HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-11-15 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSIOI~
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 9994
0:00-P-X IN TOV COUNCIL CHAAl1BERS
AGENDA
1. Site Visit - Appeal of PEC decision - 2840 Basingdale Blvd.
2. Jim Hoza 20 Year Anniversary.
Charlie Davis - 15 Year Anniversary.
3. Chad Fleischer - Funding Request.
4. Vail Commons Project Discussion.
5. Discuss Resolution to Adopt Environmental Strategic Plan.
6. Discuss Ordinance fVo. 24, Series of 1994, an Amendment to Section 3.40.020, Adding the
Definition For "Telecommunications Service."
7. Information Update.
8. Council Reports.
9. Other.
10. Executive Session - Negotiations.
11. Adjournment.
NOTE UPCOnABNG MEETBPIG Sl'ART TIAAES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
YF9E NEXT VAIL TOWN COUIVCIL REGULAR VVORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 99/22/94, BEGIPIIVIIVG AT 2:00 P.AA IIV TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLO!!l91N(3 bAIL TOWN COUIVCIL REGULAR HIORK SESSION
!A/ILL. BE 0N TUESDA1(, 12/6/94, BEGINNIMG AT 2:00 P nA IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE 4VE3CT VA9L TOWN COUIVCIL REGl1LAR EVENtIVG AAEET'IP1G
!A,'ILL 4]E Old TUESDAY, 92/6/94, 6EGINNING AY 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
• ~ • • • • ~
C:VIGENDA.WS'L
~ y
VAIL TOVVIV COUIVCIL
TUESDAY, NOVEnABER 15, 1994
1:00 P.M. IfV TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS
EXPANDED AGENDA
1:00 P.M. 1. Site Visit for Appeal of PEC denial of a request for a front setback
Andy Knudtsen variance. Applicant and Appellant: Dan Frederick. Meet in TOV Council
Chambers.
1:45 P.M. 2. Jim Hoza - 20 Year Anniversary.
Charlie Davis - 15 Year Anniversary.
1:55 P.M. 3. Chad Fleischer - Funding Request.
2:00 P.M. 4. Vail Commons Project Discussion.
Andy Knudtsen
Action Requested of Council: Review analysis done by the consultants
regarding transportation, sales tax revenue, housing, and community
response.
Backqround Rationale: Please see the reports from the consultants and
the summary provided by Chris Cares that have been provided in the
packet.
4:00 P.M. 5. Discuss Resolution fVo. 23, Series of 1994, a Resolution Adopting The
Russell Forrest Environmental Strategic Plan.
Action Requested of Council: Discuss Resolution No. 23, Series of 1994,
to adopt the Town of Vail Environmental Strategic Plan.
Backqround Rationale: The Town Council and the public have reviewed
and commented on the first draft and these comments have been
incorporated into the plan. The Planning and Environmental Commission
reviewed and unanimously recommended on September 12, 1994, that the
Town Council adopt the Environmental Strategic Plan. On September 27,
the Town Council reviewed a second draft and asked that the Plan be
scheduled for adoption in November, 1994.
4:20 P.M. 6. Discuss Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1994, an Amendment to Section
Sally Lorton 3.40.020, adding the definition for "Telecommunications Service."
Steve Thompson
Action Requested of Council• Discussion.
Backqround Rationale: In 1991 the Town of Vail adopted the Colorado
Municipal Leagues' standard sales tax definitions and did not include a
definition for "Telecommunications Service." 4:30 P.M. 7. Information Update.
I
4:40 P.M. 8. Council Reports.
4:50 P.M. 9. Other.
4:50 P.M. 10. Executive Session - Negotiations.
5:20 P.M. 11. Adjournment.
1
~ -
P
NOTE UPCO91AINda 11AEET9ldG START TBAAES BEL01N:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
00• 0000
TFiE NEXT VAIL 7'OWN COUNCIL REGULAR VNORK SESSION
liVILL BE ON TUESDAY, 11/22/94, BEGIINNIIVG AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WYLL BE ORI TUESDAY, 92/6/94, BEGIfdNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN 7'OV COUNCIL CHAMBEFiS.
TF9E YVEXT VA9L TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
lNiLL BE ON TUESDAV, 12/6/94, BEGIPVNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
• ~ • • • • •
C:WGENDA.WSE
,
2
ELDON BECK
ASSOCIATES
U~g
Land Planning AGENDA FOR pISCl1SSIORI OF TI-IE VA9L COMM01VS
ReSort oesign Town Councal !f!lork SessBon, 'B 1/15/94
, ~ . '
Urban Design
Landscape
Architecture Tge Recpuesf gor Deve%pment Proposa/s (RFP)
Discuss the concept of and rationale for a developer RFP.
Discuss the minimum parameters that should be included in the RFP.
Tvaffic /sseees
Discuss the key issues relating to traffic in the West Vail vicinity and the
implications for development of the Commons site, specifically: o The possible costs of roadway improvements;
o Which improvements, if any, must be done in conjunction with the
project? Should the Commons development be deferred until congestion
at the West Vail interchange and along the Frontage Rd. can be
remedied?
m How much, if any, of the cost of such improvements should be
assumed by the developer?
o Assuming the developer is not held responsible for the full cost of
needed improvements, how should the remainder be funded, and what
are the capital implications for the Town?
Counci/ Objectives
Reconfirm priorities for use of the site, particularly with respect to the
trade-off between affordable housing and commercial development.
How important is it that the development contribute to a stronger sense of
EBAAlpine community and neighborhood? (i.e., such criteria as "livability," ability to
500 East Lionshead Circle attract families, addition of community oriented amenities to the program)
Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476-0668 Discuss the use of the site for a new grocery store and the implications for
FAX 476-7660 sales tax revenues.
Discuss the extent to which encouraging redevelopment of the larger
EBA Pacific commercial strip along the Frontage Road is a goal of the development
171 Carlos Drive program for the Commons site.
San Rafael, Calitornia 94903
(415) 491-4722
FAX 47)-6718
CA #958
~
SUMRAAFiV ~F RESEARCH AND PUBLBC 9NPl9T ON TF9E COMMONS
F9ousing Stutlv (ASI)
The estimated 1,020 renter households currently living in Vail form a significant portion of
the primary market for residential units developed on Vail Commons. Renters who live
down valley and work in Vail are considered to form a secondary market since many would
not move back to Vail unless offered superior housing choices.
There are approximately 120 families with children and 180 couples who rent homes in
Vail and could be considered residents of housing designed for families on the Vail
Commons parcel.
The inventory of homes priced under $175,000 is very limited; in August there were 28
condominiums and townhomes for sale in Vail in this range. Competition is not considered
to be a limiting factor to the demand for for-sale homes.
Approximately 510 apartments have been constructed down valley in the past three years.
All but 66 units have been leased. Another 154 units are under construction or planned.
Competition from these properties could impact demand for rental units in Vail, particularly
two- and three-bedroom apartments. The availability of rental units down valley suggests
that a portion of units developed on Vail Commons be for-sale and that the mix of
apartments be weighted toward single-occupancy units.
It is estimated that nearly 40% of Vail's renters could afford to buy a home priced at
$105,000 or above.
Rents between $500 and $1,250 would be appropriate for approximately 60% of Vail's
renter households.
Commercial e4nalvsis (BRW)
West Vail retail is predominantly locally oriented convenience goods and services, not
tourist oriented shops. Only 7,100 square feet of space has been added in West Vail in the
past 7 years, most of it fast food restaurants. Sales per square foot are at or above
average for most store groupings.
West Vail businesses accounted for 1 1% of the Town's sales tax receipts in 1993.
Data suggest that the area could easily support a larger supermarket. Based on typical
competitive patterns, a second supermarket chain would also be interested in the Vail
Commons property. A smaller auto-oriented convenience center of 25-30,000 square feet
would also be supportable. There is also a market for office space.
A new supermarket on the Commons site would generate an estimated 4% increase in the
Town's annual sales tax revenue ($500,000), plus almost 2% more ($230,000) by
redeveloping the old Safeway site for retail uses. A more modest convenience commercial
development would generate an estimated additional $135,000 in annual sales taxes (1.1 %
increase).
1
Trafific fissues Memorandum (BRW)
The north half of the West Vail interchange operates at 40% over capacity at peak periods
and could increase to almost 70% over capacity with already approved development and
growth in skier numbers.
Congestion on the iVorth Frontage Road is a major impediment to traffic flow during peak
hours because of the lack of a left turn lane for eastbound cars.
The addition of more traffic before improving roadways is of great concern to Public Works
and CDOT and would be strenuously opposed by the West Vail neighborhoods.
The cost of a continuous left turn lane from the interchange to Buffehr Creek Rd. is
estimated at 180,000. The Commons site accounts for about 25% of the total length of
this stretch.
Cost estimates for realignment of the West Vail interchange: $250,000; a roundabout:
$2,000,000.
Consistent Thernes froQn fPublic and fVeighborhood Nleetinqs
Genepal consensus on 8hese priorities: housing, traffic improvernen4s, sense of community,
aesthetoc qualaty of the Wesa l1ail area.
Preference for for-sale housing that will keep long-term residents in Vail, especially families
and young professionals. Important that the project not be perceived as lower-class
housing. fVo interest in housing for seasonal workers. Wariness of rental units, reflecting
concerns about ongoing property management.
Concern that TOV cannot assure the units will remain locals housing permanently.
Perception that traffic congestion on the Frontage Road and Chamonix is a major problem.
iVeighbors want to reclaim Chamonix as a low-traffic neighborhood street.
Anger among some neighbors because they feel the Town has ignored West Vail's
problems.
General agreement that an improved supermarket is desirable, but not necessarily on the
Commons site. More support for neighborhood oriented retail stores, commercial services
and professional offices. IVo support for two supermarkets or for large outlet or discount
stores.
Support for a program that encourages redevelopment of other properties on the Frontage
Road, unified architectural character, and more pedestrian/bike connections.
Frequent mention of the need for community facilities - at the minimum, day care and a
community meeting room similar to the Eagle-Vail pavilion.
2
.
Mefl71~ordnC1um
i ~
Date: November 7, 1994
To: Sherry Dorward - EBA Alpine
From: Dan Guimond - BRW
B R W INC.
Re: Vail Commons Commercial Development Analysis
rlann"I'g This memo summarizes a preliminary analysis of commercial development
Transportation potentials in the West Vail area. First, the type and mix of commercial space
Engineering is described, followed by an analysis of the change in space over the last six
Urban Design years. Next, sales tax receipts and average sales per square foot aze examined
1475 Lawrence as indications of relative business success. Overall development trends in the
Suite300 Vail Valley are also briefly described including major developments and current
Denver, rent levels. Preliminary conclusions on the amount and type of commercial
co sozoz space supportable in West Vail are then presented.
303/571-4440
Fax 303/571-4448 tCommea-cnaIl Space
Denver The West Vail area is a locally oriented business district providing
r'I'1"'a°kee predominantly convenience goods and services. Convenience goods are
Minneapolis frequently purchased items such as food, drugs, and liquor, with little product
Orlando differentiation from store to store, that are most often purchased at a close-by
Phoenix
Portland location. The mix of businesses found at West Vail is very similar to what
San Diego would be found in a neighborhood shopping center in a metropolitan area.
Seattle There is a supermarket as an anchor store, along with smaller food, drug, and
liquor stores, fast food restaurants, and locally oriented nonretail businesses
Donald W. Ringrose such as cleaners, banks, insurance offices, realtors and other professional
Richard P. Wolsfeld offices. There are currently 27 retail and 34 nonretail establishments with a
Thomas F. Carroll total of 127,882 square feet of space as shown in Table 1 below.
Craig A. Amundsen
Donald E. Hunt
John B. McNamara
Richard D. Pilgrim
Dale N. Beckmann
Jeffery L. Benson '
Ralph C. Blum
Gary J. Erickson
John C. Lynch
Paul N. Bay
Sabri Ayaz
Gary A. Ehret
Anthony Heppelmann
Arijs Pakalns 26980826.MDG
Martha McPhee
Howard P. Preston
Dennis P. Probst
Memo - Sherry Dorward
November 7, 1994 ,
Page 2
Table fl
Wesg Vagfl Coffianercia9 Space, 1994
Retail Space , 1Vumber Sq. Ft. Percent
Convenience Goods
Food 2 38,562 38%
Drug 1 4,475
Liquor 1 2,918
Total 4 45,955 46%
Shoppers Goods
Apparel 1 840
Ski & Sport 1 8,930
Hazdwaze 1 7,900
Miscellaneous 7 12,732
Total 10 30,402 30%
Eating and Drinking
Restaurants 3 10,670
Fast Food 8 11,511
Total 11 22,181 22%
Service Stations 2 2,100 2°/a
- Total Retail Space 27 100,638 100%
Nonretail Space
Service 16 18,183 67%
Financial 3 1,431 5%
Professional 9 4,880 18°/a
Real Estate/Construction 6 2,750 10%
Total Nonretail Space 34 27,244 100%
Total Space 61 127,882
Source: Town of Vail Business License and Sales tax Reports
Retail uses account for nearly 80 percent of the total with 100,638 square feet of space.
Convenience goods account for 46 percent of retail space with Safeway the largest business
with 36,162 square feet of space. The other convenience businesses aze a drug, liquor, and
convenience store.
West Vail contains only a small amount of the Town's shoppers goods businesses. Shoppers
goods are less frequently purchased items such as appazel, jewelry, and sporting goods for
which comparison shopping is often desired. Shoppers goods are often bought at locations
further from home on destination shopping trips. These items are found in department, other
general merchandise, and specialty stores in major shopping concentrations such as regional
26980826.MDG
Survev Fiesae6ts (RRC)
Survey responses have been received from 70 persons to date. About half the respondents
to the survey report they live in the West Vail area. In our analysis, survey results were
broken down by place of residence to permit comparisons between West Vail neighbors
and the larger community. Results show strong similarities in opinions concerning most
issues, but residents of the immediate area are especially likely to feel that issues related to
traffic and circulation are paramount.
Survey results also show:
0 Clear support for a mixed-use development rather than all commercial or all residential.
However, if pushed, sentiment would be more toward residential or "other" community
uses than commercial.
e A mixture of for-rent and for-sale homes is generally favored, although a significant
percentage of respondents (39 percent) favor only "for-sale" units.
~ The respondents generally favor a condominium/apartment configuration, or
townhouses for the site. Most respondents favor two (30 percent) or three (58
percent) story development.
~ Most respondents feel that the single issue that should be given primary attention in
the West Vail/Vail commons study is either "neighborhood integrity" (45 percent) or
"traffic congestion" (35 percent). IVote that these two issues dominated all others
including "affordable housing" (9 percent) or lack of retail opportunities (3 percent) as
an objective for the Vail Commons/West Vail study.
0 Open-ended comments on the survey forms provide a broad perspective on
neighborhood and community-wide opinions than just the survey form. These
comments (contained in the attachment) show general support for using the commons
property for housing and retail, but with an eye toward long-term community needs.
Prepared for Vail Town Council work session 1 1/15/94
3
Memo - Sherry Dorward
November 7, 1994 ,
Page 3
malls. In Vail, most of these businesses are tourist oriented, and found in the Village and
Lionshead. The largest shoppers goods business in West Vail is Garts with 8,930 square feet.
These businesses account for 30 percent of retail space in West Vail with 30,402 square feet
in total.
The West Vail business district is more auto-oriented than the Village-Lionshead core, and as
a result, has attracted eight fast food restaurants with 11,511 square feet. There are only three
non-fast food restaurants in the area.
Nonretail space is dominated by: small service businesses such as cleaners, barbers, travel
agencies; banks and savings and loans; and professional offices such as accountants, insurance,
medical-dental, construction, and real estate. The service businesses generally range in size
from 1,000 to 2,000 square feet, while the professional office uses range from 100 to 1,200
square feet.
Based on a Town-wide retail study completed in 1987, the West Vail area has added only
7,100 square feet of space in the last seven years. Convenience store space has stayed
relatively constant over that time period. In shoppers goods, Bullocks, a general merchandise
store was replaced by Garts, a sporting goods store, and the number of small specialty stores
increased modestly. Fast food restaurants increased significantly adding nearly 5,000 square
feet as shown in Table 2 below.
26980826.MDG
Memo - Sherry Dorward
November 7, 1994
Page 4
'II'able 2
Wesg Vaall RetaiIl Space, 1987, 1994
Retail Space . . 1987-94 Change . .
Convenience Goods 1987 1994 Sq. Ft. %
Convenience Goods
Food 38,400 38,562 162 0.4%
Drug 4,624 4,475 (149) -3.2%
Liquor 4,200 2.918 1282 -30.5%
Total 47,224 45,955 (1,269) -2.7%
Shoppers Goods
Apparel 11,440 840 (10,600) -92.7%
Ski & Sport 2,600 8,930 6,330 243.5%
Hardware 7,348 7,900 552 7.5%
Miscellaneous 5,514 12,732 7,218 130.9%
Total 26,902 30,402 3,500 13.0%
Eating and Drinking
Restaurants 10,700 10,670 (30) -03%
Fast Food 6,650 11,511 4,861 73.1%
Clubs 2,000 0 (2,000) -100.0%
Total 19,350 22,181 2,831 14.6%
Service Stations 2,100 2,100 0 0.0%
Total Retail Space 93,476 100,638 7,162 7.7%
Source: BRW, Inc. and Hammer, Siler George Associates
R¢4anll Safles ILevells
The West Vail business district accounted for nearly $1.4 million in retail sales tax receipts in
1993 which was about 11 percent of the Town's total tax receipts of $12.4 million as shown
in Table 3 below. Retail businesses accounted for 85 percent of total West Vail tax receipts as
shown.
Table 3
WeS$ Valll SaIeS Ta% ReCe&p$Sy 1993
$ % of 'd'otal
West Vail Retail $1,173,627 9%
West Vail Total $1,383,456 11%
Total Vail $12,394,533 100%
Source: Town of Vail Business License an Sale tax
Reports
26980826.MDG
Memo - Sherry Dorward
, November 7, 1994
Page 5
Based on aggregations of sales tax receipts by individual store, retail sales levels by type of
business in West Vail have been estimated. Convenience stores average $424 per square foot
which is somewhat above an average for this store group indicating relatively high sales
levels, and also indicating that additional store space is likely supportable. Shoppers goods
businesses average $160 per square foot, which is about what would be expected for the store
mix included. Eating and drinking businesses average $254 per square foot overall. In this
category, there is a wide range of sales levels by business indicating some very successful,
and some not so successful businesses.
Tab?e 4
West Vaall Retaall Sales Per Sqaaare Foot, 1987 & 1993
1987 1993 % Change
Convenience $285 $424 49%
Shoppers Goods $105 $160 52%
Eating & Drinking $135 $254 88%
Total $205 $302 47%
Source: Town of Vail Sales Tax Receipts, BRW, Inc., and Hammer Siler
George Associates
Over the last six years, average sales per square foot in West Vail have increased by 47
percent. This sales increase exceeds the inflation rate for that time period which would
account for about 30 percent of the average sales increase. The greatest overall growth has
been in eating and drinking establishments due to the proportional increase in high sales
volume fast food restaurants.
Rent Rates
Rent rates for commercial-retail space are about $18 to $21 triple net in the West Vail Mall.
The 7-11 building has three additional spaces, but there is no other auto oriented multitenant
retail buildings in West Vail. Retail space in Vail Village and Lionshead is not comparable
with rents generally calculated on a percentage of the gross averaging 8 percent resulting in
overall rents in the $75 to $125 for prime space.
Office commercial rents are $12 to $13 per square foot in the Brandess Building with $5 per
square foot common area charges. Basement space in the Vail das Schone Building is $10 to
$12 per square foot, all inclusive. There is no Class A space available in the West Vail area.
The closest comparable building would be the Glen Lyon Building in Cascade Village which
rents for $18 to $22 with common area charges of $8 as shown in Table 5 below. Office
26980826.MDG
Memo - Sherry Dorward
November 7, 1994
Page 6
rents in Vail Village average $18 to $22 per square foot and are slightly less in the Avon
area.
'II'able 5
Vaall Area Off ce Space, Occaapancy and Rent
Common
% Occupied Iltent Sq. Ft. Change
West Vail
Vail das Schone 100% $10-12 N/A
Brandess Bldg. 100% $13 $5
Glen Lyon Bldg. (Cascade Village) 100% $18.50-20 $8.40
Vail
Vail Professional Bldg. 100% $21 $8.00
Crossroads 100% $18-22 $8.50
Vail National Bank 100% $18-22 $8.00
Avon
Westgate 65%') $17.50 $6.50
Benchmark Plaza 100% $17-19 $6.50
Benchmark S.C. 100% $11-12 $6.00
New
Source: Commercial Space Managers
~omann¢rcnaIl DeveflopffieffiQ Potentnafls
There has been little new locally oriented commercial space built in Vail recent years because
there is a lack of available locations for new development. Many retail businesses, in
particular big box retailers, including City Market and Wal Mart, have located in Avon due
to the lack of locally available sites. .
There is announced interest from Safeway to build a new larger store in West Vail, and they
have expressed interest in the Vail Commons site. Safeway is interested in a 53,000 square
foot store which is 17,000 square feet larger than their current store. Current sales levels
indicate that a larger supermarket superstore would be supportable in West Vail. Alternately,
a second supermarket would also likely be supportable in the Vail area with West Vail the
most likely location due to its local orientation and superior auto accessibility.
As is typical with larger supermarket superstores, it would contain a bakery, deli, florist, fish
market, video rental, and other convenience functions. This would likely prevent the
development of smaller stores of this type in the area.
26980826.MDG
. `
Memo - Sherry Dorward
November 7, 1994
Page 7
Even so, the West Vail area could support an increment of additional small retail and support
convenience commercial space. A small auto-oriented convenience center with 25,000 to
30,000 square feet of small store space would be supportable. Such a center would contain
spaces as small as 1,000 square feet, and typically range to 2,500 square feet. The types of
tenants would likely include convenience stores, small restaurants, cleaners, beauty parlors,
mail centers, video stores and the like. Small store rental rates would average $20 to $25 per
square foot.
There is also a market for office space in the West Vail area. The greatest need is for small
spaces for individual proprietors in the 300 to 500 square foot range. There would also be a
market for an executive office suite providing office support functions to individual
proprietors. Supportable office rents would be close to the retail rents of $20 to $25 per
square foot. One development alternative would be to build a convenience commercial center
with second level office space.
Salles Tax lProjesgnons
A new 55,000 square foot supermazket would generate an estimated $880,000 to $990,000 in
sales tax revenues to the Town of Vail based on estimated_ sales levels of $400 to $450 per
square foot as shown in the table below. However, if this store replaces the current Safeway,
there would be a net increase of less than half of this figure. If it were another supermarket
chain, the increase would also be less because the sales levels at both stores would be
somewhat lower due to competition.
7Table 6
West VanIl Commea-cnall Space ItetaaIl Sales T~x Projecgno~s
AV Sales
Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sales '8'az
New Supermazket 55,000 $400-450 880,000-990,000
Convenience Center 25,000 $200-250 120,000-150,000
Source: BRW, Inc. -
The supportable convenience store would generate an estimated $120,000 to $150,000 in sales
tax based on 60 percent of the space (15,000) leased to retail tenants and average sales of
$200 to $250 per square foot.
Based on current total Town of Vail sales tax collections of $12.4 million, the new Safeway
store would result in a net increase of 4.0 percent over current levels based on average sales
of $425 per square foot. If the existing Safeway was redeveloped as a general merchandise
26980826.MDG
Memo - Sherry Dorward
November 7, 1994
Page 8 store, such as a large sporting goods store, the total sales tax increase would be $730,000
based on average sales of $160 for the new store. This would be an increase of 5.9 percent
over current levels as shown in Table 7 below.
Tab8e. 7Town of Vail Sales Tax Increases
Estimated
Increase % Increase
New Safeway $500,000 4.0%
New Safeway Plus $730,000 5.9%
Safeway Redevelopment
New Supermarket') $700,000 5.7%
New Convenience Center $135,000 1.1 %
'>Net increase assumes lower sales tax per sq. ft. for existing Safeway
Source: BRW, Inc.
A new supermarket in addition to the current Safeway would generate $825,000 in sales tax based on average sales of $375 per square foot. Due to the lower sales levels and expected lower
sales in the existing Safeway due to competition, there would be an estimated net increase in sales
tax to the Town of approximately 700,000 or 5.7 percent.
The supportable convenience center would generate approximately $135,000 in additional
sales tax at an average rate of $225 which would result in an increase of 1.1 percent over
current levels.
26980826.MDG
RRC
A S S O C I A T E S
Research • Planning • Design
MEMORANDUM
'ro: The Town Council, Vail Commons Task Force and Staff
FROM: The Consultant Team
RE: Update Concerning Current Survey Results
DATE: November 10, 1994
As you are aware, the consultant team has continued to distribute surveys at the various meetings that
have been held, and surveys with postage paid envelopes have been available at the Planning
Department since the study began. At this point a total of 70 completed surveys have been tabulated.
Results are generally consistent with those presented following the first community meeting. The
results of survey questions are summarized on the attached two pages .
About half the respondents to the survey report they live in the West Vail area. In our analysis survey
results were broken down by place of residence to permit comparisons between West Vail neighbors
and the larger community. Results show strong similarities in opinions concerning most issues, but
residents of the immediate area are especially likely to feel that issues related to traffic and circulation
are paramount.
The results from several of the key questions are summarized below. They show:
o Clear support for a mixed use development rather than all commercial or all residential. However,
if pushed, sentiment would be more toward residential or "other" community uses than
commercial.
o A mixture of for rent and for sale homes is generally favored, although a significant percentage of
respondents (39 percent) favor only "for sale" units.
