HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-03-11 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
VA6L TOWN COUNCIL
~~~~~~N
TQ.DESDAY, flflA12CH 11, 1997
1:00 P.M. AT TOb COUNCIL C9iANiBERS
• AGEiVDA .
NOTE: T9meS O$ 9gemS aPe apprOXlPY98te, subyect to change, and caneaot be relied upoaa to
determane at what time Councs0 wi[B cons6deP an atem.
1 • PEC/DRB Revievv. (15 mins.)
2. Discussion of proposed United States Forest Service Control Burn.
Dick Duran (45 mins.)
BACKGROUiVD RATIONALE: On February 28, 1997, the United States
Forest Service met with the Vail Fire Department and discussed their
intent on the control burn. We agreed to have TOV fire equipment on
Bald Mountain Road more for comfort of our citizens than firefighting.
We vvill do the same for Spraddle Creek. We cannot recommend burning
of Unit 4 at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Given the procedure of their plan, we
(VFD), have no problem with the control burn. They are the pros in this
area and we feel they will do a good job. We will support them with on-
duty personnel only, as our budget does not allow for more.
3. Rick Onorato 15 Year Anniversary. (5 mins.)-
4. Kevin Whelan 15 Year Anniversary. (5 mins.)
5. Discussion of Loading and Delivery in the Village Core. (30 mins.)
Bob fVlcLaurin
Greg fVlorrison ACTIOiV REQUESTED OF COUfVCIL: Confirm or modify loading and
Jeff Layman delivery policies.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Several months ago, the regulations
governing loading and delivery in the Village Core were modified. We
have been using these new regulations since the beginning of the ski
season in iVovember, 1996. The original plan was modified only slightly.
Our input to date, solicited from vendors, truckers, guests, retailers,
lodges, et al., indicates an acceptance and high degree of success of this
interim loading and delivery program.
STAFF RECOMNIENDATION: Adopt the current regulations.
6. Ford Park Discussion. (1 hr.)
Larry Grafel
Pam Brandmeyer
Todd Oppenheimer
George Ruther
7. Review of existing Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) poiicy and
Russell Forrest possible alternatives. (1 hr.)
Tom Braun
ACTIORI REQUESTED OF COUiVCIL: Review input from the Planning
and Environmental Commission and staff to determine a preferred
alternative.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Vail Town Council directed staff to
evaluate the existing GRFA system and determine whether this is an
effective and appropriate tool when compared to other alternatives. The
purpose of this work session is to review the analysis for three
alternatives to the existing GRFA policy for single family, duplex, and
primary/secondary type structures. This work session is intended to
describe: how to implement each of these alternatives; what homes might
look like under each alternative; and to identify considerations that would
need to be evaluated for each of alternative. The PEC will be asked to
vote on which alternative they would like to recommend to the Vail Town
Council on March 10th. If Council feels they have adequate information
and time to consider this issue, staff will ask for direction on which
alternative to implement. If additional time is needed to consider the
alternatives, staff would recommend scheduling this topic for an evening
meeting on April 1, 1997. The next step after Council decides on a
preferred alternative is to begin the implementation process. This could
include additional research to answer questions relating to the preferred
action and would include additional research to answer questions relating
to the preferred action and would include developing proposed code
revisions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has three recommendations: 1)
Implement new design guidelines regardless of the preferred alternative;
2) Out of the three alternatives, staff is recommending alternative 3
"eliminate GRFA" and modify site coverage to prevent homes from
becoming significantly larger; 3) If alternative 1 would be chosen, then
staff recommends that it only apply to existing homes built before the
date this policy would go into affect.
8. Information Update. (10 mins.)
9. Council Reports. (10 mins.)
10. Other. (10 mins.)
11. Executive Session - Personnel Matters.
12. Adjournment - 5:25 p.m.
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
I I I I I I I
THE MEETIPVGS FOR 3/18/97 HAVE BEEN CANCELED.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL 1MORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 3125197, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 411/97, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 4/1197, 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.WS
2
Agcnda last rcvised 3/1 1/97 1 0am
PLANNING Aft9D ENVIFiO(VIVIENTAL COfVInAISSION
Monday, March 10, 1997 .
FIMAI. AGENDA
Project Orientation /LQ.DNCH - Community Development Department 11:45 am
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Greg Moffet
Greg Amsden (2:25p.m.)
Henry Pratt
Galen Aasland
Gene Uselton
Diane Golden
John Schofield
Site Visits : 12:45 pm
1. Perry - 758 Potato Patch Drive
2. Vail Associates - 458 Vail Valley Drive
3. Accardo - 1998 Sunburst Drive
Driver: George
.
m~, •:~..y,
PlOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearing -'Towrn Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a minor subdivision to allow for two lots to be combined into one, located at
1502 Buffer Creek Road/Tracts A1 & A2, Lions Ridge Subdivision 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Harold & Barbara Brooks, represented by Isom and Associates
Planner: Lauren Waterton
MOTION: Gene Usefton SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 6-0
APPROVED VVITH 2 CONDIT90NS -
1. That should the applicant not receive Town Council approval of second reading of
Ordinance 6, Series of 1997, this appoval shall become null and void.
2. The existing driveway cut shall be shown on the final plat as the only permitted
access to the site.
1
S
Agcnda last rcviscd 3/1 1/97 1 0am
2. A request for a site coverage variance and conditional use permit to allow for a Type II
EHU, located at 1194 Cabin Circle/Lot 3, Block 2 Vail Valley 1 st Filing.
Applicant: William and Shirley Mclntyre, represented by Ned Gwathmey
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 5-0-1(Pratt recused)
APPROVED WITH 1 COiVDITION -
1. That one enclosed parking space be appropriately deed restricted for exclusive
use by the occupant(s) of the EHIJ.
3. A request for an exterior addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an addition to
the living room, located at 758 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 5, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch.
Applicant: Tony & Terry Perry, represented by Eric Johnson
Planner: Lauren Waterton
MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 6-0
APPROVED
4. A request for a residential addition for an expansion of the living room, utilizing the 250
Ordinance, located at 1998 Sunburst Drive/Lot 19, Vail Valley 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Nate Accardo
Planner: Lauren Waterton
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 5-1-0 (Aasland opposed)
APPROVED
5. A request to amend the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan and adopt the Gerald R. Ford
Park Management Plan.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer.
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 7-0
TABLED UMTIL MARCH 24, 1997
2
Agenda last revised 3/1 1/97 10am
6. A request to develop a preferred alternative for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) for
Single-Family, Duplex and Primary/Secondary Residential Zone Districts.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Russ Forrest
THREE MOTBONS:
1. APPROVED - TO PFiOVIDE ALl'ERNA'fIVES 9BV ORDER OF PFiEFERENCE TO
TOVVN COUNCIL:
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 7-0
John Schofield - Alternative #3, #2, #1
Gene Uselton - Alternative #3
Greg Amsden - Alternative #3
Galen Aasland - Alternative #1, #2, #3, #4
Diane Golden - Alternative #3, #1 and #2 together
Henry Pratt - Alternative #1, #3, #4, #2
Greg Moffet - Alternative #1, #2, #3, #4
2. RECOAIlMEiVD APPROVAL TO TOWN COIINCIL OF ALTERiV,4TBVE #3.
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 3-4 motion failed
(Aasland, Golden,Pratt, Moffet
opposed)
3. RECOflflMEND APPROVAL TO TOWNI COIJNCIL OF ALTERiVATIVE #1 AS AMENDED,
TO @NCL.IDDE EJtISTING VAIJLTED SPACE, BASEMENT SPACE, & FOR NEUV
CONSTRUCTION.
MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Greg Moffet VOTE: 4-3 (Amsden,
Uselton, Schofield
opposed)
7. A request for an amendment to the development plan to allow for outdoor ski storage,
located at 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th
Filing, commonly referred to as the Golden Peak Ski Base.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
Planner: Lauren Waterton
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 7-0
TABLE~ ~NT9L APRIL 14,1997
3
Agenda last revised 3/I 1/97 1 0am
8. A request for variances from Section 18.58.320 D3, to allow antennas greater than fifteen
feet in height and Section 18.54.050 C7, to allow two, rooftop antennas to be placed on
the false stairwell tower near North Frontage Road.
Applicant: KTUN Radio
Planner: Tammie Williamson
MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 7-0
APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITIOIV-
1. That the location of the two rooftop antennas and one satellite dish be approved
by staff, prior to DRB.
9. A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located in the One Vail
Ptace Building, 244 Wall Street/a resubdivision of Lot C, Block 5-C, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Mr. Jared Drescher, represented by Robert Boymer
Planner: Dirk Mason
STAFF APPROVED
10. A request for a site coverage variance and conditional use permit to allow for a Type II
EHU, located at 186 Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Mike Flannery, represented by Guy Dreier
Planner: George Ruther
WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT
11. A request for a minor subdivision to allow for an elevator addition to the Lodge Tower
parcel, located at 200 Vail Road/Lot A, Block 5-L, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc., represented by Jay Peterson
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 24, 1997
12. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II EHU, located at 392 Beaver
Dam Circle/Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Howard Koenig
Planner: Tammie Williamson
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 24,1997
4
Agenda last revised 3/11/97 1 0am
13. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to allow Type III EHUs for
seasonal housing, located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/legally described as:
beginning at the Northwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the
Sixth Principal Meridian thence S 89°31'49" E 2333.84 feet, along the North line of said
Section 9, to a point on the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70
, thence along the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 as follows:
S 67°41'33" W 415.82 feet; thence S78°13'02" W 1534.29 feet, to a point of
curvature; thence 456.43 feet on a curve to the right with a radius of 5580.00 feet,
the chord of which bears S80°33'38" W 456.30 feet to a point on the Westerly line
of said Section 9:
thence departing the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 and
following the Westerly line of said Section 9, North 00°8'21"E 565.11 feet to the point of
beginning.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen and Susie Hervert
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL RHARC@i 24, 1997
14. Approval of February 10, 1997 minutes
MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 7-0
APPFiOVED AS AMENDED
Approval of February 24, 1997 minutes.
MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 6-0 (Aasland abstained)
APPROVED AS ,4MENDED
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356
TDD for information.
Community Development Department
5
Agenda last revised 3/07/97 9am
Pfl.ANNl6VG AND ENV@EiONi1AEIdTAL COnAflAISSlON
Monday, March 10, 1997
AGENDA
Projec4 Orientation / L99NCH - Communi Development Department 11:45 am
MEMBERS PRESENT MENiBERS ABSENT
Site Visits : 12:45 pm
1. Perry - 758 Potato Patch Drive
2. Vail Associates - 458 Vail Valley Drive
3. Accardo - 1998 Sunburst Drive
Driver: George
.
Fa:~bJv
.a~
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearinq -'Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.rn.
1. A request for a minor subdivision to allow for two lots to be combined into one, located at
1502 Buffer Creek Road/Tracts A1 & A2, Lions Ridge Subdivision 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Harold & Barbara Brooks, represented by Isom and Associates
Planner: Lauren Waterton
2. A request for a site coverage variance and conditional use permit to allow for a Type 11
EHU, located at 1194 Cabin Circle/Lot 3, Block 2 Vail Valley 1 st Filing.
Applicant: William and Shirley Mclntyre, represented by Ned Gwathmey
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
3. A request for an exterior addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an addition to
the living room, located at 758 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 5, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch.
Applicant: Tony & Terry Perry, represented by Eric Johnson
Planner: Lauren Waterton
1
, .
Agenda last revised 3/07/97 9am
4. A request for a residential addition for an expansion of the living room, utilizing the 250
Ordinance, located at 1998 Sunburst Drive/Lot 19, Vail Valley 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Nate Accardo
Planner: Lauren Waterton
5. A request to amend the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan and adopt the Gerald R. Ford
Park Management Plan.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer.
Planner: George Ruther
6. A request to develop a preferred alternative for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) for
Single-Family, Duplex and Primary/Secondary Residential Zone Districts.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Russ Forrest
7. A request for an amendment to the development plan to allow for outdoor ski storage,
located at 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th
Filing, commonly referred to as the Golden Peak Ski Base.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
Planner: Lauren Waterton
8. A request for variances from Section 18.58.320 D3, to allow antennas greater than fifteen
feet in height and Section 18.54.050 C7, to allow two rooftop antennas to be placed on
the false stairwell tower near North Frontage Road.
Applicant: KTUN Radio
Planner: Tammie Williamson
9. A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located in the One Vail
Place Building, 244 Wall StreeUa resubdivision of Lot C, Block 5-C, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Mr. Jared Drescher, represented by Robert Boymer
Planner: Dirk Mason
STAFF APPROVED
10. A request for a site coverage variance and conditional use permit to allow for a Type II
EHU, located at 186 Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Mike Flannery, represented by Guy Dreier
Planner: George Ruther
WITHDRAWiV BY APPLICAfVT
2
. e
Agenda last revised 3/07/97 9am
11. A request for a minor subdivision to allow for an elevator addition to the Lodge Tower
parcel, located at 200 Vail Road/Loi A, Block 5-L, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc., represented by Jay Peterson
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTBL MARCH 24, 1997
12. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II EHU, located at 392 Beaver
Dam Circle/Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Howard Koenig
Planner: Tammie Williamson
TABLf~~ UNTIL MARCH 24, 1997
13. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to allow Type III EHUs for
seasonal housing, located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/legally described as:
beginning at the IVorthwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the
Sixth Principal Meridian thence S 89°31'49" E 2333.84 feet, along the North line of said
Section 9, to a point on the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70
thence along the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 as follows:
S 67°41'33" W 415.82 feet; thence S78°13'02" W 1534.29 feet, to a point of
curvature; thence 456.43 feet on a curve to the right with a radius of 5580.00 feet,
the chord of which bears S80°33'38" W 456.30 feet to a point on the Westerly line
of said Section 9:
thence departing the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 and
following the Westerly line of said Section 9, North 00°8'21"E 565.11 feet to the point of
beginning.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen and Susie Hervert
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED VJNT6L MARCH 24, 9397
14. Approval of February 10, 1997 minutes and February 24, 1997 minutes.
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356
TDD for information.
Community Development Department
Published March 10, 1997 in the Vail Trail.
3
Agenda last revised 3/6/97 9am
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGEIVDA
Wednesc?ay, March 5, 1997
3:00 P.M.
lPRO1ECT ORl[ENTATION /]LVNCH - cCogncnunity Developeneret Departgnent Il2:15
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Michael Arnett Clark Brittain
Brent Alm
Ted Hingst
John Schofield (PEC) SI7[']E VISITS - Il:IlS
1. Sandstone - 1020 Vail View Drive
2. Red Lion - 304 Bridge St.
3. Kuller - 1469 Aspen Grove Lane
4. de Bruin - 5197 Gore Circle
5. Leach - ]390 Buffehr Crcek Road
Driver:
1PUBL][C HEARgNG - TOdWN ~OUNCIL CHflMBER5 3:00
1. Innsbruck Meadows - Alterations to previously approved plans. GR
Kinnickinnick Road/Lot 13, Intcrmountain
Applicant: Bob Borne, represented by RKD
MOTION: Ted Hingst SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 4-0
CONS1ENT .vlPP][8OV]ED
2. Sandstone Creek Club - Addition to clubhouse pool area. TW
1020 Vail View Drive/Lots B4 & B5, Block B, Lions Ridge Filing #1
Applicant: Sandstone Creek Club, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Briner
MOTION: Ted Hingst SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 4-0
CONSENT APPROVED .
3. Red Lion - Conceptual review of exterior modifications to the commercial storefronts. TW
304 Bridge StreedLots E, F, G, & H, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1 st Filing
Applicant: Landmark Commercial Development, represented by Morter Architects
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
CONCEP'd'gJA1L - N~ ~OTE
1
4. Kuller - New single-family residcnce. TW
1469 Aspcn Grove Lane/Lot 7, Block 2, Lions Ridge 4th Filing
Applicant: Harold Kuller, rcpresented by Jon Gunson Architccts
MOTION: Brent Alm SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 4-0
APP1tOVED WITH 1 CONDITION-
1. Snow fence must be provided prior to construction along thc limits of disturbance.
5. de Bruin - Residential addition. Dirk
5197 Gore Circle/Lot 9, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision Sth Addition
Applicant: Andre de Bruin, represented by Don Gipe
MOTION: Brent Alm SECOND: Ted Hingst VOTE: 4-0
API'ROVEI) WITH 5 CONDITIONS-
1. Overhead electrical services shall be placed underground.
2. Outstanding issues with Public Works shall be resolved.
3. Install 1 x6 wood T&G on the garage doors.
4. The secondary drive to the storage garage shall be grass crete.
5. The proposed spruce tree located off the property shall be placed on-site.
6. Leach - Conceptual review of a single-family residence Tw
1390 Buffehr Creek RoadBnvelope B, Parcel4, Lions Ridge Filing #2
Applicant: David & Jody Leach, represented by Bob Mach
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE
7. Peters - New residence. LW
4193 Spruce Way/Lot 12, Block 9, Bighorn 3rd Addition
Applicant: Steven Peters, represented by Steve Isom
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
WITHDRAWN
8. Information Update:
Staff Approvals
KVBA, TV8 - Window sign in Sunbird Lodge Dirk
675 Lionshead PlacelLot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing
Applicant: Stewart Eves
Staff Denials
Lionshead Ski Storage - Ski storage facility LW
600 Lionshead Mall/Lot 4, Block 1, Lionshead 1 st
Applicant: Vail Associates, Ine., represented by Joe Macy
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project
planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please ca11479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for
information.
2
To: Vail Town Council
From: Vail Tomonow Built and Natural Environment Group
Subject: The prescribed USFS Burn in the Booth Creek area of Vail
Dear Council Members,
We know this topic is controversial. Our friends and neighbors whose homes are adjacent to the subject
prescribed burn area have a valid concern about a"seY' fire becoming and "uncontrolled" fire. And all of
us share a common concern about smoke damage to life and property.
On the other hand, the USFS has observed and reported that prescribed fires can significantly reduce built
up fuel that might someday accelerate a natural fire. In reference to recent natural fires, the US Secretary
of the Interior Mr. Bruce Babbitt said "At the root of the recent infernos lies a basic yet overlooked truth:
we don't have a"fire problem" in the West. We have a fuels problem." The Clinton AdministraUon via
the USFS has a launched a major campaign to thin the fuel of the nation's forests by using more
prescribed burns and they have budgeted to carry out their plan.
We believe that the prescribed burn program of the USFS is, in general terms, an excellent idea and the
need is well documented. In specific terms, we want to show support for this program, but we want to
know that the following concerns are satisfied:
That the local benefits are assured and the risks are mitigated.
That the Vail Fire and Police Departments must be in full support of the Booth Creek prescribed
burn plan and be on-hand to monitor and at-the-ready to assist should the need arise.
That the logistical and financial considerations of the Vail Fire and Police
Departments can be properly addressed and satisfied.
We want to see our natural environment maintained and improved, but not at the espense of our built
environment. We wst (for what eise have we) that this project, so close to our homes, businesses and
beautiful surroundings, will be well planned and managed. In several months we will see the benefits of
this program in our own back yard when the vegetation and wildlife begin to flourish is this currently
sparse azea.
/~.w, L Gu-2_ ~1~koL
i~~ • ~ ~~-~9 ~~;fi~ ~u~_
16 h lD
S074,
A-
t C'? q
3 Z( Z~ C'o
n •
aa e4
TO~oF v~rr,
P.O. Box 567 Departmerag of I'olace
Yaal, Coloradv 81658 _
970-479-2200
VAIL V1LLLAGE
LOADliNG L'9~1~ DELJI `Y ERY P0LICY
December 1j'4 1996
* Effective 12-13-96 delivery truc'.cs are aliowed into Vail Village before 7 am. if the
tracks use "silent mode": no use of air brakes, no reaigerauon units running and
enQines must be turned off while the truc?c is pazked. Any violation of "sileat mode"
will result in the revocation of an early morning pariting pe~it. Noise complaints
mav also result in revocation of eariy morning parlCing pe:znits.
m On mor.unQs when any fresh snow has acc;imulated overniQht, "silent mode" trucks
must move out of the Villaae from 6 to 6:30 a.m. to allow for snowplowins. Trucks
mav rerur:i at 6:310 ar.c's par:c in areas already plowed. * Effective 12-13-96, f'rom ' a.m. to 12 noon, aIl sizes of tnicks are aIlowed to park on
Gore Creek Drive e:ccept in desiQnated fire Ianes. Enzines' and refrige:ation units
should be turned off as much as possible to reduce noise.
• Effectave 12-13-96 all sizes of trucks not utiIizino, "silent mode" are allowed on
Bridze St. from 7:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.. All truc'.cs must be off Brid?e St. by 8:30
a.m.
• Effective 12-20-96 15 minute tilerchant pe.^.niu are valid on Bridae St. and Gore
Creek Dr. from 6:30 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. ior the delivery of Iarge, bulky or heaw
items onlv.
• Effecrive 12-20-96 Trash trucks are onIy allow-ed in the ViIla;e from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., except on BridQe St., where they are allowed from ; a.m. to 8:30 a.m. Trash truc.:s
have the ri:ht ot' way over de!ivery m:c.ts ar:d merchant veiucles from 7:30 a.m. to
8:30 am.
• Effective 12-20-96 "Larsze trucks" (36 fr. must be out of the Villaae bv noun. '
Lar?e trac'.cs are not allowed to park anywne:e in the Villaae Core after noon. At 12
noon. ":vIedium truc4cs" (19 to 35 ft.) must leave Gore C:eek Drive but are allowed to
park in the per*nitted spaces in front of the vfill Creek Court BuildinQ or near the
International Bridge until 6 p.m.. "Sma11 Truc:cs" and vans ( 13 fr. or less) must leave
the Villaae Core at noon but are allow-ed to park afre: noon in the permitted parkins
spac--s on Hanson Ranch Road, below the P; and J Lot on Gore Creek Dr. and near
Check Point Charlie uniil 6 p.m..
, 0 Effectiye 1?-13-96 Airbome E:cpress. -DAC, Fede-al E:nress, lirsted Parcel Service;
and U.S. Postal Senvice trucks are allowed on Gore Creek Drive from 7 a.m. to 6
p.m.
These hours will be in effect throuah December 31, 1996. On January l, 1997, the 12
noon closure of Gore Creek Drive will be moved bac?c to 1 I:30 a.m.
