Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-01-05 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL OVERVIEW WORK SESSION, TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 199 ~ 6:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA 1. Executive Session: Legal Matters. 2. Information Update. 3. Council Reports. 4. Other. 5. Adjournment. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/12/93,. BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCft CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL OVERVIEW WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/19/93, BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/19/93, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. C:WGENDA.WS VAIL TOWN COUNCIL OVERVIEW WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 199 ~ 6:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS EXPANDED AGENDA 6:30 P.M. 1. Executive Session: Legal Matters. 6:50 P.M. 2 Information Update. 3 Council Reports. 4. Other. 7:30 P.M. 5. Adjournment. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/12/93, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL OVERVIEW WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/19/93, BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/19/93, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. C:WGENpA.WSE MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 30, 1992 SUBJECT: Ordinance No. I, Series of f993, addressing a proposed major amendment to SDD #4 -Cascade Village. f...................... . v.: '+Gi>i~irrr:lir'~rir'iirifri'r'ir ireY ?i'~F iiin. iiti:::fX:::~ii~$i:-:;~..:.,.:•:4::::ii:`:++:i$t'i,'f::::tLr"r'i:i2iir. ?~f;FV: On December 7th, 1992, the PEC recommended approval for a request to amend SDD #4, Cascade Village, Area A. The vote was 5 - I, with Diana Donovan voting in opposition. The PEC's conditions of approval are specified in the attached memo to the Town Council dated December 8, 1992. On December 8th and i5th, 1992, the Town Council reviewed the proposed amendment during work sessions. At this time, the Town Council suggested a number of modifications to the project which included changes to the density and unit types on the Cornerstone building site. There was also further discussion as to the status of Westhaven Drive. As a result of the feedback from the Town Council, the applicant has chosen to modify the Cornerstone project to allow a single development plan for Cornerstone with 64 transient units versus the two development scenarios previously proposed to the PEC on December 7, 1992. With the current proposal there are no dwelling units located in the Cornerstone project. The applicant has not made any modifications to the Waterford project since the Planning Commission review. All statistics listed in the December 7th, 1992 memo to the PEC from the Community Development Department are up-to-date. The changes to the Cornerstone project are listed in the proposed Ordinance No. #1, Series of 1993. Ordinance #1, Series of 1993 has been written to address the applicant's current proposal which was a result of the Town Council's direction. This ordinance does not include those recommendations from the PEC which addressed the change to the definition of TR, as well as the restrictions on proposed dwelling units. These items are discussed further in the December 8th memo to the Town Council from Community Development under Cornerstone {item #2 and item #6). Because Scenario 2 has been deleted, these recommendations are not included in the proposed ordinance. The Ordinance will be delivered to the Town Council on Monday. shelly\memos\cas 12.30 • MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development DATE: December 8, 1992 SUBJECT: Planning Commission recommendations to the Town Council to approve a _ minor subdivision and major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade Village to amend the Development Plan for Waterford and Cornerstone parcels in Area A. :v:: vv::::: v.v:.vnw: v:::::: •.8::::.....r :::v::...........................• ;v; . v:::...:. 2~:::...,..::-'µ+~}~~v + . v; ....v. nw.?w::::{:•.:.w.:; • v::::::::: rv::: -.v.::v:.•r.::::....::Y r nu. .1.+.Oi::A::-:i:Yfn•: n3.......:.:. ,.8:: \:.?iJ,.:Y,.::L}{i: i:'.t.:?•{i:':=.•} •.::::..vn x:::... n...v....................: . , f ..:5 : ::...:•..:.•...::;ct:: •:..:xc.sw:•: :.:.r::: •::r :r:rf...n..:: :..:::.r~.,,....•..:.:•:u;:::Y':: f::: ,5.......r~l:?:•f:$ts;•~k.>fii:.:..::.r...... ':r:'f;;;~u On December 7, 1992, the PEC recommended approval for a request to amend SDD #4 Cascade Village Area A. The vote was 5-1. Diana Donovan opposed the application based on concerns related to the following: 1. The change in the TR definition to allow for units larger than 645 sq. ft. of GRFA, 2. The proximity of the Waterford building to the creek; and 3. The 20' width of the emergency access between the Cornerstone Building and the existing Terrace Wing Building. She also stated that she was generally more comfortable with the proposed Waterford project than the proposed Cornerstone project. The PEC also approved a request for a minor subdivision to create two independent lots for the two sites in question, the Waterford and Cornerstone building sites. The following items were conditions of the Planning Commission's recommendations to the Town Council, The staff s recommendation is listed in the attached memorandum, to the PEC dated December 7, 1992. Cornerstone 1. Before the building permit is released for the project, the three proposed employee housing units shall be permanently restricted per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance as follows: a. The EHU .shall include two (2) on-site parking spaces or the EHU shall include one (1) on-site parking space and the EHU shall be located "on" the Town's bus route (as determined by the Town Zoning Administrator); b. The EHU shall not be subdivided into any form of time shares, interval ownerships, or fractional fee; c. The EHU shall be leased, but only to +€.anants who are full-time employees who work in Eagle County. The °HU sh~`~ not be leased for a period less than thirty ~s (30) consecutive days. For the purposes of this Section, afull-time employee is one who works an average of a minimum of thirty (30) hours each week; d. No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of the employee housing unit shall submit two (2) copies of a report (on a form to be obtained from the Community Development Department), to the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail and the Chairperson of the Town of Vail Housing. Authority, setting forth evidence establishing that each tenant whom resides within the employee housing unit is a full-time employee in Eagle County. This agreement shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 2. Transient residential units proposed on both Scenario i and 2 shall not be individually condominiumized at any point in the future. These units shall remain as rental units used in the same martiner as hotel type units and are not intended for individual ownership. The definition of TR shall be changed to accommodate this proposal. 3. The developer agrees to complete asphalt borings and an as-built survey and to provide them to the Town of Vail for the area of the road adjacent to their property in order to determine the condition of Westhaven Drive. The Town Engineer shall determine when these drawings shall be required. 4. The proposed landscape plan between the Terrace Wing and the proposed Cornerstone building shall be revised prior to the review of the project by the DRB. For emergency services, an access lane must be provided from the western courtyard to the ski lift. In meeting this condition, the water feature on the landscape plan for this amendment may be removed or revised accordingly. The proposed landscaping in this area shall be part of the Cornerstone development and, therefore, it is the developer's responsibility to complete this portion of the project when the Cornerstone project is constructed. These plans shall be included in the building permit for the Cornerstone development at such time that it is developed. 5. The area of road in which parking is proposed under Westhaven Drive for the Cornerstone project shall be conveyed and transferred through the proposed minor subdivision to the Cornerstone property. An easement shall be granted to the Town of Vail over this area for public access. 6. In Scenario 2 of the Cornerstone project, three DUs will be condominiumized and available on the free market with no rental restrictions. In addition, two DUs that each have one AU and one lock off, shalt have the rental restrictions applied per Section 17.26.075 of the Subdivision Regulations. An additional DU will be available with one lock off for condominiumization. This DU/LO unit will also have the condominium- conversion rental restrictions applied to it per Section 17.26.075 of the Subdivision Regulations. e Watertord 1. The two proposed employee housing units shall be restricted per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance. This agreement shall be submitted before the building permit is released for the project. This agreement shall be recorded at Eagle County Clerk and recorder's Office. Please see the specific provisions of the ordinance under item 1. Cornerstone. 2. The developer agrees to complete asphalt borings and an as-built survey to determine the condition of Westhaven Drive from the South Frontage Road to the south end of the Cul-de-sac. The applicant agrees to provide stamped, engineered construction drawings for any road revisions that are necessary to bring the road up to Town standards. These construction drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail's engineer prior to the release of a building permit. All road improvements shall be completed by the developer for the project prior to T.C.O. The road will also be dedicated to the Town -prior to the release of a T.C.O. The dedication of the public access easement for the remainder of Westhaven Drive shall be conveyed at such time that the minor subdivision plat is submitted prior to a building permit being released for the project. The public access easement shall allow for parking enforcement by the Town of Vail. 3. The bike path shall be relocated and the existing easement shall be amended if ---possible on the minor subdivision plat to correspond to the new location. If the bike ' path is relocated while Waterford is being constructed, the bike path must be relocated and the easement provided to the Town for public access before a T.C.O. is released. The minor subdivision plat shall. be completed and recorded prior to the release of any building permits for either project. The minor subdivision. plat shall include the conveyance of property to Cornerstone for its parking located below grade, the Town's public access easement over the underground parking area in the current cul-de-sac, and the relocation of the bike path on the Waterford site, and the public access easement across Westhaven Drive. 4. The DRB will review the proposed landscaping in the areas of the retaining walls on the west and east ends of the site. The DRB wiH review the north elevation's architectural details. The applicant has also agreed to review the possibility of eliminating the skier access on the east end of the project. However, the PEC felt that if the applicant could significantly deer ~ ~e the retaining walls necessary to build the access, the skier access could remain. Waterford/Cornerstone 1. The general condominium plat and declarations shall be reviewed by the Town attorney and the Community Development Department. The primary concern is that. the parking be made permanently available to the users of the project. This includes the permanent dedication of those spaces allocated to commercial areas as short term public parking. All proposed required parking associated with the uses shall not be conveyed, used or leased separately from the uses. Public parking on the third floor of the Cornerstone project shall be made available to the public for short term parking within the building. The wording of the agreements listed above are also subject to the Town Attorney's review. These items will appear in the proposed ordinance for this amendment unless otherwise modified by the Town Attorney or the Town Council. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 7, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision and a major amendment to SDD #4, Cascade_ Village, to amend the development plans for the Waterford and Cornerstone parcels in area A. the Waterford site is generally located on the SE corner of the intersection of Westhaven Drive and the S. Frontage Road. The Cornerstone site is on Westhaven Drive south of the Cascade Village parking structure. The legal descriptions are as follows: Waterford Site That part of the SW 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Prinapal Meridian, Town of Vai?, Eagle County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way line of Interstate Highway No. 70 whence an iron pin with a plastic cap marking the center of said Section 12 bears S 33°10'19' W 1447.03 feet; thence along said southerly right-of-way line two courses 1) N 52°50'29" E 229.66 feet 2) N 74°38'1T E 160.70 feet; thence departing said southerly right~of-way line N 88°45'ST E 138.93 feet; thence S 40°45'14' W 94.32 feet; thence S 18° 18'36" W 54.08 feet; thence S 01°21'36' W 205.02 feet; thence S 12°07'36' W 110.25 feet; thence S 28°28'36' W 164.48 feet thence N 40 °17'04" W 211.16 feet; thence N 49°42'56" E 97.80 feet; thence N 37°09'31" W 95.59 feet; thence S 52°50'29' W 55.10 feet; thence 69.48 feet along the arc of anon-tangent curve to the IeR having a - radius of 65.Ob feet, a central angle of 61°14'42" and a chord that bears N 58° 55'53" W 66.22 feet; thence N 37°09'31" W 118.50 feet To The True Point of Beginning, County of Eagle, State of Color:=-~~: and the Cornerstone parcel described as follows: Cornerstone Site That part of the SW 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Prinapal Meridian, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the easterly line of anon-exclusive easement for ingress and egress known as Westhaven Drive recorded in Book 421 at Page 651 in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder whence the center of said Section 12 bears S 38°34'43"W 1,168.27 feet; thence ssinng said line of Westhaven Drive N 52°43'41"E 143.92 feet; thence departing said line of Westhav~;n Drive, 132.24 feet atom the arc of anon-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 55.00 feet, a cenVal angle of 137°45'30" and a chord that bears N 42°11'46"E 102.61 feet; thence N 52°50'29"E 65.24 feet thence S 37°09'31'E 95.59 feet; thence S 49°42'56"W 97.80 feet; thence S 40°1704"E 24.12 feet; thence S ~1`;50'29'W 213.66 feet thence N 37°09'31"W 105.76 feet to the point of beginning containing 0.68~1E~ -.°:res more or less. Applicant: MECM Enterprises, Waterford Site and Commercial Federal Savings, Cornerstone Site Planner: Shelly Mello .yf:;F;r,.o;;"•02;:+.ct;...:.yr: ..::.x~.••r• ;:•tt,::•..•+: , ..•-..:••.y.,:,.: .ty.•?.':.~,. ..•m::..:.• :::................:::,,.•xx:~?'.:`•.;•r.::rr.} . ....,{~/.Y•.~>Y..~ . ::tf;: rn ,3.,1.:: ,,,,,,,'ff:..:::.:.;.,;.,...,:r•:.,.:SYa'%A:.:: .':,Y.. f...•i :v..... - ~.•..~i.~',:..: .'Y`••.. .r~°. f.,:xv,.••:: :.:.......:f .................f. ,:.r x •.•r: r::::ry:;•:•i.. ~::.i.:.v: ;r.}•{.::: n:•.~.:vv :•ni:-:x{~..,.: F•: '•i•: .{...ry•:: •::...':i::•::i:~i:{: f:•. f: ,,.r::.:: ••o.:•::::ao:f,•: r::•.:: ...r::,::•:.:::•:;f:::or. ta•::: ~ <c.......::: r..........:....: x:::::: ~.w. • •.v. ~•ti:M1'ti.VX..::~:.:: »iriii•:i.:•::r::.v::•:?^:L.'I.'•X{•iii: i:~i:t•: i}:•:~:i'} 'i'•'i'.... ~ n. i. v:..~n::::: .:;,,.,:x•: .:.ii'T).•.'•:•i'C-.'•:•1::.':•~v+ttri:S':xfiiiin v.JH.v/~ .FrtmMSx:.•:.! I. INTRODUCTION In July, September, and October of 1992, the PEC reviewed a proposed amendment to the Cascade Village SDD #4, Area A, Development Plan. The initial proposal specifically addressed the Waterford site located at the southeast corner of Westhaven Drive and the South Frontage Road. It has been decided that, in order to move forward with the amendment to the Waterford site, that the Cornerstone site to the west of Waterford also needs to be amended. In October, 1992, a third work session was held which specifically addressed the Cornerstone site. The changes to the Cornerstone site are necessary because currently there is an interdependence between the two sites in respect to the provision of parking. Each site is owned by independent entities and it is their desire to eliminate any interdependence between the two sites. The aoal of this effort is to approve two development glans which can be constructed independent of each other. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 4, Cascade Village Area A and more specifically, the Cornerstone and Waterford sites. A minor subdivision is also being requested to create two individual lots. The Cornerstone parcel is bound by the proposed Waterford project to the east, Gore _ Creek and the Westin Terrace Building to the south and Westhaven Drive to the norfn:` The Waterford parcel is on the corner of the South Frontage Road and Westhaven Drive with Gore Creek to the south and the Waterford site to the west. The parcel was zoned SDD from the time it was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1974. There is no underlying zoning. The current approval for the Cornerstone site allows for one development scheme with two options for the commercial area. The applicant is proposing two scenarios for this amendment. Scenario I includes transient units and commercial area while Scenario 2 includes a mixture of dwelling units, transient units, and commercial area. In addition, both Scenarios include three employee units. The Cornerstone site modifications are being necessitated by the inclusion of parking which previously was located on the Waterford site. Parking has been accommodated below grade and on the second and third levels. Scenario 2 calls for 34 transient units, 6 dwelling units with 3 lockoffs, 2 accommodation units and 3 employee units in Scenario 2. Scenario 1 would allow 52 transient units and 3 employee units. Under Scenario 2, the applicant has requested that three of the dwelling units located in the east wing be free market and proposes that the remaining 3 dwelling units, the 3 corresponding lockoffs, and the 2 accommodation units would be condominiumized and restricted by the "condo conversion" requirements. The 1989 approved plan allows for 50 transient units. In both scenarios, the applicant proposes to permanently restrict the transient residential units to a lodging use, ie. the units will not be condominiumized. Please see Section IV (A) Zoning Consideration for a detailed comparison between the approved plan and the two proposed scenarios. 2 The Cornerstone proposal currently being reviewed does propose to locate parking below a portion of Westhaven Drive. The applicants propose to transfer ownership of a portion of the road with the proposed minor subdivision to allow for this. The 1989 approved Waterford plan allowed for two scenarios. The applicant is proposing only one development plan for this amendment. The first included 75 accommodation units and the second allowed for 30 dwelling units. Both included 3,800 square feet of commercial space and parking for both the Waterford and Cornerstone sites. The applicant is currently proposing only one scenario which allows- for 27 dwelling units and 2 employee units. No increase in GRFA has been requested and the parking for the Waterford dwelling units will be provided on site. The applicant also proposes to relocate the recreation path 10' to the south. Please see Section IV (B) for specific zoning considerations. III. BACKGROUND The Cascade Village Development was previously owned by a single development entity. As proposed by the past developer, the project was a system of interdependent phases to be built into an integrated complex which provided commercial areas, short- term and long-term residential units and consolidated parking facilities. Since the bankruptcy of the original developer, ownership of the sites has been dispersed among different owners. This plan is now more difficult to execute, as each owner has different development objectives for their respective sites. The change in ownership effects the Cornerstone project because, as approved, all of the parking for the Cornerstone project was to be located on the Waterford site. These projects are now held by two entities who want to provide their own parking on their respective sites. 166 parking spaces were to be provided in the Waterford project for the Cornerstone development. An additional outstanding issue in the Cascade Village development is the ownership status of Westhaven Drive, from the South Frontage Road to the Gore Creek Bridge. The road is owned by the owner of the Waterford site, MECM Enterprises, and is privately maintained by a separate entity. This road has not been. conveyed to the Town because it does not meet the Town's minimum road standards. 3 IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS A. Comparison of Approved and Proaosed Development Plans for Cornerstone Approved Proposed Proposed Scenario Scenario 1 Scenario 2 i) Density of Units) 50 TR* 52 TR + 3 emp. 34 TR units 3 DU's (free market) 3 DU w/3 I.o. and 2 AU's (restricted) 3 emp. units** 2) G RFA 28,110 sq. ft. 28,110 + 1800 sq. ft. 28,110 + 1800 for emp. units sq. ft. for emp. units 3) Common Area 34,919 sq. ft. 16,817 sq. ft. 16,817 sq. ft. 4) Commercial Space 26,040 or 11,100 sq. ft. 11,100 sq. ft. 29,065 sq. ft. 5) Credits Given None per multi-family per multi- zoning family zoning 6) Height North 71' max on 71' from plaza 71' from plaza to top of ridge to top of ridge South N/A because 49 49 East buildings are 70 70 West connected 67 67 7) Setbacks North 0 0 0 South Distance between Terrace Wing and Cornerstone 45' S4 54 East 0 0 4 West ~ 0 0 0 8) Site Coverage 26,533 sq. ft. 20,930 sq. ft. 20,930 sq. ft. 9) Parking 155.9 or 89 req. spaces w/75% 84 req. 166 spaces enclosed; w/75% enclosed in 89 proposed w/ enclosed; Waterford 100°I° enclosed 89 proposed Structure w/100% enclosed _ B. Comparison of Approved and Proposed Development Plans for Waterford Approved Approved Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Proposed 1) Density of Units) 75 AUs 30 DUs 27 DUs+ 2 restricted emp. units 2) GRFA 47,500 sq. ft. 47,500 sq. ft. 47,500 sq.ft. + 1100 Sq. ft. restricted emp. units 3) Common Area 14,297 sq. ft. 14,297 sq. ft. 33,913 sq. ft. 4) Retail Space 3,800 sq. ft. 3,800 sq. ft. 0 5) Credits Given None None per multi-family zoning 6) Height North 48 feet 48 feet 55 ft. South 61 feet 61 feet 65 ft. East 61 feet 61 feet 65 ft. West 48 feet 48 feet 56 ft. 7) Setbacks (Building) North 8'-15'-18' 8'-15'-18' 4'-46'-64 North (to parking lot) NA NA 2'-25' South 20 min. 20 min. 26 min. East 20-91 20-91 10-84 5 West 18 18 10 8) Site Coverage 26,186 sq. ft. 26,186 sq. ft. 19,230 sq. ft. 11,100 sq. ft. surface lot 2 - 25' 9) Parking 72.7 spaces 87.7 spaces 58 spaces all parking all parking required; enclosed enclosed 60 proposed . 43 enclosed or 75% ar req., 19 surface * SDD # 4 defines a transient as follows: "Transient residential dwelling unit or restricted dwelling unit" shall be defined as a dwelling unit located in amulti-family dwelling that is managed as a short term rental in which all such units are operated under a single management providing the occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilities. A short term rental shall be deemed to be a rental for a period of time not to exceed 31 days. Each unit shall not exceed 645 square feet of GRFA which shall include a kitchen having a maximum of 35 square feet. The kitchen shall be designed so that it may be locked and separated from the rest of the unit in a closet. A transient dwelling unit shall be accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through another accommodation unit, dwelling unit, or a transient residential dwelling unit. Should such units be developed as condominiums, they shall be restricted as set forth in Section 17.26.075--17.26.120 governing condominium conversion. The unit shall not be used as a permanent residence. Fractional fee ownership shall not be allowed to be applied to transient dwelling units. For the purposes of determining allowable density per acre, transient residential dwelling units shall be counted as one half of a~dwelling unit. The transient residential dwelling unit parking requirement shall be 0.4 space per unit plus 0.1 space per each 100 square feet of GRFA with a maximum of 1.0 space per unit." Permanently restricted employee units do not count towards density or GRFA per the current SDD#4 Ordinance. The proposed D.U.'s are restricted .per the Use Restrictions in Section 17.26 Condo Conversion of the Subdivision Regulations per the developer's request. Lock-off Unit: A dwelling unit in amultiple-family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one-third of the total floor area of the dwelling. 6 The proposed projects depart from the existing definition of transient unit provided in this SDD. This definition will need to be revised to allow for the larger TR units proposed in Scenario I and II for Cornerstone. The proposed size of the lockoffs do not conform to the definition provided in the zoning code. As approved, the Cornerstone and Waterford buildings were connected below grade. In the approved plan, a large portion of the Cornerstone common area was located on what is now considered Waterford property. In the proposed plan, the two projects are completely separate and the parking structure for Waterford is located in front of the residential development. In the previous plan, Waterford residential structure was located directly above the parking. For this reason, the staff feels that it is more accurate to consider the projects together when reviewing common area and site coverage as shown below: Cornerstone/Waterford Cornerstone/Waterford Approved Proposed Total Site Coverage 52,719 sq. ft. 40,160 + 11,100 parking structure = 51,160 sq. ft. Total Common Area 49,216 sq. ft. 50,730 sq. ft. V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the nine 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. 1. Cornerstone The mass and bulk of the proposed project is similar to that of the approved development plan. The building shell will remain the same for each proposed scenario. This building shell is similar to that of the approved plan in mass and scale, however, it is no longer connected to either the Conference Center to the west or the Waterford Building to the east. The proposed building footprint is smaller than that of the approved development plan with the proposed site coverage at 20,930 square feet and the approved site coverage at 26,533 square feet. The south elevation has 6 exposed levels. Levels 3-6 are exposed on the north elevation adjacent to Westhaven Drive, for a total of 4 exposed floors with the following uses: 7 1st Level Commercial (9,900 sq. ft.) 2nd Level Parking/Employee units (3 units) 3rd Level Parking/Commercial (11,200 sq. ft.) 4th Level Residential 5th Level Residential 6th Level Residential This proposal adds an additional level to the building compared to the 1989 approval. The approved development plan has a total of 5 exposed floors on the north elevation and 3 levels on the south elevation. However, the overall height of the building has not increased. This additional level was accomplished by decreasing the floor to ceiling heights at each level and increasing the amount of usable area in the roof form. The need to add parking on this site has changed the overall program for the building. This effects the building because more floor area is needed to accomplish the development standards set forward by the SDD. This was accomplished while working with the existing building envelope, by first adding below grade parking and second by adding an additional level above grade. The amount of approved commercial space has been decreased from 29,065 square feet to 11,100 square feet. The staff recognizes that all of these changes are necessary in order to accommodate the need for on-site parking. This proposal also includes a reduction in the mass over the pedestrian access area which is a focal point for those entering Cascade Village. The decrease in the mass will allow for an increase in visibility of the mountain behind. The proposal includes the use of architectural details similar to those of the other existing buildings in Cascade Village. This includes a metal roof, protruding balconies, stucco finish and painted metal railings. In addition, arcades similar to those in the Terrace Wing have been included at both the Terrace Wing level and the Westhaven Drive pedestrian level. With the approved development plan, there was a great deal of consideration given to the public spaces on the site. These areas include, the mall area and the outdoor stair through the Cornerstone building connecting Westhaven Drive to the ski lift, the public space between the Terrace Wing and Cornerstone, as well as public areas connecting this site to the rest of the Westin Complex. This was accomplished with a series of connected plazas and other site amenities starting at Westhaven Drive leading to the ski lift/pedestrian area. Due to emergency access requirements, the applicant has proposed to include a modified plan of the approved landscape plan for the area between Cornerstone and the Terrace Wing with this amendment. It is the staff s findings that these off-site amenities are to be completed by the developer of the Cornerstone project at the time of the construction of this project. There is a severe grade change on this site from Westhaven Drive to the ski 8 lift~public space level. This, along with the configuration of the site, present many practical difficulties. Due to the grade change, the visual impacts of each building elevation are different. Because each side of the building is exposed to public ways, staff believes each elevation of the building to be very important. Landscape material and berms have been incorporated into the plan in order to decrease the visual impacts of each of these elevations.. The staff finds that although the proposal includes a net increase in square footage because of the additional parking level below grade that the proposal is in compliance with the intent of the Cascade Village development and is compatible with the area surrounding the project. Please note site coverage, GRFA and common area have actually been decreased. 2. Waterford This site is disturbed due to the dumping of excess fill from other projects in Cascade Village. For this reason, there are few natural characteristics remaining on the property. There is also a severe grade change on this property from the South Frontage Road to the bike path (adjacent to the Creek.) The proposed plan for the Waterford project is more of a departure from the approved plan than that proposed for Cornerstone in respect to architectural style and site planning. The architectural details are similar to those of the Westin, however, the massing incorporates a series of smaller roof forms in a series of staggered towers versus a single roof mass as seen 'rn other Cascade Village buildings. The proposed building does exceed the maximum height on the west and south elevations. Per the SDD and the approved plans, the maximum height allowed is 48 and 61 feet respectively. The height of the proposed west elevation is 56 feet. The current proposal. is to allow for a building of 65 feet from finish grade to the top of the ridge on the south side. The staff feels that due to the changes in the project and the relocation of the mass, that this is an acceptable solution. The main increase in height along the west elevation is acceptable for the same reason. As approved, the minimum distance from the building to bike path was 20 feet. As proposed, that distance would increase to 26 feet. Again, the staff feels that this also supports the ability to increase the height to 65 feet because. of the increased distance between the .pedestrian area and the bike path. The staff finds that the relocation of the building and the decreased height adjacent to the Frontage Road justify the increase in height on the west elevations and along the pedestrian path on the south elevatian. While the approved plan proposed more mass adjacent to the Frontage Road, this proposal shifts the concentration of mass to the south. The staff finds that this is an improvement to the plan because it will provide relief along the Frontage Road. At-grade surface parking will be located between the Frontage Road and the building. There is no surface parking in the approved plan. The surface parking will be five feet below the top of the berm. adjacent to the 9 Frontage Road. This parking and landscaping will provide a buffer between the building and the Frontage Road. In addition, a 5-25 foot wide strip of landscaping is proposed between the parking and the applicant's property line. As a result of the shifting of the mass away from the Frontage Road, the mass is closer to the recreation path on the south side. While there are 2-4 stories on the north side (Frontage Road view) there will be 4-5 1/2 stories on the south (Gore Creek side). The proposal maintains a 26 minimum setback from the bike path which is proposed to be relocated 10 feet off to the south. A landscape which includes berming between the bike path and the building helps to maintain the pedestrian scale of the area. Staff also looked at the approved building mass adjacent to Westhaven Drive, (west elevation). The staff feels that this proposal addresses the location of mass and bulk better than the approved plan as less building is proposed in this area. Originally, more building length was proposed along Westhaven Drive. Though the building's height impacts the bike path and the properties to the north and west. The staff finds that, although the proposal includes an overall increase in common area the proposal is in compliance with the intent of the Cascade Village development and is compatible with the area surrounding the project. Please note, GRFA and site coverage have not increased and. a substantial amount of floor area is below grade. The staff encourages the applicant to add additional architectural detail particularly windows on the north elevation prior to DRB review. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. 1. Cornerstone The applicant is proposing two scenarios for this site. Previously, there was a single development plan which included transient units and retail uses. The proposed Scenario I provides for 52 transient units, 3 employee units, 11,100 square feet of commercial area, 2 loading berths, and 89 enclosed parking spaces. This would allow 2 additional transient units or 1 DU over the existing approval. Scenario 2 provides 34 transient units, 3 free market dwelling units, 3 dwelling units with 3 lockoffs, 2 accommodation units to be restricted per the Condo Conversion requirements, 2 employee units, 11,100 square feet of commercial area, 2 loading berths, and 89 enclosed parking spaces. The resulting residential density is under the approved density by 1 DU. Of the three restricted units, two would each be sold with an associated lock-off and an AU and the third condominium would have only one lock-off. 10 Agglicant's Proposal Unrestricted Condominiums: 3 DU Restricted Condominiums: 2 DU each wl 1 lockoff and 1 AU 1 DU with 1 lockoff Transient units: 34 Transient units Employee units: 3 units Scenario 2 involves a substantial departure from the original plan for Cascade Village. The requested change involves three unrestricted dwelling units in instead of all' transient units. The initial intent for Cornerstone was to provide short-term rentals which, it was believed, would subsequently increase the use of the entire Cascade facility. The staff has researched this issue and found that there is a demand for short-term rentals of this type in the Valley. Currently, the bed base is split 50/50 between condos and accommodation type units according to the Vail Resort Association. Demand for each type of unit seems to differ between season. There would appear to be a greater demand for accommodation type-units during the summer for short 2-3 day stays, while during the winter, stays tend to be longer and condominiums are more desirable. For this reason, .we feel that short-term rentals must be included in the proposal and if Scenario 2 is approved a minimum of 3 DU's with their lock offs should be permanently restricted per the Condo Conversion requirements. The two AU's in Scenario 2 should not be condominiumized with the adjacent condominiums as the applicant has proposed. This would keep the AU's in the rental pool. We also believe that allowing 3 large free market dwelling units is acceptable given the change in development requirements for this project such as parking. It is felt that the mixed use character of the project is still maintained. Staff's Recommendation Unrestricted condominiums: 3 DU Restricted Condominiums: 3 DU w/1 lockoff Rental units: 34 Transient units 2 AU Employee units: 3 1i 2. Waterford As proposed, the project includes 27 free market condominiums (with 47,500 square feet of GRFA) and 2 restricted employee housing units (1100 square feet of GRFA) for a total of 48,600 square feet of GRFA. Historically, the GRFA and the units in SDD #4 dedicated to employee housing have not been counted towards the overall density of the project. The request decreases the number of approved units from 30 to 27. The density proposed is in keeping with the original development scenario and is compatible with the surrounding area. 3. Cornerstone/Vllaterford Emulovee Housing The applicant for Cornerstone is proposing 3 employee units. In reviewing the application, the staff used the suggested employee housing criteria. This study suggested that the following formula be used to determine employee housing requirements for projects that do not exceed density. Cornerstone Scenario 1: 52 TR x .75 emp. per unit = 39 11,100 sq. ft. of com x 6.5 emp. p/1000 sq. ft. = 72.15 ~-1-:~ 5 x .15 housing multiplier 16.67 Scenario 2: 34 TR + 2 AU x .75 emp per unit = 26.25 6 DU x .4 emp per unit - 2.4 11,100 sq. ft. com x 6.5 emp per 1000 sq. ft.= 72.15 100.8 x .15 housing multiplier 15.12 Waterford 27 DU x .4 emp per unit = 10.8 x .15 housing multiplier 1.62 Assuming 2 employees will share each unit, 9 units would be required for Scenario 1 and 8 units would be required for Scenario 2 for Cornerstone. One unit would be required for Waterford for a maximum possible total of 10 units for both projects. 12 Because a total of 5 employee units are being provided between the Waterford and Cornerstone projects, where previously there were none proposed, and because .parking must now be provided on site, the staff finds that 5 units are acceptable. The proposed Waterford project is below density as is Scenario 2 of the Cornerstone proposal. As proposed, Scenario 1 for Waterford is 2 transient units over the approved density, but there is no increase in GRFA. The staff sees the provision of employee housing as a benefit to both projects and wit{ not require additional employee units as a result of this. Historically, in Cascade Village, GRFA and units attributed to employee units have not been _ counted toward density or GRFA for the project. C. Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined to Chapter 18.52. Co rnerstone/Vl/aterfo rd Under Section 18.52 of the Municipal Code, each dwelling unit with less than 2,000 square feet of GRFA would have a parking requirement of 2 spaces and those with over 2,000 square feet of GRFA would require 2.5 spaces per unit. Those with Less than 500 square feet require 1.5 spaces. The parking requirements for accommodation units and transient units are as follows: .4 space per .accommodation unit, plus .1 space per each 100 square foot of GRFA with a maximum of 1 space per unit. Each employee unit will require 1 parking space assuming the units are one bedroom units. Each site will now satisfy its parking requirement on site. As discussed previously, this has significant implications on the program for the Cornerstone site. The staff believes that this change is very positive because it allows each site to be developed and operated independent of each other. The parking provisions are listed below: Required Parkina Proposed Cornerstone Scenario 1 89 spaces with 75% 89 .spaces proposed enclosed with 100% enclosed Scenario 2 84 spaces with 75% 89 spaces proposed encla aed with 100%enclosed 13 Waterford 58 spaces with 60 spaces with 75% enclosed 43 enclosed or 75% of req. The Cornerstone project will also provide 2 loading berths along Westhaven Drive for the commercial uses. Staff believes this criterion is met. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. Cornerstone and Waterford Applicable goals and objectives form the Town's Land Use Plan for this area include: 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well as its potential for public use. 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 3.5 Entertainment oriented businesses and cultural activities should be encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More night time businesses, on going events and sanctioned "street happenings" should be encouraged. 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 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. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 14 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. 1. Cornerstone When the Cascade Village development was proposed, there was a comprehensive plan developed which provided a balance of long- and short- term housing. The Goals 3.1 and 3.3 specifically address the Town's desire to maintain hotel type units. In considering each proposal, the staff considered three points: 1. What was previously approved, 2. What are the current goals- and objectives of the Town at this time, 3. We recognized. that the conditions of ownership of Cascade Village have changed. Both proposals allow for residential and commercial growth in a recognized core area which are discussed in goals 1.1, 1.12, 3.4, and 5.1. The provision of employee housing as addressed in goals 5.3 and 5.5 is being incorporated into each project which is a benefit to the Town. The Scenario 2 proposal involves a change to allow some dwelling units versus all short-term transient units. The staff feels that it is important to maintain units which are available for short-term use, however, we recognize the importance of providing a full range of housing types. Scenario 2 provides dwelling, accommodation, transient, and employee units. This scenario will be a positive change for this parcel if 3 of the dwelling units were restricted and the lockoffs attached were also restricted by the Condo Conversion requirements. The staff would recommend that the two accommodation units in Scenario 2 not be condominiumized and sold and therefore remain i!1 the rental pool. The remaining three dwelling units would be free market. This area is also considered to be a mixed use commercial center for the Town, similar to Lionshead and Vail Village. The reduction of commercial square footage has been carefully considered. The staff finds that some reduction in commercial space is necessary in order to accommodate on-site parking. 2. Waterford The Waterford proposal request is for 27 free market condominiums, 2 employee units, and no commercial square footage. The staff feels that the elimination of the allowed 3,800 square feet of commercial space is warranted due to the location of the project which is more removed from the commercial areas in Cascade Village and size change to the overall design scheme for the project. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. 1. Cornerstone There are no natural and/or geologic hazards on this site which would restrict its development. 15 2. Waterford The proposed building does not encroach into the 100 year floodplain or 50' Gore Creek setback. The relocated bike path will not encroach into either the creek setback or 100 year floodplain. 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. 1. Cornerstone The at-grade building footprint of the proposed plan and the approved plan are similar however, Cornerstone is no longer connected to the Waterford building or to the Conference Building to the west. When comparing the current proposal to the approved plan, the overall setbacks are similar. An additional floor has been proposed in this project as a result of reducing the floor-to- ceiling heights ~t each level and using the area in the roof form more efficiently. The total height of the building has not increased. The maximum height as measured form the plaza to the highest point on the roof is 71 feet. Landscaping has been incorporated on the east elevation to screen the lower building mass. The parking will not be open to the exterior and at any level and the exterior of the structure will be detailed with inset stucco arches and painted metal railings. A landscape plan has also been included for the plaza area between the Terrace Wing and the Cornerstone project. The approved plan has been modified in order to allow for emergency access. The staff feels that this area should be constructed with the Cornerstone project. 2. Waterford The proposed building uses a series of staggered towers and broken roof forms with the parking facilities located to the north of the building. The approved building for this project was a series of lower structures and a more unified roof plan. The parking facilities were located below the facility. The building mass was similar to that of the other Cascade Village Buildings. This proposed plan concentrates the mass and bulk such that the result is a more vertical building which is setback farther from the South Frontage Road than the original approval. The site planning of the proposed project and the approved project also differ. The approved plan incorporated residential dwelling units over the parking facilities and spread out the development. The proposed plan does not overlay the building and the parking facility. Instead, they are separate entities. A 5 - 25 foot wide landscape buffer has been proposed .between the at-grade parking and the property line in order to insure adequate landscaping area on the applicant's property. There is approximately 25 feet between the property line and the closest portion of the building. In addition, there. is 15-20 feet of 16 landscaped CDOT right-of-way between the property line and -the road. If all of the existing vegetation in this area is destroyed during excavation, it will be replaced with trees of comparable size. The applicant will be responsible for documenting this existing vegetation prior to the release of any grading or building permits for the project. When comparing the current proposal, including the oarkina facility, to the approved plan, the overall setbacks are similar. The biggest difference is the location of the massing. This relocation of .mass is especially apparent in the area along the South Frontage Road. However on the south side, it is similar to the approved plan along Westhaven and the bike path. The staff is concerned with two elements of the site plan. The first of these is the series of retaining walls on either end of the project. The staff recognizes that these walls are necessary due to the severe grade changes on the site, however, we fee! that the landscaping should be more dense for better screening. The second issue is related to the retaining walls on the east end of the property. The staff would like to see the proposed skier access into the building eliminated and- the building used as a retaining wall. This will also decrease the impact of the east elevation as viewed from the bike path. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. 1. Cornerstone and Waterford The Town is interested in resolving an off-site circulation concern. This involves the dedication of a portion of Westhaven Drive to the Town. Currently, Westhaven Drive from the South Frontage Road to the Gore Creek Bridge is owned by the Waterford project applicant, MECM Enterprises. The road does not meet the Town's standards and certain improvements related to the grade, construction and building clearance beneath the pedestrian bridge will need to be addressed prior to the conveyance of the right-of-way to the Town. The staff does not feel it would be equitable to require the Waterford developers to complete all of the road improvements in conjunction with their project. instead, we feel that the Waterford developers should be required to bring the portion of the road from.the South Frontage Road to the cul-de-sac up to standards and dedicate this portion and also dedicate a public easement for the remainder of the road to the Gore Creek bridge. The applicant's for Waterford have agreed to complete this work prior to the issuance of a TCO for the project. The Cornerstone developers have also agreed to perform the necessary tests which include borings to determine base compaction and an as-built profile of the road to determine the condition of the road in front of their project as part of this amendment, however, they will not be required to complete the necessary improvements. Public Works' opinion is in that it would be impractical to have Cornerstone rebuild the portion of Westhaven Drive in front of their project because all of the road improvements from the cui-de-sac should be completed at the same time. 17 2. Cornerstone With the proposed minor subdivision, a portion of Westhaven Drive, where the Cornerstone parking is located under the roadway, will be conveyed to the Cornerstone property owner. The Town will then obtain an easement for public access where the Westhaven Drive will now cross private property. The Town staff finds that this is a reasonable solution. Pedestrian circulation through the Cornerstone building to the ski lift is proposed as a series of plazas with landscaping from Westhaven Drive to the ski lift pedestrian area. The staff feels that the proposed stairway is an inviting element which is pedestrian friendly. The plaza area at the bottom of the stair - between the buildings includes an arcade with landscaping and will incorporate concrete unit pavers for the walking surface. The staff feels that the pedestrian area addresses the circulation needs in an aesthetic and functional fashion. The staff would like to see the concrete unit pavers used in two areas which are currently proposed as asphalt and concrete. These areas are along the sidewalk adjacent to Westhaven Drive and at the ski lift approach where it connects into the bike path. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Both sites are substantially disturbed, there are few remaining natural characteristics. With the proposed development, there would be limited ' remaining open space on the site. Because of this, the remaining landscaped areas become critical. Landscaping is especially important along the South Frontage Road, Westhaven Drive, and the pedestrian mall area. The applicants have proposed landscaping plans which address these areas. 1. Cornerstone The applicant has included. the approved landscape plan for the public space between the Terrace wing and the Cornerstone site as previously discussed. The need for emergency access has resulted in a modification of the approved plan. The proposed landscaping for the area in between the Terrace Wing and Cornerstone includes a series of low concrete planters having irregular shapes. This landscaping is shifted towards Cornerstone to allow for the 20 feet fire lane. In respect to the landscaping sketch adjacent to the southeast corner of the building, the applicant proposed to keep the green space as is and will provide a 20 foot accessway through this area. Final design details will be provided prior to DRB review. Staff believes that a paver walkway and additional landscaping are acceptable in place of the original plan's terrace and water feature. The applicant has proposed to raise the grades along the east and west ends of the building in order to further screen these areas. The staff would request that the DRB consider the planting materials in these areas in order to provide as much screening as possible. 18 2. Waterford The applicant has met with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to discuss the limitations on landscaping along the Frontage Road. CDOT has indicated that all existing landscaping may remain and that additional Landscaping may be added to the south of the existing vegetation. For this reason, the staff finds that the proposed distance between the parking structure and the property line is adequate. As discussed previously, any landscaping which is destroyed during the construction process will be replaced with comparable vegetation. The staff would also request that all walkways be made of concrete unit pavers versus concrete. The applicant is proposing to relocate the recreation. path approximately 10 feet to the south. This is being proposed in order to increase the buffer between the recreation path and the building. The staff has reviewed the site and feels that this is appropriate for the first 225-250 feet of the path from east property line. The relocation will not displace any vegetation nor will it .encroach into the flood plain or creek setback. However, we do not feel it is necessary to move the remaining portion of the path. The applicant also proposes to rebuild the existing pedestrian access form Westhaven Drive to the ski lift should the Cornerstone project not be built at the time of the construction of the Waterford project. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Cornerstone and Waterford As initially proposed, Cornerstone and Waterford were to be constructed simultaneously. This simultaneous phasing plan was necessitated by the pro°~rision of marking the Waterford site for the Cornerstone project. Due to the subsequent cha , in ownership of the two sites, this becomes a difficult proposition. An interi~~t landscape plan for the Waterford site has been proposed in the event that these projects are not constructed simultaneously. In the process of reviewing each ~f these requests, it has become apparent to the staff that when parking is added to the approved development plan for Cornerstone, it becomes difficult to maintain the approved development rights lie. GRFA, number of units, and coy. a~nercial space). Both proposals include a net reduction of development rights ~a~hife adding employee units. The staff finds that it is ~hsoluteiy critical to tl~ approval of any amendment for either the Waterford or Cornerstone project, to resolve the parking issue in a workable solution. In the staff's opinion, the applicant's have achieved this goal. 19 VI. MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA The standard criteria for any minor subdivision includes lot size, the road frontage and lot configuration which are different for each zone district. Because this is an SDD and there is no underlying. zoning, there are no lot size, frontage or lot configuration requirements for this minor subdivision. A minor subdivision is being completed in order to create two independent lots as well as deed a portion of the road to Cornerstone. Historically, these sites have been portioned off as the project developed. .Because there are numerous owners now involved in the development of Cascade Village, the staff feels it is necessary to complete this minor subdivision. The minor subdivision completed before a building permit is released for either project. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff supports the applicants' requests to amend the development plans for the Waterford and Cornerstone sites located in SDD #4 -Cascade Village Area A. The staff finds that each proposal meets the SDD criteria as well as the goals and objectives of the Town. In considering each application, the staff worked to achieve solutions which take into account the changing conditions of Cascade Village and the most appropriate development for each parcel. In the Cornerstone project, the staff remains concerned with the applicant's request to condominiumize the proposed AUs. However, we find that the merits of this amendment are substantial and do not find that the AU issue is reason enough to recommend denial of the project. We also find that the request to .allow for 6 DUs, 3 of which will be condominiumized without the condo conversion requirements to be acceptable. With the Waterford proposal, there is an increase in the proposed common area. The total increase in common area for the two projects in comparison to the original two projects is 1514 sq. ft. Given the fact that the density GRFA and site coverage are below the previous amounts for both ,staff believes this average is acceptable. The same reasoning is also applicable to the height increase of four feet on the south and east elevations. In addition, staff prefers the building massing of the proposed project over the previous projects. The staff has some design concerns with the landscaping and architectural details for the Waterford site which we believe can be addressed by the DRB. The staff would like to see the skier access on the east .end of the building removed and the building be used to retain a portion of the slope. We would also .like to see the landscaping in both of the retaining areas increased to screen the proposed keystone walls as well as the east elevation of the Cornerstone building. This element should be reviewed by the DRB in detail. The staff would also require that the DRB review each building elevation for architectural details especially those on the north elevation. On both sites, the staff would require that all of the public walks be of concrete unit pavers. This includes the path from the recreation path to the ski lift and the public walkways adjacent to Westhaven Drive. 20 The staff finds that each project can now function independently of the other. We recognize the need to make certain allowances because of changes to the parking and the change in ownership and feel that each project meets the SDD criteria and Town of Vail objectives. The staff also supports the applicant's request for a minor subdivision in order to create two independent lots, one for each project and to dedicate that portion of Westhaven Drive needed to construct the underground parking in the Cornerstone project. A public easement for the portion of undedicated right-of-way will also be dedicated at this time. This must be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits for either project. The staff assumes the following conditions will be met with this amendment. Development Aareements Cornerstone: 1. The three proposed employee units shall be permanently restricted per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance. The agreement shall be submitted before a building permit is released for the project. This agreement shalt be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk Recorder's Office. 2. The transent.tesidential units proposed in both Scenario 1 and 2 shall not be condominiumized at any point in the future. These units shall remain as rental units used in the same manner as hotel type units and are not intended for individual ownership. 3. The developer agrees to complete asphalt borings and as-built surveys and provide them to the Town to determine the condition of Westhaven Drive in the area of the road adjacent to their property. 4. The proposed landscape plan between the Terrace Wing and the proposed Cornerstone building shall be revcd prior to the review of the project by DRB. A 20 foot access lane for emergency services must be provided from the Westin courtyard to the ski lift. In meeting this condition, the Water feature on the landscape plan for this amendment may be revised accordingly. Watertord 1. All proposed employee housing units shat! be restricted per the Town of Vail's Housing Ordinance. This agreement shall be submitted before a building permit is released for the project. The agreement shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 21 2. The developer agrees to complete borings and provide an as-built survey to determine the condition of the road from the South Frontage Road to the cul-de-sac. The applicant agrees to provide engineered drawings for any road revisions necessary for review by the Town of Vail Engineer prior to the release of a building permit All road improvements and dedications shall be completed prior to TCO. This includes the dedication of a public easement across Westhaven Drive from the cul-de-sac to the bridge over Gore Creek. 3. The bike path shall be relocated and the existing easement shall be relocated on the minor subdivision plat. 4. The minor subdivision shall be completed prior to the release of any building permits for this project. 5. The DRB will review proposed landscaping in the areas of the retaining walls on the west and east ends of the site. The DRB will review the north elevation for architectural detail. These items are all subject to the Town Attorney's review. The staff appreciate the applicant's effort to work with the PEC and staff to develop two projects which meet the SDD criteria. The staff believes that the proposals are positive. The changes were arrived through a series of work sessions and have helped to make two well designed projects which are independent developments within Cascade Village. The staff would like to thank the PEC and the applicants for their work in developing and reviewing this project. The staff believes that the proposal for each building are positive and that the changes make for a better project. :\PEC\MEMOS\CASCADE.N23 22 \ ^ :?a.:. i . _ ~.«.~c tt R\ Nf ~ ~ •f \F.rtNM.'C oMM YAW(` ~ u`iM W I ~ I ` \1 fw N 1 IIu I ~ .1~ H i vK++as'a T/~"•t1 r'r~ r±-^ ~ ~ su1..~ _ ?u...^ ~ „ti -frr i.aJ bttw : ~~i~~-- __~.?:i F'ru.J bila'.. - .fx..: ~ Y I (y.~1~ "~~"~.swna~.aw bn~~ ;wriis aKf . ~ I -1-- YY ~bV4~~_ ~ 'frva!•M.d-:yb:e"` b~sa..' r T' . , 1+c rr4nf • + MM _ 1 ~ /I \ ~ ~ _ _ w ~f WII~IGG fL11 lII ...f - • f~ ~ aN p ti1I` 1vr. ~r , ~ . df.. r r Irf raw ~ 1 2 _ ~~.w.o..s T R ?ItIMTIJV af7x~.1. ~r S I ~ G~ ~ ~~CiI,~ ~ t~~~~ ~1 " ~tT~~ Legend (owmnin are es6ntleC) e Ezisgng Trees ~ Canada Red Cherry ~ -a YCal caa+pa tan. ?ea?s)tawtnorn) • Patmore Ash /'w'^~ Strubg ~ • r caws xoo s a.wn _ - _ ~ - Cobrado Blue Spruce '1." `A. Pererrtiafs antl Ground Cover e-a•. o• to, s-,. ~ soot • salon Ouak Aspen _r':: ~ Lawn ~ 1 00 • xa• awa, sox e4npa soon syre ~ w.a.r.e~ ~:,,--t'?..f~ fnlerlocking Pavers r CaaaaAa CWb 1[ ~-J (Sea aMN 42t WNttlavM p!(ea f. s.. an.e t .saw; r t'.. I Cornerstone I ~FCt<~t"Xo ?4aa rw.o ~ tik a , r , F.. r. q. ` ~I e a s a s b +~~t~t r 1~ J..J tt;;-o , ~ / . ~r~ ~ }-1L-,..~. MYJ...QY ~AC~. •~~.'tiY: NU1iJC:x..:aJ. - ArrHOVE,. ,:ORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT \ J PER ROMA ARGHI7EC(p TC APPROVAL f/~/pp ~ti~ii~Nll".. / _ . . - I ill ~-'7 T EAST WEST . .~...a.:.~. i .R.,...T • ~ q M1l.e N m. s......... I wi Vi 1'~R elf, w.P••~•• R~us~ M~ ~I``i it II ~ • t ~I I III{II{116itU ~„i'~1~ll1~ { 1 J~ till n~l~l.~illill~uniull~nll ~ !II ~N~ ! ! , ~ nl~ll ' 1 J ail° ~ 1~171~A~.lI.lLA~CI{~~~ ~...~it a ~ a a a~ 1 r 1 4®_ . ~ i i I'll. ~~.~.~i!.1_f,!_i la-!'_Cl ! I_ I Iw.....tiR...,....,. I a.,m.ti v i NORTH .m..,,..:, I {.~i,~ 1. , ~~I~II{.~t~;~~~f~~.1 ~ ~ 11.1" t~i~~ i i~~ ~ z ~I~ ~ ~~I, ~ ~ _ ~ ~ - _..1 ~ I i ll{~rir~ ~I]a~ClCll.7l~~~lQ~~C9C~L9q~r-=,~ ~Ir--,i OGC1 j ! ~~~E,lduu 17-. , _ _ _ SOUTH `++J rc7tl~ciC PROPOSED CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT • >>vi. v~rri eL ~tI~ n~7a T - - - - - - ~oyw..vi i _ .1~ L i~~ -mow lFVE~l1'i _ _ ~ . ~ _ . +oauw. jai+ ~ _ _ ~ 1 ~ ~-~~._..-~--......-I l.bPl Sb L..-_~ . EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION YJ4i'7•~ld'fT'_~---____. 5U^LGtTa7J''a'°-_-. ~ .n. i~~1~111111111~'I~• I I1~ I I I) I I,I I I 11 11 i~~l ~ i f 1~ r , _ 1 , IUD ~ ~I~i ~~i ''I. ~i~i :I ~ ~ 'll~~;~,~ii1~11Lil~~ ?i! . I ~ 3 , ; , - . I t ~ - - _ _ Lam, f ~jt.~.'~~_`„~~'~ - ,tbv ~ ~ ~ ~ , 1 ~ ~ , _ ~~`~a~. `.!E k)"i,1 rfi ~llll.:_: ~ 1 , -f- _ - ~ ~ $QUIH_FL~VATtON . • ..s,..... - i' _ .r - i:.l ~-y.-- - - _ • - - =3--- (~i~ ~ ~ •I ~,I' it ~nl I 'I Ifl 1 I , c , i .l . ~ u.Li.LLL•1 ' i i i I~ . I i _ -:1 . .:~:a NORTH ELEVATION •r • ~ ~1 ~ • ~ • ~ • _ ~ I~ mil) ~l, / i I _ ~ j I I ~ ~ 1 _ ~ i I., f. I---~- -1..~ . } 1 GOM M GIZG I~l.r I ~,~1 , _ - - - ~ r . _ . , - F. ~ _ . ~ a L _ , _ ~ - L.~V ~ ~ ~-f; - aC I ST P L~~ i.. . ~ - Ib-S-~z i~ I I ~ li - - - aio (~iia~ - ~ ~I11 ~I®ICi~ ~ ~ioi~ IC1lCllJi L i III ! I I . I I f I ~1~11i~11 ! . ~ 6111 ~1~ ~ _ i ~ r _ _ I • i ~ ~2. . IlI1WU1YWt IIDlllllllIDlllUIDlll{ UlrlWnihhumuilemirtWluulllWquulnll _ ; - L_..- ; . ~ . i _ - II ' II I 1 I C~ l~ ~ I I D I~(.._ CGS i~ M ~ I~ 1..... ~u i t-~ ~v~T I~~-I - i r.~...,y~~ I 1 _ ~L .mot 1 j / _ t ~ LEVEL 38 I ` ~ ~ ' ~Y ~ ~ ~ moo- ~ r ~ fff t fy~.TIN~ , t J LM~FyC~ TFSZK-6 ~.f5rlt.. EXiSTiNG PLAZA V {I LEVEt_ 48 } ti ~ ~ 1 I 1 ~ - Y, 1 ~ 1 I I S I I I F ~ 'r~ Ft 5~.. LEVEL 60 " :r....,m~•o: ' ~ ~ , yam" ~ ~ ~ " . t__"._ ~ F ",.1 r-, ~ Vi`l~T~ 1+,II= I!f!flrlll:f•rl l:lr 1!I!(~I I11il=. :I,:rr:l±lll,;~ll:::rl~ i:i! t'il~!I!I,lil t!1!t!~ lill i' t~l .1! I~ I' 'I I! r ~ .il• i!;.ii.lal li , , „ LEVEL 102_ ::Iii'!!11: ,•~;I:iiiili:,I'I:,1:I:•illilil:li~,:ill:`!'li:l!~~ I:li!•I!li!!~1=S11F!i11111~=1-II • ! J ~'G rTF--D ',^f.G T~-L Tt^.-G T~<. ZL 'i-'~• _ TF•G -,"7Z: D -~•G. . - 1 - iF: 1111 ~ i t • . ~ ~ IIlllgi ii Ultill II!!~i!!I~ ~IL~~~I'~IIII -~Iiiilllllk :TFL '~~G. TE.-G TjL-G ?r{ Tom{ -F.{ TG{ TC.G i t ~ ~ TL:{ T12.{ TEL T¢.'G - -1~ ::=.i, :rfl.}x11111:`; •I,I~r•~ 1•:,ri+~.rlT:l i:i: eltl 'ril t,l,~ 1 ' - - ~ • . .LEVEL 92 a , s 4 T TF'8 T~ TjG-A. T~..e!. " TF:A T T .~pA - TEA T~~ B i .~t II ! uxx. " • E~' nxxei : _ _ _ . M lux«:, ~ ~ ~r cour+c>i • _ • 3- V • } T~^ T~-,\ TF.;, T?..y Tli.•~/? •~z A TF-A T F,. {R-,, - l_1 7F•q 1f.-•.. ; L.~. ! %3. • I - _ war • ~'i • LEVEL 82 ~ ~ - 1•. ~•b• -v i ~ ~ ~ V ~J ~ ~1~;1i~ tlllllllllill illiYll IYlfll 1+IIYIIIi11Yii1{fll L Il~llltll: 11~i11 Ylillllll?1111 1~ j1 'II~Ifll~l~~l~ I t1 (l, ` ~li `.1, F.--4 ~ 11Y11LLi ' !!++II ~ } I , II Illl _ - ~11111~~~ •1XI'i~l - ~~I~il~ A4 _ T - .1 ill. 11 ~ ~ b'i I ~~I . ; , t ~I~• I ~•Ib':`~ ~ =~I11I II}~-I Y. ~ ~ ~ i I 1 ~~1 i! i,ili1,~111;1711f. ttl'; ,il lil;:~l .,,Il.,l~tii.. , + + f,.,l f~. + +I • LEVEL 102 ~1•.~-0- - \ 1 !i~li~~' :i;Illlllilllflll:YlliillllllillliillllltlllliYI1111~1i1111'i IYIYIY~~IYIBBtYIYI'lllllll'lll}~llllll fll!~IIII ' f ~ IIIHPh~I !11,11, _ _ h I I i I I 1~ ~.~11~~ ! i i i I I i I~ ~ liil,l+,lr ~LJ"L . ' X1:..,..111 i ll~f~,,,-~~~Ililllli • ! 1~ ~+11~:~1.l,.itl•tlllilil lt~ " if +1~:. ~1:~ tf~;l+ ~I:11 ~il~llliIIIII U lllllt ii111I~f~llllilllt+llllilllli 11 . ~ _ . ~p . LEVEL 92 ~ • .a 1.~,_a, L-(~~~ • y{(l 111111~I ~ 1111X11 ' N 111'HIIIY I ~ ~ ~ ~ Iu1011 1.. • _ _ 1 C1/GI R7 a r,r L_ 10 . ~ ~fi-e~-~ sa ~ i td: ~ 6 at Pco~c t~ st~rrs ~ ~ ~N D C 0 P 0.~ 3e3 33s ~s #~si9 P02 , ,~ercl~! - ort~a~?e C%4lpor8~i4n Ootobrr 9, spP~ Tos Town of Vii1 Coamunity Dav*Iopmazst Otlicr Pram: ~1»R~[os~a, iststn Vice .Prraiderlt , ~ ~ ~~~~~6na one p2atf from Comm~Rrc a ~ ia1 F darai 8av~,rigs Bank. CoamarciaZ Feder:l Satnk toox pvsiaession of thr Cos-naratoni parcel due to default by the original dwalopar Oi' the Cascade , Village. CompaerciaX Fedar43 is~ a reluctdi'tt ,.~u.,mr of thi• parca2. Cornai"stona, a»ct saver~?1 athsr Cascade viilag¦ prapas-flea, Warr oftsrad as security fox a devel~r,~nnt loan in the amount of $8.9H. dill of the other propa~rties Nava bs;en sold o!f except =or the Cornerstone p~+rCal. Prren with a eels a! thin parcel. Coyam~rcial •Federal stands to lt~se sppzoximats~ly S4M on the lean. Commercial F~era1 Banx~s lfnanois?~, loss is nQt the concorn of ttte Town of Yai>- -and its toning Authority, but it is imparta~.nt for the 'Povrn to know that regardlaae the approval scenariost, Commercial Federal ass the owner of the Cornerstone paraQX is; goitlg to lose m substantial amQUnt ct money. Therefore, it is extxemaly im~,ortant for Commercial Fa$pral to obtain the coning fox which we hav* applied. we believe that th9 current coning does not allow for the site to be dev®Ioped either today or at any tilats in the future. Commercial Federal Sank ~+ili not be the ds~reloper at the Cornerstone site; it wii,l De sold of! to a developer who will have the r~ee~ponsibility of buiiding. We need the zonfnq tc mAke 3t attractive ®nvugh toX a devalopar to purchases thr prop. ~y and build. we need same form of $oninq ahiah allots for oondominituas3 to b4 built as part dx the project. We haves proposed as part , a! our Scenario II, a dssvelopmsstlt plan which a~.~.ows: fox six dval~.ing units, 3~ txnnsis:nt xmssidantial unites, and etiX aeeosJnodaton ur?its. Part of th~,a p1aA would inc~,ude too samploy~a hottaing units which are autrantly not required on the Carnisrsstone seta. The economics or Ss;ssnario IS stye ciuitr simpl4; the plan allows for six condmainiums which could be Bold o=! and would help aster the cost of building the entire etx'uCture. 34 TR units cc~ul.d then bQ leasstd out through a privett~ banatgemant cc~pany or through ttia Nesters hotel nsxt door. 2 Sta!(18srwt $t>!tY Z01 Dw+vK. Cdonldo BQ~G 33191 ~ FA7C: (303) 8911 10. 09~.~9? ~1~',26 PM ~SLIFER AND CC _ P03 t 9Z 4.85 ID~tIERCIAL LOANS DEN TEL NOr 303 331 3581 #519 P@3 Pwgs~ s sown o! veil sassar?ario t= is not thwt di!lorsnt tram thiw s3u.~.~~sst soni»qt in tact it srha~nq•s it very little. ozYdsr tbs p~aY?a wa have autmt~tts~!!, xitb the TR tuiita, tbs 71LF unites, artd t1ss1 three s~aa?ll duelling unite, ths~a wattYd biti a potanti~tl for 49 units squivai•nt to ~wr unite. vridsr currant soninq, wa havsti s0. Kt era still ae~king that thi ~?O•s snd CO•s »ot ba ~Cd~s~triatsd to rental use only, but airtainly tbs potintia]. !or them being ttssd as aaa.,~,~„~~datiori unite 'may be attrsot~.vs to same of the s~wY?ers and wsitsid 3~s ranted as such during pQak tim ~ . , Lr Oth BosastrioM I and II inolud. plans tit greatly rwdtica tba assotutt d! required com<z~rcial spaco. In many discttaaic+ns with the Plan:t3.ng Department, this ssema to be a concern. we have analysed the coramseratal pc?t~tntial, for the azs3a and ti,nd there is vexy little need today for any additional commercial sp~ecsa? and can asst x3a aCenaxio xhich would change that need signitlcantly in the future. 8ofih phtn~t contain la,OGO st of c.~~~~,,,arcial epees, a»d ire adbmantXy believe that this is sutl3cient epees to n~es3t the needs3 of the village in the future. If more eososnerciE~l s:pac~ i.a added to the ba.~Idir?g, it wilt be esasiJntiel~.y forcit'tg the deweloger to build empty space. Sy addfng c--------arcial to the Current plan, there are only tWO plaGest to do ao. one iss to build in the area aurrentxy deair~~ied'as parking at the cost of valuable parkir?g spaces . a.riottser im to build i.-~n the open area between Col'narstone ~d the Westin building, greatly reducing the open atzea which we faeL is quite imp~?rtant. This area is - tight enough ass it eta and acidir+y to t,~xa building in this arse wilt only make it feel mare squoes+ed. Commercial ~'eder~?1 Ban]C hest submitted tvo proposals Mhich we feel is a great improvement over the current stoning for th*~ Corneretor~a building, we are asking that those plans, bath Scenario Z and Zl, be approveQ as they have been aubmittad. DISTRIBUTION LIST - PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY LIST BRIAN ANDERSON ERNST GLATZLE TOWN COUNCIL STEVE BARWICK GARY MURRAIN DEBBIE ROELAND MIKE BRAKE GREG HALL MIKE ROSE DICK DURAN SUSIE HERVERT TODD SCROLL CAROLINE FISHER JIM HOZA DAN STANEK ANNIE FOX DD DETO LEO VASQUEZ JOHN GALLEGOS JOE KOCHERA PAM BRANDMEYER KRISTIN PRITZ CHARLIE OVEREND LARRY ESKWITH PETE BURNETT TODD OPPENHEIMER KEN HUGHEY JODY DOSTER MANUEL MEDINA FILE JANEIL TURNBULL MEMORANDUM T0: RON PHILLIPS, TOWN MANAGER FROM: LARRY GRAFEL, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/TRANSPORTATION DATE: DECEMBER 21, 1992 RE: PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY LIST FOR THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 21 - 25, 1992 STREETS AND ROADS A. 1. Construct various signs: a. 20 "Not Maintained in Winter" signs and install. b. Handicap signs for TRC. c. Village loading signs for core. d. 4-Way to Gold Peak, handicap skier service signs. e. 2 "Caution-Falling Debris/Use at Own Risk" for underpass at Aspen Lane and install at both ends. f. Miscellaneous signs as determined by Engineer. g. "Parking in designated spaces...etc." 2. Haul cinders. 3. Paint sculpture in south west corner of LHTRC. 4. Haul snow from both structures. 5. Cut snow pack in various locations: a. Lupine (E. Vail) b. VTC (between islands for the buses) c. Vorlaufer d. Timberfalls to Vail Racquet Club 6. Install "Ski Bum" banner on Wednesday, 12/23 in village. 7. Public Work's photo to be taken Wednesday, 12/23 am. PARKING STRUCTURE/TRANSPORTATION A. 1. Improve handicap signage at structures. 2. Test air quality at toll booths. 3. Institute fire procedure for structures. 4. Install proportional mixing units at VTC, LHTRC and Muni. Bldg. 5. Run conduit for fire system storage at west end VTC. 6. Coordinate heat trace for storm drain with Leo. PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY LIST Page 2 CARPENTERS A. 1. Carve totem poles. 2. Begin construction on PW's work station at shop. 3. Construct furniture for Susie's office. 4. Construct microwave cabinet for PW Lunch Room. 5. Begin construction of library miniature for children's area at Library. 6. Prep crate to send light fixture back to manufacturer. 7. Construct 2 temporary bus stop posts for Transportation Department. ELECTRICIANS A. 1. Run conduit for fire detector for storage facility at VTRC. 2. Assist Conrad with repairing north door at Maintenance facility. 3. Install smoke detector and lights at Ski Museum Storage. 4. Repair leaning street light pole at Municipal Bldg. 5. Repair gas pump lights. 6. Repair various light outages. 7. Install disconnect at cinder bin. 8. Disconnect Lionshead tree switch and connect to photo cell. PARKS DEPARTMENT A. 1. Schedule removal of dead tree at Library entrance. 2. Draw up plans for Fleet Maintenance Restrooms. 3. Finalize 1993 flower order, contact suppliers. 4. Complete planting plan for Dowd Junction Recreation Path. 5. Prepare Ski Museum contract documents for rebid. LG/dr 0 DISTRIBUTION LIST - PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY LIST BRIAN ANDERSON ERNST GLATZLE TOWN COUNCIL STEVE BARWICK GARY MURRAIN DEBBIE ROELAND MIKE BRAKE GREG HALL MIKE ROSE DICK DURAN SUSIE HERVERT TODD SCROLL CAROLINE FISHER JIM HOZA DAN STANEK ANNIE FOX DD DETO LEO VASQUEZ JOHN GALLEGOS JOE KOCHERA PAM BRANDMEYER KRISTIN PRITZ CHARLIE OVEREND LARRY ESKWITH PETE BURNETT TODD OPPENHEIMER KEN HUGHEY JODY DOSTER MANUEL MEDINA FILE JANEIL TURNBULL MEMORANDUM T0: RON PHILLIPS, TOWN MANAGER FROM: LARRY GRAFEL, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/TRANSPORTATION DATE: DECEMBER 28, 1992 RE: PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY LIST FOR THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 28, 1992 - JANUARY 1, 1993 STREETS AND ROADS A. 1. Construct various signs: a. Handicap signs for TRC. b. Village loading signs for core. c. 4-Way to Gold Peak, handicap skier service signs. d. 2 "Caution-Falling Debris/Use at Own Risk" for underpass at Aspen Lane and install at both ends. e. Miscellaneous signs as determined by Engineer. f. "Parking in designated spaces...etc." 2. Paint sculpture in south west corner of LHTRC. 3. Cut snow pack in various locations: a. Cut ice on drainage problem on Potato Patch 4. Set up crew for "Clean-up Patrol" on Friday, 1/1/93. 5. Monitor trailer for Xmas tree recycling and dump as necessary. 6. Run sweeper (weather permitting). 7. Conduct CDL testing (Charlie 0. to test Gilbert G.). 8. Remove Menorahs from Village and Lionshead on Wed., 11/30. 9. Install drinking ordinance signs in Village and Lionshead on Wed., 12/30 and Thurs., 12/31. 10. Quarterly meeting with Ron Phillips Wed., 1/13 at 12:30 in Town Shop's Lunchroom. 11. Bid on "Ski Museum Park" project. 12. Clean off new bus shelter roofs. PARKING STRUCTURE/TRANSPORTATION A. 1. Improve handicap signage at structures. 2. Institute fire procedure for structures. PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY LIST Page 2 PARKING STRUCTURE/TRANSPORTATION A. 3. Coordinate heat trace for storm drain with Leo. 4. Install lenses and monitor for bus camera system. 5. Schedule additional personnel for New Years Eve. CARPENTERS A. 1. Construct storage shelves for new fire truck. 2. Begin construction on PW's work station at shop. 3. Construct furniture for Public Work's office. 4. Construct microwave cabinet for PW Lunch Room. 5. Construct 2 temporary bus stop posts for Transportation Department. ELECTRICIANS A. 1. Run conduit for fire detector for storage facility at VTRC. 2. Assist Conrad with repairing north door at Maintenance facility. 3. Install smoke detector and lights at Ski Museum Storage. 4. Repair leaning street light pole at Municipal Bldg. 5. Repair various light outages. 6. Install disconnect at cinder bin. 7. Disconnect Menorahs in Village and Lionshead on Wed., 12/30. 8. Bid electrical part of "Ski Museum Park" project. 9. Assist with electrical for new fire truck. PARKS DEPARTMENT A. 1. Draw up plans for Fleet Maintenance Restrooms. 2. Finalize 1993 flower order, contact suppliers. 3. Complete planting plan for Dowd Junction Recreation Path. 4. Prepare Ski Museum contract documents for rebid. LG/dr ` ! ' DISTRIRtITION LIST - PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY LIST BRIAN ANDERSON ERNST GLATZLE TOWN COUNCIL STEVE BARWICK GARY MURRAIN DEBBIE ROELAND MIKE BRAKE GREG HALL MIKE ROSE DICK DURAN SUSIE HERVERT TODD SCHOLL CAROLINE FISHER JIM HOZA DAN STANEK ANNIE FOX LEO VASQUEZ JOHN GALLEGOS JOE KOCHERA PAM BRANDMEYER KRISTIN PRITZ CHARLIE OVEREND LARRY ESKWI'"H PETE BURNETT TODD OPPENHEIMER KEN HUGHEY JODY DOSTER MANUEL MEDINA FILE JANEIL TURNBULL MEMORANDUM T0: RON PHILLIPS, TOWN MANAGER FROM: LARRY GRAFEL, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/TRANSPORTATION DATE: JANUARY 4, 1993 RE: PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY LIST FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 4, 1993 - JANUARY 8, 1993 STREETS AND ROADS A. 1. Construct various signs: a. Handicap signs for TRC. b. Village loading signs for core. c. 4-Way to Gold Peak, handicap skier service signs. d. 2 "Caution-Falling Debris/Use at Own Risk" for , underpass at Aspen Lane and install at both ends. e. Miscellaneous signs as determined by Engineer. f. "Parking in designated spaces...etc." 2. Paint sculpture in south west corner of LHTRC. 3. Cut snow pack in various locations: a. Cut ice on drainage problem on Potato Patch 4. Monitor trailer for Xmas tree recycling and dump as necessary. 5. Run sweeper (weather permitting). 6. Conduct CDL testing (Charlie 0. to test Gilbert G.). 7. Quarterly meeting with Ron Phillips Wed., 1/13 at 12:30 in Town Shop's Lunchroom: 8. Bid on "Ski Museum Park" project. 9. Clean off new bus shelter roofs. 10. Mulch Xmas trees. 11. Water trees on north side of South Frontage Rd. in front of VTC. 12. Orientation for new employees on Wednesday, 1/6, at 2:00 pm at the Personnel Dept. PARKING STRUCTURE/TRANSPORTATION A. 1. Order handicap signs for structures. 2. Pursue enforcement of coupon lot. PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY LIST Page 2 PARKING STRUCTURE/TRANSPORTATION A. 3. Coordinate heat trace for storm drain with Leo. 4. Install lenses and monitor for bus camera system. 5. Patch holes in drywall. 6. Cut opening for Bus Department office window. CARPENTERS A. 1. Construct furniture for Public Work's office. 2. Construct microwave cabinet for PW Lunch Room. 3. Construct 2 temporary bus stop posts for Transportation Department. 4. Construct storage cabinet for Public Work's copy machine. ELECTRICIANS A. 1. Run conduit for fire detector for storage facility at VTRC. 2. Assist Conrad with repairing north door at Maintenance facility. 3. Install smoke detector and lights at Ski Museum Storage. 4. Repair leaning street light pole at Municipal Bldg. 5. Repair various light outages. 6. Install disconnect at cinder bin. 7. Bid electrical part of "Ski Museum Park" project. 8. Assist with electrical for new fire truck. 9. Order and install strip outlets for PW's office. 10. Repair Council Chamber's master switch. 11. Coordinate light order for Stephens Park with Todd 0. PARKS DEPARTMENT A. 1. Draw up plans for Fleet Maintenance Restrooms. 2. Complete planting plan for Dowd Junction Recreation Path. 3. Prepare Ski Museum contract documents for rebid. 4. Prepare "in-house" bid for Ski Museum Park. 5. Finalize alternative plans for Gore Creek Pedestrian Bridge. 6. Coordinate light order for Stephens Park with Leo. LG/dr x e C¢wu~,i,t, C ~ ~ w~ 5TA1 ~ of coLo~l~o DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS ~F•co~~ OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Few H~ O 1313 Sherman Street, Rm. 518 ? Denver, Colorado 80203 " ' *l876 ~ Phone (303) 866-2771 FAX (303) 866-2251 TDD (303) 866-5300 Roy Romer Governor Larry Kallenberger Executive Director December 23, 1992 The Honorable Margaret Osterfoss Mayor, Town of Vail - 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: EIAF #2585 -Vail Affordable Housing Project Award Letter Amendment Dear Mayor Osterfoss: In response to your December 15, 1992 request for an extension of the department's $300,000 grant offer, I am approving your request and will grant an extension through December 31, 1993. Please contact Jack Kirtland at 866-3688 for information on how to proceed. Good luck with your project. Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, i~ _ , L r I enb e~i " Exec ive Director cc: Jack Kirtland • Y 1 M~~ TOWN OF VAIL 7S South Frontage Road Department of Public Works/Transportation Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2158/FAX 303-479-2166 December 30, 1992 Mr. George S. Lamb 4879 Meadow Drive Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Lamb: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the removal of the pedestrian bridge over Gore Creek. Although the Town Council has voted once to remove the pedestrian bridge, they have also requested that it be discussed further at their regular, night time, council meeting on the 19th of January 1993 at 7:30 PM. I suspect after this public meeting, the council will ultimately decide what is to be done with the pedestrian bridge. This meeting will provide another opportunity for those interested citizens who missed the first public meeting on 12 November 1992 to voice their comments regarding the proposed disposition of the pedestrian bridge. As you mentioned in your letter regarding "more bridges" across Gore Creek, it is our intention to salvage and use it elsewhere along Gore Creek. Your suggestions for relocation are welcome. Our proposed plan does include improvement to the landscaping at and around the abutments,,revegitation along the bank, and stream stabilization. The Design Review Board (DRB) of course would be involved in the coordination of these improvements. Since the removal is not a "done deal", there is still ample opportunity for you, the general public, and the DRB to become involved in determining the final outcome of the pedestrian bridge. I Again, thank you for your letter and concern regarding this matter. Please call me at (303) 479-2173 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, h~ Lar E. Gra 1 Director Public Works & Transportation cc: Town Council Kristan Pritz, Community Development - RECEIYt~ -DEC 1 ~2 December 14, 1992 The Vail Town Council Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 RE: Gore Creek Pedestrian Bridge Dear Council Members: I was quite surprised and disheartened to read in the paper that you voted to have the pedestrian bridge over Gore Creek removed and relocated. As a member of the Design Review Board, I remember that our approval of the new International Bridge included a provision that the pedestrian bridge would be reviewed when the new bridge was completed to determine its viability as a supplemental means to cross Gore Creek. We also would examine various design alternatives which might be compatible with either the new International Bridge or the general character of Vail. Although the pedestrian bridge may be perceived as being an "ugly sucker", its removal and possible relocation to the Katsos Ranch property is, in my opinion, not an appropriate solution. As a member of the public, I feel the more bridges we have across Gore Creek the better, and we certainly should not remove an existing one arbitrarily. I agree with Diana Donovan's comments in her Letter to the Vail Trail and those expressed by Herman Staufer and the Mayor herself in that more public comment and input is not only necessary but required. I not only agree that the Council should reconsider its premature vote to remove the pedestrian bridge, but I also question what prompted the Council to vote on this issue. Please allow the Design Review Board to perform our job and give the general public an opportunity to share their opinions. ' Most sinc ely, L___ George S. b ~ELiC1YL~'W~,[`ru ~ ~ g~~ PC ~ NORTHWEST COLORADO CUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS WATER QUALITY/QUANTITY UST FUN~a~''~°~" C MINI MINUTES -Report to the Membership December 16, 1992 Water Quality/Quantity Core Group Meeting ~ BUDGET We have received confirmation from most of QQ's members on the 3% dues increase. The 1993 QQ budget is still in draft form and will be approved by the membership at the February 19, 1993 meeting. NEW MEMBER ORIENTATION January 7, 1993 It is very important that all new commissioners and newly appointed representatives to the QQ committee attend this orientation. Staff, managers, attorneys and department heads are also encouraged to attend. In addition, long time QQ members are welcome. Please R.S.V.P. to Sandy or Norma by January 4th if you plan to attend (468-0295). FEBRUARY 19th CEO, QUARTERLY MEETING ' Please mark your calendar. This meeting will concentrate on QQ business and the 1993 legislative agenda. The meeting was scheduled for a Friday~to accommodate our legislator's schedules. We hope to see you all there. BOARD APPnINTMENTS Kevin Lindahl, QQ's new Director, will be seeking a senate confirmation on the Groundwater Commission. Kevin is seeking the west slope seat on that board. Your town or county's letter of support should be directed to: ' The Har~orable P.oy Romer Governor, State of Colorado 136 State Capital Denver, CO 80203-1792 attn: Karen Rokala NOMINATING COMMITTEE Marsha Osborn, Bud Gates and Paul Ohri have been asked to prepare a state of officers to put forward to the QQ membership at the February 19th board meeting. Please call anyone on the nominating committee with your suggestions or if you would like to be considered as an officer for QQ in 1993. Post Office Box 739 * Frisco, Colorado 80443 * Frisco 303 668-5445 * FAX 303 668-5326 CONTRACTS Kevin Lindahl's contract for employment as the QQ Director and Jo Evans' contract for legislative monitoring were both reviewed and approved. COLORADf3 RIVER HEADWATER FORUM The next meeting of the CRHF is scheduled for February 5, 1993. If you are a representative to the CRHF, please mark your calendar now. At the last meeting, the CRHF approved a $500 per participant organization administrative fee. Administration of CRHF was supported by QQ and a DLA grant during 1991 and 1992. The CRHF is at the point of taking on its own administration and development. If your town or county is a CRHF participant, please be sure that your fiscal office has approved the $500 administrative fee. QUESTIONS. CONCERNS. FEEDBACK. IDEAS? Call Sandy Blaha at 468-0295 through January 8th. Beginning January 11th you may reach Kevin Lindahl at 328-7050. QQ #12 mini1216.doc ~f c4y~Rt~ d REC~IVEI~ t a 1.~9~ •:•:•i .................................~i{'•.......................................................................... .~..~...,.,.~.,wk..N;~,E;Ef;iiiifiEE::i~i~~i~E .-iiYli .~li1iYY :;;i ~~EiifiEiii::EE~E:iiiiii:EE;E;i;: :f:. I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . . . . . . ;8: . s.~ . r?},ff • F•. :r.. r f' a~ 'i': T~ NWCCOG - QQ C~mmittce New Member Orientation January 7, 19'93 I . ~ ~ _ : _ _ I ~r~t N~rr~~~~ ~r~~~~~r#i~n . f:i::::::;,..0:.~:: i::: .,:::s:.::.:.. i5ii'.^;.ii~'o iY:.`: ~.iiiiiiiiiii>iiiii ji~~'i?iiiii~?i?i~~'`». `"?`'?iiiii;iiiiiiiiiiiii<iiiiiiiiiYi`~ iiiiiiii':'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii`iiiiiii:ii5yi~i'~!!i iii;€':ii~ iiiiiii~ii5 .:::.L~.I:YY~ . L~r~ 1~1~~C~~nn~llr ~~,1 Lar~r ~~~~I:: " . ~~r.~ t P' , z~:':~r :iii;; ~r~~Il rc~u .:I~i~~:u~~~~r~~::::>:. > > . 1~~~~~~t~~~~ ~ l~~.u I ~ her , ~ r~~~ ~ ~ 's r~r i ssr~~ nd g~~.ls ~~~r~~ ~~r~r~i~~?r~rr~~r ~ hi~~ai s rr~~~b~t ~ ~~!r~~~ ~mmi~s~~r~~r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~r~ Lir~~l~~l~ ~ ~.~~ry L~uuv ~~r~ '~~.~~r~ L~~~1, ar d ~~~11~ r~ l ~~a~li ~ ~ r~ f~~ u[~rtt+ar~ cif ~~t~r ~ ~ ~a:~ W . y.. i :::M--- : - - ~~~l~~~:::l~~~n~t~ ~~~k~ L~~ r~y~ 1~1a~I~c~nn~Il brr~~~t~r~;a#` ~l~~ I~l~tu~ al ~es~ a rF~~ Lave ~ent~~, lJ r~~ue ~ ~ its r~ . ; ~~~~rn ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ur~ , cal~r~~~ ~ ~ ~a~~t ~~t;PP~~' ~~st~nrti~ ~~~~r ~ . ~r~ end ~u~u~ ~ p~I~r~~ ~s~ n~~ i.~i ~ n I~ i~t~t~~ ~fE~c~~ rr ~h~ ~f~~~~ r~r~ ~c~ ~ W c~~ a~ra~l, ~ur~r~ryri~ ~~arad~; ~~~t~r ~a n~ c~ r~ r~i i ~~trar~~r ran i ens I~Ic~r~°tM~~rt <:Ii~~rY~~. Au r~ra ~oic~ ~ r~i rti s, ~ ns~r°v~.ti~n :C~r~t f`~Ii~l~l~e P`ar I~ r~ th.,~r .V ~ . r ~~~ir~ Lir~~hl, Fir ~ rr~ El~t-r~~«r~t~ 8~ P~~~r~m l~ ~ ~ ~ I~l an ~ ~i~~ti~ar~al ~ur~ ~C c:~ l CTE x ~~~1''L1~ 1 ~~~t l'1 Small Gaup Discussions Questions and Answers Wrap up • w wwwv o ~ . a,~. ~ RECEIVED DL- C ~ 8182 COLOIZ~11.~0 MEMORANDUM TO: Tourism Industry Partners FROM: Rich Meredith Colorado Tourism Boazd SUBJECT: Continuation of Colorado Tourism Board 1625 Broadway, Suite ] 700 - Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 592-5570 DATE: 12/22/92 (303) 592-5406 fax The following resolution reflects the action the Colorado Tourism Board of Directors took at their meeting December 15th. I request and encourage you to read the resolution to understand the collective philosophy and thinking of the Colorado Tourism Board on the issue of statewide tourism promotion. The key points in summary are: o Approval of a revised budget to extending t., i rs activities through December 31,1993. o Seek legislative reauthorization of the L 1 is organization, and spending authority to rnntinue beyond June 30,1993. o Endorsement of the effort to seek continued funding for the Colorado Tourism Board. The Colorado Tourism Board is optimistic about the challenges of the coming year. We look forward to your continued support and partnership. Resolution of the Colorado Tourism Board Whereas: In creating the Colorado Tourism Board in 1983, the Colorado Legislature found that "the tourism and travel industry are vital to the general welfare, economic well-being, and employment opportunities of the state and its communities..:', and; Whereas: The Legislature determined that in order for Colorado to successfully compete for its share of the tourism market, along-term, continuing investment in tourism and travel promotion" was necessary, .and; Whereas: While creating the Tourism Board in 1983, and at the direct behest of Colorado`s tourism industry, the legislature also ratified a self imposed 'Tourism Tax" on five sectors of the industry: the ski resorts and companies, hotels, restaurants, transportation and attractions, and; Whereas: In executing legislative intent for the past nine years, the Board has conducted comprehensive r parch to identify both weaknesses and opportunities formed by cor~.imer impressions of Colorado ,and has played the unique role of positioning a diverse, multi-seasonal impression of Colorado in the minds of consumers and professionals who influence travel decisions, and; Whereas: The Colorado Tourism Board has further served the unique purpose of supporting tourism throughout Colorado, particularly among those eniities which cannot support their own individual in-state, regional, or national marketing programs, and; Whereas: Throughout the past nine years, Colorado has invested over $56 million to build a strong and accurate impression of its tourism industry and a sudden withdrawal from the national market will undoubtedly result in an erosion of Colorado's tourism image and a reversal of state tourism growth, and; Whereas: Tourism is a strong and clean industry, which has grown to become the second largest sector of Colorado's economy, and; Whereas: The results of Colorado's marketing effort have been substanizally demonstrated by growth in tourism revenue, jobs and tax revenue, to wit: Supported by Tourism 1983 1991 Jobs 99,000 107,600 Total Revenue $3.6 billion $5.9 billion State/Local Tax Revenue $204.7 million $354.1 million Tourism/Travel Payroll $.9 billion $1.53 billion and; 1 Whereas: The Board finds that the original legislative intent creating the Colorado Tourism Board is as valid today as it was in 1983 and that the funding mechanism requested by the industry and enacted by the legislature is a particularly appropriate funding source for promoting Colorado tourism because it is based on a user philosophy, and; Whereas: Passage of "Amendment #1" on November 3,1992, will require statewide voter approval to extend the'Tourism Tax" beyond the current fiscal year and members of Colorado's tourism industry are organizing to support such a statewide vote in November 1993 because they believe continued marketing of the nature provided by the Board is essential to Colorado's economic base, and; Whereas: Throughout prudent budget practices, the Boazd can maintain an adequate level of marketing activities until a voter determination has been made in November 1993. Now therefore, be it resolved, - That: The Board will seek reauthorization and spending authority from the General Assembly for the continuation of the Tourism Board and its mission, and; That: The Board endorses action by several sectors of the tourism industry to seek voter approval in November 1993 of an extension of Colorado's 'Tourism Tax" beyond the current fiscal year, and; That: The Board instructs the staff to budget and plan within existing revenues for the continuation of its Colorado marketing program, the Welcome Center Program and its support of the Regional Tourism Program through December 1993 contingent upon the Board being reauthorized by the General Assembly. Adopted and accepted unanimously by the Colorado Tourism Board of Directors on December 35,1992. f ~ ~ ~ Date:. December 17.1992 Tibran M. Bishop, Chairman Colorado Tourism Board 2 ` xc~ RECE114'~'® ~ p VAILVALLEY FOUNDATION Providing leadership in athletic, educational - - and cultural endeavors to enhance and sustain the quality ojlije in the Yail Palley Boaraof);:.:...w.., December 23, 1992 President Gerald R Ford Robert E. Barrett , Carolyn S. Blount James Berry Craddock Mr . Ron Phi 11 ips Jack Crosby H. Benjamin Duke, Jr. ToWri of Vai 1 - ' - - Harry H. Frampton, nl 7 5 South Frontage Road John Garnsey - George 1V. Gillett, Jr. Va 11 , 816 5 7 Pepi Gramshammer James R. Greenbaum steve w. xaber Dear Ron, Martha Head William J. Hybl Elaine w.xelton Thanks so much for your support of the Vail Henry R.l~-ass Valley Foundation as a Silver Sponsor of the Frank J. Lynch Fitzhugh Scott America's Legacy . IVlichael S. Shannon Rodney E. Slifer _ The event was a terrific success. Your Richard L. Swig OscarL.Tang commitment to our organization is very much appreciated. We couldn't do it without you. John Garnsey President I look forward to .your participation in March at the American Ski Classic. Thanks again. Happy Holidays! 1989 World Alpine Ski Championships AEI World Forum Sincerely, American Ski Classic ~ L . . - - - Bolshoi Ballet Academy at Yail Gerald R. Ford n Garnsey , Amphitheater President P.O. Box 309 Vail, Colorado 81658 303-476-9500• Fax 303-476-7320 Telex 910-290-1989 A Colorado 501 (c) (3) Nonprofit Corporation - - : - - Peace acnd ,Toy For the Ne~,u Year xe ~ C~U,u,~,c, , o We ve moved. Our New Offices Are Located At _ 249 Warren Ave. Silverthorne, CO 80498 - New Mailing Address and Phones: NWCCOG P.O. Box 2308 Silverthorne, CO 80498 303.468-0295 FA2~: 303-468-1208 ~E~CEdV;r~ ~ ~ EAGLE COUNTY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS MEETING AGENDA WHEN: TUESDAY, JANUARY 5Tff 730 P.M. WHERE: KATHY SMITH'S HOUSE 525 PINE STREET, MINTURN (DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM LAUNDROMAT) WHO: ANYONE INTERESTED IN REPEALING AMENDMENT 2 FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL: KATHY SMITH AT 827-4274 SUSIE DAVIS AT 916-3788 MEETING AGENDA SELF INTRODUCTIONS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS: GOALS AND ACTION PLANS DISCUSS INCORPORATION OF EAGLE COUNTY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS CONFIRM PLANS FOR STATEWIDE HUMAN RIGHTS MEETING IN DENVER ON JANUARY 10TH. «y n p ~ a `1993 ~ _ F®~q ~ ~ ~5 S . ~ vn faces ~/a~, ~ g~6 5~ To :All Interested Parties " Frorn : Cherie Paller 476-7384 Date: 24 Decernber 1992 Re: Family Center Meeting next roup meeting: Ivn~or~~l~~s~ J~n~~p~ 'Il Ilea Il~g~ 5:30 - 7:00 pm Edwards Elementary School r, w: ti. AGElV t~A Self-Introcluction/Representing what organization? Committee Reports: (Nancy, Sharon, Tsu, Peg) Headstart/Starting 2/1/93 (Kathleen, Jesus) Sr~gle Point of Entry (Janet, Colleen) Family Literacy ° (Peg, Cherie) Ho°~~eless Education/lost (Karen, Cherie) Cities in the Schools (Tsu) ~ Health Care (Nancy) EVCc; t r R&R Service ~ ri CRPP (Lau e) (Kathleen) Emergency Services (Kathleen, Marge) FMP (Deb, Pat) ! ! ! EAGLE Fund/VVF ! ! ! (Cherie) y _ Funding: Gov. Initiative? (Cathy W., Sandy) Redcliff Center (Karen, Deb, Linda) PylawslStrategic Planning (Marilyn) ~ Two Rivers Clinic (Heather) Women's Foundation (Holly) "Dare to be You"/training OTHERS Announcements Schedule Feb/Mar/Apr 1993 Meetings/Set Agenda Vag l l.~ ~ ~ UJ r ~ { ~r~zz 1, ' lc .,r. , - Pam Brandmeyer S Frontage Rd Overheard « . The chart you had was very ~ moving." BILL CLI`7TON, athls ?IO lyla~iesand ~~lemen, economic summit. The chart We WIboCe t~t2 ~t'~O showed the difference in wages ~ • earned by college- and high- school-educated workers. 1 ® ' . ~ ~ "here are three things important to a Somali-his wife, his camel and his weapon." _,,,r~ ~ - - U.S. special envoy to Somalia - ~ - ROBERT B. OA%LEY, explaining ~ ~ ' the difficulties of disarming ~ gunmen in that countn• ~ ~ , ~ © 1992 LUCKOViCH-ATLANTA CONSrITL'fION if ~ t ~ ~ ~ ; ~ Z~i~~"9r~c2~1,;. ,p • ~ ~ ~ _ Q ~ t .e~aar a,rr~u~ o .'Q~S;'ttvti' vis , ~ =•r~i~rut• ani~ ti pr°ecis~~~vrt-~'.~~ ,~~,,,:aarag E~c,• ~ 1~ ~~V`~ 0~'af~~i ~f you haven't had achocolate-covered dwarf in your shower, I,~~~~~"" ~ ~ l I you haven't lived." n ~ KATHY SELF, girlfriend of diminutive aetorHerve "Fantasy Island" Villeehaize, on one of their memorable sexual exploits f ~ ~ . , 'f I had known all this was going to happen, I would never have ~ I,~! I ~ ' taken Mia to that first lunch years ago." WOODY ALLEN , asked by reporters if he regretted 1T's BE(;INNING ;a LcoK Q LAT L1KE GF1Rt5 T MAS..• starting his affair with Farrow's daughter Soon-Yi Previn I:~2 scxoEx-xANSas crrY sTAE cc Mark, thank you. That was terrific." 5~~~ LARRY KING, inacheerfulpartingexchange (that was not broadcast) with TV guest QF Mark David Chapman, John Lennon's killer ,r. TIaE WOMAN; • REMEMBER? fr SEE 70U WHEN ®ur goal is to please our legitimate customers." ~ ~ ~ a~ You SET BdCt(-•• Dit. Agency spokeswoman TERRY B E N C Z I S, commenting Z4 Y on reports that the classical music now piped ~ i into the Port Authority's notorious dew York bus ~ , terminal is driring away the homeless u•ho live there _ ~ ~ cc I Who are these Norwegians? I've often been on a saddle for _ . over 350 kilometers at a time. If, the minute I get off the z, saddle, they tell me::~lfredo, do it,' I will do it." - ,~,r ALFREDO 1~'IARTINI, trainer ofltaly'snational cycling team, on a study by Noru;eb~tan researchers ,xt that found that bicw'cle seats cause temporary impotence ~f, ~ . © 1992 S. KELLEY~AN DIEGO UNION•TRIBUNE Quotations are compiled from NewswEEx correspondents :L ~~•ep as other press, TV and wire•service reports. N E W S W E E K :DECEMBER 23, 1992 11 l - " 4 -~3~,0„ - y * M F x A~¢, Wt , ~ ; - ~ w r Y a N~,~~,' PFD ~ ~p ~ ~ ~ o~y t. F, ~ . - N fi - - - 9- ~ ~~4cw~t ~~t Y- .y ~~;m,_AR R ~ 1 ~ ' ~ r ~ a d ~~aa~. ~ ~ 1~~. -7 ~s~s ~ i, K ~ l 'i _ 9d k '4g ~l ci d0. 4 i , ~ 3 ~'t-.n. Av ~+4 ^sn i . - ~ X, Y f - 3 V>> y ~'k yr~~v fi~ ~~hk i ~ P . w ~ ~~i!; - Y - ~ a ~ ~~t t d "-i a ~ - ~ `'"fir, ~'~r ' 9 ~.Fr Y4 ~ ~ ~ ~~Fr i., ,fit ~ ~I ~A ,ark b ~ T:£ - - ~ - ~ , Y y ~t F k y ~w ~ - Nagy. y~i 3,'~y~a?