HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-11-12 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1996
12:00 P.M. AT TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to
determine at what time Council will consider an item.
1 . Municipal Court Budget Overview. (10 mins.)
2. Capital Projects: (1 hr. 30 mins.)
* Policy Decision re: For-Sale vs. Rentals.
* Planning Projects.
3. Public Works Department Budget Overview. (20 mins.)
4. Town of Vail Employee Anniversaries (15 mins.):
2:00 P.M. * Preston Isom - 20 years
Presentations * Tom Talbot - 15 years
* Rudy Sandoval - 10 years
* Donna Arnold -10 years
5. Public Works Department Budget Overview Continued. (10 mins.)
6. Community Development Department Budget Overview. (30 mins.)
* Vail Commons 2nd Lottery. (10 mins.)
" PEC/DRB Review. (15 mins.)
* EXECUTIVE SESSION: Negotiations with Forest Sebv;ce for housing
sites. (15 mins.)
7. Police Department Budget Overview. (30 mins.)
8. Library Budget Overview. (30 mins.)
9. Fire Department Budget Overview. (30 mins.)
10. Administration (HR, Finance, Information Services, Town Manager, Town
Attorney, Community Relations, Town Clerk) ( mins.)
11. Inforrnation Update. (10 mins.)
12. Council Reports. (10 mins.)
13. Other. (10 mins.)
14. Adjournment - 6:05 p.m.
,
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
I I I I I I I
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 11/19196, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 11/26/96, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BE ON TUESDAY,11/19/96, BEGINNING 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:WGENDA.WS
. 2
~
t. 1859
BRECKENRIDGE
FEE Colorado's Kingdom
June 13, 1996
Mr. Buck Allen
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Buck:
The Breckenridge Town Council wishes to thank you for your offer to
continue to serve as the Deputy Municipal Judge. On Tuesday, June 11, the
Council re-appointed you to a two-year term as Deputy Municipal Judge. In
addition, compensation for this position was established at the rate of $75
per hour, including travel time.
We would like to express our gratitude for your continued service on behalf
of the Town of Breckenridge.
Sincerely,
~r.,..•~ 1
~
Stephen C. West
Mayor
Town of Breckenridge
150 Ski Hill Road • P.O. Box 168 • Breckenridge, Colorado 80424
(970) 453-2251 • FAX (970) 547-3104
t ~ • r
MEMORANDCIM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Andy Knudtsen, Scnior flousing Policy Planncr
DATE: Novembcr 12, 1996
SUBJECT: Policy discussion concerning the Red Sandstone affordable housing development:
to rcnt or to scll
1. The Question
At thc discussion conccrning thc capital budgct, a qucstion arosc as to whctlicr thc Rcd
Sandstonc housing units should bc owncr-occupicd or bc rctaincd by the Town and rentcd to
cmployces. '
I1. Background
Thc discussions with thc Watcr District, thc ncighbors, PEC and sta{'i' havc bccn bascd on thc
conccpt that thc projcct would bc "tior-salc," as the sitc lcnds itsclf to this typc of dcvclopmcnt.
Thc projcct has bccn vicwcd as a scrcndipitous joint cffort bctwccn thc Town and thc Watcr
District, as both partics will contributc thc land and thc units would bc sold at thc cost of
construction. Undcr thcsc tcrms, ncithcr party is rcquircd to sct asidc signiticant amounts of
money to makc thc projcct happen. Conccrn arose at the discussion of the capital budgct, when
Council cxpresscd an intcrest in rctaining owncrship oti thc unit5 to cnsurc that Town cmployces
would always bc houscd in thc Town's portion of thc dcvclopmcnt.
III. Options
All of thc three options listed bclow are actions which would further restrict the future use of the
Town's five units. All 17 units in the devclopmcnt (including thosc of both the Water District and
the Town) will be deed restricted with the basic Town standards, similar to those applied to the
Vail Commons units. The minimum occupancy requirements, per these restrictions, mandate that
the residents work an average of 30 hours a week at a business located in Eagle County and limit
the resale value to 3percent annual apprcciation.
For the Town's portion of the developmcnt, another lcvcl of restrictions has been anticipated.
These include that the units would be occupicd by TOV employees and that the preference for
critical employees would be reflected in lottery criteria.
1 I;:\cveryone~andy\96_memos\council.nl2
Givcn that thc basic standards would bc incorporatcd into any option bclow, Council can cithcr:
1-- Rctain owncrship of thc fiivc Town units an(i rent than to Town cmployccs;
2-- Scll thc units pcr thc proposcd restrictions, rcquiring thc owncrs to scll back to the
Town within 180 days aftcr thcir last day of cmploymcnt with thc Town; or
3-- Scll thc units pcr thc proposcd restrictions, with a right of first rcfusal (notc that
this option would not rcquirc thc residcnt to vacatc thc prcmiscs attcr lcaving TOV
cmploymcnt).
1 V. Analysis
Option 1
~ Use of funds to rctain owncrship of these units would delay other housing efforts.
* The management services for five units will be disproportionately high.
* The rental scenario changcs the dynamic of the devclopmcnt.
* Rental units may create conccrns from the neighboring dcvelopments, as they
bclicvc that thc units will bc owncr-occupicd.
Ontion 2
This option is currcntly bcing proposcd in Aspcn. Thc City of Aspcn will bc constructing 28 units
at thcir watcr plant sitc in thc ncar futurc. Thcsc units arc cxclusivcly for City cmployccs. Thc
units arc for-sale townhouscs. In addition fo thc other standard language of thc cmploycc housing
dccd restriction, an additional provision rcquires that thc cmploycc scll thc unit back to thc City
within 180 days aftcr tcrminating cmploymcnt. Staff askcd thc Housing Dircctor how thc concept
is bcing rcccivcd among City cmployccs. Hc said that thcrc arc conccrns from cmployces; but
gcncrally, thc initial fccdback indicatcs that thc cmployccs arc willing to livc with thc proposed
restriction.
Ontion 3
Option 3 would not climinate the risk of sclling a unit to a current TOV cmployce who may later
choose to work for a different local employer. However, this sccnario still effectively provides
housing for employees within our community, and does eventually allow the Town to buy the unit
back from the initial purchascr.
V. Recommendation.
Staff recommends selling the units, with either option 2 or 3.
2 F^~everyoneandy\96_memos\council.n12
Agenda last revised 11/05/96 lpm
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, November 11, 1996 .
AGENDA
Project Orientation / Lunch - Communitv Development Department 11:30 am
Site Visits 12:30 pm
1. Dugan - 2642 Kinnickinnick Court
2. Vail Chapel - 19 Vaif Road
3. Austria Haus - 242 East Meadow Drive
4. Current - 3235 Katsos Ranch Road
5. Peters - 4193 Spruce Way
Driver: George
;
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30p.m.
Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at
4193 Spruce Way/Lot 12, Biock 9, Bighorn 3rd Addition.
Applicant: Steven Peters
Planner: Dirk Mason
2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II employee housing unit, located at
2642 Kinnickinnick CourULot 5, Block 2, Vail Intermountain.
Applicant: Sue Dugan
Planner: George Ruther
3. A request for a minor amendment to SDD # 5 and a conditional use permit to allow for the
addition of conference space, located at 1100 N. Frontage Road/SDD #5, Simba Run Building.
Applicant: Simba Run Condominium Assoc., represented by Lynn Fritzlen
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
4. A request for a front setback variance to allow for a garage addition and a wall height variance
to allow for an approximate 8' tall wall, located at 3235 Katsos Ranch Road/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail
Village 13th Filing.
Applicant: Nancy and William Current, represented by Saundra Spaeh
Planner: Dirk Mason
Agenda last revised 11/05/96 lpm
5. A request for a major SDD amendment to allow for a modification to Savoy Villas, of SDD #5,
located at 1230 Lionsridge Loop/Savoy Villas, Phase II and III. The site is generally located
east of Timber Ridge Apartments, west of Simba Run, north of the North Frontage Road and
south of Lionsridge Loop. A full legal description is available in the Community Development
Department.
Applicant: BWAB, Inc., represented by Chris Klein
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
6. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the
Vail Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Vail Religious Foundation, represented by Ned Gwathmey
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
7. A request for a worksession to discuss amending Section 1822.030, Conditional Uses, of the
Vail Municipal Code to add "Time-Share Estate Units, Fractional Fee Units and Time-Share
License Units," as conditional uses in the Public Accommodation Zone District.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
8. A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a Special Development District overlay to
the Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/ on part of Tract C, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
9. A request for a worksession to review the existing Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA)
regutations and to discuss alternatives.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Russell Forrest / Tom Braun
10. A request for a minor subdivision to relocate the common property fine between Lots 7 and 8,
located at 666 and 696 Forest Road/Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing.
Applicant: Neil and Nancy Austrian
Planner: Lauren Waterton
TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 25,1996
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
9
4
Agenda last revised 11/05/96 lpm
11. Information Update:
12. Approval of October 28, 1999 minutes
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular
office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development
Departrnent, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114'voice or 479-2356 TDD for
information.
Community Development Department
Published November 8, 1996 in the Vail Trail.
ti
" MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development '
DATE: October 28, 1996
SUBJECT: A worksession to discuss a request to amend Section 18.26.040, Conditional
Uses, of the Vail Municipal Code to add "time-share estate units, fractional fee
units and time-share license units" as a conditional use the Commercial Core 2
Zone District.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce, is requesting a
worksession to discuss amending the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicant is proposing
that Section 18.26.040 of the Municipal Code be amended to allow time-share estate units,
fractional fee units and time-share license units as conditional uses in the Commercial
Core 2 Zone District. In general, the areas of Town most affected by the proposed amendment
include Lionshead and the Village Center Building, as each of these areas is zoned Commercial
Core 2. The time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units would be
allowed subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
18.60 of the Municipal Code.
II. BACKGROUND,
The applicanYs request relates to a future proposal to redevelop the Austria Haus property. The
Austria Haus is located at 242 East Meadow Drive. The Austria Haus was originally constructed
in the mid-1960's as an inn to accommodate destination skiers. In 1979, the Austria Haus was
purchased by the Faessler family who planned to redevelop the property into the Sonnenalp
Hotel.
In 1984, Ordinance #8 was approved by the Vail Town Council establishing Special Development
District #12. Special Development District #12 adopted an approved development plan for the
redevelopment of the Austria Haus. The approved development plan was never implemented,
and instead, the Austria Haus underwent a remodel. Since the completion of the remodel, the
Austria Haus has served as an annex to the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus located at 20 Vail Road.
The Austria Haus has 37 hotel rooms (accommodation units) with approximately 75 pillows" and
is operated approximately eight months each year by the Sonnenalp Hotel. There is a small
restaurant and bar in the Austria Haus that serves its guests and a retail outlet on the east end of
the building. The hotel rooms are marginal in size ( 300 sq. ft. average) and lack certain
amenities, by today's accommodation standards.
1
r
The current proposal to redevelop the property intends to provide considerabiy more "piliows"
over a twelve month period, as weli as create approximately 10,000 square feet of new
commercial space. The applicant has proposed that a percentage of the project be offered as
timeshare interval ownership units. The applicant has also proposed to accommodate a portion
of the required parking and loading/delivery in an underground parking structure.
According to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, the applicanYs property is currently
zoned Public Accommodation. The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide
sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semi-
public facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related
visitor oriented uses as may be iocated in the same district. T-he Public Accommodation District
is intended to provide sites for lodging units to densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre.
The Public Accommodation Zone District does not permit time-share interval units.
Interval ownership is currently allowed only in the High Density Multi-Family Zone District
pursuant to Ordinance #8, Series of 1981. There is no vacant property in the High Densiry Multi-
Family Zone District. All properties currently zoned High Density Multi-Family are developed. In
order for a time-sharing project to be constructed in the High Density Multi-Family Zone District, a
developer would either have to convert an existing condominium or hotel project, or undergo an
entire redevelopment of the property. A third possible alternative for the construction of a time-
sharing project in the Town of Vail, would be to rezone an existing parcel of properry from its
current zoning to High Density Multi-Family
Chapter 18.04 of the municipal code provides definitions of time-share estate units, fractional fee
units and time-share license units. According to Sections 18.04.420, 18.04.430 and 18.04.440,
time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units are defined as follows:
Time-share estate units: Means either an interval estate or a timespan estate. A timespan
estate is a combination of an undivided interest in a present estate in fee simple in a unit,
the magnitude of the interest having been established by the time of the creation of the
timespan estate either by the project instruments or by the deed conveying the timespan
estate; and an exclusive right to possession and occupancy of the unit during an annually
recurring period of time defined and establisMed by a recorded schedule set forth or
rEferred to in the deed conveying the timespan estate. Additionally, an interval estate is
an estate for four years terminating on a date certain, during which years titled to a
timeshare unit circulates among the interval owners in accordance with a fixed schedule,
vesting in each such interval owner in turn for a period of time established by the said
schedule, with the series thus established recurring annually until the arrival of the date
certain.
Fractional fee units: Is defined as a tenancy in common interest in improved real property,
including condominiums, created or held by persons, partnerships, corporations, or joint
ventures or similar entities, wherein the tenants in common have formerly arranged by
oral or written agreement or understanding, either recorded or unrecorded allowing for the
use and occupancy of the property by one or more co-tenants to the exclusion of one or
more co-tenants during any period, whether annually reoccurring or not which is binding
upon any assignee or future owner of a fractional fee interest or if said agreement
continues to be in any way binding or affective upon any co-tenant for the sale of any
interest in the property.
2
.
Time-share license units: Shall be defined as a contractual right to exclusive occupancy of
specified prernises. Provided that the occupancy of the premise is divided into five or
more separate time periods extending over a term of more than two years. The premises
may consist of one parcel, unit or dwelling, or any of several parcels, units or dwellings
identified at the time the license is created to be identified later. No timeshare is a
timeshare license if it meets the definition of interval estate, timeshare or timespan
estate.
III. HISTORY OF TIME-SHARING IN VAIL
The State of Colorado has adopted regulations regulating the sale of time-shares. For the most
part, the regulations adopted by the State of Colorado are concerned with financial disclosures,
regulation of sales practices and disclosures, regulation of sales practices and classification of
time-sharing as a subdivision of property. The regulations adopted by the State of Colorado are
intended more to protect the consumer, than as regulations designed to have impacts on the
community level. The State has granted the authority for local governments to adopt ordinances
intended to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community, which includes time-
share projects.
On July 15, 1980, the Vail Town Council adopted five ordinances to regulate time-sharing
projects in the Town of Vail. A sumrnary of each of the ordinances is listed below:
• Ordinance # 25, Series of 1980, an ordinance amending Chapter 17 (Subdivision
Regulations) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, providing a new definition for the term
subdivision; and setting forth prohibited and unlawful acts and remedies for violations of
this ordinance, and amending the procedure for appealing a decision of the Planning and
Environmental Commission to the Town Council. In the opinion of the then Vail Town
Council, the present subdivision regulations were not sufficient to deal with the problem
presented by time-sharing projects and therefore, the procedure for subdividing property
associated with time-sharing projects should be amended. Ordinance #25 further went
on to require that time-sharing projects go through the subdivision review process. Prior
to the adoption of Ordinance #25, Series of 1980, the Town of Vail did not have any
regulations requiring that time-sharing projects be reviewed through the subdivision
process.
• Ordinance # 26, Series of 1980, providing for the addition of new conditional uses in
certain zone districts. Ordinance #26 was established to protect the balance between
accommodations for visitors to the Town, Vail residents and seasonal employees from
the unregulated development of time-sharing projects. It was the opinion of the then Vail
Town Council that the zoning regulations in place in 1980 did not sufficiently address the
problems presented by time-sharing. The ordinance amended Title 18 of the Municipal
Code allowing time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units in
the High Density Multi-Family, Public Accommodation, Commercial Core 1 and
Commercial Core 2 Zone Districts, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit.
• Ordinance # 27, Series of 1980, an ordinance providing for certain disclosure
requirements for time-sharing projects; providing for public offering statements and
setting forth requirements for such offering statements: for the escrowing of deposits or
reservations of a time-share unit; and setting forth remedies for violations of said
ordinance. According to the minutes of the July 15, 1980 Vail Town Council meeting, the
3
.
Council had determined that the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town
of Vail would best be served by requiring the disclosure of certain facts and information
relating to time-sharing projects, and to the perspective purchasers of time-share units.
The amendment established disclosure requirements when offering time-share project
sales and established a minimum amount of information that the developer must disclose
in a public offering statement.
• Ordinance # 28, Series of 1980, an ordinance providing for registration of time-share
projects with the Department of Community Development of the Town of Vail; the
requirements for applications for registration of said units; remedies for violation of this
ordinance and standards for the revocation of such registration. The Vail Town Council
adopted Ordinance # 28 resolving that the Council had deterrnined that the existing
ordinances and regulations of the Town were insufficient to cope with the problems
presented by time-sharing and that the registration of time-sharing units is necessary to
protect and preserve the public health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the
community.
• Ordinance # 29, Series of 1980, an ordinance defining time-share broker and time-share
salesman: providing that any person, firm, partnership, association or corporation that
engages in the business or capacity of time-share broker or time-share salesman, must
obtain a license from the Town Clerk; setting forth the requirements for the application for
such license; providing for the display of such license, license fees and setting forth
standards and procedures for the suspension or revocation of such license. Similar to
the other ordinances relating to time-sharing projects in the Town of Vail, the then Town
Council found that these additional regulations were deemed necessary to protect and
preserve the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Vail and that
time-share brokers and time-share salesman be licensed by the Town of Vail.
• On February 3, 1981, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance #8, Series of 1981,
amending Ordinance #26, Series of 1980, providing for the removal of time-sharing from
the conditional use section of the Public Accommodation, Commercial Core 1 and
Commercial Core 2 Zone Districts. It was the then Vail Town Council's opinion that
permitting the conversion and development of time-sharing projects in said zone districts
would upset the balance between accommodations for visitors, Vail residents and
seasonal employees and that the amendment was necessary to protect the health, safety
and welfare of the inhabitants of the community.
IV. CONFORMITY WITH THE TOWN'S RELEVANT PLANNING DOCUMENTS
In considering the proposed text amendment to the Zoning Code, to allow time-share in
Commercial Core 2 as a conditional use, staff reviewed several relevant planning documents.
Specifically, staff reviewed the Municipal Code, the Goals and Objectives stated in the Vail Land
Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan.
VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE
Section 18.26.010 of the Vail Municipal Code, identifies the purpose of the Commercial Core 2
Zone District. According to the purpose statement,
"The Commercial Core 2 Zone District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of
multiple dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified
development. Commercial Core 2 District in accordance with the Vail Lionshead
Urban Design Guide Ptan and Design Considerations is intended to insure
4
.
adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted -
types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district
by establishing appropriate site development standards. (Ordinance 21(1980) (2)
(Pan).)„
VAIL LAND USE PLAN
Chapter II of the Vail Land Use Plan identifies goals and policies for land use within the Town of
Vail. The goals articulated by the Vail Land Use Plan reflect the desires of the citizenry. The
goals are to be used as adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development
proposals. Staff has identified the following goals (listed below), as being relevant to the
applicanYs proposal:
1. General Growth / Development
1_1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment,
maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and
recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent
resident.
1_3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded
whenever possible.
1_4 The original theme of the old Village core should be carried into
new development in the Village core through continued
implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan.
1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing
developed areas (infill areas).
2. Skier / Tourist Concerns
2_1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort
while accommodating day skiers.
2_2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders
should work together closely to make existing facilities and the
'fown function more efficiently.
2_4 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural
opportunities to encourage summer tourism.