0 1fie respondents generally favor a condominium/apartment configuration, or townhouses for the
site. Most respondents favor two (30 percent) or three (58 percent) story development.
• Most respondents feel that the single issue that should be given primary attention in the West
Vail/Vail Commons study is either "neighborhood integrity" or "traffic congestion." Note that
these two issues dominated all others including "affordable housing" as an objective for the study
see question 14).
1Vlany of the surveys have included a large number of "open ended" comments and suggestions that
have been provided separately to the Planning Deparrinent. In additon to statistical results, two pages
of comments have been provided for your review.
4875 Pearl East Circle, Suite 301 o Boulder, Colorado 80301 - TEL 303/449-6558 0 Fax 303/449-6587
VAIL COMIVIUIVITYSURVEY
The Town of 1/ail is currently involved in a planning effort fo evaluate the potential uses for a Town-
ovvned parcel knouvn as the Vail Commons property. In an effort to understand com?nunity and
neighborhood issues and ideas, fhis survey is being distributed. We would appreciate your candid
responses in helping fo make VVest !/ail and the Commons a better place. Thank you for your time and
interest.
1. Where do you live? n=68
01) 7 East Vail
02) 3 Booth Falis and Bald Mountain Road areas
03) - Golf Course
04) 2 Vail Village
05) 3 Lionshead
06) - Potato Patch, Sandstone
07) 18 Buffehr Creek, Lions Ridge, the Valley
08) 54 West Vail (north of I-70)
09) - Matterhorn, Glen Lyon
10) 3 Intermountain
11) 10 Other:
2. Using a scale from 1 to 5 where 5 means "Very Good," how do you rate West Vail in terms of the
following?
VERY NEITHER GOOD VERY
BAD BAD NOR BAD GOOD GOOD mean n=
Variety of shops - 12 33 35 20 3.6 69
Variety of restaurants 2 28 49 24 6 3.0 68
Overall cleanliness & maintenance 6 35 33 19 7 2.9 69
Ease of getting there - 96 13 31 40 4.0 70
Ease of walking around 3 22 25 29 22 3.4 69
Overall atmosphere, design quality 10 31 33 23 3 2.8 70
Information and signs 9 34 29 25 3 2.8 68
3. How do you rate parking in West Vail in terms of:
VERY NEITHER GOOD VERY
BAD BAD NOR BAD GOOD GOOD mean n=
Adequacy/availability 1 20 16 33 29 3.7 69
Convenience - 15 22 30 33 3.9 69
4. What do you like best about the West Vail commercial area?
5. What aspect of West Vail most needs improvement, and, if accomplished, would increase your visits?
pg9
6. Concerning the development of housing on the Vail Commons site, should homes be: n=64
_ 1) 8 For rent
2) 39 For sale 3) 53 A combination (both renter and owner occupied)
7. Should the homes be built for: (CHECK ALL THAT YOU FAVOR) n=69
1) 75 Families with children
2) 93 Professional singles/couples
3) 20 Young seasonal workers
4) 43 Senior citizens
8. Recognizing that the Town of Vail owns the Vail Commons site and that available land is scarce, what
types of housing are most suitable for development on the Vail Commons site? n=53
1) 49 Condominiums or apartments above retail or office space
2) 19 Single-family homes separated from stores and offices
3) 47 Townhomes / row houses
4) 32 Patio homes clustered on part of the site
5) 26 Two- or three-story condos or apartments with ground floor access to each unit
9. Do you have any comments on your choices of housing types or target markets?
10. What is the maximum building height that should be allowed for development on the site? n=64
1) 5 One story
2) 30 Two stories
3) 58 Three stories
4) 8 Four stories
5) - Five or more stories `
11. Please list examples of housing developments (unit style or amenities) in the Vail Valley that you think
would be appropriate for the Vail Commons site:
12. If you were to choose at this time, which choice below best describes your opinion? n=69
1) - Develop the Vail Commons site primarily in commercial uses
(what kinds?)
2) 26 Develop the site primarily in residential uses
3) 54 Develop the site with a mixture of commercial and residential uses
4) 95 Other:
5) 5 No opinion/uncertain at this time
13. Do you have any further comments on your response?
14. From the list below, which sinqle issue should be given primary attention through the Vail
Commons/West Vail study? n=58
1) 35 Traffic congestion
2) 3 Incompatible uses
3) 45 Neighborhood integrity and/or "feeling"
4) 3 Lack of adequate retail services in town
5) 9 Affordable housing
6) 5 Other:
15. Any comments on your response?
P92
16. What is the relative importance of each of the following improvements as part of the overall master
planning effort for West Vail?
~ NOT VERY
IMPORTANT IMPORTANT mean n=
01) Reduce speed and amount Q.17
of auto traffic 3 12 16 19 49 4.0 67 37
02) Decorative sidewalk paving 95 24 27 27 9 2.9 68 -
03) Designated pedestrian crossings 8 15 22 30 25 3.5 67 3
04) Lighting 1 5 12 16 46 21 3.7 67 6
05) Directory/informational signs 19 24 29 27 9 3.0 66 2
06) Landscaping and benches 4 10 15 43 28 3.8 68 2
07) Coordinated storefronU
facade renovations 9 15 21 29 26 3.4 66 6
08) Expanded parking facilities 11 15 35 23 17 3.2 66 -
09) Expanded public transit 8 19 26 26 22 3.4 65 2
10) Expanded bicycle racks 15 18 27 24 16 3.1 67 3
11) More efficient snow removal 90 29 40 26 3 2.9 62 -
12) Plaza / public spaces 3 12 29 29 26 3.6 65 8
13) Frontage road improvements 2 19 12 99 57 4.2 65 24
14) More alpine architectural character13 6 39 24 25 3.4 67 8
17. Which one of the above do you believe is MOST important? (INSERT NUMBER FROM LIST)
n=63 (see above for responses)
18. What types of retail or commercial service uses would you like to see improved or expanded in the West
Vail area?
19. What civic uses, if any, (such as community meeting room, fire station, library, child care, etc.) would
you like to see considered for the Vail Commons site?
OR NONE
20. What is your gender? n=69
1) 67 Male
2) 33 Female
21. Which category describes your age? n=70
1) - 14-17
2) 1 18-20
3) 3 21-24
4) 14 25-34
5) 39 35-44
6) 26 45-54
7) 17 55 or older
22. Which category describes your family status? n=70
1) 31 Single, no children
" 2) 6 Single with children living at home
3) 4 Single with children grown
4) 23 Couple, no children
5) 23 Couple with children living at home
6) 93 Couple with children grown
P93
23. How many years have you lived in the area? mean=13.7 n=69
OR Less than one year
24. Do you own or rent your home? n=68
1) 87 Own
2) 13 Rent
25. Are there other issues you would like to see addressed through the Vail Commons planning process, or
specific comments that you have for the consultant team?
~
The Tovvn of !lail fhanks you for your participation in our research program. Your input is valuable to
fhe NP/est Vail plartning effort. Please fold, seal and mail the survey (postage is paid) to the address on
the reverse side.
Date:
P94
VAII COMMOAIS PLANNING SURVEY 1994
ADDITIONAL ISSUES/COMMEtdTS
50-60 deed-restricted units for emQloyee housing--town oemns Land arsd
provides mortgages; prefer rentals over for sale
Beiaare of too much detailed planning--aitness: Lionshead vs. Vail
Village design, Beaver Creek bus system vs. dail system
Control people at these meetings--consider all in attendance
Do not build a large structure--if you do buitd, tots of grass, trees
and floaers to HIDE IT!!
Don't go too fast--put all items to a vote by landoaners of aest Vail.
Don't you paople knoa tahen to stop building? EJhat do you think
attracts tourists here? To see more buildings? They've cane here to
get away from that. bdhy don't you brand neta people consider hoaa much
longer we locals are going to stay here, and how it shouid be kept
more natural for the next generation.
Eliminate bright urban lighting; create aarm, soft, safe, inviting
down l ow l i gh 4 i ng .
Exit blest Vail; miss a biker running the stop sign; seaerve out for a _
pedestrian in the road; pess the junk cars at Texaco; see if the otd
VU is still for sale at Phillips; look at ehe junk behind 7-11--no, it
isn't as big a pile as ehe baxes throan out behind the liquor store;
no bears at the dumpster out in front of the condos toclay; saerve ou4
for another pedeserian; that Yrailer hasn't moved for tuo years now;
the weeds are turning broein early 4his year; all those boats and crap
could burn if we get a fire. Here we are, good to be hane in my own
nei ghborhood- -maybe I'll move that aoodpile next aeek. .
I think 4hat the blest Vail mall remodel and Vail Ccmnons developmenY
tdEED to occur together.
If employee housing is irtportani, one rtwst look at the basic groups:
1> 18-21 transient, 2) over 21 trensient, 3) over 21 permanent. (eaith
family and non-family subgroups for transient residents) I am no4
sure that the ihree groups are campatibte; of the three, the femilies
and 18-21 seem to have the greatest problerts for housing. Iwould
hope that rental units for 18-21 in combination aith a youth center
could be provided.
If the Toan ever has to do sanething high impact, I feel ehis raould be
the appropriate ptace (due to surrounding density). Bu4 I feel
affordable housing and commercial are NOT the best long-4erm uses. We
alrcady have lots of housing and commerciel. This field should br
used for sortrE4hing rtuch more uwsual and importan4 Yhan
these--something only the TOd can do--that would benefit Yhe toam for
the next 900 years. Don't just solve this year's housing "crisis."
Be more creative and think down the road.
-5-
VAIL COMPIONS PLANNIPIG SURVEY 1994
ADDITIOPIAL ISSUES/COMMENTS
qaster plan for entire Philtips 66 thru Buffehr Creek including Roost.
Timr atlotment consistenY aith toban goals.
No access to CharRanix Lane fran this parcel--keep it all on frontage
Road
Not too overdeveloped--leave some space
Please listen to the people--ahat is done on this site aitl affect the
entire cortanunity for years to come!
Please take your time--let's do it right. Don't let the whiners get
to you. Can or is there any tax breaks to the existing building
otmers to help irtprove or standardize storefronts? Residential face
Chamonix, retail face Frontage. Landscaping amust--lartdscape islands
in parking lots?
0uality is key; Vail Commons is very visible from I-70, it is ehe
"entrance" to !lest Vait.
Since this is the last large parcel of larsd in Vail Valley, its use
needs carefut consideration. If the TOV needs sane mtmicipal space,
decide whaY it is. If the TOV needs maney, sell the land. Idhat
iapact milt 199 Champs have? Can the space be lefe until a demerd is
identified? Can it be a larsdscaped parking l04 until then?
The main problem I have aith dail Connons is housing. I just rtwved
from a comnercial shopping center aith housing on top (Vail Des
Schone) and eaas very unhappy living there due to the quality of
neighbors.
The Vail Valley, besides Vail proper, Lionshead and Avon, still gives
an impression of "country". The big open space of the Vail Cortmons .
really helps aith this feeling. It would be absurdly selfish to eaant
this space kepe 2he way it is now; but #or the interest of the
camnmity as awhole, it can't be more than a low density, middle
class housing devetoprtent aith buildings which aaon't stard out in the
neighbarhood.
There is a strong feeling among many that the Mayor has her mind made
up ard is determined to put as much housing as possible on this lot.
bany of us are sorry ae voted for here, she does not represent our
concerns for this property.
This could be a nice comwrcial/residential area with enclosed -
mini-mall area arsd townhomes in back area so noise is buffered fran
highway.
This does not have eo look like Eagle Vail or Colorado etvd. There is
so much character in Vail, let's bring this throughout our toan and
Lose that "slwn" generalization.
-6-
-'•1 If~
TO: Sherry IDorward - EBA/Alpine
F1ZOM: Karfl Buchtno8z - BRW
SUB..pIECT: VaeIl Cmmmoaas - Trax?sportation Issues
B R W INC.
DA7t'E: November 4, 1994
Planning
Transportation
Engineering
Urban Design This memo briefly describes some of the key transportation issues as they relate
to development of the Vail Commons site. This information is based on
1475 Lawrei1ce conversations with the Town of Vail Public Works staff, CDOT Region 3 staff,
Suite 300 and review of the Vail Transportation Master Plan.
Denver,
CO 80202 KEY I5SUES
303/571-4440
Fax 303/571-4448
1. The north half of the West Vail interchange, which provides I-70 access
Denver to the site, currently operates at 40 percent over capacity during peak
MiiWaukee periods. Future traffic volumes, based on approved development, will
Mini,eaPoli5 increase this congestion to almost 70 percent over capacity. Both CDOT
orlanao and Vail Public Works have expressed concern over the impact of
Phoenix additional traffic to this interchange.
Portland
San Diego 2. The North I-70 Frontage Road also experiences a high level of congestion
Seattle
during peak periods. The congestion on the Frontage Road primarily
Donald W. Ringrose occurs between the West Vail interchange and Buffehr Creek Road due to
Richard P. Wolsfeld the lack of a left turn lane. During peak hours, traffic turning left into the
Thomas F. Carroll commercial establishments impedes the through traffic flow along this
Craig A. Amimdsen section of the Frontage Road and encourages short-cutting through
Donald E. Hunt residential areas.
John B. McNamara
R«hara D. P,lgr,r„ 3. Depending on CDOT's access category assignment of the Frontage Road,
Dale N. Beckmann
Jeffery L. Benson access to the site will probably be limited to one or two driveways.
Ralph C. Blum Driveway spacing should be in accordance with the State Hi hwav Access
Cary J. Erickson Code. Vail Public Works has also expressed a desire to provide access to
John C. Lynch the site via Chamonix Lane.
Paul N. Bay
Sabri Ayaz 4. The Transportation Plan calls for six foot wide bike lanes along each side
Gary A. Ehret of the Frontage Road. An alternative to bike lanes would be to provide
A„chony xeppeima„n a detached pedestrian/bikeway that would be located on site. This would
Arijs Pakalns
Martha McPhee
Howard P. Preston
Dennis P. Probst
help remove pedestrian/bike-vehicle conflicts at driveways along the
Frontage Road.
SYTE RELATED T'RAI+'FgC
Based on the preliminary concept plans, an estimate of peak hour vehicle trips has
been made. For a development program with a moderately sized commercial
component, it is estimated that 180 additional trips would be generated during the
peak hour of a weekday. This calculated trip generation is based on an assumption
of approximately 20,000 square feet of retail, 20,000 square feet of office space,
and 60 residential units.
For a development concept that includes a more intensive commercial component,
the gross trip generation for the site is estimated to be 470 vehicles during the
peak hour. This assumes a 55,000 square foot supermarket, 5,000 square feet of
day care and 30 employee housing units. If Safeway is relocated from its existing
nearby site to the Commons, the net increase in new trips would be approximately
380 vehicles. This assumes that the existing 36,000 square foot Safeway would
redevelop as general merchandise.
Peea& Hour Traffic iVolugne Estimate
Site Existing Frontage Rd.
Related Frontage Rd. Traffic with Net
Concept Traffic Traffic Site Traffic Increase
Moderate Commercial 180 1000 1180 18 %
Intensive Commercial 470 1000 1470 47 %
(Safeway remains) Intensive Commercial 380 1000 1380 38 %
(Safeway relocates)
B'RAN5PORTATI0N IMPROVEMENI' COST3
To address the existing transportation problems described above, and to
accommodate anticipated future growth, several transportation projects are needed
in the West Vail I-70 area. These projects include construction of a continuous left
turn lane along the North Frontage Road from the interchange to Buffehr Creek
Road; improvement of the west Vail interchange (either realignment of the
ramps/Frontage Road or roundabout interchange); construction of the Simba Run
underpass; a bikeway or lane along the Frontage Road; and possibly right turn
acceleration/deceleration Ianes for site access. It is unknown at this time what
amount of transportation improvements will be required of the site development.
The level of participation will most likely depend on the type of development,
amount of traffic generated by the site and the tuning of any adjacent development.
Planning level cost estimates for the above improvements are as follows:
Continuous left turn lane* $180,000
Interchange realignment** $250,000
I-70 underpass at Simba Run $2,000,000
(scheduled for 1998)
Bikeway/lane along site $35,000
Right turn acceleration/deceleration lanes 40 000
Total Ianproaeflnent Costs: $2,505,000
* 2,450 feet total of which 650 feet at Frontage Road along Vail Commons
site.
assume $2,000,000 if a roundabout is developed at the West Vail
interchange.
11
, ~ . .
r.:::::.: ,:,;::::;`::<`c::: . <::;:'; ~;;::<::>:::>:<:::>::;~.~:::: ~ z:<;:::':::>:.:;<;.;::::;.: ~ ;
Housth : .
; l~arket . C'verir~ew : : . : .
. : : ; , : : : ;
: : : : : . : : : ,
i an Pro e : : : ; : :
\/at : on~mons ~fAster :Pi
.
.
: :
: . _ :
: : : :
; ; , ;
_ 1-1 ,
_ ,
_ ,
; : : . , _
;
~c ~
:
:..>ober ~4, 1994.
: : . . .
> ; .
. :
.
.
. . : . : I. . . .
; : : . .
_ >:re;
are > oPi:
_ . .
;
. :
. _
. .
: : . , . ; > >
: > . :
.
,
; , . : ,~v
:
.
8I
: °
: :
: n o:
: ; ; :
: : _
> _ . : .
' : >
> ;
: . ; : : . . : : . : : : .
: : .
: >:>:;;:::::::::::<::.::::::<::?:>....;% ..:::.::;<c<,:::_ ..:::::;.;::>:::>::.::;.:::..:~1':>.:
y
d ;
; . . : . epar.Q
. , . . . : : . : . c . ; . . :<r::::: . : :
. .
`I
: < :
:
: ; ; . ; >
: : : . . : .
: .
: . '
' :t~ sso
_ . . . . : . cB~fes.; _Iuc;:
. : : : , . : : : : . . . . , : , .
Housing Rflarket Overview - DRAFT 1114194 Vail Commons Master Plan Project
`~able off Content$
Introduction ............................................................1
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Organization ........................................................................................1
Community Direction .............................................................................1
Demographic Information ..................................................................................2
Current Population .................................................................................2
Growth Rates, Historical and Future .2
Households ..........................................................................................2
Income ...............................................................................................2
Income by Type of Job ............................................................................4
Housing Costs Compared to Household Income .............................................5
Housing Supply ...............................................................................................5
Number of Units .............5
Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........................5
Owner- vs. Renter-Occupied Units ............................................................7
Estimate of Local Resident Units ...............................................................7
Build Out Potential .................................................................................7
Housing Costs ......................................................................................8
Rental Rates . . . . . . . . . .8
For Sale Housing Prices ................................................................9
Availability ..........................................................................................11
Rentals .....................................................................................11
~ Inventory of For-Sale Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Size of Units ........................................................................................13
Demand for Proposed Residential Units .................................................................13
Demand Generating Groups .....................................................................14
Current Vail Renters ....................................................................14
Commuters
15
In-Migration of Population .............................................................15
Demand Limiting Factors ........................................................................15
Availability of Other Units .............................................................15
Down Valley Population Shifts ........................................................15
Affordability ..............................................................................16
Mortgage Financing ..16
ASI Associates, Inc.
` Housing Market Overview - DRAFT 1914194 Vail Commons Master Plan Project
Hnt@'OduCtIOlit
i
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to provide information to support policy formation and decision
making on the future development of the Vail Commons parcel. It contains information on
housing supply and demand for use by: members of the general public when forming their
opinions for residential development on the site; the Vail Commons Task Force when making
recommendations to the Town Council; and, the Council when determining the goals,
requirement and parameters for inclusion in a request for proposals from private developers.
This report is not intended to substitute for a project-specific market analysis study that the
selected developer may prepare but does contain much of the information that would be needed
to complete that type of study.
ORGAMIZATION
This report consists of three main sections:
o Demographic Information - Estimates on the population, number of households, income
and housing costs as compared to income.
o Housing Supply - Information on the number of total units, percentage and number of local
resident units, composition, build out potential, costs, availability and size.
• Demand for Proposed Residential Units - Conclusions on demand generating and limiting
factors including size and composition of primary and secondary markets, availabiliry of
other units, down valley population shifts, affordability of proposed units and availability of
mortgage financing.
COMMUNITY DIRECTION
Comments received from Vail residents and business owners influenced the scope and direction
of this report. The vast majority of those who spoke at one or more of the public hearings
recently held and/or completed written surveys during the past two months support residential
development on the site. Support by neighborhood residents was expressed most often for:
• Homes designed for purchase by families;
• Condominiums or apartments designed and priced for single adults who desire to live
alone; and,
• Existing residents of the community.
IVearby businesses did not disagree in general with neighborhood sentiments but also cited the
need to house persons who work in the West Vail commercial district since the inability to hire
sufficient numbers of employees due to housing is a widespread problem.
ASI Associates, Inc. Page 1
d~ Housing Market Overview - DRAFT 1114194 Vaii Commons Master Pian Project
Demographic BnfFoemation
~
CURRENT POPULATION
It is estimated that approximately 3,900 persons currently reside in Vail on a year-round basis.
GROWTH RATES. HISTORICAL ARlD FUTUREVail's population increased 5% between 1980 and 1990. Growth rates were relatively flat
between 1990 and 1992. In 1993, the State Demographer's office estimated there was a 3%
increase in population bringing the total population to 3,861 persons. Due to the lack of
resident housing projects in the planning stages, a 1% increase has been projected for years
1994 and 1995. With limited opporiunity for continued growth, the town's population should
remain relatively stable in the near term at approximately 4,000 persons.
Town of Nail Popu/ation, 9988 • 7995
• 3850 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3900 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3850 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3800 _ _ ' ' _ ' _ ' _ _ ' _ '
3750 _ _ ' _ _ _ _ ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' _ _ ' _
3700 ' _ _ ' ' _ _ _ ' _
3650 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
3 6 0 0 1 _ _ " ' _ _ " " ' _ _ _
• I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' _ _ ' ' _ _ _ _
3550 _ _ _ _ _
3500 _ ' ' ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ '
3450
1988 1888 1980 1881 7982 1983 1994 1885
Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs, State Demographer's Office and ASI
HOUSEHOLDS
By dividing the current estimated population with the average number of persons per household
from the 1990 Census, an estimate of 1,806 year-round households is generated.
Number of Househo/ds, 1994
1994 Est. Persnns per Number of
Population Household Households
3,900 2.16 1,806
IfilCORHE
An examination of the current income levels of households in Vail provides information for
determining how residential units developed on the Vail Commons parcel should be priced.
Several sources of information on income are available: surveys conducted in 1990 and 1994
ASI Associates, Inc. Page 2
eHousing Market Overview • DRAFT 1114194 Vail Commons Master Plan Project
by RRC Associates and a county-wide estimate of inedian income generated by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
i
Based on estimates generated by HUD, the median family income in Eagle County has
increased 23 % since 1989. Income estimates are not available at the community level;
however, since the median family income for Vail equaled approximately 120 % of the county's
in 1990, applying this percentage to the current median income for the county results in a
median family income estimate of $60,720 for Vail.
Median fami/y /ncome
1989 1994 961ncrease
Vail $49,453 nIa nIa
Eagle County $41,183 $50,600 23%
Sources: U.S. Census, 1990 and U.S. Housing and Urban Development,
May, 1995.
Based on information obtained through a survey conducted in 1990, roughly one-third of Vail's
residents had household incomes in the $30,000 to $45,000 range. Another 37 % had incomes
above $45,000.
/ncome Distribution -Town nf Nai/, 1990
% Overall % Own °k Rent
S0-S7,499 3 - 4.5
$7,500•514,999 6 • 8
$15,000•519,999 7 4 8
$20,000-529,999 15 7 18
$30,000•S44,999 33 32 31.5
$45,000•559,999 21 32 17
$60,000+ 16 25 13.5
Source: RRC, 1990 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment
Although varying income parameters were used, information collected through a mail-out
survey in the summer of 1994 suggests that income levels in Vail have risen since the 1990
survey among both owners and renters. Of particular significance for this study is the
percentage of renters with household incomes below $20,000. The percentage dropped from
20.5 % in 1990 to roughly 13 % in 1994. Some of the difference can be attributed to the
inclusion of seasonal employees in the 1990 study.
ASI Associates, Inc. Page 3
Housing HNarket Overview • DRAFT 9114194 Vail Commons Master Plan Project
/ncome Distribution •Town of Nail, 9994
Income Range Own Rent
<510,000 0.3 0.7
$10,000 - $14,999 0.3 4.9 $15,000 • $19,999 2.5 7.6
$20,000 • $24,999 3.9 13.2
$25,000 • $34,999 6.4 23.6
$35,000 • $49,999 15.5 22.9
$50,000 - $74,999 22.1 16.0
$75,000 • $99,999 11.6 2.1
$100,000 • $124,999 8.3 4.9
$125,000 • $149,999 4.4
$150,000 + . 13.0 0.7
Declined 11.9 3.5
100.2 100.1
n=362 n=144
OMCOnAE BY TYPE OF J0B
Certain occupations are crucial to the community's continued viability as a world-class resort,
particularly those that involve providing services to visitors. Many of these occupations pay
relatively low wages as shown by the following table on household incomes. Over three-
fourths of the persons in the clerical/bus driver category and nearly half of all persons in the
restaurant/hotel/resort operations group have household incomes under $35,000.
