HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-04-01 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session
~
~
!/AVL 1'OVVN COUIVC9L
EVENING MEETING
TUESD,4Y, APRIL 1, 1997
7:30 P.M. 9N TO!! COl11VCIL CBiAMBERS
• AGENDA
NOTE: Tumes o$ i$ems are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be reBied upon to
deterrnane at vvhat time CoueaceG wiBB consider an atem.
1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. (10 mins.)
A. Vail Youth Award Presentation to Alissa Ferri and Chad Sewell.
2. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1997, first reading, an ordinance amending
Dan Stanek Section 15.02.020(C) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to
Provide for the Adoption of an Annual Elevator Inspection Fee. (15
mins.)
ACTIOIV REQUESTED OF COUiVCIL: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance
No. 7, Series of 1997, on first reading.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: It is appropriate to consider an increase in
the elevator permit fees and the building department recommends
adopting those set forth by Northwest Colorado Council of Governments.
Consistent with other provisions of our Code these fees once currently
adopted will be maintained with the schedule of construction fees in the
building division of the Community Development Department. Future
increases in fees will be adopted by resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve.Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1997,
on first reading.
3. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1997, first reading of an Ordinance
Tom Moorhead Establishing a Traffic Offense for Failure to Provide a Complying Policy or
Certificate of Self-insurance. (15 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve/Deny/Modify Ordinance
8, Series of 1997, on first reading.
BACKGROUfVD RATIOIVALE: Council directed the Touvn Attorney to
prepare a proof of insurance ordinance consistent with that provided in
the State Model Traffic Code. This will enable violations of this ordinance
to be prosecuted in the Town of Vail Municipal Court.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIOIV: Approval of Ordinance No. 8, Series of
1997, on first reading.
4. Resolution No. 13, Series of 1997, a Resolution Approving and Adopting
Larry Grafel the 1997 Ford Park Management Plan, which is an amendment to the
Todd Oppenheimer 1985 Ford Park and Donovan Park Master Plan. (15 mins.)
Pam Brandmeyer
George Ruther ACTIOfV REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Consider Resolution No. 13,
Series of 1997.
BACKGROUfVD RATIOIVALE: Following a two year process involving
leaseholders and stakeholders, which was facilitated by staff, the 1997
Ford Park fVlaster Plan is completed and presented to Town Council for
approval.
STAFF RECOMfVIEIVDATIOfV: Approve Resolution No. 13, Series of
1997.
,
5. Seibert Circle. (15 mins.)
Nancy Sweeney
Kathy Langenwalter ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide recommendation for
selection of an artist to design the art piece for Seibert Circle.
6. Vote for and Appoint One Local Licensing Authority member. (5 mins.)
7. Vote for and Appoint Two Art In Public Places Board members. (5 mins.)
- ' 8. An appeal of a variance approval (4-2; Moffet and Pratt opposed, . Dirk Mason Aasland absent) made by the Planning and Environmental Commission
- on February 10, 1997. The applicant was granted a front setback
variance of 5' - 6" to allow an additional one-car garage to be constructed
at 1034 Homestake Circle/Lot 5, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Appellant: Diana Donovan. (40 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Uphold / modify / overturn the
PEC's approval of the variance request.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: See the attached staff memo and other
materials for a comprehensive overview of the appeal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council
overturn the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval of a 5'
- 6" front setback variance and recommends that the Town Council make
the following findings:
1. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements
of Title 18 (Zoning) have not been met.
2. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties
classified in the same district.
3. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or
conditions that are applicable to this site that apply generally to -
other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential zone. In
addition, any hardships which have been presented, have been
self imposed.
4. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of
other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential district.
9. A Town Council call-up of a Planning and Environmental Commission
Lauren Waterton unanimous approval (6-0) of a major exterior alteration located at the
Creekside Building, 229 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village
1st Filing. Applicant: Michael Ditch. (30 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Uphold / modify / overtum the
PEC's approval of the major exterior alteration request.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On March 24, 1997, the PEC approved,
with three conditions, a request for a major exterior alteration to allow for
1,050 square feet of an existing deck area to be enclosed. See the
attached staff memo to the PEC, dated March 24, 1997, for a complete
description of the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council
uphold the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval of a
major exterior alteration.
10. Town Manager Report. (10 mins.)
11. Adjournment - 10:10 p.m.
I
~
a
NOTE UPCONiIRlG NiEETING START TIAAES BELO1Al:
(ALL T1MES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
THE NEXT!lAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON 7UESD,e?V, 4/8/97, BEGIiVNINGAT. 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWIRIG VAIL TOWIV COUNCIL REGULAR ViIORK SESSION
1fUILL BE ON TUESDAY, 4/15/97, BEGIiVNIIVG A7 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAl1ABERS.
THE NEJCT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENIIVG IIAEETING -
, INILL BE ON T'UESDAY, 4/15/97, BEGINNIfVG AT 7:30 P.M. !RI TOV COUiVCIL CHAMBERS.
IIIIIII
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Piease call 479-2332 voice
or 479-2356 TDD for information.
C:WGENDA.TC
~
.
t••~ ~ ct~ .C: _ _`i ,O .
~
~
• ~
.
:
4 _ .
. : .rc. . . ( ' .
. ' ' • ~ . ' , ' - ' • ' , . '
. ~
. . : . . ' a ' . ~ . - . . ~ . ~
1
t ~
MAR 14 ,'997 ` r
. . . t
: „ ; . . ~ _;,,,,,,,..~_.;,,:~__.__•...:..---..~~.Aa. 5
~ • ~ . . . ~ . ~t~' 4V , _ . . . . - F
. . . ~ - . ' T•~ . . . • ~
. ' ~ - . ~ . . . c4
~ ~~D~. ~S • .~~~~Tt ~ ~ 'e-
.
. -
.
. ~ -
_ . . . .
. . _ . . . . t
. . . 1 F r } . , . . . ~ .
A .
. . . - . ~ . i ' 'f . . - ' . - f~
. ~~t~ ~ • ~ - , - _ ~ ° : : . - . ~ _ :
i ~ ~T~}.
. ~ - - : - - - . . ; - - . ~
~~`~~.~~-i • C~lo~ ~ : . ~ ~ s
~e- CNOT-5
- ; . . . -N4-.s.
. _ ~
, . . . ~ ' . . ~
~ , _ . . .
. . . _ . - ^ ' 4
` c-
s
. . .
~ . . . , . . ~ . . . ~ ~
_ _ _ . . . ~
a
' - . ' . . . . . . - i
RECEIVEp MAR
1 9 1997
- VAdIL FINE ART GALLERY INCe
Vail Vdllage Crossroads Center
141 E. Meadow Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
(970) 476-2900
March 12, 97
To The Art in Public PLaces Board
Town of Vail
75 Frontage Rd.
Vail, CO 81657
To The Board,
I would like to continue in my commitment to the Town of Vail as the Event Coordinator
for the fundraising needed for the ongoing projects we have currently been involved
with.
I have been on the board for the past eight months and involved with the Seibert Circle
project now underway to its final destination. My background with the board and
expertise as an artist will benefit the project and the community for this purpose.
In office administration for the Vail Fine Art Gallery, I can be reached at (970) 476-
2900 or home (970) 748-0043. I look forward to meeting with you once again.
. Tharik you ~~ncerely, r:A'
Nancy ndresen
r~sen
:rnI ~~dNM
Technical P.O.
.1C
3D Animation: 3D Studio 081620
Logo Fly-ins • Character Development
2D Animation: Marcromind Director & Aurora 125
Background • Character Development
_ T.V. Production: Alladin & Inscriber -
Computer Aided Drafting: AutoCad • Computervision CADDS 4X .
Macintosh: Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop, Aldus Pagemaker, etc.
IBM: Core1DRAW, Microsoft Windows, CASmate-Pro, etc.
Creative
Design Illustration • Graphics Storyboards Figure Drawing Pen & Ink
Technical Illustration Logos Oil Painting Airbrush
Perspective Drawing Brochures Pastel Pencil
Composition • Layout Cartoons Marker Watercolor
Experience
Vail Fine Art Gallery, Inc., Vail, CO
Office Administration-current position
Cashmere Vail, Vail, CO
Manager
TV & Entertainment Guide for Vail & Summit County, Avon, CO
Art Director/Illustrator
Full Spectrum Arts & Services, David Magoun, Littleton, Co
3D Animation & Graphics
3-D Animation/TV Production (Bolle, Decente, Pedal Power) Avon, CO
3D Studio • Alladin • Inscriber • Storyboards • Graphic Design • Camera-Grip Assistant
Freelance Make-up & Hairstylist for Photography, Film & Video
Most Recent, 95: Kathy Lee Gifford Christmas Show '95, High 5 Productions, Nashville, TN
Linda Englund, Rocky Mtn. AudioNideo Productions, Inc., Denver, CO
Freelance Graphic Artist
CASmate-Pro (IBM) graphics for sign companies - Design Illustration • Logos • Brochures
Arts in Public Places Board, Town of Vail
Member _
Boulder Art Association, Boulder, CO
Awards Committee • Fundraising & Marketing
ACM Siggraph, Denver-Area & CFVA/Colorado Film & Video Association, Denver, CO
Member
Hobbies:
Oil Painting • Art Shows • Galleries • Photography • Movies • Kayaking • Skiing • Roller Blading • Hiking
Referrals, demo tape & portfolio upon request
970 9 748 • 0043
:
C~~~~~ ~ALLERY
- THE GOLD AND SILVERSMITH OF VAIL ~
C~IVED ~~R 9 9 9~~~
. , . •
,•~r~ Since 1970
'~~`1°z}~•; 234 E. Wall St./P. O. Box 385, Vail, CO 81658
•1~=~~~'~ ~ (303) 476-3131 . '
i- ~ r~arch 18,1997 ~
, . .
Dear Ms. f1cCutcneon,.
.r,4
Please accept this iette~~ a:, my applicaTi~;r, to the AIPP tioard. l i~iati~F i~een a ~
member of the board slnce 1989 and, l am 1nt1-:- .:;ted in appiylng tor anoti-Ier three
}+ear positlan.
~
•,~x.: :::i:
ti".N: . .
`~'~-SincFrely,
J j .
4•:
'Jim Cotter
:~j _ . i . , _ ~
;:iw'
. , _
N.~:e ~ . '
-1;;._ ' ~ .
n..x:.• + . . ~
- i~i4~i•r,F.' K, . _ . .
. =3?:::' '
j :yiY
S w2`
~ ~
'i•.'ltm7:M1,:!~~ i ~ .
' ;i -
RECEIVED MAR 1 9 1997
~
De laria's Kitchen. Inc. KFCe
800 Ecrst Luke Street
w«yzara aIN 55391-1803
I 612 475 3700
FccC I 612 476 0422
Ms. Holly McCutcheon March 17, 1997 Town Clerk
. Vail Town Council ,
75 S. Frontage Road -
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Town of Vail board posirions
Dear Members of the Town Council:
As new residents and property owners in Vail, my wife and I are enthusiastic about makdng a
contribution to our new community. With this in mind, I noted with interest the open board positions
advertised in the Vail Daily. What a great opportunity! My abilities point to an interest in either the
Design Review Board or the Art in Public Places Board
I'm 54 years old, owner of Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants in the Minneapolis area and
semi-retired. Linda and I have been mamed 27 years, have one son and are about to become
grandparents for the first rime. We've been visiting Colorado for more than thirty years and chose to
make Vail our permanent home.
Despite my restaurant career of some 38 years, I successfully completed five years at the
University of Minnesota as a student in the School of Architecture with a minor in art history. Due to the
unrimely passing of my father I elected to continue the family business rather than and pursue a career in
architecture. However, art and architecture are stili my first loves. Also, as a builder of a number of
restaurants, I lnow what its like to face a planning commission and a city council. My goal is always to
find a winning solurion.
Often, the art and architecture of a community is expressive of the way the citizens of the town .
want to be lrnown to the world Vail 'is such a town. The world visits Vail either in person, on TV, the
Internet or in print every day. I believe the citizens of Vail want to be proud of the way they've "fixed the
place up" and in so doing, presented themselves to the world They want the world to laiow just who lives
here.
Pm happy to be a.member of tlus community and welcome the chance for an interview as a new
boazd member.
S ' cerel ,
Do G. De Laria
2893 Timber Creek Dr. C16
1-(970)-479-7909
: . ~
,Uerome B. Jacobs JIL 'niy~l E ~ ~ 1
l~Og 1545 l~ !
vafl,CO 81658 L-] L=:~~;_=::, ~
970.476.8600(vouce) - - - - - - - -
970.476.8599(faz)
eeeekanownj@vail.net
13 March, 1997
Vail Town Council
Atten: Holly McCutcheon
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Council Members,
I would like to apply for a position on the TOV Art in Public Places Board. I enjoy the artwork around
town and believe I can contribute to the continued growth and excellence of the program. Although my
background is not in art, I have shown my photographs at many medical and scientific photographic
exhibits, including Exploring Microspace, an exhibition of the National Museum of Natural History, the
Armed Forces Medical Museum, and the Smithsonian Institution. The exhibition was on display at the
IBM Gallery of Science and Art, Mladison Avenue, New York, NY from 15 January to 23 March 1985.
Also, I have competed successfully in several juried medical and scientific photographic shows.
Thank you for considering me for one of the available board positions.
Sincerely, -
~
J 4rome. Jacobs
. • •
CURRICULUM VITA
Jerome B. Jacobs
Boa 1545
Vail, CO 81658
970.476.8600 (voice)
970.476.8599 (faa)
unknownj@vail.net
BORN: -
December 15, 1942 _
PHYSICAL ADDRESS:
1116 Sandstone Drive
Apt. 201
Vail, CO 81657
PRESENT POSITIOIV
Facilitator
Vail Cancer Support Group
Vail, CO 1992-Present
Responsible for helping Eagle and Summit County residents with cancer and other
chronic diseases learn to deal with their diagnoses and the various social and medical
problems they face as they integrate back into the community.
PAST POSITIONS:
Visiting Professor
Department of Medicine
Division of Nephrology
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
4200 E. Ninth Avenue
Denver, CO 80262 1992-1993
Responsibilities included teaching renal pathology to renal fellows, house officers, and
medical students.
Assistant Chief
Department of Laboratory Medicine
Saint Vincent Hospital
25 Winthrop Street
Worcester, MA 01604 1989-1991
Responsibilities included direction of Chemistry, Microbiology, Immunopathology,
Electron Microscopy, and Renal Pathology Laboratories; running or participating in
various medical conferences for house officers and attending physicians; teaching
medical students; and performing a variety of departmental administrative tasks.
Associate Professor of Pathology
University of Massachusetts Medical School 1989-1991
Responsibilities included teaching renal pathology to third and fourth year medical
students.
CIerWTreasurer
Central AHassachusetts Laboratory Associates, Inc.
25 Winthrop Street
Worcester, fUiA 01604 1989-1991
Ressponsibilities encfuded the 6netia/ seg up and day to day managemenf of ouv laboratory medicine group practece.
Renal Pathologist
Research Pathologist
. Department of Pathology • . Saint Vincent Hospital
• 25 VVinthrop Street
V1/orcester, MA 01604 1971-1989
Responsib/e for all aspects of laboaatory practice an the dAagnosing of rena/ disease.
EDUCATiON:
University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont B.A., 1965
University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont M.S., 1967
Clark University, Worcester, fVlassachusetts Ph.D., 1971
POST-GRADUATE EDUCATIORl:
National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship,
C/ark University 1971_1972
Basic Science Correlations in Disease States
Massachusetts A9edica/ Society , g72_1g73
Diagnostic Electron Microscopy
Intemationa/ Academy of Pathology 1976
Quantitative Analysis of Electron Micrographs: Stereology,
Morphometry, Optical Diffraction, and Three Dimensional Reconstruction
HAarine Biologica/ Laboratory, lhloods Ho/e, MA 1980
Immunopathologic Techniques in Diagnostic Pathology
Intemationa/ Academy of Pathology 1984
fVlolecular and Cellular Immunology
Marine Biologica/ Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA 1985
Renal Biopsy in fViedical Diseases of the Kidneys
Co/umbia Universify Col/ege of Physicians and Surgeons : - 1989
. Contemporary Issues in Nephrology
Harvard NNedica/ School 1992
FELLONIlSHIPS: Research Fellow, University of Vermont 1965-1967
Teaching Fellow, Clark University 1967-1968
National Science Foundation Predoctoral Assistantship,
University of Massachusetts 1968-1969
National Science Foundation Predoctoral Assistantship, Clark University 1969-1970
Research Fellow, Clarlc University 1970-1971
HOftlORS
Sigma Xi 1969
TEACHING APPOINTMENTS:
Instructor, University of Vermont 1965-1967
Instructor, Clark University 1967-1968
Instructor, University of Massachusetts IWedical School 1973-1989
Professor (Affiliate), Worcester Polytechnic Institute 1975-1981
Professor (Affiliate), Clark University 1985-1991
Associate Professor of Pathology, University of Massachusetts Medical School 1989-1991
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES:
American Association of Pathologists
. American Association for Cancer Research
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Society for Cell Biology
American Society of Clinical Pathologists
Electron Microscopy Society of America
European Association for Cancer Research _
International Academy of Pathology
Intemational Society of Nephrology
New England Society of Electron Microscopy
HOSPITAL COMMITTEES:
Medical Staff Executive Committee 1973-1981
Intem and Resident Committee 1973-1982
Medical Staff Library Committee 1973-1986
Chair, Library Committee 1982-1986
Institutional Review Board 1982-1991
Medical Staff Bylaws Committee 1988-1991
Medical Information System Task Force 1989-1991
Medical Staff Laboratory Committee 1988-1991
. C.
• 1 \ ; y
SARA A. NEWS"
P.O. BOX 953 . ~ • ~ -
B~ffldlL, COLO1&ADO 81658
. f.•, ;
303-476-5829
liRarch 15, 1997
'I'own Council
c/o I3olly MacCutcheon, Town Clerk
The Z'own of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
T'o 1V[embers of the Vail Town Council:
I am very interested in being considered as a candidate to fill one of the vacancies
that currently exists on one of the Town of Vail Boards. I have been a resident of
the Vail `Ialley for 29 years and am willing to devote the time necessary to helping
my community. Because of my background i feel that I could be of the most help
on either the Design Review Board or the Art In Public Places Board.
Although I have no formal training in architecture or design, I have an inherent
interest in both, and have worked closely with architects and designers in my
position here at liRanor Vail I.odge. I am responsible for making aesthetic -
judgments and recommendations to our owners on design and decoration of their
units. I have also been responsible for thz iurr.ishings and 4rtwork in the cozrimon
areas of the hotel.
I would be happy to supply additional information on my education and vvork
experience and appreciate your consideration of my interest. I can be reached
during the day at 476-5651.
Sincerely,
Sara A. IVewsam
Jerry Schildroth
~
MAR 1997 , i; ; i31
~
; 6.7.-.-._.1 _...._.,r1--7•.._.,...,..~
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
: { . i~.~.. March 14, 1997
Holly McCutcheon
Town Clerk . " 75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Co. 81657
Ms. McCutcheon
Iam submitting a letter for your consideration to serve in a position on either (AIPP) or (Liqout Board).
I will be a permanent resideat of two years to the Town of Vail in July of this year. I have owned a home
here since 1991.
I'am a graduate of the Kendall College of Design, located in Grand Rapids Michigan
I have been self employed since my graduation in 1964. I have served on many boards
since graduation. Most recent, president of UM1VfAC, Upper Midwest Mens Apparel Club.
I'am presently employed by Vail Associates as manager of the New Technology Center.
My summer position is a fishing guide for Fly-Fishing Outfitters in Avon. I forsee no
. problems with the time commitment involved with the Board work.
I would appreciate an interview on March 25th. .
Sincerely
Je Schildroth
- I~} A C~~? O p p O 0 4 m p O A A~~ A 0 4 C~ O 0 0
O O O m O O O p p p~ O O O O O ~ O O O O A O 0 O~
O 4 4 4 6 0 O 0 ~ O O G 0 C 0 0 A G 4 0 4 8 O 0 0 e
' ? 0 0 O O 4 O m O O O O A C 4 O 4 O 4 4 O O O O 4 O
- a'" ? 4~ O? O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O m~
' O~ m 4 0 O 4 O 4 O 0.4 0 0 4 4 0 O 4 4 O 4 O0 0
~
4 4? O O O O 0 O O~ O? m A 0 A 0 4 O 4 4 4~
O 0 O~ ~ O
? 0 O A ~ ?
O ~
O O O~ A
~ ~ O O O O O 0 1
o00000
NIKKI FU'1'ERATICK o 0 0 0 0 0.
930 F~IIR(~VAY DRI [TE o o~o 0 o a
[l.4IL, CO 81657 000000
~
,~'~LEPHD~IE 970-476-1980 F.4X 970-479-0335 0 0 0 0 0 o a
4 o00000
ooooooa
~ -Karch 18, 1997
000000
~oooooa
o00000
0oooooa
o00000
Holly McCutcheon ? o 0 0 0 0 0
Town Clerk o00000
?ooooom
75 South Frontage Road o 0 0 0 0 0
Vail, CO 81657 0000000
ooooom
~t~ ~ooooo0
Dear Ms : McCutcheon, o 0 0 0 0 0
0000000
I saw the advertisement in the Vail Daily looking fo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'~"people to serve on various boards in our community. I
` o00000
would like to apply for one of the positions on the Ar o 0 0 0 0
In Public Places (AIPP) board.
0 o 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
000000
While art is not a field in which I have special e o 0 0 0 0 0
expertise, I do have an interest in a r t t h a t has ena b le . o 0 0 0 o a
me to put together an eclectic collection in each of m oooooo.
0 o o~o 0 0 o homes. Starting with the "Organ Grinder" by Mark Lundee e o 0 0 0 0 0
00000000
which sits in the garden in front of my Vail home and is o o~o 0 0~0
0 0 0 0 0 0 o available for residents and tourists alike to enjoy; you o 0 0 0 0 0-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o will see the variety of artists whose work I admire. Some O_4 °
0 0 0 000000 of the other •
00000o pieces that I have here in Vail are by the s o o o o o o o o o o o 0
0 0 0 0 0 o c artists John Boomer, Romero Britto, Bill Girard, James o 0 0 0 0 0-
~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _Haire, Dave McGary, Don Mi tchel , Dave Parker, and Masoud e o 0 0 0 0 0
000000
>ooooo00 1'asami. ooooo0.
aooooo~
0000000 - '
000000>oooo0 oe I do not live in Vail all o.
000000o year long, but I am at home in o o o o o o o o o o o *
> o 0 0 0 0 0 o Vail for some time every month, except for May and • o 0 0 0 0 0
> 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 o November. I could be here for regularly scheduled board o 0 0 0 0 0.
oo
0 0 meetings. ?ooooo0
00000
000000•
>ooooo00
?oo
0 0 0 0 0 0 o s you will see, I do have extensive experience, serving o 0 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 0
.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 on Boards, and "making things happen. " I would like to ° o 0 0 0 0 0
>ooooo0o serve on this board and ho e oooooo•
p you will select me. *0 00o0 0
0000000 ,
~
0 oo 0 o 0 oo 0 0 0 0 000000.
Very sincerely, ~ooooo0
00 , , oooooo.
~0 0 ooo00 0000000 ' ~ ! . • ~ ~ooooo0
o.oooooo
0000000 ~ ~ o000000
ooooo00
Mikki Futernick o o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 0 I
~
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000 •ooooo*
0oooooa
0000000
000000ooooopoooo~ooooooooopoocemooe?~0pm~~pmm~mp~o?0?eo?o~?~ooo oo0a
000000000000000000000000000oooooa~0cooooaooo~oooooooaooooo00000000
00000000000000000000000000000oooooaaooooo00oooooaoooooo~ooooooooooa
000000000000000000000000000000000000000ooooomooooo0000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000~00000000000000ooooov0oocooooo000
00000000000000000000ooooocooooo00000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000ooooom~eomoomooooo000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000ooooocooocoocomaooooocmooooooooocaoocooooo0000
PERSONAL INFORMATION FOR
M I KK I FU'1'ERN I CK
NAME: MIRIAM (MIKKI) FUTERNICK
ADDRESSES: 2 GROVE ISLE DRIVE #1509 930 FAIRWAY DRIVE
MIAMI, FL 33133 VAIL, CO 81657
TELEPHONES: 305-856-9286 970-476-1980
, FAX - 305-854-9584 FAX - 970-479-0335'
MARITAL STATUS: MARRIED TO MORRIS FUTERNICK FOR 38 YEARS.
CHILDREN'S NAMES AND AGES:
CATHIE FUTERNICK DEL VALLE (37) MARRIED TO BERT DEL VALLE
FRANK FUTERNICK (34) MARRIED TO KAREN BEBER
LEE FUTERNICK (32) ENGAGED TO NICOLE FRANK
JEFFREY FUTERNICK (29) MARRIED TO JOAN SALZMAN
DR. MARC FUTERNICK (27) MARRIED TO CHRISTY RODRIGUEZ
GRANDCHILDREN'S NAMES AND AGES:
MITCHELL SKLAWER 14
ANDREW SKLAWER 13
JAKE DEL VALLE 4 -
ALEXANDER FUTERNICK 6 MONTHS
PROFESSION: CAMPAIGN CONSULTANT, MILTON HOOD WARD COMPANY
EDUCATION: BA IN SOCIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
VOLUNTEER ACTIVITIES
MIAMI SECULAR COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES:
1. CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION ON CHILD CARE - 1973 - 1976
2. DADE COUNTY COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN - 1977 - 1980
3. BAPTIST HOSPITAL, WOMEN'S ADVISORY BOARD - 1990
4. UNITED WAY, DE TOQUEVILLE SOCIETY - 1990
JEWISH COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES:
1. GREATER MIAMI JEWISH FEDERATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS - 1979 - 1985, 1996
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - 1980 - 1985
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, SOUTH DADE BRANCH - 1982 -1984
PRESIDENT, WOMEN'S DIVISION - 1984-1985
2. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN
PRESIDENT, GREATER MIAMI SECTION - 1973 -74
FLORIDA AREA CHAIRMAN, - 1975 -1977
SOUTHERN DISTRICT BOARD, - 1974 - 1977
I
e
3. UNITED JEWISH APPEAL
NATIONAL WOMEN'S DIVISION BOAR.D 1984 - 1995
NATIONAL CHAIRMAN - SOLICITATION TRAINING 1984 - 1888
FLORIDA REGIONAL CHAIRMAN 1988 - 1990
NATIONAL CHAIRMAN - LION OF JUDAH 1990 - 1993
. NATIONAL TRAINING CENTER - 1986 - 1990 4. A E PHI ALUMNI ASSOCIATION, PRESIDENT - 1968 - 1969
BOARD - 1963 - 1975
. S. CENTRAL AGENCY FOR JEWISH EDUCATION, BOAR,D - 1975 - 1978 '
' 6. HILLEL OF FLORIDA, BOARD - 1985 - 1988
7. DAVE AND MARY ALPER JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTERS
CAPITAL CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN - 1983 - 1986
8. ISRAEL TENNIS CENTERS, INTERNATIONAL BOARD - 1993
9. ZIFF JEWISH MUSEUM, BOAR.D OF TRUSTEES - 1993
VAIL COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES:
1.. VAIL VALLEY TOUR.IST BOARD, COMMUNITY HOST VOLUNTEER - 1996
2. CONGREGATION B'NAI VAIL, MEMBER - 1982
PERSONAL STATEMENT ABOUT MYSELF:
I have had the good fortune to be able to devote myself to
secular and Jewish communal life. In the more than 30 years that
I worked as a community volunteer, I was able to design and
implement a variety of management and campaign training programs
that are in still in use today, throughout North America.
I was able to help create a Jewish Community Center_ by raising
- the consciousness of the community to the need for the Center and
_ then raising the $10 million needed 'to build it.
I chaired the national committee that designed the Lion of
Judah Endowment program for the Women's Division of the United
Jewish Appeal and in the three years since its creation, more than
150 women have created a LOJE Fund (minimum contribution $100,000).
I taught at Temple Beth Am for 10 years - teaching Jewish
American history to 8th grade students. I still see many of my
students and they remember the things they learned in my class.
I am truly blessed!
,
RECEIVED MAR 1 9 1997
_ March 19, 1997 j
e n
, Holly McCutcheon PJ 3~ If-
Town Clerk
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Ms. McCutcheon:
Attached please find resume and reference letters for Catherine M. Zaden.
I would like to be considered for placement on the Art in Public Places Board. If this
position has been filled, I am also interested in any of the other three (3) Town of Vail
board appointments.
I have extensive experience in City and County bureaucracy and consider Vail a parallel
to my home town of Fort Lauderdale in its growth patterns, demographics, as well as
being a destination resort.
Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to speaking with you in person.
Yours truly,
u
athy Z
> ~
~ , .
• Catherine M. Zadeim ]Pos'g Offlse Box 6504, Vai9, Co9oaado 81658
,
(990) 476-0033 .
Professaonal lExperienee and Assomwl'eshanents
. (bwner/]Part¢ner, AccoannQ Execaeteve, aand Produsteon Manager ' .
Great Locations Magazine, Palm Beach County Edition; 1994 - 1996
o Played key role in successfully cazrying magazine concept to Palm Beach County.
; • o Sold advertising throughout Palm Beach and Broward Counties. .
- 0 Managed production of twice-yearly magazine. - Oweeer/]Pau-kner, Accoannt Executed~ and Producteoen Manager _
Great Locations Magazine, Fort Lauderdale Edition; 1991 - 1995.
o Conceived and created upscale regional travel guidebook about South Florida. Played key
roles in every stage of development,-including marketing, revenue forecasting, and budgeting:
Identified and solicited advertisers. In three years, annual distribution grew from 0 to
860,000+ copies. Profitability exceeded all expectations, as annual sales rose from $0 to more
than $460,000 (primarily through "cold calling"). , o Established and cultivated effective business relationships with advertisers and other key
executives in tourism, hotels, restaurants, amactions, retailing, real estate, arts and cultural
organizations, and other businesses.
o Devised and managed distribution system to hotels, airports, airlines, travel agents, convention
planners, Chambers of Commerce, restaurants, shopping malls, and other locations.
o Coordinated entire production process with printers, color sepazators, graphic artists,
. copywriters, translators, typesetters, photographers. Arts Admenost¢-agor
Office of Cultural Affairs, Broward Counry, Fort Lauderdale; 1987 - 1990.
o Coordinated and administered multidisciplinary cultural affairs grants program with
$1.7 milhon annual budget.
• Implemented compliance review procedures and reports to monitor 130+ grant recipients:
o Evaluated grant requests and prepared funding recommendations for board members. .
o Maintained high community profile through lectures, advertisements, seminars, interviews. -
o Acted as Liaison to cultural organizations, government agencies, and the public.
o Developed and presented educational programs and seminars for community leaders,
government officials, grant recipients. Created brochures and publications. '
o Supervised professional and volunteer staffof ten.
Aut Assocuage Office of Cultural Affairs, Broward County, Fort Lauderdale; 1987 - 1990.
o Coordinated and collaborated in development of "Arts In Education Program" program with
School Board of Broward County.
o Managed program, including fiscal affairs, public relations, and computer information system
o Provided technical assistance and conducted workshops for artists and arts organizations.
o Represented office on Cultural Executives Committee and at statewide trade shows. •
- - Page 2 :
Catherine M. Zaden
Professionai Experience and Accomplishments (continued)
Sales, Marlceting, and Administrative positions in corporate and not-for-profit sectors
Fort Lauderdale, Cliicago; 1984 - 1987. Education '
- Bachelor of Arts_degree, Arts Management Universiry of Alabama, 1984 Certificate in Arts Admanistration Sangamon State Universiry, Springfield, Illinois, 1987 Professional development seminars and workshops in arts management and tourism
National Sociery of Fund Raising Executives, National •Alliance of Local Arts Agencies, Alliance
of New York State Arts Councils, Universiry of Florida Center for the Arts and Public Policy,
1987 - 1994 . . .
Volunteer Involvement .
• Jeep Whitewater Festival and Champion International Whitewater Series, Vail, volunteer ,
coordinator, 1996 .
• Art a la Carte, fund raising event for Museum of Art, Fort Lauderdale, underwriting chairman, 1993
• Junior League of Fort Lauderdale, volunteer, 1988 - 1990 - , • Stranahan House Historical Museum, Fort Lauderdale, fund raising volunteer, 1987 • Beach Subcommittee for the General Obligation Bond Citizens Committee, Advisory -
Committee member, 1987 - 1990
• School Board of Broward County, Cultural Enrichment Committee member, 1988
• Florida Urban Arts Study Group, Broward County representative, 1986 • Contemporaries, young professionals' fund raising support group for Museum of Art, Fort
Lauderdale, founder, 1986 ,
• University of Alabama Homecoming Celebration, chairman, 1983 Professional References Available Upon Request
~
~ JOHN E. RODSTROM, JR., CHAIR
BROWARD COUMTV Board of County Commissioneps
(305) 357-7007 ~ FAX (305) 357-7295
RiTay 3, 1996
To Vdhom it May Concern:
This is a letter of introduction for Cathy Zaden. I have known ;.er family for about thirty
years as members of the Fort Lauderdale community and I have known Cathy for ten years. Cathy's
strengths are her integrity, creativity and her work ethic. Cathy has always been a driving force in
whatever enterprise she participates.
Cathy was a key member of my campaign staff when I ran for election. Cathy was the
campaign treasurer and in that capacity she had to account for all expenditures and contributions she
also participated in fundraising and strategy. She served as the youngest member of the Fort
Lauderdale Beach kevitalization Board. This board was instrumental in overseeing a 20 million
dollar plus facelift program for the City of Fort Lauderdale. Cathy also worked for Broward County
in the Cultural A$'airs Department as Director of Grants. She then started a tourism magazine called
Great Locations. She built a business that is very successfial today. She had the magazine translated
into four languages, organized the distribution of the publication into the appropriate venues, sold
the magazine to both tourists and advertisers. Cathy oversaw the layout, printing and supervised the
photo shoots. Through Cathy's devotion, Great Locatiorrs evolved into the most popular tourist
magazine in the Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach areas.
Cathy is both irnelligent and knowledgeable. She brings these qualities to her every task.
Cathy succeeds in her projects because of her determination and tenacity combined with her dynamic
personality.
I would recommend Cathy Zaden for employment. She has proven to me that she is a multi-
faceted individual willing to put the time and energy into her every endeavor.
Sincerely,
.
lo Rodstrom, Chair
JER/jak
BROWARD COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL CENTER ? 115 SOUTH ANDREWS AVENUE 0 FORT LAUDERDALE. FLORIDA 33:_ '
r
Cultural dffairs Divisibn
~ 100 S. Andrews Avenue
~ Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
BROWARD COUNTY (954) 357-7457 • FAX (954) 357-5769
World Wide Web: http://www.co.broward.fl.us/arts.htm
September 9, 1996
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is to recommend Catherine M. Zaden for positions of increasing responsibility.
I have known Cathy Zaden for the past ten (10 ) years, principally in the capacity as her
supervisor when she served as administrator with the Broward County Cultural Affairs Division
from 1985 - 1990 and as a professional and personal associate following her county service.
Ms. Zaden is the type of employee which all employers desire. She possesses the executive
ability to handle a substantial workload and to independently direct the implementation of a
program or special event. During the period of Ms. Zaden's employment, the division
experienced a high rate of growth. She had the capacity to conceive, coordinate, and implement
new programs in arts education, grants to not-for-profit organizations and cultural tourism
marketing with very little direction.
