HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-07-26 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
VAIL TODUN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
U UESDp0 H y C6ULlI 66y E 9e7'4
1:00 P.M. IN U Otl COU@9\oILt CG9AMBERS
EXPABaDED NGE1\DA ' .
i:QO P.M. 1. Review Citizen Survey Resufts.
Nolan Rosall
pction Requested of Council: Hear presentation of preliminary survey resufts by
Nolan Rosall of RRC Associates in Boulder.
1:30 P.M. 2. Public Hearing on Trapper's Run.
Tom Moorhead
Action Requested of Council: Provide direction to Colorado Open Lands, Town
Manager and Town Attorney to conclude negotiations.
Backqround Rationale: Council previously passed Resolution authorizing
negotia4ed purchase of Trapper's Run. iVegotiations have continued since that
time and public review of possible terms of purchase is appropriate.
2:30 P.M. 3. Discussion Regarding Lionshead Alpine Design.
Kristan Pritz
3:30 P.M. 4. PEC Report.
Kristan Pritz
3:45 P.M. 5. DRB Report.
Jim Curnutte
4:00 P.M. 6. a. Site Visit: Proposed Ford Park StainR?ay.
George Ruther
4:30 P.M. b. Site Visit: Trapper's Run.
Tom Moorhead
S:QO P.M. 7. Discussion Regarding Proposed Ford Park Stainway.
George Ruther
Action Requested of Council: Determine whether to proceed with this proposed
project.
Backqround Rationale: The proposed Ford Park stainway plan has been before
the Design Revievu Board on two separate occasions. The first meeting was held
on June 15, 1994, uvith the second meeting being held on July 6, 1994. Neither
meeting resulted in a final approval of the project. At each of the meetings, much
of the discussion revolved around the apparent need of the proposed stainway as
• well as the lacking creativity of the design of the s4ainway (see attachments).
8. Information Update.
9. Council Reports.
10. Other.
11. Adjournment.
1
NOTE UPCOMIPVG MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(AlL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
•o•s•••
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 7/26/94, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. Ild TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 8/2/94, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING .
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 8/2/94, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
000 0009
C:WGENDA.WSE
2
Ws 7-'qv y~ U&A # i
. .
TOWN OF VAIL COMVIIJNITY
RESEARCH 1994
PIZELIMINARY DATA OVERVIEW
july 1994
Prepared for:
. ?'own of Vaid
Prepared by:
RRC Associates
4875 Pearl East Circle, Suite 301
Boulder, Colorado 80301
3031449-6558
ItRC ASSOCIATFS
Town of Vail Community Survey ~
Ra4ings of Town Services / Facilities / Departments
4.5 General Service / Nlaintenance flNaintenance of 8uildings / Facilities 70%
4.0 - • - 60%
w ~
; 3.5 50% ~
~
d ~
Ul X
~I y
!2 3.0 ` 40% O
° a
o
a ~
ca
u
62.5 - 30% ~
e ~
c
~ 2.0 20% p
1.5 - - - - - - 10°/a
1.0 0%
!O L N
C d C C C i+ V N V cc ~ ~ N d E
l0 N O
C 'C l7 l0 ~ ~ C ~ C N J (.~j
y w+ d y~ y ~ C` C O C .C ~ U N ~
~ y N y O _ 7
!a al O ~o Ttf ~ y ` ~R 01 ep ~ti m t~
O~ d O O O G~ w N E G7 .C
E N C E E'C (n ~C1 a7 .
w
3 ~ 3 3 d~ d
o c o o o
!n W N fA :N
>
~ Overall - Average Rating - Overall Excellent 0 Overall Poor
Source: RRC Associates
Town of Vail Community Survey
Ratings of Town Services 1 Facilities / Departmen4s
~ 5 Bus System Parking Avon /Beaver Creek Transit 70010
4.0 ~--------------~1------------------------------------------------------------------ 6000
i5 3.5 - - -----------50% A
~
d -
~
W ."G
w
3.0 - 40% o
o n
o ~
a ~n
u
~ T
~,a.5 - - - - so~io ~
~
m ~
~ 2.0 - Zo~io 0
1.5 - - - - - - - - - 100/0
1.0 --f- f- -f -I - 000
E ~ N N N T V!
~O 10 N N N N N N ~ N W 0
N Oi d i N N 0 N N C
L' C 10 L" Q~ O. C U L-' C y
N N 7 7 O N ~ 7 7
y C Q~
W O ~ U d p y N ~ `
9~ N /O C C LL
u U y a`r U
a t v € w a ~
N ~p y Q ~ ry N C p, C lC0 0
73 ~ O
.2
Q rr
Q o w
O. f y
~ C ~
N W ~
cr ~ U
U. p a
LL.
~
Overall - Average Rating - Overatl Excellent ~ Overall Poor I
Source: RRC Associates
Towrn of Vail Community Survey
Ratings of Town Services 1 Facilities I DeparQmen4s
Library Fire Police Government
d.5 ~ 70%
~
4.0 60%
d 3.5 50% M
~
d - c
x ~
W ;0
11 y
3.0 - 40% o
`o o:
° ~
u
m
62.5 - - - 30% xo
C ~
A
~
C
~ 2.0 _ 20% p
1.5 - - - 10%
1.0 0%
~ Cy7 ~ O d ~ N C V V ~ V d ~ ~ y 7 y y
q Z ~ e Z E v y o m a =
E d
~ Z ;o Z m m m ~'n t c~ « c
GI d N IA ` E N C/ N/ ` N N ~ N
N C L Vi N u~ N
~ ~ N O C1 y' ~ C N 2L 0 y C D N C 10 C V H y y ~
~ C N ~ y ~ N N y - ~ p V O C N 7 Z D CC7 C 'X
a eO o ~ c o v c `m t A ~o o,U a m o > 0
o V ~ •y > rn E ~ N c ~i
O W c a
K 1O
~ d a m z ~ " y o H ~
o d d W
E a m
W y
Overall - Average Rating - Overall °a - Excellent - Overall Poor
Source: RRC Associates
Town of VaiB Community Survey 1994
Library Services Rafings
Information Senrices Children's Adult Recreational General Senrices
r _ _ _ _
' 4.8 . -
d r.............;.... r~............ . ....r... _ _ _
.
4.6
~
~
Lu 4.4 _ ~ _ _ _ . _ _
-
La
~ . , . . . . . ; ;
4.2 . _ . _
. ,
~
n 4 _ _ _
o~ _............_s............_i :.............s. _ _ _
~ 3.8 _
~ ; ; : : • ; ;
: ; ~ . . .
; : : • : • :
. . ~ ~
. . ~ ~ .
~
3.6 : . .
d .6
CD
~
>
. . . ,
3.4 . _ - -
3.2 : ~ . _ _ .
3
N O ~ U O ~ N O d N Y w G) Lgn y N L/1 G) ~ U C U E ld C
12
~ @ U 53 c € ~ @ ~ e, ~ u c ~ 'y$ ? 0 ~ m
i° o 0 0 `aD n o ~
d ° m ~ ¢=i ~
~ fn ~ t c ~ c ~ fn o N a3i n"
~ ¢ Z v U U c° ~c Q
U y
C N O 8 Q N Y> C O
c E ¢ a~ E ~ N E
O N .V w N ~ ~N r t W - ~ g (D lC G ~
U d~ U U m in ~ ~ O1 m 0 o E ~
m a
~ ~ $ U
¢
Source: RRC Associates
June 1994 Boulder, CO
`
Town of 1laiB Community Survey 9994
LibraR? Serrvices Usage In Pas@ Year &
Top Fide Services Would Like to See Expanded 1 Improbed
70°O Information Seniices Children's Adult Recrea6onal General Senrices
60%
85% Of Survey Respondents
Reported Using the Library in tha Past Year
40%
30°~
20% - -
10%
0% .
c a> g'
L i c o c°'.~ ~ c~o m m ~
° (a C-) o co 'd~ ~ Y y N~'i ~ E U ~ ~
0 t
•a a c o ~ c~ m 6 n ~
c t- ~
co ~ ~ a m a> m y ~ ~ ~ ~ m V (5.~ m ~ vi U p CK° ~ O
~ V • ~ ~ ~ 7 C N 7 l6 yd~ C ~ Y~ l6 -Y
0 Y m j Y a p m~
E g Or
E c ¢ ~ 0 E a~iF~- $ $ w rC- m a Fcca •a° ~ ~ ~ ~
O C.1 N ~ y ~ L U
U d m U U < U ~
¦ Percent Using the Service in the Past Year ~ 5 Services Would Like to See Expanded / Improved
Souroe: RRC Associates
June 1994 Boulder, CO
~
Town of Vail Community Survey
Ratsngs of Town Servaces / Facilaties / Departmerats
Communety Development Department
,a% - - s
60% - - - - - - - - ~ Percent Excellent 0 Percent Poor ~ PAean -1994 - - - G - - flHean -1993 4.5
4
- CD
~ - - - M
c 50% - - -
m ~
~
~ 3.5 ~
u
`'40% ~o - .-~.----_-0-----1r~~---- _
`o
a -O - 3
°
O ~
~ ~c
~ 30% ~
~
~ 2.5 ~
ac~Oi o
2%
2 '
- - - -
10% - -
1.5
0% - 1
E p ~ tl C N
` C t ° 7
x0 aE E
i ~ n E y ~ y
o d M i o
d y ~ C d C G r C 'y - C.
n a
c n E o `o 3 d m rn w v
~ c c ~ d y a ~ o ~ 3 d o
eO ` y p pl c
y'C ty ` p C F N p> m
V ~ C n O . N ~ d•Q N N C 3
~ ~ V a O W C A O C C. ~ Q N
a y ~ C N C N W OI N 9
7 ar > O1 C N
a ~ v~ ~rn c ~
o ~ E ~ rn
~ a ~ m
r ~m' n
~ o
Source: RRC Associates
1994 Vail Community Survey
Ratings of Neighborhood Problems
Comparison by Place of Residence
3.5 ._._._......~...._._._._._............-r-----.......... - - -
3.0 : - - - - . . - _ -
2.5 ...............--~-~--.....F...._...._._
2.0 . _......i.... _....----........_;INADEQUATE OFF-SITE PARKING
1.5 Average Rating = 3.0
. . ; . .
3.5 ;
3.0 ~ . _
E 2.5 : :
_
~ -
- - - - - .
. ;
~
~ ~:g UNSAFE WALKING ROUTES .
...................._...._......,....._._._._..............._r._._
Average Rating = 2.8 -
0
~ 3.5 _ .
- - -
~ 3.0
~ - -
- .5 -
- 2.5
2.0 .........................._._........._..._..._._._.................r.-SPEEDING, RECKLESS AUTOS---
cc 0- 1.5 . - Average Rating = 2.7
cc
3•5 ~ - _
-
.
_
~ 0 3.0 _ _ - . - -
el 2.5 . - _ _ . - -
2.0 - - -
- : ; STREET DISREPAIR ;
E 1.5 - Average Rating = 2.7
~0_
3.5 r - - _
0
3.0 - - _ - - -
oa 2.5 : ' - . . - - - - -
: :
.
2.0 `
;
; INADEQUATE STREET LIGNTING' :
1.5 Average Rating = 2.5 ~
_
3.5 < -
3.0
2.5
_
2.0 - < :
POLLUTION FROM ROAD DUST ;
1.5
Average Rating = 2.3
East Booth Falls Golf Vail Lionshead Potato Buffehr Ck / NVest Matterhom Intermtn
Vail / Bald Mtn Course Village Patch / Lions Rdg / Vaif / Glan Lyon
APPROXIMATE N0. Sandstone Valley
OF RESPONSES: 130 35 24 30 17 56 _30 89 38 43
Source RRC Associates
Boulder, CO
1994 Vail Community Survey
Ratings of Neighborhood Problems
Comparison by Place of Residence
~J ._._.r . AN I MALS - -
3.0 ~ .............._~.(RUNNING AT LARGE, BARKING).-; -
> - ............._Average Rating.. _2 3...........
2.5 .
2.0 - - - - _ .
1.5 ------._............_._._r ~ -
_ - - - _
E 3.5
IACK OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES :
....-.---.-.--..._.......(BIKE PATHS, PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS)--....-~---._._..:............ .
0 3.0
CL
2.5 Average Ra6ng = 2.0 _ ._.............i-._._._............--
0
2. ~ :
~ 1. 5 - ~ - - - - .
~
E
~ ~ ._._..:........._._._...............r..................
s~ 3'5 INADEQUATE ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING REGS ' . .
° 3.~ Average Ra6ng =1.9
~ ~ : .
~ 2.5 - ~ - _
~
:
2.0 -
:
o
:
~ 1.5 - : . .
BY
M
~ 3.5 ' .
~ 3.0
L FROM WOODSMOKE----------- - - -
° Average Rating =1.8
~ 2.5 ..............._._._.:.............._._._.........r......._...._._............_..
~ ~ .