~~i ~ 4ipti. 4SiBt ~ l ~~~r - ~ ~ to a"yi - ~~.~:t 1 ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS ~o IVOVEf~1BER 8, 1992 xe By Fawn Germer . ~ ~ r 1,;;,, u., Surgeon J. Richa~ d Steadman's tean2 of orthopedic specialists is as celebrated at its clientele. ~r+;~ ~ ,,a~' The wall says it all. - ~ ~ g"~~~" r + q~~r ~Ye The duo said their approach was to get "To Dr Steadman, Thanks for putting a ~ ~'r~ r 4'``°- r + ~ patients pumped up about their post-surgery • f smile on my face, my heart and my knees! '"1,'~ r ;F „ .Y ~ y ~Y' ~ lifestyle. r~ rt e c; , .i, . Love, Martina,"says one of the photos. a r ~ : O { F ~ "You leave the psychological out of it and • NavmUlova is just anc of the famous ally + M S you miss the point," said Atkins. "Our job is ~n' ~ ~ lutes fcatmcd iu Ur. J. Itrchard Stcadnnm's + ~~r=..r, : ~ ~ x to get them motivated. We hope they will be photo gallery m his Vail office. v ~ i t t~ 't III' 4 at least as active as they were before the ~ "Dr. Steadman -You're the main man. ~ ~r ~ ~ I - ? ~ '~I ~ surgery." r Thanks for keeping my legs in good shape. - ~ ~ is ,,?yf;; ~ # Steadman further expanded his program a ~tr ~ . Dan Marino,l3." i ~,v 3"~s ~ ~'~i ~ ~ this year when he brought in the former ~ 4 + ~ "Far thu man who saved my rarccr," from ,``t ...C } ~ Y z a, deputy executive director of the 11.5.Olympic "-w~N " ~ti' ~ ~i°~„ skrerMazk Giradelli. ~ ~a;: r~ ~ ~ ' n ~ ~ t Commiltec as exev:ulive director of the foun- r~e~r ~ ,r ,o, f "Thanks Dr. Steadman. You're Lhc hest," r'° 'j^ elation. e ~ ~ rr , o from Buffalo Bills defensive end Bruce Smith. r.. i 6 ,~j Dc Chuck Dillman, a researcher specializing as s . 'r: ^~t f:.^ ~ . bt jl~ Stcadinau displays a sexcerjersey signed br' ,}o , in binme~clurnics, srid he wanted la work with tie : y, the soccer player Luther Matthaus: ' "Thank r~ r%.AS.vi- ,,t °+r- ~ fv Steadman Ixcause "!Steadman) wants to con- ,r+ + you for your anmg lands, laithct: ' ~ ~ ~ ~,f a ~ ~ ~n 4 s ~ ~ ~ time to learn, to continue to move forwazd.... ~,'~r~ k w . He s fixed the world s best. Best in soccer, ~ • Nat smeweinocw Mouma~n sews The intention here is to build an international s,. sky ~ r ~ volleyball, football, skiing, rodeo, ballet, car Nearly 30 years after finishing medical school, Dr. 1. Rickard Steadman remains fascinated with hiswork -not Just the science, medicine or eele• research center in sports medicine. The pkm t ~t~ ~ racin , motarcross, mm~in baseball, n~ilni b ' , bst with eve ys with Dr. Martin Boublik far right, then relies on a diHererd kind of picture in the o crating room, is that bi . We ho to have rofessors comin ~ ` ~r "I' g y, 1 rttY rything. He examines X-ra p g pe p g - wrestling and even +eater skiing and wind here from all over the world tastudy." rrr 'j• surfing. Haan prefers using epidurals for anesthetic, additional surgery. in the industry. Many of the sports medicine studies pro- , x~ ~ t ~ L He is the chief physician for the U.S. Ski blceking pain kom the waist down. Steadman was one of the first orthopedic His biggest strength, he insists, is his team duce findings thaF can be applied to the aver- r .t o Team and has been on the sidelines of ever}' The kghts in the operating room ga out, and specialists to insist that patients start rehab approach. Particularly when it comes to the age patient 'fhe foundation is steering Y . ~ YmP 6 Y' g Y P Y f Y ~ ; ' ~ ~ ~ w Reinter Ol ics since 1976. her knee is illuminated lhruu'h the arlhro- exercises almost immediate! alter sur er , h steal them, , ta~scarch on how arthritis is roused and how it '"gx , ; ' Is he the best knee surgeon there is? The scope. That has been d,c keystone of his practice.lle Nearly a decade ago, Steadman brought in can be treated. Other projects include - ~ ~t, c: ° . ~ ~ question leaves Steadman uncomfortable and A +idm monitor projects a magnified image has learned from athletes how far the rehab two highly respected sports medicine consul- research on cartilage defects, healing factors ` t" 3 ~ i ~ rankles other Colorado orthu a rlitils who s;i of a surgeon's exploration, like a Jacques can be pushed. tams, Topper Hagerman and John Atkins. and rehabilitation. . b r;i'rk .!~~yb I' y ~i " r~.~ lhuy arc every bit as g«,d. Cousteau movie filmed inside the knee. 'fhe Besides recovery, he is pioneering tech- Before joining Steadman, Hagerman headed Not all of the research is done here in Cnl- ,,*s~.. ' ~ .w j, ; , "['m, well, very grx,d " he says finally "But monitor at the end of the arthroscope projects piques for regeneration of cartilage. He's the sports physiolory lab at the Squaw Valley orado. The foundation is sponsoring research there are so many great orthopedic surgeons, die cavernous cavity inside of the knee. developed the procedure for ligament recon- Olympic Training Center, and Atkins was a ski at the University of Pittsburgh, Michigan ' '".~a#r»~:m^'""~-~ ~ ~ . s, t you can't say who is best. h is our goal as a Steadman bends thr, woman's leg, and the structinn that is considered the most reliable team trainerand conditioningcoach. Stateandother medical centers. ~ "f . ~;y !coin here to be the besl." image of her knee n,lating Their apprr>dch to «ha- Stuidman uses his office as a training cun- y . In the two years since Steadman moved his from the inside fills the bilitatinn and training is ter. More than 1110 orthopedic surgeons apply r;. < ~ } y a~, s ~ '°n T: team from Lake Tahce, Nev., to Vail, the 55- screen. The surgeon's ~ unconventional: Instead of for thechaneetostudywderSteadmaninone ~~e r<,, r " 6 , ~ yeao-old surgeon has brought a little more eyes are locked an the prescribing months of vis- of five open fellowships each year. And more .~•.r a ,f~• glitz, a tittle more science and a lot more image, as he uses a tool to ~ its to costly private physi- than 200 orthopedic surgeons from around the ;;:y rxnnph to the ski town. Pr,ke at cartilage then ~ cal therapists, Hagerman world spend time in the operating room with The surgeon's practice is built inure around break it free. w , , , and Atkins have developed Steadman, just to watch. x` the average joes than the superstars, but gen- Obscre ing the surgery, ' r - a program that patients can Rescuing celebrities has turned Steadman c v ' ' " erally the average foes come from somewhere Stuadman's son Lyon coin- ~ ~ ' 'r. do right away, and at home. into a celebrity of sorts.' f,~yf,~- " ,u r `,t else. More than 6090 of his patients come ments, "He jokes with my ~ • ' - ~4w Patients often don't need He's such a big man - 6•foot-3, 245 t, ~ _ ~ n ' -•~'~'~~a~ from outside Colorado. Most of them are des- son that tic's playing a W-+ : surgery, just the intensive pounds, but he's quiet t r x ~~`f'" pecateforanendtopersistentkneetroubles. video game when he's ~ { ~ rehab program. Still, he plays tennis withNavratilova,skis " There is that old sa'in , "There is no such loin that." i ~ ' b~~l „ Remember the m ste with OI tans, !s seats ri ht on the side- . r } g g to Y ry YmP ge g thing as one knee surgery." In minutes, Steadman is ~ surrounding Monira Seles' lines for football games and rep secure tickets And perhaps that's why the woman on the finished. The woman will ~ no-show at Wimbledon in tojust about anything. ',=`,4 , A table in Steadman's operating room was sa be walking in a few hours, ~ 1991? Rumors abounded. Steadman modeled himself after two uncles ~ \ t r o~ ' amdous on a recent Friday.lt was her seventh entering the rehab pro- s~ r She's chicken, said the who were physicians. His father was in aeto- s d a ~ {„,y~ , < i S~ ~ ~ ~ knee surgery. Every time she thought she'd gam that afternncm. Odds s~ , critics. She's pregnant, said space engineering and his mother "worked to - . a ~.r ~ ~ .f~FrF',~iw ~~~.Gr'{ cured her problem, things got worse. So, she are she'll never need `ter ~,.y , `t' q` t `m the tabloids. Seles was make our lives better." ~ t r~ s ~ ~ ` turned to Steadman. another knee sur per ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~y', actually at Steadman's clip- Medicine wasn't necessarily the easiest or ~ ^~~~~s,w ~r i. w 6 ) r. y r ~ " _ ' ~z~~~; "Is seven your lucky number?" Steadman because Steadman's adds ~ ~ " is with a small stress frac- most enjoyable choice. Steadman played tactr f e ~ »,v r ~ ~ }rj, ~ ,a . ; • w A r - asks just before her surgery begins. are grwd. Follow-up stud- r ;1 ` ~""r" tore in her foot. Hagerman le for the Aggies when he started at Texas . F ~ "Seven's a charm," say s the woman, who is ic4 show that fewer than Steadman's caseload, more than 60 oNiee vlsHs a day during ski season, often and Atkins immersed her - kept awake during the surgen' because Stead• 1S? of his patients need makes for bog waits. Ne doesn't leave his patients utdil every question is answered. in rehab. Gmtinued an tuge.i,-nf -M D COLORADO PEOPLE ' " " ' " " „ ; Rocky+Mountain N~>.vrs Sunday, Nov, 8, 1992 COLORADO PEOPLE ¦ 9-fN i + \/1 A.. `/f nt t!\ !A\\\•+.>!'l~O~O?n,f 0l Ill •IAI, 1 Steadman passed on football, ran with medicine From precious page ~ ~ ~-<F.;..; . 4" ~,r A&M, but a "D" in comparative anato- _ ~ ~ my was enough to force a choice , , , , ~>12~° ° 1 - ; ~ between medicine and sport. ~ . ; a~ l s,, • € "I decided that what I wanted to do ! t F with the rest of my life was more impor- ~ Y ' a,! jR'~ ~ t~ tant than football," he said. "I also recog- , «c, ,y / ~ 'r > . nized that I wasn't oin to be e t ~ . , . ~ ~ ; < „ • J ~ f ice' football player." ' r If a choice had to be made, he wrote in ~a' t ' - ~ ~ Ada -.r~,> ~ a letter to his coach, the legendary Paul "'t's%'.s,?i ~ a § i~a I "Bear" Bryant, it had to be medicine. _ ~ r ~ r Bryant wrote back and said he under- `ti ~1~` _ 1 ~`n; , stood Steadman's decision. $esides, the f a ' ~ coach wrote, maybe Steadman would I ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~i~rr~f' t take care of him after becomin a doctor. ~ t , JJ( ~ - v ~ ' I g s i. ; i Steadman and his wife, Gay, settled in i Lake 'Tahoe, Nev. where he practiced ~ ~ ~ general orthopedics. His fascination with ~ ..;g. ~ ti4 I sports medicine grew, as did his fascina- ' ~ lion with knees. ' ~ ~ - -tip lIe attracted real attention in 1979 ~ when skier Phil Mahre shattered his left -a ~ ' ~ ~ ankle in a World Cup race. It would be _ l,_ r ' ,taws ~ _.t ' nearly a year before Mahre could ski at ; ' world-class level. But the day after ~ ~ / ~ . surgery, Steadman had him working out, , r and even had the skier move into his . ~ _ home for the early part of the recovery. ~ Five months later, Mahre was on the ~ .a..; slopes. Eleven months after his injury, he won a silver medal in the Olympic ; ~ " j slalom. ~ f 4 ` "i'he more miracles Steadman worked, -f ~ ~ V - the more inclined people were to fly San Diego Charger's detenaire end Leslie O'Neal chose Steadman to operate on his knee rather than team doctors. from all over the world to his office in 'Tahoe. ~ Even George Gillette made the trip. Gillette, owner of Vail and Associates, to say no;' Hawkins said. This ~lr}~s Dick Steadman has any greater skills tourism and snow conditions, and the and his children were all patients of my good buddy and he's my partner ' than any other well-trained orthopedic clinic has improved the quality of the ~ Steadman's. Thus, the Steadman-Hawkins Clinic surgeon, with regard to knees. But, he facilities." , So impressed was the businessman was born. certainly has a reputation, and his repo- During the winter, when ski-injured that he wanted Steadman in Vail. Steadman's arrival and the media tation is certainly well-deserved." patients parade into the office, Steadman Steadman thought the idea absurd. But, splash that came with it left some ortho- The orthopedic surgeon already based sees 60 to 70 patients a day, and does 10 Gillette kept talking and making promis- pectic specialists resentful. at the Vail hospital said he did not fear to 16 surgeries every Monday, es. He has difficulty talking about any Steadman's arrival, and said Steadman's Wednesday and hriday. The deal was beyond lucrative: rivalries, insisting he doesn't believe practice "has not affected my practice at 1'he heavy caseload often makes for Steadman was given his own floor at the there is any "best" at what he does. all." long waits, since Steadman doesn't leave Vail Valley Medical Center. Adjacent Staff members, however, brought up That doctor, DL John Gotlieb, said he his patients until every question has operating suites were constructed pre- the jealousy issue without being asked. and Steadman occasionally had dinner or been answered. cisely to his specifications. Downstairs "We hear about it most from patients played a round of golf. They refer "The problem," said Carlson, his is the research facility for the Steadman who come to us and say, 'I was told not patients to one another for the required nurse, "is only having one of him. If only Sports Medicine Foundation, and to come here,"' said Shirley Carlson, second opinions. He thinks Steadman is we could clone him." Gillette, Vail and Associates and the Vail Steadman's surgical nurse who has a "Nice guy. Likes his patients. Patients Few of Steadman's patients have Valley Medical Center have chipped in worked with him for 17 years. "It's just like him. He is a careful, concerned doe- names like Marino or Navratilova. millions to fund the research. mumbled about here and there from his tor." But it's clear that doesn't matter to "We left a situation where we were all patients." But when the questions zeroed in on Steadman when he makes his final very comfortable," Steadman said. "But Other of Stcadman's peers -based in Steadman's ability and reputation, rounds at 7 p.m. Three fellows trail him we made the move for the opportunity the metro area -said Steadman's high Gotlieb chose his words cautiously. like curious puppies, nodding thoughtful- to do research." profile made others jealous. "Rather than say anything negative, ly at every comment the surgeon utters. Steadman constantly stresses the "You know how people are -there's I'd rather not say anything at all;' he said. Steadman greets every patient with a importance of his "team." So important a certain amount of professional jeal- Does Gotlieb see himself as good as handshake, and says goodbye with a were his nurses, rehab experts, office ousy," explained Dr. Wayne Gersoff, who Steadman? handshake. managers and other team members, that also specializes in knees and is the team "I can do a knee reconstruction as First stop, a German soccer player's all seven of his core staffers were given orthopedist for the University of weal as anyone in the world, and I feel room. The soccer player knows very lit- a veto on the decision to move. Colorado Buffaloes and the Colorado very comfortable saying that; ' he said. tle English. Steadman's Deutsch stinks. "If one of them didn't want to come, Rockies. "But he is an excellent sur- Steadman said he thinks highly of "Is good," Steadman says. none of us would," he said. "I laid out geon. He's very knowledgeable in reha- Gotlieb. "Ya?" says the patient. "Football?" the situation and everyone came to the bilitation of the knee, and he was in the "There has to be a rivalry between "Probably drei more months," conclusion that here in Vail, our team generation of people that were involved the two offices, but I would say it's a Steadman tries. would go to another level." m developing a lot of these procedures. friendly rivalry," he said. "He's been The next patient's husband com- "The decision took me 30 seconds," Are there others here who aze as good? very supportive of our group and our mens, "Thank goodness you did it on said Cristal Adams, his clinical coordina- Well, if you'd ask me, I'd say I was. And being here." the right knee." for for the past eight years. "I couldn't there certainly are people in Colorado Regazdless, Steadman's presence has Says Steadman, "It was close." imagine working for anybody else." who are as good." meant a cash injection to the Vail Valley And finally, a man in his 40s shakes Steadman then recruited Dr. Rich "The things Dr. Steadman does are Medical Center, which used to see a Steadman's hand. Hawkins, perhaps the world's premier relatively common in orthopedics, and I huge drop in patient visits once the "If I knew it was going to be this shoulder specialist, and moved Hawkins think there are a lot of orthopedic sur- .snow melted. damned easy, I'd have done this years to Colorado from London, Ontario. geons around who have those skills," "His presence has almost doubled our ago; ' he said. At first, Hawkins wasn't sold on the said Dr. David Greenberg, who special- surgery," said Ray McMahan, chief idea. "But it got so attractive that one izes in sports medicine. "Do I? Yes. I'm executive officer at the hospital. "He's Fawn Gerrner is a Rocky Mountain News would have had to have rocks in his head a good orthopedic surgeon. I don't think made us not so dependent on local staff writer. I 10.M ¦ COLORADO PEOPLE Sunday; Nov:'8,1992 Rocky~Mountairi News WALL STREET JOURNAL { MEDIA Cable Concerns Are Scrambling Man Cable Fir ; . y ms Race to Raise , To Raise Rates Rates Before April Re-Regulation By Mnax Rosrexaux Continued From Page BI explain the boost in price. But they may Staff nCpOiLQi Of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL "We're upset that the rates go up and we have only confused consumers who had NEW YORK -Just 10 weeks after Con- don't see what we're getting for it." looked to Congress for rate relief. One gress passed a law to grant cable sub- The rash of increases and other maneu- Passage in the flier says, 'In ordl'r to scribers relief from years of escalating vets may spark new criticism of the cable avoid the potential cost increases which rates, many systems are racing to impose industry. Its archrival, the National Asso- could result from this legislation, we are anew round of increases, surcharges and ciation of Broadcasters, conducted an in- Preparing now pricing packages before the new law takes formal survey and found more than 40 Ruth Kolpin, who runs family-owned effect. examples of new rate increases and other Southwest Missouri Cable TV, cites legal Cable customers across the country are moves; it plans to take its criticism public fees to prepare for the new requirements getting sticker shock when they receive this week. as just part of the "cost of compliance to their monthly cable bills, In Jamestown, Rate increases, service complaints and the new law." Further, she says, the N.D., the local cable system has just levied a dearth of viable competitors to cable are company hasn't raised its rates since 1989 a 14% increase in the monthly charge. In what drove Congress to re•regulate the and must keep pace with higher operating Los Angeles's poor South Central area, costs, Like many small operators, her industry in the first place. Cable was s stem doesn't g Continental Cablevlston Inc. jacks up in- largely freed of rate caps in 1987. Its virtual y get programmin dis- stallation fees 91% next month, after rats- counts because it doesn't buy in bulk. monopoly in most markets let it raise When cable lobb g ing basic rates 11"/~ earlier this year. In rices for the most gists fou ht to kill P popular services re re ul y Nashville, Tenn., a Viacom Inc, system cut rou hl 60% over the five ears followin - g anon, the cited as the most the price of the basic service that few dereg lation, as it expanded reach and costly provision a new requirement letting subscribers get, but also imposed a [ee of local TV stations, for the first time, begin programming. char rn almost $40 for any subscriber who tries to g' g cable systems for retransmitting switch to the lower-priced package. But for all the outcry this time around, their programming. This "retransmission Myriad other- systems, trying to side- it is questionable how much local govern- consent" could end up raising cable sys- step the new law's cap on "basic" cable ment or the FCC cantdo about the latest terns' Costs by $1 billion or more, the rates, are redefining what "basic" means, actions, even with the new cable re-regula- industry had argued. shaving off popular channels and moving tion act. The new law calls on the FCC to It remains entirely unclear how much, them into a new "tier" that will be largely untouched by regulators. IR~C®1'r~ ~,rAb~e R~t+~ ~nCr®a8~13 Some cable operators are directly blaming the new increases on the expected t r higher costs spurred by the new cable ~ ' re-regulation act, which Congress pushed into law in October by overriding a veto by Jamestown, N.i). Cable Services - $15.95 $18.25" +14% President Bush. Yet the law doesn't be- Nashville, Tenn, ViaCOm Cable Expanded $21.65 $23.30 + 8% come effective until next April and the Federal Communications Commission Mrtanett and Southwest Missouri._ Basic $10.00 $10.50 + 5% hasn't even decided on the precise rules `Pierce City, M0. Cable 7d Expanded $17.40 $19.65 +13% that will be used to enforce it' _ Fairfatl; Ya. Media 6®ner81` . Basic $11.95 $13.95 +17% In Jamestown, for example, cable Ex anded $25.95 $28.95 +12% operator Cable Services Inc. re-tiered its - p basic package into "basic" and "ex- ' old Ca9rc sen,!ce sFr!it into baste aid axpar+dee packages: iiad.~ vr~ce reNeca cost or rrtainlainirrg previous panded" packages and now charges $18.25 level of service. for the same 26 channels that had cost define "reasonable" cable rates and if anything, the TV stations will end up $15.95 last month. Why the jump in price? A company flier sent to its 5,000-plus grants focal governments new power to roll charging for the new prograrming fees. customers cites "a direct result of this new back increases that exceed the FCC guide- Many stations may forgo fees in favor of a regulatory burden" and explains: "There lines. Yet it doesn't directly require any second measure of the new law that re- fs no way to add burdensome regulations kind of refunds to consumers when "unrea- .quires cable systems to carry the broad- without running up costs." sonable" charges are discovered. casters. The provisions, moreover, are Lawmakers See Red Robert Pepper, head of the FCC's under a serious challenge in federal court That kind of talk makes Rep. Ed office of plans and policy, says the FCC is from most major cable companies. Markey, who helped pen the new cable "very concerned" about the recent round Yet some cable operators have already of increases and surcharges. "Once the told consumers how much the new TV law, see red. "When the dust has settled," ?ew rules go into effect, local authorities station fees could cost them-before begin- Rep. Markey vows in an interview, "these will be able to determine if the basic rate is Wing to negotiate the programming particular firms will regret they took ad- reasonable and they'll have the ability to charges. Operator Cable Services, told its vantage of a period they thought would lower that rate." But he concedes the customers that such payments to the allow them to jack up prices unchecked." law is "vague" about rolling back im- broadcasters will "range from 84 cents to He and other proponents of the law fired off proper increases and forcing any kind of $2.50 per month f in) added cosY." a letter last week, asking the FCC "to pay rebate. That's news to one station manager In particular attention to those cable opera- the North Dakota market. "I have no idea tors who try to rush through rate increases The rate ,authority, moreover, will in anticipation of rate regulation." cover mainly "basic" rates; aless restric- where they got such prices," says John "The cable industry is back up to five test will likely be applied to rates of Hrubesky general manager of NBC its old tricks," charges Gene Kimmelman, "expanded tiers," which more than half affiliate KTHI in Fargo, which is car- who lobbied for the new law as legislative the nation's 9,000 cable systems already tied on the Jamestown system. "We just director for the Consumer Federation of use. By pushing popular channels such as feel it's much too early to discuss these America. "They raise rates and then USA, TNT or MTV onto an "expanded" things. We have no clue how this is going to blame a law passed to lower them. It's tier, cable operators can raise rates while play out.' sleight of hand." leaving basic cable service alone. Less Roy Sheppard, president of Cable Serv- Cable operators generally defend their than 10% of subscribers typically buy the ices, counters that the 84 cents-to-$2.50 rate increases, citing higher programming ~ narrower, basic service, range is "an estimate of what retransmis~ sion cost could be. We want to inform our and operating costs. "We have a business Thus, tiny Southwest M3ssour3 Cable customers in advance of potentially what to run" says Susan Evans, director of TV Inc., Carthage, Missouri, raised its could occur." He adds that to meet the new government relations for Viacom, which 'rate for stripped-down, basic service by law's requirements, he must buy special raised expanded basic rates by 8% at its ~ 5%. But it recently notified customers that equipment to filter out and package chan- Nashviile, Tenn., system. "We still have the monthly charge for expanded service nets for subscribers who want only basic. rebuilds and other capital demands and will rise 13% to $19.65 in January. "People "Consumers have no idea what we pay operational expenses. We still feel the were cussing on the phone about it," says for," Mr. Sheppard says. "We still offer a rates are reasonable." Mayor H.C. Beckwith, who fielded more good service at a good price." Any excessive increases are the work of ~ than 30 calls from irate citizens. "They're But Jamestown mayor Frank Chase renegade operators whom they can't con- irritated. It's bad timing. It's too much counters: "We just can't afford these trot, cable executives maintain. The Na- money at one time." exorbitant increases. We will Investi- tional Cable Television Association, asked ~ The Missouri system sent fliers to gate." for comment on Friday, offered cone-sen- - _ _ _ fence statement: "For the first 10 months ~ of 1992, the cable Consumer Price Index from the Department of Commerce ran at 3.8%, which is quite reasonable." The problem, of course, is that some cable operators lately are slapping on increases triple and quadruple that rate. The trade group doesn't specify what the average increase has been in the two months since the re-regulation act passed, "`The cable companies are out of hand," • says Joseph Sherwood, supervisor of Blacklick Township in Pennsylvania, where cable ° operator Easters[ Telecom Corp. raised rates 20% to $18,501ast month. Please Turn to Page i48, t~dumn 5 ~ ; JAN- 5-93 TUE 7:36 C~iL FAX K0. 3036608175 P, 02 xc = rcm r ~ ' Li9-~ i .~M I ii I ~ ~'ax~uary~ 1~, ~.~9~ The Colorado Constitution authorizes the zegisto~teri electors of Calotada w? propose changes In the Colorado Constitudan and the taws of the st~tc by petitiaa. 'The original draft of the text of proposed initiated constitutional amendments attd taws mast be submitted to the legislative research and legal, services oFfic~s of the.stasa Iegi&Iatura ft~r r®view and comment. Pursuant w the requirements aE Article V, Socdon 1 (S}, CaXvt~tdo Constitution, the respective offices must submit comments to proponents at a meeting to the public. Qn'Thursday,lanuary l4, ;1993, the directors of the 1,egisiative Cauacil and Legislative Legal Services will render comments on the attactte~ initiative pr+epasal concerning "Election lterot~q." This meeting will be held in ~puse Car,~ttee R~azzi 011x, at the Sfiatc Capital Building, ~cn~er, Colorado, at 1U:Q0 a,w., unless the pmpon$nt withdraws the propo~d initiative prior to that time. 1 L V ~ t;U ~ ~ ~L ~.~~~1 ~ y JAN- 5-93 TUE 7 ~ 36 ChIL FAK N0, 3038608175 P, 03 ~ . . !e it )eaacted bj the Paapie of the State of Cniarada: ? ~ lttielc YII, Section 2 /~G ' Q~ Election Aefan. (1) 6e$etal ptovisians. *se preferred ~at~r~a7~YEt~!~4~'±~a $hatl reasoaanlj scrangtbea cit:zsa eanual at geveras~enc cost. {ii prafLi:Qas afe Slll~'Alt~ntlnQ aad rayat3bl• aII~1 9aQtss:dr eotPiie::tiq atlCi ctlnstitarlanai, Stage skatntoij, .lat:st. sr alter stake sr ?oral ptovLSlaas. t34ividual, C1a8S Ac.iaA. ar di9t::Ct eafdic~leaC Satt3 maj ~e ~:Ied vichiu 3 Ious ai is eveac. picwal ;sloes ar: ga;lect co a ;urj t;iai. 3useessfal plaiatifs us aliaved coats aad :OaeOnibia ittacaej °aei.:iL 8 deEcadinc :3 :ar aaieSS a iyit ba :cried :r:vnloaa. (f( !cn dcfiaitiaas, q:ciia thi: seettsa: 'i) "ialink :isae' aueaaa acj peadiaq ststa sr :ncal ceEesred aeasnra of atla-recoil patitiaa as soon as a ail:st title bas bees ::,:c:ai:j set. (b( "Compa$aatiaa" Weans the dist;ic: :sst :a silacj, pijrail fr:age yeacti:s, 1ipaII5C lad t:anl accaunta, aad anj rasa gagmaata and reiabarsaaan:s to atl i'leCttd 7i:iCial, (c) "3;atrict" means t;, State ar anj local government, :net$diaq eatarpctaes. vathorities, aad all zta other activities. (d) "9a$attoa' :aclcdas Gish at cash egatzilents, iaaaa, ar sabstltate gnrehases, hnt sat ;aatt:hatinas in kind ar services. (r) 'slacttd sEF~c:al' scows a state ar :aril $OIl~j$dtc;sl officer elected, apnotsted, ar 3aeCeadiaq :a as ileeetva of#ics. • (f) 'Petition" lOiLS aII iatL:ittvl, se#er:$dui, ar eeeaii aeasare aaiass etherrise 1ldicated, (3) Pij raises. 7$less previoasip approved bj voters, caapensat;on iscreasee adopted after 1461 shall and ao taker thap a cnrreat !ens ~f offfee. csnpeasitian levels adopted bicaa#tar aaq rtceed the 1919 ,erei salt cp L$flatiaa alter 1968 tlc bj distrlCt 7tlteC approval. :]#'.akioa it Seiiaed is ar.1C14 I, ae4clon IQ. Caapensac:oa firsk ~lQ,cn, aL eQaaged bj distric= 90teis, if,ef 1418 shalt ass the last lav4l and Siyitiag d8te, par '8 goverping bodj, ::E c00bifed caoponaatioa shall he u:ad. itclpt ij aukurc Slat ;s: T:*rr approval, rraat:ns for :1".tad oEti.ials wall aoc :ac:ade sarriae aEket their autreat tere, aad oar stb,r coapensactan partlj ar #a11J ttongt f,o~a skate ar iod4Cat iitaaae tax shall and vitb their a$rCant tats, (1) Cabpai~s eontribntitlns, (i) lev iacaa, slate, ox iederat catipatga aammiktnax nor ptadge to the sictetarj of atite to twice doaatioas anti Crab bowie beings. da tmaartfb3 hnnia heiaq, or a?atried buuaR bciags #illIIq a joiAt #ederal income ti; retnrs, shat t :trtiea a state :-scat tai srcdit Fa; ~e lasses svm nE S]Q4 ds ntiJ aanaii cash title to .all such pledging o~aittess. for a~att:ed hunan bei,gs ;i:ing soparateir, the appcr liniE is 550. this credit at<al. oat curl aver :a other taY jaars eicead iacaae tai liaetlij.:t wall be IisCed Qa all iutura state (aeons lax retaras and adjtlst rearlj Ear intlakian ar aa:c. (b) District ciaaidates sr elected oEficiiis or :heir campaign cn®tittees shall $ac accept ant 3onulan rich a retail vale nvu SSC per calendar feat pas daaar, or anj ytlitj service discount. troy am utility rtth rata at situate tegtltated br that district, ;ram aaj gro:p receiving aver :6 st i•9 aaaual gross receipts trop chat iistrict, ar from a corpCC:tiaa, hnsiaess group, cepiajle group, paittical action co~ctee other :fan a pai.ti:al patty, or ~:i3 labbjist xbn zs sot a zelatave. ~S~ tlect3on protections. (a) sa distrs:ts wall htlonq or dtlnate, direetij ar :a3i:set:f, >_p anj atgiAitatiaII of districts at dtstti:t amp{ojees khit beretEter uses its same, tlr its paid eaplajae tine, aatar:a;, aailings, or other resources vith a retail slue aver S50 aer ciieadar Tear, ko sapTOrt or oppasi, ar cicala ox dispense nator:al discnssinq, adj baIlat issue, (b) xo person shall d:scnss ant ballot iss~a vith, ar distLihaEe ballot issnn astuiai ta, itlY stadeat through grade IY +chile an pnblie school prapertj d$riaq a period .ae boar befarc :araagh owe bane ifEor school boars. ~n llaetid atfiCial or dlstr::: eiplaper shill qse district paid anploree tine, material, Aailingai ac okhat tasaurcas zith i ratiit mire aver S50 per :aieadar peat to creaks ai dispense aiter:ai iiacassiaq aaj htltat issue, etaept foY aecessarj duties nther than ballot issue analjsis, far eleekion aad judicial processes and aatitles, and Eat providing guhlie aect:aq aad aanauaceAea! Iacalitlas, (e) so ateecid affi:ial shall vats far anj diskrict xtatastrs.t retnrrinq to anj ballot issue, 2or ass district :isoacees ;a creaks or dispense in aaj :iienaar gear aat::aan 144 items tar name recognition purpaaes ar to soggest anj paZitiaal beiiais, conduct, or snppatt. Segl:es to Constik$eats era eiempt, (dl Sash gillEni vinlatnr at (i) o: (S) is liable far S3a6C rich to the d;stri:: aad :a opposing campaign oeemtttees as a grasp, and ;oiatlj aad savrralIj liable to bntb #ar the ::tail valve of diatrie: C9aC5, savings hj nse of d:attict tesanress, and illegal 3onations, S:stricts shall vithhold SOS of their act paraents aad refunds to rialicors sn!i1 ill anounks ue repo:; s~.tS :a1 asaaal staple ;at4r4st, ltirect ar :zdirea'L _e4alneek ar ieyai aid With d:StC:".L :bads is also a *~l"latiatt. ?:aalt'_xs aro staadatorj and noL snspendable. obeying i supervisor er stetted a:;iciat is ao def:nse, aoc is ignoraace of this tar. {i) taappartianYent zetarma, par ill legislative reapportiannents afro Il46, the snare shall have 33 ~embarn rtnd the 4ouse of reprtsMttatiYea 6b :IeiOlL3. ach senate area abaft consist of tva ad,ainiaq haasa at repceseatatires aeeaa. Coagr:ssional areas shat! htceaftar ha reapportioned bj the sane ctlm?lssioa used tar state Iegisiative areas. JAN- 5-93 TEJE 7 ~ 37 CML FAX N0, 3038608175 P, 04 • - ~ ~ 3! 1~z ~~'~~r- F ~ tr) petitias protectiaas. ?a; :9e :'.ght is pe:;t:oa paaceaiti;l an dist;i:t-:rued p;sgert] a place :es open to ~b::. ~ she:: sot be :=;C;nged, ?et:l:an paxe;s saatE appE] is all districts as :s 3istti:t ewt:ara. 3egairsd distr_ct rsg:stared etec:or pet.;iCS sigaata::s 90att eat ssceed S3 of tMe yumber of 3istrut yokes fat all caadi.at~ #aL secretor] of sta~a :7 :hc :as: e:e:t,on !sr :bat s::;ce, eicepk shalt nOL closed io1 in a repieSent4d arts far t local rec:l: petit:aa. judge: aa3 ;YSrces ace sn~rcc::s :ecatl, ah:cb xan:d bar aa] ytra iudicial posit:as. Reeatt bal:ats stet: prsvide ZSC yards each °.sr " pa;:::aaers and :;e :i`.:ctat. pa person shelf uader5o yore than ase-recall alectian per tern, 5s: distr.e.s shelf otoat,e ~s _aspaiga re:sbu::eneat, ?:t:,:ans oil be flt~i up to 4 moths after del:verr of pekl.aa sea.::;s. stile San-recxtl peL:'_.~s 3:e ns lase; :za 7 :oaths Before ~~e e'.e_ciae, Sl:gibe sate axd ;oca3 pec~:isar f::ed pus a pre-eleecioa dea;i.° s'ra:::e rated c.: :5e .ett :ailam.ng ei.c.ian, "_tle-settsag awards weal: b+ apva to pubis: ::Baca[ aad araiiibie vts's:r. ~~;0 seta pab;:1 20[.:0, as] aisir:cl Stlnr: ~d] 3et a ballot title. gplEat tltlt appeals to :Se 311presle Cantt aij b~ ::red xithie 9 days attar :e_r4 set, wad shall be decided within 10 days leers. yis::,c:s a9a?i pE'i and ieliver aactiaas ac _.ax. DYptese '.:his '.4 da]s after ::IIaj :;:le letti5~ 'a a ~¢aatft] a[ioxiaq at Ieiat trice toe sualeaa io~be[ 0~ regaired stgaers. ?at ,twee shall »at bt penal__ed for district mtcare ;n sectiaa Sara ar casteet. Peal:aaera na] also point seet'.eas. (b) nntess distr:.: raters :brag. the as®ber, pal] i district aEasares that became lays or regsationa eaob calendar pea: ear he eteepted as metgeecies Etam a posaihle rpEereadns peLitiaa. a p11 sa;oY:r rose sf t.e rent:e:s s# each hence of tea 3en_a: assemDl] ar o::hs lapel siatriek board shall declare each exeepcioa accessary for the isq~ediate preserratioa of the ~3:sa puce, wealth, ar :::atq, spprapriatioae for disL;int sgpport wad w?i~taOXace re~aia rte~pt Ezo~a tiefeteAdaa petitions. ~o ~eaaure stall :e :e-adapt:d ; snhataete, eyes xith as etcestion, zf i refetesdna petition an it has bessn. State measacas ape: .a a refereadam pst:,:aa ;eke ef:ect sa laaget than 41 da]a after that ¢ieal +peeetal asssmnl] erasion adionraneat, wad s_:h seal neaaures :c sooa:r than si days after final publication. p:::ng a petition Pith t§e :equ:L:i Saab=r of signatzres :s`.a:s ::e slat der 3ciars :tee eE:ect;vs data ~:st~t :;e etect.oa ar a •~3a1 doe?Biwa of patltion itisnlf:c?acct. Ylaseres or parts ~eas;ues :e;e:te; y] racers sap be readopted :n substance b~ that distC{:t s_lp alto Yale: ipptarai, ge-adaptisn :u sus:as_e :-aladss part;a::e-adopt:aa. (c) a p1~RSatr srr~, ~ ~llTltli SlCSttl~ L~iBL Qg jip~~~IE$;1 ~;~~E?, ~ ~ ~ 8~.~ f~i4L ~~ISE 3pl3T. P1LIp 0_~„~T.QISPQOYEi. `fie ?968 9:ate pet:tian fates shall he nSed fie all districts anless changed hr dietriot raters zr _'_n q:aeral essembt], Cir;s:a:ors ar signers sal cross out invalid eatrias, raiah do eat laiat raE:d ones. ?etrr of the rear ai signing is lot ;egaired, sir _S ~s spartseat, designakioa Bach at sttg4t or zrenae, rompaas :ireetan, postal Stp Bade, ;.a.::~, sr color o! lak. 3llctors '.fisted an regisiralio~ ncards xith :nr poalat bo: addra:a sa] nse .bat address. dddresa e5at;:s a.t9:a a cag3k] da sot a.fect :9glsteted eteetar StityB, Caamaa abbrevittiaas and rsprodsct:on :arks err illaved. l~:st _aa: s:mi?aril], :~i:_ais, a'..,iar;c errara, wad address wad ache; 4a=iasges st;ali be l:be;ali] :sas::evd : Earar aE petitis~::s. is seet_sa shit':.e :en.sared. dltaaeE a protest, eat:ias ar sactioas sat be ;aura ievaIid pall :f saecifisd xitlin .:t]s titer f:liag and pal] is iavtIid oa tseir taco. Yilh a protest, to ne #ilsd yithin days atlas peticioa f.I:mg, ent::es ar s_tt:zsts gar '.anad i1val' d ant] °ar speci•.'c :ea:arls ileniatd is a yrikkea pretest, wad sal] at a pablic heariAq li3i:~ :a :aa:e raseas a~a goves:d b] ;;tdi::al :ties of evidence and pracednre. Is ail iiagntea, atca;sa aE=iccrs aa3 proteatare saes the bnrdess a; prad;cct:aa and sE proof ie]oad a ;easaaabEe daabt. ?ha resells of am aec5ap;:ai ::adi:3 of enEdes or, euagt as provided ba;e:a, s: iir.:;at :esear:h 'per#arted after a petition #ilios~ ire faadofssi6le, invaded acotests are proh;bi:ad. ?az gape ain~e, a ?roust 5sar:.;y a« ;ter or ear diaOLi;,s aaurt shall wawa another hearing aEF:ctr, iindaags shall issue a.::::: .9 dins after a prates: `.:slay, Oa appeiE, la be filed Aiibia ~ days after }AMViagS :ssae, a iis::::: rear: abet: pl9npt:j t l:'.al, 5r ;err .at Qaiied, seder tbt wale Standards and lieitatiafla, :ha verdict aaJ he appealed aithia i days to :.e soprese dsnrt, aa3 ;be appeal shat; be decided vitbin i0 data sere, Bnlrss tacfiag enough Entries sr sections vat:a :::'.~i: °ace, ar Ear grass °.:aud, a ptt:t:an say be aneadad n} is '_4 days niter the '.iaal decistsn -viii c~rrectioes oY aeg sts::.:ns signed at aL] : ~C, 7 yhic~ :9:5 process shall app;], tto thfrd :~?lag is ilisrai, petltien5 resa:a as the bal:ot natal 4~_9 ~:oCessss caagletsd. Voter-apprsved petitiaas shad take a#fect regardless of eat ether proceedings, d rate:rr;: _easnre to aeesd ar re?cal a petal±nsed ceAsti.tat±gpal s: ahartGC estt5dsest ::q~iires a s~5 aa2aritT talc c' .»rmeo~bars s# sath house zf .be te:eral asscabt}' ar of the local dirt;±ct adird..ha,ges iz state peti:iaa !aa and praeeca_: eaac;ed aster .9l8 nl:hout vace? apptarat are 'serecr repealed, State lays is i98p are rastared :f consistent xitb this usF:;s aa3 :he f:dsrat .cttsti:ati:gt, :ieept neasures adapted t3iY rear 't1?a! era censiste3t rith ihi.s seet:aa, .s:~.ue state ar :::z; ?e.'_.:T~ tar c's:&ges !eQa1Ce ratty appEarat. Cnlexs pror:ded thareia, past ar :uESre rater-approved initialires s+ar herea:::: be anended, s7perseded, o: ;eoealed 5r elected off:aials onEi vitb eater appriavaE. - z~ - k.,. ~ 't'~AY... . pelled the effort. (National-security ad- - ~ J : ~ : ~ viser Brent Scowcroft was opposed to apar- ` fi ' don; chief of staff James Baker indiffer - ~ ~ ~ ' ent.) Bush was receptive but worried about ~ ' the political pounding he might take. "He y-~ ` needed to be persuaded that it was le all ~ ~ _ , ~i ' ,F a, ' g Y , respectable and that the fallout could be a ~ , 9 ~ ~ i` ~ s 1 contained," says a senior White House '"r ~ . fr~'' T 1!~ : - y official. i4:- ~ = i , ~ t` ' t. `Liberal carping': Weinberger's support- ~ ers quickly adopted adivide-and-conquer strategy for the Democrats. They worked to ~ ~1~." t~tf ~ isolate congressional liberals on the issue r by getting moderate Democrats to sign off. Clark, Gray and Howard Baker made most w ~ of the calls. Weinberger did no direct lobby _ ~ ~ y ~ • - _ m ing but suggested Democrats he thought _ • ~ - ~:i might help. One was House Speaker Thom . . ° as Foley, who agreed not to publicly critl - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - cize apardon. "Neutralizing Foley was the ~ JEFFREY AARONSON-NETWORK ASPEx key,"saysaGOPlawyeronthe Hill."With- America on parade: Colorado s Precision Lawn Chair Demonstration Team out the leadership, it's just liberal carp- ing." Other heavyweights signed on, in_ Hollywood Meets Woodstock eluding Rep. Les Aspire, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and now secretary of defense-designate. Bennett and Clark also opened a new front: the Soothing egos and other pre-Inaugural activities press. They lobbied influential columnists and editorial writers to stir support for a pardon. A few newspapers already were hen Rahm Emanuel was tapped to Her response so far: it's all or nothing. clearly on their side. The Washington ~ plan the Clinton Inaugural, he There are no small states, onty small sena- Timesgave big play to Walsh's difficulties. turned for advice to the team that tors. Last week the Inaugural committee The Wall Street Journal editorial page had handled the Reagan festivities eight years announced the names of the 50 "ordinary been referring to him as Captain Ahab. ago. Their reaction, recalls Emanuel: Americans" Clinton met along the cam- BennettmetwiththeeditorialboardofThe "Wereyououtoftheroomwhentheydecid- paign trail who will attend the celebra- Washington Post to plead his case fora ed you were going to do this?"Emanuel, 33, tions. The news had barely gone out before pardon, but the paper didn't call for one. along with coexecutive director Mary Mel a prominent Democratic senator went into Bymid-December, Bush was edging clos- French and general cochairs Linda Blood- a snit, because none of the "Faces of Hope" er to a pardon but was still undecided. The worth Thomason and Harry Thomason, hailed from his home state. "You mean final push came when he learned that will have had six weeks to mount the larg- there are no heroes in he demanded. Walsh assistant James Brosnahan was try- est and most elaborate Inauguration of A thousand of my closest friends. Congress ing to track down gossip that Weinberger modern times. With an opening-day crafts presides over the actual swearing-in cere- had amistress in London. Prosecution fair and televised star-studded galas, Bill monies, and thus over seat assignments. sources say Brosnahan wanted to talk to and Hillary Clinton's "American Re- Clinton and Gore get a piddling 3,000 her because he thought she had been work- union" promises to be part Woodstock, part places for friends, family and surr.,. I,ers- ing on aWeinberger biography. But on Dec. Hollywood. Elvis impersonators will sing, compared with 15,000 for members of Con- . 18, the White House asked Bennett tosub- lawn-chair precision marchers will march gress to mete out. For a while, it looked like • mit a formal letter asking for a pardon. The and bells will ring from sea to shining sea, EPA chief-designate Carol Browner would only remaining issue was whether other after Clinton sets off anational tintinnabu- be in the peanut gallery. A Democratic Iran-contra defendants should be par- lation at a replica of the Liberty Bell. senator from apollution-producing state doped as well. Quayle, Kristol and Gray So much for democracy-elitists will was resisting Clinton's order to seat argued that it would be unfair to exclude also have their day. In effect, the Inaugural Browner with members of the cabinet. those who thought they were doing their team must mount the ultimate Washing- If only we could forget. Memorabilia at the duty and didn't benefit financially. When ton dinner party. A very big party. For 1985 and 1989 Inaugurations actually lost Bush left for Camp David before Christ- some very big egos. Emanuel spends much money, but Clinton and Gore cups and cuff mas, he carried two statements drafted by of each 15-hour day assuaging hurt feel- links seem recessionproof. The committee Gray-one pardoning Weinberger and an- ings, mediating disputes and stroking the wouldn't sanction a two-foot-long Bowie other clearing an additional five officials. powerful. Some funny things that have knife-adorned with the presidential seal Bush ended Weinberger'slegalproblems happened on the way to the White House: and theinscription~oi~lclAl.~ro...~,~ but may have created a few for himself. Just for the taste of it. Hollywood rallied of AxgaxsAS-peddled by one entrepre- Lastweek he hired former Carter attorney around Clinton early on. Now even those neur. But an atrocious saxophone-playing general Griffin Bell to represent him in who didn't work for the candidate expect donkey pin-equally deadly in its way- dealings with Walsh, who is studying vice star treatment. Singer-dancer Paula Ab- will be on sale. The pin was designed by the presidential diary notes belatedly turned dul wants to perform at the Presidential wife of a powerful Democratic senator, who over by the White House. If Walsh decides Gala. But since the lineup is already insisted the committee buy 1,000. The In- he has a case, Bush might need a pardon booked-Barbra Streisand will be sing- auguration may be the first of its kind, but lobby of his own. ing-Clinton's team has asked Abdul tLo some things never change. - Boa Coxx in Washington appear instead at the Salute to Youth. MAxS MILLRR ill WashingWn NEWSWEEK :JANUARY 11, 1993 23 PUBLIC NOTICE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE, (as of 12118/92) JANUARY, 1993 The Vail T„~u Council has been reviewing its meeting schedule. In an attempt to respond to scheduled meeting demands, as well as adhere to mandated ordinance and charter requirements, Council will now be meeting at the following times: EVENING N~~TINGS Evening meetings will continue to be held on the first and third Tuesday evenings of each month, starting at 7:30 P.M. These meetings will provide a forum for citizen participation and public audience for conducting regular Council business. WORK SESSIONS Work sessions, which are primarily scheduled for Council debate and understanding of issues before the Councill., will now be scheduled to begin at 2:00 P.M. (unless otherwise noted) on the alternating Tuesday afternoons, i.e., the second, and fourth Tuesdays of each month. Unless otherwise noted, a brief overview work session for Council will precede the evening meetings, from 6:30 P.M. - 7:30 P.M. ~t`t~ JANUARY, 1993, VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE, IS AS FOLLOWS: Tuesdav, January 5. 1993 Work session 6:30 P.M. Evening meeting 7:30 P.M. Tuesdav, January 12, 1993 Work session 2:00 P.M. (startingtimedeterminedbylengthofagenda) Tuesdav, January 19, 1993 Work session 6:30 P.M. Evening meeting 7:30 P.M. Tuesdav. January 26, 1993 Work session 2:00 P.M. (starting timedeterminedbylengthofagenda) TOWN OF VAIL Pamela A. Brandmeyer Assistant to the Town Manager ~ r - ~ 1~1~ ~'Y'~ISIlL a~d~~~ OF TWO PARCELS OF FEDERAL LAND WITHIN WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO ADJACENT TO nr. T~~r.~ OF VAIL PREPARED FOR U.S.D,A. Forest Service and the Town of Vail PREPARED BY David J. Lau David J. Lau & Associates 725 C~..LL~.ercial Street SE Salem, Oregon 97301 DATE OF REVIEW December 14, 1992 REVIEWED Spraddle Creek Parcel $345,000 Golf Course Parcel $ 20,700 David tau, MAI l ~ t David J. Lau & Associates Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants / 725 COMMERCIAL STREET SE • SALEM, OR 97301 (503) 585.1906 David J. Lau, MAi Kenna D. Gillespie December 30, 1992 Mr. Dave Damron Mr. Lawrence A. Eskwith Regional Appraiser Town Attorney, Town of Vail U.S. Forest Service 75 South Frontage Road P.O. Box 25127 Vail, CO 81657 Lakewood, CO 80527 Re: Appraisal Review - Spraddle Creek and Golf Course Parcels Gentlemen: The attached appraisal review report has been written in response to the contract for appraisal services issued by the Town of Vail. The appraisal review report has been written to address the general and technical specifications as outlined in the contract specifications prepared by Dave Damron as of May 15, 1992. The review specifications require the reviewer to "conclude which narrative appraisal better supports the indicated value estimate for each parcel." I have done so to comply with the contract. However, both appraisals had serious deficiencies. A re-appraisal of both parcels is justified. Written notice of my intention to make a physical inspection of the appraised properties on December 10, 1992, was mailed on November 18, 1992. See page 20 in the addenda. Field review activities were concluded on December 15, 1992, although additional information was confirmed by telephone during the week of December 21, 1992. The scope of my investigation is outlined in the attached report. As you know, the specifications for the appraisal review require me to "recommend one indicated value for each of the two appraised properties as of the date of value". I have found deficiencies in both reports, and as a result I have recommended the value which I ' believe is best supported by the data contained in the appraisals. I ~ 1 1 ~ I Dave Damron December 30, 1992 In completing my field work, I learned that the George Gillett, Jr. Spraddle Creek Property which adjoins the Spraddle Creek Parcel, has recently resold. This information is reported in more detail in the attached review document. Nevertheless, it convinces me that a reappraisal of the Spraddle Creek Property is appropriate. If the property is reappraised, I suggest that the highest and best use estimate be supported by competent engineering expertise. With respect to the Golf Course Parcel, the directed highest and best use necessarily requires the appraiser to develop data relative to the golf course use and value. Only Valuation Consultants, Inc. logically approach that aspect of the valuation process. As you can see, however, based upon data provided me, it appears that the parcel size estimate of 1.64 acres is erroneous. Contract specifications require a 1.875 acre parcel to be appraised. I formed the opinion that the Valuation Consultants, Inc. appraisals were more technically correct or provided data relevant to the valuation of the parcels based upon their highest and best use. Therefore, my review supports the following value estimates as of September 12, 1990: Spraddle Creek Parcel $345,000 Golf Course Parcel $ 20,700 The Colorado Board of Real Estate Appraisers has not completed paperwork relative to issuing me a temporary permit. They advise that a permit will be issued during the week of January 4, 1993, which will cover the review period. Respectfully submitted, David J. au, MAI - DJL/sjd (Our file 1069) } t ~ ~ I i David J. Lau & Associates T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Introduction Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 4 Summary of Facts and Conclusions 5 Property Identification 6 Scope of Review 6 Purpose and Function of the Review 8 Spraddle Creek Parcel Spraddle Creek Parcel Appraisal Review 8 Physical Description 8 Reviewer C~~.