HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-12-07 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
~~~~8~
~'LNES®N6ll y ®ECEItl9®E~ ! y 1.7.73
7:30 9N T®!! C®9.!lNCBL CF9~?~ABERS
AC~EN®A
1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the November 2, 1993, November 9, 1993, and November 16, 1993
Evening Meetings.
3. Final Adoption of the Town of Vail Cemetery Master Plan.
4. Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section
18.24.065 and 18.26.045, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, setting forth new procedures
for exterior alterations or modifications of buildings in the Commercial Core I and Commercial Core
II Zone Districts; and providing details in regard thereto.
5. Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance rezoning 7.710 acres from Agricultural
and Open Space, Section 18.32 to Low Density Multi-Family, Section 18.16 located between Tract
C, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch and Parcel B. Applicant was Town of Vail/Nail Housing Authority.
6. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section
18.04.170 and Section 18.58.020(C) -fences, hedges, walls and screening, of the Municipal Code
of the Town of Vail; and providing details in regard thereto.
7. Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1993, an ordinance making Supplemental Appropriations from the Town
of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, The Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Police
Confiscation Fund, Heavy Equipment fund, West Vail Debt Service Fund, and Vail Marketing Fund
of the 1993 Budget and the Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the
expenditures of said appropriations as set forth herein; and setting forth details in regard thereto.
8. Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance rezoning Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village
3rd Filing from the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district to the Primary/Secondary
Residential and Single Family Residential zane districts. Applicant: Leo Payne:
9. Resolution No. 16, Series of 1993, a resolution to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement
between the Town of Vail and the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, for Animal Control Services.
10. Pineridge Townhouses Sign Variance Request.
11. Adjournment.
NOTE UPCOMING Ii~EETING START TIMES BELOW:
~ ~
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORIf SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 12/1/93, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.NI. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAfIhIBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAfL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 12/21/93, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.I~I. INI TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE (FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 12/21/93, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
C:VIGENDA.TC
~s
f'
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
~'Q.D~S®~1~, ®fECEI~I~~~ 1993
7.30 FP.~. 9Ni T®V C®4111VC~1~ C~IAhid~ERS
~X~~,P?®fE® ADEN®~
7:30 P.M. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION.
Kristan Pritz
7:35 P.M. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the November 2, 1993, November 9,
1993, and November 16, 1993 Evening Meetings.
7:40 P.M. 3. Final adoption of the Town of Vail Cemetery Master Plan, for the
Andy Knudtsen cemetery to be located on the upper bench of Donovan Park.
Sherry Dorward Applicant: Town of Vail.
Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify the Town of
Vail Cemetery Plan. (Note: No site visit has been scheduled, but
if any Council members would like to visit the site, please see the
vicinity maps and site plan on pages 12 and page 17 of the
report.)
Backaround Rationale: The effort to master plan a cemetery for
the Town of Vail began several years ago. Staff has worked
closely with the neighbors, the Cemetery Task Force, and
consultants over the last eighteen months and there is a general
consensus of support for this plan. The Planning and
Environmental Commission reviewed the master plan on
November 8, 1993 ,and voted 5-2, recommending approval of the
plan.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval.
8:25 P.M. 4. Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance
Shelly Mello repealing ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 18.24.065
and 18.26.045, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, setting
forth new procedures for exterior alterations or modifications of
buildings in the Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II Zone
Districts; and providing details in regard thereto.
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance
No. 4, Series of 1993, on first reading.
Backaround Rationale: Over the past 18 months, the PEC and
staff have worked together to clarify and revise the section of the
zoning code which addresses exterior alterations for Commercial
Core I and II (The Village and Lionshead.) The changes which
are proposed include changing the application dates for the bi-
annual submittal, as well as including exterior dining decks and
roof line modifications in the exterior alteration process. The
remaining changes serve to further detail the application materials
and the review criteria. Please see the memo to PEC dated
January 25, 1993, and revised February 8, 1993, and the
corresponding meeting minutes. The PEC voted 6-0 to approve
these changes at their meeting on February 8, 1993.
1
8:55 P.M. 5. Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance
Andy Knudtsen rezoning 7.710 acres from Agricultural and Open Space, Section
18.32 to Low Density Multi-Family, Section 18.16 located between
Tract C, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch and Parcel B. Applicant was
Town of Vail/Nail Housing Authority.
9:00 P.M. 6. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance
Shelly Mello repealing and reenacting Section 18.04.170 and Section
18.58.020(C) -fences, hedges, walls and screening, of the
Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; and providing details in
regard thereto.
Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance
No. 33, Series of 1993, on first reading.
Backaround Rationale: The proposed change to the height
definition will not modfy the building height allowance, but will
serve to clarify this section. The change to the wall height section
of the Code is proposed in order to correct the height limit for
walls in the front setback. All changes to the Code are indicated
in bold in the ordinance. Please see the memo to the PEC dated
May 24, 1993, and minutes which detail the discussions regarding
the proposed change to the Code. This proposal was approved
by the PEC by a vote of 6--0.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 33, Series of
1993, on first reading.
9:15 P.M. 7. Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance
Steve Thompson making Supplemental Appropriations from the Town of Vail
General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, The Real Estate Transfer
Tax Fund, Police Confiscation Fund, Heavy Equipment fund, West
Vail Debt Service Fund, and Vail Marketing Fund of the 1993
Budget and the Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and
authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations as set forth
herein; and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance
No. 35, Series of 1993, on first reading.
Backaround Rationale: Council was presented with the majority
of the proposed Supplemental Appropriations when the 2nd
quarter report was presented on August 24, 1993. Supplemental
appropriations are required when, for unforeseen reasons,
expenditures will exceed Budget Appropriations.
Staff Recommendations: Approve Ordinance No. 35, Series of
1993, on first reading.
9:20 P.M. 8. Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance
Jim Curnutte rezoning Lot i, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing from the
Craig Snowdon Primary/Secondary Residential zone district to the
Primary/Secondary Residential and Single Family Residential
zone districts. Applicant: Leo Payne.
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance 34,
Series of 1993, on first reading.
Background Rationale: Please see the Community Development
Department memorandum to the PEC dated November 22, 1993.
On November 22, 1993, the PEC approved a minor subdivision
request and recommended approval of the rezoning request, with
conditions, by a vote of 4-3.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 34, Series of
1993, on first reading.
2
.Q
10:25 P.M. 9. Resolution No. 16, Series of 1993, a resolution to enter into an
Steve Thompson Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Vail and the
-Tom Sheely Eagle, State of Colorado, for Animal Control Services.
Tom Moorhead
Bob Slagle Action Reauested of Council: Consider Intergovernmental
Agreement, and, if acceptable, authorize Town Manager to enter
into agreement.
Backqround Rationale: The County Animal Control officers will
administer and enforce Animal Control Services for and within the
Town of Vail.
Staff Recommendations: Approve Resolution No. 16, Series of
1993.
10:40 P.M. 10. Pineridge Townhouses Sign Variance Request.
Jim Curnutte
Action Requested of Council: Approve or deny the requested sign
variance application.
Backqround Rationale: The Pineridge Townhouses Homeowners
Association is requesting a variance from the Vail Sign Code to
allow for the placement of two subdivision entrance signs at the
Pineridge Townhouses, Lots 2, 3, and 4, Vail Heights Subdivision.
Please see the Community Development Department
memorandum to the DRB dated November 3, 1993. On
November 3, 1993, the DRB recommended approval of the
requested sign variance application by a vote of 5-0.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the requested sign variance
application to allow the Pineridge Townhouses to place tow
subdivision entrance signs on Lots 2, 3, and 4, Vail Heights
Subdivision.
10:55 P.M. 11. Adjournment.
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 12/14/93, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 12/21/93, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 12/21/93, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
~ ~ ~
C:VIGENDA.TCE
3
VAIL TOUVN COUNCIL
~~~~I~
T~~S®A~, ®ECENIl13~t1~ 7, X993
7:30 I~ T®V C®UNCI~ CHAAA~~~dS
A®®EN®~D~ TO THE AG~~®~
8) Included for Discussion:
Appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approval of a minor subdivision
request at Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Appellant: Don Byers.
C:IAGENDA.TC
r
MINUTES
NAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 2, 1993
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, November 2,1993, in the Council
Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor
Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem
Jim Gibson
Jim Shearer
Tom Steinberg
Rob Levine
Bob Buckley
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager
Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none.
Item No. 2 was approval of the minutes of the October 5, 1993, and October 19, 1993, Evening
Meetings. Merv Lapin moved to approve the minutes of the October 5, 1993, and October 19,1993,
Evening Meeting Minutes, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance rezoning 7.710 acres
from Agricultural and Open Space, Section 18.32 to Low Density Multi-Family, Section 18.161ocated
between Tract C, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch and Parcel B. The applicant was Town of VailJVail
Housing Authority. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Kristan Pritz requested this item be tabled
because Jen Wright, Housing Authority Chairman, was not present due to illness. Merv Lapin
moved to table Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1993, first reading, until December 7,1993, with a second
from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1993, second reading, an annual appropriation ordinance:
adopting a budget and financial plan and making appropriations to pay the costs, expenses, and
liabilities of the Town of Vail, Colorado, for its fiscal year January 1, 1994, through December 31,
1994, and providvng for the levy assessment and collection of Town ad valorem property taxes due
for the 1993 tax year and payable in the 1994 fiscal year. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. There
was brief discussion regarding previous years' budget formats which had included line item
definitions and the outcome based budgeting process. Steve Thompson advised cost accounting
procedures would begin January 1, 1995. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 26, Series
of 1993, on second reading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance providing for the ~~I
establishment of Special Deve1.,Y~~~ent District No. 31, Golden Peak House; adopting a Development
Plan for Special Development District No. 31 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal
Code; rezoning a portion of Tract E from Agricultural and Open Space Zoning to Commercial Core
I Zoning, and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicants were Golden Peak House
Condominium Association/Nail Associates, Inc./GPH Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc. Mayor
Osterfoss read the title in full. Mike Mollica noted the applicants had eliminated 455 square feet of
floor area overall since first reading, and he reviewed further modifications. He indicated the
changes requested for Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1993, on first reading, had been made for second
reading. Those changes included detailing what each of the four co-applicants were responsible for.
Discussion followed, particularly with regard to Section 8, item 3 of the ordinance related to Council's
desire for more definite language regarding the open space dedication for the Mill Creek stream tract
andlor the Pirate Ship Park area of Tract E. Bob Buckley felt VA would have problems with a
permanent restriction on Pirate Ship Park because of new technologies and ski area operations. Gerry
Arnold, representing VA, explained VA's concept of conveying the area under discussion as a
"dedication parcel" to TON, rather than permanently restricted open space area, and that dedication
would occur prior to the issuance of a building permit by TON. She reviewed a letter to Council
from VA dated November 2, 1993, regarding the proposed open space parcel dedication. In that
letter, VA stated they understood the concern of Council regarding the reconfiguration of the
"dedication parcel" and had done a preliminary study for a walking path from Hanson Ranch Road
1 Vai] Town Council Evening Meeting Minutee 11/?/93
r
0
to the bicycle path south of Cyranos. Based upon that study, VA was willing to adjust the
configuration of the "dedication parcel" to a revised configuration calculated to be approximately
` 3,370 square feet. A map outlining the proposed "dedication parcel" was included as part of VA's
letter. Jim Shearer noted VA also owned the east side of Mill Creek and asked Ms. Arnold if VA
would consider a walking path on both sides. She did not think VA would object, but advised she
would need to take that back to VA management for further discussion. Tom Steinberg expressed
strong objection to an invisible line down the middle of the stream. It was suggested Ms. Arnold
contact VA during this meeting for an immediate answer, however Bob Buckley and Clark
Willingham both objected to Council asking Ms. Arnold to do that. Diana Donovan, speaking as a
member of the PEC, discussed the minutes from their last meeting, noting public benefits. She
indicated the PEC recommended the "dedication parcel" should include the entire stream path, not
just the area up to the bike path. Mr. Willingham stated VA had given triple what the PEC had
requested and felt Council was holding up the entire project for the expanded "dedication parcel."
Jim Lamont felt Mr. Willingham was receiving over and above the established GRFA and asked why
VA could not unilaterally dedicate the Mill Creek stream tract over the phone. Mayor Osterfoss
noted that TOV's and VA's goals were basically the same.
At the time of this meeting, letters of opposition to this project had been received from Barbara C.
Welles, Dolph Bridgewater, Frances E. Gunn, Foxhall A. Parker, Robert W. Galvin, Jim Lamont,
Monica G. Benderly, Sara A. Newsam, Joy Hilliard, and Konard G. Prem. The opposition to
designation of the Golden Peak House (GPH) as an SDD primarily related to its exceeding all zoning
standards for the Commercial Core I zone district, that the existing building exceeded all zoning
standards, that expansion of the building beyond zoning standards or an expansion of a non-
conforming condition was a grant of special privilege not generally available to all property owners,
that unfashionable architecture or failure of the property owners to maintain properly a building was
insufficient cause to exceed zoning standards, and that expansion of the building encroached into the
Vail Village View Corridor.
Lengthy discussion regarding EHUs, short-term rental program details, at-grade improvements,
proposed declarations of public access, establishment of timelines, and view corridor encroachments
led to further language changes in Section 8, items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the ordinance relating to
developer agreements with requirements which were a part of TOV's possible approval of the
establishment of SDD No. 31. Glen Healand, current lessee of Cyranos, had questions about deed
restrictions. Bill Whiteford, Cyranos Building owner, inquired about a lease with TOV regarding the
trash building on Tract E. Tom Moorhead advised that lease had been entered into under the
mistaken idea that TOV owned that land. As it did not, that lease was void. Jim Lamont was
concerned that conditions were being set before issuance of building permits and felt they should be
set at the time of issuance of building permits.
Tom Steinberg asked if there was a view corridor on Bridge Street looking south. Mike Mollica
stated that View Corridor No. 2 looked toward the base of the ski mountain and chair No. 1. Rob
Levine directed staff to redraw that view corridor. Tom Steinberg advised that the view corridor be
set up based on known elevations. Mr. Willingham did not feel amending View Corridor No. 2 was
appropriate. Tom Steinberg wanted to set up a whole new view corridor, but Mike Mollica felt
surveyors could not do that based solely on the drawings of this project. Mayor Osterfoss suggested
the amended view corridor be established simultaneously with the construction of the project. Jim
Lamont stated people were resentful of projects like the Christiania and wanted set limits. Paul
Johnston, owner of the Christiania, advised there was no adopted view corridor when his project
(Christiania) was built, and that view corridor was established after construction was complete. Mr.
Willingham admitted the GPH project would encroach on View Corridor No. 1 and added the
existing building already encroached on View Corridor No. 1, not View Corridor No. 2. Merv Lapin
asked why there was worry about View Corridor encroachments when there were more and more
encroachments allowed all the time. Mr. Willingham felt that was because projects met certain
criteria in order to be permitted encroachments. Kristan Pritz felt the view corridor in this case was
improved by the new building. Bill Wilto voiced support of the project.
Jim Lamont asked what kind of signal each one of the SDDs sent. He called for responsible action
on the part of owners to maintain their buildings and was frightened that this project and the
proposed Vail Athletic Club SDD were setting harmful patterns. He read a portion of a letter dated
November 1,1993, from Dolph Bridgewater, Jr., "The Special Development District was a sound idea
in concept, that has been ruined by excessive exploitation by devel.,Y~~~ent interests, and weak and
flexible review by responsible authority. Excessively large structures of the sort proposed by the Vail
Athletic Club and the Golden Peak House considered separately are seductively attractive, but
collectively they have a special malignancy all their own... each requiring the next structure to be
larger and to eliminate a little more of our view and our open space. Aline of responsibility will
have to be drawn somewhere at some time. Will you please seriously consider drawing it here and
now."
After further discussion, Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1993, on second
reading with Section 8, items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 amended and with the entire Section 8 to read as
L Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 11/?J93
Y
follows:
SECTION 8
The developer, jointly and severally, agrees with the following requirements, which are a part of the
Town's approval of the establishment of this SDD No. 31:
1. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Building Permit for the construction of SDD
No. 31, GPH Partners, Ltd. shall cause to be permanently restricted, two off-site, two-bedroom,
employee housing units per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance. Each unit shall be a minimum
size of 700 square feet. The units shall meet the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance requirements and
such units shall be within the Town of Vail.
2. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Building Permit for the redevelopment project,
the Golden Peak House Condominium Association will contribute $32,000.00 towards the redesign
and redevelopment of Seibert Circle. The $32,000 contribution towards the redevel„r.~~ent of Seibert
Circle shall be credited towards the Golden Peak House, should a future Special Improvement
District be created for this project.
3. That prior to the Town's issuance of a building permit for the redevelopment project,
Vail Associates, Inc., will dedicate open space to the Town. The minimum area of open space shall
be at least an equivalent area, to that of the area of the Tract E "overhang and deck" easements. A
portion of the Mill Creek stream tract will be dedicated to the Town of Vail as permanent open space
and the Pirate Ship Park area of Tract E will be leased to the Town of Vail for the purpose of
maintaining the park. The terms of the lease are to be agreed upon by the parties.
4. That the Golden Peak House Condominium Association and Vail Associates, Inc. shall
reserve a public pedestrian access, across Lot C, which is located between the Golden Peak House
and the Hill Building, by declaration to be recorded with the Eagle County Recorder. Such
declaration shall be permanent and only revocable upon written agreement with the Town of Vail..
The declaration of public pedestrian access shall occur prior to the Town's issuance of a building
permit for the project.
5. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the
redevelopment project, GPH Partners, Ltd. shall deed restrict two three-bedroom dwelling units
(Units 201 and 401) to be included in a short-term rental program, at comparable market rates, at all
times when said dwelling units are not occupied by the owner or his guests.
6. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the
redevelopment project, GPH Partners, Ltd. shall deed restrict, the remaining two lock-offs in the
building (or equivalent), to be included in a short-term rental program, at comparable market rates,
at all times when said lock-offs are not occupied by the owner or his or her guests.
7. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the
redevelopment project, GPH Partners, Ltd. shall deed restrict, the two accommodation units (or
equivalent) in the building, to be included in a short-term rental program, at comparable market
rates, at all times when said accommodation units are not occupied by the owner or his or her guests.
8. That the Golden Peak House Condominium Association, or their successors in interest,
shall participate in, and shall not protest or remonstrate against, any improvement district(s) which
may be established by the Town of Vail for the purposes of constructing improvements as set forth
in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan and/or the Vail Transportation Master Plan, if and when
an improvement district(s) is formed.
9. That the Golden Peak House Condominium Association and GPH Partners, Ltd. shall
cooperate with, and shall not protest or remonstrate against, any efforts by the Town of Vail to
establish additional view corridors or amendments to existing view corridors as enhanced by the
project. Such changes and additions shall be pursuant to the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail.
10. That the pedestrian arcade (which was originally proposed over the first floor retail
windows on the north elevation), and that°the original ground floor plan, which does not include the
curved retail windows along the eastern portion of the building, be reviewed by the Design Review
Board and included in the final building design, if required by the Design Review Board.
11. That GPH Partners, Ltd. further articulate the first floor "retail windows", by adding
divided lights to the large single panes of glass.
12. That the Design Review Board review the proposed roof form over the main entry
on the north elevation, and determine if the roof form needs to be lowered.
13. That the proposed tar and gravel roof for the building is acceptable.
In addition, Jim Gibson's motion included a new Section 9 to read as follows:
SECTION 9
Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance may be approved
by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing in
accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060 and 18.40.100. Amendments which do change
the substance of the development plan shall be required to be approved by Town Council after the
above procedure has been followed. The Community Development Department shall determine what
constitutes a change in the substance of the development plan, and that Section 10 of the ordinance
be amended to read as follows:
3 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 11/?/93
SECTION 10
The developer must begin construction of the Special Development District within three (3) years
from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward completion of the project. The
developer must meet the requirements of Section 18.40.120 of the Municipal Code of the Town of '
Vail.
Rob Levine seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Tom Steinberg felt that due to the number of changes to the ordinance, the
ordinance should be tabled until November 16, 1993. Jim Shearer agreed and asked again if Ms.
Arnold would contact VA regarding dedication of both sides of the stream. Jim Gibson felt it was
wrong to hold the project up because of a fear of loss of leverage on that issue. Bob Buckley agreed.
Rob Levine agreed with Bob Buckley and added he was very much in favor of the project. Merv
Lapin advised he intended to vote against the project because of the same reasons he addressed on
first reading. He felt the SDD process was being overused. It was noted the Regular Municipal
Elections were on November 16, 1993, and Council consensus was reached to review the final
ordinance language during a work session on November 9,1993, before its publication. Jim Gibson
called the question. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-2, Tom Steinberg and Merv Lapin
opposed.
Item No. 6 was Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance approving a Special
Devel..t,~.~ent District (known as SDD No. 30, The Vail Athletic Club) and the development plan in
accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and Setting forth details in regard thereto.
The applicant was JWT/1987 Vail Limited Partnership, aka, The Vail Athletic Club. Mayor Osterfoss
read the title in full. Kristan discussed changes in the ordinance since first reading, including parking
specifics, landscaping specifics, and streetscape specifics. ICristan noted that there was an issue with
the concern of an adjacent property owner in the Mountain Haus, Joan Lamb, about the dormers
impacting her view of the Gore Range. Stan Cope and Rohn Robbins would further review this issue
under discussion. ICristan also pointed out that Council had received letters of opposition from
Barbara C. Welles, Robert W. Galvin, Ronald A. Prem, Foxhall Parker, Frances E. Gunn, Joy R.
Hilliard, and Jim Lamont on behalf of the East Village Homeowners Association, Inc.
Merv Lapin asked if any resolution to Mrs. Lamb's view obstruction concern had been reached. Stan
Cope advised that, per Council's request, he had met with Rohn Robbins, Jim Morter, and architect
Michael Barclay, but during those meetings it had become apparent that there was no relatively
minor design change to alleviate the concern of Mrs. Larnb. Specifically, Mrs. Lamb was concerned
with a portion of her view of the Gore Range being blocked, and the only way not to block that
portion of the Gore was to essentially eliminate six of the dormers across the north side of the project,
effectively completely changing the project. Mr. Cope noted there had also been discussion as to
whether there was some other settlement that could be made, and, until midday the date of this
meeting, Mr. Cope advised Mrs. Lamb's answer to any settlement had been no. She had continued
to press for removal of the project's dormers. Then, Mr. Cope indicated, he received a financial offer
from Mrs. Lamb to remunerate her approximately $150,000. Mr. Cope said he did not have an
appropriate response to that number in order to begin any negotiation. With a model, he
demonstrated and discussed details of the building in relationship to Mrs. Lamb's unit in the
Mountain Haus. He noted Mrs. Lamb's view was not a protected view. It was not part of any view
corridor in Vail. He stated the underlying zoning would have allowed this building to have been
built in such a way that would have blocked that view at any time without an SDD. He said he had
researched where the property line was for the Mountain Haus, and it appeared that the Mountain
Haus had no setback. He discussed the affected view in Mrs. Lamb's unit and stated it was
extremely small. A picture of the potentially affected view was shown and discussed.
Mayor Osterfoss asked Kristan Pritz if, based on public accommodation zoning, someone could have
built a building in the location of the blocked view. ICristan said that the current building would
have had to remove GRFA to meet the zoning, but assuming that was done, the building could have
been re-built in that location. ICristan said the GRFA was being allowed to increase through the SDD
process.
Merv Lapin asked what the requirements were for TOV to protect private individual's views. ICristan
Pritz said there was no established view corridor in the area under discussion, but she felt it was
important to look at the criteria which addressed 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. To her, that
criteria was important; how neighL.,.~ would be impacted needed to be considered. Kristan added
that with most SDDs, there would probably be some view blockage from some vantage point with
any project. That was inevitable with the construction, but she said staff felt, given all of the other
elements of the SDD, the project merited approval. Diana Donovan said this view concern was not
discussed in depth at PEC, but at anytime when more building occurs, someone's view would most
likely be affected, but she noted there were no private view corridors in this area. Diana felt impacts
could be minimized when possible, but there was always going to be some impact with respect to
4 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 11/?/93
views.
Rohn Robbins, representing Mrs. Lamb, said there was a very clear view of the Gore Range from that
property, and he felt that Mr. Cope's representation that the southern view was primary was without
question, but that in no way diminished Mrs. Lamb's spectacular view from the east. Further, Mr.
Robbins felt Mr. Cope's representation that there was no reasonable accommodation to Mrs. Lamb's
concern was right, determining what was considered reasonable. He discussed various project
reconfigurations that he felt should be considered. He agreed a settlement demand had not been
presented to Mr. Cope until the afternoon of this meeting. There was further lengthy discussion
about the specifics of Mrs. Lamb's impacted view situation. Mr. Robbins stated he wanted to correct
comments made earlier by Mr. Cope. Mr. Robbins said part of what Mr. Cope said was correct, and
that was that a settlement demand was not presented until the afternoon of this meeting, however
those discussions had begun on the Friday, October 29,1993. Mr. Robbins stated his client was very
adamant about preserving this view corridor, and she was not initially seeking a financial settlement.
He said the afternoon of the date of this meeting, she agreed to seek one. Mr. Robbins said Mr. Cope
was right that the substance of that settlement amounted to approximately $150,000, however, in
terms of cash settlement, his client was seeking $70,000, not $150,000. The difference of $70,000 and
$150,000 included health club membership at the Vail Athletic Club (VAC), which he felt would cost
the VAC essentially nothing, and dining privileges in the restaurant contained within the hotel, which
would incur some cost to VAC, but it was not a retail cost. He said the cash settlement they
proposed was $70,000 plus attorney's and architectural consulting fees amounting to under $7,000,
so the total cash package was something under $77,000. He said that should be taken in light of the
fact that the appraised value of Mrs. Lamb's unit was diminished at an absolute low value of
$100,000 by the view taking, and at a maximum of $400,000. He said they had asked for a cash
settlement less than the lowest amount, and they felt that was reasonable. He also brought to
Council's attention that it was his understanding that the VAC hotel did not plan to commence
construction until 1995, and he wondered what the rush to grant this SDD was. He felt there were
reasonable alternatives to be considered in reconfiguring areas to accommodate problems. He felt
if there was any hurt to be absorbed, it should be absorbed by the people who stood to profit, not
by the neighbors whose view corridors were being taken. Mr. Robbins felt neighbor's in the
Mountain Haus had purchased their units believing that that view corridor was open, they had paid
a price for that view corridor being open, and if this proposal was granted, that would be taken from
them. He asked Council to deny the proposed SDD until such time as everyone could be
accommodated properly. At least, he asked that any decision about this ordinance be delayed since
there was no rush to construction and since he did not feel all alternatives had been fully explored.
He also did not think that the applicant's had given full justification for not absorbing losses
themselves.
Merv Lapin asked if there was any legal basis for the TOV to respond to this issue. Tom Moorhead
said he was not aware of any basis to respond. Mr. Moorhead believed the negotiations were
properly where they belonged, between the developer and the property owner.
Oscar Tang said he was present on his own volition to speak for Joan Lamb. He said Mrs. Lamb had
spoken with him the previous evening. He stated the value of this piece of property was important
in terms of her financial situation. He felt perhaps the SDD was justified in certain circumstances,
but he asked Council to take into consideration the individual rights of a person who was
representative of the people who make Vail what it was, other than locals and the people who serve
the Town. He felt, when normal zoning was exceeded, which he believed was what was happening
in this SDD, it was important to take into consideration the individual rights. He felt in Mrs. Lamb's
case, it was very clear that she could be dismissed very easily, but he said Mrs. Lamb was a woman
who had taken great pains, hired a lawyer and an architect to represent her because she felt it was
important to the preservation of the value of her piece of property. It seemed to Mr. Tang, at a
minimum, this whole thing had happened fairly fast. He understood the applicants had indicated
she had agreed, against her will, to come to a financial settlement. He asked the approval of this
ordinance be delayed until there was a reasonable chance to work out any settlement. He hoped,
at a minimum, that another look at the design would be done.
Mr. Cope clarified that this project was started in February, 1993. Significant changes as a result of
many work sessions with the PEC, all of which had been publicized, had been made. He said Jim
Morter had attended numerous meetings with the applicant's architect, the plans were changed
dramatically to benefit the Mountain Haus owners on the southeast corner, they reduced the west
ridge line, and pulled the dormers back significantly. At the PEC's final hearing, he recalled a one
or two sentence protest about possible views being blocked at the Mountain Haus. The PEC passed
the project unanimously. He came to a work session with Council, and nothing was said, and then
on first reading, the view issue had somehow become a major problem. He did not feel they
suddenly proposed this project as an onerous way of approaching what was now being called
someone's rights. He believed the rights which were normally referred to as established property
rights were done within the various zoning and how view corridors were examined within TOV's
planning and approval process. He said they had been sensitive to their neighbors in this process,
not only with Jim Morter but with Jim Lamont, noting their input was solicited. He discussed some
5 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 11/9/93
of the details of the redesign and what some of the space in their plan was to be utilized for. He
noted the negotiations he had with co-owners in the building were not taken lightly, particularly the
penthouse owners. He said they had come to agreement with those owners and their needs had to
be respected inside the building as well. Further, as he said he had mentioned to Mr. Robbins, it was
possible they would not start this project until 1995, but that was not a given. It was their intent,
originally, to start in Apri1,1994. There was a good chance it would not, but that was not necessarily
true. They would be examining contractor's bids, timelines, and the ability to do this project
effectively in 1994, and to be in a position where the whole project could be thrown out and tabled
after $100,000 worth of fees and six to seven months worth of hard work, he did not think tabling
this was a reasonable suggestion. He also took exception to the appraisal figures given by Mr.
Robbins of Mrs. Lamb's unit. There had not been a formal appraisal done of this unit. It was
approximately 1370 to 1400 square feet. In 1993, the highest square foot price sold in the Mountain
Haus was $310/square foot leading to a value of less than $500,000. He discussed the orientation
of Mrs. Lamb's unit's views, and added he did not think the impact to the unit was that significant.
He felt the benefits of the project far outweighed the impacts.
jim Lamont said Mr. Cope was right, they had been in communication and Mr. Lamont felt his group
had been very forthcoming and continued to argue their point that within the envelope of this
building additional GRFA could be built and they would all be bdl~~ off if any additional GRFA
remained within the existing shelf of the building. He felt this particular argument was a perfect case
in point. When this building was approved in 1977, particular attention and concern was paid by
the Council at that time to protect the views from the neighboring property. That was one of the
criteria that was discussed. He stated he had quite a bit of respect for the architect, Michael Barclay,
in this project who had gone the extra mile to try to address all the questions about it, and he
thought if the challenge to accommodate neighboring views was presented, it could be met by the
architect. He felt people feared losing their views to SDD projects. He felt there was a reasonable
argument to make by noting that under SDDs there should be extraordinary circumstances to protect
views. In this case, a demonstrable view was being damaged and he felt Mr. Cope, through the
process, should have been aware that this issue needed to be addressed before getting to Council.
Kristan Pritz reviewed a memo to Council from the Community Development Department dated
October 19, 1993, addressing the parking history for the VAC.
Mr. Robbins stated adjacent property owners felt confident views would be protected because so
many variances had been granted on the original project. He asked Council again to table the
ordinance and consider reasonable alternatives.
Tom Moorhead believed this was an issue between the developer and the property owner. He felt
the developer should be willing to indemnify the TOV.
Bob Buckley noted the SDD process was a lengthy one and felt that adjacent property owners should
have brought this issue up sooner, not at the last minute. He was in favor of the project.
Rob Levine felt Bob was right. He felt the applicant was in this for the long run, which was in the
Town's best interest, the accommodation units were in the Town's best interest. It was a good project
and he did not think it was appropriate to expect the redesign of a building for the view that was
being impacted. He was concerned that Mrs. Lamb's view would be impacted, particularly given
that the building was out of the norm in terms of zoning, that being an SDD, but he was comforted
by the fact that even a building within the normal zoning could have the same impact on the view
and that mitigated his concern. In his final analysis, he still felt Mrs. Lamb was due some
compensation, but he did not want Council to be made responsible for making that determination.
He hoped that could be done between the developer and Mrs. Lamb. He said he would put the
decision off a couple of weeks with the hope that that decision could be reached, or at least a
reasonable offer could be made on the part of the developer. He asked Mr. Cope how he felt about
tabling the ordinance. Mr. Cope felt November 16, the date of Vail's regular municipal elections,
would be a difficult day to bring something of this nature forward, and it would be quite onerous
for the applicant to continue second reading with what would obviously be quite a new Council.
He felt if this Council indicated they were not going to support it, he would table it for lack of
anything else. He felt part of the planning process of the SDD that may not be fully understood by
some of those who had spoken was that they were talking about a major change which would
require them to go back to day one of the PEC. Mr. Cope said this was not an SDD ordinance if they
had to start altering the building as had been suggested. Further, there was $100,000 already
invested in legal and architectural fees already. He was opposed to returning to square one. He
hoped the ordinance would be passed tonight. Rob again said he did not feel it was appropriate to
expect the redesign of this building, however some compensation -financial or otherwise -seemed
to him to be a fair way to resolve the problem with Mrs. Lamb, and he hoped that could happen.
He stated if the vote was forced tonight, he would vote for the project and hoped that a resolution
was still made between the developer and Mrs. Lamb, but he would rather see that resolution
happen first. Mr. Cope noted that part of the settlement agreement offered to them was a $61,000
twelve year arrangement for food in the VAC restaurant. He said the athletic club membership was
fj Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 11/?/93
something he brought up with Mr. Robbins as something they might talk about. The tradeoff was
something they would like to work out with the Mountain Haus, so he preferred not to table the
ordinance. He felt what needed to happen was for the SDD process to be concluded and have any
compensation arrangements left up to Mr. Robbins, himself, and the owners of the property. Rob
felt he did not want to see the rest of the criteria and the rest of the work done on this SDD
overshadowed by this point. He felt very comfortable with the project and wanted to see it happen.
Merv Lapin said he would continue to vote against the project, however he addressed the issue
concerning Mrs. Lamb. He felt the views and how they affected neighbors was extremely important
especially when a project was allowed to go over underlying zoning. However, under an SDD, and
because an SDD was something that was always out there, and because zoning could always be
changed, he did not feel it was at,y~opriate for Council to be involved in a potential lawsuit or
potential negotiations. Unfortunately, in his opinion, there were SDDs, but he felt there were some
good uses for SDDs. He did not think the degree to which they had been used in Vail was good and
he did not think this specific application was one where an SDD should be used. But his primary
problem with the project was with the size of the project in terms of what the underlying zoning was
and what should be on that site in size with respect to mass and bulk. He also was concerned about
the deficit in parking. He felt letting this go with the applicant only paying for three spaces when
the deficit was forty-six spaces was a terrible precedent because it would be faced over and over
again with projects that were within CCI and CCII that could legally ask for that. Now it was being
given to a project that was not even in that zone district. He did not see any need to expand square
footage on the outside of the building and increase its mass or bulk at all.
Tom Steinberg recalled he had voted for this ordinance on first reading predominantly because TOV
was getting accommodation units. He stated he was torn at this point. He stated he was inclined
to put the decision off until two weeks from this meeting to allow further negotiations which TOV
should not be involved with.
Jim Gibson felt the ordinance should pass at this time. He sincerely hoped that the Vail Athletic Club
and Mrs. Lamb could work out their differences. He said he had a great deal of empathy for her
because of personal experience. But, he believed Mr. Cope and his associates at the VAC were fair
people who expressed concern with this view and they were prone to try to work out an
arrangement.
Jim Shearer felt this was a good project, and he shared the empathy expressed by Council concerning
Mrs. Lamb's situation. He encouraged Mr. Cope and his group to reach an agreement, but felt
Council should take Tom Moorhead's advice to add the requirement for indemnification to the
ordinance.
Mayor Osterfoss felt the level of detail, time, and energy that went into these SDD discussions was
incredible. She felt the pluses for this project included that it was addressing in a very substantial
way streetscape improvements, not only on the Meadow Drive side of the building, but additionally
was providing public access to the stream tract. Additionally, there was an employee housing
component to this. ICristan I'ritz clarified the new employee housing was for six units, in addition
to four single units on-site. Mayor Osterfoss noted obtaining additional local housing had been a
major goal of this Council and she felt this project moved positively in that direction. She was also
impressed with the architect's ability to increase GRFA without a substantial addition to bulk and
mass in the building and she was among those who believed there was a demand for additional
accommodation units. She felt one of the greatest threats to Vail was losing market share to
accommodation units located in other parts of the Valley, which also lead to other problems such as
traffic and transportation challenges. She felt there were several strong positives offered by this
project. Mayor Osterfoss stated she felt sad about Mrs. Lamb's situation, yet she recognized that
Council was faced with a situation of trying to balance the pluses and minuses of a project and come
up with a decision that took into account the interests of the entire community. She felt Mr. Robbins
made an impressive argument from Mrs. Lamb's perspective. But, Tom Moorhead had advised
Council that the issue between Mrs. Lamb and the owner's of the VAC was a matter that needed to
be resolved and she was in favor of taking Mr. Moorhead's advice on that point, including the
indemnification because TOV could not involve itself in that negotiation. It was not TOV's usual
practice to protect private views. She admitted it was an SDD where Council tried to address all
concerns, but she felt this went beyond Council's scope in the balance of other pluses of the project.
She saw no reason for delaying this, and although there were pluses and minuses, this was a fine
project and she was in favor of it.
Jim Gibson moved for approval of Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993, on second reading. He stated
it did meet the nine requirements of an SDD with the inclusion of the indemnification. Bob Buckley
seconded the motion.
Merv Lapin asked that Jim Gibson's motion include under Section 6 that the developer must begin
construction of the SDD within three years from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently
toward completion of the project and that the developer must meet the requirements of Section
7 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 11/`L93
18.40.120 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Further, an additional section regarding
indemnification should be added. Tom Moorhead, having heard no objection to the inclusion of
indemnification of the TOV by the developer, suggested language for that additional section: "The
developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Town of Vail, including attorney's fees,
in any cause of action or suit which joins the Town of Vail concerning the issue of taking any part
of an individual's view." Jim Gibson added that wording to his motion, and Bob Buckley seconded
the amended motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-2, Tom Steinberg and Merv Lapin opposed.
Item No. 7 was Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance granting a franchise by
the Town of Vail to Public Service Company of Colorado, its successors and assigns, the right to
furnish, sell and distribute gas to the Town and to all persons, businesses, and industry within the
Town and the right to acquire, construct, install, locate, maintain, operate and extend into, within and
through said Town all facilities reasonably necessary to furnish, sell and distribute gas within the
Town and the right to make reasonable use of all streets and other public places and public.
easements as herein defined as maybe necessary; and fixing the terms and conditions thereof. Mayor
Osterfoss read the title in full. Ron Carpenter, Public Service District. Manager, re-read the title in
full.
Tom Moorhead advised he had met with Chandler Lippit, Public Service attorney, and had arrived
at the ordinance wording and twenty year term. Tom Moorhead advised twenty years was Public
Service's shortest franchise term, and that TOV's Code allowed for that. Tom noted there had also
been discussion concerning how far the gas service extended within the Town of Vail and what was
anticipated as far as any future expansions.
Merv Lapin asked if everyone was charged the same fee for the same amount of gas. He was
advised there were variable rates, commercial rates and residential rates. Phil Noll, Manager of the
Mountain Division for Public Service Company, clarified that a resident rate for use of gas did not
equal the commercial rate for use of gas because that was the way it was mitigated and adjudicated
through the Public Utility Commission (PUC). He said they found there was more demand on
systems by commercial users. Merv asked if that was an issue in Vail. Mr. Noll said it had not been
up to this point. There was brief discussion about commercial users who may receive a lower rate
within Vail. Further, Mr. Noll confirmed everyone was treated the same way in terms of the
franchise fee. No one was getting a preference rate within Vail once they reached a certain level of
use. It was noted on the previous franchise there was a $2,500 cap, but there was no longer a cap
on the fee in the franchise as now presented. Merv asked, given times of competitiveness and
technological advances, why a twenty year franchise fee was needed. Mr. Noll said there was a
tremendous investment being made by Public Service which they were continuing to make every day
and they also had facilities that backed up that investment. There was also the cost of going through
the franchise process, and Public Service liked to make a long commitment to the community. They
were here to serve the customer and the best way they could do that was to have the confidence that
they could be here for a long period of time. This franchise was not fixed to the point that things
could not be changed, even though it was a twenty year franchise. Merv also questioned Section 4.6
- Service to New Areas. Rather than it saying the company shall extend service to residents of the
expanded area at the earliest practical time and in accordance with the company's extension policies,
Merv wanted it to say the company shall extend service to residents in the expanded area within
three years. Mr. Noll said the extension policy was on file with the PUC, and noted another clause
in the franchise said Public Service had to follow the tariffs and rules on file wilt the PUC. He said
they could not make, within a franchise, an exception that would not follow the rules of the PUC.
Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from
Bob Buckley. Before a vote was taken, Council was advised of State law requiring this ordinance to
be read in full. Merv Lapin moved to continue reading of the franchise in full until after agenda item
No. 13, with a second by Bob Buckley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
After the reading, a vote was taken to approve Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1993, on first reading and
the motion passed 5-0, Jim Shearer and Jim Gibson absent during the vote.
