HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-02-14 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
VAIL TOVIIN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1995
12:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAiVIBERS
1. Discussion of Ongoing Roll of Funding Partners for VVTCB Umbrella Organization.
2. PEC Report.
3. Discussion of 250 Ordinance.
4. Discussion/Public Meeting re: the Outdoor Display of Goods in the Village and
Lionshead.
5. Consider Draft Animal Control Ordinance.
6. Request to proceed through the Design Review Process to allovu for the location
of a freestanding menu box on Town right-of-way adjacent to Covered Bridge
Building. Applicant: Covered Bridge Coffee Shop.
7. Request from the VRD to proceed through the planning process to rezone the golf
course maintenance facility (1278 Vail Valley Drive, Parcel E, Vail Village 1st
Filing) from Rlatural Area Preservation District to the General Use District.
8• 1999 Vllorld Ski Championships "Need List".
9. Discussion re: Eagle County Mass Transit Transportation Summit.
10. Information Update.
11. Council Reports.
12. Other.
13. Executive Session - Land Negotiations.
VA Negotiations.
14. Adjournment.
NOTE llPCOfwING MEETENG START TINiES BELOW:
(ALL YIMES ARE APPROXlIIAATE AIVD SUBJEC7 TO CHAfVGE)
• • ~ • • • • THE NEXT !/AIL YOWiV COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
!A/ILL BE ON TUESDAY, 2/29/95, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IIV YOV COUNCIL CHANiBERS.
THE FOLLOWIN6a VAIL TOlAIN COUNCIL REGULAR 1tVORK SESSIORI
WILL BE ON TUESDAX, 2/28/95, BEGINPIING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBIERS.
THE NEXT VABL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVEYVING MEE'TERlG
1A/ILL BE ON TUESDAY, 2/21/95, BEG@NNING AT 7:30 P.M. Ild TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
• a • • • • •
C:VIGENDA. WSE
r~
VAIL TOWfV COUfVCIL
WORK SE$SION
II UESD6°9ll yFEBRVA7'9 Y1°4y 1995
92:00 P.M. IfV TOV COUIVCIL CHAMBERS
EXP/4NDED AGEIVDA
12:00 P.M. 1. Discussion of Ongoing Roll of Funding Partners for VVTCB Umbrella
Bob Kunkel Organization.
Keny Myers
12:45 P. M. 2. P EC Report.
Mike Mollica
1:00 P.M. 3. Discussion of 250 Ordinance.
Mike Mollica
George Ruther
2:00 P.M. 4. Discussion/Public Meeting re: the Outdoor Display of Goods in the Village
Lauren VVaterton and Lionshead.
ACTIOfV REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide staff with direction for
further action.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: As requested at the November 22, 1994
Council work session, staff has proposed changes to the Zoning Code that
would limit outdoor displays to two weekends per year. On December 19,
1994, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) discussed the
changes and favored the creation of guidelines for outdoor displays, and
allowing displays year round. The PEC voted 5-1 recommending the
establishment of a merchant task force to proposed guidelines and
enforcement of the guidelines.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staf# recommends modification to the
Zoning and Sign Codes (see the staff memo dated fVovember 22, 1994 for
complete discussion).
3:00 P.M. 5. Consider Draft Animal Control Ordinance.
Tom Moorhead
Bob Slagle
4:00 P.M. 6. Request to proceed through the planning process to allow for the
Randy Stouder location of a freestanding menu box on Town right-of-way adjacent to
Covered Bridge Building. Applicant: Covered Bridge Coffee Shop.
4:05 P.M. 7. Request from VRD to proceed through the planning process to rezone
Russell Forrest the golf course maintenance facility (1278 Vail Valley Drive, Parcel E, Vail
Village ist Filing) from Natural Area Preservation District to General Use
District.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUiVCIL: Since this property is owned by the
Town of Vail, the Town Council is being requested to permit or deny the
VRD from proceeding through the process to rezone the golf course
maintenance facility.
1
~ -
BACKGROUiVD RATIOiVALE: Since the late 1960s, the golf course
maintenance facility has been located on parcel E. In 1980 this property
was annexed into the Town and zoned Natural Area Preservation District.
In 1994, the Town of Vail acquired the north half of parcel E, Vail Village lst
Filing from the U.S. Forest Service. This facility is nonconforming use and
any proposed changes to the facility requires a zoning variance. Staff,
through the Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan, has identified this site
as one that needs to be rezoned since it is significantly developed and has
no characteristics of a natural area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. Staff recommends that the VRD be
permitted to request a zoning change on the property. If permitted to
proceed with a zoning change, the VRD will first receive a recommendation
from the PEC and then come before the Town Council for final approval.
4:10 P.M. 8. 1999 1lUorld Ski Championship "Need List".
John Garnsey
Joe Macy
4:40 P.M. 9. Discussion re: Eagle County Mass Transit Transportation Summit.
Mike Rose
5:25 P.M. 10. Informafion Update.
5:35 P.M. 11. Council Reports.
5:45 P.M. 12. Other.
5:55 P.M. 13. Executive Session.
- Land Negotiations (15 min).
- VA IVegotiations (1 hr).
7:10 P.M. 14. Adjournment.
N0~E UPCOMING MEETIPIG START T9iV1ES BELOiN:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
*so 0000
THE NEXT dAYL TOWP! COUNCIL REGULAR VA/ORK SESSIOId
!fl/ILL BE OBd TUESDAY, 2/21/95, BEGIPINING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUIVCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING !/AIL T01iVN COUNCIL REGIJLAR WORK SESSION
1MILL BE ON TUESDAY, 2/28/95, BEGINIVING AT 2:00 P.M. IfV TOV COUIVCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NE3tY VA9L TOWN COU[VCIL REGl9LAR EVEIVING MEETIidG
lAIILL BE ON YUESDAY, 2/21/95, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHANi6ERS.
• ~ • • • 0 0
C:VIGENDA.WSE
2
!
1NORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP
LTOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTBONS
1993
10/19 SNOW STORAGE LAND LARRY/BOB McL: Immediately pursue purchase from VA Current discussions presume a decision in 6 months (April '95).
PURCHASE of current snow storage site, as well as another 10 acres
adjacent to the west.
02/15 CHUCK ANDERSON YOUTH PAMIMERV: Contact VRD about moving up the selection Packet received and includetl in Paul's and Jan's materials, 5/3/94.
AINARD process to allow awards to be given during May PRIOR to Further review of Youth Award proposal from Jan and Paul to be
(request: Strauch) gratluation or to be included with the graduation scheduled for Febpuary 28,1995.
ceremonies.
03/08 UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES LARRY: Create a Master Plan to phase the untlergrounding Larry has memo in process.
NiASTER PLAN of all above-ground utilities within Vail,
(request: Council)
04/05 SIGNS LARRY/GREG: Why are there so many signs in this town? Tom, Ken, Buck, Larry, Greg will set issue for general Council discussion
They represent neither a quality appearance nor are they on February 28, 1995.
"user-friendly." There are 24 signs beiween Tom
Steinberg's house and the TOV...
01/03 GRUNDIG MOUNTAIN BIKE RACE BOB; Explore the following opportunitieslconcerns: 1) Still waiting for information from John Garnsy re: Item #4 antl cancelling
Street food vending; 2) VAITOV cooperative funding; 3) the race.
Future events; 4) Explore how restrictive we can be without
losing event forever; 5) UVill Rountlabout and Covered
Bridge both be operational by this event schetluled June 8-
11,1995?
01/24 GIFTS/HONORARIA REPORTING TOM: Per the advisement in the most recent CML
Newsletter (1120195), please provide an opinion to Council
outlining their responsibility. CRS 24-6-203.
01/24 10TH MOUNTAIN DIVISION PAM: Coordinate a reception, possibly in conjunction with Pam has spoken with both Earl Clarke and Frank Romano and is
RECEPTION Colorado Ski Museum (Lucy Babcock) for May 28, 1995. setting up an appoinfinent with Lucy Babcock.
Coordinate partnerships in this effort w/VUF, VA, VFW, etc.
February 10, 1995 Page 1 of 2
01/24 INFORMATION CENTERS BOB/PAM: Coordinate meeting with Colorado Ski Museum
and VVTCB re: possible management of VTRC Information
Center by Colorado Ski Museum.
02/07 "Needl LBsf" gor'99 Championships ALL: Finalize lisf with departments and Council 9or Schedule fmp discussEon at Febp~ary 94, 9995 work session.
presentation 4m Sfate.
February 10, 1995 Page )-ot 2
1. Does the present structure address adequately political
ramifications?
2. Do the funding partners need to have some sort of up-front
agreement that relate to the process, including controlled
conditions and recording mechanisms?
3. Do we need to have certain agreements as to expectations in
advance? .
4. How do the funding partners relate to the WTCB Board?
5. What provision is there so that other entities can in the
future become a partner?
6. What is the WTCB board's plan to set up a mission and goals
statement and how would that be presented to the funding
entities? It is important that they review and support that?
So these are dealt with some initial points regarding the
relatioriship funding entities and WTCB board. Then on a follow-up
basis is there a need to have an annual or bi-annual report to the
funding entities and would it be appropriate that that report be
made to a meeting at which all of the funding entities are present
rather just to entity individually.
PLANNINC AND ENVIRONIIAENTAL COnAnAISSlON
February 13, 1995
AGENDA -
Proiect Orientation/Lunch 19:30 a.rn.
Si4e Visits 92:30 p.m.
The Ruins
Lions Square .Lodge .
Covered Bridge Coffee Shop
The Golden Bear
Serrano's Drivers: Andy and Randy
PublicHearinq 2:00 p.m.
1. A request regarding amendments to Chapter 18.71 (Additional GRFA) and Chapter
. 18.57 (Employee Housing), deleting the section providing for Additional GRFA (the
250) and incorporating the 250 GRFA allowance in the Employee Housing Section of
the Zoning Code, to be used exclusively for deed-restricted employee housing:
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor dining deck at the
Covered Bridge Building (Covered Bridge Coffee Shop), located at 227 Bridge
Street/Lots B, C and D, Block 5-13, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Julie Iverson and Kiendra Hoover Planner: Randy Stouder
3. . A request for a major CCII exterior alteration and common area and parking variances
to allow for a lobby expansion for the Lions Square Lodge located at 660 West
~ Lionshead Place/Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing.
Applicant: Lions Square Lodge, represented by Bill Pierce .
Planner: Jim Curnutte
4. A request for a worksession for a CCI minor exterior alteration to allow for an addition
to the Golden Bear retail shop within the A and D Building, located at 286 Bridge
StreeULots A and B and a part of C, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Lee Hollis
Planner: Randy Stouder 1
5. A request for a worksession for a major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade Village ta
allow for the completion of the Westhaven Condominiums (The Ruins) located at 1325
Westhaven Drive/Cascade Village, SDD #4.
Applicant: Gerald Wuhrman, General Manager of the Westhaven Condominiums
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
6. A request for a major amendment to SpD #5 (Simba Run) to allow for modifications to
the previously approved development plan for the Savoy Villas Development located
on an unplatted parcel at 1100 North Frontage Road.
Applicant: Walid Said
Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO FEBRUARY 27, 1995
7. A request for a site coverage variance to allow for an expansion of the Aasland
Residence located at 2527 Arosa Drive/Lot 3, Block Ci, Vail Das Schone 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Galen Aasland
Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED 'TO FEBRUARY 27, 1995
8. A request for a major exterior alteration in the CommE:rcial Core I zone district and site
coverage, stream setback and common area variances and conditional use permits to
allow office on the third floor and to allow an outdoor dining deck to provide for the
redevelopment of Serrano's, located at 298 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail
Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Margretta B. Parks and Vail Associates, Inc.
Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO FEBRUARY 27, 1995
9. Approve minutes from January 23, 1995 PEC meeting.
10. Council. Update:
•Vail Commons RFP issued January 27, 1995.
11. Update on schedule for PEC appointments.
2 ,
PL,QNNING AND ENVIRONAAENTAL COIIAMISSION
February 13, 1995
. AGENDA
Projecf Orientation/Lunch 91:30 a.m.
Sife Visifs 12:30 p.rn.
The Ruins
Lions Square Lodge
Covered Bridge Coffee Shop
The Golden Bear
Serrano's
Drivers: Andy and Randy
Public*Hearing 2:00 p.m.'
1. A request regarding amendments to Chapter 18.71 (Additional GRFA) and Chapter
. 18.57 (Employee Housing), deleting the section providing for Additional GRFA (the
250) and incorporating the 250 GRFA allowance in the Employee Housing Section of
- the Zoning Code, to be used exclusively for deed-restricted employee housing.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor dining deck at the
Covered Bridge Building (Covered Bridge Coffee Shop), located at 227 Bridge
StreeULots B, C and D, Block 5-13, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Julie Iverson and Kiendra Hoover
. Planner: Randy Stouder
3. : A request for a major CCII exterior alteration and common area and parking variances
to allow for a lobby expansion for the Lions Square Lodge located at 660 West
Lionshead Place/Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing. Applicant: Lions Square Lodge, represented by Bill Pierce
Planner: Jim Curnutte
4. A request for a vuorksession for a CCI minor exterior alteration to allow for an addition .
to the Golden Bear retail shop within the A and D Building, located at 286 Bridge
StreeULots A and B and a part of C, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Lee Hollis
Planner: Randy Stouder '
. ~
5. A request for a worksession for a major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade Viilage to
allow for the compietion of the Westhaven Condominiums (The Ruins) located at 1325
Westhaven Drive/Cascade Village, SDD #4.
Applicant: Gerald Wuhrman, General Manager of the Westhaven Condominiums
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
6. A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 (Simba Run) to allow for modifications to
the previously approved development plan for the Savoy Villas Development located
on an unplatted parcel at 1100 North Frontage Road.
Applicant: Walid Said
Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED 'TO FEBRUARY 27, 1995
7. A request for a site coverage variance to allow for an expansion of the Aasland
Residence located at 2527 Arosa Drive/Lot 3, Block Cl, Vail Das Schone 1st Filing.
Applicant: Galen Aasland
Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED 'TO FEBRUARY 27, 1995
8. A request for a major exterior alteration in the CommE:rcial Core I zone district and site
coverage, stream setback and common area variances and conditional use permits to
allow office on the third floor and to allow an outdoor cJining deck to provide for the
redevelopment of Serrano's, located at 298 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail
Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Margretta B. Parks and Vail Associates, Inc.
Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED 'rO FEBRUARY 27, 1995
9. Approve minutes from January 23, 1995 PEC meeting.
10. Council Update:
•Vail Commons RFP issued January 27, 1995.
11. Update on schedule for PEC _appointments.
2
~9.5 a 1*• fs ~J,ftw__
Geo~~~ Lamb
5135 Main Gore Drave
Vailo Cogorado
February 14, 1995
TO o The Vail Town Council
FROMe George Lamb
REo 250 Ordinance
I wish to formally express my opposition to the current revision
proposal to the 250 ordinancee
Having served on the Design Review Board for four years I saw many
examples where the 250 ordinance was a very positive feature in
improving a property both internally as to design and function and
externally by correcting deficiencies in landscaping, paving and
general overall appearancee
As we continue to experience a local flight down valley, it would
be unfortunate to remove one of the few alternatives Vail
homeowners have legt to improve their existing residenceo
2 also firmly believe that a revision of the ordinance to apply
only for use in deed restricted employee housing would be ill
advisede First, such a program would exasperate an already
diggicult monitoring situation, and second, there will be.
situations where these deed restricted employee units will proved
to be a hardship when the owner attempts to sell his residenceo
Vail must address the employee housing problem aggressively, but
not at the cost of another proven remedy such as the 250 ordinancee
As Vail needs to be competitive with its emerging neighbors down
valley, we seem to be giving more credence to the perception that
it is extremely difficult to obtain approvals for the type of
renovations Vail must undertakeo We need to switch from our
continued policy of reaction to one of being proactive.
1 lUs 67• i 41s l,(,&Wtt_3
a
~
~~~~~~~DUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 19, 1994
RE: A request for aworksession for an amendment to Section 18.71 (Additional
GRFA) and Section 18.57 (Employee Housing), to delete the section providing
for Additional GRFA (the 250) and to incorporate the 250 GRFA allowance in
the Employee Housing Section of the Zoning Code, to be used exclusively for
deed-restricted employee housing.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
1. WTRODlJCT90N-
At the request of the Vail Town Council, the planning staff was asked to initiate revisions to
the existing 250 Ordinance (Additional GRFA). The Council has proposed that the existing
250 Ordinance be revised to allow the additional 250 square feet of GRFA only when
proposed in conjunction with an approved, deed restricted employee housing unit. Revisions,
therefore, would need to be made to both Chapter 18.71 (Additional GRFA) and Chapter
18.57 (Employee Housing) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Any changes to the 250
Ordinance would require a recommendation from the Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) and two readings of the ordinance change before the Town Council at
public hearings.
This memorandum provides a brief history of the 250 ordinance, the results of staff's research
into all the 250's approved in the Town of Vail, the future development potential of the
ordinance and proposed alternatives to the existing 250 ordinance.
90. HBSTORY OF YHE 250
The 250 Ordinance was originally approved by the Town Council in March of 1985 (Ordinance
5, Series 1985). According to Chapter 18.71, Section 18.71.010 of the Municipal Code, in
part, the purpose of the 250 square feet of additional GRFA is to:
"provide an inducement for the upgrading of single family dwellings and
dwelling units which have been in existence within the Town of Vail for at least
five years by permitting the addition of up to 250 square feet of Gross
Residential Floor Area to such single family dwellings and dwelling units. The
250 square feet of additional GRFA may be granted to single family dwellings,
two family and multi-family dwellings only once, but may be requested and
granted in more than one increment of less than 250 square feet. Chapter
18.71 does not assure each single family dwelling or dwelling unit located within
the Town of Vail an additional 250 square feet, and proposals for any additional
GRFA shall be reviewed closely with respect to site planning, impact on
adjacent properties and applicable Town of Vail development standards."
s
~
Additionally, the 250 Ordinance was adopted as, a result of an increasing number of density
(GRFA) variance requests for small additions to existing resiciences that had already reached
their full development potential. The majority of the GRFA variance requests were denied
since the applicants had difficulty in meeting the criteria and findings required in order for the
PEC to grant a variance. As a result, the planning staff was directed to create an ordinance
allowing property owners to receive additional GRFA.
In the nearly ten years since the adoption of the 250 Ordinance, the Ordinance has been
amended only once (Ordinance 36, Series 1988). In Decemk>er of 1988, the Vail Town
Council approved, upon second reading, an amendment.to the purpose Section (18.71.010) of
the 250 Ordinance allowing 250 square feet of additional GR1=A to be used in single family
dwellings which are totally removed and replaced (demo/rebuild). This was considered to be
"the ultimate remodel" of an existing building.
In 1991, a request was made by the Town of Vail to repeal Chapter 18.71 of the Municipal
Code. The repeal request of Chapter 18.71 was made in response to a report completed by
the Zoning Code Revision Task Force. In a memorandum priapared for the PEC, the Zoning
Code Revision Task Force identified two main issues, or problems which exist with.the 250
Ordinance. The two main issues, or problems, are with the demo/rebuild provision and
variances in conjunction with 250 requests. The conflicting issue relating to the demo/rebuild
provision revolves around the notion that a demo/rebuild project is inconsistent with the
original intent of the ordinance. The Task Force felt that the intent of the 250 was to provide
an "inducement" to upgrade existing buildings and that a demo/rebuild is not in keeping with
the original intent of the ordinance to upgrade existin buildincis. The conflicting issue
associated with variances, in conjunction with 250 requests, is, that it is inconsistent to grant a
site development variance (i.e. site coverage, setback, etc.) in order to allow a property owner
to add GRFA in excess of what is permitted on a particular property by the Zoning Code. .It
was the opinion of the Task Force, at that time, that if the two main issues or problems
associated with the 250 Ordinance could be resolved, the 250 Ordinance should remain. If
not, the 250 Ordinance should be repealed. The Task Force recommended a repeal of the
entire 250 Ordinance.
At the April 8, 1991 PEC meeting, the planning staff presentecJ the Task Force's
recommendation to repeal the entire 250 Ordinance (Ordinanc:e No. 9, Series of 1991). After
a lengthy public hearing with comments being heard from a niamber of citizens expressing
concern over the proposed repeal of the 250 Ordinance, a motion was made. The motion
made was to modify the existing 250 Ordinance as opposed to repealing it entirely as was
recommended by the staff and the Zoning Code Revision Task Force. The motion was
seconded. After discussion on the motion was completed, an amended motion was made and
read as follows:
"That the ordinance be sent to the Town Council with Et recommendation of
denial of the staff recommendations in order for the orciinance to return to the
Zoning Code Task Force to clarify the issues."
A vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of 4-1.
A copy of the PEC memorandum and the minutes from the April 8, 1991 PEC meeting has
been provided for your reference (Exhibit D).
e
4
At the regular evening meeting of the Town Council on April 16, 1991, the Town Council
heard discussion on Ordinance IVo. 9, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance to repeal
Chapter 18.71 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Staff presented the ordinance and the
recommendation of the PEC to deny the ordinance as proposed. Public input on the
ordinance was then heard by the Council and a motion followed. A motion was made to denv
Ordinance No. 9. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-2.
A copy of the Vail Town Council minutes has been provided for your reference (Exhibit E).
VOl. 250 1RESEAffiCH
In response to the Town Council's request of staff to initiate revisions to the existing 250
Ordinance, the planning staff conducted an investigation of all 250's approved in the Town of
Vail. The methodology of the investigation was to research and review all of the Design
Review Board (DRB) agendas and minutes, and other appropriate planning files, and
document all of the 250 approvals granted between 1985 and IVovember 1994. The purpose
of the 250 Ordinance research was to answer the following questions as they relate to the
250:
1. What is the distribution of approved 250's throughout the Town?
2. How many 250's have been approved in the Town of Vail?
3. What is the total number of square feet approved with each 250 request?
4. What was the use of the additional 250 square feet?
5. Were property upgrades (paving, landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, etc.) .
required with the approval of the 250 request?
6. Was the additional square footage an interior or exterior improvement?
Documentation of the 250 research has been provided (Exhibit E).
VV. DEVfELOPMENT POTENTlAL
In January of 1994, the Town of Vail Community Development Department prepared the
"Town of Vail Development Statistics". The purpose of preparing the Development Statistics
was to determine the existing and future potential residential development in the Town of Vail,
in terms of the number of dwelling units. The Development Statistics figures represent an
approximate count of the number of units in the Gore Valley today, as well as provide an
approximate account of how many units could be built in the Valley in the future. According to
the Development Statistics, 4,942 multi-family units currently exist and a potential of 237 multi-
family units remains; resulting in a total multi-family development potential of 5,179 units.
Similarly, 1,757 single family, duplex and primary/secondary units exist in the. Town today.
The future potential of 853 units remain; resulting in a possible total 2610 single family, duplex
and prim ary/seco ndary units in the Town of Vail.
~
:
The results of Staff's research into the 250 Ordinance indicaies that since 1985, when the 250
Ordinance was originally adopted by the Council, until November, 1994, 176 250's (65
interior/111 exterior) have been approved, resulting in a total of 38,252 square feet of
additional GRFA being added within the Town of Vail (Exhikiits A and 6). The average
square footage of an approved 250 during that time period is 221 square feet. Furthermore,
staff's research indicates that of the 176 approved 250's, 26 (or 15°/a of the approved 250's)
required some form of upgrading to the applicant's property (Exhibit C).
A map illustrating the spacial distribution of all 250's approved in the Town of Vail from 1985
to November 1994 was also prepared by staff. Staff used thE; information gathered during the
research process of the 250 Ordinance to create the map to illustrate how many 250's have
been approved in three areas of town. The three areas of toinrn identified on the map are East
Vail, West Vail, and Mid-Vail. Results of the map preparation indicate that twenty-three 250's
were approved in East Vail, eleven have been approved in W'est Vail, and one hundred forty-
two have been approved in the Mid-Vail area of town (see miip).
Lastly, when the results of the 250 Ordinance research are combined with the figures
represented in the "Town of Vail Development Statistics", staff can infer the future additional
square footage of the 250 Ordinance. The table below illustrates the results when the figures
represented in the Development Statistics are combined with the 250 Ordinance research
completed by staff:
OF 250'S GRFA THAT COULD BE ADDED
iEXISTINGIPOTENTIAL1# OF D.U.'S @ APPROVED ie OF D.U.'S STILL WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL
TYPE OF DWELLWG UNIT (D_UD.U__ D_U__ ____~BUILD OUT SINCE 1985 IELIGIBLE FOR A 250 UNDER THE 250 ORDINANCE
- - - - - - r- - - -
- J - - - ~ -
- - -
- -
Single Family, Duplex Prim-ary/Secondary , 17571 8531 2010~ 111 2499' 624750
- ~ - - _ - - ~ _ - ; - - - - - -
MuIU-Famil _ i 49421 2371 _51791
- -65~ 51141 1278500
- y - - - - - . _ - - - - - -
i -
- - - - -
TOTAL 6699 1094! : ; 1903~5[3
V. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE 250 ORDINANCE
The planning staff has prepared four alternatives to the currerit 250 Ordinance. The four
alternatives includes:
1. Amend the 250 Ordinance to allow the additional GRFA on a site only
when associated with an approved, deed restricted employee housing
unit;
2. Entirely eliminate the 250 Ordinance (Chapter 18.71) of the Town of Vail
Municipal Code by repealing Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1985 and
Ordinance No. 36, Series of 1988;
3. Amend the 250 Ordinance to allow all propeirty owners to add GRFA? to
their property, but the additional square fooitage would be limited to the
interior of the structure only;
4. No action, make no revisions to the 250 Ordinance and allow property
owners to continue applying for additional GRFA as they currently are .
permitted under Chapter 18.71 (Additional GRFA).
a
I
d
Each of the four alternatives proposed by staff have both advantages and disadvantages
associated with them. The table below identifies each of the alternatives and briefly describes
the advantages and disadvantages associated with each:
PROPOSED ALTERidATIVE ADVANTAGES DISADVAWTAGES
Amend the 250 Ordinance to 1. Provides an additional incentive to property 1. Could be construed a special
allow the additional GRFA owners and developers to create employee privilege to propehy owners with
only when associated with an housing units in the Town of Vail. lots less than 15,000 square feet
approved, deed restricted in the Primary/Secondary zone
employee housing unit. 2. Improves quality of life for employees in the district.
Upper Eagle Valley.
3. Creates and continues to provide a public
benefit to the community.
Entirely eliminate the 250 1. Removes the contradiction that currently 1. Restncts a property owner's
Ordinance, (Chapter 18.71) of exists in the Code with regard to GRFA, ability to "modemize" their
the Vail Municipal Code by variance requests, public welfare, homes as their personal needs
repealing Ordinance No. 5, demo/rebuild, etc. In addition, no other change.
Series of 1985 and municipality uses this method to offer
Ordinance No. 36, Series of additional GRFA in their Zoning Code. 2. Could potentially increase the
1988 amount of GRFA variances
, 2. Would eliminate further increases in the requested of the Planning and
bulk and mass of structures currently in the Environmental Commission.
Town of Vail.
3. May eliminate a property
owner's desire to fully complete
their project and receive a final
Certificate of Occupancy.
4. May eliminate the Town's ability
to get property owners to bring
their properties into compliance
with the Zoning Code.
Amend the 250 Ordinance to 1. Would allow property owners to 1. Adversely effecls those propeny
allow all property owners to "modernize" their homes without increasing owners whose residences are
add GRFA to their properly, the bulk and mass of the structure. not conducive to interior
but the additional square expansion only.
' footage would be limited to 2. Continues to allow properties to be
the interior of ihe structure upgraded in the Town of Vail. 2. May provide an incentive for
only. property owners to add large
3. Provides an ability for ihe Town to require vaulted spaces to iheir new
additional landscaping, above ground homes with the intent of adding
utilities to be undergrounded, and gravel the additional 250 square feet in
driveways to be paved on properlies in the lofled spaces in the future.
town.
No action, make no revisions 1. Continues to provide for the upgrading of 1. Perpetuates the two main issues
to the 250 Ordinance and properties in the Town of Vail. or problems associated wilh the
allow property owners to. 250 Ordinance identified by the
continue to apply for 2. Provides an ability for the Town to require Zoning Code Revision Task
additional GRFA as they additional landscaping, above ground Force in 1991 and addressed
currently are permitted under utilities to be undergrounded, and gravel . earlier in this memo.
Chapter 18.71 (Additional driveways to be paved on properties in
GRFA). Town. 2. Could conlinue to add additional
mass and bulk to the existing
3. Continues to allow properly owners to siructures within the Town of
improve their quality of life by allowing them Vail.
to expand their residences as their personal
needs change.
~
r
~
e4
TUW+I OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road Office of Town Artorney
Yail, Colorada 81657 - -
303-479-21071 FAX 303-479-2157
MEiVIORANDUM
TO: Planning & Environmental Commission
FROM: R. Thomas Moorhead
DATE: January 23, 1995
RE: Removal of Chapter 18:71, Additional Gross Residential F:cor Area
Constitute a"Taking" of a Development Right
Ladies and Gentlemen, George Ruther explained that your Commission had questions as to
wrhether the removal of the opportunity to develop an additional 250 sq. ft. of gross residential
floor area, single family dwellings and dwelling units would constitute the taking of a prcperty right
which would require compensation. My answer to that question is no.
The Town of Vail has comprehensive zoning which promotes widespread public bene:`it. Within
that zoning the Town of Vail regulates the gross residential floor area that is permitted ir~ dwelling
units. In 1985 an exception to the comprehensive zoning was created for an expressed public
purpose. That exception was to allow, under certain circumstances, an additional 250 sq. ft. of
GRFA to provide an inducement for the upgrading of single family dwellings and dwell:ng units
in existence for more than five years. The Chapter expressly states that it does not assure each
single family dwelling unit an additional 250.
A I ~d use regulation constitutes-a taking under the Colorado and United States constitutions if
it pvents all economically viable use of the property. Regulation which does not prevent all
economic use may also constitute a taking if it goes "to far." The determine of whether a
regulation goes "to far" for purposes of the Fifth Amendment is essentially an "ad hoc, factual"
inquiry. Several factors should be taken into account when determining whether a governmental
action has gone beyond "regulation" and affects a"taking." Those factors are: "the character of
the governmental action, iYs economic impact, and it's interterence with reasonable invsstment-
backed expectations." Expecfations of unregulated use are unreasonable when an extensive
regulatory scheme is in place at the time of investment.
~
There is no question that the removal of this provision would not prevent all econcrricaily viable
use of the property. It in fact places no additional restrictions on the property than thosa that are
already in place through the comprehensive zoning. What it does do is remove an exception to
the comprehensive zoning.
"Government could hardly go on if to some extent values incident to property coufd not be
diminished without paying for every such change in the general law... But... the impl;ed limitation
must have its limits...when it reaches a certain magnitude, in most if not all cases there must be
an exercise of eminent domain and compensation." 260 U.S. at 413:
I do not believe that the removing of the regulation in question would reach such a magnitude that
it could be determined that any property owner would be entitled to compensation. A property
owner does not establish a"taking" by showing that they have been denied the ability to exploit
a property interest that they heretofore had believed was available for development. A Iand
owner does not have an investment-backed expectation protected by the taking clause when a
regulation destroys only "one strand" in the property bundle of rights.
All land use controls must advance a legitimate governmental interest that serves the public
health, safety, morals and general welfare. Comprehensive zoning has been found to meet that
substantive due process requirement.
Since the Town would be assuring its previously determinE:d zoning requirements as far as
density and because removal of the Chapter would not pl,ace additional restrictions on the
property and the economic loss would be insignificant in relation to the value of the property, it
is my opinion that removal of the opportunity to develop and aciditional 250 sq. ft. of GRFA would
not constitute a regulatory taking.
Thank you.
RAM/aw
~
CArtwllica.mem
P.
u'
e4
TUWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road Office of Town Attorney
Yail, Colorado 81657 ~ -
303-479-21071 FAX 303-479-2157
fVI E IVIO RAN D U iVl
TO: Planning & Environmental Commission
FROM: R. Thomas Nioorhead
DATE: January 23, 1995
RE: Removal of Chapter 18.71, Additional Gross Residentia! ;:cor Area
Constitute a"Taking" of a Development Right
Ladies and Gentlemen, George Ruther explained that your Commission had questians as to
whether the removal of the opportunity to develop an additional 250 sq. ft, of gross residential
floor area, single family dwellings and dwelling units would constitute the taking of a prcNerty right
wrhich would require compensation. My answer to that question is no.
The Town of Vail has comprehensive zoning wrhich promotes widespread public bereFit. Within
that zoning the Town of Vail regulates the gross residential floor area that is permitied :r dwelling
units. In 1985 an exception to the comprehensive zoning was created for an expressea public
purpose. That exception was to allow, under certain circumstances, an additionai 250 sq. ft. of
GRFA to provide an inducement for the upgrading of single family dwellings and dwelling units
in existence for more than five years. The Chapter expressly states that it does not assure each
single family dwrelling unit an additional 250.
A land use regulation constitutes a taking under the Colorado and United States constitutions if
it prevents all econamically viable use of the property. Reguiation which does not prevent afl
economic use may also constitute a taking if it goes "to far." The determine of whether a
regulation goes "to far" for purposes of the Fifth Amendment is essentially an "ad hac, factual"
inquiry. Several factors should be taken into account when determining whether a governmental
action has gone beyond "regulation" and affects a"taking." Those factors are: "the character of
the governmental action, it's economic impact, and it's interterence uvith reasonable investment-
backed expectations." Expectations of unregulated use are unreasonable when an extensive
regulatory scheme is in place at the time of investment.
There is no question that the removal of this provision would not prevent all econamica'lly viable
use of the property. It in fact places no additional restrictions on the property than those that are
. already in place through the comprehensive zoning. What it idoes do is remove an exception to
the comprehensive zoning. "Government cauld hardly go on if to some extent values incident to property couid not be
diminished without paying for every such change in the general law... But... the implied limitation
must have its limits...when it reaches a certain magnitude, in most if not all cases there must be
an exercise of eminent domain and compensation." 260 U.S.. at 413.
I do not believe that the removing of the regulation in question would reach such a magnitude that
it could be determined that any property owner would be entitled to compensation. A property
owner does not establish a"taking" by showing that they havie been denied the ability to exploit
a property interest that they heretofore had believed was available for development. A land
owner does not have an investment-backed expectation prot(acted by the taking c;ause when a
regulation destroys only "one strand" in the property bundle of rights.
AIf fand use controls must advance a legitimate governmental interest that serves tne public
health, safety, morals and general welfare. Comprehensive zoning has been found to meet that
substantive due process requirement.
Since the Town would tie assuring its previously determined zoning requirements as far as
density and because removal of the Chapter would not place additional restrictions on the
property and the economic loss would be insignificant in relai:ion to the value of the property, it
is my opinion that removal of the opportunity to develop and aciditional 250 sq. ft. of GRFA would
not constitute a regulatory taking.
Thank you. RA M/aw
C:\mollica.mem
TOWN of VAIL 250 ORDINANCE
RESEARC8~ ~~AMMS (12/94)
V[EAR NUMBER TOTAL AvERAGE NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER OF 250
APPRO!!ED SQ@.DARE SQUARE OF OF APPLVCATOONS
FOOTAGE F00TAGE 9NTERIOR EXXTERBOR REQUIR9RNG
APfPRO!!ED APPRONED 250'S 250'S OMPRO!/EMENTS
1985 3 750 250 0(0%) 3(100%) 2(67%) •
1986 5 1217 243 0(0%) 5(100%) 0(0%)
1987 5 1015 203 1(20%) 4(80%) 0(0%)
1988 4 844 211 0(0%) 4(100%) 1(25%)
1989 14 3234 231 3(21 11 (79%) 1(7%)
1990 23 5212 227 6(26%) 17 (74%) 4(17%)
1991 28 5533 198 10 (36%) 18 (64%) 3(1.1
1992 25 5348 214 11 (44%) 14 (56%) 5(20%)
1993 33 6980 211 18 (55%) 16 (45%) 5(15%) 1994 36 8099 225 16 (44%) 20 (56%) 5(14°/a)
( fVov)
ML 938,252 sq fl; 221 ft: s~ 2~~0 9 91 26 :!(15
t: 4 ~
" EXHIBIT A
4
C
TOTAL NUMBER OF INTERIOR & F.XTERIOR 250'S AI`i•i:0'-','ED IN THE
TOWN OF VAIL FROn9 1985 TO NOV., 1994
~ 40
35
:::::i:::i.' <:>::;:Y:<~::»>:;:j::i;:;;:;:;;;.::_.;:`s::.>:
i
30
s~.::ift:~:1.: i
:.~:~:::V,: : .
a
; » ~ Zp
..:::;:.:::,::;~.~i;iiiiiiiii;iiiiiiii;:~ii;;i:ii:ii;i;;~i;'ii:;:'i;ii:ii;ii;i:~i'::iiiii;::iii;ii?i;i`i'i:i:>iii':;;;'';:i;::~i'~:~:;i:::;;;i:;`;:iiii;~i:S:i:iii;'ii';~:~i;:'iiiiii:ii:i;iiiii;iiiiiiiii:ii;i;~:i`'<`;ii;i:i>::i:i~:iiiiiti;i:i;iii: >i;r;;;:~:ii:i:: . . 6 .
0 ' .:.~<:..::::~:.:::v.s:~:::::;:w:.:::o::>.:.:,::>:c:.>.:.>'.>:~::.a::::.>:»>::;::o:.... ;..>:...>::::::::.:'.>:r..;..:::: :
¦y .
' ^:i
Fri .`i'.::::i:i:: ii:<: `~J
W p~
Q
F
k
~
W
x
m .a
U
a
d
O w
.,-1
~
z
~ 20
w
A
•
E.
1= r-1 18
z
w
4
>
ta
O 0 #OF EXT
ER.
x
O
a
W
0.
a
o.
w
_ . .;:<.;:;<.
; . . . .
<
_ . . . . . . >
0 ~
,
,
. 15 ~ #OF INTER.
~ .
< :
D
17
~i .
zN
~
10
.
18
1
1
~16
.
_ : :
.
' 11 i
10 5
<.;; s; . :
4 ' 6
5
3 i
3 3
.
~
. O
1
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
(NOV) Reviud 12/I5194 .
NUMBER OF 250'S APPROVED & NUNIBER OF 250'S
IREQUIRING VAAPROVEAiiENYS IN THE FOlAlN OF !lAI~
FR0M 9985 TO NOVEMBER, 9994
„
ao
TO
TAL 250'S
-0- #
250'S REQ.
35
IM
PRVMNTS
30 :
~
~
0
~
~
N
U
~
~
25
0
A.
-P
~
~
-
A - =
~ .
~
~
~ -
~
20
17
6 v
o ed 250'
s
AP
Pr
~
o.
~
w
~
15
26 - 2
iri
50's Rq
e u n
9
Im r
ovmn
e e ts
p
10 .
5 ;
0 `
1985 1987 1989 YEARS 1991 1993 Rev.12/15/94
i Exhibit D
MEMORANDUM
'I'O: Planning ancl Environmental Commission
F'ROM: Community Development Department
DATE: . April 8, 1991 SUBJECT: A request to repeal Town of Vail Municipal Code .Chapter
18.71 - Addi.tional Gross Residential Floor Area,
commonly.ref'erred to as the 11250 Ordinance."
Applicant: Town of Vail
I. INTRODUCTION
Dating back to its adoption in 1985, a certain amount of
controversy has always surrounded the 11250 ordinance". Recently,
debate over the purpose and need for the ordinance resulted in it
being made a high priority item of the Zoning Code Revision
. Project. This memo provides a brief background on the 250
ordinance, an explanation of the two main issues with the
ordinance, and recommendations on what to do with the ordinance:
The 250 ordinance has been discussed on numerous occasions during
the past six months, and of al.l the issues that have been dis-
cussed during the Code Revision Project, none can compare with
the wide range of opinions that have been expressed about this
o.rdinance. While discussions with the Planning and Environmental
Commission and Town Council produced no definitive agreement on
what specific changes ;should be made to the ordinance, agreement
on the problems with the ordinance has been reached. The two
main issues, or problems that have prompted the_discussion of
this ordinance are:
A. The "Demo/Rebuild Provision" '
There is near unanimous agreement that the 1988 amendment
permitting an add:itional 250 square feet of gross residen-
tial floor.area (GRFA), in demo/rebuild projects is
inconsistent with the original intent of the ordinance.
B. Variances in Conj'sn^tion with 250 Proposals
Many members of trie Council and Commission have expressed
concern over variances to site development standards (i.e.
setbacks) being gz-anted in order to allow a property owner
to develop GRFA iri excess of what is permitted on a
property.
1
i l
Both of these issues are discussed in much greater detail in
other sections of this memorandum.
Based on discussions with these two boards, it became fairly
clear that if these two issues were resolved, the 250 ordinance
could be maintained (albeit in a modified form). The charge of
the Task Force, staff and consultant was to develop amendment
alternatives that would delete the demo/rebuild provision and
prohibit site development variances in conjunction with 250
proposals.
In January, the staff began.working with the Zoning Code Task
Force to try and resolve these two issues. The goal of this
effort was to evaluate alternatives and reach consensus on an
amendment responsive to the Council's and Planning Commission's
direction.
Ironically, the result of this effort is a recommendation from
the Task Force to repeal, rather than modify this ordinance.
This recommendation, which is supported by the staff, is based on
inherent difficulties in resolving the two main issues with this
ordinance.
II. BACKGROUND ON THE 250 ORDINANCE
Throughout the early 1980's, an increasing number of GRFA
variance requests were made far small additions to existing
residences. While a very small number of these requests were
approved, most were denied by the PEC or by the Council on
appeal. The reason for denial was that approval of a variance
requires that some physical hardship exist on the site - a
physical hardship that creates practical difficulties in the
development of the property.
.As stated in the code, "physical fiardships may_result from the
size or shape of a lot; the location of existing structures
thereon; from topographical or physical conditions on the site or
in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations .
" It is difficult, if not impossible, to find a legitimate physical hardship as justification for developing GRFA over what
is allowed by zoning.
The majority of these GRFA variance requests presented no adverse
impacts to the site or adjacent properties. Nonetheless, most
were denied because they did not satisfy variance criteria. The
PEC and Council's-frustration with having to deal with these
requests resulted in direction to the staff to develop a.process
that would allow for small additions to existing residences that
exceeded allowable GRFA for the property.
2
II
After lengthy analysis and discussion, Ordinance 4.of 1985 was
adopted for the purpose of "providing an :inducement for the
upgrading of certain structures . . by permitting the addition
of up to 250 square feet of GRFA to certa_Ln structures provided
certain criteria are met". Among these criteria were:
1) Units in multi-family buildings coulci add the square footage
only by converting existing interior spaces; physical
expansions or deck enclosures were not permitted in multi•-
family buildings.
2) A residence had to be at least five years old before
qualifying for additional square foot:age, thus ensuring that
the ordinance is used for additions t:o existing structures.
3) Properties that obtained additional GRFA had to comply with
minimum site and landscape standards.- for example, the DRB
could require additional landscaping as a condition of
adding additional GRFA.
4) Additional GRFA permitted by the ordi.nance could be granted
only once.
The key element of this ordinance had noth.ing to do with "provid-
ing an inducement for the upgrading of cer-tain structures".
Instead, what the ordinance did was allow a property owner who
has developed all allowable GRFA to develap additional GRFA
without going through the variance process. As a result, the
physical hardship criteria did not have to be satisfied in order
to construct a small addition to a"maxed out" property.
In the late 1980's, it became quite common to see the demolitian
of existing s.ingle family and duplex residences in order to
construct a new residence. With very few exceRtions, this trend
has been limited to the Forest Road and Mill Creek Circle areas
of town. A request to utilize the 250 Ordinance in conjunction
this type of redevelopment prompted revisions to the 250
Ordinance in 1988. Referred to as the "ultimate remodel", the ordinance was amended
to allow demo/rebuild projects to qualify for an additional 250
square feet,of GRFA. As a"trade-off" for allowing this
additional square footage, the amended 250 ordinance requires
that the reconstruction of any demolished building result in the
total elimination any nonconforming site d,evelopment standards.
3
. , III. TWO MAIN ISSUES WITH THE 250 ORDINANCE
A. Demo/Rebuild Provision , .
The most commonly heard comment by the Council and the PEC
over the past six months has been that the ordinance is no
longer in keeping with its "original intent". This raises
the question of what was its "original intent", and how can
the ordinance be amended to reflect this intent?
It is widely agreed that the original intent of the
ordinance was to allow owners of existing dwellings an
opportunity to make small additions to their homes. While
not stated in the ordinar.ce, the underlying purpose of the
250 Ordinance..was to allow home owners, particularly the
local resident, an opportunity to make their homes a bit
more livable. Arguments heard in 1985 were "don't hurt the
little guy", "provide an incentive to keep lo.cal families in
Vail -make it possible to build the additional bedroom or
enlarge the kitchen". The 1985 version of this ordinance
was successful in allowing for these types of additions.
Demo/rebuilds have probably become an issue because it is
not the type of development people had in mind when the
ordinance was originally adopted. Nonetheless, it was
generally agreed that the 1988 "ultimate remodel amendment"
bears no relationship to the original intent of the 250
ordinance. With the demo/rebuild provision, the 250
ordinance has become a tool for speculative development,
adding significant value to the redevelopment potential of
property in Vail. Another inconsistency with the 1988
amendment is that the stated "trade-off" of non-conforming
buildings being eliminated for an additional 250 square feet
is irrelevant. Town regulations already require that
nonconforming site development standards be eliminated in
demo/rebuild situations.
The Task Force's goal was to amend the 250 Ordinance by
deleting the demo/rebuild provision. However, simply
deleting this provision is not as easy an undertaking as it
first appeared because it is directly related to the stated
purpose of the ordinance and fundamental legal
considerations.
The justification for amending the 250 Ordinance in 1988 to
allow additional square footage in demo/rebuild projects was
the "ultimate remodel" - if the original purpose of the
ordinance was to "provide an inducement for upgrading
property", is it not appropriate that the ordinance be used
as an inducement for the total reconstruction of new homes?
4
In response to this rationale, the Task Force discussed
removing any reference to the "upgrading of property" from
the purpose section of the ordinance. The theory being that
if "upgrading property" is not a purpose of the ordinance,
the rationale for the 1988 amendment is no longer valid.
For example, one draft proposal cons:idered by the Task Force
stated that the purpose of the ordiniance was to "provide an
alternative to the variance process".
However, modifying the purpose statement of the ordinance is
nothing more than playing with semantics, and it does
nothing to change the realities of the situation. The
reality is that ultimately, there is no clear objective that
can be made between square footage added by an addition to
an existing structure and square foot:age added by a
demo/rebuild scenario. 250 square fE,et is 250 square feet -
regardless of how it is developed. I'urther, whether the
additional square footage is an "upgi-ade" or not is a
subjective judgement.
Another alternative was to forget about modifying the
purpose statement of the ordinance; 2ind simply state that
the additional square footage is avai.lable for additions to
existing residences only. However, t:his would conflict with
a fundamental precept of zoning - thGtt there must be sounci
rationale for treating similarly situated properties
differently. The impact of 250 square feet of GRFA is the
same from an addition as it is from a. demo/rebuild. There
are no valid reasons to distinguish between .these two types
of development.
The only real distinction between an addition and a
demo/rebuild is that square footage added by an addition i.s
"in keeping with the original intent of this ordinance".
However, from a practical standpoint, from a planning and
zoning standpoint, and more importantly from a legal
standpoint, this is not a sound basis for deleting the
demo%rebuild provision.
B. Variance Requests in Conjunction with 250 Proposals
The issue of variances in conjunction with 250 requests
dates back to some of the original debates over the merits
of this ordinance. There was considerable discussion of the
potential impact resulting from an additional 250 square
feet of GRFA on every single family and duplex lot in Town.
It was assumed that if this square footage could be added
without the need of a site development variance (setback,
height, site coverage, etc.), that the bulk.added to the
site was probably acceptable. Likewi:se, there was concern
that if a variance was needed to deve.lop the additional 250 "
square feet, it was an indication that the site may not be
5
.
capable of accommodating the additional square footage.
However, again from a legal standpoint, it is not advisable
to deny someone the riqht to ask for a site development
variance.
The issue of variances in conjunction with 250 requests is
the same now as it was in 1985 - if a property needs a
variance to accommodate additional GRFA, it is probably an
indication that the site may not be able to handle the
square footage. To work around the legal issue of
prohibiting variance requests, a draft proposal submitted to
the Task Force stated that if a project required a variance,
then the application for the additional square footage was
denied. The basis for this approach was that everyone has a
right to request a variance, but not everyone has the right
to the additional square footage.
This was potentially a clever way to skirt around the issue
of denying someone the right to request a variance.
However, as with the demo/rebuild issue, semantics are
simply not the right way to try and resolve this situation.
It is simply unreasonable discrimination to deny someone the
opportunity to request a variance. While the logic for
. prohibiting variance requests in conjunction with 250
proposals is sound, there is a clear legal.basis for why
this amendment alternative is not appropriate. A property
owner should always be able to have the right to request a
variance.
IV. ALTERNATIVES FOR AMENDING THE 250 ORDINANCE
There are basically two alternatives for dealing with the 250
ordinance, given the concerns raised by the PEC and Council:
A. Leave the Existing Ordinance in Place
From a fundamental standpoint, the 250 ordinance does what
it is supposed to do - allow "maxed out" property additional
square footage. However, if the ordinance is left in place,
one would have to accept the fact that additional GRFA would
be permitted in demo/rebuild projects and that site
development variance.requests could be made in conjunction
with 250 proposals.
B. Abolish the Ordinance
This can be accomplished very quickly, however, a- great deal
of opposition from the public, particularly the development,
community, can be expected. This ordinance has been in
place for five years and property owners have grown
accustomed to the square footage that is available through
this ordinance.
6
L Y
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the 250.ordinance ]be repealed for multi-
family, duplex and single family developmi=_nt. This
recommendation is supported by the Task Force and consultant, and
is based on practical difficulties inhere»t in implementing the
two major amendments that have been ident:ified by the Council and
PEC. In addition, the following points p:rovide further basis for
the staff support of this recommendation:
A. The ordinance has no direct relationship to any public
purpose or community developmeni: objectives. The
square footage afforded by this ordinance does permi-t
larger homes, but bigger does not necessarily equate to
higher quality.
B. Even if one accepts the notion i:hat a demo/rebuild
property provides a community benefit, there is no
evidence to suggest that the additional square footage
permitted by this ordinance is respansible for such
development. In all likelihood,, the vast majority o.f
the property that was redeveloped in the past five
years would have been redeveloped er remodeled
. regardless of the 250 ordinance. C. The ordinance contradicts the ptirpose of bulk and mass
controls (GRFA). If single family and duplex lots can
in fact accommodate an additionzil 250 square feet of
GRFA, and if tne Town is intent on allowing this square
footage, then 250 square feet of.' GRFA should perhaps be
added to the density section of the Single Family,
Primary/ Secondary, Two-Family and Hillside
Residential zone districts.
D. While it is impossible to say wi.th any degree of
certainty that thei•r are no simi.lar ordinances_in
existence, no comparable ordinances could be found. In
fact, when asked if they were fa.miliar with other type
of ordinances, the reaction of t.he research librarians
at the American Planning Associa.tion was one of
bewilderment. Their question was why have square
footage control if additional square footage is going
to be permitted through the 250 ordinance?
The staff believes a modified 250 ordinance is appropriate if
used for the development of restricted employee housing units.
One of the recommendations of the Affordable Housing Study is to
permit caretaker units in single family and duplex zone
districts: Additional GRFA should be offered as an incentive to
develop these caretaker units. In this case, justification for
additional square footage would be based on the public benefit
provided by the affordable housing units.
7
. , .
The affordable housing alternative is not addressed in this
amendment. It is recommended that the existing 250 ordinance be
repealed at this time and discussion of a new ordinance
permitting additional sguare footage for affordable housing be
initiated in the near future.
c:\pec\tov\250ord.408
8
• L 1 .
have agreed to provide a letter of credit pending the approval or denial of the USFS special
use permit request. In addition, when staff examined the possibility of moving the driveway,
it was found it could not be easily done considering the amount of mature vegetation found
on the site.
Ned Gwathmey, representing the applicant, stated that there was a newly-formed association
which had been created to deal with simil.ir Forest Service issues. The applican[ has had to
live with an unpaved driveway since the house was originally built in 1964. Although they
wanted to pave the driveway, the Forest Service has not given them the approval, diie to the
unresolved boundaries.
Connie Knight moved to approve a paving variance from Section 18.52.080(E) in order to
constrLict an additional dwelling unit on Lot 3, Block 7, Vail. Village First Filing/97
Rockledge Road as recommended by staff, condngent upon ;a letter of credit being posted.
The granting of this variance would not be a grant of specia'.l privilege inconsistent with the
limitations on other properties classified in the stime district. In addition, the strict, literttl
interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would resuit in practical difficulty or
unnecessary physical hazdship inconsistent with the objective:s of this title. T}le motion w:is
seconded by Ludwig Kurz, with a unanimous 5-0 vote in favor of the ordinance.
2. A request for a setback variance, Forbes Residence 7'exas Townhouses 4I3 and 513,
Lot 4B/5B, Vail Village Fourth Filin / 483 Gore Creek Drive.
Applicant: Walter Forbes
Ludwig Kurz moved ro table this item to the April 21, 1991 Pitinning and
Environmental Commission meeting. Connie Knight seconded thr_• motion. The vote
was 5-0 in favor.
3. A request to repeal Town of Vail Municipal Code Cha_pter 18.71 - Additiontil Gross
Residential Floor Area, commonly referred to as the "250 Ordinance."
Applicant: Town of Vail
Kristan Pritz introduced Tom Braun, consultant to the Community Development Department
regarding zoning code changes.
Tom began by recapping where the 250 Ordinance came frorn, and the history of why this
issue was before the Commission at this time. One year zigo., the Town Council requested a
complete zoning code revision. They set as their highest priorities revisicm of the Special
Development District procedures, Gross Residential Floor Area revisions, pay in lieu parking
and the 250 Ordinance.
During the preliminary meeting on the 250 Ordinance, repealing the ordinance was cliscussed.
Different options were discussed, and it became apparent that there were two major areas
which created problems with the Ordinance. The first was the demo/ rebuild amendment :tr?d
7
p,ppROVED MINUTES, PEC, April 8, 1991
the second was variance requests associated with the use of the 250.
Since January, the Zoning Code Task Force had been working on trying to resolve these two
issues and still maintain the ordinance. Through this process, the Task I=orce deterniinecl
there were two major problems with the ordinance which could not be resolved, hence, the
recommendations to repeal the ordinance.
The demo/rebuild amendment was put into the 250 ordinance in 1988. The justification for
this amendment was that the stated objective of the ordinance was to "provide an inducement
to upgrade existing units." Demo/rebuilds were cited as being the "ultimate upgrade." The
problem with this amendment is the percepaon that it is not in keeping with the original
intent of the ordinance to upgrade existing buildings. Tom stated the underlying purpose for
the ordinance was to allow forsmall additions to "maxed out" residences without going
through the variance process. Prior to the 250 ordinance, variance requests were the only
method homeowners had to add to existing buildings which had reached their maximum
GRFA. Because the variance procedures require a finding of some physical hardship, most of
these variance applications were denied.
Tom stated that a principle of land use and zoning is to have controls over the size and masti
of buildings. The 250 Ordinance contradicts this principle.
The second issue with the 250 Ordinance are variance requests in conjunction with 250
proposals. The issue is that if a variance is necessary for a 250 to be approved, the lot may
not be able to accommodate the additional square footage.
The Task Force felt that it would be unreusonable discrimination to deny a homeowner the
opportunity to request a variance in conjunction with a 250 request. In addition, because of
the legal issues which were raised in conjunction with the creation of the demo/ rebuild
amendment to the ordinance, that section could not easily be deleted, either. For these
reasons, the Task Force found they had two options: - 1. To leave the ordinance intact and accept the demo/rebuild provision and variance issue
as they stood, or
2. Repeal the entire ordinance.
After much deliberation, the second option became the recommendation of the Task Force.
Tom addressed the other fundamental issucs with regard to the 250 ordinance. The fint was
that there was no direct public benefit from this ordinance. It only served to make larger
homes, and larger was not necessarily better. The second issue was that even without this
ordinance, improvements could still occur to existing homes. Third, the 250 ordinance
contradicts GRFA policy. If there is a desire to allow 250 extra square feet for a home, it
should be built into the density control secrion of each zone district. Lastly, when the 250
was researched with other areas, no comparable.ordinance could be found.
8
Tom stated that the affordable housing issue with relation to the 250 ordinance was not
addressed at this time. The reason for this is that the direction the Housing Authority wishecl
to take on affordable housing had not yet been determined. Staff felt that a 250-type
ordinance could be used as an incentive for the constructiai of affordable housing units in
private housing. •
Larry Eskwith addressed the Commission by stating he saw, a need to make the legisl.ltion
valid with relarion to public welfare. The problems in the ordinance arose with the
demo/rebuild amendment. There was a perception that this did not relate to the original
purpose oi the ordinance. However, in order to delete the ciemo/rebuild provision, the re:ison
why the ordinance exists would have to be redefined.
The first member of the public who wished to speak was George Lamb, a member of the
Town of Vail Design Review Board. He stated he believeel the 250 ordinance is a positive
feature of the zoning code, in that it helped address problems in older homes. It helped
eliminate deficiencies in these homes (i.e., adding or improwing bedrooms, bathrooms or
kitchen). In addition, the 250 was not automatic; the DRB had the authority to review the;
applications for their individual design merits and impacts on the surrounding areas. .f a
deficiency existed on the site, such as landscaping or other.problem the Town identified, it
cbuld be conected in conjunction with the 250 application and approval. Mr. Lamb saw this
as direct benefit to the Town and the neighborhoods.
Mr. Lamb stated that any repeal of the ordinance resulted from a misunderstanding of the
intent of the ordinance and an abuse of its use. I-Ie recommended that either the GRPA be
changed in the zone districts to allow for an additional 250 sq. ft., or to redefine what an
"existing home" is to eliminate the demo/rebuild provision. He also asked the Commission to
consider phasing out the ordinance over time. A phase-out would serve to prevent a new
home from being designed with a future 250 sq. ft. addition in mind. He concluded his
statements by asking the Commission to think about a way to eliminate the visual massing
problem on some of the larger homes by eliminating the demo/rebuild provision.
