HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-11-19 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
EVENING MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1996
7:30 P.M. IN 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 . CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. (5 mins.)
2. CONSENT AGENDA: (5 mins.)
A. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance
amending Special District No. 21, the Vail Gateway Building, and
amending the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40
of the Town of Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard
thereto. Applicant: Vail Apartment, Inc., represented by Steve
Riden. (10 mins.)
B. Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance
to designate 14 properties located in the Town of Vail as open space
as provided in Article 13, Section 13.11 of the Charter of the Town
of Vaii, Colorado. (5 mins.)
3. Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1996, first reading of the budget (10 mins.)
Steve Thompson
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve Ordinance No. 23, Series
of 1996 on first reading.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Annual appropriation Ordinance No. 23,
Series of 1996 will adopt the 1997 budget and approve the 1998 budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1996
on first reading.
4. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance providing
Andy Knudtsen for the establishment of Special Development District No. 33, Red
Sandstone; adopting a development plan for Special Development District
No. 33 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code; and
setting forth details in regard thereto; and
Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance rezoning
three tracts from General Use Section 18.36 to Medium Density Multi-Family
Residential, Section 18.18 generally located at 945 Red Sandstone Road.
(1 hr., 30 mins)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No
20, Series of 1996 and Ordinance No.24, Series of 1996 .
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Please see Council packet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1996
and Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1996.
5. An appeal of a variance denial made by the Planning and Environmental
Dominic Mauriello Commission on September 23, 1996. The appellants were denied a site
coverage variance to allow an additional one-car garage to be constructed
at 742-B Sandy Lane/Unit B, Lot 3, Vail/Potato Patch, Second Filing.
Appellants: Charles and Geri Campisi, represented by Kerry Wallace (30
mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Uphold / modify / overturn the
PEC's denial of the variance request.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: See the attached staff memo and other
materials for a comprehensive overview of the appeal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council
uphold the Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of a 260.8 sq.
ft. site coverage variance and recommends that the Town Council make the
following findings: -
1. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of
Title 18 (Zoning) have not been met.
2. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties
classified in the same district.
3. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions
that are applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties
in the Primary/Secondary Residential zone. In addition, any
hardships which have been presented, have been self imposed.
4. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation
does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of
other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential district.
6. Town Manager's Report. (10 mins.)
7. Adjournment - 10:00 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, 11126/96, BEGINNING AT 1:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY,1213196, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 12/3/96, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
I I I I I I I
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice or
479-2356 TDD for information.
C:WGENDA.TC
- Memorandum
TO: Town Council
FROM: Andy Knudtsen, Senior Housing Policy Planner
Susan Connelly, Community Development Directar
DATE: November 19, 1996
SUBJECT: Summary of issues concerning the Red Sandstone Employee Housing development
Three Kev Decision Points
1. Is the proposed zone district appropriate?
* Compatible with surrounding densities?
* Consistent with Land Use Plan?
* Neighborhood opposition at PEC?
* Meets rezoning criteria, as discussed in staff inemo?
TI. Is the reyuested Special Development District appropriate?
* Achieves purpose of an SDD, i.e. flexibility and documentation?
* Proposed development falls below allowed maximums of the Medium Density
Multi-Family zone district?
* SDD documents the details of the future development now, prior to approval of
the "up-zoning" provides certainty?
III. How important are the architectural details, relative to achievement of the obj ective of
locals housing?
* The two Planning commission members who votcd against the project did so based
on concerns about the architecture, not based on the overall merits of the project.
One person attended the PEC meeting to express concern about the project, but
primarily focused on policy issues, not architectural elements.
Alreadv decided
1. On November 12, 1996, the Council concluded that the 5 units which the Town controls
will be sold to employees who work for the Town-- three critical and two non-critical
employees.
F:everyoneV+ndy\96_memosVedsand.nl9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 28, 1996
SUBJECT: A request for a rezoning from General Use to Medium Density Multi-family; and a
request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow for the
development of 17 EHU's, located on an unplatted parcel on a portion of Parcel A
and part of Block D, Lionsridge Filing # l,
Applicants: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, the United States Forest
Service and the Town of Vail
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS
The property, located at 845 Red Sandstone Road, is under consideration for a rezoning and a
Special Development District. T'he current zoning is General Use District. The proposed zoning
is Medium Density Multi-Family (MDMF). The new zoning would increase the development
potential, as the existing zoning limits the uses to public types of uses. The applicants include the
Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (the District), the United States Forest Service and the
Town of Vail. The District owns approximately three-quarters of the land area under
consideration. Tbe Forest Service currently owns one-quarter of the land area. The Town and
Forest Service are currently in negotiations to transfer their portion to the Town, as part of the
Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement (LOAA).
The site is currentiy vacant, as the former water treatment and storage plant has been removed
recently: If the request is approved, the applicants will construct seventeen condominiums. The
dwelling units will be located in four buildings, located along the Red Sandstone Creek. There
will be 7 one-bedroom, 5 twabedroom, and 5 three-bedroom dwelling units. Each dwelling unit
will have its own one-car garage, with the exception of one three-bedroom unit, which will have a
two-car garage. •
The primary reason the applicants are proposing an SDD at this time is to provide a detailed
record of the future development potential, which will eliminate questions about future
development potential of the property. The SDD is a helpful tool to obtain answers to questions
about the potential development impacts from the rezoning of the property. In addition to that
primary purpose, there is one deviation from the Zoning Code, which would either require a
variance or be allowed via the SDD approval.
1 F:\everyone\px\memae\eandatone.o28
The applicant is proposing a 4-foot high retaining wall between the edge of Red Sandstone Road
and the interior driveway. Due to the fact that this area is located in the front setback, the Town
Zoning Code limits the height to three feet. The wall exceeds that allowable height by 1 foot and
this is a deviation from the code.
Upon completion of the LOAA, tbe Town will have title to the northem-most portion of the
development site. The Town and the District will hold the land until a Homeowner's Association
(HOA) can be created. Upon establishment of an HOA, the Town and the District will transfer
. ownership of all the land to the Association. There is no developer profit anticipated for the
project. The sales price of the condominiums will be based on the cost of construction. In the
development agreement between the District and the Town, there is an allowance for up to 25%
of the units to be sold as free-market dwelling units (i.e. no deed restrictions). The purpose for
this is to defray the costs and lower the purchase price for the future homeowners. At this time, it
is anticipated that 100% of the units will be deed restricted. The deed restriction will be similar to
that used for Vail Commons, which restricts the sale to local employees.
After construction, it is anticipated that most of the homes will be owner occupied. The Town
and the District will make the homes available to their employees. While the Town anticipates
selling the dwelling units to its employees, the District will both sell and retain ownership of some
of its units to rent to its employees. More discussion of the proposed unit ownership will be
provided later in the memo.
2 F:kveryone\pec\memos\Sandewne.o28
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
Staff has provided a Zoning Anatysis of the proposed project, as it compares to the MDMF
standards:
Zoning: General Use District (GU)
Proposed Zoning: Medium-Density/Multiple Family (MDMF) w/ Special Development Dis[rict (SDD)
Lot Size: 1.60 acres or 69,887.66 sq. ft.
Buildable lot area: 54, 140 sq. ft.
Allowed/MDMF Proaosed
Density 22 d.u.s 17 d.u.s
Height: 35' 35'
GRFA: 18,449 sq. ft. 16,275 sq. ft.
Setbacks:
Front: 20' 20'
Side/Side 20' 20'
Rear: 20' 20'
Site Coverage: 31,449 sq. ft. 12,029 sq. ft.
or 45 % or 17%
e ulred o osed
Landscaping: 20,966 sq. ft. 36,450 sq. ft.
or 30% or 52 %
Parking: 34 spaces 44 spaces
required proposed
Percent enclosed: 50% of 53% enclosed
required parking
. (17) (18)
III. uUMMARY OF DISCUSSION FROM PEC WORKSESSION ON SEPTEMBER 9 1996
Below are the list of questions raised at the previous PEC worksession. Staffhas grouped them
into categories of general issues and specific items relating to the project.
1. Is the SDD the appropriate tool to use for the review of this proposal?
Staff believes that the SDD is the most appropriate process to use in this case, because it requires
the specific design to be provided simultaneously with the request for a change in zoning. For
clarification, the proposed development densities fall below those allowed under the NIDMF
3
zoning. The proposed levels of density will become the new cap and any futurc request for
expansions will trigger a major SDD arnendment. A major SDD amendment must bc approved by
Town Council with two readings, after a recommendation by PEC. Though the SDD process
allows requests which exceed the limits of the underlying zoning, the standards arc referenced and
used as a"yard stick" to ensure that proposals are consistent with surrounding properties.
Furthermore, the process is such that interested parties and adjacent property owncrs will have
ample opportunity to give input on the requests.
2. Is affordable housing an appropriate use of the land? Is it appropriate to transfer land
from the United States Forest Service to the Town of Vail for affordable housing?
The Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement (LOAA) provides for a comprehensive transfer of
land between the Town of Vail and the Forest Service. Land on the perimeter of the Town
overlaps into the jurisdiction of both entities. The LOAA is an effort to exchange different
properties between the two entities to create a win-win situation. As part of this effort, several
parameters were laid out for the use of the lands under consideration. Some of these include:
1. That there will be no National Forest Service lands within the municipal
limits of the Town of Vail.
2. That the Forest Service survey, identify, and maintain a common boundary
of the Town of Vail and the Forest Service and that both agencies shaxe in
the enforcement of regulations pertaining to the boundaries. The boundary
has been simplified where possible, irregularities have becn reduced or
eliminated.
3. That all lands acquired by the Town of Vail are used for public purposes,
such as open space, employee housing (per the Town of Vail employee
housing ordinance), recreation or for the resolution of unauthorized uses."
The LOAA was approved by the Town Council on May 17, 1994. Sta.ff relies on it as the most
authoritative document conceming the transfer of land from the Forest Service to the Town of
Vail. The third paragraph above clearly calls for employee housing as a recommended use for
LOAA parcels, such as the one under consideration.
3. Should the development be targeted for the rental market or the ownership market?
Staff has identified three sectors of the residential market, which the Town is trying to serve based
on needs of the community: the permanent resident, the year-round renter, and the seasonal
renter. The size, scale, and location of this site lends itself best to the permanent resident looking
4
purchase a home. Onc of the concerns is that the "affordability" could be lost, after the first sale.
A deed restriction, similar to that used with the Vail Commons development, will also be used
with this development and thc restriction will limit the resale value to an appreciation of three
percent per year. In addition to the three percent per year which individuals can realize at time of
resale, other costs can be added to the resale price. For example, if the Homeowner's Association
assesscs each unit owner for reroofing, residing, additional landscaping, paving, etc., one hundred
percent of the assessment can be added to the resale price, allowing the owner to recoup costs
attributed to maintenance. The deed restrictions have been written in such a way to preserve the
affordable purchase price, while allowing residents to invest in the upkeep of their homes. The
deed restrictions run in perpetuity, eliminating any risk of losing the initial subsidy.to a future
homeowner.
4. Should the dwelling units be made available to the residents throughout the community?
Yes, staff believes that all residents should be able to participate in a lottery according to criteria
which reflects the needs of the community. Sta.ff recommends that there be three tiers:
• Critical employees working for the Town/District (to be deternuned by each organization);
• Other employees working for the Town/District (to be allocated as determined by each
organization); and
• Other community residents/employees (to be allocated by Town of Vail / District).
In response to the point made about Town employees having an unfair advantage over other
community residents, there are two issues to consider: the Town provides a service to the
community and staffing the Town enables the delivery of services to the community. It is not an
us/thcm issue, we are in this together. Secondly, the Town and District are trying to lead by
example by creating affordable housing for their employees, to encourage other employers to do
thc samc.
5. How can the Town and District ensure t.hat the units are used by employees of the Town
and District in the future?
Staff believes it is primarily an issue of priority-- we would like to see critical employees of the
two organizations housed as the top priority. With that goal in mind, the Town and District will
establish reciprocal 1 st and 2nd rights of refusal for all 17 dwelling units in the development. This
will allow the employees at the top of the lottery criteria list to be housed.
However, if other employees own the units, we have still accomplished the goal of providing
employee housing. As indicated in the lottery criteria list, other residents of the community will
have an opportunity to buy homes in this development, if the supply is not exhausted by
employees in the higher priority categories. Staff believes it would be heavy-handed to require a
sale and then evict a local who chooses to work for a different employer in the valley. Regardless
of employment location, the deed restrictions require that residents work an average of 30 hours
per week at businesses which are located in Eagle County.
\
~
5
6. What has bcen the precedent for roads which cross private property?
Staff researched two other properties where this situation has occurred. At the time of
redevelopment, the Town required easements to accommodate the existing alignment of the
pavement, but did not require dedication of that portion of the site as right-of-way. As the land
continued to be held as private property, the Town allowed the area in the easement to be used in
the calculation of GRFA and other development standards. This is also consistent with the way
the Town treats other easements (such as utility and drainage easements), concerning the
calculation of development standards. '
Specific items relating to the development proposal.
1. Insure that any wetlands to be disturbed are mitigated adequately.
After walking the site with Russ Forrest, the Town Environmental Planner and Nicole Ripley, a
wetland consultant, staff understands that the Corps of Engineers must be notified of the activity
on-site. The consultant will assess the wetland qualities of the site, review the development plans,
and determine the potential area of disturbance to jurisdictional wetlands. The consultant has
recommended that an area equivalent to that of the disturbance be replanted on the north and
south ends of the site, as mitigation for areas being impacted.
The applicant understands that the northern and southem ends of the site must be planted with
nursery grown stock, matching the willow species currently on-site. The specific area of
revegetation has yet to be determined, but will be.determined prior to the frst reading of the
ordinance by Town Council. Neither the consultant or the Town's environmental planner believe
that the characteristics of the site, or the magnitude of the proposed development, will warrant
other mitigation requirements than those described above.
2. Architecture
In the discussions about the architecture at the previous PEC worksession, the PEC and DRB
members were roughly split as to the appropriateness of flat roofs. After reviewing the colored
renderings, the Board members had a greater appreciation for the quality of the proposed
development, specifically the amount of variety within the massing, or as described in the hearing,
the "wedding cake effect." Staff believes that from the range of comments on the flat roofs, the
best analysis of them is summarized as follows: flat roofs can be the most efficient and are
appreciated by design professionals. Designs which incorporate flat roofs can be very high quality
(and in fact are better than the design of Vail Commons). However, the public will not appreciate
the good architecture and will perceive the project as a stack of boxes. Furthermore, this image
will convey "public housing."
6
The applicable criteria in the Zoning Code is found in the Design Review Section and the SDD
criteria. The SDD calis for compatibility with the surrounding properties. In this case, the
surrounding properties have either pitched roofs or a combination of flat with shed roofs. The
DRB criteria are more specific and state that:
~ The majority of roof forms within Vail are gable roofs with a pitch of at least four feet in
twelve feet. However, other roof forms are allowed. Consideration of environmental and
climatic determinants such as snow shedding, drainage, and solar expasure should be
. integral to the roof design.
• Deep eaves, overhangs, canopies, and other building features that provide shelter from the
elements are encouraged.
• The guidelines also call for snow shedding to be minimized in pedestrian areas.
It should also be noted that although flat roofs may be appreciated for their simplicity, flat roofs
are an often cited attribute of Lionshead which the community is trying to move away from.
Another issue raised by the PEC was tne need to break-up the siding material with areas of
stucco. Both the flat roof issue and the stucco issue have not been addressed since the previous
PEC/DRB worksession.
3. Consolidate curb cuts.
The project has been re-engineered so that both Brooktree, Sandstone Park and the proposed
project are scrved by one curbcut. The applicants are willing to provide permanent access
easements for the neighboring developments.
4. Add a staircase to the north end of the site to access the Town of Vail bus stop.
The applicant has been concerned that providing a staircase from the development to the bus stop
across the street could be seen as a discriminatory act, against disabled individuals. Staff has
researched the issue with the Town attomey, as well as with Vail Associates staff who deal with
ADA issues regularly. Since the elevation difference at this corner of the site is approximately 16
feet, a ramp connecting the development to the upper road would be over 200 feet long. Given
the tough requirements of the topography and the law, a connection at this location cannot be
provided. ,
5. Add landscaping along Red Sandstone Road.
The Town has a sight-distance standard for intersections between driveways and roads, such as
Red Sandstone Road. The area falling within a triangle of 10 feet by 250 feet must remain free of
vegetation which could block the sight of oncoming traffic. Notwithstanding this requirement,
staff believes that additional landscaping must be planted along Red Sandstone Road. Previously,
7
there were 8 spruce and 8 shrubs in this area. Since the worksession, the applicant has added
plant material so that there is now a total of 13 spruce, 3 cottonwoods and 8 shrubs in the area.
Howcver, , staff helieves that additional buffering is needed. Staff recommends adding 4 spruce
and 5 shrubs in the area that extends south from the largest group of landscaping. The applicant
has agreed to plant this area, as long as the finished gade is such that landscaping can be planted
in the area.
6. Provide a sidewalk along Red sandstone Road.
There is not sufficient room, given the retaining required, for a sidewalk. At the end of the
worksession on September 9, 1996, the PEC concluded that given the site constraints, additional
landscaping was a higher priority than a sidewalk.
7. Provide a streamwalk.
After studying the site, staff believes that the connection from a potential streamwalk to the road
above is not workable. As discussed above, the elevation difference at the base of the upper road
is significantly higher than the stream. Given the relatively short length of walkway and the steep
climb required around the creek culverts, a streamwalk does not appear to be a component that.
could readily be included in the development.
A compromise solution may be to have the applicant provide a pedestrian/fisherman's easement
along the creek. This would allow creek access, without requiring a walkway to be constructed
that would not be workable.
8. Provide additional snow storage.
The snow storage areas are now 30% of the total pavement azea. Staff believes the increase in
this area; which has been made since the worksession, adequately provides for storage areas.
9. Parking for the three bedroom units.
Increasing the size of the garages for the three bedroom units would require a redesign of the
whole project. However, in order to address the concerns of the PEC and to ensure that the three
bedroom units are adequately served, the applicant has suggested that a guest space be reserved
for each three bedroom unit.
10. Pedestrian access from within the garages.
Pedestrian doors have been added to the garages which have some portion of exterior wall. In
several cases, the way the buildings have been notched, provided just enough of an exterior wall
8
to include a door. Howevcr, one garage in each building does not have adequate exterior
cxposure to add a pcdcstrian door.
11. Ovcrhead utilities.
The applicant has committed to removing the existing overhead utilities. For clarification
purposes, staff understa.nds that the existing two poles on site will be removed and the existing
service will terminate at the pole located immediately north of the Sandstone Park building.
12. Details.
The dumpster will be enclosed, to improve the quality of the entrance area of the development.
The sod areas between the buildings have been expanded, to provide additional turf area for the
residents to use. The sod will be easier to maintain than "native vegetation," particularly since the
new areas between the buildings will connect the sod from the front and back.
IV. EVALUATION OF THE REZONING REQUEST
The criteria, the Town has used in the past, to evaluate rezoning requests are listed below:
A. Is the request in conformity with the Land Use Plan?
The Town of Vail Land Use Plan designates these parcels as Medium Density
Residential (MDR), which translates to a density of 3- 14 dwelling units per
buildable acre. Page 32 of the Land Use Plan calis for the following type of
developments in areas with this designation:
"The medium density residential category includes housing which would
typically be designed as attached units with commons walls. Densities in
this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre."
The buildable area of the combined sites is 1.24 acres. As the proposed
development will consist of 17 dwelling units, the resulting density will be 13.71
d.u./ac. which is less than what the Land Use Plan prescribes. Please note that
this calculation is based on buildable site area, not total site area. Additionally, the
requested zoning of Medium Density Multi-Family Residential allows for up to 18
dwelling units per buildable acre.
B. Have circumstances changed since the original zoning was placed on the property?
The District has used the facility in the past for water treatment and storage. It is
no longer needed by the District. The site is surrounded by rights-of-way and
roads, utilities, infrastructure, and residential condominium and townhouse
developments. Staff believes that because the area has developed over time as a
residential neighborhood, that it is reasonable to rezone this site to allow
residential developrnent, in order to be compatible with adjacent land uses.