Percentage of flnusehold within /ncome Ranges
by Job Category
< $15,000 • $25,000 • $35,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 • $100,000
Job Category $15,000 $24,999 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 +
SaleslServlRetail 4.5 15.9 11.4 9.1 25 9.1 25
Business Owners 2.9 2.9 14.3 8.6 28.6 5.7 37
Vail Assoc. Employees 6.4 21.6 22.6 32.3 6.5 10.6
Real Estate 3 21.2 21.2 12.1 42.5
ClericallBus Driver 44.4 33.3 11.1 11.1 0.1
DentistlPhysicianlAttorney 16.7 33.3 16.7 33.3
TeacherlNurselGraphic Artist 5 10 20 25 20 10 10
Prof.lArchitectlAccountant 7.9 10.5 23.7 23.7 15.8 18.4
RestaurantlHotellResort Op. 4.2 20.8 20.8 25 16.7 4.2 8.3
Source: RRC Associates, Vail Community Survey,1994.
1Vot all tourist-related jobs are low paying, however. For example, almost 60% of persons in
the sales/service/retail category, have household incomes in excess of $50,000.
ASI Associates, Inc. Page 4
. Housing Market Overview - DRAfT 1114194 Vail Commons Master Plan Project
HOUSING COSTS COMPARED TO HOUSEHOLD WCOflAE
In the 1990 survey conducted by RRC, it was found that over 32 % of Eagle County's home
owners and approximately 40 % of renters spend more than 30 % of their household income
towards housing costs.
Distribution of Cost Burden - Eag/e County, 1990
% All Respondents % Owners % Renters
37 32 40
Source: RRC, 1990 Eagle Counry Needs Assessment
There is a strong correlation between income levels and housing affordability. Lower-income
renters are particularly burdened by housing costs. In 1990, over 80% of renters with
household incomes below $25,000 paid in excess of 30% of their income on housing.
Percentage of Renters within /ncome Olanges
Paying 30°0 or Nlore of /ncome on Housing
Income Range
Less than $15,000 88%
$15,000 - $19,999 83%
$20,000 • $24,999 84%
$25,000 • $29,999 48%
$30,000 • $34,999 39%
$35,000 • $44,999 189'0
$50,000 or Greater 20%
Source: RRC Associates, 1990 Housing Needs Assessment.
HOlIS111g Slipply
NUMBER OF UNITS
According to Town of Vail records, there are approximately 6,850 housing units in the
community. This estimate includes single family homes, duplexes, condominiums and
townhomes but excludes lodging accommodations in hotels and inns.
CONiPOSITIOR!
The composition of Vail's housing supply is unique in comparison to other communities. Since
the town initially developed as a resort and did not have an established supply of single family
homes, the majority of the town's housing stock consists of multi-family dwellings designed for
use primarily as second homes or lodging accommodations. Approximately 3/4 of the town's
housing consists of multi-family units.
ASI Associates, Inc. Page 5
ew
, Housing Market Overview - DRAFT 1114194 Vail Commons Master Plan Project
Tota/ Mousing Supp/y, 9994
SF/Dupiex
26%
Multi-Family
74%
Source: Town of Vail, Planning Dept.
According to the 1990 Census, only 28 % of the housing supply is occupied by year-round
residents. As seen by the graph below, the composition of the local resident housing supply is
very different from the total housing supply. Among homes occupied by local residents, the
percentage of single family/duplex units (43 is much closer to the portion of multi-family
occupied units (57%).
Resident Housing Supp/y, 9990
SF/Duplex
43%
Multi-Family
57%
Source: U.S. Census, 1990.
ASI Associates, Inc. Page 6
.
Housing Market Overview - DRAFT 1114194 Vaii Commons Master Plan Project
OlNfliER- l1S. RENTER•OCCUPIED UNITS
i
According to the 1990 Census, the population is almost evenly divided between owners (47
and renters (53 Results from RRC's 1990 housing survey found quite different results;
approximately 20% of the residents surveyed owned their homes while over 3/4 rented. The
discrepancy in these estimates can largely be attributed to the inclusion of seasonal residents in
RRC's sample who were not counted in the Census.
Owners/Renters in Occupied UniPs, 9990
% Owners % Renters % Other Total %
Census 47 53 • 100
1990 NeedsAssessment 20 76 4 100
ESTIflflATE OF LOCAL RESIDERlT UflIITS
By applying ratios on occupancy from the 1990 Census to current information on the total
housing supply, it is estimated that 1,918 housing units are occupied by local residents. This
equates to 28 % of the town's total housing supply. Based on these calculations, almost half
(47 of the single family homes/duplexes and 22 % of all multi-family units are occupied by
local residents.
Year-Olound flesident Housing Supp/y, 1994
Existing Units Single Familyl Multi• Total Existing
Duplex Family Units
Total Units 1,757 5,092 6,849
% Residents 47% 229'0 28% Units for Residents 822 1,096 1,918
Units for OccasionallSeasonal Use 935 3,996 4,931
Owner 9'0 64% 34% 13% u
Estimated Owner Units 526 373 899
Renter % 36% 66% 153'0
Estimated Renter Units 296 723 1,019
Source: Town of Vail, U.S. Census and ASI Associates.
BUILD OUT POTEflITIAI
Based on current zoning, approximately 1,090 additional homes could be constructed in Vail in
the future. If homes are built on all residential lots at maximum allowed density, there would
be a total of 7,939 homes in Vail. This equates to a16% increase in the total housing supply.
A larger portion of platted land is available for development of single family/duplex units as
compared to multi-family units. However, after full build out, there would still be
approximately twice as many multi-family units as single family.
ASI Associates, Inc. Page 7
Housing Market Overview • DRAFT 1114194 Vail Commons Master Plan Project
Total 0'otentia/ Units By PropertyType
SFIDuplex Units Multi-Family Units Total Units
Existing Units 1,757 5,092 6,849
Possible Additional Units 853 237 1,090
Total Potential Units 2,610 5,329 7,939
Source: Vail Board of Realtors, U.S. Census and ASI Associates.
The increase in the number of units available for occupancy and/or ownership by year-round
residents would likely be smaller than the maximum build out of 16 % since many of the
remaining undeveloped lots are expensive and difficult to access making them unaffordable.
Comparison of Existing and Pntentia/ Units at Bui/d Out
sooo
5000 '
0 Existing Units
4000 E] Total Potential Units
q';{
3000
2000
1000
~..?i•r,k.
0
SF/Duplex Multi-Family Vacation
Source: Town of Vail, Planning Dept.
H0USIRlG COSTS
dZental Itates
Per bedroom rents in Vail exhibit less deviation by type of unit than is typically found in most
markets. There is an unusually high difference in the rents paid for three bedroom units as
compared to two bedroom rentals. This is likely due to the overall size and quality of the units
and the fact that he larger units provide greater flexibiliry for accommodating large households.
There are implications of the high per bedroom costs associated with the larger units. Most
families with children find it impossible to complete with households consisting of adult
roommates when seeking rental units that are large enough for their needs.
ASI Associates, Inc. Page 8
,
Housing flflarket Overview - DRAFT 9114194 Vail Commons Master Plan Project
Lonq-Term Renta/ Rates
Size Ave. Weigbted Rents Per Bedroom Rents
1 Bdrm $614 $614
2 Bdrm $1,005 $503
3 Bdrm $1,617 $539
Source: ASI Associates.
The following information is generated from interviews of property management companies in
August. The distribution of rents by number of bedrooms shows that the supply of larger units
priced below $1,000 per month is very limited.
BenPs by Siae of Unit
One Bedroom Two Bedrooms Three Bedrooms
$500 7 $775 1 $1,200 2
$550 2 $800 2 $1,400 2
$600 7 $850 8 $1,500 7
$625 2 $900 1 $1,600 2
$650 5 $1,000 10 $1,650 4
$700 2 $1,100 9 $1,700 4
$750 2 $1,200 6 $1,800 5
$800 2 $2,350 1
Total 29 Total 37 Total 27
For Sale klousing Prices
Current Prices
Prices of homes in Vail are high; the average price of condominiums sold in 1994 was over
$340,000. By comparing these prices to the average income of residents in Vail (page 4), is it
clear that few renters currently residing in the community can afford to purchase a home there.
Price By Unit Type, 9994
Condos Townhouses Ave Price $342,610 $249,847
Ave PricelS.F. $265 $131
Source: Data Research Associates.
Home prices in Vail exceed prices in Eagle County for all types of homes, except townhomes-
condominiums. In 1993 and 1994, the price of a single family homes was an average of 152 %
higher in Vail as compared to the county as a whole. This variation in home prices has
contributed to the community's loss to down valley locations of residents who want to estabIish
permanent homes, particularly families.
ASI Associates, Inc. Page 9
, ~Housing Market Overview • DRAFT 1114194 Vail Commons Master Plan Project
Comparisnn of 1994 Housing Prices
$1,200,000 ~
$1,000,000 ,..~a.
p..
$800,000 Tov
Eagle Count
...6.
[.6/~(\//~VW(~\ ~-l a
YWV
/y\
~t~/0,ll/~lJl/
% ,i;.
Y`tW
^T-a.
L. -
.s$
~ L~ : : ~ ~
$20,000~ by ksn~
Alv~y'~.
$O
Single Family Duplex Condo Townhouse TH-Condo
Source: Data Research Associates.
for Sa/e Price Difference - Torvn of Vai//Eag/e County
Single Family Duplex Condo Townhouse TH•Condo
1993 138°/a 69% 3% 18% 12%
1994 165% 55% 30% 19% -6%
' Source: Data Research Associates.
In comparing the price per square foot in the town versus the counry, Vail is priced higher in
each type of unit except for townhouse-condos.
Comparison of Price Pei Square foot 1994
Single Family Duplex Condo Townhouse TH-Condo
Vail $335 $250 $265 $131 $167
Eagle County $169 $157 $187 $120 $170
Source: Data Research Associates.
Increases in Housing sts
The prices of homes sold in Vail is rapidly increasing. The following graph indicates a large
price increase was reported in single family home sales (46 % increase) between 1993 and
1994. Significant increases were also evidenced with condominiums (32 and townhome-
condominiums (33 Alternately, there was a decrease in the price of duplex units and only a
7 % increase in townhomes.
ASI Associates, Inc. Page 10
A
' Housing Rflarket Overview - DRAFT 1914194 Vail Commons Master Plan Project
0
Town of Vail, Home Piices By Unit Type, 9993-1994
i
0 1993 N 1994
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
~~/~/W~ ~
V'ri/V~VIJI/
qi a
~
VZW,IMI ~•2 A ' 'r£; .
qw5 s~ ~g[ ~ E 5
$O Single Family Duplex Condo Tovmhouse TH-Condo
Source: Data Research Associates.
In the past year, the price per square foot has increased dramatically for single family homes
(34 and condominiums (27 The price per square foot decreased for duplexes and
townhouses in the past two years.
Touun of E/ai/ - Price Per Square Faot
Single Family Duplex Condo Townhouse TH•Condo 1994 $335 $250 $265 $131 $167
1993 $250 $264 $208 $136 $159
% Increase 34% •5°/a 27% 4% 5%
Source: Data Research Associates.
AVAILABILITY
Rentals
Vacancy rates within Vail are so low that they are not measurable. Any vacancies that
occur are usually filled immediately, often from waiting lists maintained by property
managers. Seasonal patterns in the occupancy of rental units still exist through appear to
be declining from past years. Vacancies rise at the end of the ski season but are usually
filled in May, the busiest month in terms of leasing activity for rentals with one-year
leases. Following the summer season, a small percentage of units are vacated but quickly
occupied. By October, it is very difficult to find an available rental unit in Vail.
The situation down valley may be changing as the result of the recent and continuing
development of rental units. Two apartment properties have been constructed since the 1990
Needs Assessment that have added 510 apartments for moderate to middle income renters to
ASI Associates, Inc. Page 11
o' Housing Market Overview - DRAFT 9114194 Vail Commons Master Plan Project
the housing supply. The 240 units that are located at Eagle Bend in Avon have been fully
leased during the last two years and plans are underway for the development of a third phase
that would add 54 additional units in Avon. All of these new units will have two or three
bedrooms.
In Edwards, the 270 Lake Creek Village Apartments were recently completed. All but 66 units
were leased as of October 29th. Of the remaining units, 19 have two bedrooms and five have
three bedrooms.
A 100-unit project is under construction in Eagle. All of these units are for households with
incomes under 60 % of the median income for Eagle County. Twenty units should be available
by occupancy each month starting in December with project completion scheduled for the end
of March, 1995. The project consists of 48 two-bedroom units and 52 three-bedroom
apartments. When combined, these developments offer 220 apartments that are not yet leased.
All will have two or three bedrooms.
Iraventory of For-Sale Ilomes
The availability of homes that could be considered potentially affordable for purchase by
renters residing in the community is almost non-existent. In August, there were only 28
homes in Vail on the market priced at or below $175,000. All of these were
condominiums or townhomes; no single family homes were available in this price range.
Of the 28 multi-family units, 10 were priced above $150,000.
The ability of local residents to purchase these few units is limited by the design and use of
the units. Many are presumably units designed primarily for use as second homes or vacation
accommodations and are therefore limited in their suitability for year-round occupancy,
especially by households with children. They tend to have high cost amenities with matching
high home owners dues. Furthermore, conventional mortgages are often not available due to
the presence of short-term rentals in the development by the lack of low down payment
financing for condominiums in developments containing short-term rentals.
foi•Sa/e /ndentory, August 9994
Single Family TH & Condos
!lail
< $100,000 0 5
$100,000•5124,999 0 9
$125,000-5149,999 0 4
$150,000-5175,000 0 10
Total Units 0 28
Eagie Coun4y
< $100,000 4° 17
$100,000-S 124,999 3 21
$125,000-5149,999 8 24
$150,000-5175,000 6 15
Total Units 21 77
ASI Associates, Inc. Page 12
b
o' Housing Market Overview • DRAFT 1114194 Vail Commons Master Plan Project
Source: Vail Board of Realtors.
° Includes mobile homes
~
In the rest of Eagle County, the inventory is larger. Nearly 100 homes were on the market in
August priced under $175,000. Roughly one-fifth were single-family homes or mobile homes.
SIZE OF V9PJITS
Even though prices for homes in Vail are much higher than average home prices in Eagle
County, the size of single family homes and townhouses in Vail are smaller. Single family
homes are roughly 30 % smaller in Vail as compared to those in the county. It appears that the
average size of townhouse-condo in both Vail and the County is larger than any other type of
multi-family unit.
Cnmparison of .4 verage Siae nf Units, 1994
Single Family Duplex Condo Townhouse TH•Condo
TOV 2094 1985 1232 1641 2109
Eagle County 2692 1940 1168 1685 2102
Source: Data Research Associates.
Dernand for Pe°oposed Resieientiat Clnits
Demand for the development of residential units on the Vail Commons parcel is a function of
multiple factors. It is generated by:
o Persons who currently rent in Vail and who desire higher quality, less expensive or less
crowded housing;
• Persons who live in down-valley or in out-of-county communities but who would move to
Vail to be closer to work if housing became available;
• In-migration of persons who are not working or living in the area now to fill available jobs.
While there may be a few potential buyers who already own and desire to move up to a larger,
newer unit, it has been assumed that the majority of persons comprising the market for any for-
sale units that might be developed on the site are currently renters.
Demand is limited by:
o Availability of other units;
• Movement of the population to down valley communities;
o Affordability or pricing of the proposed units; and,
ASI Associates, Inc. Page 13
~
Housing Market Overview - DRAFT 1914194 Vail Commons Master Plan Project
b
o For for-sale units, the ability to obtain mortgage financing.
DEf1flAND GEfYERAT9NG GROUPS ~
Cur•rent Vail dZenters
As shown previously, it is estimated that there are approximately 1,019 renter-occupied units in
Vail. Of these, 723 are apartments or condominiums and 296 are single-family homes. These
units house somewhere between 2,075 and 3,000 persons depending upon the season. This
equates to an average density of 2.04 to 2.94 persons per unit. These persons should be
considered a portion of the primary market for the proposed units since:
o At least 40 % of these households pay more than affordable levels for housing now and
often reside in units that are overcrowded; and,
o The leasing history of comparable new properties has revealed that existing residents form
a large segment of the tenants who move into new apartments when they become available.
Information on the composition of the households that comprise the primary market can be used
to design and target the units for occupancy by specific groups. The following estimates were
compiled by applying results from the 1994 Vail Community Survey to the total number of
renter-occupied units in Vail
Composition of 0lenter Househo/ds
Nail, 1994
Percentage of Est. # of
, Households Households
Single 65.1 663
Single with Children 2.7 28
Single, Empty Nester 1.4 14
Couple 17.8 181
Couple with Children 8.9 91
Couple, Empty Nester 41 42
Total 100% 1,019
Surveys suggest that the percentage of families in Vail's population is relatively small.
Approximately 11.6 % of all renters, or an estimated 119 households, have children living at
home (as compared to 29.7 % of home owners). While most of the households in Vail do not
have children, part of the reason is likely the lack of housing suitable for families. As pointed
out previously, per bedroom costs for larger rental units is comparable to smaller units usually
necessitating that there be at least one income-producing resident for each bedroom. Couples
without children comprise almost 18% of Vail's renters (181 households) and, when combined
with the 119 households with children, could form a substantial share of the market.
ASI Associates, Inc. Page 14
iq
.y
` Housing flflarket Overview • DRAFT 9114194 Vail Commons Master Plan Project
G
COn'diitut81'S
While some persons who live down valley oi in communities like Leadville might move to Vail
if housing became available, these persons should not be considered a large segment of the
market due to the current or soon availability of 220 new, affordably priced units in Avon,
Edwards and Eagle and the tendency to remain down valley once residence has been
established there.. (See following section on Down Valley Population Shifts.) As such, persons
commuting into Vail for work should only be considered a secondary market for the proposed
units.
Iln-Migration of Population
The 1990 Housing IVeeds Assessment estimated that 600 jobs were unfilled because potential
employees were unable to find places to live. The study also found that employers planned to
create jobs that would add 880 person to the work force by 1993. While employers have not
been formally surveyed since that time, the consensus appears to be that the availability of
housing has become worse in the past four years. There are multiple indications of economic
growth in the area including increases in sales tax receipts and labor force estimates. Based on
survey results and economic indicators, it seems reasonable to expect that at least 700
additional units could be occupied by persons moving into the community for work potentially
making these persons a sizable portion of the primary market for Vail Commons housing.
DEMAMD WITIAlG FACTORS
Avaalability of Other Ilnits
The availability of rental units down valley will partially satisfy demand; however, there are no
planned units in Vail that could be considered competition for ones that might be constructed on
the Vail Commons parcel. The income restrictions associated with the 100 units being
constructed in Eagle and the lack of one-bedroom apartments are limiting factors.
Few affordably-priced for-sale units are available; in August 1994 only 28 condominiums or
townhomes and no single family homes were for sale priced under $175,000.
I)own Valley Population Shifts
Demand for housing in Vail is influenced by down valley migration trends. With greater
availabiliry of larger, affordable units in the communities of Eagle-Vail, Avon, Edwards and
Eagle, many persons who previously lived in Vail have moved down valley. This appears to
be particularly true of families. The employment base is shifting with the location of new
businesses and relocations from Vail to the commercial centers of Avon and, as of late,
Edwards.
The likelihood that households, particularly families, would move from down valley back to
Vail to purchase a unit on the Vail Commons parcel will be strongly influenced by the type and
cost of the units constructed. Experience in Aspen has shown that families will return if the
housing product offered is superior to their current home, particularly if it is a single-family
ASI Associates, Inc. Page 15
•a
Housing Market Overview - DRAFT 1914194 Vail Commons Master Plan Project
house. Since the ability to develop single family homes on the Vail Commons parcel priced
equitably to homes in other communities is not likely due to cost and site constraints, it is
reasonable to expect that few purchasers of proposed townhomes or condominiums would be
current down valley residents.
Affordabilaty
1Vearly half (46.5) of Vail's renters have household incomes between $25,000 and $50,000.
Another 16 % earns between $50,000 and $75,000 annually. Persons in these income ranges
form the most probable group from which residents would be drawn since the rents or
mortgage payments they can afford could make residential development on the site financially
feasible.
Affordab/e Housing Costs by /ncome 01ange
Household Income 96 of # of Affordable Affordable Purchase
Households Households Rents" Price°
$15,000 - $19,999 7.6 77 $375 • 5500 nla
$20,000 - $24,999 13.2 135 $500 - 5625 nla
$25,000 • $34,999 23.6 240 $625 • 5875 $69,700 • $104,200
$35,000 • $49.999 22.9 233 $875 - $1,250 $104,200 •$156,000
$50,000 • $74,999 16.0 163 $1,250 • $1,875 $156,000 • $237,500
*Based on monthly payments equaling 30 % of household income.
Assumes 30-year, fixed-rate mortgages at 9% with 10% down.
Mortgage F'inancing
Local residents have historically had difficulty obtaining home mortgages for a variety of reasons including inability to save sufficient down payments when burdened by expensive rents,
seasonal employment patterns, difficulty qualifying units due to the presence of short-term
rentals in the development and the absence of mortgage companies that aggressively seek to
make relatively small loans to local buyers. The Town of Vail is pursuing the creation of a supplementary mortgage program that should
make obtaining loans easier thereby reducing the limits placed on market demand by the lack of
available financing. In order to effectively eliminate barriers to the demand for any proposed
units built for sale, deed restrictions that might be placed on the properties must be approved by
FNMA. Also, if the Town intends to retain ownership of the land on which for-sale would be
built, FNNTA would need to approve all lease terms and documents, and would require that the
lease be subordinated to mortgage financing.
ASI Associates, Inc. Page 16
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pianning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 10, 1994
SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance to alfow for GRFA to be located in the front
setback for a proposed structure at 2840 Basingdale Boulevard/Lot 4, Block 9,
Vail lntermountain.
Applicant: Daniel Frederick
P(anner: Andy Knudtsen
:<;<::::;:::>::::::::::<:::.>:.::;::;:.;:.:.:.:.:
1. DESCRIPTIOPV OF 7NE REQUEST
Dan Frederick, the applicant, is requesting a variance to construct GRFA in the front setback.
The setback requirement is 20 feet and the applicant will be providing a 4 foot setback. The
variance requested is for 16 feet.
The development proposal includes a single family home on a Primary/Secondary lot in
Intermountain. In addition to the residence, he is proposing a detached two-car garage to be
located in the front setback. Since the lot exceeds 30% slope, a setback variance for the
garage is not required. Since the applicant is proposing two strnctures, Design Review 6oard
(DRB) approval for a separation is required. On April 20, 1994, the DRB reviewed the
separation request and approved it. -
On May 9, 1994, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed the proposal
and approved the site plan which included variances for wall height. The retaining walls at the
front of the garage were designed at 6 to 7 feet in height. The Zoning Code allows a
maximum of 3 feet for walls located in the front setback. The PEC approved the wall height
variance and subsequently, as a result of this request staff amended the Code to a!!ow walls
to go up to 6 feet for garages that are constructed in the front setback on slopes which
exceed 30%.
Since the time of the approvals by the PEC and DRB, the applicant has had the drawings
reviewed by structural engineers. They have made recommendations that modify the original
design that include one level of GRFA above the garage. Because the lot is 36% slope, the
retaining wall at the rear of the garage would be approximately 17 feet tall. As a result, this
rear wall was approximately the height required for a second level.
The applicant returned to the DRB with a proposal to enclose the area above the garage. The
DRB approved this with the condition that no floor area be installed without returning to the
PEC for a setback variance. Following this DRB approval, the applicant's engineer indicated
that floor joists would be required to stabilize the structure. The applicant would like to pursue
this and is now requesting a variance to allow 296 feet of GRFA in the front setback, (above
the garage).
II. ZONlNG ANALYSIS
Lot Size: 0.64 acre or 28,039 sq. ft.
Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential
~ Allowed Approved May 9, 1994 Proposed October 10, 1994
Height: 33' 32.5' 32.5'
GRFA: 6,753.9 sq. ft. 1,071 sq. ft. 1,413 sq. ft.
Setbacks:
Front: 20' 4' for garage, 20' for home 4' for garags, 20' for horrie
Side: 15' 62' 62'
Side: 15' 35' 35'
= Rear: 15' 65' 65'
Site Coverage: 4,205 sq. ft. (15%) 815 sq. ft. (3%) 815 sq. ft. (3%)
Landscaping: 10;823.4 (60°!0) 27,044 sq. ft. (96.4%) 27,044 sq. ft. (96.4%)
Parking: 2 spaces 2 spaces 2 spaces
I11. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of the Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vaii Municipal Gode, the
Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based
on the foilowing factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Staff believes that the relationship between the requested variance to other
structures in the vicinity is positive. In general, we believe that locating the
garage at the street level with a 4-foot setback will entail less site disturbance
than locating the garage higher on the lot, behind the front setback, and
constructing a driveway from the street level up to a higher elevation.
The additional story above the garage, including the GRFA, is reasonable in
staff's opinion due to the steep hillside the development is located on. The roof
of the second floor addition will be flush with the grade on the south sid(D so
that the garage and the second floor wilf appear benched into the hillside.
r There will be a 4-foot setback from the property line and a 19-foot setba.ck from
the edge of pavement. As a result, staff believes that there is an adequate
buffer between the proposed construction and the street.
2
Concerning the use, staff understands that the applicant would like to finish the
second floor as a bedroom. The site is large enough to accommodate a
second unit on the site; however, the site plan as currently designed, does not
provide adequate parking for two dwelling units. As a result, there is a
maximum of one dwelling unit allowed. The applicant understands that no
kitchen facilities may be constructed in the tloor area above ihe garage.
