The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994-04-19 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 1994 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 2. Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance rezoning a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential, Section 18.13 to Low Density Multi-Family Residential, Section 18.16 generally located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road more specrfically described as: A parcel of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point whence a brass cap set for a witness comer for the West Quarter of said Section 14, bears (North 29 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West, 1073.08 feet Deed) (North 43 Degrees 15 minutes 02 seconds West, 915.96 feet Measured); Thence North 74 degrees OS minutes 19 seconds East, 10.76 feet; Thence 183.62 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing North 88 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds East, 181.76 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 40 minutes 21 seconds East, 62.77 feet; Thence 147.43 feet along the arc of a curve to the left which arc subtends a chord bearing North 86 degrees 36 minutes 17 seconds East, 145.60 feet; Thence North 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 sewnds East, 406.55 feet; Thence 54.10 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing South 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 seconds East, 44.20 feet; Thence South 14 degrees 25 minutes 50 seconds West, 110.51 feet; Thence South 68 degrees 18 minutes 91 seconds West, 320.00 feet; Thence North 19 degrees 07 minutes OS seconds West, 50.00 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds West, 160.18 feet; Thence South 10 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West, 36.48 feet; Thence North $7 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds West, 337.72 feet; Thence (North 11 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds East, 130.00 feet Deed) North 11 degrees 55 minutes 31 seconds East, 129.75 feet Measured) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Bearing from G.L.O. record for South half of Section line between Sections 14-15. (G.L.O. record South Ol degrees 30.2 minutes East) (South Ol degrees 38 minutes 32 seconds East Measured) 3. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance of the Town Council designating certain areas within the Town of Vail as fire lanes; adopting a fire lane map as the official map of the Town of Vail; and setting forth details relating thereto. 4. Resolution No. 11, Series of 1994, a resolution of the Town of Vail supporting the transfer of the mills to the Vail Park and Recreation District. 5. A sign variance request for the Concert Hall Plaza Building, located at 616 West Lionshead Circle/Vail Lionshead 4th Filing. Applicant: Concert Hall Plaza/Mark Matthews, Slifer Management Company. 6. An appeal of the DRB approval of the Kempf demo/rebuild request located at 1358 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 21, Block 3, Vail Valley lst Filing. Appellant: Dr. and Mrs. Kochman, adjacent property owners, represented by Rohn Robbins. 7. An appeal of the PEC decision to grant a conditional use permit and site coverage variance to allow for an expansion to library/classroom area at the Vail Mountain School located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Pam Hopkins. 8. Town Manager's Report. 9. Adjournment. NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES SUBJECT TO CHANGE) * 0 0 * 0 0 0 THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 4/26/94, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 5/3/94, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING , WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 5/3/94, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. • • • • • • • C:VIGENDA.TC i VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING I~ TUESDAY, APRILI, 1994 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CIiAMBERS EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 P.M. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 7:35 P.M. 2. Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance Andy Knudtsen rezoning a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential, Section 18.13 to Low Density Multi-Family Residential, Section 18.16 generally located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road more specifically described as: A parcel of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point whence a brass cap set for a witness corner for the West Quarter of said Section 14, bears (North 29 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West, 1073.08 feet Deed) (North 43 Degrees 15 minutes 02 seconds West, 915.96 feet Measured); Thence North 74 degrees OS minutes 19 seconds East, 10.76 feet; Thence 183.62 feet along the arc of a curoe to the right which are subtends a chord bearing North 88 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds East, 181.76 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 40 minutes 21 seconds East, 62.77 feet; Thence 147.43 feet along the arc of a curve to the left which are subtends a chord bearing North 86 degrees 36 minutes 17 seconds East, 145.60 feet; Thence North 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East, 406.55 feet; Thence 54.10 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which arc subtends a chord bearing South 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 seconds East, 44.20 feet; Thence South 14 degrees 25 minutes 50 seconds West, 110.51 feet; Thence South 68 degrees 18 minutes 91 seconds West, 320.00 feet; Thence North 19 degrees 07 minutes OS seconds West, 50.00 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds West, 160.18 feet; Thence South 10 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West, 36.48 feet; Thence North 87 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds West, 337.72 feet; Thence (North 11 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds East, 130.00 feet Deed) North 11 degrees 55 minutes 31 seconds East,129.75 feet Measured) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Bearing from G.L.O. record for South half of Section line beriveen Sections 14^15. (G.L.O. record South 01 degrees 30.2 minutes East) (South Ol degrees 38 minutes 32 seconds East Measured) Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1994, on first reading. Approve/deny/modify the minor subdivision request. Backqround Rationale: There was a visit to this site during Work Session earlier today. On April 11, 1994, the PEC voted 4-0-1 (with Greg Amsden abstaining) recommending approval of the requested rezoning and minor subdivision. There are 10 conditions of approval relating to the minor subdivision that would be recorded on the plat which will stipulate how future development will occur. These conditions are listed at the end of the attached PEC memo. There are also several letters from neighbors which are included in this packet. During Council Wor1c Session on April 12, 1994, Council called up the minor subdivision request. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1994, and the minor subdivision request. 8:20 P.M. 3. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance of the Dick Duran Town Council designating certain areas within the Town of Vail as Holly McCutcheon fire lanes; adopting a fire lane map as the official map of the Town of Vail; and setting forth details relating thereto. 1 7 Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1994, on first reading. Backqround Rationale: Chapter 8.08 of the Vail Municipal Code provides for fire lanes and the designation thereof by Council. Certain areas within the Town on both public and private property are necessary for fire protection purposes and other emergency purposes. The designation of these fire lanes are necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and weffare. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1994, on first reading. 8:30 P.M. 4. Resolution No. 11, Series of 1994, a resolution of the Town of Vail Tom Moorhead supporting the transfer of the mills to the Vail Park and Recreation Rob Robinson District. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Resolution No. 11, Series of 1994. Backqround Rationale: The Town of Vail currently contracts with the VRD to manage all municipal recreation programs, services, and facilities formerly administered by TOV. These activies are funded by a portion of the property tax collected by TOV. Specifically, TOV assesses 1.585 mills for this purpose. This assessment generates $543,243 annually. This amount is collected by TOV and then tranferred to the VRD for the operation of recreation programs and facilities. The VRD has proposed they assess this mill lery directly. They have put this proposal on the ballot for an election on May 3, 1994. If this issue passes, the VRD will assess this mill levy directly, and TOV's mill levy will be decreased by 1.585. Resolution No. 11, Series of 1994, states Council's support of this proposal and urges the voters to approve the request. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 11, Series of 1994. 9:00 P.M. 5. A sign variance request for the Concert Hall Plaza Building, located Kristan Pritz at 616 West Lionshead Circle/Vail Lionshead 4th Filing. Applicant: Concert Hall Plaza/Mark Matthews, Slifer Management Company. Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny the applicanYs request for a sign variance to place a joint directory sign at the base of the east stairway, adjacent to the Concert Hall Plaza Building. Backqround Rationale: Please see the enclosed April 6, 1994, memorandum to the DRB. On April 6, 1994, the DRB voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend approval to Council of the sign variance request per the staff inemo, including the 5 conditions in the staff memorandum. Staff Recommendation: Approve the variance with the 5 conditions as listed in the memorandum dated April 6, 1994. 9:05 P.M. 6. An appeal of the DRB approval of Kempf demo/rebuild request Randy Stouder located at 1358 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 21, Block 3, Vail Valley lst Bill Pierce lst Filing. Appellant: Dr, and Mrs. Kochman, adjacent property Rohn Robbins owners, represented by Rohn Robbins. Action Requested of Council: There was a visit to this site during Work Session earlier today. Approve/mod'rfy/overturn the DRB decision. Backqround Rationale: The Kochmans, as adjacent property 2 i owners, have appealed the DRB approval. Please see attached copy of inemo for explanation. 9:50 P.M. 7. An appeal of the PEC decision to grant a conditional use permit Randy Stouder and site coverage variance to allow for an expansion to Pam Hopkins library/classroom area at the Vail Mountain School located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Pam Hopkins. Action Requested of Council: Uphold/modify/overturn the PEC approval. Backqround Rationale: Council called this item up by a unanimous vote at the April 5, 1994, Council meeting. Please see the staff memo to PEC and minutes. The item was considered by the PEC on March 28, 1994. They approved the request by a vote of 5-0. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council uphold the PEC's decision to approve the conditional use permit and site coverage variance. 10:50 P.M. 8. Town Manager's Report. 11:30 P.M. 9. Adjournment. NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES SUBJECT TO CHANGE) 000 0000 THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 4/26/94, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 5/3/94, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 5/3/94, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. 0000000 C:\AGENDA.TCE 3 r ~ ~ ORDINANCE NO. 5 SERIES OF 1994 AN ORDINANCE REZONING A TRACT FROM PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL, SECTION 18.13 TO LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, SECTION 18.16 GENERALLY LOCATED AT 2850 KINNICKINNICK ROAD MORE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED BELOW AS: A parcel of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principai Meridian, more particulariy described as follows: Beginning at a point whence a brass cap set for a wltness comer for the West Ouarter of said Section 14, • bears (North 29 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West, 1073.08 feet Deed) (North 43 Degrees 15 minutes 02 seconds West, 915.96 feet Measured); Thence North 74 degrees 05 minutes 19 seconds East, 10.76 feet; Thence 183.62 feet along the arc of a curve fo the right which are subtends a chord bearing North 88 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds East, 181.76 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 40 minutes 21 seconds East, 62.77 feet; Thence 147.43 feet along the arc of a curve to the left which are subtends a chord bearing North 86 degrees 36 minutes 17 seconds East, 145.60 feet; Thence North 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East, 406.55 feet; Thence 54.10 feet along.the arc of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing South 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 seconds East, 44.20 feet; Thence South 14 degrees 25 minutes 50 seconds West, 110.51 feet; Thence South 68 degrees 18 minutes 91 seconds West, 320.00 feet; Thence North 19 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West, 50.00 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds West, 160.18 feet; Thence South 10 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West, 36.48 feet; Thence North 87 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds West, 337.72 feet; Thence (North 11 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds East, 130.00 feet Deed) North 11 degrees 55 minutes 31 seconds East, 129.75 feet Measured) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Bearing from G.L.O. record for South haif of Section Ifne between Sections 1415. (G.L.O. record South 01 degrees 30.2 minutes East) (South 01 degrees 38 mfnutes 32 seconds East Measured) WHEREAS, the property located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road more specifically described as: A parcel of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point whence a brass cap set for a witness corner for the West Quarter of said Section 14, bears (North 29 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West, 1073.08 feet Deed) (North 43 Degrees 15 minutes 02 seconds West, 915.96 feet Measured); Thence North 74 degrees 05 minutes 19seconds East, 10.76 feet; Thence 183.62 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing North 88 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds East, 181.76 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 40 minutes 21 seconds Easi, 62.77 feet; Thence 147.43 feet along the arc of a curve to the left which are subtends a chord bearing North 86 degrees 36 minutes 17 seconds East, 145.60 feet; Thence North 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East, 406.55 feet; Thence 54.10 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing South 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 seconds East, 44.20 feet; Thence South 14 degrees 25 minutes 50 seconds West, 110.51 feet; Thence South 68 degrees 18 minutes 91 seconds West, 320.00 feet; Thence North 19 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West, 50.00 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds West, 160.18 feet; • Thence South 10 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West, 36.48 feet; Thence North 87 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds West, 337.72 feet; Thence (North 11 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds East, 130.00 feet Deed) North 11 degrees 55 minutes 31 seconds East, 129.75 feet Measured) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Bearing from G.L.O. record for South half of Section line between Sections 14-15. (G.L.O. record South 01 degrees 302 minutes East) (South 01. degrees 38 minutes 32 seconds East Measured) has been approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission to be replatted to a single lot from an unplatted parcel in accordance with Section 17.20.030; and WHEREAS, an application has been submitted to rezone the lot from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi-Family Residential; and WHEREAS, the rezoning effort is consistent with the surrounding and immediate _ adjacent properties; Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1994 7 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 to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to plat restrictions which shall be recorded on the plat at the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder which stipulate how the future development shall occur; and WHEREAS, plat restrictions shall be filed immediately following second reading of the rezoning; 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 Chapter 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 Low Density Multi-Family Residential which will become effective upon the filing of the plat restrictions at the office of Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. 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. . Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1994 +r 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 af the provision 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 IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 15th day of March, 1994, and a public hearing shall be held on this 5th day of April, 1994, 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 , 1994. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 5, ' Seriea of 1994 : ORDINANCE NO. 8 SERIES OF 1994 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAtL AS FIRE LAIdES; ADOPTING A FIRE LANE MAP AS THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE TOWN OF VAIL; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, Chapter 8.08 of the Vail Municipal Code provides for fire lanes and the designation thereof by the Town Council; WHEREAS, the Town Council is of the opinion that certain areas within the Town on both public and private property are necessary for fire protection purposes and other emergency purposes; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that this ordinance is necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The described areas within the Town of Vail as listed on the attached "Exhibit A" are hereby designated as fire lanes in accordance with Chapter 8.08 of the Vail Municipal Code. Section 2. The Official Fire Lane Map of the town of Vail is hereby adopted and the fire lanes as listed on "Exhibit A", attached hereto, immediately shown thereon. The Town Clerk shall maintain the Official Fire Lane Map in the Offices of the Town, and the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign the same and the Official Seal of the Town affixed thereto. Section 3. All other provisions of Chapter 8.08 relating to fire lanes shall remain in full force and effect and enforced on the above specified fire lanes. Section 4. The Town Council finds that this ordinance is necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Section 5. 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 6. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, 1 Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1994 any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 19th day of April, 1994, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of , 1994, 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 , 1994. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk 2 Ordinance No. B. Series of 1994 EXHIBIT "A" FIRELANES IN THE TOWN OF VAIL 1. East side of Children's Fountain, near Pepi's - 70' x 20' 2. Laughing Monkey on Gore Creek Drive near Children's Fountain - 38' x 14' 3. Bridge Street Building, north side, on Gore Creek Drive -105' 4. East of Gorsuch Building in alleyway - 80' x 18' 5. East of Serrano's, Mill Creek to Christiania - 110' 6. South of Red Lion Building to Mill Creek Court - 75' 7. East of Vail Ski Rentals (Hill Building) - 110' 8. North of Golden Peak House (15' from hydrant) - 54' 9. Brick walk between Hill and Plaza Buildings (NO SIGNS POSTED) - 105' 10. Entire length of Northwoods Driveway - east side (not maintained by T.O.V.) - 569' 11. East of Mountain Haus, west of Vail Athletic Club (between buildings) - 80' x 12' 12. South of Crossroads East (East Meadow Drive) - 165' 13. Soutgh of Crossroads Parking on East Meadow Drive (in front of gate) - 32' 14. West of Crossroads West (back side of building) - 17' wide 15. East of Swiss Chalet - Willow Bridge Road (rock obstruction) - 18' gated drive 16. Northeast of Swiss Chalet on East Meadow Drive - 15' driveway NOTE: north side of Sitzmark has no ramp, used to have handicapped access and truck access north of the Sitzmark at the northwest entrance. 17. South of Crossroads at Village Market - 105' 18. West of Crossroads east parking lot - 95' 19. East to Alphorn to Scorpio Driveway - 158' 20. East of Vail National Bank Building, west of Scorpio, betweeen buildings - 175' 21. Vail Valley Medical Center, from Meadow Drive from FDC to Meadow Drive - 130' 22. Vail Valley Medical Center front entry near Fire Department connection and hydrant - 18' 23. North of Vail 21 & Lionspride to Lifthouse - 275' 24. South of Landmark parking @ Lionshead Mall West - 285' 25. East of L'Ostello - driveway from garage north to guard rail 24' x 12' 26. North of Vail Spa, driveway to hydrant - 150' x 18' 27. Colorado Mountain College west side behind building access to loading dock east of Mill Race - 55' x 16' 28. Westin - west side of brick drive along CMC entry to ballroom - 225' x 24' 29. Eagle Pointe - south side parking lot - 7' x 9' at FDC NOTE: no parking by order of F.D. sign posted above FDC. 30. West Vail Lodge - east side - entire length of builidng from entry to the north (no signs) - 275' x 10' 31. Vail Das Schone - east stairwell at F.D.C. (two signs) - 16' x 8' 32. Timber Ridge - entry by bus stop, along bike paths on east & west sides - 250' x 12' 33. Simba Run south - west entry driveway, all to north frontage road - 325' x 21' 34. Vail Run - north side parking area, lane along building entry to east - 80' x 16' 35. Snow Lion - east access way between Snow Lion and Breakaway west building - 70' x 16' 36. Radisson Resort - east and south of Phase II between hotel and parking structure -330'x21' 37. Gateway - south driveway to underground parking - 100' x 20' 38. Breakaway West - driveway between buildings - 80' 39. Evergreen Lodge - north east access at entry - 200' 40. Lodge Tower - Northwest entry and driveway - 150' 41. Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus - access from East Meadow Drive by Swiss Chalet - 350' 42. Fallridge - west from Sunburst Drive to cul-de-sac (private) - 300' 43. Alpine Standard - north of Holiday House (private) - 60' C:\ORD94.8 3 _ Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1994 • s, F.XHIBIT . ~ FIRE LANES IN THE TOWN OF VAIL 1. East side of Children's Fountain by Pepi's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70' X 12' 2. Laughing Monkey on Gore Creek Drive, near Children's Fountain 38' X 14' 3. Bridge Street Building, north side, on Gore Creek Drive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105" 4. East af Gorsuch Building, in alleyway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80' X 18' 5. East of Serrano's, Mill Creek to Christiania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110' 6. South of Red Lion Building to Mill Creek Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75' 7. East of Vail Ski Rentals (Hill Building) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110' 8. North of Golden Peak House (15' from hydrant) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54' 9. Brick walk between Hill and Plaza Buildings (NO SIGNS POSTED) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105' 10. Entire length of Northwoods Driveway - east side (not maintained by T.O.V.) 569' 11. East of Mountain Haus, west of Vail Athletic Club (between buildings) 80' X 12' 12. South of Crossroads East (East Meadow Drive) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165' 13. South of Crossroads Parking on East Meadow Drive (in front of gate) 32' 14. West of Crossroads West (back side of building) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17' wide 15. East of Swiss Chalet - Willow Bridge Road (rock obstruction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18' gated drive 16. Northeast of Swiss Chalet on East Meadow Dr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15' driveway NOTE: north side of Sitzmark has no ramp, used to have handicapped access and truck access north of the Sitzmark at the northwest entrance. ~ 17. South of Crossroads at Village Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105' 18. West of Crossroads east parking lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95' . ~ 19. East of Alphorn to Scorpio Driveway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158' 20. East of Vail National Bank Building, west of Scorpio, between buildings 175' 21. Vail Valley Medical Center, from Meadow Drive from FDC to Meadow Drive 130' 22. Vail Valley Medical Center front entry near Fire Department connection and hydrant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18" 23. North of Vail 21 & Lionspride to Lifthouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275' 24. South of Landmark parking @ Lionshead Mall West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285' 25. East of L'Ostelfo - driveway from garage north to guard rail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24' x 12' 26. North of Vail Spa, driveway to hydrant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150' x 18' 27. Colorado Mountain College - west side behind bldg - access to loading dock east of Mill Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55' x 16' 28. Westin - west side of brick drive along CMC entry to ballroom entry 225' x 24' 29. Eagle Pointe - south side parking lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7'x 9' NOTE: no parking by order of F.D. sign posted above FDC. @ FDC 30. West Vail Lodge - east side - total length of building from entry to the north (no signs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275' x 10' 31. Vail das Schone - east stairwell at F.D.C. (two signs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16' x 8' 32. Timber Ridge - entry by bus stop, along bike paths on east & west sides 250' x 12' 33. Simba Run south - west entry driveway, all to north frontage road 325' x 21' 34. Vail Run - north side parking area, lane along building entry to east 80' x 16' 35. Snow Lion - east access way between Snow Lion and Breakaway west building 70' x 16' 36. Radisson Resort - east and south of Phase III between hotel and parking structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330' x 21' 37. Gateway - south driveway to underground parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100' x 20' 38. Breakaway West - driveway between buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80' . ~ . ~ 39. Evergreen Lodge - north and east access at entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200' 40. Lodge Tower - northwest entry and driveway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150' 41. Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus - access from East Meadow Dr. by Swiss Chalet 350' 42. Fallridge - west from Sunburst Drive to cul-de-sac (private) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300' 43. Alpine Standard - north of Holiday House (private) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60' RESOLUTION NO. 11 SERIES OF 1994 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF VAIL SUPPORTING THE TRANSFER OF THE MILLS TO THE VAIL PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail currently collects in taxes $543,243 and remits that amount to the Vail Park and Recreation District for the operation of recreation functions within the joint boundaries of the two governmental entities; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail believes this annual exercise of collection and transmission of funds to be wasteful and an unnecessary complication in the conduct of the business of each entity; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail is willing to reduce its mill levy by the exact amount of an increase in the Vail Park and Recreation District mill levy so no change in taxation shall occur to the joint constituents of the two governmental entities; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail believes it is in the best interest of the community for the Recreation District to continue to manage all municipal recreational programs, services, and facilities formerly administered by the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: 1. That the Council of the Town of Vail does proclaim its support for this exchange of mill levy authority and urges the voters to approve the requested increase of 1.585 mills, in return for a Town of Vail decrease of the same amount. 2. That the Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this resolution is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. . 3. That this resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of April, 1994. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk C:\RES01-1.194.11 Resolution No. 11, Series oi 1994 ~ , ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Board FILE COPY _ FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 6, 1994 SUBJECT: A sign variance request for the Concert Hall Plaza Building, located at 616 West Lionshead CircleNail Lionshead 4th Filing. Applicant: Concert Hall Plaza/Mark Matthews, Slifer Management Company 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Concert Hall Plaza Building is located between West Lionshead Circle and the Lionshead pedestrian mall. The building has a pedestrian access easement, from the Town of Vail bus stop on the west side, to the Lionshead Mall on the east side of the structure. A stairway of approximately thirty-four steps is, located on the east side of the structure and is used for pedestrian access from the Lionshead Mall level, to the main level retail spaces. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for the placement of an off-site, free-standing building directory sign. As proposed, the sign would be located at the base of the steps (east of the building) at the Lionshead Mall elevation on Town of Vail property. Due to the difference in elevation between the Lionshead Mall pedestrian level and the Concert Hall Plaza retail shops, the applicant believes that the directory sign would improve the exposure of the businesses located in the building. The applicants requested variance is from Section 16.26 of the Town of Vail Sign Code. This section of the Sign Code reads as follows: 16.26 - Prohibitive Signs: 16.16.010 - Designated. "The following signs shall not be permitted, erected or maintained in the Town of Vail: L. Off-premise advertising signs or any other sign not pertinent and clearly incidental to the permitted use on the property where located." 1 r T ~ II. BACKGROl1ND , " On March 8, 1994, the Vail Town Council unanimously granted the Concert Hall Plaza Building permission to proceed through the planning process, to submit an application request for a sign variance. This approval was required because the applicant is requesting to locate the building directory sign upon Town of Vail property. The review process for this sign variance request involves a hearing by the Design Review Board (DRB), and a final decision by the Vail Town Council. III. FINDINGS AND THE STAFF RESPONSES ; Before the Board acts on a variance application, the applicant must proye physical hardship and the Board must find that, A. There are special circumstances or conditions applyinq to the land, buildinqs, topoqraphy, veqetation, siqn structures or other matters on adiacent fots or within the adiacent riqht-of-wav which would substantiallv restrict the effectiveness of the siqn in question; provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention and do not applv penerallv to all businesses or enterprises. Staff Response: . The staff believes that there are special circumstances relating to the physical location of this building, with specific reference to the grade difference between the building's main retail level and the Lionshead pedestrian mall, which do not generally apply to other businesses or structures in the vicinity. Staff finds that the, location of this building constitutes a physical hardship. The proposed "joint directory sign for multi-tenant buildings" would meet all of the Town's requirements as listed in Section 16.20.040. The maximum height of the sign will not exceed 8 feet, and the maximum size of the sign would provide for 1 square foot of sign area per tenant within the building, with an overall maximum size of 5 square feet. B. That special circumstances were not created bv the applicant or anvone in privv to the applicant. Staff Response: ; The staff does not believe that special circumstances were created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the applicant. ~ C. That the qrantinq of the variance will be in qeneral harmonv with the qurpose of this title and will not be materiallv detrimental to the persons residina or workin-Q in the vicinitv to adiacent propertv to the neiqhborhood, 'or to the public welfare , in qeneral. , ~ 2 i , . Staff Response: The Town's Sign Code allows a joint directory sign for a multi-tenant building to have a maximum area of 25 square feet. The applicant is proposing a joint directory sign with a maximum size of 5 square feet. The staff believes that the proposed location and size of the directory sign would be in compliance with the Town's Sign Code and would not be detrimental to any persons residing or working in the vicinity, adjacent to the property, or in the neighborhood. D. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this title any more than is reauired to identify the applicant's business or use. Staff Response: The staff believes that the applicant's proposed location for a building directory sign, at the base of the main stairway on the Lionshead Mall, does not depart from the provisions of the Town of Vail Sign Code any more than is required to identify the businesses within the Concert Hall Plaza Building. The staff finds that the applicant's request is reasonable in location, size and height. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request to place a joint directory sign at the base of the east stairway adjacent to the Concert Hall Plaza Building. The staff finds that Criteria A, B, C and D have been met as described above. The staff's recommendation for approval includes the following conditions: 1. That the existing building directory sign, located at the first landing level of the stairs, be removed prior to the installation of the new building directory sign. 2. That a lease agreement be entered into with the Town of Vail to allow for the sign, prior to the installation of the new building directory sign. 3. That the new building directory sign be installed prior to May 15, 1994, at which time the Town landscape crews will plant the flower beds. 4. That a Town of Vail "public way permit" be obtained prior to installation. This permit will insure that the sign post will not damage any existing sprinklers or utilities in the area. 5. That the Town of Vail bus stop, at West Lionshead Circle, be identified on the new building directory sign. c:lmikeUnemos\COncert.406 3 S~yy~ ` r~ i 1?{` ~ . ' ~ ~0.20. ~ . I yl..IOry-1-c~ne~o5 Ch•~ 1; ~s T si+;~+s ~ Pla nr~e~ . . ~ . . . O r~q ~.d2- . ~ • ' .O • . Z. . H _ H9 . ~ a . , ~ . .A • r.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , : . . . . . . . . • .:..',j . : ' ' . . ' . ; . ' . „ . . . • • . . . . ~ . . . , " . . ~ ~ j . ~ ' . . . ' . . . ~ \ . . , . - . ' . ~ ~ . ' . . _ ~ f ~ ? - ' = . - • . , • ~ ~ . ~t.• . _ ~ - - ' G~ Ci IXQ s~ L - . ..r..' I~R.. ~ 1 _ - , ~ y ' A . •.cR~Yw^r.wR„gw. . ~ ~ ~ \ -~~.y,o,;.~ = • ' - • T ~ ~ • ~ 1 ~ '~"~:.'i . - / 3 t ~ j • , ~ ' . . . 7!~'^ R . 1 F~ . _r~, i ' .•R; t!{!-~ ..--..,K,y .I'. . ~~~~y~^y: / ay . - ~ r ~ iaio i ; ~ ~ D1•. d~~C mf81 , . _ _ , ~ - ; ~+ns ~ ~ _ f.~~..~ - ~ ~ - ' - _ - SIO!BB~ J' I 1 : , • _ _~`1 ~ % . ^ ~ _ E f` ~ • 4 ~ I F ' ~ _ . . . _ ' ' ~ ? . ~ ~ , „ ~ ~ ~ " ~ • 46 ~ - - - . 1 ' P. . ~ `I ~ , ~ , ~ , ~ _ ; ~ _ _ - n ~ ~ - - _ _ - - _ ~S ~ ' , r.~' :,hr , - ~ _ ~ -~y: - s'^~ - .r ~ a - : _ . . . , r+! ~ . _ . , i ; ~ ~ . _ ~ . r...~..x- ~ - . ~ ~j~ ~1(dECT ~ ;t ~ V~ bfAt~ ~ 3 • ~ r - ' ~ ~ L~~ , C~ ~S ~}5 , ~ _ ,j~~ . - ~ „ ' . ~ . ~ . F ~ ~ . ~ ' R ~ 1~ _ 3: - ~ ~ --.v'-. . ~ ° . ' 7 'q~n ~ ~ , . , s~. Q T• i 1 G~'Qc5! ~ .~~i~~ = 1~• //(~~~j ~~~/~c_ ~ - ~ , ~ ~`A~/ ~ • r."..,~yis,, / ~/y~ _ .y `r~~ a v ~ •l`'.~ , , , ~ ~ ti. ' ~ ; ~ . ~ . - ~ v~~'' ~e ~ `i s i. ~.ty. ~a _ - f ~ _ ~ , - , _ : _ - - - ~ =S y ~ _ _ - _ ~,;r:..~; - . _ - / f y _ ~ r--~ ~ ~ ~`Y, ~ . ^i~9~6 ~ ' ' . " r i^y'Y' r / ~~F~, ~i '..