Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-07-02 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session - VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1991 2:00 P. M. AGENDA 1. NWCOG - Discussion of Current Programs and Concerns 2. Commercial Core II Parking Pay in Lieu Fees 3. Municipal Complex - Municipal Space Needs Project 4. Information Update 5. Other 6. Vail Village Inn - Site Visit (100 East Meadow Drive/Lot 0, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing) 7.- Adjournment C:\WSAGENDA VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1991 2:00 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 2:00 p.m. 1. NWCCOG - Discussion of Current Programs and Sandy Blaha Concerns 2:30 p.m. 2. Commercial Core II Parking Pay in Lieu Fees Kristan Pritz Action Reauested 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. 3. Municipal Complex - Municipal Space Needs Steve Barwick Project Ken Hughey Action Reauested of Council: Discuss options on site selection, funding, and phasing. Give staff final direction. Backaround Rationale: The issue relating to accommodating the current and future space needs of the Town of Vail Government has been the subject of numerous discussions. Staff is.requesting final direction from the Council relating to site, funding, and a phasing schedule. Staff Recommendation: Authorize staff to continue with final design of new police building on selected site, and begin remodel of old post office for municipal office needs. 3:30 p.m. 4. Information Update 5. Other 3:40 p.m. 6. Vail Village Inn - Site Visit Mike Mollica (100 East Meadow Drive/Lot 0, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing) Action Reauested of Council: Visit site to view existing conditions. Backaround Rationale: This site visit is intended to provide the Council with an update of the existing conditions at the Vail Village Inn. Josef Staufer's request for a major amendment to SDD No. 6 will be reviewed at the evening meeting. Staff Recommendation: None. 5:00 p.m. 7. Adjournment C:\WSEXPAND MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 28, 1991 SUBJECT: Commercial Core II Parking In Lieu Fees IrC<f<tlrnr.<yyep :iti:i:4+•x Wfi}iy i:~~ ••f:"'~["ii}:i:ii:i!ti??ii:ii!~jNiiii:!i r.. n..........., v..... r.!^::yii:Y::: v~vv. ::::.}}:'y:::v{:..... :n4. i:::.; ......n......:.nn..:...• ........n iSi iiiii::: nv:. . . r•.:~:::: :rv:.~:, ::..t . n... : w:;:..........::. ~:.r n....• r..... '........::::::::....nv ...,...............:.;;.y:.;:. / s.,...:: G ..v..........................::. vw:::::::: n:::::::;. `i4 T^C•i2: :t9{i•: :Li:iiv;`•' t^`:'{'i%% is iv iii:i SNl. ~:%!j ............................:::::nw::... e..... ~v:: v:::; ti,..........:.....................f. : iv: ~4: ~:vi rvi'r::tiiii:ii v:::::::::: :w::.~::: :w:. i w:::::::::: x{:v: i:.. n............... v:::::::::................ v:::~v:: ;:iiiiiiii:iiiiiiii'fi: iii}i:4iii' ..r: "nv:: x:::n ;...........:w::.:~f;.,r i:: x: •i: k•iiiili;:::v :v.:•v:'i+'~r ~~pL........ ~ VJ.:v:: v.nv:..w::' wW'SYS~ :+W.ivv~wvr •.s.:.; ~:.:•,A;,•iii ::::::::::::::.::::.iNG........'.':.`:::..:::.~~v~r~.~::: :.:::.::.::..n....v:iiC i:}~i~%•ii: i:iw'iC?>J%: n:.......................:................ r».::. I. 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 CCII 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:lraunalMemoskcii.528 2 i ~+iEMORANDIIM 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 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 t pedestrianized areas. 5) Property w,~th 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 reauires 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) Chance of Boundaries An overlay map (see attachment), rather than the CCI zone district, is used to designate properties in the parking 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/Villaae Core (Area A on Overlay Mao) There are essentially no changes to properties in the Village Core - new parking demand is recruired to pay in ` lieu and the program can be used to compensate for the removal of any existing on-site structured or surface parking space. ' 3 3) Meadow Drive Area (Area B on Overlay Manl 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 barking spaces only,. A 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. w 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) Chancre 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 Prooosed to be In Procrram Removed from Procrram ~ Lionshead Center Antlers Gondola Building/Sunbird L'Ostello (formerly Montaneros called Enzian Lodge) Concert Ha11 Plaza Lionsquare Lodge and Landmark Lion'.s Square North Lifthouse Lodge Vail Glo 5 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. f 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 i 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: A 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 a 9 A ~St• F ~IlL1- ~ 0 E.AS~ MEADOW ~ ~ MEADOW 0 . K ~ . } TRACTS'` o ~ , f? 1 ~ 1 3 ~ ~ r r ~ \ . , , ~ SORE GEi 2 ~'t~Owpt,, 5 ~ cf~ GpR'E, ;1~ p-3 K x K _ RAC ~ . , „ '=`'r'' 2 ~ o ~ , f., r,. ~ - _ . o e , . ~ ; ; ~ ; ~ ; . _ i 1 ~ Area ` rr ram QVertay Map prey ..g,. lla a Perking Pr°g s, 1990 . '~~il ~ g of prdtnanCe NO' Appendix A . -.,..rte f Jr- ~ a~~~ , , , , ¦~M _ -r ~ ~ PARKIN 2 gTRUCTURE . NS~'~A~ . VA1 . st. 1 tNG . ~ 0 1 EAST I.IONSHEAD ~ ? 1~1 ,t~1.1 rr~n . it 1\\- 1. r. \ I-?1 i - ` - 1 ` ~ ~I ~Ti l~-..f \ l~ 1 -i_\Ili i iii i~:l ~ \l. ~l~ ~ 1%1^\ .1 1 j / i •?i\_ \-"r-1' ~ I lam/ 1 0 \ III ~ i``r~i ~r~:. X11 ~Il=~~\i r~r 1, ~~1. ~1~-{~ I i 4th. . _ r. I _ ;.:_I: 1.,, / .-:1_;::-11~: . ACT _ ~ rl'•~ 1~1~~ ~ 1 ~ ` 1 : ~1' t ~I IL: i ~ -.1: !-1 1 1. ~.:1. s i 1 JI r ? , • Ir r\'_ \I- r s ~a l'~II~I\ ~ 1 1 1~~ ?~-t ~ % L li .i r I .r. . -j - .rl~ 1 1 r\ l~ l ~ 1 ir~i 1\-\ \ ~I~~iii 11 I \f-\ ~I~~ 1 { ~ li Imo!^1~ ~\s~ ?~r\Ilw- ~D G~ AC a ~ ~ACf Q ~ , Ivt ~ ~ ~ , TRACT B i Dp 3 TRACT A f r ' r - w':11. 1~i1\iw:\r:\' ~ ~~i1i1'i~+li i~.ll~- r~ iL ~,~l:\ ~^I'~li l`-\~il\~yl, {~~j /Ii1~,tir~1-1^r~r ~ ~ 1 ~ il~~ i ~ rL ~ ~I i~~/,iyrlrJlr• j ~ :.1 ;.ter pverlay Map ::1-\~-,.;.,.~,,_, Program sue~l+~i.~^,f,.~olle~y M.v 1 L.ionshead Parking ~~e:~~~~° ix B of Ordinance No• 36, ~ 990 Append • . . Q$~11dDVli TO: Zoning Code Task Force . Rristan Pritz FROM: Tom Braun DATE: January 30, 1991 SUBJECT: Pay in Lieu Parking Program ~A., This memo fs 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 Saus 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.II.'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 prom~.nent 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 X11 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). ~ONSHEAD 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 zevised 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 new development would require 15 spaces, the new development would only have to provide 5 spaces because the original 30 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 i~ 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 devel..r.~ent 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 fs 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 Winq 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 ,~4 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$, or 69 spaces. Please remember assumptions were made to generate this estimate. Nonetheless, this analysis does provide a.clear indication that the relative impact of future development on the Village-wide parking situation is not great. While numbers are not available, it fs assumed that a similar situation exists in Lionshead. Even with the estimate of 100 additional spaces being satisfied by payment in lieu, the overall impact on the public parking facilities is probably less in . Lionshead than in the Village. This is because the vast majority r of devel..~~.ent in Lionshead has on-site parking. This is not the case in the Village. The Town has just spent a large amount of money to expand its parking facilities, and having done so, concerns about the long term effect of the parking program are reasonable. The justification made in this memo for maintaining the parking program would fall apart if we were dealing with additional _ development ,potential that could increase parking demand by 50$. ~Iowever, 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, ft is rec..~.~...ended that changes to the pay in Lieu program be limited to amendments recommended in the November 4th memo to the Zoning Code Task Force. These changes are: y~onshead * 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 nat affect mall and is necessary for the condominiums. ~ Vail Vi~acte * 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 L - * The Lodge is removed from pay in lieu as the property has vehicular access that does not affect any existing or future t- 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 i/io/9i ~ ~r ir,~.iet: oa:'kir~ rro~•as Y~° ~w~TJL RETAIL TOTAL ~ . RLi.~E E7C5?~ A''TU1C POi~iT~11L DFIIL .EST. Stff MR".JBi 'AR:EL - ACR:JIGE D.U.t 1 DU t AIJ 1 DU t~TS POTENTIAL OF I~F11L OEIaL^ , J C:d~. 0.17 [ 0 2 2 la+ O [ 3e11 7aer D.1[ 3~ 3 0 3 0 lar 0 0 :a:i.~u 0.1E 3 C 3 1 loi 0 1 :oVE; E. Bride C.:i 2 i C 0 1 iur 0 2 ~'tc.~~idc 0.23 S [ 0 [ 1 ae'S;a: S00 [ :r-a ~'s 0.11 2 O D 0 2 adi~ 2Cr S 'i::'UFO Scott Bld4. 0.03 1 0 0 0 1 la+ 0 1 ae:lc;r O.Q7 1 1 0 1 0 low 0 0 las•.!~:' ~ae:`~:~er D.37 9 6 :7 O acdi:~ E50 3 loiden Peak Hasse 0.16 [ Za 6 23 O log 0 0 ;ore Cree?. Plaza 0.17 [ S 0 S 0 la 0 0 sill eld 0.20 [ 1 0 1 3 la+ 0 6 aco+ c at Ytl 2.09 67 0 62 31 36 tuF; 3600 35 ~d:: A; G. E: 59 S4 0 lo. 0 0 _odr_ s«;tr: o.3c a o [2 c iaa o 0 icBr id= 0. i7 [ C 0 0 [ la. 0 8 i::l G e:l::c_ : 13 C 13 C hid`. 1'•,^..~, Inc 4's:: C. C~ S 0 5 6 lc. C 12 ayr_ ..3~ 7 ~ .r 13 C iv: 0 0 ._r1. V •r :E~ 0.:~ ~ 3 u ~ s A G e c ~ 1~~ 0 0 Ce 7 G 7i G Iw 0 0 . :;.3:,;. ,,.:i G S C 8 lay 0 0 ?:':AL 7.2'_~ SEA 26^ 13G 335 E 6E5~ 96 A:,:e:. Y... YiiiE7e !faster F:a•. is so~Tce of th,:s dz:e. a. t; s s ta. ai~t.;n~ i 'n LL'i r: 2.: Do:en.:8. re..ec.s d:.i1C'1..) li: S2...).... ~i~. Cr::E.':Z !1::1:JC re:3:: F::=~=inl ref:E::S SOLE ~::e':ILi for 5::1:+fYi~:.. :Er18 Y.:;:. ; e:ai: D::.:.~~:...:::-° ~::~e::. ides tifie~ it L:°x" x Y'."t' :arc.;: N:». fl_~. ? 0.,. C C 0 7 lou 0 1l ionC;,:z b.:liC:ry ? C.C 0 C C ? hi~1 ? ? :arr a; ? 0.0 58 0 SS 0 Iou 0 Sa.~.`..:..' Aresrc ? 0.0 1[ 0 1[ 0 hid: 1500 5 ~or,::z::.d Censer ? G.0 2: C 25 0 high 30C0 30 sc;.s Pride ? D.G D 0 0 0 log 0 a`.::z::sE sod;: ? G.0 [5 0 [5 0 aedi~ 15~ S 1,:»ar.; o:. 1.C2 25.5 C [1 0 lou 0 _ , xati,ud Lie 1.[9 37.3 Sv D 50 0 tu¢i 2200 7 7ai121 ? QO 19 0 19 C tu~'•~ 10~ 3 ? ?252 0 252 ? u W`.es: Resd:at:a: dcvelo~t D;,`-e vial b::°~ or, TOV E?wclo na'istics R.`.=.: sc~.-E foo:dyE t5`.iL3~eS b,~5ec a, Li«,~n!e~ vacP PLANNIIJG AND ENVIRONMENTAL, COMMISSION April 8, 1991 Present Staff Diana Donovan Kristan Pritz Connie Knight Mike Mollica Ludwig Ktuz Jill Kammerer Kathy Langenwalter Andy Knudtsen Jim Shearer Shelly Mello Gena Whitten Betsy Rosolack Tom Braun Absent Amber Blecker Chuck Grist The worksession was called to order at 1:15PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan. a 1. A worksession to consider a conditiona] use Hermit and a density variance to allow the construction of additions to existing structures and the construction of emnlovee housing on the Davs Inn site. 2211 N. Frontage Road/Lot 1. Block A, Vail Das Schone Third Filing. a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone First Filing ~ Annlicant: 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..,rosal. 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 1...,~.osal, 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 i 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 Parking and Loading, Section 18.26.150 -Commercial Core II Parking and Loading, and Section 18.22.140 -Public Accommodation Parkins and Loading. 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 r:..,+on 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 team, 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. 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 proposed variance criteria would allow anyone to be defied. 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 r..: rided through the pay in lieu system. Kathy asked that language be placed in the code that a redevelopmcnt r. ~;ect 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 redevelopment resulted in a decreased parking requi.;,...ent, 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 dme payment r. rision. 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 r. „r ;sties also had the ability to have direct vehicular access. Kathy agreed that the Mill Creek Building should also be excluded 1',.~... the program, but felt that the physical difficulties with that site, a steep drive for example, prohibited putting parking on site. Connie e..r.:,ssed her arr.;,hension over excluding office and condo spaces, and felt that the exceptions should not be placid in the ordinance. Tom countered by saying the code could be more clear, 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 commuticated to the Commission that the possibility of an office or condo redevel..r...ent 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 parking 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 r.,, rided parking 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 separate 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 parking process too simple. Kristan indicated it was already difficult in Lionshead to obtain a~t,~.~~al for devel.,r...ent due to the amount of condo associations, and Connie Knight agreed, stating the ~,~..,F,osed 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 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 E.,... 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 .,l:od of " time. ff that space were then converted to office space, there would have to be a variance given to the on-sift 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 xss 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 procedure 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 parkdng 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 Langcnwalter moved to recommend to Town Council that they amend Town of Vail Muticipal Code Section 18.52.160 -Off Smeet 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 E~.~... the Planning and Environmental Commission to 23 the Town Council was that the Commissioners felt that their charge was to get as much parking provided in the private sector as possible. Jun Shearer seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. 4a Proposed amendments m Section 18.22.140. Parkins and Loadins in the PA district: Section 18.24.180. Parkins and Loadins in the CCI district: and Section 18.26.150. Parkins 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. ff they added 500 sq. ft, they would be required to add 1 1R covered parking 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 r..,rased amendments to Section 18.22.140, Parking and Loading in the PA l district; Section 18.24.180, Paring and Loading in the CCI district; and Section 18.26.150, 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. A~nroval of minutes f..,?~? March 25. 1991 PEC meetins. Gena Whitten moved the minutes f..,... the March 25, 1991 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting be apr.., red, 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. i 24 I r I t t ANALYSIS OF PAIL RETAIL SPACE NEEDS Prepared for: Town of Vail June 1987 HAMMERSILERGEORGEASSOCIATES ' Atlanta/Denver/Fort Lauderdale/S11ver Spring/Washington, D.C. 1638 Pennsylvania Street Denver, Colorado 80203 3 03/8b0-9996 t ~ of r.ONTENTS P~sg Section I. THE EXISTING RETAIL ECONQM_Y_ 1 Retail Inventory 1 Retail Sales 4 Rent Structure 7 Seasonal Sales Patterns 8 Section II. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RETAIL MARK Q 11 Residential Retail Expenditures 14 Section III. RETAIL DEYELOPM~NT POT~NTIA~ 21 Current Retail Space Potentials 21 Local Potentials 21 Tourist Potentials 23 f Future Retail Potentials 25 Specialty Food Store Potential 2S . Development and Planning Issues 29 _ New Space Requirements 32 Lionshead 34 ~ New Retail Nodes 35 Secondary Impacts of Retail Trade 36 Conclusions 3E HIM~?tFR • SII~'R • CiF.(.~LC~ • ASSC)CIAT'E';~ ~ ~ 1 i t 1 i Section I. THE EXIr~TING RETAIL ECONOMY i The analysis of a local retail economy is generally conducted with } respect to three broad categories of retail goods. Convenience goods are items which are purchased frequently such as food, drugs and liquor and ~ are usually sought at locations close to consumers' homes. Shoppers ' goods, on the other hand, are less frequently purchased items such as I apparel and furniture for which consumers desire comparison shopping opportunities. These goods are most frequently sought at regional retail trade centers including regional shopping centers and central business districts. Finally. eating and drinking establishments, including restaurants and bars, include local neighborhood establishments, highway I oriented fast food, and restaurants which draw from wider geographic areas. B~tail Inventor The first step of the analysis was to inventory existing retail establishments in the Town of Vail and to categorize this space by location and types of goods. The inventory, discussed below, 1s developed from information compiled by the Town.of Vail Department of Community Development based primarily on the floor plans of existing commercial buildings 1n Yail and identification of the retail ` establishments located 1n those spaces. • HA.~t~g'R • St1FR • GE~(7iK'~ • ASS(7CIATEf ' i The Town of Vail has three well defined commercial areas: the Village, Lionshead and West Va11. Vail Ytllage 1s by far the predominant area and Bridge Street, in the heart of the Village, is the prime retail location 1n Vatl. As shown in Table 1 on the next page, the Village contains 289,73 8 square feet of retail space which is well over half of the total retail inventory in Va11. The Village. area is the dominant location for shoppers goods and eating and drinking establishments with 66 percent and 59 percent, respectively, of the total square feet to these categories. By contrast. the Village contains dust 24 percent of I the convenience goods square footage. Overall shoppers goods establishments account for 69 percent of the stores and 55 percent of the I square feet of retail space in the Village; restaurants and bars make up 25 percent of the establishments and 39 percent of the space, with I convenience goods stores accounting for about six percent of both the number of stores and square footage. By contrast, Lionshead accounts for one-fifth of the Town's inventory with 102,490 square feet of total space, which is f ust over , one-third as much retail space as the Village. Shoppers goods and eating and drinking establishments each occupy about half of the space with I convenience goods stores accounting for lust two percent of the space. Shoppers goods stores account for nearly two-thirds of the number of establishments. Vail is the redominant convenience goods location with over 68 I West p percent of Vail's total square feet in this category. The ma~orlty of this is accounted for by the Safeway supermarket. The total square I footage of retail space in West Vail makes up less than 19 percent of the overall inventory. 1 -2- ~-In.~~~1t • SnF~t • GFA~. • r~c~CL~TFs Table 1. TOWN OF VAIL RETAIL INVENTORY. 