Mike Shannon was the next speaker. I-Ie said he had never seen so much angst over an issue
in the Town. Though he saw the current system as being too complicated and unjust, he also
did not feel it was logical to elimintite the entire ordinance in order to fix the problematic
sections. Mike stated that the reality of ownership in the Vail Valley is that ownership of a home has a
very high value. If owners cannot economically add to their homes, it will force many long-
time residents to sell and move down valley. He indicated t}iat Aspen had done the same :in
the past and it became a bad example of planning, although the intended purpose was good.
If the 250 ordinance was abolished, it would be impossible 1~or most local homeowners to
make necessary renovations or improvements to existing hornes without having $500,000 ro
spend on a demo/ rebuild.
9
One of the problems 1Vlike perceived was the Prim ary/S econdary Zone District. In these
districts, two houses were built on lots originally designed for only one. Mike thought this
was a contributing factor to the stated problem of too much mass and bulk of buildings in the
Town.
In addition, on the issue of employee housing, Mike said that they would not be provided
unless the space for them was additive, not deleted, from a lot's GRI=A. He suggested that
the GRFA for an employee unit be additive to a lot's GRFA, with a cap for large houses to
prevent too much added bulk on an already large project. He also stated tliat 250 sq. ft. for
an employee unit was, not nearly enough. There would be too much loss of investment
without nearly enough in return. He suggested some type of restriction in the deed to an
affordable unit, but not one which would make the construction of such a unit ultra- .
expensive.
Mr. Shannon felt that to repeal is to lose sight of the problem. With the solution they
proposed, local homeowners would need to have significant funds to add or remodel, or be
forced to leave the Valley. Those residents who live in Vail on a year-round basis often need
to remodel in order to make the more affordable, but often older and/or smaller, houses
liveable for growing families. If remodeling is made more restrictive and prohibitive, an
auction environment would result, with second home owners able to afford renovations and
locals forced to sell and move down valley where their money could purchase more space. It
would also result in the richest few in the valley being able to maximize design
considerations of a house through demo/rebuild, and the rest shut out of the process.
The problem, as IViike saw it, is that there are too many exemptions. The ordinance itself is
not flawed.
Diana Donovan clarified to Mr. Shannon that the 250 sq. ft. to be applied to an affordable
housing unit would be a credit, but the rest of the GRFA would be deducted from the lot's
GRFA. Kristan Pritz further indicated that, when the Town Council first reviewed the
affordable housing reports, they envisioned a 500 sq. ft. credit to be-used in additaon to
allowable GRFA. The Zoning Code Task Force was waiting to see the ultimate resolution of
the 250 ordinance before they worked on an ordinance for employee housing.
Mike Shannon answered that if 500 sq. ft. were allowable (like on a Two Family zoned
home), those 500 sq. ft. should be allowed at any time, not just after the homes had reachecl
their full allotment of GRFA. Kristan asked if 500 sq. ft. was adequafe for employee .
housing. 1VTike agreed.
Ron Byrne rose to speak next. He said that the fact that people liked the 250 ordinance so
much, and that there was definitely a need for it in older dwellings, he felt it should not be
abolished. He was concerned that if there was no economic incentive in terms of GRFA,
there would be no form of improvement in older buildings. The original intent of the
ordinance was to decide if the improvements were necessary on a site-by-site basis, and that
10 -
the Town would ultimately gain from the improvements to the site in terms of landscaping
and other non-conforming aspects.
Ron indicated the size of the additions were proportionate, 'being mostly made up of
bedroom%bath additions. He believed the staff could legislate on a case-by-case basis. He:
also did not see a problem with the amount of variance reqiaests, as they allowed the
appropriate entities to say no if the site could not support the additional space.
Mr. Byrne emphatically stated that a vehicle was necessary to improve older structures, arid
he believed the staff and Town Council were over-reacting to specific houses and not the
entirety of the ordinance. There is a benefit to the commur.iity in that the ordinance protects
the family environment of the Town.
Speaking as an author of the original ordinance, Rod Slifer stated that the ordinance has
worked over the years and is a beneficial ordinance. It has h`lped reduce the outf7ow of
residents moving to obtain more for their money. . If the orclinance was repealed, Vail would
become a community of second home owners. The necessary mix in the community would
be lost.
Mr. Slifer recommended the Commission wait to hear from the Housing Authority on future
use of the ordinance for affordable housing.
Regarding the origination of the ordinance, Mr. Slifer indicttted that the 250 sq. ft. was not a
"magic" number, but the amount which, through public hearings, seemed to be about the
amount of a bedroom/bath. He recommended, if the Commission wanted to change the
ordinance, they should increase the GRFA slightly and have a simple review by the DRB.
Also speaking as one of the original authors of the ordinance, Bob Ruder spoke to the
evolLition of the Valley, and the fact that most of the buildings grew from differing rules.
Due to this, there are quite a few existing, non-conforming sites. These sites should not be;
penalized and, in fact, the Town can gai.,: ibenefit from bringing some of the site-,more in
conformance through the use of the 250 provisions.
Mr. Ruder also stated that the Town shoiild be encouraging existing families to remain anci
improve their properties. However, if the Town made it economically unfeasible to improve,
it would be guilty of over-legislating. There are always problems with a rule, but overall, this
ordinance is good. The additions improve the look of the T'own. The ordinance works.
Larry Agneberg, President of the Vail Board of Realtors, aslced staff how many 250 ordin<<nce
requests had come through the Community Development De:partment. Kristan Pritz replieci
that a lot had. Larry questioned Kristan what percentage had been approved, in order to
determine what the benefit was versus the abuses of the ord:inance. Kristan said that
determining the abuses was a subjective number, but that most of the problems had come
through the demo/rebuilds. Larry further questioned if this was, overall, a good ordinance.
11
, Kristan stated that people did seem to enjoy it, but wondered how many people would have
gone ahead and remodeled without the ordinance being in effect. Larry responded that
although there are problems with the current ordinance, people do enjoy it, and they should
be able to upgrade with the cunent inducements.
He recommended that the ordinance either be left in place, or that 250 sq. ft. should be added
across the board to all the zone districts.
Frank McKibbon stated his belief that if the real estate community were to be,polled, they
would say the ordinance works. As one drives around the Vail Valley, the areas not
originally developed as a part of the Town are noticeably not built to the same standards. To
illustrate this, he gave the example of the lack of garages in Matterhorn. Because of this,
many decks are used for storage of items usually placed in garages. Mr. McKibbon thought
the.only inducement to improve these units is the 250 ordinance.
Mr. 1VIcKibbon believed it would be a crime to lose residents from the Town becaiise of their
inability to economically renovate their houses to meet their changing needs. He stated that,
although the ordinance does have problems, it still works overall. He felt that the few houses
which had abused the ordinance were being focused upon, instead of concentrating on why
those abuses had taken place.
Since other communities are not usually as restrictive as Vail in their planning ttnd zoning,
the 250 ordinance was created for flexibility. He concluded his statements by referring to the
Town of Vail 1990-91 slogan, "If it ain't broke, fix it" by stating the 250's slogan should be
"If it ain't broke, don't break it!"
Sue Dugan rose to say she agreed with all that had been said previously, and that she
believed the Town should consider the 250 like an IRS regulation - that if it were changed,
someone would still find a loophole. What has to be done instead of eliminating the entire
ordinance is simply change it to close the loophole which had been found.
Ned Gwathmey, Chairman of the Design Review Board, spoke as the "owner of the ugliest
house in Vail." He stated that the intent of the ordinance was to enable homeowners to build
an addition to an existing house, as well as provide a vehicle to the Town to improve the
appearance of non-conforming lots. He recommended the modification of the current
ordinance to eliminate the demo/ rebuild provision through redefining whttt are "new" and
"existing" houses. Ned also thought it seemed intelligent to tie the 250 into incentives for
building employee units. He saw the 250 ordinance as a tool which had improved housing,
and did not view it as having increased the bulk and density of a house to an unbearable
level.
A former PEC member, Sid Schultz, spoke to the Commission by indicating his belief the
250 ordinance was the best thing the commission ever recommended to the Town Council.
Prior to it's incepdon, every PEC agenda had an application for a GRFA variance.
12
Unfortunately, most had to be denied since there was no hardship found to grant a criteria.
Since it's passage, he has seen the ordinance as an improvement to the properties and the
Town.
Will Miller, Manager of the Montaneros Concirminiums saii3 that the 250 ordinance had made existing units at the Montaneros more attracty-{ renters by allowing changes to some of the
top floor loft units without any exterior changpc:: rhe builcling. He felt that the ordinance
had been used well to make not only his projecc, but the encire Town, more attractive.
Architect Gordon Pierce related that he had looked for another way to handle GRFA, but chat
overall, the 250 ordinance was simple to use. He also saw the 250 ordinance as a positive
statement to other communities in that it was gaod for us to show what we can do, even
within the boundaries of a strict zoning code. The loopholes of the ordinance should.be
closed, but the ordinance itself should be kept as a positive statement to residents and buyers.
Mr. Pieree has found that clients from all over the world think the ordinance is wondecful.
Jim Shearer asked Kristan Pritz approximately how many 2_50 applications are received eac.h
year. Kristan replied that staff had not broken them out, but she would say approximately 40.
Jim followed up by asking what percentage of those were gi•anted, to which Kristan said
almost all.
Kristan explained the history of the examination of the 250 ordinance by staff and the Zoning
Code Task Force. She said there was a great deal of negative feelings a year ago when the
Council directed staff to examine the zoning code. Staff haci examined the ordin:ince to
determine how it would be possible to legislate out the negatives. What staff was asking for
through this meeting was a recommendation from the Commiission to Council for their Apr•il
16, 1991 meering. She stated that perhaps the Council had gotten the wrong impression when
they originally reviewed the 250. As a result, if the Commission was willing to say they will
live with the inconsistencies in the ordinance, the Council may decide to keep the ordinance
as it stands.
Jim Shearer, after polling the audience to see if any present would like to see the ordin:ince;
phased out, and receiving a response that the ordinance is automatically phased out because
the square footage is only provided once, stated that if it were possible to legislatively trim
the abuses of the ordinance, he would like to see it kept. Kristan responded that people can
always ask for a variance from the applicable GRF: "I requirement, but that there were some
inherent problems they found in the ordinance which they could find no way around. Re,
major problem was that the demo/rebuild was classified as an "ultimate remodel" and thar,
logically, they could find no way around this; no way to distinguish between an addition
using the 250 square feet and a demo/rebuild project using the 250 square feet.
Connie Knight expressed her opinion that this problerr, origintated 6ecause the ordinance had
been abused and used for resales, but that the original premise behind the ordinance was
fabulous. However, when it was used to tear down an alread.y large house and make it larger,
13
it did not serve to make Vail any better. She would be in favor of maintaining the ordinance
without the demo/ rebuild provision.
Ludwig Kurz asked Diana Donovan if the recommendation of the Task Force was really the
best answer to the perceived problems. Diana explained the position of the Task Force that
there had been a very strong consensus that repeal of the ordinance was the only solution.
Originally, there were very strong proponents of keeping the ordinance. Finally, all the
members agreed that the ordinance should be repealed. In addition, the Task Force viewed
the use of the 250 for the provision of employee housing to be a separate issue, and not
connected to the current action.
Diana continued that many different options had been considered, but it was decided none of
them would be a complete solution. The opinion. from the Task Force was that people would
still be allowed to apply for a variance in true hardship circumstances. .
Ludwig stated that he was not satisfied that the two issues were not enough to repeal a wel(
functioning vehicle for renovation. In the interests of the Town, he believed it was too early '
to repeal the ordinance.
Gena Whitten stated that the 250 ordinance was a response to the need of residents to have
larger homes. However, she did see it as unwieldy to enforce with the differing recIuirements.
As an alternarive, increasing the GRFA to adjust to the changed lifestyles of residences was a
positive option in her opinion. She suggested increasing the GRFA 5-7% to relieve the
pressure valve.
Diana Donovan explained that the main problem with the 250 was that the original intent w.is
not for upgrading buildings, but to accommodate small houses so that the owners could stay
in the valley. However, there needed to be an official statement of intent, Znd that wtis
stated, for legal reasons, as providing a mechanism for upgrading existing residences. In fact,
many of the people originally involved in the creation of the ordinance were surprised to see
upgrading as its purpose.
She said one problem with increasing the GRFA across the board was that the Town would
be losing the benefit of being able to upgrade existing non-conforming lots. In effect, the
current ordinance serves as an across the board increase in GRFA now. This increase helped
older units in the Town.. However, by using the 250 with the new system of calculating
GRFA, the mass and bulk of a building can be increased, beyond that which may be visually
desirable.
If people believe there need to be an incentive given for improvements to be made to a
house, Diana asked what happened to a person's pride? What would happen 10 years down
the road, after the 250 had already been used, when the property again needed renovations?
There is no ending point to this if people do not have enough pride to renovate their own
houses.
14
Diana countered the opinions expressed by the audience by saying that 250 sq. ft. was
probably not enough to keep anyone from moving down valley. The economic incentives
were too great if their main objective was to have more spac;e. There are other reasons
people chose to live in Vail. •
In the long run, Diana said, the 250 ordinance probably hurts our community in that once it
has been used, there is no future flexibility. It is used as asales strategy by many renl estate
professionals. There is no legal way to change the intent to state that the 250 should only be
used for unforseen difficulties. If the intent is not changed, the demo/rebuild provision cannot
be deleted.
Gary Bossow commented that the homeowners have already voted on this ordinance by the:
amount of those who have taken advantage of its availability.
Frank McKibbon indicated that the phenomena of demo/rebuild to increase property value
will eventually be eliminated, as there are few houses whose owners would be willing and/or
' able to do this. He felt that the areas which had been prone to this type of renovntion will
soon be saturated. The majority of the community has used the ordinance for good purposes.
Larry Agneberg commented that when mass is seen to be a problem, the neighbors have
spoken up. Connie Knight replied that the problem is that homeowners have not spoken up at
an appropriate time, or if the building is not in their "back yard." Tom Braun elaborated that
the Task Force's charge was to resolve perceived problems in the ordinance, but they found
no way to make a distinction between existing units and demo/rebuilds. Jim Strain asked
why a demo/rebuild could not be legally defined, and thus eliminate the problem? Tom
Braun stated that there was no difiference in square footage created by an addition and square
footage created by a demo/rebuild. Mr. Str:iin reiterated that a demo/rebuild was constructing
a new house, not renovating an existing structure, and that should be enough to eliminate that
use.
Kristan Pritz stated that the ordinance was amended to allow an ex-i-sting, 5 year ald structure
to be demolished and then rebuild because the intent of the ordinance was to upgrade, and
what is the difference between adding to an existing home and completely remodeling? Jim
Strain replied that the amendment is what is in trouble, and that portion alone should be
repealed. He did not think the benefits of the rest of the ordinance should be taken away.
Mr. McKibbon suggested using a definition that if a certain percentage of a structure were
demolished, then it would be a new house. Tom Braun repeated the problem with deleting .
the demo/ rebuild provision was that there is no distinction between a"pure" addition and a
demo/rebuild. Diana Donovan continued that the nroblem was contained in the legal
preamble which stated the purpose of the ordinanee was to "upgrade for the public good."
15
Gary Bossow asked Kristan how many demo/rebuilds had been performed. Kristan estimated
that there were approximately 20, and stated that regardless, the number was a minor amount
of the total. The staff had not done an official tally as no one was disputing that the
ordinance was popular. Diana Donovan indicated that although it was a minor number at tfiis
time, and questioned how far it could go before all the buildings became too big for their
sites.
George Lamb stated that all the approvals which had been given were appropriate and that he
felt the "ultimate remodel" use of the ordinance was also appropriate. He asked, however, if
a building were demolished, would it be able to retain its wood burning fireplace? Kristan
answered that no, it would be a new house in that connotation. George then asked w}iy that
principle could not be used for the demo/rebuild issue? He requested the DRB be given more .
"teeth" to approve or deny the requests. GRFA is not an adequate control of mass of a
. house, and he would like to see the DRB given the ability to refuse a proposal because it was
simply too large. Rod Slifer reiterated that if the issue was the mass of a building, he did not think that 250 sq.
ft. is a problem. If the Commission were concerned about mass, controls on mass should be
devised through setback, height, volume, overhang, site coverage and courtyard size, among
others. Gordon Pierce further illustrated the problem by stating he had recently done three
models with the same height, site coverage and other zoning restrictions. The three models
ranged in size from 1,800 sq. ft. up to 3,600 sq. ft. This illustration was made to show that
zoning considerations do not hinder square footage abilities.
Ken Wilson declared that he was amazed and disappointed that the discussion was to repeal
the ordinance without knowing how many times the demo/rebuild provision had been used.
He also stated that this was not a real estate issue, but one of families and keeping them from
being forced to move down valley. Without the 250 ordinance, many families would be
forced to either eliminate one spouse and the kids, or move, He asked the Commission not to
make it more difficult than it already is to live in Vail. Kristan responded to Ken's question about the numbers by stating that the reason the numbers
had not been calculated was that the staff was not disputing that the ordinance was popular,
and that the demo/rebuilds were clearIy a minor amount of the totaI. Ken asked why, then,
the recommendation was for repeal when it was a perception problem not an actual problem
in the ordinance? He was amazed that the Council directed the ordinance be repealed wlien it
was so popular. Tom Braun clarified that the Council simply directed staff to resolve two
issues, not repeal the ordinance. Ken replied that he would like to see the dialogue kept
open, and work continue on how to maintain the ordinance.
Diana Donovan clarified to the audience that the 1988 amendment was made because of legal
problems, and that if someone could persuade her that 250 sq. ft. would keep a family from
moving, she may change her mind on repealing the ordinance. Frank.lVlcKibbon replied that
250 sq. ft. were easier to build than to buy new property.
16
Connie Knight asked Kristan if the ordinance could be mairrtained without the demo/rebuild
amendment. Kristan indicated that it is the opinion of the staff and Task Force that no, it
could riot. She added that if the PEC was willing to state to Council they were willing to :live
with the inconsistency, the Council may take note. Connie ICnight asked if the demo/ rebuild
provision could be legally eliminated from the ordinance. Tom Braun replied he was not sure
it could be done without a legal challenge. Kristan elaborate:d that there would be a weakness
in the ordinance, but the benefits gained may outweigh that weakness.
Ken Wilson suggested that language be placed in the ordinarice that if a certain percentage of
the house were demolished, then it would no longer qualify as an existing home for another 5
years, and further suggested the percentage be 50%.
Jim Shearer commented that he felt the purpose of the ordinance was ro upgrade an existing
structure. He would like to see the ordinance modified in order to allow the worst houses to
remodel, but could not see a mechanism to do that. He wanted to, protect more of the smallcr
homes rather than the larger, and felt that the controlling facitor in a remodel be the 5 year
provision. Jim said that if a homeowner could use the new (3RFA calculations to find
additional square footage for a remodel, they should be encouraged to do so. He would also
like to see the direction the Housing fluthority decides to tak:e before acting on the curreiii
250 ordinance. He would not like to see the provision of eniployee housing be taken out c`"
' GRFA, but rather added to it. If the ordinance is kept and aimended, he would like to see a
stronger definition of "improve" and "upgrade." If a varianci-, were to be granted in
connection with a 250 request, Jim proposed that the criteria for that variance be only the
effect on the site, structure and neighborhood, with an addition to bulk and/or mass of the
building to be weighed negatively.
His statements concluded, Jim Shearer moved to modify the existing 250 ordinance based on
the findings of the Task Force, with the intent to minimize albuses of the system. The S year
requirement for renovation would be used on all 250 request:>, be they reconstruction or
additions. Employee/affordable housing will be figured as a se.parate issue. Any variances
given in conjunction with a 250 request will be justified by the bene€its to fhe community,
site, structure and neighborhood, with an addition to bulk anci/or mass weighing negatively
against a variance, but not necessarily ruling out the variance. These factors would be
weighed on a one-to-one basis for each application. In addition, if et7ough of the building is
demolished to require the building to be brought up to code under the Uniform Code of
Building (i.e., 50% of the building); then the structure would be classified as a new house,
and would not qualify for a 250 sq. ft. adciition for another 5 years. Ludwig Kurz seconded
the motion.
Diana Donovan asked for a clarification that the motion was recommendin; that the ordinance
be returned to the Task Force to tidy up. Kristan replied that: this ordinance would go to
Council regardless of Jim's motion. Jim indicated his intent was for the ordinance to proceed
to Council to have them return it to the Task Force. He would like a statement from Counr_il
to the Task Force to tighten up the ordinance.
17
Jim amended the previous motion to add the following language to the beginning: He moved
that the ordinance be sent to the Town Council with a recommendation of denial of the staff
recommendations in order for the ordinance to return to the Zoning Code Task Force to
clarify the issues stated above.
Ludwig KurL amended his secorid to include the additional wording.
Jim stated his intent was that the good work which had been done on GRFA controls not be
negated, and he wanted the 250 ordinance tightened up to help those people for which it was
designed. He thought that the Town should encourage improvements, and make the process
as simple as possible for the "little guy:"
Diana Donovan wished to go on record with the reason she would be voting against the
motion with the statement that she thought the Town needed to start fresh with a new
ordinance, not just doctor up the existing regulations. She also wanted to see if the Town
Council would give clear direction to the Task Force and PEC that they would stand behind
the Town in a potential lawsuit if the demo/rebuild provision were eliminated. Larry
Agneberg asked if Diana thought the ordinance should be repealed and a new ordinance be developed. Diana replied yes, if the Council would back a hard line approach. Larry stated
that he would like to see the repeal delayed until a new ordinance was ready.
Jim stated that if he had to vote on the ordinance now, he would leave it as is, but work
toward modifying it based on the history of problems.
After fine-tuning of the specific wording, as finalized above, and with Jim and Ludwig's
consent, the recommendation was voted upon. The vote was 4-1, with Diana Donovnn in
opposition.
The meeting was briefly recessed, and was called back into order at 5:10. At that time, the
following two agenda items were taken out of order in the interests of time and public
comment.
5• A request for a setback variance Pitto Residence Lot 3 Block 1 Vail Village
Eleventh Filing/2920 Booth Creek Drive
Anplicant: J. Russell Pitto
Mike Mollica presented the staff inemo and recommendations for this variance. The request
was for a 10'-6" side setback variance which had previously been approved, but hnd
subsequently lapsed. T'he zoning for the property is Two Family Residential (duplex), and
Mike briefly reviewed the zoning considerations. There was no concern for GRFA with this
request, but the site coverage would be at its maximum 20% if the variance were to be
approved and the addition constructed.
18
Exhibie E
Approved Mlinutes, Town Council
April 16, 1991
Item No. 5 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 9, Series of 19191, first reading, an ordinance
repealing Chapter 18.71 Additional Gross Residential Floor A.rea of the Town of Vail Municipal
Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Kristan Pritz
presented the staff and zoning code task force recommendation to repeal the 250 Ordinance
at the April 8 PEC meeting. The PEC.voted 4-1 to deny the ordinance to repeal the 250
Ordinance, with the recommendation to Council that the 250 Ordinance be retained in a_
modified form. Explanation of the Planning Commission action followed. The staff response
to the PEC recommendations centered around the purpose of the ordinance, demos and
rebuilds, variances, and site improvements. Individuals from the audience commenting on
behalf of maintaining the 250 Ordinance were as follows: Jim Morter, Bob Ruder, John
Tuschmann, Chris Neuswanger, Hermann Staufer, Chuck Christ, Frank McKibben, who read a
letter fYvm Ben and Celine Krueger, and entered into the recc>rd, Howard Rapson, and Larry
Agneberg, representing the Board of Realtors. Following connments from the public, the Town
Council made comments. At this point, Rob LeVine moved to deny Ordinance No. 9, Ser.ie>
of 1991, with a second coming from Kent Rose. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-
2, with Merv Lapin and Tom Steinberg voting against this motion.
. '
~ Exhibit F
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission/Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 19, 1994
SUBJECT: 250 Ordinance Research
The following information documents all "250 square foot addition" approvals granted by the
Town of Vail during the years 1985 through November 1994. Detail with regard to each are
as follows:
1985
1. Date: May 15, 1985
Owner: Cook
Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Address: 1012 Eagles Nest Circle, Golf Course area.
fVumber of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Construct a caretaker's apartment, did not entail
demo/rebuild.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
2. Date: iVovember 6, 1985
Owner: Sheppard -
Legal Description: Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Village 6th FJGng.
Address: 596 VVest Forest Road, Main Vail area.
IVumber of 250's: Twro 250's approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 500 square feet.
Use: Expansion to existing residence, no demo/rebuild
involved.
Upgrades: Exterior site improvements included landscaping and
drainage work.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
1986
1. Date: January 15, 1986
Owner: Williams
Legal Description: Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Address: 302 Mill Creek Circle, M<ain Vail area.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Add to the kitchen and liwing room, did not entail
demo/rebuild.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250. 2. Date: April 16, 1986
Owner: Shapiro Legal Description: Lot 1, Vail Valley. 2nd Filiing
Address: 1548 Springhill Lane, Golf Course area.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Create an additional bedroom, demo/rebuild not involved.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
3. Date: August 20, 1986
Owner: Cadmus
Legal Description: Lot 17, a resubdivision of Tract E, Vail Village 11th Filing.
Address: 2860 Aspen Lane, Main 'Vail area.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet. -
Use: Create a guest room, deimo/rebuild not applicqble.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
4. Date: September 3, 1986
Owner: Boyle
Legal Description: Lot 20-D, Bighorn Terrace.
Address: 4277 Columbine. Drive, E:ast Vail area.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Add a third floor/bedroom area.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
2
5. Date: September 22, 1986
Owner: Svanoe
Legal Description: Lot 1, Vai! Valley 2nd Filing.
Address: 1548 Springhill Lane, Golf Course area.
fVumber of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 217, square feet.
Use: Remodel dining room and bedroom, demo/rebuild not
applicable.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
1987 .
1. Owner: Abe Shapiro
Legal Description: Lot 1, Vail Valley 2nd Filing.
Address: 1548 Springhiil Lane, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 217 square feet used.
Use: Addition of bedroom and closet on the third tevet of the
east half of an existing duplex.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
2. Owner: Alverde
Legal Description: Lot 14, Vail Village 11th Filing.
Address: 2820 Aspen Court, East Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved. ~
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet used.
Use: Addition of bedroom and bathroom and relocation of
existing laundry facilities.
Upgrades: No upgrades required. ~
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
3. Owner. Cook
Legal Description: Vail Golfcourse Townhomes, Bldg. J, Unit 31, Phase Ilt.
Address: 1645 Golf Terrace, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 249.5 square feet used.
Use: Addition of bedroom and bathroom to lowest level of
building.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250. However, one window was added to the
exterior of the building to add light into the area of the
250.
3
4. Owner: Pawnall
Legal Description: Parcel C, a resubdivisioni of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail
Village 1 st Filing.
. Address: 267 Rockledge Road, Miiin Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet used.
Use: Substantial remodel to e;cisting building.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
5. Owner: Murphy
Legal Gescription: Lot 1, Block 8, Vail Villagie 7th Filing.
Address: 1200 Ptarmigan Road.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 49 square feet.
Use: Addition to dining room.
Upgrades: No upgrade~ -required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
1988
1. Owner: Loper
Legal Description: Lot H, Vail Village 2nd Filing, Villa Cortina, Unit 360.
Address: 22 West Meadow Drive.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet '
of. 250 used: 250 square feet used.
Use: Exterior modifications.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250. -
2. Owner: Hurtt
~
Legal Description: Lot 9, Vail Village 2nd Filing.
Address: 272 West Meadow Drive.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 150 square feet used.
Use: Dining room addition.
Upgrades: Additional landscaping required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
4
3. Owner: Hansen
Legal Description: Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing.
Address: 2605 Bald Mountain Road.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Totaf square feet
of 250 used: 194 square feet used.
Use: Conversion of covered patio area into solarium.
Upgrades: IVo upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
4. Owner: V1lilliams
Legal Description: Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Address: 302 Mill Creek Circle.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet used.
Use: Enclose two exterior decks.
Upgrades: iVo upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
1989
1. Owner: King
Legal Description: Lot 9, Vail Village 2nd Filing.
Address: 272 West Meadow Drive.
IVumber of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Bedroom addition, guest bathroom and enlargement of
dining room.
Upgrades: No upgrades required:
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250. -
2. Owner: E.B. Chester +
Legal Description: Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Address: 359 Mill Creek Circle.
Number of 250's: Two 250's approved.
Total square feet
of 250. used: 500 square feet.
Use: Demo/rebuild incorporated into Unit B.
Upgrades: No upgrades required. Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
5
3. Owner: Affeldt
Legal Description: Lot 4, Bighorn 3rd Addition.
Address: 4595 Bighorn Road, #3.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 100 square feet.
Use: Deck enclosure.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: • Exterior 250.
4. Owner: Lapin
Legal Description: Lot 7, Vail Village 2nd Filing.
Address: 232-B West Meadow Drive.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 248 square feet.
Use: Enlarged the dining room, addition of master bedroom
and master bath.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
5. Owner: Lichfield
Legal Description: LoE 8, Block 2, Vail Village 2nd Filing.
Address: 374 Beaver Dam Road.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Demo/rebuild for single family residence with caretaker
unit (250 incorporated inlro the units).
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
6. Owner: Byron/Rose
Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village 11th Filing.
Address: 2880 Booth Creek Drive.
Number of 250's: Two 250's approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 490 square feet.
Use: Demo/rebuild with use inicorporated into new duplex.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
7. Owner: Velasquez
Legal Description: Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potairo Patch.
Address: 802 Potato Patch Drive.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Excavate crawl space for play room.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
6
. '
8. Owner: Hooversteen
Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Valley 1 st Filing.
Address: 1183 Cabin Circle.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved. Total square feet
of 250 used: 158 square feet.
Use: Remodel bedrooms and large guest suite.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
lnterior or Exterior: Exterior. 250.
9. Owner: Maitland
Legal Description: Lot 18, Block 6, Vail Village West 2nc! Fiting.
Address: 1815 Gore Creek Drive.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved. ' Total square feet
of 250 used: 238 square feet.
Use: Upper level addition.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
10. Owner: Gurry
Legal Description: Lots 33 and 37, Vail Village West 1 st Filing.
Address: 1765 Alpine Drive.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Dug out and finished crawl space.
Upgrades: Black topping driveway, installing landscaping, and
undergrounding electric utility.
tnterior or Exterior: Interior 250. •
11. Owner: Nugent - Legal Description: Lot 6, Biock 2, Vail Potato Patch.
Address: 770 Potato Patch, #6. +
IVumber of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Airlock.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
. 12. Owner: Levy
Legal Description: Vail Golf Course Townhomes, Unit 35.
Address: No street address provided.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Convert storage area to bedroom.
Upgrades: iVo upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
7
1990
1. Owner: Wartheim
Legal Description: Lot 11, Block 2, Potato F'atch.
Address: 774 Potato Patch.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved. `
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Expansion of studio.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
2. Owner: New View Partnership Legal Description: Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Villacle 6th Filing.
Address: 586 Forest Road.
Number of 250's: Two 250's approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 500 square feet.
Use: Demo/rebuild.
Upgrades: The entire project was aii upgrade.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
3. Owner: Stevinson
Legal Description: Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Valley 1 st Filing.
Address: 1337 Vail Valley Drive.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 244 square feet.
Use: Dining and entry additioni.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
4. Owner: Bliotti _
Legat Description: ~
Address: Marriott Mark Resort.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Interior remodel.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
5. Owner: Perot
Lega1 Description: Lot 31, Block 7, Vail Villaige 1 st Filing.
Address: 64 Beaver Dam Road.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Demo/rebuild.
Upgrades: No upgrades required. .
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
8
6. Owner: Nilson
Legal Description: Lot 20, Bighorn Terrace.
Address: 4244 Columbine Drive.
Number of 250's: A portion of one 250 was approved.
Total square feet of 250 used: 60 square feet.
Use: A storage area and dining area were added to the unit.
Upgrades: The owner was asked to add landscaping and
underground electric service and utilities if the cost was
less than $400.00.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
7. Owner: Letven •
Legal Description: Lot 2, Vail Valley 3rd Filing.
Address: 1801-B Sunburst Drive.
IVumber of 250's: A portion of one 250 was used.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 235 square feet.
Use: Expansion of living room, dining room, master bedroom,
and addition of an airlock.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
8. Owner: Dorn
Legal Description: Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Valley 3rd Filing. -
Address: 396 Forest Road.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Demo/rebuild.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250. - 9. Owner: Rader '
Legal Description: Lot 7, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Address: 1107 East Vail Valley Drive.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Addition.
Upgrades: iVo upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
9
10. Owner: Artinian
Legal Description: Marriott Mark Resort.
Address: 715 West Lionshead Circle.
Number of 250's: A portion of one 250 was used.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 248 square feet.
Use: Interior remodel.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
11. Owner: Aziz Legal Description: Lot 4, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch 2nd Filing.
Address: 740-B Sandy Lane.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 175.5 square feet.
Use: Addition.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
12. Owner: Precourt
Legal Description: Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Address: 328 Mill Creek Circle:
Number of 250's: Two 250's approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 500 square feet.
Use: Demo/rebuild.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Extsrior 250.
13. Owner: Byrne
Legal Description: Parcel A, Lot 1, Block 7, 'Vail Viflage 1 st Filing.
Adciress: 15 Forest Road.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Demo/rebuild. Upgrades: Several upgrades require(J to finishes on walls and on the
house. Stone was added over brick siding and a
concrete retaining wall wEis painted and capped with
stone to match the stone on the house.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
10
a
14. Owner: Sadler
Legal Description: Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch.
Address: 802 Potato Patch Drive.
fVumber of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Excavate crawl space for playroom.
Upgrades: IVo upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
15. Owner: Myers
Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 2, Bighorn 1 st Addition.
Address: 3988-A Lupine Drive. .
Number of 250's: A portion of one 250 was used.
Total square feet
of 250 used: Unknown.
Use: Addition of new sun room.
Upgrades: 250 square feet.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
16. Owner: Collier
Legal Description: Vail Golfcourse Townhomes, Phase tfl.
Address: 1557 Golfcourse Terrace, Unit fV-45.
IVumber of 250's: A portion of one 250 was used.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Interior remodel.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
17. Owner: Zin
Legal Description: Vail Golfcourse Townhomes, Phase III.
Address: 1568 Golfcourse Terrace, IV-49._ _
IVumber of 250's: A portion of one 250 was used. ~
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Interior remodel.
Upgrades: No upgrades were required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
11
18. Owner: Scofield
Legal Description: Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Address: 1448 Vail Valley Drive.
Number of 250's: A portion of one 250 was used.
Total square feet
of 250 used: . 250 square feet.
Use: Addition of a greenhousia and an airlock.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
19. Owner: Wittemyer
Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Villa(ge 3rd Filing.
Address: Unknown.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 203 square feet.
Use: Addition to south elevation of the residence.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
20. Owner: Hoyle
Legal Description: Lot 26, Vail Meadows 1:;t Filing.
Address: 5053-A Snowshoe Lane.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Enclosure of an upper level deck.
Upgrades: Additional.landscaping was required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
21. Owner: Romrell
Legal Description: Lot 28, Block 1, Vail Pot;ato Patch.
Address: 799-A Potato Patch Drive.
Number of 250's: A portion of one 250 was used. ~
Total square feet
of 250 used: 46.4 square feet.
Use: Change attic space to useable living space.
Upgrades: Building Code upgrades were required.
, Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
1991
1. Owner: Kaiser/Hall
Legal Description: Lot 3, Block 5, Bighorn 5,th Addition.
Address: 4913 Juniper Lane.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet. Use: Addition to primary unit.
Upgrades: Utilities undergrounded.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
12
2. Owner: Maclean
Legal Description: Unit 4, Vail Point Condominiums.
Address: 1881 Lionsridge Loop.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet •
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Addition of bedroom and bathroom within existing building
param eters
Upgrades: IVo upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
3. Owner: Gross
Legal Description: Block H, Vail Village 2nd Filing.
Address: 22 Vllest Meadow Drive.
IVumber of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Exterior modifications.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
4. Owner: Browning
Legal Description: Tract C, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing.
Address: 684 VVest Lionshead Circle.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 162 square feet.
Use: Expand an interior loft and enlarge an existing bathroom.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
5. Owner: Flower/Bush - Legal Description: Lot 8, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing.__
Address: 641 VVest Lionshead Circle. . ~
IVumber of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 64 square feet.
Use: Expansion of interior loft.
Upgrades: IVo upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250. .
6. Owner: Molyneaux
Legal Description: Lot 1-A, VVarren Pulis Subdivision.
Address: 1528 Vail Valley Drive.
fVumber of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 240 square feet.
Use: Expansion and enlargement of master bedroom area.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
7. Owner: Mikell Legal Description: Lot 4, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch 2nd Filing.
Address: 740-A*Sandy Lane.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet of 250 used: 47.5 square feet.
. Use: Bathroom addition.
Upgrades: Three aspen trees of at IE;ast 2-inch caliper must be
planted.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
8. Owner: Spector/Kalish
Legal Description: Lot 10, Glen Lyon Subdivision. •
Address: 467 Greenhill Court.
Number of 250's: One 250.
. Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Addition of an entry, IargE;r living room, bedroom,
bedroom dormer, master bedroom, and dining room.
Upgrades: Ten aspens to be added to the landscape plan.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
9. Owner: Lamb
Legal Description: Lot 15, Block 5, Bighorn ;5th Addition. .
Address: 4879 Meadow Drive.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
' Total square feet
. of 250 used: 241 square feet.
Use: An addition to the stairway and the entry of the residence.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
10. Owner: Byrne
Legal Description: Lot 23, Block 7, Vail Villa,ge 1 st Filing.
Address: 254 Beaver Dam Road.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 30 square feet.
Use: Exterior modifications.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
11. Owner: Kirby
Legal Description: Lot 13, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Address: 227 Rockledge Road.
Number of 250's: One prior, the request of May 1, 1991 denied.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Exterior modifications.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
14
12. Ovvner: Glatzle
Legal Description: Lot 20, Block H, Vail Das Schone 2nd Filing.
Address: 2317 Garmisch Drive.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 90 square feet.
Use: The addition of an octagonal sunroof.
Upgrades: iVo upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
13. Owner: Biederman
Legal Description: Lot 23, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Address: 254 Beaver Dam Road. Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 243 square feet.
Use: The addition of an exercise room.
Upgrades: iVo upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
14. Owner: Groff
Legal Description: Lot 17, Block 3, Vail Valley 1 st Filing.
Address: 1468-A Vail Valley Drive.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 16.8 square feet.
Use: The addition of twro bay windows on the south elevation.
Upgrades: IVo upgrades required. .
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
15. Owner: Fraser
Legal Description: Lot 176, Block 3, Vail Valley 1 sf Filing. . Address: 1468-B Vail.Valley Drive.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Addition to the master bedroom.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250. .
16. Owner: Sheppard Legal Description: Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing.
Address: 596 Forest Road.
Number of 250's: Two 250's approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 500 square feet.
Use: An interior remodel and the addition of two exterior stair
towers.
Upgrades: IVo upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
15
17. Owner: Peterson/Bossow
Legal Description: Lot 6, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing.
Address: 332 Beaver Dam Circle.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: The remodel of the duplex.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
18. Owner: Kaye •
Legal Description: Millrace, Phase I, Cascade Village.
Address: Unit 4, 1360 Westhaven Drive.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
. Total square feet
of 250 used: 150 square feet.
Use: Remodel of an interior lofit.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: tnterior 250.
19. Owner: Maclean
Legal Description: Lot 1, Block Lionsridge 3rd Filing.
Address: 181 Lionsridge Loop.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Extension of an interior loft.
Upgrades: No property upgrades recluired.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
20. Owner: Genung
Legal Description: Villa Cortina, Unit 350. -
Address: N/A.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Interior remodel. '
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
21. Owner: Zinn
Legal Description: Lot N-49, Golfcourse Tovunhomes.
Address: 1568 Golf Terrace.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 245 square feet. .
Use: Complete the unfinished area behind the garage and the
addition of a new window.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
16
22. Owrner: Letuen
Legal Description: Lot 2, Vail Village 3rd Filing.
Address: Unknown.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 14 square feet. •
Use: Improvements to the front entry.
Upgrades: IVo upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
23. Owner: Collier
Legal Description: Sunburst 3rd Filing.
Address: Unknown..
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 240 square feet.
Use: Expansion of the existing living space.
Upgrades: No upgrades required. •
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
24. Owner: Massa
Legal Description: Tyrolean Condominiums, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Address: 400 East Meadow Drive, Unit 7.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Interior remodel.
Upgrades: No upgrades required:
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
25. Owner: Sink
Legal Description: Lot 21, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch.
Address: 781 Potato Patch Drive.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved. ~
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square. feet.
Use: Interior remodel.
Upgrades: Two additional trees required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
26. Owner: Stevinson
Legal Description: Lot 40, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Address: 275 Beaver Dam Road.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: An addition to an existing family room.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
17
27. Owner: Stempler
Legal Description: Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Address: 1044 Homestake Circle.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Exterior modifications.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
1992
1. Owner: ` Lario/Larrea
Legal Description: Lot O, Vail Village 1 st Filiiig.
Address: Units 304 and 404, 100 East Meadow Drive.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
. of 250 used: 60 square feet.
Use: Enclosure of an interior loft.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250. .
2. Owner: Forbes
Legal Description: Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Address: 362 Mill Creek Circle.
Number of 250's: Two 250's approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 500 square feet.
Use: Remodel of interior spaces.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Both 250's were interior.
3. Owner: Pavlik
Legal Description: Vail Golfcourse Townhornes. ~
Address: Unit 37, Building K, Vail (aolfcourse Townhomes.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 39 square feet.
Use: Finish off basement space.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
tnterior or Exterior: Interior 250. 4. Owner: Kovener
Legal Description: Lot G, Vail Village 2nd Filing. .
Address: 17 Vail Road.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 85 square feet.
Use: Installation of two new sN;ylights.
Upgrades: No upgrades required. .
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
18
5. Owner: Lamm Legal Description: Lot 15, Block 1, Bighorn 5th Addition.
Address: 4898 Meadow Drive.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Totai square feet
of 250 used: 241 square feet.
Use: Interior remodel.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
6. Owner: Johnson
Legal Description: Lot O, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Address: 100 East Meadow Drive, Units 101 and 102, Vail Village
Inn.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Interior remodel.
• Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
7. Owner: Hellberg
Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Village 3rd Filing.
Address: 355 Forest Road: -
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Demolrebuild.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
8. Owner: Gillett
- Legal Description: Lot 8, Block 3, Vail Village 11 th_F_iling.
Address: 3090 Booth Creek Drive.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Expansion of two additional bedrooms and storage area.
Upgrades: One 10 foot evergreen required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
9. Ouvner: Rubenstein
Legal Description: Lot 8, Glen Lyon Subdivision.
Address: 1463 Greenhill Court.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet o
of 250 used: 230 square feet.
Use: . Remodel.
Upgrades: PainUstain portions of building where needed. .
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
19 .
10. Owner: Ackerman
Legal Description: Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing.
Address: 716 Forest Road.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Addition to the exterior of the building.
Upgrades: Driveway must be reducE.d so as not to exceed 10%.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
11. Owner: Erickson
Legal Description: Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing.
Address: 716 Forest Road. Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Exterior addition.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250. •
12. Owner: Kasson
Legal Description: Lot 33, Block 2, Vail Villa.ge 13#h Filing.
Address: 2570 Bald Mountain Road.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 201 square feet.
Use: Enclose breezeway in entry and remodel of the master
bathroom.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
tnterior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
13. Owner: Lawler Legal Description: Lot 12, Block 5, Bighorn 5th Addiiion.
Address: 4939 Meadow Drive. ~
Number of 250's: One 250 approved. Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Demo/rebuild of a primary residence fo include a new
secondary residence.
Upgrades: Elecirical service to the oxisting residence must be .
undergrounded.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
a
20
. .
14. Owner: Ricci
Legal Description: Lot 5, Block E, Vail Das Schone 1 st Filing.
Address: 2576 Davos Trail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: The expansion of an existing second floor master
bedroom.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
15. Owner: Stark
Legal Description: Lots A, B, C, Block 5-C, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Address: Unknown.
IVumber of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Interior remodel.
Upgrades: No property upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
16. Owner: Glazov
Legal Description: Lot 5A, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Address: 454 Forest Road. Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Exterior alterations to an existing structure.
Upgrades: No property upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
17. Owner: Alderette -
Legal Description: Lot 3, Vail Village West 2nd Filiog.
Address: 1784 South Frontage Road West.
IVumber of 250's: Two 250's approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 500 square feet.
Use: Demo/rebuild of a primary/secondary residence.
Upgrades: No property upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
18. Owner: Levine
Legal Description: Antlers Condominium, Unit 702.
Address: 680 West Lionshead Place.
iVumber of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Interior remodel.
Upgrades: No property upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
21
19. Owner: Wilhelm
Legal Description: Lot 5, Bighorn Estates.
Address: 4289-B Nugget Lane.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Exterior modification to the existing structure.
Upgrades: Three aspen trees planted.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
20. Owner: Grubbs
Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Vitlage 8th Filing.
Address: 1031 Eagles Nest Circle.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Exterior addition to an existing residence.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or. Exterior: Exterior 250.
21. Owner: Tynan
Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridgei 3rd Filing.
Address: 1881 Lionsridge Loop, Unit 1, Vail Point Townhomes.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: . Interior remodel.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
22. Owner: Norris
Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing.
Address: 486 Forest Road.
Number of 250's: Two 250's approved. +
Total square feet
of 250 used: 242 square feet.
Use: Exterior addition to an existing building.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
1993
1. Owner: Kalkus
Legal Description: Lot 19, Block 7, Vail VilleLge 1 st Filing
Address: 324 Beaver Dam Road, IVlain Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Single car garage and tnro bedrooms. ,
Upgrades: Includes regrading of drilreway.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
22
o n
2. Owner: Bellows
Legal Description: Parcel A, a resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail
Village 1st Filing.
Address: 327 Rockledge Road, Main Vail.
IVumber of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 241 square feet.
Use: Bedroom additions.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
tnterior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
3. Owner: Hellberg Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Village 3rd Filing
Address: 325 Forest Road, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 243.3 square feet.
Use: Used for demo/rebuild.
Upgrades: IVo upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
4. Owner: Pease
Legal Description: Lot 5, Block 2, Vail Village 3rd Filing.
Address: 254 Beaver Dam Road, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: Two 250's approved. Total square feet
of 250 used: 500 square feet.
Use: Exterior modifications.
Upgrades: Landscaping to be upgraded, lighting to come into
compliance.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
5. Owner: Jordan _
Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 2,. Vail Village 6th Filing +
Address: 483 Beaver Dam Road, Main Vail.
IVumber of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: . 250 square feet.
Use: Expand existing bedroom and add one bathroom.
. Upgrades: IVo upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
.
6. Ouvner: Erickson ,
Legal Description: Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing.
Address: 716 Forest Road, Main Vail.
IVumber of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 123 square feet.
Use: Expand existing bedroom. .
Upgrades: iVo upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
23
.
7. Owner: McKinnon
Legal Description: Lot 5, Block 2, Vail Village 6th Filing.
Address: 695-B Forest Road, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 236.5 square feet.
Use: Exterior modifications.
Upgrades: Increased landscaping, repainting of the entire building.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
8. Owner: Willis
Legal Description: Lots 25, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing.
Address: 2355 Bald Mountain Roaci, East Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 246 square feet.
Use: Expand existing kitchen.
Upgrades: Include landscaping upgr,3des.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
9. Owner: Grisanti
Legal Description: Lot 16, Vail Valley 3rd Filing.
Address: 2039 Sunburst Drive, Main Vail. Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 245 square feet. Use: Unknown. Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
10. Owner: Nicol
Legal Description: Lot A-6, Block A, Lionsriclge 2nd Filing.
Address: 1081 Vail View Drive; #B-106, Main Vail. -
Number of 250's: One 250 approved. ~
Total square feet
of 250 used: _ 45.5 square feet.
Use: Loft extension.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior`. Interior 250.
11. Owner: Mathias
Legal Description: . Lot A-6, Block A, Lionsridge 1 st Filing
Address: 1081 Vail View Drive, #B-207, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet `
of 250 used: 34 square feet.
Use: Loft extension.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
24
. a
12. Owner: Borrell Legal Description: Vail Goifcourse Townhomes.
Address: 1588 Golf Terrace, #42, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
•Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: . Additional bedroom.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
13. Owner: Griffinger
Legal Description: Vail Golfcourse Townhomes.
Address: 1630 Sunburst Drive, #16, Main Vail.
iVumber of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
' Use: Additional bedroom.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
14. Owrner: Ladd
Legal Description: Vail Golfcourse Townhomes.
Address' 1720 Sunburst Drive, #1, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Additional bedroom.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
15. Owner: Johns
Legal Description: Vail Golfcourse Townhomes.
Address: 1720 Sunburst Drive, #2, Main llail.
IVumber of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Additional bedroom.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
16. Ovvner: Devoy
Legal Description: Vail Golfcourse Townhomes.
Address: 1620 Sunburst Drive, #F-22, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 45 square feet.
Use: Unknown. '
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
25
17. Owner: Klein
Legal Description: Vail Golfcourse Townhorries.
Address: 1710 Sunburst Drive, #7, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Additional bedroom.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
18. Owner: Metzger
Legal Description: Lot 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing
Address: 74 East Witlaw Drive, River Ridge Condominiums, Main
Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 203 square feet.
Use: Additional bedroom.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
tnterior or Exterior: Inteiior 250.
19. Owner: Adams
Legal Description: Lot 7, Vail Village 1 st Filiing
Address: 74 East Willow Drive, #755, River Ridge South
Condominiums, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 210 square feet.
Use: Additional bedroom.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
20. Owner: Gamez _
Legal Description: Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Village 1 st Filing, Riva Ridge fVorth.
Address: 33 Willow Drive, #630, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Loft.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
21. Owner: Detrick
Legal Description: Lots 5, Block 2, Vail PotEtto Patch.
Address: 758 Potato Patch Drive, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 232 square feet. •
Use: Unknown.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
26
b
22. Owrner: Isaacs
Legal Description: Lot 8, Bighorn Subdivision.
Addr.ess: 3987 Lupine Drive, East Vail. Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 181 square feet.
Use: Expand existing room.
Upgrades: tVo upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
23. Owner: Gonzales/Molyneaux
Legal Description: Lot 1, VUarren Pulis Subdivision.
Address: 1628 Vail Valley Drive, Main Vail. Number of 250's: Two 250's approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 500 square feet. Use: Unknown.
• Upgrades: IVo upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250's.
24. Owner: Dippy
Legal Description: The Valley, Phase I.
Address: 1616 Buffehr Creek Road, #B-17, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Exterior modifications.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior; Exterior 250.
25. Owner: Baley
. Legal Description: Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 4th Filing.
Address: 680 VVest Lionshead Place, #41-0, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 120 square feet.
Use: New loft area.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
26. Owner: Kaufman
Legal Description: Lionsquare Lodge.
Address: 660 UVest Lionshead Circle,#388, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 150 square feet.
Use: Loft extension.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
27
, ,
27. Owner: Hess ,
Legal Descriptiori: Lot 1, Block 3, Vail Point.
. Address: 1881 Lionsridge Loop, #2, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Addition of bedroom and bathroom.
Upgrades: Add landscaping.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
28. Owner: Hajim •
Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 5-D, Vail Village 1st Filing, Vail Village Inn.
Address: 100 East Meadow Drive, #503, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 175 square feet.
Use: Conversion of common area to private use.
Upgrades: No property upgrades. Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
29. Owner: Nicholas
Legal Description: Lot 13, Block 5, Vail Village 1 st Filing, Vail Rowhouses.
Address: 330 Gore Creek Drive, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: Two 250's approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 500 square feet.
Use: Conversion of common area to GRFA. Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250's.
30. Owner: Flacke _
Legal Description: Part of Lot K, Block 56, Wail Village 1 st Filing,+
Talisman Condominiums. '
Address: 62 East Meadow Drive, PJlain Vail.
. Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Addition of a loft.
Upgradss: No upgrades required.
Interior --Or Exterior: Interior 250.
28
J 0 0
1994
1. Owner: Pickens
Legal Description: Lot 10, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Address: 167 Rockledge Road, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 136 square feet.
Use: Addition of a closet.
Upgrades: IVo upgrades required.
tnterior or Exterior: Interior 250.
2. Owner: Byrne
Legal Description: Lot 5, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing
Address: 126 Forest Road, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: Two 250's approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 500 square feet.
Use: Both 250's used for EHU.
Upgrades: IVo upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Both exterior 250's.
3. Owner: Krasovich/Schuman
Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 6, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Address: 63 VVillow Place, #11, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved. '
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet. •
Use: Attic space.
Upgrades: IVo upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
4. Owrner: fVorris/6yrne
Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing +
Address: 486 Forest Road, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: Two 250's approved.
Total square feet of 250 used: Primary unit used 242 square feet.
Secondary unit used 250 square feet.
Use: Primary unit addition was to the living room.
Secondary unit was a demo/rebuild.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Both exterior 250's.
29
4
5. Owner: Harris
Legal Description: -Lot 13, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing ~
Address: 1187 Vail Valley Drive, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet
Use: Demo rebuild.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
6. Owner: Gibson/Robinson
Legal Description: Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing
Address: 1153 A and B Hornsilver, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: Two 250's approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 462 square feet.
Use: Expand living room.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Both exterior 250's.
7. Owner: Smith/Sage
Legal Description: Lot 5, Block 3, Vail Valley 1 st Filing.
Address: 1367 Vail Valley Drive, Nlain Vail. .
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Used for an EHU unit.
Upgrades: Increased landscaping.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
8. Owner: . Wolff
Legal Description: Lot 16, Block 3, Vail Valley 1st Filing
Address: 1498 Springhill Lane, Matin Vail-
Number of 250's: One 250 approved. ~
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Expand living room.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
9. Owner: Tait
Legal Description: Lot 6, Vail Valley 3rd Filing
Address: 1855 Sunburst Drive, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Unknown.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: . Exterior 250.
30
J ' b
10. Owner: Breitenbach
Legal Description: Lot 8, Vail Valley 3rd Filing.
Address: 1895 Sunburst Drive, Main Vail.
IVumber of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 240 square feet.
Use: Interior modifications
Upgrades: Enclosing meters.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250. .
11. Owner: Curtis
Legal Description: Lot A-6, Block A, Lionsridge 1 st Filing.
Address: . 1081 Vail View Drive, #A-303, Main Vail.
IVumber of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 112.6 square feet.
Use: Loft extension.
Upgrades: IVo upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
12. Owner: Riddle
Legal Description: Lot A-6, Block A, Lionsridge 1 st Filing.
Address: 1081 Vail View Drive, #B-310, Main Vail.
fVumber of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 130 square feet.
Use: . Loft extension.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
3. Owner: Mulvey
Legal Description: Lot A-6, Block A, Lionsridge 1 st-Filing.
Address: 1081 Vail View Drive, #B-111, Adain Vail. -
Number of 250's: One 250 approved. ~
Total square feet
of 250 used: 126 square feet.
Use: Loft extension.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
14. Ovvner: Nordstrom
Legal Description: Lot A-6, Block A, Lionsridge 1 st Filing.
Address: 1081 Vail View Drive, #13-208, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 126 square feet. Use: Loft extension.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
31
.
.Ta \
15. Owner: Alberti
Legal Description: Lot A-6, Block A, Lionsriclge 1 st Filing.
Address: 1081 Vail View Drive, #6-303, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 126 square feet.
Use: Loft extension.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: . Interior 250.
16. Owner: Kontney
Legal Description: Vail Golfcourse Townhomes.
Address: 1598 Golf Terrace, #38, IVlain Vail. Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Additional bedroom.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
17. Owner: Schulman
Legal Description: Vail Golfcourse Townhomes.
Address: 1734 Sunburst Drive, #74, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 231 square feet.
Use: Storage area.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
18. Owner: Tomlinson
Legal Description: Gore Creek Condominiums, Building A, #4.
Address: 5017 Main Gore Drive, 44, East-Yail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 71.5 square feet.
Use: Loft extension.
Upgrades: Undergrounding utitities.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
19. Owner: Kirch
. Legal Description: Lot 2, Bighorn 4th Filing.
Address: 4316 Streamside Circle, East Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Storage and demo/rebuild.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
32
J , L M
20. Owrner: Davidson
Legal Description: Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch.
Address: 800 Potato Patch Drive, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: New dining room.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
21. Owner: Rogers
Legal Description: Lot 28, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch.
Address: _ 799-A Potato Patch Drive, Main Vail. Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Expansion of living room.
Upgrades: IVo upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
22. Owner: VVaters
Legal Description: Lot 22, Bighorn Terrace.
Address: 4237 Columbine Drive, East Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 225 square feet.
` Use: Exterior modifications.
Upgrades: Bury all overhead utilities, eliminate existing trash
enclosures.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
23. Owner: Stearns - Legal Description: Bighorn Townhomes.
Address: 4708 Meadow Drive, #A-4, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 45 square feet.
Use: Interior remodel.
Upgrades: Parking lot paving.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
24. Owner: Krohn
Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 4, Vail Intermountain.
Address: 2771 Kinnickinnick, #E-7, West Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 190 square feet.
Use: Storage area.
Upgrades: IVo upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Interior 250.
33
. n~
25. Owner: Thain
Legal Description: Lot 8A, 86 and 9, Vail Village 4th Filing, Texas
Townhomes.
Address: . 483 East Gore Creek Driwe, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: Two 250's approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 500 square feet.
Use: Demo/rebuild.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior`. Interior 250.
26. Owner: Hawkins
Legal Description: Lot 11, Block 3, Vail Valle:y 1 st Filing.
Address: 1568-A Vail Valley Drive, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 236 square feet.
Use: Deck enclosure for existirig bedroom.
Upgrades: No u,pgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
27. Owner: Brown
Legat Description: Lot 17, Block 1, Vail VallE:y 1 st Filing.
Address: 375 Mill Creek Circle, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: Two 250's approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 500 square feet. Use: Demo/rebuild and Type II EHU.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250's.