`ty,,. ; p .r.. , s_ , ; ~__~J ' . ~ , - '~vi'+si , ~~'~'-``~i;r~:.. i ~ I I ~ I ~ e ; Slifer Management Company Property Management & Leasing TO: TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: MARK MATHEWS MANAGING AGENT FOR VAIL INVESTMENT COMPANY RE: SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST The Owners and Tenants of Concert Hall Plaza in Lionshead are requesting a variance be given to allow for the placement of a sign directory at the bottom of the stairs leading up to the eastern side of Concert Hall Plaza. The land where the sign would be located is on Town of Vail property so along with the request to allow for an off-site directory we are asking the Town to allow us to lease the area (about one square foot). Placing an additional sign within the buildings' property would not help any for the lot lines follow the footprint of the building and the building is barely visible from the bottom of the stairs. Most tourists when they come to this area are not aware that there are 'additional shops and restaurants and placing a directory at the bottom of the stairs would be very helpful. 143 East Meadow Drive, Suite 360, Vail, Colorado 81657 Telephone: (303) 476-1063 Telefax: (303) 476-2523 ~r Robert Borne Post Office Box 4205 Vail, Colorado 81658 Town Council _ Town of Vail Vail, Colorado April 19, 1994 Re: Kempf Residence Gentlemen, As you know I am a member of the Design Review Board of the Town of Vail. Since the above mentioned residence is being brought up before you, I thought that I should share with you my thoughts about the Design Review Board's decision with regard to the architecture of the proposed dwelling. When the project. was originally proposed , I was one of two members of the board who voted against approval of the architecture as presented, as we both felt that while the architecture might work in some other location it was definitely not compatible with the immediate neighborhood in which it was to be set. The home seemed to be cold and have a Federal or Governmental look, primarily due to the use af rectangular flat sandstone on the exterior. This coupled with some rather modern looking dormers seemed to be at odds with the alpine, wooded structures that were in the immediate neighborhood. This plan was voted upon by the DRB and since it came up at a two to two tie ( with one member abstaining), the application for approval failed. We then set out to make our thoughts known to the architect for the project. The next time we saw the plans they were changed somewhat. The odd shaped dormers were reversed to more fit with the roof line but the stone while softened somewhat still was flat and rectangular, although with not the large slabs that the previous application had. Once again there was opposition to the stone as it was not a dramatic enough change to satisfy our goals of compatibility within the immediate neighborhood. , The applicant then, after some discussion suggested that he would change the stone to a similar rock that is used on the new addition to the Sonnenalp Hotel. This rock would be laid up . in a dry stack installation and after some other discussion a11 of the Board felt that since the t . ? applicant had satisfied our major concerns on the project and that it would be more in character with the neighborhood and therefore received a unanimous vote of approval. It is important to me that you understand that this was not an easy process. The project was declined once but through the proper use of the Design Review process, it later earned an approval. To me the applicant was cooperative and even though the end result may not have been exactly what he wanted the home to look like, he understood our thoughts and requirements and made the effort to comply with them. I thank you for the opportunity to present my thoughts to you. K / incl~st regards, ~ ~ Robert Borne Vice Chairman Design Review Board t / MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council ~ FR: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager DA: April 14, 1994 RE: Town Manager's Report o ice Addifion p ate The police department addition continues to proceed on schedule and within the budget. The attached summary reflects the project expenditures through April 1st. The addition is should be complete around June 1 st. At that point, the contractor will begin remodeling the existing police. As you are aware, there were some misunderstanding regarding a portion of the exterior material. Specifically, T-111 was used for a portion of the exterior siding. The Vail Municipal Code prohibits the use of this material, which we are in the process of replacing. We are working with the contractor and architect to identify another material to replace the T-111. Once we have selected the new material, it will be submitted to the Community Development Department for their review and approval. The cost of this change is expected to be approximately $12,500, which will be paid from the original project budget. The change to the siding is scheduled to begin around April 25th. Based on advice from the contractor, we intend to (eave the existing siding in place until the new siding is ready to be installed. Several Council members questioned the cost of removing the T-111 from the original portion of the Municipal Building. The estimated cost for this work is $50,000. Finally, during the design and review process, modifications to the west entry of the existing building were proposed. These modifications were accepted as part of the project approval. For your information, I have attached a copy of the conceptual plan for these improvements. Because the proposed improvements would block several existing windows, I feel this design should be reassessed. Unless Council has a strong desire to construct these improvements as we planned, I intend to review this issue with the architect next week. If we can prepare a better design, we will proceed through the process with CDD and the PEC, if necessary. Although these improvements could be constructed as an addendum to the existing contract, it is likely they would be built with a separate contract. House Bill 1287 Please find the attached copy of House Bill 1287, which is currently being debated in the Legislature. The bill allows the Colorado Department of Transportation to lease CDOT rights- of-way to the private sector for a variety of public-private partnerships. This bill would allow CDOT to permit private commercial uses on their rights-of-way. The Colorado Municipal League indicated the bill had been amended to add a provision that requires all municipalities within five miles of the affected area be notified prior to authorizing a private commercial use. CML is currently supporting the bill as amended. Please let me know if you wish to take a different position on this issue, so I may draft letters to Representatives Taylor and Lattenberg. Goals & Obiectives The goals and objectives statements are attached to this memo. They have been revised to reflect the priorities identified by the Council at the work session last week. Unless you wish to discuss them further, we will draft a resolution to formally adopt them at the next Council meeting. Grazinq Fee Issue Several months ago Council received iwo letters concerning an effort by the Department of Interior to increase fees charged to ranchers to use public land for grazing. At that time Council requested staff to research this issue and report our findings. We have completed this research, which is summarized in the attached memo from Paul Reeves. Please let me know if you need additional information or wish us to take action on this item. Parkinq Structure Survev For the past two weeks we have been conducting surveys at the parking to structures. These surveys were conducted to provide information about lighting, appearance, signs, and courtesy of service. These data will enable us to better understand the needs and desires of our customers. The attached pages show the results of this survey. We are currently exploring methods to improve the lighting and cleanliness of the structures. The results of this study will be incorporated into the FY 1995 budget. . . POLICE BUILDING BUDGET ` REVISED BUDGET CURRENT ACTUAL UNDER REVISED SINCE THRU (OVER) 2/16/94 4/01/94 BUDGET Architect Fees 240,000 3,311 213,528 26,472 Architect Reimbursables 9,500 828 6,163 3,337 Architect Extra Services 25,500 11,450 24,874 626 Printing Costs 7,500 303 6,539 961 Testing - Soils 4,500 3,584 916 Testing - Concrete 3,500 653 1,591 1,909 Project Management Fees 43,000 9,000 28,690 14,310 Project Management Reimb 2,000 . 0 2,000 Surveying 4,000 2,495 4,095 (95) Signage 5,000 285 4,715 Existing Roof Repair , 45,000 44,585 415 West Lot - Clean & Restripe 1,000 0 1,000 General Construction GMP * 3,027,715 582,819 1,332,972 1,694,743 Construction Change Orders: 1 5,839 5,839 2 10,755 10,755 3 (287) (287) Other 24,500 4,653 13,847 10,653 General Contingency: 53,693 53,693 TOTAL . 3,512,715 615,512 1,680,753 1,831,962 Owner Supplied Items: ' Electronics 45,956 3,573 42,383 Floor Finishes 27,700 0 27,700 , Furniture 59,115 400 400 58,715 Communications Center 44,000 570 1,334 42,666 Telephones & Equipment 12,500 0 12,500 TOTAL OWNER SUPPLIED 189,271 970 5,307, 183,964 Total 3,701,986 616,482 1,686,060 2,015,926 " Retainage Equals 52,660 POLBLDBD i i , :t • - . ~ _ •.,V, ~ ~•`r~r - - ' 'r~ ~s:'~'.~=''-0~.~a+._~~'~~:~!^k%:!~'i'E.~',':.1..,.:. _ , - i.. • _ ` I . ~1~' i~+r7 i...r ~.~7..~iiN~''r ""~f =f. ~,I• t~ i~~ • ~ ~2!. ~ . 1. 1 ~ 1 ~ pC? i I~ r.-~~ . ~ i I ' i ` . ' ' .~:a•.; , ~ ' I i ` • ; 3 ~.r~,:c-,,;; :t,~.' ~ . `~'~~}i • , !:w-, W/Iav k1mv _ VU~1C& GcVQp - 6'V~zx"~ R~IL. ~ ~/,~1~1/ ,y, G. ~~?9~ r ~ ~ I ~ . - i _ . . . . . . . . . - ~ - ~ secona Regular smsion ~ 1JA 4--,F 13L •J 51-C7' ' Fdty-rrirtth General Assembly `•':S~zS~-75G~ LL5 N0. '94-U5B5.01 us . HOUSE $ILL 94- `287 p ~ S7ATE QF COLORADO J~~l~-,+ . ~ BY REPRESENTATIYE S May, Laarrence, rtin, Pankey, Fleming, .Pf-Iffner, Coffl~nan, Agler, Jerke, Ac uafresch, Chlouber,'Clark, I'»Yrf1 Oyer, Moellenberg, Owen, Reeser, Sc auer, and Taylor; , also SENATpR Mutzebaugh. . a e1LL foR AN . cT . 101 COftCfRNiNG Pi1BLIG-PRIVATE INITIAT YES FOR TRAPfSPORTATIDN 102 SYSTEMS. ~!''~i'% o~~ ~T ~ ' C ~ r5 ~!!S ~c,E=.~5~. ; • . . . . i ~ . i i B i 11 Sumcaary (Ncte: Thi s swmrary app7 i es to thf s bi I1 as iatroduted . and does not necessarily reflect any amendments which may be subsequetttly adopted,) ~ Autharizes the department af transpartatian t: Implemant a pGblic-private initiatives program *ta j facilitate transportatinn systems; solicit, cansider, and - acCept public-p'rivate 9nitiative proposa'!s; enter inta ag,reements and accept private contribut3ons for.transportatian sys''tem projects pursuant to a nantraditional arrangetnerit in exc,han e* for pu6l'ic benefits ather than oniy a mnney paymerrt; and ~dapt rale$. . _Specifies requiremeots for ' unsolicited • pl'ooosals 3nd pub7iG-private initiat9ve agreements. Pravides'for; 04 deposit of revenues. Makes a confardt9ng`amendment. • . 1 Be it enacted by the Gej2era7 Assenrbly of the State~of C67orado; ~ . { • . . z . S ON i. Legis7ative-: cl ration - ansportation . 13 system p 1ic-private initiat7Y .(I) The gen ra7 assembly 4 finds_ and_declares that it is essential for the econom9e,, ' 5 socia7, and environmenta7 we31-be5ng ,of the state and the 6- maintenance of a high quality of 3ife that the people of the ' 7 state have an efficient transportation'system. The ability of ,8 the-state to coetinue to provide an efficient transportation , 5 system with 3imited.public resaurces wi17 be enhanced by a ' ~m humead new maulw !a be qddrd la rsfititg Amtrrte, Dbshas Amugh the words ft&ewe ddrdotss fram =bft =wc. Z~0 ~ mooatas IITuaIInoR cZ£S SZ9 £0ca WST fi6/EZ/CO . 1 public-priyate initiatives[program that gives braad authority . 2 to thedepartment of ~Lransportatian to: Enter inta 3 nontraditianal agreements with private; entities to 'a ept . 4 private contributions for transportation system prcjec in 5' exchange for public benefi s ather than on7yia money pa nt; 6 sE,are resources,faci7itie , equipment, staff, data, or her ' 7 means of praviding transp t-tation systems or servieesI'and 8 otherwise caaperate. to research, deve7op, and implement . 9 transportation systems or services. I .ln . (2) The general assembly further dee7ares that a • II public-private initiatives program wi17 directiy benefit the 12 department of transportati,on and wil7 serve a.sig»ificant pub7iC 13 purpose for a number of reasons, which include: 5upp1y1ng 14- additidna7, private lresources to pravide, improve, artd maintain i3 transportationisys'tems; adding tran5partation system pro,ject. - . 16 opportunities; ~increasi.ng the departnent of transportation's ' I7 ' access tD prfvate expertise;`' supplementing department of 18 transportation revenues; and allawing tbe department af 19 transpq tation to use its limited publie resources for more 20 tr,anspo att on system proJects. . . 21 T Thei general assemb'!y~ further deciares that a 22 pub7ic-private initiatives I . . program will help provide and •23 maintain an efficient and effettive tt•ansportation 'system and 24 also will benefit indireetly the private sectar to a lesser 25 degree by providing econamic investment and business 26 opportcmities. - -2- . ~OOC~ mooajay uTuaunoR EZCS SZ9 C0e$, SO:ST - ~ i .1 SECtION 2. Article 1 of title 43, Calnrado .Rd4ised .2 5'tatutes, 1993 Repl. Yo7., is amendedBY THE ADDTTION OF A NEW 3 PART to read_ • • • . . . 4 ' . . PART 12 ' . . . ~ PUBLIC-PRIVATE INI7IATIVES PRPGRAM . b 43-1-1201. Definit9ons. A5 USED IN 3HIS FART 12, LiNLESS 7 THE CDNTEXT OTNERWISE REQ1fFRE5: . 8 (1) "PRIVA7E CQNTRIBtJTION" MEANS ~ T E PPLY BY A PRIVATE 9 ENTiTY OF RESQURcES TO ACCOMPl.iSH ALL OR At~f, PAEi'T 0F THE WORK . • , . : 10 'ON A TRAt+lSPORTATION SYSTENI PRpJEGT, INCLUpIN61FUNDS, FINAIVCING, ' i 11 INGqME, REIIENUE, CQ57 SHARINE,- TECHNpLOGY, SFAFF, EQlIIAMENT, 12 E7(PERTISE, DATA, OR EN6INEERIN6, CONSTRUCI'ION, QR MAIrt7'ENANCE . ' 13 SERYICES. • ' 14 (2) "PtJBLIC $ENEFIT' MEANS A DEPARTJNENT &RA1VT OF A RI6H1' 15 OR INTEREST IN OR CONGERNING A TRANSPORTATION 5Y5TEM OR PR0JEGT, 16 INCLUDIN6: . ~ . 17 (a) a LFASE qR EASQMpyT ;N, UNpER, pR ABQVE A STA'fE 1$ NIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY, N07WITHSTANbINGSECTIQN 43--2-210; _771 19 (b),_A REi?QCABLE FRANCHISE FOR ANY USE OF STATE HiGHWAY . 20 RI6HT-4F-WAY 7'F1AT DOES NOT IH _GiAY O~nR SAFETY, 21 N0ViTHS IAIG. SEC _ - ` - . 22 (c) ALL OR PART OF APlY. REVENUE OR IINCOME RESULTING FROM 23 THE PR3VATE'USE 0F A STATE HIGHWAY RIGNT-4F-WAY; . 24 (d) A MONEY PAYMEHT FpR-SERYICES FROM AYAILABLE FUNpS; 25 AIQQ . . 25 (e) ANY o7l{Qt BENEFiT THAT is NOT.PROHTBiTED BY tAN.- . . ~ . . _3_ . . i28l . e , ~OOf~j moaatay uTeauitoR ' £ZBS SZ9 COE$ 90:5T WCZ/EO . . . . ' - ' 1 (3) -'PUBLIG-PRIVATE INITIATIVE` HEANS A NOKTRADITIONAL . . 2 ARRANGEMENT B EN THE DEPAR~lENT ANp ONE OR1MORE PRIYATE OR - 3 Pl1BLIC ENTIT ES T PRQYIQES FOR: . , - . ~ , 4 (a). ACCEPTAhlCE DF A PRIVATE CONTRIHl1TION T0 A 5 TRANSPdRTATIQN SYSTEM PRQJECT QR SEkYICE IN EXCNANGE FOR A 6. PUSLIC BENEfIT CpNGERHIps TFiAT SYSTEM OR AROJEq OTHER TtiAN ONLY • ..7 A MONEY PAYMENT; ~ , ' . . .8 (b) SHARIN6 OF RESOIlRGES AND 'iHE MEANS OF PROVIDING ' . 9 TRANSPQRTATION SY5TEM PROJECTS OR SERVICES; OR 10 COpPERATION IR RESEQRCfiING, dEVELOPIN6, AND ! 11 • IMPLEF1E7ING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PROJECTS OR SERVICES_ 12 (4) °TRANSPQRTATION ' SYSTEM"; MEANS . THE STATE • ~ 13 TRANSPORTATION INERASTRUCTURE ANI3 RELATED SYSTEMS, INCLtIDIN6 ; 14 . HIGRWAY5 AND ASSOCIATED Rl6HTS-OF-lJAY, BRIUGES, VENICLES, , 15 EQUIPMENT, PARK AND RIDE LOTS, 7'RqNSIT'STATIONS, TRANSpORTATION • 15 1KANA6EMEM' 5Y5TEMS, AND INTELLI6ENT YEHICLE HIGHWAY SYSTEt+?5, 17 - (5) "IiNSOLICITED PRbpOSQLn MEANS A WRmEN pROPOSAL FOR I I8 A PUBLIC-PRIYATE INITIATIYE THAT ;S SUBNtIT1'ED 8Y A PRIVATE :19 ENTITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTERING iNT0 AN AGREElr1ENT WF-M THE 20 bEPARTMENT 8UT THAT IS NO7 IN RESPONSE 7D AFORMAL SOlICITATION . 21 DR ~ IQUEST IS5l1ED BY "fHf ~EPARTMENT: , . _ j • ZZ 43-1-12p2. Depa nt powers: (1) HaTWiTHSTanfDiNC ANr 23 DTNER Law, THE DEPARTMEtrF MAY: 24 (a) SOlIC17 AND CON5IbER PROPQSALS, ENTER INTO 25 AGEtEEMEN7S, AND 6RAN7: BENEFITS A1+iD ACCEPT CONTRISIJTiUNS FOR 25 ' PUBLIC-PRIYATE INITIATIYES PURSUANT TO THIS PART 12; -4- . , . .1287 moaaiay IIvnunTl £ZCS SZ9 cOC$ LO-ST t6/cZ/CO t . _ . .,I . . . . - 1 (b) SOLICIT PROPOSALS FOR PUSLIC-PRIVATE INITIATIYES AS . Z C0MPETITIYE SEALED PROFOSALS PURSUANT TO SEC'fION 24-103-20311 ' 3 C.R.S.; , . 4 (G) GONSIDER ANp ACCEPT J1HSQLICITED PROPOSALS Pl1RSlJAldT - 5 TQ i ECTION 43-1-1203;. 6 ; (d) GRW A PUBLiC iBENEFiT iN OR oNCERNiNG A 7 TKAIifSP TATI(]N SYSTEM 'OR PR ECT+ IN EXGHAIVGE OR A PRIVATE i 8. COiVTRIB ION TO 7HA7 SYSTEM R P OJECT. 8l1T THE TERM OF ANY ; . . 9 LERSE, EASEMENT, OR FRANCHISE G Ep BY THE D ART Et~I'f AS A 10 U C EFI7 ~ P BLI , BEN UNDER TEIIS RA3t[ 22 SHAtL: . ~ ' 11 (I) RFASDNABLY. RELATE T0 THE VALUE, OFI 7HE ' PRIYATE 12 CONTRI Ui'IOtd AS DETEWMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT; AND ~ 13 (II) NOT EXCEED NINETY NINE YEARS; ~ . i . 14 (e) ACGEPT A PRIYATE ONTRIBUTIOH TO A TRANSPORl'A7IDN 15 SYSTEM PROJECT;. I . ' . _ . 16 (f) FXERGISE AHY ppWER pF T1iE DEPARTMEHT AUTI-IORIZED BY 17 LAi,( TO FACILITATE THE DEYElaPMINT AND FERFOf2NtANGf OF 18 PUBLIC-PRIYATE INxTIATIYES. _ 19 43-I-12Q3. Unso7icited praposa2s. (1) T!-IE pEPA6MFM' MAY J • . 20 . CQNSIDER, EVALUATE, ANp AGCEPT AN UNSULICITED PR4POSAL FOR A • . ZI ~ PUBLIC-PRIVATE INI~IA3IVE-_WI1'}1OY11' COMPETITION ONLY IF THE . .22 PROPQSAL COMPLIES WITFi ALI. OF THE ItEQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION. . . 23 (2) TNE DEPARTMENT MAY CONSIDER AN UNSDLICITm PROPO5Al. 24 ONLY IF THE PR4POSAL: 25 {a) IS INNOVATIVE AHD UNIQUE; . _ 26.. (b) IS INDEPENDENTLY DRI6IPlATEp AND DEVELOPED BY ?HE . . . . . - i2 O f 900[~j moaajay IITeaunoR EZCS SZ9S0£,QLO~Si b6/CZ/CO . 1 PROPQSER; ~ 2. (c) IS PR~E~ WITHOUT DEPARTME SUPERViSION~ 3 (d) I5 N0T AN IADVANCf PROPOSAL FO AINOWIV DEPARTMENT . 4 REQUIREMENT THAT CAN_ $E ACQUIREp BY COMP ITIVE MMODS; . 5 :(e) INCLUDES SUFFICIENT DETAIL AND INFORMATION FUR THE 6 DEPARTP?ENT TO EVALUAi'E THE PROPOSAL IN AN BJEGTIVE AND 7IMELY . 7 MANNER AND T0( UEFERM3Nf IF THE PROPOSAL SEN FI?5 THE DEPARTMENT. 8 (3) IF THE UAlSOLICITED PROPOSAL DOE NOT COMPLY WITH THE L 9 REQUIREMEtrTS OF SUB5ECTi0N (2) oF THIS SE TIaN, THE DEPARTMENT 10 SHALL RETURN ITHE PROPOSAL NITHDUT fl]Et ER AGTION_ IF TNE lI . UNSOLIGITED PROPOSAL COMPLIES NiTH ALL E REQUIREMfENTS OF . , . .12 SUBSEGTION tZ) OF i1iIS SEGTItN1, THE DEPARTMENT MAY EVAI.UA7E lHE _ 13 PROPOSAL. ~ . . I. 14; (4) THE DEPARTMEHT SHALL SAS~ TTS ; -EYALUATION pF THE 15 i1NSOLICITED PROPOSAL ON THE FOtLQWING FACTORS: - 16 (a) iJNIQUE AND INNOYATIYE METHODS, AP.PROAGHES, OR , . 17 CONCEpT5 DE6fONSTRATEQ BY THF PRQPOSAL; • 1s _(b) SCIFldTIFIC, TEGHNICAL, OR SQCIOECONOMIC MERITS DF THE .19 PROPOSAL; . 20 (c) POTF,NTIAL CONTRIBU'fION OF 7HE PROPOSAL Tq TNE ' 21 DEPARTMENf'S MISSION; : ' ~ - ,22 (d) Tl-lE FROPOSER'S CAP4ITIES, RELAfiED EXAERIENCE, 23 fACI1.ITIES, TECHNIQUES, 0R UNIQt1E COMBINATIQHS OF "fF1ESE 24 'QUALITIES THAT ARE INTE6kAL FACF04 FOR ACHIEVING THE PROPOSAL 25 OBJECTIYES; • 26 (e) QUALIFIGATIQNS, CAPABILITIES, ANp EXpERiENCE 4F THE . . . • , • . 1987 LUOe moaajas IITBaunox EZeS SZ9 CO£ss 90:2T i6/£Z/c0 . ` I 1 FROPOSEp PRINCIPAL INV€STI&ATOR, TEAM LEADER, OR KEY PERSONNEI , . . ' 2' WE1Q ARE CRITICAi. IR ACHIEVING THE PRQppSAL aBJECTIVES; 3 (f.) ANX 07HER FACTO APPROPRIATE TO A PARTI'CULAR 4 PROPOSAL. , . ' I. . . 5 (5) TNE DEPARTMEFrF MAY RCCEPT AN UNSOLI TEp PROPOSAL ' S ONlY IF: . ' . 7 (a) THE UN50LICI7ED ROPdSAL RECEIVES AFAVORABLE 8 EYALUATiON; ANO - • 9 .(b) THE DEPARTMENT AWRITTER DE7ERMINiTION BASED • . 10 QN FACTS AND CFRCUMSTANCES T THE IJNSULICITED PROPOSAL IS AN' 11 ACCEPTABLE SASIS FOR AN A6RE EKT TQ OBTAIN SERViCES WIT Uf~. - , 22 CONIPETITION. . . 13 (6) IF "fFiE I UNSOLICITEp pRQPOSAt I5 ACC£PTED, THE 14 DEPARTMEHT SHAtL USE THE PkOPDSAL AS THE BASIS~FOR HEGOTIATION ' 15 OF AN AGREEMENT. _ 16 43-1-1204. Pub1ic-private initiative agreement. (1) TNE . 17 DEPARTMENT SliALL E1V7ER INTO AN A6REENEENT FOR EACN PUgl.IG-PRIVATE 18 IN 73ATIYE. 19 .(2) THE UEPARTMENT 5HALL INCLUDE TERMS ADID CONDITIONS IN 20 TNE AGREEMENT THAT IT DEfERNINES ARE APPROPRIATE IN THE PtIBLIC 21 - INTEREST AfVD TO PROTECT HIMY pNp TRAFF;C SAFETY. 22 ' '(3) THE A6REEFZENT SHALL PRpYIDE ?HAT: . 23 (a) THE PRIYATE ENTTfY SNALL NOT PLEDGE dR LAUSE A LIEN ..24 TO BE CREATED ON THE TRAHSppRTATION SY$TEM PRO,]ECT OR . 25 RIGHT-QF-NAY; . • - . 26 (b) THE DEPARTMENT OWNS TFIE HI&HWAY AND RIGHT-OF-WAY . . . . . 1-287 90Ufm mooatay IITgaIInox CZCS SZ9 COE& 60,9T V6/SZ/C0 . • , 1 INYOLVID ITFlE TRAldSPORTATION SYSTF14 AND PROJEC7 AT AL.L'TIMES. • . .,2 . (4) NOTitI7NSTANDIN& TEiAT THE DEPARTMENT ENTERS INTO AN 3.. AGREEMEPfF , OR A. Ptl$LFC-PRIYATE INI73ATIYE, THE DEP/;RTMENT IS NpT . 4 A FARTHER Ok A.?UINT YEN1URER KITH THE I PRIYATE ENTI7Y FOR , S. PURPOSE.' . ~ . ' 5 43-2-3205. Revenue disposition - use. (I) TNE . ~ . 7. DEPARTMENT SFIALl. OEPOSIT ANY PRIVATE CONfRIBUFION OF MONEY-AM . . ~ 8 ANY DEPARTMENT gUARE-OF RE11ENUE QR INCOME RESULTIN& FROM A 9 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ' PROJECT, IF ANY, IN THF STATE HIGHWAY 10 SUPPLENIEMTARY . . 11 (2) TNE UEPARTMEHT SHALL USE THE CONTRIBt.1TED MONEYS FOR ' 12 TRANSFQRTAION PURPOSES. 13. . 43-1-1206. Ru1es. THE DEPARTMEHT SHALL ADOPT RULES THAT . 14 IT DETERMI ES ARE NECESSA1tY OR APFROP 1ATE TO IMPLEMENT THE is pRovi5Ioxs~OF TliIS PART 12, INGLUDIN6 R LES ON THE SOlICITATION 16 AND EVALUATIDN OF PUBLIC-PRIVATE INITIATIYES, INITIAT VE 17 AGREEMENiS, PRIYATE CONTRIB!lTIONS, PUBLIG BENEFTTS TO BE GRANTEp 18 IN EXCIipNGE fOR tONTRIBtFfIONS, ANp 7HE RECEIPT, GONTEN"f, AND . 19 PROPER HANDUNG oF oNSOLiCiTED pROpd5AL5 FOR TRANSPORTATFON. . 20 SYSTEM PROJEG"fS. 21 ` SEC"flDH 3. 43-1-220 (2) , Colorado.Revised Statutes,_19 3 • . 22 Rep1. Vol., is lamended BY THE ADDITION QF A NEW pARA6RAPH a . • 23 read: . 24 43-I-220. Saurres af funds - assunptfon of obiigations. 25 (2) A77 receipts from the falloMring sources shall be paid into 26 and tredited to the state highway supplenentary fund as soan as . .~6- . 1 ?$7 604@] moDajas QT122IIn0K EZES SZ9 c0£a 60:ST t6/£Z/cQ recelved rrom: : ' . . . . . . Z (f) CDNTRI$UTIOiVS, REtfENUES, OR INCOME PURSUANT TO . 3 SECT OH 43-1-1208. . . - • . , SECTION 4. Safety clause_ The genera7 assemb7y hereby . 5: find , determines, and declares that this act is neGessary for 6 the maediate preservatian cf the pubiic peace, health, and ' 7 safety. ' • ' . ~ . ~ . I . • . , • I - ` . . ` ~ . • . . \ ~ I ~ . . . I ! , . ` . . • ' • ' . . • • ' ?G''~t OTp in ' m03914y uTg2unoH EZCS SZ9 EOS,QR 07:ST ~6/CZlCO TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO STATEMENT OF GOALS & OBJECTIVES " 1994 TRANSPORTATION Provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods within the Town of Vail, the area served by the regional transportation system, and the Denver/Glenwood corridor through a multi-model system. MB. Provide and maintain a safe and efficient street system. Minimize congestion at the Main Vail and West Vail intersections. (14 points) (Department Heads: (1) 11 points) (2)A. Promote the greater use of public transit throughout the Town of Vail and the regional transportation system. (16 points) (Department Heads: (3) 31 points) (3) D. Provide for the efficient delivery and distribution of goods into the Vail Village and Lionshead. (21 points) (Department Heads: (2) 26 points) (4)C. Provide for the safe movement of pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the Town of Vail and the Upper Eagle Valley. (24 points) (Department Heads: (2) 26 points) (5) E. Provide value-priced parking for visitors, employees, and residents. (36 points) (Department Heads: (4) 38 points) ' (6) F. Cooperate with other governmental agencies to promote the viability of the Eagle Airport. (46 points) (Department Heads: (6) 47 points) (7) H. Identify lands necessary to meet future transportation needs. (47 points) (Department Heads: (5) 44 points) - (8)G. Investigate combined transportation services for school children within the RE50J School District. (48 points) (Department Heads: (7) 63 points) INTERGOVERNMEIVTAL RELATIONS Pursue a Valley wide approach with other governmental agencies and the private sector to provide services to solve common problems, to avoid duplication, and to improve the value delivered for tax dollars expended. . 1 TOV Statement of Goals and Ohjectives11884 (1?J. Establish quarterly meetings with other governmental entities in the Vail Valley to discuss matters of mutual concern. Encourage interagency staff cooperation. (24 . points) (Department Heads: (1) 17 points) (2)G. Implement the Land Ownership Adjustment Plan. (29 points) (Department Heads: (6) 41 points) . (3) E. Work with other governmental entities and the private sector to enhance the efficiency of the regional transportation system. (32 points) (Department Heads: (4) 30 points) (4)A. Identify existing shared services and explore additional opportunities for the shared services. (40 points) (Department Heads: (10) 58 points) (5) D. Establish a pubiic private partnership for the continuation of a valley-wide marketing effort. (41 points) (Department Heads: (4) 30 points (6) H. Investigate the potential 'of a private land trust to preserve open lands. (41 points) (Department Heads: (7) 45 points (7) B. Explore the political and economic feasibility of consolidation with other town and/or special districts. (45 points) - (Department Heads: (7) 45 points) (8) F. Work with the Recreation Authority to complete the site planning, including a residential component, and secure the necessary approvals for the Berry Creek 5th site. (47 points) (Department Heads: (2) 19 points) (9) C. Explore opportunities for joint purchasing with other governmental agencies. (48 points) (Department Heads: (9) 52 points) , (10)1. Encourage and cooperate with other governmental agencies to preserve and protect open space outside the Town of Vail. (52 points) (Department Heads: (5) 36 points) (1 1)K. Review opportunities for further annexation to the Town of Vail. (63 points) (Department Heads: (8) 51 points) HOUSING Facititate construction and retention of local housing, which is affordable, and compatible, in order to maintain the economic and social viability of the Town of Vail. (1)D. Begin construction on TOV-owned parcels. (15 points) 2 TOY Statament af Goals end Objectives11884 (Department Heads: (1) 16 points) (2) B. Identify and acquire existing dwelling units to be converted to permanently deed restricted housing units. (25 points) (Department Heads: (5) 32 points) (3) E. Explore a mortgage pool financing mechanisms for affordable housing. (25 points) (Department Heads: (3) 18 points) (4)C. Analyze previously identified land to.be used for construction of new local housing units. (26 points) (Department Heads: (2) 17 points) * Vail Commons . * Old Town Shops * Lots adjacent to Managers House ~ * Upper Eagle Valley/Lionhead sites. (5)G. Encourage through zoning improvements/changes/modifications our ability to stabilize the local population, thereby increasing voter base. (34 points) (Department Heads: (7) 40 points) (6) H. Work to stop the conversion of local housing into tourist properties. (37 points) (Department Heads: (6) 33 points) (7) F. Facilitate financing for those who voluntarily deed restrict properties. (39 points) (Department Heads: (4) 27 points) (8)A. Work with Housing Authority to develop a 5 year Housing Plan. (Affordable Housing Study, Housing Authority Business Plan) (51 points) (Department Heads: (6) 33 points) PLANNING, GROWT.H, AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES Strive to maintain the unique alpine character of the Vail community. Maintain a balance between resort development and environmental and quality of life considerations. (1)D. Implement the Vail Commons (West Vail/Safeway) site plan. (17 points) (Department Heads: (1) 16 points) (2)C. Protect and enhance the quality of life in the community through the preservation of open lands within the Town of Vail. (26 points) (Department Heads: (2) 24 points) ' (3)B. Allow sustainable growth and change which can be served within the capacities of existing and planned infrastructure. (32 votes) (Department Heads: (5) 31 points) 3 TOV Stetamem of Goals and Objectivea11884 (4) E. Identify parcels necessary to meet future local housing needs. (36 points) (Department Heads: (6) 34 points) (5)A. Maintain a land use pattern that provides a balance of land uses and recognizes the capabilities and limitations of natural and man-made features. (37 points) (Department Heads: (6) 34 points) (6) F. Implement the Cemetery Plan. (40 points) ' (Department Heads: (7) 41 points) (7)G. Conduct proactive, long range planning activities. (40 points) . (Department Heads: (4) 28 points) (8)I. Provide efficient development review and current planning activities. (42 points) (Department Heads: (3) 27 points) (9)J. Provide opportunities for local, viable, convenient shopping within the Town of Vail. (46 points) (Department Heads: (6) 34 points) IVIIFRASTRUCTURE Provide for maintenance of existing and future Town infrastructure. A. Plan, prioritize, and fund additional infrastructure necessary to maintain and enhance the quality of life in the community. . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Work to promote a positive, year round economic environment. (1)A. Maintain and encourage the retention of the short term bed base in the Vail Village and Lionshead. (13 points) (Department Heads: (2) 17 points) , (2)C. Work with the Vail Recreation District, the Vail Valley Marketing Board, the Vail Valley Foundation, and others to conduct special events that will enhance the local economy. (17 points) (Department Heads: (4) 20 points) (3)B. With the retail community, develop strategies to enhance Vail's economy. (20 points) (Department Heads: (3) 18 points) (4) E. Work to develop a year round economy. (26 points) (Department Heads: (1) 10 points) (5) D. Create unique, commercial, innovative, and upscale economic opportunities for local businesses. (27 points) 4 TOY Stetemant at Goals end Objectives11884 (Department Heads: (5) 25 points) ENVIRONMENT Strive to be a world leader in providing a safe, pollution free environment. Strive to maintain a high quality of life for Vail residents and guests while protecting the Town's natural resources. (1)A. Implement the Environmental Strategic Plan that will identify a long-term environmental work plan for the town and will promote sustainable economic development. (20 points) (Department Heads: (3) 20 points) (2) H. Maintain and enhance the aquatic habitat, riparian environment, and water quality of Gore Creek. Maintain minimum stream flow in Gore Creek. (22 points) (Department Heads: (2) 19 pbints) (3)C. Complete the Vail Water Quality Study. (27 points) (Department Heads: (1) 18 points) (4) F. Increase the greening of the Gore Valley by planting trees, shrubs and flowers with a special emphasis on the I-70 corridor. (27 points) (Department Heads: (7) 34 points) (5) B. Increase annual conversion of noncompliant wood burning units by 10% through incentives and educational programs. (28 points) (Department Heads: (5) 25 points) (6) D. Promote responsible waste management that encourage individuals and businesses to reduce, reuse, and recycle. (36 points) (Department Heads: (4) 23 points) (7)G. Participate in and support the Eagle River Corridor Study. (40 points) (Department Heads: (6) 33 points) (8)E. Help ensure adequate progress on the Eagle Mine clean up process. (46 points) (Department Heads: (8) 44 points) ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS Maintain a high performing, highly efficient, customer driven organization. (1)C. Integrate the principals of continuous improvement in the operations of the Town of Vail. (17 points) (Department Heads: (4) 21 points) (2)D. Become a customer driven organization. Be sensitive to our customer's, both internal and external needs, and concerns. (20 points) 5 TOV Stetement of Goels and 06jectives11894 (Department Heads: (2) 14 points) (3)E. Provide municipal services in as efficient and effective manner as possible. (23 points) (Department Heads: (3) 19 points) (4) F. Analyze the result of the 1993 Resident Survey and implement changes needed to improve the service delivery. (27 points) (Department Heads: (5) 22 points) , (5)A. Improve internal communications within the Town of Vail organization. (28 points) (Department Heads: (1) 13 points) (6) B. Improve external communications. (32 points) (Department Heads: (5) 22 points) FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE Maintain the financial viability of the Town. (1)C. Analyze the effectiveness of performance based budgeting. (11 points) (Department Heads: (2) 18 points) (2)A. Maintain stability of the town's revenue streams. (13 points) (Department Heads: (1) 10 points) " (3)E. Evaluate opportunities for privatization of municipal services._ (24 points) (Department Heads: (5) 26 points) (4) D. Develop policies regarding fund balance levels, and debt management. (30 points) (Department Heads: (3) 19 points) (5) B. Analyze the potential impacts of Amendment 1 on the Town. (33 points) (Department Heads: (4) 22 points) (6) F. Explore the economic and politically feasibility of TOV control of local utilities (water, sanitation, electricity, and cable tv). (36 points) (Department Heads: (6) 31 points) HUMAN SERVICES Provide services and support activities that enhance quality of life in the Town of Vail. (1)D. Explore strategies for enhancing day care alternatives within the Town. (10 points) (Department Heads: (2) 17 points) (2) B. Investigate the feasibility of a private public partnership to construct a performing , arts center. (16 points) . (Department Heads: (2) 17 points) ~ 6 TOY Statement af Goels end Objectives11884 (3)A. Provide opportunities for life long learning, and research through the Vail Public ~ Library. (25 points) (Department Heads: (3) 18 points) ~ (4)C.. Work with the VRD to ensure continued recreational services for the Town's residents. (25 points) (Department Heads: (1) 10 points) (5) E. Cooperate with other educational agencies to support a variety of educational opportunities. (e.g. Colorado Mtn. College, Vail Mountain School, RE50J, Ski Club Vail). (29 points) (Department Heads: (4) 28 points) 7 TOV Stetement of Goala end Obpctire311994 I , \ TOWN OF vAIL 75 South Frontage Road Department of Community Development Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-21381479-2139 FAX 303-479-2452 ~~ORMDUM To: Vail Town Council From: Community Development Date: 11 April 1994 RE: Livestock grazing on public lands In September of 1993 a local rancher, Mr. Roger W. Tilkemeier, wrote a letter regarding Rangeland reform 1994. This letter was then followed by a letter from Mr. Andrew P. Daly, President of Vail Associates. Both of these letters were for the Colorado Congressional delegation, or Secretary Bruce Babbitt. These letters strongly indicated that the use of public land is very important to all residents and visitors of the Vail Valley. The Vail Town Council asked Environmental Health within Community Development to review the issue and report back to them with some information. 