize the refunding of not more than •80 percent of the permit fee paid wl,,en no work has been done under a permit issued in accordance with this code. 3. The buildin= official may authorize the refundins of not more than 80 percent or the plan review fee paid when an application for a permit for which a ~ ~ • plan review fee has been paid is withdrawn or canceled before any plan reviewing ~ is done. 10 f F f i •307, 3-A UNIRORM BUILDING CODE (d) Temporary Certificate. If the building official finds that no substantial hazard will result from occupancy of any building or portion thereof before the same is completed, he may issue a temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the use • _ ~ • i of a portion or portions of a building or structure prior to the completion of the entire building or structure. (e) Posting. The Certificate of Occupancy shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the premises and shall not be removed except b;y the building official. • (f) Revocation. The building official may, in writing, suspend or revoke a Certificate of Occupancy issued under the provisions of this code whenever the certificate is issued in error, or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or ~ when it is determined that the building or structure ar portion thereof is in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code. TABLE NO.3-A-BUILDING AEr~MiT FE:S I r07AL VALiJAT10N F== I 81.00 to 5500.00 515.00 8501.00 to 52,000.00 515.00 for the first 5500.00 plus 52.00 for each additional 5100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including 52,000.00 52,001.00 to 525,000.00 865.00 for the frst 82.000.00 plus 59.00 for each addi- tional 8l ,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including 525,000.00 825,001.00 to 850,000.00 825'_.00 for the first 825,000.00 plus 56.50 for each additional 31,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including 850,000.00 550,001.00 to 5100,000.00 5414.50 for the first 550,000.()0 plus 5-.50 for each additiona181,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including 5100,000.00 >s~ 8100,001.00 to $500,000.00 5639.50 for the first 8100,000.00 plus $3.50 for each additional 51,000.00 or fraction thereof 5500,001.00 to 52039.50 for the first 8500,000.00 plus $3.00 for each 51,000,000.00 additional 81,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $1.000,000.00. 81,000,001.00 and up 53539.50 for the ;first 81.000,000.00 plus 82.00 for each { additiona181,000.00 or fraction thereot Other Inspections and Fees: • • - i. Inspections outside of normal business hour ..................530.00 per 6our* (minimum charge-two hours) 2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 305 (S) .........................................530.00 per hour* . . 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated .................................530.00 perhour* t~'• (minimum chargo--one-half hour) 4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans ..............................530.00 oer hour* . i (minimum charge-one-half hour) *Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include } supervision, overhead, equipment, huuriy wares and fringe benefits of the employees ~ ~ involved. 16 t j i 1985 EDITION _ APPENDIX TABLE N0.70-A-GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES 50 cubic yards or less No fee 51 to 100 cubic yards 515.00 • 101 to 1000 cubic yards 22.50 . 1001 to 10,000 cubic yards 30.00 10,00I to 100,000 cubic yards-$30.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus $15.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards-S 165.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus 59.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic vards or fraction thereof. ~ . 4: 200,001 cubic yards or more-5255.00 for the first 200,000 cubic yards, plus $4.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. Other Fees: Additional plan review required by changes, additions ,~p,~d or revisions to approved plans 534-8~per hour* (minimum charge.-one-half hour) *Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. TABLE N0.70-B-GRADING PERMIT Fi:~St . SO cubic yards or less $15.00 51 to 100 cubic yards 22.50 101 to 1000 cubic yards-522.50 for the first 100 cubic yards plus $10.50 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 1001 to 10,000 cubic yards-$117.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards, plus $9.00 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards-$198.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus 540.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 100,001 cubic yards or more-5562.50 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus $22.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. . - • Other Inspections and Fees: OGL • • 1. Inspections outside of normal business hour -i36:~per hourZ ~C _ _ . (minimum charge-two hours) 2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of .Slpoo~ Section 305 (g) ...:............:.....:.................~538-6E ~ :hourZ 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically Indicated -538-99per hourZ ~ ~ (minimum charge-one-half hour) ~ " ' • The fee for a grading permit authorizing additional work to that under a valid permit shall be the } difference between tht fee paid for the original permit and the fee shown fur the entire project. 20r the total huurly cost to tht jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, ~ j overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. W` ~ j 767 uL~. w ~u tti• av naruv ra ~ ni~~ run ~i~~. r.c~o 5 ' ~ ~ ORDZI[At~CS NO. 7•~ . - (6ezies of x,989) ' AN ~+`su+7~U1NCE RE-E$TX$LIl3RING IAND IISE AsryICATION r t:aS C~IRGSD BY i.~s ASPEN/ r'.~i~ PL~arj,a~~, Or t .GCB AND R8 t.TUG ORDIrYANCE ,TO. 52 (+~ss.aatE.St OF 1988), TO ~,a~s .,.-~~tl SAZD QRDINANCE I$ IN..~'a?S Y~ ~t..