Item No. 8 was Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance dedicating a public, non-
exclusive right-of-way in and upon Tract A, Vail Village 8th Filing. Mayor Osterfoss read the title
in full. Greg Hall explained TOV owned the property, but did not have a road right of way from
Pulis Bridge back to Sunburst Drive/Nail Valley Drive across the golf course parcel, and there was
a need to maintain sufficient access to construct, maintain, and service utility facilities on Tract A,
Vail Village 8th Filing. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1993, on first
reading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously,
7-0.
Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1993, Mayor O read the title in full. Greg Hall explained TOV did not
have a road right of way from Pulis Bridge back to Sunburst Drive/Nail Valley Drive across the golf
course parcel. With all the utilities in there, instead of doing easements for all the utilities plus and
8 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 11/`L93
access easement, it was easiest to dedicate a road right of way to TOV since TOV owned the
property. Merv moved to approve Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1993, with a second from Tom
Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 9 was Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance to amend Section
18.57.060 B 13 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full.
Tom Moorhead explained this ordinance was only to correct a typographical error in Ordinance No.
27, Series of 1992. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1993, on first reading,
with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 10 was Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Title 2, of
the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Chapter 2.38 -Limitation of Terms, to
provide for the limitation of terms for all permanent Town of Vail Boards and Commissions. Mayor
Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead advised this ordinance would allow for proper
codification in the Municipal Code. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1993,
on first reading, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 11 was Resolution No. 13, Series of 1993, a resolution establishing support by the Vail Town
Council for the Vail Valley Foundation's efforts to secure and host the 1999 World Alpine Ski
Championships. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Rob Levine moved to approve Resolution
No. 13, Series of 1993, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 12 was Resolution No. 14, Series of 1993, a resolution establishing support by the Vail Town
,Council for the Vail Valley Foundation's hosting of the 1994 World Mountain Bike Championships.
Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Jim Gibson moved to approve Resolution No. 14, Series of
1993, with a second from Bob Buckley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 13 was a special event funding request for $10,600.00 from the Vail Valley Special Events
Commission for the VVT&CB Festival of Lights in conjunction with the VRD-sponsored Winter
Carnival (1993). Jim Shearer moved to table discussion of this request to the November 9, 1993,
Work Session. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 7-0.
There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 12:03 A.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
A i i r,ST:
Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto
C:iMINSNOV2.93
9 Vail Town Counci] Evening Meeting Minutes 11/?/93
a~
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL EVENING MEETING
NOVEMBER 9, 1993
5:00 P.M.
A special meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, November 9,1993, in the Council
Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor
Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem
Jim Gibson
Jim Shearer
Tom Steinberg
Rob Levine
Bob Buckley
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager
Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager
Before discussion of agenda item No. 1, there was Citizen Participation. Roger Tilkemeier stated he
was actively involved in Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt's Rangeland Reform campaign, more
commonly known as "the grazing fee issue." Mr. Tilkemeier noted he had taken the time to go
through the Rangeland document line by line and had made extensive notes about his concerns,
which he then communicated to Mr. Babbitt in writing on September 10, 1993. Mr. Tilkemeier felt
rangelands were in worse shape than ever. He was especially concerned about the water rights issue
in Secretary Babbitt's proposed reform. Mr. Tilkemeier referenced a memorandum to Senator Hank
Brown, Senator Ben Campbell, and Congressman Scott McInnis dated November 8, 1993, from
Andrew P. Daly, President of Vail Associates, Inc. (VA). In that memo, Mr. Daly expressed alarm
at Secretary Babbitt's apparent lack of sensitivity to the needs and desires of the people who would
be most affected. Because Secretary Babbitt's proposal had been presented from an agricultural point
of view, Mr. Daly's memo stated that, until recently, it was not fully understood how far reaching
the Rangeland Reform proposal really was and what its direct effect would be on the industry here
and in the municipalities of the west. Further, in Mr. Daly's memo, it was expressed that while Vail
was designed in an alpine theme for skiing, it was observed that guests to Vail and the touring public
also wanted a "Western Experience," including open space and pastoral scenes of grazing livestock.
Mr. Daly added in his memo that that was all part of the recreation package in demand locally and
internationally. The VA memo asked for satisfaction from Congress, Secretary Babbitt, and the
President, regarding the issues of water rights, affected interests, property rights, lease tenure, grazing
fees, and biological research legislation. The memo indicated further concerns centered around
property rights, economic impacts and mitigation provisions, which were not currently included in
the Bill. Mr. Tilkemeier urged Council to write Congress with its concerns and to endorse VA's
position. Mayors Osterfoss advised the issue would be taken under advisement. Jim Gibson felt
TOV should draft a resolution supporting Mr. Tilkemeier's concerns, and felt TOV should take a
strong stand now.
Item No. 1 was Resolution No. 15, Series of 1993, a resolution establishing Vail Town Council's
support for and urging voter approval of Ballot Question No. 1 which, if approved by the voters, will
remove the revenue restrictions of Article X, Section 20, which is commonly known as Amendment
One and/or the Tabor Amendment. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead advised
this resolution discussed and set forth concerns regarding Amendment One's impact on the Town
of Vail's Ballot Question No. 1, to be before the voters on November 16, 1993. Mr. Moorhead read
the resolution in its entirety. There was discussion about the benefits of this resolution. Kent Rose
noted Eagle County had voted down Amendment One last November, citing that it did not work for
resort communities dependent on weather. He felt it was necessary to be able to keep revenues from
"good years" to have to be able to spend during "bad weather years," and strongly encouraged voters
to vote "yes" on Vail's Ballot Question No. 1. Before a motion was made there was brief discussion
concerning the Denver/Boulder CPI. Steve Thompson discussed local growth definition. Merv Lapin
indicated 50% of Vail's revenue came from sales tax. Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution No.
15, Series of 1993, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously.
Item No. 2 was a presentation of the Draft Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. While technical
equipment was being set up for this presentation, Council completed discussion of this date's Work
Session agenda including the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and Design Review
Board (DRB) reports.
Russell Forrest then noted Vail was approximately 90% built out and proceeded to introduce the
1 Vail Town Council Special Evening Meeting Minutes 11/9/93
Draft Comprehensive Open Lands Plan consultant, Marty Zeller. Mr. Zeller made a slide
presentation including objectives of the plan, a process chart including an inventory of lands of the
present draft plan, an analysis of background documents and surveys, a recreation needs assessment
from the August, 1993, public meeting, a recreation needs assessment priority summary, an inventory
of undeveloped lands, a hazard and sensitive area map, a concept diagram showing active urban and
commercial systems with a proposal to connect trailheads, a trails plan showing the existing system
and action parcel alternative trail system to relieve pressure on Forest Service land, a slide indicating
identified priority actions, followed by criteria to evaluate and prioritize five priority actions, a
priority plan map, a sum of action plan map showing 61 parcels requiring action in the East Vail,
Center Vail and West Vail areas, proposed protection techniques, a proposed land management
system consisting of two parts - TOV, Forest Service, and VA cooperative management and TOV
property management, a review of Real Estate Transfer Tax Funds (Rr, t i) availability, an action
' agenda of first and second year activities including affected parcels and budget, and third, fourth,
and fifth year (1998) activities including affected parcels and budget, and a slide outlining next steps
for the plan: a draft plan review by the task force, public meetings, amendment of the plan, PEC
review, and adoption of the plan by Council. A large "Land Opportunities and Action Plan" map
remained on display through discussion of this item.
Mayor Osterfoss called for public input. Bob Armour expressed desire to maintain the Davos
Trail/Trapper's Run area as open space. He referred to a previously submitted petition to that affect,
and asked Council to begin immediate negotiation with the current owners of that property to
acquire that parcel. Russell Forrest advised this area was listed in the Plan's top priority list and was
part of the Plan's first year action. Mayor Ostexfoss noted Council had directed staff to move ahead
with the appraisal process of the area and that was now underway.
A lengthy discussion followed concerning the stream walk proposal within the presented draft Plan.
Kristan Pritz explained this was a controversial issue with the community and briefly discussed the
history of the stream walk concept since 1973. Russell Forrest followed with a "slide walking tour"
presentation of the stream walk areas to highlight and discuss some of the pros, cons, and
alternatives related to private property rights and environmental impacts of the various stream walk
areas. He noted this project would require Army Corps of Engineers approval.
Bill Amos, George Knox, Johannes Faessler, Sheika Gramshammer, Jeanne Bailey, Kathy Douglas,
Greg Stutz, Rick Rosen, Carey Vaughan, Ben Duke, Bill Wilto, Kent Rose, Rick Travers, Bruce Benson,
Joe Treadlove, Jim Wear, Ned Shwayder, and Nancy Tyler expressed opposition to the proposed
stream walk through residentially developed areas, primarily agreeing this was public land, but
feeling strongly that the privacy of homes already built there should be respected. These individuals
also expressed strong concern about environmental impacts to the stream tract in the areas proposed
for development. Ms. Bailey submitted a petition of 102 signatures. The petition read, "We the
undersigned concerned citizens who support the proactive preservation of natural open space and
strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are vehemently opposed to the
proposed stream walk between the Covered Bridge and the Lions Head area. We respectfully
petition the Vail Town Council to permanently delete this concept from the Town Master Plan on
the grounds that it will destroy the environmental sanctity of the Gore Creek and its surrounding
lands, that it will adversely affect the wildlife habitats of this area, that it is not necessary to enhance
Vail further as a destination resort, that it negatively impacts the surrounding neighborhoods, and
because we believe that it is a community responsibility to protect and preserve as many of these
pristine areas as possible for future generations to come." In addition, at the time of this meeting,
letters of opposition citing the same primary concerns had been received from H. Benjamin Duke,
Jr., Wendell and Arlene Haley, John and Jean Wisenbaker, Mr. and Mrs. Charles R. Martz, Todger
Anderson, Bruce D. Benson, Adrian A. Kearney, Richard and Margaret Garbe, Lorraine and Harley
Higbie, Jr., Ned Shwayder, Nancy Tyler, and D. Kistler.
Flo Steinberg was in favor of the stream walk. She stated she did not see where problems expressed
by those in opposition would be any worse with the proposed stream walk and felt those opposed
were a special interest group that Council should not cater to.
Ms. Bailey noted this area had all three wetlands criteria and an environmental impact study would
be required. Russell Forrest confirmed that. He indicated that the Army Corps of Engineers would
look at the planned use of the area, and if TOV could not get a permit, this project would not occur.
There would have to be dialogue to identify issues, concerns, and alternatives with the Army Corps
of Engineers as they do not want any change in the flow of the stream or anything that would
exacerbate the hundred year flood plain. There is not necessarily a permit required, TOV would
need to consult with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to make certain that TOV's
current insurance rating would not be jeopardized by development of the stream walk area.
Jeanne Bailey, observed the need for Army Corps of Engineers approval, consultation with FEMA,
and an environmental impact study, and felt there was a very big expense in maintaining the stream
walk. Further, Ms. Bailey felt that no one was going to stay on the stream walk path, they were
going to get off that two foot to get even closer to the creek. She felt the path was not only giving
Z Vai] Town Counci] Special Evening Meeting Minutes 11/9/93
4-
people an access to the creek, but it was inviting them to walk all around.
Rick Rosen suggested Council take it upon themselves to remove the controversial part of the stream
walk and continue on with the process to get the Comprehensive Plan refined and approved to move
forward, so there was not a situation where there was a remote pazt of the entire plan causing the
entire plan to be stopped or delayed.
Diana Donovan stated she supported the stream walk. She felt if Council was going to pull a section
of the stream walk out, she believed that a provision of that should be that landscaping on public
parts of private property between homes and the stream should be removed and returned to natural
area along the stream.
Kristan Pritz clarified that TOV had never used people's property values as design considerations.
Mayor Osterfoss called for Council members comments on the whole Open Lands Plan and,
additionally, on the controversial stream walk portion. She asked for specifics as staff had asked for
direction.
Bob Buckley felt it was a very positive move that TOV had undertaken such a comprehensive study
of the lands in Vail. He strongly emphasized the need to purchase land. He said the real estate
market was very volatile at this time, and opportunities to purchase land would pass by if TOV did
not take advantage of some of the opportunities to purchase land at this time. He felt that was the
number one priority. With regard to the stream walk, he felt the portions of it that were already in
place were an incredible amenity for Vail guests, particularly guests who were wheelchair bound.
At the same time, he was cognizant of the impact this proposed stream walk had on existing
property owners and he felt very strongly that these owners purchased their land in good faith and
there was no prior representation to many of these owners that there would be a public walkway
between their homes and the creek. He found that to be a very strong azgument for protecting those
property rights. He felt TOV should stay out of those azeas where property rights would be affected
and should focus on the areas where property owners would not be impacted. He suggested taking
a hard look at the section of the stream starting at Ford Park going past the Nature Center to the east
below the tennis courts which he felt was an area where impact on private property would be
minimal. He was very much against the section of stream walk proposed to be developed from the
Covered Bridge down to Lionshead except in those azeas where there were already stream walks.
He felt the public was already offered vaziety. He also agreed strongly with Diana Donovan that
TOV those areas where the stream tract had been landscaped should be restored to a natural state.
He did not think people should be landscaping on properties that did not belong to them. He felt
that landscaping was a misrepresentation to future buyers and it was a disturbance to the stream
tract. He felt the stream tract should remain wild in public azeas.
Rob Levine said he was very much in favor of the stream walk. However, he felt there were other
things TOV needed to do which were of equal if not higher priority, and was concerned about
spending limited funds on this pazticulaz project at this time. He felt, in general, the Comprehensive
Open Lands Plan was one of the best things that had happened before this Council. He felt the
public should have access to public lands. He discussed the 8' wide asphalt bike path behind first
floor units at The Antlers. He said he was initially concerned about it, but in terms of property
values, he said his property values had doubled since that day, so he did not feel that there would
be a detriment to property values by the addition of the proposed stream walk. He added the
wildlife in The Antler's area had remained. The path had not altered or damaged the environment
at all, so he did not feel environmental problems were an issue either. He sympathized with the
people whose privacy would be bothered by the stream walk, but these were public lands and
nobody told the property owners there to build their houses there, they chose to do that. In his final
analysis, he felt it was not worth the money to further research and develop the stream walk at this
time. He would like to see as much access to the stream as possible because he felt it was in the best
interest of not only tourists, but people like himself, who would enjoy walking next to the creek, but
he was willing to set aside the pazts of the stream walk that would go right next to houses, at least
temporarily.
Jim Gibson felt the stream walk, as presented, did not stand a chance of being constructed. He
thanked Russell Forest and all of the people who had worked on this project because he felt it was
a tremendous job. He felt it was one best things TOV had done in a long time and he felt everyone
should support the continuation of this plan to ensure that the kinds of things that could be seen
happening would come to fruition. He did not feel the stream walk was appropriate for several
reasons, privacy being one. Had this stream walk been built before any homes were built, he felt that
would be another matter. He felt people would have then built there with the knowledge that the
stream walk was there. But, as that was not the case, he did not feel it should be constructed now.
He noted, of the slides shown, it was obvious that the topography there contained some areas not
meant for stream walks, and TOV should not try to put them there. He felt that in the areas where
improvements could be made without impacting privacy and without impacting the stream, TOV
should make improvements, but he suspected there were only a few pocket areas where that could
3 Vai] Town Council Special Evening Meeting Minutes 11/9/93
a.
be done. He felt it would be a great amenity for TOV to develop those areas, as it had in other spots.
The stream walk had proven to be very successful. Again, he was totally opposed to it if it invaded
anybody's privacy whatsoever or created problems for the stream itself. He did not think it was a
necessary project because it did not provide access that was not already there in some form or
another, and it would not create anything new in the way of an exciting experience. He wanted to
look at it again in terms of the pocket areas that might be developed for some enjoyment, but he did
not have a good picture of that. He suggested Russell Forrest develop a scenario that would let all
of the owners and attendees at this meeting know where these areas were and how they might be
developed, keeping in mind that, from his view, it should not impact privacy or the natural wonders
of the stream itself. He was in favor of taking the stream walk out of the Plan except for those areas
where it was felt something could be developed.
Merv Lapin noted the great amount of time Tom Steinberg had spent on the open lands project over
the last several years. Merv stated that because he had a financial interest in this issue because he
owned land at 232 West Meadow Drive, he did not intend to vote on this issue. If he did not have
a technical conflict of interest, he felt he had a moral conflict of interest. He indicated the comments
he planned to make would be made from the aspect of a private citizen. He stated he was against
putting a stream walk in the proposed locations. He felt the proposed stream walk area was a major
refuge to the animals who were bothered by asphalt. He felt many animals had been pushed there
from other parts of Town where there had been development and activity. He felt that should be
a major concern. He felt this was a quality of life issue. He felt the more open space kept, the better
off Vail's future was, because everyone gained from that in the end, and if that meant not putting
a stream walk in when there were other alternatives or substitutes, it was better for all in the long
run. He was completely opposed to having the stream walk anywhere between the Covered Bridge
and Lionshead.
Tom Steinberg was for the stream walk. The overall open space and trails plan was the primary
issue and he did not want the stream walk issue to be viewed as if it were the only part of this
project. One question that had been raised by the consultants was how TOV was going to pay for
the land purchases and trail systems. He noted it was suggested Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) be
used as a source of bonding in order to speed this process up, and this was not a new idea. When
the RETT was first passed, it was done so in order to buy up open space in Vail to keep it from being
developed, and, Tom felt, that was why Vail was what it was. He felt the best thing Council ever
did was to pass the RETT to buy open space and develop the parks, etc. He advised that the funding
for the lands already purchased was approaching payout and he felt it should be seriously
considered to use extra RETT tax to go out and buy up the .open space that was left before it was all
gone. He felt if that was not done, it would be regretted. He felt the plan presented tonight was an
excellent start and appreciated the discussion, including compromises and alternatives. He felt Vail
could get the best of the stream walk and not necessarily have to give it all up. He felt. there were
other things that should be proceeded with beside the RETT bonding. He hoped this whole Plan
could move forward as rapidly as possible because he felt time was of the essence. He said he
always felt that most people were reluctant to go near the stream because of their respect for private
property. He felt TOV needed to let people know it was okay to fish in the streams, that the sides
of the streams were public property, and that small unobtrusive signs saying "Welcome to Gore
Creek. Use it. Enjoy it. Protect it." should be installed. He felt people should know they had
permission to use what they own. The people owned that stream tract. He noted responses from
citizens of the Town to the annual citizen surveys consistently supported the stream walk and open
space use. He added the idea was not to develop a stream walk like the one in the heavily impacted
area between the Covered Bridge and Ford Park. There would be no asphalt, no bicycles, not even
gravel, just a wood chip one or two foot wide path that disintegrated and went back to nature
wherever it was put it, particularly west of the Chapel. He challenged the property owners on West
Meadow Drive, to come in, and TOV would help with a joint improvement venture.
Mayor Osterfoss thought that the Plan as a whole met the priorities Council had established. Those
priorities included acquisition of land as a top priority, open space preservation, and plans to look
at zoning changes to permanentize certain areas to make it difficult for those areas to ever be sold
or changed from an open space designation. Another priority was the existing trail and bike system.
She felt there were many links in that system that needed to be completed, and the idea of the trail
going around the perimeter of the Town was a very positive one. Further, she felt working in
conjunction with the Forest Service and VA made a great deal of sense. She felt Tom Steinberg's
suggestion about bonding with R~11 funds was worth exploring given the timeliness of the issue,
but that was something TOV would have to wait until next November to take to a vote. Mayor
Osterfoss hoped between now and then TOV would be able to consider some open space purchases.
With regard to the stream walk, she was encouraged by the alternate route plan and Bob Buckley's
suggestion about increasing the stream walk along the Ford Park area. She felt many enjoyed the
bike path, which was also a stream walk through the Katsos area. She felt the fact that TOV had put
a parking lot in that area was positive in terms of enabling people to enjoy the stream along an
existing bike path. She agreed with Jim Gibson's suggestion for looking for more pocket open spaces
along the stream area. She also felt the idea Diana Donovan had raised about restoring to natural
open space the areas of the stream tract on TOV property between private property and public
4 Vail Town Council Specia] Evening Meeting Minutes 11/9/93
a
property would be unanimously supported by everyone present at this meeting because there seemed
to be great emphasis on environmental concerns and preservation. She felt the property owners who
had landscaped onto public property needed to be located and asked to restore the areas to open
space. She also felt Tom Steinberg's idea about signage letting people know these were public areas
would make more sense than trying to pursue a structured walkway through residential areas. She
felt the Draft Comprehensive Open Lands Plans was a job well done to this point, and she looked
forward to moving forward as quickly as possible. She hoped the new Council would have the
enthusiasm this Council had for this issue.
Joe Macy stated in the research he had done, when Vail was originally platted, the stream tracts were
held out from commercial and residential devel~Y..~ent to prevent development from happening
there and to allow the public to enjoy that land. He stated the Gore Creek was recognized before
there was ever a house in Vail, other than the original houses before Vail started. Gore Creek was
recognized as an essential amenity, as the crown jewel of Vail and needed to be preserved for public
enjoyment. The trails plan which identified the stream walk was also zoned to allow for the type
of development that the stream walk would entail and it would provide for public access for the
fishermen, the locals, tourists, and the physically challenged. He felt it was eminently buildable,
permutable, and he offered to help staff at no charge. It was the public's land and the public should
be able to use it.
After brief further discussion, Mayor Osterfoss summarized the next steps for the Comprehensive
Open Lands Plan. She said input from tonight would go back to the committee, and the committee,
as a result of this input, may recommend some changes in the draft plan. That draft would go to
the Planning and Environmental Commission, there would be a public meeting to review that, then
it would go back to the PEC to go through the approval process. Recommendations would come
from PEC to Council involving additional public meetings in that process, and then final approval
would be considered by Council.
It was clarified that the input tonight was that the plan would be re-drafted to include the stream
walk in certain areas of the draft plan presented tonight, perhaps with incorporation of pocket parks
along it, but with some diversion around the most sensitive areas, i.e. privacy-wise and topography-
wise, and that there would be further review of some of the alternative routes mentioned, and that
resources for the stream walk would be re-prioritized. Further, West Meadow Drive would be upped
in terms of a priority for action. There was also consensus that the stream tract should be restored
to natural open space in areas where private property owners had landscaped onto public property.
Signage to indicate the stream was public property was considered an important component. The
stream walk would be deleted beside the Sonnenalp and the River House/Edelweiss and the Up the
Creek. Jim Gibson asked Russell Forrest to bring the re-draft back to Council to let them know of
their recommendations, but in general, most of what was discussed in the way of the stream walk
would be deleted from the Plan. But the concept of public access to the stream was critical and the
idea of having areas where people could have that access was critical. Merv Lapin added access to
and exit from the stream had to be arranged so that it was not done on private property. Russell
advised their next step was preparation of a written document and they would try to address this
meeting's input. Mayor Osterfoss added that Jim Shearer apologized for the fact that he had to leave
before commenting.
Before adjournment, discussion regarding the Vail Recreation District (VRD) contract was scheduled
for the November 16, 1993, Work Session.
Additionally, Jim Gibson stated he wanted to acquaint Council with a serious change of heart on his
part. He stated for the last six weeks he had had serious misgivings about the Performance and
Conference Center. After review of materials on this issue, he stated he was going to vote no on this
issue because he believed, although the concept was great, the plan had become too grandiose. From
a fiscal or financial view, he thought TOV should be issuing a bond issue somewhere in the range
of $8,000,000.00 for a facility like this. He was also concerned with the operating deficit of close to
$1,500,000.00 per year. He felt Council deserved to know this because he had voted for it and voted
for the ballot issue. He believed that from a fiscal view $8,000,000.00 was close to the limit TOV
ought to be investing in a feature of this sort for the Town of Vail. He was also concerned about the
private contribution portion of this project, stating he felt there was no real handle on it. He was
concerned there would not br private contributions at all. His third concern was about the survey
done. He was not convinced by some of the results, especially the quoted usage of over 200 days
annually.
Pam Brandmeyer noted that a portrait of Council would be taken on Tuesday, l l /l6/93, at 7:00 P.M.,
in Council Chambers.
There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M.
5 Vail Town Council Special Evening Meeting Minutes 11/9/93
a
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto
C:IMINSNOV9.93
Ej Vail Town Council Special Evening Meeting Minutes 11/9/93
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 16, 1993
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, November 16,1993, in the Council
Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor
Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem
Jim Gibson
Jim Shearer
Tom Steinberg
Rob Levine
Bob Buckley
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager
Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation.
Jim Shearer, citizen of Vail, stated he would miss parting Council members Bob Buckley, Rob Levine,
and Jim Gibson. Jim Shearer noted a lot of good Council decisions had come from this Council.
Merv Lapin, citizen of Vail, felt Jim Shearer's comments expressed feelings of the Council members
who would remain. He thanked Bob Buckley, Rob Levine, and Jim Gibson for their individual
contributions to this Council. He added he had been disappointed that only seven candidates had
run for new Council. He felt, because of that, many more candidates would run in 1995. He felt it
was unfair to the people Council served not to have a wide range and a wide choice of candidates
to choose from. He felt the community owed Mayor Osterfoss a great deal of thanks and felt she had
put in more time and energy than any other mayor.
Outgoing Council member, Jim Gibson, citizen of Vail, stated he had enjoyed working with all
present Council members and he hoped the incoming Council would be as divergent and outspoken
in their thinking as present Council had been. He respected each and everyone of present Council
for their expressed opinions, and he wished more could have been accomplished. What had been
done, he said he had enjoyed doing with this Council and staff.
Tom Moorhead thanked Council for having given him the opportunity to work with them and to
serve the Town of Vail. During his career, he stated he had never worked with a group as
individually and collectively talented this group. He felt Council had shown very divergent opinions
with regard to different issues, and, through the legislative process, had been able to reach a
consensus.
Item No. 2 on the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of four items:
A. Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance granting a franchise
by the Town of Vail to Public Service Company of Colorado, its successors and
assigns, the right to furnish, sell and distribute gas to the Town and to all persons,
businesses, and industry within the Town and the right to acquire, construct, install,
locate, maintain, operate and extend into, within and through said Town all facilities
reasonably necessary to furnish, sell and distribute gas within the Town and the right
to make reasonable use of all streets and other public places and public easements as
herein defined as may be necessary; and fixing the terms and conditions thereof.
B. Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance dedicating a public,
non-exclusive right-of-way in and upon Tract A, Vail Village 8th Filing.
C. Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance to amend Section
18.57.060 B 13 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail.
D. Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Title 2, of
the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Chapter 2.38 -Limitation
of Terms, to provide for the limitation of terms for all permanent Town of Vail
Boards and Commissions.
Mayor Osterfoss read all titles in full. Rob Levine moved to approve the Consent Agenda with a
1 Vail Town Counci] Evening Meeting Minutes 11/16/93
t
~Y~(
second from Jim Shearer.
Before a vote was taken, Merv Lapin recalled a question previously asked regarding Ordinance No.
29, Series of 1993, regarding the Public Service franchise as to whether there was a possibility of
financing for any conversions to gas in general. He asked if the financing could be done through the
gas company. Phil Noll advised there was a financing package with the FirstBank of Breckenridge
and Vail. Mr. Noll stated the reference was probably to the demand site management program. By
reducing demand on Public Service systems, there were credits given. So far, because it was a fairly
new program, wholesale customers had not been included. Public Service did not have a program
to convert Holy Cross kilowatts to Public Service gas or other forms of energy to get a demand site
credit. At this time there was no demand site management program or coninvesting or internal
investing for the Town of Vail. After brief discussion about the demand site management program,
a vote was taken and the motion to approve the Consent Agenda passed unanimously, 7-0.
Before adjournment, Larry Grafel read in full a letter to Council dated November 15,1993, from Liz
Krezowski, 1320 West Minnehaha Parkway, Minneapolis, MN 55419, "Dear Vail Town Council:
Where would Minneapolis be if it's forepersons in the 1800's didn't plan for public access? Jim and
I live on Minnehaha Creek/Parkway in Minneapolis and also East Vail. We don't own the land on
the creek in front of our home either, but we can walk for many miles in front of other peoples
homes and they ours on the creek and around the lakes in Minneapolis. Yes, we pay considerably
higher taxes to live on "our creek" but it truly isn't ours alone. Vail luckily has the chance for some
of the same awards and accolades if it too can put aside selfish motives for the good of the town.
Let's give the Town of Vail a chance to benefit all it's people. Vote yes for public access. Sincerely,
Liz Krezowski."
At this time, Mayor Osterfoss recalled Larry Grafel had agreed in March, 1993, to become the Acting
Town Manager. She said Larry had worked very successfully as a partner with Council, and thanks
to Larry's work, she felt TOV had made a very positive turn. She wanted Larry to know that Council
respected, admired, appreciated, and were deeply grateful for the time he had spent working with
this Council. She then presented him with a plaque from Council in thanks. Larry stated it had been
both a privilege and an honor, and had been a rewarding and gratifying experience. He thanked
Council for their confidence, support, trust, faith, and wise advice. He then presented with Council
members each with miniature ATVs as a humorous reminder of the time he had served as Acting
Town Manager.
Mayor Osterfoss thanked Council for their support, their dedication, and the tremendous amount of
time they put in as Council members. She felt the dynamics of the group had resulted in much
progress.
Jim Gibson moved to adjourn the meeting.
Before that motion was seconded, Joe Macy thanked Council for their service and dedication to the
community. He stated all of their efforts had been appreciated by Vail Associates, Inc.
Jim Shearer seconded Jim Gibson's motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The
meeting was adjourned at 7:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
A i i SST:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto
C:UNINNOV16.93
Z Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 11/16/93
,A ~ ~
flffEiViORANDUPJI
TO: Planning arid Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 8, 1993
SUBJECT: A request for approval of the Cemetery Management and Master Plan
Report for the Town of Vail Cemetery to be constructed in the upper
bench of Donovan Park located generally southeast of the Matterhorn
neighborhood and west of the Glen Lyon neighborhood.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Master Plan
The Vail Cemetery is proposed to be located at the upper bench .of Donovan Park. The total
area of the upper bench is approximately 39 acres. Of this, the open meadow near
Matterhorn Circle takes up approximately 9.5 acres. The Cemetery will use approximately 2
acres of this fer burial and memorial space and access. These 2 acres will accommodate all
of the proposed improvements which are expected to provide cemetery space over the next
one hundred years.
The design consultants who worked on the Cemetery include Sherry Dorward, Vice President
of Alpine International, Eldon Beck, President of Alpine International, and Jack Goodno:v, a
landscape architect with HEPY. In addition to the design task, the Town also requested that
the consultant team provide management direction for the cemetery. This component of the
project has been done by Larry Sloan, President of L.F. Sloan Consulting Group. He has
provided projections for demand and capacity, provided an analysis of different management
structures, and will provide direction on day-to-day operation of the cemetery.
The designers have located a majority of the memorial space at the tow of the slope, at the
tree line. There will be a ceremonial space set at the base of a large stand of evergreen trees
at the top of the driveway. From this location, pathways will extend up the hillside into the
trees. These pathways will require terraces as they move across the hillside. It is within the
terraced walls that there will be niches for cremation remains as well as crypts for coffins.
The terraces ascend the. slope and end at a meditation garden for cremation scattering. All of
the pathways within the cemetery will be handicapped accessible.
Traditional in-ground burial will be located at the tree line, at the edge of the open meadow.
The spaces will be marked with boulders, not traditional upright markers. Size restrictions for
the boulders have been established in the report and are shown with sketches. In no case
1
will any boulder exceed 24 inches in height. All of the proposed improvements have been
designed with the infent to compliment the natural setting. There will be no structures as part
of this proposal.
In addition to the improvements described above; there will be a landscaped berm which will
buffer the neighborhood from the burial locations and ~vrill create a sense of enclosure for the
cemetery. The berm will surround a circle drive, which will be located at the top of the
driveway. The driveway is designed to ascend from Matterhorn Circle to the base of the
treeline. It is designed to be like an "old country road" with grass growing between the two
tiro tracks. !t is intended that there will signs at the entrance of the road to identify the
cemetery and create a sense of entry, however these have not been designed at these times.
In order to create a road which will not exceed 8%, the turnaround space at the top~of the
driveway will have to be cut approximately 12 feet below. the existing grade. Though this wii!
require Cutting the slope.in the area along the treeline, no trees will be removed as a result.
In order to provide the turnaround circle, fill will need to be added on the northern side of the
circle. Fill ~~lill begin approximately 300 feet from the existing tree line. The finished grade will
not exceed 2:1 and will be revegetated. Cut and fill around the drivev~~ay (not the turnaround
circle), will be kept to a minimum. The terraces and :valkvrays that will be constructed on the
hillside have been designed around the existing evergreen trees. All of the evergreen trees
have been identified on a survey. Some aspen trees will be cut down to accor~nmodate the
terraces and the pathways, but these will be kept to a minimum.
B. Management Pror?osal -
Based cn the demographics of Vail and the needs of our community, the cemetery
management report indicates that there is space for approximately 450 burial sites in Phase I.
Of these, 300 are niches, 90 are graves, and 60 are crypts. Phase I is projected to provide
burial site for approximately fifty years. Phase II has the same number cf burials and is
projected to meet the demand for another fifty years.
The Eagle-Gore Cemetery District will manage the cemeten,~. The district has a proposal on
the 1993 fall ballot which would raise money for construction of an additional phase in the
Riverside Cemetery (Minturn) as well as construction of the Vail Cemetery. In addition to
funding the capital projects, there is a proposed increase to the annual mill levy to be used for
maintenance and management. It is the Cemetery District who will sell the plots, keep the
records, manage the logistics of burial, etc. The Town will retain ownership of the property
and will require a specific agreement with the Cemetery District insuring that the land will be
used in accordance with the Cemetery Master Plan and Management Report.
II. REVIEW PROCESS
The Cemetery Task Force is made up of residents of Vail who have an interest in the
cemetery as well as Matterhorn neighbors who have an interest in the development of
Donovan Park. The following individuals have been involved in the Cemetery Task Force:
2
J
Paul and Nancy Rondeau Dalton Williams ~ Town Staff
Cissy Dobson Hermann Staufer
Dave Cole Chuck Ogilby Todd Oppenheimer
Sylvia Shapiro Sally Johnston Russ Forrest
E!!a Knox Lou Meskimen Greg Hall
Jerry and Judy Sibley Peggy Osterfoss Mike Brake
Bob Buckley Marvin Langer
Staff has worked closely with the Matterhorn neighborhood during this process. There have
been several task force meetings as well as meetings with the neighbors on-site. At this
point, there is consensus on the design from both the neighbors as well as the Task Force.
The significant issue that has been raised in the review process centers around a buffer
between the cemetery and the surrounding properties. Though the burial sites are not located
in the exact center of the upper bench, they are located with significant distances between the
burial spaces and neighbors. This plan includes landscaping which will further buffer the use -
from surrounding properties.
The following meetings were held by the task force, the neighborhood, and various other
interested parties. They are as follows:
February 11, 1992: Vail Town Council decided that land purchased wifh RETT funds
could be used for a cemetery.
October 6, 1992: Vail Town Council worksession reaffirmed site selection and
discussed management options.
October 27-28, 1992: A public vrorkshop discussed site constraints, neighborhood
concerns, and conceptual design alternatives.
November 5, 1992: Cemetery Task Force reviewed and endorsed the preferred
conceptual site plan.
November 10, 1992: Vail Religious Foundation endorsed the site plan and noted that,
even as the preference for cremation is growing, in-ground burial
must remain an option given certain religious groups' beliefs and
burial practices.
November 30, 1992: The Cemetery Task Force met with Larry Sloane to discuss in
detail the various alternatives for managing the new cemetery. It
was generally agreed that management by the existing Cemetery
District was the most attractive option.
December 3, 1992: A site walk vas conducted with neighbors in the vicinity of the
cemetery site to illustrate in the field where the primary elements
will be located. Neighbors expressed general relief that the siting
and conceptual layout would have less visual impact on their'
properties that they anticipated.
3
December 14-15, 1992:. A joint worksession of the Design Review Board (DRB) and the
Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) tivas held,
followed by a Town Council worksession to review the
conceptual plan. In each of these sessions, the plan was well
received, •~vith the proviso that there be heavy screening from
neighborhoods and that grave headstones be low and
unobtrusive.
March 10, 1993: The Cemetery Task Force met to discuss refinements in the
management plan and development of a policy on residency
requirements. Comments on the physical design continued to be
very positive.
March 31., 1993: The Cemetery Task Force recommended adoption of a.residency
requirement that would offer in-ground and crypt burial only to
past and present residents of the Upper Eagle Valley (see full
text of resolution in Appendix C} and would establish athree-
tiered pricing structure for all other burial options (cremation
niches and other memorials}.
May 10, 1993: At a second PEC worksession, there was general consensus to
approve requests for a conditional use permit and a paving
variance to allow a gravel access road. The master plan and
management report were also informally endorsed.
August 6, 1993: Meeting with the Cemetery District Commissioners to discuss
funding options.
August 31, 1993: Presentation to Vail Town Council by staff, consultants and
Cemetery District Commissioners regarding the fall ballot issue.
Vail Town Council unanimously supported the project and the
proposal to put the issue on the fall ballot using the cost
estimates presented.
September 7, 1993: Eagle County Commissioners pass a resolution putting the
proposal on the ballot.
September 27, 1993: PEC approved conditional use and paving variance.
Itl. COt~CLUStO€~
Staff recommends approval of the Town of Vail Cemetery Master Plan and Management
Report. We believe that the site plan and management report have evolved from community
input. Staff believes that the management report, with the recommendation for the Eagle-
Gore Cemetery District to run the site, is the best alternative. We believe that this conclusion
has been reached based on a thorough understanding of the needs and resources of the
community. Staff believes that the Master Plan is a result of much time spent evith neighbors
and community residents, understanding their expectations and concerns. Many issues and
4
.J
concerns were raised by citizens. The cemetery design process is an example of the way
citizen involvement influenced and improved the design.
c:lpeclmemoslcem 11.08
5
~ ' ~ p' 0
•t `
Ll ~ `R•.al ~ ,•t ~
o(„ tF'j1~.~ !p" I ..r t tip' w `~w~ ''InL~,',
~1!~.:•.,`•i),1~ ,it1%S~:*\~ '~•.~;,b'.t.,.~' ,I:-~ Ir~:^ ~:,-.:~i~_:. ..~:%c^'3C,~t'~t'.,b''?'.. 's'
yLZ 1~}~~•..~\.•. \,w` 1'rl ~ ryK 1..' ~ a- .c .L 1
~o y@"'vim \r:t \ i~}l I ~.'..'7
1,
r~ u~ 1, ~ . ~ ~ ..''i::. gib:" . ,
1w k ~ ~ ,t ~a~,i^_:1{x',1` „4,, ,.`,1, ~':ii;a~ '
II ~ d" ll~t'~l~
1~ ®V®1''7 ~ ~A~L-9A~ 1d~Si t ~i~
Prepared for the 'T'own of Fail Community IDevelopment department
by
Af,P1;1~JE ][b1'H'I?It1~JA'I'IOt~1A1L IDESIGN, IA1C., (Landscape Architects
IIARfl.I:~' EI,ILIIVG'I'ORI 1PIEfftCI; ~'E~, Architects and Planners
'I•fl-HE SLOANE CONSLJL.'B'ING GI20YJP, 1VHanagement Consultants
Final Report .