0
2.0
- - - - - -
e~ 1.5 - - -
P . _...i.""'_"""""'_"_'._....5---------------------------- i_
3.5
SIGNS
3.O _.............(STREET NAMES, TRAFFIC CONTROLS) . . -
2.5 Average Rating =1.8 ...............o................................;
-
2 ~ - - - -
:
1.5 -
East Booth Falls Golf Vail Lionshead Potato Buffehr Ck / West Mattefiom Intermtn
Vail / Bald Mtn Course Village Patch / Lions Rdg / Vail / Glen Lyon
APPROXIMATE N0. Sandstone Valley
OF RESPONSES: 130 35 24 30 17 56 30 89 38 43
Source: RRC Associates
Boulder, CO
1994 Vail Community Suroey
Ratings of Neighborhood Problems
Comparison by Place of Residence
3.5
3.O CRIME, SENSE OF SECURITY :
-
Average Rafing = 1.8
- - -
. - - - - - -
2. J
2.0 -
- - - _ - -
1. 5 - ~ _ - -
E 3.5
e NEIGHBORHOOD NOISE
; .
_
o 3.0 Avera e Ratin -
~ 2.5 ._._._._............-.---:..._.........._._._._......r...._._._._._............_;....._ ...............-.----:..._9..._._._._. 9 1.7
0 2.0 .
~ .._.......4.._._..............
~ 1.5 . - -
~
E
d ._._._._....r_.._...._...._.....
3.5
~
.v O 3.0 ................_._._._......;....._....-.--.--.......TRASH/LITTER, ABANDONED VEHICLES........._._._._.....;.............
cc 0-
C' 2.5 Average Rafing =1.7
~ ~ , : : _
2~
-
;
o
~ 1.5 ~ ~
oa
M
~ 3.5 - - _ _ _
z 3.0 : SNOW REMOVAL FROM WALKWAYS................. ° ' Average Rafing =1.7
~ ;
5
~ - -
;
.
0
2. 0 - ~ - - -
. _ - -
~ 1.5
. - - - .
3.5 ~ - . _ _
3.0 SNOW REMOVAL FROM ROADS
era e Ra'n
2.5 - - - ; Av g Rafing = 1.7
2.0 ~
1.5
East Booth Falls Golf Vail Lionshead Potato Buffehr Ck / West Matterfhom InteRntn
Vail / Bald Mtn Course Vllage Patch / Lions Rdg / Vail / Glen Lyon
APPROXIMATE N0. Sandstone Valley
OF RESPONSES: 130 35 24 30 17 56 30 89 38 43
Source: RRC Associates
Boulder, CO
WHICH STATEA9EIdT DO V9U ACREE WITH MOST? .
The Town of Vail should
concen4rate on 4he present
infrastructure, no neuv
Expand the Town's projects
44%
infras4ruc4ure to main4ain
Vail's ability to senre its
citizens and visitors in a first-
class manner
56%
Source: RRC Associates
Town of Vais Community Survey 1994
RatAngs of Bmportance of Signifacant Issues Facang the Town
% !!ery Important vso Average Ratang of Issues
so% - 5.0
~ % Very Important ~ Average Rating
70%
4.5 >
c
CD
d
60% - - un
X
d
~ 4.0 ~
0 50% - ~
a 1
E I "
z
~ 40% - - _ _ ~
- - - - 3.5 -o
o
n I
~ 30% -
e 3.0 ~
~
20% - - ~ o
d
~ 2.5 ~
10% - - I
0% - - ~ - . 2.0
o ~ o o c
~ a
y N d C7 d O N ~ r. d •~p V
O ~ O O v O Qf s R ~ O Cf ~
n c. c a ~ c w c rn c~ c ~
o Ecc 3~ ~ E w a'~i ~ c)
o a ~ i s c a w s2
~L c
3 d y y~ d~ ~ N C d N -C
E y 10 >
v c ~ E `o a
`o
0 ~ w ~
Source: RRC Associates
Town of Vasl Communaty Research 1994
Ratings of Omportance of Signafocant Issues Facsng $he Town
Owners vs. Renters
5.0 - - -
~
1 I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I
I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I I
~-------L-------~
i
4.5
1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I
1 I I I I I I I I I I
i I I I I I ~ Q I I I I I I I
,-O,
~ I I ~`i• I ' . I I I I I• I I
O 4.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 - --1 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - " ~ - - - - - - -
c, ~
J. E i i` i i i• i
I I I ~ I I I I I I I I~ I
i'--O
M Ln .';.S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L _ _ _ _ _ _ -0
d~ i
CM C ~ I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I 1
~ 0 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1
~ O. I I I I I I I I I
E I I I I I 1 I I 1 I
m . pwn ---a--• Rent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 3.0 _ _ _ _ _ _ J _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L _ _ _ _ _ _ _I
~ I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I 1 I I
r I I I I I I I I I I
I I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I I I
I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I
I I I I I I I i I I I I 1
p I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I
2.J _ _ _ _ _ _ _1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ J _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L _ _ _ _ _ _ _I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ J _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L _ _ _ _ _ _ _I
- - -
2.0
o o o o c i c e '
d a
~i o- i~ i A A
m u, y y a o m o ~ •E ~
o ~ o o ~ o rn .`°c ~ ~ o rn
n e o~ c~ c o-
~ O ~ r~.. d !d vi d cO ?
d 3 7 7~ C E w N =p
o aQ1i .t o ' t ° ~`o
G1 -C ~ y~ d°~ R N C d d L
N ~
~ E U) cO S
a V ~ C .D ~ ~ y 'v O '
c p ~ ~ o a
~ W E
Source: RRC Associates
Town of Vaa@ Communaty Survey 1994
Rate Bmportance of Ddscretionary Fund Expendetures
% Very Importan$ ds. Average Rating of Issues
$o% 5.0
70%
% Very Important Average Rating 4.5
m
60% (D
d
co
m
4.0 50%
0 ~
0.
^
~
A ~
~
L O
d
cm 40% 3.5 0
o ~
n
v) cn
~ 30%
e eD
3.0 a
~
~
0
zo°ie ~
~
2.5
10% - -
0% ; - - - f ~ i 2.0
Expand Expand Expand Provide Expand New
"Special Govemmental Tourism in Affordable Tourism in Performing
Events" Authority over Summer I Fall Daycare in Winter Arts Center
Valley Town
Source: RRC Associates
Town of Vai9 Community Research 1994
Rate Qmportance of DASCretiona~ Furod Expenditures
Owners vs. Renters
$ -r ------r---------------- r-----------r----------- ~r----------------i
4.5 ----------L L -~--pyun ---a--~ Rent
4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~
c - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
~ ~
~ __i....._..p.... i i i i
ce ~ 3.5 ---t~---------
~ n.
E
Z
3
I I I I ` 1 I
I I I I I~ I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I `~Q I
I I I I I I
2.3 r---------------- r---------------- r---------------- r---------------- r----------------i
I 1 I I i I
I I I I I I
I ~ I I 1 I
I I I I I I
I I I - I I I
I I I I i 1
I I I I I 1
2
Expand Expand Expand Provide Expand Plew
"Special Governmental Tourism in Affordable Tourism in Performing
Events" Authority over Summer 1 Fall Daycare in Winter Arts Center
Valley Town
Source: RRC Associates
Towrn of !lail Community Survey 1994
Ratings ofi Importance of T'ransit Improvements
Mosf Important Transi4 Improvement vs. Average Rating of Improvements
35% 4.0
D
<
3.8 ~
30% ~
~ 3.6 ~
c
0 25% 3.4 ~
a . ~
E 3.2 3 ~
0 20% u
~ 3.0 o
~ w =
15% Z.g
c ~
o °
~ A
10% 2.6 ~
2.4 ~
~ cn
0
5% u
2.2 ~
a
o% 2.0
r- ~n (D
E a., o
m~ cc N°y aNi~ o°~cEa $a) ~o 2~E Et~ m~~ >c~~ ~c~o
cva~ ~m *'na>> ;~c oc°y~ ca0° a n ~'ico 15a
~ o c E w0~Q ~ 0 3 aa) c c°~ cv'FA 20 2'2
o a ~ ° E ~ o
~
I~ E z ~ ~ N N ~ ~ z lJ..
A
N
~ % AAost important Average Rating
July 94 Source: RRC Associates
T NS0T SYSTEM 9SSUES
70% Support Concept of Park 8 Ride Facilitas VUho is Responsib/e For Funding Regiona! TransitAuthority Should Be Created
60%
50%
rn
~ 40% -
c
0
n
N
N
~
C
N
01 30%
n.
ao0/o -
1a°io
o%
Yes, Yes, No Town of Eagle Separate Other Prefer Would
strongly moderately Vail County regional current prefer
support it support it transit system regional
authority transit
Source: RRC Associates
Projects Funded Out Of The Real Estate Transfer Tax
70%
~ flflost Important Project ~ Second Most Important Project ? Third Most Important Project
60% -
50%
rn
40%
c
0
n
N
N
~
w
C
d
d 30%
a
ao%
1o°io -
I
~
~
o%
Acquisition of - Acquisition of Pocket 1 Park designed Bike 1
open space to open space for Pdeighborhood to serve needs Pedestrian
protect future parks park beyond path
environment development neighborhood development
Source: RRC i4ssociates
'
TOWN 0F V,4IL CEMETEFtY
60% Should ,4 Cemetery Be Constructedl How Should fhe Cemetery Be FundedT
50% -
40%
o"
c
'v
c
0
n
~ 30%
c
a~
a
20% -
10% - -
0% I
Yes No Out of A one- Other
existing time mill
Town of levy of
Vail 9.87 mills
Source: RRC Associates
Maro 1Lorimer
July 24, 1994
Dr. Tom Steinberg
Vail Town Council
75 South Frontage Rd.
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Tom:
I have just learned that the council will be addressing the purchase of Trappers Run at
the July 26 work session. Since a prior commitment with out-of-town clients prevents my
attending, I want ta take this opportunity to commend the council, the planning
commission and the staff on their efforts so far to preserve this invaluable parcel of
accessible and highly visible forest.
I would hope and expect that, despite John Ulbrich's statements indicating his intentions
to develop Trappers Run, the price at which he was recently willing to sell to Gateway
Development will act as an upper limit to what price the town would now have to pay.
The problems and questions raised by Gary Arthur's efforts show that if there is any way
to subdivide and develop this property in an environmentally sound way, the cost would
be significantly higher than previously thought. This doesn't add to the value of the
property; it subtracts from it. If anything, I would therefore expect Trappers Run to be
worth less today than what Gary Arthur was willing to pay for it.
Regardless of what price the town must ultimately consider paying, I feel there is no
more valuable project for those funds and efforts to be devoted to than this. The results
of the town survey indicate that many residents agree. There is no doubt that the
preservation of this ridge will be one of the most enduring contributions to the quality of
life in Vail that this council can possible make.
Thank you and best of luck.
Maro Lorimer
2537 Arosa Drive
P.O. Box 3069
Vail, Colorado 81658
3031476-3431
,.e
p
a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
. FROM: Kristan Pritz, Community Development Director DATE: July 26, 1994
SUBJECT: Quick review of the question of whether or not the Vail Village Design
Considerations can be applied to the Lionshead area.
BACKGROUiVD ON THE ALPItVE DESIGN ISSLIE
At the June 28, 1994 Town Council worksession, the Council discussed the issue of "alpine
design". The Council determined that it would be appropriate to initiate a comprehensive
review of the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines which are applicable to the entire
community, particutarly residential projects, in early 1995. Severa( Council members
expressed concern that development in Vail does not reflect a traditional alpine design
character. Staff had suggested that the Lionshead Design Guide Plan be implemented first
instead of the review of the Town of Vail Design Guidelines. : However, Council felt that the
issue of "alpine design" for the entire community needed to be decided first before proceeding
with design work in Lionshead.
In addition, the Council asked the Community Development staff to take a quick look at the
possibility of applying the Vail Village Design Considerations to Lionshead. Both the Village
and Lionshead areas have design considerations which are applicable to their specific
locations. Several Council members felt that the Vail Village Design Considerations could
also be effective in Lionshead if minor changes were made to the considerations. Staff was
asked to do this analysis and report back to the Council. (Please note that the Vail Village
Design Considerations are used in conjunction with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan.
Lionshead also has the Lionshead Design Considerations and Lionshead Urban Design Guide
Plan. Because the Urban Design Guide Plans refer to specific areas for expansions in each
core area, these plans are not included in the review. Staff has focused only on the
applicability of the Vail Village Design Considerations to Lionshead.)
II. CURSORV AN,4LYSIS OF ?HE V,41L VILLAGE DESIGN CONSIDERAl'IOIVS
APPLICA,BILITV TO LBONSHEAD
Below are staff comments related to each of the sections of the Vail Village Design
Considerations. In summary, we believe that changes-would need to be made to the
document to make it,effectiue and applicable to Lionshead. Rather than retype the entire
design considerations section for Vail Village with staff comments, we ask that the Council
read the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations and relate staff comments to each of the
appropriate sections of the plan.
"
•Introduction, Paqes i-iii
Staff Comments:
~
A new introduction section should be written for Lionshead which will address the following
points: ,
1. A history of how and why Lionshead developed the way it did.
2. A description of what type of design character as a community we are trying to
achieve in Lionshead. Are we moving away from contemporary all together?
Are we trying to achieve a humanizing scale in Lionshead with a contemporary
style? Are we trying to develop an atpine character similar to the Village area?
This needs to be clearty defined by the community for the architects, building
owners, and developers that will be working in Lionshead.
