HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-05-28 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, May 28, 1991
2:00 P. M.
AGENDA
1. PEC Report.
2. Mountain Bike Events and 1999 World Alpine
Ski Championship Discussion - Vail Valley Foundation.
3. Commercial Core II Parking Pay In Lieu Fees.
4. Information Update.
5. Other.
6. Executive Session - Land Negotiations.
7. Adjournment.
C:\WSAGENDA
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, MAY 28, 1991
2:00 p.m.
EXPANDED AGENDA
2:00 p.m. 1. PEC Report.
2:10 p.m. 2. Mountain Bike Events and 1999 World Alpine
Kent Rose/ Ski Championship Discussion - Vail Valley
V.V. Found. Foundation.
2:25 p.m. 3. Commercial Core II Parking Pay In Lieu Fees.
Kristan Pritz
Action Requested of Council: Discuss the pay
in lieu regulations for CCII, and if Council
decides that some amendments to the zoning
code are necessary, provide staff with
specific direction for such changes.
Background Rationale,: Please see
enclosed staff memorandum, dated May 28,
1991.
Staff Recommendation: Please see enclosed
staff memorandum.
3:00 p.m. 4. Information Update.
3:10 p.m. 5. Other
3:20 p.m. 6. Executive Session - Land Negotiations.
4:00 p.m. 7. Adjournment.
C:\wsExpand
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
May 28, 1991
AGENDA
10:00 Site Visits
11:00 Public Hearing
Site Visits
Public Hearing'
1. 1. A request for a Special Development District for the Days Inn site, 2211
N. Frontage Road/ Lot 1, Block A, Vail Das Schone Third Filing, a
resubdivision of Vail Das Schone First Filing.
Applicant: Peter Jacobs of Days Inn
2. 2. A request for a front setback variance, Bailey Residence, Lot 38, Block
7, Vail Village 1st Filing/193 Beaver Dam Road.
Applicant: Jeanne M. Bailey
3. A request for a revision to the previously approved minor subdivision for
Lots A, B and C, Vail Village 7th Filing/595 E. Vail Valley Drive.
Applicant: Manor Vail
4. Information regarding June 17th meeting on the Master Transporation
Plan.
5. Designation of PEC member to work with the Housing Authority.
Note: Public Hearing items were tabled from the May 20, 1991 Planning and
Environmental Commission meeting.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: May 28, 1991
. SUBJECT: Commercial Core II Parking In Lieu Fees
. •--„~.,.y.,.........»:<xv
.......................................::,:,.z....................:!![!~:a:,.~c_.w.
r+Kw.~~svr-,r,. v..,,,...
....,~.,-•.~,c.
~.......~.fines...w,.ri.•
ri.... ....................i.................................................................
v„
n ..m::::::. r:::::::....::.:..:::...
•s
::::::..................~uirN/fiN x::::............
, ,.,,,,,,..~,.,..H'z'''s ~~~a
riii.~~i
~Y' • i
1. INTRODUCTION
On April 2, 1991, the Town Council, by a vote of 4-2 (Fritzlen and Levine opposed), approved
Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1991, on second reading. This ordinance specifically amended
Section 18.52.160 of the Vail Municipal Code and set the parking in lieu fees for Commercial
Core I and Commercial Core II at $8,000 per parking space. Tom Steinberg, in his motion for
approval of Ordinance No. 6, also directed the planning staff to give further consideration to a
Vail Village and Lionshead parking pay in .lieu rate differential.
II. BACKGROUND ON THE PAY IN LIEU FEE.
Provisions for paying in lieu of providing parking on site were first adopted by the Town of Vail
in 1973. This step was taken to reduce vehicular traffic in the core areas, while at the same
time ensuring that private development share in the responsibility of providing parking for
these two core 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
related to parking.
According to Steve Barwick, Town Finance Director, at the present time the parking fund
balance is very low ($22,965.00 as of December 31, 1991), and Barwick projects it to remain
fairly low, as most of the anticipated revenues are earmarked to pay debt service on the
Village parking structure.
Recently, the majority of projects which have paid into the parking fund have been small
remodels and additions to existing properties in the Village. While individually, the number of
pay in lieu spaces "sold" may be small, cumulatively, the numbers are considerable. It is
estimated that between 125-150 spaces have been provided by payment into this fund since
the adoption of the program in 1973. Town finance records indicate that between 1979 and
1990, $530,907 has been paid into the fund.
1
III. DISCUSSION
Currently, a fee of $8,000 per parking space has been established by the Town Council. The
Council's rationale for this fee is based upon a number of considerations. Foremost among
these is the fact that the expansion to the Vail Village Parking Structure has cost the Town
approximately $12,000 per parking space. It should be clearly noted that this fee of $12,000
per parking space is exclusive of land costs.
Subsequent to the recent modification to the pay in lieu fee, the Town's pay in lieu fee had not
been increased since 1982 (Ordinance 30 of 1982), when it was adjusted up from $1,000 per
parking space, to $5,000 for residential spaces and $3,000 for commercial spaces.
For information purposes, staff contacted Kim Johnson of the City of Aspen planning
department on May 20, 1991, and found that the City of Aspen charges $15,000 per parking
space for their pay in lieu program. This rate applies to all uses, which include commercial,
residential and office use. The Aspen pay in lieu program is very similiar to Vail's program in
many respects. Aspen does not condominiumize or reserve specific spaces in their parking
structure for those paying into the fund, and in addition, users of the structure must pay the
hourly rate.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff acknowledges that the Town may be currently subsidizing private development to a
certain degree, and the $8,000 per space levied for parking spaces is actually $4,000 shy of
the true construction costs. This should be balanced with the fact that the Town does not
reserve or condominiumize specific parking spaces for those who pay into the fund. In
addition, those using the parking structure must still pay the hourly rates.
Overall, the staff does not see any justification for modifying the CCII pay in lieu fee without
modifying the CCI pay in lieu fee. From a practical point of view, staff believes that the CCI
and CCII pay in lieu rates should be consistent and therefore we do not recommend any
changes to the rate structure at this time. If the Council wishes to make a policy decision and
amend the pay in lieu fee, the staff would advocate that the change occur for both the CCI
and CCII zone districts.
Staff would suggest that instead of adjusting the CCI or CCII pay in lieu fees, perhaps it would
be more appropriate to differentiate parking fees based upon use, such as residential use
versus commercial use, a procedure that was used effectively prior to the most recent
amendment to the pay in lieu regulations. It should also be noted that given the direction of
the recently modified CC11 pay in lieu regulations, staff believes that there will be fewer
requests to utilize the CCII pay in lieu program due to the modifications of the CCII pay in lieu
boundaries (please see attached staff memorandum, dated April 8, 1991 and PEC minutes).
c:~coun cil~memoslcai.528
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 8, 1991
SUBJECT: A request to amend Town of Vail Municipal Code Section
18.52.160 - Off Street Parking and Loading Exemptions,
Section 18.24.180 - Commercial Core I Parking and
Loading, Section 18.26.150 - Commercial Core II Parking
and Loading, and Section 18.22.140 - Public Accommodation
Parking and Loading.
Applicant: Town of Vail
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background to the Amendment
The pay in lieu parking program, in its present form, has been
in place for approximately ten years. Simply stated, the
program requires payment into the parking fund to meet the
parking requirements of new development "in lieu of" providing
parking on-site. The existing program applies to areas of the
Village and Lionshead, and is implemented the same way in both
locations.
The initiative for amending the pay in lieu program came from
a situation that arose in Lionshead. As written, the program
allowed a property owner (of property located a considerable
distance from the pedestrianized area of the Mall) to pay into
the parking program in order to remove existing structured
parking spaces. The use of the program for this purpose was
considered inconsistent with how the program was intended to
be used.
Evaluation of the program led to a number of other amendments
designed to improve the manner in which the program is
implemented. These amendments were reviewed by the PEC and
Council last fall. However, prior to final approval of these
amendments at the Council level, the staff requested that the
ordinance be tabled to allow for more study of some of the
proposed amendments which had been added to the ordinance
during the PEC and Council review processes.
* For information on an analysis of the number of parking
spaces which may be ultimately satisfied by payment in
i
1
lieu, please see the attached memo from Tom Braun dated
January 30, 1991.
B. Purpose of the Amendments
The Zoning Code Task Force has spent a considerable amount of
time discussing various amendment alternatives for the parking
program. The following points reflect the fundamental
objectives of this amendment process:
1) Lionshead and Vail Village are two distinct areas. The
provisions of the parking program should be responsive to
the differences between these two areas.
2) The ability of a property to utilize the parking program
should be consistent with development objectives of the
Town, as articulated in documents such as the Land Use
Plan, the Vail Village Master Plan, Urban Design Plans,
the Streetscape Plan, etc.
3) The program should provide a mechanism for encouraging
the development of specific uses that are most consistent
with community goals.
4) The use of the program should provide community-wide
benefits such as the reduction of vehicular traffic in
pedestrianized areas.
5) Property w~jth vehicular access that does not impact
pedestrian areas, or property that otherwise has the
potential to provide parking on-site, should not be
eligible for the parking program.
Given these broad objectives, the Task Force has agreed on a
number of changes to the program. These changes, along with
hypothetical development scenarios designed to illustrate how
the program would be implemented, are presented below.