1987 S,g~re Feet of SQ~e ~e Vill~gg Lionshead }fit Vaj.j Other Total Convenience Goods Food 12,493 1,485 38,400 2,000 54.378 Drug 0 0 4,624 0 4,624 Liquor 4,350 873 4,200 600 10,023 Total 16,843 2,358 47,224 2,600 69,025 Shoppers Goods Hardware/Building Materials 0 0 7,348 0 7,348 Clothing 27,225 8,539 11,440 0 47,204 Ski b Sport 59,676 21,942 2,600 3,200 87,418 Jewelry 9,114 1,303 0 0 10,419 Gift 7,831 1,787 0 0 9,618 T-shirts 9,168 4,003 0 0 13,171 Fur 2,429 840 0 0 3,269 Gallery 8,877 1,370 0 0 10,247 Other Misc. Shoppers Goods 35,538 12,116 5,514 0 53,168 Total 159,858 51.900 26,902 3.200 241,860 Eating and Drinking Restaurants 9 8,578 38,187 10,700 9,450 156,915 Fast Food 5,456 0 6,650 300 12,406 Clubs 9,003 10,045 2,000 0 21,048 Total 113,037 48,232 19,350 9,750 190,369 TOTAL RETAIL 289,73 8 102,490 93.476 15,550 501,254 Source: Town of Vail and Hammer, Siler, George Associates Only three percent of the total retail inventory of the Town of Vail is located outside of these three maJor locations. Included in the "other" category are small amounts of retail space in Cascade Yiltage and East Vail. -3- Hti~~~t ~ SuFx ~ CEt~~tC~ •:~ssc~ct~-~~ _ I ~a11 Sa es The analysis of retail sales levels is based upon sales tax data from the Town of Yail, consultant interviews with merchants, and the inventory data already tabulated. The purpose of this analysis 1s to evaluate the health of the retail trade sector and the need or potential I for additional retail space. Unusually high sales per square foot could indicate a shortage of commercial space, while very low sales might suggest an excess of space or a mix of stores not meeting market desires. I Estimated overall sales per square foot by store type are shown in Table 2 below. I Table 2. RETAIL SASS PER SQUARE F00T ~Y STORE TYPE I Sa7e~ er dales oer ~,~Qre Ty~g ~gy~re foot amore Tv~ ~~re FoQ~ Shoppers Goods 5259 Convenience 5270 Hardware/Building Materials D Food 5275 Clothing 5195 Drug D Ski and Sport 5250 Liquor 5295 Jewelry 5400 Gift 5175 Eating and Drinking 5210 I T-shirts 5455 Restaurants 5225 Fur 5280 Fast Foods 5220 Gallery 5200 Clubs 5 90 Miscellaneous Retail 5200 D = Withheld to avoid disclosure of data regarding a single establishment. Source: Town of Vail and Hammer. Siler, George Associates In the broad retail sate ories convenience oods stores re i r g g g ste ed . the highest sales per square foot followed by shoppers goods stores and eating and drinking establishments. The relative relationship between the ma,~or categories 1s generally what would be expected, especially -4- }~i~.'1L~tFlt • SIl~t • GF~c~ •ASS(~L~TFF given the predominance of smaller specialty shops among the shoppers goods category. However, actual sales per square foot are above industry standards 1n all maJor categories reflecting strong overall sales levels. Among the more disaggregated store categories, Jewelry stores and T-shirt shops have sales levels well above all other categories. Two . factors are responsible for these high sales levels. First, both Jewelry and T-shirt shops tend to have small space requirements, averaging well below 1,000 square feet per establishment compared to approximately 1,400 square feet on average for all shoppers goods establishments in Vail. Jewelry shops deal in extremely high value merchandise resulting in high sales levels relative to space requirements. In the case of the T-shirt shops. very high volume contributes to the high sales per square foot. The second factor is that the goods offered by stores in these two categories appear to be especially attractive to Vail visitors. T-shirt shops are extremely productive in areas with such a high number of tourists and luxury items, such as Jewelry, appeal to the upscale visitor attracted to Yail. There is also considerable variation in sales per square foot by maJor retail area, as shown in Table 3. The Village has the highest retail volume with overall average sales of 5250 per square foot, followed by Lionshead with sales of 5225 per foot and West Vail with per square foot sales averaging 5205. -5- Hn.1L~iF~t • SII~3t • GE~cxtc~ •ASS(XL~ITFS ` - Table 3. RETAIL SALES PFR SQ!~ARE FOOT BY RETAIL AREA ~e Vill~,gg Lionshead hest Vail X11 Vim, Convenience 5265 5160 5285 527 0 Shoppers Goods 5260 5250 5105 5240 Eating and Drinking 5235 5200 5135 5210 All Retail 5250 5225 5205 5230 Source: Town of Vail and Hammer, Siler, George Associates The West Vail area figures represent sales close to industry norms for community-serving shopping center space. Vai1.V111age and Lionshead are characterized by smaller specialty merchants serving the tourist population. This type of space typically has higher sales per square foot. Perhaps the most surprlsing point is that although the Yillage, as expected, records the strongest sales, Lionshead is not that far behind. Given the inventory in the Village which is nearly three times the total in Lionshead, the relative sales levels in Lionshead are actually stronger than might be expected. It is also important to remember that the figures reported are averages. Some establlshments are recording sales levels well in excess and some well below these figures. There are dlfferences between particular store types by general area and by specific location, with stores on Bridge Street. for example, often recording substantially higher sales levels than similar types of establlshments elsewhere.... These differences in sales levels. both in comparison to lndustry norms and by specific location in Vail, are reflected 1n Vail~s retail space rent structure, discussed below. -6- H~w~~t • $IlFR • GF~i(~ • tLSS(X1ATE'' ggPt Structure Rents for retail space in Vail have been increasing during the last two years. They are generally higher than industry-wide averages but are actually near the norm for specialty retail space 1n high volume resort locations. Rents vary substantially by retail area and to some extent by location within a retail area. As shown in Table 4 below, the rents are highest in Vail Village, followed by Lionshead and West Vail. Table 4. TYPT~ RENTS FOR RETAIL SPACE IN VAjL. Rant Ranae Location Per Sire Fool;. Vail Village 530-350 Lionshead 520-325 West Vail 310-320 Source: Hammer, Siler, George Associates The rents shown are typical for average sized establishments in each area. Rents vary by length of lease, size of space and location, and _ there are some establishments within each area paying rents above and below the levels shown. The broadest range of rents is found in the _ Village with locations on Bridge Street generally commanding the highest rents in Vail, some of which are well above those indicated in Table 4. The rent levels in the Village are comparable to what is paid at successful specialty retail areas in mayor cities such as the Tabor Center in Denver. Most restaurants 1n Vail operate on a percentage of gross sales rather than a per square foot lease arrangement. In general. the retail -7- _ _ HA.~L«t ~ SuFA ~ GF~RC.E • A.SSCX'L~TE~ i r rents reflect the sales levels which can be generated given customer traffic at various locations. Seasonal Steles Patterns A key component of the retail sales analysis in Yail is the seasonal difference in sales volume. It is not surprlstng to find that the five I months from December through April account for 65 percent of annual retail sales. The three summer months of July, August and September account for 20 percent of sales and the four shoulder season months make up the remaining 15 percent. As shown in Table 5, this pattern varies by I store type with over 70 percent of ski and sport shops sales occurring during the five month ski season but Just under 50 percent of grocery I sales occurring during those months. Table 5. $ETAIL SALES BY SEASON l PPrr~t of Annual S~jgs Shoulder l amore TvRg ski Season ~ymmer Seasons • Restaurants 67~ 20% 13~ Bars and Clubs 66~ 19~ 15~ Groceries 50~ 23~ 27~ Liquor Stores 56% 22~ 22~ Clothing 68~ 20~ 12% Hardware/Building Supplies 44~ 25~ 31~ Ski and Sport Shops 73~ 16~ 11~ Ski Rentals 84~ 9~ 7~ Gift Shops and Jewelers 64~ 24~ 12S Convenience 51.°b 23~ 26~ Shoppers Goods 68~ 19~ 13~ Eating and Drinking 67~ 20~ 13~ ` Source: Town of Yail and Hammer, Siler, George Associates t L _8_ L H.ts~n:x ~ suFx ~ c ~,~sx~cL~~ I The categories for which the seasonal data is reported are those currently utilized by the Town of Vail Finance Department and differ somewhat from the categories used elsewhere in this analysis. The explanation for this difference in seasonality is further elaborated upon in the next section addressing the characteristics of the markets for retail goods in Vail. -9- • HA11L'~tFR • SILFR • GF~c:~ • AS,X~L~T'E`:. f f f f f I I I I L l k l L L Section II. CHARACTFRTST~S OF THE RETAIL MARK Q In simplified terms the market for retail goods in Vail is made up of three segments: destination tourists, day tourists, and local residents. There are actually sub-components to these groups such as the front range day tourist, the second home destination tourist and the local employee who lives outside the Town of Vail municipal limits. The characteristics of the tourist groups also vary considerably by season. However, it is beyond the level of data available to deal with disaggregations beyond these three broad categories. Several approaches have been utilized to arrive at the estimates of the share of the retail market accounted for by the three market segments. First, a number of interviews were conducted with local retailers representing a broad cross-section of retail store types. - These store owners and managers were asked to estimate the makeup of their customers during the various seasons. The differences in seasonal _ sales between store types were then analyzed to help confirm the data from the interviews. Finally, the expenditure potential of local residents (which will be discussed further in the next section) was estimated. The breakdown of sales by season by ma,~or retail category are shown in Table 6 below. -11- H•+?i?~~t • SII~t • GEC~LC~ • ASyt~CW 1 r Table 6. ESTIMATED SASS TO MAJOR MARKET SEGMENTS BY SEASON, Shoulder r ~Qre C~~orv M~a k_et SP,~gment $k i Season Summer Seasons Convenience Destination 509 3 09 209 oay l09 zoo 209 Loca 1 409 509 609 Shoppers Goods Destination 859 509 359 i Day 59 159 159 Local 109 359 509 I Eating and Drinking Destination 709 309 209 Day 109 309 209 Local 209 409 609 I Total Retail Destination 759 409 269 Day 79 209 189 Local 189 409 569 Source: Hammer, Siler, George Associates I t Although these figures are estimates, they are believed to ` accurately reflect the general makeup of the retail market in Vail. - Several points are worth noting. First, destination visitors are clearly l - the driving force in the Vail retail economy. During the ski season they account for 85 percent of the shoppers goods sales, 70 percent of the restaurant and bar sales and 50 percent of the convenience sales. Second, although day skiers are estimated to account for about 20 percent of the skier days in Vail, they make less than 10 percent of the total volume of retail purchases. L In 1986 the skier visitation for Vail Mountain broke out as follows: 59 percent out of state destination visitors; nine percent Colorado destination visitors; 15 percent day visitors; and 17 percent local. Colorado destination visitors consist of individuals who stayed overnight l -12- f HMt~g'x . SIIFx . GF~tc'~ •:~sxxl~r~~ L I at least one night in Vail. As a result, this figure includes weekend visitors•-- generally considered by merchants as day visitors in terms of their expenditure patterns, as well as Colorado residents who en,~oyed longer stays in Yail. For purposes of this analysis we have split this Colorado "destination" component between the destination and day skiers. In Table 7 the retail purchases per day per skier are estimated for the three broad categories of convenience goods, shoppers goods. and eating and drinking establishments. Table 7. AVERAGE DAISY RETAIL PURCHASES BY SKIERS Destination Skiff Q~v SkigL Convenience Goods 5 6.90 5 4.00 Shoppers Goods 42.00 8.00 Eating and Drinking 24.00 11.00 Total 372.00 523.00 Source: Hammer, Siler, George Associates As can be seen, the average destination skier spends 50 percent more on convenience goods, more than five times as much on shoppers goods and more than twice as much in eating and drinking establishments than does . the day skier. Put another way, the average day skier might purchase - lunch and either a small ski, clothing or sundry item during a day at Vail. On the other hand, the week-long visitor purchases two meals a _ day; some groceries, and may buy new skis, ski apparel or gifts while 1n Vatl. The sales per skier shown 1n the table Include sales to .members of a party who visit Vail but do not ski and are therefore slightly higher than the actual expenditures per skier. -13- ~"f.~.»~ ' SSA ' Ci~~ ' l~X ~.'~E~ During the summer and off-season months local resident expenditures make up a much greater portion of retail sales. Although 1t is less meaningful to distinguish between day and destination visitors during the summer season, total tourist expenditures drop from 82 percent to 60 percent of all retail sales, and during the off-season tourists account for about 44 percent of sales compared to 56 percent for local residents. The result is that tourists account for about 72 percent of annual retail sales and destination tourists spend about 60 percent of all the retail dollars captured in Yail. Resident Retail xpenditures In order to analyze the expenditures by local residents a three-step analysis is conducted. First total money income of Town of Vail residents is estimated for 198b. This is calculated by multiplying the total population times average per capita money income, as shown in Table 8. To this figure is added an allowance for income earned in Va11 by residents of nearby communities. These two components make up the local market for retail goods in Vail. -14- _ H~AL'1iFit • SIIFR • CiE(lFa(~ • t1SSC)C1ATfs Table 8. MONEY INCOME OF VAIL RESIDENTS AND EMPLOYEES, 1987_ QfhPr F~,gle County Res 1 dents Wor1,SjIlQ mil Rp,~idents in V~ 1979 Per Capita Money Income (1987 5) 520,700 515,100 Real Annual Income Growth Rate (1979-1984) 0.6~b 1.5% Estimated 1987 Per Capita Money Income 521,700 517,000 Estimated 1987 Population 4,500 2,250 ~ Estimated 1987 Total Money Income 597,765,000 338,250,000 1/ Based on estimated Vail employment participation rate of .5 and 50 percent of Yail total employment by non-Vail residents. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce and Hammer? Siler, George Associates The second step is to estimate the retail expenditures by this local component of the market. This is done by first developing an expenditure profile for Colorado residents based on total money income 1n Colorado and statewide retail sales reported in the most recent Census of Retail Trade for Colorado. Based on actual sales at the statewide level, the portion of total income spent by store category is calculated and shown 1n Table 9 below. -15- Ha~c~ffR • SIIFR ~ GF~ac~ ~ Assc~cUr~~ I Table 9. LQ(;AL RESIDENT EXP~ITURE POTENTIAL TOWN OF VAIL, 1986 P~enti~ Percent tail I of Income Expenditures Convenience Goods Food 11.31.`6 511.059,928 I Liquor 1.98 1,063,314 Drug Stores 1.09 1,052,031 Total 13.49 513,185,274 I Shoppers Goods I General Merchandise Department Stores 4.72 6,422,919 Other 0.37 507,420 Apparel b Accessories 2.37 3,225,539 I Furniture 2.37 3,220,874 Building Materials/ Hardware 2.569n 3,485,819 Misc. 2.1L~ 2,870,797 Total 14.SL`6 19,733,368 Eating b Drinking 5.6096 57,618576 1 TOTAL 33.609 540,537,218 Note: Convenience potential based on Vail resident income only (approximately 598 m111ton). Shoppers Goods and Eating and Drinking potential based on Ya11 resident Income plus allowance for nonresident Vail employees (approximately 5136 million total). Source: Hammer, Siler, George Associates This profile is applied to the local income in Va11 to estimate local expenditures. As shown, 33.6 percent of total Income is spent in the store categories analyzed. Only the Income for actual Vail residents • is used for the analysis of convenience goods because this represents the -16- H.~~L'?iFR • SII.FR • GF~t~ • r1SS(xL~TFS i extent of the primary local market for these goods. Other intervening competitive opportunities exist, such as the City Market in Avon, for non-Vail residents working 1n Vail. On the other hand, the allowance for nonresident employees is added to the potential for shoppers goods and eating and drinking establishments because Vail is clearly the primary location for these types of establishments in the local area and the primary local market for these retailers would extend beyond the city limits. Finally. these expenditure estimates are compared to our estimates of retail sales to the local population. The estimated local retail expenditures in Yail and the net outflows by retail category are shown 1n Table 10 below. -17- Hr1.~L~ffR • SIIFR • GF~RC~ •:~SS(.)CLCTF.'' . 1• Table 10. LOCAL RESIDE RETgjl EXPEN 7TURE OUT~•OWS: VAIL, 1986 Potential Existing Perch f Retail L~1 Retail Net Inflows Resident Expenditures ~oenditures end Outfl~s jn/Out 1 w Convenience Goods 1 Food 511,059,928 5 8,671,312 (52,3 88,617) -21.60 Liquor 1,063,314 1,005,3 82 (57,932) -5.45 Drug Stores 1.052,031 426,888 (635,144) -59.80' Total 513,185,274 510.103,582 (53,081,692) -23.37 ` Shopper's Goods General Merchandise Deptartment Stores 6,422,919 0 (56,422,919) -100.00% Other 507,420 0 (507,420) -100.00 1 Apparel a Accessories 3,225.539 1,439,114 (1,786,425) -55.38 Furniture 3,220,874 0 (3.220,874) -100.00 f Building Materials/ Hardware 3,485.819 690,124 (2,795,695) -80.20 Misc. 2,870,797 7,633,487 4,762,689 165.90 Total 19,733,368 9,762,725 (59,970,643) -50.53 Eating 8 Drinking 57,618576 57,818,574 SI99,998 2.63 TOTAL 540,537,218 527,684,881 (512.852,337) -31.716 Source: Hammer, Siler, George Associates I The overall net outflows 1n convenience and shoppers goods I categories represent expenditures which are made outside the Town of Vail or are deferred due to lack of shopping opportunity. The "inflow" in I eating and drinking probably represents an expenditure pattern among the local Vail population which differs from the statewide average, i.e.. it ~ would appear that Vail residents expend a higher-than-average proportion of Income in restaurants and bars. -18- HMtAtFR • SIIFR • GE(xtC~ • ASSC~LIT~'' i In Table 11 is a simplified model of the overall Vail retail economy which shows total inflows and outflows. Approximately 512.8 million of local residents' expenditures occur outside the Town of Vail representing a 32 percent net outflow of the total resident expenditure potential. The outflow is more than offset by 589.7 million in visitor expenditures, and total retail sales are almost three times the total local expenditure potential. Table 11. OVERALL VAIL RETAIL INFLOW AND OUTFIQb( Total Local Location of Expenditures $g~ideni` Va11 ~tside Yail ~penditures Local Residents 3 27,700,000 312,800,000 540,500,000 Vail Visitors 89,700,000 NA Total Vail Retail Sales 5117,400,000 Source: Hammer, Siler, George Associates Based on the foregoing analysts of the existing retail economy to • Vail the next section discusses current potentials for capturing additional retail sales 1n Va11. Future potentials tied to ski area growth are also examined. These potentials are then translated to demand . for retail space and the development impacts of accommodating this demand are discussed. -19- HA.tiL'~ffR • SIIFR • GEC~C;~ • ASSCxL•1T'E'' I r f f f I I I I L l l l l l l Section III. RETAIL DEYELOPM~PlT POT~NTIAL~ This section of the report first evaluates whether additional retail space 1s needed or supportable 1n the Town of Vail today. Second, the amount of additional retail space needed 1n future years to meet the needs of additional forecast skier visits is determined. Third, locational considerations regarding where additional retail space should be built are addressed. ~rreIIt Rail She Potentials The potentials for additional retail space could come from either local residents or tourists or some combination of the two. Additional local resident support could come from a store entering the market that provides goods and services that residents are now buying outside of - Vail. Additional tourist support would come as a result of overall sales levels increasing to the point that additional stores are supportable or _ because a type of store not currently in the market 1s identified that appeals to the Vail visitor and generates additional retail sales. Local Potentials - The first step 1n assessing existing unmet potentials is to reexamine the local resident outflow discussed earlier and shown in Table - 10. The majority of the outflow now occurring is in the general -21- _ H~.