F'I1tE %.ANES IRT VA%L VII,IAGE
1. East side of Children's Fountain by Pepi's 701 x 121
2. Laughing Monkey on Gore Creek Dr., near Children's Fountain 38'x 141
3. Bridge Street Building, north side, on Gore Creek Drive 105'
4. East of Gorsuch Building, in alleyway 80' x 18'
5. East of Serrano's, Mill Creek to Christiania 110,
6. South of Red Lion Building to Mill Creek Court 75'
7. East of Vail Ski Rentals (Hill Building) 110'
8. North of Golden Peak House (15' from hydrant) 54'
9. Brick vaalk between Hill and Plaza Buildings (NO SIGNS POSTED) 105'
10. Bast of Mountain Haus, west of Vail Athletic Club (betw buildings) 80'x 12'
J•
~
r ~~`~`r~~:/ -1~~ ~ ~crv ~
r+ i ~.7 7_ ~ • ~`lv) p 0 ik ~ ' ~ ~ ~,1 _l w`'-l.~`~ ~`l' ~ 1 ` ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l.~ • 4l
NATI"L ~"l-.. r r?~, , GIi~EK$1bF: ~ ~ y il..! ~ ~~~L
~ ~ ; ~ ~ ' ~ ` s-~~ ~ ~ q
~ , 0 1 f
1 ' (iORE CREEK ~ PROIJENME p~ il
, . ~ M51bi?A?aE'R'
na i p et ~ ~-y~ I
FOIIDREN'S
tl
JOIM ODU.'f
R 1 V E
aEtK
D R E
9CHECUFE'OINf
0 R ~
C
r, R E
:
~ M
l.tfUC~ iV6A'hl
~
7?I 't ~1?~l CRE.~K couaY: E k
;
~ F]UILCIINQ
'AR K
I
,
, .
rARcINu
` P1,A7A
~ ( - ~r•• ~ 8~111,D1N0 ) \
nttt EtifoN ;
P
a~OIJON y
'T VAIL
LpbO~~
SEIBERT
/ ~I)ANf~ VAIL
1AI.~AQ~:. MJ47A CIRCIE CLU9
. '
. • ; ' ~
;
;
.
. _ :
.
_ , '
FMKINO
FL ' ~7 ..:.:.:.:<.::.:..::<> :;:::~:~::>;i:;''' j ~ ~ ~ ~
RF LANE
RC HYDRANT • FIRE llI;I''f. Cl)NNrCxION
FI1tE llEPT. CONNrCTIqN. 1. rRCE STANi)ING - NO PARKING WITHIN 15 FEET ~
2. WALL MOUNT - NO PARKING WITHIN S FEET
i
VAIL VILLAGE PAR6(I(VG ZONES
(LOCATION & TIMES)
;
;
~ BRIDQE ST GORE CREEK DR MILL CREEK 304 GORE CREEK HANSON RANCH WILLOW BRIDGE CHECK POINT
BUILDING ROAD ROAD CHARLIE
~
CARS UNTIL 8:30 AM UNTIL 11:30 AM UNTIL 6:00 PM L 6:0,° PM UNTIL 6:00 PM UNTIL 6:00 PM UNTIL 6:00 PRfl
-
:
=,;o
SMALL TRUCKS UNTIL 8:30 A ~ UNTIL 11:30 AAA UNTIL 6:00 PM ' Ia 0 PM UNTIL 6:00 PM UNTIL 6:00 PM UNTIL 6:00 PM
(UP TO 18 FY.) RAEDIUM TRUCKS UNTIL 8:30 ANI UNTIL 11:30 AM U IL 0o PAA NOT ALLOWED UNTIL 11:3O AM UNTIL 6:00 PM UNTIL 6:00 PM
~
(19 TO 35 FT) LARQE TRUCKS UNTIL 8:30 AM UNTIL 11:30 AM UNTIL 12 NOON NOT ALLOWED UNTIL 11:30 AM UNTIL 12 NOON UNTIL 12 NOON
(36 FT.+)
TRA TRu S UNTIL 8:30 dRA UNTIL 9:00 AM UNTIL 9:00 AM UNTIL 9:00 AM UNTIL 9:00 AM UNTIL 9:00 AM UNTIL 9:00 AM
COUR ~ ~"i~ jL-&-30 AM UNTIL 6:00 PM UNTIL 6:00 PM UNTIL 6:00 PM UNTIL 6:00 PM UNTIL 6:00 PM UNTIL 6:00 PM
SERVICES
r.
m~
ALL ZONES AR PERMITS MUST
30 MINIJTES ~ BE IFI FRONT
(MAX.) WINDOW
~r
l
:
1
METqO
'd'o: Town Council
IFu-om: Pam Brandmeyer, Larry Grafel, Todd Oppenheimer, and George Ruther
Sunlbyeet: Background of parking issue at Ford Park.
. Date: March 7, 1997
The following background information on the issue of coanmanni9,y parknng at Ford Park is
provided for your information.
The Ford Park Management Plan, as you have seen, does not include a recommendation to
construct a community parking structure anywhere in Ford Park. Section 5, Goal #4 (attached)
has been rewritten to remove any ambiguities regarding the intent of the Management Plan. The
staff team working on the Management Plan project believes it would be irresponsible if the
issue of future community parking, and parking directly related to park itself, were ignored
during this process. Several members of the community believe that staff is pursuing a parking
structure at Ford Park. This is not true. What staff is pursuing, however, is a resolution to the
issue as it concerns the possible location and setting aside conceptually parking space which does
not conflict with current park uses. Other future sites proposed would have been more
convenient to current park venues and would have integrated more naturally into the park
aesthetics, but the public response was one of almost complete consensus to leave current
programs undisturbed. We listened. That message was clear and undisputed.
Parking, pedestrian access, and bus service relative to Ford Park have been issues for almost as
long as the Town has owned the property. Ford Park, including the Athletic Field lot, has been
used as community parking facility for many years. I'm sure all of you can recall the ritual
instaTlation and removal of the old landing mats on the ballfield. Thankfully, the mats are long
gone and we do not rely on Ford Park as heavily as in the past. But, it does remain a well used
parking facility all year long.
The following is a synopsis of the previous planning documents which have addressed the issue
of parking at Ford Park, either for the park or for the community. Excerpts from the documents
have been included where appropriate. Other text has been abbreviated to include the content or
meaning only. We will be happy to furnish you with copies of the actual documents if you
would like to see them.
The Vail Plan, August 1973, by Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey.
Chapter 4, the Town Recreation System listed several uses to be placed on the, then, Antholz
property. These included extensive open turf space, a place for showing and creating arts and
crafts, an indoor theater and outdoor amphitheater, community rooms, an indoor ice arena, tennis
and handball courts, children's play area, headquarters for the Vail Symposium and a nature
O'
~ .
Town Council
Page 2
March 7, 1997
center. The following statement was made regazding parking.
"This major community park-cultural center will contain parking for over 200 cars and
will also be directly served by the Town bus system. Major parking will be
' accommodated in the transportation center. The various trails and bikeways become the
significant connectors from this park to additional turf spaces, children's play areas,
family facilities, and tennis courts at Lionshead."
Ford Park Amphitheater Parking and Transit Studv, April 1979, by A. Gerstenberg Assoc.
This study reached five conclusions:
1) A sellout audience of 1500 at the amphitheater will generate up to 450 cars. There are 200
parking spaces within a 5 minute walk of the proposed amphitheater and about 1000 spaces
within 12 minutes;
2) increased demand for shuttle bus service will occur during sellout performances;
3) Frontage Road pazking is extremely unsafe;
4) critical parking problems would result if major athletic and cultural events were scheduled
concurrently on the park; and
5) some traffic congestion will occur as a result of sellout performances.
The study also made 5 recommendations:
1) The Vail Transportation Center should be considered (and incentivized as) the major parking
facility for the amphitheater and should be connected to the park by signage, a sidewalk along S.
Frontage Road, and a shuttle bus running along S. Frontage Road;
2) expand bus service beginning an hour before and continuing an hour after a performance;
3) disallow parking on the S. Frontage Road; and _
4) do not schedule competing events at Ford Park.
Ford Park/Donovan Park Master Plan Development Final Report, August 1985, by THK Assoc.
The Master Plan for Ford Park included parking and drop-off as a moderately suitable element
for the site in the final 5ite Development Program but did not include a community parking
facility. Three different subarea plans and the final Master Plan indicated 145 to 198 surface
parking spaces to serve the proposed aquatic center, amphitheater and community park facilities.
The parking areas were always shown where the tennis courts are now located. The east gravel
lot was to serve as a snow dump and summer overflow parking area.
Vail Village Master Plan, January 1990, by the Community Development Department.
Goal #5, Action Step 5 states,
"study the feasibility of an underground, (recreation fields would remain), parking
a
Town Council
Page 3
March 7, 1997
structure in Ford Park."
On the Parking and Circulation Plan, it indicates potential parking beneath the softball field area.
The reasoning offered for these statements is that the Vail Mountain Master Plan indicates most
' of the major mountain expansion is to be located on the eastem side of Vail Mountain.
Vail Transportation Master Plan, 1993, by Feldsberg, Holt and Ullevig.
This plan states,
"The existing Ford Park parking area (east end of park) should be considered for a
possible 2-level parking facility with the second level below grade."
Ford Park and the Athletic Field aze also listed as two possible sites for oversized vehicle parking
if the lot east of the Lionshead Structure becomes developed.
Focus Groups.
Participants of the Focus Group meetings for the Ford Park Management Plan were asked about
the parking issue at Ford Park. Approximately 60 people attended the three focus group
sessions. The responses received were varied, and while there were no comments recorded which
directly opposed a community parking facility, there were 13 comments on preserving the
integrity of the park. An additiona123 comments addressed access as the issue rather than
parking. Other recorded comments, specific to the parking issue are categorized as follows.
3 comments Opposed a structure under the softball fields.
2 comments Favored a structure under the west softball field.
2 comments Favored a structure under the soccer field lot.
5 comments Opposed the Town providing additional skier parking without VA's
participation.
Conclusions.
The Ford Park Management Plan, as presented for your approval, includes 274 surface parking
spaces and relies upon the Village Transportation Center to provide the remainder of the needed
spaces. The plan proposes to manage the parking at the park during high-use periods and to
incentivize the use of the Village Transportation Center. The connection between the Village
Transportation Center and Ford Park is a critical aspect of the plan and is addressed through a
variety of recommended action steps.
The Ford Park Management Plan limits the potential for a future community parking facility.
The policy statement regazding parking requires that every other option for community pazking is
to be exhausted before a structure should be considered at Ford Park, and then only at the
appropriate sites identified through this plan.
,
Town Council
Page 4
March 7, 1997
It is staff's opinion that the language and concepts presented in the Ford Park Management Plan
are responsible to the Town's stewardship role and are consistent with the comments received
from the community during the public process, that being, that the Town of Vail set aside, within
Ford Park, the potential sites for communiTy parking if and when it becomes a requirement.
~
Goa? #4: Reso9de parking s9aortage and 3oaath Froretage Ytoad access prob9ems.
Objeetuves:
4.1: Develope and implement a parking management plan for Ford Park.
Action Step 4. 1. 1: Locate a variable message sign between the main roundabout and
entrance to Village Structure for the purpose of informing drivers that close-in parking at -
Ford Park is restricted, at a fee, or full, and parking in the VTC is free and shuttle bus "
service is available.
Action Step 4.4.2: Schedule shuttle bus service from top deck of the Village Structure to
Ford Park, Frontage Road stop for special event/high demand days. Extend in-town
shuttle bus service to Ford Park, Vail Valley Drive stop.
Acton Step 4.1.3: Designate drop-off parking on Frontage Road using 15 spaces north of
bus stop. Enforce 5 minute time limit. Drop-off lane functions as a turn around once lot
is filled. Schedule attendants on-site to manage drop-off spaces and assist users in loading
and unloading.
Action Step 4.1.4: Allocate close-in parking on Frontage Road and Vail Valley Drive
through reserve ticket purchases or on a fee basis. Parking attendants on-site to manage
entrances and exits. Establish a ticket surcharge or parking fee price schedule which will
generate sufficient funds to cover attendant and shuttle bus service costs.
Action Step 4.1.5: Construct Frontage Road sidewalk from the Village Structure and
improve sign system as necessary to accommodate pedestrian traffic to Ford Park.
1PoDucy Statemeng 12: Adequate parking for the needs of the park are to be provided in
the park and at the Village Structure. No net loss of available parking spaces shall result
from any improvements, modifications and/or additions to Ford park. T.he existing
baseline number of parking spaces is, 199 from the South Frontage Road, and 65 from
Vail Vallcy Drive.
4.2: Improve vehicular access from the South Frontage Road and improve parking lot design to
maximize the number of parking spaces, aesthetics, and safety while mitigating environmental
impacts.
Action Step 4.4.1: Design and construct improvements to the South Frontage Road to
meet CDOT requirements for obtaining a state highway access permit.
Action Step 4.2.2: Design and construct improvements to all existing parking areas that
maximizes the number of parking spaces, provides landscape buffering and treatment of
storm water run-off.
1
O
4.3: Limit the potential for construcrion of a future community parking structure at Ford Park.
Action Step 4.3.1: Designate the existing east parking lot and the athletic field lot as the
ordy sites on Ford Park appropriate for consideration as parking structure sites.
IPoB'scy Statemeunt 13: Ford park is to be considered as a possible location for a
community parking structure only after an analysis of public and private community
parking supply and demand has been completed and indicates a shortage exists; the
. concept of a community parking structure has been affirmed, through process, by the ,
public; and all other sites, both public and private have been exhausted.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: fVlarch 10, 1997
SUBJECT: Review of existing GRFA poficy and alternatives Staff: Russell Forrest -
0. P99RPOSE:
The purpose of this worksession is to review the analysis for three alternatives to the existing
GRFA regulations for single family, duplex, and primary/secondary type structures. This memo
vuill describe: how to implemenY each of these alternatives; what homes might look like under
each alternative; and will idenYify considerations that would need to be evaluated for each
alternative. On March 10th, the PEC will be asked to vote on which alternative they would like to
recommend to the Vail Town Council. On March 11th, the Vail Town Council will review the
alternatives and the PEC's recommendation. If Council feels they have adequate information
and time to consider this issue, staff will ask for direction on which alternative to implement. If
additional time is needed to consider the alternatives, staff wou/d recommend scheduling this
topic for an evening meeting on April lst The next step after Council decides on a preferred
alternative is to begin the implementation process. This could include additional research to
answer questions relating to the preferred action and would include developing proposed code
cevisions.
UI. PROBLEM STATEAAENT & GIVENSo
The Vail Town Council directed staff to evaluate the existing GRFA system and determine
whether this is an effective and appropriate tool when compared to other alternatives. Three
reoccurring issues have been raised by the Town Council which include:
A) Is GRFA an effective tool in controlling mass and bulk;
B) Is it appropriate that the Town should be revievuing interior floor space; and
C) Is it an effective use of staff time (both TOV and designers/builders)?
The givens for this process include:
A) The Vail Town Council will make the final decision with input from the community and
recommendations from the PEC and staff.
B) There will be some form of regulatory control of size and mass.
C) This process will only address residential development (single-family, duplex, and
primary/secondary type structures).
D) "fVo acfion" (i.e. keeping the existing GRFA system) is a viable alternative.
1
\
E) Homes should not get significantly larger in size.
F) New design guidelines should not inhibit design creativity.
III. BACKGROUND
In October of 1996, Tom Braun, the planning consultant for this project, prepared a paper which
addressed the following :
, ° Reoccurring concerns/issues with the existing system, .
* Objectives of having mass and bulk controls,
Mechanisms for controlling bulk and mass,
* History of GRFA in Vail,
` Anatysis of how seven other resort communities control bulk and mass, and
* Analysis of five alternatives to the Town of Vail's GRFA system.
At the pubtic meetings on October 30th and 31 st in 1996, Tom Braun presented the findings in
the background paper. A majority of the time at the meeting was spent obtaining input from the
public on the existing system, discussing pros and cons of alternatives, and identifying new
alternatives. Approximately 45 people attended these meetings.
The PEC reviewed this analysis on November 11, 1996. Four members felt that alternative three
(eliminating GRFA) was the best alternative with certain conditions. These members felt that if
GRFA was eliminated, additional design guidelines would be needed. One commissioner that--
supported alternative three, felt that at least two architects should sit on the Design Review
Board.
The other three members of the PEC felt that some form of GRFA is needed. One member felt
strongly that GRFA does effectively control bulk and mass and eliminating the system would
increase the size of structures in the Town of Vail. The other two rnembers were interested in
pursuing alternatives 2 and 4(allow interior modifications and eliminate basement space in
GRFA calculations, respectively). Overall, there seemed to be a consensus on the Commission
that homeowners, particularly owner occupied homes, should be able to do interior remodels
without GRFA being an issue. Council reviewed the analysis on November 26th and directed
staff to examine the following alternatives (not listed by priority/preference) in more detail:
' Allow interior modifications to exceed the maximum GRFA allowance for existing
structures, provided such additions do not add to the bulk and mass of the home.
* Amend the definition of GRFA to exclude basement space from calculation as GRFA.
* Eliminate the use of GRFA for controlling mass and bulk for single family, duplex, and
primary/secondary type structures.
The Vail Town Council was very clear that any alternative to the existing GRFA system should
not significantly increase bulk and mass. The Council was also very sensitive to any
recommendation that might inhibit creative design solutions. In addition, several Council
members were interested in exploring how vaulted space could be better addressed in the
Town's regulations. Attached is a revised analysis from Tom Braun of how each alternative
could be implemented and issues that would need to be considered prior to implementation.
2
Vil. PROCE5S OVERVBEWo
The process for this project is broken into three phases 1) identification of alternatives; 2)
analysis of alternatives; and 3) legislative revieuv of the preferred alternative. The follouving are
specific steps in the process.
Phase I Identification of Alternatives
1) Background analysis of existing GRFA system and alternatives. September &
October, 1996
2) Public meetings to review pros and cons of existing GRFA system October 30tii & ' and alternatives. 31 st, 1996
3) Presentation to PEC and Town Council to revieuu pros/cons and November 11 &
(PEC) public input. The purpose of these public meetings was to November 26
determine if any of the altematives could be eliminated. 1996
Phase II Analvze how to implement alternatives and identify the impacts of each alternative
4) Complete analysis of alternative approaches. December & January
1996/1997
5) PEC vuorksession to revievu 3 alternatives February 10, 1997
6) PEC hearing to recommend an alternative AAarch 10, 1997
: 7) Council vuorksession March 11, 1997
8) Evening Council meeting to decide on alternative April 1st, 1997
if additional time is needed from the March 11th worksession
Phase III Leaislative Reviewr of oreferred alternative (assumes code modifications)
8) Staff prepares language to modify Town Code April, 1997
9) PEC: worksession to consider code revisions _ Following dates to be
determined
10) PEC: public hearing
11) Town Council: worksession to review proposed revision to
the existing GRFA regulations
12) Tovun Council: first reading of an ordinance
13) Town Council: second reading of an ordinance
3
V CURRENT IMPACT OF GRFA AND SITE COVERAGE:
A. Overview of GRFA and Site Coverage
Gross Residential Floor Area and site coverage are tied to lot area through simple mathematical
formulas. GRFA determines how much floor area can exist in a home and site coverage controls
the size of the footprint of a building. Both are tools that conVol the size and mass of buildings,
along with height restrictions and design guidelines. Very simply, the bigger the lot, the more
GRFA and site coverage is allowed on the lot.
B. RFA '
In reference to GRFA, there is a graduated formula for controlling floor area. For example, the
calculation for prim ary/seco ndary, duplex, and single-family type homes is the following:
Max GRFA (Floor Area) _ .25 x lot area beiween 0 sq ft and 15,000 sq ft.
+
.10 x lot area belween 15,000 sq ft. and 30,000 sq. ft.
+
.05 x lot area over 30,000 sq ft.
Example: A 35,000 square foot lot would be entitled to 3.750 sq ft of GRFA for the 1 st 15,000
square feet of Iot area + 1.500 sq ft. of GRFA for the lot area between 15,000 and 30,000
square feet +250 sq. ft. for the last 5,000 feet of lot area; for a total of 5.500 square feet of
GRFA.
Credits: Each allowable dwelling unit on a lot also receives 425 sq. ft. of additional
square feet, up to 600 square feet for a garage, and potentially 500 sq. ft. for a Type II
EHU (per lot).
C. Site Coverage
Site coverage is not graduated and is simply 20% of the total lot area. Therefore, the
potential building footprint for a 35,000 sq. ft. lot is 7,000 square feet.
D. Lot Areas in Vail
Since lot area directly affects GRFA and site coverage, staff reviewed lot sizes in Vail.
Staff reviewed 611 lots in sudivisions across the Town. Lot sizes range from several
thousand square feet to over a 100,000 square feet. The average lot size in Vail is
approximately 21,000 square feet based on lots that were reviewed. More than half the
lot sizes in this survey are between 10,000 and 25,000 square feet. Table 1 below
summarizes the frequency of lot sizes in the Town of Vail:
4
4ABLE I
LOT S9ZES IN THE TOUVN OF !lAIL
fl.o$ Area (squere feet) Percent Tota9 Plumber in Range
0-5,000 2.93% 18
5,001-10,000 18.73% 115
10,001-15,000 2524% 155
15,001-20,000 18.40% 113 . =20,001-25,000 12.54% 77
25,001-30,000 3.91 % 24
30,001-35,000 6.35% 39
35,001-40,000 3.26% 20
40,001 + 8.14% 50
Tota/s: 100% 611
E. Impact of GRFA and Site Coveraae
Staff reviewred how GRFA and site coverage work together and what uvould happen if one
or the other were eliminated. Staff calculated GRFA, with credits, and site coverage for
lots ranging from 8,000 sq ft to over 60,000 square feet. Figure 1 below displays the
effect of GRFA and site coverage. The dark solid line indicates existing GRFA with
credits. The "fVo GRFA" lines reflect the r n of how big a home could be if site
coverage and building height were the only limiting factors. The IVo GRFA (low) line
assumes that a developer would use 100% of the allowrable site coverage for the 1 st floor
and the massing above the 1 st floor would be 50% of the site coverage (i.e the massing
on the first floor). The fVo GRFA (high) line assumes that a developer vuould use 100% of
the atlowable site coverage for the 1 st floor and the massing above 4he 1 st floor would be
80% of the site coverage (i.e the massing on the first floor).