Except for one provision of the Task Force recommendation, the
staff is in agreement with the amendments proposed in this
memo. While generally supportive of this proposal, the staff
has outlined one additional provision in the staff
recommendation of this memo that it would like to see included
in the amendment proposal passed along to the Town Council.
C. Summary of the Current Program
In order to evaluate proposed changes to the program, it is
important to understand how the existing program works. The
following summarizes the major points of the parking program.
2
i
1) Provisions of the program are identical for the Village
and Lionshead.
2) Boundaries of the program are defined by the CCI and CCII
zone districts.
3 ) The program requires that for any addition, redevelopment
or change of use that requires additional parking, said
parking shall be provided by payment into the parking
fund in lieu of providing parking on-site.
4) The program can be used to compensate for the removal of
existing on-site surface or structured parking spaces.
Most of the changes proposed to the program center around
these major provisions.
II. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PARKING PROGRAM
A. Vail Village
1) Change of Boundaries
An overlay map (see attachment), rather than the CCI zone
district, is used to designate properties in the parking
t program. A number of significant changes are proposed to
the boundary of the parking program area. The Lodge
properties are deleted from the program. This change is
recommended because vehicular access to the site does not
impact the pedestrian area of the Village, and the site
has some potential for increasing parking on-site.
Notwithstanding the Vail Village Master Plan's
recommendation for infill development on the Eaton Plaza
side of the Lodge property, the staff and Task Force
generally felt that the site has the potential to satisfy
parking requirements through means other than the parking
program. The Sonnenalp-Austria Haus has been
incorporated into the parking program. This property was
added because of the potential to improve
pedestrianization along Meadow Drive, as indicated in the
Streetscape Plan.
2) CCI/Village Core (Area A on Overlav Manl,
There are essentially no changes to properties in the
Village Core - new parking demand is required to pay in
lieu and the program can be used to compensate for the
removal of anv existing on-site structured or surface
parking space. '
3
3) .Meadow Drive Area (Area B on Overlay Map)
. The Sonnenalp-Austria Haus and Village Center are
proposed to be included in the parking program, but will
operate under a slightly different set of rules than the
Village core. This distinction is made because, at the
present time, Meadow Drive does not have the same "degree
of pedestrianization", or control over vehicular access,
as the Village core. For these two parcels, the program
may be used for new parking demand for accommodation
units, retail stores, personal services, repair shops,
eating and drinking establishments, theatres and meeting
rooms, and quick service food/convenience stores.
Parking demand from all other uses (i.e., condominium or
office uses) must be provided on-site. Utilization of
the program is not mandatory because vehicular access to
these sites does not have the same degree of impact on
the pedestrian system as it does in the Village core.
Further, the program can be used to compensate for the
removal of existing surface parking spaces only.
Currently, the Sonnenalp-Austria Haus is not in the pay
in lieu program. This amendment would allow the
Sonnenalp-Austria Haus to utilize the pay in lieu program
to meet parking demand generated by the retail,
restaurant and lodge development. On site parking for
( office and condominium development would be required.
At the present time, the Village Center property is zoned
CCII and is eligible to use the parking program for any
parking demand created by new development, regardless of
whether it is retail, lodge, office or condo expansion.
Amendments described above would limit the utilization of
the program from what is presently available. The two
changes are that the program could not be used to remove
existing structured 'spaces, and the program could not be
used for parking demand from condominium or office uses.
The justification, or rationale for the distinction
between these two properties and the Village core is
found in the five general objectives of this amendment
process as outlined above. In the Village core, the need
to minimize vehicular impacts on the pedestrian areas
require that the program be available for all uses.
Along East Meadow Drive, there is less potential for
impacting the pedestrian areas - the program is made
available as an incentive for those uses deemed most
desirable, or consistent with the Town's development
objectives for these two properties.
4
The Task Force emphasized that if conditions along Meadow
Drive change, i.e. a new "check point Charlie" is
constructed to control vehicular access, these properties
could be given the same opportunities as in the Village
core.
B. Vail village Development scenarios
The following are hypothetical development scenarios to
demonstrate how the parking program would be implemented in
the Village area.
1) Mill Creek Court Building constructs a retail/office
infill along Mill Creek - all parking demand is satisfied
by payment into the program.
2) The Gasthof Gramshammer or the Sitzmark want to remove
existing on-site spaces - the pay in lieu program can be
used to compensate for these spaces.
3) The Sonnenalp-Austria Haus proposes to remove existing
surface spaces and construct a retail addition - both the
loss of parking and the new requirement could be met by
payment into the fund.
4) The Village Center proposes an office expansion - parking
would have to be provided on-site, the program could not
be utilized to satisfy new parking demand from office
expansion.
5) The Lodge at Vail constructs the International Wing, all
new required parking would have to be provided on-site.
C. Lionshead
1) Chanae of Boundaries
An overlay map (see attachment), rather than the CCII
zone district is used to designate properties in the
parking program. Properties that do not have frontage on
the Lionshead Mall would be eliminated from the program.
Properties Proposed to Stav Properties Proposed to be
In Program Removed from Proaram '
Lionshead Center Antlers
Gondola Building/Sunbird L'Ostello (formerly
Montaneros called Enzian Lodge)
Concert Hall Plaza ~ Lionsquare Lodge and
Landmark Lion's Square North
Lifthouse Lodge Vail Glo
5
r
Vail 21/Lionspride Vantage Point
Lionshead Arcade Westwinds
Lazier Parking Structure Treetops
Enzian Condominiums
2) Removal of Existing Spaces
Under no circumstances can the program be utilized to
compensate for the removal of existing required on-site
structured or surface parking spaces. Payment to remove
existing spaces is not permitted because access to these
parking structures does not impact the pedestrianized
area of the Mall. Further, the removal of existing
surface spaces is not permitted because these lots are
generally not located in areas that are visually
offensive from the Mall area. In both cases, there is no
public benefit from allowing the parking program to be
used for removing existing surface or structured spaces.
3) Use Restrictions
As with Area B in the Village, the program may be used
for any new parking demand generated from accommodation
units, retail stores, personal services, repair shops,
eating and drinking establishments, theatres and meeting
~ rooms, and quick service food/convenience stores. New
parking demand from all other uses (i.e., condominium or
office uses) shall be provided on-site. The use of the
program is not mandatory because parking structures in
Lionshead generally have vehicular access that does not
impact the Mall. As with the East Meadow Drive area, the
program is designed to provide an incentive for retail,
restaurant and lodging uses.
D. Lionshead Development Scenarios
The following are hypothetical development scenarios to
demonstrate how the parking program would be implemented in
Lionshead.
1) The Lifthouse Lodge constructs a retail expansion along
the Mall - parking may be satisfied by payment into the
parking fund if the developer desires to do so or may be
provided on site.
2) The Landmark Building proposes 300 square feet of office
expansion - parking would have to be provided on-site,
the pay in lieu program could not be utilized.
6
3) A retail and condo expansion at the Lionshead Center is
( constructed - retail parking demand could be satisfied by
payment in lieu, any new condo parking demand would have
to be satisfied with on-site parking.
4) The Gondola Building/Sunbird Lodge is demolished and
replaced with a retail/office/condo complex. After
factoring out any existing nonconforming parking
situations, and the current building's parking demand,
any new incremental increase in retail parking demand
would be satisfied by payment in lieu, incremental
increases in office uses would have to be provided on
site, and. any new parking required for condominium
development would have to be provided on site.
The process for requesting to be included in the pay in lieu
program remains intact for any property owner to utilize, even
with the amendments. This process is found in Section
18.52.160(A).
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff is in basic agreement with this amendment proposal.
Proposed amendments address the objectives stated at the beginning
of this memo. However, the staff does not support the distinction
made. between office/condo uses and other uses. While it is
recognized that the program is designed in part to encourage
retail, restaurant and lodge uses, the provision requiring on-site
parking for condo and office uses is a "black and white" solution
for a "very gray issue".
As proposed, the program may put undue constraints on small office
or condo expansions. For example, the impact on public parking
from a small office expansion would be negligible, yet even an
expansion requiring one additional space could not happen unless
the site could physically add more parking. Even a potentially
large redevelopment like the Gondola Building could be affected.
Depending upon the design of this redevelopment, it may or may not
be feasible to actually construct parking on-site. As proposed,
this amendment may directly affect the feasibility of this
redevelopment from ever occurring because parking for office and
condo development would have to be provided on-site.
The staff has two fundamental concerns with this provision. The
first has to do with the examples cited above - requiring parking
for office or condo uses could affect the feasibility of
redevelopment in Lionshead. This is contrary to the Town's long
standing goal of seeing redevelopment in this area. The second
reason has to do with the mixed use nature of this area. From the
perspective of tourism, retail and restaurant uses are very
critical to the success of Lionshead. However, offices, and to a
lesser degree condominiums, contribute to the mixed use character
7
of the area. People living and working in Lionshead add to the
vitality of the area. Office, uses play a particularly important
role in the Lionshead economy during the shoulder seasons. For
these reasons, it may be appropriate to use the parking program as
an incentive for condo and office uses - just as it is proposed to
~be used for lodging, retail and restaurant uses.
The staff proposes a compromise to limits placed on condo and
office uses that would establish a process for a property owner to
request an exemption from"these restrictions to utilize the program
for office or condominium development. This compromise is proposed
because certain office or condo developments should have the
opportunity to use the program - either because they are so small
that the impact on public parking is negligible, or because they
are so significant that the benefits of the overall development
outweigh any impact on public parking facilities.