An option staff discussed with the applicant is.to create a Type II Employee
Housing Unit above the garage. This would require the addition of one more
parking space. Staff would recommend that the applicant increase the retaining
walls around the garage to accommodate another space on-site. If this could
be done, staff would recommend that the employee housing unit be created.
2. The degree 40 which relief from the strict and literal interpretation
and enforcemen4 of a specified regulation is necessary 4o achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity
or fo attain the objectives of this fitle vuithout grant of special
privilege.
Staff believes that the physical hardship on the site which warrants a variance
is the slope. The slope under the proposed residence and garage is an
average of 36%. Due to the steepness of the site, staff believes that the
construction of this building can be two levels.
3. The effect ofi the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public fiacilities and
utilities, and public safety.
. The parking requirement for the development is two, both of which are inside
the garage. The staff received one call from a neighbor (in the Camelot
Townhomes) and he expressed no opposition to the development but said that
parking in the neighborhood was tight. The parking requirement has been met;
however, to address the parking concern, staff must clarify the code ,
requirement that the on-site parking be completed prior to the issuance of
a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the residence. This will ensure
that the required parking is available once the residence is completed.
A related concern of staff involves the soil conditions of the site. The drainage
that runs through the site is the same drainage that another developer in town
had problems with. Staff has talked to a representative from Koechlein
Consulting Engineering Company who has recommended that a soil
investigation be done in the area where the garage will be constructed. The
engineer believes that the location of the house is high enough on the hillside
that there will be very little risk of soil instability. However, the garage is built in
an area of the site that may be impacted by drainage. Because of this
information staff has received from the engineer, staff is requiring strict
adherence to the Hazard Section of the Zoning Code, Section 18.69.050. This
section requires the soils investigation to be provided to the Town prior to
issuance of building permit.
3
B. The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make the followinq findinqs
before qrantinq a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not
apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the awners
of other properties in the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the variance to locate GRFA in the front setback. We believe
ihe request meets the variance criteria, as discussed above. In addition, staff believes that
the proposal meets the findings. Specifically, staff believes that Finding 1is met in that there
is no grant of special privilege, as the slope is very steep and other setback variances have
been granted on lots that are of a similar slope. Staff believes that Finding 2 is met in that
there is no impact to public health, safety, or welfare, given that a soils report be submitted
prior to issuance of a building permit. Finding 3b is met, in staff's opinion, as the slope is an
extraordinary circumstance on the site that warranfs a variance. Therefore, staff recommends
approval with the following conditions:
1. The boulder walls and foundation of the garage and house must be designed
by a registered professional engineer.
2. The utility service line for the garage and house shall be buried underground.
3. The appficant must secure a public way permit prior to appfying for a building
permit.
4. The appficant must provide a detailed drawing of the driveway showing a 4-fo6t
wide valley pan and a maximum of an 8% slope from the edge of pavement to
the garage slab.
4
5. The applicant must provide a soils test in the area beneath the proposed
residence and a soils investigation in the area beneath the proposed garage,
rior to the issuance of a building permit for either structure.
6. The applicant must complete the garage structure prior'to issuance of a
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy,for the residence.
cApecMemosllyd rik 10.10
5
~ ~w ~~-~iv~ _ Ma-t-~,a~ -}-o~ M~~?~ tz~i c~?1~~ -
- - - ~
8 ~ ~
-
- Aw
_ - -~f'~ ~,vc~ -
- _ j _ -a -
_
- ~
, . ~ - - - - - ,
- - - - ~ ,
~ ~ - - - - - - - ~
- _ - - - - .
- - _i ~ . - - ~=y~:
-
- - ' - -
- - - - - - _ _ _ . _ - - ~ I i . -
- ~+n~~~ ~-oP ~~i--t~ ~.1 ~~v~?-~~ 1 r~
. - -
- r
- - - - - - _ _ _
.
- , _
~
. -
- ,
~
,
,
•-1, ~ Cp` rC ~ ,L~ I•~ ~Li ?~G70~'~
~4b_I io~~
~p . ~ - - ~°f•- ~ ~ „c
i
1L79 -
=
U4
? ~ ~ - ~
i
\ ~Y["/ J°
~
~ ~ / "189o y
le5t
/
92-._.
\ ~ ~ ~Y ~ • ~
790:~ /
O ~ O YL _1 ' \ 98 ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ L,t~l1~v 5P2JLE Ia~R
~ . ~ ~ 1L ~ YL ~ / ~ ~ • . ~ i ~t ~~a'~I F) C~ TKftb i'o 16t ¢C9ytO~
_ \ ~ O / ]!L ~i~Fs1~ l~/ h~i~L !JC?s~ #:~tL7 Ptoi.Je2 NIIL
rnjwEa
~ •
~ O ~ ' ~ CwF. ~.c15+1r1v ?~Tt6 rn eG
~
~
N~
'
. ~
ss~es..
12
.
I i ~ - ~ - - _ _
Z&.7 -
~ ZilOCi LL~
- J.~.~ • _ ~ _ _
- _ . _ loc. ~ J.
- ' ~
~...tc.
. - ~ - - r -
I - I ~
~
- • ' I I ~ _ ~-+--'~,~4 7~s '~.'~I~~ Pe~J~ . _ ' ~ '
_ - ' ' .
~ ~ I - -
bd... kIJJv k!~Nto~dS - - -
`T-- 'Gx MoJl~v b1•lY ~
M.~. - • ~ P - - -
~ - - • - i~ -
r.o.~ . • -
- - _ ~
` _ , -
' ' I ~ -
~ _ .
• - i~
_ ' ~_z •ti
r
rl~~4'0 (.J~-~'
• ~ YI20' -PO~ io ~^-.ove~ ~/cc.~F~{ ~ -
• • _ _ _ ' - . _ 12 ~ _
4
' - - _ ~ I ~ I ~
Fl ! I ~
-T-
~ ,~1
~
FLJ
' v 9'f ~ F~• L. -
a P~
Eil
' y
i°9 l.l.•
e -
~
2. A request for a conditional use to allow for three employee housing units to be located
at 44 Willow Place/Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Jay Peterson Planner: Andy Knudtsen -
Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the request for a conditional use permit to allow
for three employee housing units per the_staff memo with Dalton Williams seconding
the motion. A 6-0 vote approved this request.
3. A request for a setback variance to allow for GRFA to be located in the front setback
.
for y -_.-~Basin'_gdale~ _._...,~__.'---ard/..-._~__.
a proposed structure at 28_4__O: Boule"v._,Lof~4; :Block; 9;Vail"~ ~
fintermountain.;
Applicant: Daniel Frederick
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff inemo. He stated that staff was
recommending approval of this request with the six conditions outlined on Pages 4 and
5 of the staff inemo.
Kathy Langenwalter inquired about the proposed two-story structure which was located
within 4 feet of the property line.
Andy Knudtsen stated that the DRB had approved the separation request for the 24
foot talf garage since it complied with all zoning standards.
Kathy Langenwalter felt ihat the Zoning Code did not intend for such two-story
structures to be located this close to the property line given the slope of the site.
Dalton Williams did not feel it was appropriate to locate a 24-foot high structure within
4 feet of the front setback. He also felt that the 17 foot high retaining wall was
excessive.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she opposed this request because it did not conform
with her interpretation of the intent of the Zoning Code.
Andy Knudtsen stated that the PEC should make a determination concerning the
location of GRFA in the front setback and that interpretations of the Zoning Code could
be done later.
Dalton Williams stated that the intent of the Zoning Code was to allow for a minimally-
sized garage in the front setback. He believed that a significant change to a project
that had received PEC approval should be required to come back through the PEC.
Concerning the GRFA in the front setback, he stated that he was not familiar with any
sites in Town that have been allowed to have GRFA located above the garage.
Planning and Environmental Commission IAinuies
Oaober W. 1994 2
Allison Lassoe had nothing further to add.
Jeff Bowen stated that the original approvai for the wall height variance was to allow
for the garage to be located in the front setback and that to turn the garage into a two-
story structure was not the intent of the original approval for the wall height variance.
Bob Armour opposed GRFA being located in the front setback.
Bill Anderson agreed with Bob's comment. He asked the applicant why he desired to
build a 24 foot tafl garage if no floor area.was allowed:
Dan Frederick felt that the 24 foot tall garage was a better design than what fhe PEC
had previously approved.
Jeff Bowen made a motion to deny the request for a setback variance to allow for
GRFA to be located in the front setback with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A
6-0 vote denied the applicant's request.
Andy Knudtsen stated ihat he would discuss ihe situation with Tom Moorhead ta
determine which board (PEC/DRB) has purview over which sections of the Zoning
Code.
4. A request for an update on the conditional use permit approval for the tent to be used
for the Vail Associates ski school to be located south of the Lionshead Center
Building/Tract A, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Tim Kehoe, representing Vail Associates
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen presented modified drawings of the proposed tent to be located at the
V2il Associates ski school located south of the Lionshead Center. He stated that the
= DRB had approved the tent with the condition that the exterior tent have a"woodsy,
western-like" appearance.
The PEC was not concerned with the proposed location of the tent. Jack Hunn explained the differences between the currently proposed tent and the tent
approved by the PEC.
Bill Anderson inquired how Vail Associates proposed to achieve the "woodsy" concept
the DRB had requested.
Jack Hunn stated that this would be accomplished via a series of applied logs on the
exterior.
Kathy Langenwalter pointed out that the current tent was not what the PEC had
recently approved.
Planning and Environmen;al Commission 1.1;nutes
O^tober 70, 1994 3
~
.
dg
TO1F+I OF VA1L ~
75 South Frontage Road Office of Town Artorney
Yail, Colorado 81657
303-479-21071 FAX 303-479-2157 \
MEMORANDUM -
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
FROM: R: Thomas Moorhead
DATE: October 20, 1994
RE: Approval Process for a Proposed Structure
at 2840 Basingdale Blvd., Lo4 4, Block 9,
Vail, Intermountain
1. Approval Process.
My understanding of the approval process is as follows:
1. April 20, 1994 Design Review Board approved separation of the garage and residence
due to the topographical features on the fot which include slope in excess of 30 percent
and natural drainage.
2. May 9, 1994 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved wall height variances
in excess of the atlowed maximum of three feet for walls located in the `ront setback.
3. May 18, 1994 the project received Design Review Board approval after a deiaiied review
of the Design Review Guidelines that pertain to the proposed development.
4. August 3, 1994 DRB approval for the addition of a second story to the garage that is to
be located in the front setback. The height of the proposed structure is within the zoning
code as it is under 33 feet.
5. October 90, 1994 Planning and Environmental Commission denied a request for a
variance to allow GRF,4 to be located in the front setback.
H. Discussion.
My understanding of the issue is that the Pianning and Environmental Commission questions
whether the applicant should have returned to the Planning and Environmental Commission for
approval of modification of the proposed garage by adding a second floor prior to Design Review
consideration of the proposal.
In as much as the height of the building is in compliance with the zoning code, the applicani could
not be required to return to PEC prior to DRB consideration. As the fieight of the proposed
structure was within the height requirements, the DRB must evaluate the design of the structure
pursuant to its guidelines. As long as the application is found to be in compliance with the
applicable provisions of the zoning code, the project shall be placed by staff upon the'agenda of
the DRB. 18.54.040(c)(2).
Appropriately, the DRB approval was limited to no floor area being located in the structure without
further PEC approval.
I believe that appropriate consideration was given to the project by PEC and DRB. I hope this
information is helpful.
0
+!:~'?.j; ~ . . -
( , .
t: . . .
n
10l20l94 ; ; : . ` . _ .
. i-
TO: ToAm of Vail / C~ommtmity Development
FRUM: Daniel Frederick
ITEM: Request appeal for decision handed do-Am on 10/10/94 by the Planning and
Environmerrtal Commission.
HISTORY :
I, Daniel T. Frederick, ovNmer of?840 Basingdale Blvd. Vail Intermounr.~an, wish to appeal
a. clecision mada a week agv by the Planning and Environment,.~l Commission (PE4)
concerning the con..~truction ofmy personal residence. nn Ortober 10, 1994 the PEC
rejzctzd my proposad plans to allow for 2)96 feet of C;RFA in the front sethack.
I1iy ctevelopment proposal is fvr a. singIe family home, twelva hundred sqtiarz feet anci a
defiached 2 car garaga on a. Primary/ Secondsry lot in Intermountain. I am proposing the
detached hvo-car garage to ba located in the front sethack. Sincz my lot exceeds a. 30%
slope, Igm re~~txirad hy ordingnce to conqnict a. 2 car garage, A Gzt.back variance for the
garaga is not reqtiireci. Qn Anri120 , 1994 the DRB reviewed my separation request and
appraved it.
c?n May 9, 1494, the PEC reviewed my proposal and approved the site plan which
included variances for,.vall height. As a result of that meeting the code to allow wall
heights up to 6 feet for required garages was enacted.
On the advise ofmy Stn;cfxiral En,rineer that becausa ofthe on avera~e 36% slore under
the narage that a retaining wall in 17 feet in height -vvill havz to be built. With
consideration given to drainaga and potentially active geology, it has heen recommznded
thar the saraga ~~ill need to be stt~hilizetl with floor jvisr.s tnd p15~~~oaci. ?~to er,terior
chmSee will he needed to tha approved plans in order to allow thi4 °tnichira to hz
constnacted and skahilized prvperly. ThiS will allow me to hatire storage spacz wich a.roof
overhead.
J
•
In reviawing the sta$'recvmmendatiorLs to the PEC , the Community Dzvelapment
Daparimant has recommended approva.l ofmy proposa.l. Tha StalFcan be quoted as saying
the relationship hehvzen my requzsted variance and the other stnichtres in the area is a
pvsifiva one. They believa that locating the garage wherz I am proposing now would
create less of a. disturbance on the ]nnci than locafing it higher up on the property. They ,
also have said they believa that the additional Story ahove the garage, which would
hacoma living Spaca, is a,reasonable proposal. They ~fiate that the garagz will appear to be
benched into the hillsida and that adeqttata spaca is being provided between the front ofthe
gau-age and the streek Thay tmderstznd that I mean to use this story as a bedroom. In the
ciocumenk that my planner, Andy Knuc_itsen, submit#eei tv the PEC, the. sta$'recommends
~ approval an a.ll tru-ea criteria. Ik is hecmisa vf sta$'apprvva.l that I am appzaling the PEC
decision, becausz they feel t.hat I have met the reqLiirements that «=ould be needeci. In
r?vi:wins, the St.a$'balieves that this recgiast :neets the requirements needed to vbtain the
necess3ry relieffrom the sfrict and literal interpretation. .
In their review of my application for a variance, Communify Dzvelopment stipulated 3
objectives that I =,At meet before they'd give their approUal. All of the objectives were
met to thzir satisfaction, including the ona which Stared that the granting ofa.variancz
«<ould not constitute a. srant of GPacial Privilega. It is mv belief th-it this variance is
«=arranted due to the reasons I haa?a Stated 9bove.
1n working with the planning department at various times diiring this ProceGs, I h3va
inquired 9hott the feasibility ofProviciing tha 400 sq.fk.of C;RFA over the garaga t.o deed
rastricted TSpe II employaa hoiising. Iwas tvld daed rastrictions werz not required for
what I Aras nroposing and that it would reTiira an additiana.l par}:ing ~?ace. Eacavating for
an additional par-kin;g Space will raquira the construction of largz a. retaining wa.il ihaz with
the ctirrant proposgl doeR not e:;ist annd arz not raqtiired.
Furchermare, the Tv~~z1 oft'ail sayG in its St.atement ofC,oals Ohjeetives far 1994 , that
one of their objectives in the realm of h4using is to "facilitate construction annci ret.ention of
local hvusina, }N,hich is a$'ordable, and cvmpatible., in order to ma.intain the social and
economic viahility oftha Tovkm ofVail " Ian a long tima resicient ofthis -va11ey, and onz
.t-ho chie to la.ck ofrent.al sPace in Vail, has heen forced to move do'Am Valley. As a.
concession on my part I arn willing to deed restrict a11 currenfly proposed development ko
Type II employea housing. This would ba a total af 1600 sq, ft living space along with a
? rar garage. I understand that this wotild be, ifgranted, a. c:'onditional L?se PerTnit. I also
tinderstand that all fiihire development will need to reviewed in a. h-aditional manner.
TnV St.at.ement of C;oa1s 8-Y Objective for housing #5 Fta#es,"Encourage thro«gh zoning
improvements!changes/ modificakions our ability to ~t.ahiliza the local pontxlativn..."
a
In bringing my problem to your attention, I am aslang you to consider tha o$'er to create
what would be a very nics deed restricted unit for myself and my friends who are
struggling to both livz and wvrk in Vail. 'Mank Y vu[
v
?.r
iel J denck ~
~e e
e4
TONN OF VAIL ~
75 South Frontage Road Department of Community Developinent
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-21381479-2139
FAX 303-479-2452
TO: Vaii Town Council
FROIVI: Community Development
DATE: November 15, 1994
SUBJECT: VAIL ENVIRONIVIENTAL STRATEGIC PL4N
Staff: Russ Forrest
Please find attached a copy of the Vail Environmental Strategic Plan and resolution 24 for
your review and approval. Staff would recommend that the Town Council approve resolution
23 to adopt the Town of Vail Environmental Strategic Plan. This Plan is intended to:
a) Provide a long-term work p(an (i.e. A TO-DO List) for environmental programs in the
Town of Vail.
b) Improve cooperation and collaboration between stakeholders in the community to
work on environmental programs.
c) Help keep Vail proactive by reducing pollution at the source and protecting sensitive
natural resources.
d) Help identify Vail as an "Environmental Leader". ,
The Town Council and the public have reviewed and commented on the first draft, and these
comments have been incorporated into the Plan. The Planning and Environmental
Commission reviewed and unanimously recommended (on September 12, 1994) that the
Town Council adopt the Environmental Strategic Plan. Council reviewed a second draft and
asked that the Plan be scheduled for adoption in November 1994.
The Town has been taking steps to begin implementation of certain aspects of the Plan. For
instance, the Town of Vail is in ihe process of implementing a solid waste management policy
that will reduce waste generated by Town offices. This program has also resulted in a
partnership with the Vail Board of Realtors to install recycling containers in Vail Village and
Lionshead. The Town is also actively implementing the Comprehensive Open Lands which
will protect environmentafly sensitive areas in the Town of Vail. There is afso aR informal
partnership forming between the Town, Vail Associates, Vail Valley Foundation, Forest
Service, and private citizens to begin an environmental educational program in Vail.
Continued community participation will be critical in the implementation of this plan.
RESOLU7'ION NO. 23
SERIES OF 1994
c4 RESOLlfl.9TION AaDOPTItdC T@-BE ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEta1C PLAN.
WHEREAS, the Touvn of Vail wishes to ensure it's regulations and policies relating to
development our congruents with the carrying capacity of the area's natural environment and
manmade resources; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail wishes to protect the area's natural resources and recognize
that they are interconnected and interdependent; and
WHEREAS, the Town wishes to improve efficiency in water, energy, and waste
management in businesses, residences and in government; and
WHEREAS, to ensure environmental compliance through proactive environmental
management that will identify Vail as an environmental leader.
IVO1IV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Vail,
Colorado:
1. The Environmental Strategic Plan attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A is hereby
approved and adopted.
2. The Town Manager and the Town staff are hereby authorized to take all actions
necessary to implement the Environmental Strategic Plan.
4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of November, 1994.
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
C:\qESOLU94.23
Resolution No. 23, Series of 1994
.d. .
_ NVIRONMENTAL
_ STRATEGIC PLAN
V A 0 0 R ' D...0
. _ ~_~a L _ _ ' , , _ • , _ , , _ .
•,..3',~~~yY'~<~{ a --s g~,~ 'r - -_t+''r~;''~ 's'` i ~t'"
~~,°~.j~.'.~ '~'r.5~n„'$' 9 ~ S ~ ~r`R ;---''+i ' _ ~ ; ~ . - : ~ • : ,vf - ' _ Cs~k' , s~} ,
- ~,~f4.F • - ~F - a ~ - , ' M , „
~
- ~
~a a.,'~,^M~ z g' °"~~s_ x~ bda. _ , - ?'p ' . r!T••»: ,v ~-~'way, ~ ~ ~;:i : ,
.k~,yF; ,~ru,~•..l-..iYi'S.. nN'•w"xy~~:~+,..ns.'*A~s~ ._?y:`. ,
' , • y . . . . i.. „ ~
~w". ..y,./~f9o.~,.+, .1._'S.x;4r'.~.~.? Yh
:'o;.,.;.;..,_:
. ' ~'9\"' ' < ~..:,q . .V~~w'~' Y':.`i':•,x./'"., :,,r''... x.:?f^ay:7~~ "
"f` . .
•
-,..,a;.;~s:::.;::::;s.z;.. ~,.,,sj~.~'r~?.:'.~da":`.•.'s;',. i~,,~'.a'^;£L.~.:<
' :r,-~.:..S.F.~" ;+r.,.,.,...:".~~-.443;.+L•. _r:r:~". '
^ :z~S... .e, "p. .k~ti:,.!"-•., .,~yA'±s.<'^y . . . . i.:a'm*'^:K~~~' 'Y:.~~
~ . a.. ..ex ,x..... ....`.°k . ~c . ~t~ a . . „.•~•.r_": ' -
~i?' . m. .a:4'...n.a,. 'i. e*e ..,rt:.a~.~~.~.~~ ~ . . >G<~:%F:~V.r:...".:.:~'..
~
. : • . . s+ > ~ s.. ~ a4 . , w,..:,::: : x ~.~~'e
~
h...,. , , .s,: ~ .'~.°c ~ ...;.a.-.+wv.e 1~°~!.ae.. ..,'a~. . , '<.:.,x ~ ~E W rt.~ ?•~Z~~.` ~ :~C':.
- >~w 3r ~rc '.h~°:,: .,.'~W~,.., f^~1'C"'?~'wi.. ,Ai;='.c;:~ ~~;~i~,.~~E Y k%x
- ~
w:...
. ~»x«- ~,a,,,..,_. .,a~, .
~ , ~,...we=.~..,
. ,...l, .s..o.._.;}'..a.6.y.. ..o.,. ~ . 4A1. • 4 _ -.r,ry,::."
,a;. . . rs . . ~s , , ~ .
. ........x. a .."a...~-. ,.r.~.>.«_:;.,....;..... .~t:;•4 -:.t-~p.~:xf¢t:.
„ ~ 3 _ ~?,.,.E.. , ~ .
..e
~
. ,~n ~ x.. ?:'.,:.:e
. <
v ...'~,.~w~....n. ,s. ~ ..........ei":.
, ~
•`y. . ,c-:^.:';~.-, .vt~. `'`i•~''~~~~."`"~.=i7~bw.'r~;ti.~ ~-w`k;`['=;~:",siZrt, ;,.~.a~~-~,:...ei.
rn. ._w • .rs,<.k"~'r%;;atii,..m:_k._ar ,
. ,
. . _...........~s.2:~ :..:~_..[Y._ '
x~'.: ~ „ '.ia.'a'2".~,'.•5',X':~°~" :d,'^ .,,,..~c
. .;.....r . .
^a•
_ .r } y,N ..:~.i.i-.~~.;...~, a,...::_'.'::!h~:•::. ::Y,:'~ _
,,....,x'.'._s...:... . ,..'?„<,t..4..tj,.
. ~.;~t. . '~s _
~
~ . ..;::'i..,~.:~
.p:~:.'...
,v~,::: ~ ; ~ . .i. ~ a . Hr Y~`rMq.y" _ ` ~°°sta:
:r
Q~ .,.p a~:.';" ~..de
~ „ . .
_ w.~..F .dy
~ .
t' ~ . _...:~.t; . . : w~
vA;~ - '@,j' `i-':;b. ' ~
. V. . -
,*•Ap 'a. 4ja .s,Ya.y•~ .
, .
: -
~
~
~
N
•c
ev ~^q;6'R'~y •
.
;s, .
z,•.`a's/>[ ` i' "a",°.' ~ .
'
. ~ ~
.
' . ~a . ~
.
, .
.
.
, . . Y '
.
°
°
. .
.
. . =r.. .
. ,
~,c:x~ '~Ii!y:;:,•. ' ~'.._~.x'~iYw%," _ ~
~ s@~~ : :F `ti<. . .
„ . . _
• ' ' ~'.L3 x:i~`r"d':~ .ris" . , .
~ .
~ ENVIRONMENTAL
-STRATE-~ PLAN
V A, I L-J,
C .0 L-: 0 R ' 0 ~
r , r ~
_
p t` s ~ f ' ~ \ , ' ' ~ ~ : , „ •~j S, 4 _
y~f.:?d. ~.'~~C a t ~b'`t. ~C ~ ~ l - G ~ ~ s z„ - p r .~,~~v r~ a,
•',`,~~~,~z°~, S~ ~ ~ ~ a a a - _ w - .,.c~ : s - s ' s ~ t I ''i ~ s ~ A'.
~ ~ _ . .-1 ~ c~3~ ~ : -rk./' , •
1 '°4. ~+w b t ' _ F~^ ' ' - - ~ •
P
~ . , ~ L~~ _ e b ~1^'~""` 'w ••y~' t. R ' . 'r ' F ° 4~ b ~ ~ 3 "~s`°.~ .
y?'C.'-x
w_
~~,a~,a'^My`kx y *~'w' "4' 3",,.., ~ *a„ ,.s ' u r ~ ' '
^.hm "ya,~ ° • ~
t~..::,.,.. ..x: :?`,.,s~`s:>.-.:;;~^~
! ~~`."..8u.'f.4_:`.: - _ _ - _ \',y. - ;•~w _ = _
' • ~
. e~e,wws~*~± . /'~..{9~ _ '.~..~5..`':...•D"°~e,:"'~~~
j_t:',..~,.