~; N? Yti +tr~s'a t t' era AIiD pR01..r+wtaES LS"~ABLIB~'D e.EIN 1+15, the Aspen City Council has adoptefl a policy of • annually .reviewing the Planninq Otlice~s land use application fee structure to insure that ft remains in line with the eosts•o! • service provision; and +~•••~••-~.,~.5, • the City Council has determined that the ,current ' tee structure for the proaessiaq of land use applications, which • is contained in Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1988, does not accurately reflect the current costs of providing the necessary level o;~ services associated with the City~a Code Administration fur?ction and therefore desires to re-adopt said feast and ~~„-..ruse; the various ].and use applieations which may be 'submitted to the Planninq'Offioe, can be categorized into the following review processes: ' I. GMP/Subdivision/ruin/SPA - 1. Conceptual 6ubmission ' 2. Final submission II. Subdivision/pt7D/SPA 1. Conceptua]. Submissxaa 2. Final Submission - ZII. All "Two Step" Applications IV. All TMOne Step" Appl'icatians ' V. Consent Agenda items/All Staff Approvals s and l +r••r~n?F.s~, the Planninq Offics has det®rmined the total cost ~v l LJGI. ~i ~ 7C! 1'F• 7D FI.XGJV rl l l~lll rLLJI"1111. • of the City's Code administration function, tahich includes the aost of procer~sing land uae'npplications, reBpondinq to routine public 3.nquiry, and initiating minor code amendments; and, ' iw~r.~5, the City Council has determinefl that a BASE FEE should be established fox each type of review process which, when considered in relation to the number of applications expoct®d during the forthcoming year, will have the effect'of' offsetting . 100 peroent of the total cost of the Code Administration functions and ++~as~EAS, pursuant to ordinance No. 67, Series of. 1982, City Council provided for ADDITIONAL BILLINGS to cover the additional cost incurred by the City when the processing of a land .use application by the Planning Office ta]~:es more time than is eo~vexed in the base fee structure and clesizes to re--establish zaid billings as set forth below; and wnr.RLAS,~ the City Council has determined that the Engineering and Environmental Health De~~a~~..l.ents, as land use referral, agencies, should charge fees to c?ftset the cost of their . review activity, and such fees shall be collected by the Planning Office. ' STOW, +rYrc~EFOBE, SE YT ORUAiria.D BY +a~ C,TTY COIINCIL OF 1n r• l.1 t ~ Olt ASPEN, CQLO~~1D0 That the categories of review prooesses, base fees and Planning Office" average tiiae rsguire~ents for the processing of Land use applications are established as follows: 2 17EG 04 14~5J fbT'tJY/1"11K11'1 FilJf`I11`1. r.v~o Base Fee • Cateaorv ~ewrs lpemosit~, I. GMP/Subdivision/PUD/SPA 1. Conceptual Submission 25 $3,250.00 2. pinal Plat i4 1,820.00 Ii. Subdivision/Pt1D/SPA 1. Conceptual Submission 17 $2,210.00 Z. Final 8iat 12 1,560.00 III. Ali "Two Step^ Applications 13 $1,690.00 IV. All "One Stepp Applications 6 $ 780.00 V. Consent Agenda Items/All•Staff Approvals 1. Minor Flat $ 55.00 2. Significant Fee 113.00 VI. Referral Fees - Environmental Health 1. •Minor Applications Flat $ 55.00 2. Major Applications Fee 140,00 VII. Referral Fees - Engineering 1. Minor Applications Flat $ 90.00 2. Major Applications p'ee 225.00 3ect~.on 2 ` That the Tlarini~ctq ortice staff b8 required to keep an accurate record 'of the actual time requited for the processing of each land use application by the 8lanning Office and that ADDITiON~, BILLINGS will occur commensurate with the additionalcoats ineuarred by tho Ci~tx when the prooessing of an application by the Planning Office takes wore time than is covered by the BASL r~~. In the event the processing of an application by the Planning Office .takes lees time than provided for in Section 1, the Planning office shall refund the unused portion of the Base Fee. 3 • DEC 04 '90 15 00 RSPEfV/PITKIN ADMIN. P.5i6 ~¢etf.ah 3 :r. That the following guidelines for the e~tministration of the fee structure hereinnbove are established. 3.. Fees charged for the processing cif applications which fall into Wore than one category will be cumulative] while the fees charged for the processing of applications within the same aategoxy w3,11 not be cumulative. In the event that the ' fees which result f~~.,~.. cumulation are found by the Planning Office to be excessive in relation to the number of hours it • is anticipated to rQquir~ to process the application, the Planning Office may waive the cumulation requirement. 2. ADDITIONAL BILLINGS will be based solely on processing time opent by steAber6 of the Planning Office or it's designee in the pxocessing of an appl3.aatian. 3. ADDITI0NAL BxY+Y~NGlS wi]~1 be computed at the rate of $130.00 per hoax of additional Planning Offf,ee staff time required; • while refunds of unused hours will be made at the rate of $130.OO per hour of time: 4. The planning Office shnil establish appropriate guidelines for the collection of ADDITIONAL BILI~ING5 as required. 5. Phis fee structure shall be reviewed annually as part of the CXty of Aspen's budget hearing process and should any y~~ adjustment be required, they shall be accomplished by Ordinance of City Council, to take effect on January 1. 6. The Planning Office shall. identify, prior to or at the time of submission of a land use application, v~hether the . application is to be referred to the Engineering or Envirar3mental Health 'Departments. ' The planning. office 'shall' ' also identify whether the application. constitutes a minor or a major referral, based on trie number of hours wbich will b® required tb review the application, and charge the applicant for each referral ~ accordingly. AIDDTTIONAZ, SIB-T-T*IGS AND REFUNDS shall not apply to~the computation of referral fees. • Sactidn a ' This Ordinance and th~a re-established fees set forth hereinabove shall take effect on January 1, 1990. • 4 • DEC 04 '90 15 09 Axu~VPITKIN ADMIN. P.6i6 U . - Section s St is the intent of this Ordinance that the lees and prooedures set forth herein shall supersede the provisions of Ordinance No. 32 (aeries of 1988). Therefore, Ordinanae No. 5Z (8eries of 1988), is hereby repealed to the extent that it is inconsistent • with the provisions of this Ordinance. Sect~Qn ~ • If any Rection, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this. Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, suoh portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall riot affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. ,section 7 A publia hearing on the Ordinance shall be held an the day of ~LX~ 1989, at 3:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same tthail be published once •in a newspaper .of general circulation within the city of Aspen. 21~1'1'RODO~.r.u, READ AND ~.,rx~~?-~-,~ published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of • C i~~•P.i'J(..~1/1J , 1989 . 1~ ~ . r~ ~ _ William L. Stirling, Mayor 5 FEE COMPARISONS TOWNS CONDITIONAL SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT MAJOR MINOR SIGN USE VARIANCE DISTRICTS SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION SIGN ARIANCE TOV EXISTING $100 $100 $500 $100 $100 $20 $20 TOV $100 or $100 or $20 + $100 or PROPOSED $200 ,$200 $500 $500 $100 $1/sq.ft. $200 BOULDER $100 $ 50 $100 + $100 + $100 Based on $ 75 $ 10/acre $ 2/lot cost of over 25 lots sign BRECKENRIDGE $ 50 $ 40 $150 + $ 75 + $ 50 + $10 to DO NOT $ 15/unit $ 5/lot $ 5/lot $40 ACCEPT AVON $ 50 $100 + $150 + $150 BASED ON $ 25 ublishing costs $ 3/lot SIGN Sketch Plan Sketch Plan ,VALUATIONS $200 + $ 50 $ 10/lot Preliminary Preliminary Hearing Hearing $ 50 + $ 50 + $ 10/lot $ 10/lot Final Hearing Final Hearing EAGLE MAJOR $200 _ PRELIMINARY-MAJOR PRELIMINARY-MAJOR "A" Type $20 + NONE (NEEDS EIR) (over 20 units) (over 20 lots) $525 + $ 1/sq ft $600 $500 + $20/unit $500 + $15/unit $ 10/lot and/or ,000 sq.ft/commercia "B" Type $375 + MINOR PRELIMINARY-MINOR PRELIMINARY-MINOR $ 10/lot $250 (20 or fewer units) (20 or fewer lots) $300 + $20/unit $200 + $15/unit FINAL FINAL $200 + $15/lot $200 + Admin. Fees R PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 10, 1990 AGENDA 12:30 Site Visits 2:00 Public Hearing SITE VISITS - 1. Aproval of minutes of October 29 and November 26. - 2. Update on Vail Valley Medical Center Parking Structure completion and request to extend the interim parking plan on Lots F, E, 10, Vail Village 2nd filing, 181 West Meadow Drive. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center - 3. A request for a conditional use permit in order to establish a bed and breakfast operation on Lot P, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 141 West Meadow Drive. Applicant: Joan M. Norris 3 4. A request for a minor subdivision in order to vacate a lot line between Lots 46 and 47, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. Applicant: ANJA Corporation 1 5. A request for a side yard setback variance in order to construct an addition to a single family dwelling on Lot 16, Buffehr Creek; 1879 Meadow Ridge Road. Applicant: Jerry Farquar - 6. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 4, commonly refered to as Cascade Village, Section 18.46 - Area D, in order to add office floor area to the Glen Lyon Office Building, 1000 S. Frontage Road West, Lot 45, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Partners - 7. A request to establish a Special Development District for the Sonnenalp redevelopment, located at 20 Vail Road; A part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. , 4 8. A request for a front setback variance in order to construct a garage and a wall height variance in order to construct retaining walls at 1448 Vail Valley Drive; Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing. Applicant: John and Barbara Schofield 2 9. A request for front and side yard setback variances to allow for a garage on Lot 10, Block 4, Lions Ridge Filing No. 4:; 1464 Aspen Grove Lane. Applicant: Carrol P. Orrison - 10. A request to amend the Towri of Vail Zoning Code by repealing and reenacting Chapter 8.28 to expand, strengthen, and clarify code provisions relating to Air Pollution Control. Applicant: Town of Vail - 11. A request to amend Chapter 18.54.050, Design Guidelines, of the Vail Mur.~icipal Code in order to amend Section C,6 and delete Section C,13. Applicant: Town of Vail - 12. A request for an amendment to Chapter 18.54.020 (E) of the Vail Municipal Code, Design Review Board Organization, in order to delete "fifth" Wednesday of each month. Applicant: Town of Vail 13. A determination of 60 or 90 day review period for Lionshead (CCII) and Village (CCI) exterior alterations: 1) Lifthouse Lodge 2) Gasthof Gramshammer 3) Lodge at Vail Tabled 14. A request for a setback, density, common area, Inde- accessory use and parking variances in order to finitely construct additions to the Christiana Lodge, 365 Hansen Ranch Road, Lot D, Block 2 Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Paul R. Johnston • L DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA DECEMBER 5, 1990 2:00 P.M. REVISED 12/3/90 SITE VISITS 12:00 P.M. 17 1. Hoyle - 250 Addition MM/SM 5053 Snowshoe Lane/Lot 26, Vail Meadows Filing #1 MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 4-0 Approved with conditions. 2. Dorset - 250 Addition MM/SM 5053-B Snowshoe Lane/Lot 26, Vail Meadow Filing #1 MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 4-0 TABLED TO DECEMBER 19TH MEETING. Applicant did not show. 16 3. Sundial - New Duplex MM 5030 Prima Court/Parcel 4, Phase I MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 4-0 TABLED TO DECEMBER 19TH MEETING. 5 4. Marriott Mark Satellite Dish BR 714 West Lionshead Circle MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 4-0 Consent approved. c • 9 5. Vail Associates Real Estate Sign BR 248 Bridge Street MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Staff approval 7 6. Uptown Grill - Awning & Signage BR 472 East Lionshead Circle MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 4-0 Consent approved. 6 7. Gondos Sign BR Gondola Building, Lionshead Mall MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 4-0 Approved with conditions. 