28. Owner: Scott/Schmidt -
Legal Description: Lot 10, Casolar Phase I.
Address: 1150 Casolar Del Norte, Main Vail.
Number of 250's: Two 250's approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 150 square feet.
Use: -Deck enclosure.
Upgrades: No upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
30. Owner: Cappy
Legal Description: Lot 8, Block 7, Vail Valley 1 st Filing.
Address: 166• Forest Road, Main V'ail. Number of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Demo/rebuild with Type I EHU.
Upgrades: No upgrades required. .
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
34
31. Owner: Slifer
Legal Description: Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing.
Address: 1045 Homestake Circle, Main Vail.
IVumber of 250's: One 250 approved.
Total square feet
of 250 used: 250 square feet.
Use: Dining room addition and dormers.
Upgrades: IVo upgrades required.
Interior or Exterior: Exterior 250.
35
Y
MEnAOFiANDUflfl
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 14, 1995
SUBJECT: Outdoor display of goods
At a Council worksession in November 1994, the Town Council directed the Community
Development staff to prepare changes to the Zoning Code that would limit outdoor displays in
commercial areas to two weekends per year, as annually designated by the Town Council.
Staff drafted the proposed changes and presented them to the Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) on December 19, 1994 (see the attached memo to the PEC). Some
members of the PEC were of the opinion that outdoor displays add visual interest to the street
and that most visitors liked them. There was agreement that the displays should have some
review process or design guidelines that merchants would be required to follow. It was
suggested that a task force of inerchants be appointed to determine what guidelines should
be followed and how they would propose to enforce them. The PEC voted 5-1 to recommend
to Council support of the original staff recommendation, which reads as follows:
"Staff feels that outdoor displays are an important component of the Village and
Lionshead areas as the displays add to the visual interest and street life of our
communiry. We recommend that they continue to be allowed. However, there
are limitations that we feel are necessary. Staff recommends adding
regulations to each zone district that allows outdoor displays. These
regulations should incorporate all or some of the above criteria. Staff also
recommends adding a definition of signs for an outdoor display to the Sign
Code."
In addition, the PEC recommended the appointment of a merchant task force to design the
guidelines and suggest methods of enforcement. Attached is the memo presented to the
Town Council on November 22, 1994 listing the options staff feels are available and the
memo presented to the PEC on DeCember 19, 1994 identifying the proposed changes to the
Zoning Code.
c:\co u nciflmemos\d is play.214
MEMORANDIIM
TO: Planning and Environmentai Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 19, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to Sections 18.24 (Commercial Core I), 18.26
(Commercial Core II), 18.27 (Commercial Core III), 18.28 (Commercial Service
Center), and 18.29 (Arterial Business District) regarding the outdoor display of
goods.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Lauren Waterton
1. sNTRODUCTION
Town Council has directed staff to review the existing regulations regarding the outdoor
display of goods in commercial areas. On November 22, 1994, staff presented the attached
memo at a Council worksession. The Council discussed several possibilities relating to the
regulation of outdoor displays, including: adding a definition to the Zoning Code that would
define an outdoor display; having identical carts that all goods would be displayed in; and
banning displays except for certain weekends a year. There was also discussion regarding
the amount of staff time used in the enforcement of additional regulations, and the signs
related to the displays. .
As a result of the worksession, Town Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance that would
allow displays only two weekends per year. There will be no design review or additional
guidelines associated with these displays. Staff recommends the weekends be designated by
Town Council or the Zoning Administrator on an annual basis. These changes require
amendments to the sections listed below, in the Town of Vail Zoning Code.
The Town Council also directed staff to prepare changes to the Sign Code that would limit the
signs for these displays. At a later date,. staff will be proposing.changes regarding signs for
outdoor displays.
OV. PROfPOSED CF9ANGES
The following is the proposed text amendments. The proposed additions are shown below in
the shaded text.
Commercial Core G and Commercial Core II Section 18.24.190 and 18.26.160 -.Location of Business Activity
A. All offices, businesses, and services permitted. by Sections 18.24.020 through 18.24.050 shall be operated and conducted entirely.within a building except for
permitted unenclosed parking or loading areas and the outdoor display of
goods, as regulated by B and C befow
:
B. The area to be used for outdoor display must bE; located directly in front of the
establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own
property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall
not be obstructed by outdoor display.
_
C:: Qutdoor dESplay of goods shall qnly be;permitteci on;two weeken;ds per.;year as
designated by the Town CouncrE or by ;the Zon,ng Acimmistrator ; Rantal!
-
bicycles dispEayetl dunng the summer months: shalf be exempt fram the limit :of
fvi?o weelcends per year However, rentai hicyclE~s shalt comply v~ith (~Y ar~d :;(b);
a6ove:
Commercial Core III and Commercial Service Centeir
Section 18.27.120 and 18.28.160 - Location of Business Activity
A. All permitted and conditional uses by Sections 18.27.020 and 18.27.030 shall
be operated and conducted entirely within the building except for permitted
loading areas and such activities as may be specifically authorized to be
unenclosed by a conditional use permit and the outdoor display of goods, as::
reg,ulated by,;B and C: below;:
B. The area to be used for outdoor display must bE; located directly in front of the
establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own
property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall
not be obstructed by outdoor display.
C:; Qutdoor dESplay of goods shall only be permi tted on :iwo weeken.ds per year as
desEgnated by; the Town Cgunc~[ or by;the Zoriir~g Admm~stratar Rental
bicycles:;displayed during tfie summer r;nonths:slnal( be exempt frorn th'e Irrnrt:of
two weekends<per year Howev.er, rental b~cycl~~s stialt comply v~ith (a} and ;(bj;
;
.
abo~e:
Arterial Business District
Section 18.29.130 - Location of Business Activity
A. All permitted and conditional uses by Sections 18.29.020 and 18.29.030 shall
be operated and conducted entirely within a building except for permitted
loading areas and such activities as may be spE;cifically authorized to be
unenclosed by a conditional use permit and the autdaor display of goods, as
_
regulated by B and C below:
!B: The area to be usetl for outdaar display; musf b~3 IQCated tlirectly in fron# of the
establishment;displaying the goods and entireiy upon the estabfishment s owri
property. Sidewalks,' bu~ltling entrances arrd ex~ts, driVeways and stre~ts shal(
not be obstrueted by outdoor display ;
C: Outdoor `dESplay of goods shall on;l~r be;perm[tteid on ;two weekends pec year as
designafed by the Town Counc~i or by the Zonirig Adm~nistrator ' Ren#af;
b~cyclesciispfayed during ttie surnmer riionths:.shall tie exempt from tfie; Iift# of
tinio weekends:per year H:owever, renta~ iii bicycles slialt comply with (a} and (b~
at~ove,:
2
MEMoRANDuM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 22, 1994
SUBJECT: Outdoor display of goods
0. CIIRREft9T EiEGl1LATGONS
In the Commercial Core I, Commercial Core II, Commercial Core III and Commercial Service
Center zone districts, the outdoor displays of goods are regulated by Sections 18.24.160,
18.26.160, 18.27.120 and 18.28.160, "Location of Business Activity". These sections read as
follows:
"The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front of the
establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own
, property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be
obstructed by outdoor display."
In the Arterial Business District, the outdoor displays of goods are subject to conditional use
permit review and approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC).
Staff has regulated the signs for these outdoor displays by allowing a maximum of one square
foot of sign area.
H. IEX9S°P6NG COND9TBONS
In the past, outdoor displays were most prevalent during the spring and fall as merchants
attempted to sell their excess merchandise from the previous season. In recent years,
outdoor displays are seen year round and are used to display goods sold inside the business,
as well as advertised services. These goods are displayed using cardboard boxes, metal
tables, clothing racks, and wicker baskets and are generally located directly in front of the
storefront, ranging in size from a single box to many boxes and bicycles.
,
The retail stores in town currently display clothing on metal racks and tables, skis are leaned
up against walls, boots are lined up on the ground, and hats and gloves are displayed in
wicker baskets. Other displays that are found around town include restaurants that display
food items and real estate offices that display brochures advertising real estate for sale.
Some stores display items that are not for sale. Examples of this include the bear in front of
John Galt and the bicycle in front of Cabbages and Kings (Lionshead). Many of the signs that accompany these outdoor displays do not comply with the staff policy
limiting their sign.area to 1 square foot. Some of the signs are placed directly on the display
while others are placed on the walls or windows behind the display. .
III. REGULATIONS FROM OTHER TOWNS
In order to understand how other resort towns regulate outdoor displays, the following is a list
of several towns and their policies for regulating outdoor displays: '
Aspen - Currently, there are no regulations for outdoor display except in areas
identified as open space, where they are not allowed. Problems exist in the older
areas of town where some outdoor displays are very prevalent.
, Avon - Final approval for Avon's ordinance regarding outdoor displays will be at the
November 22, 1994 Town Council meeting.. This ordinance prohibits.outdoor displays;
entirely, except on Memorial and Labor Day weekends. Breckenridqe - The regulations limit the number of days that outdoor displays are
allowed to two weekends per year. There are no regullations regarding the design or
size of the displays. Breckenridge has special restrictions for outdoor display and
storage of bicycles which require the approval of a special development permit. These
restrictions include: the bicycles must be located entirE:ly on private property; they may
not be hung from any exterior portion of the building except where they lack sufficient
space; and they may not block the pedestrian way or vehicle parking.
Estes Park - No outdoor displays are allowed in the central business district except by
Town Council resolution. So far, no resolutions have been entertained by Council.
Steamboat Sprinqs - Any outdoor display must go through a development review
process before the display can be set up. The regulations state that outdoor displays
not obstruct any pedestrian way and be kept in a neat and tidy manner. The displays
are reviewed and approved by the PEC, however, there are no written guidelines
which they follow. IV. OPTIONS AVAILABLE
There are two aspects relating to outdoor displays that should be reviewed. The first are the
displays themselves and the second are the signs that are attached to the displays.
Reqardinq the displays, the followinq are the options that staff believes are available:
1. Require outdoor displays to go through the des~ign review process. This woulcl
require an additional section to be added to the Design Review Guidelines that
outlines specifically what type of outdoor display would be allowed, including
type of containment, size, location, etc.
` 2. Add a definition of "outdoor displays" to the definition section of the Zoning
Code. Any display not conforming to this definition would not be allowed. This
definition could include a limitation on the total ;area in which the display could
occupy, the type of material that could be used to display the goods and a
limitation on the distance the display can be from the building.
3. Require outdoor displays to receive conditional use.permit review and approva.l
by the PEC in all zone districts which allow outdoor displays. 4. Add regulations to each zone district which would specify the type of outdoor
displays allowed, as discussed. on Item No. 2 above.
. r
~ •
5: Allow only bicycles to be displayed outside.
6. Ban all outdoor displays of goods completely.
7. Take no further action and leave the existing Zoning Code and Sign Code as is.
This would allow businesses to continue outdoor displays, so long as they are
entirely on their property.
There are several options to requlate the siqns associated with outdoor displavs:
1. Amend the Sign Code to add "outdoor display of goods signs" as an additional
sign category. This new category would include a purpose statement and size,
height, number, location and design requirements. See attached copy of "daily
special boards" category as an example.
2. Amend the Sign Code to reflect the current staff policy regarding outdoor signs.
3. Do not allow any signs to be associated with these displays.
4. Do not regulate the signs for outdoor displays.
BV. CFiITERIA
If any options are selected which require the Town to further regulate the outdoor displays, a
list of criteria will need to be generated to control an outdoor display. The following is a list of
possible criteria:
1. The goods to be displayed must be enclosed in a container or placed on a
platform made of predominantly natural materials. VUood and wicker are
examples of what would be allowed. No cardboard would be allowed.
2. The total area for the display cannot exceed 10 square feet.
3. The display cannot be located further than 10 feet from the building.
4. There shall be no noise, lights, television monitors, or moving parts of any kind
associated with the display.
5. There shall be no printed material or handouts associated with the display. The
outdoor displays must be a product sold inside or an example of a service
provided by the business. .
V. STAFF RECOfNiMENDAl'10N
Staff feels that outdoor displays are an important component of the Village and Lionshead
areas, as the displays add to the visual interest and street life of our community. We
recommend that they continue to be allowed. However, there are limitations we feel that are
necessary. Staff recommends adding regulations to each zone district that allows outdoor
displays. These regulations should incorporate some or all of the above criteria. Staff also
recommends adding a definition of signs for outdoor displays to the Sign Code.
~~AFT
ORDINANCE NO. 5
SERIES OE 1995
AN ANIMe4L CONTROL ORDINANCE
VVHEREAS,
IVOUV, THEREFORE,
1. IfVTENT. It is the intent of the Vail Town Council in adopting these pet animal
control and licensing regulations to declare that a pet animal owner must assume full
responsibility and strict liability for the action of any pet animal owrned, kept, controlled, or in the
custody of the pet animal owner.
2. DEFIIVITIONS. As used in this Ordinance, the following 4erms shall have the
following meanings:
"ABAfVDON" means to fail to provide any necessary care for a pet animal for any
period of 24 hours or longer. Such care shall include; but not be limited to; food,
water, protection for the weather, socialization, and removal of waste from the
animal's enclosure. For the purposes of this Ordinance, any pet animal is
presumed to be abandoned if, after the posting of a written notice describing
deficiencies in the animal care or the personal service of such notice, the
deficiencies are not correct by any person other than an animal control officer
during the 24 hour period immediately following such posting or service.
"AfVIMAL" means any living dumb creature.
"ANIIUTAL COIVTROL OFFICER" means any person empovvered by Town of Vail
to enforce the provisions of this Ordinance pursuant to 30-15-105, C.R.S., Town
of Vail Police Department personnel, and peace officers as defined in 18-1-901,
C.R.S.
"ANIfViAL SHELTER" means any and all facilities and premises authorized by
Eagle County to care for pet animals impounded pursuant 40 4he provisions of this
Ordinance. Such facilities and premises shall also be considered public animal
shelters for the purpose of impounding dangerous dogs pursuant to the provisions
of 18-9-204.5, C.R.S.
"ATTACK" means aggressive behavior resulting in bodily injury, serious bodily
injury, or death to a person or another animal.
1
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1995
. "BITE" means the piercing, laceration, or breaEang of the skin by the teeth or jaws
of any animal.
"BODILY INJURY" means any physical injury that results in severe bruising,
muscle tears, skin lacerations requiring professional medical treatment, or fracture
of any bone or injury that requires corrective cir cosmetic surgery.
"CAT" means any animal of the species Felis cattus or any hybrid thereof.
"CONTROL" means supervision of, or influence over, any pet animal sufficient to
prevent such pet animal from being in violation of any of the provisions of this
Ordinance. "Control" may be by other than physical means if it can be
demonstrated to be real and immediate at the +time in question. For the purposes
of this resolution, failure to control shall includE: the criminally negligent leaving of
an animal in circumstances that result in neglect, mistreatment, or abandonment
of the animal.
"DANGEROUS ANIMAL" means any animal i:hat has inflicted bodily or serious
bodily injury upon or has caused the death of a person or animal.
"DOG" means any canine animal, including thc>se related to the wolf, fox, coyute,
or jackal.
"FERRET" means any animal of the species Mustala Putorius or any hybrid
thereof. "HABITUAL OFFENDER" means any animal ovvner who has pled guilty to, or been
found guilty of, violating the same provision oT this Ordinance three times within
any twelve month period. For the purposes of this Ordinance, any disposition of
charges involving probation or deferred juclgment and sentencing shall be
considered to be convictions.
"MISTREATMENT" means every act or omission which causes, or unreasonably
permits the continuation of, unnecessary or unjustifiable pain or suffering.
"NEGLECT" means failure to provide food, water, protection from the weatrier,
opportunity for exercise, socialization, or other care consistent with the need5 of
the species of the animal in questions.
"PET ANIMAL" means any animal so defined in Part 1 of Article 15 of Title 30,
C.R.S.
"PET ANIMAL FACILITY" means any facility licensed as such pursuant to the
provisions of Part 1 of Article 80 of Title 35, C.R.S.
2
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1995
"PET AfVIMAL OVVNER" means any person, firm, corporation, or organization
possessing, keeping, having financial or property interest in, or having control or
cus4ody of any pet animal.
"PHYSICAL CONTROL" means control of an animal by means of a tether attached
to the animal, and held by a responsible person; or, confinement within a locked
vehicle or locked enclosure sufficient to prevent the animal from escaping.
"POTEiVTIP?LLY DAiVGEROUS ARIIMAL" means any animal that when
unprovoked:
1. Inflicts any laceration or bruising upon a human or another animal, or,
2. Chases or approaches a person on any property other 4han the owner's in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack,
3. Is a venomous animal, or,
4. Is an animal possessing the following physical characteristics:
"PREMISES" means property owned, leased, or expressly permitted to be used
by an owner. "Premises" includes any confined area or locality such as a
residence, business, room, shop, building, or motor vehicle, including the open
space bed of a truck when the animal's presence is authorized by the owner of
such confined area or locality.
"PROPER COIVTROL OF A DAiVGEROUS P?NIMAL" means that, while on the
owner's premises, a dangerous animal shall be confined indoors or in a securely
enclosed and locked pen, structure, or motor vehicle suitable to prevent the entry
of young children and to prevent the animal from escaping. 1Alhen off the premises
of the animal owner, the animal shall be under the physical control and immediate
supenrision of the owner or other responsible person.
"PROPER COiVTROL OF A POTEIVTIALLY DANGEROUS ANIMAL" means tha4:
1. VVhile on the owner's premises, a potentially dangerous animal shall be
controlled by a chain, leash, or other confinement suitable to prevent the
animal from leaving 4he owner's premises, or,
2. VNhile off the owner's premises, a potentially dangerous animal shall be
under the physical control of the owner or other responsible person.
"PROTECTIVE CUSTODY" means the taking of an animal into custody by an
animal control officer to prevent the mistreatment, neglecf, or abandonment of
3
Orciinance No. 5, Series of 1995
such animal; or, impoundment of an animal bec;ause of the owner's inability to r.are
for the animal due to incarceration or transport to a medical treatment facility.
"QUARANTINE" means the confinement of an animal for observation to detect
symptoms of disease.
"RABIES REGISTRATION" means the vaccination of an animal with an anti-rabies
vaccine administered under the supervision cif a licensed veterinarian, and the
retention of a rabies registration certificate by the pet animal owner.
"SERIOUS BODILY INJURY" means such injury as defined in 18-1-901(3)(p),
C.R.S.
"TETHERING" means the tying and leaving of a pet animal upon any property
other than the owner's own property.
"TRESPASS" means the entry of a pet animal upon any property other than that
of the animal, or potentially dangerous animal as defined in this resolution.
"VICIOUS ANIMAL" means any dangerous dog, potentially dangerous dog,
dangerous animal, or potentially dangerous ariimal as defined in this Ordinance.
3. FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF RABIES VACCINATION AND
REGISTRATION. It shall be unlawful to fail to provide proo-f of annual rabies vaccination and
registration for any pet animal possessed in the Town of Vail if the United States Department of
Agriculture has licensed a rabies vaccine for the specific animal in question. Such rat?ies
registration shall begin when the animal reaches the age of three months, and shall be renevved
at one year intervals thereafter.
4. DOG LICENSING REQUIRED. It shall be unl2twful for the owner of any dog over
the age of three months to fail to obtain a valid Eagle County idog license after the dog has been
kept in the county for any consecutive seven day period witfiin any calendar year. The owner
shall obtain a dog license for each calendar year. Dog licenses shall expire on December 31 of
the year for which they are issued. Proof of rabies registration and payment of the license fee
shall be required before any license is issued.
Dogs kept as part of the operation of a pet animal facility licensed by the United
States Department of Agriculture or the Colorado DepartmE;nt of Agriculture pursuant to the
provisions of Part 1 of Article 80 of Title 35, C.R.S. shall be ex:empt from the licensing provisions
of this Ordinance. Such dogs shall not be exempt from the rabies registration requirements of
this Ordinance.
4
Ordinance No. 5, Series oi 1995
5. ATTACHMEiVT OF DOG LICENSE TAG TO COLLAR OR HARNESS. It shall be
unlawrful to fail to attach a valid dog license tag to the collar or harness of the dog for which the
license is issued. Such collar or harness shall be wrorn by the dog at all times when the dog is
off 4he premises of the owner.
If any dog is unable to wear a collar or harness because of a medical reason
certified by a veterinarian, or because the dog is worked in a capaci4y that makes the wearing of
a collar or harness hazardous to the dog, the owner of the dog must have the dog tattooed with
a tattoo approved by the Animal Control Department.
6. FAILURE TO COiVTROL AiV AfVIMAL. It shall be unlawrful and considered a failure
to control an animal when:
A. Any dog is off the premises of 4he owner without the presence of a person
having physical control of the dog, or,
B. Any animal is allowed to become a danger to any person or property, or,
C. Any animal trespasses on, or is tethered upon, any public or private
property without the permission of a person owning, leasing, or othenwise
controlling the property in question.
D. Any dog reaches past the perimeter of the owner's premises with its fieeth
or claws, or,
E. Any animal is allowed to excrete body waste upon public or private
property when the animal owner or other responsible person does not
remove the waste in a timely manner, or,
F. Any female dog or cat is not confined during estrus in a house, building,
or secure enclosure constructed so that the female dog or cat cannot
escape, and no male dog or cat may gain access to the enclosed animal,
or,
G. A dog is not under physical control while in the yard of any multiple
occupancy building occupied by other persons; or in the common areas of
mobile home complexes, apartments, or condominium developments, or,
H. Any animal is not under physical control in areas posted as requiring any
animal to be on a leash by any agency ofi the federal government, the s4ate
of Colorado, or any political subdivision within the state, or,
5
Ordinance No. 5, Series o} 1995
I. Any animal is kept or left in circumstances which constitute negiect,
mistreatment, or abandonment, if the keeping or leaving is due to criminal
negligence on the part of the animal oINner, or,
J. Protective custody of any animal is reeisonably necessary.
7. INTERFERENCE WITH AN OWNER'S CONI"ROL OF AN ANIMAL. It shall be
unlawful for any person to perform any act which interferes with, prevents, or hinders the efforts
of an animal owner to control any of the owner's animals.
8. INTERFERENCE WITH AN ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER. It shall be unlawful
for any person to interfere with, molest, hinder, prevent, or obs;truct an animal control officer when
such person can reasonably be expected to know that the officer is in the performance of ciuty
pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance.
9. CONTROL OF DANGEROUS AND POTENTI.ALLY DANGEROUS ANIMALS.
A. The director of Eagle County Animal Control and the designees of the
director shall have the authority to declare any animal as dangerous or
potentially dangerous when the preporiderance of evidence indicates the
animal is dangerous or potentially dangerous as defined in this Ordinance.
6. It shall be unlawful for the owner of any animal declared to be dangerous
or potentially dangerous to fail to exerc.ise "proper control of a dangerous
animal" as defined in this Ordinance.
C. Any animal owner shall have the opportunity to request an administrative
hearing to show cause as to why the Einimal in question should not have
been, or should not continue to be, iJeclared potentially dangerous or
dangerous.
The burden of proof shall be upon the animal owner to demonstrate
beyond a reasonable doubt that the behavior of the animal in question at
the time in question did not support the declaration of dangerous or
potentially dangerous as those terms are defined in this Ordinance.
The director or the designee of the director of Animal Control shall preside
at such hearings.
Such hearings shall be requested in 'writing by mailing the request to:
Eagle County Animal Control, Post Offic:e Box 214, Avon, Colorado 81620.
D. Affirmative defenses. An affirmative defense to the declaration of
dangerous animal shall be:
6
Ordinance No. 5, Series o1 1995
t
(1) That, at the time of an attack by the animal owner's animal upon
another animal, the other animal vvas trespassing upon the
premises of the animal owner, and the attack began, but did not
necessarily end, upon such premises;
(2) That, at the time an attack by the animal owner's animal, the other
animal was biting or othenwise threatening or attacking the animal
owner or the animal owner's animal;
(3) That, at the time of an attack by the animal owner's animal upon a
person, the person attacked was committing or attempting to
commit a criminal offense, other than a petty offense, against the
animal's owner, and the attack did not occur upon the animal
owrner's premises;
(4) That, at the time of an attack by an animal owner's animal upon a
person, the person attacked vuas committing a criminal offense,
other than a petty offense, against a person on the owner's
premises or against the premises itself and the attack began, but
did not necessarily end, upon such premises, or,
(5) That the person attacked by the animal owner's animal tormented,
provoked, abused, or inflicted injury upon the animal.
E. 1A/hen probable cause exists to indicate that an animal is dangerous and
is not under proper control, any animal control officer may use any
available means to ensure that the animal does not endanger any person.
Such means shall include the destruction of the animal, if necessary.
10. DUTY TO REPORT ANIMAL BITES AfVD IiVJURY CAUSED BY ANIMALS. It shall
be unlawful for any person to fail to report any known information regarding an animal bite or
injury caused by an animal to the Eagle County Animal Control Department. The report of the
incident shall be made vvithin 24 hours after such information is received, and shall include the
name, address, and telephone number of the person making the report. The report may be made
by telephone to the animal control office on voice mail.
11. DUTY TO PRODUCE BITING AfVIMAL FOR IiVSPECTION OR QUARANTINE.
It shall be unlawful for any animal owner to fail to make available for inspec4ion or quarantine any
animal when probable cause exists to believe that the animal has bitten any person. If a
quarantine period is necessary, the place of quarantine shall be at the discretion of the Eagle
7
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1995
- r
County Animal Control Department. Any costs incurred as results of a quarantine period shall
be the sole responsibility of the animal owner.
12. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN TERMS OF A SALES OR ADOPTION
CONTRACT.
A. It shall be unlawful to possess any unsterilized dog or cat when such (Jog
or cat is required to be sterilized under the terms of any applicable sales
or adoption contract, regardless of whetre the contract originated, and,
B. It shall be unlawful to fail to comply wii:h any of the terms of an adopfion
or fostering contract when the animal is obtained from the Eagle County
Animal Shelter pursuant to such contra.ct.
13. UNLAWFUL RELEASE OF AN ANIMAL. It shall be unlawful to remove any animal
from the custody of Eagle County Animal Control without the c,onsent of an animal control officer.
"Custody" as used in this section shall be confinement of an animal at the animal shelter or in any
county vehicle.
14. IMPOUNDMENT OF ANIMALS. An animal conirrol officer may impound any animal
that is not under control under the provisions of this Ordinance, or is not in conformity with any
of the provisions of this Ordinance.
An animal control officer may impound any potentially dangerous or dangeruus
animal that is not under proper restraint. Upon establishing probable cause to believe that an
animal is dangerous or potentially dangerous, an animal control officer may perform sijch
impoundment prior to notifying the owner, if such owner is not immediately present to exerc:ise
proper control of such animal.
As soon as practical after the impoundment of any animal, an animal control officer
shall make a reasonable effort to notify the owner of the ainimal of the animal's location by
telephone, posting of a notice at the owner's residence, or by 4vritten notice mailed to the owner's
known address, if the identity of the animal owner is known. If needed to establish the identity
of the animal owner, information contained on any identificzition, rabies, or license tag found
attached to the animal shall be used.
15. DISPOSITION OF IMPOUNDED ANIMALS. piny animal impounded pursuant to
the provisions of this Ordinance, shall become the property of the Eagle County Animal Control
after 5 days of impoundment. Each partial day of impoundment shall count as one day.
8
Ordinance No. 5, Series ot 1995
~ -
a
Eagle County Animal Control may humanely euthanize any animal at any time prior
to the expiration of 4he 5 day impoundment period if 4he animal is extremely injured or ill, or if the
animal poses a risk to the health of any person.
The owner of any impounded animal may be held responsible for all the costs of
impoundment and boarding.
16. FAILURE TO REDEENI OR PAY FINES OR FEES OR COMPLY WITH RELEASE
ORDERS AfVD STIPULATIOiVS. It shall be unlawrful for any animal owner to fail to make
arrangements for the redemption or surrender of any animal impounded pursuant to the
provisions of this Ordinance, or to fail to pay any fees associated with the redemption or
surrender of such animal.
17. THREATEiVIfVG OF 1NILDLIFE OR LIVESTOCK. It shall be unlawrful to fail 40
control any animal so as to prevent such animal from running after, chasing, pursuing, biting,
worrying, attacking, or threatening wildlife or livestock. Any animal threatening wildlife or livestock
may be immediately destroyed at the discretion of any animal control officer. A violation of this
section shall require a mandatory court appearance by the animal owner. Upon conviction of any
violation of this section, the animal owner shall be required by fhe court to pay restitution for any
livestock or wildlife injured or killed by the owrner's animal or animals.
18. IVUISANCE BARKIfVG.
A. 14 is unlavvful for any dog owner to fail to prevent his dog from disturbing
the peach of any other person by loud, habitual, and persistent barking,
howling, yelping, or whining, whether the dog is on or off the dog owner's
property.
B. It is unlawful to possess any dog that disturbs the peace of any person as
described in this section after the dog owner has received a written
warning as provided by this section.
C. IVo person shall be charged with a violation of this section unless a written
warning has been give at least seven days but not more than sixty days
preceding the charge. The name and address of the complainant shall
appear on the vvritten warning.
D. iVo dog owner shall be convicted at trial for a violation of this section
unless testimony is presented by at least fiwo complaining witnesses or by
one complaining witness and an animal con4rol officer if evidence so
merits.
9
Ordinanca No. 5, Series of 1995
6
19. HABITUAL OFFENDER. tt shall be unlawful for any person to become a habitual
offender as defined in this Ordinance, and any person so charged may be charged in addition to
any other charges brought pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance and offending animals
ordered removed from jurisdiction.
20. ENFORCEMENT. Animal control officers as iJefined in this Ordinance have the
authority to issue a summons and complaint or penalty assessment to any alleged violator of this
Ordinance. The penalty assessment procedures pursuant to Section 16-2-201, C.R.S. shall be
applicable to any penalty assessment issued by an anima.l control officer for Class II petty
offenses as described in 30-15-102, C.R.S.
Offenses involving bodily injury shall be Class 2 misdemeanor offenses pursuant
to the provisions of 30-15-102, C.R.S. A summons and complaint shall be issued for all Class
2 misdemeanor offenses charged.
21. PENALTIES. The following schedule shall apply to offenses charged pursuartt to
the penalty assessment procedure:
A. For all violations not involving a dangerous or potentially dangerous animal:
First offense: $ 40.00
Second offense: $100.00
Subsequent offenses: $150.00
6. For all violations involving a potentially dangerous animal:
First offense: $ 75.00
Second offense: $150.00
Subsequent offenses: Mandatory court appearance
C. For all violations involving a dangerous dog at large, a habitual offender
charge, or threatening of wildlife or livestock:
Any offense: Mandatory court appearance
Mandatory find upon conviction of $300.00
plus all associated costs and restitution
22. SEVERABILITY. If any of the provisions of this Ordinance or the applicakion
thereof to any party or circumstance shall to any extent be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder
of this Ordinance, or the application of such provision to partie:, or circumstances other than thuse
to which it is invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each provision of this
Ordinance shall be valid and m?v l1g anforrAd to thc f1-,llos: c'wi°M~ ~~~^'~ii~~~ vy l&'rr.
~ ~
23. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clau;>e or phrase of this ordinance is for
any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portians
of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and
each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any
one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses; or phrases be declared invalicl.
10
Ordinance No. 5, Series o1 1995
r
5
24. The Tovvn Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is
necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of 4he Town of Vail and the inhabitan4s
thereof.
25. 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.
26. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent
herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be
construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore
repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED OiVCE IN FULL ON
FIRST READING this day of , 1995, and a public hearing shall be held on this
Ordinance on the day of ,.1995, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of
the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
READ AiVD APPROVED ON SECOND READING AIVD ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of , 1994.
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly L. fiNcCutcheon, Town Clerk
C:\ORD95.1
11
Ordinance No. 5, Series ot 1995
05 'J, 14 •f6-
eAGtt couN`rr
Ai'JIMAL CONfROL
,303) 949-4328
P.O. Box 214
Enrorcemenc - Avon. Colorado 81620
;303; 949-w29~ FAX: (303) 328-7207
Snei!e- '
Ei ;eoel '
;303; 963-27C3
7.".
EAGLE COUNTY, ~OUDRAD0
MEMoRANDUM
L
dO0 OBSIdd TOVVBV COVBYCIbd
b\Oi/8d8\i Mcd.ddbUd\I8V
8\ O T8806'i6dY i'bOO8r88EA8I
/
8 8\OMO 86Ob/8d8\b SSI6aGLd.d
Ed3GL8A COVbVTY AOYIMA C0NT8\Oi! DATE o FEBRLTAI2Y 14 0 1995
RE o PROPOSED ORDINANCE No 0 5 o SERIES OF° 1995
It is with increased pride that I would enter in support of this
proposed ordinance. It reflects a thorough and concise approach to
resolving the problems of impacts from our "pet animals". While the
draft offered for discussion may need some "word smithing", its
intent is clear and the responsibilities of any pet owner is well
defined.
Other than simple typographical errors and references to certain
C.R.S. provisions that may be expanded or referenced in other
titles, I offer the following for consideration and direction:
1. No known "DANGEROUS ANIMAL" should be permitted to be
kept within the town without specific adjudication from the town's
municipal court. Method and manner of control and keeping would be
proscribed by court along with requirements for reporting, etc. A
possible exception may be that of an animal adjudged "dangerous" in
another jurisdiction and then relocated to reside within the Town.
This situation could be resolved by an administrative hearing as
referenced in 9.(C) on page 6. This would indicate striking of
"PROPER CONTROL OF A DANGEROUS ANIMAL" in entirety.
2. Due to the inclination of our seasonal residents and
visitors to bring their animals to Town and fail to license them
appropriately with the required TOV Dog license, it is recommended
that the current elimination period be extended to fourteen days
and the phrase "or immediately upon any enforcement action
resulting from any violation of this ordinance." be added. Also the
tag requirement should be so worded as to allow any desired changes
in the administration of the tag program in the-future.
3. Section 6.(A) requires "physical control" and would apply
throughout the Town. Some provisions for "free play areas" should
be made along with designated signage and provisions for removal of
excrement. Failure to comply_with this !'pooper scooper" provision
would result in a violation of Section 6.(E). Additionally,
Section 6.(G) references common areas of "mobile home complexes".
I believe this was a remnant from a document with a broader scope;
not for the Town of Vail. Do we have any zoning that would allow
such a complex? Again, a recommendation to strike that particular
language. .
4. Section 15 references a change in the current practice of
holding animals for a 10 day redemption period. It is recommended
to adopt the 5 day period but should be considered in light of the
current 10 day requirement.
5. Section 18 references Nuisance barking which has become
increasingly problematic. The best solution is to provide for a
swift hearing in the municipal court. There, "fact" may be found
and a resolution be defined through normal court procedures. It is
recommended 18 (C) be changed to read "No person shall be charged
with a violation of this section unless a written warning has been
given at least 72 hours preceding the charge. The name and address
shall appear on the written warning." Also it is recommended to
strike section 18 (D) and allow the court to more properly address
the issue of "fact".
6. Section 21 (C) should also contain the fine for the
offense described in section 16, Failure to redeem
7. It is strongly recommended that a section addressing and
incorporating language in the current 6.08. et.seq. be adopted with
an additional provision that the Town Manager shall promulgate
rules and regulations to be a part of any permit, contract or
exception to the general prohibition of livestock, horse drawn
vehicles or other animal powered equipment (llama, dog, goat, etc.)
This also will allow for addressing concerns arising from "petting
zoo" and carnival type operations.
8. A section requiring an inspection and regularly renewed
license to be issued by TOV for any activity occurring within the
Town whic,h is regulated by PACFA of the State of Colorado, other
State of Colorado regulations, or USDA is suggested. This
inspection and licensing would be in addition to that required by
any other agencies.
I wish to express my appreciation of your Town Attorney. The
attention and wise counsel that he has given to this. difficult task
is reflected in the clarity, the ease of understanding and the
predicted general acceptance by our residents. We all are aware of
how very troublesome Animal Control issues can become. Tom
Moorhead's efforts will be positively reflected and are very
appreciated by the'professionals who work together in this effort.
In reviewing this working draft it is evident that some of it was
intended for multiple application. A few changes in references
will allow it to be applied specifically to our Town. An initial
review by several state and national agencies has indicated a level
of acceptance and also has generated enthusiasm to "borrow" the
language and scope of this document for application to other
governments' attempts to address the complexity of their Animal
Control issues.
Through the enactment of this ordinance it is not intended to
eliminate or control the expressions of ourselves via our pet
selection. It is intended to clearly focus the responsibility and
liability of the pet owner. It is so constructed to allow
flexibility and adaptability without unnecessary prohibition. It,
like all other regulation, is only as good as the enforcement.
Eagle County is currently considering a document very similar to
this proposed ordinance. Some of the differences are solely a
result of the Town's ability to address issues more precisely from
a "home rule" authority.
The adoption of this ordinance would allow for a more prompt
resolution to certain contentious issues. Barking, excrement and
illtempered or potentially dangerous animals are examples. It
should not impact any of the Town's Departments unfavorably. It
would simplify some procedures and remove some that tend to only
frustrate all who are involved. It will increase some court
activity. It does allow for addressing other animals that were not
kept in our Town until recently. (Large and potentially dangerous
reptiles, venomous snakes, other types of pet animals "not under
control")
Eagle County Animal Control as your agent and I, personally,
encourage adoption of this ordinance.
Thank-you.
MEMORANDUM FIL E COPY
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 23, 1995 RE: A request for a worksession regarding amendments to Chapter 18.71
(Additional GRFA) and Chapter 18.57 (Employee Housing), deleting the chapter
providing for Additional GRFA (the 250) and incorporating the 250 GRFA
allowance in the Employee Housing Chapter of the Zoning Code, to be used
exclusively for deed-restricted employee housing.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
ax.
0. WROD9.DCT10N
At the request of the Vail Town Council, the planning staff was asked to initiate revisions to
the existing 250 Ordinance (Additional GRFA). In response to the Council's direction, the
planning staff researched the ten year history of the 250, analyzed the future development
potential of the 250 and proposed possible alternatives to the existing 250 ordinance at a
Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) worksession on December 19, 1994. In
response to the feedback received from the PEC and the public at the worksession, staff has
focused the code changes on employee housing and has proposed amendments to Chapter
18.71 (Additional GRFA) and Chapter 18.57 (Employee Housing). The purpose of this
memorandum is to summarize the discussion at the PEC worksession and to identify the
proposed amendments to Chapters 18.71 and 18.57.
88• SIBMN1ARV OF THE DECEMBER 19, 1994 PEC VVORKSESSBOBV D9SCl1SSION
WIT9i THE S'TAFF'S RESPONSE
At the December 19, 1994 worksession, the PEC members suggested possible amendments
to Chapters 18.71 and 18.57. The PEC members proposed the following changes:
1. That the 250 Ordinance and Employee Housing sections of the Municipal Code
be amended to allow the additional 250 square feet only when used in
conjunction with a deed restricted Type I, Type II, Type V employee housing
units.
Staff's response: In response to this request, staff has proposed to eliminate
Chapter 18.71 (additional GRFA) and incorporate portions of the additional
GRF,4 section into the Emp/oyee Housing chapter (18.57) of the Town of Vail
Municipa/ Code. The major changes associated with this action is that the
additional GRFA is now only availab/e when associated with an employee
housing unit and that the review is no longer the responsibility of the DRB.
Instead, the PEC now reviews all 250 requests.
9
2. That the intent/purpose statement of the 250 c;hapter be amended to more
specificalty describe what the 250 square feet of GRFA could be used for.
Staff's response: Staff has amended the purpose statement of the 250 to
more specifically indicate what the 250 square feet of GRFA is intended to tae
used for. The staff has identified that the intent of the proposed 250
amendments are to provide an additional incentive to developers and propetty
owners to create employee housing in the Totvn of Vail. The Town of Vail
recognizes the importance of a permanent year-round population to the
sustainability and continued viability of the cornmunity.
3. That the 250 should be eligible for all property owners of lots with less than
15,000 square feet.
Staff's response: The 250 square feet of adofitiona/ GRFA wou/d remain
available fo owners of lots with less than 15,000 square feet of lot area.
Currently, the 250 is available to a property orvner of a lot /ess than 15,000
square feet if the owner chooses to construct a secondary unit and restrict r'riat
unit to employee housing. The staff believes that the purpose of the 250 is to
provide an incentive for employee housing units and that there needs to be a
direct connection between employee housing ,snd additional GRFA.
4. That the existing 250 Ordinance should not be. repealed entirely, instead, that
only the demo/rebuild amendment to the 250 Ordinance be repealed.
Staff's response: The 250 ordinance is not being repea/ed entirely; it is simply
being amended and incorporated into the employee housing chapter of the
code to allow for the additional 250 square feet when used in the construction
of a Type l, Type ll, Type V employee housinc? unit.
III. PROPOSED AAAENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18.71 AIND CHAPTER 18.57
Upon review of the PEC's suggestions, staff has made the following changes to the 250 and
Employee Housing Ordinances:
1. Chapter 18.71 has been removed from the Toinrn of Vail Municipal Code. The
additional 250 square feet of GRFA has been incorporated into Chapter 18.57
(Employee Housing) under the subsection titleid "Additional Gross Residen'tial
Floor Area for Type I, Type II, Type V Employee FOousing Units."
. 2. The intent/purpose statement of the additional 250 square feet has been
amended to read:
18.57.095 A. Purpose
To provide an incentive for the creation of Type I, Type II, Type V, deed
restricted, full-time employee housing units within the Town of Vail by permitting the
addition of up to two hundred fifty square feet of gross residential floor area ("GRFA")
to such units, provided the criteria set forth in this section are met. This section does
not assure each deed restricted employee housing unit located within the Town of V.ail
an additional two hundred fifty square feet, and propo;sals for any additions hereundpr
shall be reviewed closely with respect to site planning, impact on adjacent properties,
and application Town of Vail development standards. The two hundred fifty square
feet of additional GRFA may be granted to Type I, Type II, Type V employee housing
units only once, but may be requested and granted in more than one increment of less
than two hundred fifty square feet."
,
2
3. The procedure which an applicant must follow to obtain additional GRFA for
employee housing has been amended in the following ways:
4. The criteria for receiving an additional 250 square feet of GRFA for an
employee housing unit has been amended as follows:
A. The 250 shall be limited to deed restricted employee housing
units as set forth within this chapter (18.57).
B. An employee housing unit woaald not need to have at least five
years pass from the date a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy
was issued, or a minimum of six years from the date the original
building permit was issued for construction to be eligible for the 250 square feet of GRFA. The 250 square feet of GRFA would
now be available to the property owner immediately.
5. Section 18.71.030 (Multi-Family Dwellings) has been eliminated. Therefore,
250's are no longer allowed in multi-family dwellings in the Town of Vail.
6. Applications for additional GRFA shall be reviewed by the PEC prior to review
of the proposed project by the Design Review Board (DRB). Any applicant vvho .
applies for an additional two hundred fifty square feet of GRFA for the purpose
of constructing employee housing, shall be required to submit a Conditional Use
Permit application, however, shall not be required to pay a Planning and
Environmental Commission application fee.
c:\pec\memos\2500rd. 123
3
Chapter 18.57
EMPLOYEE HOUSING
Sections:
18.57.010 Purpose. 18.57.020 Employee housing units (EHU) genE!rally.
18.57.030 Applicability.
18.57.040 Type I- Employee housing unit.
18.57.050 Type II - Employee housing unit.
18.57.060 Type III - Employee housing unit. 18.57.070 Type IV - Employee housing unit.
18.57.080 Type V- Employee housing unit. 18.57.095 Additiona/ gross residentia/ floor an'a for Type l, Type ll
and Type V
18.57.010 Purpose.
The Town of Vail's economy is largely tourist based zind the health of this economy is
premised on exemplary service for Vail's guests. Vail's ability to provide such service is
dependent upon a strong, high quality and consistently avail<ible work force. To achieve such
a work force, the community must work to provide quality living and working conditions.
Availability of housing plays a critical role in creating quality living and working conditions for
the community's work force. The Town recognizes a permanent year round population plays
an important role in sustaining a healthy, viable community. Further, the Town recognizes its
role in conjunction with the private sector in ensuring housinci is available.
18.57.020 Employee housing units (EHU) generally.
A. A chart2 attached to this chapter and incorporated herein by reference illustrates thEl
requirements for each type of EHU.
B. No employee housing unit which is constructed in acc:ordance with this chapter shall
be subdivided or divided into any form of time shares, interval ownerships, or fractional
fee.
C. All types of EHU's may be leased, but only to tenants who are full-time employees who
work in Eagle Counry. An EHU shall not be leased for a period less than thirry
consecutive days. For the purposes of this section, a full-time employee is one who
works an average of a minimum of thirty hours each iNeek.
1. A Type I EHU may be sold, transferred, or corsveyed separately from any
single-famiiy or two-family dwelling it may be a part of so long as it meets the
conditions set forth in Section 18.57.040 B, 5 of this chapter.
2. A Type II EHU shall not be sold, transferred, cir conveyed separately from the
single-family or two-family dwelling it is locateci within or attached to.
3. A Type III EHU may be sold, transferred or conveyed separately from other
dwelling units or employee housing units that rnay be located on the same lot
or within the same building in which the Type III EHU is located so long as it
meets the condition set forth in Section 18.57.1360 B, 11 of this chapter.
4. A Type IV EHU shall not be sold, transferred, or conveyed separately from
other dwelling units or employee housing units that may be located on the
same lot or within the same building in which the Type IV EHU is located.
5. A Type V EHU shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed separately from the
single-family dwelling it may be located within or attached to.
4
0
D. Reserved.
E. fVo later than February 1 of each year, the owner of each employee housing unit within
the Town which is constructed following the effective date of this chapter shall submit
two copies of a report on a form to be obtained from the Community Development
Department of the Town of Vail and Chairman of the Town of Vail Housing Authority
setting forth evidence establishing that the employee housing unit has been rented
throughout the year, the rental rate, the employer, and that each tenant who resides
within the employee housing unit is a full-time employee in Eagle County.
F. No property containing an EHU shall exceed the maximum GRFA permitted in Title 18
except as provided in Sections 18.57.040 B4, 18.57.050 65 or 18.57.080 B3 of this
chapter.
G. All trash facilities shall be enclosed.
H. All surface parking shall be screened by landscaping or berms as per Design Reviewr
Guidelines, Section 18.54.050 D3.
1. Any applicant who applies for a conditional use permit for the purpose of constructing
employee housing, shall not be required to pay a conditional use permit application
fee.
J. The provisions as set forth in Section 18.57.020, subsections B, C, D, and E shall be
incorporated into a written agreement in a form approved by the Town Attorney which
shall run with the land and shall riot be amended or terminated without the written
approval of the Towrn of Vail. Said agreement shall be recorded at the county clerk
and recorder office prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of an
EHU.
K. Each EHU shall have its own entrance. There shatl be no interior access from any
EHU to any dwelling unit it may be attached to.
L. The owner of each EHU shall rent the unit at a monthly rental rate consistent with or
lower than those market rates prevalent for similar properties in the Town of Vail.
M. The Town of Vail Housing Authority will determine the market rate based on the study
of other units of comparable size, location, quality and amenities throughout the Town.
The market rate shall be based on an average of a minimum of five rental rates of
comparable units. If the unit is not rented and is not available at the market rate it
shall be determined to be in noncompliance. In addition, to any other penalties and
restrictions provided herein, a unit found to be in noncompliance shall be subject to
publication as determined by the Housing Authority.
(Ord. 27(1992) 1-3" Ord. 8(1992) § 4(part).)
18.57.030 Applicability.
A. The requirements of this chapter shall be in addition to the requirements set forth in
each zone district where EHUs are permitted by this chapter and all other requirements
of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
B. VVhere the provisions or requirements of this chapter conflict with the provisions or
requirements set forth in any zone district or any other requirements of the Town of
Vail Municipal Code, the provisions of this chapter shall control.
(Ord. 8(1992) § 4(part).)
18.57.040 Type s-Employee housing unit.
A. Purpose. To allow for construction of an EHU on lots in the Primary/Secondary
Residential and Two-Family Residential zone districts which do not meet the minimum
lot size requirements for said zone districts.
5
B. General Conditions. A Type I EHU shall comply with the following general provisions:
1. It shall be a permitted use in the Primary/Seccmdary Residential, and Two-
Family Residential zone districts.
2. It shall be allowed on a lot that is less than fifl:een thousand square feet in tntal
site area.
3. It shall be one of the dwelling units in a two-fa:mily dwelling pursuant to Section
18.54.050 I design guidelines duplex and primiary/secondary development. It
may also be located in, or attached to, an exi;;ting garage provided the garacle
is not located within any setback, and further provided that no existing parking
required by the Town of Vail Municipal Code i;s reduced or eliminated.
4. It shall not exceed forty percent of the tota! GRFA allowed on the /ot. An
applicant, however, shall be permiited to apply to the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail for additional i3RFA (18.57.095) not to exceed
iwo hundred fifty square feet to be used in the! construction of the EHU. The
secondary unit may exceed the 40% maximurn by 250 square feet.
5. A Type I EHU may be rented in compliance with Section 18.57.020 or it may be
sold, transferred, or conveyed separately from any single-family, or finro-family
dwelling it may be a part of so long as it meet:s the following conditions:
a. It must be used by the owner of the EHU as a permanent residence.
For the purpose of this subsection, a permanent residence shall meaii
the home or place in which one's habitation is fixed and to which one,
whenever he or she is absent, has a present intention of returning after
a departure or absence therefrom, regardless of the duration of
absence. In determining what is a permanent residence, the Town staff
shall take the following circumstances relating to the owner of the
residence into account: business pursuits, employment, income sources,
residence for income or other tax purposes, age, marital status,
residence of parents, spouse and children if any, location of personal
and real property, and motor vehicle registration.
b. If a Type I EHU is sold, transferred or c:onveyed separately from the
other unit in a two-family dwelling it is a part of, then both the Type I
EHU and the unit to which it is attache(J shall be subject to all the
provisions set forth in Section 18.57.020 F, G, H and K of this chapter.
6. No less than fifty percent of the parking requiriad for the Type I EHU by the Vail
Municipal Code shall be enclosed.
7. It shall be entitled to a GRFA credit of four hundred twenty-five square feet, as
set forth in Sections 18.12.090 A. and 18.13.080 A. of this code.
8. If a Type I EHU is sold separately from tne two-family dwelling it is part of, then
the provisions as set forth in Section 18.57.021) subsections B, C and E as well
as Section 18.57.040 B, 5 a. and B. shall be incorporated into a written
6
~ .
agreement applicable to both the Type I EHU and the dwrelling unit to which is
attached in a form approved by the Town Attorney which shall run writh the land
and shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval of the
Town of Vail. Said agreement shall be recorded at the county clerk and
recorder office prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of
an EHU. .
9. Thirty days prior to the transfer of a deed for a Type I EHU, the prospective
purchaser shall submit an application to the Community Development
Department documenting that the prospective purchaser meets the criteria set
forth in Sections 18.57.020 C and 18.57.040 B 5 a. and shall include an
affidavit affirming that he or she meets these criteria.
C. Application. Any person who wishes to construct a Type I EHU, without requesting the
use of the additiona/ GRFA, shall submit an application for Design Review Board
approval to the Community Development Department containing the following
information:
1. The name and mailing address of the applicant.
2. The written consent of the owners of the lot or property to be included in the
application or the written consent of their agent or authorized representatives.
For the purposes of this subsection, agent or authorized representative shall
mean any individual or association authorized empowered in writing by the
property owner to act on his or her behalf. If any of the property to be included
is a condominiumized development, the pertinent condominium association may
be considered the agent or authorized representative for the individual unit
owner if allowed by all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's
declarations.
3. The legal description and street address of the lot or site for which the proposal
is made.
4. A list of the owner or owners of record and their mailing addresses for the
properties adjacent to the property which is the subject of the hearing.
D. Review. The application shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board in accordance
with Chapter 18.54-Design Review of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
18.57.050 Type UV - Employee housing uni4.
A. Purpose. To allow for the construction of an EHU on lots in the Single-Family
Residential, Two-Family Residential, and Primary/Secondary Residential zone districts
which meet the minimum lot size requirements for said zone districts.
B. General conditions:
1. It shall be a conditional use in the single-family residential, two-family
residential and primary/secondary zone districts which meet the minimum lot
size requirements for said zone districts.
2. It shall be permitted only on lots which comply with minimum lot size
requirements of the zone district in which the lot is located.
7
3. It shall be located within, or attached to, a sinigle-family dwelling or be located
within, or attached to, a two-family dwelling pursuant to Section 18.54.050 I-
design guidelines duplex and primary/secondziry development. It may also be
located in, or attached to, an existing garage provided the garage is not located
within any setback, and further provided that no existing parking required by the
Town of Vail Municipal Code is reduced or eliminated.
4. It shall not be counted as a dwelling unit for tfie purposes of calculating density.
However, it shall contain kitchen facilities and a bathroom, as defined in
Chapter 18:04 - Definitions of the Vail MuniciFial Code. It shall be permitted to
be a third dwelling unit in addition to the two clwelting units which may already
exist on the lot. Only one Type II EHU shall t?e allowed per lot.
5. It shall have a GRFA not less than three hunolred square feet, nor more than
nine hundred square feet. An applicanf, however, shall be permitted to apply to the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail for addifional
GRFA not to exceed two hundred fifty square feet to be used in the
construction of the EHU, pursuant to Section 18.57095. The employee
housing unit may not exceed the 900 square i`eet maximum, even if the 250 is
used.
6. It shall have not more than two bedrooms.
7. No more than two adults and one child not olcier than sixteen years of age shall
reside in a one bedroom Type II EHU. No mcrre than two adults and two .
children not older than sixteen years of age shall reside in a finro bedroom Type
' II EHU.
8. Each Type II EHU shall be required to have no less than one parking space for
each bedroom located therein. However, if a one bedroom Type II EHU
exceeds six hundred square feet, it shall have two parking spaces. All parking
spaces required by this code shall be located on the same lot or site as the
EHU. If no dwelling exists upon the property lnrhich is proposed for a Type II
EHU at the time a building permit is issued, or if an existing dwelling is to be
demolished and replaced by a new dwelling, not less than one of the parking
spaces required by this subsection shall be ericlosed. A three hundred square
feet GRFA credit shall be allowed for the cons;truction of one enclosed parking
space for the Type II EHU.
(Ord. 8(1992) § 4(part).)
18.57.060 Type III - Employee housing unit.
A. Purpose. To allow for the construction of EHUs in multiple family and mixed-use zone
districts.
B. General conditions.
1. It shall be a conditional use in the Residential Cluster, Low Density Multiple-
Family, Medium Density Multiple-Family, High Density Multiple-Family, Public;
Accommodation, Commercial Core I, Commercial Core II, Commercial Core III,
Commercial Service Center, Arterial Business District, Parking District, Publir,
Use, and Ski Base/Recreation zone districts.
2. It may be constructed on legal nonconforming lots and sites as well as on lots
and sites which meet the minimum lot size requirements in the zone district in
which it is located.
8
S '
J
3. It shall be counted as 0.5 dwelling units for the purposes of calcutating density.
The number of Type III EHUs shall be determined by the Planning and
Environmental Commission as part of the conditional use permit reviewr process
set forth in Section 18.60.060 - Criteria - Findings.
4. It shall have a GRFA of not less than four hundred fifty square feet and not
more than nine hundred square feet.
5. It shall have kitchen facilities and a bathroom as defined in Chapter 18.04 -
Definitions of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail.
6. It shall have no more than two bedrooms.
7. fVo more than two persons for each bedroom located therein shall reside in a
Type III EHU.
8. It shall be required to have one parking space for each bedroom. However, if a
one bedroom Type III EHU exceeds six hundred square feet it shall have two
parking spaces. Any guest parking requirements shall be determined by the
Planning and Environmental Commission as a part of the conditional use permit
review process set forth in 18.60.060.
9. It shall not be entitled to additional GRFA in accordance with Section 18.57095
Additional Gross Residential Floor Area for Type l, Type ll and Type V
Employee Housing Units.
10. GRFA shall be determined as set forth in Section 18.04.130 B. of this code.
11. A Type III-EHU may be rented in compliance with Section 18.57.020 or it may
be sold, transferred, or conveyed separately from other dwelling units or
employee housing units that may be located on the same lot or within the same
building in which the Type III EHU is located so long as it meets the following
conditions:
a. It must be used by the owner of the EHU as a permanent residence.
For the purpose of this paragraph, a permanent residence shall mean
the home or place in which one's habitation is fixed and to which one,
wrhenever he or she is absent, has a present intention of returning after
a departure or absence therefrom, regardless of the duration of
absence. In determining what is a permanent residence, the Town staff
shall take the following circumstances relating to the owner of the
residence into account: business pursuits, employment, income
sources, residence for income or other tax purposes, age, marital status,
residence of parents, spouse and children if any, location of personal
and real properry, and motor vehicle registration.
b. If a Type III EHU is sold, transferred, or conveyed separately from the
other dwelling units and/or Type III employee housing units in a
multifamily structure it is a part of, or from other dwelfing units and/or
Type III EHUs located on the same lot, the Type III EHUs in the
structure or on that lot shall be subject to all the provisions set forth in
Section 18.57.020 F, G, H and K of this chapter.
12. If a Type III EHU is sold separately from other dwelting units and/or Type III
employee housing units in a multifamily structure it is a part of, or from other
dwelling units and/or Type III EHUs located on the same lot, the provisions as
set forth in Section 18.57.020 subsections B, C and E as well as Section
9
~
.
18.57.060 B, 11 a. and b. shall be incorporatE:d into a written agreement
appticable to the Type III EHU in a form approved by the Town Attorney which
shall run with the tand and shall not be ameniJed or terminated without the
written approval of the Town of Vail. Said agreement shall be recorded at the
county clerk and recorder office prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
construction of an EHU.
13. - Thirty days prior to the transfer of a deed for ;a Type III EHU, the prospective
purchaser shall submit an application to the Community Development Department documenting that the prospective purchaser meets the criteria set
forth in Sections 18.57.020 C and 18.57.060 E3, 11 a and sha11 include an
affidavit affirming that he or she meets these criteria.