- Based on this review of GRFA and site coverage it appears that site coverage is the more
limiting factor on lots smaller than 16,000 square feet. Once lot siies exceed 20,000
square feet, then GRFA is clearly the controlling factor in terms of bulk and mass. If
GRFA wrere eliminated, a significantly larger home could be constructed on the larger lots
in Town. For example, a 40,000 square foot lot could have a 12,000 to 14,000 square
foot structure without GRFA. 1lVith GRFA, a building could only be as large as 7,800
square feet in size (with credits). Therefore, GRFA does control massing on larger lots in
the Town of Vail.
5
Figure 1 ~
Floor Area comparlslon
25,000 .......w.,.,,....,,,...,.,..,.,,,..v......,..t,...,.,...,.,,,,.,,,....,..,,.~.~.,,...~.,,.,.,,...,,,..,......M.
~:::2`::2::.>'' ~'::;:t:::::.>:::~:~sSi":::::';::;i:G:~:~::.':'.:«:::::
. _ . .
. ' ' ~ ' . • . '
. . ~ ...y' . . . ' ~ :
~
::s:>:::::->:~:::::;::.;;;:::.::.. .;:::.vo'o:;;;
. .
~,000
.
:
~ : . .
:
s
r '~J,~
• _ ~ ' ~ V7C~~~ ' A ~
c , r : ` #+K'3 ~A(f~oNt}
J
W >
. _ . . . .
.r
. . . . ,
. . . .
~ . . . .
~
. ~ ~ _ . .
. . . ~ .
. . . . :i. ~
Q . . .
.
. ~::;i..:~::. .
_ :
0 1 olm
3fis GRFA + Gedits
ri ; C~1t+~t~
h10 GRFA (Law)
. . .
No GRFA (Ff9h)
5,000
_ :
: . v° . .
. . .
:jxaf . . . . . .
. , . .
0
o°o_ °o °o_ °o_ g°o °o_ g- g o g 25 g g~ o g 25 2a5 ~ 0pp 25
a0 O N 7 t0 a0 N N N N N L7 m CN~ Cn7 O "i ~ N~ N N 1n c~D
L6t AIM (gq L)
VI. ANALYSIS OF ALTEFdNATIV'ES:
A. Alternative 1- Keep GRFA and allow Interior Modifications:
This alternative would keep the existing GRFA system but would allow existing homes to exceed
their maximum allowable GRFA if the proposed modification had no changes to the exterior of
the home. This alternative would address one of the major issues in this analysis of allowing
homeowners to modify the interior of their home and utilize existing crawl spaces or vaulted
areas. The major considerations with Alternative 1 are:
1) If Alternative 1 applied to homes built in the future, home builders could build a home
within the allowable GRFA, and then after receiving a Certificate of Occupancy, they
could completely redo the interior and exceed their GRFA limit. In other words, people
could design vaulted spaces in anticipation of creating additional floor area after a
Certificate of Occupancy was issued. Property owners could create larger vaulted areas
and thus a larger building mass, while planning to fill it in at a later time. Under this
scenario, staff questions whether GRFA still has value in controlling bulk and mass. If
Alternative 1 is considered to be the preferred alternative, then staff strongly recommends
that it only apply to homes built prior to the date of this change to the regulations.
6
2) Staff recommends that a home have no remaining GRFA before doing interior
modifications. In other words, if a property had 500 square feet of GRFA remaining, they
would have to first build that additional ffoor area (on the outside of the existing structure)
and then, at a later time, do an interior remodel to maximize livable area on the inside of
the existing structure and the addition.
3) Equity is an issue duith this alternative by only applying it to homes built before a
certain date. Property owners of homes built in the future may desire to take advantage
of the same opportunity to use vaulted and crawl spaces for livable area.
B. Alternative 2- Do not include basement space as GRFA . This alternative would amend the GRFA definition to exclude basement space. This alternative
would address one aspect of the problem statement relating to intrusiveness and the public value
of regulating the interior of a home. This alternative would allow a property owner to modify an
interior basement space and exceed their GRFA allowance. Considerations related to this
alternative include:
1) Many lots in Vail are steep and basements are very rarely completely underground and
usually have a uvalk-out. The only practical way to apply this alternative would be to
develop a calculation for determining what percent of a basement is below grade and is a
true basement.
2) Calculating % area that can be defined as basement space would iurther complicaYe
the GRFA system by increasing staff and applicant time to process an application. See
page 3 of the Braun paper for a proposed definition of basement.
3) This alternative would result in bigger homes. By excluding basement space you can
basically apply that GRFA above grade, wrhich would increase the size of homes.
C. Alternative 3-Eliminate GRFA
This alternative would eliminate GRFA as a tool to controlling bulk and mass for single family,
duplex, and primary/secondary homes. In its place, site coverage would need to be reduced on
large lots and stronger design guidelines would be required. This alternative would address the
problem statement by eliminating the need for staff to regulate the floor area in the home. GRFA
does not prevent a property owner from building a"block-like" structure. Stronger design
guidelines are a better tool for controlling the appearance of buildings. However, it should be
noted that GRFA does control the overall mass of a home, particutarly on larger lots. Specific
considerations related to alternative 3 include:
1) Site coverage would have to be modified for lots over 19,000 square feet to prevent
significantly larger homes. Figure 2 demonstrates that site coverage can be graduated
just like GRFA to control building sizes. The GRFA line is plotted and is identical to the
line in Figure 1 above. The fVo GRFA lines reflect the potential building mass without
GRF,4 and using a site coverage allouvance of:
20% for lot area between 0-19,000 square feet
+
5% for lot area between 19,000-40,000 square feet
+
4% for lot area above 40,000 square feet
7
Figure 2
Reduced Site Coverage
12, 000
10,000 Pic ~t~FA ~Hi$~} .
: »
3:....:......:.....
<;;:.<:>::>::::>:.::;::<:;.<::_
E~R
_ .:r:: ~t ;Cred3~
8.000 »;:`::::<::;':.;i;::::;'>.
(L GR
4M1j' FA+Credits
- , a 6,000 - - - - -NO GRFA (Low) ,
o
- - NO GRFA,(High) L i:
4,000 x . . . . . . ; , . : . . • .
2,000
,
. >
0 _ .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OD N CD c°m N N m m v v ~i
Lot Area
2) Modifying the site coverage as shown above is possible but there is a greater range for
the possible size of homes by relying exclusively on site coverage and height to control
building mass. However, this can be further controlled by stronger design guidelines.
3) New design guidelines and site coverage requirements would have to be in place
before this alternative could be implemented. This may include new height restrictions to
ensure off-sets in the roof line (i.e. like the 60/40 split in the Village)
4) Parking standards are currently connected to GRFA. New parking standards would
have to be created.
5) This alternative would require greater reliance on the Design Review Board. Staff
would recommend that a minimum of two members of the board be architects or
landscape architects.
- 6) Many existing subdivisions (such as Spraddle (ireek) have recorded maximum GRFA
limits on the plat. The Town would have to recognize these limits and ensure that homes
did not exceed ihose limits or significantly reduce development rights.
7) Eliminating GRFA could also eliminate the current floor area incentive for creating an
EHU. This incentive could potentially be created using site coverage (credit) or some
other incentive.
8) Eliminating GRFA would help reduce the number of illegal conversions/remodels that
occur without a building permit.
D. No Action
Taking no action on this project is also an alternative. It does not address any of the
issues or concerns that have been raised in this process. It would maintain the exiting
system of controling GRFA, site coverage, height, and design.
8
c_
E. Summary of ,4lternatives
Table 2
Summar of Alternatives
Al4ernative Problerri 9: Problern 2: Problem 3: Ground rule: Grounc9 rule: Key Ossues:
Effecctver?ess Dnteusieeness Simpllcity/ Do not increase Do not
In controlling of TO!! S4aff & elae hlnder
mass and Pcgulating Applicant design
bulk in4erior Time creativity
space
Aftemative GRFA does This Would be Could increase size Staff . A) Equity: -
' 1- not,control afternative very unless it is applied recommends People will still
Keep design but it would provide complicated if only to homes buift new design want to build in
GRFA but does control greater applied to prior a certain date guidelines vauked areas
allow mass of homes- flexibility to use new homes. and would apply that will and crawl
interior on large lots. space inside a only to homes that provide better spaces in the
changes to Would see home. have maxed out criteria for the future.
exceed increase in size GRFA. DRB but does
GRFA limit if this alt. is not hinder B)Should this
applied to neui design. be applied to
homes new homes?
Altemative Will increase Somewhat VUould Would increase Same as Alt 1 can
2- Do not mass of addresses this increase building size by above. basically
count building above issue by not complexity pushing GRFA accomplish aft.
basement grade. regulating since base above grade. 2
space basement ment area
space would have to
be calculated
Afternative Site coverage, Dces address Staff may Could increase Same as This
3-No design this issue. have to building size above afternatives
GRFA guidelines, and TOV would review design depending on how effectiveness
height controls only regulate criteria for site coverage is depends on
could more building permit DRB. modified. It is changing site
effectively _ issue inside a possible to control coverage,
control exterior home. mass with site design
appearance. coverage and guidelines, and
" design controls the DRB's
effectivenes in
- implementing
the guidelines.
Vail is 90%
built out-is it
too late to
change?
No Action GRFA does Would not No change to No change Same as Most people
not control address this complexity or above like the way
design but it problem staff time homes look in
does control Vail
mass of homes
on large lots.
9
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDA?TION:
Staff recognizes that this is a very complex issue that involves looking at the original problems
public input, Council direction, and requires trying to forecast how developers and home builders
would react under different alternatives. During public meetings, the community said they
generally feel good about how homes look and staff would very much agree with that in most
cases. People generally feel that additional design guidelines are needed to improve
. consistency in the deGision making of the DRB. In addition, people felt that something should be
done to allow home owners to make reasonable modifications to the interior of their homes without changing the exterior. The majority of the people participating in the public meetings felt
that GFtFA should be eliminated and the Town should only regulate the exterior design and
massing of a home. However, there were many that felt the existing system worked effectively
and should not be changed at this late date in Vail's development.
Staff does feel that improved design guidelines as identified on pages 5 and 6 of Tom Braun's
attached paper would help improve consistency and equity within the decision making process
for the Design Review Board. Staff strongly recommends that these types of changes need to
be imp/emented regardless of which a/ternative is chosen. Staff feels that adequate flexibi(ity
can be provided in these types of guidelines so as to not hinder creative design, while providing
better criteria for the Design Review Board.
With respect to the atternatives, and which alternative most significantly addresses the problems -
identified in this project, staff feels that alternative 3, eliminate GRFA, has the greatest value
(with several caveats):
A) Additional work is needed to determine how to best modify site coverage to prevent
homes from significantly increasing in size. Site coverage would have to be modified to
ensure that homes would not significantly increase in size.
B) Improved design guidelines (which might include new height restrictions) will be
needed to also ensure that building mass does not significantly increase. Staff wou(d
assist DRB and review projects based on these criteria.
C) DRB should be comprised of at least 2 design professionals (i.e, architect,
landscape architect).
D) Parking requirements will have to be further examined.
E) IVeed to examine how to provide an incentive for creating employee housing units.
Alternative 3 places an emphasis on controlling the exterior of a home, which has a public value,
and moves the Town away from regulating the interior of a home. Alternative 1 would address
many of the issues raised in this project. However, it is not logical to apply alternative 1 to future
projects knowing that the interior spaces could be modified once a certificate of occupancy is
issued. If alternative 1 were chosen as the preferred alternative, then staff would recommend it
only apply to existing homes built before the date this regulation would go into effect. The major
concern staff has with alternative 1 is that there is the issue of e'quity with homes that would be
built in the future and owners wanting to fill in vaulted or crawl space after receiving a certificate
of occupancy.
f:everyone\russlmemos\grfa.310
10
BA IBIRAUN A.SSOCIATIES. INC.
PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Russ Forest
FROM: -Tom Braun °
DATE: February 6, 1997
RE: Phase II of GRFA Analysis
Attached you will find the Phase II GRFA Analysis which provides further analysis of the three
potential alternatives to the current GRFA system. These three alternatives, as selected by the
Town Council, include 1) the conversion of interior space in homes that meet or exceed allowable
G2FA, 2) the exclusion of basement space from calculation as GRFA, and 3) the elimination of
GRFA. The following information is provided for each of these alternatives:
1) Description of Alternative
A brief description of the alternative is provided in this section.
2) Issues to be Addressed
This section highlights some of the pertinent comments and considerations raised by the
Council, Commission and public during prcvious discussioiis regarding GRFA.
3) Proposed Lan uaee
This section outlines how and where each alternative could be incorporated into the Town's
zoning code and presents preliminary language for implementing the alternative. This
should not be considered "Cnal ordinance language". Rathcr, it is intended to Provide the
COlU1CII, Planning Commission and community with a better understanding of how each
alternative could be implemented and addilional issues that will need to be resolved during
the implementation phase of this process. 4) Issues to Consider
Outstanding issues and implications relative to each alternative are highlighted in this
section.
As we have discussed, the purpose of this phase in the GRFA Analysis is to further understand the
issues and implications relative to each potential alternative. It is important to understand that it is
not the intention of this phase to resolve all potential issues related to each alternative. Rather, this
report identifies outstanding issues that would need to be addressed during the third and final step
in this process. This report will hopefully provide the PEC and Town Council with the information
needed to identify a preferred alternative to the existing GRFA system.
Minturn Ironworks Building Phone - 970.827.5797
201 Main Street, 2nd Floor Fax - 970.827.5507
Post Office Box 776
Minturn, Colorado 81645 . .
Alternative #1 - Interior Conversions
Descrintion of Alternative
Modify zoning regulations in order to allow for additional GRFA in existing homes that currently
exceed allowable GRFA, provided such additions do not add to the bulk and mass of the home.
Similar to the 250 Ordinance, this alternative would only apply to existing homes. There would be
no change to the review process (i.e. GRFA system) for new construction. This approach is
intended to allow flexibility to owners of existing homes by allowing GFLFA to be created within -
. the interior space of a home (i.e. loft additions, conversion of crawl space, etc).
' . Issues to be Addressed
• Alternative must provide assurances that modifications to homes do not increase building
bulk and mass.
Proposed Lanua P
This alternative would be implemented with the addition of a new chapter in the zoning code
similai• in the manner in which the 250 Ordinance has been structured. This chapter would have
the following major sections: ,
1) Purpose
The puipose of this chapter is to provide flexibility and latitude in the use of interior spaces
within existing single-family and two-family stnictures that meet or exceed allowable
GRFA by allowing for the conversion of interior spaces to GRFA provided certain
conditions and standards are met.
2) Applicabilicy
• Any existing single-family residence or any existing dwelling unit in a structure
containing no more ttian two dwelling units shall be eligible to add additional
GRFA in excess of existiiig or allowable GRFA provided that the additional GRFA
complies with the standards outlined in paragraph 3 below.
• Multi-fatnily units are not eligible for additional GRFA permitted by tlie provisions
of this chapter.
3) Standards
• Proposals for the utilization of additional GRFA under this provision shall not add
to or incc•ease the building bulk and mass of the existing structure. Examples of
exterior modifications which adci to or increase building bulk and mass include, but
are not limited to any expansion of the existing exterior form of the structure, re-
grading around a structure in a manner which exposes additional exterior walls, the
expansion of existing roofs and the addition of roof dormers. Examples of exterior
modifications which are not considered to add to or increase building bulk and mass
include, but are not limited to the addition of windows, skylights and window-
wells.
• Proposals for the utilization of additional GRFA under this provision shall comply
with all Town of Vail zoning standards and applicable development standards.
• If the proposal involves the conversion of a garage or enclosed parking space to
GRFA, such conversion shall not reduce the total number of enclosed on-site
parking spaces.
Phase IUGRFA Analysis
~
4) Process
° Application made to Department of Community Development to include applicable
forms, fces, and exisling and proposed floor plans. Design review application shall
bc required for all proposals involving modifications to exterior of buildings.
° Commuili[y Department staff shall revicw application for compliance with this
chaptei• and all applicable zoning and development review rcgulations.
° Proposals deemed by the Community Department staff to be in compliance with this
chapter and all applicable zoning and development review regulations shall be
, approved. Proposals deemed to not comply with this chapter and all applicable .
zoning and devclopmcnt review regulations shall be denied.
° Upon receiving approva(s pursuant to this chapter, applicants shall proceed with securing building permit pnor to initiating constniction of project.
Issues to Consider
The "mechanics" of implementing the iciterior conversion alternative are fairly stc•aight forward.
Outstanding issues pertain primarily to when this option could be utilized by a homeowner. For
example, thc lan-uage outlined above states that the purpose of this altemative is to "provide
flexibility and latitude in the use of interior spaces within existine single-family and two-family
structures". This begs the question of when is a home "existing". The following summarizes
implications i-elative to the applicability of this alternative:
° Allow interior conversions for all homes
The potential concern with allowing interior conversions for all homes is that new homes
will comply with GRFA but will bc designed to allow for the conversion of space in the
rulure. For example, it would bc relatively casy to design over-sized void spaces in
baseiiient Ievels and to design additional or larger vaulted spaces on upper levels, both of
which could lhen be converted to floor area in the future if this alternative is available to all
homes. The end result of ttlis scenario could be new homes that are larger than they would
otherwise have been if interior conversions were not pertnitted.
. ° Requirc new construction (homes completed after adoptioTi of this oi•dinancel to wait a
cert<lin time period prior to utilizinp- ordinance
If there is concern with the scenario outlined above, an alternative would be to require a
waiting period (i,e. the five years rcquired for the 250 ordinance) before new homes could
- apply for interior conversions. Haviiig to wait a period of time could be a disincentive for
people who would otherwise design a home to accommodate future interior conversions.
However, this scenario does raise a question - if an interior conversion (and the potential
impact of larger homes designed specifically to utilize this provision) is deemed to be
acceptable after a five-year waiting period, why is it not acceptable after a one-year waiting
period, or a one-month waiting period?
° Limit interior conversions to homes in existence at the time ordinance is ado ted
This is the cleanest way to implement the altemative. Limiting interior conversions to
homes in existence at the time the ordinance is adopted eliminates any potential concern
with homes being designed for future interior conversions. However, limiting interior
conversions to homes in existence at the time ordinance does raise an equity question - is it
fair to deny an owner who builds in the future the same opportunity available to other
homeowners?
Phase IUGRFA Analysis . .
Alternativc #2 - Basement Space
Description of Alternative
This -lternative would amend the definition of GRFA to exclude basement space from calculation
as GRFA. Issues to be Addressed
• Deyelop a clearly stated definition of basement space, ensure that grades cannot be
artificially modified to allow for space to be interpreted as basement.
Proposed Lan uage
The definition of GRFA includes paragraph 18.04.130 A. which excludes certain areas from
calculation as GRFA in buildings containing two or fewer units. In order to implement this
alternative, this paragrapli would be modified with the addition of the following:
5. The flooi- area of any level of a structure that is located a minimum of six (6) feet below
natural grade (or existing gi-ade pi•ior to construction) at all points around the structure.
While this language is probably the cleanest, most straight forward way to exclude basement
space, is only excludes space that is 100% below grade. This alternative would not exclude
basement space for walkout levels. An alternative for addressing walkout levels is the following:
5. The floor area of any level of a struclure that is located a minimum of six (6) feet below
natural grade (or exisling grade prior to construction) at all points around the structure. For
any level which is partly above and partly below grade, a calculation of the portion of the
subject level which is below gi-ade shall be made in order to establish the percentage of the
level which sfiall be excluded from calculation as GRI'A. This percentage shall be made by
dctermining the total percentage of lineal exterior wall of the subject level which is located a
minimum of six (6) feet below natural grade (or existing grade prior to construction) which
shall then be multiplied by the total floor area of the subject level; and the resulting total
shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA. Issues to Consider
• Excluding basement space from calculation as GRFA will create the opportunity for new
"above grade" GRFA for new construction and for homes with basement space that was
previously calculated as GRFA.
• One of the goals of this process is to simplify the GRFA system. The second alternative
which addresses walkout levels would add to the complexity of the existing system.
Should the exclusion of basement space include walkout levels or be limited to basement
space that is 100% below grade?
Phase IUGRFA Analysis . .
i
CAlLCU1LA'g'gON OF BASEME1VT SPACE .
. .
r ~ ,6'
. ;
~ I
~
r
~
fl3uilding Cross-section _
I'oint where basement level is 6' below grade Slab on
gradc Point where basement
~ level is 6' below grade
I3asement Levcl 25,
- 1,250 sq. ft.
50'
Basement lLevel ]Floor ]Plan
CALCULATgON
150' - LINEAR EXTERIOR WALL AT BASEMENT LEVEL 50' - PORTION OF EXTERIOR WALL 6' OR IVIORE BELOW GRADE
33%- PERCENTAGE OF BASEIVIENT LEVEL 6' OR MORE BELOW (50'/150')
1,250 (SQ. F'I'. BASEIVIENT LEVEL) X.33 = 412 SOLJAItE FEET EXCI.YJDED
~
Alternativc #3 - Eliminate GRFA
Description of Alternative
Tllis alternative would eliininate GRFA as a tool for controlling the bulk and mass of single-family,
duplex and pc•imary/secondary buildings: In order to prevent the development of large, non-
descript boxes, this alternative would also include more restrictive site coverage standards for
larger lots and new design guidelines that specifically address building bulk and mass. Existing
GRFA regulatioiis would remain in place for structures that contain more than two dwelling units. Issues to be Addressed
Based on input from the community, the PEC and the Town Council, the major issues to address
relative to the potential implementation of this alternative are:
• Assurances/controls must be established to prevent the design and constniction of large,
non-descript box-like structuc-es.
• The DRB must be capable of interpreting and implementing any proposed modifications to
the design guidelines. .
• Any measures proposed to prevent large, non-descript box-like structures must not stifle
design creativity.
Proposed Language
This alternative would involve four major elements:
1) Initiate a"global search" of the zoning code to identify all references to GRFA pertaining to
singlc-family, duplex and primary/secondary development. Examples of these references
include:
• the definition of GRFA for buildings containing two or fewer units, and
• the reference to GRFA in the density section of single family, duplex and
primai-y/secondary zone disti-icts.