~L~iFR • SIlFA • GEd~ • r1SSOCL~?TF~ • ~ .f • -l f merchandise, furniture and food categories. To some extent the outflow 1n general merchandise is offset by higher than average sales in miscellaneous shoppers goods categories. This reflects the fact that there are no true department stores in Vail and that some expenditures .which would ordinarily be made in department stores now are made in specialty shops which are accounted for in the miscellaneous shoppers goods and apparel categories. There is significant net outflow 1n shoppers goods overall, most of which probably could not be captured without a general merchandise retailer such as a department or discount store. There does not appear to be sufficient land available 1n Vail at a price which would allow development of such a mayor store along with the parking requirements it would entail. Wal-Mart stores recently built in Frisco and planned in Avon are likely to capture a significant portion of this potential. As shown in Table 12 the planned store in Avon alone could capture up to 34 percent of the current outflow of general merchandise sales potentials. Table 11. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF WAL-MART STORE IN GENERAL l NIERCHANQISE OI~TFLOW. TOWN OF VAS Wal-Mart Potential Sales (52,800 sq. ft. @ 5150 per square foot) 57,920,000 Less 40~ sales to tourists -3,168,000 Sales to local residents 54,752,000 @ 50~ to Vail Residents and Employees 52,376,000 Vail Local General Merchandise Outflow 56,930,330 C Percent Capture of "Vail Outflow" by Wal-Mart 34~ Source: Hammer, Siler, George Associates i' L -22- C HAI?L1iFR • SII.FR • Gf~RC~ •r1SSCXL~I'F'' • . - There is also significant dollar value (though less significant in - percentage terms) outflow in convenience goods. This results from the fact that even convenience goods retailers are oriented to some extent toward the "captive" destination tourist market. This allows them to • achieve higher markups than might otherwise exist. Competition from other convenience retailers in the region is likely to continue to be a i • major factor unless another major supermarket can be supported 1n Vail creating additional competition. The current resident outflow 1n this category 1s not sufficient to support another such major convenience retailer and is not likely to be in the immediate future. There may, however, be an opportunity to support a store which fits a specific niche ' not currently occupied in the convenience market. A specialty food market could be such a store; a proposal for such a development was part of the impetus for this study and that potential is dealt with separately later in this report. - Tourist Potgntials, - Given current skier visitation levels additional tourist dollars could be captured in Vail in two ways: 1) increase summer and off-season visitation; and 2) attract a new store or stores to Vail which are not currently represented in the market but which would have sufficient _ appeal to Yail visitors to cause them to increase their expenditure levels. Increasing summer and off-season visitation would increase sales of existing merchants but would not generate any significant demand for. additional retail space. The focus of this study 1s retail space needs and, therefore, the impact of increasing non-ski season visitation 1s not examined in depth. However, increasing off-season and summer visitation is, nonetheless, a worthy goal and would have three significant positive impacts in Vail by: 1) increasing sales tax revenues without creating =23- Hq.~L1iER • SIIFR • GF~OR[~ • ASSOCIAT'FS significant new demands for public sector services; 2) strengthening existing retail businesses in Vail; and 3) generating more full-time r year-round (as opposed to part-time seasonal) employment in the retail sector. There does not appear to be an opportunity to capture significant additional sales to current Vail ski season visitors. The current mix of retail shops offer a wide variety of shoppers goods and sufficient I opportunities to make eating and drinking and convenience purchases. This is borne out by comparing our estimates of average sales per destination skier visit in Vail with estimates for the state. A 1985 I study, The Contribution o~ Mina to the Colorado Economv, prepared for Colorado Ski Country USA, found that the average destination skier spent I about S64 (in 19 86 dollars) per visit on retail goods, including eating and drinking. Our analysis of expenditure patterns in Vail indicated that Va11 destination skiers spent approximately S72 per visit, 13 percent more than the Colorado average. I Vail also has considerably more retail space per housing unit than do comparable resort areas. A study of commercial space in resort areas I conducted by the Urban Land Institute found that resort areas generally support between 50 and 75 square feet of retail and restaurant space per residential dwelling unit, including single-family homes, condominiums and hotel rooms, with mature resorts closer to the 50-foot figure. In I Vail there are 65 square feet of retail space per dwelling unit, and this suggests an adequate supply of retail space to capture visitors' retail expenditures. I There could be an opportunity to make some incremental gains in I ' retail sales 1f a popular ma,~or retailer, such as a Banana Republic (an I -24- I HA.~tti~It • SIIFA • GF~tc~ • ASSUCIATE~ outdoor fashion store) or Gart Brothers (a large sporting goods store) entered the Vail market. Although this might not require a significant addition to the Vail inventory of retail space, there are few large spaces available in Vail and new construction might be required to attract such a retailer to Vail. For most Vail retailers the growth curve in sales appears to be flattening out. There will continue to be opportunities for new establishments to enter the market either by replacing businesses which no longer serve market demands or by occupying space in small additions planned to existing retail buildings. However, we do not see a major current unmet need for additional retail space in Vail. Major new retail developments, if they occur at all, will be in response to increased destination tourist trade as discussed below. Future Rail Potenti~ As noted above, destination visitors during the ski season are the driving force behind retail sales levels in Va11. The Vail ski area 1s currently undergoing significant expansion anticipating that additional - capacity will result in Increased numbers of skiers. Because ski season sales will determine retail space requirements it is possible to project _ additional space needs as a function of additional skiers. During the 1986 ski season there were approximately 1,250,000 skier days recorded at Vail. This translates to overall ski season sales of 561.00 per skier or, put another way, a little less than one-half square foot of retail space per skier. Skiers will continue to be the driving , force behind retail space requirements in Vail. The current amount of space essentially supports a healthy but not constrained retail economy; =25- - Ii1.~L~ffR • SIIFR • GF~t+c~ • ASSCK:L~I'E'' • ~r r therefore, skier growth rates can be applied to estimate future space needs by broad retafl category. We have protected additional retail space requirements by broad retail category for three levels of skier visitation growth as shown in Table 13 below. Table 13. pRO~ECTED BETA L SPACE DEMANQ Total Sourre ~t of SQ~e Req~,~ i rPd_ Year Protected* 1990 1995 2000 I Skier Days 1,373,700 1,519,500 1,617,000 Convenience Goods 76,076 84,150 89,549 Shoppers Goods 265,794 294,005 312,870 Eating 8 Drinking ZI0,856 233.236 248,202 Total 552,726 611,391 650,621 Cumulative Net New Space 1990 1995 2000 l Convenience Goods 6,851 14,925 20,324 Shoppers Goods 23,934 52,145 71,010 Eating d Drinking 18,987 41,376 56,333 Total 49,772 108,437 147,667 *"Year Protected" provides a point of reference for when skfer days may reach these levels. Demand for addi- tional retail space is purely a function of skier days and not the years indicated on this table. Source: Hammer, Skier, George Associates t L -26- HA.~LtffR • SIIFR • GE(~:E •AS5(XL~I•FL i Although these are the levels of visitation projected in the yail Land Use P1~ for 1990-1991, 1995-1996, and 1999-2000 ski seasons, we have not evaluated these pro,~ections and the focus is not on what the needs will be by a specific year but, rather, on the demand for space which will result at defined visitation levels. We project demand for an additional 49,800 square feet of space when annual skier days increase to 1,37 4,000 per year; another 58,700 square feet will be needed when skier visitation reaches 1,520,000 per year; and 39,200 square feet of additional space will be supportable when skier days reach 1,617,000 per year. This analysis is based on maintaining the existing mix of local, destination and day skiers. Changing the mix between day and destination skiers could impact the retail space demand. Although changes of five percent or less would have a relatively minor Impact on the retail sales and the demand for retail space, a change of as much as ten percent could have significant ramifications. As shown in Table 14, if ten percent increase in destination skiers as a percent of total skiers occurred by 1990 (Column C) it would result 1n an S11 million swing in retail sales and a difference of more than 40,000 square feet in the retail space demand. - If destination visitors increased to 74 percent of total visitors, more than 90,000 square feet of new retall space would be required with 50,000 _ of that in the shoppers goods categories. =27- Hatit~~x ~ SaF1t ~ GEO~c,~ • Assc~cL~~ • Table 14. EFFECT OF CHANGING SfSjER MTX ON RETAIL SPACE DEMAND FOR 1990 Percent Skier Mix 9 ~ r Destination 54~ 64~ 74~ Oay 29~ I9~ 9ro Local 17~ 17~ 17~ Reta 11 Sp~e D r~n~l (Sn?~re Feg$,~ Convenience 74,000 76,000 78,000 Shoppers Goods 237,000 265,000 293,000 Eating 8 Drinking 199,000 211,000 223,000 TOTAL 510.000 552,000 594,000 ~ Skier mix in 1985. Source: Hammer, Skier, George Associates If such a drastic swing was 1n the other direction, toward more day skiers, it could result in a 42,000 square faot reduction in total retail space demand (Column A). Most of this reduction would be in shoppers goods. In fact, this skier mix represents a 5,000 square foot reduction l • in demand for shoppers goods space from current (1985) levels, with increases of 5,000 square feet of convenience goods and 9,000 plus square feet for eating and drinking establishments. The overall result would be a need for very little additional square feet of retail space and some change in the mix of establishments in existing space. Speciality Food Store Potentia l One specific type of establishment which has been suggested as a passible addition to the Vail retail mix is a specialty food store. In Vail there are currently 53,200 square feet in retail establishments offering food and grocery products. The average sales per square foot in -28- HAi?L~IFA • SI1~R • GEC~tc~: •ASy(X.L•1I•F~ the eight food stores (which includes grocery stores and delicatessens) is about 5295. This represents average sales levels but is not particularly high for these types of establishments. We have estimated resident expenditure outflow in groceries of about 52.4 million which would support an additional store of 8,100 square feet 1f current sales levels would be achieved. However, this would require a 100 percent capture of residents' food expenditures which is unlikely given the proximity of City Market in Avon. Additional growth in the skier market will probably be required before a mayor new food store can be supported to Vail. The protected demand for an additional 6,000 plus square feet of convenience goods by the time skier levels reach current pro,~ections for 1990 could offer an opportunity for such an establishment. If the projected skier levels are reached, a new specialty food store of 5,000 to 8,000 square feet could be supported by a combination of the tourist trade and some additional capture of residents' food expenditures. Deselo~ment dp,~ Pl~,nnino,~,~~ Given the higher than average level of sales per square foot which exists in Vail, the first question which must be asked 1s whether this _ represents a current undersupply of retail space. If such a condition existed it could have two impacts: 1) competition would be constrained leading to higher prices for a broad range of retail goods; and 2) certain low-end retail goods or services would be crowded out of the market by higher-profit items. There 1s some evidence that these - conditions exist currently along Bridge Street in Yail Village but it does not appear that there is a significant impact on the overall retail - mix in Va11. High-end or high-volume items such as ,jewelry, T-shirts and furs are highly concentrated along Bridge Street which has the highest -29- •H~.~ffR • SII.FA • GFd~(,~ •ASS(X1~7'ES • :i • rent levels in the Village. But together, these store types account for only flue percent of the total retail space inventory in the Village as a C whole, too small a fraction to crowd out any significant retail goods or services from the market. The only category of retail establishment in danger of being severely impacted by competition for space from other store types 1s night clubs, which record average retail sales less than I half the rate for retail establishments generally. And given the size and space required for a nightclub facility (3.000 to 5,000 square feet on the average>, there would be no Incentive for property owners to devote space to this use. Given the the sales levels of nightclubs, the supportable rents would be well below what could be achieved by small I specialty stores or restaurants in the same space. I 1 Although some establishments, including many restaurants, clearly are operating at or above capacity during peak ski season months, this I does not necessarily mean that more space is supportable. It would be impossible to support space year-round based on the peak month demand alone, and the crowded conditions which occur are, to some extent. an l inevitable result of the seasonal fluctuations of the retail sector 1n Vail. We conclude, based on the great divergence of sales levels among individual establishments 1n Va11, that the existing inventory is . probably sufficient in aggregate to meet current demand without significant detrimental effects such as higher prices than would otherwise exist or lack of availability of certain types of goods. Some reorientation and replacement of existing establishments can and will occur in response to changing market conditions. Goods which •cannot now be found in Yail are probably missing from the market for one of three reasons: • 1. Insufficient local demand to support establishment offering these goods; -30- t-~•~~~t • Sn~x • GECxac~ •!~scxt~rf~ L 2. Land values which are too high to allow construction of - space suitable for establishments offering these goods; 3. Lack of physical sites capable of accommodating facilities for establishments offering these goods. The second major point is that because the sales and rent levels per square foot of retail space in Vail are considerably higher than industry • norms, the conclusions regarding space demand in the X11 Land Use P1~ overstate the likely need. In fact, planned additions in ,the Pillage and elsewhere in the town which were Identified in the Land Use Plan should be sufficient to meet at least the short-term demand for retail space. The third significant finding is that the demand for additional retail space in Vail will be driven by ski season sales. Increases in sales during the summer and shoulder seasons will improve the profitability of existing firms but will not create demand for additional space. On the other hand, based on sales and rent levels, there is not a significant amount of slack in the market which would easily accommodate additional sales during the peak season without the possibility of adversely affecting prices and the mix of retail store types. Therefore, _ demand for goods and services resulting from growth in skier visitation 1s likely to result in demand for additional retail space. Finally, a resort community such as Vail is influenced by the vagaries of national and regional economies. For example, several retailers noted a recent change 1n the source of visitors to Vail shifting the mix from Mexico and Texas to the east and west coasts and •upper midwest. This has resulted largely from regional shifts 1n the economy, particularly the downturn in energy. A change 1n the tourist _ profile can represent a shift in spending patterns which might not affect • some retailers at all while having a significant impact on others. -31- I lA~~~ • SCR • G~:~ • ASSC)CL~TE`' i r r Therefore, retailers may be required to reorient their product lines to survive in the marketplace and in some cases there will be turnover in stores resulting in small changes 1n the retail mix. bew SRacP Rpgy~irements Retail space needs through the year 2000 are compared to the potentials for new retail space identified in the Vail Land Use Plan in Table 15. This analysis assumes that skier levels protected for that year are reached. I Table 15. $EIALL SPACE SUPPLY AND QEMAND ~~re ~ggt o£ I ~d 11 S~~g Approved Unbuilt (Core areas) 27,000 Allowed 1n Master Plan (Core areas) 53.000 Total Core Potential 80,000 Plus Approved Unbuilt (Outside Core) 70.700 • Total Retail Supply 150,700 Demand through the year 2000 147,667 Source: Va11 Land Use Plan and Hammer, Siler, George Associates I As shown, existing approved protects and areas planned for retail development are sufficient to provide the retail space required to meet the demand anticipated with protected ski area growth through the year 2000. From the perspective of the health of retail merchants and the overall strength of the retail economy, however. it may not be desirable to see development occur in this manner. For example, the 70,700 square -32- H~~~ffX • SII~•x • GECI~iC'~ • ASSt X,'L~T'FS feet approved outside of the core areas represent a 65 percent increase in the space outside of the core. If this much development occurred it would only serve to diffuse the market and possibly weaken the overall retail economy. From the perspective of improving the performance of the retail economy, we see two primary obJectives: 1) to strengthen Lionshead as a retail area; and 2) to improve the pedestrian flow to locations off Bridge Street 1n the Village. In terms of specific needs for retail space in the next few years. we have pro,j ected a demand for 6,850 square feet of convenience goods, 23,900 square feet of shoppers goods and 19,000 square feet of eating and drinking establishments when the ski area reaches seasonal levels of 1,374,000 skier days. This represents a ten percent increase over 19 86 skier activity. If this demand materializes 1t could be accommodated 1n number of ways that would serve to strengthen the long-term health of the retail economy. The potential retail infill locations suggested in the y~il V1~~ Plan could go a long way toward improving the pedestrian flow to both existing and new retail areas there. Although not all of these proposed - additions would necessarily be required to achieve the desired result, increasing retail space along East Meadow Orive and Wlilow Bridge Road - are most critical to efforts to create a flow of shoppers from the Bridge Street area to areas such as the Crossroads Center, Village Inn Plaza. _ Village Center and the Sonnenalp Hotel. It. is likely that any additional development in the Village area will be primarily oriented to shoppers goods and eating and drinking establishments, building upon the existing strengths of the area. Easy to read retail directories and maps. placed at strategic locations in the Village, would aid consumer awareness of • shops located off of Bridge Street. -33- I iA.tiL~iF1t • SII~R • GF~ORf~ • ASS(xL~TE'' .1,' • _f Lionshead Any maJor new retail development other than those strategic additions 1n the Village should probably occur in Lionshead. In order to strengthen and diversify Lionshead, additional square feet will definitely be required. Several options exist