Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-04 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session VAOL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING TUESDAV, JUIVE 4, 1996 7:30 P.M. 9N TO!! COUNCIL CF9AMBEFtS AGENDA 1. CITIZEIV PARTICIPATIORI. 2. Consent Agenda: A. Approval of the fViinutes for the meetings of May 7 and 21, 1996. 3. Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance creating Section 17.32.050, Plat Title Formats, and amending Section 17.16.130, Final Plat-requirements and procedure of the Touvn of Vail Municipal Code. 4. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance amending Title 18 Zoning, Chapters 18.12 (Two-Family Residential (R) District), 18.13 (Primary/Secondary Residential District, 18.54 (Design Review), 18.56 (Environmental Impact Reports), 18.58 (Supplemental Regulations), 18.60 (Conditional Use Permits), 18.62 (Variances), and 18.66 (Administration) with respect to Administration and Appeals Procedure of the Vail Municipal Code. ~ 5. Resolution No. 8, Series of 1996, a Resolution renaming Lion's Ridge Court to Glacier Court. 6. Appointment of Two Local Licensing Authority Members. 7. An appeal of the Planning & Environmental Commission's (PEC) denial of a request for a height variance to allow for a residence, currently under construction, to exceed the 33-foot height limitation for residential structures. The project is located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/ Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD #4). Applicant: Bill Anderson representing Mr. and Nirs. Hovey. 8. An appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's (PEC) denial of a request for a density variance to allow for the construction of additional GRFA within an existing primary/secondary residence, located at 3130 Booth Falls Court/Unit 6, Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Brent and Barbara Bingham. 9. Town Nlanager's Report. 10. Adjournment. NOTE V9PCONIOiVG MEETINC ST'A?F2T TIMES BELOVM: (ALL T1MES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) I I I I I I I ' THE NEXl' VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR NVORK SESSION !AlILL BE ON TUESDAY, 6111196, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IRI TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLOWINC !/AIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON 7'UESDAY,.6/18/96, BEGINIVIPIG AT 2:00 P.M. IN TO!! COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE WEX? !lAIL TOWIV COUNCIL REGULAR EVENIIVG MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 6198196, BEGINNIIVG AT 7:30 P.M. lN TOV COUNCIL CHAIVIBERS. • IIIIfII Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. C:WGENDA.TC t tlAIL 106tl1tl COVIYCIL EVENING 1.1EET'NG TUESDAY, JIJNE 4, 1996 7:30 P.M. BN TO!! COUNCIL CIiANIBERS EXP,4NDED A?CENDA 7:30 P.M. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 7:35 P.M. 2. Consent Agenda: A. Approval of the Minutes for the meetings of May 7 and 21, 1996. 7:40 P.M. 3. Ordinance iVo. 12, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance creating George Ruther Section 17.32.050, Plat Title Formats, and amending Sections 17.16.130C, Final Plat-requirements and procedure and 17.22.030, Condominium and Townhouse Plats-submittal requirements, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. ACTiON REQUESTED OF COUiVCIL:Approve, modify, or deny, on first reading, the proposed amendments to Sections 17.16.130C and 17.22.030, and the creation of Section 17.32.050, of the Town of Vail Nlunicipal Code. BACKGROUND RAT{ONALE: The Community Development Department is proposing three amendments to Chapter 17, Subdivision Regulations and Construction Design Standards, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The amendments propose to include Plat Title Formats, as Section 17.32.050 and to amend Sections 17.16.130C, Final Plat-requirements and procedure and 17.22.030, Condominium and Townhouse Plats-submittal reauirements. The purpose of the amendments are to define a standard format for plat titles in 'the Town of Vail and amend the requirements and procedure with regard thereto. It is staff's opinion that the.creation of a standard format for all plat titles will reduce the inconsistency of plat titling which causes indexing and referencing problems for the Town of Vail and Eagle County. On April 22, 1996, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted unanimously (4-0) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to the Town Council. A copy of the memorandum staff prepared for the Planning and Environmental Commission, dated Aprii 22, 1996, has been attached for reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed amendments to Chapter 17 of the Tovvn of Vail Municipal Code. It is staff's opinion that the proposed amendments, creating a standard format for all plats reviewed by the Town of Vail and setting forth subdivision plat requirements and procedures, will reduce the inconsistency of plat titling in the Town of Vail and Eag{e County. 8:00 P.M. 4. Ordinance Rlo: 7, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance amending Dominic Mauriello Title 18 Zoning, Chapters 18.12 (Two-Family Residential (R) District), 18.13 (Primary/Secondary Residential District, 18.54 (Design Review), 18.56 (Environmental Impact Reports), 18.58 (Supplemental Regulations), 18.60 (Conditional Use Permits), 18.62 (Variances), and 18.66 (Administration) with respect to Administration and Appeals Procedure of the Vail Municipal Code. ~ ACTfON REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve/Deny/Modify Ordinance N0.7, Series of 1996, on second reading. I . BACKGROUND RATIONALE: At the May 21, 1996 meeting of the Town Council, Council tabled Ordinance No. 7 on second reading in order for staff to make some revisions to the ordinance. Concern was raised by Council regarding the language included in the provision for a fee. I This language has been modified to reflect the changes proposed by Council (see pages 9 and 11 of the ordinance). Concerns were raised by Art Abplanalp over the use of the words "appellee" and "request" and also abo 16t the listing of adjacent property owners. The word "appellee" has been re~placed with the word "appellanY" and the word "request" has been replaced with the word "appeal" throughout the ordinance. Staff disagrees with Artis concern over the amount of time it will take to assemble a list of adjacent p'roperty owners. Vail is a small Town and such lists rarely exceed 7 names and addresses. However, in order to further clarify this provision, staff has included a statement allowing the notification of a managing agent or board of directors of a condominium, which is consistent with other Town applications. Some of Art's concerns and suggested revisions are not being proposed because they are unnecessary and act to further complicate the ordi nance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance NO. 7, Series of 1996, on second reading. 8:10 P.M. 5. Resolution No. 8, Series of 1996, a Resolution renaming Lion's Ridge Court George Ruther to Glacier Court. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, modify, or deny Resolution No. 8, Series of 1996. j ` BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Town of Vail has been p,resented with a petition for a street name change of Lion's Ridge Court (see attachment). The petition has been signed by all of the property owners on Lion's Ridge Court. The property owners have requested a change of the name from Lion's Ridge Court to Glacier Court. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds the applicant's request reasonable, and therefore, staff recommends that the Town Council adopt Resolution No. 8, Series of 1996. ~ _ _8:25 P.M. 6. Appointment of Two Local Licensing Authority Members. Holly McCutcheon . ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Appoint two individuals to fill the expiring terms of Don White and Connie Knight BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Don White and Connie Knight have both submitted letters for reappointment. No other letters were' submitted. 8:30 P.M. 7. An appeal of the Planning & Environmental Commission's (PEC) denial of Dominic Mauriello a request for a height variance to allow for a residence, currently under construction, to exceed the 33-foot height limitation for residential structures. The project is located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/ Lot 123, Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD #4). Applicant: Bill Anderson representi,ng Mr. and Mrs. Hovey. ~ ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Uphold/modify/overturn the PEC's denial of the variance request. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On January 8, 1996 the PEC unanimously denied a similar request for a building height variance for this same structure. The denial was appealed to Council on Janualry 6, 1996. The council failed to pass a motion to either uphold or overturn the PEC decision, therefore the PEC decision was automatically uplield. On May 13, 1996, the PEC denied another request for the same variance. The applicant I is appealing this denial. ~ i ~ , The applicant is in the process of constructing a residence on Lot 23, Gien Lyon Subdivision. The Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) submitted by the applicant indicates that sections of three separate roof ridges were constructed at heights exceeding the 33-foot maximum height allowance for residential structures (see the attached building elevation drawings). The ridges in question are labeled A, B, and C. According to the existing grades provided by Intermoun#ain Engineering (based on the original topographic suniey), and the ridge height figures provided by Eagle Valley Surveying's ILC, ridges A, B, and C were constructed a maximum of 8 inches above the 33-foot height allowance. The applicant's requested that the PEC grant a height variance to retain the roof ridges at the existing, constructed heights. The applicant believes that the Town's topographic survey policy allows for a one foot variation in existing elevation and that if given a one foot variation the building would be within the height limitations. Although errors do occur in topographic surveys, the Town's policy does not allow variations in building height. Our survey policies now (as of Nlarch 28, 1996) require a spot elevation under proposed roof elevations prior to the site being disturbed. In this particular case, the building height problem resulted from the addition of heated floors and not from a survey error. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending denial of the applicant's request to overturn the PEC decision. 9:15 P.M. 8. An appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's (PEC) denial. Dominic Mauriello of a request for a density variance to allow for the construction of additional GRFA within an existing primary/secondary residence, located at 3130 ° Booth Falls Court/Unit B, Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Brent and Barbara Bingham. ACTIOiV REQUESTED OF COUIVCIL: Uphold / modify / overturn the PEC's denial of the variance request. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: In November of 1995, an inspection was made of this residence and it was discovered that a vaulted area had been converted to GRFA without the benefit of a building permit. The additional GRFA is in excess of that permitted by the Zoning Code. On November 20, 1995, the appellants were sent a letter stating that the additional GRFA must be removed. The appellants decided to apply for a density variance to allow the additional GRFA. On May 13, 1996, the PEC denied the density variance request (3-1-1) finding that the granting of the variance would be a grant of special privilege. The appel{ants are appealing this denial. The applicant converted a vaulted area (183.5 sq.ft.) above their garage to habitable space (GRFA) without a building permit. Staff became aware of the violation following the discovery of a similar conversion in the adjoining duplex Unit "A" (the Shiffrins). In the Shiffrin's case, staff became aware of the unpermitted construction after the Fire Department responded to an alarm at the subject property. Construction was on-going when the Fire Department arrived, and no building permit was in evidence. The Shiffrins were required to remove the improvements since there was only 11 sq.ft. of available GRFA on the property. The Shiffrins applied for, and were subsequently denied a density variance on October 9, 1995, which they further appealed to the Town Council. The PEC decision was upheld by the Town Council on October 17, 1995 (minutes attached). The allowable GRFA for the property is 4,700 sq.ft. The duplex received a Certificate of Occupancy on February 10, 1993. The approved GRFA for the duplex is 4,689 sq.ft. The applicant converted the existing enclosed area above the garage labeled as "open to below" on the approved plans to GRFA. The conversion added 183.5 sq.ft. of GRFA to the duplex. Therefore the variance request was to allow 172.5 sq.ft. of additional GRFA. ~ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending denial of the appellanYs request to overturn the PEC decision. 10:00 P.M. 9. Town Manager's Report. 10:05 P.M. 10. Adjournment. NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL T1MES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 6/11/96, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 6/18196, BEGINfdING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVEIVIfVG MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 6118196, BEGINIdING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. IIIIIII Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. C:\AGENDA.TCE PUBLIC NOT1CE VA1L 1'OVVN COIINCIL MEETING SCHEDl1LE (as of 5/30/96) JUNE, 1996 ln an attempt to respond to scheduled meeting demands, as well as adhere to mandated ordinance and charter requirements, Council meetings are scheduled at the following times: E\/EAIING MEE1'INGS Evening meetings witl continue to be held on the first and third Tuesday evenings of each month, starting at 7:30 P.M. These meetings wrili provide a forum for citizen participation and public audience for conducting regular Council business. WOttlC SESSIOAIS 1Mork sessions, which are primarily scheduled for Council debate and understanding of issues before the Council, wifl now be scheduled to begin at 2:00 P.M. (un{ess othervvise noted) on everv Tuesday afternoon. THE il1NE, 1996, \/AIL TOWN COllAICIL MEETING SCHEDIILE YS AS FOLLOWS: Tuesday, une 4„1996 Work session..vo.<...o.. 2:00 P.M. (start+ng time determined by length of agenda) Evenmg meeting o.a..veo. 07:30 P.M. Tuesday, une l la 1996 . VNork session.a.e........ 02:00 P.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda) Tuesday, ]une 180 1996 VVork session....se...... 2a00 P.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda) Evening meeting......<.. 07:30 P.M. 1'uesday,~lune 25., 1996 WOCk SeSSIOtleoe..voee... 02:00 P.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda) 1'O!A!N OF liRIL Pamela A. Brandmeyer Assistant 'fowrn Nfanager Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. i 304 BRIDGE ST. o VAIL, CO 81657 ~HOCOLATE TELEPHONE: (303) 476-7623 *FACT~~YIW ^Qbil. 19 April 1996 !laii Town Couneil 75 Frontage Road , !lall, COIQPad4 81 657 Dear Gouncil: Ihave been a resident of Vaii for approxirnateBy 9 years and own and operate the Rockyy Mountain Chocolate factory. For the past 4 years I have been appointed to 4he LocaE Lieensing Authority and for the past year 1 have served as chairperson of this authority. This letter is to request that I be appointed for a third term. IfeeI 4ha4 with the past 4 years experience 1 am nnore than qaaa(ifed to serve another term. I have a very comfortable working reiationship with both the Town Cierk and the Tawn Attarney and enjay working with the present atathoriYy rr?eenbers. y I will make myself available for any questians or discussion necessary for this request. SincereBy, ~ y ~ ~ Don White 304 Bridge St. !lail, CO 81657 (970) 476-6835 . R El.~6``~ r+Ym I COIIIIIe Klllglt Presideat 5197 Black Gore Drive •Vail, CO 81657 •Telephone 6i FAX: (303) 476-3615* • Afier April 1995 area code will change io (970) ~ ~ I April 24, 1996 Town of Vail Council Members 75 S. Frontage Road , Vail, CO 81657 ~ Dear Council Members: Having served on the Local Licensing Authority for only six months, I would like an opportunity to continue. I • Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, - Connie Knight I n~ . ' I l l ~ ~ 6•~', . . l! ~ E . r . . . ~d ~ r' ~I'11 r n i rr. COriIlle Killglt, President 5197 Biack Gore Drive -Vail, CO 81657 -T l~on2 6t'.FAX: (970) 476-3615 Kb I 1VIay 17, 1996 Town of Vail Council Members 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Council Members: Being the month of May and off season, I will be out-of-town for the next two weeks attending a wedding in Michigan and visiting family and friends. • I sincerely hope you will not interpret my absence from the interviews you will be conducting on Tuesday for the Local Licensing Authority as a disinterest on my part. Having served on the board for just six months, I just now feel I have a better understanding of my responsibilities and obligations. In addition, Tom 1Vloorhead has seen to it that we have reviewed a video of "Robert's Rules of Order" and while I can't pretend to fully understand all the legal procedures, I am far more apt than before. All of which, I believe, will make me a better, more qualified board member. - Thank you for.your consideration. Sincerely yours, 9 Connie Knight < , . . ° k.,: ~ . ~ . tVs ~ ~~~~~~~~D REDEVELOPMENT v~ffL ASSOCffATES PROJECT TEAM 6/4/96 Jnm Tflnougapson, ]Presideang, Vaafl Associates Rea? ]Estage Grounp lEd O9BrIleHIy Vice Presadeng/C]FO, Vaa9 Associates Ilt¢a? lEstate Groanp IlDavndl Coa-bnn, VflCe Plt'eSfldIeHIlt-DevellopBment, Vanl Associates Rea9 Estage Groanp Ch1CHS RyffiaIIIly SH'. VllCe PII'e3HdeIIflt9 VallIl ASSOC9ageSy IHIlC. BaflIl Kaune, lPrnmcipaIl, Desngaa Woa-ksshop, Inc., laaadl plaannnaag andl desagn fferaffn Davad Kenyon, Manager-Vaall offfce, Design Worksflnop, IInc. Sherv-y Doa~ard, ILandscape Au-ehigecg, Desflgn Workshop, ff uac. Jack Zelnren, Pu-incipal and President, Zehren & Assocaages, Inc., archngects Ron Kretz, As$ocnage, Zehreffi & Associates, Ince ]Peter lLeCflagr, ]Pa-o,y. Maanager, Heaasefl lPlneflps Couasgrauction Co., genea-aIl contractoa- WS l~ ~ • ~G wrlu t,~--J LIONSHEAD 2000 REDEVELOPMENT STUDIES Town of Vail - Council presentation - 6/4/96 VAIL ASSOCIATES ("VAI") AND VAIL ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE GROUP ("VAREG") REQUEST THE APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL TO UNDERTAKE WITH TOWN OF VAIL ("TOV") MANAGEMENT A JOINT STUDY OR EVALUATION OF: (1) Public/private partnerships (both broad based & site specifc) and downtown redevelopment or urban renewal districts and authorities, including an investigation of: how these partnerships or authorities are created, what their powers are, who the participants are, how these entities are led or managed, what purposes or improvements may be served through such entities, and what financing options, including tax increment financing, are available to fund the work of the partnership or authority; (2) Possible revision or redefinition of the Lionshead master plan, zoning ordinances, and design guidelines; and (3) The scope, feasibility and conceptual venture formats of the Lionshead hotel, conference center, parking, and core redevelopment plans suggested and presented by Vail Associates. PARTICIPATION IN THE STUDY OR EVALUATION SHALL INCLUDE: Vail Associates real estate development and operational senior management, The Tawn Manager or his designees, including the Directors of Community Development and the Department of Public Works, Planners, architects and other experts or urban renewal specialists hired by VAREG and/or TOV; and The community at large, including Lionshead and Vail stakeholders, some directly, others through personal interviews, public forums, or scoping sessions. THE SCOPE AND SUBSTANCE OF THE STUDY OR EVALUATION, TOGETHER WITH THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF VAREG AND TOV SHALL BE SET FORTH IN A WRITTEN LETTER AGREEMENT TO BE SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES. PRELIMINARY FUNDING OF THE STUDY OR EVALUATION, AS WELL AS PREDEVELOPMENT LAND PLANNING AND DESIGN EXPENSES, SHALL BE ADVANCED BY VAIL ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE GROUP. THESE COSTS AND EXPENSES SHALL BE EQUITABLY ALLOCATED OR APPORTIONED AS MORE FULLY SET FORTH IN THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOV AND VAREG. THE JOINT STUDY SHALL RESULT IN A REPORT TO THE COUNCIL, TO BE COMPLETED AND PRESENTED PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, WHICH SHALL MAKE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS OR PROPOSALS REGARDING: (1) One or more public/private ventures designed to implement redevelopment in Lionshead; (2) Development agreements or contracts between TOV and VAREG and/or other third parties necessary to eff'ect redevelopment; (3) The creation of downtown development or urban renewal districts or authorities; (4) Financing mechanisms, including tax increment financing, which might be utilized to fund or incent rcdevelopment; (5) The drafting or adoption of new or revised master plans, zoning ordinances, and design guidelines for Lionshead; and (6) The nature, scope, feasibility, and type of venture concerning a proposed hotel and conference site in Lionshead on property owned by TOV. 9 a , STATE OF TIrtl~ ~NVIRON9VSENT REPORT FOR VAILy COLORADO June, 1996 ~~VIRo~~~TAL ~~RATEGIc ~LAN The purpose of this report is to provide an update on environmental health related projects and actions identified in the Town of Vail Environmental Strategic Plan. The Vail Environmental Strategic Plan provides a long-term vision to protect Vail's environmental quality. The vision statement is the cornerstone for the goals, and action plans that are identif`ied in this plan. Community members, business leaders, and other governmental entities created the vision statement, identified major goal areas, and specific actions that needed to be addressed in the plan. This vision statement rec- VISION STATEMEiVT Environmenga? Effcaency: ognizes the link between environ- Improve efficiency in water, en- mental quality and economic «Yhe Town of yai9 wil9 be a Beader an ergy, and waste management in development and that a balance is natuP2?0 PeSOUPCe StewBrdshap aP1d businesses, residences, and in needed between these two ele- yyIBV strive, as a community, to attain Sovernment. ments. It also recognizes the need enyoPOnrmental and ecoaoomiC to ensure a healthy environment suStBinebslity.°' lEnveronmental Manmge- and economy for future genera- uveeng and Complfianee: Ensure tions while protecting historical environmental compliance through and cultural values in the community. This Vision is proactive environmental management that will identify supported by four goal areas: Vail as an environmental leader. Swsta6reab?e Band use iregaelatuon and econounic The Environmental Strategic Plan was adopted on deveDopment: Ensure new development is consistent with November 5,1994. It provides a work plan for the next 4 to the carrying capacity ofthe area's natural environment and 5 years. In 1996, the Town of Vail received national man-made resources and provide information to recognition from Renew America (a national award encourage community support for environmental quality. committee) for implementing an outstanding environmen- tal program and was placed in a international database of x lEcosystem PQOtectioae: Protect the areas natural environmental success stories. The following work areas resources (air, water, soils, natural habitat) and recognize and projects were identified as priority actions in the that they are interconnected and interdependent. Strategic Plan. AREAS There are approximately 2,000 dirty burning fireplaces in AgR QUALITY, guest lodges in Vail. In 1993, the Town and Eagle County ' initiated a summer "change out program" with the The air quality project has been an ongoing work cooperation of the County, Public Service, and azea area. When the Vail Town Council passed the revised vendors. This program included education and incentives to fireplace ordinance in September of 1991, approval was encourage property owners to convert to clean burning alternatives. In addition, information brochures have been based largely on the. condition that a public education produced and the Town has worked with the media to program be developed and implemented. To focus . inform lodges and residents of the clean burning educational efforts and incentives, the Town analyzed 10 alternatives. Through this cooperative incentive and years of air quality data. Vail is prone to air inversions educational effort, over 500 voluntary conversions from when particulates from woodburning, auto emissions, and «dirty" woodburners to "clean" burning technologies have road sanding tend to hang close to the ground causing a occurred in the Town of Vail. brown haze. In addition, airborne particulates can pose a health concern. To help ensure particulate levels don't The other major source of particulates is from reach a point where human health is impacted, particulate resuspend solids (i.e., road dust). To address this part of the levels (PM,o) are monitored by the State of Colorado on a problem, the Town of Vail has switched to the use of daily basis at the Forest Rd. Waste Water Treatment volcaniccindersforroadapplicationsduringwinterstorms. facility. Cinders are less likely to become airborne than sand and In Vail, particulate impacts are largely attribut- to air borne particulate levels. The major air quality able to the use of fireplaces, primarily from guest lodging. add challenge Vail will face in the future is air quality impacts i ~ ~ Nr Oudlty Progrem * 2M n 3) Analyzing new data from the US~GS monitoring t station and historical information using an integrated databas e. zoo Nf f#~ 3~i : ' zo 4) Developing and implementin9 a watershed his actions o ntial g frm t Pote m. mnae e rgra m nt Po a i i e a h b tat imo ;::::>::::;:::<><:<:: study g pr veme PoJcts, r < nt e i:;;:«»::>:::<::'::>:;:';>::: mi ht includ i. > o r u e i t Pr ct ces o ed c men a t t manage nting bes ~ imPleme E i € ks. to stream setbac r changes n o n s ru offad/ ,o ,00 : ~ rte o T r f ' ved the first 9ua r cie n has e T w o date, the o S so water uali information from the USGS. This Q tY Phorus 1 vels e vated o le oes indicate e PreliminarY data d Ph si Q n Bi 1 0ical r ' ~ant a ea of co c i n~f c s ein t e o m st g g as b g h i~ "9 '~Z monitoring wilt begin this summer w~ ern. o hich will help ~Sum ol Qlrs9aiora determine the significance of rising nutnent and sediment loading. In addition, the Colorado iDepartment of from the I-70 corridor. Although impacts from I-70 will Transportation has expressed strong interest in participat- continue to be a concern, the conversion of a significant ing, as a financial partner, in this program. number of fireplaces and the use of volcanic cinders has ~ resulted in a steady decrease in annual particulate levels IMPLEM]ENTATION OF THE COMP][tEHENSIVE since 1989. OPEN LANDS PLAN WATER QUALITY In March of 1994 the Town of Vail adopted the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan (COLP) The purpose of In 1995 the Town of Vail adopted the Nonpoint the plan is to acquire or protect key remaining open space Source Water Quality Plan and the Eagle River Watershed parcels that are valuable for protecting sensitive natural Plan. The Nonpoint Source Water Quality Plan involves resources, providing for outdoor recreation, extending or significant water quality monitoring and identifies land uses that significantly contribute to pollution loading in Ezisting Larni Use Gore Creek. The plan also analyzes historical information . _ I and concluded that nutrient and sediment concentrations have increased significantly in the last 10 years. The plan We20%~ ! Ras~~~ ` identifies specific actions to reduce pollution loading from i 23' runoff. Specific projects staff will be working on in 1996 include: an erosion control guideline manual and an Ski Area r educational Program for landscaPers and home owne s to v~koes reduce water quality impacts from lawn-care chemical 4% \\~,\~{~\•:'":vii:{v}.; aPPlications. The Plan also recognizes the need to better -X:i,''~.~''.''.,•'~.,,,`~,':;,~;~. •rytv\ M11,.:\,ti;+.'y\ti.•.~4'v:."•:.~~ . .aa~, a~:'• w~`,.,~t~:~a '`E`33;?::;<:.,, understand the nhealthn of aQuatic life in Gore Creek. A Commerclal a:.::~'. ; •Cv Cti~~;~: v.C'c' \'',:~i~~~: 1 % , , P , artnershiP has been formed between Vail Associates . , ,~:•...~.:~.a...;~ 4'i\\\h\1\\l\~S.\k~hA'\\~~~\~~• i'~:\:i~iti}~y:::: vti8'•i\ .~:;:.:,•,:~;:<:;;?'~:i;~*;~ • Town of Vail, J Vail ValleV Consolidated Water District, ; Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District, and the U.S. GeoloSical SurveY ~SGS) to address water g' oc~a~r .~.r.. . ~~.`a ~s% ore Creek oan s~e .1 9 : ualit , quantitY, and aquatic life issues in the G ~a~ . watershed. One of the major products of the Gore Creek PLN~ use Watershed Management Program will be a plan that will 2% rovide a framework for coordination and coo eration ~ P p connecting trails, and creating a certain amount of lands between key public and private interests. The mission of that could be used for other public needs.1 The plan defines the partnership is to "characterize, protect, and improve a 4 year action plan and involves 51 parcels. The highest water quality, stream flow, aquatic life, wetlands, and priority for open space acquisitio'n/protection are riparian habitat in the Gore Creek watershed while environmentally sensitive areas. In the last year the Town maintaining beneficial waters uses." Specific actions in has purchased 120 acres of open space ~and currently has this project include: 1,100 acres of open space in the Town of Vail or approximately33%ofthetotallandarea: Much ofthe open 1) Establishing a USGS water quality and biological space that has been acquired has beeri sensitive natural monitoring station on Gore Creek. habitat, wetlands, and stream tract areas. 2) Collecting and synthesizing current and historical I land use, water quality, water quantity, and aquatic life i information. I 1 0 5taff will also be working on the Land Exchange with the Forest Service. The purpose of this exchange is to Eagge County g,W, Sources acquire USFS lands in the Town of Vail that are attractive for a private exchange and where identified in the COLP. ¦Ta""d vai The exchan e invoives 4 arcels ofTown ro erttotallin p~~ g P P P Y g s, ¦ Awn & eeav~r 84 acres and 11 parcels ofForest Service land totalling 108 ~o~~° cree~c acres. This process will involve 55 steps. The current time a M"tum frame for the project would enable the Town and Forest 70% 13 Eagle-VaiI Service to enter into a legally binding agreement by May of 1996 and convey the land by the end of the summer in 1996. 1% 46% ¦ F.c6wds 30/1. » The Town is also moving forward with the 13 Woloon creation of an interconnected trails system. The Dowd ¦Gypum Junction trail is'scheduled to be completed in 1996 which will allow a safe connection through Dowd Junction for cyclists. The Town and Forest Service will also begin work 2c_,/ ¦otw on the first 4 miles ofthe 11 mile "North Trail." This trail Uri"=poraMd is intended to provide a high quality trail experience for a wide variety oftrail users and reduce pressure on wilderness area traiis. Volunteers will he used extensively for the SOY.,HD VVASTE POI,ICY construction of the trail. Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado are planning a major project on the trail in June that will According to the Eagle County Solid Waste bring 300 people from the front range. The Town 9eas Management Plan (July 1993) 46% of the waste generating received three aewards for the implementation of the population of Eagle County is represented in Vail. This COLP: 1) National Award from the American Society of plan also indicated that the Landfill which in 1990 had a 20 Landscape Architecture (ASLA), 2) Outstanding Planning year life expectancy in 1993 only had a 13 year life award from the Colorado American Planning Association, expectancy. The landfill is filling much quicker than and an outstanding plan and design award from the expected and a comprehensive effort is needed to reduce, Colorado ASLA. reuse, or recycle more waste. ]ENVIRO1VIVIEN'd'AL IEXCEILILENCIE AVVARD The Town has initiated a planning effort in conjunction with Eagle County, We Recycle, Vail In 1994, the Vail Town Council approved creation Associates, Vail Iviedical Center, BFI, and Honeywagon to of the Mauri Nottingham Vail Environmental Quality develop a solid waste management plan for the Town of Award. This award is intended to promote environmentally Vail. This information will also be used for future County sound practices and encourage innovative environmental planning efforts. initiatives to protect our resort community. There are three categories for the award; individual, student, and business. At this point in the planning process, the Town is The first award ceremony occurred in 1995 and included collecting information on waste characteristics and the following winners: quantity from waste sorts at the landfill. Preliminary results indicate a large proportion of the waste stream is #The Antlers won the Business of the Year category construction and demolition waste. In addition, there for its fireplace change-out program. appears to be a very high quantity of food waste when -*The Johnson Family won the Individual of the Year compared to national averages. Information on Vail's category for placing land in the Eagle Valley Land waste characteristics will help identify actions that will Trust. most cost-effectively reduce waste generalion rates in the * The students of Eagle Valley High School won the Town of Vail. student award for the creation of a"BiaBuilding." PAt'&'1VEIt3HIP FOIt ENVIItON1VIEI+ITA][. EDg.TCA- A variety of awards are donated for this program. Tff ON A1VD d'ROGItAMS Last year these awards included an annual ski pass, VRD tennis pass, gas grill from Public Service, $50 gift The idea for this partnership came from a group certificate from Alfalfas, and a print from KZYR. of people representing Vail Associates, U.S. Forest Nominations are currently being requested for this years Service, Trees for Vail, Town of Vail, Vail Recreation award and an awards ceremony will be scheduled for early District, and the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens. In working June. with each other on various projects, it became apparent that many individuals and organizations in Vail and Eagle County were working on environmentally related ! ; programs. However, it was found that few of these ONGOIIVG ACTIVITIES ` . programs were coordinated and that few guests, residents, : and teachers had a full understanding of the available Environmental Rcviewc: Staff assist developers in resources in the Vail and Eagle Valley that are available identifying and reducing environmental impacts associated for environmental education. On July 21, 1995, approxi- with development projects. With maji r projects (i.e. mately 30 people met at Eagles Nest on Vail Mountain GoldenPeak)staffwillworkwithadevelopertoprepare an to discuss the framework for creating a partnership and Environmental Impact Report. With smaller projects, staff specific actions this partnership could address. It was will work to reduce environmental impacts by making agreed that a partnership should be created and specific recommendations for building plans. Staff often acts as a actions were identified that this partnership could liaison between the Corps ofEngincers, Forest Service, aad implement. The following are actions the partnership aze Federal Emergency Management Agency on development currently working on: projects. * Speaker series on the economics of being green. Environmental Inci nts: Responding to hazardous * The Earth Fest, scheduled for June 22, will com- waste spills, indoor air quality complaints, asbestos bine the Trees for Vail event and a speaker series from removal problems, tree removal, contamination of surface the Alpine Gardens into a fun filled weakend of waTer are also tasks conducted by environmental health education, music, and hands on events. personnel. Staff has a goal of responding to environmental * An environmental summer camp is being planned incidents immediately after being notified. that will provide a one week camp experience on natwal resources for middie school aged children. Environmental Education: Staff also answers * A program has been created to involve science questions daily on environmental issues and regulations. classes in environmental projects. Last year the Vail Staff also works with the schools on environmental projects Mt. School participated in the Katsos Ranch wetland and occasionally appear on television and radio to discuss project. ~ environmental issues. * The partnership will also be working on a tist of educational and hands-on events for guests and EnvironmentalAudits: Staffhave taken an active role residents. in evaluating Town facilities and actions to determine environmental compliance. An audit was done in 1994 of TREE/VEGETATION ORDINANCE: the Town shops and a number of remedial actions were derived from that audit. Staff will continue to audit and The Town cunently has a DRB regulation that ensure remedial actions occur to maintain regulatory ~ requires Design Review Board Approval before live compliance. vegetation can be removed. This regulation has several problems ihat staff hope to correct. One key issue that we Participation in the Eaele River Environmental are hoping to address through this ordinance is improved Business Alliance (EREBA): The Eagle Mine, located protection of riparian and wetland vegetation. Also this south of Minturn was declared as a Superifund site in 1988. ordinance will have stronger enforcement language to Impacts from the mine includes: high heavy metal protect mature trees during construction. concentrations in water quality, near elimination of fish - populations within 3-4 miles downstream of the mine, and BEARS & REFUSE posed a threat to drinking water. EREBA was established to help monitor the clean-up of the mine. Town of Vail staff Since 1993 the Division of Wildlife and the Town have participated in EREBA meetings, site visits, and press of Vail have seen a significant inerease in number of Black releases and the annual fish monitoring project. Since the Bears getting into refuse containers in the Town of Vail . clean-up has begun water quality has improved . Over 300 bears were reported in Town in 1995. This has significantly and trout are now found in the Eagle River presented a safety concern for residents and guests that downsueam of the mine. Continued monitoring is needed, might accidenfly come into contact with a bear. In especially since the Vail water system now uses water from addition, the DOW has initiated a stricter policy on putting the Eagle River. down bears that might pose a threat. To address this issue, staff have examined bear policies in other communities that Parcicination in Water Ouantitv/Ouality Forums: • are. intended to separate bears from garbage. Staff will be Town staff actively participate in the Colorado Headwater scheduling a worksession with Council prior to the Spring Forum, Eagle River Assembly, 208 wate'r quality plan, and melt to discuss policy options to help address the bear issue Eagle River Watershed Plan. A key issue in these forums is in the Town of Vail. how to protect water quality and quantity in Gore Creek and Eagle River. - g IS o C.i.tal`'rLtZ4~'~ ~ /CticSc~=2C.fc = ESUBDIVISION OF OL S 6 L r~ ~Z I LOT 71 BLOCK 2 9 !