HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-12-05 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session
VA@L TOWN COUNCIL
EVEN'NG MEETING
TUESDAV, DECEIVIBER 5, 1995
7:30 P.M. 9N TOV COUNCIL CHAnABERS
AGEIVDA
1. CITIZEIV PARTICIPATION.
2. Consent Agenda:
Approval of the Minutes for the meetings of fVovember 7 and 21, 1995.
3. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1995, first reading of an ordinance repealing and reenacting
Chapter 18.39 (Ski Base/Recreation Zone District) of the Vail Municipal Code and approving
the Development Plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base, 485 Vail Valley DrivelTract F, Vail
Village 5th Filing, and Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.,
represented by David Corbin.
4. Resolution fVo.27, Series of 1995, a Resolution setting the date for a Special Election for the
purpose of electing a Council member to complete the unexpired term of Margaret A.
Osterfoss, term to expire iVovember, 1997.
5. Appointment of Local Licensing Authority Member.
6. An appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision to deny the requested
front setback variance proposed for the residence currently under construction on Lot 6,
Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision/2832 C Kinnickinnick Road. The appellant, Bob Borne,
represented by Sally Brainerd of RKD Design Inc., is appealing the Planning and
Environmental Commission's denial of the front setback variance request, pursuant to
Section 18.62.070, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
7. Appeal of a DRB decision to approve the International Wing at the Lodge at Vail, located at
174 E. Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Town Council and LuAnn Vl/ells.
8. Town Manager's Report.
9. Adjournment.
NO~E UPCOMING MEETING START'p'19VIES BEL0W:
' (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
7HE NEXY VAIL TOVUN COUNCIL FiEGULAR 1NORK SESSIOfd
UNILL BE ON TvESDAV, 12/12195, BEGIiVfVING A7' 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
- THE FOLLOWING VAIL 70WN COUNCIL REGULi4R VVORK SESSION
VlIILL BE ON 7'UESDAY, 12199/95, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEkT !/AIL 7'OWld COUNCIL REGflDLe4R EVENIfVG nAEETIiVG
NNILL BE ON TUESDAV, 12/99/95; BEGINNIIVG AT 7:30 P.M. IN l'OV COUNCIL CFIAHABERS.
I I I I I I I
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or
479-2356 TDD for information. ,
C:WGENDA.TC
VABL TOWN COUNCIL
EVENING MEET'NG
TUESDAY, NOVEflABER 21, 1995
7:30 P.M. 9N TOV COl1NC9L CHAnABERS
EXPAfVDED AGENDA
7:30 P.M. 1. CITIZEfV PARTICIPATIOfV.
7:35 P.M. 2. Consent Agenda:
Approval of the Minutes for the meetings of November 7 and 21, 1995.
7:40 P.M. 3. Ordinance IVo. 24, Series of 1995, first reading of an ordinance repealing
Jim Curnutte and reenacting Chapter 18.39 (Ski Base/Recreation Zone District) of the Vail
Lauren Waterton Municipal Code and approving the Development Plan for the Golden Peak
Ski Base, 485 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing, and Tract B,
Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by David
Corbin.
ACTIOIV REQUESTED OF COUIVCIL: Approve/modify/deny Ordinance fVo.
24, Series of 1995 on first reading and the Proposed Development Plan.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: In May, 1995 Vail Associates submitted an
application and plans for the redevelopment of the Golden Peak Ski Base.
Work sessions have been held with the PEC and the Town Council
regarding the application. On November 27, 1995, the PEC approved, by a
vote of 7-0, the redevelopment application and the Zoning Code text
amendments, with 13 conditions of approval. For a complete analysis of the
proposal, please refer to the November 27, 1995 staff inemorandum to the
PEC, distributed to the Council on November 28, 1995.
STAFF RECOIViMENDATIOIV: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No.
24, Series of 1995, and conditional approval of the Development Plan.
8:40 P.M. 4. Resolution iVo.27, Series of 1995, a Resolution setting the date for a Special
Holly McCutcheon Election for the purpose of electing a Council member to complete the
unexpired term of Margaret A. Osterfoss, term to expire November, 1997.
8:45 P.M. 5. Appointment of Local Licensing Authority Member.
Holly NicCutcheon
8:50 P.M. 6. An appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision to deny
. George Ruther the requested front setback variance proposed for the residence currently
under construction on Lot 6, Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision/2832 C
Kinnickinnick Road. The appellant, Bob Borne, represented by Sally
Brainerd of RKD Design Inc., is appealing the Planning and Environmental
Commission's denial of the front setback variance request, pursuant to
Section 18.62.070, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
? ACTION REQUESTED OF COUIVCIL: Uphold/modify/overturn the Planning
and Environmental Commission's decision to deny the front setback
variance.
BACKGROUND RATIO(VALE: At the November 27, 1995 Planning and
Environmental Commission meeting the Commission members voted 3-2
(Armour and Moffet Dissenting) to deny the proposed front setback variance
request. The members voting in favor of the motion to deny, felt that the
granting of the variance may result in a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the Zoning Code. A copy of the memorandum prepared by staff for the
Planning and Environmental Commission, and the draft minutes from the
November 27, 1995 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting, have
been attached for your reference. Also, please find attached a copy of the
appeal request letter from the appellant, Bob Borne, detailing the reasons for
the appeal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Section IV, of the memorandum prepared for
the Planning and Environmental Commission by the staff, indicates staff"s
recommendation for denial of the requested frbnt setback variance.
According to Section IV of the memorandum, staff believes the request does
not meet the Criteria and Findings, listed in Section III of the memorandum,
in order to grant an approval of the variance request. Staff believes that the
applicant has met Criteria and Findings A1, A3, 62, 133a, b and c. Staff doos
not believe, however, the applicant has met Criteria and Findings A2 and 61.
Staff is specifically concerned that the grariting of approval of the requested
variance may result in the grant of specoal privilege inconsistent with the
limitations on other properties classified iri the same zone district.
9:20 P.M. 7. Appeal of a DRB decision to approve the International Wing at the Lodge at
Andy Knudtsen Vail, located at 174 E. Gore Creek DrivP. Applicant: Town Council arid
LuAnn Wells.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Uphold/overturn/modify the DRB
decision of approval.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On 11/1/95 the DRB voted 5-0 to approve the
International Wing. Three work sessions with the DRB preceded this
decision. An exterior alteration approval by the PEC was made on 10/10/83.
The PEC approval was based on the criteria for exterior alterations as well
as an agreement wliich the Town had executed with the Lodge relating to
accommodation units and conference arp-a within the Village. Given the
preceding actions of the Town Council, Tovvn Manger, and PEC, the purview
of the DRB review related to aesthetics, as set forth in Chapter 18.54, Design
Review.
11:20 P.M. 8. Town Manager's Report.
11:30 P.M. 9. Adjournment.
NOTE UPCOM9NG MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHAMGE)
I I I I I I I
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 12/12195, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COIJMCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 12119/95, BEGINNINC AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUPICIL REGULAR EVE;NIN(3 MEETIPIG
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 12119/95, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
IIIIIII
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or
479-2356 TDD for information.
C:ViGENDA.TCE '
, Gene C. Useltoan
3085 Booth Fal?s Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-476-8793
November 29, 1995
Ms. Holly McCutcheon
Town Clerk
Town of Vail
Vail, Colorado
Subject: Loca1 Licensing Authority, Vacancy left by the departure of Mr. Dave Wilson
Dear 1VIs. McCutcheon:
At the suggestion of Mr. Donald White I am hereby submitting my name for consideration for
appointment to the Local Licensing Authority. I understand that a candidate must have been a
resident of Vail and a registered voter for at least two years. I became an official resident in early
January, 1994; if that disqualifies me, I shall understand.
I am a Professor of Finance (now Emeritus) at Texas A&M University; and I served as the Head,
Department of Finance until August, 1993. While living in College Station, Texas, I served on
the Brazos Valley Arts Council and the Brazos Symphony Board. If you wish, I can furnish a
Curriculum Vitae of the kind that we use in academia. It lists my academic degrees, teaching and
editorial experience, and publications.
My wife and I purchased a condo in 1986 and have spent the summers here since then. In order to
decide if Vail was a place where we wanted to live, we took leaves from the university for the
spring and summer semesters of 1989 and 1991 and lived in Vail. In March, 1991, having
decided to move to Vail, we purchased our home on Booth Falls Road.
As a contribution to the community I am currently teaching a course in statistics at the Colorado
Mountain College. (Ms. Katherine Schmidt is my program Director and Ms. Kay Saulsbury is the
Campus Dean.)
I would be pleased to serve the community as a member of the Local Licensing Authority. Please
advise if I need to furnish additional information.
Sincerely,
f
Gene C. Uselton
TOWN OF VAIL LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY MEMBERS
fVame/Address Occupation Term Expires
Connie Knight Licensed Real Estate Broker, Interior Designer 06/96
5197 Black Gore Drive Former member of the PEC
Vail, CO, 81657
476-3615 (Res & Fax)
Don White Town of Vail business owner
304 E. Bridge Street Chocolate Factory 06/96
Vail, CO 81657
476-6835 (Res)
Ellen Schmitt fVlother of two, ABC School Director 06/97
1875 W. Gore Creek Drive Active in Vail Mountain Rescue
Vail, CO 81657
Mary Zarba Vail Center for Physical Therapy, Business iVianager 06/97
2427 W. Chamonix, #1 Vail Valley Medical Center
Vail, CO 81657
i:
,
, 0~ 130~ l L~~"~
I~ urI aC
r .(9
-
. ~ q16 -~~~~y
;
~
r~
!i~ /C) w bR r t /!/lq Ca/(cc~i
fD fMc
00
Y qoG~o r
t l
~osi''
I~I
l~a Ue /~Oe~
ilqoC (florke kocl
i: i~~P(Je ~Q ~P i~U YC
q 54T rQ
i,j r/~ J~~l GUl cqC,#-P [Or oe
c~cD~r
!/U ffO5
Mcil ~/C~ ~X~~7
U/l~~ D~S v 6~~~s ~U' ?~7 ~~'G
~ ~ f rs
~
~(Cc
c- W15, Aot reccIt-l Ir
co~i
r ~~~zf
rd v. l~ .t e d~ -
III kve ~ P~Cl (
c~ vti~ ~~d k ~
o eeclf ~
d~~J rf f/UV~ l(/e
7-fiC cdXAJ(11r ~ l` ,
~~e f~ b/< r ~ ~r
Nw, c C)~'r ~l c Io eo~'5`
jil e rl o~e o
r: ~N t!7~ Pgs?7cSS~
7'~qltlk ~ou fcr vor ~ co id,
~
~
~
I,I
I!!
f!I
i~
il
I;I
i~i
~
~ Oc-c~iU OA
~ . _ - - - - - :
-
- -
-
. - - - - - =
- - - K ~
- - -
_ -L l.U' )u
- -.G-bGr1G- -'L` c.~~v~'!~f(~ ---=~G~TtlG21 i'T}-- r ~ `TNce Tpc-c.,.u o,c (/s4 /L
/f'! 4 LL 06 YOc.t/Z OGt AL i~~Gs~77r/U,S .~i~ f
. ~
W 77Y`+' <4.6-G 7-701"t; ~
- - -
- - - d
V,L4
/\00
//v 17-74.QES7- D~ A'v y~ ~C<ni t) w 6I
._~~LL ~iIJG U~ ~LG v t/GL"
C •a~~ v.Flc'~G~L'GoS,
. f~.c~.P.~n:. y~ Ae<7"4
/~U ~K.S~.vE,51 L~y, ~Y/:y~~ ~,vi?~.QS.i;- yeS ~
- - - - ~ - -
14 ey-tiZ.Q 6rS/s *0 )
~ - - _ _ . _ . •4.ti Cu.~~ca.'Z r
- - - - - - ' -
L L Gc c,J ~
J _4
S~vc.c ~2
1
TOWiV COUfVCiL COfdiMITTEE/TASK FORCE APPOINTMENTS
TO: Town Council
FR: Pam Brandmeyer _
DA: December 4, 1995
RE: CommitteelTask Force Appointments
This is a list of all committees/task forces to which 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, November 1997.
COIVIMITTEE/TASK FORCE COUNCIL MEMBERS
1. NV1/CCOG Sybill Navas
, alternate
2. Vail Valley Tourism &
& Convention Bureau
(formerly VRA)
3. Vail Transportation and Kevin Foley
Parking Task Force
4. CAST Bob Armour
Bob McLaurin
5. VRD/Council Subcommittee Ken Wilson
Ross Davis
6. Special Events Committee Sybill Navas
7. Bravo! Colorado Board
8. NWCCOG Water Quality/ Sybill Navas
Quantity Committee , apprentice
9. Eagle County Recreation Paul Johnston
Authority , alternate
10. Town of Vai1 Housing Authority
11. Channel 5 Board Sybill Navas
12. Vail Valley Arts Council
13. Mauri Nottingham Environmental
Award
14. Lodge at Vail Land Swap Paul Johnston
Bob McLaurin
Tom Moorhead
15. Vail Valley Exchange
16. Regional Transportation Com. Kevin Foley
17. Ford Park Management Plan
18. The Chamber Paul Johnston
19. Open Space/Charter Committee
20. Art In Public Places C:\TCAPPTS.LST
.
~ ORDINANCE NO. 24
Series of 1995
AN ORD9NANCE REPEAL9NG AfVD RE-EIVACTBNC CFiAPTER 98.39, SlCB
BASE/RECREAT90N DISTRICT OF TFIE !/AIL lIAUfVICIPAL CODE.
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.39 of the Vail Municipal Code describes the Ski Base/Recreation
Zone District; and
WHEREAS, Vail Associates, Inc. has submitted an application to amend Chapter 18.39 of
the Vail fiNunicipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has
recommended approval of the amendment to Chapter 18.39 of the Vail Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safety, and
welfare to amend said Chapter of the Municipal Code.
IVOVV, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAIIVED BY THE TOWIV COUNCIL OF THE TOWfV OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
cin1.
Chapter 18.39 of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby repealed and re-enacted to read as follows:
18.39.010 Purpose.
The Golden Peak Ski Base/Recreation District is intended to provide for the base facilities
necessary to operate the ski mountain and to allow multi-family residential dwellings as a
secondary use if certain criteria are met. In addition, summer recreational uses and facilities are
encouraged to achieve multi-seasonal use of some of the facilities and provide for efficient use of
the facilities.
18.39.030 Permitted uses.
A. The following uses shall be permitted within the main base lodge building in the Golden
Peak Ski Base/Recreation District:
1. Ski lockers/employee locker rooms.
2• Ski school and ski patrol facilities.
3. Lift ticket sales.
4. Tennis pro shop.
5. Ski repair, rental, sales and accessories.
6. RestauranUbar/snack bar/candy sales.
7• Summer seasonal recreational, cultural and educational programs and offices.
0
,
8. Meeting rooms for owner use and community-oriented organizations.
9. Injury prevention and rehabilitation facilities for owners' use.
10. Basket rental
11. Special community events.
B. Retail and meeting room space limitation.
1. Retail sales space in the first two floors shaN be iimited to a maximurn of fifteen
percent of the non-residential gross square footage of the main base lodge
building. Under Section 18.39.030, retail shall be defined as tennis pro shop,
candy sales, ski repair/rental sales, accessories and clothing, basket rental, ski
lockers and storage for the public.
2. Meeting rooms shall be limited to a maximum of ten percent of the non-residential
• gross square footage of the main building.
C. Multi-family dwelling units within the main base lodge building if the following
requirements are met:
1. The dwelling units shall be a secondary use within the main base lodge building if
they meet the following criteria:
a. No residential use on ground level.
b. Visual impacts such as surface parking for the dwelling units shall be
minimized by providing at least forty percent of the required parking within
the main base lodge building or in an attached parking structure.
c. The maximum gross residential floor area (GRFA) devoted to dwelling
units shall not exceed thirty percent of the total gross square footage of
the main base lodge building.
2. Before acting on multi-family dwelling units, the Planning and Environmental
Commission shall consider the following factors in regard thereto:
a. Relationship and impacts of the use on development objectives of the
town.
b. Effect of the use on light and air, distribuEion of population, transportation
facilities, utilities, schools, parks, and recreational facilities, and other
public facilities and public facilities needs.
c. Effect upon traffic, with particular referenre to congestion, automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking area.
e
r
d. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in ;;,,Iation to
surrounding uses.
3. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the findings set forth in
Section 18.60.060 B before permitting multi-family units within the main base
lodge building.
D. Permitted uses within the Children's Ski School building:
1. Year-round child care and children's ski school and appurtenant recreational
facilities and programs.
2. Children's ski schoal services and programs.
3. Community events and programs.
4. Summer recreational, cultural and educational programs. '
E. The following uses shall be permitted outside the main base lodge and Children's Ski
School buildings as shown on the approved development plan:
1. Ski trails, slopes and lifts;
2. Snowmaking facilities;
3. Bus and skier dropoff;
4. Surface parking lot; 5. Ski racing facilities;
6. Public parks, Yennis and volleyball courts, and playing fields, playgrounds;
7. VUater-treatment and storage facilities buildings;
8. Mountain storage buildings;
9. Ski school activities;
10. Special community events;
11. Food and beverage service;
12. Indoor and outdoor ski storage.
18.39.050 Conditional uses.
A. The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the Golden Peak Ski Base/Recreation
District, subject to the issuance of a condifional use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 18.60:
1. Recreation room/minor arcade.
2. Addition or expansion of storage buildings for mountain equipment.
3. Summer outdoor storage for mountain equipment.
4. Redevelopment of water storage extraction anci treatment facilities.
5. Redevelopment of ski racing facilities.
6. Redevelopment of public parks, playgrounds.
7. Summer seasonal community offices and programs.
8. Additions or expansions of public or private parking structures or spaces.
9. Seasonal structures to accommodate athletic, c;ultural, or educational activities.
10. Redevelopment of ski lifts and tows.
11. Food and beverage cart vending.
12. Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 18.58.310.
13. Type III EHU as defined in Section 18.57.060.
14. Type IV EHU as defined in Section 18.57.070.
15. Public, private or quasi-public clubs.
18.39.070 Accessory Uses
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the Golden Peak Ski Base/Recreation
District:
A. Accessory uses customarily incidental to permitted and conditional uses and
necessary for the operation thereof.
B. Home occupations, subject to the issuance of a home occupation permit in
accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 ihrough 18.58.190.
18.39.080 Location of business activity.
A. All offices and retail sales conducted in the Golden Peak Ski Base/Recreation
~ District shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building except for
approved special events and food and beverage vending.
18.39.090 Development plan required.
A. To ensure the unified development, the protection of the natural environment, the
compatibility with the surrounding area and to assure that development in the
Golden Peak Ski Base/Recreation District will meet the intent of the district, a
development plan shalt be required.
B. The proposed devetopment plan shall be in accordance with Section 18.39.110
and shall be submitted by the developer to the zoning administrator, who shall
refer it to the Planning and Environmental Commission, which shall consider the
plan at a regularly scheduled meeting. A report of the Pfanning and
Environmental Commission stating its findings and recommendations shall be
transmitted to the town council for approval in accordance with ihe applicable
e
0
provisions of Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code. C. The approved devefopment plan shall be used as the principal guide for all
development within the Golden Peak Ski Base/Recreation District.
D. Amendments to the approved development plan uvhich do not alter the basic intent
and character of the approved developmen4 plan may be approved by the Director
. of the Department of Community Development or by the Planning and
Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing in accordance
wri4h the provisions of Section 18.66.060.
E. The development plan and any subsequent amendments thereto shall require the
approval of the design review board in accordance with the applicable provisions
of Chapter 18.54 of the Municipal Code prior to the commencement of site
preparation.
18.39.110 Development Plan - Contents
The following information and materials shall be submitted with an application for a
proposed development plan. Certain submittal requirements may be waived or modified
by the Director of the Department of Community Development if it is demonstrated that
the material to be v?raived or modified is not applicable to the review criteria, or that other
practical solutions have been reached.
A. Application form and filing fee.
B. A vuritten statement describing the project including information on the nature of
the development proposed, proposed uses, and phasing plans.
C. A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating existing conditions of the
property to be included in the development plan, including the location of
improvements, existing contours, natural features, existing vegetation, uvater
courses, and perimeter property lines of the parcel.
D. P? title report, including schedules A and B.
E. Flans depicting existing conditions of the parcel (site plan, floor plans, elevations,
etc.), if applicable.
F. A complete zoning analysis of the existing and proposed development including a
square footage analysis of all proposed uses, parking spaces, etc.
G. A site plan at a scale not smaller than 1" = 20', showring the location and
dimensions of all existing and proposed buildings and structures, all principal site
development features, vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems and proposed
;
contours and drainage plans.
H. Building elevations, sections and floor plans at a scale not smailer than
1/8" = 1', in sufficient detail to determine floor area, circulation, location of uses
and scale and appearance of the proposed development.
1. A vicinity plan showing existing and proposed improvements in relation to all
adjacent properties at a scale not smaller than 1" = 50'.
J. Photo overlays and/or other acceptable visual techniques for demonstrating the
visual impact of the proposed devetopment on public and private property in the
vicinity of the proposed development plan.
, K. An architectural or massing model at a scale sufficient to depict the proposed
development in relationship to existing development on the site and on adjacent
parcels.
L. A landscape ptan at a scale not smaller than 1" = 20', showing existing landscape
features to be retained and removed, proposed landscaping and other site
development features such as recreation facilities, paths and traits, plazas,
walkways and water features.
M. An Environmental Impact Report in accordance with Chapter 18.56, unless waived
by Section 18.56.030.
N. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the Director of the
Community Development Department. With the exception of the model, four complete copies of the above information shall be
submitted at the time of the application. When a model is required, it shall be submitted a
minimum of two weeks prior to the first formal review of the Planning and Environmental
Commission. At the discretion of the Director of Community Development, reduced
copies in 8.5" x 11 " format of all of the above information and additional copies for
distribution to the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council may be
required.
18.39.120 Development Standards/Criteria for evaluation.
The following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a proposed
~
development plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the
proposed development plan complies with all applicable design criteria.
1. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and
orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding
neighborhood.
0
5
2. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce
a functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding
neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole.
3. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to
preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for .
access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed
uses and surrounding properties, and when possible, are integrated with existing
open space and recreation areas.
4. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe, efficient
and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development.
5. Enviro.nmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the
projecYs Environmental Impact Report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating
measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan.
6. Compliance rwith The Vail Comprehensive Plan and other applicable plans.
18.39.130 Lot area.
The minimum lot or siYe area shall be forty acres of site area, at least one acre of which
shall be buildable area.
18.39.150 Setbacks. In the Golden Peak Ski Base/Recreation District, front, side, rear and stream setbacks
shall be as indicated on the approved development plan.
18.39.170 Height.
Up to sixty percent of the 6uilding (building coverage area) may be built to a height of
thirty-five feet, or less. iVo more than forty percent of the building (building coverage
area) may be higher than thirty-five feet, but not higher than forty feet. Towers, spires,
cupolas, chimneys, flagpoles, and similar architectural features not useable as gross
residential floor area may extend above the height limit a distance ofi not more than
tnrenty-five percent of the height limit nor more than fifteen feet.
18.39.180 Density Control.
Total density shall not exceed one dwelling unit per.eight acres of site area.
18.39.190 Site coverage.
Site coverage shall be as shown on the approved development plan.
18.39.210 Landscaping and site development.
Landscaping requirements shall be as showrn on the approved development plan. All
areas within the area(s) of disturbance in the landscape plan not ~occupied by building,
ground level decks or patios, or parking shall be landscaped.
I
18.39.230 Parking Plan and Program
. I
Parking Plan and Manaqement Program shall be as shown on anld described in the
approved development plan. ~
~
I
Sectio'n 2
i
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason
held to be invalid, such decision shall riot effect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance;; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and
each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regarldless of the fact that
I
any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
~
I
e i n
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and
I
proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
e ion 4.
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided
in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty im'posed, any violation
that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other
I .
action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and
i
reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance
previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. ~
I
Section . I
All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsist int herewith are
repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise
I
any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed.
I
I
I
~
I
i
i
i
. I
i
,
i
'I .
e
j
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READIfVG, APPROVED, AiVD ORDERED PUBLISHED OIVCE
IN FULL, this day of , 1995. A pubfic hearing on this ordinance shall be held
at Yhe regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the day of
, 1995, in the Municipat Building of the Town.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
IIVTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AiVD EIVACTED OiV SECORID READING AIVD ORDERED
PUBLISHED (IfV FULL) (BY TITLE OIVLY) THIS DAY OF , 1995.
• Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
ORD24.95
MIiVUTES
VAIL TOWiV COUNCIL MEETIIVG
November 7, 1995
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, IVovember 7, 1995, in
the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order
at 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESERIT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor
Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem
Tom Steinberg
Sybill Navas
Jan Strauch
Rodney E. Slifer
Paul Johnston
MEMBERS ABSEiVT: fVone .
TOWiV OFFICIALS PRESEiVT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager
Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Assist Town Manager
Lori Aker, Deputy Town Clerk
The ffirst item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. There was no citizen
participation.
The second item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda:
A. Approval of the Minutes for the meetings of October 3 and 17, 1995.
B. Ordinance iVo. 18, Series of 1995, second reading of an ordinance Amending
Section 9.22.101A. which contains the definition for Larceny.
Mayor Osterfoss read the Consent Agenda in full. Lapin moved to approve the
Consent Agenda with a second by Steinberg. iVavas asked that a typo be corrected and
that her vote on item five have an explanation added as to why she was opposed.
Johnston noted on item one that Steinberg's name be inserted instead of his name
where reference was made to previous council members present at the time of the land
purchase. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0.
The thard item on $he agenda was Ordinance IVo. 22, Series of 1995, first reading of
an ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund,
Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Parking Structure Fund, Heavy Equipment Fund, Police
Confiscation Fund, Facilities Maintenance Fund, Vail Marketing Fund and the Vail
Housing Fund, of the 1995 budget and the financial plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado;
and authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations as set forth herein; and setting
forth details in regard thereto. Steve Thompson and Christine Anderson presented the
Third Quarter Financial Report and list of required supplemental appropriations. Staff
is requesting approval of Ordinance iVo. 22, Series of 1995 on first reading. Lapin
moved to approve Ordinance No. 22 of 1995 on first reading, with a second by
Steinberg. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0.
The foaarth item oro the agenda was Ordinance fVo. 23, Series of 1995, first reading of
an ordinance amending Chapter 2.48, Compensation of Town Officials, Town of Vail
Municipal Code. Tom Moorhead presented this item to council. Council is asking for a
raise of $200 to $500 per month for Council merribers and $500 to $1000 per month for
the Mayor. Said change, if approved would start January 1, 1998 with pay adjustments
made every 4 years per the Denver CPI. Hermann Staufer encouraged the council to
vote no on this Ordinance. He challenged next years Council that if they donate their
money to charity, he would match a like amount to the same charity. Money should not
Iihbs
be the reason a Council member serves. The main reason must be they want to make
a contribution to the community. Slifer noted the last time council received a raise was
1981. Slifer made a motion to increase Council's pay to $1,000 per month and the
iVlayor's pay to $1,500 per month, with a second by Paul Johnston. A vote was taken
and failed 2-5. Johnston and Slifer were in favor of the motion and IVavas, Strauch,
Steinberg, Osterfoss and Lapin against. Bob Fiske encouraged the Council to vote for
a pay increase as he believes it would encourage and enable more individuals to run
for council. Lapin made a motion to approve Ordinance 23, 1995 on first reading
allowing for a Council pay increase to $500 per month and the Mayor's pay increased
to $1000 per month; said increase and CPI calculations to start January 1, 1998, with a
second by Steinberg. The motion passed unanimously 7-0.
The ffefth atem on the agenda was Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1995, second reading
of an annual appropriation ordinance adopting a budget and financial plan and making
appropriations to pay the costs, expenses, and liabilities of the Town of Vail, Colorado,
for its fiscal year January 1, 1996, through December 31, 1996, and providing for the
levy assessment and collection of Town ad valorem property taxes due for.the 1995 tax
year and payable in the 1996 fiscal year. Steve Thompson presented this item to
Council. The Council has been reviewing the 1996 budget for several weeks. The
ordinance summarizing the expenditures is required by statute. Staff is recommending
approval of Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1995. Johnston moved to approve Ordinance
No. 20, Series of 1995 on second reading, with a second by Strauch. A vote was taken
and passed unanimously, 7-0.
The sax$h utem on the agenda was Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1995, second reading
of an ordinance to change the zoning of 67 properties in the Town of Vail from their
current zoning to the iVatural Area Preservation District, Outdoor Recreation District, or
the General Use District. Russ Forrest and Jim Curnutte presented this item to Council.
On August 22, 1994, staff received approval to amend the text of Chapter 18.38,
Greenbelt and iVatural Open Space District (GNOS) and Chapter 18.36, Public Use
District (PUD), of the Vail Municipal Code, and to create a new Chapter 18.33, Outdoor
Recreation District (OR). These text amendments and the proposed zoning changes,
as identified in Ordinance No. 19, are intended to insure that the uses allowed in these
zone districts are consistent with their purpose statements, and that properties
throughout Town, especially those with open space characteristics, are located in the
appropriate zone district. The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the
proposed zoning changes on September 24, 1995 and voted 4-2-1 to recommend
approval of these changes. The two dissenting members stated that they wanted
parcel #21 (proposed par 3 site) to be rezoned to the General Use District. Staff also
reviewed issues and public comments concerning the proposed rezoning of the iVlt. Bell
site (#34). The PEC felt strongly that the entire fVlt. Bell parcel should be rezoned to the
General Use District as per the staff memo. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance
No. 19, Series of 1995. Steinberg wants to change the Red Sandstone site boundary
lines and Johnston wants to change the Mountain bell site boundary lines. Hermann
Staufer encouraged Council to create a zone just for the Vail Golf Course. The Golf
course needs to run as a first class operation and a zone just for a golf course could
assure this. Moorhead stated the Outdoor Recreation zone district allows for golf
courses as a permitted use and provides for the needs of a golf course. iVavas is
concerned the new zoning on the recreation parcels may make it difficult to place any
community buildings on these parcels. She thinks Outdoor Recreation is inappropriate ,
for some parcels and General Use may allow for greater flexibility. Slifer wondered if
this item should be tabled pending resolution of these questions. Moorhead stated it
would be appropriate to table the issue if Council wants to reconsider Outdoor
Recreation vs. General Use, or the questionable parcels could be removed from this
Ordinance and continue with a motion. Lapin made a motion to Approve Ordinance
No. 19, Series of 1995 on second reading, excluding property no. 51 (upper bench of
Donovan Park) and west of Red Sandstone School create a line to allow for fVAPD on
the steep section of that parcel, with a second by Steinberg. A vote was taken and
passed, 6-1 with iVavas opposing.
2 1/.,./-7.,,,,, C.,w„:lG...,a,y 7?9..l;.,y ! lhA)5
The sevent8v on the agenda was Ordinance iVo. 21, Series of 1995, second reading of
an ordinance amending Section 5.04.120 Transfer of License and Section 5.20.100
Exemptions; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Tom Moorhead and Steve
Thompson presented this item to council. 1) Council requested staff to prepare an
ordinance that would allow some relief from the Annual Business License fee when anew owner occupied an existing space and began a new operation in a space that a
prior owner had paid the annual business license fee. 2) Council requested staff to
prepare amendments to our special events license to guarantee that exempt, non-profit
organizations will significantly benefit from such special events. This direction was
provided as a result of a special event that was perceived to be nothing more than a
retail sales event that did not provide significant benefit to an exempt organization.
Staff is recommending the follovuing: 1) Staff recommends a more equitable approach is
to prorate the annual business license fee for the initial year of operation. 2) Staff
advises that the change may significantly impact special events and sales tax revenue
from those events. Moorhead stated this ordinance provides for a quarterly, prorated
business license, but does not reduce the fee to less than $100 and will take affect
October 2, 1995. Lapin moved to approve Ordinance iVo. 21, Series of 1995 on second
reading, with a second by Steinberg. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0.
The eaghth e$em on the agenda was Ordinance iVo. 14, Series of 1995, second
reading of an ordinance providing for the major amendment of Special Development
District iVo. 31, Golden Peak House; amending an approved development plan for
Special Development District iVo. 31, in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail
Municipal Code; located at 278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A, B, and C, Block 2, Vail
Village 1 st Filing and a portion of Tract E, Vail Village 5th Filing, and setting forth details
in regard thereto. Mike Mollica presented this item to Council. On September 11,
1995, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted (by a vote of 4-2, with Armour
and Pratt opposed) to recommend approval for the applicant's requests. The staff
recommendation is for approval of the applicanYs request to modify the density section
of the SDD, with regard to the overall number of dwelling units. Additionally, staff
recommends denial of the applicant's request to modify the density/GRFA portion of the
proposal. Please see the attached staff memorandum, dated September 11, 1995, to
the Planning and Environmental Commission. Steinberg moved to approve Ordinance
iVo. 14, Series of 1995 on second reading, with a second by Navas. A vote was taken
and passed unanimously, 7-0.
The nanth utem on trhe agenda was Resolution iVo. 24, Series of 1995, A resolution
adopting the Intergovernmental Agreement Concerning the Implementation, Operation
and Maintenance of the "E-9-1-1" Telephone Service. Tom Collins presented this item
to Council. Lapin moved to approve Resolution iVo. 24, Series of 1995, with a second
by Steinberg. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0.