3. An explanation of how to use the guidelines. - t
A. Pedestrianization, Page 1
Staff Comments:
This section needs to be rewritten so that it relates directly to the Lionshead situation of
having a mall without a traditional public right-of-way. The design principle is the same,
however, its application to Lionshead needs to be further defined.
B. Vehicle Penetration, Page 3 -
Staff Comments:
This section needs to be rewritten so that it addresses the fact that in Lionshead 50% of the
required parking may be enclosed. Specifics on how to treat access areas behind and
beneath buildings should be included. C. Streetscape Framework. Page 3
Staff Comments: .
These principles are very good and certainly can be applied to Lionshead. It would be helpful
to discuss how these principles can be implemented in an urban design setting such as
Lionshead where you have very tall buildings.
D. Street Enclosure, Page 4
Staff Comments: These principles are effective and certainly could apply to Lionshead. Once again, an
analysis would be needed to see how the principles relate to Lionshead.
2
A
E. Street Edqe, Paqe 6
Staff Cornmen4s:
Very little change would be needed to adapt this section for Lionshead.
F. Buildinq Heipht, Paqe 7
Sfafif Cornmenfs: "
This section of the guidelines would need to be revised completely for Lionshead. There
would need to be a section on additions to the existing ta11 buildings in Lionshead, and a
second section which would address sites that are being redeveloped entirely.
G. Views, Paqe 8a
Staff Comments: -
This section discusses in general the importance of views. Staff would suggest that an
analysis tor Lionshead be completed. The general Village principles can be applied to
Lionshead but the specific discussion of Lionshead's focal points and views to preserve or
create would need design analysis. There is great potential to improve the urban design
character of Lionshead by addressing views.
H. Service and Deliverv, Paqe 10 Staff Coenmenfs:
The principles are very good in this section. The concepts need to be applied to Lionshead.
1. Sun/Shade, Paqe 11
Staff Comments:
These principles are also applicable to Lionshead. The sun/shade requirements should be
tested on several projects in Lionshead to make sure that sun for public space is maintained.
J. Architecture/Landscape Considerations Paqe 12
Staff Comments:
This is a section that needs to emphasize again where`Lionshead currently is in respect to
design and where the communiry would like it to be in the future. The foNowing points reiated
to roofs, facades, etc. should then explain how to achieve the transformation from
contemporary to "alpine design" as defined by the community and Council. The key to this
section will be to clearly define what type of "alpine design" we are trying to achieve.
3 •
Under facades, beginning on Page 16, staff be(ieves that discussion wili need to occur in
respect to color, transparency, paving, and service. Concerning color, there has been reeent
discussion that perhaps even the Village Design Guidelines are too restrictive in respect to
color. Several people have mentioned that the color palette is too limited. _
Under transparency and windows on Page 17 and 17a, the Guidelines should be reviewed to
discuss window pane sizes. In several recent projects, the issue of retail visibiliry versus
small window panes has been a point of contention. For paving on Page 27, staff believes it
would be helpful to discuss how accent paving could be incorporated into projects in
- Lionshead, given the fact tfiat the mall treatment for perlestrian ways is, currently all pavers. Under service on Page 29, bear proof containers and space for-recycling should be included
in the guidelines.
•New section on American Disabilities Act Desiqn Implications
Staff Comments: -
Staff believes that it would be important to analyze how the American Disabilities Act would
impact some of the design principles. Creative ways to address ADA needs should be
included in this section.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIOId
As you can see from this very cursory analysis of the Vail Village Design Considerations and
their applicability to Lionshead, there are many principles in the Vail Village Design
Considerations which require only minor changes to make them applicable to Lionshead. _
There are also several sections which will require an overhaul to make them appropriate to
apply to Lionshead. In addition, the key issue in staff's opinion is that as a Council and a
communiry we agree on what we are trying to achieve in respect to design in Lionshead so
that we are not sending mixed signals to designers and owners. .
if the Councii wishes to proceed with these changes, the staff would recommend that you
allow Jeff Winston, principal of Winston Associates, to continue to work with the staff on this
project. Given Council's concern to try and implement changes immediately and to proceed
with the review of the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines first, we are suggesting a"mini
project" to address the Council's concern. Rather than simply trying to make wording changes
to the Vail Village Design Guidelines and apply them to Lionshead, we believe that some
additional analysis and testing are critical to insure that the changes are acceptable to the
community and applicable to Lionshead. We would propose to use some of the money the
that Community Development has for Professional Fees/Code Revisions for this effort. We
believe that analysis/testing could be undertaken in a matter of weeks and the changes could
be made in a three to four month time period given the- fact that an abbreviated work plan is
required. (Please note that the adoption of formal view corridors is not included in the scope
of work.) We suggest the following outline of work:
(Please note that this assumes that a majority of Town Council members agree
that the Vail Village Design Considerations should be evaluated to see if they
can be applied to Lionshead.)
4
;
1. Winston Associates would evaluate the Vaii Village Design Guidelines in more
detail relative to their applicability to Lionshead.
2. 1/Vinston Associates would prepare a draft version of the Vail Village Design
Guidelines with appropriate changes.
3. Two focus groups would be held to discuss the proposed draft revisions. The
first focus group would include approximately four to five design professionals
who would critique the proposed revisions. The second focus group would
include representatives from Lionshead businesses, Vail Associates, and
. residential owners, the Design Review Board (DRB~, and the Pfanning and
Environmental Commission (PEC).
4. V1linston Associates would work with a local architect in a two day design
workshop in which the revised design guidelines would be applied to a
prototypical project. Essentially, this exercise would study how the guidefines
would actually be implemented. It would test the degree to which our design
objectives would be achieved by the changes. `
5. A public presentation will be made to the Council and local design
professionals, Lionshead representatives, and the public to allow for review of
the work and comment.
6. Winston Associates would make changes to the document per Council's
direction.
7. If approved, Community Development staff would present the final document to
the DRB, PEC, and Town Council for approval. -
Staff would like to emphasize that this is not the normal way that we like to work with the
community. We prefer to have more meetings with the public to collect ideas, revise
proposals, etc. We had atso hoped to address many design issues for Lionshead through the
proposed plan such as signage, public spaces, view corridors, the redevelopment of the
Sunbird/Gondola site etc. Basically, we see this as a short-term solution. We would prefer to
address the design considerations as well as other design and quality of public space issues
in depth if the Lionshead plan could be initiated in January of 1995. However, in order to
address the Council's concern in a short time frame, we suggest this approach. We defer to
the fact that the Council would prefer to address the overall Town of Vail Design Guidelines
first.
Thank you for your consideration of this quick study and suggestion on how to address the
Council's alpine design concern. It has been an issue-that has been difficult to define and
address. Given the time concerns of the Council, staff proposes the above abbreviated work
program for Council's review. -
c:lcouncil\memosla1pine.726 5
MEMoRaNDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROIVI: Community Development Department -
DATE: June 28, 1994
SUBJECT: Discussion of the Alpine Design Issue
B. INTRODUCT10N
At the June 7, 1994 worksession, Council requested that staff discuss the issue of alpine
design with the Council at a future worksession. The purpose of this discussion is to
determine when and how the Council would like to address the issue_of encouraging an alpine
design character in Lionshead and possibly throughout the entire community. The alpine
design project is currently listed as a third tier priority in the Community Development
DepartmenYs priority project list. Assuming that the first and second tier projects are
completed in 1994 and earfy 1995, the alpine design issue would be addressed some time in
1995.
On April 26, 1994, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), Design Review Board
(DRB), and Town Council met to discuss the issue of alpine design. Jeff Winston, urban
design consultant for the Town of Vail, was asked to make a presentation on the general characteristics of alpine design. Since the workshop, this issue has, continued to be important
to the Council. In order to make sure that the Council has had an opportunity to review the
existing design guidelines related to alpine character, the staff has enclosed pertinent sections
of the Lionshead and Vail Village Urban Design Considerations. We have also included the
Town-wide Design Review Guidelines that relate to alpine design. Please keep in mind that
staff has included only those sections that are specific to the alpine design issue. Below is a
quick summary of the general design approach found in each document and areas, that in a
very curSOryview, appear to require improvement. Staff felt this information would be helpful
to Council when trying to prioritize this project. We have also concluded with a staff
recommendation on how to address the alpine design issue.
11. L90NSPiEAD VJRB,4N DESI(aN COiVSIDERQ?TIONS
The Lionshead architectural style is noticeably absent of any references to
historical or geographical styles (old west, georgian, swiss village, etc.). The
challenge in Lionshead is to develop vitality, visual interest and pedestrian
scale within a contemporary architectural expression."
Staff believes that improvements could be made to this document particularly in the sections
relating to roof forms and materials (Pages 5 and 8), facades and walls (Page 9), and
facad es/tran spare ncy (Page 12). A new section should be added related to views and
landscaping. In addition, the design issues related to the American Disabilities Act should be
addressed. The overall effort would include the review and amending of the existing design
considerations and guide plan. We would also suggest that the narrative be rewritten so that
the intent of the guidelines is much clearer. The graphics should also be revised so that they _
more effectively illustrate the intent of the guidefines. During this review process, the
Commercial Core II zone district should also be reviewed-to ensure that the zoning is
encouraging the design changes that we wish to see in Lionshead.
III. VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
"Vail was originally conceived as a mountain resort in the pattern of a quaint
European alpine village...The actual area of Vail that gives it its unique character is but a small area of the Village. There are definitely opportunities to
extend the character of the core beyond its current limits. These design
considerations, and the Urban Design Plan as a whole, are intended to guide
, growth and change in ways that will enhance and preserve the essential
qualities of Vail Village. This character, while inspired to a degree by European
models, has evolved into a distinctly local interpretation. Any standards, in the
end, must be based upon Vail's own unique characteristics and potential now.
To preserve this character, care must be taken to avoid both new architectural
prototypes and historical ones, local or foreign, which do not share the same
design vocabulary. These design considerations are a recognition that there is
a d9stinctive design character to the Village and that this character is important
to preserve...The design considerations are intended to serve as guideline
design parameters. They are not seen as rigid rules, or "cookbook design"
elements to bring about a homogeneous appearance in Vail. Rather, they are
a statement of interpretation, subscribed to by the Town Planning and
Environmental Commission and Design Review Board, as to the present
physical character and objectives of the Village. They are intended to enable
the Town staff and citizen review boards to more clearly communicate to
~property owners planning and design objectives, and allow property owners in
Town to respond in general conformance or to clearly demonstrate why
departures are warranted."
Staff does not feel that the Village Design Considerations require major revisions. In general,
the Guide Plan and Considerations have been very helpful to the staff and developers as well
as Town boards in reviewing projects. We would make some minor changes to the following
sections: building height - clarify how to measure roof heights, (Page 7), window detailing for
retail shops (Page 18), color - should brighter colors be allowed (or recommended) in Vail
Village (Page 16), landscaping - add wording to tie this section in with the Vail Village
Streetscape and Vail Village Master Plans (Pages 26 and 27). In addition, we would like to
add a new section addressing the American Disabilities Act and its implications on building
design for the Village.
IV. TOWN OF VAIL-DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES
Enclosed are sections whicfi relate directly to alpine design in the Town-wide Design Review
Guidelines. The purpose section states:
2
"Vail is a town with a unique natural setting, internationally known for its natural
beauty, alpine environment, and the compatibility of manmade structures with
the environment...lt 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 remarkabie natural beauty of the area by creating structures
which are designed to compliment both their individual sites and
surroundings..."
Please see the additional sections of these guidelines which staff thought may be of interest
to the Council. $60,000.00 in the Capital Improvement Program Budget is allocated for the
review of this document in 1995.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATI0N
The staff would suggest that the Council consider addressing the Lionshead Urban Design
Guide Plan and Considerations through the Lionshead Development Plan process. In 1996,
$80,000.00 is allocated for the Lionshead Development Plan. Staff would suggest that this
project be moved up to 1995. In general, this project will incorporate many of the suggestions
generated by the Lionshead Merchants work with Eldon Beck and Sherry Dorward. Examples
of issues the plan will address include mall signage, landscaping for public places, gathering
places for pedestrians, and views. The Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations
would be reviewed during this planning process. Basically, the focus of this plan is to make
public spaces as interesting as possible for pedestrians. The issue of design character will be
an important element of the plan. Staff realizes that this recommendation would need to be
considered in light of the other projects in the Capital Improvement Budget. It is our
understanding that the Council will be reviewing the Capital Improvement Budget during 1995
budget process this sumrner and fall.
If the Council wants to address alpine character throughout the Town, the issue could be
addressed when the Design Review Guidelines are revised. This project is scheduled for
1995 and $60,000.00 is budgeted. If the Lionshead project is moved to 1995, staff will need
to reevaluate if the two plans should be completed at the same time. Please note that the
Land Use Plan is also slated for implementation in 1995.
3 .
VAIL VILLAGE .
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Or9gina9 Da4e dune 9 i9 i 980
Revised January 15, 1993
. INTRODUC1°IOIV 8ackoround
These Design Considerations are an integral part of the Vail Yillage Urban Design
Plan. The Plan as a whole is the culmination of many month's effort by residents,
merchants, Town staff, and consultants to develop a mechanism to manage physical
change in the Village. It is an attempt to identify aspects of fihe physical
character of the Village and to assure as far as possible that future changes
will be consistent with the established character, and will make positive con-
tributions to the quality of life.