4, 4. . :
. . . t:<:: . i;...
x.
. . ~ , afl:.:;. . e . ~
. . ~ .
~ k
,
, .
.
y yI
1
s ~
~ B: ! . f . ^ w ,
, v '
:~S? ~ ~ '~~%dE`'~ •
p,°•, a yt. ; , . F~~.~ .
,
. •y, . • . R~~ . ~~A
~ Yx~~.,..:., T , _ .^~5~ '1: i,
' # ~ :l{# .y^'~y~~r,•`
. .
.
' • ' ~ ~ _
. . .i .
~ ~..w ~ ~ .
. ~ ,•x,~l..
. . ^!s~ ~ i~•._,~f~ v u~~~b,'~'~',~
, ~
Ufflik
` ' ' / , ' . • . '
~ . •
~ . . , . . . _ . . .
TablC~ ~f ColflZltents- ~ .
a . Acknowledgement .2
EYecutive Summarv ........................................'.........:.....3
1. Introduction . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. State of the Environment . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
~ •
~ 3. Trends That iVlay Affect Vail ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ,
~ ' " • ° • ~ '
• 4. Framework for Environmental Protecrion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 .
' ~ - 5. Sustainable Land Use Regulation.and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Ecosystem Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
~ Environmental Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . 18
8. Environmental Management and Compliance........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . 20
~ " ' • '
.9.Implementation ........................................................21
lO.Conclusion .......25
, Appendix 1- Environmental Success Stories ~ •
' - Other Environmental Plans and Sfudies . . : . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~26 .
~
. Appendix 2 - Common Wildlife Species in Vail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . 30
' References 31 .
.
. ,
O F y ' " • , '
m t7 ~
~ ~ ~ • , ' ` ' ~ '
Reuse '4eG ,
Printed on Recycled Paper
~ ~ ~ I
ACknOwledgel~lerit
The Town of Vail would lil<e to thank the 55 participants of the Vail Environmental
Oclyssey: The Next Generntion search conference who provided the Foundation for rhe ,
development of this plan and the many, orher residents that provided input throughout ~
the planning process. This conference'«-ould not have been possible without the support
• ' of the Strategic Planning Committee «-hich included:
. Bill Anderson, Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
. . , .
` Alan Best, Eagle Valley Environmenral Coalition ,
Dave Cole, Realtor • Kathy Heicher, Eagle County Planning Commission
Joe 1Vlacy, Vail Associates - Evie Nott, Vail Vallev iNIedical Center & Resident ~
, Kristan Pritz; Director of Communin, Development '
' Rich Phelps, USFS Tom'Steinberg, Vail Town Council ' . ~
The project manager for tkiis plan %vas Russell Forrest and the facilitator for the
, search conference xas Rita Schweitz of ChangeWork for the Rockies. This plan -,vould ~
" not have been possible without the support of the Vai1,Towm Council and the Vail
Planning and Environmental Commission. . , '
. • , , . ~
. a
. . . . ~
~ .
, . , o
, , .
. . ~o
~ . ~ .
~
, ExecutIlve S~,mary
The Vail Environmental Strategic Plan 1. Sustainable Land Use
provides a long-term vision to protect Vail'S Regulation and Development
~ environmental quality and defines a susrainable • •
deyelopment strategy. The Vision Statement.is Ensure To-,vn of Vail regulations and
. the cornerstone For the goals, ancl action plans policies relating to clevelopment are congruent
' that are identified in this plan. "Che Vision ~.vith •the carrying capacity of the area's natur-
d.escribes the-desired future em,ironment for al environment and man-made resources.
' Vail that -,vas developed from input at the Vail 2. ECOSystem Protection
Environmental Odyssey Search Conference. ~
This vision statement is: Protect the areas natural resources (air;
, . water, soils, natural habitat) and recognize ,
"The Town of Vail will be a leader that they are interconnected and interdepen-
~ , - dent. • .
in natural resource ste'wardship
- and ivill strive as a community , 3. Environmental Efficiency ~
CO ClCCL1111. 2714J1r0111T1e'i1CLl l Improx~e eFfciency in water, energy, and
.waste management in businesses, residences,
and economic sustainabilit_y. and in government.
~ This Vision Statement recogniies the link 4• Environmental 1Vlanagement ,
~
: between environmental 9ualitv and economic 1rid COri1P111riC@
development and that a balance is needed , E . nsure en-,~ironmental compliance
6etlveen these hvo elements. It also recognizes through proactive environmental management
the need to ensure a healthy environment and that will identiFy Vail as an environmental
economy for future generations while protect- leacler. '
ing historical and cultural values in the com- ~
munity. This Vision is supported by four goal ' •
, areas:
This plan identities speciEic actions and a
J . ; "time frame for those acnons that will move
Vail towards its envtronmental v.ision.
Together these acrions dehne Vail's sustainable
ENVIRONMENTAL development strategy. This plan is also
; VISION
~ intended to be a dynamic plan that sliould be
GOALS ~ reviewed periodically~ to determine its effec-
tiveness in dealing «,irh em~ironmental issues.
r~t• • AQION This -,vill require e,stablishing a baseline for
keY environmental indicators to determine
`<i<;.,G% t, • ..:r,,:...
n:or• „~~:r::!#%„%;;;;>?i::i:: . _ . . ~'"~~tN tmprovements, or lack.thereot'in environmen-
.
' . , . ~.>.•:;:<.;So.:.,.:s[;<.. .
tal quality. Therefore changes in proposed
actions may be required as the.'need,arises.
.::,..r~~ This plan xvill help protect Vail's valuable
natural resources, provide a proactive man-
E:;
.
e> '::z::s>:: agement approach to environmenral regula-
. .
t~ons, improve em-ironmental education,
encourage collaboratipn to solve common .
environmental problems, and help distinguish
i G~ - •.y~~%fj: . '
Vail as an environmental leader.
~ . ,7..;
3
,
, IritrOdliCtlOil ~ .
. ,i
PU'RPOSE BACKGROUND The purpose of~ this planning process is to En~~ironment refers to the physical, chemi- ~
develop a lone-term environmental «-ork plan cal, and biotic conditions•surrounding a.n
that will address the needs of the community as organism. In the context of this plan, environ-
_ well as legislative, regulatory, and technologi- mentrefers primarily to the natural resources
caI trencls. A proactive environmental program required by Vail's residents, guests, and area
, %vill enable the Town of Vail to maintain and Nvildlife. This plan also recognizes that the
improve environmental quality in the Vail management of the"local environment is inter-
Valley. Protecting our areas natural resources related with our global environment and that ,
is also critical in protecting our tourist based thinking globally and acting locally is essential.
economy. A major reason Nvhy Vail has become - Nlail's environment has gone throueh a ,
an internationally-renowned resort is because dramaric rransition from sheep farming in the .~of the area's pristine natu'ral resources..In fact, . 1930's and 1940's to an internationally
' proactive environmental management arid reno«•ned slci reso'rt "rhe tvvo W\V,II veterans,
eclucation can be incorporated into Vail;s mar- Pete Seibert and Bob Parker, %vho established ~
keting programs: In acldition, the U.S. Govern- fhe Vail ski resort'in 1959 probably could not
' ment and State of Colorado are increasingly then imagine.the growth" that has taken place ,
, requiring local communities to implement or in the Vail Valley. A first rate ski resort and the ~
regulate environmental programs. Proactive Valley's natural resources have been key ingre-
,environmental planning reduces regulatory dients in the~success oF Vail.
. , costs of compliance and can increase net com- Growth in the valley has been dramatic in
munity income 6y reducing waste. This helps the last 20 years and has raisecl the concern
• make Vail more economically competiti,~e that the Town needs to take proactive steps to
through cost savings and by marketing Vail as protect the area's natural environment so that
an environmentally desirable place to visit and rhe success of Vail .vould.not endanger the ' a
live. °Golden Goose" i.e. the Valley's environment.
, 1Vlost importantly, a proactive environmen- This plan is intended to provide a framework
tal program Nvill enable the Town to be ato protect, and enhance the Vail Valley's natural a
responsible ste«,ar•d of the Valley's natural ' resources and to maintain the high degree of
resources. By acting locally, the Vail communi- environmental quality that,our residents and
' ty Will help address, in its own way, mariv guests espect.
global environmen,tal issues e.g. global \varm- - A majoir step in the development of this
, ing, acid rain, xvater quality degradation, loss document «Yas "Vail's Environmetttal Oclysse_y:,
of sensitive habitat. 1Vlany of the world's global The Next Generation" Search Conference. On
environmental problems can only be adequate- October 8th and 9th, 1993, approximately 50 ~ a
ly addressed through the collective efforts oF different stakeholders representing various
, local communities. businesses,•interest groups, neighborhoods and
~BJECT~~S ~F Z,HE PLt~N - area governments met in Vail to discuss em~i= ~
• ~ ronmental issues the Town needs to address.
~ l. Develop a long-range environmental The input from this conference, along with
~work-plan to protect and impro~ae Vail's other public meetings, pro-6ded the foundatiorr ~
environmental quality. ' for this plan. _
2. Improve cooperatiori and collaborarion to This is a ~ong-range strategic p~an and it is
better address environmental challen~es: intended to be a dynamic process where a.ction ~
plans are rimonitored and reviewed. Also
3. Help identify Vail as a leader in changes in environmental trends should be
environmental stewardship/sustainable monitored annually.' So it is anticipated that ' development. this plan be revisited and adjusted as necessary a
• 4. Keep. Vail environmentally proacrive. to retlect changes in community needs and
, external trends that may affect Vail!
, 4
~
~ . , , .
• ' STRUCTURE OF THE PI'AN , . The strat,,gic planning process illustrated '
This plan is centered around avision in Figure 1 is a dynamic process that begins
~ statement that 'rs supported by goal areas. This Nvith public input and analyzing environmen-
' plari is the culmination oFa t~vo day confer= • tallv related trends in leeislation, technology, •
ence, signihcant public input, anc] an analysis ancl _public opinion. Then a vision, goals, and _
oFenvironmental trend's that may affect Vail in actions can be formulated and reviewed by
the future. "Chis plan begins bv discussing tlie decision_makers and stakeholders. Resources
- , state of environmental quality in Vail and then for'completing actions must be identified to °
~ analvzes trends that the commuriity needs to be develop an achievable action. I' inally, the
av•are of in developing an environmental work Toxvn must commit to the implementation of
. plan. Then four goal areas for environmental the approved plan and monitor implementa- "
protecrion are identified which support the tion progress and effectiveness. As mentioned, ,
~~ision statement. Finallv specific actions are frends and public op1n1on change over tirrie
identified to implement the goals of the plan. and the plan should be modified as appropri-
~ ate. ,
' ~ • , . ~ -
~ • .
' FIGURE 1
. . . StTategic Planning Process '
Vail Town Council .
. , . , ,
' ' - review and identify. -
priorities
~ Stakeholders identifj-
- envtronm'ental issues
,
~ Begin Strategic Develop vision, Stakeholders revieNv
Planning Process goals and actions and identify priorities
Scan of '
~ environmental issues -
*local, regional, global
, . - Related government
units review and
' identify prioes
To~vn Council & PEC
revieNv anc] .
approve
~ Establish perFormance Implement through ~
standards and ~ncentives, education,
reeulation, taxes; •
monitor implementation and cooperation - Complete. Determine costs and
~ • ' - final plan resources to '
' . complete actions
~ -
. •
~ ' • ~ 3
,
!
, , , Y ' ' , ~
~
State of t,~e En~ronment, .
~
, Before a long range environmental work third largesr ski resort in the United'States. In
plan is defined, the current state of environ- 1966, the Tov,'n of Vail Nvas incorporated and in • mental quality in the Vail Valley should be 1969 Lionshead ,~•as annexed into the 7~own. In ~
- discussed. Vail's natural resources and environ- the 1970's, I-70',,vas 6uiIY through the Vail
mental quality have changed over time as the Valley.
' Valley has been developed. However,'environ- ~ Geo_~ '
mental quality in Vail is still high. The Vail graphy/ Land Cover
Valley has a goid medal fishing stream, pristine The elevation of Vail is 8,150 teet and the
mountain vie~vs, and provides habitat to many summit of Vail Mountain is 11,A50 feet. The ~
species of plants and animals. 'I'own•is approsimately 10 miles lone and..5 to
A variery of environmental programs have 1, mile wide and is surrounded by the White
. been developed to address specitic environ- 12iver National Porest The heaviest sncnvfall
mental issues. A summary of environmental months are iVlarch and April, ,virh the valley ~
programs that the Town and other'oreaniza- -experiencine an average of 335 inches of snow
rions have implemented is discussed in tlppen- • peryear. There is a total oF 3,360 acres in the
, diY l.,The following is a description of knoom Town of Vail, of which 29% of the land area or ~
- : environmental baseline conditions in the Vail 977 acres are zoned open space. There are
Valley. , three commercial areas (Vail Villaee, Liuns-
' ' head, and «'est Vail) that consist of 155 acres ,
Historical Background or 4.6% of the land and single familv residen-. •
Prior to the 1900's, the Vail Valley consist- tial accounts for 12 % of the land (To«,n of Vail
. ed of wetlands and meadows. The primaiy Land Use Plan, 1989). Interstate 70 runs ~
inhabitants were the Ute Indians who periodi- through the length of the Town and covers 505
- - callv camped in the area. In the early 1900's - acres (15%) of land. The remainine 40% of the
miners and families began settling along the land area consists of multifamily, public use, . ~
Gore Creek to mine silver, lead, and zinc and unplatted parcels. Gore Creek is the'other
, around Battle 1VZountain. After the Great major linear feature that runs tliroueh tawn
' Depression, sheep farming became the major and the onlv major water body ~~,ithin the town
activity in the valley. In the late 1930's, a state, boundary. Irs conf7uence with The'Easle River ~
highway extended into the Gore Creek Vallev is just west of To~vn at Dowd Junction. .
under the direction of Highway Engineer
, Charlie VaiL.During ~VWII, the lOth"i~1oun- Demographies . 0
tain Division trained at Camp Hale 2,0 miles The Town has grown from 400 people in ,
" south of the Gore Valley. rlfter the war rn-o the early 1970's to approximatelv 4,000 G.ving
soldiers,-Pete Seibert and Bob Parker ~vho had ' in the Toxvn of Vail in 1990 with over 2,709 ~
trained-at Camp Hale, came back to establish a people commuting into Vail daily (U.S.
• ' • ski resort in VaiL In 1959, a Forest Service Census, 1990). ilpproximately 30,000 euests
` land use permtt was issued to an investment may be in Town during thepeak of ski seasop.
f.:~,~s s group that Vail currently has approximately 6,10,0 housing ~
had been units (i.e.units with a kitchen). The ToNvn of
~ <.~>•< s ~
O .
formed for the -Vail estimates that it is 86/o built our based on
Vail ski current zoning and the Vail Valley Consoli- ,
`
resort. `Che ~ dated Warer District has estimated that Vail
r:.: ;~:~a'.. >
; : Vail resort • can expect 5 to l0.percent gro-,vth each ypar..
,.•s; s~~.. a;;3~,:h3.~;,•• .~#~.:?~~;;Mw€~' . opened on Based on the 1994 Town ot Vail Development
'3"'. c~a,•.' ;;i,~~`". ..'~`~';',y .
December 15, Statistics Report there is the potenrial for 1,345
. .f V•. .
/
1962 ~vith 876 - additional dvvelling un.rts .tn the To«,n oF Vail.
.
^ >z>u-,..,..~~~,, >::Z'`° 4:~:.,~>~••.:_a:n
:~.oy:~,y:~,... acres of Current zoning ~vould aflo~v for an additional•
;F9 ~K,.;.~,~;~,~'a~sr~~
skiable terrain 853 single.family or duplex units, 237 multi a
f"~ s ' ,a ),~~`r~f ~ . r c'~'" ~~y~,~T,,~~ h ~
making it the. family units, and 255 accommoclarion unirs.
3< .
. . _
_ ' ~
6 .
~ . \ ` .
• /
~ . • r
' . . . ' _ ' . ' . .
_ Vegetation I Iabitat -
' Several vegetation'studies have been The Vail Vallev is home to many species
, completed,in the White River \ational Forest of plants and animals. ~Vhite River National
area. Hess and Wasser invenroried the White. Forest as awhole provides' s'uitable kabitat for
River Vational Porest in the 1980's and com- 307 vertebrate species (Table 1). Common .
piled a report on the forest habitat types. These~ wildlife species often seen•in Vail are,listed in
habitat types can be delineated by altitude and ~ Appendix 2. The distribution of the wildlife in
include Alpine Tundra (14,000 - 11,200 fr), arid around the Town is primarily inEluenced
' Subalpine (11,200 - 10,000 ft), ~Lontane by vegetation distribution which is discussed ,
(10,000 - 7,500 Ft), and Semi-Arid (7,500 - above. ,
5,200 ft). Within the Vail Vallev the primary , Wildlife species common to the Vail area
1 , vegetative tvpes are Subalpine and'Montane are typical of 1Vlontane areas in the Rockies.
~ which are described below: Areas within the Vail Valley have also
, Subalpine: Eneelman spruce and been designated as critical habirat for mule
d
eer and elk. Both deer and elk move into the
Subalpine fir are characteristic of the subalpine
Valley from the west in the spring and then '
, zone. .
• The Town of Vail is not Nvirhin the sub- move back vvest in rhe fall as snow pushes
alpine zone but the v,alley. -,valls above Vail them to lower elevations. Raptors (birds of
\
~ extend into this vegetative zone. The following Prey) also find habitat in the Vail Valley. Gore
species are.found in this zone: Creek prdvides productive aquatic habitat for
' • ' fish, macro~n.vertebrates, m~cro-organisms.
Tree~: Engelman spruce, Subalpine-Eir, plants, and ter-restrial ~vildlife. An estimare .
Lodgepole pine, Blue spruce, Aspen was made in 1980 that Gore Creek has 1000
Shrubs: Sagebrush, Boorh'S «,IIlow, NVolf,s trout per mile in the 4 mile Gold Medal sec- •
, willo~v, Russet buffalowberry, Grouse tion. The Gord 1V'Iedal section extends krom
whortleberry Red Sandstone Creek to Intermountain. A
Gold Medal fishery is a designation given by '
• ' Grasses: Thurber fescue, Bluejoint reed- the Colorado Department of Natural ~ grass, Kobresia, Glksedee ' Resources for excellent cold water fisheries. '
. , . Montane: 'I'he Town ofVail i's situated in .
the montane zone. The montane zone is char- 'TABLE 1 •
acterized by Douglas firs and Aspen and less Number of Vertebrate Species
' common Ponderosa pine. cllpine wetlands are Total Game
also common in the montane in the Valley Species Species
bottoms. The following species are found in the . ,
, montane: 1Vlammals • 72 13
' Birds 202 27
, Trees: Douglas fir, Lodgepole pine, Blue Reptiles 11 - '
~ spruce, Aspen, Cotton-,vood, Birch, and Amphibians 5 -
, Alder , - , Fish 17 -
• Shrubs: Juniper,•Pinyon pine, Sagebrush, Source: ~Vhite Ri~~er National Forest '
Serviceberey, Rose, iVlounrain LVlahogany, NIanagement Plan, 1936• , Snwvberry, Booth's willov.•, Sandbar, '
• willow, Drumond's willo«,, AIder,
• DogNvood, Grouse Whortleberry water OUaI1ty/Ouantlty
G
Grasses: Idaho fescue, Thurber fescue, ore Creek is a major tributary of the
~ Tufted hairgrass, Bluejoint reedgrass, Elk Eagle River and is a significant visual and
natural resource for the Vail Valley. Wate'r
sedge, Bluebunch wheaterass
quality and quantitv are inextricably linked.
~
- Both water 'qualirt. and quantity have been rights. Therefore, pro~ected demand at 6uild- . •
effected as Vail has grown over the last 30 , out will be approsimateiv 84% of fhe masi-
years. Water qualitv and quantity directly ' mum amount allo,,vable under the existing ,
affect aquatic habitat• water rights owned by the district. However, it
, The Tow.n ot Vail has analyzed historical should be acknov.,ledged that the Gity of
' water quality dara and has found that some 'Denver owns appr.oximately 45,000 acre feet of ,
_ xvater quality parameters have improved over, water rights in the Vail Valley that'are senior to
time and others have gotten worse. Statistical rhe District's. Demrer has not taken action zo _
analysis shows thar concentrations of the utilize these water rights -,vhich could sYgnifi- ,
~ following parameters: cantly impact VaiL Tlie Town along with other
tlre greater belovv Vail than abo~~e (that ~Uestern Slope ~vater users are actively partici-
is, water qualitv gets ivorse) pating in discussions with the Pront Range that ~
• Suspended solids are intended to identify alternatives to the use
• Dissolved solids of these water rights.
Salts (conducrivim) There is significant concern that there is ~
' • .
• Phosphorus not adequate water throughout the year on the
' • Ammonia ' Gagle River to protect aquatic habitat. The
Nitrate and nitrite lorado Water Conservation Board sets
• ~
minimum instream tloxv standards to protect ~
Have'become worse over time: trout habitat. These are bare minimum stan-
~ • Dissolved solids dards and fish kills have occurred in the Gagle
• Phosphorus River at tloNvs above minimum instream Flow ~
• Nitrate and nitrite (Bureau of Reclamation, 1993). As the valley
, • Salts ' west of Vail becomes increasingly developed
Have decreased in concentration the pressure on the Eagle River will increase. . ~
(improved) over time: . ~Vater quantity xi•ill become a major controlling
• Zinc factor in the future development of the Eagle '
• 1''Langanese Valley west of Dowd Junction. . '
• C°Pper - Groundwater
- • Cadmium '
• Fecal coliform The Town oF Vail is dependent on ground-
water -,vells for drinkiqg water. "I'here are §even a
, Based on available information, it appears drinking water wells in the Town that the` Vail
that the priman• reason for the degradation in Valley Consolidated WateF District operates
the above mentioned Nvater quality parameters . located near Gore Geek in the vicinity of the ~
is due to increased development and runoff. Golf Course and in West Vail on 1Vlatterhorn
' The parameters that have improved ox-er time ~ Road. These wells are directly linked to water
" are most likely due to improvements made to quality and quanti,ry in Gore G•eek since.the.y
' the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Water are allwial. This basically means that water a
• and Sanitation District treatment,plant on - availability and quality from these wells is ,
Forest Road. ildditional biological monitoring directly related to quality and quantity in Gore
' is required to determine the significance of the Creek. Also the Town of Vail's use of gr'ound- ~
water quality parameters that have gotten water for domestic drinking water results in a
worse'over time. depletion of surface %vater in the Gore'Geek
The Vail Valley Consolidated Water between the Vail goif course wells and the
District recently completed its Master Plan. At Forest Road tr.eatment plant where there is
. build out, the maximum daily demand is considerable return f1ow back to Gore Geek.
approximately 1,119 million gallons (mg) per
- year which can be compared to the 1,335 mg .
(4,091 acre feet) that the District has in ,vater ' •
' ~ ~
~ ' -
• • i . .
~ ` I ` althou h there are a number of .
t~r Ouality ~ small quantity
~
Air qualit-V in the Vail Valley is generallv generators. The Town.also has numerous
' very good. However, during the xvinter, air underground and above ground storage
•
' quality is negatively impacted by parric'ulates tanks. The Fire Department currently keeps a
list of hazardous materials. There are a total
emitted from Eireplaces and resuspension from of approximately 109 commercial sites with '
road sanding. The primary air 9ualitv parame- •
ter that lias been problem is particulate some form of hazardous material located in
Vail. The Twvn also i-esponds to an average of
matter measured as PiV110, particulate matter 15 haiardous or special ~vaste spills or leaks a
~ under 10 micrograms/cubic meter. Pi~'L10 is . year. The Town, under the leadership of the
used as a particulate standard because particles Fire Department, has adopted a uniEied inci- •
at and smaller than thi's standard can be dra«-n - .
~ - into the lungs and creafe serious health prob- dent command system so that•Town, State,
,lems. and,other local authorities can most effective-
~ Two actions have been taken to mitigate ly respond to hazardous material releases and
other emergency situations. .
' ,this problem. The tirst action was implement- , The Town also actively monitors progress ing a voluntary conversion program to encour- on rhe clean-up of the Gagle 1Vline S'uperfuncl . age residents to convert older open hearth site located south of 1Vlinturn. The Eagle
fireplaces.to clean burning technologies. Tltis . . •
~ ~Vi
~program has been successful in converting • ine is on the National Priority List (~iPL) ,
and is a source of heavy metal contaminat~on
over 400 dirty tireplaces and has resulted in a ~n the Eagle River. NRecent studies on fish • noticeable decline in bro~~~n haze clays. The ~
~ - , second action that has been taken is usirig habitat and ~vater quality data indicate that
improvements hav~e been made to reduce
volcanic cinders Eor winter road applications heavv metal contamination. Hoxvever, ongo-
~ • instead of sand. Sand blown up into the air ing vigilance is necessary to ensure adequate
from traffic resulted in 39 /o of the'contribution
Progress iq the Vline's clean-u
to P1VI 10. Volcanic cinders are heavier and less P'
• likely to become airborne. , Operi,.SPBC@ PPOteCtlOri .