The tenth utem on the agenda was an appeal by an adjacent property owner of a DRB
approval of changes to a previously approved set of plans and an appeal of a PEC
approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an employee housing unit located at 126
• Forest Road/Lot 5, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Lauren Waterton, Mike Mollica and
Tom Moorhead presented this item to Council. At the October 18, 1995 DRB meeting,
the DRB approved changes to a previously approved set of plans for a new
Primary/Secondary residence to be located at 126 Forest Road. The DRB originally
approved the project at the June 6, 1995 DRB meeting. At the October 23, 1995 PEC
meeting, the PEC approved a Conditional Use Permit for a Type II employee housing
unit. The adjacent neighbor to the west, Mike Flannery, has appealed both of these
decisions to the Town Council. Please see the attached letters of appeal, as well as
the staff memorandum for further information. Staff recommends that both the DRB
decision and the PEC decision be upheld. Dave Lenyo and Lawrence Levine
attorneys for the Flannery's presented to council testimony as to the history of events
and facts particular to the PEC and DRB appeals. Jay Peterson objected to listening to
the full presentation. Council should only hear evidence directly relating to the two
appeals. Dave Lenyo gave Council background information on the boundary lines.
These lines are still under litigation. He wants Council to address whether this
3
proposed building would fit on the property. Lawrence Levine did participate in the
DRB & PEC process regarding the "changes". However he stated the Flannery's were
not present for the original presentations last summer. Levin stated the proposed plans
do not comply with the TOV codes pertaining to "buildable square footage". Mike
Mollica stated the applicant met the zoning code requirements to place a Type II EHU
on the lot. Levine stated the GRFA calculation on the building exceeds the maximum
allowable GRFA. Lauren Watterton stated the GRFA on this building is below the
maximum and Levine is incorrectly calculating the stairs. Levine said the landscaping
calculations do not meet the TOV's code and that hardscape is not to exceed 20%.
Mollica stated the hardscape is within the guidelines. Levine believes wall heights are
incorrect per the Code. Mollica stated prior to a building permit being issued staff will
carefully review all wall heights and they must comply prior to a building permit being
issued. Levine stated the building height exceeds the 33' maximum. Mollica stated the
building height does not exceed the maximum allowable of 33'. Nloorehead instructed
Council to vote separately on the two issues. Lapin moved to uphold the PEC decision
vuith PEC's conditions of 1) This Employee Housing Unit shall comply with all future
regulations pertaining to Type II Employee Housing Units that may be adopted by the
Vail Town Council. 2) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed
structure, the applicant shall sign a deed restriction using the form provided by the
Town of Vail. This document will be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and
Recorder's Office and will require that the employee housing unit be permanently
restricted for employee housing, with a second by Strauch. A vote was taken and
passed unanimously 7-0. Lapin moved to uphold the DRB decision with DRB's
conditions of 1) Provide staff a new landscape plan with special attention to the
retaining wall and the area in front of the building. 2) Remove the blast protection
screen immediately upon completion of excavation. 3) Should the PEC approve the
EHU on October 23, 1995, the design of the north elevation with the EHU may
substitute for this approval, plus any incorrect wall heights shall be corrected, with a
second by Johnston. A vote was taken and passed unanimously 7-0. Levine would like the plans he used for this meeting to be submitted for the record.
The eleventh ugeava on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. There was no
report. -
There being no further business, Strauch moved to adjourn at approximately 11:15
PM. .
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lori Aker, Deputy Town Clerk
('Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.)
4 1/ t( 5- C.,u,:lC.,d,,9 YYl..ta,y YYI.'-ta 1 J171I5
w ' I
MIIVUTES
VAIL TOWIV COUfVCIL MEETING
IVovember 21, 1995
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, (Vovember 21, 1995, in
the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at
7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESEfVT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor
Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem
Paul Johnston
Sybill Navas
Tom Steinberg
. Jan Strauch
Rod Slifer
TOWfV OFFICIALS PRESEIVT: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Manager
R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney
Anne Wright on behalf of the Town Clerk
The $srs$ utem on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Larry Grafel made a speech
honoring Merv Lapin and Tom Steinberg and the work they have done for the town in their
tenure. Jim Hoza presented Merv Lapin with a box of numbers, since he always asks for
them and a mini live Christmas tree to Tom Steinberg.
Sammye Meadows of the Vail Alpine Garden Foundation formally requested a 49 year
lease with an option to renew another 49 years.
Second on the agenda was the DRB Review. There was no need to discuss any of the
items.
Thard osv the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance IVo. 22, Series of 1995, an
ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund,
Parking Structure Fund, Heavy Equipment Fund, Police Confiscation Fund, Facilities
Maintenance Fund, Vail IViarketing Fund and the Vail Housing Fund, of the 1995 budget
and the financial plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the expenditures of
said appropriations as set forth herein; and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Steve Thompson and Christine Anderson presented changes to the list of required
supplemental appropriations. Also included, Jeff Layman provided background information
on the 530 AM /Radio Station with a request for $7,000 in additional funding. Other
funding sources include CDOT and VA at equal contributions of $7,000 each.
Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance 22, Series of 1995 on second reading with a
second by Sybill IVavas. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0.
Forth on $he agenda was the second reading of Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1995, an
ordinance amending Chapter 2.48, Compensation of Town Officiats, Town of Vail
Nlunicipal Code.
Tom Moorhead presented this Ordinance for second reading.
There was discussion among Council as whether or not to put conditions on getting the
increased salary, such as attending at least 85% of all work sessions and evening
meetings.
Jan Strauch moved to approve Ordinance 23, Series of 1995 on second reading with a
second by Sybill IVavas. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0.
1 Vail Town Council Evening Mceting Minutes I 1/21/95
Eufth on the agenda was the reading of Resolution iVo. 25, Series of 1995, Adopting the
Eagle River Watershed Plan. Paul Reeve and Mike Mollica presented this Resolution
which had been discussed at the 11/14/95 work session. The Eagle River and its
tributaries are geographic features that are a shared resource in Eagle County. Gore
Creek and the Eagle River are sensitive natural features that provide habitat for a multitude
of plants and animals. The fundamental purpose of the Eagle River Management Plan is
to develop a common philosophy for managing and protecting this critical resource in our
region. Participants in this plan include recreational interest groups, developers, water
districts, Federal, State, County, and local agencies. Each agency is currently reviewing
the Plan to determine if they would be willing to pass a resolution committing themselves
to implement the Plan, as practical and feasible. The Planning and Environmental
Commission reviewed this Plan on August 28, 1995 and voted unanimously to recommend
to the Vail Town Council that a resolution be adopted to implement the Plan, as feasible,
for the Town of Vail. On October 23, the Town Council reviewed the Plan and directed
staff to develop a resolution to adopt the Plan which would specifically state the areas the
Town would implement.
Tom Steinberg moved to approve Resolution 25, Series of 1995 with a second by IVlerv
Lapin. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0.
SAxth on $he agenda was a update discussion about I-70 chain enforcement.
The Council approved an operational plan presented by Acting Police Chief Jeff Layman
for enforcement of the state chain law on I-70 during inclement weather. In addition, the
Council supported a recommendatian by the president of the Coiorado Motor Carriers
Association to establish a task force to continue working on solutions at the state and local
levels. The operational plan presented by the Vail Police Department includes:
0 Enforce existing state chain law, which assesses a$39 fine for violators, as
opposed to immediate consideration of a local ordinance. Layman said he wanted
to test the deterrent aspects of the $39 fine "for a few more storms" before
recommending any additional action at the local level. Since November 1, the Vail
Police Department has written six tickets to truckers who have violated the chain law
on I-70. Layman said the six were probably the most his officers--and possibly the
Colorado State Patrol combined--had issued in recent years.
0 Assignment of a Vail police officer to work overtime at the East Vail exit area for
chain law enforcement on weekdays when the chain law is enacted. This action,
Layman said, would supplement the Colorado Department of Transportation and
Colorado State Patrol enforcement programs, which will be operated on Saturdays
and Sundays only.
0 Draft a local ordinance that mirrors the state chain law ordinance, in case
compliance with existing laws is ineffective.
0 Layman said the department has been experimenting with an enforcement
presence on the interstate since November. And already, he says, police presence
has had an immediate effect on voluntary compliance with the chain law.
The Council then heard from Greg Fulton, president of the Colorado Motor Carriers
Association, who gave an update on the organization's efforts to become part of the
solution. Fulton said CMCA is pursuing actions, such as: 0 Providing a"pusher-truck" at the top of Vail Pass to expedite clearing of the
roadway when mishaps occur. A similar program is in place on Donner Pass in
California.
0 Implementation of an education campaign to inform out-of-state truckers as to
Colorado's chain law and the need for chains under certain conditions.
a Assisting in passage of new state legislation to toughen the chain law to increase
compliance.
0 1lVorking with CDOT and others toward an overall plan for I-70 to address increasing
traffic on the corridor.
0 Investigating development of a"command center" to dispatch weather and road
condition/closure information to various trucking companies.
2 V;til Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 11l21/95
In suggesting a task group to continue the dialogue, Fulton said the association was
particularly interested in relocating Vail's chain-up area "farther up the hill" beyond the East
Vail exit. He said a new area would preserve wear and tear on the highways, increase
safety and prevent damage to the truckers' chains. Joe Macy, from Vail Associates, also
participated in the discussion. VA has been a partner with the town and other state
agencies in working to address last year's record closures along I-70.
Seveuvtta ouv the agens8a George Ruther presented a call-up of a DRB decision regarding
the Cook residence located at 1012 Eagles IVest Circle/Lot 2, Block 6, Vail Village Seventh
Filing.
On September 26, 1995, the Town of Vail Department of Community Development
received a letter from Tom and Florence Steinberg requesting the call-up of a Design
Review Board decision made at the September 20, 1995 Design Review Board meeting.
The request for the call-up of the item, for review by the Town Council, is in accordance
with Section 18.54.090 (Appeal to Town Council) of the Town of Vail Niunicipal Code.
Council is asked to uphold, uphold with conditions, or overturn the Design Review Board's
decision of September 20, 1995 to allow for an addition to the Cook residence
On September 20, 1995, the Town of Vail Design Review Board approved a residential
addition to the Cook residence using two 250's. The vote by the DRB was 4-1 in favor of
the request. DRB member Bob Borne cast the dissenting vote.
On October 17, 1995, the Vail Town Council approved the request of Sam Cook for a 30-
day extension to the appeal process.
Prior to the review of the Cook residential addition at the September 20, 1995 DRB
meeting, staff completed a zoning analysis of the property. The purpose of completing the
zoning analysis was to make a determination as to whether or not the property was in
compliance with the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Upon completion of the zoning analysis,
it was determined that the property and the application were, in fact, in compliance with the
Town of Vail Municipal Code. Since the application is in compliance with the zoning code,
staff is recommending that the Town Council uphold the DRB's decision of September 20,
1995.
Tom Steinberg stepped down from the Council table. Tom had come up to the podium to
speak when Rick Rosen stated he did not think that Tom, as a Council member, could
address the Town Council on this issue. Tom Moorhead agreed. At this time Flo
Steinberg presented the Steinberg's protest of the DRB's decision.
George Ruther went over the code requirements. Sybill Navas requested background
information from the DRB presentation.
Rick Rosen spoke on behalf of Sam Cook. He went through the code requirements and
stated that.this addition did not have a kitchen, but only a sink and small refrigerator.
Sybill again requested why the Council was not provided more background information and
wanted to know why Bob Borne dissented to this item.
George Ruther explained that in his opinion, Bob Borne voted against the motion not
because the addition did not conform with the Design Review Guidelines, but instead
because he felt the property owner may use the addition as a lock-off apartment, thus
creating a third dwelling unit on the property.
Tom Moorhead stated that this should be referred to the PEC for their review of the staff
zoning analysis. Rick Rosen asked for a motion and a vote on the DRB decision that they were there for.
Paul Johnston moved to uphold the DRB approval with a second from Rod Slifer. A vote
was taken and failed 3-3, with Merv Lapin, Sybill Navas and Peggy Osterfoss opposed.
3 Vail Tuwn Council Evening Mceling Minutes I 1/21/95
Peggy was asked to leave the meeting to canvas the election votes at this time.
Paul Johnston moved to recess this issue until the Town Attorney could do some research
and until Peggy returned to the meeting. Sybill Navas seconded this motion. A vote was
taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. (Steinberg recused, and Osterfoss out to canvas
election votes).
At this time Tom Steinberg rejoined the Council at the tabfe and they went on to the next
item on the agenda.
Eighth on $he agenda was a request for a Sign Variance from Section 16.20.040(a), Free
Standing Signs, Joint Directory Signs for a Multi-Tenant Building, Purpose. The applicant
is Leo Palmos, owner of the Vail Gateway Plaza being represented by Craig Klemz.
George Ruther asked the Council to approve, approve with conditions or deny the
applicant's sign variance request.
On Wednesday, fVovember 15, 1995, the Town of Vail Design Review Board (DRB) heard
the applicant's request for a sign variance from Section 16.20.040(a) of the Sign Code.
According to Section 16.20.040(a), the purpose of a free standing, joint directory sign for
a multi-tenant building is to allow for the display of the names of each interior tenant within
the building. The applicant is seeking a variance from the Sign Code to allow for the
display of the general nature of each of the tenants within the building, rather than
specifically listing the tenants by name. (See attachments in memo dated 11/15/95).
Section IV of the staff inemorandum to the Design Review Board (dated 11l15/95) includes
staff's recommendation on the proposed sign variance request. Staff is recommending
denial of the requested sign variance. Staff has reviewed the sign variance application and
believes that the applicant has not met all the criteria listed in Section III, Findings and
Criteria for Approval. Specifical{y, staff befieves that the applicant has not adequately
addressed findings A and C.
Craig Klemz addressed Council stating the need for the sign being that the public was
confused as to the nature of this building.
Rod Slifer moved to uphold the DRB decision with a second from Jan Strauch. There was
discussion and then Rod amended his motion to uphold the DRB decision with a condition
that "Parking" be removed from the sign, with a second from Paul Johnston.
Discussion continued as to placement of the sign.
A vote was taken and passed 4-2 (Lapin and Steinberg against) to approve a sign
variance request for the Gateway Plaza. The Council attached a condition that it shall be
the responsibility of the Design Review Board to resolve sign location and parking sign
issues. The.applicant sought to install a directory sign which would display the general
nature of each of the tenants, rather than specifically listing the tenants by name.
At this time Reggy Osterfoss returned to the Council table, Tom Steinberg stepped down,
and Council went back to item No. 7 on the agenda regarding the Cook residence.
Tom Moorhead gave a recommendation on the process that would be appropriate.
Sybill moved to uphold the DRB approval conditioned upon additional review of the project
by the Planning and Environmental Commission of the staff's zoning analysis. Paul
Johnston seconded the motion, a vote was taken which passed 5-1-1 (Slifer against,
Steinberg recused). The PEC review will take place on Dec. 11. Adjacent property
owners, Tom and Flo Steinberg, have protested the project due to visual and density
concerns.
Nanth on the agenc6a was the Town Manager's Report. There was no formal report
although Larry Grafel went over a memo regarding the Eagle County Commissioners'
meeting regarding regional highway issues, which was in the packet.
4 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 11/21/95
Ten$6v on the agenda was the information update.
E9eve~th on $he agenda were Council reports. Merv reported that the Sister City visit by
the St. Moritz delegation when very well. He said the discussions, which focused on joint
marketing and public relations; special events; and employee exchanges would produce
good results for the future. He hope that Council will continue to support this program.
Twelfth on the agenda were any other items to discuss. Tom Steinberg suggested the
Council sponsor a meeting with environmental groups, Vail Associates and the Forest
Service to discuss the EIS report for the proposed Category III expansion.
Thirteenth on the agenc9a was an executive session. Paul Johnston moved to approve
Bob McLaurin's employment contract for one year with a second by Sybill Navas. A vote
was taken and passed unanimously 7-0.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourn at approximately 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly IVIcCutcheon, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Anne Wright on behalf of the Town Clerk.
(•Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.)
5 V:til Town Council Evening Mceting Minutes l l/21/95
RESOLUTION NO. 27
Series of 1995
A RESOLUTION SETTING THE DATE FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING A COUNCIL MEMBER
TO COMPLETE THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF MARGARET A. OSTERFOSS,
TERM TO EXPIRE NOVEMBER, 1997.
WHEREAS, on November 28. 1995 Margaret A. Osterfoss resigned from her elected
position as Council member which was for a term of four years.
WHEREAS, said resignation is effective January 30, 1996.
WHEREAS, the term of Margaret A. Osterfoss has more than 365 days remaining.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.9 of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado, when
a vacancy occurs with three hundred sixty-five (365) or more days remaining in the unexpired
term, a special election shall be called to fill said term.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF VAIL, COLORADO;
1. A special election is hereby set for Januaay 30, 1996, for the purpose of
submitting to the voters candidates to fill the unexpired term of Margaret A. Osterfoss, term to
expire November, 1997.
2. The Town Clerk is hereby directed to take all steps required by law for the
purpose of holding said special election.
3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this Sth day of December, 1995.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
q
IYIEIYtORMI\DVM •
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 27, 1995 -
SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance to allow for a residence under
construction to encroach into the front setback located at 2850
Kinnickinnick/Lot 6, Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision.
Applicant: Am. Bros. Development Inc., represented by Bob Borne
Planner: George Ruther
- V. DESCR9PT90N OF THE VARBANCE RECIiJES~
The applicant, Bob Borne, representing Innsbruck Meadows Development, Inc., is requesting a
front setback variance for a new single family residence currently under construction on Lot 6,
Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. A Building Permit for the residence was issued on September
18, 1995, and construction has proceeded since that date.
On October 19, 1995, the applicant submitted to staff an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC)
for reviewr and approval. Staff requires the review and approval of an ILC to insure that the
structure under construction complies w?ith the relevant development standards prior to the
Town's Building Inspectors completing a framing inspection. When staff reviewed the ILC for Lot
6, Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision, it was determined that the northwest corner of the residence
was encroaching 3.5 feet into the front setback and also into the platted 20' pedestrian, utility and
drainage easement (see Attachment 1). SBnce encroachments an4o any required setback
require an approval froan $he Plaraning and Environmen4al Cornmission, the applicant is
seeking a frorut setback variance to allow for a 35 encroachment into the required 20' frong
setback oaa Lot 6, Mnsbruck Meadov+?s Subd6vision.
H. BACKGR04,9F?D .
Staff conditionally approved the ILC submitted on October 19, 1995. This allowed the contractor
to receive a framing inspection and continue work on that portion of the structure not in the front
setback or platted easement. A condition of approval required the contractor to submit a letter to
the Community Development Department acknowledging that should a front setback variance not
be approved by the PEC, nor should the encroachment into the platted easement be approved by
the Town of Vail Public VVorks Department and the utility companies, that portion of the structure
encroaching into the front setback and the platted easement shall be removed. This shall occur
regardless of additional expense incurred as a result of continued construction on the residence,
any inconvenience to the contractor, or staff's previous approval of the ILC. A second condition
required that the contractor submit a variance application. The contractor has complied with
each of the conditions of approval.
According to the applicant, the 3.5' encroachment is a result of a surveying error. Several
months earlier, the contractor contacted Intermountain Engineering and requested a"property
line stake-out." (see Attachment 2) The reason for the "property line stake-ouY" was to allowr the
contractor to place the foundation of the structure within the required setbacks. The surveyors
f:\everyone\pec\memos\innsbruck.n27 1
a
e
staked out the four corners of the lot as requested, but according to the applicant, did not place any points along the front property line to indicate a radius along that line. VVith no such
information physically staked out on the ground indicating a radius, the contractor assumed a
chord along the front property line and struck a straight line from property corner to property
corner. Therefore, the building foundation was located based upon an incorrect front property
line location. The amount of encroachment into the front setback and platted easement
corresponds vuith the difference in feet between the radius of the front property line and the
assumed chord line (3.5'). HB. CRBTERBA AND FINDINGS
Upon reyiew of the Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the
Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested front setback
variance based on the followring factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1.. The relataonship of the requested varaance to other exBsting or
poteeatial uses and structures 6n the vicin6ty.
The impact of the requested front setback variance on the existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity, in the staff's opinion, will be
minimal. The front setback encroachment on Lot 6, Innsbruck Meadows
Subdivision, is such that it would appear no other homes would be
effected. The nearest residence to the encroachment is to the north
across Kinnickinnick Road.
According to the approved site/landscape plan, the building corner would
be 24.5 feet from the back of the curb line and 11 feet from the pedestrian
sidewalk. The landscape plan shows eight, two-inch caliper aspen trees in
the area immediately adjacent to the point of encroachment (see
Attachment 3). No spruce trees are proposed for Lot 6.
2. The degree $o whic9v relief frorn the strict and literal anterpretation aaad
enfmcceenent of a specifieci regulatiora is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uneforrnity of treatmerat among sites in the vicinity or .
$o attain the objectives of this title vvathout grant of special privilege.
The degree to which the applicant is requesting relief from the strict and
literal interpretation and enforcement of the front setback regulation is the
minimum necessary to allow the structure to remain as constructed. Many
of the older existing structures in the Vail Intermountain area are non-
conforming as they relate to setbacks. An example of such non-conformity
in the area of the Innsbruck Meadowrs Subdivision is the Camelot
Townhomes. The Camelot Towrnhomes are non-conforming as they relate
to the front, sides and rear setbacks. Other examples of non-conforming
setbacks in the Vail Intermountain Subdivision are the Bellflower
Condominiums (Lot 7, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Subdivision), the
UVestridge Condominiums (Lot 1, Block 8, Vail Intermountain Subdivision),
and the Rush Condominiums (Lot 9, Block 8, Vail Intermountain
Subdivision).
f:\everyone\pec\memoe\innsbruck.n27 n
G
As the applicant has pointed out, and staff addressed earlier in the
memorandum, the 3.5 foot encroachment into the front setback is a result
of a surveying error. While staff understands how the error occurred, and
vuhy the building is encroaching into the front setback, it is staff's opinion
that the granting of the requested front setback variance may be a grant of
special privilege. It is staff's belief that if the applicant had requested the
variance prior to construction, rather than after the structure was
completely framed, the requested variance would not be supported by staff
since it appears no physical hardship or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions exist on Lot 6.
3. The effec4 of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
populagion, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utBliq6es, and public safety.
In the staff's opinion, the requested variance to allowr the structure to
encroach 3.5 feet into the front setback will have minimal, if any, negative
impacts on the criteria described above. The structure uvill still be 24.5
feet from the back of the curb line. This distance should still allow for
adequate suntight to reach Kinnickinnick Road. Thus, avoiding any icing
problems on the street due to shading. Additionally, the utility companies
have provided an encroachment agreement acknowledging their
acceptance of the building encroachment into the platted pedestrian, utility
and drainage easement (see Attachment 5).
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followinq findings
before granting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent vuith the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply.
generally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
f:\everyone\pec\memos\innsbruck.n27 3
VVe S4AFF RECOMMENDAT90N
Staff recommends densal of this front setback variance request. Staff believes the
request does not meet the Criteria and Findings, listed in Section III of the memorandum,
in order to grant an approval of the variance.
Staff believes that the app{icant has met Criteria and Findings A1, A3, B2, B3 a, b& c.
Staff does not believe, hovuever, that the applicant has met Criteria and Findings A2, and
61. Staff is specifically concerned that the granting of approval of the requested variance
may result in the grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties classified in the same zone district.
Should the PEC choose to grant an approval of the requested variance, the staff woufd
recommend that the approval carry vuith it the following conditions:
1: The applicant shall proceed through the proper procedure to vacate that portion of
Yhe pedestrian, utiliry and drainage easement into wrhich the building is
encroaching prior to receiving a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for Unit #6.
2. The applicant shall revise the proposed landscape plan which illustrates eight two-
inch caliper aspen trees in the vicinity of the encroachment, and propose a
minimum of two additional eight-foot evergreens. It is the staff's opinion that the
two evergreens will help mitigate the additional 3.5 foot encroachment upon the
pedestrian sidewalk. .
f:\everyone\pec\memos\innsbruck.n27 4
~
~
AV ect-
RpAD (50 e4srs oF aEvvAnob .
n= is28ss° w mT GV fTR£ PLUC fIEV. 7829.07
L 73.3911• AT S/k' CORNfR Of LOT 7, BLQCK 4, UaL IN1FRbOUNTiUiK
o
Je.T -
g&g' NOIE.• ALL BU/LO/NC )7f5 AR£ PERPENOlCULAR OR WlA!
TRA~'T A /,06 20' PED£S1R/AN, UALITY / AeieOy cerf!/y fAaf thJt bnprorommf /ocotian certi/icofe aas preporad
w
.4QT 6 ANB BYPA/NAGC cASw~NT Q f Arra
eur~nce carryvart . Mo~ l~ no~ a
~ N A~ ~t ~ga ~dRr ano' fAa f~u
f0' ACCESS AND S,J64 SOUAR~`f ew~~! ~a~y p?e! ~A QheP I~rs nmf ea be tkd
a~... . upan lor fAs oslobliahmanf o/ %nce, buddiny. or ofhmr Ibturs inprowmant
u71L/TY f6J.SEA/ENT 0. la.p A(.7PfS lanex //urfhar cerH/y Mot Ma Gnprowmen[r on the aDore describeJ pcvref
I;.~i~;•~: ~ on fhi,r Oofo, ewcspf ulBitr cavrnections, aro onf6e/y aiMh fAs Doundories
0, 01 fAs pw-cM, erespf os sAoan& thot Mero ore no encroochmsnfs upon the
dercread Premisea 0
~~,:::.,:;r:n;7 ^•~x.p~ Y knprowmenfs arr ony a(toc»Ing prem/sax a,rcepf oa
harcars4 and tAOf Maro !s no oppwenf addsnca w siyn o/ ony eosanent
,~'•.y6~ i+:e:,~' ~ trois/hp oi Aurdminy ony port o/ soi0 pwte% e,rcepf ot nofed
OPEM SPAC£ b'''' • I q fiis csrfiricafa doos nof canafitufa o fi(/e seorcA bY infx-A/ountoin
`8` S b. .i ~:!e ~,A• _ u i'
i;t 7.~4~y~'7'~~' 41 Engineeriny fo detarmina ownmh' or eossmsnta o/rocard for'o!/
LOT 5~~.r~~ / ~y .r~,"n`'•~~. br/cvmotlon ro mdbr ~
~^Q$' ~!I:!P;~;Vi~~ 5~: *iN;rp:x;~:: tp 9 9 aoaor»enta riyhfs-o%soy or fitlo o/ rocard,
c ~.;:;:,;i;,p,y y,~ ~ O ~ M f er- 1/ o u n f o 6 i r e/ l s J up a n M e Fi n f A m e n d m e n f l o Me Find P/of o/
R~f'OYEANNG i'l.!+';....:;t+ ,::~'r:..:•,~ ~ = Mnsbruck Noodoar, o SuDd,'Ns/on br Tovn o/ Yo'd, foC Y. /s Counf
CdoroOo.
1nd fLOQR
H
~ z
4.6'
15, SIREAM £ASEb/£NT x?
E 14
O
BLOCK 8
VAlL~n~~ JV
~T 26626 _00 .
SUBOINSYON
Z,.A~~?
N077C£.• Accard:ny to CNaroQo /oro ~pou inuat commenco
mry /mya/ acfion OaaoJ upan any de/sct bi fMa sunoy
orlfhir fhrev jeisa o/tw "w Ibsf dixorar s+ioly de%ct
br no eNmonG moy any actlon boaeJ upon any ds/ocf /n
Nra svney Oe commenced moro thm fon "mra k»m
No doto o/ crtilcafkn ahoan Aeroan. ' .
•
P. a eox o~s °41ir ,WNSM impROwmEnv T t ocA nonv cERnRcA rF 95-017J5 w0ss swrr for ~W ,aaea~ ma~w ~ m to? a ca.ce or
ea~m_u~ aoAo ~ I~~~I° ~~~11a1Il~IiDII 14aoo v.wY srrr[rr LAf arr asau 10-17-95
a~`, ° a,y cnta ~n oralo , caInaq oma cvrrs PROPOS£D LOT 6 ~•e?o'
4N ' ~'g' ~ m' INNSBRUCK MEADOWS ~ ~ ODF v~
'oneA5 +t~u rrom oWW«n TOWN OF VA/C, fACL£ COUN/Y, COLORADO I or I
/ . ; , .
Inter-Mountaira. AMEngineerolngLtd.
_
October 18, 1995
Mr. Bob Borne
P.O. Box 4205
Vail, CO 81658
Re; Lot 6 Innsbruck Meadows
Project No. 95-01735
Dear Bob:
Several months ago }•ou requested Inter-Mountain Engineering to stake out proposed Lot 6, Innsbruck
Meado«•s so your contractor could lay out a foundation for the proposed house. Per that request we did
stake out the four corners of the lot but did not lay out any points on the front lot line along lhe curve.
When,we did the Improvement Location Certificate we found that a small portion of the foundation
intruded into the required front yard setback by about the same distance as the radius of the cun,e or some
3.5 feet. VVhat I believe happened is that since there were no curve points staked it appears the house was
laid out from the chord line behween the property corners and not from the cum,e, Which resulted in the
encroachment into the easement and setback.
Ifyou have any further questions, please call me at 949-5072.
Sincerely,
Je ery Span 1, P.E.
ATTACHMENT #2
77 Metcalf Road, #201 • Box 978 ~ Avon, Colorado 81620 • Phone: 970-949-5072 • From Denver Direct: 893-1531
1420 Vance Street 9 Lakewood, Colorado 80215 • Phone: 303-232-0158
. ~ ~ • ,
-
. . '
~
~
aIJ~~ ~
0
,
~
~
0
~
" ~oo~
~
. EkfT" .
/
0 0
- ~ ~E ~ ~
/ GE OF GAR. SL~B, ~
GONI WALK TYPo ~ . 7832.3°
~
~ _
o;
0
/
/
A
S LA
~
7834.~`
o
~ ATTACHMENT #3 /
~
, I 1
INNSBRUCK MEADOWS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIEITION
P.O. BOX 4365
VAIL, COLORADO 81658
303-476-5263
Oct 30, 1995
Tp whom it may concern;
This is to confirm that Innsbruck Meadows Homeowners Association has no
problem with the proposed Variance submitted by Innsbruck Meadows Development, Inc.,
with regard to an encroachment of the Northwesterly correer of the home being Ibuilt on Lot
6, into the front yard pedestriam, utility and drainage easements.
(~~~"?f~ "
~
I '
ATTACHMENT #4
ENCROACEMEN'T AGREEIVIFN'g'
WS AGItEEMIE1VT, is made and eneered into this _~day of 9v d~ , 1995
by9a'ruse~~~ctcm~~P~4i~ and ~vet,~l~;LVL~ the a quasi-municipal corporation~f the
State of Colorado, hcreinafer referred to as "District".
VvTiEItEA3, Properry Owner(s) is/ee presently the owner(s) of certain real
properiy described as j fVk5t3e-c9 (=f--- located in
Eagle Couneyy COdOafadOy and
WBEREAS, the District is presently in possession of an caseffient Zd feet in
width, ru.nning through the aforemcntioned property, vvhich easement is described on Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference9 and
WIEEREAS, Froperty Owner(s) desires to construct a peamanent stnicture tha2 will
encroach upon the described easemene in an area approxi.mately x$ saici
encroacliment being describcd on Exhibit A; and
WHEREA5, the easement is an actaec easeffient presently an use by the District.
NOW, 1'HEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and promises herein, the parties
hereby agree as folflows: 1. 'B'he District shall permit the permanene structure to encroach upon the
aforementioned easeffient.
2. T'he Property Owner(s) shall indemnify the Distract from the costs of any
repairs to the District's utility lines which may occur as a result of the construction of the
permanent structure over and upon such easement.
3. The Properry Owner(s) shall hold harmless the District from the cost of
repairing any damage to the stracture, which damagc may be caused by the installation of neev
utility lines in this eascffient, or by a break in prescnt anci future utility lines of the District, or by
the repair of such break by the D'aserict or by other maintenance of the lines.
4. ne Property Owner(s) shall indemnify P$c District from any increase in the
cost of construction of any nevd utility lines or in the cost of any repairs to the District's utility
lines, such increase, if any, due to the proxiffiity of the perffianent structure eo the utility lines.
ATTACHMENT #5
5. This Agreement shall bind the successors and assigns of the Property Owner(s), and shall
be appurtenant to and deemed to run with and for the benefit of the aforementioned property in
Eagle County, Colorado until such time that the District abandons said easement. This Agreement
shall be recorded against said property in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
as of the day and year first above written.
PROPERTY OWNER(S)
By
~s C&ps,, 61_
_ By -
Dennis Gelvin, General Manager
ATTEST:
By
Assistant Secretary
S'TAT'E OF COI.ORADO )
) ss. COIJNT'1' OF EAGL.E )
ne fore oing ins~ene was ac~owledged before ffie ~is !~~day of
1995, by ~ ~ o~rn cz RTmtary Ptablic
2a
My Commission expires:
S'H'AT'E OF COI.ORADO )
) ss
COIJIV'TY OF EACpLE )
The foregoing instgument vvas aclnowledged before ane e,his !~'day of iVov'e,~g
1995, by Dcanis Gelvin, as General Ntanagcr of the Arrowhead Metropolitan Sanitation
District.
`
NotWy Pu xc 1Vty Commission cxpires:
,
INNSBRUCK MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT, INC.