/AIL POTATO PATCH T~ 8 ~ o '~ii 12 772 I 774 776 o rR acz c J. _ .75 4,5e VAI L POTATO PATC H 6 0 7 756 SECOND FILINC '36 748 - O ~ SANDY LkfSE 746 °LK. I RED SANDSTONE `SOLAR ELENcNTARY VQIL a 551 0 501 0 0 iNTERSTATE T.0.v., A ES B~ I o FEDES7n1AN T~~"~ c BLOCK I y Vf1IL L ~ - SU!J VAIL 01'c"Rr::SS 0 0 - VANTAGE Z p;:RKINv o K'rST- 508 VHI NSHE,4D STRU~CTU^E VAIL POf NORTH DAY I.~ ~ti'l t.' CS I b ` p~ 5 INTERNATION 4 PARKING LOT 549 S' ISi. i IItlG o 300 o LIO VA DUE sao` ~-~1- a VAI IONSHEAD ~9 LIO~ t~' ~ °-Pth. CIq0'~I1tl~'y LAN ARK LiFTHOUSE EiiST LioNgkEAD Ci CLE a iCE PREn~a 2nd I CGy ~GI I I ~ I ~ 705 2! 5 T^=i..~ F ~ n. O E~~ZIAN 1 IC~~c~,c',,p 450 321 2 ~ TRACT f o^I6 ~C RCADr. (conmzruol) 6 531 LODGE AT L1 N HEAO , TRACT A TRACTC iFEETOPS 6 Ub^A'l PA o MONT.+ ~h~EftOS r75 I~60`~~ ~A 452 ~ACT J_ / zoZ F ~ 684 2 LIONSW.EAD 5 O -?A I 281 7R T N 8 CcNTER ~ LION'S SQUARE 52 M RRIOTT e. NORTH I'EDI g MARK o 635 I • 272 714 TRACT D UNPLATTED 'i ACT B 282 7 23i ANTL~ERS o LION'S LODGE SQUAR TRACT B 660 3 1 TRACT A ~ G381 pr,M WaCLE ~ 525 FOREST RG:+~~{j~ OA) ~ 42 365 YHIL LIO'vSHEAD 2 V o ~ ILL. G 3~ 6 /AIL LION ~ T07 LOT 401 ~ FIL ~ 330 i` SKIER 6RIDGE 4 363 ~ 1 275 ~RACT B ~ 383 2 2a-5 O 675 IO ~A., 4 3 RO J 4 6 J G ~~r3 693 5 625 TEn~~~S 5 8 9 IO 19 ~A a S 725 o 6~5 Q~J^T$ 463 ~P 37 54 4 ~ 4 324 ~4 7 434 2 20 21 O 0 ~f ST O s 394 2 I IB 285 265 I 5 42 375 gg 355 325 10 9 8 7 I 0 454 ~6l6 5 4 2 1 327 17 307 176 3 0 716 706 696 636 616 596 S6 6 556 TRACT A I 4O 6 5 4 3 2 338 z p~~ LLA E6 . L G 466 446 424 416 366 I 15 298 278 ^iinnl% nc,inai 10 t/All I I(1~ICL1~/ifl ~ Y . . . 'fViINUTES - VAIL TOWN COUiVCIL MEETING May 7, 1996 7:30 P. M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, May 7, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESEiVT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Kevin Foley Mike Jewett Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz MEfVIBERS ABSEiVT: Sybill Navas Rob Ford TOWN OFFICIALS PRESEIVT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly L. fVlcCutcheon, Town Clerk The first oterra on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Item number 4wo on the agenda was the Consent Agenda which consisted of the approval of the Nlinutes for the meetings of April 2 and 16, 1996. A motion; was made by Kevin Foley to approve the Consent Agenda, and Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance amending Title 18 Zoning, Chapters 18.12 (Two-Family Residential (R) District), 18.13 (Primary/Secondary Residential District, 18.54 (Design Review), 18.56 (Environmental Impact Reports), 18.58 (Supplemental Regulations), 18.60 (Conditional Use Permits), 18.62 (Variances), and 18.66 (Administration) with respect to Administration and Appeals Procedure of the Vail Municipal Code. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town Planner, Dominic Mauriello, presented the item and gave the following background: On March 5, 1996, the Council reviewed a proposal to consolidate and amend the appeals process for the Zoning Code. Council recommended that the proposal be reworked in order to preserve an applicant's ability to appeal to the Town Council and to preserve Council's ability to call-up a decision of staff or one of the boards. The proposal had been revised to comply with Council's concerns. The revised policy consolidates the appeals process into one chapter of the Zoning Code. Dominic then referred to a memo dated May 7 to Council detailing the proposed code changes and processes, and further stated the staff's recommendation was for approval of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1996, on first reading. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead restated that the primary objective of the ordinance was to put the appeals process into one section, alleviating inconsistencies which currently existed. He continued, stating that Dominic had put a lot of time into writing the ordinance and had thoroughly researched regulations in place in other states. Ludwig moved to approve Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1996 on first reading, and Paul Johnston seconded the motion. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. Michael Jewett commended Dominic for a job well done. Agenda item number four was Ordinance iVo. 8, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance fVo. 7, Series of 1994, to amend the development plans and allow for flexibility in the outdoor lighting requirement for Special Development District No. 32, in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town Planner, George Ruther, presented the item and provided the following background: On Tuesday, March 5, 1996, Tom Braun, representing David Smith, appeared before the Vail Town Council for first reading of an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, to allow for the construction of a Type III employee housing unit within the Cornice Building and to allow for greater flexibility in the outdoor lighting requirement for the Cornice Building. The applicant has since withdrawn his request for a Type II I employee housing unit within the Cornice Building, however, continued to request the flexibility in the outdoor lighting requirement for the Cornice Building. Ordinance iVo. 8, Series of 1996, had been amended to reflect the current request. George reminded council members that the applicant was requesting approval of a Major Amendment to Special Development District No. 32, to allow for twelve outdoor light fixtures on the Cornice Building, and that according to existing Town of Vail Design Guidelines, only three outdoor lights would be allowed on the property (one per 1,000 sq. ft. of lot area). George continued, stating the applicant had indicated that the abnormally small lot size of the Cornice Building lot did not adequately address the true outdoor lighting needs of a residential property. The proposed lighting plan had been illustrated on amended development plans. Council was informed that Staff's recommendation, in accordance with the 02/02/96 memorandum prepared by staff for the Planning and Environmental Commission, (PEC), was for approval of the proposed Major Amendment to Special Development District No. 32, the Cornice Building. A motion was made by Paul Johnston to approve Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1996, with a second by Ludwig. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. Mayor Armour then congratulated George on his recent marriage engagement. 1 Vail Town Councll Evening Meetlng Minules May 7, 7998 r . a Fifth on the agenda was Resolution No. 6, Series of 1996 to adopt the 208 Region Xll Water Quality Management Plan. Environmental Health Officer, Russell Forrest, requested the Council review and consider adoption of the 208 Plan for the Town of Vail, as recommended by staff, and provided the following information: The 208 plan is a required plan for coordinated regional water quality management under Section 208 of the Federal Clean Water Act. There are two volumes of the 208 plan. Volume 1 identifies six broad policies for water quality management. Volume 2 contaifis specific watershed plans. One of these Watershed plans is for the Eagle River Watershed which includes Gore Creek. This plan addresses specific actions to protect and improve water quality in the Eagle River and Gore Creek. Issues and recommendations in the plan address point sources of pollution, nonpoint sources, and stream flow. The recommendations in this Plan can be used to modify state water quality standards and to provide direction for local water resource management. Russell informed Council members that the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG), of which the Town of Vail is a member, had been designated by the Governor as the area wide waste treatment management planning authority under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act and was asking its members to adopt the plan. He continued, stating the plan did not identify any new issues and that the Town was already addressing the issues outlined in the plan. Kevin moved to approve Resolution No. 6, Series of 1996, and the motion was seconded by Ludwig. Mike Jewett, clarifying an earlier discussion with Russell, stated he was not "bashing" him, but was only expressing his concern that stream tract property values could be adversely effected by adoption of the plan. A vote was then taken and approved 5-0. Item number six on the agenda was an appeal by Carroll Orrison, owner of Lot 10, Block 2, Lions Ridge Filing #4 (1464 AspenGrove Lane) of the PEC's decision to deny both a front yard setback variance and a request to utilize the 250 Ordinance. The request would have allowed for a garage and a Type I employee housing unit to be constructed on the property within the front setback. Town Planner, Mike Mollica summarized the staff's memo of April 8, and stated the applicant's request was for a 19' setback variance to encroach into the front setback of the property and utilization of the 250 ordinance in building an additional two-car garage and an upper level caretaker's unit on top of an existing underground garage. Mike continued, explaining that the PEC's motion to deny the requested variance and 250 utilization included the staff's findings as discussed in the memorandum, as well as the additional finding that the approval of the variance and 250 utilization would be a grant of speciaf privilege, and that the PEC's vote was unanimous (6-0) for denial. Further, Mike stated that the Department of Community Development recommended denial of the applicant's appeal of the PEC's decision regarding a front yard setback variance, as well the PEC's decision regarding the utilization of the 250 Ordinance. The staff believed that the review criteria had not been met, as specified in the staff memorandum to the PEC. Rick Rosen, legal council for the applicant, introduced himself and the applicant's land use planner, Tom Braun. Nfr. Rosen explained the reason for his client's appeal and said he did not think the PEC followed the necessary criteria as outlined in the Town Code's variance chapter. Tom Braun then explained why he felt the request was valid, citing physical hardship, that the lot was difficult, and presented diagrams of the proposed addition. At that time RC Stevenson of Dunn, Abplanalp & Christensen, addressed the Council, stating he represented the Kullers, owners of adjacent Lot 7. He then introduced the Kullers' architect, John Gunson. Mr. Gunson stated he was involved with the selection of Lot 7, and that the Kullers chose the lot because of the proximity to the town and the views. He provided information regarding a site analysis that was used in determining sun angles, wind directions, topography, setbacks and most importantly, the views from the lot, and distributed a sheet detailing the potential negative views. He called the proposed addition obtrusive and suggested other alternatives. Property owner, Judy Kuller, informed Council of the impact on her property, requesting the setbacks be adhered to, and the variance be denied. Greg fVioffit, Chairman of PEC informed Council that the minutes adequately expressed the findings, and said he was available to address any questions. . Applicant, Carroll Orrison spoke briefly, reviewing his request. Kevin Foley asked Mrs. Kuller if they had plans to build an employee housing unit on their property and was told not at the present time. Paul moved to uphold the decision of the PEC and Ludwig seconded the motion. Mayor Armor stated that although there were no regulations in place to protect private view corridors, setbacks were a means to create a view corridor, and that a one story garage was the only thing which has been allowed in the front setback. A vote was then taken and approved, 4-1, Kevin voting in opposition because, he said, of the loss of an employee housing unit. Seventh on the agenda v?ras an update on the Vai! Commons lottery applications and process. Town Planner, Andy Knudtsen communicated that 76 applicants had turned in applications and that the Town had received good exposure on the news and in the paper. Andy continued, stating the drawing would be held on May 20 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, and that tiers would be published in the Vai1 Trail on Nlay 17. He then informed Council members that a survey would be going out to individuals who expressed interest in the project to determine in detail what people were looking for and why more applications weren't turned in. Two home owners will be deed restricting their units, he said. Mayor Armor stated he felt the survey would be important and would reveal some useful information. 2 Vail Town Council Evening MeeGng Minutes May 7, 1998 1 9 Council then adjourned for a short 5-minute break at 8:35 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened at approximately 8:40 p.m. Item number eight was an appeal of Design Review Board (DRB) upholding of zoning administrator's decision to approve a buffer to be built between the International Wing proposed addition and the existing condominiums. Appellant: Anita Saltz. Andy Knudtsen presented the item and gave the following background: On March 7, 1996, Andy Knudtsen with staff consultation, approved the submitted plans for the buffer to be constructed between the penthouse on the International Wing and the existing condominium dwelling units. The staff decision was appealed to the DRB. The DRB upheld the staff decision on April 3, 1996 unanimously. And the DRB decision was appealed. Bob Armour acknowledged receipt of letters from Art Abplanalp, East Village Homeowners, Ann Frick and stated that certain issues raised did not address the buffer and that such issues were to be resolved in District Court. In December the project was approved with the condition that additional buffering be placed to improve the visual impacts from the adjacent property owners. Andy reviewed the drawings of the proposed buffer. Jay Peterson, attorney representing the Lodge at Vail, addressed council members, stating that his client was unable to determine what specifically the objection was, as far as the landscaping plan was concerned. Anita Saltz, owner Unit #527, told Council that she bought her unit in 1986, and said they were told at that time there was a possibility, albeit slim, that an additional building would be built. Ms. Saltz then showed council members photographs of the model she was shown at the time she bought her unit. Rick Rosen, legal council to Dr. James and,Nirs. Cavenaugh, owners of unit 533, said that his clients also understood there would be a structure buiVt, and stated that Jay Peterson and the Lodge Properties, Inc. architects had gone out of their way to address his clients' concerns. He agreed that the buffer zone approved by DRB should continue to be approved, and stated, "Let's move forward and do what needs to be done. " Jim Brown, attorney representing the Lodge Apartment Condominium Association said he was directed to be keep a neutral position, and wanted to clarify for the record that the Association did not have an objection to the design of the buffer. Architect representing Anita Saltz, Lynn Fritzlen, questioned Andy Knudtsen and asked if the Towrn had taken the position that no trespassing would occur. Tom Moorhead stated Nis. Fritzlen's question was inappropriate, and that the issue of trespass had been filed in District Court. Niichael Arnett spoke on behalf of the DRB and staff's decision and stated that staff had done "a smashing job" He then reiterated that the issue before the Council related to the buffer. Ludwig moved to uphold the DRB's decision and that of the zoning administrator and to deny the appeal. The motion was seconded by Paul. A vote was taken and approved, 4-1, Mike Jewett voting in opposition. Item number nine on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin updated Council members on a request from the Art In Public Places board (AIPP) for a$77,390 contribution to centis piece for a transparent sculpture at Seibert Circle. Pam stated that the staff recommendation was for $50,000 and that $60,000 had already " been budgeted for a fountain in connection with the reconstruction of Seibert Circle. Council members agreed to discuss it at the May 14 work session, giving Kevin an opportunity to attend the AIPP meeting. Bob then informed that $300,000 in state funds had been granted for design work on the West Vail Interchange project. Bob said the Town was currently interviewing three engineering firms to help determine what solutions might work for the designing of a new West Vail Interchange. Pam stated that the water supply to parks and fountains would be turned on May 17, with the exception of the Childrens Fountain, which would come on after the Creekside Condominium water line construction was complete. There being no further business a motion was made for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST: Holly fVicCuficheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly McCutcheon (*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be in(Tccurate.) 3 Vail Town Council Evening Meetlng Minutes May 7, 1996 iVlIIVUTES VAIL TOWN COUiVCIL iVIEETING fVlay 21, 1996 . 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, May 21, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Kevin Foley Mike Jewett Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz Sybill Navas. MEMBERS ABSERIT: Rob Ford TOWN OFFICIALS PRESEiVT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first iteava on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Itern numbeP two on the agenda was the Consent Agenda which consisted of Ordinance No. 7, Series of .1996, second reading of an ordinance amending Title 18 Zoning, Chapters 18.12 (Two-Family Residential (R) District), 18.13 (Primary/Secondary Residential District, 18.54 (Design Review), 18.56 (Environmental Impact Reports), 18.58 (Supplemental Regulations), 18.60 (Conditional Use Permits), 18.62 (Variances), and 18.66 (Administration) with respect to Administration and Appeals Procedure of the Vail Municipal Code. Sybill moved to remove Ordinance 7 from the Consent Agenda, with a second from Mike Jewett. Sybill and Mike said they were concerned about the new filing fee proposed in the ordinance to cover town costs. Town Planner, Dominic Mauriello, suggested using language that would allow Council to set the fee, however not require it. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead stated that requiring a fee was quite appropriate, given the staff time involved. Council members requested some minor changes be made. Mike Jewett then moved to table Ordinance 7 to the next evening meeting to allow for staff review and other changes. Assistant Director of Community Devefopment, 1lnike Moflica, suggested specific changes and moving forward with the ordinance, and Mike Jewett then withdrew his motion to table the ordinance. Sybill then moved to approve Ordinance 7, with a second from Ludwig Kurz. Discussion continued when local attorney, Art Abplanalp asked Council to consider several other changes, including extending the amount of time to file records for appeal beyond the 10 day time frame, and requested Council table the ordinance. At that time, Sybill withdrew her motion and moved to table Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1996. Mike Jevuett seconded the motion and a vote was taken, which passed unanimously, 6-0. Third on the agenda was Resolution No. 7, Series of 1996 a Resolution Renaming IVorth Frontage Road East to Fall Line Drive. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead and Public Works Director Larry Grafel presented the item, explaining the Town of Vail had been presented with a petition signed by the residents of that area, requesting a change of the name from North Frontage Road East to Fall Line Drive. Larry stated that the Colorado Department of Transportation and other required agencies had approved the requested change, and that staff also recommended adopting Resolution No. 7. Council members were provioed with a copy of the petition and asked to approve, modify or deny Resolution iVo. 7, Series of 1996. Paul moved to approve Resofution No. 7, Series of 1996 on first reading, and Kevin seconded the motion. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. At the request of Mayor Armour, Tom Moorhead explained the procedure required to change a street. Agenda item number four was the appointment of one Planning & Environmental Commission Board Member. Director of Community Development, Susan Connelly and Mike Mollica presented the item, and informed Council that an opening existed on the seven member PEC due to the resignation of Kevin Deighan., and that the appointee would fill the remainder of Kevin's two-year term serving through March, 1997. Council was asked to appoint a new member or direct staff to re-advertise the vacancy. The following citizens had submitted letters of interest for appointment to the PEC and were interviewed at that afternoon's work session: Jerome B. Jacobs, John B. Schofield, and John C. Zahner. Ballots were then distributed to council members, and voted. Town Clerk, Holly McCutcheon, then tallied the votes and presented the results to Mayor Armour. Paul Johnston moved to appoint John Schofield to fill the unexpired term on the PEC, serving through IVlarch, 1997. Kevin Foley seconded the motion. A vote vvas then taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Fifth on the agenda was an appeal of the PEC decision to approve with conditions, Vail Associates, Inc.'s conditional use permit application for a new gondola at the Lionshead base area by Nlr. and Mrs. David P. Ransburg, the owners of Lot 5, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing and Mr. John Jordan, the owner of a portion of Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Village 6th Filing. Town Planner, Jim Curnutte, summarized the history of events, presented the 1 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes May 21, 1996 item and referenced a letter of appeal dated May 2, 1996, from local attorney, Art Abplanalp. Jim updated Council, stating the approved conditional use permit would allow for the placement of a low profile, high-speed gondola and associated terminal building, to be located approximately 10' west of the existing Chair 8 Iower terminal, and that an additional three towers associated with the new gondola would be located within the Town of Vai{ municipal limits. Jim then referenced a staff memorandum to the PEC dated April 22, 1996, the approved minutes from the April 22, 1996 PEC meeting, and a letter to IVir. Joe Macy dated May 14, 1996, which summarized the action taken by the PEC and the conditions attached to the approval. Jim then informed Council that the PEC's motion to approve the conditional use permit request included the staff's findings that the criteria for approving the requested conditional use permit had been met, and that the PEC approved the conditional use permit by a vote of 3-1. Jim stated the staff recommended that the Town Council uphold the PEC's conditional use permit approval of the Lionshead Gondola, with the conditions specified by the PEC on April 22, 1996, and that the staff believed the review criteria for granting a conditional use permit had been met, as specified in the staff memorandum to the PEC. Mayor Armour stated he had received letters from three individuals concerned about the night skiing issue, and made it clear to members of the audience that appeal of the PEC decision had no relevance to night skiing. Tom Moorhead defined the zone districts involved (Commercial Core II and Agricultural Open Space) and stated that ski tows and lifts were specified as a conditional use in those zone districts. Tom further explained that the application was approved by the Forest Service, and that if Vail Associates uvished to pursue night skiing, other processes would have to take place, and that the objection to night skiing did not relate to the application. Appellants' legal representative, Art Abplanalp requested Council put a condition on the gondola permit which would address the night skiing issue. Niar. Abplanalp stated that the Town of Vail should reserve the right to review such a request and to hold a public hearing if and when the issue came up. Right now, he said, only Forest Service approval vuould be required. Tom Moorhead responded, saying that under the current zoning code there were no standards on the use of Vail Associate's property for skiing, and suggested such a request be addressed as an amendment to the zoning. Senior Vice President and General Council for Vail Associates, James Mandel, addressed Council and introduced members of Vail Associates staff who were on hand to answer any questions, and asked council members to uphold the decision of the PEC. Attorney, Bruce Chapman, representing adjacent property owner Larry Field of 586 Forest Road, also urged Council to add conditions to the approval, as did Lionsquare Lodge General Manager, Jim Gernhoffer. Others in the audience, including attorney, Jay Peterson, PEC member Greg Moffet and Lionshead Merchants Association president Rob LeVine spoke in favor of the project without additional conditions. Paul Johnston moved to uphold the PEC's approval of Conditional Use Permit with no additional conditions, and the motion vuas seconded by Sybill IVavas. Mayor Armour then stated he could not justify controlling the use of land outside the Town of Vail boundaries. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Kevin wished Buddy Lazier good luck this weekend, as he's in the second row at the Indy 500. There being no further business a motion was made for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:10 p.m. . ~ Respectfully submitted, , Robert W. Armour, Niayor ATTEST: Holly McCutcheon, Tovun Clerk Minutes taken by Nolly McCutcheon (*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.) 2 Vait Town CounciV Evening MeeGng Minutes May 21, 1996 Y i'. . O6 NDINANCE NOs Y [b . . SEEtIES of 1996 AN ORD@Ne4NCE CREAT9NG SECT60N 17.32.050, PLAT TITLE FORIVIATS, AND AMEIVDING SECT90NS 17.16.030C, FIIVAL PLAT - FtEQl11REMENTS AIVD PROCEDl9RE AND 17.22.030, CONDOMINIIJM i4iVD T01NNHOlJSE PLATS - SUBMITTAL REQlD9RENiENTS. WHEREAS, on April 22, 1996, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments and unanimously recommends approval of the amendments to Tovvn Council; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the proposed amendment to include standard plat title formats will reduce the inconsistency of plat titling which causes indexing and referencing problems for the Eagle County Assessors and Clerk and Recorders Office; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the standard format for all plat titles will benefit the many surveyors doing work in the Town of Vail, since the surveyors vvill no longer need to ' speculate as to how to title a plat in the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of the Tovvn of Vail IVlunicipal Code NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado that the following amendments shall be made to Chapter 17 of the Vail fViunicipal Code: _SECTION 1: 17.16.130 C. 10. The proper plat title ffoPmat for fi9ing a plat oh 4he Town o$ !laa8, CoVoPado, as outloned fin Section 17.32.050, P1a4 Tat9e Foronats. SECTIOfV 2: 17.22.030 Condominium and Townhouse Plats submittal requirements. The plat shall include a site map following the requirements of Section 17.16.130 C. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 43; 14 and 44 15 along with the signature of the owner. The condominium or townhouse plat shall also include floor plans, elevations and cross-sections as necessary to accurately determine individual air spaces and/or other ownerships and if the project was build substantially the same as the approved plans. Also required to be submitted is a copy of the condominium documents for staff revievv to assure that there are maintenance 1 No changes to remaining text. Change numerical designation of subsection 11-17. 1 lf provisions incfuded for alf commonly owned areas. Also, building locations must be included and tied to property corners with distances and angles. Building dimensions must be shown to the nearest tenth of a foot. AN property pins must be found or set and stated as such on map. The submittal shall be made to the Department of Community Development on a form provided by the zoning administrator and shall include a certificate (as found in the appendix of this chapter) on the plat for zoning administrator approval. (Ord. 2(1983 § 1(part . SECTION 3: Section 17.32.050 Plat Title Formats The Title Format as required on all plats is as follows: Type of Plat SUBDIVISION NAME, FILING OR PHASE NUMBER LOT, BLOCK, TRACT Town of Vail, County of Eagle, 5tate of Colorado The tvpe of plat should appear first in the Title; Final or Amended Final, Single-Family, Duplex, Condominium Plat. The font size should be small. The main title is the next line or lines of the title and will be in a large font. The main title is in _two parts: the first part will have the name of the subdivision, townhome(s) or condominiums(s); the second part of the main title is the lot, block and tract information as shown in the order above. Plats of existing platted parcels require the Lot, Block and/or Tract information; on original plats the Lot, Block and Tract information are omitted from the title. When resubdivisions occur, the first part of the main title is identical to the parent subdivision and the second part identifying the replatted parcel(s), except when the intent of the plat is to create a new and separate subdivision, townhome or condominium with a new name. The sub-title comes after the main title, and it contains the Section, Township, Range and/or County and State information. The font size should be smaNer than that of the main title. The Certificate of Dedication and Ownership, as well as the Surveyor's certificate should match the above formatted main title. 2 0 ~The ffollowaaag are examples foP each tyype of plat and the exact forrnag fop each: Minor Subdivision Finai Plat Meadow Mauriello Subdivision A Resubdivision of Lot 32 Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado Condominium Plat Condominium Plat Connelly Bridge Condominiums Vail Village, First Filing Lot c, Lot d and the south four feet of Lot b, Block 5-B Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado . Townhouse Plat ~ Townhouse Plat ' Mollica NiountainTownhomes Vail Potato Patch A Resubdivision of Parcel A, Lot 34, Block 1 Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado - -Amended Final Plat/Single Family Subdivision Amended Final Plat Glen Lyon Subdivision, 2nd Amendment to the 1 st Filing Lot 15, Block 2 Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado Duplex Plat Duplex Plat Ruther Ridge Estates Subdivision, Filing No. 1 A Resubdivision of Lot 29, Block 1 Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado 3 .ti Final Plat Final Plat Curnutte Creek Gulch Subdivision Filing No. 1 Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDEFtED PUBLISHED ONCE FULL ON FIRST READING this 4th day of June, 1996, and a public 4 Y ~ hearing on this Ordinance on the 18th day of June, 1996, in fihe Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Robert W. Armour, Mayor Attest: Holly L. McCutcheon, Todvn Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOfVD READIRIG AND ORDERED PUBLISHED in full this , 1996. Y Robert W. Armour, Mayor Attest: Holly L. fVicCutcheon, Town Clerk 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmentai Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 22, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to Title 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to allow for the inclusion of "Plat Title Formats." Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther Do BACKGROUND On February 1, 1983, the Vail Town Council approved on second reading, Ordinance fVo. 2, Series of 1983, an Ordinance repealing and reenacting Title 17 of the Vail Municipal Code, setting forth new Subdivision Regulations and Construction Design Standards for the Towrn. The expressed purpose of the ordinance was to update the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations. Over time, the existing regulations had become outdated and were no longer in keeping with today's development type and technology. Title 17 has remained as amended in 1983, with the exception of a few minor amendments. On April 18, 1995, the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners approved a proposed amendment to the Eagle Counry Subdivision Regutations Manual. The proposed amendment provided a standard plat title format. According to Ted Archibeque, a cartographer with the Eagle County Assessor's Office, the main issue which led to the development of standard plat title format regulations was the diversity of plat title formats used by the numerous surveyors drafting plats in Eagle County. Inconsistent plat titles caused indexing and referencing problems in the County Assessor's and Clerk and Recorder's Offices. The Town of Vail Community Development Department received a proposal from Eagle County requesting that the Town of Vail, and all other municipalities within Eagle County, adopt standard plat title formats into their subdivision regulations similar to those approved by the County Commissioners. fl. DESCR@PTBON OF THE REQl9ES The Community Development Department is proposing to amend Title 17, Subdivision Regulations and Construction Design Standards, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The amendment proposes to include Plat Title Formats, as Section 17.32.050. The purpose of the amendment to the Subdivision Regulations is to define a standard format for plat titles in the Town of Vail. It is staff's opinion that the creation of a standard format for all plat titles will reduce the inconsistency of plat titling which causes indexing and referencing problems. Beyond the obvious benefits to Eagle County and the Town of Vail of a standard titling format, benefits will also be realized by the many surveyors doing work in the Town of Vail. With standards in place, surveyors will no longer have to speculate as to how to title a plat in the Towrn of Vail. f:\everyone\pecUnemos\tovplat.422 1 s The proposed amendment to Title 17 would read as follows: Section 17.32.050 Piat Title Formats The Title Format as required on all plats is as follows: Type of Plat SUpDItlOS'Oa`E 9rAAYAEy FILINiA OR PH-INSE A7VAVIBGR ILOTy BILOi.0Ky 0 Q-CNY.IT Town of Vail, Counly of Eagle, State of Colorado The 4ype of plat should appear first in the Title; Final or Amended Final, Sirigle-Family, Duplex, Condominium Plat. The font size should be small. The main tat9e is the next line or lines of the title and will be in a large font. The main title is in two parts: the first part will have the name of the subdivision, townhome(s) or condominiums(s); the second part of the main title is the lot, block and tract information as shown in the order above. Plats of existing platted parcels require the Lot, Block and/or Tract information; on original plats the Lot, Block and Tract information are omitted from the title. When resubdivisions occur, the first part of the main title is identical to the parent subdivision and the second part ' identifying the replatted parcel(s), except when the intent of the plat is to create a new and separate subdivision, townhome or condominium with a new name. The sub-titOe comes after the main title, and it contains the Section, Township, Range and/or County and State information. The font size should be smaller than that of the main title. The Certificate of Dedication and Ow?nership, as well as the Surveyor's certificate should match the above formatted main title. The fo9Bowing are exaavaples $or each type of plat and 4he exact forrnat fior eaclv: Minor Subdivision Final Plat Meadow Mauriello Subdivision A Resubdivision of Lot 32 Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado Condominium Plat Condominium Plat Connelly Bridge Condominiums Vail Village, First Filing Lot c, Lot d and the south four feet of Lot b, Block 5-B Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado f:\everyone\pec\memos\tovpla1.422 2 Townhouse Plat Townhouse Plat Niollica MountainTownhomes Vail Potato Patch A Resubdivision of Parcel A, Lot 34, Block 1 Town of Vail, County of Eagle, Staie of Colorado Amended Final Plat/Single Family Subdivision Amended Final Plat Glen Lyon Subdivision, 2nd Amendment to the 1 st Filing Lot 15, BIoCk 2 Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado Duplex Plat Duplex Plat Ruther Ridge Estates Subdivision, Filing No. 1 A Resubdivision of Lot 29, Block 1 Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado Fin I PI Final Plat Curnutte Creek Gulch Subdivision Filing IVo. 1 Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado In addition to the inclusion of Section 17.32.050, Plat Title Formats, into the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations and Construction Design Standards, two other sections of the code must be amended. Section 17.16.130 C, Final Plat - Requirements and Procedures, and Section 1722.030, Condominium and Townhouse Plats - Submittal Requirements, of the Subdivision Regulations must be amended to incorporate the new plat title formats. The proposed amendments to Sections 17,16.130 C and 17.22.030 are shown bold, any deletions are shown in s#fikeatr~ as follows: 17.16.130 C. Final Plat and Supplementary Material - Contents. The final plat and supplementary material shall contain the following information: 1. The final plat shall be drawn in India ink, or other substantial solution, on a reproducible medium (preferably mylar) with dimensions of twenty-four by thirty-six inches and shall be at a scale of one hundred feet to one inch or larger with margins of one and one-half to two inches on the left and one-half on all other sides. f:\everyone\pec\memos\tovplat.422 3 2. Accurate dimensions to the nearest one-hundreth of a foot for all lines, angles and curves used to describe boundaries, streets, setbacks, alleys, easements, structures, areas to be reserved or dedicated for public or common uses and other important features. All curves shall be circular ares and shall be defined by the radius, central angle, arc chord distances and bearings. All dimensions, both linear and angular, are to be determined by an accurate control survey in the field which must balance and ctose within a limit of one in ten thousand. 3. IVorth arrow and graphic scale. 4. A systematic identification of all existing and proposed buildings, units, lots, blocks, and names of all streets. 5. fVames of all adjoining subdivisions with dotted lines of abutting lots. If adjoining land is unplatted, it shall be shown as such. 6. An identification of the streets, alleys, parks, and other public areas or facilities as shown on the plat, and a dedication thereof to the public use. An identification of the easements as shown on he plat and a grant thereof to the public use. Areas reserved for future public acquisition shall also be shown on the plat. 7. A written survey description of the area including the total acreage to the nearest appropriate significant figure. The acreage of each lot or parcel shall be shown in this manner, as well. 8. A description of all survey monuments, both found and set, vuhich mark the boundaries of the subdivision, and a description of all monuments used in conducting the survey. Monument perimeter per Colorado statutes. Two perimeter monuments shall be established as major control monuments, the materials which shall be determined by the town engineer. 9. A statement by the land surveyor explaining how bearing base was determined. 