2) New parking requirements for single-family, duplex and primary/secondary units:
• A minimum of threc (3) off street parking spaces shall be provided for each single
family unit or for each dwelling unit tvithin a duplex or primary/secondary
structure. Parking requirements for Type II, III and IV EHU's shall be as per the
. EHU Ordinance.
3) New site coverage regulations to ]imit the site coverage (and size) of homes on large lots:
Site coverage shall not exceed the total of:
1) 20% of the total site area for lots 25,000 square feet or less, plus
2) 10% of the total site area for any portion of a lot in excess of 25,000 square
feet.
With the exception of lots that exceed 30% slope, site coverage of 20% is currently
permitted on all lots regardless of size. The proposal below would introduce a graduated
scale similar to the existing GRFA formula whereby allowable site coverage would
decrease relative to the size of the lot. Refer to the accompanying chart for an analysis of
how this new regulation varies from existing site coverage standards.
4) New design guidelines for single-family, duplex and primary/secondary buildings which
specifically address bulk and mass:
Phase IUGRFA Analysis
c
Buildin Height. Builk and Mass
The sizc and scale of single family, duplex and primary/secondary homes play an important
rolc in defining the character of neighborhoods and the overall visual image of a
community. Building height and site coverage regulations outlined in the Vail Zoning Code
establish quantitative standards which limit the overall size, or bulk and mass of buildings.
Notwitlistanding these quantitativc standards, site specific features such as vegetation aiid
topography and architectural solutions significantly influence the pei•ceived bulk and mass
of a building.
. An underlying goal for the design of single family, duplex and primary/secondary homes in Vail is to ensure that buildings convey a human scale and are sensitive to their site. Large, monumental buildings which in the determina[ion of the DRB dominate their site and
express excessive bulk and mass are not permitted. The following guidelines are designed
to accomplish these goals by establishing parameters to ensure appropriate building bulk
and mass. These guidelines apply to all single family, duplex and primary/secondary
homes:
Buildin Height
Buildings should convey a predominantly one or two-story building mass. Three-story
massing may be approved by the DRB, however, large expanses of continuous three-story
building mass is not permitted. Generally, the footprint of a third floor should not exceed
SO% of the flooi- arca immediatcly below and horizontal and/or vec•tical building off-sets
should be provided to reduce the Perceived bulk and mass of the building.
I3uilding Foritl
In licu of largc, monumcntal building mass, buildings should be designed as either a
composition of smaller, integrated building forms or in a form which consisls of one
primary building mass in conjunction with one or more secondary building forms.
Ridrelines
Changes in thc height and orientation of roof lines add variety and interest to buildings
which can rcducc building bulk and mass. Thc extent of variations in the height and
orientaeion of ridgeline elevations is dependent upon the cliaracteristics of a site and lhe
design of thc building. Generally, the maximwn ]ength of any continuous ridgeline should
not excee-d 50-70' without a chanbe in the orientation of the ridgeline or a variation of at
. least 34' feet in the elevation of the ridgeline.
Sloping Lots
Buildings on sloping lots should be designed to "step" with natural contours of the site in
orcler to maintain a predominantly one to two-story building mass.
Buildin Scale
A variety of architectuc-al details can be incorporated into the design of a building to
reinforce human-scale and reduce the overall bulk and mass of a building. Use of the
following should be considered in the design of homes:
° Dormers
° Decks and balconies
° Roof overhangs
° Fenestration
Refer to the accompanying sketches for examples of how these design concepts can be more
clearly expressed in graphic form.
Phase II/GRFA Analysis
i
,
Issucs to Considcr
• In order to not limit vchitects design creativity, qualitative guidelines ai•e proposed in lieu
of quantitative standards. This al[ernative places a great dcal of responsibility in the hands
of the DRB, is the Board capable of this task?
• Are design guidelines explicit enough and will they provide the DRB with the tools necessary to prevent "large, non-riescript boxes"?
• Is it necessary to reduce allowable site coverage for lac•ger lots or will a reduction to
allowable site coverage encourage taller buildings?
• Are three parking spaces per unit adeqtiate or is some othei• formula (i.e. based on number
- or bedroams) necessary? • Is there a need for design guidelines which address bulk and mass regardless of whether oi-
. not clianges are made to the GRFA system?
Phase IUGRFA Analysis
F
a "d'c~Nvii of t'ail (oItFA Analytiis
,uiclclincs/No GIZFA Altcrnativc
1('otcntial Dcsifin G
:'3uildi?ig Ilciglit •
T3uildings should convey a
pn-cdominantly one or two-story
`Ailding mass. Three-story
massing may Ue approved by IJ. , "
r.he DIU3, howcver, large ''~~~;L i.~ •
. expanses of continuous three-
story building mass is not '1+
permitted. Generally, the
tootprint of a third floor should
not exceed 50% of the floor r-
area iinmediately below and
horizontal and/or vcrtical
building off-sets should be ' -
provided to reduce ttle
perceived bulk and mass of the
building.
7'lirce ,stnric.s au-c appropriate becnuse floor area of lhird
lcvcl c/nes ttot excecd SD% of Icvel below.
`~J ^7 ~ 1 .CI13'Sa7. _
4a
t
Variation in ridge line elevations, buildirig oJf.rets, use of dorfners and decks reduce bcilk and
muss, buildirig does not "read" as three storrc.s.
.
"I'own of Vail GRFA Analysis +
Potciltial Desibn Guidciincs/No GI2Ff1 Alternativc
Buildin Form
In lieu of larg
e, 1 - .
monumental building
mass, buildings should
be designed as either a •
composition of smaller,
integrated building forms
or in a form which . i - - > consists of one primary ~
building mass and one or 'fmore secondary building
forms.
Composition of biiildrttg forms reduces builditig bulk and
m«ss.
Secondary form
~ - P,-t,,,a,y Jo,-„t
- •
Primaryform
Secondary fornt
~
Examples of primary and secondary bili[ding forms.
These sketches are from design guidelines for projects outside of the Town of Vail, it is not suggested that these exact
shetches be used for GRFA related guidelines. Ratlier, this example iliustrates how sketches could be used to reinforce the
design guidelines proposcd For the "no grfa" alternative.
t
0
° 'll'owfli of Vail G1f2FA f1Hialysis
Potcii4ia1 Dcsign Gui(lclirics/iVo GRFA Altcrnativc
][Zidgclines
Changcs in the height and
- orientation of roof lines add ~~S~ ~o' ~ ~ •
vac-iety and intei-est to buildings -
. which can reduce building bulk 3'y~
and mass. The extent of variations
in the lieight and orientation of
ridgeliiie elevations is dependent
upon the characteristics of a site ,
and the design of the building.
Generally, the maximum length of
any continuous ridgeline should
not exceed 50-70' without.a Ridgelines greater than 5O'-70' should be off=
change in the orientation of the set at least 3'-4'.
ridgeline or a variation of at Icast
3-4' feet in the elevation of the
ridgelinc.
~
.
Variations in roof ridge[ines
provide variety and bi•eaks-ty)
buildiitg ittass crcated by
conlinuou,s ridgcline.
J
~a• Q ~ • ~~I
Change in ridge lirze elevation and orientation creates nvo distinct
building fori7t.s and breaks up building mass.
These sketches are from design guidelines for projects outside of the Town of Vail, it is not suggested that [hese exact
sketches be used for GRFA related guidelines. Rather, this example illustra[es how sketches could be used to reinforce the
design guidelines proposed for the "no grfa" alternative.
~
'
1'own of Vail GRFA Analysis
Potential Dcsign Guidclicics/No GRFA Altcrtiativc
Slopin g LoLs
Buildings on sloping lots
should bc dcsigned to "step"
, witll natural contours of the ~
site in order to maintain a
predorninailtly one to two-
story building mass. .
.
~
~
.
~ .
~
Building mass should bc "benched" il:to thc hillside.
~
\
„
0
~
Y
Y ~
!"'1"`^ ~ ' ~ l ~ p~ .
„ ~ ~~f~u' ~ 77uc1 ' 1:•,:~p
4 ~
Building steps with the natural contours of the site to maintain one-two story massing.
These sketches are from design guidelines for projects outside of the Town of Vail, it is not suggested that these exact
skr.tches be used for GRFA related guidelines. Rather, this example illustrates how sketches could be used to reinforce the design guidclines proposed for the "no grfa" alternative.
0
Town of Vail GIZFA Analysis
8'olcnlial ll)csigii Gtiidclines/No GRFA AItcrnmlivc
13uilcling Scalc
A varicty of architcctural dctails can be
incoi-poralcd into tfle design of a building to '
reinforce human-scale and reduce the
overall bulk and mass of a building. Use of _
the following should be considered in the .
design of homes:
-Dormers - . . • -Dccks and balconies - - ~
-l:oof ovcrhangs
-Fenestration . IeL
_ h
.
~
\ ~ ba
. f
~ ..c
~ ~ - \4~ - ~ ~ . • ~ L G'-
J - - - ~J~
~ 13uildcng offscts, roofliiic and dormer
d nll contribute to rcdrrce the ma,ss of
this building. .
~
r
i ~
. o~. ' 13ay tivindorv and balcoiiy reinforce
{iurnan-scale.
These sketches are Frorri design guidelines for projects outside of the Town of Vail, it is not suggested that these exact
sketches be used for GRFA related guidelines. Rather, this example illustrates how sketches could be used to reinforce the
design guidelines proposed for tlie "no grfa" alternative. .
TOV GRFA Analysis/Site CoveragP Co::~parison ' I
I I '
Allowable Coverage Allowable Covera~e ; % coverage w/ ;Difference between existing
Lot Size at 20% (sq. ft.) w/proposed amend. ; proposed amend. ~ proposed regs (sq. ft.)
; 9,000 1,800 I, 8d0; 20.00% 1 0
10,000 2,000 2>000 i 20.00°/0 1 p
11,000 . 2,200 2,2001 20.00°Io 1 p
12,000 2,400 2,400 20.d0%l p
13,000 2,600 2,600 20.00%1 0
14,000 Z,soo 2,8001 20.00%1 o
15,000 3,000 3,0001 20.00%1 0
16,000 3,200 3,2001 20.00% p
17,000 3,400 3>400 j 20.00% p
18,000 3,600 3,6001 20.00% p
19,000 3,800 3,8001 20.0090 1 0
20,000 4,000 4;0001 20.00%1 0
21,000 4,200 4,200 j 20.00% p ,
22,000 4,400 4,4001 20.00%' 0
23,000 4,600 4,600 20 .001-7f, 0
24,000 4, 800 4,8001 20.00% 1 0
25,000 5,000 5,0001 20.00%; 0
26,000 5,200 5,1001
I 9.62% j - l pp
27,000 5,400 5,200 1 19.26% 1 -200
28,000 5,600 5,3001 18.93°!0' -300
29,000 5,800 5,4001 18_62% ~pp
30,000 6,000 5,5001 18.3390 1 _500
31,000 6,200 5,600 18.0690 1 -600
' 32,000 6,400 5,7001 17.81 % 1 -700
33,000 6,600 5,8001 17.58%1 _800
34,000 6,800 5,9001 17.35% I -900
35,000 7,000 6,000 I 7.14%1 -1,000
36,000 7,200 6,100 I 6.94% 1 -1,100
37,000 7,400 6,2001 16.76%I -1,200
38,000 7,600 6,300 16.5890 -1,300
39,000 7,800 6,400 16.41 % 1 -1,400
40,000 8,000 6,500 16.25%! -1,500
41,000 8,200 6>600 16.10901 -1,600
' 42,000 8,400 6,700 15.95~7'01 -1,700
d "
V
Other gssucs Rclafive to GRFA Amendments
1. Amendments for EHU's and Permanent Residents Only
During previous discussions commeilts were made to allow the provisions of these alternatives in
conjunction with the development of EHU's or only for permanent residents of Vail. These are
Town Council policy decisions. The information outlined above addresses the technical aspects of
each alternative. Limiting t}le applicability of these provisions to only EHU's and/or penr?anent
, residents could be done. This would not, however, further the original intent of this process _
which was to:'° Evaluate the effectiveness of GItFA as a means for controlling building size
° Add?-ess the time required to administer the current system
° Resolve the appropriateness issue of the Town regulating interior floor space
Limiting the applicability of any GRFA amendment to either encourage EHU's or for the benefit of
permanent residents only could be incorporated into any of the three alternatives.
2. Vaulted Space
One recognired short-coming of GRT'A is thal it regulales floor area and not building volume and
as a result GRFA docs not effcctively control building bulk and mass. Aspen is the only
CO111111UI11L)/ II1aI }1£1S bCCll ICICRUrICCI Which addresses vaulted space with floor arca regulations. The
Aspen codc esscntially applies a multiplicr to the floa- area of vaulted space. Foc• example, ilooi•
area with 10' plate heights or less count at a ratio of onc square foot for each one square foot. Por
intcrior arcas with a plate height which excceds 10', the ratio increases by .OS feet for each foot
ovcr 10' up to a iiiaximum ratio of two square feet for each one square foot (i.e. an interior space
with 15' ceilings is calculated at a ratio of 1.25 square fect for each one square foot of floor area).
Phase IUGRFA Analysis 13
1
MAR 11 '97 11~28AM VA CORP ACCOUNTING ~5 a•'t'~7 8 f
o. (,~a,~c~,- ~ I
~ ~
o ~~~y
~a~~~~~~c~a ...o ..................ooo.a..ee..
o..e...aoo.a..o.e......
~ ~ ~
~~a ~1a~cy ~weeaey, ~ ~ Public Piac~ Coox~d~atog ~
TAwa~ of ~1ail
. ~~~e Peter ~T. Seib~t, Sg, ~ .
o iVi~h ~,199~ ~ .
~a ~ei~ea~'s Ci~cle
~?ft~r sp~din~ th~ fi~st ~elv~ yea~s of th~ d~v~lopment o~'~~1 I+~ountain ~sid
~Pul Vill~~e (f~~ 1960~197~) a~ ~resid~t of ~~l ~ w difficult it~~i~r to ~ t
a~~hitectur~l Co~~l Cot,~i~tee, I l~~rned t~ r~al
architccts, ~4ist~ a~.~ ~v~~s t~ "~~sten To T'ki~ Meiody". ~ ather wordsp
~ c~n~id~tio~ t~ C1~~ st~au~d~~s whetx desi~nin~ o~rrta~ building~. .
As th~ p~~y ~~t~w~y c° ~~',1 Nious~tain, Seibert's Circl ~ 1 thc he~ad og
$~d~~ ~~~~g ~eu~d ~.ot hesi t a t ~h~ ~~~~on~ tA Seibert's Circle shauld reflect
~ • „ 'th~ ap~c~ itself and
Owrr~n and ~retos a~
~~r~°~e~b the cha~ct~ of ~e s~r9undiA~ buildings, a~ wellC~ h uld ~ e~aof ihe rnou~tains
~'a.~'°~'+~'"~~~t~`" ~a~cour~~e~ p~~l~ t~ 1i~~cr ~nd res~. ~~bert s Car ~P
~nd s~isz~ ~d ~igk~t also pro~id~ ~~lace to exhibit the ~lpino Y~owers, sh~uub$ ~d
tr~s th~~ vve e~.j~y ~s a p~ ~f ~~~g V~.
Pleas~ gczncnab~r th~t ~~ibert's Circlc is ~ paa~ of th~ ~ail ~Iilla~e and shotald
gefl~ct thc Alpi~e th~~ ~f e~e suxrou~ding bualdiz~$s ~~wJ~ll ~s spi~t of ~Iail.
~
P~S/jl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
amsh~~' ~ .
c~; F~pi Gr ~ . ~
~ Ch~i~~+ ~ill ~ ~
~ ~ , .
' ~
.
~
~ ~
~g cxy+r~ums ~
r~unu~ru~_~ee~ pp 9AX 1~ V2ii, Celor~d0 0~t65~ ~ pho 970 ~7 ~
eo~ol~ao
~e
e4
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road Department of Com»iunity Development
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-21381479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
March 7, 1997
Ms. Sue Dugan
P.O. Box 3768
Vail, Colorado 81658
Re: March 4, 1997 Council mecting - Citizen Participation
Dcar Suc:
At the Council mecting on Tucsday you madc somc commcnts about requirements for a Flazard
Study on thc lot bcing proposcd for construction by Eric Larson. You statcd that anothcr applicant
in the neighborhood (which you later told me is Harry Gray) was not required to perform such a
study and that pcoplc nccd to bc trcatcd fairly. I agrcc with yoti that pcoplc nccd to bc trcatcd
fairly. i-lowcvcr, Harry Gray did havc a study prcparcd by Arthur l. Mcars, P.E., Inc., datcd
Octobcr 22, 1990. Eric Larson's lot is locatcd in a High Dcbris Flow Hazard and Harry Gray's lot
is locatcd in a Modcrate Dcbris Flow Hazard. Thc rcport prcparcd for Harry Gray mccts thc
requircmcnts of thc codc and, in my opinion, gocs bcyond what thc code rcquires. Thc
implication that Mc Gary rcceivcd somc sort of spccial trcatmcnt with rcgard to this issuc is
unfoundcd.
1 just thought you should know the facts about this issuc.
Si erely,
uf -aw
Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP
Town Planner
cc: Town Council Members Bob McLaurin, Town Manager
Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
Susan Connelly, Director of Community Development
k?~~ RECYCLED PAPER
~l
e
4
dd
d~
TOWN OF ~~IL
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157 61AED9A e4DVISORY
March 5, 1997
,
Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 ,
Community Information Office
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL 8-@IGHLIGFiTS FOR NfARCH 4
Work Sessaoav Brae$s
Council members present: Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, IVavas
--Site Visit, Brooks SDD Niajor Amendment
In preparation for the evening meeting, Council members toured property at 1502
Buffehr Creek Road, the site of a proposed major amendment to a previously-approved
special development district. The request was later approved on first reading by a vote
of 6-0 with one condition. See evening meeting briefs for additional information, or
contact Lauren Vllaterton in the Community Development Department at 479-2128.
--Site Visit and Discussion of Austria Haus SDD
At the request of the applicant, the Council agreed to table this discussion to the March
25 meeting. .
--Discussion of the Public Vllorks Seasonal Housing Project (density, cost and site
constraints)
The Council voted 6-0 to direct staff to begin the approval process for construction of
up to 24 seasonal housing units at the Public Works shop site. The process will
include submittal of a conditional use request to the Planning and Environmental
Commission and an access permit application to the Colorado Department of
Transportation. Acknowledging that several issues are yet to be resolved, Town
Manager Bob McLaurin recommended moving forward with the project to maximize the
town's options. At issue is the development's $2.3 million cost estimate; major site
constraints, most notably the I-70 underpass tunnel; additional frontage road
improvements required by CDOT; and the possibility for project phasing. The town is
required by the Planning and Environmental Commission to have a minimum of three
employee housing units under construction by July 31 as a condition of approval of
phase one of the Public VUorks shop expansion project. During a staff presentation,
Andy Knudtsen, the town's project manager, summarized reaction from a recent open
house and recommended against phasing such a project, noting that fixed costs, such
(more)
RECYCLEDPAPER
:
i
t
TOV Council Highlights/Add1
as excavation, site work and other improvements do not become any less expensive in
a phased scenario. During discussion, Councilmember Kevin Foley asked about a
second site plan alternative containing 42-units, which was displayed at the open
house. The higher density is not recommended, Knudtsen said, because of its cost
and compatibility issues with the surrounding industrial site. Councilmember Sybill
Navas reacted cautiously about the projected subsidy needed to construct the project,
noting the competition for other town capital projects. nllcLaurin agreed. While the -
subsidy may be hard to swallow, he said the project is important in addressing the town _
. governmenYs housing needs. While Knudtsen offered to research other options in Vail,
he said initial findings show land acquisition costs in the $80,000 to $100,000 per unit
range. Knudtsen will now begin the formal application process with the Planning and
Environmental Commission and the Colorado Department of Transportation. McLaurin
has said the applications will enable the town to be in a position to break ground on the
units this spring if the Town Council chooses to move forward on the project. For more
information, contact Knudtsen in the Community Development Department at 479-2440.
--Discussion of West Vail Interchange Funding Option/Capital Projects Fund
The Council voted 6-0 to authorize a funding approach that would enable construction
of roundabouts at the West Vail Interchange during the 1997 construction season--so
long as the project bids are within budget. With a projected revenue shortfall of $3.7
million in the 1997 budget (total project is estimated at $5.5 million), the Council
approved the following approach as recommended by Town Manager Bob McLaurin:
1997 Capital Projects Deferred to 1998
Seibert Circle improvements, $342,000
Lionsridge Loop street reconstruction, $2.5 million
Slifer Plaza improvements, $300,000
1997 Proiect Costs Cut
Newspaper dispensers, $73,000 Affordab.le housing land acquisition, $475,000 (to be replenished with CDOT
repayment)
"Borrow" from fund balance. $245 294
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has agreed to repay the town up
to $3 million for construction of the roundabouts, but not until the year 2003 or after.
During discussion of the town's growing list of capital projects, McLaurin acknowledged
the need to find a dedicated revenue source to fulfill the community's long-term
commitment for locals housing. As it stands now, housing is going head-to-head with
capital and parking operations, he said. Those resources are being stretched too thin,
especially in the five year forecast, according to McLaurin. Several council members
asked if the town had exhausted efforts to obtain funding pledges from Eagte County
and Vail Associates for the roundabout. McLaurin said those discussions were
continuing. Also at the meeting yesterday, Howard Gardner of the West Vail Liquor
Mart, encouraged the Council to move forward with the project. He said the merchants
and residents of West Vail were anxious to finish the project as quickly as possible to
(more)
~
4.
TOV Council Highlights/Add2
coincide with completion of the Vail Commons development. Also during discussion
yesterday, Councilmember Sybill iVavas expressed disappointment that newspaper
dispensers had been cut from the 1997 project list. McLaurin suggested handling the
newspaper box issue on a case-by-case basis, beginning with the Austria Haus Special
Development District. In voting to move forward with the funding plan for the West Vail
interchange, Councilman Ludwig Kurz said the roundabouts are the most critical project
for Vail, even if it means delaying other worthwrhile projects. Sybill iVavas concurred
and thanked the Colorado Department of Transportation for its funding assistance.
. The current schedule calls for bids to be opened March 25 with construction beginning
April 7. For more information, contact Bob McLaurin at 479-2105.