P.O. BOX 4205
VAIL ; COLORADO 81657
303-476-5263
October 30, 1995
Background:
Innsbruck Meadows is a multi family project which is currently platted as one beg
lot
It is planned for a total of fourteen homes , nine of which are single family, four of which
are primary/secondary.avith the secondary unit being an EHU and the last_ being a
true primary/secondary and which is being built for the original seller of the land. Prior to
delivery of title to units, new plats will be created which show Improvement Locations and
the individual lots which are to be transferred to purchasers.
At this time no umits have been transferred and all of the property is owned by
Innsbruck Meadows Dedelopment., Inc.
The variance that we are requesting is as'follows: There are presently five homes
under construction. One of the homes , buulding sig recently had an ILC issued which.
showed a small encroachmernt of the Northwesterly corner of the building into the front
easement. This encroachment egtends about 3.5 feet into the easement at the very corner
of the building and travels on a diagonal for eight feet where it crosses out of the easement.
Thus the encroachment is about fourteen square feet.
The error in the Southwesterly corner's location was occasioned by an omission orn
the part of the projects surveyor dvho was durected to stake out the proposed lot and
easement so that a foundation cou?d be installed on that lot. The surveyor througfi some
sort of omission staked out the ffour corners of the lot but omitted to stake aut any
intermediate changes in direction of those lines. In this case the relation of the property
line to the curb ranged from eleven feet on one side to four feet on the other, thus making
the Northerly lot line a parabola or uneven curve and not the straight line he indicated by
his placement of corner lot line stakes. He provided no intermediate poings at all in that
line. We have included in this submission a letter from the surveyor indicating the
accuracy of this statement.
With no intermediate poants to indicate something other than a straight lot line, the
ATTACHMENT #6
con4ractor strancka lasae ffroann Qot cornee to lot corner and set the front corner of the honne
on that chord. Sence the home was unog designed #o folBow the Dot line, but ra¢her mode
aw~y fronn nB, on?y thag Nouthwtsgerly coe-retr ent8-aedes into g9ae easeaeaent by sorne 3.5 feet
aund gradaea?ly decreases to zero encroaehment an a length of eight feet. 'H'he variance
reques~ th~~efore us go aflflow a truangulae- portion of the eevo story bui?ding, of
approxflmatelly fouamteen sqanare ffeeg, to ungrude ango the easeraaecnt. as shown on the g.LC.
~e fee? that the reqeaesg meets the crateria neeessary go qaaalify for such a vareance en
that gt ns sur+'oundedl oaa 4Ilnu'ee sades by other homes wflthaan its subdivisioen and on9y faees
lKannakinick road on the R1or4herly side and there9'ore has no effecg on otlaer existing or
]pmtentnall nase$ ammdl stranctanrres n~ the aa°eae
W e feeIl ghag ut woanfld qualify, as a hardship as n¢a its prestnt staQe $o take do`vn a
sedenteen heandred square ffoot 9nome and garage would be an eztreane sodution to the
prob9emo WQ feeQ thBtt SIlIIDc@ ghEs eH E'0?' was occasuoned by aru omission by the surveyor for
the eaatgre pro,gect an~ that the hardship was imposed upon us by a paaty emp?oyed to
prevent .Vu$t $uch a happene~~ and was nog a wilflfu9 or knovvnng act on our paa-g, ghat the
hardshiP ~ow~ the bIlHflldlHlg 0r &'CIIl0YIlH9g one of uts outside evalls would be an
extQ'eme p?IlHflfl3hme9Ht foH' aIIIl~thC?' e&fl$flty's error. In addition nt should be aaoted that an
adaiitaona? hardship wou8d occanr go the purchaser of the home who has plans to close on the
hoane nn eaa°ly Decembeu°o
I woaa?d also ?eke go reger to a semilar case aau which the IBoard reacged favorably to a
vau-aance request caused bry a surveyors error ire laying oua an incorrect elevation for a
baaildeng en East Van? and thereby caaased that buildiaag go exceed the reqaaea-ed heaght
restaicgnon by ttwo ffeet.
Additnona99y we bellu~~~ thag the ensrmachrnent us off a unearor n-ature and the graregsng
the dareance wou9a? ltaave uu~ effect on daght and air, dastrebuteon mf popta9a#eon,
transpoutateon, ta~aflnc ffacn9ntaes, aatilities krad pub9ic sa6'etye
We a?so fee~ that the varnanee reqaeest is wgthen the spurot of Vail°s comprehenseve
p8an. It §Ilnou?d be aa~~ed tIlnag ~ince the buildeng's garage aloor faces a Westerly eratereor
streeg, the sBGfle aHD q?9eS$9o?D ll3 aC~~~y mi SidC 3'aH'd aHld Q90t a fH'OI9$ 3'aH'd. In most sami?aa-
snng9e &'amfly senbdnvisuons the side yard reqaeirernen$ woufld oaely be fifteen feet an~
theQ'effOIl't~ the pfl eseH9t coHIldll$Ilo?D wOIAld Qllo$ be $Ilfl eII9C&'oaChHilel[llt.
d toc9ose the ffoIl9ownuuge
Il) Four copies of the EI.C indicating the encroachment
2) Four copees of a tetter from Inter Mountain Engineering indicating the facts of
this issue.
3) Four copies of the Architects statement regarding same.
4) Four copies of over all site plans, specific site plans as well as elevations and
floor plans.
5) Four copies of the variaa?ce application
6) The required fee for the application
Respectfully submitted, _
Innsbruck Meadodvs Development, Inc.
By: Robert Borne, Pres.
. DRAF7
PLAIVNING AND ENVIROIVMENTAL COMMISSIOiV
iVovember 27, 1995
Minutes
MEfVIBERS PRESEiVT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESEfVT:
Bob Armour Tom Moorhead
Greg Amsden Mike Mollica
Greg Moffet. Jim Curnutte
Henry Pratt Lauren Waterton
Jeff Bowen Randy Stouder
Dalton VVilliams George Ruther
Kevin Deighan (1 hour late) Judy Rodriguez
PuIbIBC Qiearing 2:00 p.rm.
The meeting was called to order by Bob Armour at 2:05
Kevin Deighan was not present.
Mike Mollica asked for a Commission discussion and vote on the VA temporary tent in
Lionshead.
Randy Stouder stated that the VA temporary tent is made of vinyl rather than canvas and felt the
PEC should review the change in fabric. He said there would also be rough log siding on the
lower portion of the tent. He asked the Commission to confirm that the material is appropriate.
He vuas looking for the Commission to decide on whether the term should be changed.
Bob Armour said we now have a new tent with different material.
Jack Hunn said the current tent wras not portable, however, the fabric is of the same quality.
Dalton VVilliams had a problem with the rough wood siding and with the fabric. He stated that it
looked like an old beat up shed. Last year's canvas was OK. Dalton said to put back what was
approved, the size, construction etc.
Jack Hunn said the new location was approved.
Dalton VNilliams said the approved tent was a roll up and this nevu system precludes that. VA is
modifying an approval. He is not in favor of approving this change.
Jack Hunn said the rough siding gave a wrestern look eharacter and was why it was chosen.
Randy Stouder also added that staff recommended the rough siding for a western look.
Greg Moffet asked if the same material from last year was still available.
• Jack Hunn suggested going with sample 3 rather than swritch manufacturers. Jack Hunn
requested going through one year looking like it does. They did make a mistake by putting the
shiny side out, instead of the dull side. Sample 1 was last years fabric and sample two is this
years, with the exception that the shiny side mistakenly was put on the outside and can't be
turned inside out.
1
e
Dalton UVilliams said sample 3 is acceptable.
Greg Moffet moved that the tent fabric be submitted to the DRB, with a recommendation to
change to sample 3 and use the rough siding this year.
Greg Amsden seconded the motion.
The vote was 5-1, vuith Dalton UVilliams opposed, because the wood siding is not in the same .
taste as the rest of Lionshead.
1. A request for a setback variance to allow for a residence under construction to encroach
inio the front setback located at 2850 Kinnickinnick/Lot 6, Innsbruck Meadows
Subdivision.
Applicant: Am. Bros. Development Inc., represented by Bob Borne
Planner: George Ruther . Greg Amsden abstained from this item.
George Ruther gave an overview of the request and stated that in the staff's opinion, Criteria A2
and B1 had not been met and staff is recommending denial. Bob Borne, the applicant, expressed embarrassment and gave an apology for this error. He
stated that he has been doing this type of wrork for 35 years and this is the first time a surveyor
has done something like this. Bob Borne mentioned that he has established a newr procedure in
his company because of this error. He explained that his company wrould request a preliminary
ILC everytime a foundation was located near a setback line. He feels with this new procedure, a
. mistake like this can be avoided in the future. This is a result of an error in the surveying
technique. The hardship of taking down the building is extreme and the punishment does not fit
the crime.
Bob Armour asked if the spacing between the buildings wrould be compromised.
Bob Borne said the lot lines are imaginary and it would not compromise anything.
George Ruther asked if the building was pushed back, wrould it not encroach into the required
building separation.
Bob Borne said no.
Henry Pratt recommended denial, because he thought there may be a grant of special privilege.
Dalton VVilliams recommended denial because of a special privilege. He stated that Bob Borne is
in the business and should not make mistakes like this. .
Mike Mollica stated we are all human and mistakes happen.
Jeff Bouven had nothing to add.
Greg Moffet recommended granting a variance with conditions as listed in the memo.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
November 27, 1995 2
Bob Armour noted that a letter that Bob Borne sent was nowr in the packet. Bob Armour said a
preliminary ILC adds another step in the already long process . He sees no harm in this building
being 3.5' in the setback and he is in favor of it.
Jeff Bowen made motion for denial.
Dalton Williams seconded the motion.
Dalton VVilliams asked if he missed something similar that had been previously been approved
during meetings in the past. Dalton said his concerns were that in his 6 years on the
Commission they made someone take a roof off for a similar situation.
Bob Armour reminded the Commissioners that there is a motion on ihe floor and discussion
should have been taken up in the worksession.
George Ruther mentioned the Musyl residence and the Michael Lauterbach residence on
Sandstone were similar situations where surveying errors caused buildings to be non-
conforming, however, the PEC.had granted a variance.
Dalton Williams said that errors and omission insurance should cover this loss.
Bob Borne said vuith regard to the Musyl residence, the surveyor made a 2.5' error in height. The.
Board granted this variance. He stated that the home (Unit 6, Innsbruck Meadows) is sold and
the owners want to move in. It cannot be moved.
Bob Armour reminded Bob Borne that there is an appeals procedure after the PEC vote.
. Dalton Williams asked the staff if there is any such thing as a penalty to the surveyor because of
this error.
George Ruther said he is not awrare of any way for the Town to penalize the surveyor.
The vote was 3 in favor of denial and 2 opposed for~denial.
Mike Mollica stated that Bob Borne had 10 days to appeal to Town Council regarding the PEC
vote of denial.
Planning and Environmenlal Commission
Minules
November 27, 1995 3
a
ll1V1V SBRlllCK 1D'AJGAll9OWS 110ED' A'JLOPME1`ITq 1LNC•
P.O. BOX 4205
VA\IIL, cCOIL.OItAI?O 81657
303-476-5263
Towuu off Vau?
Town Council
Nov. 27, 1995
Re: Variance request
Innsbruck Building 6
Honorable Ladies and C'rentlemen, I am writing this letter in support of the appeal to Council that I have requested be placed
on the Council agenda of I)ec. 5, 1995. This appeal is based upon the rejection of a variance
request by the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail, with regard to a
3.5 foot front yard setback encroachment.
I would like to start by reciting the general facts.
Innsbruck 1Vleadows is a multi family development in which I am involved and is located
on Kinnikinick Road in the Inter 1Vlountain section of Vail. The project which has nineteen
dwelling units in fourteen buildings, provides four type 3 employee housing units, the first of
which is under construction and is sold to a full time Vail resident and employee. The project has
also provided , as part of its previous approval an underground storm sewer system, curb and
gutter along Kinnikinick road and .a 20 foot pedestrian easement with a planned bicycle or
walking path along its entire length.
During the construction process of one of the early units in the project, the developer
requested of tlie project surveyor, a stake out of the lot lines of the above lot and more
importantly the boundary between the lot and the front yard/ pedestrian and utility easement
which has been previously discussed. The surveyor, by his own letter which accompanies this
request, acknowledges that he staked out only the corners of the property and did not place any
intermediate stakes along that line even though the line was an arc and had three changes of
direction in that line. When the foundation contractor set the foundation he assumed the line in
question was straight, as indicated by the surveyor and he set the corner of the building on that
line and built the foundation accordingly and which resulted in an encroachment of a triangle with
a maximum depth of 3.5 feet reducing to zero in the length of 8 feet.
:
I respectfully submit that this error in the survey was inadvertent on his part and certainly
was not an intended act on the part of the developer. I firmly believe that a surveyor is an entity
that one has the right to believe in and follow the guidelines that he sets. In this case he made an
error and most certainly, we as developers made the ultimate mistake as obviously the buck stops
with us.
I therefore offer the fact that we are ultimately wrong, but being human, sometimes make
mistakes . VVe therefore, due to the following reasons, respectfully request your consideration of
the following:
1) Our error was based upon the previous work of a professional who had been hired
specifically to locate where or where not the building corner had to be and we had to assume this
information provided was correct or why than should we hire such a professional.
2) VVe acknowledge that we erred but we ask who, other than us has been harmed by the
act.
3) We had no gain to obtain by placing the building into the setback and now stand to
suffer many thousands of dollars in damages if either we are unable to deliver the sold unit to its
purchaser ion a timely basis or we are required to reconstruct or tear down the building.
4) We offer to more than make up for the fourteen square feet of encroachment into the
pedestrian easement by increasing that easement by one hundred square feet at the intersections of
Kinnikinick and Bellflower and at the intersection of Kinnikinick and Basingale, where we believe
the space is far more useful. We also propose to add two eight foot Colorado Spruce trees to that
above mentioned corner to screen the encroachment. We have aslo secured the approval of
Upper Eagle Consolidated Utility system of the encroachment. I believe that it is time to assess if the punishment of removal fits the crime, even if we
dismiss the fact that the error was caused by a professional that we are entitled to believe in. I ask
who is harmed ? I ask that this issue be assessed on a common sense approach. Is this project
which is and has been obviously good for all concerned , required to face a law suit from a
purchaser who has contracted with us in good faith and to whom we will no longer be able to
deliver what we are obliged to do? Does common sense dictate that a resident of Vail, who has
provided many good things in the Town of Vail, be severely penalized for an admitted error that
has no value to him and has no negative effects upon any part of the community?
I also respectfully submit that this issue has been addressed on at least three occasions
during the past year and in each case the Planning and Environmental Commission has granted the
9
R
request for such a variance due to a surveying enor. I fully understand that precedent is not a
reason for approval of a new request such as this one is but in the hopes that you ladies and
gentlemen of the Council do take these previous events into consideration I submit the following
similar variances that were granted and the similarities that make this request more
understandable.
A) A residence in East Vail... The applicant sought and obtained a two & one half foot
foot variance in the overall height of the building due to an enor in a bench mark set by the
surveyor.
b) A project under construction on Sandstone Road received a change in building
envelope location and a utility easement vacation since the structure was built in the wrong
location due to a surveying error.
As you can see, each of the above events have a distinct similarity to what
happened in this case. All of the above were decided based upon an analysis of the cause, the lack
of damage to any other outside party and to the relationship of the admitted error to the
punishment. As previously stated , I fully understand that the ultimate responsibility lies within
us but I respectfully submit that some mitigation which benefits the Town is more appropriate
than demolition or cutting of a corner of a virtually completed structure is more appropriate. •
I greatly appreciate your consideration of the facts outlined herein.
Respectfully,
.
~ ~
Innsbruck Meadows Development, Inc.
1 . .
~
=4
ee
e4
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road Off ce of the Town Attorney
T/ail, Colorado 81657 - -
970-479-2107/Fax 970-479-2157
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney
DATE: December 1, 1995
RE: Proposed Development for the International Wing
On August 9, 1983 there was an agreement reached between Lodge Properties ("LPI") and the
Town of Vail (`Town") (Exhibit A). The agreement resolved a dispute concerning what development
rights remained or how many additional dwelling units could be located on the property known as
the Lodge At Vail containing 2.090 acres. This agreement compromised and settled that dispute.
In summary it was agreed that the zoning ordinance for CC1 would not prohibit LPI from building
thirty-four new accommodation units and one dwelling unit. Prior to such construction however LPI
would be required to obtain permission from the appropriate boards and commissions of the Town
and required to obtain all necessary permits. LPI agreed to construct expanded conference and
meeting room facilities at the time of building the expansion.
This agreement was discussed by Town Council on August 2, 1983 (Exhibit B). A transcript of that
discussion is attached which resulted in the passing.of a unanimous motion authorizing the Town
Manager to execute the agreement (Exhibit C). There was no challenge 'raised by adjacent property
owners or any other objections raised to the agreement or the Town Council's authority to enter into
the agreement. The record reflects a good faith, negotiated compromise entered into to resolve a
valid dispute.
In May, 1983 an application was made for an exterior alteration in the name of LPI. This matter was
scheduled for consideration by the Planning and Environmental Commission on October 10, 1983.
The Community Development Department prepared a memorandum to the Planning and
Environmental Commission dated October 6, 1983 (Exhibit D).
On October 10th the Planning and Environmental Commission denied the application based upon
the closeness of the LPI property to One Vail Place (Exhibit E). This decision was appealed. On
October 24, 1983 this matter returned to the Planning and Environmental Commission for
consideration after changes in the proposal were presented to Town Council. The changes
included proposing fourteen feet between the International Wing and One Vail Place. The Planning
and Environmental Commission voted to approve the exterior alteration pursuant to the staff
recommendation (Exhibit F).
RECYCLED PAPER
~
~
This Planning and Environmental Commission approval remains effective. Subsequent to this
approval, the zoning regulation has been changed which causes approval of an exterior alteration
to lapse and become void two years following the date of approval. This provision was not in effect
at the time of the PEC approval of this exterior alteration and the new provision has no effect upon
the approval.
Additional information will be provided as requested. Thank you.
i
9 , .
nCM~•:~:rJi•:N'j'
'1711:~ AC:JtL•'IiA1L• '1' cen Lcrc-cJ i u i.o thi~ _~Lf d ay ol' 1083
unQ Lutw(:eil thc Lodgct Pxn . '
nerLiQc,o Znc. a Culorado Corpc,r.tLion,
C"1'Jio Corl>urattion") and tJie Town oS Vail, :x Colorado b:unicipal
("''hv Tc,wn") Cor
' po2-ation ,
• % ItEC%TdILS • -
aZ'he Corporagion is t?ae Owuer oP ccrtain real rp e
.ments located thoreon tivhich * p prtY and iml~rove-
• axe collectidely known as 'Che I.,odge. at V ai]
("Z'he Lodge-), Being moro '
Particularl,y dcccribed ora Zhe attac3acd Exhibit
and containing 2,090 acres.
a. The Lod ' •
ge is located wlthin t'2ie Commercial Core IZone District
the Town ot Vail. 3. A disputo hrss
arisen bet%veeA the
to tvhetber Corporation 'and the Town a.b'
Zhe zoning ordinances
34 new acconur~odation units and one~dwthe ellinwh WU~ld ~~lo~ the addition ~p '
a13 "Units" ~ Unit (collectively refQrred ) to the Lodge. . ' . to
4. The dispute relatas to ~yh •
1H ethor c'ertaIaa oZ
. the Lod ttae dwe a~,iaa •
ge Apartments Condominiums located g- units
ahovc; the real °n a Pn.rC:el oS air
. proPerty owned b sAacc •
ownc,d , Y the Lodge,.jr
attribut~tble to -the
bY tlic Corporation itself. land
g. The parties . •
notiv wish to compromisQ and cettle AlZ difr
remain be'z;ween zhem,
erences whicla
nCREtMENT
NOIY THERE FORE ZI
, the.parties aSxee as Sollows: ~
par-ties • ~
agreg t2l$t the densit
>rd'inance y'or CommeJ•cial Y control sectiari oS
Core 2 shall ilor '~he" zoniii~
1iQ Uraits. • . Prohibit the Lod
gc Zxom •bu9 ldjjq.
2. IIei'ore the L '
odgo sha21 procced tvith ti shall the construction
be required to or t~~e Ui~it~
comp_jy µ,ith $11*thc a
»vn and obtain pel-Ini~sjon Srorn Ljl~; A
n.~r pprOpriate ordinances o1'
o ~l~e
~e To~~~n alid fur~)ler c?btain p•"i.:ite boar ds an*d Colnmi .
ssions ~,f
all required and . '
1aaulci ~~v I.oclg~ ne'ceerary per,nits,
go rorwurd witla' tlle
,all be ~urrt~~er ~,ecluire . c°ns~:rUCtioai or '
d to constriicq; the Uni ts ,~y,
~ilitzeS j.i~ tt~o cxp'andcd co~~'erencc~ a` ~
~'~~d~e~v 1.l~at whcn jid nleetin
sucli g 1-oorn
expansion 1s coinp]ere L
h e I.c,d(;e
'
gxhibit A ~
i
t
' .1J u••iI.~.Jn LuLal c:iJ~fa. c.•Ilt:l~ I1lJ 11111 • y.
4,010 i: t.3 nt; rua,~u r;~?uuc.: wil 1 c:li iut.
0 j n s1.ic, nic~rc3 c~r 1cr:r~ nt whic;ti onc ronm shal l. ,c~~n i.z i n at 1c~:u: L
G,OOO sciiluro .fcet morc or lc:ss,
4• The cornuratian shall not institute any leQal actjon ngainsL t.''
Tr,wn concc;i•ninG any ot the clisputod issues c;et Iorth herc:_in,_ 'I'lie Lodge U
entering in.to this Agrecmcnt does not waive its ri ' y
six accommc,c]ation uniLs nor does Lhe Town waive ~htc to requc~~t ~n ;,~d~itlonR:
its $-ight to oPpose sucli
requost. •
IN_ 15'ZTNESS wiiEnE-or• , thQ purties have signed this pgreement this ~
day oS ~ 1983e ~
. THE LODGr- pRppERTIES, INC.
• b4icreL • • . Drager, J r.
dent
T019N OI' VAZL
A Colorudo htunicipal Cor ora
_ P tion
. ' • • by • ~~2~~ L~
HiChard• Capyan , own Manager
• - i
5
11f INUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
mrtESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1983
30 P.M.
On Tuesday, August 2, 1983, a regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was
held in the Vail ll4unicipal Building.
MEr4BERS PRESENT: Herman Staufer
Paul Johnston
Chuck Anderson#
Bill Wilto, hiayor Pro-Tem
Rod Slifer, r4ayor
Ron Todd
Gail Wahrlich*
, ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Caplan, Town Manager*
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
* (arrived late)
The first item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #27, Series of
1983, an ordinance making it illegal to obtain control over any stolen thing
of Value. Larry Eskwith stated that this Ordinance makes it illegal to
knowingly retain stolen property. Paul Johnston made a motion to approve
Ordinance #27 and Ron Todd seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously
and the ordinance was ordered published in.full.
The next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #28, Series of
1983, an ordinance amending chapter 10.080 impoundment of vehicles.
Larry Eskwith stated that the words "by auction" have been stricken from this
Ordinance, which allows the Town to enter into a contract with an organiza-
tion who will salvage the cars and the Town will not first have to offer the
cars at an auction. Herman Staufer made a motion to approve Ordinance n28 and
Chuck Anderson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and
the ordinance was ordered published in full.
The next item of the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance f29, Series of
1983, an ordinance repealing sections 17.26.060 (C) 4 and 17.26.060 (C) 5,
~ lating to condominium conversion projects independently metering utilities.
-rrY Eskwith stated this ordinance eliminates the need for individual
inetering when units are converted into condominiums. Ron Todd made a motion
to approve Ordinance #29 and Chuck Anderson seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously and the ordinance was ordered published in full.
There was no citizen participation.
The next item on the agenda was continued discussion of proposed speed dip
on West Gore Creek Drive. All Weis presented the Council with additional
signatures supporting the speed dips. Ellen Knox stated she was in favor
of the bumps, but that they should be marked clearly. Lai•ry'Lichliter also
stated he was in favor of speed bumps. Stan Berryman presented to the
, Council his views against the speed bumps. He stated they would be
a drainage problem, damage the heavy equi
liability and would be expensive toinstaPlent, w
Afer ould increase the Town's
Wilto made a motion to install three speed dips ontWestd1GoreSC~eeB1Drive.
Ron Todd amended the motion to install "at least three" speed dips on West
Gore Creek Drive. Herman Staufer Seconded the motion. A vote was taken and
the motion passed unanimously. .
Exhibit B
~
MiNUTES i
VAIL TOj9N COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 2 , 1983 7:30 P.M.
_..e next item on the agenda was the appeal of Vail Associates Snowmaking Projec;
Petter Patten presented the proposal to the Council. He stated this is an
application for a Conditional Use Permit which had been-called up by the
Council due to concerns over minimum stream flow. There has been discussions
with Vail Associates, the Forest Service and the Planning Staff. The
Forest Service and Planning staff statistics showed that minimum streem flow
would be protected. The Planning Department recommended approval with these
conditions. A) Meter Gold Peak, LionsHead and New Facility. B) Review the
data at the end of 1 year to assure VA,is.not exceeding to water use causing
the stream flow to go below minimum. After much discussion Ron Todd made
a motion for approval of a temporary conditional use permit of Vail Associates
Snowmaking pump house for the Phase I portion of the work. This approval
should be for a 1 year period at the end of which time we will review the
facts and with the stipulation VA install meters. The snowmaking should be
monitored close, and with the conditional direction that the
communication that is currently going on between the TOV and VA and the
Forest Service continue so that we can have some sort of ongoing idea what
impact snowmaking is occurring on the creek. Seconded by Chuck Anderson.
Bob Parker stated that he could not live with this motion as stated. VA
is investing too much money to risk having the permit removed for whatever
-ason in one year. It was agreed that Larry Eskwith would get together
th Vail Associates (Bob Parker) to draft a document which reflects Ron
Todd's motion. Ron Todd restated his motion to read: Appoval of a conditional
use permit for Vail Associates snowmaking pump house conditional upon an
annual review as relates to minimum stream flow for Gore Creek to be reviewed
by Town of Vail, Forest Service, Vail Associates and the Water District.
That VA will install a meter to monitor flows and again on the condition that
there be ongoing dialogue between the Town, Forest Service, Vail Associates
and the Water District. Chuck Aderson seconded the motion. The motion
was passed unanimously.
The next item on the agenda was approval of an agreement relating to the
Lodge at Vail air rights. Larry Eskwith presented the matter to the Council.
A motion was made by Bill Wilto for the Town Manager to execute this agreement.
Second by Ron 7Codd. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
The next item was approval of vacation of drainage easement of Lot 16, Glenlyon
subdivision. Petter Patten gave the report to the Council and expressed
his approval. This is just a formality to.,abandon this drainage easement.
Bill Wilto made a motion to approve the vacation of drainage easement of Lot
16, Glenlyon sibdivision. Seconded by Herman Staufer. -Chuck Anderson
stained from giving his vote due to the fact he had a conflict of interest.
hiotion approved.
Under Town Manager Report, r4r. Caplan asked the Council whether the following
Tuesdays work session should be cancelled due to the Jerry Ford Golf
Tournament. The Council agreed unanimously not to meet.
There was no Town Attorney Report.
As there was no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
:Respec ly submittcld,
i
odney E. Sli e, yo
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer Town Clerk
c ~
~
9
The next item is approval of an agreement relating to the Lodge at
Vail air rights. Mr. Eskwith. •
Thanks Mr. Mayor. To give some background on this issue the Lodge
at Vail came in pursuant to the urban design guidelines and applied
for some redevelopment of the Lodge itself, and that redevelopment
was to include 34 additional units, almost of all of them except
one accommodation units under one dwelling. The staff reviewed the
request and denied the request on the basis that the zoning,
particularly the density section of the Commercial Core One Z.one
District prohibited the addition of those new units. I then was
informed by Jim Bailey of the law firm of Cawkins, Kramer and
Grimshaw (firm name?) who represents the Lodge as well as Jay
Peterson who also represents the Lodge, that in fact something
unusual happened in 1972 which to them indicated that the densities
hadn't been built out at the Lodge. This occurred prior to the
time we had our zoning ordinances in place and what happened is
that the owners of the property on which the Lodge is built deeded
some property to the Lodge and they also deeded by meets and bounds
a parcel of air rights over the Lodge to the Lodge Apartment
Condominiums. The Lodge Apartment Condominiums built in that air
parcel and their claim to me was that the units which were built in
that air parcel could not be attributed to the Lodge itself because
it was a separate parcel under different ownership. They provided
me with brief, cited a lot of law. I then proceeded to research
the law myself in some detail, including talking to the National
Institute of Municipal Law Offices, the Colorado Municipal League
and a woman who lectures on air rights, the name of Geraca
Goldhammer(?) from Hyland Park. My feeling after discussing the
issue with all those people and researching it myself is that while
I didn't think Mr. Bailey and Mr. Peterson were entirely correct in
their assumption, I felt it was a legally debatable and arguable
dispute and of course I brought that up to the Town's attention and
we've discussed it in some detail. The Council asked me to draft
a possible settlement agreement for consideration tonight which
would provide that in order to.forego the necessity of.a law suit
with the Lodge at Vail, that we would accede to their being allowed
to build those certain accommodation units and dwelling units so
long as they did certain things for the Town. One of the chief
things they would do for the Town if this agreement were entered
into, is as a part of the redevelopment build and refurbish
convention space in the Lodge and that convention space would
provide for at least 7,400 sq. ft. in total and that 6,000 sq. ft.
would have to be contained within one room, so it would have one
large convention room in the Lodge which would handle that 6,000
sq. ft. Both parties agreed to forego a law suit. The Lodge
agreed to comply with all.the zoning requirements of that zone
district as well as all the requirements of the submittal under the
Urban Design Guidelines. I think its important to note for the
Town Council that if the Council enters into this agreement and
• compr.omises this issue, it means that the Lodge would have a site
containing 2.090 acres and that site'would allow additional units
than the units they are proposing to build now. They would be
entitled to six additional units. The Town by entering into this
Exhibit C
}
agreement, pursuant to the agreement does not waive its right to
contest those additional units, nor does the Lodge waive its right
to come in at a future date to ask for those units. I've been
assured informally by representatives of the Lodge that they have
no intention of building those units but I think its_important for
the Town Council to know that they are not precluded from doing
that by this agreement. I'd be glad to answer any questions from
the Council or from the members of the audience.
Larry is this a unique situation as far as this subdivision by air
rights within our community?
Larry: The exact situation at the Lodge Inn to the best of my
knowledge and its based on research because I went over to Land
Title and started pulling condominium declarations like crazy, the
only condominium association that I know of that's positioning a
solid block parcel over a lodge that's under separate ownership but
connected to that Lod.ge is.the Lodge at Vail, befor.e zoning, before
zoning, that's right that occurred before zoning. But I think to
that this whole theory necessitates and has necessitated a review
on my part of our density control section because I think when the
Colorado statute relating to air rights, and that's what their
theory, the Lodge's theory is based on, a statute in the State of
Colorado. It state that air can be conveyed in parcels, that a
parcel of air rights is entitled to all the same considerations as
any other parcel of real estate. When you read that statute in
conjunction with our ordinance it raises some not so palatable
possibilities that I think need to be addressed and I'm in the
process of addressing that now and hope to have an amended
ordinance for your consideration at your next meeting, hopefully or
the meeting thereafter. As soon as possible because I think it has
to be considered.
Any questions from the Council?
Any questions from the floor, from Jay?
(could not hear short response) .
If there are no discussion or any comments I think all it would take is a motion authorizing the Town Manager to execute this
agreement, if there are no changes or other questions.
Motion by Bill Wilto, second by Ron ?
Any further discussion? If not, all in favor vote saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Unanimous.
o MEMORANDUM
T0: Planning and Environmental Comnission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 6, 1983
SUBJECT:
Public hearing and consideration of a request for an exterior alteration and
modification for the Lodge at Vail containing lodge rooms, retail space, conference
space and a deluxe dwelling suite. The proposal includes modifications to the
"Lodge Plaza" adjacent to Founders' Plaza and to the parking lot on the west
side and additional storage space on the parking lot level on the north side
of the Lodge South building. AFplicar.ts:. Lodge at Vail and the Lodge South
Condominium Association ~
RE UEST:
The request is to add 34 new luxury accommodation units and one luxury dwelling
unit containing approximately 30,000 square feet along with new plaza level
commercial space containing approximately 3,600 square feet, additional conference
space, and a ski storage room to the Lodge at Vail. In addition, new storage
- space for the condominiums is being proposed for the Lodge South building.
~
~ Other modifications are a new gate house on the west, reversing the auto circu-
lation into the parking lot, and a new entry court. Over on the mountain side,
the parking lot would be expanded and new stairs added for skiers to get to
the ski'lift chairs. The east plaza would be redesigned to complement Founder's
~ Plaza. At the Lodge Plaza there would he a tem orary canvas pavillion r
removable
the winter. The new International wing wouldcontain additionalconference
space, lodge rooms, one luxury dwelling unit and commercial space on the plaza
level.
BACKGROUND
On July 25, 1983, the two restaurant expansions were approved by the Planning
and Environmental Commission. APproved were a 730,square foot expansion to
the Salt Lick restaurant to be renamed the Wildflower and a 375 foot expansion
to the Arlberg restaurant to be renamed the Cipriani restaurant.