10. The proper plat title forrnat for filirag a plat in $heTown of Vail, Colorado, as outlined in Section 17.32.050, Plat Titie Forrnatse 999-6. A certificate by the registered land surveyor as outlined in Chapter 17.32 of this title as to the accuracy of the survey and plat, and that the survey was performed by him in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, Title 38, Article 51. 9244. A certificate by an attorney admitted to practice in the State of Colorado, or corporate title insurer, that the owner(s) of record dedicating to the public the public rights-of-way, areas or facilities as shown thereon are the owrners thereof in fee simple, free and - clear of all liens and encumbrances except as noted. (See example in Chapter 17.32). 93#2. The proper form for approval of the plat by the PEC chairman and acceptance of dedication and easements by the Council with signature by the mayor and attestation by the Town Clerk. Examples are found in Chapter 17.32 of this title. W3. The proper form for filing of the plat with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder as per example in-Chapter 17.32. 1544. Certificate of dedication and ownership as per example in the appendix. Should the certificate of dedication and ownership provide for a dedication of land or improvement to the public, all beneficiaries of deeds of trust and mortgage holders on said real f:\everyone\pecUnemos\tovplat.422 4 property will be required to sign the certificate of dedication and ownership in addition to the fee simple owner thereof. 16+5. A certificate by the Treasurer of Eagle County as outlined in Chapter17.32.800 of this title that will certify that the entire amount of taxes due and payable upon all parcels of real estate described on the plat are paid in full. 97#6. Additional material which shall accompany the final plat includes, but is not limited to: a. Complete and final environmental impact report if required by the zoning ordinance; b. Complete engineering plans and specifications for all improvements to be installed, including but not limited to water and sewer utilities, streets and related improvements, pedestrian and bicycle paths, bridges and storm drainage improvements; c. Maps at the same scale as the final plat showing existing topography and proposed grading plan (contour interval requirements same as preliminary plan), a landscape and/or revegetation plan showing locations, type and sizes of existing and proposed vegetation. d. A map the same scale as the final plat depicting all high and moderate avalanche hazard areas, forty percent and high slope areas and one hundred year flood plain areas as defined in the hazard ordinance of the Vail Municipal Code; e. Title insurance company proof of ownership of all lands within the proposal; f. Copies of any monument records required of the land surveyor in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, Title 38, Article 53; g. Any agreements with utility companies when required; h. Protective covenants in form for recording; i. Other data, certificates, affidavits, or documents as may be required by the zoning administrator or PEC or council in the enforcement of these regulations. (Ord. 11 (1986) § 1: Ord. 2(1983) § 1(part).) 17.22.030 Condominium and townhouse plats Submittal requirements. The plat shall include a site map following the requirements of Section 17.16.130 C. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, #3; 14 and #4 15 along with the signature of the owner. The condominium or townhouse plat shall also include floor plans, elevations and cross-sections as necessary to accurately determine individual air spaces and/or other ownerships and if the project was build substantially the same as the approved plans. Also required to be submitted is a copy of the condominium documents for staff review to assure that there are maintenance provisions included for all commonly owned areas. Also, building locations must be included and tied to property corners with distances and angles. Building dimensions must be shown to the nearest tenth of a foot. All property pins must be found or set and stated as such on map. The submittal shall be made to the Department of Community Development on a form provided by the zoning administrator and shall include a certificate (as found in the appendix of this chapter) on the plat for zoning administrator approval. (Ord. 2(1983 § 1(part).) f:\everyone\pecMemos\tovplat.422 5 HL STA~F RECOflAMENDATB0N The Community Development Department recommends apprval of the request to amend Title 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. It is staff's opinion that the proposed amendment, creating a standard format for all plats reviewed by the Town of Vail, will reduce the inconsistency of plat titling. Additionally, the amendment will create a standard format, similar to that used by Eagle County, the jurisdiction responsible for recording and filing all plats approved in Eagle County. f:\everyone\pecUnemosVovplat.422 6 s OFtD8NA9VCE IVO. 7 Series of 1996 AN ORD9NANCE p?MEND6NG TITL,E 18 ZOIVIIVC, CHAPTERS 18.12 (TNVO-FAMILY RESSDENT@AL (R) DISTRICT), 18.13 (PFiIIVIAF2V/SECONDARY F2ESIDENTIAL DISTRICT), 18.54 (DESI(aN REVBEW), 18.56 (EnIV9ftONMEnITAL IMPACT REPOB21'S), 18.58 (SUPPLEfVIELVT'A+L REGULA°f901VS), 18.60 (COIVDSTIOfVAL l1SE PERMITS), 18.62 (VAFZDANCES), AND 18.66 (ADiVIIIVIST62ATBON) V141TH RESPECT 1'O A?DnAINISTtZATION AND APPE64LS PROCEDUFtES OF THE Vi41L IVIUIVIC9Pa4L CODE. WHEREAS, Sections 18.12.091, 18.12.092, 18.13.081, 18.13.082, 18.54.080, 18.54.090, 18.56.115, 18.58.190, 18.58.310, 18.60.070, 18.62.070, 18.66.030, of the Vail Municipal Code describe the administration and appeals process for the zoning ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has expressed the desire to have a simple, fair, and open appeals process; and WHEREAS, the current regulations pertaining to appeals are unclear and inconsistent. Appeals provisions are scattered throughout the code and, over time, provisions have been amended ' in some sections and not in others, causing inconsistencies; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has recommended approval of the amendment to the Vail Municipal Code at their February 26, 1996 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Town Councit considers ifi in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to amend said Chapter of the Municipai Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWfV COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: [Note: Text ghat is Ariek-m ns lbeang deleted and text that ns shaded is beang added.] Section 1. Chapter 18.12, Section 18.12.091, of the Vail Niunicipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety as follows: (TWO-FAl~ILY RESdDENTIAg., (R) DI5TR][C'B') , , • T-he ~ternbers preseftt. Page 1 of 13 r , i .l , , the appeeti mtt~t be filed itt writiftg withitt tett days faHowiflgm tile deeigio... of t4le 4eeisiott mttst be ee4led ttp by the. plartitittg eantmission ett 4~.eir ttext regttlarly se~edu4ed G. T+e piftrining eammissiatt sita-1.1 ltear tite ttppetti within titirty days of it beitig filed or ettiled ttp, •I i Section 2. ' Chapter 18.12, Section 18.12.092, of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety as follows: . . • ' the _ i , ttditteent-property , • . , , Section 3. Chapter 18.13, Section 18.13.081, of the Vail Municipa{ Code is hereby deleted in its entirety as follows: ' (Pll22IMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL DISTRIC'T) ~ I , , , . I ; Page 2 of 13 ~ , ~ ,a a . , . 4eeision - + L 17..4 . r L... t1-.,. . r~1~. o .7 'Iti 'l i1lA+ L 1lrlA1 1CLL1 11 JLe1 + ~ meetittg. e 1nIC71meAim7 -,.1ul,. uC~..1L~+i ~1.... l D TL- deeisiett _.C [IIL ~L... C,o11IIRQtI1T~C[~G'L~IO 'a~, ,7e ,~1_epIITLII-iC - -4 1=Q:ii l1t LLLVlll --l Ll .C.ll 1.a1~. 4.~laa~ 1 -~ZII1Li11.~.II Section 4. Chapter 18.13, Section 18.13.082, of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety as follovvs: t-he > > • B. , Section 5. Chapter 18.54, Section 18.54.080, of the Vail fViunicipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety as follows: (DESIGN REVIIEW) , Page 3 of 13 ' i ~ applieatit, erty ' ' I . ' .C.. - 1 • I Section 6. , Chapter 18.54, Section 18.54.090, of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety as follows: I' 844.999 i vy" , , Taye" . , merrrberspreseftt. B. , , . ' Section 7. Chapter 18.56, Section 18.56.115, of.the Vail Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety as follows: ~ , . (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS) ! 1846-115 n.. ..i .o rr,.~~.. n,....1e:t I, > > , ~ ~ Page 4 of 13 i ' , ; b . Section 8. Chapter 18.58, Section 18.58.190, of the Vail fViunicipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety as follovvs: (SUPPIL]EMENTAIL l[t~GUILA7{'IONS) . , the Plamittg , , may , reverse, aa:~. tt.,. ..Pt18Yr6'f tit hettritig tt ^t9't'be-rrqttirea Fttilure Section 8. Chapter 18.58, Section 18.58.310, of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: 18.58.310 Bed and breakfast operations. A. [CTnchanged] B. [Unchanged] Seetiott . . , he sha4l gi-ve ftoti tiott to the bed and breakf~st permittee itt vffititig deseribitig ift reftsottable detttil theviolatiett alleged to have been A.-ted -r to exist sliftil seffe t-he ttotiee ott t-he tn person by first elftss tnttil at the 4ddress listed itt t-he appliefttieft for the eottditiottft! ttse perntit-. If tite perft~ttee disagrees with the determittatiott of t-he direetar of eomm de-veiaptfteftt t-hat stteh tt -vioitttioft exists, . , tite Page 5 of 13 i ~ 1 ' I . ~ b ion, D. [Re-letter to C. Remainder unchanged] E. [Re-letter to D. Remainder unchanged] ~ F. [Re-letter to E. Remainder unchanged] , Section 9. Chapter 18.60, Section 18.60.070, of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety as ~ follows: (CONDITIONAL USE PERIVIITS) i . i , rt B~-F , ; . Section 10. ' Chapter 18.62, Section 18.62.070, of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety as i follows: i I (VARIANCES) , . . . ~ A. , , ' men-ibers presetit. - ' B. , Page 6 of 13 b 0 Section 11. Chapter 18.66, Section 18.66.030, of the Vail iViunicipal Code is hereby repealed and reenacted as follows: (ADMgNgSTRA'II'ION) 18.66.030 Appeals. `~a--'-:~`°~`:_.~ > > ftdmittistreAer, tnay > re-verse, adtnittistrtttar. * A.. Administrativeµactions: Any decision,>determination or interpretation by4axty Town~of ...n... ~ Vail aclrninzsfratiVe°off cial~with respecf to~ the prov~sio~s~of tiu~s title and the~`stiandards anti . _ procedures hereinafter set forth~shall~becorne final atAheTfteqPlannmg~"~a.nd Environmental Comrnission meet~ing~(or ui~the~case£of~,design~related decis~an, th~next Design~Re~view Boafd meetmg)~following~,the admamstrator's decis1on, uriiess the decislon i,.s~called~up~and rnodified .u.. , lay the~Board ax~Cominission. B: Appeal~of adinirfistrahve actioris. Authority: The Plannuig and~EnvironrnentaliCornrnissian sli..ail haue~the authonty hear andidecide appeals~from any4decision, determinatlon~or u~terpretatlon~by~any To~un ~ . . . . ~ ofadrnirustrati~e officiai wi#h respect Vhe~prov~s~rins~of~tius title~and Ethe . standards anci procedures'hereinafter~set~forth, except that~appeals~of ~any deci"sion;: , . deterrn~nation or.nterpretation by any Town af~Vamil admiivstrative,official wrth rega~d :uw. . . ...x . ~ ~ : tora design g`uldehrie shall, be hea~rd bythe D,~esign~Re~iew Baard: . 2: Imt~ation`'" An'appeal~rnay~be~initiated by an applicant~ ad}acent property~:owner {ox ~ . .,o. anyfaggneved~a~adversely affected person f~om any o"rder;~decision,ndeterrninahon ~x .Y.7. , . V. . . interpretation by any admmistrative officialwith respect;torhis title~ "Aggrieved or Page 7 of 13 ~ f I adversely":affected.person" nieans anY Re"rson "wlio awill suffer an adverse effect to an . interest protected^or furthered by tliis, titl"e:': Thewalleged adverse interest may be shared iri common witll other.members of the'coinmuriity at large;-but shall excee `d in d"egree the;general iritere"st in coiriinuiiitygood "sha"red by all;:persons. The administrator shall deterinine the standing of an appellaut. If the;"appellant objects'to the adiriinistrator's _ } , . ~ deterinination of stariding; tlie'Plariiiing:and Eiivironment"al Comxnission (oi the Desigri Revieiv Board.ifr-tlie,case of.,desigri guidelines),'sliall, at, a meeting prior toche"aring evidence on tlie appeal; make a deterinination as to the staridirig" of tlie appellant. If #1ie Plamung and Erivirorirriental -Cominissiori,,(or;tlie Desigri Review Board iri tlie case of desigii guideliries)"deteririiries tfiat the appellant.does not have,stariding fo I.bring a.n appeal; the.appeal shall'not be heard.and'the`original action or deterininati'.on stands. 3. Procedures: A writferi notice of appeal must b&;f led with tlie Director of Community Developinent or:with the"department "renderirig;the decision; deterininatiori or _ ~ interP "retatiori witliin teri (10) caiendar daYs of the decision becoming finah If the last ~ day- for filirig an appeal: falis on a Saturday; Sunday, or a Town- of Vaii observed I , holiday; tlie last day for"-f ling an appeal "sliall lie exterided to tfie 'ne~ liiiss day.-; The admirus"trator's decision "shall become "final" af tlie riext Pianning and. Envirl onmental - - Commission.ineeting "(or'in tlie:case;of design:rel"ated decision; tlie"riext D - ; esign Review Board meetirig)followin tlie administrator's "decision, "unless the d"ecision . ~ ..._.g. f is called "up and moclified.by. the Board or"Coinmission: Such notice shall be accomPanied by tlie _ . . . > : . . . . . I riame and addresses (inailing-and"physical)-;of tlie:appellant; applicant; property owrier; and,adjacent property;owners (tlie li5t of property" owners witliin a condominium project i shall lie'satisfied by listing the "addresses for tlie:managing agent or the board "of directors of the "condominiurii association)`as well as specific and articul"ate reasoris.for the appeal on forrii"s provided tiy:ttie Town, The filirig of sucfi riofice of appeal will require the administrative official whose decisiori is appealed, to forward fo tlie Planning and Eriviroririierital Commission (or tlie Design Review Bc,ard iri #he case of design guideliries) at the riext "regularlyy, sclieduled meetirig, a suininary af a11 records coricerriing the subject mafter"af the appeal and:to serid written notice to tlie appellant; ' Page 8 of 13 , i Na 0 applicarit; property owrier, and adj acent_ prQperty owriers (notification within a candaminium project shall be satisfiecl:by`notifying the managirig agent or tfie bQarcl;of directors of tlie cbndominiurri assaciation) at least" "fifteeri" (15) caleridar day"s.piiar to the hearing: A hearing sliall be schedulecl to be heard tiefore:the Planning and Enviroruriental Commissiori (or the Design Review Baard in the case of design guidelines) on the appeal:witliin thirty (34) caleridar days of.the:appeai being filed: The Planning and Environniental Commission (or tlie Design Review Board iri tlie case of design guidelines) may grant a continuance, to allow the parties additional "timeobtain informatian. 'The.,continuance,shall be allotived for a period not..to exceed.an.additional thirty (30) calendaz days: Failure to file such appeal shall constitute a-waiver of any rights under this; title to appeal any inteipretation oi determination made by an administrative official. ; 4: Effect of fiiing;an appeaT: Tlie filing of a riotice of appeal shall.stay allpermi# activity arid.any proceedings in fiir`therance of the actiori appealed uriless the administrative,official rendering such""d"ecisiori, deterniination or interpretation;certifies in writing totYie Planriirig arid:Envirorimental Comrriission (or tlie Design Review Board in the case of desigri guidelines) and the appellant that a stay poses an..iinminent peril to - - life or property, in which case tlie appeal shali not stay, further. perinit actiyity. and"any proceedings. The cominissiori (or board) shall reyiew.such.certifcation and grant or deny a stay of.the praceedings, Such'deterrriinafion shall be xnade at the next-regularly scheduled meefing of the Planriing arid Envirorimental Commission {or the Design Revrew.Board in the case of desigri.guiclelines): 5. Findings. The Planning and Enviranmental Commission (or the Desigri Review Board in the case"of design; guidelines) "shall:not .make any determination on an"appeal, unles"s-the commission (or board) records`°specific findings of fact b"ased; direcfly ori fihe particular; evid"ence presented to it. T'hese findirigs" of fact"must" support conclusions that the staridards and conditions iinposed by the;requirements of this`title.liave been met: 6: Fee. The Town Cburicil .may set a reasonable fee for filing an appeal of an admiriistrative decision, determiriatiori.oi interpretation. The fee wiil be adopted ina Page 9 of 13 ;r fee schedule°wluch sliall tie maintained~iri the Departmerit of Cbmmianity iDevelopment. The fee shail be,paid at the time.the appeal,is~fil"ed: D: Appeal of Planning and Eriviroriinental Coinmissiori:.decisions and D"esign Reviev,iw.Board decision"s. 1: Aiithority: THe-Town"Couricil"shail"have:tlie authorify to hear.and decide appeais . . from any decisiori,'deterriiinatioii o'r inte " retafion bY,the Planning " and Erivirorimen#ai . . . _ . . . _ . . . Commissiori or the Design"Review. Board yiwi"th~respect to.the provisioris.of this title and the" standards and procedures hereiriafter set fortii: 2: Iriitiatiori: Ari appeal"iriay be:iriitiated by a"licant;;adjacent properiy owne"r, or any aggrieved or;adversely affected-persori from :any order; "decision,,determinatiori or interpretation by the_Planriing~a.nd Enyiroriirierital"Commission or the Design Review Board,with respect to this titl"e. "Aggrieved,or:adversely affected person" means any, ~ person wlio-will suffer ari-adverse"effect;to an interest p"rotectecl or furthered by this title: The alleged adverse iritere"sf may be shared-iri commori with other:meinbers of the . . . . . . . commuiiity at large, but shall-exceed in degree tlie=gerieral interest in community good, shared by;all,persons. .Tlie admiiustrator.shall deterinin&the standing of anaPPellant. If _ : . I the appellant objects to.tHe adrriiriistrator's deterininatiori of standirig;,the tTown Council - sliall;' at a meefirig prior to hearing evidence ori the appeai, inake a'd"eterinination as to the standing of tlie appellarit.-If the"'Town Couricil deternuries that the-appellant does . nof Have standirig'to'bring an appeaT tfie appeal" shall not be heard and the~ originai ~ _ . action or;deterniination starids: "Tlie Town Coiuicil may also call up a decision of the Planning and Environriierital Commission "or,tlie Design.Review Board b~ a maorit~3' . . Y, J . . _ . vote,of those council" inembers preserit: 3,. Procedure"s., A wiitteri nofice. of=appeal must lie"filed with the Coirimunity Development "Director wittiin "ten (10) calendar days of the Planning and Environmerital Corrimission's decision or t1ie'Desigri ;Review°Board';s 'decisiori becomingifinal. If tlie i last day for"filing ari appeal falls on a Satuid`-^y; Suiiday; or a Town of Vail observed . holiday, the last day for-filirig an appeal shall~;be~"exferided to.the rie~ bus' ~ ess daY.: . : . ~ Such notice- shall be ~accompariied by the uame_and addresses (mailing and" physical) of Page 10 of 13 ~tl D the appellant, appTicant, property owner;;and adjacentproperty owners (the list'of property ciwners .within a coridominiiim project.shali be satisfied by listing~the addresses for the managing agent or fihe board of ctirectors,of.the condominium;association) as well as speci ,fic and articulate reasons for the appeal ori,fornis providecl by the Town. The filing of such riotice of appeal will require the Plarinirig and Environmental Commission or the Desigri Review Boazd to forcvard to "tlie Towri, Cfluricil at the next reguiarly, sche'duled meeting a sununary af all records conce"rning the subject:matter" of the appeal and to send written notice to "the appellant, applicarit; property -owrier, and adjacent property owners (notificatiori within a condoiriinium project shall be satisfied by notifying the managing agent or the board ~of directors ~of the condoininium associatiori) at least fifteen (IS)calendar days prior to the hearing. A hearing shall be scheduied to be heard before the Town Council on the appeai within thirty (30) calendar ~ days of the appeal being fil"ed. The Towri Council may grant a coritinuarice to allow the parties additional time to obtain informat'iori. The continuance shall be allowed fo"r a period not to exceed an additional,thirty (30) calendar days. Failure to file such appeal sliall constitute a waiver of any rights under this chapter to appeal any inferpretation or defermina#ion made by the Plaiuiing and;Environmental Gommission or the Design - - Review Board. 4. Effect of filing an appeal. The filing of arnotice of appeal.shalT stay, all permit acfivity and any: proceedings in furtherarice of the actiori appealed unless the admiriistrative.bfficial reridering such decision; determinatiori or interpretation certifies in writing to the Town Council and the appellant that a stay poses an immirient peril to life or property, in whicli case the appeal shall not stay further permif, activity and any proceedings. The Town Council sliall review such certification and grant or deny'a stay of the proceedings. " Such deterniination shall be made at the.next regularly sclieduled meetuig of the Town Councii. 5. Firidirigs. The Town Couricil shait nat make any, detex•mination on ari appeal unless. tlie councii.records specific findings of fact tiased directly on tHe particul"ar evidence Page 11 of 13 i. ~ ,3presented toTliese.findings,=of ~ ~.fact~rnust;support conclusions~#hat'the standardsaarid ~:~~~....~,;<<. , conditions imposed~by~the requ~rements of tlus title ha~e~been~"met . ~ _ . .w ~,..u.. ..r.~ - , . ~ 6, Fee: The~Town Council may:~'set a~r"easoriable fee for~f ling an~appeai to~a Planning#and ka'+ ' . " Env,~ronmerital Comrriission~or Desi ""~Re~iew Board~decision:~`The= fee will be adopted.,in a°fee _ . , , y. . &K a. . . . schedule which shall be maintained~in the Department of'Commuruty~Deveioprnerit The~fee ~ : ~ ~ `shall be pa~d~at themhme the appeal ~is~f led~ Ei Procedure for;appe~als sign regulatioiis. The prqcedu%e~for~an appeal of an adnumstrave interretati p on of the sign regulations sha11-1be fliersarneas~fh a t of a eals cif -ari: a"diiiinistratf7 ac ~ . . PP. ~ . set forth m section 18 66 030(B) _ F~ Appeal ;~of Town Counc~l decisions Any applicanf; ad~acent proper~ty own~r;_" or~any aggrieved~o"r ~ aciver"sely affected person„aggr~leved by afinal declsion of~the Tovvn C ..ouncil~wth respect~to a~f led ~ ~ ~ . ~ appeal may seek~revie~waof such9decision by a= court of~competen't Jur~sdiction° in the M'anne~provided ~ by the~laws of the S;t~ate-'f Colorado:' v... ~ G? Conduct of~liea.nng~ The~T~owri Couricil shall haue the~authority to sset` standards by admimstratiue rule, on appellate hear~ng,procedures uicludirig, b~ut;not lunrted to~t~.rne~ `allowance~for the presentahori ,,aq o evidence; the~hme allowance~far oral arguments, a d~etc Section 12. - If any part, section; subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shatl not 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, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 13. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 14. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the Page 12 of 13 b . provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby, shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 15. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repeaied. IIVTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AfVD ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1996. A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the day of , 1996, in the Municipal Building of the Tovvn. Robert W. Armour, iVlayor ATTEST: ` Holly fVlcCutcheon, Town Clerk iRiTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOIVD READIfVG AND ORDERED PUBLISHED (IN FULL) (BY T1TLE ONLY) THIS DAY OF , 1996. Robert W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST: Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk Fi1e:f:\everyone\ord\ord7.96 Page 13 of 13 l RESQLUTIDN NO. 8 SEFt9ES OF 1996 A RESOLUTION RElVAiVIING LIOP!'S RIDGE COURT T'O GLACBER CO1912T. WHEREAS, the property owners on Lion's Ridge Court, Vail, Colorado have requested by petition to change the name of the street to Glacier Court; and WHEREAS, the agency/department approvals from the Town of Vail have been received; and WHEREAS, those agencies and departments outside of the Town of Vail have indicated their approval or have been notified as required for the change of the name; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Department of Transportation approvai is pending the approval of this Resolution. WHEREAS, all requirements of Ordinance IVo. 7, Series of 1985, providing the procedure for requesting a different address have been fulfilled. ~ iVOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: 1. Lion's Ridge Court, which is generatly located south of Lion's Ridge Loop in the Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing #3, is hereby changed to Glacier Court. 2. The Community Development Department will assign the appropriate change to the current address map on fi1e. _ 3. This resolution shail take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this fourth day of June, 1996. Robert W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk C:IRESOLU96.8 May 29, 1996 P.O. Box 1515 Vail, Colorado 81658 , Vail Town Council 108 South Frontage Road , Vail, Colorado 81657 ~ Re: Petition for a change in street name Dear Town Council members: Vde, the property owners on Lion's Ridge Court, generally located south of Lion's Ridge Loop, in the Lion's Ridge Subdivision 3rd Filing, petition the Vail Town Council to change the name of our street. We, the property owners on Lion's Ridge Court, have chosen Glacier Court as our recommended street name replacement. All of the owners of property on Lion's Ridge Court support this initiative. We, request the Town Council approve this petition. We, recognize and accept the fact that any change in the street's name will require actions on our parts in reference to propetty records and personal correspondence. Such measures will be willingly undertaken. Furthermore, if approved, we ask the Town Council and the Town of Vail to implement thc street name change by July 1, 1996. . ~ Sincerely, , Pa4 Dauphinais Robert & Cindy Nussbaum DMC, Inc. Lot 21, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Sub., #3 cc: George Ruther, Town Planner " d 4 'd GMEnAOFtANDl111A ~ ~~~E UUPY TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 1996 ~ SUBJECT: A request for a building height variance to allow for a residence, currently under construction, to exceed the height limitations of the Zoning Ordinance. The residence is located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD#4). Applicant: Bill Anderson, representing Mr. & Mrs. Hovey Planner: Dominic Mauriello 0. DESCRIPTBON OF TFBE REQUES~ The applicant is in the process of constructing a residence on Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision. The Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) submitted by the applicant indicates that sections of three separate roof ridges vuere constructed at heights exceeding the 33-foot height limitation for structures constructed in the Primary/Secondary Zone District. The ridges in question are labeled A, B and C, starting at the lowest of the ridges and going up to the highest (see the attached elevation drawing). ,4ccording to the interpolated existing grades provided by Intermountain Engineering (based on the original topographic survey), and the ridge height figures provided by Eagle Valley Surveying (ILC), ridges A, B and C were constructed up to 8 inches higher than the 33-foot height limitation. The applicant is claiming that the revised "Survey Policies" (attached) of the Town would allow the consYructed building height. Staff believes the revised policies would have no effect on the constructed building height. The appBBcant Bs requesting a variance to retaBn the roof Pidges at the constructed heights. Thus, the app6BCant as requesting a varBance of 8 inches, to the 33-foot height Birnitatione DU. BAC9CGFiOIJN~ On January 8, 1996, $he PEC unanimously denied the sarne request for a bu6lding height var6ance. The PEC decision was appealed to the Town Council. On January 16, 1996, the Town Council failed to pass a motion to either uphotd or overturn the decision of the PEC, and therefore the PEC decision of denial stands. The PEC and Council minutes are attached. 990. CFi6TERBA AIVD FINDINGS Upon review of the Criteria and Findings for variances, confained in Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denBaO of 4he requested height variance based on the follouving factors: 1 ? ~ r A. Consideration of Factors: . 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and s4ructures in the vicinity. The requested variance will have little or no impact on adjacent properties and structures. The portions of roof ridges that exceed 33 feet are minimal. All of the ridges are up to 8 inches over the 33-foot limitation, for a length of less than 5 lineal feet. 2. The degree to which relief from 4he strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in ~the vicinity or , to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege The applicanYs statement indicates that the height limitation encroachments occurred as a result of dimensional changes that were made in the floor structure and roof structure. These two st rIuctural changes increased the thickness of the floors and the height of the roof , structure. Compensating changes could have been made to the interior floor to ceiling heights that would have alleviated the height problem with negligible impact to the interior spaces. The floor to ceiling tieights were not adjusted accordingly. Staff believes that approving the variance would be a grant of special privilege that could open the door to similar, after-the-fact requests. Staff believes it is important to strictly enforce the 33-foot height limitation in order to maintain the integrity of the height regulation. ` 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facili#ies, public facilities and utilities, and pubtic safety. The requested variance will have no effect on this criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before qr nting 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 2 a b physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners ofi other properties in the same district. oV. STAFF RECOIIAflAEP9DATI0N Staff recommends deniaV of the requested variance. Staff believes Yhat granting the height variance would not be injurious to other properties in the vicinity or to the public health, safety and welfare. However, sYaff believes that the variance would be a grant of special privilege since there does not appear to be any unusual circumstances unique to 4he property, or the construction process, that would justify the request. Staff believes that the strict and literal interpretation of the height limitation is necessary to ensure that all residential construction in this zone district is subject to the same height restriction. f:\everyone\pecUnemos\hovey2. m 13 3 s . r . 'y~1 T0' OF VAIL MEMORANDUiW TO: All Architects, Contractors and Surveyors Doing Work in the Town of Vail FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 28, 1996 SUBJECT: Survey Requirements . ~ The following survey requirements apply to all new construction and to.some additiions. If you are unsure if your project requires an Improvement Location Certificate, talk to the project planner. I. PRIOR TO A BUILDING PERMIT Benchmark - On all surveys and Improvement Location Certificates, identify the benchmark used for the basis of the elevations. The same benchmark should be used throughout the construction process to insure that the measurement of a building is consistent. Items which make good benchmarks are sewer inverts, section corners, and property corners. Do not use manhole rims, the asphalt in streets, or fire hydrants. Architects and Builders should be aware that discrepancies exist in established monumentation in the Vail Valley. Please consult a registered surveyor to verify - monumentation prior to developing plans for a site. Establishment of base elevations for calculatin building heiaht - If a building has any proposed ridge within one foot of the maximum building height, a spot elevation will be required directly below that proposed ridge to ensure accurate measurement of the ridge height. This additional spot elevation will need to be done when the building footprint and ridge elevations are identified and prior to submitting for a building permit. A topographic survey with the necessary spot elevations, foundation, and the ~ridges indicated shall be submitted with the building permit application. Any project that has . received Design Review Board approval prior to March 11, 1996 shall be ex~empt irom this requirement. Recommendations for Owner/Builder Projects - For owner/builders, the Town strongly suggests that a registered surveyor stake out the foundation prior to excavation or pouring. Additionally, after the foundation walls have been poured, we strongly encourage that a surveyor shoot the elevation of tFie foundation wall. With this information, contractors will be able to accurately estimate the final building height before the structure is completed. Contractors will be able to compensate in the construction process to ensure that the structure does not exceed the height limit. ~ 9 v 19e AFTER TFIE FOUNDATION IS POURED UVithin three (3) weeks following the approved foundation inspection, an ILC will be required for projects that exhibit M of the following characteristics: 1. The building is within 3 feet of any setback line; 2. The driveway grade is greater than 10%; 3. The building is within 6 inches of the maximum building height allowance; 4. The project involves three or more separate structures on the property; or 5. The project has received a variance for height or setbacks; The ILC mvst be submitted to the Town of Vail for review and approval within three weeks following the approved foundation inspection. The Building Inspector will notify the . project pfanner when the foundation inspection has been approved. If an ILC is not received and approved by the. planner within three weeks, the Towrn of Vail will issue a Stop 1/Vork Order and no work will be allowed until the ILC is reviewed and approved. Once subcnitted to the Town, please allow two working days for the ILC to be reviewed. The ILC should indicate the following: 1. The footprint of the building; 2. The elevations of the foundation walls and the garage slab; 3. The grade of the centerline of the driveway, measured in twenty-foot increments; and 4. The distance of the foundation to each property line. The exterior material existing on the straacture the day of the survey should be noted. Final distance will be measured from the outside edge of the exterior wall material. If ledges or supports for rock veneer or any ather facing material have been built into the foundation, measure the setback to that eaderior point (see diagram on next page). V9B. PRIOR A FRA61A1NG 6iVSPECTION An ILC vvill be required prior to any framing inspection to verify that height and setback - - standards have been met. No framing inspections will be scheduled until the ILC is approved by the Town. Please allow two working days from the time the ILC is submitted to the time the inspection can be scheduled. The ILC must show the following information: 1. Roof Ridoe Elevatians - On the survey prepared for the framing inspection, incicate the highest point of aII roof ridges. The roof plan needs to be drawrn on . the ILC. The roofi ridge points identified on the ILC should align with the roof plan an Yhe Town's approved set of Building Permit plans. Ridge height will be measured to the top ridge of the sheathing. On the ILC, the sus-veyor should note the roof material (if any) on the highes4 point of the ridge 2 I ' r • which exists the day of the survey. The pianner will add the dime,nsions of all ~ other materials (except a cold roof vent). For example, if only the ridge beam has been constructed the day of the survey, the surveyor shouid note that, and the planner will then add the dimensions of the insulation, sheathing, etc. to verify that the finished product will not exceed the height limit. On the attached diagrams, the point identified with an asterisk is the top ridge of the sheathing. A cold roof vent, not exceeding 12 inches in height, measured from the sheathing to the top of the shingles, is considered an architectural projection and will not be included in the height. 2. Setbacks - The distance from the foundation to each property line should be specified, noting ihe. exterior material existing on the structure the day of the survey. Final distance will be measured from the outside edge of'the exterior wall material. If ledges or supports for rock veneer or any other facing -material have been built into the foundation, measure the setback to that exterior point (see - diagram below). ~ . TIDOY' Se~-back " , . l, . ' ~ouhao.+?o?-, J ~ 3 ' ,.-.,.o....._ _ . . ~ ; • . . . r '0 SIIEATti~ IN C~ n - ~ ~ . ' ' . ~ ~ ~ • ~ T ~ ~ CooLD ROD F ~ o RI1DGE VCNl(' ~ETAM ` - • /..~CrU-4Z ?I7G.-L ~ILE. 76P oF s111.vr,cE3 !tF- ? % p•t•.NUp. pecoM . ~ iy~,. • Go ~-G. F~~N tI Lc ~rs ePt~'t~ aJ ` ~ t w Z P6T f C~-75 TOP l7ID6F 0F 15" FCLj PN C'/D° iR++i. GPn tt.yH/D. ,r ~ 2r6 6L~epe.f+.o t,$ ~ U' o.a, Sl1EA 71lJA/17 . 12 2. Go 'zh~ti~ &i-~~rnc~-.. ~.e: ' ao~! - p`i~'- 5/pw 'r<,Gt G~rc ;-L'{wm~ 10 ~ P41'- I=l-C'^/. 'i _ 'G~pLV. {C+IF~~ SG(L ~LC.h~ 110, - <,L~~Pe~ ~ ~ ~ ~P o.c. (cN Cca~) ~ QYP. -mr- W 10 vs~(~tL ~ . . V Alh . .16 Aga aoIOM ~ ~ RIDGE-V1ENT DCTAaL . 4 f I have read the Survey Requirements stipulated in the Town of Vail memorandum dated March 28, 1996 and commit to adhere to them. , Signature of owner, or owner's representative , Print Name Date Job Name ~ Permit Number ~ Legal Description: Lot , Block , Filing ~ . 5 JAN 2 2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSFON January 8, 1996 • Minutes fVIEMBERS PRESENT: MEIVIBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESEfVT: Greg Moffet Jeff Bowen flAike Moilica Greg Amsden Daiton Williams George Ruther Kevin Deighan Randy Stouder Henry Pratt Lauren Waterton Judy Rodriguez Public Hearina 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:05 p.m. Dalton Williams and Jeff Bowen were absent. 1. A request for a Major SDD Amendment to allow for a 485 square foot addition to an existing condominium in the Gateway Building located at 12 Vail Road, Unit SNail Gateway Plaza Building. . Applicant: Steve Riden representing Vail Apartments Inc. - Planner: Randy Stouder - ~ Henry Pratt moved to table item No. 1, item fVo. 4 and item No. 5 until January 22, 1996. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. ~ 2. A request for a building height variance to allow for a residence currently under construction to exceed the height limit located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD #4). Applicant: Bill Anderson representing Mr. and Mrs. Charles Hovey Planner: Randy Stouder Randy Stouder gave an overview of the proposal. He stated that staff had reviewed the variance criteria carefully and found that justification for granting the variance was lacking. According to the applicant, depth was added to the floors and to the roof structure during the construction process without compensating reductions in the height of the structure. Staff felt that the structural changes could have been compensated for by reducing floor to ceiling heights. This was not done. Randy stated that the variance request should be denied because staff finds that approval would be a grant of special privilege. Plannin- and Env'uonmental Commission ~ Minutes January 8, 1996 1 i y Biil Anderson from Beck and Associates referred to a situation in East Vaii where a house was 3' over the height limit and was granted a height variance. He was on the PEC at the time. He stated that the F surveyor made a mistake which resulted in the height increase. He felt that the mistake made on the Hovey residence was no different than the mistake made on the East Vail residence, both were honest mistakes. He stated that the Hovey's had nothing to gain from the mistake. Bill said that he had contacted ihe adjoining properry owners. The adjacent owners did not have any problems with granting a variance. They did not feel impacted by the additional height. Greg Moffet asked for public comment. No one came forward. Henry Pratt said although the impact is negligible and the neighbors don't care, he feels handcuffed ~since the Findings are not met. Greg Amsden said for practical reasons that the variance should be granted, but based on Code, it would definitely be a grant of special privilege. He felt that he could not grant a variance based on a review of the criteria and findings. Kevin Deighan said he agreed with Greg Amsden's comments. Greg Moffet asked if an ILC was performed after the foundation was poured. He also asked if this mistake would have been caught by an ILC at that stage? Bill said no, that structural elements above the foundation had been changed and this caused the height increase. • Dave Peel said they went from a 10" floor to 11-7/8". He also explained how the roof structure was i modified slightly, resulting in additional height. Greg Moffet said that the height problem was a self imposed hardship and the Board could not grant a variance. , Bill Anderson mentioned that for on-site construction mistakes, the Board has granted variances in the pasf. Randy Stouder said the East Vail variance was for the Musyl home. That variance was granted because of a surveyor error. The surveyor used an improper benchmark. Staff recommended denial even though the entire roof of the structure would have had to be taken off. The PEC did grant that variance. . Henry Pratt asked if there had been any other height variances granted recently. Randy Stouder said that the Musyl variance was the only one he could recall in the two years he has been with the Town. • Mike Mollica stated that- each varianceTequest has t(ystand on its own merits and'should be judged individual(y. Mike Mollica also doesn't remember any other similar requests being granted. Bill Anderson stated that if this variance was granted that it would not set a precedent for more variance requests, at least not by him or his company. Beck and Associates has a long track history , Planning and Emtironmental Commission , r Minutes - January 8, 1996 2 e j f ~ r 8 , r' ~ for being on target with heights and setbacks. We screwed up and made a mistake. He does not want _ to tear up the roof and destroy the architect's design. He asked the Board to look at the request with some common sense. No one has been adversely effected and no one has gained anything from the small height increase. Greg Amsden made a motion for denial of the variance request. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. • It passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0. Mike PVlollica added for the record that the applicant has 10 days to submit a written request for an appeal to Council. He also said that Council uses the same criteria and findings that the PEC uses. Bill Anderson stated that the Hoveys want to move in by March 1, 1996 and asked if he could get a TCO by posting a bond to guarantee that the height overage would be corrected. He did not feel that the work could be completed prior to March 1. Mike Mollica said he would be comfortable with bonding. 3. A request for wall height variances and a driveway grade variance for the Koenig residence located at 795 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 26, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision. Applicant: Eric Johnson for Gary Koenig Planner: George Ruther , George Ruther gave an overview and quickly went through the items the appficant changed since the December 11th meeting. Public Works suggested that a ma-foot wide grave{ shoulder be replaced with a guardrail since the shoulder could not maintain a safe slope to the street. Staff daes not fee! . ` - there would be any negative irnpacts if the variances were granted. Staff has the greatest concern with item 2 of the Criteria. It is the staff's opinion that the hardship is self imposed by the contractor. Staff is recommending denial because of a grGnt of special privilege. George then went over the conditions in the memorandum, should the PEC grant the request of the variances. Ray Coutash, owner of Beehive Construction and representing ihe properiy owners, the Koenig's and Dowie's requested ihe variance be granted based on the landscape changes to save the existing trees. One other hardship shows the surveyor made a mistake +n the original survey and it wasn't discovered until after the fact. This is ihe first time he heard about the guardrail request. The utilities run where the guardrail is proposed. He would prefer plantings, rather than erectinq a guardrail. . Greg Moffet asked for public input. Henry Pratt said again practicality should rule rather than the letter of the law. A lack of a shoulder is a serious issue for the Tawn. The driveway can be remedied. Providing a variance wouldn't do anything for the walls. There-has been an e#fortto save existing trees. Henry-is not-optimistic about the wall variance, however. Greg Amsden said preservation of trees is justification for granting the variance. There are site constraints for the wall height variance. The driveway is a grant of special privilege. - Planaing and EnNv'onmental Commission Minutes ~ January 8, 1996 3 Mollica informed Council that the applicant was clearly requesting a separation, as allowed by the Code, and ' that Council must find the project meets the appropriate criteria in order for a separation to be granted. Gary Oleson, owner of the property presented his request to Council, along with project architec ark Donaldson. Paul moved to overturn the decision of the DRB to deny the separation request due to th rge size of the lot, to avoid extensive driveway cuts, and because, he felt the proposed separation co uted nicely to the existing residences on Katsos Ranch Road. The motion was seconded by Peggy. Mike Jewett expressed he would rather uphold DRB's decision, and Rob For ated that many other options were available to the applicant, and the applicant didn't necessarily have uild a duplex. Tom clarified that - the section in the Code listed examples of what might constitute a si tcant site constraint, and said there were many and varied situations. He went on to state that man m features could possibly be considered. Kevin inquired as to how the neighbors felt about the project, a ybill addressed the question, stating those she spoke to wanted to see something on a much smaller e, but that the size of the lot itself would allow for a much bigger structure to be built. Sybill felt that g through the variance request would be more appropriate. George reminded council rriembers t e was not a variance request to decide on. Mike suggested another possible avenue for the applic would be to request a front setback variance, in order to maintain development on the site as low as ctical on the hillside and to reduce overall site impacts. DRB Chairman, Michael Arnett explained DRB's finding that there was nothing which would constitute a significant site constraint as outlined i e town regulations, and, therefore, the DRB'had no other option but to deny the request. Mike then gested the proper course of action would be to request a change in zoning on the lot. Peggy reminde uncil members of the need to determine whether site constraints existed that would allow for the separ on. Mark suggested the topography and the trees did constitute a site constraint, stating that unde e proposed scenario, the applicant would be removing'the least amount of trees. George stated that ording to staff, a significant tree was 3" in diameter and the trees shown on the proposed project plan w e 6" in diameter. He further stated there were many trees on the lot that were not shown on the plan t would ultimately be removed. A vote was ta and failed, 2-4, Paul and Sybill in favor of overturning the DRB's decision to deny the ; t request, Mi , Rob, Kevin and Peggy voting in opposition. A motion was then made by Rob to uohold the decision e DRB, with a second from Mike. A vote was.taken and passed, 4-2. Sybill and Paul opposed. Mr. eon asked the Council what direction should next be taken, and Mike Mollica stated he would be happy t eet with the applicant to discuss the processes available. ~j A~enda item number five waaan a~neal of thP p~a;;~~~g and ~nvironmental Commission's (PEC) denial of a request for a height variance to allow for a residence, currently under construction, to exceed the 33-foot height limitation for residential structures. The project is located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD #4). Town of Vail Planner, Randy Stouder presented the item, and gave the following background: The applicant is in the process of constructing a residence on Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision. An Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) submitted by the applicant indicated that sections of three separate roof ridges were constructed at heights exceeding the 33-foot height restriction for residential structures. The ridges in question are labeled A, B and C, as..shown.on the..attached site. plan. and.elevation drawings. According to the interpolated existing grades provided by Intermountain Engineering (based on the original topographic survey), and the ridge height figures provided by Eagle Valley. Surveying (ILC), ridges A, B, and C were , constructed a maximum of 8.4 inches above the 33-foot height limitation. The applicant requested that the !'EC grant a height variance to retain the roof ridges at the existing, constructed heights. The PEC unanimously denied the requested height variance by a vote of 4-0, finding that granting the requested height variance would be a grant of special privilege to the applicant. Randy further stated that although no input had been received from adjoining property owners, staff recommended denial of the applicanYs request because 2 v~c r e-c mL~,, m~„r., o I / I c/~~ a . agreed it would be granting a special privilege. architect, Dave Peel, and Bill Anderson of Beck & Associates presented the height variance request on behalf of the applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Charles Hovey, claiming that floor and roof modifications caused the overages. Sybill asked if there wasn't a 1' grace allowed. Randy stated there had been in prior years, but because it , was being taken advantage of, survey policies had been adopted and had been in place since April of 1991. t Also, Randy expressed that the survey policies clearly state there is no 1' grace allowance for roof height, and that the policy is distributed to every contractor who takes out a building permit. Greg Amsden, Vice Chairman of the PEC was available to answer questions. Peggy expressed her feeling that it had been possible to account for the error and that it should have been _corrected. Mike Jewett was looking for any criteria that might allow the variance to be approved without granting a special privilege. Dave Peel suggested similar situations had occurred in the past. Tom Moorhead informed Council that each variance application had a different set of circumstances which must be evaluated o its own merits after reviewing the criteria and findings. A motion was made by Kevin Foley to uphold the decision of the PEC, with a second from Rob Ford. A vote was taken and resulted in a tie, 3-3; Kevin, Rob and Peggy in favor; Paul, fViike and Sybill opposed; the motion was defeated. Council members in favor of granting the height variance felt Council should be more flexible and cited the following reasans: no complaints were received by the neighbors, to reframe the structure would cost the applicant time and money, and that sending a rigid message would negate the need for the appeal process. Council members opposed to granting the variance felt that being responsible to the community and consistent in applying the rules was important, and suggested adjusting the height rule as opposed to granting _special privileges. Mike Jewett then moved to overturn the PEC's decision to deny the height variance, and the motion was seconded by Paul. Town residents Martin Walbaum and Scotty McGoon expressed their opinions, encouraging Council to approve the variance. Town Manager, Bob McLaurin informed council members that the issue was not the amount of the overage, but the fact that there was an overage. He suggested adhering to the regulation or changing the height restriction. A vote was then taken and resulted in a tie of 3-3, Paul, Mike and Sybill voting in favor, Kevir?, Peggy and Rob voting in opposition. Therefore, the decision of the PEC to deny the height variance stands. Next on the agenda vvas the Town Nfanager's Report. Bob indicated everything had been covered at the work session earlier in the day. , There being no further business, a motion was made by Paul to adjourn. ~ Mike Jewett commended the Police Department for their efforts and expressed satisfaction frqm the ~ community regarding break-ins. Jewitt also complimented Public.Works _for the fine job they " done ~ removing snovv during the recent heavy accumulations. Rob moved to adjourn and the motion was seconded by Kevin Foley. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:35 P.M. ; Respectfully submitted, ~ ATfEST: "il Rlavas, NI yor Pro-tem t ~ • ti . . . ~ ~ • , ~ ' . . ~ • ' • ~ ~ . , • ~ . ` . , " 1 t' . _ ~ • 1 ~ ~ ~ - • . . . ~ ~ , ~ . ` ~ , i . T r ' • ~ , , i ' ' ~ .v . t i y. _t, J;~. • i ~1 ~ ~ : u , ~ ~ 1 ~ - - • ~ ~ . 1. s = . ~ ~ 1 1 , t t~,~ . ~ . , ` ~ •i t 1 ( ~ ' * r~ •tf • ~ ' ' ' ' . V~ ' . ' . y . . ' . / , • . / • ~ . . ~ ~ . . ~f . . ' • • 4 i • ' . . • , . . i ~ ~e ' ' ~ ~ ~ • - " • ~ ' ' _ . ' ~ , . ' _ -L . ~ . . • • + ~ ' • ~,~M~~ t . . ~ _ - . . 1 I • 1 . • _ _ r • . . 4{ ~.tiw ~ ' • • . • • • • • + 1 ~ 1 . ' • J~ • ' ? . ' ' . • . ~ I' L . . ~ ' ~ 3~°~' • 6 y ~ . . - April 11, 1996 IViike IViollica Community Development Department Town of Vaul 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Hovey Residence at 1339 V1lesthaven Circle - height variance I)ear Mke: Per our phone discussions g axn applying for a height variance at the Hovey Residence. Yt is my understanding that IYandy Stouder and David Peel have developed the following criteria: A) 8" to 0" for a distance of 4'-6" B) 8" to 0" for a distance of 4'-0" C) 8" to 0" for a disttance of 3'-9" (See attached drawing. ) gt is our contention that the use of a topo survey as an absolutely accurate document is not ° correct. T'he national standard allows for a 1 foot plus or mmus tolerance based on 2 foot contours. (See attached letter from Intermountain Engineering.) With this accepted tolerance our ridge heights could be 4" under. The bottom line, it seems to us that there is no way at the present time to accurately prove that the Hovey Residence encroaches into the height limitation. With this in mind we aze not sure that a variance is really needed but as it seems to be our only alternative, we are following the Town of Vail's suggested course of action. Sincerely, Bill Anderson Project liRanager Beck and Associates, Inc. ~ ~ r eriD~ntaiti ~~~~'u& Januaty 12, 1996 , p Mr. bave Pem1 ' PO Box 1202 vaii, Co 81658 Via f2tx: 474-4572 . ' . RS: Lot 23, Gien Lyon Subd3vision ' Prajeat No. 948565 Dear Dave: Thig letter is in reyard to the accuracy of the tcapographiv map on the referenced property. It is our polacy tc, follow the National mapping Acauraay standarfls whiah require t.hat al:l topographic map be within f 1/2 the aontour interval of the map. The tapvgrephia map shown from our surVey an thiS project has 2 foat contours which means they are aithin t ifoot. , if yau have any Yurthar questions, please call. ' S s ce ely, . . , -Duane D. Vehringei' P.E., P.L.S. , . ; , 77 Metoalf Aoad, 4201 • Box 976 o Avon, CoJorado 61620 • Phane; 970-949-50y2 o From Denver birACt: 893-1631 1420 Yaace Street 6 Ldwwood, Colorado 802i 6• Phone: 303-232-0158 ' ~ . G1flEMOF$14tVDUAFiI TO: Pianning and Environmental Commission FROM: Communiry Development Department DATE: May 13, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a density variance to allow for the construction of additional GRFA writhin an existing primary/secondary residence, located at 3130 Booth Falls Court/Unit B, Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Barbara Bingham Planner: Dominic Mauriello B. BACICGFd09JND AND DESCRIPTION OF TFIE FiEQIIES~ The applicant converted a vaulted area (183.5 sq.ft.) above their garage to habitable space (GRFA) without design review approval or a building permit. Staff becarne awrare of the violation following the discovery of a similar conversion in the adjoining duplex Unit "A". In that case, staff became avuare of the unpermitted construction after the Fire Department responded to an alarm at the subject property. Construction was on-going when the Fire Department arrived, and no building permit was in evidence. The owners of this adjoining unit (the Shiffrin's) were required to remove the improvements since there was only 11 sq.ft. of available GRFA on the property. The Shiffrin's applied for, and were subsequently denied a density variance on October 9, 1995, which they further appealed to the Town Council. The PEC decision was upheld by the Town Council on October 17, 1995. A copy of the PEC minutes are attached. , A letter was sent to the applicant requiring that the unpermitted GRFA be removed. The applicant . decided to request a density variance in an attempt to gain approval to allow the GRFA to remain. The allowable GRFA for the property is 4,700 sq.ft. The duplex received a Certificate of Occupancy on February 10, 1993. The approved GRFA for the duplex is 4,689 sq.ft. The applicant converted the existing enclosed area above the garage labeled as "open to below" on the approved plans to GRFA. The conversion adds 183.5 sq.ft. of GRFA to the duplex. Thus, the app0ucaovt is requesting a density variance to allow for aua additional 172.5 sq.ft. of GRFA on 4he proper$y. H. ZONING ANALYSBS Zoning: Two-Family Residential (R) Lot Area: 15,999.6 sq.ft. Allowed/Required Existinq Proposed GRFA: 4,700 sq. ft. 4,689 sq.ft. 4,872.5 sq. ft. Page 1 of 3 NO. CF61TER&A AIVD FIP?D@NGS Upon review of the criteria and findings contained in Section 18.62.060 of the Vail fVlunicipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends clenial of the requested density variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relaYionship ofi the requested variance qo other existiatg or pOteratial uses and s$raactaures An t9ae vicinity. Staff believes that the proposed density variance would set a negative precedent if approved. Granting a density variance would reward the applicant for illegal conversion of vaulted space to GRFA by adding a floor. The bulk and densiry of the building would have been reduced if this conversion would have been included as GRFA in the original floor plans, since the GRFA would have been reduced in other areas. In the present situation, the structure is existing and there are no additional impacts to adjacent uses. 2. The degree to whach relief frorn 4he strict and Bateral Bnterpretatioro and enforcerrnerat of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve cornpatib6Bity and uniforrality o$ $reatmerat aPnong sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives mf this tit9e without grant of specsat privilege. Staff finds that the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the GRFA regulations is important to achieve compatibility and uniformiry of treatment among various properties in Town. Granting the requested variance would be a grant of special privilege, and would tend to encourage other unpermitted conversions. This would not only be detrimental to the enforcement of the Zoning Code, but it could also result in unsafe construction since others may attempt to build without a building permit and inspections by TOV building officials to ensure conformity with the Building Code. 3. The effec4 04 the requested vareance on Bight and aBr, distribution of populatBon, 4ransportation and traffi6c faci9i$ies, public faci9ities and ut69ities, and pubBic sa4e4y. Staff does not believe that the requested variance would have any affect on the above referenced criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following 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 followring reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship Page 2 of 3 inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions appticable to the same site of the variance that doe 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. OV. STAFF RECOnAMEN~ATBON: Staff is recommending deneao of the applicant's request for a density variance to allow for the construction of additional GRFA writhin an existing primary/secondary residence, located at 3130 Booth Falls CourUUnit B, Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Staff finds that the applicant's request does not meet the variance criteria listed above. Specifically, staff finds that the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the density regulations is necessary to avoid a grant of special privilege, that could have significant ramifications to the community if the same privilege is applied to other properties throughout Town. Furthermore, staff finds that there is no special circumstance or physical hardship that applies to the subject property that would warrant granting the requested variance. The applicant is hereby made aware that if the PEC denies the requested variance, that the applicant shall make application for a demolition permit within 14 days of the PEC decision. F:\everyone\pec\me mo\bi n gham. m 13 Page3of3 . . Areci, cnvev--l-e ' d G r2P-A , Gl • 2 _ i ---i 1----- . , , ( . f . 67~,K~,S7 NobK ~{VTGN ~ i OF~_ :_:=a ~ N ; , • ' ~ N 44 h. t-ALL r , - . . ' p n ~ . _ - - . TYmn x GYP 60. e ITtn~atz. . ~ J . 6A2AG t-ix l.LS ;n , ~ r - r UlPr„ 7-rr, ~ ~ , ~ . . ~ • , ^ _ - 4 cs ~ • ~o ~ocr . y / • - - - STIIpY• 1 l.lVi RLY7 ~_A L~: . . . . U' FIN. f t. v . , . i e~ l 7'' J~ !L~ ' . , i , • ; . ~ w. . , . ~ . , _ _ . . __.P~..._. _ IA?A 1 AI-24~ '.,p' ~c I 2A~2} 2424 - , , f (AtOV~ (A~wt) a , I 3'v ' , . ' - - 1 - r c7 - , ~ ~ ? t ~ . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . _ ~ L-e... . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ~ . ..v~~., ~ _ v ~ t a . . ? ~ . . . . . . - ~ lac.k ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . - . . . . . LOA- (.4 ~ ~ . . . . ,3 k -50 ~ . . . . . . . _ . . . . . l16A~ CO. .S1Us"7. , . ~ . ~ , , , . . , . i . . j ~ cLVY, aT -Itf a ( c~ 4o l4 0 . . ! 1,4 -Une re s-1 r~ c~ tmn 40 adt lo u-) o ur ,1 vJ i 40 b e a.401e. v se oxe o.- o.X' . . ~ ~ . . . ~`tU .S~44- pl 3 bea-ro orr, ~No vs e~ wr, co v real ! U ~ -~o~' InorneWOrk i ' ~A- v.ao 11 1n0-QQ. 1n o~ a~k-Cra LoT) ! p~~o~,r e~,~ . was a 1 \ o W e..J 4~r 4-I.•e_ 6u, l.c~. .e. ~ . - - I 1o L) A' r~ Q-~- -~o r- U r C~t a,S c~"a . ~ Y ~ 1, -E- U3.O Lafpr . . Q,,b SC3 V1 C) t YY1 f)aC..~ lj\lQl,,°.~-s0 ver~'.. , 0 ~?r~~"\o~P' ~C7lY~Yl~:-~ ) O,~° Po.eLACI'~"~4~. I q ~ 4 v3 O v~ C4 "r1 r-)O l,J Q c~ -~~-2 C.-~- 4 V~ . , ~ 1 1r\e\C~ %or S . . Qe- \fec`~ rn v C~ ~ Q ~r1'1eC~ » `-~-ke, . . . y n ~ 1~' ~I~~ , ~p vJ r1 O^~ ~ Oi ? 1 uJ~1 ~?r~ t1~ ~ ~ OV c~ ~ (~ra rvt lI~ GL S h ~?1c 'T~V1 I -I ,-t>- Go -~OU(.s-Vs 4Aer-e, ~or S,~r-s i and c o~a 1 6 affrre c oAf- 4-Ine- vLlAn O-C 1,4e -~o . ~ O. c { j u-a O pu~Gk0. 4\ I . . ~ , . . . i i ~ ~ i i . , . . . . . . . - . _ . . . . . . , . . . . . u3e: . . . . .r I~n , o~ . . . ~o . o. . . . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ !g~ncg. . . w~. . ~a~ °-d-~ \~ns v r~ . k~- . ~ . . . . . , I . . . i . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 V~' e xce.~-lOln . o . . ~ 1a~,,~_. w . i Ls .f . . - . . . `~C ~~.b~~a-~:-. , . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . _ . . . . . . ~ . . . . .~~,6~- . . ~ . . . _ . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . oC i ~ , . . i ~ i . I . . . , , , , , ~ , , , , . I , . , . . . i ~ . _ . . . i ~ . , . I _ . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . I . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . _ . . ~ i . . . . . . . . . I . . . . , . . . . . . . . _ . . . . ~ . . . . . . ~ . . . . . , , 1 . . . . . ~ . . , _l. . . . . _ . . . , . . . _ _ _ .i . _ . . . , . . . . , . . . . ~ . o " opinion that the unavailability of the applicant could be interpreted as insufficient . information. Upon consultation with Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead, staff would recommend that the Vail Town Council grant an approval of the applicant's request for a 30-day extension of the appeals process hearing due to insufficient information. Lapin moved to grant a 30 day extension, with a second by Slifer. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. ~ The fivvelfifih item on the agenda was an appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's (PEC) denial of a request for a density (GRFA) variance to allow for the ` conversion of attic space to GRFA located at 3130 Booth Falls Court/Lot 6-A, Block 2, - Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Jeffrev & Eileen Shiffrin. Randy Stouder presented this item to Council. The applicants converted an area above their garage to habitable ~ space (GRFA) without design review approval or a building permit. Staff became aware of the unpermitted construction after the Fire Department responded to an alarm at the subject property. Construction was on-going when the Fire Department arrived, and no building permit was in evidence. The Fire Department alerted the Community Development Department of the unpermitted construction and the job was red-tagged (stop work order issued) on July 26, 1995. A letter was sent to the applicant requiring - that the unpermitted GRFA be removed (copy attached). The applicant decided to . request a density variance in an attempt to gain approval to allow the GRFA to remain. On October 9, 1995 the PEC unanimously denied (by a vote 5-0) the applicant's variance request. The applicant is appealing the PEC decision to the Town Council. Staff is recommending denial of the applicanYs request for a density variance. Jeff Shiffrin asked council to grant a density variance. Osterfoss explained the Town of Vail has clear guidelines to follow on density. Council must follow these'guidelines. Strauch _ moved to uphold the PEC decision and deny the density variance, with a second by Lapin. A vote was taken and passed, 5-2 with Navas & Slifer against. The thirteenth i4em on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. There report. !lais Commons Discussion & Decision. The Council agreed as hole to remain in - public session. Lapin once again recused himself and left th eeting. Osterfoss - asked for public comment. Jeff Christensen thanked C Curtis for her help. He did not appreciate the Town releasing to the press a le from William D. Rosell, as he felt this to be a smear campaign. Lew Meskiman ees the master plan is administrative, K however he feels the people should vote e property use. Bob Fiske does not feel the Council pursued all avenues befo eciding on City Market. Rob Levine believes this is a administrative issue. Pa ohnston believes this to have been an administrative process. Nav grees with Johnston and truly believes council should move ahead with the pro' . Steinberg does not feel it necessary to have everything ka go to a vote. We wo never need a land plan or a Town Council if this was the case. Wants to proceed ead with the project as it is administrative. Slifer said this is clearly ~ an administra e project. If this went to a vote what would the wording be on the ~ ballot? P les Ordinance 1 asks for a master plan to be approved by the electorate. - ~ The P les Ordinance 1, 1995 is very badly written and would have to go to court to hav interpreted before it could go on a ballot. Strauch has heard no evidence the ; cess has been legislative: He called 30 people who signed the petition asking them ~ why and he received 30 different answers. He votes to proceed with the project. (lctorfncc cfo4c/4 h~-d +h., .,~....,~..L7,... _ _ _a _ A ~i_ - - _ • I • • 1 . 1. • zi~ , dd e4 TO~1 OF ~A~L 75 South Frontage Road Off ce of the Town Manager Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Robert W. McLaurin Town Manager DATE: May 31, 1996 SUBJECT: Town Manager's Report Ordinance No. 5. Series of 1995. Animal Control On June 6, 1995, the Town adopted an animal control and carriage operation ordinance which is extensive in it's scope with the intention that a pet animal owner provide reasonable care for and assume full responsibility and strict liability for the action of any pet animal owned, kept, controlled, or in the custody of a pet animal owner. The public discussion of the issues concerning the ordinance were quite extensive and strong feelings were expressed by many members of the community. Due to the extensive nature of the ordinance, we scheduled a review of the operation of that ordinance for one year after iYs adoption. After one year of working with the ordinance we find that there has been no controversy on it's face or in it's operation and enforcement. If any member has any questions in regard to the enforcement, we would be happy to investigate and provide the information requested. Staff does not believe that it is necessary to take any action at this time in this regard. Goals and Critical Strategies At the 1996 Council Retreat, the Town Council identified five areas that were critical in moving the Town forward. These include local housing, transportation, economic stability, infrastructure and leadership. Following the retreat we have continued to develop and define these issues. Attached to this memo is the 1 st draft of the Goals and Critical Strategies. (Please note I have not yet completed the leadership goals and strategies, but hope to have a draft of this one for you by Tuesday.) . We have divided each issue into three parts; a goal which expresses the general intent and identified the desired outcome for each issue. The Critical Strategies are more specific than the goal and articulate the specific approaches to achieve the goals. The third area identifies the actions that will help achieve the goals. For each action, we have identified the task or action, the people or group responsible for completing the task, and the time the action will be complete. Finally we have identified the cost or the budget impaet. As seen in the documents, there are several incomplete sections. During the next week we will be working to finalize data and costs. RECYCLED PAPER As indicated these pages represent the first draft of this document. We have scheduled time for the Council to discuss this on June 11, 1996. Following this session we can finalize this work. Adult Dancing Ordinance As you are probably aware, several adult dancing establishments have been established in the Roaring Fork Valley. Several people have expressed concern this could happen in Vail. I asked Dominic Mauriello to analyze the TOV zoning ordinance to determine how we would handle such an application. Dominic's report is attached to this memo. I believe that given the organizational structure of our ordinance, we could deny an application for an adult dance club. Although I'm not sure this a serious threat to our community, you may wish to tighten our ordinance in this area. Dominic will be available to discuss this issue on Tuesday. Horse Carriage Franchise We received three applications for the Carriage Franchise. A committee consisted of Bob Slagle, Tom Sheely and Larry Grafel reviewed the applications and interview all the applicants. Following these interviews, this group unanimously recommended the franchise be awarded to Rocky Mountain Carriage Company. I have accepted the recommendation of the committee. We will be proceeding as follows; both of the existing contracts will be extended through the summer. The exclusive contract will be awarded to Rocky Mountain Carriage Company effective following labor day. RWM/aw . V..' . ~ MEMO ' To: Bob 1VIcLauren, Town lYianager Susan Connelly, Director of Community Development Mike 1Vlollica, Assistant Director of Community Development Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney From: Dominic 1VTauriello, Planner Date: May 13, 1996 Re: Permissibility of Nude Dancing Night Clubs in the Town of Vail I have reviewed our IVlunicipal Code with regard to the allowance or prohibition of "adult" , oriented businesses in Vail. The following is an analysis of our Code and some recommendations on potential remedies. Chapter 9.28 Prostitution (attached) states that establishments licensed to serve alcohol shall not permit nudity or the showing of films displaying nudity. Therefore the issue is whether a club without a liyuor license can have nudity. . The Vail Zoning Code is a permissive type zoning ordinance. This means that uses allowable are listed in each district and if a use is not listed or "similar," then they are prohibited. There is no list of prohibited uses. A"nude dance club" or similar adult use is not listed as a permitted use in any zoning district. Section 18.06.020 (B) (attached) states that: The permitted uses, conditional uses and accessory uses in the particular districts shall be deemed to be exclusive uses for those districts, and any use mot specifically peraYaitted as a permetted use is pro9neb8ged unless a determination of similar use is made in accordance with Section 18.66.040. Section 18.66.040 (Determination of similar use) states that the Town Council, upon its own initiation or upon written request, shall determine whether a use not specifically listed is deemed similar to other uses listed. Since adult oriented businesses are not specifically listed, it could be interpreted that they are not allowed in any district in Vail. However, if an adult club is "similar" to a bar or restaurarit then they could be permitted. Bars and restaurants are allowed to have live performances and therefore may be deem similar to a restaurant with live nude dancing. There are a couple of Supreme Court cases which have an effect on regulation in this area. Young v. American Mini Theatres, Jnc., 427 U.S. 50 (1976), Schad v. Borough of Mt. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61 (1981), and City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. 475 U.S. 41 (1986). In American Mini Theatres, the City of Detroit adopted an ordinance which required a minimum distance between adult businesses. In this case the Court found that the City did not restrict free speech because the ordinance did not outright prohibit the use and because the City was acting to protect the welfare of the community. . . ~ In Schad, the municipality put an outright ban on all "live performances." The court found this ordinance unconstitutional. In Playtime Theatres, the City of Renton restricted adult theaters to no closer than 1,000 feet of certain zones, which essentially resulted in one area where they could be allowed. The court upheld the ordinance and found that it did not restrict free-speech because it developed the ordinance to control the documented secondary effects of such uses and did not prohibit such uses. I think we have several avenues which could pursued; 1. If presented with such a request, the Zoning Administrator could deny it based on the fact that it is not "specifically listed" in the code; 2. The Town Council could, upon its own initiative, determine whether the use should or should not be deemed similar to other uses listed in certain districts; or 3. The Town could adopt an ordinance restricting such uses based on documented seconda.ry effects of such businesses. I have requested some information from the Planning Advisory Service and will forward any new information. f:\dominic\wpfiles\memos\nude.wpd ' 2 . ~ PUBLIC PEACE, MORALS AND WELFARE ~ . 1 Chapter 9.28 : . . . . . . . FROSTITUTION" . ' Sections: 9.28.010 Prohibited conduct-Liquor licensed premises. 9.28.0I0 Prohibited conduct-Liquor licensed premises. A. No licensee for the sale of spirituous, vinous or malt beverages or 3.2 beer shall install, maintain or operate, or permit the installation, maintenance or operation of, within or upon the licensed premises, any gambling table, establishment, device, machine, apparatus or other thing contrary to this chapter or to the laws of this state or which - is kept or used for the purpose of Qambling either directly or indirectly. This chapter shall not be construed to prohibit the use of bona fide amusement devices which do not and cannot be adjusted to pay anythin; of .value, and which may not be used for gambling, directly or indirectly, and for the scoring, achievement, use or operation of which no prize, reward or thing of value is offered or paid by any person. B. Each licensee shall conduct lus estabiishment in "a decent, orderly and respectable manner, and shall not permit ivithin or upon the licensed premises lewd or indecent displays; . . profanity, rowdiness, undue noise, or other disturbance 'ar activity offensive to the senses of the avera-e citizen, or to the residents of ihe neighborhood in which the establishment is located. - . : C. No licensee, manager or aaent shalI employ or permit upon . any liquor licensed premises, for consumption on the premises any employee, waiter, waitress, entertainer, host or hostess to mingle with patrons and personally beg, procure, or solicit the purchase or sale of drinks or beverages for the use of the one begging, procuring or soliciting or for the use of any other employee. D. No licensee, manaaer or agent shall permit upon any Iiquor licensed premises for consumption on the premises anyone to loiter in or about said premises for the purpose of begging and soliciting any patron or customer of, or visitor . . . - ` (Vail9-30-77) 140 PROSTITUTION in, such premises to purchase any drinks or beverages of any . . type or nature whatsoever, for the one soliciting or begging. E. No licensee for retail sale by the drink of spirituous, vinous, or malt beverages or 3.2 beer shall permit any person or persons to appear in a state of nudity or simulated nudity within or upon the premises. " F. No licensee for retail sale by the drink of spirituous, vinous, _ or malt beverages or 3.2 beer shall permit the showing of ' -film, still pictures, electronic reproduction, or other visual reproductions depicting any act or live performance : prohibited by this section. : - G. For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply: - ~ 1. "Lewd or indecent displays" means performing acts of ` or acts which simulate: _ a. Sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation or any sexual acts w•hich are prohibited by law; b. The touching, caressing or fondling on the breast, ' buttocks, anus or genitals; c. The displaying of the pubic hair, anus, vulva or genitals; . d. The displaying of the post-pubertal human female breast below a point immediately above the'top of the areola, or the displaying of the posi-pubertal i" human female breast where the nipple only or the nipple and areola only are covered. . 