--Information Update
Assistant Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer said organizers of the Grundig/UCI
Mountain Bike VVorld Cup have agreed to retain the event, scheduled for July 10-13 in
Vail. Also, Brandmeyer said a$2,500 payment was being processed to match the
Town of Avon's contribution for a late season marketing campaign developed by the
TOV-VA Community Task Force. -
--Council Reports
Kevin Foley said the Art in Public Places Board was preparing for the upcoming display
of art pieces for the Seibert Circle project. There are now four finalists.
--Other
Paul Johnston said construction at the Vail Village Club (formerly Seranno's) had
caused several of his lodging customers to ask for refunds. He said his guests were
unhappy about early morning noise on the construction site for three consecutive days.
Sybill IVavas asked for clarification regarding a recent letter to the editor which blamed
"Vail" for causing problems at the sewage treatment plant in Avon. Public Works
Director Larry Grafel said putting the blame on Vail is inappropriate. He said Vail's
waste is being treated in Vail and, therefore, is not contributing to the current problems
at the Avon plant. iVavas asked if a water district representative could be asked to
respond to the complaint.
--Evenung SessAon Brue4s
Council members present: Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, IVavas
--Citizen Participation
1lVith representatives from local brownie and girl scout troops 147 and 163 on hand,
Mayor Pro-Tem Sybill iVavas read a proclamation declaring March 11 "Be Your Best
Day."
Next, Sue Dugan asked if councilmembers had received a letter from the Vail
Tomorrow fVatural and Built Environment Team. The letter recommends appointment
of landscaping or architecture professionals to the Design Review Board and urges the
(more)
~
i
TOV Council Highlights/Add3
Council to overhaul the design review process. Dugan commented upon a neighbor's
recent experience with the town and suggested that the current guidelines cause too
many interpretations and inconsistencies. In response, Sybill Navas said the Vail
Tomorrow team letter would be taken under advisement by the Council. She also
encouraged residents to apply for the open seats on the Design Review Board and
Planning and Environmental Commission. Interviews will be held on March 25.
--Ordinance No. 5, TOV-USFS Land Exchange
. The Council voted 5-1 (Foley against) to approve second reading of an ordinance conveying 76 acres of Town of Vail-owned properties to the U.S. Forest Service. The
measure essentially completes the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement between
the town and the Forest Service. In exchange for the 76 acres, the Town of Vail will
receive 62 acres from the Forest Service. Annexation and deannexation proceedings
will begin this summer on those properties. In voting against the measure, Foley said
he opposed the ordinance "in principle" due to the Forest Service's inability to
guarantee that Trappers Run would never be subject to a private land exchange. For
details on the land exchange, contact Russell Forrest in the Community Development
Department at 479-2146.
--Ordinance No. 4, Austria Haus SDD
At the request of the applicant, the Council voted 6-0 to table first reading of this
ordinance to the March 25 evening meeting.
--Ordinance No. 6, Brooks SDD Major Amendment
The Council voted 6-0 with one condition to approve on firsf reading a major
amendment to a Special Development District (#29) located at 1502 Buffehr Creek
Road. The applicants, Harold and Barbara Brooks, had asked to modify the existing
SDD to convert two tracts of land into one lot. The condition approved by Council calls
for utilizing an existing driveway cut to minimize impacts. During discussion, Sybill
Navas reflected upon her desire to require bear proof trash containers for new
- development projects. She said she looked forward to seeing legislation townwide that
would address the issue in the future. For more information, contact Lauren Waterton
in the Community Development Department at 479-2454.
--Resolutions for Temporary Construction Easements and Permanent Easement
Acquisitions for West Vail Roundabouts
The Council voted unanimously to approve seven separate resolutions for temporary
construction easements and permanent easement acquisitions for the West Vail
roundabouts construction project. For more information, contact Greg Hall, town
engineer, at 479-2160.
--Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
The Council heard an update on the first stage of the Lionshead master planning
process and voted 6-0 to approve the schedule and framework for the collection and
prioritization of brainstormed ideas submitted during stage two. (Please refer to the
(more)
0
TOV Council Highlights/Add4
news release issued today for more details.) During discussion, several members of
the audience addressed the council. Lucien Lane, a property owner at Vantage Point,
asked the council to consider adding a seventh policy objective that would protect .
existing properties from any tall or imposing buildings that might be proposed for
Lionshead's redevelopment. Lane was reacting to a concept proposed earlier by Vail
Associates for a hotel to be built on the west side of the Lionshead parking structure.
He said the town's policy objective for a"strong economic base through increased live
. . beds," was an open road map for "people to do whatever they want." In response, Susan Connelly, the project manager for the master plan, said the process is "wide
open by design" at this stage. During stage two, the community will be asked to think
big, she said, without pinning down specific locations. During step three, the process
will narrow as site-testing begins. Sybill Navas said the objective of the master plan is
to provide a roadmap to give direction for Lionshead redevelopment. Although it won't
make 100 percent of the people happy, she predicted most in the community will feel
comfortable with the outcome of the work. Also addressing council was Bill VUilto, who
suggested adding an objective for an employee bed base within Lionshead, and Ginny
Culp, who expressed concerns about the need for more live beds in Vail given the
community's limited carrying capacity for additional growth. For more information,
contact Susan Connelly in the Community Development Department at 479-2140.
--Other
Sybill iVavas reminded audience members that the March 18 Town Council meetings
had been moved to March 25 to allow councilmembers to attend a legislative meeting
in Denver.
Also, IVavas sent the council's best wishes to Mayor Bob Armour, who is recuperating
from knee surgery.
Kevin Foley thanked the IVational Brotherhood of Skiers for organizing a great summit
in Vail. -
UPCOflfdING DISCUSS~ON TOPICS
IV7arch 11 Work Session
Loading and Delivery Discussion
Rick Onorato 15 Year Anniversary
Kevin V1lhelan 15 Year Anniversary
PEC/DRB Review
Ford Park Nianagement Plan
USFS Burn Discussion
(more)
~
TOV Council Highlights/Add 5
March 18 Work Session and Evening Meetings Cancelled
March 25 Work Session
PEC/DRB Review
Tommy Sheely, 15 Year Anniversary
Interviews for AIPP, DRB, PEC & LLA Boards
_ Austria Haus SDD
Ford Park Management Plan Seibert Circle Art Finalist Review
March 25 Evening Meeting
Ford Park Management Plan
Second Reading, Ordinance # 6, Brooks SDD
First Reading, Ordinance # 4, Austria Haus SDD
Appoint AIPP, DRB, PEC & LLA Positions
Award Bid for West Vail Interchange Roundabouts
# # #
,
ee .
eg .
TOWN 0F VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
FOR OMMEDVATf~ ~~~EA5E
March 5, 1997
Contact: Susan Connelly, 479-2140
Community Development Director
TOV LDONSHEAD STUDV TO TAP CBTIZEN "11VISF9 L9STS" DURING nl1AFiCH;
9DEQaS ON AMEN9TBES, LAIVD vSES A6VD POL9CV ACTIONS
WILL BE S0UGHT TO IVIAXIIVIIZE BRAINSTOFiMING
(Vail)--If you have ideas for making Lionshead a better place to live or visit, now's the
time to bring them forward. Beginning today (3-5) and continuing through April 1, the .
Town of Vail will collect those "wish list" items to signify the beginning of stage two of
the Lionshead redevelopment master planning process.
During this stage, ideas for recreational or cultural amenities, specific land uses,
public view corridors and town policy actions will be tapped from the community.
Susan Connelly, the town's project manager, says the process will rely heavily on
citizen-based suggestions as the project kicks into high gear. "It really gives
community members an opportunity to be in the driver's seat on this project," she said.
"We're asking citizens to create a menu of possibilities for Lionshead's future."
Yesterday (3-4), the Vail Town Council agreed to use its six community policy
objectives as the basis for prioritizing the brainstormed actions.
Examples might include such previously stated "wish list" items as a performing arts
center, conference center, or hotel, she said. "They also could be simple landscaping
(more)
RECYCLEDPAPER
Lionshead/Add 1
or infrastructure ideas that are long overdue." The ideas can be large or small; high
dollar or low dollar, according to Connelly. "No one should hold back because they
think their idea is too costly or unrealistic. There is no such thing as a bad idea. This is
. the time to dream."
Two public workshops have been scheduled to collect the brainstormed ideas. The
first is from 3 to 5 p.m. Sunday, March 16, followed by a second session from 10 to
noon on Tuesday, March 18. Both meetings will be held in the Vail Library community
room. There, project consultant David Kenyon will be on hand to facilitate the
discussion.
Participants will be asked to use the six community policy objectives approved by the
Vail Town Council to frame their "wish list" ideas. The objectives are: renewal and
redevelopment; vitality and amenities; stronger economic base through increased "live
beds"; improved access and circulation; improved infrastructure; and creative financing
for enhanced private profits and public revenues.
Those interested in submitting an idea should be prepared to address four basic
- questions, if possible:
0 V1lhat is the proposed idea, use or policy?
0 What is the scope, or size, or number, or location, of the proposed idea?
0 V1/ho will pay for construction of this use (private, public or public-private
partnership financing)?
0 What are the Lionshead policy objectives that are advanced by this
policy?
The following additional information also is being sought, if possible:
0 List of primary and secondary uses within the facility.
0 Square footage requirements associated with the primary and secondary
uses. (more)
Lionshead/Add 2
0 Speciai infrastructure requirements associated with the proposed use.
0 Special access requirements.
0 Any architectural or site planing studies that have been completed for the proposed use.
0 Any cost figures that have been prepared for the proposed use.
0 Any financial or demographic feasibility studies that have been completed
for the proposed use.
0 Any literature, articles or photographs regarding similar facilities that could be used as a reference or would help understand the ideas or intent of the
party submitting the wish list item.
For those unable to attend either of the brainstorming meetings, "wish list" items may
be submitted in writing to the Town of Vail Community Development Department.
Submittal forms are available from the Lionshead master planning boxes located at:
Lionshead Activities Desk, Lionshead Visitors Center, Vail Library and the Town of Vail
Community Development Department. Or, call the Town of Vail at 479-2199 to request
a form. Participants also can brainstorm on-line by visiting the Lionshead master
planning Internet web site at vail.neUlionshead. All ideas are due by April 1.
From there, an open house will be held from 4 to 7 p.m. VVednesday, April 2, in the
Vail Library community room. Participants will have a chance to view all ideas and to
express their preferences. Additional feedback opportunities will be available for those
unable to attend the open house.
Following the open house, the Vail Town Council will be asked to prioritize the "wish
list" according to the six community policy objectives. To assist in that decision, results
of the "wish list" input, including community preferences and prioritization
recommendations from the project team, will be presented at a joint meeting of the Vail
Planning and Environmental Commission and Vail Design Review Board on April 14,
(more)
. v
Lionshead/Add 3
followed by Vail Town Council discussions on April 15 and April 22. V1/hile the
framework for prioritization will be based on how well the ideas meet the six community
policy objectives, its purpose is to give direction to the staff and consultants in step
three to determine what "wish list" items fit together, and where they may or may not fit
in terms of location, according to Connelly. "This is where the rubber starts to meet the
road," she said. "During the next step, we'll begin site-testing for actual feasibility of the
ideas."
The site-testing analysis is planned for May through July, according to Connelly.
Then in August, selection of a preferred alternative is planned, followed by development
and adoption of master plan and design guidelines later in the fall (stage four).
During stage one of the process, in January and February, citizens helped define the
opportunities and constraints for Lionshead during a series of walking tours and a"best"
and "worst" contest. In addition, town staff and consultants have been assembling
information on property ownership, zoning, existing land use, sub-surface utilities,
existing parking, surface hydrology, possible public view corridors, and traffic and
pedestrian circulation. ,
The $400,000 master plan, funded by the town together with Vail Associates, was
initiated last November to create a framework for decision-making on specific
development and redevelopment proposals within the study area. Vail Associates, in
particular, has served as a catalyst in the study after expressing interest in redeveloping
its core properties in Lionshead, including the gondola building and the Sunbird
building. (more)
~
9
Lionshead/Add 4
Lionshead was developed in the late 1960s in response to the new phenomenon of
the "condominium." Although still serving a useful purpose as a commercial hub, most
people acknowledge today's heightened opportunities for a full scale redevelopment.
# # # •
To: Town Council Members Town of Vail From:..
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
o o
° COMMU-11.1cation o
0 0
0 0
° ~ o
0 0
o ~ ~~I L vI L L A ~E a
o E ~ C ~A N T a
0 ~ o
o ASSOCIAZ'IOI~If o
0 ~ o
o% Tilt& o
0 0
o~ 1~ont~i ly Nleetirtg o
0 0
0 0
o Wednesday,lVlarch 12 0
0
0 8:30 AM o
0
0 Coloraclo Ski 1Vluseum o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
° Ager~ ao 0
0 0
o - Discuss & establish goals for the con-dng year o
0 0
o - Status report on Free After 3 parlcing o
0 0
0 0
° - Update on Easter Egg hunt & 0
0 0
o June special event °
°
o
0
0
0 - Nominate a new board rnerrtbep o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
~ Tnis Ois a ~YerIlm o~`tant meet~.n
o ~
g 0
~ ~ o
o Please do your best to attencl, ~
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
o *A 1tional a~'e%~Cla ltel'Yls 1'Y1a~T be aCiC~ed o
0 0
~ at the meet~ngo ~
0 0
0
o a
0
000000000000000000000000000000oooooa0moooooomomoooooooosooaooeooooo000
S E PLA
T R . . -
A PROJECT UPDATE P i D i 1 O 1 1 R 1997
I 1 I I I I M., I
hat do you "hunger" for in Vail that might be DN
~
i d ~ay - 9 ~~~oa5~.~ad•
r~nu~
satisfied in the Lionshead commercial core? Is
Iwa:~ it a recreational or cultural ameniry? A specific
Brainstorming Workshop Brainstorming Workshop
land use such as more/upgraded/different lodging sunday, MarcH 16 Tuesday, March 18
units or retail? A Town of Vail policy such as a. new 3 to 5 p.m. to a.rr,. to r,oon
public view corridor? Or, a simple landscaping or Vail Library Community Room Vail Library Community Room
infrastructure idea that's long overdue? RSVP to 479-2115 and receive a free•parking voucher for the workshop.
Submitting an idea is easy... 71eR, Ae pepa.&af~ fAe 6,,of SfaNmed &f..
Don't miss this opportunity to help make a difference Open House Review of "wish List" Submittals
in Vail. Because it all starts with you! If you.care about N?ednesday, April 2
- `
the future of Vail - whether you're a resident, 4 to 7 p.m. Vail Library Community Room
property owner, guest or employee - please take RSVP to 479-2115 and receive a free parking voucher for ihe open house.
time to participate.
LIONSHEAD MASTERPLAN ' ~MY=
o Use the six communiry p.olicy objectives on page 2 to help frame
~ ~P~j~~y,o ~K~ c7~~(AI~ ; kyour "wish list" ideas. While all ideas for Lionshead are welcomed,
those suggestions which meet one or more of the policy Uefine Opporluuities BP810S10P11
~ objectives have the best chance of moving forward in the master
~ aod Coastraiots "wjSh LISt'~
planning Process.
daofeb's1 , ` ~ Ntars~ A pril 91
Jeaa~¢InOroors 121 ~~O ~ o After formulating your "wish list" ideas,.plan to attend one-of the
F• Puhllc porh:4o0s 121 Pu60e 9Yarkshap8
~ JSUrwyeasooasaform: ,/soMrey AeBpo~sg ~orms-brainstorming sessions on March 16,or 18 and come prepared to
Aoal~ie Rlteruatires aad
~ Interaet Respoasa Far'ms gelecl Preferred Ilteroathe answer the following, if possible:
,/~utinc xea~iRgs [al,`:;. ba)Ayost17 1) What is the proposed idea, use or policy?
POOlic W^rQ=d^o= 121 2) What is the scope, or size, or number, or location, of the
~ wdapt Required ~ ~Surro, pasoooso `oro' ro osed idea? ,
/ Pu011o Nearlnpa 121 p p
Code Modifieatiaas UetClup and AdOpt. ~ 3) Who will pay for construction of this use (private, public or
~IRlIBP'91-e1g111g Master Plao ~ ublic- rivate artnershi financin ~
~ "a°' Design 6oideliaes ' p p P p g~ ~
All-oet,si 4) What are the Lionshead Policy Objectives that are advanced
' /PUOIIeHaarlnpa,:, . by this idea? - . -
Continued on page 2
' , , _ ' ! - . . . . . . . . . . . - I 1 . I I I I . • . ' . f, . ' • . . : ' .
Lionshead Visitors Center, Vail Library; and the Town.of Vail ,
connnued from pa9e i' . . Community.Development Department. Or, call the Towrr.of Vail at • If you're unable to attend either of .the brainstorming sessions, 479-2199 to request a form. -
pick up a"Wish ,List" su6mittal form`and return it to* the Town of - ' , . -
Vail by April 1. Submittal focros,are°available`from the Lionshead, Or, participate on-line by visiting the Lionsfiead Master Planning
Master Plarining boxes,located at: Lionshead Activifies Desk; _ Internet.web site at http://vail,net/lionshead. ~
pillows") and the creation of additional bed base -
; . . . . , i . through new, lodging products. . , . . ,
. Prioritization of the "wish I'ist" ideas will be based upon - Improved,Access and Circulation .
the 6. commuriiry policy objectives adopted by the Vail . The flow of pedestrian, vehicular, bieycle.and mass . ,
. . Town Council:- . . ° _ _ . . _ . - transit traffic must be improved within and.through ;
Lionshead.
Renewal and Redevelopment • ` ~mprovetl Infrastructure . : L'ionshead can *and'should be renewed.and redeveloped _ The infrastructure of Lionshead,.induding streets, .
_ •to become a warmer, more vibrant environment for Walkways, transportation systems, parking; utilities; -
guests and residents. Lionshead needs an appealing . ioading and delivery systems, snow-removal and . '
, and coherent identity, a sense of place, a personality; a . -
storage, and othe'r-public and privateservices must be purpose; and an"impr.oved aesthetic characfer. - upgraded to meet the capacities and senrice s$andards -
. Vitality.and Amenities. . : . . ; required to support redevelopment and revitalization INe must seize the opportuniry to enhance.guest - efforts and to meet the ezpectations of our guests and '
: . . experience and community interaction through residents.
expanded and additionaf activities and amenities such Creative Financing for Enhanced Private Profits
. -as performing arts venues, conference facilities, ice • - •and Public Revenues
rinks, streetscape; parks and other recreatiorial Redevelopment in Liohshead must be :undertaken in 'a ' .
. , improvements. financially.creative, but feasible, manner so that, ' Stronger Economic Base Through Increased "Live Beds" 'adequate capital may be raised from all possible.
-In order* to enhance.the'vitality and viabiliry,ofUail" - sources to fund desired private and public - .
. ` ~ renewal and r.edevelopment in. Lionshead must. promote improvements. ; Approved by the Vail Town Council
improved occupancy.rates (i.e:; "live beds"`or "W8CI71 . , ' 'November4, 1996 ~ I 2) The~results of the "wish list" input, including community
-
, 'I'~ preferences, and prioritization recommendations from the project , , • . . - . . . team will be presented at a joint meeting ofthe Vail Planning and
he Vail.Town Council will be asked to prioritize the "wish; list"-in , Env.ironmental Commission and Vail Design Review. Board on April ' preparation for'Stage Thcee, "Analyze Alternatives.and Select 14, followed by Vail Town Council discussions.on April 15 and April
Preferred Alternative." To.assist the Town Council in that decision: 22: The framework for prioritization will ;be based~on how well the
- 1)'The ":wisH list" ideas submitted,between March 4 and April 1 will ideas meet the six community. policy objectives. The purpose of_ . be:collected and presented at an O,pen_House on April 2:There, .;•prioritizing the ideas'is to give.direction to the staff and consultanfs -
participants will be asked~to rev,iew.the list and record their. as they begin sife-testing in Stage Three,to determine.what "wish prefererices.-Additional feedback opportunities will be,available for .list".items fit together, and where they may or may not fit in terms .
- . ~ those unable to'attend the open house. of location(s). , ; . - . . •
. , - . - . . . . . - . . . . _ -
_
y . . ;
r...~ _L-- I-O N-S-H-E A D_ ,
r~-r .
~
' F... -1-E-._ •
. ~
~ . a
~ ~ . RedeYelopment Process , e
~ Stage Two Wish list ~
4 ~A~~~~ : r It ~
~ ~ ~
a t~~.~~x~a~~ ~ ~3~
~ .
~
~A Please print or type as many details about your idea(s) as you can, or provide on a separate sheet: . : ~ 1) A brief description of the proposed idea, use or policy. . _
~
~
~
~
~
~ 2) A description of the scope, or size, or number, or location, of the proposed idea. For example, if the proposed idea is a ~
i
~ performing arts center, how many people would the facility need to sit? Would it be for small performances (give an \
~ example) or full-blown Broadway musicals and symphonic orchestras? Another example, if the proposed idea is for >
additional landscaping, what kind and wliere?
. i
~
~
a . . ~
" a
~ 3) Who will pay for construction of this use? Private, public or public-private partnership financing? • ~
~
~ A
. i:
a
~
. ~
x '
~
~ 4) What Lionshead Policy Objective(s) is/are advanced by this proposal? Please briefly explain why.
~
~
.
. . ~
Y
~
w 1 ~
.
This additional information would be very helpful in the Town Council's prioritization £
~ ~ ~ ' at the end of Stage Two and the consultant's work in Stage Three: ~
~
~
: 1) A complete list of all primary and secondary uses within the proposed facility. F
. . . , ~
> - . r
t;
~
. ~
. ~
L L2x'n. GXui; :::•s~ fiS' ..,..Y s:vcs::S'F ?:U".. P. „ is<'.tt`t s..."$ i::C4E. a."M:G.:::: y~ n:'.:m z.^e^4 s.s„:r '+.»`F. .:i, r.;:.. sx..s:.2. e.ss r,;;mT E: xc "3 ~u,o,s m., x c J.
- ' - . • ' . . . ' , . " ' •
- .v, ti:.:.. a.:t:a awc.o aic:.: ao.Y. . . as>.e, . . a.. , . .
..::Stage Two i~ish ~list F.,7 ~3 ~ ~I rn ~ ~ " . '
. ' d` ..t ...~,a,-? . .