for accomplishing this I including redevelopment of the Gondola building into retail space if a new Gondola is built or replaced by a high-speed quad lift. Another I option would be the development of a new mixed-use bull ding in Lionshead. Such an addition could be strategically placed to strengthen the circulation pattern and attract more visitors to Lionshead. In order for I such an addition to be successful, however, it will be necessary for Lionsh ea d to establish an identity which differentiates it from what is offered in the Village. It might become a center for night life in Va11, accommodating clubs and bars which cannot afford the rent levels 1n the Village, or it is possible that several new retailers not present in the Village could be attracted to Lionshead and provide a draw for the area. This might include a popular national apparel chain such as Banana I. Republic or Espirit, and a specialty food store. • ~ If a specialty food store was added to the Va11 retail inventory a . proper location would be imperative to assure its success. Food 1s a [ convenience good and as the name implies, a location for an establishment offering these goods must be easily accessible to its customers. Because the market to be tapped will be a combination of visitors and local residents the store must be convenient both to the Vail bus system and to automobiles. Given current development patterns this suggests a location proximate to one of the existing areas where adequate parking is available, which essentially means a location 1n or near Pillage or l • Lionshead parking structures. For several reasons, it is believed that a C -34- t 1 L4~L~ffR • SII.F~t • GECxu~ • ASSOCIATE.'' Lionshead location would be preferable. First, the Village already has two mafor retail stores offering at least some of the items which might be offered by a specialty food store. Lionshead has establishments offering a limited range of food and grocery items but has only a little more than half as much space devoted to groceries and food as does the Village. Second, to the extent that a specialty food store would be a unique establishment 1n Vail it would attract more people to Lionshead and help to strengthen overall retail sales there. This could also help to establish an identity for Lionshead. Third, Lionshead has more condominium units than the Village and these renters are more likely to buy groceries than those staying in lodge units. Fourth, the proposed additions at the Village which would strengthen pedestrian patterns are for the most part, not at locations with easy access to parking. In fact, it is unlikely that a good site exists in the Village which could accommodate this type of establishment. At Lionshead, existing structures, or an addition to the west of the day skier parking structure, could probably accommodate a specialty food store, offering excellent access both to the bus system and to free short-term parking for local residents. Although a location in the parking structure could also achieve these two obJectives it would not be as effective in strengthening the Lionshead area as a whole. Therefore, we believe that 1f a specialty food store could be successfully developed in the next few years, a Lionshead location would be preferable for such an establishment. ~w Retail Nodes Given the pedestrian nature of Vail, it would be more effective in generating additional retail sales to strengthen existing activity centers rather than to create new smaller, less competitive, dispersed -35- - ] i~.4LltFlt • SI1FA • GF~RC;£ • ASSU(.'IATF~ ,L ~ r r r r pockets of retail stores. The limited amount of new retail space projected gives the strategic location of this space added significance 1 1 n terms of th a abi 1 ity to achieve development obi ect i ves i n both Lionshead and the Ylilage. We do not believe that development of additional retail space in the parking structures or the addition of new space on Bridge Street would be particularly helpful in furthering these oDfectives. Also, although retail development at other locations, such as the 20,000 square feet approved at Cascade Village. may be able to be developed to some extent to serve convenience needs generated by additional housing development, 1t is unlikely that a mafor concentration of shoppers goods establishments can be supported outside Lionshead and ' the Village given projected sales demand through the year 2000. Secondary Impacts of Retail Trade Retail trade is important to any community, not only because it is ' the means by which local residents obtain most of their consumer .goods. but also because it provides fobs and generates sales tax revenue for the l local government. In a tourism oriented economy these two factors of employment and tax base may take on added significance because a large percentage of retail employment tends to be basic industry, that is? 1t brings in economic activity from outside the community, and the sales tax revenues on these sales represent a net inflow to the community's tax base. In order to assess the impact of retail trade on the community we t will briefly examine retail employment and sales tax revenue impacts. L Based on our discussions with retailers we have estimated that there L is one full-time equivalent permanent employee per 300 square feet of ` retail space 1n Va11. During the ski season employment is higher with • one employee per 200 square feet on average. Therefore, permanent L -36- Hq~L~ff~t • SIlFR • GF~Eac:£ • Asst X 6•\TFS _ ~ . . , full-time retail employment in Vail is estimated at 1,670 with 64 percent or 1,170 representing basic fobs in the local economy. In addition, there are about 835 seasonal retail fobs (348 year-round FTEs) which are all essentially basic. This results in a total of about 2,020 FTE retail ~ obs in Vail of which approximately 7 0 percent are basic. These Jobs generate an estimated S24 million in wages in the Yail economy. It is estimated that each basic retail Job generates another .5 Jobs in the local economy yielding a multiplication effect of 1.5. Thus, an estimated 2,277 Jobs (1,518 X 1.5) are generated in the Vail economy as a result of retail sales to the nonlocal population. This total includes the 1,518 basic full-time equivalent retail Jobs, 500 nonbasic retail Jobs and an estimated 259 Jobs in other sectors such as personal services. Retail Trade also makes a significant contribution to the tax base of Vail. However, Vail does not place an inordinate reliance on sales and use taxes to generate public sector revenues. As shown in Table 15 below, Vail's percentage of revenues from this source is similar to the situation in other Colorado municipalities. Table 15. 1985 SOURCES OF REVENUES FOR MUNICIPALITIES Ppro~t of Revenues _ All Mynicioalit~85. yail ~pgn Breckenricigg ExceRt Denver j,~xes _ Property 11% 4% 10% 10% Sales and Use 45% 53% 45% 46% All other 19% 7% 20% 7% Total Taxes 75% 64% 75% 63% Non-Tax Revenues 25% 36% 25% 37% Source: 1985 Local Government Flnancia L Compendium, State of Colorado Division of Local Government and Hammer, Siler, George Associates -37- _ 1-ln.~c~ffx ~ Su~x ~ G~r.~ • AssocL~~~ . _ r~ r Aspen gains a greater share of revenues from sales taxes than does Vail. This is due in part to the fact that Aspen has a substantially r lower property tax rate and does not have a real estate transfer tax. However, Aspens retail economy also has the advantage of generating a greater level of sales, especially during the off-season, as shown in Table 16. Table 16. PERCENTAGE OF ANNUAL SALES TAX r gFVFNUES BY SEASON. 1986 I ~L d_il 95.R.~a Winter (December - April) 65~ 59~ I Summer (July, August and September 20~ Off-Season (May, June, October and November) 15~ 18~ Source: Town of Yail, Town of Aspen and Hammer, Siler, George Associates Aspen retail sales in 1986 were 19 percent higher than in Vail and more than 72 percent of this difference was accounted for by stronger summer and off-season sales. Although Va11 probably cannot 1n the short- - term match the summer and off-season sales achieved 1n Aspen, gains probably can be made which will enhance the sales tax revenues in Va11. inclusions The Vail retail economy has evolved along with the development of Yail Mountain as a ski area. Skiers have been, currently are, and will continue to be the driving force in the local retail economy. There 1s no evidence at present of any serious oversupply or undersupply of retail space in Yail; but ski area growth could create additional demand for retail space in the future. Growth in the summer and off season tourism t will improve the profitability of existing retailers. provide more f L -38- I 'N11t~ffA • SIIFR • GfdJRL~ ' ASSCx'1.~1•E,• A • year-round employment, and enhance the Town+s tax base, but will not. in itself. create demand for more retail space. There is currently enough approved or planned retail space in Yatl to accommodate needs through the year 2000. The location and quality of that space is more of an issue than is the quantity. Additional space could serve to strengthen the retail modes in Yail or 1t could fragment the retail marketplace. The prime goals from a public perspective should be to improve the circulation pattern 1n the Village and to strengthen the Llonshead location. Selected additional infill projects in the Y111age and a ma1or addition at Lionshead are recommended as the means of achieving these goals. -39- \ ~ Fi~?~L~ff~t ~ 51IFR ~ GF.cxu~ • r1S5(X:IAT'~° r . 1990 SALES TAX ANALI~SIS RETAIL • 1989 1990 % • collections collections change • Vail Village 2,259,428 2,267,847 0.4% • Lionshead 800,475 838,773 4.8% Other Areas 922,009 1,026,615 11.3% Out-of-Town 145,159 172,536 18.9% ; Total 4,127,071 4,305,771 4.3% LODGING • • 1989 1990 collections collections change Vail Village 1,638,310 1,651,640 0.8% • Lionshead 989,620 1,059,541 7.1 Other Areas 825941 833,025 0.9% :Out-of-Town 10,767 11,261 4.6% • Total I 3, 464, 638 3, 555, 467 2.6% • 1990 SALES TAI X A 1VA LYSI S FOOD & BEVERAGE • • 1989 1990 collections collections change ; ;Vail Village 920,132 1,011,419 9.9% • Lionshead 323,506 324,212 0.2% • :Other Areas 218,699 260,851 19.3% • Out-of-Town 530 659 24.3% • .Total 1 462, 867 1, 597,141 9.2% • • • OTHER • • 1989 1990 % • collections collections change Vail Village 412,622 410,111 -0.6% • Lionshead 25,546 22,738 -11.0% • Other Areas 117,004 129,786 10.9% • :Out-of-Town 699,756 742,771 6.1 • ;Total 1,254,928 1,305,406 4.0% • 1990 SALES TAX ANALYSIS TOTAL s s 4 0 v 3 2 1 0 Vail Village Lionshead Olher Oul-d•Town ~ YTD 1989 f.\\\~l, YTD 199U TOTAL • 1989 1990 % • • collections collections change • Vail Village 5,230,492 5,341,017 2.1 Lionshead 2,139,147 2,245,264 5.0% Other Areas 2,083,653 2,250,277 8.0% Out-of-Town 856,212 927,227 8.3% • • ;Total I 10,309,504 10,763,785 4.4% MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 2, 1991 SUBJECT: Vail Village Inn, Special Development District No. 6 ::..v:::.. ,r{r~ ....:.:.:....N:.v„N,,:,. v The Planning and Environmental Commission, at their June 24, 1991 public hearing, unanimously recommended approval of the requested major amendment to the Vail Village Inn Special Development District No. 6. The Planning Commission vote was 4-0. The PEC recommendation to the Town Council for approval carried with it the following conditions: 1. The recommended conditions, numbers 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8, as identified in the staff memorandum dated June 24, 1991 be included. 2. If and when the entire Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn is proposed for redevelopment, the parking requirements for the entire project (Phases I, II, III, IV and V) shall be required to, be provided in their entirety. Additionally, any parking allowances which were approved as a part of the June 24, 1991 PEC review would not affect the final parking determination for the entire Phase IV. 3. This condition specifically modifies the staff's recommended condition 8, regarding the provision of one on-site permanently deed restricted employee housing unit. The PEC modification would allow for the developer of the VVI to provide one permanently deed restricted employee housing unit on- or off-site, as long as said unit is within the municipal boundaries of the Town of Vail. The PEC modification is as follows: "The developer agree to permanently restrict the unit owned in Pitkin Creek Park for the length of his ownership. If the Pitkin Creek unit or the Vail Village Inn development is sold, a unit within the Town of Vail, of the developer's choice, shall be permanently deed restricted as an employee housing unit." The PEC also felt the staff's recommended conditions 3 and 4 were appropriate requests. However, the PEC, in the motion for approval, indicated these items should be recommendations only, and not specific conditions of approval. - MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 24, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vaii Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot O, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Josef Staufer Planner: Mike Mollica I. INTRODUCTION Josef Staufer, owner and developer of the Vail Village Inn, has filed a request for an amendment to Special Development District No. 6, for his property located at 100 East Meadow Drive. The purpose of this SDD amendment is to allow for the redevelopment of a portion of the final phase (Phase 1V) of the Vail Village Inn SDD. For clarification purposes, staff will call this redevelopment request Phase IV-A. The Vail Village Inn has an existing approved development plan for the entirety of Phase IV. This development plan was approved through Ordinance I4, Series of 1987 (May, 1987). " Additionally, Ordinance 24, Series of 1989 (November, 1989), modified the density section of the 1987 ordinance by increasing the allowable GRFA. These two ordinances are still valid for SDD No. 6, and have been included as Exhibits A and B attached to this memorandum. The staff recommends that the PEC review these ordinances to fully understand the background and prior approvals for the Vail Village Inn before proceeding further in this memorandum. A brief summary of said ordinances is listed below in Section III of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant's redevelopment proposal includes the upgrade and renovation of the east building which currently houses the hotel lobby, front desk area, and the Coyote Bar, as well as the adjacent Pancake House Building to the west. Included in the redevelopment of the east building would be the addition of two residential levels above the existing structure, which would be used specifically as accommodation units (hotel rooms). There would be a total of 13 additional accommodation units, comprising 5,933 sq. ft. of GRFA. One additional gas burning fireplace is proposed in the largest accommodation unit on the top 1 floor. An elevator is proposed to be constructed at the southwest corner of the building, which would access all four floors. Additionally, the existing meeting room which is located on the second floor, would be expanded to the south by infilling an existing deck. This additional square footage would consist of approximately 243 sq. ft. of floor area. The proposed improvements to the Pancake House Building include a new roof structure, and painting and/or staining the building to match the remodeled building to the east. It is proposed that the new portions of this building be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system. Site improvements called for in this redevelopment plan would include the addition of 14 surface parking spaces. Ten of these parking spaces would be considered regular spaces, and the remaining four spaces would be classified as valet-type spaces. These valet spaces would be reserved for exclusive use by employees of the Vail Village Inn, and the location of these spaces would be to the northwest of the Village Inn Pancake House restaurant and immediately east of the Gateway Plaza Building. The proposal also calls for limited landscaping improvements. Specifically, the applicant is proposing one additional new planter, which would be located on the west side of the main entrance at the South Frontage Road. III. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY A. The following are the existing phases of the Vail Village Inn: Phase I -This consists of the buildings located at the southeast corner of the VVI property, and includes one dwelling unit of approximately 4,000 sq. ft. in size, as well as the following commercial establishments: Alpenrose Restaurant, Ambrosia Restaurant, Village Inn Travel, Village Inn Sports, Houston Gallery, Gold of Vail, Village Inn Plaza Liquors, Eve's, and Total Beauty. Phase II -This phase consists of three residential dwelling units of approximately 3,500 sq. ft. in size, as well as the following commercial establishments: International Gallery, Unique Art, and Tezla. Phase III -Phase III is located at the northeast corner of the VVI property and ` consists of 29 residential dwelling units, with approximately 44,830 sq. ft. of GRFA, and the following commercial establishments: Driscol Gallery, Velveteen Rabbit, Kitchenworks, Vail Antiques, Annie's and Vail Boot and Shoe. 2 Phase IV -This was the original Phase, and the oldest, at the VVI, and consists of 62 accommodation units, with approximately 16,585 sq. ft. of GRFA, and also includes the Food and Deli, VVI Pancake House and the Coyote Baz. There is also a 1,200 sq. ft. conference/meeting space and miscellaneous and ancillary offices for the hotel. Phase V - Phase V is the building located at the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive, and consists of 11 dwelling units (9 of which have lock-offs), and 3 accommodation units, with 9,972 sq. ft. of GRFA. Phase V also includes Blano's Pizza, the Vail Resort Association and approximately 3,500 sq. ft. of retail, commercial use. B. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1976, originally established the Vail Village Inn Special Development District No. 6. C. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1985 (March 5, 1985) granted 120,600 sq. ft. of GRFA to SDD No. 6. This ordinance also required a minimum of 175 accommodation units (AUs) and 72,400 sq. ft. of GRFA, devoted entirely to AUs in Phase IV. This ordinance also listed six conditions of approval. D. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 (May, 1987), amended Phase IV of SDD No. 6. This amendment allowed Phase IV to be broken into two distinct and separate phases, which were called Phase IV and Phase V. This ordinance also set the maximum GRFA for the SDD at 120,600 sq. ft. Additionally, the ordinance required a minimum of 148 AUs and 67,367 sq. ft. of GRFA devoted to AUs in Phases IV and V. The ordinance also listed eight conditions of approval. E. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989 (November, 1989) amended the density section of SDD No. 6. This ordinance modified the SDD by increasing the allowable GRFA to a total of 124,527 sq. ft. This allowed Unit No. 30 (originally Good's retail) in the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums to be converted from commercial use to residential use. This space consists of 3,927 sq. ft. of GRFA, and the conversion to residential use has since been completed. This ordinance also maintained the previous approval for "a minimum of 148 AUs and 67,367 sq. ft. of GRFA, devoted to AUs, in Phases IV and V of SDD No. 6." IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS ' The following table outlines the applicant's redevelopment proposal with reference to the underlying Public Accommodation zoning, the existing project, the previously approved Phase IV, and the current proposal. To maintain simplicity, only those development standards which are specifically applicable to this project aze listed. 