2. "Nudity" means uncovered, or less than opaquely covered, post-pubertal human genitals, pubic areas, the post-pubertal human female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola, or the covered human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state. For purposes of this def-inition, a female breast is con- . sidered uncovered if ihe nipple only or the nipple and - the areola only are covered. (Ord. 21(1977) § 8.) 141 . . , , (vast s-z-ss) ZONING S. Natural Area Preservation District (NAP); - T. Ski Base/Recreation District; U. Special Development District (SD). (Ord. 94-21(1994): ' Ord. 32(1988) § 2: Ord. 23(1987) § 1: Ord. 30(1986) § l: Ord. 30(1977) § 2: Ord. 2(1976) § 3(A): Ord. 24(1974) § 3(A): Ord. 8(1973) § 1.201.) 18.06.020 Permitted uses. A. The listing of any use as being a pemutted use in any _particular district shall be deemed an exclusion of such use from any other district unless expressly permitted as a permitted use, conditional use or accessory use. B. The pemutted uses, conditional uses and accessory uses in . . the particulaz districts shall be deemed to be exclusive - uses for those districts, and any use not specifically per- . mitted as a permitted use is prohibited unless a determina- . tion of similar use is made in accordance with Section 18.66.040. (Ord. 50(1978) § 21.) . Chapter 18.08 - ~ . . . _ ZORIING MAP Sections: 18.08.010 Adopted. 18.08.020 Filing. 18.08.030 Changes. 18.08.040 IPeplacement. ~ _ . 18.08.050 Interpretation of boundaries. 18.08.060 Property without a zone designation. 18.08.010 Adopted. The Town is divided into districts as shown on the Offi- cial Zoning Map of the Town which, together with all explana- : tory material thereon, is adopted by reference and declared to . . . be part of this Title. (Ord. 8(1973) § 1.202.) (vaii 4-95) 314 i 4VAIL TOWN ~~~BUTY THE G6JAL OE THE TOWN OF !lABL, THROUGH A PARTNERSHBP W~TH T6ig PRIVATE SEC~~~ ~S TO C~~~~ ~ STf~ONG, VIABLE LOCAL ECONOM1f. THE LOCAL ECONOflflV SHOV9LD HAV~ ~ ~OL9D ECONOMiC BASE c~~~ ~ ~EAS0NABLE RATE OF GIR~WTH. THE V'OWR9 W0LL STR11VE TO STRENCTHEN FlASIL'S ECOP3OMlf WHILE MAINTA9N8NC ENV@RONMENTAL AND DES0GN EXCELLENCE. Stra4eaies a Enhance economic development opportunities. b. Strengthen relationship vuith 4he business community. c. Encourage responsible commercial redevelopmenfi in Vail Village, Lionshead and West Vail. d. Increase the number of "live" beds in fihe Vail Village and Lionshead. e. UVork with the private sector to improve the quality of the exisfiing bed base. fi Work with the private secfior to increase taxable retail sales, g Improve customer focus and service. h. Encourage special events and create festive retail opportunities. Actions Responsibilitv ~Time Budget Impac4lFundinw " Analyze retail trends and opportunities (eg ULI) ' TOVNA Task Force, LH & W hherchants McLaurin, Connelly Silverthorn * Streamline development review for Connelly commercial redevelopment. " Conduct study on Village loading & delivery . Grafel, Hall, Connelly, Sheely $30, 000 * Review special event regulations to determine how to Brandmeyer, McCutchen, Special Events on going NA ease application process for these events Commission Wateiton, Sheely ' Complete West Vail Design Guidelines Ruther, Hall * Complete Ford Park Master Plan Brandmeyer., Ruther, Oppenhiemer 10196 , VRD, WF, Alpine Gardens ~ . i ECONOMIC STABILITY Actions Responsibilitv Time Budget ImpactlFunding * Explore alternative parking management strategies Rose, Grafel, McLaurin g/gg ' Develop a plan for the Lionsheatl redevelopment and Town Council, McLaurin, Connelly 1l97 develop partnerships to implement said plan Moorehead, Thompson, VA LH Merchants & property owners * Undertake and complete the Community Strategic Plan TOVNA Task Force, McLaurin, Connelly, Silverthorn 12196 $200,000" * Complete Development Improvement Review Process Connelly, Duran, Hall 7l96 NA * Continue to develop non peak strategies TOVNA Task Force on going ~ The cost of this ifem is to be measured in terms of lost revenues. The specific cost will be a funcfion what action(s) are taken. For example, continuing the free 6-9 program will have one cost, while eliminating charges after 4:00 pm will have another. This is total esiimated cost of this effort. It is expected the lotal TOV poriion not exceed $50,000. The balance is expected to come from the private sector. The TOV portion is to be reallocated from the capital budgel currently allocated for a land use plan update. ToWvoF vAIL NF sTRUcTURE THE GOAL OF THE T04NN 0F VAOL AS ~~OVIDE FOR THE CONSTR9.DCT00N ~~D M~INTENANCE 0F PUBLIC 9NFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARV TO MA9NTA0N AND ENHANC~ QUALOTY OF LffE FOR RESIDENTS AND ~NHANCE THE 4UAL9T1( OE THE EXPEROENCE FOR OUR GUESTS. Strate oes a. Plan, prioritize antl fund infrastructure necessary to maintain and enhance the quality of life and the quality of experience in the community. b. Prepare a 10 year capital budget uuhich prioritizes the TOV capital needs. c. Identify and construct capital improvements necessary to enhance the 1999 Ski Championships. d. Commit to and fund a systematic streefi reconstruction program. e. Identify additional funding sources to help fund major capital projects, Ac4ions Responsibilitv Time Budget ImpactlFunding * Planand select preferred McLaurin, Hall, Grafel, Silverthorn 11196 $75,000' alternative for West Vail Interchange ` Construct bus barn improvements Grafel, Hervert, NicLaurin 12196 $2,500,000 * Design and construct improvements at Seibert Circle Oppenheimer, Hall, AIPP 10197 $350,000 art piece) ° Reconstruct Vail Valley Drive (7RC to Goltlen Peak) Hall, Grafel, McLaurin 10196 $300,000 " Reconstruct Vail Va{ley Drive (Golden Peak to Sunburst) Hall, Grafel, McLaurin 9197 $2,500,000 ' Construct Pulis Bridge Hall, CDOT 6196 $130,000 $75,000 will fund the technical analysis and public participation element necessary to select a preferred alternative. Once lhe Council has selecfed an alternaiive the construction design and preparation of contract documents will cost approximately $150,000. The cost of the actual construction will be a funcfion of the selected altemative. To date $300,000 has been allocated from CDOT. We will be pursuing additional funding for the construction of this project. , INFRASTRUCTURE Actions Responsibility Time Budget ImaactlFundin,g * Construct Library chute petlestrian improvements Hall, Oppenheimer, McLaurin 10196 $350,000 * Plan, design and renovate TRC Grafel, Rose, McLaurin 11l96 $400,000 ' Construct Bridge Street drainage improvements Hall, Weber 5196 $35,000 ' Construct North Frontage Road improvements Hall 10196 $500,000 * Complete the Dowd Junction Bike Path project Hall 10196 $1,000,000 ' Vista Bahn Drainage Project Hall, Weber 7l96 $125,000 * Complete Golf Course Street Project Hall, Martinez 7196 $450,000 * Lionsridge Street Project Hall 9197 $2,300,000 * Westhaven, W. Forest Rd Overlay Hall 8I96 $225,000 * Baid Mountain Rdl Glen Lyon Seal Project Hall 8196 $60,000 * Marriott Curb & sidewalk replacement Hall 7196 $50,000 * Chamonx culvert replacement ` Hall $75 000 , ~ ~ e4 TOWNOF VAII, ~ ~~~~~~~~AMN THE GOAL OE THE TOWN OF VA6L IS TO PRO119DE FOR TH€ SAFE AND EFFDCB~~~ ~OVEMENT OF, PEOPLE AND GOODS WITHBN TI~E T~WYN Of€ VAUL. TC~~ ~OWN IS COMMV~~~~ ~ MULTI M0~~L TRANSPORTATBON SVSTEM W8TH8N T8~~ ~OWN OfF F9A9L, ~~TH0N THE REG9ON. THE. Strate~'oes_ a. Improve the efficiency of the TOV Transif System. b. VVork uuith our funding partners 4o improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Regional Transportation System. c. UVork to provitle for the efficient delivery and distribution of goods in Vail Village and Lionshead. d. Provide for the safe movement of bicyclists and pedestrians within the TOV and in the region. e. Maintain a safe and efficient sfreet system in the Town of Vail. Minimize congestion. f. UVork with the Rail Coalition to secure the abandoned Southern Pacific railroad right of way. AcQions Responsibslity Time Budget Impac4lFundinq " Plan and select preferretl althernative McLaurin, Hall, Grafel, Silverthorn 11196 $75,000' for the West Vail Interchange ° Complete the Dowd Junction Bike Path Grafel, Hall 10l96 $1,200,000" ° Complete library chute pedestrian improvements Grafel, Oppenheimer. Hall, McLaurin 10/96 $350,000 " Complete West Vail bike path Forrest, HaII,Oppenheimer 10/96 $325,000 (RETf) ~$75,000 will fund the technical analysis and public participation element necessary to select a preferred alternative. Once the Council has selected an alternative the construction design and preparation of contract documents will cost approximately $150,000. The cost of the actual construction will be a function of the selected alternative. To date $300,000 has been allocated from CDOT. We will be pursuing additional funding for the construction of this project. ~~Funidng sources for this project are as follows; TOV $460, Eagle County $200,000, CDOT $740,000 ~ TRANSPORTATION Actions Responsibilitv Time Budaet ImpactlFundinq ' Analyze Simba Run Options Hall, Grafel, McLaurin, 11196 NA"' * Identify sites for park and ride lots Grafel, Hall, Rose, McLaurin 12196 NA * Contluct rate analysis for parking structures Rose, Grafel, McLaurin 9196 * Continue to participate in rail abandonment coalition Rose, Grafel, McLaurin, Foley On going * Continue to participate in the Regional Transportation Authority Foley; McLaurin, Grafel, Rose On going * Complete loading and delivery stutly Hall, McLaurin, Grafel, Moorhead $30,000 ' Continue to implement Holiday Management Plan Grafel, Rose, McLaurin 12196 NA * Traffic Code motlifications (speed limits) Hall, Moorhead 8l96 NA * Replace six buses Grafel, Rose, Scholl 12197 $1,250,000- This analysis will be included as pari of the analysis of West Vail Interchange options. The cost of this work is included in the $75,000. The cost of item is io be measured in terms of lost revenues. The specific cost will be a function of what actions are implemented. For example, continuing the free 6-9 program will have one cost, w i e elimnating charges after 4:00 pm will have another. This includes federal funding of $1,000,000 and $250,000 from the TOV ! , ~u tg TOWN OF UAIL LOCAL HOUSiNG THE GOAL OF TV~~ ~OWM OF VAI9. BS TO EACBL@TATE THE PROVeSION A RANGE ~F HOUS9NG OPPORTvNBTEES WHBCH WI@.L PRONIDE LOCALS AN OP~~~TUNUT1f TO LIF9E 9N VA@L. THE TOWN BEL@EVES LOCAL HOIDSINC OPPORTUNITE~~ ~~OULD ~NCLUDE OWNER-OCCUPIED DEED RESTR9CTED vN9TS, RENTAL vWflTS AND vN9TS FOR USE BV SEASONA9. EMPLOYEES. THE YO@NN 0F VAIL RECOGNBZ~~ ~HAT LOCAL HOUSeNC 9S 6MP0RTANT TO MABNTA9N9NC OUR SENSE OE COMMUNPTY AND OS CRBTOCAL 9~ SUSTA@NIN6~ THE @l9AB9~ITY OF THE LOCAL ECOBVOMV. Strrate ues a. Maintain the existing rental housing base in Vail. b. Facilitate the development of new seasonal housing. c. Facilitate the construction of new rental housing in Vail. d. Update and revise existing housing regulations as necessary. e. Confiinue to utilize and enforce existing employee housing regulations f. Develop partnerships fo help implement the Town's housing goals and strategies, g. Facilitate the development of new owner occupied units in the Town of Vail. h, Use the TOV land development regulations fio help achieve the Town's goals. Actions Respowsobolidv Time Bud ea @ {mpacUFundina ° Execute agreement with USFS for local housing pilot project Knudtsen, McLaurin 12196 NA " Oversee the construction and sale of the Vail Commons units. Knudtsen, McLaurin, Moorhead 3197 NA ° Coordinate with the Water District to develop the Red Sandstone site. Knudtsen, McLaurin 9197 $625,000' " Plan, program and construct seasonal units at the Public Works site Knudtsen, Grafel, Hervert 9197 $2,000,000" " Develop owner occupied units on the Arosa lots. Knudtsen, McLaurin 9198 unknown * Identify and commit to atlditional sites for local housing NicLaurin, Moorhead, Knudtsen on going NA * Determine the appropriate use of the Berry Creek property Town Council 12196 NA * Pursue generating funds for housing through sale of select LOAA parcels Connelly, Forest, Knudtsen 12196 NA " Participate in Eagle County Housing Task Force Knudtsen NA NA I « The TOV will fund the construction of these units from the Housing Fund. When the units are sold this fund will be reimbursed. ' This amount is currently unfunded. It is anticipated this project would be a tax credit project and the capital for this project woultl come from a private developer. r May 31, 1996 Town Council Members Town of Vail Dear , I would like to give you some background information concerning our appeal before the Vail Town Council scheduled for June 4th 7:30 PM. My husband, three children and I moved to Vail from Washington, D. C. in November 1994 after being part-time residents here for the previous 5 years. Our move was a lifestyle change and we took a cut in income to be able to make that move. We chose to live in the Town of Vail because we felt it had great benefits available to us and a supportive community that we wanted to be a part of. Subsequently, we opened a business in Lionshead and are generally very happy to be here. Unfortunately, we are caught in a situation which we feel is unfair and an intrusion of our rights. We pur- chased 1/2 of a duplex built by John Mueller. Apparently, John had built the house a bit to large for the allowable square footage. Instead of making him tear down or reconstruct, the town allowed him to keep an extra 140 square foot room off of our dining area, tear up the floor and seal the wall. After we pur- chased the house, we discovered this area and, like we had done to our home in Washington, decided to make use of the much needed space. The room was about 90% finished, and we added a hardwood floor and doorway. (My husband does woodworking as a hobby and did the work himsel fl. We were unaware that the Town of Vail does not allow a homeowner to use 100% of the home he had purchased. I'm sure you know what follows, as the town discovered our neighbor had done exactly the same thing when they had their second child.We were both told to tear out our improvements, and that we were not allowed to use this small space. This is space that we both badly need to house our families. We have no office or den where are children can study, and as our houses have 3 bedrooms total, they can't just go to their room. I guess the part that I can't understand is that this room will have absolutely no impact on anyone in the Town of Vail except our own families. We aren't asking to build anything on the exterior, nottiing that changes any exterior appearance whatsoever. As a matter of fact, our neighbors welcome it, and can't understand what the problem is. The town doesn't seem to mind that we had to buy this room, pay taxes on it, heat it and that we have to insure this room. We could have purchased a much larger house down valley to more than suit our family needs. But we truly do love to live in this town, to be able to go "down the street" to a restaurant or movie and take part in all the wonderful opportunities this town has to offer. We feel we also have a lot to offer this town, and that it's main mission should be to keep a strong community here. It is only possible if you can have some understanding on how hard it is to be able to afford to live in this town with a family. I'm sure we are not the only two families that have made improvements to the interior of their homes for the sake of comfort for their families. Please don't allow good citizens to become "criminals" and subsequendy drive them down valley. There are a lot of hardworking, caring people in this town that are truly trying to improve it. Sincerely, Brent and Barbara Bingham 3130-B Booth Falls Ct. Vail, CO 81657 476-4477 ~f~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ % m RECEIVEO MAY 2 3 , „~~,C~ ~ ~ ~•~~~--rc1 --rw-~- , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,XA1' ~ ,/f?"~ ~ / ~ / f 90att `ui,d s %P~,'- R'Q~ 2920 ~nCO g1d~;7~'brw- ` ! ~ 6d e4 TO WW OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Offcce of the Town Attorney Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2107/Fa.r 970-479-2157 May 24, 1996 Common Sense Committee -c!o Michael Jewett Post Office Box 314 Vail, CO 81658 Dear Mike: On May 21, 1996, I received a hand written note from you which requested the following: "I would like to review a copy of the preliminary environmental assessment as provided under Town of Vail 18.56.030 part C. Please let me know when this report is available!" Pursuant to that request the following information is available for your inspection from 2:00 to 5:00 p.m. at the Town of Vail Administration OfFices. The material was reviewed and available to Town of Vail staff, Town of Vail Council, the Task Force which considered this project, and every entity receiving a Request for Proposal. It includes the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted prior to the Town's purchase of the Vail Commons site, the consultant team survey results, ASI Housing Overview Study, BRW retail analysis, BRW traffic study, profile of the Vail area, overview of the Vail area, pertinent information from the Vail Transportation Plan, property owners list of the surrounding area, Town of Vail parking and loading standards, Town of Vail zoning standards for the CC3 zone district, legal description of the property and pertinent excerpts from the title policy, survey results and survey form, and the request for proposals. This information conesponds to and meets the requirements of Chapter 18.56. These original documents will be in the custody and control of Anne Wright unti15:00 p.m. on May 24th, when they will be returned to the permanent records. This availability corresponds to our conversation of May 24, 1996 at 9:30 a.m., in the administrative offices. RECYCLED PAPER i I would like to remind you that there is an outstanding invoice of $72.50 that remains unpaid at this time. Please take care of that at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, TOWN OF VAIL R. Thomas Moorhead Town Attorney RAM/aw xc: Vail Town Council Robert W. McLaurin Susan Connelly Andy Knudtsen " Suzanne Silverthorn ~i ~-~j'~~~ . G~ ~ } . o - ~ , . . ~ ~ i~:~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , . ~ r ~ Gt~~~~ ~J ' , ~ ;~'~~eG~ . ' ~ °2°~ ` ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~G f • 9 • ~ ~~61j C~~~ ~f1 ~ . , ~t~~~~ . ~ G~-~'~~'~ ' ~ ~ ~ - ~ . ,~~'~;;j~` ~ i~~~- ~ -'Q~~~~~~ ~ ,fi' G%~~ , ~ ~/1/L~2ti"`'- ' ~ ~ ( 4~"(~V' _ ^ ~{J~ / - ' I ~C%~ ~ 6 ~ ~ (.~6~ ~jv L,4y/`/~/~t~ ~ , . ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~~~'J}/,~ ! . ' Y ~ (f /~b~(~i~~s ~ i ~ ~ ~ I V G~' Y V / V~ 1 ~ ~ ~ l~~~ , • ' ~ ~ . - - , , ~ G~~a~ . /f• . ~ . C , 7,V / i - . Mai Mmhy~itPy-;5ummertlm"6 j . ; n ~ t ,:4~~ 3. .:C ~~q' D~ k~R~3. V } ~ A °&za W`L ~M '~~yR 1 ~ ,~a '~~ad r~'.~s; ,pF ~,3~ a e ~ 4t8sxs i~~ 4 3 s~ my. ~ ~ ~~r~,~ 'a j~ ~v°s~+z•z ~ ~ ~ i .p+~' # ~S'r„ ,~j~ ~ .'i_ -r{ . i~ . , y~.yp 'b•( 1 S,'i3 , ~ i`~ ~T•4 P`F~ A,~ Y , Dn ~ ..'L4~ ~t) Vail Daily Fiie Photi bail !/alley biking: not for 4he faint a4 heart. .~l/,, Ilel . I~/ ~ tl ~ S ~ ee e4 TORW OF VAIL 75 South Frontage 1Zoad Vait, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 FOR @MMEDBATE R~~EASE iViay 28, 1996 Contact: Bob NicLaurin, 479-2105 Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Town fVlanager Community information Office TO!f TO SEEK PUBL9C'S HELP BN DETERMINING ACTION PLAN FOR WEST VABL PNTERCHAN(sE 6MPR0!/EIVIENTS (Vail)--The Town of Vail is ready to take on the West Vail interchange project with a commitment to actively involve the public in making decisions about interchange improvements. The interchange has long been criticized for inadequacies in traffic movement, sight distance, safety, maintenance, aesthetics and other issues. And now, following an unforgettable pothole season, residents say they've had enough. The town's just-completed community survey lists the West Vai1 interchange as a significant problem (4.4 on a scale of 5, with 5 being a big problem) and the town's top priority. Once a decision is reached, improvements could begin as early as next construction season. With numerous opportunities for public involvement, the West Vail interchange project is a reflection of the town's intent to include citizens in public decisions, said Town Manager Bob IVicLaurin. The process--involving surveys, focus groups, open houses and other citizen meetings--was designed during a public participation workshop attended by members of the town's staff and Town Council. • The project will officially get underway this week when residents and holiday travelers (more) RECYCLEDPAPER i ~ . , . West Vail Interchange/Add 1 ~ will be asked to participate in an on-site survey at several West Vail businesses. The survey will ask people about the problems they experience at the interchan'ge. That information will be used to help determine alternative -,olutions. , The town has signed a contract with MK.Centennial E.ngineering of Arvada to assist ~ in development and analysis of those alternative solutions. Centennial engineers are currently working to address traffic problems in Avon and have been succe;ssful in developing unique solutions to complex transportation problems in resort communities throughout the Rocky Mountains. The Colorado Department of Transportation has aPProved a $300,000 9rant for Plannin9 and en9inee.ring fees. Town Engineer Greg Hall said Centennial will be ask ?d to c1i ivelop as many design alternatives as possible to be ranked against a set of s~andard:; establishe;d by the participants from the community. "We want to hear as many ide as from the people as , possible," Hall said. "At this point, we want to look at the full spEictrum of possibilities regardless of cost, funding partners or timing of construction. This way, we won't preclude any ideas." ~ _ Discussions will be centered around seven "ground rules" established by the town: . • Desi9n solutions will not comPromise safetY and must accommodate long-term , traffic volume and safety needs. The Town of Vail will be the lead agency in project initiation; in accordance with the Town Charter, the Town Council will make the final decision on;the project and budget. Approval from the County, State and Federal levels islalso necessary. ~ • The town will seek the maximum contributions from all funding sour;ces. • Depending on the amount of funding received for this project, othercapital projects may be delayed. The project will be designed to professional standards and regulatory requirements. ' (more) ~ i J ~ West Vaii lnterchange/Add 2 0 All ideas for sotutions will be considered. 0 The Town Council and staff will strongly consider securring preferences expressed by all people involved. ~ Access in West Vail to and from the interstate will be maintained. Citizens will be asked to assist in four areas: ~ Define the probiems created by traffic delays at the Vllest Vail interchange. ~ Establish the standards by which alternative solutions will be judged and ranked ~ the most important. ~ Respond to alternative sofutions developed by TOV staff and the consultant. (Each alternative wi11 include an explanation of pluses and minuses and how it addresses the most important standards.) Review the preliminary pian before it is forv?rarded to the Town Council to make sure it accurately reflects the criteria and community discussion. In all, the town will host 13 public meetings and workshops between iViay and September to work toward a solution. Following this week's on-site surveys, the town will spend the month of June working with interested people to develop rating criteria and standards to be used to evaluate interchange solutions and will be asking the public for alternative solution ideas. There will be a breakfast discussion on Wednesday, June 6, and a late afternoon barbeque on Nionday, June 10. The June 6 meeting will be from 7:45 to 9 a.m. at the Dancing Bear in VVest Vail and the June 10 meeting will be from 5:15 to 6:30 p.m. at Stephens Park in the Intermountain neighborhood. At both of those meetings, the town also will share a draft concept for site planning and design guidelines for the West Vail commercial area. "We want to benefif from the opportuni4y to access members of the community who care about West Vail," said George Ruther, project planner in the town's Community Development Department. (more) • i s West Vail Interchange/Add 3 In July, open houses will be held to present interchange design alternatives based on ~ citizen ideas. tn August, a final recommendation will be developed with help from area residents, followed by authorization from the Town Council in late September. For more information, or if you'd like to participate in the West Vail interchange meetings, please call the Community Information Office at 479-2115. ~ # # I , ~ , .I ~ ; I I I ~ - . i I j ~ I i . I' • Design, build or maintain development projects, streets, or landscaping ? • R.eview development projects or administrate land use regulations or water quality standards? • Care about the water quality in the Eagle River and its . . tributaries? • Wonder how we can improve our efforts to protect local water quality? ~ You are a key player in protecting and improving the water oz quality of the Eagle River and it's tributaries. Please attend the , 1 :r WATE'>) Q/UAIJTYWO-.,)`MSH Of . ~ It's About: Improving Local Efforts To Protect Water Quality in the Eagle River Watershed. It'S f01': Engineering Firm Staff, Developers, Construction Contractors, Excavating Contractors, Special Districts, Public Works Road and Bridge Staff, Environmental Professionals, Planning Commissioners, Town and County Staff, Elected Officials. : : : : TO'~~ CHAM13E~~ : : '~~'U~~D]~.Y~ .•~Y~"~~_~ ~ ' . : ~ . . ; : RSNP ;325 8316 iup to:Nvan, June 13th: AGENDA 6 30-7:00 p.m. Brief Review of Where We Are Now: How Is Our Water Quality? Whose Responsible for Protecting Water Ouality? Local Efforts to Work Cooperatively on Water Quality? The Eagle River Water Shed Plan The Clean Water Act 208 Pan 7:00-8:30 p.m. Tools and Methods for Protectiri¢ Water Quality: Presentation and Discussion Water Quality Regulations - What do the town's and county have in place now? What do they need? tUhat do or should they try to accomplish? Break Design Standards- what should an effective stonn water management plan or erosion control plan look like and more Field Practices - What is the best way to excavate, install sediment control, manage runoff from pavement? and more 8:30 - 9:00 p.m. Wrap Up Which are the most appropriate tools and methods for us? How will we implement to see results? Who does what? Local Government's and Special Districts Roles Desig??Pr and Contractors Roles? River User's Roles? Sponsored by The `I'own of Avon, 7'he Town of Vail & Eagle Cournty Facilitated by: Northwest Colorado councd of Goverriments -_'l ~Func~ed by a Grant from Great Outc~oors Colorac~o ~t ~ - ° ECEIVED MAY 3 1 ~~zanne ~ o ug~.n9 rAer . ~ XC ~ 2642 Kinnickinnick Court - Vail, Colorado USA 81657 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3768 o Vail, Colorado USA 81658 (970) 476-0764 - FAX (970) 476-2564 The Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd Vail, Co 81657 ~ Att: 7im Curnutte ' . May 30, 1996. Dear Jim: This afternoon I am in receipt of your letter May 24, 1996 and mailed May 28, 1996 concerning my "illegal" unit at 2642 Kinnikinnick Ct, Vail, Co and I am responding to such. There seems to be some incorrect statements in your letter that I would like to cover. . l. Randy Stouder did come to my house in December to follow up on complaints, voiced by Harry Gray, that I had an illegal unit and that I was in violation of the business code, not just to follow up on my Harry Ciray complaints. I told Randy I expected the visit, from Community Development, for some time. Tom 11Roorehead has a thank you letter from me that verifies that Randy was here. I told Debra Keller that Randy had been here and that Harry Gray had filed a complaint about my 3rd unit. She reconfirmed with me her findings with Walter Kirsch (her boss's husband) and said the Town can't do that. Debra obviously forgot to tell George that she and I had initially had the conversation in the Summer, 1995 about the possibility of the Town forcing me to stop renting her unit. I told her then that when I bought the property I had never been able to find sufficient information in the file at the Town that this was built legally. I had told her that if we complained about Harry's dogs and parking he would retaliate and this would be what he would use against me as he had already questioned me on the unit during his first year of construction on his house. And, as I anticipated, he didn't disappoint me! I even told Debra to go check with her sources as to this unit as I didn't want her uncomfortable living here and I would wait on her findings before proceeding with complaints on Harry. Debra got back to me and said everyone she had talked too, including Walter Kirsch (who unfortunately is no longer with us) told her the unit was grandfathered and the Town couldn't do anything about it. This is what I have been told by everyone too, over the years, (including Greg Amsden, on PEC, just recently). Debra wished to move from here for her own reasons not because the unit may be illegal. She had the option and opportunity to move last year but she elected to stay another year. I had no reason not to -be honest with her. and have kept her aprived of everything concerning the Gray's. Debra was even invited to the neighbourhood meetings with the Town. She decided to break her lease without bothering to discuss it with me first and was very put out when I couldn't accommodate her. I certainly have worked with tenants getting out of leases in the past but she obviously called the Town to further her case to break her lease. See her note to me attached. 2. When I reviewed the file in 1989 I don't recall a letter from Betsy Rosolack and I'm not sure who Don I.arson is? A past owner? I bought this property from 1 st Bank of Villa Italia. However, that letter states what the zoning was and is now. I knew that much when I bought the property. However, there was no building permit or anything else, in the file, to say that the builder had not gained permission to do what he did. It would have been nice if the Town had informed me that you were inspecting my property. You could have set an appointment with me too as I didn't leave till April 18th and you say Debra called on the 17th and George came by on the 17th. Seeing the violation was against me and the Town was coming on my property, where I live, I think it would of been good manners to also made an appointment with me. It wasn't as if I was trying to hide anything from the Town and I had already admitted to Community Development, in December, that the unit existed. George should of also inspected my living area to see that there had been no additions to the fuse box and he could of observed that all cabinets, trim etc in the upstairs were of the same age as the rest of the property. I get the feeling that I am been accused of turning that master bedrom/bath into a third unit? I did not. Before I bought the property I did think that if no proof existed then it was automatically illegal but then I heard and have been told over and over again, a unit built 20 years ago is grandfathered and it is the Town that has to prove that it was built illegally and if no proof exists then it is grandfathered. I don't believe a letter written to someone about zoning justifies that the property was, in fact, built illegally. I lived here in 1976 and I know that the County (and Town for that matter) was very liberal on code and variances so how do you know the builder didn't get permission? Where is the building permit? As I have mentioned before, I did my best to get proof before purchasing. I went to Community Development. I was given a file with a couple of pieces of paper in it (one, I believe, was an improvement survey?) but there was no building permit so I decided to track it down. I told the girl at the desk, at Community Development, that the information in the file was insufficient and she told me that's all there is and to go to Eagle County as they still have records because the property was built under Eagle County guidelines, before the annexation. Well, Eagle County, told me in no uncertain terms, to go back to Vail as Vail was given all the records when Intermountain was annexed. I went back to your office and the attitude was - we can't be bothered that's all we have. So, disgusted with the lack of help, I gave up and bought the property. The only thing I am guilty of is buying the property and leaving it the way it was. All I have done, over the years of my ownership, is paint and carpet. 3. You make the comment that George said the upper level is a"separate" unit. Well, it is not. It is not separated. I can open a regular bedroom door and walk right in there. 4. Xes, you are right. I did say that I would not deed restrict. You can't unrestrict. As I told Randy having this property deed restricted would affect the market value. As I told you, the "illegal" unit, in my mind;--was supposed to be.the master/bedroom bath, however, the builder built it the way it is. It is obvious that the electric line (stove for example) is original. For resale purposes this upstairs should be sold as a 3 bedroom, 2 bath. 1VIy middle level does not have 2 baths so that is a problem unless not more than one person or a couple live here. As you know, no one wants a 2 bedroomunit with 1 bath. Plus I don't have to tell you, houses were not built that well in the 1970's so noise is a problem here. I can hear people talk upstairs and downstairs. Plus, if any of my family comes to live or my marital status changes then I need the extra space. If I am deed restricted then I have to move. Plus, after seeing what Pete Battin went through on his employee unit I don't want to be policed by the Town. 5.. Of course, I said I would be back in Vail. I asked you to do your research and mail it to me so I had it when I returned. I also requested that Randy Stouder take over my case as he started it so could finish it (in my opinion) and I am comfortable working with him. You are handling Harry Gray's application for a dog run so you know I gave Planning a letter stating that I would be out of Town till the end of May and again in early June. I know you must have been given a copy of this. Your letter states that I must comply with the Town within 5 days of receiving your letter. That's very short time. I received your letter May 30th then by June 4th you want me to rip apart my unit. Plus I am scheduled to leave Town again June 7th. Also I guess I am lucky that I was not delayed in Australia and had someone else pick up my mail. You would have me in Court before I ` got back? It is my understanding that I have the right to protest your decision with the Council? I sat in at one Counsil meeting and Community Development wanted to take away the right of individuals to protest to the Counsil. It was may understanding that this was turned down? You did not state that I have this option in your letter? And why would I have to remove the sink, cabinets, refrigerator and stove? If they have been there for 20 years? I had always intended to keep the sink and cabinets and fridge in that area, as a type of storage and wet bar. Why is it necessary to rip up the place. You want the property not rented and I'm sure you know you would hear about it immediately if I did rent it. Besides, please verify for me. I understood you could rent a lock-off provided it didn't have cooking facilities? I feel I have done my part for the Town and community in providing a living space for a long term employee. I don't see what harm this has done to the Town especially since I didn't intentionally do this behind the Town's back. You say that the information in your file is enough for you to go on. One piece of paper that tells someone what the zoning is and was? I don't think that is proof that this property is illegal. I intend to take this before Council and see if they agree with everyone else in Town (except Community Development) that this unit is grandfathered. You say in your letter that this 3rd unit was never permitted but how do you know? I don't. I wish I did. And why do we have this grandfather clause? To my knowledge this was to protect property owners after the annexation, who owned West Vail properties. All the old timers around here know that a lot of things were done differently in Eagle County plus the fact some files were lost due to the annexation and deannexation. I have heard and seen that the Town has grandfathered zoning violations, in West Vail, due to those properties being pre-existing in Eagle County so why am I being singled out? When Randy was here I asked him if the Town was to red tag my property what would happen to my Tenant as I didn't want I3ebra put out on the street. He said he thought the Town wouldn't do that so my question to you is that if aTenant was still in the unit would the Town have let him/her complete their lease through June? Your 5 days to comply is very unrealistic to evict a tenant especially since a one year lease requires, by law, 3 months notice to vacate. Then, on top of that I would have had to rip up the piace for no reason. I would have had to rip up the place for no reason. Of course, the option is still open for me to deed restrict and therefor the tenant would not be disturbed and I'm sure that is what you want me to do. I would appreciate it if you would take another look at this and get back to me with some answers to my questions. Sincerely, Sue I)ugan . Copy to: Tom liRoorehead . Vail Town Council (ireg Amsden March 28, 1996 Dear Sue: This letter is to inform you that I will be leaving April 30, 1996. You have been a great landlord and I have enjoyed living in your home, with the exception of all the problems with Harry and the dogs. I have an opportunity to do a lease-option on a small condo and I cannot pass it up. Please apply my last month's rent to my rent due April 1, 1996. You may show the apartment at any time. I would be more than happy to pay for an ad in the newspaper to find a new tenant. I have had interest from several people and will refer them to you directly. I expect that my security deposit will be returned after your inspection of the property. Thanks for your understanding and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, t Debra Keller 0 _ , ; h o ~ , a y 0u~ , 7 l---/I ~'T 1?-,i vl ~ S` ou v'?I k 7_0 6,yL jA (3 ~.~s i y rl4 e~~)N ~ i& ~ ~ / ` T /0 12' IlIT; • ~ - dd d4 TOWN 0F VAIL 75 Soutft Frontage Road Department of Comiiiunity Development Yail, Colorado 81657 970-479-21381479-2139 FAX 970-479-2452 May 24, 1996 Ms. Suc Dugan CERTIFIED MAIL P.O. Box 3768 P 884 276 512 Vail, Cn 81658 RE: Unauthorizcd dwclling unit locatcd at 2642 Kinnickinnick CourtlLot 5, Block 2, Vail lntcnnountain Subdivision Dcar Ms. Duban: This Icttcr is intcndcd to documcnt thc discussions which havc takcn placc rcgarding thc unauthorizcd dwelling wiit locatcd at 2642 Kinnickinnick Court/Lot 5, F31ock 2, Vail Intermountain Subdivision. On Thursday, April 11, 1996, 1 rcccivcd a Icttcr from your ncxt door ncighbor, Harry Gray, rcqucsting that thc Tawn invcstigate thc possibility of an unauthorizcd third dwclling unit at 2642 Kinnickinnick Court. On Friday, April 12, 1996, I called ajid lcft a mcssabe on your miswcring machinc dctailinb thc complaint that we had reccived and asking you to call me to discuss this issue further. On Monday, Aprii 15, 1496, you Icft a mcssagc on my answcring machinc that 1 nccdcd to havc a discussion with Randy Stoudcr (Town o£ Vail planncr) rcgardinb thc issuc, bccausc Randy was in your unit in ordcr to meet with you regarding your complaints rclatcd to the Gray residcncc. You mentioncd that Randy was in your unit sonictime in Dcccmbcr oi' 1995and that hc would Ict me know what hc thought about your situation. On Tuesday, April 16. 