3. Commercial
3.1 The hotel bedbase should be preserved and used more efficiently.
3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to
serve the future needs of destination skiers.
3_4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial
areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs.
5
•
4. Viliage Core / Lionshead
4_2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable so long as the
existing character of each area is preserved through the
implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail
Village Master Plan.
5. Residential
5_2 Quality time-share units should be accommodated to he/p keep
occupancy rates up.
6. Additional goals related to other elements of the comprehensive plan.
Economic Development
The Town of Vail should consider developing some type of inechanism to control
tenant mix, so that a balance between tourist and convenient type of commercial
uses is maintained.
VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN:
On January 16, 1990, the Vail Town Council adopted the Vail Village Master Plan. The plan is
intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating
development by the public and private sectors in the Vail Village area and in implementing
community goals for public improvements. It is intended to result in ordinances and policies that
will preserve and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village. Most importantly,
the Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review boards, and Town Council in analyzing
future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal
with such development. For the citizens and guests of Vail, the Master Plan provides a clearly
defined set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village will grow in the future. The Vail
Village Master Plan is intended to be consistent with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan,
and along with the Guide Plan it underscores the importance of the relationship between the built
environment and public spaces. The Vail Village Master Plan has been adopted as an element
of the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
Goals for Vail Vilfage are summarized in six major goal statements. The goal statements are
designed to establish a framework, or direction, for the future growth of the Village. A series of
objectives outlines specific steps that can be taken towards achieving each stated goal. Policy
statements have been developed to guide the Town's decision making in achieving each of the
stated objectives, whether it be thro.ugh the review of private sector development proposals or in
implementing capital improvement projects.
Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique
architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of
community and identity.
1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of
residential and commercial facilities.
6
1.2.1 Policy: Additionai development may be allowed as
identified by the action plan as is consistent
with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban
Design Guide Plan.
Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole.
2.1 Objective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub-
areas throughout the Village and allow for development that
is compatible with these established land use patterns.
2.1.1 Policy: The Zoning Code and development review criteria
shall be consistent with the overall goals and
objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan.
2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short-
term, overnight accommodations.
2.3.1 Policy: The development of short-term accommodation
units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that
are developed above existing density levels are
required to be designed or managed in a manner
that makes them available for short-term overnight
rental.
2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and
maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to
better serve the needs of our guests.
V. PROPOSED TEXT CHANGES
As stated previously, the applicant is proposing to add "time-share estate units, fractional fee
units and time-share license units" as conditional uses to Section 18.26.040, Conditional Uses-
Generally. These uses would be subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. The
d~d.' below:
proposed changes are shown as sha
Chapter 18.26 Commercial Core 2
18.26.040 Conditional uses-Generally
The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use
permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60:
A. Ski lifts and tows;
B. Public utility and public service uses;
C. Public buildings, grounds, and facilities;
D. Public park and recreation facilities;
E. Theaters, meeting rooms and convention facilities; .
F. Coin-operated laundries;
7
G. Commerciaf storage-as long as it is at basement level and does not have any exterior
frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area;
H. Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 18.58.310.
1. Television stations-as long as the production room/studio is visible from the street or
pedestrian mall and that the television station be "cable-casY" only, requiring no additional
antennas.
aretice~r~~ ~ni~s:
'~~r~e-share estates unit~, ~ ractiorlal fe~ ~nits an~ t1m6 f~
(Ord.23(1990) § 1: Ord. 31(1989) § 9: Ord. 21(1983) § 1: Ord. 8(1981) § 2(part): Ord. 50(1978)
§ 8: Ord. 8(1973) § 9.400.)
VI. DISCUSSION ISSUES As this a worksession to discuss the applicanYs proposal, staff will not evaluate the proposal at
this time. Staff has, however, identified issues which we would like to discuss with the Planning
and Environmental Commission and the applicant. Each of the issues is described below.
1. PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ISSUES.
The cost of maintenance may be higher on a time-sharing project than on wholly-owned units in
a condominium building. It has been reported that furniture, carpeting, appliances and other
furnishings must be replaced more often in time-sharing units. This is especially applicable to
time-share units which are sold on shorter intervals. The implication is that a higher level of
maintenance and management services must be available on an on-going basis for time-sharing
projects to insure a high level of quality.
In addition to the additional needs for maintenance on time-sharing projects, there is also a need
to reserve adequate time when maintenance can occur. Problems potentially occur, when time-
share intervals are sold on a one week basis. By selling fifty-two (52), one week intervals during
the year, there is little or no time for the proper maintenance of a time-share project.
Staff would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant,
how time-shares in the Town of Vail could be regulated to insure adequate and proper
maintenance of the project.
2. AVAILABILITY OF LOCK-OFF UNITS IN A MANAGED RENTAL PROGRAM.
Time-share units can be designed to accommodate lock-off units. Staff would recommend that
lock-off units be required as a part of every individual time-share unit. Additionally, staff
recommends that each lock-off unit be managed through a rental program when not in use. Staff
feels that by providing lock-off units, and managing the availability of the lock-off units in a rental
program when not in use, can significantly increase the availability of accommodation units in the
Town of Vail. While lock-off units provide the community benefit of additional "pillows," they also
provide an additional return on an investment opportunity for time-share owners. If a time-share
owner purchases an interest in a multiple bedroom unit, and does not desire to utilize all the
bedrooms, they can then have the opportunity of returning the unused bedrooms (lock-offs) to a
rental program.
8
.
.
3. MINIMUM NUMBER OF BEDROOMS AND SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR
ALL LOCK OFF UNITS ASSOCIATED WITH TIME-SHARE UNITS.
In discussing the development of time-share units, staff thought it was important that any time-
share unit proposed in the Town of Vail be a multiple bedroom unit with a minimum square
footage requirement. Staff's desire to see multiple bedroom time-share units with a minimum
square footage requirement increases the availability of Iock-off accommodation-type units, thus
increasing the Town's bed base.
4. RATIO OF TIME SHARE UNITS TO ACCOMMODATION UNITS / LOCK-OFFS.
The availability of accommodation units has always been a goal of the community. The "
Commercial Core 2 Zone District encourages either, by right, or subject to the issuance of a
conditional use permit, the construction of accommodation units. Accommodation units are
allowed uses on all floor levels in the Commercial Core 2 Zone District, with the exception of the
garden level. Staff would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission the
merits of requiring a ratio of accommodation units/lock-off units ~o time-share units. Specifically,
staff is recommending that there be a ratio of accommodation units/lock-off units IQ time-share
units established. This would insure that accommodation-type units would remain available to
visitors of the Town of Vail and not become only time-share units.
5. REQUIREMENT THAT ALL TIME-SHARE UNITS BE OFFERED THROUGH A RENTAL
PROGRAM WHEN NOT IN USE.
Like unused lock-off units, staff believes that unused time-share units should be offered and
made available through a rental program. Specifically, staff would like to discuss the merits of
requiring that all time-share units, when not in use, be made available to the general public.
Again, this requirement helps attain the goal of maintaining a strong bed base whenever
possible. A true community benefit can be realized through the additional availability of units,
and again, the developer or managing agent of a time-share project realizes additional profits
through the rental of time-share units as overnight accommodations.
6. THE CONVERSION OF THE 37 EXISTING ACCOMMODATION UNITS AT THE
AUSTRIA HAUS TO 20 TIME-SHARE UNITS / LOCK-OFF UNITS AND 23
ACCOMMODATION UN1TS.
There are currently 37 accommodation units within the Austria Haus. At this time, the developer
is proposing to redevelop the Austria Haus to possibly include 20 time-share units sold on an
interval basis, with 20 attached one-bedroom lock-off units and an additional 23 hotel-type
accommodation units. Staff would like to discuss the impacts associated with the reduction in ,
accommodation units currently existing on the Austria Haus property. While it is possible that 43
of the units in the new Austria Haus could be utilized as accommodation units (includes lock-off
units), it is very unlikely that all 20 lock-off units would be made available. The staff is concerned
as to whether this results in a negative impact that should be mitigated by the developer of the
time-share project.
9
.
7. THE CONVERSION OF EXI TING WHOLLY- WNED OND MINIUM T
TIMESHARE OWNERSHIP.
Other resort communities in the country have experienced the conversion of wholly-owned
condominium projects to time-share ownership. For example, in the state of Hawaii, numerous
wholly-owned condominium projects have been converted into interval ownership. In Hawaii, as
a result of the conversion of wholly-owned condominium projects into time-share ownership,
local ordinances have been adopted requiring 100% of the condominium owners approve of the
proposed conversion to time-share units. This does two things. First, it insures that 100% of the
condominium ownership agrees to the conversion of any or all of the condominium units to time-
share units. Numerous examples of conflicts arising between wholly-owned and time-share
interval ownership have been documented. Specifically, the more intensive vacation i ng-type of
u5e of time-share ownership may confiict with the more residential condominium uses. Conflicts
arise out of complaints concerning long hours of "partying, noise and disregard for the quality of
the premises." Secondly, conflicts have arisen over the management and maintenance of the
property. While time-share owners have a sense of ownership and pride in the property they
purchased, they may not be as heavily tied to their investment as a condominium owner.
Therefore, conflicts resulting from management and quality upkeep of property result.
8. INTEGRATION OF TIMESHARE OWNERSHIP WITH WHOLLY-OWNED
CONDOMINIUMS.
As discussed above, the integration of time-share ownership with wholly-owned condominiums
can result in conflicts of use. As mentioned earlier, the type of use associated with time-share
combined in close proximity with less intensively used, wholly-owned condominiums, may not be
desirable and could possibly pose problems. Again, time-sharing is a vacation-type of use,
whereas condominiums are usually a residential use, or at least, less intensive vacation-type of
use. Again, staff would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the
applicant, the potential negative impacts associated with the integration of time-share ownership
and wholly-owned condominiums.
9. MANAGEMENT OF TIMESHARE PROJECTS.
The management of a quality time-share project is closely related to the high level of
maintenance required for time share. It is in the best interest of the community to insure that
time-share projects are maintained at a high level and in a professional manner. In staff's
opinion, this is most easily accomplished through quality, long-term management of the entire
project. A high quality management program is necessary as the large number of interval
owners involved in a single, time-share project can be extensive. Without proper management,
the overwhelming number of owners of the property could result in future conflicts.
Discussions with a branch broker of a local time-share project, indicate that the most common
form of management of interval ownership projects is a form of Board of Directors. The Board of
Directors functions very similar to a Homeowner's Association or Condominium Association. The
Board, in most instances, is aided by a management company to help in the maintenance and
management of day-to-day operations. As with any association governed by a Board of
Directors, the Directors are elected or appointed by the ownership and represent and are
responsible to the ownership as a whole. The Board of Directors would be responsible for the
overall maintenance and management decisions of the time-share project.
10
.
.
Staff recommends that in the case of the Austria Haus specifically, the applicant discuss their -
proposed management scheme for the project. In the case of a project like the proposed Austria
Haus, there would be a mixture of accommodation units and time-share units. A Board of
Directors or management agency needs to be responsible for the management of both the
accommodation units and the time-share units. Staff believes that conflicts arise when th.e
management of the time-share units differ from the management of the accommodation units.
11. POSSIBLE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF TIME SHARE OWNERSHIP IN
THE TOWN OF VAIL.
Positive Impacts of Time-Sharing:
• Activity during the "shoulder seasons" tends to increase due to an increase in year-round
occupancy.
• The attraction of revenue-generating tourists.
• Efficient utilization of resources. This is the "warm beds" concept.
• More pride of ownership with timeshare units than with accommodation units.
• Increased levels of occupancy.
• Increased resort exposure due to the extensive number of interval owners.
Negative Impacts of Time-Sharing:
• Some resort areas have experienced poor, distasteful sales practices of sales agents
trying to sell time-share weeks. Because of the number of buyers needed to sell out a
project, an intensive and costly sales program must be developed. The problems
associated with sales generally comes in the area of solicitation of sales on streets, at the
ski base areas, shopping malls, and the use of high-pressure sales tactics.
• Possible conflicts between wholly-owned condominium owners and time-share interval
owners.
• Possible loss of true accommodation units.
• Possible difficulty in collection of property taxes due to the extensive number of owners.
Sources:
Report: Results of Research on Time-Sharina Regulations, P. Patten, Comm. Dev. Dept, 1980
The 1995 Wor/dwide Resort Time-Share Industry
Time-Share Ownership Benefits: Results from a Nationwide Survey of Time-Share Owners, 1995
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed text amendments to Section 18.26.040 of
the Municipal Code, and not a request for a formal recommendation from the Planning
Commission to the Town Council, staff will not be providing a recommendation at this time. Staff
will, however, provide a recommendation on the applicanYs proposal at the time of final review.
Currently, the applicant is scheduled to reappear before the Planning and Environmental
Commission for final review on Monday, November 11, 1996.
11
r
•
APPENDIX A
The information in Appendix A is derived from timeshare industry materials submitted by the
applicant to the Community Development Department. The information is intended to provide a
basic understanding of the socio-economic impacts of the timeshare industry as reported by the
American Resort Development Association (ARDA). Complete copies of the source materials
have been attached for reference.
• A recent study which examined industry performance from 1980-1994 revealed that sales
in 1994 reflected an increase of 870% over the $490 million in world-wide sales reported
in 1980. In addition, the 560,000 vacation intervals sold in 1994, reflected a jump of
460% over the interval sales reported in 1980, which were approximately 100,000. At
year end 1994, roughly 4.9 million vacation intervals had been purchased since 1980,
resulting in sales volume of over $36 billion during the 15-year period.
• The U.S. is the leader in the worldwide vacation ownership resort market, with 1,546, or
37.3%, of the resorts, 1,538,000 or 48.9%, of the "owners owning in the area," and
1,648,000, or 52.4% of the owners of the "owners residing in the area."
• A recent study revealed that 75.3% of the U.S. vacation owners are satisfied with their
vacation purchases, with 76.6% of study participants responding that their expectations at
the time of purchase have been "matched or exceeded," and 75.4% reporting that they
recommend vacation ownership to others. Of the more than 2,000 owners surveyed,
67.5% responded that vacation ownership has had a positive impact on their lives.
• Most important among the motivation factors sited by the owners surveyed in their
decision to purchase vacations were the high standards of the resorts at which they own
and exchange, followed by the flexibility offered through vacation exchange opportunities,
and the value of vacation ownership. Of those surveyed, 83.1 % responded that the
"certainty of quality accommodations" was a"very importanY' factor in their vacation
ownership purchase. Other motivational factors included good value, Iocation of the
resort, company credibility and savings of dollars on vacation costs.
• According to a February, 1995 telephone survey of 1,000 U.S. households not owning
recreational property, 60.3% of the Americans believed they have a chance of purchasing
recreational property of some type during the next 10 years. The survey results revealed
that over 1/3 of Americans rate their chance of purchasing during the next 10 years as
"about 50/50 or better," compared to 15.5% in 1990 and 25.5% in 1993.
• Americans interested in purchasing recreational property prefer the standard 2-bedroom
unit, sleeping 6, over any other single unit size, by more than a 2:1 margin (45.7%).
• The average vacation owner has purchased 1.7 weeks of vacation ownership. Although
nearly 2/3 (58.8%) of vacation owners own a single week of time-share, the number of
weeks owned increases the longer the average respondent is involved with vacation
ownership.
• The vast majority of vacation owners (73.9%) initially purchase just one interval.
However, more than 1/4 (26.1 of those who first purchase between 1992 and 1994,
now own more than ane time-share interval, indicating that many first time purchasers are
purchasing more than one interval at the time of initial purchase.
f:\everyone\pec\memos\cc2exta.o28 12
.
.
• While in the local resort area, the average time-share visitor party spends considerably
more than the traditional traveler, averaging expenditures of $1,130.00 during the course
of the entire stay.
• According to more than 2,000 U.S. vacation owners surveyed in 1995, the largest single
category of expenditure while in the resort area is for food and drink consumed in
restaurants, bars and other hospitality establishments.
• Vacation owners surveyed in 1995 average 6.9 nights in the resort area during their most
recent time-share vacation.
• Vacation owners often extend their stay in the local resort area, by spending additional
nights in another form of accommodation. Of those surveyed in 1995, the average owner
spends an additional 4.7 nights in the local resort area during his/her most recent time-
share vacation by staying in a hotel, with friends or relatives, or elsewhere.
• U.S. owners surveyed in 1994 reported that they anticipate returning to the resort where
their time-share interval is located an average of 6.4 times during the next 10 years. By
contrast, those same owners responded that, had they not purchased a time-share in the
resort area, they would have returned to the resort area an average of only 3.2 times.
• Compared to all households in the United States, vacation owners have higher incomes,
are older, and have higher levels of formal education than those of the average American
consumer. As an aggregate profile, the typical vacation owner is an upper middle-
income, middle-age, well educated couple.
• A recent study revealed that the average household income of vacation owners is over
$63,000, having risen dramatically from 1978 when the average income was $23,000.
Over 1/2 of all vacation owners have household incomes between $15,000 and $100,000.
• 86.5% of all vacation owners are couples, and 13.5% are single individuals.
• As of December 31, 1994, 1,648,000 U.S. households owned a vacation. The top three
states in terms of total number of vacation owners are Californi.a, New York and Florida.
Sources:
The 1995 Wor/dwide Resort Time-Share Industrv
Time-Share Purchasers: Who They Are. Whv They Buk, 1995 Edition.
Time-Share Ownership Benefits: Results from a Nationwide Survey of Time-Share Owners, 1995
The American Recreationa/ Property Survey: 1995
f:\everyone\pec\memos\cc2exta.o28 13
:
~
sightti. Ntcmbcrs placed a high prioriry on
Q: Is there an emerging trend witt~ quality and were willing to pay for it. As a
premier high-end timesharing? result, the Owncrs Club offcrs a standard,
_ three-bedroom unit for all of its anucipaccd
Uz""r,ing i L~rui!'s coverage of rcsort time- projects, whicb arc expected to be built in
last month prompted reader 2S locations. Cottage unit and clubhousc
nrerest in high-enJ umesharing. It interiors and architectural facades will adupt
appcars that a new opulent market has begim f a local design. Members are allotted 27
to bud within a tradicionally middle-incoine tloating days a year and lodging on a spacc-
indusrry, pardy as a result of thc new vaca- ' available basis. Opened in April, the Hilcun
uon owncrship imagc and pardy as a result Head Owncrs Club, South Carolina, has
of changing psychographic interests. A thin already sold approximately 130 units. In a
margin of the upper cconomic bracket is - similar vein, The Owners Club has begun
beginning to purchase vacation ownership preselling memberships for the Homestcatl
memberships instead of second homes. This Owners Club, I Iomescead, Vrginia.
market niche prefers a product that offers The fact that so many respectcd membcrs
luxury scrvice and ameniucs widi incrcased of the resort community are interested in
fleacibility, allowing it to shed the hassles and the ultra high-end vac:ition ownership prud-
liabilities imolved in owning a second home. uct is indicative uf its potenuaL While prc-
"We arc on thc vcrgc of sceing a ncw micr high-cnd vacation owncrship products
proJtict and a new consumcr in die vacadon ~ will never becomc dic focus of the umcsh:irc
owncrship indusvy," says Rich.ird Ragatz, markct, thcy could transEorm how thc uppcr
president of Ragatz Associatcs, a markct economic bracket views vacations-and
rescarch firm imolvcd in thc vacation own- [itncsharing. J. Christophcr Chaffin
crship industry. "Currendy, thcrc arc twu or -
thrcc cxamplcs of cxtrcmc high-cncl vacation Chris7opfier Cbafjiir is u rerrarch assistarri
owncrship. In thc ncxt ycar or twu, thcrc ht ULl's- cclttuttioit, rrsertrch, ur,d puGlicaciotis
will bc 15 to 20 products on thc inarkct. 'l'ltc Franz Klammcr Lcxlgc, in "[clluridc, rlivision.