_2) Square footage.r.equirements associated witli-the primary.and'secondary-uses. _ " .
. . .,a. . ' ' . . . . ' . . ,
• . . . . , • , , ' . • ' - . , . . , , t 3) Any special infrastructure requirements associated with the proposed.use. For example, would tfie facility need fiber-optic
communications capability?Would itrequire an exterior satellite dish/broadcast area?
. ~ ' . . . .
. . . . , . , ' - ' ' . ~ . . .
~ 4) Any special acces,s requirementsboth pedestrian and vehicular. For example, how much parking would be needed? '
~ How close would the proposed use need to be to the Lionshead parking structure or to some other.'use in lionshead? k
- Does there_need to be; passenger drop-off? Will there needto be a seroice del,ivery area? If details are not known, a basic
~ intuitive description of how, the use :would operate would be very helpfuL ,
, . . , .
. ` - , . . , . .
_ . . . .
~ . ; . . , , , . .
ach;)
5) Any architectural or site planning_studies that have been completed for ttie proposed use. (Please att
. • . _ ; ~
. ' . . . . i
• ' , , . . .
~ 6) 'Any cost,figures that have been prepared for the proposed use. (Please attach.)
, , . ~ .
. . . . _ , ; .
. . , . . . , : ~ . . .
~ 7j' Any financial or.demographic feasibility studies that have been completed for the proposed use. (Please attach.). . h. 'z ' - , . . ' . . ' . ' . • K
. . „ . . . , _ . . . . p.
. . . . ' , " ' . ' ' .
. ' ' . ' ' ' . . . . , . • , ' ~
, . . . . , 1 ' . ' . . . - . ' . ' - . ' ,
. ~ _
8) Any literature, articles; or photographs regarding similar facilities'that could. be used as a reference or would help.us
. . . . . , . '
understand tlie ideas or intent of the party submitting the Wish List item. (Please attach.) ~
. : , . . . , .
' . . . , . . . ~
T Bring fhis completed INish-List to one of tFie brainstorming sessions on-Marc,h 16 or 18, or . ~ TOyyNOFy~ " return it to the Town of 1/ail, 75 S. Frontage Road; Uail, CO 81657._The deadline.is Apri1.1.
. - , . ~
~
. , , . , . , , , , . . . .
, - . . . -
. . . . ,
. . .
Date . Participants Item to be discussed/approved
Sun. March 16 Community (workshop) Wish List input from community.
3 p:m. = 5 p.m.
Library Community Room Tues. March 18 Community (workshop) Wish List inputfrom community.
10 a.m. - noon -
Library Community Room - . '
Wed. April 2 Community (open house) Presentation.of Wish List Submittals and mailed response form
4 p.m. - 7 p.m. ' re: preferences; community discussion of preferences.
Library Community Room _
Mon. April 14 Joint PEC and DR6 Recommendation to Vail Town Council for prioritization.
2 p.m. meeting* , f .
Tues. April 15 Vail Town Council PEC report/preview of Stage Two "Program Development" report.
(work session) Tues. April 22 Vail .Town Council _ Prioritiiation of Wish List for further analysis in Stage Three "Development of
• (evening session) Master Plan Alternatives" and sign-off on Stage Three process.
'I ' i' I I IEIMM
- Date Participants Item to be discussed/approved
May -_luly Staff and consultant State Three - Development and analysis of Master Plan alternatives, based
on prioritized Wish List.
August (dates tbd) Staff/PEC/DRB/Council Review of Stage Three "Master Plan Alternatives" and selection of
and community preferred alternative - August - Odober Staff and consultant . Stage Four- Development and adoption of Redevelopment Master Plan and
Design Guidelines . ' October (dates tbd) Staff/PEC/DRB/Council , Review and.adoption of a Redevelopment Master Plan and.Design Guidelines.
and community .
November and on - Staff/PEC/DRB%Council Stage Fve - Drafting, public input and adoption of code modifications, if any,
, (dates tbd) and community required to implement the adopted -Redevelopment Master Plan. . ,
, *PEC denotes Planninq and Environmental Commission
DRB denotes Design Review 8oard
, i' I' ' I I ' , ~ , redevelopment of the 154-acre area. Once in place, the master •
- . • plan will serve as a-framework for.d"ecision-making on specific~
ecognizing that Lionshead lacks the charm, character, appeaL , develoPment and redevelopment proposals for all private and
and vibrancy of a world-dass resort, the Town of Vail; public lands in Lionstiead. The scope of the work involves five . together with Vail Associates has•launched a 10-month stages, each with its own community involvement process,
communiry collaboration process to create a master plan,for . p"roducts and decision points. ~ I I I~.' . . . ~ Proprietary information of any private property owner or
I -
. • ;,J,~ .
developer wiil remain private.and confidential unless it
~ ecomes part of a pu6lic record.
The Master Plan to be developed.for all public_and private b
-_.lands in Lionshead will serve as the policy framework.for ail I, There will be no net lossto the Vail community of either
,wF -future decision-making on specific development and local's housing or parking spaces (public and private) now
_ redevelopment proposals in Lionshead. The Master Plan will be 11ezisting,in Lionshead.
based.on the Lionshead Policy Objectives adopted by the Town. - •
' ,:h Collaborative public/private redevelopment and financing
Council to_ reflect.the community's interests. . ; ~ fr'~ • - .
ventures, induding ucban renewal authorities and _ -
;t;
The Master Plan area.will be bounded on the north by I-70, x•`~ downto"wn deyelopment authorities, will be considered. .
. on the east by Middle Creek (west of the Vail Valley Medical The intent of redevelopment indudes minimizing short -term
Center), on the south by the Town of Vail boundary (south of, construction-related impacts of r.edevelopment on existing
forest Road, and not including single-family lots), and on the west 6usinesses and residents andincreased 'cooperation between
by Red Sandstone Creek (east of the Glen Lyon Office Building). the public and private sedors: The Town of`Vail will work collaboratively with Vail Fh The Town Council will have #inal decision-making authority
Associates (VA) on the master, planning p(ocess for on the Master Plan, adoption:of. implementing actions, use.of
Ui~
&dx; . .
F
Lionshead and will involve all othe.r interested citizens, public lands, public improvements,:and public financing. , business owners arid property owners in the master planning mechanisms. The Town Council or its authorized boards PEC
. pcocess. The master plan ultimately recommended may or may not: , and DRB) will make final decisions on subsequent site-specific reflect developrrient approaches currently being explored by VA., development propos,als consistent with the Master Plan.
Stay.in touch with the Lionshead Master Plan Project.through these Recorded information at (970) 479-2199.
information sources... • _ Suggestion boxes located at: Lionshead Activities Desk,
The. Lionshead planning Internet web site at - Lionshead Visitors Center, Vail Library and Town of Vail
_ = http://vail.net/lionshead. , Community,Development Department. • : Regular mailings from. the Town of Vail. Call (970) 479-211.5 to Local media outlets. - • • add your name to the list. , . . • ~ . : . . .
- ' . 1nWNOFYAIL = . . '
- - f ,
; MAR 07 '97 05:54PM S.S.F. V.A. LLC p,2
~f d-{~-
. ~AIL Co"ER cIA L PRo~~RTY ot~ERS A.ssoCU TIoN~ . ~ -e.
.
. ~
March 7, 1997
Town Council
Town of'Vaii
75 South Frontage Road
' Vail, CO 81657
I,adies and Oeatlemen:
The Vail Commegcial Fropea#y Owners Elssocaation strongly opposes the coaisideration of Fosd
Farrk as a possible site for nructured parlting. VVe feel additional parking, if cons=ted, should
be adjacent to Carnmercial Cores I and iI. This would then impact the areas where sales tax
rewenues could be incgeased by tbe additional traffic. Parkang at Ford Park would divcrt people
away from our existing commercial centers. We feel additional parking could be constructed at
the tvo parking struchares and possibly over the frontage road in those locations.
We would be happy to participate in ftuther discussion of 4his matter, if necessary.
Best regaxds,
, • ; "-.~.,s
~
kodney"~E. Slifer
' RES/jt
fiNarch 1997,
Page 5
I . _ J\
l 0 0
t sound.s od 9 ut Va'll par -fl King plan. a bad ide
And why should theyl Those core maybe a fireflghter won't be hired, or the The only real way to revitalize Vail's
areas of Vafl no longer have a monopoly towri s library may have to cut back its core areas ls to figure out a way to get
V-OM ' F~on the valley's dining, entertainment, hours, all because the money that was more people to actually live in Vaff. But
~
~ F and shopping. once available now has to go to pay off the chances of that are about as slim as
~ There are a lot of far more convenient the parking structures. the merchants' sales ta~c fantasies.
' . , options avallable to people in Avon,
Edwards, and even Eagle than there
4 You have to wonder when the ""ere-)ust flve years ago. Free parking
! isn't enough to Justify a trip home, then
hammer's going to fall on Vail, and what back to Vaff, especially if 1Ys snowing.
1Ys gotng to smash in the process. pnd ironically, even the local residents
This week's question comes a few who go to Vall in the future will be less '
. weeks after the Vail Town Council likely to go to the core areas because of
knuckled under to a merchants' group new development at the Vafl Commons
and created a free evening parking site.
program. I hate to scoff at something as pil this means the towri s already-
atl-American as free parking, but the few static general fund is just going to get
people who continue to live in Vaff may pulled one more direction. Whtch means
coine to rue that decision. some potholes areri t going to be filled, or
On the surface, a few freebie hours in
town parking structures doesn't seem to
have hammer-type ramifications. But P---qmm
by creating free parking during the ski
season, this councll has decided that the
town's general fund ts going to further
subsidize the bonds issil,ed to bulld those
structures. '
The merchants who• lobUted for the
free eventng parking plan say that won't
happen. They claim that increased sales
tax revenues from people who will flock
to Vail to park free will offset lost revenues.
But that hasn't happened as the result
of a more limited plan over the past three
seasons, and probably won't happen
now.
Wh}~? Forget the fact that only a very
few of those core area merchants bother
, to advertise free parking. The real reason
free parktng is just going to create a giant
sucking sound in Vall's general fund is
that nobody I know goes to Vall Village or Lionshead any more than they absolutely '
have to. • .
1~ s
~
~
~ .
and ~ o
~n a Jomi°
l1~~~~ tag-ol-war
By HAichael Booth , oenver Pasc scarr wriier fence it all off and keep it pristine so the
Uncle Sam left you some land in his will. their ciattle ontthe cheaprs want to graze leaking. y~ur pro ert .
P y So far, they're not
It's a nice spreaiJ. Mountain meadows. If you sell the mountain meadow ta a ski ta ce? king Qf renouncin y Rolling farmland, Oil wells, Burbling resort to make millions for s
streams and all that. g our inheri-acker
the , Just a few complications to work out be- sch ols w llss e~l Thee ~ f Youcdonlt,' the Too late. The federal government gave
fore of
you can enjoy your holdin s.. g Y next door ma y°U and everyone in Colorado millions
A11,the income you make•from umpin y acres of land more than a hundred years
g sue either way, claiming he had first ago. And like a family squabble
dibs.
the ~`,and sellin p g And you might want to know about the ~on for generations, we've been fi hti
that drags
~ Publ~; schools. Backpacketrs has ~o gu ~o ~;pnters who moved in while your attention
aYOs elsewhere. There's a couple of land- ~
' g ~
- . _ V ,
, , Please see '
LAfVDon 10.
,r: •
. . . " ~ TrtE DtNvIIt PObT . lOArt • • ' ~ •
. . ~ r
iiient 16 issues called m1nefie](
.
.Amend
_ .1 me ~te
LAND from Page tA s~ Li~IIY, IOtS of 1811d ~,a e~~
3 ` board contrGs a 9ood Piece of Cobrado's owns about 3
over Uncle Sam's estate e~'~ ~re' The state land - mad
wide open spaces, but its task ie e far more d~fiCUtt million ecres
The State Board of Land Com' by the scattered nature of the assets. Pu1 together ttrey across the
znisvionera holds S mllliun ac~ i° would cover the metro area; in realiry, the pieces ere state, or _ the
krust for the benefit of state trst" blown like confetti to all comers oi the st~e~me o~ ~ §iehof the -
denta, rangin8 fron° t~ b~ of the e%~n p~ ft. ~ne of it serves no purpo ~ -
Great Sand Dunc+ W an ofiice metro area
to "hold Me worid together." plus Gilpin
muilding in Fort CD~ stete ~ has e Counry
ery interot q~'?uP -
claimAm on~ltmt ~16 pused by votere -
iest No~~tl~ ~d ~ Colorado land Board properties
BIDOOth IBIDuY , o- :t . tl~ii'' • • • • a • • • .
makethln6e . . . . . ¦ . . . ;'7
wotne.
••Tbere a a minefield out there " ~ ~ • <
-M:~:
U.S DletrldJud6° Babcock ~ G~ . . . . .
Leo°
aring on Amend- ~ . , • • • • • • • .
321di0& recEnt .tn hetloL8llt B2b- ~ ¦.w..~ "
CODB furthera[guIDents ; • • ~ . - - ¦ • r • il ,R:
.s~+. bear
agalnst the amendment Fhday and ~r~, • . ~ ~ • ¦ • • • Y • •
, ..ti,ty • • •¦.s • •
my9 declde itv fate as early as that rvygf o • . ¦ • . • ¦ ¦ • •
~3~1~ .c ~ •
afteroooa
StePPin6 ginBerly thI'OUgh th8t The Denver Post I Gbn Mertn i ~ • a
minefield in rnming montha will be ~ ~ . V ~ . ' . . . , . o . . . . .
Stete lend board member Bob
Me :.:3'-
a new slate of directois for the • • •
Meilender Is the lest of three
land board. Ii the task wasn't full•tlme boerd members. lfider
710 daunting enough, Amendment 16 ¦ • ..:~z~`.>1lSPan.t
83 _ _ 2! . . ¦ • . • ~
Amendment 16, il upheld re
. r?A, . ¦e • • • • • : `
required the fuzng of the thrne pt'e- eonstitutionel, the new boerd ~ ~
vious ful]-time, paid directocs, tn wUl be made up of five part•time " . f,~'=' ~ ~ ¦ ' J • • . ; ;
be replaced by a group of five vol- membera. - so ' •o Co do Spring . . . . . . ~o . .
UI11.EEi3Wh03[ED't [EQUII'EdW . ~•'a r 'r~a. • • ¦ • • • • • • ,S
have e:pertise in property issues. . ~ SO ! • • ¦ • • • • • • •
They must overcome years of al• ~ r • PuepTQ
legatioas that the old board either To know us is ~ ~ ~ ~
J~ , . 60
favored ric6 developers or was just _ _ - . • ' ~ • t: ~ i~
~ _
plain stupid, iT1aki71g P0391bIf 1IlE ~ ",0.1' ' ~i • ¦ ¦ • ~ ¦ • ~
gal no-bid deals on some of ffie best to love us. But -,:~~~,::~.r.~' • . - • ~ • • ¦ ¦ • ¦ ¦ ¦ • • • ~
St21.2 l3IId. knows D . . _ _ iti ' ¦ • • ¦ ~ ~ • ¦ ¦ • • • • • r
a' ~
They aLso must quickly learo dr nobody ~ ~ SSP . ~ . ¦ . .up, • • • • • • • _
.-l.$ ~'.~.s~..': s`'.v , "r .1 . • • • o • •
. . ?i~ ' _ _t.,
tails of a sometimes archaic land US. . ~ ~ ~x.~,:`
,666. o.~.. ~e A a + • • • '
se . ~
board system that oversee5 thou- ¦
saads of leaseg, holds propert9 Bob Meilender, ' •''r
I ¦ • • • b~i~ i%`'. a 1 • ¦ " ,
' ~!±~.ti. ~~K#:.. :~~..~1.7~~0¦
scattered like rnnfetti ihroughout state Land Board
the state, and whicb has an as-Yet- member
unequaled talent for making every• n" ~
one it deals with mad as hell. ' .
'•To know us is w love us," said `
holdover board member Bob Mai-
lander, w6o will leave as soon as
the state Senate contirau Gov. Roy
Romu's appoinunents W t6e new . - :'~'i~',. " -
land board. But nobody tnows p' .p; t;' - a~ rr..~~:.,,n, F.
US,. . -t ~ '.'~~~„~'X~ ; '~'~~•~.R
TLe [ate of the land board, : ~ . 3yIs~'- • l?~ :
dwellin6 iu oh9curity for decadea ~ • j _ ri. -
oely W become noWrious in the k ` • r , '..Y R .
late 1990s, Was fued when Colora•
do became a state in 1876. A gitt , ~~r~ , ~ ~ ~rt'~~ ~ ~ ' ~-~+'1r"`.•: + _ . f:
~ . 3..
•y:-~.y~,~'rt,;,, r' :,E
frnm the federal government Was
ooe xc4on, or 640 acres, of land in
..J~:';st/~,• _ _ s .
everyWwaslupinsideWebound•
aries of We new state.
Certain areas were oft limits, tn- , Z < . • p'^ • ~4``?h-
cluding tbe Indian reservatiom ' ~
that were far larger at that time r t h a n u o w, a nd lands in the "miner 'al belY' fhat produced mnch of Col- ~'~a.- a ` . , • ~ . ~"r.-x
~p~ ~ , ~ ''i: • , . `ti~ ti~ :
~ orado's gold and silver. The federal
government tept control of Noee,
-giving alternate sectfoffi to Colora• ~;Z ` ,,~~^,~1:: _ `
do's new governmeat
The resulting map of land boatd . ) ~
holdinga is a wild patchwork of a~
trouble.'fhe state maaag ot dr9u
nearly worthless aeMi o.a t •
grassland on the Eastern Platna. _ • ; ;
consolidated ranches oi up W
150,000 acres oear Pueblo, huge forests north of Rocky Mouutam
National Park, and parki¢g lota tn suburbau Denver. Some piern are ~ -
good for nothing more than "6old-
ing tLe world wgether,° lend board
direcWr Maz Veaani aaid.
"4.. nuu kuiucauu s
PaPulation is rocketing to-
' ward 4 million. The more 54S4@ QPUa4 laPtd aQ 4PII9 IP14@PseC4IOPI.PYe@IP EdT~iaPd3 IS beIP1g The Denver PosY / Otan PAordn
eo le , o PPO- as an open space bu44eP along I-70 near Hall. YP~e B~oa~ ealued
p P who crowd into the state, P 8ed QoP doeGlopmen4, bu4 Eagle CounYy'o44ic1a1e aran4 4o keep 14 propeP4y in 4~~ area a4 etnoPe 8hen $4.5 mtllion.
?the more interest groups tura thelr ~ attention to the land board's 3 mil- •
~ lion-acre money tree. Squaw I.and board controversies tend to
erupt around the state every year ea exe l~~ies d'Iemma
~
or so. T Creek he next hot spot could well be the sculpted slopes of fhe Crest- Bb Michael Boo4h ~ ed Butte ski resort. oenver Post scarr wricer ~a last November is allowed to stand.
~
The state owns myriad chunks of DWARDS - On a warm winter day "~tate 9and boardBs And like any good land board property,
land inside the boundaries of t6e when the mountain meadows west of " Squaw Creek has its own lawsuit. Just before
federally owned Gunnison 1Vational Vail are washed in a uniform dull ~~ua~+ ~r~~k ~ar~e~ the old land board radically overhauled its
Forest near Crested Butte. These brown State land board property in Squaw Creek sales practices, it gave Eagle County develop-
"in-holdings" are the kind of acre- any green. , You have to squint hard to see could fetch nearly $10 million for public • er Gerald Rea and Cordillera the joint right
age the state would rather sell off, But it takes onl a few minutes for the ees schools, but Eagle County officials want the to develop the property in order to increase
since it can't do much with isolated to ad'ust. This small wed of state land at Parcel to be buffer along the Vail corridor its value to the state. .
~ ge development. Cordillera and Rea now are arguing over
pieces in a protected U.S. forest Squaw Creek and Interstate 70 could easily
other than seil grazing rights. turn the color of money. how to manage the development. .
But Uncle Sam has no money Co Colorado Land Board appraisers have call- The tract also has been caught up in the dis-
' buy the state's land. So, complez, ed it a great place for a convenience store. pute over land the state owns elsewhere in
Wolcott Eagle County. Rea has a contract to buy a
three-way swaps come into play. The slopes rising above the highway would
~ Colorado wants to trade about make elegant sites for million-dollar homes, dozen other parcels from the state or trade
5,000 acres of its in-holdings to the backing up against the exclusive Cordillera Edwards s ,7 them for federal land. County leaders say the
U.S. Forest Service. The Forest retreat. fa board gave away the store to Rea, and should Setvice in turn will give about 500 But green comes in many shades, and Ea- ~ w aleR~~Br have reserved the land for open space in a
i~ valuable acres at the base of Crest- gle County officials see Squaw Creek dra ped ~ county already burdened by development.
~ ed B u t t e s ki area to t he owners o f in the soothing hues of open space. The county 24 "~'e've got a long, narrow valley here that
~ the resort. is swamped in ski-area expansions and build- 'l could fill up fast," said Ellie Caryl, senior •
The skI area, finally, will buy ing-permit applications. Edwards is closing in ` planner for Eagle County's government.