9
C. Does the proposed zoning provide for the growth of an orderly and viable
community?
Staff believes that the development of this site as affordable housing will increase
the viability of our community. Affordable housing has been listed in the Town's
annual community survey as a top priority, for reasons of economic stability as
well as the desire to increase the sense of community. Though interest runs high,
locating sites which can accommodate affordable housing is difficult. Housing at
this location addresses the priorities of the community and enhances the viability of
the Town.
D. Does the proposed zoning present a convenient, workable relationship among land
uses consistent with municipal objectives?
The land uses on the surrounding properties are similar to the uses of the proposed
development. The applicant has prepared an analysis of the densities of the
surrounding properties, which is shown below:
Project Zone District/ Parcel Units Gross Densitv
Permitted Densitv Size du/ac
Potato Patch Club RC, 6/ac + 10 acres 44 4.4
Sandstone Park LDMF, 9/ac 1.54 16 10.3
Brooktree MDMF, 18/ac 1.23 acres 48 22.0
Cotton wood Park LDMF, 9/ac .69 acres 7 10.1
Aspen tree MDMF, 18/ac .49 acres 15 30.6
Sandstone Creek Club LDMF, 9/ac 5.9 acres 84 14.2
Sun Vail MDMF, 18/ac 4.91 acres 60 12.2
Brcakaway West MDMF, 18/ac 1.87 acres 54 28.8
SnowLion/SnowFox MDMF, 18/ac 1.36 acres 42 30.8
Telemark MDMF, 18/ac .96 acres 18 18.7
Homestake MDMF, 18/ac 136 acres 66 48.5
Lionsmane MDMF, 18/ac 1.04 acres 37 35.5
Vail Village 9th 2-Family 3.39 acres 24 (potential) 7.0
Parcel A General Use 5.7 acres 0 0
The gross density of the proposed development is 10.6 dwelling units per acre.
(17 units/ 1.6044 gross acres = 10.6 du/ac) As such, it is well within the range of
the densities in the area.
E. Suitability of the proposed zoning.
Staff believes that the proposed zoning is suitable for this site. The development
allowed by the rezoning will allow the community to move towards its goals.
regarding the supply of affordably priced homes. The development will be in line
with surrounding projects, concerning uses and density.
10
Y
V. F Vai_UAilvN vr iriE SrEi iAL iE`r'E: nnMiivT nicTT RF.nT1F.ST
Below are the nine criteria used to evaluate Special Development District proposals:
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood
and adjacent properties, relative to the architectural design, scale, bulk, building
height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
Staff believes that the architectural scale, bulk and building height are all successful. However, staff is concerned about the identity and the character of the '
project. Specifically, staff is concemed about the flat roofs. The surrounding
developments in the Sandstone area range in age and quality, and none exclusively
have flat roofs. Many have a combinarion of flat and pitched roofs. For example,
Sandstone Park has steeply pitched sheds and gables in conjunction with flat roofs.
Brooktree has a combination of a mansard-type roof with a flat roof. Aspentree and Potato Patch Club both have built-up gravel roofs, which are pitched at
relatively shallow slopes. Staff believes that one of the significant elements in each
of the surrounding properties is the roof eave overhang. We believe that this gives
architectural character to the development, as it creates a shadow tine, breaks up
the mass and bulk, and creates a character that is appreciated by the general public.
Staff does not want to discount the overall yuality of the proposed design.
However, we believe that the character should be modified by adding pitched
roofs to the flat roofs in a way similar to Sandstone Park, immediately adjacent to
the project to the west.
Of particular concem to staff is the height of the flat roofs relative to the road
elevation surrounding the project. We believe that the roof areas will be highly
visible from the surrounding area. The elevation at the corner of Red Sandstone
Road and Potato Patch Drive is approximately 2- 3 feet higher tban the elevation
of the second story roofs. Since pedestrians and drivers on the road will be higher
than the roof elevation, the flat roofs will have greater exposure.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
Staff believes that the uses, activity and density will be compatible with the
surrounding development. As discussed above, under the evaluation of the
rezoning request; the proposed density is consistent with the Town's Land Use
Plan and will be lower than the surrounding developments in the area.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements, as outlined in Chapter 18.52.
The proposed development exceeds the Zoning Code requirement regarding the
total supply of parking spaces, as well as the supply of enclosed parking spaces.
11 -1
i
r
Each of the condominiums will have its own oversized garage.
D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town
policies and Urban Design Plan.
The Vail Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) calls for a density on this site
ranging from 3-14 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development, at 13.1
dwelling units per buildable acre, is consistent with the Land Use Plan. A
thorough analysis of the consistency with the Land Use Plan is provided above,
under the rezoning discussion.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the
property on which this Special Development District is proposed.
The only hazard affecting this site is the 100-year floodplain. All improvements,
grading, and disturbance will be located outside of the floodplain.
F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a functiona.l development, responsive and sensitive to natural features,
vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of community.
The site plan and building design have been developed to take full advantage of the
open space area along Red Sandstone Creek. Each of the dwelling units will abut
this corridor, which will increase the quality of life of the residents of this
development. In the site planning development, the 30' stream centerline setback
standard of the Town has been respected, providing a buffer between the riparian
, corridor and the development. There is one location where some of the existing
vegetation will be removed. Tom Braun, the representative for the development,
has stated that the District will transplant vegetation during the construction
process or will replace it with new plant material, matching the existing species.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and
off-site traffic circulation.
Driveways have been aligned so that the Red Sandstone, Brooktree, and
Sandstone Pazk developments will all be sharing the same access onto Red
Sandstone Road. Easements will be provided to maintain this access in the future.
The point of intersection with Red Sandstone Road has been located at a point
where visibility is the greatest, as Red Sandstone Road winds its way up to Potato
Patch.
Concerning pedestrian circulation, staff has requested that the elcisting sidewalk
along Red Sandstone Road be continued up to the entrance to this development.
12
,
Originally, staff and the PEC requested that a pedestrian connection bc provided
from this project up to Red Sandstone Road, above the development.
Unfortunately, the ADA laws are such that providing a staircase without a second
accessible route cannot be done.
An important detail relating to circulation is the areas for snow storage. Snow will
be stored along the driveway, on the east side as well as at the northern end of thc
drive. Snow storage areas have been increased, as discussed above.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space, in order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and function.
Staff requests that the applicant buffer the project more from adjacent properties,
, particularly along Red Sandstone Road. Staff understands that there is a very
steep slope in this area, plus retaining walls, which limits the plantable area.
However, staff believes more trees and shrubs should be added, per the comments
made earlier in the memo.
Staff also requests that the existing vegetation be preserved. The large spruce (24
inch caliper) on the north west corner of the site is proposed to be preserved.
I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable functional and
efficient relationship throughout the development of this Special Development
District.
_ At this time, it is anticipated that the development would be completed in a single
phase. If for any reason, the Forest Service and the Town cannot complete the
transfer of ownership of the northernmost part of the state, the District will
proceed ahead with construction of the first three buildings.
A condition of approval will be to have the District resubdivide all the parcels into
one lot. Though the zoning code definition allows parcels adjacent to one another
to be considered as one lot, ultimately the development area must be replatted as a
condominium map. As part of that process, the land will eventually be platted as a
single lot. As part of the initial phase, staff understands that the existing overhead
utility lines will be buried. Staff understands that two poles will be removed and
the existing overhead lines eliminated back to the existing pole adjacent to the
Sandstone Park Condominium Building.
13
f
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested Special Development District and Rezoning
with two conditions. We believe the applicant has been responsive to a majority of the issues and has designed a quality product which will help meet the community's housing needs. However,
staff believes that the architectural character, and landscape screening, of the project could meet
the SDD criteria better than the current design. As a result, staff recommends approval of the
. project with the following conditions:
1) Tbat the applicant modify the architectural character of the project by incorporating a
mixture of flat roofs and shed roofs into the design, prior to first reading of the ordinance
at Town Council.
2) That the applicant add additional trees and shrubs (4 spruce and 5 shrubs) to the area of
the site adjacent to Red Sandstone Road, prior to first reading of the ordinance at Town
Council.
14
i
i
- .
~
li
FT 0
_'-L _ i ? _ _ _ ~
j~ •
~4HSOUTH ELEVATION n',NcST ELEVATION _
SCAL° 1/8" • .~.0~~ SCP'_°, '/8" ~ .
F-
~ U
Q I-
I ~
~ U
< <i
~
(n ~°O
~ ~oo
z zui_,
~ no<i
f- >
~
p w~ f
1
Q O
U' 30u
ce 113u )
~ _ - : = Q > (7
-
- - - - - - - ~ .
~ - - - _f d W
~ -
- Q
- _ . ~
~
- - ~ - .
LLJ
_ _ - - =
- - ~ - - ,
- - - - - -
_
_ _ ?
~
-
CONCLIT 1UH A[YIGW
_ _ _ _
DATG S[91 75,'N1
RCVISIdK
~NORTH ELEVATiON =AST ELEVAT?ON 0A
~ L, ~7fTMI [ltYA110w'i
SCaL~. ll8" • P-0" ~ SCAIE: t/B" •~'-0" c+ec~ rwee*
„ A2,3
/
. ~ .
~ v
I
- - - ~ - " ' - -
- - ~ ~ - - _ -
- -
- - ~
e
e
n NORTH EL°VATIC'J ~ WEST EL°VATION
SCA~.`: .,g~~ , SC.a.° '~8" • "•0" 'I
l)
K
I-
. Lo
U ~ 't
~
~ oc)
dSU~°Ot
w -
cil ~ 0) o ~t
i- >
or
z~
z
~(j)
p~
C,o
tu
oy ~ u r
O
- ~ Z > 0
cfl~~ I
- - -
- - - ~u
- ~
- u,
~ w
-
-
_ = o- - - = - _ - -
"tttwl~,
- - - - ~ , _ - - -
- mectrt vuN ecnrw
-
- - \ - - - ~ . -
;
?1
_
- f_____
- - - - : ,
DATC Scvi 75, mt
nnsias
a2na nrv~no~s
n OUTH ELEVATION ~ EAST ELEVATION
$CA~~ 1/B" • 1''0"
' ' A2,2
~
l
r- _
o ~
f~ _ ~ ~ - _ ; _ - - _ •
-
m -
~
~ U
1 ~
~ O
~ NORTH ELf-VATIGN Q o
G WEST FLE'JATION .i
~ d
~ o00
o 0
V- u
>
o
Q W
F- N ~
1 0
(D rou
~ tu
Z ~
~ W J
cl >
U'
- - w
_ - t '
~ ~
-F Co Q
_ - - - _ - = W
- = - _
~ - ri ~ n.a tirncw - - - =I ~ ~ -
- - -
- - - _ -
_ - _ _ ~ - -
_ _ ; - -
- >
.
~ p~ - r- - - - - - -
-
~
: i
DAtG~. 5[v1 75.,NI
. ' ~ . . I(~`~
txttNa eLev.+ian
(D__S~OUTH ELEVAT?CN ~~K r. p
A2'
:
uar o+ n«rct xORoou uiar M. nro eenROw
1611 !0. rT. M6 SQ fT.
It00f
i _ . . . -
OCCK DtCK
~m KOOM LNMi A004 . .
~ I
~
pMIN6 ROOM 4114RR D[pt0p11
I I ~
I
-
-
DIHAN Rppy
_-~-xfiOOt
Di
.r ~
. , _
POKM , :...s
i I wm
~
~ ~ r
i- •
I OtDql0d17 E[DIIO0/11
~ . E[Pt004 I I
'J[CF I .
I~
AII ~ ~ i
0__100F PLAN J
2 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
o
~ ~
<f
F- a C )
Z z w ,
U+(T D p1[ D[fMOD4 UIIT P. dK D[DROpI 7•.•
rn sa rT. rn$n rT. U) 0•1
cn
- O ;
- C)
occR
' ~mw Roa~ v 3 n!~•
I z tll
~ (C [L' {L1
DECK ~ W ~
4ASTLR DtDIt00M UVMB A001/ Q
-1 Q-- ul
w
uASRt eeDROOY J
~ " DRIING R004 .1l 0
I0. MA' LL1 Q
- -
m- _
omwa eoou
. -~r~ J i
~
roea -
ur
~
DCCK - I _ _ . _ ' _ _ I Mltl1NINM7
. .
.r,.- _ . - N .
. .
,
.
CONCL/7'LUl rLa!ce.
. . ry_ '
I _:_J~:', ..17-:•
4A5121 D[PtOpy
ttD6[TI ~ -
I ~ I ~ ~ 7' w - D~TCbfP'C1+DfR 16
Kr51M5
i [%RAlpl W OK , I
I IOR W LL PEOV[ i
J! p~
- , ` GuIAGG 6MAG[ ,
I JP I
hDM ~'U45
I bS[T n,wn~t
~ RD ! ~VEL °LOOR P! a~N ~ ~;RST L°VEL -LOOR °LAN
~ •
i
UNIT D3;~Ti 0 DEDROOM UNIT D4; THRer DCDROOM
~
I
oeac ~
xcc
~ - unw Roou unmwG wow
~
ws'c't x !
~ otHUw eooy
'
+ otwia - - - - - "
~ Le '
~ i ' suc~rnciibr:
w~ I _ _ - - -
ti . r
i .u~ ~ - ` .
= i ~ 1 I w~
bcoitrou i ~
j xvROOU a
xaroW i ,
I
Dec.
J i
~
U
~ ROOF PLAN
~ N
~
/ 2inSECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
7 1 U z '1
~ , r q•
p
Q(,~oo
UNIT B1; ONC 6[DROOM UNIT D2; ONC 6[DROOM ~~U
7765Q,PT, ~~~~Q
- 776 SQ. FT. ~
> I
_ CD O )
I - - - - DCCK
Q CnQ~no
- unrw Roo„
~ -3: c,
DH l)
DCCIK J w
o- ~ w
i IMMi Rppy ~ 7 IIJ J
M.A7TLRC[D~004 L
ffl --D~ 't
wsmi x W
~ w
I DIwIN Rppy
0
DIqNO fn 11 ~ U1
D[CC RpH
.
M
. .`..,i...
p,
......f : - _
nmmwm
roew
we ~
- -
ca+ccrr nM uhcw
_ I cLosct
_ ~ K M[
OAitse~rniace u, i~
cwuae
I ~ ~ tIRZ11P1 w K. ~ R[viclOMb
I ' 6MAGG B.W.Y[ .
I ~I I w - -
L~-__. - - up
I
nooe n.w
MC2T N.wt[R.
3 'HiRD L~V:L ~~LOOR °;Ay ' '
F:RST L.VEL FLOCR PLAN A1.2
i
wi
UN1T A3: TWO DEDROOM UNIT A4: THRrr- 6GDROOM UNIT A5; TWD Dr-DRODM
- - - - - - 1001 SQ. FT. ' .
1519 Sn. FT. 996 S0. FT.
r ~ r--------~
I i
I
~
DCCK _ . DECK
uVlra Aoo4 uvtw AooM -
I ~
iusnx etuROOU I wtsr" em*ow u`DINRN ROpI
uvtHa eoow
' - Dnmre koou
, . .
ot~we Roou ' '
Ait MC~~..14 P00tLH
'°K,
.3_. L _ : P ~ ,
; ' _ . .
OCCK
.
_ - ' DG- ~ bfOR00i11 W
• }i: B-[p1004 7
- - ~
e[M004 I
~ I I .00'
DCCK ' 4-
I LO U
~
II I u1
U
7 ~1
ROOF PLAN 0
g. 2 SEGOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN i-
er
iM • Fq'
~ Q I
tn 'I
UMR Ai: TNt[[ E[DA004 LM} A1 pl[ E[URp04 .1} N
nu xi rr, `
m ~a n. ~ cr 7 ,
W ~1
U)
C>
-I-~~._~-~._ W
~
- - - - - - - - - -
Z ~ -Ili
oN aa °ECK
w ~
L„HO ~
_ umw Roal W
, wurctR e[oeow c~ a
~ ~ J
I
~ ° LttDkOOW t
M7X : ^ - DIiUMi A001/
I QaCT
I ~sn!._._.... aoSerl e.nH aoxr L
-
uw.
~ -
- - co4ccl~T .uH "v,r.
~ ,
'«°f
.
.
0 uurzit x
i _ emRoou i --i -
F4
6AUCf GMAB[~I
DArtstrlLl-etR 15. 41,
DCCK ~CVi6!a+6
, CKTMIOR WAJ- rt
M ,u
~
VP
'H:RD L`VEL F'_OOR °LAN A
~ F:qS' "V°L °LOCR PLAN
J
,
,
,
,
8 ~
nROXIu.*e LocAnoN . eLecrR¢ u.HHOLe rn ~
AIPRON, 10UT1011 A'MOMIwATG IOCATION P[D i Ub W[ST PCb
`
1'UTUII[ [Ai[MCNT [MI9TiN0 -[W(ll NANNOL[
ro. enoocrn¢
onrve l ~a-a ~
VOrtR~OAT
coce o~ snuM [uL
` \ ~ •
eoce c~ sn~- -
1 ~ i/ ~ 'h` ~ 4y~ • -~:'Y- ~
M t O
Of>
~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ I-
' _ooo • l~- ~ \ i \ ~ , \ Q 5Pr ~ ~ = ' \ ' `
5L:.6
I-
i -'°~~ti. w.i.xa ~ f:'~ . i , ~ .._.__+..~.-'i'~_~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N
/ . - ''1 / ~ .OC~ lav I^'v _ ' \ I i - )v t'.cw tc•e~ct ~ /
M • `p ,~~~cwct. rr~ cwt ~~J t.~r \ ' \ p ~
~iM'~ , ~ \ ~1~ f ?~_DO ~ w \ ~ Or i0' ~C'D~CL ^n0u 4
"0'[Ii7LIF[ Q
~
c~o_c~~~ BLGG ' i 5LDG
oc ~io uAu , O O
i
~o.~ ..n nn
r+~
nw~ cHO cu~ ~ \~r\ BLDG o..tic ~ i »re ~L 7_ lll
i i eurtc. ugii
• ~ lDO Q
ez. ou.ao un~ >
i
«.e
~ W
c~•e ovane~ o,p
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , Yi~ ~ ~ Q
t. ooc[ p'
e,oo.rnce u:7 ~ N
3 0 u
w
atf Lii
c~o cu.e 1 aur.C.
•ip r+o tr~sr~uo c..ce ~ W J
~i , ~ ~ • u~C4 Ia , ~ 1 ~
t~tur~+eiIt— > U`
1
T~i r%w-
~,c.~ ~ I c~~nchi ~ ~ / i` ~.?'J~ 1~ f~ / Ill
ti ecrnir reeHSrortwe-e, co-eere Q
i «
~
SqN -e~cr»o-e I c.eLe W
OS rcos ,J
r0"F Ro i ~ ~oPa
>
J60,
:o: ~a ~vr,Re touwiw or ~ ``Q~JS~ M[IJUINMr
RO ~ u, ~e.kK„ ~P~.
w~cnr nu~ ~emw
LEGEND
. ,
_
' - - - Jfi_
" , ~
txtsn~.c ; c~,ro,•
'%.S'InG 10 :GITCJN
.+!S..FG Soor ;.<DG OAR. ttri 7.. ~w1
cx o c ',F
Rrnsia+s:
D
..•e -
.NCIES
Jv[' n~rlp~: [Ha: ~4_C' f1~['1K
L~'[ o~ SUV~• In1M
SITE PLAN IPRELIMINARYI 1` , .,,,.~„~:w•~..~"""` $"r .w,
. .o •o• •re. ~ce c •a •.ru.w., ,..~c..:,c ater w`eca
•C':~ S^f[' ~ •a •~[.w:?r. .,~M:K R~+
t: 'c~ ^t.'ri..~. . I.. w
. . U h
N,
cO LL)
ln h
^1.(p Y
T!1 N.-
V1 m~ Y
~ x <
m
~ o 0
<
>I
~
~ n
,PPOO,N.TE LOCA,ION
GRAPHIC SCAI.E
(ioana ro ec o.NrIRucrI)
oas*~c sL.a ~a.~at ~ n rm 1 s.o• cwm,u~m
4 m n /
ma a
.macv~i
~.J-_. / tn c ~,c \ v 0 I
/e'"'S" U rn
. ~ ;.G,^\`\\''\ e~'rro1 NI11
~ 1 p ~r
1 ~ur ro e[~
'E
S~o
/ ~ ~3 . ` _ . . _ . . ~ • ' Sp,t~~ - ~ ~ \ W a
1 bo
rc rnw »enw uP.c I n
~ roo ~.i[cna A\ C
K.a
/`r , \ I~~~•~~`""`'~-_~--__ J~• f ~ ~ ~ Q -i
~~i~uu.~ifTM m. ; ..r'-~, , \~.a~ ~i ~y` ~i~ `~~-~'„•t~`"'_~~----__~ ~ ~ ~..i ~ \ \ ` F-~ QOm m
ww ..rz. .c ~
o- \
L LacA.w
r '-u.,~ I . ~c ~ •lf.a , K c.cao u•an;
~ o~ea:o rn«[cna
...*oo.