Vail was originally conceived as a mountain resort in the pattern of quaint
European alpine village. It remains fairly faithful to that image today,
because of the comnitment of its eariy founders to that concept. However,
recent rapid growth, both in size and popularity, has introduced new pressures
for development, which meny feel threaten the unique qualities from which that
success has been derived. There are rapidly increasing land values and resulting
pressures to expand existing buildings, infill parcels, and even totally re-
develop parcels less than 15 years old. This pressure for growth has brought
with it the potential for significant change. New materials, new architectural styles, the premium on land usage, and sheer numbers of people and cars all
have potentially major impacts on the character and function of Vail.
That is not to imply that all growth and change in Vail is negative. There are
many areas that are underdeveloped. The actual area of Vail that gives it its
unique character is but a small area of the Village. There are definitely
opportunities to extend the character of the Core beyond its current limits.
These Design Considerations, and the Urban Design Plan as a whole, are intended
to guide growth and change in ways that will enhance and preserve the essentiai
qualities of Vail Village. This character, while inspired to a degree by
E.uropean models, has evolved into a distinctly local interpretation. Any
standards, in the end, must be based upon Vail's own unique characteristics.
and potential now. To preserve this character, care must be taken to avoid both
new architectural prototypes, and historical ones, local or foreign, which do
not share the same design vocabulary. These Design_Considerations are a
recognition that there is a distinetive design character to the Vi]lage and
that this character is important to preserve.`
The Design Considerations
The characteristics Sdentified fierein, are first of all, descrfptions of the
primary form-giving physical features of the Village. They are not exhaustive.
They are a description of those key elements without which the image of Vail
would be noticeably different.. They nre divided into 4wo major eategories:
i
Urban Desiqn Cons9deratians
. Generalfl lerge-scale land us@ p1ann9ng issuess as well as form eonsiderations
wfiich affect nore than one property (or even whole areas)e 7hese considerations
are prirnarily the purdiew of the Planning and Endironmental Conmissionm This -
6orr~nission also has revieaa vesponsibilities for additional zoning code compliance
such as density contwol, pawking9 eteo
Architecture/Landseape Consideratians
DeQailq 1dCtalOsp sgyle afld oderall appropriateness of a design for a given siteo
TheSe eonsidePatiofls aee rediewed primarily by the Design Review Board (DRB)o
Below ig a general dheckli st of major fissues and eoneevns which the applicnnt
must address in 4he course of the reeiew processe Each of the following items
should be addrgssed ag least briefly in any application hearing or submittal:
Urban Design Considerations Architeetural/Landseape Consideratiofls
1. Pedestrianization 1e roOeS
2e Vehicle Penetration Forrn
3. Streetseape Framework Pitch
4e Street Enelosure Oderhangs •
, 5e Street Edge Composition
6e Building Height Stepped Roofs
7. diews PNaterials .
Construcgion
Zoninq Code I2ems 2e FA*AM
Material s
l. Density Contwol . Colow
2. Landscape Area Reduegion Transparenc,y 3. ParEcing Windows
4. Doo rs
5. Trim
6. 3• BALCONIES
Color
Size
Mass
Matewials
Construction
. 4. DECKS *9 PATIOS
S. ACCEfUT ELEMENTS
6. LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS
. Plant Materials
. Pading
Retaining Walls
Lighting
Signage
7. ~~RV%CE
Materials
Construction
Secondly, the design considerations are intended to serve as guideline design parameters. They are not seen as rigid rules, or "cookbook des~gn elements" to
bring about a homogeneous appeararice in Vail. Rather, they are n statement of
.interpretation, subscribed to by the Town Planning/Environmental Commission and
Review 6oard, as to the present physical character and objectives of the Yillage.
They are intended to enable the Town staff and citizen review boards to more
clearly communicate to property owners planning and design objectives, and allow
property owners in town to respond in general conformance or to c]eariy demonstrate
ahy departures are warranted. Finally, these guidelines ere intended to help influence the form and design of
buildings, not to establish minimum b.uilding volumes. Often more than one
criteria applies to a given situation e.g. Building Height, Enclosure, Views and
Sun/Shade - all are concerns applicable to building height and massing - and
they may be mutually conflicting if judged on equal terms. .It is the role of
the review boards, together with the applicant, to determine the relative
Tmportance of each consideration for a given situation. They then musL appiy
those eonsiderations to assure that a balance is achieved between the rights
of the public and private sectors.
iii
• a 1110AN
CONSIDERATIONS
' . . e
A. PEDESTRIANIZAT%ON
A1l new or expansion construetion should
anticipate the appropriate lebel of
pedestrianization adjaceng to the sige.
A major objectibe for dail yillage is
to encourage pedestrian eirculation '
through an interconnected networEc of
saf@a pleasant pedestrian ways. Pqan,y
of 2he 9mprobements reeognized in the
Urban De5 i gn Gui de P] ans aand
accompanying Design Consideragionsn
are to reinforce and expand the quality to pedestrian walkways
$hroughout ghe yillagee
Since behicular traffic cannot be ° - s
wemoeed from eertain sgreets (bus .
routesa delivery access) a totally
carmfree pedestrian system is not achiedeable throughout the entire Nillageo Therefore several levels
. o¢ pedestrianizatyon are proposedo
1. pedesgrian-only streets
. ~•J~-Y.~
.01
I
0
~ - _ - '
D
8
~
' -~~4
" g - -
I ,~j;,?. ~;:~J,V .
2. pedestrian streets with -
limited delivery traffic- (~~k. ~~SS 0+?log) Wdlk
•
with sufficient aidth for
• unimpeded pedestrian
s walking
. ;
; Lsl~0iwd 2e
~
= 3. sepirated pedestrian walks s ~
. Nhere street Nidth and . r
~ traffic rolume (truekso
shuttle bus, etc) preclude i: ~ '
. joint vehicle/pedestrian ,
use of the roadway
8'4,, 1o I
I -
, 4, primary vehicular routes-
minimal pedestrian
development confined to
wide shoulder, sidewalk,
or separate pathway. .
.The Framework Circulation Plan, and
'sub-area Guide Plans designate the
specific type of street develop-
. -ment.desi red for major streets i n
Vail Village.
2
S. VEHICLE.PENEgRATION ~
y To the M8X1mum ex$eflt pos3ible.all
- non-resident tragfic should be rouged
along the Frontage Road to Vail dillage/
bail biowsWead parking $grucgureso
' Bn con3unctiora with pedestrionfizatiofl arj
_ -objeegives9 ~~~r emhasis iQ focussed rt~i~
~+pon reduce"g auto pee~etPat~on in40 ~ie+i~ltt ~rafe0r~ - FW*"s
the cent~~ ~f ILhe Villageo Vai1 Road
and Vail dalley Driee aill continue
- 49 ' sePee the rajor -routes for° .
sereice ae~d regident-access to the ~ .
° Villagee . . .
• R0ad coP13`~PiCtioPisa $P8gf1c ciB'Glesp ~87L~It~~~B~A~p O ~ A
`
signages and o4~F~er ~asures are ~~~f&fabnf' io a/
indicated in The Guide Plans to 84mv, A iu
eisually and physically discourage ~nd somiee
a1l but essential eehicle penetrag9on onip
beyond the Frontage Roade Alter.natiee
access poin$s and pPiba$e parking ~=3
reloeationo where feasiblefl should be
eonsidered $o ~urtPoer reduce traffic
conflic$s in the billagge .
Ce STREETSCAPE FRAPNEWORK
To improde the qual i ty of the wa1 ki ng • - -
experience and gide con$inuity to
the pedesgrien waysD as a conginuous
gystemfl garo genePal gypes °of improve-
enents adjacent $o the aa-lkways are
considered:
1e Open spaee I landscaping =
berns o gpasg p glowePS and
tv-ee p~anging as a soft,
co1orful fr~amework 84askage - ~
Mon redesgr9~n 2,ougess
aRd g1azas and park gt°een -
spaces.~~ open nodes and
~~~aL~ints; along those _ ~ubeso • -
2. IIngill ¢o Pg$&l s4~~froflts
" ettpansion of Qttfistiflg buildiflgso '
oP ne~ l developmeflt to
create r~~ commePgial actidity generaYors to gide ~treeg life .
and ee~~~l Intevesto as agtrae=
gions at key 9oeations along
pedesgriafl muteso
0
3
It is not intended to enclose all -
Yillage streets arith buildings, as in 1
the Core Area. Nor is it desireable to
leave ptdestrian streets in the open • and scmewhat undefined condition
evident in many other areas of Yail. Rather, it is desired to have a
variety of open and enclosed spaces,
both built and landscaped which create a sbr-ong framework for pedestrian walks as Nell as visual .
interest and activity. -
D. STREET ENCLOSURE
While building facade heights should not be uniform from building to ~-'building, they should provide a ;'r•
"comfortable" enclosure for the -r~
-street.
Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms .
whose walls are formed by the buildings. '
The shape and feel of these 'rooms'
a re created by the variety of heights `
and massing (th ree-dimensional vari-
ations) ?ahich give much of the visual
interest and pedestrian scale unique
to Va i 1. •
Very general rules, about the perception
of exterior spaces have been developed
(empirically) by designers, based on
the characteristics of human vision.
They.suggest that:
an external enclosure is most
coanfortable where its ovalls are
approximately 11 as high as the ~ Nidth of the spaee enclosed; •
I
if the ratio falls to ~i or 1ess,
the space'seems unenclosed; and
. ,
y{ if the height is greater than the
width, it comes to resemble a
canyon. ~
~
4
o '
, Xn aetual applicagionfl faeades are o
- seldon uflfifDrm iw heighg ~n both sides
pf ghe s$reet9 nor is 4,his des'Pede o
Thugo gom lati$ude is appropriate
in the bpplication of $h~s Is _ to = I ~ p
° Patioo vsing the average facade height
. of bogh $ides wall generally still .
be a gufde g~ ~~e O'confoa°gablewess"
- of th~ ~~~lusiire being greatedo a~
~
'In soil@ ia5unce5 fl thm ~
e "~~~yonA effect ~ ~
Is acceptable and even desirable = a:., .
gor examplefl as a shoPt•conneeting
. linkage between laPger gpaces = to
gide variety go the walking expee°ienceo
sun/shadg reasonso it 9s often
addantageous to orieng, any longer gegments in a etorth=sough direcgiono
Long canyon streegs in an eas$=wesg
direction should generally be
discouraged< '
When exceptions to the general heigh$
criteria occurfl special design con-
sideration should be giben to creating
a a?ellmdefined groufld fioor pedestrian
emphasis go odercomg ghe canyon effeeg.
. ,
Canapiesfl awnings9 arc8de and
building extensions can a1l create ~
a pedesYwian focus and diderg
a2tenti on grom upper bui ldi ng ~ac}Cr~
/VN
heaghgs and °can,yon° effecgo
• ~P~ ~p0~~~.
. For other considerag3oe~~
building massing see< •
Building HiiQht
~ . -
Sun/SP~ade ' • _ .
~iews • °
• ° ' -
Sgreeg Edge
O . Q .
• _ s
. ~
E. STREET EDGE
Buildings in the Village Core should
form a strong but irregular edge Lo
the,street.
Unlike many American towns there are no
standard setback requirements for
buildings in Vail Yillage. Consistent
with the desire for int-imate pedestrian ~
scale, placement of portions of a ~building at or near the property
line is allowed and encouraged to give ~ ~
strong definition to,the pedestrian
streets. ~ sf?e~+ ~
This is not to imply continuous
building frontage along the property
- iine. A strong street edge is
important for continuity, but
perfectly aligned facades over too
long a distance tends to be ~
monotonous. With only a few
exceptions in the Village, slightly ,
irregular facade lines, building ;
jogs, and landscape areas, give 0 D
life to the street and visual r
interest for pedestrian travel. ~j
. - Curudrr~ear ~reeF~
Where buildings jog to create
activity pockets, other ` bwld~,'?S
elements can be used to con- lmejo8
, tinue the street edge:
- low planter walls - arcades arrd
- tree pl anti ng - rai sed decbcs raised sidewal,ks
- texture changes
in ground surface ' • ' . °
6
PUMp WlOga gregfl oPeaS aPe im_
- portant foeal poings fore gatheriwga
regtingfl orienging and should be .
distributed throughout t~e dillage
'With due considera$ion goe
- Qpaciflg
° sufl 8CCe5s
. - oPPortuni gi~s fow eriews
_ pedestrian ae$ivi$y .
See alsoe .
SunJShade
Building Heigh$ •
Streeg Enclosure
biews
F. BUILDING HEIGHT
Basically,$he Village Core fis pewcgided as a mix of geva and ghree story
facades9. althouoh $here are also four and five story buildingso The mix
of building heigh$s gides var°iety to the stregt--whith is desirableo The _
height criteria are intended to encouraee hgight and rassing darietY and
go diseouragg uniform building heights along the s$reeto
Yhe definition of height shall be as ib is in the Vail Flunicipal Codea Building
height resgricgions in Commercial Core % shall be as fol]owsa
1. Up t0 600 of the building (building govgrage area) may be built go a
height Af 33 feeb oi• lesso
2. Pdo more $han 4000 of the build-Ing (buildiflg coverage asea) aay be highgw
° ghan 33 feg$9 k) u$ not higher $han 43 feeta
3e Tcwerso sp»eso cupolasa ehinneyso glagpoless and similar architegtural
features not useable as Gross Rgsidential Floor Area may extend abode
the hei ght 1 imi t a distance of no t more than twenty-f ide perceng of
the heighg limig nDr more $han fifteen fee4o .