During the past several years, I again had the opportunity to work with Ms. Zaden as co-owner
of Great Locations. She was able to create a new concept to fill a community.need for an
upscale tourism publication serving U.S. and foreign visitors. Broward County Cultural Affairs
purchased a variety of advertisements to promote the arts. The ads were outstanding and added
to the visitor base of cultural institutions.
On a personal basis, Ms. Zaden has wonderful interpersonal skills. She has a charming manner
and personal warmth that provides outstanding results in her dealings with the community.
I would recommend Cathy Zaden without hesitation for any position.
Sincerely,
l~
Mary. Becht
Director
MAB:am
0-96-763
BROWARD COUNN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - An Equal Opportunity Emptoyer and Provider ot Services
Scott L Cowan Suzcnne N. Gunzburc_• John P. Hart Lcri Nc^ce Parrish ~vlvia Poitier John E. Rodstrom, Jr. 6erald F. Thomoson
We're Building A Future For Your Family. And Youi Business.
l. • _ .
~ John E. Abdo
1~ll¢9 Vice Chairman, Board of Directors
JU~CLLAJL~1'y~tAc Chairman, Executive Committee .
ID (305j 4491 91-929~ D~ t
BankAtlantic
A Federal SaNings Bank
1750 East Sunrise Boulevard
May 3,1996 Fort Lauderdale, F7orida 33304
(305) 760-5023 Bank
To Whom It May Concern:
I am pleased to have the opportunity to write this letter of
recommendation for my good friend, Cathy Zaden. Cathy, and for
that matter her entire family, have been well known to me for over
20 years so rest assured that what I say about Cathy in this letter is
well founded.
It's not often in life that an exceptionally fine young lady like Cathy
comes along. NOt only is she intelligenf and mature - her judgment
and wisdom are far beyond her youthful age. Marion and Dr.
Joseph Zaden, her parents, reared her with much love and
encouragement and because of this she is a refined and gracious
woman. Even though Cathy is very beautiful, her best assets are
reflected in her character, loyalty, and honesty that have been
indelibly etched within her and as a consequence it forms the code
by which she lives.
Sometime ago, Cathy along with a partner, started a local magazine
entitled "Great Locations." This magazine was highly successful
and she received many accolades for her creative and distinctive
work.
- I wholeheartedly endorse Cathy for any company worthy of her
abilities. There's no question in my mind that she can capably
perform the tasks assigned to her and that she can work well with
associates from all wallcs of life.
Cathy is a friend, but more than that she's a very good person, and
I'm pleased and proud to be asked to write this letter of
recommendation for her.
Sincerely,
Q
MEAABRA?NDl1M
TO: Vail Towrn Council FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: April 1, 1997
SUBJECT: Review of existing GRFA policy and alternatives
Staff: Russell Forrest
L PB3RPOSE:
The purpose of this wrorksession is to review the analysis for three alternatives to the existing
GRFA regulations for single family, duplex, and primary/secondary type structures. This memo
will describe: how to implement each of these alternatives; what hornes might look like under
each alternative; and will identify considerations that would need to be evaluated for each
alternative. On March 10th, the PEC, in a 4-3 vote, recommended alternative 1 with several
conditions. At the April 1 st Council wrorksession, staff wrill review the alternatives along with the
recommendations from the PEC and staff. At the evening meeting on April 15th, staff would like
to ask for Council's preferred alternative. Once Council decides on a preferred alternative staff
will begin the implementation process. This could include additional research to answer
questions relating to the preferred action and wrould include developing proposed code revisions.
111. PF80BLEM STATEAAENT & GIVENS:
The Vail Town Council directed staff to evatuate 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 reviewing 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 uvill be some form of regulatory control of size and mass.
C) This process will only address residential development (single-family, duplex, and
prim ary/second ary type structures).
D) "No action" (i.e. keeping the existing GRFA system) is a viable alternative.
E) Homes should not get significantly larger in size.
F) IVew design guidelines should not inhibit design creativity.
1
~
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,
Analysis 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 public 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 members 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
0
Q
OVv PB"9O\./ESS OVERtlIIEtlC.
The process for this project is broken into three phases 1) identification of alternatives; 2)
analysis of alternatives; and 3) legislative review of the preferred alternative. The following 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 30th
and alternatives. 31 st, 1996
3) Presentation to PEC and Town Council to review pros/cons and IVovember 11&
(PEC) public input. The purpose of these public meetings was to iVovember 26
determine if any of the alternatives could be eliminated. 1996
Phase II Analyze how to implemenf alternatives and identify the iml2acts of each alternative
4) Complete analysis of alternative approaches. December & January
1996/1997
5) PEC worksession to revieuv 3 alternatives February 10, 1997
6) PEC hearing to recommend an alternative March 10, 1997
7) Council worksession March 11, 1997
8) Evening Council meeting to decide on alternative April 1 st, 1997
if additional time is needed from the March 11th worksession
Phase III Legislative Review of preferred 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 fiearing
11) Town Council: worksession to review proposed revision to
the existing GRFA regulations
12) Town Council: first reading of an ordinance
13) Town Council: second reading of an ordinance
3
0
. ~
V CURRENT IMPACT OF GRFA AND SITE COVERAGE:
A. Overview of GRFA and Site Coveraae
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 control 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. GRFA . .
In reference to GRFA, there is a graduated formula for controlling floor area. For example, the
calculation for primary/secondary, duplex, and single-family type homes is the following:
Max GRFA (Floor Area) _ .25 x lot area between 0 sq ft and 15,000 sq ft.
+
.10 x lot area between 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 lot 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 Coveraae
Site coverage is not graduated and is simply 20% of the total tot 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
0
Q
TABLE 1
LOT SIZES IN THE TOWN OF VAEL
Lo4 Area (square fee4) Percen4 Total Number An Fiange
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
Toials: 100% 611
E. Impact of GRFA and Site Coverage
Staff reviewed how GRFA and site coverage work together and what would 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 "No GRFA" lines reflect the range of how big a home could be if site
coverage and building height were the only limiting factors. The No GRFA (low) line
assumes that a developer would use 100% of the allowable 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 IVo GRFA (high) line assumes that a developer wrould use 100% of
the allowable site coverage for the 1 st floor and the massing above the 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 sizes exceed 20,000
square feet, then GRFA is clearly the controlling factor in terms of bulk and mass. If
GRFA were 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. With GRFA, a building could only be as large as 7,800
square feet in size (writh credits). Therefore, GRFA does control massing on larger lots in
the Town of Vail.
5
T
Figure 1
Floor Area Corriparisian
..,.,........,,.,,,t
25,000 r zc.......................................
" •
. . . . . 'k
. 20.000
~ ~ . . . : '
- ~ r
~ 15,~ ' , ; AK3 GF~'1~(~) r; • NR ~p{iaK)
~
~ a
a r
`o GRFA + Gedits
0 10,~
Gf~A~redris :
IL . > . : .
. . o . : .
' - - - - NO GRFA (Lav)
- - No GRFA (FSgh)
5,000 ' , . `
. _ : ,
0 , . , . . . . .
°o °o °o °o o° °o °o °o °o °o °o °o °o °o °o °o °8 g o ~ °o_ o °o_ °o_ o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0
m o c~i v co ao o ni vi r~ oi ri tri ~ o c%i ~ cc ao o c~ ~ cc m o
~ r. ~ ~ N N N N N M fh M f`') V R RIq 1n Ln L[Y ln (D
Lot llrea (sq 8•) .
VI. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES:
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
homedwners 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 completety 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
6
U
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
wrould have to first build that additional floor 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 with this alternative by only applying it to homes built before a
certain date. Properry 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 walk-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 further complicate
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, which 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, particularly 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 No GRFA lines reflect the potential building mass without
GRFA and using a site coverage allowance 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
T
Figure 2
Reduced Site Coverage
12,000 .
Pfo G13:FA ~H~gh}
10,000 ~A+C redits
8,000 ~ ~ ;
k7~.G£i~A(1.4W3 : GRFA+Credits
NOGRFA(Low)
6,000
o
A (Hgh)
O GRF
- N
0 i
• -
: . . . . .
- 4.000 . . ' : . : _
2,000 .
<
.;;:i;.>. . . . " . <
0
O O O o O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O (=O O
00 N CD N N N M M a V tn U N
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 imptemented. 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 Creek) have recorded maximum GRFA
limits on the plat. The Town would have to recognize these limits and ensure that homes
did not exceed those 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 controlling GRFA, site coverage, height, and design.
8
e
Q
E. Summary of Alternatives Table 2
Summar of Alternatives
Alterna4ive Problem 1: Problem 2: Problem 3: Ground rule: Ground rule: Key Gssues:
E4fec4ideness In4eusiveness Simpliciry/ Do no4 increase Do not
in controlling of YOV Staff & size hinder
mass and regulating Applicant design
bults in4erior Yime crea4ivity
space
, Altemative. GRFA does This Would be Could increase size Staff A) Equity: 1- not control alternative very unless it is applied recommends People will still
Keep design but it would provide complicated if only to homes built new design want to build in
GRFA but does control greater applied to prior a certain date guidelines vaufted areas
allow mass of homes flexibiliry 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 new design. be applied to
homes new homes?
Afternative Will increase Somewhat Would 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 alt.
basement grade. regulating since base above grade. 2
space basement ment area
space would have to
be calculated
Altemative Site coverage, Does address Staff may Could increase Same as This
3-No design this issue. have to building size above alternatives
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
effectiveness in
implementing
- the guidelines.
Vail is 90%
buift 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 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recognizes that this is a very complex issue that invofves 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 decision 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 GRFA 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 strong/y recommends that these types of changes need to
be imp/emented regardless of which alternative is chosen. Staff feels that adequate flexibility
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 alternatives, 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 would
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) Need 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 equity 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.
10
v
V9BV PEc REcaM~~~~AMN:
Tabie 3 summarizes the members of the PEC's stated preferences for each aiternative. The
numbers in Table 3 reflect how many PEC members voted for an alternative with respect to a
preference.
Table 3
PEC Preferences
. 1 st 2nd 3rd 4th Unacceptable .
Preference Preference Prefarence Preference
Alternative 1- Keep 3 2 2
GRFA & allow
interior
modifications.
Alternative 2- Don't 0 4 1 2
count basement
space as GRFA
Alternative 3- 4 1 2
Eliminate GRFA
Alternative 4 1 2
No Action
There was significant discussion regarding each of the alternatives in the context of choosing
preferences; 3 members had alternative 1 as their first choice and 4 members choose alternative
3 as their first preference. Two members of the PEC felt that Alternatives 1 and 2 are
unacceptable. The final motion, approved 4-3, was to recommend alternative 1 with ihe following
conditions:
* Apply to existing development and future development in order to address the equity
issue. -
* A volumetric multiplier would need to be developed and be applied to future
construction to prevent the creation of large vaulted spaces in new homes.
' Don't include basement space that is completely below grade in GRFA calculations
(This is basically Alternative 2). PEC acknowledged that Alternative 1 could achieve
many of the aspects of Alternative 2 and staff would need to look at this issue more
closely.
The members of the Planning Commission were supportive of implementing improved design
guideline regardless of what alternative was finally selected.
ll
r
IBA II/ IBRAUN. ASSOCllAIf IES. IINC.
PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVEIOPMENT
MEMORANDUIVI
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 ehe three
potential altematives 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
GRFA, 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 previous discussions regarding GRFA.
3) Proposed Lanuage
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 "final ordinance language". Rather, it is intended to provide the
Council, Planning Commission and communzty with a better understanding of how each
alternative could be implemented and additional 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 altemative to the existing GRFA system.
Minturn Ironworks Building Phone - 970.8275797
201 Main StreeL 2nd Floor Fax - 970.8275507
Post Office Box 776
Mmturn. Colorado 81645
~
Afltea-nat9ve #1 - Interior Conversions
Description 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 alternati.ve 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 GRFA 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 mod.ifications to homes do not increase building
bullc and mass.
' Proposed Language '
This alternative would be implemented with the addition of a new chapter in the zoning code
similaz in the manner in which the 250 Ordinance has been structured. This chapter would have
the following major sections:
1) Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to provide flexibility and latitude in the use of interior spaces .
within existing single-family and two-family structures that meet or exceed allowable
GRFA by allowing for the conversion of interior spaces to.GRFA provided certain
conditions and standazds are met.
2) Applicability
° Any existing single-family residence or any existing dwelling unit in a structure
containing no more than two dwelling units shall be eligible to add additional
GRFA in excess of existing or allowable GRFA provided that the additional GRFA
complies with the standards outlined in paragraph 3 below.
° Multi-family units aze not eligible for additional GRFA permitted by the provisions
bf this chapter.
3) Standards • "
° Proposals for the utilization of additional GRFA under this provision shall not add
to or increase the building bulk and mass of the existing structure. Examples of
exterior modifications which add to or increase building bulk and mass include, but
are not limited to any expansion of the e}cisting 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 pazking space to
GRFA, such conversion shall not reduce the total number of enclosed on-site
parking spaces.
Phase IUGRFA Analysis
E
4) Process
• Application made to Department of Community Development to include applicable
forms, fees, and existing and proposed floor plans. Design review application shall
be required for all proposals involving modifications to exterior of buildings.
• Community Department staff shall review application for compliance with this
chapter and all applicable zoning and development review regulations.
• 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 development review regulations shall be denied.
. • Upon receiving approvals pursuant to this chapter, applicants shall proceed with
securing building pernut prior to initiating construction of project.
Issues to Consider
The "mechanics" of implementing the interior conversion alternative are fairly straight forward.
Outstanding issues pertain primarily to when this option could be utilized by a homeowner. For
example, the language outlined above states that the purpose of this alternative is to "provide
flexibiliry and latitude in the use of interior spaces within existinQ single-family and two-family
structures". This begs the question of when is a home "existing". The following summarizes
implications relative 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 be designed to allow for the conversion of space in the
future. For example, it would be relatively easy to design over-sized void spaces in
basement levels and to design additional or larger vaulted spaces on upper levels, both of
which could then be converted to floor azea in the future if this alternative is available to all
homes. The end result of this scenario could be new homes that are lazger than they would
otherwise have been if interior conversions were not permitted.
• Require new construction (homes completed after adoption of this ordinance) to wait a
certain time period prior to utilizin,g,, ordinance
If there is concern with the scenario outlined above, an alternative would be to require a
waiting period (i.e. the five years rec}uired for the 250 ordinance) before new homes could
- apply for ittterior conversions. Having 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 adopted
This is the cleanest way to implement the alternative. 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
~
A9ternagave #2 - Basement Space
Description of Alternative
This alternative would amend the definition of GRFA to exclude basement space from calculation
as GRFA.
Issues to be Addressed
0 Develop 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 paragraph would be modified with the addition of the following:
5. The floor area of any level of a structure that is located a minimum of six (6) feet below
natural grade (or existing grade prior 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 structure that is located a minimum of six (6) feet below
natural grade (or existing grade prior to coristruction) 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 grade shall be made in order to establish the percentage of the
level which shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA. This percentage shall be made by
deternuning 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 flQOr area of the subject level, and the resulting total
shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA.
Issues to Consider
0 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.
0 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
CALCULATION OF BASEMENT SPACE
~~v0
. -
~ .
~
i ~
~
~
Buildling Cross-section -
Point where basement
level is 6' below grade Slab on
grade Point where basement
~ level is 6' below grade
T
Basement Level 25,
1,250 sq. ft.
50'
Basement Level Floor Plan
CAI,CULATION
150' - LINEAR EXTERIOR WALL AT BASEMENT LEVEL
50' - PORTION OF EXTERIOR WALL 6' OR MORE BELOW GRADE
33%- PERCENTAGE OF BASEMENT LEVEL 6' OR MORE BELOW (50'/150')
1,250 (SQ. FT. BASEMENT LEVEL) X.33 = 412 SQUARE FEET EXCLUDED
a
Afltee-natuve #3 - IEflHgllllllna$~ GRIE'A
Description of Alternative
This alternative would eliminate GRFA as a tool for controlling the bulk and mass of single-family,
duplex and primary/secondary buildings. In order to prevent the development of large, non-
descript boxes, this alternative would also include more restrictive site coverage standazds for
larger lots and new design guidelines that specifically address building bulk and mass. Existing
_ GRFA regulations 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 altemative are:
0 Assurances/controls must be established to prevent the design and construction of large,
non-descript box-like structures.
0 The DRB must be capable of inteipreting and implementing any proposed modifications to
the design guidelines.
0 Any measures proposed to prevent large, non-descript box-like structures must not stifle
design creativity.
Proposed Langu_age
This alternative would involve four major elements:
1) Initiate a"global search" of the zoning code to identify all references to GRFA pertaining to .
single-fanuly, duplex and primary/secondary development. Examples of these references
include:
0 the definition of GRFA for buildings containing two or fewer units, and
0 the reference to GRFA in the density section of single family, duplex and
primary/secondary zone districts.
2) New parking requirements for single-family, duplex and primary/secondary units:
° A minimum of three (3) off street parking spaces shall be provided for each single
family unit or for each dwelling unit within 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 caverage regulations to limit 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°Io 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 cunently
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
Y
Building Height, Bulk and Mass
The size and scale of single family, duplex and primary/secondary homes play an important
role 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.
Notwithstanding these quantitative standards, site specific features such as vegetation and
topography and architectural solutions significantly influence the perceived 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 deternlination 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:
Building 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 pernutted. Generally, the footprint of a third floor should not exceed
50% of the floor area immediately below and horizontal and/or vertical building off-sets
should be provided to reduce the perceived bulk and mass of the building.
Buildiqg Form
In lieu of large, monumental building mass, buildings should be designed as either a
composition of smaller, integrated building forms or in a form which consists of one
primary building mass in conjunction with one or more secondary building forms.
Rid elg ines
Changes in the height and orientation of roof lines add variety and interest to buildings
which can reduce building bulk and mass. The extent of variations in the height and
orientation of ridgeline 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 change in the orientation of the ridgeline or a variation of at
least 3-4' feet in the elevation of the ridgeline.
Slopin,g Lots
Buildings on sloping lots should be designed to "step" with natural contours of the site in
order to maintain a predominantly one to two-story building mass.
Building Scale
A variety of architectural 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
0 Fenestration
Refer to the accompanying sketches for examples of how these design concepts can be more
clearly expressed in graphic form.
Phase IUGRFA Analysis
a
4
Issues to Consider
0 In order to not limit architects design creativity, qualitative guidelines are proposed in lieu
of quantitative standards. This altemative places a great deal of responsibility in the hands
of the DRB, is the Board capable of this task?
0 Are design guideiines explicit enough and will they provide the DRB with the tools
necessary to prevent "large, non-descript boxes"?
.0 Is it necessary to reduce allowable site coverage for lazger lots or will a reduction to
allowable site coverage encourage taller buildings?
0 Are three parking spaces per unit adequate or is some other formula (i.e. based on number
' or bedrooms) necessary?
~ Is there a need for design guidelines which address bulk and mass regardless of whether or
not changes are made to the GRFA system?
Phase IUGRFA Analysis
r
Town of Vail GRFA Analysis
Potential Design Guidelines/No GRFA Alternative
,
Building Form
In lieu of large, ~ -
, monumental building
mass, buildings should
be designed as either a ~ - _
composition of smaller, .
integrated building forms ~
or in a form which • a~
consists of one primary
building mass and one or
more secondary building
forms.
Composition of building forms reduces building bulk and
i12t1SS.
Secondaryform
- - _ Primaryform
;
- ~lpl . _ ` Y4
- - ,
_n~ryf _ C'
Oa=S',~„~'. -e..: 1
Primaryform
u..~- -
Secondaryform
_ _ l~
~
Examples of primary and secondary building forms.
These sketches are from 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 the "no grfa" alternative.
1
Q
. 'ICown of VaIld GRFA Analysis
Poaentead Desigu~ Guidelines/No GRFA AIlternative
Banilding Heigtnt
Buildings should convey a
predominantly one or two-story
building mass. Three-story
massing may be approved by
the DRB, however, large
expansesof continuous three- story building mass is not ~ ` •4~'
pernutted. Generally, the
footprint of a third floor should
not exceed 50% of the floor
area immediately below and ~ - ~ ~ -
horizontal and/or vertical - - -
building off-sets should be ~
provided to reduce the
perceived bulk and mass of the
building. . .
Three stories are appropriate because floor area of third
level does not exceed SO% of level below.
. J
,
JI
~ /
I
1 i
_.I
~ f
L'. .
Variation in ridge line elevations, building offsets, use of dormers and decks reduce bulk and
mass, building does not "read" as three stories.
,
Town of Vail GRFA Analysis i
Potential Design Guidelines/No GRFA fllternative
Ridgelines
Changes in the height and ,
orientation of roof lines add ~ 7S~=10` ~
" variety and interest to buildings 3_y, which can reduce building bulk and mass. The extent of variations
in the height and orientation of
ridgeline 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 50'-70' should be off-
change in the orientation of the set at least 3'-4'.
ridgeline or a variation of at least
34' feet in the elevation of the
ridgeline.
Ct7
Variations in roof ridgelines ~ .
provide variety and breaks-up ~
building mass created by
continuous ridgeline.
~i~• '~~'f - ~ ~ , Change in ridge line elevation and orientation creates two distinct
building forms and breaks up building mass.
These sketches are from 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 th"e "no grfa" alternative.
0
4
'ICovvun off Vanfl GRFA Elnaflysas
PotentIlafl Desflgun GaaideYenes/No GRFA Alternatnve
S9oping Lots
Buildings on sloping lots
should be designed to "step"
" with natural contours of the site in order to maintain a
' predominantly one to two-
. story building mass. s
s
s
i
s
s
/
s
~
/
s
s
~
Building mass should be "benched" into the hillside.
B
_
-
% ~ - /
- O y
~
Y ~
p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~•`o~- •
~ ~-•.~4.. a` • w
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
sketches be used for GRFA related guidelines. Rather, [his example illustrates how sketches cou(d be used to reinforce the
design guidelines proposed for the "no grfa" alternative.
e
v
Town of Vail GRFA Analysis
PotentiaIl Design Guidelines/No GRFA Alternative
_ Building Scale A variety of architectural 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 . ~
~
J ~~l h
. ~ ~ •
• ~ f
l ( •
EM ME~ ~
Z=
. , ~ .
~
, ` v 1 Building offsets, roofline and dormer
~ all contribute to reduce the mass of
this building.
f
?
~
' Bay window and balcony reinforce
human-scale.
These sketches are from 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 the "no grfa" alternative.
0
~
. f
Othee- gssues Itelagive to GR]EA Amendments
1. Amendments for EHU's and Permanent Residents Only
During previous discussions comments 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 the applicability of these provisions to only EHU's and/or permanent
residents could be done. This would not, however, further the original intent of this process
which was to:
° Evaluate the effectiveness of GRFA as a means for controlling building size
° Address the time required to administer the current system ° Resolve the appropriateness issue of the Town regulating interior floor space Limiting the applicabiliry 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 recognized short-coming of GRFA is that it regulates floor area and not building volume and
as a result GRFA does not effectively control building bulk and mass. Aspen is the only
community that has been identified which addresses vaulted space with floor area regulations. The
Aspen code essentially applies a multiplier to the floor area of vaulted space. For example, floor
azea with 10' plate heights or less count at a ratio of one square foot for each one square foot. For
interior areas with a plate height which exceeds 10°, the ratio increases by .OS feet for each foot
over 10' up to a maximum 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 squaze feet for each one square foot of floor area).
Phase IUGRFA Analysis ~
. 4v5 i k ~1 ~~,u~. ~ ~ . . .
~
April 1, 1997
I served 14 years on DRB and PEC as a volunteer...no $ motive. I delivered a letter
nearly a year ago for inclusion in your packet but I never heazd a word from anyone about
its contents so I will repeat a couple of the thoughts now.
I read with great arixiety and fear the following statement in the Highlights for Mazch 12,
1996; "...saying it consumes too much time on the part of the applicant and staff, the
Council agreed to begin a process to eliminate or modify Vail's GRFA requirements." IT
TAKES TIME ON EVERYONE'S PART TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT.
Where does this concern come from? It did not come out of the two TAC meetings. The
only common complaint from that group was that the staff's feedback on applications
came too laxe to make adjustments before scheduled hearings. There was not a general
feeling that the basic rules tha.t govern the appearaace of Vail were wrong.
The concern did not come from the public who generally have expressed a desire for the
rules to remain strong as the pressures on the town, as a result of near build out and
increased values, increase. It seems only those who have a direct financial gain from
increased square footage and a very few people who have been told "no" have expressed
this concern about controls. IT IS MY OPINION THAT TBE "DRB" CRITICISMS
CORRELATE DIRECTLY WITH THE VAIL COMMONS AND DISSATISFACTION
WITH GOVERNNTENT IN GENERAL. DRB IS A SAFE AREA TO CRITICIZE.
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS NOT A SAFE AREA. T'HERE ARE SOME ISSUES
THAT DO NEED ADDRESSING BUT THE OVERHAUL BEING CONTEMPLATED
WILL CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT WILL SOLVE. IT CREATES A
HUGE UNKNOWN.
The last big review of GRFA produced the "250" fiasco. That was specifically formulated
to enable people to make small properties a little more livable and therefore stay in the
community. However, it was poorly written by the lawyer and ended up being used for
redevelopment. READ THE LIST OF HOW THE 250 HAS BEEN USED. TFE
PROOF IS RIGHT THERE. PEOPLE INCLUDE THE EXTRA 250 IN THEIR SALES
PRICE WITHOUT EVEN BUILDING IT. EVEN WI-EN THE 250 IS RESTRICTED
IT IS NOT FOLLOWED UP ON FOR COMPLIANCE. CLEARLY, IN NEARLy
EVERY INSTANCE, 250 IS ABOUT DOLLAR VALUE.
SUGGESTIONS & THOUGHTS:
1. EHU's must be required for units over sq ft or lots over sq ft. Many of
the approved caretaker units are not being rented. This must be enforced. A PEC
member at the last GRFA discussion said his clients "build the EHLT to get the extra
square footage!"
2. Get the word to architects to apply for what they want and not include 10 to 30
percent to negotiate away. Applications must be honest. It is not a game.
.
~ - f
3. Staffmust apply only rules and regulations to applications not esthetics or philosophy.
Applicants do not mind the process and feel their projects are generally improved by it.
The frustration comes with feedback that is too late, staff saying one thing and the boazds
another and from petty appeals. If all players followed the "rules" those would seldom
happen.
4. The 425 sq ft credit, which was to simplify the process, has produced larger homes. It
is not just thax properties are maxing out. To give you a concrete picture, the 425 sq ft
credit for "essentials", 600 sq ft credit for a garage and potentially 500 sq ft for an EHU
adds up to three quarters of my entire home measuring from the outside walls. The garage
and EHU credits aze essentially incentives but they all produce larger homes.
5. Establish a grace period for people with illegal conversions. Establish reasonable
parameters (not UBC) for making these spaces safe. Then enforce the rules of the town.
Arguing tha.t getting rid of GRFA will make properties safer is foolish. It is cheaper and
easier to build any space illegally...unless you get caught.
6. Building inspectors need the will and the teeth to stop the inclusion of illegal spaces in
new buildings. "Dead non GRFA spaces" are allowed to be built with wiring, outlets and
drywall!
7. GRFA and DRB ha.ve always been meant to wark together...never in isolation.
Together they compliment each other while controlling bulk and mass. At the same time,
there is agreat amount of creative freedom while still meeting esthetics guidelines. Any
lay person will find a huge variety in Vail architecture. The value of real estate and the
success of the community proves that the product is a huge success. Why mess with
success? If you rely on only one or the other, the rules will have to be very strict and there
will be less freedom.
8. If existing vaulted spaces are to be allowed to be converted to GRFA then all new
vaulted spaces must be counted as GRFA.
9. Square footage does equal density in the real world. It did here in the beginning and it
will again. If all of the homes have people in them year around the town does not have the
infrastructure, including water, to support tha.t population. Even now-at Christmas- the
sewer system is over loaded when everyone showers and flushes after ski.
10. Increased heights are flat out not acceptable!!! People have depended on existing
regulations when designing their homes especially when trying to get the best views and
sun exposure. Height regulations are the most effective way for private view protection.
My appeal of the PEC decision regarding my neighbor's variance request was necessary
because the PEC ignored the rules they are sworn to uphold and the applicant
. . ~ .
~ - _ . .
~ , .
misrepresented the situation to neighbors and the PEC. IT IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE
OF WHY THE PROCESS AND RULES ARE BLAMED WHEN IT IS REALLY THE
PLAYERS IN THE PROCESS THAT CREATE THE PROBLEMS. The current system
works if everyone plays by the rules. These rules have produced the physical appearance
of the town which most people like-according to page 9 of the GRFA memo. Property
sales and the success of the town would seem to prove that the existing system has
produced a more than acceptable product. We will never be able to make everyone happy
but obviously most people are happy. Good applications can usually be accommodated
but some simply can not... if there are any regulations at all. This town has been regulated
since it's inception and is one of the reasons we ha.ve been so successful. Everyone has
bought here knowing everything is regulated.
When you started this process and "identified recurring issues", most of you admitted to
me that you did not nnderstand GRFA. I suggested that because of your inexperience,
GRFA was a most ina.ppropriate issue to tackle. I believe you were heavily lobbied by
certain persons. Your "issues" are simply not issues to the community as they have
received extensive review several times, the rules ha.ve stood up in court and the
regulations ha.ve produced a most beautiful and successful town.
Neither the staffor Tom ha.ve produced over whelming evidence thax the current system is
not working or that a new system would be better. There are too many maybes. We
laiow what the existing rules produce. Please stay with wha.t we ha.ve, identify the few
problems a.nd lets try to find solutions.
Thank you for listening.
Diana Donovan
MEMO . . . . . , : . .
, :>~~;~.r'.~.':{:.`{
DATE: March 21,1997
TO: Town Council
COPY: Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board
FROM: Susan Connelly, Director of Community Development
RE: Deveflopment Review ganprovernent Pa-ocess (DRIP) - Phase g
As you know, an interdepartmental team of TOV staff from Community Development, Public
. Works and Fire has been working for the past year on possible improvements to the existing
development review process. The impetus for this effort was the frustration experienced by some
our customers (as well as staffl, as reflected in the annual Community Survey.
'fl'he work !na§ lbeen paarseaed om trvo fronts, through a focus on improving the development
review prmcess and by reviewing, clarifying, and consolidating existing development standards
and practices. We now propose to bring forward for public review and input the results of the
first phase of that team work effort.
Phase I of the DRIP effort includes two parts:
(1) A draf$ Development Standards Handbook, a copy of which is attached hereto, and
(2) AprOpO.Sed 661,rial rYIln" off an improved design review process for single family honnes
and dupflezes. This experiment would occur April 14 through June 18, after which staff and our
customers would evaluate what worked and what needs further refinement to achieve our
objectives of clarity, certainty and efficiency for customers and interdeparhnental staff, alike.
We have mailed a copy of the enclosed draft of the Problem/Opportunity Statement, Goals and
. Givens, and the Development Standards Handbook to all local architects, contractors and
developers on our mailing list, along with an invitation to the TOV's anntaai Construction
Season Kick-offf. The 1997 Kickoff will be held on Thursday, April 3 froara 6:30 eantil 8 p.m.
in the Council Chambers. An agenda is attached for your review.
The attached draft also includes a schedule for community, PEC and Council review of the
Development Standards Handbook. That review will begin with an overview of DRIP at the
Council worksession on April 1. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please call me or
any of the DRIP team members:
Greg Hall x 2160 Mike Mollica x2144 1Vlike McGee x2135
Terri Partch x2169 George Ruther x2145 Jeff Atencio x2462
Larry Pardee x2198 Dominic Mauriello x2148 Dan Stanek x2321
MEMORANDUM
To: Property Owners, ArchBtects, Engineers, Bui9ders, Citizens
From: Town of Vail - Public 1lUorks, Fire, and Community Development Departments Date: March 19, 1997
- Re: Developrnent Review 9enprovement Process (DRIP)
Town of Vail Development Standards Consoliclation -Phase 1 We'0e Mf80m09ag Ptlog9ec,~s i011 Se9 vi61g Nou9 97GIG6/o7 °A00d 9doIS VMe Nee9d 9ou9 0l1elp!
In an inter-departmental effort, the Town of Vail is proposing to consolidate anci clarify developmenY
standards into one, easy-to-reaai document (a handbook). In addition, the staff has also developed
revisions to the interdepartmental development process to create a process which is efficient and
predictable. Together, these efforts have been termed the Developrnent Review Improvemenq
Process (DRIP).
The draft Development Standards Giandbook will:
o Allow the public to see which standards exist today
o which standards have been clarified
o which standards are new
o Consolidate and formalize existing standards (from other codes, i.e., UFC, UBC, etc.)
0 Codify the unwritten standards o Make standards easier to find, read, and understand
liVe hope you vdill review gh6s documen4 and let us know what you think about the concep4 0f
consoliciating the existing stanc8ards and codifying the "unwritten" standards. Please bring your
comments to any of the following meetings or mail to the Community Development Department. The
proposed process for reviewing this preliminary draft document is:
April 1 ~ Council worksession re: DRIP overview (problem statement, goals & givens)
April 3 The Annual Construction Kick-off meeting
April 28 ~ VVorksession with the PEC
May 6 ~ 1NorEcsession with the Town Council
June/July ~ Return to the PEC with a final version of standards and adopting ordinance
Phase 1(attached) of this effort includes issues which the Town Staff has identified as "red flag"
issues which could have $he most impact on the siting of a home on a parcel of land in Vail.
These include Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards,-Residential Fire Department
Access Standards, Parking Lot Design Standards, Geologic Hazards, and Zoning and Development
Limitations. Phase 9 i§ just the firs4 step in this consolidation effort. Staff will continue to consolidate standards
in this handbook so that ultimately one document contains alt of the development standards for the
Towrn of Vail. Future phases will include, public street standards, site grading and retaining walls,
construction staging, erosion and sedimentation control, etc.
TOWN
*VAIL
DRAF°T DEVELOPMENT REVIEIPV INiPROVEMENT PROCESS (DRIP)
Problem/Opportunity Statement:
In Vail, proposed construction projects undergo a series of reviews and approvals known as the
Development Review Process. The Development Review Process is the process ihrough which .
a proposed construction project is reviewed, approved and building permits are issued by inter-
departmental staff, the Design Review Board, the Planning and Environmental Commission and
- Town Council, as applicable. The Town's annual community survey indicates long held
frustration with this process.
Both customers and Town staff experience frustration with the application of unwritten standards
and conflicts between existing codes. Standards for the development of property in the Town of
Vail are codified in numerous sections of the Municipal Code, the Uniform Building Code, the
Uniform Fire Code and other documents adopted by reference in the Municipal Code. Some of
these standards are unclear and have required "interpretations" by Town of Vail staff over the
years. Our customers need to have a clear understanding of development and design standards
in order to obtain approval in an efficient manner.
In response to these concerns, the Town staff has initiated "DRIP," the Development Review
Improvement Process. DRIP is a collaborative effort that will involve Town boards and interested
members of the community to clarify standards and improve the review process. Through DRIP,
the Town has the opportunity to create a process which is predictable, efficient, and fair, with
standards that are clear, concise, and codified. All this, while providing for the protection of the
health, safety, and aesthetic qualiry of our community.
The following are the GOALS of the DRIP effort:
1. Clarify all aspects of the Development Review Process so that it is more efficient
- and predictable.
2. Consolidate, clarify and define development standards so that both Town staff
and customers have a clear understanding of what is required in order to build or
redevelop in the Town of Vail.