October 7, 1993
1
t 1 4
x
Tt~~LE OF CONTENTS
` LIST OF II,LUSTRATIONS AND TABLES i
LIST OF APPENDICES ii
CONSULTANTS AND PARTICIPANTS iii
STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJET i i JES v
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT
B. METHODOLOGY: THE PLANNING/DESIGN PROCESS
C. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND PUBLIC INPUT
` II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4
A. MANAGEMENT
B. OPERATIONAL POLICIES
C. DESIGN GUIDELINES
D. PHASING AND INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS
E. IMPLEMENTATION
III. SUMMARY OF THE MANAGEMENT REPORT 7
A. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EAGLE VALLEY AREA
B. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
C. PRICING '
' D. FISCAL ISSUES
IV. THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN 12
. A. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
B. DESIGN-DETERMINING FACTORS
1. Site Analysis: Physical Constraints
2. Visual Analysis: Aestfietic Opportunities
C. THE MASTER PLAN
D. DEVELOPMENT COMPONENTS OF THE INITIAL PHASE
E. CAPACITY AND PHASING
V. 'INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES 30
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 34
A. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL STUDY, October 1992
B. WATER SUPPLY
C. OTHER ISSUES IDEN t Lrt~D AS POSSIBLE CONCERNS
D. MI'T'IGATION MEASURES
VII. IMPLEMENTATION: NEJ~T STEPS 36
VAIL CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
r ~
7 ?
i
ILIS~' IIi..I..IJS'g'ItATI®NS AID TA~L~S
ILLUSTItATIOI~IS
Fig. i Boundaries of the Eagle Gore Cemetery District 6
Fig. 2 Vicinity Map of the Donovan Park Cemetery Site 12
,Figs. 3-4 Views of the Upper Bench Site from Across I-70 13
Fig. 5 View of the Cemetery Site from Homes to the East 14
Fig. 6 View from the Cemetery Site towazd the East 14
Fig. 7 Existing Conditions and Site Analysis Diagram 16
Fig. 8 Conceptual Master Plan 17
Fig. 9 Cross-section of Site's Ecosystems 18
Fig. 10 Bird's Eye View of the Vail Cemetery 20
Figs. 11-21 Design Details 21-27
TABLES
Table 1 Evaluation of Management Alternatives 8
Table 2 Suggested Retail Pricing 9
Table 3 Five-Year Operating Pro Forma 10
Table 4 Eagle Gore Cemetery District 1996 Operating Budget 11
Tab]e 5 Burial Inventroy Projections by Phase 27
Table 6 Summary of Estimated Initial Capital Costs 28
Table 7 Future Phase Costs and Retail Value 29
Table 8 Cost Estimate for Improvements at Minturn Cemetery 30
Table 9 Eagle Gore Cemetery District Capital Construction Funding Plan 31
VAYL CE1~ISTERI' MASTER PLA1~I
f ~
t Y
I1
LIST OF' APPE1®tDICES
A. Definition of Terms Relating to Burial Options
B. Brief History of Previous Community Efforts
Summary of Public Concerns
Letters and Other Public Input
C. Vail Cemetery Task Force: Recommendations on Pricing
and Burial Options; Meeting Minutes
D. Municipal Cemetery Management Study (Full Text), L.F. Sloane Consulting Group, June 1993
E. Demographic Data on the Vail Cemetery Market Area
F. Initial Development Costs -Vail Cemetery
(Detailed Spread Sheet)
G. Minturn Cemetery District Financial History
and Projected Improvement Costs
H. Geologic Hazard Impacts and Preliminary Geotechnical Study
(Full Text) Chen Northern, Inc., October 1993
I. Preliminary Environmental Review of the Proposed
Cemetery at Donovan Park
TOV Community Development Dept., November 1992 (Draft)
J. Town of Vail 1990 Cemetery Site Selection Study
(Jamar Associates)
h. Surveys of Mountain Town Cemeteries, 1990 and 1993
L. List of Mortuaries, Funeral Homes and Cemeteries
in the Vail Vicinity
M. Selected Colorado Statutes Relating to Cemeteries
N. Legal Opinion on the Relationship between
Town Cemeteries and County Cemetery Districts
O. Documents Relating to the Formation of the
Minturn Cemetery District, 1947 ,
VAIL CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
r ,
7 t
~~^aa ~~TT TT~~77 ?g+ }~T~+ p g~ p p~T 111
~l.®1~7~~J11~ g ~la ll ~ ~ ~L-~ Il iLA~L'~1®l~~
TOtd'N OF VAIL COUNCIL
Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor
Bob Buckley Merv Lapin Jim Shearer
Jim Gibson Rob Levine Tom Steinberg
TOWN OF VAIL STAFF
Ron Phillips, Former Town Manager
Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager
Kristan Pritz, Director, Community Development Department
Andy Knudtsen, Community Development Department, Senior Planner, project manager
Russell Forrest, Senior Environmental Policy Planner
Steve Barwick, Director, Finance,/Administrative Services
Larry Eskwith; Former Town Attorney
Todd Oppenheimer, Public Works, Landscape Architect
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Kathy Langenwalter, Chair
Greg Amsden Jeff Bowen Allison Lassoe
Bill Anderson Diana Donovan Dalton Williams
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
George Lamb, Chair Sally Brainerd
Michael Arnett Bob Borne
CE.'tTETERY TASK FORCE MEMBERS
Dave Cole Marvin Langer Jerry Sibley
Bob Buckley Lou Meskimen Rev. Don Simonton
Cissy Dobson Chuctc Ogilby Hermann Staufer
Ed Drager Peggy Osterfoss Dalton Williams
Sally Johnston Paul and Nancy Rondeau
Ella Knox Sylvia Shapiro
EAGLL• GORE CEMETERY DISTRICT (formerly the Mintwn Cemetery District)
Cissy Dobson, Commissioner
Father Ed Poehlmann, Commissioner
Dalton Williams, Commissioner
VAIL RELIGIOUS FOUNDATION
Rev. Benny Clark, President
~AId. CIEME'H'ER~ MAS'II'EIt PLA1~I
r ~
t ~
• 1V
THE CONSULTING TEAM
Alpine International Design, Inc., Landscape Architecu and Master Planners
500 East Lionshead Circle, #301, Vail CO 81658 (303) 476-0668; fax 476-7660
Sherry Dorward, Landscape Architect and Project Manager
Eldon Beck, Principal in Charge
Harley Ellington Pierce Yee Associates, Inc., Architecu and Planners
P.O. Box 5030, 26913 Northwestern Hwy. #200, Southfield, Michigan 48086-5030
(313) 262-1500; fax 262-1515
Jack Goodnoe, Landscape ArchitecVJohn Hammer, Architect
L. F. Sloane Consulting Group, Management Consultant
318 Delaware Avenue, Delmar, New York 12054 (518) 439-8138; fax 439-4306
Larry Sloane, Principal
n ~ Chen Northern, Soils Testing and Geological Reconnaissance
5080 Road 154, Glenwood Springs CO 81601 (303) 949-1864
Steve Pawlik, Engineer
VAIL CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
1 ,
V
~'~'A~'~I~EN'g' ~R®JE~'~ ®~JEC1'~V~S
(Overall Alission Statement
To produce an implementable cemetery master plan
that serves the vaned needs of the greater Vail community
now and into the future,
that complements our natural surroundings,
and that engenders community pride and involvement.
Guiding Princiules
1. That the cemetery plan shall be community-driven.
The citizens of the Upper Eagle Valley should be involved not only in the design of the plan, but also in the
development of the cemetery and in its ongoing maintenance.
2. That the cemetery plan shall be environmentally sound.
Environmental factors, such as water resources and geological constraints, must be respected in the design and
operation of the cemetery.
3. That the aesthetic character of the cemetery shall complement its natural surroundings.
The cemetery should appear as natural as possible in the landscape and have a low visual impact on the
neighborhood.
That an opportunity exists to use the cemetery to strengthen the sense of community and the public's
awareness of the area's natural and cultural history.
5. That the products submitted be implementable and provide a model methodology for public involvement
in other town-sponsored projects.
Tasks of the Consulting Team
1. To design the cemetery: to develop concepts for its physical layout and aesthetic character that meet the needs
and expectations of the valley's population, that blend with the natural site, and that assure proper functioning from
' the initial stage of development.
2. To develop a workable management plan: to recommend an operating scenario that takes best advantage of
existing public financial and human resources.
3. To produce a total master plan package: to demonstrate that the proposal responds to community needs and
is a product of a thorough public process; to provide a permanent record of the design rationale; and to specify how
it should be implemented, funded, and phased.
]Products
1. ]Waster Plan: a conceptual design, in graphic and written form, for the cemetery's layout, composition, and
character.
2. 1Wanagemen4 Plan: written recommendations for the cemetery's organizational and managerial structure and a
plan for its initial and ongoing operation.
3. Implementation Plan: an outline of costs by recommended development phases, financing mechanisms, and steps
required for implementation, including approval by the public.
Adopted by the Vail Cemetery Task Force, October 27, 1992
VAI1L CIEIWETIEIt~' 1WASTEIt PI,AI~I
t
1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE OF THE PROTECT
A consulting team of three firms was hired by the Vail Town Council on September I5, 1992 to conduct a
management study and to develop a master plan for a Town of Vail cemetery to be located on the upper bench of
Donovan Park. This site had earlier been identified as the best location for the cemetery after evaluation of 18
possibilities within the Town limits (see Appendix J, site selection study, 1990).
The purpose of the management study, conducted by the L.F. Sloane Consulting Group, a New York-based specialist
in cemetery management and operations, was (1) to assess community needs for burial spaces based on current and
. anticipated demographic characteristics, (2) to recommend to the Council the most viable management entity to
operate the cemetery, (3) to project operating costs and recommend funding mechanisms, and (4) to outline an
operating methodology and recommend steps for its implementation.
. The physical master plan was developed by Alpine International, a landscape architecture firm in Vail, in
conjunction with Harley Ellington Pierce Yee, a Southfield, Michigan architecture and planning firm specializing
in cemetery design. The purpose of the master plan was (1) to develop a design program for the cemetery,
including functional elements and burial options; (2) to propose and test altematives for the location of the cemetery .
within the site and to develop general guidelines for its overall design character, based on public input,
. neighborhood concems, and site conditions; (3) to suggest a phasing plan that would match site capacity with an
appropriate mix of burial inventory over the long term; and (4) to estimate initial capital costs for construction.
B. 1\1ETHODOLOGY: THE PLANMNG/DESIGN PROCESS,
The project was approached in several sequential steps:
1. Preliminary Investigation
During the first phase of work, initial contacts were made with interested community groups and neighborhoods,
and work sessions were held with Town staff, the Cemetery Task Force, and the Eagle Gore Cemetery District
commissioners. Also, site conditions were inventoried, demographic patterns in the Valley assessed, and a
geological reconnaissance commissioned. In its first work session with the Vail Town Council (October 6, 1992),
the consulting team discussed the range of management options and reaffirmed the Council's preference for the
Donovan Park site.
2. Conceptual Planning
The second, or conceptual, phase of work began with a community workshop on October 27, 1992. At this half-day
meeting and in intensive work sessions during the following two days, the consulting team and Town staff reviewed
site constraints and program altematives, heard neighborhood concerns, reviewed and evaluated management options,
assessed their implications for physical layout and cemetery capacity, and developed several conceptual site plan
alternatives.
These conceptual alternatives were reviewed at another public work session on October 28, 1992, and a preferred
layout was identified, which was then refined by the design team and presented to community groups, the Cemetery
Task Force, and Town boards. .
VA.IL CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
~ ,
2
2. Conceptual Planning (cont'd)
During the same period, other mountain communities and Denver-area cemeteries were contacted for more
information on operational policies, pricing, management structure, requests for space from out-of-towners and
methods for accommodating winter-time burials. (See Appendix IC for detailed responses.)
3. Master Plaa
The third phase of the work program was the refinement of a physical master plan and a set of management
recommendations for review and approval by Town Council, DRB and PEC. This report summarizes the design
elements of the master plan and the conclusions of the management consultant.
Also in this phase of work, meetings were held by planners and Cemetery District Commissioners with Eagle
County and Town of Vail officials and staff to consider a variety of options for funding the cemetery's development.
On August 30, 1993, the Vail Town Council reviewed the development budget outlined in Section VI and endorsed
a plan to place a mill levy assessment proposal on the November 2, 1993, tax election ballot required by state
Amendment 1. The following week, the Eagle County Commissioners passed a resolution to include the item on
the county ballot.
C. CO'•91\9Lfi'ITY INi'OLVEI~4ENT AND PUBLIC INPUT
Community input, particularly from adjacent neighborhoods, has been actively solicited throughout the planning
process. In addtion to the initial community workshop that launched the conceptual design phase, there have been
numerous public hearings and meetings with neighbors and task force members. These meetings and their outcomes
are briefly outlined below. A list of public comments and concems and letters received during the current cemetery
work is included in Appendix B, and minutes of Cemetery Task Force Meetings is included in Appendix C.
February 11, 1992: Vail Town Council decided that land purchased with RETT funds could be used for a
cemetery.
October 6, 1992: Vail Town Council work session reaffirmed site selection and discussed management
options.
October 27-28 1992: A public workshop discussed site constraints, neighborhood concerns, and conceptual
design altematives.
November 5, 1992: Cemetery Task Force reviewed and endorsed the preferred conceptual site plan.
November 10, 1992: Vail Religious Foundation endorsed the site plan and noted that, even as the preference
'for cremation is growing, in-ground burial must remain an option given certain religious
groups' beliefs and burial practices.
November 30, 1992: The Cemetery Task Force met with Larry Sloane to discuss in detail the various
alternatives for managing the new cemetery. It was generaI]y agreed that management
by the existing Cemetery District was the most attractive option.
December 3, 1992: A site walk was conducted with neighbors in the vicinity of the cemetery site to illustrate
in the field where the primary elements will be located. Neighbors expressed general
relief that the siting and conceptual layout would have less visual impact on their
properties than they anticipated.
VA.YL CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
t,
- 3
December 14.15, 1992: A joint work session .of the Design Review Board (DRB) and the Planning and
Environmental Commission (PEC) was held, followed by a Town Council work session
to review the conceptual plan. In each of these sessions, the plan was well received,
with the proviso that there be heavy screening from neighborhoods and that grave
headstones be low and unobtrusive.
March 10, 1993: The Cemetery Task Force met to discuss refinemenu in the management plan and
development of a policy on residency requirements. Comments on the physical design
continued to be very positive.
March 31, 1993: The Cemetery Task Force recommended adoption of a residency requirement that would
offer in-ground and crypt burial only to past and present residents of the Upper Eagle
. Valley (see full text of resolution in Appendix C) and would establish athree-tiered
pricing structure for all other burial options (cremation niches and other memorials).
Aiay 10, 1993: At a second PEC work session, there was general consensus to approve requests for a
conditional use permit and a paving variance to allow a gravel access road. The master
plan and management report were also informally endorsed.
Augus[ 6, 1993: ~4ee[ing ~~ith the Cemetery District Commissioners to discuss funding options.
August 31, 1993: Presentation to Vail Town Council by staff, consultants and Cemetery District
Commissioners regarding the fall ballot issue. Vail Town Council unanimously
supponed the project and the proposal to put the issue on the fall ballot using the cost
estimates presented.
September 7, 1993: Eagle County Commissioners pass a resolution putting the proposal on the ballot.
September 27, 1993: PEC appro~~ed conditional use and paving variance. .
VAIL CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
i ~
4
A. 1~ANAGERq)EN'I'
The management consultant has concluded that legal and capital formation issues make operation by the Eagle Gore
Cemetery District the best option for management of a cemetery in the Town of Vail. t'The Sloane report is
summarized in Section III and included in full as Appendix D,) The advantages of this approach are that the
District has taxing power to provide capital funding, it is already operating the cemetery in Ivlintum, and both the
District and the County endorse the ~;r~..ach. Prior to development of the cemetery, a management contract
between the Town of Vail and the Cemeteryy District must 1x concluded to outline long-term land use and operating
• policies, funding mechanisms and pricing policies, and design guidelines. The Town of Vail, not the District, would
retain title to the cemetery property.
The Eagle Gore Cemetery District was formed in 1947 as the iVlintttrn Cemetery District (see documents, Appendix
O). It is governed by three cemetery district commissioners appointed by the Eagle County Commissioners for
terms of from two to six years. Renamed in 1992 to reflect the commissioners' desire to serve the entire upper
Eagle Valley, it is one of two cemetery districts in Eagle County. Its boundaries were drawn to coincide with those
of Eagle County School District 11, which no longer exists (Fig. 1). As drawn, the district encompasses the entire
town of Vail and portions of the town of Mintum and the community of Eagle-Vail. The town of Avon is within
the Eagle Cemetery District, not the Eagle Gore Cemetery District.
B. OPERATIONAL, POI,ICl' RECOIVINIEN®ATYONS
1. Residency Requirements
The Cemetery Task Force has recommended that inground burial plots, crypts, and entombments shall only
be sold to those who have resided or owned property in the Upper Eagle Valley for a minimum of three
years, then relatives, and individuals who die here without other burial options. Niches for cremation
remains and other types of memorials may be sold to anyone without residency requirements (Appendix C.)
2. Pricing
The Task Force has recommended athree-tiered pricing structure, applying to "in=district" residents, other
Upper Eagle Valley residents living outside the district boundaries, and rion-residents who wish to be
buried in Vail. Fee schedules are to be established by the Cemetery District Commissioners (Appendix C).
The Task Force recommended that "outside the district boundaries" would include residents from Wolcott
to Vail and Mintttrn to Redcliff. At a later Task Force meeting on September 29, 1993, it was suggested
that this tier could be more easily defined as the residents within Eagle County. This definition may be
refined by the Cemetery District and the Town of Vail after the management agreement is finalized.
J • 3. Sales
All sales are to be made on an as-needed basis, and only two spaces may be sold to any one individual.
4. Endowment )Fund
An endowment fund is to be established for the future expansion and improvement of the two cemeteries.
Not less than 25% of the revenues from the sales of lots, crypts, niches and cenotaphs is to be set aside
for the fund. In addition, an annual maintenance fee is recommended to be assessed on all unused spaces.
5. Operations
The District and the Town shall mutually establish policies relating to hours and days of activity, record
keeping, conditions of pttrchase of burial spaces, and other operational questions.
6. Name for the Cemetery
The District and the Town, in counsel with the Vail Religious Foundation and the Donovan Family, shall
agree on a name for the cemetery. The park shall continue to be called Donovan Park. Until further
discussions are held, the site shall be referred to as the Vail Cemetery at Donovan Park. .
V,~IL CLsMLsTL:RY 1VfAS'l'ER PLAN
t
5
C. DESIGN GUIDELINES
1. Siting and Layout
The preferred design concept places the cemetery in and near the tree line at the upper edge of the meadow
on the upper bench to minimize its visual impact. Crypts and niches will be contained in retaining walls
that ascend into the trees, while burial plots will be arranged on flatter ground below the tree line and along
the entry road. The entry road will be a visually unobtrusive gravel track with a trtrn-around at its upper
end and parking, when needed, on a reinforced grassy shoulder. Stone steps and ramped walking paths
will make memorial and burial areas accessible to all. The estimated 100-year build-out of the cemetery
will trse approximately 2 acres. (Donovan Park's upper bench measures 39 acres, and the meadow area
is a,,,,.~ximately 9.5 acres.)
2. Mix of Inventory
Demographic statistics indicate that the local population is more homogeneous, better educated, higher in
income, and has fewer children and elderly than the averages for the state and the country as a whole.
This suggests a lower local mortality rate, a greater tendency to choose cremation over burial, and a lower
inclination to purchase cemetery spaces in advance of need. While the master plan offers a full mix of
burial options, the number of in-ground burial sires is more limited in quantity than would be the case in
a traditional cemetery.
3. Design Character
The design concept for the cemetery emphasizes natural forms and stone as the primary material. To
minimize the visibility of the cemetery, there are to be no buildings and no night lighting on the site, and
extensive tree planting will be undertaken to screen it from the adjacent neighborhoods. Burial markers,
limited in size and form, are to be natural boulders with applied or engraved inscriptions. (See Section
IV.F. for more detail on design guidelines.)
D. PHASING AND INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS
Development costs for the initial phase of cemetery construction, not including contingencies, design or engineering,
are estimated at approximately $470,000. (See Section VI for a summary cost breakdown and Appendix F for a
complete cost estimate.) The initial phase of development includes many elements, such as overlot grading, utility
work, the entry road and gateway monuments, and landscape screening, that will not recur in subsequent phases.
Inventory initially developed for this phase is expected to satisfy the need for burial spaces in the first 10-15 year
period.
E. IMPLEI!'IENTATION
Immediate steps are to prepare a ballot proposal for the November, 1993, Amendment 1 tax election, to proceed
with detailed design and engineering of the cemetery, and to conclude a management agreement between the Town
of Vail and the Eagle Gore Cemetery District. Additional recommendations for action are listed in Section VII.
VA1L CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
_ h~ r Tj L¢aCS Rao h
+ ~ ~ ~ so al _~,aa I+Z.b
21 - ,
~ ~ ~ - ~ 87 ~ 6
8S ~ ~
A 1-- ~ V i +
1
t
39
'T 4 r
2 1 ~ 1
r a" 0 ~ 10 11
11 18 R
y 4a ip :•I ea r as ?~84 ~o
~T
o ~®gl¢9 Ptlo91 .
to 8 a+ 87 d® Sa
.,d d -
~ 38 .D4 t_./S6 ~ ~aap
f8 x:96
~ i /
„l0 ~
' ~ . t - ~ e ~
9 ~ ,o +1 la r ~ ~ I
~ 18 ~ ARty Labe
~ ~ D7e~
- ~ ~ / ' 4~COaf L.
18 1 ~ e ~ 15 ~ j4 ~ ~9 ~ d 1
q 19
I. ~ ~ a ~ooDo~~ ~ ~
1: as a~ I 4
i zo q ~ 11 t ~ I ,2t
~ ~
} ~ / I.
- ~ s
~ de i a7 a6 ~ ` ~ ~ ~ .
ca as i p„
- v
i / ' ~ ` ,`per
~
_ ~ ~ -
Is ~4 a ie ' \w,7r Io- .
4 q 8 i (r0®b
~ ~ ~ _ ~
~ -
U r t
~ d ~ , 1~ 21 d.f X84 ~0 , ~ t / ' ~ l i~
z(~p~j a iq ~ ~
i
~ 1 _
t ~ ~ ~ ,
,~3 ~ yo 9t 38 J8 ~•D4 3 b6 ..tal ~ _ / 8q
Cse.or L~r r ~ ~ ~ ~ I l
(r 6 s l a\ ~ s~ a l t ~ c
H .
o ®o ~ 99 , S? I ~ ~
. i', .t T 8 1 ~ to ,1 ~ 18 1~~
Fig. 1: BoasaidaaTes of the Eagle GOa'e CeaaaetePy Distaict (asap dated 1929)
~AgIL, CEI~)E";~'EIt~' ]~flAS'~'E~t ~LARI
7
III. SUMMARY OF t ttr: MANAGEMENT REPORT
A management study was conducted by Larry Sloane, a New York State consultant to the funeral industry. His conclusions
. are based on census data; meetings with Town of Vail and Cemetery District officials; interviews with local funeral homes,
religious leaders, the Town of Vail attorney and the Town's Finance Director, and input from the Cemetery Task Force.
Summarized below, the full Sloane report is included as Appendu D.
_ A. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EAGLE VALLEY AREA
Census records 1990 indicate that the population of Eagle County is 17,998 people, growing at just over 3%
per year. In the uNy:.. (eastern) portion of Eagle County in particular, the population is dominated by baby boomers
_ in the 18 to 44 age group (58.4%) and averages fewer children, smaller families and households, significantly fewer
older residents (only 4.1% compared with 12.8% nationwide), and higher income and education levels than the state
or the nation as a whole. The 1990 Census counted Vail's permanent population at 3,716.
The County's mortality rate is a very low 3.7 per 1,000 population per year, about half the rate for Colorado as a
whole. In 1992, 49 residents of Eagle County died. (Data on Vail resident deaths specifically and where they are
buried is no[ available.)
~ This demographic profile has several implications for the capacity and character of the new cemetery in Vail. First,
the number of burials, at least in the initial phase, is expected to be quite low, perhaps as few as two or three per
~~ear. Second, higher income and education levels correlate with a higher than average tendency to choose cremation
rather than burial. This trend will likely increase, thus probably extending the active life of the new cemetery by
reducing the amount of land consumed by burial plots. Third, the inclination to pur~hase cemetery space in advance
of need is unusual in persons under 45. Finally, with more varied and non-traditional family situations, there is a
growing demand for individualized choices and a trend away from family plots.
Certain factors complicate the projection of need for cemetery space in Vail. On the one hand, it is unclear how
many among Vail's younger population will choose to make Vail a permanent home and eventually to be buried
a . here. On the other hand, an increasing number of middle-aged and early retired people aze purchasing part-time
.homes in the Vail area with the intention of making it a permanent home in the future. This trend could increase
the demand for cemetery space.
-.Although it is difficult to make any firm projections from these statistics about the future need for cemetery space,
some tentative conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, given the low mortality rates, the capacity of the upper bench
site is far beyond the probable level of need over the next 50 to 100 yeazs. Therefore, the actual area needed for
a cemetery is a small portion of the total azea. Secondly, anon-conventional cemetery, with less space dedicated
to in-ground burial and more to cremation remains, conforms to trends associated with Vail's younger, more highly
educated population. Thirdly, because acetuate projections of population growth and cemetery usage aze not
possible, the cemetery should be designed so that the inventory of spaces can be developed in smaller phases that
respond w the demand and range of options needed by the evolving local population.
VAIL CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
8
B. 1~9AI~IAGEMENT AILTERl'+IAT~VES
The advantages and disadvantages of four alternative ownership and/or management possibilities were studied: the
Town of Vail, anot-for-profit organization, a private for-profit operator, and the Cemetery District or other special
district. The criteria against which each one was rated included (1) access to a source of capital to implement phase
one of the cemetery development; (2) present staff-tng that would be available to satisfy operating needs; (3) the
likelihood that management will have along-term commitment to ..r:..ating the cemetery and along-team ability
to continue to support it financially; (4) the amount of control that the Town of Vail would be able to exercise over
land use, design character, and ~N,:..aaonal issues; and (5) other legal limitations or issues. Table 1 summarizes the
evaluation of each management option on the basis of these five issues.
- Management )Rv 'fl'own l~or-Profit Dion-Profit District
Criterion:
Capital Funding 5 10 5 5
Operating Capability 10 5 5 10
Long-term Commitment 10 3 5 10
Town Control 10 5 S 8
Legal Issues 5 10 10 10
40 33 30 43
Table l: Evaluation of Management Alternatives (Sloane /teport)
The study concluded that the best alternative is to contract with the Eagle Gore Cemetery District (known, until
1992, as the Mintttrn Cemetery District) to operate the cemetery. Advantages of this approach are several. Perhaps
most important, the District has taxing power, through a special mill levy, to provide the needed capital funding for
the initial phase of development. Also, as there is already a functioning Cemetery District Commission which
operates the Riverview Cemetery in Minturn, cost savings may be possible with a single management entity. The
County has endorsed this option, and the three cemetery district commissioners (of whom two are presently from
Vail) are amenable.
The Town of Vail is already funding the Cemetery District through a mill levy, and, although Vail residents will
incur the additional expense of a special one-time mill levy assessment to finance both the cemetery's construction
and an expansion of the Minturn cemetery, this funding source will be of more duect benefit to the Town's
taxpayers if the District were also responsible for the new Vail cemetery. Such an assessment will require an
affirmative vote by taxpayers as a result of Amendment 1.
To assure the effectiveness of this aN~,..,ach, the Town of Vail will need to reach agreement with the Cemetery
District on professionalization of services, design guidelines, and operating policies before proceeding with
construction. A management contract between the two entities would ensure that the Town retains title to the land
and that the District, not the Town, would provide operating funds through an annual mill levy. The contract would
also establish an endowment fund for futttre cemetery construction with monies coming from sales revenues; give
district commissioners the power to set fee schedules per the Town's management agreement; and give both the
District and the Town a role in establishing other operating policies. The District should agree to develop the Vail
cemetery in accordance with the site master plan as approved by the Vail Town Council.
V/4dL CENIETEdtI' A9ASTElt l'I.AI~I
9
C. PRICING
The retail prices suggested in Table 2 reflect the three-tiered pricing structure recommended by the Cemetery Task
Force (see At,y~,,,dix C). Those who have been residents of the Cemetery District for az least three consecutive
years pay the lowest fees, while Upper Eagle Valley residents pay slightly higher fees and non-residents pay the
highest fees. The recommended prices are higher than in other mountain towns (see Appendix K). In response to
the Task Force's desire to limit the likelihood that non-residents will choose the Vail cemetery, prices for burial
spaces have also been set higher than prices for comparable services in the Denver m~?..,t,~,litan area. Annual
increases in these prices would be set by the Cemetery District Commission and could be tied W increases in the
Consumer Price Index. ~
.District Community Non-Resident
Resident Resident
~ Burial Spaces and Memorials
Columbarium niches all levels $ 800.00 $ 960.00 $1,200.00
In-ground lots per space 2,000.00 2,400.00 n/a
4 ~ ~ Garden crypt 3,600.00 4,000.00 n/a
Selected "growing memorials" 500.00 500.00 SOO.QO
~.°r
Service and Inscription Fees
Inscription on niche 300.00 300.00 300.00
Inscription on crypt 300.00 300.00 n/a
Entombment fee 300.00 325.00 n/a
Inutnmcnt fee 100.00 125.00 150.00
Recording in Vail Cemetery records 100.00 120.00 200.00
only
. In records and name plaque on 300.00 360.00 400.00
- memorial
Table 2: Suggested Retail Pricing for the Vail Cemetery (Sloane Report)
As an example, the total cost to a district resident for burial of cremation remains in a coltunbatian niche would
be:
columbarian niche $ 800
inscription on niche front 300
inttrnment fee 100
$1200 .
To provide a district resident with an in-ground burial would cost:
brutal plot $2000
entombment fee 300
$2300
In all cases, the mortician's services, caskets, tuns and gravestones would be additional costs.
~ VAIL CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
c
t , 1
10
1~ISCAIL IISSIJfES
Fiscal considerations are, first, the cost of capital development and the source of funds for construction; and, second,
the costs of annual orations and the means to cover them. The estimated cost to develop the initial phase of the
cemetery is based on the design charactea and the types of burial inventory described in the conceptual master plan
in Section IV; development costs and the means to fund them are discussed in Section VI.
Annual operating costs and revenues for the Vail cemetery alone were estimated by the management consultant
based in part on the type of inventory and the tow-maintenance character of the proposed cemetery, as well as the
suggested pricing structure and projected moles of spaces. Projected sales for the first five years are 2 to 3 burial
plots, 2 w 3 crypts, and 5 to 6 niches per year, for an average of 15 units per year and a total of 45 ro 50 spaces
sold (but not necessarily used) in the five-year ~riod. In addition to revenues from these sales in the first five
years, there would also be fees for inscriptions, entombments, inurnments and other memorializadons when spaces
are used or remains scattered in the cemetery. Bated on these sales and use projections, annual operating income
in the fast five years would be in the range of $20,4°00 to $22,000 per year (using only the lowest tier of the pricing
swcture) or $106,000 for the five-year period.
The Sloane report assumed a contribution w an endowment fund equal to 25% of the sales of plots, crypts and
niches, to be used for perpetual care of the facility. After that contribution, net operating revenues would still
exceed operating expenses by almost $40,000 after the first five years of operation (Table 3). The cumulative
surplus would be adequate to cover the cost of developing additional burial inventory (lots, crypts, and niches) in
later phases. All needed infrastructure will have been developed in the initial phase; future capital expenditures will
be required only for additional burial spaces.
Income 1993 ]994 1995 1996 1997
. Revenues $20,700 $21,500 $21,100 $22,900 $19,900
Less 25% (3,600) (3,800) (3,975) (4,200) (3,675)
endowment
Net Revenues S 17,100 $17,700 $17,125 $18,700 $16,225
Operating (8,500) (8,925) (9,375) (9,850) (10,250)
Expenses*
Net Surplus S 8,600 $ 8,775 $ 7,750 $ 8,850 $ 5,925
(boss)
Cumulative $ 8,600 $17,375 $25,125 $33,975 $39,900
Surplus '
*Projected at inflation rate of 5%. Assumes part-time administration of the Vail Cemetery only. See full Sloane
report, page 11, Appendix K, for cost assumptions.
Table 3: Five-Year Operating Pro Forma (SBoarae Report)
Typically, an endowment fund such as the Sloane report has recommended is set aside as a perpetual care or
maintenance fund, while the surplus referred to above accumulates to cover future capital improvements. However,
Amendment 1 allows the establishment of separate funds only for futttre expansion, not for long-term maintenance.
Consequently, County officials have recommended that all fees from sales and services be held in the endowment
fund to support future expansion and that an ongoing mill levy assessment be used to cover annual operating
expenses for Eagle Gore Cemetery District. Combined annual operating costs for the District are outlined in
Table 4. The funding plan, including the mill levy assessment for ongoing maintenance, is shown in Table 9.
VR~I, CER'IETER~' 1NIASTEIt PI.ARI
' , 1
11
Eagle Gore Cemetery Proposed Budget Month Year
Administrative Overhead
Administrative Personnel 5789.00 X 12 59,468.00
One part time employee who manages the district
sells plots, coordinates burials, and keeps the district's
records. Salary based upon year round employment:
12 hourslwk, 515.20/hr, burdened cost.
Accounting/Audit 575.00 X 12 5900.00
Auto Reimbursement 510.00 X 12 5120.00
Insurance 5200.00 X 12 52,400.00
Office Equipment Reserve 525.00 X 12 5300.00
' _ Office Supplies 525.00 X 12 5300.00
' ~ ,Rent $550.00 X 12 S6,600.00
' ~ Telephone 580.00 X 12 5960.00
Utilities 525.00 X 12 5300.00
_ 7otalAdminisbativeOverhead $1,779.00 521,348.00
Operating Cost
~ Caretaker Personnel
Two seasonal employees who maintain
cemetery properties owned or managed
by the district.
Riverview Cemetery $2,598.00 X 6 $15,588.00
Hourly wages base upon 60 manhourslwk
at 510.00 burdened cost for 6 months/yr.
Donovan Park Cemetery 5433.00 X 6 52,598.00
Hourly wages base upon 10 manhours/wk
at $10.00 burdened cost for 6 months/yr.
Nottingham & West Vaii Cemeteries 586.00 X 6 5516.00 .
Hourly wages base upon 2 manhoursiwk
at 510.00 burdened cost for 6 monthslyr.
Travei time between Cemeteries 586.00 X 6 5516.00
Hourly wages base upon 2 manhours/wk
at 510.00 burdened cost for 6 months/yr.
Auto Reimbursement $30.00 X 6 5180.00
Equipment Cost
Equipment Repair 51,500.00
New Equipment Reserve 51,000.00
Supplies (Fertilizers, Chemicals, Fuel for Mowers, Trimmers, Etc) 54,500.00
Utiiites 540.00 X 6 5240.00
Total Operating Cost $26,638.00
Total Proposed Adminlstratlve and Operating Budget ~7,986.~
Prepared by Dalton Williams, Eagle Gore Cemetery District Commissioner
Table 4: Eagle Core Cemetery District 1996 and Ajter Operating Budget
VAIL CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
,
12
A. in)ESC~~ a BON ®F 'II'IE~IE SITE
The site selected by the Vail Town Council for the municipal cemetery is a portion of the Donovan Park site known
as the "Upger Bench." The entire Donovan Park site measures a~,~,...~irrtately 51 acres. Of these, 12 acres are
located on the lower bench and 39 are on the upper bench. The land was purchased by the Town in 1980 using
Real Estate Transfer Tax ~ a t) funds, which are earmarked for the purchase of open space. At the time of its
purchase, it was designated by Council Resolution as John F. Dor~van Park. The upper bench is zoned Agricultural
and Open Space. By a 1988 Council ordinance, cemeteries ware added as a conditional use. Cemeteries were
further defined by Council as a form of open space, consistent with Rn a i policies, in an executive session on
February 11, 1992.
Only about 2 acres of the tota139 acre upper bench will be needed for the cemetery's burial and memorial spaces.
Adjacent land uses are predominantly residential single-family, with several small lodges in the area north of the
site. The site is flanked to the west and south by the ARatterhorn neighborhood and to the east by the Glen Lyon
neighborhood. Uphill, to the southeast, the Y..,r~rty shares a boundary with the White River National Forest. A
single unpaved town road (1Vlatterhorn Drive) crosses the upper bench below the cemetery site.
A master plan for Donovan Park completed in 1985 by TI3K Associates, Denver, located the most intensive
recreational development on the lower bench and retained the upper bench largely in a natural state for passive
recreational uses such as hiking and sledding. Both the park master plan and the Vail Land Use Plan completed
a year later indicated a potential cemetery site on the upper bench. (See the vicinity map, Fig. 2.)
t~PJOVAN PARK
tII~ER BENCH
in O CEA~ETERY
~ _y SITE
m sy
C~ O y
0 o O~ ~ SAFEWAY
r
O
~ GQ'~ CASCADE
VILLAGE/
~q~ Q 1P~TIN
NO SCALE
BRIDGE STREET
VILLAGE UOFlSHEAD PIORTH~
PARKING PARKING
STRUCTURE STRUCTURts
F'ig. Z: Vicdnity A~lap of the Doraot+arr Park Cerrretery Site
VAliB. CEI~E'I<'Elt~t A'IAS'1<'EIt PLAN
' 13 ,
b
_ ~1~
`
.r
- - Ai ~ -
~4.
Fig. 3: View of the upper bench of Donovan Park from the north side of I-70.
' 3
it
~ ~ ti ~r
Fig. 4: Closer view of the cemetery site on the upper bench of Donovan Park.
VAII. CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
is
`Yr1 d+
`
...M
Fig. 5: B~iew of the cemetery site from homes at the site°s northeast edge. Point marked is where new entry
drive will connect to Matterhorn Arive. T'he driveway Btarnaroaand and main arrival space are at point
marked (2).
Fig. 6: View to the northeast from She cemetery's main arrival space.
~e~. CE~~'EItll A~S'~'E~t PI.A}~I
15
B. DESIGN-DETERMIMNG FACTORS
1. Site Analysis: Physical Conditions and Constraints
The upper bench cemetery site is an undeveloped parcel of vacant land. .The highest part of the N,,,~.~.y is a
hillside that slopes steeply to grades as high as 45% and is covered with a dense forest of aspen mined with some
larger pines. There is a distinct lower tree line, below which grades are more gentle. The open meadow below the
forest, once an agricultural field, is now vegetated in grasses, wildflowers and weeds. (See site photographs, Figs.
3-6 and diagram, Fig. 7.) An abandoned irrigation ditch traverses the meadow from the northeast to the southwest.
The land just above and below the unpaved road is the only part of the property with slope gradients under 10°10.
Geological]y, the site is a valley side bench that parallels Gore Creek, the channel of which is considerably below
the lowest part of the cemetery parcel. The bench was formed by three coalescing debris fans. a stream terrace,
and colluvial material falling from slopes above the site. While the debris fans are not considered a hazard to the
cemetery development (see Appendix I-~, design must take into account the moderate to heavy surface drainage
from slopes above the site.
Soils are dense and deep on the flatter portions and are interspersed with numerous boulders. Silty and granular,
they are generally favorable for the excavation and grading proposed.
. Because the site is on a northerly facing slope, snow accumulation is typically heavy, but there is no evidence of
avalanche hazard.
2. Visual Analysis: Aesthetic Opportunities
The meadow is a landscape feature of great integrity and is highly visible not only from neighboring properties but
also from a distance. Designers and residents felt the plan should honor the meadow rather than consume it.
Landforms other than the steeper slopes above the site are relatively subtle. The spaces between the debris fans
read as small hollows sheltered on their uphill side by the forest. At the western end of the site, one such hollow
offers superb .views back to the town, which became a key motive in siting the cemetery. In the proposed
conceptual grading plan, the fans themselves are to be exaggerated slightly to become landform motifs and screens
between the cemetery and neighbors to the west.
The lower uee line provides the other primary aesthetic influence on the site. There is a magnetism in that edge
which tends to atuact and organize design elements on the site. The tree line also frames and controls views into
the site from the east and west ends.
The greatest diversity of landfotm and vegetation on the site converges in a small zone that extends from the
meadow edge to higher elevations within the forest. (On Fig. 7, this area is labelled "special forest environment"
and is outlined with a dashed line. The cross section in Fig. 9 illustrates its diversity.) In this space, mature
conifers are mixed with aspen, and a prominent bank creates a small draw leading uphill. Planners chose this
location for the cemetery site because it can be partially screened from view and because it offers the greatest
opportunity for diverse and memorable human experience. It also offers some potential for screening meditative
spaces along the upper pathways from the noise of the interstate.
VAIL CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
IN EXCESS OF J096~ I I I I I I
I I
MODERATELY STEEP
SLOPES 20J0%
I I ( \
1
LO'tlNER LTi1AtT OF ASPEN
FQRESY ~ ADdANCNG
INTO AAE6~W
I
" ( ~ POINT ELTETRED A j~ \
~ EDGE OF FOREST 1
~ F1H
dIEWS FR00A NEIGHBORING HOUSES ,BUFFER NEEDED BETWEEN
GLEN LYON HOMES AND / g
PARK SITE
OPEN MEADOW 11096 SLOPE ~
® ~ ® /
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ NEIGHBORING HOMES
_ NEED SCREEN
NO SENSE OF SEPARATION ~ ~ l
FROM NEIGHBORING USES
°Q~~ °olllll o ~ ~
- _
I
®
i a~'~ I
® III
PARM SITE HAS Id0 ~ STEEP SLOPE IS A
SENSE OF ENTRY ~ NATURAL EDGE TO UPPER
A ? BENCH SITE, BUT ALSO
\ \ ~(j / IMPEDES CONNECTION WITH F~S•
PARK'PIANNED ON LOWER BENCH. ®g
FslslS`~IIVG ~®IV®ITI®N'
<r
fJVENT(MY VRO~TION /
~ ~ Medilalion Spice Eaisl~lg canners to be preserved / ~ , 17
Irr..r u - , i
Rl1R1AlPEORS tJCFfS ~ tiT+ _
M
r r ~ r MAways - S9: ~e IIAr 11
u6 2g 11e - 1
0 32 189 - _ FlRST 50 1!EA~LS._ r-.. 4 • ExNt • 1 ' . ~~baltc - natlral cemetery - Q
' SE~U!'B SO YENS . ~ ~ ° _ CI.. :Spice
' 126 60 307 ~ ` -
. 131 62 291 ~ `'~r11~c~~R ~T .i` • r .~rNk bJlt~, ~
257 122 601 i ~ _ _ `2` _ ~ ~ -
u. rl..a.. mle..ur xr~Nr. ti .ems. 1
<.~nul...ie,io.t, , vac.r...e.. M Exlend • _ - =
_ ~ cemel z~4 .
collNen - '...,p_ - _ _~~-,r=-- Gatew
a _ aY if
Gravel Entr 'to ~ : 4 _ _ _ . ~ ~ P ~
~ )toad ~ ~ ~ _ ~ _r~ C\ `~,I ' ~ ~sl i. ~ ~~`V
`though ~ / C' ~ ---T`~_'~`~~~\ _ ~'k.
meadow t, ' ~ CenletdY Blrlal Pbts: ~ ~
OW.. 1/ . ; _ Entrance - - _ / / Mixed fares) xreen
_ ~ Memorial ga/ders
Exrelldaipersiram ~ ~ 0 P ~ FL _1- ~
i113d t_~ ~ ' v~ek K ~ J' f -•..1~"~ ~
~I' 1 .v ~ ` accessible path
- N
_ ~ ,
r. 1 l ~ 1Ni`Af~wer Meadow rte- / .