This judgement can best be made on a case by case basis. The
following criteria could be used to evaluate the merits of the
proposal:
1) The parking demand of the proposed development will not
place an undue burden on public parking facilities.
2) The proposed development is consistent with the
community's development objectives and planning
documents.
3) Physical conditions on the site or design constraints
provide undue hardship for constructing parking on-site.
4) Effect upon traffic with particular reference to
congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and
convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and
parking areas.
5) Effect upon the character of the area in which the
proposed use is to be located, including the proposed use
in relation to surrounding uses.
This process would apply to properties in Lionshead or the Village
Center and Sonnenalp-Austria Haus. It would allow applicants to
request the right to pay in lieu. This right could be granted if
circumstances surrounding the development warrant approval.
The review process would be handled by the PEC. As with any PEC
action, the Town Council would have the opportunity to review all
PEC decisions.
8
With the incorporation of this provision, the staff supports
amendments to the pay in lieu ,parking program as proposed in this
memo. The staff and Task Force recognize that as times and
conditions change, there may be a need to implement additional
amendments to the parking program in the future. Like any zoning
provision, the parking program should not be a static document, but
rather one that responds to the conditions in the Village and
Lionshead.
c:\pec\tov\payinleu.408
9
A
VIL1-
5Q Aaow oR,
F AS ME
MEADOW Ofd,...,
`v "TRACT A''`•
K ~ 1 ' 1 ~ 1
' +
/ \ i ~
, Pfd =1 _ - S 13 14 ~
3 ~ ? ~i :4~+ a ~~\~-1.-
~ - ; . ~ GORE ,{C'~
pow 5 ~Q r r , r ,
E , : - ~ A
PST H ~ ` ~ - ' - ~d
' ~ P
~ _ - ~
J E
s 5 ; _ ~ o
O
Araa
C'aY MaP Area ~.8..
program pve .
llage parkin~3 3s' 1990
Vail o~ prdtna~ce
APPendiX A
,.r
_ ~ ~ ~pRKiN R~ ~ .
S~RUCTV
~
. ~ 2 ~151~
VA1 NG
~ ~ T1gHEAD ~
D ~sT U~
t
.
fit,../^ „ rr~i\ r, \ /;J%~~C
r~\rr/ r~•~~y?:/r/~ mar" -`/~-/`"rri\ ~l +r~`'?~ '
` ;~'=,;=tG ir::,~; - + ,,_:\r1; ARE
1 +,r ,f,+,~ _l~r+r~r. ~`r\,jlv\r,~! ` ~I'~'ft~.~\ + \r t' r~\ r
t ~ ~ ~ ~~\iIr ~r.~ ~`~Ir.~rr .t l/,, r:,~/~+ ..+I i~ L'_'D ~t
`~/ir;/~ r.r ,r . ~Ij rlir' ~r,'~,li~I:.li rte r ~,pST .
G % ~ ~ t3 1 '[Rp V
- G~~ AC .
pa „tRp~' B , oP
rt • ~
M K .
+r~~r'~ri t~,:.e,\, mil `t/1. /+~,.1~ hr
~ p _ rl;. r
+
a r islrwlodedln~.
py erlay p The 1.lor?s pride gulldltt9
ing Program g9v Nose:
shead Park Hance No. 3s,
~,'~Orti o~ Q~dl
MEMORANDUM
TO: Zoninq Code Task Force
Rristan Pritz
FROM: Tom Braun
DATE: January 30, 1991
SUBJECT: Pay in Lieu Parking Program
This memo is written in an effort to step back from the many
alternatives offered for resolution of the parking pay in lieu
program. We encourage the Task Force to consider the ,track
record of the pay in lieu program, parking demand generated by
possible future development, and all the comments from the public
and boards in finalizing a recommended amendment.
."The accompanying spreadsheet is a build-out analysis for the Vail
Village and Lionshead core areas. It was done for the purpose of
estimating the number "of parking spaces that may ultimately be
satisfied by payment "in lieu" of providing on-site parking..
~ "Due to the large amount of data gathered for the Vail Village
~ Plan, the statistical analysis for the Village is far more
detailed than the Lionshead analysis. However, the unlimited
retail development potential in CCI and CCII and the urban design
plan review process essentially renders this a qualitative
assessment rather than a quantitative assessment. While
residential development can be quantified, retail development
potential in these two areas is estimated by assessing the
feasibility of a site satisfying urban design criteria.
The impact of future development on the parking program
essentially comes down to two large projects - the Lodge
International Wing in the Village and the often discussed
redevelopment of the Gondola Building/Sunbird Lodge complex in
Lionshead. The following is a summary of these two projects and
the overall redevelopment potential in these two areas.
VAIL VILLAGE
This assessment includes all property in the Commercial Core I
zone district and the Sonnenalp/Austrian Haus and Village Center.
This study area represents all parcels under consideration for
inclusion in the parking program.
With the exception of the International Wing, the Village area is
basically built-out. Not counting the 36 accommodation units in
the Lodge expansion, there are 27 additional dwelling units that
could be built in the Village core. These 27 units are spread
out among eleven different properties and the likelihood that all
of them will be built is quiet low. For example, the Red Lion
has the potential for 5 more D.U.'s, but deed restrictions on the
property will probably prevent their construction.
The potential for large commercial expansions is also unlikely.
Twenty of the twenty-five properties surveyed are rated as having
a low potential for commercial expansion. This determination is
based on the likelihood of a site adding a significant amount of
square footage (>300 sq. ft.) in a way that would complying with
urban design criteria.
A low potential designation does not, however, preclude the
possibility of a property receiving approval for small additions.
However, even for small additions of less than 300 square feet,
there are not many properties that would be able to satisfy urban
design criteria. Two prominent exceptions to this are the Mill
Creek Court Building (1,500 sq.ft.) and the Lodge (3,600 sq.
ft.). These estimates are based on infill development identified
in the Vail Village Master Plan.
If all potential development were to be constructed, a total of
{ 96~parking spaces would be satisfied by payment into the parking
program. Assuming only 50$ of the potential dwelling units are
constructed, this figure would drop to 69 additional spaces.
This estimate represents a 5~ increase in the total number of
parking spaces required to meet the overall parking requirement
for all, private development in the Village (based on total square
footage of retail, restaurant, office and commercial uses, and
dwelling and accommodation units, source: Vail Village Master
Plan).
LIONSHEAD
The development potential for Lionshead was assessed for the ten
parcels that front on the Lionshead Mall. These are the same
parcels that are proposed to be included in the revised parking
program in Lionshead. Unfortunately, data available for
Lionshead is not as extensive as data for Vail Village.
Based on the Town's Development Statistics, 1990, only three of
the ten parcels have residential development potential - the
LionsPride Building, the Concert Hall Plaza and the Gondola
Building. The remaining seven parcels have met or exceeded
allowable residential density.
v2
• The size of the LionsPride site makes the potential for -
residential development quite low. There is also some question
of whether this is a legally subdivided parcel for zoning
purposes. The Concert Hall Plaza proposed a residential addition
in 1984, but withdrew the application because of neighborhood
opposition. The Gondola Building is an unknown quantity.
Because of the size of the building, it. is unlikely that a
significant number of units could be added to the building.
However, the conversion of existing space (i.e. the gondola
terminal or V.A. offices), or a demo/rebuild could result in a
significant number of units.
The redevelopment of the Gondola Building is a very complex
situation. Not only is it difficult to speculate on the
redevelopment potential for a space like the gondola terminal,
the existing parking situation is also a bit dicey.
Existing on-site parking at the Gondola Building is a fraction of
what is actually required by the development on the site. This
may possibly be considered a legal non-conforming situation. As
such, if the building were demolished and rebuilt, the new
parking demand would be based on the parking requirement of the
new development minus the requirement of the original
development.
For example, if the existing requirement is 10 spaces, and the
C new development would require 15 spaces, the new development
would only have to provide 5 spaces because the original 10 are
grandfathered - even though the spaces do not exist. Further
complications may exist due to the relationship of this building
and parking located at the North Day Lot.
There is a fair amount of retail infill potential in Lionshead.
Five infill developments encouraged in the Lionshead Urban Design
Guide Plan could result in just over 9,000 square feet of new
development. Again, the big unknown is the Gondola Building, and
to a lesser degree the Concert Hall Plaza.
A reasonable estimate of new parking demand in Lionshead from
infill development is probably around 100 spaces. This assumes
30 spaces for retail infills and 14 spaces for the Concert Hall
Plaza residential infill (seven units). This would leave 56
spaces for the redevelopment of the Gondola Building. As
explained above, it is very difficult to estimate how much
parking this redevelopment may require. Discounting any
consideration of grandfathered parking demand, 56 spaces would
satisfy parking requirements for 16,800 square feet of retail or
28 condominiums.
{
3
r
~SUNIIKARY
During discussions of amendments to the pay in lieu parking
program, the main concern that has been raised is the long term
impact on public parking facilities from new development paying
"in lieu" of providing parking on-site. Can, or should, the
Town's parking structures absorb the cumulative parking demand
generated by private sector development?
Based on this build-out analysis, it can be argued that this
concern is unfounded. This is due to the fact that the vast
majority of the development that will occur in the Village and
Lionshead has already been constructed. Even when considering
the International Wing and the Gondola Building the infill/
redevelopment potential in these two areas fs minor compared to
existing development.