1. Window signs to be removed. 2. No lighting 10 8. Mountain Haus Awning & Sign BR 292 East Meadow Drive MOTION: Connie Knight SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 4-0 Approved with condition thai~ lighting must not shine through canvas per John Mouw's letter of December 5, 1990. 9. Bridge Street Charlie's - Color change and BR lighting. 304 E. Bridge Street/Red Lion Building MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO DECEMBER 19TH MEETING. 4 10. Hymens - New Duplex (Conceptual) JK 1459 Greenhill Court/Lot 6, Glen Lyon Subdivision MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington. VOTE: 4-0 Conceptual. Final review on December 19, 1990. 11 13. Trope - Single Family Residence JK 1044 Hornsilver Cir/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Village 8th MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO DECEMBER 19TH MEETING. 12 14. Trope - Single Family Residence JK Hornsilver Circle/Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Village 8th MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 4-0 Conceptual. Final review on December 19, 1990. 13 15. Carpenter - New Deck JK 4153 Spruce Way/Lot 10, Block 9, Bighorn 3rd MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 3-0-1 Consent with conditions. Ned Gwathmey abstained. 15 16. Schrager Residence SM/JK 42490 Nugget Lane/Lot 8, Bighorn Estates MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Continued to December 19, 1990. Connie Knight had to leave following this item. 1 17. Cohen - New Single Family :Residence JK 786 Potato Patch/Lot 14, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 3-0 Approved with conditions: 1. GRFA check will be dome at time of building permit. Connie Knight had to leave. 8 18. Lancelot Restaurant - Addition SM/AK 201 Gore Creek Dr/Tract A, Block 5B, V. Village 1st MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO DECEMBER 19TH MEETING. 3 19. Romrell Residence - 250 Addition 799-A Potato Patch/Lot 28, Block 1, Patch MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: VOTE: 4-0 Consent approved with condition. AK Vail Potato Pat Herrington 14 20. Bighorn Rentals - Sign Variance AK 4327 Streamside Circle/Lot 6, Bighorn 4th MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 3-0 Approved with condition: Maximum sign height not = to exceed 81-0" and applicant construct planter at base of sign. Connie Knight had to leave. 2 21. Sink - 250 Addition SM 781 Potato Patch/Lot 21, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: If c Conceptual approval. • y MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Connie Knight (PEC) Sherry Dorward George Lamb (out of town) Ned Gwathmey Pat Herrington STAFF APPROVALS: Gore Range Mountain Works - Sign 201 Gore Creek Drive, Bell Tower Building McInerey-McVay Corporation - Real Estate Sign Gorsuch Building, Clock Tower Marriott Mark - Yard Lighting 714 West Lionshead Circle Vail Gateway - Intake grill and flue cap on south elevation for shops #14/15. 12 Vail Road/Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Gramm Residence - Minor changes to approved plan. Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Rowhouses #9 Bramante-Halseth - Changes to approved plan 1285 Westhaven Circle/Lot 47, Glen Lyon Subdivision 1 ~ DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA DECEMBER 5, 1990 2:00 P.M. REVISED 12/3/90 SITE VISITS 12:00 P.M. 17 1. Hoyle - 250 Addition MM/SM 5053 Snowshoe Lane/Lot 26, Vail Meadows Filing #1 MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 4-0 Approved with conditions. 2. Dorset - 250 Addition MM/SM 5053-B Snowshoe Lane/Lot 26, Vail Meadow Filing ,~1 MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 4-0 TABLED TO DECEMBER 19TH MEETING. Applicant did not show. 16 3. Sundial - New Duplex MM 5030 Prima Court/Parcel 4, Phase I MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 4-0 TABLED TO DECEMBER 19TH MEETING. 5 4. Marriott Mark Satellite Dish BR 714 West Lionshead Circle MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 4-0 Consent approved. - J i 9 5. Vail Associates Real Estate Sign BR 248 Bridge Street MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Staff approval 7 6. Uptown Grill - Awning & Signage BR 472 East Lionshead Circle MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 4-0 _ Consent approved. 6 7. Gondos Sign BR Gondola Building, Lionshead Mall MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 4-0 Approved with conditions. 1. Window signs to be removed. 2. No lighting 10 8. Mountain Haus Awning & Sign BR 292 East Meadow Drive MOTION: Connie Knight SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 4-0 Approved with condition that lighting must not shine through canvas per John Mouw's letter of December 5, 1990. 9. Bridge Street Charlie's - Color change and BR lighting. 304 E. Bridge Street/Red Lion Building MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO DECEMBER 19TH MEETING. 1 4 10. Hymens - New Duplex (Conceptual) JK 1459 Greenhill Court/Lot 6, Glen Lyon Subdivision MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington. VOTE: 4-0 Conceptual. Final review on December 19, 1990. 11 13. Trope - Single Family Residence JK 1044 Hornsilver Cir/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Village 8th MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO DECEMBER 19TH MEETING. 12 14. Trope - Single Family Residence JK Hornsilver Circle/Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Village 8th MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 4-0 Conceptual. Final review on December 19, 1990. 13 15. Carpenter - New Deck JK 4153 Spruce Way/Lot 10, Block 9, Bighorn 3rd MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 3-0-1 Consent with conditions. Ned Gwathmey abstained. 