- .y' -Roa~gy nt Feature (4J p, G ,
blew teer e! ~ / - ~ . ~ • •
.edges t0 sneer S
~ ~ - but nol /C~, - Z;:.~t-~-',~~ - /
vows
C Cordki
sheen i ~ ~
~ - ~
~ ~ _ . _ BABE CEMfETERV
~g~ ~ ~ • . ~ MASTER PLAN
New nce. w Frame +
- ~ - - _i_- ~ Ilrras~r.`.arw~ra -
i,. ~ . _ ~ v.sr.. o..
. y
i'
w • nr n.
f ~
b 18
i~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ a
~ s ~ m
~l'lun~rar~rr~i ~ ert~ lnfi~°~s~
Fig. 9 I
C. T)~II: A9ASTER I'fl.~.1~1
The Vail cemetery is planned as a meditative and meaningful series of spaces at and above the forest edge (see
master plan, Fig. 8 and perspective sketch, Fig. 10). It will be accessed by a gravel two-track entry road which
turns off Matterhorn Drive at its low point just west of the curve. Entry there and at the arrival point
beyond will punctuate a sequence of experiences designed to lead vise rs into an azea with strong spiritual
character. ~~`,~~,,y P3
The entry road, though only gravel tracks through native grasses, will be stabilized sonars in a funeral cortege can
park off to the side (see Fig. I1 and 12). The road can be plowed in winter on an as-needed basis.
The cemetery will offer a full range of burial altemadves: in-ground burial, above-ground crypts, niches and
scattering grounds for cremation remains, and a variety of possibilities for memorializing those buried elsewhere.
(See Figs. 13-18). This variety will facilitate wintertime burials.
Crypts and niches will be integrated into slope retaining walls and accessed by compacted gravel and stone pathways
accessible to all. Amore informal dirt path will continue farther up the hill to a small meditation space hidden in
the forest and sheltered from the noise of the highway (see Fig. 19). Shutter fronts for crypts and niches will be
flame-finished, rosy-gray granite, and conventional shutter systems will be modified to be compatible with the
cemetery's intended rustic character.
Memorialization will be understated. Cast bronze plaques on memorial boulders will be offered to remember those
not buried here (see Figs. 20 and 21). Others may wish to plant trees as living memorials. Headstones for graves
will be low, gray to rosy-gray granite boulders limited in dimension which can be inscribed or on which a bronze
plaque can be placed (see Fig. 22). Very light to white marbles and granites are to be avoided. Sandstones, though
native, are not as durable for monuments and therefore are not recommended.
~IA)II. CK:MKs'K'ER~' MAS'K'ER K'L.ARI
r •
19 -
C. THE MASTER PLAN (cont'd)
Maintenance requirements will be minimized by the selection of durable stone as a design motif in walls and
pavements and by the exclusive use of native plant materials. Suggested paving materials are random flagstone on
sand in meditation areas and near crypt walls, and crushed granite or gravel pathways elsewhere, adequately
compacted to allow wheelchair access. Railings and gateways are to be hand-wrought iron. Steps will be large
flagstone slabs laid informally. The only substantial landscaping anticipated other than grass seeding is the
reforestation of buffer zones at the east and west ends to screen neighbors. Overall, the character of the cemetery
will be overwheLningly organic, indigenous, and quietly beautiful.
It is also anticipated that the cemetery pathways and spaces will provide some limited opponunities for quiet
recreation and that memorial markers together will provide a social and natural history of the Gore Valley
community that may be of interest to visitors.
VAIL CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
i
. _
~.\J,., tea. « ~ :`v_o..tN~Y`- 4'~-.,_ ` ' * p~
'~~TP- yam``
{tom. " 1`. ~ - _ ',q ,n,. ~+c
tai = "....~,Y .VMSt>-'`. 3,i'~ ~ ~ ~ . `=A
_ %r _
v
y '.'1.. •.I J ~
Y.• 1!(. R- tY.y". •_l" i... till ~'7
`1. Ot _ r. .y; ~t Ji.ti+ _ - .1.~~~~~. trQ~ 1`;iY ~1i, T ~
`a,1. '_`~~'..:•\N,t `0. +,q'i y~. .Ir - .V'i=i ±f.•r_ t.,-..~a-. a 4•,Y` ~',.1,~:"~"11{, ~
•;t tt.,~~\•.( ~ ~ ~ a 9 { y r,\a; `t.:~a11'~'3.:{'~iL,'.\*;~~' '.i.,l~,•. F
;l`; `~T ~~~~R(~p'.~i ~y}y'T~ .,C, Y .l ~1 ~i11
}},t 1- 11La :.L= ~..,A L•; .taR~' ~>i,~ • S~.V). L,
1l\~~i• •~••Y~R ~ C~f'~~.,, •1 J 1 v~, , F t~: •.Y•. t.''4.1~'.4 ~
..t~1V1.-`-,,~.;1,~.t Y)~, ~ - _ 'i. tµ. ~Y_..a ' . wy`\ir1+~ I
~~`4`3: 'qtr. ~1't• \ '}y,~L .1.4 ...•\l ,,1` ,,~F i;~~~1~,-:~ c_c1.') I;.\'~,~:1-+~
~4:~ va'~`"`~-~. ".~~'o , ~v\ ~
\~c ~ ~ ` : ; .S \ e~;: . -1.1=',~ ; . , W ug ~e tha .~0 Sgp'VdC~s,
~M~\. • r 1Cah ;,W~ ~ • l , ti y a~,z.:; ~ `'C ~ ~ ` 1 B stB@B¢ ~ P 11tClf~o~B
k~,~' 1 ',~,a~`+ "r; F w, altered in s Cda~ ~ eas
~ ~ eaicP~e spaces sid~erroaad sP~a
y,~ a~~ ,t yam,^~
e a nd.
cryP rot
a~ ; ~ ~ ' ~ eviag tPae g~PeQu
~aereaeaPY, s~o ieesdda tie dy~ve~?oY
Vail ~i
~dPd°s! s~~
S
a~tua tha yoregrou~ o '
I~ dg• fl ~een~a
''~1
~ ~
yi~w
. bcb , Gt~" and~u~'~~s
r~1C vie o~ ~Tk,o g~°peen~d. ~ituc
voutwsy to ~ec~~'~ ro~ci
rrccsS oac
~ - 8 ~ ez~2be ~~5
tom VIeW Aveilzbl~5tab~U
_ sTP~i l~Z~~ E~T~ ~eu%~SgW~1'
thru ME,~Vy . -
rig. 11
~
. ~
. .
~.j
!'ig. 12: The entry drive will be a gravel two-track road similar to this one at the cemetery in Park C'it~•,
Utah.
' VAIL CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
22
~'t.•
. ~ ~ `y
,l ~y . a
~ s ~ M~~w
I~.~ ~
Fig. I3
t „e~
6 .
° 4 ~a
0
pQ ~ p o
~p tt ~ s
t, h
1
_ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
a~~v
~ ~ ~
c~~~E~~ ~~s~~
v~~
~~g. 1d
23
~w n?chc v~ I it Ye~~n~1
e~r~h ~
. GC h, WWII CY
~ C~ aTP~ ~ W~ur.
Fig. l5
~ri f
~e~°
~ t~n~cln~ will
~
e~w a
P
ti
~ •
e~
-c " •
r o •
r
~ o S
_ ~ ~ ~ ~"1
a N~ ? ~~q~ra/~
~j~q°~Ge w~tl ~OVe '
I~T~~~~~
~ pLar
v.~y CEMETERY Tq~,STER .
Fig. 16
i
24
a
0
ry.
®
~ ~ ~~d
~ °
'r~
p
O 4 ' `
S
I -
~
~'ti8, 17
p ~
Y~
a r
Ten's ~ ~
u d
\1 ~
d~
P
\ i
.
~ ~
h
~ ice"`. ~ .
~{g, 1$
25
--~~??~ilg M ~
®
x
-
~
~~~i~~~N~r~
.
Fig. 19 ~er'~-` - 1
~,Und~ Ste'' ~ P
~ yYV~ r~ ~;mortial i ~
de~~ b?'Dn2~ w?t ~ ~rr~-jrn''
h~
r
Q
y vctfi~~ ~~e~ .
or
~ h°~?f n~11 0~
~
~
D~ E ~~Lc7
. ~ g PLp
V A~ CENiETER`~
Fig. 20
26
°
Y
VI u
uld,
~ ~
Q~
i ' ` ~ ~ d~
~ ~
s !r ~
°~9 ~
P ~
~g ~
~~11 ~
mr"•.. ~
e
~i e ~Y`~
ti
a J O
a ~
°e G r~1
ao I~
4
~ ~ 1
o
~~~E~~
Fad, 21
27
u
u
Mini~~w` or
~am~
~ W t4th
' ~ J ~~e~~
Yx a~ M,
Qivr?v ~ i~?so
M~rimurn 12~,e4~
` ~e
~r
1°I moulde r m~
N~I'e ~ ~~e~ ~
avn~°~ Y~~
w~dfi~ °r e Nis
~ODU~~'
V ~ CE~TERY MASTER PLN'~
Fib. 22 ~
28
®Et'EI.®PA~EINT C~1~P®)iiER1TS ®F 'I'I.1E INI'1'IAI. PHASE
It is recommended that the tasks below be completed in order to open the cemetery.
Infrastructure
1. Unpaved access road. and turnaround
2. All earthwork required to grade the road, establish burial terraces, build the screening germ to the south
and west of the turnaround, and lay out the basic pathway system.
3. Water line
4. Electrical line
5. Surface drainage features, if any are needed beyond those that are integral to the construction of burial
vaults, crypts, and niches.
6. Meadow revegetation
7. Tree planting, particularly conifers at the roadway entry, forest edge, and along the south and west edges
of the site to screen the Matterhorn neighborhood.
8. Irrigation system
Cemetery Elements
1. Key public spaces at the arrival area, next to the turnaround, and, above it, a small ceremony space.
2. Special features at the roadway entry and the arrival area.
3. Placement of boulders for retaining walls needed in this phase.
4. Handrails and wrought iron fencing where required by code on retaining walls.
5. Stone paving, stone steps, and gravel pathways shown in Phase I.
6. 20 crypts (al] of those projected for Phase n
7. 50 niches (half of the number anticipated in Phase I)
8. All the projected burial plots for the first fifty years (phases l-3), of which approximately 30 are to include
concrete burial vaults.
9. Ten monument boulders for the mounting of cenotaphs and other memorials.
10. Benches other than those that are memorials to individuals.
11. Planting areas of shrubs and native groundcovers azound rock walls and monuments.
12. Subsurface drainage system associated with crypts, niches and vaults.
VAII, CE1VlE'><'EItY MAS'I'Eit PI.At~1
29
E. CAPACITY AND PHASING
Table 4 outlines burial inventory by phase. Development has been divided into six roughly equal phases, each of
about fifteen years duration. The numbers in each column indicate the estimated physical capacity of the site as
shown for each phase on the master plan drawing (Fig. 8). In-ground burial places represent about one-fourth of
the combined total of plots, crypts and niches.
It is not necessary to build all Phase 1 inventory at the outset in order to open the cemetery, although there are
certain physical and economic efficiencies in building niches, crypts and vaults in larger blocks of at least 20.
Table 5: Burial Inventory Projections by Phase per Afaster Plan Design
INVENTORY PHASE 1 PHASE 2-3 PHASE 46 TOTAL CONSULTANT'S
10-15 YEARS (15-50 (50-100 (100 ESTIMATE OF
YEARS) YEARS) YEARS) DEMAND
IN-GROUND
BURIAL, 126 0 131 257° 180°
PLOTS'
CRYPTS 28 32 62 122 120
NICHES 118 189 294 601 600
TOTAL
BURIAL 272 221 487 980 900
SPACES2
• ' 1`lore in-ground burials are possible if a decision were made to utilize other open space above and below
the cemetery access road. Double-depth burial plots could also be sold if desired.
•Z Because cenotaphs and other forms of memorialization for those already dead, buried elsewhere, or
cremated and scattered are virtually unlimited in number, they are not included in these estimates of
inventory.
' Sloane's estimate of demand for various types of burial spaces over the 100 year active life of the Vail
cemetery are based on a straight-line projection of about 15 burial places per year, compared with the Vail
areas present death rate, which averages 3 to 4 deaths per year.
° The cemetery site, as designed, accommodated more burial plots than the management consultant's
estimate. The additional plots would not be developed unless needed.
VAIL CEMETERY~MASTER PLAN
1 ' ~
30
~o Q:~s~~
A. FIItS'I' IP~IASE D1EVlI.O1'ME1~TI'
As outlined in the previous section, most of the infrastructure needed over the life of the cemetery, including roads,
grading, irrigation and utilities, as well as major buffer landscaping, is to be installed in the initial phase of
development However, not all of the projected Phase 1 burial inventory needs to be built at the outset These
projections assume that all of the crypts needed in the first phase (20) and half the niches (50 of 100 in Phase 1)
will be constructed at the beginning. It also asstunes that a!l the burial plots needed for the first fifty years of the
cemetery will be prepared during initial development A need for at least 90 burial plots was estimated for phases
1-3, but the site can accommodate up to 125 in these phases. In the initial phase, 30 contiguous burial plots would
be constructed with concrete vaults.
The table below summarizes anticipated costs for the initial phase of development, including all items thought
necessary co open the cemetery. A detailed cost estimate is included as Appendvc F. To some extent, it would be
possible w scale back the number of burial spaces and other cemetery comments if it were thought necessary to
reduce the costs of the initial, opening phase. However, it may not be possible to cover substantial deferred capital
costs for subsequent phases out of operating revenues.
Pre-conswction Costs $ 5,100
Site Work 146,450
Strip topsoil, rough grade, fill 83,020
Entry road (except grading) 13,180
Water and electrical lines 14,250'
Fine grading 14,800
Other 21,200
Cemetery Components 195,420
Burial spaces, crypts, niches 59,000
Stone walls, paving, and steps 110,300
Other special features 26,120
Plants and Other Landscape Materials 81,475
Interim Landscape Maintenance 1,500
Irrigation System 39.Q00
SUBTOTAL $468,945
Design and Engineering Fees (14%) 65,650
Contingency (14%) 65.650
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $600,245
' Details on utility costs are included in Appendix F.
Table 6: Suazaaary of Estimated Initial Capital Costs
If the Vail cemetery is not built unti] 1995, an inflation factor of 5% per year should be added, bringing the total
to $660,270.
VAII.. CISI~'d'EIaY Ii~S'H'EFt PL,~1~I
31
B. COSTS OF SUBSEQUENT PHASES
It is the intent that subsequent phases of expansion at the cemetery would be undertaken as demand warrants and
that additional burial inventory would be paid for by accumulated revenues from sales. The costs of improvements
that are not directly paid for by sales, such as additional stone retaining walls that do not contain crypts or niches,
are difficult to estimate because the higher portions of the site will complicate construction. Table 7 summarizes
the estimated costs and retail value (in present dollars) of projected inventory beyond the initial phase of
development. Retail prices are the lowest tier recommended in the management report (Table 2).
QTY UNIT COST RETAIL PRESENT
COST (1993) PRICE (93) VALUE
To build remainine inventory for 1st 50 years (phases 1-31:
_ _ Crypts 40 $1,500 ea. $60,000 $3,600 ea. $144,000
Niches 250 400 ea. 100,000 800 ea. 200,000
Burial Plots 100 300 ea. 30.000 2,000 ea. 200,000
$190,000 $544,000
To build inventory for 2nd 50 years (phases 4-61:
Crypts 60 $1,500 ea. $ 90,000 $3,600 ea. $216,000
Niches 300 400 ea. 120,000 800 ea. 240,000
r- Burial Plots 130 300 ea. 39.000 2,000 ea. 260.000
$249,000 $716,000
Table 7: Future Phase Costs and Retail Value, Vail Cemetery
C. IMPROVEMENTS AT THE MINTURN CEMETERY,
. If the Vail cemetery is to be operated by the Eagle Gore Cemetery District, then the ballot proposal for funding its
conswction will also include monies for the needed expansion and improvement of Riverview Cemetery in Minturn.
Cemetery Commissioners estimate the following costs will be incurred to improve an adjacent 2.5 acre parcel that
the Town of Minturn plans to dedicate to the existing cemetery. Please see Table 8 for a cost estimate for the
Minturn Cemetery.
The Cemetery District may also wish to secure management control and possibly ownership of the old cemetery
referred to as the Intermountain property. The additional cost would be minimal.
D. FUNDING OF INITIAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS,
A funding plan to provide for both the improvements at Minttrm's Riverview Cemetery and the construction of the
new Vail cemetery has been prepared by the Cemetery District commission with assistance from the Town of Vail
Finance Director. It assumes that all needed improvements at Riverview will be done in 1994, and that conswction
of the Vail cemetery will be deferred until 1995, although design and engineering drawings would be completed
in 1994.
The plan proposes to fund both the capital improvements and ongoing operating expenses through a y..,Y:...y tax
mill levy. The gross tax revenue required is estimated at $476,725 in 1994 and 1995, and just under $50,000 per
year thereafter for District operating costs. As shown in. Table 9, the estimated. property tax per $100,000 market
value would be $15.60 in each of the first two years and $1.64 annually thereafter.
VAIL CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
32
Unit IPe~ice quantity 'T'otal
I. PRA-coNSTRUCT>t®N c®3TS
Surveys (burial plots) 2,50.0
Permits and fees 50.0
$3,000.00
II. SITI; WORii{ I
Rough grading SF .30 87,380 26,214.0
Imported top soil CY 8.0 4,840 38,720.0
Fine grading and soil preparation in areas to be SF .20 87,380 17,476.00
reseeded
Seeding SF .20 87,380 17,476.00
Electrical line installation 10,196.00
Chain link fences LF 8.00 900 7,20.00
$111,282.00
III. IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Automatic sprinkler system SF .17 196,020 33,232.00
River pump and water line 6,490.00
IV. OTHER
Landscape maintenance allowance for 120 days I ~ I I 2,40.0
3-3 1/2" caliper deciduous trees I EA ~ 450.00 I 6 ~ 2,70.0
Niches I EA I 400.00 + 50 I 20,00.00
'I I I I $25,100.00
TOTAL I ~ I I ~1R5.195.00
IDesign antl ¢®gineering (fl4°~o) I I I I 25,921.00
Contingency (10%) I I 18,520.00
39,813.00
GRA]vD TOTAL. I I X229,642.00
Table i°!: Cost Estimate for Improvements at A?intesrn Cemetery
Yt~. CI;I~IE'I'ERI' 1dTA3TER )PI.~I
Eagle Gore Cemetery District Capital Construction Funding Plan ~
-s .
Capital Improvement Construction Phasing
Riverview Cemetery Donovan Park Cemetery
1994 $210,000.00 1994 $232,650.00
1995 $427,650.00
Total $210,000.00 Total $660,300.00 -
Proposed Capital Construction 8 Administrative Cost 1994 1995 1996 8 After
Riverview Cemetery Construction $210,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Donovan Park Cemetery Construction $232,650.00 $427,650.00 $0.00
Administrative $15,000.00 $30,000.00 547, 886.00
Total Capital Required $457,650.00 $457,650.00 $47,886.00
i
Property Taxes Required 1994 _ 1995 1996 & After
Net Required (Cost of Construction 8 Admiriistration) $457,650.00 $457,650.00 547,986.00
Gross Required (Includes 3% county charge 8 1 % uncollectable) . $476,725.00 $476,725.00 549,990.00
Proposed Property Tax Mill Levy 1.213 1.213 0.127
Estimated Property Tax Per $100,000.00 Market Value $15.60 515.60 $1.64
Table 9
34
~IIe ~1~~~®I~I~N~°A~. tC~NS~ERL~~'~~I~~
A. PREL)<ARINAIQY ~>EOT>EC>I~CAL ~'8'~11DY
In October 1992, Chen Northern conducted exploratory borings on the upper bench site, as well as various
laboratory tests to evaluate the feasibility of the t,.~~..,sed cemetery development and to provide preliminary
recommendations for grading, drainage and foundation design of minor structures and pavement sections. They
assessed both su~cial soil deposits and subsurface conditions. They found topsoils 1 to 2 feet in depth overlying
subsoils of medium dense, silty to clayey sand and gravels int:;,~~,:~.sed with cobbles and boulders typical of alluvial
and colluvial terraces. No free water was encountered in the borings, though subsoils were moist.
Based on its reconnaissance, Chen identified several geologic conditions that could affect the project. The primary
one is the existence of three debris fans in the project area resulting from high sediment concentration floods and
recurring debris flows in the vicinity. Although no debris flows are known to have occtmed in the project area,
the three fans are thought to be still active, and there is a risk that small and infrequent debris flows could occur.
Because of the relatively low risk, special mitigations are not deemed necessary, and the project as proposed should
not increase the debris flow hazard to other existing properties.
Neither on-site observation nor regional rockfall hazard studies indicate that the site is exposed to rockfall hazards.
Further, there was no field evidence of active or recently active landslides in the cemetery area. The proposed '
limited site disturbance and grading should not result in slope instability if properly engineered. Finally, while there
is potential for moderately strong earthquake hazard in the Vail area, the proposed facilities should not be
particularly susceptible to ground shaking, and earthquake resistant design would not be appropriate.
In its October 30, 1992 geotechnical report, the constiltants concluded that "development of the cemetery should
be feasible based on the geologic conditions and geotechnical considerations. The construction should be mainly
within the open field below the upper, steep forested part of the property to limit slope stability impacts and grading
requirements. With proper design and conswction, it should be feasible to extend the development into the aspen
forest area to a maximum slope grade of about 25%" (page 11). Design recommendations to mitigate potential
problems included standards for unretained cuts and fills, spread footings, retaining walls, surface drainage and
underdrain systems, pavements, and concrete vaults (pages 11-14).
The complete text of Chen Northern's report is included as Appendix H.
I3. WATF,Ii SUPPLY
The cemetery property includes no deeded water rights. Although it would be possible to supply water from wells
if permits could be obtained or to irrigate the grounds with non-potable water, discussions with the Upper Eagle
Valley Water and Sanitation District suggest that the best alternative is to connect the facility to municipal water
lines. Anon-potable water system would be considerably more costly because of the need to install separate lines.
To reduce water usage, the landscape scheme will specify native, low-water plant species.
Vim. C~A4fETEItY ASAST1EIt IPILARI
35
C. OTHER ISSUES IDE1~ ~ it inD AS POSSIBLE CONCERNS
A preliminary environmental analysis was conducted in November 1992 by the Community Development
Departmem staff to identify any sensitive environmental issues that might be associated with the development of
a cemetery at Donovan Park. Using a series of questions designed to flag areas of higher risk, the study suggests
that the risks of impacts are greatest . in four areas: ecology (habitat disturbance); surface water (run-off and
sedimentation); groundwater, and aesthetics (visual impacts).
Assessing each of these, the study concludes that, based on the conceptual design plan, "no significant impact is
anticipated from the development of a cemetery at Donovan Park. With planned landscape enhancements, there
may be a beneficial impact for wildlife habitat by increasing cover around the site. The only potential for
_ environmental impact is from groundwater contamination. However, based on the [small] ntunber of underground
_ burials projected for the site, the concentration and rate of discharge would be extremely low and would not pose
a threat to drinking water." Staff does not foresee the need for further in-depth environmental analysis of the
project.
The complete text of the preliminary environmental review is included as Appendix I.
- . D. ~ 11'(ITIGATION MEASURES -
To reduce the potential for negative impacts, the following measures are recommended in the design, construction,
and operation of the cemetery:
1. Protect and retain existing trees and shrubs on the site to maintain habitat and ensure soil stability.
2. Use additional plantings of aspens and conifers as an edge to the upper park site in order to enhance habitat
value.
3. Install groundwater monitoring stations between the cemetery and the two existing groundwater wells if the
number of underground burials exceeds 500. (The plan projects only 180 in-ground burials in the first 100 years
of the cemetery.)
4. Use native plants with low water requirements to minimize the need for watering and reduce potential impacts
on groundwater.
5. Overlot grading should duect upslope surface runoff away from burial sites and vehicular circulation paths.
VAIL CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
I
36
The following list is an outline of action steps that the consultant team recommends be taken by the Town of Vail
Community Development Department in order to open the cemetery. (Please note, these are not necessarily in chronological
order.)
A. Public AnDroval Process
1. Gain final PEC approval of a conditional use permit for the cemetery on the Donovan Park site.
2. Gain final Town Council ~r..,val of the master plan, the capital expenditure and financing plan, and the master
plan's policy recommendations.
3. Agree on a name for the cemetery.
4. Make a presentation of the fatal master plan to the Eagle County Commissioners and the Town of Minturn.
S. Make other preparations as needed for the 1Vovember tax election: public meetings, communications.
13. 1\9anaeement
1. Draft a contractual agreement for approval by the Vail Town Council and the Eagle Valley Cemetery District.
2. Plan a work session with the Eagle Valley Cemetery Commissioners to begin work on:
a. recommendations for improvements in its manageriaUadministrative capability.
b. a detailed managerial and operational methodology.
c. identification of staffing needs.
d. plan and budget for marketing and sale of plots, crypts, niches, and memorials.
C. Desicn and Construction of First Phase
1. Establish a schedule and budget for production of design development and construction documents.
2. Commission additional survey information for the platting of burial sites.
3. Using the design development drawings, refine the cost estimate for first phase conswction. .
4. Refine the cost estimate for improvements at Minturn's Riverview Cemetery.
S. Conclude agreements with Upper Eagle Valley Water & Sanitation District and with Holy Cross Electric
Association for utility services.
6. Finalize design guidelines and obtain their approval by the District, Town, and Cemetery Task Force.
7.Optional: the Cemetery District may wish to consider construction in 1994 of some cemetery elements, such as
an entry monument, signage and perhaps some memorial cenotaphs, in order to establish the cemetery as a sanctified
place prior w its actual construction in 1995.
V,~l. CEMETERY R9ASTEIt PL.ARI
APPENDIX A
DEFINITION OF TERMS RELATING TO BURIAL OPTIONS
VAIL CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
,
BURIAL PLOT/I.OT: a site for in•ground casket burial.
CASI{E'I': a coffin; the box in which a corpse is buried. Caskets are sometimes stacked one above another in a
burial plot, grave or vault.
CENOTAP)lI: a monument or memorial to a dead person that does not contain the remains.
COLUMBARIUM: a vault with multiple niches for storing cinerary urns.
CREMAINS: cremation remains; ashes.
CREMATION: to reduce a dead body to ashes.
CRYPT: a chamber or vault used as a place for burial of a casket, usually in the wall of a mausoleum but
sometimes recessed in the floor.
ENTO)i9BA'IEN'T: to place in a tomb, crypt or vault.
GARDEN CRYPT: a burial chamber in an outdoor wall or a ground-level vault.
GRAVE: a site, usually an excavation in the earth, for full-body burial. A grave may also be a tomb, sepulcher,
or crypt.
INTER119ENT: the act of burial.
INURNi\9ENT: to place the ashes of a cremated person into an ttrn.
A9AUSOLEURY: a building with places for entombment of the dead above ground.
ME)\90RIALIZATION: means by which the dead are remembered: gravestones, cenotaphs, stone monuments, and
living memorials such as groves of trees, rose gardens and the like.
. NICHE: a small space, usually in a wall but sometimes in pavement, for tuns containing cremation remains.
SCATTER GARDEN: place where cremains may be scattered without a physical inscription. Memorial cenotaphs
for these individuals may be provided on monuments nearby.
VAULT: generally, a burial chamber; typically used to describe a concrete structure in the ground into which
caskets are placed. Some states require the use of vaults for in-ground burials to prevent soil subsidence, but they
are not required in Colorado.
VAII. C1EME'TEItY MAS'T'ER )PLAN
APPENDIX B
~ BRIEF HISTORY OF PREVIOUS COMMUNITY EFFORTS
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CONCERNS
LETTERS AND. OTHER PUELIC INPUT
VAIL CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
' ~ 2
October 88 Council voted to amend the Ageictiltural and Open Space zone district to include a cemetery as a
conditional use (Ordinar~e 30 of 1988).
3/16/89 The Town's Commtmiry Development Departmene submitted a draft report to Council detailing critical
issues in proceeding with a cemetery development.
5/10/90 Chuck Ogilby, Phoebe 13arrett, and Chuck Malloy applied for a special tue permit to designate a 2-acre
site on their 80-acre parcel as a cemetery (for cremation remains only). The site is 1/4 mi. SW of the
Shrine Pass Summit Aline people are already buried there. (The Eagle County Commissioners approved
the permit in June, 1993.)
7/24/90 A public meeting was held to discuss the Donovan Park site. Neighbors in the Matterhorn area expressed
~...~,~g opposition to using it for a cemetery. The Cemetery Task Force met afterward and a majority voted
continued support of the Donovan site in spite of the opposition, but raised more points for Council to
consider.
7/31 /90 A final Cemetery Report was submitted to Council which outlined general directions for design,
management, and financing and recommended additional work in all these areas to clarify the concept.
7131/90 At a Town Council work session, Council asked Community Development staff to look at the suitability
of five additional sites.
8/21/90 At a Town Council hearing, the cemetery site evaluation process was discussed, and Donovan Park was
still recommended as the most suitable site. Council members moved to approve the upper bench site,
"with the conditions that no buildings would be on the site, the design would maintain the naturalness as
conceptualized by the Cemetery Committee, an effort be made to buffer the residential areas as much as
possible, and directions to staff to proceed with the management, design, and financial options."
!March 92 A selection process was initiated to hire a design and management consultant team to do a master plan for
the Donovan Park cemetery. Final selection was made in. August, and a contract was approved by Council
9/15/92.
Oct. 92 The new consulting team began work on 9!30/92 with the first of several public meetings of the Cemetery
Task Force and interested citizens.
VA)<fi. CEMETERY MASTER P1.AA7
APPENDIX B
A BRIEF HISTORY OF PREVIOUS COMM[TNITY EFFORTS
When the Town of Vail was barely a decade old, the first efforts to open a community cemetery began. In the years since,
a number of alternatives have been considered and much debate has taken place. The project did not really gather
momentum, however, until the mid-1980's. In 1986, the Vail Land Use Plan identified a cemetery as a priority of residents
and suggested four possible sites. A master plan for Donovan Park was completed in 1985. In 1987, a Cemetery Task Force
was organized and a comparative study of potential sites recommended that the cemetery be located on the undeveloped
Donovan~Park site. After much public discussion and further study, the Town Council endorsed the recommendation in 1990
and, in late 1992, engaged a team to develop a conceptual design plan and recommend management policies. Some
highlights of the cemetery's thirty year history are outlined below:
ca 1971 Local cemetery initiatives are first mentioned in Town files.
June 1973 Whitney Erin Btuke was the last person to be buried at the tiny Intermountain pioneer cemetery on the
- ~ former Ruder ranch. The cemetery is still there, and it appears to have half a dozen or more graves.
Although no recent burials have taken place here, the Vail Religious Foundation has allocated funds for
its upkeep and Town crews have built a~ new split-rail fence and timber steps.
] 9 78 ~ The Vail Town Council rejected a ~,...r,..sal from Colorado Memorial Parks to build and operate a
cemetery. The company's proposal was submitted after national publicity about Vail's lack of a cemetery.
1950 The Donovan Park parcel was purchased from David Elmore for $3,870,000. The purchase was funded
through the issuance of revenue bonds, with proceeds from the Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) pledged
to service the bonds.
1985 A "potential cemetery" was indicated on the master plan for the upper bench of Donovan Park.
1986 A public opinion survey and public meetings held in conjunction with development of the Vail Land Use
Plan indicated that a town cemetery was a priority for the community. The Plan cited four parcels with
potential for this use.
Jul-dug 86 Cemetery proponents, Town Council and the Town's Community Development Department discussed
- forming a citizens' committee to assist in developing a plan for a cemetery. As the Town's Land Use Plan
was still in process and planners were to designate alternative sites for a cemetery, the decision to organize
- a task force was delayed until after the plan's completion.
- - Jan. 87 With the completion of the Land Use Plan, the idea of a citizens' committee was revived. The Town
Council directed Community Development staff to do a site analysis of possible cemetery locations (the
four identified in the Plan plus nine others) and to review their relative suitability.
Azar-'\1ay 87 The Cemetery Task Force was organized and began to educate itself and conduct site visits.
Late 87 Peter Jamar Associates, a local planning consultant, was hired to conduct the site analysis, under the -
direction of the Cemetery Task Force. Jamar's report identified criteria for suitability and recommended
the upper bench of Donovan Park as the best choice.
]/19/88 The Cemetery Task Force's process and Jamar's recommendations were presented at a Town Council
meeting. The Council moved to approve the recommendation of Donovan Park as the site and "instructed
the committee to continue working on their goals." A public workshop discussion was proposed prior w
scheduling any public hearings.
4/6/88 Another work session on the cemetery was held with the Town Council and the Cemetery Task Force to
discuss the proposed Donovan Park site.
VAIL CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
. ,
4'
LETTERS AN® OTII-IER PII)BLIIC COIVIIA'fENT
- Additional specific comments and questions expressed over the years in letters [o the Town Council and in testimony at
hearings in July, 1990 on the recommendations of the site selection study have been summarized from records in Town of
Vail files:
• A cemetery is inappropriate in' a residential area; should be in an outlying area.
• Instead of a typical cemetery, make it a memorial park,.with plaques on trees or rocks to mark location of ashes.
• The method of funding the purchase of the site (RETT funds) precludes its use as a cemetery; it was pttrchased
as a "green belt" and. should be maintained as open parkland. The Donovan Park property has been represented to
adjacent purchasers as a park.
• Minturn has enough room for expansion; new cemetery therefore an unreasonable tax burden. [Note: on the
contrary, the present Minttun Cemetery is nearly filled to capacity.)
• The cemetery will make a slum of the Matterhorn area, which is already neglected.
• The presence of a cemetery will devalue adjacent property.
• There are negative psychological connotations of living near a cemetery.
• Citizens shou]d be able to vote on this site selection, but Council made a special exception to the zoning category
to include cemeteries.
• The cemetery should be affordable to all local residents.
• A cemetery doesn't fit with a resort's concept of vigor and vitality.
• How much will development and operation cost and how will these be financed?
• Who will operate the cemetery (a public or private entity)? Who will maintain it when it is filled to capacity?
• How much land area is needed in the. long-term for a population of our size? Is there a need for permanent
structures?
• What will be its relationship with area churches and mortuaries?
VA)(L CEMETEIt~' 1~AS')T'E)R P1LAR1
3
A SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CONCERNS
A number of issues and concerns have been expressed during the long process of public debate abut a cemetery
for the Vail community. Public comments and questions relating to the siting and design of the cemetery are
summarized below from the minutes of the public meeting on October 27, 1992 that began the conceptual design
phase. Additional comments and questions expressed over the years in letters to the Town Council and in testimony
at hearings in July, 1990 on the recommendations of the site selection study have been summarized from records
in Town of Vail files.
What are the long-range projections for cemetery usage? (Are there any comparable statistics from other cemeteries,
especially about outsiders buying plots there?)
Who will we bury in Vail's cemetery? How many? Should we accommodate non-residents who wish to be buried
here? If only locals, how do we determine who a local is? Is there an increasing trend for Denver people to seek
burial or to scatter their ashes in Vai]?
Neighbors don't want to see the cemetery, although they have accepted that it will be in upper Donovan Park. People
who live nearby should be able to enjoy the cemetery.
How will the cemetery site be accessed and from where? Will it be accessible by car or just on foot? How much
traffic will be generated? How will parking be handled?
What is the water source? Should treated water be used for landscape irrigation?
How should wintertime burials be handled?
How many people prefer cremation over in-ground burial? How many cremations take place in Eagle County? Is
burial something we should offer at all? Ask clergy what they know of burial preferences among their
congregations.
Task force members expressed a preference for prohibiting. above-ground monuments.
Scatter cremation remains in the forested upper portions on the site; audience had no great interest in a scatter
- garden.
How can trail use by mountain bikes be prevented?
Regarding the long-range management of the land not used immediately for the cemetery, should we establish a
land oust? Are there other options? (A land trust appealed to many in the group.)
Procedure: is therc a problem with apparent preconceptions among the design team?
What is the role of the planning department in the project? the Planning Commission?
V~'hat is the status of the middle bench of the park?
Test the concept of optional placements within the site, particularly along the east side.
1Vhat are the ceremonies of Vail the special features, places, desires, events?
What is the demand for burial space? How stable is the population?
Hours of operation? _ .
What are the long-range projections for cemetery usage? (Are there any comparable statistics from Montauk NY
or other cemeteries, especially about outsiders buying plots there?)
What will be the ongoing operational costs? Are projections to be provided by the study?
Affordability of burial spaces how to keep prices within the reach of locals?
Is there a legal issue regarding the sale of public land for private uses?
Are there tax implications of using municipal funds for the cemetery when there is already a mill levy assessment
for the cemetery district is this double taxation?
VAIL CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
~bV u ItOU ~ ~ !RA
rr~®a~~~ ®f $be b®~y c~®ss ~~~beaan ~ba~rrcb ~ b®x fl 1®3 o vai~9 c~Y®~d® ~165~°fl
November 23, 1992 ~ `
Andy Knudtsen
Town of Vail Community Development
75 South Frontage Road ~
Vail, Colorado 81657 • .
Dear Andy:
The Church Council of Mount of the Holy Cross Lutheran Church at its regular
meeting on November 19, 1992, unanimously asked me to send this letter expres-
sing their support of the concept and proposed design for, the Vail Cemetery '
which is to be located in Donovan Park. Please accept this as an expression
of support and gratitude.
Sincerely,
~il;~-Cites ~ C.~-~Lc~
Rivers Jardis, secretary
1
Ntt. of the Holy Cross, near Vail
s
. • . i
a ' ~ I.
,
f~ ~,4~, ~+II~ ~
.
~ ~
a ar+.
The V~11 Religious Foundation
November 11, 1992
Mr. Andy Knudtsen
Community Development
Town of Vail
Vail, Colorado 81658
Dear Andy,
- We of the Vail Religious Foundation express to you and Susan
Doward our appreciation for your presentation regarding the Vail
Cemetery development.
After reviewing the site development concepts, we commend your
department's concern for environmental impact and the meditative
atmosphere. It does appear that you are very diligent in
securing input relative to the kinds of need, quantity of need,
and the impact of this facility.
We the Vail Religious Foundation affirm your efforts and the
project.
Sincerely Yours,
Benny C rk
Vail Religious Foundation, President
19 W!I Rood • V~OII, Colorado 81657
Mrs. John A. Dobson
996 Ptarmigan Road
Vail, Colorado 81657 hind of "History of Vail", honoring those who have
12/15/9' lived here in the past as well as those whose
remains .ire b»r~iod here.
D?ar Mayor C>st.erfoss and Council m~~m}y_:r:~:
Sincerely,
I am anticipating that I will not r~~ ~tbl~~ to
attend the Town Co~_rnci 1 meeting on LMc . 15th . ~/s '
Therefore, since I have b?en servii~~ on the
Comzteiy Committee for many , many ye~~rs . I ti'nu 1 d C i s~
y Dobr`on
1 i}c? to diva you my views tin v~~r;~ nrief foz-m) on
ti~here we stand. ,
The Citc has r~~en chosen with careful ,
consideration to the neighrX?ring carrilnunities.
Eldon Peck, who has been helping Vail for many
years in the field of landscaping and
beautification. has spent time with Sherr,~-~
r~.~ard
and mt~rr,be2'S of the committee, and betwe~•n S!~,er~y
and Eldon, a very pleasing and n~~tural lacking
design has bt~en created.
S~'e have also had very valuaY.,le inp,_~t fzrom Larry
Sloane, a cemetery management consultant. He has
helped with the varioliv 1?ros argil cons of
different type management. At this stage of my
thin}cing, I bel ieve the best t•~ay to go is with a
cemetery district, hopefully one that can coml-,ine
with the Minturn Cemetery District, %,lready
functioning. I have just accepted membership cn~
the Mint~u-n Cemetery Board and I hope that I can
help to bring Minturn and Vail ta~ether on this.