1'hese products are going to havc a major Colorado, will open this monch as a pretnier
IIIlp.1C[ OIl WiIOily OWIIC(j SCCOI7(i f10lItiIIIg." V1CflUOfI pI'OdUCI C1iCCf1[1g to an extrctncly Reference/Sources
The Deer Valley Club, in Decr Valley, afElucnt markct. Metubership prices vary from
Utah, is one of the few high-cnd timeshares $143,000 to $179,000 depcnding on the Ued-
today. MemUerships scll at priccs ranging from room sizc. Membcrs will be ablc to reserve °Resort Profile;' RCI Rerspectire, SeptembedOctober
$125,000 to $150,000 for a 116.5 undivicied two wcel:s in the winter and two wecks in 1995, p. 20-Z1.
interest (UDn in a unit. Unit size varies from the sununer, use a Eloaung week, and stay Dennis Hillier
two bedrooms to four bedrooms, and quality on a space-available Uasis. Transportauon is Hillier & Wanless, PA
is comparable to that of a luxury condomini- offered free of charge to both airports in the 4800 North Federal Highway
um. A ciining facility, swiinming pool, Jacuzzi, area. Other services include a concierge, long- Suite 300 B
exercise room, storage lockers, and transpor- term storage with temporary individual lock- Boca Raton, Flarida 33431
tation service are shared by 190 members. ers, grocery delivery service, and ski valet. 407-367-0430
"Service is critical," says Jim Whitteron, In response to the cost and liabilities in- Edwvin H. McMullen
president of I-Iighland Resorts, which devel- volved in owning second hotnes, the Owners Grand Vacations limited
oped the Deer Valley Club. "Personalizadon Club has created a product that would sell 6355 Metrowest Boulevard, Suite 180
is part of the appeal, where you have a staff for $250,000 to $350,000 as a second home, Ortando, Florida 32835
that knows the names and needs of the mem- but chat sells as a fractional for $42,500. The 401-521-3100
bers. We are trying to provide the feel of a Owners Club, a joint venture of RBC Enter-
fine country club." Whitteron considers ser- prises, Inc., the Ctub Corporarion of America Mchard Ragatz
vice the primary reason members are buying (CCA), and the Melrose Company, designed ~Wm Inc'
memberships instead of second homes. Cur- the product in response to a survey of CCA 767 ~~ette Sftd
rendy, Highland Resorts is ahead of schedule members. According to a"Resort Profile" in Omgon • ,
in membership sales at the almost completed RCI Prrxpective, the survey indicated that CCA 531-W-W5 "
Sun Valley Club, Utah. Two other projecu, members desired the option of having a couple J'pn Whifteron
the Chrisue Club, Steamboat Springs, Col- of long vacarions and a series of shorter, more H'ghland Resorls, P.O. Bwt 882358
orado, and the North Club, ourside Scotu- frequent varadons to a variety of places, giv- parlc City, UtBh 84068
dale, Arizona, are also under construcrion. ing chem the alternadve of seeing different 801-649-2225
72 Urban Land • September 1996
~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: November 11, 1996
SUBJECT: A worksession to discuss a request to amend Section 18.22.030, Conditional
Uses, of the Vail Municipal Code to add "time-share estate units, fractional fee
units and time-share license units" as a conditional use in the Public
Accommodation Zone District.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce, is requesting a
worksession to discuss amending the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicant is proposing
that Section 18.22.030 of the Municipal Code be amended to allow time-share estate units,
fractional fee units and time-share license units as conditional uses in the Public
Accommodation Zone District. The time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share
license units would be allowed subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit, pursuant to
the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Municipal Code. The areas of Town most affected by the
proposed amendment are illustrated on Attachment 1.
11. BACKGROUND
The applicant's request relates to a future proposal to redevelop the Austria Haus property. The
Austria Haus is located at 242 East Meadow Drive. The Austria Haus was originally constructed
in the mid-1960's as an inn to accommodate destination skiers. In 1979, the Austria Haus was
purchased by the Faessler family who planned to redevelop the property into the Sonnenalp
Hotel.
In 1984, Ordinance #8 was approved by the Vail Town Council establishing Special Development
District #12. Special Development District #f 2 adopted an approved development plan for the
redevelopment of the Austria Haus. The approved development plan was never implemented,
and has since expired, but instead, the Austria Haus underwent a remodel. Since the completion
of the remodel, the Austria Haus has served as an annex to the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus located
at 20 Vail Road.
The Austria Haus has 37 hotel rooms (accommodation units) with approximately 75 pillows" and
is operated approximately eight months each year by the Sonnenalp Hotel. There is a small
restaurant and bar in the Austria Haus that serves its guests and a retail outlet on the east end of
the building. The hotel rooms are marginal in size (300 sq. ft. average) and lack certain
amenities, by today's accommodation standards.
1
~
The current proposal to redevelop the property intends to provide considerably more "pillows"
over a twelve month period, as well as create approximately 10,000 square feet of new
commercial space. The applicant has proposed that a percentage of the project be offered as
time-share interval ownership units. The applicant has also proposed to accommodate a portion
of the required parking and loading/delivery in an underground parking structure.
According to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, the applicanYs property is currently
zoned Public Accommodation. The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide
sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semi-
public facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related
visitor oriented uses as may be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District
is intended to provide sites for lodging units to densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre.
The Public Accommodation Zone District does not permit time-share interval units.
Interval ownership is currently allowed only in the High Density Multi-Family Zone District
pursuant to Ordinance #8, Series of 1981. There is no vacant property in the High Density Multi-
Family Zone District. All properties currently zoned High Density Multi-Family are developed. In
order for a time-share project to be constructed in the High Density Multi-Family Zone District, a
developer would either have to convert an existing condominium or hotel project, or undergo an
entire redevelopment of the property. A third possible alternative for the construction of a time-
share project in the Town of Vail, would be to rezone an existing parcel of property from its
current zoning to High Density Multi-Family.
Chapter 18.04 of the municipal code provides definitions of time-share estate units, fractional fee
units and time-share license units. According to Sections 18.04.420, 18.04.430 and 18.04.440,
time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units are defined as follows:
Time-share estate units: Means either an interval estate or a timespan estate. A timespan
estate is a combination of an undivided interest in a present estate in fee simple in a unit,
the magnitude of the interest having been established by the time of the creation of the
timespan estate either by the project instruments or by the deed conveying the timespan
estate; and an exclusive right to possession and occupancy of the unit during an annually
recurring period of time defined and established by a recorded schedule set forth or
referred to in the deed conveying the timespan estate. Additionally, an interval estate is
an estate for four years terminating on a date certain, during which years titled to a
timeshare unit circulates among the interval owners in accordance with a fixed schedule,
vestirig in each such interval owner in turn for a period of time established by the said
schedule, with the series thus established recurring annually until the arrival of the date
certain. -
Fractional fee units: Is defined as a tenancy in common interest in improved real property,
including condominiums, created or held by persons, partnerships, corporations, or joint
ventures or similar entities, wherein the tenants in common have formerly arranged by
oral or written agreement or understanding, either recorded or unrecorded allowing for the
use and occupancy of the property by one or more co-tenants to the exclusion of one or
more co-tenants during any period, whether annually reoccurring or not which is binding
upon any assignee or future owner of a fractional fee interest or if said agreement
continues to be in any way binding or affective upon any co-tenant for the sale of any
interest in the property.
2
~
Time-share license units: Shall be defined as a contractual right to exclusive occupancy of
specified premises. Provided that the occupancy of the premise is divided into five or
more separate time periods extending over a term of more than two years. The premises
may consist of one parcel, unit or dwelting, or any ot several parcels, units or dwellings .
identified at the time the license is created to be identified later. No timeshare is a
timeshare license if it meets the definition of interval estate, timeshare or timespan
estate.
111. HISTORY OF TIME-SHARING IN VAIL
The State of Colorado has adopted regulations regulating the sale of time-shares. For the most
part, the regulations adopted by the State of Colorado are concerned with financial disclosures,
regulation of sales practices and disclosures, regulation of sales practices and classification of
time-sharing as a subdivision of property. The regulations adopted by the State of Colorado are
intended more to protect the consumer, than as regulations designed to have impacts on the
community level. The State has granted the authority for local governments to adopt ordinances
intended to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community, which includes time-
share projects.
On July 15, 1980, the Vail Town Council adopted five ordinances to regulate time-sharing
projects in the Town of Vail. A summary of each of the ordinances is listed below:
• Ordinance # 25, Series of 1980, an ordinance amending Chapter 17 (Subdivision
Regulations) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, providing a new definition for the term
subdivision; and setting forth prohibited and unlawful acts and remedies for violations of
this ordinance, and amending the procedure for appealing a decision of the Planning and
Environmental Commission to the Town Council. In the opinion of the then Vail Town
Council, the present subdivision regulations were not sufficient to deal with the problem
presented by time-sharing projects and therefore, the procedure for subdividing property
associated with time-sharing projects should be amended. Ordinance #25 further went
on to require that time-sharing projects go through the subdivision review process. Prior
to the adoption of Ordinance #25, Series of 1980, the Town of Vail did not have any
regulations requiring that time-sharing projects be reviewed through the subdivision
process.
• Ordinance # 26, Series of 1980, providing for the addition of new conditional uses in
certain zone districts. Ordinance #26 was established to protect the balance between
accommodations for visitors to the Town, Vail residents and seasonal employees from
the unregulated development of time-sharing projects. It was the opinion of the then Vail
Town Council that the zoning regulations in place in 1980 did not sufficiently address the
problems presented by time-sharing. The ordinance amended Title 18 of the Municipal
Code allowing time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units in
the High Density Multi-Family, Public Accommodation, Commercial Core 1 and
Commercial Core 2 Zone Districts, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit.
• Ordinance # 27, Series of 1980, an ordinance providing for certain disclosure
requirements for time-sharing projects; providing for public offering statements and
setting forth requirements for such offering statements: for the escrowing of deposits or
reservations of a time-share unit; and setting forth remedies for violations of said
3
~
ordinance. According to the minutes of the July 15, 1980 Vail Town Council meeting, the
Council had determined that the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town
of Vail would best be served by requiring the disclosure of certain facts and information
relating to time-sharing projects, and to the perspective purchasers of time-share units.
The amendment established disclosure requirements when offering time-share project
sales and established a minimum amount of information that the developer must disclose
in a public offering statement.
• Ordinance # 28, Series of 1980, an ordinance providing for registration of time-share
projects with_ the Department of Community Development of the Town of Vail; the
requirements for applications for registration of said units; remedies for violation of this
ordinance and standards for the revocation of such registration. The Vail Town Council
adopted Ordinance # 28 resolving that the Council had determined that the existing
ordinances and regulations of the Town were insufficient to cope with the problems
presented by time-sharing and that the registration of time-sharing units is necessary to
protect and preserve the public health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the
community.
• Ordinance # 29, Series of 1980, an ordinance defining time-share broker and time-share
salesman: providing that any person, firm, partnership, association or corporation that
engages in the business or capacity of time-share broker or time-share salesman, must
obtain a license from the Town Clerk; setting forth the requirements for the application for
such license; providing for the display of such license, license fees and setting forth
standards and procedures for the suspension or revocation of such license. Similar to
the other ordinances relating to time-sharing projects in the Town of Vail, the then Town
Council found that these additional regulations were deemed necessary to protect and
preserve the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Vail and that
time-share brokers and time-share salesman be licensed by the Town of Vail.
• On February 3, 1981, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance #8, Series of 1981,
amending Ordinance #26, Series of 1980, providing for the removal of time-sharing from
the conditional use section of the Public Accommodation, Commercial Core 1 and
Commercial Core 2 Zone Districts. It was the then Vail Town Council's opinion that
permitting the conversion and development of time-sharing projects in said zone districts
would upset the balance between accommodations for visitors, Vail residents and
seasonal employees and that the amendment was necessary to protect the health, safety
and welfare of the inhabitants of the community.
IV. CONFORMITY WITH THE TOWN'S RELEVANT PLANNING DOCUMENTS
In considering the proposed text amendment to the Zoning Code, to allow time-share in the
Public Accommodation Zone District as a conditional use, staff reviewed several relevant
planning documents. Specifically, staff reviewed the Municipal Code, the Goals and Objectives
stated in the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan.
VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE
Section 18.22.010 of the Vail Municipal Code, identifies the purpose of the Public
Accommodation Zone District. According to the purpose statement,
" The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodges
and residential accommodations for visitors, together with public and semi-public
facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and
related visitor-oriented uses as may appropriately located in the same district.
4
~
The Public Accommodation District is intended to insure adequate light, air, open
space and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the
desirable resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site
development standards. Additionat non-residential uses are permitted as
conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a winter and summer
recreation and vacation community, and where permitted, are intended to function
compatibly with the high density lodging character of the district. The Public
Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodging units at
densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre."
According to Section 18.22.020, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the following uses shall be
permitted in the Public Accommodation Zone District:
a) Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail
establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than 10%
of the total Gross Residential Floor Area of the main structure or structures on the
site;
b) Additionat accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch or
terrace.
VAIL LAND USE PLAN
Chapter II of the Vail Land Use Plan identifies goals and policies for land use within the Town of
Vail. The goals articulated by the Vail Land Use Plan reflect the desires of the citizenry. The
goals are to be used as adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development
proposals. Staff has identified the following goals (listed below), as being relevant to the
applicanYs proposal:
1. General Growth / Deveiopment
1_1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment,
maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and
recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent
resident.
1_3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded
whenever possible.
1_4 The original theme of the old Village core should be carried into
new development in the Village core through continued
implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan.
1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing
developed areas (infill areas).
2. Skier / Tourist Concerns 2_1 The communiry should emphasize its role as a destination resort
while accommodating day skiers.
2.2 The ski area owner, the'business community and the Town leaders
should work together closely to make existing facilities and the
Town function more efficiently.
5
2.4 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural
opportunities to encourage summer tourism.
3. Commercial
3.1 The hotel bedbase should be preserved and used more efficiently.
3_2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to
serve the future needs of destination skiers.
3_4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs.
4. Village Core / Lionshead
4_2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable so long as the
existing character of each area is preserved through the
implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail
Village Master Plan.
5. Residential
5_2 Quality time-share units should be accommodated to he/p keep
occupancy raies up.
6. Additional goals related to other elements of the comprehensive plan.
Economic Development
The Town of Vail should consider developing some type of inechanism to control
tenant mix, so that a balance between tourist and convenient type of commercial
uses is maintained.
VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN:
On January 16, 1990, the Vail Town Council adopted the Vail Village Master Plan. The plan is
intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and poficies for coordinating
development by the public and private sectors in the Vail Village area and in implementing
community goals for public improvements. It is intended to result in ordinances and policies that
will preserve and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village. Most importantly,
the Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review boards, and Town Council in analyzing
future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal
with such development. For the citizens and guests of Vail, the Master Plan provides a clearly
defined set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village will grow in the future. The Vail
Village Master Plan is intended to be consistent with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan,
and along with the Guide Plan it underscores the importance of the relationship between the built
environment and public spaces. The Vail Village Master Plan has been adopted as an element
of the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
6
Goals for Vaii Village are summarized in six major goal statements. The goal statements are -
designed to establish a framework, or direction, for the future growth of the Village. A series of
objectives outlines specific steps that can be taken towards achieving each stated goal. Policy
statements have been developed to guide the Town's decision making in achieving each of the
stated objectives, whether it be through the review of private sector development proposals or in
implementing capital improvement projects.
Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique
architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of
community and identity.
12 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of
residential and commercial facilities.
1.2.1 Policy: Additional development may be allowed as
identified by the action plan as is consistent
with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban
Design Guide Ptan.
Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic
health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole.
2.1 Objective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub-
areas throughout the Village and allow for development that
is compatible with these established land use patterns.
2.1.1 Policy: The Zoning Code and development review criteria
shall be consistent with the overall goals and
objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan.
2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short-
term, overnight accommodations.
2.3.1 Policy: The development of short-term accommodation
units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that
are developed above existing density levels are
required to be designed or managed in a manner
that makes them available for short-term overnight
rental.
2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial
activity where compatible with existing land uses.
2.4.1 Policy: Commercial infill development consistent with
established horizontal zoning regulations shall be
encouraged to provide activity generators,
accessible green spaces, public plazas, and
streetscape irnprovements to the pedestrian
network throughout the Village.
7
2.4.2 Policy: Activity that provides nightlife and evening
entertainment for both the guest and.the community
shall be encouraged'.
2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and
maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to
better serve the needs of our guests.
2.6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units
through the efforts of the private sector.
2.6.1 Policy: Employee housing units may be required as part of
any new or redeveloped project requesting density
over that allowed by existing zoning.
2.6.2 Policy: Employee housing shall be developed with
appropriate restrictions so as to insure their
availability and affordability to the local work force.
Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking
experience throughout the Village.
3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and other improvements.
3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate
streetscape improvements (such as paver
treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating
areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways.
3.2 Objective: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the
greatest extent possible.
3.2.1 Policy: Vehicular traffic will be eliminated or reduced to
absolutely minimal necessary levels in the
pedestrianized areas of the Village.
3.3 Objective: Encourage a wide variety of activities, events and street life
along pedestrian ways and plazas.
3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways
and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks
and stream access.
3.4.2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to
incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to
the project as designated in the Vail Village Master
Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan.
8
Goai #4 To preserve existing green space areas and expand green space
opportunities.
4.1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new piazas
with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the
different roles of each type of open space in forming the
overall fabric of the Village.
4.1.2 Policy: The development of new public plazas, and
improvements to existing plazas (public art,
streetscape features, seating areas, etc.), shall be
encouraged to reinforce their roles as attractive
people places.
Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the
transportation and circulation system throughout the Village.
5.1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking
facilities.
5.1.1 Policy: For new development that is located outside of the
Commercial Core 1 Zone District, on-site parking
shall be provided (rather than paying into the
parking fund) to meet any additional parking
demand as required by the Zoning Code.
5.1.5 Policy: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly
encouraged to provide underground or visually
concealed parking.
Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements
of the Village.
6.1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new
development.
Sub-Area #1-8 Sonnenalp(Austria Haus)/Slifer Square
Commercial infill along East Meadow Drive, to provide stronger
edge to street and commercial activity generators to reinforce the
pedestrian loop throughout the Village. Focus of infill is to provide
improvements to pedestrian circulation with a separated walkway,
including buffer, along East Meadow Drive.
Accommodating on-site parking and maintaining the bus route
along Meadow Drive, are two significant constraints that must be
addressed. One additional floor of residential/lodging may also be
accommodated on this site.
9
V. PROPOSED TEXT CHANGES .
As stated previously, the applicant is proposing to add "time-share estate units, fractional fee
units and time-share license units" as conditional uses to Section 18.26.040, Conditional Uses-
Generally. These uses would be subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. The
proposed changes are shown as shaded below:
Chapter 18.22 Public Accommodation
18.22.030 Conditional uses
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the Public Accommodation Zone
District, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions
of Chapter 18.60:
A. Professional and business offices;
B. Hospitals, medical and dental clinics, and medical centers;
C. Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations;
D. Ski lifts and tows;
E. Theaters, meeting rooms, and convention facilities;
F. Pubtic or commercial parking facilities or structures;
G. Public transportation terminals;
H. Public utility and public service uses;
1. Public buildings, grounds and facilities;
J. Public or private schools;
K. Public parks and recreational facilities;
L. Churches;
M. Eating, drinking, recreational, or retail establishments not occupying more than 10% of
the total Gross Residentiat Floor Area of a main structure or structures located on the site
in a non-conforming multi-family dwelling;
N, Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street,
walkway, or mall area;
0. Bed and Breakfast as further regulated by Section 18.58.310;
P. Type III EHU as defined in Section 18.57.060;
Q. Type IV EHU as defined in Section 18.57.70;
R. Time-share estates uniis, #ract'ro,nal; fe~ ur~its and time-sf~are>~lcer~se un
VI. SUMMARY of DISCUSSION ISSUES
At the October 28, 1996 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting, a worksession was
held to discuss the applicant's proposal to amend the Zoning Code to allow "timeshare" as a
conditional use in the Commercial Core 2 Zone District. As the discussion was a worksession,
staff did not evaluate the proposal, nor provide a formal recommendation. Staff did, however,
identify issues which were discussed with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the
applicant. Each of the issues is described below and a summary of the discussion has been
provided.
1. PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ISSUES.
ISSUE:
The cost of maintenance may be higher on a time-share project than on wholly-owned units in a
10
condominium building. It has been reported that furniture, carpeting, appliances and other
furnishings must be replaced more often in time-share units. This is especially applicable to
time-share units which are sold on shorter intervals. The implication is that a higher level of
maintenance and management services must be available on an on-going basis for time-share
projects to insure a high level of quality.
In addition to the additional needs for maintenance on time-share projects, there is also a need to
reserve adequate time when maintenance can occur. Problems potentially occur, when time-
share intervals are sold on a one week basis. By selling fifty-two (52), one week intervals during
the year, there is little or no time for the proper maintenance of a time-share project.
STAFF CONCERN:
Staff has questioned, how time-shares in the Town of Vail could be regulated to insure adequate
and proper maintenance of the project. Staff would not support a proposed time-share project
which utilizes a 52-week interval approach.
SUMMARY:
The State of Colorado has passed legislation which, in part, regulates the maintenance and
upkeep of time-share projects. The regulations were passed to protect consumers from
extremely high maintenance costs of time-share projects. The state regulations require that a
developer of a time-share project establish an escrow account providing a cash reserve for
maintenance and upkeep of the time-share project.
2. AVAILABILITY OF LOCK-OFF UNITS IN A MANAGED RENTAL PROGRAM.
ISSUE:
Time-share units can be designed to accommodate lock-off units. Lock-off units provide the
community benefit of additional "pillows," and they also provide an additional return on an
investment opportunity for time-share owners. If a time-share owner purchases an interest in a
multiple bedroom unit, and does not desire to utilize all the bedrooms, they can then have the
opportunity of returning the unused bedrooms (lock-offs) to a rental program.
STAFF CONCERN:
Staff would recommend that lock-off units be required as a part of every individual time-share
unit. Additionally, staff recommends that each lock-off unit be managed through a rental program
when not in use. Staff feels that by providing lock-off units, and managing the availability of the
lock-off units in a rental program when not in use, a time-share project can significantly increase
the availability of accommodation units in the Town of Vail.
SUMMARY:
Staff continues to recommend that lock-off units be required as a part of every individual time-
share unit. Some of the Planning and Environmental Commission members felt that it is
important to maintain a quality "bed base" in the Town to accommodate guests and visitors.
Concerns were expressed by certain members that such a requirement may impede a
developer's ability to construct a time-share project as each development site is different and
requires different mixtures of uses to make a project successful. No consensus was reached.
3. MINIMUM NUMBER OF BEDROOMS AND SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR
ALL LOCK-OFF UNITS ASSOCIATED WITH TIME-SHARE UNITS.
ISSUE:
In discussing the development of time-share units, staff believes it is important that any time-
share unit proposed in the Town of Vail be a multiple bedroom unit with a minimum square
footage requirement.
11
STAFF CONCERN:
Staff's desire to see multiple bedroom time-share units with a minimum square footage
requirement should increase the availability of lock-off accommodation-type units, thus increasing
the Town's bed base.
SUMMARY:
Staff continues to believe it is important that any new time-share unit in the Town of Vail be a
multiple bedroom unit with a minimum square footage and/or bedroom requirement for lock-off
units. The applicant has stated that one reason the existing Austria Haus is not as successful as
it could be is because the accommodation units are under-sized and outdated. The applicant
has indicated that according to industry standards, an accommodation unit must be at least 375 -
450 square feet in size. Several Planning and Environmental Commission members felt that it
was important for all time-share units to be multiple bedroom units with lock-off type units
attached. These members believed that such units improve the quality of the accommodations
and provide possible incentives for owners to make unused lock-off units available as overnight
accommodations, thus increasing the potential "bed base".
4. RATIO OF TIME-SHARE UNITS TO ACCOMMODATION UNITS
ISSUE:
The availability of accommodation units has always been a goal of the community. The Public
Accommodation Zone District encourages the construction of accommodation units.
Accommodation units are allowed uses. At this time, the Zoning Code does not restrict the
maximum number of time-share units allowed on a property. Since time-share units are
considered dwelling units, a project with all time-share units could be a possibility.
STAFF CONCERN:
Staff would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission the merits of
requiring a ratio of accommodation units to time-share units. Specifically, staff is recommending
that there be a ratio of accommodation units to time-share units established. This would insure
that accommodation-type units would remain available to visitors of the Town of Vail and not
become only time-share units. Staff believes that it is possible to draft review criteria which
address the need for a mix of accommodation units and time-share units on a broad basis.
SUMMARY: .
The Planning and Environmental Commission discussed the issue as to whether a ratio of time-
share units to accommodation units should be established. After a lengthy discussion on the
issue, the members felt that such a requirement is not necessary, and in fact, impedes
developers from constructing the best project possible for any given site. The Commission
members further felt that such a ratio would be difficult to establish and would be best
determined when reviewed on a case-by case basis. The members felt that any standard
created must be flexible to accommodate changing trends and needs.
5. REQUIREMENT THAT ALL TIME-SHARE UNITS BE OFFERED THROUGH A RENTAL
PROGRAM WHEN NOT IN USE.
ISSUE:
Like unused lock-off units, a community benefit can be realized through the availability of time-
share units when they are not occupied by the owner. The developer or managing agent of a
time-share project and the time-share unit owner, can realize additional profits through the rental
of time-share units as overnight accommodations.
12
r
P
STAFF CONCERN:
Staff believes that unused time-share units should be offered and made available through a
rental program. Specifically, staff would like to discuss the merits of requiring that all time-share
units, when not in use, be made available to the general public. Again, this requirement helps
attain the goal of maintaining a strong bed base whenever possible.
SUMMARY:
Staff continues to believe that a rental program should be established to offer time-share units to
the general public, when not in use. Several Planning and Environmental Comrnission members
expressed their desire to see the same. It was determined that in order for a rental program to
be successful, the time-share building must include facilities to support the program. For
instance, a front desk, reservation services and other amenities generally associated with hotel-
type accommodations.
6. INTEGRATION OF TIMESHARE OWNERSHIP WITH WHOLLY-OWNED
CONDOMINIUMS THE CONVERSION OF EXISTING WHOLLY-OWNED
CONDOMINIUMS TO TIMESHARE OWNERSHIP.
ISSUE:
As discussed above, the integration of time-share ownership with wholly-owned condominiums
can result in conflicts of use. As mentioned earlier, the type of use associated with time-share
units combined in close proximity with less intensively used, wholly-owned condominiums, may
not be desirable and could possibly pose problems. Again, time-sharing is a vacation-rype of
use, whereas condominiums are usually a residential use, or at least, less intensive vacation-
type of use.
Other resort communities in the country have experienced the conversion of wholly-owned
condominium projects to time-share ownership. For example, in the State of Hawaii, numerous
wholly-owned condominium projects have been converted into interval ownership. In Hawaii, as
a result of the conversion of wholly-owned condominium projects into time-share ownership,
local ordinances have been adopted requiring 100% of the condominium owners to approve of
the proposed conversion to time-share units. This does two things. First, it insures that 100% of
the condominium ownership agrees to the conversion of any or all of the condominium units to
time-share units. Numerous examples of conflicts arising between wholly-owned and time-share
interval ownership have been documented. Specifically, the more intensive vacationing-type of
use of time-share ownership may conflict with the more residential condominium uses. Conflicts
arise out of complaints concerning long hours of "partying, noise and disregard for the quality of
the premises. Secondly, conflicts have arisen over the management and maintenance of the
property. While time-share owners have a sense of ownership and pride in the property they
purchased, they may not be as heavily tied to their investment as a condominium owner.
Therefore, conflicts resulting from management and quality upkeep of property result.
STAFF CONCERN:
Staff would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant,
the potential negative impacts associated with the integration of time-share ownership and
wholly-owned condorniniums.
SUMMARY:
The applicant is not proposing to integrate time-share units with wholly-owned condominiums.
Staff's concern is related more to other possible projects developed in Town. The Planning and
Environmentai Commission felt that under certain circumstances, time-share units and
condominiums could be integrated. The members believed that integration could occur if a
buffer between uses were proposed. In general, integration of residential uses was not
considered to be desirable by the Commission.
13
R
7. MANAGEMENT OF TIMESHARE PROJECTS.
ISSUE:
The management of a quality time-share project is closely related to the high level of
maintenance required for time share. It is in the best interest of the community to insure that
time-share projects are maintained at a high level and in a professional manner. In staff's
opinion, this is most easily accomplished through quality, long-term management of the entire
project. A high quality management program is necessary as the large number of interval
owners involved in a single, time-share project can be extensive. Without proper management,
the overwhelming number of owners of the property could result in future conflicts.
Discussions with a branch broker of a local time-share project, indicate that the most common
form of management of interval ownership projects is a form of Board of Directors. The Board of
Directors functions very similar to a Homeowner's Association or Condominium Association. The
Board, in most instances, is aided by a management company to help in the maintenance and
management of day-to-day operations. As with any association governed by a Board of
Direciors, the Directors are elected or appointed by the ownership and represent and are
responsible to the ownership as a whole. The Board of Directors would be responsible for the
overall maintenance and management decisions of the time-share project.
STAFF CONCERN
Staff recommends that in the case of the Austria Haus specifically, the applicant discuss their
proposed management scheme for the project, as the developers are proposing that there would
be a mixture of accommodation units and time-share units. A Board of Directors or management
agency needs to be responsible for the management of both the accommodation units and the
time-share units. Staff believes that conflicts arise when the management of the time-share units
differ from the management of the accommodation units.
SUMMARY:
Sonnenafp Properties, Inc. will be the manager of the commercial and hotel accommodation
units at the Austria Haus. It is the applicant's desire to manage the time-share element as well.
The owners association will be set up initially by the developers, to be managed by Sonnenalp
Properties, Inc. The owners association reserves the right to ultimately determine who manages
the time-share element. ,
The Planning and Environmental Commission felt that it was important that any project be
maintained and operated at a high level and in a professional manner. The Commission also felt
it is equally important that whomever manages the time-share element must also manage the
accommodation units. This is especially important to ensure that unused time-share units and/or
lock-off units are made available to the general public when not in use.
8. THE CONVERSION OF THE 37 EXISTING ACCOMMODATION UNITS AT THE
AUSTRIA HAUS TO 20 TIME-SHARE UN{TS / LOCK-OFF UNITS AND 23
ACCOMMODATION UNITS.
ISSUE
There are currently 37 accommodation units within the Austria Haus. At this time, the developer
is proposing to redevelop the Austria Haus to include 20 time-share units sold on a five-week
interval basis, with 20 attached one-bedroom lock-off units and an additional 23 hotel-type
accommodation units.
STAFF CONCERN:
Staff would like to discuss the impacts associated with the reduction in accommodation units
currently existing on the Austria Haus property. While it is possible that 43 of the units in the new
14
Austria Haus could be utilized as accommodation units (includes lock-off units), it is very unlikely
that all 20 lock-off units would be made available. The siaff is concerned as to whether this
results in a negative impact that should be mitigated by the developer of the time-share project.
SUMMARY:
This issue was not discussed at great lengths. The Planning and Environmental Commission •
members agreed that accommodation units are an important component with regard to Vail's
economic future. The Commission members reserved specific comment on this issue until a
more thorough review of the proposed redevelopment project takes place.
9. POSSIBLE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF TIME SHARE OWNERSHIP IN
THE TOWN OF VAIL.
Positive Impacts of Time-Sharing:
• Activity during the "shoulder seasons" tends to increase due to an increase in year-round
occupancy.
• The attraction of revenue-generating tourists.
• Efficient utilization of resources. This is the "warm beds" concept.
• More pride of ownership with time-share units than with accommodation units.
• Increased levels of occupancy.
• Increased resort exposure due to the extensive number of interval owners.
Negative Impacts of Time-Sharing:
• Some resort areas have experienced poor, distasteful sales practices of sales agents
trying to self time-share weeks. Because of the number of buyers needed to sell out a
project, an intensive and costly sales program must be developed. The problems
associated with sales generally comes in the area of solicitation of sales on streets, at the
ski base areas, shopping malls, and the use of high-pressure sales tactics.
• . Possible conflicts between wholly-owned condominium owners and time-share interval
owners.
• Possible loss of true accommodation units.
• Possible difficulty in collection of property taxes due to the extensive number of owners.
S4urces:
Report: Results of Research on Time-Sharinq Reaulations, P. Patten, Comm. Dev. Dept., 1980
The 1995 Wor/dwide Resort Time-Share Industrv
Time-Share Ownership Benefits: Resu/ts from a Nationwide Survev of Time-Share Owners, 1995
15
Y
VII. DISCUSSION ISSUES
As a result of the worksession meeting with the Planning and Environmental Commission held on
Monday, October 28, 1996, the staff has identified additional issues which we would like to
discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant. As this is a
worksession to discuss the applicanYs proposal to amended the conditional use section of the
Public Accommodation Zone District, rather than the Commercial Core 2 Zone District, staff will
not be providing a formal recommendation at this time. Each of the newly identified issues of the
applicanYs amended proposal are identified below:
1. Additional Conditional Use Factors
ISSUE:
Staff has considered establishing additional conditional use factors to be used in the
consideration of a proposed conditional use permit request for time-share projects in the Public
Accommodation Zone District. According to discussions with the applicant and Planning and
Environmental Commission, it was felt that time-share projects could be compatible with the
permitted, conditional and accessory uses allowed in the Public Accommodation Zone District
given that certain factors are met. This approach is currently used in the Commercial Core 1
Zone District.
STAFF CONCERN:
Staff has evaluated the idea and would propose the following:
18.22.035 Conditional Uses - Factors applicable.
In considering, in accordance with Chapter 18.60, an application for a conditional use
permit for a time-share estate unit, fractional fee unit, and/or a time-share license unit in
the Public Accommodation Zone District, the following development factors shall be
applicable:
A. _ Effects of the proposal on the hotel bed base in the core areas;
B. Effects of the proposal on the future needs of the community as a year-
round resort;
G. Effects of the proposal of noise, traffic, maintenance, etc, upon adjacent
properties;
D. The enhancement of the proposal on the nature of Vail as a winter and
summer recreation and vacation community.
2. Calculation of Lock-off Units in Terms of Density and Gross Residential Floor Area.
ISSUE:
The Town of Vail Municipal Code defines a"dwelling uniY',
"any room or group of rooms in a two-family or multiple-family building with kitchen
facilities designed for or used by one family as an independent housekeeping unit. A
dwelling unit in a multiple-family building may include one attached accommodation unif
(lock-off) no /arger than one-third (113) of the total f/oor area of the dwelling.
According to this definition, the staff has interpreted that a time-share estate unit, fractional fee
unit and/or time-share license unit, which includes kitchen facilities, shall be classified as a
dwelling unit. Staff's interpretation is based upon the fact that, in the case of the Austria Haus
proposal, each interval unit will be designed with kitchen facilities for use as an independent
housekeeping unit. According to this interpretation, each time-share unit would be entitled to one
16
.
lock-off unit.
The Town of Vail Municipal Code also provides a definition of an accommodation unit. According
to the definition section of the code, an "accommodation uniY" is defined as,
"Any room or group of rooms without kitchen facilities designed for or adapted to
occupancy by guests and accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies without
passing through another accommodation unit or dwelling unit. Each accommodation unit
shall be counted as one-half (112) of a dwelling unit for purposes of calculating "allowable
units per acre
STAFF CONCERN:
Staff would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant
the merits of applying the existing definitions to a time-share project. Staff feels that the existing
definitions and interpretations provide the necessary controls on density and square footage for
development in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Staff further believes that the existing
language provides density incentives for developers to incorporate lock-off units into time-share
projects without impacting a developer's ability to design a project that is sensitive to the site and
is flexible to the demands of each particular development. The existing definitions also allow for
developers and the Town to maintain and enhance the hotel bed base within the community (a
goal identified in numerous planning documents adopted by the Town of Vail).
3. Subdivision Review Process and Registration Reauirements for Time-share Proiects
ISSUE:
At the October 28, worksession meeting, a question was raised as to the procedure for
establishing a time-share project in accordance with the Town's adopted regulations.
Chapter 17.22 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code outlines the procedure for subdividing a time-
share project. A time-share project is subdivided according to the Condominium and Townhouse
Plat procedure. A condominium and townhouse plat is approved by the Zoning Administrator
following the review by the Pu61ic Works Department. The plat shall be reviewed under two
general criteria:
A. The Zoning Administrator will check to make sure the buildings and other
improvements were built as per plans approved by the Design Review Board;
B. The Town Engineer will review the survey data for compliance with requirements
found in Section 17.16.130C (final plat requirements/procedures).
Chapters 5.01 and 5.02 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code provide regulations applicable to
time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units. Chapter 5.01
establishes disclosure requirements for the public offering of time-share projects. The
requirements are intended to protect the consumer from inaccurate or fraudulent representations
of time-share developers.
Chapter 5.02 of the Municipal Code establishes the procedures for registering a time-share
project with the Town of Vail Department of Community Development. Pursuant to Ordinance #
28, Series of 1980, all time-share projects constructed and operated in the Town of Vail must be
registered. The intended purpose of the registration requirement is to insure that any time-share
project offered for sale in the Town of Vail is in compliance with the Town's adopted codes and
policies.
17
~
4. A roximate Number of Units in the Town of Vail Directlv Imoacted bv the Proposed
Amendment.
ISSUE:
At the October 28, worksession meeting a question was raised as to how many units in the Town
of Vail would be directly impacted by the proposed amendment. Staff reviewed all the properties
in the Town currently zoned Public Accommodation, or was a Special Development District with
Public Accommodation as the underlying zoning. According to our research, approximately 736
units could be impacted in 15 buildings. It is important to note that it is not entirely likely that all
736 would be approved to be converted to time-share.
VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed text amendments to Section 18.22.030 of
the Municipal Code, and not a request for a formal recommendation from the Planning and
Environmental Commission to the Town Council, staff will not be providing a recommendation at
this time. Staff will, however, provide a recommendation on the applicant's proposal at the time
of final review. Currently, the applicant is scheduled to reappear before the Planning and
Environmental Commission for final review on Monday, Novernber 25, 1996.
f:\everyone\pec\memos\cc2exta.o28 18
,
e
APPENDIX A The information in Appendix A is derived from timeshare industry materials submitted by the
applicant to the Community Development Department. The information is intended to provide a
basic understanding of the socio-economic impacts of the timeshare industry as reported by the
American Resort Development Association (ARDA). Complete copies of the source materials
have been attached for reference.
• A recent study which examined industry performance from 1980-1994 revealed that sales
in 1994 reflected an increase of 870% over the $490 million in world-wide sales reported
in 1980. In addition, the 560,000 vacation intervals sold in 1994, reflected a jump of
460% over the interval sales reported in 1980, which were approximately 100,000. At
year end 1994, roughly 4.9 million vacation intervals had been purchased since 1980,
resulting in sales volume of over $36 billion during the 15-year period.