~ Solid Waste The To.vn, of Vail adopted a Comprehen-
Solid waste is a major issue in the To~vn of s~ve Open Lands Plan in 1994 that will, pro-
• tect sensitive natural areas in VaiL Over 51 `
. Vail and in C'agle Courity. In a recent report
~ ' prepared by the NorthxNyest Colorado Council parcels are recommended Eor acquisition,
conservation easements, or trail easements.
oF Governments, Vail ~vas identified as one of .
_ the largest generators of sol,id waste on the ~ Many of these parcels include riparian areas,
Western Slope. A major source of solid -,aaste ~vetlands,.and sensitive wildlife habirat. The
is reconstruction where an old home or build- Gore Creek is an important wildlife corrid~or
for small mammals and birds..A major objec-
' ing is demolished and a nevv structure is put in . its place. The existing Eagle County Landfill tive ofthis plan -,vas to acquire or protect as.'
. . rridor parcels as possible.
opened in 1990 ~vith an espected capacity of 25 many stream co
~ years. However in 1993, the County estimated ~
Development Controls . ,
that the land611.had only 10 to 15 years of • The Town of"Vail has a number of plans,
capacity remaining. A successful grass roots .
- regulations and policies that control develop-
, recycling program has been created i? the , . •
ment. The Zoning Code'and Design Review .
' county called NVe Recycle. We Recycle diverts .
approximately 5% of the ~vaste stream. ' Board regulations control ho~v and ~vhere de- '
, I velopment may occue The Lancl Use Plan,-Vail
~ . Hazardous Waste and 1Vlaterials Vllage tVlaster Plan. Streetscape Plan, Trans-
The Town of Vail does 'not have any la'rge Portarion Master Plan, and Town of Vail Land-'
' quantity generators of hazardous waste , scape Plan also directly aEtect the character of
• • , development and visual appearance of Vail.'
~ , '9'
. ,
• • , ~ . ' ~
. Trencls Tlzat 1VIay Affect Vail . .
. . . ~
- Identifving key trends that may affect Vail more if purchasing an environmentally
in the future,provides an opportunity to proac- friendlv product.
tively address environmental issues. Trends • 74 percent of rlmericans are -,villing to ~
analysis involves looking at historical and accepr slo,,ver economic grow~th for a cleaner current information and identifying trends that '
xi~ill continue into the future. Iiey trends that environment.
were analyzed included legislative trends, `Z. Increased state and local
Public opinion polls, rechnology, and environ- government involvement in
• ' mental quality indicators. Northwest Colorado ~
environmental programs.
Council of Governments,(NWCCOG) pre-
pared a report for the To,~vn that discusses Local government has become more in- .
, specific trends that is a supplemenf to the Vail volved in environmental issues for rn-o reasons;
Environmental Strategic Plan. Broad trends (1) the federal government impdsed responsi- ~
that may directly affect environmental quality bilities on them and (2) town councils have
in the Vail Valley are summarized beloxv: reacted to public opinion to.enact their o,~vn
' environmenral laws. However, local govern- '
1. Public opinion remains strongly ments are also increasingly tinding difficulties
in support of environmental , in trying to comply with federal regulatory
protection. obligations «.ithout,supporting fundi'ng. ~
• 80 percent of all Americans consider 3: The number of environmental
, • themselves environmentalists. ` laws has increased dramatically ~
Approtimately 10 percent of al] Americans . ~
belong to an environmental group. si%
nce N~PA. _ ' There has been a dramatic increase in the
' 0 In the 1994 Town of Vail Community number of environmental laws since the pas- ~
• Survey, residents identified.environmental sage of the Vational Environmental Policy Act ~
, issues as being some of the most important in 1970. This trend appears to be continuing. issues to be addressed. Residents were - APProximately 460 environmental protection
concern.ed about air quality, water quantitv bills wer.e introduced in the 102nd Coneress. ~
- and quality, waste management, ancl protec- This is almost a 25 percent increase from the
tion of open space. lOlst Congress when 373 bills where intro-
, • People feel that environmental protection duced. However, there is an inereasing cal,l to ~
laws have not gone far enough. In 1990, 64 consolidate environmental laws and eliminate
percenr of the American*public felt that contradictions and overlaps. The EPA is
" em~ironmental laNvs had not gone far enoueh. attempting to do this through their regulatory
This is significantly up from 1975 when only authority but this Nvill be difficult until _ 3 1 % of the general public felt that environ- Congress consolidates environmental commit-
mental laws had not gone far enough. tees and laws. • ~
• 1% of people feel that too little is being 4. Environmental law enforcement
, . spent on proteeting the environment. Public inCreaSecl,SlgnlflCantly oVei' ttle
• opinion surveys consistently show that ~
people are willing to spend more.on impro~~- last twenty years.
ing environmental quality. This trend has , The EPA and Department of Justioe have
. gained momentum since 1975 when only signi6cantly increased enforcement action in ~
48% of the public felt that too little -,eas the last twenty years. Between'1989-1991; .
being spent on environmental protection. ~ EPA assessed criminal and civil penalties of
$201 million whereas between the years of
, • Surveys also indicate that-consumers _ 1972 and 1988 (16 years) only $166 million in a
~ would be willing to pay up-to 20 percent Penalties were collected. Locally, the 5th - , - ~ 10 0
~ ' , , , , . ,
. .
Judicial District has initiated an environmental element in the law requiring water,quality and
. lativ enforcement task forceto aueressively quantity planning based on,a systems '
prosecute environmental violations. approach. A systems approach will also most -
likely be adopted in the reautliorization of the
5. 'g'here is. an increasing emphasis ' Endangered Spec;es Acr (ESA). LSA has ~ on pollution preverition and ' been criticized for not protecting natural
efficiency. systems, but tnstead protecting individual
. • Fecleral legislative apProacnes are moving species when in fact their esistence is at a
' . . away Ff.om the strategy of the "cork" in which critical point due,to a loss of habitat.
~ they attempted to stop pollution at the end of 8. Rapid growth in mountain "the pipe. This approach has pro~~en -to be St1teS W1II StI'aln TeSOUTC@S.
extremely expensive. Carol Bro~vner, EPA
Administrator; plans to focus greater effort and Sigriificant population growth is expected
- funding on pollution prevention.'This , to continue into the nexc five years.. People
approach is aimed at eliminatine r•he creafion of ?re moving from the coasts to mountain states
~ pollution. Sirice pollution from industr-v often , to find a better qualitv of life and escape _ comes from inefficiencies in the production urban centers. Improvements in telecommuni-
process, pollution prevention has become cation will also increasingly allow people to '
, attractive'ro industry. Polluters'are finding work away from urban centers. Gagle County _ large long-term cost savings in .modifying their has grown significantly over the past 20 years
~ • production process to eliminate Nvaste and _ and continues to gro«• rapidly. There has been
' • improve efficieney. Compliance, disposal, and a 90% increa"se in the ,number of school age
raw material costs for productioil can be signif- children since 1930. Toral population in Eagle
-icantly reduced through pollution prevention 'County has grown From 7,498 in 1970 to '
strategies. 27,671 in 1990, an increase oF 369%. ,
, , . Colorado as awhole is one of the fastest
, 6. gncreased emphasis on identify- g,-ow;,,g Srares in.the Un . i.red Srares. • ing environmental indicators. _ ~ . ,9. 1`'Iarket approaches to
The EPA and environmenral scientists are environmental regulation will
increasingly spending more resources identify- ,
ing key environmental indicators in nar~ral _ be inereasingly used.
~ ;systems that help d'etermine the health of aThe Bush Administration began using
, • natural svstem.' This approach considers how • market incentives to conrrol pollution -,vith
_ different elements of an ecosNlsrem interact and. the 1990 Gean Air Acr :-lmendment which
how different types of pollution impact natural • established a market tor major components of
systems. acid ratn. Companies noxx, pay for tons oF
• sulfur.dioside and nitrous bxide (major pollu- •
7. Federal government implements '
tants that cause acid fain) that they may emit
systems (Holistie) management through the Chicago Board of Trade. The
approaeh. - Clinton administration hasindicated a desire , The concept.of managing systems instead to make greater use,oF economic incentives
of individual environmental components is and market forces in environmental programs.
becoming increasingly popular in Congress, Use of Feebate systems are discussed fre- ~ the EPA, and other land management agencies. guently (charging a surcharge to polluters '
The Forest Service, along witli other, Federal and using those funds as a financial incentive
Agencies, has adopted an ecosystem manage- for non-polluters).
, • .
~ ment approach. It is also anticipated that when - '
the Clean Water Act is reauthorized in the nezt ~
year, ~vatershed managemen't be a critical
~ , 11
. ~
Framework for , - - ~
, Environmental Protectio,a~ -
: - ,
At fhe October, 1993.~ ail Gnvironmental , . 1'he specitic actions For,each area were
Odyssey's Search Conference participants revie~ved and similariries between areas were
described the desirable future they "vould like identitied to consolidate actions to create four ~
to see for Vail's environment and developed major goal areas for the plan. These four goal
action areas that needed to be addressed to areas are:
attain Vail's desirable future. The participants' ~
description of Vail's desirable future «~as used _ SUStalriable L1riC~ USe
' to develop a vision statement. The Vail Reg'UlatlOri 'arid DeV@lOpITlellt
Environmental %ision provides the directibn Ensure Town of Vail regulations and ~
for• environmenral programs. This statement Policies relating to development are congruent
' recognizes the link between environmental with the carrying capacity of the area's natural
. quality and economic development and that a environment and man-made resources and ~
balance is needed berween these two elements. encourage sustainable economic development..
_ • It also recognizes the need to maintai'n a• healthy environment and economy for future Ecosystem Protection
generations. The eoals mentioned belwv pro- ' Protect the areas narural resources (air, ,
vide a framework to attain'Vail's environmental ~,vater, soils, and natural habitat) and recognize ,
' vision: that theY are interconnected and interdepen- ,
dent. ~
VAIL'S .
ENVIRONNIENTAL Environmental Efficiency .
VISION Improve efficiency in water, energy, and
waste management in businesses, residences,.
"The Toaun of Vail a.vill be a leader and in government. •
. in natural resource stewardship ' Environmental 1Vlanagement
and will strive as a community and Compliance
t0 QCtQ111_ 2nQJl1"011'r11211CQ1 Ensure environmental compliance through
r
and economic sustainability. " proacrive environmenral management that «•ill
. , identifv Vail as an environmental leader.
A total of 3 acrion aceas were identified at ~
' the Search Conference that included:
' A. Become an environmental leader. Each of these goal areas supports Vail's '
environmental vision and is supported L-v ~
B. Redetine development philosophy. action plans and resources. The next foiir
C. Create a stronger sense of community. chapters ~~~ill discuss each of these goal areas
in detail. : -
, D. iViaintai'n and improve the ecosystem. ~
E. 1Vlaintain a relation of economic and ' environmental consideration iri gro%vth.
F. Protect open spa,ce.
G. Improve em,ironmental'efEiciencv. - , H. Improve mass transit and non-motorized ~
• transportation. '
. ' . , - . ~
, 12
~
. .
, . ,
, .
, - ~~~tainablc~ L'an(d lCJse , , .
- - 1~~gulat0
a~~ ~eveflopmen.t . .
BACKCsIZOLTND, interconnected. By understanding the carry-
SUSfainable development encompasses a inE capacity of natural and man-made sys-
~ . , re-esam.n.ing th'e tems, plariners can ic{entify opportunities for
number of issues including
: ~
development or redevelopment that are com-
, To,,vn's development philosophy, improving Parible Nvith the natural environment. •
, residents' ancl euests' sense of community, and
, • , • . • , Garrying capacity in a natural system can
balancing environmental pr•otection and eco- .
. nomic development. Sustainable development be compared to carrying capacity on a man-
made svstem such as an elevator. IF the carry-
• is a planning merhodology where development or redevelopment is controlled by the long- ing capacity is 10 people for an elevator and • - term availabilitv ot resources. Susrainable ~ 12 people get in, the elevator may not break
development can be defined as development but irmay not work as eFficiently. However, if
' rhat meets the needs and aspirations of the 20 people squeezed in, there is a chance that
the cables might break wirhout warning. , present,,vithout comprom.is.ing the ability of . ,
Carrying capacitv can be defined as fhat point
- ' future generations (i.e., humans and other `
. where the,additional use oFa resource results
, species) to meet their own needs. Sustainable :
development involves understanding where in a deeraded condition. IF people can develop
w
ifhout exceeding carrying capacities for
. sensitive natural resources are and how ele- ments (e.g., vegetation, animals, geology, water natural and man-made resources'then they
quality, air quality) of a natural system are are living sustainably. It should also be
acknowledged that with technology or mitiga-
- tion the use of a resource and its carrying
capacitv can be increased. Por'esample, state
3 . ,
oFthe ar.t water treatment technology can•
• ,.,;,r ; increase the number oF people that could be
ENVIRONMENTAL SupPorted in an area if water treatment is a ~
~ VISION Iimiting Eactor. However, the costs, benefits, ~ and ef1'ectiveness of implementing mitigation •
• GOQLS or state of the art technology have to be
, •<;;;;,..;,;,,.f_,~v,.,<. evalu ted on a case by case basis.. ,
,
~ l In pract'ical terms, sustainab
le develop-
• menr means e
nsuring that de"velopment does
not esceed.carrying.caPacity, e. a develo g•~ P-
%r;L..: ~::~i` ?i~,N.,.':;•.,',qy,. :"':,7.+.;6~~:.G'. "
~~:::~?r~~~?~:lr':`t:2'.,::~:6.^•.`:::'r,.:;7::::~"i{i'~'~"i I
ment does not permanentl~y impact (vetlands,
. :
: ~':':i::".::y4'.::c..::9:.:::•:~:i'i'.:~:^ .
. . • , . :•::~.•j<.,::>:.:::~:•<.:.:;..••••• the ~~eeetative eover around streams and
• I i •::::f,<:::;l;:<:;:,
lakes, or displace wildlife. In order to create a
sustainable cominunity, the Town will also ,
~
~ .`J'f~;'..';`•,:':
inevitably need'to redvice waste generation,
miniriiize energy and water usage, as well as
make sure development does not exceed the
:%::•;1.;:'~'i.i::: .
ability to provide water, po«,er, sewage treat- _ •
- :::•`~:.»::.f:.~.>~f,;<:, ment, and other Public services without
; ..:.,..;«?:'~:~i:%`~.a;,;: . . .
~ deter.
iorating environmental quality.
, Determining carrying capacity involves
determining -,vliat the natural and man-made
resources can accommodate.Nvithout being
permanently degraded. 13y staying ~viChin the
•community's carrying capacity, the Town vvill
F`h~r....
act as a global partner with other communi- ~ ~ ~`;;f•r~:::..:.:,::. • .
:,;~~::::>:;H>::,,,>::~::..~.~~;~;:~.;<< ties to help address the world's environmental
concerns. By acting locally; the To,.vn
13
~ •
, i
~
becomes part of the solution in solvine elobal articles, involvement in projects, and local
' environmental problems. access T.V. .
In the contest of this plan, the geographic . ~
4. Gncouraee businesses and Eo~~ernment to
area for cletermining carrying capacity «~i.II adopt The Vail Environmental Principles
~•arv depending on the resource in question. . (Tailored from the Valclez Principles)
• Por esample, vAen considering water quantin, through education and incenrives.
the entire Eagle Ri'ver basin should be exam- ~ .
ined since Vail depends on water from Black
Lakes and novv,the upper Gagle River. The
primary geographic area of concern for air The Vail Environmental Principles
quality is in the Vail Valley in that Nvoodburn- I . Sustainable use of natural resources
~ ine in Vail Valley is the most significant factor ~
- that inlluences airborne particulate matter. 9• Reduction of disposable «~aste
- • 3. Wise use of energy
- OBJECTIVES ~ .
' 4. Environmental i-isk reduction ~
• Ensure development does nor exceed ' . ,
carrying capacity for both human and 5. i~Iarketing of safe products and
natural resources through implementation services
of environmental programs, policies, and 6. Disclosure of environmental risk ~
, regulations. , 7. Designate an environmental manager
• Develop a transportation svstem that Annual environmental ~
minimizes impacts to natural and man-made audits/assessments
resources.
• Educate residents and businesses on ~
strategies to foster environmental ste«,ard- 5. Revie«• international, national, and state .
, ship. • . policies.kor sustainable devel'opment and as
• • Promote and recognize sustainable devel- appropriate; draft Iocal regulationsipc;lices
opment and environmental (eco) tourism that support them. I
(e.g., interpretiee hiking, environmental 6. Implement the lVlaurie Nottingham
education on Vail NIountain). , Environmental Ouality Award to recognize
e[nstill a strong sense of community for businesses and individuals that demonstrate
residents through the implementation of environmental leadership. Criteria for this
' environmental programs. a~vard have been developed and ~~•oul.d be
awarded based on the ability-of the appli- ,
ACT'IONS cant to meet those criteria.
1. Through an environmenral assessment of 7. Dev~elop or tighten regulations, as neces-
the community, determine key resources sary, to help ensure development does not ~
that need deE`ined carrying capacities. The exceed carrying capacity for human or
~ Town then needs to identify those carrying natural resources and is consistenr 1,vith the
capacities and,develop strategies fot staying communiry's mountain character. This
- within those limits. The Town Nvill need to action xvould include the follo-,vini~ tasks:
, ~ .
identity mitigation strategies if carrying -
a
capacity has been esceeded for critical man- . . Revie~v Design Revie«~ Board guide-
made or natural resources. lines for buildings and landscaping to ~
, ensure the design principles are environ-
, 2: Develop incentives to promote a sustain- , mentally sound. ,
' able commun•ity in Vail. . . ~
• 6. Reevaluate the criteria and need for
' 3. Improve public involvement in environ- the Hillside Residential Distr.ict.
mental prograrims through regular newspaper
14
, ~
~ , '
,
~ '
, • ~
.
rom ~ n to
' i o
. . : : . P
a
;>.e:::>::>r.;
rachute aiong the
• . ' : - '
, ' -7 .
, corridor and
rea outh to
; ' . . ches s
.
. .
;;y. Aspen and Leadville.
,
~
~
~
J.:N
, _ .~:.j•. , s~.::::`A~'::;~<~.„~">,.w:;.:~;.,.....; :t.~~,; The estimated cost to
'~~:%r,~. ~ :.:,•:`;<>>c::.»;:.,.,..,:<..::<::-:~»>e;::c >:::»::::::_>:<>::<:::;:;«i:eii;~%.~ ~aF
~:~,.M1~.~,~.;~ig:~:A;;,.?N;;r•t.. .::r~#:::~t,,:::.:x-~;:::;:.:~~._::::::.:.~ :::::::::.::::.;>~+u ~ .
~ , . Mr; imPlement the high
, ~ r:.. .:<k,;<:>:?>::;`:::c~:~::::,,:>.<.:::>:::>::»::>;::::~<,:~;x.,.;..~.~t'~
~T M i~i.,•.L,. i::%2q;?'
;1 ,
1 ~ °'itj .~f :.:$.:,C,A,~"c~z"~~`:: :,.~.,<~v:•.`.~i:.`.:x .i.•3,•;f:y'<>~'$:ki%iCa;;~;c: ::y
',.sc:~::' ri'~.:Gi.^~.&`i i~,_.~:z~>~::?;.:.;::~ w:Y ..t•~t~;;,,, +kq'.r,. ``•yy;..~~.
P flOCltY 3CT10RS 1S
.~'•ON::%:~. ,M~:~{;'.:.>';'. l..X:±I:4G:S,•j>'.:. i`:~;Jt
. . .~;:~'~:Ya?;v;3~:;..,~~~~3. ,<r;~t:.<;,y;:.. ,.,,:7:*~:s~.4%t,,:;:,r.?~..~.'~,.~~~;. •r;~~
`.k%.: ~;e.;~•;::.,a.'~,3~_. ~;j8ir''r`"a': :...z'.`:~* :.r,.: ;.•;9 ~
;y<.€;:, v;,;y~;,.,s~:<~;:~.•:. . ...s:<:;.. ,:.,~a~:°• 5350 million. The
~ . t:uy :~~k~'~. :.,z.,. °;'~e: r>ii `~i.?...t "~"Cct#°':~"o f sg.. .,a.
, , i~ Y• Y;, ~ t><~s aa:;
::XTPNvn of Vail would ,
3> : 3,~:.,,. ~gfiz6,'...~ 5~.
~£>y~^x,'~,~.;<'~j3's;:y' :'^~e-.:«,rc.°..x,.,g;y.;~g.."•. . ~7f.`
- . .~.~,.:>;:.;....~.:.:~°:s~.>~~. :~?k • beneEit signitcantlv
,
' z ~a'~J~~`, ~>;;<:.•M.. f.
, : :,.'Yr..~~. ~ • 2:~ '~''f ~
.H
ntd;:io:.~::a:•~::: •
1
~S ~ t e'
. t h roEosed rail
• ..4.
' ' ~ n:.ii:
P
~ aY<s .
, i.
,
. .
..t
.
s
~S 4
.:i.ii:iiiiiii: . . q
and bus c
onnections
Y •
..i:y.. .'Yk'' ~ •
.
. .
~
3
<
..A
.
ry
Y>
~ . :
along the I-70 and
: : . .v . .
....<z.~.~s's:a... ..a:....`;s::~`>~' ^:~;.Y
..a:F..: '~:..".~'+.y.'+'.;2;::i::;:y~'•.~ . Wk..
~ . a....::
HI h~VdY 24 ..~:::....i.:;::.;
~..3;, ..E :
% .
r:
.
_
corri-
• a: .
. K>^ r~ ~ ~
, . • :•:;`y,Fi.•,.'ci
1
dOCS t0 \
mo e uests~
~
• :.Mi. ~ '
~v.~ ..."i.~~~`~i^ •
.
4.~ .
r~
>
„
all
d wOC
kers
.s
~
• .
. . : ; : : : : :
bemveen the Eagle ~
, c. Protect riparian areas around Gore Airport and VaiL The Vail Transportation
Creek and its.tributaries. 'Master Plan and Intermountain Plan also
' d. U,pdate the Vail' Land lise Plan: look at ho,,v fo move people more efficiently
, • From'Denver to Vail.
e. Complete text chanees to the ~
Agriculture Open Space and Greenbelt 1,0. Th'e efforts of the Vail Hous~ng
Authority should be acknowledged and.
Natural Open Space zone di stricts as
: supported in providing housing to Vail .
• well as revew parcel zoning"and make
, necessary rezonrng changes to ensure employees. Over 2,700 employees commute ~
effective protection of sensitive natural to Vail every day trom Leadvi~~e, Gypsum ,
~ . and everylvhere in bemveen. This commute
open spaces.
is necessary because housing is often
~ . 8.. Utilize carrving capacirv thresholds when beyond the economic means of Vail
reviewing clevelopment applications. For employees. Provicling housing to emp]ovees • .
~ • example, this would invoh,e'evaluating ' in Vail decrea'ses the significant environ- '
water availability and the ability to mainta~n mental impacts of automobile traffic and
• adequate_ stream klows and using that infor- ~ increases the sense of communify in the
• mation in reviewing development. Town. By maintaining a strong sense of
9. Revie~v the Inter-1Vlountain Trans or- community, residents are more likely to
' P become active in protecting their environ-
. tation Plan and determine how fhe Town of
• . : ment. Providing "attainal~le° housing for'
Vail should ass~st in the implementation of
this plan. This plan identi}ies actions to Vail employees ~vill help make Vail a more
- improve mass transit, cycline, and pedestri- environmentally sustainable community
an transportation in the Inter-,~~Iountain and should be a high priority t~or business-
Transportation Region. This region extends es, private citizens, and the Town.
, , • . . , • ~ ~
. . ~ . . ~ " ~ 1 .
~ . . . ' _ , . . ' 15
.
. ' , .
' . ~
' Ecosyste~ Protectlon
' $AL'K(JROLj\,TD ecosystem that reftect the general health of a
•
Ecosystem protection p natural system. For instance, a healthy rain-
rovides a holistic ~
approach to resource management. An ecosys- bow trout population can be an effective indi-
tem can be detined as a community of indepen- 1. cator of good water quality. Therefore it is not
necessary to measure every organism in an
dent organisms (plants and animals) and the
- ecosvstem to protect rt, although it is necessary
abiotic (nonlivine) environment they inhabit , .
• and interact ~vith in a geographic area. to carefully determine indicator measurements
• and thresholds for those measurements. It
~ Ecosystem management involves maintain- should also be acknowledged that no one , ing a healthy natural and man-made system., . ~
governmental entitV can protect an ecosystem,
Traditionall'y, environmental regulations have. :
focused on kev prob'lem areas such as a major since an ecosystem boundary does not conform
, point source of «,arer pollution or tryine to to political boundaries. Therefore, collabora- ~
tion among governmental entities and prtvate
save an' endanEered species in an area. Tr-ving . .
~ property owners in an ecosystem is necessarv
to mitigate the symptoms of environmental , . .
to ensui-e effective protection. ,
degradation has led to reacting to major envi-
' ronmental problems rather than trying to OBJECTIVES
prevent them in the tirst place. Environme'ntal , . .
, scientists and policy makers now see that • Determine key thresholds for.air quality,
water quality, and protection of critical' ~
' ecosystem manaeement is a more efFective• habitat in and a'round the Town of Vail as
method of
, they relate to development or human
` 1 ' enoironl ente lnduced stress.
The To«m of • Ensure a sustainable trout population in
' Vail is located the Gore Creek.