I have L-cen vitally interested in this pr~jcct for
j'r~~r'j Nrp:i rn j i r`•;i,~ fi11Ht. i t. i'r'l l l K~ ~ =1 -
. -.......V..., . e
~ ~ • t
MEMO
To: The Vail.Town Council
From: Dave Cole
RE: Vail Cemetery
Date: 12/10/92
I was present at public meeting October 27th, the task force meeting November 5th, and
task force meeting Novembei 30th, as well as being involved during earlier phases of the
project (site selection, etc.) going back to 1987.
I concur with the decisions of Task Force regarding the design and the management of the
cemetery.
As one who was involved with the site selection, I do not want to reopen that can of worms.
I am pleased v~~th the environmental sensitivity and the "low profile" of the design. I believe
' that it will become an asset for the neighborhood.
I am sorry that I cannot attend this meeting, but Iplanned anout-of-state trip long ago.
' R
f~
~q/ .
' ~ ~l®an~ ~®~~1~l~Bl~~ ~r®~~
TOw~r of VA><t, col.OIZADO
Feasibility ~tudv - ManagemenLAlternatives.
~/e are charged with studying the pros and cons of various management scenarios among
which are:
Private Management/Ownership
(I3) Public/'g'own
(C) Cemetery District/Public
(D) N-F-P/Village
(E) Variations and Combinations of the Above
The important element ~f p_„perating costs appears to neither aua;lify or disqualify anv of the
management options. This will be addressed in the fiscal analysis within this summary
report.
The other issues to be considered when selecting a management form are:
1. Source of capital to implement Phase I.
2. Staffing to meet operating needs.
3. Long term nature of solution and commitment.
4. Control by 'Town.
5. I_.egal limitations or issues.
Other Issues Particular to One Management Form
The high emphasis on products for those selecting cremation and the use of vertical fronts
on the crypts limits the question of winter operations. The cemetery as envisioned will
easily operate year round.
If limited in-ground burial is permitted, this can probably be done year round considering
the very anticipated limited use. The Minturn Cemetery is able to bury during the winter,
and further, the original soils tests in the site feasibility study seem to conclude this is not
a problem. Such in-ground excavations would require an interment contractor regardless
of the form of management.
L.F. Sloane Consulting Group APPENDIx D
..a.~.
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO
Municipal Cemetery Management Study
VAIL CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
private lror ~rofii C~~rat~~
prq'S a private company provides all capital requirements except land acquisition cost.
'T'own, while contract is in place, will not have any operating expenses except
staff time of supervision of contractor.
The t'own's residents will be offered this protection with apro-active
marketing effort.
Con's Legally this may be complex with the Town retaining title to the underlying
real property while the private firm installs fixtures or permanent capital
improvements.
The Town would have the least control under this scenario for development
and operations.
The firm would presumably be seeking to profit from the investment and
space prices may be higher as a result. I=urther, the building prohibition on
the site may severely limit interest as the private firm cannot develop office,
chapel, or funeral home facilities on the site.
Cemetery District Management
4
pro's The district has taxing power to provide the.capital funding for Phase I of the
cemetery through a special mill levy.
This district is operating a cemetery in Minturn and cost savings are likely
through a single management. The district could add the inter-mountain
cemetery to its responsibilities to avoid the abandonment of this historic site.
Both the district and the. county encourage this approach legally and
technically. The district's commissioners now include two Vail residents as
members. The use of the district for management will encourage the upper
valley to work together. Trurther, the Town is already funding the district
through a mill levy. If the District were also responsible for a Vail Cemetery,
this funding source would be of more direct benefit to the Town's taxpayers
while eliminating further Town expenditures for the cemetery.
3
L.F. Sloane Consulting Group
Pro's and Con's
1,'own Management
Pro's The Town retains total control over design, implementation and operations.
The Town Clerk's office would be able to absorb this minimal paper and
money handling function.
Town staff can be assigned to the modest maintenance functions on a weekly
basis or for snow removal on an as needed basis. Burials can be
accomplished by contract with a private concern or funeral home.
Con's The ,County and the cemetery district officials have an opinion the Town
should not operate a cemetery rather this is a cemetery district responsibility.
Although the cost is small, Vail already funds 90% of the costs of the Minturn
Cemetery District through a mill levy. This would continue and constitute a
double cost.
I am advised the Town capital funding may be limited and/or delayed due to
prioritizing by the council. This may cause the cemetery not to be started.
Not-For-Profit Management
Pro's s Eliminates direct Town staff time and involvemerit.
Presumably places responsibility with highly motivated and interested group
of citizens with no, profit motive.
s Deeps local, Vail control of site, development and operations.
Con's s At this point I know of no group willing to step forward to enter the
"Cemetery Business".
The .group would have to rely upon a Town capital contribution or private
donations to capitalize the project and such funding sources may be difficult
to secure.
' May fall back to Town if the N-F-P corporation is not successful in producing
operating surplus.
2
Town of Vail. Colorado
~easihili~v Studv: '1'tte Market Area
The new cemetery as proposed could serve all of upper (eastern) Eagle County. V6/e feel
this is the largest possible circle for the market analysis to consider and may well prove to
be too broad due to variable social-economic traditions and sheer distances.
Eagle County is over 60 miles in width east to west. The 'Town of Vail is located in the
eastern portion of the county, some 34 miles from Eagle.
Eagle County had a population in 1990 of 17,998. The census bureau projects a 3.1%
growth rate and a 1995 population of 20,652. The number of households totalled 7,667 in
1990, with an average household size of 2.3 people.
Among those households, the number of families is only 3,849, with an average size of 3.0
people. The average family income is 541,457 per annum and exceeds both the average
within Colorado and for the United States as a whole.
An important issue for cemeteries is the age breakdown. Essentially it is unusual for a
purchaser of cemetery space to be under age 45. In Eagle County the age breakdown on
a percentage basis is as follows:
Abe Eagle County Colorado IJ.S.
Under 18' 24.2% 28.9% 28.5%
18 - 44 58.8% 43.1% 39.7%•
45 - 64 14.3% 18.5% 19.0%
64 + ~l.Il% 9.5% 12.8%
The above comparative clearly indicates the County is dominated by baby boomers, fewer
children and significantly fewer older residents as the State and County as a whole.
Always a factor when discussing what is essentially a retail product, income is higher in .
Eagle County than in the State as a whole or the County.
Income Levels Location
Median ~-Iousehold Income
$28,525 ~•S•
530,952 Colorado
$34,358 Eagle County
5
L.F. Sloane Consulting Group
Con's The district has been casually operated heretofore and the Town will need
assurances that management practices will be professionalized by the district.
The special mill levy will be an additional cost to Vail residents, probably
including funding for the 2.5 acre expansion of the Minturn Cemetery.
` The Town will want to craft an understanding with the district on design, long
term land use and operating policies prior to approving this approach.
` Should a vote be required for initial funding as a result of Amendment 1, Vail
would need support of voters elsewhere in the District (Minturn, Eagle-Vail).
Options and Ratings
The following chart rates the factors for selecting a management system with the
management options:
Management By Town For Profit N-F-P District
Issue
Capital Funding 5 10 5 51
Operating.Capability 10 5 5 10
Legal Issues 5 10 10 10
Towri Control 10 5 5 8
Long Term Nature of
Solution 10 3 5 10
40 33 30 43
These issues and ratings are clearly subjective, however I feel the options are really 2: the
Town or the District. Further, the legal and capital formation issues lead me to conclude
the cemetery should be operated wholly by the District.
1
' The original report anticipated a Mill Levy without voter approval heretofore
rating the District Capital Funding capability at 10.
4
. ~ ~a~o ~I®~¢~~ ~®~~l.~l~in~
scal ues
The fiscal issues are two. Pirst is the cost of capital development and the source of such
funds. The second is the costs of annual operations. both of these elements are in part
driven by the design and the types of inventory to be developed. The comparative pros and
cons for management systems, the capital requirement model,and the operating proforma
make certain assumptions:
(1) The Donovan Park site will be developed to include:
(A) An access road to the site.
Crypts built into a grade near the tree line on the site in phases of 20 spaces
each.
(C) Niche spaces in low walls facing into the crypts creating a private, human
scale space. The low wall niches will be built in phases of 50 to 100 spaces.
(D) A scattering alternative or optional levels of service including a name placed
on a memorial wall.
(E) A memorial grove of trees for "living" memorials.
(F') New plantings in areas developed for the cemetery, but little on the site as a
whole will be disturbed.
(G) The inventory levels described above will have an active life of a minimum of
10 years for sales. This life may range as long as 20 years. If the crypts and
niches were phased in three phases of a similar size, we have ample space for
30 to 50 years utilizing a fragment of the overall site.
(1<-i) In-ground burial is to be offered in limited quantities with boulder memorials
only and with natural grass and wild flowers as opposed to mowed lawn. In-
ground burial is included in the plan to accomodate the needs of those who
prefer such burial for religious purposes.
(2) ~/hoever operates the cemetery will establish an endowment care fund for the future
maintenance of the site. Not less than 25% of the purchase price of each space sold
will be dedicated to this fund. The purpose of this fund is to provide an endowment
the income from which will be utilized for care and preservation of the cemetery.
L.F. Sloane Consulting Group
The County ranks 7th within the State and tracks similar rates when looking at average
household income ($38,296) or per capita income ($16,318).
The population is very homogeneous compared to the U.S. as a whole, with 93.4% white,
6.4% Hispanic and 0.2% black.
The population is well educated. Over one-third of the residents are college graduates,
compared to 23% for the State and 16.1% for the U.S.
In County, 74.6% of the female population participates in the workforce. Only Pitkin and
Summit Counties have higher rates with the State. The State and U.S. are 55.2% and 49.9%
respectively.
In sum Eagle County has a homogeneous population heavier weighted to the baby boom
generation, with higher wealth and education. The population as a market area is small.
Further, the mortality rate is a very modest 3.2 per 100,000 population or .032 tenths of one
percent of the population annually. Often the market area is determined by connecting
drive time. In Eagle County this time is 21.9 minutes.
The Eagle Community is likely to have more individuals selecting cremation and cremation
memorials than ~ average because of .the profile demographics of the residents and a
recognition this is the preference among those families with a death in recent years.
It is difficult to predict demand as the population is young. There is a question of whether
or not those residents now under 40 will remain in Vail as they age.
Though not a science, I have concluded from this data that the demand for spaces will be
as shown in the charts in this report.
6
' ~ ~ ~I®an~ ~®1~~~9~u~~
(4) ,.red Sages ~®r Fears A ~ ~ are as followse°
fear of ,1994 ;1995 199b 1997 Fear Consumption
Tvpe ~f lnven~t
Dots 3 2 3 2 2 12
Crypts 3 2 3 2 3 7
]Niches ~ 6 5 b 5 6 28
Totals 12 9 12 9 11 47
Scattering 5 6 5 b 5 27
Inscriptions 10 10 10 10 10
Entombments 1 1 1 1 1
Inurnments 4 4 4 4 4
Growing Agemorial 4 4 2 4 2 _
74
(5) ,'t'otal spaces to ~ level®a~ed un six x~hases In 1992 dollars.,
'T'ype 'Total Units 1992 Retail Value Total Value
Crypts 120 $3,600 $432,000
Niches 600 800 480,000
Scatter 600 300 180,000
Lots 180 2,000 460,000
Total 1,500 $1,552,000
°Pre-Need sales of inventory should not be confused with actual entombments or
inurnments. Phasing of the inventory is based on point of sale of the space, not burial.
s
. ,
L.F. Sloane Consulting Group
(3) Suggested retail priced for modeling purposes are as follows:
district ~Qjnmuc~,y
,~catterinQ of cremated remains Resident2 $gsidents3 J~1on-Reside
Recording in Vail Cemetery records only $100.00 $120.00 $200.00
In records and name on memorial wall 300.00 .360.00 400.00
Selected "growing memorials" 500.00 500.00 500.00
Burial Soaces
Columbarium niches all levels _ $800.00 $960.00 $1,200.00
(For Cremated Remains)
In-ground lots per space 2,000.00 2,400.00 N/A
Garden crypt (For Caskets) 3,600.00 4,000.00 N/A
Service Fees
Inscription on Niche $300.00 $300.00 $300.00
Inscription on Crypt 300.00 300.00 N/A
Inscription on Headstone 400.00 400.00 400.00
Entombment (Placing Casket in Crypt) 304.00 325.00 350.00
Inurement (Placing Ashes in Niche) 100.00 125.00 150.00
Burial 400.00 400.00 400.00
1'Ihe pricing as recommended is significantly higher than other mountain towns and
is higher for selected types of space than the Denver Metropolitan area to reduce the
liklihood of non-residents utilizing the Cemetery.
2Residents are those living or owning properly inside the District boundaries for a
minimum of three years.
~3Community Residents are theme outside the Cemetery District lines including those
people who have resided or owned property in the Upper Eagle Valley for a minimum of
three years. The Upper Eagle Valley consists of the following communities: Wolcott,
Edwards, Lake Creek, Avon, Beaver Creek, Minturn, Redcliff, and Vail. The three years
of residency for either type of residency can be documented by tax records, employment
records, voter registration, or similar types of things. The residency must be continuous for
three years but may occur at any point in time. ]For example, children that have been raised
in the Valley, but have moved elsewhere during their adult lives, would qualify to be buried
in the cemetery. .
8
' 'l~'aFo ~0®~~~ ~®~s~8gan~ c~~®~p
4. Landscaping Irrigation 70,000
X372,500
5. Design & Engineering Fees (10%) 40,000
6. Continguency (10%) 40,000
CBrand 'T'otal $452,500
(8) 1Proieeted ~oeratin~ Costs: Annually
1. Administrative Ttecordlceeping $500.00
2. FinanciallZecordkeeping 500.00
3. Endowment Fund 1Management6 -0-
4. Insurance 2,000.00
5. Landscape 1Viaintenance Contractor 3,000.00
6. Entombment/Inurnment Contractor 700.00
7.~ Inscription Expense 1,000.00
8. New 'Trees/Shrub Expense 800.00
'Total $ 8,500.00
(9) lE~adoevanea~t Fund Contributions li:ach Year
fear of 1993 1994 1995 1996. 1997
Contribution' $3,600 $3,800 $3,975 $4,200 $3,675
Cumulative 'T'otal _
Principal 53,600 $7,400 $11,375 $15,575 $19,250 .
(ll®) ]Five Year ®oeratin~ ~roi'oe~v¢a
Income 1993 1994 1995 1996 ,1997
l(~evenues 520,700 $21,500 $21,100 $22,900 $19,900 .
Less Endowment (3,600) (3,800) (3,975) (4,200) (3,675)
Net Revenues 517,100 517,700 $17,125 $18,700 $16,225
6Need review of municipal finance laws to determine fund management
requirements.
''There shall be an annual maintenance fee assessed against all unused spaces. °This
will ensure that ownership records are current. ®nce a space has been used, the fee will
not be assessed.
11
L.F. Sloane Consulting Group
(6) Projected (Dperating ncomes [or Years 1 - S Is as follows -
Year of 1993 X994 ~QQ~ .1.41
,~al'e of
Lots 6,000 4,000 7,200 4,800 5,000
Crypts 3,600 7,200 3,900 7,800 4,900
Niches 4,800 4,000 4,800 4,000 4,800
Scattering 500 600 500 600 500
Inscriptions 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
rye Entombments 300 300 300 300 300
Iriurnments 400 400 400 400 400
Growing Memorial 2,000 2,000 1,000 2,000 1,000
20,700 21,500 21,100 22,900 19,900
7. Capital Cost as Estimated by Master Planners
~ 1. Pre-Construction Costs $5,000
(Surveys, Geotech, Permits)
2. Site Development (Earthwork, Fill):
- Road .40,000
- Berm at West End 20,000
- Cemetery Area 30,000
~ $90,000
3. Cemetery Development:
- 20 Crypts at $1,500 each $ 30,000
- 50 Niches at $400 each 20,000
- 75 Burial Vaults at $300 each 22,500
- Flagstone Paving & Boulder Walls 100,000+
- Special Features (lighting,
fences, steps, railings, signage) 35,000
$207,500
SSales are not pro-rated residentJnon-resident but are based on the lower resident
fee schedule.
10
i
' ~ 'Q~e~. ~I®an~ ~®~§~~g~~~
~1tC ~fC9td
The widely held choice for cremation as a preparation for memorialization allows the'I'own
to utilize the 12 acre site for the long term.
The design concept is to cluster burial units in three phases while leaving most of the site
undeveloped. I recommend the crypts be built in phases of 20 spaces. In three phases this
would allow for 60 such spaces. The physical plan will identify sites for additional crypts if
demand warrants such development.
I recommend that clusters of low wall niches be built in phases of 50 to 100. This would
provide 300 niche spaces in multiple clusters in the initial three phases.
I recommend a sinele site scatter Barden with provisions for memorial cenotaphs. Each of
the three phases would allow for 100 names on cenotaphs, for a total of 300 such spaces.
Those scattered, with their information recorded but no physical inscription adds to this
three cluster, three phase capacity by, I estimate 10% numerically.
In the initial three phases, the plan would provide 180 in-ground burial spaces, with 60 in
each phase.
'T'herefore, the cemetery capacity in this initial three phases utilizing less than 20% of the
site is 750 units. An equal number of units would be site planned as phases 4, 5, 6, for a
total capacity of 1,500 units.
I project that usage and sales of places will average 15 units per year giving the initial 3
phases a 50 + year active life. Site planners are planning for phases 4, 5, 6 to provide the
'T'own with a 100 year plan. ('T'he unit absorption rate is at the point of sale ~f the space,
not burial.)
Inventory Phase 1 Only Phase 2 - 3 Phase 4 - 6 Total
(Braves 75 15 90 180
Crypts 20 40 60 120
I~liches 50 250 300 600
Cenotaphs 30 270 300 600
'T'otal 175 575 750 1,300
13
,
L.F. Sloane Consulting Group
Less Operating
Expenses° 8,500 8,925 9,375 9,850 10,250
Net Surplus $ 8,600 $ 8,775 $ 7,750 $ 8,850 $ 5,925
(Loss)
Capital Cost
Recovery Set
Aside As A $ 8,600 $17,375 $25,125 $33,975 $39,900
Cummulative Surplus
' Projected at inflation rate of 5%.
The projected absorption rates coupled with the proforma operating plan above leads me
to~ conclude that the cemetery it can be operated with minimal Town fiscal support.
. The endowment fund could be a larger financial element if gifts and bequests are sought
and secured or if the Town seeds the fund. The fund will need to grow to in excess of
' $400,000 in principal to maintain the cemetery. This fund is based on a set aside of 25%
of"all space sales. The purpose of the endowment fund is to provide funds long term. It
is different from the operating expenses in that it is an asset.
' Further, the District will have a continuing revenue stream from the existing annual mill levy
and income from the Minturn Cemetery operations. The projections are conservatively
stated and the need for additional taxpayer support appears most unlikely.
. The cumulated surplus should prove adequate for the Cemetery to add inventory of crypt
niche or lots as needed from cash flow. The original development cost covers the capital
funding for the infrastructure. Future capital expenditures will be for specific inventory only.
. 12
~11~ode~ic Y9fstr9ct i)eye?,q~+~me~¢ and ~ tYon ®r ~ Vats
7Che Districg, with a governing board of three ° sinners, would operate the `Mail
Cemetery an con,~unction with ®tlaer cemeteries ~rathln the district.
The District should iavesttgate at ®nce the process for assessing a special Mill levy for
capital expansion of ttte new Fall Cemetery and the existir~ lturn CCeemetety°
Capital requirements for both ~penditures gill be available vvhan tb® master plar~tin$
process is complete. The ia~act on taxpayers of the special ffiill levy can be evaluatcd with
all the data assembled.
The assessment would capitaliz® both the ARlnturn expansions and the Pail development.
Further, it could fund the establisbffient of ~ endowment furtd for the care and preservation
of all the district cemeteries to b® ~rther funded from a set=aside of ?S% of all space sales
in all the District cemeteries.
The District should, in ffiy view, increase prices of lots In the ARinturaa Cemetery as no
increase has occurred since a4 least 197° `t'he new price should.~clude a set-aside for the
perpetual care endowment fund, II ~eco~end the fee be changed to X100.00 per spacc with
X25.00 of this price going to the trust.
The Town and District should agree on a three-tier pricing system, with a residents" rate for
any resident of the district, a second teat for ~Jpper Eagle Malley residents, and a third
higher price for nonresidents,
The price variance or prerniura for nor-residence should be at least 40%. These funds, if
retained as a surplus, will help defray the costs of Phase I~ development fn Mail or capital
improvements in RZinturn in future yeses, r~s the taxpayers of the District will be funding
the initial phase, this seems both fair and logical t8 rne.
In the public comment, a concern was expressed about the potential of large numbers of
outsiders wishing space in the ~1ai1 Cemetery, Pridng is one tool in limiting this perceived
problem,
The District should agree to develop the cemetery in accordance with the alts master plan
approved by the~Towfl, The District ~mmissioners have been includcd in the planning
process.
.1~
L.F. Sloane Consulting Group ' ~
The 2.5 acre expansion of the Minturn Cemetery will provide a similar length of active life
for this existing district cemetery.
. The increasing trend in the choice of cremation over burial may extend the active life even
further. Another variable is the question of whether or not the residents now 18 to 44
residing in Vail will stay in Vail or locate less where as they age.
Only two memorial spaces may be sold to any single individual. These may be purchased
on a pre-need basis. All sales contracts will include aright-of-first refusal which will allow
the cemetery district to purchase back any plots which are no longer wanted. The right of
first refusal will include. a ninety day period for the district to make its decision. The sales
price will be set at the same price the individual originally paid for the memorial space.
14
g. 'The agreement would be contingent upon the District's ability to provide the needed
capital funding.
Tn the final team master plan report, the appendix to the report will provide the District and
the 'Town with a proposed fee schedule, model rules and regulations to govern the cemetery,
forms and recordkeeping recommendations, memorial/inscription specifications and the like.
't'he 'T'own, possibly in conjunction with the County and the District may wish to secure the
cemetery referred to as the intermountain property and include this within the District
management umbrella.
l7
3 ~ i .
L,F. Sloane Consulting Group
The cemetery. should be operated on a year round basis. All permanent records and fiscal
records should be automated and a tape back-up furnished to the Town periodically as an
added protection. Computer operations can be discussed with the District Commissioners.
I recommend the agreement between the Town and the Cemetery District be in the nature
of a management contract. Such a contract would include but not be limited to:
1. The Town, not the District, would retain title to the underlying real property.
' - t 2. The District, not the Town, would provide capital funding for the construction of the
Cemetery, probably by a special one-time mill levy. Future phases would be built
from set-asides from the sale of Phase 1 spaces and/or loans from the trust funds.
3. The District, not the Town, would provide operating funds from the existing annual
mill levy and fees for spaces and services from the joint management of the Minturn
and Vail Cemeteries. The District, at its discretion, may contract with the Town for
--Y certain services.
4:` ~ District Commissioners2 shall establish fee schedules for cemetery spaces and service
fees.
5. - The District will agree to establish an endowment fund for the long-term care and
preservation of the cemeteries by setting aside not less than 25% of the retail cost
- of lots; crypts, niches or cenotaphs sold in the cemeteries. The nature of the fund
and investment policies for the principal of the fund shall be carefully established.
6. The District and the Town would mutually establish policies governing the Vail
Cemetery to be administered by the District Commissioners. Such policy issues
- would include but not be limited to memorial sizes, materials, inscriptions, floral
Y rules, resident, non-resident issues, hours and days of activity at the cemetery,
~ recordkeeping processes, terms and conditions of purchases within the cemetery and
. _ other technical issues.
7. The agreement would be long-term in nature with recourse for the Town in the event
the District fails to operate the facility to a standard of good cemetery practices.
2The cemetery district commissioners will review the residency qualifications of
individuals wanting to purchase spaces within the cemetery. They will also review any
extenuating circumstances which may be outside the standards listed above and grant any
variances. Any appeal of decisions made by the cemetery district commission shall be heard
by the Vail Town Council.
16
~ p1
Preliminary lEnvironmental Analysis of the Pr®posed Cemetery at
~ Donovan Park
I. Introduction
Purpose:
The purpose of this preliminary environmental analysis is to identify any sensitive
environmental issues that may be associated with the development of a cemetery at
Donovan Park. If significant environmental issues are identified that can not be mitigated
. then a Environmental Impact Report will be prepared. This analysis is intended to im-
prove decision making in the evaluation of the site and help ensure environmental consid-
erations are addressed in the site design.
liRethodology:
This preliminary analysis utilized a systematic environmental review process devel-
oped for the Department of the Army. This process identifies environmental areas of
concern that should be evaluated to determine the degree of environmental risk. Environ-
mental risk was determined by evaluating the impact on 11 environmental areas (e.g.,
ecology, surface water, groundwater..) using a series of filter questions. The score for each
question in an environmental area is added to determine the level of environmental risk.
Each environmental area that is identified as having a high risk will be evaluated to deter-
- mine if steps cari be taken to minimize the risk. This environmental review process only
highlights or "red flags" environmental areas that may be impacted. It does not quantify
the risk and should only be considered a preliminary. step to focus an environmental
analysis on sensitive issues.
This process is congruent with the spirit and intent of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) but tailored for use at a municipal level. As in NEPA, a preliminary
environmental review will determine if any significant impacts may occur from the pro-
posed action. If significant issues arise then an Em~ironmental Impact Report (E1R) will be
prepared that will evaluate the specific environmental consequences of each alternative
evaluated. -
Description of the Prop®sed Action:
For many years the Vail community has discussed designating land within the town
limits as a Town Cemetery. In 1986 the Town Land LJse Plan identified that a cemetery
was a priority for Vail citizens. IV[any of the founding families of Vail expressed an inter-
est in creating a cemetery in the Town of Vail. The Town has responded to this request
from the constituency and has proposed a location at Donovan Park.
The Donovan Park Parcel is a 9.5 acre portion of Donovan Park (Figure 1). The
actual area proposed for the cemetery is three to four acres in the southwest comer of the
parcel. The current design concept is to provide for both underground and above ground
1
~ { ~
APPENDIX I
-
.
~ PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
OF THE PROPOSED CEMETERY AT DONOVAN PARK
November 30, 1992
Prepared by: -
Russell Forrest
Community Development
Town of Vail
VAIL CEMETERY MASTER PLAN
~ y
~ 1 IA
north, and west. An unpaved road, Matterhorn Circle, runs through the north side of the
site.
]Flora and IEauna .
Aspens dominate the south portion (2-3 acres) of the site with interspersed
lodgepoles and firs. Grasses, wildflowers and thistles cover g5% of the site. Deer and elk
are known to use the site for grazing. Small mammals such as rabbits, field mice, ground
squirrels, and vowels are likely to inhabit the site.
lE-lydr®1®gy and Ge®1®~y
. The area is well drained with porous soils. Soil borings were done on the site and
no evidence of aquifers were found 20 feet below the site. However, the area may act as a
recharge area for alluvial aquifers near Gore Creek. Two ground water wells are currently
located approximately 400 meters from the site and could be within wellhead protection
areas that Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation and Water District is developing for the area.
in a recent geologic analysis prepared by Chen and Northern Inc, no evidence was
found to indicate that there was a risk of landslides in the cemetary area. This report con-
cluded that the proposed grading should not result in slope instability if based on the
proposed design.
IV. ]Environmental Disk of Proposed Action
The first step in this analysis was to answer a series of filter questions in eleven
em~ironmental areas to determine the potential for impact. This process does not deter-
mine if an impact will occur but it doe§ identify issues that §hould be examined de-
pending on the nature of the proposed action. Therefore, a high risk rating does not neces-
sarily mean that there will be an impact but that it is an area of concern that needs to be
evaluated.
Four technical areas did have high risk scores; ecology, surface water, ground wa-
ter, and aesthetics Table 2. Each of these areas of concern will be evaluated below to deter-
mine if there is a risk of the proposed action having an impact in the area of concern.
3
burial crypts (Figure 2).
The current conceptual design plan would maintain existing vegetation and place
above ground burials in natural niches in the forested portion of the park. Access to- a
parking area would be a reinforced grassy track. Additional tree plantings are proposed
on the north side of the site to provide an entrance to the park. Indigenous wildflowers
would be planted on the grassy plain to further enhance the aesthetic and natural quality
of the site.
II. Alternatives Considered
Six alternative sites were evaluated in a 1987 site selection study (Figure 3). The
suitability of each site was evaluated based on eleven criteria. Each alternative site was
.~k- ~ given a score for each criteria and a cumulative score (Table 1). Donovan Park had the
" highest score using these criteria. The Lionsridge parcel had the second closest score and
was not considered to be as suitable as Donovan Park because it was located on private
property.
-.a,::.. = TABtE 1: Site Suitability Analysis
j SITE A.\ALYS]S STEPHE\S DO\OV.4.\ PARK KATSOS RANCH PARCEL H LIO\SRIDGE I TL'v1BERFALLS
Size and Shape 0 3 0 0 3 1
- Topography 3 3 3 3 3 ' 2
Soil Conditions/ 1 3 0 2 2 2
Hydrology
Geology 1 2 0 1 3 3
w - Access 3 3 1 3 3 3
' Parking 1 3 1 2 1
L~tilit}' Services 3 3 2 2 3 3
3 3 3 3 3
Land use
- _ compatibility
Expansion Paennal ? = 2 2
- . - - `Aesthetic Qualities ] 2 3 ] 2 3
I Acquistion Cost 0 3 3 0 0 0
+y~ (Totals 17 29 20 1g I 26 23
III. Affected Environment
Site Conditions and Land Use
' - The Donovan Park area is zoned open space and is predominately a grassy field
with a forested area on the south side. Most of the property is an old, fallow agricultural
' field with an irrigation ditch through the middle.running from the northeast to the south-
west. Slopes along the bench are between 10% and 20% down to the north on the east,
2
~ ~i 1 ~ i
expected. Overall there would be minimal site disturbance and site drainage would not be
negatively impacted.
Mitigation: Maintain vegetative cover. 1Vew plantings should be indigenous to the area
and have low water requirements.
Ground Water
There is a risk of groundwater contamination from underground burials. This
environmental area is a concern because there are two groundwater well along the Gore
approximately 400 meters and 450 meters from the proposed underground burial area.
As mentioned previously formaldehyde, nitrates, and phosphate are produced from burial
areas. Formaldehyde is an animal carcinogen and.is also toxic to humans. Although drink-
ingwater standards have not be set by the EPA for formaldehyde, experts recommend a
safe standard to be 110 micrograms/L (ppb) (Tomkins et al.)
The site may also contribute to aquifer recharge used by the groundwater wells.
Therefore there is a potential pathway for formaldehyde and nitrates to contaminate drink-
ingwater. However, there is little. or no risk that concentrations would pose a threat to
drinking water sources based on an analysis of groundwater impacts from the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment. This study concluded that the rate of release of contaminates
from a cemetery with 500 burials with porous soils was so slow and at such low concentra-
tions that there was no threat to groundwater resources. The proposed Donovan cemetery
would only have an estimated 180 underground burials within 100 years.
Mitigation: The potential for groundwater contamination is extremely low with the current
design plan of 180 underground burials. If the number of underground burials exceeds
500 it would be prudent to install ground water monitoring stations between the cemetery
and the two ground water wells. The number and location of the monitoring stations
would require a more site specific analysis by a professional hydrogeologist and be coordi-
nated with Upper Eagle Valley Sanitary District. (Upper Eagle Valley is currently re-
viewing the cemetery plan to determine if they see any potential impacts to their
Groundwater wells. They will notify T®V by December 6,1992 to informs us of any
concerns they might have.) Inaddition, Every effort should also be made to use plants
with low water requirments to minimiie the need for watering and to reduce demand on
groundwater supplies.
VII. Conclusion
Based on the current design plan no significant impact is anticipated from the devel-
opment of a cemetery at Donovan Park. With planned landscape enhancements there may
be a beneficial impact for wildlife habitat by increasing cover around the site. The only
potential for environmental impact is from groundwater contamination. However, based
on the number of underground burials projected for the site the concentration and rate of
' discharge would be extremely low and not pose a threat to drinking water. 'T'herefore,
based on the current design plan no additional environmental analysis is necessary at this
time.
5
~ ` t
TABLE 2: Summary of Environmental Review Scores
j Health I Air i Ground- I Earth j Land I i ! Energy/
Ecology .Surface Water I tioise ~ Transponation Aesthetics Resource
I& Safety i Quality water i Science ~ Use i
i I I Conservation
I ~
• Total Score 8 j 2 ~ 9 7 I 9 ~ 3 I 0 2 j 0 6 ~ 0 '
' Em•ironmental i ~ i I j '
Risk i High Low I Moderate I High I High Low Low Low ~ Low ~ Moderate Low
I
Env nsk to flora and No duett (Mod. risk (Rink high 'High risk Sail No Some No signfi®nt ~ High ranking Development will 1.
!fauna was high I threat m j bemuse I beosue of j because d ~ distrubance j conflic I inaeaae m impatt to ~ baotsse d Ina consuate a '
because d proxiadty j heahh m i dust i pradmity to ; praedmity I and aouan land j noise levels surwmding j the high aigni&nnt amt. d
Ito Deck and used for I safety. emiauans I t:etk However, ' to wells and I will be ~ ute or j durirtg inital mtersettiona or i visibility d power. Site will s
' !big game gnung. ~ ~ from ;site design will j site may j rieglible. , aeatio I crostnution ~ rwds. I Me site. Site need water for the a
:Comment ~ However. site design I I gnvd ; mirumize run I provide I I d ~ daaign will fast 3 yean for i
i could incease habitat road. Can i -0ff and no j recharge. ntiiaan ria sa>pair landscaping
potential through j be j sigtidicant i I the visual i
planned landscapng. j I mitigated i wn-Print i I j quaYity d the
i by , solace ~ site. I
I watering ~ cmtaminatian I I I
I ~ road. . u .J.
Envirorunental5core
_ 0-3 Low Risk
4-6 Moderate Risk
7+ High Risk
Ecology
Ecology received a high score because the site is within a 1/2 mile of Gore Creek
and because the site is used for grazing by big game. There maybe some disturbance of
habitat during the landscaping and construction of.the site. However, there may in fact be
- an enhancement of the habitat for large game through the planting of trees around the
perimeter of the park which will provide additional cover without significantly decreasing
~ ~ grazing area.
- . - Impact to fish and other aquatic organisms in the Gore was also raised as an issue.
• T'he formaldehyde and nitrogen generated by buried bodies is toxic to fish species. Be-
cause soils are relatively porous in the area there is a potential for release of formaldehyde
and-nitrogen. However, based on the number of bodies that may be buried on the site the
rate of release would be so slow that the risk of contamination is very low (Ontario Minis-
try=of the Environment, 1992).
- Mitigation: It is recommended that existing trees be maintained to maintain habitat and to
ensure soil stability. The current design plan would minimize the need for tree removal
and work well within the natural landscape. Additional planting of aspens and coniferous
- trees around the site could provide an increased "edge effect" for the site and potentially
increase the value of the site for wildlife habitat.
Surface Water
Surface water was a concern because of the proximity of the proposed site to the
Gore Creek. There maybe some increased sedimentation during the construction of the
gravel road into the parking area. However, this would be temporary and not be of a
significant amount. The planned road would providestable fire tracks into the site and '
grasses would be planted in between the fire tracks. No significant increase in run off is.
4
~ ~ , ' b
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF FtEALTF@ ~Of•C0~9
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and Me ~'g
environment of the people of Colorado
m4
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory Building ° o d
Denver, Colorado 80222-1530 4210 E. 11th Avenue re~e
Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 802 2 0.3 71 6
(303) 691-4700 Ray Romer
Goverrmr
January 26, 1993
Patricia A Nolan, MD, MPH
Ezeartive Director
Russell Forrest
Sr. Environmental Policy Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Town of Vail Cemetery Ground Water Impacts
Dear Mr. Forrest:
The Ground Water Unit of the Water Quality Control Division (Division) has reviewed the material you
submitted pertaining to the siting of 180 burial plots.
Based upon this material and what other information could be obtained on this subject, it does not
appear that there is a likelihood for ground water to be impacted over the next 100 years as the 180
plots are occupied. The landscape around the burial plots is not a traditional landscape, in that there
will be little grass that is fertilized and irrigated. The only irrigation that will occur is to the trees for three
years to establish them. After this time, there will only be natural wetting of the cemetery due to rainfall
and snowmelt. Hence, it is anticipated that little impact will occur from formaldehyde (embalming
solution contains only two percent formaldehyde or approximately 1 /4 quart of formaldehyde for a body
weighing 150 lbs.) or nftrate (nitrogen is released at a very gradual and insignificant rate as the body
decomposes, plus there is to be no fertilization of the cemetery landscape).
The division strongly recommends that an annual sample be taken from the two wells during low flow in
Gore Creek, which would probably be during September through March timeframe. The wells should be
sampled for nitrate as nitrogen and formaldehyde. It is particularly important to take background
samples for these two parameters prior to interment of the first body. Any increase from the
background analysis data is to be sent to the division in a report indicating all the background data, the
sample data demonstrating the increase and any likely sources of nitrate/formaldehyde, other than the
cemetery.
If you have further questions please call me at (303) 692-3588.
Sincerely,
Mic el J. U zzl -
Gro Wa r Standards Section
WATER QUA TY CONTROL DIVISION
MJL:jb/GENCOR-57
cc: George Moravec, WQCD/Ground Water Unit
F• ~ t ~ h
REFERENCES
Alpine International, Geologic Hazards Impacts and Preliminary Geotechnical Study,
Proposed Cemetery, Donovan Park, October 30,1992.
Forrest, Russell, John J. Fittipaldi; "Environmental Review Guide", Technical Report, U.S. '
Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, 1988.
G.Soo Chan, M. Scale, Semami, "Cemeteries and Groundwater: An Examination
of the Potential Contamination of Groundwater by Preservatives Containing Form-
aldehyde," Ontario Ministry of the Environment, February 1992.
Peter Jamar Associates, Inc., "Site Selection and Suitability Analysis For Vail Cemetary,
Prepared for the Town of Vail, 1987.
Tomkirts B.A., McMahon J., Cladwell W.M., "Liquid Chromatographic Determination
of Total Formaldehyde in Drinking Water", Analytical C'h,emi~r , vo172, no.5,1989.
6
~1
ORDINANCE NO. 4
SERIES 1993
AN ORDINANCE REPEALIi~G AND REENACTING SECTION 1£3.24.tB65 AND 18.2S.d45,
OF THE iV1UNiCIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL,
SETTI9~G FORTH NEW PROCEDURES FOR EXTERIOR ALTERAT{ONS
OR ~1iODIFICATIONS OF BUILDINGS IN
THE COl~fillERCiAL CORE 1 AND COIUINIERCIAL CORE II ZONE DISTRICTS;
AhD PROVEDING DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
Vl1HEREAS, the Town Council believes that the following amendments will clarify and
make more effective the exterior alteration and modifications procedure for Commercial Core I
and Commercial Core II.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado:
1. Section 18.24.065 - Exterior alterations or modifications - Procedure for
Commercial Core Zone District I - of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby repealed
and .reenacted to read as follows:
18.24.065 Exterior alterations or modifications -Procedure for the Commercial Core I
Zone District.
A. .The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds
or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building which moth#ies exterior
roof lines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or
the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to review by the Planning and
Environmenta{ Commission (PEC) as follows:
1. ,4pplication
An application shall be made by the owner of the building or the building
owner's authorized agent or representative on a form provided by the Director of Cornmunity
Development. Any application for rondominiumized buildings shall be authorized by the
. Condominium Association in canfarmity with ail pertinent requirements of the Condominium
Association's declarations;
2. Application -Contents
An application for an exterior alteration shall include the following:
a) A completed application form, filing fee, and a list of all owners of
property located adjacent to the subject parcel. The owners list shall include the name of all
owners, their mailing address, a legal description of the property owned by each, and a general
description of the property (including the name of the property if applicable}, and the name and
1
1_
mailing address of the Condominium Association's representative {if applicable). Said names and
addresses shall be obtained from the current tax records of Eagle County as they appeared not
more than thirty (30) days prior to the application submittal date;
b) A written statement describing the proposal and how the proposal
complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Urban Design
Considerations, the Vail Village Master Plan, Streetscape Master Plan, and any other relevant
sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan;
c) A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating existing
conditions on the property including the location of improvements, topography, and natural
features;
d) A current title report to verify ownership, easements, and other
encumbrances, including schedules A and B;
e) Existing and proposed site plan at a scale of 1 inch equals ten feet,
a vicinity plan at an appropriate scale to adequately show the project location in relationship to
the surrounding area, a landscape plan at a scale of 1 inch equals ten feet, a roof height plan and
existing and proposed building elevations at a minimum scale of 1/8 inch equals 1 foot. The
material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and improvements as necessary to
demonstrate the project's compliance with Urban Design criteria as set forth in the Vai{ Village
Urban Design Guide Pian, Vail Village Design Consideraticns, the Vail Village Master Plan, the
Streetscape Master Plan, and any other relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan;
f) Sun/shade analysis of the existing and proposed building for the
spring/fall equinox (March 21/September 23) and winter solstice {December 21) at 10:00 A.M. and
2:00 P.M. unless the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail determines that
the proposed addition has no impact on the existing sun/shade pattern. 1"he following sun angle
shall be used when preparing this analysis:
Spring/Fall Equinox Sun Angle
10:00 A.M. 40° east of south, 50° declinaticn
02:00 P.M. 42° west of south, 50° declination
Winter Solstice Sun Angle
10:00 A.M. 30° east of south, 20° declination
02:00 P.M. 30° west of south, 20° declination
g) Existing and proposed floor plans at a scale of 1/4 inch equals 1 foot
and a square footage analysis of all existing and proposed uses;
2
h} An architectural or massing model of the proposed development.