• The U.S. is the leader in the worldwide vacation ownership resort market, with 1,546, or
37.3%, of the resorts, 1,538,000 or 48.9%, of the "owners owning in the area," and
1,648,000, or 52.4% of the owners of the "owners residing in the area."
• A recent study revealed that 75.3% of the U.S. vacation owners are satisfied with their
vacation purchases, with 76.6% of study participants responding that their expectations at
the time of purchase have been "matched or exceeded," and 75.4% reporting that they
recommend vacation ownership to others. Of the more than 2,000 owners surveyed,
67.5% responded that vacation ownership has had a positive impact on their lives.
• Most important among the motivation factors sited by the owners surveyed in their
decision to purchase vacations were the high standards of the resorts at which they own
and exchange, followed by the flexibility offered through vacation exchange opportunities,
and the value of vacation ownership. Of those surveyed, 83.1% responded that the
"certainty of quality accommodations" was a"very important" factor in their vacation
ownership purchase. Other motivational factors included good value, location of the
resort, company credibility and savings of dollars on vacation costs.
• According to a February, 1995 telephone survey of 1,000 U.S. households not owning
recreational property, 60.3% of the Americans believed they have a chance of purchasing
recreational property of some type during the next 10 years. The survey results revealed
that over 1/3 of Americans rate their chance of purchasing during the next 10 years as
"about 50/50 or better," compared to 15.5% in 1990 and 25.5% in 1993.
• Americans interested in purchasing recreational property prefer the standard 2-bedroom
unit, sleeping 6, over any other single unit size, by more than a 2:1 margin (45.7%).
• The average vacation owner has purchased 1.7 weeks of vacation ownership. Although
nearly 2/3 (58.8%) of vacation owners own a single week of time-share, the number of
weeks owned increases the longer the average respondent is involved with vacation
ownership.
• The vast majority of vacation owners (73.9%) initiaUy purchase just one interval.
However, more than 1/4 (26.1 of those who first purchase between 1992 and 1994,
now own more than one time-share interval, indicating that many first time purchasers are
purchasing more than one interval at the time of initial purchase.
f:leveryone\pec\memos\cc2exta.o28 19
I
~
• While in the local resort area, the average time-share visitor party spends considerably
more than the traditional traveler, averaging expenditures of $1,130.00 during the course
of the entire stay.
• According to more than 2,000 U.S. vacation owners surveyed in 1995, the largest single
category of expenditure while in the resort area is for food and drink consumed in
restaurants, bars and other hospitality establishments.
• Vacation owners surveyed in 1995 average 6.9 nights in the resort area during their most
recent time-share vacation.
• Vacation owners often extend their stay in the Iocal resort area, by spending additional
nights in another form of accommodation. Of those surveyed in 1995, the average owner
spends an additional 4.7 nights in the local resort area during his/her most recent time-
share vacation by staying in a hotel, with friends or relatives, or elsewhere.
• U.S. owners surveyed in 1994 reported that they anticipate returning to the resort where
their time-share interval is located an average of 6.4 times during the next 10 years. By
contrast, those same owners responded that, had they not purchased a time-share in the
resort area, they would have returned to the resort area an average of only 3.2 times.
• Compared to all households in the United States, vacation owners have higher incomes,
are older, and have higher levels of formaf education than those of the average American
consumer. As an aggregate profile, the typical vacation owner is an upper middle-
income, middle-age, well educated couple.
• A recent study revealed that the average household income of vacation owners is over
$63,000, having risen dramatically from 1978 when the average income was $23,000.
Over 1/2 of all vacation owners have household incomes between $15,000 and $100,000.
• 86.5°la of all vacation owners are coupies, and 13.5°lo are single individuals.
• As of December 31, 1994, 1,648,000 U.S. households owned a vacation. The top three
states in terms of total number of vacation owners are California, New York and Florida.
Sources:
The 1995 Worldwide Resort Time-Share lndustry
Time-Share Purchasers: Who They Are. Why TheY Buv, 1995 Edition.
Time-Share Ownership Benefits: Results from a Nationwide Survey of Time-Share Owners, 1995
The American Recreationa/ Property Survey: 1995
f:\everyone\pec\memos\cc2exta.o28 20
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: November 11, 1996
SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a Special Development
District overlay to the Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/ on part of
Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce
Planner: George Ruther
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REGIUEST
The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce, is requesting a
worksession to discuss the establishment of a Special Development District at 242 East Meadow
Drive/on part of Tract C, Vail Village First Filing. The applicant is proposing to establish a new
Special Development District overlay to the underlying zone district of Public
Accommodation, to facilitate the proposed redevelopment of the existing Austria Haus.
The purpose of the worksession meeting is to discuss the goals of the proposed Special
Development District, the relationship of the proposal to the applicable elements of the Town's
Master Plan, and the review procedure that will be followed for the application.
The applicant has proposed significant improvements to the existing Austria Haus property. The
Austria Haus is intended to become a member owned resort club, comprised of two and three
bedroom residences with associated club facilities. The Austria Haus is intended to provide
additional accommodation units in the Town of Vail. Currently, the applicant is proposing to
incorporate twenty (20) vacation ownership units (fractional fee units) with twenty (20) lock-off
units and twenty-three (23) new hotel rooms. The redeveloped project would include a total of
sixry-three (63) new dwelling and accommodation units. The applicant is also proposing
approximately 10,500 sq. ft. of new commercial/retail space on the main level of the Austria
Haus. The Austria Haus will include a front desk reception/registration area and other facilities,
commonly associated with hotels and lodges.
In order to facilitate the proposed retlevelopment of the existing Austria Haus, the applicant has
also proposed other applications for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission.
Those applications include a proposed text change to the Public Accommodation Zone District to
add "time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units" as conditional uses
and an application for a conditional use permit to allow for fractional fee units in the Public
Accommodation Zone District. Each of these applications will be reviewed concurrently with the
proposed request for the establishment of a Special Development District.
A document from the applicant, entitled "Austria Haus Club Overview" has been attached. The
attachment describes the resort club concept proposed by the applicant.
1
r
11. BACKGROUND
The applicanYs request relates to a future proposal to redevelop the Austria Haus property. The
Austria Haus was originally constructed in the mid-1960's as an inn to accommodate destination
skiers. In 1979, the Austria Haus was purchased by the Faessler family who planned to
redevelop the property into the Sonnenalp Hotel. '
In 1984, Ordinance #8 was approved by the Vail Town Council establishing Special Deveiopment
District #12. Special Development District #12 adopted an approved development plan for the
redevelopment of the Austria Haus. When Ordinance # 8 was adopted, the Town Council placed
an eighteen-month time limit on the approval of the SDD. The approval of SDD # 12 lapsed
eleven years ago, on October 2, 1985. The approved development plan was never implemented,
and instead, the Austria Haus underwent a remodel. Since the completion of the remodel, the
Austria Haus has served as an annex to the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus located at 20 Vail Road.
The Austria Haus has 37 hotel rooms (accommodation units) with approximately 75 pillows" and
is operated approximately eight months each year by the Sonnenalp Hotel. There is a small
restaurant and bar in the Austria Haus that serves its guests and a retail outlet on the east end of
the building. The hotel rooms are marginal in size ( 300 sq. ft. average) and lack certain
amenities, by today's accommodation standards.
The current proposal to redevelop the property intends to provide considerably more "pillows"
over a twelve month period, as well as create approximately 10,000 square feet of new
commercial space. The applicant has proposed that a percentage of the project be offered as
fractional fee ownership units. The applicant has also proposed to accommodate a portion of the
required parking in an underground parking structure.
According to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, the applicanYs property is currently
zoned Public Accommodation. The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide
sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semi-
public facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related
visitor oriented uses as may be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District
is intended to provide sites for lodging units to densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre.
The Public Accommodation Zone District does not currently permit time-share interval units.
Interval ownership is currently allowed only in the High Density Multi-Family Zone District
pursuant to Ordinance #8, Series of 1981.
III. THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT PROCESS
Chapter 18.40 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code provides for the establishment of Special
Development Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 18.40.010, the purpose of a
Special Development District is,
"To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land, in order to promote its
most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new
development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of
streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and
to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
An approved development plan for a Special Development District, in conjunction with the
properties underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding
development and uses of property included in the Special Development District."
2
The Municipal Code provides a framework for the establishment of a Special Development
District. According to the Municipal Code, prior to site preparation, building construction, or other
improvements to land within a Special Development District, there shall be an approved
development plan for the Special Development District. The approved development plan
establishes requirements regulating development, uses and activity within ihe Special
Development District.
The purpose of the PEC worksession meeting is to discuss the goals of the proposed Special
Development District, the relationship of the proposal to applicable elements of the Town's ,
Master Plan, and the review procedure that will be followed for the application. Upon final review
of the proposed establishment of a Special Development District, a report from the Planning and
Environmental Commission stating its findings and recommendations and a staff report shall be
forwarded to the Town Council, in accordance with the provisions listed in Section 18.66.060 of
the Municipal Code. The Town Council's consideration of the Special Development District shall
be in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.130 - 18.66.160 and approved by two
readings of an ordinance.
An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses and
activities of the Special Development District. The development plan shall contain all relevant
material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the Special
Development District shalt devetop. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to,
the approved site plan, floor plans, building sections and elevations, vicinity plan, parking plan,
preliminary open space/landscape plan, densities and permitted, conditionai and accessory uses.
The determination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the Planning
and Environmental Commission and Town Council as part of the formal review of the proposed
development plan. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed Special
Development District, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those
permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the properties underlying zone district.
The Municipal Code provides nine (9) design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria
in evaluating the merits of the proposed Special Development District. It shall be the burden of
the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply
with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable,
or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. Although staff
will not specifically address each of the nine SDD review criteria at this time, the design criteria
are listed below for reference:
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood
and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height,
buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and acNvity.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. of
the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town
policies and Urban Design Plans.
3
J
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the
property on which the special development district is proposed.
F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features,
vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and
off-site traffic circulation.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development
district.
The development standards for a Speciai Development District shali be proposed by the
applicant. Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density
control, site coverage, landscaping and parking and loading shaN be determined by the Town
Council as part of the approved development plan, with consideration of the recommendations of
the Planning and Environmental Commission and staff. Before the Town Council approves
development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, is shaA be determined that
such deviations provide benefits to the Town that outweigh the adverse effects of such
deviations. This determination is to be made based upon the evaluation of the proposed Special
Development DistricYs compliance with the Review Criteria outlined above.
IV. ZONING ANALYS{S
The Community Devetopment Department staff has prepared a preliminary Zoning Analysis for
the proposed Austria Haus redevelopment project. The Zoning Analysis compares the
development standards outlined by the underlying zone district of Public Accommodation, to the
existing conditions of the Austria Haus and the proposed Special Development District. Staff did
not include the approved development standards of Special Development District # 12, since the
approval lapsed in October of 1985.
Wherever the development proposed through the establishment of the SDD deviates from the
underlying zoning of Public Accommodation, the standards are highlighted in bold type.
Legal: 242 East Meadow Drive/Part of Tract C, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st
Lot size: 24,089 sq. ft. /0.553 acres
Buidable area: 24,089 sq. ft. /0.553 acres
4
1
Y
Y
Development Standard Underlying Zoning Existing development Proposed SDD*
of Public Accommodation on the property
GRFA: 80% or 19,271 sq. ft. 49% or 11,800 sq. ft. 151% or 36,506 sq. ft.
Dweiling 18.5 DU's (37 AU's) 31.5 DU's (20 DU and
units per acre: 13.8 DU's 23 AU's)
Site coverage: 55% or 13,249 sq. ft. 35% or 8,400 sq. ft. 66°k or 15,802 sq. K.
Setbacks: 0.5'
front: 29'
sides: 20' 9' / 10' 1' / 4'
rear: 20' 13' 2~
Height: 48' sloping 36' sloping 48' flat
45' flat
Parking: per T.O.V. code Section 18.52 30 spaces" TBD*""
Landscaping: 30% or 7,227 sq. ft. 31% or 7,518 sq. ft. 7% or 1,652 sq. ft.
Loading: per T.O.V. code Section 18.52 1 berth 2 berths fn front
setback
Commercial sq. footage: 10% or 1,927 sq. ft. N/A 26% or 10,346 sq. ft.
Common area: 35% of allowable GRFA N!A 26% or 10,483 sq. ft.
or 6,745 sq. ft.
" Numbers furnished by the applicant and not yet verified by staff
11 spaces are located off-site on T.O.V. ROW
To be determined
V. DISCUSSION ISSUES
As this is a worksession to discuss the applicanYs proposal to establish a Special Development
District, staff will not evaluate the proposal at this time. Staff has, however, identified numerous
issues which we would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the
applicant. Each of these issues is briefly described below:
1. The projects proposed departures from the Public Accommodation Zone District
development standards.
As illustrated in the zoning analysis in Section IV of this memorandum, the applicant is
proposing that the praject depart from numerous development standards. The
departures from the development standards prescribed by the underlining zoning of
Public Accommodation range from a 151% increase of GRFA over the allowable, to
nineteen and one-half foot encroachments into the required 20-foot setback areas. Staff
would like the applicant to discuss with the PEC and staff the necessity for exceeding the
underlining zoning standards and the public benefit gained by said deviations.
2. The proposed front entry location and design.
The applicants have proposed a front entry drop-off area on the north side of the building
adjacent to East Meadow Drive. Due to the location of the front entry, the applicant
5
~
r
proposes to move a traffic control arm further to the east on East Meadow Drive. Moving -
the traffic control arm to the east is intended to facilitate vehicular traffic along East
Meadow Drive to the front entry. Additionally, the applicants have proposed that a roof
overhang project seven feet over the north property line onto Town of Vail right-of-way.
Staff would like to discuss the proposed location and implications of the front entry as
proposed with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant. Staff is
specifically concerned with the amount of additional vehicular traffic which will be brought
onto the East Meadow Drive pedestrian zone by the location of the front entry to the
building.
3. The proposed parking, loading and trash facility location and design.
Chapter 18.52 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code prescribes standards for parking and
loading and delivery. The applicant is proposing an outside loading and delivery facility
and an access ramp, leading down to fifty-two underground parking spaces on the
northwest corner of the building. According to the standards prescribed by Chapter
18.52, parking and loading and delivery shall not be located in the front setback area.
Staff would like to discuss with the PEC and the applicant the potential for redesigning
the loading and delivery and trash facilities. Specifically, staff would propose that the
applicant explore the ability to accommodate the loading and delivery and trash facilities
in the underground parking area. As proposed, the loading and delivery area creates a
significant constraint on the pedestrian and commercial tlow along East Meadow Drive.
The staff would also like to discuss with the PEC and the applicant the appropriateness
of having loading and delivery and trash facilities located within the required twenty-foot
front setback area on the property and adjacent to East Meadow Drive.
4. The implementation of the adopted Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan.
On November 20, 1991, the Vail Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Streetscape
Master Plan. The purpose of the plan is to provide a comprehensive and coordinated
conceptual design for streetscape improvements that:
1) are supported by the community;
2) enriches the aesthetic appearance of the Town; and
3) emphasizes the importance of craftsmanship and creative design in order
to create an excellent pedestrian experience.
The Streetscape Master Plan divides the Town into numerous sub-areas. According to
the Streetscape Master Plan, the Austria Haus is located within the East Meadow Drive
sub-area. The East Meadow Drive sub-area accounts for that portion of East Meadow
Drive located between Willaw Bridge Road on the west and Vail Valley Drive on the East.
The character of this portion of East Meadow Drive is divided into two distinctive zones.
The west zone from the intersection of Willow Bridge Road to Village Center Road is
characterized by standard street/curb/sidewalk section, the presence of vehicular traffic,
varied building setbacks and a wide variety of tandscape treatments. The east zone from
Village Center Road to Slifer Plaza is dominated by the Village Transportation Center to
the north, the large grass slope south of the parking structure, the lack of sidewalks and
6
?
the Sonnenalp's Austria Haus parking next to the roadway; none of which result in a
positive pedestrian experience. This portion of East Meadow Drive is restricted to Town
buses only.
The improvements proposed for this sub-area addressed many of the problems faced in
all other sub-areas of the Master Plan: separating buses from pedestrians, providing a
comfortable shopping experience, controlling unnecessary vehicular traffic, maintaining
vehicular access to lodge units in the area, screening parking and accommodating
service and delivery vehicles. The final design concept for the portion of East Meadow
Drive between Village Center and Slifer Square proposes some significant changes to the
character of the streets. The improvements proposed for this portion of the streetscape
have targeted enhancing the pedestrian environment while reducing the emphasis on
vehicles. It is the intent of the Streetscape Master Plan that the portion of East Meadow
Drive along the Village Transportation Center remain restricted to bus use only. The
existing control gate and totems on East Meadow Drive, near the west portal of the
parking structure, should remain in ptace. This eliminates a dead end situation in front of
the Austria Haus.
From the control gate at the west portal of the Village Transportation Center to Slifer
Square there should be separate lanes for pedestrians and buses, without a grade
. separation. The north side of the street will be dedicated to a fourteen-foot wide bus lane
and the south side would include a twelve to fifteen-foot wide pedestrian way. Should the
Town decide to utilize the existing right-of-way area in the area of the Sonnenalp's
Austria Haus, an additional pedestrian walkway should be proposed on the north side of
the road.
Approximately one-half of the East Meadow Drive sub-area is already well landscaped.
The existing, raised brick walkway that is adjacent to the Village Center commercial area
is a good example of an area that is well landscaped and well appointed with site
furnishings. Some of the improvements suggested in the plan include:
• the berm that screens the south side of the Village Transportation Center should
be heavily planted.
• snow storage requirements for the structure should be accommodated.
The staff would like to further discuss the implementation of the adopted Streetscape
Master Plan or revisions to the existing Streetscape Master Plan that take into account
the proposed redevelopment of the Sonnnenalp's Austria Haus. Many of the elements of
the existing Streetscape Master Plan were designed around the existing conditions of the
Austria Haus.
5. The proposed site improvements including access to the site, pedestrian flow, the
bus shelter, the stream-edge, etc.
The applicant has proposed numerous site improvements to be constructed in
conjunction with the Austria Haus. The applicant has proposed site improvements
including vehicular and pedestrian access to the site, changes to the pedestrian flow in
the area, the relocation of an existing bus shelter, and improvements to the north side of
the Gore Creek stream edge.
7
J
Staff would like to discuss the proposed site improvements with the PEC and the
applicant. Staff is particularly concerned with providing ample pedestrian and vehicular
access to the site without creating vehicular and pedestrian conflicts. Staff is also
concerned with the location of some of the proposed improvements along the north side
of Gore Creek.
6. The proposed massing, height and building materials.
The applicant has supplied a preliminary massing model of the proposed Austria Haus.
At this time, staff is not prepared to respond to the massing, height, and building
materials of the proposed Austria Haus. Staff would like to.point out to the Planning and
Environmental Commission and the applicant that the Town will be retaining the services
of Jeff Winston, of Winston & Associates. Jeff's role is to provide consultation on the
design and architecture of the building as well as the site planning elements. Pursuant to
provisions within the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the applicant shall be responsible for
reimbursing the Town of Vail Department of Community Development for any expenses
associated with our Urban Design Consultant.
7. Maintaining and enhancing the commercial (storefront) ftow along East Meadow
Drive.
Currently there is a strong commercial (storefront) flow along East Meadow Drive.