3 Underlying Zoning Existing Previously Proposed - Public Accommodation Project Aaproved SDD SDD Site Area 3.455 acres or Same Same Same 150,500 sq. ft. Setbacks 20 ft. on all sides N =Frontage Rd: 41 ft. 20 ft. to face of No change from existing to pone cochere; 72 ft. building; 1 ft. to to face of building pone cochere Building Height 45 ft. -Flat Roof 31 ft. Vanes - with a 58 ft. to top of ridge 48 ft. -Sloping Roof 73 ft. maximum 61 ft. to ridge over elevator GRFA 120,400 sq. ft. 78,806 sq. ft. 124,527 sq. ft. 84,739 Phase IV-A 124,527 Entire Phase IV Units 25 dwelling units per acre 76.5 DUs 120.5 DUs 83 DUs or 86 DUs for the site (see below) Site Coverage 82,775 sq. ft. N/A Per the approved 245 sq. ft. of additional development site coverage plan Parking Per the current Same Same Same development standards (See Appendix A) Existing DUs Existine AUs Phase I 1 0 Phase II 3 0 Phase III 29 0 Phase IV 0 62 Phase V 11 * 3 Totals 44 + 65** = 76.5 DUs Phase IV-A is proposed to have 0 DUs and 13 AUs = 6.5 DUs r * (9 of the 11 DUs have attached lock-offs) 2 AUs = 1 DU 4 V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA The criteria to be used to evaluate the Vail Village Inn redevelopment, Phase IV-A, are the 9 Special Development District (SDD) development standards set forth in the special development district chapter of the Zoning Code. The criteria are as follows: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Architecturally, the key issue is to maintain compatibility and work with the character of the existing structures in the vicinity. Staff acknowledges that this is a very difficult task to perform, given the varied architectural styles of adjacent buildings. Staff supports the design direction the applicant has proposed for the project. We believe that the additional two floors and the new roof structure would be compatible with the character of the adjacent structures. Additionally, the applicant has proposed to install all new siding materials on the existing lower levels of the structure, which would match the new upper levels. The applicant has also proposed to install a stucco finish on the north and west elevations of the pone cochere (around the arched openings). Given the close proximity of the VVI Pancake House building immediately to the west, the applicant has also proposed improvements to this structure so that it blends architecturally with the adjoining "east" building. The proposed improvements to this structure include upgrading the entire roof area of the building, to architecturally tie it in with the proposed remodel of the structure to the east. No GRFA would be added to the enlarged roof area, however, the applicant would propose to install a new boiler in this attic area to service the Food and Deli Building. Additionally, the applicant has proposed to paint and/or stain the Pancake House Building to match the "east" building and to further ensure architectural compatibility among the structures. We believe it is positive that the applicant is making an effort to upgrade the materials and the style of the Pancake House Building, as well as the east building. The staff would recommend that the applicant reevaluate the proposed roof form over the elevator tower, as well as the roof form over the central chimney caps. We believe that these elements should be of an architectural style which would be more in line with the caps on the adjacent structures. 5 B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity: The staff is very supportive of the applicant's redevelopment plan with regard to uses, activity and density, given the fact that the proposal includes the addition of 13 accommodarion (hotel) rooms and an expanded conference space. The existing commercial square footage (gross area), which includes retail commercial and restaurant "service area" space, at the VVI is approximately 33,557 square feet. No additional commercial square footage is requested as a part of this proposal. With the adoption of the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study on November 20, 1990, employee housing is no longer a potential concern, but it is an issue which must be addressed formally. The Affordable Housing Study has been adopted and provides guidelines for new development. Currently, the report's recommendations are being incorporated into the Zoning Code. In addition, the Land Use Plan calls for employee housing by stating: Goal 5.3 - "Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions." Although the Vail Village Inn does provide some employee housing, both on site and off site, there is currently no permanently restricted employee units on site. No additional employee housing is proposed by the Vail Village Inn for this redevelopment. It should also be mentioned that most Special Development Districts in the past have provided some number of employee housing units within the proposal. Given the scale of this project, with an approved GRFA of 124,527 sq. ft., the staff believes a redevelopment of this magnitude should have some permanent employee housing. Staff recommends one restricted employee dwelling unit be provided on site, either in the existing development or in the proposed redevelopment, Phase IV-A. C. Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. The Vail Village Inn parking analysis, as indicated in Appendix A, shows a total parking requirement for the Vail Village Inn project, which includes Phases I, II, III, IV and the proposed IV-A, as being 243 parking spaces. The existing parking structure, located at the lower levels of the Phase III building, currently provides 109 parking spaces. Additionally, there are currently 45 regular surface-parking spaces (9 of which are privately reserved and are not available to the general public), and 16 6 valet parking spaces on-site, for a total of 61 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to add 14 surface-parking spaces as a part of this proposal. The total parking which would be provided would be 184 spaces, which equals 75.7% of the required parking. The staff believes that the required pazking for Phase V, as well as for the new proposal (Phase IV-A) must be addressed. It should be noted that when the Phase V building was approved, the parking requirement was deferred until the final phase of the VVI was constructed (the redevelopment of Phase IV). Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, under Section 11, lists 8 conditions of approval for the development plan for Phases IV and V. Condition No. 8 reads as follows: "Any remodel or redevelopment of the remaining portion of SDD 6, commonly referred to as Phase V, shall include parking as required by Ordinance 1, Series of 1985." It is the staff's opinion that this current redevelopment proposal triggers condition number 8, and that the required pazking for Phase V must now be addressed. According to the staff's calculations of the Phase V building, the pazking requirement for Phase V shall be as follows: (See Appendix B for the specific breakdown) 1. Retail = 11.77 spaces 2. Restaurant = 4.25 spaces 3. Residential = 23.44 spaces 4. Total Requirement = 39.46 spaces The parking requirement for the proposed Phase IV-A is 11.13 spaces. The combined parking requirement for Phase IV-A and Phase V is 48 parking spaces (39.46 spaces + 11.13 spaces = 50.59 - 5% multi-use credit = 48). The parking issue is two-fold. First, the staff is of the opinion that condition number 8, listed in Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 (as stated above) is applicable to this redevelopment proposal. The Planning Commission, at their June 10th public worksession, concurred with this opinion. Based upon this PEC decision, the applicant must now provide, or address the issue of parking for Phase V. The second issue is the applicant's proposal to provide an additional 14 surface pazking spaces, when a requirement of 48 spaces is stipulated by the code. The applicant has presented a pazking utilization study that analyzed parking during peak times of occupancy. This study is included as Appendix C. It should be understood that the 109 space pazking structure, located in the Phase III building, is currently not open and available for use by the general public. In addition, 7 9 surface pazking spaces, which aze adjacent to the Food and Deli Building, aze ' currently reserved and are also not available for use by the general public. Of the total 109 parking spaces in the structure, 44 of those spaces aze currently deeded to condominium owners of the Vail Village Inn (15 of those 44 deeded spaces aze deeded to condominium owners within Phase V). Since the June 10th worksession, the applicant has agreed to remove the parking restrictions on 7 of the 9 parking spaces in front of the Food and Deli Building. These seven spaces would be available for short-term pazking by the general public, in addition to the 14 new spaces on the north side of the project. The staff believes that this is a positive step towazds meeting the Town's pazking requirements. However, the staff maintains that the applicant should be required to open up the structured pazking (in the Phase III Building) and to allow the general public the use of the 65 undeeded spaces in the structure. If the structured parking spaces were available to the general public, the staff would be able to support the overall parking plan at the VVI. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, T.,w,~ policies and Urban Design Plans. This redevelopment plan was analyzed according to the recently adopted Vail Village Master Plan. The specific goals, objectives and subarea plans of the Vail Village Master Plan which pertain to the Vail Village Inn project are listed below: 1.2 Obiective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.2.1 Policv: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the Action Plan and as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.3 Obiective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Policv: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private ` sector working with the Town. 8 2.3 Obiective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. 2.3.1 Policv: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. 2.5 Obiective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 3.1 Obiective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policv: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.1.3 Policv: Flowers, trees, water features, and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. 3.4 Obiectives: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.2 Policv: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. 5.1.1 Policv: For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Core I Zone District, on-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the zoning code. 5.1.5 Policv: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. 9 5.4.2 Policv: Medians and right-of--ways shall be landscaped. The Vail Village Master Plan has identified the Vail Village Inn as subarea concept number 1-1, which is copied in its entirety below: E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. There are no natural and/or geologic hazazds which would affect this property and/or redevelopment proposal. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. There is essentially no change to the existing building footprint with this proposed redevelopment. As indicated in Section IV of this memorandum, the setbacks for the 10 underlying PA zone district are 20 feet from all property lines. This proposal will certainly meet the 20 foot requirement, as the minimum distance from the pone cochere to the neazest property line would be 41 feet. There will be no significant changes made to the Vail Village Inn open space provisions, as only 245 sq. ft. of additional azea will be covered by buildings. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Vehiculaz Circulation: After review of the proposed surface-pazking layout, the staff believes that the general vehiculaz circulation system appeazs adequate. The Town of Vail Fire Department has reviewed this proposal, and does not take issue with the project. The Public Works Department also has no problems with the general vehicular circulation plan. However, they are concerned about some existing drainage problems in the surface-parking area just north of the Pancake House, which would need to be corrected and addressed through the building permit process. Due to the change in use on the site, a Colorado Department of Highways access permit will need to be secured, prior to the Town issuing a building permit for the project. Pedestrian Circulation: Pedestrian circulation is a key issue the staff would like to address. It is well known that along-standing goal for Vail is to improve upon the pedestrian experience through the development of a continuous network of paths and walkways. Specific to the Vail Village Inn project, the Vail Village Master Plan, as well as the Town of Vail Recreation Trails Master Plan and the Master Transportation Plan, specifically call for bicycle/pedestrian ways along both sides of the South Frontage Road. Through the redevelopment process at the adjacent Gateway Plaza site, the developer was required to provide a pedestrian sidewalk along the entire length of the Gateway property along Vail Road and South Frontage Road. At this time, staff believes it appropriate to request that the developer of the Vail Village Inn extend the sidewalk where the Gateway ended it, and continue the walk for the full length of the VVI property east to the Crossroads site. Staff acknowledges that there are some grade difficulties through this azea, and also that cooperation from the Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH) will be necessary. The Town staff is willing to assist the applicant in securing the necessary CDOH permits to install the pedestrian connection. ' The current Vail Village Inn SDD Amendment proposal, does not include any improvements to the pedestrian circulation system as described above. 11 H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize ' and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The proposal has provided limited additional landscaping, specifically in the form of one new planter, which would be located on the west side of the access drive off of South Frontage Road. The proposed landscaping includes 2 Aspen and 1 Blue Spruce. Again, with cooperation from the CDOH, staff believes that additional landscaping added along the entire northern property line of the Vail Village Inn would be beneficial. We believe additional landscaping and screening in this area would not only benefit the general public, by assisting in the buffering of the structures from the Frontage Road and I-70, but will also benefit the property owner and guests of the VVI in the same manner. The staff would also recommend that the applicant remove the existing asphalt area south of the Gateway Building. This area has been used as surface parking, however, we believe that it would be a benefit to both projects (VVI and Gateway) to add landscaping in this area. The proposal will not encroach into any of the Town's adopted view corridors. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The applicant has proposed that the redevelopment plan (Phase IV-A) be completed at one time. No phasing plan is proposed. It is the staff's position that the redevelopment plans for the entire Phase IV, which are addressed in Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, are still valid. Should the developer with to proceed with this previously approved plan at some future date, which would necessitate the demolition of Phase IV-A, final DRB approval will be required. If there are changes or modifications to the plans, then a major SDD amendment will be required. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, the Vail Village Inn, is for approval with conditions. The staff believes that the proposed upgrade and remodel would be a very positive change at the VVI. ` We support the project, with the following conditions of approval: 1) That the applicant be required to open up the structured parking, in the Phase III building, for short-term narking use by the general public. With this 12 " provision of an additional 65 pazking spaces, the staff would be able to support the project's overall parking plan. 2) That the applicant remove the existing asphalt parking azea immediately south of the Gateway Plaza Building, and provide landscaping in this area. Final review of the landscape design shall be reviewed and approved by the DRB prior to installation. 3) That the applicant provide a pedestrian sidewalk, adjacent to South Frontage Road, beginning on the west end of the VVI property (where the Gateway sidewalk now ends), and continue the sidewalk east to the western boundary of the Crossroads property. 4) That the applicant provide additional landscaping along the entire northern property line of the VVI. 5) That the applicant reconsider the proposed design solution for the elevator and chimney caps. This issue shall be further reviewed and considered by the Design Review Board. 6) That a CDOH access permit be secured prior to the issuance of any Town of Vail building permits for the proposal. 7) That the eight conditions of approval listed in Section 11 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, be included in the ordinance required for this project. Said conditions are as follows, (with the staff's recommended changes indicated by the bold type): A. That the developers and~or owners of Phases IV and V participate in, and do not remonstrate against, an improvement district for streetscape improvements to Vail Road and East and West Meadow Drive, if and when an improvement district is formed. B. That the developers and/or owners of Phases IV and V participate in, and do not remonstrate against, establishing a pedestrian linkage from Phases IV and V of the Vail Village Inn, to a future commercial expansion at the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus site if, and when it is developed. C. That the developer receive approval from the Colorado State Highway Department, for any change in use on the property, prior to the issuance of a Tam.. of Vail building permit. 13 r D. That the developers and/or owners of Phase IV agree to transfer by general warranty deed to the Town of Vail, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, such condominium unit of approximately 3,986 sq. ft. in size and to be located as indicated on the plans and specifications submitted with the application. There shall be no provisions placed on the condominium unit restricting the Town of Vail's use of the unit or the subsequent subdivision and/or sale of the unit. E. That no grading permit, building permit or demolition permit, relating to any Phase of Special Development District No. 6, be issued until such time that reasonable evidence is provided to the Town of Vail that construction financing, for the improvements to be constructed, has been obtained. F. Restrictions on any units in Phases IV or V which would be condominiumized, shall be as outlined in Section 17.26.075 (Condominium Conversion) of the Vail Municipal Code and any amendments thereto. G. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any phase of SDD#6, the developer and/or owner of said phase shall reimburse the Town of Vail for expenses incurred in facilitating the relocation of the ski museum (into Phase V) of an amount not to exceed $75,000. H. Any remodel or redevelopment of any of the remaining portions of SDD#6, shall include the parking as required by Ordinance 14, Series of 1987. 8. The developer must provide one permanently deed restricted employee housing unit on site at the Vail Village Inn. Said employee unit shall meet the restrictions listed in Section 18.13.080(B)(10) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. 14 APPENDIX A t Vail Village Inn Parking Analysis* 1. Phase I Parkins Spaces Required A. Retail 19.12 B. Restaurants 16.50 C. Residential 2.50 Subtotal 38.12 = 38.12 2. Phase II A. Retail 12.99 B. Residential 4.99 Subtotal 17.98 = 17.98 3. Phase III A. Retail ~ 25.12 B. Residential 59.33 Subtotal 84.45 = 84.45 4. Phase IV A. Food & Deli 6.00 B. Restaurant and Bar 11.60 C. Residential 41.30 D. Conference/Meeting Area 5.07 Subtotal 63.97 = 63.97 5. Phase V A. Retail 11.77 B. Restaurant 4.25 C. Residential 23.44 Subtotal 39.46 = 39.46 6. Phase IV-A A. Residential 11.13 = 11.13 Total: 255.11 -5% Multiple Use Credit: -12.75 Grand Total: 242.36 = 243 * Parking requirements were determined by using the Town standards in effect at the time of construction. 