Said model shall include buildings and major site improvements on adjacent properties. The
scale of the model shall be as determined by the Director of Community Development.
i) Photo overlays and/or other graphic material to demonstrate the
relationship of the preposed development to adjacent properties, public spaces, and adopted
views per Chapter 18.73 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
j) Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the
Director of Community Development or the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
(PEC). The Director or the PEC may, at his or her or their discretion, waive certain submittal
requirements if it is determined that the requirements are not relevant to the proposed
development nor applicable to the Urban Design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Village Urban
Design Guide Plan and Vail Village Design Considerations and any other relevant sections of the
Vail Comprehensive Plan.
3. Aoolication Date and Procedures
Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted bi-
annually on or before the fourth Monday of February or the fourth Monday of September. For the
year of 1994, the submittal dates shall be the fourth Monday of February, May, September, and
November. Submittal requirements shall include all information listed in subparagraph number
2 above, provided however, that the architectural or massing model shall be submitted no later
than three weeks prior to the first formal public hearing of the PEC. No public hearings or work
sessions shall be scheduled regarding exterior alterations prior to the bi-annual submittal date
deadlines. At the next regularly scheduled PEC meeting following the submittal dates listed
above, the Director shall inform the PEC of all exterior alteration submittals. The Director shall
commence with the review of exterior alterations following this initial PEC meeting.
a) A property owner may apply for a major exterior alteration (greater
than 100 square feet) in any year during which he or she shalt submit an application on the
February or September dates as set forth in this section of the Code. Said application shall be
termed a "major exterior alteration."
b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of an
existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area of not more than 100 feet,
applications to alter the exterior roof lines of an existing building, applications for new outdoor
dining decks and applications for modifications to existing dining decks may be submitted on a
3
designated submittal date for any regularly scheduled PEC meeting. Said applications shall be
termed a "minor exterior alteration." The review procedures for a minor exterior alteration shall
be as outlined in this section. All enclosed floor area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this
subparagraph 3(b} shall be physically and structurally part of an existing or new building and shall
not be a free standing structure.
c) If a single property owner has not submitted an exterior alteration
proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two
years, a proposal may be submitted on a designated submittal date and will be reviewed by the
PEC at any of its regularly scheduled meetings.
d) If a single property owner has submitted an exterior alteration
proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two
years, a minor exterior alteration application as defined in subsection 3(b) shall be submitted for
review on a bi-annual basis on or before the February or September dates as set forth in this
section of the code.
4. Work Sessions
If requested by either the applicant or the Director of Community
Development, submittals shall proceed to a work session with the PEC. The Director shall
schedule the work session at a regularly scheduled PEC meeting and shall cause notice of the
hearing to be sent to all adjacent property owners in accordance with the administrative chapter
of this code, Section 18.66.080 -Hearinq -Notice. Following the work session, and the submittal
of any additional material that may be required, the Director shall schedule a formal public hearing
before the PEC in accordance with Section 18.66.080 -Hearinq -Notice.
5) Hearing
The public hearing before the PEC shall be held in accordance with the
administration chapter of the Code, Sections 18.66.060 through 18.66.090. The PEC may
approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications,
or deny the application. The decision of the PEC may be appealed to the' Town Council in
accordance with Section 18.60.070 -Appeal to Town Council.
6) Compliance with Comprehensive Applicable Plans
It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence before the PEC that the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes
of the CCI Zone District as specified in Section 18.24.010 -Purpose; that the proposal is
4
consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Town of Vail Streetscape
Master Plan, and the Vail Comprehensive Plan; and that the proposal does not otherwise
negatively alter the character of the neighborhood. Further, that the proposal substantially
complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Design
Considerations, to include, but not be limited to the following urban design considerations:
pedestrianization, vehicular penetration, streetscape framework, street enclosure, street edge,
building height, views, service/delivery and sun/shade analysis; and that the proposal substantially
complies with all other elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
7) Approval
Approval of an exterior alteration under paragraphs 5 and 6 above shall
constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements including siting, building
setbacks, height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping.
8) Lapse of Approval
Approval of a major or minor exterior alteration as prescribed by this chapter
shall lapse and become void two years following the date of approval of the major or minor
exterior alteration by the PEC unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and
construction is commenced and diligently pursued to completion.
9) DRB Review
Any modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or to a site
within CC1 shall be reviewed by the DRB in accordance with Chapter 18.54 - Desian Review of
this Code.
It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence
before the DRB that the proposed building modification is in compliance with the purposes of the
CCI district as specified in 18.24.010; that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village
design considerations, and that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character of the
neighborhood.
2. Section 18.26.045 -Exterior alterations or modifications -Procedure for the
Commercial Core II Zone District - of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby repealed
and reenacted to read as follows:
18.26.045 -Exterior alterations or modifications -Procedure for the Commercial Core II
Zone District.
A. The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds
5
or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building which modifies exterior
roof lines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or
the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to review by the Planning and
Environmental Commission (PEC) as follows:
1) Application
An application shall be made by the owner of.the building or the building
owner's authorized agent or representative on a form provided by the Director of Community
Development. Any application for condominiumized buildings shall be authorized by the
Condominium Association in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the Condominium
Association's declarations;
2) Application -Contents
An application for an exterior alteration shall include the following:
a) ~ Completed application form, filing fee, and a list of all owners of
property located adjacent to the subject parcel. The owners list shall include the name of all
owners, their mailing address, a legal description of the property owned by each; and a general
description of the property (including the name of the property if applicable), and the name and
mailing address of the Condominium Association's representative (if applicable). Said names and
addresses shall be obtained from the current tax records of Eagle County as they appeared not
more than thirty (30) days prior to the application submittal date;
b) A written statement describing the proposal and horv the proposal
complies with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Lionshead Design
Considerations and any other relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan;
c) A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating existing
conditions on the property including the location of improvements, topography, and natural
features;
d) A current title report to verify ownership, easements, and other
encumbrances, including schedules A and B;
e) Existing and proposed site plan at a scale of 1 inch equals ten feet,
a vicinity plan at an appropriate scale to adequately shdw the project location in relationship to
the surrounding area, a landscape plan at a scale of 1 inch equals ten feet, a roof height plan and
existing and proposed building elevations at a minimum scale of 1/8 inch equals 1 foot. The
material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and improvements as necessary to
6
demonstrate the project's compliance with Urban Design criteria as set forth in the Vail Lionshead
Urban Design Guide Plan, Vail Lionshead Design Considerations, and any other relevant sections
of the Vail Comprehensive Plan;
f) Sun/shads analysis of the existing and proposed building for the
spring/fall equinox (March 21ISeptember 23) and winter solstice (December 21) at 10:00 A.M. and
2:00 P.M. unless the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail determines that
the proposed addition has no impact on the existing sun/shade pattern. The following sun angle
shall be used when preparing this analysis:
Spring/Fall Equinox Sun Angle
10:00 A.M. 40° east of south, 50° declination
02:00 P.M. 42° west of south, 50° declination
Winter Solstice Sun Angle
10:00 A.M. 30° east of south, 20° declination
02:00 P.M. 30° west of south, 20° declination
g) Existing and proposed floor plans at a scale of 1/4 inch equals 1 foot
and a square footage analysis of all existing and proposed uses;
h) An architectural or massing mode{ of the proposed development.
Said model shall iriclude buildings and major site improvements on adjacent properties. The
scale of the model shall be as determined by the Director of Community Development.
i) Photo overlays and/or other graphic material to demonstrate the
special relationsi~ip of the proposed development to adjacent properties, public spaces, and
adopted views per Chapter 18.73 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
j) Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the
Director of Community Development or the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
(PEC). The Director or the PEC may, at his or her or their discretion, waive certain submittal
requirements if it is determined that the requirements are not relevant to the proposed
development nor applicable to the Urban Design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Lionshead Urban
Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Design Considerations and any other relevant sections
of the Vaii Comprehensive Plan.
3) Application Date and Procedures
Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted bi-
annually on or before the fourth Monday of February or the fourth Monday of September. For the
year of 1994, the submittal dates sha{I be the fourth Monday of February, May, September, and
7
November. Submittal requirements shall include a!I information listed in subparagraph number
2 above, provided however, that the architectural or massing model shall be submitted no later
than three weeks prior to the first formal public hearing of the PEC. No public hearings or work
sessions shall be scheduled regarding exterior alterations prior to the bi-annual submittal date
deadlines. At the next regularly scheduled PEC meeting following the submittal dates listed
above, the Director shall inform the PEC of all exterior alteration submittals. The Director shall
commence with the review of exterior alterations following this initial PEC meeting.
a) A property owner may apply for a major exterior alteration (greater
than 100 square feet) in any year which he or she shall submit an application on the February
or September dates as set forth in this section of the Code. Said application shall be termed a
"major exterior alteration."
b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of an
existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area of not more than, 100 feet,'
applications to alter the exterior roof lines of an existing building, applications for new outdoor
dining decks and applications for modifications to existing dining decks may be submitted on a
designated submittal date for any regularly scheduled PEC meeting. Said applications shall be
termed "minor exterior alteration." The review procedures for a minor exterior alteration shall be
as outlined in this section. All enclosed floor area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this
subparagraph 3(b) shall be physically and structurally part of an existing or new building and shall
not be a free standing structure.
c) If a single property owner has not submitted an exterior alteration
proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two
years, a proposal may be submitted on a designated submittal date and will be reviewed by fihe
PEC at any of its regularly scheduled meetings.
d) If a single property owner has submitted an exterior alteration
proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two
years, a minor exterior alteration application as defined in subsection 3(b) shall be submitted for
review on a bi-annual basis on or before the February or September dates as set forth in this
section of the code.
4) Work Sessions
If requested by either the applicant or the Director of Community
Development, all submittals shall proceed to a Work Session with the PEC. The Director shall
8
schedule the work session at a regular scheduled PEC meeting and shall cause notice of the
hearing to be sent to all adjacent property owners in accordance with the administrative chapter
of this code, Section 18.66.080 -Hearing -Notice. Following the Work Session, and the submittal
of any additional material that maybe required, the Director shall schedule a formal public hearing
before the PEG in accordance with Section 18.66.080 - Hearing -Notice.
5) Hearing
The pubic hearing before the PEC shaft be held in accordance with the
administration chapter of the Code, Sections 18.66.060 through 18.66.090. The PEC may
approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications,
or deny the application. The decision of the PEC may be appealed to the Town Council in
accordance with Section 18.60.070 -Appeal to Town Council. .
6) Compliance with Applicable Comprehensive Plans
It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence before the PEC that the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes
of the CC11 Zone District as specified in Section 18.26.010 -Purpose; that the proposal is
consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail
Lionshead Design Considerations, and that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the
character of the neighborhood; and that the proposal substantially complies with all other
applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
7) Approval
Approval of an exterior alteration under paragraphs 5 and 6 above shall
constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements including siting, building
setbacks, bulk, .height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping.
8} Lapse of Approval
Approval of a major or minor exterior alteration as prescribed by this chapter
shall lapse and become void two years following the date of approval of the major or minor
exterior alteration by the PEC unless, prior to the expiration, a. building permit is issued and
construction is commenced and diligently pursued to completion.
9) DRB Review
Any modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or to a site
within CCf1 shall be reviewed by the DRB in accordance with Chapter 18.54 -Design Review of
this Cade.
9
It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence before the design review board that the proposed building modification is in compliance
with the purposes of the CCII district as specified in 18.24.010; that the proposal substantially
complies with the Vail Lionshead design considerations or that the proposal does not otherwise
alter the character of the neighborhood.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 day of 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this
Ordinance on the ~ day of , 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
10
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of , 1993.
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST: '
Holly L. McCutcheon, Tawn Clerk
C:10RD93.4
11
e;
4
. COMMERCIAh CORE 1(CCl) DIS'T'RIC'T' ~ ~ : ~
fl8.~~.fl~0 Parking and loading. .
.Off-street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance
with fhapter.fl$:52. At least seventy-five percent of the required .
parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and
hidden .from public view. hTo parking or loading area shall be
Located in any required front setback area. (Ord. 19(1976) § 8 ~
(part): Ord. 8(1973) § 7510.) ~ ~
Chapter fl8.~4 ~ ~
CO1~A/~ERC%,~%. C®1tE fl (CCfl) D%S'%'ItIC'T ~
Sections< ~ .
fl$.Z~.OflO Purpose:
fl8.~~.0~0 Permitted and conditional uses-~ase~ .
ment or garden levei.
fl8.~~.030 Permitted and conditionafl uses-First
fl9oor or street level. _
fl$.~~.0~0 Permitted and conditionafl uses-Second •
ffloor.
fl8.~4.OS0 Permitted and conditionafl uses-Above
second floor.
fl$.~~.OSB TJndesirable plants. ~ .
18.4.060 Conditional uses-Generally.
fl8.~~-065 Escterior alterations or modifications- ~ •
Procedure. ~ =
fl8.~~.090 Conditional uses-Factors applicable. ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~
fltY-~~.080 Accessory uses. .
fl$.~~.090 Prot area and site dimensions.
fl$.~~.fl00. Setbacks. .
fl8.~~<Il~0 IE%eight.
Il$.~~.Il30 %Density controfl< . ' .
fl$.~4.fl~0 Reconstruction og e~xtsting uses-Gener~
~flly.
fl$<~~.Il~O Site coverage.
fl$.~~1.fl90 ILandscaping and site development. '
cdaa 9-a9-9a> ~ .
~
.
J
ZONING . =
18.24.180 Parking and loading. ~ .
18.24.190 Location of business activity. _ ~ .
18.24.200 Reconstruction of existing uses-Corn- ~ .
pliarice with certain standards required. .
18.24.22'0 Adoption of Vail .Village urban design -
• .guide plan and design considerations.
18.24.010 Purpose.
The commercial core I district is intended to prbvi de sites
and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village
commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . - • .
,establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The ~ ~ .
commercial core 1 district is intended to ensure adequate light.
air, open space, and other amenities and appropriate to the ~ ~ - • ~ ~ .
permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations
342 ~ ~ - .
(Va7 9.29.92)
• COMA9ERCIAL CORE 1 (CCI) DISTRICT ~ ' • . -
in accordance with the Vail Village urban design guide plan - -
and design considerations prescribe site development standards ~ ~ ~ ~ -
that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation' .
of the tightly clustered arangemenis of buildings fronting ~ .
on pedestrianways and publac greenways, and to ensure continu- •
ation of the building scale and architectural qualities that ~ ~ •
distinguish the village. {Ord. 21(1980) § I (part).) ~ ~ . ' .
1 S.Z4.020 1ermitted and conditional uses-Basement or
garden level. - . .
A. .The "basement" or "garden level" shall be defined as
that floor of a building that is entirely or substantially . .
below grade. - • • -
B. The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden
levels within a structure:
1. Retail shops and establishments, including the .
following:
Apparel stores,
Art supply stores and galleries,
Bakeries and confectioneries, restricted to preparation
of products specifically far sale on the premises,
Bookstores, ~ ~ •
Camera stores and photographic studios, . • ~ ~
Candy stores, -
Chinaware and glassware stores, ~
Delicatessens and specialty food stores, - •
• Drugstores and pharmacies, • • • - ~ ~ • .
Florists, -
Gift stores,
Hobbystores,~ . • ~ - .
Jewelry stores, ~ ~ : _ ~ .
Health food stores, • . ,
i,eather goods stores,
Music and record stores, , . '
Alewsstands and tobacco stores,
Stationery stores, _ -
Sporting goods stores, - ~ • . .
Toy stores, ~ .
• ~ 343 ~ . • ~ ~ ~ -
(v~t ta-as•as~ • . ~ . .
ZONING ~ - -
Variety stores, - - - ~ -
Yardage and dry goods stores; , . - - .
2. Personal services and repair shops, including the
following: - -
Barbershops, ~ ~ ~ .
. Beauty shops, .
Commercial ski storage, • -
. Small appliance repair shops,
`:Tailors and dressmaker, - .
Travel and ticket agencies; -
3. :Eating and drinking establishments, including the ~ . - ~ ~ .
following: ~ - . _
Bakeries and delicatessens with food service, restricted - ~
to preparation of products specifically for sale on the ~ ~ . . • •
premises, ~ • ~ .
Cocktail lounges and bars,
Coffee shop.
Fountains and sandwich shops. •
Restaurants:
4. Professional offices, business offices and studios;
S. Banks and financial institutions;
6. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses
described in subparagraphs 1 through S of this section, in
accordance ~ ith the provisions of Section 18.66.040, so - ~ • . '
long as they do not encourage vehicular traffic; -
7. Lodges. . -
C. The follow ing uses shall be permitted in basement or garden ~ . _ ~ .
levels ~ ithin a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional - ~ ~ .
use permit in accordance w ith the prop isions of Chapter 18.60: ~ ~ -
1. Meeting rooms;
2. Household appliance stores; - _ ~ '
3. liquor stores; ~ ~
4. Luggage stores: ~ ~ .
S. Radio and T~' stores and repair shops: ~ . ~ • • ~ -
6. Multiple-family housing;
. 7. Theaters: -
8. Reserved; - ~ . . .
9. Major arcade, so long as. it does not have am• exterior - .
frontage on any public wa~•, street, walk~'a~•, or mall area. - ~ - -
344 ~ ~
(Vail 12-29-89j - . '
- ~®I~tMERCIAL C®RE fl (CC1~ DISTRICT
- - ~muserizent devices shall riot be visible ®r. audible from arty
. - . public way, s~eg, walkway oH' mall. area9 .
10. - .®utd~r patios. ~
~®rd. 26(1989 § 10 ®rde 27(1982) § Vi(a): ®rd. 25(1982) § 1a: ®rd.
- _ 6(1982) § 3a: ~rd.~8(1981) § 2:_®rd. 26(1980) § 2 (part): ®rd. fl6 .
(1975) § 3(A)(A)~ ®r~. 8(1973) § 8.200(A).)
- 18.~~.~3® ~eranitted and condetlonal uses®F'drst (door or street
d~e~efle
_ A. The a°first Boor°" or °"street level°° shall be defined as that floor
of the building that is located at grade or street level.
The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or
street level within a structure:
fl. Retailstores and establishments, including the following:
Apparel stores,
Art supply stores and galleries, -
~akeries and confectioneries, restricted to preparation of
products specifically for sale on the premises,
~ookseores, - '
Camera stores and photographic studios,
Candy stores,
- chinaware and glassware stores,
Delicatessens a.~d specialty food stores,
Drugstores and pharrraacies,
florists,
gift shops,
Hobby stores,
~ewel.ry stores9
~.eather good stores,
~,uggage stores, - .
- ~ l~~sic and record stores.
- ~Ie~ssta.nds a.nd tobacco stores,
- - = sporting goods stores9 - , ~ _
- ~tatgori~~y stores, .
°~'icket and travel a~enciess ~ -
. 'b'oy stores9 - - . .
variety stores,
Yardage and dry goods storesy
. - 3~5
~/~il H Z-29-89)
ZONING r~'
2. Eating and ,drinking .establishments, including the
following:, ~ : .
Bakeries and delicatessens with ~ food service, .restricted
to preparation of products, .specifically :for sale ,_on the
premises, ~ . . .
_ - Cocktail lounges and bars; ~ -
Coffee shops, -
Fountains and sandwich shops,
Restaurants;
_ 3. Lodges; -
4.._Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted
uses. described in subparagraphs 1 and 2 above, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.040, so
-:long as they do not encourage .vehicular traffic.
-C. The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or
street level floor within a stnacture, subject to issuance of a
conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 18.60:
1. Liquor stores;
2. Banks and financial institutions;
3. Household appliance stores;
4. Radio and TV stores and repair shops;
S. Resen~e.
6. Barbershops, beauty shops and beauty parlors so long as
they do not have any exterior frontage on any public wav,
street, walkway or mall area;
7. Outdoor patios.
(Ord. 2S(1982) 1 b: Ord. 18(1981) § 1: Ord. 8(1981) § 2: Ord.
. 26(1980) § 2 (part): Ord. 50(1978) 4 and S: Ord. 16(1975) § 3
(A)(B): Ord. 8(1973) § 8.200(B).) -
18.24.040 Permitted and conditional uses-Second floor.
A. The following uses shall be permitted on the second floor
above grade within a structure; provided, however, that a
conditional use permit will be required in accordance with
Chapter l 8.60 for any use which eliminates any existing dwel-
ling or accommodation unit or any portion thereof:
1. Multiple-family residential dwelling;
2. Lodges;
346
(Vail 12-29-89)
_ - ~ . ~OtcCI~I. ~Olt~ l ACC 1) ~IST~IC,
I'
3o IProfessional officesfl business officeso and studioso
~o hanks and financial institutions9
_ ~o IPersonal ~ services., and repair shopsfl including the
-followingo
~arbershops9 _ ~ - .
beauty shops,
business and office services9
°I'ailors and dressrnakersfl
°I'ravel and ticket agencies9 ~ - - : ~ .
6e Retail stores and establishments9 including the.following:
~PParel storeso
~ supply stores and galleries,
iBakeries and confectioneries, restricted to preparation of
products specifically for sale on the prerraises9
bookstores,
c~arriera stores and photographic studios9
Candy stores9.
~hhinaware and glassware stores9
g3elicatessens and specialty food stores9
1~3rugstores and phar~nacies9
IFloristsp
(Gift stores9
~iobby stones9 -
~ewelry stores9
iLeather goods stonyso
music and record stores9 .
I~Tewsstands and tobacco storesn
I~hotoggaphic studioso
~po~ing goods storesfl
`boy sto~esfl .
~Iariety storeso _
yardage and dry goods storeso
.`~o IEating and drinking establishrr~ents9 including the
followingo ~ - -
~akcries and delicatessens with food service9 `restricted to
preparation-,®f pr®ducts specifically ; for,,. sale on the
pregnisesfl ~ _
cocktail lounged and barso - _ - .
toffee shopso -
3~7
(~I~il 9-29-92)
ZON'II~IG
_ .
Fountains and sandwich shops, - ~ ~ ~ - -
Restaurants. - -
B.~ The followin uses shall be '
g permitted on second floors above
grade, subject to the issuance of a conditional= use permit in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60: . .
1. Meeting rooms; - ~ -
Z. Liquor stores; ~ - ~ : _
3. Household appliance stores;
4. Radio and TV sales and repair shops;
5. ~ Luggage stores;
6. Theaters;
7. Reserved; ~ -
8. Dog kennel; ~ -
9. Outdoor patios;
10; Type III EHU as defined in Section 18.57.060;
I1. Type IV EHU as.defined in Section 18.57.070.
(Ord. 8(1992) § 20: Ord. 25(1982) § Ic: Ord. 20(1982) § 5: Ord.
8(1981) § 2: Ord. 26(1980) § 2 (part): Ord. 16(1975) § 3(A)(C):
.Ord. 8(1973) § 8.200(C).)
18.24.050 Permitted and conditional uses-Above
second fioor. -
A. The following uses shall be permitted on any floor above the
second floor above grade: ~ .
1. Multiple-family residential dwellings; -
2. Lodges.
-B . The following uses shall be permitted on any floor above the
second floor above grade, subject to the issuance of a
conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 18.60: ~ .
1.: Retail stores and_establishments, including the following:
APParei stores, ~ -
Art supply stores and galleries, _
Bakeries and confectioneries, restricted to preparation of
products specifically for sale on the premises,- ` ~ ~ _
Bookstores, - ~ _
Camera stores and photographic~studios, - ~ - ~ `
Chinaware and glassware stores, - - ~ -
348
(Vail 9-29-92)
' . ~®i~r1~~CIAI, CO1ZE 1(CC 1) DIS''I°RIC°I'
~licatessens and specialty. food sgores9
~ru~Sto%~S9 ~ -
~lorlStS9~ - '
. lift shops9 _
~Iobby stores9 _
~iousehold appliance stores9
Jewelry stores9 _
~.eather goods stores9 .
~.uggage stores9 ~ _
A~usic and record stores9 - ,
Newsstands and tobacco stores9
Photographic studios9
Stationery stores9
~'Oy stores9
~Iariety stores9
Yardage grad dry goods stores9
. ILiquor stores9
_ Radio and'l'~I stores grad repair shops9
Smarting goods stores9
~o dating and drinking establishrraents9 including the
following: ~ .
_ bakeries and delicatessens with food scrvice9 restrictcd to
~repaPation of products specifically for sale on the
pre%111SeS9
cCocktaifl lounges grad bars9 -
c~offee shops9 -
l~ountain and sandwich shops9
~bJ661~dA6M dt~9
3a Professional off ces9 business off ces9 and studios9
~e hanks and financial gnstatutaons9
~o Personal services acid repair shops9 including the
follo~ringo
~arbershops9... ~
. Peauty shopsD -
business and mffi~ seP:rices9 .
Srnalfl appliance ~p~ir shops9 - .
~~°az~ors and da~ssgnake~s9 - .
~°Pavel and tieke~ agenciesD -
'l`heate%s9
. 349
s-as-9a~
ZOI~IING ~ . ' . -
7. Additional uses deternlined_to be similar to permitted uses
described in subparagraphs 1 through ~S of this section in
accordance with the provisions of Section' 18:66:040, so
Iong as they do not encourage vehicular traffic;
8. Reserved. -
9. Dog kennel; _
10. Type III EHU as defined in Section 18.57.060;
11. Type IV EHU as defined in Section 18.57.070:"
(Ord. 8(1.992) § 21: Ord. 20(1982) § 5: Ord. 8(1981) § 2: Ord.
26(1980) § 2 (part): Ord. 16(1975) § 3(A)(D): Ord. 8(1973) §
8.200(D).)
18.24.058 Undesirable plants.
.A. Undesirable plants designated. Russian, Spotted and Diffuse
Knapweed and Leafy Spurge am declared to be undesirable
plants to be controlled in accordance with this section.
B. Declaration of nuisance. Leafy Spurge, Russian Knapweed
Spotted Knapweed, and Diffuse I~napweed, and all other
. plants designated "undesirable plants" by the~town are declared -
to be a public nuisance. Such action may be taken as is
available for nuisance abatement under the laws of this state and
the Town of Vail, and as town council, in their sole discretion,
deem necessary.
C. Removal of undesirable plants required by property owner:
Property owners within the Town of Vail shall be responsible
for the elimination of undesirable plants from their property
within ninety days of the effective date of this chapter. Such
removal shall be accomplished in an ecologically feasible and
environmentally safe manner in accordance with all applicable
laws, ordinances, rules and regulations.
D. Enforcement. The town shall have the right to enter upon any
premises, lands, or places, whether public or private, during
reasonable business hours or upon proper notice for the
purpose of inspecting for.the existence of undesirable. plants,
and shall have the right to propose, implement or enforce the
management of undesirable plants ilpon~ such: lands in
accordance with the provisions of C.R:S. Section 35-5.5-109. .
350 .
(Vail 9-29-92)
' COI~RCIAL. CORE 1 (CCl) DIS'T'RICT . ~ .
E. Penalty. ~liolation of this section shall be subject to a penalty of ~ -
a fine up to nine hundred ninety rune dollars. in addition to any - .
other remedies provided herein or allowed by ordinance lawp - •
gale, or regulation.
(Ord. 11(1992) § 1.)
88.2.060 Conditional uses -Generally<.
The following uses. shall be permitted. subject to the issuance . • ~ ~ ' . . .
of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 18.60:
A. S!ti lifts and tows; ~ • ~ ~ •
E. Public utility and public service uses; ~ . • • . .
C. Public buildings, grounds and facilities;
D. Public park and recreation facilities; ~ . •
E. Bed~and breakfast as further regulated by Section 18.58.310. .
(Ord. 31(1989) § 8: Ord. 16(1975) § 3(B): Ord. 8(1973) § 8.300.) •
g8.2~.065 Exterior alterations or rnodificiations -
Procedure.
All alterations of the exterior of an existing building in CC1
_ _ shall comply with the following procedure:
A. 'The alteration of an existing building which adds or removes '
any enclosed floor area or the replacement of an existing ; .
building shall be subject to review by the planning and . •
environmental commission as follows: . • .
fl. Application shall be made by the owner of the building or
agent on a fomr provided by the zoning administrator,
2. The'public hearing before the planning and environmental ~ .
commission shall be held in accordance with Sections ~ .
18.66.060 through T 8.66.090. A decision of the planning
and environrilental commission may be appealed to the .
town council in accordance with the procedure specified in _ : •
Section 18.60.070; ~ ~ : •
3. It shall be the burden of the applicant under this subsection ~ ' .
A to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before
• 350-1
(Vail9-29-92)
• ~ COMMERCIALCORE~1 (CC1)DISTRICT
- the planning and environmental commission that the - - ~ '
.proposed building alteration is in compliance with the = - . .
_ purposes. of the CCI district as specified in 18.24.010; and ' .
that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail - -
Village urban design guide plan and design considerations
or that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character •
' of the neighborhood;
4. The planning and environmental commission may ap- - ~ -
prove the application as submitted, approve the applica- ~ ~ -
lion with conditions or modifications, or, if the planning _ _
and environmental commission finds that the applicant - -
failed to meet his burden of proof, it may deny the ~ ~ -
application; ~ ~ _
S. Applications for this subsection A shall be submitted
semiannually on or before the fourth Monday of ?~4ay and ~
November. The planning and environmental commission ~
shall then hold a preliminary review. session within
twenty-one days of the above.submittal date. A public
.hearing shall then be held within sixty da}~s of the
preliminary review session. For projects which are deemed
by the commission to constitute a major amendment to ~ -
the approved Vail Village-urban design guide plan or ~ ~ .
_ otherwise constitute a significant impact on the town, a
ninety-day study period may be requested by the planning
and environmental commission, prior to a final disposi-
tion of such projects. ~ ~ - . ~
a. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications far the
alteration of an existing building which add or - . .
remove any enclosed floor area of not more than one ~ - - ~ ~ '
hundred square feet may be submitted at the required
time of the month for planning commission review. .
The review procedures shall, in all respects, be the ~ ~ ~ ~ .
same as that for other applications in accordance with ~ • , ~ .
this section. All enclosed floor area for an expansion .
or deletion pursuant to this subparagraph a. shall be
physically 'and structurally a part of an existing or
.new building and shall not be afree-standing struc- ~ .
lure. A single property owner shall not be permitted - ~
. more than one submission in accordance with this ~ •
subparagraph a. in any two year period. A property ~
351 tv~;, „-,s-ssl - - . .
c
ZOAIIWt$ ~ ~ ~ .
owner may, however, apply for an expansion greater
than one hundred square feet in any year in which he : ' ~ • .
submits his application on the Agay and November
dates set forth in paragraph A.S.
il$: The modification or change to the exterior facade of a - •
building or to a site within CCl shall be reviewed by the .
design review board in accordance with the following:
fl. Application shall be made by the owner of the building or ~ . ' _ ~ ~ •
his agent on a form by the zoning administrator; ~ ~ •
2. 'The hearing before the design reveiw board shall be held
in accordance with Chapter 13.54. A decision of the : .
design review board may be appealed to the town council ~ ~ ~ .
in accordance with the procedure specifed in Chapter _
13.54; '
3. It shall be the burden of ehe applicant to prove by a ~ , ~
preponderance of the evidence before the design review . .
board that the proposed building modification is in •
compliance with the purposes of ehe CC1 district as .
specified in 13.24.010; that the proposal substantially -
complies with the Vail Village design considerations, or
that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character of
the neighborhood;
4. 'The design review board may approve the application as
submitted; approve the application with conditions or
_ modifications; or, if the design review board finds that the • •
applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, it may deny ~ ' . .
the application; ~
S. The zoning administrator may approve minor modifica- ~ ~ .
lions as provided in Section 13.54.060. A decision of the
zoning administrator may be appealed to the design ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •
review board for review. ~ • ~ = •
C. All alterations under subsection A above shall be sub,}ect to .
review by the design review .board following planning and •
environmental commission approval in accordance with . ~ ~ •
Chapter 13.54. The design review board shall review the same
to insure that the same comply with the Vail Village design
considerations. ~ ~ ~ : ~
(Ord. 41(fl933) § 1: Ord. 25 (i 932) § I d: Ord. 21(1980) § 1(part).) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '
tv~ tt-is-a3) 352 ' .
• COMMERCIAL CORE 1 (CCl) DISTRICT . • _ •
• 18.24.070 Conditional uses-Factors applicable. ~ •
In considering, in accordance with Chapter 18.60, an application
for a conditional use permit within commercial core 1 d_ istrict, the
following development factors shall be applicable: - ~ ~
A. Effects of vehicular traffic on commercial core t district; - ~
B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in commercial core 1 district; ~ ~ _
C. Reduction of nonessential off-street parking;
D. Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles;
E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians; _ .
F. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and
public uses in commercial core 1 district so as to maintain the ~ . ~ .
-existing character of the area; '
G. Control quality of construction, architectural design,. and -
landscape design in commercial core 1 district so as to ~ ~ ~ ~ '
maintain the existing character of the area;
352a ~ ~ •
- COA~RCIAL CORE 1 (CCl) DISTRICT ~ ~
H. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the ~ ~ ~
environment of commercial core 1 district. ~
(Ord. 16(1975) § 4.) ~ : ~ ~ .
Il 8.2.080 Aeeessory uses.. ~ : , . • _ . -
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in ehe CCfl ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ -
district:
A. Swimming pools, patios, or other recreational facilities cus- ~ . ~ . - ~
tomarily incidental to permitted residential or lodge uses;
l3. Outdoor dining areas operated in conjunction with permit-
ted eating and drinking establishments;
C. Home occupations, subjece eo issuance of a home occupation ~ ~ ~ •
permit in acordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 ~ ~ ~ .
through 18.58.190; ~
I7. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted ~ ~
or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. ~ '
E. A9inor arcade. Amusement devices shall,not be visible or
audible from any public way, street, walkway or mall area.
(Ord. 6(1982) § 3b: Ord. 16(1975) § 3(C): Ord. 8(1973) § 8.400.)
fl>I.2~.090 II.ot area and site dimensions.
• The minimum lot or site area shall be five thousand square
feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum ~ ~ -
frontage of thirty feet. (Ord. 12(1978) § 3 (part).)
fl8.2~.800 getbac]cs.
There shall be no required setbacks, except as may be eseab-
lished pursuant to the Vail Village design guide plan and design
considerations. (Ord: 21(1980) § 1 (part).) ~ .
II8.24.flg0 weight. - . ,
Height shall be as regulated in the Vail Village urban design
guide plan and design considerations. (Ord. l 1(1982) §~2: Ord.
37(1980) § 2 (part).)
352-1
f
r
• ,
•
ZONIIIG - ~
18.24.130 Density control. ~ - - -
Unless otherwise provided in the Vail Village urban design - - " _ ' - - •
- ~ guide plan; not more than eighty square feet of gross residential ~ - -
floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square
feet of buildable site area. Total density shall not exceed twenty-five ~ ~ •
dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. (Ord. 21(1980) § 1 ~ . ' •
•
(part).) _ ~ .
- 18.24.140 Reconstruction of existing uses-Generally. - ~ •
If any btrilding or structure located within commercial core I on .
- Lune 1,.1978, is subsequently destroyed by fire or other casualty to
= the degree provided in Section 18.64.090, that structure or building ~ -
may be reconstructed io the same or substantially the same size, - - •
dimensions, lot coverage, and height in accordance with the
• procedures outlined in Section 18.64.090, so long as the ~ ~ -
appearance of the building or swcture is the same or substantially - • - . .
the same as existed prior to its destruction. (Ord. 19(1979) §3(a):
Ord. 13(1978) § 2.)
18.24.150 Site coverage.
Site coverage shall not exceed eighty percent of the total site .
area, unless otherwise specified in the Vail Village Urban Design _ ~ • - -
Guide Plan and Design Considerations. In commercial core I,
ground level patios.and.decks shall be included in site coverage ~ -
calculations. (Ord. 17(1991) § 8: Ord. 21(1980) § 1(part).) . ~ ~ •
18.24.170 Landscaping and site development.
No reduction in landscape area shall be permitted without -
sufficient cause shown by the applicant or as specified in the Vail - -
Villagedesign considerations. (Ord. 21(1980) § 1 (part).) ~ -
18.24.180 Parking and loading. . ~ ~ - -
Off-street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance ~ . - -
with Chapter 18.52; provided, that no parking shall be ~ - • ~ ~ .
provided on-site. All parking requirements, shall be met in ~ ~ -
accordance with the provisions of Section 18.52.160(2). Loading - ~ -
requiremenu shall continue to be applicable to properties with- ~ ~ - -
352-2 ~
(Vail 4-7-92) _ - •
D -
O s •
• I
- • COARARERCIAI. CORE 1 (CC1) DISTRICT : ~ - ~
in commercial core 1; provided, that no loading areas shall be ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ '
located in any required front setback area: (Ord. 13(1978) § 3.) -
fl8.24.190 Location of business activity. - ~ ~ ~ • , . ~ •
A. All offices, businesses, and services permitted by Sections ~ ' ` •
18.24.020 through 18.24.050 shall be operated and conducted ~ . • ~ • • ' • '
entirely within a building, except for 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. ~ -
(Ord. 34(1982) § 1: Ord. 19(1976) § 9 (part): Ord. 8(1973) § 8.511.)
• 18.24.200 Reconstruction of existing uses-Compliance with
certain standards required. -
Any.building or structure located within commercial core 1
may be reconstructed to the same or substantially the same
enclosed floor area in accordance with the procedures outlined
in Section l 8.64.090. The building, however, shall substantially ~ •
comply with the applicable provisions of the `fail Village urban ~ ~ '
design guide plan and design considerations. (Ord. 21(1980) ~
§ 1 (Part).)
• 18.24.220 Adoption of Vail Village urban design guide plan ~ ~ .
and design considerations. • . '
A. The Vail Village urban design guide plan and design consid-
erations are adopted for the purposes of maintaining and ~ . • ~ '
. • preserving the character and vitality of the Vail Village ~ ~ ~ • '
(CC1) and to guide the future alteration, change and
improvement in CCI. Copies of the Vail Village design guide
352-3 „•o, ~.a~» ~ ' ' -
•
. • . ~ COMMERCIAL CORE 2(CC2) DISTRICT . • , ~
plan and design considerations shall be on file in the ~ .
community development department of the town. -
B. Revisions. to the Vail Village urban design guide plan. and _ ~ .
design considerations shall be reviewed by. the planning and ~ - •
environmental commission with official action to be taken by ~ .
the town council by resolution•on a semiannual basis to ensure .
that the plan reflects the purposes and intent for which it has
,been adopted. The review and action shall take place within
thirty days following the public hearing on the applications.
(Ord. 21(1980) § 1(part).) ~ ~ -
• Chapter 18.26 ~ ~ .
CO?1iAIERCIAL CORE 2 (CC2) DISTRICT ~ '
Sections:
18.26.010 Purpose: -
18.26.020 Requirements for establishment-De-
velopment plan. ~ .
18.26.030 Permitted and conditional uses.
18.26.040 Conditional .uses-Generally.
18.26.045 Exterior alterations or modifications-
Procedure. . •
.18.26.050 Accessory uses. • ~ ~
18.26.060 Lot area and site dimensions: ~ •
18.26.070 Setbacks.
18.26.090 Height. ~ . ~ .
18.26.100 Density control. .
18.26.120 Site coverage. • , ~ , .
18.26.140 Landscaping and site development.
18.26.150 Parking and loading. ~ ~
18.26.160 Location of business activity. _
18.26.180 Adoption of Lionshead urban design. ~ _ ~
guide plan_ and design considerations.
353 • .
tv.;t as-9i1
i
OVI~EYI®E"1MA®®V 6V9
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
PROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 25, 1993
Pebra~argf 8, ~99~ (Ai8 changes are in b®Id 6talic print.)
SUBJECT: A request to amend Chapter 18.24 -Commercial Core I and Chapter 18.26 -
Commercial Core tl, of the Town of Vail zoning code .(relating to exterior
alterations or modifications), and to amend the Vail Village Design
Considerations (Section I) -Sun/Shade.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Shelly Mello
This request was last discussed during on January 25,1993 and during a series of three
Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) worksessions held in 1992. At those
meetings, the members of the PEC recommended that the Vail Village Design Considerations
(Section I) Sun/Shade also be modified in conjunction with the CCI and CCII zone district
code changes. fihe Sun/Shade modifications would require applicants to submit afour-
season sun/shade analysis. The Vail Village Design Considerations were originally approved
on May 20, 1980 by .Ordinance IVo. 16, Series of 1980. Therefore, changes to the Vail Village
Design Considerations (Section I) Sun-Shade must also be made by ordinance.