~,..ents 9 Highest and Best Use 9 Reviewer C~~~~~ents 10 Valuation 10 Reviewer Comments 11 The George Gillett Spraddle Creek Subdivision The George Gillette Spraddle Creek Subdivision 13 Golf Course Parcel Gold Course Parcel Appraisal Review 14 Physical Description 14 Reviewer C~..~..ents 14 Highest and Best Use 14 Reviewer C~~.u.~ents 15 Valuation 16 Reviewer Comments 17 Addenda Reviewer Certification 20 Letter of Confirmation and~Review 21 Legal Description of Property to be Appraised 22 Estate to be Appraised 23 Status Report-Federal Selected Land 25 Townsite Act Purchase Proposal-Spraddle Creek Parcel 26 SISK Act Exchange Proposal-Golf Course/Maintenance Parcel 27 Valuation Consultants, Inc. Development Plat 28 Warranty Deed 29 Qualifications of Appraiser 31 I David J. Lau & Associates ASSIII~TIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS The legal descriptions furnished me are assumed to be correct. I assume no responsibility for matters legal in character, nor do I render any opinion as to the title which is assumed to be good. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the property is appraised on the basis of fee simple title conveyance to the purchaser, and full cash or its equivalent received by the seller. I have made no survey of the property and assume no liability in connection with such matters. I believe the information contained in this review report which was furnished by others to be reliable, but assume no responsibility for its accuracy. I am not qualified to detect the presence of toxic or hazardous substances or materials which may influence or be associated with the subject or adjacent properties. I have made no investigation or analysis as to the presence of such materials. David J. Lau & Associates shall not be liable for any costs, expenses, damages, assessments, penalties, diminution in value, property damage, or personal injury resulting from or otherwise attributable to toxic or hazardous wastes, asbestos material, formaldehyde, smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids, solids, or gasses, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants. This review assumes no hazardous materials are present. I am prepared but not required to give testimony or attendance in court by reason of this review with reference to the property in question unless additional arrangements are made therefore. SPRADDLE CitEEx~GOr.F COmtsE PAGE 4 David J. Lau & Associates SUMMARY OF FACTS & CONCLIISIONS SPRADDLE C~,sn PARCEL Owner Of Record: United States Of America Estate Appraised: Fee simple subject to reservations _ Site Size: Lot 1 - 26.60 acres Lot 2 - 13.52 acres Highest And Best IIse: Residential or Residential Development Improvements: None. (Livery improvements to be ignored) Date Of Value: September 12, 1990 Value Of Property: $345,000 GOLF COIIRSEs' PARCEL Owner Of Record: United States Of America Estate Appraised: Fee simple Site Size: 1.875 acres Highest And Best Use: Golf Course Improvements: None. (Golf course improvements to be ignored) Date Of Value: September 12, 1990 Value Of Property: $20,700 SPRADDLS CRLER~GOLF CODRSE PAG$ 5 David J. Lau & Associates PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION The Spraddle Creek Parcel containing a total of 40.12 acres is located within and on the north side of Interstate 70, generally easterly of Exit 176. The Golf Course Parcel containing 1.875 acres is located in the Vail Public Golf Course on both sides of Vail Valley Drive. Part of the site is occupied by the third green and part of the site is occupied by golf course maintenance buildings. Pages 22 through 25 of the addenda list the legal descriptions and estates to be appraised and pages 26 and 27 are plats of the properties to be appraised which were included in the appraisal contract. SCOPE OF REVIEW A complete field review was undertaken beginning on December 10, 1992. Both parcels which had been previously appraised in addition to most of the sales located in the Vail Valley and referred to in the appraisal reports were inspected on that date. The appraised parcels and the comparable sales which could be identified were re-inspected on December 13, 1992. Finally, on December 14, 1992, a full field review in which all sale properties located in the Vail Valley were re-inspected was completed. In addition to field review activity, documents provided the reviewer were read and analyzed. The following documents were provided to the reviewer: Valuation Consultants, Inc. Appraisal Reports ¦ Spraddle Creek Parcel ¦ Golf Course Tract Nash-Johnson Associates, Inc. Appraisal Report ¦ Two Federal Parcels (Spraddle Creek and Golf Course) Shelton Associates, Inc. Appraisal Report ¦ The Spraddle Creek Property Chase and C~~...rany Review Appraisal Report ¦ Various Parcels Including the Spraddle Creek Parcel SPRADDLE CREER~GOLF COIIRSE PAGE 6 eye David J. Lau & Associates SCOPE OF REVIEW (Cont.) Regional Appraisal Review Report of the Nash-Johnson ¦ Report by Nadine J. Arrayo Specifications for Appraisal of the Spraddle Creek ¦ (Parcel A) and Golf Course/Maintenance Parcel ¦ (Parcel B) prepared by the Forest Service Copies of Various Plats, Maps, Zoning and Planning ¦ Ordinances in the Town of Vail ¦ and Eagle County, Colorado Copies of Various Correspondence and Memoranda ¦ City of Vail ¦ Forest Service In addition to completing random verifications of individual sale or lease transactions, the following individuals were interviewed either in person or by telephone by the reviewer: Dave Damron Forest Service Regional Appraiser Ron Phillips Manager, Town of Vail Larry Eskwith Attorney, Town of Vail _ Kristin Pritz Community Development Director, Town of Vail Keith Montag Director of Planning - Eagle County Robert H. Maddox, MAI Appraiser Jeff Maddox Appraiser Michael R. Nash, MAI Appraiser Wayne Couto Appraiser Various Developers, Real Estate Brokers, and Investors in the Vail, Beaver Creek and Eagle County Area. SPRADDLE Crinnn~GOLF COmtsB PAGl3 7 ' ~ ~ David J. Lau & Associates PURPOSE AND FUNCTION OF ln~ REVIEW i The review contract specifications state, "The contractor shall conclude which narrative appraisal better supports the indicated value estimate for each parcel. The contractor shall not derive his own value conclusion as of any date of value but rather recommend one indicated value for each of the two appraised properties as of the date of value." These contract specifications were further explained and confirmed in a memo dated August 11, 1992, by Eleanor S. Towns, Director of Lands, Region 2, U.S.D.A. Forest Service. SPRADDLE CREEK PARCEL APPRAISAL REVIEW PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The Nash-Johnson report summarizes the property description as follows: Description Area (Acresl Slope greater than 30~ 2.31 Rockfall hazard 19.00 Wetlands and flood 5.00 Right of way (Interstate 70) 11.50 Land with development potential 2.31 Total 40.12 The Valuation Consultants, Inc. report summarizes the property description as follows: Area (Acresl Lots to be developed 17.90 Right of way to be developed 3.50 Open space 5.20 Area - net of I-70 right of way 26.60 I-70 right of way 13.52 SPRADDLE Cnrnri/GOLF COIIRS$ PAGE $ ~ f~~ David J. Lau & Associates r utcPOSE AND FIINCTION OF •rt~ REVIEW ( Cont . ) REVI$wsR COI~Il4~.?~S The Town of Vail has mapped areas with geologic sensitivity. The Spraddle Creek Parcel includes a medium severity rockfall hazard area located generally to the north of the Spraddle Creek drainage and a moderate hazard debris flow area along the Spraddle Creek drainage. These general map designations are meant to give notice that such hazards may exist and any contemplated urban development must first obtain a detailed site specific engineering study as part of the development proposal. The easement granted to the Department of Highways, State of Colorado, October 15, 1969, describes the right of way within the Spraddle Creek Parcel as Parcel Number 30 (REV.) containing 13.632 acres, more or less. The easement deed permits the use of the described right of way and the space above and below the established grade line of the highway pavement for the purpose of construction, operation and maintenance of a highway in accordance with approved plans. The appraisal contract specifications (see addenda, pages 22 through 26) describe the property as having 26.60 acres north of the I-70 right of way. Both appraisal reports reference the development plans of the George Gillett, Jr. Spraddle Creek subdivision as a basis for estimating the development scenario and developable area of the subject property. HI~ST AND BEST IISE Nash-Johnson concluded that hillside residential zoning would be most appropriate. Nash-Johnson also concluded that it is physically possible to locate three building sites, for either single family or duplex residences, in a triangular development pod located north of the Interstate 70 right of way, east of the Spraddle Creek Drainage, and west of the east boundary of the property. This designated area will also accommodate the relocation of forest development Road No. 737 (which also traverses the Gillett subdivision located to the east). Valuation Consultants, Inc. estimated that the property should be capable of supporting nine lots "with the upgrading of the existing access road to city specifications, one switchback and one additional length crossing Spraddle Creek". See addenda page 28 for a schematic identification of this proposed development which was contained in their report opposite page 25. SPRADDLE Cxn~IGOLF COUitsE PAGE 9 r ~ ~ David J. Lau & Associates HI~ST AND BEST IISE (Cont.) REVI$wSR Co~..s.~ ~ s Although widely divergent, the highest and best use estimates developed by each appraiser appear to be reasonably probable. The wide divergence of opinion underscores the high risk nature of property development on sites such as subject. A detailed and expansive land planning and engineering study (feasibility analysis) would be required to substantiate the property's highest and best use. Both appraisers referred to the Gillett Spraddle Creek subdivision which abuts subject on the east. It should be pointed out that the Gillett parcel was designated as hillside residential in the Town of Vail Land Use Plan adopted November 18, 1986. Despite this zone designation, final approval of the 14-lot Gillett subdivision was obtained in 1992 after years of intensive review by the Town of Vail. Engineering studies were required by the Town of Vail regarding geologic hazards, extension of services, etc. While the primacy of federal ownership invalidates state and local land use controls so far as federal use is concerned, the appraiser must consider the reasonable probability of the impact of these controls, assuming the federal land is transferred to private ownership. The fact that the Town of Vail Land Use Plan designates the subject property as agricultural and open space district adds additional risk to the developability of the property. VALUATION Nash-Johnson completed a land sales comparison approach in which land Sales 1 through 6 were considered as comparables. Sale 1 was judged to reflect an appropriate value indication for subject of $13,000 per acre for the 40.12 acres including the I-70 right of way. Sale 6 with an adjusted price of $30,949 was judged to be superior. The direct sales comparison therefore supported a value of $520,000 (40.12 x $13,000). The subdivision analysis valuation approach assumed the 3 saleable lots could be sold for $250,000 each for a total sell out of $750,000. Development costs estimated at $210,755 plus entrepreneurial profit, engineering cost and holding cost of 35 percent or $73,764 increased total development cost to $285,000. By deducting the total development costs from gross sales, a land value of $465,000 is indicated. SPRADDLE CREER~GOLF COOits$ PAGE 1 ~ . David J. Lau & Associates VALIIATION (Cont.) Given a value range of from $465,000 to $520,000, the appraiser concluded a value of $500,000. Valuation Consultants, Inc. stated that there were no recent sales of similar property. Therefore the principal valuation - method used was the development cost approach. A base lot value of $200,000 was estimated for first year sales; _ second year sales were based on a value of $220,000. Direct development costs were estimated at $850,000. Engineering, legal, and construction period financing costs were estimated at $225,000 and sales costs were projected at 10 percent of gross lot sales prices. Projecting a two year sell out and using a 25 percent discount rate resulted in a net present value estimate of $345,000. The transaction involving the adjacent 39.56 Gillett tract which previously sold on April 30, 1986, for $500,000 was reviewed. Assuming a value increase of 50 percent occurred between the date of sale and the date of value, a value of $19,000 per acre is indicated for the 26.6 acres of subject property, or a potential value of $505,000. Based on the zoning and financial risks associated with the development of subject, a final value of $345,000 was concluded. Rasvi~swmc COME.~s.~~S The Nash-Johnson value estimate based on direct sales comparison relied principally on Sale 1 which involved a 28.34 acre site located on both sides of Buffehr Creek Road which sold for $370,000. The property was zoned residential cluster district at time of sale and subsequently down zoned by the buyer to permit 13 single family residential lots. The purchaser estimates development costs at $425,000. Seven of the 13 lots are preliminarily priced at $250,000 each and 6 are preliminarily priced at $300,000 each. Raw land costs amounted to $13,000 per acre or about $28,500 per potential developed lot. As reported by the builder/developer, there is a 75 percent margin between raw land costs plus development costs and the anticipated gross sales price of the 13 lots to cover risk, holding costs, soft costs and developers profit. As indicated by Nash-Johnson, Sales 2 through 5 have little direct comparison to the subject. SPxADDLE CREER/GOLF COIIRS$ PAGE 11 David J. Lau & Associates VALIIATION (Cont.) Sale 6 involves a property located near Minturn which was zoned R (Resource) which permits one homesite. The sale property had formerly been part of the King Ranch which had previously been divided into four parcels and sold separately. King Ranch Covenants prohibit subdivision of any of the parcels. Therefore, after extracting the improvement value and the premium paid for favorable financing, the land residual price reflects the price of a single, high-quality homesite. The sale has no relevance to subject property based on the appraiser's opinion of highest and best use. Sale 1 had no land encumbered by the I-70 right of way, is dissimilar with respect to topography and difficulty of development and reflects the very low raw land price per potential lot as compared to subject ($28,500 as compared to $173,000). No discussion or foundation was laid to support appraising the acreage within the I-70 right of way. In review, no data could be found to support a contributory value of the land occupied by the interstate highway. As concluded by a Forest Service reviewer, Nadine Arroyo "The $13,000 unit value is misleading and probably would have best been left ignored." I agree. This then leaves the development cost approach as the only value indication in the Nash-Johnson report. In the development cost approach, the hard cost of installing infrastructure was estimated at $210,755 which amounts to $175.65 per lineal foot. Soft costs including engineering costs, profit and holding costs (and sales costs?) were projected at 35 percent of infrastructure cost or $73,764. These projected costs are considerably lower than the projected costs projected by the developer of the Sale 1, or the projected costs of the adjacent Spraddle Creek subdivision. The Valuation Consultants, Inc. appraisal projects development costs at $850,000 which amounts to $293.10 per lineal foot of roadway. Soft costs excluding sales, holding costs, and profit of $225,000 amounts to 26 percent of the hard costs. Raw land value estimated at $345,000 amounts to 18.25 percent of the projected gross lot sales price of $1,890,000. This relationship more closely compares to the anticipations of Ed Zneimer, the purchaser/developer of the Buffehr Creek Property (Sale 1 of the Nash-Johnson report). Based upon the data included in the two appraisals, and based on sale reverifications completed during the review, it is my opinion that the Valuation Consultants, Inc. presents the most supportable value as of the date of appraisal. SPRxDDLE Cn~nri/GOLF COURSE PAGE 12 David J. Lau & Associates tt~ GEORGE GILI~ETT SPRADDLE CREEK SUBDIVISION Carol Tyler, Vail Associates, advised that the 39.36 acre parcel known as the Gillett Spraddle Creek subdivision sold to Dayco Investments, Inc. for $2,750,000, cash. This information was subsequently reconfirmed by George Gillett, Jr.. The property sold at an informal auction conducted by the bankruptcy referee. The opening price was $1,500,000. The infrastructure cost excluding the water tank and pump, sewer main intercept, retaining walls, security gate, and livery relocation are estimated at $3,300,000. This amounts to $804 per lineal foot of roadway and about $235,000 per proposed lot. Total development costs including water, sewer, livery relocation and all soft costs excluding financing, sales costs, and holding costs is projected at from $5,800,000 to $6,000,000. Mr. Gillett advised that the purchaser is an off-shore businessman whose intention is to build and occupy a residence on one of the lots in the subdivision. To quote Gillett "The profit motive was not involved in the purchase." This recent sale is either a market aberration or it discredits both appraisals of the Spraddle Creek Parcel. It demonstrates the volatility of the real estate market in Vail. This sale indicates the need to re-evaluate the Spraddle Creek Parcel. The highest and best use estimate needs support from land planning consultants and engineers. Based on probable zoning if individually owned, the value of the property as a single parcel may have relevance to its market value. SPRADDLB CREER~GOLF COURSE PAGE 13 L David J. Lau & Associates GOLF COURSE PARCEL APPRAISAL REVIEW Pa3rszc~. DESCRZPTiox The Nash-Johnson report summarizes the property description as 1.875 acres located between the Vail Valley first filing and the Vail Village seventh and eighth filing plats in the Town of Vail . The Valuation Consultants, Inc. report describes the property as a tract of land 629 feet wide east to west, and 165.26 feet deep north to south, containing 103,951 square feet or approximately 2.39 acres. The site area was adjusted for approximately 32,500 square feet of road right of way occupied by Vail Valley Drive, leaving a net of 71,451 square feet or approximately 1.64 acres. Risv~swnic Co~~..~iS The rectangular survey description specifically describes 1.875 acres. The land status report reflects no outstanding rights. Appraisal specifications and documentation literally indicate that the subject property is 1.875 acres of land. HI~,nGST AND BEST USE Nash-Johnson report cites The Estate To Be Appraised (addenda, pages 23 and 24) provided by the Forest Service and concludes with the following mandated highest and best use: "Construction, use, and maintenance of one golf green (#3) with underground irrigation system; one golf course maintenance building; access road with 50-foot-wide right- of-way approximately 650 feet long, and a small parking area on the south side of the maintenance building; fence or trees screening for the maintenance building and parking area; woven wire security-type fence for the. equipment yard on the south side of the maintenance building; one partially buried storage structure (recast concrete) for the golf course maintenance materials; and the landscaping plan and narrative will be followed." The preceding paragraph is quoted directly from document provided the appraisers by the Forest Service. (See addenda, page 23) SPRADDLE CREEK/GOLF COURSE PAGE 14 I ~ y1 David J. Lau & Associates HIc~ST AND BEST IISE (Cont.} The Valuation Consultants, Inc. appraisal report also makes reference to the estate to be appraised as defined in the Forest Service contract and adds further: "Under this premise of highest and best use, the value to be determined for the property is considered to be the contributory value of the land to the overall. utilization o£ the golf course and hence, is to be considered "value in use", which is somewhat different than the standard definition of market value since there is neither willing buyer nor willing seller for properties so encumbered." The value in use is defined as: "The value of an economic good to its owner/user which is based on the productivity (privacies in income, utility or amenity form) of the economic good to a specific individual; subjective value. May not necessarily represent market value." Rsviiswisac COH1~~s.~~S Both Nash-Johnson as well as Valuation Consultants, Inc. described the highest and best use of the parcel as land to be used as part of the Vail Golf Course. This is consistent with the appraisal contract specifications. The contract specifications state "The appraiser's 'Assumptions & Limiting Conditions' shall state that the H&BU of Parcel B is: "Lands may be conveyed to any State, county, or municipal government pursuant to the Act of December 4, 1967, only if the lands were being utilized by such entities on January 12, 1983. Lands so conveyed may be used only for the purposes for which they were being used prior to the conveyance. The directed highest and best use of the Golf Course/Maintenance Parcel is for a golf course green with attendant supporting road easement, parking, and maintenance building facilities. Only the land shall be valued, not the improvements. Availability of access, utilities, and other amenities shall be considered as they contribute to the land value of the parcel." (See addenda, page 24} . Clearly, a highest and best use as golf course land is intended by the appraisal contract. SPRADDI.$ Cxissri/GOLD COIIRS$ PAG$ 15 ~ David J. Lau & Associates VALIIATION Nash-Johnson used four sales to estimate the value of the Golf Course Parcel. The following table, taken from page 73 of the Nash-Johnson report summarizes the sales. . . SALE; t?A*i'E LQCATICN PRICE AREA ~RYCE/ NO ~ . ~ (ACRES; j ~ A~.ctr. 7 12/2/88 Lot 21, Block 3, Eagle- $ 83,000 1.09 $ 76,147 Vail Sub. #2 8 12/20/88 Lot 18, Block 2, Track $ 25,000 0.25 $101,215 A, Beaver Creek Sub. #2 9 4/16/90 Lots 1 and 3, Mountain $ 84,000 0.77 $109,090 Terrace Sub. 10 5/30/90 Lot 5, Beaver Run Sub. $552,500 8.38 $ 65,931 Based upon these comparable sales, a unit value of $100,000 per acre is estimated. Valuation Consultants, Inc. referenced three sales and one lease to estimate the value of subject property. Comparable 1 was the May, 1984 sale of the Singletree Golf Course, which is reported to include 157 acres including an 18-hole golf course, together with clubhouse, pro shop, restaurant, swimming pool, and related improvements. The property sold for $6,410,000 or $40,828 per acre. Comparable 2 involves 1.37 acres of leased land which is occupied by the 5th green and 6th tee box of the Eagle-Vail Golf Course which was leased to the golf club before construction in July 1972. At inception, parties to the lease agreed that the fair market value of the leased premises was $5,000 per acre. The lease payment was calculated at 8 percent of the fair market value payable annually in advance. The lease further provides that at the beginning of each 5-year term of the 70-year lease, lease payments will be adjusted to reflect the change in the consumer price index. As of July 1, 1987, the rent increased to $1,380.41, and based upon the 8 percent return cited in the lease, it reflects a capital value of $17,255 which amounts to $12,595 per acre. Comparable 3 involved the purchase of 237 acres near Steamboat Springs, Colorado for $925,000 or $3,903 per acre. Approvals had been obtained for the construction of a golf course on the property. SPRP,DDLE CREEK/GOLF COURSE PAGE 16 David J. Lau & Associates VALIIATION (Cont.) Comparable 4 reports the sale of 374.48 acres of land located west of the Singletree Golf Course which sold for $2,175,000 or $5,808 per acre. At time of sale, the property was designated as R (Resource) by Eagle County Planning. However, a planned unit development has now been approved by Eagle County and the property is known as the Cottonwood Golf Club. It is a planned unit development and includes commercial, residential, open space, and golf course designated uses; however, development has not begun. Based on the analyses of the data, the appraisal concluded that Comparable 2 provided the best evidence of value and therefore estimated value of subject at $12,600 per acre. his V Lswncc COMi~~,s.~ ~ S Data reported on the three Eagle County sales included in the Nash-Johnson report were reconfirmed. Land Sale 7 is zoned PUD- Duplex, not Dedicated open space as reported. The seller sold an unrestricted duplex building lot which had full services available to it. The purchasers, who were adjacent homeowners, purchased the site to prevent development and jointly agreed to restrictions which were included in the deed (See pages 29 and 30 in the addenda). Note that section 6 of the deed restriction permits amendment by unanimous agreement of the three joint property owners. Land Sale 8 is zoned RC-Resort Commercial, not restricted open space as reported. Zoning permits development of the site into apartments, condominiums, or single-family dwellings. Utilities are available to the property. The site was purchased by the owner of the improved adjacent property to protect his view and to prevent additional development. Land Sale 9 is zoned PUD-Multifamily not PUD, Planned Unit Development as reported, and based on zoning can be developed to apartments and condominiums. The sale site is level, fully served and located on the view side of a condominium development. The property was purchased by the Condominium Owners Association to prevent development. The data reported on Land Sale 10 has not been independently verified, but it appears to have sold in circumstances similar to Land Sale 9. SPRADDLS Cx~r.n~GOLF CODRSE PAGE 17 ' i , David J. Lau & Associates VALIIATION (Cont.) The appraisers cited the highest and best use of every sale (Sales 7 through 10} as "low density residential". My review confirmed the highest and best use of the three Vail Valley sales as residential, either duplex, apartment or condominium. The highest and best use of the subject property is golf course land. It is improper appraisal methodology to use as "comparables" sale properties which have highest and best uses which do not compare to the highest and best use of the property being appraised. Even though the motive of the purchasers of the comparable sales was to acquixe adjacent properties to prevent development, the purchaser's motive does not define highest and best use. Rather, highest and best use is dependant upon the legal and physical characteristics of the property and shaped by the competitive forces within the market where the property is located. Land value must always be considered in terms of highest and best use. In this case, the highest and best use has been defined by law and the appraisal specifications. The Nash-Johnson report does not appraise to that defined highest and best use. Valuation Consultants, Inc. cited two Vail Valley transactions. The Singletree Golf Course sale reflected a 1984 overall price of $40,828 per acre, including improvements. The Singletree Golf Course is operated by Sonnenalp Hotel and Country Club and therefore has a close connection to Vail Village. The appraiser, however, improperly stopped short of making a land residual analysis. The resulting bare land value estimate could then be adjusted for location and time to estimate the subject property land value. Comparable 2 provides an excellent foundation of value for subject property. The lease property consists of portions of the Eagle-Vail Golf Course, which were leased to the golf club prior to construction of the improvements and therefore reflected value of the underlying land. The rent, adjusted for increases in the Consumer Price Index to July 1, 1987, was incorrectly reported. The July 1, 1982, lease payment was $1,380.41; on July 1, 1987, it increased to $1,670; and on July 1, 1992, it increased to $2,117. Based on terms of the lease, the annual payment of $1,670 as of September 12, 1990, reflects a capital value of $15,237 per acre. The appraiser should have discussed the relationship between the changes in the Consumer Price Index and changes in real estate value in the Vail Valley. Finally, the indicated value should be analyzed with respect to Iocational differences between the Eagle-Vail and Vail Golf Courses as they relate to value. SPRADDLE CREER~GOLF COIIRSE PAG$ 18 David J. Lau & Associates VALUATION (Cont.) Public golf courses in Vail Valley include the Vail Golf Course and the Eagle-Vail Golf Club. Semi-public courses include Singletree Golf Club and Beaver Creek Golf Course. All of these golf courses have generally comparable seasons of use and greens fees. All of the courses experience heavy summertime play. The methodology employed by the appraiser was correct as far as it went . Had the lease payment amount been correct and the final comparative analysis been completed, Comparable 2 would provide the best evidence of value. The appraiser also erred in estimating the usable land at 1.64 acres. The value should be based on 1.875 acres. Using the corrected lease payment value indication of $15,237 a total value of $28,570 is indicated by the data. SPRADDLg CRS&K/GOLF COIIRSE PAGE 19 David J. Lau & Associates REVIEWER C$RTIFICATION - I, the undersigned, certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and accurate. I 2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusion are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property which is the subject of this review, and I have no personal interest bias with respect to the parties involved. 4. My compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in, or the use of, this review - report. 5. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this review has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Uniform Avnraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions and the Uniform Standards of Professional Aonraisal Practice, along with the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Practice of those organizations to which I belong, as well as State certification requirements where the appraised property is located or as a result of reciprocity with the State in which I am certified. No change of any item in the original appraisal reports or the review reports have been made. 6. I, the Review Appraiser, have completed the requirements of the continuing education programs of the various States and professional appraisal organizations to which I belong. 7. I, the Review Appraiser, have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of the review report. 8. I, the Review Appraiser, have inspected, verified, and analyzed sales and lease information contained in the original report and acknowledged in the review report. 9. The appraisal reports are not adequately documented with market evidence supporting the conclusion of value, as defined and as presented. 10. No one, other than those parties identified in this review, provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this review report. 11. I do not authorize the out-of-context quoting from, or partial reprinting of, this review report. Further, neither all nor any part of this review report shall be disseminated to the general public by use of the media for public consumption or public communication without prior written consent of the review appraiser signing below. All submitted reviews, however, become the property of the United States and may be used for any legal and proper purpose. David J au, MAI SPRADDLE CREEK/GOLF COURSE PAGE 2 0 1 ~ » 1 C~ o 0 David J. Lau & Associates C~ Rea! Estate Appraisers & Consultants U ~ ~ 725 COMMERCIAL STREET SE SALEM, OR 97301 David J. Lau, MAI (503) 585-1906 Kenna D. Gillespie November 18, 1992 Mr. Dave Damron Mr. Lawrence A. Eskwith Regional Appraiser Town Attorney, Town of Vail U.S. Forest Service 75 South Frontage Road P.O. Box 25127 Vail, CO 81657 Lakewood, CO 80527 Gentlemen: RE: Appraisal Review Sprattle Creek and Golf Course Parcels This is written confirmation that I will make a physical inspection of the appraised properties and make a field review of the significant data on which the opinions of value were based, beginning at 9:00 AM, December 10, 1992. I expect to do this in the company of Dave Damron, representing the Forest Service, and Ron Phillips, representing the City of Vail. I expect to complete the field review and discussions with the two principals by close of business on December 10, 1992. My current plans are to meet with Robert Maddox at his convenience on either Friday, December 11 or Monday and Tuesday of the following week. Since Mr. Maddox has an office in Avon, I will meet him there. I expect to meet with Michael Nash at his offices in Englewood on Tuesday or Wednesday, December 15 or 16. I have also agreed to meet with Larry Eskwith during the week of December 14. I will confirm meeting times with Maddox, Nash and Eskwith some time after the first of December. I look forward to meeting all of you and completing the project at hand. Sincerely yours, David J. Lau, MAI cc: Michael Nash, MAI Robert Maddox, MAI DJL/sjd 21 1 r ~ ~ SECTION C-2.5 - APPENDIX TO SPECIFICATIONS APPENDI% 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE APPRAISED Federal Land Parcel A (Spraddle Creek Parcel) - Township 5 South, Range 80 West, of the 6th P.M., Eagle County, Colorado section 5, Lot 1 26.60 acres, m/1 Lot 2 13.52 acres, m/1 40.12 acres, m/1 Parcel B (Golf Course/Maintenance - Township S South, Range 80 West of the Parcel) 6th P.M., Eagle County, Colorado section 9, NWI/4NE1/4NW1/4SE1/4NW1/4, 0.625 acre, m/1 N1/2NW1/4NW1/4SE1/4NW1/4 1.25 acres, m/1 1.875 acres, m/1 Federal Land Owner of Record: United States of America Location: In the Town of Vail, Colorado Access: Both parcels have aIl-weather vehicular access Size: Parcel A - 40.12 acres, more.or less Parcel B - 1.875 acres, more or less Outstanding Rights: See Land Status Reports in Appendix 3 " APPENDIX 2 ESTATE TO BE APPRAISED Federal Land Fee Simple, subject to the interests and exceptions shown in the Forest Service - Land Status Reports dated June 12, 1990, or as enumerated below. Said Land Status Reports are included as Appendix 3 to the Specifications and may be updated by the Government when the draft appraisal report is submitted. The specified date of value for both parcels is June 30, 1991. Highest and Best Use of Parcel A: The Highest and Best Use of the Spraddle Creek Parcel shall be~the~traditional H&BU as defined in the "Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions." The parcel is subject to a Forest Service Special Use Permit which terminates December 31, 1991. A copy of the permit is attached as Appendix 5. The parcel should be appraised as though unencumbered by the remaining term of the permit. Appraisal of this parcel is subject to: 1. -The highway right-of-way for Interstate 70. 2. Reservation in patent of a perpetual easement for public access on the existing Spraddle Creek Road {FDR No. 737). The future non-Federal landowner shall have the right to relocate said access at the landowner's sole expense, provided that said relocation does not interfere with use of the road by the United States oz the public. 3. Reservation in patent of 7.7 cfs first priority water rights in Spraddle Creek. Highest and Best Use of Parcel B: The Highest and Best Use of the Golf Course/Maintenance Parcel is the current permitted use. The current permitted use if for: "Constuction, use, and maintenance of one golf green (~3) with underground irrigation system; one golf course maintenance building (24 feet x 88 feet, frame construction, board on board siding and shake shingle roof); access road with 50-foot-wide right-of-way approximately 650 feet long, and a small parking area on the south side of the maintenance building; fence or tree screening for the maintenance building and parking area; woven wire security-type fence for the equipment yard on the south side of the maintenance building; one partially buried storage structure (precast concrete) for golf course maintenance materials; and the landscaping plan and narrative will be followed," A copy of the Special Use Permit is attached as Appendix b, The appraiser's "Assumptions ~ Limiting Conditions" shall state that the H&BU of Parcel B is: i ~ ~ + APPE2IDI% 2 ESTATE TO BE APPRAISED (continued) Federal Land "Lands may be conveyed to any State, county, or municipal government pursuant to the Act of December 4, 1967, only if the lands were being utilized by such entities on January 12, 1983, Lands so conveyed may be used only for the purposes for which they were being used prior to the conveyance. The directed highest and best use of the Golf Course/Maintenance Parcel is for a golf ,course green with attendant supporting road easement, parking, and maintenance building facilities. Only the land shall be valued, not the improvements. Availability of access, utilities, and other amenities shall be considered as they contribute to the land value of the parcel." 24 ' , , STATUS REPORT FEDERAL SELECTED LAND Proponent Town of Vail ' Serial No. Forest White River National Forest :IN/: STATUS LEGAL DESCRIPTION ACRES :OUT:SURFACE:SUB-SUR:ACQ DATE/AUTH:RESERVATIONS/ENCUMBRANCES T.SS.,R.80W.,6thPM, Eagle County. Colorado. Acres based on 1892 survey & 1980 Dep Survy Sec.S Sec.S,Lot 1(26.60) Lot 2(13.52) :C-10482-ROW grntd 10-15-69 TOTAL 40.12 In: PD PD :8-25-1905/PROC:to Colo.Dept.of Hwys Proj. :I-70-2{7)83,var.width, .9 :mi. in length in Lot 2. Sec.9,NW4NE4NW4SE4NW4,: .625: N2NW4NW4SE4NW4 1.250: . TOTAL 1.8'75: Zn: PD PD :8-25-1905/PROC: GRAND TOTAL 41.995: - Notes: BLM Index Unpatented M;,,;ng Claims silent regarding all above selected Federal land. rrelared by Date June 12. 199Q' 25 [ ' , M TOWN OF VAIL - SISK ACT EXCHANGE PROPOSAL GOLF: COURSE/MAINTENANCE PARCEL T. 5 S., R. 80 W. 6th P.M, Section 9: NWIJ4NE1/4NW1/4SE1/4NW1/4, N1J2NW1/4NW1/4SE1/4NW1/4. 1.875 acres, m11 X. 89 ~'73. O ~ N_ ~ 7 3 ' B9 1 l jt. 9.4.4 20. 02!? ? io ,~b by pp ti ~ p 5~ p ~ • ~t ~ ~ ti ~ ~ i .~m~ 2 N. ~ s21.6'~', ~ T~. 9. Jii. 9'?9 ~ 19.979 ~ ' 19.9 + " ,r 19.979 ~ 4 q C? w N. ~~?3. 9'A?. to n!7' N. 8919. 3'X. .ra ?C7. CJ7. . • ~ 7..00 ~ 1?. 300 b \ 7.~ _ • .tZ ~ N. 89~?9. ?'.Y. ~0 0 Q5~ !r o 4 ~ r ~ O Z ~ 4s t . ov N. a9°~s. a •v. 2 erg. ?0.017 ?t1.03r •t0.07~1 26 ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL - TOWNSITE ACT PURCHASE PROPOSAL SPRADDLE CREEK PARCEL T. 5 S., R. 80 W. 6th P.M. Section 5: Lot 1, Lot 2. 40.12 acres, m/I ( s.~,~~~c so. r! 3 solos ~ !aT h Orig. fLC . 3 w a ~ of 1rS O ~ O a a ~ T ~ ~ ti S 19''s.~1I. X0.2? 20.10 1G.lQ b ~ 1 ° zs.6o ` b ~ z $,3 o o M o ~ 2 ~ e Norih RO.W. w t-70 2 13.52 10. I03 20 !01 Lc2. 39°38.6~N. 5.99°47'N: r 40.2/ Lon4.106°24.6~W. Y , 1' 1 r ~ AREA AFFECTED Bpi :IEDIL?i SEVERI'I~ ROCRFALL POSSIBLE SI:iGLE - SWITCHBACfi ACCESS ARE` AFFEC: ROAD BX *lEDItT~i _ r` SEVERITY ~ ~ ~1UD & DEBRI FLOW ~ INTERSTATE 70 f ~ r POSSIBLE AREAS OF DEVELOPMENT e ~ ~ h. P F~ 7'111!11!(•:~:tl. ty.te tn.. ~ It., koMwnNtor AA 7 9 ~ g c° ~,~"`,.~=2 `°a~a.. r i j'7V ~ s11OMA8 ha lJ1NtlAUa:x And tnNtn t,ANtllau?;N ....yG9.. qZ6 - 20 Z(- ~ ' la'"' l\In?,Yi it PHI}~~Ih ~ ~ sly 1'I,I,ltlll t;Adt• M.w,atl.?,.?a p„rl,/.lal.t t 1'l[ C~1.N[C~t,Dt~ 5 i111IL1P N. tDK1L16N, A+ to an undivided one-third intoreatr ~ ~ JWtN it. NAitol+S'PYa as to nn undivided olio-third interest, rt. taa1y~ ? and MAttTIIA tftDt;Nt;lt QICLLtiltr a ststrlM t+rolNttny not ~olned• ~ 2 ~ ~ i+ _ A _ .AlweMryrdaAwe..l, P. t)¦ Holt 1609. Avnny ta0 llb~0 ~ _ _ T _ • ~Mrein by Mr hwband, a to an undiv/ded one-third Interest, ati rinante in A C . . n ems. - , d rhr tlrlM? d Eagl• . Claw d tllhaaa?1, p.n. lar _ 1, ~ ~ . ~Y ~ ~ wttriKlstRnl, That Nr frrlna+H hr anJ M \,alatlYruM¦I u11M win 111 V't t1CHTY THIIRt TIIQUS(1ND ANO NO/100-•-iN3y000.001•-•--••--••••••-••-••••••- htnl.AR~I j ~ ~1 ~ NweetelprlJwnktrnr~drAkAhhr~rlnln?kJlnd.M W rr~rJ.A~ryNlwlf.rllllMllaMM,•d.anlltryNrvpnwM.Jn Ir+^t. Mt faM. ¦ell, arlve?. aaJ lrrlltrln, tMlll tha ~tanteelal\ their Mk, anJ aaagna hln~r 111 Me Hal 1'^'pM>• Mynher rtth ImQnMnwM,, ' 3"''° ~ it wy,.Nane, htq and hritq M the CIwMy nt Kaq le ,Maw 111 tllllradll, ~ ;'_u Z ,~,'a;: alegY114d i Flllla.,t: = Lot I1 ~ Block 7 ~ , 1ra.ti.' EJ?aLE-NAIL SUBDIVISION lILIN(3 ND. T ~~tQl County o! Eagles Btata o! Colorado. -le~~. r;;` - yState Do unty - ~ r'..1?nlawn h7 waet and twhlller aw R/8 (Vacant Land 1 ,~":>"y iu~~~;_; ~ TOGF.TRF.R whh all and \infutar the hereJNamem\ snd NICRMI hehofMf. /t 111 an)wtae aplxrtaiMn~. and dM It\eratan and . ~ teankrn, Rrnaylakf and lemailrlrra, nmN, taayea snt yffllflla /hercll(. and a!! the Mat, nfM, thk N11eRat, chin and demand I.hat¦aeler OI d11 ~~r~g,•' ~raMlrlal enlist M law Ix tyuhy. /1(, in and m the al¦M hat Pained , +Nh the hn\ditomeM, ctrl pglartenance,. _ ~ 'l't11lM'ti AND tYl NOt.D Me wid rlemt.r. ahl>te hryamed and Ite.unt,vl vl nh th.• , , , . amll the trnlwrt.? tM it help and a,dfmFansr.Andt?lefnnhrl•1 Rr tMls arl Ws theirheN.andllrnllnningae\eMatlK+.dn n~enaM.sram.lw)aln.and .:ri ~S'fi.... grtaandwlththefranteNattheir help andaa\tfm.thatethettmedthernaralinfa.-Ideihmllftlle¦elre\eMa. are r»n s: y:; ~ .elml.lf the premi.e, alnwe amve7eJ, ha Ve ri„1. wre. pesfeat. dl...lwe a+Mt tndekaihk ew,lr 1+t inheritance. /w law. Iw ke .{mpk. and na Ve ' yard n fM, toll yw,aer anJ ¦rlhlray ul fnm. ha.fain..cll anll \.NI\r the was m m¦mler nwl hlrm r aAre\ad, and Mat the wne arc Itae ~ and. kar frlrll all Frllxr and 1¦1 K fnm.. haefaln...¦k., liem. taae\. a..n.nlrru.. a91c1 ...and le\1riaYwlm at.hate\n lied Ir natal, aoNer. ~ e,~ly general property taxes for the year 1988 and sttbaequent yeacaa eaaetaents -s< ;aof record or in existences recorded declaratlonae restrictions, reservations and ~`-,;~"Y<-. covenants and those restrictions attached hereto as Exhibit •A". t " r y -~.,'s The frarlNl.i\fwtfand+/tiNARRA!ITA~t)fT7Rl.t'FXU1.f'Y_~hthc+h~nt•I+.rEuneJryrmia,inrheyuierandprwraMepN..n.ilae Ilhe Frankel\\ their M\~i^and~`yR^`•again•allanlic+ertimMnr(+rr~Ittalrr/silt.lainlinFlla•wlwlklxall~ryetthemlf s..~ i {N WII\FSti N~}it'.ftl:i IF, tM flaunt lat ha V@ «a.ured Mn 1?rnl .,l Me date \er MNrh aMlae • ~ . ~ L~ t~ ; s M.1 Landauer •t<' a a ~~aauer 1 - >a'°" SSJISI:IN=t'lNyNtAi>tt - ` ~ C.,rlrt .a Eagle ~ ry. • ~ -.q't ~ 11[ I.,eflynf NhNYlRela a •w.-kv1}•at l.rh,e wle thn dad I, i , 1V i M THOMAS M. LANDAUER and TANIA lJ1NUAUER . 1':. \I\ .•,nlnn.w,l c\ryle. t 1 1 M'Nwam nq t1anJ an.1 .Nh.lal .ral ~ F''tU 41 r i. r;hy'.~ ~ _ -1~7~ ~tl 111 ~)a'.'.\ ..nVYI "t N. al.i ,3 ;y'~~'~Y AJ4M 1•.1,.+.y \,~r v.?. 11...+1.111..•{ Iw\r .l\w„1 ~'.,laft. laa. ~Jl. Mr,.!-aS. wlatw \nti nrlTlar rlw.ea. x:,~r~~ fir, a9 .i't4•r~. fig.- 4x a . x'.. ' 3 ~ ` ~yt • • ~yi ~ ? „K ' ' ' s - - Attached !o and mods a part of Natzsnty tread dated Navinibii ~ , 111 batMaan 1" ~t~ • Thomas M, Landauor and Tanis Landauer, Grantor and Philip N. tngUsh~ John 11• NKMaty and Martha widener Callan, Crantns, ' v 1. No joint-owner mfy dispose of his one-chitd interest to Let !1, or any portion of it. • axeept l12 by inclusion in the sale of his raaidenoe on Lot 1/, 20, of 73, all lying in clock 2, filing 1, tagie-Vail lubdivLian, Cagle County, Colorado, er 121 by sale ' ~ to ona or both of the otMr joint-own:rs at a pries pual to the pries wfiloh ha • on ina11 ~ q y paid for his ona-third lntorat. ~ z t ~2. Loe 2t shall remain as it !a, with no chap as !n elewtien, oontours, or landwe ta elation that are noe a reed to unanimoual b the three joint-owners, ~ •z<-~•_;~ ..j,r r 1. No etructura, per~nsnent or Temporary, ineludinq tents, shall M etaoead an Loe 21. r.•n, No v~hlclaa, trailers, or campers shall be leapt or parked on Lot 21. S. The iollowinq aetivitiaa Mill not M parmitteQ an Lot 21t Camplnq, huntlnp, aladdiaq, skiing, anowmobilinq, motorcycling, bicycling, siding of all-terrain vehieles, or playing of games, such as volleyball, softball, etc. b. 7?ny of the foregoing covenaata may be amended by unaniuww agreement of,the three joint-owners. 4 • f _ .~'.i.i l~w'~ r.:y: _ , - ' -s ''ir _ _:r r' w i^ ; X ~xt• -y f ¢ ~ _ • z _sc=. 'y' L _ - ! ~,L • ~rti ' }7 ' liC 4 M :I. ~ §1 V J .,lei. ~ `6 ~ StlIY a ~.~?b. ~9~ ~ J AL 9 ~ ' . : t ~ E a{ ~ m ~ z t ^ ~ ~ ar ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ } ' ~ ~ ~ 'x ~ i ~,i~Y' . ~ z3 f .Xq 'x~~e"~}k„ Zi.<k? S f }c . 4 ~e~ k s ~r- 4 ~ ti~ h'~, ~ ~ - ~aF a M~ ~ tf ~~.~~I~~w1 , F - A9~ ~~,4 ~i~ ~.y_~~~xt'<'V~ t~ - t~v. t, T.Y ~j+~'2+4 r,.~ a~ 31„ s'j,~•,t ~ ~ •.s t ~T; 4- ~ } 4 ? ~ .e isy V. i , y m~.. c.; _ o• tin ~L gLc~T~~~~r~"~~~ w~~~t... y ci.ia ~ a'#~~j,~,~>'}c Y-+•~,-i_ r _ ~a r •1dQ• T 1r . J Y- g *a S~f~~ ~ fib' ~w•5~;- ~~Fw .4~;C~`~K c~, 1} :•l . ..1 r~v~ ~ir KF.f FMC*. .:y 'f !`,,E~y,?~ i = `f~i~~'v~tyF'. r 9} s~F~: s C - - ,y ~~F~~~~~{'F i~, f , 'i # f. ~ ~ .~~II•kL Y '.max ~.c. ` _ ~?i• ~~c~ ~~1 ~.~''y ,.Vn f ?!r' 7'X•~~1'3iYw;'•{vi~+'.ih}.•A y"+,Ya'Y~.t'C•r. tiR~ ~ ~ `t, David J. Lau & Associates QIIALIFICATIONS OF DAVID J. LAU E%PERIENCE 1970 to Present Independent Fee Appraiser with offices in Salem, Oregon. Types of real property appraised throughout Oregon, Washington, and California include c..~a??ercial retail, commercial office, professional office, light and heavy industrial, multi-family, farms and ranches. 1965 to 1970 Supervisor, Agricultural Loans, Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company, Hartford, Connecticut. Supervised farm lending and investment operation _ nationwide, reviewing appraisals and inspecting property thraughout the United States. 1956 to 1965 Executive Vice President, State Savings & Loan, Albany, Oregon, and Mortgage Loan Appraiser for Prudential Insurance Company of America, Salem, Oregon. CLIr~~~rS SExv~D As an independent fee appraiser, clients served include various federal, state, county and municipal agencies, in addition to mortgage lenders, real estate investment trusts, investors, individuals and attorneys. Mr. Lau has appeared as an expert witness in various state and federal courts throughout the northwest and has also acted as an arbitrator. A list of representative appraisal assignments, clients, and references will be provided upon request. EDIICATION Bachelor of Science, University of Idaho - 1956 Graduate courses, University of Hartford, Hartford Connecticut Extensive specialized real estate appraisal education, sponsored by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers - 1960 to Present Lecturer for the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers since 1969 at various universities and conference centers throughout the United States covering a variety of appraisal subjects including the appraisal of rural property, eminent domain appraisal, and Highest and Best Use. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS & ACTtviTIES State Certified Appraiser Licensed Real Estate Broker - Oregon American Institute, member (MAI) since 1964, Currently Certified Past Chairman - Research & Information Services Committee Past Member - National Education and Publication Committees Past Officer - Oregon Chapter No. 14 Charter member, Oregon Society of Farm Managers & Rural Appraisers Past Board Member, Salem Art Association and Salem Rotary Club Recipient of the Appraiser of the Year Award for Oregon 1990 Member, Oregon State Appraiser Certification and Licensure Board SPRADDLE CREEK/GOLF CODRSE PAGE 31 WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP _ December 16, 1992 _ Page 1 of 2 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 1991 11119 NEWSPAPER VENDING LARRY E./ANDY/MIKE M.: What can be done to make Locations for the newspaper boxes have been MACHINES these uniform and. locations less prolific? determined and approved by all TOV departments. Staff will talk to Larry E. to determine if voluntary agreements or an ordinance outlining locations are appropriate. Working on wrap-up by early winter 1993. 1992 02117 EXTERIOR LIGHTING KRISTAN/ANDY: Draft ordinance. Larry E. will further explore the areas of non- conformities, tree lighting and number of lights, and will attempt to have this back before Council by the end of February, '93. 08125 FOLLOW-UP PEG/PAM/LARRY G.: Mr. Shrader has called to find out Additionally, as requested at the 9/9/92 Speak Up WITH BUCK SHRADER (CDOT)/ whether there has been improvement on the maintenance meeting, Larry will request extending the 45 mph truck JAKE BRAKES/SPEED for the west side of the bike pathNail Pass. Although speed limit past the East Vail interchange. We will LIMITS ON VAIL PASS CDOT has stepped up efforts to clean and maintain, their try to set up a meeting with affected property owners, efforts have not been consistent, and this was state patrol, CDOT, etc. We will include in our communicated by Pam. communication a request for flash guards at the Bald Mountain Rd.ll-70 overpass, as well as a thank-you for cinders choice on I-70. 09108 1041 PLAN LARRY E.: Barbara Green has asked whether the Town Larry E. has spoken to Barbara Green, who feels there (request: Steinberg) of Vail has a 1041 Plan. could be a benefit to the Town. Therefore, Larry E. is collecting additional information and will draft an ordinance. Schedule for further discussion at work session on 1/12/93. 09/15 PAUL'S FLAG POLE LARRY G./KRISTAN/CAROLINE/RON: Whatever becam Staff will review former pole placement and (request: Lapin) of the flag pole that was to be erected outside VRA present recommendation. offices honoring Paul Johnston? 