15 3 t APPENDIX B VVI - Phase V Parking Analysis Parking Spaces Required A. Basement Level (Vail Resort Association) 0 B. Ground Level 1. Retail: 2,865 + 668 = 3533/300 11.77 2. Restaurant: 510/15/8 4.25 C. Second Level 1. Unit #1 = 402 + 398 = 800 2 2. Unit #2 = 343 + 461 = 804 2 3. AU = 229 0.63 4. Unit #3 = 232 + 376 = 608 2 5. Unit #4 = 475 + 317 = 792 2 6. Unit #5 = 445 + 279 = 724 2 7. AU = 224 0.63 D. Third Level 1. Unit #6 = 396 + 224 = 620 2 2. Unit#7=397+318=715 2 3. Units #8 & #9 are combined into one unit =454+314+35+712=1515 2 4. Unit #10 = 445 + 277 = 722 2 E. Fourth Level 1. AU = 279 0.67 2. Unit #11 = 388 1.5 3. Unit # 12 (with loft) =598+244+36+273+410=1552 2 39.46 16 ORDINANCE NO. 19 Series of 1991 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING ORDINANCE NO. 14, SERIES OF 1987 AND ORDINANCE NO. 24, SERIES OF 1989; TO PROVIDE FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6; ADOPTING A REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A NEW PHASE IV-A OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Special Development Districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land; and WHEREAS, an application has been made for the amendment of Special Development District (SDD) No. 6 for a certain parcel of property within the Town, legally described as Lot 0, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing, and commonly referred to as the Vail Village Inn Special Development District; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental Commission, on June 24, 1991, held a public hearing on the amended SDD, and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the appropriate parties; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 The Town Council finds that all the procedures set forth for Special Development Districts in Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied. Section 2 -Legislative Intent A. In 1976, the Town Council of the Town of Vail passed Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1976, establishing Special Development District No. 6 to insure the unified and coordinated development of a critical site as a whole and in a manner suitable for the area in which it was situated. 1 B. Special Development District No. 6 provided in Section 14 that the Town Council y~ reserved the right to abrogate or modify Special Development District No. 6 for good cause through the enactment of an ordinance in conformity with the zoning code of the Town of Vail. C. In 1985, the Town Council of the Town of Vail passed Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1985, providing certain amendments to the development plan for SDD No. 6. D. Application has been made to the Town of Vail to modify and amend certain sections of Special Development District No. 6 which relate to Phase IV and which make certain changes in the development plan for Special Development District No. 6 as they relate to Phase IV. E. In 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989, providing certain amendments to the development plan for Special Development District No. 6. Such amendments modified and amended Section 8 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, which relates to the allowed density of the development plan for SDD No. 6. F. The Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has reviewed the changes submitted by the applicant and has recommended that SDD No. 6 be so amended. G. The Vail Town Council considers that the amendments provide a more unified and aesthetically pleasing development of a critical site within the Town and such amendments are of benefit to the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Vail. Section 3 Section 18.50.020 -Purpose A Special Development District is established to assure comprehensive development and use of an area in a manner that would be harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and recreation amenities, and promote the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town. Ordinarily, a special development district will be created only when the development is regarded as complimentary to the Town by the Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board, and there are significant aspects of the special development which cannot be satisfied under the existing zoning. Section 18.50.040 -Development Plan The proposed development plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following data as supplemented by exhibits provided by consultants Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey on February 12, 1976 for Phases I, II, III, and as supplemented by the exhibits of the development 2 plan and the environmental impact report as prepared by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect (plans dated February 19, 1987, revised April 14 and April 22, 1987), and as given final approval through passage of second reading of this ordinance by Town Council on May 19, 1987 for Phase IV and Phase V. This approval recognizes that Phase IV may be constructed in two phases with the first phase to be referred to as Phase V and the final phase to be referred to as Phase IV. The proposed development plan for Phase IV-A includes the drawings provided by the Intratect Design Group, dated June 6, 1991, sheet numbers 1-7. Section 4 Section 18.50.050 -Permitted Uses in Special Development No. 6 The permitted uses in Phases I, II, III, IV and V of Special Development District No. 6 shall be as set forth in the approved development plans on file in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Section 5 Section 18.50.060 -Conditional Uses Conditional Uses for Phases I, II, III, IV and V of Special Development District No. 6 shall be as set forth in Section 18.22.030 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code and as set forth below: A. An outside popcorn vending wagon that conforms in appearance with those existing in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II. B. No office uses, except those clearly accessory to a principal use will be allowed on the Plaza level of Phases IV and V. Section 6 Section 18.50.110 -Distance Between Buildings The minimum distance between buildings on adjacent sites in Phases I, II and III shall be as indicated in the development plan, but in no case shall be less than 50 feet. In Phases IV and V, the minimum distance between buildings on adjacent sites shall be as indicated in the development plan as submitted by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect (dated February 19, 1987, revised April 14 and April 17, 1987). 3 , Section 7 Section 18.50.120 -Height A. For Phases I, II and III, the allowable heights shall be as found on the development plan, specifically the site plan and height plan dated March 12, 1976. B. For Phases IV and V, the maximum building height shall be as set forth in the approved development plan by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect (dated February 19, 1987, revised April 14 and April 17, 1987). C. For Phase IV-A, the maximum building height shall be as set forth on the approved development plans, submitted by the Intratect Design Group, dated June 6, 1991, sheet numbers 1-7. Section 8 A. Section 18.50.130 -Density The gross residential floor area (GRFA) for the entire Special Development District No. 6 shall not exceed 124,527 square feet. There shall be a minimum of 148 accommodation units and 67,367 square feet of GRFA allocated to accommodation units in Phase IV and Phase V of Special Development District No. 6. 3,927 square feet of GRFA shall be allocated specifically to Unit No. 30 of the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums. B. Condominium Unit No. 30 of the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums shall be subject to the restrictions of Section 17.26.075 of the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations if utilized for residential purposes. Section 9 Section 18.50.130 -Building Bulk Building bulk, maximum dimensions for building elements, requirements for wall offsets and vertical stepping of roof lines for Phases I, II, and III shall be as indicated on the development plan submitted by consultants Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey and dated February 12, 1975. The building bulk, maximum wall lengths, maximum dimensions for building elements, requirements for wall offsets and vertical stepping or roof lines for Phases IV and V shall be as indicated as per the approved development plans submitted by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect (dated February 19, 1987, revised April 14 and April 22, 1987). 4 Section 10 Section 18.50.180 -Parking and Loading Any application for the redevelopment of Phase IV, subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance, shall include not less than 12 surface parking spaces, 324 underground parking spaces, and 37 underground valet spaces for Special Development District No. 6 as indicated on the development plan submitted by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect, dated February 19, 1987. The parking requirements for Phase IV-A shall be as set forth on the drawings submitted by the Intratect Design Group, dated June 6, 1991, sheet number 1. Section 11 The developer agrees to perform the following: 1. Open up the 65 additional parking spaces in the structured parking, in the Phase III building, for short-term parking use by the general public. 2. Remove the existing asphalt parking area immediately south of the Gateway Plaza Building, and provide landscaping in this area. Final review of the landscape design shall be reviewed and approved by the DRB prior to installation. 3. Provide a pedestrian sidewalk, adjacent to South Frontage Road, beginning on the west end of the VVI property (where the Gateway sidewalk now ends), and continue the sidewalk east to the western boundary of the Crossroads property. 4. Provide additional landscaping along the entire northern property line of the Vail Village Inn. 5. Secure a Colorado Department Of Highways access permit prior to the issuance of any Town of Vail building permits for the proposal. 6. The developer is presently the owner of Unit 7-L, Pitken Creek Park Condominiums, located in the Town of Vail. The developer agrees to place the following restrictions on the use of this unit for the entire term of his ownership thereof (employee housing restrictions): A. The employee housing unit shall not be leased or rented for any period less than 30 consecutive days and shall be rented only to tenants who are full time employees in the Upper Eagle Valley. B. The Upper Eagle Valley shall be deemed to include the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Eagle-Vail and Avon and their surrounding areas. 5 C. A full-time employee is a person who works an average of thirty hours per week. D. The applicant or his successor in interest shall file a declaration of covenants and restrictions on the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County in a form approved by the Town Attorney for the benefit of the Town to insure that the restrictions set forth herein shall run with the land and shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval of the Town of Vail. Subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance, no building permit shall be issued for Special Development District No. 6 until said declaration of covenants and restrictions are executed and filed with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. Should the developer sell the unit 7-L in the Pitken Creek Park Condominiums, or should he sell any of his interest in the property designated as Phase IV of this Special Development District No. 6, he shall within 6 months of such sale purchase another dwelling unit or accommodation unit located within the Town of Vail and subject said unit to the employee housing restrictions. 7. The developers and/or owners of Phases IV and V shall participate in, and shall not protest or remonstrate against, an improvement district for streetscape improvements to Vail Road and East and/or West Meadow Drive, if and when an improvement district is formed. 8. The developers and/or owners of Phases IV and V shall participate in, and shall not remonstrate against, establishing a pedestrian linkage from Phases IV and V of the Vail Village Inn, to a future commercial expansion at the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus site if, and when it is developed. 9. The developers and/or owners of Phase IV agree to transfer by general warranty deed to the Town of Vail, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, a condominium unit of approximately 3,986 sq. ft. in size and to be located as indicated on the plans and specifications submitted with the 1987 application. There shall be no provisions placed on the condominium unit restricting the Town of Vail's use of the unit or the subsequent subdivision and/or sale of the unit. 10. No grading permit, building permit or demolition permit, relating to any Phase of Special Development District No. 6, be issued until such time that reasonable evidence is provided to the Town of Vail that construction financing, for the improvements to be constructed, has been obtained. 6 ~ 11. Any units in Phases IV or V which may be condominiumized, shall be restricted as set forth in Section 17.26.075 (Condominium Conversion) of the Vail Municipal Code and any amendments thereto. 12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any phase of SDD#6, the developer and/or owner of said phase shall reimburse the Town of Vail for expenses incurred in facilitating the relocation of the ski museum of an amount not to exceed $75,000. 13. Any remodel or redevelopment of any of the remaining portions of SDD#6, shall include the parking as required in Section 10 of this ordinance. Section 12 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 13 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 14 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision 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 of 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. 7 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ~ ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1991. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the day of , 1991, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk 8 (,~.5 !.~-tic ~ ~ ti~a•91 NORTHWEST COLORADO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 1991 MEr~ERS UPDATE AN INTRODUCTION TO NORTHWEST CO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS THE NORTHWEST COLORADO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS {NWCCOG~ WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1972 BY EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR. NWCCOG PROVIDES SERVICES FOR A LARGE REGION OF NORTH CENTRAL COLORADO INCLUDING. THE TOWNS AND COUNTIES OF EAGLE, GRAND, JACKSON, PITKIN, ROUTT AND SUMMIT. NWCCOG'S MAIN PURPOSE IS THE PROVISION OF COST EFFECTIVE SERVICES TO ITS MEMBER GOVERNMENTS, SERVICES WHICH ARE MADE MORE COST EFFECTIVE ON A REGIONAL COST SHARING BASIS AND ARE DRIVEN BY COMMON NEED AND PURPOSE. NWCCOG ALSO PROVIDES ITS MEMBER GOVERNMENTS WITH A FORUM IN WHICH TO _ ADDRESS COMMON PROBLEMS. MANY POTENTIAL ADVERSE CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE BEEN . CONFRONTED AND OVERCOME BY NWCCOG MEMBERS THROUGH THEIR UNIFIED EFFORTS. SINCE 1972, NWCCOG'S PROGRAMS HAVE CHANGED AND ADAPTED AS MEMBERS ADAPTED TO CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES. THROUGHOUT THE PAST EIGHTEEN YEARS NWCCOG HAS REMAINED A VIABLE ORGANIZATION WHICH TODAY SERVES ITS MEMBERS WITH THE FOLLOWING CORE PROGRAMS. Skyline Six Area Agency on Aging Energy Management Program Community Development Program Water Quality Program Water Quality/Quantity Program ~~rthwest Loan Fund r ~T'~ C NORTHWEST COLORADO ~V COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 409 Main St., Suite 209 Post Office Box 739 Frisco, Colorado 80443 Frisco 303 668-5445 Denver Direct 303 573-7611 HOME ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS IF VOU QUALIFY, YOU COULD GET - Caulking & Weatherstripping - Insulation - Storm Windows ~ -Furnace Tune-Up D®Q -Minor Repairs • If you make less than the guidelines listed below, the NWCCOG Weatherization Program can do this work on your home FREE ®F CHARGE! HOUSEHOLD SIZE MAXIMUM GROSS INCOME 1 Person $8,275.00 Per Year 2 Persons $11, 100.00 Per Year I I 3 Persons $13,925.00 Per Year ~ J' 4 Persons $16,750.00 Per Year 5 Persons $19,575.00 Per Year ~ 6 Persons $22,400.00 Per Year ~ 7 Persons $25,225.00 Per Year 8 Persons $28, 050.00 Per Year .•;uI ~ •:<ai~• • • Each extra person add $2,825.00 Per Year IF YOU ARE .ON THE LEAP LIST OR RECEIVE AFDC OAP, OR 551, YOU AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFY. THE IMPROVEMENTS WILL 6E MADE BY NWCCOG WEATHERIZATION PERSONNEL, THROUGH FEDERAL ANO STATE GRANT MONIES. INTERESTE®? PLEASE CALL: -RE®IiCE ~dJEL ~~~.LS° -~E 1~®RE C®@~9F®R'T'A~LE- Available in these Counties & Towns: Eagle Counry:.avon. Easalt, Eac~~e, Gypsum, iv1~n'um. Red Ch(f, VaII, " Grand County: Fraser, GrGnby, `=sand Lake, f-lof Julphur S~xmos wemmlin~ V~'Inter Pork, Jackson County: VvGlden. Pltkin County: open, Snowman Vdla:.3e. Routt County: F{a\'~iell ~1G1~ ~.IeC?k S~l9anlOOCli Spfln;~S ~~am~"?~'7, Summit County: Blue Rwe C. BreC~<enridge. DIOn, FflscO ~ViOn~e~ll(11G.,~,IV~;ffhOrn@ . ~ NORTHWEST COLORADO ~~V'~~ COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Post Office Box 739 'Frisco, Colorado 80443 'Frisco 303 668-5445 `Denver Direct 303 573-7611 "FAX 303 668-5326- Northwest Colorado Council of Governments COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM The NWCCOG-community development program is service oriented and focused on problem solving. , Assistance Offered - . * Conduct Needs Assessments * Create"Community or County-Wide Improvement Plans * Develop Recreation and Tourism Plans * Prepare Community~Marketing Plans * Research Topics of Need or Local Demographics * Prepare or Assist with Grant Applications - * Refer Problems/Needs to Available Resources * Undertake the Initial Research of a Technical Project and Recommend Contract Services for Completion. IA/cdp Eagle County: Avon, Basalt, Eagle, Gypsum, Minturn, Red Cliff, Vail, ' Grand County: Fraser, Granby, Grand Lake, Hot Sulphur Springs, Kremmling, Winter Pork, 'Jackson County: Walden, ' Pitkin County: Aspen, Snowmass Village, ' Routt County: Hayden, Oak Creek, Steamboat Springs, Yampa, 'Summit County: Blue River, Breckenridge; Dillon, Frisco, Montezuma, Sitverthorne PROJECT GUIDELINES SELECTION CRITERIA 1992 NWCCOG COM2•SUNITY DEVELOP2~NT PROJECTS PROJECT REQUIREMENTS: v 1. Community Participation is required. This assures that the final product is what the community needed and ~,Tanted. Local interest guarantees the participation of residents if needed. 2. The project"draws on the Community Development Director's capabilities or requires, ground work - for further contract assistance. ' 3. The project will require no more than four ~,~eeks of staff time. 4. The community will pay for copying and postage if " needed. 5. The community will begin the project with sufficient time to complete it by January 1., 1993. " PLEASE.NOTE: A maximum of 5 projects from the region will be chosen by the NVdCCOG Executive Board. This is ,a competitive selection process.' Although the Community Development Director would like to assist everyone, it is not possible. PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA. A. Immediate Need. Problems of health and safety or those with specific state or federal compliance deadlines are deemed priorities. B. Fair Representation. h'ork should be done in all - areas of the region. Regional projects which provide assistance to a larger number of the members will be favored over single to~,Tn or county projects. C. ' Inability of the community to use its o~~~n financial or staff resources to complete the project. IA/SELCRI ` I~'47000G COI~II~ITNITY DEVELOPMENT - TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM - APPLICATION APPLICATION DEADLINE: DECEMBER 1, 1991 Project Title: Applicant: Address: Contact Person: Phone: Project Purpose: - Tasks Which You Would Like the Community. Development Director . to Complete. Please attach the list to this form.