Data from Vail Village demonstrates this point. The total
parking requirement for all private development, as estimated.
from VVMP data, is as follows:
Retail square footage 109,094 363 spaces
~ Restaurant square footage 47,366 394 spaces
Office square footage 39,267 157 spaces
Commercial square footage 7,600 30 spaces
accommodation units 170 136 spaces
dwelling units 257 514 spaces
1,594 spaces
25$ multi use credit - 398
total spaces required 1,196
The estimated build-out of the Village core would increase this
total parking requirement by 5.7$, or 69 spaces. Please remember
assumptions were made to generate this estimate. Nonetheless,
this analysis does provide a.clear indication that the relative
impact of future development on the Village-wide parking
situation is not great.
While numbers are not available, it is assumed that a similar
situation exists in Lionshead. Even with the estimate of 100
additional spaces being satisfied by payment fn lieu, the overall ,
impact on the public parking facilities is probably less in -
Lionshead than in the Village. This is because the vast majority
of devel.,r~ent in Lionshead has on-site parking. This is not the
case in the village.
The Town has just spent a large amount of money to expand its
parking facilities, and having done so, concerns about the long
term effect of the parking program are reasonable. The
justification made in this memo for maintaining the parking
f~ •
- ~ l
program would fall apart if we were dealing with additional -
development•potential that would increase parking demand by 50$.
However, we~are dealing with a relative increase of approximately
5-10$.
Given the relatively small increase to the overall parking demand
generated by private development in the Village and Lionshead, it
is recommended that changes to the pay in lieu program be limited
to amendments rec.,,.,...ended in the November 4th memo to the Zoning
Code Task Force. These changes are:
Lionshead
* Restrict the program to properties located on the Mall
(as indicated on the Lionshead Parking Program Overlay
Map). •
* Delete the existing provision that allows the program
to be used to compensate for the removal of existing
spaces.
Based on the following premises:
* Vail should encourage redevelopment in Lionshead
* Most of the buildings are condominiumized, which will
decrease the potential for demo-rebuilds.
* Parking on site should remain, as it does not affect mall
and is necessary for the condominiums.
Vail Village
* Maintain areas A and B as defined on the Vail Village
Parking Program Overlay Map.
* Within area A, the Village core, allow the program to
be used to compensate for the removal of existing
spaces. Mill Creek Court would be included in Area A.
* Within area B delete the existing provision that allows
the program to be used to compensate for the removal of
existing spaces. This would apply to the Village
Center, Sonnenalp (across from Village parking
structure), and the Lodge. From previous discussions,
it appears that the Task Force does not want the Lodge
in most cases to utilize the pay in lieu program,
because auto access and parking areas are available.
. If this position is still shared by the Task Force, the
Lodge should be taken out of the program. All on site
parking would be maintained. Any future parking demand
would be provided on site.
Based on the following premises:
* The Gore Creek Drive/Bridge Street pedestrian areas need to
be preserved.
* The Streetscape Plan calls for increased pedestrianization
of Meadow Drive. This plan supports the concept of keeping
the Sonnenalp and Village Center in the pay in lieu program.
On site parking should be maintained to service -
condominiums. Those properties may request to be in Area A
in the future.
5
* The Lodge is removed from pay in lieu as the property has
vehicular access that does not affect any existing or future
pedestrian areas.
~ * Mill Creek Court should be in Area A. This is a highly
congested area and additional vehicular traffic does not
appear to be compatible with the goals of the Streetscape
Plan.
The parking program has been in place many years, and it has
served a valuable purpose. The program has facilitated the
development of a number of projects that have improved the
quality and character of the Village and Lionshead. While some
changes are necessary, the basic framework of the program should
remain in tact.
wp:kppark
1/10/91
. _ .
./4L crn~_~..~:crf~ .r~n.rw .rc. O.V Ni./
' 'ayu,'lieu pzrkis~ rro~"ar
ra r~slD~^:a: RfTan. tDT~ ~ .
~ AL:JfiA'SE DCS?~w A,"TUlL POT~ITU~ DFILL ES1. SIZE PAfO'.i~ -
'AR:EL ~ ACR:AGE D.U.s 1 DU f AU 1 W U!+CTS POTENiIAI OF I~CIL: DElA.t _
J B:d~. 0.17 t' 2 0 2 2 lov 0 [
3e:1 To`er O.ld 3. 3 0 3 0 lo: 0 0
:e:~ 0.1E [ 3 0 3 1 la 0 2
:oVErE; &'idyE C.11 2 I D 0 1 iu: 0 2
:ree:~.::de 0.23 S t 0 t 1 aea:a S~ t
:r-a.a's 0.11 2 0 0 0 2 kd<~ 2Cr S
'i::!w; ~ Scott Bldg. O. D3 1 0 0 0 1 lar 0 2
~z:lerr O.II7 I 1 0 1 0 lou 0 0
~s:1~' Grac:hz`er D.37 9 6 22 :7 0 aedi~ 85^ 3
ioiden Peak Ho4se 0.16 1 20 6 23 0 lour 0 0
iGfE Creep Plaza O.I7 t 5 0 S 0 loY 0 0
liil Eldfl 0.~ t 1 0 1 3 la+ 0 6
_odss at Yell 2.D9 67 D 62 31 36 hid, 35W 35
_od;: ti:~t:; A; t.. G.E: 1: 59 S9 0 10. 0 0
_cd~:5o~tt: 0.3~ 8 62 0 t2 G lou 0 0
icBrid: 1.17 6 C 0 0 t la. 0 8
i:: Cre:,, c_ 1. ~ 13 C 13 C ,.1~.. 1,,.,.
lne D. L~ S 0 5 6 le. C 12
;E:......... o.~~ ~ 3 ~ ~ 5 T` 1 e
L::.:._..I. _ : C . r iC{i
^ 1 C ~ 0 Ion ~ 0 2
J... G. 1i. l .
tea.
?:':AL 7.2'_~ IE5 25^ 134 325 E 6E57 96
8:;:e.. Y.:: Yiiie:E tiaster Fier. is sC:,TCe of this de:e.
to. r::e:: potentia: re`iect: di°f1CL'~iy 1P SZ:1S`yia: for Cr::E:'ie
:1:Cl:b rata°. F^.t_~.i6: ref:EaS SCG: pCt:Gt1eI for salSfylC; :E.^la
Y:w.: alai: G:t=...:~: y::je:ts :d:: t1iiE~ ir. l,":Sr x Y'."*
50nd;,.c b.~ic:e; ? C.C v C C ? hiy~h ? ?
:an.~'.'3r.: ? 0.0 SE D 5S D Iov 0
5~~.`..:..: Ar;,a:c ? 0.0 iG 0 16 0 hid 1500 S
aonsii::d Center ? C.0 2: 0 25 0 high 30D~; 10
scrti Pride ? O.G 0 0 0 0 la. 0
a`th:~E :od:e ? G.0 t5 0 L5 0 oedius 15W 5
S;,r:ar~: o: 1.C2 25.5 El 0 t1 0 lou 0
]i81ui a Lodfle 1.69 T.3 SV 0 5D 0 high 2200 7
~aiI21 ? 0.0 19 0 19 C hi~*, 1000 3
? ? 252 0 252 ? 9206 d6
W`.es: Resid~:;
;ia: develo~eent N:er~ial based or, SOY Mvelo~cnt Statistics
Re`.:i: s~l:.'E foota;,E e5`.iRateS based on Lionshezd IA6P
r'
'•a
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
. April 8, 1991
Present Staff
Diana Donovan Kristan Pritz
Connie Knight Mike Mollica
Ludwig Kurz Jill Kammerer
Kathy Langenwalter Andy Knudtsen
Jim Shearer Shelly Mello
Gena Whitten Betsy Rosolack
Tom Braun
Absent Amber Blecker
Chuck Crist
The worksession was called to order at 1:15PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan.
1. A worksession to consider a conditional use Hermit and a density variance to allow the,
construction of additions to existing structures and the construction of employee
housing on the Davs Inn site. 2211 N. Frontage Road/I.ot 1, Block A, Vail Das
Schone Third Filine, a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone First Filing
~ Applicant: Peter Jacobs of Davs Inn
A representative for the applicant, Saundra Spaeh began the presentation by indicating the
three items the applicant would like the PEC to review. The first was employee housing, the
second was the redevelopment of the shoppette, and the final issue was the hotel upgrade.
Saundra indicated, in order to accomplish the proposed redevelopment, the Days Inn would be
requesting a density (GRFA and unity count) variance.
Jill Kammerer clarified that employee housing is allowed as a conditional use in this zone
district and, therefore, the applicant would also need to request approval of a conditional use
permit. She further indicated the Fire Department and Public Works Department staffs had
not yet reviewed the project.
Saundra stated to the Commission a considerable amount of landscaping would be added
under this r..,~.osal. Jill continued that this was viewed by staff to be a positive proposal,
especially with the provision of employee housing and additional landscaping. This site is
desirable for employee housing, as there is easy pedestrian access to public transportation and ,
services (i.e., grocery store, laundry, etc.).
To explain the employee housing proposal, Saundra began by showing the Commission it was
a simple design which would be located at the northwest corner of the site behind the existing
structures. There would be thirty-two 300 sq. ft. studios and eight 500 sq. ft. one bedroom
1
The following agenda item was discussed at this time.