.n 4-~ ~ G~ rc nn~m iar 1 ~ rarc.o ~ ~ ~
PMT .w.sm~ ~w ro ~ ~ cR~va.aci
PMtCCI
O• e[ roU~m. IJUS~rG ulw~0.F mo4D [M~I.
ro K Kuo.a~
BIDC. 9-23-96
~3LDC. u~s' er~ ~ a~cmt -.-,s
"K ~A~ro ~ 1aU5, 9,«x JOB# 96467
~ mc .r nn
~ \ •r r~ o ~~o wv. /
ot<
DRWN: MLM
e•e•.a'rz[ ENG : MLM
f ~ \ 9,o G-R` 9b46;
` ~ M1 {Kx u.~ )
w:mJrbs,,.c ma l \ ~ FILE:
ro n[
\ \ ro` ' ~d \ + / ' /
mavD us uw /
ro rt co~trto ro ~ ~ ~ \ ~n u°„y~
c.s ww a rs srot a wo.o. ~am v ixnK . \ A
r~o~cen .c' ~ \ • i _ [astic i sm.r
wn11iot lo m
~ \ I _ = K ~ ~ ~ A /
_c
tiros~nK-D
Lj~C Nmm.w9Uw~
\ rT~~Ir5~+~M ~ C~MI J ~Jy ///'rO \ \ 5 k " -~-rn-5- rx_5 M~S / ? /
'1.In V,W /p,,
1W,
W ~ ~ I 5?~ w
c_
\LEG N
.
; w ExisneC 2. CW rOUH
C%ISiiHC t0' COHTOUR
~ ~ • ~ }LI(NI P0.C -
q[C. - ~
(I YP) EJa57INC So01 GanDE -31 ~ttP~ __a! - PPOPOXD2'COHTOUR
-
`
-Ii 7NNOPOSED 10' NN7(X~R ~ O
u MtLPOSfD S'Oi (AhDE
NOTES ~-4{ ~ z
I 511FVfV %tONp~ BY EAGiF VAU[Y yJqVfFIHG. "
DAIE Of SURV(Y: 9/13/94. z
8~55 OF ElEvA71W: uH-158-5450-063
RIu 61906
Nv. 6176.1
a
+FpUHDAnp1 vLAN NOT AVUU9tL rOF BUiLpFG D~4EN9pNS.
J'OPOfIiMNY ON R(D SAwO5i0NE ROW NRRPOUTCD R+W
A wCM9T ai0.CC7. ~
a.ppnwel j0POCRMMr ~5 NRJED r0R KNeAtE UnUtt 'J Q!
:aAno". IoP a emDcc GRAZcs. cWv iaAna. Avc ~
-l~ FiAM Miµ'~$1$.
s Aeea[NArEn noeo rLw uaK+vs ro ec 1110Ruto AnIa ~ p
wnKr MroRUAna oer.,Mm.
5. SCC DRAMAG( RCGpRI fOF BAyN AHD DISCHAAG[ iNfpMJAPryI
W C7Q~
PG.
C c
_ 4
U •N
C-0 .
co
H n
e
Lo ~
^ t~ lp Y
N.-
V1 rnp0 X
~ X L
~ m~
U,
~ Y.
CD a~w.
N
13
CRAPHIC SCALE V.~ \w~i C1 ~ I
R
m OiiPKQST'[M ~ \ /1 'd
COkFUt~P~c / X \ ~ ~ ~~••1 00 N
m¢ a ~ . ~ I r,,e - m ti 1- ~ -
ma a sn~uu ~ ~ ~ \ Or) i
' ~ ~ ~ ~ I
} ~ _,i':, ~ / 1` . \ ~ / nosTwc m I
t -
~
0, m
~ ~
)
' , ' - ' ~"I ~ ` ~ SP~ - ; • ~ ` ' ' ~ , \ W o ~n
N Z i-- Y
~~i'~~'~~/~ ~ ~~1.~~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Q- co
~ ~ ro R 7 ~
3LDG.
~ o
` I pl
\ ~ I \ li I ?,I . ' ~ ~ ,mC.~iOEfY. I I ` ~611) ~
PMT ff
~ r
armt~ . owsnn PIR~EL _ ~ , ~ .
9-23-96
~ - oLDC 9LDG. Ju,~, JaB# 96462
PMT OF DRWN: MLMI
\
~ o K x~ P~ca I ENG : ~iLl.l
F " ~ - 1 ~ ~
"r"°" FILE: 96462
ro et awKn wu .,.o arrtn
EUp
R.rour,iwtaKK
'Y
6Ep
449 Ji
SA'VDsj~ f ~ ~ \ ~ ` ; Y I 4.
>
R0 1p
SA ~ ~
~ A,-
~ LE ND p ~
` ` ~ ~ ` - - ' Z ~ Z
GENERAL NOiES uFsi»#cz.caTa,a
' rxrsrn~c 10' caraR
EX ,i. P,,C i'~ •mu EXisnNc saor wAM
VROPOSCD 2' CONiWR W C ~
Wm~ o d.o.ow.w .i.t mo~ .Y
om.n:r a~+.ct o,,,.i ry~rc b~ ~or Fi.pny -
PR
ol w M+~.d OPOSED I O' COM 70JR
a~a~ct 1e• ~ PROPOSEO ~Oi rR~DE
2. tn •n..om.r~i~~o~ N.~c~~ ~ ~"ai on»»a a m... wo~. a,a o~. (J] ~
oyc
NOTES fCppp
~ ~~o1+!c cm~~e nn~y rn.itic~~m : no~ mu..w F m... d~~ma N m. ~
Tva.onir d m. cmv«~> i~omc w~va ru~. wwi a .o ~no mwo..a 7 S,~AVEY NTOHDED 9r CA0.E V,tUFY SUat£hNC,
or
9~ 5 OF EtLVATbI~~ 7~9~
SB SBO 065 r-~
6
Nv B1)81
in. ~ oi ~o..~,uim~• ~...rsi...~~. a.,.. ~ofo«r. „„s,.e~ FOUwDAPW PUn yCt A~uLN3lL 1DF BUiLbwG b4(H5W5.
wl ~~ro^^a u~w~irv,r~~ M1.a o~m~~.. .im ~w~ u. in. „~„v,w+n~ or m CD SAwDStPNE P0}0 'H1ERV0U'CD rn04
CpiR8Y m0.CC ~
i[- a~a -.iCJC:~ fOti ~C0.F,;Z UIWtt ~
W~ITWN ~OPOGkIlni ,S
(z] 'y
ia~na. iaP ar eaoct a+.ocs. aa La.na,. .ko
a. ~nai> rw. ~ o
R000 PUMI ANA1YSS. ~ F-~ /YYY}
YaN y~oclw ~v IM qK.M1~ wl~ I M i~.~lv1~C n u tmM~ mmn> 5. ABBRENA7[p ILO~ RNH ANIyY$!$ 10 BE PCRfORYm A(iCA
~M a mY.~num ol 6 YVf~w ul ~vb m~eccylyY 1up~ ml. o w~Mvo~.E [
iM b~au:w Wo+ CmV«lu ~ a in . :.y m. < Ib~ S.H~fY WfORUAMH OBiNNfO j
6. 5[E OauN~G£ RCVOpi 10R 6~5H u,0 pSO~MGE iNfCauA nON.
Y L.~ ma/u ~u ~w ~na nel uwC 7 noLV~ld 1.~1 b I ~~,1 w~Y.s W V F-1 ~
,o. lun.wc,m .io.,y iu w v.••~••,.o or e G..~a 1,~...a ~.~.~ow ~~na S~n..~o a~`..~ ~
PP. c t I
Plant Key
&JrIlhfis Name sjyg
• Colaadosf'ru rn
Pic- pungena 8' ht. -e. 25 Utnofn $now $tpngt Arca
c!
O QuakingAcprn papuluslremuloides 2.21/2•CA
C)larceleaf Cnthmwnd Pnpulus acuminata 21l2'taL 22 O Ila~le~'slk~gwir~J Comuecericea Naileyi w5 -
,7 z ~
.
O K" CobAPPk MilusHupa 3
2'cd, ° .
3 e i
Q IJadik<Pdmtilla Potmtilla 6uiti~ 'qpdikr' p ~ n
N-Eve/Wildfk-rc Ged Mis d ~
w a+iurbcd Anu
&'uegrus Sod
5950 S.I.
~ WildFlow<r 4red ,
S20 s.f.
O' 14bakd Rvub~ From Sik '
Note:
l. For ardiitechiral and SiM (9an in(ormation re(er to Mortrr ARhitMe drawing.
. 2. Por ~ading informition, rcfcr N Enginecnng Dceignworke, Inc
Edge of Stream 3. Plant locatior~s arc F,:~eliminxr~, a~ will be stakcd by Owrxr's represrnlative ~
prior to final instalUtion.
r `\Y\ L'd'tles shroN b be Revn.ed
-Gxisting i opunwix~d Trec to be Removed • ~ ~
/ ~ ~ _ ' F1bNn6Y({o Rtaul~ ~ ~ 11~ \
/ f/Existing 5hrube fo be Trone Ianled
dvuln in tv P
i,.,~ ` 1 ,1', ~F ~ ~ ~ ~
S. \ ~ ' r i / . ~ _.Hr~-~ - ` Ano \ ~ ` ~ 1 ~
~Bui(ding p"
~ - „w~~~~. , , , • ~ 1 v
Mmpsta ..Fami
g
BUildin
. ~
Euidin "C' u• ~ , i I ~ / ~ 1 ` ~ 1 I I ~ U ~
Build'g •,~1~ 11~~ ~ ,i
i~
~ I / ? ~
Existing Cottonwood Trce to be Removed U (2) v
~
i \ . - ~ ~ / Y Q1
~ ~ ~ ' . ~ I ~ 1 . I ~ ~ ~
0 ro '`/q C_ ~i
- ~ ~ ~ .-'7' ^'r.y i.~..
er.r. w kK*-.,.a
v,
exi.~ s+„abs to e. ~,,a _ ; i , r ~ ?-~,n, G
~ I ~ ~ ~ wJUi
e-a,rr w,e Rypi - Z
~ 'J
;
I~
GNo,ih
< -
L-1
~n ~n~.
<
.
.
7. A request for a rezoning from Genera( Use to Medium Density Multi-family, and a request
for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow for the development of 17
EHU's, located on an unplatted parcel on a portion of Parcel A and part of Block D,
Lionsridge Filing # 1.
Applicants: Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, the U.S. Forest Service & the
Town of Vail
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen gave an overview of the staff inemo. Andy explained the Zoning Analysis and
stated that the overall project conformed with the proposed zoning. He stated that the SDD
component did not provide a blank check, since any future modifications would have to go
through Council. He stated that staff believed that a combination of flat and pitched roofs was
preferred. He said that staff was recommending approval with two conditions.
Tom Braun said the building design had been changed and all the issues had been addressed.
Tom stated that the design guidelines a!!ow for a variety of roof forms. He then said this
proposal was within the realms and that there were untold benefits associated with flat roofs.
Jim Morter said that the project had to be affordable and well designed, because it was in a
neighborhood that was well designed. He said that a myriad of decisions influenced the design
of the roof tops and explained that he was not trying to be uncooperative, but the final design
included flat roofs. He then said that the most important goal was to accomplish all the goals.
He went on to say that canopies were added to give a level of sophistication and shadow lines.
Jim said that stucco wainscoting made the building look worse by giving it a checkerboard look.
He said there were two patterns of wood siding provided. Jim said if the public perceived this as
a stack of boxes, then he told the PEC to take a look at Savoy Villas. He also said that Timber
Ridge had sloping roofs and looked worse than Savoy Villas, and gave the impression of
employee housing.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. _
Jim Lamont, representing the EVHA, said that Joe Staufer had asked him to raise some
concerns. Jim said that Joe Staufer didn't like flat roofs, but that he felt the change in design
added a flair. Jim said that Joe thought it added a Taos feel. However, it couid be more exciting
with stucco. Jim said he thought it stingy to say the sidewalk can't go up and around the site.
He then asked Andy how much rental housing the Town owns.
Andy Knudtsen stated that the Town owned the Town Manager's home and two other units.
Jim Lamont said the biggest demand was for rentable units. He said that the district could take
the revenues and leave. If it was public property, then the Town should meet the demand. Jim
said the issue on the table was that if the units are sold, the buyer should be selected through a
lottery. Jim stated that the public would not be pleased that the first two tiers of this project
would go to the TOV workers, since it was on public property. Jim advised use of the lottery.
Jim also noted that the housing director was involved in the regulatory process. Jim said we
needed to make it clear that the housing director should sit with the advocates, as the
appearance was that of a conflict of interest.
Greg Moffet asked for any other public comment. There was none.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
October 28, 1996 15
i
r
?
Gene Uselton questioned the perpetual deed restrictions. Gene asked if the sloping roofs were
added, would the snow shedding be better.
Andy Knudtsen said roof pitches could be designed in such a way that snow shed problems
could be eliminated. As an alternative, snow fences could be added.
Gene Uselton said he had a hard time guessing what this project would look like and asked if the
PEC was making a recommendation to the Town Council at this worksession.
Greg Amsden said an SDD was not appropriate for this site. He said that staff was
recommending an SDD in order to limit the GRFA, which was a misuse of the SDD. He then
suggested that it could be construed as employee housing. He went on to say that it did not
conform and was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood due to the flat roofs. Greg
stated that affordability was not driving this project. Greg said that the wood siding did not fly
with him. Greg felt that vertical with horizontal siding was shown and he would like to see a
lower maintenance product. He then asked about the landscaping. Greg also asked what the
typical occupancy of the 3-bedroom unit would be.
Greg Amsden thought every garage would have one car parked outside. He said that the project
should be palatable and not allow outdoor parking on Sandstone Rd. He also expressed
disappointment that no one shows up at the PEC meetings to offer any input.
Tom Braun stated that 30 letters were sent out for notification to adjacent property owners earlier
in the review process.
Galen Aasland suggested tabling this item. Galen felt an SDD for employee housing was wrong,
but that MDMF was needed. Galen felt it needed to be made compatible with existing
neighborhoods. He said he would like to see more written information about the improvements
that could be done in the future. He suggested capping development at a certain level. Galen
said that interior improvements could work against the long term employee housing concept.
Galen would like to see a mostly stucco exterior. Galen agreed with Jim's comment about
looking at this like any other applicant. Galen also advised that, from the public aspect, we
should be careful about the Town representing itself. Galen would like to see this item tabled.
Diane Golden thought the housing should go to critical TOV employees. She also said she didn't
remember the PEC saying vegetation was more important than the sidewalk.
Jim Morter explained that he raised a question to the PEC at the very end of the worksession,
whether landscaping or a sidewalk was more important along Red Sandstone Road.
Diane Golden also stated that the PEC forced a home in East Vail to remove sod and replace it
with bluegrass.
Andy Knudtsen showed, according to the renderings, where the wetland mitigation was to
happen.
Diane Golden stated that she liked the design of Savoy Villa. She said that architects say there
are benefits to flat roofs and so therefore, she was not afraid to go with the experYs opinion. She
stated that she was thrilled to see employee housing incorporated into a neighborhood.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
October 28, 1996 16
s
r
Henry Pratt commended Galen on his eloquence and also agreed with Greg Amsden's point of -
view.
Andy Knudtsen stated that the rezoning and SDD have been linked together.
Henry Pratt said he would rather have Council have the final word and therefore, the SDD
process was a good one. Henry Pratt reminded everyone that we need families here, as
seasonal workers are going to be housed out at the Public Works site.
Jim Morter said there were 46 parking spaces; 18 in garages and 28 exterior. He said 36 spaces
were all that were required.
Henry Pratt said that assigning more parking to the 3-bedroom units would reduce guest spaces.
Henry asked how were people going to get to the bustop. He said a liability issue exists with
falling. Henry said that something needed to be done to address the sidewalk, even though
Henry would prefer landscaping.
Greg Moffet said he had no problem with the use of the SDD process and that this project
should be decided by elected officials. He stated that the Town's employee housing was going to
be on public property and that we require ourselves to have housing on our land, as a private
owner has a house on private land. Greg said that he didn't mind flat roofs. He felt, regarding
the ramp issue, that a stair case needed to be put in. Greg said that this climate was harsh on
wood and though it is more expensive, he wanted stucco. Greg was in favor of this project as
long as further exterior considerations were given to the exterior finish.
Pat Dauphinais stated that the plan was set and not only was it well thought out, but well
designed. He said to do this within a budget where constraints were difficult. Pat said they were
not interested in design by committee. He felt that the fisherman easement was too tight. He
asked for a favorable vote to go to Council.
Gene Uselton made a motion for approval with the condition that 4 spruce and 5 shrubs be
added to the landscaping area along Red Sandstone Road.
The motion was seconded by Diane Golden.
Galen Aasland asked if adding stucco to the outside could be included in the motion.
Gene Uselton said they have not violated code and would not amend his condition.
Greg Moffet asked for any further discussion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-2, with Greg Amsden and Galen Aasland voting against it.
8. A discussion item regarding vehicle storage/transportation related businesses in
commercial zone districts.
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Dorninic Mauriello gave an overview of the memo, asking the PEC for ideas on how to. treat this
and also to give thought on when does it become industrial use. He said however, that this was
a use that was needed. He said that Tim Ewals of Airport Shuttle, had concerns he wanted the
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
October 28, 1996 17
c
i
George Ruther stated that the Johnson's residence on Mill Creek Circle required bonding when they were transplanting irees.
Greg Amsden said he was not excited about this proposal, since it was a very noticeable house.
Henry Pratt made a motion for approval for Lot 36, which included a second condition requiring a
bond, so that if trees die within two growing seasons, the tree well woutd be filled in and new
trees would be planted.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
Gene Uselton asked for an amendment to Henry's motion, changing it to Lot 37.
Henry Pratt amended the motion.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0.
5. A request for a joint worksession with the DRB and PEC for a rezoning from General
Use to Medium Density Multi-family, and a request for the establishment of a Special
Development District to allow for the development of 17 EHU's, tocated on an unplatted
parcel on a portion of Parcel A and part of Block D, Lionsridge Filing # 1
Applicants: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and the Forest Service
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Greg Moffet welcomed Brent Alm, Clark Brittain and Ted Hingst, the DRB members present for
this worksession.
Andy Knudtsen gave an overview of the request and explained that the three parties involved
have all signed the applications necessary to get the plan going. The primary purpose of the
SDD was to answer neighbor's questions regarding future development. 100% of the units will
be deed restricted. The District and Town of Vail employees are the target market. Density is
much less than what the Zone District allows, as shown on the Zoning Analysis in the memo.
Another important component is ihe LOAA, which Andy explained. He explained that this was
an effort to get a clean boundary and to create sites for employee housing. Andy stated that this
was a high priority for economic stability and also that the provision of affordable housing would
help the viability of the community. Andy said that the proposed density is below other sites and
that suitability is consistent with the context. Staff expressed concern about the architectural
design and wanted to hear from both Boards and the neighborhood, regarding architectural
compatibility. A roof overhang and a pitched roof would break up the mass. He said that since
the corner of the road is higher, the flat roofs would be very visible where the road divides. Andy
proceeded to go over the discussion issues. He stated that there are arguments both pro and
con for two curbcuts, but staff would look at the safest and what would meet the most needs.
Andy went over the landscaping and stated that there may be an opportunity to get more
landscaping in the area, while still preserving the existing landscaping.