3. Educate the users of the process on the need to accept responsibility for providing
complete and accurate submittals and required revisions in a timely manner in
order to fully benefit from the Development Review Process improvements.
Page 1 of 2
1riWN
*VAIL
~~AFT
The following are the GUVENS for the DRIP effort:
1. Existing Staff Interpretations and unwritten requirements will be eliminated or
codified as part of this process.
2. Staff will seek, and is committed to, continuous improvement in inter-departmental
coordination and cooperation to promote efficiencies in the Development Reviewr ,
Process. 3. Requirements and standards required for the general health and safety of the
community wrill not be compromised through this effort.
4. The Town of Vail encourages and seeks public involvement in the clarification of
development standards and improvement of the Development Review Process.
5. The Towrn Council wrill have the final decision making authority on adoption of any
Municipal Code modifications required to implement DRIP.
Page 2 of 2
TOWN
*VAX
D12AFT - -
Development Standards Handbook
Town of Vail Development Standards Consolidation - Phase 1
Key: 1. Items which are ~~~~~d are nevv standards not formally codified many of
which are a relaxation of an existing standard.
2. Items which are atalacized are standards applied today but are not formally
codified or are located in a code adopted by reference (i.e., UFC, UBC,
~ Subdivision Regulations, Engineering Standards). 3. Items which are in normal font are exnsting codified standards being
consolidated.
Note: New standards will not apply retroactively to projects being reviewed at ehe time of adoption.
Section 1. Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards.
This section (Table 1) specifies the access, driveway and parking standards for residential development (including single-
family, two-family, and multiple-family development). These standards are subject to all conditions and exceptions described
herein. These standards shall be considered the minimum standards. When two or more standards conflict, the more
restrictive standard shall apply.
~ ~.:~;'~:;~i::~ .:::::;:'~:~.'i:~::~:'~::~:':~ii:>~'::::::>;:
;::~::~:~'~:::::~:::2:+:::::~::~:: 5:~::~ ::~:~::.`:~:i:~:+~t•:.:`.~::~i:~;:::::::~:::;:::i:.::`:'~:~: ~•::.r:.::i:`~;:~:
.
it::+
: . - . _ ii?i.:?~ .
~i
~~f.~a~:
Standard Single-family, Multiple Famlly Multiple Family
Two-family, -access to 4 to 11 dwelling units -access to more than t 1 dwelling units
-feeder road only -feeder road only
Primary/Secondary -access to not more than 3 dwelling units
(including EHUs)
-shvctures and all portions thereof within
150' from edge of street pavemenl
Driveway/FeederRoad 11' 20' 22
Min. Width -Access jram jeeder road m units -Access from feeder to units shall
Normal shall complv wrth singfe familv complv with single familv
(Detail 1) requiremencs contained herein requirements conrained herein
Driveway/Feeder Road I S' 24' 24'
Min. Width
90°corner
(cross-over)
(Detail4)
Driveway/Feeder Road 16' (/lare to 16') 14' (/lare to 24' with 10' curb- 18' (flare to 28' with IS' curb-rerurn
Min. Width return radius) radius)
EntrancelCurb-cut
(Detail. 1)
Driveway/FeederRoad 2Q' (tEiiless6aek:out~mskingis~Emvpd; 3b!
Max. Width
EntranceJCurb-cut
(Detail 1) .
Driveway/Feeder Road 0:5!~e Q ~Qf~
Min. Grade
Centerline
(Detail 2)
~
\
A
9C119NOFYAII
~ DRAFT -
.
:
.
. .
. . .
. ~~::.::::::5::>.~._::
,•p~.}~:::::::: •
...................:.n::.
; :•::::::o:•>s::~::~>:::
'
. :v........ .
~i:~ i::~:: ii:::• ~ ~ . ,
:.:::~:::::v: ::::::::::::::i::~:i:i: ;n:•:::........:......::...:: ; . , .
:.::::::i:Si:'.;;.:::.:i':v.i:}.:•:i•::Ciii::::i:•:::}i:v?
:::•J:::.:.i:}iii::::::iii:::•:':::....•.`~:•:i:
?ii:iiiii:i?>?ii:i.:i::.::i.i:.i::::•i}i:iiii:i::}i:i:•i>::i::.:iiiiii::Jiiii''i.:::::i...:"::•i::j:'..ii~ii:'.:::+ a
~~p ,p~ . .yC'r ~::~R~ ~ .............n...................~.».... . . .
::::c::::::ijj>j:j?i::j::}::.::i:??:>j:::i::::'r:::iii::?i:::?i::::::>:`:::::::::'r::::::?i::': . ; . ~ . . . .
'~:"::^:'ii:~:• :tii'::'::i~i::•::'i?:i~i:<~i:»`:::'.':i~::::~:::::':i:ii:i U::':i::J::'::^:::iii:~ :J::'?:'i:: ;::v::.~:.~:: :::::::::::::..::~......~..,.,.,if;,.,
Standard Sengle-ffaoteo9y, 1vlultip9e Family MuBtip9e FamiBy
Twaffamily, -access to 4 to 11 dwelling units -access to more than 1 I dwelling units
PY'flHn3Y y/SeCOndaPy -feeder road only -feeder road only
-access to not more than 3 dwelling units
(including EHIJs)
-stroctures and all portions thereof within
150' from edge of street pavement
Driveway/Feeder Road It~°la;u0e40e4' Max.Grade 12%heated 12%heated 12%heated
Centertine t69'u;[ieated;8iid:44giuee=esi tviffi?t~at
(Detail 2) reccii>~?:ai`eas
8".~nuafi.ated
Driveway/Feeder Road 9%:44eaf0
Max. Grsde /v:~e d
Centerline
CoroerlCross-over
(Detail 2)
Driveway/Feeder Road 8°ja 8°fo 8°l~?
Max. cross-slope
grade
(Detail I)
Driveway/Feeder Road l~i°lo (ua~ieaEed d~ve) i4°o (unAeateck dnxej 1:2'X ~unNeatad driRe}
Max. ceotertine grade 2EI°~o{h~at~xi~??e) F~la(heateddnt?e) 14~1'4(4et"d AO!ft)
,
anywhere on driveway
Driveway/Feeder Road 456 70° 7Q°:
Entr,y angle
min. deflection
(Detail 5 & 6)
DrivewaylFeeder Road 1:4°l0 6°l0 ~°i~i
Max. centerliae break-
over grade
(Detail 3)
Driveway/Feeder Road 89~ 6% .49/4
Max. grade at edge of
asphalt .
(Detail2) -
Driveway/FeederRoad I0 15.
Max. leogth of max.
grade at edge of
asp6alt
(Detail 2)
Driveway/Feeder Road 20' 30' 35'
Min. centerline
turoing radius
(lletail 4)
Curb cuts permitted I00 stteetpettltiif 2::jietpaiceE ~fuumutfk:......essar~? for adepuatie
(nu mber) 1vladmiiai ~f2 cuib cuts lot accass
(Detail 6)
2
fC?19NO
*Va
DRt`iFd .
.
. . .
: ~.;;v.~
pi:.:::: <::>:~:i:•:^.;t
::~i.:;:•::::;:j''':
.
_::~:i::::. .....;•~i
' . ...~.:~'•iiiii: .
:o:.:::.:>:.;:.>;:::.:
4tti:ti:?:tt:::t;tt3ct:it:ttC~'.".Sttr:::ii:>;ri'r;;:>::r5''tt;c"tti::it;`::iir[:;t'::i::;r:t2:it::2;tit:::c:t;::i::::::''i;
~e¢
•i:"^:i': ,y„ i,:i;::~::i:, :::~:`:?i::~::i:vi::::: '~:ii::::::::::::i::::~'i::i::i':<::::::::i:~~':::::i:::::,:::.:
~t~G~~l<:~. . . ~G`....._ ....:...::::.O.:::.~....................::
_ .
.
Standard Single-family, Multiple Family Multiple Family
Twafamily, -access to 4 to 11 dwelling units -access to more than 11 dwelling units
-feeder road only -feeder road only
Primary/Secondary -access to not more than 3 dwelling units
(including EHUs)
-struchues and all portions thereof within
, 150' from edge of street pavement
Min. horizontal 24' N/A N/A
clearance between
garage doors (parallel
to road) to edge of
pubiic street pavement
(Detail 5 & 6)
Min. horizontal S' S S
clearance betweeo
required parking
space and edge of
public street or feeder
road pavement
(Detail 5)
Min. horizontal NVA; 2` fzom v~ttuchoiis S from otis#u~hops
clearance from feeder im`-~1°gs
road to structures
/obstructions (e.g.,
guardrails, trees,
retaining walls, etc.)
(Detail 5)
Parl:ing space size 9' x 19' surface See Table 3, Commercial/Multiple- See Table 3, Commercial/Multiple-
(Detail 5) 9' z:18':@nclosed Family Parking Lot Standazds Family Parking Lot Standards
Sight dlstaoce triangle 10' perpendicular x 250' lateral (strict 10' perpendicular x 250' lateral 10' perpendicular x 250' /ateral (strict
(Detail 5) compliance mav not be required on sites (strict compliance may not be compliance mov not be required on
not able to phvsical(), complvl required on sites not able to sites not able to physicallv complv)
phvsicallv complv)
Back-outlTurn-around 12' wide Back-out into right-of-way Back-out into right-of-way prohibited
area 20' centerline radius prohibited
(Detail 4) Designed for 3 point turn or less Turn-around area:
~ - Turn-around area: 12' wide
ie ~ ~ titi•~e 20' cenrerline radius
c~'as~o~*eraikgle gtisiafer thaa 420°; 20' centerline radius Designed for 3 point turn or less
. ehij•y augEB iy lgss t}iau:'7lv; besigned for 3 point turn or less
acces~cRg a:colleefor>aKe~al; at
c;iinmerdal sireer,
- sight tnangla ceqwreaieoc cs noi uuot:
Driveway Pan 4' wide concrete pan at edge ojasphalt 4' wide concrete pan at edge oj 8' wide concrete pan at edge of
(Drainage) jor the jull width drivewav pavement asphaltjor the full width drivewav asphalt for the jull width driveway
(Detail 1& 5) including returns pavemenf rncluding returns pavement including returns
Nonconforming sites.
Nonconforming sites and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date of adoption of these standards may
continue, subject to the limitations prescribed by Chapter 18.64 of the Zoning Code. The paving of existing legal
nonconforming (unpaved) driveways shall be allowed without strict compliance with these standards. However, a reasonable
attempt shall be made to adhere as closely as possible to these standards when paving existing driveways. Demo/rebuilds, as
defined by the Zoning Code, shall be required to adhere to these standards.
3
1 A
TOlVN OF VAIL
DRAFT .
@lehica~a~ mas~e~€~eratill~e~
Par~ng;tequ~reci far eseh dwelling ~tYU~ rr~t be ~depey acce~bTe (rt ed:parkfng<or Qne: unzc catinot blc~ck
~cess €Or paz~g aac~er tiz~~ orrs~tie1:
Surffacing.
All parking areas shall be an improved paved surface.
Snow stovage.
All required parking and access areas s/iall be designed to accommodate on-site snow storage (i.e., wilhin boundaries of lot
and not within the right-of-way). A minimum funclional area equaling 30% ojthe paved area shall be provided co"ntiguous . .
to thepaved area and designed to accommodate si:ow storage. Turf areas and other areas without trees may be utilized /'i~r '
this purpose. Ijdriveways are heated, then the minimum snow storage area may be reduced to 10% ojthe required parking
and access areas.
4
~
rown~oFVna
DRAFT - ~
Section 2. Residential Fire Department Access Standards.
This section (Table 2) specifies residential Fire Department access standards for residential development (including single-
family, two-family, and multiple-family development). These standards are subject to all conditions and exceptions described
herein. These standards shall be considered the minimum standards. When two or more standards conflict, the more
restrictive standard s6a11 apply.
.
.
_::::>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::•::~::::::•::::::::a: ~
::•:::.::~:::::•:::.:'~;:a::•:'a:~::~>:~::~:
.
`:«::«:::i>Sf::'•::<:'; : >':>:::::<;:>`:<:::;<;s:::s<:<::» <::::s<:~<::<:
:::•::•:::.::~>:~i:•::::~:~:2't~'~::::+::: ;~:~:a:~>:?>i:{::::i::~::~:~::`::i':`;::~:. : ~:::o:::::;.~:.::;.>:::•:>::•:::.:
.
. :~:~::::::::~:::•»:•::::.::~;>::;.::~:::;~:::.::~:t:•:;•>:.::~::;•:::.::;~:;•::•::::.: xa:::::;~:x ~ :
.
:.::>:.::;`.:::>:.:.::.;:.::::.:>;:<.:t.:
Standard Single-Famity, ,
Two-Family, Primary/Secondary, and Multiple Family . .
-requiring on-site Fire Department access (structures or portions thereof geater than 150' from edge of
street pavement)
Not required if structures are sprinkled in accordance with the Building Code and F've Code.
Min. pavement radii for fire truck 1. For structures with the highest floor level 30' or less in elevation from
access and min. pavement cross- staging area:
over width 29' inside radius
(including curb-cut accessing site) 44' outside i•adius
36' centerlii:e radius
20'cross-over width
2. For structures with the highest floor level greater than 30' in elevation rrom
staging area:
31' inside radius
48' outside radius
40' centerline radius
Z?' cross-over width
Note: The Totivn o/'Yail reserves the right ipt unique circumstances to utilize a
computer modeling techprique to determine radii needed for access.
Turn-around area Required irFire Department staging area is 150' or more from edge of roadway
pavement.
Min. on-site Fire Department 20' wide and 35' long pavement area
staging area 32' wide useable clear area inclusive ofpaved area
(Detail5) For slructures with the highest floor level 30' or less in elevation from
staging area, the slaging area must be located less than the minimum
di.rtance required to reach all areas of structures using a 1 SO' radius.
20' wide and 50' long pavement area
31' wide useable clear area inclusive of paved area
For struclures with the highest.floor level greater than 30' in elevation from
staging area, the staging area must commence a mciximum oj20' rrom tlre
race ofstructure.
$
e
TO{9N OF VAlG
~ DRAFT ~
Sectioa 3. Parking ]Lot a0cf Parking 54ructure Design Standaecls For AI? Uses (excluding resiciential uses of 3
dwelling unu¢s or 9ess).
This section (Table 3) specifies the parking lot standards for all uses, including, but not limited to, commercial, retail, office,
restaurant, institutional, hotel, accommodation, and multiple-family development. These standards are subject to all conditions
and exceptions described herein. 'd'hese standards shall be considered the miniamuan s¢andards. Wheo two or enore .
standards contlict 8he morce resteictive standard s9eaY1 apply.
• .
: : . ::::::::;:;i:::::::::;:~;::;~:.`:;::::;i;;i :::::.:::::::::::::ii`i:::::.>;..:...
``?~<<:
:'<`:4:t:: i:~:::::::::::: r;:::i:::;.; •;;'.:i' i: ti"
# :'?:~?:~~::z~:;~:.... ::`::::::<'::~::<:
~::.::;>:.::::::::•::i:>:''::;:J:::::ii:'<:::C::::::i::1~:1:;::Cc:it:::.:t::jf'.:t%:::ir.:.::~~l.::i:,'`i:;.:'.''c : ~ i . ~ ;:~.~y:y~
. ':~t!~:;:,,',~,, tR . . ~
. .
....................................~,~.:b~::::::............. . .
Angle of IVginiegeunm 1VYiuimum 1Vlfnimu¢n . '
, parking space One-way drive susle Two-way drive aisle Parizing stall size and c9earance
0° (parallel) 12' 21'
45° 12' 22' 9' x 19' surface
9' x 18' enclosed
8' x 16' compact (up to 25% of
required parking in lots with more
than 15 parking spaces and clearly
marked as such)
7' height clearance for enclosed
parking
60° 16' 24' 9' x 19' surface
9' x 18' enclosed
8' x 16' compact (up to 25% of
required parking in lots with more
than 15 parking spaces and clearly
marked as such)
7' height clearance for enclosed
Parking
7g0 22' 24' 9' x 19' surface
9' x 18' enclosed
8' x 16' compact (up to 25% of
. required parking in lots with more
than 15 parking spaces and clearly
' marked as such)
7' height clearance for enclosed
Paz'king
900 24' 24' 9' x 19' surface
9' x 18' enclosed
8' x 16' compact (up to 25% of
required parking in lots witb more
than 15 parking spaces and clearly
' - marked as such)
7' height clearance for enclosed
~ parking
Cross-over drive 18' 24' n/a
aisle
6
]Y1WN O
*VML
. ~
DRAFT
.
. .
. .
.
. .
.
.
. :
Angle of Minimum Minimum Minimum
parking space One-way drive aisle Two-way drive aisle Parking stall size and clearance
~
Drive aisle with 12' 2-' a
no parking
~ Min. opening for a 12' 20' nla ~
parking structure : -
entrance
Nonconforming sites.
Nonconforming sites and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date of adoption of these standards may
continue, subject to the limitations prescribed by Chapter 18.64 of the Zoning Code. Expansion to existing structures or
expansion to existing parking lots shall require existing parking areas to be brought into compliance with the standards
contained herein.
Surfacing.
A[I parking areas shall be an improved paved surface.
Trail head parking.
Trail bead parking lots accommodating up to 15 parking spaces may be improved with gravel, but shall adhere to all other
requirements contained in this section.
On-street parking.
On-street parking is not permitted for private developments. All public on-street parking provided in the right-of-way shall
meet the standards included in this section (Table 3).
Snow storage.
A!l required parking aiid access areas shall be desigr:ed to accommodate on-site siiow storage (i.e., within bouiidaries of lot
and not within the right-orway). A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the paved area shall be provided contiguous
to the paved area mtd designed to acconimodate sr:ow sta-age. Turrareas and other areas without trees may be utilized for
this purpose. If driveways are heated, then Ihe minimu»i snow storage area may he reduced to 10% o.f the required parkittg
and access areas. .
Landscaping.
Not less than 10% of the interior surface area of unenclosed off-street parking areas containing 15 or more parking spaces shall
be devoted to landscaping. In addition, landscape borders not less than 10' in depth shall be provided at all edges of parking
lots containing 30 or more parking spaces. A landscape berm, wall, or fence of not less than 4 ft. in height, of the same
architectural style as the building, in combination with landscaping may be substituted for the landscape border. In
0*11rs with crvss access::or s~tarec~ par~ng faGilit~es~ ilie;tands ca~ ~rriier bec~te~r~ th~ ai~ ni~c:be
rcquge
Drainage.
Proper drainage and storm water management shall must be provided in all parkirig areas.
Valet parking. ~
Valet parking shall be allowed, but shall not exceed 50% of the required parking on-site. Valet parking shall be calculated
utilizing a 8' x 18' parking space for each car (parallel spaces must be 9' x 20'). Cars may be parked tandem in a valet lot.
Backing into the streeUright-of-way.
7
*VAIL
TO{9NO
~ DRAFT -
All parking for commercial and multiple family developments shall be designed to allow a vehicle forward access to any street
or right-of-way.
Fire lane.
A rre lar:e shall be reguired aprd must be located within 150' of all areas of the parking lot.
'g'andeQn parking.
Tandem parking is not pernutted for commercial uses unless approved as valet parking.
,
G. raties: <::::...;
.
A~1 dr~v~way a~d parku~g kQt grades s~ZaI~ ~t-i~ae z~u~ez~ts #'vr fa~y yc~vpra~nts,vf
Tabie 1: Dnvewa~ ~;1;Access:Staac~arifs:
~
1Y??9N
*Va
DRAFT
Section 4. Geologic Hazards.
This section (Table 4) provides a summary of the geologic hazards mapped by the Town of Vail. This table describes at what
point in the review process a site specific hazard study is needed. Chapter 18.69, Hazard Regulations, should be review for
more specific requirements and details.
.
>
:
: <::>:::; : : : ~ :
: .
.
::+:>:a:•:;:~»:~::~::~:::~~>:~»:.:::.>+::~>:;~:::•:;»:;;a:...: ~
.
:
:
.
-
~ ~:.._:.>r.~:?;
.
~:::t:~:~::22•`<i;;::
.
.............::~::~:::;::J:::::J; :G::J::.;;:.;•:'~[
: .
.t:r:;::>:lY:';;>':;i:;:t::~
.
....::::::•~:::::>x:~.......................:..::>:~::~.
Hazards Submittal Requirements
. Geologic Hazards See Chapter 18.69 of the Zoning Code for detailed requirements. ,
See hazard maps for the
following hazards.
Snow Avalanche Srzbihit ~ s~te::speeFfi~::sludy ~?tth I}R8 & FEO appla
Debris Flow Submit site specific study prior to building permit application or pFivirio 46~uIti~
farizi~y:.
Rock Fall Submit site specific study prior to building permit application or
~aixiily:
Unstable soils Submit site specific study prior to building permit application or pni~<Iti;i~~R;B.if:t
faimiiy:
Nonconforming sites.
Nonconfornung sites, structures, uses, and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date of adoption of these
standards may continue, subject to the limitations prescribed by Chapter 18.64 and Chapter 18.69 of the Zoning Code. No
existing nonconforming site or structure shal] be issued a building permit for an exterior expansion, alteration or addition in a
geologically sensitive area except for windows, skylights and other similar minor alterations unless allowed by a site specific
hazard study in accordance with Chapter 18.69.
Hazard Maps.
The following is a list of hazard maps officially adopted by the Town of Vail:
1. Debris Flow and Debris Avalanche Hazard Analysis Map prepared by Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc. and dated
November, 1984.
2. Rockfall Map prepared by Schmueser and Associates, Inc. and dated November 29, 1984.
3. Geological Hazard Map, Figure 3, prepared by Lincoln DeVore Engineers, Geologists and dated August 16,
1982.
9
*VAU
ITIWN
DRAFT
Sectiou 5. Site IIDevelopcnenQ Standards.
This section (Table 5) specifies site development standards for all Zoning Districts in the Town of Vail. These standards shall be considered the minimum standards. When two or
more standards conflict, the more restrictive standard shall apply. Additional and special standards may exist in accordance with the Zoning Code.
%~!:~A~ ai~l. ~:':::;:;:::::;;:;;::<::;:.,.:;;;:;;:>;;::;:<: >;;<:;.;:::::::>;.;;;<:::>;?::>::>:?>:':;::::>::::;:::::<::;;.;.: ~<:»;::;>.:;`;:<;::>:>%:;;:;>'•::;:>::::':;;::~::::>;;;:;;;:»::<:»:;:::`::>:
tarsr.::.~::.:~:::::.:,:.~:::.>;>::: ~:.~::::::.y:::a::;+:s:::.y;: ;•.y;:.;•::,:;
. .
................::::::::::.:a;::;;:::
Zone Max. Min. Mln. Min. NYax. liRax. Min. Min. I1Rin. Min. 1VIax.
IIDistrlcts IDensity Building HDeck IDeck Architectural S[te I.andscape 1Lot Frontage Square Building
Setbaclcs (ground level) (not ground level) ProJectlon Coverage Area Size Area 1Fdeight
SetbacEc Setback into (bulldable area)
Setback
][$R 2 units per 20' front May project not May project not 4' 15% 70% 21,780 s.f. 50' 80' x 80' 30' flat roof
Hillside lot 15' rear more than the more than the lesser 33' sloping roof
Residentlal 15' sides lesser of 10' or of 5' or the
%z the required requ'ued setback
setback
SFR 1 unit per 20' front May project not May project not 4' 20% 60% 12,500 s.f. 30' 80' x 80' 30' tlat roof
slugle Famuy lot 15' rear more than tbe more than the lesser 33' sloping roof
Resideotlal 15' sides lesser of 10' or of 5' or tbe
the required required setback
setback
R&p/S 2 units per 20' &ont May project not May project not 4' 20% 60% 15,000 s.f. 30' 80' x 80' 30' flat roof
Two-Family lot 15' rear more than the more than the lesser 33' sloping roof
Two Feamlly& 15' sides lesser of 10' or of 5' or'h the
p,.im,,ry/ %z the required required setback
secuudarY setback
RC 6 units per 20' front May pmject not May project not 4' 25% 60% 15,000 s.f. 30' SO' x 80' 30' flat roof
Resldendnl acce I S' rear more than the more than the lesser (min. 8,000 s. f. of 33' sloping roof
Cluster 15' sides lesser of 10' or of 5' or the buildable azea)
%z the required required setback
setback
LDMF 9 units per 20' Pront May project not May project not 4' 35% 40% 10,000 s.f. 30' 80' x 80' 35' flat roof
Low Densiry acie 20' rear more than the more than the lesser 38' sloping roof
Multlple 20' sides lesser of 10' or of 5' or %z the
FamflY %z the required required setback '
setback
10 .
*VAa
1Y?WN
DIZAFT
. . .
:::.:::>::::::>:;<.;;::>;::>:<:>::;::;;:.:;<.:>::<::<:;::>::;::>;::;;::»<:::
:>:<:>:::<::<:<>::>::>;:<>i::::>:>:>:;;:::<:;;::>:<:::::<:;;;;
;
e~fa~.~fuEi.~3~'Ve~t~
........:...::::.........................::::.:::...........................:::::.....:...............................~~~f
. g.....................:.:.
.
. . . .
.
Zone Max. Min. Min. Min. Max. Mag. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max.
Districts Density Building Deck Deck ' Architectural Site Landscape Lot Frontage Square Bullding .
Setbacks (ground level) (not ground Icvel) ProJection Coverage Area Slze Area He(ght
Setback Setback lnto (buildable area)
Setback
MDMP' 18 units 20' fmnt May project not May project not 4' 45% 30% 10,000 s.f. 30' 80' x 80' 35' flat roof
Medium per acre 20' rear more than the more than the lesser 38' sloping roof
Deosiry 20' sides lesser of 10' or of 5' or %z the
nzuinPie `h the required required setback
eemuy
setback
I-IDMF 25 units 20' front May project not May project not 4' 55% 30% 10,000 s.f. 30' 80' x 80' 45' flat roof
F[tgh Density per acre 20' rear more than the more than the lesser 48' sloping roof
Mu?nPle 20' sides lesser of 10' or of 5' or the
Family 1/2 the required required setback
setback
pA ' 25 units 20' &ont May project not May project not 4' 55% 30% 10,000 s.E 30' 80' x 80' 45' flat roof
Punuc per acre 20' rear more than the more than the lesser 48' sloping mof
nccom- 20' sides lesser of 10' or of 5' or %2 the
modatioo yz the required reqUired setback
setback
CCl 25 units None N/A N/A N/A 80% No 5,000 s.f. 30' N/A As regulated by
(unless reduction in the Vail Village
Coromercial per acre (unless
Core i otherwise otherwise existing Urban Design
designated designated landscaping Guide Plan and
by the Vail by the unless Design
Vail sufficient Considerations
Village
Urban Village cause is
Design Urban shown
Guide Design
Plan and Guide '
Design Plan and
Considerat Design ,
ions) Considera
tions)
11 ,
J,
,
~
A
.1'OWNOFYAd
: . : . : : .
:
. ~
. . . . . .
`~~1~".::~::::>;>;::::::::;>::::::::::;::::>:::::::>
:fi:i::::i[:i:i::[:[':5:::.'.:`::::.:::i:i:::::'i:::::c:::::::?:;i::::i;:::::::::::::::::is.i';::::;::::i::i.;:;: ::i'.::::::C:::::::3
~s: :
's:i;i:iiiii:isi:ii
i:(iiii::;5"i:ili:<'':.'Ci:%C . : ~ ~ ii~... k .i .......k.~.;;;
.
_ : . _ ~1~~# .~el~a~ a~x~1.~3~e't!~i : .
~ . .
Zone Niag. Min. Ndln. Min. Max. Niax. Min. Min. A'iin. Min. I19ax.
IDistricts IDenslty Building IDeck IDeck Architectural Site Landscape Lot Frontage Square Bullding
Setbacks (ground level) (not ground level) Projection Coverage Area Size Area Height
Setback Setback Into (buildable area)
Setback
CC2 25 units 10' front May project not May project not 4' 70% 20% 10,000 s.f: 30' 80' x 80' 45' flat roof
Commercial per acre 10' rear more [han the more than the lesser (unless (unless 48' sloping roof
Care 2 10' sides lesser of ] 0' or of 5' or %z the othenvise otherwise (unless
~(unless %z the required required setback designated designated othenvise
otheiwise setback by the by the Vail designated by
designated Vail Lionshead the Vail
by the Vail Lionshead Urban Lionshead
Lionshead Urban Design Urban Design
Urban Design Guide Plan Guide Plan and '
Design Guide and Design Design
Guide Plan and Considerati Considerations)
Plan and Design oos)
De5ign Considera
Considerat tions)
ions)
C3 12 units 20' to May project not May project not Q' 40% 25% 25,000 s.f. 100' N/A 35' ilat roof
F ~
commercial per acre perimeter more than the more than the lesser 38' sloping mof
Core 3 of zone lesser of 10' or of 5' or 1/2 the
district 1/2 the required required setback
boundaries setback
cgc 18 units 20' front May project not May project not 4' 75% 20% 20,000 s.f. 100' N/A 35' ilat roof
' Commercial per acre 20' rear more than the more than tbe lesser 38' sioping roof
secYtce 20' sides lesser of 10' or of 5' or %z the
Center the required required setback .
setback
12
4V
TOW
DRAFT
:
:
<:>:::.:::<;:::::<::::<:;
................................~r1q~ .~~aC~. a...... .
.
.
Zone Max. Min. M[n. Mln. Max. Max. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max.
Dlstricts Density Building Deck Deck Architectural Site Landscape Lot Frontage Square Build[ng
Setbacks (ground level) (not ground level) Projectfon Coverage Area Siu Area Height
Setback Setback into (bufldable area)
Setback
ABD 25 units I S' &ont May project not May project not 4' 60% 250% 25,000 s.f. 100' N/A 32' (up to 70%
.arcerisl per acre (for no more than the more than the lcsser of moo
susiness more than lesser oP 10' or of 5' or'/z the
' 60% of %z the required required setback 40' (other
fronttige setback portion of the
along CO°o
South
Mi
Frontagc n. slope shall
Road. 20' be 3' in 12'
for
remainiog 10% of roof
40%) may be flat
15' side
(building
height less
than 20')
20' side
(building
height 20'
or more)
10' rear
HS N/A 20' front May project not May project not 4' 75% 10% 10,000 s.f. 50' N/A 35' flat roof
Heavy servlce 20' rear more than the more than the lesser 38' sloping roof
20' sides lesser of 10' or of 5' or %z the
%2 the required required setback
setback
13
~
~
_"OWN OF ~All •
DRAFT
. . .
. .
.
.
: <
. . .
: .
: < . . :
. . . . . . . . .
.
.~::~<>:>::;;`<::::
:
:>::>:;<:>::::>::;::>::>:.>:::<:>:
. . .
~[kd .
:>:::;<::<,>;><:;>> :>.:::<::>.;?:::>::::<::::;::«::;::<:;::<:<:::::::::>::::>::::::::>::::::::::>::::>:::>:::<:>:<:«:::<::>:':>~<:;>-:::::::::>:::::::<;:;::>::::;»::::>
Zone 1dlag. M(n. MIn. 1VIfn. NYax. Max. Min. Min. Min. IWin. IiRax.
dD(strtcts IDensity Building Deck 9Deck Architectural Slte E.andscape II.ot Frontage Square Building
Setbacks (ground level) (not ground level) Projecdon Coverage Area Size Area Height
Setback Setback into (buildable area)
Setback
A 1 unit per 20' &ont May project not May project not 4' S% N/A 35 acres N/A N/A 30' flat roof
Agdcutturul 35 acres 15' rear more than the more dian the lesser (1 acre buildable) 33' sloping mof
snd Opeo 15' sides lesser of 10' or of 5' or %z the
Space %z the required required setback
setback
OR N/A 20' front May project not May project not 4' S% As N/A N/A N/A 21' flat roof
oucdoor 20' rear more than the more than the lesser detemuned 24' sloping roof
Recreation 20' sides lesser of 10' or of 5' or %z the by the
(except as %2 the required required setback Design
may be setback Review
fuRtier Boazd
restricted
by the
PEC in
conjunctio
n with a
conditiona
1 use
permit) ~
, p N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Parldng
' GYJ Set by Set by Set by PEC Set by PEC Set by PEC Set by Set by PEC Set by PEC Set by Set by Set by PEC
ceneral Use pEC PEC PEC PEC PEC
NAP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A .
Natural Area
Preservatbn
14
. ,
1 \ ~
mwNOF~~tc
DRl4FT
:<::::>:::::::>:<:>:::<:>:;::;::>:::<::;>:>.<
:.;:;.;;;;:<:<.;:::;:::>::;;:; :::::;.;.<:;::::;;;::<::;:::;
t::[[i[ [ii;tti:%:: [:[;:>`.:ii:::.:':1. [ [.r:i::i.:~:'<':':'i i::::::i:.:: i`•i':'[i::i::r:: ~:::::';<:C : :::i::i•::::ii;'>'::'.: : v.: s:.. i:: iii[[:.. ':i i..[': ;::::.i ::::[::i::::C. : •:::::::':::i.::i
.::s::::::::::::i::;;:'<::t:i::[:t:t:s;::i:i:i::i':.:::2::s:'i:;:.::i::5::'t.:::::i:::::;:::::%:?h:ii:i:::::::'.:}•'["::::::::'i::::::;.::~;:[. >.s'.:
.........~?tai~ .~el~a~~.~ ~x*e~...
. . .
.
Zone Mag. Min. Min. Min. Max. Max. Mln. Min. Min. Min. Max.
Distr[cts Density Building Deck Deck Archltectural Site Landscape Lot Frontage Square Building
Setbacks (ground level) (not ground level) Project(on Coverage Area Site Area Height
Set6ack Setback Into (buildable area)
Setback
SBR 1 unit per Set by Set by PEC Set by PEC Set by PEC Set by Set by PEC 40 acres N/A N/A 35' (60% of
skt sase 8 acres PEC PEC (1 acre buildable) building
Recreatlon coverage)
40' (40% of
building
coverage)
SDD Set by Set by Set by Council Set by Council Set by Council Set by Set by Set by Council Set by Set by Set by Council
Spedal Council Council ' Council Council Council Council
Development
Distrlct
Nonconformlties.
See Chapter 18.64 Nonconfomung Sites, Uses, Shuctures and Site Improvements for details with respect nonconformities.
FADOIvII[d[CVSTANDARDSTINAL l . STD
15
fOWNO*VML
~ 9 a ~E 40 ~ ~ Or R.S~T 24° YID 38°
F1.ARE
- - 4° CONCRETE PAN - - - - -
(SEE BELDW) :w i 9S° 9 9~ ~
UCdffS
, 20° - 4 YO 9 9
DWELLIWG UNffs
9 2° 22° - MORE YH/1R!I 9 9
DWELUNG U6df1S
SIPICLE FAM1LY, YWa FAMiLY, MlDL71PLE FAM1iLY
PRIMARY/SECONOaNRY _
4°
D
CONCRETE PAN MMM1M CROSS SLOPE - 0$
De artrnent of Public Works Trans ortation
3/17/97
~,R33,: DRIl~EWAY STANDARDS
WIDTHSa FLARESa AND CROSS°SLOPES ~
6YWMUM SAC ChIANGE: 95% W4XIMUm GRADE BREJIK: B%
I I
I I
I
$ ~
2A TYpIC& Op
MA)OaauM DRevMv GRADE
10' MINIMUM AT CENTERLINE:
8% MAX GRADE tOX UNHfJ1TED
12% HEA7ED
MINIMUM CEMERLINE GRADE: .57i
De artment of Public Works Trans ortation 3/17/97
DRIVEWAY STANDARDS
rm aYa RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY GRADES 2
. ,
II Y
~ EDGE OF AS ~ ROAD
2%
ROADWAY
~ "~=w9Y
MAXIMUM BItEAK 0VER GRADE ~ 94%
I 0E -2% + la$ 0 99%
EDGE OF liSPHALY ROAD
10%
~v
I
I
MAIdIA9UM BREAK OVER GRADE - 94X . .