1. Regulatory Action , The issue of animals grazing on public lands is not a new one. Ranchers in the west have been using public lands for grazing their livestock for decades. There are an estimated 29,000 • ranchers who graze their animals on 280 million acres of federally owned land. There is a proposed regulation that calls for increased fees to be paid by ranchers to graze on public lands.. In 1991, legislation to restore the rangeland by gradually increasing grazing fees was proposed by Rep. Mike Synar (D. Okla.). The bill passed in the House but was defeated, for the second year in a row, by the Senate. With a new administration, President Clinton, and Department of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, enunciate two principles: first, that anybody who uses federal lands and water should pay a full price; second, that "non- extractive" users of natural resources (like backpackers and fishermen) should be treated just like miners and farmers in that they should pay to use federal lands. Secretary Babbitt has been meeting weekly with ranchers in Gunnison, Colorado to attempt to arrive at some sort of agreement as to how to address the issue of livestock grazing on public lands. II. Background According to a 1989 report by the U.S. Forest Service, 44% of the land base in the United States, excluding Alaska, is used for grazing livestock. The percentage of federal lands outside Alaska committed to livestock production is even higher, with grazing permitted on 1 89% of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands and 69% of. Forest Service lands. Altogether, more than 280 million acres of federal lands are leased under federal grazing programs. At the present time, the fees charged ranchers for the right to graze on federal lands is $1.97 per cow and her calf per month (one Animal Unit Month (AUM)) . This rate is determined annually by a formuta set out in the 1978 Public Rangetands Improvement Act. This act was due to expire in 1986, but was extended by the Reagan administration. The legislation that is now proposed would gradually increase the grazing fees paid by ranchers on public lands to the rate of grazing on private lands. The current average market value for the same grazing privileges on private land is $9.22 per AUM. This represents an approximate increase of $7.25 per AUM. This increase phased in over four years would have eliminated the taxpayers subsidies of the costs associated with public land management. The income generated from livestock grazing would have been earmarked for riparian area restoration. One prominent issue is the 2.7 million acres of what is known as a ciparian area within the 280 million federal acres. A riparian area is the land adjacent to creeks, streams, and rivers where vegetation is strongly influenced by the presence of water. Riparian areas may only comprise 1% of the federal land, but are among the most productive and valuable of all lands. ' As much as 75% of the West's wildlife depend on the plants and sheltered waters of healthy riparian areas. Diversity of vegetation is an important characteristic of riparian areas in good condition. Woody and herbaceous plants slow flood flows and provide a protective blanket against the erosive force of water. The foliage shields the soil from wind and sunlight, which keeps temperatures down and reduces evaporation. The foliage also helps to keep the temperature of the water lower, necessary for the waters ability to,support fish and other aquatic life. The root systems bind and hold the soil in place. For decades livestock have watered and cooled themselves in the creek and eaten the surrounding greenery. In this process they have impacted the vital ground cover and forage for other animals, made the waterway less hospitable for aquatic life and lowered the water - table. The issue of, livestock grazing on public lands may appear to be a civil war of sorts with ranchers on one side, conservationists on the other, and public agencies in the middle. The , goal of each of these groups is actually quite similar. All are interested in maintaining a healthy sustainable -environment either to produce livestock or produce habitat for indigenous wildlife. In the past few years, some ranchers have taken drastic :.steps to maintain the riparian areas by implementing a Best Management Practice (BMP) as detailed by the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management. i This is a very complex issue and there are almost as many opinions about a solution as there are acres of federal land. While there are opinions that call for a complete ban on livestock grazing on public lands, the majority of them call for a controlled multiple use of public land. Following are some examples of opinions of Ranchers and Conservati'onists: III. Ranchers viewpoint - Smaller ranchers 500 head or less) can't afford to own the necessary land to support the livestock (maybe 25-50 acres per head) so they must lease the land from BLM, Forest Service or private land owners. ~ 2 0 t - If grazing fees are raised, it will force the smaller ranchers that depend on federal lands into bankruptcy. This would result in more corporate ranches, more resorts, water rights sold to cities, increased rural population, and increase the number of 35 acre ranchettes. - Ranching has been a way of life in the Eagle River Valley for over 100 years. Our guests expect to see ranching activity in Eagle, County. If ranchers are forced to sell out, subdivisions will replace ranch land. - To raise the grazing fee on federal land to the same rate as private land is not equitable due to the fact that private land generally is in better condition. On private land there • is already developed water access, little or no maintenance of the land or fencing, and the land may be able to support two times the number of livestock per acre. Federal land is in general the land that was not homesteaded, and has less value. - The use of public lands for the grazing of livestock plays a major role in making the United States an agriculturally efficient country. - Responsible livestock grazing on public lands offers many benefits for the land and indigenous wildlife: *Livestock grazing keeps down the forage that can turn into fuel in dry fall weather; * Developed water resources help make fire fighting easier; * Water developed for livestock is used by wildlife; *Wastes from the livestock fertilize the land, promoting new plant growth; *The migratory patterns of the livestock replicate the patterns of the lost populations of bison, elk and other indigenous mammals; *Having extra eyes and ears of ranch workers on the public lands helps ensure their safety from wildfires. - Old ranching techniques did over graze and abuse the land, however, the old abuses are being corrected. Ranchers are deeply involved in range sciences which is only about 30 years old. New range management techniques help protect riparian areas, native plant and animal life, and promote soil conservation. IV. Conservationists opinion - The "bargain" grazing rate does not offset the amount of money necessary to maintain . these lands, the remaining money comes from taxpayers, approximately $76 million per year. - The federal grazing fees account for less than 5% of the cost of bringing the beast to market. The average rancher spends more on the electric bill for irrigation. As a result, ranchers should be able to afford the proposed increase in grazing fees without jeopardizing their livelihood. " - The BLM itself considers more than 94 million acres to be in unsatisfactory condition 3 0 (4% of the surface area of the US). - The constant presence of livestock on public lands make it nearly impossible to have a rangeland outdoor experience without encountering animal wastes. - Ranchers use 85% of the west's water at subsidized prices, while producing only Z% of the beef used in the U.S.. - Bears and some livestock eat the same foods. Less food for bears may cause them to wander more widely, causing more bear-human conflicts, with the bear coming up the loser. . . - Livestock trample the eggs of ground nesting birds, and loss of cover as a result of grazing can lead to increased predation losses to birds, small mammals and other animals. - Poorly managed livestock grazing is the major cause of. degraded riparian habitat on federal land. As much as 75% of indigenous wildlife depends on healthy riparian areas. ' - Negative impacts of livestock do not stop at riparian areas, soil erosion, or stream de- watering. Many domestie animals carry diseases for which native species have little • or no immunity. ; V. Coming to a compromise As previously stated there is a whole spectrum of proposed answers to this issue. Some want no grazing on public lands, some like the system the way it is, and some want to leave the system the way it is, but raise the fees. The real issue at hand is the preserving of our natural public lands. This goal is at the heart of the problem, and contrary to some beliefs, this is the goal of the rancher. Without the land, the rancher is out of a job so it only makes sense that the ranchers will do what is necessary to maintain the land that is the source of their income. While it seems imperative that something. needs to be done to preserve some of these areas, it does not seem totally appropriate to just charge more for the use of all range land. A school of thought that may have some merit would be to implement management plans, which set performance standards designed to eliminate overgrazing and protect streamside areas, plants, . soil, and wildlife. A method could be instituted that would not unfairly ipenalize conscientious ' ranchers, but would rather give both the agencies and the ranchers incentives to do their jobs well. A system could be implemented where in areas that are not suffering ecological degredation, grazing would be allowed to continue. This could be a merit system approach, if the land has the ability to support grazing, and the rancher is implementing the BMP, the grazing fee would stay at a lower rate. If.the rancher is not properly i'mplementing a BMP, a higher lease rate would be appropriate. Continued violations of the BMP a rancher could lose all rights to graze on public lands for a number of years. In a system such as this, the rancher - would have to show the agencies that they are doing a good job to maintain the lower land lease rate. In a broad sense this is the line of discussion noted earlier i~n Gunnisson, Colorado between Secretary Babbitt, and ranchers. ! 4 Please circle your response: With regazd to thls parking structure, please tell us how we are doing on the followIng: A. Lighting 1) Excellent 2) Adequate 3) Poor B. Cleanliness 1) Excellent 2) Adequate 3) Poor C. Signage 1) Excellent 2) Adequate 3) Poor D. Courtesy of service 1) Excellent 2) Adequate 3) Poor E. Do you have any suggestions for improvement? F. What 9s your residency status? 1) Vail 2) Eagle County 3) Guest Place Stamp Here . Tou~voF va~ . Dept: TRC 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Those that are using the 1 1!2 hours of free parkinA, where do they reside? 1 1/2 hours free parking, where do you reside? Vail 15% Eagle Cnt 21% Guest 4liko 64% "HOW WE DOINGI" survey results How are we dang with lighting? poojNo response Excellent 12% 0% 18% Adequate I 70% How are we doing with cleanliness Poor 2% Excellent 39% Adequate 59% I r ~ ~ How are we doing with courtesy of service? No response 4% Adequate 37% Excellent 59% How are we doing with aignage? Poor 4% Excellent 49% Adequate 47 % What is your residency status? vail Guest 48% i Eagle County 22% MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 11, 1994 , SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision and a request to rezone a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi-Family, located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road/more specifically described as follows: A parcel of land in the Southwest (]uartei of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Prinapal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point whence a brass cap set for a witness comer for the West Quarter of said Section 14, bears (North 29 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West, 1073.08 feet Deed) (North 43 Degrees 15 minutes 02 seconds West, 915.96 feet •Measured): Thence NoRh 74 degrees OS minutes 19 seconds EaSt, 10.76 feet; Thence 183.62 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing North 88 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds East, 181.76 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 40 minutes 21 seconds East, 62.77 feet; Thence 147.43 feet along the arc of a curve to the left which arc subtends a chord beanng North 86 degrees 36 minutes 17 secands East, 145.60 feet; Thence Idorth 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds Fast, 406.55 feet; Thence 54.10 feet along the arc of a arve to the right which arc subtends a chord bearing South 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 seconds East, 4420 feet; Thence South 14 degrees 25 minutes 50 seconds West, 110.51 feet; ' , Thence South 68 degrees 18 minutes 91 seconds West, 320.00 feet; Thence North 19 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West, 50.00 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds West, 160.18 feet; Thence South 10 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West, 36.48 feet; Thence North 87 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds West, 337.72 feet; Thence (North 11 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds East, 130.00 feet Deed) North 11 degrees 55 minutes 31 seconds East, 129.75 feet Measured) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Bearing hom G.L.O. record for South half of Seciion line between Sections 14-15. (G.LO. record South Ot degrees 302 minutes East) (South Ot degrees 38 minutes 32 seconds East Measured) Applicant: Juanita I. Pedotto . Planner: Andy Knudtsen • 1. BACKGROUND (Please note changes to the memo since the February 28, 1994 review are shown in bold.) - On February 28th, 1994, The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) voted 6-0- 1, with Greg Amsden abstaining, recommending approval of the proposed rezoning. There were several conditions that the PEC requested be added to the site plan and the plot. One of them pertained to the common access on the southwest corner of the site. The applicant was required to get approval. from .the adjacent property owners regarding the common access. This was to be done prior to first reading at Town Council. The two owners to the southwest of this property have decided they did not want to share the common access. As a result, the applicant has redesigned the site plan and provided access for building envelopes one and four from Kinnickinnick Road. There are no new curb cuts. The two westernmost driveways have been extended further into the site to provide access to these fiwo envelopes. . ~ Because of the change in the site plan, the applicant has been required to return to PEC for a revievv of the changes. All other develo ment issues remain as a reed to b the PEC, staff, and the aaplicant durina the Februarv 28, 1994 hearinq The conditions are Iisted at the erad of this memo. ! . II. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION - Staff believes thaf the original site plan is more comprehensive and addresses access to neighboring properties better than the site plan proposed at this time. However, we believe that the developer of the Pedotto property should not be required to solve an access issue in a manner that requires adjacent property owners to approve the access . , plan. Staff feeis that the applicant has done everything within his control to achieve this solution; however, the neighboring property owners have not been willing to participate. Therefore, staff recommends that the Town aliow either site plan to be developed. Staff prefers the site plan reviewed by the PEG on February 28, 1994 with the- shared access. However, staff does not belaeve that there are significant negative impacts from the site plan under review for the April 11, 1994 hearing and that it shou0d also be approved. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant, Juanita Pedotto, and her representative, Greg Amsden, would like to rezone a parcel of land in Intermountain from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi-, Family. If reioned, the applicant is planning to construct nineteen dwelling units in fourteen structures. The parcel of land is 2.49 acres. Of this, there are 2.36 acres that are considered buildable by the Town of Vail standards. , In addition to a rezoning, the proposal includes a minor subdivision request. In the future, the applicant intends to use the single family subdivision process to sell off the individual dwelling units. Prior to this, however, the cuRently unplatted parcel must be platted as a lot. This provides an opportunity to document building footprint locations, GRFA restrictions, and other development standards on the plat. These standards will be listed on the plat and will be applicable to any developer as well as future home owners. , Since the previous worksession, the applicant has deleted one single family dwelling unit from the site plan. Another change is that the building envelopes have been deleted and replaced with specific building footprints. Previously, a prototypical footprint was shown within an envelope. It measured 37 feet by 37 feet. The updated footprints have been increased to 40 by 54 feet for the larger type of unit and 38 by 30 feet for the smaller type. The footprints will be a minimum of 15 feet apart. The applicant is requesting the ability to shift the footprints as much as ten feet, if needed. Changes in footprint location would have to be approved by the DRB,_ Fifteen f.eet of.separation would have to be maintained for both the structures and decks. The PEC approved these standards at the previous hearing on February 28, 1994. 2 , The current site plan proposed by the applicant is made up of nineteen dwelling units in fourteen structures. Nine of these will be single family residences. Three of them will be single family residences with a deed restricted caretaker unit located above the garage. Four of the dwelling units will be located in two duplexes. The total number of structures would be fourteen. Total GRFA for these dwelling units is anticipated to be 25,900 square feet. A site plan is attached at the end of this memo which shows where these structures would be located. The chart below shows the break down of the structures and units: Number of Units Number of Structures . 9 single family g g 3 single family with EHU's 6 32 duplexes 4 2 TOTAL: 19 14 The architect has designed three styles for the fourteen structures. These are shown in the perspective attached at the end of the memo. Each type will have the same materials, which include a stucco first story and horizontal cedar siding on the second story. The roofs will be shake shingles and wili have ciipped gables. There will be corbels to support the second story cantilevers as well as the eaves. The windows will all have shutters to help create a bavarian appearance. Though there are three different interior plans, the exterior mass and bulk is almost identical for two of the units. Therefore, there will appear to be only two different types of exteriors. The larger home, with the caretaker unit, will have.a footprint measuring 40 feet by. 54 feet. The smaller home will have a footprint measuring 38 feet by 30 feet. ~ The neighboring properties to the parcel under consideration include: North: Columbine North East: Primary/Secondary development South: Camelot Townhouses and single family development West: Primary/Secondary development The property to the. north and east is zoned Residential Cluster. The property to the south and west is zoned Primary/Secondary. The Land Use Plan has designated the parcei under consideration as Medium Density Residential. Per Land Use Plan, a range of seven to thirty- three units is possible based on the 2.49 acres. This translates to three to fourteen dwelling units per acre. IV. BACKGROUND/FORMER REQUESTS In October of 1990, the Professional Development Corporation proposed employee housing developments on several sites in the Town of Vail. The. Pedotto site was one of them. In ' their request, they proposed Medium Family Multi-Family (MDMF) zoning. In the memo dated October 29, 1990, staff recommended that the applicant reduce the number of units on this site to LDMF densities and maintain the amount of GRFA on the site to RC standards. The proposal for the site is shown below: 3 Type of Unit Number of Units Square Footaqe ; GRFA . Efficiency Unils 6 435 sq. ft. ' 2,610 sq. ft. One Bedroom Units 6 482 sq. ft. 2,892 sq. h. i Two Bedroom Units 27 609 sq. ft. 16,443 sq. ft. TOTAL: 39 21,945 sq. ft. V. ZONING ANALYSIS Total Site Area: 108;682 square feet or 2.49 acres Buildable Area: 102,788 square feet or 2.36 aaes - Allowed Dwelling Units Employes Housing Densi Allowed Units Allowed GRFA Allowed'• Pnmary/Secondary: 15,000 sq. h. of - 12 dwelling units 6 EHU's Oy 24,368 + 5,100 = buildable required conditional review' 29,468 sq. ft. • per 1ot (six iots) Residential Cluster: 6 dwelling units per 14 dwelling units - 25,697 + 3,150 = buildable aae 28,847 sq. ft. Low Densiry `Muftiple Family: 9 dwelling units per 21 dwelling units - 30,836 + 4,725 - buildable acre 35,561 sq, ft. Land Use Plan Medium Density Residential: - 3 to 14 dwetling units 7 to 33 dwelling units per buildable acre Proposed: 8.5 dwelling units 16 dwelling units 3 EHU's 21,625 + 4,275 ~ per buildable acre 25,900 sq. ft. 'These 6 EHU's would not count in density calculations. "Garages not induded in GRFA calculations. i , 4 Staff has analyzed the proposed site plan submiried by the applicant and has provided a zoning analysis below. Total Site Area: 108,682 sq. ft. or 2.49 acres Buildable Area: 102,788 sq. ft. or 2.36 acres Zoning which would be in effect: Low Density Mulii-Family Allowed Per - LDMF Standards Proposed Uses: Single Family, Two Family, and Multi-Family Single Family and Two Family Lot Area: Minimum size: 10,000 sq. ft. of buildable 102,788 sq. ft.' of buildable • Setbacks: Required: Front: 20' Front: 20' Side: 23' (west) Side: 20' Side: 20' (east) Side: 20' Rear: 20' Rear: 20° Height: 38' 33' GRFA: 30,836 + 4,725 = 35,561 sq. R. 21,625 + 4,275 = 25,900 sq. ft. Densiry: 9 dwelling units per,buildabte acre or 8.1 dwelling units per buildable acre or . 21 dwelling units 19 dwelling units Site Coverage: 350/o of total area or 38,038.7 sq. ft. 19.5% or 21,137 sq. it. LancJscaping: 400% of total site area or 43,472.8 sq. ft. 71.8% or 73,761 sq. ft. Parking: Per off-street parking requirements Meets code VI. REZONING CRITERIA , A. Suitabilitv of the proposed zoninp. Staff's analysis of the suitability of the proposed zoning focuses on density, compatibility with surrounding developments, and ways that the proposed development can be buffered from existing neighboring uses. Staff recognizes that many of the surrounding properties adjacent to this parcel are multi-family complexes. The applicant has estimated their densities to exceed Residential Cluster (RC) standards and staff has confirmed this information. The surrounding multi-family developments have densities that range from 11.3 dwelling units per acre to 22.2 dwelling units per acre. Please see the chart below. There are also surrounding single family and primary/secondary developments which have densities that are lower than the proposal. 5 Name Units qrea pengity Intertxken 39 1.80 21.6 Columbine NoAh 16 .92 17.4 Flussheim 4 .24 " 13.8 tnnsbrook 8 .36 22.2 Columbine West 7 .62 11.3 Camelot 8 .36 22.2 Though the density of the surrounding properties are higher than Residential Cluster, the type of development (single family, duplex or multi-family) effects the way the density appears on this site. For example, many of the developments are made up of townhouses. Since the units are more compact than detached single family homes, the structures do not cover as much of the site and are likely to have larger areas of useable open space. Staff believes that the proposal should be modified to improve , . the amount of useable open space, to reduce the amount of asphalt, and to increase architectural variety.within the clusters on the site. Specifically, staff believes that Units 13 and 14, Units 7 and 8, and Units 1 and 2 should be combined. The units to be consolidated, however, should be the smaller of.. the two styles. At this time, the larger unit with the employee housing caretaker apartment is shown in each of the three areas. We are concemed that the structures may be too large if triplexes are created. Therefore, in addition to consolidating these footprints, staff believes that the employee housing units should be shifted to other footprints in the development. We believe that the variety of massing created by a combination of units will help the development be more compatible with the surrounding properties, as they have been developed in more of a townhouse style. In addition, staff believes that the resulting open spaces will be larger and will be able to accommodate additional landscaping, particularly on the northeast, northwest and central portions of the site. Landscaping is a key issue in staff's opinion; as the amount of density to be considered under the rezoning proposal should be evaluated based on how it is buffered from adjacent properties. Staff is primarily concerned about the perimeter of the site. . - At this time, the applicant has committed to the following: 1. Six clusters of aspen located around the perimeter of the project along Bellflower and Kinnickinnick. These clusters range from three to eight aspen each. 2. On the east end of the site, there will be ten to twelve aspen along Basingdale. 6 ".r_:•x::rnEia'l.erl":5;~.L.'s' . , . . .r. ' '.i: . 3. Two planting areas of aspen made up of a total of fifteen to twenty trees ' will be located next to the Camelot Townhouses. Staff understands that the drawings submitted to the Design Review Board (DRB) will _ inc lu de a d di tion a l lan dscaping and that the landscaping shown on these plans reflects . . • the basic landscaping needed to buffer adjacent properties. The landscaping listed . above must be incorporated into the DRB drawings and'must be planted prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the dwelling unit adjacent to the landscaping. . Another key issue that relates to landscaping is the preservation of the green space in the center portion of the site. Since the last worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), the applicant has had an environmental assessment (EA) done for the wetland area. This report is attached to the back of this memo and deiineates the boundary of the wetland area as well as a 10 foot buffer . area along all sides of the wetlands. The map from the EA was drawn on the previous plan which showed a buiiding footprint within the buffer area. This has been corrected. The revised location sites the building outside the buffer area. Staff believes that any rezoning approval should be conditioned with a requirement that the consultant retum to the site in the spring or summer to confirm that his analysis made during winter . months is accurate. Any modifications that would be generated by the consultant would have to. be included into the site plan. Building footprints would have to be shifted if the update indicates that they are located in the buffer area. lf the footprints need to be shifted, staff believes the project should be reconsidered by the PEC. There are some large existing aspen in this area adjacent to the wetland area to the . west. They range in size from two inch caliper to eight inch caliper. Staff believes that : any trees that can be transplanted should be. If they are to be cut down, they should . be replaced on a 1:1 ratio based on the caliper of the tres to be removed. For example, and eight inch caliper tree would have to be replaced with two 4 inch caliper . trees. Staff believes this is reasonable since larger trees do not transplant well according to the Town's Landscape Architect. : Staff understands that the applicant desires to change the zoning from . Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi Family to allow additional units, . not necessarily more GRFA or site coverage. The applicant has agreed to reduce the amount of GRFA to below Primary/Secondary standards and maintain the amount of site coverage and height to Primary/Secondary standards. These restrictions will be recorded as plat restrictions. Staff does not have a problem with the number of units if they can be sited in such a way to provide adequate open space, buffering and minimal ;site coverage. In order to achieve this, we believe a more clustered design concept is necessary. We feel an adequate landscape plan has been provided, the „ wetland area has been protected, and that unit layout is good as long as the units are combined as suggested above. ; : B. Is the Amendment Providinq a Convenient WorCable RelationshiQ with Land Uses Consistent With Municipal Obiectives? . . - . • 7 ,i~~ :r - ' ' , ' - . Under this criteria, staff has evaluated the rezoning proposal to ensure that it will provide workable relationships to those properties around the site. In addition, the . rezoning proposal must be consistent with the Municipal Objectives. Ensuring that the . future development will have a reasonably compatible relationship with the existing . neighborhood has been the focus of much of this review. On January 17, 1994, there - was a neighbofiood meeting attended by approximately thirty neighbors. Attached to _ the memo are all of the letters that have been received by staff ,from the neighbors. , - The primary concerns of the neighbors seem to revolve around pedestrian safety and traffic safety. Staff has contacted the Police Department and the Public Works - Departrnent since the neighborhood. meeting to ask them to look at increasing patrol as well as increasing the number of stop signs in the area This appears to be a problem that needs to be solved independent of the rezoning issue. However, the proposal will.have some positive impact on these issues, since there will be public improvements made by the developer. The Town is requiring the developer to provide a sidewalk that will run the length of the property. The applicant is proposing a 6 foot wide walk that will be detached from the edge of pavement on Kinnickinnick. The Town is requiring that this be a hard surface wafk that can be , maintained during winter months. It will be the responsibility of the homeowners association to keep the walk clear. This is a Town wide requirement that applies to all developments that have adjacent sidewalks. The applicant is proposing a cinder walk; however, staff believes it must be hard surface. Please see the plat restrictions at the end of this memo regarding the sidewalk and other public improvements. A concem related to safety involves the number of curb cuts on Basingdale, Bellflower, and Kinnickinnick. Originally, the applicant had submitted a plan; with five curb cuts on, Kinnickinnick and three on Bellflower and Basingdale. Since the, original submittal, the architect has removed all curb cuts off of Basingdale and Bellflower. Staff believes that this is a significant improvement as the driveways were previously located relatively close to the intersections. At this time there are five curb cuts for the entire project which access from Kinnickinnick. These curti cuts access shared driveways. Staff believes that the revisetl plan provides a more efficient use of the site and leaves more of the landas landscaped area and open space. Though there has not been an increase in the - number of curb cuts on Kinnickinnick from what was originally submitted, staff believes , . there is an opportunity to improve the situation. By relocating the access to Building Envelope #1 from Kinnickinnick to the shared access on the southwest comer of the site, there would be more open space around Building Envelope #1, and one less curb cut on Kinnickinnick. Staff believes that this wouid be an improvement. Another concem of the neighborhood involved parking, storage, and general appearance of the project. The neighbors were concemed that individuals living in this development wouid not have ad e quate parkin g and that addi ti o n a l c ars w o u l d be , ° :parked in the neighboring parking lots. Staff has reviewed this concern with the ' developer and believes that the two car garages for ~each unit and the driveways in front of each unit will accommodate the parking demand. An alternative would be to _r create a parking lot for guests. However, staff believes that the parking apron in front . of each garage can accommodate guests most of the time. : 8 Regarding storage, during the neighborhood meeting it was suggested that there be an area on the side of each garage for bicycles and other miscellaneous items. The applicant has designed one of the garages to be 480 square feet. The drawings show a template of a Suburban and a Cherokee to indicate how much of the garage will be taken up by automobiles. The remaining area of the garage will be available for . storage, and staff believes that this will be an adequate amount. One of the goals with the storage area was to ensure that the two parking spaces will always be available for - parking. Though this cannot be guaranteed, staff believes that providing the storage that is shown on the drawings is a reasonable assurance that the spaces will be availabte. Staff believes it is critical that the other units (with garages approximately 387 square feet in size) be expanded to the size of the larger garage. A significant concem to the planning staff was how the developer was going to work out agreements with the neighbors adjacent to the southwest comer of the site conceming parking and access. Currently, there are parking and driveway encroachments onto the Pedotto property by the neighbors. The applicant has worked closely with the two existing homeowners in this area and has worked out agreements with them for shared access. This access also includes a fire truck turnaround. All of the driveway in this area will be paved. The adjacent owners will share the expenses with the devetoper. Staff believes that this is an excellent resolution to a problem that has occurred for some time. Staff wants to emphasize the positive benefits that result from the solution have been negotiated by the applicant. One of the final issues of concern by the neighbors involves the appearance of the project. The applicant has provided prototypical elevations as well as a perspective of three homes sharing one driveway. Staff believes that the design character of the homes is positive, including the materials, detailing and general massing. Staff believes that the three employee housing units proposed in this development are consistent with the Land Use Plans goals of the Town to have employee housing units added to our community. We believe that this component of the development addresses a larger community need. By dispersing the three deed restricted employee housing units among the nineteen dwelling units, staff believes that there is a good balance of free market and employee units within the development. Attached to the end of this memo are employee housing restrictions that have been tailored for this development. They are based on the Type III EHU; however, they do not include provisions that allow the sale of the employee housing unit. C. Does the Rezoninp Provide for the Growth of an Orderlv Viable Communitv? In order to ensure that the future development on the rezoned parcel will be developed in an orderly manner, staff has prepared the following plat restrictions which will be located on the plat and recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder: 9 Plat Restrictions _ 1. All construction shall conform to the standards listed below and shali comply with the building footprints shown on the attached site plan. 2. There must be a minimum 15 foot separation between structures, including all decks and cantilevered portions, but excluding eaves. After completion of the - first structure and prior to the application for any subsequent building permit, the applicant must provide survey information verifying ttie location of previously built structures to show that the 15 foot separation requirement will be met. ~ 3. The height limitation for the development on this parcel shall be lowered from the 38 feet allowed by LDMF zoning to 33 feet. 4. All driveways to be constructed on this site shall not exceed 8% slope. 5. GRFA and site coverage and height shall be allocated for the structures as follows: Building , Enwlopa tt Dwalling Untts Crodk GRFA Tafal GRFA Slta Cownge iloigM Allowed . 1 2 450 sq. ft. 2,080 sq. ft. 2,530 sq. R. 1,800 sq. ft. 33 h. 2 7 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. (t. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 3 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. h. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 4 1 225 sq. h. 1,425 sq. R. 1.650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 5 2 450 sq. ft. 1.680 sq. ft. 2.130 sq. ft. 1,683 sq. ft. 33 h. 6 1 225 sq. h. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. h. 1,400 sq. h. 33 h. 7 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. h. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 8 2 450 sq. h. 1,680 sq. h. 2,130 sq. h. 1,683 sq. ft. 33 ft. 9 1 225 sq. h. 1,425 sq. h. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 h. 10 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. h. 1,650 sq, ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. _ 11 2 450 sq. ft: 1,680 sq. ft. 2,130 sq. ft. 1,683 sq: ft. 33 ft. 12 , 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. h. 1.650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. ' 13 1 225 sq. h. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. h. 33 ft. 14 2 450 sq. h. 1,680 sq. h. 2,130 sq. ft. 1,683 sq. ft. 33 ft. 6. No-fences shall be allowed on this property. 7. Phasing - The applicant shall provide the employee housing units according to the phases shown below. : 10 ; A. Prior to the issuance of a final CO or TCO for any dwelling unit located on Building Footprints #1 through #6, the applicant shall secure a final Certificate of Occupancy or Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the first of three deed restricted employee housing units. B. Prior to requesting a final CO or TCO for any dwelling unit on Building Footprints 7, 8, 9 or 10, the applicant shall secure a final CO or TCO for - the second of three deed restricted EHU for the development. C.. Prior to requesting a final CO or TCO for any dwe{ling unit located on- Building Footprints 11, 12, 13, or 14, the applicant shall secure a final . CO or TCO for the third of three deed restricted employee housing units. The Fire Department and Public Works Department have reviewed the proposal and support the project with the following conditions. Fire Department 1. The fire access easement on the southwest corner of the site must be defined and then recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder prior to DRB approval of any dwelling unit if a common access on the southwest comer of the site is provided. The easement must be posted in field with "No Parking" signs. Staff . will allow the site plan reviewed by the PEC on February 28,1994 or the site plan revised on April 11, 1994 to be constructed. 2. All driveway surfaces must be "all weather driving surfaces." 3. Hydrants must be installed according to Town of Vail standards. Public Works .1.. Detailed regrading and landscape plans for the sidewalk and right-of-way area must be provided prior to a DRB hearing for any dwelling units. The Town Engineer is requiring sidewalks, curb, gutter, storm sewer, inlets, engineering- drawings and/or grading plans to be provided by the developer. 2. Easements must be dedicated for the sidewalks, drainage, utilities, road side ditches, streetlights, etc. prior to a DRB hearing for any dwelling unit. D. Does the rezoninq complv with the Vail Land Use Plan? Staff has listed the relevant goals and objectives from the Land Use Plan below: 1_1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 11 1_2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed . areas (infill areas). 