CONFORMANCE WITH PURPOSE OF COMMERCIAL CORE I DISTRICT
The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide site5 and to maintain
the unique character of the Vail Uillage commercial area, with its mixture of
lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment.
The commercial Core I district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open
space, and other amenities appropriate to the permit-ted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Uillage Urban Design
~
' Exhibit D
Page 2 10/6/83 Lodo- ` Vail ~
, _ .
~ and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended
to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrdngements
of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure
continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish
the village.
The Community Development Department considers that the proposal is in conformance
with the purpose of the zone district. The Lodge at Vail is the anchor for
Vail Village and needs to be upgraded to insure the quality of Vail Village
and the community. Without a strong heart, the Village will suffer. The
Community Development Department feels that the long and short term success
of Vail Village is partially based on a quality Lodge at Vail.
VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
#22 Pocket park. Screen fence to close off alleyway (gate required) and continue
streetscape. Pocket park with b.enches, planters; snow storage in winter. t
Service vehicle zone optional.
The proposal contains an improved area of landscaping and walk between the
Lazier Arcade building and the Lodge at Vail. Closing off the area is riot
possible because it is a fire lane.
#14 Village Plaza. Feature area paving treatment, central focal point visible
from Gore Creek Drive. Major land form/planting in N.W. for quiet corner-,
~ with evergreen screen planting to define west edge. Wall street stairs,
~ with mid-level jog landing, opens entry area to Lazier Arcade shops.
This proposa] actually expands the Founders' Plaza area and makes this into
an exciting space within Vail Village.
VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE. NEW INTERNATIONAL WING
Pedestrianization:
By having. new commercial'shops at the new plaza level, the potential for pedes-
trianization has increased by the proposal.
Vehicle Penetration:
There will be no change by this proposal.
Streetscape Framework:
As noted in the application, there is no direct frontage by the proposal on
a public street. The proposed shops and plaza do add to the pedestrian experience
in Vail Village.
' Street Enclosure: , The proposed International wing would have generaTly two heights, one fourth
the width of the enclosed space it faces and one sixth the width of the enclosed
~ space it faces.
~
Street Edqe:
The irregular facades proposed for the shops and restaurants. meet this element
of the design considerations.
Buildinq Heiqht:
The proposed height of the new International wing from the new plaza ranges from 24 feet to 33 feet. At the pedestrian plaza level the proposal meets the intent
of the height section of the Design Considerations. From the south side, the height
would be 35 feet and 43 feet. The Community Development Department feels that the
heights proposed meet the intent of the Design Considerations and provide for the
mix in building heights as perceived in Vail Village. Views: There are no designated view corridors in the area of the proposal.
Va
Service and Deliverv: This will not change by the new addition proposed.
Sun/Shade Considerations:
There would be no sun/shade impact on Town of Vail public space (the Founders' Plaza)
as shown on the sun/shade study.
One concern of the staff is the amount of space between One Vail Place and the Inter-
f national ?ving on the third floor. The staff considers that the top floor be shifted
O five or six feet to the west to open the space between buildings.
For the proposed storage at the Lodge South, the Corrmunity Development Department
feels that there are no negative impacts.
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Parking
At the time of a building permit, the.applicable parking fees for each type of use
will be r.equired. ,
Architectural and Landscape Considerations:
The proposal complies with the intent of the Design Considerations. Detailed design
issues will be more specifically discussed at the Design Review Board meeting.
Fire Department Considerations:
A new fire hydrant will be necessary along the south side near the new International
wing because of the new residential and commercial space.
~
' • - - , - j v l ~ v , c a . c . , • - `
. r .
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the Lod9e at"Vail
request for 34 new iodge rooms, a luxury dwelling unit, new commercial space
and new storage space. In addition, we consider the site improvement very positive
for the Lodge at Vail and Vail Village. As noted previously-in the memorandum,
the Lodge at Vail is the anchor for Vai1 Village. The.Comrrrunity Development
Department feels, the upgrading and expansion is positive for VailNillage
and the community.
,
PLANNING AND ENUIRONMENTAL COMMISSON ACTION ON OCTOBER 10, 1983
s
Donovan moved and Viele seconded to deny the application with the exception
of the Lodge South proposal with the main reason being the closeness of the
Lodge property to One Vail Place. The vote to deny was 5-0.. tl
~
~
~ ~
PEC -2- 10/' SS
- He added that he had told the applicant that the board would act on the proposal
~ today, and had recommended denial with the suggestion that the applicant apply
again in Novembere Donovan moved and Piper Seconded to deny the application for
lack of information. The vote was 5-0 in favor of denial.
3e A request for an exterior alteration to the Villaqe Center proiect at 122
East Meadow Orive to add a new retai] addition on the east end, to revise
the entrance to Tovmaker's Trail, to construct additions to the retail shops,
ana to construct a new sidewalk alon .the north side of the ro'ect.
Applicant: Fred Hibberd
Corcoran read a letter from the applicant asking to table this item until 10/24.
Viele moved and Piper seconded to table until the meetinq of October 24 Vote was 5-0.
4. A request for a conditional use permit in Cominercial Core II in order to construct
commercial stora e units in the lower level of the Concert Hall Plaza
App?icant Eagle Ualley Investments, Inc. •
The applicant asked to table until October 24.* Donovan moved and Corcoran seconded'
to table the item until October 24. The vote was 5-0 in favor of tabling.
5. A re uest for an exterior alteration for the Lo e at Vail to add a ew win
to the hotel between One Vail Place and the L e containin lod e rooms, retail
- s ace, conference s ace and a deluxe suite. he ro osal includes modifications
to the "Lod e Plaza" ad'acent to Founders' P aza and to the arkin ot on the
west side and additional stora e s ace on the,street level on the orth side
of the Lod e South buildinq. App]icant: Lodge at Vail and Lod South Condo
Association.
Dick Ryan reviewed the memo. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, showed a
model and asked if the PEC could vote first on just the storage for the Lodge Southe
Alan Tafoya, representing Ruoff Partnerships, the architect, showed where the storage
in the parking area of Lodge South would go. He added that there would be 16 lockers,
which would be minimized with doors facing into the garage. The garage would be
kept an open ventilated garage. Trout moved and Viele seconded to a rove the stora e
]ockers. The vote was 5-0. Jay then discussed the model and its different aspects: the new entry and rearranged
parking lot, ski storage and employee cafeteria, and the new International suite.
Viele asked what would happen to the 2 spruce trees next to the entrance when the
parking lot was rearranged, and Peterson responded that they would attempt to move
the trees to another location. Concern was expressed about the closeness of the
International wing to One Vail Place. Peterson said that One Vail'Place.overhung
its property line. He added that the ar.chitects had considered moving the top story
of the International wing to the west, and were dissatisifed with the appearance.
Viele asked if there were technical problems with the buildings so close togethera
and Peterson said that they would have to use special glass Trout said that he had difficulty with having only two feet between the buildingso
He suggesfed taking space from the other end of the wing and move the whole building.
He approved the rest of the proposal. . Martha Fritzlen, a resident of One Vail Place
stated that everyone who lived in CCI was. concerned about narrow alleyways and a11
of their problemse Donovan stated that she felt that the building had been designed
Exhibit E
` .
~ PEC -3- 1. 483
¢
to conform to the Urban Design Plan, but that not everyone felt that the Urban Design
Guide Plan was good, and that the building was being designed with the UDGP in mind,
whether or not it worked. She added that it appeared that the comnercial section
was drawing people to a dead end. Donovan felt that in the summer the plaza would
be a lively place, but not in winter. She was concerned about the heights and confused
about how they were figured. Peterson said that on the plaza side, 60`v of the roofs
were below 35 feet, in the back, the roof was 48 feet at the highest point. He felt
that if the guidelines were specific, they would need a variance.
, More discussion followed concerning the height of.the east end of the International
wing. Donovan pointed out that the proposal should deal with the whole complex, not
just with 6 rooms (regarding the closeness of the building to One Vail Plaee).
Piper liked the new entry, but felt that flowers in the middle of the parking lot
. would not be visible when cars were parked there. He agreed with Donovan concerning
the closeness of the building to One Vai] Place, and wondered why the roof garden
had to be a certain size.
Ron Grant, representing Warren Platner, architect, stated that he and his coworkers •
had worked with a large model and had tried the top floor of the new wing in several
different places, but that they were dissatisfied with any but the location shown..
Piper said that he would like to see other solutions. Peterson showed elevations
with the high r..oof six feet west. Viele liked the entrance, but feit that it was
unfortunate that the landscaping were to be changed so that the cars had become
more visible. He agreed with Donovan regarding softening of the plaza, and felt
that he could not go along with a two foot alleyway. Corcoran agreed with the concerns
expressed, excePt that he did not have any problem with the feeling of the dead end
in the plaza. ,
Patten pointed out that One Vail Place had built to and over their property line
with an agreement with the Lodge. hlartha Fritzlen said that when the Schoeb r building
was built, they did the same with the west side. The Gore Creek Plaza buildi
was completely blocked on the west side.
~r-
Donovan moved and Viele seconded to den the a lication with the exce tion of the
Lodge South proposal with the main reason the closeness of the new wing addition to
une Vail Place The vote to denv was 5-0
Jim Morgan arrived. 6. Request for a setback variance in a Primary/Secondarv zone district to construct .
a arage with a deck on top at Lot 4, dlock 3, Intermountain. Applicant: Eliza-
beth J. Kuehn
Jim Sayre showed plans and elevations and explained that the staff recommended approval
because there would be no detrimental effect on the adjoining properties, there
was a physical hardship, and there were-other variances granted for the construction
of garages in West Vail. Kuehn, the applicant, explained that to place the garage
elsewhere would also change-the appearance of the house.
Viele moved and Pi er seconded to a rove the re uest er the staff inemo. Vote was 6-.0.
~
a ••i
,Donovan felt the commercial space request was excessive, that the commercial space
should be an accessory to the lodging.
~ Morgan asked Eskwith whether or not he felt th
e applicant was asking for a_change
in the substance, and Eskwith replied that he was questioning the same thing. He
stated that the Town had the inherent power to change the SDD but was not obTigated
to.
Patten stated that this was more of a rezoning with the reshaping of the SOD, and
that it would be a recommendation to the Town Council who would have to pass an
ordinance. Morgan liked the mall, but found the magnitude personally offensive.
Piper felt that this was a major change to the original SOD-because of the addition
of the Amoco site and the request for additional GRFA. He felt that.there was
a strong impact on Vail Road. He felt the view corridor was a personal opinion,
and also felt that on approaching the 4-way one observed the immediate area or
the area nearby. He felt that the landscaped corner was good, and had no problem
with the parking spaces proposed, and wanted.to see the conditional uses remain
as is. .
Ryan stated that the. staff did their best to listen to the old tapes and to get
information from them. He felt that there were several
proposal, but was basically concerned with the magnitudep~SThevstaffefeltothate
the Amoco site should be rezoned to PA and there should be an amendment to the
SDD, specifically for phases IV & V, that they were not just minor changes.
The staff did not recommend changing to permitted uses the conditional uses listed,
they did recommend deleti~ng the section concerning distance between buildings,
as this had been eliminated from all other SDD's, did not recommend item D, using
~ average height, did not recommend item E, changing the GRFA and allowing additional
floor area for commercial type use, but needed to know which rules would apply.
Ryan said the staff approved the amount of parking.
Piper suggested there be a vote on the proposal with the exception of the allowance
of changing conditional uses to permitted uses.
Mor an moved and Donovan seconded to den the re uest based on the ma nitude and
scale. The vote 111as.4 in favor of denial - 1 Trout a ainst denia , with Pierce
7aannequest for an exterior alteration for the Lodqe at Vail to add a new
q to the hotel between ne VaiPlace and the Lodqe The proosal
udes modifications to the d e Plaza" ad,7acent to the Founders' Plaza
to the parkinq lot on the west side.
Dick Ryan stated that when the Lodge at Vail went to the Town Council they were
asked to return to PEC with their changes. Jay Peterson said that the applicant
was now proposing 14 feet between the International Wing and One Vail Place, by
I taking 5 inches out of each room. He listed distances between buildings in Uail
I and stated that "this is not an entrance to anything." Patten disagreed, saying
that it was a major walkway. After more discussion,
to a rove er staff recommendation. The vote was 4 Dnnfavormwith Radsonrand Troutded
~ abstaininq.
, Zq
- ~ ~ ?~,vu.c ~ ~
,
Exhibit F
p .
Id RLE COPY
OF ~AH,
South Frontage Road Department of Community Developmen;
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-21381479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
~
" Nmwember 8, 1995 Jay Peterson, Esq.
VE1est.Star Bank Building
108 S. Frmntage Road '
Vael9 CO 81657
_ RE: Appeal of the DRB approvai of 77ie International Wing
Dear Jay_
On NJoveanber 7, 1995, the Town Council called up the approval of the Intemational Wing. We
havc scheduled the hearing for Decernber 5, 1995. Please call me, if you would like to discuss the
matteg im greater detail. .
Sinccrely9
~
Andy Knudtsen
Senior Planner
AK/jr cc: Bob McLaurin
Tom Moorhead
. Susan Connelly
Pam Brandmeyer
-Jim I.amont
Jirra Brown
Lymn Fritzten
Cireg Cristman 1
RecrcteoP.sPEn '
NOV-09-1995 17:26 303+685+4869 P.02 n
X c : lo>.'~
L-
JACOLJ~ nrn B. FRirk
; 892-4422
ChaSE
.
FRICk Novernber 9, 1995
K[EINICoPf ~
YTl4 FACSIMILE mrd US MAIL
KEUEY Mayox Osterfoss and Town Council
- • Atm: Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead
75 South Froatage R,oad
«c Vail, coiorado 81657
ATiORMEyS AT LAV .
Re: Appeat Lodge ai Vail, Proposed International Wing
Gentlemen: ' .
On behalf of our client, Luanne C. Wells, an adjaccnt property owner, we
~ hereby appeai to the Vail Town Council thc Nvvcmber 1,1995 decision of t6e Town
• of Vail Design Rcvicw Board regarciing the Lodge at Vail, International Wing. On
bchalf of Ms. Welis, we object to the Design Review Board's decision based upon
: the proposed development's nonconformanc,e vvith standard procedures and
requirements of the Vail ViIlage urba.n design guidelines, applicable design review
abjectives and prior conditions of appmval. On be half of Ms. Wells, we also object
to the proposed development an the basis that it violates well-establisbed zoning
: rules, regulations, Iaws and policies.
: Ms. Weils is a properiy owner at One Vail Place and is adversely affecbed by
~ this proposed developmenL •
~ Very tuYy yotus,
(NdEpENdENCE PIAZA
1050 17iN Sr. , 7ACOBS CFiASE FRIQC KLEINKOPF
Suitt 1500 . & KEI•LEY LLC
DErwca, CO 80265 .
303-685-4800
~inn B. Frick
FAx 303-685-4869 ~ ABF/kb
Xaca74t-1 .
TOTAL P.e2
_ - -
. . . :
, . . . , - 'iSx:-rF+r: r~:~.nti'c'~,~' , ~ . *•yi ~:`f;;.-r ^`1 '`~'~`{:+`+~,Y'^S_ . .
n ign Review Acteo~ FA%n
N OF V IL
Category Number ~ Date / 1~
Project Name: 4 Ir ~.J Building IVame: ~4-
v
Project Description: 2 4 ~t «~.~,7 v?r a a r : ~ ~
~
Owner, Address and Phone: j ~ -vt£ ~-~x Y/I -c 17~
i '
ArchitecUContact, Address and Phone: \ l~~ c-_~ ;r ~_-c~ ~ ~•s ~j,.r~1
Legal Description: Lot ~ Block Subdivision ~ Zone District
Project Street Address:
Comments:
' ~ .
i
~t!
. /
/7~ - /
Board / Staff Actaon
Motion by: Vote:
~
Seconded by:
AApproval
? Disapproval
7 Staff Approval Conditions: ,
„
Town Planner
Date; _ • ~ `J ~ DRB Fee Pre-paid_
r
.
MLE CII""'
~ *VAMM
Tor~vo75 South Frontage Road Department of Community DevelopmE
Yai4 Colorado 81657
970-479-2138/479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
November 7, 1995
Jay Peterson, Esq.
Vail National Building
108 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657
RE: The International Wing at The Lodge at Vail
On November I, 1995, the DRB voted 5-0 to approve the plans for the Intemational Wing.
Conditions of agproval are as follows:
_ A. Frior to application for a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate a public
access easement through the corridor between the proposed International Wing
arid One Vail Place.
B. Prior go application for a building permit, the applicant shall provide detailed
drawings to the Town of Vail Fire Deparkment which show that the existing
unprovements, as well as the proposed construction, will be sprinklered.
C. Prior to application for a building permit, applicant shall provide approval from the
U_S_ Forest Service for the use of U.S.F.S. land adjacent to the International Wing
gatio. If approval cannot be secured, the applicant shall rehun to the DRB for
approwal of a modified design of the landscaping, site planning and grading. DRB
eascourages the applicant to expand the landscaping in the area, if that is acceptable
to the Forest Service.
D. Tbe DRB-approved drawings indicate that all improvements comply with the
Town standards for height and view corridors. However, verification of the
coo.struction documents must be provided at time of building permit. Prior to
application for a building permit, the applicant shall provide documentation to the
Carmmunity Development staff to verify that the proposed structure does not
encroach into any established or adopted view corridor. Documentation shall
include a surveyor's stamp of the elevations and sections, specifying the USGS
eie:vation of the proposed roof ridges, plate heights, chimney caps and view
1
rik RECYCIXD PMER
d~
a
°w
a
d 'G, v b
n n
~9KUM ~hry,
~
,
comridor boundaries. ~'he urban design standards requiring a 60/40 ~-~o~ ^ hn,
height also shall be verified.
E. Prsor to issuance of a building permit, applican4 shall pay a parking fee in th~ ^
aninunt of $8,594.40 per space for the parking demand generated by this .
dewelopment. The I)RB-approved plans show a parking reqwrement of 62.6
sp~+.+.ces, so the fee would be $538,009.44. -
F. Prior to application for a build.ing permit, applicant shalfl provide verification that
' all IQroposed lighting complies with TOV standards.
G. Pramr to application for a building permit, the applicant shall revise the landscape
ligihting plan, replacing the proposed light fixture "E" with the "dillage Light," in
order to be consistent with the rest of the Vail Village Area.
H. Prnmr to application for a building permit, the applicant sball redesign the entry aza
plicant swement into the courtyard from the Founder'eII ih s been "
apdram ticalylreduced
a s&etch to staff, verifying that the entry statem
irn size."
1. Ixa ghe future, the applicant shall cooperate with the T'own of Vail, Vail Associates,
and surrounding property owners to develop a master plan for the area to integrate
the Intemational Wing with the Village area and base of ski slopes.
~ Thank You for youar cooperation throughout the review of this project. Please call me if you have
any questions about these conditions.
Sincercly,
Andy Knudtsen
Senior Planner
AKfir
cc: Cnreg Christrnan
Susan Connelly
IIIn Arown
Lynn Frirr.len Jim Lamont
.'i,
$
_:s..
s
~ 2
: • ' . }Y,~ ' f'
. . ~
. ~
Frztzl en Fi'erce Biiner P.O. ,Box S7 m Vail Colorodo 81658 0 303-476-6342 ~ Faz: 303-476-4901
November 1, 1995
A.ndy Knudtsen
Senior Planner
Town of Vail Community Development
75 S. Frontage Road .
Vail Colorado 81657 .
Re: Lodge at Vail Intemational Wing
Expansion
Dear Members of the Design Review Board, On behalf of Luanne Wells, I hereby object to the Design Review Boazd's final review of the Lodge
at Vail International Wing expansion application. The objection is based upon the failure of the
applicant to comply with pre-established application requirements . The significant failure is as
follows:
- Failure to obtain authorization from owner.
- Failure to provide complete information.
- Failure to provide i.nformation on a timely basis to facilitate a complete and accurate review. .
The fallowing is a discussion of the aforementioned three points. •
- FaiInre to obtain authorization from Owner
Division 18.54.040 of the Vail Municipal Code requires that the "owner of authorized agent of any
project_ shall submit for final design review." The Lodge at Vail Site Lot A,B, C Block SC as
described on the Oct 11, 1993 DRB application consists of three condominium associations, Lodge
Properaes, Lodge Tower and the Lodge Apartments. To date only the Lodge Properties has signed
or approved the application.
The recently submitted survey and title report are inconsistent with the site description on the DRB
application. The survey and title report rely on "excepting out" the condominium subdivisions
of the Lodge Apartnents Pazcel of 1971 and the Lodge South Pazcel of 1972 to establish the
"Remaindng Lodge Properties Pazcel". These condominium subdivisions are not land subdivisions
as defined by Title 17 Subdivisions of the Vail Municipal Code (Adopted by Ordinance #4 of 1970).
Q
d
Andy 1{nudtsen
Page 2
Noveffiber 1, 1995
- - ~ Therefore the Lodge at Vail site should be treated as one site and not as three independent parcels,
. therefore consent must be obtained from all three owners.
Now that survey and ownership information is available it is important for the Town to revisit the
issues brought up by N1r. 7ack Reutzel's in his letter of February 23, 1994 to Mr. Tom Moorehead.
This getter questions the reliance on a condominium subdivision to establish a"site or parcel".
The precedent set by allowing two owners or associations sharing the same building envelope to
be treated as separate entities for the purposes of zoning and redevelopment is contrary to the Town
of Vail regulations and common sense.
2. IF~ilure trm pa-ovade nnformation on a tiaxaely basas to facalitate a connplete ancfl ascuaate
revaewo
As of Friday October 27, 1995 a completed zoning analysis was neither available from the Town of
Vail aar the applicant confirming existing and proposed GRFA, density, site coverage, landscape
azea, and height in relation to the allowable. Reliance on the 1983 PEC approval is not acceptable
due to the many changes reflected in the current proposal. The aforementioned documents, which
are necessary for a complete zoning analysis, are set forth and required by Section 18.54.040 as
follows: '
" B. Cmnceptual Design Review"
. 1. Submnittal Requirements
c. Sufficient information to show that the proposal complies with the development standards of the .
zone dastrict in which the project is to be located (i.e. square footage total, site coverage calculations,
number of parking spaces, etc.) "
"2. Staff/DRB procedure. The departrnent of community development shall check all submitted
material for compliance with applicable provisions of the zoning code, subdivision regulations and
Sectiomm 18.54.040 C Section 2... If the application is found not to be in compliance with applicable
provisions of the zoning code and Section 18.54.040C, the application and materials shall be
returned to the applicant." These miaterials are required to be submitted four weeks prior to a scheduled review as established
by the: Town of ilail Department of Community Development Policy. Sufficient time was not
provi&-d for the stafFor interested parties to review the appropriate documents.
3. ]EaiEure to provnc?e compIlete nnfoa-aanataon.
Andy Knudtsen
Page 3
November 1, 1995 _
. We aze still awaiting copies of the following information which was requested at the October 18,
1995 If this information is not available we would request that the review be tabled until it is.
- Revised east elevation addressing issues brought up at the October 18, 1995 meeting regarding
privacy between the two buildings.
- Revised walkway planters on the east side addressing the issues brought up at the October 18;
1995 meeting. ,
I respectfully request that the Board delay their review until the aforementioned issues are properly
addressed.
Sincerely,
Lynn Fritzlen Architect .
cc: Luanne Wells and Paul Heeschen Dr. and Mrs. Smead One Vail Place
Tom Moorehead TOV Attorney
, Jack Reutzel Attorney
Jim Brown Attorney for Lodge at Vail Apartments
Town of Vail Design Review Board •
Town of Vail Town Council
Anita Saltz Lodge at Vail Apartments
Stanley Shuman Lodge at Vail Apartments David and R.hoda.Narins Lodge at Vail Apartments ,
East Village Homeowner's Association, Jim Lamont Administrator
L:19206\ANDY 1027. WPD
t j ~~"'y•
n •
. .
V . .
r
February 239 1994
Tom Moorehead, Esq.
Vail Toum Attorney 75 South Frontage Road VaiI, CO 81657
, Re: Lodge at Vai1 Proposcd E4anszon . Dear Tom: This inemo has been prepared to address the cecntra,t lcgal issues surrounding the I,odge at
Vail proposed expansion. There are severral planning related issucs that wili be bett~
addressed through the ~'own's rediew process should the need arise. This memo
addresses the following speciZC questions:
I. Does the cUrrcnt proposal submitted by tbe Lodge at Vail violate the
allowable density af Commercial Core I?
2.. Did the 1983 Agreement between the Ladge at jlail and the Town of Vaii
lawfully waivc the density requirement of the subjece properry?
3. Fias the I,odge at Vail vcsted its right to build the additional units?
fla Does the n~ ca~ ~y the ge Rt ~T~il vialate the
aliowable ~enc~~ n~ L1TT947tP9°R`YA, ~AAx`~ oS
There is some confusion as to the area contazned in the Lodge at Vai1's. proposed
expansion. Noneghelessa we believe that no matter how the applicant defines the "Lot",
the density lim.iYation of the Commercial Core I("CCI") district has been exceeded.
Therc are 90 dwelling unats existing today on the °°Lot". 1Vo matter how the Lodge at Vail
def nes the geographic limitatians of the "Lot'°, (the 2,088 acres identified as the "Total
Remaining Parc,el" og the 2.7073 acres identi#°ied as flie Totnl Rcmaining Parcel and the
"North Wing Parcel" all as defined i.n the applicants 1983 memorandwm to the 7Cown
Att0171ey), ThP eXYStIYlg dCil 1v ex=dC the mavimi 2rr3 .a=ftv n i Ppi"" Q[3~' *f1P i( 7
disfricL If the Lodge at Vail is proposmg 4Iie additional u.nits on the 2.088 acre Lot flle
. . ^
~ 3036943831' S 47. 03 FEB 23' 94 :
• if
Tom Moorehead, Esq. _
. February 23, 1994 - -
Page Two .
density is set at 52 units. If the applicant is.proposing the additional units an the 2.7073
. acre Lot, the density is set at 67 units.. In either event the current number of existing
units.exceeds the totai number permitted by the CC X district
. Some of the existing 90 dwelling units may have been construcfed prior to the adoption of
the To-wn's zoning regulations and therefore would be considered legaily non-canfonrung
uses. However, those units still count agaznst the density cap on the Lot.
The Lodge at Vail argued in 1983 fhat withi.n a defiined geographic space more than one
Lot could exist by virtue of separate ownezship of the air rights separate from the real
property. Tn this particular instance, for example, the Ladge at Vail seems to azgue that
the 2.088 acres is really 4.176 acres for purposes of allocating density; the surface 2.088 -
acres and the 2.088 acres lyingabove the surface owned by a dafferent entity. J.zzstead of
fifly-two dwelling units, the Lodge is entitted to 104 dwelling units on the 2.088 acre Lot.
The Code's definitgon of a Lot fzom which density is determined is defined as:
a parcel of land oc:cupied by a use, building or structure under the provisions of
this title and meetin.g the minimum requirements of this tztle. A site may consist of
, a single lot of reccyrd.... Noffiing in the definition gzves any indication that common ownership is a reqwirement of
a Lot Yet commoa awnership was the key element to the Lodge's rationale in 1983.
.
Sincc there were two separate owners of the surface-estate and the air estate, there had to
be two Lots, each of which were entitled to 25 unats to the acre.
The logical results nf this thinking is readily apparent. Density control has Iegislatively
been ackaowledged as a lawful exercise of a municipality's police power since it
prom.otes the hea.lth, safety and general weLfare of the community (C.RS. §31-23-301
(1)) . Ta allow two or more ownerships to occupy the same Lot and allow ea.ch
ownership the same density rights fivstrates the purpose of density linaztati.ons recognized
by the State enabling authority and implicitly recognized by the Town's Code.
In any event, I believe the Lodge at Vail's 1983 legal memorandum setting forth t.his
double density proposal was rejected by staff. .As &result, the Lodge at Vail threatened
~ .
Tmm Moorehead, Esq.
February 23a 1994
Page Three _
~ stgat and the T'own executed an agreement purrporting to waidc the density requirement. If
the Towri sgaff agreed with the Lodge's position expressed in a memo from its attomey to
the then Town Attorney, there wou.id have been no nced to execute an agrcement ,
resolving "the dispute [relati.ng] to whether certain of the dwelling units of the Lodge
. Apartment Condominiums located on a parcel of air spacc above the real propcrty owzied
by the Lodge, is attributa.ble to the land oumed by the [Lodge]." Be the 183 Agreemea betw~e~a ghe ,~c~ e at iVai[ and the 'Town of Vail
llamTW waiw ths density re~~iremea$ of Y e cnbj.ect ~r pgrtv•
The Agrecment waivcs the density control section of the Commercial Corc I District in -
violation of sta.te statutes and was done for no other purpose but to relaeve a parCicular
property from the restriction of zoning rcgulations. As a result, the 1983 Agrcement is
uttra-vi.nes to the statc enabling legislative and the Town Code and is tlierefore void.
It as well scttied in Colorado 4hat contracts executed by municipal corporations in which
thcre was a failure eo comply wggh the mandatory provisions of the applicable statutcs or
charters are void. (Svyedltmd v Denver Joint ~toc and~ank o£I2enver et l., 118
P.2d. 460, Colo.1941.)
Colorado Rcvised Statutes, §31-23-301 (1), empowers municipalities to, among other
- thi.ngs, regulate and restrict height, number of stories, size of buildings, the sizc of yards,
the densi y of pol2u1a 'on and the use of buildings, structures and land. This same section
also requires Yhat such regulations "shall prodidc for a board of adjustment that anay
detezmine and vary their application in- harnaony with theix general purposc and intent and
. in accordancc with gencral or specific rules contained in such regulations." State law fiarther rnanda2es that Board of Adjustments hear and decide all matters upon
which it is required to pass under ordinance (C.RS. §31-23-307). Thc Town's Zoning
Code had in place in 1983, and today, a procedure for granting variances from the Iiteral
intezpretation. of the Zoning Code, including densitv, where a hardship would result.
(Tavyn Code Section 18.62.010) Section 18.62.010 (13) of the Town Codc ves4s
jurisdiction to grant varianccs from the prodisions of the Zoning Code with the
3036943831 D!E~, 472 ~`OS FEB 23,94 1
Tcrm Moorehead, Esq.
Februfuy 23, 1994
Page Four
, .
planning Com.mission. Applicants for a variance must comply with the criteria found in "
Section 18.62.060 of the Town Code. The Lodge at Va.il faiied to follow mandated
prvicedures for obtai.ning the density variance and therefore, the 1983 agz°eement is invalid
and unenforceable.
The Town is not estopped from finding the 1983 Agreement unenforceable because of a
li8e of cases stating that estoppel against a municipal corporation may not be utilized by a
pr3vate party if the munxcipal cozporation finds a previously executed agreement invaiid..
(See Tormandy Estates Metro oli ^ District v No Andy Fstates Iliinit~d, 534 P.2d ,
80$) Colo. App., 1975.}
Notwithstanding the ultra-vires nature of the Agreement, if given its literal reading, the
A.greement is contract zoni.ng in violadon of well established case law. (See 1k
+ B , 362 P.Zd 160, Colo. 1961; Ki. g;c Mitl Homeowners Assoc v. Citv of
Westminst.et, 557 P.Zd Y 186; Colo. 1976; and In rmation 1?1eAsP nc v Board of ,ountv
(„nmmiccinnPrc nfM=n ountv, 600 P.2d 86, Colo. App. 1979•} The Agreement
purports to waive the density requirement within Commercial Core I for the Lodge at
Vail. No other property within CCI has been given relief from the density requirement
li.ke the Lodge at Vail. ]By waivi.ng the density requirement, the Town Council, tbrough
its Town Manager, has relieved the Lodge at Vail from the restricti.on of zoning
regulations, thereby creating for all intents and pwrposes a different zone. .
3. noes tbe Tadin at Vail bave a vesfed rigb* h,iitd thP additinnal naits?
Pn-or to 1987; Colorado was one of the number of states that recogaized a vested property
ri&t only upon substantial reliance on the issuance of a valid buildi.ng permit and a
. sulbstantial step toward completion of the project. (See P W Tnvestments inc v Citv
Wtest int r, 655 P.2d 1365, Colo. 1982, Cline v Citv af Bgulder, 450 P.2d 335, Co1o.
M69.) These requiremenis were not and, to date, have not been satisfied by the Lodge at
Vail. The 1983 Planning and Environmental Commission approval of the exterior
modification in 1983 case does not vest the project. No building penait was ever issued
bT the Town or relied on by the Lodge. Reliance on the Planning and EnvironLmental
Comumission approval in 1983 as a site specific development plan, thereby statutory
vesting the rights must fail since there was no statutory vesting possible in 1983.
D
Vt'8a Il8t1£V 9e 0~88wdi81C - -
8flfl ~'s~t~ ~4r~atsr.~
FAX (970) 479-2452 .
. October 17; 1995
Ms. Susan Connelly , Community Development Director
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vaul, Colorado 81657
. ~
Dear Ms. Connelly: .
re: International Wing at The Lodge at Vail
I am the owner of Condominium 363-365 at the Lodge. My wife
Sydney, our four sons, and I spend a good deal of time throughout the year enjoying the wonders of Vail. We have an unencumbered view of the Village and mountain from our unit which is on the upper southeast comer of the
Lodge looking past Wildflower and over what is currently the International
Wing (Xerox picture enclosed).