4. A request to amend Town of Vail Municipal Code Section 18.52.160 -Off Street
Parkins and Loading Exemptions. Section 18.24.180 -Commercial Core I Parkins and
Loadins, Section 18.26.150 -Commercial Core II Parkins and Loadins, and Section
18.22.140 -Public Accommodation Parkins and Loadins.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Tom Braun discussed the current parking program. There were two areas he discussed, the
first being the goal of eliminating vehicular traffic in the core areas of Vail, and the second
issue was to examine the number of sites identified for infill as an alternative to use as
parking. Tom explained the staff memo.
Diana Donovan asked if a person could request to be included in the program. Tom replied
that a person could request to be included, and that there was a difference between the
regulations and who could apply. Diana Donovan stated that she believed condos and office
spaces required more vehicle servicing than lodge and retail locations, and therefore should be
required to provide their parking on-site.
Jay Peterson stated that some condominiums were completely short term, and functioned like
lodges, and he would also like to see flexibility to construct small infill office space. Diana
answered that she would like to encourage more hotel rooms rather than condo development.
l Jay Peterson responded by stating that a mix with office space can help maintain existing
traffic by ensuring locals would be around during the off-season. Gena Whitten mentioned
that she parks in the structure and then walks back and forth to her office, and she believed
many of the locals did the same. Jay asked that the door not be shut for office development,
especially in Lionshead.
Diana questioned Tom as to whether the r~.,~,osed variance criteria would allow anyone to be
denied. He replied it would be difficult, but not impossible to deny a request.
Kathy stated that her concern was that redevelopment would occur without additional parking
being provided. Diana asked if redevelopment of certain properties would allow for the
elimination of parking. Kristan stated that for a new office use, assuming there was no
surplus on-site parking, the parking would still have to be located on-site. However, for a
restaurant, parking could be provided through the pay in lieu system. Kathy asked that
language be placed in the code that a redevelopment project could not eliminate current on-
site parking. Diana further stated that the Town should not keep putting more locals in the
parking structures. ,
Kristan responded to these suggestions by indicating it would not be fair to say that if a
redevel.,r...ent resulted in a decreased parking requirement, the previous parking levels would
have to be maintained.
21
Gena stated she believed the amount collected through the pay in lieu program should only be
used for building additional spaces. Jim Shearer indicated a hesitance regarding the one time
payment provision.
Jay Peterson discussed the Village core plan, asking what the difference between the Lodge
and the Mill Creek Building or Slifer was, since the latter two rl.,~t,erties also had the ability
to have direct vehicular access. Kathy agreed that the Mill Creek Building should also be
excluded Yi Vlll the program, but felt that the physical difficulties with that site, a steep drive
for example, prohibited putting parking on site.
Connie expressed her apprehension over excluding office and condo spaces, and felt that the
exceptions should not be placed in the ordinance. Tom countered by saying the code could
be more cleaz, but not everyone felt the same over these two uses being included or excluded.
When Connie asked why they were being excluded, Kathy Langenwalter responded by saying
if the Gondola Building were redeveloped, placing 300-400 VA employees in that building,
and VA was allowed to use the pay in lieu program, the public parking would be wiped out.
Kristan communicated to the Commission that the possibility of an office or condo
redevelopment consisting of less than 1,000 sq. ft. being included in the pay in lieu program,
with those projects over 1,000 sq. ft. having to provide pazking on site had been rejected by
the Task Force as being too complicated.
~ Jay Peterson turned the Commission's attention back to the Lodge at Vail, and stated that in
their circumstance, it was actually cheaper for them to build their own parking. He also
stated that if a building in the core area which currently provided pazking on site were to be
torn down, it could be rebuilt as a hotel with common retail space and not have to provide
any parking except through the pay in lieu program. Diana thought the provision was too
lenient on parking within the Town.
Kathy questioned why staff was requesting a sepazate process with special criteria for projects
that wanted to use pay in lieu for office and condo uses that normally would be required to
provide on site parking? Kristan responded that they had wanted to keep the criteria more
flexible. Kathy said she did not want to prohibit additions or redevelopment, but she did not
want to make the pazking process too simple. Kristan indicated it was already difficult in
Lionshead to obtain approval for development due to the amount of condo associations, and
Connie Knight agreed, stating the proposed wording was tight enough.
Jim Shearer conveyed he had no problem with offices being included in the pay in lieu
program, and thought that above ground level office space should be encouraged, and the f
process for such development be streamlined.
Kathy stated she could support existing office space being allowed to use the pay in lieu
program, but not space which resulted from a redevelopment. She also encouraged infill in
the Lionshead area, but stated there was potential for mis-use through development projects.
i
22
The example she gave was a small restaurant space which went un-leased for a period of
time. If that space were then converted to office space, there would have to be a variance
given to the on-site parking requirement, as there would not have been any parking developed
in the first place. Kathy recommended keeping the program as it stands, with the variance
process intact. She stated she did not believe the format should be changed since it already
accomplished the goals of the new provisions.
Kristan thought that a more flexible variance pnacedure would be helpful. The procedure
could be kept as the Task Force had recommended (that retail and restaurants were allowed to
use the pay in lieu program, but condo and offices must provide parking on site), but that
variances should be available. She thought that a mixed use are was more vibrant year round,
and that if it were necessary for offices and condominiums to obtain standard variances, it
would make development of the mixed use areas more difficult.
Kathy wanted offices and condominiums to provide their own parking. She stated that
parking is the issue, and if the Town did not require anyone to provide parking, then the
Town ends up providing it all. Jim Shearer agreed with Kathy, but said he did not think the
plan would encourage or discourage development.
Diana indicated she was going under the presumption that there would be no fewer offices
and condominiums in Lionshead as there were today, and that based on that, she did not want
to see offices or condos included in the pay in lieu program.
Larry Eskwith joined the meeting to clarify the special review process proposed by staff, and
reminded the Commissioners that if the current variance procedure were used, a physical
hardship would have to be defined for a variance to be granted.
Kristan clarified to the PEC that the Lazier parking was in the program. Diana asked if a
provision could be added to require that spaces always be available for parking for the uses
creating the need for the parking, and not storage, etc. Tom Braun answered that, during
staff's review of the zoning code, the issue had been identified as a problem to be addressed
in the revision process. Diana wanted to know if the PEC should address it at this time, to
which Kristan replied there were other concerns in the parking code as well, which would be
brought to the PEC at a later time, but this issue was implied in the code.
Kristan asked the PEC for their opinion on the Lodge. Kathy said she always thought the
Lodge should be excluded since it can provide its own parking without any access difficulty.
Kathy Langenwalter moved to recommend to Town Council that they amend Town of Vail ;
Municipal Code Section 18.52.160 -Off Street Parking and Loading Exemptions, Section
18.24.180 -Commercial Core I Parking and Loading, Section 18.26.150 -Commercial Core II
Parking and Loading, and Section 18.22.140 -Public Accommodation Parking and Loading
based on the staff memo, but deleting the staff recommendation of new review criteria for
offices and condominiums. A comment from the Planning and Environmental Commission to
i
23
the Town Council was that the Commissioners felt that their chazge was to get as much
parking r.., Tided in the private sector as possible. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
4a. Proposed amendments to Section 18.22.140. Pazkine and Loading in the PA district;
Section 18.24.180. PazkinQ and Loadine in the CCI district: and Section 18.26.150.
Pazking and Loadins in the CCII district.
Jim Shearer asked for clarification of what "structured" parking entailed. Kathy Langenwalter
said the normal definition was covered and enclosed, with Kristan further clarifying it was to
be located in a building.
Jay Peterson said he had a problem with the Lodge being included in this provision. If they
added 500 sq. ft., they would be required to add 1 1/2 covered pazking spaces. This would
present a practical difficulty. Kristan said that a variance could be applied for in those
circumstances. Diana said that most of the time, the system works, and asked Jay to have
faith in it.
When Gena Whitten asked why structured spaces were called for, Kristan replied it was to
help conceal them.
Connie Knight moved that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend to Town
Council the proposed amendments to Section 18.22.140, Parking and Loading in the PA
l district; Section 18.24.180, Parking and Loading in the CCI district; and Section 18.26.150,
.a Parking and Loading in the CCII district be approved per the staff memo. Kathy
Langenwalter seconded the motion. The recommendation was approved, 6-0.
9. Avnroval of minutes from March 25, 1991 PEC meeting.
Gena Whitten moved the minutes from the March 25, 1991 Planning and Environmental
Commission meeting be approved, with the exception of the Lazier/Lifthouse Lodge portion,
to be approved at the April 22, 1991 meeting. Jim Shearer seconded the motion, which
passed 6-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:15PM.
f
24
UNITS STAB ES ~ ~ ~ ~ -
CYCLING FEDEIL4?TIQN -
CYCLING FACTS, FIGURES ANp TRIVtA -
Information obtained from NBDA StatPak, Marketing Week. Simmon's Research, City
Sports. Bicycle Dealer. Bicycling, Bicycle Federation of America. League of American
Wheelmen. United Stater CyctinQ Federation. Veto Magazine. Curtest up to 1989.
iN GEJVERAL
' Cycling has the second largest number of participants in the world, second only to
soccer, and is considered the best organized general recreation sport In the
nation.