- , Time Estimate fo.r the Completion of the Tasks. Names of Those in the Community. Who Will Assist.With.Direction on the Project. Please Estimate Their Time Commitment to the ..-Project. Please Mail To:' Barb Keller, NWCCOG. Box 739, Frisco, CO 80443. Questions?" Please call. IA/CDTAP Northwest Colorado Council of Governments WATER QUALITY PROGRAM The NWCCOG Water Quality Program is technically oriented and focused on problem solving. Assistance Offered * Design of water quality monitoring networks for specific objectives, e.g. identifying the source or magnitude of a pollution problem * Research and analysis of water quality data. For example, evaluating trends in existing data on metal concentrations for a particular water body * Water quality improvement project implementation plans. Characterize the problem, evaluated alternative corrective action, coordinate appropriate organizational involvement, design and manage implementation of pollution control measures * Prepare or assist with grant applications for project funding * Refer problems/needs to available resources * Assist in the evaluation of economic tradeoffs of investing in water efficiency measures vs. water development and treatment * Undertake the initial research of a technical project and recommend contract services for completion, e.g. wetlands inventories ' NWCCOG WATER QUALITY PROGRAM PROJECT GIIIDELINES SELECTION CRITERIA PROJECT REQUIREMENTS: 1. Community participation is required and it is expected that this will normally be a contribution of in-kind staff time and a cash match. Local participation assures that the final product is what the community wanted. 2. The draws, on the Water Quality Program Director's capabilities or requires background work for further contract assistance. 3. The community is prepared to begin the project in sufficient time its completion prior to January 1, 1993. PLEASE NOTE: We anticipate about $15,000 in funds for projects in 1992. The number of projects undertaken will be based on the cost of the most competitive proposals. Proposed projects will compete at a state. level with others submitted by 208 planning agencies in the state. PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA: 1. Immediate need. Problems of health and safety or those with specific. state or federal compliance deadlines are deemed priorities. 2. Regional representation. Work on projects of regional interest or provide possibilities for regional technology transfer will be favored.. 3. Competitive projects. Proposals which are deemed to be competitive in the state contract award process will be given priority. n NWCCOG Water Quality Program Technical Assistance Application APPLICATION DEADLINE u.uiv~ 19,_1991 ,,~ga`y'A~'"`.r~~,~ r"" ` ~"t r ~ ~ ~/a s1~c°~+:r't b~ t F /+14'i !'~3"~ F,~j* ~~T ~ ~ ~2~ ~fj,, ra.~. ~,yj~'(~ Z p K0.y 'iw 6 ' ~ ~ ~'~9~';a;..U~,4'1}~ a i r -~i ",L' 4o??'nd"+1;~~1.i- t ° _w Project Ti~.le Applicant: Address: Contact Person: Phone: Project Purpose Tasks which you would like the Water Quality Program Director to complete. Please attach list to this form. Time estimation for the completion. of the tasks. Names of individuals who will assist the Director on this project. Please estimate their time commitment to the project . Please mail to: Lane Wyatt, NWCCOG, P.O: Box 739, Frisco, CO 80443. Questions? Please call. May 17, 1991 OAD 91-15 Page two a BEST PRACTICE MODEL: SKYLINE SIX AREA AGENCY ON AGING NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE ELDERLY In the course of a recent on-site review of Skyline Six Area Agency on Aging, Aging and Adult Services has identified an exemplary model needs assessment survey. Skyline Six AAA is commended on the development and implementation of this survey, which serves as a model for the creative use of volunteers to gather data, while providing outreach for the agency. The data system of Skyline Six will be expanded as a result of this survey, allowing the area agency to locate virtually every senior in the region and to identify service needs for the future. The area agency has identified the sample of older persons to be surveyed using both the agency data base and voter registration records from the six counties in the region. The survey has been designed to address issues that are specific to the region such as effects of altitude, cold weather, lack of assisted or congregate housing facilities. The instrument collects information regarding housing needs, social involvement, mobility, health and services. The data collected will be used by the area agency to plan for service needs 5 - 10 years, into the future. G The survey instrument was developed by the area agency in conjunction with the University of Colorado at Boulder. Teams of volunteers have been recruited in each county to implement the survey via face-to-face interviews. Teams are composed of volunteers of many ages. Youth, adult service groups (such as Lion's Club) and senior volunteer groups are working side-by-side to complete the survey. In addition to its obvious data-gathering function, this survey will also serve as an outreach activity for the area agency. As voter registration records are matched against the client data base, the agency can readily identify those seniors who have not been reached by Older Americans Act programs. The interviewers are instructed to bring the County Senior Citizen Newsletter to those interviewees who are new to the services of the area agency on aging and to offer to add those individuals to the mailing list. The County newsletters contain information on services and activities for seniors taking place throughout the county. May 17, 1991 OAD 91-15 Page three Interviewers will also be collecting demographic information including ethnic and income status for seniors who are not currently reached by the area agency. This information will be used by the area agency to augment efforts to target services to low income minority individuals. A copy of the survey instructions and the instrument are attached. Questions about this survey should be addressed to Linda Venturoni at (303) 668-5445. cc: Elizabeth. Clinton, Administration on Aging S Y ~ O v A NORT.d. ~?TES'r LOAN FUND Eagle, Garfield Grand, Jackson, bloj/at, Pitkin, Routt and Summit Counties - • 1Yatdsn `IOFFAT COUNTY Eiq "O" Tire Center, CraiB~_ Stsimbost J A C K~N,~ M O f f A T bgAngt ROUTT COUNTY Grt~i- ---~0 U T i \ Ski Town Linen, Hayden JACSSON COUNTY Duka Sportswear, Steamboat Sprir.8 ~ ~Sorth Park Veterinary Clinic, 6'alden Face Sports, Oak Creek ~ ~ P-Burg Market, Phippsburg ~ ~ GRAT:D COUNTY EACLB COUNTY / Preferred, Cleaners, Fraser Clay Vallep Manufacturing, E1 Jebel t3 RAN D Hith in the Tee Tops, Basal r ~ BAGLH COUNTY Hot 6u(phuf Sprinpt Avon Auto Body, Avon Ewe First, Vail CARPIHLD COUNTY ` The Automotive Center, Glenwood Springs _ Plaza Cleaners, Glenwood Springss~~__ SUMMIT COUNTY Innermountain Distributing, Glenwood-Sprin s % % Signature Auto Body, Silverthorne ~ ttnwOOQ Spectra Publishing, Silverthorne Sopria Softworks, Rifle~.~_ \ Analii, Carbondale ~ ~ C ~nqt E A d~ E ~ , Lenzotti k Fullerton, Breckenridge Frozen Moments of Aspen, Carb ndale ~,0 ~ R h C L D ~ ~ 5 V M F PIT&IN COUNTY 'a°---~_ No loans acti~•e at this time High in the Tee Tops recently moved from Aspen Innermountain Distributing and Plaza Cleaners serve the • Aspen area p ~ T K I N ~ mac ~ aSOen THE NWCCOG WATER QUALITY/QUANTITY TRUST FUND The.Water Quality/Quantity Committee (Q/Q) is a voluntary - membership composed of the region's headwater counties and towns, primarily Eagle, Summit and Grand, although recently Pitkin County, Steamboat Springs, and The Three Lakes Water and Sanitation District have joined. Breckenridge Sanitation District has been a member for many years. Members from outside Region 12 include Gunnison County and The Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado (Region 11). PURPOSE: - formed in 1978 to use resources of members efficiently in dealing with legal aspects of transmountain diversion issues. Q/Q Staff responsibilities cover activities affecting water quality or quantity in Region 12: - litigation and advocacy support. - monitoring of legislative activities. - coordination of West Slope water policy efforts. - water quality information. - monitoring of transmountain diversion issues. - provide technical assistance to members to further intergovernmental cooperation and increase political clout with State and Federal agencies. ONGOING PROJECTS: - coordinate with NWCCOG in administering the areawide 208 Water Quality Management Plan. - protect local 1041 land use authority. - initiate actions leading to development of comprehensive State water planning process. - working with congressional delegates on water aspects of wilderness legislation. . PAST PROJECTS: - Homestake II in Eagle County. - Denver Metropolitan Water EIS. ' - Windy Gap Settlement in Grand County. - Glendale Water Forum. NEW PROJECTS: - 208 Plan update involving a consensus building, problem solving approach with all interested parties involved in the Upper Colorado River Basin, including front range water developers. - coordinate legal aspects of NWCCOG's position on Colorado Health Department's 1991 Revision of the Basic Standards and Methodologies before the Water Quality Control Commission. - N WCCOG ADVOCACY ACTIVITIES • SENIORS VOLUME X SINGLE POINT OF ENTRY • HOUSING ' STATE HOUSING BOARD -INCOME GUIDELINES CHAS PROCESS RESORT ISSUES -DOH • WATER QUALITY/QUANTITY LEGISLATIVE MONITORING TRI ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE CO RIVER BASIC STANDARDS • WEATHERIZATION • CHILDCARE RESOURCE AND REFERRAL NETWORKS • MEMBER EDUCATION CMC , • CO ASSOC. OF REGIONAL COUNCILS REGIONALISM MINERAL IMPACT FUNDS PROPOSAL SENIORS ISSUES • SOLID WASTE PLANNING JUNE 80-SEPTEMBER 81 1990 NEEDS ASSESSMENT NWCCOG MEMBERS - ISSUES IDENTIFIED.MOST OFTEN AS POTENTIAL FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION ENVIRONMENTAL RATING ~~'ASTE MANAGEMENT Regional Recycling Center 1 o Market Development o Model ordinances o Procurement Regional Solid Waste Planning 2 Hazardous Waste/Planning & Training - 4 . Regional Transfer Systems and Collection Centers 4 Mobile Equipment Sharing 5 Landfill Site Identification 9 AIR QUALITY 6 WATER OUALITY - ASSISTANCE TO SANITATION DISTRICTS Water Quality Monitoring 5 State and Federal Regulations ~ 7 Watershed Management 8 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY DEVELOPMENT 12 AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE 3 CHILDCARE RESOURCE AND REFERRAL 6 ' REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 6 RURAL HEALTH CARE 7 REGIONAL COST OF LIVING SURVEY 7 COOPERATIVE TRAINING FOR LOCAL GOV'TS & EMPLOYEES 10 CASE MANAGEMENT/CARE AND COORDINATION FOR ELDERLY 11 e NORTHWEST COLORADO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS The Northwest Colorado Council of Govern- ments (NWCCOG) was established in 1972 by ~~.`~~~z:; r~I"~ Executive Order of the Governor. NWCCOG provides services for a large region of North • Central Colorado including the towns and I r""- countiesofEagle,Grand,Jackson,Pitlcin,Routt " I and Summit. NWCCOG'smainpurposeisthe i provision of cost effective services to Its '"'"`''~"6~'~'"'•~'~~•~ • member governments, services which are • 1 made more costeffectiveonaregionalcost- _ ~<:;:.:»w~ sharing basis and are driven by common " ~ • ° need and purpose. NWCCOG also provides I ~ , itsmembergovemmentswithaforuminwhich ~ I to address common problems. Many poten- I tiallyadversecircumstanceshavebeencon- w fronted and overcome by NWCCOG mem- I "~"~.,..,e. ~ °...o hers through their unified efforts: ° Since 1972, NWCCOG's programs have , changed and adapted as members adapted ° to changing circumstances. Throughout the past eighteen years NWCCOG has remained a viable organization which today serves Its members with the following core programs and functions: FUNCTIONS Skyline Six Area Agency Funds transportation, outreach, information and referral, and In-home On Aging services for senior citizens (60+). Provldes congregate and home-delivered nutrition services at ten different nutrition sites in the region. Energy Management Program Helps low income residents reduce their home fuel consumption through such services as caulking, weatherstripping, Insulation and furnace tune-ups. Northwest Loan Fund Provides low interest loans to businesses which will create or retain Jobs and diversify the economy of the region. Community Development Program Helps to obtain state grants to solve specific community development problems. Provides assistance to small communities with limited staff. Water 6luality Program Provides assistance In protecting the quality of water. Water 6luality/ Protects local government's authority to impose conditioris on the construciton of 9uantity Program water diversion structures. Serves to identify, study and resolve regional problems. NWCCOG's revenues are compromised primarily of grant revenues (70°k) and secondarily by member contributions (30%). During 1989, NWCCOG services provided a 5:1 return on members financial contribution. NWCCOG FISCAL STATUS 1980 - 1989 • - • • • • • • • DOLlAf75 (thousands) 2000 1500 - Thedecade ofthe '80's' has been a difFicult time for the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments iooo - - - (NW000G) financially. Grant revenues have coruis- tently accounted for over 70~ of the total budget. During this period of time, grant availabliity has shiffed 500 - - dramatically and many new grant restrictions on administrative expenditures have been added. The ~ ~ ~ _ NWCCOG revenues jumped from a low in 1981 of ~ I ' ~ S855,974 to a 90% Increase in 1986 of S 1,623,574. Reve- iI Hues then reversed in direction and were reduced to -500 ,seo Iasi isez ,sea ,sea ise5 uses ,see see lees S 1,011,390 in 1989. Fund equity displayed the opposite pattern. The a - NWCCOG slipped Into a deficit situation In 1984 and 'bottomed out' in 1987 at close to S 150,000. Since then ~ ; extensive efforts have been made by board members ; ' w r,~, and staff to develop a responsible fiscal management ~ , system for NWCCOG that effectively prohibits any fu- ture red ink. Organizational overhead expenses have ~ "3 r beenreduceddramatically,someprogramshavebeen ! eliminated and member governments have contrib- uteri a one-time deficit assessment which allowed the NWCCOG to enter the new decade in a solvent post- tion. ~ The N1IN000G is nowa smaller, more efflcientand more ~ € effecflve agency than ever before. The death of the deficit has resulted in a stronger, more responsible organization. NWCCOG Board and Staff celebrate the end of the deficit. Front Row: R. Taylor, L. Venturoni, P. Toft. Back Row: P. Ohri, M. Osborn, B. Gates. Weatherization Program - In the 1980's, NWCCOG used Solar Program - In tt.e latter half of the decade, Federal and State grant funds to weatherize approxi- NWCCOG received a small amount of grant fundsfrom mately 1,000 homes in Region 12. These services were the Colorado Office of Energy Conservation (OEC) to targeted to low-income households, senior citizens, Install solar heating equipment on homes of low-in- and disabled persons, and included insulation, caulk- come households. Approximately 16 households re- ing, weatherstripping, storm windows, water heater ceived low-maintenance solar panels, installed as air- insulationblankets,etc.,aswellasenergyeducationfor heating systems. the households receiving services. This program has helped preserve affordable hous(ng units In the region, Energy Extension Service Center - NWCCOG also re- and has reduced the energy consumption in these cefved grants from the Colorado OEC to operate an households. Th(s Increases the amount of money that Energy Extension Service Center. Energy conservation these households have available to spend in their local Information was made available to all residents of communities. These services could save up to 1 /3 of a Region 12, regardless of Income. Grant funds were household's utility bills, representing an estimated sav- used to answer information requests from residents of Inge of up to 5900,000 over the course of the ten year the. areas, and also provided for dissemination of en- period. ergyconservationiHformation through the local media. Energy audits of municipal and community buildings Furnace Tune-up Program -Over 400 households that were pertormed, and a program of public workshops qualified for weatherization assistance also received was held throughout the region. Workshop topics in- tune-ups of their heating equipment. The appliances cluded Wood Heating Safety, Residential Energy Con- were cleaned and then adjusted for maximum effl- servation, and Low-Cost Solar Panel Construction. ciency. Any safety problems noted were also cor- rected. Althoughthiswasaseparateprogramthrough- outthe 1980's, in 1990 the Furnace Program was merged with the Weatherization Program. ~ - ~ - - - ~ n - - i _ y - -NORTHWEST COLORADO - - . ~ ~ J - . . C COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Post Office Box 739 'Frisco; Colorado 80443 * Frisco 303.668-5445 Denver Direct 303.573-7611 * FAX 303 668-5326 - TO: Town and County Managers ~ f - - ± NWCCOG Representatives ~ ~ . ' - ,FROM: 'Barb Keller, Community Development Director _ REc ,1992 .Community Development Technical Assistance ~ - " ~ ~ ,Project Selection--Process ,and Application - _ Application Deadline:., .December 1, 1991. , . June _ 19 91 ~ .Enclosed are three documents to' .assist 'you in, applying. for ' ; ' 1992 community development.,technical'assistance..' TYie NWCCOG ~ Board ~ of-'Executive Directors. w"11. review and choose, the ~ ~ . . _ projects which I will .complete ~in 1992,. , - ' This system', inaugurated in 1990, is,designed.to better " ~ coordinate and account for the community =development. - ' ~ -program's-technical assistance projects. ~ ; The enclosed application; is simple and all- members are . ~ encouraged ,to apply. _ ~ - - -I have .also outlined' the' types. of~ projects which I~ can - - - ,undertake and ,the. pro:j-ect .requirements arid, selection , ' . -criteria by~ which the :prod ects will . be weighed. , . ~ - " ~ I~~wilT-be contacting, you to•discuss your :community deyeiopment wish-list, for 1992 and'beyond.,`as well,as~.the project you .would like to. have, assistance; with next year. If you have, any questions, ~ple,ase 'call me.. ~ ~ , I wi-11- be .calling you -soon. ~ ~ : , ~ _ ~ , , IA/APPL - ~ ~ : ' - ~ _ - - - . ~r , - Eagle County: Avon, Basalt, Eagle, Gypsum, Minturn; R'ed Cliff,'Vail, * Grand County: Fraser, Granby, Grand'Lake, Hot Sulphur Springs, Kremmling, Winter.Park, * JacksomCounty: Walden, ' .Pitkin County: Aspen, Snowmass Village, * Routt County: ' Hayden, Oak Creek;\Steamboat Springs, Yampa, * Summit County: Blue River, Breckenridge„,Dillon, F"risco, Montezuma, Silverthorne ~ - - NpRTHWEST Gp~IERNMENTS - "Cp~NCII pF . . ' . ' ~ ~ 573-7611 * FAX 303 668-5326 : ' ~ ~ 3 "Frisco 303 bb8-5445 ' Denver Direct 303 , i , ox 7.39 'Frisco, Colorado 8044 . _ - . Post Office B ~ j ' r ~cil of~ Governments ~ . Cbl:o LppoMENT PRGGRAM oriented., . _ Northwest : r~gram' -is-. service' CD~NITY DES ment p ~ : community develop The ~CCsed. on problem' solving ' - and f o~u . , - ~ . ~ Of f eyed ~ . ~ _ ~ . , ' A5s~nce._-------'"` ` . ents t Plans . -Needs Assessor roVemen Conduct . , Wide Imp . . ' to 'Cammun?-tY j or County . ~ •Crea and Tourism Plans, ~ . Develop Recreati;on., f ~ _ Marketirig1~~'Plans Co~nuriitY Demograpriics - ~ " ~ Prepare .Local:.