5_1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, - platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5_5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. ; The Land Use Plan designates this site as Medium Density Residential. Under this designation, the dwelling units allowed on this site range from 7 to 33. Based on the MDR designation, staff believes some increase in units by rezoning is reasonable. The goals and objectives in the Land Use Plan describe development generally like the , one being proposed. Goals 1.12 and 5.1 call for infill development that is not located in hazards. This plan complies with these goals. Also, the Land Use Plan calls for ' additional employee housing, which will be included in this proposal. Staff believes the three employee housing units proposed are positive. , VII. MINAR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA The Subdivision Regulations in the zoning ordinance establish minimum standards for the creation or moaiification of lots., The Subdivision Regulations allow for the divisiom of existing lots with the creation of new lots froan previously unplatted properties. The zoning ordinance establishes the requirements for lot dimension, lot size and road frontage. These zoning standards have been met by the Pedotto proposal. The zoning code requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet of buildable; area. The proposed lot size is 102,788 square feet of buildable area. The minimum frontage required is 30 linear feet on a public right-of-way. The proposed frontage is approximately 1,000 linear feet. There is also a requirement that the lot be able to enclose a shape 80 feet by 80 feet within its boundaries. This standard has also been fulfilled. In addition to the specific standards listed in the Zoning Code, the Subdivision Regulations have purpose statements which are also criteria to review subdivision proposals. The purpose statements of the general provisioris in the Subdivision Regulations (Section 17.04.010(A and B)) are provided below: . "17.04.010 - Purpose. ; A. The Subdivision Regulations contained in this title have been prepared and enacted in accordance with Title 31, Article 23, Part of C.R.S., 1973. For the purpose of promoting the health, safety and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of ttie Town of Vail, Colorado. 12 B. To these ends, the regulations are intended to protect the environment to ensure efficient circulation, adequate improvements, sufficient open space, and in general, to assist the orderly, efficient and integrated development of the Town. These regulations also provide for the proper arrangement of streets and ensure proper.distribution of population. The regulations also coordinate the need for public services with governmental - improvement programs. The standards for design and construction of improvements are hereby setforth to ensure . adequate and convenient traffic circulation, utilities, emergency . access, drainage, recreation, and light and air. Also intended is the improvement of land records and surveys, plans and plats, and to safeguard the interests of the public and subdivider and provide common protection for the purchasers; and to regulate other matters and the Town Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council may deem necessary in order to protect the best interests of the public:' The proposed plat will be taking a currently unplatted parcel and creating it as Lot 1, Innsbrook Meadows. Staff believes that the change from an unplatted parcel to a - platted !ot will not negatively impact the criteria listed above. As part of the subdivision approval, the design and construction of improvements in the public right- of-way will be reviewed by the Town Engineer. The developer will be fully responsible 'for providing a public sidewalk and drainage facilities adjacent to this parcel. Staff believes that these requirements fulfill the standards listed above. The Subdivision Regulations are further intended to serve the following specific purposes (17.040.010 (C)): 101. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required." The developer is fully aware of the requirements of the subdivision. 1'2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land." - Staff has evaluated the proposed rezoning and subdivision proposal relative to the surrounding properties. As previously discussed in this memo, the developments to the north of the site all exceed the proposed densities. Furthermore, staff has worked closely with the developer, the Fire Department, and the Public Works Department on the proposed site plan. The site plan_ will be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office as an exhibit to the Innsbrook Meadows plat. The site plan has been carefully designed to minimize conflicts with developments on adjacent land, to preserve the environmentally sensitive area in the center of the site, and to ensure that all future development will be in compliance with Town standards. 13 993. To protect and cor?serve the va{ue of land throughout the municipality and the value of buiidings and irnprovements on that land." Staff believes that future development, in accordance with the proposed site plan and plat, wiU not adverse{y affect the value of buiidings and improvements in the . surrounding area. , - 9'4. To ensure that subdivision of properties Is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable. re9ationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development ob)ectives." As discussed previousiy in this memo, the proposed rezoning and devetopment on the replatted lot will be in conformance with the proposed zone district of Low Density Multi-Family (LDMF). _ 995. To guide public and private policy and action in ordet to provide aaiequate and efficient transportation, water, sevvage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have su$ficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision:' Staff believes that the review by the Public Works Department has identified a91 issues ° such as transportation, water, sewage, etc. and that the existing infrastructure wilt be able accommodate the new development. The developer will be responsible for providing drainage improvements and sidewalk improvements on the perimeter of this site. These will tie in with existing improvements in the area ind Hriil be consistent w6th the work the Towrn has done in the Intermountaon neighborhood in :the recent past. 196. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of nevvly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirabie construction design stanc9ards arad procedures." The applicant will be requesting Single Family Subdivision review for each unit as at is constructed. Once the foundation has been poured, the applicant will be able to submit " a Single Family Sumdivision application for that site. Staff befieves~that using the Single Family Subdivision process, the land will be further subdivided in conforruiance with the Town standards. 7. To prevent the poltution of air, streams, ponds, and to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and rnanagement of natural resources throughout the municipality in.order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of the land." Staff believes that the environmentai assessment done for the central wetland area of the site adequately discusses the issues associated with that area. : The wetland area has been delineated and a buffer area has been added to further protect the green 14 space. A condition of approval of the rezoning is that the consultant who provided the environmental assessmerot return to the site in spring or summer to verify his estimates. Staff understands that during winter months, accurate wetland delineations cannot be done. If there is any change to his original estimates, the applicant will have . to return to the PEC with the site plan modifications. The verification must be done prior to any issuance of a building permit for this property. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATtON Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning and minor subdivision. The minor subdivision approval will be contingent on approval o#, the re2oning. We believe the proposed LDMF zoning is consistent with the rezoning criteria and subdivision criteria and will be compatible with the surrounding properties. Specificaiiy, staff believes that the requested zoning is suitable for the site given that it will be integrated into the neighborhood per the design of the site plan. We belive that the request provides for workable relationships with surrounding land uses and is consistent with municipal objectives. Specifically, it is consistent , with five different goals as well as the MDR land use designation of the Town's Land Use Plan. Finally, staff believes that the plat restrictions will insure that the development will contribute the viability of the community. The proposed subdivision meets all of the platting requirements of the Zoning Code as well as the purpose section of the subdivision section. Therefore staff recommends approval with the conditions that: (Please note that the conditions shown below in bold reflect the changes per the Planning and Environmental Commission.) 1. The developer shall submit the subdivision plat, site plan, and recording fees to the Town prior to issuance of any building permit for a structure on this property. The plat and site plan shall include the plat restrictions listed betow and all future development shall conform to these. a. All construction shall confortn to the standards listed below and shall compty with the building footprints shown on the attached site plan. b. There must be a minimum 15 foot separation between structures, induding all dedcs and cantilevered portions, but exduding eaves. Atter the construction of the ffrst structure and prior to any subsequent building permit applications, the applicant must provide survey information verifying the Ixation of previously buih structures to show that the 15 foot separation requirement shall be met given the constructlon of the proposed unit(s). c. The height limitation for the development on this parcel shall be lowered from the 38 feet allowed by LDMF zoning to 33 feet. d. All driveways to be constructed on this site shall not exceed 8% slope. e. GRFA, site coverage and height shall be allocated for the structures as follows: 15 Building Total GRFA Envelope It Qwalling Units CrodR GRFA Allowod Sita Cownge Fkight 1 2 450 sq. ft. 2,080 sq. ft. 2,530 sq. h. 1,800 sq. h. 33 ft. _ 2 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1.650 sq. ft. 1.400 sq. h. 33 h. 3 1 225 sq. R. 1.425 sq. ft. 1:650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. _ - 4 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. h. 1.400 sq. h. 33 h. 5 2 450 sq. ft. 1,680 sq. h. 2,130 sq. ft. 1,683 sq. ft. 33 ft. _ 6 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. h. 33 h. 7 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. h. 1,400 sq, ft. 33 (t. 8 2 450 sq. ft. 1.680 sq. ft. 2.130 sq. h. 1,683 sq. h. 33 ft. 9 ~ 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1.650 sq. ft. 1.400 sq. h. 33 h. 10 1 225 sq, ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq, ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 11 2 450 sq, h. 1,680 sq. h. 2,130 aq. ft. 1,683 sq. ft. 33 ft. 12 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. h. 33 ft. 13 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 14 2 450 sq. R. 1,680 sq. ft. 2,130 sq. h. 1,683 sq. n. 33 n. f. No fences shall be allowed on this property. g. Phasing - The applicam shail provide the employee housing units according toithe phases shown below. i. Prior to the issuance of a final CO or TCO for any of the first six structures consiructed in Inn.sbrook Meadows, the applicarn shall secure a final Certificate of Occupancy or Temporary Certificate ot Occupancy tor the first of three deed restricted employee housing uniLS. ii. Prior to requesting a finel CO or TCO for any of ihe seventh through tenth structures constructed in tnnsWook Meadows, the applicant shall secure a final CO a TCO for the second of thrae deed restricted EHU for the development. iii. Prior to requesting a finaF CO or TCO for any of the eleventh through fourteenth structures constructed in Innsbrook Meadows, the applicanfshall secure a final CO or TCO for the third of three deed restncted employee housing units. , 2. The developer shall have the Environmental Assessment updated and shall-- have any required amendment to the site plan presented to the PEC for their review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permit on this property. - • , , 4. The driveways serving Building Footprint #1 shall be modified to reduce the length by shifting 4he curb cut to the west. The Town Community Development staff and the Town Engineer must approye the change prior to any DRB hearing for any dwrelling unit on this property. ; 16 ! ~ I", I 4 ,i a. r~ ' ~ i v C'I PM ~ . s ~ r. . ~/i~9M'' +s' ;~f; ,{7 yE~• C ~ t ~ i 1 y., • ~f,~~it~ jw:' - : CHEnEY , lion Jan 94 10 : qg ' PAGE Z/ • Z ~ : . . : TO: Greq Amsden . ' . AndY I{.zudtsen . . : r;." . . . . FROM: Kap Cheney 2754 Basingdale Hlvd. , : . i; • ' , • 4.76-4935 - . - . I map not be able to attend the neighborhood meetinq this • evening, so-I wanted to convey my fee.lings on the groposed , development on the Pedotto prcperty. I have to say that I don't uaderstand the opposition which is beinq mounted to the development, since it seems to me to coavey a verp residential fsaling, ;ahich is what I think . most people in Intermountain are l:oping to have, insofar as it is possible with the condominium projects already in the neiqhborhood. . . I think it is a goo3 idea to b+iild single family homes, since.that is what fa.uilies in Vail vant now that we are . coming of age. The families that have lived here lonq ` enough have qrown fron renting apartmeats, to cwainq cendoniniums, than d•splexes and ultimately single familp ' homes. Regardless of ahet'r.er or not that is the best use -of our limite3 space, that is what peopla want. Buildirig the homes for sale, rather than rental, also adds to the residential qsality of the rroject. I thir.k the revised site plan appears to be an improvement aesthetically on the oricinal site plan. As I mer.tioned at the work sessioa in concern would re that a rezonir, December, my onlp so that the natura of the ce•~elopr~er,t~ceuldsnot balchanqedly~ ' once the ir,creased density Was approved. I'm sairy that I might not be able to attend the meetinq, since so often only-negative vcices are heard at these . meetinqs. If I can ge= away from my other appointnent ear2y enough, I will be there. ' ~ " ' . . . . . . . '..f.?^~'~'-~-. . _y' . . . . , . ~'K! ' ' I . - ~>"1~ r ~ . . , . • -,...~;w~ . . ~ . . . . . ' ' , ~an ~ ~,1~ ~ua r o.Q l ~i! a`~-•~,. . ' ' . .y' ~ . . " ' k.. . . , . _ .E~~ERIC~N _ • . 7C i~~~~ - BICI EX(:21gLNGz :i . . : , --~cw3o OJ~-~~ . : a"c~~~ . t~ . . ~0 U.d AC)c~-~ - ~ w . , . . ~ ~r~;U.v-~L.. ~ ~ 5~c:~c~ . ' ~ \VA. 1 V) ~ : 2~,~.~1 °:~~QV-l~ ~~-2• • - 31. . . , , ~ ~,)'S . ~ .2251IVa11 Street Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-1477 Qufside Colorado 1-800-327-1 - ...-41PrT r- 4- . . . . ~ :'N... ~ _~,'e•"':-- 4~.~r5''-.`''". . r . Plate 1. Willow-dominated stream that flows southeast to northwest across the property: Area of property on the lett side ofiphoto is non-forested. ~ Y~.. ~ ' ~`,r - • a ~ ~ . • - • ~.,Z~ ~ Y 1 Y ~..1 ~ AL• ~ i ` _ ~ ~l'~. - - v . / • f, +`c ~•t~ 'S t r," - .r - . . / ~•~t~~-.:~;~~ . ..r R•~: !C-. l:•: ~ . . / w}.~~~ • - ~~4M_. i . . . ~ - ,y':'`••'_+:tx:~~ ' ~ ~~j,. _ .i'_,n . .'r,„.:'-ti>S Plate 2. A small seep may be indicated by the presence of ~ cow parsnip and cow bain (center back-ground). sT f••'"t I :.J,;~'•~ ' ~t;~•~ ~ • ~ t-'t..'. i...:~.,::~~t~;'G..i'•1 ; • `to /-HEkITnGE C4l:LE',/i"ICjtI 30 -fiet Fa •s.•ea. tIOIYT cap (y T V.C4dlF ao LS. ~ fn ~ , V • ' C) ~1:: • ~NV 26 61,~ ' ~ ~ I. , ' ~ ~`n 63 •.bo, . ao. c414 • 0_C8-N86 • 36 ~ 1 "E T" .4754. . ' ~ ~`~7• 43 R•268 65 w31 ~ ~ ' . 2°~ ' 1 , r ~ ' • I ~ ~ ~ , _ • - ~ ~ ~ !.!s See c:Ok 5 uOqE Neu 4 a " t.~• . 0 /o-SL ~ - ! ~ 'o. t ' ~ ~ ` I i 60 S _ 64 - , 7 7 ~ 4 B C .i..~. `_r";~`.s.: t ~ n' / ~ ?I'}~- . ' ? ~ ~ 6 qQ:K. ~ ~ •e _ Q}-_ -~=~y1 ~ o' ~ ` - ~ ~ / ~ ~L.' ~ ~ 7 H _ 60 . tir-:. ~ r'"~ ~ ~ . _ ~11r\?: S • ~ . ~~~r,`"•:`~ ~ . . -M.H. RIM 57.60 ' ~ . a q. TO~w ~ ~ . 48.s8~-~:_ - . ~Jc~-•~ i'";' lt~r~: r 4~. ~ E~ . • . \ . ..1 ~.I . ' . . ~ : . . . - (SE •a~ . . . ~..:'1 ~ 1;~ : i`~ - • . ' • . . • ' • - - ` - . - . • ' l•I,•~ i.. i w~~ •~•r t~~~ \e`~~~~~'~•~••' ~ ' . ' i ~T"!'~i:' - ~ . ~~i ? ~ ~ " • . . - . . ' . ' . 1.. • ~ ; D t '1 r. 1 ~ , . . . • ' - - . . . . . } _ . . . , \ 1 . , ; . , . . . . . . . ti . . . . . ~ c.. . _ . . . ' i ..f.. " ~ f1•. j~•~ 'r , . . . . . ~ ~ 'Y`r. _ .u_".....e~.. . . . . •.~t•~~rl~~.. ~Ji. ~ ' `~h ..+i. • .`j. . . . . • • • . 1 I• ' . . • • . ..r " ~ ' . . ' ~ t. ' . . , ~ , . , t . 1• I t! ~ . ~ ~ , . . . . • . , . , . ' . , . ' ; ~ ~ ;;,I:; ~::4 ' ' . • • . ~ . ' • , ~ . . ~ ~ : . I.~~~~~IIF . ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ' • i. f~~i~ ~ ~ . . . . . . • . ~ ! . ~ 1: I ' !'1. ( ' • . f 1 y'•?'1. . . . „ . ~ _ ' ' ~ • . ; . ; . . ~,i .1' ~I.t G~ . . I:•i ~ • • ' ~I ; I..~ ~.lifl~ I ommonnummm • ~ r'~ ~----~r••~~` ~ ~ , . ~ - =•~=~•rr-~ ~ ~ J 1~ . % . . ? ~ \ . • ~ - ~ , • ~ _i ~ ~ _ ' ~ / ' i ~ , _ . ~ ~y~{ . if' • . . r ~ _ si . -~~--,3 ~t} ----~___.~_~~`dr•--J.e..~'C:~ --s_' .L.s~.er~' ~ ` ;I1 - ~~x.r.._~ ~ _ ~.1' .ts'"~c..: ~ ~i •1.l~.~ _ ' J , ~G~~ ~L~;f"~-~L_~r-s= ~ i~~ , .~~~_-T. ~ / J _ . _~~~2 ~ ~ ~ Y • d ¢e '~'_:r _ = - ~ . ra. ' ~ s: I ~ ~ ~ . ; . r~t-~ _ ~ _ - ~ _'.1'~- _ ' ~ ~ , , ` • • - . ' ' • ~ . • r , ' , l.i.... . ~ ~ ~ ' . 1 ~ ~ , ~ . wr• ~ ~ ~ .s"~ ~ • ~ ~ . • . J~~M •NV ~ ~ ' . , ~ : • r • ~ :U 5~~;~GY- ~"~.~~i.iS , • , • v. rl~r-~. • Z ~1 ' . ' = r I ~y * ~ . . . • ~ri . ~ . . .~~~1~. . _aA:,.i,.ly~. ' ~ • . • . . . ~ il.~ ' ~ • r . . • , i!- . • . , ~~,ri ~ ~ , , ' • . • ' , , . . . . . . . :,r.~i • . , ~ . . ~ • ~ ~ . , . . ~ . . . ' . ' . . . , ' ~ ! r '~1. . , , . . ~ ' j'~ • . ~ . • ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; r~ : . . . • ~ . . . . . , , • . • ` :F'',' i . . . . ! •tl • . . . , , ' • • . . I . , ; . t • ~ . • . , . : • . • : . , . , ~ . • ~ • 1 ~ ~ ' . ' . • ~ . , • ` • ,'Y~ „ ' / \ ~ . . , . , . . . , ~ ~ . . F . . ~ , _ • . . . . r.~ ~ . . . , , ~ i • ~ ~ ' , t ~ ' . . . ~ . . ' . . . .~i .4'i r,'~ . . . . ' ~ , . . . ~ ' , • . • . . ~ ~ . . ; ~:1; . . ; . . . . . . . . . . • ~ \ • , ~.t~ ~ _ ~ _ ~ _ ~ -~~~•_~-T _ _ t -~i = _ _ _ ~ ' . . . - _ ~ I ~ ~ . -R~ • •1 _ _ T---~~ . _ _ i LI ~~r~ _ - ~ ~y ~ ~~:.t._ ~1~ ` _ e, ~i~!~? ~~~;.y, ~ - _ ' 2 ' • _ _ - e - • ~ ' (a~°15 ' ~ 7 , I ii' c~, • r^:~ . i - I.~.~ ~ . • I;' . l"` ' ~ _ ~ ' _ I RS _ ~ ! - - • - . • . . • " • . _ . ; • ` ~ • ' f , ~ - . . . • , • • • ~ ~ . r.: r:~... . L~lj • • . wt• ' t . ~ ~ ~ M ~ • • ~ ~ • . • • T , , ~ . . • + V• . f^~~.~~.~"~• , . ' Z.~1 4.l_ • , i~ ; 'y , ~ ' ~ ' ~ , ' ~ 1 ~ 1~~Iu~~y,~~1t1~4~~ ° -,j i . f,,``. , . . , ' . • •r / .d ~.t''. . . , . , , . . . _ ~~1,.. ~ ' . . . . _ . , • , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ , ' , ~ ~ , ~ • . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . PLAT OF SURVEY • ' OF A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATEO IN THE SOUTHWEST 1J4 OF SECTION 14,TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH,RANGE 81 WEST OF THE 6TH *PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAQLE COUNTY,COLORADO • . . . ...v~..,.. ~ . . • ' = M.«I.H 1•r 1~ ~r ,wlN~y~ F~r~.~ 1 M~tlw ii ~~w~ ' rwm 1. ~r ~uN H f~l•~w ' ~ ~~~~~M • M~~InIw1yY ;1 ~1 ~l~ ~~I~IMI ~ ~ 1 y~'1~ ~IM ~ ~MI~'~~a Iti M~M~N 1/~ \Y / ~ 1~~ ~ . . ~s:. ::..;~r ~t.~~~: ~:;~W.";:..:~.~.....r.::..~~ W ' ~ r~~i ~ ~ ~ I~i, w~~~~ ww ~ NM~ ~ ~~W~~li~r~~~~~ MI~~1 ~ti 17r- ± • ~ ;YI'~Y ~M NM'I~M • . ~ 1~ I~t~ ~1 • • ti~l ~1~1).~~I~~i MNI IM~~~ Y:~~~~ F~i~M~~IY~. ,Y Iwy. il~ : w~. M ~ i.r.~o.~. I~~~~i ~ • ~ ' : . .i..~.: ~ »«w. w~ f.TRy ~RK+r • _ _ _ - • ;,_T; ~ . I • ~rl~ w~~' ~.~r~~~ N : ~t . - ~ ~w I~.i~1~,' r~ ;i.li 1~~1 ~1'w ibwr~~1 • . . • ~~~~w~~~~r ~i t~~ !1 ~1~ ~ Iy MI~ 11 ~~rw ~ • ~~i 4~irI1.1~~~Iltir~ ~w~~ 1~ . ~ - ~ :;.:,:..~i~...~=-~...~... • , l ' • I ~ ~Ih~~~ IZ w•.r• . /I'M,I~~~1' = wlr2 M~1~ ~ ~ ~ ii i:~.'.. ~ ~ ~ 11 I~~w ~1 ~w W~. It~.~~ 1~~~ F/ Y~ / ~~L~ ~ ~ . . ?~~IY I~w ~.4. l. M~~1 1~~ ~w~~ .I ~I Me~lw 11~ YY • • l~ ~ `-y ~i• ~ • _r. ~ ~ 1~ ~ i~ ~4~IM.~4 ~ swr,~ilrtM • 1 ! . ~ • •J~ / / l~A ~ ~i.~ •y~ ' 1~ rM~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~r~.. . r~~ ~ ~ • • ~ ~ ' y W M T . ft •~i. ~71~ ~ ' • . ~e~fiX ~On`~~ waa w .a.tin~r_r W rL.w.., b v.l[w~.y ' . s ~ i l • ~ ~ . . ~ . . : 'li.""r'~.va ~w.++r ~w.... w~~u~rri+l~ f~..aa,~ . ....4~ "~r7 IR4L • . ~ ~ ~ ~ ' 1 , B G:K 0 ~ , • , , :1 , ~ ` ~ ~f ' ' r . j . vs w*e~M:a?.-r~r: : i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` r 1 ~ ~ . ~ ria. .ti~ ~ s ~~pao ~ .~a• ~ ~ wN ~I~ ` j Lko~~rlu. Ya~°°"l~:%O M / ~i~ . _ _ r...v, • + , ~ K ~c: ,py, ~ ~ L i .ti IF ~ • N 1?~~ ~ ~ w. .wwq - ' ~ V~ ~ \ ~ ' ) _ ^ Z ~ ~ ~ . / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Ix7ati'_`• ~ ~ . LRF ' ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ / ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ _ - ,1 1 I ~ ~ ~ r`~ ~1 ~f ~ ~ , ~d ~ ' ' ~ 1 ~ L} ( / x / BLCCI( 7 o . . .J ~ ~'l • ` ' • DEV Fi~i ~ c .i ~ ~ ~ ~ -t' ' ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ' - \ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~j/ i~ . ~ 1 ~sfi . w~~i~iw' u W~: ; ~ _ p -l~//r~ • • ' . ~1E~~' 7 ' J~..:^.="' - ' / H~ , ~ / ^•r w~~~~ • . ~r~nru~r.~ ' INr. ~rtr wwt r~ . - tt~tMG . w,~. r4~ ~wr~w wrs ' WESTofU7iF CQN7CWiti'JM ` • ltir'j 7i/5N f,0.'I'JMIM:1M3+ ~ 0 V~h ~tG4~Wif~l 4 Y• 1` r f1~~1~~~/ ~~U F~1/ 1~~ ti M?T [Ylrl + ~ lY1J ~J~ Y-1w,rf~Y/1 O tir rw e:.ocK a . . . • . . VaL WtiaUCkN1LN . GEt'Ft.7.'?L"R ' O ~~rr ' ' ~ IMfL tPiTU~ t.~MNR~ ' V ww Y~ +1 Tr 00~ t.s • ti~ /r . ' ~I \t~YfY,I 1~•~ •I~Itf' ~ N»~ ~~~I' W ~~~'t~'~I ~~N ~~v~~~/~IF.~ Iw~fwwR[or~1 • N ~Y IN~~ MM IMM1 ~ ~r~rvti r? • ~~Y~Y'~ r~/ ~~l~1iR~~ trY~ MIw~ Y~wI1M r1yW ~ Iy ~I ~ vN~ ~t1 ~J~r Iw W ~Y SIM M `M~~Yw A~~ ~ MM ~A . 11~M ~ 11~~~ ~I~w~ r~M. 1~ • ~ ~r p~ • 116! - 1GLt.,.t'S7L, alon. .e. LUCIL.oncc, b. aitc ~a • • . . • , ' IM.. ~iq! fM~l~11 . - ~ ~ DAMES & MOORE 1125 SEVENTEENTH STREET, SUITE 1200, DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2027 (303) 294-9100 FAX: (303) 299-7901 January 21, 1994 . Community Development Town of Vail • 75 S. Frontage Road , Vail, CO 81657 , Attn: Mr. Andrew Knutdsen File: 02442-050 Re: VJedand Analysis - Pedotto Property West Vail Dear Mr. Knudtsen: -The above-referenced property was inspected on .January 19, 1994, to determine whether wetlands occur on the site. This inspection was conducted with Greg Amsden of Christopher Denton Real Estate and Russell Forest, Town of Vail staff. This analysis must be considered preliminary because of snow, which covered most understory vegetation. Therefore, shrubs and trees were used to indicate potential wetland areas, along with site hydrology along a stream. The results of the field inspection are provided in the attached letter report. ' Please-contact me at 1-299-7836 if you have questions on the information providedl herein. Sincerel , , - D MOORE . ren . Hettin (,,PPhhDD Seruor Ecolo s Enclosure cc: Greg Amsden ; LKx:mcm p:lvail\pedotso\4t01 OFFICES WORLDWIDE 10. Approval of the minor subdivision shall be contingent on approval of the rezoning. c:lpecvnemosyedouc.ao, 18 5. The existing aspens located to the west of the green space area in the center of the site shall be transplanted or replaced on a 1:1 ratio based on the caliper of the existing trees. For example, and eight inch caliper tree would have to be ,replaced with iwo 4 inch caliper trees. Staff believes this is reasonak>le since larger trees do not transplant well according to the Town's Landscape Architect. 6. Staff may approve up to 10 foot shifts in building footprint tocatuon from - those shown on the plan approved by the Planning and Envirornmental . Commission on February 28, 1994 as long as the 15 foot separa4ion between the units is maintained. 7. The applicant shall provide a rninimum garage area within each structure of 480 square feet. , 8. The applicant shall amend the site plan and subdivision plat according to the Public Works and Fire Department comments listed below. These changes shall be done prior to any DRB hearing for any dwelling unit on this site. Fire Department A. The fire access easement on the southwest corner of the site must be defined and then recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder prior to DRB approval of any dwelling unit if a common access on the southwest corner of the site is provided. The easement must be posted in field with "No Parking" signs. Staff will allow the site plan reviewred by the PEC on February 28, 1994 or the site plan revised on April 11, 1994 , to be constructed. B. All driveway surfaces must be "all weather driving surfaces." C. Hydrants must be installed according to Town of Vail standards. Public Works A. Detailed regrading and landscape plans for the sidewalk and right-of- way area must be provided prior to a DRB hearing for any dwielling units. The Town Engineer is requiring a hard surface sidewallc, curb, ' gutter, storm sewer, inlets, engineering drawings and/or gradirrg plans to be provided by the developer. B. Easements must be dedicated for the sidewalks, drainage, utilities, road side ditches, streetlighis, etc. prior to a DRB hearing for any dwelling unit. 9. Ei$her site plan, the one reviewed by the PEC on February 28, 1994 or the one reviewed by the PEC on April 11, 1994 may be constructed by the applicant - . 17 i.ti P,:~~ • • . ~ -i,~ . • : • • CharIcs Overy 2833 Kinnicl:innick #3 ~ . . VaiI, Coiondo 81657 L (303) 479-9I33 ~C(3 C . "r , . . . ~ Sun, D'ec 19, 1993 l" • To The Planning and Environmental Commission, Town of Vaif, ~ [ must fodge, in the strongest possible terms, my protest to your convening a planntng ~(=~S and zoning worksession regarding the rezoning of the "Pedotto parcel" in . Intermountain during whai is certainly one of the Valley's most busy periods. ( received your notice for an initial meeting on the 13th of December and.was able to : take tims to atfend. [ spent ons and. one half hours waiting for ttie "request for worksession" on the 2850 Kinnickinnick parcel to come on to the agenda. After the first item of the agenda had not been finished, it was evident that the meeting was going to progress slow(y. ( had not planneci to spending the entire afternoon at the meeting and had to leave. In addition, I was frustrated by the fact that I couid not find anyone in the front office of the building who knew what a"request for worksession" ,-was. (f the request was a minor proceduraf matter, might ii not, more democraiically, . have been disposed off at the beginning of the meeting? ff "a request for worksession ~ is a scheduling matter should it not be statedlas such. !n addition, I have not received - ~ a mailed notice of the meeting on 20th December although i;was on your list to receive ' a notice about the in;tial meeting. ; ! am unabie to attend the meefing on Monday the 20th as I have had prior work commitments for over 4 months: I am very interes?ed in the proposal as ! live at 2833 Kinnickinn;ck m3 and my residence looks out across Kinnickinnick road at the property in*question. . . ~I am not unfavorabiy disposed to the devefopment of the Pedotto parcel as I believe ` that suitabfe development of a significant portion of this land will impcove the_ . Inte:mouniian neighborhood. Furthermore, I am very encouraged by the open . discourse fhat your department nurtures regarding all of Vaii's planning questions. I do not feel that I have adequate information regarding this development and, at this . _ time, I am opposed to the plan as. outlined in your memorandum of Dec. 13. I feel that the timing of your_worksession on this property is most inappropriate. The ~ - neighborhood in question is certain(y a"working" neighborhood and most residents =wil! be very inconvenienced by this meeting if, indeed, they are ab(e to attend at all. : , Shou(d there be any question that the submittal or scheduling of this worksession has, in any way been atfected by the above concerns i wiii tuliy pursve my legal aliernatives. In addition, I.wil( become vociferous and obstreperous in my opposition . : to the applicants proposal: • . , . . . ~ - MAnX~OKUBbSt.~S'7C7ATES i;,~ ' ' • CCkST~Ih.'?IO~ . , . : cc::sLZT •,~.r.:~. ARCHI'TECIUIIE _ Dcccmber 20, 1993 • • : . , . , . -14 . . . . - . , - . . , . . . . . • . : • . - 71e City of Vail Planning Dep~ztment; ' ' . . . Vail, Colorado ~ ; . • . , , . . , : . • A'I'N:. Andy KnudtSea • 12F.: 2.9,50 KiniuckinriicL Road Zori.ing ~ ' • a : 1 • . , Dcar i4r. I{uudtscii; . • c , ~ , Yurs~.~ant to nur recerit discussions,'1 wYSh'to furmally outline sny objections regarding the Pedofto Parcel deve!op:17enr plans, ~as currently pLNtenled. lba incieasa in dansiiy on the proacrt}; couplcd i~-ith thc, significant amount of hard .urface ' areas, wi11 result in an ircreased run-off. A p:eliminary invesubation revealS a great clcal otth:s run-off:has po'teiitial ~;o charnel itse;f into the adjacenC parcel at the cxist::lg Vail Swim and Terir:is Club cntiance. lnis incrzaccd nin•off ?vi?1 not o:ily cause problenis . associated witli the entrance; but it wi;i have a n.,Qaliti•e i*npact,on the site drair!agE: on the ~ structuresimnediatety adjacer.t to Kinuickirnick Roaa, ' ; • . . i _ ' • • • . i - Tt:e second "concern which ".~c have;regarding the increased de1uity a:ad the propose;d plan, zelates to the architectural de;ion which 'sbeinQ propostd. We highly recommend iital the' deveIoper soften the yzry hard lines ofhis prajcct;through the utilizatiun of per'nictr.r earth . beiming, and a gene;ous in~t~~lation of ~onif~rs and decidtious trees to soften tt;t: visual lIrip3Ct. ~ ~ . . ; , . . . I tiNZSh to adv~;e you that i am not in objection to the. developer's proposed project. • - However, in the best:ir,tzrzst oi the image oi de~eloprient in thr tawn of Vail, tlie above : items nee.d to be 4-dc3res.ced by the;developer. • " • , 111L Cl • . ; i : ; : . ' ' , ~ . , . i J es ar.r, A.I.A . I - - . t ~ . NQR7HWESM-nCE C.t1.Tcr'tU4lA C`FFiCE sot j-LM''cST OFPICE tP - ^J _E1Ji7 . CCRA7!NTE ?r'flC . ~7RFET.SL;TEIC7 150 M-LrvIIrJNQkJE..5.1;"L•14: 9tOT,tSt7557: 1e~trxyw!,CU[".iAt11rf ' ~en1*1L-raA54Wciv4 s61c+i CJ.fif.1:.IESA.Ck1IFC.JL'.L1S2e:5 . FiOL'STt)N + , .1)6-6.1•.122 ' , .~XA: i7JC. D-71'EIL COLMAM Ma • 7:4•.1 . . . ~•Ei2J ; 2[K.6:1.9;ti1 ;F.~~ . . . 713•L•iO~rtT2 • 3C3•3S1.C7CG _ - . ; , t.s..~s•:at~ ~rN;1 713.732 ra?x • . . t 1 .~c!•Sa~-~s~s cF47 . , ! . . , . . wS 4.1 • 9 ~F ~tr.uc ~ ~ April 19, 1994 Town Council The Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, Co 81657 RE: Pedotto Parcel Rezoning The Pedotto parcel is being presented for your review and approval for rezoning. The proposal shows 14 buildings They are being presented as affordable housing for young families at approximately $315,000 for each home; but we feel that this is somewhat out of the range of most young families and that, in fact, these homes will become second homes. As a result we will have additional non-resident owners. While we do not object to non-resident owners, we would like to see InterMountain remain the last bastion of local ownership in the Vail Valley. At this time the majority of the people who live in InterMountain are local and we feel that retaining primary/secondary zoning will maintain this permanent resident nature of this neighborhood. Although the present zoning allows for six primary/secondary duplexes on 6 15,000 sq. ft. lots; we feel that the size of these buildings would be more in keeping with the surrounding area which consists of townhomes and condominiums than 14 small alpine buildings that do not fit into the architecture of the neighborhood. As residents of InterMountain we would like to ask that you deny this request for rezoning. We are very much aware that this area will be developed and we have tried to give our input. It is of utmost concern to the residents of this neighborhood that a formal traffic study be undertaken to actually know the amount of traffic that is evident in this area. Seven road cuts off of Kinnikinnick, which presently has an exceptional amount of traffic seems to only add to the danger of negotiating the streets in InterMountain. With all due respect, Residents of Vail/InterMountain . . PETITION TO TOWN COUNCIL We, the undersigned residents of InterMountain Subdivision, request that the members of the Va Town Council leave the zoni.ng on the Pedotto Site at Primary/Secondary, rather than approving upzoning c this parcel and the proposed subdivision, to Low Density Multi-Family; NAME MAILING ADDRESS PHYSICAL ADDRESS FTELEPHONE # l~ ~cG~l G"GG~ L`C~ !z& ge~S 80 ! 5-,.4)47 les,we 76 - z92 - ~ .a. ` <<. . r ~ ~ G -1 x G.~ ~AA ~ :L~:<~ , 1~0 ;~~u /6 ~ ~ l ~v~l 2~ ; s•~; ~ ~l ~ ~ S ~f r j~,i i:I/~ i ~ ~ .•.r ~ ~ ~ i ?`i-!, ~ i Y'~ ~/~~;,r~"•~t~L~-( l~!a~(.. =~~-t!~_ ~ T f ~ ~ ~~~~~5 ` l 1 i ~ ~ ~ ! r ~ ~ ~ ' = ! ~ ~s ~ ( ~iv'f(, , ~ i ; /~i ~ y;'~.: ~ % ; - ~6-~~D ' . PETITION TO TOWN COUNCIL , We, the undersigned residents of InterMountain Subdivision, request that the members of tlie Vail Town Council leave the zoning on the Pedotto Site at Primary/Secondary, rather than approving upzoning of this pazcel and the proposed subdivision, to Low Density Multi-Family: NAM~ MAILING ADDRESS PHYSICAL ADDRESS TELEPHONE # ZZ- 7 ~(74 - 7 ' /S7r 74 - ~ 3 3 ~ 3s~~ c1a l ' ' ~~41,& 2S2 ~ 6WrrV6 A~ l sAAA.4 76 . M f" --,1-71 ~&t` n 6-6- 1C, ; ~ ~ ; . ~ , ~ r PETITION TO TOWIV COUNCIL We, the undersigned residents of InterMountain Subdivision, request that the members of the Vai] Town Council leave the zoning on the Pedotto Site at Primary/Secondary, rather than approving upzoning oi this parcel and the proposed subdivision, to Low Density Multi-Family: NAME MAILING ADDRESS PHYSICAL ADDRESS TELEPHOIVE # ;='14-3 <INNi~~'>.~ C-1 .~o V1~ t~,A vVcjc ~'~GYl.~Y1 ~ . . iCa ~t?~i/~cC-IC+v~ (0 " b _17)M CC01--__ NN f GK.% 1~_ -A on"C';?~n~QC- 0, 3o x.',,L 3 V t; Io - i 1 ~Pe ~ c 3/ 1,~ .~r ~~o? ; % Z- , ° L !AKQi"LE t-'rd d c rI fle~~ ~ Y''Y& Pt_ C/ h/C rC ~ )N3 , T MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: Aprii 19, 1994 SUBJECT: Appeal of Design Review Board approval of the Kempf demo/rebuild , duplex with Type II EHU and two 250 GRFA additions located at 1358 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 21, Block 3, Vail Valley 1 st Filing. , Applicant: Chris Kempf Appellant: Dr. and Mrs. Kochman Planner: Randy Stouder On February 14, 1994, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approved the applicant's application for a conditional use permit to allow a Type II employee housing unit on the property described above. Dalton Williams made the motion for approval with a directive to the Design Review Board (DRB) to carefully review the architecture of this project to ensure that it would be harmonious with the character of the Town of Vail. Jeff Bowen seconded the motion and a vote of 7-0 approved the request for the conditional use permit. The DRB first reviewed the Kempf's application as a conceptual item in January of 1994. On March 16, 1994, the DRB considered the applicant's redevelopment proposal. Sally Brainerd stepped down from the DRB stating that she was representing the Kochmans who are the adjacent property owners on the east side of the subject property. At that meeting, Rohn Robbins, attorney for the Kochmans, was also present. The two main topics of discussion at the meeting were the general architectural design and the concerns of the Kochmans regarding impacts to their views of the Gore Range. Rohn Robbins and Sally Brainerd presented several options to modify the proposed duplex and site plan so that the Kochmans' views would be partially restored. Mike Arnett, Chairman of the DRB, stated that the purpose of the DRB was to enforce the Design Review Guidelines and that it was not within their purview to protect views for adjacent properties. The discussion then turned to the architecture of the proposed duplex. The DRB was split on opinions regarding the architecture of the project with two members in support of the application and two members voicing concerns about the basic architectural compatibility with the surrounding community as well as the relationships to different architectural features on the house to each other. A motion was made to approve the application as submitted with a change to the stone work on the first floor. The change being that large granite panels would ~ be replaced by, smaller limestone panels. The motion was seconded and a vote was taken. The vote was split 2-2. Thus, the motion failed and the application was denied. 