IE -4$+ 909 0 94X
De artment of Public Works Trans ortation
DRI!lEWAY STANDARDS 3A17/97
mm W.&M
MAXIMUM DRIVEVlIAY GRADE BREAKS
,
> 12,
~
. I I
~ I
20' IN
CENI NE
RAD
+ 2s
~t
90 COR ER I
(CROSS°)
15' MINIMJAA
WlDlli (11fP1(AL) ~
ASPFIALT RQADWAY
De artment of Public Works Trans ortation
3/17/97
DRIVEVIIAY STANDARDS OM WA~
IM °~YAM CENTERLINES AND CROSSOVERS 4
e
a
90° ° OFFSTREEY PARWPIrp
3° ARIGd ~ ~o ~
5° MN
.
e
9 50° MA(
9 0°
MIN
MIR1
S° MIR1 150° &AAX
9~0 3' &AA9
.
9 0° 7'0 ~U?X
~ ~
M DEFI.EG710N
~ GlUm P
?50,
ASPFlAl,Y ROADWAY
' ' • .
~
De artment of Public Works Trans ortation
- - DRIVEW/QY STANDARDs 3/17/97
NA& mlemm
~Aa FEEDER ROADS
i i
ROW
24' MiN " MIN
DEF.ocriorr
a T -
• 1 CURB CUT PERirrUNiT'F~ '
` PER STREET PER fr.
' h1AAX OF 2 CUTS PER LpT
Department of Public Works/Transportation
3/17/97
' DRIVEWAY STANDARDS ~
y°~'°"'~ CURB CUTS AND DEFLECTIONS G
~ 3
~-5 q - r - 4'1
~ R
Day 22 _ Monaay
o Revised plaiis are due back from applicant by
12:00 noon (subnutted to Project Manager).
IIDate:
Days 22 - 23 - Monday (p.m.) and'lliesday I
~o Project Manager reviews revisions. flDaY 18 - ThursdaY
o Develo ment Review Team - Staff
TpWN OF p
~ ~Day 2~ - Wedtlesday
o Design Review Board - F conuiients are disctissed and compiled
by the Project Mulager.
inal Revieiv. o
~ Staff comments (on tlie revised pluis),
IDate of Final flDRB: are foitivarded to the applicunt.
Date . ~
.
Day 25 - Thursday
Day 16 T~iesday
- Applicuu may apply for a Building Permit.
~ Pro ect Nlana er must concur that all Desi n ° Staff re~ien~ of ie~ised plu~S
Review Board conditions of approval (if a .
n)
are resolve Pr~or . to acceI ~ . g tl
r15 MondaY ~1pP g d, ~tvi ie V
a Mandatoi Pre- licat~on/Submittal Meetm applicatioi~ foi pecnu. licuit revises lans
(with Planning & Public Works representatives). p ~
'dlld r2SL1bIIl1TS t0
• Every Thursday, 1:00 - 3:30 p.m. (1/2 hour Planning Liaison
intervals). By aPPoincment onlY . Day 46 (or earlier)
Officer (at service
s ~
pplication M g: ' Build'uig Pernut Issued i, counter by 12:00
Pre-A eetm
noon).
Day 1 - lYloll~y Uate:
P
~ Application Submittal- Determination of Day IlO - WednesdaV
completeness by Pluuling Liaison
o Development RevieN;, Team mid Project
Officer at service cowiter;
Manager complle all slill'f' conunents and
~ Project is scheduled for DRB. fonvards to applicant.
Submittal Date: o Design Review Board - Conceptual Review
- (op6onal- at applicanYs discretion).
Day 2 -1besday
?)ays 2 - 9 DRB Conceptual:
o Application is assigiied to a Project Manager
(a planner). e Staff review (all depaiiments).
Project Manager:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 4, 1997
SUBJECT: An appeal of a variance approval made by the Planning and Environmental
Commission on February 10, 1997. A front setback variance was granted to allow
an additional one-car garage to be constructed at 1034 Homestake Circle/Lot 5,
Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Appellant: Diana Donovan
Planner; Dirk Mason
1. SUBJECT PFiOPERTV
Kelton project. Located at 1034 Homestake Circle/Lot 5, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing.
II. STANDING OF APPELLANT
Staff believes the appellant has standing to file an appeal in this case as the appellant is an
adjacent property owner.
918. BAC6CGROUND
The applicants requested a front setback variance of 5' - 6" to construct a garage addition of 206
sq. ft. on the subject property. This single-family home currently contains 2 enclosed garage
spaces and this request would add a third. The allowable front setback for this site is 20 feet
and the proposal is for a 14' - 6" front setback . The Planning and Environmental Commission, at
their February 10, 1997 meeting, approved the setback variance with a 4-2 vote (Moffet and Pratt
opposed, Aasland absent) and made the following finding (see attached minutes and
transcription of the motion):
1. That the PEC finds practical site difficulty in locating the garage in any other
location on this lot.
This site originally had two dwelling units, a single family structure with a detached two-car
garage and a secondary dwelling unit above the garage. The current structure consists of only
the original single family dwelling unit and has since attached the garage into a single structure.
This structure also currently encroaches into the north side and rear setbacks by less than one
foot. This is a pre-existing nonconforming condition and is not affected by the proposal.
VV. Bd,4T'URE OF THE APPEAL
The appellant is appealing the PEC decision approving the front setback variance. The appellant
has indicated the practical difficulty on the site is a self imposed hardship of having too many
cars. The appellant has referenced Chapter 18.62.060, Criteria and findings, of the Town of Vail
1
Municipal Code as justification for overturning the variance approval. The consideration of
factors have been addressed by the appellant and are summarized as follows:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and
structures in the vicinity.
Appellant response:
Many neighbors have more cars than garage space available. Therefore, they park in
the paved areas in front of their homes. Parking vehicles on the street is not a regular
occurrence, most often occurring in the summer. Grounds for a variance is not the
number of cars a property owner possess.
Staff response:
Staff believes that providing enclosed parking for residential units is a benefit to the
neighborhood. Most homes constructed in this neighborhood have two-car garages.
Eight homes have access off Homestake Circle. Seven of these homes have two-car
garages and the eighth has a one-car garage. Additionally, the adjacent properties to this
site meet the required front setbacks. Staff believes that the requested variance would
not be in harmony with the structures in the vicinity, and would be a grant of special
privilege.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement
of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title wifhout
grant of special privitege.
Appellant response:
All of the adjacent properties have irregular shaped lots, thus making this property similar
to the neighborhood. The degree of relief could have been reduced by shortening the
garage, however, this was not included in the motion made by the PEC. The variance
criteria requires the minimum relief necessary where a hardship is found. _
Staff response:
Staff believes that the layout and orientation of the existing structure do not make this site
unique. The site exhibits no physical characteristics or constraints which constitute a
hardship, therefore, staff believes the proposal would be a grant of special privilege.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety.
Appellant response:
Several letters referenced the issue of snow removal and parking on the street. The
narrowing of the street in the winter is due to property owners pushing snow into the
street rather than storing the snow on the property. Snow storage can take place on-site.
Setback areas are often used for snow storage and should not be diminished.
Staff response:
Staff concurs with the comment that setback areas can be utilized for snow storage to
reduce the effort necessary for the Town of Vail to remove additional snow. The Zoning
Code requires on-site snow storage areas. Public safety could be compromised due to
the additional amount of snow placed in the Town of Vail right-of-way. The proposed
garage will reduce the available snow storage on-site. Staff believes that this proposal
has minimal impact on light and air, however, it may have impacts on adjacent praperties
and the right-of-way due to the reduction in snow storage.
2
Otherissues:
Staff believes the nature of this variance is very similar to the Campisi variance on Sandy Lane in
Potato Patch. The specific appeal was different, however, the hardship illustrated for both
properties were self imposed. The Town Council upheld the Planning and Environmental
Commission's denial of the site coverage variance with a unanimous vote in that case.
Also, it appears in this case that all, of the PEC members were contacted by the applicant for the
variance request. The PEC must act as an impartial quasi-judicial body when reviewing a
variance application and, therefore, these contacts by the applicant and may have unfairly and
inappropriately biased the PEC.
Staff can find no justification for the hardship based on the Zoning Code criteria for granting a
variance. The appellant has also provided additional information for the appeal, which is attached.
V. REQUIRED ACTION
Uphold/Overfurn/fiNodify the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval of a 5' - 6"
front setback variance.
The Town Council is required to make findings of fact in accordance with Section 18.66.030 (5)
shown below:
5. Findings. The Town Council shall on all appeals make specific findings of
fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of
fact must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the
requirements of this title have or have not been met.
Further, if the Town Council chooses to uphold or modify the PEC approval of this variance, the
Town Council shall consider the following factors and make the following findings related to the
granting of a variance:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcernent of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility
and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities,
and public safery.
B. The Town Council shall make the following findings before grantinga variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
3
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in ihe same district.
VI. STAFF RECOIUIYNENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council overturn the Planning and Environmental
Commission's approval of a 5' - 6" front setback variance and recommends that the Town
Council make the following findings:
1. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 18
(Zoning) have not been met.
2. That the granting of the variance wifl constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
3. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that are
applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Residential zone. In addition, any hardships which have been
presented, have been self imposed.
4. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation does not
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Residential district.
F:\everyon e\pec\memoUcelton.304
4
Submitted by the appellant, Diana Donovan.
I1. NA"I'URE Ol~ API'I;AL
According to the draft minutes of the February 10, 1997 Planning and Environmental
Commission riieeting, the motion to approve the request does not meet the requirements
of Chapter 18.62.060 Criteria and findings: the motioil incliides tio criteria or findings.
The motion refers to "the plaii" which by itself caii not show an application meets tiie
c?•iteria. 'I'here are three findings essential to the granting of a variance and not one of
them is referred to in the motion.
The practical difficulty on the site is really an inconvenience due to a self-imposed
hai-dship of liaving too many cai•s. A self-imposed liardship is i1ot a finding for a variance
ilI1(i "inconvenience" is referenced in l 8,62.O10,A as follows: "Cost or inconvenience to
the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for
granting a variance."
'I'he majority of PEC simply ibnored their responsibility to review specific factors and
make the findings required to grant a variance.
The factors to consider are:
l. THC RELATIONSHIP OF TI-iC REQUESTCD VARIANCE TO OTHER EXISTING
OR POTENTIAI, USES AND STRUCTURES ]N THE VICINITY.
Steinbergs, Giordanos and Donovans all have more cars than barage space.
Steinbergs and Giordanos park in the paved areas in front of their homes. The Donovans
stack the cars in front of the garabe: never less than three and most often more. The
Keltons are the only ones who park on the street and that is not a regular occurrence,
most often in the summer wid seems to be because it is easier to leave a car in the street
than juggle cars in the driveway. Parking on the street is a choice, not a necessity. Even if
they had four residents and seven cars it would not be grounds for a variance.
2. THE DEGREE TO WHICH RELIEF FROM THE STRICT AND LITERA.L
INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF A SPECIFIED REGULATION IS
NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE COMPATIBILITY AND UNIFORMITY OF
TREATMENT AMONG SITES IN THE VICINITY OR TO ATTAIN THE
OBJECTIVES OF THIS TITLE WITHOUT GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.
All of the adjacent properties have irreglilar shaped lots. Several suggestions were
made to decrease the "degree" of the requested relief. Amsden suggested "a shorter
length" to minimize the encroachment and Morter suggested 17' 4" but that was not
included in the motion.
Submitted by the appellant, Diana Donovan.
3. TI-IE EFrECT OP TI-IE REQUESTLD VARIANCE ON LtGHT AND AIR,
DISTRII3UTION Or POPULAT'ION, TRANSPORTATfON AND TRAFFIC
FACILITIES, PUBLIC FACILITIES AND UTILITIES, AND PUBLIC SAFETY.
Sevcral letters refer to snow removal and parkiiig on the street. The narrowing of
the street irl tile winter is due to icidividual properties pushing their snow into the street
instead of storing it on the property. Most often the setbacks serve to meet the
reguirement that snow storage be accommodated on your property so setbacks should not
be dirninished. It is illegal to park on the street no matter what the reason and is not •
grotinds for granting a variance particularly when a driveway and double garage are
available on site .
The PEC must make three specific findings and they mention none. It is not possible to
make those findings for the above stated reasons. Any "practical difticulty or unnecessary
pllysica] hardship" is really only inconvenience and not allowed as a basis for a variance.
All of the reasons given by the applicant as reasons for granting the variance "apply
generally to other properties" that are adjacent. A third garage would give tliem privileges
not "enjoyed by the owners of " adjacent properties,
Please call if t}iere are any questions.
Submitted by the appellant, Diana Donovan.
There are otlier real issues that are not the basis for an appeal but have everything to do
with why our process is criticized. I hope they will be addressed by council.
I was at PEC all day but left when they adjourned for supper feeling more than cert.ain that
there was no basis for a variance, based on my 14 years on PEC. ,
The following comments respond to specifc comments in the draft minutes in the order of
their occurrence.
Every board member stated they were contacted by Morter or the Keltons. It is clear
from the letters that the neighbors were also contacted. My calls from Morter and the
Keltons were fiill of inaccuracies that I would have accepted if I were not familiar with
PEC. Some of the inaccuracies T addressed above. In additioii, I was told t}le staff
suggested that the garage be placed in the back yard but the applicant said that would
require a driveway and the loss of trees. The staffis purpose or responsibility, I believe, is
to show w}iere the applicant has available buildiiib space and that it coiild be possible to
reconfigure their application. A common tact for applicants is to present the worst
concept imaginable as the alternate to the applicant's request. This really is a dishonest
approach especially when there are many alternatives. The variance procedure is meant to
be used when nothinb else "leba]" will work.
Threatening tlle loss of trees is quite insulting since I have watched them cut down several
(4?) specimen spruces the last couple years: they were the middle of a solid row between
the two remaining spruces on the west of the barabe. I am now wondering if they were
just planliing a}iead. The few remaining spruces are either ofT'their property or all but on
the property line. None are indicated on their plans.
. Not all the "Facts" presented by the architect are facts. There are different ways of
looking at things but specific, hard facts must be accurate. Anything less is dishonest and
leads to mutual distrust.
NO PEC member can state in a public meeting that they are "uncomfortable with the
regulations" that they are sworn to enforce. PEC may not ignore or give their own
interpretations to the judicial laws atid process of the adopted planning regulations of the
Town of Vail. Lawyers love those comments! It was clear to me after watching and
listening to PEC for 4.5 hours on the l Oth that several of the members have no
understanding of their sworn role as a Planning Commission member. It was equally clear
that on occasion that role is simply ignored. It was also quite clear to me why they chose
to ignore certain regulations on certain applications. They can not make exceptions
without substantiation.
There is no such thing as a little bit pregnant or a minor variance. Pregnant is pregnant
and a variance is a variance!
Submitted by the appellant, Diana Donovan.
No one ever 1-IAS to park on the street in our neibhborhood unless there is a party or
unusual situation. The actual inhabitants havc plenty of space in di•iveways or garages.
We all occasionally parh in the street for convenience only.
One of the riiles of thumb we always used to tuiderstand a11 the legal lanbuage is that if
everyone on the street can qtialify for the variarice the» it is not a hardship but a regtilat10I1
that is meant to Ue observed.
It is also my observation that people who have been denied an application or who have a
particular conflict with a decision should not be appointed to the board. It appeared to me
that they are unable to see past that issue.
Please call if yoii have questions.
Sincerely,
LZ--~d o~,i" a,-,I
Diana Donovan
1014 I-Iomestake Circle
Vail, Colorado 81657
476-351 1
T'AX 476-2789
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 10, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance to aNow for a new garage, located at
1034 Homestake Circle/Lot 5, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Art and Elaine Kelton
Planner: Dirk Mason
1. BACI(C;R4tJND AP9D DESCFiIPT'ION OF THE REQUEST
The applicants, Art and Elaine Kelton, are requesting a front setback variance of approximately
6-6", to allow for a 14'-6" front setback, in order to construct a garage addition of 206 sq. ft. This
site is currently improved with a two-story single family structure with a 452 sq. ft. iwo-car
garage.
This site originally had two dwelling units, a single family structure with a detached iwa-car
garage and secondary dwelling unit above. The current structure consists of only the original
single family dwelling unit and has since attached the garage into a single structure.
This site currently meets the Town of Vail Municipal Code's off-street parking requirements by
providing 3 parking spaces. The current parking regulations do not require enclosed off-street
parking for residential units. However, enclosed parking is encouraged by allowing a 600 sq. ft.
credit for enclosed parking on this site.
81. ZONING ANALVSIS
Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential
Use: Single-Family residence
Lot Size: 11,983 sq. ft.
Standard Allowed Exi_ stina Proposed
GRFA: 3,421 sq. ft.° 2,888 sq. It. 3,029 sq. ft.
Site Coverage: 2,397 sq. ft. (20%) 1,984 sq. ft. (16.5%) 2,352 sq. ft. (19.6%)
Landscape area: 7,190 sq. ft. (60%) 9,226 sq. ft. (77%) 8,701 sq. ft. (73%)
Setbacks:
Front: 20' 24'-51 " 141-6"
Sides: 15' 14'-2" (north) & 20'-6" (south) n/c
Rear: 15' 14'-7" n/c
Parking: 3 spaces required 4 spaces (2 enclosed) 6 spaces (3 enclosed)
' Includes 425 sq. ft. credit
1
ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the
Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested front setback
variance. The recommendation for denial is based on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Staff believes that providing enclosed parking for residential units is a
benefit to the neighborhood. Most homes constructed in this
neighborhood have two-car garages. Eight homes have access off
Homestake Circle. Seven of these homes have two-car garages and the
eighth has a one-car garage. Additionally, the adjacent properties to this
site meet the required front setbacks. Staff believes that the requested
variance would not be in harmony with the structures in the vicinity.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or
to attain the objectives of this title without grant af special privilege.
Staff believes that the layout and orientation of the existing structure do
not make this site unique. The site exhibits no physical characteristics or
constraints which constitute a hardship, therefore, staff believes the
proposal would be a grant of special privilege.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
Staff believes that this proposal has minimal impact on light and air,
however, it is not significant enough to effect adjacent properties and the
right of way. This proposal does not have any impact on the other factors
of consideration.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findinas
before aranting a variance•
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
2
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
BV. S'B'AFF RECOWi16VdEi~DAT90N
The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the applicants'
front setback variance request subject to the following findings:
1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same
district.
2. That there are not exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District.
3. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will
not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same district.
f:\everyone\pecUnemosUce11on.210
3
E RIVER NATIONAL FOREST
JNDARY
~
UNPLATTED ~ EoE
r--_-
s
TOWN Or' V•11L
. h1AINT. SHOP
I
INTERSTATE 70 7 .
( rar iN T.O.V. ) 7
rENNis couars 2 VAIL VILLAGE 8th.
~ L
- 2 i
cnEE~ 1055 I 6 1115 1 Nes C ,
• EAST VAIL WATER 4 0 9 10 IIG3 • 1193
SANITATION 8L0 ~ACT 7 ~031 12q' 25 0 4 8• 125 ~ 1153
IOOI • 1045 w~~50 7 2 3
° I007 ~I3 io si~vEa I c~.
1022 V 1157 II87 14 TR
Nl~TUR[ 7 IIC7 1136 12 13 ~ 1195 ~
F-
CE~N~TER 1091 • Ii7 O VALI.EY ~
e loiz a.~ 6 i
1014
620 992 e VAII.
° O 3
SOCCER FIELD TRACT D ~ 2 ZQ
7RACT A 994 Pa ~ 1220
1200
96 5 Q P ,i7o
.IL_ VILLAGE 7th. FILI NG 998 Z4,, 5,69 1130 1150 7 TRACT F
965 975
} 1 z ~Q-3 PARCEL D
925 '
FAIRWAY fp\RWpY Cj •
• •
o 04
990
L LL GE IOt Fi IN 870 10 9 8 7 6 5.
880 690 920 930 950 970 TRACT A ,
9••~, ~ ~ . •
~ . . ' , . . , ~ ` ~ ~ . ~ . 'r . • ' . . . , • '
~ • ~ ~ 'V • ~ . " . ' -1.~ . ' ~t' ' .
'Vy . - I .
• . ~Q' i: r'~ = ;
. . ' V ` . ~ .
•Q/. ~ :'LI .
. . . ..t~•, `11~ .1 ~Y~~ .i~ J
'.t
~
~ ~
. . cw~i
. -~4~,`'~ : ` . •1 • ~-r~ku.y •'''o- 4 ~ pT : - ~ . , • . . . ,
I~O~ ' . .fr ~ t~~v~~•.: ~ _ t/
i . ~-BTC~.IH ~ , •
. ~ .I .
. . ~Y, . : ~ , ; • . • .
" • ' ~ v,~lvC ~t~'~ ~ • , ~ ~ .
~ - 'j'.12~8'/• .AL16N ~ • , . . / _ -
/ . ~I, r>'>%%~:. ~ . . . • / . . _
. ; . . . , . . . . ; ~ .
3~e.e $a r
FT. Qf, 22fls so FS_ t!kFAs[ ARF~ . ' . • ~ .
.1.! i ''.'i''' . ' ' . ~ • • , ~ ' . ' _ • . . ~ , . . . .
, . . i • / ~
' . : • :1..•, . ~ ~ , l":.
' ' . • . . ~ ; , / ~ .
. • " ' ~i.~ . ~ -
. : ~ ~ , • F,~,~ . ~ . ~ . r
. : • , \ ~ . ~ ~ .
~ ~ r..
• ' , , ' , . . . , . • • ' , '
~ . . . . ' ' , t~. • ~ ~
. , , ' • . ; ~ ` ~ ~~S'•, '
_ . . . . . . , . ~ . . • i.' • ~i~r
. . , , . , ' ~ ~ . ~ ..L.:;• '
. ~ . . . . r,i,' ~ , r,~ .•i'•• .
~ ~ ~ . . , . • ~ . ~ . . . , ' '.ti•.• ~.i1~v,'~..
, . . •.I' "'i' S''~' ~~`i.
. . . :
A
.
. ~•~,~.:~:f,;' `••i,: :;`:;'q`,•',:.~ :L :i
, ~ , ~'o• . , , . :i~ ',;1.'' •t
.t~ ~J:' _ ~ ..l .
. I~.~1•;'~~'~ :~~Y'~ .1~
, ~.:r~ ~ / •~~1~, .f5'r
' . .1;~ ~I.'• .•J.` •,1.. :~•.j.'.:•'~
~ 11 ' .1 . .~~~~•.:.~i,`~~,t~~' ~~:I,~i
. , ~ " e•i:" 'tir?~'r
_ I~ . . ':s•~ I 'I~- "~fii'r.
• 'J. .A~~ ~i• :l`•:l•l}~.•
.
, r~ • , .r" :S '.I~'" '.i: +~~`r'1~i~1',..
~
. . , ;ll. 1' ~ i• •~i~j'':'a:}r:~:.
. . '.i' . . ~r%'I•
_ . . , ,'t: ~ , l . t ~ ,
- ~ rl. '.i.•,.1~': :~1~ i
. 't ~i r'~ : G . '.1 •
•'t.;:
-
-
Y
. :~•:r.;:.;.
: •
' r. .
y' -
~i ' . ; ' , r.: ~ ~ ~y : : . • _ •..Y ~ `:is?
~'i('.• :j`~"i~. ~Jv":r.::
".(7 a~". ,~y., ~;j~ •
:I~ :1~.
:~i r:a_, !t~' »ic~'.:
~.c~: ' 'K'•;`~ ::i:r~. "r
i.~~ ~~~t-"•.~
• ~r','_ ,c;~ `Li ; ` ~ r ,
•r.:.~•' `~1'°~! , r...;•,
T • +
i'.~ •.ti' ~r~
1 ° S~.r'.~: C~ti t_.... 'i:: • ~ ~ 1•r. ~
,
.i': _ '1!: .N.^• ~ i~:i
.n~ ' 'f •v'`
- r: i.~•'
..t _
= .l .
-r •
~,,t y'•:,'~.
1 ~a~
i • y~, -
1. •.f.e: 't^~. V
:4 :i='~^'~ f;~•
~
~r; •
,I:~ ~~:~~L f^~'.• :'{.~fl
•j~~`i p
. - ,t.;' . r.. .'r.c . .~';1.. ~.j';
,
r~ - .:a= :s,=
.~'c •.c' ~ ~~•y:;%''' ;`.\.:r' ;:'t>. . y,.:~ w'•• '
_ -T'.~ . .~.i._•L:'~;%'•
Y; fti,• ;
c~
~ :
M;'~!M
'a.
~ ' •
~'1~ ^ ~ ~ _
.,ti
I`
{
•'J ~ ~ Y."'
.`~E
i: .
~
-
~ ti
c~'`i+fi~~~ ~c.
:.i: ••i•' -'i.•
i'~ Y'. .'J:' - - t' i . • '~~5.~ .i. t,l a ,
i ~ i . ='f. ; - •.d-::; . ~t.•'
sl:.:.'::Jpe .N'~l" ~'i~•'~ 'f
•i fi ::f;;;~~;;
-'J ` •ytr' ~i:~i'.
'..i"ti:.'J, •'~P~'~ .t•~, p',~ `'l l• '~s~~'.e.
- ;i' ..r~~ :i::;::~;'~;~ =v. .t•::i` ..Y'>.
, . _
. _
.~~1 '•f, ~ ' 1. ~ _ t'in••~ :N~. i 1 ~
'.f
1: 'Y,r !f`'•_~:+1~:, •h ~l"
. .
~'S~' ',~i• ~'1. .l' ' 3'~: .1 ~
y~
..c . : _ •
_'c.
i.'l. '1•'. ~f•.:~ .51.~.
. ~•~,t;_;~.; '•~i'. ;?s%~'~? ..t.'~~ .r' ~
-Ce
..A'• ~~c'•~•~ 'i• .c..,..q:~Y.
'w: :K~~ ti!~:k`: ...~,'s %y`'.: `":Y~'.' .r '~:{'•.r,
:o~`r'~'O ~;J, ii.,` i,:f~• ~i' t. .S.
iY'~ • a.;
1- ~ ~ .~..a~:`i.t;: 7S'~~ _ ,3':~::1 -:'"'i;'%.".`,•",•.. :~i
L:` ~~f ~ •'l. ; - ' 11 17.~~, ~y r r .i
.s'~.
:'j : ..t + ; r, ! •
i'•
~ : •3'•C''....• r~~.. i r~•, c
~ f :
i~ ~ t. ~r.4•.` +.ir ^i
~ ~ ~i:• .a -
• H~ ''4.: "'r. .;~'~*Y~~~~,
l~ ~.S • - - ',a• :n
:i:
t '1.
` - ;'t",
4'~C ''i' , a 1 - ri~_.
c.~
' :f.~ ^ :Y.•~ ' - :^C+. Jti ~!•R:f ':L ~J • C.~ - 1.
'~.`S'( ,.I )`~i'ii-' lr, nJ .f. rC.~ '..0.. ..'i~; '~r~.L.:!'•(:' r .
•~i;'
t~~~~~ti..,:.~
~1~. ':T""• i ^^~I,y,1~~:i _n. '.'J-., `..t'~° .~1•.~~.<•'~ ~:j~: '.f ~.5:.'• . h"i~.
~'r~ ''~i~ :l,t.~. .y,'; :'i:t~ 'tii~ +.:~:°.Y,~1~,: t... .`.'v.. ~..,-~';,z~~~.
+.'.f~.:. i~:t:> <~c~•C~C'' .~,'i '1..'fi.•:~ ;i.~y.•t-'~it::,
, a,.: .
~ , . .,,,t .J, •
.
.;.~,,.n,'n ~":i:;,~, r.i~;`i` ~~jt'::: ~..~+a.~ -
7777
~ • `i' ^i'~•:'~ r't. ~i ~ . {~y :'p°• •.;n:,.
-i%
'..M -t' ..~r, `•'r. ~'C
..~r' .cy;..r:.'.
~ ^.9. .':r- "
- ~ 1'+'• l r '.1 ~ ~l i•~j:~. ~ y~. •
~1' - i- - •e:.r~,,.,. .r::;-.•
. . 5i, 'i':.~
~~:;~•._;t~ ~2.~ ~l"y'_ n!.',
:
.~:1.:'.'• r'~.+ ; ~
l•
=n.
ti:~_t.....
.
'
~ . . . _
1~~ `•L~ -
'.J 1
, . :
• r.
5~• ~,t ;'C~
.l.'. .4:t~ r'~':L'•`1" ~,.4„
, .i c.,. ~ -
~~YJ '.a: "i,~'r' ~i. :i'+:.i~i~. i'•,i
,s~..1. }~"i~;, ~`i..`~i, i~:"~ .•t; ,;.1.. ' ~_.r..•.r~. ~yi~' . .
.Y;: ~ r7 ` .J•~,?%.
.r? , j~~.
: r
'f' •J•` ~l. _ - -4,
* X
,i Y
T
- ' N'. : y'• l
• ~y ~/'~h ' ~ f.
~
l ?
~~1 t
. . .
:.k. •;i~ '•~I~ •.1
~.t' ~'.t~• ~
,:i: •i}'.". 'j,i~' z.s..ir..'i• .~y~
- •b' ..i:.C ...1....,:. ~ ( %.7.
•'.r .c= F' -
i«
~'ti'i 'T.' ~ d •r.. ~ 1 ~
.5:~ .~4. ' lf ..f .R~'. `1-i •.u~.'~~ .~~:'.i~~,~~
•a~.`rr;• +"i.: - ':i~~ ~~i.i•~s-, 'S-K~•: '•~i~, n,'4~,....~_'_.~Sr.•~ r.~ i.,:lT,• ~ J;t"`;•~.
l,y ~',f ':~.~~•~._'r..:! .~.,;i':.: t~i l i'?%~ ~~i~': Y.(i
~^,I~~~~i,~:~,;nY• ~,lyryi~~:i,-iZO~ :'.4~,r1:.1 ' ~:!'.iY:1r,S.~.~^,:',J.~+Y. ~:IT...4'.~'~~~i. F'~'~( !
.~2~ 1+ } ~~,'yy~:;•l'.~'• .~I:.~~. •f'~!. ~ •~.:M~. 1'•M..: .J,I
"'6 ;h: ,r'r~:L'';d.'!'S? ~fj:A'~: ~ .i i~: :1l1:.~ . .,.~L'" : ~~_•:z. • ~'t•.' ~e.~b'~.. :if ~;1:~i2sY.~J.'E'Y~;.ti.C ::y~~ I'i~ ri.~'~t.{:+~.
at .:h... Y y~• .-..j'`~Ji Y •'li~,*1 •t.~:~,~^.~F,.~. . ir\•. "l%f~
" '.r. l' b"t~1.4~j1t.+"+Gi.~~~`.~:^f .1 ~ :}11~.L CJ ~`I•~ .N1:3 r F`4.~3~:~ ~ ~.o%i~;'a. Y., r! .eZ jT'
?s' Y ti~ ~ a"'~1:~. Fs 'w' 1.if(,!'~~ti~
.,.~~yi .t_:ii iMl~~,r~~~tTl~ :A.]i:'.~5~.,'Is.:i'.'~'~.~'~s.~'.?!~• i~~ 'i: iti'i~'~'':.Z,,,y'J"`~ a;~~'' ~~g~y r'. x' t~
.~x.l:i.`~:1..P.' 1 1i• . p,~.`, ti~ i 1}r~3 y. 4~t'" .
, ~:i1:'.c..t.~ t~° 4:~•~ siF,', ~ ~ cA, ``Y..~y t:i" +G;n~~r•.
. - , ! . . . ~ . ~ ~ , ' ~ ~ . •.T',{' ~ .
-
. , ~
~ i
i ~
LI~- ;
rD ' O ~ I I
P F/fir'{~
~ I I KlfLilJ{
O
C71N~41h 4 YA1L7I ~ I. I I
_ hIMIvJZ cir+7iYL?I ~ 1
7M~is ~ I '
• l " ~
~
. . , • I I
CD~
rr--,~ sY~
- - I
__..s=.T._- ~ ~y
_ ~ .....j~ ~..j, j..
. . . ;I ~~111
. I~ 7
' II I I
i~-
,
I : I
~ I l i ~ oLV m+tfRy ~ I i _y~
, .
• ~ ~ ~ / ~ .~~X~~CeoG'~ ' I . ~ Y_~ L~_H~.ti ~I+tL _ ~ I 1 I -
I ' ~ I ~1 I i~l`/ 6c^T*1TJ O LY.~'y [Mi~ I ~ ~.I I I I I I ,
~ - - - - - , I ~
i
i
DNS
- - - .
~,~.~-s~ . .
K~I.TcO N K r-,%Ne-a
1 1
•r.~ '
~ l
. ~
• I~l~;~~ ~I:I. ' ' i., I~.~~: i
. 1 ,
- ' l,
.
..1 1 ~
I
N1~.1 .*Fby,~b/ lN,`t~ fLt'T1 ~
-1 F] LL] ~ I 17 ~ ~ . ~ ~
UuOGG OcHt1.Y~ ka-'>'
YbfYZlblh ^J YS.211 Cxhir7'L~
E ~ ~
I J
; ~ i . . L
i I •i ~
i' I ~ I~'' I ~ ,i i~ ~i I_?? I
I ~I I~ (I ~I II I I~ ~I'I (I ~I ~i ~ ' ~ I. ' f~t~:wuE, tvu.G~ •
' I•
• ~ I~ I ~
~ t I { ~ r ~ Ii iJ ~I~~' ~ , ~
:uli~l
i . i
~ ii
,
. ~ ti~-- - - ~ - ( -I
)
I { , .
~
~ . ~ .
103 V
~
. 4 (
.
oll .~.e un~-.,..G-~.• . ,
c..~' I . ~
Jlz
. . ~ ;
~ ~v .:~~LLa%UQ-~cL~,-zGC.. •
v
. ~ ' • /~/L~ ~=un~~,
.
. /o1y X/ow~~ . .
Ta -4nHa NtinONOQ/N09dMA3NOH 68LZ9Lb0L61 61:ZZ L66I/ZZ/10
DO1 \1 \A \.YIOR1!/ >1 lO _ ' • • _ .
1107 Vf1I?:., VALLEX DI2IVE
VAIIL, ~OLO12ADO 81657
Mr. Diri: M1son
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
75 So. F'rontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr. Mason:
The Keltons have shown me the plans for their proposed garage at ] 034 Homestake
Circle, which I find both workable and in keeping with the feeling of the Golf Course.
As a neighbor,(we share backyards) I enthusiastically support their request for a
variance . '
I do, however, strongly object to the alternative of putting a garage in the backyard
behind their existing East garage, as it would require the cutting of trees, and be unsightly
for us as we enjoy the use of the decks on the backside oF our home all year.
, . .
. . _ .
• . . ' - r - ' , , ,jr` ,4 r;
. . . , , _ . . . -'L~.,,...,:.x,. •ee:
. . . . , , . - • . '..r.:.,i =~;?`i~,,° ".J,!: ,
, • ` . 1 . . ' ` ' Ch , ~a ~ ' .
• . . . . . • . . . . . - - ' • ,`A;'~ip;i'...;1°'~.~i:;~". . . . , . . . . . . . ;.y ~ a.e ,
. . , . . . • - :6. . - .a .