4. The abode heigfl$s are based on an assumed 3 f~et. in 12 feet or 4 feet
in 12 feet Poof pi$cheso To accomn-cdate and enceurage steeper roof
pitches (up go 6 feeg $n 12 geet)9 slightp propor$ionate hCi9ht $ncreases
gould be granted so long as the height-of buildzng side wa11s is not
Incrensed (see diagram following).
r
. . r
~
~ ~ .
e
A ~
s - ~
Height of •
~ side . . ~
wa11 ,
does not ' •
'increase, • . .
' .
- ; .
i ~
~
8
' G. VIEWS AND ~OCAL POINTS
Vail's mouettaiFtibaliey seffing Ds a
_ fandamen4al part og ft Bdentity.
Yiews o$ the motantWns, ski s9opes,
' creeks and o4heP na4taPal 9eatures
aPe PemjPdefS 0$ the moIJn$alPD
environment and, by ~epeated
@llSiblll$y, aPe odentation PefeP6P1ce
points. Ceetain building 9ea4tures
aIso provide Importan4 orientation:
refePences and visual focaB poin4s. Tfie mos4 significang diew corrridors
have been adopted as part of
Chaotor 18.73 of the Vail Municipal
Code. The vl~w coeridors adopted
should not be considePed
etthaustive. When edalua4ing a
development pPoposal, priori4y
should be given to aea analysis o9
the ienpac4 0f the projec4 on views. Views tha4 should be preseeved
origina4e frorrt either majoP
pedestrian area,s or public spaces,
and inciude diews o4 the ski
moun4ain, the Gore Range, the
-
Clock Tower, the Rucksack ToweP
and o4her important man-made and
na4uPal elemen4s gha4 oon4ribu4e 40 - -
the sense of place associafed with
VaIl. The$8 dl@WS, Wh1Ch haVB
been adopted by ordinance, were ; .
chosen due go their significance, no4 only from an aesthetic s4andpoin4,
but also as orienga4ion Peference
poin4s 9or pedes4dans.
Developtnent in !lail Viilage shall
nof encroach into any adop4ed diew
corridoP unless approved under
Chapter 96.73. AdAp4ed corridors
are lis4ed 6n ChapteP 98.73 og the
@/ il I~AUniCiP ~
~ aI Code. WPlet'IeP
~ff
ecU 'n
o ted eiew ~rPidg P ors or .
_ . . e.__.. . . ,..s_.. •d
PAGESA
nog, 4he impact of proposed .
. - development on views from -
pedestrian ways and pub(ic spacgs .
must be identified and considered
, where appropriate. The Vaii Land
Use Plan. Town Policies, the Urban
Design Guide Plans, and other ; in~,~~dpc,g(~„ya~t• in~;~~ ~ .
. adopted master plans, shail be used ; blxk~ urew vivi) -
to help determine which views enay ~ Garr~r
by affected. and how they shouid be : G~r~i3~r
addressed. -
(Ordinance No. 98, Series of 1992) n
D t1 ~ ~
~
PACE 9
..A... ,oroea
H. SERVICE AND DCLOVE~Y
' Any btaildin~ expansioet sFtouYd
. preserve 4he fanc4ions of existing
sereir,e aIleyse
Ttt~ ~ew seevice afleys Bhag exis4 in
ft ViIlage ar~ extrehnely arnportang
to minimWrtg erehicle congestion ~n
pedesfrian wayso The use o9, and
. vehicul~ aocess 4o, those aIieys
should not be eiim3na4ed exoep4
w18P@ fUPIcUOB1aYp W$ePBatbeS aPe
pPoMEded.
8n aII new remodeled
- cons4ruefion, delivery whicFo avoids or reduces impacts on pedestrian
ways should be expioPed; and
adopted wheneder practieatt, for -
ImPT1edtat@ OP fu$uPe 6J5a9e. R6af
a\iW5.7o bO.Se111e116y and bG'ovII-
grocand delivery corridors reduce
congestion. Wea4heP progection
increases delieery effi6iency
subs4antially.
Belowt grade delivery corddors are
9ound in a few buildings in !/ail - '
Viilage (Sitzmark/GoPe Ceeek PIaza, .
!lillage CenteP, @lail Village Inn).
Consideration should be giden go eutending these corridors where
6easible and 4he crea4ion of new
ones. As buildings are eans4ruc4ed oP remodeled, the opportunity may
exis4 4o develop segments og a•
fu4uP~ system.
~AriE 90
I. SUN/SHADE
Due to Vail's alpine ci(mate, sun is
an important comfort fac4or. '
ibd'~~'~i'Dr~w
I i Px15tf
, especially in winter, fall and spnng. bvdr~
Shade areas have ambient '
temperatures substantially below
those of adjacent direct sunlit areas. ezjyt~~
On all but the warmest of summer
days shade can easily lower
temperatures betow comfortable • •
levels and thereby negativety impact ~ b~ I ~I
u s e s o f t h o s e a r e a s.
All new or expanded buildings - - _ • _ , , . .
should not substan4ially incxease the ' - ' • .
.
spring and fall shadow pattem -
(March 21 through September 23)
on adjacent properties or the public ~°23
. .
R.O.W. pr
h~r~ 21 °
In aii building construction, shade f S~n ~ ~r~
shali be considered in massing and
0
overall height consideration.
Notwithstanding, suNshade j considerations are not intended to
restrict building height ailowances, ' ? ' ' ~
but rather to influence the massing '~`~t~N$ ,
of buildings. Umited height
exceptions may be granted to meet « this criteria. ~ . ,
Additions to existing buildings may
be created in several ways to avoid - -
extending shadow patterns. ;
~ tun:aNrrsrM a , FaIr r:! or '
5~ 33 o"F ~
, n
5pM j Fd~~
sun - : 5:~n ~ te-5d°
,
~
. 8~ .
A-k
, .
.
PAGE 91
~ ~ .
wdwl,aM •
wqw
~ • • . , . -r -
. ARCHITECTURE/LAND S CAPE
. CONSIDERATIONS .
Fioofs
Nhere visible9 roofs are ofgen ofle of
the nios$ dominant architeetura1 e1emengs
In any built endironmengo IIn the dillage
roof foms colov° and tex$ure are visibly dor^inang9 and generally eonsistents which
$ends go unif,y the building diversit,y 40
a grea¢ dggreee .
The eurrent @xpressienfl and objeetiveo °
fAr roofs in the dillage is go forn a eonsistently unifying bacbcdrop for°
the erchigecgure and pedesgrian - -
sgPe2tseape9 end to avoid Poofs wPtiCh - -
tend to stand out indibiduall,y or
~di stPact disuall,y from the oberal l
charactere '
Roof Fovms - Roofs wighin the !lillage are typically .
gable in foem and of m9derage-go-low ~
pitcho Shed roofs are frequently
used for small additiofls go lae°gew
~ ~ . .
muildiflgse FPee-sganding shed .
rr-oogsfl bugter~ly roofs and flat
Poogs9 can be ffound 4n the dillage
mu$ the,y are • gentrally cansidePed
40 be out of charaeter and inapprop- Piateo Hip roofs Il&ewise are ~are
afld geflera1ly incogisgen$ aith the
Qharacger of the Core Areao Towers
z .
are exceptionsfl in botPo form and .
p$gcha to the general critePiao but : -
do bade afl establishea local
deinacular s$yle which should be oN ~
respesgedo ~
' F~ ~otut~
12
Pitch
Roof slopes in the VIllage typically -~range from 3/12 to 6/12, with,slightly
steeQer pitches in limited applications.
Again, for visual consistency this
general 3/12-6/12 range shoul d be ~~IL 40
preserved. (See Construction below.)
Overhangs 6enerous roof overhangs are also an
established architectural feature in
the Village - a traditional expression
of shelter in alpine environments.
Roof overhangs typically range from
3 to 6 feet on al l edges. Speci fi c
design consideration should be given
to protection of pedestrian ways
adjacent to buildings. Tee falls,
snow slides, and runoff hazards can .
be reduced by roof orientation,
gutters, arcades, etc.
Overhang details are treated with
varying degrees of ornamentation. .
Structural`elements such as roof beams -
are expressed beneath the overhangs,
simply or decoratively carved. The
roof fascia is thick and wide, giving
a substantial edge to the roof. exro~d
Compositions
The intricate roofscape of the Village
as a whole is the result of many in-
dividual simple roof configurations.
For any single building a varied but
simple composition of roof planes is ~
preferred to either a single or a
complex nrrangement of many roafs. As ~~,f~~ P~~sra.rlr Rc~•
individual roofs become more eomplex
the roof attracts visual attention
away from the streetscape and the total: -
roofscape tends toward "busyness" rather
than a backdrop composition. ~ Pt~ues
~
13
_ o
Step~ed Roofs
As buildiflgs are stepped $o reflee$
_existing grade changesfl resulting roof
steps should be made where the height
r-k?ange wiil be disually significanto
Variations which are goo subg1e appear .
go be more stylistic ta?en ~uneg;onalfl
- and out of charagter with the more
straighg=foeward roof design typic~~
~n the dillageo
Materials
Wood-shakes9 a?ood shingles9 and built-
up 2ow and gravel are almost exclusivel3
used as roof materials in the Village.
(See Construction belowe) For disual
consistency any other materials should - °
hade the appearance of the abade.
Construetion -
Common roof problems and design con-
siderations in ghis elimate include:
- snowsl i des oflgo pedestrian wel ks
- gutters freeging
- iroof dams awd wa$er iflfilgration
= eed,y sno~r loads
CP?areful aggenLion 4o ghese functfional
details is reeortenendedfl as well as -
gamiliarit,y aith the local building
¢oden proben eows4puggion degai]so
gnd gown owdinancesa .
For builg~~p roofso pitches of 4/12
or steeper do not hold gradel wello
For shingle roofsfl pigches of 4/12
or shallower often resul$ fin iee
dams and baekflow leakage ufldew
the shfiwgleso 0
g~
Cold-roof eonstruction is strongly prefefired, unless warm-roof benefits
for a specific application can be *wc
demanstrated. Cold-roofs are double-
roofs whi ch i ns ul ate and prevent snow ~IYc+a~
melt from internal building heat. By ~ -
retaining snow on the roof, many of
the problems listed can be reduced.
Periodic snow rertaval will be required .
and should be anticipated in the ~ IJPAst
desi gn. ° . vcn Ir~u~afx~ e wc~ti
Roof gutters tend to i ce-i n compl etely t~ t~?'a a~ air
and become ineffective in the Yail
climate, especially in shaded north-
side locations. Heating the interior
circumference with heat-tape elements
or other devices is generally nec-
essary to assure adequate runoff
control in colder months.
15
FACADES
Materials - Stuecoo brieka wood (and glass) are the
primary building mager9als Sound in the
billageo 6dhile no4 aishing t0 restriet
design freedom ~~r-much9 ettis$ing
eondi4ions shoa thag wighin g~~~ ~~~l
-range ~f ffatere~~s-mueh variation and °
- indieiduali~~ ~~e possfible while pre- .
serving a basic ha flyo Too many
dimerse ma4erials weaken the cowtinuity
and repegiiion whieh ufli$ies the stveet-
seapee .
Of the abode wateriels, stueca is the
mos4 eonsisgently used magewiale -
Most of the buildings in the dillage
exhibig gome stuccofl and there are
virtually no areas cdhere stucco is •
engirely absento gt is intended to
preserde the dominance of sgucco-by
i$s use in portions9 at least9 of all
near fatadesfl and by assuring 2hat other
onaterials are not used to the exclusion
of sgucco in an,y sub-area within the
billage. ~
Col ov° _
7here i s greafi.er 1ati tude in the use of
ce7ov'9n the dillagefl but sgill a
discernible eonsis4ene,y within a generai
range o¢ colorse
For wood surfacesfl grim ow sidingfl darker
color gones are preferred _browns 9 greys o
mlue-greysa dark alidefl slate-greensfl etc>
Stucco cal ors are gew~ral1y light - ahi te fl ~
beigefl pale-goldo or o$her light pasgelso
Other light colors could be appropriatefl
a$ considered an a ease-by-case basisa `
,a righg gol ors (Ped florawgeflblues fl
merroonfl etce) ghould be adoided for
- major wall plonesfl but can be used
effectidely (wi4h res$raint) ¢or
decoragive tpiMp Wall raphicso end
. othee° aecent elemeflgs ?see E. Aecen$
Elemengs)
.
e ' •
Generally, to avoid both "busyness", and weak visual interest, the variety of ~~~i I) II II
major wall colors (and materials - • I ~'i ~
I
excluding glass) should not exceed four
i
nor be less than twoe ~
. . .
A color/material change between the ~ ground fioor and upper floors is a , corrmon and effective reinforeement
of the pedestrian scale of.the street.