The Community Development Department staff proposes to modify the sections of the zoning
code listed above, relating to the exterior alteration procedures in Commercial Core I and .
Commercial Core II. These._changes are taken from recommendations made in the October,
1991 Develoament~ Code Revision Report, Phase I. Section 18.24.065 Commercial Core I
Exterior Alteration or Modifications -Procedure will be discussed first, followed by a discussion
of the issues and the related zoning code modification recommendations for Section
18.26.045.Commercial Cora II Exterior Alterations or Modifications -Procedure. The text
modifications proposed for the CCI and CCI1~ zone districts are identical. The following is an
outline, followed by a detailed analysis of the list of issues, staff recommendations and related
zoning code modifications for CCI and CCII:
I. Commercial Core I and II Exterior Alterations Chances:.
Exterior alteration submittal dates;
Minor exterior alterations;
60/90 day review process;
Exterior alteration submittal requirements;
Exterior alteration -owners signatures;
1
s
Outdoor dining decks -review criteria;
PEC/DRB review criteria;
Roof line modifications;
Exterior alteration expiration;
Timing of the proposed changes;
Conditional use permit criteria.
II. Text Modifications to Commercial Core I and II of the Zoning Code
III. Modifications to method 'of analysis for Sun/Shade described in the Urban
Desion Guidelines
1. COMMERCIAL CORE i. SECTION 18.24.065 -EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR
MODIFiCATtONS PROCEDURE
A. Issue -Exterior alteration submittal dates
The review procedures for development proposals are outlined in this section of
.the zoning code.. However, the two semi-annual submittal dates do not allow
for the timely review and subsequent construction of projects.
Staff Recommendation
. Move the submittal dates for major projects up two to three months, from the
fourth Monday in November grid May, to the fourth Monday in September and
Febru'arV respectively: The purpose of this change is to complete Town project
reviews at an earlier date in the calendar year.. This would allow project
construction to begin in the spring immediately following the end of the ski
season, and to finish up in the late fail, prior to the beginning of the ski season.
B. Issue -Minor exterior alterations
Applications for the alteration of an existing area which add or remove an
enclosed floor area. of 100 square feet or less may be submitted for review at
any regularly scheduled PEC meeting.. However, a single property owner is
limited to one such submission in any two year period.
. Staff Recommendation
Staff believes that limiting the review of additions of 100 square feet or less to
one proposal every two.years is unnecessary and does not provide any
incentive to property; owners who want to upgrade their properties. Staff
proposes that the code be modified to allow the review of additions or
redevelopment proposals of 100 square feet or less in the following manner:
• _ A single property owner who has not submitted an exterior alteration
..proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or
less within the last two years may submit a redevelopment proposal of
100 sq. ff. or less for review by the PEC, at any of the Commission's
regularly scheduled monthly meetings.
• A single property owner who has submitted an exterior alteration
. 2
proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or
less, within the last taro years would have the opportunity to submit any
additional exterior alteration proposals which remove or enclose floor
area for reviewr.by the PEC on asemi-annual basis on or before the
fourth Monday of February or the fourth Monday of September.
fVo public hearings, or work sessions before the PEC shall be scheduled
regarding major exterior alterations or minor exterior alteration
applications which must be submitted on asemi-annual basis, prior to
the applicable semi-annual submittal date.
Exterior alteration applications which call for the addition or removal of
any enclosed area. of 100 square feet or less shall be considered minor
alterations. Any exterior alteration proposal which adds or removes any
enclosed floor area of more than 100 square feet shall be considered a
maior exterior alteration.
C~. issue ~ I~0/9® day review pr®cess
.The sixty or ninety day review process as outlined in this section is not
consistent with the manner in v~rhich applications are actually handled.
Staff Rec®~mendati®n
Review procedures stipulate a sixty or ninety day review period as may be
determinetl by the PEC. In reality, the review of exterior alterations is primarily
dependent on ,the applicant's submittal of material, and not on the review period
established by the PEC. Staff recommends this section of the code be
amended to state that the formal review by the PEC will be scheduled by the
Director of Community Development following a worksession (if necessary) and
Community Development Department receipt of all the required submittal
materials.
Ossue ~ ~xter's®r alterati®n submittal requirements
The code does not set forth formal submittal requirements for exterior
alterations. !Alhile tFie staff and the PEC ultimately determine what materials
must be submitted in order for the review of the exterior alteration application to
occur, minimum submission requirements should be specified in the code, so
that the applr'cant knows what is expected.
Stafif I~ec®mmendati®n
Staff recommends the code be modified to include .a list of submittal
requirements similar to the Special Development District (SDD) submittal
requirements. The Community Development Director should be allowed the
flexibility to add or delete submittal requirement material as may be appropriate,
depending upon the magnitude of the project.
~aue ~ f~xteri®~ alterati®w ~ ®wners signatures
The code does not specifically address who may submit an exterior alteration
3
application.
Staff Recommendation
Concern over who may submit an exterior alteration application has to do with
condominiumized projects. Under the: SDD review process, all property owners
within the project area are required to sign the SDD application, unless, the
condominium by-laws give. a condominium association representative (or officer)
the authority to submit an application with a majority vote of approval by its
members. Staff recommends this same SDD language be incorporated into
this section of the code.
F. Issue -Outdoor dining decks -review criteria
Any exterior alteration development proposal which adds or removes floor area
is required to go through the exterior alteration review process. Site
development alteratiors,. specifically outdoor dining decks, are related to many
of the design criteria, yet do not require exterior alteration review by the PEC.
Staff Recommendation
The addition of a new dining deck, or the modification of an existina dininq
.deck, should be added to the list of development activities that trigger the
' exterior alteration process. Currehtly, proposals for new or expanded dining
decks require PEC review as-a conditional use permit. While the conditional
use process addresses issues re/ated'to the use of an area, the exterior
alteration criteria are also appropriate criteria to evaluate the impact of this type
of development. This change will allow the PEC to consider the urban design
criteria in" evaluating a new dining deck or the modification of an existing dining
deck, in addition to fhe conditional use permit criteria. Outdoor patios and
dining decks will remain as Conditional Uses in Sections 18.24.020(C)10 -
Permitted and Conditional Uses -Basement or Garden level, 18.24.030(C)7 -
Permitted and Conditional Uses -First Floor or Street level, 18.24.040(6)9 -
Permitted and .Conditional Uses -Second level and. will be not be an accessory
use. We suggest the staff policy be that only one fee would be charged for the
two requests.
G. issue - PECIpRB review roles .
The PEC and Design Review Board (DRB) both participate in the review of
• exterior alterations. However, the role and authority of each board is not clearly
defined.
Staff Recommendation
The PEC's responsibility is to review the siting, form, massing, landscaping,
circulation and other large-scale planning and urban design issues. The DRB's
responsibilities are to review landscaping and detailed architectural
considerations. Generally, these roles are delineated in the Urban Design
Guide Plan. While there will always be some overlap, the roles, of each board
should be more clearly set forth in this section of the code.
4
r
ba issue ~ Roof Sine modifications
Alterations to the roof line of existing buildings are not currently reviewed under
the exterior alteration section of the code. Changes to roof lines can impact
sun/shade analysis, views and established view corridors, street enclosure,
~ streetscape framework, etc.
Staff Rec®mmea~dati®ru
Require all changes to the existing roof line of structures, located within the CCI .
and CCII zone districts, to be reviewed using the exterior alteration criteria.
This type of request would be considered a minor exterior alteration, assuming
that the added floor area does not exceed 900 sq. ft.
Oa 9ssue = E~tetior alteration .expiration
Currently, exterior alteration approvals do not lapse or expire. They are
effective indefinitely. Trying to evaluate future exterior alteration proposals on
adjacent.structures based on exterior. alteration approvals which may or may
not be constructed becomes complex. Further, all other zoning requests, such
as conditional use permits and variances, have a specified time period for the
approvals.
Staff Recommendation .
Approval of any major or minor exterior alteration as prescribed by this Chapter
shall lapse and become void two vears following the date of approval of the
major or minor exterior alteration by the ~PEC unless, prior to the expiration, a
building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued
toward completion.. Staff believes that finr® years for a major or minor exterior
alteration ~s ~w adequate approval period and would also be consistent with the
.approval time for variances and conditional use permits. An exterior alteration
would need to be renewed after trvo years if the project is not constructed
when it is associated with an SDD.
de Tissue ~ 4ir~ing of $he proposed changes
All .proposed code changes shall become effective upon approval of the
changes by ordinance. To 'avoid scheduling problems for applicants during the
spring of 1993, staff is recommending that for 1993, there be three major
exterior alteration submission deadlines (May, September and November).
Beginning in 1994, there will again be only two major exterior alteration
submission deadlines (February and September).
Staff Recommendati®n
This approach should avoid creating scheduling problems for any applicant who
is considering a project submittal for 9993 using the previous deadlines.
GZe QSSUe ° ~®nditi®nai use 6~ermit crlterB@
°fhere is a great deal of overlap between the existing criteria and they do not
address all of the issues that should be considered when reviewing conditional
use requests in CCI. The existing criteria are as follows:
5
1. Effects on vehicular traffic on commercial core I district;
2. Reduction of vehicular traffic in commercial core I district;
3. Reduction of nonessential off-street parking;
4. Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles;
5. Development of spaces for use by pedestrians;
6. Continuance of the various commercial, residential and public
_ uses in commercial core I district so as to maintain the existing
character of the area; and
7. Control quality of construction; architectural design, and
landscape design in commercial core I district so as to maintain
the existing character of the area.
. Staff Recommendation
Consolidate the.criteria. Issues not covered by the existing criteria, but critical
to the. character. of the Village should be addressed by adding new criteria.
. These issues include qualitative aspects such as streetlife, vitality, activity and
mixed uses. The staff would recommend the following criteria be used for
evaluating conditional use requests in the Village:
1. The effects of vehicular traffic, off-street parking, loading and
delivery and service vehicles generated by the proposed use on
the pedestrianized area of CCI;
2. The ability of loading and delivery facilities to accommodate the
.service and delivery of the proposed use without adversely
impacting the -pedestrian character of the district;
3. The effect of the proposed use on streetlife, pedestrian activity, .
and vitality of the established mixed use character of the area;
and
4. The effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the
quality of life and environment on the CCI district.
II. TEXT MODIFICATIONS TO SECTION 18.24.065 -Commercial Core I
The following are the proposed text modifications to'Section 18.24.065, which address the
Issues and Staff Recommendations set forth above:
"Site development, the construction of a new building, and alterations to the exterior of
6
' an existing building in CCt shall comply with the following procedures:
A. The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which
adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building
which modifies roof lines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition
of a neuv outdoor dining, deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining
deck shall be subject to review by the PEC as follows:
9. Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building
owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the
Director of Community Development. Any application for a
condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium
association,. in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the
condominium association's declarations;
2. An application for a major or minor exterior alteration shall include the
following:
a: Completed application form; filing fee and a list of all owners of
property located adjacent to the subject parcel. The owners list
shall include the name..of all owners, their mailing address, the
legal description of the property owned by each, and a general
description of the property -(including the name of the property, if
applicable), and the name and mailing address of the
condominium as"sociation's representative (if applicable). Said
names .and addresses shall be obtained from the current tax
records of Eagle County as they appeared no more than thirty
days prior to the application submittal date;
b. A written statement describing the proposal and how the
pcoposaf complies uvith' the Vail Villaae Urban Desian Guide Plan
and Vail Villaae Desian Considerations and any relevant sections
of the Vail Comprehensive Plan (i.e., Vail Village Master Plan,
'Streetscape Master Plan, etc.);
c. A survey, stamped by a licensed surveyor, indicating existing
conditions. on the property including the location of
improvements, topography, and natural features;
d. A current title report to verify ownership, easements and other
encumbrances, including schedules A and 13;
e. Existing and proposed site plan at a scale of 1 10', a vicinity
plan at an appropriate scale to adequately show the project
location iri relationship to the surrounding area, a landscape plan
at a scale of 9"=10',. a`roof height plan and existing and
proposed building elevations at a minimum scale of 1/~"=1'. The
7
material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and
improvements as necessary to demonstrate the project's
. compliancy with urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail
Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Desian Considerations and
any relevant sections of tfie Vail Comprehensive Plan;
f. Sun/shade analysis of the existing and proposed building for the
spring/fall equinox (March 21/September 23) and winter solstice
(December 21) at 10:OOAM and 2:OOPM, unless it is
determined that the pvroposed addition has no impact on the
existing sun /shade pattern. The following sun angles shall be
used when preparing this analysis:
Spring/Fall Equinox Sun Angle
10:OOAM 42° East of South, 50° declination
2:OOPM 42° West of South, 50° declination
Winter Solstice
10:OOAM 30° East of South, 20° declination
2:OOPM 30° West of South, 20° declination
g. Existing and proposed floor plans at a scale of 1/4"=1' and a
square footage analysis of all existing and proposed uses;
h. An architectural or massing model of the proposed development.
Said model shall include buildings and major site improvements
on adjacent properties.' The scale of the model shall be as
determined by the Director of Community Development;
i. Photo overlays and/or other graphic material to demonstrate the
spatial relationship of the proposed development to adjacent
properties, public spaces, and views per Chapter 18.73 of the
Town of Vail Municipal Code;
j. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by
the Director of Community Development or the PEC. The
Director or PEC may, at his or 'her discretion, waive certain
' ~ .submittal requirements if it is determined that said requirements
are" not `relevant to the proposed development and applicable
urban design criteria, as set forth in .the Vail Village Urban
Desian Guide Plan and Desian Considerations and any relevant
sections of the Vai! Comprehensive Plan.
3. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted
bi-annually on or tiefore the fourth Monday of February or the fourth
Monday of September. Submittal requirements shall include all
information listed in Subparagraph No. 2 above, provided however, that
the architectural or massing model may be submitted three weeks prior
8
to the first formal public hearing of the PEC. No public hearings or work
sessions shall: be scheduled regarding exterior alterations prior to the bi-
annual submittal date deadlines. At the next regularly scheduled PEC
meeting following the two submittal dates listed above, the Director. shall
inform the PEC of all exterior alteration submittal. The Director shall
commence with the review of exterior alteration proposals following this
initial PEC meeting.
The next step in the review process shall be a work session with the
PEC, provided however, that applications made in accordance with
Subparagraphs 3(b-d) of this Section may be exempt from this required
work session if determined unnecessary by the Director. The Director
shall schedule the work session at a regularly scheduled PEC hearing,
and shall cause notice of such hearing to.be sent to all adjacent
property owners in accordance with the provisions of the Administration
Chapter of the Code, Section 18.66.080 -Hearing-Notice. Following this
work session, and the submittal of any additional submittal material that
may be required, the Director shall schedule a formal public hearing with
the PEC in accordance with Section 18.66.080 -Hearing-Notice.
a. A property owner may apply for a major exterior alteration
(®reater than one hundred square feet) in any year in which he
or she shall submit an application on the February or September
dates as set forth in 4his section of the code. Said application
shall be termed a "major exterior alteration."
b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of
an existing building. which add or remove any enclosed floor area
of not more Phan one hundred square feet, applications to alter
the roof lines' of an existing building, applications for new outdoor
dining decks and applications for modifications to existing
outdoor dining decks may be submitted for any regularly
scheduled PEC meeting.. Said applications shall be termed a
"minor exterior alteration". The .review procedures for a minor
exterior alteration shall be as outlined in this section. All
enclosed floor, area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this
' Subparagraph 3(b) shall be physically and structurally a part of
an existing or new building and shall not be afree-standing
structure.
c. If a single property owner has not submitted an exterior alteration
proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square
,..feet or less tivithin the last two years, a proposal may be
.submitted ®~a ~ designated submittal date and will be eev/ewed
by the PEC at any of the Commission's regularly scheduled
monthly meetings.
9
d. If a single property owner has submitted an exterior alteration -
proposal which .removes or encloses floor area of 100 square
feet or less within the last two years, a minor exterior alteration
application, as defined in Subparagraph 3(b), shall be submitted
for review on a bi-annual basis on or before the February or
September dates as set forth in this section of the code.
4. The public hearing before the PEC shall be held in accordance with the
Administration chapter of the code, Sections 18.66.060 through
18.66.090. The PEC may approve the application as submitted,
approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the
application. A decision of the PEC may be appealed to the Town
Council in accordance with Section 18.60.070 -Appeal to Town Council.
5. It shall. be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of
evidence. before the PEC that the proposed exterior alteration is in
compliance with the purposes of the CCI district as specified in Section
18.24.0:10 -Purpose; that. the proposal is consistent with applicable
elements of~fhe Vail Village Master Plari, the Town of Vail Streetscape
Master Plan, :and the Vail Comprehensive Plan; .and that the proposal
does not:otfierwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood.
Further, that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village
_ _Urba.n ~esan Guide Plan. and the Vail Villaae`Design Considerations, to
include, but not be limited to the following urban design considerations:
pedestrianzation, vehicular penetration, streetscape framework, street
enclosure, street edge,~building height, views, service/delivery and
sun/shade analysis;
6. Approval of an exterior alteration. under Subparagraph 5 above, shall
constitute approval of the: basic form_and location of improvements, to
include siting, building setbacks, building height, building bulk and mass,
_ site improvements and landscaping.
7. Approval .of a major or minor exterior alteration as prescribed by this
Chapter shall lapse and shall become void two years following the date
of approval of the major or minor exterior alteration by the PEC unless,
prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is
commenced and diligently pursued toward completion.
B. All exterior alterations under subsection A above shall be subject to review by
the Design Review Board (DRB) following PEC approval in accordance with
Chapter 18.54 -Design Review... The DRB shall review the project to insure
• that it complies with the Vail Village Design Considerations. In addition to the
design review criteria, the DRg shall review the proposed exterior alteration for
compliance with the Architectural/Landscape Considerations of the Vail Village
Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to roofs, facades,
balconies, decks and patios, accent elements, landscape elements and service.
10
0
C. The modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or to a site
within CCI shall be reviewed by the DRB in accordance with the following .
revievu procedures and the review procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.54 -
Design Review:
1. Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building
owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the
Director of Community Development. Any application for a
condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium
association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the
condominium association's declarations;
2. The hearing before the DRB shall be held in accordance with Chapter
18.54 -Design Review. A decision of the DRB may be appealed to the
Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Chapter
18.54 -Design Review;
3. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence `before the DRB. that the proposed building modification is
in compliance with the. purposes of the CCI district as specified in
18.24.010 -Purpose; that the proposal substantially complies with the
.Vail Village Design Considerations; and that the proposal does not
otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood;
4. The DRB may approve the application as. submitted; approve the
application with conditions or modifications; or, if the DRB finds that the
applicant failed to meet his or her burden of proof, it may deny the
application;
5. The zoning administrator may approve minor modifications as provided
in Section 18,54:040(C)(3) -Staff approval. A decision of the zoning
administrator may be appealed (or called up) to the DRB for review.
Ofd. .C®MMERCfIAL C®RE 9~. SECTS®N 18.26.045 = EXTERI®R ALTER~?TI®NS ®R
NI®DIFICATIOt~S ~ ~~®CEDURE
All of the issues and staff recommendations related to Commercial Core I, Section 18.24.065 -
IExterior Alterations or Modifications -Procedure, also apply to Commercial Core II, Section
18.26.045 Exterior Alterations or Modifications -Procedure. Staff recommends that all
modifications to be made to the CCI Section 18.24.065 of the code occur simultaneously to
the CCII Section 18.26.045.
11
IV. TEXT AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 18.26.045 -Commercial Core II
The following are the proposed text modifications to Section 18.26.045, which address the
Issues and Staff Recommendations as more fully explained in Section I of this memo. These
changes are identical. to the changes proposed for CCI Section 18.24.065 with the exception .
of the referenced planning documents to be used in evaluating development proposals.
"Site development, the construction of a new building, and alterations to the exterior of
an existing building in CCII shall comply with the following procedures: .
A. The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which
. adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building
which modifies roof lines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition
of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining
deck shall be subject to review by the PEC as follows:
1. Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building
owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the
Director of. Community Development. Any application for a
condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium
association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the
condominium association's declarations;
2. An application for an exterior alteration shall include the following:
a. Completed application form, filing fee and a list of all owners of
property located adjacent to the subject parcel. The owners list
shall include the name of all owners, their mailing address,'the
legal description .of the property owned by each, and a general
description of the property (including the name of the property, if
applicable), and the name and mailing address of the
condominium associati_on's representative (if applicable). Said
names and addresses shall be obtained from the current tax
records of Eagle County as they appeared no more than thirty
days prior to the application submittal date;
b. A written statement describing the proposal and how the
proposal complies with the Vail Lionshead Urban Desian Guide
• Plan and Va_ it Lionshead Desian •Considerations and any relevant
sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan;
c. A survey, stamped by a licensed surveyor, indicating existing
conditions on the property including the location of
improvements, topography, and natural features;
d. A current title report to verify ownership, easements and other
encumbrances, including schedules A and B;
12
D
f
e. .Existing and proposed site plan at a scale of 1 10', a vicinity
plan at an appropriate.scale to adequately shover the project
location in. relationship to the surrounding area, a landscape plan
at a scale of 1 "=10', a roof height plan and existing and
proposed building elevations at a minimum scale of 1/8"=1'. The
material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and
improvements as necessary to demonstrate the project's
compliance with urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail
Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Design
Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan;
f. Sun/shade analysis of the.existing and proposed building for the
spring/fall equinox (March 21/September 23) and winter solstice
(December 21) at 10:OOAM .and 2:OOPM, unless it is
de$er?nined that the proposed addition has no impact on the
c~xist®ng gun Ishade patferne The following sun angles shall be
used uvhen preparing this analysis:
Sp~'ing/Pall ~quin®~ Sun Angle
10:OOAM 42° East of South, 50° declination
2:OOPM 42° !Blest of South, 50° declination
@~lin$er S®lstice
10:OOAM 30° East of South, 20° declination
2:OOPM 30° Nest of South, 20° declination
g. ,Existing and proposed floor plans at a scale of 1/4"=1' and a
square footage analysis of all existing and proposed uses;
h. An architectural or massing model of the proposed development.
Said model shall include buildings and major site improvements
on adjacent properties. The scale of the model shall be as
determined by the Director of Community Development;
i. Photo overlays and/or other graphic material to demonstrate the
spatial. relationship of the proposed development to adjacent
' properties, public spaces, and adopted views per Chapter 18.73
of the Town of Vail Municipal Code;
j. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by
the Director of Community Development or the PEC. The
Director or the PEC may, at his or her discretion, waive certain
submittal requirements if it is determined that said requirements
are not relevant to the proposed development and applicable
urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Lionshead Urban
Design Guide Plan and Vaif' Lionshead Design Considerations
and any relevant sections of fhe Vail Comprehensive Plan. "
13
3. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted '
bi-annually on or before the fourth Monday of February or the fourth
Monday of September. Submittal requirements shall include all
information listed in Subparagraph No. 2 above, provided however, that
the architectural or massing model may be submitted three weeks prior
to the first formal public hearing of the PEC. No public hearings or work
sessions shall be scheduled regarding exterior alterations prior to the bi-
annual submittal date deadlines. At the next regularly scheduled PEC
meeting following the two submittal dates listed above, the Director shall
inform the PEC of all exterior alteration submittal. The Director shah
commence with the review of exterior alteration proposals following this
initial PEC meeting.
The next step in .the review process shall be a work session with the
PEC, provided however, that applications made in accordance with
Subparagraphs 3(b-d) of this Section may be exempt from this required
..work session if determined unnecessary by the Director. The Director
.shall schedule- the work session at a regularly scheduled PEC hearing,
and shall cause notice of such hearing to be sent to all adjacent
property-owners iri accordance with the provisions of the Administration
Chapter of the Code, Section 18.66.080 -Hearing-Notice. Following this
work session,.and the_ submittal of any additional submittal material that.
may be required, the, Director shall schedule a formal public hearing with _
the PEC in accordance with Section 18.66.080 -Hearing-Notice.
a. _ A property owner may apply for a major exterior alteration
(areafer than one hundred square feetl in any year in which he
or'she shall`submit ari application on the February or September
dates as set`forth in this section of~~the code. Said application
shall be termed a "major exterior alteration."
b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of
an existing.. building which add or remove any enclosed floor area
of not more than one hundred square feet, applications to alter
the roof lines of,an existing building, applications for new outdoor
dining decks and applications for modifications to existing
" outdoor dining decks may be submitted for any regularly
scheduled PEC meeting. Said applications shall be termed a
"minor exterior alteration". The review procedures for a minor
exterior alteration shall be as outlined in this section. All
"..enclosed floor area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this
Subparagraph 3(b) shall be physically and structurally a part of
an existing or new building and shall not be afree-standing
structure.
c. If a single property owner has not submitted an exterior alteration .
proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square
feet or less within the last two years, a proposal may be
14
D
submitted ~ designated submittal date snd will be e'evleweCfl
by the PEC at any of the Commission's regularly scheduled
monthly meetings.
d. If a single property owner has submitted an exterior alteration
proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square
. feet or less within the last two years, a minor exterior alteration
application, as defined in Subparagraph 3(b), shall be submitted
for review. on. a bi-annual basis on or before the February or
September dates as set forth in this section of the code.
4. The public hearing before the PEC shall be held in accordance with the
Administration chapter of the code, Sections 18.66.060 through
18.66.090. The PEC may approve the application as submitted,
approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the
application. A decision of the PEC may be appealed to the Town
Council in accordance with Section 18.60.070 -Appeal to Town Council.
. 5. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of
evidence before the PEC- that the proposed exterior alteration is in
- compliance uvith the purposes of the CCII district as specified in Section .
16.26.010 -Purpose; that the proposal is consistent with applicable
elements of~the Vail Lionshead Urban Desian Guide Plan arid the Vail -
Lonshead Design Considerations,:'or that the proposal does not
otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood; and that
' the proposal substantially complies with the applicable elements of the
Vail Comprehensive Plan.
6. Approval of an exterior alteration under Subparagraph 5 above, shall
constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements, to
include siting, building setbacks, building height, building bulk and mass,
site improvements and landscaping.
7. Approval of a maj®~ ®P minor exterior alteration as prescribed by this
Chapter shall lapse and shall become void tvv® years one year following
the date of approval of the rnaJ®r ®r minor exterior alteration by the
PEC unless, prior to_ the eupiration, a building permit is issued and
construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion.
B. All. exterior alterations under subsection A above shall be subject to review by
the Design Review Board (DRB) following PEC approval in accordance with
Chapter 1 t3.54 -Design Review. The DRB shall review the same to insure that
it complies with the Lionshead Design Considerations. In addition to the design
review criteria, the Design Review Board shall review the proposed exterior
alteration for compliance with the Architectural/Landscape Considerations of the
Lionshead Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to roofs,
facades, balconies, decks and' pa4ios, accent elements, landscape elements
and service.
15
C. The modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or to a site
within CCII shall be reviewed by the DRB in accordance with the following
review procedures and the review procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.54 -
Design Review:
1. Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building
owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the
_ Director of Community, Development. Any application for a
condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium
association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the
condominium association's declarations;
2. The hearing before the DRB. shall be held in accordance with Chapter
18.54 -Design Review. A decision of the DRB may be appealed to the
Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Chapter
18.54 -Design Review;
3. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence before the DRB.that the proposed building modification is
in compliance with the purposes of the CCII district as specified in
18.26.01:0 -Purpose; that "the proposal substantially complies with the .
Vail Liorshead Design Considerations; and that the proposal does not
otherwise negatively-alter the character of the neighborhood;
4. The DRB may approve the application as submitted; approve the
application with conditions or modifications; or, if the Design Review
Board finds that the applicant failed to meet his or her burden of proof, it
may deny the application;
5. The zoning administrator may approve minor modifications as provided
in Section 18.54.040(C)(3) -Staff approval. A decision of the zoning
administrator may be appealed (or called up) to the DR6 for review.
V. THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN, DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ~I)
SUN/SHADE -
The Vail Village Design Considerations (I) Sun/Shade currently reads as follows: .
"Due to Vail's alpine climate, sun is an important comfort factor, especially in
.winter, fall and spring. Shade areas have ambient temperatures substantially
below those of adjacent direct sunlit areas. ~ On all but the warmest of summer
. days shade can easily lower temperatures below comfortable levels and
thereby negatively impact uses of those areas.
All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring and
fall shadow pattern (March 21 through September 23) on adjacent properties or
the pubic R.O.W.
16
n
In all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall
height consideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shade considerations are not
intended to restrict building height allowances, but rather to influence the
massing of buildings. Limited height exceptions may be granted to meet this
criteria.
Staff recommends the Text be changed as follows:
"...All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the
'spring/fall equinox (March 21/September 23) or winter solstice (December 21)
shadow patterns on adjacent properties or the pubic R.O.lN.
In all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall
. height consideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shade considerations are not
intended to restrict.building height allowances, but rather to influence the
massing of buildings. Limited height exceptions may be granted to meet this
criteria.
In order to determine the.sun/shade impact of a project, applicants shall submit
a sun/shade analysis for 10:OOAM and 2:OOPM for the spring/fall equinox and
the winter solstice. The following sun angles shall 6e used when preparing this
analysis:
Sprung/EaIU Equip®u Sun Angle
10:OOAM 42° East of South, 50° declination
2:OOPM 42° !Nest of South, 50° declination
@fl9unter S®Bstice .
10:OOAM 30° East of South, 20° declination
2:OOPM 30° !Nest of South, 20° declination
Vte S'6AEfF REC®NinAEN®AT@®fit9
Staff recommends approval of the code amendments described above. 1Ne believe that the
recommended' amendments will .clarify and improue the CCI and CCII sections of the zoning
code, as well.as ~e Vail Village and the Vail Lionsflead Urban Design Considerations. The
I?EC recommendation will be forwarded to Town Council in ordinance form for final approval.
Staff uvould like to emphasize that if the proposal is recommended for approved by the PEC,
certain code references and the, specific language may be adjusted, due to legal
considerations, when the memo is placed into ordinance form.
. 17
1
Mr. Lauterbach responded by saying he had done what the PEC had told him at the ~
last meeting.
Dalton Williams responded that Mr. Lauterbach needed to create a design fora small
site and that the current design, in his opinion, is not sensitive to the SDD criteria.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the duplex has a flat area that can be built on and pull
it out Af the steep hillside and that a hip roof would lower the profile of the building.
Greg Amsden inquired why the project could not be moved up 8-10' towards
Westhaven Drive away from the creek area. He said what the PEC saw staked during
the site visit "knocked our socks off".
Michael Lauterbach responded that the first 15' of the north end of the site is for the
bike path and that an entry or driveway could not be moved into that area.
Greg Amsden stated that it appears that the driveway is currently blind and that the
setback was more sensitive along the creek.
Chuck Crist suggested putting a stone wall between the buildings and the bike path so
that they can get a little closer.
Kathy Langenwalter restated her feeling about working with the flat area and showed
one example to PEC about how this might be accomplished.
Greg Amsden stated that creek front preservation is the most important issue and that
PEC will work with Mr. L auterbach on the other sides.
Jeff Bowen stated that the buildings are square and rectangular and that reshaping the
buildings could possibly help the site.
Michael Lauterbach stated that this would be difficult to do.
Jeff Bowen responded that a different shape and smaller buildings were needed on the
site.
Kristan Pritz said that if Mr. Lauterbach desired to go ahead on February 8, 1993 that
additional information would need to be submitted by this Friday January 29th or
Monday February 1st at 9:00 a.m. at the latest.
It was then determined that Mr. Lauterbach would. appear again 'on February 8, 1993
for a final hearing on this item.
4. A request for a work session to amend Chapter 18.24 Commercial Core I and Chapter
- - 18.26 Commercial Core II of the Town of Vail Zoning Code (relating to exterior
alterations).
Planning and Environmental Commission
January 25, 1993 g
_ Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Shelly Mello
Staff advised that both Chapter 18.24 and Chapter 18.26 had previously been
reviewed three times in 1992 and that most issues had been discussed.
Diana Donovan started the discussion by referring to Page 3, Item C of the
Memorandum concerning the 60/90 day review process. She stated that this was okay
and the PEC would need to have a policy, where if there ended up being a lot of items
on a single agenda, as a result of this change that the PEC would just need to take a
break during their meetings.
Dalton Williams suggested not having more than one SDD in each PEC meeting.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that PEC needed to work on shortening the length of their
meetings rather than restrict the number of items.
Kristan Pritz stated that the development community thinks that the development
process is difficult, and that it is hard to walk the line between accommodating the
public and the commission.
Dalton Williams suggested limiting the items by scheduling applicants for PEC
meetings.
Kristan Pritz advised against this.
Shelly Mello agreed, stating that picking and choosing who would go to what meetings
would take more time and add to the frustration.
Concerning the time issue, Kathy Langenwalter stated that each PEC commissioner
had control over the length of time they spent talking on an issue. She also stated that
each commissioner needed to be succinct and keep to the time schedule.
l
Diana Donovan stated that the length of the meetings was their (PEC's) fault.
Kathy Langenwalter inquired about Page 4, Item F. concerning outdoor dining decks.
Her question. concerned whether or not it would be a conditional use.
Shelly Mello inquired whether they should use the Conditional Use Permit and Exterior
Alterations. She stated that Exterior Alterations review criteria is probably more '
applicable to dining decks.
Dalton Williams inquired about whether the PEC is losing the capability to control the
noise on decks by using the Exterior Alterations item and not the Conditional Use
permit process which can be revoked if problems arise with the use of decks.
Shelly Mello responded that they probably would lose that capacity.
Planning and Environmental Commission
January 25, 1993 7
a ~///J
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the Conditional Use item should be kept.
Dalton Williams concurred with Kathy Langenwalter.
Diana Donovan than inquired about classifying decks as an accessory use.
She then stated that both Conditional Uses and Exterior Alterations should be left in
and all the members of PEC agreed. .
With regard to Item I. concerning exterior alteration expiration, Diana Donovan inquired
whether that should be two years.
Shelly Mello stated that there are two levels, major and minor alterations. An SDD is
for three years so it made sense to make a major exterior alteration valid for
the same.
Dalton Williams then inquired about a shorter time frame when a project is not an
SDD.
A general discussion followed and Kristan Pritz concluded that it would be best to keep
the expiration at two years for both minor and major levels.
With regard to Item K. ,Shelly Mello stated that new criteria under staff
recommendations came out of Tom Braun's report. She further stated that it can be
amended at the next PEC meeting if the PEC wanted to change them.
Diana Donovan stated that Item 1 in the Staff Recommendation section on Page 6 did
not read correctly concerning the effect of use.
Kristan Pritz suggested that "the effects" might read better.
Diana Donovan agreed.
With regard to Section II, Part 2, Item f, Kathy Langenwalter feels that the sun/shade
equinox is an exercise in futility on most minor projects.
Shelly Mello state that it is the responsibility of the applicant to show that there is no
effect.
Kathy Langenwalter inquired about whether a survey is always necessary for projects.
Shelly Mello stated that it was necessary to confirm lot size and other existing
conditions.
Diana Donovan stated that Page 14, Item C concerning required submittal dates is
confusing.
A general discussion was held concerning this item and Shelly Mello stated that it
Planning and Environmental Commission
January 25, 1993 g
i
y
would be fixed.
5. A request for a work session to amend Chapter 18.32 and Chapter 18.38 of the Vail
Municipal Code relating to uses allowed in open space zone districts.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Jim Curnutte
WITHDRAWN
6. Explanation of public notice by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - a request for a
Section 404 permit (discharge of fill material) for the proposed nine-hole, par 3 golf
course, Iccated between I-70 and Bald Mountain Road.
Applicant: Vail Recreation District
Planner: Mike Mollica/Russ Forrest
Russ Forrest reviewed the letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with the PEC
and stated that the U.S. Corps of Engineers is now soliciting comments from the public
~ on this project.
Diana Donovan inquired as to whether the U.S. Corps of Engineers would be coming
to a PEC meeting.
Russ Forrest said that PEC needs to notify them by February 8, 1993 and invite them
to a hearing, if that is desired. The next step will be an environmental assessment and
more public hearings (i.e. an environmental impact assessment with more public. input).
Diana Donovan inquired why a hearing was necessary.
Russ Forrest stated that a hearing would provide a public forum to identify
environmental issues that need to be addressed in the Corps' environmental
assessment.
Kristan Pritz stated that this could come from the adjacent property owners. Kristan
said that Rob Robinson had told her that he had offered to notify the adjacent property
owners but the Corps would not allow this. She stated that this is a strange process.
Gena Whitten inquired whether such a hearing would include safety issues.
Russ Forrest stated that the Corps is requiring an individual 404 Permit because of
safety concerns and cumulative impact to wetlands in the Vail Valley. Russ
Forrest stated that the main issue was whether the par 3.golf course was worth
the loss of 1/2 acre of wetland and 10 acre ft. of water being taken out,
potentially impacting four endangered fish species.
Diana Donovan stated that wetland and cumulative effects of the project would also be
amain consideration.
Planning and Environmental Commission
January 25, 1993 g
'l~
~ 1
_ ~ l~ ~ UT~
G M
Jim Curnutte stated that Russ Forest went to the site and agreed that the site d'id
contain wetlands. He said that Russ recommended that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers come out and review the proposed encroachment.
Kristan Pritz stated that this was a difficult situation because we do npt technically
enforce wetland regulations. Iri the past, as a condition of approval of a request, we
have asked for a letter from the Corps prior to the issuance of a permit to avoid
problems for the applicant.
Chuck Crist stated that it was too bad that the trees would have to go. He suggested
that the applicant add a few more to the plan.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that this plan was a sensitive use of the.site. She feels that
.more integration between existing and new is needed but would make those comments
when the project goes to DRB. She asked if the applicant could mulch the trees on
the site.
Kyle UVebb stated that he will agree to mulching the trees.
Diana Donovan stated that there do not appear to be problems with the variances for
this request. She told the applicant that he would need to come back before the PEC
fora final hearing in two weeks, February 22, 1993.
6. A request to amend Chapter 18.24 Commercial Core I, and Chapter 18.26 Commercial
Core I! of the Town of Vail Zoning Code (relating to exterior alteration).
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Shelly Mello .
Chuck Crist motioned to request that Chapter 18.24 Commercial Core I be amended
with Kathy Langenwalter seconding the motion. A unanimous vote of 6-0 approved
this request.
7. A request for a setback variance, at the Manor Vail Lodge, to allow the construction of
a trash enclosure, located on a Part of Lot 1, Block B, Vail Village Seventh Filing/595
Vail Valley Drive.
Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge
Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLE® iNDEFINITELV
Chuck Crist motioned to table this request with Jeff Bowen seconding the motion.. A .
unanimous vote of 6-0 tabled this request indefinitely.
8. A request for a major exterior alteration, site coverage variance, and landscape
variance to allow exterior modifications to the Hill Building located at 254 Bridge
Street/a part of Lot L, Vail Village First Filing.
Pianning and Environmental Commission
f; ebruary 8, 1993 9
®~®@NAB~CE 29
SEI66ES ®E 9993
~II~ ®I~®G~AI~CE Rl~®l~l~(a 7.790 ~C~ES PR®l~l AGR9~~~TaJFiA~ A~B® ®PE~ S9~ACE,
SfI=CTII®1~ 98.32 T® ~®W ®E~S9TY hUtIJ~T~-PR?t1AI~Y, SECS@®~ 98.96
L®C~a~'IC® f8E1~l1lEEl~l 1rSAC~ SL®C~ 2, VA~~ P®1T~T® ~Al<'C~il ~a~~tC~~ ll$.
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail is the owner of an unplatted parcel generally located
between Tract C, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch and Parcel B which is more fully described as:
A tract of land in the South 1 /2 of the Southeast 9/4, Section 6, Township 5 South,
Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado described
as follows:
Beginning at the point of intersection of the easterly line of said Section 6 and the
northerly right-of-way of Interstate Highway fVo. 70 whence the southeast corner
of said Section 6 bears S00°28'16"E 686.60 feet; thence the following four courses
along the northerly right-of-way of Interstate Highway fVo. 70: 1) IV71 °33'45"W
196.10 feet; 2) iV83°36'29"W 826.30 feet; 3) fV74°21'35"W 204.82 feet; 4)
IV69°55'21 "W 170.00 feet; thence, departing the northerly right-of-way of Interstate
Highway (Vo. 70, fV20°04'39"E 87.64 feet; thence N88°30'00"E 280.59 feet to a
westerly angle point of a parcel of land described in Warranty Deed, Reception IVo.
114010, Book 218, Page 419 recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado,
Clerk and Recorder; thence the following three courses along the westerly,
southerly, and easterly lines of said parcel: 1) S36°23'30"W 65.24 feet; 2)
S83°36'23"E 411.94 feet; 3) fV00°00'00"E 180.11 feet to the northeasterly corner
of said parcel; thence, departing said easterly line, S88°34'00"E 679.59 feet to the
easterly line of said Section 6; thence, along said easterly line S00°28'16"E 421.99
feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 7.710 acres, more or less.