Particularly, the commercial area associated with the Village Center provides an excellent
pedestrian experience. The applicant has proposed to incorporate approximately 10,500
sq. ft. of commercial/retail space on the main level of the Austria Haus. Staff would like
to discuss the transition area between the Village Center Building and the Austria Haus to
ensure that the existing commercial flow along East Meadow Drive is maintained and
enhanced. As proposed by the applicant, the site plan appears to include some possible
improvements (loading and delivery), which will, in fact, act as a barrier to the commercial
flow along East Meadow Drive.
8. Provision for employee housing.
Staff will be requiring employee housing as a part of this project. The exact number of
emptoyee housing units has not yet been determined. Staff would like to discuss with the
Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant, the employee housing
requirement.
9. Encroachments into required setbacks.
The applicants are proposing significant encroachments into the required 20' setbacks.
For example, the front setback will be encroached upon by 19-1/2'. Setbacks are
intended to provide for adequate light, air and open space. As proposed, setbacks on the
Austria Haus property are nearly non-existent. While staff recognizes that it is irnportant
that the new building be brought as close to the existing pedestrian ways as possible,
staff is particularly concerned with the amount of encroachment upon the west and south
setbacks. It is staff's opinion that, should any setbacks in this project be encroached
upon, those setbacks should be the north and east setback, rather than the west and
south setbacks. Staff feels the south setback should be preserved because of Gore
8
.
.
Creek and the impacts the building improvements wiii have on the Riparian Zone, and
that the west setback should be maintained due to the location of the Village Center
Building and the residential uses in the building. The staff is atso sensitive to the "canyon
effecY" that will result by having the two buildings (Austria HausNillage Center) too close
together. building improvements will haStaff would like to discuss with the Planning anti
Environmental Commission and the applicant the proposed building footprint size and
locations and its encroachments into the required 20' setbacks.
10. A possible pedestrian connection from the Austria Haus to the Gore Creek
Promenade.
The applicant has proposed a significant square footage of commercial acea on the main
level of the building, which will increase the pedestrian flow in the area. Currently, the
, property has no sidewalks intended for pedestrian connections through the property.
Staff would like to discuss the merits of creating a pedestrian connection (bridge) from
the Austria Haus on the north side of Gore Creek to the Gore Creek Promenade on the
south side of Gore Creek. It is staff's opinion that a pedestrian connection in this area
will create a much needed pedestrian loop in the Core area, however, we ar also
concerned with bridges over Gore Creek in such a short distance.
11. Environmentai impacts.
The location of the applicanYs project, immediately adjacent to Gore Creek, imposes
significant environmental impacts on the natural resources in the area. Currently, the
applicanYs property has a significant stand of mature evergreen trees adjacent to Slifer
Square. According to the proposed site plan, mature trees will be removed as a result of
the proposed redevelopment.
Staff would like to discuss with the applicant a means for mitigating any unnecessary tree
removal. Additionally, the applicant has proposed site improvements to encroach upon
the 50' Gore Creek stream setback and the Town of Vail stream tract south of the
property. These improvements witl impact the riparian zone of Gore Creek. Staff would
like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant
opportunities for mitigating the environmental impacts associated with the applicanYs
proposal. Staff would also like to inform the PEC that the Town of Vail has required, as
the applicant is already aware, that a environmental assessment is required.
12. Proposed off•site improvements to Slifer Square.
According to the site plan provided by the applicant, some form of improvements are
proposed to Slifer Square. In conversations with Todd Oppenheimer, Parks
Superintendent for the Town of Vail, any redesign or improvements associated with Slifer
Square shaii be required to adhere to the Park Design Guidelines, prescribed in Chapter
18.54 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Additionally, any improvements in the area
must take into account the large stand of mature evergreen trees. The stand of
evergreen trees should remain in place and become an additional focal point in Slifer
Square.
The Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan proposes numerous improvements to Slifer
Square. For example, according to the Streetscape Master Plan, repaving of the entire
plaza, with one of the speciality paving materials is encouraged, as the existing concrete
surface is wearing out. At the time of repaving, special consideration should be given to
examining opportunities for creating a special events location. The site has the potential
9
f
~
to be slightly adjusted to better handle the Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony and other
public events and ceremonies, without losing its attractiveness. Consideration should be
given to the removal of some of the existing stone walls around the fountain and west of
the plaza, to restore its original design and to allow access to the water. It is important
that a comprehensive design analysis of Slifer Square occur before any changes are
made, as it is one of Vail's most admPred public areas. Seating and lighting should also
be reexamined. Opening up the square to the creek and accommodating the existing
eastbound, and proposed westbound, streamwafk paths are suggested. Staff would like
to discuss with the applicant and the Planning and Environmental Commission the merits
of proposing improvements to Slifer Square.
13. Possible relocation of East Meadow Drive.
East Meadow Drive is currently constructed on the north side of the Town of Vail right-of-
way adjacent to the Austria Haus property. Due to the location of East Meadow Drive in
the right-of-way, a significant portion of right-of-way remains between the south edge of
East Meadow Drive and the applicant's north property line. This results in a large area of
separation.
Staff would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the
applicant the possibility of realigning East Meadow Drive.
The intended purpose for relocating East Meadow Drive is to better accommodate
pedestrian flow in this area. As indicated previously, the Streetscape Master Plan
encourages pedestrian flow on the vehicular-restricted portion of East Meadow Drive. It
is staff's opinion that if pedestrian flow were closer to the commercial/retail area, a better
streetscape environment would result.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed establishment of a Special Development
District to the property located at 242 East Meadow Drive/part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village
First Filing, and not a request for a formal recommendation from the Planning and Environmental
Commission to the Town Council, staff will not be providing a recommendation at this time. Staff
will, however, provide a recommendation on the applicanYs proposal at the time of final review.
10
Agenda last revised I 1/06/96 4pm
DESIGN REVfEW BOARD AGENDA
Wednesday, November 6,1996
3:00 P.M.
PROJECT ORIENTATION / NO LUNCH - Community Development Department 2:00
SITE VISITS - 2:15
1. Lautcrbach - 1 139 Sandstone Drivc
2. Lions Manc - 116 Sandstonc Drivc
3. Peters - 4193 Spruce Way
Drivcr: Dirk
PUBLi HEAR[NG - TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:00
1. Lautcrbach - changcs to approvcd landscape plan Dominic
1 139 Sandstonc Drivc/ Indian Crcck Townhomcs.
Applicant: Michacl Lautcrbach
MOTION: Hingst SECOND: Alm VOTE: 4-0
DENIED (Must adhcrc to approvcd landscapc plan)
2. Pctcrs - Scparation rcqucst Dirk
4193 Sprucc Way/Lot 12, Block 9, Bighorn 3rd Addition.
Applicant: Stcvcn Pctcrs, rcpresented by Stevc Isom
MOTION: Alm SECOND: Hingst VOTE: 4-0
DENIED
3. Lions Mane - Request for approval of existing paint Dirk
116 Sandstone Drive/Lot A5-1, Block A, Lionsridge
Applicant: Lions Mane Association, represented by Steve McSpadden
MOTION: Alm SECOND: Hingst VOTE: 4-0
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Michael Arnctt Clark Brittain
Brent Alm
Tcd Hingst
Greg Amsden (PEC)
1
,
Staff Approvals
Lodgcs at Timbcrcrcck, units C-17 & C-18 Dominic
2983 Timbcrcrcck Drivc/Lodgcs at Timbcrcrcck
Applicant: Charlcs Ogilby
Valley Condominium Unit #1331 - New patio door Tammie
Lot D/ Thc Vallcy
Applicant: Sherry Dorwood
Phillips - Extcrior modifications Lauren
2696 Davos Trail/Lot 6, Block C, Vail Ridge
Applicant: Mike Phillips
Golden Peak - Tcmporary trailer for ticket sales Lauren
458 Vail Vallcy Drivc/Lot F/B, Vail Villagc 5th/7th
Applicant: Vail Associates, Tnc.
Covered Bridge Building - Sidewalk improvement Tammie
227 Bridgc St./Lot C,D, Block 5-B, Vail Villagc lst Filing
Applicant: Covcrcd Bridgc Building Condo Assoc.
Aboriginal Arts - Ncw sign window Lauren
143 E. Mcadow Drivc/ Crossroads
Applicant: Linda Fricd
Mcai Tickct Cafc - Ncw mcnu box Laurcn
244 Wall Strcct/Onc Vail Placc
Applicant: Kicndra Hoovcr & Julic lvcrson
Casa Dcl Sol - Landscapc improvcments Tammic
2056 W. Gore Creck Drive
Applicant: Casa Dcl Sol Homcowncr's Association
Douglas - Transplant trce from private property to Town of Vail Propcrty Russ
142 W. Mcadow Drivc/Lot 2, Vail Village 2nd
Applicant: Cathy Douglas John - New dcck and new spa Lauren
4284 B Columbine Drive/Lot 20-1, Bighorn Subdivision
Applicant: Jan John
Town shops - Regrading of slope, addition of boulder wall Mike
1309 Vail Valley Drive/Unplatted parcel
Applicant: Town of Vail, Department of Public Works
2
. * ~
Vail Transportation Ccntcr - Ncw sign Tammic
241 East Mcadow Drivc/Block SD, Vai1 Villagc ist
Applicant: Town of Vail
Helly Hansen - New Awning Lauren
600 Lionshcad Mall/Gondola Building
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
Kushncr - Window addition Lauren
715 Wcst Lionshcad Circic, Unit 383/Marriott
Applicant: Louis & Sandy Kushncr
The applications and inforination about the proposals are available for public inspcction duiing regular of(ice hours in the pr<~jcct
plannei's ofiice, located at lhe Town of Vail Community Developmcnt Depailment, 75 South Frontage Roacl.
Sign language inteipretation available upon requcst with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for
information.
3
/
{r
5~ ~ i • { J" ! ~S '~-t. f' otl. ~ Y
W ~
THE VAIL POLICE DEPARTMENT
1997
SO WHAT DO WE GET FOR $391959946?
PATROL 61% of Budget $199509825
1 Lieutenant
5 sergeants
19 patrol officers
4 Code Enforcement Officers
4 Community Service Officers
1 Police Technician
DISPATCH 15.8 % of Budget $5049806
1 Communications Manager
1 Supervisor
9 Dispatchers
2 Part Time Dispatchers (non budgeted, funded by salary savings from turnover)
1 Half time alarm tech
INVESTIGATIONS 10% of Budget $318,627
1 Detective Sergeant
3 Detectives
ADMINISTRATION 7.1 % of Budget $226,846
1 Chief
1 Lieutenant
RECORDS 6.1 % of Budget $50406
1 Records Manger
1 Secretary
1.5 Transcriptionists
1.5 Records Officers
u
~y
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road Office of the Mayor
Vail, Color,ado 81657 303-479-2100
FAX 303-479-2157
November 5, 1996
Mr. James E. Hartmann, President
Colorado Historical Society
1300 Broadway
Denver, CO 80203-2137
Dear Mr. Hartmann:
. On behalf of the Vail Town Council and the entire Vail community, I would like to endorse the
Colorado Ski Museum/Ski Hall of Fame for their request currently pending before the Colorado
Historical Society. The Colorado Ski Museum is applying for a grant in the amount of $100,000 for
the Colorado Ski Museum InterNet Resource Center.
The purpose of the Colorado Ski Museum InterNet Resource Center is to educate and to provide
valuable research information, living histories and collections data to help fulfill an ever increasing
interest within the ski industry in Colorado. This program will also establish the Colorado Ski
Museum as the ski history media resource of choice and will place the historical perspective of the
Colorado ski industry onto the world-wide information highway making the Museum's collections
available to universities, colleges, schools, other educational entities, organizations, corporations, as
well as to individuals via the InterNet.
The Vail Town Council submits this letter of support in combination with those you will be receiving
from Eagle County, the Vail Valley Foundation, Telluride, Aspen, Breckenridge, Keystone, Winter
Park, and others. We hope you will support the Colorado Ski Museum in its request for funds. This
museum serves as a highly popular attraction for residents and guests year round. Providing access to
the Colorado Ski Museum InterNet Resource Center will be an exciting addition to the exhibits and
systems already in place. Thank you again for your positive consideration of this funding request.
Sincerely,
TOWN F VAIL
Robert W. Armour
Mayor
RWA/aw
xc: Vail Town Council
Suzanne Silverthorn
Margie J. Plath
_ 'RECEfVED HOV 4in
P. RICHARD BAUER /
. 188 EiABT ~14TH $TREET X /
l~t~
NEW YORK, NEW YORK. 10021 80 ~
.
October 30, 1996
Honorable Robert Armour
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Bob:
Best thanks to you, your Town of Vail colleagues and
the VA people for an interesting and informative session
in New York on October 24th. It was a pleasure to meet
you and chat informally over dinner that followed. That
was a unique opportunity for a non-resident homeowner.
Kindest regards.
Si cerely,
~ R E~E~~'~'~ 0 V 1 1996
ROA:,: sR3DU= DEPARfn1EN7
i3~3; 328-8fi3~
`AuL" C?ISTRBI- P.C. BOX 250
"=Of TNWES t i?ISiRIt"T 7 12 CA;TLE iJRWc
54t,TH1W';5i DlSTRtL-T EAGLE, COLORADO 8163
i
Mo i: n PCOL , FAX: (303) 328-8835
LA1tiDFILL .
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
~4 A:~,~.
October 29, 1996
Town of Vail
ATTN: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Bob:
On October 28, 1996 the Eagle Board of County Commissioners unanimously passed a
resolution increasing tipping fees at Eagle County Landfill. The new tipping fee schedule will
become effective January l, 1997.
The new tipping fee schedule will be as follows:
? Domestic/commercial waste ............................................................$21.00/ton
? Unseparated construction/demolition waste ..................................$35.00/ton
? Separated construction/demolition waste (clean wood waste)..... $23.00/ton
? Minimum charge per load 6.00
? Uncovered load 9.00 additional
? Tires:
Separated from normal trash 4.00 each
Not separated 6.00 each
The increase is warranted because of compliance with regulatory mandates (financial assurance
and landfill gas management) and increased operational costs.
One feature of the new schedule is a reduced tip fee for clean, separated wood waste. Clean,
separated wood waste is defined as "discarded woody material to include, but not limited to,
loose dimensional lumber, sheet plywood scraps, particle board scraps, wood pallets, trees,
brush, yard waste, grass clippings, and leaves. Small nails, screws, and metal fasteners contained
within the scrap wood material shall be acceptable as well. Determination of suitability of
separated construction/demolition waste shall be at the discretion of Eagle County Landfill
personnel." The separated wood waste will be processed through a grinding machine and
diverted entirely from landfilling.
Any questions regarding the tip fee increase or suitability of material to qualify as "clean wood
waste" should be directed to my office at the above address or 926-3125. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Sincerely,
Ron Rasnic
Eagle County Solid Waste Coordinator
September/October 1996
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
, MILESTONES»"A BIMONTHLY NEWSLETTER HIGHLIGHTING COLORADO TRANSPORTATION ISSUES"
New Four-Lanes Intercity passenger trains:
,
Bypass Lafayette, one of the newest
(made in Denmark)
Connect Evergreen to I-70 visited Coiorado
Now Open: the U.S. 287 Bypass Imagine a tiain where each busuless traveler's seat bas
at Lafayette a personal computer and modem hookup, a telephone soc]cet
and five-chazuiel stereo radio headphones. In the train
Honored with a ribbon cutting June 19, the U.S. vestibute there is a pay phone and a telefax machine.
a ~
287 Bypass around Lafayette ope~ned to traffc August 2 ~e -
offering motorisis four lanes of concrete pavement The ~p~~
new 3~i mile roadway, twenty years in the planning, is ~~g
part of phased construction to four-lane the route through play areas for
eastem Boulder county. diUdm,
~
Modem concrete highway doesn't come without a wheelchairs, or
W
price: the segment recenfly opened (the second of thm) bicycles.
cost about $15 million within a $29 million paclcage. But I"ne dream
the highway fits its environment offering noise barriets trainvisited
near neiShborhoods, wetlands in the open country betwee,n Grand Junction and Flexliner trainsets have a rubbcr nose
Lafayette wW Louisville' bike patbs' and apedestilan Denver in late at each end to create a woterprooj seal
overpass. Tl1e Bypass is expected to take about 17,000 August, showing when cars are connecttd.
continued oa pags 3. what the latest in technology can mean to Crosstown
and cross-the-state rail traveL Amtrak, the National
Railroad Passenger Coiporation, brnught the IC3 _
+f ~ ~ x z
Flexliner through Colorado during a recent tripf • the
modem, high-tech train is on a twayear
demonstration rop gram throughout Nordi America.
Y The Colorado Department of
Tran.sportatian, having participated in a passenger rail
study since last April, has helped identify several high
" - priority passenger routes which could someday seive
Colorado commuters. The Department now is
examining rail technologies. This autumn or winter
CDOT plans w demonstrate a U.S: built Rader Rail
Bicycle paths and wetlands near Coal CreuE help U.S. 287 serve
the residential and raral miz that is Lyt'ayenc. Photos this page ...coAtinusd next page
by Carl Sorrentino, CDOT Pnblic In
.fon?wtion offict.
r
Car as well, but August's visits by a Danish-built hain
will offer our first When two trainsets are connected, Flexliner's wuque
glimpse of potential future Uain travel. ' fold back" door beco?nes part of a passageway, a
procedure that can be done while traveling at slow
G'urrently there aze about 200 Flexliner trains in speeds. Photos this page by Carl Sorrentino, CDOT.
service in four cowntries. Amtrak has used the trains in
Califomia in seleded commuter regions.
K ~
_ On August 21 and 22, more than 400 people - -
toured the train which was parked at Grand Junction's
Amtrak statioa The Flexliner cars and their crew then
proceerled to Denver's Union Station, where an estimated 4,000 people toured the Flexlmr technology during
private and public showings August 23 and 24.
There is no locomodve piilling a Flexliner trainset `
Each train is self ProPeBed usm8
' either diesel or electric ~traction Built with easy-to-replace modules on an ~
aluminum profile, the IC3 can accelerate quickly azid ~
travel at 112 mph; but moving at slow speed, it can couple F~
and uncouple cars wiThin two minutes time while
underway.
Every trainset has a specially designed rubber ~
nose at either end and a unique "fold back" door feature.
When two trainsets are coupled, the doors fold into a
passageway between the cars. The nibber noses then
~
inflate to create a weatherproof passageway between cars.
Flexliner runs without smoke or the smell of diesel fuel; it
was designed with low-emission standards.
.
Flexlinzr is built by Adtranz, a 50150 venture
combining the worldwide trazisportationbusinesses of
ABB Asea Bmwn Boveri Ltd, and Daimler-Benz.
CDOT and its paitners in multi modal technolagies as an altemative to cmwded highways.
tranisportation will continue to examine rail routes and Trains like the Flexliner must live up to their names ,
offering solutions for short to-medium distance regionai
and intercity commuter service. They'll have to offer
panoramic windows, roomy seats, electronic equipment
hookups, telephones aznd other wodd class amenities for
both business and leisure travelers. They'll have to be
~ able to run on existing rail lines. They'll have to operate
environmentally "Yriendly" while allowing railroad
companies to repair them quickty and at efficient cost
The order is a tall one. But Colorado is learning
how ot1er states and other countries make rail travel pay,
There is no locomotive with a Flexliner trainset; aach for travelers and operators alike.
car has its own diesel or electric power. Page 2
.
.
S.H. 74
(Evergreen Parkway)
Now Complete
The final four-lane section of S.H. 74 between
Evergreen Lake and Interstate 70 is open to traffic,
ti. i..
dedicated September 13 by Colorado State Representative
Tony Grampsas and CDOT officials.