I . ~
.9 L6D r 7 W97 ,
- ~~1~~1 ~ =-7= ~ r~ u ,4-~ ~ ; ~i_~_~
~
~
! 2__/U~ . 1'tA P,--S o r~ f
- -
-
~ I~s-~~. h1 c= X i ov rL. N Q' ~v,2 0~ T-l~= ,
-
- - -
D-~~--
I -
3 S ~L~~ ~ .r- c a ~ ~ L~ 1 v,2~a-o ~ ~ ~ I - -
~
- l_`~-i_s~:_--v,~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~tia-~ ~ ~ ~ ~'(n-?a-~ - ~ ~
I f
~.I~ ~ I ~?N c - '2-~1.1 ~ _ --~-~o ~O ~ S C_~ /-~i~1
D~_h_o ~ ~ J -`-&VLA- ac S 0
- ~ - - - -
~
=-~'vr~ ~ S ~ c: Zj - Y
-
- - P~ .J ~ -
- , N ~ ~2~~_--~'1_±~-y?~
r---------
I.
- ;at l ~ c~ __S.~ G. ~ ~ ?4-+~ g ~L ~~/lS ~u_~~1 C~"i~
~ V\A~f --"`-A
I
~
, - - _
- - - -------5
A-2ikO 6 o e~-N_ ~6wAeS_~k-O-
c- 2 `T~~-~2c- -~r~ c- _ `"~-4, `~s ,°~2.?4~ L w o u ~ ~
; c~ -
- ~ , lr E V Q Q
j
~ L-f~J ~ `j~~?.~ ~/1/~~.4 w ~P tn
I ~
' vJ e ~~SS`~ ~ ~~-e ~ -rv 1~ n ?J ~ S
~ ~ -
~
' ~ `~'z-- ~l ?A~-~~ S ^('~S o,~ S .
i .
- ~ .
~ Li- (~30 e-c~~2_5 c~'~~~u~,fl o-?--~ ~{n.~. s`~.~~`f
~ ;
,
1 ' . . 1 A
i
~ .
. i~--------------. _
- ~
-
c~ .
D--- Q~ ~ Co -n,(cC~ ~
. _
~
- 2~_ ~ ~ 5----/~~-~-------°-.-F~== 5_~~ e-+_ _ 2k4P~C.~-~ -
~ -
;
-!~S ~ ~n-~-~ c~~.~-~--~~~_~-, ~ ~o ,J -
~
-
,
. -
i!1~~ - ~U 2 ! ~
~ ~ .
~
- - ~ ~ l' ~'1 ~F-~~~~ C ~~-1-~ ?~-c 1 S -
; ~ - ~
- ------------~----------------Q= -P--S~-YZ.~----~- \Me- 0 2__~'N~-~--- ~ ~ ? ~
, ~ - - - ~j 1-}~oc~b .
~
i ~
,
1 V~ C f LJ QS Y1A
-
_ eS~,(~Q C; ~~I ~e--- - - -
,
~
- - -
v 112 - - ~
~ J , 1 ~
AD
ee-
-
-
~ -2---~ -
~•I~~~l- ~~~f~-/~ CC~
. y l
~ J?~, ~ ~
14-6
~J y ?"l~`~~~~ ~cvG~- si~
~
, G v 1~ • , / t~Cf~~"`r~,~ /L "`-~lin` - ,~Pi
/ fit,~~~'' • ~ ,h f~//
~
~ - ' ,~c.~
~ ~~~~'•v G1/ ~ ~~c
' ; ' o. / •
~
.~G~''~`~• .G~ G~~ ~ >.Gf"
<.~l~z~~`~
C~~It~t'J~ / ~ .
. ~ ' ~~v^-G •
~
.
t _ ! :
Ov - colVii-IA, U`(;'J. E'j, L."?' l
SAM B. COOK
238 MADISON STREET
JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI
February 6, 1997
Mr. Dirk Mason
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
75 S. Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Requested variance for garage at 1034 Homestake Circle
Dear Mr. Mason:
As a neighbor adjacent to Homestake Circle, I strongly support the
Kelton's request for a variance in order to build a third garage.
Parking on Homestake and Eagles Nest Circle is always very limited,
particularly in the winter, and to be able to put another car
inside a garage would be helpful to us all.
The garage will be situated in an area where, T understand, there
never has been any snow stored.
Thank you,
(1012 East Eagles Nest Circle
Vail, Colorado 81657)
SBC/pg
.hl P,d- ,r~,„ 7 " D il a 1 , O
'`~R 1 19~~
FILE uopy
3. A request for a front setback variance to allow for a new garage, located at
1034 Homestake Circle/Lot 5, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Art and Elaine Kelton
Planner: Dirk Mason
Dirk Mason gave an overview of the staff inemo and said that staff was recommending denial, as
they believed that this was a grant of special privilege. Dirk said that they had received 5 letters;
one in opposition and 4 in favor, however, two of the letters came from the same propcrty.
Greg Moffet disclosed for the record, that he was contacted regarding this request.
Greg Amsden said he was contacted.
John Schofield said hc was contacted by Jim Morter.
GeneUselton said he was contacted.
Diane Golden said she was contacted.
Henry Pratt said he was contactcd.
Jim Morter, with Morter Architects, pleaded the Kelton case by stating that Art and Elaine Kelton
with their two daughters had a total of 7 cars used by the whole family, with 3 of them on the
property at all times. Jim stated that the property was originally zoned in 1973. The reasonable
altenlatives, suggested by the PEC, were neither desirable by the Keltons or the neighborhood.
He then showed illustrations of the two alternate locations. He explained the first as being a
tandem arrangement that would take out a gove of aspens and the second alternate location was
a tandem arrangement taking out an existing spruce tree. Jim felt it was unreasonable to take out
landscaping. He said both altemates wouldn't work from a functional standpoint, as they use the
cars every day and the alternates would be for storing the cars. He said the backyard is shared
visually by the neighbors and the neighbors were not in favor of either tandem arrangement. Jim
said the applicant felt they had a hardship, regarding destroying the mature landscaping, as the reason for granting a variance. He said, regarding the three findings that 1. a grant of special
privilege - 95% of the sites were larger than this site in the zone district; 2. that the neighbors
wanted to see this happen; and 3. - it presented a practical difficulty to maintain desirable living
standards.
Planning and Environmenta] Commission •
Minutes
Febivary 10, 1997 14
Dirk Mason said, regarding the proposed locations with the garage in the rear, that staff hadn't
evaluated any proposal with a tandem garage. He clarified that 7 out of the 91ots werc less than
15,000 sq. ft. and many were between approximately 11,500 sq. ft. to 11,000 sq. ft.
Jim Morter said that another house in the neighborhood had violated three of the setbacks and
violations did exist. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none.
Diane Golden said she felt the garage proposal was within reason and that it wouldn't look
obtrusive. She said she felt uncomfortable with the regulations, as the Town wanted to get the
cars off the street. She felt this was a minor variance and she would approve it.
Henry Pratt said that therc was a lot in what Diane said, however, he had a hard timc getting past
the special privilege finding. He suggested putting a heated parking pad in.
John Schofield shared Diane's philosophy. He demonstrated the practical difficulties of parking
cnforcement and said that they did not want to be overly restrictive when a goal was to get cars
off the street and under cover.
Dirk Mason read from Section 18.62.010 regarding a practical difficulty and how it related to thc
size of the sitc or a site that had physical limitations.
Gene Uselton said he was in favor of this request, since Section 18.62.0 10 provided justification.
He statcd that this was not a grant of special privilege.
Mike Mollica mentioned staff had used existing, mature landscaping as a hardship in the past.
Greg Amsden said the existing landscaping made it difficult, therefore, he was in favor of this
request.
Greg Moffet stated that there was a practical difficulty, however, he still thought it was a grant of
special privilege, especially when there were practical alternatives. He stated that the setbacks
were there for a reason and he didn't see a compelling reason to go into the setback. He said that
if this was granted, he didn't see any way not to grant everyone the same in Homestake Circle.
Gene Uselton said if other people were able to show a hardship, they could havc the same.
Greg Moffet stated the PEC would see everyone wanting the same and then a front setback
wouldn't matter.
Mike Mollica said if this site didn't have a garage, it would be different, but he said that a 3-car
garage was pushing the envelope.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
Februxry 10, 1997 15
Greg 1Vloffet said the applicant could put in a covered carport.
Jim Morter stated the carport would encroach into the setback.
Mike Mollica said a carport would fall under the deck category, as it was opcn on three sidcs.
Diane Golden asked if the applicant would consider a heated carport.
Jim Morter said the Kelton's woulcl not be interested in a heated pad. He agrecd with Gene's
argument. Jim advised to use the rules to improve the neighborhood and that particular
neighborhood needed what was being done.
Greg Amsden said, after hearing Greg Moffet's comments, that a carport would work.
Gene Uselton felt that the neighborhood would object to a carport, over another garage.
Greg Moffet reminded everyone that the PEC was constrained to act within the code.
John Schofield moved that we approve the request to allow for a garagc, in accordance with the
plans and that the PEC found a practical difficulty on the site.
Gene Uselton seconded the motion. Greg Amsden askcd what the minimum requirement was for the length of a garage.
Dirk Mason said there was no minimum requirement.
Mike Mollica explained that it coulci be as small as 16', since it was not a required space.
Greg Amsden said a shorter length would minimizc the encroachment into the setback.
Jim Morter suggested going from 194" to 174" in length.
Dirk Mason said if it was flush with the front of house, it would encroach 2' into the setback.
The motion passed 4-2 with Greg Moffet and Henry Pratt opposed.
,
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 10, 1997 16
PEC Mceting..., Februarv 10. 1997
Transcription of motion on Item #3, Kclton Front Sctback Variancc Request
(Tapc 3, - 1813)
John Schofield - made a motion to "approve the request in accordance with the plans
submitted with the Staff inemo.
Greg Moffet - " John, just because this has been a little bit contentious, would you
John Schofield - "specify that the square footage is
Greg Moffet - " no, actually, would you specify that you don't find the special privilege...
that the
John Schofield - " I would definitely specify that we find a praetical difficulty in locating the
garagc in any other location on this lot."
Gene Usclton - sccondcd thc motion.
Discussion followed regarding minimizing the encroachment in the setback by reducing the
length of the gar-age.
Greg Moffet - " Greg, as I understand it, are you asking John to amend his motion?"
Grcg Amsden - " No..."
The motion passed 4-2, with Greg Moffet and Henry Pi-atl opposed.
kIAYES, P]EIILILLPS & IVIA.I.ONEY, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
Suite 450, The Market Center
1350 Seventeenth Street
• Denver, Colorado 80202-1517
(303) 825-6444
Telecopier: (303) 825-1269
John E. Hayes M. Susan Lombardi
Herbert C. Philiips Bradley N. Shefrin
James S. Maloney Corey Y. Hoffmann
Kendra L. Carberry
E% PA127CE COiVTACTS AND QUASI-JUDICIAI. DECISIONS
VVFIAT IS AIV E% PARTE CONTACT? Broadly defined, an ex parte contact is any
written or verbal communication initiated outside of a regularly noticed public hearing
between an ofFicial with decision-making authority and one or more of the parties, but not
all of the parties, concerning a particular subject matter which is under, or which is about to
become under, consideration by ehat official, and which seeks either to influence, or present
information relatung to, that matter which is the subject of the decision. The,term is usually
used in a courtroom.context; the judge cannot discuss a case with either party or their
attomey without the other party and the attorney,being present. ..The term is aLso equally
applicable to any quasi-judicial matter pending before a local governmental body. An ex
parte contact may include discussing an upcoming hearing or decision with the staff.
. . , , , , - . - .
WHY ARE EX PARTE, CO1VTACTS BEFORE, IViAKg1VG . A ',_QUASI-JUDICIAI,
DECISIOIV IliqPitOPER?
1. All parties are entitled to have the matter heard by an impartial person or body.
At the very least, ex parte contacts, whether the contacting person is an applicant or a
protestant, call into question the impartiality of the decision maker. •
2. Every quasi judicial decision must be supported by findings of fact, and the
findings of fact must be based solely upon the evidence as it appears in the record of the
proceeding. The record of Yhe proceeding consists only of matters presented at the hearing,
not anything presented before or after the hearing. Therefore, to have a defensible record,
only evidence presented during the hearing, on the record of the hearing, may be relied upon
in reaching the body's decision.
. : _ . ' 9130196 - 2:18pm
EXPARTECON
3. In some instances, the parties have the right of cross-examination of the
opposing side. They cannot cross-examine an ex parte contact.
4. Tn the event one party challenges the final decision, you can be sure any ex
parte communications will be included as one of the grounds for reversing the decision.
VVHAT DO I DO IF SOMEONE ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT ME BEFORE A
HEARING?
1. Stop the Person. If it is a verbal contact, advise the person that you are sitting
as a judge in the matter and you cannot listen to or review anything about the issue prior to
the hearing. . .
2. Disclose ihe Contact. At the next public meeting or prior to the hearing on the
public record, advise the remaining members of the board and the parties of the contact, your
response, and whether or not you think you can make an impartial decision based on the
evidence presented at the hearing despite the contact. .
3. Consider Whether the Ex Parte Contact Re "uires Abstention. An ex parte
contact, by itself, is usually not enough to reverse the final decision or require you to abstain
from voting on the issue. Each individual contact must be reviewed to deternune whether
it affects your impartiality or ability to consider the matter fairly, whether it creates an
appearance of impropriety, whether it creates a conflict stich that you cannot participate in
the decision-making process, or whether it otherwise affects the rights of the parties seeking
the decision to "fundamental fairness" or due process in the decision-making proceedings.
4. Consider AdoptinQ Formal Procedures. It is difficult to tell a neighbor or a
constituent that you cannot talk to them about an issue thaf may be very important to them.
Very often constituents are unable to understand why they cannot speak about particular
issues to those who have been elected or appointed to represent those constituents. It may
help to have specific procedures that the governing body or the planning commission has
adopted that you can point to as the reason you cannot handle a quasi judicial issue in the
same manner as you do other legislative or administrative issues. This will also help to make
sure al] board members handle ex parte contacts in the same manner. . . . _ . . . . . . . : :.;t . - .
. , . - 9130196 - 2: l8pm
EXPARTF-CON
i.
_ \
a
tltll E9V1 OR/'11 tlDV IYI .
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 24, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a major exterior alteration in Commercial Core 1, to allow for the
enclosure of a deck area at the Creekside Building, located at 229 Gore Creek
. Drive/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. ' . Applicant: Michael Ditch, represented by Oz Architecture
Planner: Lauren Waterton
1. BAC9CGROl9iVD AND DESCRIP'TION OF THE FtEQl1EST
The applicant is proposing a major exterior alteration to the Creekside Building in CCI in order to
enclose part of an existing dining deck. The addition is proposed on the west side of the second
level of the Creekside Building, in the space currently occupied by the May Palace restaurant. A
new restaurant, Gore Creek Grille, will occupy this space in the spring. The proposed addition is
above existing floor area, and therefore, does not add additional site coverage.
The proposal includes a 1,050 square foot, addition to the restaurant for a new entry and new
seating area. The applicant is proposing to leave part of the existing deck area to allow for
approximately ten tables to be located on the outdoor dining deck. The addition will have folding
french doors, placed between stucco columns, that open onto the new dining deck. A wood and
steel trellis is proposed to be located above the outdoor dining and the new entry. Above the
addition, new balconies will be provided for the residential condominiums on the third level of this
building.
Additionally, improvements to the east side of the building include, a handicapped and delivery
ramp, a new trash collection room, and a new exhaust vent and chimney. Finally, the entire
building will be repainted with a new coloc scheme. .
-
`~'n>. - - •^'~;:`k''T;"-'~ _ - - . '~S `
~(.,~rJ ) '["'I~r f ' . r. _3- n ` (
~ , ' - - ~ _
~tr u '
_ 4•= 1'. y.1@'Dl~ ,~~J
I't
--i ' ' ( . 1- l
.
.
,
_ - - i!
~ ~ f~ ':"1"+- • ~ . n r
q~~~.,. I 14~.+
\
z~~ s~~ . • - ~ .2~~1~r~ .
Y ~
TOWN*IL
.
11. ZpNING ANALYSIS
The following information summarizes the zoning statistics for this request:
Zone District: Commercial Core 1
Lot Area: 0.234 acres or 10,139 sq. ft.
Standard Allowed/Reauired Existin Proaosed
, Height: . 33' - 43' maximum height Per Code 22' ,
. (per Vail Village Design
Considerations) -
Site Coverage 8,154 sq. ft. , 7,425 sq. ft. No Change
(80%) (72.8%)
Parking: 1 space per each 8 seats, Per Code 7.6 spaces'
based upon seating capacity
or Building Code occupancy
standards.
' In order to fulfill the 7.6 parking space requirement, the applicant must pay into the parking fund. Currently parking
spaces are $16,905.05 per space.
III. REVIEW CRRERIA FOR THIS REQUEST
The Town of Vail Municipal Code establishes the review criteria for a request of this nature. The
emphasis of this review is on the proposal's compatibility with the zoning code and the Vail
Comprehensive Plan, including the Vail Land Use Plan, Vail Village Master Plan, Streetscape
Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Design
Considerations.
A. THE TOWN OF VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE
The Creekside Building is in the CC1 zone district. According to Section 18.24.010 of the
zoning code, the purpose of the CC1 district is:
"The Commercial Core 1 District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the
unique character of the Vail Village commercial area with its mixture of lodges and -
commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The
Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space
and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The
District regulations, in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan
and District considerations, prescribes site development standards that are
intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered
arrangement of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways and
to ensure continuation of building scale and architecture qualities that distinguish
the Village."
Staff believes that the proposed changes to the Creekside Building are in
compliance with the Purpose Section as stated above.
2
B. VABL COMPREHENS9VE PLAN
Several elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan directly address major exterior
alterations. The relevant elements and sections are listed below:
1. !laaV Land Use Plan
The followring are the goals of the Land Use Plan that are relevant to this
proposal.
Goal 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded
whenever poss+ble. . "
GoaB 1.4 The theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new
deveiopment in the Village Core through continued implementation
of the Urban Design Guide Ptan.
GoaB 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commerciat
areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs.
Goal 4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and
should be preserved (scale, alpine character, small town feeling,
mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling,
environmental quality.)
Staff believes this proposal is consistent with the goals listed above.
2. Vail Village AAas4er Plan
The following are the goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan that are
relevant to this proposal.
Goal 1 Encourage high quality redevelopment vuhile preserving the
unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain
_ its sense of community and identity.
Objectude 1.2 . Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential
and commercial facilities.
Goal 2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round
economic health and viability for the Village and for the
community as a whole.
Objectide 2.4 Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial
activity where compatible with existing land uses.
Staff befieves this proposal is consistent with the policies and objectives listed
above regarding the upgrading and redevelopment of property vuithin the Village.
3
.
~
3. Streetscape Master Plan
The Streetscape Master Plan identifies improvements to be made in the vicinity of
the Children's Fountain. However, none of the proposed improvements pertain
directly to this area of the Creekside Building.
4. Vail Village Design Considerations
Tlie following is a discussion of compliance with the Urban Design Considerations
and the architectural/landscape considerations expressed in the Vail Village
Design Considerations planning document.
Urban Desian Guide Plan for Vail Villaae
There are no sub-area concepts within the Guide Plan that pertain to this
area.
Urban Design Consideratioros
The folVowing design considerations are critical elements of the Urban
Design Guide Plan. They identify the key characteristics of the Village and
provide the criteria to evaluate new proposals.
A. Pedestianization
Staff believes that this proposal wilf have limited impact on the pedestrian
character of this area. The proposed addition is located on the second
level of the building and does not directly front on a pedestrian way:
B. Vehicle Penetration
This proposal will not affect vehicular traffic.
C. Streetscape Framework
The Guidelines encourage two general types of improvements next to
walkways. The first deals with increasing the open space, landscaping
and planters along pedestrian routes. The second deals with the infiil of
commercial storefronts to create new commercial activity. Staff believes
this addition will have positive impacts on the streetscape framework. It is
currently difficult to see the existing restaurant from the pedestrian areas.
The new addition will allow the restaurant to be more visible from the
Children's Fountain and from the Gore Creek Promenade, adding visual
interest to the building.
The applicant is proposing new landscape planters on the third level
balconies, however, no new landscaping is proposed on the second level.
4
I
Y
Q,
D. Street Enclosure
Staff believes that this addition will have a limited effect on the street
enclosure. This proposal vuill further define the second level of this
building (street level, as perceived from the Children's Fountain), providing
an enclosure to that edge of the fountain area.
E. Street Edae
. The intent of this guideline is to have many steps within a building to add
' interest to the street, and to provide a definition to the street. This addition.
. vuill allouv the Creekside Building (on the second level) to come further out _
towards the edge of the street without imposing a solid uvall of building.
The addition steps back from the existing south facade to provide relief to
the building.
F. Buildina Heiaht
The proposed addition is 22' in height. The design complies with the
standard, which allows only 40% of the roof area to exceed 33'.
G. View and Focal Points
The proposed addition will not affect any adopted view corridor or any
prominent views, as it is located on the west side of the Creekside Building
and is approximately half the height of the rest of the building.
H. Service and Deliverv
The applicant is proposing a new delivery location on the east side of this
building. A new ramp, that will be a joint handicap access and delivery
ramp, will be located on the east side of the structure. A new trash
collection location will also be located underneath this ramp in order to
provide a central location for trash pick-up. Staff believes that the
applicant should work with adjacent property owner Pepi Gramshammer,
to coordinate loading and delivery with the_proposed addition to the
Gasthof Gramshammer that is currently under review? by the Town of Vail.
A joint service and delivery location for these two buildings would eliminate
potential conflicts regarding delivery and could potentially enclose all of the
loading and delivery and trash for these two buildings.
1. Sun/shade
This addition is on the west side of the building. It does not generate a
large amount of shade to the adjacent public areas. The applicant has
provided a sun/shade analysis and a small portion of the addition will
increase the shade on the north side of this building, however, staff does
not believe that this significantly affects any of the public spaces along the
Gore Creek Promenade.
5
?
Architecture/Landscaoe Considerations _
A. Roofs
The applicant is proposing a flat-roof addition to accommodate new
balconies on the third level of this building. While flat roofs are not a
recommended element in the Village, staff believes that the addition of the
balconies above the addition lessens the impact of the flat roof.
B. Facades
The applicant is proposing to continue to utilize the existing materials on .
this building, including stucco, wood and windows. Staff believes that this
addition meets this consideration. The addition will be composed primarily
of folding french doors. Staff believes that the doors, separated by stucco
pillars, achieve the goal of this consideration.
C. Decks and Patios
The applicant is prnposing to leave part of the existing deck area and will
provide approximately ten tables on the outdoor dining deck. This deck
does not directly abut a pedestrian way, and wilt only be visible from the
Gore Creek Promenade. The deck is proposed on the west side of the
building, thereby allowing for extended sun exposure.
D. Balconies
The proposed balconies on the third level of the building are proposed to
include a low solid stucco railing, divided by pillars with accent planters
placed on top of the railing. Staff believes that the balconies are
appropriate in this location.
Regarding the balcony for the restaurant addition, staff has concerns with
the proposed glass railing. Glass railings are uncommon within Vail
Village and staff is concerned about the introduction of glass as a railing
material. The Urban Design Considerations specifically identify glass
_ panels as a railing material that should be avoided. Staff believes that this
proposal does not meet this consideration. Staff strongly recommends
that the glass railing be eliminated. A material more in keeping with the
Village, such as wood or wrought iron, should be used for the railing.
E. Accent elements
The applicant is proposing to add a trellis along the proposed addition,
. constructed of wood with supporting steel posts. Staff believes that while
this accent adds interest to this elevation of the building, it adds a very
contemporary look to the building that is out of character with the Village.
While a trellis alone is not a negative element, the design of this trellis is
very contemporary. Staff recommends that trellis be constructed entirely
of wood, be more perdendicular to the building facade, the metal band be
removed and the steel posts be reptaced with wood posts.
6
0
F. Landsca e I ments The applicant is proposing planters on the third level with the balcony
addition to this project, however, the applicant is not proposing any
additional landscaping on the second level addition of this project. Staff
would propose that the applicant provide seasonal planters (at a minimum).
on the deck area.
G. Service
The applicant is proposing to provide a common service entry into this ,
building on the east side. A new enclosure for the trash facility will be
" located here, as well a new service entrance for deliveries. Staff believes
that the service and delivery will be met through this proposal.
9M. ST~?FF RECOMnflEPqDAT90N
Staff recommends approva9 of the proposal based upon the following find'engs:
1. That the proposal meets the purpose section of the Commercial Core 1 Zone
District.
2. That the proposal meets the various elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan,
including the Land Use Plan, Vail Village Master Plan, and the Urban Design
Considerations.
Staff strongly believes that this approval should have the following conditions. 9fi 4he PEC does
no4 believe tha4 these conditions are appropriate, staff recornmends denial of the requesY.
1. That additional landscape planters be added along the dining deck area. The
Design Review Board should review the final design and placement of the
planters.
2. That the overhead trellis and deck rail be redesigned to comply with the Urban
. Design Guidelines and Considerations and that these items be brought back to
the PEC for final review and approval. .
3. That the appticant work with adjacent property owner Pepi Gramshammer to
coordinate loading and delivery.
7
~ -
~ f t~"r1R'r ~ ' `
~ r
.
' ~~~p~ `5' s~~"~~i(:.K :r, 3~'.u ~~~6r~~/.1,~ F ~ '.y!.s. ~ r~ ~I, I~ t' I• ,
1. , . p
I " • ' r a .:1 '1.. V 'fF( ( 1..r'!1 ~
~ ~ -r~ ~
LOOKING NORTH EAST
. .
. 4 a
L-
~ tl
~ ; .
~ ~ ~
~ r , r
.
b•°: `s
. g • ~
er r , .
1 O 0 .
d 9 t . ^
\ o s , ,
o ! •
' ~ ~ M .
a ~:~.ID~ O
- ~ f ~ ~ 7
A
• d'a ~
; ; • -
.
_ ~ ~ , , , '
,~s'~~ r• , r~ ,r,,
Z~ • ' r ~ r' ` ~ r~° Q Q" a
m o •
!r.
a r- r~. ; - _ ' • ~
~
, I_.OO K1N(? '~'~~f.TII . ~
(TT . . • l ` - . . . _ I - ~
j ~
~
^ ~ ~ , ' /r/r - ' ~ . - ~ 1- .
,
• r-
l~ ~ I ~ 1~ { ' - l ~ ~
Y t ri i 1
,
~ , . ~ j - -~=p - - - - - - - - - ~
t-
• . ; ! ; C~ . ` . ' _ :ti ~ i s A , ~
=4`-I -~----~-------~t---~ ----~------~it--- 1
• \ \ . . - - - I~ i r :i _ . ^ 1
, \ , • ' - - - n ~ ~ _L. ~ u
~ . - Q ~ 1?i ~i ~•---..i ~
Ti, ~27r ~ r' 1
' ~ c~x ; ,
co
TM - ~
74
J Y~ i
. - _ . ~h ~ ~ - t-•
2 I"K12
~ ~ ~ • . ' ~
. r n . , a_ . • ~ I.
- 4 ~
. • • ~ " . NFW CHIMNEY
- . - -
HANDICAP RAMP 8a I~,NTRY
-J I~ , i
~ _ - - - - - ,J - ~ -
~OUTH ELE@! ATION. .
1
- _
- - - - - _ - -
' - ~ ! •
NI~:w ~~?~:?2itnc[~, I3ALCONIf~,s _ - ' - ' ' ~ ~
~ VOI2 f,"XiS''ING CONDOS = TII? I20U
Ii'OR FAI3RTC AWNING
- - -
, ~ _ T_
I'LANTI?,IZS
~ - - _ ~f
TRIsLL1S I3GAMS ~ . ~ •
CH OI I''
?~=4" CRou~Q Ft-oc~IZ - - •
~
JI;W CUSTOM GLASS RAILING
EXISTING TI?RRl1CG
_ r----
~ T - --t---r-------~----- - -~--T.---- - - - ----j
FIXISTING RI;TAIL UNhISTU12I3I;D
WEST ELEVATION .
s ,
' m .
,
' NEW CONDO TF,RRACI:S
- . ' PLANTLI25
. . . . o
' • TRELLIS BEAMS
, , ~ • ~ .
. p o
NEW CUSTOM GLASS
, R/\ILING (WATER TI-IF,M
: • ,
EXISTING RL'TAIL/RESTnUI
1!1 ORA ~ ELEVAJL IOld
- ` -
- - - r = - -a-;
. ~ ^
~ NEW CF IIMNEY _ , _
- _ - - . , C ~ f r _ • .
^ I ~ . .
_ ~ _ ~ '
- r -
.
. t vr, ir
(
~ r' ~ ; _ . l _ ' • ,
T'~AL DT S I AIti?A •
CON
- I i •f i
Ht1NDICAP RAMP 8a ENTRY
_ _ ~ ~ -
EAST ELEVATION
~
Y
~
4. A request for a major exterior alteration in CC1, at the Creekside Building, to a4lowr for the
expansion of the restaurant and the west side exterior residential decks, located at 229
Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 513, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Michael Ditch, represented by Dave Carson
Planner: Lauren VVaterton
Lauren Waterton gave an overvievu of the staff memo and said that staff was recommending
approval with 3 conditions.
John Schofield asked if the existing glass panel railing for the Niay Palace deck was a non-
. conforming use with the design considerations. Mike Mollica said it was a legal non-conforming use.
Andy Stewart, an interior designer representing Oz Architecture, said the idea of the glass railing
was to mimic the feel of the river and also not to hinder the view. She said she uvould not like to
see planters along the deck rail, as it would reduce the view from the deck. She could
understand removing the steel I-beam of the trellis. She explained that the model represented
was slightly wrong in regards to the steel I-beam. She said they have 3 alternatives retated to
the trellis: wood could be used to replace the steel I-bearn, the entry trellis could be supported
from the inside to eliminate the I-beam altogether, or a supporting cable could be used.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments.
Herman Staufer wrelcomed Michael Ditch to the Village and said his comments vuould be
directed to the Creekside Building. He said the way it was built it, was well over on GRFA. He
said the enclosure of the Red Lion deck was a mistake, as it was a shame to enclose a dining
deck because it lost the feeling of outside dining in the summertime. He then cautioned the PEC
about enclosing decks.
Michael Ditch, owrner of Gore Creek Grille, said the amount of time a deck was utilized
throughout the year was insignificant compared to the economic factors. He stated he will be
keeping a 10' wide deck for outdoor dining. The proposed french doors for the new addition that
. open to the deck create the feeling of a deck, yet can be used year round. He said the view to
and from the-deck could be preseryed with the glass railing. He said he was trying to revitalize
new energy into the Village with a quality restaurant and economically this was the only way to do it. He said he would rather have moss flower baskets hanging off the trellis, rather than planters
which would impede the view.
John Schofield said he favored wrood instead of the I-beam and the glass railing had to be
redesigned to meet the guidelines.
Andy Stewart said she could design a steel railing which wouid be cohesive writh what was there.
She said perhaps a minimal planter wouldn't detract from the view.
Gene Uselton thought the railing issue could be worked out with staff.
Planning and Environmental Commission
D R'Aa~~ Minutes
March 24, 1997 DRAH
7
~
Greg Amsden said he really liked the railing and the concept, but was struggling with how it met
the guidelines.
Galen Aasland said he liked the glass railing with the metal integrated with it and saw a lot of
merit with what the applicant proposed. He had no problem with the I-beam, or with the
proposal, as a whole.
Greg Moffet agreed with Greg Amsden that he likes the design, but that we don't have the
authority to approve it if it doesn't meet the guidelines.
Galen Aasland made a motion for. approval in accordance with the staff memo with conditions 1
and 3. Gene Uselton seconded the motion.
The motion failed by a vote of 2-3.
Greg Amsden made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo with all 3
conditions in the memo, amending condition #2 to read that the items be referred to staff and the
DRB for final review and approval.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-0.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
DRAFT March 24, 1997 DRAFT
ORDIPIANCE NO. 7
Series of 1997 "
ARI ORDIIVANCE AflflEPIDIAIG SECTION 15-02-030(C) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE
TODUN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADOPTiOId OF AN ANNUAL ELEVATOR
INSPECTIOM FEE.
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council believes it would be a benefit to the health, safe.ty,
and welfare of the citizens. and visitors to Vail to continue to provide commercial inspection of
' elevators, commercial dumbwaiters, and platform lifts; and WHEREAS, in order to provide for the appropriate cost of such inspections the Vail
- Town Council wishes to adopt the Northwest Colorado Council of Govemments new elevator
permit fees schedule; and .
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail believes it is necessary to continue to provide for the
assessment of a will call inspection fee in the amount of $3.00 per permit to pay for inspection
call services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1.
(1) Section 15-02-030(C) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby
amended to provide for annual elevator, escalator, moving walkway, commercial dumbwaiter,
and platform lift inspection fees in the amounts as set forth in the attached Northwest Colorado
Council of Governments elevator permit fee schedule which is hereby adopted by the Town
_ Council and shall be set forth on the schedule of fees maintained in the building division of the
Community Development Department. - '
(2) The schedule of fees will continue to include a will call inspection fee in the
amount of $3.00 per permit to pay for inspection call services.
(3) Future changes in fees will be considered for adoption by Resolution.
Section 2.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason
held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and
each part, sect+on, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that
any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared '
invalid.
1
Sec ion 3 ,
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and
proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
Section 4.
The amendment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in.this ordinance shall
• not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to
the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as
. ' commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded
unless expressly stated herein.
Section 5. '
All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are
repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. 7'his repealer shall not be construed to revise
any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
ONCE IN FULL, this 1st day of April, 1997. A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at
the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the 15th day of April,
1997, in the Municipal Building of the Town.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
• ATTEST:
Holly McCutcheon, Town Cierk
INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED (IN FULL) (BY TITLE ONLY) THIS 15th DAY OF APRIL, 1997.
• Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Hoily McCutcheon, Town Clerk
c:lortl97.7
2
_ _ _ .
- - -
~
~TW ELEV A1 OR PERNET FE'ES .
l~PLLOENOa J( o
. TaLE 3-F ELEVA7'UR PERbflT FEES, is amended to =d as follows: .
riew TnsgalIationS
, 1. PassengQr or h-eight eIevatogy escalator9 moviag walk
. ` Up to aaci including S50,000.00 of valuation ..........a ...........................................$350.00
~ Ov€r SA000.00 of valuation . S350.00 plus S6.00 far eaeh S 12000.00
- " ,
or fractioa du=f ove,, S50,000.40 ~
2. Daaffibwaager mr prriwate resadence eievatorr .
Up to and iacludi.ng 520,000.00 of valuation .....a _-..$ZSD.00
Ovcr $20,000.40 of valuation _ 5250.00 plus $3.00 for cach $1,000.00
oY fi-dction ther+eof ade.P 520,000.00 ~ -
iNbj~r Al¢erations ~
Fees for major alteratioas shd(1 be as set forth ia table 3-A. lnstallativn fees include charges for
equiPment on th,e c.envcyauce side of the disconnect switch.