1 T The applicant.resubmitted an application to the DRB for a hearing on April 6, 1994. At the April 6th DRB meeting, both the Kempfs and the Kochmans had legal counsel present and Sally Brainerd once again stepped down from the Board as she was representing the Kochmans' interests. The topics of discussion at this meeting were the same as at the first DRB meeting. The two basic issues were the impacts to the Kochmans' views of the Gore Range and the basic architectural style or concept of the duplex. The applicant's architect, Bill Pierce, after hearing the concerns of the DRB members that had previously been in opposition to the application, suggested several changes. The changes were as follows: 1. The retaining wall adjacent to the primary unit's garage would be stepped to reduce its height to meet Code. , 2. The stone on the first level of both the primary and secondary units woufd be changed to a Colorado moss rock with a sandstone cap. 3. Deck railings would be changed to 1/2 inch diameter vertical round steel tubing on 4 inch centers. The members that had previously been in opposition to the application were satisfied with the changes made by the applicant. They felt the roof form and the stone work were more compatible with the moss rock. Bob Borne made a motion to approve the Kempf application with the three changes noted above as conditions of approval, along with a fourth condition that required Chris Kempf, or his representative, to return to the DRB at their next meeting and report on any progress made as far as negotiations between the Kochmans and the Kempfs regarding the view issue. Bob clarified the fourth condition stating that he was not requiring a compromise to be reached, but he was hoping that both parties might be able to come to some sort of agreement outside of the purview of the DRB. This condition to report back to the DRB would have nothing to do with the actual approval. There was no requirement that a compromise be achieved between the two parties for the approval to be valid. Hans Woldrich seconded the motion and a vote of 4-0 approved the motion with Sally Brainerd abstaining. On April 8, 1994, the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail received a letter from Rohn Robbins representing the. Kochmans. This letter is attached to the packet along with the PEC memo and minutes from the approval of the conditional use permit. The letter received from Rohn Robbins on April 8th asks ttiat the Town Council review the Kempf redevelopment proposal. The Kochmans are within their right to call up this item as adjacent property owners. Please note, pertinent sections of the Design Review Guidelines have been attached for the Council's convenience. 2 ' LAW OFFICES DUNN, ABPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JOHN W. DUNN VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING TELEPHONE: ARTHUR A. ABPLANALP, JR. ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN SUITE 300 (303) 476-0300 DIANE L. HERMAN 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST TELECOPIER: ROHN K. ROBBINS (303) 476-4763 . VAIL, COLORADO 81657 SPECIAL COUNSEL: JERRY W.HANNAH . April 7, 1994 , Bill Pierce Fritzlen Pierce Briner 1000 Lions Ridge Loop Vail, CO 81657 Rick Rosen, Esq. ,4 Wear, Rosen & Travers 1000 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 Tp4,1 Chris & Karen Kempf 1J~PT. 1358 Vail Valley Drive -Vail, CO 81657 Re: 1358 Vail Valley Drive/Kempf-Kochman Matter Dear Sirs and Madam: In furtherance of the Vail Design Review Board's "strong recommendation" that the parties to this dispute cooperate in order to attempt to come to a mutually satisfactory resolution, I invite you to contact me at your the earliest opportunity so that we may discuss the various alternatives. I am prepared to meet with one, several or all of you at your convenience. Sincerely, DUNN, ABPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C. ~ Rohn K. Robbins RKR:rr cc: Dr. & Mrs. Kochman : Randy Stouder, CDD : Members of the Design Review Board (in multiple copy) LAW OFFICES ? DUNN, ABPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JOHN W. DUNN VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING TELEPHONE: ARTHUR A. ABPLANALP, JR. ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN SUITE 300 13031 476•0300 , DIANE L. HERMAN 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST TELECOPIER: ROHN K. ROBBINS " (303) 476-4765 VAIL, COI.ORADO 81 657 SPECIAL COUNSEL: JERRY W. HANNAH q. f i t>t~ ~ '4~? „ April 7, 1994 ~vltitiV/, DEV Dr~~ , = 1, Town Council of the Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 - Re: Kempf - New Duplex and two 250 requests for demo/rebuild of duplex with EHU.RS - 1358 Vail Valley Drive/ Lot 21, Block 3, Vail Valley lst Filing. This office represents Dr. Marvin and Mrs. Roz Kochman in association with their opposition to the above application by Mr. Chris and Mrs. Karen Kempf. Dr. and Mrs. Kochman are the immediately adjacent property owners to the west of the Kempf property. As you may or may not know, the Kempf application,. after failing to pass DRB scrutiny on March 23, 1994, received the board's qualified sanction at its following meeting.on April 6th. While we speak specifically for Dr. and Mrs. Kochman, we believe we speak too as the voice o.f the East Village community and on behalf of the general welfare in voicing objection to the application as proposed. While Dr. and Mrs. Kochman concede that the proposed redevelopment is generally within applicable zoning ordinances, they object to.the project upon two general grounds. First, the Kochman's protest that the Kempf project, as designed, entirely obliterates the Kochman's spectacular eastern view to the Gore Range. The Kochman's have no secondary view. While their protest is based in part upon aesthetics and their enjoyment of their home, they object too upon the grounds that the redevelopment, if it is permitted to go forward in its present state, will substantially reduce the value of the Kochman home. In attempting to ameliorate the detrimental effects of the proposed redevelopment, the Kochmans have communicated to the Kempfs through their representatives that the Kochmans would be 1 ' willing to pay for the costs of modifying the Kempf proposal such that at least part of the view would be preserved. Specifically, the Kochmans have proposed that the Kempf redevelopment be moved three feet to the south of its present proposed configuration, that the roof height be uniformly lowered one foot and that the northwest roof line be slightly modified. It is our understanding through discussions with both the Kochmans's architectural consultant as well as Kempf's that the proposals detailed above would not significantly effect the living space within the proposed redevelopment. Further, the modifications would cost the Kempfs nothing in that the Kochman's have offered to pay for the costs of architectural redesign. The second grounds upon which the Kochmans based their objection is more general to the community. Simply stated, the proposed duplex is ugly, massive and in no way keeping with the preexisting character of the East Vail community. The two main buildings are barn-like in appearance with towering gambrel roofs and are connected by an "institutional," modernistic structure that in form is in conflict with the rustic, barn-like structures to which it runs. It is the Kochman's opinion that the Kempf redevelopment, if permitted to go forward, will compromise the architectural integrity of the community and will negatively impact the value of the immediately adjacent and near properties. In light of the forgoing, Dr. and Mrs. Kochman respectfully request that consideration of the Kempf redevelopment be brought before full session of the Council for its consideration and deliberation. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, DUNN, ABPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C. Rohn K. Robbins RKR:rr cc: Dr. & Mrs. Kochman Randy Stouder, CDD 2 y , DESIGN REVIEW J Chapter 18.54 , j DESIGN REVIEW Sections: 18.54.010 Intent. 18.54.015 Definitions and rules of construction. . 18.54.020 Board organization. 18.54.030 Design approval. 18.54.040 Material to be submitted/procedures. 18.54.050 Design guidelines. 18.54.051 Park design guidelines. 18.54.060 Design review fee. 18.54.070 Performance bond. 18.54.080 Administrative policies. 18.54.090 Appeal to town council. 18.54.100 Enforcement. 18.54.110 Lapse of.design review approval. 18.54.010 Intent. Vail is a town with a unique natural setting, internationally known for its natural beauty, alpine environment, and the compatibility of man-made structures with the environment. These characteristics have caused a significant number of visitors to come to Vail with many visitors eventually becoming perma- ~nent residents participating in community life. These factors constitute an important economic base for the town, both for those who earn their living here and for those who view the town as a precious physical possession. The town council , finds that new development and redevelopment can have a substantial impact on the character of an area in which it is located. Some'harmful effects of one land use upon another can be prevented through zoning, subdivision controls, and building codes. Other aspects of development are more subtle and less amenable to exact rules put into operation without regard to specific development proposals. Among these are the general , j form of the land before and after development, the spatial - - 445 (vail 12-23-86) ZONING ~ . . ' relationships of structures and open spaces to land uses within the vicinity and the town, and the appearance of buildings and open spaces as they contribute to the area as it is being developed and redeveloped. In order to provide for the timely exercise of judgment in the public interest in the evaluation of the design of new development and redevelopment, the town council has /created a design review board (DRB) and design criteria. Therefore, in order to preserve the natural beauty of the town and its setting, to protect the welfare of the community, to maintain the values created in the community, to protect and , enhance land and property, for the promotion of health, safety, and general welfare in the community, and to attain the objectives set out in this section; the improvement or alteration of open space, exterior design of all new development, and all modifi- cations to existing development shall be subject to design review as specified in this chapter. ' It is the intent of these guidelines to leave as much design freedom as possible to the individual designer while at the same time maintaining the remarkable natural beauty of the area by creating structures which are designed to complement both their individual sites and surroundings. The objectives of design review shall be as follows: A. To recognize the interdependence of the public welfare and j aesthetics, and to provide a method by which this inter- dependence may continue to benefit its citizens and visitors; B. To allow for the development of public and private property which is in harmony with the desired character of the town as defined by the guidelines herein provided; C. To prevent the unnecessary destruction or blighting of the natural landscape; - D. To ensure that the architectural design, location, configura- tion materials, colors, and overall treatment of built-up and open spaces have been designed so that they relate harmo- niously to the natural landforms and native vegetation, the ' town's overall appearance, with surrounding development and with officially approved plans or guidelines, if any, for the areas in which the structures are proposed to be located. E. To protect neighboring property owners and users by making sure that reasonable provision has been made for such (Vai112-23-8b) 446 , . DESIGN REVIEW matters as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, the preservation of light , and air, and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. `(Ord. 39 (1983) § 1.) 18.54.015 De itions and rules of construction. Any words, rms, or phrases .used in this des' n review guide shall be defined a d interpreted in accordance w' the definitions contained in Secti n 18.04 of the Vail Municip Code, unless the context clearly indi ates a different meaning as intended. If the context is unclear, t matter will be referre o the design review board for final deter 'nation. The distinction ma between those ' ms contained within this chapter that are man tory and thos hat are discretionary is . that statements which ar andatory e prefaced by the word ~ - shall, and the statements or uidelines ich are discretionary (or merely suggestions) are pref ed by e words should or moy. In all instances, any particular o pec' ic controls over the general. (Ord. 39 (1983) § 1.) 18.54.020 Board organization A. There is established a desi revie board (DRB) of the Town of Vail. The DRB sYrall e compos of five members. Four members shall be resid ts of the To of Vail appointed by the town council and e fifth membe hall be a member of the planning and env' onmental commis 'on of the town. The design review boar hall remain a seven mber board until February 1984. A r that time, the board 'll become a five member board. B. The terms of off e for the four members at lar shall be two years on an ov apping basis and shall expire o February 1 of the year of rmination. The term of office for t planning and enviro ental commission member shal e three . months. • C. A vacancy n the design review board shall occur whe ver a member the board is removed by the town council, dies, : 447 (vaii 11-15-83) : DESIGN REVIEW e. The plicant or his authori zed re resentative shall be pre nt at the design review b rd meeting. 3. Staff appr al. The zoning admi ' trator may approve any of the fo owing application a. Any appli tion to an exist' g building that does not significantl hange the e' ting planes of the building and is gene ly consi ent with the architectural , design, maten s and c ors of the building, including, but not limite to ndows, skylights, siding, andi other similar m if ations; b. An application fo n addition to an existing building that is consisten 'th the architectural design, mate- rials and colors th building, and approval has been received by an utho ed member of a condominium association, ' applica e. c. An applica on to re ve or modify the existing vegetation r Iandscapin upon a site. In th above-specifie cases, the zoning admin- istrator ay review and prove the application, appro the application wi certain modifications, or m refer any applicatio to the design review . boa for decision. All other pplications shall be ref red to the design review board. (Ord. 12(1988) § 1: Ord. 39(1983) § 1.) 18.54.050 Design guidelines. , Actions of the design review board shall be guided by the objectives prescribed in Section 18.54.010, the Vail Village and ' Vail Lionshead Urban Design Considerations and Guide Plans, ; by all of the applicable ordinances of the Town of Vail, and by the ' following design guidelines: ` A. General. 1. Structures shall be compatible with existing structures, their surroundings, and with Vail's environment. It is not . to be inferred that buildings must look alike to be . compatible. Compatibility can be achieved through the proper consideration of scale, proportions, site planning, . landscaping, materials and colors, and compliance with the guidelines herein contained. : . . , . 454c • ' (vai18-2-88) i ZONING ~ 2. Any building site in Vail is likely to have its own unique land forms and features. Whenever possible, these exist- ing features should be preserved and reinforced by new construction. The objective is to fit the buildings to their sites in a way that leaves the natural land forms and features in-tact, treating the buildings as an integral part of the site, rather than as isolated objects at odds with their surroundings. B. Site planning. - 1: The location and configuration of structures and access , ways shall be responsive to the existing'topography of the site upon which they are to be located. Grading require- _ ments resulting from development shall be designed to blend into the existing or natural landscape. Any cuts or . fills shall be sculptural in form and contoured to blend with the existing natural undisturbed terrain within the . . property boundary. 2. Building siting and access thereto shall be responsive to • . existing features of terrain rock outcroppings, drainage . patterns, and vegetation. 3. Removal of trees, shrubs, and other native vegetation shall be limited to removal of those essential for develop- ment of the site or those identif ed as diseased. 4. All areas disturbed during construction shall be re- vegetated. If necessary, the DRB may designate allowable limits of construction activity and require physical bar- riers in order to preserve significant natural features and vegetation upon a site and adjacent sites during con- . struction. 5. All projects shall be designed so as to provide adequate snow storage areas for snow cleared from the parking _ areas and roadways within the project. C. Building materials and design. L Building materials shall be predominantly natural such as wood siding, wood shakes, and native stone. Brick is . acceptable. Where stpcco is utilized, gross textures and • surface features that appear to imitate other materials shall be avoided. Concrete surfaces shall be treated with texture and color if used, however exposed aggregate is ~ more acceptable than raw concrete. Neither aluminum . 454d (Vai18-2-88) , . . ( . DESIGN REVIEW T steel, or plastic siding, nor simulated stone or brick shall be permitted. Plywood siding shall not be permitted. Z` The same orsimilar building materials and colors shall be . used on main structures and any accessory structures upon the site. 3. Exterior wall colors should be compatible with thc site and surrounding buildings. Natural colors (earth tones found within the Vail area) should be utilized._ Primary . colors or other bright colors should be used only as accents and then sparingly such as upon trim or railings. All exterior wall materials must be continued down to finished grade thereby eliminating unfinished foundation walls. All exposed metal flashing, trim, flues, and roof top mechanical equipment shall be annodized, painted or _ capable of weathering so as to be non-reflective. , 4. The majority of roof forms within Vail are gable roofs with a pitch of at least four feet in twelve feet. However, other roof forms are allowed. Consideration of environ- . mental and climatic determinants such as snow shedding, drainage, and s.olar exposure should be integral to the roof design. 5. Roof lines should be designed so as not to deposit snow on parking areas, trash storage areas, stairways, decks . and balconies, or entryways. Secondary roofs, snow clips, and snow guards should be utilized to protect these areas from mof snow shedding if necessary. 6. Roof surfacing materials shall be compatible with the side and surrounding builaings. The predominant roof materials utilized shall be wood shakes and their use is suongly encouraged. The use of inetal rnofs is acceptable, however . in no instance will metal rnofs which reflect direct sunlight onto an adjacent property be.permitted. If inetal roofs are used they shall be surFaced with a low-gloss finish or capable of weathering to a dull finish. Metal roofs shall generally have a standing seam in order to provide some to the roof surface and be of a heavY gau8e. ASPhalt f and fiberglass shingles shall be pennitted provided that they weigh no less than three hundred gounds per roofing square foot and are of a design and color to be compatible with the requirements of Section 18.54.050. ' . . ' 454e (Vail 1-8-91) FILE COpy MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission ~ FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 14, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II Employee. Housing Unit to be located at 1358 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 21, Block 3, Vail Valley 1 st Filing. Applicant: Chris Kempf ~ Planner: Randy Stouder , , •.••.•tii»9iiii}iYiii:'r'::::i^i......Y.... v...... U.......t\\.v.. ~:::.lJ:::. .t.t..........::~•.::::.~:...................... :{•.:7}}iii ..........w::........... ...v.~.~...... . v:::::. ~.......~..~•v::::: v 1:.~ v:?::: • . . . . .....v4.......~......~•v::::::::i.~ v:: vi:»...... . v:~~vv:.. •:iii•iY•~:i}>.:........ tibYii}'•:dii}:C.ii............................ • ...............v::.:.::..............................v......... v:::.vv.:.:.........~..:~::::.~~ . . t..:::::................................... v... ......4. ..v.... .v................ .n.~•:: ........................n.....~....v...., v... ..v..... ..v...T . . ....~•.~;;??{:.~:i~.ti};.;.;.:!.::~~~i:i:::: •v: ~v::::: ~•v.:_ ...v.::: v.......: .n........ :.~v::::::::.... n........... w: n~:: v: :w x....v......: n~....... ' ...................v~•:: v::: ..y..::::ti~?::iiii::::::t:..~.n\...v......~......y.\ ::.n :}••i?Yti3::~t::.:{{>,:}:}>.•:\.v;:.:iv::::i::::^:.t•: :;<'~::j•i:tii• . . .:~.;:.~v;;.~;;.;.\.t}:i•:~":L•:i~.~:::.i'•Y'+ ..tv..v....\~.... "v.~::::: :•nti'>:.;t•.:i?'i:i~i: ..:.~~.'~iii:{~'~:::v ~ ::•:}i:~i'iif.i:~~iii::::::.~ 'ivi v.x... .........h ..........::::............:....?.~:::::............n•:::::::::::::::::::::::n . . ~'•i:i::,+.~{~•i.....x\..... . ~n~:::i:;:y.:.:`iTii:•:::;ii:'v:vi::~{::.iiii.:::::.:..?:•:i{iii~iiii?ii: `••.~::y>;~ . \v\vv:::.~.~:?:~y»;:: i•:i~:.ii: ~:•:ti:•i:~::::::•:. :•n4•:::::•::: ....:i•:\v~:•.~:n.; ...v::::. ~ t~.'~ ' ~ ~ . . ~ :..........::.v~:::.~~:::.}•.q..,: ;:::.~:.:'.~:.v}•.:i:.:...,...,... :...ti...v,. :4 ;..........~\......\......v~....1.vxvv~...... ..v~.\.~i;~\.'yv:~{.r.:.~v.;:.y.Y:tii~~\\\~~:~.}i:JT.~,............ ........n....... 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE ~ The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing duplex and construct a new duplex on the subject property. Within Unit A of the new duplex, a Type II employee housing unit (EHU) of 300 square feet is proposed. The employee unit is located on the lower level adjacent to the garage. It will have a separate entry and a dedicated employee parking space within the proposed garage. The employee unit is designed as one bedroom efficiency unit with its own bathroom and kitchen facilities. 11. ZONING ANALYSIS • Allowed/Required Proposed Height: 33 feet 33 feet GRFA: 5,901 sq. ft. 6,011 sq. ft.' Site Coverage: 4,603 sq. ft. or 20% 4,748 sq. ft. or 20.6%* Landscaping: 13,809 sq. ft. or 60% 14,913 sq. ft. or 65% Parking: 6 spacesh enclosed 10 spaces/5 enclosed Setbacks: Front: 20' 20' Side: 15' 24' Side: , 15' 17 Rear: 15' 17 ' Please note that the GRFA figure contained in this zoning analysis is a grand total for the lot and includes two 250 square foot additions. The proposed GRFA and site coverage will need to be modified prior to final DRB review since the current floor plans exceed the limits for these two zoning parameters. The final plans will meet all zoning requirements. Y ~ III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acYing on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Enviranmental Commission (PEC) shall consider the factors with respect to the_proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development obiectives of the Town. When the Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study on November 20, 1990, it recognized the need to increase the supply of housing. The Town encourages EHU's as a means of providing quality living conditions ` and expanding the supply of employee housing for both year round aild seasonal local residents. The proposed unit will have a positive impact on the Town's housing needs. , 2. The effect of the use on li ht and air distribution of o ulation,, transportation facilities utilities.schoofs, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that there will be little impact from the proposed Type II EHU on light, air, population, transportation, utilities, schools or parks. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to conqestion, automotive and pedestrian safetv and convenienee. traffic flow and control, access, maneuverabilitv and removal of snow from the street and par!<inq areas. ' The employee unit maximum alfowed occupancy is two aersons plus a child not older than sixteen years. Staff believes that the amount of traffic generated by one to three residents would be insignificant relative to the amount of automobile traffic that currently utilizes Vail Valley Drive. The site currently has two driveway cuts onto Vail Valley Drive. Both of the driveway cuts are proposed to remain. No additional access points are proposed. The applicant proposes ten parking spaces on the property, one of which is an enciosed parking space dedicated for the employee housing unit. Thus, all parking should be easily accommodated on the lot. 4. Effect uqon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located includinq the scale and bulk.of the proposed use in retation to surroundina uses. The scale and bulk of the proposed structure is somewhat larger thaii those , homes that are currently built around this lot. Although the proposed house 2 ' would be slightly larger than the existing surrounding units, it would not be out of character with what could be expected to develop under the current zoning requirements in this neighborhood. The applicant is proposing to build the maximum allowable GRFA for the site. This proposal also includes an application for approval of two additional 250 square foot residential additions. Staff believes that the applicant's desire to construct a Type II EHU is a good use of the square footage available on this site. The applicant is working with the Design Review Board (DRB) to reduce the impacts associated with the scale and bulk of the buildings, using various architectural and landscaping techniques. 5. Emplovee Housinq Units mav be allowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as specified by Title.l8 of the Vail Municipal Code for Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1992, Emplovee Housinq and shall be ~ subiect to the followinp conditions: a. It. shall be a conditional use in the Sinqle-Family Residential, Two-Familv Residential and Primarv/Secondarv Residential zone districts. The subject property is located in the Two Family Residential zone district. b. It shall be permitted onlv on lots which comply with minimum lot size reQUirements of the zone district in which the lot is located. The minimum lot size for a Type II EHU in this zone district is 15,000 square feet. The applicant's property is 20,013 square feet. c. It shall be located within, or attached to, a sinple-familv dwellinq or be located within, or attached to, a two-familv dwellinq pursuanf to Section 18.54.050(1) - Desian Guidelines Duqlex and Primarv/Secondarv DeVelopment. It mav also be located in, or attached to; an existinq qaraqe provided the aaraae is not located within anv set6ack, and further provided that no existinq parkinq required bv the Town of Vail Municipal Code is reduced or eliminated. The proposed EHU will be constructed on the lower level of Unit A of the duplex. The applicant proposes to provide a covered parking space in the three car garage for the employee unit. No parking will be eliminated as a result of this proposal. 3 A d. It shall not be counted as a dwelling unit for the purposes of calculatinp densitv. However; it shall contain kitchen facilities and a bathroom, as defined in Chapter 18.04 - Definitions of the Municipal Code. It shatl be permitted fo be a third dwellin unit in addition to the two dwelling units which mav alreadv exist on the lot. Onlv one Tvpe IF EHU shall be allowed per lot. The proposed EHU will be the third dwelling unit on this site. It contains full kitchen and bathroom facilities. e. It.shall have a GRFA not less than three hundred (300 s uare feet, nor more tlian nine hundred (900) square feet. An applicant, however, shall tie permitted to apply to the Gommunitv Development Department of the Town of Vail for additional - GRFA nof to exceed five hundred (500) sQUare feet to be used in the constructaon of the EHU. The applicant shall submit an -application fot the additional GRFA on a form provided bv the - Communitv Development Department: Approval or denial of the reauest shall be made by the Desian Review Board in accordance with Section 18.54.040. If an applicant obfiains Design Review Board approval for 500 square feet of additional GRFA for the EHU, he or she shall not be entitled to receive • additional GRFA pursuant to Chapter 18.71 - Additional Gross Residential Floor Area of this Code.for either unit on the lot. If an aqplicant obfains Desiqn Review Board approval for not more than 250 sQUare feet of additional GRFA for the EHU, he or she shall be enfitled to receive additional GRFA pursuant tc~ Chaqter 18.71 - Additional Gross Residential Floor Area of this code for one dwelling unit on the lot: The applicant has applied for an additional 500 square feet of GRFA (2 , x 250's), a portion of which is to be used for the construction c>f the EHU. Approximately 300 of the 500 square feet will be used to construct the EHU. The additional 200 square feet of GRFA will be used in the construction of.the duplex units. Thus, the applicant is proposing construction which utilizes all the available.GRFA on the site including the two 250's additional GRFA allowances which are available for development. The Design Review Board (DRB) approval is required for the use of the two 250's. PEC approval is required for the conditional use (Type II EHU). Staff is thus recommending that the conditional use be contingent upon DRB approval of the two 250 . applications. f. It shall have no more than two bedrooms. The proposed EHU will have one bedroom. 4 g. No more than two (2) adults and one (1) child not older than sixteen (16) vears of ape shall reside in a one (1) bedroom Type II EHU. No more than finro 12) adults and two (2) children not older fhan sixteen (161 vears ofi aqe shall reside in a two (2) bedroom Type II EHU. The proposed Type II EHU is one bedroom, thus, no more than two adults and one child not older than sixteen years of age shall reside in this unit. - , h. Each Type II EWU shall be required to have no less than one (11 parkinq space for each bedroom located therein. However, if a ' one (1) :bedroom Type II EHU exceeds six hundred (600) square feet, it shall have two !21 parkinq spaces. All parkinQ spaces reQUiretl by this Code shall be located on the same lot or site as the-EHU. If no dwellinq exists upon the propertv which is proposed for a Tvpe II EHU at the time a buildinq permit is - = issued; or if an existinq dwellinq is to be demolished and replaced by a new dwellinq, not less than one (1) of the qarkin4 ; sqaces reauired bv this Qaraaraph shall be enclosed. A 300 spuare feet GRFA credit shaff be allowed for the construction of one enclosed qarkinq space for the Type II EHU. The Type II EHU residents will have access to one enclosed parking space per the ordinance. Additional surface parking is also available. B. Findinas: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit for an Employee Housing Unit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or ' improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code. 111. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for an Employee Housing Unit. Staff believes that the criteria have been met as discussed in the memo. Regarding the findings, staff believes that finding B1 is met as the proposed use is in 5 accordance with the purposes of the zoning ordinance as well as the zone district. Finding B2 is met, in staff's opinion, as the proposed use is not detrimental to public health, sc-ifety or welfare. Finding 63 is met, in staff's opinion, as the proposal complies with all of the standards of the zoning code. Staff recommends approvat of the request with iwo conditions: 1) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed construction of a duplex, the applicant shall sign deed restrictions using the appropria-te forms provided by the Town of Vail to be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. The deeds shall set forth that the employee housing unit is to be permanently restricted for employee housing. 2) This conditional use permit shall become effective only after the Design Review Board has approved the development and approved the use of the b?vo "250's" for the Type II EHU. Please note that under Section 18.60.080 af the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the approval of a conditional use permit shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion, or the use for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two years from when thE: approval becomes final. cApec\memos\kempt214 6 Oes ?nM Il~ 1.4y~ VA/L VALLEY DR/VE Z'9 9~ ~ " - t RVn" ' 1 _ ~/~W ~1~ • . . 1M/q~ y~ M ~nq ' ~ • ~ , Y _ n ~ NfNw ~ v_~~ ~ l~T• ~i~ ~ . _ ~ •l ')I: Q ~ r-O9 ~ I ` • w ~ '.M' r' , . . • I', ~ ~1. ?M ~ • . . ~ w/~ x pt'..~' , , ' ~ ~.~h ' n w . p,, 3 ~ ' ~ ; U *~~'yl y IL ~ 1' i • ' . , ` ~ ~ ~M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • _ . ~ ~ „ am . N ~ ~ ~ . ~a~ ~111! ~ ~ yx N . \ \ \ • • / ""q ( ~ Q ~ / W y~ o~•a . . o _ . ~ < J /ao.ar ac ..K~.~ ~ • . - ' • _ V LAND.SCAPE PI.AN ~ . 37 S. . ~ M µ ~ ~ ~ ~y U s ~ SCALE: 1' • lp• ~ NORTH w< ~ C ~~2 . . CLA~ ~ ~ e~ e~eoon_ 1 aD ~ M y "~~W~ ~ • ~1{ ~ I O ~ ' • ~ . . - LCL ~ aw~wr g~ a e ~ F , . _ t > MUD arRr N w ~ rawN"s \ • . ~ cn ¢ ~ uM ? ~ ~.y ~ ; I i~l ¢ ~vrrer • i : > a.v~.. I ~ wRwcr 1 • ~y F-LLJ I ~ t~ } _ _ ~ Z I _ cAewcr ~ . I ~ V c5a4a ~ a ~ p ~ - w I I ~ = i ~ Air,l cc ~ iu I : L. ; = ' _ - - •'y 2 L p~"1 ¢ l/JWT a ~ j ~ ~~~R LE0/EL PLAN r SCALE: 116=1'-O' NORTH 'vwr C-FsKt eoR i ~ FritzlenPierceBriner ~.°LXDBFMDCIE . - ' . 101 ~7d ~901 FI a I ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS ^°~K;s,~• ' ~ i . 9ECOND fLOOR K~~~ ~2~11~~{,1G~ 2•GI•~1`i' - - : : - I I I I I I ~ J ~J ~ aawT i a ~ n eeDROM _ _ - a- -41 0-~ ~ - - - Q- -A° - CI ~ ~ I I Ir1TCNlN DeCK I ~ 1./NlNG/d1~0~K'i ROOJI I iarckm o ~ 4- _ _ _ -p Lofr uNff e ~ L?,ima,Dmo,d. noo„ I ~ ' o o rr o o ' ~ DECK !'9,4 /N L LC VL'L PL,4 N . 'wid SC,4LE: 1/8=l'-O' NORTH uNrr A . ev ~ ~ . • ~ . • . • . . . ahx,~v ; ; ~ - ' • ~ L - ~ . % i - - -i . - . • f ' . ~ . PR/MRRy UN/T ' SKANDARY C/N/T ~ . NoRrN El-fvATi~oN ~ ~ .o.tOFFICt .ox.7 FritzlenPierceBriner ~ ' fea ~n :se, F: c ARCHITCCTURE PLANNING INTERIORS -,~;;-~;;r-; • 2~~•`lIt . . . ' . . . . • . . . . . . _ _ . . ~ 411111 68 ~e ' ~ ' ~ E-- - - • ~ • 1 I ' ' I il t'--= ----^-----~------------------------1--{ ~ 1 ~ W 1_-__-___ _1_-_-__ " SoUTN EGEVAT/ON rwr orr~ eoa n .~~n.M IIL ~ FritzlenPierceBriner LOOP ,e:.,,1...e" ARCHITtCTURE PLANNING INTERIORS R~~~-t~L~ Z•~•~~' K~.h1('r - . ; ~ • . . • _darine~' ~ ' . • • m4srer . ; . . - ~ i ~ • ~ . , . • ' (~-'9 E~45T EL~iAT/oN-PR/N1ARY UN? rost orna wx n FritzlenPierceBriner ;K.,`°`~ ~ f07 ~/91901 FAk ARCHITtCTURE PLANNING INTERIORS ~b~•--~ • , K~'IP~ R~~NG~ 2•~•~~ . • : . • ~ - . ~ . . , ~ 0 - ~ . t~ . • . ~ " i , ii . c_ . . _ . . .S , . ~ / • ` ~ ` ~~~I - . - ~ E~qST ~l~IY,qT/ON-SEC27N44RYUNn'' - ro~r ofncc ~o: n ~mo uwVFoN Loor ~ FritzlenPierceBriner V:L~:.~~ ARCHITrCTURE PLANNING INTERIORS K~-M~'~ R~pF-NL~ Z~`1•~1`~' , ~ • ~ . ~ E-- P ~ . ~ . i T~ • - _ ~ . 51 . - ~ . -r~- - - - - - --i - ' ~ ' - ~ /N5S T Ez 4-vAT/oN- 5£,coNA4 Y • -y/sN ~ ~ rwT a~a wu n ~ FritzlenPierceBriner uomwwm ~ ~ea n~ ue~ /~x ARCHITtCTURE PLANNING INTERIORS i ~~~~n~~-~------~ • ~ , ' r.... ~ ~ ~ _ ~ , • I . . . . I ' I . 1 I ' . I ~ ~ ~L47fL'.~~ , ' '4~~ , . ) „ . . . . ~ ~ Y 9 / i L__. N~F_sr E1..~VAT~oN-Pi~~ey ron ornec ~ox FritzlenPierceBriner 207 479 1~0f F1¦ ARCHITtCTURE PLANNING INTERIORS K~'1P~ R~~G~ 2•~.~~ t E P Y PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February. 14, 1994 . MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT ' Greg Amsden . Kristan Pritr Bill Anderson Tom Moorhead Jeff Bowen Mike Mollica Diana Donovan Andy Knudtsen Kathy Langewalter Jim Curnutte Allison Lassoe Randy Stouder Dalton Williams Russ Forrest 1. A request for a conditional use to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit to be located at Lot 21, Block 3, Vail Valley 1 st Filing. Applicant: Chris Kempf Planner: Randy Stouder Randy Stouder made a presentation per the staff inemo. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the requested conditional use permit to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit with the two conditions stated in the staff inemo. Diana Donovan stated that she would like the Design Review Board (DRB) to carefully review the proposed architecture for the project since it is somewhat unusual and different from what is present in the neighborhood. Dalton Williams agreed with Diana's comment. Dalton Williams made a motion to approve this request for a conditional use permit to - allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit per the staff inemo and the two conditions contained on Page 6 of the staff memo with a directive to the DRB to carefully review th.eurchitecture of this project to ensure that it is harmonious with the character of the Town of_Vail. Jeff Bowen seconded the motion. A 7-0 vote approved this request for - a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit. 2. A request for a worksession to discuss proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.38, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District; Chapter 18.32, Agricultural and Open Space District; and Chapter 18.36, Public Use District of the Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jim Curnutte Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 1 i . m ~ r.W .rH.{ ~ BRE qL 1.~7ti{ VA/L VALLEY DR/VE i 114 R. O. 1.. r s~' -~wa~yc-====___~ aa• a•e - nor - - ~ - - - - - ~ tttr y . REVIBIONS H~~ ~ ~ • -'I ' ~ ` ~4 I r~ , I • .X I ~ ` t ' i ,y • ~ . lfSf~ ~ r ~ UWF• - . tinwT rr+v. . ~ I~ wy. .~.o t ~r x . i ; > ~ > sJ U. ? a ~ v ~ ~ " , r , . ~ ~ _ - - ~ , ~ DATE ` ~ \ t-.a j - f.~°. l~'~ ~ 14: % ~ ? siAS w.~as. aNa ' ~ i1 q'~~'~' ( ~ O •r"+ lu ? ~ Dt Z %qIOFj WW-I_ Lq a) Q J d a , . - ~ 23- 4r d - so.oo• cc F- ' ~ U w m ? q ~ w ~ ~ SITE P.L,4N -r-4 ~ - SCALE.• l' - /p, . NORTH ~ a ' ~ C101 r ~ _ . - • ~ ?cs i~nr .N w a.r..~ V'4IL VALLEY w ORIVE . 50'_R.O.fU.I ~ , y ' ~?ww+T . , .r_ : . • - - , n,ww mr ~ ~ : ~ \ = d id x~ I,~n..+, r" T ~ Y S ~ \ 't'~f ' J y ~WwyM~ ~ ` ,1~1 , ~ ~ , ' I ~ ~ DATE . • , ~ ~ V ~ ~ Q9~~r 74tu / . ~ ~ Yai A ` . ~ t M In ~ ` ; ~ \ ~ la iva~ ~ • / j . W lo , ~ / j~ ~ f•V, Z J a, - ~ _ ~.c~~n. ° \ J •!