' Thera are more than 95 million ,
. cyclists in U.S.A.; 85 million are recreational
cyclists. Twenty million of these people ride once a week or more, and 13.S
miltton of these people race their bikes.
' The biggest shift in the bicycle boom has been the emergence of adult cydists,
who outnumber younger cyclists for the first time this century. Adult riders
have increased 20% from 1987.1988.
' The United States Cycling Federation issued 33,155 licenses in 1989. The
USCF has 1,142 member clubs across the United States.
' Bicycling is the fourth most popular weekend activity, wish 21 million weekend
riders, according to Sports Marketing News.
' The average adult cyclist is between 25.34 years old, 55°~ male, 45% female,
college educated, with an average income In excess of S&0,000. Largest -
oacupation category is professlonaUmanagerial.
' Bicycling has been a part of the Olympic Games since 1896. The United States
won Its first Olympic medal in bkyclinq in 1912, but the sport really came of
age in the 1984 Summer Olympic Games, when the U.S. team won nine medals.
' There are approximately 2.7 million bicycle commuters in the United States.
' The most popular bicyde racing states are California, Colorado and New York.
' The number of people who take cyding vacations each year has grown. -
Approximatey one million people take tours and vacations by bicycle annually.
' Nine consumer bicyciinQ publicatbns reach an audience of one million readers
nationwide.
' More than 3a hours of bbycte racing coverage aired on network and cable
television in 1989. Tour de France aired eight times on ABC, and earned a 5.0
raring on July 23 when 4,520,000 homes were watching, NBC broadcast over
six hours of the Tour De Trump, and The Sundance Cycling Series aired on ESPN
for a total of seven hours with an average of 632,000 households watching. The
Profeasbnal World Championships and the USCF National Road Championships
1750 E. Boulder, Colorado Springs, CO 80909 (719) 578.4581 Telex ,~45-2424
Group A Member
.
r.~CL ~ i JE SV:NIKARY
Tl:e united Staten Cycling Federation, the National Geverninq
Body for Amateur cyclists in the united Stataa, could like
to acknowledge Marketing ~ Financial Management Enterprises,
Inc. for preparing a document which will.anabis thr public
to become mots ~amilia?r vith th• sport o! eyelinq and its
growth over the years. A popular sport vorld-wide, ayciinq
is emerging ar on• o= the most populsr oports at the
recreational level and growing rapidly in th• compstitiv•
area as well. ~
This document presents demographics data for the cycling market based on
;Marketing & Financial Management's review of five major studies of
recreational sports activities in the U.S. It pressers data showimg the size
of the cycling market; age breakdown of the cycling conaumar, household
income levels. geographic distribution of cycling popularity, historical
growth in $alee of bicycles and projections for future growth.
Zn the United Stater today at least one out of every four Americans rides a
bicycle. Among women sad youth the participation rats is even higher.
Gallup data indicate that one out of every three women and eight out of
every ten youth (ages 13.15) ride bicycles.
The total number of cyclists in the Unit$d Staten is estimated at between,, -
million and 80 million. The, number of youth cyclists in the U.S. under age
18 is estimated at between about 16 - 35 million. The number of women - .
cyclists is estimated at between 15 - 30 mallion. Among "core user" cgs
group of men age 18 and above, the number of cyclists is estimated
at between 10 - 25 million. Gallup estimates that 20.7 million cyclists
(18 and older) are involved iri bicycle tAUring/nciag in rho U.9:
In terms of popularitq, cycling consistently ranks among the most popular
sports activities. Of the five rx~ajor sports participation studies reviewed by
M&FM for thin analysis, one study (Gallup) ranked bicycling as the most
popular sport among youth; two studies ranked it as the second most
popular sport among American youth. For women cgs 18 and over, two
studies ranked bicycling as the second most popular aporta activity while
one study ranked it as the third moat popular behind swimming and
aerobics. For msn, cgs I8 and over, Gallup ranked bicycling sa the second
moat popular spork The other studies reviewed ranltsd bicycling as the 4th
• - and 6th moat popular for the "core user" age group.
In terms of household size and data about "mothers" as participants in
cycling, none of the studies that were reviewed presented data identifying
the number of cyclists who were "mothers" or "heads of households"
responsible for food purchases. The data that were analyzed, however,
showed that 1)~ bi+o~yaliat~t.:.have ~a~ greater tendency to come from larger
households, 2) bicyclists tend to come from households with hi&her than
average income, and 9) "cycling enthusiasts" tend to come from households
i
with "significantly° higher than average income. Only one study (U.S.
Department of Interior) presented data on the marital statue of cyclists and
the data From this study showed over half of all bicyclists married.
Data on the geographic distribution of cycling popularity varied. Because
each study used different sets of geographic re~on~ (with different levels of
disaggregation) to show the distribution of cycling popularity, the data did
not lend itself to easy comparison. Despite these shortcomings, however,
three of the studies agreed that bicycling was most popular in the North
Central United States. Gallup data showed it to be most popular in the
Midwest (this was true for both bicycling and bicycle touring/racing). Two
other studies showed bicycling to be mast popular in California and the
Pacii"ic region.
Two studies (Department of Interior and Gallup) presented data on the
historical growth of cycling. The DOI study concluded that "[bJicycling has
gained dramatically in the past 22 years on every available yardstick, more
.than tripling its population participation rate." Gallup's data showed that
the percentage increase in the popularity of bicycling (above its base year
1964) was higher than for any of the other top 15 sports despite declining
slightly between 19$3 and 1986.
Bicycling Magazine and the Bicycling Federation of America presented
data on growth in the bicycling industry. U.S. consumers spent over $2
billion on bic}•ciex anti ucce~ro.~ies ~:x l:o:i. Gi ~s t`'..I, bicrcIes acco~r~ted _
for an estimated $1.8 billion. In 2986 U.S, consumers purchased 12.Z~
million bicycles-the highest since 1973. One of the most popular bicycles
among youth is the all-terrain bike (ATB) also called "mountain bike."
Since 1980, sales have increased from $50,000 per year to $1.2 million in
1 g86--~a growth rate of over 30 percent per year.
In terms of projections for bicycling, only sae study (Bicycling Magazine)
presented estimates for projections and these estimates were only for 1987.
Using data from the Bicycle Manufacturers Association, Bicycling
:Vagazine forecasted an 1896 increase in. ~rsvenues and a 1296 increase in
sales of bicycles for 198?. Growth in bicycling will coatinue to be afFected by
economic growth, health and exercise trends, and the growth of youth
participation. For long term estimates of the growth of youth population,
the Burson of Census projects a 1995 youth (5.1?) population of between 46
and 51 million.
• ii
REC'D MAY 2 8 9999
PRESENTATION TO THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
Support of Future International Events in Vafl
by the Vail Valley Foundation
The Vail Valley Foundation is pursuing potential international sporting
competitions. Our efforts aze primarily geazed toward alpine skiing in
the winter and mountain biking in the summer, with our ultimate goals
to bring the World Mountain Bike Championships and the World Alpine Ski
Chaznpionships to Vaii.
Towards this end, the Vail Valley Foundation is looking to the Town of
Vail for direction ae well as financial and philosophical support.
L ALPINE SBI RACII~TG
A Wl~4pine Ski Chamvionshi~
~WF to officially bid for the 1999 World Championships
• Bid for World Championships to be awarded in 1994
• Campaign expenses beginning now through 1994
• Actively seeking Town of Vail support for campaign costs
commitment to financially support actual event, if awarded
bid in 1994
B. American Ski Classic
• Continued financial and philosophical support of this annual
event from Town of Vail
II. MOUNTAIN Bus,.tNG
A S~ugggrt of Future W~id Class Mounta/n Bikfna Even,
• WF to officially bid for the 1994 World Championships
• Bid for World Championships to be awarded in fall of 1992
VVF to officially bid for a World Cup event held 1992
• Bid for World Cup event to be awarded July of 1991
Actively seeking Town of Vail support for campaign costs and
commitment to financially support actual events, if awarded
bids for World Cup and World Championships
Immediate financial support for campaign expenses incurred
during Ride of Your Life event on June 8, 1991. The immediate
campaign costs for this event aze on the following page. The
Vail Valley Foundation is requesting $b,000 from the Town of
Veit for support of this yeaz's campaign:
BUDt~~t OF CAMPAIGN EkrrrlSES -MOUNTAIN B~u+TG
Item Amount
Social -Ride of Your Life $11,700.00
Race Support -Ride of Your Life $1,600.00
Printing -Ride of Your life $750.00
Press Operations -Ride of Your Life $300.00
Awards -Ride of Your Life $150.00
Printing $;1,000.00
World Cup Sites Inspection $6,120.00
World Championships Site Inspection $3,450.00
Miscellaneous - Qifts $870.00
Personnel $8,668.00
Qondola Lost Revenue $7,500.00
Expenses: $44,108.00
- VIPH Partnership
Housing Development Proposal
iVla y 17 , 19 91
INTRODUCTION
"If Vail is to remain competitive as a resort, the
community will have to provide its maturing worker
population with decent and affordable employee housing."
This quote is from an article by iViike Spaniola, that appeared in
The_Vail Daily, with regards to the Town of Vail "Affordable
Housing Study" that was released October 25, 1990. (Please see
copy of article attached to this proposal.) Even though this
report is only a few months old, the demand of the maturing Vail
worker for a more comfortable and independent style of housing
has been unsatisfied for several years.