(Ord. 31(1993) § 1: Ord. 27(1992) 6, 7: Ord. 8(1992) § 4(part).)
18.57.070 Type IV - Employee housing unit. A. Purpose. To allow for the construction of EHUs in multifamily and mixed-use zone
districts which are similar to studio dwelling units.
B. General conditions.
1. It shall be a conditional use in the Residential Cluster, Low Density Multiple-
Family, Medium Density Multiple-Family, High Density Multiple-Family, Public
Accommodation, Commercial Core I, Commercial Core II, Commercial Core tll,
- Commercial Service Center, Arterial Business District, Parking District, Public
Use, and Ski/Base Recreation zone districts.
2. It may be constructed on legal nonconforming lots and sites as well as on lots
and sites which meet the minimum lot size requirement in the zone district iri
which it is located.
3. It shall be counted as 0.333 of a dwelling unit for the purposes of calculating
density. The nurriber of Type IV EHUs shall be determined by the Planning
and Environmental Commission as part of the conditional use permits review
process set forth in Section 18.60.060 - Criteriia - Findings.
4. It shall have a GRFA of not less than two hundred square feet and not more
than three hundred square feet and shall include a bathroom and a kitchenette
as defined in Chapter 18.04 - Definitions of the Vail Municipal Code.
5. Each building which contains a Type IV EHU :shall contain a storage locker riot
less than five feet width x six feet height x five feet length (one hundred fifty
cubic feet) in size for each Type IV EHU contained therein, and not less than
one washer and dryer for common use by eac:h eight EHUs located therein. In no event shall less than one washer and dryeir be provided in a building with
less than eight EHUs.
6. No more than one person shall reside in a Type IV EHU.
7. It shall be required to have one parking space. Guest parking requirements
shall be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission in
accordance with the conditional use permit reNriew process set forth in Sectian
18.60.060 Criteria - Findings.
8. It shall not be entitled to additional GRFA under Section 18.57.095 Additional
Gross Residential Floor Area for Type l, Type ll and Type V Employee Housing
Units.
9. GRFA shall be determined as set forth in Secition 18.04.130 B. of this code.
(Ord. 8(1992) § 4(part).) .
10
5
98.57.080 Type - Employee housing uni4.
A. Purpose. To allow for construction of an EHU on lots in the Hillside Residential zone
district.
B. General conditions. A Type V EHU shall comply with the following general conditions:
1. It shall be a permitted use in the Hillside Residential zone district.
2. It shall be one of the dwelling units in a two-family dwelling pursuant to Section
18.54.050 I. design guidelines duplex and primary/secondary development. It may also be located in, or attached to, an existing garage provided the garage
is not located within any setback, and further provided that no existing parking
required by the Town of Vail Municipal Code is reduced or eliminated. It shall
not be a separate free-standing structure.
3. It shall have a GRFA of not more than one thousand two hundred square feet.
An applicant, however, shall be permitted to apply to the Community
Development Department of the Town of Vail for additional GRFA (18.57.095)
not to exceed two hundred fifty square feet to be used in the construction of the
EHU. lf the 250 is used, the total size of the emp/oyee housing unit shall not
exceed 1,200 square feet.
4. IVo less than fifty percent of the parking required for the Type V EHU by the
Vail Municipal Code shall be enclosed.
5. It shall be entitled to a GRFA credit of four hundred twenty-five square feet as
set forth in Section 18.09.080 of this code.
(Ord. 8(1992) § 4(part).)
98.57 095 Adcii?ional Gross Residential Floor Area for Type l, Type ol and Type V
Emp/oyee Housing Q9nits.
A. PuPpose.
To provide an incentive for the creafion of Type l, Type ll and Type V deed restricted,
employee housing units within the Town of Vail, by permitting fhe addition of up to two
hundred fifty square feet of gross residential floor area ("GRFA") to such units, provided the
criteria set forth in this section are met. This section does not assure each deed restricted
employee housing unit, located within the Town of Vail, an additiona/ two hundred fitty square
feet of GRFA, and proposals for any additions hereunder shall be reviewed closely with
respect to site planning, impact on adjacent properties, and application Towrn of Vail
development standards. The two hundred fifty square feet of additiona/ GRFA may be
granted to Type l, Type ll and Type V emp/oyee housing units only once, but may be
requested and granted in more than one increment of less than two hundred fifry square feet.
B. CritePia.
Before such additional GRFA can be granted, the Type l, Type ll and Type V EHU
shall meet the following criteria:
A. The employee housing unit shall be deed restricted as set forth within this
Chapter (Employee Housing).
11
,
B. Proposa/s for the utilization of the additiona/ C3RFA under this provision shaH
comply with a11 Town of Vail zoning requirements and applicable development
standards. If a variance is required for a proposal, it shall be reviewed and
approved by the P/anning and Environmental Commission pursuant to Chapter
18.62 before an application is made in accoro'ance with this chapter. Any
single family dwelling or two family dwelling which is totally demolished or
removed shall: (1) be replaced with any prior existing nonconforming uses or
development standards totally eliminated; (2) obtain a building permit within one
year of fina/ Design Review Board approval oi, the approval for additiona/ GRFA
shall be voided; (3) be allowed a maximum of the GRFA allowable by zonincr, plus a maximum of two hundred fifty additional square feet.
C. Adjacent property owners and owners of dwelling units on the same lots as fihe
applicant shall be notified of any application u.nder this chapter that involves
any external alterations to an existing structure. Notification procedures shall
be as outlined in Section 18.66.080 of the zorling code.
D. If any proposal provides for the conversion of a garage or enc/osed parking
area to GRFA, such conversion will not be allowed un/ess a new garage or
enclosed parking area is also proposed. Plans for a new garage or enclosecI
parking area shal( accompany the application under this chapter, and shall be
constructed concunently with the conversion.
E. Any increase in the parking requirements as set forth in Chapter 18.52, due to
- any GRFA addition pursuant to this chapter, shall be met by the applicant.
F. All proposals under this section shal/ be required to conform to the Design
Review Guidelines set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Any
Type l, Type ll and Type V emp/oyee housing unit for which an addition is
proposed shall be required to meet the minimum Town of Vail landscaping
standards as set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipa/ Code. Before any
additional GRFA may be permitted in accordance with this section, the staff
shall review the maintenance and upkeep of the existing dwelling unit and sifie,
including landscaping to determine whether they comply with the design review
guidelines. Staff shall determine if there are any deficiencies on-site with
respect to the Design Review Gurdelines, and shall require thaf they be brought
into conformance during construction. Examples include overhead uti(ity lines,
unpaved driveways. etc. No temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued
for any expansion of GRFA pursuant to this criapter until all required
improvements to the site and structure have been completed as required.
G. The provisions of this section are applicable only to GRFA additions to Type l,
Type ll and Type V employee housing units. No pooling of gross residential
floor area shall be allowed. No application for additiona/ GRFA shall request
more than two hundred fitty square feet of gro,ss residential floor area per Type
l, Type ll and Type V employee housing unit.
C. Procedure.
The following procedure shall be followed by anyone iNishing to obtain additional GWFA
pursuant to this section:
A. Applicants shall be required to submit:
12
3
a
1. A Conditiona/ Use Permit applicafion, however, the applicant shall not be
required to pay a P/anning and Environmenta/ Commission application fee.
2. Information and plans as set forth and required by Section 18.60.
B. Upon receipt of a comp/eted application form and other required information, a member
of the staff of the Community Development Department will make a site visit to assess
the exrsting condition of the site with regard to the Town of Vail landscaping and site
improvemenf standards set forth in Chapter 18.54 (Design Review). In applicable
cases, the staff of the Community Deve/opment Departmenf shall submit its
recommendations regarding the site and structure improvements and landscaping to
the P/anning and Environmental Commission.
C. If the Community Development Department staff determines that the site for which the
application was submitted is in compliance with Town of Vail landscaping and site
improvement standards, the applicant shall proceed as °follows:
1. Applications for GRFA additions involving exterior changes to a building shall
be reviewed by the staff and the Planning and Environmental Commission, and
the Design Review Board in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.54.
D. If the Community Development Department statf determines that the site for wrhich
additiona/ GRFA. is applied for pursuant to this chapter does not comp/y with minimum
Town of Vail landscaping or site standards as provided herein, the applicant will be
required to bring the site into compliance with such standards before any such
temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy will be issued for the additiona/ GRFA
added to the site. Before any building permit is issued, the applicant shall submit
appropriate plans and materials indicating how the site will be brought into compliance
with said Town of Vail minimum standards, which plans and materials shall be
reviewed by and approved by the Community Development Department, the Planning
and Envrronmental Commission and the Design Review Board.
E. Upon receiving the necessary approvals pursuant to this chapter, the appiicant shall
proceed with the securing of a building permit prior to beginning the construction of
additional GRFA.
F. Any decisions of the Community Development Department staff pursuant to this
chapter may be appealed by any applicant in accordance with the provisions of
Section 18.66.030 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
' 13
i
0
ie
e~
TUi-VN OF VAIL
, 75 South Frontage Road Office of Tnivn Attorney
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-21071 FAX 303-479-2157
fViE fViORAftI D U Ni
TO: Planning & Environmental Commission
FROM: R. Thomas Moorhead
DATE: January 23, 1995
RE: Removal of Chapter 18.71, Additional Gross Residential ":cor Area
Constitute a"Taking" of a Developmen4 Right
Ladies and Gentlemen, George Ruther explained that your Commission had questions as 40
whether the removal of the opportunity to develop an additionaf 250 sq. ft. of gross residential
floor area, single family dvuellings and dwelling units would constitute the taking of a prcperty right
which would require compensation. My answer to that question is no.
The Town of Vail has comprehensive zoning which promotes widespread public bene:`it. VNithin
that zoning the Touvn of Vail regulates the gross residential floor area that is permitted +r dwelling
units. In 1985 an excep4ion to the comprehensive zoning was created for an expressed public
purpose. That exception was to allouv, under certain circumstances, an additional 250 sq. fit. of
GRFA to provide an inducement for the upgrading of single family dwellings and dwelling units
in existence for more than five years. The Chapter expressly states that it does not assure each
single family dwetling unit an additional 250.
A land use regulation cons4i4utes a taking under the Colorado and United States constitutions if
it prevents all economically viable use af the property. Regulation wrhich does not prevent all
economic use may also constitute a taking if it goes "toDfar." The determine of whether a
regulation goes "to far" for purposes of the Fifth Amendment is essentially an "ad hac, factual"
inquiry. Several facfors should be taken into account when determining whether a governmental
action has gone beyond "regula4ion" and affects a"taking." Those factors are: "the character of
the governmental action, it's economic impact, and iYs interference uvith reasonable investment-
backed expectations." Expectations of unregulated use are unreasonable when an extensive
regula4ory scheme is in place at the time of investment.
k.
There is no question that the removal of this provision woulcl not prevent all econcmicaiiy viable
use of the property. It in fact places no additional restriction:: on the property than those that are
already in place through the comprehensive zoning. What ii: does do is remove an exception to
the comprehensive zoning.
"Government could hardly go on if to some extent values incident to property ccu?d rat be
diminished without paying for every such change in the general law... But... the impiied limitation
must have its limits...when it reaches a certain magnitude, in most ir not all cases there must be
an exercise of eminent domain and vampensation." 260 U.S. at 413.
I do not believe that the removing of t - regulation in question would reach such a magnitude that
it could be determined that any pror =--y owner would be enititled to compensation. A proF>erty
owner does not establish a"taking" tiy showing that they hai/e been denied the ability io exploit
a property interest that they heretofore had believed was available for development. A land
owner does not have an investment-backed expectation protected by the taking clause when a
regulation destroys only "one strand" in the property bundle of rights.
All land use controls must advance a legitimate governmental interest that serves The public
health, safety, morals and general welfare. Comprehensive :zoning has been found to meet that
substantive due process requirement.
Since the Town would be assuring its previously determined zoning requirements as far as
densitv and because removal of the Chapter would not pilace additional restrictior!s on the
pre ;-:=-Y and the economic loss would be insignificant in relation to the value of the property, it
is :)inion that removal of the opportunity to develop and eidditional 250 sq. ft. of GRFA would
not .-i>~.;titute a regulatory taking.
Thank you.
RAM/aw
cArnouimm»m
;i
1
r
AflEMORi46VDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 19, 1994 '
RE: A request for a dvorksession for an amendment to Section 18.71 (Additional
GRFA) and Section 18.57 (Employee Housing), to delete the section providing
for Additional GRFA (the 250) and to incorporate the 250 GRFA allowance in
the Employee Housing Section of the Zoning Code, to be used exclusively for
deed-restricted employee housing.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
V. 9BdTRODUCTBON
At the request of the Vail Town Council, the planning staff was asked to initiate revisions to "
the existing 250 Ordinance (Additional GRFAj. The Council has proposed that the existing
250 Ordinance be revised to allow the additional 250 square feet of GRFA only when
proposed in conjunction with an approved, deed restricted employee housing unit. Revisions,
therefore, would need to be made to both Chapter 18.71 (Additional GRFA) and Chapter
18.57 (Employee Housing) of the Town of Vai! Municipal Code. Any changes to the 250
Ordinance would require a recommendation from the Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) and two readings of the ordinance change before the Town Council at
public hearings.
This memorandum provides a brief history of the 250 ordinance, the results of staff's research
into all the 250's approved in the Town of Vail, the future development potential of the
ordinance and proposed alternatives to the existing 250 ordinance.
I0. HBSTOEiV OF THE: 250
The 250 Ordinance was originally approved by the Town Council in March of11985 (Ordinance
5, Series 1985). According to Chapter 18.71, Section 18.71.010 of the Municipal Code, in
part, the purpose of the 250 square feet of additional GRFA is to:
"proyide an inducement for the upgrading of single family dwellings and
dwelling units which have been in existence within the Town of Vail for at least
five years by permitting the addition of up to 250 square feet of Gross
Residential Fioor Area to such single family dweilings and dwelling units. The
250 square feet of additional GRFA may be granted to single family dwellings,
two family and multi-family dwellings only once, but may be requested and
granted in more than one increment of less than 250 square feet. Chapter
18.71 does not assure each single family dwelling or dwelling unit located within
the Town of Vail an additional 250 square feet, and proposals for any additional
GRFA shall be reviewed closely with respect to site planning, impact on
adjacent properties and applicable Town of Vail develppment standards."
V
~
i
Additionally, the 250 Ordinance was adopted as a result of an increasing number of density
(GRFA) variance requests for small additions to existing resiciences that had atready reached
their full development potential. The majority of the GRFA variance requests were denied
since the appVicants had difficulty in meeting the criteria and 'findings required in order for the
PEC to grant a variance. As a result, the planning staff was directed to create an ordinance
allowing propertjr owners to receive additional GRFA.
In the nearly ten years since the adoption of the 250 Ordinance, the Ordinance has been
amended only once (Ordinance 36, Series 1988). In December of 1988, the Vail Town
Council approved, upon second reading, an amendment.to tt-ie purpose Section (18.71.010) of
the 250 Ordinance allowing 250 square feet of additional GRFA to be used in single family
dwellings which are totally removed and replaced (aemo/rebuiild). This was considered to be
"the ultimate remodel" of an existing building.
In 1991, a request was made by the Town of Vail to repeal Chapter 18.71 of the Municipa!
Code. The repeal request of Chapter 18.71 was made in response to a report completed by
the Zoning Code Revision Task Force. In a memorandum prepared for the PEC, the Zoning
Code Revision Task Force identified.two main issues, or problems which exist with the 250
Ordinance. The two main issues, or problems, are with the dlemo/rebuild provision and
variances in conjunction with 250 requests. The conflicting is;sue relating to the demo/rebuild
provision revolves around the notion that a demo/rebuild project is inconsistent with the
original intent of the ordinance. The Task Force felt that the intent of the 250 was to provide
an "inducement" to upgrade existing buildings and that a demo/rebuild is not in keeping with
the original intent of the ordinance to upgrade existin buildings. The conflicting issue
associated with variances, in conjunction with 250 requests, i;s that it is inconsistent to grant a
site development variance (i.e. site coverage, setback, etc.) in order to allow a property owner
to add GRFA in excess of what is permitted on a particular property by the Zoning Code. ft
was the opinion of the Task Force, at that time, that if the twc> main issues or problems
associated with the 250 Ordinance could be resolved, the 25() Ordinance should remain. If
not, the 250 Ordinance should be repealed. The Task Force recommended a repeal of the
entire 250 Ordinance.
At the April 8, 1991 PEC meeting, the planning staff presented the Task Force's
recommendation to repeal the entire 250 Ordinance (Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1991). , After
a lengthy public hearing with comments being heard from a number of citizens expressing
concern. over the proposed repeal of the 250 Ordinance, a motion was made. The motion.
made was to modify the existing 250 Ordinance as opposed i:o repealing it entirely as was
recommended by the staff and the Zoning Code Revision Task Force. The motion was
seconded. After discussion on the motion was completed, ari amended motion was made aind
read as follows:
"That the ordinance be sent to the Town Council with a recommendation of
denial of the staff recommendations in order for the ordinance to return to the
Zoning Code Task Force to clarify the issues."
A vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of 4-1.
A copy of the PEC memorandum and the minutes from the April 8, 1991 PEC meeting has
been provided for your reference (Exfiibit D).
1 '
t
!
At the regular evening meeting of the Town Council on April 16, 1991, the Town Council
heard discussion on Ordinance IVo. 9, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance to repeal
Chapter 18.71 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Staff presented the ordinance and the
recommendation of the PEC to deny the ordinance as proposed. Public input on the
ordinance was then heard by the Council and a motion followed. A motion was made to deny
Ordinance No. 9. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-2.
A copy of the Vail Town Council minutes has been provided for your reference (Exhibit E).
VBV. 250 RESEAEiCH .
In response to the Town Council's request of staff to initiate revisions to the existing 250
Ordinance, the planning staff conducted an investigation of all 250's approved in the Town of
Vail. The methodology of the investigation was to research and review all of the Design
Review Board (DRB) agendas and minutes, and other appropriate planning files, and
document all of the 250 approvals granted between 1985 and November 1994. The purpose
of the 250 Ordinance research was to answer the following questions as they relate to the
250:
1. What is the distribution of approved 250's throughout the Town?
2. How many 250's have been approved in the Town of Vail?
3. What is the total number of square feet approved with each 250 request?
4. What was the use of the additional 250 square feet?
5. Vllere property upgrades (paving, landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, etc.)
required with the approval of the 250 request?
6. Was the additional square footage an interior or exterior improvement?
Documentation of the 250 research has been provided (Exhibit E).
VV. DEVELOPflIVENT POTENTBe4L
In January of 1994, the Town of Vail Community Development Department prepared the
"Town of Vail Development Statistics". The purpose of preparing the Development Statistics
was to determine the existing and future potential residential development in the Town of Vail,
in terms of the number of dwelling units. The Development Statistics figures represent an approximate count of the number of units in the Gore Valley today, as well as provide an
approximate account of how many units could be built in the Valley in the future. According to
the Development Statistics, 4,942 multi-family units currently exist and a potential of 237 multi-
family units remains; resulting in a total multi-family development potential of 5,179 units.
Similarly, 1,757 single family, duplex and primary/secondary units exist in the Town today.
The future potential of 853 units remain; resulting in a possible total 2610 single family, duplex
and primary/secondary units in the Town of Vail.
.
?
The results of Staff's research into the 250 Ordinance indicates that since 1985, when the 250
Ordinance was originally adopted by the Council; until November, 1994, 176 250's (65
interior/111 exterior) have been approved, resulting in a total of 38,252 square feet of
additional GRFA being added within the Town of Vail (Exhibits A and B). The average
square footage of an approved 250 during that time period is 221 square feet. Furthermore,
staff's research indicates that of the 176 approved 250's, 26 (or 15% of the approved 250's)
required some form of upgrading to the applicant's property (IExhibit C).
A map illustrating the spacial distribution of all 250's approved in the Town of Vail from 1985
to November 1994 was also prepared by staff. Staff used thE; information gathered during the
research process of the 250 Ordinance to create the map to illustrate how many 250's have
been approved in three areas of town. The three areas of town identified on the map are East
Vail, West Vail, and Mid-Vail. Results of the map preparation indicate that twenty-three 250's were approved in East Vail, eleven have been approved in W'est Vail, and one hundred forty-
two have been approved in the Mid-Vail area of town (see map).
Lastly, when the results of the 250 Ordinance research are combined with the figures
represented in the "Town of Vail Development Statistics", staff can infer the future additionaf
square footage of the 250 Ordinance. The table below illustrates the results when the figures
represented in the Development Statistics are combined with the 250 Ordinance research
completed by staff:
j# OF 250'S GRFA THAT COULD 8E ADDED
iEXISTINGIPOTENTIALj# OF D.U.'S @ IAPPROVED I#OF D.U.'S STILL WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL
TYPE OF DWELLING UNIT (D.U_) _4D_U_ _!D.U. --'BUILD OUT jSINCE 1985 IELIGIBLE FOR A 250 UNDER THE 250 ORDINANCE
-
~
- - -
•
- r---- - r- - -
-----ry--- ---ry---~
Single Family_Duplex, Prima /Seconda
- 17571 853'- - - - - - - - - -
I 2010i_ 11-I, 24991 624750
- ~ i - - - -
- -
Multi Famil I 4942i _ 5179 - - ~ - - ---f
237
- ~ 615 5114 ~ 1278500
- - - '
TOTAL 6699 ;:;1090 7789 ' `
17E> ; . 751:3 _ ~9(J32D
V. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE 250 ORDINANCE
The planning staff has prepared four alternatives to the current 250 Ordinance. The four
alternatives includes: 1. Amend the 250 Ordinance to allow the addii:ional GRFA on a site only
when associated with an approved, deed re:stricted employee housing
unit;
2. Entirely eliminate the 250 Ordinance (Chapter 18.71) of the Town of Vail
9Nunicipal Code by repealing Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1985 and
Ordinance No. 36, Series of 1988;
3. Amend the 250 Ordinance to allow all property owners to add GRFA to
their property, but the additional square footage would be limited to the
interior of the structure only;
4. BVo actian, make no revisions to the 250 Orclinance and allow property
owners to continue applying for additional taRFA as they currently are
permitted under Chapter 18.71 (Additional CiRFA).
. "Y
5
Each of the four alternatives proposed by staff have both advantages and disadvantages
associated with them. The table below identifies each of the alterna#ives and briefly describes
the advantages and disadvantages associated with each:
PFiOPOSED ALTERR3ATIVE ADVAPdTAGES DISADVAPVTAGES
Amend the 250 Ordinance to 1. Provides an additional incentive to property 1. Could be construed a special
allow the additional GRFA owners and developers to create employee privilege to property owners with
only when associated with an housing units in the Town of Vail. lois less than 15,000 square feet
approved, deed restricted in the Primary/Secondary zone
employee housing uni1. 2. Improves quality of life for employees in the district.
Upper Eagle Valley.
3. Creates and continues to provide a public
benefit to ihe community.
Entirely eliminate ihe 250 1. Removes the contradiction that currently 1. Restricts a property owner's
Ordinance (Chapter 18.71) of exists in the Code with regard to GRFA, ability to "modernize" their
lhe Vail Municipal Code by variance requests, public welfare, homes as their personal needs
repealing Ordinance No. 5, demo/rebuild, etc. In addiiion, no other change.
Series of 1985 and municipality uses this method to offer
Ordinance No. 36, Series of additional GRFA in their Zoning Code. 2. Could poieniially increase ihe
1988 amount of GRFA variances
2. Would eliminate further increases in ihe requested of the Planning and
bulk and mass of structures currently in the Environmental Commission.
Town of Vail.
3. May eliminate a property
owner's desire to fully complete
their project and receive a final
Certificate of Occupancy.
4. May eliminate ihe Town's ability
to get property owners to bring
their properties into compliance
with ihe Zoning Code.
Amend ihe 250 Ordinance to 1. Would allow property owners to 1. Adversely effects those property
allow all property owners to "modernize" their homes without increasing owners whose residences are
add GRFA to their property, the bulk and mass of the structure. not conducive to interior
but the additional square expansion only.
foolage would be limited to 2. Coniinues to allow properties to be
ihe interior of the structure upgraded in ihe Town of Vail. 2. May provide an incentive for
only. property owners to add large
3. Provides an ability for the Town to require vaulted spaces to their.new
additional landscaping, above ground homes wilh the intent of adding
. utilities Io be undergrounded, and gravel the additional 250 square feet in
driveways to be paved on properties in the lofted spaces in ihe future.
town.
No action, make no revisions 1. Continues to provide for the upgrading of 1. Perpetuates the two irmain issues
to ihe 250 Ordinance and properlies in the Town of Vail. or problems associated with ihe
allow property owners to 250 Ordinance identified by the
continue to apply for 2. Provides an ability for the Town to require Zoning Code Revision Task
additional GRFA as they additional landscaping, above ground Force in 1991 and addressed
currently are permitted under utilities to be undergrounded, and gravel earlier in this memo.
Chapter 18.71 (Additional driveways to be paved on properties in
GRFA). Town. 2. Could continue 1o add additional
mass and bulk to the existing
3. Continues to allow property owners to structures within the Town of
improve their quality of life by allowing tnem Vail.
to expand their residences as their personal
needs change.
MEMORANDvM
TO: Vail Town Council
]FIR: Bob IV1cLaurin, Town Managcr
1[2IE: 1999 Ski Championships capital list
DT: February 14, 1995
We have scheduled a discussion of the project you wish to have completed by the 1999. The
following is a list complied by myself, Larry Grafcl and Grciz Hall. We have included a number of
projects from the Streetscape plan. However wc have divided them into smaller projects than
specified in the plan. ln developing this list we considered private development which is likely to
occur prior the championships (e.g Gold Peak, Serrano's etc). This list is presented as a
recommendation and will change to reflect the Council's priorities.
L/Vest Vail Roundabouts $1,900,000
Transportation Center Remodcl $350,000
Seibert Circle $300,000
Vail Valley Drive (VTRC to Gold Pcak) $1,200,000
Complete Streetscape lighting plan $1,000,000
Landscape Gore Geek Drivc $100,000
East Lionshead Bus Stop $300,000
Dobson/Library Plaza $300,000
Miscellaneous Overlay projects $300,000
West IVleadow Drive Improvemcnts $1,600,000
?Simba Run Underpass $3,000,000
V W A-M.(. ~bu.t.4 6-4t. F,g-A~,a.. V`b~d
C~ ~d
Please note t costs associated with each of these project is a rou~h estimate and has been
prepared without the benefit of design.
t4 W P&ry,4,ta~
~ LIC NO~~~~
VArL TOWN COIJIOTCIL MEETYliTG SCI3EI)iJY.E
(as of 2/7/95)
IF~BRLTARY, 1995
In an attempt to respond to scheduled meeting demands, as well as adhere to mandated
ordinance and charter requirements, Council meetings are scheduled at the following times:
IEVENING MEETINGS
Evening meetings will continue to be held on the first and third Tuesday evenings of each
month, starting at 7:30 P.M. These meetings will provide a forum for citizen participation
and public audience for conducting regular Council business.
WORK SESSIONS
Work sessions, which are primarily scheduled for Council debate and understanding of issues
before the Council, will now be scheduled to begin at 2:00 P.M. (unless otherwise noted) on
everv Tiesday afternoon.
THE FEBItgJARY, 1995q VAYI. TOWIV COiJNCYL IVIEETING SCHEDiJLE
IS AS FOLI.OVVS:
Tuesday, Februarv 7, 1995
Work session............ 2:00 P.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda)
Evening meeting......... 07:30 P.M.
Tuesdav, Februarv 14, 1995
Work session............ 02:00 P.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda)
Tuesdav, Februarv 21, 1995
Work session............ 2:00 P.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda)
Evening meeting......... 07:30 P.M.
Tuesdav, Februarv 28, 1995
Work session............ 02:00 P.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda)
TOWIV OF VAIL
,
` w.~~v-~
Pamela A. Brandmeyer
Assistant Town 1Vlanager
SENT RY;FAGLE COUNTY ; 2- 9-95 ; 11:59 ; 3033287207- 3034792157;# 1J 3
Febraaary 9, 1995 - 11:20 FAGIF Cl)UNiY RUILL?1NG
551 HRC)ADWAY
OffiCE OF THE P.O. HOX 850
QLIARD OF COMMISSIONERS kAGLC. C?ll.<Vqpp S I G31
(303) 329•8605 '•:=:'t~ +•~,FAX: (303) 3)8 7107
~~`y t~~'•;;:~•>
, ..r.•
~GLE COll1VTY, COLORADO
t
AMENDED
AGEIVDA
Eqs"O AR PL "J" 0 F C"' lJN IUINII S SI0 fVERS
PLANNING IVIEETING DA1(
FEBRU14RY 14p 1995
& YF ~ffr iY Ti #+k C~ a a ee A fa o iS b d aa a 8 o d d d, o~ o e o sr, cr m re
9. ° 9o15 PLAT & S L6! tl 1O11 S'VIWIRG
Kathy Easdey, Planning, tJornrenunity Development
9015 r 9:45 PD-291-94-A-RIVERINA AT ED1AtARDS P[1D
ANENDNF-NT
Sid Fox, Planning nAartager, Cornmunity Developmenf
ACTION: Cor,sicier a request #'or a Pl.lD Amendment:
9° - 10-
10:00 -1020 COLORADO DEPARTIVENT OF TFi14111SPORrAT1AN (C-
T) BUSIIVESS SIGIV I4PPLlCAT1OIV FOR VVEJVDY'S AT
~~L
Paul Clarlcsan, Plarteter, C'.ammunity Devetopmerit
ACTION., FZequest Board of County Caornrdssioners signature on
CDOrr Business Sign P?pplication
10:20 _ 1103~ EAGLE VALLEY HEALlH CENTER °PARCEL Er°
PaLi CJarkson, Planner, C:orirnunity Devefoprrvgt
' ONo Consideration of sketch plan, including employee
housing, for Eagle llalley Health Center
SENT BY~,EAGLE COUNTY ; 2- 9-95 ; 12:00 ; 3033287207- 3034792157;# 2/ 3
11030 - II°AO AMENDED FiNAL Pt.AT, W-RRYCREEFC FILINCa A6
0..OT 45, B-OCK 3
Kaffiy Easdey, Planning, Community Devdoprnert
ACTION: Approval, to amend 40' Road (Ulainterranoe Easerrent
to 25°
II° - 11o50 ENT CALENDAR
Itm of a rotdim end nm-tontroversiel nehue ere plamd an the aanqeM calrndar to albw the Board of Cowriy Ccrtvnimioners 4o sperd its am
aM errergy an mrore veportard bm on a IenoY a9enda AnY Cammlssiom nmy requet thEd an iten bs °R9uiUVEV irom the oonsent calendsr
end mmitlared sapgratety Any rrwrbw of 4F+a pUbllc mey "REQUEST' arry ibmn be'iEMAIRT fmn ths Cmaent Agmda
1. EILL PAYfNC
Linda Pankuch, Amourfing
Wrk Silvetthom, Con4r'ollet°
ACTION: Approval subjec,# to revieuv by the County Manager.
2- PA LL FOR FEBRIJAR(16,1994
Jadc D. Lewis, C:ounty Manager
ACTIOK d4ppnoval subject to neviewr by the County Ilanager.
cJo LEASE Ad7RErNIEN1.6E! HYEEN d-../"l0.7LE C/ 9S1 J`'OTE
OF COLORADO AND HEALTHY MQUOVTAIIV
COMMUNTIES, iN lHE J4NIOl1tVT OF $206.00 (TVYD
H11NDRED SIX DOLLARS) PERR AlION11H
Kathleen Eorinash, Flealth & Humart Servioes
ACTION: Consider apprcval.
A. O RIVl11EIJTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMEIVT
REGAMNG TOP OF THE ROGI9ES SCENC BYVVAY
Jack Ingstad, Public Dnfarrration Officer
ACTION: Consider apprrnval.
S. PROPOSAL FOR DESIGN 111EEMfVC ROOM
AND RE,nWEr FOR TREJLSUREFrS MEEI'lNG ROOIA
Mke Bradley, Grounds and Building
ACTION: Consider approval.
S. ~ APPLlCAllON FOR HOMEMAKEt SERVICES
Kathleen Forinash, Health and Hurran Setvioes
ACTION: Consider approval.
11:50 - 120A EAGLE COUNTY, ST/4T~ ~
COLORAM AND V11E REG"1fCLE, A COLORAM
NONPRORT CORPORATION, IN THE IAIWOUIdT OF
$134,OOOe (OI1E FIUNDIRED THRTY FO TtiOtJSAND
DOU.ARS)
Don Fessler, Road & Ekidge
ON: ConSiter approval.
SFNT WrEAGLE COLmlTY ; 2- 9-95 ; 12:00 ; 3033287207- 3034792157;# 3/ 3
IE, FlfW ANENDMEM TO a4GREENENT FtEGQ1MNCa
PROMSION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN
EAGLE COl1NTY, STATE OF COMRADO AND h11G1-I
COtJNTRY ENGINEERING
Uoyd F'aruers, Engineering
ONo Cof1SldeP 21pp1oVal.
~ ~ ~ ~I
VAU-EY ENTERPPJSE A,S OFHC:U4L IHEIN6PAPER OF
Jirn Frtze, County Attomey
ACTION: Corsider approval.
0. COWRACT I1GV1S'VN MIVNrrN 'LE COUNTY,
STATE OF COLORADO AND ALAN RICHIAAN
lCeith Nbrtag, Carrirmmunity DeueloprYtent
ACTION., Consider approval. •
12000 p ~ :30 d.11111BCF9 -
1a30 - 2:00 MANAGEJUFJIIT PLAiV m PtJBIJC C019IIVENT
HE14PJ1VG
(Ellie Cary6, Planrier, Community CevePopmerrt
o Nbne
2. - 3030 WM S IOIV - VIIEEKLY UPDATE
Jact aLeuuiso CCowtiy IlAarrager
3 - 4~ BREAK
4.00 - 5000 WORK SESSION - PENDIfVG L1T1CaAT1iJiV
Jaffies R. Fritre, Courityy Attorrey
TIiE hE(T MEEPl(VG OFY}iE EAME COl1NTY COAImMONER51f1ALL BE HELD ON FEBRt1ARY 21,1995
ORI ll-E RECORD ITBUIS 4111U BE F4-1D WTHE EAGLE COUM'Y Fi00M
VUOPJC SESSIoNS 1M1L HE HE1D IN 7FE MOUtJT OF THE fiOLY CRa65 ROOAfl
COMSSIONERS COWEFiEfdCE RQOIVF OR QTtMMSE NQiID.
THIS FiGE1NER IS PRWIOED FOR 111ff-0RMATIONAL Pl1RM6ES ONLY- ALL T1MES ARE APPRODORflA7E
TFtE80AFiD VML.E IR1 SESSIOd t1AAY QON51DER 07HE12176NS "TARE BRDUGFfT BEFORE IT.
4VAIL
TO1~1 75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2100
FAX 303-479-2157
VAIIL POUCE DEPARTIVIEIVT NEV!!S RELEASE
Date of Release: February 10, 1995
Contact Person: Sgt. Joe Russell, 479-2249
pager, 949-2205
Medaa Note: Please contact Joe Russell for a photo of Mark D. Walker.
Vuctum:
Walker fViark D.
Last First Middle
29-year-old male from Boulder.
The Vail Police Department continues to investigate the fatal auto-pedestrian
accident which occurred on Feb. 2 at approximately 10 p.m. on I-70 eastbound at the
pedestrian overpass.
The Vail Police Department continues to wait for the final report concerning drug or
alcohol results. Information from a witness who observed Walker just prior to his death
indicates that he appeared to be having difficulty walking.
In an effort to fuily investigate this accident, the Vail Poiice Department is asking for
the community's help in trying to establish Walker's activities on Feb. 2 from
approximately 5:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. At approximately 5:30 p.m., Walker told his friends
he was going to get something to eat.
Vail Police have been unable to locate anyone who may have seen Walker between
the hours of 5:30 and 10 p.m. who may be able to trace Walker's activities.
If you recognize this photograph of Walker, please call the Vail Police Department at
479-2200.
# # #
\
ee
e4
TOWN OF VAIL
75 Sou1h Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-21 DO
FAX 303-479-2157
FOR ONiME~IATE RELEASE
February 10, 1995
Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115
Community Information Office
BlDILD9NG PERi1flBTS ISSIIED BY TFBE TOVVN OF VA9L
The following building permits have been issued through the
Town of Vail Community Department for the period February 3
to February 10:
Vail Recreation District, 292 West Meadow Drive, remodel, $14,000, PR Construction.
Lohre, 1300 Westhaven Circle, elevator alteration, $23,000, Otis Elevator.
# # #
7208
\
dd
e4
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2100
FAX 303-479-2157
FOR OMMED9ATE RELLEASE
February 9, 1995 Contact: Mike Mollica, 479-2138
Acting Community Development Director
TO!! 4fVANTS MORE APPLOCANTS FOR PEC BOe4FSD i/ACpaNCIES
(Vail)--The Vail Town Council has extended the application period to Feb. 15 for
those interested in applying for board seats on the Planning and Environmental
Commission. That's because only three people have applied for the three open board
seats, thus far. The original application deadline was Feb. 1. The Town Council has
deferred the PEC appointments until Feb. 21.
The PEC position requires members to be registered voters within the Town of Vail.
It is a voluntary position, although those serving on town citizen boards and
commissions receive a ski pass, plus a golf pass or blue parking pass.
Duties of the seven-member PEC include review of variances and conditional use
permits, subdivisions and rezonings. The PEC meets the second and fourth Mondays
of each month. fVieetings usually begin at 2 p.m. in the Vail Municipat Building,
preceded by site visits which begin around noon.
Persons interested in serving on the PEC should submit letters of interest to the Town of Vail Community Development Department at 75 S. Frontage Rd., Vail, Colo.,
81657. For more information, call 479-2138.
# # #
n c • ~,et~,u~tt;
C E,",f P-n p
• _ .~f` .
~ ?
A~ i r
~ Y
February 2, 1995
Mr. Tom Moorhead
Town Attorney
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Tom,
Thank you for the time you took to respond to my letter to the Vail Council
concerning TCI Cablevision. As a frustrated Star Trek fan, my first intention with the
letter were to only notify the council of my concerns vuith the company.
My second reason for sending the letter to the Vail Council, Avon Council and
Eagle County Commissioners was to light a fire beneath TCI's feet to work out an
arrangement to provide the new Start Trek program in our area. Evidently several
people have complained about the lack of the program.
Thank you again for your time in responding to my letter. I am very impressed
that the Council asked for your attention on my little grievance despite the fact that I am
not a Vail resident.
Sincerely, ;
Teresa Kay Albertson
AL. ul,wti~
ru.c,
, 6-1
E d VE~~.(,~: o--!~ oo ~
_ ~ c o 7!Q95 I k ru,cu~~
. . . ;
.
r . , , 1f>;~ ;.rr,~ i `
_ -~;i•-• , r ,I'.\, .
;~;Y:,;~;;;i`,,:;'•~~,'
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
UM
TOo Vail Town Council
FROM: June Deane, Commissioners' Office
DAT7Eo February 3, 1995
RE: ddorksession with the Eagle County Commissioners
The Eagle County Commissioners have requested that I set up worksessions with each municipal
council in the County. Some of the subjects to be discussed might be housing, transportation,
the Regional Meetings and the L.eadership Forum.
Please contact me at 328-8605 with a date when a worksession with the Commissioners can be
put on your agenda. Vde would like to schedule these worksessions after the middle of March.
~
Thanks. jcd
rct ~.o _Z)
X C• 1.~~/ wi? K.~/
STATE OF COLOFADO
Roy Ronser, covema. f~
Patti 5hwayder, Aaing Execu4lve Director ~
Rediceted oo pmoecxrnp and enproving the health and env(,onment oJ the paopfe o( Coforado ~
4300 Cherry Geak Dr. S. Laborstory BuAding
Denver, Colorad0 80222-1530 4210 E.19th Avenue 7 a
Phone (303) 692•2DW uenver, Coiorado sOaao-s>> o
(303) 691-4700 C4pg~ 4
all4 ~V~~1~1~Ittl
~ t
~anuary 27, 1995
Ruas k'oarest
Senior Envi.gogamental Po1icy Plarner
Town of Vabl
75 South Frontage Road
Vabl, Cel.og'ado 81057
Dear Mr o k'orresto ,
Tlie Divisbon h~~ ovaluated your cancerns abotat diesel
emissians and the possibility og being able to monitor the air
Qtaal ity 1n1paGts. As Z10u 3C%lOwo t2ae V611utants go whioh tlie catiaCne
- xn the area may be geaoting, can be difficult to adequately oapttsre
wath our sampl.bnq megtaadologieseAs is the csge with acute short-
ternn exposure go diesel emissionsp health effects literature
indicates that adors alone can cause ddverse effeataa these
ancbude headach~ and nausea, in some members of the publio, even
when ambfent partieealat~ ~evels are quite ].ow.
% uraderstand that oux Technical services program has proviried
you with lif:ex°ature on the potential health effects of diesel
emissivnso As you°ve diseussed, this may agford you the
aPFortunitY to further your process without being delayed by a
potentially ineonclusive ffeld sampling efforto 0f course, ig you
need any other araformation or technical assistanceo please contact.
Sheila Burns, head og our Technical Services Programo at (303)692-
3223. Siricerely?
ox~a~ e t
oe
9igecgor
Air Pollutaon eontrol Dbvbsion
a~6ieolvuitgotz.ab
<
~
*ILL
TO 1~I O75 South Frontage Road
blail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2100
FAX 303-479-2157
MED9A ADV9SORV
February 8, 1995
Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn
Community Information Office
479-2115
!lAO~ ~OWN C0UNC6L H@G9iLGGHTS FOR FEBRUARV 7
Work Sessuon Brueffs
- Council members present: Johnston, Lapin, Navas, Osterfoss, Shearer, Steinberg,
Strauch
--Eagle County Niass Transit Committee Invitation
Jill 6(ovacevich of the Eagle County Mass Transit Committee invited the Council to
participate in a transportation summit meeting scheduled for Feb. 15 in Eagle. The
meeting's purpose, she said, is to begin a dialogue to address a long term regional
transportation plan, including a permanent funding source. Council members Tom
Steinberg, Peggy Osterfoss and Sybill Navas said they would attend the meeting along
with staff members Bob McLaurin and fVlike Rose. Also during yesterday's discussion,
Vail transit manager Mike Rose said the new Gypsum-to-Vail route was on track to end
the season with ridership of about 8,500 passengers. Ridership has averaged 58
passengers per day since the service was launched on fVov. 19. Officials have said the
service has exceeded expectations. The route, which is funded by Eagle County and
operated by the Town of Vail, will run through April 16. Rose says he'll prepare cost
estimates for a summer operation for consideration by the Eagle County Mass Transit
Committee.
--Planning & Environmental Commission (PEC) Interviews
The Council postponed interviews for three openings on the PEC to Feb. 21 due to the
low number (3) of applicants. The vacancies will be readvertised.
--Design Review Board (DRB) Interviews
The Council interviewed four applicants for two openings on the DRB. The applicants
were Greg fVioffett, Louise Young, Mike Arnett and Sally Brainerd. Arnett and Brainerd
(rriore)
,
Council Highlights/Add 1
were seeking reappointment. Selection of the two membiars occurred at the evening
meeting.
--Housing Authority Interviews
The Council postponed interviews for one opening on the Housing Authority until the
Feb. 21 meeting. (One of the two applicants had a medic:al emergency and was unable
to attend yesterday's meeting).
--Art in Public Places Interviews
The Council interviewed three of six candidates for openings on the Art in Public
Places Board (Kathy Langenwalter, Karen Smith and Lolita Higbie). The Council
postponed completion of the interviews until the Feb. 21 ireeting due to a question
regarding eligibility requirements.
--Other .
The Council gave its support to an environmental quality award proposed by senior
environmental planner Russell Forrest. The award woulcl recognize environmental
actions by individuals and businesses on an annual basis. Councilman Tom Steinberg
volunteered to serve on a review committee to evaluate aiward criteria and nominatioris.
The Council received a brief update from Forrest on the status of the I-70 chain-up
area. Forrest said the Colorado Department of Health is drafting a letter to the town in
response to concerns regarding the impact of diesel emi:;sions on human health. If a
connection can be made between the two, Russell) said, the town's efforts to ask the
Colorado Department of Transportation to relocate the sii:e may have greater
justification. If the state is unable to make a connection between diesel emissions and
health impacts, air monitoring is still an option, Russell sEiid.
--Council Reports
Tom Steinberg, Peggy Osterfoss and Merv Lapin gave ari update on their participation
at the Governor's conference on growth. A regional follow-up meeting will take place in
April in Glenwood Springs.
Merv Lapin said he and Eagle County Commissioner James Johnson had met to
discuss some joint cost saving methods. He said County Manager Jack Lewis and
Town Manger Bob McLaurin would be consulted regardinig next steps in the preliminary
discussions.
Merv Lapin and Jan Strauch inquired about the possibility of locating a satellite office
for Eagle County within the Municipal Building Complex. Town Manager Bob McLaurin
said he was exploring potential uses for a 375 square foat office area in the west
complex vacated by the Police Department. Other possible options, he said, include an
(more)
v
~
Council Highlights/Add 2
expansion of the Community Development Department or a small daycare center. An
internal study is undervvay to determine parking availability. For more information,
contact iVicLaurin at 479-2105.
Evenang SessBOw Bruefs
Council members present: Johnston, Lapin, Navas, Osterfoss, Shearer, Steinberg,
Strauch
--Citizen Participation
There wras no citizen participafion.
--Consent Agenda An ordinance vacating a pedestrian easement located at 890 and 891 Red Sandstone
Circle was approved on second reading.
--Hillside Garages in the Front Setback
The Council voted 6-1 with Navas against to approve on second reading an ordinance
limiting the maximum allowable height for garages in the front setback, of lots
exceeding a 30 percent average slope, to one-story or a maximum of 10 feet with .
additional heigh4 allowed for a flat or pitched roof (subject to Design Review Board
approval). For details, contact Lauren Waterton in the Community Developmenfi
Department at 479-2138.
--Helipad Conditional Use Permit at Ford Park
The Council tabled an appeal of a PEC decision to approve a conditional use permit to
allow a helipad at Ford Park. The measure will be taken up by the Council at its Feb.
21 evening meeting.
--Design Review Board Appointments
The Council reappointed iVlichael Arnett and $ally Brainerd to the Design Review
Board. Both will serve two-year terms to expire February 1997.
--Housing Authority and Art In Public Places Appointments
These appointments were postponed to the Feb. 21 evening meeting.
--Condo Conversions
The Council voted 7-0 to approve on second reading an ordinance preventing the
conversion of accommodation (hotel) units to condominium units. Council members
have said the measure is intended to preserve the number of accommodation unifis
throughout town as recommended in several long-range planning documents. For
more infiormation, contact Town Attorney Tom iVioorhead at 479-2107.
--Town fVianager's Report
A Council retreat was scheduled for iViarch 28.
# # #
TOVIIIV COUIVCIL COIVIMITTEE/TASK FORCE APPOINTMENTS
TO: Towrn Council
FR: Pam Brandmeyer
DA: February 8, 1995
RE: Committee/Task Force Appointments
This is a list of all committees/task forces to wrhich Council members have been appointed or for
which they have volunteered. It is my understanding that all assignments run to the next Regular
Municipal Election, fVovember 1995.
COMMITTEE/TASK FORCE COUNCIL MEMBERS
1. NWCCOG Tom Steinberg
Sybill Navas, alternate
2. Vail Valley Tourism & Jan Strauch
& Convention Bureau Jim Shearer, alternate
(formerly VRA)
3. Vail Transportation and Sybill Navas
Parking Task Force Peggy Ostertoss
4. CAST Jim Shearer
Merv Lapin, atternate
5. VRD/Council Subcommittee Merv Lapin
Paul Johnston
6. Art in Public Places Committee Jan Strauch
7. Special Events Committee Sybill Navas
8. Bravo! Colorado Board Merv Lapin
Sybill Navas
9. NWCCOG Water Quality/ Tom Steinberg
Quantity Committee Sybill Navas, apprentice
10. Avon-Beaver Creek-Vail Regional Peggy Osterfoss
Transportation Committee Tom Steinberg
11. Eagle County Recreation Merv Lapin
Authority Paul Johnston, alternate
12. Town of Vail Housing Authority Peggy Osterfoss
Jim Shearer, alternate
13. Channel 5 Board
14. VIP Quality Council Member Peggy Osterfoss
15. VIP Steering Committee Members Merv Lapin
Paul Johnston
16. Open Lands Committee Members Tom Steinberg
Peggy Osterfoss
17. Vail Valley Arts Council Jim Shearer
18. CAST - Colo. Tourism Advisory Jim Shearer
Board Council Merv Lapin, alternate
19. West Vail Master Plan Peggy Ostertoss
(Vail Commons)
20. Mauri Nottingham Environmental 7om Steinberg
Award
C:\TCAPPTS.LST
? '
8;=
~
AND THE
ENT ' .
nday, February 5, 1995 SECTION C THE DENVER POSC
ian
,
im,
Bou'der bb ~..affic c~~n~ estion
tElgets By fNary George 6 ' ¢ ' In surveys, Boulder's residents re=
Denver Post statt wriier ~rYClng S l,L~dy9 GtlmS tO reS V,~ct CGIrS peatedly list traffic as their city's
BOULDER - 1i'hat if driving at worst trouble. Much of the problem is
rush hour cost you lots more money, sits on Boulder's transportation advi- er to take on the feasibility study. attributed to Boulder's workforce;
. ~
not just moce time? sory board. The Federal Highway Administra- about half of whom commute from
What if parking put such a dent in "Building more highways to Sight tion would provide $492,000 for the outside the city. ,
your: pocketbook it made you want to congestion is ]ike fighting obesity by, study. Boulder would contribute Some of the options for congestion
take the bus? getting a bigger belt." $221,400 in cash and $184,500 in ser- pricing are simple. Others rely on
~ Boulder wants to spend $897,900 on Councilman Tad Kline isn't sure vices. new technology. The ideas include;
~ a"traffic-congestion pricing study" the study is the wisest use of money. Boulder is the smallest of eight cit- 0 A variable toll that would in-
to get your answers. "Y'know, we could deliver a lot of ies, including San Francisco, Los An- crease at rush hours. The money
The aim is to discover new ways to service for that much money," Kline geles, Minneapolis and Seattle, to get could be collected electronically.',
manipulate market demand for car said. such federal funding, said George Os- similar to the E-470 toll road, where
• ` travel and cut driving to and in Boul- He would prefer another "Hop," borne, Colorado administrator for the lasers read windshield bar codes and
der. Boulder's successful new shuttle be- Federal Highway Administration. bills are mailed to car owners.
City leaders and federal sponsors tween downtown, the University of The agency favored a grant for 0 A mileage tax. Drivers would
say the study may uncover futuristic Colorado campus and Crossroads Boulder because its residents see pay the tax based on their odometer
The Denver Post I Helen H. Davis ways to blunt traffic growth. Mall. traffic as a large and growing prob- readings when they register t6eir
Traffic builds during evening rush hour at 28th "In my opinion, it would be money Kline and the other city council lem, and they might be more inclined reet and Arapahoe Boulevard, Boulder's busiest intersection. well spent," said 1oe McDonald, who members will decide Tuesday wheth- to pursue a solution, Obsorne said. Please see BOULDER on 5C
y ~3 "bTO~q U^~'~'~q [..C:t.p, ~ wA
~~;...a~ .~~a~ v~u' ro yen°N o.,, ti ~ a
o m v orom~°'.°~U aaoao v,
~ F.F"O'Q y?~" C G w3 .C~y ~Cb 'O'O Xy ~ V N ~6 ~ cCpd,yCvl
O t cC...C b.
~pw ~ 'OOctl~r ~0.., ~8 ~'~i cCwO bc7~tl ~
~ A OYyN~"~ CA[c~R1E6'U
Ol k'~y y Gl
qx s. O ~ q~ s, vi C ,C, '~9 y c1 ' roE itl >
r~ 'O6. 'y ? y q^
'~Vj ~ U Cb pU wA+~-' y '9`'d .x m 3 ~ Oa~'+ Ow 0~~ 41 ~ A p C.'} ~ 7 v C N :~•~U+'~^ N.•
Am~ a~~'? -~w w ~v~mcn ~,v ro
~ ..,"'^-'Octl
v~ i cC . 'O ~n..r ~N~9wc,)c60d ~6~y G', .Cm=r.,0 «f b... ~ACdvi" C
t-3 O G1 C'" vi Qc0 w abA 'fl C O ~ ~ a~
~ u~+ v o y ^ U 7 v, o t E ~ .n en m v 41 ~
U •F o~b~ ~ roc ~y °0 y o u y~ 7 0.1~c ° otn o nn~,.. o•~~-o yA y,a c c
T aca> v, ~a Nunm~:~~- a~ m . vyd..q o•~oc
o o ~
a~ v, v; ro 3 ~ v, F
ai a E W2 >,c
yGVao.~ ~•N'° ~~,v,~ y a~a ~~F+ o ro~`w. cAam •v,~o
~ "c m
v~e
~ f~ovy >
E mo~roN.c °'Oaca„ ~c m ? T- v.o pv,..> > O,
v,N,« ~ 'm y ? r, ~ v c o a~ ro'•~"" ~ v b~ ro.n o °a
~
~,~~vn~>,~.. wo
~no°oy,v,~~ o u o3c. ".n ~v tiM„ , ~
- ° un oob0-2 w d ~5 =onVo°Er.' o3~~~AF°,~~;cyroww>",°ov 3 o >>y~~v~ro~o~~=.
~ en•~ ~E • a c. v v s u.~ b~•~ ~ c G y
~ ,a o o E > .c
z ~ m>+~'
v o~ v, o 0 oao ro ,a ~ p>-- Ca
~ c,
G O Q1 F. O v~ cC ' G) ~
A 3 n C G ~RS tA ~C ~ .w 'O
~ W ; w ~cs- ti xU~Naoom yF~aGV..,~Nmo...~nv, X.~cn~3?~O ~v6
x.oy~~ b ~ao>;'u~ya~ '~aiavo~i~~,~
yw ~ 3 ctl~
NVCiN'>
~
, i:~~ cycapo ~a° cv,ov c b7u..c~~ ~
ro..~.7~~~°qo3- ~'cav°ox
~ ~ k;zo m v~ 3E °:~EAy.0u 3,« n o~ on0.01`v~a w aki °~v~ v, vC', e~"i ~ ~ m> 'm~ ~ R oo- i~ x cn ~in G v, ~ ca maa..,.~
i ; -
. ,a
. . Monday, February 13,. 1995
. . . . . . . _ _ .
.e3~.u -Y . . .
mue
~ ~11tS
r~1 p • 1.'" ':n~.
s on p alndi
p.1.
.
~ro s o~' dra~ia.ti~.lly9, :blxs~~d~rs~p u~ . ,
~ -`'tioyfriend dr'ops her. off; and her customer's.
sy F9aMaee C. Cli4ford love~the'chance to park nearby. ' - '
Special to The Denver Post , , ,
ASPEN - Five weeks into Aspen's contro-Aspen is the first Colorado 'ski town to
. versial paid-parking plan, a funny thing has charge for on-street parking, billing ~drivers
; happened. $1 an tiour during the.day. Since the program
° People like it. began, peak-period occupancy of parking.
Critic§ have vanished, along with many, of,. spots has dropped to 80 peicent to 85 percent,
' the cars that in past winters clogged the re- ' said'Randx Ready; 95e city!s t t 98 g e cent f
- sort. trator. Previously, p P
"I think the entire community is somewhat spots were full; _leading maay drivers tofcircle
awed -at the success of this program," said search,of,a 'space:.. ~
Terry Hale, a board member of the chamber .Many who.' were driving up Colorado 82 to
of commerce and originally one of the plan's Aspen from' othei..towns.in ,the Roaring Fork
most outspoken critics. "There's no doubt.;- Valley_ a.pparently now -aie taking the bus.
about it; iYs been a phenomenal success." ~During the hrst tliree weeks of paid parking,
"I am astounded aad amazed and pleasant=' ridership on the :Roaring Fort Transit Agen-
ly surprisedsaid Bivice Kerr, a lodge owner,`, ey's..routes to Ba'salt, El Jebel, .Carbondale
member of the Aspen Planning Commission.;,; and Glenwood Springs rose 32 percent, said
and former foe of paid parking. "I am willing- : agency spokesman Gary Gleason.
to eat as big a plate of crow as someone. Residents-of Aspen's east epd havetaken
wants-.to give me." - c. advantage.of'a ~new "dial a ride" program,
Judy Henderson, manager of Nuages, park=`-:;;paying 50 cent§.for van service from their
ed her car in front of the pricey boutique ev- doorstep to downtown. Initiated the same day,
ery day before Jan. 9. "It would just be a huge as paid parking, the van now logs about 300
inconvenience that I couldn't park out there_' riders .a day. Parking revenues, .estimated to
she assumed earlier. Please see PARKINC. B'
She's been pleasantly surprised• Now, her
THE DENVER PC
Aspen SL1Ipr1Se: Paid parkin~ a success "I'm,not very proud of the process
that we used to arrive at this lace,
:PA6iKING from Pa e 1B and traftic jams on Colorado 82. he said, "even though we might be
. g Since the program began, traffic happy with the result."
•net'$300,000 a year, are being spent jams have almost vanished from the Many residents"and visitors have
:to. subsidize this and other alterna- two-lane highway, which is one of the commented that the town feels quiet-
:tives to driving. most crowded and dangerous in the er, as if this were spring or fall rath-
-`:Niy personal feeling is it's been a state. er than the middle of ski season. The
:gciod thing," said Glen Parker, a man- "It's going better than any of us big unanswered question remaining is .
-ager at the Ute Mountaineer. He car- dared hope for the first month," said Whether paid parking will cost mer-
poo_ls with his wife and friends from Mayor John Bennett. He's hearing chants business.