1996, f had a convccsion with Rajidy Stoudcr rcgarding thc dwclling wiit issuc. Randy told mc that hc irrlormed you that it was probably an illcgal dwelling Linit, but that he could not bc sure until he came back and checkcd the file, which he did, but he did not sec anything in the file to confirm the Iegality of thc wiit. He statcd that thc rcason hc was in your unit was to discuss your conccrns rclatcd to thc Gray residcnce and not to dcal with a possiblc illcgal dwclling unit. Latcr that marning 1 rescarchcd your property filc aiid found a tcttcr writtcn by Bctsy Rosolack (Vail Planning Technician), datcd Scptembcr 24, 1987 which indicatcs that your propcrty, whcthcr in unincorporated Eaglc County or within thc Town of Vai I mwiicipal limits (scc attachcd copy), has ncvcr bccn zoncd to allow for more than two dwclling units on it. Later that sanie day, in thc Town nf Vail plal?ner's staff mectiiig, it was agrccd that the Septembcr 24, 1987 Ietter was sufficicnt inf'ormation to estabfish that a third dwclling unit on your properiy was never pcrmitted and thcreforc, thc unit is not considercd to bc grandfathcred, or legally pre-cxisting. RF,CYC4EU%APb'R b a3' 0 On Wcdncsday, April 17, 1996, I Icft a mcssagc on yow, answcring machine that l had talkcd to Randy and ° researched the filc, and have continned that threc dwclling units werc not aliowcd, and havc never becn allowed, on your property. My tncssage also statcd that since I hcard that you werc preparing to Ieave the country for a lcngthy period of timc, you nccdcd to stop by the Town and fill out a Conditionai Usc Pcrtnit application, rcqucsting Planning and Environmcntal Commission approval to continuc using the apartmcnt as a Type IC Employcc Housing Unit. 1 also pointed out that if approved, the dwclling unit would necd to bc permanentiy deed-restricted to assure that it would bc used for cmploycc housissg in the future. fVso on April 17, 1996, the Town rcccivcd a piionc call from Dcborah Kcllcr (thc tcnant of thc illcgal dwclling unit). Apparcntly Dcborah had hcar-d that shc may bc liviiig in an ilicgal dwclling unit and wantcd to know whethcr it had been approvcd by thc 'I'own. She invitcd Gcorbe Ruther (Vail Town Planner) to comc out and takc a took at hcr residcncc. Gcorgc visitcd the dwcllinb unit that day and obscrvcd that it had full kitchcn facilitics and was bcitig used a5 a scparatc dwcllinb unit. Dcborah providcd Gcorgc with a copy of hcr/yvur lcase and statcd that shc had bcen livinb thcrc for approximatcly two ycars. Shc also told Gcorgc that you had told her in Dccember that she may havc to rnove out, if Harry Gray informed the Town of the existencc of the unit.. , On 'Thursday, April 18, 1996, you 1cil a incssagc aii my answcring niachinc stating that you did not want to dced restrict the wlit and that the area in yucstion is not a rcnkal unit anyway, it is just a master bcdrootn and bath that just happcns to havc its own acccss ro the outsidc. Your mcssagc did not indicatc whcn you would bc back in Town to rrsolvc this issuc. ,A1 this timc. I havc no ctioicc but to scnd this ccrtificd lcttcr informing you that within tivc days of rcccipt of this ccttificd lcttcr, y0U I11USt tdkC CI1C fOltOtVit1g StCpS t0 CCSOIVC th15 mattcr: 1. Apply for, and procced toward obtainiiib an approval of, a Conditional Use Pennit to authorizc the continucd usc of tltc apai'tmcnt as a Typc 11 Employcc Housing Unit (appiication attachcd tor your convcnicncc); or 2. Rcmove the illcgal dwclling Lulit - You must immeciiately take steps to remove the illegal dwelling unit. All kitchen rclated facilitics (refrigcrator, stove, sink and cabinets) must bc rcmovcd from the apartmcnt, and the apartmcnt inspcctcd by a Town rcprescntativc. If you fail to takc action within the fivc day gracc period, you will bc issucd a citation to appcar in N(wiicipal Court. lf you have any qucstions or comnicnts rcgarding the information contained in tliis lettcr, plcasc do not hcsitatc to contact mc immcdiatcly at 479-2142. Sinccrcly, I e , Jim Curnuttc Senior Planner Enc. cc: Susan Connclly, nireclor oi'Cuntmunity DcvclopmcnL Mike Mollica, Assistant Direclor of ('ommunity Develciptneiii GcYirge Rulher, Town Planner Tom Ma>ncead, Town Allorncy Tom Shecly, Police Deparlmenl. ' i larry Gray, adjacciil property owncr I ilc , '~l. ~ lowo of ~ 75 south trontage road vail; colorado 81657 (303) 476-7000 o(ffce of communl4y developmeng September 24, 1987 Mr. Don Larson 158 South Reed Court Lakewood, Colorado 80226 Re: Lot 5, Block 2, Vail Intermountain Subdivision Dear pon: According to the County staff, your lot was zoned RSM before being annexed by the Town the first time in December of 1980. After it was annexed by the Town, it was zoned Primary/Secondary. During the short time the property was back in the County, the County zoned the property Primary/Secondary. Your lot contains 16,944 square feet. RSM zoning allows two units per 8,000 square feet. Enclosed is the Primary/Secondary section of the Town of Vail zoning code. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ~ ~ Betsy Rdsolack Planning Technician ~L . " " -Po D With its market flatter than a bunny slope, the ski 1rcaS lil« wachusett> Eldora, Ht«itet-, ~ resort business has evolved into a two-tiered Snow Summit and Cainelback,wn'cn can consistendy earn a profit by system of regional hills and fancy resorts. catering to nearby population bases. None of those hills is exactly world- class. But they're easy day trips ti-om a jwv ceout, big city (Boston, llenver, New York, Los Angeles and Philadelphia, respec- Q uvely). At Eldora, Denver residents can pick up passes at thc local super- ~ S-10 market for $24, be on the slopes an hour later, and make it home in time for dinner. That malces it hard to jus- tify driving three hours to Aspen and By Randall Lane paying twice as much to ski. Such regional areas thrive CA1tvED INTO n SLOPE at = by understanding their Maine's Sunday River ski Z majoriry clientele-curious resort is a particularly har- ~ beginners and young, cash- rowing jump that is m strapped diehards. This is designed to give daredevil r basic skiing, no frills. No skiers and snowboarders a hotel fitness clubs or few seconds of, flight "gourmet" restaurants. The before returning them to only investment that makes icy terra firma. A small economic sense is squeez- sign next to the jump, ing more people onto the embracing the slang of - mountain. local snowboarders, gives Snow Summit has invest- two choices: "Go big or ed in faster chairlifts, more go home." aruficial snowmaking and, Taken literally, that's since half its visitors are the same opuon facing snowboarders, things like North America's ski area stunt areas and a"snow- operators. Thanks to a flat Skiing, up in the air boarders' lounge" with $1 market-the number of 9tesoe4s can'4 afford 4o be in naman's-land. burritos. Result: 500,000 daily visits has remained im~ skier visits a year, and con- stagnant at 50 inillion for sistent profitability. almost two decades-and lugher lia- Mountain Division founded the Remote resorts face a trickier biliry, environmental and improve- modern ski industry after World War problem: To make money, they have ment costs, the $2.3 billion slti resort II. For these pioneers the equation to capture skiers for several days. industry is in the midst of a major was simple: Find a good hill, find a Thus, they have been moving shakeout. There were 845 ski areas in way to get people up the hill, then toward the other end of the spec- 1980. By 1991 there were 600. watch the people come. And come trum, creating enough amenities to Today only 525 remain. Expect that they did. turn a ski trip into a complete vaca- number to decline by 10 to 20 areas a But the baby boom generation tion experience. year through the end of the decade, that embraced the sport is now gray- "The competition for the big says Jerry Jones, a Vail, Colo.-based ing; and its kids never really took to resorts isn't other ski areas," says consultant. it. The business has become less Gregory Berry (no relation to Who's left? Those going big about the sheer fun of skiing and Michael Berry), editor of the Ski (amenity-filled megaresorts) and more about the total experience. Industry Letter. "It's Disney and those going home (smaller hills Magic Mountain, a Londonderry, Carnival Cruise Lines." catering to large numbers of locals). Vt. resort that shut down four years That means shops, spas, skating Resorts that fail to align themselves ago, was highly regarded for its chal- rinks and other nonskiing activities. with either of these camps will likely lenging terrain, which was serviced "This is all being driveii by t11e baby be among the annual casualties that by six chairlifts. Yet it was too remote boomers," says Andrew Daly, presi- Jones forecasts. "You don't want to from any major city to be viable as a dent of Vail Associates, the ski cesort be caught betwixt and between," one-day destination, and not big operator controlled by Leon Black's warns Michael Berry, president of enough to compete with IGllington Apollo Group. As members of that the National Ski Areas Association. and Stowe for those who wanted generation push 50, they're skiing Things have changed since return- more than just the sport. less and often toting along family ing veterans from Bob Dole's lOth Better situated are dozens of small members who don't ski at all. So Vail Forbes o May 6, 1996 , • just opened a$1 million snowmo- spend the day schussing down the scrap inetal to raise money for a sec- bile and horseback riding center, slopes of one of his mountains. ond chairlift servicing only beginner while its sister resort, Beaver Creek, Other deep-pocketed companies slopes. That small improvement dif- is spending $20 million on a retail are emerging as dominant forces in the ferentiated his resort from a plethora complex, complete with skating rink West. Intrawest (FoRSES, May 23, of nearby one-lift areas, and Otten and performing arts theater. 1994) owns five areas, including used the positive cash flow it created The skiing can't be plain vanilla, Brirish Columbia's highly regarded to build more lifts, trails and snow- either-not when lift tickets at top Blackcomb; Ralcorp Holdings, spun making systems. And good skiing resorts run $50 a day. Just as Disney off from Ralston Purina, owns three begot strong condoininium sales. By brings people back with a new ride areas in Coloradds Summit County, 1994 Sunday River was notching $31 each year, ski resorts must also con- including Keystone and Breckenridge; million in revenues and $7 million in standy add fast new lifts-which can Apollo Group controls Arrowhead, in cash flow. With this record, banlcs run up to $12 million apiece. addition to Vail and Beaver Creek. lined up in 1994 to back Otten's This all requires lots of money. As Otten is backed by Fleet Financial acquisition spree. economies of scale and access to cap- Group's Fleet Bank and by the Bank As the dominant player on the ital have become as critical to a big of Boston. He started out as a man- East Coast, Otten plans on offering resort's success as the weather, the agement trainee at the forerunner to packages that allow skiers to traipse large areas are rapidly consolidating. s-x-i, and began managing Sunday around New England, skiing a differ- Sunday River owner Leslie Otten River for it in 1973, back when it ent mountain each day. "We're going has swallowed eight resorts over the was handling 'only some 200 skiers to use our size to turn up the volume past two years-his boldest move per day. Seven moneylosing years on New England skiing," Otten says. coming in February, when he.agreed later, Otten took the Maine resort A learn-to-ski program will be for- to pay $105 million for publicly off of S-K-i's hands in exchange for malized among the nine hills, allow- traded s-x-i Ltd., the parent of his. life's savings-$132,000-and ing a beginner who started at Vermont's Killington and Mount some financing. Waterville Valley to pick up the next Snow. Assuming the deal closes, Otten saw that his remote little hill winter at Mount Snow without miss- protiably in June, Otten's 100%- would die unless it was transformed ing a beat. You can't think of it as owned American Skung Co. will be into a destination resort. So he the ski business anymore. Now it's a the largest in North America; one of hawked lifetime season passes, extra- branch of the entertainment/vaca- four skiers in the Northeast will neous real estate and over 50 tons of tion industry. HE] IIV C OME FO RTO DAY, GROWT'H POTENTIAL FOR • - ToIvIORROVV. ' ' The GT Global High Income Fund offers the experienced FUND investor the potential for a steady flow of income today a n d c a p i t a l a p p r e c i a t i o n o v e r t i m e. T h e F u n d i n v e s t s i n ~ bonds and other debt instruments from emerging countries around the world where we see the fiscal disci pline needed ~ , , ~ , ' ~ ' f01' SUStd1112C1 grOVVth. Average annual retum as of 3/31/96 ` To learn more, talk to , 0 7 yr Life of Fund' your financial adviser A shares• 32.54% 11.97% or call GT Global. B shares: 33.10°0 12.16°o ~ + 9 ~'S' ~ 1-800-824-1580 Tie~;' GTGlobal A Member of Liechtenstein Global Trust fs tt ~ ~ z~ - IT S YOUR WORLD. INVEST IN IT.sM Returns for A and B shares include the effect of the maximum 4.75% sales charge and 5% contingent deferred sales charge, respedively. *Since inception on 10/22/92. Investment return and principal value will fluctuate, so shares may be worth more or less than their original price. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Before investing, read the prospectus for more complete information, including charges, expenses and the risks associated with global and emerging market investing, including political and currenry risk. An investment in the Fund should be considered speculative and may not be suitable for all investors. GT Global, Inc., Distributor. 50 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111 MF4 • D• • O • RE. SYD • • R• • Vail Alpine Garden Foundation appreciates the special support of our sponsors: Vail Valley Festival of Flowers: 95.3- ~ , . IKTUNed to your frequency I , • t 1015 - AW.R0AI ME Mmm ~ A Midsummer Night: sitzmalk ' Reception hosted by: johnson & Wales University Champagne presented by: West Vail Liquor ARart . David Brownstead Limited Edition Print of Betty Ford Alpine Gazden, with frame donated by: Beaver Framing , • A Midsummeg Night Benefit from 4 to 6 p.m. Patron Supporter. $60 per person, includes one raffle ticket towazds print ($250 Value) Benefit Supporter: $30 per person ~ Bravo! Colorado Music Festieal concert 6:00 p.m.: Amphitheater ticket, premium seating, $25.00 - Amphitheater ticket, side seating, $20.00 Lawn seating, $10.00 ' Reservations requested by 6Vednesday July 3,1996. Telephone reservations with MasterCard or Visa accepted. Please call the VAGF office at (970) 476-0103. President & Mrs. Gerald R. Ford . . • and Vail Alpine Garden Foundation invite you to join them on c.2 jWids-unirrLer IJVight to benefit Befty lEord Alpane Gardexas honoring Vail Valley Festival of Flowers "Best Gardens in the Vail Valley" Sunday, July 7, 1996 4-6 p.m. Betty Ford Alpine Gardens . Vail, CO Followed by the Bravo! Colorado presentation of Brahms and Elgar performed by the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra . Robert Bernhardt, Conductor 6 p.m. Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater RECEIVED MAY 3 0 ~ 9 6 6 I Fjne 'RvpunS suapjvg :ot,id1L/' P'°£ Raai7 I!f:?Ujq ol . . . ;~'^tn Y • ' ' ' • • ~'yi,! -:";'~J'`w; . sn,. - ' . . , `..e..y 'ji ? " ' • Q~ 1 . ~1 .~aiuu,~ns i *GaVr ~ 4 LMidsummer rJ~(i9ht is presented by Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, a non-for-profit 501(c)(3) corporation. The Foundation is the developer of Betty Ford Alpine Gardens, a special place of peace and tranquility in the Vail Valley. The Gaidens has received sub- stantial national recognition in magazines such as Colorado Homes & Lifesiyles, Snow Country, Flower & Garden, American Horticulturalist and Garden Design. When com-pleted, it will include four gardens and an Education Center. For more information about programs and memberships, please contact: VAIL ALPINE GARDEN FOUNDATION 183 Gore Creek Drive Vail, CO 81657 Telephone (970) 476-0103 Fax (970) 476-8702 http://cissus.mobot.org/aabga/member.pages/ford/ . , , ° " ~ N ~ ~ 'c °J a °1 v ° v u• a' ~ Eoi ,o ~ w ,o v u ±c- - ai ~i o° p o ° .4 ~ .C ~ ~ (j ~ LL f1. ~n ~ y ~ ~ z ~ .~4 v ,a ¢ Q v 'p, ~ . . ~ v ~ ~@vooo i ¢ 3 , . o 0 0 . ' ,x q v v ,~O ~ o ~ q ; , . . _ Ll. pp d4 d9 ffl f,+ > v - v 0 Ox" @ 0 ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ O - . ~ • ' ^cn" U 'Lf ZO .b L'. ~ . O v '~5 I 7 ~ ..0 R N 0~ y ~ m ~ ~ v ~ O ¢ v I Q ~ I I I ~fl v U~ U R. ~ U in . - _ ~ c71l.idsummer Svight . . - ai Alpine Garden Foundation 183 Gore Creek Drive Vail, CO 81657 ~ •r~ x c: Cbu,~~cu• o . April 16, 1996 . Mr. Joe Busch Inspector Vail Police Department vail, co 6(~5b EEW Dear Inspector Busch: We have received the magnificent gifts that you sent us through Mre Stanley Boynton. I will personally deliver them to Danilo Deleon, Haychel Wonq and the other investigators that received you during your visit. Allow me to say that the belt buckle is a particularly beautiful gift which I will display in my office, if not around my waist. Assure your city manager that it will be my pleasure show off the belt buckle and promote Vail, Colorado, throughout Panama. Furthermore, I look forward to returning the visit and getting to know your police department. I understand that Vail is a beautiful city, particularly during the winter. • I am happy that you enjoyed your visit to Panama and did not encounter any problems in the city, in Penonome or in Chiriqui. Allow me to say that I was particularly impressed with your willingness to meet the common'people of Panama and pleased to hear that your reactions to the meetings were positive. Not many North Americans who visit Panama get to know the Panamanian people, eat where they eat, stay where they stay and enjoy what they enjoy. In part, you may have been influenced by your son, Jeff, but you and your wife seemed receptive to his suggestions and it sounds as though you enjoyed the activities. I commend you, your wife and son on your open-mindedness and sensitivity to the richness of our . culturee In periods of tough negotiations and frank . discussions among governmdhts, your attitude is refreshing. My best regard to you, your family and the people of Vaile 4loutv 15 rector - • . f . - . c:\..\persona1.shb\Busch16.abr . , . ~ Tou'v oF VAIL • IaiputiInquiay Response Record The attached commenfis were recently received by t'te Towrt of Vail, tiVe encourage Vail ' residents and guests to give us such input azid we stLive for tamely responses. PLEASE ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS WVIIHN FIVE CNORKIVG DAXS AND 1ZETLTRN THIS COMPLEI~D FORIv1 TO PAM BRAZVDNMYM - DII'ARTIMNT TO FiAiNDLE INQUIRY ~(~.~fi-N~4~ ~~'?rl~f ` NUIVIDUAL TO HAiNDLE INQTJIRY • I3ATE TOV RECEI1'ID IlVI'LTT/INQLTIRY (o' I' ' TYPE OF INPUT/NOUIRY: PHONE CALL (indicate date) . LE'ITER (attached) RFSPONSE CARD (attached) TYPE OF RESPONSE (check onel: LETIEIZ (attach copy) ~ , PHQNE CALL (indicate date). . ` BRIEE SLtN~fARY OF RESPONSE OR ANSWER TO RTOULfZ.Y: Dr1TE OF RF.,SPONSE FOILtii RFTUfZivED BY DEPARTIMiVT TO PAM BRr'uND1E • A rnpy oi t4is inc{uirv snd form witt remain on file at the TOV Communily RelatiorLS officr. As soon as ih;s fcrm is crtuned . Hnndmeyer, this inquirywill be mnsidered clased. • -CXAv<YCUi-0RYCL'R7LN¢.T,YF-I4vDLNGOFiF~.LSMrLZ EFYOUHAVEANYQUFSfIONS,PLZISEF'T~,tRr=TOCO~;.~C' PAhf DOLORES F. BUSARD and REfiSW~AYB", 14. 196 M. D. Currentl.v at our Permanent Address Northern Address Western Address ~ *5050 18th Avenue W *20051 Berwyck, Unit A-9 *Box 2240 *Bradenton *Spring Lake *Vail *Florida 34209-5148 *Michigan 49476 *Colorado 81658-2240 *(941) 792-4324 *(616) 846-2181 *(970)1 476-4308 ~ Niy Re f: TOV--E 15 May 15 , 1~, 996 Town of Vail Department of Public Works/Transportation 1309 Vail Valley Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Gentlemen: Attention: Nfr. Larry E. Graiel, Director Thank you for your polite letter of April 23, 1996, in answer to my complaints about the new longer buses ourchased by us, the taxpayers of the Town of Vail. i ~ I will agree with your observation that the buses are easier to step up and in to, and down from, wben one is not carrying packages. But this ~,`~'does not satisfy, nor was it one of, my concerns. V/" U Fortunately for us, and hopefully not unfortunately fo.r oir visitors, most of our riders are carrying skis and poles during the~season of thP year when streets and bus floors are wet and slippery from snow. As I said in my letter of March 15, when one is exiting, carry,ng skis in one hand and poles in the other, one must either jump to the ground or swing down, as I do, using the skis and poles a.s crutchesi. Perhaps you have not heard compla.ints, but I certainly have. I guess we'll have to wait until next winter for yau to listen again, perhaps this time more closely, (or objectively)-; for complaints. But we don't have to wait until next winter for you to re~consider the timing mathematics you used in your letter to me. Certaiinly it is ludicrous to believe that fewer buses can possibly pick uip passengers more frequently than more buses. If we have one bus and it talces an hour to complete a circuit, passengers will have to wait one hour to get a ride in the right direction. If we then add a second bus, it will tak,e anlaverage of 30 _minutes waiting time, regardless of spacing. If we thenldouble the buses again to four, it will take an a.verage 15 minute wa~it to catch a bus, again regardless of spacing. Soacing is a logical way to prevent the four busses fromlfollowing each other around the circuit. I should hope that regardlesslof how many buses we own, supervisors will see to it that they are prloperly spared;, and do not, as your letter intimates; willy nilly run the route without regard to spacing. It is obvious that ii the a.bove fourlbusses merely followed each other around the circuit, passengers wouldlalt try to ~ Page 1 I ~ I ~ . ride the first bus, and the remaining three would, in the absence of riders, merely follow along Uehind the leader, having to stop only for the occasional rider who was too late to catch the bus in front. And then, I suppose, if that leading bus were to be overcrowded, the Town of Vail would "solve" the problem by buying even Uigger buses! As I said in my letter, the wa.y to give our visitors better service is . to have more frequent buses at any location, not to have big, unsafe, clumsy, expensive to buy, and more costly to maintain, behemoth buses. With regard to employee housing, I submit that the Town.of Vail should not be engaged in the housing business any more than in the grocery or liquor business. Employee housing is not a proper function for loca( government in the absence of some tempora.ry emergency. Occasionally some industry must supply housing; example: a company town in the mining industry. That is an exception. It certainly does not seem to be an exception appropriate to the Town of Vail. Regardless of whether one is talking about the Town of Vail as an employer or a local clothing store as an employer, no employer should be required to supply housing. Should an employer wish to supply housing as an added incentive, that is his right. For our Town to build, subsidize, or require employee housing is an inappropriate use of our government tax derived funds, or our Town's governmental power: I submit that it is more logical for employers, including our Town of Vail, to pay wages such that our emplovees can obtain their own housing. Moreover, it is a proper function of our local government to pay competitive wages and benefits to our employees such that we will attract satisfactory employees to our town to worlc for us. Be they bus drivers or the Town Manager, such employees should be paid well enotlgh to afford their own housing. If such housing ca.n be provided at a pr it within the limits of acceptable zoning regulation, our gove nments, city, sta.te or federal, should get out of the way. Governme s should do only those things which private industry cannot. Li , pass acceptable zoning laws. And steadfastly refusing to deviate fr m those laws because of a housing shortage caused by employers bei g unwilling to pay competitive wages. If by governmental regulation ur Town requires th someone supply employee housing at a confis,atory or substandard ate, I suggest that the first beds required by uch an onerous regul tion be located in the homes of our elected offic als. Very truly yours, Thomas R. Busard, D. ' cc: Bob M Laurin TOV Mike Rose Vail Daily Pa,ge 2 . . ToWN'oFvAIL InFuti~~~~~Record The attached comments were recently receiwed by the Totivai of VaiL We encourage Vail ' . residenes and guests to give us such input anci vve strave for timely responses. PLEASE ADDRESS THESE COIVCERNS WITHIN FIVIE WOIZ]EaVG DAXS AND R.ET[JRIJ THIS COMI'LETED FORN1 T'O PAI1ri BRAIVDMEYEEZ, - DEPART&= TO HAiNDLE i1VQIJIt.Y . INDIVIDUAL TO HAiNDLE INQLTIFZY ~GG-b VVIC~Rwt~r~~ • DATE TOV RECEIVED WPtTI°/INQTJIlZX ' TYT' . OF IlVPLT/ MLTIlZY: , . . PHONc CALL (indicate date) . LETTEiZ (attached) ~(G ~ ~t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l-~.4.,c..~~~ : l, ~f - " RESPOZIiSE CAIZD (attached) . . TYPE OF RESPOZvSE fchecti onel: . LETTER (attach copy) ~ , PHQNE CALL (indicate date) . BRiEF S Z ARY QF R SPnN pFZ A~MM TO iNOLTTRY; • , ' DATc OF RESPONSE FOILtif R.ETLTRiv-ED BY DEPr1RTZN~TT'TO PAMBRAt~TDNiEYE.,~; • A copy oi thij inquirv 3nd Eorm witl remain on fiIe at the TOV Community Relalions office. As tmon a9 lhis foim is retnr.ted to?un - Bnndmever, this inquiry wili be considerad dosed. • • i:+A,V<'CCCii-0RYC(.R-,D.-'CF'.A.VULNCOFT°c'ISIaS'JE IPYOUHAVEANYQUFS"nONS,PiMASEfe:r.F'RE-2- To CCtiTA(=- C'A;.I 8c2~NIDVtF`!'2 AT a7a.7, r- I R E C EI VED P1qY 3 1 199g 2266 E. Cape Cod Drive Bloomington, IN 47401 May 24, 1996 I Dear Members of the Vail City Council The current effort of the City Council to plan for Vail's future is commendable. There are some factors that need to bel considered but consideration of these factors is not apparent in what I have read in the Vail Trail about this effort: 1. There would be no Vail City Council if it were not for Vail as a resort; 2. There would be no jobs for people who vote for the Vail City Council if it were not for Vail as a resort; and 3. There would be no funds for the Vail City Council to spend if it were not for Vail as a resort. I Business interests in Vail should recognize this. It is appropriate that businesses are represented on the planriing group and hopefully they will represent the business viewpoint, not their individual viewpoint. However, a significant group not represented in the planning process are tax payers who are not residents of Vail. As a member of this group, I assure you that we have a major interest in wise use of the money we pay to own property in the community and in preserving the value of our investment. It se.ems that the only use of the list of property owners who do not reside in Vail is to send us tax bills.. We are a prime source of understanding needs and preferences and in promoting what can be right about Vail. The broad community that has Vail as its focus, such as Avon and other areas that seem to be referred to'as."down valley," are appropriately represented in the planni~ng process. Alliof these representatives need to recognize that their very existence depends on Vail as a resort. Reports in the Vail Trail of the planning effort and of other activity in Vail seem to indicate that there is an inappropriate effort by residents to reap narrow personal benefit at the expense of those of us who pay taxes and have no vote: For example, it was suggested that local residents, even those who pay no taxes, should park fre~e in the parking facility paid for with my tax dollars. . The past council's completion of the round-a-bouts at tihe main entrance to Vail was a major and appreciated achievement. The current council should give similar attention to: 1. Solving the intolerable situation at the west Vail exit. . 2. Providing convenient shopping to residents of east Vail rather than squandering prime real estate at an Iriterstate exit in order to provide a few local residents with housing subsidized by my tax dollars. I ~ . Vail City Council Page 2 3. Encouraging needed housing for permanent and temporary workers by providing appropriate incentives to developers, through customary municipal services such as sanitation and transportation. 4. Playing a part in ameliorating the high cost and inconveriience of the new Denver airport and the excessive charges for transporting people from Denver to Vail. 5. Facilitating, rather than confusing, development of an alternative Vail airport terminal. 6. Restoring appropriate bus service in the village and to outlying areas; for example, 30 minutes was too long to wait for a bus at the Sonnenalp at 6:45 pm on April 7 and was just one example of the reduction of bus service that week. 7. Promoting Vail's advantages and.activities to resort guests and prospective guests rather than obscuring events so only locals can participate. For example, the "Taste of Vail" was promoted in a way that made it clear that it was intended to benefit locals, not guests. I'm sure sponsors were led to believe that they would have exposure to resort guests, not simply local residents. Bravo, Colorado! is another example of an excellent event promoted so as to limit participation to locals rather than resort guests. There is no need for conflict between residents, nonresident property owners, resort guests, businesses, and Vail Associates. Each are important constituencies with interdependent interests. Matching the objectives of a major employer and residents of a community are routinely handled by many-•c.pmmunities; this is not an issue that is unique to Vail. The extent of financial support of a community by people who do not have a vote may be unique to Vail and other resort communities. Therefore, the Vail City Council must take steps to understand the needs and interests of these tax payers and assure that the views of these tax payers are considered in its deliberations. It is urgent that Vail avoid what seems apparent in current Vail Trail stories of planning deliberations. These stories seem to indicate that the focus is to achieve benefits for local residents with little consideration of the major source of people, jobs, and taxes (Vail Associates) and with no input from the non-resident tax payers. Si erely onald~Ko~~vener (h) 812-337-8815 (o) 812-337-8920 CC : Vall Trail RRK7:vai l.cnl CRezens to Save Colorado"s Public Trust Lands T`, 9 530 BIace Stree4 - Suibe 220 ^ Denver, CO 80202 - (303) 573-3871 • Faoc(303) 673-3780 Honorary Chair Roy Romer May 9, 1996 Go vernor Dear Smart Growth Participant, Co-Chairs Dan Ritchie Chancellor, I wanted to contact you personally abaut a ballot initiative concerning the Colorado State Land Board. The state Constitution currently requires the board University of Denver to maximize revenue from these lands, without regard for the long-term value of Dee wisor the land as open space or wildlife habitat. As you know, it has become President, Cherry increasingly clear that the Constitutional mandate for the Land Board no longer i-efiecis the iong-tGrm priorities of Loioradans. While this mandate made sense in Creek School Disfrict 1876, over the past few years it has often cost us critical parcels of open space. Ruth Wright Former MinoriryLeader, It is critical to our future that we develop a way to manage these lands for the lona-term benefit of Colorado. Members of the environmental, education, Colorado House of agricultural community, business leaders, community leaders and others have all Representatrves agreed that we need to take action. Concerned citizens from all over Colorado have joined me in an effort to reform the Constitution through a ballot initiative in November. I would be honored if you would support this campaign effort. You have shown a consistent concern for Colorado's future and your support is important to the success of this initiative. I hope you will be a part of this critical effort. Attached to this letter is an endorsement form. I encourage you to fill out the form and return to the campaign. The campaign will follow up with you directly once you return this form, but please feel free to contact the campaign office at (303) 573-3781 with any questions. Thank you. Roy R r Govern r Enclosures Uflz,enq.~,~q,.SaN/e C~~a~'ado's Public .~rust Lands i~ B: ='~8 iee4 ° S8k(~emo° benveP, CO 8MM-(303)573-3M- ~ (303)---- ~ I endorse the Campaign to Save Colorado's Public 1'rust Lands. Name: ,.Organization (if any):_ 'Address: Phone/FAX: Your heplp as :a coali4ion member of Ci4izens to Save Colorado's Pubiic Trust Lands is the key fio W0NNIAG this impor4anY citizen's initiative:; There are several ways you can contribute 4o the ~ coalitionx. Please let us know from the followring list what you can lend by way of suppor#. YES. I can support fihe campaign bv: GATHERiNG f~~~~~~ONS this is the mosf imporfant activity right now. (We need to coflect 80,000 signatures by August 5th) "Mak8ng a contrubutiow (to Citizens to Save Colorado's Public Trust Lands). Vllriting letters to the editor of local newspaper. Calling to involve citizens uvi4h 4he campaign. Providing membership lists to the campaign ior mailsngs. ` Publishing an ar4icle in organizational raewsletter. _ Hosting a house party. . _ Talking to local groups who could help with the campaign. Other (Pfease describe): Thank you for endorsing the campaign. Your support wrill help pro4ect s4ate public trus4 lands for fu4ure generations and protect valuable ecosysfiem's throughout the state. Please mai! or fax this form back. The campaign fiax number is 573-3780. IN'TAAL tCAMPAaGN coMMa~~~E MEMBERs CI'TlZENS TO SAYE .COLORADO°S PUBLIC TRUST LANDS NAME AF'FILIATION (!F AOVY) ClTY Dan Ritchie (Co-Chair) - University o# Denver, Chancellor Denver Dee Wisor (Co-Chair) Cherry Creek School District, President Englewood Ruth Wright (Co-Chair) Boulder Rlch McClintock (Campaign GoPIRG, Executive Director ~ Denver Manager) Shirley Baty La Plata County Commissioner Durango Ben Beall Routt County Commissioner Steamboat Springs B.J. Brooks Denver Elmer Chenault ' 'Littleton Mike Cherautes Denver Barbara Cleland Aurora City Council Member Denver Toby Eason Citizens for Section 16 Colorado Springs John Fielder Westcliffe Pubiishers, Inc. Englewood Cole Finegan Denver Rebecca Frank Grand Junction . Diane Gansauer Colorado Wfldlife Federation Lakewood David Getches Land & Water Fund Denver Jim Gibson Denver David Harrison Boulder Martin Hart . , Denver John Hazelfiurst Colorado Springs City Council Member Colorado Springs Jeannette Hillery League of iNomen Voters of Colorado Boulder James Johnson Eagle County Commissioner Eagle Gwen Lachelt Western Colorado Congress Durango Jim Lochhead Clenwood Springs Betsy Lynch Coalition to Save the State Forest Fort Gollins Sydney 61Aacy Boulder Jim Martin Environmental Defense Fund Boulder Judy Wise Mason F'ikes Peak Area T'rails Coalition . Colorado Springs Laurie Nlathewrs Golden Terry iViinger Center for Resource n0lanagemen4 Denver Dan Moore American Planning Association Castle Rock Bill tVeal 1A/heeler Rea(ty Fort Collins Fred IViehaus Denver Annie Oatman-Gardner Geo-Genetics Colorado Springs Debbie Ortega Denver City Council Niember Denver Marsha Osborn Summit County Commissioner Breckenridge Jane Hagle Colorado Springs Emily Ftoet Colorado Environmen4al Coalition Denver Arnold Salazar • Alamosa @Cen Salazar Denver Alan Schwrartz ASpen CR'B'zens to Save ColoradoP~ ~~bflc Trust Lands 1 530 BMkeS4t+ee4 - Suke 220 ^ DenveP, CO 8Aa02 ^ (303) 673-3871 ~ F=(303) 573-3780 Honorary Chalr ' Roy Flomer Governor BA0..KGROlJ NJLJ' INFOR1b1AT1ON Co-Cheirs Dan Ritchie 3Nhag a.~ $~e blic gru5$ Yands'.' 0 When Colorado became a state in 1876, ths federal government granted 4.6 cnancerAor, million surface and mineral acres to be managed for various trust purposes. UnNarsrty a The largest trust is the school trust, which benefits public K-12. education. oroenver ° Colorado's Constitution cunently requires the State Land Board - to ."secure the maximum possible amount" of revenue in fhe management of those lands. Dee Wisor Presldent, Whmt is thi Coflorado S$gte L~rLd Board? Cherry Creek ° The Land Board consists of three full-time commissioners, appointed for six 3choolOlstrict Year terms by the Governor and coafirmed by the Senate. The board serves as the ' sole trustee for the state lands. Ruth Wright . Formr ow d t8ae wuhl€c scho~~s fl~eneff~t ~~~~n t9~e ~a~~~6c ~~°aast ?~c~ai~'~. _ liAUorRy Leadar, o In 1876, the school trust was the sole source of income for Colorado's '`public coloredo schools. Today, income from the management of Colorado's public trust lands is about $25 million annualIy, less than one-half of one percent of the state's House a $3 billion public education budget. Repreaentatives o Revenues from the sale of school trust lands cannot be used to buy new lands, but are placed inta a permanent school fund, managed by the State Treasurer. There is now approximately $229 million in the fund. Only the incoaie from . the fund, not the fund itself, can be used to benefit public schools. = How are r-oHorado's baabdac trut 9ands ~°~sk? ,0 Driven by a 120 year old Constitutional mandate 'to maximize revenue, and without authority to buy land, the Land . Board continues to sell and develop land, often in conflict with the desires of local governments, citizeas, and school districts. This has led to over 8,000 acres of public trust lands being sold in 1994 and 1995 alone. The development of these lands contributes to sprawl and the loss of agricultural lands that help preserve open space. o. Of the original 4.6 million maneral and surface areas, about 3 millioa surface and 4 anillion mineral acres remain. o The organizational structure of the Land Board, which has operated as if it is accountable to no one, has been characterized in a study conducted by the Natnral Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado as "unwise and unworkable." y ExaanBles of Tlnreatened Pubflflc Traest L~nds: • In the 77,000 acre Colorado State Forest, located at the headwaters of the North Platte River adjacent to two wilderness areas and Rocky Mountain , National Park, a California developer targeted 4,200 acres for a new~ ski area, 700 condos and 150 homes. • In Colorada Springs, developers proposed luxury home development on a 640 acre forested open space parcel, known as Section 16, that provides major recreational trail linkages between Colorado Springs and Manitou Springs. • In Routt County, the Land Board sold off 35-acre homes on land historically leased for agriculture, over objections of the County Comixiissioners. • In Denver, _ plans by the Land Board to create a housing development on the 26,000 acre Lowry Range property have alarmed officials of the Ch~erry Creek School Di.strict over the impacts on local schools. Who are Citizeni to SaveCoLgrado's lPaabiic Trust I,mnft? o Led by Governor Roy Romer, Citizens to Saye Colorado's Public trust Lands is , a coalition of educators, environmentalists, local officials, and" "business leaders. • Changing' the mission of the Land Board was one of the top recommendations to come out of Governor Romer's Smart Growth process. The coalition evolved from this process and has worked to craft bhe initiative.. What vvill t,h,g ~ c@tizens' inifialive do? e Require the long-term stewardship af Colorado's public trust lands, by recognizing that long term economic productivity is dependent on protecting -and enhancing beauty, natural values, open space and wildlife habitat and , directing the Board to prevent significant - loss of ` land assets. e Create a 300,000 acre stewardship trust. The trust would be set up through a statewide nomination process. This would preserve Colorado's most precious public tru"st lands for open space and wildlife habitat for future generations. • Set up a more representative Board that includes membership with representatives from natural resource conservation; agriculture; e~ducation; local government and land use planning; and a citizen at large. • Generate more mbney for education, by allbwing the ~ State Treasurer fo use money in the" public scfiool fund to invest -in school district bond issues, loan money - directly to schobl districts, and enhance the credit of school district bond issues. - a Benefit local school districts, by assuring that residential, commercial and industrial development on public trust lands will not be a financial drain on local school districts, pioviding local schools access to public trust lands ° for , - building sites and outdoor education, and by giving school districts access to the trust to back bond issues and other fiscal obligations. How Can I He1ilY - • Support Citizens to Save Colorado's Public Trust Lands by working on the statewide citizen initiative to bring this issue to Colorado voters in November. The campaign must gather 80,000 signatures to qualify the measure for the November ballot and must raise the funds needed to win the campaign. . . April 29, 'i996 THE CAPIrLPOL REPORTER Rom ~ f~ ive a" er _ ~ , t.a -ch P. .1and board.. . . . . Bv BeCxY O'Guta : . , . - ~ . , . . - , . fie Capilol Reporter . , ' - Gov. Roy Ro.mer lnunched n citizen initiative last Mnnday to ' ° change the wAy the Cotorado ^y Y'.