Trans nrenc Pedestrian sca7e is created in many arays,
but a major factor is the openness,
attractiveness, and generally public -
character of the ground floor facade
of adjacent buildings. Transparent
store fronts are "people attractors",
opaque or solid walls are more private, _
imply "do not approach". -
On pedestrian-oriented streets such as uprer ivr5 predornpy+el7
jn the Vi 11 age, ground fl oor comnerci al 3 ~Opavt W1W,n4Av
facades are proportionately more trans- „~'a~rs•
,
parent than upper floors. Upper floors IOL M' ~ - :
are typcially more residential, private
and thus less open. ~ ; „
~ !j'~ ; Y:~ i
'~r~?+d ~lar's pr~edanrt~.fct~
. 91a~, „u~gwtsil p¢vc~ioyc
' pf Opaq,!¢ /?~f~ne~~S•
1'~ .
0 ' p
AS a meaSUre of traflsp&PeflCyo the iY~s$ .
charaeteristic and suecessful ground
floo.r facades Tonge from 55% to 70X ~
of the totel Tength of ghe cor~anercial G G{~ = 55~~70°l0
f6cadeo vppeP ffloops are off$en $Pte
Qonvtrge 30X-45% transparento ~
?
Ettamples of transparency (liweal
°feet of glass to lineal feeg
of facade) an ground1eeelo
_ Covered Bridge Bldgo 58%
_ _ Pepi°s Sporgs 71%
- Gasthof GraFnshatrmew 48%
_ The Lodge 66%
= Golden Peak bouse 62%
_ Casino Building 30%
'
- Gorsueh Building 31%
Windows
%n addigion go ghe gefleral degwee of
$Panspawencyfl window details are an
itnporgang source of pedesgv°ian scale- .
giding elementso ' .
The size and shape of windoars are often
a response to the fiunction of the s2reet
adjaeewt< FoP close-upD casuel pedestrian
viewing aindoars are typically siaed $o
buman-siged dimensions and-eharaeter°istics IFL
of hunan visiono (Lawge glass-wall store- l
. , fPOnts suggest uninterrupted diewing9 as ~
from a moving caro The sense of intimage
pedesgrian seele is diminisHedo) Ground
gloor display windows are gypical1y
raised slighgly 18 gee$ * an6 do not
ex4end much oder 8 feet abode R,h~ ~~lk~
'we,y level o Ground floors which are vioticeabl,y abode or below grade are
excepgioflso oa
o (ba
~
' : i: :
:
~ ~'~:~o~:~?f:v:;?ff:
. . . ~
g 7A
~ s
• • .
The arti cul ati on of the window i tsel f ~rul~u~UZI
is still another element in giving trc viar
pedestrian scale (human-related dimensions). 01ns
Glass areas ere usually subdivided to oertaal
- express individual aindow elements - and are
further subdivided by mullions into small ~ -
panes - which is responsible for much of
the old-world charm of the Village.
Similarly, windo+vs are most often
clustered in bnnks, juxtaposed aith ~
plain wall surfaces to give a pleasing '
rhythm. Hor_izontal repetition of single
Kindow elements, especially over long
distances, should be nvoided.
~
. ~ ~
- _ . .
Large single pane windows occur in the
Village, and provide some contrast, as 8V~ lo,~ tco++r?~u'xs 8l~csn~,
long as they are generally consistent
i n form wi th other wi ndows . Long , :':Y:;:;::~:~:::'~;~ ~:%:;:%::r:::::::;:;•:;::;::::;:;:;::
.r.;•:::•: ~
continuous glass is out of character.
•~.~:;:,;f:f..::•~:~•:~:
t `
Bay, bow and box windows are eonmon
window details, Mrhich further variety
and massing to facades - and are
encouraged. ~
~ bow
, it
d~ox
J
Refleetide glasso plasgig panesfl and
' alum1 F1u91 or o$her metBl fPames aPe n0g
consis4ent in the dil9age and should
_ be ~voidede P~~~lc-clad or plastic
clad wood framesa hadir~g the appearance
mf paiw4ed wood haee been used success-
fully and are acgep$ableo
Doors '
Lfi~e windows9 doo~ are fimportant go
eharac$er-afl,d scale-giding arsh9gectu~al '
c~lementsa They should also be somewhat .
transparewt (on retai0 commersial
gacades) and consisteng in detailing .
arith windoevs and ogher fasade elemengso
D06rS wlth glaSS gofltP~bute go oMeP'all
¢aeade tv-ansparengyo Due $o 'the J.rtc k=d +rim
visibility of people ~~d mewehandlse a~ le~~ ~1~
ie~sidefl c~indoe~ed doors are sorrewhat
more effectide in drawing people inside
go regai~ comnercial facadeso Although
great variagions euisgfl 25-30% t
gransparency is felg $o be a minimum
gransparenc,y objectidee Pridage - -
iresidencesn lodgesfl restaurangsfl and
othew non-retail establishments hade - -
different disibiligy end eharac$er
fleeds 9and doors ghoul dbe designed secordinglyo Sidelighg windows are also a means of introducing door-
gransparency as a complement or gub-
stitute for° door'w1ndowse -
g~
• Articulated doors have the decorative
quality desired for Yail. Flush doors, ~
l i ght al umi num frames, pl asti c appl i que ~un~~ark $
elements all are considered inappropriate.
mefal frar?~e
fra"p 0 ? an~
D p paoel
. ~ dark *+~ve
o hW91s
duL.4, cl,aoc-
. ~ aro
~ ' 31ur~n~n
. i ~ ~rarnG
I =
NOTE: Security is an important design
consideration .in Vail. Dead- bolt locks are encouraged. ,
Locks, door handles and glass
should all be designed to
discourage break-ins.
Security-design discussions with the
Town police staff are, encouraged. _ As an expression of entry, and
sheltered welcome, protected entry-
ways are encouraged. Doortirays may
be recessed, extended, or covered.
~
r~d Q,cfen~td ~oHerrd .
20
• Trim
Promincwg wood trim ig &Iga & uflifying ,
ffeatuwe in the dillageo PArgicularly
at grouwd flaaP levelso doors and
windorus.heve stronfl con$v~asting (see Colow-
Facades~ fram'ng ~lements9
wh~ch the vSPiOUg el@ftFeP1tS
tagetheP in one conposi$iono Ni~dows
and doors aPe tpeated ag Q4rong eisual
ffeatureso Glass-wall detailing for
either is typisally avAidedo .
_ 21
DECKS a4ND PATIOS Dining decks and patios, when properly •
designed and sited, bring people_to
the streets, opportunities to look and
be looked at, and generally contribute
to the liveliness of a busy street-
making a ricfier pedestrian experience
.than if those stfeets were empty. .
A review of successful decks/patios in Vai1 reveals several comnon char-
acteristics: 46lZ01 rr bL4.. ~verhaN~
• ~o e~~~~ ~Pa~e
- direct sunlight from 11:00 - 3:00 , ~
increases use by many days/year ••Utndr~~l3 Jr9f~erelwiW
and protects from wind ~~CDjOt'at".~,ol0l8
- elevated feet*to give views °1-3?~y~s{~e en=lr~vre~ into the pedestrian aralk (and
not the reverse) e}r p,epf
- physical separation.from pedestrian ~
walk of to (planter better than G,,^;n
a wa11) ;
i y
- overhang gives pedestrian scale/ ~ i
shelter.
be o , )
Decks and patios should be sited and (1
designed with due consideration to: IG4'f 4z, 1,~•
- sun - views ,
- wind - pedestrian activity
22
~
. a
.
OD'ALCONIES
Salconies oceuw on~~lmost all buildTngs
In the dillage which baee ag liasg a
$econd ledel facade wallo As sgron9
v-epegi$9ne features ghe,ya
_ give se~~e to buildings
- giee life $o the Qgweeg (wPten used) ,
- add variet,y to building ~oms
_ pvodide shelgev- to paghwa,ys belowo '
0
The proFTIIPlaFlCe of balcOny ~om5 Ig dUe ~
4a seberal fai~ly common ghaPncterisgicse ~
~
~
Color
The,y gOP1$Y'83$ 1P1 CblOY' (~ark) bilth the • • . , . . . . .
bui ] di a~ fl 4ypi cal ly ffagching the grim : • . . ~ ~
colors ~see Facade-Col or ) o
, .
S i ze ' f~l~iy pr,~4rcd~4
They ex4end faw enough fe°om the building
• v .s?~°~,'~r~
2o cagg.a promineng shadow patgewne . > -
Balconies ifl Hail are functional as well
as deeoratide. As sueh9 $hey ghould be
of useable size and loeated to eneourage .
usea Balconies less than.siu feet deep
are sel dom used nnor are 4hose always
in ghadea not orien$ed go diews ow
streeg lifeo
mass . . ' ~ ; • ~-E~~?rd~~, ~ ~e
heduu ,~tti9 0~
The1/ aP'~ ccffmP1ly 60aSsiHe jlet seYtli°tF'afl5°
paeentfl disginctiee from the buildingfl . ~ ~ deora,~ls~C,
yet allawiflg the bui1ding to be sortewhag ' UtS~bili~r .
disible behindo Solid balconies , Bre , i • f ~ raay~ bs
gouwd oegasio~~~lyfl and tend go be too / s~spDl'~asa¢ -
dominaflg obscuring the building aPChi-
tegguveo dight ba9gonies lack the , .
ei$ual fimpaeg whigh ties the dillage . . .
4ogeghewo
~
riff
:
• i , • , : j ; ~ _
_ • • ' .
Materials
Wood balconies are by far the most powis
comnon. Vertical structural members
are the most dominant visually, often ~
decoratively sculpted. Decorative ~
+vrought iron balconies nre also
consistent visually where the vertical
members are close enough to create
semi-transparency. Pipe rails, and plastic, canvas or glass panels should
be avoided. •
W~~} 1rAv? ,
Construction
Cantilevered beams, beams extended to -support the balcony, are most often
visibly exposed on the underside of
balconies. As such they are an
expression of structure and tie the
balconies to the building visually.
lx~j'C~1 vf Sfi'tlG~trrC~
. 24
J •o.
' O
ACCENT ELEMENTS
The l'ife9 and fesQiee quality of ghe
billage.is giden by judicious use of
aecent elemengs which give golorfl
modement and congrast gg g~e Villageo
' Colorful aceeng elemengs Qonsistent with
Quitting character are encouragedp such .
aso
Awningg awd eanopies - cafldasn brighg calor ow strfipes of gao colorso .
Flagsp banners - hangfiflg fwom
buildingsfl polesfl and eden aevoss
s4reets fior special oeeasionse
Umbrelles - mver gables on outdoor
pagioso
Annual color flowers - in beds or 9n
plangers<
Aceent lighting - buildingsfl plagasm _
windowsfl trees (even Christrnas •
ligh4s all arinter). •
Painted wall graphics - coats of
arnsD symbolsfl accent compositionsfl
egce
Fountains - sculpguralD with both -
winter and surr8ner eharactero 0
25
~ 1 l
~ .
LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS tandscape considerations inciude, but
ga beyond, the placement of appropriate
plant materials. Landscape consideragions
inc] ude:
- plant materials - paving
- retaining walls .
- street furniture (benches, kiosksfl trash, etc.)
- lighting '
- signage
Plant Materials
Upportunities for planting are not
extensive in the Yillage, which places "
a premium on the plant selection and
design of the sites that do exist.
Framework planting of ttrees and shrubs
should include both deciduous and evergreen species for year round
continuity and interest.
Native plants are somewhat limited in
variety, but are clearly best able to
withstand the harsh winter climate, and to tie the Village visually with
its mountain setting.
Some typical local plant materials
include: '
Trees Narrow-leaf cottonwood
Salsam poplar Aspen
Lodgepole pine - , r
Colorado spruce
Subalpine fir,
Shrubs xi 11 ow . .
Dogwood
Serviceberry
Alpine currant
Chokecherry
Mugho pine
Potenti 1.1 a
Buffaloberry 26
. a
J
,
, Pabin .
The freeze/$haw gycle ag ghis algitude
. dirgually eliminages eoumfl sige-cast
concrete as a paeing surffaee (coflere$e
spall)a Hi9h°s$P@flQ$h concrete may
uork In seleg$ed cofldi$ionso Asphalg
_ brick (on concrete or on sand)9 and
concrete blogk &ppear 40 be besg sui$ed
4o 4he areao
IIr~ ~~neiral9 pa!!$flg 4V'ea~i flgs shBldld be
eoardina$ed aigPo 4hag og ghe public . o
Mok9o adjaeento The Town uses ghe
ffollooving awgerialg for all nea
CoflstrMCtiOPto
- gsphalg = gewep~l uge pedes2rian
s$reegs
- bpick on concrete - feature areas
(P'Yagasp ingerseegionsfl foun1.81nSp
e$Ce)
Re2ainina bdalls
Retaining ~valls 40 raige planting area
ofgen pvogects 2he lendscape gwom - -
,pedestrians and snowploars9 and should
prodide seating oppor$unigies:
Two types of ma2erial are elready well- .
es2ablished in the dillage and should
be u2i 1 i ged for conti etui g,ye
- g plit-faee mss roek reneer -
Hillage Core pedes$rien sgreets
(t,ypical) •
= rrounded cobble hiddefl moPgar -
In open gpaee areas fif abode 4,ype' ~
nA$ ali°e86s/ @stablfi shed neSSPb1/a
(euamplee Town og dail engwy aall) _
t9~d retaining aallS are sgrongly dis-
¢ouPaged due go deteFioPation caused 1~~ the ~arsh glinteo They may be _
Qffecgibel,y used wig~ ~~pFoppiage
detailing to resist rot and eupress
Qpafged joing condigionsa
. 1 1
0
. ?