_1 a . cc w ] ~ ao.oC , . - J ~ r W ' . ~ LANDSCAPE PLAN W SCALE: lO" NORTH ~ Q ' C 102 ~ ~ I 8&47W a~owaon ~ as aw~r ~ eNfRr r I ~ . . : - - - - - - - - . - - _ _ _ _ _ - - ~ wsr I ? i o11Ry 6ARA6f 4 I GARAM I ` ~ o„~..~. ( , L OIUFR LF'VEL PLr4 N uwr A ~ ' SCALE: I:ZO-/'-O' NORTH - - 1---- , . I I ~ K .1~,? I ~ --ccoMo ma= - - - - - - - - _---1 1 J~.J ~ a o ~ P a I . x awennom ~ r PJ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ---1 ~ ~ ~ ' ° I---- i ~ I I , I ~ ~ I ! I I I 1 t~cyc Mcnear rorcNm uvw&,owra gn,d, I I - ~ ~ IOi1G7!/ ~ - - _ ~ T ~ tOI~T ( ( I ur'a'°"'+o a°°" ( wr ~ ~ -I - DR= M,40N LE VEL PL,4N wr A SCALP: I18=1'-O' NORTH ~ r--------------,-------.--------~ 4~N8~I~.JG 8if-11 MEjh~ . ~ - - - - T ~ - • ~ . . . ` _ . . _ i, I . ~ ! • . . . - . ~ . y~,{GGp(-(vP}_~ . - i ~ . ; • • , • I , ~ r. ~ ~ . . 59 - y(aN ~ ~~,tio,~r uu~T, • . : wE~T Ei.~vo.TioN ~ ysl ~ ~1 O~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ ~ ~ / . ~ - j . • ` ~ r7l , . _ ~ ~ 4;. / --t- . • - F~in~r U14 ir 1 _ ~'°i5r ~Yf`Y ION r . ~ . • . , - - - \ - - - - - - - -~-fi- - ~ T7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ I ~ i m _ . , ~ ~ - --_--~,-59 ~ - I I I c _ 69zo"wtY u N r( - - - - -¢q . ~r~sT ~?~.Tio~~ , , A Y I r T i- • y ~ ~ ; ~ - - - I ~ -.i.~-- • ~ ; ; ~ ~ ~ - , j ~ ~ - - ~ ' _ r Pil l ' , . • • " • _ - - - ~xl`~i~Jci ~K~E- . r ~ 51 . • - _ ; SE.COIJV,>41=Y U0 rr - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - . - - w~~r ~~•rP~r~~N , TF , I~ . . . q ~ il N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - _ , - - - - 64 ~ _ ` _ j _ = 3 . ~ ~ ~'1----~ ?'1eT~v- •y-~ • ,~,,r; ' _ q , _ Jr, ~ ` ~ ~ -Y;t-1'_~'•_ --~L_-~-- ~ " i L ~ • - ~ Pw r'1Aiz'f U{11'~ • - 51 f.O.kl. Sf`-r+'~KY urJij ---~99 : ~ , a.. „R ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ . i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . - , _ - - ~ j ~ ~ ~ y . ~ - _ ~ . ' ~ - - 1 : . . ~ i ~ ~ ~ .I~ e.- Lr - . : ~ ~ ~ I ~ ` ` I I '7 tl '~~j ~ i . 1. _ ~ -~Y ~ 1 ttC ~ , i ~ib ~t - - - , F j i ~ ~ - - - ~ . ~ 1- ~ - ~ ~ l~~- , . , ~ 1 ~ ~ ; i s,~- ' " ~ --r - - ~---1 .J~_ , _ . x.~Nv.+=r u.,~r. . ~i i ~ i i il 1~--- ~i :t ii i - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I I ~ ~ 1 i ~IMhRY W Ir . I ~ - ---~I--~ ii i~ II ii ii II - i'i II - ; - - - _ - - - --IF - ~ ~I-- ~ - - _=~~`-1.'~----- -1 - I I ~--lµ--~_ - - - - - - - - - - - I ' ~ yg~.~~,oi --_-~~==ia'; _-___==--`5 r_ t ; MEMORANDUM TU: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: , Community Development Department DATE: March 28, 1994 • SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance and a conditional use permit to allow for the expansion of library and classroom space at the Vail Mountain School located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lat 12, Block 2, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School Planner: Randy Stouder I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST ' The Vail Mountain School is proposing a two-story expansion to the east side of the school. Both the first and second floors will be expanded to the east and the first floor will also expand to the south. This proposed expansion will allow the enlargement of the library space and classrooms above (1,120 square feet). Two bathrooms and a storage area (225 square feet) are proposed along the west wall of the existing gymnasium building; the bathrooms will be accessible from the exterior of the building. The architectural style and building materials proposed will match the existing materials on the school and gym buildings. The school is located in the Agricultural and Open Space zone district, which lists private schools as a conditional use. The Agricultural and Open Space district limits site coverage to 5%. The existing school currently exceeds the allowable site coverage as a result of the construction of the gymnasium building which previously received a site coverage variance from the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). Thus, any exparision of the school building requires approval of a site coverage variance and conditional use permit by the PEC. The applicant is requesting the conditional use permit and site coverage variance to allow for the proposed additions as described above. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an additional 990 square feet of site. coverage (0.4%). ' II. BACKGROUND In October of 1978, the Town of Vail approved the operation of the Vail Mountain School with a maximum enrollment of one hundred and ten students. The Vail Mountain School has made numerous requests for expansion since the original approval. In November of 1979, a request to add a lunchroom and dark room was approved. In October of 1981, the Town approved the release of the deed restriction which set a cap of one hundred and ten students. In October of 1983, the Town approved construction of a soccer field and in 1984, a computer . room, language lab and kindergarten room were all added. In January of 1988,,a11 deed 1 • f restrictions were lifted from the property. In February 1989, a major expansion was approved. The major expansion included construction of a gymnasium, third floor classroom area and a gymnasium lobby. The gymnasium and some of the third floor classroom spaces were .the only items that were actually constructed related to the 1989 expansion approval. In March 1992, the Vail Mountain School requested approval for the expansion of tFie library, which was also approved by the Town. In March 1992, the Town approved the expansion of the library, which required a site coverage variance and a conditional use permit. This expansion was never constructed, and the approvals lapsed. The current Vail Mountain School proposal to expand the library is similar to but larger than the March 1992 expansion request. The 1992 request involved a site coverage variance of 345 square feet; the current proposal requires a site coverage variance of 710 square feet (library/classroom exF>ansion only). III. ZONING STATISTICS ~ The Vail Mountain School is requesting a site coverage variance. The allowable site coverage for the site is 13,344 square feet (5%) and ihe existing site coverage is 21,256 square feet (8%). The Mountain School is proposing an additional 990 square feel of site coverage (0.4%) which, if approved and constructed, would put the total site coverage at 22,246 square feet (8.4%). Lot Size: 6.122 acres or 266,674 square feet ' Required/Allowed Existinq/Proposed Setbacks: Front: 20' Front: 90' Side: 15' Side: 100' Side: 15' Side: 570' Rear: 15' Rear: 142' Height: 33' 27' Parking: Determined by the PEC. 84 parking spaces (no change) Site Coverage: 13,334 sq. ft. (5%) Existing School: 20,404 sq. fl. Historic Gabin: 852 sq. fl. Proposed Addition: 990 sq. ft. Total Proposed: 22,246 sq. tt. (8.40Q' 'Site coverage variance is requested. IV. COtdDITIONAL USE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS - Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommencis approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: , 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objecitives of the Town. As is clearly demonstrated by the various approvals granted by the' TUwn of Vail previously, the Town feels that the Vail Mountain School is an appropriate use at its current location. The library and classroom expansions were 2 t approved previously in March of 1992; the approvals lapsed, and the applicant has returned and is proposing a similar request. The library expansion is proposed to meet the wide variety of needs of its student population. The classroom expansion will not increase enrollment (currently two hundred and nine students and twenty-eight faculty), but will aliow for more efficient use of space and distribution of the student population throughout the building. The proposed addition of bathrooms to the gymnasium building will allow students and sports teams using the soccer field to access bathrooms while the school is closed since the bathrooms will open to the exterior of the building. The proposed expansions wilt help the school to function more effectively in serving its student population and the recreational enthusiasts that use the soccer field on the weekends. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The proposed expansion will not increase the number of students, and thus . should not impact transportation facilities, utilities, or other public facilities, such as parks and schools. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the ' street and parking areas. The studenUfaculty numbers will not be increased as a result of the proposed expansion. No additional students will be enrolled and no faculty will be added. Thus, the applicant does not propose to change the parking layout or vehicular access to the property. There are currently eighty-four parking spaces on the site. The parking lot appears to work efficiently as a one way traffic flow enters from Katsos Ranch Road and exits onto Booth FaUs Road. There is no direct access onto the Frontage Road. Staff believes that this plan provides safe, functional access and parking for the school. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Since no increase is proposed in the student population, staff does not believe that the proposed additions will have any additional impact on the surrounding community. The school has generally been a good neighbor since it was built in 1980 and staff has received nothing but positive comments from neighbors responding to the pubfic notice sent out regarding this applicatian. The library and classroom addition will be constructed in an area of the property that is not visible to the surrounding neighborhood or surrounding residences, and thus will have little or no visual effect on the adjacent residential neighborhood. The addition to the gymnasium will be visible from residences along the north and 3 4 r west sides of the property. Staff has proposed a condition that woul(J require the applicant to provide landscaping adjacent to this addition to help mitigate any visual irripacts to the surrounding residences. The proposed adciitions are small relative to the existing buildings, and will be constructed to match existing . architecture and mat~erials. B. Findin s The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make the followinQ findinqs before arantinq a conditional use qermit: ' 1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. . 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to 'the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning c:ode. V. VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and -structures in the vicinity. Staff does not believe that the proposed additions will have any impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The library and classroom expansion occurs along the,east side of the building and is surrounded on three sides by existing structures. This addition will be constructed in an area of the propertyr that is not visible to the surrounding neighborhood or surrounding residences, and thus will have little or no visual effect on the adjacent residential neighborhood. The library addition will require the removal of three spruce trees. The applicant has agreed to either transp4ant these trees to new locations along the east wal{ of the proposed library addition, or to replace these trees with new spruc;e of similar size. The gymnasium addition connects two existing covered entryways to the gymnasium along the western side wall. This one story addition will be partially 4 r hidden by the steep hillside along the north side of the soccer field, but will still be visible from residences along the north and west sides of the property. Staff has proposed a condition that would require the applicant to provide landscaping adjacent to this addition to help mitigate any visual impacts to the surrounding residences. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special • privilege. Staff believes that this request is consistent with previous approvals made by the Town. The 1989 major expansion approval, allowed the applicant up to j approximately 8% site coverage. The applicant is proposing 8.4% site . coverage. Although this is slightly more than the Town approved in 1989, staff feels that the proposed addition will have little or no impact on the surrounding community. Staff does not feel that granting a site coverage variance is a grant , of any kind of special privilege. Staff is in the process of amending the Zoning Code, specifically, sections relating to the Agricultural and Open Space zone district and the Public Use District. Once the code changes have been made and approved by the Vail ~ Town Council, the appropriate zone district for the Vail Mountain School would - be the Public Use District. A private school such as the Vail Mountain School . would be allowed in the Public Use District as a conditional use. The revised code language in the Public Use District would allow the Town and the Vail Mountain School to establish appropriate zoning controls for this specific property. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of , population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. As discussed in the Conditional Use Criteria section of this memorandum, staff beiieves that there will be little or no impact on transportation, traffic, public facilities and utilities and public safety. No change to the student population, parking, or vehicular access to,the property is proposed. B. Findin s The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make the followinq findinps before prantinp a variance: , 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 5 ~ 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimentai to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or , improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this'title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specifieci regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • Staff recommends approval of the site coverage variance and the conditional use F?ermit with the conditions outlined below. Staff betieves that the proposal meets the criteria for a conditional use permit in this zone district, as well as the variance criteria. Staff recommends that once code changes have been made to the Agricultural andbpen Space and F'ublic Use zone districts, that the Vail Mountain School should be rezoned to the Public Use District. At a minimum, the school should develop a master plan to address future expansion needs/desires. Staff believes that the proposed school provides a significant benefit to the Town. ;~taff believes that the proposal will have little or no impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood, public facilities, traffic and transportation. Staff believes that granting the proposed variance is consistent with past approvals granted by the Town, and that there is no grant of special privilege to the Vail Mountain School. The public health, safety and welfare will not be adversely effected by the proposed expansion. The strict literal=interpretation of the site coverage requirements for this zone district would unnecessarily limit the effective functioning of the school. Staff recommends that the following conditions of approval be imposed: 1. The applicant will propose and implement a landscaping plan to help screen the bath room/sto rage addition. The landscaping plan shall include a minimum of four trees and foundation plantings, to be installed along the west wall of the addition. 2. The existing three spruce trees along the east wall of the library shall be I , transplanted if feasible, or replaced (with like kind, size and number) to a new location adjacent to the east wall of the proposed library addition. 6 ~ Please note that, under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval shail lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion, or if the use for which the permit is granted is not commenced within two years. , cApecUnemosMtnschoo.328 7 v ! Va%( ~4 S1d, Y1 ~ / PyOp09FA ~ :4' ~YM O~*,OR4l~ ~'y ~ - - - - ~c~K(i~ ~OCL fiUl ~ ~ 'T Dw I ~ ' ~ ~ ~R o~~ waY br~F \ 94r~ ' , Lc- V0 ~ 363.24, I SCALE I"• 30 ~ WU- O ~ D4TE CF SURVEY : 12 /29 / 87 (TOPOGanpHr) > O LOT 5 DGTE OF UPD4TE: 3/I5i94 I I.L.C. ONLr1 a~ 3 \ I~\ f MOTE 10 SNOM DCITh AT TIYC OF VOOATC. ~ a ~ tOVOCRanwr wA5 wOT uopA7ED. °o. • LOT 4 I 1~1~ sTUcco ~ TRACT rau S T9.2g.32 ~ 8 1 E ~ , ur~urr I ~l ~ ;I sJ -3 0- =EiYEN7 581.72. cae~or ner ¦uL ' cove4to to EMTII? 7 B3S0 GNCNk / rucco g36 RCT.WCLL /mOCR NfT. Wl I ~ 4 nEi. waLL o ~ ( S p ' ` ~ ~ 6 a00r kJ O ~STAw ie ` ~~0° . ~ { w°d ~poor ov.c a ~ DccEC¦ aao' ~ i O nu•.1-~ x,.001. ~ lzo ~ OECe ~ Itrr.j CABtM A! ue. naE ry l_ ,t I \ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ - :e s _ Sc-a ?Olf\/ o GAILL a . COGf ?LOrtO 20UTILITT EASEMENT p~rvE ~ e ~ Se]•ia•~ ~ ~I r.M_ w S e7 ~ '37'OS' w oo• ~ . -1~ xs.w' ~ R • 190.80' ..j L•124.00' . ~~~ec R•62.93 74. 42 ' IN dA ~ ~ - ~ - / ~ - i j' . • , . . . . ~ . / I ~ ; i • . . . _ _ . . : . . . t.% . , ~ . - . . . - . ~ i ~ ; - - - - - - - _ - - - ~ : . ~ ~ ~ ~ ; t.7 . . . • ~ • ~ • r-/' VA-riDf+ , . Fe~ o . . . _ - . _ . _ . _ . ~ . . . . ; ~ ~ . . ~ . _ i . . _ : . . . . • 1 , ner ~p~ Lw . . I/~~I OT " ~r: . \ - noo ~ . • , ~*trc*+~~ _ ~ . 4~ P~f~lriiafl i f, J~I~ ~f 1 JL~ ~L~7 Gtttcl~ N~'RIa- ~ ~ per,~hc p : / L,d?~~ ° s}~Y f - _ CqPe`''~ MAl N L~~ ~L S~e ce%~- . ~ I~} - _ _r~~=_ ~ . - e ~ - . 4 4 l ~/,,•j ; ' i.~ ~~r:r:~ ~ •%:~%i%;; ( Ij/ a C ' , E .t i i G~ i'~ N~ I LJ r~ Grroi~ ~ P~t~r~ l TI o N . . . . , :.s: • , ' ~ . ~ ' - - - ~ - - - - - - ~ Z. . _ . . . . - . _ ~ ~ _ _ . . 77 ~ ~ ~ illnltirlr-k, woh:~r+ ~ / ~IH?Jt-~ MP.N . / ~ L C LO-t J ~ I , V L~(pl1itbE S10Iz,~c-E U ' . , . ~ If-Ie_- - - I ~ - 7T-1+~~ tl T 4. A request for a site coverage variance and a conditional use permit to allow for an expansion at the Vail Mountain School located at 3160 Katsos Ranch RoadlPart of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Fred Otto, representing the Vail Mountain School Planner: Randy Stouder Randy Stouder made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that staff was recommending approval of this request with the two conditions outlined on Fage 6 of the staff inemo. He stated that he had received letters from adjacent property owners who were generally in favor of the Vail Mountain School expansion. HowevE:r, He said that he had received a phone call. before today's meeting from a neighbor who was concerned about the aesthetic condition of the rockfall mitigation berm. Randy raised a question about staff Condition 1 which calted for landscaping along the ' wall of the bath roo m/sto rage addition proposed along the gymnasium building. Pam Hopkins stated that the school had two hundred students and that the soccer leagues from all over the Valley utilize the field. She said that it would be difficult to keep any landscaping alive due to the amount of foot traffic in this area. She stated that the soccer players use all of this open area for practice; incfuding the wall of the gym which they use as a backboard. She said that she was looking into planting on top of the existing berm. She added that every year the students add landsraping to the site. She said that there was only so much one could do with the playing field. She asked that.Condition #1 be deleted which stated that the applicant will propose and implement a landscaping plan to help screen the bathroom/storage addition. The landscaping ptan shall include a minimum of four trees and foundation plantings, to be installed along the west wall of the addition. Greg Amsden stated that he agreed with Pam concerning Condition 1. Bob Armour also agreed that Condition 1 should be eliminated from the approval of this item. Jeff and Allison had no further comments. Kathy Langenwalter agreed with Greg's and Bob's comments. She fett the DRB should review the site plan for landscaping issues. Prior to the motion, Planning Commission members discussed the proposed addition. The members felt that the proposed expansion was modest in size and would fit in well with the existing building. The commission felt that the scale of the proposed addition was well within the scale of the overall school building. They fett that the proposed additions would blend in well with the existing buifding and would be well screened from adjacent neighbors by the existing building. The staff noted that the proposed expansion was very similar to an expansion that received a site coverage variance in mid-1992. The previous proposal also involved expanding the library and classroom area to the east. As a result of the comment made by staff regarding one citizens concern over the rockfall mitigafion berm, the commission asked several questions of staff. Commission wanted to know what the condition of the existing rock fall mitigation berm was, and whether the berm was still necessary since the Town had constructed a larger rock fall Planning and Environmentel Commission . March 28, 1994 4 i t mitigation berm higher up on the hill above the school and adjacent neighborhood. . Pam Hopkins stated that a portion of the berm had been removed to allow for the development of the gymnasium building. She discussed the general condition of the berm stating that the black fabric material sticking out the side of the berm was a part of its construction and was necessary for the integrity of the berm. She discussed the condition of the fence on top of the berm as stated that it was in a bad state of repair and that she would look into either repairing or removing #he chain link fence altogether. She stated that Vail Mountain School was open to the possibility or removing this berm if it was determined that the mitigation berm constructed higher up. on the mountain would adequately protect the school. She remained concerned about liability issues related to removing this berm. Greg Amsden made a motion to approve the requested site coverage variance and conditional use permit per the staff inemo with the deletion of Condition 1 of the staff memo. Jeff Bowen seconded the motion and a 5-0 vote approved this request. The PEC cited the compatibility of the expansion with the building and the minimal impact to the site and adjacent property owners. It was also felt that the expansion was very similar to the previous conditional use and site coverage variance which had expired. 5. A request for a worksession setback variance to allow for an expansion to the residence located at 4295 Nugget Lane/Lot 7, Bighorn Estates. Applicant: Margaret Gross Planner: Randy Stouder Randy Stouder stated that Bill Hein was present to represent the owner. He made a presentation per the staff memo. The applicant wished to encroach within 5 feet of the property line rather than the 4 feet stated in the staff memo. Bill Hein stated they were attempting to preserve as many trees as possible on this property and that only two trees would be removed with the proposed construction. He stated that they would be modifying their proposal so that the proposed expansion would extend to within 5 feet of the front property line. Bill also discussed possible , roof changes that would be part of this request. Greg Amsden said that he was not opposed to the deck as long as the evergreen tree could be saved. Jeff Bowen stated that he did not have any comments. Allison Lassoe said she did not have any further comments. Bob Armour asked how far up the tree would need to be limbed to allow people to move around the tree on the deck. Planning and Environmental Commisslon March 28, 1994 5 s Y i99A 18 March 1994 : Kristin Pritz, Director of Community Development Members of the Design Review Board Members of the Vail Town Council Town of Vail " 75 South Frontage Road West ~ Vail, Colorado 81657 Ladies and Gentlemer.: - This lQ±+-er re-~,ls±es to a parcel of ground located in East Vail, specifically described as Lot 1, Sundial Phase 1, Bighorn Fifth Addition to the Town of Vail. The subject lot is being considered for development by a local developer, and was recently staked for the Design Review Board to view the outline of a proposed building on the site. 8esidents of the neighborhood which surrounds the subject site strongly oppose any development on the site; we request that the proposed development be disapproved and we request that the Town of Vail enter into negotiatior.s +.-n acquire the site for open space to be used as a neighberheod YxkP± park, (1) There is a strong likelihood that much or all of the site is Wetlands, accordance with Section 404 of 33 USC Section 1344. There is evidence Qf hydr2C soils and much of t.he lot is cavered with hydrophytic vegetation. Mr. Mike Claffey of the Army Corps of Engineers viewed the site during the fall of 1993, concluded that the potential of Wetlands existed and advised that a second visit to the site would be made in the late spring or early summer of 1994 to make a. final determination ef the existence or non existence of Wet-lands andJor whether a prior owner had destroyed Wetlands. This second visit has not yet occurred, therefore any development on the site would precede and tl:e:'°fore be in violation of any ruling made by the Army Corps of Engineers. If a 404 permit is issued for the sub ject prer rty, it is the intent of the neighborhood to challenge such issuance with the Environmental Protection Agency, in accordance with Section 404 (c), wherein the EPA, after hearings, may overturn a 404 permit issued by the Corp of Engineers, for specified circumstances. , (2) Our neighborhood petitioned the town to acquire the subject property, to be used for open space, in accordance with petitions delivered on about 12 August 1993. The neighborhood has heard nothing from the town in this regard, however we have noted that another neighborhood has petitioned for a property to be purchased by the town and the town has ordered an appraisal of the property for possible acquisition through purchase or condemnation. We believe the Town of Vail has an obligation tfl trea± each ::pighborhQOd equally, and we respectfully request that all activities and negotiatiQns which are occurring at the other neighborhood be equally manifps±pd in our neighboncood. . Thank you for your attention to our request. Responses should be made to Jeff Bowen, 5047 Main Gore, 476-2701, or Pam Hopkins, 5036 Gore Circle, 476-2201. The Main Gore Circle, Place and Drive neighborhaod. ti J f ~ EV.4LUATION FORM, VAIL OPEN LANDS PLAN [Instructions: in front of each condition, place a number between 1and 10, where 1 is not important, 10 is very important. Use 0 if not applicable. Total the numbers at the end of each EVALUATION section, then compile a grand total which will determine the numerical priority of the property for acquisition. ] ~ PRO?v-RTY: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: - LEVEL ONE EVALUATION (o (1) Public health and ~safet .r-oZ ivgiGsNlo/BAfos/> G041440efi4/ (2) Riparian areas, wetlan s or land where development would destroy or cause significant damage to the environment or to the ecosystems. 0 (3) Hazard area, creating unreasonable liability to the town and,to private citizens. . 0(4) Steeg hillsides, where erosion and other environmental damage will occur from development. $(5) Preservation of ogen space in densely developed areas creiiting good ~ urban planning and retaining the quality of life characteristic of a small town. 7-2- TOTAL LEVEL ONE EVALUATION LEVEL TWO EVALUATION d(1) Recreational opportunity for the entire community ~(2) Recreational opportunity for full time residents, particularly in East or . West Va:l. P.444 r-o•c C-41c.0,014i ro P"y ~(3) Complete or improve connections to the e.Yisting TOV trail sy,5tem, the VA and USFS trail systems. ~(4) Create a desired addition to the trail system. ~(5) Separate pedestrian and bicycle trail uses. _Q_(6) Improve access/reduce congestion on Gore Wilderness Area. _f- (7) Improve land management by the town. ~TOTAL LEVEL TWO EVALUATION ~ G GRAND -TOTAL, LEVEL ONE AND LEVEL TWO EVALUATIONS . LEVEL THREE EVALUATION ~i (1) -Desirability of having property be public/over - cost. , ~(2) Ability to use grant, federal or State of Colorado funds, in r.onjunction with RETT funds. 1) (3) Ability to use a trade mechanism withthe USFS. .1- (4) Ability to acquire a permanent use easement or. development rights _0_(5) Ability to acquire because of a motivated:. private seller or the ability; to acquire through tax sale. - ~ LTOTAL, LEVEL THREE EVALUATION ' &/rGRAND TOTAL, LEVEL ONE, TWO AND THREE EVALUATIONS - , : WH1TE RIVER NATlONAL FOREST . ~ P~ L r OF \JA 70 . 13 12 VAIL RACQUET CLUB 7 14 5157 5167 TOWNHOUSES G 6 5137 5147 OFE i 4770 5 5127 ~ 4 5117 NO • O 4 ~,fl~ 3 5107 O O~ 5136 3 < ~ CH c a ^ PRIMA U ~ 5097 s h6l\ / 6 V V ~ 0 0 D `J 2 IFTH 5 O O ~ ~ cL nousE G,O 5~ J 5 5087 o4.r 11511 8 7 g 5169 ~j 5159 Q 0 ~ O" 1.3.4 ~ 5119 5139 a 5f :5032-- - ~ 10 9 N c 5020 O gV25 ~ 5047 5056 5089 GORE r1Rc`E O 6 , RE CREEK ~ q ~ M O 5p30 ~ 5 5168 TF O 1-4 p_~,Ce 5036 3 4 5146 L e I-5 Q ~~e ? I 2 512B R Z~13 BIGHORN SUKDIAL 5090 @ 7 ~ 5088 5118 G /c PNnsE z PARK ` B A 13 14 ~ ~ 60RE CREEK 1619 MEADOWS g 7 6 1"5 1_4 7 1 2 1023 12 127 5129 5133 15 E 18 f21VERBEND 4857 4887 4907 5026 5016 5135 4 g• KEl-GAR LN. 600 5 O ~21 51 2a~ `~z 4917 4 3 2 1 3 5111 2~V ~ ~72 • 5006 8 ~ 4846 4876 4916 0 4937 4957 4977 4997 119 2 3 4 4 5014 35107 4R g TRACT D • I O DI I SI . R\- N. g 5 4 O 18Gei9 49g6 ~V ~~PE 4995 2 HOUSE 5115 5113 50 ~ 616 O F A DIT 9 4 I 4768 I4936 I ,9 17 6 7 8 • 5o2a Q 0f ~ 83 16 4946 4966 1 i 2 3 4739 4859 5 4999 5030 5034 5054 4 ~ ~ TRACT C 2 4791 O 4778 ~ MF4p 15 11 4998 DR. SOUTH n I Oly 4679 14 4969 3 4 4828 2 OR 4889 13 19 50 5 34 4782 4788 4840 6 4899 12 IB 20 5045 335047 ~ , TOW N HOU SNS 4792 5 3 MFq 4868 4939 4948978 32 ~ 507 SUBDI r'v'O6 7 ~ D~ 888 0 4918 17 5037 ~ 4802 4812 g 15 16 31 4898 5027 30 4BI8 9 10 5038 4822 10 11 5038 4842 4852 12 13 14 4862 4872 488 MEADOWS FILING N0.1 2 5 RIVER UNPLATTED DNAL FOREST 04/18/84 14:97 0219 833 1140 J L MANTA I~ 2/D02 . . . RECE119~D APR 1 8 1994 ~ April 18, 1994 ~ Vail Toran Cc?uncil Vail, Colvrada Re: Lot 1 S!und a ,Pha ~ : ...LL i 8ig Hor,n ~ 5th Addit3on'.,t6 Town of Vail ' To Whoar It May Cancern: I aYa the awner of the house'adjacent to the above-referenced lot, and understand that the Toam of vail is considering the purchase af the above 1ot for the makings of a publie parlc, I I belicve thiS wauld make a magnificent addition ta the area, and wauld like to herein register my strong suppart of this proposed endeavOr. r auars ver tru1 ' i ~ Y, ark F . Manta 5040 Maxn Gore P1ace #1 Vai.l, CoIorado MpNI/mkc r $ , - . i ~ t , , , h 1 I i ~ . ~ . Vs ~ . ~ 13 July 1993 Mayor, Members of Council, Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vaii, Ca7orado 81657 Dear Madam Mayor and Members of Council: Attached is a petition requesting that the Town of Vail acquire a small parcel of property which is in $he center of our neighborhood. We realize that the process of acquiring property by the town is in it's early stages, however there is considerabie i nterest i n devel opi ng the subj ect property, and we feel that i f i t is not acquired' by the town shortiy, it will be acquired by a developer and developed. Our neighborhood is a group of townhomes, duplexes and single family residences which are in a near circle around the subject property.. (Piease see the attached map). Because of this and the fact an overburdened pri vate road servi ces many of the properti es, the su4ject parcel is a focal point, and should remain open space or become a smal i-oark. We. al so suspect part of the property i s wetiands, and may require a Corps of Engineers 404 Permit,for development. If you will agree to allow this parcel to remain open, we will maintain it according to standards set by the town. It should be noted that we have brought this property to the attention of the Community Development Department, and they have been notably helpful and very supportive. The reason we bring it to you directly, is we are afraid that the Town of Vaii and therefore we will lose the opportunity, if negotiations for acquisition are not instituted immediateiy. Thank you for consideration of our request. I ~ 1 ~ The Residents of Main Gore Drive, Main Gore Place and Prima Court. ~ -i ~ ~ WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST ,aVg2s 2 t- s,~iov«f 5~~?~c; Sr~f ~ ~O 11,~ OF ~A ~IN PARCEL H 6 ~~~,0. . 13 12 G 7 S 414 7 5157 5167 ~ g 5137 E 5127 q'(~`~ ~ C+~ 177 ~ a ~I~ C«,~ 3 5107 SII 3 2 4 10 ~ AT R 0 T W SE A 5097 ~ S Mv • Z~ IF~ T H g 5 89 0 697 SE O 3!j I 5087 ~ C E D A R P O I N T T O N H O U S E S ~ O G ,3q 03$ e T 5159 I . N 5 F . 5036 ~ 9 5119 5139 8 eo¢o , 5925 i 57 soes e 7~ aise CEDAR INT TOWNHOUSES ~ OO r, 503~ ~ O 6e siee s 7 -a 5 TRACT 5 A 8 FILING N0. I L O ~!-s 6~t .~QQ`~` Z 3 4 5148 T SUNDIAL~i'S090 Q 2 5118 5f28 RE 2 '~8 1 T515 6~ , HEATHER OF V41L CR EK a' i_ 5 12 13 v 2 A~~ 6 7 6 1-4 1 3 12 14 176 4851 4887 127512951 3 15 517 m ~ VAIL MEADOWS qgp~ ~ I 2 2 5 4 W~ ~16 y• KEL-GAR LN. 135 516 4917 ~ 8 ~ 4 FILING NO 2 ~ 4 3 2 1 4846 4876 4916 0 4937 4957 4977 4997 ~ 5006 8 ~ 51i1 2 ~ I ~128 5 2 3 4 q 3 O 5122 e TMIS ROAD DOES NOT 7 6 DI lsI ;q ~+4 7 1O~ ~ 5t~ I 6 9 EXIST AT THIS TIME 3 4 ~ ~ 5114 61 9 7 6~F H DIT 495 .NNIPER 4995 ~y HOUSE 56, 5 4936 9 ~ 9 ' 1e4819 1 83 16 6 497 8 10 46 4966 4999 0 5024 I 2 3 5 1812 6138 10 ~ 4791 4859 ~J 5030 5034 5054 m 5074 g 2 MF4p i5 t I aoe~ 7 ~ 10 11 ED I Ok, 4879 14 4969 4~8 ~ SWTH 5to4 ~u 6142 12 3 ' q 4828 4889 13 19 792 4786 2 SO S 34 4840 6 4899 12 18 20 5045 33 11 15 5 3 4939 4970 .1 29 f~ 5)4e 6184 +4792 q 4e6 e 4948 32 F~5076 28 12 16 6 4 17 6037 m 0095 2~T13e 6164 13 14 8194 4802 7 \J 4888 0 4918 5 184 5174 ! PETITION , TOWN COUNCIL, TOWN OF YAIL We the undersigned, as residents of a neighborhood in East Vail, request and urge the Town of Vaii to purchase either through negotiation or condemnation Parcel 1, Sundial Phase'i in East Vail. We be7ieve this parcel shou7d remain as open space or as a smail park, and a structure should not be developed on it. Further, because tbere is interest in acquiring tfie property for development, it -is our desire that acquisition by the town be an immediate priority. E ADDRESS `"~il ~.C~ ~ 50qo . v ("J ~ . ~ . ~~-t~ r-~-?~ c~~~~ _ v I" ~ - 5 D_~ 0 v"J kb I ~ ""'d , Q~ ~ S n~~:CV 6_ ~ ~ .l , o 7 ~ ~ . v. . PETI7ION . TOWN CpUNCiLt TOWN OF yaiL We the undersi 9ned, as resf dents af ~a nei ghborhood i n East vai request and ur9b the Tvwn of Yail to purchase eitfier thraugfi nagoti ati on or condCmnati on Parcel 1, $undial phase i n East Vai l. We bel i Qve thi s parcel ahoul d remai n ' park, and a structuro shoul d not Ae d~ oj Qp~ o~a i t,°r as a sma1 l i Further. beCau;e thzre is interest in acquiTing ths _prop4rty for d0volopmAnt, i t i s our desi re that acqui si t i on by the tOwrt be an i sunedi ate pri ori ty; - . ~E AOORE3S 1/vo C O~1 L r J . 44. 509-7 Ill~a11 CtAz, Uau I il 01 s°-Aa 4Aw,, 6of-x- P 6t-C e e" A^.p a g t16 5`7 • / dt~.~ • 'f T A.10s4, L' o rL L . . ~ . .~.rnnM CT^I'17 !O ii•l•'itfviv ~~~w nrJLiLZ i l?,.U4J . TG 247Wl PETI • TOtYN COUNCI L, T~pN WN OF yAi L We the undersigned, as res;dent rLlquest s of a neihbo Vail# and urge fhe 'Town of Vai 1 to g ~hood in East negotsation Or conder~n8tion Parce] IPurchase eith2r through '.~e beli eve th i s , Sundi al Phase~~ -2 i n East Yai parCe3 shou3 r3 _reroai n as open space or as a sma3 7 park, and a strvcture should not be developed on it. Further, because therE i deva3 opment, i t i s our cfesi reethat an °c`~ui ri ng the _ i mr~edi ~tte pri ori ty. Gqui Si ti ~ Droperty for , n by the towrt be sn WME ADORESS s°'~a N,np?~ c~~: O~.,vt ~~i ~l ?t y A i ? ~ 4 ' ~'^J.. ' • • J 43 ~ • , : ~p -a 002/002 , . . . I , . ~ . ~ , April 18, 1994 i i. Vai1 Town Council ; Vai1, Co3orado ' Re: Lot x ~ Sundial Phase i . ~ , . . Biq Horh 5th Addition to Town of Vail TO Wh°b'It May Concern: . l I am the owner of the house adjacent to the above-refere and understand that the Town i nced lot, of the above lot for the maki gs of aublicsidering the purchase , P park. I believe this would make a maqnificent addition to the area would 21ke to herein regzstEr my strong support of this , and endeavor. proposed . ~ ours very tru].y, i ark F. Manta 5040 Main Gore Place #l Vai1, Colorado MFM/mkC , , , _ _ ~ . 1 ~ . r~F' . _ . .,,Nt~ ~ ' f ' ~ , _ , . i , , ~ _a~-~... k bC'G7 c"~~ ,i•-;~ ';i; i-~ ) ~ ,i ~ ` - - r ~~N . \ ~G . F . ~ r., : ~ WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST ~P 70 . 13 12 VAIL RACOUET CLUB 7 14 5157 5167 TOWNHOUSES G g 5137 5147 ORE 4770 5 5127 ~ 4 5117 NO • O 4 c PRIMA 3 5107 O O~' S136 4 6 ~ 5097 J sI V 2 IFTH 5 F 38 jI 5087 ~v ~ 511 6 516 NouSE 5033 35 ~ 8 7 5159 Q• O'3A V 9 5119 5I39 Sf -4:e 1 10 5020 ~5 ~~1 5047 5056 G~Rc C1RcO 6 RE CREEK 5089 E ~ ~ q O 5030 _ • 5 5168 i ~ O I-4 p_cCE 5036 3 q 5148 ~ 5090 5u ~ BIGHORN L E ~1 -s suNo1AL 4 1 2 e 512e PHASE 2 5086 5027 i , PARK GORE CREEK B A 12 13 14 ~ 19 MEADOWS g 7 6 1-5 I-4 7 ~ 2 IO 23 12 127 5129 5133 I: E e RIVERBEND 4857 4887 4907 5016 513_ 5026 99 KEL-GAR N. aeoo 5 O 121 51 p 24 L?