~`~`~~'`~'~.~;• Lnnd Bnard mnnngea public ' ~ U Lrust lnnds - a move sorne lawmakers are c:allink a "really ~O~~ bad idea." The initiative sponsorcd by Ruth NVright, a former state Icgislator, and Dee Wisor, pre5i , k F x, dent of the Cherry Creek 7~•~~'~ ~ School Board, would chnnge the • land bonrd's inission £roin mhx imizing revenue ta producing 3:~ • "'j 3 reasonnbte anr] consistent Y M incnme over time. It also wouid nut 300,000 ~M~`"~~`~~ ' ncres of statc land in a IonR- lerm trust, tvhich would still allow current uses for state lands such as grazing. "It's just a really bad idea," snid Rep. Jeanne Adkins,_R- I'ar)ser. "P'or some peopie it is a cheap way to get public land, ~ 0!'' cind I don't think you should do F it at ttie expense of public '1 schools." W r i g h t s r a i d p r e s e r v i n g t h e 's s ,s Y` - lind is far more valuable in the long term to the schooi trust, t~'•" ' „ which gets its revenue from:the ssale and use of the land. "The vulue of land ie alwuys HvouHOQHamlTheCapitdReporler Roing up," Wright said Thvrs- (j;,y. Gov. Roy Romer speaks on the west steps of the Capitol for a citf- Romer agreed with WrighC, aen tnfttetive thatwouid rad3caUy change the land boerd's mission. aaying it is time to change the cnnstitution..ply figUre if this passes that the interest. Right now there.sis a 'Ib be frank about it; F tliink voters don't want the money to similar broad-based interest-on . we can'rtanage these landa in a'go to schools. They would the board. I appointed theiii;. way yver a' period of years- in rather pay for open space." there is no more reason to be which the revenue from atl uf it "This ia exquisite land goliticized than there would be ' will increase, nnt decrease," 4tlready owned by the state," now," he said. •Romer said at the press cunfer- Wright said, adding that it is Sen. Dave Wattenberg, R-, ence Monday. redundant to purchase ogen Wslden, .disagreed, aaying that, , But Adkins said there Are spACe already owned by the Changing the board vvould - oCher ways to obtain open space strate. mean it wairld have less olher than using Schoof trust Critics of the initiative.have respansibility ta-the Generai lands. • said that changing the state Assembly and the public. "If we wlnt more public land boarc3's membership ta "If it's not broke, don't fix it," 11nd, then we Ilnve ndequate five pnrt-time citizens instead he said, adding that he will ways to address that. ;Go oC ttiree full-time commissioa- work against the initiative. ' Colorado is perfectly capable-;of:,,, ers woutd potiticize the board The Colorado Public Interest i bu,ying school land4 and com- by giving more power to the Research group gave its sup- pensating the public trust," slie staff im malcing policy deci- port to the initiative Monday. . said. sions. "We as an environmental Adkine said if the trust landa R.omor said that ian't true. group are very concemed about (umn Inonay, t.hels etiu Iugfolpture "Not we m11. Wa're puttlttg a prawervlng chJs opan spsca !br • will not restore the funds. five-pereon board there that future generatione," said' Rich "Future legislAtors will sim- represents a broad base of McClintock of CoPIRG. i i i . i . , ~ ; E L G, RAPH S.-kTGRD:IY, APRII_ 6.19913 N • . I I -ualltion aims to rese~ ve c . 30u""",000 ; _ ~?etition drive :see ?arcels presarved. " it," ;aic 9rtnn Bu::t~}^, a memne: in Ei °aso Counc,, activis[5 ot-thzColorado PuDIic.IntEresc have oattted ciie buard ove: Scc• r?z~earcn Group x•i~o nr!ped -seeks to place ~ believe this u<~n 15. The wquded, o-{0-acre draf~ ~he prou~sai. slaca-t,wned purcel is coveced Unaec thel~ rnoosal, the !unc 1SSL12 OI1 bii. ot : effort is one of the ,or ics hiking crails und open board could s[ill sell land not m~st lm ~rtant. ypac" eiuded in the'30U,UUU•ucre res 6y.Todd Hartman p Those bnttles have muved ervauon plan. 8uc inscead Gaxeae Teiegrapn tt,in ,.tO Romer co laad che cha; ge for jusc.considering che Innd's ccn- "A eoalition of environmental• l~ , gS "We Can U saving some staEe lanus. He's namic value. ic woutd have co :scs, educators and ranchers `.tOda. tO: eSel~:V.e., spearheaded chr rtfurc us part " gtti~e considerable weighc zn ic: 'toined Gov. Roy Romer un Fri- ~ pr., of his statewide etFort,[o ;ezhinl value a~ openisnace ;uid wild!i;~ -day to unnounee plans Co try to C ' growch managemenc diibbed haoicac, 'pre's•erve 300,000 ~cenic Culo- • .OIOrc~dO S Uc,1T~ ~ "Smar. Gruwch." Thac z[for~ The change wtll provide an rado acres - including a pupu- Of Ilfe fOr f U.LUI,e has linked acEiviYts frorri^511 'foothills. ooening ror acciviscs ~~~no long 13r~purCel in [he EI Payo Caunty . ~~•alk3 uf.lite to prupuse:more . have procesLad che boe.rc's er- g . iis w To da ic, ~he group ~vill need chan 1-0 recommendatio ~enerations. manage ;ro«~ch. Javing stai~ toC:ve rrac;s b 'Support irom Ehe voCers, ~vho r~;s co sell uf~f scenic und sensi- GoV. Roy Romer Iand is among the highes[ oa [he ucllacked a Iz;ai [ou: I . must decide whether they'd lisc, cu challenge che ae:ion. : ra'ther snve the land from devel• "Beaucitnl''open spaces; The proposal also calls for re • cnooney pmenc for or sell it schools. off to raise stace-u~vned land = esoecially chroughauc Ctiforado need`pra the mosc scenic.sites are in berc[uU thme Eand board wuh a :"'And betore che vocere ean danger ot heing ceccion," Romer said. ~elieve developed, most chis zf[ori is ona ot ~he qios~ im- f1°e'member ci[izen 6oard. Thz: -weigh in un ic, supporters oP the ' of Lhe nearly 3 miltion acres poRan[ things we cun.dii~coda}• board woufd decermine, among 'plan need 55,U00 signacures to owned by the scace sic in remoEe co preserve Colorado's.qlloy of ather things, how ~o selec~ the put the ma[cer on che'fovembac locadons, and may never be life for future generacloirt"s:`': 300,000 acres otf-lfmiu to , ballot. If they do so, vo[ers wiil . tauched. 4fost of [he opposfdoii co the developmenc.l, "have to wade through nvo emo- The pectdon dri've eaps.: plan comes from educacors. who ~ cionat argumencs: monchs of effort by, a,diverse see iL as aChreac to revenur for ~ a Proponents will argue thnt array of activiscs including public.schools. I houses and scrip mulls will take ranchers, several'environmencal "[f we wanc co preserve che ~up too much of Colorada's coun- groups, policicians, even.educa- land [or ics nacural qualicies, - trvside unless porcions are put cors - who believe seliing scace- buy che land," said,John Evans, ' aiY=limica Eo developmenc. owned land Eo che highesc:bidder a member of the Colqrado Board I m Opponenrs will argue sav- is misguided ac aEime ~vhen che of Educa[fon. 6vans suggescs _ ~ ing the land robs Colorado scare's mosc scenic fandscape is , usiryg:toitery monep Eu.buy, laod schools oi mitllons of dollars dis3ppearing. from the lnnd. board, so schoois ` normally generated by selling iE The State Land Board was ,cil1 get tFieu;share. I ~~to'8evelopers. creaLed in 1676 to'oversee abouc Bu[ proponencs ol the plan ' i ~'-9och argumencs are extreme. 4.3 million acres curned ove: co The plan probubly would cost Coiorado by the federal govern• sny i[ still atlows che board co Colorado schools some money - ment. Since then, thte Guard has tease tfiz land ttinc's parL oi che j Ehough che amounc generaced by sold ofCabout une-third oi that 3U0,000 acres eurmarked toc i , ;.tie..land sales every year is less fand. prese:•:acion, as long as ic's for thun 1 percent of [he sca[e Thr state cansntuttun re• passive wes like larming or srazir.g. scnool hudget. quires che hoard to ma.Ximize, ics And the scheats wouldn't lose mone:ary return for ics.lartds. "!f ?ou have ic in ag:icuftur;.l ouE encicely. They'd scilt get ln reeenc pears, tnr,praccice lease tnr 100 yes'ri, you're mu1:•_, ~ money from che leasing oi scacc has generUed controve:sy. Some inb more monep uvec the lany . , ~ Iunds. communicies have fougnc (he ce: m tnr public schools than o0 'And choueh ic's [rue a loc of land board, saying [hey want co sellinG it and putcing huuses nn . . i ~ I ' . . . . . q, ' p ' e . , . . . ` . ' . ' . . . ' 'Y .;..b.. , . . , , . , . ; . . - . ' . , ' . The ballot title and submission clause as designated and fixed by the Board is as follows: SHALL'THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE'COLORADO CONSTITU'I'ION CONCERNING Tf-iE MANAGEMFNT OF STA'TE ASSETS RELATED TO THE PUBLIC LANDS OF'IT-E STATE HELD IN 'rRUSUA1VD, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, PROVIDING THAT THE BOARD SHALL SERVE AS T'HE TRtJSTEE FOR TI IE " LANDS GRANTED TO OR HELD BY THE STATE IN PUBLiC TRUST; ADDING TO TT-E BOARD'S DUTIES THE PRUDENT MANAGEMENT AND EXCHANGE OF LANDS HII.D BY TI-IE BOARD; REQUIRING THE BOARD TO MANAGE LANllS HELD BY THE BOARD IN ORDER TO PRODUCE REASONABLE AND CONSISTFNT INCOME OVER TIME, AND TO RECOGNIZE THAT ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY AI`TD SOtJND S1'EWARDSFIIP OF SUCH . LANDS INCLUDES PROTECTING AND ENHANCING TT-IE BEAU'I'Y, NATLJRAI. VALUES, OPEN SPACE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A LbNG-T'F.RM STEWARDSHIP: : TRUST OF UP TO 300,000 ACRES OF LAND.; REQUIRING THE BOARD TO TAKE OTHER ACTIONS TO PROTECT T'HE LONG-TE12M PROllUC°TIVI'I'Y .AND SOtJND STEWARDSHIP OF THE LANDS HELD BY THE BOARD, INCLUDING INt'ENTI VES IN AGRICLTLTLTRE LEASES WHICH PROMOTE SOUND STEWARDSHIP'AND SALES OR LEASES OF CONSERVATION EASEIVIFNTS; AUTHORIZING THE BOARD TO tJNDERTAKE NON- SIMUI.TANEOUS EXCHANGES OF I.A^dD; AUTHORIZING THE.GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ADOPT;LAWS WHEREBY THE ASSETS OF THE SCHOOL F[JND MAY BE USED TO ASSIST PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO.PROVIDE NECESSARY BUILDINGS, LAND, AND EQUIPMENT; PROVIDING OPPORTUrTITTES FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN WHICH LANDS HELD BY THE BOARD ARE LOCATED TO LEASE, PLTRCHA.SE, OR OTHERWISE USE SUCH LANDS FOR SCHOOL BUILDING SITES; REQUIRING THE BOARD, PRIOR TO A LAND'fRANSAC'1'ION FOR DEVELOPME,IT PURPOSES, T'U llE'TERMINE T'HAT 'I'f-E INCOME FROM THE TRANSACTION W1LL,EXCEED TI-IE FiSCAL IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT ON LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS; ALLOWING ACCESS BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR OLTTDOOR EDUCATION PLTRPOSES WITHOUT CHARGE; EXPANDING TTiE STATE BOARD OF LAND CO1dAESSIONERS TO FIVE MEMBERS AND REQtJIRING A DIVERSITY OF EXl'EI2IENCE AND OCCUPATION ON THE BOARD; RIDUCING THE TERMS (OF OFFICE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD TO FOUR YEARS; DIRECTING THE BOARD TO HIRE A DIRECTOR A.ND A STAFF; AND PROVIDING FOR PERSONAL IMMINITY OF'1'HE INDIVIDUAL BOARD MENIBERS FROM LIABILITY IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS? The summary prepared by the Board is as follows: This mea.sure would authorize the General Assembly to enact legislation establishing the terms and conditions upon which the state treasurer may use moneys in the public school fund to invest in schooi district bonds; gaaranty schaol district bonds, or make loans to school districts. The measure would continue the requirement that the Genera.l Assembly pay to the public schaoi fund an amount equal to any losses that occur. The measure would provide that revenue generated for schools through article IX of the constitution be in addition to other moneys appropriated by the General Assembly for public schools. This measure would'expar,d the state boazd of land commissioners ("board") from three to five persons apgointed by the governor, with the consent of the senate, and direct the board to elect its president. This measure woutd require the governor, in appointing members of the board, to endeavor to appoint members who reside in different geographic regions of the state, with ea.ch member having substantial experience in one of the following areas: prcduction agriculture, public primary or secondary . educa.tion, local government and,land use planning, and natural resource conservation, with the fifth member being a citizen at large. The General Assembly would be required to annually appropriate, from the incqme from the trust lands, sufficient moneys to enable the board to perform its duties, and in that regard, to give deference to the board's assessments of its budgetary needs. This measure would provide that the members of the board would not te employees of the state by virtue of their appointment, and would be reimbursed for their reasonable and necessaryexpenses and be given such per diem as established by the General Assembly, from the income from the trust lands. This measure would immunize the memlers of the board from liability for any action or failure to act as long as such action or, failure to act does not involve willful or intentional malfeasance or gross . . negligence: i ; I This measure would require the board to serve as trustee.for the lands granted tolthe state in public trust by the federal govemment, lands acquired in lieu of such lands, and additional lands held by the board in public trust. This measure would place upon the boa.rd the duty to mana.ge, control, and dispose of such lands in accordance with the purposes for which the lands were granted and section 10 of article IX of the constitution, and subject to terms and conditions provided by law that are coniistent with the constitution. This rneasure would grant the board the authority to undertake non-simultaneou i exchanges of land by directing proceeds from a sale or disposition of land to be placed in a separate accourit and permitting withdrawal of an equal or lesser amount from that account to be used to purchase other land to le held and . managed by the board from that account, provided that the purchase of lands to compTete the exchange sha11 be made within two years of the initial sale or disposition. The proceeds and interest from such an exchange which are not expended in completing the exchange would be transferred to tlie public school fund or such other trust fund as is maintained by the treasurer for the proceeds of the trust lands disposed of or sold. This measure would prohibit moneys in the separate account from being used for the operating expenses of the board or for expenses incident to the disposition or acquisition of lan&: % This measure would declare that the people of the state of Colorado recognize (a) that the state school lands are an endowrnent of land assets held in a perpetual, inter-generational public trust for the support of public schools, which should not be significantly diminished, (b) that the disposition and use of such lands should benefit public schools including local school districts, and (c) that the economic productivity of all lands held in public trust is dependent on sound stewardship, including protecting and _ enhancing the beauty, natural values, open space, and wildlife habitat of the land. In recognition of the above principles, the measure would require the board to be governed by standards set forth in the measure in the discharge of its fiduciary obligations, in addition to other laws generally applic:able to trustees. It would add to the duty of tfie state land board to provide for the location, protection, sale, or other disposition of trust lands, the prudent management or exchange of such lands. Tliis xneasure would also change the goal of the lmard's trusteeship of such lands from securing the maximum value to'the production of reasonable and consistent income over time. ~ This measure would require the board, in furtherance of its stewardship and trusteeship over state. - trust lands, to: (a) determine, prior to.the lease, sa1e, oX exchange of land for commercial, residential, or industrial development, that the income from the lease;'sale, or exchange can reasonably be a.nticipated to ' exceed the fiscal impa.ct of the development on local<school districts and state funding of education from increased school enrollment associated with the development; (b) pi-otect and enhance tlie long-term productivity and sound stewardship of the tnist lands by (I) establishing and maintaining a long-term stevVazdship trust of up to 300,000 acres that the board determines thraugh a statewide nomination process to be valuable primarily to preserve long-term benefits and returns to the state, to be held and managed to maximize options for continued stewazdship, public use, or further disposition, by permitting only those uses that will protect and enhance the beauty, natural values, open space, and wildlife habitat of the land, (II) including in agricultural leases terms, incentives, and lea.se rates that will promote s,ound stewardship and land management practices, long-term agricultural productivity, and community stability, (III) managing the development and utilization of natural resources, in a manner which will conserve the long- term value of such resources, as well as existing and future uses, arid:in`accordance with state and local laws and regulations, and (IV) selling or leasing conservation ea.sements, licenses, and other similar interests in land; (c) comply with valid local land use regulations and land use plans; (dj aliow access by public schools without charge for outdoor educational purposes so long as such access does not conflict with uses previously.approved by the board on such lands; and (e) provide opportunities for the school districts in which trust lands are located to lease, purchase> or otherwise use such landsf as are necessary for schofll building sites, at an amount to be determined by the baard, which sha11 not exceed the appraised fair market value, and which amount may be paid over time. f This measure would have no direct fiscal impact on local governments. , I ee Ab TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Office of the Town Attorney Vail, Calorado 81657 970-479-2107/Fcix 970-479-2157 June 4, 1996 Michael Jewett Post Office Box 314 Vail, CO 81658 Dear Mike: I received your telephone message on June 4th requesting the following items which are attached. They include copies of the present contracts which have been in effect for the last year with Rocky Mountain Carriage Company and Colorado Carriage & Sleigh Co., the Town of Vail Request for Proposal and copies of the three applications which were submitted pursuant to the proposal. I would appreciate it if you would return the three applications to me. If any additional information is needed please advise me. Very truly yours, TOWN OF VAIL R. Thomas Moorhead Town Attorney RAM/aw Enclosures xc: Robert W. McLaurin Pamela A. Brandmeyer Robert Slagle Vail Town Council RECYCLED PAPER A ~ ~ _ . . _ - ~ . . ` . . . " ~ . _ . - . . _ . • . . , . _ , ~ ~ ' . ' " . . . _ . . " . ' ~ rD ~ . , . , . ~ . ~ ' , . _ . . . . .DO. ~ . . , . - ~ ~ . _ ~ - . . _ ~ . - . _ ' , . Ev~. •yO ' _ ~ _ _ 41 ~ ~ yc' ~ti oh 392? ~ - - ~ ~ o p$ ~ . x~0\ ; ~ 14200' N 47 °d[9,I34,£ N84°OT 56'E- - g~~~ . . ? ' cob o ~ y .0 1 S` . ~ v !A ~ 91.'761 b~g~4f~A~ ~o O fi1 C . o • +~l 0 : : : oo°~ o°e~ '(~.y ~'1• ~ ~ 0 022 ~O 63 aM S4704749 ~N Ul'i~ ~ o°~ o4T °48 '0! "E ~ 291. 04 r f~H eoo, °zes N 64.53 V V {~t ~9B : : : . ~ : . ~ w° ' 'a { g . c+ ~ V o p z:~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ $70~ - ~ ~ ~ , ' ~ ~ v~ 15n 00-,~-' 275 48 z \ Rt ~ C- q:o5034'E N \m z o ~ o O ~ C~ EX-~STakG"HOUSES, ~ - ~ ~..~4S& . ~ . . _ _ o ~ . s ~ ^ ~ a ~ -Of ~ , 8ulk Rale U.S. Poslage PAID , , Rermii No. 6 i ; Avon CO - - - j~W : r.. 3 . . : v . r,r . . . , . „ : . '~cv.u.:°,.: : w w. „ --..q. .~s. s~s;.:.~, ,ua.s3~ .io,.. a,, ,,F.,o.y , . . . : , . . 4 ~t - /~1' ~ 1=~r 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ r •i '1 "Just crumble up the cork and sprinkle it on my salad." - Biil St. John at the Colorado Microbre?very Beer Tnsting ~ , . ~ , , . Night ' zli-Irkli-JoRg beiner 4..#~'-~r ,,o~+~,:~ 7 ~ ~ • .~.~:~~~~-~~s~.~~f~~,~~ _..:t: ~ ~ 1111 vT tigat ~i e.- e 1 ~~a~.,.,~•~~-p ~ ~ ; 4 ~ . S k Vail Associates considering a toned-down plan ~ z.~g*,q`~ ~ , ? ~ : r ~ 3~ •n ~ E By Allen Best tempced to wander dhe streets in search of 7'imes Managing Gditor en[er[ainment. Plus, visiting skiers arriving chat afceRioon could get in a bit oF skiiiig, , x Vail Associates is studying the pos- ~ reconditioning their legs before launching sibility of lighted nighc skiing. ~ i n c o a f u l l d a y o n t l i e m o u n t a i n. Sources say chac VA officials, iF chey ~~1~1"Y ,,~r~~;,~s Night skiing has been discussed occas- ~ p urs ue die ide a, ho pe to create a li ghtin g iona l ly t hroug h t he years, but never system less obtrusive in the valley below t han is f oun d, for e x a p l e, a t e y s t o n e, reached the stage of a 6rm proposat. Nigh[ x one of the pioneers of night skiing. [n skiing is identified as a possiUility in [he Summit Councy, Keysrone's lighted runs Vail Mounrain master plan. 3 can Ue seen easily fTOm Frisco and other 77 - ~ discant poinrs. ~ No decisions have been made about Tpmba and Mahajq the lighcing, and indeed, no formal Alberto Tomba, the [talian Stallion, ~ 5 s proposal has been puc togecher. Night and all-Lime rodeo cowboy great Larry skiing, if it proceeds, mus[ first be Mahan will be in the valley today, ? fi t• ~ ~ r approved by die U.S. Forest Service and a ~ • ~,5,~ - ; • cuccing cows and cuccing buffalo at a public scoping process. ranch int he Wolcott area. Tomba, of ,k7F` [n studying nighc skiing, VA officials course, has signed an endorsement deal reportedly see it as a way to provide rec: with Vail Associates. reation for kids who might otherwise be ~ -~^~zt~~,>a ` ~ ~ ~ ~ : A nu per crop of bab*.es in arch ~ Y~4 ^y, ~~~,~i~~A~. . ...wv . , . , • \ U A~1 TOII OF UAIL 75 South Frontage Road e of the Town Attorney vail, Colorado 81657 ~ 970-479-2107/Fax 970-479-2157 A9qy 1 ,0 N[ay 17, 1996 Arthur A. Abplanalp, Jr., Esquire Dunn, Abplanalp & Christensen, P.C. 108 S. Frontage Road, Suite 300 Vail, CO 81657 Re: Vail Associates Lionshead Gondola Proposal Dear Art: I am wnting in response to your correspondence to Susan Connelly dated May 14, 1996. This matter is, as you state in your correspondence, scheduled to be heard by Town Council on May 21, 1996 at the re(yular Town Council meeting. We are unaware of any conditional use permit or other limitation in existence as described in your correspondence. Very truly yours, i R. Thomas Nloorhead Town Attorney RTM/aw xc: Susan Connelly RECYCLED PAPER V~Dr~t7 ~7 r Facs'l'm'l'le Communication Too VAIL TO1~~! COUN~B~ F o 970479r21 57 Froma Dav9d H. Pease Jr., Chaorman/~~~ Com nya Pea5e It1dUstP1~ ~~one0 513-870-38G9 Faxo 513-870-W72 Date: 05/17196 Pag Inc9uding th~s cow pagea 9 A+s a Iong-standing property owner at 454 Beaver Oarn E3vad just S" cf Chair 8, I should Ike to r.a~mrnent on 9fie possibilfty of {ighted n~ght sdciing being stwbed up by Vail A?ssxiabas in tt?Q Lionsti~~ area. Raspectfulfp, I~houdd like to go on retwrd as mtmngty oppoWng the steir#-aap of a liqhbed night a(tivlfy of t1at sW 8n Vatl Mo4dT1$a6i1, t65 the L1AP1sho~d we# Of anyvhmfe s{se. FoP 3 number of years Ihave bow in discaaasion vuft't 4he Yovin oP Vail c,oncsming {ow levei Iandscape IfghtJnq an ot~r ow prop", and arn uery well aware of the concom over nigttt lbghtin~ expreaffied over many yeam by the Cauncii. I~mould tfilnk that the brilliant lighting necaasary faf saft naqht okiing in the Lions9~ead am, vafiich is surrounded bry rosddentiat peoperties, woould be mo~t unyvelcoffw. Therefore, I~wuld hupe tliatt the Toym ofi Vai1 wocald hesd-aff Vaji Aasxiates from the po'a.ibillty of migpt sdciin~ an the now gondoEa ic pu8 in pdwo. Sancerety, 4A se • ~ o , OWd M. Peaw Jr. ~ ChaimierJCEQ oa: Artwx A. Abp1ar%Wp, Jr. 9UNN, ABP4-ANA1.P & CHRISTEMSEN. P.C. PA. TOTAL F.01 0 D" ~j ]l[r \\~l~Cc~ 1LJ~(C]ClC1l0CCD(t0.](7C ` 2555 Oakwood SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506 phone 510-285-0163 w fax 61 b-285-7933 May 21, 1996 Vail Town Council 75 Sauth Frar?iage Roac3 West Vail, Colorado 81657 BY FAX ~ Re: Night Us2 of the new LionsHead gondcla Dear Town Council: As a more than 30-year part-time resident of Vail Valley, let my voice be counted among those vWno vigorously oppose night lighting of the new LionsHead gondola area. The intensity of illumination and the potential for adding night time skiing and/or sledding are both untenabfe prospects for the overall well-being of the town. If the gondola has to be lit up for persons gaing to and from Game Creek C(ub (which l oppose, but which may be too late to stop), at least let the use of night-time lighting end there. It would be ugly to look at and irritating to listen tc, if people snould be allowed an the mountain in the evening. Let there be some peace in this beleaguered valley! Please! It is time to stop thinking the Vaii Vailey should try to be all things for all people. Sincereiy, Kate Dernocoeur Tax-pa yer cc: Dunn, Abplanalp & Christansen, P.C. . ~ „ . . . . . . , ~ S , . , , : . ; ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ . . . . : ~ . . . _ ~ . ' . . . ~ , i,. ' . -e: . ~ ~ i . c'' , ~ . . . . , , , • , . , ' y, . . • _ , , . I ' . ` : , . ' . ' . , . . . , • .~y' s' i.' . ~4,;~ ' ~ . . . ~ t, ~ ~ ~ i?~• ` F i ~ ,~~Z' . Yc . ' . ' _ . i i . . 1 ' . , . . `E :L ~ ' ~ , ~ _ . ~ . ~ • , , . . , V L' p.._ I; L. O. : ~ °O R ,:A. Dn 0. . . . n • . . ~ , . • f '4 ~ , ' . C i . . . . f • . . , . , ' • , . ' r . . . ' ` ' ` y« . ~ " " . " . . , ~ . , ~ - ~ ~ . ' . , . V b , ~1`; t , , ' , • , `f" I`~.. . .'t ; • ` , , ' .r ~ . . 1 . ~ ~ ~ I r. • ' : ~ . . ' ' , . ' . . `.:i ~ ~ . ~ ~ ' :i}i. t ~ • . ~ , r ~ . " . . ' ' , " ^ i , . , . ~ . . . . . ' , . , . ' . . ' , • ~ . ~ ~ . . , ' . . .,Y . . . . 1•, . . . . , • ~ ~ . . ~ , . , ~ r " . ~ ,Y t ~7!~ ; ' " . . ' ~ ' ~F , ~ , • , . • . , . , ! ~.o,.: , , . , ' . V ' , ~ ~ ~ ! . . • ~ . . ' . . . . ' ~ . . ~ .~t.•'p ~t r. ~ x '+'ti r,~"'.^~~ . . ` ' , ~ . , . . . . ~ ~ ' 4 ' • ' -f. ~ ~ ~'~r~. p ..i 7 . ` ~ , _ ~ . , _ w ~ ~r f . V . ' _ '.t r2 ~.A ` . • { ~ , . ` , . . , ~ ` A_, . . . ' r ' ~ , S ' . ~f} ;I.. t ' , ~ * , ' . ' , , . . r 1 ' • ' . ~ . , . . . . . ' ~ ~ ~ . . ' . ~ 4~ ' . . . . ~ ~ . . l, l t~( 1 . . . . ~ , ' , . . ~ • , . ''4 I ` 1 i , . 1 " f _ . r . ' t ~ ' . t ~ ''!A It,. . j. ' , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L1LO1V SHEAD REDEVELOPMEN11 ~ PLAN ~ Prepared for: Vail Alssociat¢s R¢al IEstate, dnc. ~ P 0. Box 959 Avon, Colorado 81620 ~ 970.845.2500 ~ Prepared by: Desuglov Worlksllnop, Inc. ~ 953 South Frontage Road West Suite 102 Vail, Colorado 81657 ~ 970.476.8408 ~ JUN1E 4,1996 ~ 0 FI] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a a ~ ~ CONTENTS Iuntrodanctaon ~ ~ ESCllStllflIlg COIlIl21?tlOQDS 7 ~ ProjecQ. Ob,gectives 9 QJrbaaa Design 10 ~ Bun9dnaag lEorm 16 Q Identnty Creation ~ ~oneept SQR,e Plan 24 Couneflansnons 21 ~ 0 ~ • . ~ ~ ~ , , INTRODUCTION The Purpose of This Study ~ The planning and development of complex places is a dynamic process. This report booklet is a work in progress. , It documents a preliminary presentation of the early analy- sis of the place called Lionshead and its component paRs. ~ T". Lionshead is not as desirable as Vail Village, or other suc- rcessful destinations, in spite of its prime location at the base , of Vail Mountain. A lack of public excitement for the place has resulted in an unrealized economic potential for the 'community. It is an underwhelming place. This lack of desirability is due in large part to the design and organiza- A view of Lionshead Vlllage frvm the gondola. tion of the buildings, plazas and streets in Lionshead. , The purpose of this preliminary booklet is to provide Vail Associates Real Estate and the Town of Vail an opportuni- ~ ty to review and comment on the ideas and studies com- pleted to date. The input from both will be included and the , planning process incorporated in an overall Lionshead Master Plan. The process would include public forums, development strategies, additional design studies, econom- ~ ic analysis and identification of critical paths necessary to achieve the plan. , Historical Background ~ Founded in 1962, Vail had changed dramatically by the end of 1968. Vail had achieved a significant market presence and was gaining stature as a premiere North American ski resort. Growing rapidly, the ski company and resort com- , munity undeRook the first substantial leap in scale and identity with the creation of Lionshead. Beginning in 1968- 69, a decade of expansion saw the ski company add nine , 4 , lifts and the Lionshead Gondola, as well as restaurants and an additional 1,400 acres of ski terrain. Lionshead was the , cornerstone of this expansion. ~ i1e much pnotographea clock tower in Vail In 1969, Vail Associates, Inc. started construction of the , Village, circa mid -rsso's. Gondola Building and the "Sink" building (Lionshead Center building), planned by Beardsley and Associates. The gondola itself was completed in 1970. Conceived as a , new and contemporary addition to the ski resort, Lionshead's architectural themes mimicked the clustered, , concrete modernism of newer French resorts such as Les Ares and Courchevel. Physically separated from the core village, Lionshead followed its own development path dri- ~ 1 ~ ~ ven by this distinct architectural theme and the relatively new phenomenon of the "condominium", which allowed the sale of small, individually affordable resort properties in ~ - large buildings with common amenities. ~ With the creation of Lionshead, Vail advertised a resort of seven uphill lifts, two gondolas, four beginner's lifts, 28 restaurants, 4,500 beds and a ski school of 70 instructors. ~ 1972 saw the first incarnation of the Lionshead parking structure, with a capacity of 603 cars. By 1976, Vail sur- ~ passed 1,000,000 skier visits in a season, and the build-out of Lionshead was well on its way to completion. ~ A decade later, the Vail Valley had changed beyond any- thing envisioned by the resort's founders. Beaver Creek ~ was a growing and increasingly successful reality. The Vail community was stretching west. However, the bed base in Vail was becoming dated, physically depreciating and in ~ danger of shrinking. Vail properties were increasingly valu- able, often enjoying substantial individual remodeling, and ~ owners were less inclined to rent their properties for overnight or short-term use. By 1988, Vail Associates' management was actively attempting to bring a major hotel ~ into the Lionshead core to counter the loss of "live beds". Conversations were held with the Ritz, Rock Resorts, the GE Biltmore and others in an effoR to build a major resoR hotel with 300 rooms or more, full conference facilities, shops, restaurants and operational facilities, as well as condomini- ~ ums or townhomes to help pay for the development. A down valley golf course was sought to tie into the project ~ and give it a strong summer attraction. Several plans were considered, but ultimately the economics of grand hotels were not compelling enough to see a project to completion. ~ The worsening financial condition of Vail Associates' own- ership subsequently postponed the Lionshead renewal ~ indefinitely. da~ In 1993, new ownership enabled Vail Associates to revisit its Lionshead core properties, and land planning studies were undertaken to assess redevelopment opportunities. The two acre core site comprised of the Gondola Building, • Sunbird Lodge and North Day Lot were evaluated for a mixed use core facility containing Vail Associates' ski oper- ~ ` IQ ations, retail, lodge rooms and condominiums, and an office • complex on the North Day Lot. Land planning and mass- ~ ing principles were identified and various physical alterna- tives were examined, including massings of "grand" hotels (300+ rooms), smaller boutique hotels (120+/- rooms), and pure condominium projects. However, the redevelopment _ 2 ~ ~ of Lionshead was again delayed, this time to address a more compelling facility replacement at Golden Peak. ~ A year and a half later, with Golden Peak plans nearing approval, the Lionshead studies were reconsidered. A hotel consultant and development prospect was hired to evaluate the financial alternatives posed by the redevelopment of the < Vail Associates core site. Financial models were created by 9 the consultant to review four alternatives, including: (1) a pure, grand hotel with modest meeting room capacities and ~ retail; (2) a fee simple condominium project with retail; (3) < • 1', a mixed-use boutique hotel with supporting time share or vacation ownership units and retail; and (4) a mixed-use boutique hotel with condominiums and retail. The result of the financial review, coupled with the land planning studies, was the determination that the core site was not well suited to a substantial hotel redevelopment. Among other compli- cating factors, the site physically lacked the size necessary to accommodate a substantial, grand hotel without resorting ~ o - to a very large, tall and ungainly building mass. Even then, the site was not large enough to include appropriately sized conference space or facilities. It suffered from extremely poor access and had no "front door" or prominent entry ~ presence. Finally, while enjoying a great mountain loca- tion, it did not connect well to the rest of the town. ~ Economically, the core hotel alternatives were not viable without sacrificing the return on a very large investment by Vail Associates' ownership. A more creative solution was ~ going to be required for the problem of redeveloping the Lionshead base facilities, building a new bed base and cat- ~ alyzing a Lionshead renewal. ~ GoaIls Vail Associates began re-examining the goals for a ~ Lionshead redevelopment. These included: o maximizing the creation of live beds and expanding guest ~ usage; - creating a financially viable hotel with substantial confer- ~ ence facilities; - redeveloping the core site properties with a lodging com- ponent, retail and operations space; ~ - stimulating a renewal and upgrading of Lionshead, includ- ing its public and private spaces; ~ - enhancing the resort environment and destination appeal of Vail; and, ~ - promoting the financial strength of the Town of Vail and 3 ~ ~ community as a whole. Vdith these goals as its guide, Vail Associates returned in ~ 1996 to the problems and opportunities posed by a redevel- opment of the Lionshead properties. ~ After 30 years of operation, Vail Village still represents the major visitor focal point for the resort. Bridge Street, Gore ~ Creek, the Vista Bahn and the retail core of Vail Village rep- MIK_ resent the post card images of the community. Lionshead ~ has not been as successful as a village core, lacking the charm and business success of the Bridge Street area. ~ The existing conditions which contribute to the lack of suc- cess for business and the absence of inemorable imagery in - ~ Lionshead represent significant opportunities for change. These include: ~ - Dated, unattractive architecture which has no recogniz- able style or cohesive imagery. ~ - Under-utilized buildings, such as the Sunbird Lodge and Gondola structure. Both occupy critical village locations. ~ - Increased demand for skier services, limited building ~ space, fragmentation of functions, and lack of coherent arrival sequences for the visitor. Lin o Limitations on capacity reduce skier-friendly quality and discourage repeat skiing on the Lionshead Gondola. - Inadequate space and utilization of the Gondola Building for Vail Associates' staffing, administrative and opera- ~ tional needs. ~ - Lack of a village focal point and significant public gath- ering spaces. ~ - IVeed for a reasonable economic return for ownership. The Gondola Building and Sunbird Lodge represent an ~ uneconomic use of the land, especially given their high appraised valuation. ~ - Inadequate retail space and a lack of secondary pedestri- an areas that create interest and a desire to explore the ~ neighborhood. In essence, a master plan for re-development would address ~ the needs of four principal client groups: 4 a ~ ~ The Skiing Public ~ The Vail Community The Vail Associates, Inc. Staff ~ The Vail Associates, Inc. Ownership ~ The basic objective of this planning effort was to balance ~ these interests and create a new village core which provides an excellent vacation experience, a strong commercial asset, and a fair return on investment for Vail Associates, ~ Inc. ownership. ~ Secondhand or associated benefits can be envisioned for adjacent properties, and the village core in general, through modifications of and enhancements to development rights ~ by the Town of Vail. The potential to create a cohesive image and character for all of Lionshead Village can be easily foreseen given these `off-site' opportunities. ~ 1993 ]L'aonshead Village Plan lLtevieew ~ All great, memorable places contain focal features and unique postcard images. Vail Village has the Covered ~ Bridge and Bridge Street, the Vista Bahn and Pepi's. - Spectacular views of Vail 1Vlountain seem to appear in ~ - everyone's photograph collection with the Village Clock Tower perfectly framed. Unfortunately, Lionshead, for a • d 4AWAI variety of reasons, has not captured these important seg- ~ ments of the vacation experience. It is probably not coinci- dental that Vail Village is called a village and Lionshead ~ ~ ' ' J - : - - simply a "base area". While Vail Village was planned and ~ i~• ,.t~,;; : ,;L~:s~,:., _ _ . ~r . _ designed as a great destination with cohesive building and _ site design, Lionshead proceeded as more of an economi- e m, ~ cally driven subdivision of multi-famil y and commercial 9~ o land parcels. The cement which might weld these parcels into a fabric of quality public spaces has been lacking. The -9~~ 1993 planning process offered an opportunity to create these spaces, cementing the Lionshead base into a village with compelling architecture, ski facilities and retail. The 1993 planning process began with a rigorous program- ming exercise based upon detailed interviews with all Vail Associates, Inc. department heads and key staff from the ~ Town of Vail. The plan proceeded from the following find- ings about Lionshead: ~ - Core buildings are under-utilized. - M[issed opportunities due to lack of focus on Vail as a sin- ~ gle, unified village. 