Greg Moffet said two areas to focus on were the landscaping and the architecture. He stated the
need for the public to comment on these issues.
Planning and Env'uonmental Commission
Minutes
September 9, 1996 7
a
A
Tom Braun explained that the district had this land available and had taken a leadership role in
proposing the project. Tom stated that they were trying to create an opportunity for #amilies, by
rezoning from General Use to Special Development District. He then showed renderings of the
project. He explained that the range of densities was staggering in this neighborhood. He
explained the densities of surrounding properties and that they were proposing 10.6 on a gross
basis, so this project was at the low end. If they didn't do the SDD rezoning, they could come
back and do a full site coverage, maximum height etc. Tom stated that the SDD process
provided a safeguard. Flat roofs were an issue but Tom deferred to Jim Morter. He did mention
ihat there were a number of fiat roofs in the neighborhood. The precedent has been established,
such as Simba Run, etc. He mentioned that the road is still under further study to see how to
slow the speed of traffic before the blind spot. He said that they were extending the retaining
wall to get trees between the road and the buildings. It is tough to find trees that will do well on
this site. He stated that the development standards were within the standards of the Town.
Garages were oversized in order to provide storage, as well as cars. To bring a{I this in at an
affordable level was a challenge. Tom introduced Jim Morter, Pat Dauphinais and Gerry
Roberts.
Jim Morter said the first thing to be considered was scale. The kindest scale for the site was to
have a smaller buildings. For the footprint and the bulk, Jim felt the sma{{er size worked. Jim
stated he was proposing seven 1-bedrooms, five 2-bedrooms and five 3- bedrooms. This project
would be state of the art for acc.essibility and usability. Jim asked for questions. He wanted to
take this out of the typical genre of affordable housing. The shadow pattern gave animation to
the buildings, as opposed to blocks of buildings. There were one, two and three stories all mixed
in. The neighbors in Potato Patch, when looking down, would see a wedding cake effect. Jim
stated there would be 24 flat roofs with a lot of stair stepping. The functional reasan for flat roofs
was to eliminate snow dumping. It would be easier to shed snow where people are noi. Flat
roofs made it easier to contain winter problems. The second reason for flat roofs was that the
mass would appear smaller with flat roofs. The third reason was to provide visual interest with a
stair-step design. Raof penetrations, such as vents (since there will be no fireplaces), would
have all the items clustered together. This has given Jim the opportunity to form a sculpture
within the project. Jim stated that he would like to ask botta Boards to have an open mind, when
it comes to the flat roof issue.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments.
Jim Lamont, speaking on behalf of Ralph Davis of Action Vail, stated that the focus should be on
the principles. The manner that it was brought forward last spring caused anguish. It was
brought fo ihe attention of Action Vail. The homeowners made every effort to calm everyone.
Action Vail has always said that public open space, if transferred, should be retained as open
space. Jim had questions for Tom Braun regarding the status of the driveway options and
designating it as a permanent easement. Jim also wanted to know what other avenue Brooktree
had for access.
Tom Braun said that it is not yet a permanent easement, but that it was a possibility.
Jim Lamont asked if the access could be shared.
Tom Braun said that a new access, to the sauth of the proposed driveway, was being
considered.
Jim Lamont asked Tom Braun if the right-of-way on Red Sandstone was dedicated.
Planning and Environmenta) Commission
Minutes
September 9, 1996 8
l
Tom Braun said it could be dedicated.
Jim Lamont asked about the 100-year floodplain. Jim stated that this was public property and
the current problems needed to be resolved. Jim stated that when the Lionsridge area was
annexed, the land use pattern was predetermined. Jim stated that there was a need to take a
hard look at the stream right-of-way. He asked, " Are we taking a public piece of property and
turning it into a private piece of property?" The public deserves a sidewalk and access to the
stream. He mentioned that when he was on the Board, he found that there is never a benefit,
when the public has been denied. If the units go up for a lottery, that would be fine, but all the
citizens of the Town should have a chance. It is wrong to have the people benefiting from it that
were judging and reviewing it. However, Jim could see the first preference being given to
emergency personnel.
Bob McLaurin disagreed with a couple of issues. The first was the land exchange. Bob had
been criticized for using this parcel. There was a net gain of money to the Forest Service, which
exceeded the value, resulting in no net loss to the Forest Service. The land was to be used for
housing for Town of Vail employees. When people call 911, for example, one wouldn't get an
answer if employees are not able to live nearby. Bob said there was not one single fireman who
lives in the Town of Vail and only two police officers that live in the Town of Vail. It was ctearly
irresponsible for the Town of Vail to not move in this direction. This housing development would
be filled with critical employees, with the remainder going to lottery for the leftover units. This
project would provide an opportunity for police officer's families to be here. The Town of Vail
would like to exercise a right of first refusal. Bob said that the Town had an obligation to provide
the services and was having a harder time competing with areas that have a less expensive cost
of living. With all due respect to Jim, the Town should have done this 10 to 15 years ago. As the
Town's long term employees start to retire, the Town needs to start to take pro-active measures
now.
Jim Lamont said in response to his good friend Bob, that the minute these public units were sold
to the private sector, there would be a problem when the employees leave the job. The pubiic
interest needed to be protected. Priorities should be giv2n to emergency personnel first. After
requesting that the density be lowered, Jim stated that this should be rented to emergency
personal and include public access to the creek.
Bob Mcl.aurin said rentals would not work for the majority of the work force. In order for
occupants to receive tax deductible benefits, the project had to be owner occupied.
Ralph Davis said that Bob hit the nail on the head. He also would hate to call 911 and find no
one there. Ralph stated that the units should not be sold and that rental rates should be below
market rental rates. He said the rent should be less than what it would cost to own. This project
might just fit the need for emergency personal.
Pat Dauphinais, representing the Water and Sanitation Disirict, stated that this would have a
public benefit. Employees tiving on the other side of Dowd Junction can't respond to
emergencies like a local resident could . There would be a first right of first refusal. The Water
District would maintain first right of refusal on afl the units. Though the Water District can't
commit to housing only emergency personnel, this housing would be available to Water District
personnel, police, fire and hospital personnel. The public interest would be well served. Even
though land is being transferred from the public to the private sector, it would still serve the
community. Even though they would be sold, the Water District would have the right of first
refusal.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
September 9, 1996 9
Henry Pratt asked if it would be possible for the Town to have 2nd right of refusal on the Water
District units?
Pat Dauphinais said tha[ was a great idea and would dovetail that in.
Henry Pratt siated that conceivably, there could eventually be no Town of Vail employees {iving in
these units.
Bob McLaurin said a sale could be forced, via the deed restrictions, for violations to the policy.
Pat Dauphinais said deed restrictions would be conditions of the SDD.
Bob McLaurin stated that he didn't want all the Town of Vail workers living together.
Jim Lamont stated that we need the Town Manager to explain how this will work.
Bob McLaurin stated that the Town is pursuing rentals on the Public Works site and on other
properties. He stated that it was essential to maintain the community's economic viability and
that it would be problematic in the future, if this problem is not dealt with now.
Pat Dauphinais said the Water Board felt a responsibility to the public. Pat said that the current
proposal was the most positive thing to be done with that ground. The benefits would far exceed
the short term public loss, by shutting down the neighborhood dog toilet. The Water District no
longer needs the plant on-site. The public good will be served better by far with this project.
Jim Lamont stated that there would be a need for a sidewalk; that the creek be recognized as a
recreational amenity, and dedicated as a public access easement; that the Town should require
the dedication of some open space, to be consistent with other projects. He summarized by
saying that the public should get something back.
Greg Moffet asked for other public comments. There was none.
Starting with the DRB: Clark Brittain said he responded favorably to the design. The presentation
reinforced his feeling about the design. Each building, as a modular sculpture, was very
appealing: When looking down on the buildings from the road, a better vantage point is possible
and the differences would be accentuated. Clark said that the project is going in the right
direction.
Ted Hingst thought the design was a good way to avoid cubes. Ted still had a problem with the
flat roofs. He suggested perhaps false fronting was a solution. He was, however, looking
forward to seeing the project develop.
Brent Alm thanked Jim Morter and the PEC for letting the DRB have a chance to make
comments at this schematic level. He stated that there needs to be more landscaping on the
east side. Also, Brent said that to break the 17 units into four buildings was a good idea. The
architecture was simple and straightforward. Brent was not opposed to flat roofs, but would like
to see shed roofs added to soften the design. The stacked design was helpful. It was important
to see the renderings. The use of materials with two different types of sidings and slight color
variations was best.
Jim Morter stated that the intent was to use subtle variations.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutcs
September 9, 1996 10
Brent Alm suggested using some stucco within some of the siding masses . He said that he
was looking forward to seeing more on the project.
Galen Aasland said that there was a hardship concerning the retaining watl on Red Sandstone
Road and that the height of it was acceptable. He believed the SDD took away the trust from the
public. Galen thought it should be zoned MDMF without the SDD. Galen liked the flat roofs and
thought the massing had integrity. He thought it was too homogenous and boring with one color.
He felt adding significant mass in stucco to the siding was a good idea, and that it needed more
detail. Galen felt that a one-car garage would not serve the needs for the 3-bedroom units and
that the 3-bedroom units needed more than a one-car garage. .
Jim Morter stated that some of the 3-bedroom units had two-car garages.
Galen Aasland said he would like to see the project embrace the creek better and that the
property across the road should be addressed. Galen felt that this project had significant public
benefit. He felt also that people that were able to buy were better off than paying rent and the
right of first refusal with the second right of refusal was a good idea.
Diane Golden thanked the Water District. Responding to Galen's comments about the SDD, she
said that the public interest was better protected with the SDD. Diane felt that the breakup of the
buildings was very good.
Henry Pratt said Jim Lamont had brought up some macro issues, compared to the flat roofs.
Henry felt that it was important for the units to be owner-occupied. There was a need to insure
that emergency personnel be housed at this site. He felt that it would be counter-productfve for
employees to have to sell. Henry said that we need to find a position somewhere between Jim
Lamont and the Town Manager.
Henry Pratt believed that the architecture was far superior to the Commons. But, he also stated
ihat Lionshead was going away from flat roofs, towards a more European style . This project
needed shed roofs, and overhangs with more detail. Henry stated that flat roofs were clearly
more efficient in this town, and that it was a good choice from his perspective; however, subject
to criticism. Henry said that to satisfy the public perception, the designed needed to break up the
boxes. In layman's terms, he expressed concern that the public would equate stacked boxes
with public housing.
Henry Pratt said to deed back open space was a good idea; however, the space was not an
adequate size. A public path along the creek could be done within the 30' setback. It might be a
compromise to open it to the public, but it would get used and appreciated. Henry questioned
the amount of space allocated for snow storage. From his years at Pitkin, he stated that snow
piles can get to be 25' high. He didn't have a feel for curbcuis and felt that could be left up to the
Town to handle. Henry agreed with Jim Lamont about the sidewalks. Sidewalks encouraged
people to walk to the bus stop. The path along the creek would enable Brooktree residents to cut
across and use the bus stop. Trees were needed to provide privacy. Trees would put the
project into its own enclave. Henry disagreed with Galen regarding the SDD. An SDD would
provide the vehicle necessary for a minor degree of down zoning.
John Schofield said that as this project progresses, he would like to have more information on
the floodplain and also a public path along the stream. A common access with the adjacent
property owners would be preferable. John said that he was not a big fan of flat roofs and would
like to see some sloped roofs and a mix of siding materials.
Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes
September 9, 1996 11
Y
Gene Uselton agreed with Henry regarding the appropriateness of the SDD. Admitting that he is
a sucker for a good sa{es pitch, he comp{imented Jim Morter on his four point argument in favor
of the flat roofs and indicated that he was convinced. He expressed the opinion that, given the
quality of the proposed project, the economic values of surrounding properties would be
maintained or enhanced.
Greg Amsden reminded everyone that this was highly visible as one drove past it to Piney Lake.
Greg said he would like to see sloped roofs. Greg didn't want local people to have to deal with
the maintenance that cedar siding would require. To be able to live affordably, the project
needed to be built using another material. Greg also felt it needed to be oriented with
norih/south views. The east/west views tooked out onto traffic and also Potato Patch. Greg felt
it must have two-car garages for the 3-bedroom units. He asked if utilities and gas fireplaces
would be provided. He said that there was not a necessity for an SDD. He said that, sinee there
was no cap on an SDD project, he would like to see the GRFA limit set in stone. He would also
like to see a greater setback to protect the willows, etc. To dedicate open space on a site this
tight would be hard, but perhaps the south end of the site woutd be possible. The color
elevations looked great on the renderings, but he expressed concern that renderings were not
accurate. The trees in particular, were an inaccurate depiction. He said to picture it without the
trees. This architecture had to stand alone for the next 15 years until the trees grew to a height
represented in the renderings.
Greg Moffet wanted to compliment the development team on the professional presentation. Jim
Lamont had raised some valid concerns. This worksession was the context for these concerns
to be raised. Greg was delighted that this was aimed in the direction of family housing. Greg felt
that owned was better than rented. Greg was in agreement that the SDD was the appropriate
mechanism for this. In response to the Town Manager's concerns, Greg said that when the PEC
reviewed the Public Works site, it required housing. This was a step in the right direction in
addressing that issue. Greg agreed with Greg Amsden regarding the materials used and the cost
of future maintenance. Greg agreed with Henry on the landscaping issue. Greg liked the design
and had no problem with it.
Jim Lamont said the East Village Homeowner's Association favored this zone district. The time
that has elapsed for the public right-of-way was well beyond the prescriptive rights. That portion
not owned by the Town should be dedicated to the Town of Vail.
Greg Moffet asked if the proposed MDMF zone district was an upzoning.
Andy Knudtsen said, yes. He further stated that this project was treated no differently than
others. He felt the GRFA was low enough so that the right of way concerns would be a moot
issue.
Tom Braun summarized all the comments. He stated that everyone was comfortable with the
SDD, with the exception of Greg Amsden and Galen Aasland. The vehicular circulation to be
worked out by the Town Engineer. He said that they would look at the stream access corridor
and study the building orientation with more landscaping between the road and the project. The
Army Corp had no interest in the small area of wetlands. Tom said that Russ Forest will walk it
with him.
Andy Knudtsen stated that an Environmentat Impact analysis had been done.
Tom Braun thought that dedicating open space was fairly unique for this type of project, but that
he would look into it, as well as the flat roofs.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
September 9, 1996 12
r ~
Greg Moffet said the SDD stated a complete review was to go to the DRB and he thanked the
presenters.
Jim Morter asked if there was one priority given the constraiants of the right-of-way.
The PEC said landscaping.
Jim Morter said that public safety woutd dictate the road right-of-way issues.
Pat Dauphinais said the originat concept was to get the best possible product for the least
money.
Greg Moffet suggested that the applicants talk to Jeff Bowen regarding having trees donated for
this project from Trees for Vail.
6. A conceptual discussion regarding the display of banners for quasi-community events and
activities.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Lauren Waterton
Lauren Waterton said staff has had more and more requests from hotel operators who wanted
banners to welcome conferences, etc. Staff has had to deny these requests, because they don't
meet the sign code, but perhaps to promote conferences coming to Vail, we should take another
look at the request. This would require a policy change and a change to the sign code. Staff
was looking to receive some direction from the PEC.
Greg Moffet stated, for the record, that he might have a potential conflict of interest, since he
was in the business. If anyone had a problem with him participating in this discussion, please
say so.
John Schofield said, in his dealing with Ski Club activities, any over the counter situations to
speed up the process was good.
Mike Mollica said special event banners were already allowed.
John Schofield suggested incorporating all banners into one policy.
Gene Uselton said he enjoyed seeing banners on Bridge Street. The down side was that there
would be banners everywhere.
Lauren Waterton stated that special events were those that benefitted the community and
banners are allowed for those events.
Mike Mollica suggested pursuing Option No. 2 in the memo. Our current policy is subject to staff
interpretation and staff would recomrnend codification.
Greg Moffet asked if Garton's had special events?
Lauren Waterton yes, but this discussion was in reference to hotels at this point.
Planning and U-nvironmental Commission
Minutes
September 9, 1996 13
~
ORDINANCE NO. 20
SERIES OF 1996
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THREE TRACTS FROM GENERAL USE
SECTION 18.36 TO MEDIUM DENSIT'Y MULTI-FANIILY RESIDENTIAL, SECTION 18.18
GEiV'ERALLY LOCATED AT 945 RED SANDSTONE ROAD tiIORE SPECIFICALLY
DESCRIBED IN EXtI1BITS ".4" AND "B" OF TIIIS ORDiN,4NCE.
WHEREAS, an application has been submittcd to rczonc thc three parccls froin Gcneral
Usc to Mcdium Dcnsity Multi-Family Residential; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning effort is consistent with the surrouneling and immediate adjacent
propcrtics; and
WHEREAS, in accordancc with Scction 18.66.140, thc Planning and Environmcntal
Commission had a public hcaring on thc proposcd zoning amcndmcnt and has submittcd its
rccommcndation to thc Town Council; and
WHEREAS, concurrcnt with thc rcqucst for rczoning, thc applicant has madc a rcqucst
for a Spccial Dcvclopmcnt District to conti•ol thc futurc dcvclopmcnt of thc sitc; and
WHEREAS, all noticcs rcquircd by Scction 18.66.080 havc bccn scnt to thc appropriatc
partics: and
WHEREAS, thc Town Council has hcld a public hcaring as rcquircd by Chaptcr 18.66 of
thc Municipal Codc of thc Town of Vail.
WHEREAS, thc Unitcci States Forest Scrvice, as the present owner of the property
dcscribcd on Exhibit B, has conscntcd to including its propcrty in this rczoning proccss
conditioncd upon tinal approval bccoming cffcctivc whcn the owncrship of thc land is transfcrrcd
to thc Town of Vail pursuant to thc Land Owncrship Adjustmcnt Agrecmcnt
NOW, THEREFORE, BE fT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCtL OF THE TOWN
OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
Scction I.
The Town Council finds that the procedures for the provision of rezoning property in the
Town of Vail havc been fulfilled, and the Town Council hereby receivcd the report of
rccommcndation from thc Planning and Environmental Commission rccommcnding the rczoning
of Said propcrty.
Scction 2.
Pursuant to Scction 18.66.100 - 18.66.180 of thc Vail Municipal Codc, the rezoning shall
takc cffcct immcdiatcly as it pcrtains to thc lana dcscribcd in Exhibit A and, as to that land ~
described in Exhibit B, this approval shall become effective upon thc transfer of title from the
Unitcd Statcs Forest Scrvicc to thc Town of Vail.
Scction .
As providcd in thc ordinanccs of thc Town of Vail, the zoning administrator is hcreby
directed to modify and amcnd the official zoning map to include the zoning specified in Section 2
abovc.
Scction 4.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence,'clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any
rcason held to bc invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and
cach part, scction, subscction, scntcncc, clausc or phrasc thcrcof, rcgardlcss of thc fact that any
onc or morc parts, scctions, subsections, scntcnccs, clauscs or phrascs bc dcclarcd invalid.
Ordinance No. 20
~ Sericti of 1996
. ~
Section 5.
The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is neccssary
and propcr for the health, safety, and welfare of thc Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
Scction 6. .
The repcal or thc repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the -
Town of Vail as provided in this ordinancc shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty
imposed, any violation that occurrcd prior to the effective datc hereof, any prosecution
cammenced, nor any othcr action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the
provision repealed and reenactcd. Thc repeal of any provision hercby shall not revive any
provision or any ordinancc previously rcpealed or supcrseded unless expressly stated hercin.
Scction 7.
All bylaws, ordcrs, resolutions, and ordinanccs, or parts thcrcof, inconsistcnt hcrewith arc
repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repcaler shall not be construed to revise
any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thercof, theretoforc repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED IN FULL ON FIRST
READING this 19th day of November, 1996, and a public hearing shall be hcld on the 3rd day of
December, 1996, at 7:30 p.m, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail,
Colorado.
Robcrt W. Armour, Mayor
Attest:
Holly L. McCutchcon, Town Clcrk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
BY TITLE ONLY this 3rd day of Dcccmbcr, 1996.