15 16. Schrager Residence SM/JK 42490 Nugget Lane/Lot 8, Bighorn Estates MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Continued to December 19, 1990. Connie Knight had to leave following this item. `l 1 17. Cohen - New Single Family ]residence JK 786 Potato Patch/Lot 14, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 3-0 Approved with conditions: 1. GRFA check will be done at time of building permit. Connie Knight had to leave. 8 18. Lancelot Restaurant - Addition SM/AK 201 Gore Creek Dr/Tract A, Block 5B, V. Village 1st MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED TO DECEMBER 19TH MEETING. 3 19. Romrell Residence - 250 Addition AK 799-A Potato Patch/Lot 28, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Pat Herrington VOTE: 4-0 Consent approved with condition. 14 20. Bighorn Rentals - Sign Variance AK 4327 Streamside Circle/Lot 6, Bighorn 4th MOTION: Pat Herrington SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 3-0 _ Approved with condition: Maximum sign height not to exceed 8'-0" and applicant construct planter at base of sign. Connie Knight had to leave. 2 21. Sink - 250 Addition SM 781 Potato Patch/Lot 21, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch MOTION: SECOND:: VOTE: Conceptual approval. f - MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Connie Knight (PEC) Sherry Dorward George Lamb (out of town) Ned Gwathmey Pat Herrington STAFF APPROVALS: Gore Range Mountain Works - Sign 201 Gore Creek Drive, Bell Tower Building McInerey-McVay Corporation - Real Estate Sign Gorsuch Building, Clock Tower Marriott Mark - Yard Lighting 714 West Lionshead Circle Vail Gateway - Intake grill and flue cap on south elevation for shops #14/15. 12 Vail Road/Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Gramm Residence - Minor changes to approved plan. Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Rowhouses #9 Bramante-Halseth - Changes to approved plan 1285 Westhaven Circle/Lot 47, Glen Lyon Subdivision o~ni or~~erox ieiewpier rucu ?ic-ii-au ~ii~~~nm ~ ~uo~wawtv~, VVV'Fi~7GIJ11R L ~ . nsazo~x.~,.~. a8 ' HC1R$S DRA~1 CARRIAQP At3R$DiT This Assignment is made and eritared into by Darwin McWilliams ("Assignor") and Carriage Rides, Ina. ("Assignee") WHEREAS, Assignor rice entered into an agreement (the "Agreement"} . with The Town of Vail, Colorado, a Galoradc~ municipal corporation ("The Town°) , for the operation of a horse a~ra~rn carriage business an the streets of the Town. WHEREAS, Assignor desires to assign to Assignee alY of Assignor's • rights and obligations pursuant t4 the provisions of the Agreement and WHEREAS, Assignee desires that Assignor assign to Assignee all of Assignor's rights and obligations pursuant to the provisions of the Agreement. NOW, THEREFdI~, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto act, vavenant and agree as follows: Assignor hereby assigns and conveys to~Assignee, and Assignee hereby accepts and assumes from #*,he Assignor, all of Assignor's rights and obligations pursuant to the provisions of the Agreement which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A". Darwin McWilliams, Assignor Town o~ veil, a Colorado • Municipal Corporation • BY: Carriage Rides, Inc. Assignee HY: SENT BY~Xerox Telecopier 7020 ;12-11-80 ;11~34AM ; 3~038484164-? 3034782157?# 1 $L.zrnrci SMTI'H & FR~?MP'TON;? ING RfiAL es[AT8 6J~i.c~.:. AND COIV$ULTi1N7':3 !{Yx1T~8CENC1'HgAY8RCA861G 7D TaE p1tpMBNADB DRAWBR78~D eEJ?vaxCRSaK'•~oioRAOOS+~o s ~sFS~au • Tar~ax oos~ e~xss , COYE$T • i .FAY • ~ OF BAGES= ~ SH~EI` aEONz (INCLUDING C~VErt } - ~ ` ~'IJC.~-5 f ~ fJ ~'(~t ~ ~ i Q~ /J • • V pg~RLEMT~ FAX TRAN~.~$~?O' • C C OR VICE. . . p}~CBS 1N VA1L AND ~AYpRQt6~K . . .-..y. . -r. 8~ -~-~o -oo ~ 1 - HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGE AGREEMENT ,~ITHIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 7•'C day of //V Bfi'~lfc~ , 1989, by and between the Town of Vail, Colorado, a Colorado municipal corporation ("the Town") and Darwin McWilliams ("McWilliams"). WHEREAS, McWilliams wishes to operate a horse drawn carriage business on the streets of the Town; and WHEREAS, the Town is willing to let McWilliams operate said business in accordance with the terms set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: Section 1. Definitions. Whenever used in this Agreement, the following words, terms and phrases respectively shall have the following meaning: ~ Horse Drawn Carriage - a multi-wheeled, hooded, or unhooded vehicle that is propelled by horse power, is used in the transport of passengers and is available for hire on the public streets of the Town with a driver. Section 2. Term. In consideration of the conditions, provisions and premises contained in this Agreement, McWilliams is granted from November 1, 1989 through October 31, 1991, to establish, own, 1 maintain, and operate a horse drawn carriage company over and upon the streets of the Town which are designated for such operation by the Town Manager. The Town Council shall have the right to revoke or terminate the privileges granted herein at any timE~ for cause upon ten (10) days prior notice to McWilliams in writing and no lapse of time, expenditure of money or any other thing :shall be deemed to give McWilliams any vested interest or right in the continuation of his horse drawn carriage business. The germ "cause" as used in this Agreement shall include but not be limited to any interference by the horse drawn carriage operation with the scheduling or operation of Town buses, emergency services, or general town traffic. The determination as to whether cause for the termination of this Agreement exists shall be made solely by the Town. Section 3. 