09/15 LIMITATION OF TERMS LARRY E.: Draft ordinance limiting appointed TOV board Second reading scheduled for 115193. FOR BOARD APPOINTMENTS to 8 consecutive years. (request: Shearer) ` ~ WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP December 16, 1992 Page 2 of 2 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 09122 SPEAK UP MEETINGS PEGIRON/CAROLINEIBRUCE CHAPMAN/PAM: Meet to Caroline and Pam will now get "organized." discuss some proposed changes to the Speak Up Meetin series, i.e., format, acquisition of debatable topics, presentation to annual condominium association annual meetings, speakers from "like" impacted communities (Carmel-by-the-Sea, etc.) 10127 ELEVATOR INSPECTION LARRY E./GARY M./KRISTAN/DICK: Tom Steinberg NWCCOG is getting together the contract, at which PROGRAM brought in proposed resolution to adopt legislation time it will be presented at a January '93 work session. (request: Steinberg) for the elevator inspection program. 11103 UNPLATTED LANDS AS KRISTAN/MIKE MOLLICA: Have we followed up with Forest Service reviewing LOA work. Jim Curnutte and DONATIONS contacting owners of parcels that may be given to Mike Mollica are reviewing parcels of interest. (request: Steinberg) TOV as gifts -understanding we are still moving through the LOA process. 11/10 COUNTY REGIONAL COUNCIURON: November and December meetings hav MEETINGS been canceled. January meeting tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, 1120/93, at 5:15 P.M., TOV Council Chambers. Between now and this meeting, staff will work with "host" entity on setting agenda, assuring attendance, etc. 12/08 VRD CONTRACT STEVE B.: Peggy has called Ken Wilson to indicate ANALYSIS Council cannot begin negotiations until the first of February. Prepare analysis of contract for Council review. 12115 LONG-TERM GOAL SETTING COUNCIUDEPT. HEADS: Please reserve ALL DAY on, Tuesday, 219193, to discuss long-term goal setting. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL -D REGULAR EVENING MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 199~~ 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 2. Consent Agenda: A. Approval of the Minutes of the December 1, 1992, December 15, 1992, and December 22, 1992 Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes. B. Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance amending Title 2 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Chapter 2.36 - Limitation of Terms, to provide for the limitation of terms for all members of permanent Town of Vail Boards and Commissions. C. Ordinance No. 33, Series of i 992, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 18.32 of the Vaii Municipal Code, adding sledding and tobogganning parks as a conditional use. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. D. Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance repealing Section 11 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, Subsection 9, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (This ordinance concerns a major amendment to SDD No. 6, Vail Village Inn, to remove a previous condition of approval for Unit No. 30, Phase I, Vail Village Plaza Condominiums/100 East Meadow Drive.) Applicant: BSC of Vail, Colorado, L.P./Frank Cicero. 3. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, to provide changes to Area A requirements for SDD No. 4 that concern the development plans for The Waterford and The Cornerstone Development Building Sites; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: MECM Enterprises and Commercial Federal Savings. 4. Resolution No. 1, Series of 1993, a resolution designating a public place within the Town of Vail for the posting of notice for public meetings of the Vail Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board, and other boards, commissions, and authorities of the Town of Vail. Review of Agreement between Town of Vail and Vail Associates, Inc. Re: Athletic Field Parking Lot. 6. Review of a sign variance request for Gorton's Saloon at Crossroads Shopping Center located at 143 E. Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5-D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Garton Development. 7. Adjournment. ~k~~~k~~ k~~~~~~~~ THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/12/93, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL OVERVIEW WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/19/93, BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNClL EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/19/93, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. ~~~~~~~~~k~~~~~~ C.~IAGENDA.TC VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1992 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 2. Consent Agenda: A. Approval of the Minutes of the December 1, 1992, December 15, 1992, and December 22, 1992 Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes. B. Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance amending Title 2 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Chapter 2.36 - Limitation of Terms, to provide for the limitation of terms for all members of permanent Town of Vait Boards and Commissions. C. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 18.32 of the Vail Municipal Code, adding sledding and tobogganning parks as a conditional use. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. D. Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance repealing Section 11 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, Subsection 9, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (This ordinance concerns a major amendment to SDD No. 6, Vail Village Inn, to remove a previous condition of approval for Unit No. 30, Phase I, Vail Village Plaza Condominiums/100 East Meadow Drive.) Applicant: BSC of Vail, Colorado, L. P./Frank Cicero. 3. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, to provide changes to Area A requirements for SDD No. 4 that concern the development plans for The Watertord and The Cornerstone Development Building Sites; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: MECM Enterprises and Commercial Federal Savings. 4. Resolution No. 1, Series of 1993, a resolution designating a public place within the Town of Vail for the posting of notice for public meetings of the Vail Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board, and other boards, commissions, and authorities of the Town of Vail. 5. Review of a sign variance request for Garton's Saloon at Crossroads Shopping Center located at 143 E. Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5-D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Garton Development. 6. Adjournment. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/12/93, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL OVERVIEW WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/19/93, BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/19/93, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. C:WGENDA.TC VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING ~9EEi'ING TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 199 ~ 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 P.M. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 7:35 P.M. 2. Consent Agenda: A. Approval of the Minutes of the December 1, 1992, December 15, 1992, and December 22, i 992 Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes. Larry Eskwith B. Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance amending Title 2 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Chapter 2.36 - Umitation of Terms, to provide for the limitation of terms for all members of permanent Town of Vai! Boards and Commissions. Jim Curnutte C. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 18.32 of the Vail Municipal Code, adding sledding and tobogganning parks as a conditional use. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Mike Mollica D. Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance repealing Section 11 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, Subsection 9, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (This ordinance concerns a major amendment to _ SDD No. 6, Vail Village Inn, to remove a previous condition of approval for Unit No. 30, Phase I, Vail Village Plaza Condominiums/100 East Meadow Drive.) Applicant: BSC of Vail, Colorado, L.P./Frank Cicero. 7:45 P.M. _ 3. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance Shelly Mello repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, to provide changes to Area A requirements for SDD No. 4 that concern the development plans for The Watertord and The Cornerstone Development Building Sites; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: MECM Enterprises and Commercial Federal Savings. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, on first reading. Backaround Rationale,: On December 8 and i5, 1992, Council, during work sessions, reviewed a proposed amendment to SDD No. 4 -Cascade Village. Council suggested a number of possible modifications to the application.. Prior to Council's review, on December 7, 1992, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed the request and recommended approval of the application to Council by a vote of 5-1, with. Diana Donovan opposed. However, after the discussions with Council in December, and after the PEC review, the applicants have modified the proposal. These changes are reflected in the proposed ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposal. 1 8:30 P.M. 4. Resolution No. 1, Series of 1993, a resolution designating a public Larry Eskwith place within the Town of Vail for the posting of notice for public meetings of the Vail Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board, and other boards, commissions, and authorities of the Town of Vail. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Resolution No. 1, Series of 1993. Backaround Rationale: State taw requires the Town designate a place for posting public notices of Town of Vail meetings at its first regular meeting of the year. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No.1, Series of 1993. 8:35 P.M. 5. Review of Agreement between Town of Vail and Vail Associates, Lary Eskwith Inc. regarding athletic field parking lot. Action Reauesteci of Council: Approve/denylmodify agreement. Backaround Rationale: Council requested a formal agreement relating to VA employees using the athletic field parking lot during ski season. 8:50 P.M. 6. Review of a sign variance request for Garton's Saloon at Crossroads Shelly Mello Shopping Center located at 143 E. Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5-D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Garton Development. Action Reai~PSteci ~f Council: Approve/deny/modify the Design Review Board (DRB) recommendation. Backaround Rationale: On December i 6, 1991, the DRB reviewed a request for a sign variance for Garton's Saloon. The DRB voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to Council to allow for a sign which is not hung from the exterior wall of the individual business. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the request per the staff memo to the DRB dated December 16, 1992. 9:05 P.M. 7. Adjournment. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/12/93, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL OVERVIEW WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/19/93, BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1119/93, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. ~~k~k~~~~~~~~~~~~ CiAGENDA.TCE 2 • . VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1992 7:30 P.M. !N TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 P.M. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 7:35 P.M. 2. Consent Agenda: A. Approval of the Minutes of the December 1, 1992, December 15, 1992, and December 22, 1992 Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes. Larry Eskwith B. Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance amending Title 2 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Chapter 2.36 -Limitation of Terms, to provide for the limitation of terms for all members of permanent Town of Vail Boards and Commissions. Jim Curnutte C. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 18.32 of the Vail Municipal Code, adding sledding and tobogganning parks as a conditional use. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Mike Monica D. Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance repealing Section 11 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, Subsection 9, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (This ordinance concerns a major amendment to SDD No. 6, Vail Village Inn, to remove a previous condition of approval for Unit No. 30, Phase I, Vail Village Plaza Condominiums/100 East Meadow Drive.) Applicant: BSC of Vail, Colorado, L.P./Frank Cicero. 7:45 P.M. 3. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance Shelly Mello repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, to provide changes to Area A requirements for SDD No. 4 that concern the development plans for The Waterford and The Cornerstone Development Building Sites; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: MECM Enterprises and Commercial Federal Savings. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, on first reading. Backaround Rationale: On December 8 and 15, 1992, Council, during work sessions, reviewed a proposed amendment to SDD No. 4 -Cascade Village. Council suggested a number of possible modifications to the application. Prior to Council's review, on December 7, 1992, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed the request and recommended approval of the application to Council by a vote of 5-1, with Diana Donovan opposed. However, after the discussions with Council in December, and after the PEC review, the applicants have modified the proposal. These changes are reflected in the proposed ordinance. 1 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposal. 8:30 P.M. 4. Resolution No. 1, Series of 1993, a resolution designating a public Larry Eskwith place within the Town of Vail for the posting of notice for public meetings of the Vail Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board, and other boards, commissions, and authorities of the Town of Vail. Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Resolution No. i , Series of 1993. Backaround Rationale: State law requires the Town designate a place for posting public notices of Town of Vail meetings at its first regular meeting of the year. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 1, Series of 1993. 8:35 P.M. 5. Review of a sign variance request for Garton's Saloon at Crossroads Shelly Mello Shopping Center located at i 43 E. Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5-D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Garton Development. Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify the Design Review Board (DRB} recommendation. Backaround Rationale: On December 16, 1991, the DRB reviewed a request for a sign variance for Garton's Saloon. The DRB voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to Council to allow for a sign which is not hung from the exterior wall of the individual business. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the request per the staff memo to the DRB dated December 16, 1992. 8:50 P.M. 6. Adjournment. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/12/93, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL OVERVIEW WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/19/93, BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/19/93, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. C:VIGENDA.TCE 2 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 1, 1992 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, December 1, 1992, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfass, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rob Levine MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Buckley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager Martha Raecker, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Joe Staufer spoke against TOV Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1992, regarding private snow removal on public sidewalks. He felt such snow removal should be a function of TOV, and felt the ordinance should be repealed. Larry Eskwith noted most cities throughout Colorado and across the country required property owners to clear private sidewalks adjacent to public properties. Ann Waller, representing Eagle County citizens opposed to recently passed Amendment No. 2, expressed that group's support of TOV Council's passage of TOV Resolution Na. 10, Series of 1992, opposing that Amendment. Mayor Osterfoss noted, in addition to TOV, a number of other organizations in the community, including the Vail Valley Foundation (VVF) and Vail Associates, Inc. (VA), were also supporting efforts in opposition of Amendment No 2. Second on the agenda was the appointment of a member to the Local Licensing Authority to complete Steve Simonett's term. A ballot was taken, and Merv Lapin moved to appoint David Wilson to the Local Licensing Authority until June, 1993. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. At this time, Mayor Osterfoss noted this was Vail Town Clerk, Martha Raecker's last evening meeting with the Vail Town Council. Mayor Osterfoss thanked Martha for her contributions to TOV, and wished her well in her new location. Item No. 3. was the appointment of a member to the Design Review Board (DRB) to complete Sherry Dorward's term. A ballot was taken, and Merv Lapin moved to appoint Michael Arnett to the DRB until February, 1993. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 4 was an update and disclosure of information TOV had received from consultants regarding research on TOV's options related to the Gillett Holdings, Inc. (GHI) and VA bankruptcies. Mayor Osterfoss stated TOV had, at this time, completed its legal research of this issue, and emphasized the correlation between the success of the ski company to the success of the community. She summarized the chronology of events related to the bankruptcies and actions taken by TOV. (February, 1991: GHI was forced into bankruptcy by its creditors; June, 1991: GHI declared Chapter 21 bankruptcy; August, 1991: TOV Council passed Resolution No. 16, Series of 1991, authorizing TOV to take all steps necessary to investigate and evaluate what TOV might need to do to protect its interests; August, 1992, TOV Council passed Resolution Na. 13, Series of 1992, authorizing the hiring of additional consultants to provide further expert advice to protect TOV's interests, including engaging legal consultants who would be able to take any necessary action.) She advised Executive Sessions were utilized by TOV Council because of the need for discussion about negotiation and legal strategy, but no action was taken, nor would or could have been taken, without 1 public review and discussion. Mayor Osterfoss stated TOV spent $13,000 to monitor the bankruptcy and $21,265 for legal research in 1991. In 1992, $175,000 was spent on legal research. She said Council felt the information gathered had value today and was a resource of inf~~u.ation with long term value for TOV. She noted, although continued monitoring of this issue was necessary to protect the interests of the community, Council was optimistic about the Apollo Group ownership, and felt the management now in place at VA would be successful with the operation of the ski area. She advised VA representatives had told Council they were committed on a long-term basis to operating the ski area successfully, and indicated they felt it was necessary and ap~,~ ~,~,riate to work cooperatively with the community to address matters of mutual concern. Mayor Osterfoss said VA representatives had stated several times they understood their actions would continue to be observed as the community evaluated what they did. Before a detailed presentation by Chuck Borgman, attorney with Kutak Rock, Mayor Osterfoss noted Council member Bob Buckley at no time participated in any of Council's discussions of this issue based on the fact he was part of the executive group working with VA. Chuck Borgman fully described the nature of Kutak Rock's engagement, and the engagement of two other law firms by TOV to monitor this issue. He discussed highlights of the legal efforts taken over the past eighteen months by the law firms, and explained in detail the chronology of events of this issue beginning with the involuntary bankruptcy proceeding filed against GHI in February, 1991. He noted Kutak Rock was engaged after the time of the initial filing of the involuntary bankruptcy proceeding and prior to the time that proceeding was converted to a voluntary bankruptcy proceeding in approximately May, 1991. He said Kutak Rock provided ongoing monitoring of the proceedings, and researched and advised TOV on issues related to how the bankruptcy could impact TOV, as well as how TOV might have had to respond. Mr. Borgman advised Kutak Rock was assisted by Marlin Opperman, recognized eminent domain expert, with the law firm of Opperman & Associates. The two firms looked at issues Mr. Borgman described as defensive in nature, given the importance of the industry to the town, concerning what TOV could do, if necessary, to acquire assets or regulate the operations of the ski area if the bankruptcy proceedings did not go as the debtors hoped. He said the legal issues research focused in two general areas: (1) whether or not there was legal basis for TOV to acquire VA assets if it had to, and (2) whether or not TOV could impose any kind of regulatory procedure on VA operations or require minimum capitalization or other requirements to assure either ongoing operation or capital expenditures at a certain level or some level of service. Mr. Borgman noted it was relatively unprecedented for a municipality to exercise those kinds of powers with respect to this particular kind of industry, however, lengthy research concluded that, in each case, there was legal basis for TOV to move forward with either or both actions. Mr. Borgman recounted technical details about the course of events of the bankruptcies and the potential resulting danger of interruption of operations of the ski area. Mr. Borgman advised in May, 1992, Council asked Kutak Rock to recommend co-counsel with experience in hostile takeover matters. Kutak Rock recommended the firm of Wilke, Farr & Gallagher, a prominent Wall street law firm, be engaged. He said there were three reasons for the engagement of this additional law firm: (1) the stakes were so high and the area of concern had so little precedent, both TOV and Kutak Rock felt more comfortable with a second opinion from Wilke, Farr & Gallagher, (2} it was believed if TOV had to act in this arena it would have been akin to a hostile takeover setting, and (3) it was anticipated if action had to be taken it would ultimately unfold in New York where many of the involved parties were, where the financial community was centered, and where Wilke, Farr & Gallagher was based. At this time, Mr. Borgman indicated a joint amended plan of reorganization was filed in the spring of 1992, the final confirmation order was in August, 1992, and having now passed the final confirmation date, GHI and VA had now emerged f~,.,,, Chapter 11. He reiterated that a great deal of expensive legal research was done for TOV over the past eighteen months. In addition to the research, there was strategic planning involving an important legal component on which time was spent. He believed the bulk of the legal work done had continuing value for TOV and would be valuable in the future, when any sitting Council might have to review the situation. The available information might have to be updated, but was not work that would have to be reproduced in total. His understanding was, as the bankruptcy proceedings had been concluded, Kutak Rock's engagement would become d..~...ant at this point. He indicated Kutak Rock had received no direction to move forward, and felt any Council observation of VA operations would no longer require a legal component 2 at this time. He gave an overview of the bankruptcy arena, and pointed out the tremendous power of bankruptcy judges, who could, in fact, affect existing relationships between debtors and third parties, including the capacity to void existing contracts, as well as the possibility of affecting TOV's ability to collect taxes and enforce existing agreements. That, he indicated, would clearly have had direct impact on the ongoing operation of the ski area. He concluded his presentation by recalling Mayor Osterfoss had earlier mentioned most of TOV's communications regarding this issue had been in Executive Session, and added that was intentional. All of the work product produced had been submitted to Larry Eskwith as T.,~u Attorney with the protection of attorney-client privilege. He concluded his presentation by indicating the amount of strategy involved and Council's desire to avoid having its actions or threat of actions have a negative impact upon VA or upon the successful culmination of the bankruptcy proceedings were the primary reasons for TOV's internalization of this issue while research was underway. Merv Lapin then explained he had personally taken on the job of following GHI's financial condition, and said he took full political responsibility for encouraging fellow Council members to monitor and understand the implications of this bankruptcy issue and the resultant actions taken. He felt that was Council's fiduciary responsibility, and said he personally saw no other alternative but to suggest TOV follow the course of the bankruptcy and know the alternative choices of action available to it. He mentioned numerous dealings TOV had with VA a bankruptcy could affect, including the 4% lift ticket tax (9% of TOV's budget), the 60-year lease VA had with the Vail Recreation District (VRD) for the lands around Gold Peak, the zoning greenbelt and open space, and the possibility that Vail and Beaver Creek could have been separated and sold or liquidated. He noted it was always Council's intention to bring this issue to the community for a public hearing before any action was taken. He agreed with Mayor Osterfoss about Council's optimistic view of the future of VA's new management, but added he was concerned because the new ownership there had no track record operating a successful ongoing company. However, in the short run, he felt TOV should be pragmatic and judge the new management by contributions they made to keeping Vail Number 1, including contributions not only to the quality of the skiing experience, but contributions toward solutions for problems related to employee housing, public transportation, parking, and the expansion and repair of Vail's infrastructure. Merv encouraged Apollo Group to increase their Board of Directors to include meaningful representation of outside directors representing the interest of the Vail community. Merv also expressed concern that, although GHI's debt had been reduced for the present owners, what assurances were there that this trophy asset would not be overpaid for by the next buyer, or that bankruptcy would not once again become an issue. Merv stated many people in Vail had everything both financially and emotionally invested here, and felt it was necessary for the community to stand together to continue to make Vail Number 1. Mr. Borgman spoke again briefly in response to Bill Wilto's request for clarification of TOV's options. Mr. Borgman said the choices would have been dictated by what happened in the bankruptcy, but summarized the options previously explained. Andy Daly, President of VA, inquired as to why there had been no investment banl~ng advisory role advising TOV on its financing strategies. Mr. Borgman stated a number of investment banking firms had been interviewed during the summer of 1992, but none were engaged due to the turn of events. Mr. Daly asked if the conclusions of TOV's research would be public record, and Mayor Osterfoss advised information beyond what was being reported at this meeting was confidential attorney-client information which would not be publicly available. Larry Eskwith confirmed the attorney work product would not be public record. Mr. Daly commented about the process of TOV's research, and added he was relieved by the conclusion reached. He commended Council for taking the action now being taken. He believed the element of trust that had been nurtured during the last sixty days could continue, and had every expectation it would. He stated there was a new vision, as the community moved forward, that all entities had to work together, and VA was open to discussion and participation where it made sense from a good business perspective as well as from the perspective of a good corporate citizen. Mayor Osterfoss concluded by noting Andy Daly and the rest of the new VA management group had shown a great deal of interest in working and communicating with TOV, and clearly, she said it was felt there was more to be gained by working cooperatively with VA. Item No 5. was a Consent Agenda consisting of two items: 3 (a) Approval of Minutes of November 3, 1992, and November 17, 1992, Evening Meeting Minutes. (b) Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 18.57.020 -Employee Housing Units (EHUs) generally, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, Paragraph 18.57.020(C) and (D) to clarify restrictions on the leasing and sale of Employee Housing Units, and Paragraph 18.57.020(K), Section 18.57.040(8)5, Section 18.57.040(8)9, Section 18.57.060(8)13, and Section 18.57.060(8)6 to clarify the meaning. Mayor Osterfoss read the titles in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve Consent Agenda Item A, but to table Consent Agenda Item B, with a second fi.,, , , Tom Steinberg. Jim Gibson asked Kristan Pritz to explain the reason for tabling Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1992. Kristan stated she understood this meeting's agenda was too full to review the second reading of this ordinance, and that a number of people interested in the ordinance were told it would be discussed at the December 15,1992, evening meeting. Jim Gibson inquired if any changes to the ordinance were anticipated on second reading. Kristan advised no changes were anticipated, and the changes Council had requested on first reading had been made for second reading. To clarify the issue, Mayor Osterfoss asked Kristan if the people concerned with this ordinance were concerned with the way it read on second reading, or whether they were concerned about any changes that could possibly be made on second reading. Kristan indicated there were not any concerns about the ordinance as it read now regarding the issue of lots under 15,000 square feet. She confirmed that interested parties would have no objection to the ordinance if it was passed as presented on second reading at this meeting. A vote was then taken on Mends motion, and the motion failed, 2-4, Mayor Osterfoss, Jim Gibson, Jim Shearer, and Rob Levine opposed. Jim Gibson then moved to approve the Consent Agenda, with a second from Jim Shearer. Before a vote was taken, Merv Lapin noted he was concerned Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1992, was allowing and encouraging too much development on lots smaller than 15,000 square feet, and was also allowing development on 15,000 square foot lots of two or more units to be separated and sold. He felt the ordinance would add to an already crowded lot density and increase the impact. Kristan explained, on lots of less than 15,000 square feet, the current ordinance allowed two units assuming the second unit was a restricted year round employee housing unit. The proposed ordinance would not add density on those lots. If both units were permanently deed restricted as employee housing units they could be sold separately. If not, they would still fall under existing rules. There was brief additional discussion regarding smaller lots. A vote was then taken and the motion to pass the Consent Agenda passed, 4-2, Merv Lapin and Tom Steinberg opposed to Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1992. Item No 6. was Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance accepting certain improvements constructed and installed in and for Booth Creek Local Improvement District, determining the total cost thereof, receiving and accepting the assessment roll apportioning the cost thereof to be paid by special assessments among affected parcels within the District, assessing the cost as apportioned therein against each assessable parcel within the District especially benefitted by the improvements, prescribing the method of paying and collecting the assessments, describing the lien securing payment thereof, making necessary findings with respect to the satisfaction of all conditions and requirements relating to the foregoing, and limiting actions challenging the proceedings. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Steve Thompson explained this ordinance was for the levying of assessments for work done on the mitigation ditch at Booth Creek. He said the net assessed amount was $487,187, which was being divided over 26 different units, approximately $18,737 per unit. The assessment could be paid in full by January 18, 1993, or in ten equal installments at 9.5% interest. Larry Eskwith noted there would be a public hearing for input and/or protests on this ordinance and on the assessments on December 15, 1992. He advised the people to be assessed had been notified by certified mail of the hearing, and public notice of the meeting would be published in the newspaper. Merv Lapin moved to ap~,~„ ~e Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1992, with a second from Jim Gibson. Before a vote was taken, Pat Dauphinais, resident of the area targeted for assessment, asked for an explanation of the history of the mitigation project. Larry Eskwith gave a brief review of the formation of the local improvement district, and noted the formula for the assessment was established at the time the district was formed. Ron Phillips also described details of the f,.~.uation of this district, noting most of the owners in the Booth Creek area had been involved in the formation process. Ron advised the owners had come to TOV asking for assistance with financing of the needed improvement. There was discussion about the original assessment amount, 4 construction problems the project had encountered, additional monies spent because of problems related to the construction and cost of litigation as a result of that, and the cost of interest on bonds covering the project. Ned Gwathmey said the project now worked, but asked for an accounting of the project's costs. Steve Thompson indicated a breakdown of the requested accounting information was available. Jim Gibson then called the question. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 7. was a review of Town of Vail's Third Quarter Financial Report and Proposed Supplemental Appropriations. Steve Thompson advised TOV's financial condition for 1992 remained in line with what had been projected all year. He noted there were apN~.,.Lmately $2,000,000 worth of projects between the Capital Projects Fund and the Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund that would need to be rolled forward into 1993. He briefly reviewed the revenue and expenditures of the General Fund, Capital Projects Lottery Fund, Real Estate Transfer Tax, Special Parking Assessment Fund, Marketing Fund, and Police Confiscation Fund budget categories. Mayor Osterfoss inquired about the number of projects being rolled forward, and there was discussion about possible affects of Amendment No. 1 on those projects. It was explained funds could be put into a reserve which would be viewed, under Amendment No. 1, as expenditures in the year the reserve account was established, but Steve Barwick added this option was dependent on court rulings regarding reserves and other operations under Amendment No. 1 regulations. Item No. 8 was Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, Vail Marketing Fund, The Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Police Confiscation Fund, LionsHead Mall Project Fund, Conservation Trust Fund, LionsHead Mall Debt Service Fund, Booth Creek Debt Service and Construction Fund, Heavy Equipment Fund, Town of Vail Debt Service Fund, West Vail Debt Service Fund, and Police Building Construction Fund of the 1992 Budget and the Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations as set forth herein; establishing a reserve fund balance of $5,740,000; creating an emergency reserve of $550,000; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1992, on first reading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. Before a vote was taken, there was discussion about requirements of Amendment No. 1, including use of the term "emergency reserve," and further discussion regarding pledging of assets for that reserve. Mayor Osterfoss noted the $550,000 emergency reserve was not usable under any circumstances short of physical emergencies. It was noted the reserve could be invested long- term. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 9 was Resolution No. 18, Series of 1992, a resolution authorizing employees of the Town of Vail to purchase, sell, resell, to or from Gill & Associates; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Jim Gibson moved to approve Resolution No. 18, Series of 1992, with a second from Merv Lapin. After brief discussion, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 10 was Resolution No. 19, Series of 1992, a resolution authorizing employees of the Town of Vail to purchase, sell, resell, to or from RAF Financial Corporation; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Jim Gibson moved to approve Resolution No. 19, Series of 1992, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 11 was Resolution No. 20, Series of 1992, a resolution authorizing employees of the Town of Vail to purchase, sell, resell, to or from Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Jim Gibson moved to approve Resolution No. 20, Series of 1992, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passes unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 12 was Resolution No. 21, Series of 1992, a resolution authorizing certain Town employees and officers to sign checks drawing on a health insurance debit account to be opened by the Town at the FirstBank of Vail, and further authorizing certain employees of the Town to make deposits in said account. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Shelly Shanley explained TOV needed to establish this new account to pay out health insurance claims from TOV's new health insurance carrier, Fortis. Rob Levine moved to approve Resolution No. 21, Series of 1992, with a second from Tom Steinberg. After brief discussion, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. 5 Item No. 13 was review of a request for a sign variance for The Antlers Condominiums, 680 W. Lionshead Place, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail LionsHead 3rd Filing. The applicant was Rob LeVineJThe Antlers Condominiums. Rob Levine stepped down from discussion due to conflict of interest. Tim Devlin advised this request was, in fact, for two variances; the first being for size of signs, and the second being for height of signs. He explained the description of the request as detailed in the CDD memo to the DRB dated November 4, 1992, including a proposed change in the lettering style and lighting of the existing 36 square foot legal non- conforming sign. He indicated TOV Municipal Code stipulated the right to continued use or operation of any legal non-conforming sign terminated whenever a sign was altered in any way. Therefore, The Antler's needed a variance even though the size and height of the proposed sign would remain the same as the existing sign. Tim noted there were precedents for this type of variance, and staff and the DRB believed there were special circumstances applying to The Antler's building, particularly its concave physical location. After discussion, Merv Lapin moved to approve the sign variance as requested with the findings of special circumstances as called out in the above-referenced memorandum including proof of physical hardship, that special circumstances were not created by the applicant, and that granting of the variance would be in general harmony with the purpose of the TOV Sign Code and would not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general.. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-0-1, Rob Levine abstaining. Item No. 14. was an appeal of a Design Review Board (DRB) decision denying the request for a color change for the residence located at 1628 Vail Valley Drive, Lot 1, Warren Pubs Subdivision. The appellant was Mr. J.P. Molyneaux. Kristan Pritz reviewed the criteria from the DRB's October 7,1992, vote to deny the color change request as detailed in the CDD memo to Council dated December 1, 1992. The memo included background on the request, including the fact that Mr. Molyneaux had not received DRB approval prior to painting his house red. Mr. Molyneaux acknowledged he had first painted the house without knowledge that authorization to do so was required, however, after being contacted by staff, he had agreed to try to obtain DRB approval. After discussion regarding the alternatives and compromises examined by the DRB and Mr. Molyneaux since August, 1992, Mayor Osterfoss indicated the DRB's decision to deny the color change had been appropriate as the DRB's decision was based on the parameters set forth in TOV Municipal Code. Jim Shearer moved to uphold the DRB's decision to deny Mr. Molyneaux's request for a color change for the residence at 1628 Vail Valley Drive, Lot 1, Warren Pulis Subdivision, based on the DRB findings that the request was not in conformance with Sections 18.54.030 (A) and (B) (Design Approval) and 18.54.050 (A1) and (C3} (Design Guidelines) of TOV Municipal Code as set forth in the above referenced memo. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Rob Levine noted there was no malicious intent on Mr. Molyneaux's part, and directed the DRB to continue to work with Mr. Molyneaux, who agreed to repaint the residence by the end of June, 1993. It was stated the time between now and then was a reasonable amount of time to repaint, and that it was not reasonable, during the winter months, to require the repaint. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 6-0. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto C:VuIINSDEC1.92 6 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1992 ?:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, December 15,1992, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:45 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rab Levine Bob Buckley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the T.,~~~ Manager The first item on the agenda Citizen Participation. Josef Staufer submitted a petition from Vail residents urging the repeal of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1992, an ordinance amending Section 8.24.090 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, Colorado, to provide far the owner or occupant of any property within the Town of Vail to keep the sidewalks in the public right- of-way on adjacent or abutting such lot or parcels free and clear from ice, snow, and other obstructions. He felt this ordinance placed an unfair burden on property owners in Vail, and snow removal should be a legitimate function of TOV as a service residents could expect. Pepi Gramshammer, Hermann Staufer, and Kent Williams also expressed concerns about snow removal, plowing, and storage issues. Ron Phillips advised TOV was examining possible procedural changes to address these concerns. Pepi Gramshammer inquired as to why there had been no celebration in recognition of Vail's 30th anniversary. There was no discussion. Richard Carnes advised the Precision Lawn Chair Demonstration Team of Vail had been accepted as participants in the January 19,1993, Inaugural Parade in Washington, D.C. Jeff Atencio felt this was an opportunity for promotion of Vail and the ski industry, and indicated the group would appreciate any assistance from TOV to help cover costs associated with the group's participation in the parade. The airfare and accommodation cost for eleven participants was estimated to be $6,600. Merv Lapin moved to contribute $1,000 from Council contingency to the Precision Lawn Chair Demonstration Team of Vail, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Josef Staufer and Hermann Staufer spoke against removal of the pedestrian bridge. They felt its removal detracted from pedestrianization of the Vail corridor. Mayor Osterfoss indicated recent public meetings concerning the pedestrian bridge showed support for its removal, however, as a number of citizens present at this meeting seemed to share feelings similar to Joe and Hermann, further consideration would be given to this issue. Bob Buckley noted he had received numerous calls from neighbors concerned with safety at the Bald Mountain bus stop. Larry Grafel explained some of the alternatives offered to residents of the area, and indicated this issue would be revisited in the spring. In the meantime, the underpass pathway would be opened to riders who chose to get off the bus at Aspen Lane to go over to Bald Mountain Road. Larry advised westbound bus service on that route would be continued. Item No. 2 on the agenda was a discussion regarding the proposed TOV Cemetery management plan and conceptual design. Andy Knudtsen advised that before the cemetery master planning process could be completed, Council review and agreement of work done to date was needed. He introduced members of the Cemetery Consultant Team: Eldon Beck, President of Alpine International, Sherry Dorward, Vice President of Alpine International, Steve Perkins, Vice President of Alpine International, Jack Goodnce, Landscape Architect 1 with HEPY from Southfield Michigan, and Larry Sloane, President of LF Sloane Consulting Group from Del Mark, New York. Members of the Cemetery Task Force, Dave Cole and Cissy Dobson, were unable to attend this meeting, but had submitted letters supporting the proposed design and management plans of the cemetery. Background details, evaluation of the design, evaluation of the management options, neighborhood involvement, staff conclusions, and character image drawings of types of plots, cenotaphs, and crypt designs were included in the Community Development Department's (CDD) memo dated December 15, 1992. Eldon Beck briefly reviewed results of the October 27, 1992, public meeting held at the golf course where the consultant team, the task force, staff, and neighbors had discussed a variety of issues regarding the cemetery. Sherry Durward displayed aerial photos of the cemetery site and character image drawings developed in response to public input. She discussed the conceptual plan, noting there were five types of grave sites proposed to be located on a very small part of the upper bench of Donovan Park at or around the tree line. Jack Goodnoe reviewed details of the site selection process, design impact at the site, and cemetery burial requirements, as well as the special needs associated with memorialization and meditation in the intended naturalistic setting. Paul Hymers, resident of the area adjacent to Donovan Park, felt public concerns about the cemetery had been taken into consideration and he was pleased with the proposed design, but he was concerned about future plans for use of the rest of the park. Mayor Osterfoss felt there was full intent to keep this area designated as a permanent type of open space. Larry Sloane then discussed six management scenarios for the cemetery. He felt the entity best equipped to manage the cemetery was the Cemetery District, and recommended TOV enter into a management agreement with the Cemetery District. TOV should continue to control or own the underlying real property, but the District should be the entity to provide capital funding to develop the first phase of the cemetery, assuring TOV by contract that it would do so within the ap~,~„~ed master plan scope. He felt the District, not TOV, should provide operating funds fi.,.,, its existing mill levy and revenue from sales activity at the cemetery, both here and in Minturn. There was brief discussion about how Amendment No. 1 might affect funding of the project, after which Tom Steinberg moved to accept the preliminary Vail cemetery design and management report as presented and proceed with the project as recommended. Rob Levine seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, note was made that the Minturn Cemetery District's name had been changed to the Eagle Gore Cemetery District, and that District had indicated a willingness to manage the Vail cemetery. Hermann Staufer inquired about the capital outlay for the project, and was advised cost estimates were not finalized at this time. A vote was then taken and the motion passed unanimously, ?-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance accepting certain improvements constructed and installed in and for Booth Creek Local Improvement District, determining the total cost thereof, receiving and accepting the assessment roll apportioning the cost thereof to be paid by special assessments among affected parcels within the District, assessing the cost as apportioned therein against each assessable parcel within the District especially benefitted by the improvements, prescribing the method of paying and collecting the assessments, describing the lien securing payment thereof, making necessary findings with respect to the satisfaction of all conditions and requirements relating to the foregoing, and limiting actions challenging the proceedings. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Larry Eskwith explained this hearing regarded the levying of assessments for the Booth Creek Improvement District, which had been formed to construct mitigation for rock fall in the Booth Creek area. He noted the rock fall berm was now completed. TOV had previously issued bonds to pay for construction of the berm, and the issue now at hand was the amount of the assessments being levied to pay for those bonds. Larry called several TOV staff members to testify about history related to this imr~., cement district. He explained this was the legal approach he would use to produce evidence about essentials required by the ordinance. Run Phillips was called first to testify about background information regarding formation of this improvement district. He described the f„~...ation of this improvement district in depth, beginning in 1983. Ron stated the mechanism that was discussed as primarily a financing mechanism was formation of the improvement district. He indicated property owners asked Council for financial participation from TOY, and Council had approved a $20,000 contribution from TOV's budget to assist in paying for part of the engineering required. Eagle County also approved $20,000 toward this project, but the State of Colorado declined to participate financially. Larry stated at the time the district was formed, a formula for how assessments would be levied was established and accepted by property owners. Ron described how the formula for reaching the assessments was established. He said the homeowners had strongly encouraged TOV to adopt an 2 assessment that would divide the total cost equally among all of the ownerships, and at the hearing held to set up the improvement district, property owners were present and expressed support of that f„~,uula to Council. Before public input on background information related to formation of this district began, Ron confirmed written notice of this evening's public hearing had been mailed to the r~..~,erty owners as they appeared on the assessors list of ownership on November 24, 1992, and notification of this hearing was published in the Vail Trail on December, 15, 1992, and all notification of this hearing was in conformance with Section 20.04.180 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Ray Story asked Ron if he felt the primary issue with accepting the berm was property value. Ron stated he believed the primary issue was the safety of those living, renting, or staying in the properties in that neighborhood. Ned Gwathmey raised questions about a document received by homeowners in the district on June 6, 1989, which indicated the ~,~~,~ect cost was estimated at $12,116 or 15% more if there were cost overruns, but assessments could not exceed that amount. He was advised financial issues would be addressed during TOV Controller Steve Thompson's testimony. Greg Hall, T.,wii Engineer, was called next to testify about the nature of the im~,~„~ement this district was formed to pay for and to supply engineering information related to the project. It was established Greg was not employed with TOV when this project was first discussed, but was the Town Engineer at the time construction commenced on the project. Greg recalled construction commenced in August, 1989, and involved excavation of a trench, building of a berm, minor drainage work, and revegetation work. Greg testified the improvement in this district was substantially completed at the present time, appeared to be working, and the engineer who designed the structure had appeared before Council and stated in his opinion the berm was completed and working as planned and designed. Greg described problems with construction of the berm; the primary problem being a lack on the part of the contractor to meet compaction requirements as specified in the contract. Banner Engineering, the project supervisor, managed the project for TOV, and subsequently TOV hired Chen Northern of Glenwood Springs to do the actual soils testing. Greg confirmed when he was told by the engineer that the compaction did not meet design standards, TOV shut the job down and refused to pay the contractor, The contractor filed suit against TOV for breach of contract; TOV filed suit back for breach of contract for the contractor not meeting contract specifications. TOV and Banner Engineering had hired attorneys and commenced the litigation process during which expert engineers were retained to ~,~~side testimony and to aid in reconstruction of the berm. Greg confirmed that all of the properties included in this local im~,~,.vement district were within a high rock fall hazard area on TOV's rock fall hazard maps, and since reconstruction and completion of the project, those properties had been removed from any rock fall hazard designation. Questions concerning future maintenance of the berm were raised by Fred Otto, and Ran stated TOV had committed to maintain it. He said anticipated maintenance would mainly consist of removal of rocks caught by the structure as often as needed, repair of any sloughing, and enhancement of the vegetation on the berm. At this point in time, no annual cost estimate for this maintenance could be determined. Mr. Otto also inquired about the outcome of the previously mentioned litigation. Larry Eskwith indicated the litigation had been a favorable settlement to TOV, and the contractor completed the berm to specifications at his cost. Discussion followed about collection of the contractor's performance bond, and Larry Eskwith explained due to the fact that the contractor had expressed a willingness to complete the job and never refused to perform, TOV was technically unable to collect the bond. There were a number of questions as to whether or not TOV was appropriately vigilant in supervising the contractor and the engineer. Larry Eskwith explained the contractor's job was to perform as he agreed to by completing the project to job specifications; the engineer's job was quality assurance. Larry felt TOV staff performed responsibly when advised by the engineer that the berm was not compacted properly. TOV shut the project down and refused to pay the contractor until the berm was brought into conformance with compaction specifications. Mayor Osterfoss felt this was an important distinction. TOV's role was to respond to the report given by the expert in the farm of the engineer as opposed to going out on a daily or weekly basis to check the compaction. Chen Northern was hired to do the soils testing, and did. Ron reemphasized the project was shut down by TOV as soon as the 3 problem was brought to TOV's attention by the engineer. Sybill Navas initiated further discussion about compaction requirements and the time factor involved with discovery of the compaction problems with this project. Larry Eskwith next called Steve Thompson, TOV Controller, to testify about the financial records related to this improvement district. Steve confirmed TOV had issued bonds in the amount of $365,000, presently outstanding, to pay for this improvement. The estimated total cost to be assessed against the affected property owners which had been set forth in the notice for the second reading of this ordinance was $366,756. Steve confirmed the actual cost to construct the improvement had exceeded that amount. The actual cost on the original construction budget was $41,486; the amount of the additional construction costs was $51,700, approximately 12-13% of the original cost. Larry noted TOV Code ,,..,aided for the potential assessment of additional construction costs up to the amount of 15%, and also allowed TOV to assess additional costs where there were separate elements of a nature not foreseen and included in the original estimated cost. Steve distributed and explained a financial report entitled Booth Creek Special Assessment District Budget dated December 15, 1992, detailing the total revenues, and expenditures including total construction costs, engineering costs, legal costs, bond issuance costs and interest on bonds, shortfall amounts, bonds payable, and the total amount currently being assesses at $487,187. Greg Hall gave technical explanations about those sections of Steve's report reflecting construction and engineering costs overruns. Discussion about interest cost on bonds followed. It was explained that a majority of the costs of this matter were interest costs of carrying this project without having assessments for three years because the assessments could not be made until the project was substantially complete. Further discussion regarding interest income, whether bids were opened prior to second reading, when partial payments were made to the contractor and the engineer, and at what point in time monies were spent on redesign of the project. Ron Phillips advised partial payments to the contractor and the engineer had been made on a percentage completion basis, and no payments were made after the engineer indicated the project was not being done correctly. Steve Thompson confirmed he had prepared the assessment role showing the amount of each assessment. Larry Eskwith then called real estate appraiser, Basil Katsaros, to testify. He confirmed he had acted as an expert witness in previous hearings and court cases. He discussed his appraisal assignment with respect to the Booth Creek Special Improvement District, which included evaluation of enhancement to property values in Booth Creeks as a result of this project. It was his opinion the effect upon the fair market value of the properties in this improvement district had been enhanced in value in excess of the special assessment amount. Larry indicated Council had to make a finding relating to the probable influence from the improvements relating to the protection or preservation of the values of the property in the vicinity of the improvement, and asked Mr. Katsaros for further opinion as to fair market value. Mr. Katsaros said the improvements also added to the protection of the individual homes from rockfall damage evidenced historically, and a primary benefit of the improvements was the loanability in the neighborhood as wells as the elimination of buyer concerns. He said he had reviewed the assessments for each individual property ~~~~er in the district and, in his opinion, each property in the district was benefitted at least to the extent of the assessment levied against it. Mr. Katsaros confirmed he would bill TOV for his consultation. There was discussion about the motivation for the formation of this district, and it was agreed the original motivation was safety and peace of mind. Ron Phillips explained when a local improvement district was established, it was a legal necessity for records to reflect that property owners paying assessments had received value for the assessment. Larry Eskwith confirmed one of the requirements of the ordinance was to show Council that properties in the local improvement district had especially benefitted and that there was an effect on the fair market value. After additional input from George Clowes, Pat Dauphinais, and Ed Gunn, specifics of the litigation were again discussed, as well as the series of events leading to the need and decisions surrounding formation of the district. There were additional financial issue questions, and a suggested review of possible bond renegotiation and assessment payment 4 options. Tom Steinberg then moved to pass Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1992, on second reading, with direction to staff to examine possible renegotiation of the bonds. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Pat Dauphinais submitted a groposal for a more equitable way of dividing up the costs. Rob Levine expressed concern about changing the original formula, and noted people in the district had understood and agreed to the original formula. Council indicated if members of the district wanted to rework the formula amongst themselves, that was something they could do. Larry Eskwith confirmed the members of the district could work out a private agreement amongst themselves, but it would be without the involvement of TOV and would not be affected by what the ordinance said. The assessments, however paid, were still due. Tom Steinberg called the question. A vote was then taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Discussion of Item No. 5 on the agenda preceded discussion of agenda Item No. 4. Item No. 5 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance amending Title 2 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Chapter 2.36 -Limitation of Terms, to ~,~..~i.de for the limitation of terms for all members of permanent T.,,~u of Vail Boards and Commissions. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1992, on first reading, with a second from Jim Gibson. Before a vote was taken, there was brief discussion regarding encouraging wider citizen participation on the various boards. Merv Lapin then moved to amend his motion to approve Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1992, on first reading with a change to Section 2.36.010 of the ordinance to indicate a Board or Commission member who has served eight (8) consecutive years may serve again after a period of one (1) year of non-service. Jim Gibson seconded the amended motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, Vail Marketing Fund, The Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Police Confiscation Fund, LionsHead Mall Project Fund, Conservation Trust Fund, LionsHead Mall Debt Service Fund, Booth Creek Debt Service and Construction Fund, Heavy Equipment Fund, T.,~u of Vail Debt Service Fund, West Vail Debt Service Fund, and Police Building Construction Fund of the 1992 Budget and the Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations as set forth herein; establishing a reserve fund balance of $5,740,000; creating an emergency reserve of $550,000; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Steve Thompson explained changes made since first reading. Jim Gibson asked if assets could be used as part of the emergency reserve. After dialogue concerning this option, discussion led to a unanimous vote, 7-0, to approve Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1992, on second reading, with specific clarification that the emergency reserve of $550,000 to be created be an emergency cash or asset reserve in the value of $550,000. Item No. 6 was Ordinance Na. 33, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 18.32 of the Vail Municipal Cade, adding sledding and tobogganning parks as a conditional use. The applicant was Vail Associates, Inc. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Bob Buckley stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Kristan Pritz noted this ordinance was unanimously supported by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC.) She explained VA intended to return with a conditional use request to put a tobogganning park in Lianshead on the south side of Gore creek. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1992, on first reading, with a second from Jim Shearer. Before a vote was taken, Art Abplanalp, representing property owners adjacent to the proposed site, asked the records to reflect there had been little publicity about this, and mentioned a variety of reasons as to why he felt there were going to be a significant number of objections from property owners who would be impacted by this amendment. He asked if this was an appropriate amendment within this zone district, and asked Council to seriously consider the scope, location, and the way it was being incorporated into the broad skiing zone district. Joe Macy, VA, clarified this proposal would allow VA the opportunity to apply for a conditional use permit. He said VA was willing to work with the neighborhood on what the proposed facility would actually entail when applied for. He said VA felt this would be an additional recreational amenity for the community, and VA understood the sensitivity of the neighborhood and did not want to do something that would diminish their enjoyment of their property. Mr. Macy indicated that when an application was actually made, it would probably include a request for nighttime use until 8:00 or 9:00 P.M. He noted that the proposed facility was on VA property and was fairly removed from the ~,~~,~.erty lines on the east represented by Mr. Abplanalp. Mayor Osterfoss asked Kristan if the proposal was a 5 reasonable conditional use in the context of other conditional uses within this zone district. Kristan said it was felt that it was, and referred to a memo from the CDD to the PEC dated December 7, 1992, detailing the description of the request, background, proposed code amendment, analysis of the proposed code amendment, and staff recommendation regarding permitted uses and conditional uses. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Abplanalp added it was his understanding VA had already filed an application for the conditional use permit, and again asked Council to fully consider the proposal's full scope and impact. Jim Gibson called the question. A vote was then taken and the motion passed, 6-0-1, Bob Buckley abstaining. Item No. 7 was Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance repealing Section 11 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, Subsection 9, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (The ordinance concerned a major amendment to SDD #6, Vail Village Inn, to remove a previous condition of approval for Unit No. 30, Phase I, Vail Village Plaza Condominiums/100 East Meadow Drive.) The applicant was BSC of Vail, Colorado, L.P./Frank Cicero. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Bob Buckley stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Kristan Pritz noted this unit was originally the Good's Commercial Space which had been converted to a 6,000 square foot condominium. Full Details were included in the CDD's memo to the PEC dated December 7, 1992. Kristan said in September, 1992, a request to remove the use restriction on the condominium had been denied by Council. At this time, the applicant was proposing to provide an employee housing unit in place of the use restriction. Staff and the PEC recommended approval. Rob Levine moved to approve Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992, on first reading, with a second from Merv Lapin. Before a vote was taken, it was established that the employee housing unit was a permanently restricted full-time employee housing rental unit. Ken Wilson noted that before the deed restriction could come off of VVI #30, a deed restriction had to go on this property. A vote was then taken and the motion passed, 6-0-1, Bob Buckley abstaining. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk Minutes tarn by Dorianne S. Deto C:VuIINDEC15.92 6 c ova/ ORDINANCE NO. 30 SERIES 1992 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 2, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL BY THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 2.36 -LIMITATION OF TERMS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE LtMtTATlON OF TERMS FOR ALL MEMBERS OF PERMANENT TOWN OF VAIL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. WHEREAS, Section 2.3 of the Municipal Charter of the Town of Vail provides that Town Council members sha11 not serve for more than eight consecutive years; and WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that such a limitation on Town Council terms of office has been good and has resulted in the election of new Council members with different insights and fresh perspectives; and WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that it would benefit the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail to provide a similar term limitation for all members of the Town's permanent Boards and Commissions. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: 1 } Title 2 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of Chapter 2.36 -Limitation of Terms, to read as follows: 2.36.010 No member of any permanent Town of Vail Board or Commission shall serve for more than eight consecutive years. R Board or Commission member who has served eight (8) consecutive years may serve again after a period of ~-yeaes one (1) year of non-service. 2.36.020 All current members of the Town's permanent Boards or Commissions on the effective date of this ordinance shall be entitled to complete their term of office regardless of whether the completion of such term would exceed eight (8) years. 2) If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Counci! 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. 3) The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants 1 thereof. 4) The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail 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 proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. 5) All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 15th day of December, 1992, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 5th day of January, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk C:~ORD92.30 2 Y MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 7, 1992 SUBJECT: A request to amend Chapter 18.32, Agricultural and Open Space District, of the.. Vail Municipal Cade to add "Sledding and Tobaggonning Parks" to the list of conditional uses in Section 18.32.030. Applicant: Joe MacyNail Associates Inc. Planner: Jim Curnutte fx:;, . •'•f~ I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Joe Macy, on behalf of Vail Associates, Inc., is requesting approval of a proposed amendment to Chapter 18.32, Agricultural and Open Space District, of the Vail Municipal Code. --5~ecifically, the proposed amendment is to include "sledding and toboggonning parks" in the list of conditional uses outlined in Section 18.32.030. There are currently 37 individual parcels of property in the Town of Vail that are zoned Agricultural and Open Space. These properties range in size from 15,000 square feet to 40 acres. Il. BAGKGROUND The proposed addition to the zoning code would allow Vail Associates, Inc. to apply for a conditional use permit to operate a sledding and tobogganning park in the Lionshead area. The specific property that Vail Associates proposes to use as a sledding and tobogganning park is an unplatted tract of land located south of Gore Creek near the skier bridge, under Chair 8. This land (approximately 1.5 acres) is currently owned by Vail Associates. Although this request does not involve the review of a sledding and tobogganning park on a specific piece of property, staff feels that it may be helpful to describe Vail Associates proposed sledding and tobogganning park in order for the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council to gain a better understanding of the possible impacts of adding sledding and tobogganning parks to the list of conditional uses in the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District. Vail Associates proposed sledding and tobogganning park includes 2-4 slides inside an enclosure with controlled access. The proposed enclosure will be a mesh fence similar to the ones currently used in the area above the skier bridge. The proposed slides are ice chutes 30" wide and 20" deep, 60 - 120 feet long, with a grade of between 15 and 40%. At the end of each chute, there will be a 150 foot long flat run-out area. The sleds are plastic mats, 48" long and 28" wide. The participants will gain access to the park by purchasing a ticket and renting a mat at a ticket booth located near the run-out of the chutes. The sledding/tobaggonning area will be accessed during the day from the pedestrian bridge on the east side of the Lionshead ski school area. This bridge currently provides summer access to ' the tot lot, which is in the same general area as the proposed sledding/tobogganning park. Approximate distance from the Gondola Building to the sledding/tobogganning area is 1,200 feet. At night access will be switched to the skier bridge, on a lighted trail. Total distance from the Gondola Building is approximately 1,000 feet. Vail Associates plans to operate the sledding and tobogganning park from January until mid-March. Daily hours will be from approximately 2 PM until 8 PM, however, these times may be adjusted in response to customer feed back. Vail Associates estimates that three to five employees per day are needed to operate the park. The accessory uses contemplated or related to the proposed park are signage, enclosure fences and ropes, ticket shacks, starter shacks, lighting, artificial snow, electricity, a warming tent, propane heat, and limited food and beverage service. Approximately ten flood lights are being considered for the park in order to accommodate safe operation at night. These flood lights will be installed on 4" x 4" posts and directed towards the sledding operation. III. Proposed Code Amendment Below is the entire text of Chapter 18.32, Agricultural and Open Space District. The text of the proposed addition to the Conditional Use section is shaded in gray. 18.32.010 Purpose The agricultural and open space district is intended to preserve agricultural, undeveloped, or open space lands from intensive development while permitting agricultural pursuits and low density residential use consistent with agricultural and open space objectives. Parks, schools, and certain types of private recreational facilities and institutions also are suitable uses in the agricultural and open space district, provided that the sites of these uses remain predominantly open. Site development standards are intended to preclude intensive urban development and to maintain the agricultural and open space characteristics of the district. (Ord. 8 (1973) 12.100.) 18.32.020 Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted in the A district: A. Single-family residential dwellings; B, Plant and tree nurseries and raining of field, row and tree crops; C. Public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces. Ord. 8 (1973 12.200.) 18.32.030 Conditional uses. The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60: A. Any use within public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces which involves assembly of more than two hundred persons together in one building or group of buildings, or in one recreation area or other public recreational facility; B. Public and private schools and colleges; C. Churches, rectories, and related structures; D. Private golf, tennis, swimming and riding clubs, and hunting and fishing lodges; E. Semipublic and institutional uses, such as convents and religious retreats; F. Ski lifts and tows; G. Cemeteries; H. Low power subscription radio facilities; I. Well water treatment facility; Sleddtng..and tobogganritng perks;: (Ord. 37 ~(199i) i:Ord. 30 (1988) 1:Ord. 16 (1985) 1:Ord. 16 (1976) 1 (a) (part): Ord. 14 (1975) 3:Ord. 8 (1973) 12.300. 18.32.040 Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the A district: A. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single-family residential uses; B. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190; C. Accessory buildings and uses customarily incidental to permitted agricultural uses, including barns, silos, sheds, corrals, pens, and similar uses; D. The retail sale of plants, trees, or other farm or agricultural products grown, produced or made on the premises; E. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof; F. Horse grazing, subject to the issuance of a horse grazing permit in accordance with the provisions ~f Chapter 18.58. (Ord. 16 (1976) 1(a) (part); Ord. 8 (1973) 12.400.) 18.32.050 Lot area and site dimensions. The minimum lot or site area shall be thirty-five acres with a minimum of one acre of buildable area. (Ord. 34(1979) 1 (part).) 18.32.060 Setbacks. In the A district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet, the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet, and the minimum rear setback shalt be fifteen feet. (Ord.50 (1978) 2(part).) 18.32.080 Height. For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty feet. For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty-three feet. (Ord. 37 (1980) 2 (part).} 18.32.090 Density. Not more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted for each thirty-five acres of site area, of which one acre must be buildable. Provided, however, that one dwelling shall be allowed on a lot or parcel of less than thirty-five acres which contains one acre of buildable area. Such dwelling shall not exceed two thousand square feet of GRFA. (Ord. 34 1979} 1 (part).) 18.32.110 Site coverage. Site coverage shall not exceed five percent of the total site area. (Ord. 17 (1991) 14: Ord. 8 (1973) 12.507.) 18.32.130 Landscaping and site development. Not applicable in the A district. (Ord. 8 (1973) 12.509) 18.32.140 Parking. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52. No required parking shall be located in required setback area, except as may be specifically authorized in accordance with Chapter 18.62. (Ord. 8 (1973) 12.510.) IV. Analysis of Proaosed Code Amendment Staff believes that adding sledding and toboggans ~i~ ~y~ parks to the list of conditional uses in the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District, is an appropriate change. The proposed addition carries out the intention of the purpose statement for the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District, which states inpart, "Parks, schools, and certain types of private recreational facilities and institutions also are suitable uses in the Agricultural and Open Space District, provided that the sites of these uses remain predominantly open". With the exception of a few small warming huts for participants, on-lookers and employees, a sledding and tobogganning park will remain predominantly open and would seem to be a use that fits in very nicely with the purpose statement of the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District. Possible impacts of a sledding and tobogganning park (ie. parking, lighting, signage, etc.) can be reviewed in more detail when the application for a conditional use permit proceeds through the review process. V. Staff Recommendation Given the fact that the proposed use is allowed only after approval of the conditional review, staff believes that the requested code amendment will have few, if any, unmitigated negative impacts. Allowing "sledding and tobogganning parks" to be added to the list of conditional uses in the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District seems reasonable, in light of the conditional uses already allowed in that zone district and the purpose statement contained therein. ORDINANCE NO. 33 SERIES 1992 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18.32.030 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, BY THE ADDITION OF SLEDDING AND TOBOGGANNING PARKS AS A CONDITIONAL USE. WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to amend Section 18.32.030, Agricultural and Open Space District, to provide for the addition of Sledding and Tobogganning Parks as a Conditional Use. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, that: Section 1 18.32.030 -Conditional Uses, is hereby amended by the addition of subparagraph J to read as follows: J. Sledding and Tobogganning Parks. Section 2 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of 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 3 The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vai! and the inhabitants thereof. Section 4 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail 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 proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 5 All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. 1 INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 15th day of December, 1992, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 5th day of January, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1992. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk C:\ORD92.33 2 RLY ~T~1«fiJ,~. i6iE;4C~71E~ tUGI i I' 4"'~3 olYiC3t'(~`i ~ l.Uil1 U3"'UU1`~IVHCiF'LhIVhLf~l~ll~tl~ii~t~rt L 36 Steele 8t. ~8lSO Dsnvorr ca. 60806 January a, x~~a Town of Vail Department of Commun~.ty Development 75 ~auth Frontage Road west Vail ~ Cvl.arttdc~ 816;57 Dear ~ ir/'Madam s I am the owner of the house locateQ ~t 616 west Forest #toad. At thin timer z am oppc~t~ed to the proposed commercial sledding operatian located adjacent to the Lionshead skier bridge. My decision is based upr~n the following reasons. 3.. Lights- My house looks dirpatly at the Liunshead bridge. I understand this will be a night time activity with lia~hts marking the eladding~'acc:ess trails r iric2uding lighte on the bridge. My concarn~ is that my view of Lit~nshead oil? age will by abstxuctad by the gzes'e of lights from this Gc~uunercial operat~.on. z . Traffic- A3thaugh traf~`ic an Foreet Raa,d has yet tQ be addresst~dr my cancern is that People wi~.l use the road Zoz- ~,arking rar as a. drop off point nor sledc~ers. As x'rn sure you're awaxo, this is a very busy road, The winter use by snow cats, snow mobilea~ residential traf~icr pedestrian traffic (skier$}, vA par~arxnel (snow znaKing Pacillt~j , aiza even horse drawn carriago,~ s almost unbearabxe. By add ng additionax commercial al.edding traffic to this miter you wild. be making a the s9.tuation worse and pocsc~i}a1.y c~c~ngerous. 3. Land use- As I understand its this area is zoned open gpat;a. How is this massive commaz`aial operation campatib~.e with the cuxrent residen'~ial z~rea? z've been told there are plans fQr rer3trcromsr Sighted trails, covered sledd~.ng runs, snack bars or a shop. This ie not compatible with a secluded cXuiet neighborhood area. Mir recommendation is that the E~.edding proposal be rejected outright without the deuelaper spe»dinc~ any mare money. La?et year my sr~n spaka opposing the stad3.um tennis courts. An aperation that turnQd out to be a t'ailure and whose promoter criticized the Tawn of v.'~il. X as}t that you give the residents of this ~?rez~ a break. . Bi ~ elYr eo GRCsd~r G' cG - J4rthur A. Abplanr,ip - U am ~ernoeoeur 2555 Oakwood S~ ~ also of Grand 2~,apicfs, ~l~fichi~an 49506 385 .forest ~acf, vaiC ~of~,~~~ka,v.~3 (616) 285-6163 (616) 285- 7933 December 26, 1992 Department of Community Development _ _ Town of Vail 75 South r=rontage Woad ~ Vail, Colorado 81 &57 ~ - To The Committee: This letter is in regards to the sledding hill proposed to be built under Chair 8 near the intersection of Forest Road and Beaver Dam Road. Firstly, we would like not to have such a commercial venture lie so close to the residential area on the hill between the core village arrd-~-ionsHead. If such a venture becomes inevitable,. we would like you to: 1. STRICTLY prohibit anv parking related to that activity on Beaver Dam or Forest Roads. 2. Maintain low-key lighting of the area. Although we cannot see the ara from our residence, were it to be lit up brightly, a visual scar would be created for those trying to walk in the area, which we do frequently. 3. We are concerned that unescorted minors -especially teens -might find the top of the run a good iuinping off place to "explore" the ~neighb~rhood. We, feel this is a security risk to homeowners, and should be addressed by you and the town police. Please let us know your answers to these concerns, and also please keep us informed of the proceedings regarding this development. Thank you. SinceorelyT, Kate Dernocoeur cc: ~ ~ Arthur A. Abplanalp ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' 't~t~omas K. t3oyd, England (co-owner) 3096920011 CN5 i ui~1ER DEU. CORP. 283 P02 JAN 05 ' 93 10:07 Thomas C. Lund ~REC` , ~ R~ 443 Beaver Dam Road ~ Vail, GO 8i 657 ranuary 4, 1993 Town of 'Vail Department of Community Development 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen I have just been learned that Vail Associates is petitioning the City of Vail to amend the Vail Zoning CAde to put a commercial tobogganing and sled run um the green bait property behind my house at 443 Beaver l:}am Road. My reaction is nothing short of shock and amazement. The proposed plan to build a public sled run totally contradicts the goals established for this property as I understood them. I've always relied upon my understanding that the town of Vail wanted to maintain balance betweett a commercial resort and the serenity of a mountain retreat. I based my property investment decision partially on that knowledge. I also understand that the ~,aning Committee wanted to keep this side of the mountain non-commercial. I was also lead to believe that Vail Associates wanted t4 maintain the image of a family resort. In fact,. we were told by Vail Associates wd the Town of Vail that there were no further development plans for the area behind our home. Although I~?e had many experiences with the city of Va~1's decisions, X want to site o~;e as an example. When my neighbors wanted to install bright lights around their houses, their request was defeated by the city because it would "destroy the serenity of the area". It is unthinkable that the "serenity of the area" would be preserved by a commercial sled run . used by thousands during the day and nights In addition to lowering my property value, I have several reasons far pez~sonally opposing the public sled run under any circumstances. 1~irst, the flood lights planned for the sled run wi11 be so powerful that they will not only affect our view of the night sky but all of Vail as we11. As you know there are a number of bars on the Lion's Head side of the creek which become very active after skiing. Several play music on the outside of the establishments and we hear it at our pause. This brings me to my second paint. A sled run, open at night would attract bar patrons from the other side of the creek. That means adults twho've consumed alcohol) will be n~ng with families and their children. The area would probably become unwhQlesorrae for 1 can further imagine that since they left a 3096920011 CUSTOMER DEU. CORP. 283 P03 JAN 05 '93 10:07 party atmosphere they would want to bring the patty atmosphere with them in noise, Iangaage and music. I would even speculate that same of these partiers would use the darkened woods and not the public restraam. 'T'hirdly, traffic will greatly increase on Beaver Darn road. Those sledding will went to park like the skiers do during the daytime. The difference is that the skiers are saber. With this mach added public traffic, rm sure it will affect the quality of life for everyone on this side of Gore Cheek. My family has beex? carving to Vail £4r twG~,iy years and we've been impressed with the 'T`own's ability to manage the delicate balance between ski resort and nature. We can't imagine the Tawn of Vail tarnishing its goad reputation by doing somethumg sa commet'cial and in bad taste. Very truly yours, Thomas C. Lund TCI.1src ~J ~,t 't 9 i "1 it Januar~a ~ > 1993 , i!; ,~r yyt. TQ: Town of Vail - ` !'S 9 Attn: Kristen Pritz! Dir. Community Deve3~opment ';i Re: V.A. Text Amendment Propobal which would permit a commercial sledding and tobag~ton park. On behalf of all the citizens of Vail, as well as our valued. visitors, we would like to expra~ss our sincere regret that Vail Associates and thg Town of Vail would even coneid®r any change to the existing zoning. r - This amendment i£ passed will permit further distraction of the ' precious little open apace along Gore Cre®k, for a commercial venture that is highly suspect and of questionable value. As longtime reeidento of Vail (1970), and property owners adiacent to the open space in question, we urge you to deny this request, cis well. as any further requests which will L deminish in any way the beauty, siza and condition of any remaining open apace. Ft ,r: t; Since ly, ~ .o ~ a 'm ~ Carol Schmidt 401 Beaver Dam Cirole Vail, Colorado cc A. Abplanalp ''t~ ~4 fi: i~: w t t, ~~I i' a. 1 ~ ~~93 ~r~~c~~ Y~tdG Vail, Calar~~c~Q Jt~nuary x,993 Kri~tt~,n prig Tawri a~ Vail Vail, Colarad4 b~az . ~z.it~ s , ~ r~ the oyez at a r+~~Sd~n~c: Ieeatd on fat I, Dlaek Vail Vill,~,g~ 6th ~'11inq. I recently 1,earned a~ t~rx ap~al.teutiQx~ which has bean submitted by Veil, AesaG~.ateg ~4 ctiSnge thA Inning the ,land nort2`t of my hate t4 porznit a ebnamn,xcSa1. sl$dding area which weul.d opert~t~ thraugh t~h~e h°intex into t,h~ n3.gh,t-t.im~a huux~ . ~iy let ad~e3ns th~,s proposed site. ~---undar~tand that my z~eighl~or~, who al,~ti would bra di.x~ctly ~,mpacted by this act.luity, are ob~~etl.ng to this pzepa~a~,, and l loin th~~a in thel.,~ opprsitierr~. The ~ub$tar~ttal,ly ~.ztcr~as$d activl,ty which i$ prc?pa~~d, perticulaxly duriric~ tha ev~n~.nga, ~t the tftna aF etsx wh n pie ~z~d eu,~ t~®i~hbor~ exp~ae't to en,~o~ a~ z~~fd~nce~ ~hau~d riat ~a p~x°~rtitted, the $I,eQd lfght.ir~g which i~ glan.n~d wi~~, i,1,lt~mfnate the ~z~tisa valley ~.nd ~,~i,Ia d$~tto~ tha undevclop~cf e~ieCt which x Undc~r~~.~nd that thc~ Town is trying do pa~ate~t. Al.thaugh ~ tend®r~t~nd that the pxopeg~S naw b~~az~ the ~'r~wn ~o:~ a text amendment tp the z~t~~.ng cads, Auld tt~8 ~peci~fc prapasal, wiSl ~al.l,ow IatQx, a urge tha xQwn cif Veil tv x~e~~c~C ~v~r? this text am~ndtnent. When $ pzapoaed c~ae is sc~ e2early ~.napprapr3at~, theta is no z~aaon to authc~r~.~®a ~h~nge ~n ordar to ereat~ the agportunitx to.r canv~rs.ibn, a~ an apgrep~~iata u~a to such an l.napp~opr~.a~~e uar~. Vary' truly lroux'~3, ~~-~-~--r-" Chc~rl,a~~ YirG~y P. 02 FROM RByrne3034766747 ~YRI~ ~ cScA5i5C]GfATE~ ~ , 9 ~ t a t~ctAL ESTAI t i rs._~: u , •e ~~~~T Tanuary? 4, 1993 ~anv a 1VIs. Ktistan Prita Ti-~ TOWAt of vAa. . 75 S. Fra~tage Road West Vail, CO 81657 4 demt Kristen.: It has just come to my attention that there is apropossl before the Town of Vail which waald allow a change in the ur;...-sgace designation of the land by the Lianshe+ad ski aEea. It is my uz~dersianding that this ~.~~,~sal would alloyv for the use of a toboggan park. Several of the clients that I represent have recently contacted me asking questions about this ~.,.rasal. They have ~,.r.;.ssed concern because they are unaware of the ~ Gculars involved in this change. As you know, I own two homes is the area, qne on Forest Road and one o~ -:3':~st Forrest Rosd.~ I am not in favor of changing the designation of the open-space, however, I am open to reviewing more ir~~.,.,~tion abQUt the proposed develw~.•~nt. I would a~,y.:,.eiate it if you Could k~ me apprised of the progress of the proposal, aad please gut me Qn the mailing list for any future information. I have also been asked by Charles Ying, who is the homeowner an Lot i, Block 2, Vail Village, 6th Filing, which is the first home adjaa~t m the ski slope, to ~y~ the r.~~u sed dcvel~y...ent of this area and to please make hires aware of any future development plans. ' Again. several owners have contacted me in the last few days and they are simply. requesting more itli~,.,,~adon on the ~.,,~s~i development. Thanking you in advance for your coopeaation in 'matter S' Ron Byrne - ORDINANCE NO. 34 SERIES 1992 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 11 OF ORDINANCE NO. 14, SERIES OF 1987, SUBSECTION 9, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO, AMENDING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6, VAIL VILLAGE INN, TO REMOVE A PREVIOUS CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR UNIT NO. 30, PHASE I, VAIL VILLAGE PLAZA CONDOMINIUMS/100 EAST MEADOW DRIVE. BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado as follows: Section 1 - Leaislative Intent A. On November 21, 1989, the Town Council passed Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989, amending Section 8 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, by the addition of Subsection 9 placing certain restrictions on the use of condominium unit No. 30 of the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums. B. An application has been made to the Town of Vail to repeal Subsection 9 of Section 11 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987. C. The Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town, on December 7, 1992, held a hearing on the proposed amendment and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council. D. The Town Council finds that the review criteria of the Town of Vail Special Development District Ordinance is met by the proposed amendment. Section 2 The applicant or his successors in interest agrees to file with the Town's Department of Community Development proof of ownership of an employee housing unit (EHU), which shall have its use restricted to rental purposes, and shall conform to the following: A. The EHU shall consist of a minimum of 700 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA); 6. The EHU shall consist of a minimum of finro-bedrooms; C. The EHU shall be located within the Town of Vail municipal limits; D. The EHU shall be a "new" employee housing unit, (i.e a unit which is not currently use restricted); E. The EHU shall include two {2) on-site parking spaces or the EHU shall include one (1) on-site parking space and the EHU shall be located "on" the Town's bus route {as determined by the Town Zoning Administrator); 1 F. The EHU shall not be subdivided into any form of time shares, interval ownerships, or fractional fee; G. The EHU shall be leased, but only to tenants who are full-time employees who work in Eagle County. The EHU shall not be leased for a period less than thirty (30) consecutive days. For the purposes of this Section, afull-time employee is one who works an average of a minimum of thirty (30) hours each week; H. No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of the employee housing unit shall submit two (2) copies of a report {on a form to be obtained from the Community Development Department), to the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail and the Chairperson of the Town of Vail Housing Authority, setting forth evidence establishing that each tenant whom resides within the employee housing unit is a full-time employee in Eagle County; and I. The provisions set forth in this Section shall be incorporated into a written agreement in a form approved by the Town Attorney which shall run with the land and shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval of the Town of Vail. Said agreement shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. Section 3 Subsection 9 of Section 11 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, is repealed. Section 4 If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 5 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 6 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail 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 proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the 2 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. Section 7 All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 15th day of December, 1992, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 5th day of January, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this _ day of , 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk C:\ORD92.34 3 f s ORDINANCE N0. 1 Series of 1993 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE N0. 41, SERIES OF 1991, TO PROVIDE CHANGES TO AREA A REQUIREMENTS FOR SDD N0. 4 THAT CONCERN THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE WATERFORD, AND THE CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT BUILDING SITES; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, MECM Enterprises and Commercial Federal Savings have requested an amendment to the existing Special Development District No. 4, Area A; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has recommended that certain changes be made to Special Development District No. 4; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to repeal and reenact Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991 to provide for such changes in Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, is hereby repealed and reenacted, as follows: Section 1. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled. Planning Commission Reaort. The approval procedures described in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the recommendations of the Planning and Environmental Commission for an amendment to the development plan for Special Development District No. 4. Section 2. Special Development District No. 4 Special Development District No. 4 and the development plans therefore, are hereby approved for the development of Special Development District No. 4 within the Town of Vail. Section 3 Chapter 18.46 Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, is hereby repealed and re-enacted with amendments to read as follows: 1 f 7 18.46.010 Purpose Special Development District No. 4 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area in a manner that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and recreational amenities, and promote the objectives of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. Special Development District No. 4 is created to ensure that the development density will be relatively low and suitable for the area and the vicinity in which it is situated, the development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council and the Planning Commission, and because there are significant aspects of the Special Development District which cannot be satisfied through the imposition of standard zoning districts on the area. 18.46.020 Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: A. "Special attraction" shall be defined as a museum, seminar or research center or performing arts theater or cultural center, B. "Transient residential dwelling unit or restricted dwelling unit" shall be defined as a dwelling unit located in a multi-family dwelling that is managed as a short term rental in which all such units are operated under a single management providing the occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilities. A short term rental shall be deemed to be a rental for a period of time not to exceed 31 days. Each unit shall not exceed 645 square feet of GRFA which shall include a kitchen having a maximum of 35 square feet. The kitchen shall be designed .so that it may be locked and separated from the rest of the unit in a closet. A transient dwelling unit shall be accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through 2 r f 1 another accommodation unit, dwelling unit, or a transient residential dwelling unit. Should such units be developed as condominiums, they shall be restricted as set forth in Chapter 17.26 Condominiums and Condominium Conversions. The unit shall not be used as a permanent residence. Fractional fee ownership shall not be allowed to be applied to transient dwelling units. For the purposes of determining allowable density per acre, transient residential dwelling units shall be counted as one half of a dwelling unit. The transient residential dwelling unit parking requirement shall be 0.4 space per unit plus 0.1 space per each 100 square feet of GRFA with a maximum of 1.0 space per unit. 18.46.030 Established A. Special Development District No. 4 is established for the development on a parcel of land comprising 97.955 acres as more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A. Special Development District No. 4 and the 97.955 acres may be referred to as "SDD No. 4" B. The district shall consist of four separate development areas, as identified in this ordinance consisting of the following approximate sizes: Area Known As Development Area Acreage Cascade Village A 17.955 Coldstream Condominiums B 4.000 Glen Lyon Duplex Lots C 29.100 Glen Lyon commercial Site D 1.800 Dedicated Open Space 40.400 Roads 4.700 97.955 18.46.040 Development Plan--Required--Approval Procedure A. Each development area with the exception of Development Areas A and D shall be subject to a single development plan. Development Area A shall be allowed to have two development plans for the Cascade Club site as approved by the Town Council. The Waterford and Cornerstone 3 sites shall be allowed one development plan each. Development Area D shall be allowed to develop per the approved phasing plans as approved by the Town Council. The developer shall have the right to proceed with the development plans or scenarios as defined in Section 18.46.103, 1-4. B. Amendments to SDD No. 4 shall, comply with the procedures outlined in Section 18.40. C. Each phase of development shall require, prior to issuance of building permits, approval of the Design Review Board in accordance with applicable provisions of Chapter 18.52. 