• •
' Lighting .
Light standards should be coordinated
with those used by the Town in'the
publTC R.O.W.
Si9na9e
Refer to Town of Yail Signage Ordinance. +
Colorful annuals are used in key '
locations throughout the Village to ' accent pedestrian areas, highlight
building entries, and as plaza foeii. -
These color accents can be provided in:
- retained planting beds •
- flower boxes " - hanging pots, baskets
- ground beds
, • 28
o
SERVQCE '
Trash hendling is extremely $eflsitide • .
ln'a pedes$rian ewdironmen$o Trash
colleegion is pPimawily made In off- . - - - • -
peak hourso gg fis the building
.owflers respons;bilit,y go ~~~ure tha$ Q o
- ettis$ing trasH sgorage problems are o a u
gowrecged and fugure ones adoidede do~
a
aU~str ~ed ~r
• ~ ~ivt$?'~At~MCi1~~~
Garbagen especially from food service
es2ablishmengs must be eaPefully .
consideredfl including:
= quantities genewated
- pick-up frequenc,y/aceess
- eontainer siges
- enclosure location/design - disual9 odow impacts
Garbage collection boxes ow dumps4ews
must be readily accessible for'col-
lecgion at a11 gimes ye$ fully
sereened grom publ ie view = pedes-
grians as evell as 'upper ledel windows
in the dicinityo . .
Matewials • • EX~erl0Y' Q!Il$erlalg fAP garb&ge eP1- . _p1tawv4 {vm ed• dov l*
glosutres shottld be goflsfisgeng w$gh cyddd.m~dvt_ ~Il 40
thag of adjaeeflg buildiflgso ~a
, ~
Cong4ruction • ~ r,: •
Durability of the sgrug$uPe and oper-
abilig,y ofi doors iw all aeagher are
p~ime soncgrnse Metal frames and posgs .
behiwd the pweferred Qxteriop ffw$erials a . . . . •
. should b@ considered go a9thstand the
Inebigable abuse ghese sgrug$ures $uffero
29
PL.Aft9NING AND ENVIROYVMEfVTAL COMMISSION
July 25, 1994
AGENDA
Profect Orientation/Lunch 12:15 p.m.
Site Visits 1:15 p.m.
1. Middle Creek Trailhead
2. Golf Course Clubhouse
Drivers: Mike and Jim
, Public Hearinp 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a v?rorksession to discuss proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.38,
Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District and Chapter 18.36, Public Use District, of
the Vail Municipal Code and the creation'of Chapter 18.33, Outdoor Recreation District.
Applicant: Town of Vail Planners: Jim Curnutte and Russ Forrest '
2. A request to amend a previously approved conditional use to allow for restaurant
service to extend past 10:00 p.m. on the dining deck located at Garton's Saloon, 143
East Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Dave Garton
Planner: Randy Stouder
3. A request for a parking variance to allow for unpaved parking to be located at the
proposed Middle Creek Trailhead, 100 North Frontage Road EasUParcel B, Spraddle
Creek Estates.
Applicant: SBC Company/Town of Vail
Planner: Mike Mollica 4. A request for an amendment to Section 18.57 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Employee Housing, to allow for common area to be used for employee housing.
Applicant: Jay Peterson
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
1
5. A request for a worksession for a conditional use permit to allow for the expansion of
the Vail Golf Course Clubhouse for new Vail Recreation District office space to be
located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive/Part of the north 1/2 of Section 9, T 5 S, R 80 W, 6th
P.M., Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado. _
Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represented by Bill Pierce
Planner: Jim Curnutte
6. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an expansion to the administration
building located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/Unplatted parcel located north of the I-70
Right-Of-Way, north of Vail Village, 8th Filing.
- Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall
Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO AUGUST 8, 1994
7. A request for a conditional use to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit to be
located at 126 Forest Road/Lot 5, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Ron Byrne for BMS General Partnership
Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED INDEFINITELY
8. Approve minutes from June 25, 1994 PEC meeting.
9. Clarification of PEC representative to DRB for the July - September and October -
December terms.
10. Council up'date:
•Ordinance regarding EHU Ordinance. •Update on American Planning Association State Conference
•Award Nominations?
2
1
n
a
DESeGN RE!lBEVV BOARD AGENDA
July 20, 9994
3:00 P.M.
PROJECT 0~~EN'PATION 92:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.rn.
SVTE !l9SVTS 9:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
1. Crossview - 1480 Buffehr Creek Road.
2. Lambert - 2119 Chamonix Lane.
3. Ganter - 2427 VVest Chamonix Lane.
4. Cortina Chalets - 2662 Cortina Lane.
5. VVillaman - 1458 Greenhill Court.
6. Covered Bridge - Bridge Street.
7. Niill Creek Court Building - 302 Gore Creek Drive.
8. Vail Recreation District - 1778 Vail Valley Drive.
9. Mueller - 3155 Booth Falls Court. 10. Police Building - 75 South Frontage Road.
Drivers: George and Randy
1. Mueller - New duplex.. RS
3155 Booth Falls Court/Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing.
Applicant: John Mueller
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
Tabled fo Augus4 3, 1994.
2. Covered Bridge - Restoration of structural components and NIM/RS
enhancement of existing bridge.
Bridge Street.
Applicant: . Town of Vail
MOTION: B. Borne SECOND: S. Brainerd VOTE: 5-0
Approved w6fh conditions.
3. VUillaman - Conceptual review of new single family residence. GR
1458 Greenhill Court/Lot 21, Glen Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Verne Willaman
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
COP1CeptdEaE PebielRf - P9o vOte takeY1.
`
~
.
4. Mill Creek Court Building - Sidewalk replacement. GR
302 Gore Creek Drive/Mill Creek Court Building.
Applicant: Mark Matthews, representing Slifer Management
MOTION: B. Borne SECOND: S. Brainerd VOTE: 5-0
Tabled to August 3, 1994.
5. Lambert - Conceptual review of new primary/secondary residence. JC
2119 Chamonix Lane/Lot 12, Vail Heights. .
Applicant: Ronald Lambert
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
Conceptual review - no vote taken.
6. Harris - Demo/rebuild of an existing single family with a 250 addition. MM/JC
1187 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 13, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Bill and Kathy Harris .
MOTION: B. Borne SECOND: S. Brainerd VOTE: 5-0
Approved with conditions.
7. Vail Recreation District - Building addition and redesign of parking lot. JC
1778 Vail Valley Drive.
Applicant: Tom Briner, representing Vail Recreation District
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
Conceptual review - no vote taken.
8. Cortina Chalets - Change to approved retaining wall finish. JC
2662 Cortina Lane/Lot 7, Block B, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Steve Isom
MOTION: B. Borne SECOND: S. Brainerd VOTE: 5-0
Approved with conditions.
9. Cote - Conceptual review of P/S residence. GR
768 Potato Patch/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Raymond Cote
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
Conceptual review - no vote taken.
2
a
10. Crossview - ConceptuaE review of six new single family homes and one AK/GR
primary/secondary.
1480 Buffehr Creek Road/Tracts A and B, Lionsridge 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Steve Gensler
MOTIOIV: SECOND: VOTE:
ConceptuaB review - no vote taken.
11. Town of Vail Police Building - Addition of three windows on the north elevation. GR
75 South Frontage Road/Police Building.
. Applicant: Town of Vail
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
Consent approveol.
12. Ganter - Addition of privacy fence. JC
2427 V1/est Chamonix Lane/Lot 22, Block A, Vail Das Schone.
Applicant: Judith Ganter
MOTION: B. Borne SECOND: S. Brainerd VOTE: 5-0
Approved wBth Cond6$ions.
13. Roost Lodge - Sign application. GR
1783 IVorth Frontage Road/The Roost Lodge.
Applicant: Larry AsUHigh Tech Signs
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
Tabled to August 17, 1994.
14. Brown - Fifteen newr townhomes. AK
1330 Sandstone Drive/Lot G-4, Lionsridge 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Stu Brown
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
1Pabled indefiiniaely.
15. Town of Vail - Ford Park stairs and retaining walls. GR
Ford Park, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Town of Vail
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
Tabled inde4finitely.
U
3
,f
'
MEMBERS PRESENT , MEMBERS ABSENT
Mike Arnett
Bob Borne
Sally Brainerd Hans Woldrich
Allison Lassoe (PEC)
STAFF APPROVALS
Morris - Interior remodel and exterior addition to a single family residence. GR
1043 Matterhorn Circle/Lot 22, Matterhorn Subdivision.
Applicant: Gene and Ann Morris
T. Lame - New sign above entry. , AK
100 East Meadow Drive/Lot Block 5D, VaillVillage 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Teri Lame
Meister - Moveable/portable spa. AK
1359 Greenhill Court/Lot 18, Glen Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Julie Meister
Krogmann - Changes to approved plans. RS
2575 Davos Trail/Lot 1, Block F, Vail Das Schone 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Juergen Krogmann
Becker - Add window to second floor. AK
5123 Black Bear Lane/Lot 10, Block 2, G-ore Creek Subdivision. ,
Applicant: Marion Becker
Lawler - Electric meter. . RS
4939 East Meadow Drive/Lot 12, Block 5, Bighorn 5th Addition. ,
Applicants: Roy and Phyllis Lawler
Katz - Wrap existing deck on front around side of house. RS
1557 Golf Course Terrace, #46/Lot 1-Part, Sunburst 3rd Filing.
Applicants: Michael and Valerie Katz
Boyd - Reroof. GR
2637 Arosa Drive/Lot 9, Block C, Vail Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: Susan Boyd
Robertson - Revise windows on east elevation as previously approved. GR
292 East Meadow Drive/Mountain Haus Condominiums.
Applicant: Ron Robertson
4
~
D
Frick - Basement finish. RS
5040 Main Gore Place, #A-2/Sundial, Phase II.
- Applicant: Fred Frick
Hanna - Reroof and repaint house. RS
1759 Sierra Trail/Lot 19, Vail Village West 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Jack Hanna .
Aasland - Change of stucco color. KP
2527 Arosa Drive/Lot 3, Block D, Vail Das Schone 1 st Filing. .
Applicant: Galen Aasland
Cortina Chalets - Change driveway from concrete to pavers. AK
2662 Cortina Lane/Lots 7, 8, and 9, Vail Ridge.
Applicant: Hans 1lVeiman
Lohre - Changes to approved plans. qK
1300 1lVesthaven Circle/Lot 25, Glen Lyon.
Applicant: John Lohre
Douglas - VVindow replacement. ' RS
142 West Meadow Drive/Lot 3, Vail Village 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Morgan Douglas
Allen - Remove and replace rear deck. GR
4424 Streamside Circle/Lot 10, Bighorn 4th Addition.
Applicant: Stuart and Chris Allen
5
~
~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Oppenheimer, Town of Vail Landscape Architect
FROM: George Ruther
DATE: June 16, 1994
SUBJECT: Ford Park stairway Below is a summary of the issues raised at the Design Review Board (DRB) meeting held on
Wednesday, June 15, 1994 with regard to the Ford Park stairway. The issues raised by the
DRB members should be addressed by Gregg Barrie or yourself at the time of final review.
final review is currently scheduled for Wednesday, July 6, 1994 at 3:00 p.m.
DESICId REVIElN BOAFiD CONiMENTS/ISSUES
1. Landscaping is needed in the area to help buffer the walk.
2. This stairway acts as an entry feature into the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens. The
Betty Ford Alpine Gardens are nationally recognized for their outstanding
botanical quality. Therefore, please create an entry feature which is more
compatible with the nature of the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens.
3. The design of the proposed stairway appears to be more compatible with a
warehouse district rather than a natural alpine garden. Please consider the use
of natural materials in your design.
4. Is this stairway necessary or can alternative steps be taken to discourage
pedestrian traffic down the hillside?
5. Were any other designs considered in the formulation of this project?
6. If installing lights in the retaining walls does not affect the integrity of the wall, it
would be a preferable alternative to installing an overhead light with a post.
I hope the issues addressed above will be helpful in providing you with the necessary
information needed to finalize your project for final DRB review. You are currently scheduled
to appear at the July 6, 1994 DRB meeting for final review. Should you have any questions or
concerns regarding the comments and issues addressed in this memo, as always, please feel
free to contact me during office hours.
. - ,
>
i1flEMOR,4NDUM FILE
TO: Todd Oppenheimer, Town of Vail Landscape Architect
FROM: George Ruther
DATE: July 8, 1994
SUBJECT: Ford Park stairway
.
Below is a summary of the issues raised at the Design Review Board (DRB) meeting held on
Wednesday, July 6, 1994 with regard to the Ford Park stairway. The issues raised by the
DRB members should be addressed by Greg Barrie or yourself at the time of final review.
Final review is currently scheduled for Wednesday, July 20, 1994 at 3:00 p.m.
DESICaN REVIE1n/ BOr4FiD COfiAMEft9TS/ISSUES
1. The design of the proposed stairway appears too geometric, attempts should be
made to soften the appearance by adding slight curves or turns to the stairway.
2. As a means of creating a more pleasant design, please consider the possibility
of adding benches at one of the stairway landing areas.