1. Non-exclusive. The granting of the privileges pursuant to this Agreement shall in no way imply that the privileges granted herein are exclusive. The Town reserves the right at any time to grant the same privileges to qualified applicants if and. when the Town Council shall determine that the public convenience and necessity would best be served by doing so. 2. Designation of hours and areas of operation. A. There shall be no restrictions on the hours of operations for horse drawn carriages except during Town 2 designated special events such as the Coors International Bicycle Classic, Jerry Ford Golf Tournament, the 4th of July, Christmas Tree Lighting, American Ski Classic, and other events which may be designated by the Town. During such events, horse drawn carriages will be prohibited from operation so as not to conflict directly with these events. B. The area designated for operation shall be from the easterly end of Sunburst Drive in the golf course neighborhood, westerly to West LionsHead Circle and the Marriott Mark. C. From November 22, 1989 through April 15, 1990 and November 21, 1990 through April 14, 1991 (ski seasons), horse- drawn carriages will not be equipped with gate openers and will be prohibited from operating in the gate restricted areas of the Town. D. At all times, horses shall be equipped with "slings" which will catch excrement. Any excrement which is not contained by the required "slings" shall be cleaned up by McWilliams. The excrement shall be deposited only at the location where the horses are permanently or usually stabled. The excrement shall not be deposited in any dumpsters or trash containers unless securely packaged and only with previous approval of the Environmental Health Officer. If the excrement is not immediately removed by the driver, it may be removed by the Town and the expense of such removal shall be paid by McWilliams. 3 E. Horse drawn carriages shall. at no time be left un- attended. Drivers shall remain with the c:arriages at all times. F. Drivers shall be experienced in the operation of horse drawn carriages. G. Horses shall be trained to operate safely in pedestrian congested areas. Section 4. Traffic Laws Applicable t:o Horse . Drawn Carriages. McWilliams, his agent or employees, :shall be granted all rights and shall be subject to all the duties applicable to the rights of a horse drawn vehicle pursuant t:o Article XVII of the Model Traffic Code for Colorado municipalities, 1977 edition, adopted by Chapter 10.04 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. McWilliams, his agent or employees, shall operate horse drawn carriages in such a manner that they do not interfere in any way with the operation of the Town bu:aes and bus system, emergency vehicles, pedestrians, or other traffic. Section 5. Schedule of Charges to the Public. McWilliams shall file with the Town Manager a schedule of the current fees to be charged to the public for horse drawn carriage services. An amended fee schedule shall be filed at any time the fees McWilliams charges to the public are changed. Section 6. Number of Horse Drawn Carriages. It is the judgement of the Town. Council that in order to enable the Town bus system to function properly and to protect pedestrians within the Town that controlling the number of horse 4 drawn carriages operating within the Town of Vail is within the public interest. To this end, the number of horse drawn carriages permitted to be operated on the streets of Vail is two (2). The maximum and minimum number of horse drawn carriages operated by McWilliams shall at all times be within the limits determined by the Town Council applying the principles of a public convenience and necessity. Section 7. Driver's License. Neither McWilliams, his employees or agents shall be permitted to operate a horse drawn carriage within the Town without first having obtained a valid Colorado driver's license. Section 8,. Character of Horse Drawn Carriages. All horse drawn carriages used in connection with this Agreement shall be well maintained and shall carry no advertising signs. All horse drawn carriages operated in the Town of Vail shall be equipped with brakes. Section 9. Insurance. Before McWilliams operates horse drawn carriages in accordance with this Agreement, he shall furnish the Town Manager evidence that he has obtained the following insurance coverage and McWilliams agrees to maintain such coverage at all times. A. Employees' Liability and Workmen's Compensation. B. For every horse drawn carriage owned, operated or leased by McWilliams, public liability insurance with minimum limits of not less than $500,000 on each person and $500,000 for each accident and $500,000 for property damage. 5 SPCtion 10. Conduct, Appearance and Dress of Horse Drawn Carriage Drivers. All horse drawn carriage drivers employed by McWilliams shall conduct themselves in a manner which demonstrates tact, courtesy and good judgment. They shall bE~ dressed in a neat and clean manner during working hours. A. Prior to any of McWilliams'' horse drawn carriage drivers operating the horse drawn carriages on the streets in Town, each shall be required either individually or as a group to meet with Mr. Skip Gordon, Town Transit Superintendent. He can be reached at your convenience at the Town offices, 479-2174. B. All horse drawn carriage drivers will attend at least one "Guest Relations" seminar or class before operating a horse drawn carriage. Proof of attendance must be presented to the Town Transit Superintendent at the meeting outlined in (A) above. Section 11. Conformity to Law. McWilliams agrees to conduct his business under this Agreement in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado, and the Town of Vail. Section 12. Indemnity. McWilliams shall indemnify, defend, :gave and hold harmless the Town and all its officers, agents and employees from any and all suits, actions or claims for damages.Lncluding costs and reasonable attorney's fees of any character, name and description to any person including personal injuries resulting 6 . • 'i in death, or to any property occasioned by or arising out of the conduct of McWilliams' business. Section 13. This Agreement shall not be assigned or its privileges sublet, nor shall any of the rights or privileges granted or authorized herein be leased, assigned, sold or transferred without the prior consent of the Town Council. IN WITNESS WHERE F, the parties have signed this Agreement this day of ~t~2~}~~, 1989. TOWN OF VAIL, a Colorado municipal rporation By: Rondall V. Phillips, Town Manager DARWIN MCWILLIAMS / ~I _ i /yl/ ` ~ i t I Darwin McWilliams 7 + t ? / 1 • • u r • r • • ~ w r M r M rol M r r M r • O • ' u 1( ,t A2fnf ~ • r ~~,~M"' M ~ A >D N m WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST W,. _ 2 W M W . m • ~ • ~~,VAIL POTATO PATCH ~ ~ /ro N • a sat 1 1•In a • ~ ,'•1 VAI~ POTATQ RaTCH, r • . r • , SECOND FILING ' ~ 8 , ~ M"{ p TOWN OF VAIL BOlAVQ4RY c HOURS OF OPERATION: 1~r - ~ 1`~ 0 ~/y-wr. M M O O U ~ ~ 4M1o pT•1• 1.14, 3:00 P.M. - 11100 P. a " w« ~ «•°'°"°'t n.. Seven Days a Week ~ ~ ' (1.