5 ~ Skier and guest services are fragmented. ~ There is a need to create in Lionshead a central place, or B destination, with strong activities base and more cohesive architectural character. ~ The resulting 1993 plan objectives were: - To upgrade and modernize lift and mountain operations. ~ - To update and address skier service requirements for full, anticipated capacity of the Lionshead poRal. ~ - To clarify circulation (pedestrian and vehicular). - To create a dynamic retail core. - To improve the landscape with children's activities. ~ - To create a new village focal point, as the Sunbird and Gondola Buildings have insufficient architectural charac- ~ ter to serve this purpose. - To look at the creation of a place - the same process from ~ which Vail Village originally evolved. Detailed programming needs were developed for the fol- ~ lowing use categories. Each of these has been addressed to provide the best public facilities possible. 0 ~ 0 Ticketing 0 Rest Rooms 0 Ski School ' 0 Employee / Staff Facilities , 0 Public Lockers / Basket Check 0 Food Service 0 Staff Housing ° Ski Administration (Ski Operations) Offices . ~ ~ 0 Parking ° 0 Shipping and Receiving ~ Important design considerations were also identified: ° r7 - Views of the mountain need to be opened with emphasis on north/south visual access. ~ o Lift access at the base needs to be on grade to eliminate stairs and encourage repeat skiing. ~ o Enhanced retail. o Arcaded walkways. o Stepped roof lines. ~ - Articulated building facades. o Introduce native landscape features and enhanced summer ~ activities. o Vehicular access and overnight guest arrival on west side need improvement. ~ 6 , , EXISTING CONDITIONS A Major Mountain Access Point ~ In recent years, the Vail resort has attracted over 1.5 million annual skier visits with daily attendance peaking at 20,000. The Lionshead base typically provides mountain access for - 45% of the total daily skier visits: on average 8,000 to 9,000 ~ - skiers. Due to building space limitations, skier services have been split into three principal buildings. Main services are provided in the gondola building; ski school and chil- b,. dren's programs operate from Lions hea d center bui l ding; and lockers, employee facilities and some retail activities _ are located in the Sunbird Lodge. A clear arrival sequence with rest rooms, food service, ticketing, ski school, rental ` _ - and retail is not achieved by existing building spaces. ~ Vail Associates corporate offices are currently housed in 31,000 square feet of space. Based upon reasonable ratios and allowances for growth, 70,000 square feet of space is needed. The Sunbird Lodge is essentially obsolete because the ~ structural characteristics, floor plan and building conditions do not allow for marketable accommodations. ¦ The Gondola Building occupies the center of the village and ~ its massive, pre-engineered concrete character does not ~ offer an appropriate human scale or opportunity for retail ~ services. North-south circulation is blocked and a clear , - visual connection to the mountain is missing. ~ - ~ From an urban design standpoint, many of the public spaces in Lionshead are not correctly proportioned and lack a human scale. Additionally, the impact of retail is lost due to r poor visibility across wide spaces. This is particularly true ~ of the mall space between the Lionshead parking structure and ticketing. ¦ t ~ Redevelopment opportunities are posed by three major land parcels owned by Vail Associates, Inc. These include: Tract "G" - Gondola and Sunbird. Roughly 3.0 acres of ~ buildable land on a tract which is 4.0 acres but is limited for use due to private covenants. , North Lot - 1.2 acres currently used as surface parking for staff. ~ 7 ~ ~ Service Center/West Lot - The west lot is now employee pazking, and the service center is the maintenance shop and , warehousing center. When merged, these parcels offer 5.8 acres of buildable land. Additional contiguous parcels may also have development potential. ' :Lionshead Parking: Structure - The Structure accommodates , approximately 1,000 automobiles, and recent studies have indicated opportunities to reconfigure and enlarge the facil- , ity. Additional levels for parking and new developable ground might be provided through air rights. , This redevelopment plan focuses on the north lot parking structure and the village core parcels. The service center is ~ an independent development parcel which will be influ- enced by ongoing efforts to centralize warehousing and maintenance functions for Vail Associates, Inc. , ~ ~ ~ ~ • . - ~ , I * ~#Y• 3 , . '~~...J 1 x` - ~ ~ A 8 e ~ ~~~~~TEVEk Potential of Redevelopment ~ The development opportunities presented by these land parcels are: ~ - Centralized, modernized, and improved skier services to ~ maintain a competitive position in the industry. - Expanded bed base for short term accommodations to gen- ~ erate long term skier visits, create liveliness, and animate the village core. ~ - Significantly expanded retail which will be presented in a more attractive, viable pedestrian setting. a - Introduction of a new, higher capacity gondola. ~ - Creation of facilities that will accommodate Vail Associates offices and corporate administration in close ~ proximity to skiing. ~ - In general, the objective of redevelopment is to recreate aesthetic and economic opportunities at Lionshead. This can be the catalyst for a renaissance that will benefit the ~ skier, the resort and immediate property owners. rm _ ~ :'~.e~ _.X r / _ E, Y G~,~i'~~"-~ ~~j" U_ -~~7.c"-, • •t f , ; - ' , ~ _ R' .`s...''. _ i br~ • 39. ~ • 9 , , URBAN DESIGN Principles to Guide the Plan ~ Destination Resorts , Salzburg, Grenoble, Whistler-Blackcomb, Kitzbuhl, Chamonix, St. Moritz, Vail. Why do these destinations , flourish? These and other successful resorts adhere to basic principles , of good design. So what makes Vail Village and other des- tination resorts prosperous and not Lionshead ? r , People have expectations for vacations and destinations. People choose the Vail Valley for the mountain environ- u' ment. Depending on the activity, people visiting Vail are ~ looking for the associated mountain component: ski runs and lifts; village streets with shopping connected with views to the surrounding natural landscape; alpine mead- , I/ail Village, Colorado ows and wildflowers; open plazas for gathering, eating and ~r t!F ~ i people watching; streams with fishing and water sports, ' and more. Good design of places provides people with cues and clues to these destination components. 1:,' ~ Successful destinations have a nuniber of'comPonents that j~" t reinforce and confirm expectations. 0 / These components must tell the users they have arrived. They must give people landmarks that lead to and remind them of various places. They must have edges and open- Salzburg, austria ings appropriately scaled to create comfortable people places and invite visitors to enter and explore. , Y~ Successful destinations provide a variery of experiences. Once a visitor has arrived, a sequence of gate, corridor and , space must be developed to maintain variety, activity, and excitement for the experience. These three elements must be appropriately sized for their programmed activity and , use. Sticcessful destinations conreect to and reaffirm the place ~ - and vernacular landscape. People visit destination resorts to participate with a special -i - - ~ environment. The qualities that make a place unique should enamonix, France be reinforced visually and psychologically. Whether it is a ~ 10 , ~ river, mountain, waterfront, past history or other character- i istic, all great destinations constantly remind the visitor of its significance and contribution to the place. ~ , Successful destinations provide physical and emotional comfort. Great places take advantage of and control micro-climate conditions that affect people and their activity. Direct sun- i . light, shadow, wind and precipitation all contribute to the use of outdoor space. A sense of security is affected by these climactic conditions as well as visibility, noise, and Y • , x i ` defined activity places. People should be protected from k" adverse conditions while participating in a place. ~ Successful destinations provide outdoor opportunities and activities that are compatible with the architectural spaces. Where people gather, opportunities to pause and watch, eat ' or sit must be provided in the form of cafes, restaurants, and associated commercial uses. Retail shops and service com- , mercial uses are most successful when located along corri- J dors of pedestrian movement. Corners and intersections ' n- * - are especially significant in the ability to create a sense of character and quality. ~ ~ Successful destinations offer• diverse visual and physical stimuli to the visitor. , Whether it is winter or summer, color, texture and detail play a crucial role in the spirit and vitality of a place. Building facades, roofs, and colorful, well lit window dis- , plays for storefronts provide visual excitement in winter. Window boxes, landscape plantings, flags, umbrellas, shop , fronts, signage and banners provide the visual welcome for visitors in summer. a ;t 1 ¦ ~ ll , ~ The Existing Village of Lionshead The existing village of Lionshead is a collection of mid- and ~ high-rise condominiums developed in the 1970's and 80's as a new real estate product. It is larger in scale and denser , it than its counterpart, Vail Village. Given its greater service ~ and population needs, Lionshead was allowed to disregard ~ many of the charming and successful characteristics of established mountain villages. Buildings were located in response to haphazard land parcel divisions rather than as part of a cohesive village plan. Precast and cast-in-place concrete building systems, with streets designed for snow removal and service deliveries, , negated relationships to personal scale and ignored human tactile sensitivity. Building sites and open space were not organized to create a dynamic experience. The lack of vitality and sensitivity to pedestrians can be cat- ,~i s•"~~.--. _ egorized in a series of missed or disregarded design princi- ~ les. T - - n cese rnncirlcs can always bc found in succcssful -~destinations, even as close as Vail Village. ~ , A Sense of Arrival Lionshead lacks a sense of arrival. Whether visitors arrive , via the parking structure, by transit, foot, or automobile, there is no announcement that one has arrived. There is no . t - ,i~~ Y ~ . . ~ , _ ~ ~ ~w , o 4 4 ' u , . . The east enfry point to Lionshead Village trom~- the parking structure offers no invitation or sense of arnval. Z 1L , arrival space, no gate, door, or landmark from the perimeter ~ of Lionshead. These missing cues can't be found at any of the edges. Conversely, Vail Village provides landmarks and , visual connections to the mountain from the parking struc- ture to the village and ski lifts. There is an arrival plaza at , the bottom of Bridge Street, preparing the visitor for the series of spaces and places to traverse. , The C/ock Tower in Uail Village is an example of Landmarks and T~urning Points an excellent landmark. ~ - Except for the gondola cars moving up the mountain, Lionshead has no significant landmarks. When the new , gondola is in place in 1996, its proposed low profile will eliminate Lionshead's one landmark. There are no signifi- ~ ~ cant architectural components which lead the visitor through the various spaces of the village. In addition, with- ~ out these key elements there is nothing which offers the vis- , itor recall of place and space. Wayfinding for the visitor is greatly diminished. ~ The missed opportunity to direct visitors through the space using landmarks and other urban cues is compounded by a lack of turning points. There are no spaces, view corridors, ~ • or landmarks which indicate where to change direction. ~ There is no hierarchy of elements and spaces. All streets, open spaces, and buildings are uniformly uninteresting. - There is nothing that entices people into or through the cor- , ridors and public spaces of Lionshead. ~Gates and Sequence of Movement ? ~ i: ~ ~ ' Lionshead offers a uniform wall of development along its _ perimeter. There is no ceremonial announcement of Prima- ~ ry or secondary entry. No one place invites the visitor into the core village. From the parking structure visitors are directed to the core by the gondola cars but, once at street level, this landmark is lost. From every other edge, this ~ • ~ landmark is invisible. uates and portals invite pedestrians to investi- Although an initial direction to the village is implied by the gate the places beyond. bnef view of the Cars, there is no clear receiving space for ~ the pedestrian. Likewise, there is no portal which announces one's arrival and transition to the destination. , Today, a confusion of service trucks, transit vehicles, pedes- 13 , , trians and automobiles clutters and dissects the area intend- ed as the village "gate". Landscape plantings block direct I views, indistinct paving doesn't offer clear separation of , uses and indirect access confuses the principal pedestrian movement. ~ Connection to the Environment r~ There is no sense of place in Lionshead. Urbanistically and architecturally, Lionshead could be anywhere in the world. The building styles are not indicative of the place, nor does the arrangement of the buildings and open spaces allow a ? clear visual connection to the mountain and the surrounding environment. The expected elements of the mountain land- , scape - wildflowers, rock outcroppings, streams cannot be found in the open spaces of Lionshead. t : • sb. . M The mountain landscape must be brought into the core area i of Lionshead. Vegetation, water and stone indigenous to the , " region are needed to offer grounding and cues to the place. , The architecture and arrangement of buildings and spaces must also evoke this vernacular. This fabric should cue the , visitor to the destination's roots. Sensitive development of these components and interpretation of the mountain envi- , ronment will provide visitors the psychological comfort Visual connections to ihe mountain are critica/ to making the built environment feel a expected from the place. part of the natural setting. (Innsbruck, Austria) , Comfort and Security Presently, Lionshead does not provide comfortable relief , from the elements of wind, snow, and ice in winter and intense sun in summer. Disregard for the qualities which offer shelter from the elements results in a low level of activity in Lionshead's outdoor spaces compared to Vail Village. This is somewhat true in summer but it is espe- , '~`0~'~ = • FI cially apparent in winter. J, As important as physical comfort is the psychological sense of security. Visibility of other spaces and people is para- mount to the success of an outdoor plaza or street. In • ~ , • ~ y1 _ Lionshead, the streets are truncated and non-aligned. The ~i. • . -'1.t.'-. . ? y y---=-~- shadows of the large condominiums are deep and forebod- , Raised areas immediately adjacent to the activity ing. There are no "crossroads" or "views up the street" in area will provide visitors with comfortab/e oppor- tunities to participate while in the sun and out of Lionshead. These negative aspects of the street further , rne flow of rraffic. diminish the pedestrian level of comfort, and ultimately its use. Sadly for merchants in Lionshead, an uninviting and uncomfortable street or outdoor space means little or no , walk-in retail traffic. 14 , Commercial Uses Compatible with Adjacent ~ 1"rA a ti~ Outdoor Space 1 : .~Poorly located commercial use further reduces the vitality and viability of the pedestrian and shopping experience of Lionshead. Commercial uses function best and have greater visitation when located adja- r, cent to outdoor spaces that support their services or , products. Likewise, public outdoor spaces depend on the synergy with adjacent commercial uses for their vitality. `~e ightful mar.qement of commercial use~, 3(jla,o! outdoor space pays off here in Whistler, Brrtrsh Columbia, , Canada. , Take, for example, Pepi's in Vail Village. Located at the crossroads of Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street, this establishment has flourished since its outdoor cafe was established. Today, the intersec- ~ ~ tion is always full of people pausing, chatting, ori- , ~ enting, watching or window shopping. People gath- ~ " er where others are gathered. ~#x; y~ 4.~;, •Y~;~~ A Sense of Place -We need to create a sense of place in order to invig- , ~jU~LjuL~; cafe in Uail Villaye above, compared ro an ourdoor orate Lionshead for the visitor and to inject a new space in Lionshead, pictured below measure of financial gain to owners and operators. Opportunities to create this new place will be great- , F ~4u_4.~ = ly affected by the specific treatment of architecture and site details. - - ~ _ , _ k . 71 . r - f. ' . , ' • 15 , , BUILDING FORM ~ Creating a New Place ~ The Existing Buildings The existing buildings at Lionshead lack an Alpine theme. # There is no cohesive fabric, material, form or detailing to its , architecture. The late modernist style which is characteris- tic of these buildings is cold and uninviting. Guests in ~ • ~ ~ . , Examples of the typical architectural style found , in Lionshead. , ~ ( ~ ~ ~ ~4 , - f f - r i..: . k , . . : ~ - . • l~..- ' f _ . ~ - ` y~ r: , .y u[_ ~ f . . I 4` . . . Y ' • - • ; ~2, ' r An example of the typica/ streetscape character , found in Lionshead. . „ , . q ,Y~ 16 ~ Lionshead do not relate warmly to their surroundings, ~ because the buildings are often harsh in form, cold in mate- rials, and devoid of human proportions. ~ Pedestrians feel out of place and lost in Lionshead. There is poor continuity in the sequence of public spaces. The ~ buildings do not interrelate to form streets and plazas that r flow in a comfortable and inviting manner. Rather, the buildings perch on their sites in a disjointed campus of iso- $ , , lated structures facing onto rigid and cold public spaces. People can't find "the Lion" in Lionshead. There is no sense of entry, place, or identity. The neighborhood lacks a unifying image or architectural theme which defines the Ua area. It is separate and different from the core of Vail Village, without affirming itself or its character in any • 5 coherent or appealing way. ' A Statement of Goals aaad IIDesagn Priancaples In order to create a sense of excitement about Lionshead, a 1-" - Y- significant and fundamental change must occur in its urban fabric and architecture. This change can be advanced through the realization of the following architectural princi- ~ ples: ~ Create an architectural identity or theme within the overall context of vail. ~ Lionshead can present itself as a component of Vail while establishing its own distinct sense of identity, value, and ~ quality of life. It need not recreate Vail Village. Its separate identity is important not only for economic reasons, but also i AC for the richness of the overall commu- ~ nity experience. To institute an archi- tectural direction which tries to repli- ~ , . < 4 ; ~ ti i ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ cate the style of Vail Village will result F~ i t ~ a ,,i_ . ~ in frustration, partially because the P~ t harsh building forms and materials t h a t w i l l r e m a i n i n L i o n s h e a d a f t e r i t s ~ ~ ~ redeveloPment will be isolated and accentuated, instead of integrated within a new overall image. . t } ~1i, ~ 4t 17 ~ ~ Old and new buildings should be made cohesive and com- patible in a timeless style. ~ Lionshead must grow beyond its past. Existing buildings, given the limitations of their mass and form, must be reno- ~ vated in a manner that makes them compatible with new buildings. In order to avoid backing the ~ existing buildings into a stylistic corner, the new buildings should subtly reflect the pro- portions of the existing buildings and ele- ~ ments in selected areas. This will allow the *a*t~* in ~ final mixture of new and old to be cohesive. Lionshead must be a new, authentic, and invigorating American Alpine Village. The buildings should reflect a combination of relevant American and European stylistic architectural elements reconstituted into new and meaningful forms that reflect, but do not mimic, established historical styles. The ~ construction of literal representations of a singular style, whether European or American, could deval- ~ ue and embarrass the existing buildings and therefore the entire village. Design limitations of the existing buildings are significantly more constrained than new construction, ~ especially given their form and mass. ~ Architecture should express the diverse communiry it repre- sents. ~ Lionshead must be stylistically and functionally as diverse as the community it represents. In diversity will be the ~ strength of Lionshead. This diversity should represent the richness of the community's heritage, but should be ~ designed within common principles that weave the commu- ~ nity into a larger, cohesive whole. Just as European Alpine architecture is extremely diverse, so too can be the American alpine architecture of Lionshead. ~ \M ~ Lionshead architecture can lead to a fun and invigorating ~ ^American alpine village. i' Lionshead can become more attractive to investors and property owners willing to make long term improvements. It can stand out to the resort visitor as a viable choice when ~ r deliberating between Lionshead, Vail Village, Beaver Creek or Arrowhead for a vacation or residence. ` . ~ 18 ~ , History and traditions can be established and reinforced in : the architecture. The use of a Lion theme throughout the design, detailing and graphics will provide meaning to the v i l l a g e' s n a m e, e s p e c i a l l y g i v e n t h a t t h e n a m e s a k e L i o n s h e a d r o c k i s n o t v i s i b l e f r o m L i o n s h e a d. Lionshead can be an alpine community which creates a sense of comfort for the pedestrian. People can be afforded orientation and stimulation... Lionshead can become fun! ~ To achieve this, Lionshead must have a recognizable center ~ i and recognizable edges. A sense of entry is crucial at strate- gic points of arrival. This sequence of edge, gate, pedestri- ~ an path, and center will make possible a greater guest ori- entation and identity in Lionshead. ~ ~ ~ EIDENTETY CREATHON -i ~ Archaatectaarafl Characteristics ~ In order to achieve the full potential for Lionshead, the architectural design of new buildings must occur in concert with the renovation of existing buildings. These two com- ~ ponents of the revitalization effort are intimately linked. ~ The revitalization will be greatly enhanced by creating new buildings and modifying old buildings with the following architectural characteristics. ~ . y G ~ ~ - - ~ ~ , , , . - - - - i ~ ~ r... - . :d § 19 ~ OII'deII' ± ~ ? Buildings in Lionshead should not be rectangular volumes with skins that express their structural grid through the use of exposed columns or continuous floor spandrels. Buildings should include a recognizable vertical order, a , "triparti" with clearly defined base, middle, and top. ~ The base should express strength and intensity counterbal- Nok ~ ancing architectural mass with transparency of shop fronts. A k This is the portion of the building with primary pedestrian focus. It should therefore be varied, interesting, and excit- ~ vc-ulfd rr".s}V,~,A VwW eti-cjs ing. ~4 ~xw vrY( J"4, Primary considerations in the design of the bases of build- ings are the use of their first floors and their relationship to the site. In contrast to the transparency of the existing struc- tures in Lionshead, new buildings should convey a sense of ~ - solidity, confidence, and strength at locations where a sense of gateway or entry is needed. Walls that define pedestrian routes should be chazacterized by large, punched retail win- ~ 4~,wrtrm,~ dows in substantial walls. Structural frames should not be Irio Opportunities exist to create a uniformity of the primary architectural elements at the street level. ~ architectura/ style with existing buildings. Battered walls will convey a sense of substantiality and weight. The first level should be a"foil" of life and inten- sity that reinforces the pedestrian experience and counter- ~ "bq'` balances the height of some of the new structures with color, relief, ornament, and signage. New street-level retail ~ - ~ 96 frontage characterized by humane architectural elements such as arcades and protective, overhanging eaves should ' be created. These can occur along existing buildings as ~ s well as at the ground level of new buildings. Awnings, A:A*AI columns, signs, and inviting colors will enliven the streetscape. Hand crafted ornamental elements such as (~So signs, benches, and doors should be used. ~ The middle portion of each building should be quiet and more repetitive than the rest of the building. The walls ~ should be a subtle blend of color and material. Windows should be primarily punched in the tradition of the pre- 1~`- ~ industrial world. The quiet simplicity of this zone is criti- ~ cal to the success of the top and bottom of the building, and therefore, the success of the street and townscape. The win- dows should have a vertical and horizontaThierarchy of size and pattern. ~ 20 , The tops of the buildings should be graceful and articulat- ~ ed. Eaves should move and change in reaction to the street below and serve as visual clues as to the direction of travel and the sense of space. Small overhangs and pazapets " should be avoided in order to prevent the creation of blank terminations of the street against the sky. Overhangs should convey an exaggerated sense of shelter and protection. Roof design should respond to snow shedding and the pro- tection of both pedestrians and property. Tunets, varying fascia heights, and a mix of hip, gable and dutch hip forms will reinforce the village atmosphere and create a pleasing ~ roofscape as seen from the ski mountain. , Materials ~ Classic alpine materials with today's technology and inter- ~r pretation can create a visual identity that reflects the moun- .~..T tains and Vail's heritage. • ~ - ~ At the bases of the buildings, conveying a sense of mass and permanence can be achieved through the use of stone and ~ concrete, executed in different patterns, colors, textures, and degrees of relief. Concrete can be formed and textured , to express mass, yet colored and patterned to complement natural materials while providing interest and contrast. ~ Walls should be a mixture of stucco and wood throughout the village. Framing details at the juncture between the first , and second levels provide articulation and scale to the ~ buildings. Exposed rafters and trusses at selected areas will afford the buildings an oppoRunity to express their heritage of mountain architecture and building craftsmanship. •r / ? , In most cases, windows should be held back within the ' depth of the wall. This is especially important at the mid- dle portions of the buildings, in order to evoke a classic vil- ~ lage vernacular tradition. The resulting shadow and relief -T ;N will counterbalance both the height and coldness of the ¦ ~ - _ ~ k- existing buildings. ¦ ~ 4_ The view of the village from the mountain is critical. The roof materials should be textured and should hold the snow. Adding new roofs to existing structures should occur, not , only to improve the view from the mountain, but to also conceal roof-mounted, ungainly mechanical elements that - devalue the aesthetic quality of the roofscape. Roofs should ~ be of a varied, but compatible color pallet and convey a pleasing pattern of form when viewed from a gondola car or , - - ~ the ski mountain itself. 21 ~ Scalle The scale of buildings and their associated urban spaces should be comfortable to people. The buildings should step back at the first through third levels in order to provide light, sun and visual continuity with the sunounding moun- ~ tains from the street level. The taller portions of the build- ings should not directly meet the street in shear vertical rgw walls. ~ The composition of forms should be additive and not sin- ' gular. Smaller components that create and reinforce a greater whole will make the place inviting and familiar. ~ The streets and urban spaces must be orchestrated to offer the opportunity for continuous variety and a sequence of j~ frontages. Retail intensity along pedestrian routes, as well as clear visual clues provided by the eave lines of buildings, ~ ; i'••- should be primary goals. A hierarchy of spatial size will tell the pedestrian where places of travel and movement change to places of pause and rest. Paving in the street as well as , - ~ ~ planters, artwork, and benches will assist in the definition of ' the path as an interesting and welcoming experience. ' Ornananent Ornament can reflect the art, heritage, and culture of Vail and its blend of Western Colorado and European Alpine i tleS. The lessons of good architectural design from Europe and America can be applied here. The streetscapes of Kitzbuhl and Salzburg are inspirations in their diversity of architec- ~ 'rtural expression and ornament, while maintaining a consis- > tent theme. The inclusion of tactile detail and ornament gives a place an inhabited feel. Street level life can also be enlivened by the implementation of a strict minimum level of quality for the shop-fronts and retail signage. Vail Village is a success in this manner, almost to the point where the architecture becomes a subservient backdrop for all the banners, flags, signs, smells, tastes, and window displays that a pedestrian is exposed to while walking through the village core. .i, A.r ` I _ Streets and plazas should take cues from the design of suc- , - ,^pa hat exist elsewhere. Pedestrian cafes and c sful laces t es p ~ ' ; apres-ski bars that occur on slightly raised platforms along , the southern faces of buildings will inject life and energy 22 ~ into the community. _ : • ; The design of the building ornamentation should be as ~ P°;l, diverse in style as the community. Signage and detail ~ ,i , = 1 should express the multiplicity of traditions present in the ' Y+, P ~ valley. These include Western Colorado, the American Resort tradition, A1Pine EuroPean traditions and the tradi- ~ tion of diversity in the Vail Valley. 1 ' ~ 'l ~E ~ ~ IESeCoIIHflIlY1eHlldatIlo%IlS gOY' tflIle IFIIltUE'e The revitalization of Lionshead will require an intensive • , i; architectural design effort in order to perform reconstruc- 1 '.4' tive surgerY on the existing buildings. This effort must be ~ ,n~ . • based on the creation of an authentic, meaningful architec- ~ tural identity for the entire Lionshead Village. The economic and aesthetic potential of Lionshead can be ~ realized by the reparation of existing buildings as well as the creation of new buildings and pedestrian streets that fol- ~ low the design principles outlined earlier. The creation of a cohesive village of public streets, plazas, ~ and bccilding volumes is the single most important consid- eration in achieving this goal. Architectural expression of an American alpine style can reinforce this goal by reflecting our time, place, and her- ~ : itage as we move into the next century. ;The execution of a singular literal style throughout the vil- ~ lage will be less successful and less authentic than the ,`•'V•! , implementation of varied styles within an overall theme. Lionshead should be characterized by meaningful architec- • tural elements and proportions that point to the exciting future of the valley, while respectful of the many varied tra- ~ ditions which have shaped this community. The rich ~~:;z•, images of Western Colorado, tempered by our ties to , European alpine communities, can be expressed in an appealing combination of stylistic themes and details. ~ . - Revitalizing the community in this manner will help trans- ~ form Lionshead into yet another world-class magnet for investment and recreation in the Vail Valley. j•, - ~ 23 , , CONCEPT SITE PLAN Design to Address the Issues ~ \ Upre Ypr~ ~re-0aI - El~~'~ ? : o ° ` J?' ~ ~ , ~r~ ~ ] ; ~}.~f~ ~ , ; < _ ~--r,_ ; ~'S ~ ..."!~7 il 1 • Yr~~~I ~l I f , ..J ~ 1 ~ ~w¦r!.^~~ ~ ` I ! t3 M { y L= ~ ~ 101-101/ ~ ~ ~ ¦ ,~.~j~= ~ - ~~I \~ri.~l ? ~ r'r'~ l~~~'1~~~~ • v..k~°[ • 7Y_> 771F_ NS/xlvirC/N • ¦ ~ Urban / Village Design Diagram , • Connect to the Mountain Environment • Provide a Sense of Arrival ¦ • Provide Comfort and Security • Create Diversity and Yariety along the Street , • Provide Landmarks and Turning Points ~ Create a New Sense of Place ~ ~ ~ , ~ 24 ' Conceptual Opportunities ~ Development Plan , The proposed site plan addresses basic program needs for skier services, lodging, retail, office space, and ski opera- , tions. The major components of the plan will: , • Create a new twelve-place gondola on grade to facilitate high capacity, repeat skiing. This will significantly reduce existing skier congestion. ~ • Expand the skier bridge and integrate it with the skier , staging area and plaza to create a smooth transition across Gore Creek. , • Create a new 100-unit timeshare facility with immediate ski access and central services. An additional four pent- ~ house condominiums cap the new structure. • Create a new couRyard with direct north-south circulation , which will allow for double-loaded retail with frontage on the pedestrian mall and ski run "beach front". , • Create new public spaces within the time share facility, including dining, health club and lobby uses. Y / O/,CUOI .IOp X t~ Q4 ~ •3r ~ ! ;ti1:11(y( - - I~ ~ l~+ ~ . . ~ ; , ; . : ~ ~i • ~ i / C1lC' t ~ ~2._}:ry_ " ` - _ ~J~~ i~i " _~f ~ .z' ` X YfiflY,,.\.i ~ Coitventioi ; ~`-=---y ? _ • ,w"; - va~` , Center , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' r•y , i ier ro f`_~ S • c ~ a~ ~~eJ _ •L ~ - - / . - . ~ e.l ' 4 - ? i 25 ~ r Strengthen the access from and orientation to the east and ~yI f f, north: new «front doors» for Lionshead. d Provide over 40,000 square feet of expanded retail in a pedestrian environment. ,r .+r a Include major «back-of-house" service functions below grade with direct connection from the timeshare facility to , gondola. This will provide improved food service to the mountain restaurants. Improve pedestrian connections to other residential and ~lodging properties in the village core. Create a new Vail Associates office building with 40,000 ¦ square feet of space, sub-surface parking and 96 employ- ee housing units. Consolidate the ski school program in a remodeled Lionshead center (subject to the acquisition of building ~ space). ~ A : ~ ~f:l M1 ~~•~`A The skier services and mountain delivery areas are located • below grade to fully accommodate the program and reduce building mass. The gondola terminal is envisioned as a rel- ~ atively transparent structure with mazing located to the north. Ticketing, ski school, and ski rental are positioned , •c: FR;: h . along the pedestrian street that leads skiers to the gondola. Facing the skier plaza are a skier's pub and a scramble cafe- : ~ ; ~ 'teria framin g th e n o r t h e rn e d g e o f t h e g o n d o l a s p a c e. • In summer, the plaza open space can include a water fea- ~ ture, alpine garden and events areas. The expanded skier bridge would be sod-covered to visually connect the moun- ~ tain and village. . , , ~ - . , ~ - ~ o 1 j ' . •1~:v . ;i',/:';;' . , 26 ~ ~ CONCLUSIONS Project Opportunities ~ This redevelopment plan for Lionshead will: ~ - Create the highest and best land use for currently under- utilized property in a politically responsible form without ~ encroachment on open space. - Improve the scope and quality of skier services and the ~ guest experience. ~ - Create an expanded bed base to revitalize Lionshead. - Offer expanded retail in excellent pedestrian spaces. ~ - Create a new, properly sized headquarters for Vail ~ Associates administrative and corporate offices. - Build upon the new, state of the art gondola which will ~ improve capacity and offer excellent repeat skiing, ~ o Generate a return on invested capital for ownership. - Integrate Lionshead into the Vail Valley and improve this ~ portal to the ski mountain. ~ - Increase surrounding property values and create an impe- tus for redevelopment and improvement of other private- ly owned properties in Lionshead. This plan could pro- ~ vide the basis for an overall village improvement plan through the formation of a special improvement district to ~ deal with broader urban design issues. While the plan addresses major issues, future study is ~ required to resolve several open questions. These are: ~ - Resolution of the children's ski school facility, including acquisition and remodeling of the space. ~ o Transportation solutions for Vail Village and Lionshead related to access, level of service and traffic management. ~ - A political structure, such as a special improvement dis- trict, is required for the publicly held spaces as well as ~ adjacent private property. ~ ?7 , To move forward, this plan should be endorsed by Vail , Associates, business and property owners, and the Town of Vail. Surrounding ownerships, citizens, and quasi-public , interest groups should be part of a communication program with the objective of building consensus for the plan and the renaissance it can represent for Lionshead. ~ ~ , ~ - ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ 28 ~ ~ DesognWorksflnop, Inc. is internationally known for planning and design projects in mountain regions. The ~ firm's scope of projects includes mountain and base area planning and design for new resorts as well as redevelop- ~ ment of existing places. Recent projects include Blackcomb Resort in British Columbia, the redevelopment ~ of Aspen 1Vlountain and the Little Nell Hotel, the Snowmass expansion plan and redevelopment plans for South Lake Tahoe, California. Their broad expertise has been called ~ upon in Lionshead to address the relationship between ski- ing, program, site and buildings. ~ Bill Kane - Principal As a planner and author of significant ski area plans in Asia, South America, Canada and the USA, Bill has vast experi- ence in planning similar projects. As the former director of ~ planning for the City of Aspen, he has successfully resolved public processes and land use issues. ~ David Kenyon - Manager, Vail ~ As a planner and landscape architect, David has been involved in the development of resorts from Southeast Asia to Central Europe, North America and the 1Vliddle East. He has taught design theory and construction practices at the university level and was awarded a Board of Regents fel- ~ lowship at Texas A&1VI University. His three years direct- ing site development for Disneyland, Paris have brought a ~ new perspective to Design Workshop and the newly opened Vail office. ~ Sherry Dorward - Landscape Architect a As a planner and landscape architect, Sherry has over 15 years of design experience and a strong love for high coun- try landscapes. As a Colorado native and Vail resident, she ~ has developed a special expertise in mountain communities. Her work has included planning and design for parks, com- ~ mercial developments, affordable housing, and residential gardens. Sherry has earned several design awards from the ~ American Society of Landscape Architects and has enjoyed international accolades for her 1990 book, Design for Mountain Communities: A Landscape and Architectural ~ Guide. ~ ~4 ~ ~ Jack Zehren - Architect ~ Jack Zehren is the owner and president of Zehren and ~ Associates, Inc. The firm was formed in 1983, and cur- rently employs 27 people in the fields of architecture, plan- ning and interior design. While Jack's work has been ~ focused in mountain resort communities, the firm is now working in variety of locations throughout the United ~ States, Korea, Vietnam, Mexico and Germany. Jack holds a Bachelor of Science Degree from West Point and a Masters Degree in Architecture from the University of Minnesota. ~ He has been Chairman of the Beaver Creek Design Review Board since it was formed in 1980, and also is a member of ~ the Bachelor Gulch Design Review Board. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L~J ~ ~ ~ 30