Robcrt W. Armour, Mayor
Attest:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clcrk
Ordinanee No. 20
2 Sc rjr~ nf 1 Uyf,
~
~ Exhibit A
A PARCEL OF LAND WHICH IS PART OF BLOCK "D" OF THE LION'S RIDGE
SUBDIVISION, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, SITUATED IN SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP
5 SOUTH, RANGE Kl WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF SAID PARCEL, WHICH CORNER IS COINCIDEN7'WtTH TFIE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF
SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 81 WEST, 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 45 SECONDS WEST 84.35 FEET, THENCE
SOUTH 18 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 14 SECONDS WEST 86.06 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 85
DEGREES 24 MINUTES 1 1 SECONDS WEST 153.30 FEET, THENCE NORTH 22
DEGREES 16 MINUTES 35 SECONDS EAST 35.97 FEET, THENCE NORTH 04 DEGREES
Ol MINUTES 23 SECONDS WEST 79.R0 FEET THENCE NORTH 22 DEGREES 33
MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST 62.68 FEET, THENCE NORTH 87 DEGREES 48 MINUTES
35 SECONDS EAST 146.28 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
AND
A PARCEL OF LAND IN BLOCK D, LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF EAGLE,
STATE OF COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT
WHENCE THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4 SE 1/4) OF SEC?ION l, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE
81 WEST OF THE 6TH PR[NCIPAL MERIDIAN BEARS NORTH 33 DEGREES 38
MINUTES 59 SECONDS EAST 207.88 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 85 DEGREES 24
MINUTES 1 1 SECONDS WEST 65.15 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 22 DEGREES 16 MINUTES
35 SECONDS WEST 61.37 FEET; THENCE SOUTH DEGREES 44 MINUTES 34
SECONDS EAST 93.63 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1 1 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 55 SECONDS
WEST 129.64 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 57 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 16 SECONDS EAST.90
FEET THENCE NORTH 17 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 49 SECONDS EAST 51.99 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 16 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 1 1 SECONDS EAST 87.50 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 07 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST 86.95 FEET; THENCE NORTH 27
DEGREES 19 MINUTES 49 SECONDS EAST 19091 FEET; THENCE NORTH 18
DEGREES 26 MINUTES 14 SECONDS EAST 61.52 FEET; THENCE SOUTH SS DEGREES
24 MINUTES 1 1 SECONDS WEST 88.15 FEET TO THE POINT OF SEGINNING.
,
Ordinance No. 20
3 Series of 1996
t
Exhibit B A PARCEL OF LAND WITHIN TNE NE 1/4 SE 1/4 SECTION l, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH,
RANGE 81 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRiNCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAGLE COUNTY,
COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BE,G(NNING AT A POINT ON THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID NE 1/4 SE 1/4 SECTION l, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE
NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF BLOCK D, LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION, -
ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 215 AT PAGE 648 IN THE
OFFICE OF THE EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, CLERK AND RECORDER; THENCE,
DEPARTING SATD SOUTHERLY LINE, N22°33'00"W 84.13 FEET; TI-fENCE N49°45'28" E
55.05 FEET; THENCE 53.85 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT,
HAVING A RADNS OF 200.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15°25'35" AND A CHORD
THAT BEARS N57028'16" E 53.69 FEET; THENCE 4190 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A
CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAV[NG A RADIUS OF 27.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
88°54'26", AND A CFIORD THAT BEARS S70°21'44" E 37.82 FEET; THENCE S25°54'31" E
137.47 FEET TO THE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NE 1/4 SE 1/4 SECTION l, SAID
, LINE ALSO BEtNG THE NORTHERLY L1NE OF SAID BLOCK D; THENCE, ALONG
SAID LINE, S87°48'35" W 150.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING
0.3964 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. THE BEARINGS OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL ARE BASED ON A BEARING
OF N87°48'35"E ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NE 1/4 SE 1/4 SECTION l, TSS,
R81W, PERTHE PLAT OF LION'S RIDGE SUBDiV1SfON.
Ordinxncc No. 20
4 Series ot 1996
ORDINANCE NO. 24
Series of 1996
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL ,
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 33, RED SANDSTONE; ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 33 IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN
REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes special development
districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land; and
WHEREAS, the applicants, the Upper Eagle Valley Water & Sanitation District, the Town
of Vail, and the United States Forest Service, or the successors in interest, have submitted an
application for the establishment of Speciat Development District (SDD) No. 33, for a certain parcel
of property within the Town, legally described in the attached Exhibits A and B, and commonly
referred to as the Red Sandstone affordable housing development Special Development District No.
33; and
WHEREAS, the United States Forest Service, as the present owner of the property described
on Exhibit B, has consented to including its property in this Special Development District process
conditioned upon final approval becoming effective when the ownership of the land is transferred to
the Town of Vail pursuant to the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental
Commission, on October 28, 1996, held a public hearing on the establishment of an SDD, and has
submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the appropriate
parties: and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to
the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to establish SDD No. 33; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hcaring as required by Chapter 18.66 of the
Municipal Code of the Town of Vail.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF VA1L, COLORADO, THAT:
Ordinance 24,
1 series ot 1996
SECTION l
The Town Council finds that all the procedures set forth for Special Development Districts
in Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied.
SECTION 2
Special Development District No. 33 is established to ensure comprehensive development and
use of an axea in a manner that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide
adequate landscaping, open space, employee housing, and other amenities, and promote the
objectives of the Town's Zoning ordinance. The development is regarded as complementary to the
Town by the Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission.
SECTION 3
Special Development District No. 33 is established for the development on a parcel of land
comprising of 69,887.66 square feet more or less; Special Developmcnt District No. 33 and said
69,887.66 square feet may be referred to as "SDD No. 33".
SECTION 4
The Town Council finds that the development plan for SDD. No. 33 meets each of the
standards set forth in Section 18.40.080 of the Municipal Codc of the Town of Vail or demonstrates
that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public
interest has been achieved. In accordance with Section 18.40.040, the development plan for SDD
No. 33 is approved. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Morter
Architects, and consists of the following documents:
1. Sheet No. A0.1, Morter Architects, dated September 25, 1996 (Site Plan).
2. Sheet No. L-1, Fieldscape, dated September 23, 1996 (Landscape Plan).
3. Sheet No. A2.1, Morter Architects, dated September 25, 1996 (Elevations-Building A).
4. Sheet No. A2.2, Morter Architects, dated September 25, 1996 (Elevations-Buildings B and C).
5. Sheet No. A2.3, Morter Architccts, dated September 25, 1996 (Elevations-Building D).
6. Sheet No. A1.1, Morter Architects, dated September 25, 1996 (Floor Plan-Building A).
7. Sheet No. A1.2, Morter Architects, dated September 25, 1996 (Floor Plan-Buildings B and C).
8. Sheet No. A1.3, Morter Architects, dated September 25, 1996 (Floor Plan-Building D).
9. Sheets No. C 1 and C2, Engineering Design Works, dated November 11, 1996, (Engineering
Drawings).
Ordinance 24,
, 2 Series of 1996
10. Other general submittal documents that define the development standards of the Special
Development District.
SECTION 5
1n addition to the Approved Development Plan described in Section 4 above, the following
development standards have been submitted to the Planning and Environmental Commission for its ,
consideration and recommendation and are hereby approved by the Town Council; these standards
are incorporated in the Approved Development Plan to protect the integrity of the development of
SDD No. 33; the following are the development standards for SDD No. 33;
A. Lot Area - The lot area shall consist of approximately 69,887.66 syuare feet.
Presently 52,620 square feet is currently owned by the Water District, 17,267 square feet is owned
by the Forest Service and subject to the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement.
B. Setbacks - The required setbacks shall be 20' for each setback, per Medium Density
Multi-Family (MDMF) zoning standards and as indicated on the approved development plan.
C. Height - The maxirnum height of the development shall not exceed 35 feet per MDMF
zoning standards and as indicated on the approved development plan..
D. Density Control - The maximum development of the site shall not exceed 16,275
square feet of GRFA and/or seventeen dwelling units. This figure is the maximum GRFA and
dwelling units to be allowed on the lot.
E. Site Coverage - The maximum site coverage for this Special Development District
shall not exceed 12,029 square feet, or 17% of the lot area, as indicated on Approved Development
Plans.
F. Landscaping - The minimum landscaped area for Yhis Special Development District
shall not be less than 36,450 square feet, or 52% of the lot area, as indicated on the Approved
Development Plans.
SECTION 6
The developer, jointly and severaliy, agrees with the following requirements, which are a part
of the Town's approval of the establishment of this SDD No. 33:
A. Prior to first reading, the applicant shall provide a detailed drawing of the dumpster
enclosure, making this component part of the overall development plans.
Ordinance 24,
3 Series of 1996
B. Prior to second reading, the applicant shall provide letters from wetland consultants
outlining a recommendation for wetland mitigation as well as a letter of approval from the Corps of
engineers approving the proposed mitigation plan.
C. Prior to issuance of building permits for any structure on the property, the applicant
shall document how the overhead utility lines will be removed. The two poles on-site will be
eliminated and the applicant will work with Holy Cross eleetric to determine how the existing service
will terminate on the Sandstone Park site.
D. Prior to recording thc condominium map, the applicant shall provide the following
easements on the map, which will take effect immediately upon recording at the Eagle County Clerk
and Recarder:
l) A public access easernent for the Brooktree/Sandstone park residents;
2) A public access easement for the portion of Red Sandstone roadway which
crosses the subject property; and
3) A drainage easement for the storm drain crossing the site.
4) A public access easement across the property described in Exhibit A to serve
future development in conforrnance with this approval located on the property
described in Exhibit B.
E. The final condominium map shall abandon all interior lot lines of the property.
F. Prior to first reading, the applicant shall add 4 additional spruce and 5 additional
shrubs to the landscape plan, locating the additional plant material immediately south from the largest
group of landscaping, located adjacent to the Red Sandstone Road right-of-way.
SECTION 7
This approval shall take effect immediately as it pertains to the land described in Exhibit A
and, as to that land described in Exhibit B, this approval shall become effective upon the transfer of
title from the United States Forest Service to the Town of Vail.
SECTION 8
Amendments to the approved development plan shall be reviewed pursuant to Section
18.40.100 of the Vail Municipal Code.
Ordinance 24,
4 Series of 1996
~
SECTION 9
The developer must begin construction of the Special Development District within three (3)
years from the time of its final approval, and continue ditigently toward completion of the project.
The developer must meet the requirements of Section 18.40.120 of the Municipal Code of the Town
of Vail.
SECTION 10
If any part, section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be
invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the
Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid.
SECTION 11
The Town Council hereby finds, determincs and declares that this ordinance is necessary and
proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and its inhabitants thereof.
SECTION 12
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as
provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other
action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and
reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby sha11 not revive any provisions or any ordinance
previously repealed or superseded unless stated herein.
Ordinance 24,
5 senes or 1996
r
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this day of November, 1996, and a
public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance on the day of December, 1996, in the
Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
Attest:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED IN
FULL this day of , 1996.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
Attest:
Holly L. McCutchcon, Town Clerk
Ordinance 24.
6 Series of 1996
Exhibit A
A PARCEL OF LAND WHICH IS PART OF BLOCK "D" OF THE LION'S RIDGE
SUBDIVISION, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, SITUATED IN SECTION l, TOWNSHIP 5SOUTH, RANGE 81 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
PARCEL, WHICH CORNER IS COiNCIDENT WITH THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE
_ SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE
81 WEST, 6TH PRINCIPAL 1VIERIDIAN, THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 45
SECONDS WEST 84.35 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 18 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 14 SECONDS
WEST 86.06 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 85 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 11 SECONDS WEST 153.30
FEET, THENCE NORTH 22 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 35 SECONDS EAST 35.97 FEET,
THENCE NORTH 04 DEGREES O 1 MINUTES 23 SECONDS WEST 79.80 FEET 1'HENCE
NORTH 22 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST 62.68 FEET, THENCE NORTH 87
DEGREES 48 MINUTES 35 SECONDS EAST 196.28 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
AND
A PARCEL OF LAND IN BLOCK D, LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF EAGLE,
STATE OF COLORADO, DESCRiBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A PO1NT WHENCE
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER (SE 1/4 SE 1/4) OF SECTION l, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 81 WEST OF THE
6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN BEARS NORTH 33 DEGREES 38 MINUTES 59 SECONDS EAST
207.88 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 85 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 1 l SECONDS WEST 65.15 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 22 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 35 SECONDS WEST 61.37 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 26 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 34 SECONDS EAST 93.63 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11
DEGREES 27 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST 129.64 FEET; THENCE SOLJTH 57 DEGREES
33 MINUTES 16 SECONDS EAST.90 FEET THENCE NORTH 17 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 49
SECONDS EAST 51.99 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 16 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 11 SECONDS
EAST 87.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 07 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST 86.95
FEET; THENCE NORTH 27 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 49 SECONDS EAST 190.91 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 18 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 14 SECONDS EAST 61.52 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 85 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 1 l SECONDS WEST 88.15 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Ordinance 24,
7 Series of 1996
.
.
Exhibit B
A PARCEL OF LAND WITHIN THE NE 1/4 SE 1/4 SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH,
RANGE 81 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAGLE COUNTY,
COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID NE 1/4 SE 1/4 SECTION 1, SA1D POINT ALSO BEING THE
NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF BLOCK D, LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION,
ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 215 AT PAGE 648 IN THE
OFFICE OF THE EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, CLERK AND RECORDER; THENCE,
DEPARTING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, N22°33'00"W 84.13 FEET; THENCE N49°45'28" E
55.05 FEET; THENCE 53.85 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 200.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15°25'35" AND A CHORD
THAT BEARS N57°28'16" E 53.69 FEET; THENCE 41.90 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A
CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 27.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
88°54'26", AND A CHORD THAT BEARS S70°21'44" E 37.82 FEET; THENCE S25054'31" E
137.47 FEET TO THE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NE 1/4 SE 1/4 SECTION 1, SAID
LINE ALSO BEING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK D; THENCE, ALONG
SAID LINE, S87°48'35" W 150.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING
0.3964 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
THE BEARINGS OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL ARE BASED ON A BEARING
OF N87°48'35"E ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NE 1/4 SE 1/4 SECTION 1, TSS,
R81 W, PER THE PLAT OF LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION.
Ordinance 24,
8 Series of 1996
a
ORDINANCE 17,
Series of 1996
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE MAJOR AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 21, VAIL GATEWAY; AMENDING AN APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 21 IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE;
LOCATED AT 12 VAIL ROAD/A PORTION OF LOT N, AND A PORTION OF LOT O, BLOCK 5D, VAIL VILLAGE 1ST FILING,
AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Special Development
Districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land; and
WHEREAS, Special Development District No. 21 was established by the Town Council
on 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 9, Series 1988.
WHEREAS, the developer and applicant, Vail Apartments, Inc., has submitted an
application for a major Special Development District amendment for a certain parcel of property
within the Town, known as the Vail Gateway Building, and as Special Development District No.
21; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental
Commission, on August 26, 1996, held a public hearing on the major amendment of an SDD
and has submitted its recommendation of approval to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 of the Vail Municipal Code,
have been sent to the appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the major amendment to the approved development plan has been
reviewed pursuant to Section 18.40.100 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has hetd a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of
the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate and beneficial
to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants and visitors to amend the originally approved Special
Development District No. 21.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Amendmentprocedures fulfilled Planning and Environmental Commission
Report• The review procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code have
been fulfilled and the Town Council has received the report of the Planning and Environmental
1 Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996
Commission recommending approval of the proposed amendment to the development plan for.
Speciai Development District No. 21.
, Section 2. Special Development District No. 21 and the amended development plan
therefore, are hereby approved for the redevelopment for the expansion of Gross Residential
Floor Area in Unit No. 5, Vail Gateway Condominiums.
Section 3. Purpose
Special Development District No. 21 is intended to insure comprehensive development and use
of an area in a manner that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail.
The development is regarded as complimentary to the Town by the Town Council and meets
the Design Standards as set forth in Section 18.40 of the Municipal Code. As stated in the staff
memorandum dated August 26, 1996, the major SDD amendment request is in compliance with
the goals and objectives of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, as well as the purpose section of the
SDD Overlay Zone District. SDD No. 21 provides an appropriate development plan that
maintains the unique character of this site and the surrounding area without negatively
impacting existing or potential uses in the area.
Section 4. The Town Council finds that the amended development plan for Special
Development District No. 21 meets each of the standards set forth in Section 18.40.080 of the
Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. In accordance with Section 18.40.040, the amended
development plan for Special Development District No. 21 is approved and Special
Development District No. 21 is hereby approved for the property described in the attached
Exhibit A. The amended development plan is comprised with those plans submitted by Buff
Arnold, Ned Gwathmey, and Steve Riden, and consists of the following documents:
1. Site plan, dated March 28, 1988
2. Floor plans, dated March 28, 1988 and revised (partial) plans dated February 28,
1996.
3. Elevations dated March 28, 1988 and revised (partial) plans dated February 28,
1996.
4. Landscape plan dated March 28, 1988
5. Special Development District application and Environmental Impact report as
prepared by Peter Jamar Associates, Inc., dated January 1988, and revised
March 9, 1988.
2 Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996
Section 5 Approved Development Standards
The development standards for Special Development District No. 21 are approved by the Town
Council as part of the approved development plan as follows:
A. Setbacks - Setbacks shall be as indicated on the site plan set forth in Section 4
of this Ordinance.
B. Building heights shall be as indicated on the elevations and roof plan set forth in
Section 4 of this Ordinance.
C. Site Coverage - Site coverage shall be as indicated on the site plan set forth in
Section 4 of this Ordinance.
D. Landscaping - The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as generally
indicated on the preliminary landscape plan set forth in Section 4 of this
Ordinance.
E. Parking - Parking demands of this development shall be in accordance with the
developer's proposal to provide 95 parking spaces.
F. Density - The density allowed in Special Development District No. 21 shall be 7
dwelling units consisting of not more than a total of 12,815 sq. ft. of GRFA.
Section 6. The uses of Special Development District No. 21 are uses permitted by
right, conditional uses or accessory uses in the Commercial Core I Zone District. The permitted
uses in the Special Development District shall be the same as those uses permitted in the
Commercial Core I Zone District. Conditional uses in the Special Development District shall be
the same as the conditional uses listed in the Commercial Core I Zone District, and accessory
uses in the Special Development District shall be the same as the accessory uses listed in the
Commercial Core I Zone District.
Section 7. Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its
substance may be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly
scheduled public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060. Amendments
which do change the substance of the development plan shali be approved in accordance with
Sections 18.66.110 through 18.66.160. The Community Development Department shall be
solely responsible for determining what constitutes a change in the substance of the
development plan. An application for an amendment to the Special Development District which
changes the substance of the development plan shall comply with requirements of Section
18.40.030 except that the Community Development Department shall determine which property
in the Special Development District is being directly affected by such amendment and the
consent of only those owners of said property shall be required to be included in the application.
3 Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996
Section 8. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be inva{id, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have
passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,
regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or
phrases be declared invalid.
Section 9. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this
ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and
the inhabitants thereof.
Section 10. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the
Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which
has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof,
any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by
virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby
shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless
expressly stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 5th day of November, 1996, and a
public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 19th day of November, 1996, in the
Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
4 Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996
.
?
INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND
ORDERED PUBLISHED (IN FULL) (BY TITLE ONLY) THIS 19th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
5 Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996
M
f
EXHIBIT A
VAIL GATEWAY BUILDING, 12 VAIL ROAD AND MORE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS: A PORTION OF LOT N, AND A PORTION OF LOT O, BLOCK 5D, VAIL
VILLAGE 1ST FILING.
6 Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996
.