•,-.t f: ~ +tu •4 D n Except During Specia ~,tn„NIA 70 Events: 11,1 w11/nt 1 Coors Intematiana t , ° - I _ ~•^r~• Bicycle Classic r~_..w " ~ ~ -_r"~'-- ~ I •1r.t .1( . 1 r • RT• VA! EAD °urua r / ..Terry. Ford Golf M ,.:.~,~'0 ~ ~ I>d 1 IN~ ' r '",«t / Tournament t r 1 Y 1 „ ' 4th t NG ~ r tnw 1 N ~ a u•r ?J1d Fl?rG 1a 4th of July (•.r.~ a e o trod . aM. 9thFIUNG ` t • qa Christmas Tree r «w/..•1 1° o r 'a:n• m • RMI . Lighting . , t American Ski Classi W ~ a° t ~ TMn• r ~ ~ ~ ` f•Itl • r w r w 2nd FIU G / . Icy + 1QIL G , ~ a ~ ' . VNL UON ro+ 1•, 1 ,•1n • ~ ° ® b al,Ir o -,rl , r+ i I r r 111 r u •1 " ,I.1( M A1t7t /11 r • l j • n 111 M M 11/ / Iq 111 r M M • 1 • , 1 • • • ® Y N O t M N N O ~ 1• w , y1 O • h r b 1 • ¦ •1 1 t 1 • r w In ~ • •1 w 1 • + A M • ' Ir•aRlm r r r 1• • + yA • Zj w • r r r s r• r r u w r r r trn / 1 0 • / I• 1 1 w + 1 ~ 1 •.1t 1 " f 1 • / 11M/Y IC F,?1M ICINI UII 1 MNCFC'M • •.1n, t nrn 1.,~~ .n i EAC,LE AUNTY WHITE RIVER NaT10NAL FOREST N ~ ~.re~ TOWN OF VAIL 80UNDARY ~ wufne 6 Q~ e ~ D 11•r 7 rrl ~ Tn u .e rr yO Ist. F1~NG © ~ . t rw r1)cr e • ,rr mattc uaw rr _ _ of ti ~ wtr WTERSTATE TO , T r • r VAIIVII.LAGE 8th. FlLiNG rte. fa~a, o arra wrrl ® I r.. ?u U . dc~o,. ' ' ' ' wt ruo i0R0 F14RK •an r r wr , ~ nn ur. .rr . 1 4 m W ¦r er o 1 f q • f0f ~ ~ ~ h.('f 1•r 1'1 R fY(t I t r • J c m a r r w r ) 1 a n m r r rr ~ VAILV4L m' o," w. mr a nw .oar ruC'1 e ~ r i ) ~ • ) o a wr . n.ct J ~ ' w w i w» Nryrrr ? 5 ) r .4. .r K y l , a.ra r 4 a.r r 6 ~ b ra r ~ 1 ~ . f r fOf[• O a i Rr r Ye urr 1 tact r r • ' hst ~ ~ r ~"a0 ; run 1 t ' a wrt .wr aK w r in ?f 4 1K1 a w. t +a M w VAIL VILLAGE 7thFlLING I ~ ~ VAIL VILLAGE 7th. FlLING 7 ror W ~ . 1 _r ti r • 5 r r r ~ h r.at t ~,U 1 r ~1~ Wl•tt(1 EAGLE COUMTIr ~w i M r O 1 1 t 1 1 r r . r w rr I 10v1. VILLAGE Lath f4JNG , I p O ¦ It wn IYCI C w 11M WH(TE RIVER ' NATIONAL FOREST w» rw ; » w • M W M" • A ~ O ' M ~ p I 0 O 1YCT 1 t• w " RESUBOM OF 40T2T ' r~•.r•.~ TOWN OF VAIL BOUNDARY I'"` ~~r tw nnnrn w Y w r cif n ® ~~rran e~nt rae ra,.v. un.rr ~ tucr c .can w 2 ~~..oa S rr» M~ O l) I~rt FS' i I ~1 1'1 KC[Nw IM\<l[~ ' 1U I.an.w~wyy ~ /./y ~ ' {71ti~ NMWG INTERSTATE 70 r.w,o . ~,i ~ wHiTE RIVER M ¦ VAIL VALLEY NATIONAL FOREST r ,r•.n. »w ~ rwn 4m. FILING ' ~ e vAn un i erg 81 fIh LING VAIL VARY Ist FILING ~ ' r~r , = a w ~ nr ? A _ ww K r i u p r F ~c~l ~ ~rcw"[y ~ ~ ~ W wr..oar G ~ ~ M • 1 ~ 7Na ~ O w • , Yr w 1 t ~1 ' w» ¦ n ~ w i~ ~ ® DIVISION OF A `r o.a~/ ~ ~J PART OF SUFiBlA25T • n w , » i Ilw r~l rr M AM M w?~3Eti8~LISf wIL vat~ti,a. Fl~ ' sveavlsaN uJs !a'~~' 90 l~~t~ti # a BLACK LAKES FACT SHEET 227 AF to be constructed at Black Lake No. 1. An additional 73 AF comes from Black Lake No. 2 as a result of the District's agreement with the Department of Natural Resources. The provisions of an operations plan for Black Lakes are summarized below. They were approved by the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Vail Valley Consolidated Water Board in March, 1990. 1. The District will continue to monitor streamflow in Gore Creek at the Vail Gage. 2. On or after December 1, when the stream flow at the Vail Gage drops to 10 cfs or less, releases from Black Lakes will begin. 3. When flows drop to 10 cfs or less by December 1, the amount of water released from Black Lakes will be based upon the anticipated future additional diversions associated with the future buildout of Vail during the months of December, January, February, and March 1-15, as shown below: Release Release Month (cfs) (acre feet) December 1.01 62.1 (January 1.82 111.9 February 1.55 86.6 March 1-15 1.33 39.4 Total 300.0 4. If releases from Black Lakes are delayed beyond December 1, due to flows at the Vail Gage in excess of 10 cfs, then releases for the remainder of the winter (throughout March 15) would be prorated so as to utilize the full 300 acre feet of available storage. 5. If. the 10 cfs trigger is not reached by January 1, then releases will begin on January 1 in accordance with the following schedule: ~I i Release Release Month (cfs) (acre feet) January 1.97 121.0 February 1.69 93.7 March 1-31 1.38 85.3 Total 300.0 6. Black Lake releases will be periodically checked and adjusted to maintain a constant flow during release periods. 7. The District will continue to monitor its pattern of usage as demands increase with the buildout of Vail. If the pattern of usage throughout the winter months changes, then this proposed plan of operation will be refined to address potential aquatic impacts. 8. All of the numbers shown above are based upon the best currently available data. Once the reservoir enlargement has been complete further refinements in this proposed operation plan may be needed. Operational decisions will be made in conjunction with the CWCB and the Division of Wildlife. Conclusions The table below shows how release from storage in Black Lakes will serve to augment streamflows in Gore Creek to the benefit of the fishery in representative wet and dry years. Jan. Feb. Condition Dec. 1-15 16-31 Mar. Projected Additional Withdrawals (cfs) (over a 4.35 cfs baseline) .089 1.63 1.44 1.18 Black Lake Releases: 1967 and 1975 1.01 1.82 1.55 1.33 1977 and 1983 0 1.97 1.69 1.38 In each of the critical years shown above, releases from Black Lakes would be sufficient to prevent losses in adult habitat for brown trout through March 15. Normally, streamflows increase by 20 to 30 percent throughout the month of March and severe cold spells that would significantly reduce flows in the later half of March tend to be short-lived. 