Although I am a director of The Lodge Condominium Owners
Association, I am writing solely in my individual capacity as a unit owner. As
you know, the Association is a member of the East Village Homeowners Association, and EVHA has already expressed many concems which I share.
Although it is in the interest of Lodge Properties to increase their profitability
by creating additional facilities, the location, design and scale of these facilities
should be planned with consideration for all affected parties and the citizenry
as a whole.
Ms. Susan Connelly
Town of Vail
Page 2 :
With this perspective in mind, I would hope that the DRB will look at
the proposed design in conformance with its own performance requirements with respect to scale, roof design, the requirements that commercial use be
limited to plaza levels, underground parking to be located at the site, required
passage ways between adjacent structures; etc.
To the extent possible, views over, and privacy of, existing residential
units should not be diminished. It would appear that the upper most floor
exceeds the height requiz-ement, and the Penthouse unit itself is a luxury that
serves largely to meet the hubris of the owner. It should be removed in order -to reduce the building height. , .
I have been impressed with the continued efforts of the DRB and the
Town Council to encourage enlightened development in the town, and I submit
these comments with the hope that they will be of assistance to you in the
course of your consideration of the proposed Intemational Wing.
Very truly yours,
Stanley S. Shuman enclosure
~i
;
i
1
•w re~,,'°1 ~.r~t.~; A'." ;
. b . ~ ~t •,p~ ~y'ia . : i s r ~ i
~ ' ~ ~ . ~ t.,_. C ~~~~,ldk~J . ~:g'l~r"'. r~ . t? .l ~ I t
r
7 ~:r-. q+f?. ~ '~A~ ~a~' 4a~ x' ~'ti t; :'7?: 7~ , i . _ t AS.~ 7~ t
~ , , '~,#A " ~y6' •
,
. ` R F . ~ ` ~ • ~ 'T,-, c i~ Y . f~, p[.,~ws,~ ie4 . 1 ,1) ~(Y A' ~ , f(~ ~A - ~ Aw~ b ~ ~
~ 'r 7 * 1`t • ' 6 11"y~ 1 7 ~ 1 ,L . , :P i• ' i P~ , w~ { ' ~'l~~ . 1
I,t i1r ~ ..-'1~j`J!! ~r..y~ .~e.R_ qr i . it -y~~~~^Y;,`tK M . a~5 . ~1:. M~r 1r"~~~~.~~~~ .,~1r~{xyE y~y~ ' }
.
µ ~ , x ' ; r S , ~ 9 •
",t~' ?u~e . ' 4 i,. . ,k~~ ~ '.l . i-i . ~~4J.. ~ ~ -r~.••I ~ ' - i
-
.'1 ~*..s y~..:' r i ~/~b~~~~~ a~ R• ~iH. .j ' -•j .;.•~+x_ ~ . ~
` 4....,~ - • ! ~ } ~ ' "`k~ ~ '~'ti ~ t ~ ~ b? %~ly.~"f s`~ ..3 ' ~f ~fe;:.`~ .n ! ' . . :!tr; _ ` { ' `1: " ~
^ ~E.P ~ ~ ~ ,~4~+. `Ki.:~ ' ~ ~ , ek~~~•l,°,~~.d ~ ? I.:j.•~, ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ .
' ~ ~ x. ( t ~ if' t~! Su3j~( b .I :i.~ n.. ~ :t:'t~'•.±"• ~ ~y A'~Yy',~~5 }I . ~,~,i:44~~ i ~I,j~-I •'i' r s
` /b~ s ~ - {'r , ~ I t 1 ~
• 'r ~.i - 'C,~9 '7R' ~A' ~~~"P~ r py~4Y~~' :t N = .t~ ~"~~~t~~ ~ ~ ~i ` t ;~i~~ . 'i
. ~
, ~ ~ 1~' ' a s . :'?.r..• ~ g. ~,!'~i+"~Ft~ Y~g . w ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ '..'a ' Yx • rf., t ,
~
. ~ : .
~ ' , 'A t r ~ d ~ lt .tr I ~l ~!Y ~1. 1
~
_ . •
-Y-~,R~. ~ , . ~ • . 4 , r T.
,
. :
~
.
Sp' - -
.
. ~
. ~ ~
.
it.~• yM ' ~ ~i~iil~ •.,v : ~~.11 ~~,r;s~•,~'`, i ~ - ~ t -
~
. . k ` ,A~ .'qi.~, ~ ~w ~ . ' - ' . • . y T'lv,;r~:t'r' ~i~?j~ ~ ' dt`~
~ , `r"~"'~ . . ~r:'.~`('1~. i •,4 , ~ } 4;.
a~.,~ ~•+::~r4::~j3'~~~?`~' ' ~ r
.7~n:., ~ ; , ki , i~
f~'. w4, ~~~~~~~L~"'+' . ' t ~ . ~ • ~ Yr~~ ~ M1
`F,~V` N ,t~ . ~ r~' T14 ~Y,~ d / ~
~'r / ~ A ' ' ~ac ~ 4 ' 4T'~
•'~i-..~' .~l.~~i ~'~h ~ _ + .....'r'.^ ~~~A~ 1~, ~'x ~ ~ i
~..y..,,~~~ ~ • r~ F,[ }r:.~, y. a,,, r C Y.M~, 1 3~ A~.~'' y 3.
~»"•'3!:~~~. f . ~~~i .
- • ' ~ ~ ~ i' . '41r; r,~„ ~~~sWb~r ` - . ~ . ' / I
-f.~ ..s'+.?:: r~;~~ C~! n::1}~ "K ' - . . y . ~ .
~..t~" •1`~(`'T..^ ~ p'r f,t ` ~ w.r~+ l ~ • :'.~i 1
~1~ ~'f~ ..t 'y: ~~,w'• .
•t' „ ~ :'c' ..,Yi,~ ~ ,
p : i S i~ '~Hr w • + H ' ~r' ' ?
W . . . • lt ~4 d ~e ' ~ +
'~S~ ,(ytr ii'1 j~ A ~a • ~ . '.~~4 ~~y~.y:L; .
lt ~1_( ~ M'y~ ~ y ~ . M - . :y'• t' ~j 1' "tir
,d~. s~~ ; ••~,Natj . 41., r. . '.4~,..~ ' :~i•;~w3~'~~.
~ 'y ~-.4 ~ ~ * ~ ~ %~y . ' ~ . • ~ ~ Y~:t~ r ' ' , ~f .
~J•~'SJr • ' Y ' ,~t~ax 'N ~
~ • ti. 'r , i
c i iZ r r ' ~'l~~•j~~. ~y~.'~.~ ~ 'i, ~ r cj.
. . ._i"y_ a i~ ~ ~.v .h.. ~'k . • ' t~++~( • ~f~.~l'~' !i I r ii 'k ~ ~~.4}
.r:•.f.~d~1. . r~'.: t., ..r r .«.~.rT.~.i ,y~ r~'' i~ ~
`i • ~i i~~•.r. ~ • "~r'i` , i'H, . + ~ ` ~+f'd-J~i ~T t.'. s.. ~ . ' •
. ~ . kX~ t . ~ ' _
~ ' • .f i{ ~ - . . .~~4e 4'f,~ , ' * n .1. r•;~ ~ , .
j ' • ':jr,~ • ~i~51 •s '1.
•M,~~ . . i~*{~~!~ ~~~I~ ' ~ T' , ~ F•
. • ; " '.,~•rJ~ ~ ~~a 4l`,fi~'~ y'%~~ , ;IR^ ~ • ~ . •
. . _ ~~'t~~ a ~ .
~
~ . - . . . ~ . . ~ ~bY . ,
~ , - . . , . . • • . ; : . ~ . . :r':-T- _ ~ :3
r~~ ' ~ . ~ . ~ - - - - .
, ,tti? 7 ~ ~ ~ . s, . • l - r`'' ~ ~
, . . , t, . , . • .
. . ' ' . ' . ~ ~ - . " ~ . . ~ ~ i . . . . .
~ _ ; ' , • : ~r' . . ~ . . ~iY
EAST VILL W HOMEOWNERS ASS "IATION, INC.
~ OfIicers: President - Bob Galvin Secretary - Gretta Parks Treasurer - Patrick Gramm
Directors - Judith Berkovitz - Dolph Bridgewater - Ellie Caulkins - Ron Langley - Bill Morton - Connie Ridder To: Town of Vail Design Review Board .
Town Council
From: Jim Lamont, Administrator
Date: October 17, 1995
. RE: Lodge at Vail, International Wing, as proposed DRB Application, October 18, 1995 r
' Please be advised of the following recommendations that are offered for your consider-
ation in review of the Lodge at Vail, International Wing, as proposed.
1. The scale of the proposed structure adjacent to the passage way between One Vail
Place and the International Wina, as proposed, should be equivalent to the passage way between
One Vail Place and the Hill Building. The International Wing, as.proposed, should stair step
dow-n towards the One Vail Place passage way and Eaton Plaza. The width of the passage way
between One Vail Place and the International Wing, as proposed, should be the same width as the
passage way between the Hill Building and the Golden Peak House. The passage way should be
a minimum of 25 feet. Design should allow for a qualitative or adequate pedestrian circulation
around the building. The building design should anticipated and be compatible with an in-filling of
the parkinj areas located south of the proposed building site that would provide for a plaza giv-
ing direct access between the Village and the Mountain. Should the Land Exchange site develop-
ment option not be exercised, allowable GRFA can be relocated to lower floors, thus lowering the
profile of the building. There appears to be no requirement in the zoning contract with the Town
of Vail that it must approved adjunct uses such as convention facilities.
2. A different roof style should be employed, without resort to dormers, so that view
blockages from sunounding residential units and public walkways of Vail Mountain and the Gore
Range are decreased. The cathedral ceiling roof covering the penthouse unit is excessive, it should be substantially reduced in order to lower the apparent building height.. The proposed
roof forms increases shadowing on pedestrian walkways and public plazas. A different roof form
, could cause less shadowing. The privacy of, or view from, existing residential units should not
be diminished. The upper most floor should be removed as it appears to exceed the hei~ht
requirement.
3. Flat roofs are neither encourage or allowed in Vail Village, the building should con- form to the 40%/60% height and sloping roof requirements of the Vail Village Urban Design
Guidelines. The architectural design attributes of the proposed structure should be reviewed for
compliance vvith the Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines by the Town of Vail professional de-
sion review consultant. All buildings in Vail Village and many others having lesser impacts, have
been required to be reviewed for compliance by the Town of Vail's design consultant.
4. The roof terrace should be removed in order to maintain the privacy of adjacent resi-
dential units. The size of terrace allows for large social gatherings which are inappropriate at this
level of the building, given the adjacency of residential units and the failure of the applicant to
provide privacy screens.
Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658
Telephone: (970) 827-5680 Message/FAX: (970) 827-5856
~
Q ~
5. How will noise and odor from building exhausts and mechanical systems be handled?
Will Yhey interfere with residential quality of adjacent residential units? Adequate protections .
should be given to surround residential and commercial properties from these factors..
6. Building should conform to the design requirements of the Vail Village Master Plan,
which requires commercial uses to be located at the plaza level. Parking for the building should
be required to be located underground on the site.
The Homeowners Association requests that all substantive design standards and review re-
quirement be imposed upon this application as they have been imposed upon all other buildings
of similar size and scope that have undergone development within Vail irillage in recent years.
The Homeowners Association requests the foregoing within the ethical context of advocating
equal treatment and standards for all property owners within the same zone district. Failure to
provide for equal treatment and standards has the potential to seriously undermine the ethical in-
tegrity and intellectual authority of the public design review process within the Town of Vail.
.
~ •
~ FILE COPY
M~~
Torf voF v
75 South Frontage Road Department of Commuriiry Development
Yai4 Colorado 81657
970-479-21381479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
Octobcr. 16s.1995
Ms. Lynn Fritzlen
Fritzlen Pierce Briner P.O. Box 57
Vail, CO 81658
Re: The Lodge at Vail International VVing
Dear Lynn_
I would like to correct your misunderstanding expressed in your October 16, 1995 letter.
l. The Town did not grant additional GRFA in 1983. Nleither the agreement, nor the staff inemo allocates
additional GRFA.
2. Surveys have been submitted, identifying lot area, as well as topography. These surveys are dated
February 10, 1995. Please keep in mind that the staff does rely on information dating as far back as
possible, such as 1982, to establish pre-esisting grade. The 1982 survey continues to be relevant, but
has been augmented with a current survey.
3. 7he title report matches the legal description. Please stop by my office to verify this.
4. GRFA, parking, height, site coverage, exterior lighting and landscaping conform with zoning.
If you would like to stop by and review the drawings in greater detail, it may be helpful for your understanding
of the project. I will be happy to assist you in that effort. Please do not hesitate to call me at 479-2138.
Sincerely, .
c/
An y en
Senior Pl er
AK/jr
cc: Tom Moorhead
Susan Connelly
~ ? R£CYCL£DP.tPER
r
L V/ 1 Cl i J ~ . v ~ C.a V 1 i v 2 J ~ i ?.i 1.L._~. ~ . . L i
O
~ •
Y Ffitzien PleYce 1Z1Zer
P.U. Boz 31 Q b'ait Colorado 81658 ~ 343-476-6382 m Fax: 303-476-0901
Octaber 16, 1995 c
Andy Knudtscn ~
Senior Planner
Town of Vail Planning Dept.
75 S. Fmntage Rd.
Vail Colorado 81657
re: Locflge at Vail
International Va'ing Addition
\
Deaz Aridy, .
On behalf of Luanne VJells, of One Vail Place 1 have the follouing comments.
As yoes are awrire we have fileci a formal protest with your aepartment arguing the validity of the
zoning of tlus proposeti project. Toin Moorehead has told mc that the TovNn does support the 1983
agreement that grants the additional GRFA. The agreement does state that thC pro;ect requires compinancc with the DRB applica in and w process. • A re-%ricw ofthe Lodge Properties proposal is scheduled this 1'Vednesday, October 18 at ttie regulazly
scheduIed DK13 meeeting. We do not intend to debate the techrucal aspects of the zoning at this
meetirag but we do have the following:
1. To date a camplctc and current survey has not been submitted to the Town as is required by ~
Section 18_54.040, Section C, division A of tlie ToAn of Vail Zon:ng Code. The 1982 survey
ubmitted b~ the aPPiicant does not reflect cuffent building height, 'Location or toPograPhY nor does ~
S ~
it meet the other requirements of Section C. Most imgortantly the lot srea and the legal description
are nmt stated on the survey. A partiai survey, showing miscellaneous grade elevations is not
approprialr given tlie scepe of tlus projcct.Once this survey has been p:epared the proposed °sitz
plan" as defned in Section C should be superimposed uver llie surveyor's uiformation.
The survey and site plan should be submitted four weeks in advance of a scheduled review, as is
required fox all applications so that all i.nterested parties may have an adec}uate opporn:nity to reiiew
the documenls.
\
Q , .
. - . . . . . . mnv
i~ n n i__
:35 Fr1X 9704764901 FRITZLEN PIERCE TOV 1~.1002'
0
Anc~y Knudtsen
Fage 2
October 16, 2995 - -
Z.
41. The title report submit#ed tioes not match the legal description on the application. Since a recent ~
2
sur*vey has not been submitted it is nut possiUle to conelate *,hese two. Thc titie report excepts out
several parcels that are not eacepted ou# on the applica.tion or on what survey information is
available. Tt is my belief ehat the property stated on the applicatio4 Pazcels A.B ans3 is ownied by
a nu.mber of enti*.ies indludi.ng the Lodge Pioperties and the applicatie» should he submitted jointly
by the Lodge Froperties, Lodge Commercial and Residential Condomin:um Associations 2nd
Lodge Tower Association. Without a survey reflecting the boundaries of these excepted parcels
or flie Lodge Properties parceI it is not possible to determine if tide report is accurate and if the
Ladge Properties alone is the qualified appli.cant.
3. As of this c3ate the staf[ has not pro-vided a zoning analysis tu the publ;c confirazing conforrnance
;uith allowed GRFA, parl:ing, height, site coverage, exterior lighting, 12ndsCa}3ing. AlSO I Y;ave noi seen an analysis by a Towm af Vail represer:tative in regards to con-formarn;e with the Urban Design
Guildeiines that ar:, applicable for this district. We are requesting tha# this irLfornarion be made
available to neignborirlg groperiy owuezs at least four weeks in advance of a scheduled hearung in
order to have adequate oppomtnity to review the documents.
Genesally we are concemed that the application is grossly inadequate in camparison to the scale of
the project and iis iinpact on surroz:.nding prcpertiLs. It apgears the applicant is more interested in
vesting the. development rights through the DRB proczss thau goiug to expense of providing
adec;uate information and design for a truly teasible project.
~
Sinccrely, ~
.
L)-nw"Pritzlen .
Architect
cc: Laitxnne Wells 3im Lamonl, East ViL'age lIomeowner's Association
Anita Saltz Jack Reutzel Attozney
Firank Heeshin
Jim Brown Attorney At!orney
Tom Muorehead TOV Attomcy
L 142!~`,ANDY , 0? 6.~L'PD
1
D,) 15:56 DR. NAR#DAUIS AVE TEL:914 6-A006 P. 002
f~
.t"
~Y-~
David Norin.s, M.D.
Rhoda S.Ncaa°arrs9 M.D.
e Lodge at Vaal #535
I9.~ East . Gore Creele
Vaal, Colorado 8I657
October 2, 1995
]V,fs. Susan Connelly
Community Developmeni Digector
Town or Vail .
75 Soutb Frontage Road
Vail, Coloaado 81657
rc: Fropased International Wing at 'I'he Ladge ai 'ilail
IDeax Ms. Con;nelly:
i]Ve have owned Condoarunium 535 at the Y,md.ge at Vail since 1985. Attcg having slded
at Vail since its opening yeag and after looking $og maay years, we, purchased this
condominium, for its location and particularly fox its wieww of the Gore range. Our family
has enjoyed spending time in \lai9 in both summer and winter and feel ihat the charm of
Vai) Village is in its scale and planned usc of space. As candominiuni ownexs in the Lodge
at Vail, we have an interest in the continued profitability of the Lodge, but feei that there
should be a design which does not impacR so negatively on so many peoplc.
'g'he design of the proposed Internatianal Wing at the 1.odgc goes counler to the.
planning we have seen in other pares of the Vitlage. It is a Iarge structure, vvhose beight
is oue of scale with the surYOUnding apeo space. °I~e ' Presidentis9 Suite" to bc built oa .
the xoof of the stxucture will affect the quality of life yn Vail for us as well as rnarkedly
decrease the mone4axy valne of onr properiy and that of the surrounding condominiums in
the Ladge and adjacen4 buildings_ We have been shavvn photographs of the views from our
windows which we feel are rrisleading. 171e archileGtS have dgawra in the Outline of the
paoposed building, but the lane drawirags they presente-d do not reflect the mass of a two
story stxuc4ure wixich will be built only ten yards frnm our living area a.nd the fact that the
roof design calls for a lagge tergace wbich evill be aued for entertaining located only feet
from our window. An area in such proximity to living space is inappropaiate for such u.Se.
,
' ~iD) J! Ut\. ~~nt1Z"•CJ'iJ1r i.: r,.. • - . . - .
~
! . We would havc no objedion to a design which eliffiinates the "Paesidential Suite" and
any building abovc the fourth floor of the exdsti~e ~ d~~ to b building to eliminaies the the East. roof area
We
as a poteatial entertaining site and ~vcs adequa
would be happy to wor& towards finding a design which would satisfy the economic
considerations oI the Lodge and would preserve the quality of Iile that so many of us have
sought by buying in Va.il Village..
We are membcgs of the East Va1 Home Owners ASSOCiation and are enclosing a oopy
af some of the conccrns Yaised by the association with which we agree. These conc;ems
sbould be addressed at the design review
are so many people ho satisfactory
1 kc o
solution ta tbis problem can be found sncc
• find a way to use this important area at the base of the mountain to benefit all concerned.
: Sincerely,
Rhoda and David Narins
i
(1M1'ED) 15:51 DR. NAR,,..,-DAV1S AVE TEL:914 6, )006 P. 004
030
. CC ~~eu°~ns o8 the IE~¢ ~Ia~ll ]~offi~~e~ Assmiae6on which should be ~nsiderea~ i~
the adesngn geAe~ pimbli~ ~~aning - -
'Ilac scale og ihe praposed sgnxcture adjac.ent to the pa.,ssageway begweezt One Vail
Plac:e and the Interaational Wing as pYOposed shauld be equivalent to the passage
beiwcen One Vaifl Place and ihe RiII Buildiag. 'I'he Interaiational wing.as proposed
should stair s4ep down 8owagds the One Vail Plaee passagewAy and Eaton Plaza-
'lCha vvidth of the passagearay between One tlail Placc and the pgoposed International
Wing sbould be the same wadth as the passagewray between the Hill Building and the
dolden Peak Hause. (A Yninirnum of 25 fezt)_
1I"be roof should be Hipped with no dormegs so that wicw blockages from surrauncling
residenBial uni4s and public wallcways are minimized.
There shauld be no terrace space on the roof of the second Ievel in oxder to maintain
privacy of adjacent residential units. °Che size of the terrac;e vvould allow !'or 7arge social
gatherings which are inappropriaie at this level of the bgildi.ng.
' Hou? wi11 the noise and odor frorrs building cxhaust and elevatoxs be handled? VVill
they interfere with the residenlial qualiiy af the adjacent units. (This has been a problern ifl the L,odgc irn the pasY).
'H'hc bnilding.should conforaa 8o the 40%/60% heighi requirement of the Vail Villagc
Design Guidelines_
Tle proposed xoaf ancreases shadowing an pedestrian areas and public plazas. A
fiipped roof would be less sbadawing.
BuiIding shonld conforrn to the design requiYements of the Vail Village Master Plan,
which requires commercial uses to be located at the plaza level, .
y3esiga should allow for a qualatalive or adequate pedestrian circu?ation around the
building.
The bnalding design shvuld be compali-blc wette an in-filliag of the parldng areas
located south of the proposed building sate. ne two story Yhird Q]aog °Presideniial Suite" snou?d be rexnoved,
Parldng for the bualding should be required to be lacateci uadergroa,nd ou the s?te,
.
OI~TTE VAIL PLACE oct 3~995 `
I
- t~OMM D
y ; .
October 2, 1995 va fax: 479-2452 Design Review Board
Town Council
Ms. Susan Connelly.
Community Development lDirector
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Co. 81657
Ref. International Wing of The Lodge at Vail
Dear Ms. Connelly,
We are owners of Condominium number 2 at One Vail Place, 244 Wall Street, and spend
a great deal of time here in the Vail Valley. We understand that change is necessary for
the growth and vital°aty of the Valley, but we aze extremely concerned with the impact of
the proposed expansion of The Lodge.
Having reviewed the 14 concerns of the East Vail Homeowners Association, we shaze and
support their concerms and most certainly support the elimination of the third floor of the '
proposed structure. It is also very important thax the structure be pulled back at least 25
feet from One Vail Flace to allow for adequate pedestrian circulation and views from
Founders Plaza.
Your efforts in reviewing projects and allowing only the projects that aze compatible with
the neighborhood are appreciated.
Very truly yours,
H. J. Smead Ann Becher-Smead
. a..
dFJI'fA SALTZ •
SIX MARTIN BUTLER COURT OCT 0 2 1995
RYE. NEW YORK 10580
Design Review Board -E&DEH
Town Council ~t1~~ t,~
, September 25, 1995 ° ~t~6~le U~~eQ
VIA FAX TO (970)-479-2452
AND VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Pqse Susan Connelly
Community Development Director
Totan of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Valil, Colorado 81657
REe International Wing at the Lodge at V'ail
Dear Mse Connellye
My husband Jack, and I have been the owners of
Condominium 527-529 at The Lodge at VaiY since 19860
During this time we have enjoyed the charms and
facilities of the town of Vail and Vail mountain both
i.an winter and summer. The view that we enjoy from our
condominium is very important both to our quality of
lgfe and to the monetary value of our unite ,
Whereas we recognize that Lodge Properties has a
requirement to expand their facilities and increase
their profits, we strongly feel that the needs of all
Vail property owners and citizens must be considered.
We therefore recommend that the third floor structure
be removed, and the building be pulled back at least
Vail One P e, so as o a ow for adequate .
pedestr-i-an--cr--cuta o~n and views from Founders Plaza>
As 3nembers of the East Vail Home Owners Association, we
_ shase the fourteen concerns addressed by the EVHA and
inc3uded with this mailing.
Tha-mk you for all your efforts in helping to develop
projects that are compatible with the surrounding
neia3hborhood, and in their design exhibit a spirit of
good neighborlinesse
Sincerely,
6"IA4
Ani'ta Saltz
Enc3: Photos taken by Lodge Properties of our present
viecw and overlay as done by Lodge Properties architects
showing the building envelape of the International wing
as -presently proposed, There are several units that
are altered more than ourse
EVHA list of items to consider.
LTZ i~L NU.'7y14
k
?
n RevieBV 6oard
I?esir
Towa Corowcii
September 2.5y1993
VIA FAX TO (970)479-2452 - -
AND VIA REGGUTAlt MAIL
Ma. Susarn Connelly .
Conomunity Dedelopement DirecMr .
Towst of Yail
. 75 South Frontage IItoad
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Inteaisaizomal Wing at The Lodge aE Vail
veear Ms. Connelly;
My husband, Jask ana I have been the mwnere mf Condomininm 527-529 at
The I.odge at Vail since 198f. Durutg Mis time dve have enjoyed the charms .
and faciltties of the Town of Vail and Vail mountain boEh am winfier and
. snmmer. The vuew that we enjoy from our condonainittm ia very important
' both to our qnal.ity off life and to the naonetary value of our nnit .
WheYas we recogn77P that Lodge Properdes haa a requirement to expanai
their facilniies and thereby imcrease their profiEe, we strongly fcel Ehat the
needs of all Viill pmperty owners and ddzens anust be considered. We
therefoae seccomaaend that the third floor strnctwre be rcmoved, and the
buildiseg be pulled back at least ?S feeet from Vail Oaae I'lace, so ae to alllow
for adeq,uate vedestrian circulation and views from Founders Plaza,
Si=acerely, . - - - - - • _
Anita Sattz
.71,4
Q--~
,e,N1rA SALTz
SIX f1AdRY1P1 BUYLER COURY -
~ Q,~'¢CCS
RYE, hIEVY Yo6tK 10580
' _ . ~ • -
July 10, 1995 .
~
~
OR/1P
p q ~
Town Council JUL
Malror Peggy Osterfoss o Comm, 75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Color
ado 81657
Dear PYse Osterfoss, ~ - "My husband Jack and I are the owners of a
condominiuzn at The Lodge at Vaila -
We wish to go on record as being very strongly
opposed to the expansion of the International wing
at The Lodge at Vail as presently proposedo We
be].ieve this proposal to be illegal in that it
ignores the density regulations.
We also wish to state that we, as condominium
owners and members of the Lodge Condominium Owners
Association, never voted for this proposal. As we
were present at every meeting, I do not understand
wYxen or by whom this vote was takene
Please adcl our names to the list of interested
. parties who wish to be informed of all•meetings of
the Design Review Board, the Architectural Review
Board, and any atner agzncy.of TOV betore whom
thss issue is discussede -
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
~_`_f~•.,
Anita Saltz `'J
c
.
i
I ANN B. FRICIC
ACObS ;
892-4422
ChAsE
~
FRpck ' November 9, 1995
~~~iNkopf '
~ VIA FACSIMILE a n d US MAIL
i
~EUEy Mayor Osterfoss and Town Council
Attn: Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead
75 South Frontage Road
~~c i Vail, Colorado 81657
ATTORNEYS AT LAW I
I Re: Appeal Lodge at Vail, Proposed International Wing
Gentlemen:
~ On behalf of our client, Luanne C. Wells, an adjacent property owner, we
i hereby appeal to the Vail Town Council the November 1, 1995 decision of the Town
; of Vail Design Review Board regarding the Lodge at Vail, International Wing. On
behalf of Ms. Wells, we object to the Design Review Board's decision based upon
the proposed development's nonconformance with standard procedures and
requirements of the Vail Village urban design guidelines, applicable design review
objectives and prior conditions of approval. On behalf of Ms. Wells, we also object
i to the proposed development on the basis that it violates well-estabiished zoning
; rules, regulations, laws and policies.
Ms. Wells is a property owner at One Vail Place and is adversely affected by
i tllzc nrnnnseC] (jP.:7P.IOt':???C:?2±.
I
: Very truly yours,
INdEpEN(IENCE PIAZA ,
1050 17Th Sr. i JACOBS CHASE FRICK KLEINKOPF
~ & KELLEY LLC
SuirE 1500
;
DENVER, CO 80265 I
303-685-4800
Ann B. Frick
Fnx 303-685-4869 I ABF/Icb
JCFKK-1741-1
AECEIVED NOY 13 ~
•
ENTERTAfNMf NT
November 7, 1995
Mayo-~ Jsterfoss and Towr. Council
Attn: Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
FAX: (970) 479-2157
RE: Appeal Lodge at Vail, International Wing, as proposed.
Dear Tom:
As an adjacent property owner, I hereby appeal to the Vail Town Council the November 1,
1995, decision of the Town of Vail Design Review Board regarding the Lodge at Vail,
International Wing. I wish the Town Council to overturn the DRB decision based upon the
proposal's non-conformance with standard procedures and requirements of the Vail Village
Urban Design Guidelines, applicable design review objectives and prior conditions of approval. I
am the owner of Units 523 and 525 in the Lodge at Vail and am adversely affected by the
proposal.
Sincerel
Sybil . Robson
345 North Maple Drive
Suite 208
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
(310) 246-4688 . . . - ~ ,
345 NORTH MAPtE DRIVE
S U I T E 2 0 8
BEVERLY HILIS, CA 90210
TEL, (310) 246-4688
FAX: (3 10) 247-8882
~ .
~ - - , .
„ . i •
. . . _ r'. ` n ' ~ _ .
lF'AX (970) 479-2458
. {
October 17, 1995
~
~
Ms. Susan Connelly
. Community Development Director
Town of Vail .
75 South Frontage Road . Vail, Colorado 81657
. ;
Dear Ms. Connelly:
re: International Wing at The Lodge at Vail t
I am the owner of Condominium 363-365 at the Lodge. My wife I
Sydney, our four sons, and I spend a good deal of time throughout the year ~
enjoying the wonders of Vail. We have an unencumbered view of the Village
~
and mountain from our unit which is on the upper southeast corner of the ~
Lodge looking past Wildflower and over what is currently the International ~
Wing (Xerox picture enclosed). j
~
Although I am a director of The Lodge Condominium Owners !
_ Association, I am writing solely in my individual capacity as a unit owner. As ~
. you know, the Association is a member of the East Village Homeowners ~
Association, and EVHA has already expressed many concerns which I share. ~
Although it is in the interest of Lodge Properties to increase their profitability f
by creating additional facilities, the location, design and scale of these facilities ~
should be planned with consideration for all affected parties and the citizenry .
as a whole. ~
f
r
l:
f.
r.
~
r
~
i :
:
;
Ms. Susan Connelly
. . Town of Vail -
Page 2
, With this perspective in mind, I would hope that the DRB will look at
the proposed design in conformance with its own performance requirements
with respect to scale, roof design, the requirements that commercial use be
limited to plaza levels, underground parking to be located at the site, required
' passage ways between adjacent structures, etc.
To the extent possible, views over, and privacy of, existing residential
units should not be diminished. It would appear that the upper most floor
, exceeds ±he height requirement, and the Penthouse unit itself is a luxury that
serves largely to meet the hubris of the owner. It should be removed in order
. to reduce the building height. I have been impressed with the continued efforts of the DRB and the Town Council to encourage enlightened development in the town, and I submit
these comments with the hope that they will be of assistance to you in the
~ course of your consideration of the proposed International Wing.
truly yours,
Very
. /
i
Stanley S. Shuman
!
i
~
I .
;
enclosure
~
~
i
E•~
i,
`
}
!
t
41• 4 5 C-W~ ~
Q
lFAX (970) 479-W57
November 7, 1995
Mayor OsterFoss & Town Council
Attn: Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Sir:
re: Appeall ]Lodlge at Vael, Iueteraaatnonae Wing, as proposec6.
As an adjacent property owner, I hereby appeal to the Vail Town
Council the November lst, 1995 decision of the Town of Vail Design Review
Board regarding the Lodge at Vail, International Wing. I wish the Town
Council to overturn the DRB decision based upon the proposal's non-
conformance with standard procedures and requirements of the Vail Village
Urban Design Guidelines, applicable design review objectives and prior
conditions of approval. I am owner of Unit 363i365 in the Lodge at Vail and
am adversely affected by the proposal as set forth in my letter of October 17th,
1995, copy enclosed.
I very much appreciate your consideration.
Ve truly yours,
~ V ity
~
enclosure
.
+
ee
eb
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road Office of the Town Manager
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157
MlEMORA1~DUM
TO: Vail Town Council
lFl(8: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager A7~
R]E: Town Manager's Report
DT: December l, 1995
Vail Commons Water/Sewer Capacity Fees
As directed, I have met with the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sewer Boards to request a waiver
of water and sewer capacity fees for the Vail Commons for sale units. After meeting with both of
these Boards, it appears that neither of them are willing to waive thesc fees. The Water District
was, however, will to consider a trade out of fees (e.g. building permits fees for water capacity
fees). Therefore it appears that these fees must be included in the cost of these units.
Council Retreat
We have tentatively scheduled a"retreat" as part of the December 19th work session. The
purpose of this retreat is to provide an overview of the TOV work program, issues facing the
organization and to provide an understanding of the roles, responsibilities of the Council, staff
and Boards. This part of the worksession should take approxiinately three hours.