1
ENVIRONMENTAL within a ive natural'a
" • Identify andprotect sensitreas
VISION •
; sensitive "
~ e.g. «•etlands, riparian areas, critical habitat,
s / ~ ecosystem that
GOALS wellheacl protection areas, aquifer recharge
provides areas, vie~v corridors, areas prone to ero- '
critical habitat . ~
:.,I.~.,,'~ c,.,;'... • sion, and steep slopes.
Nf; „
+•%'f'>`53::#sf.:':..i'<;£
to a.number of.
' ` ~ • M< ACfION
terrestrial and • Reduce P1VI10 levels through wood fire-
f PLANS
ir•gx: %'s' . . . . . '
,::xh• aquatic • place convers.ions and best management
r:..~
species. The practices (e.g. volcanic cinders„regular
,'•'%~vater quality ' street sNveeping) of~nter roacl applications.
;~i %:::r:>:> . • -
and air 9ualit
; y ACTIONS
Fx;:;~r;;: are also sensi-
i~. f...
~ ~ '•;'<':1~/.,:;;^:.~::'. ' - -
tive to devel- I. Conduct an environmental assessment of
rf::;:•:..:if,;<; ,
opment. Since. the Town of Vail. This study ~vould identity ~
an ecos~~stem environmental risks (hazardous material"s
• • '
^:J;>.• '
can consist of that could be released, obstruction of
:';Y.•.,..:.f~~lf, 4.
thousands of wildlife corridors, use of chlorine in pools)
:.;t::x• ~
t species, geo- and impacfs in the ToNvn. It would also
J.:
logic and soil . provide. recommendations to improve effi- '
conditions, ciency in the use oF natural resources: -
• ~
<'f~;ii%!;;.,'.'•~::: w ater The assessment will also help identify key '
resources, and thresholds for the use of natural resources air quality, it is and public services. t1 major benefit of this
•
essential to assessment «,ould be to establish a baseline -
% ` /firl r '
. .::::.....:.]!a,/.,..fi..••.~,c,r,',. r. ~iS,..y::..:.:
; determine key for environmental quality by which future ,
elements of an environmental programs could be,measured.
.16 '
~ 1 -
. . , ~ . ,
. , It -,vould also lle.lp identify the need for nellv of DOW fishine regulations and TOV
regulations or modihcations to esisting reEUlations. They can also serve as an
~ regulations. • informational source for recreationalists -
and fisherman using Gore Creek.
2. Implement the Comprehensive Open . '
, Lands Plan. The action plan may need to be 7..Complete an urban wildlife study for
modified after the environinental assessment Vail which woUld utilize the information in
of the community is completed. the Open Lands Plan. This study -,vould
3. Implement an iriformation proeram for , focus on identifying and improving wildlife
corridors and educating residents on living •
-residents, guests, and students to tmprove
. the communities understanding~of our in a mountain community ~vhere individu-
, als may come in close contact with wildlife.
ecosystem. This program could include an
~ environmental summe camp, volunteer -~lnother aspect of this program should be '
. (youth and adult) env.r ~ronmental projects, . an effort to encourage residents to use bear
proof garbage cans to reduce conflicts with
• newspaper articles, and espansion of pro- ,
grams oE'fered at the.-Vail Nature Center. ' Black Bears. This may mvolve requiring
, bear proof garbaee.cans for new develop-
4. Evaluate existing policies to determine iF ment and/or requiring these type of con- '
~ changes are required or whether new polices tainers for areas that are experiencirtg bear
~ . are needed to protect the ecosystem. This problems.
• , . . may include: / • ,
. 8. Work with the White River Forest
~ . a. cortxrols on development to protect Service and the County to promote an eco- sensrtrve natural areas. system.approach to Forest and land man-
, ~
6. landscape requirements to minimize agement. ~
water consumption, improve «'ildlife 9. Develop a tree and vegetation protection
r -
habitat, and to protect mature rrees. program that respects'private property
c. air quality regulations. right's and ensures the protection of valu-
able trees and other vegetation critical For
~d. regulations/policies to reduce water wildlife habitat, aesthetics, and soil stabi- ,
. , i quality impacts from nonpoint source Iization.-This pr.ogram ,vould encourage the .
, contribution. ~ use of native species with low water
e.'water conservation. ' demands. Education and'possibly regula-
tions should be implemented that reduce ' f. wellhead protection program'to pre- dependency on chemicals andwater for •
~ ' - vent impacts to groundwater %vells: ' landscaping.
5: Conduct a habitat study of the Gore ` 10. Continue the annual Trees For Vail '
Creek to determine species composition and , event and-implement the Town of Vail ' - ~ numbers. This study would evaluate habitat Land'scape.Plan. '
conditions and 'I'vater quality and determine
what steps are needed to'protect or improve 1:1..The I-70"corridor is a major source of
aquatic habitat in Gore Geek. The nest and . environmental impacts in the Vail area.
most important step of this study would be NOise, water, and air pollution are generat-
_ to implement specific actions from the study. ed by interstate vehicular traFfic. Action
- One key outcome of this studyxvould be-to • needs to be taken to reduce t6ese impacts.
t' determine optimal stream flows to maintain The first part of this action would be a'
Vail's Gold 1Vledal fishing status. feasibilitystudy to determine the best
methods for mitigating speciEic impacts '
1 , 6. Implement a stream watch program to along the I-70 corridor. The second part of
better manage the Gore Creek and enforce ' this action would be implementing the .
regulations. This program would involve . , mirigation actions.
~ -training volunteers to help report violatCons
17
. ' . , j ~
- Env-ironmental Eff'iciency ~
~
$AL'K(JRQUND ' them. There is also a preference to first imple-
ment educational and incentive .progra.ms '
This goal area focuses on resource conser- . - •
before implementing ne~v regulations.
~-ation in the ToNvn of~ Vail in three areas: ener- Ho~vever, it is recognized that regulation may
~vater and waste management. Resource . '
conservation is an integral component in a be the only effective way to achieve the above
stated
sustainable comrnunitv. It'reduces the amount objectives. It should also be noted that ~
of nonrene~vable resources that are required to Programs need to be tailored to different ,
populations in the Vail community including
• supply a cornmunity and it reduces the amount .
pr~marl~ and second home o~vners, guests, ~
• of ~vaste ge'erated that must be d'isposed or
- business o~vners, and employees.
emitted into the environment.
OB.TECTNES 1. Establish a baseline in 1995 for ~vater
' conservation, energy conservation, and
1. Recluce toral energy consumption per waste production so that the implementation
' , capita in the Town of Vail by 5% by the of the above mentioned objectives can be
vear 2000. measurecl. ~
' 2. Reduce per capita domestic water con- 2. Develop a comprehensive energy ,
~ sumption by 15% by the year 2000. conser-vation program through the following
inethods:
,3 . Develop a comprehensive waste manage-
ment program , . a. Education on energy saving devices'
that will and building techniques.
i reduce the 6 Pro energy audits for residences
vide ~
disposal of
- and buildings to determ.ine the most Eost ; -
~vaste by (as effectiN•e means of reducing enern,
ENVIRONMENTAL meas„red ;n . . '
' VISION cons"mptio".
tons peryear .
GOALS measured-at c. Provide tours of energy efficient modeP
/ 1 the Eagle homes. '
.0
County , d. Create incentives For implementing ,
Landlill) 30p ,
u . .
energy consen~aiion techniques.
ACTION
PLANS within the . ,
x
.
wn of Vai'l e. Create or change Town regulations to
<~;'::>:~`:::,,,:.>.;:;:>z<:s•.'':~';;:``;::::>:
,
6 2000 and mandate ener conservation in buildin
, v . ~ g
•
Practices.
reduce tozicin•
in the waste
E E transit to reduce gas
xpand mass
stream. -
consumption.
ACTIONS
Develop and distribute a list of energy
~ conser-ving aPPliances that can 6' Pur-
It should be
.:i;;`<";.: ' noted that chased in the area.
each of the 3. NVork %vith the Vail Valley Consolidated
action areas
VJater District to determine ,vater use
for energy, patterns and then develop awater conserva-
N water, and rion rePorr «•hich will recommend ,vater
<.~.ryr:•.:::,,: waste manage- • •
conservatton techniques that might include:
ment have an ,
. education, a. Educanon on Nvater conservation.
' . . . ,
incentive, and _
• ::ri>••.~:h::w.s~a;;~::k;::::s:s . '
r,.,.:.::
regu ation
component to , 18 '
~
~ , • , - ~
~ I • • . ~ • . 1 ~ •
6. N-Vorking ,vith home and business " g. Encourage users of•hazardous mate-
, . ~ ' owners to recommend the most cost , rials through educarion and incentives , .
~ effecti~,e methods.For ,varer conservation. ro use less tozic products and when
c. Incentives for implemenring Nvater they do use hazardous materials to .
conservation techniques. - safely store and dispose of them. ~
h. Develop a prouram to encourage d. Tours of model homes or buildings
that use ~vater conservarion technology. households to use clean alternatives to -
, . , household hazardous waste generating
• e. Changes in regulations ro reduce , products (e.g. pesticides, }ierbicides;
,vater consumption (e.g. low water cleaners).
landscaping requirements, building ,
~ codes on low tlow toilets and sho~~.er I•, Evaluate and implement, if feasible, '
heads). an impact fee for ne~v development or
' _ • redevelopment ro pay'for recycling and
' f. Developing and distributing a list of waste disposal services.
~ water saving products. . J. Evaluate and implement, iF feasible, a
4. Implement an integrated solid waste bottle deposit that «-ould provide an- •
' management program for the Town of Vail economic incentive for individuals to
~ that will, utilize the following hierarchy: return bottles for reuse. -
. 1) reduce, 2) reuse, 5) and rqcycle. •
Reduction is the first priority because it can 5. Evaluate and implement, if Feasible, a
be the most cost effective and~is the_most 'green tax on producrs ivhich are ~vasteful •
' - • entvironmentally friendly approach to -,vaste or simply not environmentally friendly. ,
. management. Reusing and recvcling ~vaste This ~vould be an additional sales tax on
. divert refuse from landfills but the do ' specific products that are not environmen-
y
require energy and a processing system to tally friendly i.e', disposable bags, house-
op ; •
• erate. The follo~ving ' vill be components hold hazardous materials. The concept
• of this program: - behind this type of tax is that it discouraees .
the use of "wasteful" products and provides •a. Use the Vorthwest Colorado Council a revenue source for environmental pro- _
" ot Governments solid -,vaste study for grams.,The economic impacts/benefits
' • ~ Gagle County to dete'rmine waste stream would have to be closely esamined before
'
~ characteristics in the Tov,,n of Vail. implementing this•acrion.
b: Develop an educational program and 6. An'alternative to action #5 is identifvine •
incentives to encourage individuals and and promoring products that are environ- 1
businesses to reduce, reuse, and recycle. mentally friendly (i.e. minimize packaging,
c. Through education a•nd incentives recyclable, use recycled materials, non- .
' encourage food service'establishments to , toxic). This can be done with a"greeh" tag
buy recycled materials, use reusable or'through a list of green products that are
. products, and to implement recycling. available in the community.
d. Develop programs or policies to 7• Develop an incentive program to encour-
age the developmenr of "green" buildings -
reduce the generation of construction
waste.' ~vhich accomplish the objecti~~es mentioned
above. Incenrives could include additional
e. Develop a composting program to G.RFA, density, or other incentrves.
, divert yard waste from the, landfill. '
~ -f. Work with We Recycle to increase waste diversion to 30% 6y_2000 based on ,
the baseline year mentioned in actionl.
19
.
` • - .
'
, Environ'mental 1Vlana.gement
. and Compliance
. BACKGROUND ACTIONS
This goal area is focusecl on ensuring the 1. Conduct an environmental review oF '
Tow'n of Vail is a leader in environmental Town facilities and programs to ensure "
' management and complianee. The number of compliance with federal, state, and local ,
' environmental regulations that municipalities environmental regulations. This review -,vill ~
must comply with continues to increase signifi- recoirimend specitic action that the Toxvn
cantly. The Town of Vail ,vants to go one atep needs to take to reduce natural resource
- , beyond compliance and be proactive to consumption and environmental risk.
potentially nexv environmental regulations,that ,
2• Identify sources of hazardous marerials in
are
, on the horizon. Through a program of
~ - the To-,vn and recommend clean alternatives,
proactive environmental management, Vail Ndill
if available, and provide property ocvners I
become a recognized leader in environmental
~vith inFormation on proper handling and
. quality. ,
. • disposal of hazardous materials.
OBJECTIVES ' 3. Implement a training program 'for Toxn ,
1. Develop a proactive environmental.man- staff and otlier key agencies to efFecr.ively
agement program that ~vill address ever respond to hazardous wasteincidents.
- increasingly stringent environmental regulations. 4. Identify locations of all underground and '
, above ground storage tanks and provide
2. Have the recommendations to reduce e"nvironmental
Town of Vail risk. ~
recognized as •
5. Identify grants for environmental pro-
an environ- . ~ . •
: grams and actively seek out environmental
ENVIRONMENTAL mental leader awards that Vail might be eligible for. ' t
V~S~~N through
implementa- 6. Evaluate -,vhether a new Environrnental
/ tion of envi- Commiion is required to provide guidance
' GOALS ~ !
ronmental for Town environmental programs. ~
:.n. t ' •
%•.~%i.,' ~
. c:;••,,
ro rams. ,
»'s;.;'s':,':%s:"::::'s:%'<'•'r.x ;..,I p g Host environmental conferences a.nd
~ ; Q1I~01Y
~~~;•~j ` ~ forums to inform residents of environmental .
,
eco n~ze~ Vail as an
issues and to helP r
g
•::.y:,.,.:.:., .,s.<,s>;;;#>[;<;«,
envtronmental leader.
A':•:
8. Provide environmental educational
. .
opportunities, e.e. summer camp for high '
school students. It may be desirable to
•~j. •~<,;:xA:.:>::;:..•.>.<:;<„>::: develop an env.ironmental educat.ional
; .
:'•::;,~;,r,.,r; institute or learning center to provide valu- ,
able educational opportunities and to act as
a cornerstone for identiEying Vail as an
• ~:.:.r•~.,.:f:.::,;,.;
~ .:y,/,.Ii: .>.Sl.r'f.;:li•.' . • ~
' f•.: v}...::ii:v~} •
environmental leader.
. y ~ J'•;::;:r:r; . . .
, 9. Develop a means to inform business and
general contractors about new Fedei•al.and
:.:~~:~.:i.;.. . , . .
•:,.~.....`~i«sy»;>.<:. State of Colorado environmental regulanons
.;..,•s~ir;;;:;;;
' (e.g. notification of as6estos abatement).
10. Install a dedicated environmental ~
.
. . .
hotline. .
~
20
. '
~ • ' . ~ , ' .
, .
~
} ~.L1(1TllPllementat~oon , , .
c
ImPlementarion of this Plan
.«-ill require rime, money, people, . TABLE 3', ~ and cooperation among stake- Implementation Costs
holders in rhe-communlty. Full Year Cost - implementation will'also require `
coope'r,ation-from other govern- 1995 ~ $28,250 '(excludes cevision of land.use plan)
mental entities since environ- 1996 $29,000 mental issues do not stop at ' 1997 . $71,000
. • political boundaries. The objec- 1998 $71,000
~ • tive of this section is to summa- Total $199,250 ~
- rize the actions stated in the four `
goal areas, estimate costs, set Notes: a. Costs,esclude open lands plan cosrs oF$4.5 million ,
~ prior.ities, and identify stalte- paid from Real Estate Transfer Tas. '
_ holders that are neeclec] to imple-' b. Costs'esclude mass transit costs ($90 -$350 million) since .
• ment the actions. It should 6e implementation schedule still needs ro be deFned by Inter-
' . . Mountain Plannine Region.
recognized that several actions
apply.to Meo or more goal areas. c.'Annual ongoing cost will inrtially be $4,500. .
~ • Fbr example the environmental
assessment discussed in the sustainable devel- - estirtiates and may be shared by several stake-
, opment_goal area is also an action for ecosys- holders: This plan is intended to provide a
tem protection, work program for the To~vn of Vail and,iden-
, COSTS tiEy other stakeholders ro participate in; imple-
' mentanon. This plan does not obligate them in
' The implementation of.thisplan is based any way td participate in this plan. However,
on a four year action plan, Many of the pro- this «-ill give the Town direction in terms of
grams or,policies implei nented, in this fouryear otherstakeholders it should encourage to .
period will be ongotng in nature and vvill participate in this plan's implementation:
~ require monitoring. Table 3 lists the associated
costs that are estimated for each year of the ~~~N('~G '
, implementarion plari. These costs reflect the E". LEidENTATION ,
actions that are described in Table 4. " CurrenYly the Town Funds environmental
ACTION PLAN ` proerams at approximately $20,000 peryear .
and has two staff inembers to work on envi- .
' Th'is plan has three basic types of actions; ronmenr'al programs and carry out environ- .
- 1) education, 2) incentives, and 3) regulation. mental health inspections. The,plan will '
~All three ot this actions have costs bbth eco- require creative methods to fully implement
nomic and political. It is recommended that all this program w-ith etisting resources. -
three oF these techniques be used but that Additional sources of funding that could be.
, priority be given to education and incentives. used include:
In some cases, i.t may be necessary to quickly
' pass new regulations, particularly in the area of . US EPA Grants
land use controls. It should be noted that local The Environmental Protection tlgency
, regulations have ro be at least as stringent or , has over a 100 different grants.where a '
more stringenr than Federal or State of municipality or state may apply to obtain . Colorado Regulatioris. fundine for environmenfal programs. The '
Table 4summarizes the major actions and Town has obtained over $20,000 in EPA .
' how tliey will be implemented. Each action grants through Northwest Colorado Council
may apply to seve\r'al goal areas. The thi~d of Go~~ernments to help fund the stormwater
, column lists the applicable goal areas that discharge study Nlany EPA grants require
apply to each action. Action costs are rough matching funding and a significant amount of
• , , work to complete the grant application.
' . , . , 2I
. ~ ,
, ,
- , - -
- . ,
, ~
• \'evertheless, this funding source should be manv individuals that have significant 1cnovvl-
pursued to augment Town funds. ' edge and interest in environmental issues. The
Technical flssistance To«~n and other stakeliolders may tinance the ,
The NorthNvest Colorado Council of creation of educational programs but aould use volunteers to inform residents and businesses
Governments awards three technical assistance
on various environmental topics mentioned in .
erants ayear for planning Projects. The To~vn • .
N~•as a~varded a technical assistance grant to this plan.
. identify environmenral trends that may affect Impact Fees
, Vail in the future. It is recommended that the A possible source of revenue that has ~
Town continue to pursue these grants from , been used in other communities is to create a
NWCCOG for planning=related environmental development impact fee to fund certain rypes
projecrs. Also other Pederal and quasi pu6lic of environmenral projects. For instance an ~
aeencies-provide technical assistance to com- impact fee could be established'for neNv devel- _
muniries. Por instance, the National Park" opment or redevelopment that would h.elp. '
Service has a technical assistance gram for create a fund for -,vaste management, habitat ~
{ river and stream management. The Narional improvement and tree replanring. ,
, Heritage Program can provide assistance in , ' .
` Private/Public Partnerships ,
identifying sensitive natural areas. Another Collaborative efforts between the Town I
, organization that could provide technical .
and other interested stakeholders should '
be an
services fo the Town is the Sustainable Futures integral component of implementing th.is plan.
Society. The Sustainable Futures Society . .
Organtzations that have an environmental ~
consists of professors and other environmenral interest should be approached to cooperatively
professionals who can assist with community . .
~ implement programs. For instance both Vail
environmental projects. The State of Colorado Associates and the Vail Alpine Gardens have
can also provide technical assistance through . . . ~
e Office of Business Development and the expressed an interest in providing en~~(ronmen-
thOffice oF Energy Conservation. • tal education. The Town has ~vorked «~ith the -
County, fireplace retailers, and Public Service
' Land Trusts to develop an incentive program to encourage ,
- Organizations like the Nature Conser- property oxvners to convert dir.ty burni.ng
vancy or Colorado Open Lands can help fireplaces to clean burning state of the art
communiries cost-effectiveJy protect environ- unies. The Town should acfively seek other
- mentally sensitive,open space. These types of interested stake holders to collaborate with on
• organizations can have signi}icant financial environmental programs.
, backing and experience in protecting natural
' . Universities ,
resources. .
Universities and colleges are also sources
, Volunteer Community Support of technical assistance: 1Vlost universities have ~
, Community volunteers could be used on natural resource or environmental science '
. mamy of the recommendations. For instance programs with graduate students .,,,ho might be
local naturalists could assist with habitat stud- utilized to.work on projects. Working .vith
ies. We Recycle could provide.valuable assis- graduate students on environmental projects
tance in the development of an integrated solid can provide the Town with free or inexpensive ~
waste program. The real estate community labor while providing the student an opportu-
i could possibly assist Nvith open houses for nity to complete tliesis or graduate course energy efficient homes. work.
' Volunteer Environmental Educators Extend T'ime Frame
Environtrjental education is a key compo- The annual cost'f'or implementing the
, nent of this plan. Educational programs are . , action plan could be reduced by extending the ~
needed for schools, businesses, government, implementation schedule. "
and the general public. The Vail Valley has
,
' , ~
, TABLE =i , -
' Action Plan •
-
Start . Applicable Time Est. Cost! ~
Year Accion Goal(s) Req'uirement Staff Time, Stakeholders
, Oneoing \Vork Nvith the USFS C 2 Oneoine 40 hours/year TOV, USFS. VA -
County io implement Nhite River
ecosvstem manaeement National Forest
, . Ongoine , Seek out'environmental d Oneoine 120 hours/year TOV, businesses, `
a-wacds and erants residents
~ Ongoing Air Ouality Program 1, 2 Ongoing 52,000 TOV, Public Service Co.,
retailers, banks
Ongoing Implement Open Lands l, 2' 1994-97 S4.5 million Council cC staFF ,
1 ~ Plan
Ongoing Environmental 1,2 1995-99 ' 5500 TOV, V,1, '
Ouality rlward ' Pu61ic Service Co.
' Ongoine ' Improve public ed`ucation ,-111, Oneoine S2,000 for educa- TO\; VA, liSFS, ~
, and involvement ' rional material Nature Cenrer
1995 Complete.Open Land l, 2 3 monrhs 30 hours TOV & residents •
Zone District changes , -
-1995 Determine baseline . ~ 3 3 months S4,0001 TOV, VA, Holy Cross,
~ • . for. energy usage,' ' 120 hours Public Service, Vail
water usage, and waste ' Valley Consolidated
generation Water District
, 1995 Prepare TreeNegetation 2 3 months S1,000 for ' Vail Alpine Garden, `
~ Protection Ordinance intern TOV, Landscapers
; 1995 - Create a dedicared 4, ' N/A ' 5250 TOV - Comm Dev
environmen[al hodine •
, 1995 Develop a wqter 1.3 'I year $3,000 TOV, NVater
~ . conservation program District. NWCCOG
1995 Evaluate need m create an 42 monrhs 30 hours Council, PEC,
environmental commission F~ staff
~ 1995 Revise L.and Use Plan ' • 1, 2 1 year ~ 5160.000 ;TOV & public
C[P Budget ,
~ 1995 Develop an Integrated I; 3 I year ~ S15,000, TOV, We Recyde,
Waste iYlanagement $FI, NWCCOG
Proeram •
' 1996 Revise EIR regula[ion 1, 2 2 months. 40 hours ' . TOV ' .
~ 1996 Irrilement a habitat 2
p 2years ~15,000 TroutUnlimtted, .
, improvemeat program , 24 months DON, TOV ~
for Gore Geek
1996 Environmental- , 2, 4 1 year 512,000 ~ Town of Vail,
Assessment (EA) business owners
1996 Revisine DRB - I, 2 ~ 1 year 200 hours Comm Dea &'public • `
. and zoning regulations ,
23
~
• ' " ~ ~
, TABLE 4 (Continued)
' Action Pl'an
Start APPVicable Time Es[. Cost/ ~
Year Action Goal(s) Requirement Staff Time Stakeholders
1996 Develop incentives to 1 6 months $2,000 for Town ot Vail,
promote environmenrall1v , promotion private secror
friendlv economic ~
- development ~
' 1997 Review implementacion 1 ] 0years , 200 hours Inter-ilountain
of Inter-Mountain , Plannine Region &
Transporrarion Plan CDOT & U.S. DOT ,
~
1997 Education to promore 1,3 Oneciing S5,000 TO\! Rocky blt. sustainable development ' Institute, building
prac[ices community ~
1997 Education on area 1, 2 S OnEOing S1,000 Nature Center, TOV, '
ecosyscem • tllpine Gardens,
~ . ; schoois . r
1997 Host annual environmenral 4 12 months 100 hours -Vail Symposium,
symposium . . TOV
1997 Habitat improvamenr 2 6 months 515,000 TOV, DOW CJSFS, ~
~ for wildlife - ~ . National Heritage
Program '
1997 Begin implementine 2 6 monrHs $50,000 TOV, VA,
recommendations from Water Distric[
Storm~vater Discharee Plan ,
' 1998 Develop a hazardous 4 4 months $10,000 Fire Dept. anc]
material assistance program , _ ' • Env. Health
- 1998 ' Implement a model home 3 4 monrhs S1,000 TOV, Home buiiders
program ro demonstrate rlssoc., Boarci of
enerey, water, and natural ' Realtors resource conservarion . ~
1998 Conducr an enerev audir 1. 3 1 year $10,000 TOV, Holy Cross,
of commun'irv and ~ Public Service,
" develop enerey Rocky i\'lt. [nsritute, ~
conservation strateeies builders
1998 Develop an I-70 ' 2, 4 1 year . , 550,000 TOV, DOT ' , .
enyironmental mitieation
~ plan
1
Note: This Table retlects estimated costs.