~ 4917 4 3 2 I 3 51I I ` ~ ~ • 4846 4876 4916 0 5006 8 1 4937 4957 4977 4997 II W ~ 5014 7 5107 DR 2 3 4 ~ j E 6 5 ~ DI ISI HOUS 4 4708 TRACT D • ~ QA DIT 5 816 IF H 496 JU~~IPER 4995 2 5115 5113 50 ~ 4 4768 4936 9 (3) 1 I i9 Ie4819 17 6 7 8 10 • 5024 Y ~ 83 I 2 3 u` 4739 16 4946 4966 4999 Q- 4859 ~j 5030 5034 5054 m ~ TRACT C 2 • 4791 M 4778 ~ ~440)Ok aele 14 49E3 4998 DR. SOUTH ~ 3 q 4828 2 0R 4889 13 19 50 5 34 4782 47E8 4840 6 4899 12 i8 20 5045 4978 335047 J ~ TOWNHOUSES 4792 MF4 4B68 4939 4948 32 Lu 5, > SUBDIVISION 6 ' 4 17 5037 7 ~ 4888 • 4918 4802 4812 g 15 16 31 481B 9 4898 5027 30 4822 10 11 503: • 48424852 12 13 14 p ~ 4862 4872 488 ORE CREEK MEADOWS FiLING N0.1 ~ RivER UNPLATTED )NAL FOREST • . TEMPORARY ART EXHIBIT PROGRAM Below are the provisions associated with the Temporary Art Exhibit Program sponsored by the , Town of Vail Art in Public Places Program (AIPP), Vail Valley Gallery Association, and Vail Valley Arts Council. The purpose of this cooperative effort is to: A. Establish a public art program that is unique to Vail and therefore has a primary . . responsibility to the community. B. Enhance the beauty and interest of the Vail community by placing quality visual art in highly accessible and visible public places for residents and guests to enjoy. C. Develop a diverse, high quality public art experience. The overall program shall strive for diversity in style, scale, media and artists. Exploratory types of work as well as established art forms shall be encouraged. D. Provide an effective process for selecting, placing, and maintaining temporary artwork which represents the best in aesthetic and technical quality. E. Create a framework for a sustained effort to develop public art in the Vail community. F. Develop a strong public education effort, stimulate discussion, and increase understanding about the visual arts. G. Provide a public art development process that encourages and is supportive to artists who wish to work in the public realm. 1. Lease Apreement. The applicant shall enter into a standard lease agreement with the Town of Vail for each artwork proposed for a site. Anyone may choose to submit an application to participate in the program. If a non-resident of the Town of Vail or a person who does not have a business license within the Town of Vail wishes to propose a piece, they. . must be sponsored by a local non-profit organization, Town of Vail gallery, or person who has a Town of Vail business license. II. Liabilitv Insurance. The applicant shall provide a disclaimer for injuries to the public and appropriate insurance certificates and will take responsibility for the physical damage of the piece per the Town standards as described in the lease agreement written by the Town of Vail attorney. 1 III. Lenqth of Lease. The fength of the iease for the piece will be approximately four and one half months. The artwork must remain in place for the length of the lease. A lease may be extended if requested by the applicant and deemed appropriate by the Selection . Committee and AIPP Board. IV. Application Times. . Applications shall be submitted per the submittal deadlines adopted by the FiIPP Board in order for the Selection Committee and AIPP Board to review the applications. V. . Review of Applications. The applications shall be reviewed using the site and artwork criteria found in the Art in Public Places Guidelines, IX A and B, pages 29 and 30. VI. Proiect Selection. . As stated before, the Selection Committee shall look at each proposal basecl on the site and artwork criteria found in the AIPP Guidelines. It is recommended that business owners or residential owners with space directly in front of their property have first right of refusal on using the display space. VII. Selection Committee. _ The Selection Committee shall be made up of the Town Council AIPP representative, finro AIPP board members, one Vail Valley Arts Council member and one Va~l Valley Gallery Association member. Each member shall have one vote and no mernber has the right of veto. If a consensus cannot be reached by the members, then the majority vote carries the decision. The Selection Committee has the right to make nn selection if there is no proposal judged to be of sufficient merit. After the committee has made its selection, the AIPP coordinator shall report to the AIPP Board at their next regularly scheduled meeting the decision of the Selection Committee. The AIPP Board shall review the decision of the Selection Committee per Section VIII, 63a, b, c, d, e. Once the AIPP has reviewed the decision of the Selection Committee, the AIPP coordinator shall inform the Town Council of the final decision on the piece at their next regularly scheduled worksession. ` ~ VIII. Appeals. An applicant may appeal the Selection Committee decision to the AIPP Board. The appeal must be heard within 30 days of the AIPP coordinator receiving the vuritten request to appeal the Selection Committee decision. 2 . ~ IX. Lease Fee. A fee of $100.00 per approximately 4-1/2.month exhibit time shall be charged. If the piece is sold during or within six months of the final lease date, two percent of the sales price shall go to a fund in the Art in Public Places budget. The $100 lease fee and 2% of the sales price shall be placed in a fund in the Art in Public Places budget for the Temporary Art Exhibit Program. The $20 application fee shall be placed in the Community Development Department's application fee fund which is part of the general fund. X. Installation and Maintenance of the artwork. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with installation, maintenance and removal of the. arfinrork. In addition, any repair or revegetation required for the site and any other extraordinary costs shall be the responsibiliry of the applicant. XI. Siqnape for the Artwork. A six inch by nine inch placque on the pedestal for the piece shall be provided by the applicant to identify the name of the artwork, artist and sponsor. Brass or a brass- looking type of plastic is preferred for the sign. • 3 ART IN PUBLIC PLACES TEMPORARY ART EXHIBIT PROGRAM DEADLINE AN9 IIA€ETIIVG DATES APPLICATION AIPP REVIEW OF TOWN COUNCIL INSTALLATION REMOVAL OF LEASE PERlOD DEADLINE SELECTIOId INFORMED OF OF ARTWORiC ARTWORK COMMITTEE AIPP DECISION DECISION MAY 9, 1994 JUNE 8, 1994 JUNE 14, 1994 TO BE NOVEMBER JUNE 15, 1994 - DETERMINED 1-7, 1994 NOV. 7, 1994 WITH APPLICANT AUGUST 29, 1994 OCTOBER 12, OCTOBER 18, NOV. 8-22, 1994 APRIL 17-23, 1995 NOV. 8, 1994 - 1994 1994 APRIL 23, 1995 FEBRUARY 27, APRIL 12, 1995 APRIL 18, 1995 APRIL 24- NOVEMBER APRIL 24, 1995- 1 gg5 MAY 14, 1995 1-7, 1995 NOV. 7, 1995 - . , List of Temporary Art Exhibit Sites . Below is a list of the Temporary Artwork Sites which are available for the Summer of 1994. The sites that have an asterisks indicate that a pedestal will need to be placed on the site before May 15, 1994 in order to avoid problems with the Town of Vail (TOV) Parks Department planting program. `1. Planter on the southeast corner of the Lionshead Arcade Building: This will be a perennial bed in 1994. A permanent pedestal is required and should be placed by May 15, 1994. *2. Planter to the east of Colorado 'Insight entry: This area will be under construction in 1995 and will be converted to a perennial planting bed in 1996. A temporary pedestal would need to be placed in the planter by May 15, 1994. 3. Concrete pad at the intersection of the South Frontage Road and East Lionshead , Circle directly to the east of Vantage Point Condominiums: Pedestal requires some minor repairs. '4. Landscape area in front of the Treetops Commercial Building adjacent to the East Lionshead Circle bus stop: This will be a perennial bed in 1994. A permanent pedestal must be placed by May 15, 1994. The existing wood/concrete block pedestal is deteriorated and needs to be replaced. 5. Landscape area to south of the Lionshead Parking Structure along East Lionshead Circle: The TOV Parks department is concerned about having to mow around artwork and possible impacts to the sprinkler system. Proposals will need to address these concerns. "6. Planter at the east end of East Lionshead Circle: This will be an annual bed in 1994. A temporary pedestal must be placed on the site by May 15, 1994. The rock wall has deteriorated in this location and needs to be replaced. 1 L • 7. Landscape plaza between the Library and Dobson Ice Arena: Tree roots are very shallow in this planting area. The pedestal should ailow water and air to penetrate the soil. The bus department is requesting a modification to the plaza to improve the bus pedestrian traffic flow which may result in construction in 1995. This should be kept in mind during the installation. `8. Planter at the intersection of East Meadow Drive and Willow Bridge Road directly to the west of Toymaker's Trail at the Village Center shops: This site could handle at best a small piece. There are already a sign flagpole and a tree in this bed. This bed will remain as a annual bed for now. A temporary or permanent pedestal would be necessary. A temporary or permanent pedestal must be placed by May 15, 1994. 9. Willow Park: There are no specific issues with this site. The only requirement would be that the location of the sculpture is coordinated with the TOV Parks Department. 10. Gore Creek Promenade Park: This area will probably be under construction through a portion of the summor in 1994. A permanent pedestal placement is preferred in a perennial area rather than in a sod area. 11. South side of ;the Vail Transportation Center across to the north of the Sonnenalp. There are no specific issues with this site. It is important to coordinate the artual location and requirements for the artwork with the TOV Parks Department due to the steep hillside. "12. Planters in front of J. Cotter Gallery: Annuals will be planted in front of J. Cotter Gallery. A temporary pedestal must be placed before May 15, 1994. 13. Ted Kindell Park: This park will be under construction through 1995. This is a good time to locate a permanent pedestal in the park. 2 Date: TEMPORARY ART EXHIBIT PROGRAM APPLICATION i. NAME OF SPONSOR AND/OR APPLICANT: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NUMBER: II. NAME OF ARTIST: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NUMBER: APPLICATION FEE: 20.00 PAID BY: DATE: BY: III. THE PROJECT SPONSOR SHALL SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: A. A completed application form.. B. A written description of the proposal which includes background on the artist and details on the specific artwork to include material, colors, media, dimensions and supporting structure or pedestal. C. Photograph of the specific artwork. D. Any conditions associated with the artwork (i.e. the mounting and installation requirements, etc.). E. Site plan indicating landscaping and grading, if necessary. F. Lighting. G. Desired site and two alternate sites. H. Sketch of proposed 6" x 9" sign placque indicating artist, name of artwork and sponsor. IV. THE ARTWORK SHALL BE REVIEWED USING THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: A. SITE SELECTION CRITERIA. 1. Public safety. . 2. Interior and exterior vehicular and pedestrian traffic patterns. 3. Facility for users and/or interaction of users with proposed artvvork. 4. Site design, including landscaping, drainage, grading, lighting and seating considerations. 5. Relationship of proposed art work to existing artworks within the site vicinity. ' 6. Environmental impact such as noise and light associated with the artwork. ~ 7. Public accessibility to the art work, particularly handicap access. 8. Impacts on adjacent property owners' views. 9. Impacts on operational functions (snowplowing, etc.) of the Town of Vail. B. ARTWORK CRITERIA. 1. Qualitv and Innovation. The consideration of highest priority is the inherent artistic excellence and innovation of the artwork. 2. Timelessness. Each artwork should have relevance aesthetically to the community. Due to the high visibility of public art by residents and guests who frequent public places, artworks should be selecte(J that reflect enduring artistic quality. 3. Compatibilitv with Site. Works of art should be compatible in style, scale, material, form, and content with their surroundings, and should form an overall relationship with the site. 4. Permanence. Works of art shall have structural and surface soundness, and be resistant to theft, vandalism, weathering. Artwork shall not require excessive maintenance or repair costs. Artworks that require expensive and/or continual maintenance are discouraged. 5. Public Safetv. Artwork shall not create inordinate safety problems or liability problems for the general public or Town of Vail. UNPLATTED ' RED SANOSTONE SOLAR MOUNTAIN EL EMENTARY VAIL 16C • 551 ~ 501 • ~ MOUNTAIN BELL F • . • . INTERSTATE 70 (IN T.O:V.) PEDESTRIAN TRACT E ~ ES ~ OVERPASS . WCK I, VAIL LIONS • VP01 T E 2 PARKING ~ WEST- NDS 508 vQI NSHEAD STR3 STURE INTE NVAIL WI ATION c - NORTH PARKING OT lO 548 ISi. I (NG 4 250 HELIPAD • LIO ~ 300 UBLETREE IONSHEAD ~ VA1 5 5 VAIL 125 PO` ING LAN 610 ARK 555 LIFTHOUSE 3 5~1 TRACTF ( EAST LIONSHEAD CI CLE ICE ARENA LIONSHE OFF ~ 2nd FILI(VG PL • IONSHEAD 450 321 O n 616 ' ~ RCQDE (com erciol) 7 2 J TRACT C 53 LODGE AT LI N HEAD TRACT A S~!751RD GONDOLA REETOPS ~A~T ~ ~Q 6 L18R MONTANEROS 2 600 452 292 F E NA7 684 TR T H 4 LIONSHEAD ~ I 281 E 8 CENTER 5 VAIL VALLEY 2 LION'S SQUARE 52 MEDICA CENTER NORTH • A GoRF I I SKA 635 I 9 HOU TRACT D UfWLATTED • c~~T B 272 8 ~ST ~ 14. qADOW :RS • LIONLODGE QR ~Ft 252 232 DR. ~ sso TRaCf 8 AI VIL AG 6 5 4 31 I 212 182 162 TRACT A 381 pA~, CjRc`E 525 FOR£ST ROAO 9 2 362 ~ 4 5 V,QII . FAn ,~t' ~ =FICES O MAIN VAIL I ~ 75 EXIT ~ I LIDAY I.NN 13 ANDAR GATEwAY c 28 STA. 12 LOT 0 ~ A o N ' 5D . • cr OLIDAY VAIL VILLAGE INN 141 EA TvAiL vILLAGE 1ST, HOUSE PART OF TRACT 8 B Q~ M 4 loo •ROSSROADS 14 ~ TRANSPOR I 9 > ARCADE CENTE P w ~ ~ 241 aa aIL VI A Ist. FILING I FIRE • 15 EA T MEq ql~W D42T SONNENALP ~ gµi~W 122, MEAD5 O ~ VILLAGE ~ O CORNICE p~ G aA~LISMAN ~HALET CENTER ausT VILLA Ist 6 2 ~ iZp SONNENALP ~ EAS M~ ADOW OR. va _ ~ 5E 242 TRAC mOUNTAIN COR 212 BANK ro~ 124 126 Np~s ATHLETIC 362 292 CLUB 17 0 52 ' TRACT J 6AVA IA REE VAIL TRAI CNAPEL HS R R SE 6 m ORE K 5g I22 F < W ~g EDELw ~ P , V1~PLAUF R D 83 ~ ELL A 385 IS r~ 4:3 TRACT 403 uMM ITZMAR OWER I ' 63 ~Oy,A rJIDD 183 193 201 3~ ~KP43 TRACT ~123 GpRE ~ 0 13 14 < 3 O 3 WILLDW R vA RI E• RCA E ~ - 286 I IL .Q ARDE r 33 34 • dVILL N. I58-t98 c OF K~, P-2 45 t5 35 44 ~7 ~O I 3 1 ~a~5C 225'a G CT. 30 j VI3 o GODS ! 8~~ ' r r ~ 365 = • ,6 74 RIVA RIDGE S. A,B,C 174 H O~ D ANC'?'~ RAMS SE4 3 THE L nnGE T V NRISTIAN ~ TIVOLI,E o NORN ( 97 87 ~ vAIL ROAD Ct 356 v D-I 386 ~ 416 A \ ~ L F` I A B CYRANO 298 'S VAIL VILLA TRA( =L C TRACT E RESUB. LOT C, BLK. 5C 30~ 325 32 3 5 I ' D A N D A I L E Y 2 N O R T H R O A D KEN5INGTON, NM 03833 7EL:603•778•2203 FAX:608•776. 1331 MarCh 22, 1994 Kristan Prltz AIPP Coordinator Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. I - Vail, CO 81657 Dear Kr i stan, .7 . Plesse considar this letter my proposa( to the Town of Yaii for the creation of a des;gn for streefi lamps tn order fia complete my project which i started at the Vaii Transportation Center, As you knoM my or-iginal propposal calied for 15 Of the existing straet lamps.to be moved and used eisewhere in the Town. Ten of fihose wcuid be repleced with lamps of my oHn design to be competible vrith the tnstalletion of the murai and the lnset wall pieces. 1 Noufd tike to mntce e presentation of at leest I2 designs to you and these on the Art Council xho may be interested or concerned. From the 12 designs I wiil thett proceed to develop one design more completely in drawings and finally es a full scate protatype rhfch can be instelled and !tt in the Town for everyone to see. N1y infiention is to oreate a design that can be rnanufacfiured by a supplier wha will make thc Vail larnp on order whenever the Town needs one. I understand that they are rsgulariy repaired and meinteined by the 7oMn and, therefore, any lamps being replaeed are not vested but simp?y used elsewhere. I intend to design cpmponents whiCh ore compatible with the extsting pedestals and poles so that the Tovrn electrieians and maintenanoe personnel can eesily work with the lamp I have designed. I would elso strive to keep the costs of this lamp comparable to tha cost of the lamps now befng purchased by the Tawn. • • . w, .,w.!! . , I March 22, 1994 Page.2 _ If you agree to this proposel, piease send me e contreet for the dcsign end the prototype and I vill get sterted on this phase ef the pro,ject. As you know I'II be back ln Va11 this Summer to _ make adjustments to the color and to apply the patina shadow on the surface of the mural. At that time perhaps I coufd meet with peopfe about the lamp deaign before fabrfcating the fuli-slzed plece. Pleese let m6 know if there is any other material you moy need to proceed with the project. t Iook forward to hearing from you. S i ncera i y~ , Dan baifey med 1 EST i MATcD BUDGcT FOR VA I L. STREET LAMP Des;gn and fabricate futl-scale working prototype of a street Ismp. DD dasign time ; 2~500 OD stud'+o mcta! 89Inss shop time 2,700 , Ma+Onieis; Hrass, aluminum, uTeel, 11500 glass, slectroNlating, wood for modct making, Reddy-made components 550 (electrtcal parts, tubing, screws, etc.) Sub-ccntrac+; Machine shop time 215p0 Sheet me-el shop time Passibis other sub-cortrect Misc. unanticiFated cost , 500 Est;mated yotel $10,354 MEMORANDUM TO: Art in Public Places Board FROM: Shelly Mello • DATE: January 7, 1994 SUBJECT: Goals and Objectives for 1994 , .......ti . . . . . . . , . . , . . . . . With the compietion of "Exuberance"; we now have a successful project under our belts and its time to move on to 1994. The Town Council again funded the program with $10,000 for a project. VVith these funds the staff recommends the following goals and objectives for the program: $1,000 -$1,500 1. Fund Dan Dailey to come back and do some follow-up work on "Exuberance" which could not be covered in the original scope of work. This includes readjustment of the lighting system and painting behind the mural to try to get better illumination during the day. We are continuing our efforts to confirm the names for the plaques and they will be paid for out of the 1994 maintenance budget. They should be completed in the spring. 2. Continue to support the activities of the Vail Valley Arts Council and Gallery Association and institute the Temporary Exhibit program in the summer of 1994. . Funds generated by the program will be put back into the program initially to develop infrastructure such as concrete pads and lighting. . $3,000-$5,000 3. Fund the schematic design of Phase II new lights for the ' Transportation Center project. This has been a priority in the past and Dan Dailey is excited about doing this. $1,000 4. Complete a joint project with the Vail Valley Arts Council (VVAC) and Gallery Association. This could be a mural in the parking structure which could be largely completed • with volunteer time and effort. 5. Projects or efforts that the Board felt must be completed: a. Research Percent for Art Program. b. Dedicate "Terre Haute" with the dedication of Mayor's Park in the spring/summer of 1994. c. Work with WAC on the Save Outdoor Sculpture Program (SOS). The VVAC has been appointed - as a regional organizer for this national program which provides technical and financial support for refurbishing outdoor sculpture. . ~y TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2100 FAX 303-479-2157 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 14, 1994 Contact: Peggy Osterfoss, 476-0503 Mayor STATE EXTENDS VAIL HOUSING GRANT TO JUNE 1995 (Vail)--A request by the Town of Vail to extend a $300,000 employee housing grant has been approved by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. The one- year extension, to June 30, 1995, is contained in a letter to Vail Mayor Peggy Osterfoss from Larry Kallenberger, executive director of the Department of Local Affairs. The grant, originally approved by the state in November 1991, has been extended previously because of delays in reaching community consensus on an appropriate site development plan, according to Osterfoss. The funds are intended to assist with pubtic improvements associated with new construction, including roadway extensions and utility lines. Osterfoss said she was pleased with the state's willingness to extend the grant. "It appears the 1995 deadline will be firm, however, meaning no more extensions thereafter," Osterfoss said. "It is certainly my hope that we can be prepared between now and then to take advantage of this opportunity to leverage local funds in accomplishing what the Town Council still considers to be a priority goal." (more) Housing Grant/Add 1 According to Kallenberger's letter, the grant will lapse on June 30, 1995 if an affordable housing project is not under construction by that date. "Given the amount of time being allowed to get this project underway," Kallenberger writes, "it will not be possible to extend this offer beyond the June 30, 1995 da-te." Osterfoss and the Town Council have expressed interest in constructing employee housing units on the town-owned Vail Commons property as part of a mixed use development. The 6.6 acre parcel is located in West Vail near Safeway. The town is in the process of hiring a consultant to review land use possibilities. For more information, contact Osterfoss at 476-0503, or Mike Mollica, town planner for the Vail Commons site at 479-2138. # # # Media Note: The Community Relations Office has developed a brief summary on the hi;>tory and current status of employee housing in Vail. For a copy of the 4-page document, please call Suzanne Silverthorn at 479-21 15. EMPLOYEE HOUSING WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL SUMMARY History The Vail Housing Authority, a seven-member body appointed by the Town Council, was created in February 1991 to assist in exploring available options for employee housing. Since then, the Authority has focused on construction of a 30-plus unit development, narrowing a list of potential sites within the town limits from 40 to 17. Financing and community consensus issues are currently under evaluation. Jen Wright, a local developer, is the Authority's chairman. In September 1992, the Vail Town Council passed an employee housing ordinance which provides incentives for creation of five types of dwellings, such as studio units, secondary duplex units, and caretaker units ranging from 300 to 1,200 sq. ft. Those incentives may include an increase in the number of allowable dwelling units in exchange for permanent deed restrictions on the employee units. Only full- time employees who work a minimum of 30 hours per week in Eagle County are eligible to lease the units. The town does not regulate rental rates. Prior to the 1992 ordinance, the town had required owners to create and/or permanently deed-restrict employee housing units as part of the town's design review and planning process for lots which did not meet minimum zoning standards. The need for additional incentives was identified, however, which prompted passage of the full-scale employee housing ordinance in 1992. The ordinance was developed after a review of housing policies in other resort communities, including Telluride and Aspen.. In November 1991, the Colorado Department of Local Affairs approved a $300,000 grant to help finance public improvements associated with construction of an employee housing development. The grant was recently extended to June 30, 1995, because of complications in getting a project underway. Neighborhood opposition has been a consistent factor in causing the delay. Need In October 1990, an affordable housing study was conducted by an independent research firm. The study identified the need for approximately 800 new units over a two-year period within the county. In comparing 157 Town of Vail working residents with 560 residents elsewhere within the county, the study found Vail residents to be: --More often seasonal residents of the area (19 percent compared to 6 percent overall) i, Housing Summary . page 2 --Younger (many in the 20-29 age group) --Single (56 vs. 26 percent) --Slightly lower income --Fewer children ("no children" was 90 percent vs. 67 percent overall) --"Newer" residents (more of six months or less) --Different in terms of type of residence: apartments or condos were the residences of 61 percent of.Vail residents vs. 29 percent overall; rriobile home - 0 vs. 21 percent; single-family homes - 10 vs. 27 percent --More households rent in Vail (76 vs. 53 percent) --High intent to remain in area --Slightly lower satisfaction with current housing (70 vs. 76 percent) --More preference to rent expressed (35 vs. 16 percent) The study recommended a multi-faceted public-private partnership to meet the diverse needs for affordable housing, which covered a wide range of housing types and income levels. • Existing Inventory Five units have been constructed since the employee housing ordinance was passed in September 1992. The units are located at 315 Mill Creek Circle; 325 Mill Creek Circle; 2615 Davos Trail; 1210 Westhaven Circle; and 366 Hanson Ranch Rd. . Of those, four units, representing seven tenants, were occupied as of February 1, 1994. Owners of employee housing units approved after September 1992 are required, by ordinance, to provide proof to the town that tenants residing within those units are full-time employees in Eagle County. Those reports are due February 1 of each year, and are submitted to the Community Development Department. It must be noted that once an employee housing unit is created, the town has no authority to require the unit to be occupied. In addition, rental rates are established at the discretion of the property owner. Although records show the inventory of employee housing approved prior to 1992 stands at 24 units, with three additional units under construction, the current level of occupancy is unknown. That's because property owners are not required by the town to report occupancy for units approved prior to the 1992 housing or(Jinance. Earlier this year, those property owners were asked to voluntarily submit occupancy information. Responses were received from nine of the 27 properties. Of those, seven units, representing 11 tenants, were said to be occupied. The status of the 15 other units are unknown. f i Housing Summary page 3 Collectively, the current inventory of permanently deed-restricted employee housing units within the Town of Vail is 32. Known occupancy stands at 11 units, representing 18 tenants. It should be noted that the inventory, itself, is comparable to the number of units proposed for construction at the Mountain Bell site, and has been created entirely through private development at no expense to Vail taxpayers. Likewise, proposed construction of 32 units at the Mountain Bell site was estimated to cost about $3 million, to be funded by a combination of , private and public dollars. Employee Housing Projects in Process (approved, but not built) --37 units have been approved for a building west of the West Vail Lodge. --3 caretaker units are approved for Spraddle Creek. ' --A minimum of 6 o,r a maximum of 15 caretaker units approved for Dauphinais Project. --4 units approved for Simba Run. --1 unit approved for The Valley, phase II. --6 units approved for Vail Athletic Club Special Development District. --2 units approved for Golden Peak House Special Development District. --3 units approved for Cornice Building Special Development District. --A minimum of 1 and maximum of 5'caretaker units approved for Elk Meadows - Special Development District. Additional Options Under Review --Vail Commons property, owned by the Town of Vail, has been identified as a site for a mixed use development, including possibly 60 to 70 employee housing units. Mixed uses will be studied Spring 1994. --Public Works Facility master plan has identified several employee housing units to be constructed on the town-owned property. First phase of master plan to . begin Summer, 1994. --The town is interested in exploring the purchase of existing units, although . inventory is limited. - --Four lots adjacent to Town Manager's house are being reviewed as potential construction sites. Financing --The Housing Authority and Vail Town Council have been exploring a possible public-private mortgage pool to help finance projects. --The Town of Vail has received a $300,000 grant from the State of Colorado Department of Local Affairs to be used for public improvements in conjunction with a housing development. The grant will lapse on June 30, 1995 if an affordable housing project is not under construction by that date. \ ~ Housing Summary . page 4 Contacts --Andy Knudtsen, Housing Authority staff liaison and planner, Community Development Department, 479-2138. -=Jen Wright, Chairman, Housing Authority, 476-9230. 4/94 ~ ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Moorehead From: Kristan Pritz Date: April 13, 1994 Re: Eliminating Special Development Districts for Low Density Zone Districts My understanding is that Council requested that we prohibit SDDs from being used in the following zone districts; Hillside Residential, Single Family, Duplex, Primary/Secondary. Examples of Special Development Districts that exist in these zone districts would be the Forest Glen and. the Dauphinais-Mosely Special Development Districts. We have also had instances such as the Warner SDD where this zoning process was used for two or three lots. Issues or Questions: 1. Should SDDs still be allowed in these zone districts if three or more lots are involved in the SDD request? 2. Should SDDs be allowed in these zone districts when the SDD is used only to achieve better site planning, i.e., there is no GRFA or density increase requested? If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call at 479-2138. Thanks for your help on this Tom! ' Di M-d DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 9 SERIES OF 1994 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.40, SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to eliminate the application of special development districts from certain zone districts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS SHALL BE MADE TO CHAPTER 18.40: Section 1 Chapter 18.40.010 - Purpose The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development with the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district. shall establish the requirements for guiding developing and uses of property included in the special development district. T#i:e!::Sp00~ de~etopment distr~ot d0. s not appl~€;tq::gnd is nat;~uatl~ie in;the fa[lng :zt~ne di~trie#s: . Mi[I~i~i~e Resident~ai, Sle F~lC~ily, ~uplex; :RrirnarylS#C±~ndary'; The elements of the development plan shall be as outlined in Section 18.40.060. Section 2 Chapter 18.40.020D - Definitions "Underlying zone district" shall mean the zone district existing on the property, or imposed on the property at the time the special development district is approved. The;::;fpllpwin~!;;?0ne: di~tts ar0 prphi#it+~d €rom special dev0t0 p~men# distr~+-t$beirig U.sPd: Hi[I~i~~ R~;sidentia~, SEtigle; F Am>>::;D. .u P lex;;!:. ~Rrima ~Sec4nd~ Y . 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. 1 Ordinance No. 9, Sarias ot 1994 1 v 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 ar 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 , 1994, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the _ day of , 1994, 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 , 1994. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk C:\ORD94.9 2 Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1994 TOWN OF VAIL MEMORANDUM TO: Robert McLaurin _ Council Members FROM: Judy Popeck DATE: April 14, 1994 RE: Investment Report Enclosed is the investment report with balances as of March 31, .1994. On March 15th, a FNMA matured for $160,000 and was used for the monthly payment for the police construction. Also, a FFC matured on March 25th for $500,000 which was reinvested. In efforts to increase our overall yield on.the pooled cash fund, the following short-term securities were purchased during the month: March lst, FDMC, $ 500,000, yield - 3.992$ March lst, FNMA, $ 500,000, yield - 3.582% March 18th, FFC, $1,000,000, yield - 3.551$ March 18th, FHLB, $1,000,000, yield - 3.409$ March 25th, FFC, $1,500,000, yield - 3.530$ March 30th, FHLB, $3,000,000, yield - 3.614% The estimated average yield for the debt service fund was 4.30% and 3.66% for the pooled cash fund. Currently the yield curve for 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year are 3.56$, 3.99%, and 4.46% respectively. Please call me if you have any questions. , . Town of Vail, Colorado ' Investment Report Summary of Accounts and Investments For the Month Ending March 31, 1994 Balances Percentage 03/31/94 of Total Money Market Accounts (see page 1) ~ Commercial Banks $6,792 0.04% Money Market and Mutual Funds $5,027,853 27.52% Colorado Investment Pools $1,814,493 9.93% Total ~ $6,849,138 37.49% Commercial Savings Banks & Loans Certificates of Deposit (see page 2) ~ ~Y~ ~ Eagle County Institutions 0.00% . Other Colorado Institutions $297,000 $297,000 1.63% National Institutions , 0.00% Total $297,000 $297,000 ~ 1.63% Percentage of Portfolio in Savings & Loans 0.00% U.S. Government Securities (see page 3) Treasury Notes & Bills $1,279,413 7.00% GNMA's $90,681 0.50% U.S. Savings Bonds $25,227 0.14% Federal Agency Discount Notes & Bonds $9,731,097 53.26% Total $11,126,418 60.90% Total Portfolio . $18,272,556 100.00% Maturing Within 12 Months $16,539,482 90.52% Maturing Within 24 Months $618,123 3.38% Maturing After 24 Months $1,114,951 6.09% $18, 272, 556 100.00% Breakdown of Reserve Funds G.O. Bond Reserve $2,243,660 1992 Police Construction Funds $1,885,701 Housing Bond Proceeds $866,675 Chuck Anderson Memorial $10,991 Health Insurance Funds $1,040 $5, 008, 067 3/15/94j1p invsm2 Money Market Accounts as of March 31, 1994 ^ --For the Month of March-- Institution Balances Type of Accounts High Low Average 03/31/94 COMMERCIAL BANK ACCOUNTS First Bank of Vail - Opereting Interest 2.970% 2.620% 2330% ($16,254) Balance $1,031133 $41,405 $333,777 First Bank of Vail - Insurance Interest 2.970°/, 2.620°/, 2.730°/, $1,040 Balance Centrat Bank of Denver ~ Interest 2.330°/, Generat Operating Account Balance $22,006 - Total Commercfal Bank Accounts $6, 792 , LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOLS Colorado Trust Operating Account Interest 3.120% Balance $66,687 Colorado Trust Housing Bond Proceeds I nterest 3,120% Balance $866,675 CSAFE - Bond Proceeds - Police Construction Interest 3.250% Balance $447,794 CSAFE Interest 3.250% Balance $433,337 Total Local Government Investment Pools Accounts $1,814,493 MONEY MARKET FUNDS First American Corp. Trust Treasury Fund Interest 2.962% Balance $1,351,142 Fidelity Investment Government Money Market Accounts Interest 2.950 % - Bond Issue Reserve Account " Balance $274, 395 Interest 1290 % Opereting Account Balance $2,341,201 Overland Express Interest 4.010 % Balance ~ $1,061,115 • Total Money Market and Mutual Funds $5,027,853 Total all accounts $6,849,138 "Account Subject to Arbitrage Rebate 4/6/94j1p invmm3 pa9e 1 , Certificates of Deposit 1 as of March 31, 1994 Bank Name, Location Days to Rates Purchase Maturity Maturity Maturity Ins Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Value BestBank, Thornton Colorado FDIC 4.750% 4.600% 16-Feb-93 13-Feb-95 319 $99,000 Paonia State Bank, Paonia Colorado FDIC 4.400% 4.250% 17-Aug-93 ' 15-Feb-95 321 $99,000 Bank of Greeley, Greeley Colorado FDIC 4.250% 4.000% 16-Jun-93 16-Jun-94 77 $99,000 , Avg Yietd 4.283%, $297,000 invcd3 4/6/94j1p Page 2 , ? Government Securities as of March 31, 1994 "'Treasury Notes & Bills"' Days to Days Interest Rate Purchase Maturity Maturity to Book Par Type Fund Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturity Value Value TNote Pooled 4.250% 4.340% 17-May-93 15-May-96 1094 776 $499,043 $500,000 TBill Bond Proceeds 3.360°k 25-Oct-93 22-Sep-94 332 175 $101,387 $103,000 TBill Bond Proceeds 3.390°k 25-Oct-93 240ct-94 364 207 $60,860 $62,000 Zero Debt Service 7.820% 21-Jun-91 15-Nov-95 1608 594 $618,123 $700,000 AverageYield 5.90% $1,279,413. $1,365,000 Average Days to Maturity 438 '**GNMA'S"' Years to Estimated Interest Rate Purchase Maturity Maturity Years to Principal Pool Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturity Outstanding 5803 8.000% ~ 8.480°,b 14-Nov-86 15-Oct-05 19.10 16.00 $28,961 13003 8.000°k 9.500% 240ct-86 15-Oct-06 20.20 17.00 $28,283 14659 8.000% 9.200% 24-Oct-86 15-Jan-07 21.20 18.00 $33,437 Avg Yield 9.064°k $90,681 "'U.S. Savings Bonds"' Years to Issue Maturity Maturity Years to - Book Maturity Series Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturity Value Value EE 7.170°h 01-Oct-86 01-Oct-96 10.00~ 2.51 $25,227 $30,000 "'Federal Agency Discount Notes & Bonds"' Days to Interest Rate Purchase Maturity Maturity Days to Book Maturity Agency Fund Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturity Value Value FFC Pooled 3.560% 3.641 °k 07-Jun-93 01-Jun-94 359 62 $499,933 $500,000 FNMA Bond Proceed 3.240°k 25-Oct-93 15-Apr-94 172 15 $159,801 $160,000 FNMA Bond Proceed 3.230% 25-Oct-93 09-May-94 196 39 $254,140 $255,000 FNMA Bond Proceed 3.260% 25-Oct-93 06-Jun-94 224 67 $223,682 $225,000 FNMA Pooled , 3.582% 01-Mar-94 28-Jun-94 119 89 $495,719 $500,000 FFC Bond Proceed 3.320°k 25-Oct-93 18-Ju1-94 266 109 $386,210 $390,000 FFC Pooled 3.530% 25-Mar-94 21-Apr-94 27 21 $1,496,462 $1,500,000 FDMC Pooled 3.992°r6 01-Mar-94 28-Nov-94 272 242 $487,174 $500,000 FHLB Pooled 3.551% 18-Mar-94 17-May-94 60 47 $995,545 $1,000,000 FHLB Pooled 3.409% 18-Mar-94 19-Apr-94 32 19 $998,322 $1,000,000 FHLB Pooled 3.614°k 30-Mar-94 31-May-94 62 61 $2,982,282 $3,000,000 FHLB Bond Proceed 3.361% 25-Oct-93 15-Aug-94 294 137 $251,827 $255,000 FHLM Pooled 4.560% 4.560°,U 03-Jun-93 03-Jun-96 1096 795 $500,000 $500,000 $9,731,097 $9.785,000 Average Yield 3.60°k Average Days to Maturity 131 Total $11,126,418 4/13/94j1p invtr3 Page 3 TOWN OF VAIL ~ 75 South Frontage Road MEDIA ADVISORY Yail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2100 FAX 303-479-2157 April 13, 1994 Contact, Suzanne Siiverthorn Community Information Office 479-21 15 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLlGHTS FOR APRIL 12 Work Session Briefs --Town of Vail Mission/Vision/Goals The Council prioritized objectives associated with 10 goal statements: transportation; intergovernmental relations; housing; planning; growth & development issues; infrastructure; economic development; environment; organizational effectiveness; financial performance; and human services. Unlike previous years, the Council has chosen to treat all 10 goals equally, with prioritization and ranking -occurring at the action step stage. In the coming weeks, the Council is expected to adopt the mission/vision/goals in the form of a resolution. For a copy of the working document, contact Suzanne Silverthorn in the Community Information Office at 479-21 15. --Design of the Covered Bridge Renovation Imagine the addition of a cupola or gables to Vail's coveted landmark, the Covered Bridge. After a presentation by the Boulder firm hired ta design the renovation, followed by comments from several residents and members from the Design Review Board, the Town Council agreed to maintain the rustic character of the bridge by leaving the wooden structure just.as it is. The Council opted to spend up to $97,500 for the project, much of it to correct structural problems. The work will include rehabilitation of some of the bridge's timbers, replacement of girders and decking, abutment improvements, installation of pedestrian guardrails, drainage work and streambank improvements. The work is expected to occur Sept. 12 through Nov. 4. A temporary detour bridge will be installed east of the project, and will be re-used elsewhere when the renovation is completed. For more information, contact Greg Hall, town engineer, at 479-2160. --Staging of the Covered Bridge Building/License Agreement The Council authorized use of the town's pocket park to stage demo and construction of the Covered Bridge Building project by a private deveioper, East- West Partners, Inc. In exchange, the developer agreed to assist the town with crane costs up to $5,000 (more) , TOV/Add 1 for renovation of the Covered Bridge. Additionally, the developer will rec;onstruct and landscape the park for a.n estimated cost of $100,000. For more information, contact Mike IVlollica in the Community Development Department at 479-2138. --Chapel Bridge Project Public Works Director Larry Grafe{ informed the Council..that bids for replacement of the Chapel Bridge came in higher than engineer estimates. The original estimate was $479,592. The low bidder was G.A. Western for $566,913.50. Grafel received authorization to award the bid to G.A. Western and to negotiate reductions in the contract to reduce the funding shortfall to_ S 168,000. i> combination of capital reserve funds, savings from the Covered Bridge project and other street improvements will be used to make up the difference. Grafel said the state will fund 80 percent of the original estimate. Because the estimate was made two years ago and prior to actual design of the project, the shortfalt is bEing attributed primarily to inflation, price escalation, and local landscaping and design requirements, Grafel said. One option to avoid such gaps in the future, Grafel said, would be to design projects first before submitting grant applications for state or ' federal support. Work on the Chapel Bridge is expected to begin as early, as next week. For more information specific to re-routing of traffic, contact Grafel at 479- 2173. --Vail Commons Request for Proposals (RFP) The Council approved a document soliciting proposals for the 6.6 acre town-owned Vail Commons parcel. The town wants to hire a consultant team to assist in development of appropriate design guidelines, a description of desired uses, a list of transportation related issues, a conceptual analysis of the site plann'ing process and an economic feasibility study for the area. The parcel is located in West Vail near Safeway. The town has expressed interest in providing for a variety of commercial-type uses on the site, plus employee housing, a day-care facility, a possible fire station, parking, recreation and open space areas. The town intends to hire a consultant team by June, with comp{etion of the study in December of this year. For more information, contact Mike Mellica in i:he Community Development Department at 479-2138. # # # i ~ \ ~ - a" TOWN (OF VAIL ~ 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2100 FAX 303-479-2157 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE , April 13, 1994 Contact: Holly McCutcheon, 479-2136 Town Clerk APPLICATIONS AVAILABLE FOR TWO VACANCIES ON VAIL LIQUOR BOARD (Vail)--The Town of Vail is seeking to fitl two vacancies on the Local Licensing Authority, more commonly known as the Vail liquor board. Letters of interest are due to Town Clerk Holly McCutcheon by 5 p.m. May 11, with final selection by the Vail Town Council on May 17. The Local Licensing Authority is a five-member body which governs the issuance of new licenses, transfers, changes, suspension and revocation of existing licenses. Qualified applicants must have no direct financial interest in a license to sell . alcoholic beverages or in a location holding a liquor license. In addition, applicants must be a U.S. citizen, a resident of Vail for two or more years, and a registered voter. The two vacancies represent the expired terms of Mitzi Gimenez and Don White. The new terms will run through June 1996. The remaining members of the board are Bill Bishop, Linda Fried and Davey Wilson. Their terms expire June 1995. . The liquor board meets the second Wednesday of each month. Meetings begin at 10 a.m. and are held in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. For more information, contact McCutcheon at 479-2136. # #t # • - . ;.t::= 'h.