;El Jebel, 20 miles away. But he "10-to-one positive remarks," com- That s so hard to know, said
-sometimes takes the bus, paying pared with three-to-two against paid Parker, pointing to the loss of Conti-
:$T.50 one way, or parks downtown. parking before Jan. 9. nental Express air service and a me-
'He estimates the program will cost Bennett and city council members diocre snow season. He thinks desti-
~hiM $150 a year. came under heavy criticism in the nation stores like his might do even
"I think it's a shame the average months leading up to January, in part better than in the past because people
Joe has to pay for it," Parker said. because they refused to hold an elec- Who need something will have an eas-
"But they're the ones doing the driv- tion on the issue. ier time getting there.
ing." Hale. a dentist, still wants a vote, '
TOWW OF VAIL ~6 6
Input/ Inquiry Response Record
The attached comments were recently received by the Town of Vail. We encourage Vail
residents and guests to give us such input and we strive for timely responses. PLEASE
ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS WITHIN FIVE WORKING DAYS AND RETURN THIS
COMPLETED FORM TO PAM BRANDMEYER
DEPARTMENT TO HANDLE INQUIRY
INDIVIDUAL TO HANDLE INQUIRY
DATE TOV RECEIVED INPUT/INQUIRY d l4 ~{5
TYPE 0 INPUT UIRY:
PHONE CALL (indicate date)
r
LETTER (attached)-~
RESPONSE CARD (attached)
TYPE OF RESPONSE (check one):
LETTER (attach copy)
PHONE CALL (indicate date)
BRIEF SUMMARY OF RESPONSE OR ANSWER TO INni TTRV;
DATE OF RESPONSE FORM RETURNED BY DEPARTMENT TO PAM BRAliDMEYER;
A copy of this inquiry and form will remain on file at the TOV Community Relations office. As soon as this form is returned to Pam
Brandmeyer, this inquiry will be considered dosed.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TW&Y HANDLING OFTHIS ISSUE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT
PANT BRANDMEYER AT 479.2113.
VAIL MOIDPVTAIfV MEDICAL, IP.C.
181 W. Meadow Drive - Sui[e 200, Vail, CO 81657-5059
Tel. (303) 476-5695 Fax (303) 476-8976
AVON MEDICAL CENTER _ COPPER MEDICAL CENTER
P O. Box 1143, Avon, CO 81620 860 Copper Road, Copper Mountain, CO 80443
Tel. (303) 949-3222 Fax (303) 949-4047 ' P.O. Box 3808
Tel. (303) 968-2330 Fax (303) 968-6681
FAMILY PRACTICE
Robert S. Arnold, MD
Jonathan C. Feeney, MD
Phil Freedman, MD
Jean S. Hadley, MD
Marc R. Peck, MD Kent A. Petrie, MD
Steve Yarberry, MD
Meg Gallagher, PA-C 3anuary 13, 1995
Karen Josephson, PA-C
Ann Borrell, FNP-C ~
INTERNAL MEDICINE
Mark Stephens, MD
Vail Town Council
OBSTETRICS
GYNECOLOGY RE: Construct ion Of a new f ire stat ion III WeSt VS11
INFERTILITY
Edward L. Cohen, MD, FACOG
Dear Town Council,
PEDIATRICS
Suzanne Morris, MD FAAP f t he OA$O 111g CI 1 S CU S S 1 Oi1
Sandra J. Schorr, MD FAAP I read t oday 1 tl t he paper O
regarding construction of a new fire department in West
Vail.
As a resident of West Vail my initial impression based
on very limited knowledge is that the current services
are adequate and the e.xtra experise used in constructing
a fire house and for associated increase in salaries for
staff.would be better not spent, so as not to increase
the already high cost of living in this community.
I may well change my mind given more information, but at
this point as a resident who is paying taxes, I feel
that this extra cost may not be: necessary. We have an
excellent fire department wit~ good access to West Va.il
from the town center via the riterstate.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Mark R. Stephens
2547 A Arosa Dr.
Vail, CO 81657
. _ _ . .
b•:~._t .C. V ' .
~~~T'r" k"DF COLORADO
DEPAFiTMENT OF TR,4NSPORTATIOId
.
Region 3
222 5outh Sixth Street, Room 317
drand Junc4ion, Colorado 61501-2769 February 10, 1995
(303)248-7208 FAX # (303)248-7254 -
~
Mr. Robert M. Mclaurin
Town P9anager
Town of Vail
G'
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Bob:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Town of Vail
roundabout project and your efforts to minimize its impacts
on the Alpine Standard station. As you know, the roundabout
project is within the 2-70 right of way and subject to
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Colorado Department
of Transportation (CDOT) review and approval. We welcome and
support your innovative efforts to improve traffic circulation at this heavily used intersection.
In response to the four items outlined in your letter:
1. The access modifications for the Alpine Standard station
will be approved as a part of the overall project approval.
2. State and federal regulations prohibit the placement of
private business signs in the public right of way. No
exception can be made for this project or business.
3. CDOT is currently reviewing the I-70 services logo
signing and will evaluate changes to the I-70 eastbound
signing.
4. CDOT recognizes that a portion of its right cf way will
be paved to facilitate access to the gas pump islands.
However, neither CDOT nor the FHWA can consider any lease or
conveyance of this I-70 right of way for private use.
Very truly yours,
~
R. P. Moston
Director,
, Transportation Region 3
cc: Dunn
Nall
file
' ad
e4
TOWN OF VAIL -
75 South Frontage Road
Vai1, Colorado 81657
303-479-21 DO
FAX 303-479-2157
F0R 9MMED9ATE RELEASE
February 13, 1995
Contact: Niike Rose, 479-2178
Vail Transit iVlanager '
TR46VSITION DATE FOR SEASONAL PA?RY41iVG. TR41VSIT OPE12ATIONS !S
APRIL 16TH
' (Vail)--Parking in Vail will be free to those taking advantage of the one week ski
season extension announced by Vail Associates. Paid parking in the town-owned
Village and Lionshead structures will end April 16, as previously scheduled, while Vail
Niountain will remain open through April 23.
Vail transit operations will also make the seasonal transition on April 16. Outlying
, routes will shift from an average frequency of 15 minute service to 60 minute service;
intown shuttle service will switch from every 10 minutes to 15 minutes; and the
Gypsum-to-Vail Express will make its final run of the season on April 16.
Vail Transit iVianager fViike Rose says the town is unable to extend its wrinter bus
schedule to coincide with the mountain's new closing date because of state labor laws.
Those regulations require seasonal workers to be laid off for 45 days before they're .
eligible to return for the summer season beginning June 1. The town employs a total of
50 seasonal bus drivers each wrinter and 10 seasonal drivers in the summer to
supplement its full time permanent work force of 16 drivers and supervisors.
For more information, contact Rose a4 479-2178.
# # #
r
` ATTN: Village ~ L'Ionshead Merchants...
a
...Please He1p us IH[elp Yourselves
eg
TOWN OF UAIL ~
If your business stands to benefit frorrl the free evening
;
parlcing program, vvhy not consider promoting it in your next
nevvspaper aci, or radio spot?
T~ Here are some sainples from Los Amigos and Russell's: ~
4J w
~ u,nch 11:3a3:oo
~ Hpres 3:00-6:00
E 0, Dinner 5:30-10:00 -
o •
r 'ro^
~
b.
a)'a
~ .
~ a.$W4 join °Thc Fun At Vail's..
~ I~ ~ S1111 ~11 rIFST DECK :
~ ~v v
Dwfiy Luncfis Dinner & Drfnlr Specials . . .
MU CHWS 8. SALSA
_ ,Id ~4
Lorated at the top of Bddge Street, P(ext to the Vista Bahn • 476-5847
G ~
c~ - -
N ~ U) N
~ )
a.,u
.
~n ~•,15pR'
o
h11Y 5'•
; ~ "'9
~ e~
, w a rtCe
f abo~~e ot W'nB Apres Ski
to, C~hase ot 4-5:30 pm.
$1.50 Beer,
. VVell & lNine ~
Reservations accepted 476-6700 -
- Bar 4:00 pm-Close - Dinner 5:30 pm - 10 pm iVightiy.
. .
~
rI'he program offers three free hours of free parlcing upon entry ;
betvveen 6 and 9 p.m. ~
Fop Yi80Y"e 1nf0rID1d8tdOT1 CdFJOi4t tjilS ~'lYOgq'YdD)i, plecase contact the 7'owna of ~~ail Comrrcungty .
Infonraatiora O~`ace at 479-2115. r
\
dd
d~
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2100
FAX 303-479-2157
FOR oMMEDuATE RELEASE
February 13, 1995
Contact: Paul Reeves, Environmental Health Officer
479-2138
C9I!!fE VOd9R F0REPLACES AND W00D-BUFaNING STOVES A I2EST
!lA11L ERlCO99RA~~S VOLQ.?NTARY SMOKELESS WEEF(ERqD, FEB. 17-20
(Vail)--The Town of Vail is encouraging residents and guests to abandon their
fireplaces and wood-burning stoves during the upcoming holiday weekend, Feb. 17-20,
to protect our clean mountain air. The voluntary action is in recognition of the town's
15th Annual Smokeless Weekend, an education campaign on the environmental
impacts of inefficient wood-burning devices.
The annual observance is intentionally scheduled during one of the busiest
weekends of the year, said Paul Reeves, the town's environmental health officer.
"Because Vail's population swells to 30,000 or.more during peak times, the likelihood
for poor air quality is greatly increased by the sheer numbers of people," he said. "The
Smokeless Weekend campaign helps keep the air quality high and gives.us an
opportunity to promote our conversion program to retain the area's natural beauty."
Although the town has banned new, unapproved Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).wood-burning stoves since 1991, Reeves says more than 4,000 inefficient wood-
burning units remain within the.town. "About 57 percent of our air particulate problems
are attributed to wood-burning," said Reeves. Another 39 percent comes from the
sanding of I-70, and two percent is from vehicle emissions.
(more)
Smokeless Weekend/Add 1
The town, in cooperation with Eagle County, retailers, banks and utility companies
have provided incentives to encourage voluntary conversions of "dirty" burning
fireplaces to "clean" burning fireplace technologies through low interest loans and otrler
financial incentives.
Since 1990, nearly 500 Vail dwelling units, both lodges and private residences, have
voluntarily converted from wood to gas. The largest incroase in a single year was in
1994 with 200 conversions. Through incentives and education,. the town has seen a
measurable improvement in air quality. For example, since 1990, air quality levels
have improved by more than any other resort community in Colorado.
The upcoming Smokeless Weekend gives people a chcance to show support for the
environment first hand, Reeves said. Residents and visitors alike are asked to refrain
from using their fireplaces and wood stoves, unless they're used as a primary heat
source. Hotels and lodges are also encouraged to ask fcir the participation from their
guests.
For more information on the program, please feel free to contact the Environmental
Health Office at 479-2138.
# # #
Y
~~'Cc~'?cp rc" 9 1995
iVORTHWEST COLORADO COUNCIL OF GOVERNIVIENTS
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Cortimunity Development sta#f;
in the absence ofi pianning stafif, Town Manager;
NWCCOG executive comrniftee -
Frorn: Sandy Blaha, 303-468-0295x'910
Date: FebPUaay 2, 1995
Subject: Growth Management Strategies •
Enclosed, please find one, paper clipped copy of the growth management guide
produced by NWCCOG's community development department. Those who participated
in our fall regional planning directors' meeting were promised a copy of this document.
Due to size of the document and the cost of copies, we are unable to produce multiple
copies. You are receiving the master copy of this document for your community. I urge you to review the document and request that you copy it for the appropriate
people in your organization, planning staff, planning commissioners, your NWCCOG
board representative, your county or municipal attorney and in larger organizations, the
town or county manager.
Other items of note: enclosed is a flyer for NWCCOG's demographic workshop on March
3rd, the regionaf smart growth meeting is scheduled for April 26th, place and time to be
announced, and the regional land use practitioner's workshop (for attorneys and
community development directors) is scHeduled for April 28th, agenda and registration to
follow.
Call me if you need further information. Also I'd like to know if you find this document
useful.
.
IVorfihwest Colorado Council of Governments
Demographics Wo?rkshop
• Wouid you like to understand how the State prepares County
estimates and projections?
• Would you like to find out what data products and services are
available from the State Demographic Section?
• Would you like to know how to use thi:> data more effectively?
• Wouid you like to discuss your growth related issues with
peopie from neighboring counties and towns?
If your answer to any of these questions is yes please join us in a
workshop with Jim Westkott, Director of the Colorado Demographic ;
Section and staff to get some information anci assistance. ~
When: Friday March 3rd
Where: Summit County Community Center
3rd & Granite, Frisco
Time: 10:00 a.m. - 2:30 p.m.
Cost: $10.00 includes lunch
Please fax (303) 468-1208 or mail NWCCOG, Box 2308, Silverthorne, CO 80498
this form by February 24, 1995.
Name:
Organization:
Phone: Fax:
$10.00 enclosed: I.O.U. $10.00: (I will bring it with me on 3/3/95)
, ? Yes
I am willing to give a short (2-3 minute) verbal presentation ? Plo
describing my town or.county's growth trends and prospects.- ? Maybe
n
- . _ ,
`.;:6?.: c?::>
~ i ` . : . , : ~ ~::;::t:i:t':i::i::;;';:?;::"i'iii~:':;.i.;_
~ r~~w~s~ ~oead.~..~~
Q~ ~~mm~m : . . . . ::<~>::>:<::::>:;
::.::::::::.:>:::~~<:::::~>::>:>:::::>::::>:::::::<::::::<.:;>:..: :
,
_ . : . : W
p Regi
Volume 1 February 1995
Where do vve live; where do vve work?
In this report we will examine information about the working population of Region Xli (Eagle, Grand,
Jackson, Pitkin, Routt and Summit Counties). We have also incfuded three neighboring counties, Gar-
field, Lake and Moffat that have significant numbers of workers commuting to Rsgion XII resort areas for
employment. All data is from the 1990 Census. The data was tabulated for workers i6 years of age and
older who were at woric during the week pr2ceding the date on which respondents completed their Cen-
sus questionnaire.
Overlapping Patterns: Eagle County _
Place of Work
1. The Roaring Fork Valley ~
Both Eagle and Gaffield counties have significant 13,156 Worlcers
" percentages (12.9% and 14.8% respectively) of their
worlcforces commuting to Pitkin County for employ-
ment. 91.5% of Pitkin County residents woric in the Ea9~o BZ8% a,,rn 22s
county. Eagle County displays a pattem of exporting Gartiold 23X
workers from the Roaring Fork Valley section of the ~
~ county to Pitkin County and importing workers from P'"""'Z"`
Lake County to the I-70 resorts.
' ,aoo c_
Pifikin County Garfield County.
,
•
PIaCe of Work Place of Work
8,179 Workers 14,756 Workers . .
Gartbld 78.6% Otl+er 29% ~ ~ . . .
6gla J.T16 ~
Pitkin 91.5 % Cther 23% ~ - - ~
• . .
. Eapie 24X Pmcbn t4.855. .
Garfieid 3.8%
,
~ . ~ ' . ' • . ~ 19so cemu, . . . . ' . . . . .
1990 Census - - ' .
f
2. (nterstate 70 Resorts Lake County ~
Place of Work
. Lake County displays the most dramatic movement
of workers in the area. A full 40.2% of Lake
County's working population commutes to Eagle 2,985 Workers
and Summit Counties for employment. , ov,a zs%
' ' . ' . Lake 57.3°6 . ,
Grand County has a smaii (1.6%) percentage of
workers commuting to Summit County. 93.9% of "->;~^n'3:• Eagle zze% .
Summit County residents work in the county. • . ~-Summ4 17.6% .
. . . ' - 1990 Census , .
Summit County
Place of Work
Grand County
_ $,SgO UVO({C@fS P!ace of Woric -
oenvef , 3% 4,610 Workers
Other ].2% '
SummR 93.9% Eagle 1.4% GnnG 93.2%-
Demer 1.1%
Other 4.1%
. . Summh 1.6%
. ' 1490 C.nan . . .
. . 1990 Cuwn •
3. U.S. 40 Corridor 7.3% of Moffat County worlcers commute to Routt County for employment, whereas only 1.7% are
headed in the opposite direction. 95.5% of Routt County residents work in the county.
Routt County IVloffat County
Place of Work Place of Work -
8,165 Workers 5,230 Workers
' on,Lr zne
Other 28% Mottat 84.5%- Rio Blancn 5.59i
Routi 95.5% ,
MotFat 1-7% . Routt 7.3%
' ' ' . . . ' . . _ . • ' . . . 1990 Cersus . .
. 1990 Cefwu . . . . ' . , ' ' " . .
rnu
4
Jackson Counfiy
Place of Work
4. NOtl-ReSOrt
Jacfcson County workers work in their own
county. Resort commuting pattems have 804 Workers
not affected Jackson County as yet.
. Cther 4.1Y '
Jacksan 95.9% 5. Journey to VVork
The following chart displays some addi-
tional information regarding work patterns
gathered during the 1990 Census. Travel
time is represented.in minutes and does +990 c2n5U5
not include those who worlc at home.
• . - • . • D . ' •
County • - A • -
Region XIII I I + ( '
Eagle 13,156 17.4% 4.6%1-7 65.2°/a 18.0% 4.8% 18
Grand 4,610 6.8%~ 5.0% 69.7%~ 13.6%~ 1.4% 17.5
Jackson 804 4.1 % 13.1 % 51.2% 10.3%1 0% 10.8
Pitkin 8,179 8.5% 9.2% 56.1 % 10.3% 6.3% 14.6
Routt 8,165 ~ 4.5% 3.9% 71.9% 14.0% 1.0% 15.4
Summit 8,590 6.1 % 5.5% 70.1 %11.8%1' 1.0% 13.9
Other
Garfield 14,756 21.4% 4.8% 66.9% 19.4%1 1.2% 25
Lake 2,985 42.7% 3.4% 54.3% 31.4% 3.9% 27.4
Moffat 5,230 15.5% 4.1 % 67.2%20.5% .2% 18.1
~
Co~ora~o ~ 63~ ~40 3~9 :3°l0 74 3°10 2 $ala~ Z:~fa ` ~ 7
s }
1J 23,9%0 3.0°fo . 73 2°fa '~3 4°~ ~;~~fo 22A
The counties with the largest percentages of "Out of County" workers, Lake, Garfield, Eagle and Moffat
afso display the longest trave( times and the largest percentages of workers utifizing car pools to travel
to work.
Lake County 's "Out of County" worker percentage is the only one higher 4han state and
national averages. "Travel Time" is higher than sta4e and na4ional averages for both
Lake and Garfield counties.lt is interesting to note that all of these counties have smaller percent-
ages of workers who "Drove Alone" to work and that "Car Pools" are utilized more often iri six of the
counties than in the U.S. or State statistics. .
Pitkin County's use of "Public Transportation" is worthy of note, as well as Jackson County's "Work at
Home" percentage. ,
6. Personal Income Earnings by Selec;ted Industry
~ ~ .
_ . - - 660ht
s : • •
Eornin
Region XII I. ~ I I
Eagle $368.71 1.0% 18.4% 2.3% 18.5% 7:9°/a 35.8% 9.6%
Grand $89 2.2%I 7.3% 5.0% 14.:i% 9.2% 33.0% 20:7%
Jackson ( $17.8 31.5% 7.9% 19.4%I . 9.2%j 2.6% 4.1% 17.2%
Pitkin 1 $381.4~ 0.3% 17.5%I 1.7% 17.1 %I 9.0% 40.7%1 8.1 %
Routt $225.71 3.1 % 29.0% 1.1 % 13. Ei% 5.6% 25.2% 11.5%
S.ummit $236.41 0.2°a 8.2°a 1.0% 21.3%j 9.4% 43.5% 10.8%
Other: ~ -
Garfield $334.9 1.4% 26.4% 2.46/. 13.8%' 5.1 24.4%I 16.4%
Lake $46.5 0%I 34.2%j 2.0%1 9.0% 1.8°a 13.5% 25.7%
Moffat $139.21 3.5°a 36.1 °a 1.1 % 8.44°tol 2.1 °to D 182%
46
S ~ $3338t?,~~~~ ~ $°lo ~ ~f ~9 lafa :9 :~°I8 7 ~f..a 2fi I ; 8~
l~ 4~
Data Source: 1990 Census 'Total Earnings are represented in mii4ions of dollars
FIRE = Finance, Insurance and Real Estate D= Data wittiheld by the Census Bureau
In this chart the Total Eamings are the income received by, or on beh;alf of, all residents of the county.
The foliowing numbers represent the percentage of the total earnings that were acquired in each industry
within the county. For example, in Eagle County 35.8% of the total $:t68.7 million dollars eamed by
worlcers residing in Eagle County were eamed in the service industry. Percentages reflected do not total
100°'o because the chart does not account for all indusiries.
When comparing to state and national averages, some pattems emerge. Counties with resort based
- economies (Eagle, Grand, Pitkin, and Summit) display significantly higher percentage eamings in the
"Retail" and "Services" categories. The 43.5% service industry proporsion of Summit County's eamings
are the largest percentage in the State for service industry eamings.
Routt and Garfield counties show a mixture of eamings from "Mining t3~ Construction" and the "Retail"
and "Services" industries:
"Mining and Construction" is the predominant source of income eamings for both Lake and Moffat
counties.
Jackson County displays a pattem very different from the ofhers included in this repoct by displaying sig-•
nificantly higher percentages in both the "Farm" and "Manufacturing" industries. _
Report Prepared by: Northwest Colorado Council of Govemments .
Linda Venturoni: Community Development Department :
, .
m
GROWTH MAA'tl AGEME1~ T
AN ~vERviEw oF GRowTH coO mNATm sTRATEGIEs
October 1994
Prepared by
Edward Del Duca & Associates
641 N. 16th /Sueet
Grand Junction, CO. 81501
303 243-8475
for
I~orthwest Colorado Council of Govea°ents
CCommunity Develop ent IDepart ent
,
' If growth is to be managed effectively it itiust be the respQ?nsibility of
tbe community, its leaders and policy mak:ers collectively. Grovvth
management cannot be left entirely up to ithe marketplace: it lacks the
motivation, is structured for short term individual gains rather than
long term community benefit and lacks the necessary jurisdictioan.
The applicability of the tools and techniques for maliaging growth described in
this document depends on the particular situation ani3 the statutory authority of
the jurisdiction. The NWCCOG does not advise an.y jurisdiction to attempt to
apply these tools without legale review by their attoi-ney.
Freparation of this.document was funded by a technical assistance grant form
the Colorado Department of Local Affairs and by the member jurisdictions
of the NWCCOG. For additional information conta.ct NWCCOG Community
Development Department at P.O. Box 2308 Silverffiorne, Colorado. 80498
(303) 468-0295 x 105.
Table of Contents
Growth Maragernent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction 1
Typical Objectives of Growth Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Basic Growth Managerrient Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. CQardination 3
2. Planning 4
3. Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Concurrency .............................................5
5. Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ,
6. Urban Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Attainable Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . 7
9. Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Growth Management Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Adequate Publ'ic Facilities Ordinances (APFOs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2. Urban Growth Boundaries or Urban Limit Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. T'iers 17
4. Urban Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5. Transfer Development Rights (TDRs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. Quota Systems or Annual Permit Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. Three Mile Plans / Annexation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. Rural Area Land Protection Strategies and Techniques . . . . : . . . . . . . . . 24
9. Utility Service Areas - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10. HB 1041 Powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11. Bonus and Incentive Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
12. Attainable and Affordable Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
13. Intergovernmental Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
14. Exactions and Impact Fees . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
15. Interim Control 11Reasures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
, 16. Temporary A/Ioratoria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Creating a Growth Coordination Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Shaping the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Community and Group Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . 37
Using Alternative Growth Management Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Evaluating and Comparing Alternative Strategies: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Selecting the Preferred Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Common Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Some A/[ethods of I)etermining I)evelopment Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
APPendix ..............................................47
h
Growth Management
An Overview of Growth Coordinwion Strategies
Once associated with rigid growth control, slow-growth or no-growth, the term growth
naanagement now de~criRaes a aaa°iety of strategaes t?nat strive to achieve a coordinated
appro~ch go adda°essaIIag the pahysica9, socia? and environmenta9 impacts of grovathe Growth
management strategies are not pro or anti growth. They can be used to stimulate growth and to
conserve natural resources and open space. Some strategies can also help make land use
regulation more equitable.
~ irepo~ ~ ari es the sttrage~ies anafl assocflated land aase too?s cau°eently beang ussed
tfiaroaaghoant ghe United State.s to ananage growth.
Growth management strategies typically build upon and go beyond traditional planning tools.
They add another dimension to how communities use comprehensive plans, zoning and
development codes, capital improvement and public facility plans. 'd'raditional planning tools
focus upon establishing consensus on desired future conditions and on setting development
standazds, (planning what). Growth management strategies typically set up a more
comprehensive process for making those conditions and standards a reality in more effective and
efficient ways and usually involve the coordination of plans and policies of several jurisdictions.
They place the commuaity in a more active, rather than reactive posture about how their plans
for the future unfold addressing the quality, rate, location and/or timing of growth, (planning
how and when). -
ARany of the States and communities that have experienced growth pressures in the past two
decades have turned to coordinated growth management strategies as an answer to growth related
problems.' They were often acting to ensure the long term viability of their communities
confronted with: traffic congestion; unplanned urban and suburban sprawl development; lack of
affordable housing; loss of rural and urban open space, agricuitural land and wildlife habitat;
water quality and quantity issues; and erosion of quality of life due to inadequate public facilities
and infrastructure. flddressing these interrelated and inter jurisdictional problems one at a time
in a piece meal, issue by issue or individual jurisdiction approach is often infeasible and has a
long track record of being inefficient and ineffective. Instead, communities are using growth
management concepts to create cooperative inter jurisdictional solutions necessary to manage
growth issues simultaneously, effectively and comprehensively. They hope to avoid the heavy
social, environmental and infrastructure costs of sprawl development patterns and the negative
drag these create on local economies.
1 So far Vennont, California, Florida, Oregon, North Carolina, and Hawaii (in
the early 1970's) followed by New Jersey, Maine, Vermont, Rhode Zsland, Georgia,
Washington State (in the late 1980's) and Maryland (1992) have adopted some form
of state wide growth management system. Massachusette, Connecticut, and New York
have implemented state wide comprehensive planning. Others, including Virginia,
Pennsylvania, and Texas, have begun to consider a state or regional framework for
comprehensive planning. Colorado took some steps in the early 1970's towards state,
regional and local comprehensive planning but this movement made little progress.
1
t
Typical Objectives of Growth Manaigement Systerrns
1. Optimization of pubGc investment in infra.sl:ructui'e, public facilflties andi
services through more predictable and efficien.t development patterns and more
effective phasing to meet current and future nireds. Keeping the cost to provide
public services and taxes as low as possible.
2. Inter jurisdictional cousis-tency - using mutually defined desired results to
facilitate better coordination of policies and re-gulations to implement the mutual
goals of affected jurisdictions.
3. Using a deliberate, comprehensive and coa-dimated process to estabinsh aod
accomplish commu~ity goals which are based on varied perspectives and strong
citizen participation. Raising the level of plamning with increased rationaliry,
comprehensiveness and responsiveness. ,
4. Addressing root causes of problems and sollving inter-re?ated problems
simultaneously, efficiently and effectively. Rather than addressing symptums in
a piece-meal manner. Avoiding the creation of future problems which will need
to be addressed.
5. Protecting the interest's of the community and it's qualnty of life. Allowing
new development at a reasonable pace withoiit eroding the level and reliability of
services, reducing availability of facilities or exceeding infrastructure capabilities.
6. Creating a more liveable community with (ievelopment patterns that are rnore
compact, efficient, and convenient. Defininl; urban form and improving
development design with closer functional relationship to infrastructure and
transportation.
7. Balancing growth and'environmental protection through wiser use of lirnited
resources, placing greater emphasis on the quality of natural and created
environments and integrating development with natural processes and local
ecosystems.
Creating whole communities with an adequate and diverse supply of attainable
housing, that is reasonably balanced with employment opportunities.
9, protecting rural economies and complete iecosystems. Protecting the support
services need for agricultural operation. Conserving open space, environrmentally
sensitive areas, wildlife habitat and important forest and agricultural lands.
10. Providing positive economic stunulation where and when it is necessary aTtd
moving the community towards long term economic and environmental
sustainability with less reliance upon new girowth for continued prosperity.
2
y~ a
Bas'ne Growth IVianagement Concepts
management sy~ems typically incorporate the fol~owing conceptse
1. COORDIRIATION 6. UItBAN FORA/i
2. PLANNIlVG 7. ATTAINABLE HOUSING
3. CORISISTENCY 8. EC0N0MIC DEVELOPMENT
4. CONCiJRRERTCY 9. TIR/TIIVG OR PHASING
5. CONSERVA'I'ION
These concepts are described below. &les of growth management techniques arui tools that
apply them are provaded in the next section of this report, "Growth Nlanagement Tools
1. COO INA"I~~ON .
Agrowgh managenneng p?aan couYd allso be considered a "growth coorslination strategy"e Since
growth pressures don't stop at jurisdictional boundaries, successful growth management is
usually only feasible through a cooperative inter jurisdictional effort. Coordination of decisions
and policies of municipal and county governments, special service districts and other
jurisdictions is often essential to obtaining the economic, social and environmental benefits of
coordinated and efficient development.
Colorado State Statues do not require coordination and consistency between municipal and county land use plans and development policies, or between governmental jurisdictions and
service districts. But they do empower and encourage jurisdictions to cooperate.2 The statutes
are brief and broadly worded providing substantial flexibility for intergovernmental agreements.
Another level of government is not necessary to effectively implement growth management
plans. In fact, growth management plans are typically implemented at the municipal and county
levels of government. However, managing growth in a coordinated manner may require.re-
evaluating existing structures, changes in perceptions and in the inter-relationships between
jurisdictions as a part of a team. Jurisdictional boundaries, such as city limit lines and service
districts could be used as tools rather than being barriers to implementing growth management
strategies.3
Although coordination may be time-consuming, it can result in growth patterns that
accommodate the effective provision of services and facilities from economic, social and
environmental perspectives and fairly distribute revenues in relation to impacts and services.
Z Land Use Control Enabling Act CRS 29-20-101 "CRS 29-20-105.
Intergovernmental Cooperation. Without limiting or superseding any power or
authority presently exercieed or previously granted, local governments are
authorized and encouraged to cooperate or contract with other units of government
pursuant to part 2 of article 1 of this title for the purposes of planning or
regulating the development of land, including but not limited to the joint exercise
of planning, zoning, subdivision, building and related regulations." The planing and
regulating powers are identified in 29-20-104 and 105. CRS 29-1-201 et seg. state
a purpose of "permitting and encouraging governments to make the most efficient and
effective use of their powers and responsibility by cooperating and contracting with
other governments..."
3There are numerous examples of intergovernmental agreements regarding land
use planing and growth boundaries including: Larimer County and several
municipalities Fort Collins, and Loveland, CO.; Pitkin County and Aspen, CO.;
Boulder County and Boulder, CO.
3
2. PLANNING
Growth management systems are built upon a solid plaiuiing fowadatiom. Comprehensive
plans, economic studies, research, projections and public iri-put are usually used to guide the
preparation and use of the management plan. Projections c:an be used to evaluate the benefits
and consequences of alternative growth management strateg;ies during the planning process.
Together these realistically document needs, problems and opportunities and facilitate
development of clearly defined goals, objectives, principles, policies and standards that are
feasible to implement. Developing a growth management plan can be combined with the
comprehensive planning process or it may be overlaid as a means of evaluating, updating and /
or implementing previously adopted plans. Since most growth management requires intex-
jurisdictional cooperation, the planning process provides an. excellent vehicle for coordination of
plans and policies.
A sounc? planning process helps the community establish growth management goaLs and
objectives that are:.
1) realistic
2) capable of implementation by reasonable means
3) more likely to be supported by the community
4) legally supportable as legitimate ends of police power regulation
5) more likely to stand up against legal challenges of being arbitrary,
discriminatory or a taking of property
A suggested planning process and some techniques that have been used do develop regional
growth management goals and objectives are described in the section on planning techniques
later in this report.
3. CONSISI'ENCY
Consistency and coordination of policies is fundamental to successful growth management.
The goals and policies within each of the jurisdictions managing growth together must be
consistent with the growth management strategy.
1) All of the policies of the various departments within the jurisdiction should work together
in support of the growth management strategy.
2) Typically, rational distinctions are made between di,fferent functional and geographic
areas addressed by a plan and appropriate objectives are set for each azea. The goals and
objectives of these various areas should be complementary. Accomplishing objectives of
one area should support, and must not undermine tlie accomplishment of objectivi-Is of
another area.
3) The plans and policies of affected jurisdictions shoiild support and be consistent with the
overall growth coordination goals. Jurisdictions mi.ght include adjacent municipaXities,
counties, water and sanitation districts, recreation and other special districts, school
districts,, federal and state agencies, etc.
4) Inter-jurisdictional agreements should be used to ensure consistency, cooperation, and
coordination with adjacent or affected jurisdictions. Colorado State Statutes perniit a
fairly broad range for inter-jurisdictional agreements.
4
• Many of the shortcomings that have occurred in areas where growth management techniques
have been applied are the result of unilateral action and alack of coordinated and consistent
policies of all the jurisdictions affected by the growth management strategy. Without inter-
jurisdictional coordination, the growth impacts controlled by one jurisdiction are often
transferred to other nearby jurisdictions undermining the management of growth and often
creating undesirable or inequitable results for the jurisdictions involved.
In some States vvhere comprehensive planning and growtti management strategies are mandatory,
new plans must meet the test of being consistent with state and regional goals and with the plans
of other affected jurisdictions before they can be adopted.4 Although inter jurisdictional
consistency and coordination is not required in Colorado, jurisdictions can and have used
intergovernmental agreements, joint planning efforts and joint adoption of plans to achieve the
mutual benefits derived from consistent policies and coordinated solutions to regional problems.5
4o CONCURRENCY
The concept off concu,r¢ncy reqaaares that adeqeaate nnfrastfl-ucture, pubfic segwaces and
ffacWtaes ueecessaay go maantaaan the &evel of service skandarc?s adopted by the commanity are
availab?e simuHtaneoans wngh deve?opment or wathia a specific tnme pea-eoai.
Concurrency requirements protect the community's interest by ensuring that its quality of life is
not eroded by new growth. They go beyond "impact fees" by requiring the physical
improvements or mitigation measures to be in place at the time the impact occurs. They
_ typically address, but are not limited to: sveet and/or mass transit service levels; non-motorized
circulation systems; utilities; schools; developed parks, recreation facilities and open space;
police, fire and emergency services; waste management; air quality; habitat improvement and
mitigation measures; affordable housing; etc.
Concurrency requirements should be supported by the adoption of facility and service level
standards and long range capital improvements and facilities plans and programs. A sample of
standards associated with an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance is provided in the section on
growth management tools.
5. CONSERVAT]ICN ,
l[ngerest in conseuving or protecting open space, iinportant natura9 and cuYtearall resources
affid agricanltura9 9and n~ often a paat of the commaannty's motivation for managagag growt6.
~onservaguon is often more ffeasoble and effective as a paa-~ of a grovvgIla unaaaagecnent plan
whncfln can saapport conseu-vatuon effouts in anany ways> a) The economic and environmental implications of conservation goals can be realistically
assessed as a part of an overall growth management planning study. The feasibility. of
implementing conservation goals can be evaluated and appropriate strategies developed.
b) Implementation strategies to protect or restore important agricultural and forest land;
open space; environmentally sensitive or important areas; historic buildings, sites and
4Consistency requirements are incorporated in growth management regulations
in Oregon, New Jersey, Washington, Nevada and California.
' S Some examples of inter-jurisr3ictional cooperation include Larimer County and
Loveland, Fort Collins and other municipalities; Boulder and Boulder County; Aspen
and Pitkin County.
5
trails and cultural assets; etc., can be integrated into the overall growth management strategy and supported by and linked to policies an(i goals of other areas of plan.
c) Growth could be directed to and accommodated in :more appropriate areas reducing the
effect of growth pressures on areas to be conserved.
d) Conservation could be made more equitable for the owners of lands to be conserved. -
e) Additional tools may be available or more feasible ito use to accomplish conservation
goals as part of a_ growth management plan. These may include but are not limitted to:
o Transfer or purchase of development rights
. o Incentives for conservation easements and cluster developments
o Urban growth boundaries or Urban/Rural boundaries
o Specific regulations developed for designated agricultural and rural areas c;an be
used such as rural subdivision regulations ajid development standards, right to
farm ordinances, exclusive agricultural districts, etc.
6. UIZBAN FORM
Economic, environmental and social costs are often directly related to development
patterns. Strategies that control urban form can create more compact, clearly defined urban
areas that use infrastructure and resources more efficiently and reduce the cost of providing and
maintaining urban services.
The most common methods of conuolling urban form incliide use of:
a) An urban growth boundary or a system of boundaries (tiers);
b) A capital improvement program that controls the la; ation, scale and/or timing of
infrastructure improvements;
c) Utility service area boundaries;
d) Annexation plans and policies and/or three mile plans;
e) Intergovernmental agreements on adopted plans, development policies and on the items a)
through d) listed above.
These methods are often used in combination, along with c?ther land use regulations, to create an
effective strategy to control where urban development will occur.
Urban form strategies seek to control urban sprawl, randor.n and leap-frog development patterns.
These patterns often:
o waste valuable land and energy resources o increase air and water pollution
o increase the cost of housing and of o encourage a piecemeal approach to
providing infrastructure and urban services deve;lopment
o increase taxes to cover higher maintenance o prematurely commit rural areas to
and urban service costs incompatible urban uses
o undermine provisions for mass o make the implementation of infrastructure
transportation and public Facilities plans inefficient or
o contribute to the decline of downtown infeasible
areas o undermine conservation efforts
6
/ o ATTAIN LLJHJ 11 LlOLLJ S1;L1 V`1L
Recently adopted ge-~wth ffi~nagemeant galans have been a friend to attainable taousing. They
nncoa-porate strategies tha~ create a dlversiBy of housang oppoattuxat6es and avariety o~
resndengnal alensign~ and hoaasang t3pes tlnat ean be afforded by vaa-gouss nncome leaels vvnthin
the communitye
Attainable housing has become a regional issue in more and more locations. Concepts like
"Regional Cieneral VVelfare I)octrines" and "Fair Share Allocation" have been used at regional
levels to help communities provide a fair share of needed attainable housing based on their
growth and the impacts it creates. These concepts require regional cooperation'which is
mandatory in some States. Some growth management plans view attainable shelter as a social
and economic necessity rather t)nan a commodiry.
A lack of affordable housing in growing communities has caused substantial negative
environmental, social and economic impacts for both the communities that are supported by a
' work force of commuters from adjacent communities (or unincorporated areas) and the
communities that house and provide services to the commuting work force.
8o IECONOMIC DE`~VIEILOP N'II'
GrowtYn managemeng p9ans sIlnould nnc8ude econoannc development stragegiese
These caffi be aosed toa
a) stimulate development during slow economic times.
b) provide incentives to encourage the type of development that is needed to balance the
communities growth, or
c) direct deveiopment to locations where it is desirable.
One of the purposes of growth management is control of the rate of growth. This purpose
applies during economic slow downs as well as during booms. An economic development
strategy enables the plan to address the rate of growth during slow and boom times. Growth
management plans that did not contain an.economic developrrient strategy have often been
weakened or abandoned during periods of slow economic growth. Opponents to growth
management could argue that the plan served no function except to slow growth.
The economic development goals of a growth management plan should include:
a) Creation of a balanced community with an adequate mix of residential, commercial,
industrial and other land uses. .
b) Guarding against extremes such as the creation of a bedroom community with
insufficient tax base to support the needed services or the creation of an employment
center that lacks an indigenous work force and sense of community;
c) Stimulation of a diversity of housing rypes (and an adequate supply of attainable
housing);
d) Stimulate employment or commercial development as necessary; and, pursue ways to
move the community towards a more mature state of sustainability with less reliance
on continued growth for prosperity.
7
In adclition to containing a posative economic development strategy, ianplementang a growth management strategy has inherent economic development benefits including:
a) Redirecting urban sprawl can help maintain the economic vitality of core areas.
b) Preserving the economic viability of agricultural uses in rural areas is compatible
with urban form and open space preservation concepts.
c) Efficient growth patterns reduce the communiry's dependence on energy, lower the
cost of providing and maintaining services and lowE;r the cost of living. This keeps a
significant amount of money circulating within the community and increases the
communities overall economic competitiveness.
d) Efficient growth patterns make more efficient use of resources and reduce pollution.
This expands the potential holding capacity of geographic areas and increase the long
term potential for growth and economic development.
e) Development that reduces the communities dependence on new physical growth
for continued economic prosperity can help make ttie economy more sustainable.
(An economy based on physical growth can not be sustained indefinitely and is more
susceptible to boomJbust cycles)
9. TIMING
Several growtth manageffient strategies control the timing, rate and/oa- the sequence im which
growth occurs. Tine most common methods include:
a) Phasing of capital improvements and communit:y facilities
b) Quota Systems, and
c) Tiers
Controlling the timing of development in a community or in different areas of the community
can help:
a) make provision of public services more efficient
b) optimize public investment in infrastructure
c) encourage wiser use of land
d) prevent premature urbanization of rural areas
e) facilitate a balance between residential and employment generating developmerit
f) even out the rate of development, spreading development out over a longer tirne
period at a steadier pace.
g) reduce the social impacts often accompanying bc?om and bust economic cycles.
8
" 1e IPhasaBng off cCapntall I[mpu~~~~~~nts aand Commannity IFacnligaes
As well as determining the location and intensity of development, capital improvements and
public facilities can be used to determine the rate and timing of growth by nncluding phasung or
giming nn the llong r~~~e capatall anprovememts and facilities p?anse Phased capital
improvement programs are used in conjunction with concurrency requirements like adequate
public facilities ordinances and subdivision regulations which require capital improvements and
facilities to be provided as a condition of development. New grovvth is Unked to the timing o$'
ghe capitaIl impr~~~~ents ana? co unity faCWt'es Qwhich ns set by ghe commimn ty> rather'
than by expan.sfon off capaga? nnprovements and facalities teing driven by new growth.
Phasing can be applied to schools, libraries, parks, and other public facilities as well as
infrastructure such as major streets and utilities. It can be used in conjunction with timing
strategies in tiers, to accelerate or slow growth in different areas or timing can be related to
efficient use of existing facilities to encourage in-fill development before expansion is allowed.
Although communities rely upon developers to provide most capital improvements and assess
impact fees for public facilities, they can still use phasing to time growth by incorporating
phasing of utilities and facilities into the approval of developments and into subdivision
improvement agreements.
2e Tneu-s
The use of tiers allows a community more flexibility in applying phasing and quota systems.
Tiers create a series of boundaries designating areas which have different growth management
goals and policies. These policies can include the rate and timing of growth in each tier and the
sequence in which the tiers will be developed. The management goals of the various tiers are
designed to work in tandem as a part of the overall growth management plan. For example: the
timing of when urban development will be allowed in each sequential tier could be controlled to
ensure a reasonable amount of in-fill development of the prior tier; or, the growth rates in
residential and.commercial and/or industrial tiers could be linked to help ensure a balance
between housing and employment in the community.
. 9
3. Quota systems •
Quota systems control the rate of growth by limiting the aimual number of permits issued for
residential and/or commercial or industrial uses. The numiber and location of permits issued can
be related to:
a) a set percentage of annual growth
b) a fixed number of permits issued each year for various types of development
c), a phased capital improvements program with pl~inned infrastructure capacity
d) a phased public Facilities plan for parks, open F?ace, libraries, public services, etc.
e) phasing imposed duririg the approval process of new developments.
fl, mitigation strategies for environmental constrainits such as water availability, air
quality, wildlife habitat, drainage management Eind water quality, etc.b
g) approval of developments representing a fixed amount of growth each year. (Use of
short time limits on development .approvals can help make this system more precise
and prevent speculation on land use. )
Several communities' have used quota systems that use a fi:Ked percentage of growth to set the
number of permits to be awarded annually. They use a cornpetitive scoring process baseci on
how well proposals meet a set of criteria to select which projects receive a limited number of
building permits to be granted each year. This has provided greater control over the type and
quality of growth.
Using this system to limit building permits on properties with vested development rights has
been complicated by recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions (Dolan and Nollan cases). Property
owners with zoned land and vested rights could argue that their property rights have been taken
without compensation because they may never win the competition and be allowed to develop
their property. However, communities can still use quota systems and use competitive scoring
based on design criteria as a basis of approving proposals in several ways such as:
a) Applying them to the approval of projects without vest rights, such as applications for
new zoning.
b) Tie building permits to environmental or physicaLl constraints, or
c) Base building permits on phasing of capital improvements and Adequate public
facilities
Rate of growth limits should be based upon a philosophy of "managed" or "planned growth"
rather than "no growth". Recently, concepts like regional general welfare doctrines and fair
share allocations have played a role in shaping strategies that address the rate of growth. Under
these concepts each community has a responsibility to plan fior a responsible share of the growth
that comes to their region. In some states regional cooperation on growth rates is mandatory
including the provision of a fair share of attainable housing.
6 Planning with environmental limits in mind is far better than simply lett:ing
the limitations become an unofficial moratorium or lowering community standards and
quality of life when limits are reached.
7 Quota systems were initiated in Petaluma CA. and are used by Aspen and
Pitkin County, Boulder, CO. The statute of limitatio:ns on these particular eystems
have expired.
10
Growth Management TooYs
A variety of growth management tools and techniques have been developed by states, regions
and local governments throughout the country to guide the type, intensity, location, timing, rate
and quality of growth and make regulations more equitable. Used in various combinations and
supported by traditional land use tools, they create a comprehensive growth management system
custom designed to met Phe rteeds of a particular area. They typically rely on inter-jurisdictional
cooperation to coordinate growth.
Some of the more commonly used techniques and tools used to implement growth management
concepts or which are used as a part of growth management strategies are briefly described in
this section. They include: -
1. Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances (APFOs)
2. Urban Growth Boundaries or LJrban Limit Lines
3. Tiers
4. Urban Form
5. Transfer Development Rights (TDRs)
6. Quota Systems or Annual Permit Limits .
7. Three Mile Plans / Annexation
8. Rural Area Iand Protection Strategies and Techniques
9. Utility Service Areas
10. HB 1041 Powers
11. Bonus and Incentive Zoning
12. Attainable and Affordable Housing
13. Intergovernmental Agreements
14. Exactions and Impact Fees
15. Interim Control Measures
16. Temporary Moratoria
Some traditional land use planning tools used in association with or to support the tools listed
above are very briefly described in the appendix.
11
1. Adequate Public Facilities Oraiinances (APF0s) '
APFOs are based on concurrency. They limit new growth to the community's or the
developer's ability to fully comply with all the community's standards for infrastructure, services
and facilities in proportion to the on-site and off-site impacrs of the proposed growth. APFOs
_ go beyond assessing impact fees. They require the necessar.y facilities to be in place at the time
that the impacts occur. . APFOs protect the interest of the community by ensuring that new
development does not erode the availability of public facilities, lower the level of services
provided or exceed the capacity of infrastructure.
Adequate public facilities ordinances can be used in relation, to a variety of facilities that aie
impacted by new growth including but not limited to:
Infrastructure - water, sewer, drainage, street systerns, waste management, etc. Public facilities - parks and recreation areas, libraries, schools, municipal offices, etc.
Community services - police, fire, ambulance, including equipment needs, etc.
APFOs have been referred to as the "truth in planning" ordinances. They provide a r.eality
check that helps to prevent the incremental erosion of the cc?mmunities level of service by
approval of projects which individually may have only small impacts but which eventually add
up to serious deficiencies. These deficiencies are then paid for through higher taxes or grants
made from federal or state taxes. With tax limiting legislation like Amendment 1(TABOR) in
Colorado, adopting a comprehensive APFO as a part of a g;rowth.management plan (or at least
a comprehensive impact fee structure) is prudent, particularly in small communities which may
have no other means to ensure that services and facilities will keep up with new development.
The difference between an APFO and an impact fee struicture is that impact fees are
typica9ly used in reaction to development proposaLs while APFOs can lbe used proactively to
direct the location and timing of growth.g Used in conjuriction with long range capital
improvements programs, APFOs can direct growth to appropriate locations by controlling where
required utilities and facilities will be available, control the intensity of development by the
planned carrying capacity of those facilities and control the t:iming of development by controlling
when the utilities and/or facilities will be expanded in a particular area. APFOs can be applied
using utility plans, an open space and parks development pla.n, a master street plan, a fire
protection plan, library expansion plans, etc.
Using APFOs to direct the timing and sequence of growth is possible when communities require
developers to install infrastructure improvements and to pay impact fees for facilities by
incorporating the phasing of capital improvements and facilities into development agreements, or
to issuance of building permits, etc.
e The City of Ramapo, N.Y in 1969, spearheadeci the right of communities to use
the concept of concurrency to control the timing and sequential phasing of
development by controlling the provision of utilities and public facilities. They
used a long range capital improvements and facilities, program to specify when <and
where utilities would be extended and capital improvem-ents would be made and limit:ed
growth to areas which were adequately served with the!se facilities.
12
AIPFOs caun be u.sed wntIln a perfformance zmnlmg system to direct land uses to areas where they
will make the most efficient use of existing or planned facilities. For example the system can
require uses witl? high numbers of employees to be located on a mass transit route or higher .
density residential to locate in the proximity of a park, etc.9
Caentnoues. ildhen designing a growth management system that uses concurrency requirements
like APF'Os, care should be taken to ensure that the system does not discourage in-fill projects in
existing developed areas and encourage perimeter development. 'I'his can occur when. existing
areas have deficiencies in public facilities or are developed in a way that makes it more difficult
for growth to meet neev APFO standards. To prevent this, APFOs could incorporate incentives
or exemptions for in-fill projects, use different standards for different areas, or use surcharges or
higher, impact fees for outlying deveiopment based on additional costs of preparing for and
providing services to outlying ateas and to offset additional costs of providing F'acilities in a
developed area for an in fill project.
It is note worthy that strict concurrency requirements such as those imposed by APFOs have not
always had the anticipated effect of raising housing costs. Instead, the cost of land has been
adjusted to reflect its intrinsic value including the true development costs. Communities that use
APFOs do not have costs added later through special improvement districts or have higher taxes
to pay for improvements that should have been installed with the initial project. It is often a matter of pay now or pay later.,With APFOs it is new growth that does the paying.
To use AIPFO co~~~~~ ~~fectivelly g~~ ~ommaannt~ musrte
a) Adopg a coffipreflnensIlve set of standards and phasing plans gor naafrasttg-ucture, pub9nc
ffacaIlitnes andl sea-vncese APFO requirements can be most easily used when these
standards are expressed per unit of demand for each public facility or service. A sample
of standards is provided on the following page.
Where utilities are provided by special districts, inter jurisdictional agreements can be
used to set phasing plans or the city or county could use 1041 powers to control the .
expansion of water and sewer lines.
lb) ImpHemeant.a pro,pect approvall mr permit process tha4 can access appropaiate anpaccts
oan proposed pro,pects aanc? aan enforceaneaag ~~~anism that prohibits new deve?opmeant
- aanfless adeqanate ffacflnties to ~ddress its anpacts, as defined by the coanffiaanity's
staundards, aa-e avau9ab?e or consBraected patior to or concurrent wath the new
deveflopment. 9 A similar system was used by Fort Collins, CO. under their "land use
guidance system".
13
SAMPLE PUBLIC FACILITY AND SERVICE STANDARDS
FACILITY/SERVICE STANDARD
City Admanistrative Facilities 1500 square feet per 1000 population must be scheduled for construction
within three years.
Ubrary 800 square feet per 1000 populadon must be scheduled for consauction
within a five year period.
Schools 10 % of the land proposed for development or cash in lieu there of and
school capacity to meet projected enrollment within the district must be
provided prior to projected occupancy.
parks Three acres of neighborhood park within 1/2 mile and three acres of
special use district park wittvn 2 miles per 1000 population to be in place
concurrent with development.
Open Space 10 % of the total land azea of the development inclusive of developed
parks buc ezclusive of environmentally constrained non-developable land
must be sec aside for permanent open space and must be available
concurrenc with development.
Drainage Drainage facilicies to limit cw3-off to historic rates must be in place
concurrent wi[h development.
Circulation No road segment or intersection which is impacted by development shall
be projected co exceed a service level C during off-peak hours, nor
service level D during peak biours. Impacted means where any of the
traffic generaced by [he development will use the road segment or incersection.
Fre No occupied swctures shall Ibe outside a.10 minute response time.
police There shall be 2 fully equipped officers per 1000 population.
Wastewater Treatment Capacity Sewer plant capacity is adequate for at least five years of projected
growth. .
Sewer Collection System Tnuik line capaciry to meet demand must be in place concurrent with
developmene. All new lines must comply with capital Improvements
plans.
Water Treatment Capacity Treacment plant capacity is adlequate to serve five years of projected
growth.
Wa[er rights to 0.6 Cubic feet per second per 1000 population from a 200
year supply of sufficient seniority (defined by the community) is provided
concurrent with development approval.
Water Distribution System Line Capacity to meet demand and a minimum of 10 average day storage
capacity must be in place conr_urrent with new development. All new
lines must comply with capital Improvements plans.
When setang standards, existing deficiencies should be- recognized and new standards based on actual projected
needs rather than simply projecting ezisting standards. Obviously standards will vary for different communities and
may change as communities grow. Standards should be reviewed and updated periodically.
14
2. UH°baIIIl Gr~wth Bofl}lIl~daIt°fl€ES oII° UII'baY& ILflmllt ILiHIles
Urban growth boundaries establish a perimeter enclosing all the parcels that are or will be
permitted to develop with urban uses (commercial, industrial, residential, recreation, etc.). The
urban growth boundary separates the presenf and future urbanizing areas from areas that will
remain rural, agricultural or non-urban. Urban growth boundaries are usually designed to
accommodate growth for a specified time period, typically the next fifteen or twenry years.
"Tiers" are sometimes used within the urban growth boundary to designate individual
management areas or shorter term boundaries as a part of an urban growth boundary system.
, The concept of urban growth boundaries is included in several state mandated growth
management plans.10
Url~~n growtIln boaaIlndaries can promote> .
a) more efficient use of inftastructure and lower infrastructure costs;
b) less disruption of non-urban uses and removal of some of the impetus for land
speculation outside the urban boundary;
c) protection of whole economic and environmental systems;
d) compact urban development, in-fill development, redevelopment, revitalization of
downtown areas;
e) wiser land use;
fj containment of urban sprawl leap-frog and haphazard development patterns and of
strip commercial development along highways;
g) efficiencies in provision of services. Advantages off an g1a-ban Growth BoucndaH-yo
Although comprehensive plans and zoning regulations can be used to establish urban and non-
urban areas, use of an urban growth boundary clarifies this distinction. Establishing clear
boundaries between urban and rural areas helps preserve the identity and sense of community.
A more compatible transition between urban and rural uses can be created and urban
development pressures can be relieved in the rural areas outside the urban growth boundary.
Different development standards can be developed specifically to accommodate growth within the
urban area and to preserve the rural character of the non-urban areas. Setting an urban growth
boundary to accommodate growth for a determined time period facilitates more efficient capital
lo perhaps the most experience with urban growth boundaries comes from the
State of Oregon which required cities and counties to cooperate in the creation of
urban growth boundaries in their state planning policy adopted in 1973. Sacramento
County, CA. also adopted an urban growth boundary in an attempt to protect prime
agricultural land. Weld County, CO. uaes an urban growth boundary concept in an
attempt to preserve agricultural land and direct growth towards existing
municipalities. The City of Gunnison, C0. included an urban growth boundary in their
comprehensive plan adopted in May, 1994. The city and counties of Boulder, CO. have
established a"green line" limit in which they are purchasing land and using
conservation techniques to create an open space boundary around the city.
15
improvements programming. '
Urban growth boundaries can facilitate use of other strategies such as phasing, tiers, transfer of
development rights, transit oriented development, annexation and urban fringe area policies.
The location of the urban growth boundary should support the goals of the comprehensive plan
and .be established as a part of a public planning process. A variety of criteria is often used in
combination to set a growth boundary. Some criteria that might be used include:
a) desired build out population -t1?e boundary accornmodates target population relating it
to the holding capacity of proposed urban areas at desired densities '
b) set number of years - The boundary is set to accommodate growth at established rate
for a fixed number of years, (typically 15 or mo-re years)
c) land capacity analysis - selecting urban areas bas,ed on cost and efficiency of providing
urban services
d) land suitability analysis -defining the most appropriate areas for urban development
based on physical characteristics, environmental considerations, function, etc
e) jurisdict'ional boundaries - city limits, water, sewer and other service district
boundaries
fl community vision - boundary includes areas the community believes suited for urban
development and excludes areas it desires to remain rural
g) desired urban form - setting the character of the community and how it functions by
establishing a physical development pattern
When establishing an urban growth boundary, consideration should be given to implementation
strategies. Implementation may require coordination of plans and policies of the city and county
and of water and sewer service providers. Joint city and county adoption of the urban growth
boundaries and policies that are supported by intergovernmental agreements are strongly
suggested. The growth boundary should be reflected in three mile plans, annexation plans and
policies, capital improvements plans and programs, the corriprehensive plan of the city and the
county, zoning and subdivision approval processes, service area limits, etc.
Fears of establishing absolutes by setting an urban boundarii can sometimes be reduced by
including a periodic review of the boundary (eg. every 5 ye:ars) and/or establishing a pra;ess for
minor boundary adjustments. However, these should be linnited and governed by clearly defined
criteria to prevent the boundary from becoming meaningles:> through frequent adjustment.
16
' 3. °IrIlcers
Tne~ are a §eraes off bounrmdarnes whach de~°i~e geographic ueas and establish appropraage
deve?opment poflflcnes, skandards aad g' °g gor each area>" 'I'he policies for each tier relate
to its goals and function, its relationship to other tiers and to the goals and policies of the
broader growth management plan.'Z Polices can establish the timing, rate and/or sequence of
development of tiers; designate tiers for accelerated development, future development or
conservation or as sending or receiving areas for transfer development rights, etc.
Tn~~ ~re n~~ sam~ ~~oninge Tiers overlay land use and zoning and establish management
policies. 'I'hey rely on traditional land use controls like zoning for implementation. Tiers may
or may not be concentric, they can help implement any of the urban forms discussed in the next
section, they can follow mass transit corridors or rivers, or be free standing nodes. 'I'here might
be more than one tier of any type in the plan.