; and deed to the state land board from the east. Wolcott advances from the ~ Since a furor over the Eagle Counly deals
acreage anywhere in the state that west. A developer dreams of condos at S uaw with Rea broke out last fall, local and federal
Is equal to the value placed on the Creek and thinks "buffed." County planners Tne oenver Post i B?uce caut officials set up a steering committee to work
out a trade with Rea. Rea said he would be
lucratlve ski base acreage it is ac- dream of streamside picnics and think "buff- land board set the value of the property at ha
qulring. er." ppylo lrade for land he could develop in
In t6eory, the deal makes good Squaw Creek is a classic dilemma for the oss dtout much higher figu es in talks with less sensitive parts of Eagle County.
sense. Federal officials consolidate state land board. It could be one of the most the county. "Everybody seems to be trying to make
important wildlife habitat and en- valuable properties in the state ortfolio - this work whereby we can all benefit," he
sure its protection from develo - P But it also may be dne of the first proper- said. "It doesn't have to be politically attack-
p just imagine all the textbooks for needy ties nominated for a conservation trust under ed until everybody knows what land we're
ment, including an important piece schoolchildren the property could buy. The Amendment 16, if the law approved by voters dealing with."
in the Maroon Bells-Snowmass 6Vi1-
derness. The ski area gets land to
' espand and make money. The stat~ ~
. p opeety gets
e ship and acquires er 'that wc'd 41e facfng*(500) new acres ~`°'~"v~
' other land it reall wants. of private land surrounding a ski ~ deal could have been avoided if forever. The land can come back
Y , Zimmermaa and Crested Butte Amendment 16,was in place earli- out again, albeit on a vote of four
But local environmental watch- area.' ski company President Edward er. The amendment requires the out of five directors. And if the
dog groups fear the state and fed- Glazer said government agen- Callaway said the swap reflects land board to place 300,000 of its 3 state is to live up to its mission to
~ eral governments will be paid too cies have a bad record with land the desires of moit Gunnison Coun- million~acres into a stewardship make money for schools, some of
i little for their holdings. Moreover, appraisals, giving away valuable ty residents. i trust, to be kept as open space those acres will have to come out
they wonder why government ski resort property for little return. "I think people are in tune with rather than sold or developed. again, since they will be some of
~ agencies charged with land stew- U.S. Forest Service spokesman the benefits," Callaway said. "The The state's wilderness lands the most valuable holdings in the
ardship are making deals that will Paul Zimmerman responded that 3,000 to 4,000 acres that go into the around Crested Butte could have state.
( lead to more houses and buildings the government is having the ski forest remain ublic forever. And
in Crested Butte's rarified air. base land appraised for its "highest the valley would rather see devel- ,ag the federaltgoernmentttoorc- pro ect o~r cqu re,h Vezzanwsa dto
"We're all concerned about the and best use," including develop- opment concentrated where it al- trade away its own land at the ski "The tough question is, what are
school land property being sold in a ment, and will get fair value. ready is and keep open spaces area, Glazer said. ~ ~
tesort area where land values have "We go through a stringent ap- open." they willing to give up. And can
skyrocketed," said Stev~ Giazer of What few people understand they stand the heat for doing
the High Country Citizens Alliance. manssaid adding that the exchange w althier mounta n~c unties, ac- t at p t ng s ate land i~n he stew- thDepartin commissioner Mailan-
:-'rTheth~g that is so scary here is will do•exactly what good planners tivists in Crested Butte now say the ardshia trust does not nmfnrt ;l .~o~ fti gA.................
- ' ' - ' ' . . , • - -r;~.~a:.a.sr_a~ci=5~ . ~
paign oversimpliEied many of ~
~z `
oPen space issues. Promoters of
proPerty h" become the ameedment tried to sc.are v:,. '
another rich vs: ot.;
poor e-:;: ? ers into thinking state land was bc. y.~>bate in much of Colorada i ing sold off wholesale, he said. ~,y
The mountain counties where envi- i' noted the original federal land
ronmental activists want to pro- grant to the state in 1876 was more
tect state land from development t6an 4.5 million acres, but on]y 3,;-
are rich enough in property tages : _ million remained,
to fund their local schooLs. without < Yet more than 1 million acres
state help. Pithin, Routt and Eagle I; were sold before 1918, and very `
counties get little or no money per ~ few have changed hands since~
pupil from the state, and they Pr'o-. i Mailander said: Plus, ia some `test vehemently when the land 9eais, the state has ac uired board wants to sell a prinie Routt - Iof thousands of new a'cres b~ v ,
County parcel to a hous' devel- I in Y~d';
oper for, say, $6 million~ i tc'acts of rurablland d f or huge ;
Our local school districts would ' The 300,000-acre trust required ~
not get any benefit from t6e sale of ; by Amendment 16 also is deceiv- the state lands," said Ben Bea11, inB, Mailander az chairman of the Routt County com- i oNy lp gued. Whfle it's„, L, • missioners, noting t6at Routt Coun- third of the~l nmi~onatcre~ ~es a t
ty receives no state school fnnding. ' state holds
"Our kids would lose west of Interstate 25
a benefit,, : tLat are t6e niost likely candidates
by having less open space, he said. ~ for protection:.-~: . .
Routt County's Emerald Monn- ~ Taking one,third of the most
tain became a so-called "poster ~ valuable state lan d w i ll p u t a se-
c h i l d" o f t he Amendment 16 cam- vere crimp in the iand board,$
paign. The land includes 6,900 ~ forts to raise money for schools be;
acres due south of downtown • ~ said. , Steamboat Springs; for years the Those who pushed for Amend- .;=ai state 6as leased it to various pri= . ment 16 respond that t6e school is,
vate parties for grazing, 6unting sue is a red herring. Yes,.the land
and recreation for a total of about board must generate money for
$40,000 a year.
When the land board public schools, ttiey say, but.the
,
ing about began talk- i, trust fund cTeated by decades of getting higher value for land sales, grazing and oil well
the land, perhaps as much as;6 leases generates less than 1 tnillion for prime residential real cent of overall school reven~e,~ M
estate for wealthy skiers, the com- u
Colorado. -
munity resisted. They didn't want Most of the land board's aanual. J
more ritzy homes, especially on income comes from oil and gas : !,v-
land favored by hunters and moun- leases. Neither the fla
tain bikers. dry East- m
; era Plains lands nor the priatipe
To hold the land open while , mountain sections produce much !.'.~s~
Nr
county planners and the state money. Even on much of the land ;g
worked on a compromise, Routt put into a stewardship trust, in- A
County commissioaers agreed to a come will continue from c a t t l e
$ 1- p e r- a c re-per-year "planning gi'azing or wildlife lea
lease." ses on the
property,
:
It's not that county activists same ; Rural schools that have sued to Z~ 1
want the land to go untouched, ~ - overturn Amendment 16 forget . j, '
Beall said. "We actually want
t o s e that develo ment in urban a n d ' - c r e s to b e graz e d and mountain school districts has re- ~ d
mined. The ranching community sulted in enrollment growth that is has been the steward of rural lands draining resour~~, said Dee w~r m.:
in Colorado since statehood, and i former president of the Cherry. most of the land board's money Creek School Board. Selling state •:SI ~ ~
comes from mineral egtraction," laad to a homebuilder mi ht make
he said. They just don't want devel- money for the land trust, but it will
9t~
opment that, once started, will , cost the local school district dear•
never stop. od
Nor are locals dismissin the ly, be said. :':.r:;
g Cherry Creek has fought devel- ;m
needs of public sc6ools, he said. opment on state land at the nearby 73.
Beall's wife is president of the ; former Lowry bombing range be-
school board. cause some local leaders don't tie-.; "There shouldn't be that break ' lieve new tas revenue would cov,er.:~~,
between the priorities of the school t6e additional students. . • '
district and the needs of the com- , "I?eveloping condos on a. piece oE:;La ;
munity at large. We should all Brovnd afld having hids li
the
work together," he said. ve
' probably costs cnore than the m~v1~
Moreover, Bea1~ claimed, local come you'd get from selling the
residents see open space as an is- land. You've got to pay on average
;5,000 a kid to educate t6em,•,.WI-. . l c- `
Piease see LAND on 11 A ~r ~id. - - - - . , - _ . = ' . • .
;:.:;•K,::~*.I ~
. i..
Y.
, JE
Sunda , March 9, 1997 TH~in ~
lcatnd
board.....s
may ` •
S awI1 efjiel
~11r1 LAIdD from Page 10A . land adjacent to other holdings it knew the land could change hatids . ,
wanted to keep. long before the deal was finished
sue separate from school funding. At the time, the board did not and could have offered his own
The philosophical gap is partly a ask for competing proposals. Crit- purchase proposal. matter of scale. ics said the process was secretive. Scudder said he "was not in- ::::i;:
Rural schools challenging Dick Scudder, co-owner of The formed of.anything at any time" Amendment 16 have calculated Denver Post, is one of those who about a possible sale of the state:
they could lose $25,000 a year be- has protested a deal in Eagle Coun- land next to his ranch, and that the
cause of the new restrictions on the ty that sold 640 acres to developer secret deal with Brotman is illega
land trust, said lobbyist Jim Bran- Bob Brotman for $1.84 million. He has asked a Colorado district
don, who represents the small dis- Scudder, who lives next door to court judge to force the land board,
. tricts of Branson, Pritchett and the land and had leased it for graz- to reconsider its sale.
Springfield in southeastem Colora- ing, said he was not iven the
do. g Land board officials admit, how
chance to bid against Brotman and ever, that the seemingly secretive
"Twenty five thousand dollars to he would have paid $3 million. nature of the transaction, even
those schools is a trainload of mon- though it was publicly acknowl-'~A
ey, he said. "You cannot set aside nother Eagle County deal edged on board meeting agendas~
300,000 acres of the best property has raised protests from made the public feel the land bo
and still make money on it. It just others in the county. The was operating for the benefit of a-
doesn't work." Aboard agreed to developer select few developers.
Gerald Rea's proposal giving him Now, whenever a land trade is"'"
puned to change by earlier the exclusive right to trade lucra- proposed, the public will have the
controversies, the board has tive state land along Interstate 70 chance to make a higher bid or
, helped its public image by to the U.S. Bureau of Land Man- pitch a different idea for an es- reforming some of the leas- agement or to buy it himself. Many change before a deal is sealed, .Vez~
ing and selling practices that pre- Eagle County officials, who have zani said. Bids have to be higher
viously gave it a bad name. seen the county flooded with new than an independent appraisal of ;
Legislators and rural leaders development and million-dollar the property.
used to see the board as a conve- homes, want the state land to re- "I'm sorry we didn't have these
nient way to subsidize Colorado ag- main as open space.
processes in place two or three
riculture, by offering below-mar- Eagle County Commissioner years ago," Mailander said. "Wew.
ket grazing and farming leases on James Johnson said the state could more easiiy defend what :
land no one else seemed to want, should have at least given conser- we've doneif we'd had all that in
Mailander said. vation groups or wildlife officials a place." ~
Political pressure sometimes chance to bid for it. New board members a
"directed the land board to do "It surprises me that an a enc pP°~~ `
things that were more to the ad- that is supposed to get the h ghest hy Romer agree, saying Amend-~
- vantage of the agricultural com- value from a parcel of land g ment 16's requirements for a larg=`;
munity than the pure beneficial in- wouldn't ut it out for ublic bid er board with more varied esper- ,
P ~ tise will boost public confideace ia
terest of the schools," said Johnson said. h
Mailander, himself a rancher in State De artment of Natural Re- wll never be fr e of controve~ard
Holyoke. "We all live in the real sources director Jim Lochhead said Chuck Vidal, a new board~~ ~
world. We did not want to tick off said that before Amendment 16 member from Aspen, but it couid .
the entire state legislature." was assed to chan e the land
Now, rents have been pushed up board's structure and mission he come out of its "ivory tower."
as much as 35 percent in some fielded complaints about deals ev- ~~A board like that is somewhat
places, Vezzani said. "We're in a ery week. The board was arbitrar in a no-win deal. There are advo-
three-year process to raise rates and subject to the whims of an one cates on both sides of the coin o~
based oa the local private rates," who came in with an idea for every P gnificant dision. I think
. he said. "We feel we're as close to deal, he said. it's im ortant for an new entit to~
market as possible. It hasn't been "It was ali ad hoc. Whatever try and e$plain its rationale," he '
real popular." deal came in the door was the one said.
Opening the bidding process on they worked on," Lochhead said. Some of the people who fought :
land the board will trade or sell is Land board officials defend their board system talk aboutthe futtire ~
another major change in recent actions in both cases. "Some folks
years. Beginning in 1994, the old are acting surprised," Vezzani ~'ith a mixture of energy and sud-'
board launched an aggressive poli- said. den responsibility. They got what_
cy to get out of its controversial The land board had approached and nowit's uplto themdtomca~ t 16~
mountain holdings by selling or the Bureau of Land Management out their plan for moving the landry . trading them for as much as it and county leaders months before, graat system of the 1870s iatu the. '
could get. encouraging them to make a pro- 21st century.
The policy encouraged private posal for the I-70 conidor land that "We all view it as a tremeadons developers to propose taking over could protect it, he said. The a-
a piece of state land. The land parently didn't jump at the chaace. upColo dto f said Lochhead, the g
board put the sale price in an es- As for the Scudder-Brotman dis- natural resources director. "We.;::':` :
CPOw aCCOUnt to use for acquiring pute, board officials said Scudder iuct h,,,,a
,
, ' ' . .J'.,. . . .
~
~~d ~ a O Q .
- f
By Michael BooYh acre
Derner PosI Starr wnter fence it all off and keep it pristine so the
, r
Uncle Sam left you some land in his will, theinccattle on tthe cheap. y fills on your property. So far, they're not
Ranches want to graze leaking.
It's a nice spread. 1lqountain meadows. If you sell the mountain meadow to a ski tance?
g pf renouncing
Rol}ing farmland. Oil wells. Burbling resort to make miliions for sc Thinkin
Your inheri-
streams and all that. backpackers will sue
, . If you don't the
schools wil] sue. The u hools, the Too late. The federal government gave
Just a few complications to work out be- millions of
fore you can enjoy your holdings.. g y next door Y°U and everyone in Colorado
,ma
All,
the income you make~from pumpin sue either way, claimin Y acres of land more than a hund red
the ,and sellin g he had first dibs. ago. And like a family squabble that dra s
g And you might want to know about the Aon for generations, we've been fightin°
g property has to go to ~;~nters who moved in while your attention,
i publ~y ~schools. Backpackers w~At~yau to ~
n s elsewhere. There's a couple of land-
Please se e L~4RfD on 104
~•=C • .
:--T
.
~ . _ . ~ . _ _ - -
~
~ .
_.r,~
- - -
. . r, , . - = . _ .
Y:
Ir . . . . . ~ .
.
. . ; . . _ . . .
. . - . . ,.~:.~._::~.=i~..... ~ . ' . .
~ - . . _ . ~ 'Il-tE DFNvER PO6T _
.
t 0A,? . . •
. , . • - . 16 ~ , `
- Lssues called, mineriel(
ment .
en
_ mest . ate - - - -
U1ND trom Page 1A LaIId, ItItS Of 18t1d ~,a e~m mmw -
The state lard board controls a 9ood Piece of Cdorado's owns ebout 3
crver Unde Sam's e+tate e°er siDce' Nride open spaces, but its task is made far more ~ficuft million acres
The State Boerd of Land C°~°, by the scattered nature , of the assets. Put together tliey auou the
state, or ' i_• ~ .
[IIlSSl00E2S GOIAS S t1111Lon ac~ ~ Would cover the metro area; in realdy, the pieces ere
trust for the benefi? °f $tate res' blown like confetti to all comers of the state. As one roughry the
deats, renging from the b~ °f ~e ezpert put tt, some ot ft serves no purpose other than size ot the _ ~
metro area ' ' ~ • •
Great SaDd Dpp W an office tp °hold the world together." plus Gilpin "
buildin m Fort Collim. Nearly ev- County _
erq interest FWP in the stete hes e _ . •
c1aSID oo lt
:.Ameo&mc 16, piswd yy voteeis Cotorado Land Board properties -
last NovemW m 1° attmpt tO •
; ¢IDOOth feG1119 relatlms, Could ~ . + r~ ' } ~ r?~ ~ • • • ~ • • • • • a
make thln6e aoiae. >r., . . . • • • • • :~~i
~ ~"~y', ~a( • • • ~ T ¦
"Tbere a a minefleld out tbere," .1--r iJ 4 -
J~dBe I~ais ~ {G M~. ,G ¦ ~
U.S D18t~~
xnlOt - ~ ~ : • . • • ¦ • • .
:381d 1L A (~t bearing OC AIIIEDd-
~cOCk ~ ~ r ~ o.w;.~
tutlOnBLt B8b- .,j:
~ f~ itbEI8ig11mCDi4 • • • y_ 'f+„'~' • • 71~ - .e : • rl'{• . .1:. . . . . . . Y a .
ggeinst the amendment F~iday and `8~`;i . • ¦ ~ ~ ~ - - • •
muy declde ib fate as early as t6at nver ¦ • . • ¦ . • • • • •
tr. • . ~y3$~:c.~:s.; . " ' •
afterwoa ..10' - ~
rtm i ~ " r • •
StePPin6 BinBuIy thtrough that Ths Dsnver Post I Glen Me Eaqler
"V I_ _ ; ' ~ ¦ ¦ ¦ . ¦ • ¦ , • • .
Ifljpp~leld in coming months aill be ~ ~
$tate land boerd member Bob
n new s la te o f d i r e c t ois f o r t h e ¦ ¦ •
Mellander is the lest ot three -les'
` ~r j~; a ¦ • • \ •
land board. If t6e tasslc wasn't Under
ta
tull•tlme board members. ~ - '
upheld es _ ~ 2~ ~
claunting enough, Amendment 18 A m e n dment 16, it rd ~ J~x~
required the firing oi the three pr~ ! 2I ~ . `
tonstitutional, the new boa ~ ,p • • • • •
vious full-time, paid directors, w wul ye made up o1 five pert-time ,
be replaced by a group of five vol- members. - s~ ~ • • ' Co do S~Pnng ' 1. ¦ . . . ¦ . . r0 . ¦ •
UIILEEIS Wh0 8I'EL't [CQUII'2d t0 - _ _ .r7'_! i.. ' Z`"• . : ~r~ . • • ¦ • • • • i ¦ • • ..';,',1
'4
iiave eapertise in property issues. T ~p • : F~i ~ ~ • ¦ • • • ¦ • • ~
Pt~ . . . ~ ¦
~ • .
They must overcome years of al- Q
legations that the old board either - ~ . • ' ~ f ~ ~ ¦ • • ~ •
favored rich developets or was just To know us is ~
. ~ .
P181fl StUPid, making possibly ille- ; . ° o ~ ~ • ~ ~a • • • ¦ ¦ ~ • •
' ~ Y a • a • ¦ a ¦ •
oal oo-bid deals on some of the best to love us. But
SCeiE 13nd. ~ . . - . ~ ' ~ s • • • • • • • • ' .'"r~
They also must quickly learo de- nobody knows ~ ~ ~4 • ¦ • .up. ~ • ¦ s ~ ¦ • ; .
tails of a nometimes archaic land , a . • '+`'`s%::: _ ~ , . , .
US.
board system that oversees tbou• 666 t~c!ti a, ' • :
oe x~~. ~~i. . . r . ~ . . .
s8pd9 of leases, holds propert9 8ob Meilendef, ~ . _ f; ~Q.•. . • • • ~ r • ~ r
scattered like contetti throughout state Land Board ~ - ~ ~-!L~ • • • ' ' ' '
~S1iti'•=A,. ~ . ¦ ¦ • • • ~ : T
the state, and which 6as an a+•yet- member
unequaled talent for making every• n" °ina °'o°
one i: deals with mad as hell. ' .
••To know us is W love us," seid `
6oldover board member Bob Idai•
lander, who will leave as soon as
the state Senate anfirms Gov. Roy " • i~, ,
Aomer's appointments w tbe new
'R _ r .a n, F.• '?mq.t~;:+^-'r .
laud board. But nobody knows
IL4.
1Le fate of the land board,
dwelling in obxurity for decades
pdy W pecome nowrious in the ' , , ' •:r . „ `
, aas fued when Colora-
late19905 ~ r ;,i..;'~v{;.~.,{;. ' ;:-~=1.,t.~.~
do became a state in 1876. A gift ~~FF~u~ . ; v. • .
from the federal governmeot was ' ^ - ; c~ • -t' .
One sectio0. or 640 acrea, of land in , -~f d,1~,- ~
every Wwaship iaaide the bound• _ - •r':i'a:y:,:*. " ; . .
~ ' ~ ; r,. _ . • . ,.s, .
aries of the new state. W40
~enain areas were off limits, in- ~ ~ • ~ Y • ! tw
cludin6 the lndian reservatiom
~ ~ . 1; -
that were tar larBer at tLat time
t6an now, and lands in the "miner
~
al belY' tbat produced mnch of Col.
orado's gold and siJver. The fedual I~• . '~r'- , ; ~ :~ti .
governcnent kept control of those, ~giving alternate xctioa4 w Colora- . . ;
do's new government 1 ~ ;.~11:: ~ ~
The resulUng map oE land board
holdin6a is a vvild patchwotk oi -
trouble. The state manages ama11, . - • ,
nearly worthle9s sections of drY - h. .
grasaland on the Eastern Plalos,
coosolidated ranches ot up W
150,000 acres near Pueblo, huge ~ forests north oi Rocky Mountain
- :
NaUonal Park, and partinB lota in
euburban Denver. Some piecws aro
good for oothing more than "6old-
ing the world Wgether," land board
_ ' , „
direcWr Mas Veaani seid.
-
~.WUIaLLU J . . • . . .
'population is rocketlag to-
Ru' ward 4 million. ''he more S4~gs Q~g4 laP1d a4 Qhis in4ePseC4ioP1 ' ~6o ~iP f~~MI~P~s is b~ie1 Tne Denver Poat / alon mortln
' eo g PPO- es an agn s~e ~ - alon p Ple who crowd into the state, Pog!~d QoP dOeelopmen4, bu4 EaglG Co~en4b'oPPiclalo ~ran4 40 keep I8 p~rope~¢y in QG~~ aeea buf a44~no e Y~n $4.5 mfllonf. ~d boa~ dalue~l
the more interest groups turn t6elr . ,
1 attention to the land board's 3 mil- lion-acre money tree. Squaw " ~ o o Land board controversies tend to ree~ dre~ erupt around the state every year exe ~f j dile
, or so. The next hot spot could well pl a
be the sculpted slopes of the Crest-. Bb AAichael Boo4h ~ •
ed Butte ski resort. oenver Post scatt wricer last November is allowed to stand.
The state owns myriad chunks of DWARDS - On a warm winter day State land board's And like any good land board property,
land inside the boundaries of the when the mountain meadows west of Squaw Creek parcW the ld la d board rad cally overhauled its before
federally owned Gunnison Matioaal Vail are washed in a uniform dull
Forest near Crested Butte. These Ebrown, you have to squint hard to see State land board property in Squaw Creek sales practices, it gave Eagle County develop-
in-holdiags' are the kind of acre- any green. could fetch nearly $10 miilion for public ~ er Gerald Rea and Cordillera the joint right
age the state would rather sell oft, But it takes only a few minutes for the eyes schools, but Eagle County ofiicials want the to develop the property in order to increase
since it can't do much with isolated to adjust. This small wed of state land at Parcel to be buffer along the Vail corridor its value to the state.
pieces in a protected U.S. forest Squaw Creek and Interstate e 70 could easily development. Cordillera and Rea now are arguing over
other than sell grazing rights. turn the color of money. how to manage the development. .