On Tuesday February 13, we are planning to conduct a special work session on citizen
participation. The purpose of these session is to provide the Council and Staff with an overvicw
of a systematic approach to deal with public participation. A consultant who specializes in this
area will conduct this session. I anticipate that this session will be held in lieu of the regular
Council worksession.
Finally, it is my desire to have a formal rctreat later in the winter. This formal retreat would
provide an opportunity for the Council to set goals and strategies for the coming year, and would
serve as the kick off for work on the 1997 budget. We can discuss dates far this session later this
month.
RECYCLEDPAI'ER
TOV Christmas PartX
The Town of Vail Christmas Party will be held on Friday December 8th. It will be held at the
Marriott and will begin at 6:00. I want to take this opportunity to invite the Council to this event.
Please RSVP to Anne Wright at 479-2106.
Newsnaner Sox Issue
For several years we have been attempting to clean up the appearance of the Vail Village and
Lionshead by improving the appearance of the multitude of newspaper boxes in these areas. To
date we have researched the legal issues associated with the project, identified the locations
where these boxes will be placed, identified how the lottery will operate. We have also met with
all the local newspapers and have their general (but grudging) agreement on this project. We are
scheduled to meet with the Denver newspapers later today, and the national newspapers (USA
Today, Wall Street Journal, etc) next Friday. Funds for implementing this project have been
appropriated in 1996 budget and it is our intention to implement this project next Spring.
Land Use Trainin~
On Wednesday December 6th an audio conference on "The Legal Foundation for Planning
Commission and Zoning Decisions will be held. This session will be held in the Town Manger's
conference room and will begin at 1:45 pm and will conclude at 3:00 pm. If you are interested in
attending please :RSVP to Susan Connelly at 479-2138.
O
f
(.)flic:c tif thc I;c,ard of Commixlicirnceti ~ f_agle (:(rnnty liuilding
(970) 32$-8605 'I P.O. )ITiix NS(1
Fax: (')%U) 37.9-7707 , iilil liro,idway
TI-)O: (9%0) 328-8797 I;agIc, (:nlaraiic, h I(i.i 1-08ti11
.
November 27, 1995 - 9:51
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORA
A'0"D'r%F """UNTY "m'OMM'SS'~~~~~
~EGULAR MEETI9VG DAi
DECEMBER 4, 1995
a a a a a a n n a a a a a u a A ~Y i~ ir u~ ir A Q u ir 4~ a a a p a a a a a a
8.30 - 10.00 CJGIORPi a7Ea7e7IOAtl ~PENLJlltlG IL.tl tlIi7Atl 10N
,James R. Fritze, Coun4y Attomey
90.00 - 9015 BREAK
10o95 _ 19015 WORK SESSIQN - UVEEKLY UPDATE
1115 - 92000 W0R9C SF-SSiON - MEET9NGS A1f'CENDED
12o00 = 9030 LUNCH
9030 » 9045 CONSENT Ce4LENDAR ftems af oroutine and non-conLaversial neluru alePlacbd oh lhe u+nstlnl Ca10nd:lt lo dllOw ihe Bpard nf Cnunry Comm"reaionete tospend itbiosre
8~d energy an more impnAant itema an e lenglhy agende. My Commissioner may fequesl Ihal sn iloln be °IQEMOVED° from 1h8 consent celender
6nd Colfsldered separaaety. Any member of tlie puhlic may 'REQUEST' mny item be 'REMOVED' irom !he Consonl Apenda,
90 BPLL PAY9NG
Linda Pankuch, Accounting
Mark Silverthorn, Con4raAer
ACTGONo Approval subjecf to review by the Chairman. .
2. PAlf ROR.4, FOR DECEfiHBER 7, 1995
Marc Silver#horn, Con4roller
ACTDONa Approval subject tv radiew by fihe Chairman
e
i
Eag@e Board of County Commissioners
Agenda, December 4, 1995
Page T?rvo
3. RES0LUT10N SEgTING THE 9~OL1DAYS AND EAt;LE.
BOARD OE COl1N1'Y COMM9SSIONEFtS NIEET11VG DATES
FOR 1396a James Frifze, County AQQorney ,
AC48ONo Consider approval.
4. PUBLaC NOTOCE REGARD9NG BR~~T RANCH
SUBDIV6SPON James Fritze, County Attorney
ACTION: Consider approval.
1.45 _ 2~00 A. T~RM11NAT@ON OF THE WARRANTY PERIOD FOR
ARR0WFIEAD AT VAILy PHASE ~ OF FILdNG 16
John Althoff, Engineerirtg
~CTOON: Consider approval.
B. RES0~UTION CONFERRING POWE12 QF ATTORNEY
~~AW 0N LET6'EF2 OF CRED@T FOR Be4SAL'T TRADE
ASSOC9ATES
James Fritze, County AttoPney
ACTOONa Cnnsider approval. C. RESpLIDTeON COIVFERR9NG P0WER OF ATTORIUEY TO
f~RAW ON ll.ETTER pF CRED9T FOR EACtLE 10
DEVELOPERS
James Frifize, County Attarney AC°~~ON: Consider apprqval. 2.00 - 2.10 UNTERGOVEFtNAAENTALA(3REEIVPENT CONCEFtNING THE
BMPLEMENTAT'@OIV, OPERATIORi AND tiAAINTENAIdCE OF THE E4941.1 TELEPFIQNE SERVCCE
. Mary MoxaIRepresentative firom Attorney's Office
AC~~ONa Cansider approval.
2:90 - 2:20 STATERliENV' OF GRP?NT AWAftDS FOFi THREE G NTS
FOR SHERIFF'$ OFF6CE .
Kim Andree, Sheriffs Office
ACTaON: Consider approval.
2:20 d2a30 BREAK
• I , •
Eagle 8oard off Coun4y Commissioners
Agenqa, December 4, 1995
Page T'hree
2:30-3:00 REQUEST FOR ADD9TIOfVAL BIIILDING EXT'EIVS9QIV AT
. THE EAGaE COt11V7'Y REG@OIVAL AIFtPOFtT
Craig Colby, Jeg Cen4er Manager James Fri4ze, County Manager
THE A?EXY MEE'hMG OF THE EqGLE CdUMTY COINIMISSIONERS VMLL BE HELD ON DECEMBER 5, 1995
ALL H11EE'TINtnS UMLL BE HELD IN TiiE EAOLE COtlidTf BUlLDING - 500 BROADWRY. EAGLE- OR pT1iERUVlSE NOTED.
YHIS ROENDq IS PliOd{DED FOR INFORMqT1OIVAt PURP09E3 ONI.Y - ALL T1ME5 ARP APPROXIMA7E.
T}1E 6oARD y1f1-IILE IM SESSIOP! MAY CpNSIDER OTHER I7EAAS THqT ARE BROUGh1T BEFORE IT.
CifFicx of Ihc l3oard cil C_ommissioncr.
(970)32R-Yfii)ti I:p;ic (:u~n~ty 13c~ildin~;
111.0. liox kti(1
t"aX: (<nu) 31K-77.07 -
- ' ti(Ilt Iiroadwav
Tf)I {a7(i) i2A-R7~~% lia-.,' ('n~ot:Zilco
R I fi:i i-IIRSO
November 30, 1J9.5 - 1 7:5
EAGLE COUNTY, COLOR,ADO
MENDED
AGEN
BOMD OF COUNTY COMIWSSIONEMO
REGU MEE-flIVG AY
DECEMBER 49 1995
1o30 - I A Ervr
nmy, og aMWne mld nort-ao~! natue are PlaoW on the camd rrlendar to allaNU the Board of Coimfy Corw4gyimus to spend ft 41m2
end energy cm rtme irr~ iteRZ o1 a Ien9ft eBerdw My QmvmWone1' mey requed that an item be "REMOVEDP ham the oonunt rwenda~
,kY ffmfftw of ft "ia rrW "REC2UEST" any Itwn boFaaWaVar from tlte Cownt Agenda.
ADD
5~ COW"ATION OF PROPM" FRCKIfI VVEA1?ER"S AM
CRl1SADER FENCiNG SYSTBAS, IIVG. F'OR FENCING AT
THE EEAGLE COL1NT1( FAaRGROIJWDS
Pad Gregg, Buildings & GrOUnds
o Consider apptoval.
DEI.ErE
B RE 0N CONFERMNG PO1I11EFt OF ATTORNEY TO
DR4UU (JN LETTEft OF CREDI~ ~OR WS-p?L°T TRADE
ASSOCIATES
James Fritae, County A4tomey
T1 0 Consider approval.
7W. NEXf RIfEEf1A1G OF T-E CAGd.E CAUNIY Cahl11lpSSI04ERS {MLL BE H~ QN DECUMER 5, 189,i
ALL I1EEf1NGS V1flL1 BE HrzLD 1N 71iE EAGI.E COUMY BUILDWG - 500 w4ADINAY, EAGLE- OR OT}EiUNSE 1JaiEU. Yl-0S ACBND4 fS PROVIOED FOR IW-ORMAT10AfiL PUW06ES Q11LY- ALL 'f1MES ARE APPMMATr-
TFE BOARd V"LE IN9 SESSION.NWY 0011SDER OThEFt 17M5 7HAT ARE BR041aiT gWQ~ Irr.
~
l.lificc cif thc! IknIrd o) l,omnnissionciti l~at;l• ("ounty I;uilJing
(ll()) 328-14605
~ I'_( ) Itox RS(l
F,ix: (970) 318-77.07
50(I Ifrc;adw;iy
'17)I): (970) 328 8797 F.a ~r (~ilurulu Rlfi~l-UB.iO
November 27, 1995 - 9 9. 17
EAGbE COi1N7I"Y, COLOItAI~~
A kf 13) E NDA
ARD F e"'O"NTY COMMISStONERS
(~~~ULAR MEET1NG DAY
DECE(V1BER 5, 1995
Q C 8 it ff 4~ fi A A YY q 6 O 8 3 4 A A d fi ~ A 3 4h A'A' A R tk f!! # A{k 4 i? {t
~e~~~ONtl~YU~y IL.IIQY9iJR LECEItlSIC HEa"9RIItlGS
. fl. TRANSFER OF O1IVNERSHIf' - PPL 11VTF-RNAT90NAl. tiba/
EAGLE-VAII. CAFE
90a T NSFER OF OWIVERSH@P - VAIL FOOD SERVICES, INC.
AND TFiE GAME CREEK CLUB dbalGAME CREEK CLUB
Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector
ACTION: Consider approval,
90:00-12000 PLANNlNG 6SSUES
PLAT AND RESOLUTHON SIGPIING
Kathy Eas4ley, Planning Department
ACTION: Consider approval.
PO- u41-•7:q°09F4 Ho1VAESpEF1D ILOT 6y Fd 6'71NIE1\LW FI6YAb
PtS.ART
Pa4tie Haefeli, Planning Department
ACTION: Consider approval.
ZS-377-95 WOLC~~ POST OFF@CE
Sid Fox, Planning Department
ACTION: ConsideP approval.
12:00 - 1o30 LUNCH
~~OPTIOR! OF TFIE 1996 BUI~GF-T
Allen Sartin, Finance pfrector
ACTION: Consider appraval.
YriE wExT PopEETING bF 7t+E Enal,E CQUNTY coNUwlsSIpP1ERS YwLL BE HELD ON DECEMBER 11, 1e95
AI,L pagE71NG5 Vlfll,i, BE IiEID IM THE EAGLE CQUN7Y BUILDING • 500 Bl20ADWAY, F_AGLE. OR OTHERWISE NOTEp,
TNI•S AGENDA 13 PROVIOED FOR INFORMATIoNAL PURPOSES ONLY - ALL TIMES ARE APPRp)UMqliff,
THE BOARD UVHILE IN SESSIdfd AAAY COMSIDER OTHEF2 ITEMS T"qTARE BROUGHT BEFORE IT.
MENTORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROlVI: Susan Connelly:5;(L-
Director of Community Development
DATE: December l, 1995
RE: Audio Conference: "The Legal Foundation for Planning Commission
and Zoning Board Decisions"
Please join mernbers of the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Town Attorney
and members of the Community Development Depariment staff on
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1995 from 1:45 unti13:00 p.m.
in the Town Nlanager's Conference Room for an audio conference program entitled "The Legal
Foundation for Planning Commision and Zoning Board Decisions" sponsored by the American
Planning Association. For additional information, please call me at 479-2138. We look forward
to your participation.
cc: PEC Members
Bob McLaurin
Pam Brandmeyer
Tom 1Vloorhead
Suzanne Silverthorn
Mike 1Vlollica
Jim Curnutte
Randy Stouder
George Ruther
Lauren Waterton
Andy Knudtsen
Russ Forrest
CcJ~L _
l'•45 3 1,,,,~ r+~~
The Legad Foundation , for Plaraning & Zoning Board DecYSions
Program Outline ~
ference hookup: Participants dial in to 800 number (see 5 minutes
and guidelines sheet).
rtiZonfirmation n
uction: Opening comments and introductions by moderator, 3 minutes Meck.
2 minutes
Queson n #1 for Participants: Carol Swayne asks the participants
the first question. See participant questions sheet.
7 minutes
Role of the Planning iComnnission ancIl Zoning Board of
Appeals: Eric Kelly provides the background and purpose of the
Boards and Commissians.
5 minutes
Ranking of Responses to Qucstion #1 and Panel Comment:
Presenters respond to top responses.
7 minutes
Due I'rocess Issues: Eric Kelly and Timothy Theissen discuss the
definidon and legal requirements of due process.
2 minutes
Question #2 for Participants: Carol Swayne asks the parkicipants
the second question. See participant quesdon sheet. •
7 minutes
Plaaming as a Foundation of Decision Making: Angela Harper
discusses the plan and its legal purposes.
7 minutes
Enforcement: Eric Kelly explains how conditions are enforced in
the planning process. Comments by other presenters. .
10 minutes
Questions and Answers: Carol Swayne and APA staff attorney,
Rodney Cobb, put youg questions to the presenters.
2 minutes
Wrap-up: Stuart Meck concludes the program. Evaluation and Selectung Next Program: The operator asks for 2 minutes
your evaluadon of the program and your selecdon of the next
program's topics. ~
RECEIVED NOV 2 8
- LAURIE AND T '
~ WARREN MILLER
. . - ~ . ~ ~ ~~`Y
' ' . ~ ~ Ln
~s ' . / ' • ' ' :
' U ? ~ 3~.~
~5'N
lol,~
. . : ~.:~~;~v
~T-
7z)
vx)
4AtSGIVING-APRiI 15T' APRIL lST-THANKSGNIN6 SONETIMES
352 B Benvea Dnrn CiACLE C/O GENERAL DELNERY 320 PnaNi PL. 4-C
' VAIL, COLORADO 81657 ~ DEER HARBOR, WA 98243 PAIA, HAWAII 96779 303/476-8967 206/376-6488 808/871-5662
FAx: 303l476-3846 FAX: 206/376-6489 Fnx: 8081877•2108
d/a,s
\ .
Id
e4
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road Office of the Towtz Manager
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Pamela A. BrandmAssistant Town Manager
DATE: November 30, 1995
RE: Business, Cards
Two sample business cards are included below. Please provide information as you would like it to
appear on business cards for each of you. If there is a different format you would like, don't hesitate
to supply that. Thanks!
PAB/aw
4IL Sybill Navas Pamela A. Brandmeyer
P`ssisrant Town Manager
~
TOW~I OF YAIL
T06VN "
75 South Frontage Road 75 South Frontage Road
XI-479-2113
Vail, Colorado 81657 Fax: 303:i~ 2 (.ll/t,u) Vail, Colorado 81657 FAX: 303=479-2157
z a 0 L, _71~
F?~~ RECYCLED PAPER
~i.7
e
e~
~o e
ff OF vArL
75 South Frontage ltoad
Vail, Colorado 81657 '
970 479-2100
FAX-970-479-2157
FOR 9MMEDIAT~ ~ELEASE
November 30, 1995
Contact: Jody Doster, 479-2174
Transit Operations Manager
TOV EXTENDS EA6tLY SEASON BUS SCFIEDULE DIJE TO DR6VER SFiORTAGE
(Vail)--With a shortfall of six bus drivers yet this season, the Town of Vail will extend
its "early season" winter bus schedule to 4he end of 4he year, if not longer. Increased
service was originally planned for implementation on Dec. 16, but Jody Doster, transit
operations manager, says the transition has become impossible due to the lack of
clrivers.
"We need 47 drivers to operate the service we're maintaining now, "Doster said.
"Instead, we have just 41 drivers. To implement our full-blown winter operation, we
need 54 drivers."
To keep the current level of service in place, according to Doster, supervisors have begun driving routes and charter services and other special requests have been
temporarily suspended.
iVieanwhile, the town has beefed-up its salary and benefit plan to attract new drivers.
Hourly wages have been increased from $8.75 to $9 and a cafeteria benefit package
has been created. Under the plan, employees may select up to $1,275 worth of
benefits from a list that includes a ski pass, child care, medical insurance or an end of
season bonus.
(more)
Driver Shortage/Add 1
"We're hoping we can still attract more drivers yet this season," Doster said. "Until
then, however, we aren't able to provide the increased service."
The early season service will continue to provide 15-minute (looped) service on the
West Vail route throughout the day, with 40-minute service in the evening, while East
Vail routes will be maintained at 15-minute peak levels and 20-minute nonpeak service.
The in-town shuttle, from Vail Village to Lionshead, will run every 12 to 15 minutes.
Lack of affordable housing has been a primary factor in the town's inability to
maintain its seasonal staffing levels, according to Doster. As a result, the town is
pursuing a phased-in project for construction of up to 12 one-bedroom seasonal
housing units at the Public Works facility site. The project would c'oincide with
implementation of a master plan for improvements to the town shops.
For 24-hour bus route information, please call 328-8143.
# # #
dd
e~ TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Itoad
Yail, Colorado 81657
970 479-2100
FAX-970-479-2157
F0R 9MMEDBATE RELEASE
November 30, 1995
Contact: Lt. Jeff Layman, 479-2211
Acting Police Chief
ROUNDABOUT EDUCA?T@ON IJNDER1n/s4V OfVCE nAORE EN i0A9L
(Vaii)--A driver education campaign is underway again at Vail's new roundabout.
This time, rather than handing out information brochures at the off ramps, police have
begun stopping violators. They'll get a verbal warning--fior now--and the information
brochure. Officers will address moving violations such as speeding, failing to yield and
failing to signal.
Acting Police Chief Jeff Layman says the month-long campaign is intended to ease
motorists into compliance with the new rules of the road. Eventually, drivers will be
ticketed for violations at the intersection. But for now, Layman's hoping a little police
presence will help wean local drivers away from any bad habits.
Officers are continuing to observe excessive speeds and failure to yield upon entry at
the intersection, he says. V1/hile the town suggests speeds of 15 mph, some vehicles have been clocked as high as 30 mph in the roundabout, according to officers.
The information brochure, distributed by police, outlines five steps for driving the
roundabout: First, s9ow down upon entry. Next, yie6d to your left before you enter the
roundabout and remember to be prepared to stop for oncoming traffic. Step three,
enter the roundabout. Once inside, don't stop. You have the right-of-way. Next, look
(more)
Roundabout Education/Add 1
for your destination sign. And finally, exit the roundabout toward your destination and
remember to use your turn signals.
The roundabout brochure was initially distributed to about 1,500 motorists during an
educational kick-off campaign in October. Additionaf brochures are availabie by calling
479-2115.
Vail's new roundabout, one of only 11 other modern roundabouts in the U.S. and the
first modern roundabout interchange, was designed to increase capacity from 3,250
vehicles to about 5,000 vehicles per hour at the main entryway.
# # #
I
dd
eg
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage IZoad
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 479-21 DO
FAX-970-479-2157
F0R IflflN1EDBATE RELEASE
November 29, 1995
Contact: Bob McLaurin, 479-2105 Gregory T. Morrison, 468-5892
Vail Town Manager Police Chief
MORR9SON NANIED i/AIL C@iIEF OF POLBCE
(Vail)--Greg Morrison, Silverthorne's police chief since 1992, was named today to head
Vail's Police Department. The announcement by Town Manager Bob McLaurin follows a
three-month nationwide search and is effective Dec. 22. Morrison, 38, replaces Ken Hughey
who resigned in August after nine years as Vail's police chief.
"Greg has great positive energy," said McLaurin. "He's as well-liked by members of the
community as he is by his staff and thaYs exactly the type of hands-on manager we've been
looking for."
In nearby Silverthorne, Morrison is credited with increasing employee morale and improving
the departmenYs credibility within the community. Under his leadership, the departmenYs
, innovations in Silverthorne have included a citizen survey program in which residents are
asked to help determine such things as speed enforcement priorities, and a police officer
trading card program in which local youth become acquainted with the officers. The
community programs were recently recognized for excellence by the Colorado Association of
Chiefs of Police.
Morrison, who currently oversees 16 employees and an annual operating budget of
about $1 million, will manage a staff of 58 employees and a$3.2 million budget in Vail.
"This is a really exciting opportunity for me," Morrison said. "Throughout the selection
process, I was really impressed with the participation of the community, the police employees
(more)
Police Chief/Add 1 `
and other members of the town staff. I`m realty looking forward to working with everyone."
Morrison said his previous experiences in Silverthorne have preparetl him for the
challenges in Vail. "Many of the issues are the same for the finro resort communities, although
Vail is on a much larger scale," he said. "In Silverthorne, for example, there are the shoppers
who descend upon the town, while Vail has its skiers and the shoppers. Then there's the
interstate and the parking and the snow removal issues," he said. Morrison says his first order of business in Vail is to get to know members of the community,
the staff and to work together to prioritize police services.
Prior to his appointment in Silverthorne, Morrison served as a police sergeant in Lakewood,
Colo., where he earned the Medal of Valor for rescuing three people from a burning building.
He also served as a deputy sheriff for Boulder County, Colo. He holds a master's degree in
criminal justice administration and a political science degree, both from the University of
Colorado.
Morrison was selected from a field of 260 applicants, including an internal candidate, Lt. Jeff
Layman, who served as acting chief during the search. Layman was among six finalists
considered for the position. "Jeff is an outstanding member of the department
and should be commended for his leadership," McLaurin said, "especially his.work on the I-70
chain-up enforcement program."
For additional comments, please contact Chief Morrison at 468-5892, or Town Manager Bob
McLaurin at 479-2105.
# # #
i
,
ee
e4
TOb~l OF ~AIL
75 South Frontage lZoad
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 479-2100
FAX-970-479-2157
flAED@A ADVASORV
November 29, 1995
Contact: Suzanne SilvertFiorn, 479-2115
Community Information Office
VAIL TOlNN COflJft9CIL HIGS-BLIGF6TS FOR NOVEAflBER 28
Work Sesseon Br0efs
Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, iVavas, Osterfoss
--Swearing In of New Council Members
The four newly elected Council members (Armour, Foley, Ford and Jewett) were sworn
in by Town Clerk Holly McCutcheon.
--Town Council Organizational Meeting
On a 6-1 vote (Johnston against), the Council elected Bob Armour to a two-year term
as mayor. Also on a 6-1 vote (Jewett against), the Council named Sybill IVavas to a
two-year term as mayor pro-tem. IVext, Karen Morter and Mary Jo Allen were appointed
to the Election Commission for a two-year term; and Buck Allen was re-appointed as
. iViunicipal Judge. Also, two committee appointments were made: Kevin Fofey will be
recommended to replace Peggy Osterfoss on the Regional Transit Authority; and Sybill
Navas was named to replace Tom Steinberg on the Northwest Colorado Council of
Governments (NWCCOG) Board and the NWCCOG Water Quality/Quantity
Committee.
At the request of Paul Johnston and Bob Armour, the remaining 20-plus committee
appointments were tabled until the Dec. 5 meeting to allow time to provide Council
members with additional background information on the various boards and
committees. Town staff was also asked to determine if any of the appointments could
be filled by the members of the community or staff and to provide regular meeting times
and commitments for each of the committee assignments.
--Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment
The Council members received an overview of the Golden Peak Ski Base
Redevelopment project. The plans received conditional approval by the Planning and
Environmental Commission at its Nov. 27 meeting. The project calls for the complete
redevelopment of the Golden Peak portal, including a new base lodge, a 148-space
parking structure, replacement of chairlifts 6& 12, new parking lots for public and the
children's center drop-off and a new bus lane. Additionally, Vail Valley Drive will be
(more)
Council Highlights/Add 1
improved from the Vail Transportation Center to the soccer field. The Council will
review the project in more detail at its Dec. 5 work session. For details, contact Jim
Curnutte or Lauren Waterton in the Community Development Department at 479-2138.
--Election Calendar
The Council approved the attached calendar for the special election to fill Peggy
Osterfoss' seat. A resolution calling for the Jan. 30, 1996, special lelection will be
heard at the Council's Dec. 5 evening meeting. Nominating petitions will be available
beginning Dec. 11 for candidates seeking the vacancy. For additional details, contact
Vail Town Clerk Holly N9cCutcheon at 479-2136. ' # # #
Upcoming Discussion Topics
December 5 Work Session
PEC Review
Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment
Interview for Local Licensing Authority Position
Streamside Marriott Fire Services
Sound Committee Report
December 5 Evening Meeting .
Appoint Local Licensing Authority Board Member First Reading, Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment
First Reading, Employee Housing Unit Amendment
Resolution setting the Jan. 30 Special Election
~
9
~ TOWN OF VAIL SPECIAL ELECTION
JANUARY 30, 1996
ELECTION CALENDAR
Dec 5 First day to accept applications for absentee ballots
90 days 31-10-1002(1)
Dec 11 (Nion) First day to circulate nomination petitions - 10 signatures of
50 days registered electors of the TOV required
Dec. 29 (Fri) Last day to circufate nomination petition - must be turned in
30 days (falls on Sun) to the Town Clerk no later than 5:00 p.m. Must be signed by
Circulator and candidate
Jan 2(Tues) Last day a person can move into a municipal precinct
30 days (falls on Sun)
Monday is a holiday _
Order certifed registered voter list and registered voter labels from
Lori Godat - fV/A unless mail ballot•
Jan 2(Tues) Last day a person can register to vote in the muni election
29 Days
TC to appoint election judges
Jan 5(Fri) Last day to withdraw name from nomination
24 days (falls on Sat) 31-10-303(1) Order ballots
Jan 5(Fri) Last day to amend nomination p.etitions that do not contain
23 days (falls on Sun) the required # of names of electors quatified to sign the petition.
31-10-302(4)
If any candidate should die or withdraw from the nomination prior to
23 days before the election, the vacancy may be filled by the
vacancy committee, if any, or, if no vacancy committee is
designated, by petition in the same manner required for original
nomination 31-10-304 (1) -
Jan 10 (Wed) Last day to file petition or certificate of nomination to fill
20 days a vacancy 31-10-304(2)
Publish Notice in Trail Jan 12 (Fri) If ordinance provides, election can be canceled
18 days 31-10-507
Jan 15 (Mon) Appoint election judges IVOTE: PUT ON COUiVCIL
15 days AGENDA FOR JAN 2 fVITG
31-10-401
.
JAN 18 (Thurs) Walk-in absentee balloting begins '
12 days . 31-10-1005
NOTE: Absentee ballots must be mailed out to persons who
have requested them in writing 72 hours after receiving ballots
Jan 19 (Fri) Candidate Expense statements due
11 days
Jan 17 (Wed) Publishing deadline for Notice of Election in the Vail Trail
10 days 10:00 a.m. for publication in TRAIL Jan.1 12 & 19
Jan 19 Post Notice of Election at Municipal Bldg. on Clerk's door
10 days (falls on Sat.) and at Post Office31-10-501(1) &(2)
Ballots & sample ballots must be in hands of Town Clerk
Post Polling Place
Jan 25 (Thurs) Certified list of registered voters from Coun~ty Clerk
5 days due to Town Clerk
Jan 26 (Fri) Last day to request absentee ballot by 5:00 p.m.
Friday before 31-10-1002(1) EmergencyAbsentee begins (31-10-1010)
Last day to vote walk-in absentee
31-10-1005(1) & (3)
Jan 29 (Mon) Deliver election supplies to judges by 8 PM ti
day before
Test Election counting equipment
Jan 30 ELECTION DAY! 7 AM to 7 PM
Feb 6 Last day to canvass returns with Town Council
7 days after
Publication of Statement of Certificate of. Determination to be
sent to the Trail for publication December 1
File certification with Secretary of State
March 1 Candidate expense statements due
30 days after
I
F:\HOLLI'\WPFILES\USERS\ELECTION\ELECTION.CAL
I
i
dd
e4
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970 479-21 DO
FAX-970-479-2157
FOR 9AAMEDIATE REQ..EASE
December 1, 1995
Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115
Community Information
BU0LD9NG PERMBTS OSSUED BY THE TOWR! OF !lABL
The following building permits have been issued by the Town of Vail
Community Development Dept. for the period November 17 to November 30:
GPH Partners, Ltd., 278 Hanson Ranch Road, new elevator, $45,736, Nlountain
Elevator Co., Inc.
GPH Partners, Ltd., 278 Hanson Ranch Road, tenant finish/add wall, $2,500, Hyder
Construction, Inc.
Parsons, 1548 fViatterhorn Circle, new construction, $316,000, J.L. Viele, Construction.
T.I.B. Inc., 1480 Buffehr Creek Road, new construction, $350,000, Crossview
Properties, Inc.
Spad International, Ltd., rebuild patio-rebuild retaining wall-relocate front door, $9,000,
H&R Contracting, Inc. ~
Vail Gateway Plaza, 12 South Frontage Road, interior remodel, $19,500, J.L. Viele
Construction. .
fViardis, 909 Red Sandstone Road, interior remodel, $4,250, Gray-Stone Construction.
Landmark Commercial Development, 304 Bridge Street, remodel basement night club,
$140,400, fVlendel-Allison Construction.
Skiwest Partners, 610 West Lionshead Circle, interior remodel, $20,000, Alpine
Custom Woodworks.
HMC Acquisition Properties, 7151/Vest Lionshead Circle, kitchen remodel, $10,000,
iVlarriott International.
# # #
{ RECEIVED NOV 2 9 ~
~ ~OL~~~~ ~OLLEGE ~
~ ,
~
November 16, 1995
Deaz Community Service Agency Member
As the AmeriCorps Leader for the Community Collaboration Team/AmeriCorps
Program at Colorado Mountain College, I am in charge of recnuting members for the
1996 service year. I am seeking dedicated people who have demonstrated leadership
potential.
Enclosed you will find inforrnation about the program as well as some
applications. If you know someone in your agency or in the community who might be
- interested, I would appreciate it if you could pass the information on to them. The
program runs for 11 months, from January 1996 to December 1996. Volunteers work
full-time in the community and receive a living allowance that is close to minimum wage
as well, as health insurance and childcare if they qualify. At the completion of their yeaz
of service they will receive an Educational Award of $4,725.00.
~
In addition, if your agency would be interested in having a member serve in your
non-profit agency, please contact Leyla Day at the numbers listed below. In order to
qualify, agencies must be located in Garfield or Lake Counties, be non-profit, and work
primarily with at-risk youth. Please also note that we are looking for people in the
community who would be willing to house out of state members in their homes at a low
cost.
If you are unfamiliar with the program and would like some more information or
if yau have any questions at all, do not hesitate to call me at: (970) 945-7481 or 1-800-
621-8559 extension 375 (voice mail). I appreciate your help and I am willing to serve
you in any way possible.
Thank you for your time,
Stefan Vest, AmeriCorps Leader
~ . , ~ • . .
4."' A O/'~1 rJ. ~
iy
DISTRICT OFFICE
BoS 11I00I 215 NINTH STIL6ET GLENWOC)D SI'RING5, COLURAI)08161)2) (970) 945-8691
LAAAA-A
i. s
.
, -
~
COLOIZA.]DO MOUNTAIN COLLEG]E
COMMUNITY PCOLLABORATION T]EAlVIS
GARFIELID AND LA.KE COUNTIES
laEAC1ElI1`vG ()UT 'I'O AT-RISK 1'OUTHS ANY) THEIR FAlV1ILIES `
1996
OUR MISSION ~
1. TO GET 7'HINGS DONE
2. TO STI2lENGTHEIeT OUR COIVIIO%IUNITY
3. TO ENCOURAGE RESPOINSIBiLITY
4. TO EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES
COLORADO SER VICE NETWORK.•
FRINGING COLORADO TOGETHER THRO UGH SER VICE
II
r
~~~TAIN COLLEGE
~
~
Community Collaboration Team
AmeriCorps Program
Dear Applicant:
I am delighted that you are considering applying to the Community Collaboration Team,
AmeriCorps Program. If accepted, you would be joining over 20,000 corps members in the
United States, dedicated to improving our nation through service.
We are seeking individuals of varying backgrounds and experience who wish to gain valuable
sl:ills and experience while giving back to their community. Our members will be tutoring and
mentoring at-risk youth, in Lake and Garfield Counties who greatly need your support and
caring. .
I laok forward to hearing fram you and finding out how you ca!1 strengthen our team for the 1996
service year. Ii you are having any trouble meeting the November 15 deadline or have atiy
questions about the application process, please do r,ot hesitate to call nle or our AmeriCorps
Leader, Stefan Vest at: (970) 945-7481 ext. 247 / 1-800-621-8559 ext. 375.
Thank You for Your Interest, , .