The widening dates back to 1966 when the state
Brick noisc barrier walls built along the U.S. 287 ~ghway agewy announced widminS pians• The four-lane
Lafayeae Bypass art 16 fiu tall in sonu places. seCtion between the lake azid Evergreen Junior Higli
~ School was completed in the 1970s.
; ave e yya~as co~r~ad froiu Page l.
vehicles a day off the former winding ronte throngh Like many of Colorado's mountain roads, S.H. 74
downtown Lafayette, and allows the city to restore on- saw increasing traffic but widening had to consider
street Parking and transform the downtown into a wil(Rlife and the local landscape. Rapid ginwth in
County during the 1980s caused traffiiC lgvels to
pedestrian-orierited mall with benches and landscaping. Jefferson
m
The downtown route had been carrying about 25,000 jump from 4,000 vehicles a day . the 1970s to more than
vehicles a day. 20,000 vehicles a day in the 1990s. Birds, deer and elk A separate project, advertised to contractors still abound in the area, however, so highway constiuction
for summer 1997 construcxion, will provide had to
irrigation and landscaping, = accommodate
both habitat and
' The bypass first appeared in a 1975-76 ' migration.
.
study of altematives by the Denver Regional A game
Council of Govemments. In 1978 Boulder underpass BTaces
County officials adopted an altematives study for one area of the
four-laning U.S. 287. During the following years newhighway
various govemments ageed on what became tlle y;eSment. Built
Near West altemative, resented wi
P th others in ...co
t, . n&ued
public meetings beginning in 1990. Rext pagi.
At the ribbon cutting Colorado Transportahon SN. 74 bridges were designed to acconwodott eLE ond deer
- CommissiorerPeteMirelez praised the cooperative effort CQlWng ~~gr°n°n areas. At the September 13 dedication,
aznong ageneies that resulted in ~e lannin ~ a banner thanked Evergreen residents for their patience. '
P S Evergreen Parkwcry photos by Gregg Gorgun, CDOT.
constiuction of U.S. 287 Bypass, and related how the first
- four-laning project between Dillon Road arld Empire Road
°
(to the south of the present project) cost about $6 million to build. A third project, extending north of Baseline Road
toward J _
rRoad
souffi
~ of Longmont, is expected tfl cost around $8 million Together, the three projects will
cost about $29 millio
n
~ W
Once the new hi wa o 2~~'° ~ Y Pened oii August 2, it #
~
didn't take lc~z~g before the fitst DLTI incident occurred.
Within four hours of the time traffic first started using the
segment, Lafayette Police Departrnent officers atrested a
motorist for driving under the influence. Page 3
,
16 feet high, 30 feet wide and 80 feet long, it allows deer Silver Thread Scenic and Historic Byway, and with
and eIk to migrate without having to cross the highway. maiure forest nearby, the area seemed a good site for
There are also two bridges 400 feet long, about 45 feet living snowfence. Besides helping control siow living
above the valley floor, built to allow elk to get to their snowfences offer permanent, high quality wildlife habitat,
calving area. Two ponds located near the bridges were left help beautify plain ground areas, and are less expensive
undisturbed, and new wedands were added. Now many than wooden fences to maintain. A multi-agency
birds make the weflands their permanent home. partnership was forged to relocate trees closer to the
highway.
Game ramps and fencing also complement the new
highway. Borrowing a successfill idea used for Interstate The lead agency coordinating the S.H.149 project
80 near Medicine Bow, Wyoming, engineers built 12 was the Colorado State Forest Service. Fmployees
wildlife ramps at strategic locations with concurrence of developed a planting schedule in conjuction with the U.S.
the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Stranded elk or deer Forest Service, helped mark trees for relocation, trained
may avoid the highway by climbing a ramp and jumping to personrlel and helped plart trees. The U.S. Forest Service
safety over a fence to the safer side. More than six miles insured that all National Environme,ntal Policy Act
, of fencing lines the highway to help protect animals. (NEPA) requirements were met, surveyed and got
clearances for thneatened or endangered plants and wildlife
Landscaping along tlc final four-mile segment species, marked trees and, later this year, will install signs
includes wildflowers, grasses, about 500 trees and 493 tfl prohibit Chrisbnas tree cutting.
shrubs.
Employees from the State Soil and Conserva6on
Board helped plant trees, as did workers from the Natural
Living Snowfence Resource Conservation Service. CDOT crews provided a
Z'WO M118S Federcrl and state agencies cooperated
Above Sea Level last su»uner to pkint 176 trees near S.H.149
at Sluncgulion Puss to serve as living snowfence.
Photo by Quentin Kessler. CDOT.
The Colorado Department of
Transporta6on continues to coordinate with other
agencies to develop living snowfences around the
~
state. Rows of trees and plants offer a longer tsrm, x e
environmentally sound solution tfl controlling the • ~
amount of sww that blovvs onto state highways.
I.ast summer CDO'I' crews helped place
176 trees near S.H.149 betwee.n Slumgullion Pass
and Spring (reek Pass southeast of Lalce City. In
this area, more than two miles above seai level,
blowing and drifting snow has historically been a
problem. State maintenance crews tried plowing
snow traps along the west side of the road, but with
littie success.
, .~When CDOT crews proposed convernional
snow fence for the area, the U.S. Forest Service ~
opposed the remedy. This highway is part of the
Page 4
, tree spade, tractor and other equipment, along with
personnel and supplies. The transportation agency will Most states publish an aeronautical chart to help
remove dead trees; in this mauntain location a 25 perceat promote tourism and aviation Colorado does that, too,
mortality rate is expected, but in a
greater sense, the chart for the Centennial State is
Before trees (ranging from six feet tall to 20 feet) also a lifeline for the pilot who needs well marked,
were moved, measures az the site were taken to help rednce recommended routes tluough the mountains where flying is
tree mortality. Good topsoil was hauled to the site. Fabric "on the edge" and know-how is vital.
was placed around the base of each tree to help conserve
moisture. Aftertrees were set into holes they were The Colorado Aeronautical Board previously
W+atered: then posts were driven in, with ties to support the authorized the publication of a chart in 1994. Now the
trees. Excess dirt was hauled back to the treeline to fill chart has been revised to show airspace details brought
vacant holes where trees had been taken about by the opening of Denver Intemationai Airport,
The project toolc about 3 fi weeks to complete. Aeronautical charts were mailed to all of
Trees had a couple of months to re-establish, prior to Colorado's aciive pilot community in 7uly. Since ftn,
winter• thousands of additional charts were made available to
flight schools, airport operators aW out-of-state pilots
"It worked out well to have mature evergeens so Plannin& a Colorado visit Copies may be obtained free of
close to the site,,, said John Smith, CDOT's maintenance chaz8e bY callin8 the CDOT Aeronautics Division at (303)
suPerintendent in Grand Junction `But more importarn, 792-2160.
this project built afeeling of cooperation between agencies
that resulted in a project they and ihe public are proud of.,,
Revised Aero Chart
is available
by Caroline Scott,
Division of Aeronautics
An aeronaudcal chvt is the pilot's roadmap to the
skies. In Colorado, the roadmap will slovvs mountain COLORADO
Passes, citY airports- airsaips on the H'igh Plains and a vanety ofotherinformation A E RO NA UTI CS D I V I S I O N
Some Colorado aiiports have high mountain ~
runways sunounded by difficult terrain. ~
Others are airstrips on the prairie which provide ~
emergency and commercial access, while serving '
agricultural crop sPra3'in8 aircraft. A gemstone on our
state map is, of cowse, the advanced and beautiful
aviation complex at Denver Intemational Airport,
Page S
~
A&
WASHINGTON UPDATE
by Jim Young Linton, Mields, Reisler & Cottone, Ltd.
The House and Senate, hurrying to wind up the session in Washington so ihey could get back to the campaign trail,
managed to complete action on the Fscal Year 1996/97 Transportxtion Appropriations Bill and send it to the White
House for signaUue in the last full week of September. That spared die bill from getting caught in any last-minuts gridlock.
Thanks to the transfer of some extra money from tlle Pentagon budget, the transportation appropriators were able to
add a little to each of ft several major U.S. DOT programs, including the highway program, Amtrak and the Airport
Improvement Program, along with additional funding for the State Infrastructure Banlc program that was zeroed by the
House bill.
The funding for the irighway program was boosted to a record high of $18 billion, higher than either ft House or
Senate passed figune for the highway obligation ceiling.
However, thanks to $ZS billion in increased apportionments that went mainly to donor states, a majority of
states iacluding Colorado ended up wit6 a lower obligadon ceiling under the $18 billion limit than they eqjoyed this
year under a$1755 billion ceiling. A Senate-based Baucus amendment wquld have ameliorated this impact on the loser
states, but was dropped by conferees.
The reaction of states to the way formulas have workeid this year will be a new factor in next year's debates over how
to share the highway tivst fund pie.
Unfinished business: As tlus was written during the last week of September, with a week or so remaining before the
anticipated campaign getaway, other transportation-
related measures were still on the bubble. Included were a Federal Aviation Administration reauttwrizafion measure
that was in a House-Senate conference committee, seemingly one step away from approval; various aviation safety and
counter terrarism measures inSpired by this year's aviation tragedies in Florida and off Long Uland; and a series of
maritime reform bills. As for the bill to temporarily suspend 4.3 cents of the federal gas tax, Senate Majority Leader Tre,nt Lott (R - •
Mississippi) was still worcing to call it up, but only if he could get an agreement to limit the number of aznendments. 'The
bill is rno longer viable in the form passed by the House, to temporarily repea14.3 cents of the gas tax that goes for deficit
reduction, but only as a vehicle for a SeAate amendnnent to divert the 4.3 cents of the gas tax to the highway tnist fiuid, an
idea Lott says has considerable bipartisan suppoit. Given the limitesi time frame before adjoumment, there was no sign of a
breakthrough that would move the bill ttuough the Senate, much less an indication that the measune could then win House
aPProval.
Amtrak reauthorization is off un'1 next year, along with the debate over a possible share of highway gas taxes for
Amtrak capital subsidies (assuming it does not surface as an add-on to tle 4.3 cents repeal bill). Also postponed until the
new Congress is a decision on whether to restructure aviation trust fund fees from the present ten pem,ent airline ticket
tax, which once again will expire at the end of this year, into a takeoff and landing fee systam favored by a coalition of
major carriers. Congress will have to confront this issue riext spring, since the trust fund tax revenues between now and
December 31 will only keep activities paid up for the first few months of 1997. page 6
.
5ummer's Over; but the , «Heat~ •s st•ll on... Drinking And
~
Summer may be over, but law enforcement Driving*
~
agencies across Colorado are continuing their successful ~
"The Heat Is On' campaign to take dnuilcen drivers off the ~
road. ~
Some'me this summer you shared the road
with a drugged or drunken driver. You will again this D
autumn. Alcohol was involved in more than half the
state's traffic fatalities during July and August 1995, •
leaving 76 dead during those twa months alone.
TBE HEAT IS ON! is an ongoing effort by the
Colorado State Patrol, Colorado Departinent of
Transportation, and 401aw enforceffient agencies who
receive Law Enforcement Assistance Funds (I.EAF) ~combining their resources. Sometimes officers set up ;
~
sobriety check points to catch DUI offenders. Other times, AV
saturation in a specific area nets motorists wlo are ~
impaired behind the wheel. Sometimes there is a backup
force of officers
. ~ I and aBencY
people who help
process the
affested drivers at those drivers was an accident waiting to happen
a central location
while officers According to Paul Helzer, CDOT's state
coordinator for LEAF funds, the "typical„
county streets roads and ,
NghWays DUI driver is a young male with a blood alcohol
content (BAC) of .157. Under state law, a driver is
catching more presumed to be Driving While Ability Impaired (DWAn
offenders.
with a BAC of.OS but less than.10 percent. A driver is
presumed to be DUI (Driving Under the Influ~er~ce, the
All 4 the July 4 holiday more serious offense) with a BAC of .10 or higher.
~ weekendthe
~p~~ No t~ dollars go into LEAF: drunk~ drivers .
515 DITI drivers ~~`~'F p1'°jects thr°ugh a $90 fee assessed upon
5~~~, W~ convidion of an alcohol-related t~raffc offense. The state
Labor Day caught ~ives $75 of the fee and the coanty geLS the nemaining
491. Each of $15. The program was created by the state legislature in
1982 to help cities and counties enforce dnuilcen driving
A potential DUI suspect "walks a straight line" laws. During fiscal year 1995/96 the pmgrant allocated
for an Adams County Sherrrs Deparnnent officer. $1.7 milliOn
Photo 6y Gregg Gargan, CDOT. P~Be ~ continued on back pagt.
~
. '
NIOI'e thari jUSt dI'U211cS During the July 4 weekend a saturation patrol by
Colorado State Patrol, Pitkin County sheriffls deputies,
While sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols and police from Aspen, Basalt and Snowmass Village,
aim at drunken drivers, they also net other offenders. The stopped 88 vehicles on State Highway 82. Six intoxicated
July 4 weekend offers examples of this. drivers were arrested. Buena Vista police stopped 62 cars
during saturation patrols. Six drivers were arrested for
The checkpoint conducted by Pueblo police, the DUI, one apparently under the influence of illicit drugs.
Pueblo County sheriff and Colorado State Patrol had to be
suspended because officers were tied up making so many As THE HEAT IS ON! was launched, Colorado
arrests (23). In checking backgound of a number of Transportation CommissionerFlodie Anderson of Golden
motorists stopped (the typical sober driver is stopped for voiced CDOT support, saying " law enforcement officers
only half a minute), Pueblo azea officers found nine around the state are determined to prevent a repeat of last
motorists who had outstanding felony arrests or were summer's carnage." Based om the results of just the first
' actively being sought for other crimes. In Northglenn, nine few months, the campaign has helped rid the roads of some
motorists were arrested in ajoint Adams County poIice treacherous drivers, drunken or otherwise.
agency checkpoint. One motorist transporting illegal fireworks in open view in his car gave permission for the
vehicle to be searched; officers found a wrapped package
containing a full pound of marijuana. MILESTONES is published six times a year
by the Public Information Office.
CARL SORRENTINO, Editor.
The conbents of this newsletter are not copyrighted and may be used freely. 4Vhere appropriate, please credit CDOT.
COLORADO DEPARTIVIEIVT OF TRANSPORTATION - - - MILESTONES
- - BULK RATE
4201 EAST ARKANSAS AVENUE DENVER, COLORADO 80222 U.S. POSTAGE
(303) 757-9228
PAID
~ PERMIT NO. 738
IN THIS ISSUE: Denver, CO
• Lafayette Bypass,
Evergreen Parkway ,
• I C 3 Flexliner Train yor _ Of-
• Living Snowfence s. ~ a va ~ 2 _
~
• Updated aero Chart ~7 lvc_
XC;
• Washington Update
• "The Heat Is On" RGCEfVEPvQv
DUI campaign ~ 19sx
. VVl.t.it.~- ~ •
l~ ` C~U J~ •
~
Vail RECEIVEr 41996
oood
Village ~Q
Merchant
ASSOCtation PO Box 2135, Vail, CO 81658
November 1, 1996 (JI.t,d,
~
l[•~'~l~v
Dear Town of Vail:
_ Thank you very much for your generous donation of $3000.00 to the Vail Village
Merchant Association. '
The Association is very excited about our service seminar T'URN IT UP! VAII. 96. With your contribution we are insured a successful program.
Again, thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Kaye Ferry
President
RECEIVED NOV 1
~B ln
"Voice of the Western Slope, since 1953"
A coalition of counties, communities, businesses & individuals
970 / 242-3264 * FAX 970 / 245-8300
P.O. Box 550
Grand Junction, Colorado 81502-0550
TO: City Council Members, County Commissioners, and Road and Bridge Departments ,
From: Wade Haerle
Date: 10/28/96
Re: "Main Street" work session with C.D.O.T.
CLUB 20 and Region 10 League £or Economic Assistance and Planning, Inc.
would like to invite you and other interested personnel to a work session with the •
Colorado Department of Transportation regarding "Transportation on Main Street". This
work session will be held at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday November 20th at the AspinaU Wilson
Center on the Campus of Western State College in Gwnnison. .
Topics to be included in the work session include, but are not limited to:
• Pedestrian crossings and signage. What are the rules and regulations governing this?.
Can a municipality establish a cross-walk and the necessary signage to accommodate
pedestrian traffic across "Main Street"?
• Signalizatian. What are the rules and regulations governing signalization? Can a
municipality do signaliza.tion on "Main Street" without waiting for CDOT to
determine the need for signalization? What does it take to convince CDOT of the -
need for a signal?. "
. • Sidewalks in the State right-of-way (Rule and regulations). What does it take to get
sidewaiks repaired or installed by CDOT? Can a municipality install the sidewalks or
repair sidewalks and bill CL OT for the expenses? .
e t'1DA curb-cuts on s:deNvalks (n.zl~s and regulations). What assistance is available to
bring sidewalks into compliance with ADA?
The dialogue over the partnership on "Main Street" with CDOT will be the most
important part of the work session including process, priorities, and funding.
As you may know, CLUB 20 has scheduled a Transportation Conference for
November 21 and 22 in Gunnison. We have added the work session at this time to be .
helpful to elected officials and road and bridge managers who will already be in Gunnsion
for the transportation meeting. I have enclosed a tentative agenda for the CLUB 20
meeting (official flier will be mailed next week). For lodging information, contact the
Gunnison Chamber of Commerce at (970) 641-1501. Look forward to working with you
in Gunnison.
Western Slope Transpoftation Conference
November 21-22, 1996
Aspinall-Wilson Center
Western State College
Gunnison, Colorado
Thursday, November 21 Friday, November 22
9:30 a.m. Registration
8:00 The Honorable Wellington Webb
10:00 Bill Fay, Exec. Dir., American Highway Users Mayor of Denver
Alliance, Washington D.C.
8:45 Colorado Transportation Commission Panel:
11:00 Dave Ruble, C.D.O.T., Colorado Rail Advisory Mr. Bernie Buescher
Committee
Ms. Flodie Anderson
12:00 Secretary Federico Pena, U.S. Department of Mr. Don Morrison
Transportation, Washington, D.C.
10:15 Mr. Richard Hartman, Union Pacific Ra.ilroad
1:30 Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel, 1997 Initiative: Future of Rail Service in Western Colorado
Mr: Steve Coffin, Ch~airman
Mr. Jasper Welch, City of Durango 11:00 Western Slope Air Service Crisis:
Mr. Guillermo Vida1, Exec. Dir., Colorado
Department of Transportation Stan Broome, Colorado Offce of Business
Development, Montrose
3:00 Colorado State Legislators Panel: Mr. Kent Meyers, Exec. V.P., Vail Asssociates
Senator Ray Powers Mr. Ed Talbow, WestPac Connections
Senator Tilman Bishop
Representative Shirleen Tucker Noon Luncheon Keynote Governor Roy Romer .
4:00 Reception
1:30 Adjourn
REGISTRATION FORM
1996 WESTERN COLORADO TRANSPORTATION CONFERENCE
Name: Advance registration @ $70/person
Spouse/Guest:
Company Name:
Mailing Address
City/State/Zip: Total Enclosed
AT-THE-DOOR REGISTRATION WILL BE $80
Mail reservations with checks payable to: CLUB 20, P.O. Box 550, Grand Junction, CO 81502
Phone Reservations accepted with VISA/Mastercard only. No refunds after July 23, 1996
For additional information call (970) 242-3264
RECEIVED ~OV 4 1 . .
~
.
October 31, 1996
.-City of Grand Junction, Colorado
250 North Fifth Steet
81501-2668
FAX (970) 256-4007
Robert McLaurin X C~
Manager
Town of Vail • ,
75 S Frontage Rd W
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Robert:
I am writing to invite you and other representatives of your city or town to participate
in a satellite televideo umorkshop to be conducted on November 22 by The Innovatian
Groups. This workshop, titled "Privatization in Local Government," is one in series of
televideo workshops on the topic of privatization and local government competition
with the private sector.