A growth management plan using a tiered system might include tiers designating areas as:
1. Redevelopment V. Future Urban
II. Developed Core VI. Rural
III. Developed Urban VII. Conservation
IN. Urbanizing
Policies in the "Redevelopment" tier might include development incentives or be a receiving area
- for development rights transferred from the "Conservation" tier(s) or from Historic Districts in
the developed core.13
Policies in the "Urbanizing" tier might include a phasing program to regulate the timing and
sequence of development. Tiers planned for urban development may be set to accommodate
growth for a set period of time, their development might be phased in sequence. Each tier could
be of a scale to provide efficient provision of urban services and to optimize investment in
infrastructure and public facilities. Polices could promote in-fill development and control of
urban sprawl. Inter-related policies of tiers can be used to maintain a balance of the type of
development that occurs in the community. •
Policies in the "Future Urban" tier may limit the rate of development and prohibit higher
intensity development until the Urbanizing tier(s) are nearly developed. Development standards
in the Future Urban tier would anticipate future higher intensity urban uses. a
Policies in the "Rural" tier may include right to farm provisions and development standards that
do not anticipate future urban level development and be designed to preserve the rural character.
Care should be taken to ensure that the use of timing in tiers does not prevent provision of
attainable housing, that the policies within the tiers are complimentary to each other, and that all
the policies of the individual tiers support the growth management strategy.
11Tiers were originally used in Minneapolis - Saint Paul, NIIQ.
12Tiers were used in Minneapolis-St Paul in the early 1970's. Elements of the
concept are used on several growth mariagement strategies throughout the nation.
13Santa Barbara, CA. used TDRs out of their historic district as a means of
raising funds for restoration.
17
4. Urban Form
Establishing a desired or functional shape of the communiry or pattern of uses within it can •
determine where and how growth will occur. Urban form concepts can be implemented using
urban growth boundaries, tiers, performance standards, zoning, performance standards, etc. The
following are some of the urban forms that have been used t:o plan communities and manage
growth.
Concentric Rangs - Concentric rings are a system of tiers e:manating from the core area(s). This
concept often includes a transition in development intensity 1`orm high density in the ring closest
to core area and ending in very low or agricultural designation in or outside the outer ring. It
provides a transition from urban to sub-urban to rural intensiry of development concentrating the
most intense development in and around the core area(s).
Urban Activity Centers - This growth pattern is a simplified tiered approach in which urban
cores or existing towns are designed growth areas and slated for accelerated growth. These are
often surrounded by existing or future development areas in which urban level services exist or
are planned. The remaining areas are rural or agricultural. When using this concept care
should be taken to ensure that the scale of the tiers and allovved densities are appropriate to
accommodate growth for a set period of time (like 15 years). This development pattern should
not simply result in residential sprawl around existing communities but should be designed to be
pedestrian oriented and supported by mass transit.1°
Radial Corricflors - This pattern concentrates development along transit corridors and is typically
associated with areas that have a large urban center from wh.ich the vansit system emanates like
spokes on a wheel. The areas between the corridors are ofte;n open space, agricultural or very
low density and may be areas from which development righis are transferred. Nodes arourad
transit stops could be designed development rights receiving areas.15 When using this
development pattern, policies should prevent the creation of unattractive strip development along
the length of the corridors.
Urban/Rural Service Areas - This growth pattern uses the :relative cost of providing services as
a means to define tiers. Land capability analysis - using planning and engineering studies are
used to define the areas that are less costly and more efficient to serve with utilities, streets,
transit and other urban services that may be appropriate for urban development. These areas, .
which can be efficiently and cost effectively developed are placed within the Urban Service
Boundary and receive urban uses and services. Areas that aire more costly to provide with urban
services or that contain unique, prime or important.agricultural land, visually sensitive or
important wildlife habitat, etc. are placed in Rural Service A,reas which are planned for very low
intensity rural or agricultural uses, or for conservation and receive rural levels of service and
infrastructure improvements.
14This pattern was used in Baltimore, D'ID. and is now being used in
redevelopment areas of Los Angeles, CA.
1sThis pattern was used around Washington, DC.
18
- ~~ansig Oraentedl Developmeng -lfiis growth pattern is a series of mixed use villages. Each
village contains commercial and business core, neighborhoods, open space and parks to meet its
needs basic needs. The villages are designed to function at a pedestrian scale, similar to the
scale of communities planned prior to the surge in the use of the automobile. Easy pedestrian
access is accommodated throughout the village. The village cores are connected to each other by
a mass transit system. Vyhile the automobile is not excluded from the planning, it is secondary
in design considerations to the pedestrian - mass transit circulation system. 'I'he mass transit
system supports pedestrian circulation without the necessity of the automobile.16
ESgabg~~~ ~~~an ~~owtIln Aire~ - When existing communities cannot or do not want to
absorb all of the growth anticipated, new urban areas can be appropriately located and planned
as villages or new communities. These villages might be developed using a Transit Oriented
Development concept and or created by transferring development rights from surrounding
agricultural land to the rural village area, conserving the agricultural land. 'dfiis is a faz better
approach then allowing "new suburban communities" to spring up by accident, formed by a
series of disjointed and unrelated development projects that happen to be adjacent to each other
or disbursed throughout agricultural areas. Although counties may do a fine job reviewing each
development, urban level development areas that have not been planned as communities seldom
become balanced or function as well planned whole communities retro-actively.
S. Tiransfer DeveIlog~~en~ ~~hts CMRs) ,
TDRs create the ability to separate the right to develop a property from the property and to
transfer that right to another property or sell it for use on another property. TDRs are a means
of using the free market to provide revenues to accomplish public goals. They can be used in
many ways. For Example:
TDRs can provide a means to compensate landowners in areas the community wants to
protect from development imposing severe restrictions such as might be appropriate for
conservation or open space areas. Although the local government could use zoning
regulations to limit development in these areas, TDRs are viewed as a fairer way to
accomplish the community goals allowing the landowner a way to be compensated for the
development rights that such restrictions would eliminate. This could prevent the
imposition of severe land use restrictions from being considered a taking of private.property
rights without compensation.
TDRs ean create an incentive to permanently preserve areas in agricultural use, or create a
means for owners of agricultural lands to generate cash without having to sell the land.
TDRs have been used to provide revenues for restoration of historic districts and
redevelopment areas and in other innovative ways to accomplish public and private goals.
For example: Santa Barbara allows development rights to be transferred from properties in
their historic district as a means to help property owners raise cash for restoration of
historic structures. Unused "air rights" have been used in a TDR system by Denver, CO.
Pitkin County is using TDRs as an incentive to not develop on private land enclaves within
the national forest.
16Transit oriented development concepts have been used in California and
Oregon and were promoted by Peter Calthorpe.
19
To impleffient a TDRs system there maist be:
a) Designated sending area(s) from which developrr?ent rights will be transfened. Typically these are areas the community wants to protect from development or areas
where additional development capital is needed to achieve a community goal.
b) Designated receiving area(s) into which developr.nent rights will be transferred.
c) A formula to determine the number of rights that can be transferred off and on to
properties.
d) Regulations, policies, controls and incentives which create a market that makes it
desirable to sell and purchase TDRs.
To make the, use of TDRs feasible, local governmen4,s must create and maantain market
demand for them. This is often accomplished using a cor,nbination of development controls and
incentives. Regulations in the receiving area must be strict enough to make the benefits obtained
by purchasing TDRs worth while. The value of the development right is based on the va.lue it
creates in the receiving area for the purchaser. This value also needs to be high enough to offset
the loss of development rights for the seller. The value of the land after the development right
is sold or transferred is based on the other uses allowed on the land. If only agricultural uses
remain, the land would be valued the same as if it were in an exclusive agricultural zone. If the
only use is conservation, the value of the TDR would have to approach the purchase price of the
land. I
The community must create and protect the value of TDRs and maintain a market for them by
not approving requests to up zone properties in the TDR receiving area or in other competing
areas of the community without requiring the use of a TDF:. Communities with large arriounts
of over zoning may not be able to create a market for TDP:s unless they down zone. If
properties are down zoned, TDRs may help reduce the sting in the sending areas. However, the
developers in the receiving area must also have an incentive. to purchase the TDRs. This
incentive may not exist if their property is already over zoried.
TDR's have not been widely used in Colorado. However, with increased interest in
conservation and growth management they may become more popular. Larimer County uses
TDR's to allow density to be relocated from areas desired as open space or low density tu areas
where higher density is desirable. They are working on a concept of "Conservation PUDs"
which, through intergovernmental agreements, could allow TDRs to be transferred from land in
the unincorporated areas of the County to land within muni:cipalities. Aspen, CO. allows
development rights to be transferred from remote sites that are enclaves within the national forest
to sites in the "metro" area. Their incentive for using these TDRs is being able to obtairi a
building permit for a residential unit upon request, (an exeimption to the growth managenlent
system which would otherwise require the permit request to compete with other requests for a
very limited number of building permits issued each year).
TDR Bank- Although it is not necessary, establishing a TI)R bank that can buy and sell TDRs
can: even out the supply and demand of TDRs; make time:ly purchases of development r•ights to
conserve agricultural areas, open space ar historic districts; or to satisfy the cash flow needs of
the agricultural community that may rely on the sale of these rights during slow periods or bad
years for agricultural businesses.
A TDR bank could be funded by public funds, private fouindations or private investors. Funds
to purchase development rights are returned to the funding source when the TDRs are sold.
20
. ,
Paarchase DeveYopment li~ghts Pa-ogram - Purchase development rights programs are the same
as transfer development rights, however, rather than the free market purchasing the development
right to use in some other area, the local government or some other entity simply purchases the
right to protect the land from being developed. The rights are not transferred or resold.
Purchasing development rights could be used in conjunction with other conservation strategies
such as supplementing the dedication of a conservation easement or incentives to purchase a
development right can be created such as tax deductions.
6. Qa~ota Syste~~ or AnnuaIl Pennit L~its
Placing limits on the number of residential building permits was perhaps first used in a
comprehensive manner in Petaluma, California in 1972. I)evelopers competed for an annual
allotment of residential building permits representing a 2% annual growth rate in population. A
similar system was used by Boulder, Colorado and the City of Aspen and Pitkin County,
Colorado. Aspen's system controls the number of permits for commercial and lodging
developments as well as residential permits.
These systems are accompanied by performance controls which guide the quality of growth as
well as the rate. Criteria are used to evaluate development proposals and to give them a
numerical score. Permits are competitively awarded based on the score achieved by the
proposed development. Inherent in this system is the ability to direct the type of growth by
providing score incentives for particular types of development desired by the community. For
example, projects which contain affordable housing, use cIuster development or TDRs
encouraged by the community may be awarded bonus points. Exemptions from the competitive
process can also be used to encourage desired projects.
1[,essons - Limiting the number of housing units below the number of jobs created has made it
difficult for workers to find a place to Iive in Boulder and Aspen. This has helped to drive up
housing prices and caused people with jobs in the community to live in adjacent communities
and commute to work. This lifestyle can cause major environmental, social and economic
impacts on the residents and the surrounding communities.
CauatIlOns - Quota systems in use today have been in place long enough to have past the statutes
of limitations for challenge. However, more recent U.S. Supreme court rulings on the Doland
and Nolland cases could make it possible to challenge the use of quota systems to restrict
building permits on properties which have vested zoning rights on the bases of it being a taking
of property without compensation.
A9gereaagIlVes - Quota systems and awarding approvals based on a competitive scoring process,
like those described above, can be used for new zoning requests. The use of short time limits
on the approval of zoning could limit land speculation and make this process a little more precise
in controlling the rate of growth.
The timing or phasing of development can be tied to the communities capital improvements and
public facilities phasing program through the approval process or phasing of the project could be
a condition of approval.
The number of building permits issued could be tied to mitigation programs for environmental
conditions, phasing of capital improvements and public facilities programs rather than an arbitrarily set number of permits or annual percentage growth rate.
Administrative slow downs can be used to limit the number of projects processed through the
21
approval process to an acceptable rate rather than processing proposals as fast as the ,
development community can generate them. For example, hearing agendas could be scheduled
to include the review of proposals containing up to a set nu:mber of new residential units and/or
number of new jobs created. These could be reviewed on a first come first serve bases.
7. Three Mile Plans / Annexation
Although not enforced, Colorado State Statues (CRS 31-12405) indicate that prior to any
annexation municipalities shall have in place a plan for a th.ree mile area surrounding the town or
city limits. The plan should generally describe the proposed location and character of streets,
bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parks, playgrounds, squares, and other public ways, open
space, public utilities and terminals for water, sanitation, transportation and power to be
provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses within the area.
Although the plan only applies as a guide to areas which are annexed by the municipality.
Developments out side the town, but within the three mile .3rea, will be processed through the
county unless they are annexed. In which case the 3 mile plan can be used as a basis of
comment to the county on proposed projects or taken into ronsideration by the project
developers.
The plan can be strengthened by joint adoption of the plan by the municipality and the county
and through intergovernmental agreements regarding its use and implementation. A joint
City/County planning commission or the city council could review and make recommendations
on all projects within the three mile area. Such review could be given heavy weight in the
county's decision. Or approval by a joint city/county commtission could be required. Growth
management strategies and polices can be developed and cit:y development standards could be
used in the three mile area. The number of possibilities to c;ooperate are great.
Three mile annexation plans can include land use incentives. For example Crested Butte,
Colorado's three mile plan identifies areas that are inappropriate for development (primar;ily
those identified under HB 1041) and offers density incentivi°s for transferring development rights
from developable land into the town. The goals of the plari can be summarized as preserving the
open space and ecology of the surrounding valley restoring it to its fullest capacity and
maintaining a compact, pedestrian scale community.
Aainexation Plan - A perimeter boundary around a coimmunity delineating the area vvhich
the community intends to eventually annex. Typically area; included are serviceable by the
community and are appropriate for eventual urban developn:ient.
Sphere of Intluence Boundary - This concept defines an area outside a jurisdiction's
boundaries in which activities influence and are influenced by the jurisdiction. Sphere of
influence concepts can be useful in intergovernmental agreements. Defining a sphere of
influence can facilitate better coordination and planning berween the municipalify, the county and
other public agencies. For example: A county may refer dE:velopments proposed within the
agreed upon sphere of influence to a municipality for review and comment and give the
. municipalities recommendations heavy weight in their decision. A County might adopt
development standards similar to those of a municipality for development within .the
municipalities sphere of influence. This may or may not include an understanding that
eventually the areas within that sphere will be annexed. This allows more flexibility abocit when
an area is annexed without foregoing coordination of infrast:ructure and other development
22
standards.
Annexatnon - In some cases communities can direct vvhere and when urban growth occurs
by choosing whether or not to annex and provide urban services to particular areas. Areas not
suited for urban development could be avoided while areas where growth is encouraged could be
aggressively annexed. 'I'his is especially effective when c.oordinated with the proyision of
utilities and when it is supported by the counry.
]Fainge Arrea Deve9~pment Polacees - Fringe area policies address growth in the transition
area between urban and rural areas. Typically fringe area policies include provisions to
encourage in-fill and efficient use of existing infrastructure. They may prevent leap-frog
development by restricting urban expansion to areas that are contiguous vdith existing
development and/or may restrict expansion of the urban area until a predetermined amount of in-
fill development occurs within it. Fringe area development policies may also provide special
development guidelines or regulations designed to ensure a compatible interface between urban
and rural areas. These might include: a transition of density from high to low; a transition of
uses from urban to those more related to or compatible with agricultural operations; right to
farm provisions; etc.
23
S. Rural Area Land Protection Strategies and Techniqves -
A variety of strategies and techniques have been used individually and in various combinations to
preserve. agricultural areas and open space. The more common of these are listed below:
Government Acquisition
Fee simple purchase Purchase of development rights
Purchase a conservation easement Purchase of easement far view
Lease/use agreement corridor, view shed or
Right of first refusal foreground scenic easement.
Land donation Installment purchase
Option \ rolling option Bargain sale
Bridge financing \ Land trust Land banking
Condemnation
Government Coordination \ Incentives Intergovernmental management agreements
Intergovernmental projects
Land exchange
Preferential tax treatment
Governmental Regulation \ Incentives
Transfer Development Rights Flexible zoning
Flexible development standards Density Transfer Zoning
Average Density Zoning Rural Cluster Development
Incentives
Planned Unit Devel. \ Conservation PUD Green line limits
Exclusive resource zoning Resource overlay districts
Slope \ hillside ordinance Design Guidelines
Impact ioning Performance zoning
Land Dedications Mitigation requirements
HB 1041 regulations (CRS 24-65.1-101) HB 1034 reg.s (CRS 29-20)
Watershed protection regulations Right to farm ordinance
Agriculture district enabling laws
Agricultural Land Protection Program
Volurntary Landowner \ Non-profits
Conservation Easements
Donation
Restrictive Covenants
Cooperative management agreement
Designated Historic Site
Conservation Planned Unit Development
Cooperative Rural area development plans
Land Trusts
24
L~~ Trusts - As a non-governmental third party, Land 'I'rusts can often find out the needs of
the landowners, develop their trust and negotiate conservation easements and land dedications
that benefit the private land owners and the community more successfully than government staff
or elected officials.
Conservation usually requires a combination of political sensitivity, political will and careful land
use and taR planning. The strategies should be flexible enough to address the particular needs of
the property owner(s) as well as the needs of the community. There are tax implications that
can be used to the land owners benefit if the conservation strategy is carefully implemented.
Vdhen developing a conservation strategy, jurisdictions should consult tax experts and
experienced land trusts to ensure that their plans do not remove incentives for donation of land
or conservation easements for tax credits. 1fie sequence in which strategies are implemented
may have financial implications. For example down zoning areas or designating them as
conservation areas can reduce the value of the land donation and of the tax credits. Tax laws
sunounding credits for conservation easements are complex and the real benefits to the
individual are often related to the owners particular situation.
Formation of Agricultural/Open space protection committees that inyolve land owners of
agricultural lands throughout the area can be useful in developing a local understanding and
comprehensive approaches to this complex issue. Programs should be multi-faceted exploring
the use tools available to the public and private sectors.
Approaches to conserving agricultural land and historic/cultural resources can incorporate ways
to protect the economic viability of the uses. Agricultural zoning districts could focus on
conserving agricultural operations and their support services by including regulations and
strategies such as "right to farm provisions"." These protect normal agricultural operations
from nuisances created by non-agricultural uses. Economic incentives can be used to encourage
property owners not to develop prime agricultural land or to develop it in an manner that
conserves large tracks for agricultural use. Incentive include density bonuses for rural cluster
developments on a small portion of the land, incentives to transfer development rights to other
locations, tax incentives for conservation easements, etc..
The most effective methods of conserving agricultural lands impacted by development pressures
include:
a) IExcflansive Agricanflturafl Zones in which non-agricultura] uses are not permitted,
including single family homes not associated with agricultural uses; and
b) Purcflnase off Devepopaneng Itights IProgram which reimburse the land owner for
the difference in value between the land with and without the right to develop with
certain uses.
c) C?uster IIDeve9opmeng 1LuacengHVes have been somewhat successful but rely upon the land owner to select this option.
d) tCoan§eavagn~~ Easeme¢at dedgcatflon or panrc9nase - Dedication of conservation
easements can offset large capita] gains taxes when properties are willed to heirs
sometimes meaning the difference between being able to keep the land in the
family and in agricultural use or being forced to sell it to pay inheritance taxes.
17The Colorado State Statues protect agricultural uses from being considered
a nuisance by adjacent not agricultural uses.
25
Exclusive Agricultural Zoning - zoning an area for agricuiltural land uses and related uses -
exclusively. Oregon has led the way in avoiding conversion of important farm and forest land
with over 24 million acres of land zoned for exclusive farm or forest use. In Colorado, ,lackson
County requires a special use permit and public hearings far housing and_other uses not related
to agricultural uses in their "exclusive ranching district". Due to a lack of growth pressures this
system has not been put to the test of political will.
Preservation of agricultural land or open space based on thi-, concept of agricultural zoning that
establishes large minimum lot requirements in agricultural ;Aning districts have been marginally
successful in Colorado primarily due to perceptions and expectations created by Colorado's
subdivision regulations. The inabiliry of local government: to prevent the subdivision of land
into parcels of 35 acres or larger has lead counties to establlish 35 acres as the minimum !ot size
in agricultural.districts and to permit a single family home as a use by right in those districts.
Counties also incorrectly assume that they have little power- over these large lot subdivisions and
so have exercised little over sight in their creation. There iis now a general lack of politic;al will
to down zone these areas, to either remove a single family home as a use by right or to require
larger lots for single family homes. The result has been the proliferation of 35 acre lot
subdivisions in agricultural areas, very inefficient land use jpatterns, blocking of elk and deer
migration routes, poorly developed private road systems, etc.
Right to Farun Ord'anance - An ordinance that has the intent of preserving and protecting
agricultural activities and insulate lawful agricultural activities from nuisance complaints from
suburban or urban uses on adjoining properties. These ord;inances often include: administrative
procedures to resolve grievances and disputes between agric;ultural activities and suburban or
urban uses of property and permit certain uses and activitie:> "by right" which might otherwise
be deemed nuisances by infiltrating non-agricultural uses. 'I'hese activities might include
spraying of crops, use of organic fertilizers, electric fencing, using roadways for low spN;d
vehicles, moving cattle, having simpler building permit requirements for farm structures, strict
weed controls, etc. Colorado State Statutes protect normal agricultural activities from bf;ing
regulated as a nuisance by local governments.
Agricultural District Enabling Laws - These laws offer benefits to landowners who practice
sound agricultural management techniques and agree to kee;p their land in agricultural use; for a
set period of time. Benefits include differential property ta:K, exemption from special
assessments, restrictions on local governments to regulate farming practices except in regard to
health and safety issues, purchase or transfer of developmerit rights, limits on capital
improvement expenditures, limits on use of eminent domain, limits on annexation of lands,
zoning of adjacent lands to reduce conflict, anti-nuisance provisions on adjacent land uses. These
measures have not been as effective as one might hope in pireventing the conversion of
agricultural land for development.
GO Colorado - Colorado voters established that lottery funds be used for state parks
development, local government parks and recreation projects, development of recreation
facilities, enhancement of wildlife and environmental educat:ion and open space conservation.
Though too new to have been used for the added purpose of growth management, the concept of
using GOCO funds in a growth management system to conserve open space through the purchase
of conservation easements on key parcels of agricultural larnd as a form of urban boundary or
the establishment of a TDR bank and other growth managernent applications have been
discussed. 26
The GOCO Board has made it clear that they are looking for partnerships with local
governments, trusts, and institutions, ways to leverage their funds, and innovative proposals that
work cooperatively with land owners rather than relying only upon acquisition to preserve open
space. They encourage development of long range conservation and open space strategies and
inter-jurisdictional c.ooperation.
9. UtiIlIl$y ~ervflce AII°eas -
Utility service areas can determine, to a certain extent, where urban development can occur.
Typically service area boundaries are created without much thought to managing growth.
Service areas may far exceed the desired community size and may extend into areas where
development is not desirable. Ciovernmental jurisdictions often supply evater and sewer outside
their city limits through extra-territorial service agreements or water and sewer districts are
established in the county covering large areas. The policies of these service providers is often to
provide services when an where ever it is practical. However, their policies could be used to
direct and manage growth. For example:
a) Service boundaries can be coordinated with growth management plans. A"Blue-
line" can be established beyond which water service will not be extended. This
can correspond to an urban growth boundary.
. b) Tiers can be created within existing service area boundaries to support growth
policies.
c) Capital improvements programs can coordinate timing or sequence of expansion of
services and facilities with growth management plans.
d) The size of tiers could be set to optimize investment in infrastructure.
e) Policies that relate the expansion of capital improvements to the utilization of
existing infrastructure capacity requiring a significant amount of in-fill
development to occur before utilities are extended into new areas could be used to
create more efficient and more compact communities. fl Timing of infrastructure could be incorporated into three mile plans. These plans
should be adopted jointly by the city and the county.
g) Jurisdictions could use intergovernmental agreements or 1041 powers to control
the expansion of water and sewer lines or major streets.
Capagal Innpro~emen4.s P9auns - Capital improvements and facilities plans establish the size,
general location and standards of infrastructure and facilities. These in turn can control the
intensiry of development in various locations. Capital improvement plans serve to ensure that
expansion of utilities and facilities will meet demand and will be built to the planned level of
capacity. But they lack a means of ensuring that development will occur in an efficient manner.
Capita9 }Imp~~~ements and Paanblic Faciflg~~es Program - A capital improvements and public
facilities program builds upon the capital improvement plan by adding a prioritized schedule and
timing of capital improvements and public facilities including utilities, parks, streets, traffic
controls, land fills, etc. Capital improvements and public facilities programs can be used to
control where and when growth occurs by controlling the timing of each planned sequential
extension of utilities. Expansion of utilities may be related to the capacity utilization of each
previous phase. The rate of growth can be controlled by limiting the number of taps provided
annually.
27
10. HB 1041 Powers (CRS 24-65-.1-101 et seq) empowers local governments to designate "azeas" or "activitie.s" of
state interest, develop guidelines and criteria addressing the; types of impacts likely to ocr.ur from
development. It enables local governments to require a per:mit from them for persons wanting to
develop in a designated areas or conduct an activity of state, interest. These powers can be used
to restrict or deny development in designated areas and/or -to establish the conditions under
which development will be permitted. Model guidelines are available from the state department
of local affairs.
a) Areas of state interest which may be desigriated include:
• mineral resource areas
• natural hazard areas (flood plain, wildfire :hazard, geologic hazard, steep slope,
avalanche, alluvial fan, rock sirde, land slide),
• areas of historical, natural, archaeological resources of importance ( including
- areas essential for wildlife habitat like mig;ration route, calving areas, wRnter
range, etc.),
• areas around key facilities (mass transit terminals, airports).
b) Activities of state interest include: site selection of major new domestic water and
sewerage treatment systems, solid waste disposal, airports, rapid mass transit
terminals, stations and fixed guide ways, artf;rial and collector highways and
interchanges, major facilities of public utility, new communities, efficient
utilization of municipal and industrial water projects and conduct of nuclear
detonations.
Presereing Wildlife Areas .
a) Conservation easements CRS 38-30.5-101 e:stablishes direction concerning
conservation easements for preserving wilderness and wiidlife areas to protect
these lands from development. Land with conservation easements can be granted
special taxing status.
b) Overlay districts HB 1034 (CRS 29-20) enables local jurisdictions to apgly
overlay districts to address development in environmentally sensitive areas. It also
allows local jurisdictions to assess impact feE:s to mitigate impacts of
development. Sophisticated satellite mappin;g and computer interpretation
techniques now make it more feasible to define important environmental hsibitat
areas that need to be conserved and help to protect whole ecosystems.
Summit County has recently used this technique along with an overlay district to protect c;ritical
habitat and ecosystems and establish development and mitigation policies.
Water shed protection
Communities can regulate the use of land for an area of up to five miles from the community to
protect the quality of their water shed form degradation.
28
and IncenfiVe Zonnng
iJsing incentives which encourage developers to incorporate elements of public benefit desired by
the community into proposed projects. iJsually benefits offered the developer are related to
° higher intensity of use. They may also include faster processing of proposals or exemptions from
permit and other fees.
Incentives typically work best in tandem with controls placed on development. Their
effectiveness is often proportional to the amount of control or severity of requirements
established on development. Relief from these regulations help create the value of the incentives
and bonuses. Bonus credits might be awarded for any number of public benefits like providing greater than the
minimum amount of open space, using cluster development patterns to preserve open space or
agricultural land, providing for low or moderate income housing, including public plazas and
courts, etc. Incentives can also be used to redirect growth to areas where it is desired or to
encourage the type of growth desired.
Boulder County has an incentive for cluster development allowing the average density of a PUI)
to be increased from 1 unit per 35 acres to 2 units per 35 acres, provided that 75 of the land is
placed in an open space conservation easement.
Some incentives and management tools used to encourage in-fill development include:
_ a) Reducing parking requirements where parking can be shared between uses that have
different peak demand times or in areas served by mass transit;
b) Providing the amenities for in-fill development such as public parking spaces;
c) Structuring APFOs to make in-fill development more desirable than developing on the
fringe of the urban area.
d) Establishing an impact fee structure that reflects the real impact cost on transportation, .
air quality, provision of urban services and maintenance of infrastructure for fringe
area development and policies that encourage development projects in areas which are
already served by infrastructure where the impacts in these categories are much lower
than in projects in out-laying areas.
e) I)esignating areas as TDR sending or receiving areas.
fl Allowing higher intensity of uses in core areas by setting "minimum" density standards
rather limiting development to maximum density.
g) Adopting a policy of no annexations until the existing community is built out to an
established percentage (eg.90%);
h) Phasing new development using tiers or capital improvements programs to ensure in-
fill development in developing tiers. 29
12. Attainable and Affordable Housing
A variety of strategies have been used to ensure the availability of attainable housing as a part of
growth management strategies.
Growth management policies can ensure that:
a) lower income segments of the population are not (iiscriminated against; .
b) the development approval processes for commerci;al, industrial and residential
developments provides reasonable balance betweeii residential growth in employment
c) the creation of a diversity of densities and housin€; types is encouraged;
d) existing attainable housing is not diminished;
e) local policies and regulations do not adversely impact the development of quality
affordable housing.
g) attainable housing is encouraged, incentives are provided, or provision is required of
expanding businesses that pay wages below those required to afford housing.
Minimum Density Requireanents. These requirements establish the minimum number of units
that may be built in an area. This minimum may apply to the average density with in a project
or may prohibit single family detached units entirely in an area. Mandated minimum densities
within urban boundaries have been used to successfully reduice the average cost of housing in
some areas of Oregon and Washington. This policy increased the number of smaller single
family and multi-family housing types in the mix of availablle housing units. These smaller units
typically sell for lower prices than lower density single fami.ly homes.
A"regional fair share approach" requiring each communi-ty within a region to provide an
appropriate share of affordable housing units in the mix of tiousing units approved each year.
Communities can not permit free market units without meetiing the affordable housing quota.
This concept has been applied in New Jersey, Florida and C'alifornia.
Affordable housing incentives have been incorporated into growth management and zoning
regulations. Examples include:
a) Allowing "a density bonus" in projects that inco:rporate affordable housing units;
b) Allowing affordable units to be exempt from APC?s requirements, with these
requirements being met through other funding sources
c) Providing density bonus points to projects that incorporate affordable housing within
performance zoning systems;
d) Establishing a floating zoning district that a developer can request that provides a
bonus in density or other incentive if a substantial percentage of the housing is
affordable.
e) Allowing TDRs to be sold from an area if funds ase used to create affordable housing.
18Aspen has established an affordable houe:ing zoning district that can be
requested by a developer. It requires at least 70% of the units to be affordable
housing controlled by deed restrictions. The remaining units can be free market
housing. The incentive for requesting this zoning ie: that the units do not have to
compete for a limited number of building permita offered annually.
30
Other strategies include:
a) Inter-governmental agreements that allow impact fees and taxes to be transferred from
unaffordable growth areas to communities impacted by a commuting work force.
b) Eliminate property taxes on affordable housing
c) Provide incentives for developers to construct affordable homes and place deed
restrictions on them limiting their appreciation to inflation indexes before placing them
on the market.
d) Establishing affordable housing mitigation requirements on commercial and industrial
development germits, either in the form of providing affordable units or paying a fee
used to subsidize affordable housing units.
e) Itemove barriers and provide guidelines for renting out up-stairs or basement
apartments in single family homes
fl Establish a state housing trust fund
g) Provide tax rebates for renters -
h) Tax second homes that are not used for local housing and use this tax to subsidize
affordable housing.
i) Protect existing rental housing stock from being replaced by larger second homes.
j) Requiring attached rental units (with restrictions to ensure they remain long term rental
units) to be built whenever existing rental units are replaced with larger homes.
k) Several States have "inclusionary" zoning clauses that forbid comprehensive plans and
zoning from excluding low and moderate income families.
Puanbflnc private paatnerrships. Affordable housing projects often require combining several
resources such as creation of public/private partnerships. These might include Community
Development Block Grants for site improvements, Farmers Home Administration loan
guaranties to local banks for low interest loans, etc.
Governmeng ]Fuannded IH[oaasing. Florida has established a 10 cent per 100 dollar increase in
real estate transfer tax which is ear marked for affordable housing. Vermont has a housing and
conservation trust fund which is funded by a State real estate transfer tax. The State of ARaine
has an established goal of IO% of all new housing units being affordable. Real estate transfer tax
is also used by the City of Aspen, Colorado to fund affordable housing. Amendment One made
new real estate transfer taxes illegal in Colorado.
I~centives affoirdabae hoansang - Affordable housing projects can be given special processing
and density status as an incentive to include them in a larger project. For example: Aspen
exempts Affordable Housing Units from their competitive process for a limited number of
building permits issued annually. If a performance system is used that scores projects that
include affordable housing can be given bonus points or projects can pay cash towards affordable
housing fund. A higher density floating zoning district can be created that requires a mix of
affordable housing and free market units.
31
13. Intergovernmental Agreements
Since growth and its impacts extend beyond jurisdictional boundaries, intergovernmental and
interjurisdictional agreements are often essential to implementing a growth management plan.
Intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) can provide the coopieration and consistency necessary to
make growth management or growth coordination strategies work. Unilateral action is usually
not a feasible strategy. It often results in transferring impzicts to adjacent jurisdictions and/or
greater environmental, social and economic impacts than rno action at all.
Two principal statutory sources for intergovernmental cooperation on growth and land use exist:
1) The general intergovernmental contracting statutes; and
2) The Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act.
These State Statutes permit and encourage local governments to make the most efficient use of
their powers and responsibilities by cooperating and contracting with ather governments. They
fully authorize them to cooperate and contract for "any function, service, or facility lawfully
authorized to each of the parties including the sharing of costs, the imposition of taxes or the
incuning of debt." The language in the statutes is broad at1d allows quite a bit of flexibility.
In drafting an IGA at least the following should be considered.
a) The agreement should set forth fully the purposes, powers; rights, obligations, and the
responsibilities, financial and otherwise, of the contracting parties and identify the
specific function, service or facility authorized to each involved in the contract.
b) The enabling legislation for each jurisdiction should be reviewed to ensure that
authorization exist for each entity.
c) A severability clause should be used to protect the remaining portions of an agreement
if any part is declared invalid.
d) The benefits from the agreements should be weig:hted against the risk of having the
agreement declared invalid.
e) The regulating authority of each jurisdiction must approve the agreement.
Each local government is required to file annually with the division of local government and to
update a list of all contracts in effect with other political subdivisions and the list must contain
the ezpiration date of the contract. (failure to file will not i;nvalidate any contract).
32
° fl4o IE~~efl~~~ and Enrn~act Fees
Impact fees and exactions are used in conjunction with subdivision regulations, development
improvement agreements and building permits to help ensure that growth "pays it's own way".
They can help prevent the erosion of quality of life by helping to ensure that service levels of
some public facilities and the capacity of infrastructure are maintained at the level of the
community's standards.
Exactions and impact fees are not a substitute for having good community land use and capital
improvement plans. lfiese plans help the community properly assess impact fees, require
appropriate improvements and dedications, and help prevent inefficient expansion of public
infrastructure. The use of impact fees relies on the community's ability to accurately project the
true costs of mitigating the impacts of new development. Any underestimate will usually be paid
by the community through taxes or through a reduction in levels of service.
Vdhen assessing an exaction or impact fee against developments, police power may be used such
as a lien on the property or specialt assessment to ensure payment. Dedications of land or rights-
of-way are made at the time of platting or at the time of approval. Jurisdictions should request a
quick claim title to required dedications. Since payments are typically postponed until the
building stage, development .agreements should include annual adjustments for inflation and
provisions for changes in standard fees. Exactions and fees should be coordinated with any time
limits that might be imposed on development approvals.
I~aving a cBear seg off nan~act ffees and stanclards provides pa-edictabili$y ffor deve9operse
They can take these fees into account when calculating the feasibility of their project and when
determining the intrinsic value of the land. This relieves some of the pressure in the
development approval process to lower community standards to make up for surprises in impact
fees.
lExacteoafls are requirements, placed as a condition of approval of a development; to dedicate
suitable land and/or to construct public or common facilities; to provide public amenities; or to
make payment in lieu of dedication; or to defray the cost of vehicles and equipment for public or
common use or for public off-site facilities. (eg. parks, street right-of-way, fire equipment or
station, school site, transportation, land fill, capital improvements, etc.) The choice of
dedication of land or provision of facilities or cash in lieu is at the discretion of the communitv.
For example, dedication of land for a park may be appropriate if the land is suitable and the
location of the facility is acceptable to the community or conforms to the community's park plan.
The community may want a small neighborhood park site dedicated and improved and fee
towards a larger community park.
l[mpact IFees are charges levied against developers for their pro-rated share of facilities
necessitated by the new development to ensure that growth impacts will be mitigated. They may
be assessed for improvements, facilities or services necessitated by the development. Impact
fees can not be used to make up existing deficiencies in the community. However, if deficiencies
do exist, new development should be assessed the true cost for mitigating the impacts, not the
costs of operating with deficiencies. This will prevent perpetuation or expansion of deficiencies
into new areas.
Impact fees provide flexibility and efficiency in addressing impacts where it is illogical to make
expansions in proportion to each development, such as widening of major roadways, expansion
of treatment facilities, building libraries, etc. The community collects the fees from developers
and makes the improvements in logical increments, when they are needed to meet the impacts.
33
Ideally, facilities would exceed the current need and the deiteloper would be reimbursing the communiry for their pro-rated share of this capacity.
Developers may be required to dedicate rights of way or imstall infrastructure adequate to serve
their developments. If the community plans call for a highf;r capacity infrastructure to seT-ve
planned future development, the developer may choose to build the infrastructure to the planned
capacity and be reimbursed by the developers of the future 1.3rojects. The community could invest
in this infrastructure and collect an impact fee for use of the; developed capacity. The
community is not required to invest in infrastructure or to supplement the cost of installation of
infrastructure nor is it required to reimburse the developer for right-of-way dedications necessary
to serve planned future developments, or to approve a development that does not conform to
their infrastructure and faciliry plans, including plans to accommodate future capacity. These
issues are usually negotiated between the community and thE; developer in the approval process
and outlined in an improvements agreement.
Guidelines to successfully levying exactions and impact fees:
1) Be certain the jurisdiction assessing the fee has enabling authority to levy the fee. Towns
and counties may collect fees for other jurisdictions as a part of the permitting or approval
process. (This may be based upon actual costs or adopted standards.)
2) Establish clear standards and methods by which impact f'ees will be calculated and assessed.
a. Adopted per unit standards for facilities, open space, capital improvements equipment
and communiry services, and plans delineating the gE;ographic area served by the facility
provide a good framework for fairly assessing exactions and impact fees. Be sure the
fees reflect the true costs of mitigating impacts providing for the adopted standards and
level of service. Also be sure that fees do not project costs based on operations that do
not meet these standards or level of service.
b. Fixed fees not based on calculated impacts of the spe;cific development or based on an
unrelated factor such as value of the development covld be construed as a tax and
challenged under TABOR, (Amendment 1).
3) Be sure the fee passes the test of being reasonably proportional to the actual impacts of the
development. Exactions must be fair and justifiable and provide general benefit to the
development.
4) Establish a clear nexus (or direct link) between the impact and the proposed
development.
5) Follow proper accounting procedures that keep funds for particular impacts separate from
funds collected for other purposes. All funds collected should be designated for mitigating
impacts specifically related to the development.
Most cities and counties levy open space or school site dedic:ation requirements or impact f.ees
for subdivisions. These range from 5% to 25 % of the land -or a cash equivalent in lieu of land.
Some open space requirements are as high as 60 % for condc?miniums. Cash-in lieu amounts
vary greatly and their basis can be an equivalent to the value; of the required land dedication or
fixed amounts per dwelling unit. Subdivisions of 35 acres and larger lots often elude thesf; fees
since they are not required to be processed through the county. However attaching such fees to
building permits on parcels which have not paid such a fee a.t the time of subdivision coulci be
one way to capture those fees.
34
e
> Jurisdictions in Colorado use subdivision regulations to address on-site improvements such as
streets and basic infrastructure requirements.19 Often cash is accepted in lieu of off site
improvements such as park facilities or expansion of roadways. Fees may be collected when
building permits are issued. This process can cause a lag between the time when the impacts of
new growth occurs and the time. the facilities ate constructed. Communities sometimes find that
although they have accounted for inflation, the impact fees collected do not cover the full cost of
improvements. 'I'he most appropriate land for facilities may not be available or the price is
higher than anticipated. Although impact fees may be collected for other jurisdictions, such as
school, library, and recreation districts, communities can not always ensure that these
jurisdictions will provide adequate facilities at the time the growth impacts occur. APFO's can
help prevent these problems by requiring good planning on the community's part and facilities to
be in place at the time the impacts occur.
Under Colorado Statues it may be possible for inter-governmental agreements to be created that
allow impact fees for affordable housings and other impacts and tac revenues to be transferred
between governmental jurisdictions to more fairly address the inter jurisdictional impacts of new
development.
fl5e Interim c~ontiroIl I~easures
Interim control ordinances are based on zoning authority. 'I'hey put in place a new set of
regulations and/or procedures that are in effect for a set period of time while the community is
planning, doing a study, or developing new regulations.
. Interim regulations are usually imposed while the community is preparing new more permanent
regulations, plans or solutions. Interim controls are usually easier for communities to adopt than
moratoria on all development. They can be used for several purposes. For example:
a) When planning is being done in reaction to rapid growth or when an onslaught of
applications is anticipated in advance of new regulations, interim controls can slow the
rate of processing development proposals or stop them altogether.
b) They preserve the status quo, prevent the vesting of property rights and protect the
planning process by preventing approval of new uses that would not conform to the new
plans.
c) They allow adequate time for public consideration and input on proposed new regulations
or plans rather than rushing to complete them.
d) They relieve the pressure of trying to develop a plan while projects that may effect the
plans being developed are in the review process . `
Interim zoning regulations can apply to a specific area or to the entire community depending on
the area that is effected by the pending changes. They may establish special review procedures
for all or specific rypes of uses proposed in the effected area, specify the type of development
that will be approved and the conditions of that approval as well as prevent projects from being
approved which would be detrimental to the effectiveness of the new plan or new regulations.
19 Archuletta County, C0. has adopted a requirement that all subdivision
improvements must be in place prior to the final plat for a subdivision being filed.
35 .
I
Communities may nroperlv refuse a building permit for a laiid use that does not conform to a pending and later enacted zoninp- ordinance even though annllied for when the intendeci use
conforms to existing regulations. However, interim ordinanGes must respect existing vested
rights.
The development process can be slowed by a variety of interim techniques.
a) The number of units or square footage of non-resider.itial uses that will be approved over
a defined time period can be set.
b) A point system can be used assigning a specific number of points to developments by
size and type and processing a fixed number of point; in sequence of application during
the interim period. .
c) The planning commission could set specific meeting t.imes and continue cases rather than
extending meeting times to late in the evening or eariy the next morning. 16. Temporary Moratoria •
Moratoria is a legislative measure enacted under the poGc:e power of the jurisdiction for the
preservation of health and safety or protection of t6e enviironment. It prevents further
development even when the owner's rights are vested..
A moratorium can prohibit new development, zoning approvals, demolition, permitting or
extension of public services for a specified period of time or until the anticipated time when a
specific remedy to the situation creating the need for the moratoria is implemented. Extensions
up to a maximum time limit are usually included in the adop-tion of a moratoria. •
In spite of temporary "takings" issues, the power to establish moratorium is alive and well
provided it is reasonable in terms of purpose and duration and based on due process and official
findings that further status quo activity is a threat to public health, safety or the environment.
A moratorium or interim controls should not be used simply to create a pause in development
without serious progress to address the reason for adopting trie moratorium.
Moratoria and interim controls have been used to put develoX?ment on hold while preparing new
regulations or reconsidering or reforming existing regulations such as: comprehensive plans, area .
plans or zoning codes, development standards, establishing a means of preserving open space,
developing growth management plans, assuring provision of <idequate public facilities to serve
new development, resolving infrastructure capacity problems, etc.
Moratoria and Interim controls should always incorporate a variance and appeal provision to
provide an avenue for hardship cases and specific parcels. Variances should not be used in cases
which are inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the proposed new regulation or plan.
36
° Cr~~~~~ ~ Growth Coordination StrategY
S1~~ping the Fan~uire
The elements typically used in creating a growth management system include:
1. Coinrnunity and group processes
2. Applied research
3. Alternatide plan dedeloprnent and evaluation
4. Desired plan developrnent
g. Itnplerrientation strategies and tools
6. Monitoring/guidance systein "
CommunIlty and Group Pi°ocess
The process used to develop a growth management strategy needs to include the perspectives of
all effected stakeholders and a broad base of the communiry stakeholders. Reflecting core
community values is essential to building community support and successful enactment of an
appropriate growth management strategy. Growth management policies can have significant
impacts on the plans and policies of different jurisdictions and typically requires inter-
jurisdictional coordination.
Successful implementation depends upon:
a) Identifying the stakeholders and the appropriate scale of the area to be involved in
managing growth. Growth management plans affect and are affected by policies of many
jurisdictions. They typically have external impacts which effect nearby communities.
The area and jurisdictions included in the planning process must be appropriate to
address the anticipated impacts.
b) Obtaining the inter-jurisdictional cooperation necessary to create and implement the
strategy. Cooperation may require that jurisdictions trade some of their autonomy for the
benefits of coordinating policies. Clearly identifying these benefits can help motivate
jurisdictions to coordinate policies. .
However it is done, using a task force or forum of representatives, public workshops; etc., it is
important that each affected jurisdiction participate in the creation of the growth management
- strategy. They will be partners in implementing and coordinating the management strategy and
should be involved from the start of the process. The managemenf strategy created must be
theirs. The short falls of most growth management plans usually occur as a result of unilateral
actions and a lack of coordination or inconsistencies in the policies of affected jurisdictions.
37
The process of gaining support for and creating the growth management plan should focus on:
a) identifying mutually desired end results
b) the benefits to each jurisdiction, and
c) how they could work together to make those benefits a reality •
The focus should not be on identifying problems.
When defining desired end results, it is critical to take the time to identify and address root
issues and causes and to avoid solutions that only address symptoms. A broad enough approach
should be taken so that related issues can be understood andl addressed simultaneously. Possible
unwanted side effects of existing and proposed policies need to be evaluated and solutions to
these effects integrated into the growth management suategy.
Applied Research
To the degree that facts can be acquired, arguments are macie more carefully and negotiations
are more fruitful. Hard data can both help focus the planning effort and provide.critical
objective evidence necessary to evaluate proposed plans. Data and projections need to be
presented in a format that makes their meaning, implications and interrelationships easily and
quickly understood. A lack of accurate and easily explaineci data and an inability to answer
questions causes the related issues to persist.
The amount of data considered in the decision to use a grovrth management system is a local
phenomena. But, having the facts, even if they only play a small role in.the decision, is
essential to support the plan in case of legal challenges and to prevent immediate defeat of the
concepts.
The burden of gathering and analyzing the required data ma.y be lessened by combining the
resources of various local jurisdictions, utility companies, st:ate and federal agencies. Their
involvement in data base creation and analysis also involves them in the planning team. They
may become a part of a data analysis task force.
BJsing Alternative Growth Management Scenari.os
Evaluating what the community would be like in 20 yeazs ii' different alternative growth
management policies are followed can help the community E.nvision different futures. It can help
solicit the positive involvement of special interest groups and help the community understand the
trade offs inherent in each management alternative. Numerous techniques have been used to
explore the effects of different growth management strategie:s. They range from mapping
resulting development patterns to sophisticated computer modeling.
An example of a planning process that used five different growth management
scenarios and typical criteria used in evaluating al.ternatives are provided on the
following pages.
38
e
~ The 1990 Tu~~kee 1~~adows - Washoe Coungy, Ne~~~~ ~~~~g Pirocess
The planning process modeled evhat the future might be like for fve different urban form
alternatives. These included:
1) ConginuagIlon off Cua~~~ Trends; using the status quo of planning and land use policies
and decision making processes of jurisdictions in ehe effected area.
~n Pr~erving Crit~~~ ~nvironmeng; ARaximizing the preservation of
important vvildlife habitat, open space and agricultural resources.
3) CapflgaIl Da°~~~n Deveflopment9 RRaking the most efficient use of all capital improvements.
Using land capacity analysis and similar studies.
4) Tfleire¢D Gurowth Patteuns9 Identifying various tiers that could be managed with various
policies to achieve the desired end results in each tier. QuaYity off IL°nife, consea-vatioan ~nd environmenta Developing with the least environmental impacts, maximizing use of mass transit, using higher density
development, conserving important habitat and agricultural land, protecting view
corridors and open space.
The population expected in 20 years was projected and distributed based on the various policies
and the key features of each alternative. Results were shown on maps which were reviewed and
commented upon by the public. 'I'his exercise allowed the communities in the region to envision
and evaluate the effects of the various growth management policies helping them build consensus
and make an informed decision on the most desired future. Each alternative was also evaluated
against criteria similar to those on the following page.
Another example is provided by states that have used computer models, typically developed by
state universities, to evaluate the effectiveness of different growth management strategies to
create desired end results. These models analyze build out in terms of trerids -(what would
happen if current policies persisted) and plan -(what would happen with alternative management
strategies). The results were compared to desired future results and analyzed using criteria .
similar to those on the following page.
Vdhile it is very important that accurate projections and analysis be made prior to adopting a
growth management strategy, expensive sophisticated models like those developed for statewide
planning by the universities may not be necessary to determine the appropriateness of alternative
strategies for a smaller community and sunounding area or for a drainage basin area consisting
of a portion of a county and several communities. Various cooperating jurisdictions can
comb,ine there particular expertise in a task force to evaluate the positive and negative impacts of
"trend" and "plan" for the scenarios created by various alternative growth management
svategies. In analyzing these scenarios and their impacts, studying other areas that have
developed with similar growth patterns is often very useful.
The exercise of generating realistic but different scenarios can often have surprising results.
0 Commonly held assumptions were found to have no basis in fact.
o Costs and savings of alternatives were much different than expected.
0 Often common ground on issues and support for common solutions exceeded what was
believed possible once the initial apprehensions were addressed and people were exposed
to alternative solutions.
39
Evaluating and comparing alternatiae strategies: •
The following criteria can be used to evaluate and compare alternative scenarios:
Economics -
• The costs to provide and maintain public facilities a.nd services;
• The ability of the local governments to fund and m;iintain public services and facilities
based on projected revenues and service costs;
• Additional taxes required; .
• Preservation of desirable economic sectors and activities;
• Opportunities to provide added value to products
0 Extent of diversification of the economic base and income levels;
• I.evel of reliance on new growth for sustainable economy
Environanental -
0 Protection of environmentally frail or sensitive areas;
• Maintenance or improvement of wildlife habitat;
• Water and air qualiry;
. • Creation and sustainability of desired ecosystem;
• Impacts on hillsides, flood plains, strearims and wetlands, open space and natural
resources; • Conservation of energy and natural resources
• Acres of rangeland conserved
• Acres of open space
• Diversity of habitat preserved
Infrastructure -
• Required capital investment in infrastructure includi:ng roads, mass transit, water and
- waste water collection and distribution systems, and other utilities.
• Operation and maintenance if infrastructure;
. • Replacement costs of infrastructure;
Quality of life -
0 Effect on the character of the community;
• Maintenance of sense of community;
• Availability and diversity of housing including affordable housing;
• Amount of open space and agricultural land conserved;
• Lifestyle - time spent commutmg, need for / availability of day care and other support
services, time and funds available for cultural resoiirces.
• Basic cost of living;
• Vehicle miles traveled per capita
• Average commuting time to and from work on transit, paths, verses automobile
Social -
• Projected need for social services,
• Likely economic segregation,
• Sense of community created,
• Opportunity/time available for community actives.
Creation of neighborhoods
Inter-governmental -
• Level of inter jurisdictional coordination required for implementation;
• Impact on independent decision making
• Number of jurisdictions required to participate in implementation
• Ease of implementation
40 ,
n
Sefl~~ting ghe gnrefferred managemernt p?an
The final management plan should combine the results of group process and applied research, '
discussion of altematives and defined desired end results. It takes into account community input
and values, data analysis and pertinent information about the physical, social and environmental
conditions created by the alternative strategies. From these, the community selects or pieces
together the desired strategy. The strategy should always be the means to defined ends based on
community values and informed decisions.
The process of identifying a desired future, data analysis related to issues and the potential of
issue resolution can ease some fears of entering into a growth management planning process.
But, as the ~'inal adoption of implementation strategies are approached, the process has typically
become fairly turbulent. Good preparation, accurate data and building support throughout the
planning process is essential.
Vahen all is said and done, it is a political decision whether or not to use a growth management
strategy and to what extent. Different communities and areas require different approaches. They
may be willing to accept different levels of regulation or elected officials may or may not be
willing to give up some independent decision making in the name of achieving inter-jurisdictional
goals. However, it is worth noting that even strong property rights states like VVashington and
Vermont have had success at developing and implementing growth management strategies.
Texas is also considering regional planning.
While there may be disagreement on the ideal future or what is possible, people livircg in states
impacted by growth seem to have reached a consensus that uraplanned urban sprawl is rcot a an
acceptable or affordable erui result.
cC~~on Rssaues
Issues raised, both pro and con about growth management and planning have been so similar
throughout the nation that they could be anticipated. and prepared for.
They include: .
a) Questions of the degree of regulation and degree of protection of environmentally
sensitive land, wildlife habitat, agricultural land and open space;
b) Questions of property rights versus the right of government to regulate the use of land;
c) Pro growth and no growth sentiments often emerge;
d) Fears that controls will drive growth to other areas, drive up housing costs or wreck the
local economy;
e) Questions of who bears the direct and indirect, short and long term costs of growth and
its impacts and to what extent; and how much weight will be placed on long term
community benefits and costs versus short term individual benefits and profits;
f) How will community values be balanced with individual property owner's preferences;
g) Questions of whether current or proposed policies will create a community that is a better
41
place to live for future generations. '
Many communities have policies in place that address the issues raised by the questions listed
above. Some answer them in a piece meal fashion with their decisions to approve or not
approve a development. From the perspective of managing growth, policies addressing these
issues should be reviewed for a
a) comprehensive approach
b) a long term view
c) the likely cumulative effects of the decisions the polic;ies guide, and
d) representation of current public sentiment.
Implementing a Growth Management Strategy
Growth Management strategies are typically implemented bw using tools like those described in
this report in various combinations. They are usually used various combinations and supported
by traditional land use tools. Together they create a comprehensive growth management system
custom designed to met the needs of a particular area. They typically rely on inter-jurisdictional
cooperation to coordinate growth.
The table on following page provides an idea of how variou.s tool might be combined to address
particular issues. The ways these tools can be combined; mcxlified and used is almost unlimited.
42
, o .
Tools are combIlned to impflement growgh management strategies
STRATEGRES > Adopted IPlans, Goals, Objectives arid Policies
1Land Use Regulation Growith Managerrient
TECHNIQUES > Zoning Subdivision Performance Quota Systems Infrastructure Boundary Integrated
Regulations Standards Systems Systems Systems
ISSUES
Type of Land Use (D p
Location / Compatibility 0 0
Development Quality o 0 ~
Environmental Protection o 0 ~
Character • 40 40 p
Quality of Li(e o 0 0 0 p
Public Services O 0 0 0 0 0 0
Government Fiscal Stress o 0 0
Urban Form o o O O
Timing o o ~ ~ ~ •
Rate of Growth o 0 0 O 0
Urban Systems o 0 0 o 0 0
Environmental Degradation o • • • • •
Sustainability ~ • ~ ~ ~ • ~
o Very Applicable to Issue o Related to Issue
43
Some Methods of I)etermining Development L:imits. ~
Land Capability Analysis - Determines the relative ease or difficulty of development for
all parcels within a large defined area. This analysis incluides natural and physical features,
environmental and physical characteristics, existing infrastructure and development costs. The
results are used as input into implementation tools like comprehensive plans and capital
improvements plans to encourage or discourage development in various areas or to predict the
likely growth pattern that would result under a set of paranneters. Land Capability Analysis is
most useful on a large scale and when areas being addresse:d have a diversity of characteristics.
The University of Berkeley has developed a GIS model tha.t does this type of analysis and shows
development patterns when criteria is varied. Land Suitability -(sometimes called "Environmental Systems Analysis" or the "University
of Pennsylvania Technique") This method identifies areas that are deemed not suitable for
building upon for various reasons and therefore should be inade a priority for preservation.
Typically the criteria used for determining the degree of suitability or unsuitability for
development include: Environmentally sensitive areas (important wildlife hahitat, wetlands,
migration routes, etc.) Important visual resources (View sheds, Ridge lines, Community entry
ways, etc.) Geologically hazardous areas (erosive or exparLsive soils, avalanche shoots, rock or
land slide, wildfire danger, flood plain, steep slopes, etc.) Areas of historic, archaeologic or
scientific value; Prime or unique resource areas (develope(i agricultural land, land with unique
geologic features, river corridors, lands well suited to meet recreational needs, important open
space areas).
Each criteria is typically given a rating of importance and the various ratings are totaled ibr each
parcel (This was usually accomplished with a series of over'lay maps but now is more easily
accomplished with computer graphics and GIS systems) With the availability of satellite
photography and computer analysis, data collection and inte;rpretation this method is becoming
more economica1.20
Land suitability analysis has the advantage of identifying an:d preserving whole systems,
(economic and ecological). It can be applied in both commiunity level planning and for
regulating individual developments. As with some other analysis systems used in land use
planning; this system relies upon a certain degree of judgement. Some criteria can he subjective
and reflect community values. For exampie, development o*n steep slopes is certainly possible
from an engineering stand point but the resulting scarification and visual intrusion created may
not be acceptable in one community but may be considered acceptable in another. The relative
importance placed on different aspects such as view shed is also subjective. When communities
use HB 1041 regulations to restrict development in certain areas they are applying this
technique.
20Summit County, C0. has used satellite phntography with this technique to
identify important wildlife habitat ecosystems. Developments which encroach into
these areas may be denied approval. Identifying and managing whole systems i.s a
much more effective conservation technique than reguliiting individual critical az-eas
in a piece meal manner. The State Division of Wildlife has satellite generated
habitat data for many areas in the state.