Leyla ' (Program anager)
* To help with the application process, I am including a checklist to make sure that you have
completed all of the steps.
ROARING FORK CAMPUS/SPRING VALLEI'
3000 (;ounty Road 114 Glcnwood Springs, Colorado 81601 303-945-7481
r
1'HE WHITE HOIrSE
NVASHINGTON
Dear Applicant:
I am delighted that you will be applying to AmeriCorps. This is an exciting opportunity for
you, for your community, and for our entire nation.
Through national service, you can help lift
up America. There is so much to be done today, including teaching children to read, caring for
the sick, and keeping our streets safe.andiour
parks clean. Through AmeriCorps, you can help make
America everything it ought to be a natilon where
. all our citizens, whatever their backgrounds, can
live up to the fullest of their potential.
You will also live up to the fullest pf your
potential in AmeriCorps. You'l1 gain new skills
and explore rzew kinds of work. Yau'll learn key
qualities for leadership. And you'l1 earn money
ro pay for• your basic needs and for your education,
whether past, present, or future. ~
Most important, through national service
you will learn things that money can never buy.
You'li join Amez•ica's long tradition of great
citizens men and women or every race andlreligion
who come together to build up our communities and
our country. While more of you will apply than can
be accepted by AmeriCorps this year, you'lllhave
plenty of opportunities to serve our nation whether
you are accepted or not. As Martin Luther King, Jr.
saicl, "Everyone can be great, because everyone can
serve."
I thank you for your interest and wish you the
best.
, Sincerely,
~ •
~
Oncome EIigibilaty Requirements Under ChQOd Care & Developrnen$ Block Gran$
COLORADO
Fami(y Size fVlaximum fVlonth(y Family
Income
2 1184
3 1485
4 1787
( 5
_ 2088 I
6 238°
7
269?
8 2992
~ 9 3293
effective 1994 ~
Source: National Associaticn of Child Care Resource & Re-l'erra!
Agencies, September 1994
You must m3ke less than this arrpunt including your potential AmeriCorps
stipend in order to qualify for childcare.
r
AlVIElZICOR]PS
COIdIMIUNITY COLLABORAZ'IpIoT TEAIVI
DO YOU HAVE WHAT IT TAKES?
AmeriCorps Members are required to:
• be 17 years old or older at the time of orientation
+ have a high school diploma or GED .
• be a U.S. citizen or have appropriate documentation of
immigration '
• have demonstrated leadership potential
• be dedicated to a year of servIlCe in the commianity
Successful Members demonstrate the following _
qualities:
• have community service experience
• feel comfortable working with a culturally and linguistically
diverse population
• show initiative and creativity
• have the desire to pursue higher education
• are punctual, reliable and follow thraugh on all proj ects
• are commited to the ideal of service ~
COLORADO S'ERVICENETWORK: BUILDING COLORADO THROUGHSERVICE
~
w r~ a
- Mp
4L:..
~
~
C 0 0~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 U N T A I N C O L L E G E AM E R C*O RP PR R e4M
Come join usa What as Ameri~offps? ' . .
AmeriCorps is the na4ional service nnovement tha4 will engage thousands of :
Americans of all ages and backgrounds in a domestic Peace Corps to get things done
4hroughou4 our nation's urban and rural communifies. Tvventy thousand Americans
across 4he nation are working fo mee4 the needs of communities everywhere by -
focusing on these national priority areas: education, public safety, human needs and
4he environment.
W~at ~~edCorps9 Corn?nunet,~r Collaboratfon Tearn Doing an
Gaffield and Lake County? . .
Twen4y-four AmeriCorps members are providing mentoring, supervisory, educational,
and 4uforing services to youth who demonstrate at-risk behavior. Each AmeriCorps
member works closely wi4h a social senrice agency or educational institution to provide
outreach to those youths who need ifi most. And, as a team, AmeriCorps members
vvorlc together on group projects 4o help the community. Our members are:
o Mentoring high school you4hs who are an probation
• Offering organized supporf for teenage moms _ •
o Tutoring the young who need extra academic help .
a Positive role madels for our communities' youth
And much more...
Am 0 E9igsble to Joan AmeriCorps?
o AmeriCorps member are from all ages and backgrounds. You must be:
0 17 years ar older
o A U. S. Citizen or a legal resident .
0 A high school graduate, or posses a GED
o VVilling 4o dedicate yourself to a year of service in Garifeld or Lake Counfy
0 Someone who has demonstrated.leadership skills
What Would I Receive in Exchange for My Service?
AmeriCorps members in the Community Collaboration Team must work 1700 hours in
a service year (approximately 35 hours per week). In return you will receive a stipend
of $4.50 an hour; health care benefrts; childcare (if you qualify financially); and an
education award of $4,725 at the end of one year of service to finlance your higher
education or to pay back your student loans. (Members may serve a maximum of 2
years and are eligible to receive a$4,725 education award per yeair of service.)
You will also receive extensive training for personal and career development.
How Do I Join?
If you are interested in joining the Community Coflaboration Team please send for an
application to:
Community Collaboration Team, AmeriCorps Program
Colorado Mountain College
3000 County Road, #114
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Or call 945-7481 (ext. 247) or 1-800-621-8559 (ext. #375 for voice mail)
Leyia Day or Stefan Ves't Apalication Deadline: November 20, 1995
When Vt/i!1 My Service Year Start?
The Community Collaboration Tearn AmeriCorps Program will begin recruiting in
Octeber 1995 for the program starting in !anuary 1996. That service~ year dvill run from
the beginniny of January 1996 to the end of December 1996.
If you would like to serve your community and also help yourself achieve
your dreams, come and join the Community Collaboration T~eam
AmeriCorps program in your communify.
For more information on community senrice in Garfield and Lake County
call our AmeriCorps office at: 945-7481 or 1-800-621-8559
2 ,
a
Appli ` oo PARTICIPANT PROFILE AMERICORPS APPL9CATI0N
cation Instrucfio n a
a
AmeriCorps is the new
national servicc iniGative signed
into law by President Clinton.
Through AmeriCorps, individuals 1• Name Last First Middle Initial
of al] ages and backgrouods will
address the nation's educational, Z• Social Security Number _
public safety, human, and 3. Date of Birth (Month/Day/Year)
environmental needs through
service. In retum, AmeriCorps 4. Current Address ApL#
Members may receive education
awards to help finance their college City, State, Zip
education or vocational training,
or to pay back their student loans. 5. Permanent Address , Apt#
While there is no typicai City, State, Zip
AmeriCorps Member, all 6. TelePhone Number Da ime (
people selected for AmeriCorps ~ ) Evening ( )
will demonstrate a commitment 7. Are you a U.S. Citizen or Permanent Resident Alien? ? Yes 0 No
to service, a willingness to use
their time and abilities to improve g, nate of Availability Month Year
the lives of others, and an
interest in learning new skills.
ThroUg g~e~ ~~;ce, they Ilo ~~RSQNAI S~ATEM ENT
will brin to life the AmeriCorps
ethic of community and
responsibility. Please answer the following ques;ions on an attached sheet
This application asks you to 1.1Vhy do you want to join AmeriCorps? (540 word max.).
describe the skills and experience
you offer to AmeriCorps, Z, What skills or experiences will most help
as well as the reasons why you ou contribute tio AmeriCo s? hope to be select~. Consider y rP ~~'ard max.l
eachsectioncare:ullyar;d 3. If possible, erclose a copy of your resume.
respond to the best of yotu-
ability. Think about your role
in service activi6es, memberstiip in community organizations,
academic experiences and personal talen[s. Take into
account everything from your Return compl eted appl i cati on to :
past and present Your Leyl a Ddy Or St2fdn V2St
3000 County Rd 114
appiication and personal Gl enwood Spri ngs , CO 81601
references help create a full attn : Ameri Corps Program
picture of you and what
you bring to national service.
Make sure that this application
accurately reflects all the •
qualities that make you a good
candidate for AmeriCorps.
. e
~ ~
. A
III. COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
List and describe your organizational memberships and communily-based service experience.
Include social, school, professional, and neighborhood projecLs and programs.
I
Name Dates DescripLon of
of Group of Participation Activities/Position
I
IV. SKILLS
Indicate those areas in which you have had s'ignificant training or experience,
including volunteer or community service experience.
? ArchitectureJDesign
? Business/Managing%Accounting
0 Child Care/Development
G Communica6on/Journalism
0 Community Outreach
a Construction
O Counseling
O Health
0 Landscaping/Agriculture
? Mediation/Confuct Resolution 0 f'ublic Speaking
? Rescarch
? 5ocial Services
? Tcaching/Tutoring
? Victim Assistance
? Youth Work/Coaching
? Foreign Language, specify
O O[her Skills not listed above:
. describe
Describe briefly your experiences in each of the skill areas c Iecked on an attached sheet.
G,
mera orp's Mernber Reference Form
a AmeriCorps is the new national service iniciative signed into law by President Clincon. Through AmeriCorps,
individuals of all ages and backgrounds will address the nation's education, public safety, environment and/or human
needs through servicc. In rcturn, AmeaiCocps Members may receive education awards eo finance their college education
or vocational training, or to pay back their student loans after successful completion of service. •
The person named as "applicane" has indicated that you would be able to evaluate his/her quaiifications as an
AmeriCocps Member. The success of AmeriCorps depends on the commitment, ability9 and potential of its memters, so
your honest appraisal is essentiat: - gn lieu of ehis form, you may wriee a leteer addressing the eopics covercd in ehis form.
iJpon completion, please seal the forna ia an enwelope, sign the back, and retutu eo the applicane.
AppRncaung Nsnxee Addtesse
~~cdoun D KnowRedge of Apg~ucarmt
A. How long have you known che applicane? From: To:
?other (specify)
B. In what capacity have you known this applicane? (check the appropriate boxes)
?job supervisodemployer Oco-worker Ocollege teacher Oc(er
8Y
?volunteer worlc supervisor Elhigh school teacher Elpersonal acquaineance
C. Please describe the context that you know ehe applicane:
D. ?I do not lcnew the applicant well enough to comp(ete this form
QI prefer to write a letter, which is attached.
Sectaon He Work Peu~ormaance
AmeriCorps Me:nbers must be able to do a job vvell. In your judgmene, how comgetent is this applicant, as demon- •
strated by work in the community, in schaal, on the job, or in a gosition of responsibility? Check one:
ClExtremely competent
LIQuite competent OSatisfactory pecforrnance
?Uoubtful perfornnance ClIncompetent
~~cdon IHo lReflationships w~~ (Dther Peop9e AmeriCorps ARembers must work with other members and with people of various ethnicities, religions, and back-
grounds. How would you rate this applicant on his/her ability to build relationships with other people? Check one:
OWorks very well with othecs; can (ead or follow as the occasion demands.
?Usually effective in relationships with others; can lead or follow as che occasion demands.
OHas average relationships with others.
QDoes not make friends easily; may have difficulties worScing with others.
OCannot work with others
AmeriCorps IUfember Reference Form
AmeriCorps is the new national service initiative signed into taw by President Clinton. Through AmeriCorps, individuals of all ages and backgrounds will address the nation's education, public safety, environment and/or human
needs through service. In return, AmeriCorps 1Vlembers may receive education awards to finance their co(lege education
or vocational training, or to pay back their student loans after successful completion of service. =
; -
The person named as "applicant" has indicated that you would be able to evaluate his/her qualifications as an
AmeriCorps Member. The success of AmeriCorps depends on the commitment, abiLry, and potential of its members, so
your honest appraisal is essentiat: - In lieu of this form, you may write a letter addressing the topics covered in this form.
Upon completion, please seal the form in an envelope, sign the back, and return to the lappGcant.
Applicant Name: Address:
Section I: Knowledge of Applicant '
A. How long have you known the applicant? From: To: '
Oother (specify)
B. In what capacity have you known thls applicant? (check the appropriate bozes) ,
Ojob supervisor/employer Ocn-worker Ocollege teacher Oclergy
Ovo(unteer wock supervisor Qhigh school teacher Opersonal acquaintance
C. Please describe the context that you know the applicant: !
i
i
D. (DI do not knew the applicant well enough to cumplete this form
'
DI prefer to write a letter, which is attached.
SeGtion H: Work Perfot-mance
AzneriCocps Members must be able to do a job well. In your judgment, how competent~ is this applicant, as demon- •
strated by work in the commuinity, in school, on the job, or in a position uf responsibility' ? Check one:
DExtremely competent I
I
OQuite competent OSatisfactory perfo'lnnance
DUoubtful perfornnance ClIncompetent i
Section III: Relationstups with Other People '
i
AmeriCorps Members must work with other members and with people of various ethnicities, religions, and back-
grounds. How would you rate this applicant on his/her ability to build relationships wi i other people? Check one:
?Works very well with others; can lead or follow as the occasion demands. !
OUsually effective in relationships with others; can lead or follow as the occasion demands. I
i
OHas average relationships with others. ~
~
?Does not make friends easily; may have difficulties worlcing with others.
OCannot work with others I
~
I
A
° JFV. EIIlOt10I1S1 Mat1%I'flty '
AmeriCorps Members often work under condicions of hardship and inconvenience. They must be able co deal with
new and changing living conditions, limited financial resources, and considerable amounts of stress. With ehese
consideracions in mind, how would you rate this applicant? Check one:
?Highly effective even under stress.
?Able to adapt to stress and changing conditions.
OAbout average in handling moderate stress and changing conditions.
QMay not stand up well under moderate stress.
OCompletely unable to handle modecate stress or adapt to changing conditions
Considering such qualities as ability to work under pressu.ce, aclaptability, and good judg-ment, please comment
briefly:
Secgion V. Additnon~ ~omrnent.s ,
Please describe the applicant's abilities, interests, skills, training, or experience. Discuss any reservations you have or
potential weaknesses you see in the applicant:
Section VIe Overall Recorraanendation
l.lI recommend tt:e applicant without rescrvation as an ezcellent candidate for AmerCorps service.
, OOn the whole, I would recommend the applicant as a good candidate for AmeriCorps service.
DI have some reservations, but I feel the applicant has a reasonable chance of success.
?I have some substantial doubts about the applicant.
?I feel that the applicant is unsuited for AmeriCorps service.
SIGNATURE: DATE:
T I T L E: PHONE NUMBER:
ADDRESS:
(AREA CODE)
S
V. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
1. O Graduate/F'rofessional degree 6. O Associate degree
2. O Graduate/Professional study 7. O High school graduate
3. 0 College graduate 8. O GED
4. a Some college 9. 0 Less than higl school completed
5. O Technical school/Apprenticeship ? Other, specify
Beginning with the most recent, list all schools attended, including high school,
any trade or technical schools, Job Corps, etc.
Name of School Location of School Dates Attended Area of Study Type of Degree/
City/State From Month/Year Major/Minor Certificate and
To Month/Year ` Date Received (expected)
I
` V1. REFERENCES
Plf;ase list two individuals whom we may contact as reIerences.
We encourage you to list people who know you well such as teachers, employers,
guidance counselors, or community members.
1. Name
I
, Address ApL #
City, State, Zip i
Telcphone Number ( )
Relation to you
2. Name
I
Address I Apt #
i
City, State, Zip
Tclephone Number ( ) II
RclaGon lo you •
~
~ VII. EMPLOYMENT RECORD Please include any self-employment, home management, military service, full or part-time,
salaried employment Start with your current or most recent experience. Photocopy this page
if additional sheets are necessary.
A. Ernployer Title Telephone ( )
Address City, State, Zip
Name of Supervisor Hours per week From Month Year To Month Year
Responsibilities Reason for leaving
B. Einployer Title Telephone ( )
Address City, State, Zip
Name of Supervisor Hours pcr week From Month Year To Month Year
Responsibilities Reason far leaving
C. Employer Title Telephone ( )
Address City, Sta[e, Zip
Name of Supervisor Hours per wr:ek From Month Year To Month Year
Responsibi'.ities Reason for leaving
, . .
.
Optional Irdormation - , Providing the infotmation_inside this box Is optipnal and wdl not`affecf your selection W~
1. Descn'be your_ethnic background: - 2. Do you Have anyspecial needs that re4uire:accommodati60 ? Yes O No-.
O African American ; . Ifyes;please spec6.
. ' ~
0 White/non-Hispaziic . : . . , ~
? HisPanic/LaCwo_ . ' - 3.:Does your f
amily reeeive public assistance {e.g. AFDC Food Stainp's) ? IQ
? Asian American/Paafic Islander _Lyes; please specuy~
? American Indian%Alaskan' Native Total annual household income fi-om all sources $ - - ';'tlut
O Other - How many people (parents/siblings/children) live with you?
Vllla ADDiTIONAL INFORMATION
Please attach any additional information you think will help us evaluate your application,
. including a description of any particular hardship or special circumstances you have faced.
IXo CERTIFICATION
Note:Theinrormauan pro,,;aeanerd„mrybe Al1 applications must be signed by the applicant By signing this application, you are
used tor gencrl routirc purposes by the loal stating that all of the information provided is true to the best of your knowledge.
program and the Corpontion [or National Savice.
It will not be disciosed outside these entibes without prior written permisvon. SIgII$fI1CQ DatC
,
AM ERI CORPS-
Please return your . conlpleted application to: LLyla Day
Comrriunity Collaboration Team
3000 County lad 114
G~~~woc~~ Springs, CO 81601
I
c~11 ! : (970) 945-7481 or
1-800-62 1-8559(voice ma i I)
for- any questions ;
~
.
~ A M E R 1. C 0 R P,s
D ON-E
APPILgCATION CI3ECKLIST
~ Completed application
D Two completed essay questions on separate paper
D Two completed reference forms
D One copy of resume, if available
* If you have a strong desire to work with youth; can demonstrate leadership
potential; and live or are willing to relocate to the 1Vlountain Region of
Colorado, please complete this application.
* You will be contacted by mail or by phone within the next month. If
you are accepted for an interview, you are responsible for travel
arrangements and expenses to Colorado. Under exceptional circumstances
phone interviews may be considered. (In the event that you are accepted as a
corps member, a$500 relocation allowance may be available).
Colorado Service Network. Buildang Colorado Tlzrough Service
FROM : GPPP-Eagle County PHONE N0. 970 949 4964 e~ F(
IEagle Valley ~amfly Ceaater Novemb~r 69 119y5
~Qa~tt~°~~~gs ~ff Mag~~o~~ ~ua~? ~e~t~n~~~~o~
7C°hc unission of the coanmunigy based EQgIe Valley Fami9y Center is t.o
empowcx gaeaailies mred 1YldYVAdu84l8 by nc4,working, developing and
cansoladatnng resvta8ces.
Il.n_Iten 4ua~n.s
1. Advocaa:y
'Vo he?p fa?YHHLYt.-`$ and indivaduals identify the?r needs aYld aCCe$3
serviceg ¢o aneeff ehose need3. .
2. Communnty Pargnershops
. o anvoflve cnmrrcunity members iei the efforts of the Eagle
Valley Fatnily Center, creatiIIig a busiraess, caaaacnunity anc9
huanan sea-Vaces partaaership to msaxianixe resources ancIl
pro graons. .1o SingQe PWng u~f EntrylPlac:e
'B'he Eag1e Valley Family ~eneer wilfl provicte a communnty vvade
snnglle point og entry for servaces to f$91'19,9e15 and incinviderals.
~o ~~~~~Ilk~$IlQDW
Tin~ ~~~~e Valley Fasraily Center wi12 continaaally assess asid
ewaluade coerntiiainity needs atnc:: services to ensure the
faalf9a~~ent of our mission. ' .
' To: All Interested 1'arties
. IF'irom: Cherie Paller 949-7097
Ifte: Family Center Meeting
i
AIiTNUAL MEETING for EVFC
Mormcdlffiy, December 4th, 1995
5o30 = 9000 pna Meeting
' ~~~ards Elementary Schoo? Library
NOTE Board Mee ring will followo 0 0
J
- Al,:k.XE N A
Ilo W°In grodanctgon/IZepresenting what organization?
2. ELECTffONS
3. By=ILa`~ changes/Il996 calendau° settnng
4. A~ency Net`~orkgng/Inffoo Shargng%oo
So ~ommattee development (this means YOU!)
If you have an agenda item, pDease ca9ll me (949-7097) so I can anange time for discussion.
. Tltanks!
Please noteo THIS IS A CiZITICAL MEETING! Please join us to shape the future of
• . your Fami ly Cen ter! T han k You!
` , .
EAGYaE VA%,LEY FAMaLY CCkVTER GEtQERAt, MEMBEk2SH%P MEETING
Moaadap, AYovember 6, 1995 - Edwtardc Ebcanentargr Sck?oal
Cherie Pallor r.alled the meeta.ng to orde1 at 5:33 p.m..
Intraduotioaa+e were made e Present wtere Gherie Pal a er Kat hl epn
Foxinash, 5ae Fariraagh, Ry 6outhard, Kay Saul sberr. y, Gax-Ady
Hodgkina, Terri Seppsan, Rosi.e Moreno, Tau Wolin-Brown, .7orrY
Millsmps, Holly Tatna11., K.T. Gazuaais and Srac xorrco.
Chcrie atated that Habitat for Humanity, t.he Eagle County Sher-a.ff.'s
Depar#.ment, and Vaa.l Val l ey Cares have jained. she suggFSted that
eveLyone whn qave over $100.00 for the planning st.age should get
one year free membersha.p. Kathleen moved that "Eirery organization
or individual who contributed $100.00 ar more to EVFC's planning
stage be given a full one-year membership." Tsu secondeci. It wa.-.
passed, with Kay Saubwberry abstaining.
Holly Tatnall passed out the membership brachuzes.
Cherie announced tltat we are shoxt ane pezson per shift for the
Vmil/Beaver Creek NJagaz;a'ae fundraise.r. giy explained that we need
valunteers a$ the event to collect maney. .
Rosie announced that Cliildxen's 17efense Fund would not be coming
November 27, and are trying to reschedul e: f. ar k'ebx-uaz y.
Holly beported that the majori.ty ot people do ndt want to do the
non-event. Cher'ie ataked that we need funding to expand.the pl-,one
line anct batre staff tn do ]imited adminiatral:ive ciutie5.
A discussion of the eaLliei Strategic Plaaaaling Sessiari follawed.
Ho11y talked abput aaa Fndowment"Fund fot Healf:kd and Human SErvice,,
The group waun°t camfortable doing runciraising far :pecbfir.ally the
Fami1Y Center. mwo ma joz issues that :Furtaaed wea:e: Is EVFC a
Di.rect Service Providez or an Inda.xect Serv; ce Provider? and Whes-e
da we stand in iegard to fundxaising?. The next steps arEa t.o
address fundxaising { indiva.dual dgBriCi es vs. group) ar•sd to adclress
direct vs. indireot, service prbviSion. Alsp to.identYfy spF,cific
prajects.
KathXeen talked abaut eiidowments vs. annual gifts.
Kay menti.aned a r.oncein about competing writh programs such a:;
1i4:eLacy. Sue Tarres affered the opiraiaza that the umbrella agcAnCy
shauld be able to apply for funds just-like individual agenci.es;.
, HolIy €scpl.sined ---that we..are -in -the pr-acess of organizatioraa]
c17a»ge.
RaSie sugges4.ed that tlie expansian of . Child Care Re,,o.urr.e and
REf6rral lia`eu t;o ine.iude more than ji~st ctxild cax•e is the tr.e»ci in
the atate, arad that Gaa.l Wilson from GOR:EZA would love to r,elp us
with informatian vn how to e'xpand.
Kathleen said that we need a cansistent directian. Shp, would he
willing to dLaft a praposal. Kay said that we just Glarifierl th,e
mij.-jivn and staternent, and have 2iOL .really started on a strategia-
plan. There is a need to cammuni.cate with all mesnbers, The
minul,c5 are helpful, aaad all members need an appaztutYity to anpta1;. _
Cherie mentivned that bave Tyrrell has office equipment_ and
fuzniture to donal:e to a non-profi.t.
HoYly, Kathleen, Tsu and KaX were nomi.nated to serve ori the
naminata.ixy committee. ~
Kathl een surgested tr,at perhaps - Fami l.y Center cauld serve af; a
volunteer and fuiiding Clearinghouse. Rosie mentioned saundra Spaeh
taho wou]d perh.aps be willing to serve as a vvl~unteer vvlunteei'
Cbprd1riAtOL'. '
Hn11 y disc:ussed tw?a marketirig ideas -a Fami 1 y ~'aa i to shawc~asP
agencies, and a '~~~ee-becozating idea.
Kathleen repazted tl,ati- she 9poke to Peg Poztschellex taday.
Joe Forinash explained that h.e was ther~ as- a serlivant. minist.e1.
Tsu reported that Head Start has a iiew E'amily Services Coordiiiator,
AYison Gilbert, whn is biiiiiyual, 81-ie also iepaLterz oz-i the
proposed 5taie mandat.e for cnllaboratian.
~
Jerry Leported on fond baskets - assembl.ed and de'iiivered November
18 and Deaember 16, iri Eagle and Mi.nturn. Adopt-a--Family, rieedp,
referrals.
Sue Torres will.be participati,ng in the EVHS Health Fair.
K.T. cazunis is willfng to help with P.R. for Famii.ly Centei.
GaaYdy xpdgkins i5 the riew Pragram Directoi fax CWMHC for Eag7 e.
County. Kay tialked about the FELP 1'ragram - Rasie Moreno has been rlired and
they wilt meet on Mandays ati 6:30 p.m..
Cherxe discuased the 1 etter af a.ntent tllat she Eubmitted to ttic*
Colorado Txust Violenr.e Preventian Grant.
Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m..
Respectfully Submitted,
Tsu Wol ixi-8rown, 5ecretary
, ,
~
i
f
r ~
/ ~(f~ ~j ` ~ ! 1',?'~ ~S`°r'~}
ti,,ri~ ~ ' • ~
, .
"fi ~ •
}X C •
~ ;
THE RE N . C2, E"9 NTER
HOIJDAYPARTY
-
° 'go 3 ~uk vou for vour -
~
aU4 oupport
Thursday, December 14th9 1995
~
~ 7:00 to 9-000 pm ~ R.S.V.P. 949-7097" r
Please join us at the home of Jeanne Bailey ~
at 193 Beaver Dam Circle, Vail. ~
liIItECTIONSo Take the main Vail exit (roundabout) and drive SOLTTH past the Vail
, Chapel and tst Bank. Cross the bridge and turn right on Beaver Dam Road. 193 is the
3rd house on the right; please park on the right-hand side of the street. NMILCOME°
r(5
. ~
The Resource Center
Post Office Box 2558
.r _
, 620 P
Avon Colorado 81
za
~ fA-~.,..• .,~,.~a--.,.--~..P• ~ .
R€CEIV~O NOV 2 ~ 19S
i
i
n A
11/28/95 17: 48 S3034681208 NWCCOG Q001
. . ' - ~ e : C~r~•
. Northwest Colosado Cauncip of Gorerrirneum -
Post : Office Bvx 2308
Seiver8ttome, Coiorado SWg
. 295 tax (970) 468o1208
~~e. /?wC~C~~'~
. ~ . .
-
Ffanr
Alw~~~
Naaasiber of flages INCLl1DgNG. COilER SHEET- ~ ~ .
Please cau t97o7 46s-0255 x i/ Q if yau .
have any quebtaans. . .
. f~ e:
.
11/28/95 17:48 $3034681208 NFVCCOG lib 002
PITKtN COUIVTY TO CQNDUCT STUDY ON HOUSE SlZE MITIt0N ,
REQUESTS PARTIVERS
Resort Communities typical services such as rvads, affnrdable hou5ing and employrnent are affected by
the residen6al resort and second home market. The seroice5 required to support atypically large
residences in a commun;ty have not been fully researrhed or assessed. These impacts must be mitigated
OR we need to set limitatipns for the impacts on a community.
Pitldn Counfy has begun research on this subject which has implications far all resort communities.
Narthwest CQG's rofe is to invite and engage other resort oommunities in this project. We feel the results
of the researr.h wiH be useful throughout the region. Encouraging joint research on community
development concems is anather way to stretch your planning dollar and share expertise throughout the
regian. It is anticipated that this research cottld result in draft legisfation or local amendment of Iand usse
regufations. Please read on...
The study would develop data on average number of trips per vehicle, number of full time employees
generated by households of x square footage, average length of use of the home by owrners, guests or
renters. Analysis of the data may result in a determina6on of an appropriate level of mitigation for traffic
and employees and or recommendations for house siies wfiich can be accommodated by the community
without the need for additional impact fees and when additional impact fees, ff anyi should kick in.
~
NWCCOG members are urged to consuft with their community development staff tl determine whether
there is a need for this information. We would also like to know if you are interested m contributing to and
particcipating in this study. Whether or not you intend to contribute please let us know if this research is
va(uabie to your community, The NWCCOG board wi1l be choosing 1996 technical assistance projects on
december 7th. Your response or lack thereof will help us determine regional interest in this informafion.
Call Sandy Blaha at 970-468-0295x110.
~
leased to announce ~'g~~w
We are P ~
2/" `961
This annual, national conference is the "can't miss" event for owners,
managers, marketing/sales representatives of ski companies,
lodging properties, tour operators, transportation providers and
• those with whom they do business.
,4pril 9-10, 1996 US 5ki Trade Exchange
April 11-12, 1996 21st Annual Ski Travel Symposium
;
April 13-14, 1996 VVI//eekend Ski Package
' 2P~1(32fi1, GGLCG N:41k%GCLUUIP.CG
Mark lYOH1r CaIendar NOW,.and plan on attending. Be sure to
watch for full brochure and registration information to follow soon!
Ski Travel Symposium Week is produced to further commerce and
professionalism of tourism dependent business owners and managers, their
marketing/sales representatives, and their travel industry partners.
Hosted by:
ItALSTOfV RESORT'S
Produced by:
Advisory Group, Inc.
I
CF-eVED NOY 2 9 1995
e~ EXCHANG . . ~
0 S' ~ /'COLORpOb . 0~451411
q9 p ~45 465
pOS~~EE\CEB~a ~SA `FAX•. 1
VA~~ a165
November 22, 1995
. Dzar Vail Valley ~xchange Participant,
Snow, sun, talented world class skiers (both on and off the course) and a chance 40 catch up wi4h old #riends and make some new ones. All in all, the St. Moritz visit last
week can be remembered as nothing short of a great success. We hope you enjoyed
yourselves and are already planning for the nex4 "official visit." During 4he course ofi 4he fes4ivities, you may have noticed the beautiful fleece
sweatshirts with the Vail/St. Moritz Logo on them and most likely wan4 one. We have
had countless reques4s bu4 only produced a small quantifiy. However, all is not lost.
1'he technology is available to make more and make more we shall.
This is the firs4 ar4icle to be made with this combination Vail/St. Moritz original logo on
it so we expect.them to be in high demand once word gets out. Due to the exclusive
and limited na4ure of fhese sweatshirts, 4hey'll make fabulous Christmas gifts, so get
your orders in early. T'he official deadline for orders is December 15. Sizes Sm, Med,
Lg and X-Lg are available. 1'o resenre you shirts, call Jennifer at (970) 476-4255 or
Karen at (970) 845-2472.
The cost per'svvea4shirf is $50 for non-members and $45 for members. If you would
like to becoene a member o# the Vail Valley Exchange and receive not only the
discount on the one time ofifer sweatshirt but a myriad of other benefits, take a look at
the at4ached membership flyer and send in your dues check along with payment for
your sweatshirts. Thank you again for participating in the delegation activities and for your support of the
Vail Valley Exchange. . Sincerely,
Karen Phillips ,
kp:j# AFFILIATED WITH SISTER CITIES INTERNATIONAL
~ ~,XCHAN . . ,
G
; S p•
p - - -
~ C01000, ~451A11
8o,~,~A ~EIE. 9~~~4514b5
~ 044\CE
PvA~` ~p g1658 USp
WOULD YOU ENJOY BECO1dIING A MEIVBER OF
VAIL VALLEY EXCHANGE?
Memberships currently availablee
,
Student (18 years of age and under) $ 25
Family (includes parents and children) $ 50 Business $ 250 -
Benefits of Membepship inclucie:
* Notification of and access to Sister City Trips!
I '
* Opportunity to participate in official "exchanges" with our Sister .
Cities! ~
* Invitations to receptions for visiting dignitaries from our Sister
Cities!
* International networking opportunities'and exposure to new ideas and
new friends!
* Discounts on tickets for duuiers, events and merchandise pertaining
to Sister City relationships!
* Newsletters and informal publications regarding Sister,;City activities, .
both here and abroad!
* Opportuniry to act as "official volunteer" for many of the international
projects that occur! * Official Pin (now in production stage!)
AFFILIATED WITH SISTER CITIES INTERNATIONAL
I°A evlm;5*4 Pp~ M e.-e.,4reJ ?-w.,7iwl ea~~`~+'a.s7-A7r 1X~a-
r U.df'w?-Tuv.e o~: ~ l
~c~~~ A4ft~ . ~ffCEIVED f~OV
Proposed Additional itecommendation on Water trategy
For
X c - Cd~u.u~e~C
Second Statewide Summig
~~art Growth and I)evelopment
, Novembea° 49 1995 61,4-y : ( F`~' 1
a
Prnmrat* 4-A .~pponnt a b9ue oibbon panel to develop statewide water strategies $o
save and aese Coioaado's renewable entea°state compact entidements 6or
efl"ecoent9 6ongmteam enhancement of ets cdtyq 9armq and natueal
envnrronmeantso
RatamnaQe Colorado is facing a water crisis. Ma}or national, state, and local trends are
working against development and use of the state's renewable wet year runoff
for long droughts axid fuYure growth "I'his crisis is worsening, because of the
grovving imbalance and conflicts between Colorado's water surplus and water
shortage areas. A blue ribboa panel is immediately required Yo provide
statevvide insights and guidelines for cooperative local, regional, and
inteeregional eaater planning and development.