; Key for Goal 1lreas ;
opme nt
I ~ustainable RegulationlDecel
, , 2 ~;cos~stem E'rorectTOri
3 ~nv~ronmenCal Efhc~ency ; ; , ~
4 Env~ran~nencal Cornplzancellm aoa~ement :
• ' ~
24
~
- ' ,
~ . . ' -
o
C~~~~~smt .
The Vail Cnvironmental StrateEic Plan [mplementation of the.fouryear action _
, deFines a direction to make Vail an environ- plan \i ill allow these benefits,to be realized. •
, 'mental leader. Proactive environmental man- 1VIany ot the actions outlined in Table 4will
agemenr and stewardship are essential in also,require ongoing support. This plan
_ maintaining the nafural"mountain characrer of: provides a direction for attaining the Town's•
' Vail. Protectine the natural character of Vail is environmental vision and is also dynamic so _
also essential to ensure long-term economic that actions can be modified to adjust for
~ vitality since rhe valley's natural resources are chanaes in trends and public concerns.
a key,element in rhe economic success of VaiL 1VLoniroring implementation will also be
This Plan detines a vision statement that " required to ensure efFectiveness.
the Town will strive to obtain. To reach this Through this strategic planning process,
vision four goal areas have been d'efined ~and the To..•n of Vail will set a standard,for envi-
~ actions plans were developed to address rhese ronmenral protection and natural resource
• goals. The four zoal areas cover a comprehen- stewardship. The Town will join other com-
sive list of environmental issues from air quali- munities in helping to solve global environ-
ty protectton ro envtronmentally sound design menral challenges through local actions.
~
pnnciples. The plan also defines an tmplemen- Thinkina globallv and acting locally has been
, tation plan with estimated costs to provide a a kev ingredient in making Vail an interna- practical means ot implementing this plan. tional leader as a ski resort and will also help
This plan provides a framework for envi- distineuish Vail as an environmental leader.
ronmental management, education, and regula-
~ • tion in the To~vneof Vail. Benefits of this plan's
implementation include:
1..,Directly addressing concerns identified in ,
1 the 1994 community survey by providing a• .
long-range environmental workplan to
protect and improve Vail's environment. ,
~ 2. Improving cooperation and collaboration
Nvith other stakeholders on environmental
programs. , - ~ 3. Recognizing Vail as a leader in environ- ' •
, mental ste,,vardship.
4. Improvine The sense of com,rnunirY by . - , .
active participation in the implementation of ' •
this plan by residents, businesses, interest
' groups, and eovernment.
~ 5. Keeping Vail envitronmentally proactive , • ' and reducing compliance costs. "
~ ' . . • ' .
, -
. _ 1 .
D _ , • .
. . ,
~ 25
.
. , ~ - • , ' _ ,
- - , ~
~
Appendix I ~
ENVIRONMEI`TTAI, SUCCESS STORIES ,
' - • In 1950 the To«-n of Vail comPleted a Gore s In 1993 the Vail SymPosium was focused on ,
~
VaneV Capacity Study «,hich .vas prepared bv healthv communities which in large part dis-
, Gage Davis Associates, Inc. The study consist- cussed environmental issues. Tlie Director of ~
ed of a series of surveys and questionnaires the United Nations Environmental Program
. which Nvere conducted on 25 days during the was a speaker at this symposium.
' - course of the entire 1979-1980 ski season. • In 1993 the Town of Vail created the iVlaurie ,
Seven different surveys Nvere conducted in all.
- Nottineham Environmental Ouality Award to
on'both peak and non-peak days. Sur-veys . .
recoemze outstanding environmental programs ,
, applicable to environmental issues inclu'de: The or efforts in rhe comrnunity.
Skier Survey, The Transportation Survey, and .
, The Employee Housing Survey. In addition, In 1994 the To-,vn of VaiLadopted a compre- ~
data «_as gathered regarding Nyater and se-,vage" . hensix•e Open Lands Plan that laid out a 4 year .
usage, weather and air quality, bus and parl:inE action plan to acquire or protect sensitive ~
lot utilization, and zoning and development natural areas and areas needed for outdoor
statistics in the Gore Vallev. recreacion. •
• In 1980 the Town of Vail established a 1% • In 1992, 'the Trees for~ Vail program was ~
- ~ Real Estate Transfer Tax ro acquire and pro- initiated. This is an annual volunteer event in
' tect open space in the Town of Vail. the summer to plant trees in the Town of Vail, • ~
• In 1989 We Recycle was established as a not- • The To~vn of Vail has adopted and begun
for-profit company to provicle recycling ser- implementation of a landscape plan to improve
vices to Eagle County This has been a grass vegetative cover in public areas. '
roots effort in Eagle County that no~v di~~errs • The Town of Vail has adopted awaste '
• approximately 4% of the waste stream. , management policy.
• In 1990, the Town of Vail implemented ~
• regulations that prohibited open hearth tire- , •
places from being built in the Town of Vail. ,
The To«,n also initiated an incentive program '
to convert existing dirty burning fireplaces to
' clean burning tireplaces. To date over 400 ~ voluntarv conversions have occurred and the
brown haze problem in rhe Town has been ~
signiEicantly reduced. .
. ~
, ' • In 1992 the Towri initiated a Stormwater '
. Discharge program to reduce water qualiry
impacts from runoff. With the assistance of NWCCOG the Town has completed a compre- . ~
kensive survey of «•ater quality impacts and is
, now ,vorking on daveloping programs to , mitigate nonpoint sources`of water quality '
impacts.
, o In 1993, the Town completed a biological survey of the Vail Valley wirh the assistance of
the National Heritage Program which identi- ~
fied sensitive natural areas in the Town that
should be protected. '
' - - ~
' - , ' 26
, ~
' ' . .
OTHER ElVVIRONMEIVTAI, PLAlVS AND STUDIES "
, . :
- 1. lEnvironmental Assessinents and Prepared for U.S. Environmental •
, ImPaCt Statements ' Protection.i\gency Reeion VIII. Pebruary,
~ - 1980. By Engineerine Science.Inc. ,
1. Environinental Assessment: SrUdy is primarily concerned Nvith exist-
I, UQlI•Skl AY2Q EapQ71S1011. ing and potential nonpoint sources of water
VVhite River National Forest - Holy Goss pollution in the UPper Eagle Valley of
~ • Ranger District. Eagle Counh-, Colorado, Colorado. Source cateaories that are consid-
November 25, 1986. • ered include, but are not limited to, urban
' Th,is Environmental Assessment discusses runoff, construction acriviry, high~vay runoff
amending the Vail Area iVlaster Development , and mining activities. In addition, the study
Plan. The Forest Service chose to addpt the addresses the development "of site specific - ,
, proposal which allows for the expansion oF ' solutions for problems that are needed tio
existing boundaries of th'e Vail Area Ski Area significantly reduce nonpoint source pollution to include the headwater drainaEe of 1Vlill . and to meet water quality standards.
, Geek and Tvo Ellc Creek. This assessment 7. Gore Creek Hydi'OjOgy RepOYC.
~ analyzes the issues, alternatives to the propos-
al, effects.of the proposal and x-arious alterna- F'repar.ed by Hydro-Triad, LTD. ttilarch
tives, and discusses mitigating measures which 19, 1975. '
; - could reduce the impacts. The document, The Gore Creek Hydrology Report
specifically addresses environmental conse- presents the methodology used for the hyd~o-
quences on the BioPhysical and Socioeconorriic ' logic gnd hydraulic analyses utilized in the
~ • . Environmenfs. Gore Geek Flood Plain Study. Important
~ environme'ntal issues addressed include:'Gore
, 2. 1-70/MQIYl Irit21"Cj1Q11ge 1171pT0vE1?12YltS Creek History and Basin Description,
Environr?iental Assessrnent. . . Geology, Soils, Vegetal Cover, Hydrologic
By the U.S. Department of Transportation Records, lVlois#ure Sources, Rainfall
, Federal Highway Administranon, and the Precipitating, Sno"fall Precipitation, Stream- Colorado Department of High-,vays. October, _Elow, Effects'of'Development on Flooding,
1987. Design Floods, Gore Creek Channel ~ An Environmental tlssessment of a pro- ,Characteristics,'Characteristics of Flooding, '
posed project to modify the I-%0/Vlain Vail F1ood Plain Compurations and i'IethodoloEy,
~ Interchange in Vail, Colorado. This document and Black Lake Dams.
addresses the following environmental impacts 3. Gore Creek Floodplain IilfOtmation.
and mitigation measures: tlrchaeology/ •
Paleontoloay, History, Socioloey and Econom- Colorado NUater Conservation Board,
~ ics; Land Use, Air Oualit~, \oise, Ecolo Vail, Eagle County, Colorado. Prepared by
' T gy,. .
Wetlands, Threatened and Endangered~ Hydro-Triad, LTD. June, 19%5.
' Species, Water Ouality, Water Ouality Per- ' 'This hydrologic srudy delines f7ooding
' mits; Hydrology, Floodplain, Farmlands, t}ireats to existing development and provide's '
Right-Of-Way, TrafEic Operations, Traffic for orderly growth -,vithin the yalley. In gener-
Safety, Par•k and Recreation Lands, and Public al, the study Focuses on four major su6jects • -
Involvement. , which are: Gore Creek Area History and •
_ Backgrourid, Gore Creek Basin Description,
, 11. Water Ouality Hydrology, Channel Flow Characteristics, • .
, Studies, Reports, Plans, and and Flooding. ~
Environmental Assessments , 4. Gore Creek Floodplnin Amendment.
1. Upper Eagle Valley Nonpoint Source Colorad.o Water Conservation. Board.
' Assessment and Control Plan. Volume 1: vail, 'Eagle County, Colorado. Prepared by `
Assessment of Nonpoint Soitirces. Hydro-Triad, LTD. January, 1978.
~ . . . - 2i .
. , ~
' . ~
. , This clmendment to the Gore Creek %vith, hve other municipal ,yater organiz.ations.
Floodplain Information Reporrs includes a ' in the Valley. hydraulic evaluation of ovo ne«, bridges on 8. Preliminary Planning and Feasibility '
Gore Creek. The flood plains as previouslN, -
established in the Gore Creek Floodplain Study: Reuse of 1'Vftl711C1pQl w'CISt2 V/QLe1" ,
Information Reports were revised accordingly. Effluent. '
Gore Creek Vallev NVater Authoriry
5. Gore Creek 500 Year Recitrrence Co
mmirree, Vail, Colorado. In The Gore Creek
. I7lLeT'Q1LlI FIOOC~pIQl7l. Valley and Upper EagIe Valley, Colorado. ,
Colorado '\Vatei- ConserN:ation Board. Vail, , \lovember, 1978. Eagle County, Colorado. Prepare"d by Hydro- The report addresses the potential for
'Triad, LTD. November 2, I976. reuse of wastewater efRuent generated from
Enclosed in the study is a set of plates . rhe treatment-plants at Vail and Avon, ,
- delineatin2 both the 100 year and 500 year Colorado. It found that, althou gh technically
flood plains. A brief description ot the Gore possible, none of the potential reuse alterna-
Creek hydrology and discharae computations rix%es are even close to being cost effective, and ~
is presented. Additionally, a discussion of flood rhey ~end little, if any, environmental 6eneEit to stage computation procedure is included. The the area. ,
document provides less detailed information
clescribing the basin, vegetation, and intiltra- 9. Vail Nonpoint Source Wnter Qu,ality
r,on rates. Management Program Part 1: Project
Results From 1992.
6. Gore .Greek - Potential F1ood Damage March, 1993. Prepared by Northeast
and Improvement Recornmendations. I
Colorad'o.Council of Governments.
- ' Colorado Wate"r Consen~ation Board. Vail, The project provides a detailed manage-
Eagle County, Colorado. Prepared by HN'dro- ment program Nvhich documents current and ,
Triad, LTD. November, 1975. potential water quality problems and provides ~
The report indicates several areas ot recomtnendations on management practices
problem,flooding'along Gore Geek. It con- and regulation controls to protect ,vater qualin~ ~
tains recommendations for alleviation of dam- from nonpoint sources of pollutants.
ages during Elood, recommendations for -
. maintaining road~vay access during Elooding, 1 Gil17lClri L~/T iri2 ~~CIC~Y
and a suggested ordinance for systematic , ReS0U1'C2 SCLld1'. • ,
' usage. In efEect; it is a flood plain management ' Gore G-eek Vallev Water Aiithoriry
tool ivhich is aimed at strikinu a happy medium Committee, Camp Dresser S[ McKee, Inc. ~
beriveen no flood plain development and the Fnvironmental Enaineers: Denver, CO. ~kind of flood plain development «-hich has :Vovember, 1978. characterized our a6uses of the rivers in the The purpose ot the report was to evaluate past. the feasibility of using the Gilman Mine, and
~
7. Gor'e Creek Ualley Water ResourCes - others as «ater,storage reservoirs, to pr;ovide .
StUC~y . ' ~vater supply anc] stream augmentation ~vater '
Cor some of the.vvater districts located along . ~
' Prepared for Eien R. White Company, Gor.e Creek and the Upper Eagle River•. The
Consulting Engineers. Denver, CO - Blatchly study found that such usage of the mines -was ,
~ Associates, Consulting Water Engineers, technically possible, but not feasible; ' I
Denver, CO. September, 1975. . Study includes an analysis of the Nvarer 11. Water Q1lQl1Cy ConsiderntionfQ1"
supply position •oF the Vail Water and , Highway Planning nnd Construction:
, . Sanitation District, and an evaluation of the I-70 - ULlll PCISS, Coloraclo. ~
potential for consolidating the Vail District U.S. Forest Sen~ice, ~Vhite River iJational _
Forest, Glenwood Springs, CO. Aptil, 1978.
2s ~
- -
, ' .
'The construction of the four-lane hiahNvay Purpose'of study mov~ed from issues of
' over Vail Pass, Colorado, has provided the capacirv to concern for ineasures of quality, ~
~ opportunity to implement many new and characteristics oF•the Vail market; the impact of
innovative erosion control measures on rhe ' opening Beaver Creek, and comparison of Vail.'.
new_and sensirive, high elevation; mountain and Beaver Geek. Chapter Four deals .dith ,
' pass. This reporr evaluates the performance of issues of grovvth and communiry developtnent.
these erosion and sediment control strucrures. , This chapter concluded that:
~ 12. I-70 in aMOLitttC1ti11 Erlvtil'011me71i, a. Signiticanr consensus esists among all
VaiCPass,"Colorndo. skier groups that Vail is becoming'over- '
Prepared bY the Colorad'o Department of cro-,%•ded ancl congested and is in danger of
~ its aTtractive
. High~vays for the United States Department of" Iosin , ness.
' Transportation-Federal Highway Adminis- b. Support appears to esist for the concept •
tration Office of Development in Cooperation of developing pu6lic policies to restrict or
- ,%,ith the United States Forest Service. ?imit the rate of erowth in Vail and Eagle '
October, 1987. ' - County. ,
"This booklet claims to illustrate a success-
. Ful environmental protecfion effort throueh the c. Skiing in Vail is viewed as reaching the '
p
interagency cooperation: The booklet stressed% oint «-here it is becoming congested.
,
that protessional ;experrise provided b~~ ~~arious Support exists both for the expansion of ,
agencies presenred a truly interdisciplinary . esisting facilities and for continued use oF
. effort. In general, the book documents the the ticket limitation sur~~ey. ' - '
' . many innovarive ideas, designs, and consr,-uc- D - Master Plan Town of Vail Municipal
tion techniques used in the planning, desiEn, Cemeterv.
' and construction of Interstate High*vay 70
prepared for the Town of Vail Community
' , . over Vail Pass. Successful solutions for many Development Departmenf by Alpine
of the sensttn-e environmental problems of the .
. Internanonal Design, Inc., Landscape
, highway development -,vere found and app~lied Architects; Harley Ellington Pierce Yee
, '
' through the cooperation of, many clifFerenr Architecrs and Planneis;-and The Sloane
' aeencies and professionals. , Consulting Group, i'Ianaeemen,t and
III. Other Related Reports, ConS6IranrS. ocrober. 1993. - ~ , StUdi@S, Arid Plans °A preliminarv environmental analysis was
canducted in November, 1992 by the Commu-
1. Rapid Mnss-Tasting Processes:,,;tv Development Department staff to identify
' UQII, c0'. any,sensitive envi"ronmental issues that might
Arthur Mears, 'Gunnison, CO. April, 1977, be associated ,vitli the development of a ceme-
' • This reporr supplements maps of rapid terv at Donovan Park. Using a series of yues-
, mass-wasting processes and related hazard tions designed to fl ag areas of higher risk, the
intensity desienations prepared:at the request studv suggests that the risks,of impacts are
of the Town of VaiL It p'rovides background , greatesr in four areas: ecolou, surface water,
information about typical locations, causative ground %vater and aesthetics." Page 35.
' factors, and dynamics of debris flo~vs, debris :-lssessing each of these, the study con- '
_ -floods, debris avalanches, rockfall, and rock cludes that, based on the conceptual design
• ' fall a~~alanehes, all of ~vhich can occur «~ithin plan, no signiticant impact is anticipated from
the town limits of Vail. , the derelopment of a cemeterv at Donovan ~
Park. ~
2. Uail / Beaver Creek Winter Qualit^V ~ •
Research.
Winter 0uality Research Task Force.
Gage Davis tlssociates, Inc..1.9$0-1981.
. , ,
. , Appendii~ 2
Common Wildlife Species in Vail
S
Species , Scientific I~ame ensitivity to Habitat
, Loss and Human Activity '
Qlack bear Ursus americanus Sensitive ,
~ Elk ' Genus elaphus Sensitive ~
Mule deer ` Odocoileus hemonius Sensitive
Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus Moderately sensitive
Bobcat Lvnx ruftis Sensitive ,
Red fox ' )%rulpes fulva `Ioderateh, sensitive
AIountain lion• Felis concolor Sensitive- Coyore Canis latrans Minimally sensitive '
. Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum AIinimally sensitive _
Pine marren Martes americana Sensitive '
Red syuirrel Sciurius hudsonicus - ModeratelY sensitive
' Deer mouse Peromyscus spp. .Nlinimally sensitive
\uttall's cotrontail Syh-ilagus nuttalli Minimally sensitive I.one-railed weasel iNlustela frenata Moderately sensitive
Red-backed vole .NIicroris clethrionomvs Sensitive -
; Qat iNlyotis spp. AIinimally sensitive ~
_ BIRDS _
Bald eagle . Haleaeerus Ieucocephalus Minimally sensitive '
~
Golden eaele :lquila chrysaeros . AIinimally sensitive
-Perierine falcon Falco peregiinus Minimally sensitive
~
Red-tailed hawk ' Buteo jamaicensis Min.-ivIoaerately sensirive`
\orthern goshawk :lccipiter eencilis ~Iinimally sensitive
~
\orthern 3-toed Picoides rndactylus AIoderately sensitive
~ \aoodpecker •
Hairv «'oodpecker Piwides villosus ' Moderatelv sensitive ~
~ \'orrhern flicker Colaptes auratus Minimally sensitive
AIacGillivary's ' Oporomis tolmiei AIoderately sensitive ~
warbler
P}'gmy nuthatch SRta pyemaea • Moderatelv sensitive
- \Varbling vireo -Vireo eihvs . ` Moderately sensitive Red crossbill " Loxia curvirostra ' Moclerately sensitive
'
'
• Green-tailed Pipilo.chlorurus ModeratelY sensitive
, rowhee
. %ireinia's warbler ~ Vermivora virginiae Moderately sensitive
Cedar waxu'ine Bombycilla cedrorum Minimally sensitive
~
Maepie Pica pica . AIinimally sensitive
Stel{ar's jay Cyanocitra srelleri Moderarely sensitive
' Gray jay Perisoreus canadensis ' Minimally sensitive
ree Wallow Tachycineta bicolor AIoderately sensitive
T s
• A,\IPHIBLAi\ '
. Tieer salamander Ambvsroma tierinum Sensitive
, . . \ 30 I
~ ' -
, ` i •
~ 1 . y .
RefeIrentes, ' .
' . . , . , • , , ,
Alberti, i~larina; Jonathan F arker, hldices of Environmenrnl Quality, The Search for Credible
Measures, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Elsevier Science Publishing.
Bryson, John M. and Robert C. EIsevier, editors, Strategic Planning: Threats and Opportunicies ,
. for Planners, Alanners Press, American Planning Associarion, Chicago, IL, 1988;' ,
1 ' Chiras,'Daniel, I,essons from Nature, Learning to Live Siurniiuibh, on Earrh, 'Island Press,
Washington D.C., 1992. , .
Costanza, Roberr, Herman E. Daly, Nncural Cnpital and Susrainnble Development,
Consecvation Biology, iVlarch 1992. , •
Cramton Jr., iNiartin R. and Carol Stealey 1VZorris, Mnttmmng Groivth Through Strategic Plannittg,
Urban' Land, April 1986, pp. 2-5:
/ itilontell, 1Vlichael, Stephen Harper, Luther Propet, Crenting Successful Communities, Island Press,
Washington D.C., 1990.
~ . Oraians, Gordan, Ecological Coricepts of Sttstainabilit_y, Environment, Novemb'er 1990.
Rees, William-, A Role for Environmental Assessment in Achieving Sustainn6le Development,
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Elsevier Science Publishing Co. August, 1988.'
State of Colorado - Executive Office, Colorado Environment 2000, 1989.
~ Tow.n of Vail, The Vail Overvieav, Community Relations Division, 1993.
' Town of Vail, Development Stacistics of the Town of Vail, Department of Community
Development, January 1994.
U.S. Army Envi,ronmental Policy Institute, Environmental Trends Upc{ate, TR-15g7-1-12A, November 19,. 1992. ' . , . '
U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Cetutts, 1990. Vail Valley Consolidated Water Districr, Water Managettten[ Plctn, December 1993. .
. ' , • ~ ,
, Vig, ,vorman J., Michael E. Kraft,"Environmental Policv in the 1990's, Congressional Ouarterly ,
' - Press, 1990. . .
• Council on Environmental Ouality, Zlst Annttal Report, U.S. Government Printing OfEice,
1990:
_ ~ .
31 .
. . • .
; . ~
OF3DIPIANCE N0. 24
SERIES OF 1994
AN Al1AENDMENT TO SECTION 3.40.020, ADDING TFIE DEE9NBTB0N F0R
"TELECOIVIMU1V9CATIONS SERVBCE"
VVHEREAS, the Town of Vail adopted standard definitions for the sales tax ordinance in
1991; and
UVHEREAS, the definitions as adopted did not include a standard definition for
"telecommunication service".
IVODU, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAIiVED BY THE TODUfV COUfVCIL FOR VAIL,
COLORADO, that:
1) Section 3.40.020 of the Vail, Colorado Municipal Code shall be amended with the
addition of the following definition:
"Telecommunication service" means the transmission of any two-
way interactive electromagnetic communications including but not
limited to voice, image, data and any other information, by the use
of any means but not limited to wire, cable, fiber optical cable,
microwave, radio wave or any combinations of such media.
"Telecommunications service" includes but is not limited to basic
local exchange telephone service, toll telephone service and
teletypewriter service, including but not limited to residential and
business service, directory assistance, cellular mobile telephone or
~
telecommunication service, specialized mobite radio and two-way
pagers and paging service, including any form of mobile tvvo-way
communication. "Telecommunications service" does not include
separately stated non transmission services which constitute
computer processing applications used to act on the information to
be transmitted.'
2) If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for
any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and
1 Definition should be added to Section 3.40.020 between R.R.
"Taxpayer" and S.S. "Wholesale Sales".
1
Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1994
s • ^
, .
each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any
one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
3) The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is
necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants
thereof.
4) The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code
of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any
duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the
provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not
revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated
herein.
5) All bylauvs, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent
herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be
construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore
repealed.
IIVTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AIVD ORDERED PUBLISHED OfVCE IN FULL ON
FIRST READIfVG this day of , 1994, and a public hearing shall be held on this
Ordinance on the _ day of , 1994, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Towrn Clerk
2
Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1994
. e
READ AfVD APPROVED OiV SECOND READIiVG AIVD ORDERED PUBLISHED
this _ day of , 1994.
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
C:\ORD9424
3
Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1994
^ WS wts•ti4 U'&*49
0
TOWN OF VAIL
COMMUNITY YOUTH LEADERSHIP AWARD
Given annually to promote broad based excellence
in young adults, stimulate interest in high school
programs, and increase the awareness, importance, and participation by teen-agers in local service
projects, towards creating better more informed future
commuriity leaders,
REQUIREMENTS°
° Citizen of Vail Colorado
° Open to any student attending high school in Eagle
County
° Enter competition by February 1st of Freshman year
with minimum criteriae
° Awarded annually in May to 1(or more) Juniors based
on excellence ine
1e Basic core academic courses
2. Extra-curricular courses such as music, art,
drama, speech,,e,
3e Athletics
4. Community service such as world cup volunteer,
Vail Clean Up/Tree Planting, Rotary Inter-act,
ecteee, (Specific pre-determined qualifying
programs that require dedication)
AWARD
$10,000!
.In the form of a five year bond/annuity/CD/other
to be used to start in business, a family,
post-graduate education, or other personal desires!
NEXT STEP .a
1, Approve concept
2. Name
3e Imput from local schools
4e Fund
5, Announce February 1st 1995 to all qualified
students and parents,
6. Choose 1st winner April 15th 1997!