18.46.050 Permitted Uses A. Area A. Cascade Village 1. First floor commercial uses shall be limited to uses listed in 18.24.030 A-C. The "first floor" or "street level" shall be defined as that floor of tYie building tYiat is located at grade or street level; 2. All other floor levels besides first floor street level may include retail, theater, restaurant, and office except that no professional or business office shall be located on street level or first floor (as defined in Section 18.24.030 A of the Town of Vail zoning code in Area A) unless it is clearly accessory to a lodge or educational institution except for an office space having a maximum square footage of 925 square feet located on the first floor on the northwest corner of the Plaza Conference Center building; 3. Lodge; 4. Multi-family dwelling; 5. Single Family dwelling; 6. Two-Family dwelling; 7 Transient residential dwelling unit; 4 f ~ 8. Employee dwelling as defined in Section 18.46.220; 9. Cascade Club addition of a lap pool or gymnasium. B. Area B, Coldstream Condominiums 1. Two-family dwelling; 2. Multi-family dwelling. C. Area C, Glen Lvon Duplex Lots 1. Single family dwelling; 2. Two-family dwelling. D. Area D. Glen Lvon Commercial Site 1. Retail; 2. Restaurant and bar; 3. Business and professional offices; 4. Multi-family dwelling; 5. Employee dwelling as defined in Section 18.46.220. 18.46.060 Conditional Uses Conditional uses shall be reviewed per the procedures as outlined in Chapter 18.60 of the Town of Vail zoning code. A. Area A, Cascade Village 1. Cascade Club addition of a wellness center not to exceed 4,500 square feet. 2. Fractional fee ownership as defined in the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Section 18.04,135 shall be a conditional use for dwelling units in the Westhaven multi-family dwellings. Fractional fee ownership shall not be applied to restricted employee dwelling units or transient residential dwelling units. Ownership intervals shall not be less than five weeks. 3. Special attraction; 4. Ski lifts; 5. Public park and recreational facilities; 6. Major arcades with no frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area. B. Area B, Coldstream Condominiums 1. Public park and recreational facilities; 5 I 2. Ski lifts. C. Area C. Glen Lvon Duplex Lots 1. Public park and recreational facilities; 2. Ski lifts. D. Area D, Glen Lvon Commercial Site 1. Micro-brewery as defined in Town of Vail Municipal code, Section 18.04.253 18.46.070 Accessorv Uses A. Area A. Cascade Villaoe 1. Minor arcade. 2. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190. 3. Attached garages or carports, private greenhouses, swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreational facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential uses. 4. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 5. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios or other recreational facilities customarily incidental to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary to the operation thereof. B. Area B. Coldstream Condominiums 1. Home .occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190. 2. Attached garages or carports, private greenhouses, swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreational facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential uses. 3. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to 6 J J permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 4. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios or other recreational facilities customarily incidental to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary to the operation thereof. C. Area C, Glen Lvon Duplex Lots 1. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190. 2. Attached garages or carports, private greenhouses, swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreational facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential uses. 3. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. D. Area D, Glen Lvon Commercial Site 1. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190. 2. Attached garages or carports, private greenhouses, swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreational facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential uses. 3. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 4. Minor arcade. 18.46.080 Location of Business Activity A. All offices, businesses, and services permitted by Sections 18.46.050 through 18.46.070 shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for 7 J ~ permitted unenclosed parking or loading areas, and the outdoor display of goods. B. The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. 18.46.090 Densitv--nwellina Units The number of dwelling units shall not exceed the following: A. Area A, Cascade Villaae In Area A, a minimum of three hundred fifty-two (352) accommodation or transient dwelling units and a maximum of ninety-four dwelling units as defined by the tables in Section 18.46.103 for a total density of two hundred seventy (270) dwelling units. B. Area B, Coldstream Condominiums Sixty-five (65) dwelling units C. Area C, Glen Lvon Duplex Lots One-hundred four (104) dwelling units. D. Area D, Glen Lvon Commercial Site Three dwelling units, two of which shall be employee dwelling units as defined by the table in Section 18.46.103F. 18.46.100 Density--Floor Area A. Area A, Cascade Villaae The gross residential floor area (GRFA) for all buildings shall not exceed 288,695 square feet. B. ArP~ B. Coldstream Condominiums Sixty-five thousand square feet (65,000 s.f.) GRFA. C. Area Glen Lvon Duplex Lots GRFA shall be calculated for each lot per Section 18.13.080 density control A and B for the Primary/Secondary district of the Town of Vail municipal code. 8 I ~ D. Area D, Glen Lvon Commercial Site The gross residential floor area for the two employee dwelling units shall be 795 square feet and 900 square feet respectively. The gross residential floor area for the free market dwelling unit shall be 1,630 square feet. 18.46.102 Commercial Sauare Footage A. Area A, Cascade Village Area A shall not exceed 35,698 square feet of commercial area. Commercial uses include retail, office, theater, restaurant, uses listed in Section 18.46.050 A-1, and the special attraction use. B. Area D, Glen Lvon Commercial Site Area D shall not exceed 16,730 square feet of office for Phase I, IA & II or 15,584 square feet of office for Phase III per the approved development plans. The micro-brewery and associated uses shall be constructed per the approved development plan. 18.46.103 Development Statistics for Area A. Cascade Villaae, and Area D, Glen Lvon Commercial Site 9 CHART 1 Area A Completed Projects ~ Retal!/ Square l On-Site Cascade Structure ______1 A_U_s D_Us_l_ GRFA Commercial Feet I Parking ~ Parking hIIILLRACE I I I 16 J 20,000 ( I I 28 I 0 MILLRACE 11 I i 14 I 17,534 I I 25 I 0 MILLRACE IV I Units""' 6 10,450 I 19 0 WESTIN I 148 55,457 _ I I I 0 115 Alfredo's i 104 Seats I 0 0 Cafe I I 74 Seats 0 0 Little Shop I I I _ 1,250 I 0 0 W &1 HSmith. Vaurnet I I 2,491 I, 0 0 900 I 0 CMC BUILDING - - Cascade Wing + 8 15,870 _ 0 16 Clancy's _ 1,600 0 13.3 Theater 4.220 28 College Classrooms I 0 40 College Office - - I I 0 4 Theater/Meeting Room 2J ~ I 1.387 I 0 ~ 11.5 TERRACE WING ~ I Retams 120 58,069 5,856 I ~ 0 I 20 Retail s I I---_20 I _ 7.205_ I 1,099 I I 0 ~ 4 PLAZA fl Conference I I 0 35 Retail I I I 925 I 0 3 CASCADE CLUB Retail I - - - 300 0 1 I Offi e Re~MCant I 252 0 3.5 828 1 0 3 - - - Wellness Center _ _ 1,386 _ I 0 7 Office in Club I I 420 I 0 1.4 TOTALS 288 AU 44 DU 184,585 I 19,173 I 72 I 426.7 For the purposes of calcul~uing GRPA for the Cosgriff Parwl (Millrace IV), no credits shall be given except Cor 300 sq. Ct. to be allowed for each enclosed perking space, per Section 18.46.210(cX5)(j). 1() I t CHART 2 Area A Proposed Projects On-Site Cascade CORNERSTONE - AU_orTR DU - _ GRFA _ Commercial Square Feet Parking 1 - Structured Parking _ - - I - - Units 64 TR 23 110 - 53 Retail ee Units' 3 I - 1,800 Ern 37 ----11-,.1.00--_-- Retail l 11 _ TOTALS j 64 TR I I 23.1 10 11,100 93 I I On-Site Cascade 2., WATERFORDU orTR_._ DU GRf A Commercial Square Feet _I-_ Parking-_ Structured Parkin nits _ 2 DU-7500-- SG TOTALS ( ? DU ( 47,500 I 58----- T- I I 3. Westhaven On-Site Cascade Condos _ I AU_orTR l-DU -l_ GRFA _ Comm ercialSquare Feet --Parking_ I Structured Parking- Units Employee 10_.__ ` 6 t00_~ 10 TOTAL - 1--'2b-DU- _J___22_,800____ fi~ - On-Site Cascade 4. Millrace lit AU orTR DU GRFA Commercial Square_Feetl Parking Structured Parking- Units I-- i` -3 --I-----6,000 _i-._ - i--------~ G TOTAL 1 3 DU -6,000 i 6 5. Cascade Club On Site Cascade Addition AU orTfi ~DURFA Commercial Square Feet Parking Structured Parking_ Scenario 1 - _I-- - - (Wellness Center) 4,500 22.5 or Scenario 2 _CGymnasium) _4,5_00- _ 0 'TOTALS Scenario 1 ( 4,500 22.5 Scenario 2 4 500 On•Site Cascade 6. Plaza Office- AU orTR DU GRFA-----l - _ Commercial- -S -quare Feet I Parking Structured Parking- - 1 9 25 - - -7 TOTAL 64 TR 50 DU 104,770 16,525 4,500 217 23.2 MAXIMUMS • Linployee units shall not anytt toward density or GRFA for the purptnc of this SDD. a• 11la7.1space has already been counted for it reutil parking requirement. The new parking requirement is based on tlw difrerencc between the rcutil and orrice parking requircrnents. ***Total figures represent highest density and entnmecial scenarios. CHART 3: Area A Required Parkin Parking for Completed Projects Parking Spaces per Chart 1 in Cascade Parking Structure 426.7 Proposed Projects w/ req. parking in the Cascade Parking Struc.: Scenario 1 - Wellness Center 22.5 OR Scenario 2 - Gymnasium 0.0 Plaza Office _ 0.7 Subtotal - - 449.9 Less 17.5% Mixed-Use Credit -78.7 Total Req. Parking at Build-Out of Area A in Cascade Struc. T 371.2 Exist. Parking in Cascade Structure 421.0 Required Parking in Cascade Struc.- at Build-Out of Area A With 17.5% mixed-use credit 371.2 1 11 _ - - Area Units GP~'11 ~ ' • ~ ~ (Acres) 16. DU/Acre { , 35~ .Ori~~inal Parcel •15.68 252.00 256,937 Rob)~ins Parcel 1.23 19,68 18,752 Cosgriff Parcel 1.045 1~.7.Q 15.932 • 17.955 288.40 291,121 F. DEVELOPMENT FOR AREA D, GLEN LYON COMMERCIAL SITE ' 5DD ~4, AREA ;D DEVELOPMENT SQUARE FFOOTAGE AND PARKING PER TOWN OF VA,'~IL REQUIREMENTS FEBRUARY 26, I~90 PHASE Ia PHASE I,Ia & II PHASE I,Ia,II AND III DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT. DEVELOPMENT Sq,Ft./Parking Sq,Ft. / Parking, Sq.Ft.,•/ Parking G1e11 Lyon ~ • Cff:ice Bldg. (Ex:tsting) 10,150 90.6 10,150 40.6 10,150 40.6 T'HA,3E IA - G?en Lyon ~ Of:ice Bldg. 400 1.6 400 1.6 i 400 1.6 PHA13E T . Gle» Lyon Bldg. i ' O:Efice 0 2, 400 9. 6 2, 400 9.6 -,xA;sE z x Mic:ro--I3rewery • --Office 0 3,780 15.1 2,634... 10.5 -Reception/ - ;Museum 0 480 0.0 ~ 980 0.0 -Retail 0 175 .6 885 3.0 --Fermentation/ :Brewhouse 0 970 0.0 1,406' 0.0 -Beer Nall 0 1,700 18.8* 1,700,, 18.8* (150 seats) (150 seats) -Brew Pub 0 1,380 10.0* 1,380 10.0* (80 seats) (80seats) SUBTOTAL 10,550 92.2 21,435 96.3 21,435` 94.1 PHASE III i , East Building ~ ~ ` ' -2 Employee ~ .1' t , Units 0 0 0.0 j 1, 695 ~ { 4.0 ;t. -1 Dwelling ! ' . j ~ Unit 0 0 0.0 i . ~ 1, 630 2.0 ~ • , -Office 0 0 ~ 0.0 j ~ 2, 400 ~ • 9.6 _ ~ ' SUBTOTAL- 0 0 0.0 3,325 '15.6 • ~ : TOZ'AI, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ! • , . , • , ; . SQCIARE FOOTAGE AND PARKING: ; J j ~ ' . .21,435 X96.3 29,760 110.0 ' . , . ~ *U:>ED HIGHEST PARKING REQ. POSSIBLE. BASED ON ;SEATING • ~ i • , i • . 12 18.46.104 Development Plans Site specific development plans are approved for Area A and Area D. The development plans for Area A are comprised of those plans submitted by Vail Ventures, Ltd. and other developers. The development plans for Area D are comprised of those plans submitted by the Glen Lyon Office Building, a Colorado Partnership. The following documents comprise the development plan for the SDD as a whole, Waterford, Cornerstone, Cascade Club Addition Scenario 1 and 2, Millrace IV, and Area D-Glen Lyon Commercial Site and is not all inclusive: 1. Waterford, Sheet #L-2, dated 11-12-92, Landscape Plan, Dennis Anderson. 2. Waterford, Sheet #1.1, dated 11-13-92, Site/Grading Plan Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 3. Waterford, Sheet #2.1, dated 11-13-92, Plan Level 38/43' 3", Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 4. Waterford, Sheet #2.2, dated 11-13-92, Plan Level 48'- 6"/53'-0", Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 5. Waterford, Sheet #2.3, dated 11-13-92 Plan Level 59'- 0:/64'-3" by Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 6. Waterford, Sheet #2.4, dated 11-4-92, Plan Level 69'- 6"/74'-9", Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 7. Waterford, Sheet #2.5, dated 11-13-92, Plan Level 80'- 0"/85'-3" Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 8. Waterford, Sheet #2.6, dated 11-13-92, Plan Level 90'- 6" Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 9. Waterford, Sheet #2.7, dated 11-13-92, Plan Level 101'- 0" Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 10. Waterford, Sheet #2.8, dated 11-13-92, Plan Level 111'- 6" Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz, 11. Waterford, Sheet #2.9, dated 11-13-92, Plan Level 122'- 0" Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz, 12. Waterford, Sheet #2.10, dated 12-14-92, Roof Plan All 13 Levels Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 13. Waterford, Sheet #3.1, dated 11-13-92, Elevations Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 14. Waterford, Sheet #3.2, dated 11-13-92, Elevations, Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 15. Waterford, Sheet #4.1, dated 11-4-92, Sections Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 16. Waterford, Sheet #4.2, dated 11-4-92, Sections, Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 17. Waterford, Sheet #4.3, dated 11-4-92, Sections, Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 18. Waterford, Sheet #9.1, dated 10-20-92, Unit Plans Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 19. Waterford, Sheet #9.2, dated 10-20-92, Unit Plans, Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 20. Waterford, Sheet #9.3, dated 10-20-92, Unit Plans Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 21. Waterford, Sheet #9.4, dated 10-20-92, Unit Plans., Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 22. Waterford, Sheet #9.5, dated 10-20-92, Unit Plans Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 23. Cornerstone, Sheet #L-1, dated 11-13-92, Landscape Plan Dennis Anderson. 24. Cornerstone, Sheet #1, dated 12-21-92, Cascade Village Master Plan Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 25. Cornerstone, Sheet #2, dated 12-29-92, Floor Plans Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 26. Cornerstone, Sheet #3, dated 12-29-92, Floor Plans, Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. Schultz. 27. Cornerstone, Sheet #4, dated 12-21-92, Elevations Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 28. Cornerstone, Sheet #5, dated 11-13-92, Site Plan/Grading Plan, Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz. 29. Cascade Club Addition Site Plan, Roma, 10/10/88. 30. Cascade Club Floor Plan, Roma, 10/10/88. 14 31. Millrace IV, Scenario I, a/k/a Cosgriff Parcel, Site Plan, Arnold Gwathmey Pratt, 10/28/91. 32. Millrace IV, Scenario I, a/k/a Cosgriff Parcel, Elevations Arnold Gwathmey Pratt, 10/22/91. 33. Millrace IV, Scenario I, a/k/a Cosgriff Parcel, Floor Plans Arnold Gwathmey Pratt, 10/23/91. 34. Millrace IV, Scenario I, a/k/a Cosgriff Parcel, Landscape Plan, Dennis Anderson Associates. 35. Cosgriff Parcel, Survey, Alpine Engineering, Inc., 10/31/91 stamped. 36. Survey, a part of Cascade Village, Eagle Valley Engineering, Leland Lechner, 6/8/87. 37. Site Coverage Analysis, Eagle Valley Engineering, 10/10/88. 38. Cascade Village Special Development District Amendment and Environmental Impact Report: Peter Jamar Associates, Inc., Revised 11/22/88. Area D, Glen t,von rnmmercial Site 1. Area D Master Site Plan, Geodesign by Sherry Dorward, 2/22/90. 2. Landscape Plan for Area D, Geodesign by Sherry Dorward, 2/22/90. 3. Area D elevations, Geodesign by Sherry Dorward, 2/9/90. 4. Vail Micro-brewery, Seracuse, Lawler, and Partners, Denver, CO., sheets A2.1, A2.2, A2.3, A3.1, A3.2, A4.1, A4.2, dated 1/8/90 and sheet A2.4 dated 12/13/89. 5. Vail Brewery Roof Study, Frank Freyer, 1/8/90. 6. Glen Lyon Parking Garage Floor Plans and Site Plan, Roma, 11/28/88. 7. Glen Lyon Parking Garage Sections/Elevations, Roma, 11/28/88. 8. Glen Lyon Condominium, Roma, 11/28/88. 9. Glen Lyon Condominium East Building, Roma, 11/28/88. 10. Deck Enclosure (Phase IA) to Glen Lyon Office Building, Pierce, Segerberg and Spaeh, dated 9/20/90. 15 11. Landscape Plan, Phase IA Deck Enclosure, Pierce, Segerberg and Spaeh, dated 8/19/91. 12. Office Addition to Glen Lyon Office Building, Buff Arnold/Ned Gwathmey Architects August 25, 1989 Sheets Al through A4. 13. Cascade Village Special Development District Amendment and Environmental Impact Report: Peter Jamar Associates, Inc., Revised 11/22/88. Letter from Peter Jamar Associates, Inc., dated January 16, 1990. 14. Deceleration lane design for South Frontage Road, RBD, October 18, 1988 as approved by Co. Div, of Hgwys. 15. A resubdivision of Lot 54 amended plat Glen Lyon Sub- division, Eagle Valley Surveying Inc. as approved by T.O.V. 16. Vail Brewery Parking Analysis, TDA Colorado, Inc., August 10, 1988 and Vail Brewery Parking Analysis Update, TBA Colorado, Inc., January 16, 1990 pages 1-8. 18.46.110 DevPl~mPnt Standards The development standards set out in Sections 18.46.120 through 18.46.180 are approved by the Town Council. These standards shall be incorporated into the approved development plan pertinent to each development area to protect the integrity of the development of SDD No. 4. They are minimum development standards and shall apply unless more restrictive standards are incorporated in the approved development plan which is adopted by the Town Council. 18.46.120 Setbacks A. Area A, Ca~rad.e Village Required setbacks shall be as indicated in each development plan with a minimum setback on the periphery of the property of not less than twenty feet, with the exception that the setback requirement adjacent to the existing Cascade parking structure/athletic club building shall be two feet as 16 approved on February 8, 1982, by the Planning and Environmental Commission. All buildings shall maintain a 50 foot stream setback from Gore Creek. The Waterford building shall maintain a minimum 20 foot setback from the north edge of the recreational path along Gore Creek. B. Ares B. Coldstream Condominiums Required setbacks shall be as indicated on the development plan. C. Area C. Glen Lvon Duplex Lots Required setbacks shall be governed by Section 18.13.060 Setbacks of the Primary/Secondary zone district of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. D. Area D. Glen Lvon Commercial Site Required setbacks shall be as indicated on the approved development plans. 18.46.140 Heiaht A. For the purposes of SDD No. 4 calculations of height, height shall mean the distance measured vertically from the existing grade or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive), at any given point to the top of a flat roof, or mansard roof, or to the highest ridge line of a sloping roof unless otherwise specified in approved development plan drawings. B. Area A, Cascade Village 1. The maximum height for the Westin Hotel, CMC Learning Center, Terrace Wing, Plaza Conference Building and Cascade Parking Structure/Athletic Club is 71 feet. 2. Cornerstone Building: Maximum height of 71 feet. 3. Waterford Building: Maximum height of feet as measured from finished grade to any portion of the roof along the north elevation shall be 55' (South Frontage Road) 56' along the west elevation Westhaven Drive), and 65 feet along the south and 17 east elevation as measured from finished grade. 4. Westhaven Building: A maximum of 55 feet. 5. Millrace III: A maximum of 48 feet. 6. Millrace IV: A maximum of 36 feet. 7. Cascade Club Addition: A maximum of 26 feet. 8. Cascade Entry Tower: A maximum of 36 feet. 9. The remainder of buildings in Area A shall have a maximum height of 48 feet. C. Area B. Coldstream Condominiums -The maximum height shall be 48 feet. D. Area C. Glen Lvon Duplex Lots The maximum height shall be 33 feet for a sloping roof and 30 feet for a flat or mansard roof. E. Area D. Glen Lvon Commercial Site 51% of the roof shall have a height between 32 and 40 feet. 490 of the roof area shall have a height under 32 feet. On the perimeter of the buildings for Area D, height is measured from finished grade up to any point of the roof. On the interior area of any building, height is measured from existing grade up to the highest point of the roof. Development plan drawings shall constitute the height allowances for Area D. 18.46.160 Site Coveraae In Areas A and B, no more than 35o of the total site area shall be covered by buildings, provided, if any portion of the area is developed as an institutional or educational center, 450 of the area may be covered unless otherwise indicated on the site specific development plans. In Area C, no more than 250 of the total site area shall be covered by buildings, unless the more restrictive standards of Chapter 18.69 of the Vail Municipal Code apply. In Area D, no more than 370 of the total site area shall be covered by buildings and the parking structure. 18.46.170 Landscapina 18 At least the following percentages of the total development area shall be landscaped as provided in the development plan. This shall include retention of natural landscape, if appropriate. Areas A and B, fifty percent, and in Areas C and D, sixty percent, of the area shall be landscaped unless otherwise indicated on the site specific development plans. 18.46.180 Parking and Loading A. Area A, Cascade Village 1. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52, except that 75o of the required parking in Area A shall be located within a parking structure or buildings with the exception of Millrace IV, Scenario I, where 66.6% of required parking shall be enclosed in a building. If the development table in Section 18.46.103 is amended, the parking requirements shall be amended accordingly. 2. There shall be a total of 421 spaces in the main Cascade Club parking structure. A 17.5 percent mixed-use credit per the Town of Vail parking code, Section 18.52.20 has been applied to the total number of required parking spaces in the Cascade structure. 3. There shall be a total of 58 on-site parking spaces on the Waterford building site with a minimum of 75~ of the required space located below grade. No mixed use credit shall be applied to this site. 4. There shall be a minimum of 93 enclosed parking spaces located within the Cornerstone building with 37 of the required spaces available to the public for short-term parking. No mixed use credit has been applied to this lot. 5. The third floor of the Cascade parking structure shall not be used to meet any parking requirements 19 for accommodation units, transient residential dwelling units, employee dwelling units or dwelling units. 6. Phasing: All required parking for Cornerstone and Waterford shall be located on their respective sites. All required parking for the Cascade Club Wellness Center Addition Scenario 1 shall be provided in the Cascade parking structure. 6. Seventy-five percent of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscaped berm for Westhaven Condominiums, and Millrace III. 7. All loading and delivery shall be located within buildings or as approved in the development plan. B. Area B. Coldstream Condominiums Fifty percent of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscaped berm. C. Area C, Glen Lvon Duplex Lots Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52. D. Area D, Glen Lvon Commercial Site 1. Phase I, IA and II shall include 80 surface parking spaces plus 6 valet parking spaces on the east end of the surface parking lot. Phase IA shall include 2 additional required parking spaces for a total of 43 required parking spaces. 2. Phase III shall include a minimum of 108 parking spaces. A minimum of 100 spaces shall be located in the parking structure. All required parking for the east building shall be provided on-site per Town of Vail parking requirements per Section 18.52.100 for residential and office use. A 20 minimum of eleven spaces shall be located in the garage of the east building and a maximum of 5 surface spaces shall be located adjacent to the east building. 3. Area D development shall meet the operational requirements outlined in the TDA Colorado Inc. Report, Section Parking Analysis Considerations, January 16, 1990. Parking Analysis Considerations pages 1-B. 4. Valet parking shall be prohibited on the west end of the surface parking lot. 5. The Brew Pub shall not be open to the public until after 4:30 p.m. for Phase I and II Monday through Friday. When Phase III development occurs including the parking structure, the brew pub may operate during the weekdays once the parking structure is available for public use. 6. The Beer Hall shall not operate or be used by the public before 4:30 p.m. on weekdays, Monday through Friday at anytime. 7. Once the parking structure is constructed, the parking and access to Area D shall be managed per the TDA Parking Report, Parking Management Section, pages 6 and 7, August 10, 1988, and TDA Report, Vail Brewery Parking Analysis Update, dated January 16, 1990, both written by Mr. David Leahy. 8. No loading or delivery of goods shall be allowed on the public right-of-way along the South Frontage Road adjacent to the Area D development. 9. The owner of the property and brewery management shall prohibit semi-truck and trailer truck traffic to the Glen Lyon Commercial site. The only truck loading that shall be allowed to the site shall be vans having a maximum length of 22 21 feet. 18.46.190 Recreation Amenities Tax Assessed The recreational amenities tax due for the development within SDD No. 4 under Chapter 3.20 shall be assessed at a rate not to exceed twenty-five cents per square foot of the floor area in Development Area A; and at a rate not to exceed fifty cents per square foot of GRFA in Development Area B; and at a rate not to exceed fifteen cents per square foot of GRFA in Development Area C; and at a rate not to exceed seventy-five cents per square foot of floor area in Development Area D; and shall be paid in conjunction with each construction phase prior to the issuance of building permits. 18.46.200 Conservation and Pollution Controls A. The developer's drainage plan shall include a provision for prevention of pollution from surface runoff. B. The developer shall include in the building construction, energy and water conservation controls as general technology exists at the time of construction. C. The number of fireplaces permitted shall be as set forth in Section 8.28 of the Town of Vail Municipal as amended. D. If fireplaces are provided within the development, they must be heat efficient through the use of glass enclosures and heat circulating devices as technology exists at the time of development. E. All water features within Development Area A shall have overflow storm drains per the recommendation of the Environmental Impact Report by Jamar Associates on Page 34. F. All parking structures shall have pollution control devices to prevent oil and dirt from draining into Gore Creek. G. In Area D, a manhole on the brewery service line shall be provided so that the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated 22 Sanitation District may monitor BOD strength. H. In Area D, the brewery management shall not operate the brewery process during temperature inversions. It shall be the brewery owner's responsibility to monitor inversions. I. All trash compactors and trash storage areas shall be completely enclosed within Special Development District 4. J. Protective measures shall be used during construction to prevent soil erosion into Gore Creek, particularly when construction occurs in Areas A and D. K. The two employee dwelling units in Area D shall only be allowed to have gas fireplaces that meet the Town of Vail ordinances governing fireplaces. 18.46.210 Additional Ameni~.ies and Approval Agreements for Special Development District No. 4. A. The developer shall provide or work with the Town to provide adequate private transportation services to the owners and guests so as to transport them from the development to the Village Core area and Lionshead area as outlined in the approved development plan. B. Developer shall provide in its approved development plan a bus shelter of a design and location mutually agreeable to developer and Town Council. Said shelter to serve the area generally. C. Area A, Cascade Village 1. The developer shall be responsible for providing a break-away bollard for the emergency access road between Eagle Pointe/Park Meadows, 1472 Matterhorn Circle, and Westhaven Drive. The design of the bollard shall he mutually acceptable to the developer and Town of Vail. This improvement shall be constructed when a building permit is requested for the Cornerstone, Millrace III, Millrace IV, Westhaven Condominiums, Waterford 23 buildings, or Cascade Club addition. The bollard shall be included in the permit plans. The bollard shall be constructed subsequent to the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the Cornerstone, Millrace III, Millrace IV, Westhaven Condominiums, Waterford buildings, or Cascade Club addition. 2. The developer shall construct a sidewalk that begins at the entrance to the Cascade Club along Westhaven Drive and extends to the west in front of the Westhaven building to connect with the recreational path to Donovan Park. The walk shall be constructed when a building permit is requested for Westhaven Condominiums. The sidewalk shall be part of the building permit plans. The sidewalk shall be constructed subsequent to the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for Westhaven Condominiums. 3. The developer shall provide 100-year floodplain information for the area adjacent to the Waterford and Cornerstone buildings to the Town of Vail Community Development Department before building permits are released for either project. 4. The conditions for Area A in Sections 18.46.020 B, 18.46.180 A. 1-7, 18.46.200 A - F, I, J, 1$.46.210 C, 1-3, and 18.46.220 shall be set forth in restrictive covenants subject to the approval of the Town Attorney and once so approved shall be recorded on the land records of Eagle County. The developer shall be responsible for submitting the written conditions to the Town Attorney for approval before a building permit is requested for the Cornerstone, or Millrace III, or Millrace IV, 24 Westhaven Condominiums, or Waterford buildings, or Cascade Club Addition. 5. Millrace IV, Scenario I. a. The developer shall obtain an easement from the owners of the property adjacent to the eastern boundary of the property commonly called the Cosgriff Parcel, which is more specifically defined in Exhibit A, attached to this ordinance and incorporated herein by reference. The easements shall be sufficient to permit the construction, maintenance and replacement of retaining walls for the purposes of grading and boulder retention all along the western property line of said adjacent property. The easement shall be in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney, shall run with the land, and shall be recorded on the land records of Eagle County prior to Design Review Board review. b. The developer shall provide the Community Development Department of the Town with written consent from the Upper Eagle Valley water and Sanitation District permitting the encroachment of certain decks specified in the development plan for the Millrace IV condominiums, as set forth in Section 18.46.140(18) of this ordinance into their sewer easement recorded in Book 217, Page 428 of the land records of Eagle County. This consent shall be submitted prior to Design Review Board review. c. The developer shall receive final approval of the site grading plan for the construction of Millrace IV, Scenario I, from the Town Engineer prior to Design Review Board review. 25 d. The Millrace Condominium Map, recorded at Book 326, page 257, of the land records of Eagle County shall be amended so that the access easement shown thereon shall align with the present location of the roadway on the western property line of the Cosgriff Parcel, and the amendment shall be recorded on the land records of Eagle County. e. The developer shall install 15 (6'-10') evergreens south of the South Frontage Road adjacent to the Cascade Club building, and 5 (6'-10') evergreens to the south of the westhaven Apartment foundations and north of Westhaven Drive. The developer shall obtain the written approval of the Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH) permitting the installation of these trees along the South Frontage Road prior to said installation. If CDOH approval cannot be obtained, then a minimum of 10 (6'-10') evergreens shall be installed adjacent to the Westhaven Apartments. f. The developer shall apply for and complete the minor subdivision process for the Cosgriff Parcel and a subdivision plat signed by the Town of Vail shall be recorded on the land records of Eagle County prior to the release of any building permits for the construction of any structure on the Cosgriff Parcel. g. Landscaping along the south and west property lines of the Cosgriff Parcel shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board to insure a suitable buffer area between it and the other properties along said property lines.. 26 h. The Design Review Board shall review the architecture and landscape plan further for compatibility with the surrounding area. i. The developer and the adjacent property owners shall submit a landscape plan for the area north of the Cosgriff property to the Design Review Board for review. j. For purposes of calculating Gross Residential Floor Area permitted on the Cosgriff Parcel, no credits of any kind (overlapping stairs, mechanical, etc.), except for 300 sq. ft. to be allowed for each enclosed parking space, shall be given. 6. Cornerstone a. Before the building permit is released for the project, the developer shall permanently restrict three employee housing units in accordance with Section 18.46.220 of this ordinance. b, The developer shall complete asphalt borings and an as-built survey and provide them to the Town of Vail for the area of Westhaven Drive adjacent to the Cornerstone site in order to determine the condition of Westhaven Drive. The Town Engineer shall determine when these drawings shall be required. c. The landscape plan set forth in the development plan for Cornerstone between the Terrace Wing and Cornerstone building shall be revised prior to the review of the project by the DRB in the following ways: 1. For emergency services, an access lane shall be provided from the western courtyard to the ski lift. 2. If deemed necessary by the developer and the Community Development 27 Department staff, the water feature on the landscape plan may be removed or revised. The landscaping in this area shall be part of the Cornerstone development and, therefore, it is the Cornerstone developer's responsibility to complete this portion of the project prior to the release of a final Certificate of Occupancy for the project. These plans shall be included in the building permit for the Cornerstone development. d. The area of Westhaven Drive under which parking is located for the Cornerstone project shall be conveyed and transferred to the Cornerstone property and shown on the minor subdivision for the Waterford site. An easement shall be granted to the Town of Vail over this area for public access. The minor subdivision shall be submitted by the developer before a building permit is released for the Waterford or Cornerstone site. e. All fireplaces shall be gas appliances pursuant to Section 8.28 of the Vail Municipal Code. f. Those spaces allocated to commercial areas as short term public parking shall be permanently restricted for the use of the Cornerstone project. All required parking associated with the uses shall not be conveyed, used or leased separately from the uses. Public parking on the Westhaven Drive level of the Cornerstone project shall be made available to the public for short term parking. 28 7. Waterford a. The developer shall permanently restrict the two employee housing units provided in the Waterford Development Plan in accordance with Section 18.46.220 of this ordinance. b. A minor subdivision plat shall be completed and recorded prior to the release of any building permits for either the Cornerstone or Waterford developments including the provision outlined in Section 18.46.210 6d. c. The developer shall complete asphalt borings and an as-built survey to determine the condition of Westhaven Drive from the South Frontage Road to the south end of the Cul-de- sac on Westhaven Drive. The developer shall provide stamped, engineered construction drawings for any road revisions that are necessary to meet the Town of Vail Subdivision Standards. These construction drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail's engineer prior to the release of a building permit. All road improvements shall be completed by the developer for the project prior .to the release of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (T.C.O.). The road shall be dedicated to the Town prior to the release of a T.C.O. The developer shall dedicate a public access easement for the remainder of Westhaven Drive which shall be conveyed to the Town within 30 days within the approval of the SDD amendment under consideration by the Town Council for MECM Enterprises. The developer shall take all steps necessary to permit the Town of Vail to enforce its 29 parking ordinances on Westhaven Drive. d. The recreation path shall be relocated as set forth on the development plan and shall be amended on the minor subdivision plat for the Waterford and Cornerstone lots to correspond to the new location. e. The DRB will review the landscaping in the areas of the retaining walls on the west and east ends of the site. The DRB will review the north elevations architectural details. The applicant shall review the possibility of eliminating the skier access on the east end of the project. However, if the applicant can significantly decrease the retaining walls necessary to build the access, the skier access may remain. f. All fireplaces shall be gas logs permitted pursuant to Section 8.28 of the Vail Municipal Code. D. Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site. 1. The developer shall agree to construct a bus lane per Town of Vail standards in the area of the porte-cochere of the Micro-brewery in Area D. The specific location for the bus lane shall be mutually agreed to by the Area D owner and/or developer, Colorado Division of Highways, and Town of Vail. The bus lane shall be constructed subsequent to the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for either the brewery addition, office expansion excluding Phase IA, east office building, or parking structure. The developer and/or owners of area D shall be responsible for maintaining the new bus lane, including snow removal. If the lane is not 30 maintained properly or snow removal is not adequate, the Town will not provide bus service to the site. 2. The developer shall relocate the existing bike path on Area D and provide a new bike path easement across the Glen Lyon property and CDOH property per the development plan for Area D. The bike path shall be constructed per Town of Vail standards. The bike path shall be constructed subsequent to the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for either the brewery addition, office expansion excluding Phase IA, east office building, or parking structure. Such temporary certificate of occupancies shall be conditional upon construction of the bike path provided for herein. The bike path easement shall be replatted and approval obtained from the Town Council prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for either the Brewery addition, office expansion excluding Phase IA, east office building or parking structure. 3. The developer shall underground the electrical utilities along the north side of the Glen Lyon property from the northwest corner of the property to the northeast corner of the property. This utility work shall be constructed subsequent to the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for either the Brewery addition, office expansion, excluding Phase IA east office building or parking structure. 4. The developer shall be responsible for relocating the 20 foot utility easement on the western portion of Development Area D as well as obtaining 31 i i approval from the Town of Vail for the relocated utility easement before a building permit is released for the micro-brewery addition. 5. The developer of the Glen Lyon Office property shall not file any remonstrance or protest against the formation of a local improvement district of other financing mechanism approved by the Vail Town Council which may be established for the purpose of building road improvements for the South Frontage Road. 6. The developer shall provide a fire hydrant per Town of Vail Fire Department requirements on the northwest portion of the property. The specific location for the fire hydrant shall be approved by the Vail Fire Department. The fire hydrant shall be provided subsequent to the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the brewery addition, office expansion excluding Phase IA, east office building, or parking structure. 7. The Developer shall construct a deceleration lane along South Frontage Road per the CDOH access permit. The developer shall submit plans for the South Frontage Road improvements to the Town of Vail Engineer for review and approval before a building permit is released for either Phase I excluding Phase IA, II, or III construction. 8. The conditions for Area D in Sections 18.46.180 D, 18.46.200 A, B, F - K, 18.46.210 D, 1-7, and 18.46.220 shall be set forth in restrictive covenants subject to the approval of the Town Attorney and once so approved shall be recorded on the land records of Eagle County. The developer shall be responsible for submitting the written conditions to the Town Attorney for approval 32 before a building permit shall be issued for the Micro-brewery, office expansion excluding Phase IA, east office building, or parking structure. 9. The minor subdivision for Area D shall be developed per the following conditions: a. The development of parcels A, B, C, and D, shall be limited to the SDD No. 4 development plan and governed by the SDD No. 4 ordinance as approved by the Town of Vail and on file with the Department of Community Development or as amended and approved by the Community Development Department, Planning and Environmental Commission, and/or the Vail Town Council. b. The minor subdivision plat shall include a statement that development of the four parcels shall be governed by the approved SDD 4 development plan for area D and governing ordinances. c. The Community Development Department and Town of Vail Attorney shall have the right to review and require changes in any "Agreements of Tenants in Common", "Conveyance of Easement and Party wall Agreements", and any other easement or ownership agreements related to the development of parcels A, B, C, and D to ensure that the four parcels are developed per the approved development plan in SDD No. 4 Ordinance. d. The developer shall be responsible for replatting the 20 foot utility easement on the western portion of development Area D as well as obtaining approval from the Town of Vail for the new utility easement before the minor subdivision plat is recorded. Any 33 modifications or amendments to the minor subdivision conditions of approval agreement shall be reviewed as a major amendment under the procedures outlined in Section 18.40 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. e. The conditions for the minor subdivision in Section 18.46.210 (D9) A, B, C, and E, shall be set forth in restrictive covenants subject to the approval of the Town Attorney and once so approved shall be recorded on the land records of Eagle County. The developer shall be responsible for submitting the written conditions to the Town Attorney before the minor subdivision is recorded on the land records of Eagle County. 10. The entire Glen Lyon Office Building and Brewery Building shall be sprinklered and have a fire alarm detection system. Town of Vail Fire Department approval of the sprinkler and fire alarm systems shall be required before a building permit is released for Phase I excluding Phase IA or II. 11. The developer shall submit a set of amended plans to the Colorado Division of Highways for review and approval. The improvements on CDOH property proposed by the developer must receive CDOH approval before Phase I, excluding IA, II, and III are presented to the Town of Vail Design Review Board for final approval. 12. The east building including the two employee dwelling units shall be constructed when the parking structure is built to ensure that the employee units are built. 18.46.220 Employee Housing The development of SDD No. 4 will have impacts on available 34 employee housing within the Upper Eagle Valley area. In order to help meet this additional employee housing need, the developer(s) of Areas A and D shall provide employee housing on site. The developer(s) of Area A shall build a minimum of 8 employee dwelling units within Area A Westhaven Condominium building, 3 within the Cornerstone Building and 2 within the Waterford Building. Each employee dwelling unit in the Westhaven Condominium Building shall have a minimum square footage of 648 square feet. Each employee unit in the Cornerstone Building shall have a minimum square footage of 600 square feet. There shall be a total of 2 employee dwelling units in the Waterford Building. One shall be a minimum of 300 square feet and the other a minimum of 800 square feet. The developer of Area D shall build 2 employee dwelling units in the Area D east building per the approved plan for the East Building. In Area D one employee dwelling unit shall have a minimum GRFA of 795 square feet and the second employee dwelling unit shall have a minimum GRFA of 900 square feet. The GRFA and number of employee units shall not be counted toward allowable density or GRFA for SDD No. 4. In Area A, the GRFA and number of employee dwelling units shall be restricted as employee dwelling units for 20 years plus the life of Tiffany Christine Lowenthal from the date of final certificate of occupancy for said units except those units in the Cornerstone and Waterford developments. The two employee dwelling units in Area D shall be restricted as rental employee dwelling units permanently. In Areas A & D the following restrictions shall apply to all employee dwelling units except for those units in the Waterford and Cornerstone Buildings. The employee dwelling unit shall not be leased or rented for any period of less than 30 consecutive days, and that if rented, it shall be rented only to tenants who are full time employees in the Upper Eagle Valley. The Upper Eagle Valley shall be deemed to 35 include the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle-Vail, and Avon and their surrounding areas. A full time employee is a person who works an average of 30 hours per week. In Area A, if an employee dwelling unit is sold, it shall be sold only to a full time employee in the Upper Eagle Valley. The owner shall occupy the unit or lease/rent as per the requirements in this section. In Areas A & D the employee dwelling unit shall not be divided into any form of timeshare, interval ownership, or fractional fee ownership. A declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be filed on record in the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder in a form approved by the Town Attorney for the benefit of the Town to ensure that the restrictions herein shall run with the land before a building permit is released for the construction of the employee units in either Area A or Area D. Before any building permits shall be released for either the Cornerstone or Waterford developments, the employee housing units shall be permanently restricted per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance as follows: 1, The EHU shall have a parking requirement of one (1) on-site parking space and the EHU shall be located "on" the Town's bus route (as determined by the Town Zoning Administrator); 2. The EHU shall not be subdivided into any form of time shares, interval ownerships, or fractional fee; 3. The EHU shall be leased, but only to tenants who are full-time employees who work in Eagle County. The EHU shall not be leased for a period less than thirty (30) consecutive days. For the purposes of this Section, a full-time employee is one who works an average of a minimum of thirty (30) hours each week; 36 4. No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of the employee housing unit shall submit two (2) copies of a report (on a form to be obtained from the Community Development Department), to the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail and the Chairperson of the Town of Vail Housing Authority, setting forth evidence establishing that each tenant whom resides within the employee housing unit is a full-time employee in Eagle County; 5. This agreement shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 18.46.230 Time Requirements SDD No. 4 shall be governed by the procedures outlined in Section 18.40.120 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Section 4. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 5. The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of tYie 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. Section 6. 37 All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. The repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of 1991, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of , 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of , 1991. Peggy A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1991. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk 38 • t E:CIIILIT "r'1" KOELr7>rL PROPERTY DEVELOPi•1L:IT I~R>r~l 11 Vail-Rose,. 12.370 acre ~ part of the SiJ ~./q NG 1/4 of Section 12, Toti~nship'5, South nange dl ~~est of the 6th P..1., described as • follows: Beginning at a point on the i4est line o.f said 511 1/4 Nl: 1/4 from w}iich the North one-quarter corner of said Section bears north OJ15' East 22G9.48 feet; thence llort'~ Oo15' East, along said lest Line, 15 .36 feet to a point on the 5outh~usLe_'_1 xight of way line of U.S. liighti~a.y ilo. 6; thence, along said Southeasterly right o~ way line, as follo~~s: North 52027' East, 102.31 feet; • North 490~0'.EaIIt, 519.57;f~et; and North 48°13` East, 5.19.09 feet, ma e or less, to a point on the North line of said SIJ 1/4 t1E 1/4; thence \orth 88°33' East. along the Nor~h line of sand St•} 1/4 NE, 365 feet, more or less, to a point on the centerl_ne of Gore Creek; the^ce, alone the centerline of Gore Creek, as follo~rs: South 3604?' ~•7est, 101.09 feet; ' South 18021' West, 5x.08 fee*_; South 1024' t•}est, 205.02 feet; South 12010' t•7est, 11D•25 zeet; anc South 28°41' t•:est, 212.35 feet, thence Sout:~ ?5°15' West, 1064.10 feet to the point of beginn?:,g. hose 1'~rcel ~ ~ 3.190 acref 11 tract of land situated in the 51: ;~:E ~ of Section 11' , TP 5 S. , R. 81 ~a. , of the 6th P.;•I. l;~ing Southe_ly of t1~at cer:.~in •tract of land described in book 199,,haoe 197, }~orther?v and 1•lesterl~ of 'the center line of Gore Cree};, ana l;~ing tlort:rerly and Easterly of those certain tracts des~,cribed in Eook 211 at Page 106, Dool: 211 aL• Page 108 and Doo}; 215 at`, Page 3G5, d`scr:hed as f ollot~s : . Beginning at a point on the North-5out:~ center line of said Section 12 whence the North quarter corner of said Section 12 bears 00015' E. 2269.48 feet; thence i~. 75°15' E. 346.2;6 feet to the true point of beginning, said point being on the South line of L•hat tract described • in Hoo}: 199,. Page 197 and which bears S. 08°25' E. 2205.31 feet from the north quarter corner of said Sec~ion 12; thence N. 75°15' E. 717.84 feet along the Southerly line of that tract described in IIook 199, Fage 197 to the center of Gore Creek; thence S. 28°41' W. 130.61 feet along the center Tina of said Cree}%; ' • thence S. OS°24'3D" E. 104.50 feet along the center line of said Creeks - • thence S. 49°29' W. 95.50 feet along the center line • of said, .Creek; . , thence 5. 22034' W. 129.47 feet along the center line ' of said Creeks • thence S. 59°00' W. 119.34 feet along the censer line ' of said Creek; to the Southeast corner of that certain tract of land, described in nook 211, Page 108; thence N; 33°16'30" 1~t. 140.12 feet along the Easterly line of that tract described in Hook 211 at page 108; thence N.'S7042'30" W. 169.88 feet along the Nor~heastcrly line of that tract described in Book 211 at page 10Q; • thence N; ,86°02'30" W. 162.92'feet along the Northerly line of those tracts described in Dook 211 at Page 108 Book 211 at Page ~1,OG to'a point; thence N. 32057'30" W. 76.OB feet along the Northe:,sterly line of that tract described in Book 215 at Page • 365, to the point of beginning'. . _ 39 .~Y • ~ - - • CO.iTIuU~t7 r Ara D , • All that part of the 5t9;NE!x of Section 12, lying Southerly of the center of core Creek ns~shown'on the plat'on file in the of floe of the ~'ugle County Clerk and Recorder as Document No. ~ • 97x39, described as (allows: • . Beginning at the Northeast corner of said St•);rlE;; ~ • ' thence South 89°33' West 131.57 feet to a point in the center of~''" said Creek; thence .South 4U°O9' 19est 94.04 feet slang thu center of said Cre~:Y.; thecae South 1B°21' West 5x.08 feet along the center of said Creer.: thence South 1°~•1', West 205.02 feQt along the center of said Cree'r.: thence south 1210' }Vest 110.25 feet along the center o: said Cree}:: theme South 280x1' SJest 320.00 feet; then~s 5a°st.h 5°2x'30" East, 170.00 feet along the'.center of said creel:; thence South 27°00'02" 1•test 85.24 feet along the center of said ,creek; thence South 54°DO' West 259.31 feet along the center of said . creek; .thence SoutS 65034' tJest 109.62 feet along the center of said creek; . thence South 6900.1' West 186.13 feet alona_ the center of said c.eek; thence South DS°25' T~Iest .68. 8B feet along the.' center of said creek; thence ilor~h ?7036' ~dest 26.96 feet alone the center of said c: eel:; - thence ~lor~h 50°33' ~•;est 199.19 feet along thQ cen:zr of said c-ee}:; thence ?•]ort'~ 36°40' I~~est. 239.09 feet alano_ •the center or said creek; thence Sout:~ 76°35' 1•Jest 69.91 feet aloes the center of saia c:ee~; to ~ roint on the ~)esterly line of szid S1•i;i•:E;; thence South OolS' 1.2est 4G1.90 f.eeL• to !the center of said Sect_en 12i tl~e!ice North 09.02' Last 13U2,G5 feel- ala~~a the. Southerly lint of s~~id St:;iiL; to the Sou~he~st corner of said St•i;t1L';; theme t•lort'~ 0°OG' East 136.1,32 f~eeL- alorn the' Ester?:! lin° of said 5t•i;NE~ to the Northeast corner of'1 said Sti!~t;E., the point ox beginning, A2~D . • The Niti';SE~ of Section 12, Townstiip 5 South, Range 81 l•)est of t::e 6th ~.ri. ; AtJ D All. that part of the SE;NI~t, of Section 12, T~:~nship 5 South, Range • B1 Jest of the 6th P.rI. , lying Southerly of the Southerly right of way line of U. S. I)igh:Yay No. 6, as sho~•~n on t!ie plat on file • in the office of the Eagle County Cler}: and Recorder, as Document No. 97489, described as follows: . ' Beginniny at the Southeast corner of said SE~11}J,; thence South 89°02' West 836.95 feet along the Southerly line of said SE:NtJ~ to n point an the 5outl:erly right of way line of saki highway; thence Plorth 52035' East 1057.07 feet along the•Sout•her1X right of way line of said higt~WaY to a point on the Easterly line of said SE;iJIJ;; thence South 0°15' West 62fl.21 feet along the Easterly line of said SE~:NW; to the Southeast corner of said $E:iJt•)'s, ,the point of beginning: EXCEPT THE I'OLLOWING: ' •thet part described in Bcjok 188 nt page 545; that part described in .Bc+ok 191 at page 241; that. part described in Boot: 203 at page 231; • • • 1 '-t O _ ~ - , . A r • Y TT ~~ttt-n ~ G0.~11.iV LLJ ~ ' . that part described in Bool: 203 at page 531; tl»t certain island adjacent to the above-~3escribed proaertf, and J.ocated in ttie middle oz Gore Crenl;, wl~ic!~ the parties intend to exclude fxcm this transaction;' Count}• c~ EJg}.e, State o~ Cglorado ~ • ~ ( ~ . ~ ALSO THE FOLLO;IIi;G fiARCLL FOFiit,°,L`~ Y,NO~d~t AS Tlic "C'J~G,1FF PAfiiC~w" /1 tract of 1 and situated in the 5jJ 1 /4 PiE I j4 of Section 12, To~~ship 5 South, Rance 81'4test of the Gth 1'rinci~,~al 1•teridian, 1)•ing tJorthwesterl}• of the center line of Gore CreeK Described as ~ follvc:s . r... ~ ' ~ Be~inninz at a poin-~ Nhence the 1:orth Quarter Comer of laic Section 12 hears 1:. I1°U3' 1~. 2292.72 feet; thence S.~SG°02'30" D. 69.50 feet; thence S. Sq`42'30" z. 16°.66 feet;. thence S. 3:s`1G'3U" L. 70.12 feel 'to a poi:,; i;. the 'A center of said creek; thence 5. 65`36' 1:. 109. G2 feet alor6 the center line of said creek; th~ncs S. bg`C~~-' S'C~.76 feet slong the cet,tcr line of saic; creek; thence 23`'12'30" W. 317.5~r feet to the point of heyinning, cant:ainin~ l .a5 acres, U10TC o; less. ~•.LSU DLSC~.7 E%U ' be~innir.t ai a F;.;n~ i,l;,snce t:sE' ldo7'th Qoat'~e. • Corner of sa: ci 5ecti ot; ]l7 bears N. ' 03' ~l. z2~z.7Z feD~t; tl~c~:ce S. 85°43'l4" 89.8 -feet; thencE S. .57`?5`sC~" E.. 165.y6 ftiet; t:•~ente S. • 37°59'30" E. a41.G7 feet to a point in the " center of sa;d creek; thence S. 65°3]'3b" t~'. • 10.9.6,2 feet along the center line of slid creel.; thence 5. t:~9°Ul'3G" 1~?. 103.02 feet along tt~e center line cf said creek; thence 1j. 23'24'09" 1~;. j1G.(t~' fart to the pcint Df befiinninS•. ' , TOGDT1iET: .1^'1T4i an eaFetaent aF described in 'I3ocu~ent ' recoroEd Au~~:St 5, ly~i~ in Eook 3016 at Page 46;i . . , ah~ t-eco~deu i:, ~c~u61, 307 ~t Page 66 •a~ lh~ . _v., fiop1E. Gounty records. ALSO includinfi all water and well rights , i :appurtenant to the above described property~ , 1•fel , Fermi t fto. incluc~inr t:ithovt lizritation, ' 9q-702, ~:ateT 'rights decreed in Civil ~+c:fan loo. 2"s75 in >:agl E C:ount~• District t:ourt, and bJ 1 that po: tior~ of tracer riFhtr Dt•crccd in G;~se No. t;(~ 4'1-? ~.10, WaLeT Dit~isior. l:o. 5. (Gory No. 1 lJell U.45 c~~) ' • • i ` ~ . • 41 ..a, , • ]?cede Parcel 1.60 acres County of eagle acrd State °f Colorado, to wit: n tract of .sand situates] in the 5105N);'S•., of Section 17., Township 5 South, nnrroe Sl t7~st of the Gtlr Princioal 1•teridian, desoribec] as fello~•:s: Geginrling at a point on the? tlortlr-South center line of said Section 12 whence the North, Quarter Corner of said Section IZ bears 2aor~ll 00 degs. 15 mins. East 2?G9.48 feet; thence ttortlr ;S degs. 1; mi:~s, East 34G.2E~i feet; thence South 32 degs. • 57 mins, 3? sec,. East 7G.08 feet; (ttrence South 11~ degs.' 00. mins. 30 secs. tti'est 279.99 fee L- to•a poir'rt. in flee center`of Gore` Creek; thence Nor'tii SO deg„ 32 rains, t•~zst: 11.1.31 Leet along the cen~e_ line of said creek; thence North 38 dens. 40 mins. t•lest 239.09 feet along fire center 1in~ of said creek; thence Soutli •7G degs. 35 mins, test 89, 91 feet along the center line of said -creek to a point on 'ilia North-South center line of said Section 12; thence ' north 00 degs. 1S mins. East l3. 95 feet along t)ie North;South ~ ' ` center line of said Section 13 to the poilrt of beginning. Total ],6.820. $czes . GONE CRErI; ASSCCIr~TES 17P,OPERTY llL• V~LOF~IE:;'r nRL• 15 B, C b D 80.700 acres • Legal Descr:.otion ' h11 that part of Section 12, To~nship S South, Rance dl taest of the Gth P.:•1. , described as follo`::s i 7111 that par of the N';1.~E'.; of Section 12, lying Southerly of the Southerly right-of-way line of U . S . Itigh•.vay tio. 6 and floztherl_: of tf~e 5out!-iorly line of said i4~i7E~, as shown on the plat on file in the of a ice of the Eagle County C1erS: and Recorder as Docume.^.t No, 97489, described as follos•rs: I3eainning at the high~~~ay survey monument at the intersection or the Southerly line of said high~~ray and the Easterly line of said t1 ;i~L;, whence the tlortheast corner of 'said Section 1Z bears Nor~h 0003' West 1a3~1.785 feet; , thence South 73026'30" West 111~.I3 feet along the Southerly right ' oi' way line of said highway; ~ ~ ~ t?~ence South 70°34' West 125,10 feet along the Southerly, right of _ way line of said highway] thence. Sou~h 69°2~' 41est 1b0,00 feet along the Southerly right of ' +~r3y line of said higlrwaYl t}fence South 65050' West ].00.00 feet along the Southerly line of ,said highwayF - . thence South 6203,5' West 100,00 feet along the Southerly• right of::;~: ~-ray line of said highway; thence South S8°40' West 100.00 feet along the Southerly right of y •aay l.ne r f said highway t ~ ~ ' thenca South 55°05' West 100.00 feet along the Southerly right of''~' way sane of said highways thence South 51032' West 100.00 feet along the Southerly. right of •r ; . ' way 1 nc of sand highway? thence South 47°57' West 232.58 feet along the Southerly right of ' way :~.~.ne of said highway to a point on the Southerly line'of~'said N~t~Et:• ; . whence 1lorth 80°33' East 497.67 feet glong the Southerly line of'.~. said N~1tE: to the Centex of the NEk of said Section lZs thence t~ortlt BB°33' East 1379.35 feet along the 5outherly~line of~ said t~;1~E; to the Southeast corner of said N;t~E;;. , thence IJort}t 0°03' West 7G0,95~feet along the Easterly line of said t~~l•1>;; to its intersection wittt~ the Southerly l~.ne of said hig~:way, the point of beginniny,- , Y ~ ~W~I•~~ - ~ - ~ ~ 4 . I ~ - it L6. ~ " b I~. ~ t. T - r•~1. ._-'t, "~,:~-7..r_.?}~ ..(~•r~'•., •1~1~ , I f I I I u v I d I l I C p I I( I i - _...Jr', l r I~III{ ilillll,l 114p I~ I'r ~IiI'I I'I4I~I VIII I II' ~IIIIIII `I~`III'!'II~IhI III~I~IIII~IIjI III IyI `li !I I~III ~ IB'M', I r I 1 If ~ • • III '.IIIl I:,r I. II ~I ;illli I IIIi ~ l li 'j I f ~ III p ~,I,,II I' II ; II. ~ II ' I ' lel :I '~f Lill'I ~ - ~ _ _ ~ ~ . I~ i'~I~tLI~ t~ ~I' I II II ~li y1i1(1'{41~i !I1 .pII 41 ~ Ilil~l IIII~ U,'III(,.wl, ~'I I{~f•I,II •f. ~ .y - ,,!11.11. _ ~~ili~a,~ I • I'III~'~IIIII1411 •'II 111111 I'IIII !"IIIIII,illl I Ilp. 11 NI~ylIJI1I Ipr I. "R:~ S'~.11 _ /f •r 'i,,.•'• 'I'II; I IILII II 1. ''".I,In I) II IiI..'6lId Jl (III I;iltl r. 'a'L~' ~i ~I I'I i - t _ t ~f/~.. / ~I. I { .I ~ I !I I I I II 'II' `I I j1' I 71 ~ : `.A ~l~ 1 s!~~ Y I; II :,t 1• I I t _ ' ; t~ • fVI ,II~"',~ ' `1~ I~fI I ~I i~} I r;l NII~•{ I;~ !~d. _ ~,t.bl I, h I. ~ ii. ;il j I I II{j ~ . 11111. , ..1 ,I~ ~~,If I,~I{ r}y~ .~~'I'I.I!, - .,r` r III ~t.l , ~ I I I jl.l• , t ~ } ~ I(4 j,.IIII~IILI,,,r :.'~,IIIpIn I~!IIlI1 bN~j1,,,Ill I~"~ .:'161 i.~ I'4 _ - F-- 1' j _ it I (I rl~kur i4.~r 1 `I ~ i', I ' _ I ~ ~ ~I (I i L., t _ e ~ Y,;,,~„ -..q~.. 4Cj.. tT~ .r'` f I~~ ~ I IVI1' ~ _ i I ~ _ _ al' ~ -.If: Jf.~ f ~n 1 .I ii i I 1 11' I ' I I I. ;~I II~.-- _ ~ :y - -i `i~7.q l,; ~ _~~°Tti", 1- 'V~ - s~~~~',..' ' i; ~ !jI I I 4 ii 1 1 ~IfI~'IIII ^I ~ i _ '::'t~+ _ - Ilj.lil~{.r!IIi~LIII ~ .c~~rt ~ -t:.~-~ 'I'i'11 ' I,~ ~I~ ~ I~ 41~ I I~III) I { 'I I n2d.~ ~ - ~ I ij.,' ' :_t:. ~ ~ ~ L; _ , I „1~-= ~''i"'' 1. - •i _ - kr~ t - i ~ ~e ~~~li III yy~et..+~°'ify~~{.~ 1. ' . ~~n WESTHAV f.N GAIVE ~ _ I f„*^-~ ~,i II I~f /~/~r~•~~.'~~`y~ _ ,.Y /',4wmieY ~ " _ 'Illy. ~II'II 111111 VIII r1 '1 r>cr: / .,f 'I G_~ I I•~.`" I" ~~..r'^-~~r' ?~A ^ .•1 ~`fr ~l k 1: to ja. ' Ids F I _ }I r ~ , - L MiII II. IIIIIIi ~~'1 (Iltsj v~~l,yI {I~ I Iil l I:~ If "$r ~!~'f jf `...I .I fill' AI - - . ..r6. d ,.II. 1. ~ ~ ~.:I. 11 ~1/ -1, I _ f I \ 4 I r i ~~T1 I IIII I~IIIIIIII I I. ~f sI~Y ~~1t-,!,)tL~~lli( ,~T ri 'i ~ ! r~Tl.'q~. _{'r%t.~ C'•.. =--IiI~.~- ,~Tf_x_.[,~•;.!r; ~ :,L~, ~ Ili ~ il,il~. I iIJ ~ :~.,t•J(-' , I1r-; 3 ~ II _ - I ~'7.. T - ' I~ i f'~ ~ ',ley{ ~ rr. r _ II _ f f~sL~ :~III1)~ II~II I'iI`1 III ..^"•r~. C~~~ ~ ..s., ~i4 - ti ~ ~ ~ ! ~t tti t • gill ~ I~:.III i~II /II'' - -s;: ~ ~ _ r~ t f•~'~ ~ ` ~ 7 /~J///y,I' ~~Yc ~ ~-~-~t`~t, ~I aS t"'I I. III~IIrI II I, III i~` -J I " ~ ~r ~i:~ ~~/I ~ ! rya ~ ;-"}-~=;1 ' l _ ~ ~ ~ ::•3 ')r°~~>!~ ~~y~J r, ~ CASCADE VILLAGE _ ~ C~~~1:};')`< `)`r)`1)`.') _ ~ MASTER PLAN t`ilili;h •'~~'{JI Iil~t~ll._G`" "t~:/,_ - ~;fj•~ ,i, Y~,~•_ I i a !Ih IIIM1 III?I lY ; . ; I? '~1.•I I,l~ I IL(r~ ~ ~ p ~"/~~1 ~ - ~ 1^' +^nirrcawr~+v...•NN *o .m:~ IuII I, IilW ll~ I III J. II 1 I,I; C hr wlY i'-::"F - 1 ~.1 `7"\` ~ Y' V l ~ ~ ~+a J Vv f-/ ~~~V" 1 f Vii t - + ,L • / S {~`sE 'rr.~ ~t~14 EM l ~~y"1~ ^ .4 Y ~~FY~ rt ~ ~ ~ 4S ~f~ Y~l 1 5 ~iT' :5' :Jr ~ f~•'F~ y .lt s fY Iran rti~r w. ,{,F41pS i~T+.E... SYY ty~ ~i~ * y«p« ~ 77 1 1~ h T~ ~ 1 't ?ir ~t ~{~>r t ~`,f+, t o y r t'C Y ~ ~`7 r~ . fs ~1, ~,f~i~s '~k. j+,E ,zl,y~~,"~~+'ifd.~~~t~.iv l~w=•+~ ~ y'~~ K , ~;.;i~f r~"~r+'Y ~tti~+' ~ C. ?y+4. fa' h hr' ti, x ? x v ,d}. C ~+/'~'s,: g J f y ' a ~ ~ 1tt, S~ .s ~~y~k,~. a.~ ~~'`fd '~F~,~.1~,r~c•rK~~X~` '..+f ~YS;~'t„~~~ ~~~j~,t'+•a. L+~ r ~ ~ ~ `t r ^ P 7 ,r. }l.r..y P y 7x9 ~ t Mf j r~'~a'f ~f,Ny1 i i+ ~ ~ 'S+ 1~~1+M+~r lj..ii.3~'yCKy~ vain }4 3~jy El ,7dN Te'd` ~,t rg,,~*i.~ ~4..a.,,;,,,t'~ ~y~sc ~l,'t~ Y~''-. ` , ' t t 17 y -six 4~1F yr~./ 3 3 ,y. l.t+' # l ~ } 1 A ~ ~ f ~t x j s ~ r r .,s ~.~j~y . 1 f ~ + V 1 ~ ro x .N ~ , . , J {y. ,4C ~ f'D~' :•~ft' ~k~ w'r'( ~I ICI ~I ~.~1 ]n~t, ~ ~ ~ ( V~ • _ ' . _ ' .~~y ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ /''`"=Y , yam. _ t~ ~ - ~ ~'.s+ r`c'"cc+.+ ~ 5r.'*^~ ~j v a~t~,~~` mss.' i~ ~ . 1`.1. ~ - z (:c''" rr~WE' \L4p+'" ) ~r. •ti i ~ L-'1 e`~,1~,~~, ti aI. ~fY r .41~ ~{~'S~"" ~ r L r~~Ys~ t'4 s~~+ ! ~~-f: r ~ _ -!i Y'*A~ ~•Fr'x1 w•w' rr~.Fw ~iti9'~,~~{• `r"'.~r ; a > ~s ` y~.~ ,,,,.'y ` ~ ~ ; t~ -ref Syy'' . ! ~f3F' 1 ~~};q;.; {.'Sp 1 1 1 i T x f r} ~ ~ilf ~~,~~Lf+'f~ ~ 1 y E ~ r~sda^: . if it _ y." N ~ , fit"'! 5 ~ .~v/s~2%^. ~~,:.r' s.ti1?' t 7 +Y'k" ~S+.ij 1 t f~, ~y~,~ ia,D. 'Y~!/~1/~Y~ ~ f ~.,~{.j~.`E9~~~ *`'"~t~.tS;{T,f~'i"~IR~ST ! ' sl'7 ~ R• ~r';~. ~•y - ` '.t•"~ t.{ X1~'~ (S~~y'"i^~0 •3 ~`r~ foal 1~~.. ~ t ~ir~ f11 r'r yt~' YS [1~ 'i'. .t"?.i+.. r ~ ' ~ ~ ~ el:., ~ Ll ~ Y [ ~'i . , ~?,P f ~ r ~,3Y'' r ltr5~ 'J,~, `s~ G' +~n~ -,TSr/k- ut`gy~1 r., • ~ 1 ~ ~r -'::Ta i~r,A,~{~~x ~ u1F rt f7 fir Y 'i+r!^ ~ 1 ,,Yy s.~' r fix. ,~,+w.~ ~ 7~`.~ Cy~+y~`~'., ~ K ? •k,S ~ ~ >s ~ ~r_ ,D' ~ r f t~ A^' a., 1 ,.,1 ~t ~ a w si4"~It +`';~i tiL 'K ~ v f E ! ~ ~ ~ c~ Vii.;.^yj PIS, Yai 1 ~ 3CrT~ .~,yi + ~ '3 •rt. • J 1~~ s%='a~ r 6''~y Fi'rb~;.~~'yi~ ~~,,rr~66~ f 4'r s N d'~` Y'`! ' .•y ,',r i+ rS~yr~ .sr Vey + s~~h>t.+ ~~,-~~+R+ ~ ~•j• 1 y'~Y+F' `*r~ 4r{~•~' ~ w~{ t' fr.'C / }..+i`~ rs n :~r~~~~Fn19~~ y, {'fys ~{,{w' ~ ~4'x} •,E~,+'~"~+q. a ~fa2v x ' - ~°'~t:; r~. ;may r~~~~~~ ,kp.~t(r7~'~' P , s,.lx7~ z ~y.,~ ;7~ ,1 ~ + rs ~ , y„+~'~ aF- Y'd ~~°~`~+.t,~~J"~ ~f ~„~"~~~~r'L ~ 1+~n, kk~~' * ~,4~ ~?~n +Y ~ # w . ,~,~~~~j~ T .i..:.. ~ > r :a: „p5'SE ,.i"e:~,.~. "ti^x~t:~1~,•.f• ~~~y ar'~+,'°^'~ , f i~~ ,~~`r`• P', ~'/~2~ ir~~k~ :1 •Y ~ Y~'...~ F~~ , . .cam*•u~Yt7 .1b1,~'X ~j~~ r,;! ~~3y~?4~{., fl^ :+i .r 1 ~ E"+'t' ~•ff~rx'1 r:~,Fl. ('~,r Z fi=„ + ~ A11 ~4X i ~ ,rf9~> iir ~ ~ ~L ~ fj;~• A, 1 w ~ [ u.1 1' ~ 1 r' ~~~~•~•L~"~1.;}~h~'.~ a '"~1~~~'{'~. ,t~ ~ n,~ 'p '~4A' a ~ s"ftf ~"`~1. ' ,~;~'~~f:~i, i~`f}Src~ ''}rj'': ~~~.~+7~ k~t'~:rs~~,`~?y a'~'~tr t1~;^',"~"~Y." 8 '.t„ . r i ~.~'f:~, ~ :ti.',f;~f,~~'t _ , e <r r~'l •,:~1 c ~c' ..Kc. ~1". r•04A 1 'k,J 'f s~• 't {v. ,:~7 `Dr x e;'at:. ~ ~Y,yr•'^• ,.rt~;~ :r`r.i't" v$~` lj?+~~~ 1. ~i~,l'~'~ti~.~~,~;.s' ~i.~'r~:~, + f f , ' t `i;~-d ,~~r ~ ,.,~w-r n~i^y ` },r+{{~ tycr ~1 i" ~ ~ 1 ~r_.2t-~ ':L .!.'~'f~ 'J` • {•`ir'i+;~+^ J'7 r l.,~t~~~~C, e~{. sxt ~ ";'9. F="1*r M:t.?~~ir~ j' ~ ~ ' ~.i' ~ ' 'E'`,r/".`..' fc :.i+•:,,;,iA';i,^7~.Y~;~v,.'', r ~,.i 4 1 =~,t- {r' _ ~ • ,_,,r sl s ~f~ixi ~1.~y £.v ~x~c: kr~~~~i=~~ :T^t• is ,L~ r'l/'.:~ tn.:+'' Z>i r ~ s ?{i,M, °7Y: +"'~y~~'y'k `~r~%','y~~~i~, M, ..tY~,~' y~, ,~h+•'+~.'~?" turf I 1 ` t i!v ~ '"~%•s :..r~,.•s f, i l,'~, ,;k~k'i L4rL~.,"f"'lrtii^t9~IP'•{.^~~,2rtrr"Z1~i% , } ',f~ ~ ~.`..C t_ l ' K• ,t. ~ d •I ~ ~ .n J : .•,.t~• 10 tti . ~r`k•~ , - ~ t.~r, ~~<'j, fff )4 • ~+`a'~' e ; V " \ - ` ! r r'^ ~~r, ~hP/c' j ?'i~ts4 .f .r.:::JX~~J-'~vri. ~ 1 ,'h\`~~~ ! ^ ~.~r ;i~ ~ 1 1l • • ' l :*~J'ir` ~y^nA .St'~r_!t~=, - ~ny,J.~! +y ,.may ~ ''iII' ~ --'l,~ •(,r~.A 1n,7. 'vv s.: ^'~.,~`.t','t ~-~"',.~:.~6~1 /!'r.`.;~ ~ S~r iii r ~ 1 1 -_~'In 4d. ~i1. .'1 J.: 1~• _ 'S A/. ."a~J])• .ir I I ~ gPA(~:5 I f,•,i i~ ( O P'~.E ~ ~ I I O SP 1 ^t~_~~..`_ 'i • I I EL. t56.0 ~ • . ~ I I 9 AL 5 ~ 5 AC S 6 5P CC . • ••tr''•, ( I I I I ~ I ~ I.b ~PA~E5 { 1 I I , Y SpwL 5 11,'• I I I i I, 73 SPACES Y SPACES .r ' I 1 EL. 0Y.0 , 1 I I / I PLAT . , r.: r / ~ • . 1 SPpCE~ , AL'S Y ;.+,:~';.y is 1 , r,. a ,`r i ` t uw. a.ee - ~I ~o~wcns ' 1 r-1 ~ f . ~ 1 P„~ ~~'~11 a' TC>r'N'L ~%Y-ilAo>J•' {,i' r,IrcreN' ice/ '"'(`t•Pi ce AIL ~ ~-1 ~ • (yr;fJ~•: ''yN~ 100 rLl~-',i'1: IIJJ "'o • ~ ~ III i ~t7 .~2RF~$TAUitAN7 ~TA ~ rr_i:Cr~ ~ ~ .~,4 `'i Y+ 1 :e.o~\ _ 57 ORACC PUY c:00n `I~..rn KL'YA1 ~ N J~, y t ~ ~ _ _~I 41ATERi=080 tt,-(11~+L. r ~N rLtif1 !1.•.t1 ~ii~',ilf F~+j~ ~ Irl..fy :'H-.~.Y~i: t 'tin ~ 1 I.II I J o d FLAT P540 (,tilfl tYLG?~ - , ~'~11,1... 1~~- _ ,y ...a.Q'__-- It,y'`t.,~tC }i ~.ll~~~ _.a.-\ ~_~-6 PARKWC ~ ~Z`.~360 ~ ~ r ~ CIKGUI-ATION ;915 '!i ~7~,_° T~ wry, _ ~J \v.-s_ - - Y' ~ ; a ~ ~t~':4~ ~ ~,~r. 'fr 5UP~ TOTAL , ' . 2d. 295 ' Ay~'~`'' ltii Sri' GORNCR STONE BUILDING _ , r. drl ~ v__v___p.__~__.a.__v__o__ d .*;'~~1 RESTAURANT 4418 ~ , r4 ey 11 L , ~ I{I ~1;,Y~'MO-v... .:1'i. o 'ilY ~ti L ' - ~ i RETAIL 2060 ~ A tp•_. ~ _ ~ r.~'t,J CIRCULATION 1060. r:,' ,,c r _ ,fir rrNU p ~ • - I ~~a 5Ki•5UPPORT '1330 • w a y,> d,ln„iL.ltti .r 1. 1 .ii m r. i:io ~'~a' ~f~Pt~: D TERRACE WING - ~Y~^"1~1 i,°~mli luaus ~oio' :''Sry:: ( ~ r 1 1 113!0 ~I.cuamn ia~u _ ICwnl C.l r0! -o--cv--v--v^^v--v--ch 1 ~ ' SUB TOTAL' 18.865 r. • ~ ~ FL ~Of~ PLAN ELEVATION 47 0 5 ~ ~ , ~ `dJ Y,IY V ~ ao :.Iv I.ffnd. ~c. If si'C1 ~i~+~''"~~~ 1r.n J ~y;.>: , i y:1~~n~E dwecuay ~ .~-A'" C xa 1• - Ya'•v• wrn~nlf, cx t ; \ ~ ' 1 I _ _ • ~ h' 4 ` X ' ~ 4 ~ ~ I 40 §pACl! , { 1 - I I _ I 1 Ac e { i ~ p wG 9 I { { wL9 GA5GA0): GLUE { e a { { , ' ' { { ~ ~ ei.f Oii o ' • I t, - 1 / \ ra .J x ' ibl Vii. yaw w.rc ,.ryn, r "~i!'~=. PL't - - _ \ arOaACe ~A~N ~ rw~ K _ \i"` ~y l~ W WO 4' 4 8.?~~ ~~5fs 47, •1 ,~31~ rtAVEN _ ~\~t'' ~'1?,~c DEBT pRIVE - ~ ~ , ~CSY~OKOru ~ . fir` ' er1 - ~tVI`~'n p „ A V,i?y C ~i',~ ~ 1:------~-~-- I *.G.1 . E`. .I% ~,-~~7,%f c'.>~ 1~~~~~ y~~ZJJ E7' ^V: \ , ~ HDte~SP+A AWyH. ~s.~+ ' 1 ~ / stet. ~ , ( ,y> - _ -.1--~-`. coccr~ r /WJ/A/TERFORO • f `t \ >ie a,~~ I~~f:i :4 w Rescn~au+r ~ Il,i aea-.. PARKlt1C ~eeN.a~~ URLUI..ATIDN PLAZA P~UILOING \ n, f, _P pA`r~* sup 7o7A~' ` €_3 ` - !L~ _ - _ GORNER STONE .;.,j~`,:., .I REBTAt;RANi' ii ~ _ 1. ~ b c ~ a '~i(~ ~src~p{ ~ - HOTwt- 1 11.i v ~1~,~:~,' \S'~./ e.^'1V ~ ' ' J. nII•{1`~ iii'',' , mow;- f~5 _ TrRRAGt~ WING p ¢ - A47ERNATIVE A , /(~/~J,Y ~~~~~q{1,~~~j.~~LOOR PLAN G~-i' I `\,l1 a>. /''~V 4~~~w r~ D z0 4O ~,p .di1,••u}. a /~/f ~•l~r7 ~ ~ ~ 9 :y . r-L- 1_ .•~r ~/!TM:`\;'~~.`:~¢: i_'\Il'.. SIN A-`~;~~ G_~~y"yL 1~~'wt n ,'J , V ~~F~~kA -.r'YxI . .:i/ ~v' ~T`. Y° ~ .'~.J~t C~1\ /3 }rt. .flr r J•'. 1 ord.-:.\~~y: :.7 i 1 ~ ar, ~a •{k ;yf L r ~ j d yr- t.'.,: ( 7 is • GASGAOE CLUD ~y ; ~ - ~ ~ e:'~: ;,r .`-='-d~',•~ i ` ` '7 '.v; is frJy ^,^";.,^y ••:L~~ :.5 ' liar., \"T ?;t~l•:.e. \ j:• .t~; i'- •T'•r;T 'l f 11 '•.u 14-'t.:l l.._.C,~~-S~ <z t~-~w dx _ 'ti_~ry~ S~: kFy rd' / _ L.s~~ a-t':rl~ Y,:~jV '~t'~i+' .~11.W ~i'•~a` •,y r1a c,jL+' c; ;r1.' ''-!!e ':C.. e ~ ,o y. t~l, ~ ~ • ~J' ~'rr.,. ~ ~ • I - - ~ LYE. `..0 >[..U ; :h PLAZA DUtL01NG ~ _ .I_'_ _ • l.i [='z c~.~: LATERFORO i._•,w..•r~ 2:-5-~ ' ~O•rvC ! 1 I 1i-_l.. a ~ ~LAT9 I~.'100 _ "I ~ 1-.. ~eTAn- . Arcrtf( aS c 9 ; :1::'.. ~ ~ ~ SuD TOTAL ~ 22. 3G0 ~ j :{;'~~~'"~'yi'_~'j'I>'~ ~ ~ GORNEF2 S70NE DI.,IILOING Car+.:r.•. 1rsS-',` ~p• *~~s~.•~.~4i TER2AGE tdING - ~3 d~.iN I Fa~ona _ ~ 5u0 Tol ~ FLODR PLAN El, - ~,~.t~ } ~ 1 r _ -"~i: y`A_': ' . i~ L9~ '^'9:'L i~" • ~ fLAT fIAT FLAT fIAT faw MUtle FLAT W Vtt WT H WT ZO WT M Wpb ~ V W Ym a1Y -~7, Wra S.4 + ~ pp~~ ~~..1` . FLAT w ,,,,.we iTn X • IWrro ' ~ ~ I w y,ll tl TPM wsstl _ -_J-_. Taw «aw.. ~ W~17 , ' FLAT _ WOK . ' ~ W~It I' ® x ' 1!.~..~II!!. J1 / ~ ' - _ saa WT I~ • ~ ~1 , Un1T i WT L LT tlT ~ n nT pia i ie~ _ W1 M ~ f U°.;a~ t 2NA . I ~ atlr e WT b WT T7 WT k. WT h IJAT H ll1T I~ UFtlT~p WT M LINT b -I U,tlT ~ WT O I U'~T WT 6 aoa ' • I TTY ~ ~ I•_ / c ~ / WATERFORD • . TOW MOU5G9 '130• SLATS ~ ~ MOO . ~ GIRGULATION ~ • ~ Au' ` OALGON7 ~ ~ Ma • I y O•~ ~ I I ' ~I SUBTOTAL 2;i. JGIL ' /'na~IFD 4T/1~IF Pd III f11P1/_ • . I I]:HI:I~.: I .n'i,'l.l~~'. _ 1 1' _ . , . it I l 1, ~ ~ 4`' • •I v9: . UtLT J_J•1 Net/St TAN M0..o6 T,%N (AJI IIAY W~Z7 llyl 20 I~OtAiG ' ~ ~ TAN NWS~ lWT >t WT 17 )E GLUO ' - 7, I , ,f.; I TAN2MOU~G ' ~ 'Si ' ~ ro.ri lame , rI. - - 32; J - - I • r ~ ~ s- ~ I-- wr ~T i wt 2 urr n n ~ . 11L_ v ~ti ~ I BUILDING "°T 10 ~T~'T'T ~ '''J'T w wr n (u1r i. uar a u+r ¢ a+T . urarw umr ~ umr a uur ~ unr v uur e ; ~.a . ;~,--Q - u_ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ - , 111 TOW MOU,''iC8 13100 1111 ' ' . u'mn ,cur ' 7ER~AGI'_ WING • J I . . • ' F ' I ~ I ~ I Il~llli~lll~ll I u - ' ~I~I~!~x ~ III I II.II. 111 I hill tl~ill~l•.,•Iilq,ll II . c 4 .,L'~..I ;II`!I ~j,' ~I ~ _ I r ii ' ' --~~I lilu t : i l~l I Lll~~l~~~~l~~j ~ll~11~, .-ifi i1.1~*+~ • -~ir`~z~ -7--~~' ~~~~~~G7L7~-?-'-•~ ~ r~.~1r7~i.~~I~~~'~~il~~ ~~i~l~_~`,~I. ~~1{Tf,, a•n _ L!'L I ~ '.I 1. II i ~ i ~i~~l~ ~I (j 1 j~ L. ~a.1.~' psi : u+.. r.. ~ ~ ~ _ ! i ~ ~-I `I~ I~ tL'~~~ ~ ~`t, i. ~ \ ~ ~.,r~~ Jf'I x.e 11'.! ~5~~ ' ~~f,1~, ~ cc=~~~ I~I - I.I fl TI~~„~.,,.~t~ il,~. .IE a I ~.'•'~,,:-'^>~~.~~/i;%.'~. ) :]VI n• _ ~ ~""'c"" ~ r t...aw y ..r w7*'.:wJ"~'~1 ~ u.rt ~ rrl 4 ~t~~-"T ~ 1 I• 1_' . i I\\ I . IiF. CORNERSTONE 1 • PLAZA BUILDING - •I • - . . _ • Y NORTH ELEVATION _ k • ' I ~ ` _ ~ ~ ~ I III~II'1 IIII ~ I t" 'VIII ~ I IT i I T - T I I1~n., i;lifj illll~ I II~ I I~ .tt: ~ ~ I ~ ~1 "~i t 11~ II. i ~I 'I ~i ,e III' Ii-- i~S 1( I%~I~i IiY l .I~`~.I" 11 ~fIllll ~ .I~ - 7 j I I~~11(~ r 1~ I ~IIIC`i:uu_~:It~i I I_rll;",n--nrnrnnnnn~r~JC!~uOL~]kQ~+.irt.~uQ!~ 1~GGQ r-__-3'G]]~QOtiC+ Q I $r yt` , ~.0.~ F'~`~1.'(~~ I n ~r $,~1 f-f (-1 I ~ I-T ~ __..t-~-r--^~~ -f~`~...C~^•I,~. ~.~v_ 1 - - -11~ Ntc'I _ 1 ~I~ r~>a I~ _.I ~ 1~1 I I !k='~~;t„„-:-~11 i I ! ~ " ~ ; • I ~ • CORNEA STONE / 4 ' ~ WASERFOAD,. • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2: SOUTH EIEVATION~-~-~~ I • i _ , • ~l- { is y ~IL~ ~{D'Cf'WC.' 1 I i~ / rte, ' - r~~ ~ ~ 1 Q ;s ~1 ~ I L-•--'?I WAT'ER~ORD . CORMERS70NE ~ ~~'i . i ~ {11 LAC ltri t-tf C +~r^J.~ t~~~ '7 ((''~~Q.'~ ~IU~~ - ~ I 1 p~,U.NIr-[.~• 9 S~j(~ 1:~ir~lu 1'do'~ D .,Tn 1, ~ ~ II , I l ~ ~~I i • ~ ~ Y y~ ~ . a T,~~ . WATERFORQ~4,^-i~~~ ~~,rr~~ ~ . ~ SOUTH ELEVATION . . yr, ~ ~ ~-~1 ~~_~:~',=`~'~-,may , 1 -7 i• LJ. - . ~ ~ , , ....411 ~1 ~ ~ ~ --~I - .i x • j1~8~ a~ j~ n f~11-,~'~r7~~ n~ kl ~ 1 5 r ~ ;i-t ~ ~ ~~~t ate- r~~c ?o n~ ~ i S~f t~ _ , , _ 1 ~ CORNERSTONE ~ WATERFORD ~ EAST ELEVATi~N j~~~~-~~~ ~ INTERJTATE ~ ~ " 1 I _ _ \-r• ~ I ~-N S~'29'~ ~_~v~S1 !i0'29' Ei29 66' / 229.6E L~ / , 1 1 I' _ ~ i 1 ~ _ . , ~ r ....I _ w _ _ - > eo JP ~G n ,I e i a' u ~ i5 ie ,r T"-" it .o:,..e • . v , _ _ _ . : • I r' _.J ~J ~ ~i ~ ~ .k ~ : ~ { ~ ~ ~ a -p-~" U1 I I .6 ' ~ {.i~~ J a e j E _ i ~ ..i: I a a:e~ F N rt, ~ it i« r ~ ADDITIONAL ~ s 1 I .1 j i ~ a0' n7 R I Gu 7- OF - Vll-Y I r ~i ; •i ~ v 5 i~ r e-., ~ _ ~ -'•y / / / / / ' + O/fib S\ U ~ , i /r.~ ~ I 0 / ~ ~ i \ ! / ~ /i R~F PLAN • ' I < 1 =c~~ w.v ~ ,W r.... u•~s:u~a 'i..~r'~SST r.47.4,~rte. ~e.~ea vu ' Frontage Road ~ . Waterford - - ~~~y~. _ . :1~- ~ ~ ~ L V i ~ .~L'.~ 9 ~ _ - .C7 'r ~ . ' - t ;i;._ ~ ~ oO Legend {Estimated Quantities) t _ ~ ~ f ~ Existing Trees e - - - - l_.~• , ~ a . / ~ withOUt snbwdows ' - C Cornerstone ~ o J r CY° ~ Patmore Ash . (see sheet L-t) _ , ~ ~ O O ~ 4f~' O 13 - 3• Ca6pet _ ~Qa ~ ~ ! Colorado Blue Spruce - 1 >>-s•.zo-ia.zo-tr.tt•i4'wgn • 0 ti.N °o~ Quaking Aspen 0 i _ _ _ h 780 2.5' CaLper. SO% Ckxnps v ° ~ ' ° ({b ~e~~~ Canada Red Cherry O Qo G r(Q,+y ` 12 - 3" CaL ckmps n ~ e. ~ ~ oo ' o ~ t.:, y .,t Shrubs ~ ~ 1 ~ O ~ p °OQ 1 gyp/ Q 400 - 5 GaAOn V f • VU~d - ~ { 1 L l ~ / l1JJ LLU / \ _ ~_~a I I 1 NOC~T4-I ELEVAT I CN ~ i I ` e - ~ ; . , ~ ~ ~ . I © ~~1 ~ : ,l ~li t S !~.1 \ _ ~ 1 ~~~~-I. TfJ~ i.~.~l-i ~ ~ ~ I j _ _ ~i , i ~ _ 011 I D ~(-~°l~ ! LJi~, I' L ,z~_=,- - _ _ f~ C~ I ~ CCU l~ CQ _ ~ i ~ i it y! 4 f`~`I~1[~ L~ ~~.1:_~ ~ . ~ ^L~ Q €r~i Q ~ ^Ir Q ~=t._.... ® I r-~- - ~L.~. m ~ I ~ 6 ~~~P~~ Ill ~ ! , i r •J ~S'. ___.1 i ~ 1 _ ~ I, - _ / (111 ~ ~ . ~ .III I I . r f r= ~ ,4,, 1 ~ GI~?1~i1Ti ~ ~L~I1i~I,~l~!i':~ L..' ...-I I' - r-- ~ ~ ~ {~:II11111III~~~ { I t , ~ ~liil~~iirlli~` GrllViii ~ ' I L ' • ~ r= I ~ aj ~ I IiIIIIflLiilli ~ f I ~ E~~ ~ r~ Vi1i~~!!If~lili ~ ~W~ M' ~ I- - {iiiil,{l4filllfl ((((((I~~~~~~^^^~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .i 3 F.. I~d~~t• ~ -.o. oec~ln~ l ~ . ~`~i~ Pte. 12a'.O• / \ \ T.O. Gd X61\3 y D I~~('~~;}11~~~~~r~1~ ~ ~ ~ ~_L~~.~1~ ~ 1 _ ~ T r-i rt ~ ~ ~ I ~ 3 ~ r k I~' I . ~ ~ •14.8 vng. II ra:T~oVH6 ~.e~.. O?LK~ ~ I ryf.~t/ar~ ~I 17 U4J IT LOiaR. I(rj I _ OCLU• 'I ' p[v ~+lti P V LI IT as as. I.J ~ ~ wl•O ~a O?LK ~ 66o p.Lply 2~ uN IT =e ¢P Ali ! q..~ ~ I ' I 1 f ~rc~ .Fi,: -o~.:~R ' as c G,~ 'f}iR~ ~ i~~~a H6YOr.7 - '^~`(J 1.lCS J~Bcx~ . 'll-~~1 I I ~ 44 recva.,.I~F,.~~ ~ G~Icv-°"RK-I~C> ~-ev~le. 4 . _ - (1) t3UiL•UING SECTION . • %b ie4. y ' ~ 141.R Itts ~ ~ f ' {iND , ~ . . ~ i ~o I 'Y I ~ t ~Nlr GSM I r UNiY :as Tjr~.'n.l._ • ~ I . ~ . UNIY L.K ~/+A~' ? NP1.~ ~ r~Rl. IF1 V t'~OCM~- ' ,---------III ~b .T-~_. A U{.ll'f ~ ~ UNEK4~nTL0 ~ ~iaallrl. •.....,ri?~W41(I' l~W/L . _ ~l I i1 roo ' • Rso. raoM. _ ~f rvr~KTr~We... ~ . _ ~ . ~ 1 rig, . ~1, ~ ~;b~w'Y.~ 'y~ i~r i i~ I'. ~+~n 'aq.~~. ~ f' a4 y~.e Ali r ,I _ r • ~ - ' 1 q :f' ~ ry ` 4 T Tk y r i ~ ~ r 4 y ~ X F< " 7~~.b; .ice _ ._.i / / ``4 ~ ^ - _ ~ t . 4 . it I _ . ' /j ~ LZ - I _ • u4.o r I ~j/ nKKarµi~ . _ _ u.~ i,~ ' ~rrT •+.eT f + + c.nr~ ~1..i~.i1i v.ln~ I W I~. ~ r . _ _ - - - - - - ~ _ I r ~ ? vulr _ . 7 .a YI o~rlcr ~I- wl•I~w ~..IIiH.~~ trci{' uwaat clsc~. aav~ 1~ P I . . I _ I . _ . w . _ ~ I ? YNR . TNa ~ ~ MW. rT.a/Y+. I fi~LIGINY LLviV v i I _ e ~ ? vulT vla ~ rrr/?aTr u.+i 1 ! f I(I, y ~ I ~ 30 BUILDING SECTION ~I Y YMIT ~-1~ ulrwrMV Ws~Y II r+.-ids - r1T ~ ~ % \ 1 1 . - ` - I ~ ~•r+ir calcnirL Mr wo I I - r_I 6 YI~IR /~Q 4I•HD~sL~r9l W.4K rrR K11J4 OiL K` MIO.r LI•r• , ' . J{ I 1 l ~_J I i I ~ ''yI1 L UNIT /dG UNiv C.`//`TlD PrarINU LW{III ---r I i ' _ .~G I • ~ C uHIT ~I ~.p Dori RTY LING F,. 5"--f V a BUCLDiNG SECTION '/e' _ _ ? I f~ ~ HIT _ _ f .r., .+I. ~uil Ian IA.i{i~w ,,u rllu i~Ir14~Y+~d1~Ri,n~Y,1Y1111.'~.~jyy~ 4 S~~ ~(`~~7G ~ ~ ~ • ~.a. cwb. _.J kwTeF+ropc/ . ( 1 r ' ~ t ~ ~ ~ x _ . I ~ f ~ st'n'" : r't' 7l ~ M L f f ~ 6 Co !i• 44 ~ •L \/'1•rFL44'1' Of,vte ?L•~`( •i~ •i I ~ . ~ 4 ?N F- /sE:.a:a~ rte, 1 ~ ' w 1 u •ry r.,, ~WWV ~ T •tf.!• r14 i2. \ ti! O N 77~~ _ ~ ~i / ~s•i G.• ~.i /f 'r J~_\~„'\~.` _--~_.F~t`. frxt..•' -era ?•w ---f- J~f-~-'~~~` n?a."w.w Dx4:~? ~ ..'Ti,~.~ BaCo~r-t~•'~~ "°1' V tur.: ~ 1 ~ V ~ ~ '---~a; .,::°~i f ru:.n.. ~ .1x4: WIHG ~:sw/1rt4. i~•:rer"'"'~~ w..+r•e. s~.si •k rte..: E..n.rv=•T-o• ..r,.. \ .•o...• '/!try•M 1 j ~;~1 Lo.O Mtftlu M1L rwe.~s tom, ~~'N IDN DN r~-~...,~, ~l ~ r C ~ ~GIO In ~°l! ~.~.I'Ij 1 ii I ~ iLLo ~ aOp• ' ~ex,«7u2r, svvsl'rrr: .y....oa.DS..w 1• . ~~no.e~4.~` Dryer-Ft;~~ ~~•i '/r.~//~ ~ R 11 ~ i~6 , f ~rh /lll!'Ti~,}yj~ ) ~ ~•tiii//,.1A~7! ~ . /1Kr. ~ SNTRR.I.i.W.1V iF,cm J"b,Mx,4. ~1T ry, \ ~ axItiTl2r. •rTiw.l, N b @ p C7 I7 C7 C7 b p ~ ~ ' ~ 1 ~nT I x/e.,...«r /N,40 W4 N/WMT /•111.1 ' ~•btisrrs ~ TE~rt,E. WING ~ w.ve•~ I NiKTH- _.cL"~.. ;A. a/ . - - J(}K(F~., Westhaven Dtlve E~' ~ 1}~' \ , . ~ n%vel~ •r~os ~ . /a~~_ _ _ _ _~1'~"1~-, ~ ~ i See sheet L•2 5e..r nct,~+T~pe;a ~ J! Corn^~stCnC i !I ' Ill~w ~.IAW. /~NgAT11.t7cM 1 I MNi'e4 N1.11+9 C'f1iP ~r~ ~ ~L,,f'~-f~ ' 1 wand I ~ /~j~i i n. I I,; I.1 7-_ _r-_ -_--_r___'~-_-. ~il lfl'I~ ~11 li ~~'~.____~I~7 _ - ~ N~ \ O I-. i=~ll`~ 1" " I ~ . ~ lid, ~.\~t~ I~ l~l~/1 =<"1 ~ 1 (I~;~C.~,. _t\\` ~ Y =1i1~~J ~iiun~ TII . . SI. l.. J t , ~ - t.. ~ /.1/ ;1:.. ~ }~,~f i.1K, !ti'•I%~" -1(11-1t~~L`I~jtlt S' w~~' ~ ..`C~i'~'' ~ ~ ~ / ~7~~ U®~toN NN6 ~ t ~ `~--_--_--9--~--~. _--m--Q--..--.~ I Preliminary. I .,t.~.- '1 i. ~,.',d;i . YD1E WI YM.c.q M.4^ ~r D+CrnM.Wr / } a ; r: - ~ ~ LANDSCAPE PLAN ~ r i. TMtK. YMn .PV.OVW 1771~f1. I ,:gyp. ~ 1 • 1 1 o r' it at tv y r t rt, ^ d ' ~ I _ Terraco Wlny I'~ w ~ 1~ 1 1 t , " ~ r 1 ° I Scale: 1'=16'-0' North I ~ 1 I I 7 'W~-1•'I.wsrN.iC.• Q j`.. ~ ~ A .v~y~^~ ~ . .....w .lnlla'W rv.14. _ ~Ilafar~MYtal~ - -y' a Iv w..~x . u ~.I Od.'~s?~t'i.~N0.L~1+--;..: ~ ~,.~..~'.uRwswi.n++-w..~ w r.....,. .n i n I u 1:a..:... _ 3.r2Scq::,t hq, i IN , ~ ~ i, - 1 ~ -^-y ' ' tI ' +Ilni:N; P \T~~.yJ.:~ ~ Its I~ ' v.>r.~'vr* i=.rs~or~. •EMP{.c~'~ Ft-{p{or~- ~ ~ n t;.1 ' i . ~ • i~ - ~ I ~ ...y: ' , ~ ! ' k~. i I I }J~y~ . : '7T ur--}r~ ~~i:r - - I { ~ Y1 ` ~ ~ 1 1.~--..t-.G~~ +i.-+-.~-.- j .{.1 1t' ~ '«""__....st.~ .._`l .jt f~~ ~I ___I.1-.":. i 2.~~ • ~1.l t'.I f.~ 1 +.~T' 1}"f~i'1;~-•'+..•ai~' 1 oM ~~`~r` _ t _ ~ ~ . . s•~, ~ - " ' ' EX57+ty 1-k ~i+H ha" . _ c J . • LEVEL 60 - w:c: r~~io'-o•~ - . ti„•?3T,{.,vt:N DIVE ' ~',-ar;--~o_`~_-za__-;'acs---------~~+ . PA^..YING ~~ByY~'i~l,. '~IR~: t' It _ ty. f. ZS I,UT. C.~ ~ ~ .....;L' Y.O P.AA 1 I' p~ ~ - t . t Y iiii3i;~;;' 1 Yh . ~~_'?.i:~y ~ : 3 ~ ~ ~~LO'«D~' • ~ L__-,~~~ • s ~ h • _ L. ry r ~k2'?~: f. , ~ : ~ 1 ~ , '?'1f . i _ ~P~~... .ii ri~ ~..0 _ a ra••S=s• . . _ i ~ 5i _ . ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~Y I' ~ i; C~ 1 . - 1. . ~ . x,~ LEVEL 38 y=t -:r~ r ~ 1 ' ~f--S 1 ~ ~ 1..~ 1~ . T~t~~ ~ ~ - ~Iw I r } a, 1 .,t- _ _z , - ~r--~ ~ rat i' , ~ ~ ~ 1+~-±~-}-p.~-rr~~ ! u ti _ _ . ~ .r GJ~ ~QO~ 4, Y • ~ • ~ - . la;t.'s:.;~ai .•1.. ~u 1114.1 1lltt, I,llltl•llll•1 1111,1,1 .~~~~-~~I` ~ •tll(t! ! liiltl,i(II II !I 1`'= # i (~i I ~j~lyy ~It~ 1 ~I ~ ~ .t~tn ~ ! ;;t 11111 ~ . • ~ S:^..5 rilr~:'."ri ~ I~: ~ ! 1 ~~Y ~ ~ I I -7J 1 1 { 0111111 ~ ~';x:s v. - ,•r.kti+~j-J ! ~~!1(!(1 il: _ ~ d~ . ! ~ I 1 T •E -r;~•=~-, - SAE ~ ! III ' ! ~ . ( ! 1 lilt i t 1` 1 I ~i . ( 1 ! ~ II,~,~I !~Il1111~;? ! ,tl;!,I I ~tl I 1 ~ _ = I ! I , 11 1I It~';`d y`.~~i I~,. ! I It ~M.4 1~t- 1{ t 1 1111 ,1~1 lttlti f~tl ~t ttl~tl!! = tll ii;ii~!,i~,~~l„- !i 1 •~I.( i..i ii l;ll ,1,_`11~"rt' . ~ . ~ . _ ~ ~Y LEVEL 102 + sha ' . , -r L ~~11141111,111111lllllilllt 11111!till.IiI411i4S44,4i1t1411ttit~`!!11!I11~ tlll Ills 41!11 III111111111 11 ;~'rG ~ TF-•D T'F+C. T~-L Tr-C. TFL -:.-L 'F.•G ~.:rS 11 X- [9 TGG "1~• D ?~•G P•II P/ V( i!' 111'1' 1 -!G 7¢•G. T°~-G TJrL TF.•G T ~ I..L 7[••L `t•G~ ~ ~ i ; ! 1 i ~ ! ! I II ! ~ i ~ I '>'L~ TrL Tr..L ?IL'L G~ 1!, ~ .~i 1~11~1~,1 I :~'S~ - `:~•~1.111 Ltl ll i~tl i~~un., t!!t!ill,'1!~!tl,!tt,ltlllllil!II!!li 11V _ ~ ~l444f 14f 4 ( - ~ ' ~ . ~~y .LEVEL 92 •~-~g~a~., _ `Y . f- ri- L F T>`i. ~Z~S fn Th A. ' %"^L' .C~~ ~iai~s.+aawadt!:pM•i..ny:~i_ , .dtr; . n ..+JV'.:•a i :rr:., ~ ~ : a syt,n': r= prey?'.'yy Fly ~ ...~1.,.KP`fslSB.~ 'rF ~ 'rF-~°` TF~` ~t`•^ -rF Tr p. rF,o. ~ F A ' i-~ _ i ? , ~ . ; ~ 1 1, !~A: 11 ~ t ; Tc• ~ Tt:.,•. . . ; t~`~ _ . wp f:~~~,`" LEVEL 82 -~~socs'h - Y'} ~ ~ 't+ Yt 7,•I~f try l;' t a•• ~ l ~ j••. . !1!111! Illllillil!i11IIIl~I;II. l ttt Y4'I~'~~`~•V11{ ii I 1 1 '1 litlll~till Iltl fi! ~ „ ~ t`~ ' l t I1 I ~ 1 ~ I .Iy~a y~T - S:-)~~ 1 I! 1. ~ I ~ ~ 1• • ~ ~IIY1t1V11» ftr.»_..~r,~ta!.==..- _;..~F-i ....~;>.ca..-: . 1„'.i:t its-~ ~ 4 ~ _ ~ t 1 I 1 I'1-- I ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I I t I ' ; til,itl Du-IJ (~~r'' ;~5~ Cu•~~ (Wig ~!i!;~j I1'It t t;t~ li'i~iV'•it'tljt~; „ \ i > (I it ' I ,:l i. ~,11~ ,l j, 1. II ~ y~ y?li li!I`i~•~I: ~ 4 11 . t •t ttt~ litlt '11111 I '~~1!I+il 'tI'i1 " aG ' LEVEL 102 . . ~ liitll!Iil lill~lllllll'Ililiill I il'1I~,i(,•i~~tit,;~~l,l ~I!711i it•i i, I~ii~?i~ill'~:i t"l a 11111111 t,11• ~ I ~ . Yx ~ ~ ~a tY-.. i, `t~-•~-~ ,j- `j--.~ ~~:•~'ll~ _ ~i.,;!~~!~!li _ ~~~1i~i ~ I:Itp~liP ~ tell " ~ I~~i~l~_' ~1lli~"ilf"•~t..r~ ~ vr~:<r~"i':~^'! ~4.. L l ~ ~~L. Ili,lliiili 111~1•itllli-~~li ~ "'f;~ 'iy,lli'~ill~~li~il' "tail+l~l'tl~ '!'~Ii1!Il1~~ililli~lll'i1~I~lllli11111111~ •c7 LEVEL 92 •.n; `sF 1 l,. ~ _ _ fir. '~-s^ 'F-L 'F'~"• - I ! _11 1: - III t. tr ~ - ~~r 41 ~ : ~r~" i r~-_ - _ Mks {i `I ~ r:;>. ~ I r a ~ ' . - LEVEL 82 • ~ SCENARIO ~'2 • r . ~ SCHEDULE OF UNITS ~ . TR..- 34 ~.UtiITS . 15, 835 SQ FT ' e DU - 6 UNITS ~_';`~12~~275 :SQ FT ' • ~ ~y~ i . _ ~ , . RESOLUTION NO. 1 SERIES 1993 A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING A PUBLIC PLACE WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL FOR THE POSTING OF NOTICE FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS OF THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, AND OTHER BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND AUTHORITIES OF THE TOWN OF VAIL. WHEREAS, Section 24-6-402(c), C.R.S., as amended provides that local public bodies must give full and timely notice to the public of any meetings at which the adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, regulation, or formal action occurs at which a majority or quorum of the body is in attendance, or is expected to be in attendance; and WHEREAS, in addition to any other means of full and timely notice, the statute provides that a local public body shall be deemed to have given full and timely notice if notice of the meeting is posted in a designated public place within the boundaries of the local public body no less than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the holding of the meeting; and WHEREAS, the statute further provides that the public place or places for posting of such notice shall be designated annually at the local body's first regular meeting of each calendar year; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail now wishes to designate a public place within its boundaries far the posting of such full and timely notice to the public for meetings of the Town Council, the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Design Review Board, and other boards, committees, and authorities of the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: 1. The Town Council hereby designates the bulletin boards at the east and west entrances of the Town of Vail Municipal Offices as the public places for the posting of full and timely notice to the public as provided for in 24-6-402(1)(c), C.R.S., as amended. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of January, 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk c:wESO~uss.~ L ti LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT (the "License"), made effective the 15th day of November, 1992, is by and between TOWN OF VAIL, a Colorado municipal corporation ("the Town"), and VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC., a Colorado corporation ("Vail Associates"). WHEREAS, the Town owns real property described as Tract A, Vail Village 7th Filing, Vail, Colorado, within which is located an athletic field and a parking lot (the "Parking Lot"); WHEREAS, the Town desires to permit and license Vail Associates to use the Parking Lot during each ski season, subject nonetheless to the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits derived by the parties and terms, covenants and conditions set forth herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Term. The "Term" of this License shall commence on the effective date hereof and shall continue in full force and effect until revoked by the Town in accordance with Paragraph 4 hereof . 2. Grant n~ r,;cense. The Town hereby grants permission to Vail Associates to use the Parking Lot for automobile parking by employees and other persons during the period from November 15th of any year through April 30th of the immediately succeeding year during the Term of this License (the "Period of Use"). Vail Associates acknowledges that the permission granted hereunder is not exclusive in nature and that the public may, in general, also use the Parking Lot for parking of automobiles during the Period of Use. 3. Vail A~~Ociates' Oblicrations. (a) Vail Associates shall use of the Parking Lot in a careful, safe and proper manner and in compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. (b) During each Period of Use, Vail Associates shall be responsible for maintenance and administration of the Parking Lot, including without limitation, snow plowing, signage, towing of certain vehicles and trash collection. (c) On May 1st following each Period of Use, Vail Associates shall surrender the Parking Lot to the Town in good condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted. On or before May 15th following each Period of Use, representatives of the Town and Vail Associates, respectively, shall inspect the Parking Lot for any extraordinary damage to the Parking Lot occasioned by Vail Associates' use hereunder. 4. Termination. The Town shall have the right to revoke and terminate this License, with or without cause, upon 30 days' prior written notice to Vail Associates; provided, however, that the Town shall not revoke this License during any Period of Use. VAI shall have the right to terminate this License, with or without cause, upon 30 days' prior written notice to the Town. 5. Insurance. At all times during the Term of this License, Vail Associates shall carry and maintain, in full force and effect, at its sole cost and expense, the insurance coverages listed below. The Town shall be named as additional named insured as its interests may appear on such policies. Vail Associates agrees to provide the Town with certificates of insurance evidencing the policies upon execution of this License. - (i) Comprehensive general liability insurance in an occurrence format in an amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence, including the following coverages: contractual liability, personal injury, broad form property damage, independent contractors and premises operations. (ii) Comprehensive automobile liability insurance on all Vail Associates-owned vehicles accessing the Parking Lot, in an amount of $500,000 combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage, per occurrence. 6. Indemnitv. Vail Associates agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Town, its officers, directors, agents, servants and employees of and from any and all liability, claims, liens, demands, actions and causes of action whatsoever (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising out of or related to any loss, cost, damage or injury, including death, that may be sustained by the Town on account of Vail Associates' use of the Parking Lot hereunder. 7. Entire Agreement. This License contains the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to the entire subject matter hereof, and there are no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, oral or otherwise, not embodied herein. Any and all prior discussions, agreements, proposals, negotiations and representations relating thereto are merged herein. S. No Recording. This License shall not be recorded or otherwise made of record in any state or county. 9. Miscellaneous. (a) If any clause or provision of this License shall be held to be invalid in whole or in part, then the remaining clauses and provisions, or portions thereof, shall nevertheless be and remain in full force and effect. TOV-PARK.LIC - 2 - December 8, 1992 ffinldocs\contract (b) No amendment, alteration, modification of or addition to this License shall be valid or binding unless expressed in writing and signed by the parties to be bound thereby. (c) The captions of each section are added as a matter of convenience only and shall be considered of no effect in the construction of any provision of this License. (d) If any party hereto shall bring any suit or action against another for relief, declaratory or otherwise, arising out of this License, the prevailing party shall have and recover against the other party, in addition to all court costs and disbursements, such sum as the Court may adjudge to be reasonable attorneys' fees. " (e) This License shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. (f) Any and all warranties, provisions, rights and obligations of the parties herein described and agreed to be performed subsequent to the termination of this License shall survive the termination of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the respective dates set forth below to become effective as of the date of this License. VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC., TOWN OF VAIL, a Colorado corporation a Colorado municipal corporation By: By; Title: Title: Date: Date: TOV-PARK.LIC - 3 - December 8, 1992 tbnldocs\contract MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Board FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 16, 1992 SUBJECT: A sign variance request for Carton's Saloon at Crossroads Shopping Center. Located at 143 East Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Garton Development Planner: Shelly.Mello ?MC:4 fS~Xf! _y44]Tw rl:•~ `YY.•: T:•ti5. ~ . nT~.rti~iry:;..:......;.;...wY.iT••:?•T:~v:^:::1::•>'•}::^.if~:" ..........:•?:::!KV rq%VJ ~•i>T. {~/:tK:• :•:J'~i::::.~:.: }}i:a.:iii::::iiTiif•... v::::::::: i:::: x:: :v :.....................t......:::.............:.....:. :.M..}rv . x'3 ...................................::w....••v; iy.: is^:';•;: t•`r:..} v.:t:v.: nFv: x::::.:.:.w.•.:::.v:w:::............ ...........::"i•}::i:;:i:;;isi::::iti::::i!+4i:t!:isii.:•:ii.i4i:iiii::.::<?~:~:~ii:::ii:::::: n:4iii: i:.i; ~:::.i::::::: ~.::::::::::::.~:::::.::::::n~:::::. tvi.: r:: ~.v:i: •..::iv........:. ...........x: ;X:::.:u::::::::i{%::•i}:•}iii+:~•.:....::::::nv: •.::.v::n :X..v:.W.n..A.w:+v+e.:::.t.ri.::n•.vri.xri.Y.} n....; ...::i•::: is ~ :v:;. i4iiii::~ ii:::i.::::::::::::::::::::: n::: ny:.:'4ii:~ ~:v i:.. nv • : nv .v. rn..:.:::::~:.: x.... :::.:x:::.•::lrw.$.•.::.•.v.•:ii}}k•:.vii•Yi: iiF:iitiNA4: wvR:{L•f •/wc:i4{.iwY:'rri:i6:•:44rXA•.v.:iiri4wtivxLfrvrlr+.vly I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Carton's Saloon is located in Crossroads Shopping Center on the southwest corner of the South Frontage Road and Village Center Road with access from Village Center Road via a stairway. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for an awning sign which is not hung from a projecting structural element of the exterior wall of the individual business or organization as required by Section 16.20.090 of the Municipal Code. The sign may be up to 10 sq. ft. based on the code and the applicant is proposing a 9 sq. ft. sign. An additional wall sign of 8 sq. ft. has already been _ approved by the DRB. II. FINDINGS .AND STAFF RESPONSES Before the Board acts on a variance application, the applicant must prove physical hardship and the Board must find that, A. There are special circumstances or conditions applvina to the land. buildings. topo~raphv, veeetati~n. Sign structures or ether matters on adiacent lots or within the adiacent rieht-of-way which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the Sian in n_ nestion: provided., hpwever, that such special circumstances-or conditions are unique to the particular business or entemrise to which the applicant desires to draw attention and do not apply eenerally to all businesses or enterorises. Staff Response: The staff feels that there are special circumstances related to the location of this business. The entrance to the saloon is not directly on a pedestrian way and is difficult for a pedestrian to see. A visitor to this business can access the saloon via a stair adjacent to the Crossroads parking booth or through the parking structure. Due to the safety issues, the access via the stairway is 1 preferable. The proposed sign would be located at the top of the access stair and would provide clear identification to pedestrians. The staff feels that the location of the business constitutes a physical hardship. B. That special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone privy to the applicant. Staff Response: The special circumstances were not created by the applicant. Other retail operations in this location have experienced similar visibility problems. The PEC recently approved a variance to allow for an expanded stair in this location in an effort to improve the visibility of this retail space and safe access. C. That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the puroose of this title and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residins or working in the vicinity, to adiacent property, to the neighborhood. or to the public welfare in general. Staff Response: The proposed sign is in compliance with the intent of the sign code and is not detrimental io the persons residing or working in the vicinity. D. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. Staff Response: The staff feels that a sign located at the top of the main stairway on the awning, as proposed by the applicant does, not depart from the intent of the sign code. Staff believes it is acceptable to locate the sign at the top of the stairway so that it is adjacent to the business entry and provides suitable visibility for the business. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1 The staff recommends approval of the applicant's request to place a 9 sq. ft. sign at the top of the stairway on the existing awning as we believe it does meet the variance • criteria. We feel that if the findings have been met and the existing location of the business is a physical hardship. 2 ~...r. _ 4iti. _ 1 • ...1 ti is r7,., ah ' ~ . I ( ~r ` ".•~~w~I~ ii:~li?If-~I1S~'51111=1II111?11IlIplIllTtl.GIlll~ilffq~T~~II~IIII,fl1_IllCilllIll.:ll111=1fI}ICI~1ii~Ii.~j.~iliillll~r t~a[I~1~~= ti~ - ~ ~ ~ v- ~is- t? -.-1-_ v t~•~., ;.5 - _~-z~ ~ ' ! .i ff `i`~ ~ \-t r ~~e ~~~~ti~ ~i ~S-'rFr' } `y >~4r T ~ _.~S Y - (l r - y?~ 2 ~ .a 1~<~f. ~ •:`t 1 ~ L rY ~ { C ~t+ t i Y ~~Y ' _ _ - (ii. ~'r. - fir.: + 3„! ^ r ! ,r.?r _ I t. ^ ' ;i,.: .t a,~;<}e•t:oSS.~ts'. .u ..r..:: .~f-:~s. .a.~a'•=--r ,gam 4 :t%'%ii.. _ 6~ Kea ,4 ~ _ ~ ~ _ {~~-Ems,-~-1•: >:+~K~I ~sstlya~s . ~pM~.:':,_ ~ , ~ .I_ _~rz_j1mid:'LPl1v6Z.~.t.~.aW41..Mo?1LP_~. ~ Y - a~t~i~ ~1~ I,~~-mss: r.~-vaa. . 2'.~_ ~Jt a Y y,, 1. ..Y x ~aa Z t 1 1' Y 1!` tiY'.t t. ~ 'i ''',cy lc,. rtsS`J` ~ : i+~:s°s ~ ~ ~`~'~J-'.'fF ~~~•yEr J • r x . ~ r ~ 6 rte ~ ~ ~ t : ~Gt~ {y0'SG ~ ~ . 2. !R- Z . G7~~'r . _ ~ : lJ ' , ix~.. Y`.11-r' Y~.y ^,w S~jYi ~ pfj R J:MK h~ ? ~{.'t. Lt rv-~ }c 5 ~s xa. 1. ~1'1 i~ - , ~ t g - ; J. tL.~+P. r; n°"i .;F,i - 3 cTiy, r t x . it _ _ ~ i ~.r y , x , .:1 r, ;•~4 e. Sr~~,I f yo~ ~d' :~'ri~-+ ~ '~-~?s t~ Y ~r %~+:r ~"r~ ~ ;~'f3 - - - i - _ ~ . . f"-~ f ` _i •-r-t. jF~~t~''e`~,,a Sy~t. ~{rr j~'Z:i~} ~~ry:~ .,e. ~ia~ r..t..r ~4., t. ..:.LJ~..1 •I.~~~G~~1t~D•~OG~'~' . •1 •t ~ ! •'M _ T A~1 ~T 5~ irY Yy~.'i. 'FY L! _-i ~11t ~ ~ f ~}3; ` ~ ..:0 1.~ • ' .l ~ ~ Yi ! 'l"4L,VY 4 ti L~ f. ~'3 ~ v4CI~t{ ~ t~ .tg S ~ 4 • C t I ~ . r ' ~ r ~ f 3 t K a, ~+e< i ~ ~ Yi ^v S *.p Ct lC. ~ ~ j...r i • ' i •t.i-''/ I +t w~-h~. y~f~.£r~h'tSc~Y. i~F~Ka+~'~~`?~ a"+X`c~.~~a ~ t~ i~~ 'i ; i - ~ ~-~ra'~~ri~ z~.,:c~~~ttrx7kp'4~• ~ .~f.,"~+~i°~~R.,~'s~n'S~?f_ s ~ ! . s-ti v- ~ . ~ i v`~~l'~~~ ~!+'~'4+•r~` F,r` 3 a r r;y * t-*r,, ~ i - . .y ~ . i . i . . . r J. t s c f-t. ~},'i. .Fj~ ti y ~ r - f : ~ _ i - ~ w` •'S,+~s~si Rr r3t~titi4yt•+,i ~i'.~'Y~Y bra L I~~ ~ r a ~ r ' ' •F! ~ r. ~ . ~ •n.. ai a.d.. r••a. r...~ i.. illy, f- •X+F y ~i ~1 k Y,, fi 2 . ' ~ t I s+c~_-'~3iblrclll_'f~!r+!".•~~¢;, 4GY.PLi GaAE~ _ I11-~•1c~~k?t71 A-~'~ awn: _ - ~ - ~ - .