ORDINANCE NO. 21
Series of 1996
AN ORDINANCE TO DESIGNATE 14 PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE TOWN OF VAIL
AS OPEN SPACE AS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 13, SECTION 13.11 OF THE CHARTER OF
THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, Article 13, Section 13.11 provides an opportunity for the Town of Vail to designate
certain open space parcels which meet specific criteria to be placed in a designated open space status; and
WHEREAS, once placed in that designated open space status these properties which are owned
by the Town of Vail would require an affirmative vote of the Town of Vail voters before the parcels
could be sold, leased, or subject to a zone change to a non-open space zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Open Space Committee has voted unanimously to designate 14
Town of Vail owned properties as open space; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the 14 properties set forth in Section 1 meet the criteria
required by Article 13, Section 13.11 of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the following properties will be
Designated Open Space:
PronertX Zoniniz Criteria Met
1) Lots 5,6,7,12 NAPD Riparian & Wetland Area
Vail Meadows No. 2(5 acres) 100 year flood plain
2) Bighorn Park (7.3 acres) OR Town Park
3) Tract D Bighorn Sth OR Red Avalanche Area
(1.2 acres)
4) Unplatted land south NAPD Steep hillside/No Access
of Courtside Townhomes High rockfall and snow hazard
(4.47 acres) Parcel # 2101-124-00-009
A parcel of land in Sections 2 and 3, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, Eagle
County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of Section 3; thence along the southerly line of Section 3 approximately N 89028'35" W, 2289
feet to a point; thence departing the Southerly line of Section 3 N 09145'09"E, approximately 840 feet to a point on the southerly
line of a parcel of land described in Book 397 at page 528; thence along the southerly parcel line the following five (5) courses: 1)
S 83°20'17" E, 219A1 feet, 2) N 89039;43" E, 240.00 feet, 3) N 52039143" E, 190.00 feet, 4) N 68°39'43" E, 220.00 feet, 5) S
89020'17" E,100 feet to the westerly most corner of Vail Village Eleventh Filing; thence along the southerly and easterly
boundary of Vail Village Eleventh Filing the following nine(9) courses: 1) S 62°07'44" E, 564.72 feet, 2) S 80032100" E, 225.00
feet, 3)N45°28'00"E, 280.00 feet, 4)N 64028'00" E, 180.00 feet, 5) N89°58130"E, 410.00 feet, 6) N 74000100" E, 220.00 feet, 7) S
89°30'00" E, 270.00 feet, 8) N 33030'00" E, 220.00 feet, 9) N 14°56' 18" E, 62.67 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way line
of Interstate 70; thence along the southerly line of Interstate 70 to a point of intersection on the Southerly line of Section 2, being
also the northerly line of Lot 5, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition; thence westerly along the Southerly line of Section 2 to
the Southwest comer of Section 2, being also the Point of Beginning.
Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1996
r
5) Unplatted land south of Glen NAPD High rockfall
Falls Lane (7.16 acres) Steep hillside/no access
Parcel # 2101-123-00-003
6) Unplatted land south of lots 1-4 NAPD High rockfall, debris flow. snow ava.
Block 2, Bighorn 1 st ( 2.4 acres)
Parcel # 2101-111-03-004
7) Tract A, Vail Village 12th NAPD Rockfall Mitigation
Filing, (30.21 acres) Bighorn Sheep habitat
8) Tract C Vail Village 13th NAPD Bighorn Sheep habitat
Filing (90 aces) Debris Flow
9) Katsos Ranch Park NAPD Sensitive wetland area
Described below: (172 acres) Recreation Trail
10) Tract A, Vail Valley 3rd Filing NAPD Snow Avalanche/Steep Slope
(9.43 acres)
11) Tract B, Vail Lionshead 2nd NAPD Riparian Area
Filing, (Area owned by TOV)
(9.33 acres)
12) Tract I Vail Village lst Filing OR Stream Tract
(2 acres)
13) Tract C Vail Village lst Filing OR Stream Tract
(2.5 acres)
14) Tract A, Lions Ridge NAPD Steep slope, neighborhood open space
2. That as Designated Open Space parcels they shall not be alienated, sold, leased or subjected to a
zoning designation change other than one of the open space zone districts identified in Article 13,
Section 13.11, unless all terms and provisions of said Article have been met.
3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and
proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided
in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation
that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action
or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and
reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance
previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed
to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw,
order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed.
Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1996
,
.
1NTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
ONCE IN FULL, this Sth day of November, 1996. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the this 19th
day of November, 1996 at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colarado, in the
Municipal Building of the Town.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this 19th day of November, 1996.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
Ordinance No. 21, Seria of 1996
F
ORDINANCE NO. 23
SERIES OF 1996
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE:
ADOPTING A BUDGET AND FINANCIAL PLAN
AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS TO PAY THE COSTS, EXPENSES, AND LIABILITIES
OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO,
FOR ITS FISCAL YEAR JANUARY 1, 1997, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1997,
AND PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF
TOWN AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES DUE FOR THE 1996 TAX YEAR
AND PAYABLE IN THE 1997 FISCAL YEAR; AND, FURTHER,
CONSIDERING A BUDGET AND FINANCIAL PL.AN FOR ITS FISCAL YEAR
JANUARY 1, 1998 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1998 WITHOUT FORMAL ADOPTION.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Articie IX of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado,
the Town Manager prepared and submitted to the Town Council a proposed long-range capital
program for the Town and a proposed budget and financial plan for all Town funds and
activities for the 1997 and 1998 fiscal years; and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the proposed Town budget and capital program
was published on the 8th day of November, 1996, more than seven (7) days prior to the hearing
held on the 19th day of November, 1996, pursuant to Section 9.5 of the Charter; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Town Council to adopt a budget and financial plan for
the 1997 fiscal year, to make appropriations for the amounts specified in the budget, and to
provide for the levy, assessment and collection of Town ad valorem property taxes due for the
1996 year and payable in the 1997 fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, it is believed appropriate and fiscally sound for the Town Manager to
present the budget and financial plan for 1998 to be considered by the Town Council to provide
a complete financial plan on a biennial basis.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado,
that:
1. The procedures prescribed in Article IX of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado,
for the enactment hereof have been fulfilled.
2. Pursuant to Article IX of the Charter, the Town Council hereby makes the following
annual appropriations for the Town of Vail, Colorado, for its fiscal year beginning on the first day
of January, 1997, and ending on the 31 st day of December, 1997:
FUND AMOUNT
General Fund $15,474,492
Capital Projects Fund 16,362,673
Real Estate Transfer Tax 3,104,176
Parking Structure Enterprise Fund 2,254,272
Heavy Equipment Fund 1,569,500
Police Confiscation Fund 76,568
Debt Service Fund 2,212,845
Health Insurance Fund 934,400
Vail Marketing Fund 341,500
Booth Creek Debt Service Fund 24,000
Vail Housing Fund 4,084,650
Facility Maintenance Fund 1.736.317
Total: $48,175,393
Less Interfund Transfers: < 9.908.369>
Net Budget $38.267.024
~ Ortlinance No. 23, Series of 1996
~
~
3. The Town Council hereby adopts the full and complete Budget and Financial
Plan for the 1997 fiscal year for the Town of Vail, Colorado, which are incorporated by
reference herein and made part hereof, and copies of said public records shall be made
available to the public in the Municipal Building of the Town.
4. For the purpose of defraying part of the operating and capital expenses of the
Town of Vail, Colorado, during its 1997 fiscal year, the Town Council hereby levies a property tax of 4.71 mills upon each dollar of the total assessed valuation of $394,681,500 for the 1996
tax year of all taxable property within the Town, which will result in a gross tax levy af
$1,858,949, calculated as follows:
Base mill levy 4.69 $1,851,056
Abatement mill levy .02 7.893
Total mill levy 4.71 1 858 949
Said assessment shalt be duly made by the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, as directed by
the Colorado Revised Statutes (1973 as amended), and as otherwise required by law. 5. The Town Council has considered the budget and financial plan for the fiscal
year January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998 as presented by the Town Manager, takes
no formal action in regard to it at this time and further directs the Town Manager in accordance
with Article IX of the Charter of the Town of Vail to present the proposed 1998 budget and
financial plan for adoption no later than thirty (30) days prior to the close of the 1997 fiscal year.
6. This Ordinance shall take effect five (5) days after publication following the final
passage hereof.
7. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this
ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless
of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be
declared invalid.
8. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is
necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants
thereof.
9. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code
of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued,
any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the
provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not
revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly
stated herein.
10. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent
herewith are repeaied to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be
construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore
repealed.
2 Ordinance No. 23, Series W 1996
.
.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 19th day of November, 1996. A public hearing shall be heid
hereon on the 3rd day of December, 1996, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this 3rd day of December, 1996.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
3 Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1996
;
TOWN OF vAIL
75 South Frontage Road Office of the Town Manager
VK Colorado 81657
970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vai! Towrt Council
_ FROM: Robert W. McLauriryJ,f
Town Manager
DATE: November 19, 1996 SUBJECT: Town Manager's Report
Library Chute Project
The construction at the library is essentially complete. We anticipate opening this section to traffic
on Monday. As you will recall, this work involved construction of drainage and pedestrian
improvements in front of the library and up the chute west of the pubGc library. The heating system
appears to be working. This project will considerably improve pedestrian safety in this area.
Meadow Drive Improvements _
You may have seen the plastic tent on Meadow Drive immediately west of Crossroads. This
experimental project involved using decorative concrete to improve the appearance of this area.
As indicated, this is an experiment and we will see how it looks and how it holds up. This project
is also complete. * With the completion of this project, the library chute project, and the partial
completion of Vail Valley Drive improvements, we will be moving the in-town shuttle back to its
original route effective Monday.
_ Council Critical Strategies and Obiectives
I have enclosed a copy of the Town CounciPs critical strategies and objectives. I have attached
these in order to keep you informed of our work program. As indicated the actions reflect the work
' program which will help develop the strategies and objectives. .
Holiday Management Plan
We are beginning our work with the TOVNA Task Force and Vail Associates to implement the
Holiday Management Plan. This is the fourth year that we have implemented the Holiday
Management Plan. This effort involves trying to minimize vehides entering Vail in order to
decrease congestion and delays during the peak Christmas period. This year we will be working
with the newly created Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority to (hopefully) provide
additional bus service. During the past three years we have worked with major employers to
encourage car pooling and bus ridership. This program has been very successful and has
significantly reduced congestion and delays during the Chrisftas period.
RWM/aw
RECYCLEDPAPER
TRANSPORTATION
CRITICAL STRATEGY
PROVIDE FOR THE SAFE AND EFFICIENT MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS WITHIN THE TOWN. THE TOWN IS COMMITTED TO A MULTI MODEL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL, AND WITNIN THE REGION.
Obiectives
a. Improve the efficiency of the TOV Transit System.
b. Work with the Regional Transportation Authority to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Regional Transportation System.
c. Work to provide for the efficient delivery and distribution of goods in Vail Village and Lionshead.
d. Provide for the safe movement of bicyclists and pedestrians within the TOV and in the region.
e. Maintain a safe and efficient street system in the Town of Vail. Minimize congestion.
f. Work with the Rail Coalition to secure the abandoned Southern Pacific railroad right of way.
g. Work with Department of Transportation on the MIS Study.
1996 Actions Responsibilitv Time Budqet ImaactlFundina
' Plan and select preferred alternative McLaurin, Hall, Grafel, Silverthorn 10/96 $75,000"
for the West Vail Interchange
* Complete the Dowd Junc6on Bike Path Grafel, Hall 11196 $1,200,000"
' Complete library chute pedestrian improvements Grafel, Oppenheimer. Hall, McLaurin 11196 $450,000
' Analyze Simba Run Options Hall, Grafel, McLaurin complete NA"`
" Identify sites for park and ride lots Grafel, Hall, Rose, McLaurin 12196 NA
}$75,000 will fund the technical analysis and public participation elementnecessary to select a preferred alternative. Once the Council has selected an alternative the construction design and preparation of contract
documents will cost approximately $150,000. The cost of the actual construction will be a function of the selected aRernative. To date $300,000 has been allocated from CDOT. We will be pursuing additional funding for
the construcqon of this project.
Funding sources for this project are as follows; TOV $460, Eagle Couniy $200,000, CDOT $740,000
This analysis will be included as part of the analysis of West Vail Interchange options. The cost of this work is included in the $75,000.
,
TRANSPORTATION
1996 Actions (continued) Responsibility Time Buduet ImaacUFundina
* Conduct rate analysis for parking structures Rose, Grafel, McLaurin complete
' Continue to participate in rail abandonment coalition Rose, Grafel, McLaurin, Foley On going
' Confinue to participate in the Regional Transportation Authority Foley, Mclaurin, Grafel, Rose On going $115,000
' Complete loading and delivery study Hall, McLaurin, Grafel, Moorhead $30,000
" Continue to implement Haliday Management Plan Grafel, Rose, McLaurin 12/96 NA
" Traffic Code modifications (speed limits) Hall, Moorhead 8/96 NA
1997 Actions Responsibility Time BudQet ImaactlFundinq
" Construct West Vail Interchange McLaurin, Grafel, Hall 6198 $5,500,000""'
" Replace six buses Grafel, Rose, Scholl 12197 $1,250,000"""
* Complete West Vail bike path Forrest, Hall, Oppenheimer 10197 $325,000 (RETT)
* Construct Vail Valley Drive (Hansen Ranch - TRC) Grafel, Hall
" Lionsridge Street Project Hall 11/91 $2,300,000
1998 Actions Responsibility Time Budaet ImaactlFundina
* Reconstruct Vail Valley Drive (Golden Peak to Sunburst) Hall, Grafel, McLaurin 10/97 $2,500, 0
1999 Actions Responsibility Time Budpet ImpactlFundina
" East Bridge Road Reconstruction Grafel, Hall 10199 $2,500,000
2000 Actions Responsibilitv Time Budpet ImaactlFundinq
` Reconshuct Meadow Drive (East Vail) Grafel, Hall 11100 $2,200,000
2001 Actions Responsibility Time Budpet ImaactlFundinq
" Reconstruct Glen Lyon Streets Grafel, Hall 11/01 $1,500,000
The cost of item is to be measured in terms of lost revenues. The specific cost will be a function of what actons are implemented. For example, continuing the free 6-9 program will have one cost, while
eliminating charges after 4:00 pm will have another.
*~*`*This is the estimated cost prior to construction design. This project cannot be constructed in 1997 with funding assistance from CDOT, FHWA or other funding partners.
.t...
This includes federal funding of $1,000,000 and $250,000 from the TOV
~
LOCAL HOUSING
CRITICAL STRATEGY
FACILITATE THE PROVISION OF A RANGE OF HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES WHICH WILL PROVIDE LOCALS AN OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE IN VAIL. THE
TOWN BELIEVES LOCAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SHOULD INCLUDE OWNER-OCCUPIED DEED RESTRICTED UNITS, RENTAL UNITS AND UNITS
FOR USE BY SEASONAL EMPLOYEES. THE TOWN OF VAIL RECOGNIZES THAT LOCAL HOUSING IS IMPORTANT TO MAINTAINING OUR SENSE OF
COMMUNITY AND IS CRITICAL IN SUSTAINING THE VIABILITY OF THE LOCAL ECONOMY.
Ob'ectives
a. Maintain the existing rental housing base in Vail.
b. Facilitate the development of new seasonal housing.
c. Facilitate the construction of new rental housing in Vail.
d. Update and revise existing housing regulations as necessary.
e. Continue to utilize and enforce existing employee housing regulations
f. Develop partnerships to help implement the Town's housing goals and strategies.
g. Facifitate the development of new owner occupied units in the Town of Vail.
h. Use the TOV land development regulations to help achieve the Town's goals. ,
1996 Actions Resaonsibilitv Time Budqet ImpacUFundina
' Enecute agreement with USFS for local housing pilot project Knudtsen, McLaurin 12196 NA
' Oversee the construction and sale of the Vail Commons units. Knudtsen, McLaurin, Moorhead 3197 NA " Plan, and designed Red Sandstone site. (With Water District) Knudtsen, McLaurin 2I96 $625,000'
` Plan, and design seasonal units at the Public Works site Knudtsen, Grafel, Hervert 9197
` Identify and commit to additional sites for local housing McLaurin, Moorhead, Knudtsen on going NA
" Determine the appropriate use of the Berry Creek property Town Council 12/96 NA .
, The TOV will fund the construction of these units from the Housing Fund. When the units are sold this fund will be reimbursed.
10128196
LOCAL HOUSING
1996 Actions Responsibility Time Buduet ImpactlFundinq
* Pursue generating funds for housing through sale of select LOAA parcels Connelly, Forest, Knudtsen 12196 NA
* Participate in Eagle County Housing Task Force Knudtsen on going NA
' Review GRFA regulabons Mollica, Forest
* Evalute opportunities to assure continued availabiiiy of Timber Connelly, Moorhead, McLaurin
Ridge a rental housing
1997 Actions Responsibility Time Budpet ImpactlFundinq
' Complete construction of Vail Commons Units Knudtsen, McLaurin 6/97 NA
* Construct Seasonal Housing at Public Works Knudtsen, Grafel, Hervert 9197 $2,000,000"
' Plan and design redevelopment of Arosa A Frame Knudtsen 6197
1998 Actions Responsibility Time Budpet ImaacUFundinu
' Redevelop Arosa A Frame Knudtsen, McLaurin 6198
' Plan, design and program housing at Manager's lots Knudtsen, McLaurin 9/98
' Plan, design and program housing at Old Town Shop Knudtsen, McLaurin 9/98
1999 Actions Responsibility Time Budqet ImaactlFundina
' Construct housing at Manager's lots Knudtsen, McLaurin 9/99
* Construct housing at Old Town Shop Knudtsen, McLaurin 9/99
*tThis amount is currently unfunded. It is anticipated this project would be a tax credit project and the capital for this project would come from a private developer.
10128/96
INFRASTRUCTURE
CRITICAL STRATEGY
THE GOAL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL IS TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARY TO
MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR RESIDENTS AND ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF THE EXPERIENCE FOR OUR GUESTS.
Obiectives
a. Plan, prioritize and fund infrastructure necessary to maintain and enhance the quality of life and the quality of experience in the community.
b. Prepare a 10 year capital budget which prioritizes the TOV capital needs.
c. Identify and construct capital improvements necessary to enhance the 1999 Ski Championships.
d. Commit to and fund a systematic street reconstruction program.
e. Identify additional funding sources to help fund major capital projects.
1996 Actions Responsibilitv Time Budpet ImpactlFundinq
' Plan and select preferred McLaurin, Hall, Grafel, Silverthorn 11! 96 $75,000'
alternative for West Vail Interchange
' Construct public works shops Phase I Grafel, Hervert, McLaurin 12/96 $2,500,000
* Design Seibert Circle Improvements Oppenheimer, Hall, AIPP 4197 (design)
' Reconstruct Vail Valley Drive (Hansen Ranch to GP) Hall, Grafel, McLaurin 11/96 $300,000
" Construct Pulis Bridge Hall, CDOT complete $130,000
" Construct Library chute pedestrian improvements Hall, Oppenheimer, McLaurin 11196 $450,000
` Construct Bridge Street drainage improvements Hall, Weber complete $35,000
` Construct Vsta Bahn Drainage Project Hall, Weber complete $125,000
~$75,000 will fund the technical analysis and public paRicipation element necessary to select a preferred alternative. Once the Council has selected an alternabve the construction design and preparation of contract
documents vill cost approximatety $150,000. The cost of the actual construction will be a function of the selected afternative. To date $300,000 has been allocated from CDOT. We will be pursuing additional funding for
the construction of this project.