~:'.'~'=s~"~r,-~~.''~•`~: ~ A ~,"?3'~: ..?;,~.rt '~c ~r^- ~LL~:=T> a^. . . . . . . . . . - ~ P '~ti~~ ;~y~"'' ~ f ' '~Y~ t~ , ' ~t. ^i, . :~e' ~•.e~:..t: t:• Q ~ . _ • • ' ?~'„-~5. ; ~ .c~'i ' 2.;,~` . . . . ~t' "~.;.c. ~~'"•y,-,..~J;.~.,._:-: -~Y .s . _ . . - :s.~.~ '~»5..~'I..,. ~rx:a t _.-.T~'.u•~,-':~t REeEIVE R a 7tt~ ~ . . ~ N~L.C . : - ,c._pIGIT ul~_ . r e r' •;'..c1.4:.v..S:rt;.~'.:i:n;.~K?I']6.~;;K':h.~, r . /f/M. . . .•-~~c,~'~ ~t:. i ! i / J . . . T GI.J P,i OF 1.! ,r'; I L i . T~"d i IOi~' : TUW1! 1"1;~I`,rGc.F' . ;5 ~ i:1~I T'i F~' Ci 1'~T r-~ GE F' 1_~ t,l6`~7 . , . ~~t;IL CU _ . . - . . . - ~ Vol. 115 • No. 16 • April 16 and 17, 1994 • 25.Cents ~ . . . ~ , : . _ ~ . _ : . ~ • ~ ~ ~ nsi ' , • . • ` ~ JU tra 1991 "19-1 . ' , . ~ . . , ~ . . . ' \ . , - • . ..1,........... ~::r;:j ..v:s>w . . . . ' . .zR:~s,~~ ' • . . . . ~ . ' . ~:;i:e•i.~~' ' ~ . , ~ . . ~.i . . . ~ , ~ . . . . . - . . . . ~ 'O * ~ . , .i ~ ~ - • { ,~i~ . , ~ _ ~ ' - • . ' . . ~ . ' . a . . ~ v ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ . . w:.~-..... • • . - . , 3 • ~ ~ . . . .s~ . _ _ : . . . . . . _ . . . ~ : . a.~..,......~nr-,...o.a:., . . . . > ruv : . . . . , ,~_:.~:'~:v.'~.;:r;"~' ~.f~ rs;,~3;~;..2:'.a°:'~ •,.;:ka1.~..: +~'r.`sx:'M.^.F~"z.~' . .r.. . , ew. . . : < ~v r. F .s r w~.. . . . . . . n . . 'fi:.k' -.:r . .r , , _ ~ . a. ~ . Y~ . .e , . - . . 1.. . . a . . .a . ,..'b :3., .y.,.. . , , o. .x . "5. . a o. . . . c ff ..,..f.. ~,~w . k a S x r _o. . , . . . 'z>. . L:... ,~M._:y . . . ~ r . a.. . _ x ...<....F . . . . + . . . „ , ....5~ F ,.P: . ~ . ..r....2..., ro . M.,... 9,,.,.,z.... . .._s ..a.. , . . s! x_'f.:~"''~n°.::y„r'. ,,:'s".;_,...•:~:F.:;r~s_~.::•:.. ;6J: y. ~ _ ~ :~...........e`? n. . _ 'r.:'Y. .f2' ~`.rL,.,; i. . . ~ . ...~k ~.h~ ~ . ..<.xv ....a.~.,,h'•~~~.:~ :.....>~,;..co_M'~..x.,: a,-:.,............;:::..t.. . ..s . . . .....,..t...... { ..vo--l~ 4,z ..:.w..:, : ~CSiI~II"`~ . v... . o. E.,~ .:n.. ,..e, o. ....e: , y'w;,~.~~° M . La,.,... . r...r... . ..>n ~o..z~. .F i.T~'~ .,.....e... "'r _ . .1~3,~:.. - ,.r,, i,...r. . . . .,9 .s s. . ..c o. . . , . n . . . 3... ~ a;i vi.~"~'~'~e„''ai! .,,R~. .aiJ':f.e. ;eJ::e-:;.x s,:~.; o. . . : . ~ . : . ~ ~ ;.~';:9;~~-. •Y;:.~ '?..r:...m,>~ , a...;. ~i`:~;'`'~ . ~z- ..,....~.,;.,u, ....•.E~;;•'wr-` .;:r~~»,:_ ~y . a , -"'a":.~~;ii~s...,.:.~~. A~]~ `~~i1S~t~~.:5°•>~~Ii~6i#iii233~~ i . .:~...,.>a~:::... ` . , ...e....; . L , o.:. . ~ ~ °w'S"'.r:A';..J? ~£'.w`^.~4_i""'" _ .E,. _f.~':;.:.. . . ..r;~...«:...~5.. . 3. W .'d. L q t ~i . _ . . . . . . . . . , w . , . ,.m, ~ .x:i;.. 'i ? . . , . .,ee. ...w..x . . ....L....,., . < . . . . . 1` M.i . . v... . i . . 'v.6../a.,`~.k:.~.~,:.',~',-~.. ''i~ ~,4?. a . ..r..,..... . . ~..tr. . . -.R . >_m. . ,a ~'cr7%.i ~ ~'~1f..s+4 4 i~~ ......~.a;.w ,a,...4'.,:. .t . . . .,.y...... . s: ?s,r, . 1.~.- „ . ..a~ r u <,:v . ,.:K<.: r ;r<~ <r~s.:. .~11,.•~Y[I.>... , ~ . , n, . e:,v : ..ssa- x...,:.~er.•d...s,,., :.~%3 . . ~.t ~,.a~.::.,. ....e•.,. ~';~a: - <.r~... y f'h„ ......a.,... . ,::_<..~,_..,;\:•'°'~;>i.:_"~."~~,`: .h~: '~.a?;1•t. e~6~ .~i~~tr~ `~r:`~.~~~ j ~ ~ V ?j . . P r,.~ ~~~>~ta+.4 T. :•b`«"'m`+Z,°.'''"'x,'e'~~%., ~~~a,~~;e', , s~~'' d ~ ! t } j J . . .,ar,«.< .,{....,....N....,,.:~ . .<~a^. ..~s~;i> ,'SK"~ i°'.a7i'.. `:x: ~ . ~ . .6se'~-~.r. c~... .9'~..i~..-x.a~`..-.~^...::",kv°'vr..•-X4N'o.°~.~.~"•"€i~. :":i.~~. eK%^er. ~,.~,?~r~', y. '_.2:. F~ ;..'3,.. a '3 <'~h:" .,......2'a."~. o':~a.., r.. _ . ..ros..a~.:,. -~i"' . . ..c...,:>4~.:,.a~':&.•,s's~...rv..z; ~,.asc: ~.^'l,.• _av.:.: ,tj`~`s¢+n ~a . r. ¦ :p.:.;:;,:.:r~>v:;~:~~^.;~,.a",s• •:3;:::., :s~6.x;~~,..::,~Tn.,*,~._;, ~i:'• .:r. .wc,i>'i.,,~.~,~,rr„~ . . . ~d, ,.~k.~q p~;lt;'§4~~,'..`:~;::i:~'Y;[d`!`"4C'.~ " ` A~~~ ? ~t ~~p +~y~i M~~y a,.~.~. u'a• ::.:....t.~..._ " . e.. . .o.. . ..v . , n . .:v . . a . . ..:...u ...t. r.. "S..°~~'.~,':a'.° , Y.i•~ ;:.@'+" ~Si,~ ~a. . . Y.. . . . . 'Y: . . . . . , n , ' "'N ~e ..Pe~ _r . , r"~.'. r.,,.s„ r ..8.<.<a'~ ~ °•~a. °..~,ir;t„,..~...,,;;».~z '"~y~ ? y~~p~~p .x. »~'S.~ . . >....,~rv _ . . . . , . -<w, s;a:... ~r3'"'.; a+".. P. ~ w ;~',~x... r.<.'.~. _ . . r ..~n... . . w,~..._...ax :r . . -<..~~f::~.._ - w•:~ R*e,.. ~y ~(y ~}}~s ..Y ~...a. a fav+ ~,..x'.'k _ n..l.'...r... .a...~.... . e. >,..i _ r~~-i..... n.6..., t ,..ili~~d ,V ~4. . . _ . h . : . . ..:...,~s<......~.. .~s. _..z~ ' E' T ~-`lU1A~aF . . . . ~ , c ~ . . . ~ . . . . . . . . M....,.~.. , _ . . F . . ....s.. -t~. . . s. . . . , . . . , . _ . ~ ~ < r s'~'*~ 7 . . . . ~ . Y ~a . . . n . _ _ . _ . . . . . e . ~ y~., ~u: . ,.s : i:a(:" . n:s'::`.i,. ~:'•T . . s,. .i. a~ V ~ r•v 13... w . ~1.~.. . . . . a.... . .,w.. > .~5~. _ oe..r.. . ,a.s^.:_ ~raer,.~.. . ~ . . : . . . . ~t a. x~~. . a.. x.n ,.r~.:...t ....2cs ..`~`o~+..a ,Y;A .Ya..... .°.::;x' n.W.~' •_>5~~:~ ~:?n:: .'V<;.:`:.. T`:T:'. Ym e~. _,.MC. . -on , x..a.._ . . . ,w. . . ~ o., s.:.x~3.>., ,+.-ue...:~... . .....v: . ...x. . : x,. i"f_. ~..~~'8.1n~ . . < a 3. _ ~.e t;. , . d1~.e .ac<,. . ...a..~ 30"'. . w . . . eC `i. a`>:. ..?r;`.t:. ° : .~.e, Sh„~.....Y. ~<:..r...w a.A.`~"~,. .a. ,m..... . . .,.r . > . , > .........s . . ...n . . ~ s..:. ,.y r a } ~tif~h.,..>.~1SIOI! ~ ...>3.^e~.M,. ~.n ,..M.. .f..:.., ,tf.>`..?..... ~°^~,~"2.`•_:i,.," y,}~ p a- , ~.f . . ,._..1'C. ...+s...„ . ~W >5°. fr . . . .a.~... 7...r. , o.. > .<...V.. . _ < . > _ 7._.a. . . ~..~:r~>Xk'fy~r~F..rc1a .^'H8`.: zdl `Y~33k' ~~°~1i41k' o~?~*}_-..,~a}~~^'^+:'.w`~ '.SSS~.,w.,..e,.... ;.l.. r. ...a.1::. .a.....<....,....._ is>.... -T:....x .....~:.~....1•x<:. .:1.° r.:R~;'..:~.l, .tx>~/$x~i,...x~t~, . , . , Z . ...r:F . , . e M. . : vC''c., ~....A'......:v .,:n<.b.:..`....a ...b?...... ...`;L'~'::~..., ..~e,~(~a,~ Y.:' ~•^i:Y:<! r . . , . . M...., ~ _ ~ . ~ w ~ OT , . . . . ~ . . , . _ . . , ~,~.r ~ ~e~ , r.,... m v.> . .,z.~ . o... a3,~ ~ . ~ .w.,..„w ....sx~.:,,..:...~'k.....~..... r..~. .s...,;2 'a~~' .'1" r ~-:i . e:.. . . ..z$ .t . t . . ar . , . . Y a . . n.,.: . \ , s"4 Y`<i` :i3:if ~ e.i :';%t-; ^ . , . :1..... . :='~?c.i?Sh ?.??i..~~" ' ,.%;"s'.°r.''v^'~ , ~j ~,y h.,,.r...., ...n . ...H . .a_ . ;.<a.L:,, «.:g.:, ~`~"',~r;,, .,.;~.H.. "~y'4i~: 17~ltQr~..a .,....x.......,-,.....~.J .._.5... _,'"9i~.. %~)',i;" .,..~.F:~a^ . ~~~..+~71~~ . , . . . . Y _ < ~ . . . : . . x ~:.e ~i~r>~;`e ~ ~L,,, . . „ . . . . o x, a „e..,._....... P ......%w..s . ~ , ,r '~Sl~.. . , . . . w x a s . . » . . . . , s..v.F~..., h:?iv`> ~ > z , a . . : . . _ ..1~.. .....F . . . , . ..o , .~S:~c L^: :~.z.__: .>'e,. ~yyy{7:9`Wt•fp . . a....~. . . . ~ . ...a . , .>_xa.. . ::t :'kK'Kw 't~"..:s*,v~,yv . . .a.~:.+....~..~: . . x . < ..z..r ~.R^ r. . ,a.... .v..~ ,.4x i ' . e,~ .~...Y . {}y' w«,;t .b 1$ . . en.... . ..s..e ..~.n. L.....d.:. sJe ......n.~::. ?.~~•'<..%4_ L:S;~ ~P , s . s ..iGc~ndal , ~ . a.~~ ~ - . , ~ . . :;•r:;:• ;a.r;....~: . #.~i. 'lkoll 4. . . ..b::,.:. ~ • r. _ ~ . . . a.. , . x. . r.: ..n.. . S . ';'n.~. . . . . . . _ , c.,.. . .~~.....t .~..R6.:__;.,:'_ . . A . . . „ . , . , b. o . _ . ~ ~a'~£z0> 9 ~ . . ~ w. _ < . ~ c . ~ . . , . . . , . . , . . . ~ . . , . n _ ~ ~~x . . ~ . . x . ~ . . , . . _ M . W . .s ~ ~ ~ii~ ~:~i-°~t . _ ~I~or'~:. ~ . ~ ~n~l~d~4 ~V _ Ye.. 3b . . . .a';.- ~~~'F ~ < •~:k~~. , st ~~y ye ~."~....lr ~<'<.. . . ~ , :.;.,.a.... ~'~•Y F. . ......W.... ...Y •'h ..4`?iS-' ~,.~Y~ :'.~~~{?,,,,..,a o.:,,,_.,..~:6:..w......r..,S. i f= . . _ . „ : > , a...._z `a.;. ~ W~ s <,.<2 7~,. . ~s ~ > . ~ . . ,~3. . .name..~fws . i~~~ . . .,,r ..as.. v.r., ~•~;'r'*w;,~.~.R« . . r a.K .a ..sr..~.~ ..i3.. ..o.o^"'," a4Yt:~ ..yR. . . . a . ..,wa<:~:.^.tyY ~ ~r,..'.'.t.... . . . . . . ~.vs:,~:;.,...., :~:~.w,..,: ti.'t. ~ 3)J~; F; i~,_ r - z y~~, . . _ .'~P._.,.a.;,.,s ..;x....r'-x.:•"NMaM". ^~~..s.-• l 3> . , . ~ _ _ ~ p c,.~: ~x > s~=w . . ' ..7t~OQ~ a , ~3 . ~ ~~~~iat:~- :~:m~Rt,.....; , : t~ ._?wl'•,. . > ~°~Ye ':a"s." x ° 3~~ ~3 , . r,,. . ~ t.. . . . . .....;c . a. , . „ ,.....xF~r. & -:8~1f~fiw < _ x ti. , , . y ~j. ..I7~.?'~.~/~~~ }y ~y,. n a~. ._w... ...,a.. rL.:~:,,,...;t. , .z-_. a~,`~.:~. . :pc°:r „'J,'~•,`'.'`, -ac~~i:'• ''h }'`.q~ , er : •..~.^_P~, i~{ % ~.~'1n~~e'~~:'~F.:.:'l.~:i',"z..,:'ti+'~:'Sf .'t..''F1?,~'+~:,~,~n.i1 viY-:Yll: L111VRk.3lslli,t,W1V... . . ....:~f',n ,..<,....=a<. . ,Y".~a .~"r.'e'T..:~. II~ ."'fij••':it'i:. ~''~:(:'yt ..b:`f~.a> ..y~. . .`,M.J'tr ~ . . . . n a.. J . . ~ R...~4.. ~e .A"_ . . . a`v. G~~`~&,r,:w :aai'.:a, Av,.... r"':#'5' l'~' K. ~s4: c r~... n.,.,...e.. . ri e;~ s~)s..~~..,..~..., ,ta.. . i. i. a ~n.e.a.~~-• '<iva....; ...>,~.e,'F" ~~''.i.^:.r. :.e~ D~" ~,•X`.. ~w~°.~W 'S'. _.~e" .5, . ~5;,.. . + .y .~d..~t?..:...~~_ S. tw ~ Y . _<,e 3.. i.~n...~ ' ;4~- ,i~W.'ne'.k.aC.3 a+, . ~ 4'~'~5^` ~~.'..ac ?.i.`~'.'~....: x..~Y'11?'a'Tf '~i~Ii~` :.p+.f~' '.~,^'f~ . n r . . . ..~-..,..~.x...., ,*i_.:.L< .«p~:v:..~.;e .~T` 2 ?.y ~?'~.y ~RS#`_ s. . . . . . ve. ta flultei~n ta xh. . _ r . ~ ~ . ~ . : ; x ce.. ~ , M__..,...,~-,.,. . . . . . . ~ . . . . . .......,x _.a_ ,....wt. , . ~..:..;::~.......;~G.~i-:~..,,,:r:.. : o-..c';:.w.?n,N:t-:.~u:~; ..;h'ti'dt ..~s.::~'i•'~ ^.w..'~:. ~i:`^~t:&4s ~::.tr:. ~;z. ,k~,,...:..~:"t"'..`•'._. . . ..,_w .......u,,~......~ . _r. F. w~ . . o- . .o_.. . . . .~:.v.F.. ~....w a.... 1.~ _k~.., a. ;...<r....~.., . . ~r . . • ~ . r ° ~ ~ -t.. ,t., . •:ar.s. ,..:.t;M~. ,.,..~~^:~ka~ . .k~s~~;::,..-:;w~ ~~sM.~.. -t?°b~.~ F:::..t', ..i..,:a s. ,3~`. s ~ > iitllIL ,~dy~~ ..R,r.,, 1,, ~j~~ t..,,. . .q ....e . 3».:r.,.-~y,'...,.3::.oa. ..kY'A-s~' :g ti.r 3...~...>.,, L~. .a„~ .:r.., ~~~.=~'-sr"a-a:=~..- 3' • d:; rtatuin-ca? .,.r.~~. y^ ar4as}"+.`.Tf . . °.`r`_".'Y~...,... ...r...~._ ..a- :.:,x^"°_;w»:1> ~ :'.1::::~~3+`c ~x • ~.'Y'a.+ '~..'.'°°.'i:..~, ~..,b.. ~.r~ . . . . ...:..r. . . . . ae.., ..:9~ ~ .m~ :1~~::... , „ ~°°`.~1 ...~ca. _ d . . a~ . .L^~ .Y.. f.,'~... . . ..d ..a.. ....x......, . .s....., ' '~L~ a>.,i~ wrc.. ,.::.r:.':n~[?`.'Y^ v<A . 3~. 6. ,.........:~w.;..~~+,.,...,~..->.~c.- con~ .;~_,.,.:;._..r.,.,..a,,,. , der ,.w ~ . . . . . ~ ~ ~ aA s~rx~ct .,..,w,..z!rY ....:::........~_..:.>•,~.._..{x...,,......~.,..~.._x. . x... a ~a.~=..;~;~<: o'-~~e~~asua~~ts ~ ..PP~. . .a4. yx.::w. .~~:.a- ;;a~==:•~-::»,~~~ . ,,o w;... . u-.....,,; - . - •r ...~.s,..r<. ..°~i~',. .,..:.n.~ . . _ . . 1.. '~'q~ TiC~avev .3... . w _ .awa.;+"'. _ . • n .~~k. ~ .L~ 1 8110II..S13IIlLA1I~:.~1 C~. s.. ,,.s t2'8d1S I~ w;~q.,~ . ~ . : . . . . . . ,.~..>,~.,~v.~.. ':1aI1C'=. r~ .:+fIFF~iMA r,..r:•gs•, ~73`"a.r.r."., : . . . wi~zr'o~bss, ..M~`.•s ~,:.,11V1~ ~V' .+R~„~.L; ;:g. , ,....c..., . ._.;,_.....:,v;:. , . ':-is, ~h`3:':'~`~:-er _ h't,~.,; ~ U C~T~.2 II1Z1Il ~.:-.}'.~}1C~Y1Si0Y1..1iI1 SItE~=;~r>_ F.y,.. . ,.._..,.g...~,:,a.,.c . ...°u ,P.. . . , t) :<..r:'r~ . „t?~$..::.tr.,.;: .~..t,....,,., . . ~ „L,~,,.. . : : ~ ~„~.a~.e..~~~.l~':.':;~ . . ; ~ eim ;af.assar n., . . ~<........g. ~ _ . . _ . . . ~ ~ , . . . . . . . _ . . ~ _ ~.M~.... ~ra- ~+4~`~~~ _ a : ~ : . . . b,F tz . . , ~ . ~ . . k ~ . . . _ - h~ ~ .;MM::`•~ , ~ . . . ~ ...__:,:.a_ ..~.N..:....~ •~:r:a~>~~:?~~. .x.c.,.~,..~...w..> .t:s;:'`°=.,:.w v.W ,~a-~'[„ :.,,•yw~;r+. ~,,ry~ ~ <~,ts,y,,,_~y-~".. ~i;q.~~"3 +~°~,.>;A~~i3> . 4 , 8~ <.5~tE3..~~1L'I'd ~ l~E'~£S~?,~ . v s , >a, as~,~. < . . . . . . . <,~~.s,,.~. . , a , .r a.... . ~ . < _ . ~ . ..,,..z.. : ~ ^'~u P. _~.K. w;.. H . . v _ x. .,r.. aa.. M, > < . _ z~g;: ~8•' . > » h , . . . . . ~ , ' ..a;.- '~fia. ~~~.Y~ r . . P. , e , :.,..Z . . , ~n .Y ex~ . . ?k a, . . 4r . < . . . s ~ . . S.. _ x~.d., .~r ..ma.. . . . . ~ '.`i4.~ .c,~. r,. r,..~..~,-~ . . a . . . ~ ~ar., . ;,...r ..r. u.x.~.. r i,. . ~'':s ~ :s e ~,z:. ~ -~,r• ~ :r~: ~ . < .''r,^ .r._:z._,,. .e ..o...'D,. . ..>.....,L...,.. .,.~..'~i~.:a~....,... 5,,. .<..~a., "s;~;~V ~,e.2.~ ta ~ ^V~ «.,~'a°e>¢ .r _ , . .<.,,< ..;~.r._, _ , ..,,,•,._,~,x .a.a; ..;....h..~, a.. x:.w °~:::x-~. -~~~.'~=s~:: rx . ~s~~ , ~ ~ e,.~x.a::a,.~s..,. .._....a.a. ~.•r::~,. :;~,a. :-C:w~m.;~r-.~...~`+Y•~s_:,s,:,,<t.,,. .._~;:5:~• .y...~ ,~'~~~~~tra;.~,w..z'r.•;c:::zr " ;_~.~s::>.,,3~„..,g:z,;5. .,a.::•;~~,.'u*~. 3 ..~~°'~.f.,,,~,<,~..:aa~P'i.'-~~:W'v~s:z~'.:~&.~'aa'~.s~r~~a~,.5k~::~""'''.•-~ _ , . . ,~u . . . . . _ _ • . s _ ~ •y-s° '.'s i t^ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . - - ' , . , . . _ - . _ _ . . . . . _ . . . . . ~ ~ - - - - - ' - . . . . . . . . : . ~ .+K~:., _ tr..- . . , . ~.~,'€Y':~:-~Q. . n . 6-A 71te Aspen Times Satuudnm&inday, Apri! 1617, 1994 . - - _ = ...Y_ . _ . . . . . . The Cover. Story . _ _ . . . ~ . . . ~ ' NEEPPM"T ~~~~h ¦ continued from page 1 A ~ Z - ° But the circles were actually part one thing only: Money. of a spual: "Round two,» as Bennett. Transportation consultanu work- ~ nl, called it, a tightening up of political ing on the Aspen to Snowmass Pro- P ~ . - and civic commitments to move ject this week pulled out numbers , ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~a Y ~ ~ £ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ahead, to figure out what the com= showing the upper valley s financial ; ~ - ~ ~ ~ i ' ~ ~ > ~ ~ munity can afford, and decide picture = the landscape they paint- IT- whether the community really ed shows $45 million to $58 million should go after its vision of building being available from a variety of a masS bansit-system in the upper sources, including the new sales tax, valley. _ Skico contributions, and state and , ~ ~ , • °INs is that moment in the pm- federal government grants. . cess where it has to be forced . With that kind of money, three through the hmnel," Bennett said. Denver-based transit experts told "And there's pain in 'that pmcess." elected leaders and local residents The pain comes .with several Wednesday, they should lower their tough decisions that electecl leadecs expectations for high-end light rail h„r•+zi ~TY still have not made but are expected . systems. and settle instead for a to face in the next two weeks. They cheapey if less exciting, bus system. ~0<~"~~ include decisions on alignment The three claimed that even a' Owl Creek vs. Brush Creek into low-end rail system would cost $12 Snowmass Village, and the Smillion to $15 million per mile, Cuves vs. the "straight.shot" into which works out to about $100 mi1- Aspen;on whether or not there will lion fot the full, nine-mile, Aspen to be .a "mode Snowmass Vil- change - out transit lage system . of a train and - envisioned to ~ into a bus along serve the the ~ the way; on - uppervalley. . Leslfe Klusmire, manager of the Aspen-totiSnowrmass transportatfon project, keeps, score- as a 1 t.e r n a t e ^r'~Z More- community leaders negotiate during a two-day round table meeting.began:tackling the "ugly,. plans; over, said the gy surrotinding mass transit. Roy Willey photo. financing ~ and finally.on ~ trio of technical . ' whether elected ¦ `d consultants that these (mass tc,ansit) systems. 1 think currently has an estimated 50,000 tion from the airport to Snowmass leaders create a were btvught in it was those three guys." people traveling along it, either V'illage, has les4-ttaffic and less air .:F backup plan, in to open _ the , As another local official so elo- way, on the average winter day; . pollution and, as a result, there is the event that seminar, there quendy put it: "They ldnd of pissed aooording,to ttansportation surveys. less urgency for its development. - •sa mass transit were not_ yet on the parade." About 10,000.of those people are in "It appeacs to me that a selection bonds to enough ridets to buses, the other about 40,000 are has been made already," said ~finance the system are voted down watrant the higher oost of a train. Wait a mrww riding in some 28,000 cats., Aspenite Roger. Hunt, noting that inNovembec "Given the projected demand," Despite the pessimism, local By the year 2015, the nwnber of the spiraling talk points fo:a tiain, Once those fights have been said Dick Reynolds, director of leaders rebounded Thursday and people traveling that stretch of monorail or gondola fmm down-. fought = as elected leaders raised operarions for Denver's RTD, "you began talung a hard look at exacdy ground are projected to jump_ dra- town Aspen to the airport on its ' thei: fists and proclaimed they can probably handle that with any wharthey're hying to acoomplish. matically. The Colorado Depart- owa right of way, oonnected to, an - would be nexc week - and the technology." 'I7ie stretch of ground:commun- ment of Transportation. estimates advanced "bus-like" system nin-:. political blood is drying on the 'ihe statements set off a chain ity leadets are laoldng to cover is there will be.82,000 people per day ning up W Snowmass V'illage,,,. .&ICK. - tracsit oompat?ies, it is resciion around ffie iuotia. al,ouc 3.5 ruiies &ur? y Pam in tiaveling tiyai sectiiia of road. Iveariy every official'ia the, m¢m... ' P~k wi11 begin drswing up pro- Some realiry local leaders said the downtown Aspen.to Y ~pKL e sirport, Because of Federal clean-air agreed with Hunt: Tllat 1 bivp`azt - check" left them then about SS miles out Owl Creek requirements, CDOT consultants system was what-they envision, • I~ak'+x've au been draBSing "depmssed." But others, like long- Road - if Owl Creek Road is useci our feet on key, painfnl deci- time Aspenite John McBride, asked estimate that 40,000 of those peaple with the .airport-to-Snowmass leg to Snowmass V'i]]age, will have to be in mass ttansit of being converted to the Aspen-to- sions," said Aspen city council why this community should listen However, there is a fundamental . some kind. member Georgeann Waggaman. to thnee people finm Denver, a ci ty airport technology in the fiiture, -"We've got to make those ugly, that has shown no vision and bo~t s the syst m, which has local l ders on air poun dictat that automo-. .~pl~ ney ~ n~m le_ 4 m~y - one of the worst planning ramrds in thinking they can be built separate- bile traffic on the ~?en-to- ' ap~ y~~ the nation. ly~ . sp auport ahead, Bennett quoted Abraham "Somethin ha ened durin P route is already at a maximum per_ Lincoln: "Ladies and gentlemen, g PP g It is the so-called "A line,,, from missible density and should not be we cannot escape history. We're- - 'Ihe high level of pain involved those two days," said Bennett after- downtown Aspen to the airport, allowed to grow, in to do some can be attributed to one thing and wards, "leading people away frnm whieh must come fiist That stretch The so-called °°C line " a connec- ~ g ~ ¦ conNnued on fivllowJngPage Svhmday-Sunday, April 16-1 7,1994 • The Aspen T'rmes 7,A . -:,The _Cover S#ory. ~ . _ . . . . - . r- = . • 'x~d & . il,`11• I ru • '1 ' ' - . , . , . r . . . . . ' . ' . . 4 y ¦ ca?tlrtued f?o?n Paevbus page money arrives - and to possibly press (ori the reoord) - descnbing One reoommendation from the even expand the amount - drastic Q their as-yet-unbuilt product as a reg- thuee Denver consultants and from measures may be needed. ular electric train hanging from a project consultant Bill Eager did Harvey Atchison, the Colorado rail. 'Ihere was .Chicago's Pathfind- . ~u.. call for very specific, immediate Deparhnent of Transporta6on's sec- -er Systems Inc.; another, much 'aefion. • . ond in command,,explained to smaller, monorail system. Pathfind- All urged local'governments to locals Thursday that the entire ~ S er salesman Lloyd Owens smiled begin buying the right of way, nation is moving towards, mass b from ear-to-ear: "the key is, it's a .•wherever.it might be. .This com- hansit, because strict environmental petsonal vehicle:' . munity will need a right of way in laws on clean'air and clean water . • The:Denver=6ased Raytheon _.the futute;~they said, regardless of . are increasingly requiring that the -Inc., showed up.with a Pathfinder- . what the ulamate decisions are over sutomobile be controlled: - ~ type ca; but this one sitting atop a what travels along it. Federal rules say that the harder a rail, not hanging undemeath. . Without that right of way, added a community fights to control and Then there were the big boys: Fager, the entire project is doomed. limit private automobile the ; ' • ABB, Traction, and Siemens- 'Ibe discussion led to four possi- . future, the more federal transporta- Duewag, which build trains and ble generai plans for a mass: transit tion grants it can expect from WasN- have a. strong European resumes; system that were discussed and ington Bnlce Barnett, arna*et the huge.AEG Ti~ansporta6on Sys- ex lored in small. ou discus- And to reall o en the federal - ~'~P~~we~~ ~G Ttansportatlon : p ~ P y P S tems Inc., expresses the hesitation vendors felt after heari tems Inc.; which represents firms. sions::.. purse, Atchison said, a community the upper valley's "vague" transportatlon plans. Roy Wiliey photo.~ . from bus companies to'trolley man- ¦ an electric bus system, on a should chip in as much of its own ufacturers; and companies like EVA fixed guideway, with a,regenera- money as possible. West Inc., specializing in "alterna- five"powersystem; Which led Atchison to the topic "Personally, I'm not in favor of -There was no clear-cut classifi- tive vehicles,". such as electric ¦ the "ultimate" system: a another tax," Bennett said. But it cation for each of the vendors. buses. train,'monorail or gondola could be done if the community . Some represented investment. . Mosdy, howeveti there were the - from Rubey Park'to the air- decides it wants light rail from bankers, others construction,compa- companies :who wouldn't talk, port and onward to Snow- "We've got to make - resort to resort and thinks it is worth nies. Several were dreamets, offer- secredy - plotting their strategy. and mass V'~11age; . . paying for. ing up futuristic systems,that have revealing little, if anything about ¦ a train, monorail or' tI10S@ LIgIy, 111@SSy . neverbeenbuilt. what.they'd do and why.,They gondola from Aspen to the. ihe'penguin'suits . . For example, Sherrie Cutler, hemmed and.hawed, said the plan aiiport with a bus connection t1@CI5l011S. Although they sat there quiedy president of Ecodesign Inc., is an to build a mass transit system-from . to Snowinass.V'illage; most of the day - looking bored architect and urban designer. She Aspen to the airport and Snowmass ¦ a train, monorail or - GeOlgeQ/t!1 WUggQIIIQR, Aspe?i - while the bold statements were has designed low-cost.housing:in V'illage' was risky, maybe ludicroos, : gondola fiom Aspen to But- ° made and the fists were raised in Nigeria,' written environmental and that they might not eyen bid. ' . termilk/Tiehack Ski Area battle cry, the "guys in the penguin guidelines for the the federal gov- But there was interest.' : with an intermountain gon-. suits" as one official called them, emment, and lectures on architec-.. Although. only a few transit dola connecting it to Snow- - were probably the force pushing the ture at Harvard.University and the -company representatives stuck it mass• transit issue into gear. the MasSachusetts.Institute of Tech- out to the bitter end, they scnbbled The variations discussed Armed with pencils and calcula= _ nology. She expects to put together notes.and sucked on the'v glasses, still sounded "vague,"an assembled of "cohgestion pricing" - turning tors, wearing suit coats, felt hats and a bid using a wide selec6on of con- . rnnsidering how..they will attack the = group of transit salesmen com- the highway into a toll road, with spectacles, the mass transit compa- ' struction companies, -mass transit challenge. plained this week, but elected lead- tolls on a sliding scale based on ny men looked like retired members vehicle providers and other industry. It is perhaps this inevitable pass= - ers pmmi.sed to w-mstle with the sti11 hnw emwded the hiahway is. The of thr, Ser.ret Cervir.e, here for a exnerts to c7eate a system•based on ing on of the transportation chal- ' unresolved key poli6cal.questions, more cars on the road at any given convention on stock investments. the needs, not just some strange lenge'to the guys in the penguin soon to oome' up, with some more 6me, the more each car pays at the T'hey sat in the back of the room, vehicle that's been invented. : suits that will go down in history as ~c- ~nforma6on, ,in ::sP~~ cluding a tollbooth. and iaise4their eyebrows regularly. Poma of America Inc,"the'U.S. this week's major' achievement, = decision on the elusive Owl Creek The cont[oversial` idea has been "IYs ati interesting project," said subsidiary:of the French ski lift despite the seemingly fruitless : Road vs. Bnuh Creek Road ques- taken seriously by local officials, Mark Soronson of the Phoenix- manufacturer, arrived with a big dis- antics of local officiaLs. tion. - but they said there is no way they based ICF Kaiser Engineets, a com- play of assorted cable cars - some But options were narrowed and could consider such a plan unless pany that will likely bid on the sys- tiny, square boxes, designed to haul costs attached, opening the door for - , irkly buslness the public supports it tem with AEG Transportation Co, passengers up 25-degree hillsides, the more informed local debate on , That left one tricky subject to be If the public doesn't, pointed out which makes light trail, trolley and others large box-like cais that travel the transit system in Aspen's future; _ broached. Bennett, it may mean that the com- buses. "It's a rural resort with major; mosdy on the flats in urban Europe. which Mayor Bennett said he ~ Everyone is counting on a siz- munity follows another course of urban (transportation) problems. There were representatives from . hoped would be resolved by local able chunk of cash-from the federal action, such as a less expensive. sys- The pmblems are very unique. IYs the Dallas-based Aerorail Co. - leaders soon so it could be put.to ~vffment• tem that can be converted over pretty difficult to say you've seen complete with an investment the voters next fall for their ultimate > Ilowev;er,_to ensure that the time. this several other Places." banker who refused to talk to the consideration. <:; ~ SFNT BY-EAGLE COUNTY ; 4-15-94~; .17,47 ; ~ 3033287207- 3034792157;# i/ 1 ~ ~ • ~ ;k~ t i':.. . . ..F Of.i:iCIE .cjj1,pCjl 15, 1994 - 17:18 I ' E11Ct.F. C(-)UNTY Bi111.PiNu l.f)UN I Y MANACiER • WOHKOADWAY P.Q. ts(7x MA) F.ACiLL. CO1.t712 A I.)U t31 l,.i 1-(lIIti(y rAX: (303) 32!{-7207 . ~ y ~r~ ~ ~IY~YW EAGLE COLtNTY, COLORAnO , MEM~~Ii~~~;~~. (VDUM TO: AIl media and fnterested`partie FROM: Jack D. Lewis, County Manage DATE: Apri1 15, 1994 - 7 7:7 8 F..i ~ r.: . . ' rq.' ,R;;' ~ 5.::,>:''•;.';:,,; ' RE: HA ES TO AGEN A~O,E: .'BOARD ~ F,0QMMISSIdryERS The following item has bpen ad`ded't6'the ~Apri1 1 ~8 ~agQnda, 02:45 H. RES6L:UT10N AUTHORIZ1Nia SUB$T17UTION OF COLLATERAL - CORDILLERA FILiNG 12. , Eepte Cam1y qgom Mary:~'J~~se~eno_to, Deputy County Attorney If you have any questions please c811Tom Jenkins;:;Qffice Assistant at 32$-8605. Thank you! Jairtj . cc: Baard of Gpunty Commissioners James R. Fritze, County Attomay. Allen Sartin, Finance Direc'tor y ~ Sar$ Fisher, Clerk & Jack Ings#ad, Publie Inforrnation Officer ~s , . ~ C:1Wf51 %00C61FRANCESWUII0RAND.A6E . : ' . WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 1993 10119 SNOW STORAGE LAND LARRY/BOB Mcl: Immediately pursue purchase from VA Initial discussion between TOV and VA re: possible future land exchanges PURCHASE of current snow storage site, as well as another 10 acres have occurred. adjacent to the west. 1994 02/08 MANOR VAIL SIDEWALK BOB McL: Investigate blind corner. Bob McL has viewed area of concern. Right-of-ways will be identified to (request: Johnston) see if there is room within the right-of-ways for a sidewalk. 02/15 CHUCK ANDERSON YOUTH PAMIMERV: Contact VRD about moving up the selection 3123194 - Pam has requested the current application and back-up AWARD process to allow awards to be given during May PRIOR to information from Diane Johnson at VRD. Paul and Jan will assess and (request: Strauch) graduation or to be included with the graduation review criteria. 3130194 - Pam talked with Diane who had been out sick ceremonies. for a week. She has not forgotten us! 4/8194 - Or perhaps she has! 02115 ORE HOUSE AWNING RANDY: Permit April, 1993. Approval January, 1994; This issue has been schedule for the 5/17/94 Work Session, therefore, awning will now be reviewed prior to January, 1995, per Council request. 03101 VRD LEASE EXPIRATION AT ANNIE: Research lease to explore possibilities of space Annie will prepare memo for Council. LIBRARY use. (request: Navas) 03108 SAGE RE-PLANTING ON HILLSIDES TODD 0.: Research remediation and cost to re-seed both Todd is working with Marty Jones to come up with site-specific costs. (POTATO PATCH and BOOTH areas and present to Council at earliest opportunity. (3/10/94) FALLS) 03106 PAY-IN-LIEU FEE CHANGE MIKE R./TOM M.: Prepare amending ordinance for parking Set for 4126/94 Work Session. (request: Council) structure pay-in-lieu fees. 03/08 UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES LARRY: Create a Master Plan to phase the undergrounding Larry has memo in process. MASTER PLAN of all above-ground utilities within Vail. (request: Council) , 03108 COST OF PLANNERIFUNDING STEVE: How much would buiiding permit fees have to be Kristan and Steve will attempt to have figures to Council for 513/94 Work raised in order to fund an additional planner? Session. April 15, 1994 Page t of 3 03108 NIGHT LIGHTING/NIGHT TOUR LARRY: It would appear our night lighting in the Will schedule for an Evening Meeting as soon as agendas will allow, (request: Strauch) CrossroadslUTRCICovered Bridge area could use some TOV, in the past, budgeted $30,000 for adding lights to bus stops, street enhancement. What is the street lighting program currently intersections, and bridges for safety. Starting in 1994, the budgeted geared toward? amount was increased to $50,000 to address both safery concerns and those areas addressed in the Village Streetscape Plan. COUNCIUSTAFF: In the near future, we will try to schedule an evening "tour" to look at the ambience created Re: Christmas lighting at VTRC: Lighting addition depends on a and safety issues inherent in our "core" community. prioritization of funding. This could be a part of the night tour? 03/15 PRIVATE PARKING TOWING KEN: Investigate the use of Denver Boots or town tow Ken has spoken with Tom and will have a memo for packets. (request: Steinberg) trucks as alternatives to illegal parking on private property. 03/15 SDD AMENDMENT KRISTAN/TOM M.; Prepare an amendment to the SDD Set for 4l19194 Work Session. Please see Community Development (request: Lapin) ordinance removing this designation as an option for the Department memo dated 416/94 and Draft Ordinance No. 9, Series of redevelopment of single familylresidential zone district uses. 1994, attached. Review current guidelines re; monetary assurances for completion of SDD projects. 03115 DRB/PECICOUNCIL SESSION RE: KRISTAN: Schedule a joint work session with DRBlPECI Kristan has scheduled this joint presentation for the 4/26/94 Work ALPINE DESIGN Council to discuss this issue. Kristan will contact Jeff Session. Winston to draw up a preliminary budget for background material. Can this money come from Council Contingency? 03/22 BEARSIGARBAGE RUSSELUPAUL: The issue of bears attacking unsecured Russell and Paul will coordinate and investigate containers through BFI (request: Johnston) food has still not been resolved. What proactive stance can and the Honey Wagon. we take to keep this dangerous situation from occurring? 04/05 SIGNS LARRYIGREG: Why are there so many signs in this town? They represent neither a quality appearance nor are they "user-friendly." There are 24 signs between Tom Steinberg's house and the TOV.., 04/05 AMPLIFIED SOUND TOM/KEN/HOLLY: With a deadline of July 4th in mind, There are constitutional implications on such regulations that will have to prepare to present amendments to ordinance to Council by be considered in any "sound" regulations. Such restrictions will be 513/94 Work Session. Bob McL to write to Sheika to review researched and presented to Council, outcome from this meeting, as well as next steps. 04105 COUNTY REGIONAL MEETINGS BOB McL: Coordinate with Jack Lewis. April 15, 1994 Page 2 of 3 04108 UPDATE ON INCOMPLETE COUNCIL: Gary Murrain has available for your review the UNIFORM PROJECTS CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS (1991 (original request: Navas) edition), and Gary will be available to discuss these various options along with the Work Session items scheduled for 4/26/94. April 15, 1994 Page 3 of 3