2 s The District's agreement with the Department of Natural Resources also provides for annual stocking of the reservoir with 2,500 pounds of catchable rainbow trout. The DOW will also stock another 2,500 pounds. At buildout of the District's system, streamflow depletions to the Upper Eagle River are 6 per cent for the worst case condition in January. Storage during the runoff will be approximately 1/3 of 1$ of the flow of Gore Creek into the Eagle River. The Black Lakes Project was subject to a State Health Department antidegradation review process. The Health Department concluded that the project passed the review process, and that there would be no sufficient impact. The State Health Department recommended approval of the project to Eagle County through the testimony of Bob Owen. The Division of Wildlife recommended the project through the testimony of Jay Skinner and the CWCB recommended the project through the testimony of Dan Merriman. 3 • 5 -~3 TESTIMONY OF DANNY C. MERRIMAN BEFORE THE EAGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REPRESENTING THE COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD My name is Dan Merriman, I am a senior staff member with the Colorado Water Conservation Board (Board) and have been in the Board's employ for some thirteen years: I am currently Chief of the Board's Water Rights Investigations Section and, as such, I am responsible for the daily administration of the State's Instream Flow/Natural Lake Level Program. I am here today to present testimony on behalf of the Board relative to the Black Lake No. 1 enlargement which you are considering. The Board for which I am testifying is the State's primary water planning and policy making agency. It is comprised of fourteen members including eight members from each of the major drainage basins in the state and one member representing the City and County of Denver. These members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. There are also five ex-officio members including the Executive Director of the Department of Natural Resources, the State's Attorney General, the Director of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the State Engineer, and the Director of the Water Conservation Board. The decisions and agreements to which I will be referring were considered at length by the Board and a vote taken on those items requiring final action. In 1977, the Board filed for Instream flow water rights on on several streams in the Vail Valley including Black Gore and Gore Creeks to preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree. In 1982, Vail Valley Consolidated Water District filed a plan for augmentation with the Water Court in which they proposed to divert water from streams in the Vail Valley and replace their depletions to the stream system by releasing water from Green Mountain Reservoir which is located on the 3126E* 1 Blue River. The Board opposed the District's plan because it would reduce streamflows within the Board's instream flow reaches. We spent several years negotiating with the Water District in attempts to alleviate the injury to the Board's water rights and to protect the natural environment. The main problem was that there just was no in-basin storage to offset depletions to the stream during critical low flows. Finally, after discussions with the Forest Service and the Division of Wildlife, we began exploring the idea of utilizing the Black Lakes which are located at the headwaters of Black Gore Creek, as a possible means to provide the necessary in-basin storage. The idea was that if the Water District could obtain permission to enlarge Black Lake No. 1 and to utilize a portion of Black Lake No. 2 then sufficient water could be stored and released to replace depletions to the stream system during critical low flow periods which would protect the Board's instream flow rights and the natural environment from injury. In 1985, the Colorado Department of Natural Resources entered into an agreement on behalf of the Water Conservation Board and the Division of Wildlife in which the Water District would utilize the Black Lakes for the purpose of releasing water to the stream to prevent injury to the instream flow rights and to protect the natural environment. The Water District was able to obtain a decree for their augmentation plan based in part on this settlement, and the final decree specified the operating criteria and release schedule for water stored in Black Lakes. Since the agreement was signed in 1985, the Water District has been monitoring stream flows in the affected reaches of Gore Creek. Recently, the Water District discovered that the flow level in Gore Creek that was designed to trigger releases from storage was set too low. The District conducted additional hydrologic investigations based upon the several years of streamflow record they had collected, and determined a -2- higher trigger flow was appropriate. In November, 1989, the District approached our Board with a proposal to amend the 1985 agreement to reflect the revised trigger flow. Our staff, as well as the staff of the Division of Wildlife evaluated the District's proposal, and determined that the higher trigger flow was appropriate and would protect the Board's instream flow rights. The Board approved the District's proposal in March, 1990, and an amended agreement was executed. The Board believes the enlargement of Black Lake No. 1 is a critical component of the District's plan to prevent injury to the Board's water rights and to protect the natural environment in the Vail Valley. The Water District is to be commended for this innovative resolution to a very difficult problem. On behalf of the Water Conservation Board, I would urge you to approve the District's request and allow the enlargement of Black Lake No. 1. -3-