INFRASTRUCTURE
1996 Actions (continued) Responsibilitv Time Budget ImpactlFundinQ
` Plan, design and renovate TRC Grafel, Rose, McLaurin 11/96 $1,050,000
' Construct North Frontage Road improvements Hall 11l96 $500,000
* Complete the Dowd Junction Bike Path project Hall 11/96 $1,000,000
* Complete Golf Course Street Project Hall, Martinez complete $450,000
' Bald Mountain Rd/Glen Lyon Seal Project Hall complete $60,000 ' Marriott Curb & sidewalk replacement Hall 11196 $50,000
1997 Actions Resaonsibilitv Time Budget ImpactlFundina
* Construct West Vail Interchange McLaurin, Grafel, Hall 6198 $5,500,000"
* Construct improvements at Seibert Circle Oppenheimer, Hall, AIPP 10197 $450,000
' Construct Vail Valley Drive (Hansen Ranch - TRC) Grafel, Hall
* Westhaven, W. Forest Rd Overlay Hall 8197 $225,000
* Lionsridge Street Project Hall 11197 $2,300,000
* Reconstruct Slifer Plaza Grafel, Hall 10197
' Reconstruct Checkpoint Charlie Plaza Grafel, Hall 10/97
" Public Works Shop Upgrade Phase II Grafel, Hervert 10/97 $600,000
1998 Actions Responsibil'rtv Time Budget ImpactfFundina
" Reconstruct Vail Valley Drive (Golden Peak to Sunburst) Hall, Grafel, McLaurin 10/97 $2,500,000
1999 Actions Resaonsibilitv Time Budget ImoactfFundina
` Reconstruct Children's Foundation Pavers McLaurin, Grafel 10/99
' East Bridge Road Reconstrucfion Grafel, Hall 10199 $2,500,000
2000 Actions Responsibilitv Time Budget ImaactlFundinq
' Lionshead Redevelopment Council, McLaurin Connelly, Grafel 1012001
` Reconstruct Meadow Drive (East Vail) Grafel, Hall 11/00 $2,200,000
2001 Actions Responsibilitv Time Budget ImuactlFundinq
* Reconstruct Glen Lyon Streets Grafel, Hall 11101 $1,500,000
~~This is the estimated cost prior to construction design. This project cannot be constructed in 1997 with funding assitance from CDOT, FHWA or other funding partners. ,
ECONOMIC STABILITY
CRITICAL STRATEGY
PROMOTE A STRONG, VIABLE LOCAL ECONOMY THROUGH A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR. THE LOCAL ECONOMY SHOULD HAVE
A SOLID ECONOMIC BASE AND REASONABLE RATF OF GROWTH. THE TOWN WILL STRIVE TO STRENGTHEN VAIL'S ECONOMY WHILE
MAINTAINING ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN EXCELLENCE.
Obiectives
a. Enhance economic development opportunities
b. Strengthen the relationship with the business community.
c. Encourage responsible redevelopment in Vail Village, Lionshead and West Vail.
d. Increase the number of live beds in the Vail Village and Lionshead.
e. Work with the private sector to improve the quality of existing bed base,
f. Work with the private sector to increase taxable retail sales.
g. Improve customer focus and service.
h. Encourage special events and create festive retail opportunities.
1996 Actions Resaonsibilitv Time Budpet impacdFundinq
" Analyze retail trends and opportunities TOVNA Task Force, LH&W Merchants
McLaurin, Connelly & Silverthorne
" Streamline develapment review process McLaurin, Connelly, McLaurin, Hall, McGee
" Conduct Village loading and delivery study McLaurin, Grafel, Hall $30,000
` Review special event regulations to determine how to ease Brandmeyer, McCutchen, Special Events
application process for special events Commission
' Complete Ford Park Master Plan Ruther, Brandmeyer, Grafel, VRD, WF
Alpine Gardens
' Complete West Vail Design Guidelines Ruther, Hall
;
1996 Actions Responsibilitv Time Budaet ImaactlFundinp
` Explore alternative parking management strategies Grafel, Rose McLaurin 9/96
` Develop plan for Lionshead Redevelopment Council, McLaurin, Connelly, Grafel
And develop partnerships to implement plan
" Undertake a community strategic plan Council, McLaurin, Connelly Silverthorn 12196 $225,000
" Complete the Development Review Improvement Process (DRIP) Connelly, Hall, McGee 7/96
* Continue to develop non peak strategies TOVNA Task Force on going
COMMUNITY COLLABORATION
CRITICAL STRATEGY.
EXERCISE COUNCIL LEADERSHIP TO IMPROVE COMMUNITY DIALOGUE AND FOSTER A MORE COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITY.
Obiectives
a. Foster a more collaborative community
b. Improve community dialogue and participation in the creation of programs and policies that enhance our community's quality of life.
c. Buifd frust and credibility within the community through pramotion of responsible and responsive decision-making by TOV staff and council,
d. Identify (conflicting) needs, values and concerns of the community audience segments.
e. Articulate and clarify key community goals and issues to audience segments.
f. Create an environment of informed community consent on major public decisions
g. Strengthen the Town organization.
1996 Actions Resaonsibilitv Time Buduet ImpactlFundinq
' Identify, organize and create a dialogue with community Silverthorn, McLaurin, Council on going NA
contact in each neighborhood
" Increase presence in community through organized appearances Council, McLaurin, Silverthorn on gaing NA
presentations to Village & Lionshead Merchants, Rotary, etc
` Host regular MayorlCouncil walkabout through neighborhoods & businesses Cauncil, McLaurin on going NA
` Host town wide community breakfasts on a quarterly basis Cauncil, Silverthorn, McLaurin
* Complete the Vail Tomorrow process and implemenf relevent actions Council, Silverthorn, Connelly, McLaurin 2197 $225,000'
"This effort is a public private partnership. It is anticipated that the TOV contribution will be $100,000. This amount was originally budgeted to update the Land Use Plan. However it was felt that Vail Tomorrow would
more readity achieve the Council of fostering collaboration and building trust. s
(PASSENGER,
L STUD9
Colorado Passenger Rail Study Newsletter October 1996
Draft Passenger Rail Plan Recommended
he Colorado Department of Transporta- This Core System consists of approximately 642
tion, in cooperation with numerous local ,
miles of track. It is expected to carry about 3.5
and regional governments as well as million riders annually by the year 2015. The initial
several railroads, has completed a comprehensive capital cost is estimated to be $].2 billion with an
= nine monrh studv of the fPasibility of passenger annual oper .t;^g c-t o.`::98 mi?licrl. A furtrcer
rail service in 18 corridors around the state. The prioritization has been sugQested on the Core System
primary purpose of this study is to evaluate all 18 (continued on next paje)
corridors and screen down to the highest perform-
ers. To achieve this purpose, the study considered
the following factors cost, ridership, cost Inside this newsletter ~
effectiveness, air quality, and other factors. • Core System Ptan .
• Cost-Effectiveness Rankings
The long-range vision for a statewide passenger ' Next Steps
stc.~ ;s u ~;:idc
for t;,cal ur,u
regional governments regardina land
use and other planr,ing issues. The TO
vision iden[ifies corridors in the full STEAMBOAT CHEYENNE
passenger rail system, which would SPRINGS FORT
CRAIG COLLINS
take over 30 years to develop. GREELEY _
Specific alignments will be deter- BOULDER
mined in the future.
GLENWOOD DIA
A Steering Committee made up of SPRINGS ~A~L DENVER '
rcpresent«t;ves irom~ eac~l of the CENTRAL
~ C1TY - -
corridors has recommended the ` • -
following corridors be included in ASPEN LEADVILLE
the Priority or "Core" System. GRAND
JUNCTION COLORADO • Fort Collins to Denver (several _ SPRINGS ,
possible routes) • Colorado Springs to Denver (two CRIPPLE -
CREEK ,
possible routes)
.
Steamboat Sprinos to Vail To PUEBLO
Aspen RECOMMENDED
• Grand Junction to Glenwood PA S S E N G E R RA I L
Springs PLAN
• Vail to Leadville
• Dell Ve1' CO Wi11tel P1rIC t0 S te3]11- ~ Final alignment to be determined in future studies
boat Springs TRtNIDAD The vision for passenger rail in Colorado as seen in the recommended full system
~
CFA1C
~ " - =~rC• I•'. .
:FSTEAMBOAT
RECOMMENDED SPRINGS
, ' ~ ; . . .
' CORE SYSTEM HAYDEN/
YAMPAVALLEY
O Express Station AIRPORT CREEK \ \ ~,f/
.:OAK •t~
- Q Local Statioli
T1'QI2Sf81' StQlZOti` Yampa G R A N D
~ Fina1 aligninent to be determined - - - - ~ ` i:'~KREMMLING Granby
in future studies ~ ~ `w' I°'r;"`
• T,aoro: ! . .
~ 1 ~ ~ . • ',~\J'4 ) j . {
~ L ~Y'
C ~lIl T . ~
WINTER PARK/.'
FRASER
Bl7N~~
;1 • " Rollins
; "i'';J r
°aic e;cn.c (
- - - - - ~ Edwards, ~
' Eagle
:-:F~: ;
Avon.
New DOTSERO ~
Castle ;.VAIL,...
~ F : silt? Ye.
~z~~~
F RIFLE'.
R
i. u ! - GYPSUM/ •~R.: :t ~~;`"c~r:~:-~. :
PARACHUTE/
Eagle-Vail,• Minturn
BATfLEMENT EAGLE CC'. , - _
sGLENWOOD AIRPORI u4~ r~,,
MESA SPRINGS
y. EL JEBEL r•,~~., .~~a::z~~:~e~e
+ - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - • - - -Carbondale' + `Basalt ` a? Camp' Hale~~
l~-. C: _
~Ski Cooper
' ~s~ _ . - ASPEN-PITKIN CO. P j T K I N;
AIRPORT/ !500. LEADVILLE
? v~= BRUSH CREEK P A
~ • . ~ . YTI; i
.o,.: _ ASPEN`~'~ "LAKt
GRAND ~a,e_ - ' , J i , ~ :
JUNCTION/
1h'ALKER FIELD' i~ \ E L I A Y.
, , ~ '~j ` ~ ce~t L_~_=
Bovic:
Ccoarcdq f%fJ!
(.~i
~ ~ enord Gi7; ~ 'to~ 1'iAs•er, :<i.
Paan~a:
~
~ J
:r G U :,,s;
\ - - rer!C~ ~ ~ ~ i v l~' 11 ! - 6Jih•;~i
- __3 HAFf EE jl" '
li
;
`a .a _
.ws_a`«~~..
.
0
t~ ~"yL~'-: .s.x+"e"s:. '~£,T~i4sy,,, r 4 y 1 2 .ar
3 r r-~ '
•'s°'~"..----
'
PASSENGER
- ~r~~ ~ f ~ h x~ •
~ RAIL STUDY =
E ~
v~ t
I ~ • ~~,lyµ
~~'~~.:~~n~•'~ =.^.L. '~~'Y ~+Jy t 4~~ f~P` ~ . t ~~`yN{ 1 A y
~
.
~
rK k
, e .
" ~ . , i . _ . . . . . "
~ Y ' . . - • w ^
- - ; ~ (continueci from front pa~Te)
FOR7'COLLINS'' ` - -
t: ;uentify ~~-hich con-idor(s) are highest performers..
WIN SOR J. T'iis was based primarily on local Qovernment, business
' and citizen support, and co,t effectiveness.
° _.~I.1 F~•~ GREELEY
LOVELAND- -
A su-aested -roup of Core Svstem corridors that is
Berthoud recommended by the Stud~ Steering Committee for early
- -
, , action is:
- --1
LONGMON - ! - • Fort Collins [o Denver (5169-195 million);
. F.~''"`%"~ ' ~ • Glemvood Sprinas to Aspen ($114 million);
~ ~ ~ ' e'~ _ " ~ • Steamboat SprinQs to Yampa Va11ey Regional Airport
' .`BOULDER:'::, I - - Fort Lupton' ~
($67 million);
. - 1:
,,3roomfield BRIGHTON
Westmins er and the;e remainina Core System corridors are
• - ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ Commerce Cit su~Qested for future im lementation:
` !:.S!-193 . y , p
nsville-~;~~: , - Sie~ililVvai ,i1~iiii~s i0 ~~'aii io ~sYen (~'3?9 mil1~
lOIl);
Arvada`- 'DIA , . ~ y
' ~ - _ ^ • Denver to Winter Park to Steamboat Springs ($272
~DENVER,
m i l l i on '
1-25/Broadwa
Colorado Blvd. • Denver to Colorado Springs (5285-327 million) ;
En9lewood~ A N A r'~ • Grand Junction to Glemvood S rmQs ($150 million
1-225/DTC . p
- -
F~ ~ • Lead~~ille to Vail (S 109 million).
LITTLETON/C-470' C-470' ~ ~ -
, i ~ , - ~
~j•. <;%i - 1 ~~'I ~ r i
t -
~ -CASi LC Rt'iCiC ~ Y -
!
_ ._.PALMER LAKE/f
MONUMENT~ ~ ~ DenverUnion
Termina!
•p;
L:l.
~a ''~r•, a~i .
COLORADO~' Rankings of System Plan O tions
SPRINGS!,; p .
_r-~..~_ by Cost-Effectiveness
s: : ,-~;o ~ - 'r: cu.cFfo:~
~ ,r er,•;~r-o,. ~
;t;l1`~~ o ~ $70 . . .
- - - , ' ' r., U ~ $60
~
~ ` , ~
cc v) ~ ~
< uC`~' 3Q
~
, ~ ~ • \
~
Q
; . ,
~ Q ° ~
m N ~ ia° ~ \
Qo `y C"
Z q, `C Q' o1t~
i~ v ~ ~aj' ~o, ~ V
6 ~ ~
Q'
. ,
. rY~S ,
Lower anniializeci costs in.dicate better cost-effectiveness.
w •
Three Ogen House/Public Meetin.-s will be held around the Department and consultant team will be available to
state to present the draft recommendation and solicit public answer any question the pubiic may have on this study.
input prior to the presentation of the draft recommendations The public meetina will have short presentation
at th,:! SteerinQ Commirtee meet:n~ on October 18, 1996. reaarding the study and the basie conciusions.
Pulliam Community Building, 2nd Floor For further information, call Dave Ruble at (303) 757-
545N. Cleveland Avenue, Loveland 9819. Mr. Ruble is the Intermodal Branch Manager for
Thursday, October l Oth the Colorado Department of Transportation and the
Open House 10 a.m. - 5 P.M. project mana-er for the study.
Public Meetin; 7-9 p.m. y
CDOT Headquarters - Auditorium
4201 E. Arkansas, Denver, NEXT STEPS °
Friday, October I 1 th The recommendations fram this study, will be ,
Open House , 10 a.m. - 5 p.m. forwarded to the Colorado Transportation
Public Meetino, 7-9 p.m. Commission for inclusion in the State Trans-
portation Plan. During this process, one or
Hotel Colorado - Roosevelt Room more corridors will move forwa:d to the r.ext -
526 Pine Stceet, Glenwood Sprin;s level of detail.
Tuesday, October 1 5th '
Open House 10 a.m. - 5 p.m. ` If federal funding is sought, a Major Investment
Pub(ic Meetina 7-9 p.m.
Study is required. If not, the State requires a
The Open Houses are opportunities for informal exchange of Conidor Plannincy Study. Either of these
ideas and comments between the Department and general studies will determine the exact corridor align-
public. Copies of the draft final report and the individual ment and technology for implementation.
technical reports will be available. In addition, staff from the
Colorado Passenger Rail Study
c/o Cotorado Department of Transportation ;
4201 E. Arkansas, Room 212 ~ ~ - ' -
Denver, CO 80222
~
,
RM 212-0500
. ~ _ . . . ,
. . ; .
. . .
. . .
. . , ,
MR. RONALD W. CARLSON, J.D. '
P.O. BOX 1829
FRISCO, CO 80443 _ ,
, . .
statewide: 1-500-464-7247
Denver area: 303-281-9188 - : _
e-mail: KHDenver@aol.com
Intemet page: http://members.aol.com/KHDenver/cdotrail.htm
_ . ~
. • _ , -
Gr~ ~1io~ h f~uhtc.r k~ -r C- ,
. ~ . ~
, ~ ,
~
.
aG(NL CO(.'Yl Gf rl/ ~
/?I an -fha~ ~s- ~ ~'he b~a~i ~r / ~
~
- au f u"' e,,, bok~ <ya.c
~
a /L'u wo
~ r ecuire- , f/acvra k/1~l~f rn~y J~-
- eV
. ~
- n exf'jewr' sha.~~c~ be a breczx-
'Y- ha~i~ Ca*rR
afi 39--
77wi, e, y~. a~ ~r~;~--
~ ~ -
r . .s~F..
_ _
. u . •
. - _ ' '
E L E C T I O N N O T E B O O K JW
(
'i
STUMP WIT r '96 pRES1DENTlAL CAMPAK-?t~ ' M01'Cy
; , , ~ - ~ _ FIuiS~I L4~i~, Agonistes
i { ; ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . Forbes. Gramm ~ ~
~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ Buchanan. It seems I~c,e~;r
a lifetime ago, but it was
~y r ~rr~st~=
i rand Slam ?AU
only last winter that we
r were avidly followui Kansas, Dennys.yy the fortunes of Bob'-, ~
Dole,s primary oppo-.
nents. Perhaps the m :3
ica, ~ qulxotiQ
W2S bo 52y e~ ~
y ~
_
NASA I Medicare '
%=NZfl(171YDIBIAI ~ OIdPI j
propo x dent au'
i', o Medicare W
~ cso'o~--
' d tan Wli' • ~
. o • ~ • ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , , • , Intemational Inc Ta ~
4 i ~ • ~ ~ ~ IOI SpEIlt 2llOTe ~13II.
Iri1I110Il bUt WOR O
~ on astro ri 25,000 primary and
o my id• • was o shoo . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ • C3UCUS VOt2S. . ~ '
. 3 . elderly o i . • ' s
1 - - - His Iatest pohtr .
move hasn't worke~
so weIl either. Iast
PfRCENTAGE WHO SWITCHED TO CLINTON: ~ month he sent a Iet~ c~ ;
~ F White unmarried parents 26% White parents, 22% ~ ~ 3,200 domestice~~
( Fathers, age 18-29 24% age 18-29 ployees (see signutuTe~ ~
i { D ~ below) offering: the~ -
• t : Perot vaters, age 3049 : 22% Suburban men 21°~-~ :
i = a 18-29 e~ctra day of vac
! . D - ' • _ . _ F___.:: n~e D ey ~oted on E~ o ~
WHICH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON YOU SWITCHED? ay: .'ow. Was gto
i has told Taylor that if I don't like Dole and 34g6 I agree with Ciinton's illegal to give any
his stand on the issues 1'~°? stand on the issues of monetary incen = j
7% Clinton will work encourage indivi ~ I
Clinton has done a - vote. "Can ou beiie~r _ i
good job and deserves 2496 against Newt Gmgnck ~ ~at? Your own a ~
; and the Contract - g ,
~ ta be re-elected . iDther wtUt pmenca ment does notwan~~li_ I
worldng men and
°ann~nr~~,aoi~un:F~e m~wu~rzure~c+~~~m~~va~am~ ,T women of this couu I.
to vote," he told e
ployees. 'Fhe boss ;
- self is wting for poI~` ~
buf would prefer Ltd - - • rLlt is nqrpersoneG;~ orHillary. "They bot&
~ opinion that he is in a' made all the mon i
bee~ttte~ pasitionfo (~elp ~ ~ k f~ the family," he sa~
the e
e of t6is~ "The have the
Pe!~Pl,~, Y
' distnr.L$o t put aside ence to be cEO of th`
E
largest corporation;
{ differences.lf the world the LrS :
Z1 government
~Laune$ower,
Denw~.ralzc ecindzdate _ - 9
rfrntheColorada'=
.I , +~.eodala...6na,ga+ma.a.e ~
senate,: who withdre?v
7
. - • ar
arr. Nou l and eiul'orsed ;
..herRepubtrcan
~ `
ca
24 1TME, NOVEMBER I8,1996
- - - - - - - - -
. e...~r.w,~.. . _
~ . ?
Vail -
Atpine RECEiVED NOY 8 1996
Garden -
, Foundation . xc: Ce`[ur.,a.C
7o~'f~ -
November 1,1996 ~
.
Mayox Bob Armour
Town of Vail -
. 75 South Frontage Road West .
Vail, CO 81657 Dear Bob:
Progress on the last phase of the Gardbns and Education Center has .
been delayed this year by the decision to study the many uses of Ford
" Park. Specifically, the study has focused on parking and access
problems.
, Our year has been spent instead on strengthening programs in areas
where we could make progress-eclucation and community projects, ,
. such as adoption of our long range education plan, expansion of school
- - programming, development of Gardens plant lists, and collaboration
with other horticultural and environmental organizations. ,
The purpose of this news'.etter is to bring you up to date on what has
. happened, now that the process seems to. be drawing to a close. We
will keep you up to date with a special Friends of Betty Ford newsletter. The first issue is enclosed so you will recognize it when you see it again. Sincerely,
Helen S. Fritch . ~ .
President of the Board
"`?ail will be as well known in the summerfor its flowers as it is in the urinter for its skiing.