Actaon Needea9 A diverse btue ribbon panel is urgeeattty needed to fornrnalate and promote a
statewride strategy to save Colorado's renewable snowmeh from the external
threats and irrternal conflicts that are jeopardizing Colorado's long-term water .
future. Roads and air quality can be improved over time. State waters lost to
down river growth and federal rule changes are lost forever.
Colorado has traditionally avoided politically difficutt water strategies that
would encourage cooperative local, regional, and interregional water
developmertt efficiency. The blue ribbon panel should decide if this hands off
policy is in the bes4long-term imerest of Colorado in view of the growing high
stakes competition for water in the arid West.
The blue ribbon panel should also give particular atternion to how state
agencies can improve their willingness to address the sensitive but critical
interbasin water issues. Colorado's citizenry slnould be educated to the fact
that the current Ballkanization of state water thinking and action can not be
correcYed from the bottom up.
Tameline Implecrient blue ribbon panel immediately. The prelixninary findings and
recommendations should be available eYithin nine snomhs.
Support Neea?ed Govemor, General Assembly, regional planning commissions, metropolitan
plannirig organizations, local governments, citizen groups, state agencies,
private developers, environmental interests.
(re.spectfielly offered by Dave Miller, 719-481-2003, F'au 3452)
?
Page 2~ Friday, November 3, 1995 • Gunnison Country Times
~
up fr'ont It's a tragi'c waste of -state waters
To the Editor: grated headwater storage could While Colorado is wasting
The life cycle cost of a'few not be matched by any or all of the valuable time and resources on
multi-purpose reservoirs near the new-age options being touted in marginal concepts, the window of
Continental Divide to serve bpth the name of conservation. opportuntty to permanently store
slopes would be minor compared. Currently fashionable alterna- and use itsl wasted, but invaluable
to the long-term coet of alterna- tives, such as groundwater share of the Colorado River, is
tives being promoted by some.of recharge;,farm Eallowing, and rapidly closing.
Colorado's top water leaders. waste-water reuse may look good The "politically correct" noHon
A realistic benefit comparison when•'viewed in isolation. But if that "Westem waters should flow
would a[so quickly show the used, to,deiay additional storage, naturally down river, as Mother
water quantity, water quality, and Colorado's water future will be in
drought protection values of inte- serious jeopardy. continued on page 19
It's a tragic waste of state wcaters Gunnison Country Tmes • Friday`November 3, 1995 • Page 1Q
continued from e e 2 I
D 9 from the priority need to build more water from Colorado for voirs throughout Ihe West. For problems.
Nature intended" is dominating storage to save Colorado`s most cndangered migratory birds. F.asb example, a U.S. Aimy Corps of Inlegreted headwaterstongeis
Colorado water stralegy. Wiser valuable interstate Hatrrs. ern Colorado farms are alao at Lnginecrs simulation has con- the uttimale mncept for Westem
doHn river interests are exrloiHnF Allhough Colorado snowmelt ruk, because.there is no statewide firmed a propoced Frnnt RanRe Walrr con.aen•ation. It is the mlc
Coloredo's naivrte with the fun- provides most of the renewable water strategy to crompeiuate for headwater storagelprojecrcould assured "smart growth" option
damenral "use it or lose it" water water for Western states, inter- the declining Ogallala Aquifer. A conjunctive(v increase the safe Colorado has to economicalh• rro-
law of the west. basin infiRhting and the resultant simple Gunniccxn-Arkansas-South yield of f)om•er t rtistinR rcqer lect ic natural and human em~inm-
Coloradu's ~~ulnrrability ti, shiirtsightcd bias a~;aintit storagc PlatteSiphon is rcquircJ. voirs by aboul 20 E,crccnt at nn mcnts. Ihis includes protcctic.n oi
long droughts is growing because have given Colorado the highest To help reverse the long-stand- additional cost. I farmerr and uther endangered
of inadequate carry-over storage. averege water tap and user fees in ing neglett of Colorado's inter• Off river stornge bchvecn alti- species.
h4ore than a third o( Colorado's the tVest. state compact development, state tudec o( 9111111 ani) I 1,1N70 fert can Colorado hac Ihe renewahle
tatal Colorado River Compact Colorado is dn•ing up its South oFficials should immediately inrrease net watcrs available fur snuwmclt and hcadwater storage
entiHements are being tost to stor- Platte and Arkansas Valley farms, reclaim one of Coloredo's most Colorado and all IYestem states, sites. The onlv missing ingredients
age and Rrowth in other states because it forgot to srore and use valuable undeveloped storage bctiausc evapiration lo-es Hill be are statewiJe understandinG,
during heaey snuwmelt years, some of its vast surplus flood • rights that was improperly trans- minor cumpamd til low ahitwie rouperation, leadership anJ high
such as I995. ihis tragic waste of waters from the untapped Gunni• ferred in 1993 from the Gunnison storage. f priurit~~ actiun.
state waters is worsening with the son hranch of the Colorado River, to the US. Burpau of Reclamafion Urban water tap feec from nor- Dave Miller
stradv West Slope switch from This Gunnicon oversight is the to block usage for East SIoPe mal prowth can easih, cover thc NECO president
irrigated agriculture to tourism basic reason Kancas rLcently won urbanand rural needs. construction cost 'to save Cul- Palmer Lake
and small busines.s. a $100 million U.S. Supreme Court Political opposition to sturage orado's washtil sn(n. melt (ur lon}:
Coforado's current emphasis case apainst Colorado for taking of surplus compad waters in Rlac- druuRht cycles. Thlis integrated
vn squeezing the last drop out o( Kansas water in ciulation of the ier carved sites for both slopes approach reyuiresliooperation
Front RanRe storage and delivere Arkansas RiverCrnnpact. wnuld be low rompired to recent hetween currentlv competing
svstems is jeopardizinR down A similar cumpad problem is experience with traditional dams water pruciders. Staitel.•iJe tvatcr
river farm economies and state brewing on Colorado's o~-ersub- on rivers. strategy should promote, insteaJ
x•ater quality. Elimina6on o/ sys- scribed South f'latte River. The spring pumpinR cost tn fill of stiFle, cooperativeldevelo~~menl
tem slack and overuse ~,f demand Nebraska and the U.S. Depart- off-river sites dunng heavy run off o( headwater storaRe.
Iimi.tinF ioncepts divert attention mFnt -I( Interior ,,.e• demindinR years can be more than of(set bv 111e life (d o((-rici•r he,dwai,•rs
power sales. Thrreversible pump rcsercuirs is nrarlv iiilinile Ihrst,
$enerators will provide high value permanent structures i+•ill ncvcr
peaking power during summer fiU with silt, as will~cunventional
. and winter months when reservoirs. After retirement of con-
demands for dean energy are high struction bonds, the multiple
throughout the Western pow•er urban and rurel values are almcnt
8nd• free for a11 Coloradoans and their
The environmental impacts of local environments. I
gravity conduits from headwater The high energy and operating
storage are minor mmpared to the costs of the currendy fashionable
major env'vonmenWl and econom- alternatives will e'scalate with
ic benefits of higher and cleaner time. These concepts aiso have
river flows during the damaginR technical and socioeconomic
droughtcycles. flaws. They shouldl be deferred '
Computr.r analysis of federal until after Colorado saves and
river flow data can quickly con- uses its threatened interstate enti-
firm that drought reieases from tlements.
Integrabeed headwafer storage will Higher drought Flows from
automatically multiply the water headwater storage ivill automati-
and power yields, flood control, cally resolve most of the state's
environmental protection and current and future water quantity,
recreaHon valua of existing reser- quality, and interstete compact
~
~~~e &NOveYIRbeP',. 1995
WATER SUPPLY
,
U. S. WdTER NEKS
New 6s art dams' prov'lde for
long-term supp1y, environment
CONC0RD, Calif. -'The recent award of a$42.5 nnallion constnaction proj-
ect for what wrilfl be northem Cal'afornia's frst rnajor dam in rnore than a
decade es the latest cause for questioning whether the nation's dam-building
days are over. While sotne maint,ain that the darns are indeed behomoths
frotn the past, others are saying that betf,er-designed, anore efficient dams and
resegvoirs wrill be a key component of integraCed w+a4,er resources management
of the ftature. "Z'he key for nevv vvater projects is to strike a balance between-water and
environmental needs, leading to preservation of our quality of life," said Uli
Kappus, executave vice president for water resources services at GEI Consult-
ants, dnc., of Denver, Colo. According to Kappus, the modern dam cannot be
igraored as an essential tool to meet long-term water supply and environ
mental objectiwes.
The types of satang and peranitting process used in the past for large dams
are now? ineffectiwe, he maintains. Z'he need for water supply, flood control,
hydroelectric power, recreataonal facilities, aaid "the necessary environmental
enhancement opportunities proended by dams" will arsean that new dam con-
sta-uction will con4araue to te dital ara the West as well as in other regions of'the
couratry, saad Kappus.
"Z'he era of huge maira-system datns, mainly driven by federal dollars, is
indeed over," be staY,ed. °'Hovvever, smaller `smart dains' mainl off-channel
mnd on srrealler streams with a heav,r dose o mu ta- u ose uses with strong
balance between traditional water use an environmental vurposes, will
contanue to be built," KaPpus added.
Atnong the nevv "sYnart dams" to which he refePred is the I.os Vaqueros
Project near Brentwood, Calaf:, noatherea Califorraia's first major dam in more
thare a decade. 7°he 100,000 acre-foot reservoir project, to be constructed by
Kiewit Pacific Co. of Orna}na;1Veb.9 will irnprove watep quality for ctastomers oi'
the Contra Costa Water Dastrict nn Concord by storing high-quality wtaer
fi°oaaa the Sacrament,o-San Joaqinin Delta during wet periods for blending with
the desrtract's ongoang delta supply in dry seasons.
r
~
.
Cresied Butte Mountain Sun • Thursday, Cctober 26, 1995 ~ Page 3
-
Is Uni*On Park a I
ortunit e ;
missedo
FP y
To the Editor:
When Gunnison County citizens suddenly adopted the
unstudied "not one drop over the hill" 5tance during ear; -r )anu-
arv 1990, thev potentially lost over 5I00 million worth of free stor-
age rights, drought protection, rZood control and power - as well
as enhancement or local water quality, wildlite, tishenes, rafting,
boating and environmental protecrion.
Lnemotional analvsis and goed faith negotiations can perma-
nentlv guarantee chese unprecedentea multiple benerits ror the
Gunnison Countv wav of life.
' i
,
~ - Dave Miller
~ECEIVED NOV 2 7
0 , _
ita I k,
A
. UPPER ARKANSAS AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
P.O. Box 510 Canon City, CO 81215-0510
(719) 275-8350
6 lij :
Tentative
AGEN~A
RAIlC,ROAgD ABANDO1+1MENT 12EGIO1VAlC, MEETgNG
WEDliiESDAI', DEC'EMBER 6, 1995
1:30 p.m.
C]H[AFIFEE COI1NTY FAIR GROIJNDS
10165 COUNTY 1ZOAD 120
(Hwy. 50 four miles west of Salida,
turn right on Co. Rd. 127)
PONCHA SPRI[IVGS, C'OLORAd)O
PU12PO5E OF M[EE']CING: TO UPDATE EVERYONE INVOLVED ON WHO IS
DOING WHAT AT BOTH THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVELS IN ORDER TO
COORDINATE ACTIVITIES AND AVOID DUPLICATION OF EFFORTS. I. UPDATE FROM UP/SP
II. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
III. PROCESS UPDATE
IV. UPDATE ON STATE AGENCY EFFORTS AND POLICY
V. WHO IS DO1NG WHAT
VI. QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION
VII. WHAT NOW? - STRATEGIES AND DISCUSSION
VIII. MORE IDEAS?
IX. NEXT MEETING DATE, TIME AND LOCATION
CHAFFEE CUSTER FREMONT LAKE
. „ •
~
L..
- ~iL ~1' ' ' M~=~~" . . • ' . ~ f ' . ' _ , _ ~ . \ ~ ~ . ~ _
• 1
RUBY BOStOT Park ~ . ~ ~ . ' .
. ~ O MT PRINCETON7 ~ " • ~ ` ~ ~NATHROP &MTN
N 1
19
i ~
T i ~ . . - , .
n~
C~alt S Mt PrineHan ! _ ~ . . ' ~ . • ~ • - . . .
200 ~ . . . 1. , . -
Cli/h : Mol SOrinps
A " . . .
ALPINE
;1 A ~_.Up,n. ~ A A / _ . . . a .~p ' . ~ ~ . ~ ~ - ~ ' . ~ - '
CeoI Cr
+ . ~ , . _
272 270
;Q~-=..,.--- . - - -
nr _ , . _I • 1' . _ _ . , " ~ . ~ ' . ~ :'_ac
rn.r I \ 'T MT ~ANTERO 1 ~C . , . ~ • . ` . . . , .
,r ~ 14l269
, _ , .
'I ~ m , ~ ~ r . ~ ? , - " \ , ` • ' . . . . .
6ri»ry . Lilllr s 'o .
L ~
~c ee~e.;n • - I • ~ , . ` - . . ' .
- Lek• CARBONATE 0 MT WHITE
MTN \ ~ ~ . . . I m . . 1 '
•&GRt22LY .17370 _ p_ 13667 _ _ roioii, ' . . ~ ~ - ' . .
[OCK MTb eW'm TURRETO rixt j WHITEHORN •
Lon« ,
137 zs raes vic
Io~..o ~ ~A 1l 1
Q / u ~C~MERON . ' ' . . . . . ~ . .
ePOMEROY MTN MT
I3151 . ~ SAe.ana ~ ~ . ~ ? • . ~ - .
TABEGUACHE ~
b 14135 ~ • . ' , . ' . . ' .
~
~A MT'"'
SHAVANO ~
~ 14229 B~o ~ . 102 f.. + ~ ~ .
Malip ~ ~ Cao~n¦ , ~ p ~
~ No~"A 255 ~ MT 11ETNA MI ~~~ti T
~ • 13745 ~ e i ~ _ . . c
TAYMON~ MTNT. • A. . , 231 ~~o
17fiS1 u` • . / . ~ ' ' ~so,r ~ . PINON T
I ~ ` • .
r ? ,JO r~M[ NILLS
~ Bo~ i L f ? ? _ . i n . . . . ~ . 160 ~C~
~ I Tnt
~ .
NI on
.M~ ~ . , c~ 4 Ctater
'r ~.BANANA ~ ELTERTO N
f~`~,p~~ ~ . .
~",N GARFI lvteoRVa~~ w .~adtoo~
' 6rcn ~ 140 T ~ • Mill ~ Lj•~/~~ ~ ~ .
MAYSVILL so ~ . ~ . couwrr ' n~ c
Ma1orc11 - . ~c//~t r~DF1
ilDa ~oVlros . . V H l ' 1 . . . .
r•a ` / si~• '~2m ~~~~raa 1~ ,.A~'fo'foJ . ¦ 120 . . : ~ 4 . . .
~y f°° Rivir_
Po .rcn rt PONCHA
~cn~ I13E6 ` ~ 1 r ? - ; SPRINGS °1 1 0 • Nnrc°1 0 . . , . .
v
a~s
` - ncLu~44 ti~~~- _ ~ _ -Arcn_ _WELLSVILLE-._- - -
\ 4 GAMIONE . ~ .r~ ~ rut ~ i ~ . ~ ~ I . . . . _ . . . . - . ~ . , • . ~
SWISSVALE
~ . . •PEAK . . . .
~ " 1 ~ . ~ e? p , PONCHA . . ~ .
•UTN __~e ~ U O~''• ' ' _
p ,,;1~
u I ~ Poit
CrofY CNAFFEE.CQ
~.YETMODIST~` , 0 . . . ~
• ' oV~ ' ~ • ~ ~ _ ' ~ i SACUaCNE CO.
' . . ` ,
MTN ~ M~TN
CHIPETR ~ .~i~ ^,I . . ..+ea ~ rue~' I ~1 . . ~
. . . .ct. +u¦cno~ .i. J _ . - HOWARD~
.~=1-~e ~ . `ticQ/ -__~_i . ~ ' ~ • . .
MT oRAo[ - cf
OURAY
P% GO _1_\' q933. O Nerir ' / f , , ~ ~ . . . 1 . , - 9~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ . . - . ~ ' ~
C0. ~ . ' _ . Lo~e f_ ~l ~ - . . . ~ . . . . . ~ _ ~p , ~ • . " ~ . .
d~`a ~ ? ~ - , ~ ~ Foncna . e-p51MMON5 : Cr so ' ~ .
? Pota PK
~ sst ~ G~ . . ~
9019 BS ~
' ? Po::hall
l ' • 1 ;oe42 00 r!V
~NUNTS/ ~ . ` . ~ . , . . .
9 .rKd
I ~ ' ' ~ \ Nvn/t . ~ ~'Z,. \ \ n ' . .
' • ( ~ ~ i~^ l y', - ~ ~ . ° , ~ , teri
~
i , „
eg
TOi~I OF YAIL ~
1309 Vail Valley Drive Department ojPublic Works
Vail, Colorado 81657 Street Services
970-479-2165 .
Fax 970-479-2130 X
Dear Captain VVilson:
~
Enclosed is a list of all Town of Vaii personnel that were invoived in the search and rescue
operation at Stone Creek in Eagle-Vail on November 30, 1995.
TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
STREET DIVISIOfV
Jim Hoza-Street Superintendent
Charlie Overend-Assistant Street Superintendent
Charlie Tumbull
Donald Gallegos
Leonard Sandoval
Sam Sandoval
Dave Richardson
Scott Bluhm •
Diane Stanek
Mark Lovato
Standby-
Jose Cordova .
Elizar Pena
Jim Hervert
Tom Rollins - Janeil Turnbull
Engineering Division
Larry Pardee-Constnuction Inspector
Teri Nlartinez-Project Manager
Parks Division
Todd Oppenheimer-Parks Superintendent
Gregg Barrie
Facility iViaintainence Division
John Gallegos-Facility Manager
Leo Vasquez
Louis Sanchez
Manuel Tn.ijillo
Standby-
Jeanne VVilson
Gilbert Martienz
Fleet Maintainence
Todd Scholl-Fleet HNanager
Dale Harpe Scott Klawonn
ANatt Martinez
Frank Vigil
Donna Amold
If any more information is needed, please feel free to contact me at (970) 479-2165 or 479-2158.
Thank you.
Jim Hoza
~0~ot~ RECYCLED PAPER
1 1. 2 1. 9 5 O?: O 8 PM P O 2 ~
• ~
I
I
~ •
. scorr mctNNIs RULEB CORAMIYPS E
3RD-C969RADc]
! THE UNIT STATES
House.of Representateves
~ . Wash'o'ngton, D.C. 20515Q0603 .
. FOR 1MMSDIATE RELEASEe CONTACT: Audrey Hudson .
Norrember 21, 1996 202n225-4769
. SKI RESORT SALE n~
~~~~RFACING WASMINGTON, D.C. With the President's veto ofi the Balanced Budgefi Act of '
9995, Congrsssman Scott McInnis said 4oday 4here is a danger thafi the issue of selling
Colorado's ski areas cauld be reopened.
~ McInnis worked hard during the budget negatiatiorts to eliminate language directing
' fihe sale of ski resorts. The proposai was finally remaved from the bili and was passed
through the House and the Senate. But with the President's veto, those In favor of selling
resorts to private businesses have the opportunity to work behind the scenes to relnsert #he
language.
"Unti{ the Pres(dent signs the 8alanced Budget Act of 1995, there fs a chance the
language can be snuck back Into the bill," McInnis said. "Until #hat Act is signed, you can be
assured 1'll be watching this issue closely."
IVearly every skl resort in Calorado is in Mclnnis' dis4rict, one of t}ie largest
Cnngressional Districfis in the Unifed States. .
Coforado ski resor4s that would affected lncfude Aspen Mountain, Aspen HigF?fands,
Beaver Creek, Breckenridge, Btat4ermilk, Copper Mounta(tt, Crested Butte, Eldora, }Ceystone,
powderhorn, Purgatoty, SkI Sunlight, Snowmass, Steamboa4 Springs, Teiluride, Vail and
Winter Park.
, .
~
~
S~
Town of Vail
Sales Tax Estima4ion VNorkshee4
12/4/95
% Chenge / Change
1595 Buaget trom Irom
MOllth 1984 1985 1986 1587 15188 7989 1990 1997 1992 1993 7994 Budget ESt/rtlate Varlence 1994 BUd9ef
i::ii:Y2 :~::'>:::~:i:;;?%:'='S>:~^:::::~iSs:25? 2~5' %%~i:;:i:fi=S::Y.:';i:ii:~:
.
:;..:.:.i:~i:~:::~i::;:~::%:::i;:~::~::~:::~>::.r:~»r:<c.>:.>:-:::~::~::.::»:~>:<:.>:c.>r.~::;~>:;~::;:c::~:»:~.;:::.::::. ~
~
January 742;262 881:304 890;585 1,063,196 1,126,496 1;465,870 1;599;123 1;713.091 1,709;654 1,855,364 1,805,707; 1,8691600 11893:104 21504 4.849!0 1.26%
February 824;650 918;154 946,552 1,135,786 1,205,101 1;561;286 1,695,850 11737,343 11780,568 1,828,766 1,814,4951 1,883,100 1.814,425 (68,675) 0.00% -3.65%
RAarch 1,084,814 1;187;520 11316;6521,376,782 1,591,705 1,939,758 1,897;718 2,051,820 1,977:995 1,988,090 2;250,656 2,326,900 2,137,616 (189;284) -5.02% -8.13%
I
April 481,204 531;668 430,877 425,961 550;205 567,684 634,174 616;648 691;163 864,303 794,6681 820,500 789,384 (31,116) -0.66% -3.79%
AAay 166,200 162:912 244;987 245;518 170,567 215;548 236359 250,809 268;000 257;248 287;315 i 296,000 322;973 26273 12.41 % 9.11 %
June 262,696 280,828 361;627 331:581 329,039 393,470 448.227 468,948 468,598 475,161 548,820 . 564.900 588,976 24,076 7.32% 4.26%
July 406,462 447,815 479;507 479,201 559,683 649,139 665;094 737.288 742;750 811;538 892,830 928,100 891,712 (36;388) -0.13% -3.92%
August 402,792 386,985 512,513 536,904 575,887 668,119 678,071 761,992 767,257 825,954 891;566 928,100 865,355 (62;745) -2.94% -6.76%
September 384,864 340,102 374;060 442,402 422,502 469:032 482;328 491;684 485,954 560,535 725,205I 753,200 642,836 (110,364) -11.36% -14.65%
October 206,248 209;282 237,504 273,951 291,204 335;740 364,002 324;802 367,578 400,525 408,405 417,000 458,510 41,510 12.27% 9.95%
`::>::::;;::<:::::<:::>::::s::::»:> :::::::<::::>:`^><:?
TOTAL 4,962,192 5,346;570 5,794;864 6,313,282 6,822,389 8,265:646 8,700,946 9;154;425 9,259,517 91867,484 10,419667 10,787,400 1.0,404,891 -382,509 -0.14% -3.55%
.;:<:::<>.:::>:»::>::::;:::>:>:::>::»
:;::'::5`>;::::'.::;::z >:>::fi
~ - ~ - -
Plovember 310,588 229,083 376;657 386,270 376,235 430,820 438;731 428,086 497,907 553,681 594,491 605,300
December 906,758 905;955 1,167280 1,245,612 1,455,948 1,615278 1,625219 1,691.775 1,846,223 1,974;553 1,992,855 2,057,702
i.:;:i:.3:'~3:::::::::::::::::i'::::::i'$::.:`:.>i:.i
.:.::.i:a~ii: ~:~:::•:;;:'>:n::~:::•:;c•;:;.::;~::~s:~>:~:o:-;i:~-::;~::2::~i::~;:~:;:;~i:~i:~i5:~ii:~;::~: _:.;:.i::.::~::~:::,i>:~rr:~i;i:::;iii'-::~;:2~:~:ai:::;
::::~:x:t;<~:::.:~ :~::a:o:~;r:a::.:;:~r»:o>:<.>::~::p:<;~:~
Total 6,1792538 6,481,608 7,338:801 7;945,164 8,654,572 10,311;744 10,764;896 111274;286 11,603,647 12,395,718 13;007,013 13,450,402 10,404,891
41 kLC E11/ED DEC 4 14
Vail
Alpine ,
Garden ~
~ Foundahon November 29, 1995
Mr. Bob McLaurin
Town Manager Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road West '
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Bob:
On behalf of Mrs. Ford and the Board of Directors af the Vail Alpine Garden
Foundation, may I express our sincerest appreciation for the Town of Vail's
pledge of $10,000 from the real estate transfer tax fund as a Friend of Betty Ford. We understand and agree that payment of the pledge is contingent upon
approval of the Education Center by Town Boards and Commissions.
The Town's very generous contribution will help design, build, and coinplete the
Education Center for Betty Ford Alpine Gardens. We hope to secure the
appropriate approvals and break ground next year for the Center, which will be
dedicated to Mrs. Ford as a tribute and gift from her friends.
The design phase is progressing quite well for this unique building. It will be a
circular, earth-sheltered facility lying underneath the Alpine Rock Garden, the
fourth phase of Betty Ford Alpine Gardens scheduled to be completed by 1998.
The Education Center will house a botanical exhibit area, multi-purpose/theater
room, museum shop, work spaces, botanical library, and publ'ic restrooms. Its
mission will be environmental, horticultural and botanical education, and we
intend it to be a facility of national and international significance - a special
enhancement for the Gardens, Ford Park and ±he commtznity of VaiI.
A plaque dedicating the Center to Mrs. Ford will be inscribed with the name of
each contributing Friend and attached to the building. Please let us know exactly how you would like the Town of Vail's name to read. I have enclosed a pledge
- form and return envelope for that purpose. Thank you for sending it back at
your convenience. ,
The Town has been most generous in the past as well. This $10,000 pledge will
bring the Town's total pledge toward the Education Center to $25,000, all of
which is being held by the Town until approvals have been given and
construction begun. "Vail will be as well knowrz iia the sunaraierfor its,flowers cas it is in the zuinter f'oi- its sfziing. "
183 GORE CREEK DRIVE - VAIL, COLORADO 81657 303.476.0103
Printetl on
Recycietl Paper
Mr. Bob McLaurin
November-29,1995, Page Two
Again, thank you from our hearts for the Town's conditional partnership in this
exciting venture. We are particularly proud that our municipail government
chose to join us as a Friend of Betty Ford. '
Sincerely,.
, v
Sammye Meadows
' Executive Director
cc: Christine B. Anderson, C.P.A. . Finance Controller
~
H1nre~to.rPSgra~tdi/lurt~
Olcl:l9c~~r qf Il~e A4ovrrtain Prinletl on
~ flecyCletlPaper
.
~ ~~~~~y Consolgdaged Water Di5triCg
~846 Forest Road Vail, Colorado 81657
Telephone: (970) 476-7480 Fax: (970) 476-4089
November 30, 1995
Mayor Robert W. Armour and Members of the Council
Town of Vail
Board of Directors 75 South Frontage Road
Rick Sackbauer Vail, CO 81657
Chairman
Byron Brown REo EIIIlflpfloyee Ho9flSEng SIlteS
Secretary
Pat Dauphinais
Chuck Ogilby Dear Council 1Vtembers:
Paul Testwuide
General Manaeer I am writing on behalf of the unanimous Board of Directors of the
Dennis Gelvin Vail Valley Consolidated Water District. We share your concern with
employee housing in the Vail Valley. VVith the Upper Eagle Valley
Consolidated Sanitation District, we have developed an increasing
concern over our ability to attract, retain, and have available near our
facilities in emergencies, high quality personnel.
We have some sites available. Since we have been regionalizing
our facilities, some water treatment facility sites have become surplus.
Two of the more likely and appropriate parcels lie in the Red Sandstone
area and adjacent to Black Gore Creek in East Vail. Enclosed are site
maps on these two properties.
It seems to us there are two viable alternatives to developing
employee housing on these sites: (1) we do it; or (2), you do it. It
further seems to us that ou are better suited to developing these
properties, because of your broader interest in fostering employee units
in the Valley.
Accordingly, we offer these sites to you. We estimate the
value of these sites to be in excess of $1.0 million. We ask that you
consider and respond to this offer as soon as possible so that we may,
CONSERvE4
~
if necessary, pursue the alternative. We request that the Sanitation District
employees be able to participate in the project. We also request that construction
begin in a reasonable period of time (say, one year). The conditions of
conveyance can be worked out in the next few months, but we need to know of
your interest now.
Again, we take no exception if you do not accept this offer. We simply have
concluded that you have the energy and commitment, and will have the expertise,
required to develop a successful project. We ask that you conceptually accept the
offer within 30 days or allow us to proceed otherwise.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this offer. Please contact
me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Tt'`~
Rick Sackbauer
Chairman
Vail Valley Consolidated Water District
cc: Robert W. McLaurin
Walter Kirch
20wdadm inl6oardUtrs\tovemphs.wpd
DEC 05 '95 11:52AM COHIG & ASSOC. - P.1/1
' TEXACJ ~~~~CLA`~~N
Vail, (:O1dI'Sd0
CIO Rlke WOatte11
3700 F,ast eSlameda Avenue #500
Denver, Colorado 80209
303-388-3535 or Fax 303-322-3769
December 5, 1993
Tovvn Council
Towm of llail
by FAX: 790-479-2157
a~ies ana a~ntlemen:
It is our understanding that you will shartly be considering the Pe-
dedeloplnent of Gold Peak, the review process having been undePVVay since last
summer. 4ur associatian has puticipated in many of the discussions and
meetings directly and also through the P.ast Village giomeowners Association.
We are pleased vo add our general suppore to the plan, especially the neeaied lift
arid base facilities as well as the isnproved access from the parking struc4ure.
Z'hcre aPe Yrvv conccrns fhat we vNish to voice. First is the addidon of
seven feee to the hei.ght of the ncw base/condo buflding. As you may ka?ow, our
build'ang is immeciiately below the Go1d Peak base, on thc creek below the low?er
tennis courts. OuP concerns weze voic,ed in 1985 and have been repeated this
yeae concerning the diminution of our view of the mounYains. Frankly, I arn
not sure how high the proposed building is relative to the exisdng structum. In
1985, wre were assured thae the then proposed structure would be no higher thaei .
the existing building. 1Vow we are told that the Town staff required that seven
feet be addai. That sounds like our view will be impaired.
Z'he secand concem is the cvntinvef existence af Chalet Itoad on the
plans. It is our understanding that Chalet Road is to be closed ar re-POUted in
some fashion. As you know, Ease Gore Creek Drive was vacated some years
ago, so there is no through way for Chalet Road to fvllow. It has been elosed
in the winter for years, alchough it is our desire to keep a pedestrian path open.
We have offered to assist in the re-development and landscaping of the Chalef
Road raght-of way, and stand rea,dy to do so.
Please accept our support and eritieisan of the (3ald &'eak Redeveloprrene
Plan as constructive and cooperative. We would normally be attending the
Council sner-ting today, but unfortunately aone of our members is able to be ira
Vai1 eoday. Thank you for your consideration.
~
Rike D. w~~n
Presidenc
~ .
~ RECEIVED DEC 6" ~ . .
VmLVml-Er
FOUNDATION - ,
Providing leadership ' -
in athletic, educationat December 4, 1995 "
and cultural endeavors '
to enhance and sustain
the quality of life in
rhe va=l yauey ' Vail Town Council 1Vlembers -
, Town of Vail , 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Board of Directors
President Gerald R Ford To whom it may concern: ,
Robert E. Barrett
Leon D. Black Carolyn S. Blount After a successful World Cu event that rovided eve 1un from beautiful weather
Mariene L. aou P P ~ g
craig M. cog,c to international television coverage, comes a time-to thank those in our community
James Berry Craddock "
Jack Crosby who made it all possible. ~ .
Mdrew P. Daly
H. Benjamin Duke, Jr.
Harry H. Frampton, III I want to thank you especially for offering the use of the Vail Library as a holding John Garnsey
George N. Gillett, Jr. area prior to the World Cup Opening Ceremonies. The library staff was extremely
Gilbert R Giordano flexible and accommodating. Your contributions, whether big or small, do not go - Pepi Gramshammer Steve N. Haber unnoticed.
Martha Head '
William J. Hybl '
Elaine W. Kelton Thank you again. • Henry R. Kravis . • , -
Fitzhugh Scott, Emeritus , . ~ Michael S. Shannon ~ith a reciation ~ Rodney E. SGfer PP ,
Richard L. Swig
Oscar L Tang ` • ' .
John Garnsey
President ~
issa Mackintosh
Senior Vice President
1989 World Alpine ~
Ski ChampionsJiips . AE! World Farum '
American Ski Classic • FIS Alpine World Cup • ,
vai!lnternational Summer ojDance _
Gesald R. Ford ~ , -
Amphitheater " - .
Futtd jor the Fukue . •
Harn6lowerAwards ' -
' and Scholarships
1994 World Mountain ~
Bike Championships "
~999WorldAlpine , .
Ski Championships.
P.O. Box 309 ~ -
Vail, Colorado 81658
974479-1999 , . . . .
Fax 97a476-7320 A Colorado 501 (c) (3)
Nonprofit Corparation ' _