3. Since this stairway acts as an entry feature into the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens
and the Ford Park, an attractive landscape feature should be added to this
design at the intersection of the proposed walk with the pedestrian bridge as
well as at the stairway entrance off of Vail Valley Drive.
4. Will pickets in the railing be required per ADA requirements for those areas
where the stairway is greater than 30 inches above grade.
5. Special attention should be paid to the finish on the concrete edge where the
concrete cheek wall meets the keystone block. A block or textured finish
similar to that which exists on keystone blocks should be proposed.
6. Verify the cost of a water tap at the July 20, 1994 DRB meeting.
7. Since it has been indicated by Greg Hall, Town of Vail Engineer, that the
integrity of the keystone wall will not be effected due to the installation of lights
in the retaining wall, please consider addressing the waterproofing and lighting
conflicts associated with installing walk lights in either the keystone wall or in
the stair railing posts.
8. If keystone is to be used in this project, it will need to match the color of the
existing keystone wall on the south side of the pedestrian ramp.
s
I hope the issues addressed above will be helpful in providing you with the necessary
information needed to finalize your project for final DRB review. You are currently scheduled
to appear at the July 20, 1994 DRB hearing for final review. Should you have any questions
or concerns regarding the comments and issues addressed in this memo, as always, please
feel free to contact me during office hours.
xc: Larry Grafel
Kristan Pritz.
Bob McLaurin 2
~
APACOLORADO .
. APAColorado 1994 Chapter Awards Program •
Award IVomination Form
Categories for recognition are: •
1. A Colorado planning program, process or project of unusually high quality. Plans
must be adopted. Nominations are sought for plans which are both newly adopted
and also for plans which have been implemented for a period of time and for which
implemented resuits can be cited.
H. A Colorado planning agency or private firm that has made special or sus:ained
contributions to the profession through distinguished practice, teaching or writing.
I(I. An outstanding person living and working in Coforado who has made a special
contribution to excellence in planning. Please complete the award nomination form on the reverse side of this page and provide
requested information. Provide four copies of all materials. If submitting slides, one copy
is sufficient. Mail completed application and any attachrnents to Debra 8askeit, 5562
Stonewall Place, Boulder, Colorado 80303 by July 29, 1994.
TOiI
4VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Cotorado 81657 MEpBA ADVISOffiY
303-479-2100
FAX 303-479-2157 July 20, 1994
Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn
Community Information Office
479-21 15 !lA1L T0WN COUNCBL HIGHLIGHTS FOR JULY 19
Council members present: Johnston, Lapin, IVavas, Shearer, Steinberg
WoPk Session Briefs
--15-Year Employee Recognition
Detective IVlatt Lindvall of the Vail Police Department was honored for 15 years of
service and was presented with a $1,000 check from Town Manager Bob
McLaurin.
--Ford Park Parking Discussion
Unwilling to commit a new funding source, the Council unanimously authorized
elimination of the Ford Park shuttle program effective immediately. The decision
followed last week's removal of a$2 parking fee which was being used to
subsidize the shuttle service between Ford Park and the Vail Transportation Center.
The parking fee was lifted as a result of public criticism. Yesterday, Town
Manager Bob McLaurin asked the Council to consider a supplemental appropriation of up to $20,000 to fund continuation of the shuttle for the remainder of the
summer. Instead, the Council directed staff to eliminate the shuttle
and p'repare a $3,000 supplemental appropriation to offset existing losses. In
addition, user groups who wish to activate the Ford Park shuttle for any remaining
special events this season will be asked to sign a contract with the Town to fund
the cost of operation. Parking along South Frontage Road will continue to be
prohibited. The Ford Park peak parking program was initially created to address
safety concerns for those accessing the park and to provide a convenient free
alternative to the in-close parking fee. Implementation was to occur on 32 peak
days throughout June, July, August and September. For more information, contact
Town Manager Bob iVlcLaurin at 479-2105.
--Contribution Requests Process
Without discussion, the Council approved the application process for community
funding requests for the 1995 Town of Vail budget. Application packets will be
(more)
TOV Highlights/Add 1
available for distribution beginning July 25. The application deadiine is August 26.
The Council will review the 1995 requests at a Sept. 13 work session. The 1994
budget has allocated approximately $500,000 to more than 30 agencies. For more
information, contact Assistant Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer at 479-21 13.
--Selection of (ndependent Auditors '
The Council unanimously agreed to retain McMahan and Associates for future audit
services following consideration of a policy decision to change audit firms every
three to five years. The action followed public disclosure that Finance Director
Steve Thompson and Controller Christine Anderson have both worked for the firm.
McMahan and Associates, based in Avon, specializes in governmental audits.
--Assault Weapons Discussion
Following review of a draft ordinance modeled after a City and County of Denver
regulation restricting the sale and possession of assault weapons, the Council
directed Town Attorney Tom Moorhead to move forward in scheduling the
ordinance for an evening meeting. In May, the Colorado Supreme Court overturned
a lower court ruling which had declared the ordinance unconstitutional. Adoption
of a similar ordinance in Vail is not.intended to alarm potential visitors,
Councilmembers said. Instead, the purpose is to set a national example of social
. consciousness. The ordinance will be considered for first reading at the Sept. 6
evening meeting. In the meantime, Moorhead said he would continue to research
the legality of mandatory firearms training within the town, plus licensing and registration fee issues. For more information, contact Town Attorney Tom
Moorhead at 479-2107.
--Matterhorn Street Project
The Council voted 3-2 (Johnston, Navas against) to reject bids for the Matterhorn street improvement project and re-bid the work next January. That's because
current bids for the project are $200,000 above the engineer's estimate. Town
Engineer Greg Hall said the town has seen a 30 percent increase in construction
costs this season compared to last year. By bidding the project in January, the
town hopes to attract competitive pricing for the 1995 construction season. The
Matterhorn project involves reconstruction of lower Matterhorn Circle, West Gore
Creek Drive, Shasta Place and Alta Circle. For more information, contact Town
Manager Bob Mcl.aurin at 479-2105.
--Council Reports/Sister Cities Merv Lapin, chairman of the Sister Cities Committee, indicated he would schedule
a group meeting soon to prepare a report on the recent trip to St. Moritz.
Sybill Navas, who also attended the meetings in St. Moritz, outlined the need to
(more)
TOV Highlights/Add 2
designate a Vail "coordinator" to handle personnel and cuitural exchanges between
the two communities. A meeting with representation from the Town of Vail, Vail
Associates, Colorado Mountain College and the Tourism & Convention Bureau will
be held to explore the coordinator role in more detail.
Evenong Sess6on Beiefs
--Citizen Participation
Scott Skillman and Bonnie Zueger, merchants from the Gateway Plaza, appealed to
the Council to relocate a barricade which has besn placed at the entrance to Vail
Road at the IViain Vail 4-way. The location of the barricade, part of the Chapel
Bridge reconstruction project, is turning away business, the merchants said. In
response, Town Manager Bob IVIcLaurin said the Town has been willing to make
adjustments to minimize the impact on merchants. McLaurin will consider
modifications to the barricade to allow better access to the Gateway parking lot.
Additional signage also is being considered to help guests access other businesses
impacted by the detour. For more information, contact Town IVianager Bob
McLaurin at 479-2105.
--Consent Agenda
The Council approved two ordinances on consent agenda by a vote of 4 to 1 with
Johnston voting in opposition: Ordinance No. 10 increases the parking pay-in-lieu
fee from $8,600 to $15,000 and Ordinance No. 14 tightens occupancy
requirements for employee housing units. Johnston said his no vote was in
opposition to Ordinance No. 10. For more information on Ordinance 14, contact
Andy Knudtsen in the Community Development Department at 47972138. For
details on Ordinance No. 10, contact Mike Rose, transportation manager, at 479-
2178.
--TOV 1993 Audited Financial~Statements
The Council unanimously approved the 1993 audited financial statemerits prepared
by McMahan and Associates. The firm issued an "unqualified clean opinion" of the
town. The rating is the highest level possible. For more information, contact Town
Manager Bob McLaurin at 479-2105.
--Investment Manager Resolution
The Council unanimously approved a resolution .designating Piper Capital
Management lncorporated as an investment manager for the Town. For more information, contact Finance Director Steve Thompson at 479-21 16.
# # #
4VAIL
TOWI~I 75 South Frontage Road
T/ail, Colorado 81657 ,
303-479-2100
FAX 303-479-2157
EOR 1MWIEDOATE RELEASE
July 20, 1994
Contact: Bob McLaurin, 479-2105 ' Town fVianager
FORD PARK SHl1TTLE IS DISCONTINUED FOFi REMAINDER OF THE SEASON.
(Vail)--The Ford Park shuttle program--the remaining piece of a two-part
experimental effort to improve access to the park--has been discontinued effective
today (7-20) at the request of the Vail Town Council. ,
The action follows discussion at a work session yesterday (7-19) in which
councilmembers were unwilling to commit a new funding source to subsidize the
free shuttle for the remainder of the season. A $2 parking fee at the Ford Park lot
was being used to help offset costs, but was eliminated last week following
complaints by the park's user groups.
Yesterday, Town fVianager Bob fVicLaurin asked the council to consider a
supplemental appropriation of up to $20,000 to fund continuation of the shuttle for
the remainder of the summer. Instead, the council directed staff to eliminate the
shuttle and prepare a $3,000 supplemental appropriation to offset existing losses.
Parking along South Frontage Road will continue-to be prohibited. In addition, user
groups who wish to activate the shuttle for any remaining special events at the
park this season will be asked to pay for the service.
(more)
Ford Park/Add 1 ~
:
The Ford Park peak parking program was initially created to address safety
concerns for those accessing the park and to provide a. convenient free alternative
to the in-close parking fee. Implementation was to occur on 32 peak days
throughout June, July, August and September.
For more information, contact Town Manager Bob McLaurin at 479-2105.
# # #
WORK SESSION FOLL0IN-UP
TOPuC QUEsTsoNS FOLLOW-UP soLUTuoNS
1993
10h 9 SNOW STORAGE LAND LARRY/BOB McL: Immediately pursue purchase from VA Initial discussion between TOV and VA re: possibie future land ezchanges
PURCHASE of current snouu storage site, as well as another 10 acres have occurred.
adjacent to the west.
1994
02108 MANOR VAIL SIDEWALK BOB McULARRY: Investigate blind corner. Bob NicL has viewed area of concern. flights-of-way uvill be identified to
(request: Johnston) see if 4here is room uvithin the right-of-uv,'iys for a sideuvalk. Bob McL vuill
fialk with Manor Vail regarding the possibility of clearing off a portion of the
sidewalk to make the area safer.
02195 CHUCK ANDERSON YOUTH PANiIMERV: Contact VRD about moving up the selection Packet received and included in Paul's <<ntl Jan's materials, 513194.
AWARD process to allovu awards to be given during Niay PRIOR to
(request: Strauch) graduation or to be included with the graduation
ceremonies;
03/08 UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES LARRY: Create a Master Plan to phase the undergrounding Larry has memo in process.
NiASTER PLAN of all above-ground utilities within Vail.
(request: Council)
03108 NIGHT LIGHTING/NIGHT TOUR LARRY: It ?would appear our night lighting in the UUill schedule for an Evening Meeting in August, 1994, when Jan has
(request: Strauch) Crossroads/VTRClCovered Britlge area could use some returned. TOV, in the past, budgeted $;;0,000 for adding lights to bus
enhancement. UUha4 is the street lighting program currently stops, street intersections, and bridges for safety. Starting in 1994, the
geared toward? budgeted amount wras increased to $50,D00 to address both safety
concerns and those areas addressed in the Village Streetscape Plan.
COUNCILlSTAFF: In the near future, we will try to
schedule an evening "tour" to look at the ambience created Re: Christmas lighting at VTRC: Lightirig addition depends on a
and safety issues inherenf in our "core" community. prioritization of funding. This could be a part of 4he night tour?
04l05 SIGNS LARRYlGREG: 1Nhy are there so many signs in this town? Tom, Ken, Buck, and Larry met Tuesday, 5/13194. They vuill return with a
They represent neither a quality appearance nor are they proposed signing plan by the end of July, 1994, with a review by Council
"user-friendly," There are 24 signs between Tom following and implementation by fatl of 1)94.
Steinberg's house and the TOV...
04/05 COUNTY REGIONAL NiEETINGS BOB McL: Coordinate with Jack Lewis. Bob NicL will meet with Jack Levuis and 13i11 James on 7l15194.
July #1994 Page 2 of 2
06121 '89 CHAMPIONSHIP MARKER AT LARRY: Would it be appropriate and timely to add Vail has Incorporated into landscape design of th3 new round-about. Send to
FOUR-WAY been awardedlwill host the '99 Championships? AIPP for current review.
(request: Strauch)
,07105 PLAQUE PLACEMENT KRISTANIPAM: Elizabeth Wiit has requested the Town KRISTANIPAM: George Reuther and Pam will meet with Elizabeth Wilt
follow-u,p with memcrializing both John and Cissy Dobson at on 11/11/94, to determine Coveretl Bridce plaque placement. Elizabeth
a site on or close to the Covered Bridge, as well as Chuck will speak personally to Oscar Tang re: the Chuck Betcher piaque, since
Betcher in the area of the Crossroads benches (adjacent to this is entirely private property.
Alfalfa's).
Z2
July t5; 1994 Page 2 of 2
/
\