Other Inspection$ ansd Fggs:
1. Iaspections outside of narmaI busi=ss houPS, per houg....,......< .....................................S50.00~
(minimum eharge-tvvo houas)
2. Reinspection fees assessed under prob-isians of Section 3 05.9,
per iaspection . S5Q.000
~ 3. Inspections for which no fee is specificaily indicated, per hour .....................................S50.0011
(mini*^um cUaage--onc-half hoca) ~
4. Acidicionai plan review rcauired by changes, additions or revisions .
to plaas for wi:icbL an initial rcview has been completed.._... ........................................SSQ.00*
(mini.muan cknrge--one-half hour)
*Or the toeal ho=iy cost to the juisdaction, wniciaever is great.est. Ihis cost shall include
supezvision, overhcad, gqtazgment, hourly dvages and fringe benefits of thg emplog+eezs involved.
oRDaNANcE No. s
Series of 1997
AN 092DINANCE ESTA?BL9SHING A TI2AFFIC OFFENSE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ,4
COflAPLVBNG POL9CV OR CERI'IFICATE OF SELF-INSURAIVCE.
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council is acutely aware of the toll in human suffering and
loss of life, limb, and property caused by negligence in the operation of motor vehicles within
the State of Colorado and the Town of Vail; and
WHEREAS, it is recognized that this basic problem can be and is being dealt with by
direct measures designed to protect our people from the ravages of irresponsible drivers, the
Town Council is also very much concerned with the financial loss visited upon innocent traffic
accident victims by negligent motorists who are financially irresponsible; and
WHEREAS, in prescribing the sanctions and requirements of this ordinance, it is the
policy of the Town of Vail to induce and encourage all motorists to provide for their financial
responsibility for the protection of others.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWIV OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1.
(1) IVo owner of a motor vehicle required to be registered in this state shall operate
the vehicle or permit it to be operated on the public highways of the Town of Vail when the
owner has failed to have a complying policy or certificate of self-insurance in full force and
effect as required by sections 10-4-705 and 10-4-716, C.R.S.
(2) fVo person shall operate a motor vehicle on the public highways of the Town of
Vail without a complying policy or certificate of self-insurance in full force and effect as required
by sections 10-4-705 and 10-4-716, C.R.S.
(3) When an accident occurs, or when requested to do so following any lawful traffic
contact or during any traffic investigation by a peace officer, no owner or operator of a motor
vehicle shall fail to present to the requesting officer immediate evidence of a complying policy or
certificate of self-insurance in full force and effect as required by sections 10-4-705 and 10-4-
716, C.R.S.
(4) Any person who violates the provisions of subsection (1), (2), or (3) of this
section commits a traffic offense.
1
(5) Testimony of the failure of any owner or operator of a motor vehicle to present
immediate evidence of a complying policy or certificate of self-insurance in full force and effect
as required by sections 10-4-705 and 10-4-716, C.R.S., when requested to do so by a peace
officer, shall constitute prima facie evidence, at a trial concerning a violation charged under
subsection (1) or (2) of this section, that such owner or operator of a motor vehicle violated
subsection (1) or (2) of this section.
(6) IVo person charged with violating subsection (1), (2), or (3) of this section shall
be convicted if he produces in court a bona fide complying policy or certificate of self-insurance
which was in full force and effect, as required by sections 10-4-705 and 10-4-716, C.R.S., at the
time of the alleged violation.
Section 2.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason
held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and
each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that
any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared
invalid.
Section 3.
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and
proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
Section 4.
The amendment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall
not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to
the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as
commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision
hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded
unless expressly stated herein.
Section 5.
All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are
repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise
any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed.
2
INTRODUCED, READ OiV FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
ONCE IIV FULL, this 1st day of April, 1997. A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at
the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the 15th day of April,
1997, in the Municipal Building of the Town.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND EiVACTED ON SECOIVD READING AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED (IN FULL) (BY TITLE ONLY) THIS 15th DAY OF APRIL, 1997.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
c:\ord97.8
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1997 3
IRESOg.,gJ'd'gON NO. 13
SERIES O]F 1999
- ' A RESO][.,UTd0N APPROVIVG AND ADOPT'Ir1G '
'B'HE 1997 FORD PAI2K MANAGEMIENT PlLAN, .
W~CH gS AN AMENDIVENT TO THE 1985
]FOR]fD PARK AND DON0VAN PAItK MASTER PLANo
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail has developed the 1997 Ford Park Management Plan,
which is an amendment to the 1985 Ford Pazk and Doriovan Park Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, there has been considerable public input from leaseholders and stakeholders
which was facilitated by staff in developing that plan. `
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado
that:
1The 1997 Ford Park Management Plan attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A is
hereby approved and adopted.
3• This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
INTRODUCED, REA,D, AppROVED AND ADppTED this day of April, 1997.
Robert W. Armoux, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk ~
. ~
C:U2ESOLU97.13
f
I
~
i
~
I
~
The 1997 Ford Park Management Plan will be attached as Exhibit A upon completion
of Council discussion and incorporation of that discussion on April 1, 1997.
Art M Pub9ac Poaces
Recommendation to the Town Council
Seibert Circle Public Art Competition and Landscape Design
After careful consideration of the four design proposals submitted on March 20th, the Art in Public Places
Board and the Selection Jury agreed the Town of Vail should pursue design development with Jesus
Bautista Moroles and Design Workshop. We feel further exploration with this design team working in
collaboration with the Vaii community, would produce a dynamic gathering place, a strong visual landmark
and a meaningful tribute to Peter Seibert. It is important the Council realize the recommendation is to
pursue the artist / design team, not the design as specifially presented.
There are several aspects and strengths to this proposal which indicate a direction worth further
investigation:
1.) The use of natural materials and indigenous color scheme.
2.) The artist's ability to capture the flavor of our natural surroundings.
3.) The design opens the plaza and breathes life into the space.
4.) The combination of polished and rough-cut granite is elegant, enduring and maintenance free.
5.) The use of text creatively conveys Peter Seibert's story.
Moroles' use of red granite is reflective of our western mountain environment. Because the vertical
elements may appear Southwestern in nature, both the Selection Jury and AIPP have suggested these
sculptural elements become more indicative of the Rocky Mountains or the majestic Gore Range. The
artist is open to feedback and is willing to work with the community to capture more clearly the feeling of
Vail. As part of the design development, the community may be asked to address the following questions:
what images they feel most reflects Vail, how can the story of Pete Seibert be told in a meaningful way,
does the design enhance this public space?
When AIPP and the Selection Jury reviewed the 80 submittals back in January, our primary objective was
to approach this project from an urban planning as well as artistic point of view. Our intention was to
create a dynamic, interactive public space, with a public artwork which would serve as a tribute to Peter
SeiberYs vision, drive and determination. The design was to be universal in approach. We were looking
to capture the essence of the founder as well as the community as a whole. AIPP and the Selection Jury
feel confident Jesus Bautista Moroles could successfully achieve this goal.
Initially, Peter Seibert was supportive of this goal. We met exactly one year ago to discuss his objectives
for the space. It was at that time he expressed his desire not to have a commemorative statue of himself.
He also declined our offer to serve on the selection,jury and suggested his son Calvin be included instead.
At a recent meeting, Pete made it clear he as has had a change of heart. He stated that in fact he does
want a representational life-size bronze in his likeness to be placed in the center of Seibert Circle. This
clearly represents a change in direction from our initial Call-to-Artists. In light of this new information, it
would be disrespectful to persue the proposed design without Pete's consent. Should any possibility for
collaboration between Jesus Bautista Moroles / Design Workshop and Peter Seibert exist, we would be
pleased to proceed with fhis project.
SELECTION JURIES COMMENTS
Moroles / Design Workshop
Respect his artistic irrtegrity
iVatural in its form
Lots of seating
True piece of sculpture High caliber _
Site plan is subtle, natural, terrace
Liked surface quality
Benches are commemorative
Purity of vision
Identifiable
Meditative qualities
Lowest maintenance concerns
Appropriate scale
Work the granite to illicite the natural form
Man and relationship to nature is successfully captured
Best lighting plan
Wonderful meeting place
Quickly develop landmark quality
Able to incorporate memorial to Pete
Abiiity to work with community
Interactive
Good year round
Easy access and serviceability .
Approachable
Permanence of materials
Organic approach
Red color of granite reflects the natural red found in. our surrounding environment
Material compliments surrounding architecture
International reputation and recognition
Negatives:
Is there enough room for text
Bench design may need refinement
IVeed for more benches
More thorough development of how this relates to the Rocky Mountain region
Concern with totems being too Southwestern in nature
Too contemporary
1~'~?, Kr P~*-, ~'#-t~ ...R,:
9 YA ~ r
y ~ r , '1'r~' ~aY'c~ 1 ir• 1_~ ft 1 ~
~~6K,`"~S.A~~ . •3r~ ~ ~~`2~~ - 1 .~~'~~u ~
r .,,;r~?~~~ ~ r,~, ; ~ ,
~ L V
T3e
~ ? t d
.r. ~ ^ ~ •
" .:r+~ ~ 2 ~ v yl'.,~jT` iA , b~r S Op ' ~ ~ ~ Y^y
G. J ~ '1
~,~i~
} t
k? N . S t ~
~ Y,.. r J~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ 4 ~ } ~ ~ :y'
. ,
'it
~~t~e:'~' ~ ~ y~ ~ • - ~ A iy._ ~ r ~ ~ ~ wy,~ r x`~9, .F
r i,~' i ~ • f _ _ a ;a{ 1 .h t ,4~ " i"`4 ~ k~a~.~'p .
47~r,~~- + t ~ ~ .
.-v , ' ,
r
3' ,M'' T.~, ~w__~~..~¢ 3~ , ~G;. ~~1r. p~~ /y-f•.
Fa..~t~,j
s+.jj psr ~.i f ~ r~~ r ~~~t' y~~ . ~u~ I :+a
$ ' ' • p~F_ ~ ,.j r $,~r',~
~ ,1- ~ . f 'iL~: • r(`°,j
R r I i
,
• T.. }n: ~ , ! ~ :K
~
.
Ct
.a
,
, e ~ ; , , t.~ w •'~`r ~ . ~ f ~1 .
,
,
,yt; ~ ,F_ !!t?' t ~ L •r 'r' x Y f ~ f , r,~~. t t ~ . . .
. T~ . ~ ~ F y~y y~ ~ ~ ~ 1('- '
~ t / 'S- ' ~ _,f'• \ x ~ ~ ~ 4 f~~
` ~ . J ~3~ ~'.~Fnw.
. R - "`i ' ~ r `"i' s ~ .«~..M'~ +Xy 3r' •~d~.
• I I ,~1. I~ ~r 1 F ~ M4 ~Q ~y ~ .
~
.
;L ~ x~°~ 1 ti~~qi' ~ r • -3
t ~
~F /~,'?'..,~'~.'+i ~Au' 1 a •d.. ~ 8 »~w
* ~.•t34"~vTrt ~ ~ M ~ , ~;f.. 1~Y _ Y• ~a. ~~„t~' ~ ~1^y ~ ~ "
Y } s < r rn n ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~R~yr
` • ^K ~ ` c s~' _ ' O . c t.
y~~~..~~-',P~yy• ~ ~R~_ 3~'~f- Rty.. d..~ ~ I ~ F71 ~
Ar-yJ
~ f rt 'T ' ` ~ .k
r.
E 1 . f +~l' "t . ` . ~ , . !!S b . ~'?~t`~~~,`M. ."!r
. «~.r4 • y y * y ~1: ~1'`.• r g~ ~ .
„a-<. r y. y,yl ~ ?`l ~ .
a• ` { ~ / .Y"t.~- a
T r ~ ~ ,1 ~ '~F° , . ~ i . ~ / h ` ~f} ( . ~ ~ 7~'~~~.
t "3 ' ~~y , ~ ' . . i ~ ~R~ ~ ~ . J~ ~t . w; ~ n . . _ t/.:`Y . •
?
f
,~t • r~''
.~+i~ ~ . s , ? . +t"' f~ ~ ~ " +yJ~'~~,~~1 ~p_ ~ " R' }r~~~.II'!. ' .
` ? I" 3 ...,i~'r' ~ # 1 H ~ ~ 9 ' .~I ! 4~ t ~ ' ~ .
10
~t` f ~r-• .w bh. 'f~-- ~~.Y~ ~ a ~ ~ _
iC R
d`- ~ ~i `4'. - ~ . '3 . _ u3. . : . ~ ~ ,
~c^ `
f '
March 19,'1997 ~
~ , ~
r,
~
' r
Ain' FiEC*
E SELEcTioN
:
Sponsored by the Town of Vail Art in Public Places (AIPP) Program
~ •
, Display of Display of
~ . Semi-Finalist Designs Semi-Finalist Designs
,i . 4 to 7 p.m. 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Thur., March 20 Mon., March 24 - Wed., March 26
Vail Town Council Chambers Vail Municipal Bui?ding
Presentation 6egins at 5 p.m. Drop by and record your comments r
Come review the proposals for the redesign of Seibert Circle, meefthe presenting r~.
artists and design teams, and discuss your comments with the
Art in Public Places Board and the Selection Jury. - #
~
WII-II lE IIY lE II S SF-IIBE&i'Il' (CII Y2 C lL E? I.ocated at the intersection
of Hanson Ranch Road and Bridge Street, Seibert Circle is the gateway to Vail Mountain and a
frequent gathering place within the pedestrian Village.
WHX II S II'd' N A M[ ED SEHBE][F'II' (Cg HF C Y. lE ? The plaza is
named in honor of Peter W. Seibert, Vail's most visible founding member. A lOth mountain divi-
sion ski hooper from Camp Hale, SeibeR won a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for his service in ~
Wodd War ll. It was Seibert's vision and perseverance that established Vail as a ski resort in 1962. y
In October, the town-sponsored Art in Public Places Board launched a national competition to
develop an integrated art piece for Seibert Circle that would draw upon the area's natural beauty
~
and history. Over 80 proposals were submitted from across the country. Since then, the Selection
~ Jury has narrowed the field to four semi-6nalist teams, each team consisting of an aftist and a '
landscape architect.
~
7
[f you're interested in the A1PP seledion process, please make plans to view the proposals and
express your opinions to the Town of Vail, the Art In Public Places Board and the Seledion Jury.
A suggestion box will be used to collect public comments.
Also, join the`discussion as proposals are reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) and the
Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) on Monday, March 24, at 1 p.m. and by the
Town Council on Tuesday, March 25, at 2 p.m. ;a
THlE IFOUR DESIIGN TEAMS AII2IE
0 Elaine Calzolari, Artist/Civitas, Inc., I.andscape Architeds - Denver '
0 Jesas Bautista Moroles, Artist/Design Workshop, Landscape Architects - Rockport, Texas and Vail
~ 0 Peter 0'Shea, Artist/EDAW, Landscape Architects - Denver
0 Buster Simpson, Artist/Erik Mott, Site Planner - Seattle, Washington
The Selection Jury will consider all comments and suggestions collected.the week of March 20-26
and will make a final recommendation co the Art In Public Places Board on Thursday, March 27.
~ The AIPP Board and Jury decision will be presented to the Town Council at the evening meetlng
on Tuesday, April 1.
Once a finalist is selected,-another public forum will be field for community• mem6ers to interact '
with the artist/design team for additional feedback.
' ConceptualReview ~
Open House: March 20, 24 - 26 . Design Team Selection
March 24; DRB and PEC - Joint Wo[k Session April 1: Vail Town Council Evening
March 25: Vail Town Council Work Session Meecing Construction " -Design Approval/
Summer 1998: Construction Modffication `
begins. Summer 1997: Community meeting with the
selected design team.
Dates and times TBA.
MH4Ni OF~ FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT NANCY SWEENEY, AIPP COORDINATOR AT 479-2344.
, ~
I~~~~ ~~~~CIATION
; 124 WILLOW BRWE ROAD O VA.IL, COLORp?I?O $1637
Nlarch 31, 1997
Tm: Town of'Val CounW
Planning and F.uvironrnental Comtnission
Lawen Waterton Plffimr
lE'gom: Gary L. Mcbaniel ,
~~~ject Creekside Building Fxpansion and Fxteiior Alterations
`
We haYe reviewed 4he request for expansion and exderior alteratioas to the Creekside guild~ng,
The majority of V'ill~age Q~enter Pro Perty o~mers look d;rectlY tn
across Gore Creek at the Creekside
BuiIding and the Gore Creek Promenade. V'illage Center has sevaral concerns with the proposed
Creekside expansion. They are;
Il) The design features are not in character with Vail V41age and are noe Alpiae in
character.
2) The glass railing is nrn in cbatacter and will look very cornemporury,
3) The tretlis/sunshade des~gn is contemporary and will look like an afterthought.
4) The enclosure of the govnd floor, addition of the second story deck, and the
~ trellis/sunshade will block the view corridor of a number of Village Center occupants.
5) Color scheme, what is it? This will hade a(ot to do with the character of the
building ,
The conc.erns listed above are based an past experiences. The Sitzmark Buildir,g has beer,
remodeIcd two or ttree times. Each time, we believe the design features have bcen in keeping
with the unique architectural feahire.s of'Vai! V'illage~ AlPme character, and high cNalil,Y• 'fhe
additions have been ArchiYecturaI enhancements_
The "boxcar building" occupied by Blu's, Sweet Basil and Sli&r }as been remodeled at least twa . .
, times in the past. The addi2ions to Blu's hsve riot been Alpine in character ar qu~ty
I enh~tncements. The square hox ~built on top to expand Sliffer's condo has no architectural
characCer and looks W an afterthought - this is why we call it the boxcar building. The
, remodeling and additions have not enhattced the archiCocturat character of the building, have been
a distracrion, and are degrading to the Gore (;reek Promenade.
~
i
,
Page 2
Village Ce?rter is not opposed to quality improvernents and design feahu~es that enhance the
architectural characteristics of the Creekside buildiqg. We do nnt believe the prese,rt design fits
this descrip6on. If they wil( address our concerns, then we will not be opposed, and will support
the Creekside expansion and exterior alteraiions.
Respectfuux .
cary 1vI aniei
Presid ~ of V'illage Center AssqciaEon ,
ciLlvUdks
,
I
I !
I
~
,
~
ee
e4
T~WN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Office of the Town Manager
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager
DATE: March 28, 1997 _
SUBJECT: Town Manager's Report
Fire Station Location Study Update
Several months ago the Council authorized and appropriated funds to conduct a fire station location
analysis. The purpose of this study was to assess facility needs for the Vail Fire Department.
Specifically, this study was intended to analyze the need for a fire station in the West Vail area.
Subsequent to your authorization we contracted with David Griffin & Associates to conduct this
analysis. Most of the technical work for the study is now complete and we are preparing the report.
We anticipate being prepared to discuss this with you within the next two months.
Loading and Delivery Update
As we discussed several weeks ago, we are undertaking an effort to determine a permanent
solution for loading and delivery problems in the Vail Village. This effort will consist of two elements
a technical component and a public participation component, and will be conducted in a manner
comparable to our work with the West Vail Interchange. We are currently designing.the process,
identifying the problem statement, givens, etc. We have also prepared a request for proposal for
engineering services to work on the technical element of this study. We will be making a
, presentation to the Council on this issue on April 8th.
East Vail Rock Slide -
I am sure you are well aware of the rock fall incident which occurred in East Vail on late
1Nednesday night. Town of Vail crews did an outstanding job in dealing with this situation and I
have received several compliments for our staff for their efforts. I have also received requests from
affected property owners requesting assistance from the Town of Vail to address this situation. We
will, in the near future, need to discuss how you wish to proceed in addressing the situation. At this
point I do not have suggestions or recommendations. However, we will be meeting today (Friday)
with Jonathan White a geologist with the Colorado Geological Survey and expect him to have some
suggestions for providing protection for these units.
RWM/aw
RECYCLED PAPER
0 16
West Vail Roundabout
Proposed Budget 6.25 million
current budget 5.5 million
Vail Commons roadwork 365,000
Utility Company reimbursements 170,000
RETT contribution 210.000
6.25 million
5,370,000 bid ($5,366,933.02)
- 100,000 contingency in bid
+ 100,000 right of way acquisition
+ 250,000 design contract
+ 300,000 construction engineer, inspection, testing, surveying
+ 330,000 contingency
$6,250,000 Budget
4VAIL
TOrr oF 75 South Frontage Road Office of the Mayor
Yail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2100
F.4X 303-479-2157
. March 19, 1997 .
Ms. Kerry Donovan
1014 Homestake Circle
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Kerry:
This Nomination Certificate reflects the deep appreciation of the Vail Town Council for the
submission of your name as a nominee for the Vail Youth Recognition Award.
You are clearly an outstanding young lady who has a bright future before you. Obviously, none
of the attributes or accomplishments pointed out in your letter of nomination are the reason for
your not being awarded the Vail Youth Recognition Award. In fact, the difficulty lies with the
Council's original criteria not having been followed. Because you are a senior graduating from
Battle Mountain, this award cannot be given to you. Kerry, it is the Council's clear continuing
desire, and was as well last year when Dana Carlson received this award, to award this to a junior
in high school so the award can be attached to a resume and the work experience completed,
prior to submitting applications to colleges of choice.
Again, we. appreciate very much this nomination having been submitted on your behalf. Good
luck in attaining your future goals. Please know it has been a pleasure for the Council to review
your letter of nomination.
Sincerel ,
Robert W. Armour
Mayor
RWA/aw .
Enclosures
xc: Vail Town Council
Karen Phillips, Sister Cities International/Vail Valley Exchange
Pamela A. Brandmeyer
?s 1.. •o•~..f ~~~*b ..~"~~•7••~ ?~•7•.. ~*i~~~t?1... ~~i ~...I s~i ~..I ~~~1.. ~~~~1 I e~ie~
~~~j~~~ ~ ~ ~~~0 1°~~ 0~~~~~~ ~ ~I~o~~~! ~O~o~~~~~ ?°~P I~~~~~~~ ~I~~~~~0~ ~I~~~a~iO I~~°I ~I~v~~~a ~~~°I ~O~~j~~~1 ~I~~ j~~~~ ~~~~~I~~~e~~~ • ~ ~~~e~ ~ ? • ~ ? a' ? ~ ? ~ • ? ~ ? ~ i 's ? ~ ?
4 ?s~ • ? • ? • e • • Iti1 / e ? 0 ~?~e~~ ~~~I~e~~~1/1~I•~~~~~ ~I~~~~Os'~~1
~i:.! ~'~°i P0~ t~ ~'+0'D~ t~ ~i~~ ~'~'Oi t~~'40 4~~ ~i~~i~~ t~~`ri ' t'~'a~i t0'~'i9 0'~'9
~s ~ ~ + ~ ~i a' ~t'i "~~f 4~i'~o ~~f~f~ ~ ~G`~ ~'~e~d4 ~i ~°+'f i .
~ ~ t ~t t~f ~ t~ ~tf tt~f t tt~t ~ ~ ~~t ~ tti i ~t ~ t ~~~f r ff tr
~?~~o; e~°~~0 ~y
~~e~.• .oeve~ ` , ~
f, ~}9~0~
VAIL YOUTH RECOGNITION AWARD
~~,~:y
~1`•°e ,~i~jl~
NOMINATION
~QO~~~~~ ,.io',
. . ~e ~•I:f,
• O t1 n'~:'`t
OOO
Of
10+
~ 0 f• a
•
KERRY DONOVAN i~~~~'
Of Battle Mountain High School 2;°7y'
In Recognition Of Her Outstanding Academics 'Arid Citizenship
01~~ . . . , ~~e
~0
~ ~ . TOWN+OF VAIL
' , i> ' °I'~ ~
1 ~1 ±
,o'. , • ~
' , . , o
Robert . Armour, Mayor
~s b ~ b ~ + •.o..b 1 ~s
~ s~ ~i • s'~ + ~'i o's a~i J'e p s°s °e~ ~ a` ~ ~•0 0 ~~4 JPA0'e
. i~~o v • ~ ~ ~~j•~~ ~ e~1,0~ O~ • ~ ~1~~~ • ~j~ ~i~j~~~~~ T:T ?0~~~ ,,k~~..
. , y . . a ,q•., y , ,
fi ~,F.` ~ 4 i`~ ~ y , r, , e , . i: . i i•r. .'h~ ` . , SYr ~'5~,..p: : 1' . _ 3, ~ ,P, t. '4 . x. ' ' . . ri,r a ~
4 T5.' +Sr 7
ee
ab
TONN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road Office of the Mayor
Vai1, Colorado 81657
303-479-2100
FAX 303-479-2157
_ March 19, 1997 .
Mr. Tyler Voliter
Post Office Box 187
Edwards, CO 81632
Dear Tyler:
This Nomination Certificate reflects the deep appreciation of the Vail Town Council for the
submission of your name as a nominee for the Vail Youth Recognition Award.
You are clearly an outstanding young man who has a bright future before you. Obviously, none
of the attributes or accomplishments pointed out in your packet are the reason for your not being
awarded the Vail Youth Recognition Award. In fact, the difficulty lies with the Council's
original criteria not having been followed. Because you are a senior graduating from Battle
Mountain, and with attendance already assured at a college of your choice this coming fall, this
award cannot be given to you. As discussed in a previous telephone call with you, Tyler, it is the
Council's clear desire to award this to a junior in high school so the award can be attached to a
resume and the work experience completed, prior to submitting applications to colleges of
choice.
Again, we appreciate very much this nomination having been submitted on your behalf. Good
luck iri attaining your future goals. Please know it has been a pleasure for the Council to review
your materials, which are also enclosed.
Sincerel ,
Robert W. Armour
Mayor
RWA/aw
Enclosures
xc: Vail Town Council
Karen Phillips, Sister Cities InternationalNail Valley Exchange
Pamela A. Brandmeyer
1 `a>.,f''R~ , `r"'~`~ ~.~y?~ ~rJ'''~?' ~r~ .r'~ , ' r~ f*'*I''~ f~ ,'F
~~OO ? f°i~i~. d ~~i • e s~i . . . . . . . . o ~~i ~ s . . . ds • . ~+.~o~ . . • s~ . . • ~~i . e~ . s~ . ~d: e~i • • e~i
1 -1 ~i••~~' i~ '1 ~e~•~ ~e'o~ 1~ ? ~~~o ~ d ~~e;e t s. ~os~i ~ ei~•ie•_~ ~~s~e t• y ~ ~ o~~:i ~~o~i ~ ~•s~ ~e~ i j• ~o~ ~
'~V~~~~/~ ~ ~~~1~ I . ~ ~~~f~ I ? I • I • ?'1~1' I ~ 1~1~~ I ~ ~ I ~ ,190'~t ~ • ? 1~1~t I o 0 4+~ I • /1~ o • ~ ~ ~I • ~ ~ ? e O • ;1 I~ • ? I o°, ! If~~?!'~~~~j ~1¢9'~ f?tT~?r~ ~~~+1~~ l1~1~~ ~el~ ~rbTf P~aO~~~ ~or~ ~ d f + 1 i~? ,
f~`~':;: ,o•, ~
} VAIL YOUTH RECOGNITION AWARD
~ •'@:•
NOMINATION
1~~~~~ G'
i ~se
. !
O
1 1 ~o, f
.~.•f+,
0
I~'~` } <u',•,,,•
~IQ~~•S ~•o
TYLER VOLITER
1~•1•:• Of Battle Mountain High School
o• ~_:y~?'9 ~
t•"~ ,
r~ 1
In Reco nition Of His Outstanc.in Academ'
g g ics And Citlzenship ~t
~
~i?L
p •.•e•. . . - . •
t. ~
1~. . TOWN OF V.AIL
li~~•~'
p o.o,.;. . ~ ,
~,i~t. .
1 •~a•o• : .
_ .
Robe Arinour, Mayor
~~io. . . • . . ° s ;
0j°~96:.
~
V,2411
'~1~?°~O~o`%~~~~~~~~~;~?~bw~,d:~ a- 4o1i'o~~ 6,0~~~° ~~I~~ ~~i
p~ ~ ~1?'i~i ~ ~~i? ~f °1?1? ~i~ ~ f dy ~ ° ~I~ "n;:
• ~o
~ ~ « ? • « ? ? • m • ? ~~i~ • ~
i
e JA Y 1997 se
VAIL USINESS
TONN OF YAIL
4
VIEW
: . 'March 25, 1997 This edition of the Vail Business Review examines January sales tax collections for monthly
filers.
Overall January sales tax increased 5.9% with Retail increasing 2.2%, Lodging increased
10.7%, Food and Beverage increased 5.0% and Other (which includes items such as utilities, taxable
' services i.e. plumbing, electrical and rentals or leases) increased 2.3%.
My records reflect there were no special events in January 1997 or January 1996.
Please remember when reading the Vail Business Review that it is produced from sales tax
collections, as opposed to actual gross sales.
Eight business licenses were issued in January (two service and six home occupations) and two
business licenses were closed (one retail and one home occupation).
If you have any questions or comments please feel free to call me at (970) 479-2125 or Steve
Thompson at (970) 479-2116.
Sincerely,
cC ,
~
Sally Lorton
Sales Tax Administrator
~ JANUARY SALES TAX ~
VA1L VILLAGE .
JANUARY JAIVUARY JANUARY
1996 1997 %
Collections Collections Chan e
~i
Y
`'l..
. .'y".y.r.
4.
~ . ._i.:a':•r'.=:
. . :
,.c........ ,~.,_,,n~.
. . a;..~
^b~o
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . a..,~v
. : . ..~,a.
. . . . . . . . . .
. . ::..,..:,.5~.~~i.:,;.<;;:`~.
_ . .
';•;y;°~{;^:
.
.
,
3.~~.
°37 1-.
7'-
R
etail
2 ~4
.5
~
.
. .
.,.8
_
. _ .
.
. . . _
_ ~ , ~
. . ,
.
. 4.;.~:
;
.
:
L
od9in9 3:~5 6.
4.
.
i.:.
-..:.,u. . _ . . ~ .kn
' .,s..
. : . . . . . . ni.n.`
.
. . ~ . . : , . ,
. . . . .
: . . : . . . . . . . .
, . . ,~:...,.a<i°.
.
. , ........,...,,,.,...a; ,:;:;;k
~
.
:tez:;~.~:;~, • .
Food &
k.
:
.
; -
.,2 9
3
. ,
B ver
ea9e
6 3
s 9
. , .
. ~
_ . . , . . . . , _ :x
.
.
,
, .
.
,
Other
.
_ . . :
9
~
. . _ ,
. . , .
.
,
.
. .
.
. '
„ . . . ,
, ~ . . . . ...:'..:t`$."'~ .;t.
, . . . . - .i}i:"§ti..',"
~ . . .
.
. . . .
.
, . . , .
. , , _
•
Totai s~2;~o~
.
, . -
. ~ :
:
. . ~ .
.
, :
LIONSHEAD
JANUARY JANUARY JANUARY
- 1996 1997 %
Collections Collections - Chan e
.x-:..i
3:::'
R
et i I
a
51 '2
s
:
.
. , . : .
. .
. . . . . .
. .
;
, .i._
: . , :
.
_ . , .
. ~ ~
, . .':"•:.n
:
, . . . ' .
. . . : ~
. . . . i:.~_ ,.\.:..t'~. .~`i v . 466
Lod9in9 2 09
_ . , . . : . . 226
~
.
. 9. .
.
. .
_ . . . : . .
F
00
d
&
_ .
~ .
. . . ,
.
r
. .
_ :
.
, .
_
, . . : . . .
.
.
. . . -
.
ever _
, . .
,
~
a9e . 79123. . : 83 781::<.;;.<>
.
: ~
~
~
093::
O
ther
`73,
,a y47-
.
, . .
1^ ti';
:
.
,
.
T ~ ~
. , . .
otal
_ .
. _ , .
. . . .
.
R
s -WINANNUARY SALES TAX
CASCe4DE I/ILLA E/ i4ST Ve4/L/SAIVDSTOIVE/VI/EST Va4/L
JANUARY JANUARY JANUARY
1996 1997 %
Collections Coliections Chan e
. .
.w.~
ti
a~
.ti
.
i~F::~.i',o• .
~.•ti'_'`%;,2:
. .
:
~
,
.
. :;;':.9;
. . ~
• .
: . . . . . . . : :::..J"...:`i' S
. . ,
.
.
.
, '~~ti=`.;:'?.':;":•~:.
; .
~f
Re
ta~~
. .
2~<
n .';4
. . .
~
. 9... .
. .
~
. _ . . ; . . .
,
<r.. ; .
:
"
.
. .
_ , ~ . . , : :
, . _
;
:5tic,
. . . . ~ , . . , , „:.s .
..............:~::.-....,~;.,,Ma...,.,..~..
. . . v~.. .:.,;.;s: .,.,~,...;:a,-e
. . . . , ~ .
. .
, . . . . . . , ~
. . . . .~o„
.4_;:_.....: ,,,,s
±y ;
.h~
.~.t. h ~
ry q
:
, .
od9ip~ ~9g
.N .
. . :
L
n~`rol'
Y„
,~~4~.
; . . , . :;.,,.;4
•
ZSy,.
.n.
~
vab'"i
s*3~%'%.
^.1..
14n
4tie
Food
& S.
:,>,',~1•°'
~
EJ ^
^ ?ti.4:a
~......a~.~::..;:,.
. .
nro~b
_
th
Bver
. y
e a9e
sS ,
lb
S'.
•i'4'.
n.R)~
"~hva
Y.R.n
l;i~~ •
±n~
.
+`4
4
.
Other
.
59~
s
,
.
.
kti'<+
, a,..:,..
^YZK%s<':+~"•
a"b
y'_4e~k
. t~
.
TO W
79`~7
OUT OF TOOII/N
JANUARY JANUARY JAIVUARY
, 1996 1997 %
Collectoons CoIlections Chan e
.
.
, : . , . .
, , .
r,.:'" r;:;.,r~:.'.;a......~ .
,
~ ...:....r...i:.~`"~i:Tk:%:`.;!i:::
~ . . . . ..n . . . . - ~ . . . .I~:r oy.';;~ ?r~.'!'i•4
. ~y .,..v.....>~e
. ' . . . . , : i~:.. r
_ : . . . : . . . ,
.5 4
Retafl
;
. . :
, . .
~
. . :
. , ~ . . ,
II
~ ~~•''.`,:i":.,~:"....'~~~."'`:^ ~`::,.''~~~',~.~,.:~~:i~'v~~~: ~ .r~ .T ~:;;,;4*t~~..~,.:.:~.~'~ia:.~a".`'1~?.,ti
l1an
ng .,3 '
od9'
33
,
. .
. . .
~
. .
&
Food
a . .
i ;
cL+~;
.
AyM~pl16
. . . ~ .
~q
Bevp.~tl
V
e f
,11
. Y
~
4.
~
Other
Q?
. 1.,
..,.,v-, .
y.,
5~
W otM
;
4
.
_
. _ .
s,
. ~ . . _ . . .
JANUARY
SALES TAX ~
~ ToraL
JANUARY JANUAFiY JAIVUARY
1996 1997 %
Coliections Collections Chan e
~
. Retail 757
..y. ° . . ;
; t .
4
1
Lodging 7~,~'9~ 46
. ti
~ . ~ :
Food &
1 . 5 ' y ~4
Beverage
. ~
Other
} 4t ;
; v
, . . r, . . , ? . ,~x. . . .
, a . : . . . . ...s ~ . .s .1~.41 W
l M1~ 1
TOtBl 296~
.
: >
.
.