But Uncle Sam has no money to Colorado Land Board appraisers have call- The tract also has been caught up in the dis-
buy the state's land. So, com plex, ed it a grea t p lace for a convenience store. pute over land the s ta te owns e lsewhere in
~ three-way swaps come into play. The slopes rising above the highway would Wolco~o tt; Eagle County. Rea has a contract to buy a
~ Colorado wants to trade about make elegant sites for million-dollar homes dozen other parcels from the state or trade
~ 5,000 acres of its in-holdings to the backing up against the exclusive Cordillera ~ Edwards e them for federal land. County leaders say the
~ U.S. F'orest Service. The Forest retreat. Fa board gave away the store to Rea, and should
Service in turn will give about 500 But green comes in many shades, and Ea- have reserved the land for open space in a
valuable acres at the base of Crest- gle County officials see Squaw Creek draped C) county already burdened by development.
ed Butte ski area to the owners of in the soothing hues of open space. The county
the "We've got a long, narrow valley here that
~ resort. ° 24 could fill up fast," said Ellie Caryl, senior -area
and
ld- ' The ski area, finally, will buy ing-pe mp t appl ciatio seEdwa ds is c os nlg in F planner for Eagle County's government.
and deed to the state land board from the east. Wolcott advances from the Since a furor over the Eagle County deals
i. acreage anywhere in the state that west. A developer dreams of condos at S uaw • with Rea broke out last fall, local and federal
is equal to the valub plaeed on the Creek and thinks "buffed." County planners Tne oenver Post i eruce caut of[icials set up a steering committee to work
{ out a trade with Rea. Rea said he would be
lucratlve ski base acreage it is ac- dream of streamside picnics and think "buff- land board set the value of the property at happy to trade for land he could develop in
quwmg. er'~more than $9.5 million, and developers have less sensitive parts o[ Eagle County.
In theocy, the deal makes good Squaw Creek is a classic dilemma for the tossed out much higher [igures in talks with
sense. Federal officials consolidate state land board. It could be one of the most the county. "Everybody seems to be trying to make
important wildlife habitat and en- valuable properties in the state ortfolio - this work whereby we can all benefit," he
sure fts protection from develo - P But it also may be one of the first proper- said. "It doesn't have to be politically attack-
p just imagine all the textbooks for needy ties nominated for a conservation trust under ed until everybody knows what land we're
xnent, including an important piece schoolchildren the property could buy. The Amendment 16, if the law approved by voters dealing with."
in the 1Vlaroon Bells-Snowmass Wil-
derness. The ski area gets land to
' espand and make money. The stat~ ~
land board gets out of troublesome'r ' •
property ownership and ac uires , that wN~' tie facing~~(500) new acres' `~r ~
q deal could have been avoided if forever. The land can come back
' other land it really wants. of private land surrounding a ski Zimmermaa and Crested Butte Amendment 16,was in place earli- out again, albeit on a vote of four
But local environmental watch- area.' ski company President Edward er. The amendment requires the out of five directors. And if the
. dog groups fear the state and fed- Glazer said government agen- Callaway said the swap reflects land board to place 300,000 of its 3 state is to live up to its mission to
eral governments will be paid too cies have a bad record with land the desires of mo:tt Gunnison Coun- million acres into a stewardship make money for schools, some of
i little for their holdings. Moreover, appraisals, giving away valuable ty residents. 1 trust, to be kept as open space those acres will have to come out
they wonder why government ski resort property for little return. "I think people are in tune with rather than sold or developed. again, since they will be some of
agencies charged with land stew- U.S. Forest Service spokesman the benefits," Callaway said. "The The state's wilderness lands the most valuable holdings in the
ardship are making deals that will Paul Zimmerman responded that 3,000 to 4,000 acres that go into the around Crested Butte could have state.
lead to more houses and buildings the government is having the ski forest remain public forever. And gone into that trust, without forc- "People know what they want to
in Crested Butte's rarified air. base land appraised for its "highest the valley would rather see devel- ing the federal government to protect or acquire," Vezzani said.
"We're all concerned about the and best use," including develop- opment concentrated where it al- trade away its own land at the ski "The tough question is, what are
school land property being sold in a ment, and will get fair value. ready is and keep open spaces area, Glazer said. they willing to'give up? And can
resoct area where land values have "We go through a stringent ap- open."
skyrocketed," said Stev~ Glazer, of praisal review process," Zimmer- . As has ha ened in man What few people understand they stand the heat for doing
the High Country Citizens Alliance. man said, adding that the exchange wealthier mountain counties, ac- that p t ng s ate 1 nd~in he stew- thDeparting commissioner Mailan-
--T6e tft:g that is so scary here is will do exactly what good planners tivists in Crested Butte now say the ardshio trust dnPS nnt nrnfnof c+ M,. A..,..._.,___. 11
. . - _ . .
- . . ~ - ' e, . .
. . - . '
. ' ' • - - ` ' • ' -
paign oversimpiified a
iany of ~
uPen space issues. Prom
oters of
. : i Y hae becomeyet~ the ameedment tried to scare va : _
. .
another rich vs: poor de= : ers into thinking state land was be.
;
Tbate in much of Colorado. ~ ing sold off wholesale, he said, Ad,y
The mountain counties where envi- i' noted the uriginal federal land
ronmental activists want to pro- grant to the state in 1876 was inore
tect state land from development t6an 4.5 million acres, but oniy 3,,•.
are rich enough in property tages ; million remained.
to fund t6eir local schools.without Yet more than 1 million acres
state help. Pitkin, Routt and Eag1e Il:~ were sold before 1918, and verq "
counties get little or no money per ~ few have changed hands sine,
pupil from t6e staCe, and they Pro-. i. Mailander said. Plus, in some `
test vehemeatly when the land qears, the State bas a board wants to sell a ~9~d tets
Count p~e R°utf ~of thousands of new acres by trad.
y parcel to a housing devel- ! ing pricey urban land for 6uge .
oper for, say, $6 million. ; tracts of rural land. '
"Our local school districts would ' The 300,000-acre trust required . ~
not get aay benefit from the sale oi by Amendment 16 also is deceiv-
the state lands," said Ben Beall, , chairtnan of the Ro in8, Mailander azgued, pVhile it's
. utt County com. i only ip percent of the total, it's a
missioners, noting that Routt Coun- third of the 1 million acres the ~
ty receives no state school funding. state holds west of Interstate ZS :1i
"Our kids would lose a benefit" ` that are the most likely candidates
by having less oPen sPace, he said. I for protection:`'. al
Routt County's Emerald Monn- ~ Taking one-third of the most
tafn became a so-called "poster ~ valuable state land will put a se-
child" of the Amendment 16 cam- vere crimp in the land ~.d's ef
paign. The land includes 6,900 ~ forts to rai.ye money for schoo
acres due south of downtown • ~ sald. . 1s, 6e,,.~ ,
Steamboat Springs; for years the Those who ushed for
state has leased it to various pri= ment 16 respond that the ~~i •.1; ~tg
vate parties for grazing, hunting sue is a red 6erring, yes,.the land
and recreation for a total of about boaz'd must generate money for
$40,000 a qear. ' public schools, ttiey say, but.the When the land board began tallc-
ing about i hust fund created bq decades of
getting higher value for land sales, grazing and oil well
the land, perhaps as much as $6 ' leases enerates less than 1
million for prime residential real i cent of overall school revenu~e,g in ~
estate for wealthy skiers, the com- ' Colorado. , munity resisted. They didn't want . Most of the land board's "
more rit homes es ~~1.
land fav ro ed by hunt~a dymoun- leaseseNe comes ~erf the fla and gas
dry
tain bikers. ern Plains lands nor the pristi et
To hold the land open while i mountain sections produce much i~•M
county planners and the state money. Even on much of the land ;g
worked on a compromise, Routt put into a stewardship trust, in:
County commissioners agreed to a come will continue from cattle A
;1-per-acre-per-year "planning
lease grazing or wildlife leases on the ~J
, same propertY• , It's not that county activists ; Rural schools that have sued to Z~
want the land to go.untouched, ~ overturn Amendment 16 fo ~j ,
Beall said. "We actually want rget
that development in urban and
those acres to be grazed and mountain school districts has re- 'd
mined. T6e ranching community sulted in enrollment growth that is
has been the steward of rural lands draiaing resources, said Dee Wisor, _ 9
in Colorado since statehood, and I former president of the Cherry
most of the land board's money ~ Creek Schoul Board. Sellmg state
comes from mineral extraction," ~ land to a homebuilder might mage
he said. They just don't want devel- money for the land trust, but it will opment that, once started, will ; cost the local school district dear- , F`
never stop. ly, he said. cd
Nor are locals dismissing the Che Creek has fought devel- needs of public schools, he said. opmen on state land atthe nearb
9 im
Bea1Ps wife is president of the former Lo ;7f
school board. ' wr3' bombing range be-
cause some local leaders don't tie-
"There shouldn't be that break ' lieve new tas revenue would cover. : between the priorities of the school t6e additional students, , • '
district and the needs of the com- , "Developing condos on a.
. piece oE ::~d :
munity at large. We should all i grolmd afld havin kids,li ve tAer
work together," he said. _
probably costs more thaa the in-
Moreover, Bea1} claimed, local j come you'd get from selling the
residents see open space as an is- 4 land. You've got to pay on average ~ e. . {
1 F•' ''-J , t~
;S ;5,000 a kid to educate the m," Wf= L
Please see LAND on 11A 1 sorsaid.
~ ..,.xr~•~ :.~:i~:
~,h~'
Sunda , March 9, 1997 THE DE
0
c
l :
1n
licatnd .oar
may ~ awI1 m1I1e1e
LAND from Page 10A land adjacent to other holdings it knew the land could change hands".
wanted to keep. long before the deal was finished
sue separate from school funding. At the time, the board did not and could have offered his own
The philosophical gap is partly a ask for competing proposals. Crit- purchase proposal.
' matter of scale. ics said the process was secretive. Scudder said he "was not in-
, Rural schools challenging Dick Scudder, co-owner of The formed of anything at any time
Amendment 16 have calculated Denver Post, is one of those who about a possible sale of the state;
they could lose $25,000 a year be- has protested a deal in Eagle Coun- land next to his ranch, aad that the
cause of the new restrictions on the ty that sold 640 acres to developer secret deal with Brotman is illega
land trust, said lobbyist Jim Bran- Bob Brotman for $1.84 million. He has asked a Colorado district
_ don, who represents the small dis- Scudder, who lives negt door to court judge to force the land board,
tricts of Branson, Pritchett and the land and had leased it for graz- to reconsider its sale. '
~Springfield in southeastern Colora- ing, said he was not iven the do. g Land board officials admit, how
chance to bid against Brotman and ever, that the seemingly secretive
"Twenty;ive thousand dollars to he would have paid $3 million. nature of the transaction, even
those schools is a trainload of mon- though it was publicly acknowl-'~
ey," he said. "You cannot set aside nother Eagle County deal edged on board meeting agendas;
300,000 acres of the best property has raised protests from made the public feel the land bo' '
and still make money on it. It just others in the county. The was operating for the benefit of a"'
doesn't work." Aboard agreed to developer select few developers.
Gerald Rea's proposal giving him Now, whenever a land trade is".2
~ftl purred to change by earlier the esclusive right to trade lucra- proposed, the public will have the.:
controversies, the board has tive state land along Interstate 70 chance to make a higher bid or
, helped its public image by to the U.S. Bureau of Land Man- pitch a different idea for an eg-
reforming some of the leas- agement or to buy it himself. Many change before a deal is sealed, Vez-
ing and selling practices that pre- . Eagle County officials, who have zani said. Bids have to be higher
viously gave it a bad name. seen the county flooded with new than an independent appraisal of
Legislators and rural leaders development and million-dollar the property.
used to see the board as a conve- homes want the state land to re- «
nient way to subsidize Colorado ag- main as open space. I'm sorry we didn't have these .
processes in place two or three
riculture., by offering below-mar- Eagle County Commissioner years ago," Mailander said. "~Ve'~~.
ket grazing and farming leases on James Johnson said the state v
land no one else seemed to want, should have at least iven conser- could more easiiy defend what
g we've doneif we'd had all that in
Mailander said. vation groups or wildlife officials a place."
Political pressure sometimes chance to bid for it. "
"directed the land board to do "It surprises me that an a enc New board members appointed
things that were more to the ad- that is supposed to get Che h ghest by Romer agree, saying Amend-~~':
vantage of the agricultural com- value from a parcel of land g ment 16's requirements for a larg=
munity than the pure beneficial in- wouldn't ut it out for ublic bid er board with more varied eSper-
terest of the schools," said Johnson said. p ~ tise will boost public confidence.ia
Mailander, himself a rancher in State De artment of Natural Re- w~ill never be fr e of controve~ard'
Holyoke. "We all live in the real sources director Jim Lochhead said Chuck Vidal, a new boar
world. We did not want to tick off said that before Amendment 16 member from Aspen, but it could ,,1 .
the entire state legislature." was passed to change the land come out of its "ivory tower."
Now, rents have been pushed up board's structure and mission, he "A board like that is somewhaf'=:.
as much as 35 percent in some fielded complaints about deals ev- in a nawin deal. There are advo-
~
places, Vezzani said. "We're in a ery week. The board was arbitrary cates on both sides of the coin
three-year process to raise rates and subject to the whims of anyone every significant decision. I think
based on the local private rates," who came in with an idea for a it's important for any new entitq to
. he said. We feel we re as close to deal, he said.
market as possible. It hasn't been "It was all ad hoc. Whatever try and explain its rationale," he '
real popular." deal came in the door was the one said.
Opening the bidding process on they worked on," Lochhead said. Some of the people who foug,ht `
land the board will trade or sell is Land board officials defend their board system talk aboutthe futureanother major change in recent actions in both cases. "Some folks with a mixture of energy and sud=:
years. Beginning in 1994, the old are acting surprised," Vezzani
board launched an aggressive poli- said. den responsibility. They got what_ they cy to get out of its controversial The land board had approached and owits for uplto themto at 16,
mountain holdings by selling or the Bureau of Land Management out their plan for moving the l~andr±
trading them for as muc6 as it and county leaders months before, grant system of the 1870s into the
could get. encouraging them to make a pro- 21st century.
The policy encouraged private posal for the I-70 corridor land that "We all view it as a tremeadons ,
developers to propose taking over could protect it, he said. The a
a piece of state land. The land parently didn't jump at the chance. in Co o dto f saidnI.ochhead, the ¢;41i
board put the sale price in an es- As for the Scudder-Brotman dis- natural resources director. "We... 4
CPOw aCCOUnt to use for acquiring pute, board officials said Scudder ;usr t,,,,,o ,,,e
From: 8Q Committee To: Toum of Vail Date: 3l7197 Time: 10:49:05 Page 2 of 2
The Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Ocl~
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY CONIlVIITTEE
k1ley
L E GESLATff VE UPDATE
March 7, 1997
~J ~iiATE
The following is an update on the bills of interest to QQ members:
d Bill: SB 47 (Norton) is a local government takings bill - identical to SB 69 vetoed by Governor Romer last year.
Current Status: Passed Senate, assigned to House Local Government to be heard upon adjoumment on March 12th.
SB 47 is expected to pass out of Committee and it is highly probable that it will pass the House Floor as well.
Rumor has it that CML will propose 4 amendments to the bill and then rescind their opposition. At present,
Governor Romer is undecided on a veto of this bill. If you are in Representative Russell George's d'es8rict, please
call him ASAP and ask him not to support or introduce any amendments to this bill.
Position: OPPOSE
,/Bill: HB 1156 (Hagedom) is one that QQ helped draft - it provides an expedited judicial review of land use
decisions. It is the common sense alternative to the spate of takings bills we have endured over the past few years.
Status: Passed House 62-3, on to Senate Local Govemment Committee, will probably be heard week of 3/17.
Position: SUPPORT
e~ Bill: HB 1312 (McPherson) Vested Rights - Allows almost any land use decision approval to become a vested
right; landowner decides when vesting occurs.
Status: Passed House Floor, on to Senate Local Govemment Committee, will be heard week of 3/10, and is likely to
pass. Please start calling your senators NOW and ask them to lalt this bill on the Senate Floor.
Position: OPPOSE
d Bill: HB 1286 (Smith) extends the basin of origin requirements that Conservancy Districts must abide by to all out
of basin diverters.
Status: Died in House Appropriations, 9 to 1.
Position: SUPP0R1'
?Bill: HB 1113 (Sullivant) Allows, among other things, local governments to collect fees for individual sewage
disposal systems (ISDS) that reflect the actual costs of services; provides for stricter penalties on ISDS systems that
are failing, allows licensing of contractors, establishes a technical advisory committee.
Status: Passed Senate Local Government, on to Senate Floor.
Position: SUPPOI2T
POSSIBLE 1041 ATTACK? At the last Colorado River Headwaters Forum meeting, Colorado Springs indicated
that they were considering introducing a study resolution that would call for a task force to look at 1041 issues. QQ
was under the impression that we were working on the 1041 issues through the Headwaters Forum as a fust attempt
at successfully addressing our differences before attempting further legislative measures. We all know that the
outcome of a"study" by the legislature is typically a recommendation for new legislation. We'll keep you posted.
Please call Monique or Lane at (970) 468-0295 eart. 117, 116 if you have any questions or need more
infonnation. Thank you!
03/11/1997 10:22 3039491550 BMHS , PAGE 01
~ ~C '
B~ ~ ~ nW" 1gh chool
p oe Box z49 /7so Eagle Raad Mlnturst, Coloxado 81645
phone: (970) 945-4490 F= (970) 949°1550
Dear NOm Bran~~yera •
at is wit2a grea't pleasure thst I recommencl Chad Sewell Q
a jun3.or at Battle 1Kountain 81qh Schoal, fox' the Vail Yout2z
8tecoqaaition Award e I I1ave kaiowra Chad for three yeaxs and he
Ytas playe~ an integral part oxa the 5tudent Councfl, of vtaich
gam tbie spoansoro Evea^y yeaY I work with over f ive hundreci
students from every type of family and work ethic. Y have
fouxad CP'lad to be gesponsibleo diliqent, 'dependable and a
selt-s$:arterm He has shouldesed projects while a council
ffiember and ogfgcer and always given his best!
Chad i~ ~ery interested i8a this opportunity e I
sincerely begieve he wily repsesent both his schovl artd h3s
comwauaity w1th styl.e? Ghad is adventuresome, athletic, ffind
we13 manniBred aid knoats hvw ta present himself wel,X. As yoaa
cas'a see from the attached sheet, Chad has been busy workinq
Qn every area of his lifeo He will tackle any challenqes
presented ira this trip and work experience; I have no doubt
he wil.l greatly benef it from it.
Tlzark you gor the effort you give to helping the younq
people of ttxe VaIley with rewarding exxperiences such as
it2aiso Please call if a can be'af any furthsr help or !or
any additgonal informationo Chad io the con of Sheila
5ewe$.J1S ~atheg is deceased. The address is P. Oo Box
b076o Vailo COe and the phone numbes is 926-2862e
Sincerelye
~i' • ,
R o o Wt~ ~31
:
03/11/1997 10:22 3039491550 BMHS PAGE 02
Chad Sewell
P.O. BoA 1076
vail, ca 81658
(970) 926-2862
Education:
-Cur;'ently a Junior ai BaYtle Mountain High School.
Stadettt Government: -1995-1996, Svphomore Class Representaltive.
-1996-1997, Commissioner of External Affairs.
Athietics:
-1994-1995, Footbatl and Atpine Ska Team.
-1995-1996, Alpine Ski Team and Track.
-1996-1997, ,Alpine Ski Teann, Aipine Team Captain, Nordic Skz Team
and Track.
Q#her Accomnplishoncntso
-Interact member 1995-1996, 1996-1997.
_ -Cast member of The Molase That Roared.
-Cast member af Bye, Bye Birdie.
Work Expersence:
_"Bag Boy," Bagle Springs Golf Cinb. Summer 1996,
-Warehouseman, Vaxl Assmciates. Winters 1995, 1996, 1917.
-i.ine Caok, Salsa's BBQ Deck. Summer 1995.
- ~ i...,:
~
.
„
e9
T01-VN OF VAIL
~~e ec~2,~(C w C ~~c~c~ `l~-P
- ~
j~~ ~n ~ ?~--~~e U~fi. ~ c1~
~
C~ -
a_,2~4 ht,~ d-,r w~ ~ .
+u j
~•~.~-L7 ~~.e.c~ ~ v ~-r_~ LL N ,/lQ,hh-c~~~~('.
~7YL`-c ~
,
RECYCLEUfAPtR ~ ,
-
„
~ ~-e~~ .
J
~ z~C
~ ('Q c.~ Ci`~.~ ~ ~ SS i ~ L~_ ~-lc
- ~-1 ~-t~.~ ~~-~..a~ c~ c.~t- ~-C d~-<.~C%
~ ~ ~ ~-~`~--~C ti.n--e_ ~ ~~s~~
( ~~L~" ~s ~f~ L L 6~SY~ °l ~--C7 S C~~2
f~ ~ ~
- S.~ r- ~.~~.c A ~ ~~..c__~ ~ c~~ .
v~. ~ ~~U.~-~2~ . l~-~~`-~; -
~~----c~ ~2-~,~ ~.rzr~~' `E-t: ~-,,~`E~~~-E_
-~`h,~-~-,~ d-
,
~--2~ ~ ~ i~ e~ 1~~~,~
~
c~-~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~--Q ~c~=~ ~~SC_.~ -~L
C C~ E ~_~-C~- _ ~ ~,c~``~-
~
-~-L~~` , - r~,~;.~ , I~~-; C~
1'~,u, G~ -{-1,~ C~(~~y~1,~- ~ ~r--,,_,~ ~ ~'~-~L
U , J
~ ~-l~' Ck- ~r' Ck_ L~.~G~
1
' ~v~ 1-~~ ~ - ~;~~ti~ Lv ~F~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-e~a!.~
~ ~ S j~~-~ - l : 3~ ,
c , i C ~--~-ti- ~
I"`~~.~~ ~