There will be approximately 20 open seats for other governments' representatives to
attend, and we will fill these on a space available basis with those who respond.
There will be no charge for attendance, and we welcome your participation and
input. Enclosed is a flyer from The Innovation Group with a description of the
workshop content and presenters.
If you or other representatives of your organization would like to attend, please
respond back to us by Friday, November 16, 1996.
The Department of Energy Grand Junction Office which has the satellite fac'rlities will
be the host site for the workshop. Because of their security clearance requirements
for all visitors, we are requesting that you fill out and return to us the enclosed
"Visitor/Service Registration" for as many as will attend. (Name, organization, and
driver's license number.) You will also need a valid identification when you enter the
facilities.
We will plan to meet at 10:30 a.m. on November 22, 1996 at the guard shack in front
of the Department of Energy Office. (See enclosed map.) We hope you can join us.
Sincerely,
~ ? ~.-c.<-.~? ; / ~i----
_ ~
David L. Roper
Acting Personnel Manager
Enclosures
Pnnted on rccvcled papa
5~ ' (n
,
'"i A .."x ;r, M~ Av ,i,+ r
t co U~_'`~"1.` Ay ~MBS~ C1 y
j J ~i~ T9X8~Av~ly Z~ _fi~,T~33Av i gi . T9X3SAV ~'}T~~'..TOX ~AY_ ' . $arndreAvY
~5.~ zi _._>+._.EIQ}.f~V,... . ~ . ~y r t EIrt1+Av~ _.i.. fI?_A~;.._ fA~Y.
IhL,..,..._...._ ^ ..M._......._ , . i E
. , . 1 ~
~J~ , f , j .aj'. t I fr' vi 1
ndependent dependent 8. ^ ! a? ~ - : ; ~ ~~in , . ~i $ w d t~ v
'i Av ' s! S~jt+..............~ ^ ~ ~ ~~r c7t I ~an~ I ~e
, Av ~ , : t urtting ~ t ~ Z'.i ~p~ Nt ~ ~it~:kpnnedY i A~ Butltin9 e nh
1 ~ p~ g..............,~. _--T_.... , P.._ ~o p' Av .
Frankl.s.ln A v pr i ~ F, , + ~m H Av....! t .-t : .._.,i l.... $urrti~.
.Ax_ x , .._o Bunbi+q Av i Av ~s ob ~ a~
Nath?Av ~a~ 1 F~i s
1 ~ ~CJ ' ~ ! ! 6 a (
V ~
5V
~
' ; Bettortf AN ~
v Tel v LOOP
QI it ~
~ ~
~ . NIII Av ~ Hilt 1 U~ ~ Av
~'NCt G ~ ~~~m..~~.*_..~....; i~;\
v...
~ Fruit
~Rd a~ ' •p•1/2Rd
i; 07` ~ G al.! d ; ~s; H ~;,N! ~ _
# . . W
~
~
~
1$wwn : 50
~ ~ + R~4
r ,
. .
.,...y ~ , M 7........ , _ ~ . . . . +1r ~ 1
Rd!Eower o. 340 . a t C ra ' ~ t ~ r + ~ ~ f r, J!! 7 f~ r~ .4 ~ C..
v
IoYado .
~ . t- .
1 : ts r C~.~
it4n H, i t~...__.,
.
.
, .
, . . . .
~a a Rd ~ _..t...._M,...._,_...~.....~ ~
+ ~
WD~F Rd i ; ,....f M~.i...._...._..~.....,.._.._.,......._. P ~
AY Ula
1 , Kennet~.~ ~1~ ~ ~ 2nd~..,~...,.
J • t ~9 ? Foces~ ~ $
Davis D~
` 3~r7t! Av; 4th A ~br'~ } ~ g + W
i ~ Florida.St ~
q Nl f g+ . Florida 3t _ ~
3/4
, . ~ ,
ytem z Rd 50 nteB Av~ . r Winterl Av . Ru~Y.,~
. , ,
; ~.Notd Av ; V~Iqters Av
P~ ~~~5 ? ~~~~o ~ Npland Ki..
m~all Ay C
~
St thea Av t ~ . . . .
1 /2 Rd ~
; ~ N~
ag~:.~,~.1(2~id.,
~
Martello . ..,..r., ~ ~ _ . . . _ ._........_.a
~ ~
j
,
~t ~ . . .
> . . . Ls
~ ~ ~ a~~~ + ;
Grand Y rii . . .
Che enne .qHDr
; .
, S la
i r
~ lghQ.
l ~
.
Park ~ina dr r5
~ I
. .~51.o ~au , f 3 on ~
' . $~sa pr
f/" ~ • v .v+.- Av 5
I . _ ,
Unawee Av
~ ~
` , ~ ~ ? i ~ . , t + ~~c ~ . M.1_...._._...
. r.._.
# a? k c12 x 3 Hall1D
nJ~ ' itaQr.. p~j~ t dS: : aMord Av
on ! UtUe ~p MIIo,D,~ 5~ + ;1W~ Lfl~II)9~QG~ ~ aAIItAR ~ AL ~
>...'ParC Ct ' g• 3/0 Rd ' MOnroet.G.l~..,Ct .Marune I ~ r .blonmfl.Ln ~ B . 9/4
i ` ~
. . ~ .
~U~ 5 ~ wpoci C - ~ . . . .
Dominquez q.3 , ui r >hine ; ~ Alte Yidta !
Kos4pk~r Av 7.f1dn. ~ :~s ' , ~ a? aF t~• ~ ~fi9r' ..rv. ~~soclaD[
,
N $nue ~ ~ ~ {.~.b ad ~
! , . . __r..._.._
_~,W.: 3i u!
3
a . . ,~,..~..,~:.~,:..ll2:F~ R~ . ! ct,tDu ~ i
c'J~._....,~~9d~ ~
'B' 4/10 Rd ~ i br os~•$
,
.
. f~~i~ • . . . L.~s ~ rH ~ $ ~ ~ 'B' 3/10 Rd
~ • ~ew'~'~~t'i •B' 1/4 Rd, ..s'~v~ ~f IB...1,/4 Rd
~ . i... . . . ,
.
50
i
N .
Map Key " 81503
~1.
'n~ .wn~ . . '
;~p.m»~.eeM,w«,.u~ v. rm ~,w~.m.n.+,.~.;~ . • 'B' Rd . .
.
„ ___$t_...._._.,..._...... ~.........„..w. ,f ~ ~j~ ~I
1 ~ShalleY
~ ~ ~ ?~nl aR ~ ~ r-
° Slarra Vista Dr Ro n + ~i ' ~ P
ci 1a--,-`il.AbOOdsL
d ~C
r ~'Gr~d ?4 VisitorlService Registrati4n ~
, U.S. Department of Energy, Grand Junction Projects Office
2597 s ue • Onod hmctima,!'O 81503
(v~o) 249-6ooc
READ BEFORE SIGNING: Date 19 Page of
NOTICE: All personnel and property in this area SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT: As a condition of my entry privilege to, and presence upon, any premises under the control oi the
ere subJect to search and seizure without warrant U.S. Departrnent of Energy or its contractors, I consent to SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT of my person, property, and vehicle for unauthodzed
at all tlmes. Your consent to search and seizure Is possess(on and to SEIZURE WITHOUT WARRANT ot such unauthorized classified matter, special nuclear materials, government property, or
required to enter. Entry without consent is prohibited. prohibited articies (alcoholic beverages, cameras, firearms, weapons, explosives, dangerous instruments or materials, controlled substances
By your entry upon these premises, you have without a valid prescripdon). I consent to SEIZURE WITHOUT WARRANT of eny such unauthorized articles or information found in my posses-
consented to search and seizure without warrant. sion, property, or vehicle as a result of such search. By my entry, I acknowledge end give my consent to search and seizure without warrant.
Name (print first, middle, last) Signature Organization Country of Citizenship LfCerisd" o' Pass N
~ a~ ~t~
~~~~1~~~
Purpose of Visit Person or Place Visited Do you have any Yes No Read Handout*T' ~t~A (~,me. M
radioactive material? • • • $L& ( ,Oilt O Ca °f, O(flCC .
Name (print first, middle, last) Signature Organization Country of Citizenship L ceiln: ~d; t~4 as
~ ~
Purpose of Visit Person or Place Visited Do you have any Yes No Read Handout* TI1i1e If~' e,p
radioactive material?
,
~ ~ ' • Sea, c (Iri/0 t fflc ~ ONice :
d ~
~ ~J !Ji,
'm•~a~
Name (print first, middle, last) Signature Organization Country of Citizenship
11~ 01
Purpose of Visit Person or Place Visited Do you have any Yes No Read Handout* radioactive material? ]TI • • ' • Si~~ ~ ' ~i~ ce
Name (print first, middle, last) Signature Organization Country of Citizenship 111~`; 6"
(yh .ags~ ~
Purpose of Visit Person or Place Visited Do you have any Yes No Read Handout* mi
radioactive material?
. .
0 r '
Name (print first, middle, last) Signature Organization Country of Citizenship Lbtis' a
~
e tn . al~~.l.~a<. .
Purpose of Visit Person or Place Visited Do you have any Yes No Read Handout* 4"'°,:1,' Itr ~p
radioactive material? t=
' • • Sea office oIcer
yl~`
7tl. .
GJPo+m *lacknowledge that, within the past 2 weeks, I have received, read, and understood the GJPO Visitor Handout Shadedareato be
and will comply with all requirements therein. completed by Securlty
, .
THE IIWOVaTION GROUPS ~
- Privatization:
local Government Competing with the
Priuate Sector
A Satellite Televideo
About the Speakers:
Training Event
November 22, 1996 Soott Bryant, management consultant and
fonner Director of Strategic Management of the
1 p.m. - 3 p.m. ET/ Noon - 2 p.m. CT City of Long Beach, sketches the process of
11 a.m. -1 p.m. MT/ 10 a.m. - Noon PT privatiz.arion frvm the local govemment's point
of view. Bryant also shares a few lessons
Would your fleet maintenance be 1ear,ed from previous privaaTadon efforts.
more efficient in the hands of a
private repair service? Can your George Hanbury, Ciry Manager of Fort
municipality compete realistically Lauderdale, ~ city's competition
with outside vendors for contracts? Process with the private sector for bids on
How can non-profit organizations government services. Hanbury shares a few
assist you in improving service specific privatization projects, and the factors
delivery and customer satisfaction? that typically affect his decision to privatize - or
Managers from across the country not privatize a service.
describe their varied approaches to Del Borgsdorf, Assistant City Manager of
privatization of services. Case stud.ies Charlotte, NC, explains Charlotte's exciting
indude Escondido (CA), Virginia system of local governmentimplemented
Beach, Pasadena (CA), Gilbert (AZ). through business centers. Borgsdorf discusses
Topics discussed indude: how this system affects and influences the
privatization process.
¦ Cost Effectiveness vs. Quality of
Service
¦ Entreprenurial Government -
~ Competition ModeLs for Local If you have the ability to receive
Governments satellite broadcasts via your own
¦ Varying Levels of Privatization equipment or through your cable
¦ Alternative Options, i.e. non-profit provider, you can downlink this ses-
organizations as vendors sion - for your entire jurisdiction -
for the low cost of $355. Call Dixie
This televideo session is interactive, Gillman at the Innovation Groups,
via phone and fax, and a guidebook 8131622-8484 for more details.
will be provided to registrants. Some
portions of this program were pre-
taped at the Transforming Local ,
Government Conference in Long
Beach. See other side for registration
information.
12/08/96 16:58 $`309 629 0520 TRILLIUY CORF IA001/001
n
~c:U
, r`-.--
Mayor Bob Armour K • : "
Town of Vail '
lte: CiRFA,
Dr. Mr. Mayor,
I am a resident of Vail for over 25 years. Recently, I built a new home in'Vail aud had aa
oppotbjptil^y to work with the Town staff in developing our plans_ The process went very well
aad we were very pleased with the rcsult. One aspect of the planning which seemed to defy
logic was the GRFA tules. I understaad the Town of Vail is currently consideriug some
chaogcs to the GRFA rules. I wauld Iike to simply offer my opinion that the rnles do ncxd to
be c2auged. The current rules make it impossible for a resident to use all of the space in his
home Iogically, simply because the use of some spaces would exceed tbie limits. It seems that
once the bullc volume of a strucwre is determined, it is only logical to allow all of the areas to
be used. Many areas which could be used for scorage, closets, etc. are rendered unusable by
the cuzrent rules_ I am a developer outside Vail and find that in most jurisdictions, the rules
limiting azea are soniewhat diffeteat. I would urge the Town of VaiI to consider advpting
rules which would allow usable spaces to be utilized aad control the size of buildings by set
backs, height restrictions, and bullc plane considerations- Thank you for taldng the time to
consider the citizen input_
s- ly,
Larry R.
1210 W ven Lane
UU
Eagle Valley Family Center Meeting
October 9, 1996
Jerry Milsaps Jenny Wahrer
Laurie Mactavish Arn Menconi
Tsu Wolin-Brown Kathleen Forinash
Cherie Paller Jim Himmes
Bev Christiansan Joanne Mattio
Rob Negren Holly Tatnall
Suzanne Torris Rosie Moreno Ward Morrison
Resource Center - Change box # 2558, Avon, CO 81620
Minutes approved.
Treasurer's Report - Two checks for Colorado Trust. No significant changes.
Old Business
1. Sept. Board meeting - meet last Thursday of month - noon until 2 at chapel in
Edwards. Meeting will be consistent for date and time. Board is looking at roles and
responsibilities of inembers in regards to bylaws. Another subcommittee looking at
format for agenda. Would like to adopt a format similar to school district board
meetings. Board aiso deveioping a form Tor members to add aciciiiionai items need to
add to agenda so people can study. For board and membership meeting. Doesn't
necessarily have to happen. Discussed norms want to follow as a board. Starting on
time, ending on time, following consensus model, structured process for decision
making, role of chair people, responsibilities of board members when not present.
Voted to submit $1000 to WRAP program. Follow-up on focus groups for CO Trust
grant - positive feedback. Jerry discussed the fact that the money for the WRAP
project without consent of inembership was related to time.
2. Wrap Project - moved ahead to approve money. $30,000 pledged for this project.
12 agencies. 8 month fiscal year. Kathleen gave examples and summarized. Program
wide open - no age restrictions. Bev moved the membership support donation.
Approved.
3. Update on Phone line proposal. Seven applicants - have interviewed 4. Rosie
has someone. Good applicants. Asked the membership to approve committee hiring
without coming back for membershipapproval. Four applications for Americorps.
Cherie and Sue volunteered to help interview for Americorps. Phone Line hiring by
Friday. Rob questioned the salary for Americorps project. Rob also asked how all
three people worked together. Rosie will be relinquishing Child Care. Phone Line
Family Center AAtg. Minutes
October 9, 1996 1
~
person will also be supervising americorps project. Rosie clarified tasks of info line
person. Discussion of phone line and Americorps. Joanne expressed concern about
supervision and need for consistent supervision. Discussion of why the Resource
Center has not taken this on - sounds like the same thing.
Laurie Mactavish - Violence Prevention Initiative - Thru Colorado Trust
, Focus Groups last finro weeks - 25 groups not counting all 7th grade. Data being
consolidated. Planning team will begin evaluating the information. In mid-point of
phase 2. Will finish in next finro weeks. Going for January 3 date for grant deadline. ,
• All volunteers have worked extremely hard. Purchased theater tickets for kids who
participated in focus groups - Berry Creek got pizza. Youths involved on planning
team. Group to be congratulated. This is youth violence prevention. Arn requested
data from focus groups for Vail Tomorrow decision making process.
Jerry commented that Rand R person would be responsible for updating community
resources several times a year.
. Kathleen moved to authorize the selections committee to hire person. Tsu seconded.
Approved.
Tsu moved to authorize the selection committee for Americorps to present for hiring at
CORRA. Rob explained that be clearly explained to employee hired. Also questioned
about liability insurance, hiring plan, etc. Motion approved.
Cherie suggested that a motion be made that no one start work (not paid until) for
EVFC unless workmen's comp and liabiity insurance in place. Motion made by Rob
Approved. .
Vail Symposium - no complaints
Need a nominating committee to nominate people at next.
Arn needs approval to say member of EVFC.
Family Center Mtg. Minutes
October 9, 1996 2
. . , . ~
EAGLE VALLEY FAMILY CENTER r
GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS AND
NOVEMBER 12,1996 INTERESTED PERSONS;
AVON PUBLIC LIBRARY
4;00 TO 5:30 PM THE EAGLE VALLEY FAMILY CENTER BOARD
HAS RECEIVED AND DISCUSSED THE
AGENDA COMMUNICATIC7N FROM THE RESOURCE
CENTER THAT ALL OF YOU RECEIVED, "
1. NETWORKING 4;00 N 5;00 PM ~
WE ARE AS CONCERNED ABOUT THE LETTER
2. BUSINESS AS YOU MUST BE, WE ARE IN '
, COMMUNICATION WITH THE RESOURCE
- CARNIVAIL SIGN-UP CENTER AND ARE PLANNING TO MEET A WEDNESDAY, N(JV 13. WITH THEIR BOARD TO REACH CONSENSUS ~
ABOUT THE ISSUES PRESENTED.
CHRISTMAS TREES
WE WANT TO MEET WITH THEIR BOARD
OTHER BEFORE MAKING ANY FURTHER COMMENT,
REFRESHMENTS WILL BE AVAILABLE PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CALL ANY EVFC
FROM 3;30 PM ON, MEMBERS ARE BOARD MEMBER IF YOU HAVE CQ1viMENTS
ENCOURAGED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OR QUESTIONS, THIS TIME FOR INFORMAL NETWORKING.
,
~
. ~
_
. ,y' . . ...x. - . ' ' ' r ' . . ::y F',o-i"~
. ' e ~
EAGLE VALLEY FAMILY CENTER ; 4
P.O. BOX 3098
AVON, CO 81620 ~ .
roT tt ~ ~ .:.f_,Y
0~ > ro
~ Pam Brandemeyer#
Town of Vail '
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
NOV. 6.1996 4=56PM BERNARD H MENDIK N0.094 P.lil
BERNARD H.MENDIR
330 Mwnrsox AvrxvE
. N!av Yoxx,NEv Yola 10017 '
November 6,1996
yIA F SIMII,E(970-479-186p)
Hon. Robert Armour Msyor
The City of Vail
Vail, Colorado
Dear Mayor A,xmour.
I have always been puaied by the term of'Vail's cvde regarding the "Gross Rssidenti,al
Floor Area" (CxRFA,), whi,ch in New York appears to be somewhax equivalent to our "Floor Area
Ratio" (FAR).
It aoes not seem rhat the pzesent system vvorlcs in the way famiiies actmliy live in thcir
homes, As I interpret the code there may be crawl space, storagc spac:e ar other miscellaneous
space built in a house but useless due to the calculation of the GRFA. Cxranted, tbat there should
be a ratio betwreen 1ind and buiiciing area, but once the envelope is set what difference should it
makc as to the use of the space other than toilets and sinks which dispense waste. These should
be part of a calculation but not stoxage areas, etc. The argumerrt tha,t builders will build boxes
doesn't ring true, not in "Tony" Vail Yn any case, the architechaat review would monitor style
very effecdvely.
I believe you and your Council should consider amending this code to permit existing
stnwtures to be used as built, not add space, merely keep everyone honest.
All say best.
S.e1y,
.f
~
Bernard H. Meadik
L _