44
~
fCarryIlng (CapacIlty - 'I'he term carrying capacity has been used and misused to describe a
variety of inethods of determining the limits of population densities and the intensity of land
uses. As originally conceived, carrying capacity is a biological concept that implies the ability
to determine absolute upper limit to the human population density that can be placed in a defined
area of land. This limit is based on the tolerance of natural systems to absorb human impacts
and remain healthy.
The application of carrying capacity as defined above has been difficult to use and questioned as
a primary tool for land use planning for several reasons. Predicting the tolerance of natural
systems to various population densities and different types of development is too imprecise to set
specific densities. There are often too many variables on both the human and the environmental
side of the equation. In addition, the carrying capacity limit in an area Ynay change over time.
Typically when the impacts of human activities reach an environmental carrying capacity limit,
humans modify their activities or use technological solutions to reduce their impacts on that
particular limit allowing population to continue to increase until the next environmental limit is
reached. Also, when stricter environmental limits are adopted, the carrying capacity may have
to be reduced requiring down zoning of undeveloped land or use of technologicai solutions.
While it may not provide the maximum density to plan for, building our communities with
reasonable environmental limits in mind while maximizing the health of the natural environment
is likely to yield better results than ignoring the carrying capacity concept until we bump into
environmental limits and allow them to become a moratorium or lower our standards.
~arrynng Capacigy Applied ~o Infrastructure
The term carrying capacity has a long history of use in application to man made systems like
roadways, water and sewer lines and treatment facilities. These systems have generaliy accepted
methods to determine their service limits. This concept was traditionally used to ensure the
provision of adequate public utilities in areas where growth is e~; nerallv desired and density
limits have been established in comprehensive plans. Carrying capacity analysis of infrastructure
does not address whether or not the uses creating the demand are appropriate.
Carrying capacity analysis can be used effectively in conjunction with a Capital Improvements
Programming to successfully regulate the intensity and timing of growth. The capital
improvements program should place the decision of when capital improvements will be expanded
or capacity increased in an area clearly in the control of the community.
Using the carrying capacity of infrastructure alone to control growth in areas where it is not
desired is often only a temporary deterrent to development. This could have the effect of
making the decision of whether or not an area should be developed one of economics and
engineering rather than appropriate land use planning, community vision and values and
comprehensive analysis. If an area is difficult to serve with utilities, instead of being a deterrent
to development, the difficulty of providing services can act as a catalyst driving the intensity of
development higher to pay for more expensive improvements necessary to overcome the
difficulties of providing services. The resulting project, or the technical solutions to overcome
difficulties in providing services, may far exceed the appropriate intensity of land use in an area.
Not providing urban level sewer and water services to farmland areas has not protected them
from large lot subdivisions with wells and septic systems. Zoning and other methods have
proven to be much more effective than carrying capacity to manage growth.
45
Holding Capacity `
When growth boundaries are used in growth management, holding capacity helps determine the
amount of land area to include within the boundary. Holding capacity is the amount of
development that an area of land can accommodate at various intensities of development. It can
be set for each planned land use and for various intensities of development. By knowing the
holding capacity at the desired intensity(s) of development, the rate of growth and the time
period the boundary will be in effect, the appropriate land ,atea needed to accommodate growth
can be determined and the growth boundary set. Holding c;apacity also helps in planning
appropriate infrastructure and community facilities.
Trends in Plannnng Approaches
Many traditional planning techniques start with the needs of the community and the preferences
of the individual residents and business owners. Then these are constrained by economic,
environmental, physical or other limitations that are addres;sed using various techniques such as
impact mitigation strategies or performance standards. The:se techniques concentrate on
protecting the health, safety and welfare of the residents from hazardous areas and on
minimizing the impacts of growth on critical environmental areas. Examples include regulations
that limit development in geologically hazardous areas, stee:p slopes, critical wildlife habitat and
flood plains.
Other less frequently used planning approaches start with the needs of the local ecosystem.
Rather than just identifying "critical areas" a greater emphasis is placed on the health of the
whole ecologic system. Development is modified in scale ;and location based on sustaining the
environmental systems while meeting the economic and soc:ial needs of the community.
As people react to environmental degradation, reduced qua;lity of life and decline in economic
activity, community values and legislation are slowly moviing away from unlimited modification
of the environment to meet the needs of new growth. Community planning and economic
development are in a transition, reflecting greater concern 15or the environment in their planning
processes. Unfortunately, all to often it takes a reaction to unwanted effects before many
communities act to seriously and effectively manage growth. Concepts like "sustainable
development" which seeks a balance of economic, environrnental and social issues and a longer
term view of the effects of decisions, are beginning to be t3lcen more seriously, (if only a.s
concepts, so far). tVew technology is making needed environmental information more aftordable
and available so communities can make more informed decisions about tfie interrelationship c,f
communities and their ecosystem. Communities are measuring "progress" with indexes which
track quality of life concerns as well as economics. The more well known indexes are those
adopted by Jackson, Florida, Seattle, Washington, and Poirtland, Oregon.
46
D
Append'LX
Otfl~~~ ~~d use ttoo?~ ~d iregulations that are used to support growth
marna~~~~~~ ~tirategIleso
A. Comprehensive Plan
B. Community Character Plan
D. Corridor Plans
E. Transportation Corridor Plan
F. Itiver Corridor Plan •
G. Drainage Corridor Plan
H. Drainage Basin Plan
1. Controlling use of Mining Claims as individual home sites
J. Criteria for project approval
K. Overlay I)istrict
L. ' Character design standards
M. Design Standards N. Itidge line I3evelopment Controls
0. Hillside Density Controls
P. Green Belt
Q. Conservation Easements
R. Conventional Zoning
S. Zoning Districts
T. Special Use Permit
U. Conditional Use Permit
V. Minimum density zoning requirements
W. Exclusive Resource Related Zoning
X. Exclusive agricultural or forestry zoning
Y. Impact Zoning
Z. Performance Zoning ,
AA. Transportation Utility Fees
BB. Senate Bill 35
CC. 1Vlinimum lot size
DD. Exclusive Agricultural Zoning
EE. Access permits
FF. Temporary Use Permit for construction of private roads
GG. Subdivision Regulations
HH. Amortization
II. Obsolete subdivisions
JJ. Sunset Clause on Subdivisions and Zoning
KK. Service District Boundaries
LL. Green Line Limits
MM. Blue Line Limits
RIN. Special Service Districts
00. Strict water supply requirements
pP. Mineral Extraction
QQ. Federalland
47
.
A. Comprehensive Ptan - Adopting a comprehensive plan }ielps ensure that the cammunity is
planned as a whole rather piece meal, development by development. Although Colorado
State Statues do not require communities or counties to adopt comprehensive plans, thPy do
empower them to do so. The statutes indicate that a cornprehensive plan should address
areas of land use, transportation, open space, housing, utilities, public facilities, hazardous
areas. However, communities have also included other elements such as environmental
character,~ economic balance, river and highway corridor guidelines, wildlife conservatiori
areas, overlay districts, and growth management strategies.
The plan should be based on analysis of the physical emrironment, projections of future
trends and needs and citizen input. It could paint a picbure of what the community might
become using maps and illustrations or simply be a listitig of goals and policies.
In some States all zoning must be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. When zoning
is requested that does not conform with the plan, the request must be preceded by a request and public hearing to modify the comprehensive plan. l:n Colorado, State Statues statf; the
plan should be used as a"guideline" for new developme-nt. Communities do approve zoning
that deviates from the comprehensive plan and typically only modify or update their plan
every five to ten years. However, communities that approve developments that are nat in .
general compliance with the adopted comprehensive plan become vulnerable to new
proposals which also do not follow the plan since it can be demonstrate that the
comprehensive plan is not always followed and eventually could be shown to be obsolete.
There is some risk of being sued by those who acted on the basis of the plan if the plan is
not followed by the community.
B. Community Character Plan - typically one element of a comprehensive plan that focuses on
the environmental, architectural and ciesign character of development in different areas of a
community. This plan can be used to help ensure compatibility of new development with
existing development or can guide new development in -an undeveloped area towards a
predetermined character deemed appropriate for that area.
C. Area Plams - Communities may develop plans for areas smaller than the entire commiinity,
for example downtown areas, etc. Area plans can addri-Iss the same elements as the
comprehensive plan but typically go into more detail than a comprehensive plan. Area plans
may include specific improvements, development charac;ter, landscape or street scape plans,
etc. (these details are sometimes included in compreheiisive plans)
D. Cora-idor Plans - Corridor plans typica]]y follow a facility such as a major road or utility.
They may be addressed similar to tiers with specific pol,icies. They are often used to
determine impact fees by defining the area served by the facility and each developments pro
rated share or in the formation of capital improvements districts. .
E. Tramsportation Corridor Plan - A uansit corridor is a defined geographic area served by a
major transpartation facility like a major sueet, light rail or mass transit line. Transportation
corridor plans addresses the transit faciliry and often provides a frame work for the
surrounding land uses and other improvements. For example polices for controlling access
points, (or regulating curb-cuts) and establishing a permit process.
Transportation corridor plans can define the areas which benefit from the transportation
facility and be used in forming Capital Improvement Districts or to determine appropxiate
impact fees on developments which benefit form the trzLnsportation facilities.
48
O
F. fltueer cCorHdor P8an - A corridor along a river defined by vegetation or soil type, or a fixed
distance from the river bank which is managed together as a major linear element in the
communiry and/or as an ecosystem. Since river corridors are more environmentally
sensitive, plans typically go beyond land use, character and development standards and
address resource management, construction practices, storm drainage, erosion control, use of
pesticides and fertilizers, flood plain, wetlands, wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, cattle
grazing, hunting, fishing and other recreational uses, public and private access along and
within the river, etc. e.
G. Drainage Coi°u°fla~oir PIlan - I)esignating and establishing improvement plans for corridors
which will carry drainage from developed or developing areas to retention areas and natural
drainage ways and help control the qualiry of urban run-off. Drainage corridor plans
typically serve additional functions such as open space and trails. They are sometimes used
in conjunction with improvement districts or impact fees to implement drainage and park
improvements.
H. Da-ainage BasnHn Pflan -'Takes a-basin-wide management approach of water resources to
coordinate the efforts of water users, waste treatment operators, drainage districts and
communities. Helps overcome inefficiencies of attempting to address water quality and
quantity issues in a piece meal manner. It can help coordinate and address effects of actions
or inactions of different jurisdictions in the same drainage basin for their mutual benefit.
1e Controuing use off Mnnanng C~aim.s as nndevidual houne sites -Various strategies have been
used in attempts to control the use of mining claims. Examples include: Combining
contiguous parcels into one lot to minimize the number of existing lots (used by Summit,
County and others); Limiting the use of remote parcels to uses related to the resource;
Controlling impacts of development by limiting the size dwellings to small size (600 - 800
sf.) Allowing only one dwelling per lot or establishing minimum lot sizes per dwelling unit;
limiting or prohibiting disruptive activities such as plowing snow and the extension of
utilities; (Pitkin County and Eagle County use regulations addressing this issue).
S. Cuitea-fla for project approvafl - Criteria for approving a project typically range from the,
personal values of local officials themselves (not advised) to precise standards quantified in
point systems or formulas. What ever the methodology, it should match the communities
staffing level and expertise to handle quantitative and qualitative negotiations with
developers.
Communities concerned about quality design should adopt good development standards and
hire well qualified staff who are skilled at design to implement the standards and work with
developers in the review process. The clearer the community is about the quality and type
of development it wants the clearer it will be to determine whether a project is acceptable.
Communities do not have to state specific reasons for denying a project implying automatic
approval of a project if those conditions are met.
Communities need clear, precise criteria that is easy to understand and to explain which can
be used to assure thorough, rational, fair and consistent decisions. Such criteria can be
useful to less experienced staff on a day to day basis and to communicate the community's
intent to developers. This saves a lot of time, frustration and money on both the part of the
community and developers. Small communities which can not afford to hire permanent staff,
or to pay high enough salaries to hire highly qualified and experienced personnel, should
adopt fee schedules which allow them to pass actual review costs onto developers to cover
49
the cost of hiring qualified staff to review their proposals. ,
K. Overlay Districts - A set of development guidelines, re,gulations or a comprehensive plan
element designed to address specific issues rypically within more than one zoning district or
land use category. Overlay districts are used for a variety of purposes including but not
limited to protection of environmentally sensitive areas such as riparian areas, wildlife
habitat, and migration routes or to increase or modify de:velopment standards to accomplish
urban design goals. For example: a conservation overla;y district which establishes policies,
regulations and development guidelines for lands within 200 feet of a river or stream bank.
The guidelines standards or policies of the overlay district supersede any conflicting
regulations or standards in the underlaying zoning or geiieral plan land use designation.
Proposed plans must comply with the requirements of the overlay district where it applies.
Often, overlay districts provide mitigation measures. Ttiese may take the form of
development standards that address the particular issues; or may attempt to reduce the
impacts of the overlay district on the property, for exam.ple, allowing density to be .
transferred from within a building setback established b), the overlay district to other parts of
the site or to another site.
L. Character design staadards - Adoption of specific desi;gn guidelines with the purpose of
ensuring that new development is compatible with existing development or with the vision
deemed appropriate for a particular area. These guideli:nes typically address Architecture,
- Historic character, site planning, landscaping, signage, fencing. or screening, ete.
M. Design Standards -a set of standards which determine the design parameters of a project for
specified uses or within specific geographic areas or zoriing district. Design standards differ
from performance standards in that they specify how a use may be built but do not determine
what use will be allowed. Implementation of sophisticated standards may require establishing
a Architectural Guidelines, and may be administered b!? the planning commission, tn;:
board, a design review board or a historic architectural review board.
, N. Ridgeline Development Controls - Typically ridge line development controls establish a
building setback from designated ridge lines or height l.imits for structures within a set
distance from a Ridgeline to preserve the natural silhouette of the ridgeline, its aesthetics and
character and to preserve the integrity of a view shed.
0. Hillside Density ControLs - Typically used to establish low density uses on slopes exc;eeding
a certain grade. Often these regulations include design standards and/or performance criteria
related to the aesthetics and preservation of the characte:r of the hillside. These might
include limits on and treatment of cut and fill areas for road and building constructior?;
Selection of building materiais and exterior colors which would have the minimum visual
impacts on the view shed.
P. Green Belt - a designated open space area typically linear in nature used as a link or non-
motorized corridor and for recreation or to establish and buffer the limits of a town fi-om
melding with adjacent development or another town, preserving the physical senses of
identity of the town. The City of Boulder has adopted a goal of establishing a green belt
around the future city limits as a conservation area and buffer.
Q. Conservation Easements - Deed restrictions that run with the land conserving it as open
space or for agricultural use. Typically reduces the val.ue of the land and associated taxes.
50
0
Dedication of conservation easements can be use to gain tax deductions. This is particularly
useful to avoid inheritance taxes.
R. Conventnona? Zoning - Regulates the use, size, bulk, height, lot coverage, and setback ,
establishes general limits on operations and minimum development standards. Separates land
uses into districts which contain uses which are believe to be compatible with each other.
Districts Granting or denying zoning requests should be based on a rationai such as the
comprehensive plan and should not be arbitrary or capricious. I.ocal governments are not
required to give conditians under which approval may be gained if a project is denied
thereby granting automatic approval if those conditions are met.
S. Zoning g?isttracts - designated areas in which specified uses are permitted which are assumed
to be compatible with each other during conditions of normal use. Uses Group within a .
zoning district should have a functional or economic synergy between them.
T. SpecaaIl Use Permn4 - Specific uses may be permitted within a zoning district after a
determination of appropriateness of location and meeting other general concerns.
Determination can be somewhat subjective. Typically requires a public hearing.
U. Cmnclitamna? Nse Permat - specific uses are permitted within the zoning district if they meet
certain conditions.
V. Manamaam densflgy zoning requarements - Establishing a minimum number of dwelling units
per acre or minimum square footage per commercial building to encourage higher density or
intensity of development.
W. IExclaesive Itesonnrce ReIlated Zoning - Designating areas for exclusive resource related
activities such as mining or agricultural use.
X. IExc?u.snve agracan9taaa-a? or ffore.sta-y zoning - Designating areas exclusively for agricultural or
forestry uses and uses directly related to these resources. A conditional or special use permit
may be required for uses that are not resource related such as single family homes. Used to
prevent infiltration of non-resource related uses which may be incompatible with normal
agricultural activities.
Y. I[mpact Zoning - an approval criteria by which developments are judged based on their
impacts typically on natural systems and how well they mitigate those impacts. Typically a
non-map-based system using land capability, land suitability, and/or other forms of analysis
to determine protection levels for various resources. How well impacts are addressed or
mitigated determine the land uses permitted rather than a zoning map. Performance
standards are sometimes combined with zoning districts to increase the quality of design, to
determine site density, or allowed uses on a specific site within a range of uses specified in
the zoning district.
Z. l~erfoumance Zoning - An impact zoning system which also has standards relating to impacts
on man made environments as well as the natural environment. Performance zoning
standards are most effective when addressing small scale development. Performance
standards can be combined with traditional zoning standards or used in combination with
impact zoning.
51
AA. Transportation Utility Fees - fees that may be used ito recover operations and maintenance .
costs from existing and new development. This essentially treats transportation as a utility.
Fees do not have to be tied to direct benefits received by using roadways within the local
jurisdiction.
BB. Semate Bill 35 - State legislation requiring the adoption of subdivision regulations t?ut
exempting the regulation of subdivisions which create lots of 35 acres or larger. The
following techniques may discourage the subdivision of land into 35 acre parcels served by
inadequate substandard roads and utilities for single family residential homes.
CC. Minimum lot size - A zoning regulation establishing the minimum size of a lot for
particular uses permitted within a zoning district. For example requiring a minimum lot
size of 80, 120, 160 or more acres for a single family dwelling unit in an agricultural
disaict.
DD. Exclusive Agricultural Zoning - Not designating a siingle family home as a permitted use
by. right, and/or requiring a special use permit or conditional use for any buildings not
directly related to agricultural use can be used to prevent infiltration of incompatible uses
into an agricultural district. For example Sauache Coiinty uses conditional use permits and
public hearing process for approval of non agricultural uses on agricultural lands. Uses are
only allowed under conditions approved with the specific use, basically creating PUD zoning
for each special use.
EE. Access permits - Control of access onto public right-of-ways and the standard of roads that
will be attached to public right-of-ways can be controlled to a certain extent by requiring an
access permit. This policy protects the carrying capacity of county roads by reducing the
number of driveways and turning movements and helps avoid the creation of hazardous
traffic patterns do to poorly planned access.
This policy may limit legal access points to one for each existing parcel when such access is
the only access to a site and places the burden of planining access to newly subdivided
parcels on those creating subdivisions or coming to thf; County for an access permit. This
may be most effective when accompanied by non-access easements adjacent to all caunty
roads which are recorded at the County Court house.
FF. Temporary Use Permit for construction of private i-oads- Designation of Road
Constructiori as a temporary use under the zoning code and requiring a temporary use
permit is one means of convolling the proliferation of roadways to serve 35 acre
subdivisions. Road Gonstruction must meet adopted standards to obtain a use permit to
build the road. CRS 35-72-101 empowers counties to require control of blowing dust and
soil erosion.
GG. Subdivision Regulatioas - criteria, design and development standards for the provision of
capital improvements, public facilities, street and lot l;ayout which must be met befoxe a
legal plat subdividing ownership interest in property c,3n be filed and subdivided parc,els
sold.
HH. Amortization - A method of requiring non-conforming uses to comply with regulat:ions by
determining the value of the use and setting a time period in which that value will be
amortized. Thereafter the use must cease. (CRS 30-28-121) 52
~ U. Obso?ege subdlavisuons - Setting a time period after which the subdivision will become void
unless an extension is granted or development has occuned.
SJo Sunset Cpause on Sub¢UvLsions and Zoning - Setting time limits on all zoning approvals of
one, two, or five years after which if no building permits have been submitted and
construction has not been started the zoning lapses to the prior zoning or to an alternative
use approved at the time of approval of the zoning.
KK, Service Disgract Bonandaeies - the area in which utilities or other services will be provided
sometimes associated with a special district which collects taxes for services provided.
Service district boundaries can be a tool for establishing urban growth boundaries. These
boundaries should be carefully considered. When service district boundaries are not the
same as town or city limits, communities must use other tools to conuol the timing of
development such as tiers, phasing of capital improvements, zoning, etc.
LL. Ga~een g,nBae I[.flannnts - establishing a boundary designating areas as agricultural, rural or open
space and limiting to the extension of utilities and development into those areas essentially
establishing a boundary to urban development.
I~M. Bflue IL'naae ILimnts - establishing the limits of water service areas. Can be used direct where
urban development can occur: ,
NN0 Specga9 Servnce Dign°ucts - districts formed to provide services to areas and help them
develop. Can be used to generate development when and where it is desirable. The
proliferation of special service districts often results in inefficiencies and loss of some
elements of control over development.
00. Sgruct water suppfly reqaairemengs - establishing a 300 year water supply requirement for
new development. This can in some cases limit subdivisions except to those areas where the
community desires growth and extends urban level infrastructure. (El Paso County has
adopted a 300 year water supply requirement)
PP, Minea-al Extractaon - Although local governments can not adopt regulations that prohibit the
extraction of minerals, they can required that extraction be accomplished within the local
regulations. Recently La Platta County adopted standards for controlling the impacts of
drilling of gas wells. Their regulations were upheld in state court. o
Federa? laandl - Local building permit requirements are applicable on federal land except in
application to structures conveying water through the area.
53
a '
` ~graphy
American Planning Association (1986), Regional Planning 'g'oday. 7he Practice of State arid
Regioyal Pdanning. American Plmning Association, 1776 Massachusetts Avenue,
Washigigton, DC 20036
American Planning Association (1986), Techniques for implementing Regional Plans. The
Practfce of 5~~e and Rcgioracal Pdanning. American Planning Association, 1776
Massachusett.s Avenue, Washingt.on, DC 20036
American Planning Association (1986), Managing Regional Planning Organizations. 7he
Practice of State and Regiorad Pdararcing. Americu? Planning Association, 1776
Massachusetts Avenue, Washington, DC 20036
American Planning Association (1990), Creating Our Future• Stevs to a More Livable Region
Technical ItM . American Planning Association, 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, IL
60637
American Planning Association (1991), ReEional Urban Cprowth Goals and Objectives.
American Planning Association, 1313 East 60th Strett, Chicago, II, 60637
Beville, MiYchel J., ee al. (1994), Planning Diserices in South Dakota. An Assessment of
Economic Change and Development. Pdsblac Affairs, Mcay,1984. Governmental Research
Bureau, The LTniversity of South I)akota, Vermillion, SD 57069
Boulder County, Article 21; Planned LTnit Developments. Boulder County Land LTse
I)epartment, PO Boz 471, Boulder, CO 80306
Cage Cod Commission (1989, 1990), Cape Cod Commission Act, Including Chapter 716 of the
Acts of 1989 and Chapter 2 of ehe Acts of 1990. County of Barnstable, 3225 Main
Street, PO Bon 226, Barnstable, MA 02630
Coletti, I..ouis J. (1984), Reshaping County Government's Role. New .lersey Mwticapaditaes,
Apfil 1984.
Conners, Donald b.., Esq. AICP, ct al. (1989), State and Regional Planning: an Emerging
'g'rend. Choate, Hall & Stevvart, Exchange Place, 53 3tate Street, Boston, AA 02109
Fernandez, John Rh[., et al. (edieors) (1993), Growi g Better. Protecting Colorado's Qualitv of_
I.ife in the 1990's and Beyond. A Summary of Presentations made at a one-day
conference, July 16, 1993, organia.ed by the Colorado Chapter of the American Planning
Association, LTniversity of Denver, College of Law.
Freilichy LelYAeYy Carlisle & 3hortlidge (1990), Ancatysis andd Options: ilrban F'orm, Area
Pdaaaraarag, and Regaoraad Service Provision. Freilich, Leitner, Carlisle & Shortlidge, 1000
P1ua West, 4600 Madisan, Kansas City, MO 64112-3012
,
Freilich, Robert H. et al. (1986), Planning and Zoning for Gommunity Land Use Ivlanagement,
College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin - M:adison. ~
Hall, David (1991), Regional Strategies - Groping for Guidance. Town & Country Planning,
May, 1991.
Knox, Jerry (1992), Worldng Together: M[ulti-Community Collaboration in Iowa Communities.
Jerry Knox, Associate Professor of Community and Regional Planning, College of
Design, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
I.eague of Women Voters of West Virginia, Inc. (1972), Cotinty Gobernment in West vrginia.
American Planning Association, 1313 Fast 60th Stree:'t, Chicago, IL 60037
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (1993), Growth Management in the Northern Front Range
Resource 1Vlanual. I.incoln Institute of Land Policy, 113 Brattle Street, Cambridge, MA
02138-3400
Nletropolitan Council of the T~vin Cities Area (1990), .Igtrg2olitan Council Guidelines for
Reviewing I.ocal Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Metropolitan Council of the Twin
Cities Area, Mears Pazk Centre, 230 East Sth Street, St. Paul, NiN 55101 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (1991), A I.egacx, of Ezcellence for the
Washington ReEion, Task Force Revort on Growth ~and Transnortadon. Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments, 777 Idorth Capitol Street, NE, #300, Washington,
DC 20002-4201
Monterey County (1994), Ordinance Number 03747 Agricultural Land Protection, Right to
Farm.
Ochab, Kenneth, AICP (1994), Special Area Management Plan in the New Jersey Meadowlands.
Envirorunent & Development, lanuary, 1994. Ame:rican Planning Association, 1776
Massachusetts Avenue, Washington, DC 20036
Porter, Douglas R. (editor) (1986), Growth 1Vlanagement: KExuin og n Target? ULI-the Urban
Land Institute, 1090 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005
Simonds, John O. (1978), Earthscape. a Yvianual of Environmental Planning and Design. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc., 115 Fifth Avenue;, New York, NY 10003
State of Georgia (1992), The ABCs of RIRs. Georgia Plauzer, January, 1992. Newslettex of
Georgia Planning Association,,a Chapter of the Ame:rican Planning Association.
The Global Cities Project (1993), Building Sustainable Com;munities. an Environmental Guide
for I.ocal Government, Land Use: Stewardship and the Planning Process. The Glc?bal
Cities Project, 2962 Fillmore Street, San Francisco, CA 94123
The Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute (1994), Third Annuad Land Use Conference Materials,
March 10-11, 1994. College of Law, University of :Denver.
Williams, Kristine M., AICP (1991), Managing Developments of Regional Impact. Planning &
Zoning News, October, 1991.
.
/
~ A Itr
4 yA
f ~1
y~~.~~
4~J'
Y
`~sh~'.&
r:.
v S + q~ '1 s` t q3¢.
t S F
~ e ~~c-~~ > ~ *p s V ~ ~V~,~~.•.. 1
M~
• ~..z T~4 k~ ' t~° ~Rak k"w
µ s
. .
)a
. ~ . , ~
d~
! r:dl ~ u~ - „
F Oft
Um nETWEEN RUNS
Nancy Davis, at left above, hos4 04 4he Race to a•'
Erase iwS, tries to pick up some newr dance ~ °
moves from rapper Hammer at a VVestern par- i~ '~j •
ty fund-raiser Friday night. Model Yasmeen
Ghauri, at right, got behind the camera 4o pho-
tograph friends at 4he base of Golden Peak in
, Vail yesterday. STORVo 3C
~ The Denver Post / Karl Gehring
r.~ . . . .
r • .
. ' . r...+....,......mnwww>v'.1.b{G~ar.~'Y-h'Mw-.iaw'.•u~... . ' c p 0 p cti ~O a~i s.~. ~ O~p~ c~. • p~ .
. L N N y ~ .a G. y 'q cC
~
Ci C y G~i y'~ ,0 V y G~ c. ^G X~ T
bN~
V ~ L- o y,~j
m U o. 'u o~ c YC, ~ -c
~
a) ca E cw y Yu ? c. vi q x ~
C ~ cv 1-1 ~ ~ o q Rs 'z ti ".c ~n - • b ,o
o um i a = 3 ? ~ 'D C.) c, ~ C.
~i,
.'T'. ca C ~ 07 ~
ca c~a .c ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ N ~ ~ ~
oo 4n~' w' x 27
ozV Y c v[~~ aocv -a~° c v~
O V „ _5 ~ fn ~C
o ~ a cc" 3 c°a ~ coC7~° ~ y > ~ ~ .
H~ lII y cd c.
a ,3, ~ v! 47 at N N o' cc a> U a~'i av~i ~E ~1" O Cl ,0 3 (
Q o ~ y , o
O~-vi Ei
Q) wyY p 7~Da N~--~,an[
"rn`°`dcnou~z~°
w c~t ro~.~ cC 3~
C. C. Vl ' ? O~-' ow-~ ~ G t~.. O ~ d N N' 0-ti4/ UcoD q,
~ ow ~ o a o ~n ~>o,' A m o " m `a ~3a ~ ~
~ v, v, v, b ~ ti c~ d v, ~a P4 ~o a, a, : x~•.. ~
~ a;C7~°~ c~a~y=~-0 o,o bfs'F~ ~v~ ~C>,f~c~
~ cC ~ A w ~ vF~i c3 ~ n'~ ~C+'' a O G O~ r G V~~ w' b
~
f ~ ~ ~Y V,y ,~Qf~'~,b ~ N d~ ~~iU ti ~
C w 3~'t7
~'i ~ = Q . 0 Q) ~/1 0 V u V y W [/1 y ~ {'.r ~ ~ M cz
N ~ lt~ o o ca y ca Q ~ N c°'. '3 Z ^ ~ - y c ~ 05 ~ v,
T
y ~ c. z f~ m a), a' u °
W (3)
co ~ > c .n a ia ° a o . y ~ 0 ca< cy.. tuo p' ~ro ° 'ca ~ (3)
~ P~a m d a~~'~v y ao w ~ caE• o rn ? anv~ q oGq o> v)V,c. y
on' ~F., °r.. ~ tin yy~ ~
c° u ° L
~ .o u y -ca ~ N ~
n -
c~w ~ Q `l
~ C° • o~ co
LL. c ~ ~
c y ~ o~,.~y. 'd g° o°o`" ~ o~
i. ~a° a°b•`" :L~v, c.~' ~,c,G~ o~ p~ y oCa"a U o F
co o p, ~s ,°'q an V c`t.~ ca = c~a vi
E. v, o
~ 'c,~--~~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cv ~ o F y ~G+
a~ ~ o r o ~ A d b
p m
x... ti. _U., ew ~e
. > ca
a au S P
~ • _ : • _ '
f~i . . . . , ' . : .
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Mnnutes of the Itegular Meeting
of the
Board of Directoa-s
VAgIL VA]LILIEY CON~OLIDATED VVATE$8 DISTRgCT
Decerriber 22, Il9941
The Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District, Eagle County,
Colorado, was held December 22, 1994, at 2:00 p.m., in the John V. Amato Room of the Upper Eagle Valley
Consolidated Sanitation District administrative offices. 846 Forest Road, Vail, Colorado, in accordance with the
applicable statutes of the State of Colorado.
ATTENDAN~E The following Directors were present and acting:
Byron Brown
Patrick Dauphinais
T. Charles Ogilby
Frederick P. Sackbauer IV
Paul Testwuide
Also in attendance were:
Leslie Allen, Adminis[ration Manaeer, Upper Eagle Valley
Consolidated Sanitation District
Becky Bultemeier, Finance Manager, Upper Eagle Valley
Consolidated Sanitation District
Lanny Car.lson, Interim Water Operations Manager, Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated
Sanitation District
Dan Cepeda, Photoerapher, Vail Daily
James P. Collins, Esq., Legal Counsel for the District
Dennis Gelvin, General Manager, Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District
Gayle Grider, Project Manager, Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District
RECOItD OF PROCEEDINGS
Vail Vallev Consolida[ed Wacer Districc
Minutes of December 22, 1994
Page 2
Roger Hanman, The Hartman Company
Tom Huston, Operations Manager, Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District
Gail Lucas, Water Operations Manager, Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation
District
Jeff Roth, Physica] Access to Wilderness, ( P.A. W.)
Bob Weaver, Projec[ Manager, Hydrosphere Itesource Consultants
Emily Woodruff, Adminis[rative Secretary, Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation
District
Diane Yates, Senior Landscape Architect, DeLeuw-Cather and Company
DISCLOSURES The Board noted it had received more than seventy-two.hours prior
OF POTENTIAL to the meeting certain disclosures of potential Conflicts of Interest
CONFLICTS OF Statements for the following Directors :indicating the following conflicts:
INTEREST Paul Testwuide is a Vice President of Vail Associates, Inc., which has
significan[ land ownership and busines;s interests within the District.
Frederick P. Sackbauer IV is an employee of Vail Associates, Inc., which
has sienificanc land ownership and business interests within the District.
Byron Brown is a Broker employed by Slifer, Smith, and Frampton/ Vail
Associa[es Real Estate, which has significant business interests within the
District.
APPROVAL The Board considered the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
OF MINLITES November 22, 1994.The Directors citeci the following corrections:
On page 7, under the headine entitled "Meeting with the Town of Vail Staft", the
reference ro the date for the meeting should be changed from November 27, 1994 to
November 30, 1994."
On page 9, under the headine entitled "Director Reports," [here were two rypographical
errors.
RESOLVED the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
November 22, 1994 be and herelby are approved as amended.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Vail Valley Consolida[ed Water Districc
Minutes of December 22, 1994
Page 3
The Board then considered the Minutes of the Special Meeting of
November 30, 1994. Following discussion and upon motion
duly made and seconded, it was unanimously
113~~OLVED the Minutes of the Special Meeting of November 30,
1994 be and hereby are approved.
R]EP~RT BY Ivlr. Collins reported on the status of legal matters pending.
LEGA1[, ~OUNSElL
Gypsum Airport Contract Changes - Mr. CoIIins stated there was no
need to change annexation portions of the Intergovernmental Agreement
with the Town of Gypsum.
Mr: Gelvin reported he had received a]etter from the Town of Gypsum
claiming the District failed to inform a customer, who paid an airport tap
fee, he has obligations to notify the Town of Gypsum. He added it would
be a positive effort to improve District notification procedures.
The Board concurred to invite the members of the Gypsum Town Council
to a luncheon meeting in February. Staff was directed to make
arrangements for the meeting.
Explanation of Term ]Limits ]Law - Mr. Collins interpreted Amendment
17 to the Board, explaining Directors may only serve two consecutive
terms in office with a four year break between consecutive terms after the
date the Amendment became official.
Director Testwuide entered the meeting at 2:30 p.m..
OPeratflons Agreeaanent - Mr. Collins presented the Operations Agreements
between Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District and Vail
Valley Consolidated Water District, copies of which are attached hereto as
lEachYbat A, and incorporated herein by this reference, stressing the changes ,
requested by the District had been included, and the term of the Agreement
would be six months.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Vail Valley Consolida[ed Wa[er District
Minutes of December 22. 1994
Page 4
Following discussion and upon motiori duly made and seconded, it was
unanimously
RESOLVED the Operations Agreement between Vail Valley
Consolidated Water District and Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated
Sanitation District be and hereb:y is approved.
EXECUTIVE The Directors concurred to enter into Executive Session to discuss Eagle
SESSION Park Reservoir. Following discussion„ and upon motion duly made ,and
seconded, it was unanimously
RESOLVED to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of
discussing the Eagle Park Reservoir, and negotiations pertain.ing
thereto.
The Board stayed in Executive Session approximately 15 minutes.
FINANCIAL Ms. Bultemeier presented the Financial Report and Proposed
REPORT Disbursements, including a list of hand checks, copies of which are
attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by this reference.
Followin(y discussion and upon motion duly made and seconded, it was
unanimously
RESOLVED that the Financial :Eteport and Proposed
Disbursements, including hand checks, be and hereby are approved.
1995 BUDGET Ms. Bultemeier summarized the changes requested by the Directors at the
October Public Meeting for the purpose of reviewing the draft Budget for
1995. A copy of the amended budget is attached hereto as Exhibit C, and
incorporated herein by this reference. She reminded the Board it vuas
critical to adopt a budget and certify rnill levies. She then distributed
copies of the Schedule of Assessed Valuation Mill Levy and Property Ta:Kes
Assessment for the 1995 Budget, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit D, and incorporated herein by this reference.
RIE~ORD OF PR~~~EDINGS
Vail Vallev Consolidated Water District
Minu[es of December 22, 1994
Page 5
BLACK ILAKES Chairman Sackbauer introduced Mr. Roth, representing "P.A.W." (Physical
Fg3HING PgER Access to Wilderness). Mr. Roth presented a check in the amount of
$4,500, P.A.W.'s contribution to an effort shared by Vail Valle.y
. Consolidated Water District, Vail Associates, the US Forest Service, and
P.A.W. to promote wilderness access for physically challenged people.
Chairman Sackbauer accepted the contribution on behalf of the Board and
provided Mr. Roth with copies of recent press releases regarding the
donation, which had been arranged by Peter Webb Public Relations on
behalf of the District, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit E, and
incorporated herein by this reference. A photographer from the local press
was present to record the event. A copy of the photograph which appeared
in the paper is attached hereto as Exhibit lF, and incorporated herein by this
reference.
~~~RATIONS Ms.. Grider reported on the current status of Construction Projects and
AND Capital Projects. She began her report by reviewing recent conespondence
MA][NTENANC1E from Mr. Weaver, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit G, and
RElPOit7['S incorporated herein by this reference, and introducing Mr. Weaver and
Ms. Yates to the Board.
B9ack lLakes Wetlands Mitigation - Mr. Weaver, representing
Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, presented an historical perspective of
the Black Lakes Wetlands Mitigation project. He reported the work
completed to date has achieved 70% - 80% of the District's mitigation
obligation, but the Army Corps of Engineers had identified some
deficiencies which should be addressed within the next year. He estimated
the overall cost of completing the work would be $35,000. Chairman Sackbauer proposed scheduling a meeting with the Town of Vail
to discuss the proposed irrigation system along with other capital projects.
Mr. Weaver was instructed to research the resolution that approved
Wetlands Mitigation actiyities at Katsos Ranch to determine if there is
reference to the proposed irrigation system, befoie meeting with the Town
of Vail. The Board also instructed Mr. Weaver to negotiate with AWC
regarding credit before contracting with them again to correct the
deficiencies identified by the Army Corps of Engineers.
RECORD OF I'ROCEEDINGS
Vail Vallev Consolidated Water Dis[rict
Minutes of December 22, 1994
Page 6
Mr. Weaver proposed the following sequence to proceed with the project:
(1) Response to Army Corps of Engineers, (2) Work with Town of Vail.on
design concept, (3) Complete survey vvork, (4) Preparation for Surrvner
implementation.
The Board expressed an interest in bein.g involved in discussions with the
Town of Vail.
1994 Baseline Data for Black Lakes ltelease - Mr. Carlson reported he
is looking for flow data regarding how r.nuch water has been released since
December 10, 1993. The Directors asked Mr. Carlson to chart the data
and provide a report at the January, 1995 meeting.
CAPITAL PROJECTS REPORTS
Dowd Junction Interconnect - Ms. Grider presented the Alpine
Engineering "Dowd Junction Interconnect Project Summary", a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit H, and incorporated herein by this
reference. The summary included t:he negotiated contract price of
$1,459,657.00 for the installation of the potable water line through Dowd
Junction, the intent of which was to hydraulically connect the Vail Valley
to "Down-Valley" communifies. The project was completed at a savings of
$58,336.07, or a total contract payment of $1,401,320.93.
Director Testwuide commended staff for superlative work on the project,
expressing special thanks to Ms. Grider and to Mr. Carlson.
Gore Valley Treatment Plant Retrofit - Ms Grider then presenteci a
Deductive Change Order for the Gore Valley Treatment Plant Retro;Fit,
Change Order #4, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit I, a.nd
incorporated herein by this reference. She asked the Board to approve and
sign the Change Order at the meeting. Following discussion, and upon
motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously
RESOLVED the Gore Valley 'I'reatment Plant Retrofit Change
Order #4, in the amount of $1,631.00 be and hereby is approved.
The Directors executed the Change Ordf;r at the meeting.
RIE~~RD OF PROCEEDdNGS
Vail Vallev Consolidated Water Dis[rict
Minutes of December 22, 1994
Page 7
Mr. Carlson reported the system is working well, and will be back on line
January 1, 1995. He added it is unnecessary to run the system full time at
present, and cheaper to pump water from wells, which should amount to
approximately $1,500 in savings to the District. He reported all pumps are
in line and ready for testing and sampling with polymers.
Meter lPa-ncing - Staff provided the Meter Price Comparison, a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibat J, and incorporated herein by this
reference. The Board concluded District prices are reasonable, and would
be a service to the public to carry the meters for sale.
We19 R-2 - Ms. Grider asked the Board to ratify Well R-2 Change Order
No_ 2, for additional well development time at the request of the Engineer
(10.77 hours at $150.00 per hour). A copy of the Change Order is attached
hereto as Eachibit K, and incorporated herein by this reference. Following
discussion, and upon motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously
lE~~OLVED the ratification of the Shelton Drilling Well R2
Change Order No. 2, in an amount not to exceed $1,615.00, in
addition to the existing contract be and hereby is approved.
Gore Creek Demolitioan Estimates - Director Dauphinais asked the Board
to postpone the consideration of bids from Continental West and B& B
Construction for demolition until the January meeting.
Capeta? lProject.s Pflanning wath the Towei of Vail - Mr. Gelvin presented
correspondence received from Fire Chief Duran and Fire Marshal McGee,
of the Vail Fire Department, in response to the November 30, 1994,
Capital Projects Planning Meeting, copies of which are attached hereto as
Exnibat lL, and incorporated herein by this reference. The Fire Department
prioritized future District Capital Projects as follows:
#1) Gore Valley Water. Treatment Plant
li2) Tanks 2&3 Restoration (Merrick Item #3)
#3) Cortina Lane (Merrick Item #8)
f#4) Gore Valley Tank Land Acquisition, Design, & Construction
(Merrick Item #4)
#5) Well Improvements (Merrick Item #3
#6) Merrick Items #{7, 8, 9
#7) Bald Mountain Road Check Valve (Merrick Item #6)
#S) Meadow Drive Water Main Line Improvements (Merrick Item fi5)
RECORD OF PROCEE]E?INGS
Vail Vallev Consolidated Water District
Minuies of December 22, 1994
Page 8
The Directors tabled further discussion until the January meeting.
Hartman Contract - The Directors :referred to the Roger Hartman
Contract Administration for 1995,, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit M, and incorporated herein by this reference. Following
discussion, and upon motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED the Roger Hartman Contract Administration for 1995
in the amount not to exceed $15, 400 be and hereby is approvecl.
The Directors executed the contract at ttie meeting.
IIPPER EA T,F, RF,GinNAL WATElt AUTHORITY ISSUES
Hydraulic Analysis - Ms. Grider provided an update on the Hydrau:lic
Analysis, including the need for a watel• tank and plant expansion.
Odd/Even Watering Days Chairmart Sackbauer asked the Board to
consider deferring decisions regarding odd/even watering days schedules
for 1995 to the Upper Eagle Regional W'ater Authority Board.
Revised Interconnect Agreement - Ms. Grider reported the Interconnect
Operating Policies Agreement had been re;vised to include District changes,
and had been signed by the Upper Eagle ]EZegional Water Authority Board.
A copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit N, and incorporated
herein by this reference. The Directors executed the document at the
meeting.
Mr. Carlson reported the pump is in and water in West Vail is coming fram
down-valley, using only one pump.
Water Comparisons - Mr. Gelvin presented charts demonstrating the
District experienced the same increase iii demand for water as the Upper
Eagle Regional Water Authority.
DIRECTOR Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing - Director Sackbauer stated the sale of the REPORTS lot was a top priority for the District.
~
ll! 1G `1.. O1L6 1LY OF 1C RO'l. JLU lIi Dll NGS '
Vail Vallev Consolidated Water Dis[rict
Minutes of December 22. 1994
Page 9
Ivis. Allen reported Mr. Jones, from Enpro Consultants, would work with
Director Dauphinais and 1VIr. Carlson to perform the Phase IV
Environmental Audit.
Director Dauphinais presented a letter from Holy Cross Electric, a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit 0, and incorporated herein by this reference, regarding overhead primary electric feeder lines for Vail
Village, Filing 8 and the area it serves. He then asked the Board to
provide additional funds for the environmental audit of both sites.
Following discussion, and upon motion duly made and seconded, it was
unanimously
R]ESOILVED the additional allotment of funds not to exceed $1,000
for an environmental assessment of both sites be and hereby is
approved.
]H[iring of Water Operations Managea- - 1VIr. Gelvin introduced IVIr. Gail
Lucas, the new Water Operations Ivlanager for the Upper Eagle Valley
Consolidated Sanitation District, to the Board.
Coraaenunity Relations - The Board reviewed the Peter Webb Public
Relations contract for services to be shared by the Upper Eagle Valley
Consolidated Sanitation District, the Upper Eagle Regional Water
Authoriry, and the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District in 1995, a copy
of which is attached hereto as ]Exhgbit P, and incorporated herein by this
reference. Following discussion, and upon motion duly made and seconded,
it was unanimously
R]ESOILVED the contract to engage Peter Webb Public Relations
for an annual fee in an amount not to exceed $12,000 for 1995 be
and hereby is approved.
Chairman Sackbauer executed the contract on behalf of the Board.
The Board instructed Staff to arrange a joint meeting with Peter Webb
Public Relations and all members of the Consortium sharing their services
in 1995 prior to the January Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Vail Valley Consolidated Water District
Minu[es of December 22, 1994
Page 10
Eagle River Assembly - Director Ogilby reported there was a great deal
of interest in the Williamsen document: presented to the Assembly. He
asked the Board to authorize the Assernbly to use the data in the above
mentioned report. Following discussion, and upon motion duly made and
seconded, it was unanimously
RESOLVEI) the disbursement of the Tom Willimasen document
for the use of the Eagle River Assembly be and hereby is approved.
Appointment of Representative to the Colorado River Water
Conservation District - Director Ogilby reported he has written to the
Colorado River Water Conservation I)istrict, introducing hirriself as a
candidate and attempting to address concern expressed by Jack Lewis that
Director Ogilby does not reside in Eagle County, and may, therefore, be
ineligible to serve on the committee.. He reported there are seven
candidates for the seat and Eagle Couiity. Commissioners will make the
appointment.
1995 The Directors considered the proposed 1995 Meeting Schedule, a copy of
MEETING which is attached hereto as Exhibit Q, -and incorporated herein by this
SCHEDULE reference. Following discussion, and upon motion duly made and seconded,
it was unanimously
RESOLVED the 1995 Meeting Schedule be and hereby is
approved.
NOVEMBER Mr. Gelvin summarized the November N'Vater Production Analysis Report,
WATER a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1Z, and incorporated
PRODUCTION herein by this reference.
TAP FEE The Board reviewed the September Tap Fee Schedule, a copy of which is
SCHEDLJI.E attached hereto as Exhibit S, and incorporated herein by this reference.
0
d
. 1L6 E. CORL.Y OJC` PA4 OC1G EDll N`1II S
Vail Valley Consolidated Water Discrict
Minutcs ot December 22, 1994 Page 11
AD.~OURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting
adjourned at 6:06 p.m..
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary to the Meeting
:YlI!!'l.l dES AJC 1C RO9' NiDy 1L` OIRlo'YAL `LALLy
t'L1VD 1VOllll'1.-JL' O%` LVHEd'illllNG YQ'AHV'1C.1LY:
Byron Brown
Patrick Dauphinais
T. Charles Ogilby
Frederick P. Sackbauer IV
Paul Testwuide
. }
V
~
I~I': COIZD 011' I'IZOCI';I';I)INCS
MIANTES OF THE REGULAR AREETING
OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
UPPER EAGLE VALLEY CONSOLIDATED SANITATIOAT DISTRICT
December 21, 1994
A Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Upper Eagle Valley
Consolidated Sanitation District, Eagle County, Colorado, was held Wednesday,
December 21, 1994, at 1:00 p.m., in the John V. Amato Room of the Upper Eagle
Valley Consolidated Sanitation District administrative offices, located at 846
Forest Road, in Vail, Colorado, in accordance with the applicable statutes of
the State of Colorado.
ATTEATDANCE The following Directors were present and acting:
Andrew Armstrong
Jerry Bender
Walter Kirch, Chairman
, Kent Rose
The following Director was absent:
Darell Wegert, whose absence was excused
P,lso in attendance were:
Leslie Allen, Administration Manager, Upper Eagle Valley
Consolidated Sanitation District
Erwin Bachrach, Resident of the District
Becky Bultemeier, Finance Manager, Upper Eagle
Valley Consolidated Sanitation District
James P. Collins, Esq., Counsel for the District
admin\b-uev-94\ev94-12r.min
R I1; C 0 Iz 1) 0 11' I' Iz 0 C I,; I,: I) I N G S
Dennis Gelvin, General Manager, Upper Eagle Valley
Consolidated Sanication District
• Gayle Grider, Project Engineer, Upper Eagle Valley
Consolidated Sanitation District
Fred Haslee, Regulations Administrator, Upper Eagle Valley
Consolidated Sanitation District
Tom Huston, Operations Manager, Upper Eagle
Valley Consolidated Sanitation District
Gail Lucas, water Operations Manager, Upper Eagle
Valley Consolidated Sanitation District
- Mike Poeckes, wastewater Operations Manager, Upper
Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District
Bruce Petrik, Project Manager, Montgomery Watson
Consulting Engineers
Jim Ris, Project Engineer, Montgomery Watson
Consulting Engineers
Bobbi Salzman, Resident of the District
William L. Williams, Eagle 2 Developers
Emily Woodruff, Administrative Secretary, Upper Eagle Valley
Consolidated Sanitation District
POTENTIAL The Board noted it had received more than 72 hours
CONFLICT prior to the meeting certa:Ln disclosure of
OF INTEREST potential conflict of interest statements for the
STATEMENTS following Directors indicat=ing the following
conflicts:
Andrew W. Armstrong is a certifi.ed public accountant with
clientele within the District arid Eagle County, Colorado.
The District may engage in busiriess relationships with sc>me
of his clientele. Gerald W. BerLder is employed by Gamba and
Associates, which has significarit business interests within
admin\b-uev-94\ev94-12r.min
n -
~
RC;CORI) 01,' I'I~OCI,,L: I)INCS
Upper Eagle Va11ey Consolidated Sanitation District
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
December 21, 1994
Page 3
the District. The District and/or its managed Districts may
have contracts or may contract with Gamba and Associates for
engineering services. Darell wegert is employed by Scully's
Art, Office and Drafting Supplies. The District has and mav
continue to purchase office supplies from that company. Kent
Rose is employed by Vail Associates Real Estate Group as the
Director of Construction. Vail Associates has significant
land ownership and business interests within the District.
APPROVAL The Board considered the Minutes of the Regular
OF Meeting.of November 21, 1994. The Directors
MINUTES requested the following additions and/or changes:
On page 4, regarding the Coet Recovery issue, the
vote was 2 in favor, and 3 opposed. Directors
Bender, Wegert, and Rose opposed.
Following discussion and upon motion duly made and
seconded, it was unanimously
RESOLVED the Minutes of the Regular Meeting
of November 21, 1994, be and hereby are
approved as amended.
BACHRP.CH/ Chairman Kirch introduced Mr. Bachrach and Ms.
SALZMP,AT Salzman, and referred to documents reviewing the
APPEAL history of the case, which are attached hereto as
Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this
, reference. Mr. Bachrach described a brief history
of the complications related to the location of
the sewer line for Lot 38, Block 3, Filing 4,
Berry Creek Subdivision. Mr. Bachrach asked the
District to help with costs incurred locating the
sewer line on his property, which totaled $3,500.
He contended the District failed to accurately
admin\b-uev-94\ev94-12r.min
a
R I!: C 0 R 1) 0 1' P 1? 01 1 1) 1 N G S
Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitatic:: Discrict
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
December 21, 1994
?age 4
locate the sewer line on his property, resulting
in additional personal expense and inconvenience.
Mr. Gelvin reviewed recent hearing findings, which
determined District employESes had performed
properly, utilizing all information available.
Following discussion, and lzpon motion duly made
and seconded, it was
RESOLVED the Bachrach/Salzman request for
damages in the amount of $3,500 for sewer
line location costs iricurred for Lot 38,
Block 3, Filing 4, Bex•ry Creek Subdivision be
and hereby is denied.
The motion carried with 3.votes in favor and 1
vote in opposition. Director Armstrong abstained
from the vote.
Chairman Kirch explained the District relies on
inf.ormation provided by developers, and suggested
Mr. Bachrach's and Ms. Salzman's claim might be
with the developer.
ATAD Mr. Petrik and Mr. Ris, rep:resenting Montgomery
PROJECT Watson, presented "Wastewatf=_r Treatment Plant
REPORT Improvements, Volume 2: Draivings", a copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhib:it B, and incorporated
herein by this reference. 'Che document contains
mechanical drawings of the ATAD process and an
overview of the ATAD structtire. Messrs. Petrik
~ and Ris described the object:ives were to reduce
construction costs without sacrificing the
facility. They stressed the> ATAD design is a
admin\b-uev-94\ev94-12r.min
a
d
izEJcoR i) oP 11 izocr,r_;i) iNcs
Upper Eaale Valley Consolidated Sanitation District
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
December 21, 1994
Page 5
collaborative effort between Montgomery Watson and
, District Staff, adding the current design provides
operators with the.flexibility to determine how to
operate the system, rather than having the system
dictate operational procedure.
Discussion related to the design of the ATAD tanks
followed. Mr. williams, former Upper Eagle
Regional Water Authority Director, who studied the
FUCHS system in Germany, presented Montgomery
Watson representatives with several questions
related to odor control and round tanks versus
rectangular tank designs. Messrs. Ris and Petrik
responded round tanks are more efficient, when
designing an entirely new system, but this project
design was based on utilizing existing rectangular
tanks. They emphasized greater circulation was
expected to eliminate build-up of debris in tank
corners, and odor problems were not anticipated.
Mr. Williams asked Montgomery Watson to explain
the choice of this ATAD design over the FUCHS
system. Messrs. Ris and Petrik explained this
design provides a system only slightly different
than FUCHS to accommodate District needs for
greater flexibility.
Mr. Peockes echoed his preference for the
flexibility provided by this ATAD design, and
added the odor scrubbers included in the design,
which are part of all other similar systems
currently in use, were expected to eliminate any
potential odor problems.
Mr. Ris then presented the "Preliminary
admin\b-uev-94\ev94-12r.min '
.
RE COR1) Or I'R OC[;[;UINCS
Uoper Eaale Valley Consolidated Sanitation District Minutes of the Regular Meeting
December 21, 1994
Page 6
Construction Cost Estimate'", a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit C, and incorporated
herein by this reference.
WASTEWATER Mr. Poeckes presented the "Wastewater Operation.s
OPERATIONS Report", a copy of which is attached hereto as
REPORT Exhibit D, and incorporated herein by this
reference. He added staff is up to full strength,
and several employees are currently training.
LEGAL Mr. Collins reported on the status of legal
REPORT matters pending.
Cost Recovery Issues - Mr. Collins recommended
approval of Riverwalk, Liori's Ridge Filing No. _3,
and Edwards Plaza Cost Recc>very. Following
discussion, and upon motiori duly made and
seconded, it was unanimousl.y
RESOLVED the Eagle II Developers Riverwalk
project cost recovery in the amount of
$28,722.75 be and here:by is approved; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, t,he Dauphinais-Mosley
Construction, Inc. Lion's Ridge Filing No. 3
pre-construction Line Extension and Cost
Recovery Agreement be and hereby is approved;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Fritz Schmidt
Edwards Plaza Cost Recovery in the amount of
$23,242.76 be and hereby is approved.
admin\b-uev-94\ev94-12r.min
n
6
R11: C 0 R 1) 011' I'R OCT,I,,DINCS
Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District
Minutes of the Regular Meetina December 21, 1994
Page 7
EXECUTIVE Mr. Collins then requested the Board enter an
SESSIOAT Executive Session to further discuss Cost Recovery
issues. Following discussion, and upon motion
duly made and seconded, it was unanimously
RESOLVED to enter Executive Session to discuss Cost Recovery issues at 3:30 p.m..
The Board returned frocri Executive Session at
3:50 p.m.. The Directors agreed to notify individual current
Cost Recovery contracts, including official
statements clarifying District cost recovery
policies.
Eagle-Vail Aietropolitan District Request for
Reimbursement- Lots 70 & 71 - Mr. Collins reviewed
the Eagle-Vail Request for reimbursement of
stubout fees pursuant to a"Joint Resolution and
Notice of Encumbrance," which were not collected
on Lot 70 &.71 water stubouts within Eagle Vail,
and referred to correspondence sent to Mr. Gelvin,
copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit E,
and incorporated herein by this reference. Eagle-
Vail would like the District to pay $2,709.62,
which was not collected. According to Mr.
Collins, many years ago, the District staff missed
the opportunity to collect the stubout fees when
tap fees were paid.
Following discussion, and upon motion duly made
admin\b-uev-94\ev94-12r.min
1
,
IZl;C0R U 0F I'IZOCI?I-;l)INCS
Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanication District
Minutes or the Regular Meeting
December 21, 1994
Paae 8
and seconded, it was
RESOLVED the offer of $1,354.81, half of tYie
amount requested by Ezigle-Vail Metropolitari District, be and hereby is approved, with t:he
inclusion of a statement which absolves the
District from any future liability in this
matter. The motion passed with 4 votes in favor and 1 vote
opposed. Chairman Kirch opposed the motion.
Gerry Flynn Request for Rei.mbursement - Mr. Flyr.in
requested $2,012.35 in reimbursement for extra
costs incurred as a result of what he believes was
misdirection from District Staff. His request has
been denied at the prelimin.ary staff level.
Chairman Kirch emphasized the District was not
responsible: The Board con.curred. Following
discussion, and upon motion duly made and
seconded, it was unanimously.
RESOLVED the reimbursement for the cost of
Pr. Flynn's second water system be and hereby
is denied.
Lone Pine Trailer Court Contract Buyout - Mr.
Collins reported he has been contacted by the
owner's attorney, and expects and offer to be
forthcoming.
Water Service to 2039 Chamo:nix Lane, Unit 1- Mr.