As a real estate brokerage, we have worked with local couples for
the past few years in finding single family or duplex homes that
could be purchased by a two inco,~ne family that realized a total
gross annual income of $40,000.00 to $50,000.00. These people
were willing to invest up to $24,000.00 into a property and
appropriate $1,000.00 to $1,].00.00 per month for debt service,
property taxes and building insurance if the property they were
purchasing offered them the value they expected for such an
investment and the ensuing monthly expenditures.
The features that these locals want in a residence that will
induce them to purchase a home include a garage, gas heat, three
bedrooms, two bathrooms, unfinished basement space, yard areas
that they can use for themselves, and no one above or below them.
In November, 1990, our partnership acquired property within the
Town of Avon to develop six single family homes that included the
amenities listed above, to be sold to locals who desire to make
the Vail Valley their permanent home. "vVe presold the homes,
which will be completed and occupied by the middle of July, 1991.
Of the six homes sold, two were sold to Town of Vail police
officers, and one to a Town of Vail fireman.
'vVe now have a waiting list of qualified people who want to
purchase our homes if we produce any more. At this time we have
the option on a site in Avon that will accomodate four more
homes.
The article previously quoted above states:
"Compounding the perennial employee housing shortage in
Vail Valley, the study projects, will be a greater ,
reliance on older workers whose housing expectations
exceed those accepted by younger workers."
The success of our initial project mentioned above reinforces
this statement. The young couples who wish to establish the Vail
Valley as their home will do so only if they can justify the
hours of commitment that their careers call for through the
ability to acquire such amenities as a comfortable, private home
that they can call their own.
We wish to present the following proposal to the Town of Vail to
purchase and develop the parcel of land, south of the railroad
tracks and east of the highway rest stop, which is now part of
the Single Tree Fifth Filing.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Produce, at a profit, housing that will fill a demand that
exists within the Vail Valley. This demand is for single family
dwellings offering three bedrooms, two full bathrooms, a garage,
unfinished space that the family can expand into, and gas heat.
All within a reasonable commute of Vail, at a price that local,
tcvo i ncome f ami 1 i es can afford.
2. Produce this type of home with the quality, appearance, and
value that will induce these two income families to purchase
these homes without any resignation of thought that "this is what
they had to settle for."
3. Produce this type of home, at a profit, for the local
families who wish to make Vail their home, without requiring
special allowances from the various government entities, such as
density variances, which tend to cause friction with the
surrounding property owners and delays from concept to completion
that always affect the cost of any project.
PROJECT DEVELOPtUIENT PLAN
Gather an inventory of potential buyers for the homes
anticipated for the project. Ascertain their needs, their wants,
and their price range.
2. Develop a budget to determine what the profit margin could
be on such a project and to determine if the risk is worth the
return.
3. Option the vacant land that has existing zoning that will
allow for the development of several single family dwellings at a
cost per unit that allows such a project to be affordable for the
local families looking for this type of housing.
4. Acquire the floor plans and elevation drawings of homes to
be built on the site that will offer three bedrooms, two baths, a
two car garage, unfinished basement or garden level space, and
gas heat. These houses should be flexible for the future
completion of the unfinished space, while offering 1,350 to 1,600
square feet of finished space to the initial buyer.
5. Obtain preliminary bids from various sub-contractors for the
construction of these homes to verify that such a project can be
done within the budget structured for this project.
6. Develop a preliminary site plan to be presented to the Town
of Vail and Eagle County for conceptual review.
7. With input from the Town of Vail and Eagle County Planning
:Departments and Design Review Boards, produce a final site plan
for the property that shows the location of the homes, traffic
flow, landscaping, and miscellaneous land use.
8. Obtain final approval from the town of Vail and Eagle County
for the development of the project.
9. Close on the property.
10. Establish a construction schedule for the project, from
excavation to final landscaping.
11.. Obtain detailed bids from the sub-contractors for the
construction of the specific homes within a specific time frame.
1.2. Develop a cash flow schedule, showing what funds will be
provided by the partnership, what funds will be borrowed, and
what funds will be dispersed from the closing proceeds.
13. Present the purchase price, plans, elevations, and color
selections to the potential buyers so that they can decide if
they wish to purchase the homes.
].4. Require from the buyers letters, verifying their capability
to purchase the homes, from established lenders who are willing
to provide end financing on the homes to be built.
15. Enter into purchase agreements with the buyers who produce
the letters of verification.
16. Present the contracts, construction cost estimates,
construction time schedule, cash flow schedule, and development
proposal to a lending institution for construction financing.
17. Build the project and close on the properties, all in a
timely fashion due to close supervision and control.
Of the seventeen items listed above, We have successfully
completed 1 through 16 on our first project. We will start
completion of Item ].7 with our first closing on or about June
1991, with another closing to follow weekly until the last
closing of the sixth unit in early July, 1991..
We feel that the property along the Eagle River, listed above,
can offer a setting conducive to locals housing. It is adjacent
to The Reserve, immediately to the east of the site, which has a
large number of owner occupied units.. The land is across the
Edwards Spur Road from Old Edwards Estates, which is a
subdivision of, to date, twenty-three single family homes owned
and occupied by locals. The setting of the property along the
Eagle River balances out it's location along the railroad tracks
which border the property along the north.
The parcel is triangular in shape, containing approximately 8.5
acres within its boundaries. Of this, about 3.5 acres is made up
of the Eagle River and land on the south side of the river. This
land, on the south side of the river does not lend itself well to
any development produced on the north side of the river.
Because of the isolation of the land along the south side of the
river, we would like to discuss with the Town of Vail the
possibility of purchasing and developing the land along the north
side of the river, which equals approximately five acres.
We would like to develop fifteen to twenty homes within this site
that would offer the amenities desired by locals, which are
listed above.
The key to our ability to offer affordable homes to locals is the
land cost per unit to be developed. iNe can make the project work
with a per unit land cost of no more than $7,000.00. 'With the
density suggested above, this per unit land cost would generate a
total sales price of between $105,000.00 and $].40,000.00 for the
subject five acres. This price range would generate a profit for
the Town of Vail while providing us with the land cost range we
need to produce the homes.
Our offer, even at this early, informal stage, would be
contingent upon, but not initially limited to, the following
items:
1. Access from the highway rest stop turn-off without having to
add any acceleration or deceleration lanes.
2. Zoning for at least fifteen, detached, single family homes,
to be developed as either individual lots or part of a townhome
association.
3. A decision from the Town of Vail, within thirty days of this
proposal, to either sell us the property or not, in order to
allow us to start extensive planning without any questions still
hanging about the land purchase.
4. An extended closing date, if necessary, until after the first
of the year.
5. The ability to begin construction upon closing of the
property and the obtaining of the proper permits.
~VIPH PARTNERSHI P
We have combined the talents and resources of three individuals
to form iVIPH Partnership, the entity that would undertake this
home project. One partner has been involved in home
construction, hands on, for the past ten years, one as a real
estate agent/broker for sixteen years, and the third as the
owner/operator of a lumber yard for over fifteen years.
The partner with the construction experience will provide the on-
site supervision for our project during its construction. He has
been instrumental in obtaining bids, dealing with the Town of
Avon over project approval, and working with the architect on
design, site layout, and working drawings.
The real estate broker researched the feasibility of the project,
reviewed the available property for such a project, arranged the
option on the appropriate land for the first project in Avon,
gathered the interested buyers for the homes, and developed this
proposal. He is also the owner of a local furniture store that
will assist the partnership in the purchase of carpet,
appliances, the and cabinetry.
The lumber yard owner has been instrumental in pricing and
selection of materials for the project. His cost analysis input
has been a key to the anticipated success of this endeavor. His
ownerhip of the lumber yard will also assist in the partnership's
cash flow schedule and needs.
We are confident that the combined talents of the three members
of the partnership will insure the success of this development
project. These talents compliment the stated Project Objectives
and have been instrumental in producing the Project Development
Plan.
SU~ULVIARY
We are confident that this project will succeed, not just because
we are the ones doing it, but because we are following the simple
rule of satisfying a consumer's needs and demands rather than
trying to create them.
The parcel of land lends itself to a project of this size because
of its geographical barriers which inhibit its inclusion in any
major, master plan for the complete Fifth Filing parcel. It
consists of two flat areas on which the homes could be built,
within a general neighborhood of affordable, locals housing. It
already has the major utilities installed to the site.
Our market research has produced ready, willing and able buyers
for our homes, without any "open marketing" to speak of. Word of
mouth has brought us more interest in our product than we have
inventory for.
The timing for our project is near perfect. The demand for our
product exceeds our supply. The governing entities that control
the construction of such a product are in full support of the
development of affordable housing for locals at this time. The
sub-contractors needed for the project have worked for us on our
initial project and are ready to go to work for us again. We are
committed to the success of this endeavor and fully expect to see
its fruition.
Thank you for your time in reviewing this proposal. We hope that
it has expressed our seriousness in the undertaking of such a
project and our reasons for expecting it to succeed.
Sincerely,
Scott Hovey
Joe Peplinski
Dave iViarshall
Stud sa s maturin workers need decent housin :
y y g g
accepted by younger workers. "We're trying to get the study out so more hate to be penalized for being the largest
B.y Mike Spaniola According to the study, "resort people can review it. I've asked people to employer in the county."