~
TAIL S l.J MMARai
JANUARY JANUARY JAIVUARY
1996 1997 %
COLLECTIONS COLLECTIONS CHANGE
FOOD 115,943 115,163 -.7%
LIQUOR 21,514 22,735 5.7%
APPAREL 113,209 115,574 2.1 %
SPORT 302,784 312,598 3.2%
JEWELRY 25,412 24,707 -2.8%
GIFT 26,635 28,352 6.4%
GALLERY 5,959 5,709 -4.2%
OTHER 84,301 86,390 2.5%
HOME 0 0 N/A
OCCUPATION
'roTAIL 695,757 711,228 2.2%
,
~
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Roaci
Vail, Colorado 81657
dd
e4
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
FOR 9MMEDBATE RE~EASE
March 26, 1997
Contact: Greg Morrison, 479-2209 Bob McLaurin, 479-2105
Vail Police Chief Vail Town Manager
VABL POLBCE CHIEF MORROSON HEADS TO FB9 ACADEMY FOR COVETED
TFiAIR9SNG, DEPARTMENT AN6VOUIVGES 1'EnAPORARY REi4SSIG1VfNEFVTS
(Vail)--Vail Police Chief Greg Morrison has been accepted to attend the prestigious
FBI National Academy in Quantico, Va., April 4 to June 20. Town Manager Bob
McLaurin has named Lt. Jeff Layman to serve as acting chief until Morrison's return.
The FBI National Academy is the premier law enforcement learning center for police
chiefs, sheriffs, law enforcement administrators and career law enforcement officers
throughout the nation and the world, according to McLaurin.
Morrison applied for the training four years ago when he headed the Silverthorne
Police Department. He's been chief of the Vail Department since December 1995.
The Academy is an intense three-month coflege-styfe training session in which
Morrison will study law enforcement management, administration and other career
development topics. The program is offered for free on a quarterly basis. Class sizes
are kept to 250 students. There is currently a waiting list of 350 Colorado applicants,
according to Morrison.
"This is a fantastic opportunity that I've been aspiring to my entire professional
career," Morrison said. "Most law enforcement administrators agree that the FBI
National Academy is the best training a police chief can attend."
(more)
RECYCLEDPAPER
Add 1lChief Morrison In addition to Layman's duties as acting chief, the department's interim reorganization
will include the following: Sgt. Joe Russell will be promoted to acting operations
lieutenant and will be responsible for patrol operations; Sgt. Steve Erickson will be
transferred to the detective sergeant position and will serve as the department's public
information officer; and Officer Mike Warren will be promoted to an acting patrol
sergeant.
The last person from the Vail Police Department to attend the FBI National Academy
was Chief Russ Motta in 1982. Other local law enforcement officials who have
attended the Academy include Chief Gary Thomas of the Avon Police Department,
Chief Tony Dattilo of Minturn and Sheriff AJ Johnson of the Eagle County Sheriffs
Department.
For additional details, please contact Morrison at 479-2209 or McLaurin at 479-2105.
# # #
~
ae
e4
~OWN OF vAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
MEDBA ADVISORY
March 26, 1997 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115
Community Information Office
VA9L TOWN COUNC6L HIGHL9CaHTS FOR flflAFiGH 25
1Nork Session Briefs
Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, IVavas
--Austria Haus Site Visit
Council members toured the Austria Haus site in preparation for discussions on the
proposed Special Development District.
--Seibert Circle Art Finalist Review
Nancy Sweeney, Art in Public Places (AIPP) coordinator, presented an update on the
Seibert Circle art sefection process and asked for Council members to provide written
comments regarding the proposals submitted by four semi-finalists. The proposals
have been on display in the Municipal Building. Community reaction has been mixed,
she said. Although the proposed designs are not absolute, Sweeney said the AIPP
Board is hoping the proposals will serve as a catalyst to expand upon a particular idea
or concept. In response, Councilman Paul Johnston called the proposals inappropriate,
insensitive and a gross waste of money. He said he was ready to disband the council-
appointed AIPP board. AIPP board chairperson Kathy Langenwalter countered by
saying the nature of public art is very subjective. She urged Johnston and the other
council members to submit their comments. Ron Riley, a Village property owner, said
he worried the selection process will become dysfunctional because of such differences
of opinion. Next steps in the process include a meeting this week by the selection jury
and AIPP board with a recommendation presented to the Town Council on April 1.
--Interviews for Board Appointments
The Council interviewed four people for three positions on the Planning and
Environmental Commission and interviewed eight people for two positions on the
Design Review Board. See evening meeting briefs for the appointments.
--Employee Anniversary
Tommy Sheely was honored for 15 years of service in the Police Department.
--PEC/DRB Review
The Council voted 7-0 to call-up PEC approval of a major exterior alteration of the
(more)
RECYCLEDPAPER
~
t'
TOV Council Highlights/Add 1
Creekside Building in Vail Village. The matter will be heard at the April 1 meeting.
--Discussion of Austria Haus Special Development District
In preparation for the evening meeting, the Council reviewed the Austria Haus Special
Development District proposal. During a presentation by architect Gordon Pierce,
representing the applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, Pierce recalled how the project has .
' . changed over time to adjust to community concerns. Those changes include:
a reduction in fractional fee club units from 32 to 22; an increase in hotel rooms from 0 _
to 26; the addition of 27 lock-off rooms; 10,000 sq. ft. of commercial space reduced to
4,500; exclusion of a restaurant; redesigned entryway; addition of heated sidewalks;
$100,000 for streambank improvements; careful attention to trash removal; change in
roof elevation; and adjustment in the number of cars parked on-site. Pierce said the
changes have been hammered out following 15 town board meetings, 35 meetings with
town staff and numerous meetings with the neighborhood. He said he wanted the
Council to understand his partners have been listening to the concerns and have
responded appropriately. Yet, he said, he still senses that some members of the
community are opposed to the project. With that in mind, he presented a new
rendering showing five building facades much like the scale of Bridge Street as an
alternative design. Mayor Bob Armour thanked Pierce for the additional work, but said
the Council needed to focus its discussions on the current application. Please refer to
the evening meeting briefs for more information, or contact George Ruther in the
Community Development Department at 479-2145.
--Joint IVleeting with Eagle County Commissioners
During a joint meeting of the Eagle County Commissioners and the Town Council,
Town Manager Bob McLaurin agreed to take another look at the possibility of annexing
Highland Meadows into the town. The subdivision is currently in the county's
jurisdiction and is proving to be difficult for the county to provide the kind of urban
services residents expect. Before any changes occur, McLa.urin said the parties will
first need.to agree how to bring the roads up to standards.- Other topics discussed by
the elected officials included countywide distribution of taxes, regional cooperation,
countywide marketing and/or business license fees, vendors fees for statewide
marketing, Berry Creek Fifth filing, a countywide employee housing generation
ordinance, and the county's dispatching plans. For more information, contact McLaurin
at 479-2105. --Ford Park Management Plan
During an update on the Ford Park Management Plan draft, Council members reviewed
several modifications, including the addition of administrative offices as a conditional
use in the park and elimination of a description of the widening of Vail Valley Drive. A
policy statement in the plan on parking has been modified to state: "Any future increase
in parking use in Ford Park shall be affirmed through a public process, shall be publicly-
owned for public use, shall be subsurface, and shall result in an increase in green
space for public use." During discussion, Ross Davis of the Vail Recreation District,
said he would prefer the plan require a"public vote" on the parking issue rather than a
"public process." Joe Staufer agreed, while Joe Macy of Vail Associates urged the
(more)
{
LL, .
5
TOV Council Highlights/Add 2 Council to retain the policy as currently drafted so as not to preclude future options for
the community. Please see evening meeting briefs for more information.
--West Vail Interchange Bid Information
Public VVorks Director Larry Grafel shared the five bids for the West Vail roundabout
project. The apparent low bidder is Duckels Construction of Steamboat Springs with a
low bid of $5.25 million. Grafel said he will begin checking references and reviewing
the bid and would return to the Council soon to recommend a bid award. . . .
--Information Update
The Great Race in Lionshead will be held on Monday, April 21.
The Construction Kick-off is scheduled for April 3.
--Council Reports
Kevin Foley said the Transportation Authority would be increasing routes on Highway 6
to Edwards and from Vail to Beaver Creek this summer. Also, the Art In Public Places
Board meets Thursday morning regarding the Seibert Circle art piece selection.
Sybill fVavas has been attending meetings of the Vail Tomorrow Building Community
Team. She said the team is interested in having the Council reinstate the mayors'
breakfast forum on a quarterly basis. Also, the team suggests continuing the Daily
Grind council appearances on a regular basis, with the possibility of adding signage for
increased visibility. Also, iVavas said the subject of consolidation of information
services and permanent funding for summer marketing were topics of discussion at the
most recent Chamber of Commerce meeting.
Ludwig Kurz complimented those attending the recent Colorado Association of Ski
Towns meeting.
.--Other - - Kevin Foley thanked the staff for its quick implementation of the park free after 3
program. He says he's heard mixed reviews about the program. Foley also mentioned
the need to raise parking fines and shared a proposal by Howard Gardner of the West
Vail Liquor Mart to attach tags to beer kegs to deter abuses by minors. Similar "keg
shadow" programs have been implemented in Ft. Collins, Loveland and Boulder, he
said.
Also, Foley said the Trails Committee would be meeting soon to plan the opening of the
Dowd Junction bike path in June.
Sybill fVavas asked if the Council would want to support a state proposal to return
vendors fees to the state to fund tourism.
Town Attorney Tom Moorhead received the Council's permission to assist the Town of
Telluride in a real estate transfer tax exemption issue.
(more)
. 1
TOV Council Highlights/Add 3
Evening Session Briefs
Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas
--Citizen Participation
Bill Wilto of Vail suggested the town lobby Congress to enact legislation to address the
issue of mining claims. Wilto said the current regulations, which have been in place for
years, threaten communities like Vail. . .
Next, Sue Dugan of Vail suggested the need for more animal control officers and
possibly a tightened leash law due to problems with dogs running at large in her
neighborhood.
--Ordinance No. 6, Brooks SDD Major Amendment
The Council voted 7-0 on second reading to approve 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. For more information, contact Lauren Waterton in the Community
Development Department at 479-2454.
--Ordinance No. 4, Austria Haus SDD
After listening to more than two hours of testimony--pro and con--from 21 community
members, the Council voted 5-2 (Ford and Armour against) to approve the proposed
Austria Haus redevelopment on first reading with seven conditions proposed by
Councilman Paul Johnston:
• Require 16 parking spaces to be placed on-site (possibly on underground land
leased from the Town of Vail) rather than paying into the parking pay-in-lieu fund.
• Convert two streamside dwelling units to accommodation units.
• Heat the bus lane in front of the building.
• Applicant will agree not to remonstrate against a streamwalk alongside the
- property if the town chooses to expand the streamwalk.
- • Create 11 new employee housing units rather than deed restrict 11 existinq
units.
• Applicant returns to the Planning and Environmental Commission prior to second
reading for consideration of a new ridge line design to reduce the height of the
building.
• Applicant presents a plan prior to second reading on guest circulation, and
loading and delivery issues.
The Austria Haus Special Development District proposal includes 22 member-owned
fractional fee club units with 27 lock-off units, plus 26 hotel rooms, an on-site manager's
residence, and 4,440 square feet of new commercial retail space. In exchange for
increased density on the site, the applicant (Sonnenalp Properties, Inc) has proposed
six public benefits to meet the Special Development District criteria. Those benefits
are: an increase in the annual occupancy of the Austria Haus by approximately four
times; the addition of approximately 4,000 square feet of sales tax-generating retail
space; implementation of the recommended streetscape master plan improvements to
East Meadow Drive; completion of the commercial loop in the Village via the
(more)
,
r
• .
TOV Council Highlights/Add 4
construction of a well-lit, heated pedestrian walkway; removal of 25 surface parking
spaces and the construction of an underground parking structure; and landscape
improvements to Slifer Plaza, East Meadow Drive and the Gore Creek streambank.
The Planning and Environmental Commission has voted (6-0-1) to recommend town
council approval of the project. During discussion yesterday, community opinions were
mixed. Here's a sample of those appearances:
Vail co-founder Pete Seibert, who urged the Council to support the project, noting that the project's size and architecture is in keeping with the character of -
` Vail. ~ Former Councilmember Tom Steinberg, who asked the Council to take a firm
position in reducing the size of the building, noting that developers always find a
way to make it work, even when they say they can't. Steinberg said the town
administration wrongly panicked over the flattening sales tax issue and has
encouraged gross "over-development" of the Austria Haus to compensate for
sagging revenues.
0 Ginny Culp, who had three objections to the project, including the use of an
SDD. She said the Austria Haus SDD process is a way to "break all the rules"
with little public benefit. She compared the Austria Haus SDD to the Vail
Commons project, noting that the tradeoffs do little to serve the public good.
0 Former Councilmember Jan Strauch, who also runs a business adjacent to the
property, who said the Austria Haus proposal is an appropriate use of an SDD.
Because the Village is under attack by outside competition, Strauch said the
community can no longer live in the past; it has to move forward with quality
improvements. He said giving away free parking isn't the answer to the town's
competition challenges.
0 Former Councilmember Bill Wilto, who said he was saddened by the proposal
because it would block views of the mountain. He suggested a less obtrusive
building.
0 Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners Association, who said the SDD
would set a bad precedent in increasing the size of future projects. He proposed
rezoning the Austria Haus site, plus the Mountain Haus and Vail Athletic Club -
parcels as a constructive solution.
~ Johannes Faessler, the applicant, who said projects like this are a must for Vail
to maintain its position in the marketplace and to trigger other remodels. He said
the town has not been successful at creating a climate for redevelopment and
that it was unfair for the community to "chip away" at his project--just to make
people feel better.
Comments by Town Council members included:
0 Paul Johnston, who said although the project seemed extreme to him at first, he
was ready to move forward to find a way to make the project work. He said if the
town is indeed serious about increasing the number and quality of
accommodation units, it would have to struggle and fight hard to get these new
upscale projects "whenever and however we can."
~ Kevin Foley, who favored "tweaking" the project by scaling down the size and
putting more emphasis on parking and delivery. Foley also expressed concern
about the lack of a restaurant in the facility.
(more)
~
TOV Council Highlights/Add 5
• Michael Jewett, who said he could support the project because it reflected his
redevelopment election campaign platform. Jewett asked that those who have
called him to complain about the size of the building be more specific in
suggesting how much smaller it should be to meet their satisfaction.
• Sybill Navas, who had mixed feelings about the project. She worried about
setting a precedent for future projects in Lionshead, the loss of sunshine in the
area due to the height of the building, and streamside protections, among other
- concerns. She called it a good plan, but not the final plan. . • Rob Ford, who said he liked the building's design, but said it's too big for the site. -
He criticized use of the SDD process saying it gives too much latitude to the staff
and the PEC. He said he was troubled that the request exceeds all aspects of
the underlying zone district and that the SDD tool had failed. Although he said
he remains committed to redevelopment on the site, he said he didn't want to
see "uncontrolled growth."
• Ludwig Kurz, who said he couldn't support the proposal as presented without
additional conditions similar to those carried in the motion for approval. Kurz
also suggested the need for redevelopment incentives and wondered how the
town might provide them.
• Bob Armour, who advocated adjusting the project to meet the Council's
satisfaction (rather than losing the project). In particular, Armour suggested
taking a look at the lock-off units as a possible way to reduce the size of the
building.
The proposal will be scheduled for second reading at the April 15 evening Council
meeting. For additional details, please contact George Ruther in the Community
Development Department at 479-2145 or watch the gavel-to-gavel coverage of the
meeting on Channel 5 Vail Valley Community Television. Call 949-5657 for a schedule
listing.
--Resolution No. 12, Establishment of a 457 Deferred Compensation Plan
The Council voted 7-0 to apprave a resolution to establish a 457 deferred -
compensation plan for the firefighters and police officers of the town. For more
information, contact Tom Moorhead, town attorney, at 479-2107.
--Ford Park Management Plan
During an update on the latest draft of the Ford Park Management Plan, the Council
heard public comment on a parking policy that has proved to be the most controversial
element of the plan. As presented, the policy statement reads: "Any future increase in
parking use in Ford Park shall be affirmed through a public process, shall be publicly-
owned for public use, shall be subsurface, and shall result in an increase in green
space for public use. " But during public comment last night, Ross Davis of the Vail
Recreation District Board of Directors asked for the wording of the parking policy to be
changed to require a public election for construction and financing of a parking
structure. Davis also said he objected to a plan to relocate a tennis court at a cost to
the public of $100,000. Hermann Staufer, also of the Vail Recreation District, and his
brother Joe also asked that the parking policy either be eliminated completely or require
(more)
,
~ .
TOV Councii Highlights/Add 6
a public vote. Councilmember Michael Jewett then asked if an initiative could be
created similar to the charter amendment on open space that would preserve a public
vote on the parking issue in perpetuity. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead said he would
need to research the matter. Councilmember Sybill Navas suggested removing the
word "community" from community parking to help ease the concern. Following
additional suggestions from community members Bart Cuomo, Ken Wilson, Sammye
. Meadows and Tom Steinberg, the Council agreed to c.ontinue working to modify
wording of the parking policy to satisfy the future needs of the proposed Vail Alpine .
Gardens Educational Center and mitigate concerns raised by other community
members. Also, at the request of Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners
Association, a proposal to hold monitoring/assessment meetings for leaseholders and
neighborhood representatives was added to the plan. The draft will be reviewed again
at the April 1 work session in preparation for final approval at the evening meeting on
April 1. For more information, contact Pam Brandmeyer, assistant town manager, at
479-2113.
--Appointment of PEC Members
The Council appointed Ann Bishop, Greg Moffet and John Schofield to serve two year
terms on the Planning and Environmental Commission. Moffet and Schofield were
reappointments.
--Appointment of DRB Members
The Council appointed Brent Alm and Bill Pierce to serve two year terms on the Design
Review Board. Alm was a reappointment.
UPCOM9NG DISCUSS9ON TOP9CS
April 1 Work Session
Site Visit, Kelton PEC Appeal
Review of PEC Decision on Public Works Seasonal Housing
GRFA _
- Ford Park Management Plan
Year-end Financial Report
April 1 Evening Meeting
Youth Award
First Reading Ordinance Changing Fees for Elevator Inspections
First Reading Ordinance on Proof of Insurance
Resolution for Approval of Ford Park Management Plan
Kelton PEC Appeal
April 8 VI/ork Session
USFS Burn Discussion
DRB Review
Review Sound Ordinance
Swiss Chalet Parking
European Tour Slide Show (McLaurin, Grafel, Kurz)
(more)
. 7
TOV Council Highlights/Add 7 April 15 Work Session
PEC Review
97 Housing Work Plan
Review of Proposed Rules of Procedure
April 15 Evening Meeting
` . First Reading, Sound Ordinance
Second Reading, Austria Haus SDD .
Second Reading, Elevator Inspection Fees
Second Reading, Proof of Insurance
0
. , .
;t
FOR 'BVAIIIOEDfATE RE16EP9JE
March 26, 1997 Contact: Carl Waiker, 476-6610
Coordinating Team Member
Si_qn Up iUow fo Atfend . `
" THERE'S V1/ORK T0 BE DONE AT TFiE CREATE VAIL TOAAORR011V
COMMfl9NITY COfVFEREIVCE, APFiIL 16 & 17
(Vail)--In what could be the most criticai work yet of the Vail Tomorrow visioning and
strategic actions process, a Community Conference will be held April 16 and 17 to
decide on a list of specific actions in four of 11 goal areas. The "Create Vail Tomorrow"
Community Conference marks phase six of the initial seven-step planning process
aimed at implementing community-wide strategic actions.
The conference is from 4 to 9 p.m. V4'ednesday, April 16, and again from 4 to 9 p.m.
on Thursday, April 17. Both sessions are at the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus. Anyone who
cares about or is impacted by Vail is encouraged to call 479-2451 to sign-up for all or a
portion_ of the free conference activities.
Discussions at the April conference wi.ll focus on specific actions recommended by
four teams formed to work on the prioritized goal areas of Affordable Housing, Building
Community, Natural & Built Environment and Regional Cooperation. The team
volunteers--about 60 in all--have been working independently to evaluate dozens of
actions that were brainstormed by the community in November. On April 16, their
narrowed lists of recommended actions in each of the four goal areas will be presented
for endorsement by the community. In addition, a recently-activated youth team will
give a report. But it may not be as easy as it seems.
(more)
P.O. Box 1019 ^ Vail, Colorado 81698 ° 970-479-2451 ° http://vail.net/Vail-Tomorrow
s
i
Vail Tomorrow April Conference/Add 1
Carl Walker, a volunteer who's helping to oversee the logistics of the Vail Tomorrow
process, says the conference will require careful thought and deliberation among the
participants. "What we don't know yet is whether any of the recommendations from one
team contradict another team," Walker said. "tf they do, or there are other issues identified, the'conference is intended to resolve those conflicts as a community--much
like our consensus-building work at the previous meetings." At the conclusion of the
two days, each team will receive a go-ahead as to which actions to continue to pursue
on behalf of Vail Tomorrow.
The teams have been meeting regularly for the past three months and are eager to
share their accomplishments and reach agreement before the transition to mud season,
Walker said. "Even though there's much more work to be done on the implementation
side, these teams are wanting closure on their recommendations. They certainly
deserve our thanks for the hundreds of hours they've given to this process."
The April conference will be facilitated by Tweed Kezziah and Susan Watkins, noted
for their community facilitation and consensus-building skills, who have helped with the
previous Vail Tomorrow community sessions.
The project began last July and has involved more than 1,000 people, including full-
time residents, part-time residents, 'business owners, and others who have shared their
ideas in the Vail Tomorrow process through involvement in community roundtable
discussions, responses to surveys, attendance at community conferences or through
team work. To date, that involvement has been used to define Vail's values, establish
(more)
Y
b
Vail Tomorrow April Conference/Add 2
11 goals, identify four critical goals for immediate action, brainstorm 600-plus actions in
the 11 goal areas, form four self-directed work teams and narrow actions for the April
conference.
On April 16, the "Create Vail Tomorrow" Community Conference will begin with team
reports and identification of the issues for resolution. Each team will be given 25
minutes to present its recommended actions, including an explanation of the rationale
used for making the recommendation, a plan for achieving the actions, a list of the
agencies or organizations needed to agree or be involved in implementation, and the
kind of help needed from Vail Tomorrow to make the actions a reality. After hearing
reports from the four teams, plus a report from the recently-activated youth team, the
first session will conclude with conference participants working collectively to identify
issues or contradictions for resolution from among the recommendations.
Then on the second evening, April 17, with the help of KezziahWatkins, community
members will discuss issues, resolve conflicts, decide on final actions and celebrate the
- community's accomplishments.
Walker encourages as many eommunity members as possible to attend all or parf of
the conference. "It doesn't matter if you've participated in previous Vail Tomorrow
meetings or not," he said. "These actions will affect Vail's future and could affect your
life. It seems only fair that you should have a say in deciding what actions will be
pursued, especially if there are competing objectives that may impact you."
Over time, the Vail Tomorrow process has made a commitment to address all 11 goal
(more)
i
Vail Tomorrow April Conference/Add 3
areas. The remaining goal areas will be re-visited. once actions are underway in the
first four goal areas.
So that adequate meals and space can be reserved for the April conference, please
call 479-2451 by Monday, April 14, to sign-up. The event is free to anyone who wishes
to attend. # # #
Vail Tomorrow Proqression
Vail's Values
• Resort and Community Go Hand-in-Hand
• Diversity Strengthens Us
• Activities Enhance Our Lives
• Connections Build Community
• The Environment Defines Us
• Regional Problem-Solving Works Best
• The Economy Sustains Us
• Safe Surroundings Protect Us
• Intellectual Growth is Essential For All
11 Goal Areas Defined
• Natural & Built Environment
• Affordable Housing
• Building Community
• Regional Cooperation
• Growth Management
• Economic Diversity
• World Class Resort
• Family
• Youth
• Cultural and Educational
• Safety & Security .
(more)
a
h
Vail Tomorrow April Conference/Add 4
Tearns Eorrned Around 4 Goal Areas for 9rramecliate Ac$Bora
0 Affordable Housing (69 brainstormed actions)
0 Building Community (86 brainstormed actions)
0 IVatural & Built Environment (97 brainstormed actions)
0 Regional Cooperation (45 brainstormed actions)
. 27 Endorsing Organizatsons
(These organizations have agreed to do their best to implement the actions . recommend through the Vail Tomorrow process.)
0 Bravo! Colorado Music Festival
0 Chamber of Commerce
0 Colorado West Mental Health
0 Eagle County Commissioners
0 Eagle County School Board
0 Eagle River Water and Sanitation District
0 Kiwanis
0 Lionshead Merchants Association
0 Minturn Town Council
0 Partnership for Environmental Programs Inc.
0 Snowboard Outreach Society
0 Town of Vaii Planning and Environmental Commission
0 Town of Vail Design Review Board
0 U.S. Forest Service Holy Cross Ranger District
0 Vail Alpine Garden Foundation
0 Vail Associates
0 Vail Daily
0 Vail Mountain School Board
0 Vail Recreation District
a Vail Religious Foundation
-0 Vail Symposium -
_ 0 Vail Valley Restaurant Association 0 Vail Valley Theatre Company
0 Vail Town Council
0 Vail Valley Foundation
0 Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau
0 Vail Village Merchants Association Board
~
Uv~ P N 0 s
L
F i n e A r t G a I I e r y
, March 25, 1997
Dear Mike Rose,
I am writing another letter regarding the parking situation in Vail. As I expected,
since the parking pay structure was changed in March I have experienced parking
problems on several occasions.
As an employee in Vail Village I purchased a Blue Pass to accommodate my
parking situation. I occasionaily have to leave my business to run errands and at times,
deliver art. I no longer have this flexibility. If I leave my business in the morning and
return around noon or slightly after I am directed to park in Lionshead or use the Value
Pass. Driving to Lionshead and taking the bus to Vail Village is an unacceptable
situation because of the time factor as well convenience. Using the Value Pass costs
additional money and does not allow me to leave.
I would also like to mention that during the World Cup Finals I found the parking
especially bad, evenings as well. I had dinner reservations in town one evening and felt
lucky to find a parking space.
I am very concerned about the current situation and I believe it has proved to be
unfair for Village employees. I am appalled that I am not being compensated for the
changes made to the Blue Pass and in addition I am spending more money to park in
. the Value parking on days that I could be using the Blue Pass.
Please distribute this letter to the Town Council. I am still in favor of a refund to
Pass holders and I definitely think the parking system needs to be reviewed and
restructured for next Winter season. Sincerely,
~
~ /VZ•f.
L.
Nancy Barton
Gallery Director/Owner 227 BRIDGE STREET VAIL, COLORADO 81657 970-476-8474
Leapingoti5 is a cryetal clear Colorado 5pring that feeds abundant wildlife in 5weetwater Canyon
.ki,
. 'i i•
-.a
~ ' Qa
EagOe County's Quarterly Employee News9etter
Produced by the Newsletter Committee, Public Information Office,
Human Resources Dept. and Editors ~ 970-328-8793
.
ourtt 's Website Launc,
hed
By Lanie Bryant
T he official Eagle County permit application. A search engine ~
website, launched on allows users to search the site for
February 3rd, enables residents to specific topics. The site will be con- ~ooooo
access County information 24 : stantly updated with new and changing Y ° u ` ' " ` ° " ' ° ` ` ` ° `
hours a day. The state-of-the-art information.
website provides: answers to "The website provides another E~G LE,C~ N TY
frequently asked County questions, communication link between the '
offices' and departments' ad- county and the people we represent,"
dresses, fax, and phone numbers, said County Commissioner James displays of County maps, meetinQ Johnson. Internet users will be able to ~
calendars and agendas, current ~ comment on current issues and ~
job openings, profile information, communicate directly with their
visitor information, newcomer County Commissioners. The county's TY "
questions, airline schedules, and website is very successful with over ~`1COnvcheOffciJw.imrcimE.El.Cwmy.Colcr.do aE.s.l.`e~~iy.,,,~~
. . oIm..nF..e.lri, ti imwc.. ier COw Imk.li
~F•nWnen. ~uo..nu.ll'n.ee irequ<n~ upd.a. t'ou c.n fennu6h th. nrc bywn6 .
much more. Users are also able to 12,000 hits and 800 visitors to date. ~°'~`am~:;•.
..eiiy wnu yw rt Iwuns Fw. Fl...e e~i . If h.....nYAdn 9~ wld Idr m 6i.
download commonly requested Visit the County's website at: ,rt""""`"E"'``°""'
county forms such as the employ- www.eagpe_courety.coare. Or call Jack ~-0
: ment application, and building In-stad or Lanie Bryant at x612 to make an apppintment to see the site.
~ S 0 o
N ut Moving Eagle Count.7 o PAGE 2... By Susy McConville
EC terminal building wins Tcrional he Eagle County Re- to the store. In fact, time goes by
llatlOl~al 8N~P18fd Transportation quicker when you share it with
Authority would like to remind someone else, so try sharing a ride
PA(G E 5,,. everyone to explore your transpor- for a week with a co-worker or
You and the Network tation options! Many of us forget classmate. You might find just the
that there are different modes of right mode of transportation for you!
~12... travel, other than the single occu- For bus information and schedules,
pant automobile. For a change, call the Town of Vail at 479-2358 or
cCOUl1ty'S Safell9te OffICeS take a bus to work, shopping, or the Town of Avon at 949-6121, and
~~en Bn llew AvOn a!Dl1e] x even to Denver. Or, if the weather Get Moving Eagle County!
is tolerable, use that bike or walk
- . . . . _ . . _ , - . -..._.....~,e~ . .
• ' County Connectionj - lEagle O
Ouart
plo
ArIly
Eagle County Terrninal building
receives National Award of Excellence
By Lanie Bryant & Jim Elwood
T he new Eagle County Terminal
BuildinQ has been honored with
the National Award of Excellence by the
- ' A.ssociated Builders and Contractors
-(ABC). The award is designed to publicly
recoanize the quality and innovation of
construction and to honor all members of
the construction team responsible for the ~
new terminal building, including the con-
tractor, the owner and the design team. ~
The construction of the terminal was com-
~
pleted on time and within budget due to
the combined efforts of Eagle County, Commissioner Bud Gates & Airport Manager Jim Elwood along
Isbill Associates, The Van Sant Group, and with representatives of the construction team accepted the
Shaw Construction. specially-sculpted American eagle statue award on January 17,
The national award program competi- 1997 in San Diego, California.
tion was open to all construction projects
completed by ABC members. An inde- missioner, George "Bud" Gates. "Eagle significant and prestigious honor", said
pendent pane] of judges (including repre- County residents can be proud that the new County airport manager, Jim Elwood.
sentatives from the American Institute of terminal has been recognized with such a
Architects. Clemson University, Willis
Corron and the ABC) selected the winners Q&P G ro u p I n t h e B E G I N N I N G¦..
in each category. The winning projects
were selected from entries submitted from By Bill Sm?th
across the country and were judged on the First there were forall employees. Group and employee
. followin`7 criteria: complexity, attractive- employee meetings, objectives continue to be worked on as
ness, unusual.challenRes, completion and from these meetin(ys Q&P receives them. The major projects
budLetary timeliness, workmanship, inno- emeraed the the Q&P Group is currently working on
vation, and safety. ~Q&V "QUALITY AND are T*E*A*M Eagle County Cook-
"Winning the 1996 National Award of PARTICIPATION books, Ea-le County Quilt Coverlet,
Excellence in Construction is a wonder- GROUP" and the and T*E*A-*M Day Activities.
ful acknowled2ment and tribute to all the mission of the Q&P Group. As time In mid year 1996, the Q&P Group
people who worked days, nights and evolved, a list of' objectives was handed received a suggestion that ~the grpup
weekends for five months and five days at down from the employees... communica- have a guest facilitator each month. The .
the Ea;le Airport Ternlinal job site. This tions, customer service, and overall train- group feels that this is working well and `
award affirms that anythin- is possible if inc,they are getting great input from each
all parties involved with a project are truly The first undertaking of the group was facilitator. A special THANKS to our
~ommitted to achieving a clear definable improvin_ communication between ALL guest facilitators for the past quarter: :
Roal", said George Shaw, owner of Shaw emplovees throuRhout the oroanization, Don Fessler- Road & Bridge, Sara ~
Construction. "Our goal was to build a Ihus evolved the "COMMUNICATIONS Fisher - Clerk & Recorder, Kathleen
~ CUBE". The res onse to the cube has Forinash -Health and Human Services, ~
passener terminal that would benefit the P
public and county taxpayers. The fact that been overwhelmin= at times, but has im- Karen Sheaffer -Treasurer. In addition
it also won a national award is a honor for proved the Ea-le County T*E*A*M spirit the group would like to extend an open
all those people who did things right over immensely. We hope that the Communi- invitation for other members of the
the last six months", said County Com- cations Cube continues to be used as a tool management team to participate.
Page 2
. _ . . , • .
' 1 nty I ' 1 ,gle Countjv's Oyarterly ii
~ountYC issioners AGLE
& . ; .
RGIVING
"Quality Counts"
aths COUPONS:
`~reasurer ~ake O
"Thanks for the nice thrngs you do
that are not a requirement of your job."
"Pleose accept this token to show my _
most sincere appreciation for oll your
5 exceptional OSSIStQf1Ce Ofl numerous
-224
County Commissioners occasions throughout the year."
Johnnette Philli s and
James Johnson took "
their oaths of office on Thonks for al/ the odded e f f'ort, time
January 14, 1997. Also and care you hove provided. h is rruly
taking her oath of office opprecioted."
y - was County Treasurer
Karen Sheaffer. The
County Commissioners "Thanks for all you do. It is the (ittle
passed the official things thot mean so much: the pvpers,
resolution appointing
representatives co donuts, trips to the bank nnd pharmncy.
various boards and Thanks for oll your help whenever a
organizations. question arises!"
"1 appreciate the way you take extra
f w time with people (the publrc). You are a
good exampfe of quolity customer
service and an asset to this of ~''ce."
~
, .
E N T "For answering the multitude ofques-
~ I~
~~JFiM
tions on insurance and always
answering with a smile."
"Thonks for helping me out with bill
8th Ann ua8 ROCKY MOUNTAIN OYSTEF3 FEED paying questions al/ year! 1 appreciate
Benefitting the Eagle County Fairgrounds Youth Exhibitors you and your efforts."
SATURDAY, APRIL 5
Dinner: 6-8 p.m. - ,4uctions: 8 p.m. - Dancing: 9 p.m.-Midnight "Thanks so much for keeping ourma-
LIVE ENTERT,41YVflhEiVT FEATURIfVG DERRINGER
At the Eagle County Fairgrounds chinery up and running. You and your
Exhibit Hall & Livestock Barn Crew hove been greot!"
13 years old & older, $12.00 o 6-12 years. S6.00
Children under age 5 admitted FREE . "For all the times you hove dropped
what you are doing to help me out
4/13-4/19/97 Nafional Counfy Government Week Thonks!"
4/17/97 1'*E*A*M Day
4/30/97 Deadline gor fiull payment of properfiy taxes "1 think your customer service and
5/1-6/2/97 Appeal perioci for real properfy valuafiion your help fulness are above expectations!
5/26/97 iViemorial Day Holiday You're great!"
6/15/97 Deactline for 2nd half paymen4 of
proper4y taxes Page 3
. . .