Gelvin presented a memo to the Board regarding a
claim for $5,000 for reimbursement overpayments
for water and sewer service, plus interest, from
admin\b-uev-94\ev94-12'r.min
~
a
izrcoizi) or P R 0 c11,1-11' 1~1 N cs
Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District
Minuces of the Regular Meeting
December 21, 1944
Page 9
1981, due to the zaulty location of a water meter
resulting in Unit 1 payi.ng for an additional units
service charges. A copy of this memo is attached
hereto as Exhibit F, and incorporated herein by
this reference.
Mr. Collins recommended this may be a Vail Valley
Consolidated Water District issue.
Employee Claim - Mr. Collins reviewed an
unemployment claim made by a former District
employee,.which was based on charges of gender
discrimination. Peter Rudy represented the
District in a telephone hearing. The Labor
Department ruled against the employee.
FIATANCIAL Ms. Bultemeier presented the Financial Report and
REPORT Proposed Disbursements, including a list of hand
checks, copies of which are attached hereto as
Exhibit G, and incorporated herein by this
reference. Following discussion and upon motion
duly made and seconded, it was unanimously
RESOLVED the Financial Report and Proposed
Disbursements including hand checks be and
' hereby are approved.
On behalf of the Board, Chairman Kirch instructed
Ms. Bultemeier to present each District employee,
including the late Mr. Rascon, with a Christmas
bonus check in the amount of $100.
admin\b-uev-94\ev94-12r.min
~
~
IZL: COIZI) 0F' I'R 0 CI~,I~1 UIN CS
Upper Eagle Va':iey Consolidated Sanitation District
Minutes of the 2egular Meeting
December 21, 1594 .
Page 10
Following discussion, and lzpon motion duly made
and seconded, it was unanirnously
RESOLVED the distribut=ion of a Christmas
bonus in the amount oj= $100 to every Distr.ict
employee, including ttle late Daniel Rascon,
be and hereby is approved.
WOLCOTT Mr. Gelvin reminded the Board Alpine Engineering
REGIONAL will be present at the January, 1995, meeting to
PLAN present the final report ori the Wolcott
feasibility study. He addE:d, developers will
proceed and use septic syst:ems until volume:,
reaches 3,000 gallons per day, when a septic
treatment system will be re:quired.
CONIlriUNITY Staff presented the Peter Webb Public Relations
RELATIONS Contract, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit H, and incorporated. herein by this
reference, for signature. The public relations
programs will be shared by the District, Vail
Valley Consolidated Water District, and Upper
Eagle Regional Water Authority. The Directors
executed the contract at the meeting.
STATUS OF East Vail Sewer Replaeement - Ms. Grider reported
CONSTRUCTION the original $110,000 contract was $42,000 under
PROJECTS budget. She added the process of identifying and
prioritizing areas for lining is the next step.
State of the art.technology has included before
and after videos of bursting in place, short
segment fiberglass repairs, and manhole to manhole
admin\b-uev-94\ev94-12r.min
J
R r;coR i) oif' P izocit;F,UINGS
Uoper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation Distzict
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Decemller 21, 1994 Page 11
linings. She predicts more and more trenchless
technology in the future. Interceptor Replacement Phase III - Ms. Grider
presented the Alpine Engineering "Dowd Junction
Interceptor-Sewer Main Replacement - Phases I, II,
III Project Summary", a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit I, and incorporated herein by
this reference.
She reported Phase III is complete, and emphasized
Western Slope has been very generous in cost
savings to the District.
Ms.. Grider distributed copies of a recent
Engineering News Review article reporting on the
trenchless pipebursting technology used by the
Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation
District, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit J, and incorporated herein by this
reference.
The Board congratulated Ms..Grider and added their
commendations to the contractors.
OPERATIOATS Mr. Collins presented the Final Operations
AGREEMEATT Agreement between Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated
Sanitation District and Vail Valley Consolidated
Water District, a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit K, and incorporated herein by this
reference.
Mr. Gelvin reported changes were accepted by Vail
Valley Consolidated Water District and Mr.
admin\b-uev-94\ev94-12r.min
,
}
IZI1,C0 1? I) 011' I'IZOCI,: Iil UINCS
Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation Discrict
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
D=cember 21, 1994
Page 12
Hartman. He stressed the term of this Agreement
was 6 months. The goal of the half year term was
to allow Mr. Gelvin to make necessary .
modifications for the second half of the year and
to allow for more accurate cost accounting. He
stated Vail Valley Consolidated Water District
desires a higher level of ,service, and the
District must be able to slsbstantiate the costs to
. provide this higher level of service. Mr. Gelvin
recommended the Board sign the Agreement.
Following discussion, and upon motion duly made
and seconded, it was unanirnously
RESOLVED the Operatioris Agreement between
Upper Eagle Valley Corisolidated Sanitation
. District and Vail Val7_ey Consolidated Water_
District be and hereby is approved as
amended.
Staff then presented Operat.ions Agreements for t:he
Town of Minturn, Edwards Me:tropolitan District, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, Squaw Creek
Metropolitan District, and Lake Creek Water
District for execution by the Board. Copies of
these Agreements are attached hereto as Exhibit L,
M, N, O, and P, respectively, and incorporated
herein by this reference. Following discussion,
and upon motion duly made and seconded, it was
RESOLVED the Operations Agreements for the
Town of Minturn, Edwards Metropolitan
District, Upper Eagle :Regional Water
Authority, Squaw Creek Metropolitan District,
and Lake Creek Water D:istrict, be and hereby
are approved as presenl=ed.
admin\b-uev-94\ev94-12r.min
d
a
IZI~;COIZI) 01I'I~0 CI,;I1;1)INCS
Uoper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation Dis:r_ct p
Minutes of th_ Regular Mee[ing
DecemD=r 21, 1994
Paae i?
1995 ' Chairman Kirch encouraged the Directors to
AqEETIATG examine the 111995 Meeting Schedule", a copy of
SCHEDULE which is attached hereto as Exhibit Q, and
incorporated herein by this reference. The
Directors changed the Regular Meeting of
February 22, 1995 to February 21, 1995.
TAP FEE The Directors reviewed the November Tap Fee
SCHEDULE Schedule, a cozy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit R, and incorporated herein by this
reference. No action was.required.
EMPLOYEE Ms. Allen addressed the Board to inform them of
ISSUES the recent death of District employee, Daniel
Rascon. The husband and father of 3 young
children, had only been a full time District
Employee for a short time, but the District was
able to offer his survivors substantial benefits.
Ms. Allen empnasized this is the first time the
District has had a claim against its life
insurance and survivor income benefits. She
personally thanked the Directors for the benefits
on behalf of all District employees.
ADJOURIVMENT There beir.g no further business to come before the
Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary to the Meeting
admin\b-uev-94\ev94-12r.min
' . . . _ . tt - •
d . _ .
. . ' v_ ' " . +,a: . _ . xe.
; uary.27,-~ 995 : . _ ~ - VOiCe 0f 1~ ROC~Cy MOI~~1tCd1I1 E~'lp
ll°e
~
~
- e
S
~ a.L-t ~ R el-J R~
wells ~ ~'~lllillilg GOv~
~er^~ ~ Q~~
~ Homer warns ~e s so~
or& ~
CJov~or pushes for olv availanie for all users. and he ~C,p~
asked for backing in getting that ide3 ~el
~
wat&'OOli cy chanQes , t~~ m~ ~W. p
He said he's willine to suaoort P^ D
By Jennifer Gavin more water storaqe - such as dams
oenvw Post cap;ca eureau - and oasn for combinations oi ~
tYORTHGL,ENN - Too many wells groundvrater and surface water use ~.aq
mean all is Dot well in some areas of that offset each other during drou¢bcs
Doog}as Coanty, Gov. Roy Romer and rainier cears.
toid the CoIorado Water Congress Whefl ROmer asked for a show oi
Yesterda~'• hands regarding the policy change,
Romer said 4ao much housing de- noting tbat EI Paso Conntr laid doarn
velopment is pegged on depleting such a law when its groundwater use
groundwater that could run out or be- was runaing much higher than pro-
come too e$penside to keep pumping. jections, most of the audience seemed ~
"Who the hell's buying these hous- to regard it as a good idea. B
es. and do thev lrnow what thev're do- Then Romer demanded: "Have cou 3
ing'" Romer asked aboui 200 water . got [he guts in this room to do it? o~i ~D
officials at the meeting. •`tiow loak. :1t age 66, in my last
"Ri
e don't let peoole build their cerm. I don't have time to use poiite
houses on radon sand. Do we need to ?anguage. I'm not trying to be oifea- ri p~
!iave a kind of warning - a plaque on sive here. hut cou know vou can't eet
the front door oi every• one oi those ;his aane in chis state unless vou oush
houses? We've got to warn peopie it hard." ~ ~
r:ght now. If they're going to build. Rome* disolaced maps showing
check into this." acquisition of water rights in the ao[-
Romer urzed a c5anee in state iv Qeveioping area. Thev included
;rouadwater poiicy, to cut :he ai- poinu oi -aeid hieh depietion in :'r.e
:o~red use rate b'v about t~~ro-tnuds. ~
wuica could 'ae?p 'teeo the wate* suo- =Ieas2 sze 1RlATER :n
Rorller ~es c~ian eS- 1 ~ n water polikOj
!RlATER from Page iB Partially eshaus4ed in the aqmfers, preparing for a two-day summit on
metro-area Laramie / Fog Hills and coald eventatllp bec met~ costiy ~w~eek nd ~ g about~te Land
Arapahoe aqaifers, which indicate for some homeowners to slaoalder. Board problems with a plan to ez-
that water leeels. are dropping gaster And 4he pype af deve2opment he's coa- . fract wa4er ;trom onder the Lowry
than the 1 percent a'yeaP;assumed . cerned.aboat ineolees ho~es fairl
under cnnent state law. far.awap; . . ~ . `~~:~8e-.:
f--:.:- froin'edch'other:'Asa re- ~ ~6e ~rater.~zpeits to ap-
Romer said El Paso`C`o i ~ e ~ . - ~ ~
anty shift~ .salt;~fat~e efforts.~3a.' ili P~F~ several days
iis "100-gear depletaon sstan er_'dard, ` deliv~face ~iate .r;;~roac~a:. $be:t~ ez{
F....-:.-- eas `fog :solaing such
whic~ is 4he state sfandard, ~40 orie be eer9 co~ly ~as ~1,~'Romei said:_~-- grv~~ probleiris. ~ that wontd cat maximmn depietaon Qo. 1'hongh he'd bad sbme inkling of "I'm not trying to be a bomb-
oae-third of that leeel. fhe prabtem 'lb recent aionth4, giomer thrower. I'm not," Romer said. "But
He. said eaen if gge;wag~is on1Y he~ @eqm@ 1ocused it wW7e I'm worried a6oat it right now.^
1!
~
i
Page 6/February, 1995
Us ¦ WdTER S
NErmr~S
. Editorial
Dear U.S. Water IVews:
The U.S. Department of Interior is vation practices by filling with silt, substantially increase net water
violating national environmental concentrating salts, and upsetting available for use in the reeions natu-
laws by ignoring superior headwater the. natural flow. Misguided federal ral and human environments.
storage alternatives for protecting programs for recovery of endangered Dave.Mi]]er
endangered species and the human fish are worsening this serious im- Palmer Lake, CO
environment. balance between managed environ-
Western hydrologists have long mental flows from headwaier stor,age
known that high-altitude storage vs. less-efficient low-altiiude reser-
during heavy snowmelt years could voirs on rivers.
maximize the environmental and Colorado is losing more than 1
economic benefits for entire river million acre-feet of its undeveloped
systems during the damaging Colorado River Compact entitle- drought cycles. ments. This snowmelt water shoiild
li nfortunately, most Western be stored in off-river sites for low-
water quickly flows away each cost gravity use and reuse by both
spring to hot desert reservoirs, slopes during critical drought cycles.
where evaporation losses are ex- Other Upper and Lower Basin stai;es
tremely high. Low-altitude dams on could also join in a cooperative head-
rivers also conflict with good conser- water storage program that would
Saturday,lanuary, 21, 1995 ~ Page 5 r~F~ '';N~ k~ ,u~''"~r;~;:a~„ N -it, , . ,~....-~c " ; , ~ ~3•
- VV
`,~,r,TM.~ 4.o,..r?y.y:>. Y;. . .
. . „:.Y.'f ,i 3; . ~ .
'W~~d~di' L.YR!.,. 1~ '
1 aw . . F~ ,tl:
.~k~.~ . . . .
s
Ap,
re ~ ~!SitGl'j 3"y, •~i ~ ~ ~ ! ~ `C ' ' l
44:'•', e•':~ 'q~' ~ ~ i~C~± .P'~~I,~" fw~ti~t~;;,. A 'r, ~ ~`5i . ~ ~A~ .
i k~~5~'~ . . ~ib%yk,ii'V'? . ~v~r.'_r n.eA.' , ~ ,y_s.r4~F3i i ..'~";,~'t~'',;T 'Yd~'~? mr~i ~ F,r'`'~~.:;1,~~'CKI.. '~"3 • d y '.>1~,J~q~`NAS+?1w•K
¢~5't .i,+•. .rr,
M'Ioller 1 Jf-bct
Webb, comnct r
r Dear ARayor Webb ancl coun- Icrsses nre tragicnlly growing wet year runoff in a nalnral of1- Giinnisim h;?sin needs. •17ie safe- dent on what is paliHemliy fmsh-
cilmembers: and becoming pzrmanent, river Gunnison reservoir site yirld rosl uf llnicrn I'ark for iunable ae the fecieral and sPate
Your initiative to anake the because of: calleel Union Park. "Iliese con- Fnon( Range cilies would be Ievels.
South Platte "run like a river 1)1'he wasteful fecierAl pro- scrved flocxi waters will Uicn be atwul hal(that of thr vetced Colorado and al! Western
again ' is an excellent environ- grams for recovery of endan- available on che Continental '1'wo Forks alternative. environments would have a:`
anentml projecQ for all Colorado gered fish; Divide for managed release via Western water resource engi- win-win situation w6th it aealis-
cetiaens. "I"his farsighted objec- 2) Colorado's long-term West gravity rnnduits to the S?ulh nee•rs have IonF; lcnoH,n that con- tic headwater storage prograege.
tive 1s easily attainablc- if Col- Slopc shlft from irrigatccl farrn- 1'laltc, Arlcansas, Gunnison and ,crvalion o( snciwinell in liigh_ '12? slimulatc open discuesiOn, ,
orado would stop g8ving its eng to tourism; Colorado River basins during attitude slor,ige is re(juirecl to sorne coneerned Colorada a!atee
entitled water to the feds and 3) Colorado's shortsighted long droughts - when storecl maximize thc cnvironmental exp2rts have developed eigh8 .
downriver sfates. actions against headwater stor- water becomes liquid gold. and economic benefits of avail- fundarnental questions thaat ate' ;
AbouQ one-third of Col- . age projeets. 7he largely unusecl Gunnison able waler fcir etitirc river sys- being widely published for Got+
orado's legal share of the Col- Regrettably, Colorado's branch of the Colorado Rivcr is leins in a gruwing region with Roy Romer'B studied resppnse,
orado Itieer is now being lost to appointed water advisors are by far Colorado's weitest waler lang wet anci dry cyclcs. Th'se Answers ffrom fedeaas nattea'a9
California, eAaizona aexi Nevada opposing the state's only viable source. ln fact, extensive federal expxrts are now very concerned r+PSOUrce officials would aIso be
growtla areas ciuring the heavy storage proposal to augrnent the studies indicaM surplus Uppcr wilh the Ex?Enilar notion thaQ welcorrw and inteeest6ng,
snowmelt years. 7'his average SvuQh Platte Rfver system due- Cunnison flood flows could conslrurtion of headwater stor- Best negar+ds ared good lu¢6c
yearly Boss of about 1 million ing the critical two- to five-year double Colorado's existing age is iio longcr paliticaliy with your Sauth Plafee RiveP
acre feeQ as enough to supply drought cycles. This innovative transmountain water supplies acceptable. Un(ortunately they Project,
unetro Denver for four years. Arapahoe County project will (about 450,000 acm feet) without are nc?t frer to speak out, as their ~ave Milger
Coloeado's renewable waQer save same of Colorado's wasted adversely impactinR futunr businesses are Ileavily depen- Palmer Lalce
A ' • W WWl.(i~~-/,},_/.
K ~V 4.l- • ~u/~/L~ ~i.
RECENL~ 1~0 159cz
STATE OF COLORADO
x ~
EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS 4tq
oF•cot
136 State Capitol ~y¢ % = ~90
Denver, Colorado 80203-1792
Phone (303) 866-2471
a
a 1876
Roy Romer
Governor
February 3, 1995
The Honorable Margaret A. Osterfoss
Mayor
Towr o f Va i 1
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mayor Osterfoss:
Governor Romer has asked me to respond to your letter and
thank you for your recommendation of Dr. Tom Steinberg
for appointment to the Water Quality Control Commission.
Several people have applied for membership on this
important commission and the Governor's final decision
will be difficult. Thank you for taking the time to let
him know of you support for Dro Steinberg.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely, ~
/
.
a1xz1114
Karen Rokala, Director.
Boards and Commissions
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road Office nf the Toivn Alanager
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-21051 FAX 479-2157
February 13, 1995
Mr. Kit Williams
605 N. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Kit:
Please find the enclosed letter for Bob IVloston, Regional Engineer for the Colorado Department of
Transportation. As indicated, the Degartment is willing to make some minor modifications to this
facility, they are unwilling to relocate it as requested.
I will be contacting Guillermo Vidal, Director of the Colorado Department of Transportation, to discuss
this matter at a higher level in CDOT. I will keep you advised as we proceed on this matter. Please
feel free to call me at 479-2105 if you have question or wish discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
TOWN OF VAIL
Robert W. McLaurin
Town Manager
RW1VI/aw
xc: Ken Hughey, Police Chief
Larry Grafel, Public Works Director
Vail Town Council
' JAN-31-'95 12:40 ID:GJT DISTRICT 3 TEL N0:303-248-7254 #601 P01
STATE V1.~ COLOR1DO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
a.sie., 9 - Zr
222 South Slxth Strpt, Rm. 317
Grand Junctlon, Cfllwado 81601 •2780
(sos) 24e7208 Fmc (309) 24a1254 Januacy 31, 1995
Mr. Robert W. McLaurin, TOW4 MA[18gCt
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO $1657
Re: Vail PaSS Chain-up Area
bear Bob:
Thank you for your lettear datsd January 6, 1995 wbich discusses complaints from Vail citizens
regarding the operatioa of tbe chain-up area on east-bound I-70 and requested that CDOrT Consider
changing the location of this facility. This chain-up area consists oi' a widened shoulder (14 feet
additional width) for a length of 1200 feet.
As you are aware, CDOT has installad new signing designating this.as a"no parking" area, for
chain installazion only, with a 30-manute maximum time: We bave requested the assistance of the
Coiorado Seate Patrot and the 'U'aiI Police Department (through my +rarlier phone cqnversation te+ith
ynii) in PnfnrrpmPnt nf thP. cignage. f"Tl(_1T mAinten2nce personnel, alchough 'not kaving eaforcamoat
powers, ara requesting compliance with the signaga. Observations iby our supervisory maintenance
personnel indicate that the situation has significandy improved sinCe; the newest signs were installed.
A concrete barrier similar to those used in highway medians wi:il be installed along the shoutder
of this widened area as soon as weathcr permits in order to reduce sight and noise pollution. CDOT
considered the placement of a porta-potty at rhis location, but concluded from experience that this .
would encaurage parking, and wouid be in effect an attractive nuisance.
A chain-up area is necessary for the safe operation of east-bounil traffic on Vail Pass. It provicles
an area fnr mntnrictc ta gex cafrly AwAy fmm thn ctrram of traffic and chain-up just before
encountering the steep grades aad snow coaditions of the pass, itself. Truclcs which attempt the steCp
grades without chains under adverse snow conditions and subsequeniUy spin out are the major cause of
highway closures.
Truckers and ather motorists will not instalt chains any consideirable distance in advance of the
nood. Undor typiwl bAd wcuthcr cond:tions tho uccd fvr chAins ia not evideuc until tlio ewcy gtaalw
of the pass itself are encountered; therefore the Edwards Rest Area or any location west of Vail
would not be functional as is the current locadon.
CIDOT is willing to undertalce reasonable measures to mitigate the iropacts of the existing chain-up
location, and requests the eooperation of the Town of Vail iu problEUn sofving in order to maintaiaa a
necessary safety facitity for the highway users. I, too, would be happy to meet and discuss this
matter in further detail.
RPM: r.ah very truiy youts,
c: Reisbeck
Smith
Nal1 R. P. Moston
file Director, Transportaxion Region 3
' ~rt The Um11Ym1- Feb:ucTy 10, 1995 (
. I
i
. . ~ ' _ I
. i
: .i:>: •:::::::;:::r ' : :`r::_ :i::. . ; . . . . _
~ e ' votbrs siie,
dwt's cret On YMdLh -
Of11er matterS T10TIIT
- It should come as no surprise to anyone
that Vail's voters turned down the town s
proposal to build a cemetery at Donovan ~
Park. The notion has been withering for some
. : . : . _ : . , ~ ~ . . . =
time, and it was only appropriate to get a
, . . . .
- . . ~ - . . .
= . ~ final say from the public. Although we would
like to have seen a scaled-down version of the
plan built, we're OK with the decision. ~
We're also very comfortable with the vot-
~ ers' decision to uphold the council's assault
_ weapons ban. While we still wonder how.
much of a difference the ban will make,
perhaps it is a first start towazd a new aware- ~
ness in our community. ~ .
Naturally, there are rumblings about re-
visiting the gun ban, but we urge people to
accept the vote and allow the town to focus on
more important matters.
. One of the major criticisms of the council's
was that the council should ~
weapons proposal
~ - have been sPending more time on Vail's ev- ~
.
-
.
, . : .
- ` ° er e ce issu
` eryday matt s. With th metery e,,
- ~ . . .
.
: .
- ~ - - . ~ ~ ~ - ~ , , dead, so to speak, and the assault weapons
ban upheld, the council may indeed have
. more energy to solve Vail's woes.
On another note, we'd like to welcome the
Race ta r o Erase entourage to Vail. We'e c nfi
;
' - dent you'll meet your $2 million fundraising'`-
. goal this weekend. Although we have mixed ~
; feelings about the possibility of Vail becom-
ing a haven for glitterati (the British tabloids
~
~
ha e bn calling us on a regular basis esth e,;;;.
: . _ ; . . , v ee
. . _
j
- : . ~ . . : ' ~ . ~ : . . . , . ~ . : L''
. .
daYs), well concede that our modest town
.
. .
~
. .
: . . -
probably can handle these soirees a couple
. times a year with no visible changes to its'~'`.
: psyche. -
. And if you promise to bring snow, come ori
, . back every week. -TF
. n G • t.6u~r,c~,
. •
. ~ ~
~
The Resource Cenrer TRC of EPost Office Box 3414
Vail, Colorado 81658
HONORARY BOARD 303/476-7384
Dr. Jack Eck Betty Ford' '
Renie Gorsuch
Sheika Gramshammer . ChnSt111e AIlC~eTSOri
Mrs. Cortlandt Hill TOWIl Of Vall
David Kanally 75 S. Frontage Rd.
` Dottie Lamm Vail, CO 81657
Richard Lamm
Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal
Dorlene Deer Trucnses 7 FebI'llaTy 1995
Dear Christine: -
Please pass on The Resource Center's sincere thanks to the
Council for Vail's very generous contribution for 1995. Your
donation will be earmarked for service to Vail residents and
guests in need of crisis intervention services. On behalf of the
1100 individuals and families served annually by The Resource
Center, our deepest gratitude.
Sincerely yours,
Cheryl L:;~Paller (Cherie) - Directcfr Peace on Earth Begins at Home,..
X c •
. c
t f 6 `'M1 , ~ ~
STt~~~ ~F C LORADO
DEPARTMENT OF TRAIVSPORTATIOIV
Region 3 oT
222 South Sixth Street, Rm. 317
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2769
(303) 248-7208 Fax (303) 248-7254
February 6, 1995
Mr. Kit Williams
2925 Booth Creek Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Dear IvYr. Williams:
I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of January 25, 1995 regarding your objections to the
chain-up azea on east-bound I-70 at Vail.
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) constructed and signed the widened area in
question as a safety feature; to provide a place for motorists to install chains a safe distance from the
flow of traffic. Such a safety area can reasonably function only in a location in close proximity to the
steep grades of the pass where snow and ice conditions typically exist.
CDOT has modified the signing at this location to indicate to motorists that the widened azea is
for chain installation only, with a maximum 30 minutes allowable. We have requested and been
assured of cooperation in enforcement of these regulatory signs by both the Colorado State Patrol and
the Vail Police Department. CDOT will continue to mbnitor the effectiveness of the signing and
make whatever changes are deemed necessary to achieve compliance with the purpose of this facility.
CDOT maintenance personnel will install a temporary concrete barrier along the outer edge of the
widened area as soon as weather permits; this will serve to partially reduce the visual and noise
impacts of the facility. This barrier will be moved to the normal shoulder line at the close of the
snow season, and advance signing will be removed, thus restricting the use of the facility to only that
season when it is necessary for the intended purpose.
Your expression of concern is appreciated. CDOT intends to continue operation of this facility,
but is dedicated to cooperating with the Town of Vail and its citizens to make the facility work with
the least possible inconvenience to nearby residents.
I have rzviewed this situation with Region Traftic Engineer Jim Nall, to whom you also wrote.
This reply represents our Region's decision and dedication to improve the operation of the chain-up
area.
Very truly yours,
R. P. Moston
Director, Transportation Region 3
RPM:cdh c: Smith .
Nal l
Hopkins Rb"be""`~rR1VTcLaucin', Vail Town Mgr. ~
file
f ~ healt-h departmen-t
.
enters t,ru'c.k stopbattle.,
. .
~ of appetite:' '
By Allison Anderson..' The town will use the information it has received from
Daiiy scaff wMer - the health department in its negotiations with the highway
East Vail residents fighting the state highway dePart- department; said Environmental Planner Russell Forrest.
The Town of Vail has not yet decided what steps it will
ment over ~oxious truck exhaust are being backed up by take next, Forrest said.
the state health department, which says diesel fumes can Council member Jan Svauch suggested Tuesday that
cause health problems. ' the. chaining area should be torn up and rebuilt near the
Coughing, headaches, nausea and burning eyes aie golf course. WilIiams also said a location further west,
some of the symptoms area residents say they have
noticed since a new truck pull-off was built onInterstate neat the golf course, would help keep exhaust fumes away
. .
70 near the East Vail exit. The Colorado Department of fiom homes.
_ Transportation widened the.lane last surnmer for truck dri- So far,` the Colorado Department of Transportation has
: : : : : . , .
. ' vers to put chains on their tires before climbing Vail Pass. installed signs that identify.the widened area of I-70 for
"'The pollut}on is killing us," said Kit Williams, who chaining-up only.. Motorists are advised to move on after
. . . . . .
- ' - • lives near the east end of the Vail Golf Course. "During a maximum of 30 minutes. .
the first big snowstomi, I.got physically ill." . But the si;ns don't work, according to Williams. Dur-
Williams has been leading a battle by neighbors ing Wednesday's snowstorm, Williams clocked truckers
. against the Colorado Department of Transportation. They who left their trucks idling up to 1 1/2 hours. One drivec.
have been working.with the Town of Vail Community apparently intended to spend the night, Williams said,
Development Department, which recently received con- until a Vail police officer drove by and honked his car
firmation that residents' concerns are legitimate. The evi- horn. The trucker then left the area.
dence came from another sector of state government - ""Their sign is a Band-aid," said Williams. "It was right
the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environ- back to truck-stop city:"
ment. The state plans to instal] a temporary concrete barrier
The Air Pollution Control Division sent documents along the outer edge of the widened area of I-70 when
which confirm that short-term exposure to high levels of weather pernuts. The wall will serve to partially reduce
diesel exhaust may include "mucous membrane and eye che visual and noise impacts, according to a letter sent to
imtation, headache, light-headedness, nausea, vomiting, Williams by regional transportation director R.P. Moston.
heartburn, weakness, numbness and tingling in extremi- But Williams said the barrier won't hold back the fumes
ties, chest tightness and wheezing. that have been enveloping nearby residents. "The odors associated with diesel exhaust emissions "The concrete bamer is CDOT's attempt to uiet the
i ~ ~a.~9i f ~1 ~1;1 y.. . e t ` ~N;IC~'.l.•,
9S i > i~~ , t.'Plea~,e,,~eJrr,ifcks Pg~e,~t~s 3/~ <~F,~ •
also cause some effects, such as nausea, headac h ~.an P
t , +
,.11 11.1...eyI.._.r.......... 4-l~ia1~. ahe~'+iY~s te1_•'e~"IF~~~141:J
p9-( I • qS U.
. . t.
. it Trucks
- ~r .
' ri FPpm Pa9g ~ portation department, because there can be stretches of
issue," Williams said. "I don't view it as a solution to any- bare pav ment can tear p both the chainuand the hi hs
~
thing." way.
The only solution, in Williams' mind, is to move 'the S ch a safety area can reasonably function only in a loca-
chain-up area. He has suggested that tnickers be directed tion in close proximity
to the Edwards rest area, a spot on I-70 near Avon, or to to the steep grades of the pass I-70 alongside the Vail Golf Course. where snow and ice conditions typically exist,"•; says
-
Moston's letter.
tages Williams over the said the current Ed site. wards option offers several advan- Williams said he plans to continue keeping a log of the
truckers' activities and any ill effects he experiences. He
' "They'd be chained up going through Dowd Junction, said he plans to write a letter to his neighbors,
?7 which is one of the most dangerous sections of interstate asiang them highway," he said: to contribute any information they have. He said any res-
idents who have comments on the truck chin-up azea
That solution would not work, according to the trans- may contact him. a
~
~
° •
eg
TONN OF VAIL ~
?S South Froniage Road Office of tbe Town Manager
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-21051FA X 303-479-2157
February 8, 1995
Norman and Susanne Robinson
1153 Hornsilver Circle Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. & Pdrs. Robinson,
I would like to respond to your Letter to the Editor, published
recently in the Vail Dailv, regarding Golfcourse bus service and
the Roundabout project.
The bus frequency on the Golfcourse route was reduced due to low
ridership numbers. Our staff analyzed ridership patterns over.the
last eight years, which showed that 64,000 of the total annual
ridership of 74, 000 was carried during two hours in the morning and
two hours in the afternoon. This translated into a cost of 29
cents per ride at peak and $5.03 per ride at non-peak. Based on
this information, service hours and frequency were adjusted and the
operating funds were shifted elsewhere.
Neighborhood residents predicted that buses would be leaving people
at stops and the Village parking structure would be filling more
frequently with people driving in from the Golfcourse. To date, we
have not experienced any of the above situations.
With regards to the Roundabout project, the Town Council and staff
are optimistic of the success of the project and the improvement it
will bring to the traffic congestion issue that continues to
surface in surveys year after year. A great deal of effort has
gone into researching cost effective alternatives to correct this
problem. We believe the roundabout is that solution. We are
confident that once experienced, our residents and guests will
quickly learn to use it effectively and efficiently.
If you have any questions, or desire additional inforination, please
call me directly at 479-2105.
Sin erely,
~
Robert M. McLaurin Town Manager
cc: Vail Town Council
Larry Grafel, Director, Public Works/Transportation Dept.
- . n v • ~G'U~C.~...
n Z'OWN OF VAIL Yu,C WA+tw
,
Input/Inquiry Response Rezord 0~ 0?
The attached comments were recently received by the Town of Vail. VVe encourage Vail
residents and guests to give us such input and we s4rive for timely responses. PLEASE
ADDRESS THESE COIVCERIVS WITHIlV FIVE WORKIIiTG DAYS AIVD RETLTRN THIS
. COMPLETED FORM TO PAM BRANDNIEYEIZ.
DEPARTIffiN'I' TO HANDLE IIVQUIlZY ' (D Fl IlVDNIDUAL TO HANDLE INQUIIZY (gLtL VW44
. DATE TOV RECENID INPUT/INQUIlZY d• d' k 5 V411. 041 I Gt,~ ~
~
, .
TYPE OF IINPUT / INOUIIZY: PHONE CALL (indicate date)
LETTER (attached) ? ~~,~.c, X C~~~~J~-~ U1( Y'"-P
RESPONSE CARD attache
( a) ~
TYI'E OF RESPONSE (check one):
LETTER (attach copy)
PHONE CALL (indicate date)
BRIEF SUMNIARY OF RESPOIVSE OR ANSWM TO TNOUIRY:
.
.
.
DATE OF RESPONSE FORM RFTURNID ByDEI'ARTNEEN!' T'0 pAM BR1NpNM"YM.
, . . -
A rnpy of this inquiry and focm will remain on file at the ?OV Community RelaGons office, As soon as this form is returned to Pam
Brandmeyer, this inquiry will be mnsidered dosed THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIIAaY HANDLING OF'IfIIS 5SL1E IF YOU HAVE ANy QTJES-iIONS. pLFASE F£EI, FRg'1'p COM'ACT
PAM BRANDMEYFR AT 479-2113. • -
,a
TTERS"
- {
TOV needs to improve bus :
service to go~f course area
To the Editor: ;
(This letter was addressed to Mr. Robert McLaurin, Vail '1Cown Manager.) ~
As homeowners in the Vail golf course area, we are writinig you about our i
dissatisfaction with the bus service to the golf couise. In the last year the peak y
service interval to the lifts has not only increased from 20 to 30 minutes, but ~
also, now the peak service period is much shorter in that the;re are only two
extra buses in the morning and in the evening. ~
Prior to purchasing our home, over eighteen months ago, ione of our main j
, concerns was the tr-ansportation frr,=r, the golf course to and frc~m the ski areas. '
Not wanting to add to the automobile congestion in the villa€;e, we k-new the ~
bus transportation to and from the ski area would be an important factor in our ,
decision to buy out of the village. We checked out the bus scheA3ules, even rode -
the buses several times, and at that dme we felt they would work out just fine.
' Not so now!
i In riding the buses during the last few weeks, we find they are not only very
crowded but too infrequent during peak hours. Our neighbors and other visit-
ing skiing wests also have been expressing their disappointment with the bus
service's lack of frequency during the peak hours. It is affecting our rentai
t clients too. We don't want to.resort to driving to the lifts because of the lack
, of parking there, and it is not practical to walk the slopes as we used to when ,
l we owned and stayed in the Gold Peak ama : We have heard about the difficulry of hiring enough driven,. Although that '
may appear to be a legirimate excuse to some, it is still just an e:xcuse. Perhaps
. those responsible for the town transporta[ion have to be a little more imagina- ,
tive and/or creative in attracting more drivers; better pay; incentives with VA
for fringe benefits such as ski passes, bonuses, etc whatever it takes to get the
job done.
If money is part of the probiem, as it is in many cases chese days, perhaps,
instead of spending several million dollars on the conoroversial roundabout at
the main crossroad - that may cost even more than that to rennove when it is
found that it dcesn't work - some of that money should be spe.nt on more bus
drivers. And, as for the roundabout itself, my personal experience is that the
human traffic directors used during peak hours over the last c,ouple of years
have done a fine job; certainly better than a traffic light, and I believe do a rriuch -better job of dealing with the peak hour aaffic than a roundabout New Jecsey
gave up on their many "aaffic circles" because of the congestion caused at
peak use period. They also were unable to educate the drivers tiow the system . ~
was supposed to work and who had the right-of-way, etc., and I doubt that ~
TOV, even with the best signage, will be able to educate the many foreign and
out of town driwer_;,:,w the roundabout at Vail should work
We sincerely hope that something can be done about the bus station before
'
spring break in March, such as adding at least two more bases to the peak nour -
schedule. If the 4:15 bus at Golden Peak was jammed in January, I shudder to :
think what it will be like in March! Certainly, people w6o live un homes on the =
golf course deserve better service. Sincerely yours> qt ~ ~6~4
Norman P. Robinson W ~~•C~,Ut :
Susanne S. Robinson • t l~-~~-' ~~'~'L ~ b~•
vail ?[53 f!b_y!kbiIUU" Ctt'tC.c.~ .
Post=lt`"_brand fax tr.ansmittal memo 7671 ~of pages ?
To -i ; From ~ _
Co. Co.
i
Dept. ~Phone a r ~
?t- t
Fax k - Fax l!
~ United States Forest 6ahite River Alational Forest r "T25 Tdl. ' Sth"~St.
-
Department of Servica Eagle Ranger District P.O. Box 720
A Agriculture Eagle, CO 81631
(303) 328-6388
XC~ dob
~
, Reply To: 1950/2720 jg~, ~
Date: February 8, 1995.
.
W(,dt,uElt~
Dear Reviewer:
The Forest Service is in the process of analyzing a four season resort proposal
for the Adam's Rib Recreation Area (ARRA). Public involvement is a very
important process with all proposals to utilize National Forest System lands.
With this newsletter, the Forest 5ervice is beginning the formal scoping
process to inform and involve people who have an interest with the ARRA
proposal. The mailing list now exceeds four hundred. With this first mailing,
please accept our apologies for any mistakes to your names or addresses.
We have combined all known lists and would appreciate hearing from you if:
1. Corrections need to be made to your name or address.
2. If you do not want to be on the mailing list.
3. If your address or name has changed.
Having a current and accurate mailing list is important to the success of
having an informed and involved public during the evaluation process of the
ARR.A proposal.
Please feel free to give John Borton, Forest Service Project Coordinator a call
with your corrections or questions at 303-328-6388.
Sincerely,
4~1 WILLIAM A. WOOD
District Ranger
enclosure
e .
Februery 8, 1893 - laaue pt
E11aLE RAAIaER 0(S7R1C'T
" 123 West 5th SVeet r°p~ x
BU~~
LETTER BU~~
~ S~~ E oi8 ~o
303 3284`188 ~?rwormet,at~
John BoROn, Project Coordinator
ADAMS3 C .ATI TN'
ARE
• ~ •
A I~11" CT PIZOPOS '
FOREST~
C.trrhy loi the Lrnd rtnd Strnmy People
Greetings. This newsletter is firse in a series dealing The second pair of ineetings will focus on specific
with the proposal for a four season rasort by Adam's . issues. Issue topics will be discussed in detail wfth
Rib Recreation Area Issue #1 will focus on the process adequate time for questions and answers.
and analysis that the federal agencies are going through,
and more importantly, how the public will be involved PRQJECT PRoPOSAL DESCFiIPTiON
with this process.
The Adam's Rib Recreation Area (ARRA) resort proposal
Future issues will explain additional aspects of this is located in Eagte County, Colorado. Briefly, the
proposai. Please feel free to give John Borton, ForesY development proposal calls for the construccion of a
Service Project Coordinator, a call wfth your thoughts. four season resort on approximately 3,500 acres ofi
Our goal is to explain a rather complex ptanning and Pmate land and 3,000 acres of public lands, in addition
analysis process. to associaced devetopment of about 1,475 acres of
land next to the Town of Eagle. Sixteen miles south of
PUBLlC RNEETiNGS ANNOUNCED Eagfe would be the ski area wfth the resorY componenYs
of a base village, wirrter skiing and summer activities in
The Eagle Ranger District of the White River Nafional East Brush Creek, Adam PAourttain and Mourtt Eve.
Forest has scheduled public scoping meetings on 4he ThQ resore gotf course/hoteVresideritial area would be
Adam's Rib Recreaiion Area ResorY Proposal. Four ~out seven miles south of the Town of Eagte 'sn Bnash
meetings are planned for the Eagle County and Denver Creek. Lands next to the Town of Eagle are also par¢
areas during March. _ of the overall proposal.
In Eagte County, mee4ings dv111 be a4 4he Eagle 1faltey ARRA has been under a Foresi Service Special Use
High School In Gypsum on RNaech 9 and 22. In 4tie Permit since 1983 authorizing the consiruction and
Denver area, meetings will be a4 4he Fores4 Senrlce development of a ski area on Adam and Eve MourtYains
Reglonal Ot~tce loca4ed a4 7~0 Slmms S4ree4, Lake- °n National Forest System tands located in Eas4 Brush
wood on M arch 2 and 23. All mee4(ngs vvlll be In 4he Creek. After completing the 1982 Adam's Rib RecreaYion
Area Final Environmental Impact State^ient and Record
evening starting at 7:00 anci ending by 9:30. A, map of Decision (ROD), this special use permit was issued
Is Included showing 4he mee4ing locattons. by the Forest Service in recognftion that the permit
was only "one sfep in a comDlex process o( review
The agenda for the first pair of ineetings will have Yhree throuqh which the proponent m2st pr22eed° (ARRA-ROD,
objectives. First, a presentation on U.S. Forest Service page 2). The review processes outlined in the ROD,
and U.S Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) roles and page 4, inctudes, in priorrty: 1) Issuance of a Sec4ion
responsibilities, along wfth how the proponenY's proposal 404 permit by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps),
is being analyzed. Second, the proponent will preserR (in progress); 2) Approval of a water augmentation
the current status of the resort development proposal, plan in Water Court, (completed); 3) Acceptability of
with questions and answers from the public to follow. off-site effects by Eagle Counry, defined as counYy
And third, after a short break, the participants wi11 be approval of the proponents request for rezoning og
assigned to smaller graups to identify and comment on private land, (in progress); 4) Certfication of assees
their ideas, concerns and issues wfth the proposal. (25°6) and presentation of sufficient information of HBE's
1
~
capability to develop and. operate a major ski area, the Clean Water Act of 1972 and the Nat3onal Forest
(completec). An additional step was to complete a Management Act of 1976. Agencies are encouraged to
detailed mouritain master developmertt plan, of which, work cooperatively to minimize dme and the sxpense
a conceptual plan was submitted by ARRA in December of preparing the required documents. With ts;e ARRA
of 1993. project proposal, the Corps is acting as the IEad agency.
In 1987 the Corps received a permit application irom NEPA requires tha federal agencies to; (a) use a
ARRA to fill wetlands. The permit is necessary pursuartt systematic interdisciplinary approach in planriing and
to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Corps decisionmaking; (b) consider the ernironmental impact
deteRnined that the proposal would have significant of proposed actions; (c) ideritify adverse environmerttal
impacts on the quality of the human environmertt and, effects whicti cannot be avoided should the proposal
therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be. implemeinted; (d) consider altematives to the
was required in accordance with the National Environ- proposed ac:tion; (e) consider the relationship between
mentat Poiicy Act (NEPA), tocal short-telrm uses of the human ernironmeM and
the maintenance and enhancemerrt of long-term
The Corps developed and published a draft Environmen- productiviry; and (o identify any iReversible arid irretriev-
ta! Impact Siatement (dE1S) in October of 1989 for the able commitunenis of resources which would be involved
Section 404 permit for the filling of approximately 70 in the proposed action should it be implemented.
acres of wetlands predominantly in the base village
(private lands) of the ski area The acreage of wetland . The Forest ;iervice, under the National Forest Manage-
fill or disturbance was later reduced to approximately ment Act has completed and is implemerrting the Land
46 acres. In accordance with the Section 404 (b)(1) and Resourc:e Management Plan for the Whif.e River
Guidelines, the Corps issued a decision in 1993 thai National Forest. Part of the Forest Plan is an irnerttory
ARRA had not yet met the wetiand minimization of sites on the forest that are suitabte for sk:i area
presumption within the total project area. developmen,t, The Adam Mourttain area is a ciesignated
ski. area site within the Forest Plan and is part of the
ARRA has since modified their base village proposal proponent's proposal area
for the ski area to fill approximately 25 acres of wettands,
and to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts to wetlands. The sdElS vrill tier off of the findings within ttie draft
The Corps dstermined that a supplemental draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Corps
Environmental Impact Statement (sdE1S) was necessary dated October of 1989, and the Final Ernironmerrtal
to anatyze the modified plan and a Notice of Intent to Impact StatE:ment and Record of Decision prepared by
prepare one was issued and published in the Federal the Forest Service dated Juty of 1982.
Register on Juiy 17, 1993. The sdE(S wil( determine if
the proposal is in compliance with the Section 404 PROPOSE[) ACTIONS TO BE ANALI2ED
(b) (1) guidelines and not contrary to the public interesL
If sa, the Corps can issue a Section 404 permit. Proposed a,ctions to be analyzed within ihe sdEIS are
located on both private and National Forest System
Because of this modfied plan to fill wetlands submitted lands. They are: an application for aSection 404 permit
by ARRA and ARRA's continuing efforts in accomplishing to place fill material in wetlands, site specific dESVelopment
the items required in the 1982 Record of Decision, of a ski area, a land exchange, and installation of a
along with the need for the Forest Service to anatyze in power trans.mission line.
detaif the proponent's proposal for the ski area master
development plan, a propased land exchange, installa- The need for Eagle County planning and zonirig approval
tion of a powerline and wetlands issues on National through the PUD process was recognized as one of
Forest System lands, the Forest Service has committed the four key, items to be completed before ttie Forest
to work cooperatively with the Corps on the preparation Service would allow developmerrt of the ski area, as
of the sdEIS. The Forest Service issued a Notice of outlined above. Eagle County is considering ttie proposal
Intent on October 31, 1994 to participate with the Corps in a separal:e process.
and analyze the above actions proposed on National
Forest System lands. PUBLIC INIJOLVEMEIdT AND THE NEPA PROCESS
FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITES Public involvement is an importartt step in the decision
making process. tnput from the public and other
The Forest Service and Corps are required by federal governmenC agencies is vital and assists the Corps
law to evaluate proposals for utilization of public lands, and Forest Service in identifying ali of the irriportant
and with ihe Corps, private lands. The main laws are issues requiring indepth analysis, thus disc)osure of all
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), known positive and negative effects are ideritified.
2
o in addi4lon to the public meeYings alreac9y scheduled, During ehis commeri4 periocl, the Corps and Fores4
rti the Forest Seevice ancl Corps will te taking commen4s Seevice will hold aB leasg tdvo public meetings, one in
from the public and other govemmene agencies throu9h- Eagle County anci anoqher in the Denver area. The
out the planning process. Formal meetings will be heid purpose oq Yhese meetings will be to receive public
during key phases oY the NEPA process. IrtFormal comments on the corTtertt and accuracy of the sdE?S.
commems vvill be accep4ed a8 any 4ime during the mis commerrt period will be sixry days.
planning process.
A public information meeting was hetd aY the Eagie The Corps and the Forest Senrice witi then address ali
County High School on December 20, 1994. About 75 the comrrtertts ln the preparation of the Final Environmen-
people hearci preserrtations from different govemment Yal ImPacc StaYement. 'fhe final EIS is expected to be
agencies aboue 4heir involvement wkh the ARRA projec4 COmPleted by March, 1996.
proposal. About hafP the meeting was cievotecl to
quesYions ancl answers from those aYCending, Each agency wiii rencier a formal decision in a documen4
caliec9 a Record of DecWon. These decision documents
The process Yo complete the sdEiS, incorporaie ali will display the rationale the decision makers utilize in
pubiic commen4s, analyze all the issues, develop a PPeparing the decision.
range of aftemaYives, and disclose the efifecYs of Yhese
aftematnres on the human environmertt relating to the FOR FuRTHER INFORAAATION
projecY proposal should be compleYed by AugusY 1, 1995. Please contacY John Borton, Project Coordinator aY the
Eagle Ranger District for further information. The address
UVi4h the public release of the sdEIS, ano4her very and telephone number are located on page one of the
importane period of public irniolvement will take place. newsletter.
AREA MAPS TO:
Eaqle Vallev H(ah Schocl Forest SePVIce = Denver Reglonal Otfice
740 Slmms, Lakewood
EaGC~ ~ -~O
~
~0 ~
~n
i~
~ a~~. WYG
~
~
EV i1S
3
.
,owN of wu
Vicinity Nfap .
Adar.n's Rib Recreational Area
a.nd Associated Projects
0
i-
~
,
I ~
J
~
§ 1
C a
<
,
i o
n
~ c a
'
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
r coratuo+cE ro .oaor+ua 230 ACFPEs
I z3 w•s
i
~
\ \
\ \
w,w's Me
I ~ \
exVLLAZE.rncs
~ \ \
I \ rei~u
uh
~ ~ l
1 AIILE
r~
~ WMi [H
nv,w wce
Ot/31/94
, 02/14/95 TUE 13:03 FA% 202 544 1465 LIZ ROBBINS ASSOCIATES ~j001
~
L1iZ ROBB.C1Nb7 A7SOCIATEo~
Washington Itepresentatives
522 Sth Sta°eet, S.E.
Washington, DC 20003
te?e 202/544-6093
faxo 202/544-n465
FAX T'RA1VS=AL COVER SHEE'T C017E: Pages: ~ .
xo : ~EGGY osTERFosS/ TOWN coUrnrCEL 303-479-2157
FROM_ LIz Ro~BINS AssOczATES
DA'Y'E : FEBRUARY 14, 1995
RE _ ~OPO4ED RfEX'd' S7T-PS TO SECURE FJRII)ING FOIZ VAEL BTJSES
As you Dnmvv, ffithe past vvhea vve have dvogked for Vail and gained aa appxopaiations carmark
fop bim fuaid'mg, Coaxgressaanal enactmeBat and Presideneial signaeure of the appropaiations bill
corqaple$ed mur wesrk. 'g'he genaiaiing applicatian process by the Tovwn did not geqiaire any extra
"Pusb.". WbiJ.e rt is $he case ahat each year, DO'B' reguLarly smds up lists o£pxojects (eartnarked
projects, unoblagated fiaaiding fmr projects, or both) it wisbcs Congress tm rescind in erther a
s?applen=tal with recassiosas or the nexi yeai's appropriations bnll,, dae Appropriatious Cammittee
tradiftiowally ignorcd ghe gequest, having already stated ies vvill.
Tliis year is different. Caaagress, and partic,-ulsrly t~e House, is preparing to enact large and
painfial cuts in discrctaonary prvgrams_ T'hese ccutts may well be prosecuted in the form of a large
°'reconciiiataon" bill whic?i combines authorization changes, appropriations cuts, and tau: changes
in one huge bill. Ahexnatively, the cuts in direct appeopri,ated spen.ding may be done in
apprepriations recissimns bills. T7he Appropriations Conmittee is novv woaking on recissious in
some paogsun.c, but furcher appgopriawons euts anay yet be inchaded in a Reconciliaeion fneasure.
A$ thas paint, $he exace legislaBive pracess that will be folloeved is aot fiualized..
BasicaUgr, the threat to youa fianding consises of finding either your prQject by name, or ehe
f=ding.CoLyour UQiect iuneliaded in absc of available funding fos cuxs. Such a list could be generated by DOT, by the Budget ComAOittee, by the Appropriatevns Commit$ee, or by the
authorizing committee. To date, DO'e' lxas identificd for Congress $30 milfidn in available finding
in the Sectioll 3 bus category (from EY94 and FY 93 fundmg) vvathout specifying projec.-ts, and
has offered $400 milian in highway projects far reci,si.on, wzth the recguest that Congress allovv
Sccretary Pena to adengify t-he projects to be defunded. In. addition9 the Yupestor General mf
tthe p9epartment o1f'ffi~aon9pop¢ation h$s naflentifed for Caengrtss FY 95 Seeaon 3 ffaandang as
aanuobfigated aan~ avan9ab9etfov rescnssaon. Yonr praject is in FY 95 Section 3.
02/14/95 TLiE 13:03 FAg 202 544 1465 LIZ ROBBINS ASSOCIATES- C¢]002 ,
1
r
While DOT has not yet sent up an " bfficial hst" of Section 3 fimd'mg from FY 95 tLat is available
for dcobligaxion, it will do so if requested by Congress. Budget Committee Chairman Kasich is
overseeing the development oftbe FY 96 budget and will inciude: significant reductions fiom FY
95 appropriated fimding. The object is to avaid h.aving yvur. fiamdlimg included in the budget, in a
reconciliation bill, or xn appropriations rescission biIL Even if yuur projeet is not included by
name, you are not home free. If some amouut of bus fuading is it3entified and rescinded, you
must then fight to ensure that your project is not cut to meet the iteduced amount of fimding
available.
There is a fmal eanglicating factor_ Technically, a recission request for Section 3 bns fureding
shauld be handled by the authorizing committee. It would take five paxagraphs to explaan why
(although we would be happy to brief you on it), and it is a techn icality that never mattered in our
previous wor.k, simae we rzeed aaly go to appropriafions for the aotual earmark It becomes
si~ificant now, however, since we are trying to avoid a recission, and it means that we must
make our case to the authorizing committee as welL
Next Steps For LRA
Because there are multiple places where your fimding could be tbxestened, we will need to work
all ofthem to protect your funding. .
The Budget Committee is a threat m the House. While w•e will need to explain the
innuvative (and "Republican") nafiue vfthe project; mQre; important wiil be to gain the
finoa. sappo.rt, throughL the Taos connection, of Senator Domenici, Chairmau of the Scnate
Budget Committee.
We will have to explain the project to the Public Works committee Chairinan and Ranldng
Member. Fortunately, in the House we have already completely briefed the Ranlang
Member (and former Chainnan), Rep. Norm NY'meta, on the project when we were
attempting to gam fiuiding fvr asimilxr sharing arrangment for Avon. Wmeta, in fact, seni:
a letter of support to the Deparhnent_ Shuster and Mineta work well togetb.er., and we
will try to reenergize Mineta pn the project's behalf. Tn thie Senate, wh.il.e we mn711iacewise
work with the staff of the comunittee aud the Raukiug Member, Senator Moynlmi, we
will rely more on Senator pommici In both the House and the Senate, there is no
member from either Colorado or New Mexico un the autliorizing committee.
We will, clearly h.ave to wu.dergo a similar pxocess wiRh the .Appropriations Committee.
WhUe the new Ch.ainroaiz,.Kep. Frank Wol~ is familiar wi1R the project due to his.fon•mer
position. as the 1Ranlaiug 1Vlember on the Appropziations Subcommittee, we did not work
with him directty. The subcommittee sta who have not changed, are agso not supportive
of the project (because of the politics of having the Repre,sentative from Vail request the
funding and then vote against the bill. The staff consider themse2ves the "eaforcers" in
these sitLiations. )
Finally, and unh-ke in yeazs past, it will be nccessary to work wrth the DOT career stafE Tliey can play an fairfy significant role in protecting aproject. Wlzen requested to provide
02/14/95 TUE 13,:04 FAX 202 544 1465 LIZ ROBBINS ASSOCIATES F6004
~
a Iis¢ of tmmbfligated projects, they generaIly have some ability to ciehcr hold a projcct froffi
tbo list, or psovnde yome guadmce, an wh'ch prmjecls are a,nubligated buL a9. the very fmal '
stagc and about $o be sagned, and whach are mur.h fiuutYher alosig_ As artale, they wiIl select
those projecgs vdhich aae futhest frorn beiung finalized before a project vvhach is almvst tv
t2e fmal appgmwal stagc. ncreforc, at will be uuportaat to briefthe career st4 $ry $o g~in
their siappart, ayad keep theaffi inEbamed in an effort to keep the funding far tus projcct
fronrbeang identified as avaiIable for Congress. lFor this; as I told you, we propose to
work with aa?other consultant who typicaIly works at tlae I)OT staff level (paid frommi our
fec by us, not as n septaMe s:hxrge by you) to try do wiu uvr,s aurl gam aIlie; m Lhe career
sQaff As wvc dm typically, we wozk di.rec,-tiy with the, elec,-tcxi members of CUngms,
aad thcir sQ4 to gain their active sapport. Vau? Rien~ Steps
As should be cl.car, Rep. Richasdsmn and g?offienici remaia.absolutely key to this process. While
Scnator Bgovm mxy be a.o. .cn.o.re favor vvith aRepubfican Appropriations Commiteee, we cannot be
sure of how activc his seappoit vdill ultim$e.ly pr.ove to be. Therefore, rt is it~tpmataait far Vailto
cmn¢aaaue to vdork as closely as posslle with Taos, an.d the business agaci political leadersbip in that
commmity, to contact Rachardson aiud DouienSci and reqiaest thdr support_
3ecand, we v+M draft and have Vail offieiaLs send lctters descaibing the project and "zts p.rmgress $o
the appropriate uffi6ah, leaers ewhich we eball fullow up ou person;&y aud wlaich shou1d iu soiue ,
cases (wbLicla we wii7 adentify) be followed by a phone call from the Mayor or apprapriate Council
txaember, ".us should be done 5aoner rather than later_
Third, the absolaate most iffiporeant thing that Vail officiaLs can dm, and one ghat mtast be
consexemtiously aiLended lo, is to move as rapidty as possible to complete aud stabBm6t the grant
application. 7Ctie Iaftlaer along the project is vvhcn Longress begin.s loofdng for money, the safer
ahe project is. Thgs catmot be stressed enough. A very iffiportant part of. tb.,is proccss (and we ase
pIeased eo laeaa that two aaaeetings have been held already) is "wooing" Ylie gegioial DOT officaal.s.
Most o.f. tb.e tixr.ee, grojec.-t appfication delays are caused by DOT bureaucracy, not by delays on the
part ofthe applicant. Groodwii] and willingnm to he)p an the paxt ofRegional I~OT slair can be
very iffipogtant.
7Cn~gn~ Prameo
We nccd to begini immediatety and to praceed wiehh this plan over the nexi severai anonths. Tae
13udget Committee as an the process of its budget hearings, and actioai will specd up on the
Congessioul budget process next month. ne Senate vrnll follow the Hoiase. The neastthree
weeks should result an oiar contactmg the Congressional leaders }isced above, letders 1`ram Va
andl DO'I' staff contacts in Washkgton. V4Te veil] need to be kept closely informed of the status of
the appIica4ion, and any probleffis (due to DOT regialation.s or otherwise) that arise. Aga"
submission mfthe application in as short a time as possible, and rts submission to Washington by
DOT, should be a priorii9.yy. We will theu bave to follow iap ag the budget/recission process
unfoflds to make sure ttiat fiuther transgortation fund'mg is not'targeted or ifit is, that Vail's
02/14/95 TUE 13:04 FA% 202 544 1465 LIZ ROBBINS ASSOCIATES Z003 .
,
~
fwlding is not included. We cannot predict when the "safe zone" - completion ofthe FY 96
bu.dget and FY 95 recissians will come, but we anticipate no more than a few months of work
to be in a position ta step down our efforts.
<