If Vail is to remain competitive as a communities that are attentive to this try and get acopy -of the report or call He favors private projects such as the
resort, the community will have to issue may well achieve success; other me." affordable housing units VA is now
provide its maturing worker population communities that cannot draw quality Copies are available .from the helping to finance in Avon.
with decent and affordable employee workers may suffer...from the early community development office at the
housing. 1990s and on for several years to come." Vail municipal building as are videotapes Property and sales taxes are also
That was a ~ - of the Oct. 25 town meeting at which the under review, with the potential of
• ~C;*V', ;`.iy4•ii}'S:•i'i•4:::~::`~;jrr;.'•:;'i,:::w1;n}nv{;,; ;'<in'.~v^.lv~},~n. ni$:•>.~::ti
r.; }~}v~:•Ni:?> tl It
j g po p rpo g provision, which
ma or fmdin of a ~ - w ' - . _ - ~<f re rt was resented. inco ratin a sunset
Town of Vail. The tape will also air on Vail Valley would target a specific amount of
A f f o r d a b 1 e « Community Television, Channel 23, funding to be raised over atwo- to three-
Communities that cannot draw uali
Housing Study" 4 tY <'s Tuesday, Nov. 6 and Friday, Nov. 9. year period, and the tax eliminated when
released Oct. 25, workers may suffer...from the early 1990s ' ~ Recommendations based on report the goal is achieved.
which recom- and on. findings, which are proposed to be
mends imple- 'w~ implemented in two phases; include: Expecting such issues to be volatile,
• menting long- ~ •Special development districts and a Fritz says, her "big push is to have a lot
term solutions -Affordable Housing Study , waiver of usual development fees for of review of the document, so that the
soon and points to affordable housing units. community supports what we plan to do.
possible new taxes as a sotu-ce of funds.. The study was compiled by the •A controversial proposed employee "We will also review the housing
Compounding the perennial Boulder-based consulting firm of Rosall head tax` to fund future affordable report at the NoV. 12 planning
employee housing shortage in Vail Remmen Cares in conjunction with the housing construction. - commission meeting."
Valley, the study projects, will be a Town of Vail Planning and Some view the tax as an equitable The Vail Town Council will vote on
greater reliance on older workers whose Environmental Commission (PEC). solution; others such as Vail Associates' acceptance of the report on Nov. 20.
housing expectations exceed those ICristan Fritz, PEC duector, explains, Les Marsh are less enthused. "I would
Employers 'on schedule'
VANS to VAIL - n ~
Staffing may o be as
e . . dire as so e ~e~~~
,Y, ' _ , i)c: [,or1~(: ~ V~lil sut,tii(iiics ~o:))(~
. • _ iiv a•iu.e Spant,)Ia i
o.~ .r~ ay 7-''r-. :+r. '+'~,t' r ~ ~ C;!It.!~ i'.U (:Sli itt -I 1E(~!)er i':IiI4jC 111 ~
w.: 3'~~ ~ J" c ~ .r,~. B 1)CSpI;:: Ulr. "I'ia;!('t,Oi?`, (!!1,' It) C rt ,
S`'';; ~ ~ _ ~ . tl:c , ,1~.;nn~:,,.ilti ki..sil , x_•s.
,c~~, ~ "eg- - • • • ~ h;)l!SIRg (J!Iltcu!,tl_s, ;~a>.HL,! ...lint; L !
~ ih 111 ( ",i)('IaIC. 1!1C I
~ +~+'.r A ~ 'S f~ Fx~ .!?.S Car !?;1.; '{(n?: _i.:~ i:!.!1!; tL {
6: ~tn.i~? ~ ;ir,~~: ~;n~; !n)(.:, hay ~nnc
M~.z-~. ~ s• w~ ,?iC21 pro{)~!;t~)rs iit. ~I:?i~ ;t, r,:;yCC! ,.((lI(lil)~ .o i.('•; `•1<11sh, V.1
' <fiT _ 'r s by the link:.;. ;is~;a,tant ;>crsonncl director, with 6U
~'~`'t Planning ai!eeul r>n huusing for percent of the reyuircd seasonal stall
new hires and getting an early start on board-on par with current
seem to be keys to successful hiring staffing goals and last year's hiring
programs. pace.
Ward Mack, assistant manager at Steve Dewire, general manager of
~z ~ ~ ~ Sweet Basil in Vail, says the Village the. J {)~att-Beaver Crcck also reports
' reslaurant i<, "in pretty loocl sh;;l)`:" that seasonal cnlplu~-1: c. hiring is
h,~-; ~ • ~ ~ e I mccling stall ing need:; Cor the i~ri)ccding on schci!ulc. 1
, }
1 1 ! u )cumin * season. ,
! ~ "\Vc arc nul~ing ;oo(! progress, E
' ~ , ~ a • • • o : "We started earl;. `,Vr had a hinnt 1
~ ~ . ~ ~ ;ut(1 (!o rent see auY t;ri)hlcros ir, s
~ ad in lhC paper in Sclriullbc;r," hc. said. ra; iun~ !u11 en! )io mcnt i) Dec. la
r: ~ ~ ;already ncarl} up to full stall', thr. ~~,11,
` ;.".S•,lTd :i 'A.r!)CCUpI;nC)' ;{`.'rea~t'S
.-..,:r~ . _ _ _ + :est_lurant lacl:in~~ on!'. :1 few kitct;c.n
j ~,ta;:~; ~cas;;I:al nc~~~ hires arc Cr~u-;
_ • „ • , , ~ employees, which Sweet Basil is the, local area. tend rnltside. hiring has
WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP
TOPIC _QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS
1/11 OLD TOWN SHOPS/HOLY LARRY/GREG: Environmental investigation. Drilling completed. Preliminary results
CROSS SITES received for Old Town shops.
Executive session item 5-7-91.
2/5 CHUCK ANDERSON YOUTH RON/ROB: Let's be prepared to award this Final award to be given at the 5-21-91
RECOGNITION (request: Rose) spring. evening meeting.
4/9 REMOVAL OF ELK SCULPTURE SHELLY/KRISTAN: In writing, communicate to Letter from Shelly mailed 4-12-91. John
John Cogswell that sculpture must be Cogswell met with AIPP Board 4/17. Will
removed ABSOLUTELY by 4/21/91. meet with council 4/23. Agreement to move
sculpture to Ford Park temporarily until
permanent site is selected. This is to
occur by 5-1-91. Removed 5-1-91.
4/9 CITY OF BOULDER COURT LARRY: Obtain district court ruling to This was actually decided by a jury trial
CASE Re: SANDING (request:Rose) ascertain local implications. and was not a district court decision.
_ Larry will get as much detail as possible.
4/9 PUBLIC UTILITIES ACQUISITION RON/STEVE BARWICK: Reassess municipal Will do.
involvement/ownership of public utilities.
Provide budget in 1992 for feasibility stud .
4/16 ADAM RESNICK OZONE LEVEL KRISTAN: Respond to letter that Tom Berry Letter sent 4-24-91.
LETTER will look into it.
4/16 LACROSSE TOURNAMENT CAROLINE: Prepare letter of welcome for Will do.
Kent's signature.
4/23 MAYOR'S BREAKFAST EVERYONE: The next Mayor's Breakfast is Letters of invitation mailed 5-6-91.
scheduled for Wednesday, May 29, 1991, at
7:30 A.M., at the Racquet Club Restaurant i
East Vail. Please plan to attend this
neighborhood input session.
WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP
4-30-91
TOPIC .QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS Page 1 of 2
8/8/89 WEST INTERMOUNTAIN LARRY: Proceeding w/legal requirements for Marijke Brofos has indicated an interest
ANNEXATION (request: Lapin) annexation. Steve will call for assessor's in petitions but has not picked them up.
#'s re: revenue the TOV is not collecting Larry was holding off so annexation
from property taxes. could occur closer to end of next year for
tax purposes. Schedule for 5-14-91
work session.
7/17 BIKES/ROLLER BLADES AND KEN/LARRY: Should bicycles, roller blades, Researching appropriate ordinances for
SKATES/SKATEBOARDS etc., be prohibited from highly pedestrian- application to be discussed in May.
ized areas in the Village and Lionshead, Discuss at Staff Meeting 5-10-91.
including the parking structures?
7/27 UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES IN LARRY/GREG: Work with Holy Cross Electric Undergrounding may occur in fall of
EAST VAIL to establish special improvement district(s) '91 or '92 or spring of '92. Council voted
. for underground utilities in East Vail. 5-1 to hire an engineer and proceed with
project.
9/20 LIONS RIDGE FILING 4 LARRY: Homeowners Assn. would like Town to Ron contacted Jim Fritze about abatement.
purchase common area for back taxes and The Town tax liability would be about
penalties. $5,500. County attorney says no tax
abatement is possible for a property such
as this.
12/18 MILLRACE CONDO. ASSN. KRISTAN: Respond. Vail Ventures will respond in writing to
LETTER our letter. Shelly has written a second
follow-up request, which was included in
your 4/2 packet.
1/11/91 SNOW DUMP RON/GREG: Work out site acquisition with V Design has begun. Soil testing and mapping
Complete design. completed. Back to PC 5-13-91. Lease
being drawn up for 7 year time period.
1/11 AGRICULTURE OPEN SPACE KRISTAN: Locate all agriculture/open space Item scheduled for May 7.
LAND parcels.