- - Topics lications - - . - ~ gesearch ~ Grant APP - - ~ re' are or 'A5sst with ' . . . , ~ . P p to Available• Resources . - ~ ' 'Refer .Problems/Needs. _ of a Techni f or ' ~ Initial aeCantr ct .,Services , ' ~ . Undertake the : _ - . - ' ect:ana,Recommen . . Completion• _ , f - - - f - ' : _ ; ~ Hot Sulphur - - Fraser, Granby, Grand,lake,~ ' County: ass Village- " Routt CouritY' ' - - _ ~ * Grand Aspen, Snowm ontezuma . ~ - _ Minturn, Red Cfiff, Vail; ounty~ e Dillon, Frisco, M ' ~ le, Gypsum',, ~/alden, * Pitkin'C River,,Breckenridg - Avon, Basalt, Eag * JacksQ~ampptY. summit. County: Blue . , Eagle CountY'mling, Winter Park, " rin . ~ ~ . - . . Springs KrOe'ak Creek, Steamboat Sp g ' , - . .Hayden, Silverthorne: - ~ - , ' , " 'PROJECT GUIDELINES . - & , - ~ ~ SELECTION. CRITERIA' ~ ; ' ~ ~ ~ 1992 NWCCOG COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT' PROJECTS_ PROJECT REQUIREMENTS: , 1.Community Partici'p.ation is r-equired.. This assures. - that the final product is•what the community needed, and wanted: 'Local interest guarantees the participation of residents if ~~needed.' : , ~~2. The project draws on the, Community Development ` .Director's .capabilities ,or-requires ground work' . ~ ,for _ further contract assistance. 3. The project,wll'require no more ,than four weeks .of _ ' _ . staff_,.time. ~ - 4 . The community will pay for copying, -and ,postage i'f' _ , needed . , . 5. The ,community will begin the project with. ~ ; .sufficient~•time to .complete it by January 1, .1993. PLEASE NOTE: ~ _ , A maximum:of,5 projects from the region will. be chosen by'the - , - NWCCOG.Executive Board. This is,a competitive .selection _ process. Although the Community Development .Director would , `like to assist everyone; it is~not possible. ~ ' PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA - _ r A. Immedia"te Need. Problems of health, and safety or those with specific ~ state`or federal compliance , . ~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ~ deadlines are deemed priorities. ~ _ ; ' . ~ , • 1 B . Fair Representation Work. should ~be• done ,in all, ~ = ± areas of :the 'region . Regional projects ,which ~ ~ . ~ _ - ;provide.`assistance to a larger number of the members. will be favored over'single town or_courity projects. C.~ Inability-of ~the,comm~nity to use its own financial ~ - ~ _or staff resources to~complete the project.. - IA/SELCRI - - ~ - - . - I NWCCOG COMMUNITY'.DEVELOPMENT - ` ~ TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE .PROGRAM' ~ - . - ~ APPLICATION ~ APPLICATION DEADLINE:' DECEMBER 1,.1991 - Project Title : ` ~ - - „ . . . Applicant-: ~ - , Address: , ' .Contact Person: ~ Phone: ; ,Project Purpose : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - • ~ - r _ ~ _ Tasks .Which You. Would Like th'e'Community Development Director :to Complete. Please attach the. list to.th'is form. ~ _ , Time Estimate ;for the Compl~eti~on of the Tasks ~ ~ - ~ - ` - ~ ~ i - . ~ .Names ,of Those in•. the Community, Who Will Assist With Direction , - • on the Project:' Please Estimate'•Their..Time Commitment to the, ' ~ Proj ect . , -Please .Mail To:- Barb Keller, NWCCOG. Box _739', Frisco,, CO 80443.; Ques;bons?: Please call. ~ • _ , - ~ l h. U ~ o = ~ ALITY ~ ~~x a U A N T I TY ~ ~ _s WATER 6ZUALITY/6ZUANTITY TRUST FUND NORTHWEST COLORADO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS The 1980's were a decade of many successes for the the Denver Water Department. Q6~ has successfully Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Water defended the validity of these regulations in Federal 9uality/6~uantity Trust Fund (9Q). The decade began District Court, the Colorado Court of Appeals, and the with membership recognition of the value of a more Colorado Supreme Court, despite claims by Denver powertul voice and greater involvement in protecting and others that they are immune from such regulations the headwater's waterqualityandquantityandclosed as home rule cities. This represents a major victory for with an Innovative Water Forum which brought to- the West Slope generally and for the tenet that munici- getheradiverse group of traditional and nontraditional pal waterworks project proponents will be held ac- water interests from throughout Colorado. countable by local governments in the basins from which they propose to divert water. 61Q has also suc- A look at the activities of the last ten years will offer cessfuily defeated legislative challenges to local gov- perspective in understanding the challenges and the ernment authority under ' 1041'. opportunities facing 9Q in the 1990's. These activities and successes include: Areawide Water Auality Management Plan for Windy Gap Settlement Region 12 (208 Plan) Negotiations for permitting the Windy Gap Project re- As the water quality planning agency designated by suited in a S10.2 million for West Slope mitgation of the Governor for Region 12, NWCCOG staff developed project related Impacts. a state-of-the-art water quality management plan addressing both point and nonpoint sources of water pollution. One significant aspectof this plan fs 'Policy 2' which recommends that water developers should miti- gatewater quality impacts of water diversion projects. It took eight years of presentations to the Water 6~uality HOmestake II Control Commission before this controversial policywas The Eagle County Commissioners had the courage to adopted because of intense opposition by the water developers. Manyofthe Plan'srecommendationshave deny a '1041' permit for the Homestake II water diver- been implemented in local land use regulations Sion project because of impacts to Eagle County for adopted by member counties and municipalities. which Aurora and Colorado Springs failed to provide mitigation. These Impacts include loss of wetlands, the threat to unique wetlands species which would be re- placed by uplands varieties, and water quality degra- dation which would result from this project planned for the Holy Cross Wilderness Area. 6~6~ is now defending Land Use Regulations under House Bill 1041 Eagle County's decision in district court. 629 staff assisted in the drafting of regulations in Eagle, Grand, Summit, and now Gunnison Counties under the authority granted by C.R.S. Section 24-65.1-101, et seq (commonly known as House Biil 1041). This statute allows counties and municipalities to designate 'areas Denver Metropolitan Water EIS and activities of state interest' and promulgate regula- tions requiring local permits to conduct a designated Q9 Participated in the Denver systemwide water sup- activity. ply EIS. Staff review and comments resulted in changes to the ftnal draft document. 6~'s membership on the One such activity designated by these regulations Is select 'EIS Coordinating Committee' represented sig- 'new municipalandindustrialwaterprojects'andapplies niflcantrecognitionoftheheadwatercountiesaslegiti- to both in-basin and transmountain diversion water mate players in the discussions of transmountain water projects. The regulations were challenged in court by . diversion projects. Antidegradation Water Forum QQ represented several member Jurisdictions during Q9 initiated a unique forum aimed at recognizing that the'State's hearings on the adoption of an Antidegra- many, if not most, of the interests affected by water dation Rule. Those hearings resulted in a rule which resource management are excluded from the decision applies to water diverters, and not Just dischargers, making process. In a joint venture with multiple other confirming the link between changes in water quantity parties, several of which are in litigation with each other and ambient water quality. over water related matters, the QG~ group invited rep- resentatives ofevery imaginable interest group affected by water to discuss the current approach to doing business. These interests agreed that there is a need for 401, Rule ~ some mechanism to include the long term social, eco- 99represented members in the State's 401 rulemaking nomic, and environmental interests in Colorado's water process. 401 certification requires an analysis of the planning,allocationandmanagement. The Forum was effects to water quality caused by a water project. The recognized in Governor Romer's Environment 2000 adopted rule requires consideration of indirect effects Report as an example of the type of coordination and on water quality from water development projects. cooperation that needs to occur on environmental issues. Conferences and Symposiums Q9 Committee members and staff have made presen- tations before the Colorado Water Congress, Natural Activities on State Boards and Commissions Resources Law CenterAnnualWdterLawConference, .Flo RaitanowasappointedtotheWaterQualityControl Western States Water Council, Gunnison Water Sympo- Commission slum, Colorado Mountain College, the state legislative .Barbara Green to the Groundwater Commission and many other groups, making our positions on water .Tyler Marineau to the Colorado Water Conservation issues known and recognized to a wide spectrum of the Board water community and general public. .Joe Sands and Don Welch currently serve on the Colo- - rado River Water Conservation District Board - • Bruce Baumgartner has served on both the Water Changes in 96Z Structure/Budget 9uality Control Commission and River District Board The 99 Committee expanded its membership to in- • Rich Levengood and Dick Gustafson prepared a water clude Gunnison County and is continuing efforts at Policy statement for CCI coalition building focusing on regional Sanitation Dis- • Dick Gustafson is the West Slope representative to trios as members.. In 1990 staffing alterations were CACI implemented and contributions were reduced by 1896. 6~9 Board members coritinue to take leadership posf- Thecombined cost for the victories of the 1980'swas less Lions at CML, CCI, CAST, and take advantage of other then S 1 million compared to the multi-millionsexpended opportunities by advocating writer policy reform. by front range water developers. CONTRIBUTIONS 140 _ 1 _ 100 _ _ _ _ _ 80 _ _ _ _ _ 60 _ 40 _ _ _ 20 0 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Lake Dillon Phosphorus Control Regulations These achievementsaresignificantandareuniquelyto 96Z developed a unique approach to water quality the credit~of the efforts of the Q9 Committee through management and saw itsuccessfullyadopted as regu- the last ten years. The 1990's will bring further challenges lotion by the Water Quality Control Commission. The and opportunities for the 99 Committee. regulation provides credit for reductions in phosphorus loading achieved as a result nonpolnt source controls Challenges Include continued vigilance in monitoring ' and allowsforphosphoruscredittradingbetweenpoint legislative activity related to water, participating in " sources. This approach encourages cost efficient poi- Water 9uality Control Commission rulemaking hear- lution control and has become a model for watershed ings,and strengthening headwaters local governments' pollution management nationwide. abllitytoobtainmitigationfordiversion-relatedimpacts. ~ 6~9 efforts of the 1980's have set the stage for greater 6ZA Meetin sand Retreats opportunities to Influence Colorado's water manage- 9 ment decisions. Opportunities to Influence public pol- 99 Committee meetings have Included presentations Icy related to water allocation and management arise from the State Engineer, Montana Department of Natu- outof the demise of Two Forks. All but the most die-hard ral Resources, Denver Water Department, Nature Con- of the traditional water community have recognized servancy, Metropolitan Water Providers, Colorado Water that 'the way It's always been' no longer fulfills anyone's Conservation Board, Natural Resources Law Center, needs. The possibility to become the voice of reason Congressional delegations and a host of other parties amidst front range infighting and to assume aleader- aspart of open, Informative, offen provocat(ve discus- ship position In efforts to develop a consensus based sions a(med at improving our understanding of water process for negotiating water allocation and manage- issues and formulating strategies to address those is- ment disputes Is within reach. sues. West Slope Bargaining Power In 1980 elected officials in the headwaters counties found it difficult, if not impossible, to gain the ear of their East Slope counterparts, much less a position at tl-te bargaining table, when water Issues were being dis- cussed. Today, communications between East and West Slope local government officials occur frequently. The headwaters counties are clearly recognized to be players in the process, separate and apart from the representation generally afforded the Western Slope by the Colorado River Water Conservation District. ~.H ,,>x~. ~ ~:T: . . ~:.~:M..;-: .;c.:,:~;:.~~.:.:...::. ~ a..:..f r..... _ c:::n:..~... - ::::...:.:...a~.;:::;:~ > # . r ; fig...: <.~::c= . a a " A:r.~ e i c ~s y:.,~ a.. _:..::z; ..:::::a.:E:. , . r__~ , sk'. ~ ~~R _ex:~3b:<::o:t'..r.::~Z:.r2:.<::,':.:::zi.'~i:~.x.::~xy:~: ~~_":~~:'S':'~. •,,,~c _ m ~ : uc:'s:.... c. i f . w.. A ••1 • • ~ - • Paul Ohri Chair; Grand County Commissioner Marsha Osborn Vice Chair Summit County Commissioner Flo Raitano Secretary/Treasurer Mayor, Town of Dillon • I 3 Barbara Green Legal Council , Karen Thorson Program Assistant Lane Wyatt Program Coordinator QQ TRUST FUND Post Office Box 739 Frisco, Colorado 80443 PHONE: 303-668-5445 • ~ - - • • - • • • • • 1 : • • • • ~ - • • Planning Commissioners Conference -Initiated the IXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Ch.... ~ ~ , Paul Ohrl Planning Commissioners Conference which subse- vb~-cnaim,an Marsr,a osl~rn quenfly became an annual activity of the American Secrectary/Treawrer Peg Toff Planning Association (1986-1989). . ~~~co ~ a~ep. A~,nbrg~~fin • Inventory of Open Space and Recreation Resources. Pifkin county rasp. Fred Crowley Routs County Rep. Randy Taybr (1987) • Small Town Seminar -Addressing the needs of small town economies when a major Industry leaves. EAGLE COUNTY GRAND COUNTY George'Bud' Gates Paul Ohre • Business Visitation Program - InteMewed 15% of the Tom Bigler (Air) area's 6000 businesses. Identified common problems JACKSON COUNTY PITKIN COUNTY and, through local task forces, identified solutions. Anthony Tony' Marren Fred Crowley Provided a variety of business assistance resource re- Den<,e Brn,kler(Alr) ferrals to each company Interviewed. (1989-1990) RouTrcouNTV suMMrrcouNlr • Economic Indicators -Published quarterly Indicators Ror+dy Taybr Marsha Osbom for til@ region. Cm OF ASPEN TOWN OF AVON • I-70 West Corridor Study Review Committee. (1988) Frank Peter: tA~i ~ w n~ • U.S. 40 Coalition. (1986-1988) TOYYN OF BASALT TOWN OF BLUE RIVER • Aviation Systems Plan. (1989) Pending undo Rf»a • Economic DevelopmentCommitteeAssistance-Wrote TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE TOWN OF DILLON and revised Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws for Mbhael Bertaux c. Julian Harris economic development committees. TowN of EAGLE TOWN OF ERASER • Small Town Technical Assistance Projects. Pegg cloy Brown C.B. Jensen (AR) • Routt County Overall Economic f~evelopment Plan. (1988) TOWN OF FRISCO TOWN OF GRANBV M.L 'Tex' Etie Dorothy Lockhart • Multi-ModelTransportation Study-With UTMA, Ski Coun- Elizabetn Kane (Att) Lee Merkel (Air) try USA and Moffat Tunnel Commission. (1982) TOWN OF GRAND LAKE TOWN OF GYPSUM • Regional Hotuing Studies. (1981) rK~niiam~aa cAn) Chris Estes • FmHA 601 Energy f~evelopment Impact Study. TowN of HoT TOWN OF HAYDEN SULPHUR SPRINGS Richard Dewey George F. Doris TOWN OF KREMMUNG TOWN OF MINTURN Peg Toff Karen Cass Mason Don McLimore (AR) Kent Mueller (Alt) TOWN OF MONTEZUMA TOWN OF RED CLIFF Alex Cassidy Sharon Nersen Donna Hellyer (Alf) Cal Thomas (Alf) • - • • • TOWN OF SILVERTHORNE TOWN OF OAK CREEK Dave Varlet' Jim Sackett CRY OF SIFAMBOAT • • - • • ~ SPRINGS TOWN OF VAII Stan Ewing Kent Rose Rita Valentine (AK) Tom Steinberg (AB) Loans to Expanding Businesses - S 1.5 million dollars have TowN OF WALDEN TOWN OF WINTER PARK been loaned by this non-profit corporation to 28 area cnarrine Bross Don L. sherkian manufacturing, wholesale and service companies. rowN OF sNOMASS TOWN OF PAMPA VILLAGE Jenel Berry Pending Job Creation -One hundred and fifty Jobs have been created or retained for low to moderate Income per- STAFF sons creating an annual payroll of S1.5 - S2 million. sandyelar,a Nwcco~A:so~iareExe~urNe Director; Regbn 12 Revolving Loan Loan Fund Director Blueness Assistance Referrals -Made 750 referrals to Barbara Green General counsel businesses needing guidance and information on other Steve Getz Energy Management Director small business financing sources. Barbara Keller Community Devebpment Director Christopher Richard Fiscal Officer Housing Needs Assessment -The shortage of afford- able housin has resulted in a shorta a of em to ees. Linda venturoni rlwccoG Executive D+recror g g p y Skyline sa Area Agency on In 1989, housing needsassessmentswere completed for Aging Director Routt, Eagle and Summit Counties. The needs assess- Lanewyalr warer8ualifyProgram Director water 9ualify/9uanttly ment defined the extent of the need for affordable coordirxrtor housing. Senior Nutrition Program - SSAAA increased the number SSAAA services in 1980 was approximately 1000. Exten- of nutrition sites in the region from eight to ten during slue outreach efforts have caused that number to 1980-1985. The ten year period witnessed a dramatic Increase steadily to a 1989 total of 2690 different older Increase in the number of meals served (+41 and the persons using at least one of the services. This number program income or donations increased at an ever represents a 71 % parficipation rate by Region XII elderly. greaterrate(+57%). Thechartsbelowdepictthegrowth as compared to a 5% national average. of the nutrltion program. Advocacy -Local control of the Aging and Nutrition National Study- SSAAA participated in a national study programs was seriously threatened from 1982-1985. A conducted through the auspices of the Administration new allocation formula was being considered by the on Aging in 1985. Some interesting facts about Region State which would have dramatically decreased fund- XII nutrition participants were revealed as a result. Our Ing for our region. Plans to assimilate Region XII Into a elderly had the highest rate of conMbution, were the larger western slope area were also on the drawing most knowledgeable regarding the purpose and Intent board. NWCCOG, SSAAA, local governments and of Older Americans Act programs and rated the pro- senior citizens launched a successful advocacy effort gram more well-managed than any other region sur- to maintain the current regional boundaries and to veyed in this study. ensure 'floor' funding of S 135,000 to this region for years to come. Outreach -The number of senior citizeru (60+) using SKYLINE SIX SENIOR NUTRITION PROGRAM SKYLINE SIX SENIOR NUTRITION PROGRAM MEAIS SERVED 1980 - 1989 PR06RAM INCOME 1980 - 1989 ~ 70 ~ ~ • 35 .sr, 30 rT} 't# = k; ~ t: ~ 30 ~i 4fb ~.rf 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 +1988 ,1989 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1486 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989" ' Post Office Box 739 Frisco, Colorado 80443 PHONE: 303-668-5445 - Gv~ y~~•~i ~~3 Remodel Old Post Office $132,517 Copy Machine 4,500 Minor Remodel of Community Development Space 3,000 TOTAL COST $140,017 Savings on Ski Museum/ Information Center $ 50,000 Use of Fund Balance 90,000 $140,000 ~s 7-a • 4r a,l,~rut ~ COST E , , , , STIMET~FOR MUNICIPAL ANNEX BUILDING OI{ UNI ;.G4ST.1'ER. UNIT . i~'E1V1 ~ # TS..;::~ _ ~ ,T.O,TAL DEMO 1 $6,000.0 $6,000 [ DOORS & HARDWARE 21 $600.0 $12,600 :WINDOWS 4 $900.0 $3,600 VENT REGISTERS 21 $350.0 $7,350 NEW HEAT RUNS 260 $25.0 $6,500 CARPET & FLOOR COVERING 584 $20.0 $11,680 [BASE 1191 $0.8 $953 4 X 4 CEILING LIGHTS 50 $50.0 $2,500 ELEC. OUTLETS 50 $40.0 $2,000_ LIGHT SWITCHES 20 $25.0 $500 << COMPUTER LINES 25 $35.0 $875 PHONE LINES 22 $35.0 $770 PRINTER LINES 18 $35.0 $630 FRONT DESK BUILTIN 1 $8,000.0 $8,000 [ AIR LOCK 1 $8,000.0 $8,000 SHEETROCK 7824 $1.4 $10,954 STUD WALLS 490 $9.0 $4,410 LAY-IN CEILING 5256 $1.6 $8,410 PAINT 1 $4,000.0 $4,000 FRONT WAITING AREA 1 $1,500.0 $1,500 TABLE 6 X 14 1 $1,000.0 $1,000 TABLE 4 X 8 1 $600.0 $600 CHAIRS 18 $300.0 $5,400 PHONE LINE TRANSFER US WEST 22 $100.0 $2,200 CONTRACTOR FEE 10% 1 $11,043 $11,043 CONTINGENCY 10% 1 $11,043 $11,043 TOTAL ~ $132,517>