183 GORE CREEK DRIVE • VAIL, COLORADO 81657 • 303.476.0103 /
- ~ ~P.na
~
'Vail ' pine Gard• oundation Novembe
~ N* S ~ ~ *E "R
Nvws.,and Iitfo :
This Has Been a Political Year
All politics does not take place in Washington. On a Vail scale, this town has been very
political over the past year. When we applied for approval of the Education Center last fall, the
Town Council decided that, before anything would
be allowed to proceed in Ford Park, they wanted a
management study to soive problems created by the
diverse use and overlapping events in the park-- con-
certs, softball, tournaments, picnics, playgound,
alpine garden, and more.
~
x
r:
The task force for the study was made up of
Town staff inembers, interested neighborhood citi-
zens, and Ford Park user groups, including the Vail
Valley Foundation, the Vail Rec District, and the Vail ,X.
Alpine Garden Foundation. Parking and access were
recognized from the beginning as primary issues. Mark Koebrich of The Discovery Channel's "Home
Matters", interviews Betty Ford. Segments
As the group formed a vision of what Ford run November 4 and December 20.
Park should be, a"wish list" unfolded that included
future undergound parking, a 5000-seat tennis exhibition court, and our Education Center. When
these ideas were brought to a public meeting in June, political opposition grew over the "urbaniza-
tion of Ford Park." Effectively, the entire process brought our planning and fund raising to a halt
as the location of our building in the center of the pedestrian area was called into question.
Light at the End of the Tunnel
I here was always the feeling, "We love your gardert, but can'it you put che Education Center
someplace else?" The turning point was a conversation with President & Mrs. Ford and John
Galvin. With their approval and encouragement to relocate the building within Ford Park, each
meeting with Town Staff and others moved us closer to a resolution of the stalemate.
The Town ran new citizen focus groups and .pub.lic meetings in September and presented the
results to the Town Council in October. " The resolution is an offer by the Town to make available
the parking area between the soccer fieid and Northwoods to remove our building from the area of
contention.
We researched the new site and discovered more advantages than disadvant~.ges. While we
~~~~x ~iel~*n ~n~ch ~nt~rs ~ar~n ~alab~yf 5axn~n~e I~ad~rs '
- - Ca~e~t~ ~~rt ~e f~r~a~ed t~ Saxxmnn~e ~teadc~ws, ~tA~ af~i~ae ~t ~~7t~~ +~7~1,~ ~r ~~t ~~a f~ ~97U} ~~~44~
~
we gain year-round access to a building on the Town of Vail bus route, dzive-up access, parking,
expansion possibilities, and a spectacular view of the Gore Ytar?ge. We are still in Ford Park with a
new relationship to the Gardens, the Nature Center, and mour4tain traiis. Taken all together, the
new location demonstrates our expanded vision of what the Gardens will mean to the community.
We're Back on Track °
At their October meeting, Town Courncil members, gave clear direcHon that they favor this `
new location. Before a lease is granted, however, they want to see a site plan showing the location
of the building, parking, etc., a plan that we have engaged.land planners, Design Workshop, to
producp. We are also moving ahead to revise architectural drawings and adapt owr undergrntutd
-building to the new site.
Each of you has given ar pledged $10,000 or more to heIp us build an Education Center as
- part of Betty Ford Alpine Gardens and dedicate it in honor of Betty Fard. Ttus money has been
_ reserved specifically for the Education Center and currently totals $705,000, including pledges.
Freed from the cloud we have been under this year, we are very hopeful that we will raise
the addeinal funds needed to start construction of the builcling this coming summer. We are
most grateful for the support we have received in this process from President and Mrs. Ford, John
Galvin, the Town Council and Town of Yail staEf.
~ .
FRIENDS OF BETTY FORD
Vail Alpine Garden Foundatian wishes to thank all of The Friends of Betry Ford. In appreciation
for their generosity, a special sign ackrtowledging the Friends listed here will be placed in the
Gardens across from the school house.
Robert and Beverly Demirig . Louana and Micky Miller Atwnymous
Sheiks Graamhammer Mpliy and jay Procourt linda and )ohn Galviet
Roy and Paula May Jece and Peggy Thompson Richard and Susan Rogel
PegU and jim Greenbaum Catl+ie and Morgan Douglas The Kuth and Vernott Taylor Foundatiom
Jaclyn B. Rosenberg Peggy Sciotto Cearge and Kathleen VoWvLinden
Robat and Hekn Fritch ' Sarbara and Julian Hansen [.eni and I'etet May
Yutcent and ICathleen Cook Admiral and Mrs. B.R. Innnn Hermann Squfer/Lancdot Inn
_ Carolyn aad Wyritoa M. Blount [ordillera iCay and E.B. Chester .
Bob Lashbwde and Pieree Monney ]ohn and Mariene 8ali, St Steadmari Hawlcins Qinic
8arbara J. DeYoe. Richard H. DeVoe Deborah and Craig Cogut
Nancy and Ted Reyrnolds Jearute M Bailey
Horgen Family Foundation Bob and Terese Coiuen
14t'illiamt and Niels )ohnsen Lynda Coidstein
~AlemPartr. ChrisW Hill Mr. dc Mrs_ Richard T. Liebl+aber
Mr, de Nrs. T.P. Hull, Jc jean and Dick Swanlc
Dela W. White Bill and Julie Fsrey and Faenily
The Gerald R. Foni FaaWy Ur_ Malik und Seeme Haaan
Hil1 Foundaaon Anonymous
Stephen and Tomisue Hilbet and, Family jane Robectsan Blartt?
Liz and Luc Meyer Francv D'Agostiao and Farstily
Patricia B. ?erwilliger Howard and Ma:tha Head Fund, lnc, )atte dnd PlW1p Ststiley Susan and Harry Frampton
Jwn Trigg Whittenberg Vai1 valley Foundatian
Steve and Kathrye Haber Elizabedi, Rodney, and Aiexandrn Siifer -
Bab West Town o( Vail '
Patricia Kaplan Peter aad Eva Packlington
Mi1ce A. Myers Foundation '
.
u
~y
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157 MEDIA ADVISORY
November 13, 1996
Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115
Community Information Office
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR NOVEMBER 12
Work Session Briefs
. Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas
--1997-98 BudgeUCapital Projects Review
Following a lengthy discussion on the 17-unit Red Sandstone locals housing proposal
initiated in partnership with the water district, the Councii agreed on a policy to sell
(rather than rent) the five units initially acquired by the town to TOV employees with the
condition the units be sold back to the town after the resident leaves the town's
employment. Three of those units would be sold to critical TOV employees; the
remaining two units would be sold to other TOV employees. Deed restrictions on all 17
units would include the same basic standards as those established for the Vail
Commons development. An additional provision for the TOV units requires the resident
to sell the unit back to the town after leaving the town's employment to ensure the units
are always avaiiable for TOV employees. A lottery would again be used to select the
winners. The proposal calls for all 17 units to remain deed restricted. The town's
capital budget for 1997-98 proposes $1.3 million to finance construction of the five
units; the funds would be recovered once the units are sold and used on other housing
efforts. In addition, the town may have the option to purchase additional units once the
water district determines its needs. During discussion yesterday, Councilman Paul
Johnston initialty lobbied for permanent ownership of the units by the Town of Vail,
saying rental property would provide a better vehicle to ensure housing for critical
employees. Councilmembers Rob Ford, Bob Armour and Ludwig Kurz expressed
support for home ownership, so long as the town has the ability to buy the units back
once an occupant moves. It was also noted the surrounding neighborhood has been
supportive of the for-sale concept. Fairness issues also were raised during the
discussion. Councilmember Sybill Navas wondered if the units should be made
available to anyone who works in Vail rather than having the units held for TOV
employees. Councilman Rob Ford responded to the concern by reiterating the public
benefit derived by housing critical employees. He said the town has a responsibility to
provide essential services to its citizens. He cited the three recent structural fires as
examples of the need to have critical employees within reach. The Council will review
design issues associated with the development at its Nov. 19 work session. Several
Councilmembers have expressed concern over the project's flat roof architecture. Next
steps also include first reading of an ordinance to rezone a portion of the property and
first reading of an ordinance to create a Special Development District to accommodate
(more)
RECYCLED PAPER
L__
f
Council Highlights/Add 1
the units. Both ordinances are scheduled to be considered at the Nov. 19 evening
meeting, following an afternoon work session and site visit. For more information,
contact Andy Knudtsen in the Community Development Department at 479-2440.
--1997-98 BudgeUDepartmental Review
During a department-by-department review of the proposed budget, observations and
discussions included:
--A request by Municipal Judge Buck Allen to consider raising parking fines in the
Village and Lionshead areas from the current $16 to a$25 or more fine. Allen said the
current penalty isn't much different than the price to park in the structures. He said
Vail's fines are considerably lower than most other municipalities.
--A commitment by Town Manager Bob McLaurin to work as aggressively as possible in
finding state and federal funding partners to pick up $4 million of the $5.5 million West
Vail interchange project.
--The need to finalize a truck delivery management plan in the Village core to determine
staffing levels, such as code enforcement officers in the Police Department. Also, the
budget calls for reducing the number of police officers from 21 to 19.
--An acknowledgment by Town Manager Bob McLaurin of the eventual need to .
increase staffing in the Fire Department. The department's staffing levels have
remained at 17 full time equivalents since 1982, despite increases in the number,
frequency, variety and complexity of the demand for services. The highlight of the
afternoon was an appearance by Dusty the Cowboy Poet (Cooter Overcash) and his
cowboy `rithmatic. Dusty humorously illustrated the need to increase the staffing level
of the department from 17 FTEs to 21. The annual Fire Department budget
presentation has become known for its entertaining and creative aspects.
--Agreement by the majority of the Council to test new library hours beginning in
January 1997. The modification extends Sunday hours by 2 hours while shortening
weekday operations by 2 hours. The changes will save $15,000 per year and respond
to visitor patterns, according to Annie Fox, director.
--PEC/DRB Review
After a debrief of the Nov. 11 meeting of the Planning and Environmental Commission,
which lasted 10 hours, Mayor Bob Armour suggested postponing work session items on
the PEC agenda to help cut down on the length of the meetings--even if it means
delaying actions forwarded to the Council.
--Second Housing Lottery for Vail Commons
The Council was notified of the need for a second housing lottery for the Vail Commons
development by Andy Knudtsen, senior housing policy planner. Although all 53 for-sale
units are currently under contract, the developer has asked the town to increase its
current reserve fist from 4 potential home buyers to a minimum of 9. Application
packets are available beginning today. The deadline to return applications is Dec. 3,
with the lottery occurring on Dec. 18. For more information, contact Knudtsen at
479-2440.
(more)
,
,
.
Council Highlights/Add 2
UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS
November 19 Work Session Site Visit, Campisi Appeal
Site Visit, Red Sandstone SDD and Rezoning
Discussion of Ordinance No. 22, Test Amendment to CC2 Zone District
November 19 Evening Meeting
Second Reading Ordinance No. 17, SDD #21 Amendment
Second Reading Ordinance No. 21, Designated Open Space
First Reading Ordinance No. 20, Red Sandstone Rezoning
First Reading Ordinance No. 22, CC2 Zone District Amendment
First Reading Ordinance No. 23, 1997-98 Budget
First Reading Ordinance No. 24, SDD Red Sandstone
Campisi Appeal
November 26 Work Session
DRB/PEC Review
GRFA Discussion
Loading and Delivery in Core
December 3 Work Session
Site Visit, Savoy Villas
December 3 Evening Meeting
Second Reading Ordinance No. 23, Budget
Second Reading Ordinance Nos. 20 & 24, Red Sandstone SDD and Rezoning
Second Reading Ordinance # 22, CC2 Zone District Amendment
First Reading Ordinance No. 18, SDD #5 Amendment
# # #
RECEIVED NdV 1 2 1996
AA-
TRANSCO INC.
Fif @y Fiue East Jackson Bouleuard
Chica94 Illinois 60604, 312-427-2818 C U~
FAX 312427-4975
IIownan S. Goss
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD Celebrating our 60th Year (1936-1996)
. November 5, 1996
Mr. Andy Daly Mr. Bob Armour
President Mayor
Vail Resorts, Inc. City of Vail
605 North FrontaaP Road 7S South FrontTee Road
West Vail, Colorado 81657 West Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Andy & Bob:
We want to apologize for not attending the reception at the Metropolitan Club on Wednesday,
October 30, 1996. Roberta and I were in London when the invitation was received and did not return
to Chicago until late afternoon on Wednesday the 30th.
We are very excited about all of the capital improvements at Vail. We have had a large
apartment at the Lodge at Vail for a number of years. My children aze now all grown and have their
own families, and owning an apartment in Vail has been an absolutely wonderful family experience.
Of course, being witiun walking distance of the Vista Bahn, and that is going on in that area, is
extremely important to us.
Please continue to advise us of what your future plans are for Vail. If any materials were
passed out during the meeting, or if any minutes were made, we would appreciate receiving them.
Thanks ror everything you have done for Vail over the years. We are looking forward to
participating in all of the new improvements.
(;owardS.. y, ;
Goss
Writer's Extension 164
HSG/lc
NOV-16-96 FRI 03:18 PM Channel 5 VVCTV 303 949 5657 P.01
Channel -
f'resx 12cleasc 11-5-46 Channci 5, Vuil Valiey CommuWty Telewisivxl am'ounc.r.s rhe imptcmcntatxan of
two new pqlicies deci.ded $t the lust iueeting of our l;oa.rd nf Uircccors.
Firbt, the piuauctioai staff of chnnncl 5 haQ hccn rcorgtittixed. A!1 uf CZlauiixeZ S's
proWxaiuiutAH wAll tww be produGG in-hnusc hy a smali professional at-dff. Tlus wili
uicrease ihe eiticicn .ty and quality of production at Channe15•
Secnnd, the qpnnsorship of Chtultlel S pro$rsmmimg hxs been redesignM fcir
nrgnninations to dirCCtly suppoit th9ir progr8m6. The new voLicies apply tn all pmgffims
that air on Channel S inclucUng programs that :u-e pi-udured outside of nnr facilitcs_
The ttew Sponsor fee rate wi11 be us fulluws: Fvx aioxx-prolit organi7ations wc will chargc produation costs +?O°/n (wiLll u$2S
utini.mum) rer rehow pcr wcck for niritlg (uld SCheduling taxne, fui ptuKra.ms 3Q -
I'LU minutcs in lcngth_
For for-protit organizatioas we will cluuKG p4uduction cost` 1 =iu%. (with a$2S
painixnuxn) per show pei week f'or auuig and scA+exinling timc, for progranns 30 -
120 uuuules iu length.
Town C:ouncii meetingL wi11 continuc to bc pYOduced at no cost.
With thcsc ahanges we will be able to sexve the wrzunuxuifies w;th A g,zcate.r
SLA[Lda'iXd Of C111311t}7 RRd C~lCAE.'u6'}l• Plc"dSe fCCti rTt'e, l0 CAl1fHGf I1l.C A? 5149-5E15 / t7CtwCCt1
12 - Spm Monddy throuKh Fiiday wxlax aixy questions_
Veiy Lcul,y yours,
IlxenclRn ( ialtaghcr -
Stution NXAnagar cc: Bo.urd uf Diiecturs Vaii Vall.ey l:nmrnunity Tcicvison
V111L VA.L.T..FY C;OMMUNITY TELEVISION
Y Q. Box 5finp Avnn, C.n R1620 Phone Sz Fax: 303/949-5657
Ys
y: yK
t...'...
TOWN OF YAIL 75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
FOR IMMEDlATE RELEASE
November 18, 1996
Contact: Andy Knudtsen, 479-2440
Senior Housing Policy Planner
VAIL COMMONS DEVELOPMENT GEARS UP FOR RESERVE LIST LOTTERY
= AS TOV RECEIVES FANNIE MAE FINANCING APPROVAL
(Vail)--As prospective home-buyers begin applying for a second lottery to determine
positions on a reserve list for Vail Commons, the Town of Vail this week is announcing
additional movement on its affordable housing initiatives. After six months of
consideration, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) has approved
the Vail Commons development for financing.
Andy Knudtsen, Vail's senior housing policy planner, says Fannie Mae approval
represents a tremendous financing hurdle for individual home-buyers. "This approval is
extremely significant in that local brokerages can now sell loans to the secondary
market," he said. "With more lenders in the marketplace, there will be more options for
borrowers."
Knudtsen said the Fannie Mae financing approval includes acceptance of Vail's deed-
restrictions on the property and all resale provisions, including the three percent annual
cap on appreciation. "This will increase financing flexibility for both new sales and
resales," he said.
While contracts on all 53 for-sale units have been signed, the town is currently taking
applications for a second lottery to be held Dec. 18 to increase the size of the reserve
(more)
~,5~ RECYCLEDPAPER
Vail Commons Fannie Mae/Add 1
list. Knudtsen said the lottery is being conducted at the request of Warner Developers
to increase the reserve list from 4 potential home buyers to a minimum of 9. As of noon
today (11-18), 18 applications had been picked up for the second lottery. The deadline
to apply is Dec. 3. The sales price of the homes are approximately one-third to one-half
of market rates. Basic eligibility requirements for purchase include owner occupancy
and employment of an average of 30 hours a week at a business located within Eagle
County. •
Meanwhile, activity at the Vail Commons site has been heightened with continuing
construction amid new residents. Eight of the two-bedroom homes are already
occupied, while closings on another 8 homes are scheduled for this week. Construction
of the final homes will be completed by April. The development also features a City
Market grocery store to be opened in February; a day care center; 18 employee rental
units; and improvements to the frontage road.
In addition to the Vail Commons development, the town is pursuing a housing
partnership with the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District for a 17-unit development
: on Red-Sandstone Road. Also, plans for seasonal housing units at the town's Public ,
Works facility site are underway. "We're now beginning to build some momentum for
locals housing," Knudsten said. "We don't have to reinvent the wheel for each
discussion. For example, during the Red Sandstone discussions, there was an
immediate acceptance that all units would be restricted using the same standards as
those established for Vail Commons. We're now starting to speak a common language
when it comes to locals housing,» Knudtsen said.
For more information, contact Knudtsen at 479-2440.
# # #
\
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road Office of the Town Manager
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157
November 18, 1996
VIA TELECOPIER
Mr. Glen Heelan
Post Office Box 5770
Avon, Co 81620
Dear Glen:
I wanted to take a moment to confirm our conversation of November 11, 1996. There were four
issues concerning the Serrano's project. They were preparation of an easement for improvements
along the Town of Vail stream tract to the east of Serrano's, the payment of the parking fee which
is required with this construction, a review of the staff decision disallowing a rebate from the Town
of Vail recreation fee, and the appropriateness of Serrano's to provide one CSO to handle traffic and
delivery at the area of Serrano's and Hanson Ranch Road.
In regard to the easement, it was agreed by Tom Moorhead that he would draft the necessary
easement and present it to you for your approval. This easement will be consistent with other
easements that have been entered into in the Village, i.e., the Covered Bridge Building.
In regard to the parking fee, the Town Council has agreed to allow the Town Manager to enter into
a security agreement for the payment of the parking fee over a period of time in excess of the five
year period presently stated in 18.52.160B.7. This will be presented to Council as an Amendment
to the present ordinance. As I stated at the meeting, I believe it would be appropriate to enter into
a payment period of ten years. With respect to modifying the interest rate, I currently do not have
the authority to modify the rate. This action would require a specific authorization from the Town
Council.
I will review with the Community Development staff the decision to disallow your request for a
rebate of the recreational fee. You indicated that you would fax a copy of the documentation to me
to facilitate our review.
~ow- RECYCLED PAPER
Finally, you indicated that funding the entire CSO position was unduly burdensome. You felt that
your funding responsibilities should be limited to the hours in which deliveries would be allowed.
We are concerned not only about the hours that deliveries will be allowed but also those hours after
the time for deliveries. I have discussed this matter with Larry Grafel and because of our concerns
we believe it appropriate that you fund this position in its entirety.
I hope this answers your questions. If you need further assistance please do not hesitate to call me
at 479-2105.
Sincerely,
TOWN OF VAIL
~/yV
Robert W. McLaurin
Town Manager
RWM/aw
x.: Vail Town Council
Larry Grafel
Dan Stanek
R. Thomas Moorhead