The above description is based on a written metes and bounds legal description and not a field i
survey; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Housing Authority and the Town of Vail have submitted an application
to rezone an area of land from Agricultural and Open Space to Low Density Multi-Family
Residential; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning effort is consistent with the surrounding and immediately
adjacent properties; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning effort will better reflect the actual use of the land; and
1
Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1993
0
WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning is for the benefit of the community as it meets the
municipal objectives identified in the Housing Study adopted by Town Council on November 20,
1990, and the existing Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental
Commission had a public hearing on the proposed zoning amendment and has submitted its
recommendation for approval to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, all notices required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the appropriate
parties; and ,
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of
the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
The Town Council finds that the procedures for a zoning amendment as set forth in
Section 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied, and all of the
requirements of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail relating to zoning amendments have been
fully satisfied.
Section 2
The Town Council hereby rezones the property from Agricultural and Open Space to Low
Density Multi-Family Residential for the exclusive use of Town of Vail controlled employee
housing in addition to the existing public uses on the site.
Section 3
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 4
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 5
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
2
Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1993
a
P'
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 6
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 day of , 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this
Ordinance on the _ day of , 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. ,
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of , 1993.
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
C:\ORD93.21
3
Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1993
a
®®ry~~® ®p~g ~®,e
' 9YOEIIA®fl/NBlIDtJIIII
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development '
DATE: May 24, 1993
SUBJECT: A request to amend Section 18.04.170 of the Zoning Code to clarify the
definition of the height of structures.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Shelly Mello
~ :v:: . A.:..:.:..
.v:v:. ~.~~n•:::..~.:•:::::.v.~v .ii:::i:.i:4+::.i?:.:~. :•:itv~:.:i.i .::.:iii:{•k:.i?:.:ii~::~:
:~\:ti X•?:
~iti ii
~?iti'•ii: i:til~i ~•~i:~.~i
y::.. t~~i, > >
+T:\{•i}iiiii:i?:•i+i:i:•:i:•ii:+•i: iiiii;• ii ~ iiiiiiiii?:.::±x: ;:v:>.'>.:iii;~.4+i'~~??~?:'•i`•i?::4:::i,.v.±,'.
v•:::::• ~•:.v:
}:i•nti•;. »•:::.v;:: is r. ~v:.
~•ii,+:.\?'viii. iii:. v v.\n: j~`d:;i i?........; ii:v:::::: vvi:iiti:::::iiii:::.
.......zv::
v:..~...t...........h.t•::::::::w::.v. • • :...n+w:::: v v.. ..v. •ti~
•:w::
A:; ri•}}:::::::..1. ii:.: t:i.i:.::• :::::::::::::::::::::v::.
poem g`~ Q•,1»»»».~;•:.J~.,\.:,.~\\:gpnpvnpp\n~is~\ss~v~~yyx~q..v~..p/»,~~~~~ti»~.~~i®q~.pp
..............-..~.:\\4n\:...~\»~:.:
\:~`{~~{•ntiA\\\~~iti\i\v\. .,....tvx\ii.:vn..~•.v.::..~~..~,.~•.~xx•n~.~•::::...:..»:.~
~e ®`V`?9 9I t~~I®Oq ®I~ Y 9 ®!n 0 ~~~i~1~69 Y
Recently,. the procedure for measuring. the height of buildings has come into question. At the
April 12, 1993, appeal regarding this question, the PEC requested that the staff make some
minor changes to the definition of height,. Section 18.04.170 -Height. This amendment will
rtot change the staff's current height measuring procedure. The existing definition for height
states:
"The distance measured vertically from, existing grade or finished grade (whichever is
more restrictive) at any given point to the top of a flat, or mansford roof or to the
highest ridge tine of a sloping roof."
In response to the appeal, the staff would like to propose the following wording:
Section 18.40.170 -Height
"The distance measured vertically from any point on a proposed or existing roof or
eave to the existing or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive) located directly
below said point of the roof or eave."
(li, STAFF Rt~C®6VI61flEIV®A°~B®~I
The ,staff recommends these changes in response to the direction given by the PEC. This
amendment will not change the staff's current method of calculating height.
1
1 .
~
. ~ ~ ---.e
.
~ ~It~~~ X112 ~ , ~ . . ' :~d
~
e :::f:+ ,fie ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
t
fl v
i
0
A
l
1
]3
y ~ _
~ ~
1 ~e.q•
i D V
\
} • 1
1I1 '
~j \ '
~ ~
}
.
~ .
~ . -rte
1~ Mai '~'D ~
~ ~ ~
~
ORDINANCE NO. 33
Series of 1993
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 18.04.170 AND SECTION
18.58.020(C) -FENCES, hIEDGES, WALLS AND SCREENING, OP THE 64~UNICBPAL CODE
OF THE TOWN OF VAIL; AND PROVIDINCa DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that the following amendments will clarify and
make more effective the definition of height and the procedures for allowing fences, hedges and
walls within the front setbacks of properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
Section 18.04.170 -Height of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby repealed
and reenacted io read as follows:
18.04.170 - Heiaht
#eig#t~eane ,ha-dfsta~~~ mLas~u;ad~er#+~all~~-fre+aa--t#e-e~is#+~g-grade-er-fifl+s#ed~rade
#f-ie-f~igh~-s± ridge-I+~f a :.!aping-real. The distance measured vertically from any point on a
proposed or existing roof or cave to the existing or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive)
located directly below said point of the roof or cave. Within any building footprint, height shall
be measured from any point on a proposed or existing roof to the existing grade.
Section 2
Section 18.58.020(C) -Fences, Hedges, Walls and Screening of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
18.58.020(C) -Fences, Hedaes. Walls and Screenina
Fences, hedges, walls and landscaping screens shall not exceed three (3) feet in height
within any required front setback area, and shall not exceed six (6) feet in height in any other
portion of the site, provided that higher fences, hedges, walls or landscaping screens may be
authorized by the zoning administrator when necessary to screen public utility equipment. No
barbed wire or electrically charged fence shall be erected or maintained.
Section 3
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 4
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 5
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 6
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 day of 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this
Ordinance on the day of , 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of , 1993.
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Hotly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
c~mPOr6T1.93
®R®I~IA~ICE N®. 35
SERIES ®F 1993
AID ®R®I~IA~ICE 6t~AICING Sll9PPI.EI1ftEI~TAt. APPR®PF3IATI®P9S
IFR®f~l TAE T®WN OF VAIL
~Ef~E6~Al~ FUG®, CAPITA. PR®3ECTS FI91V®,
THE (13EA1. ESTATE T~$A~ISFER TAB FI,l31~1®, POLICE COIVFISCATI®119 FUG®,
I'IEAVY EQI~IP~lIEI~~' FIe?N®, BEST VAIL ®EBT SERVICE F~~®,
A6~® VAIL I~IA~iKETIBJfa FI,.DN®
®F TAE 1993~p~t!®~E~ ~?~I®p/TflFIE//f~~FI~s~IV®®Cpld~~ (~fl.A~
TIME T®tldll'V ®F VPOIL, b®L®IlA®®y
AI.DT~'I®RI~11~(a TIE EXPEn?17~IT~BRES ®F SAI® APPR®PI~IATIONS
AS SET IF®RTFI FIEREII~;
AB~® SET~'I1~C~, f~CRT~ ®ETAILS ICI EIEGAR® TIifERE'ir®.
WHEREAS, contingencies have arisen during the fiscal year 1993 which could not have
been reasonably foreseen or anticipated by the Town Council at the time it enacted Ordinance
fVo. 39, Series of 1992, adopting the 1993 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail,
Colorado; and,
WHEREAS, the Town has received certain revenues not budgeted for previously; and,
WHEREAS, the Town Manager has certified to the Town Council that sufficient funds are
available to discharge the appropriations referred to herein, not otherwise reflected in the Budget,
in accordance with Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail; and,
WHEREAS, in order to accomplish the foregoing, the Town Council finds that it should
make certain supplemental appropriations as set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO that:
1. Pursuant to Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado, the Town
Council hereby makes the following supplemental appropriations for the 1993 Budget and
Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado, and authorizes the expenditure of said
appropriations as follows:
FUND AMOUNT
General Fund S 178,522
Capital Projects Fund 82,595
Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund <47,137>
Police Confiscation Fund 1,530
Heavy Equipment Fund 61,092
Vail Marketing Fund 50,000
West Vail Debt Service Fund 10,000
336, 602
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.
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
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
1
Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1993
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 extend 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 day of .1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this
Ordinance on the _ day of .1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly L. McCuthceon, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of , 1993.
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
C:\ORD93.35
Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1993
t
oRDiNANr,E No. 34
SERIES OF 1993
AN ORDINAI'~CE REZONING LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE 3RD FILING FROM THE
PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT TO THE PRIII~ARY/SECONDARY
RESIDENTIAL AMID SINGLE FAiVi1LY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS.
WHEREAS, Leo Payne is the owner of Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Payne has submitted an application to rezone the lot from the
Primary/Secondary Residential zone district to the Primary/Secondary Residential and Single
Family zone districts; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning effort is consistent with the surrounding and immediately
adjacent properties; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning is for the benefit of the community as it meets the
municipal objectives identified in the Vail Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental
Commission had a public hearing on the proposed zoning amendment and has submitted its
recommendation for approval to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, all notices required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the
appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66
of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vaii.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
The Town Council finds that the procedures for a zoning amendment as set forth in
Section 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied, and all of
the requirements of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail relating to zoning amendments
have been fully satisfied.
Section 2
The Town Council hereby rezones the property from Primary/Secondary Residential to
Primary/Secondary Residential and Single Family Residential, as shown on the attached
Exhibit A.
-
Section 3
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 4
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 5
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code
of the Town of Vai! 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 6
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 day of , 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this
Ordinance on the day of , 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
.
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of , 1993.
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
FINAL' .PLAT., A •RI;SUBDIVISION OF, LOT 1, BLOCI{ 4,• VA.IL VILLAGE 'THIRD FILING, .r
• TO1TN OF VAIL, EAGLI; COUNTY,'COLORADO .
.4:.1 .
Lek
• I • v y•'%i?w{ • prowl. . rr{ns . ~ ~ ~ ew.1 ~ ..w.ww
• 1j1{r • wr... ~.•,wwilr. w•.+{•«.•w.•.w.•wrrl n.-Iw
` 1 4w~ w• • w .~~ry•{ tir• \vw -r 1•~-M• ~ -I M r. 11
• •'L:. ~ 1 • FII-wy•r.~i~ v+I••••~ wry
w4.r,rM ~
' ..,..1+4~~~~ ~''•I'~ ~ .j'1 ( L .+r~..•r-Ir.wl..nw...•. ~ {"""r. .
w+• ~r..••• Y.l«w~•.. M w
s. • Ip1tt FMM weurl ~lllJ • 1 1..~~Ir.w~M
~r'••..~I n•~• ~r W. 4~ ~ ~
. Vk'@I!"1 tUP _ w..• i r MIw ' W o•1 rnm~ ~ '
' w................rw
.
~
~n .1.•::.~1.~"•iwMi.l.~w...., w :.1...+ •.•.r .
. r.r.lwr..+•.w •r..•w.•rw , ~~wiw•.rw w.r•ww.....r.+w.•
r M '
' ~ ~ ~ ~ prrrW uly/ ,~I., pL ~ ~Y:•~wMi~..wr •.r..rwir+w~w
' . WI\• ••~.{.r.iw?1. pww ww•I~MM74{M wl ti,-,q~•
~~a~~rny.~~•~ Mi.:'•r l.nl ~ ~ r.l 6...... w`.~.. ~'M •,.••ry Wr{r lw-{ur{~•A r
t N4 Vr.~Y• •1 / /Y . wru 4• r~l.iy \.••yrrwrMAiMw YIf1
• ~ / R. ~1 \ • Mw~+~,r1-~ , '~~y\. M M •w M •M ~ M•My ~wr
r..w w Ir
•-h~I•py • • ~ 1
, •,1.1 f\ 17'!rI \ • ~rr1 r•1~1 ~ M•. ' .••{w ~+V4.•r.MwMM'•rww.+..w
r Ier le ' ? P r•' ~ ~ e /popes • 7 . ,
~ S • Or11M
/ w ~ M+a'r!•/f ~ 1[•/1.71 pn1 lerff•y u •.....tw~« M F.•.I °`~!y •
' war, A M f M/OAO d••M KICt$% r...••w.. w.r~i'w ~..•rw n:r. '
t1~1\ r y` r•~1 I llil r•M.. •..ww+ { ww1.••Ir? _ .e.{w. .
~ 1 ~ ' Ce.1 #tt'SI. 1P ~ y • i......r•...y. w...Yi
• tAt I 7\1~~\\~~ y$/rl~, "'A' emwrisp\ta»rayt~, •7.
- . . . ,1', ~v~ ~ S _ ?Y•'wY- AI....... .1/. qN' y..-N L.\.•l;ww.+"'~iw~....+ 1.1.E
•1w 4vw tww.. ` Y,w
• , f r ••'61+5^-ti :'lti:.l A. N MY •Yf'l TL
' ~ ~ 4X1: 1'.JO r Ir ~r ~ • ~ ~..i.
' ~ ~ P•OS YAV7 R.aCd1W:eR~d',: ! ~ 'r ~ ,I'~ r •
' . Nt~ttiMINARY
•....».t-...emu...
~ hari1BIT A ~ . .
• ~ 1'• 'Lot I-A - Priaary/Secondary Residential'
. • " ~ / ~y
• Lot 1-B -Single Pa~ilg residential, •
. f
?f
~ s~
December 4, 1993
To: Ms. Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor, and
Members of the Vail Town Council
. Vail, Colorado
Re: Request for rezoning of 381 Beaver Dam Circle from the Primary/Secondary
Residential zone district to the Primary/Secondary Residential and Single
Family zone districts and a minor subdivision to create two Pots from the
existing lot.
Dear Council Members:
We are writing to ask you to refuse the request by Leo Payne to change the
zoning laws to a{low him to build more than aPrimary/Secondary home on the
Beaver Dam Circle lot. It is time to be firm about the zoning laws, in spite of
arguments about legal square. footage and concessions that Mr. Payne will .
make concerning wetlands and trees. The fact remains that the parcel in
question is zoned for aPrimary/Secondary structure and to change the zoning
would set a precedent for zoning changes for similar parcels.
We are writing on behalf of Nancy and Don Byers who live in a Primary/
Secondary home close to the Payne iot. We feel strongly, as they do, that
increasing density in that neighborhood is detrimental to the quality of fife, ie.
less open space, more traffic, and that a stand should be made now to
adhere to the zoning Paws.
Respectfully,
Charlie and Patti Langmaid
P. O. Box 159 Lionshead Mall • Vail, Colorado 81658 • (303) 476-1700
BEES®~4~T9®N 16
SERIES ®E X993
A RES®fl.tD~e®~ T® ESTER ~hi9'~® ABA 96VTERCa®VERNIIAENTAE ~,CREEME~9T
~IET~lEEN TAE T®~!~ ®F VAB~ SHE C®UN~Y ~/46a~.E, STAVE C®Q.®~3A®®,
~®ff3 ANI~A~. C®NTR®~. SER!!@CES.
.WHEREAS, the Town Council finds it desirable to contract with the County for the
performance of animal control services; and
WHEREAS, the County of Eagle is agreeable to rendering such animal control services;
and
WHEREAS, such Intergovernmental Agreement is authorized pursuant to Section 18,
Article XIV of th8 Colorado Constitution and C.R.S. 29-1-210 et seq.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado:
1. The Town Manager is hereby authorized to enter into an Intergovernmental
Agreement that provides for the following:
a)• Administration and enforcement of the current Title VI- Animals of the
Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the animal control services of the County of Eagle,
Colorado.
b) The Town of Vail agrees to pay Eagle County the sum of $
per month.
c) The County of Eagle shall administer the County's dog tag program for the
Town with monies collected from residents of the Town of Vail applied in a 60% - 40%
relationship with the Town of Vail receiving 60% of those fees collected from the residents of the
Town of Vail.
2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of .1993.
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
C:\RESOLU93.16
Resolution No. 16, Series of 1993
AAEiiA®RAIV®Utffl
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development. ,
DATE: ~ December 7, 1993
SUBJECT: Summary of Design Review Board action on Pineridge Townhouses sign
variance request.
...a.::
•n': ~ v ~ v?. ~ nvxn:: • ~ . t. \.......4.......:...:..., ::?T•: v vn . } v: vv:
ti:\ •.vv n;; vk
v:::::;, ?:~.:.::nw.w:::::::.,~. ~:.,::•::.+'n,+,v:. :.....:.......ti.., v:.:::::
nvnvnv::::::::::::.~~.v.
~,:}':`y`.:~~:i:+:ji:vw:w:;; .v;~.:::::::::: ...v. .vv?'?.?•:::•:.•::::::,w:.w:::m:w:r:::v::::nv:;+v:•.v.~:nv:.~.,...,vv:n,v:::: •::::.v: x:.vw:: \v+.•.v;. .n,...n... n.
•vkl: •rv.:: v:::
\•nw::::..: w:::.:,v y: ..:.,v.,v. w: ~.v: -0: •.J::..~.~.~:.,•?. \ \n\v;;..~v..~~i
tii:2::n~
?~..:~:r.Z,~i~v ::::::::::......v:::::::::::::.i , v,w::
v ,:..v?}i:.. ....n ..'.,..n n.., w:::.+v.++iiJii'.i:+•:.i'•:t..... .
ar',:x ~.,...,...:.,wStiG2,::v,~,,.,ntiyav::;,:;.b.
ah~k::~w::.\~~d,
w~
x
•.::,;<a~.::n~.~.~.,.,..,o..:::i::Y~~\ ~.:\sa1~
~,a~~:. va.1~~'v': R,'niaC:,~`~i:.@~ . `..,~\':<qQ
On November 3, 1993, the Vail Design Review Board (DRB) recommended to approve the
sign variance request for the Pineridge Townhouses with a vote of 5-0 (see attached memo).
In their motion, the DRB included two conditions to their recommendation of approval. These
conditions are as follows:
. 1. That the top of the signs be no higher than 5 feet above finished grade.
2. That any trash dumpsters currently located in the public right-of-way be moved
onto the Homeowners Association property and screened from public view with
landscaping.
1
:.M~-t
MEMORANDUM
TO: Design Review Board `
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 3, 1993
' SUBJECT: A sign variance request for the Pineridge Townhouses located at 2195,
. 2197 and 2199 Chamonix Lane/Lots 2, 3, and 4, Vail Heights
Subdivision. ~ I
Applicant: Pineridge Townhouses Homeowners
- Association
Planner: Jim Curnutte
. .....v x•..\v
:;v.~:~.::::::::::::...:•::::.~~w::::::.NV :v::.:~i•:: n;
;.i'::
n::v.:.v. ~ vva~N
a
n ......n,-.......................\................................................. .v.... ?:i::
i;:.?ii:Jiy;
•nv::::.v: n~:'+iv:+L:iv.~w;;::: :..\~:::w:: n•
_c..
~I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Pineridge Townhouses is a cluster of thirty-one dwelling units (three six-plexes, 1 five-
- plex, and two four-plexes) located on Lots 2, 3, and 4, Vail Heights Subdivision. Since there
is currently no project identification for the Pineridge Townhouses, the Homeowners
Association would like to construct two subdivision entrance signs (5 square feet each) near
the property's eastern and western-most entrance drives. The section of the Vail Sign Code .
. which governs the installation of subdivision entrance signs may be found at Section .
16.20.150 of the Vail Sign Code (see attached copy). The purpose statement of this section
of the Code states that subdivision entrance signs are intended "to identify the entrance to a
major subdivision, condominium complex, or group of apartment buildings having at least 100 .
lineal feet of frontage along a vehicular or pedestrian way." Subdivision entrance signs are j
controlled in terms of size, height,. number; location, design, lighting and landscaping. The
location requirement states that subdivision entrance signs may be located only to identify `
subdivisions and buildings in the RC, LDMF, MDMF, HDMF, and SDD zone districts, subject
. to the approval of the Design Review Board (DRB). Since the Pineridge Townhouses are
located on property zoned Primary/Secondary Residential, the project is precluded from
having subdivision entrance signs without approval: of a variance from this section of the Vail.
Sign Code. The_.Pinarridge Townhouses Homeowners Association is requesting a '
~variarice to allow for the installation of two subdivision entrance signs on property
zoned Primary/Secondary Residential.
II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
The Pineridge Townhouses were constructed in the early 1970's, at which time they were
located in unincorporated Eagle County. The project was annexed into the Town of Vail in ,
1986 and zoned Primary/Secondary Residential at that time: The project is considered to be
legally non-conforming, with regard to zoning.
1
.0.4,.1-r~.:jli:r'"':i~'~:~}a~~ - ~ _
_ -
890. FIN®19dGS AN® STAFF 93ESPONSSS
Before the DRB acts on a variance application, the applicant. must prove physical hardship
and the Board must find that:
A. There are special circumstances or conditions aAplvina to the land. buildings.
topography. veaetatian, signs. strucfure~s or o#her matters on adiacent lots or
within the adiacent right=of=orgy which would substantially restrict the
effectiveness of~the sign in question: provided however. that such sQecial
circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or entemrises
. to which the applicant desires t_u_ draw attention and do not apply generally to all
businesses or enterprises.
staff Response:
Staff feels that there are special circumstances related to the zoning of the ,
Pineridge Townhouses that are unique to this property. Subdivision entrance .
' signs are intended to identify the entrances to multi-unit projects like the
Pineridge Townhouses, however, due to the existing Primary/Secondary
Residential zoning on the property, they are precluded from having the same
. signs allowed on other multi-unit projects.
B. That special circumstances were not- created by the applicant or anyone prior to
the applicant.
Staff Response:
The special circumstances were not created by the applicant. Staff believes .
that the impact on future project entrance signs for the Pineridge Townhouses
was not anticipated at the time the property was zoned Primary/Secondary ,
Residential.
C, That the granting of the variance.will be. in general harmony with the purpose of
- this .title `and n+ilf not be materially. detrimental to the persons residing or working
in the vicinitv:`to adiacent property. to the neighborhood. or to the public welfare
in general.
Staff Response: ~ .
The proposed signs are in compliance with the intent of the Vail Sign Code and
will not be detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent
property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general.
' D. ~ The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this title any
more fhan is ~e4uired to identify the applicant's business or use.
1 2 .
. ~
...c
Staff Response:
Staff feels that the two signs located adjacent to the east grid west entrances to
the project do not depart from the intent of tfie Sign Code. The purpose of
subdivision entrance signs are to identify the entrance to multi-unit projects. All
other provisions~of the Vail Sign Code, relating to the size, number, location,
design, landscaping, etc., are being complied with.
1V.' STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the applicants' request to place two 10-square foot signs at the
east and west entrances of the Pineridge `fowntir~use property for the purpose of properly
identifying the project. We feel that the required variance findings have been met and the
existing zoning of the property causes a hardship which does not apply to other multi-unit
projects in the vicinity, nor was created by the applicant. - .
. - ,
3
\
y 1.7,. .
- ~ O
0
r • °
-1 °
• ~ t
• ~ X6.20.150 Subdie•ision entrance signs.
Subdivision entrance signs shall be regulated as follows: .
A. Purpose, to identity the entrance to a major subdivision, '
condominium complex, or group of apartment buildings
having at least 100 lineae feet of frontage along a vehicular
pedestrian tray; '
B. Size, combined size of all faces of multi-sided sign may not
exceed twr:~;?;~ ;square feet; _
• _ i-Ieight, no part of ehe sign shall extend abode eight feet fiom
existing grade;
. D. Wumber, limited eo a maximum of one sign per major entry •
providing access to a subdivision. Final decision as~to the
determination ®f a major entr}• shall be at the discretion of
the administrator, subject to ret•iew by the design eet•ie~t•
• board;
E. Location, may be located onl}• to identifd• subdit•isions and
e ~ projects in RC, LDi~4F, h1Dy1F, HD~YF, and SDD cones,
subject to the approval~f~the design~ret•ietv•board;
F. Design. subject to the approt•al of the design ret•iett• board;'
G. Lighting, indirect orpan-channeled;
fI. Landscaping shall be as follows:
- 1. A landscaped area of two square feet for each square foot
of each side of the sign and supporting structure shall be
required at the base of the sign, with a minimum area to be
landscaped of ttt•enty-four square feet,
• 2. All landscaped areas shall be rtiaintained to town
standards, '
3. A plan showing the landscaping must be submitted to the '
design review .board by the applicane at the time of
. application. _ •
(Ord. 14(1982) § ld, g (Part): Ord. 9(1973) § 14(14).) '
a
• X6.20.160 Temporary site development signs.
' Temporary site development signs shall be regulated as .
follows:
' A. Purpose, ~to indicate or identif}• a de~•elopment of real
• propertyundereonstructioninHD~IF,PA,CSC,CCl,CC2,
• SD,1d1D~1F, LDhRF, and RC zones;
. ~ B. Size shall not exceed twenty square feet, with a horizontal
• dimension no greatee than ten feet. Combined maximum area
for more than one sign shall not exceed tet-enty square feet;
tCo ~teight, the top of a freestanding sign shall be no higher than ~ ' •
' Bight feet from grade. The top of a tt•all-mounted sign shall be
• no higher than teventy-five feet from existing grade; • - •
• D. I~tumber, one sign per vehicular street or major pedestrian
• QVaA 9.~.a71 a s
r: •.P
'~1.'L~Spt'19 g~~'"
ntiw.iutA~aaw'~+~°~+`nk.
.vtmSlq ealam
• AViMI•IYgA~A1q
' .0 ~ pil. l1t11I 1'~/01PX1
' AYlIN.41gl~At ,
~ M.t1. gfUt Z>~
VAII.tYgAgtAlql CtU~
ltgt/~ .tom
LI 1•A%:lal~
@ ~
S ~
. ,
e ~
~
. o
. ~ ~
? 1
~ ~ ~ ~
~4 ~t •
1'
j
t ~ „ATe
4 ~ ~
ti
9 ~
• •
Z i t ,
• ~e.A:.C~
_I ~ ~ 1 ' •t ~~~r.A1 ~Iq9
'
i
~ _
. ~..~..--E"",.~",..~,.~...-----~.~z.-~--
. __~p{ . . _ . _ . _ . PINE RIDGE TOWNHOUSES ,
, ~ ~ A RfsrlBDm~s,Cw of LOTS 2,3, aid 4 tMK HEIGHTS •fnplG Na !
• ' '~g * • TOWN OF YAlL, fitGLf CQfAYTY, ODLORADO °
- ! a1~ t r LOT 1 ~
~ tp9 I
' "7•
? ........:y~.~..,. ..,r•~.• <nri,rut'n:rrrru,wrr .rtY~r + ''~eA'}~JUN/' ~y, 1f
' uNt ; ~ Fjwpoard elyN
• • ,i /1~ p. Wf. ~ecnfleN RNd .
' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ r~ ~A~ ~ ~ . i ~ ~ I11NdSG11PIN9
•a
W UIOr fA f0'S'
y,•sd, a `a '/t%. ,
'q~t^' o. .tiL ~Z
~ \ 1°r d ~ WNI ~7A t ~ ~7~
/ ~
• . fv?rr eA 4 . • ~
• ~ ` ` y'0.`.trH: w .,tai i~• il\ ( r
fi
~ ~ 11 ~ ~
` M ~ 1
UMR W17 ~ ~ i•
. , • aVNfr VLei r9 t0 I
' ,L z•,. 1 ; rM~ ! a tie• ~ 1rIN:+dGI~Id I
d tAdr A ~ ~ telfi ~ + ~ M1 ,ARCH 4s , PzB•t 1
, ~ , uNn ? 111 E
~ r. ,.t " --i / ~ Unc Rteachexrl OFOROPGR1Jr ! ~
• I I ?ae*«o ' uDR re • ; ~ a~c~ Reuhd (at SdeS Redwood
MG ~vx,T ? + /~~3 pxlNicd eyN I
. i c _ ~zj.' •~.r Y , i ~ $yx toloRS to nRh I
• p1MC Nttd~t SS ~ ~1w~{IN91 I
~ , cwr r+ y//~~U Tltlq{I tNCiOeuRt ( 6s r
' PA°pe6td b1gN ~OCRfIeM hNC (der p • ~ v~r~ RCIeu11oN Hid ~ ~ 1'W9hR0011 w}II}t ~SSIOW~ ~ ~
• ~ IANd~CM91H0 ~RNdSCRPIN9 ~ 1C11tR STt~It: BedON~le~d
uxrt u ql ld1eR s+zG 6 x 3
~ ( ~ s. f7Wi r! ~ I
a L. ii I
6 T 10 0 y q
~{Oly ~R071 a Clf~4 0 ~i .A' r wu rx :u: ~
I ~ fikc+lucRl E~+ra,lnt p ~ " d
~V'1 •
. fK,ar Ana ,pd.+x .x: i . r.•. ~ . ,s.: !
t
1
TRRJ~tNC~O6JAt r0:x a-. euuw
' ~ Rf.~eCRtION ANd r sw « •r.x ~ • c;i •ir i .
' IRNdbGpPIN9 , .
• ~ ~
i .e..
u~.i•r..ra.... •~i.r.. : ....o• r.0 j
~U~~~ ~~~eC~
SP~"~~e~ ~ ~N~F;®®~'~®1~ Y I RAC SE~SI ~9
(=GAB®A~, ®ECEnAI~ER 3, 9993
91:15 ~+.V~d. 232 WEST f~lE~®OW ®FIIVE
N0~1= 4.DPCOIi~flIN6~ G1flEE~INC Slf~l~~ ~'INIES 13E~O1~l:
~ ~ ~
'~~E NE~~ !l~BI_ ~Oly4lI~I COl9NCll_ fREGU~A~B iNORI( SESSION VUBI_~ SE OBI
~'arDES®~Y, 12/7/93, 13E4aINNING 2:00 ~.IVI. IN ~OV COUNCIL CI•IAMI3EI~S.
~I~E G~EX'~ VAIN 4OlAll~ COUNCIL 4~EGUIr~?R ~1lENINCa INEE'TINC ~illls~ 13E ON
SUES®~X, 12/7/93, f3EGINNINO 7:30 I~.I~. IN ~OV COUNCIL CI~AIVISERS.
~
C:~,4GENDA
~4~
u
e4 - '
T0~1 OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
6~ail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2100
FAX 303-479-2157
T0: TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: PAM BRANDME
DATE: 29NOV93
RE: VAIL VALLEY MARKETING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING ~
IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE A SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY BOB KUNKEL WITH
VAIL ASSOCIATES RE: VVMB FUNDING/REPRESENTATION, THE VVMB WILL MOVE •
THEIR REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING AHEAD TO 7:00 A.M. THURSDAY
MORNING, DECEMBER 2, 1993.
THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD IN THE SMALL CONFERENCE ROOM OF THE VAIL
MUNICIPAL BUILDING SHOULD YOU WISH TO ATTEND. PLEASE NOTE THE
ATTACHED ITEMS.
THANKS!
is
x
t~.
w~;
7+
Fc
r.
zf.'.
ka
• ~.t
S'.
_
~ ~ -
- - _
~T ® -
~ -
• i '
p B ~ ~ ~ ® ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ share" participation from Avon and .
lay lCris3ln L. l{enney l~ the Beaver Creek Resort Company.: ~ "
t7aiy sm~ w~~ - Marketing officials requested
:.The Avon Town Council dealt a felt the marketing boazd's funding a year-round economy in the Vail $180,000 from Beaver Creek ~ . .
- " ' ~ ~ - - ~ " - blow to the Vail Valley Marketing should. come from the private sec-. Valley. "(Vail) is not just looking at how
- _ _ - Board Tuesday when it voted not to - The valleywide marketing-board much to allocate in the event that
- . ~ - contribute $90,000 towaid national Tuesday's action during a regular generates its $684,000 budges from Avon and Beaver Creek did not
and regional marketing efforts. evening meeting was reminiscent contributions that include a ante-up but whether or not the
' ~ ~ "We felt that we'didn't have the of the knock-down the state of $349,000 Vail business license fee; board was going to remain the Vail _ .
money to give them," Avon Mayor Colorado took Nov. 2 when voters $160,500 from the Town of Vail; Valley _ Marketing Board or , .
' Buz Reynolds said. "We felt very ~ rejected a tourism tax. Although the $90,000 from the Town of Avon; . metamorphize into the Vail Mazket-
sony for ,the board, but we have marketing board is not yet down for $50,000 from Vail Associates Inc.; ing Board," Britt said. .
. " different priorities now, one of the count, the implications of and' $35,000 of miscellaneous Vail Mayor Peggy Osterfoss
them being funding the aquatic cen- Avon's decision not to contribute private contributions, including Ar- described the board as "a model ,
rer," 13 percent of the board's .total rowhead at Vail. progr"~ of a successful
Avon voters approved a.bond is- budget are far reaching, said Tom The board uses the money for public/private relationship.
sue fora $3S million recrehtion Britt, chairman of the VVMB. advertising, group sales, public "We all need to work together," .
center in the Nov. 2 general elec- The boazd's call for "fair share" relations and an 80-page summer Osterfoss said. "We are an inter-
lion. ~ - . ~ participation among valley entities guide. ~ dependent economic region ° ~ .
- _ -The town council rejected the and the fate of the marketing Currently, Vail funds 75 percent She added,. however, that i[
annual contnbuton to the mazket- .board -hang in the balance.. of the total budget, but .before it would not make sense to market
ing board with ,a 4 to 2 vote. The seven-member volunteer released its proposed contnlsution other areas without valleywide -
Reynolds did not vote. Council board was formed in February 1989 for 1994, town and marketing
`member C.C. Nottingham said she with the primary goal of promoting officials were calling for "fair- - Please see Afarketing page 50" - .
_ - . - - - - . _ ~ - _ _ councilman John Hazard - one. of
= - ~ ~ From age 9 = two council members who voted
.
- _ ~ :<`::;_r_:,-:.::;::.::;,__ . ~ Johnson said. "We need to n con-~ for the $90,~ contnbudon is
- sider (playing) on the same team. ,optimistic that Beaver Creek"will
partnership in advertising funding. agree to the contribution request
. ~ ~ Earlier this month, the Beaver and that, in turn, Avon will iecon-
. Creek Resort Company said it Sider its decision.
_ ~ would not allocate the requested Frank Johnson, executive,~ad-
- ~ ~ contribution to the marketing ministrator of the Vail ;;,Palley
_ - board. It may, however, reconsider 'Tourism and Convention Bureau,
- - _ - its decision and make _ .an an- also is hopeful.
- - nouncement during the first week "Given that we're not going W
- - of December, according to VA have any support for .summer
spokesperson, Carol Frangos. marketing from the state level
- Along with Osterfoss, marketing anymore, the more we. must do
officials and the ski company, Avon within our. own communities."
- - ~ ...u.
q
~~_~sl[e~ 1V7srlcetin~ Eoa~
Positeon R~viea+
~~I.. ASSN a ~a ~~o ~ ®Yt~SOR,T ~O1VIPeA1~T7f J®INTL.Y
itirCOGY~ . S It')' S ~ ~®v~ V Y
W~~
~ ~ ~TC~ ~R~a
~9
gg is o~ ~OSition that in ~ ~ 'catty aid quad ~ alley--ride ~ffo~t,
mellowing isguw e?eed ~ be o
g o ~ posit9pa~ ~f flee ~ ~ mom a~r.+:s~tatative '
~o ~'he egt~at a~ep won ®f both ~f ~e ~+eco rsser~?atioe~s a~?d boold~~ agencies.
e~ a~vi~r ~d ~~aat of et~ly de£inod eni~ion ~d pls.
40 ~naanitca~ent t® a~ t~~~ an~,aua~tability u~ with ~+e~ular sepoatin~,
-.TF..
1 i
• I~ '.L
r
_ ~ ..„y ~
Item. i Board
' r
Current Board Seats Renre~ntative~
Town Of Avon 2 Tom Britz
John Hazard
Vail Associates, Inc. 2 ~ Chris French
Steve Shanley
Town of Vail ~ Jlm Feldhaus
7 Flank Johnson
Jan Strauch
New Board
Town of Avon 1 ~ Mayor or Council
Vail Associates, inc. , i. ~ Vice President
Beaver Creei~ Resort Co. (non V.A.) 1 Board Mambas
Town of Vail 2 Mayor,
Town Council
Open to discussion 1 ?
Open to discussion ;:x T;~~;~;;: ?
7
~
The purpose of the new Board is to establish vision, provide stated goals and strategic direction,
approve budgets, approve ezecutional plans, and to.review results.
Tne new Bound wUViu~ vr~a'ii~0 ~uitat ~,7ijv'h%3i a a~uii:i.::v''~! ope~'atirg Committee ::fade up Qf
individuals from within our towns and business corrimunity. This committee should include
_
represtntation from tht various disciplines of.salcs, advertising and public relations as well as
from `both reservations operations. This groups' .purpose is to translate stated Board directives
into action plans and budgets. Also, responsible ~ for the contracting of professional outside .
seivioes~to axeoute plans and analyze results. The operatSng committee will select a chairpeason
who will make regular updates to the Board.
Item 2 Equstl.Repr~entation
We believe that a community cooperative fund derived from both public and private monies
should not solely benefit the VVTCB. Since there are two recognized and equally established
tes~ervations entities, both should be listed as ~ viable call-to-action.
f
Both the VBCR and VVTCB represent properties, services and activities. in many cases their
memberships overlap. However,, because some members work exclusively with one
organization, or space allocations differ they are not identical. The only way to justify fair and
equal =epre~entation, .is ~ to list ~ both 'reservations'.:.entities in all advertising and promotional
activity thus giving the Vail Valley guest accessao~greatest variety of options.
~2:-
NOV Z9 '93 ®3~58PM BERVER CREEEOCC RESORT P.3 .
' dte®~ l~tsslon
due to the ever changing environment, vve feel a navy l~pards first prtorlty is t® revisit, revievr,
and roestablish the puepose and goats of the V`N~iS.
lint happenlr~~ ghat must be s~nsider~i ire as f®ll®vus;
~ 'fl'he demise ®f the e~~ romoves 1~ million dollars of large umbrella promotional activity
ti~,~,~ the marketplace. 't'wo-thirds vyas directed at summer, and 5096 (6 million, was in
advertising. Also, what impact vyil! the removal of ~e public relations, intiernational,
and welconse te~s~ have? fl~?ata bast ®pportunitiea?
Ytejecta®n of the ~aifl ~ne~rttl®n ltd Performing Arcs ~entera review our
meetingsl~nvend®ns strategy,
~ ~pff competition, n®vy ~taPketing all' ie. l~eysbenel~reckenridge, Y...? .
~ ~iroddth opporeunities in sp®cialty markets, ie. mountain bil®ng, an-line skating? ,
fl~a+~nt range vs, des¢inati®n?
®ur summer events strategy? ;E
Bte~ ~ Tracl~~ .
I'.If~,.'i'(
~RIe en~urage alfl representative c®ncrlbut®rs t® this end t®.requlre the maintenance of high
geporting standards where. they are currently: in: place, and to Improve accountability. why
~rrBCtic~1. Areas to be addressed ~ . ; ; ; .
'i ~t
~ Ad effectiveness
~ standard call fe~rdng statistics
- ~ ®f calls ~ : , i
~ ®f re~rvadons
F~ength of stay
- ~tE. s . :i
~ ~®aversi®n sates _ • _ ~ i
~ fl~istributa®n patterns
, .
'sir, ,
..V• V~ VJ W•JJI tl LLI"IY LI\ Vf~L.L.f\ RL.7HR1
1
Current Budget Reviews
Source of meads {Current)
Business License Fee 342,000
lbwn of Vail 160,000
Town of Avon ~ 90,OQ0
Vail Associates, Inc, 37,000
Interest 8,000
Other
Ridge Publications - 13,000
10th Mountain ~ 3,000
Weaver Publications _ 3,000
Arrowhead 3,000
Cordillera 1,000
. s ~ ' - = t 685,000
Source of >P~nds (proposed)
Business License Foe 342,000
Town of Vail 160,500
Town of Avon 90,000
.Vail Associates, Inc. 57,000
Beaver Creek Resort Co. 100,000
Interest 8,500
Other. r
Ridge Publications 13,400
10th Mountain 5,000
Weaver Publications 3,000
Arrowhead ~ ~ 5,000 ~ °
Cordillera 1,000
Total 785,000
4
..r... ..r... r.. .n....... ~.~v.n. ~ ~ o
0
~ Q~
'~H41~ (~tlfYCl14D
Q
A~~~®ximaB,e ~re~k~vowun
h~~kionaJ e~dv~rtisin~ 19,300
Colorado ~advertisia~l~ 55,000
public lZelataons gg,000
~ee~tn~slConventi®fls t ~~,000
~~,0~0
~daa~inist~tivn 17,400
larch 9,300
Photo 8,000
Produ~Yi~ 3g,000
~h/intcr/Summer ~rvss Sell ~,1~Op
. Pullfillment Postage X0,000
Special l~vents CaJ~ndaP 3,OOp
Fants and Reception 9,300
'l°vtal ~~~,000
• ~r
L