. . O 1 ' 1 -Eagie, i l E~mplojyeie
~
a y
r
Moguls*000000900000
B y Karen Merritt Sturgill and Jim Moran j u dere d o n ~
M oguls! (as in "bumps") Not s p e e d
somethin- employees of Eagle straightness of
County usually have to deal with, but there line of travel,
is someone who works for Eagle County and "air". t'
, that knows quite a bit about them. Vdhen the
. 'In our Buildings and Grounds depart- skier is judged
ment we have an employee named Jim on "aic" there ~1'
Moran whose son is a freestyle skier on are several '
the U.S. Ski Team and competes in Mo- components
gul skiing. Jim's son's name is (and this that are as- Jim Moran and son, "Jimmer."
will be easy to remember) Jim Moran, his sessed such as,
friends call him "Jimmer." how high the
Jim learned how to ski (I know what skier jumps and how well they do the ma- World as a Freestyle skier. He is a mem-
you're expectina).... after he learned how neuver they have chosen, (i.e. Helicopter, ber of the United States Freestyle Team,
to walk. He was taught by his mother and Daffy, ,,.,,,.,and his goal is to compete in the 1998 '
took lessons every Friday afternoon There is an article in the December Olympics in Nagano, Japan. Perhaps at
through his elementary school years in 1996 issue of PowderMagazine which not that time not only will we be able to 1
Stowe, Vermont. He won his first mogul only explains mogul skiing in more de- see an exceptional freestyle skier, but ~
contest at the aQe of 13. In freestyle mo- tail, but also has an interesting article on just maybe our Jim Moran will be in ."gul skiing, skiers race through a field of Jim Moran. Jim is currently ranked sec- the crowd.
BIG bumps of snow (moguls) and are ond in the United States and fifth in the
Health &Human Servhces -
stances where such services could not oth- nator. She will be very pleased to have ~
erwise be accessed. Some of the services your support. If any County employee
:
are, but not necessarily limited to assess- would like to participate with this group
ment, intervention, treatment, supervision in the Snowshoe Shuffle they will be
' ¦ The Ea-le County Juvenile Wrap and shelter. The next time you hear some- taking two vans and would be glad to
Project (a new program in Eagle County) one ask, "Why isn't someone doinQ some- have you aboard.
is a project based on the concept of wrap- thing for a kid in trouble'?" Tell them about ¦ A very special thank you to
around programing in which representa- the WRAP project. Marjory Stone of the Basalt office who ~
tives from local agencies charged with the ¦ Nettie Reynolds in cooperation with writes a wonderful column centered
care and provision of services to at-risk the Western Eagle County Ambulance around nutrition for the senior newslet-
vouth collaborate to identify a service plan District has trained 108 stuclents at Eagle ter.
and provide the full ranae of programminge, Valley High School in CPR. She has also ¦ Kenna Rasnic needs volunteers to
required to conduct the plan. Social ser- held fire safety education for the senior help with the reading program. There
vices, the juvenile court, mental health, citizens in Eagle and Minturn. are a number of visually impaired folks.::
public defenders, county attorneys, law ¦ Speaking of senior citizens, have you unable to read the local newspapers. On.~
enforcement, education and others inter- head about all their activities? They are Thursdays, at 11:00 a.m. "readers" will ested in child welfare have made a formal line dancinL,, snowshoeinb, playing bingo read what's happening in our valley! ~
commitment to participate in coordinated and will soon be learning Tai-chi. Think Anyone interested in participating
case management and participate in the retirement is boring? Not from their stand- should give Kenna a call at 328-1005.
funding decisions for services via an in- point. If you have a talent or project that
teragency WRAP Services Team. you would like to share with this delight- -
These services may be delivered to ju- ful and interesting group please get in
veniles at risk of placement in those in- touch with Kenna Rasnic, Senior Coordi-
Page 4
_ . . . . - - _
Thetou'nity 1 ' 1 , i County's Ouartedy
and the Network
nity Development's ADAPTS, Account- network for the use of a printer. If you
ing KVS, and the Assessor's Assess- want to send e-mail, the e-mail software
ment/Admin software. Some examples communicates with the network so that
of general software are WordPerfect and you can send your E-mail.
By Karen Merrift Sfurgill and Quattro Pro. For you to be able to get to We hope that this helps you under-
" Information Systems these services you need to know how to stand the very basics of how you can use
tell your PC to go to the server (located the services that your networ.k. offers.
. 70'f you read the last newsletter in the Information Services office) and Our Information Services department
you know that we are present- get what you need. Using your PC for can answer any more specifc questions
ing a computer information series to this function is much quicker than if you that you may have regarding the net-
explain our network and how it works, had to go to file cabinets yourself and work. Check the newsletter next time
hopefully, in an easy to understand retrieve your document. One of the ways for THE BIGGER PICTURE.... or, how
lancuage. that you communicate with your PC is all our servers interact.
Havin- your PC connected to a by pointing with the mouse and "click-
network can help you do your job in a ing". As an example, lets imagine that
more efFcient. manner. However, if you need ro revise a document that you -
you cannot connect to the software were working on last week. You know
you need, and you haven't a clue you need the software and the document; Team:
where your fles are, working on a net- now the question is, how do you retrieve ~
work could be a nightmare. what you need? You need to tell your ren Aferriff.SturOi11
In order to understand how you, as PC to go the "filins! cabinet" marked What is it???? Team Day was:
an individual, and your PC interact in "software" and retrieve the software you ' suggested.to the.Quality and Partici-;::::.. .
a network environment, there is a need, then Qo to the filina cabinet pation .group (Q&P); .in 1994 as a.
technical term (OH, NO...) that you marked "saved ti les" and get~the docu- ->way :to 'promote :TEAIVI sgirit, and '
need to understand. The term is ment you need. To retrieve the software give'Eagle County Team members a
5erver An easY wa to describe a Y you click" on the icon (sorr} another wayto interact with each other out=''
server is to think of it as a filing cabi- technical term) or "little picture" that sidethe:officeatmosphere.:Ifalsoal-- :
net. For those of you who enjoy the represents the software you need. Once lows ourAnnex and others who nor-
technical side of computers and net- you have retrieved your software, you mally work outside the main.Eagle
works, a.server is a computer and soft- need to retrieve the t71e. To accomplish County Building the chance :fo;
ware package that provides a specific this, you again use vour mouse in the 'mingle. TomakeTeam`Dayanevent.
kind of service to client software run- manner prescribed by your software, ~'~ere.everyone eould participate, a,..:
ning on other computers. usually "open", to retrieve your saved yearly luricheon, with'food provided
Now, to insure your experience fle. When youu follo~- the above proce- by each- depar[ment'was inihated
with our network won't be a night- dures, quich as a wink (you hope) your The Board ofGountyCortimission
mare, you need to know what tools PC goeti to the network and retrieves ers has graciousiy provided the main;
are available on our network and how what ever youu have requested. It wi]1 course ::each year. such-as chicken,
to get to them. Some network services only retrieve exactly what you have re- 'beef,..etc. (By:the fime you= have
are: the ability to use our printers, save quested, so if you "click" on the "little reached-::this point :you- might be ;
our files, communicate with each picture" that represents Quattro Pro and ~.Pretty tired of the word "Team", but ;
other via e-mail, and use the software expect to get WordPerfect, you will be '>read ori.far the particulars of -Teatn ;
that is special to each department. somewhat surprised. Other services are Day this year)., It will. be-'held on '
~April 1-7, 1997:at the °Eagle County '
Some of the special software that the retrieved from the network in somewhat Fair:Grounds.lfie menu:::. Taco baz: ~
county has loaded on the network . the same manner. If your software al- The:contest...:;Cookies/Bars..Adds,....
right now is the Treasurer's TIMS, the lows you to print a document and you honal mformation coming soon~
Clerk and Recorders CRIS, Commu- "click" on print, the software asks the
Page 5
. _ _ .~....._,..~'°•,°~-,~s
The 1 Conneciio' nj i ~ounty's / plo
to employees about change, recogni- How to Master Your Time (tape)
;
tion, performance evaluations, resolv- The concept is about increased pro-
ing disputes and job security. It is in- ductivity, efFiciency tips and ideas.
teresting to see what the other half is There is a lot of information on this
thinking..... tape so anticipate listening to it sev-
• " The Stress of Organizational eral times.
Change (book) Another quick read Great Connections (book) Small
(less than an hour) that focuses on the talk and networking with people got
3 key drivers of change and the 15 ba- your tongue tied? Learn how to
sic mistakes people make when deal- make the most of conversations! ` inc with change. If you are going Work through shyness, master intro-
By Julie Feldman through a lot of changes in your life ductions and end conversations po-
ollowing are evaluations for either personally or professionally this litely. Most importantly learn how
books and tapes checked out of is a must read! to make interesting small talk.
the Training Resource Center. If you Emotional Intelligence (book) A Peacock in the Land of Pen-
are interested in checking out the fol- Emotiona] Intelligence versus IQ. uins (book) This is a quick tale (30
lowing materials come to Human Re- "EQ" may be a better measure of how minutes) of diversity and discovery.
sources or give Julie Feldman a call at well you succeed in life than your IQ It takes you on a journey with Perry
extension 795. would indicate. Self control of emo- the Peacock who is asked to conform
Walk Awhile In My Shoes (book) tions starts with self awareness. This to the world of Penguins. Learn
A highly recommended quick read book will help you empathize with what happens when creativity, origi-
(less than an hour) for employees and employees and co-workers in relation- nality and differences in opinion are
managers. It contains messages from ship and mood management. Find out not valued. .
employees to managers and managers how high your "EQ" is...... =
ECRTA..eNot Just Ride!
a Bus By Suzy McConville
A s part of an ongoing transit To determine if a consultant is inter- tion requirements. The TAC is a vi-
planning effort. for Eagle ested in submitting a proposal, they tal part of the process and includes
County, the ECRTA (Eagle County Re- may attend an optional conference to some Eagle County faces that you
gional Transportation Authority) is so- discuss the scope of work and project might recognize.... George Roussos, :
liciting a consultant to update the five- requirements with the ECRTA Direc- County Engineer; Keith Montag, 5
year County Transit Development Plan tor. The consultants will then submit Community Development Director;
(TDP), prepare a new County-wide their proposals, and one will be se- Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human a
TDP, and evaluate the progress since lected to be "awarded" the project con- Services Director; Kenna Rasnic, 'I
the last TDP. Jim Shrum, ECRTA Di- tract. That consultant will meet with a Senior Services Coordinator; and
rector, says "Our hope is to consoli- Transit Advisory Committee (TAC) Jim Shrum, ECRTA Director. The .
date all County TDP's previously done which consists of representatives of the final result is a new updated County- into one new updated TDP." community to work with the consult- wide Transportation Development
The process ~oes somewhat like ant and give recommendations to the Plan to be put into place over the
this...a "Request for Proposal" is sent consultant to utilize while creating a next six years.
to a broad range of transportation con- County-wide, unified TDP through
sultants, to inform them of this project. Colorado Department of Transporta-
,
- I • . i ~ . • ' ~
Page 6
The 1 1 ' 1 , i Cotinty's Oyarierly ~ oyee Newsletier
ra a
nAPPY B ' RTH DAY TO YO V 1 DEANE, JUNE 06/08
BEERS, CARLA 06/10
HARRIS, JOHN 03/01 BEAUMONT, GREG 04/30 KAUFMAN, BILL 06711
PAINTER, MARGO 03/01 O'NEILL, NEIL 05101 1VICCOLLUM, PAT 06/13
BRADLEY, MIKE 03/02 KROMER, KEVIN ~ COMROE, TIM 06/13
ARNDT, ROBBIE 03/04 MCKIERNAN, DOUG 505101
05/02 HILDRETH, J.E. 06/15
SULMEISTERS, PETER 03/04 FESSLER, DON a OS/OS
MACSATA, JEANNE 03/06 BURGDORF, ROBIN o OS/OS ~
VINCENT, KAREN 03/07 GREGG, PAUL 05/06
SAMARA, LOU 03/09 WYRUM, DUSTIN 05/07 °
BARNES, DONNA 03/14 ARCHIBEQUE, ORALIA 05/07
HERMOSILLO, MARIE 03/15 BRANDT, JODIE 05/08
VAN BEEK, JAMES 03/17 VENGRIN, JOHN 05/08
LOYA, DANIEL 03/17 MCDONOUGH, MARIAN 05/09
PANKUCH, LINDA ~ 03/20 STONE, MARGERY 05110 Welcome tO
VROMAN, DAVID G 03/20 BALDWIN, DEB 05111
FILENER, CHAD 03/23 EATON, SUE 05111 hql'reso
HURD, HARRY ° 03/25 FOSTER, DALE OS/12 . LEMON, ANNIE 03/25 NYE, DON 05/13
HORAN, LYNETTE 03/27 YOUNT, SETH 05/13
JOHNSON, JACK 03/30 AMUNDSON, MA 05/16 JIM JACKSON
BURNER, ROB 03/31 RIDGWAY, JUL ~ 05/16 Airport
TILKEMEIER, JEANNE 03/31 ROBEY, LESLIE 05/16 ST}~~EN MARsHALL
CAMERON, LISA 04/01 LYONS, KIM 05/17 Airport
BONN, MAGGIE 04/01 PHILLIPS, JOHNNETTE 05/18 RICg{~ ONORATO
JOHNSON, DALE 04/04 BRYANT, LANIE 05/18 Airport
PARKER, RHONDA 04/05 JACKSON, DAVID 05/18 R~~~ ~~~HIAS
MATHIAS, REBA 04/05 LAGUE, STEVE 05/18 Assessor
MERRY, RAY 04/06 MCWILLIAM, MIKE 05/20 ~ANICE ANDERSON
SCHLEGEL, MARY 04/06 BINDLEY, ELLA 05/21 Clerk dc Recorders
REYNOLDS, NETTIE . 04/07 EDEN, DON 05/21 Sg~IRLEY HODGES
WILSON, JAMIE 04/10 MURRAIN, SLtSAN 05/22 Clerk & Recorder
-MATTSON, ROBERT 04/10 GARCIA, FRED 05/23 SUCAN M~RRAIN
HAGER, RANDY 04/10 SEHM, NAOMI 05/23 Clerk & Recorders
COLLINS, KEN 04/12 VETICK, CHRIS 05/23 ARMIgDA SANDOVAL
GIRARD, TOM 04/13 HUSKEY, STEVEN 05/24 Clerk & Recorders
WILLIAMS, VONDA 04/13 COLLINS, JOE 05/25 JOHN VENGRIN
CARTER, DAVID 04/14 NOWAKOWSKI, DAVID 05/26 Engineering
BALDWIN, JOAN 04/14 GUNION, GALE 05/28 ~~~~ON SMgTH
~ REED, KATHY 04/16 BROWN, DEB 05/29 Nursing/Social Services
~ MCCAULLEY, BECKY 04/20 O'SULLIVAN, JOHN 05/30 RANgyY HAGER
SATTERFIELD, DORIS 04/21 SGOTT, PHIL 05/31 Sheriff
ARAGON, EMMA 04/21 ROUSSOS, GEORGE 05/31 ~AN~ ~~RWIN
RAGSDALE, LORENZA 04/24 SHIPKA, JANET 05/31 Sherif'f
HINELINE, VIRGINIA 04/25 SCHALL, TERRY 06/01 Ag,g,~~~~ ~~~~~~KEY
GRUBER, MIKE 04/26 HABENICHT, FLORENCE 06/02 Sheriff
SCHLEGEL, RANDY 04/29 TRUJILLO, MISSY 06/05 CARLA O'NEIL
HEERMANS, JEFF 04/29 MAGDZIUK, PAT 06/07 Sherif~`'
FISHER, SARA 04/29 JOHNSON, A.J. 06/08
Page 7
- - - - . _ r
Thatounty 1 1 , gle Ca / plo
FOCUS ON PIEEOPLE
Kathy Nacke - Treasurer's Office -
By Deb Jordan daughter lives in Illinois A new, yet familiar face in the and recently mamed a
Treasurer's Office! navy man. Kathy enjoys
1997 is here and the Treasurer's Office reading. working with
' has sent out over 33.000 1996 property tax dried flowers and house
notices. By the end of February they will dancing (you'll have to
- have collected over $12 million in prop- ask her for details!).
ertY taxes. TheY have been operating a
Kathy's high motivation
half a position short for the last year and and energetic personal-
fi~ured the 1997 tax season was the time ity makes her a'-reat as-
to fill that vacancy. set to the Treasurer's Of-
And alonQ comes a shining star, a very fice. She tackles those
experienced Kathy Nacke! Not many tax payments on a daily Kathy Nacke
people would want a 6 month position, but basis and has already
it appealed to Kathy fior two reasons. One, topped the daily input total for the office. quiring an employee from the secretaria
Kathy has been in the Eagle County sec- If you haven't seen her in ihe pool was a great way to find a quality per-
retarial pool since 1995 and enjoyed her Treasurer's Office yet, it may be because son", Ms. Sheaffer says. "Kathy knev,
previous experience in the Treasurer's of- they keep her fast little fingers in the back what she wanted and we knew what we
tice. room punching buttons and adding up wanted and. both parties are now verN
Secondly, even though Kathy enjoyed those tax dollars. Eagle County Treasurer, pleased" Let's all keep up the Counh
the non-committed aspect of the pool, she Karen Sheaffer compliments Human Re- team work!
wanted to Ret back into the accountin_ sources with the findinQ of Kathy. "Ac-
field and fiQured this was her opportunity.
Kathy moved to Eagle County 2 I/2 1997 Multiple Sclerosis Walk -
years ago with her long time companion,
Dan Nacke, and her two canine buddies. G1enWOOd Spr1ngS, CO
Spike and Samantha. Her 19 year old -
, By Deb Jordan & Naomi Sehm - -
DO YOU~ The MS Walk is a fun way to join
thousands acrost the nation and make LIKE TO
a bi2 difference. The pledges you raise
will -o toward research for a cure as
"O well as much-needed services for
.
people with MS in Colorado and their
Are you interested in joining families. Participating in The MS Walk
an Eagle/Gypsum Community is agreat way tc> show your support, loop, from No Name Rest Area
Choir? We are looking for people but what really counts are the dollars through the beautiful Glenwood '
who enjoy singing for fun! You you collect. Last year, The MS Walk Canyon to Grizzly Creek Rest Area ;
do not have to be a musician or raised nearly $450,000! and back. Check in: 8:00 am. Walk:
a trained vocalist. If you are plannin2 for The 1997 MS Walk is 8:30 am. If you are interested in join-
interested in singing, playing an in full swing. Mark your calendars for ing The MS Walk, please give Naomi
instrument, directing or know Saturday May 3rd. Located in Sehm a call in the Treasurer's Office
where we could meet, please Garfield County. Start/Finish: No at ext. 861. Naomi has registration
call Lynette Horan's voice mail
at 328-2331 Name Rest Area, exit 119 off I-70, and pledge forms. Let's get WALK-
.
Glenwood Springs. Route: 8-mile ING! The more the merrier!!!
Page 8
_ ...........__.....~.._...a
K~~
~
,
. ~ ~ "I" trc /
.
FACTS AND FIGURES from RECORDINC,
By Deb Jordan & Sara Fisher
~ Recording department. 1Vlanned by are required to charge a documentary
Karen, Gail and Shirley, they handle fee which is paid and recorded each
s most of you know, the approximately 175 legal documents time a monetary transfer of property
Cletk and Recorder's Office daily. The number of pages per docu- takes place. That fee is 10 cents per
is a pretty busy place. More than ment varies, but a day's work can eas- thousand dollars of the property sale.
: fifty people come through our doors ily reach 750 pages. Upon receipt, In 1996 we collected $96,500:00 in
. each day, and, office wide, we an- each page is indexed, optically document fees alone...that translates to
swer twice that many phone calls! scanned, microfilmed and returned to $964,979,500.00 worth of property
We now have a voice menu on our the sender by mail. The entire process that exchanged hands in Eagle County
direct phone line (328-8710) which typically takes three days to complete. in the last twelve months.
has helped answer some "informa- But even after the original is gone, Plats and maps are also recorded in
tion" calls, but many people still copies of microfilm and disks are pre- our office and we maintain a library of
contact us for general information pared for sale to more than fifty cus- more than one thousand. Each map is
and we are happy to answer any tomers who buy the information daily, filmed off site, but then returned to us
questions that come our way. weekly or monthly. for safe keePin
One segmenf of our office is our In addition to the recording fees, we edition...What's Up In Motor V Next
e hope everyone had a received threatening notes and pictures several clues to aid the Assessor's team
Wwonderful Christmas and of poor Santa ga~~ed and tied to a in the rescue of him. Santa was seen
NewYear's celebration! What a wild chair, dynamite strapped to his chest; enjoying Christmas dinner in the
time we had at the County Building then hand-cuffed and thrown into the Assessor's office. Everyone was
when "Santa" was brazenly kid- trunk of a car. He was even taken to pleased to see him returned to his fa-
naped from his favorite
bench on Friday the 13th vorite bench.
by Mike Bradley of ¦ Ed Smith made a bet that
Building and Grounds. ~e ~'oun~ Connect'on the Broncos wouldn't win 12
Mike left a ransom note games...Good thing he only had
demanding 2 dozen to pay up with a 6-pack of 7-Up.
cookies for Santa's safe ¦ I would like to thank Connie
return. A team from the A Cantrell for helping to make up
Assessor's office tried signs for awards and other spe-
several times to cet Santa ' cial occasions. Thanks Connie,
back without success. that's what TEAIVI WORK is all
Eventually they offered a INFODESK about!
tin of candy and the ne- ; ¦ If you want to jump-start
Covauft
gotiations were looking ~b;i your heart...get on the elevator at
good. However, the candy ~ the third floor-when the door ~
was actually round doQ ` closes and the elevator lurches biscuits covered with chocolate and the County Airport to be extradited to remindP yo dthat third is as hit h Sch
coated with prett y s prinkles. M i c k e y C u b a! P e o p l e i n t h e C oun ty Buil ding oes. g l t
Rioux discovered the trick on the were upset and angry over the terrible g
very first bite, the situation rapidly mistreatment of Santa. The Building
deteriorated. The Assessor's ofFce and Grounds staff relented, offering
Page 9
'The o I 1 , gl,~ COM17tyS O
ii
Ea e .Count
~
~ . r
:
. m
~
. :
.x ~
...a .
Three Years: TenYears~w-~ ~ _ _ ~ , yE SHARON HARTEIS LINDA PANKUCH
~ JEAN COVAULT
DON FESSLER
BOB LOEFFLER LAMONTE HORVATH
TRICIA HIGGINS JOAN HOZA
DAVID NOWAKOWSKI
- MICKEY RIOUX Eleven Years:
LAURIE ASMUSSEN LORIE CRAWFORD ~
CHRIS ISGRIG RITA BOSSOW
PATTIE HAEFELI
KATHY EASTLEY Fourteen Years:
Colagratulations to those who RICK ETTLES JOHN TRUJILLO
DIANA KAFKA ~M ANDREE
will achieve employment
annivet-sai-ies with Eagle Count~l Four Years: Fifteen Years:
du~~ing theft•st quarter of 1997. JACK INGSTAD JIM FRITZE
SUE DREIER PHIL SCOTT
One Year: TIM COMROE
JIM ELWOOD JOHN RUDDY Sixteen Years:
DORA PRINCE ELLIE CARYL JACK OLESEN
BARBARA TRASK ,
CHARLOTTE PADILLA Five Years: Seventeen Years:
CAROLE KIPEFERL BECKY WHEELERSBURG LINDA NESTOR ~
JIM HARTMANN JOHN ALTHOFF ?
JULIE FELDMAN Eighteen Years:
JOYCE REICHE
STEVE LAGUE Six Years:
BRAD WATWOOD JEFF HEERMANS Nineteen Years:
SANDY ALFRED DEBRA BALDWIN _ RUTH BERGLUND
RENEE FIELDS KATHY ROSS
KEN COLLINS MARGO PAINTER Twentv-Four Years:
TOM GIRARD RHONDA PARKER
Two Years:
ELAINE WOLF Seven Years:
DALE FOSTER JANET RENZELMAN ' f~
GEORGE ROUSSOS
KEITH MONTAG ; ,t ; MARI RENZELMAN TERRI BIERSDORFER DEADLINE
MARIE HERMOSILLO
We welcome input from all ~
departments. lf you know informa- ~
Eight Years: tion of interest, the DEADLINE to
MARY KESSLER submit articles and artwork to your
~ JOE HOY department's loyal representative j
I
~ for the 2nd Quarter Newsletter is
5 pm Fri., 512197. We prefer ~
articles submitted in disk format. '
~ We are able to reserve space for
~ ~ . `late breaking news" due 5 working
days prior to the ublication
P date.
Page 10
.
' Countyri 1 1 , i County's Guarterly plo
~
• _ - , cmps
- - Submitted a:.
~ i• 6
Lynn,4ltieri COOKS ~
,
a Abe Lflnc~~ln9
~ .
~outh o P ~
' ';9 child is a person who i.r goitig I(
. . to carn~ nn wliat vou lrave stnrted. ~ ~ .
He is gorng ro sir where vot~ are sit-
ting cui d tin hen vou are gnne, atten d
~ to those thi»gs wl:ich vou t{:ink are '
imporraitt. Yoit mav ndopt a!1 the
TE" ~~0KB0~~
po[icies vau plense, bi+t {toir thei! ivill
be carried out depends on hinz He ~ Please send your favorite recipes (include your name) by May I st
tivill a.csume control of your cities,
.s<ares a„nd ,iar,o,i.s. xe ,.s go;,zg to to Nancy Levvis, Laurie Asmussen or Julie Feldman. We wiould like
_+»nve in arid take overvow•churcJies, ~ to have the cookbook done in time for the County Fair!
= schnnls, trniversitiesandcorpoi•n-0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
tior:s. All li•our Uooks nre going to
,
be jtrdged. nccepted or ca:dentned
bY him. The _fute of {tumaitin• is in N' °ge°s°
j71.Sha„dS. so ;rinighrbe weuro pail VVe need a cover and title for the cookbook! Submit your design
hi»t so»re utrent,o,r „
- g._. by May I st. The winner will receive a FREE cookbook!
000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000 000000000
>
pg"sl BI'eci 0 h
contributed by Terry Rounds
3 Ibs. tri-tip beef or sirloin tip, cut in ~~~~CT8ONS:
small pieces or ground coarse
Brown meat in oil for about 30 min-
2 tsps. cooking oil rTe M R ourids' utes over medium heat. Add onion and
I small yellow onion i° l enough beef broth to cover meat. Bring
I 14 I/2 oz. can beef broth ~~1~•
~~YlI1~2° fOE' to boil and cook for 15 minutes. Add I
3 I12 Tbsp. ground cumin Tsbp. cumin and I/2 tsp. oregano. Reduce
I/2 csp. oregano ~ P~Ce h eat to light boil and add half of the garlic.
6 cloves garlic, fnely chopped Cbhffi Add half of the chili powder, and cook for
3 Tsbp. Gebhardt chili powder at 10 minutes. Add tomato sauce and pulp
the
I Tsbp. New Mexico mild chili powder ,~e~
~ ~ from the dried peppers and remaining
5-6 Tsbp. of California chili powder artiy garlic. Add any remaining beef broth and
I 8 oz. can tomato sauce chicken broth for desired consistency.
I dried New Mexico chili pepper,boiled Cook for one hour on medium heat stir-
and pureed + ring occasionally. Add remaining chili pow-
3 dried California chili peppers ders and cumin. Simmer for 25 minutes
I 14 I/2 oz. can chicken broth I tsp. ~
ofTabasco pepper sauce on lowto medium heat,stirringoccasion-
ally. Turn up heat to light boil and add
I tsp. of brown sugar Tabasco pepper sauce, salt to taste, brown
I lime
sugar and juice of lime. Simmer on me-
Salt to taste dium heat
Page 11
. _ . . . _ . . . . _
c~
~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I ' I
t
County's Avon Annex Opens for Business
By Lanie Bryant
C ounty services have resumed "up
valley" after almost a two year
hiatus. The Annex is located on the first
floor of the Avon Center ana will house '
-extension services for the followin~
' county offices: Assessor's, Clerk &
, Recorder's, Community Development,
Nursing and Social Services. Three pub-
lic computers will also be available for
residents to access county records, and a g
Colorado State Department of Motor Ve- hicles Division of Driver's Licenses office ~
will also be located at the Avon Center.
"Not only will the Eagle County Annex offer a variety of needed services to "up
q y ~
valley" residents, it is also a wonderful
worl:ing environment for employees", said
Project Coordinator Terri-Ann ~ Giandomenico.
"More than half of the Health and Hu-
I711I] SeCV1CeS Cllellt fliTlllle5 117 the T".a-le
River Valley live close to -the Avon. We
will have "one-stop" services for these
. ~ ~ ~F t~. .
families and be able to offer all our pro-
'
~
grams from this one location. This will ,
result in better coordination of services
and the best use, of our staff resources. Susan Murran, Clerk and Recorder's office, looks happy in the office's new satellite
Avon office staff are looking forward to at the Avon Annex. A grand opening and ribbon cutting was held on March 10th
their new home and the opportunity to cre- to celebrate the County's newest extension services offered for Clerk & Recorder's,
ate an "up-valley" team that can Health & Human Services, .Assessor's and Community Development.
provide
the full range of our Health and Human - -
Services", said Kathleen Forinash, Health
and Human Services Director. "We've got wantLed J
a great crew lined up for our new office in
Avon, and having it open again will cer-
tainl_y be a welcomed convenience for all Friendly, OUtgOlllg i n f o r m a t i o n
oi' our "up valley" customers," said Clerk and knowledgeable - which would in- & Recorder Sara Fisher. erp lO eeS needed
A Grand Opening celebration was held P Y C~Ude 1 tOlll' Of
to hel with our
on March l Oth. If you haven't already P th e buj ldI n g,
done so, stop by and cheek out the "PA L" Pe rs o n a I
~ introductions
County's newest facility. The annex is Assistanee Liaison ~
open Monday throuch Friday. Office hours ~ and luneh. ~f yOll
for the Clerk & Recorder wi11 be 7:30 a.m. PrOgrarrl. Help us in making are interested in becoming a
-4:30p.m. and Health & Human Services eVeryOfle's first day a great day! PAL, please contact Julie
hours will be from 8:00 a.m. - S:OO.p.m. AS 1 PAL yOll WIII Sh1Pe COUnty Feldman at extension 795.
Page 12
dd
e4 .
TOWN OF ~AIL
75 SouPh Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
FOR BNBMED9ATE RELEASE
March 31, 1997
Contact: Susan Connelly, 479-2140
Community Development Director
TOVIlN OF VAIL HOSTS ANNUAL CONSTRl1CTION SEA?SON
K9CK-OFF MEET9NG APR@L 3
(Vail)--Contractors, architects, developers and others who rely on the Town of Vail's
development review process are invited to attend the town's annual construction
kick-off this Thursday (4-3) evening. The meeting is from 6:30 to 8 p.m. in the Vail
Town Council Chambers.
There, officials will provide an update on what's new for the 97 construction season,
including an update on the many improvements underway to increase efficiencies in the
town's devefopment review process. Participants also will learn about changes to the
Uniform Buifding Code, and will hear from representatives of the Eagle River Water and
Sanitation District.on main line installations and specification standards.
In addition, eight work stations will be set up with handouts and representatives
available to address specific questions on the following topics: Building Permits and
Inspections; Fire Department; Planning/Design Review Board and Planning and
Environmental Commission applications; environmental/erosion control and asbestos
removal; public way/construction standards; development review improvement process;
development review improvement standards; and Eagle River Water and Sanitation
District. .
(more)
OM~~ RECYCLEDPAPER
Add 1 /Construction Kick-Off
The Community Development Department has undergone a transformation in recent
years to improve customer service and efficiency. Those changes have included:
• Creation of a new service counter staffed by planning and building professionals
from 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday for one-on-one assistance for
walk-in customers. No appointment is necessary. .
• On-the-spot planning approval for minor alterations.
• 24-hour processing for minor building permits.
• Improved sign code processing.
Stifl to come will be a consolidation of the town's development standards, plus
streamlined processing for applications requiring cross-departmental review.
The annual kick-off ineeting was created in 1993 to help integrate improvements in
the construction process and increase communications between town inspectors and
contractors.
Capital projects funded by the town this year will include construction of roundabouts
at West Vail and completion of the Dowd Junction bike path. Also, construction of Vail
Commons, the public-private development in West Vail, is scheduled for completion this
spring.
Vail's building permit activity-shows 141 permits issued since January 1 this year with -
a valuation of $6.4 million. For the first quarter last year, 104 permits were issued
totaling $3.5 million. The figure rose to 1,237 permits totaling a record $87.9 million for
all of 1996.
For more information on the construction kick-off ineeting, contact Susan Connelly in
the Community Development Department at 479-2140.
# # #
~'O 1~
4IL
1 ~75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
. . FOR 9iViMED6ATE RELEASE March 31, 1997 Contact: Keri Anderson, 476-7676 Susie Combs, 479-2114
Red Lion Volunteer Coordinator TOV Volunteer Program Coordinator
RED L90N CREW 9S FIRST TO "ADOPT A STFiEET" 9N VA1L
AS VOL&JNT'EER PROCRAM EXPANDS
(Vail)--Employees of the Red Lion bar and restaurant have volunteered to "adopt" a
portion of Bridge Street from Gore Creek Drive to Seibert Circle. The action marks
Vail's first adopt-a-street partnership sponsored by the town.
Red Lion employees have agreed to pick up trash along the street on an as-needed
basis. In exchange, the Town of Vail will provide trash bags, tools and other
equipment. Bridge Street is one of the heaviest pedestrian areas in Vail and requires
frequent attention by the town.
Keri Anderson, Red Lion volunteer coordinator, organized-the program with help from
Susie Combs, the town's volunteer program coordinator. "The people at the Red Lion
come from many different places and backgrounds, but we all share in the belief that it
is important to be involved in taking care of our community," Anderson said.
The street adoption program is an expansion of the town's adopt-a-path program,
introduced in 1995. Since then, 15 businesses and organizations have joined in
cleaning up 20 miles of recreational paths each year.
Bob McLaurin, Vail town manager, said the programs are symbolic of the
(more)
RECYCLED PAPER
Community Volunteers/Add 1 community's sprit. "This is a very giving community," he said. "It's great to see the Red
Lion crew join us in taking responsibility for our surroundings."
Anyone interested in adopting a street or path should contact Susie Combs, Town of
, Vail volunteer program coordinator, at 479-2114. The town also has volunteer positions
for various other tasks, including office support, snow shoveling and maintenance. In
1996, approximately 700 hours were contributed to the town by 110 volunteers. The
increased service is valued at more than $6,000.
Another popular Town of Vail program, the annual Community Clean-up Day is
scheduled for May 17. For details on the Glean-Up Day, contact Russell Forrest in the
Town of Vail Community Development Department at 479-2146.
# # #
dd
d4
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-21 DO
FAX 970-479-2157
MEDOA ADVBSORV
March 28, 1997 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, (970) 479-2115
Community Information Office
Booth Falls Update...
CLOSER VNSPECT90N O(F WEDNESDt4Y'S ROC9C FALL AREA SHO1NS CLEAN
BREAaC, NEW FRACTfl,9RE, SAME LE!/EL OF HA~ARD
(Vail)--Upon closer inspection of the rock fall area in Booth Falls this afternoon (3-28),
the conclusion from state geologists remains the same as yesterday: the risk for
additional rock slide activity there is no greater than usual for this time of year.
However, officials say there are other rocks high above the East Vaii Booth Falls
neighborhood that will eventually break loose in the future.
The conclusion was made today following a helicopter inspection by Jonathan White
and Monica Paulik, geologists with the Colorado Geological Survey, a division of the
State Department of Natural Resources; and Russell Forrest, senior environmental
planner for the Town of Vail. The helicopter, an OH 58, was provided by the High
Altitude Training Center of the Colorado Army National Guard.
Forrest said the team made six passes of the area and came within 50 feet of the
rock face. "We saw where the rock broke off cleanly from the top, then it fell and
fractured a lower rock band and came down from there," said Forrest.
The team took video and still photographs of the site. "Although we can conclusively
say that nothing that occurred on Wednesday has increased the risk, we can say with
confidence that there will be rocks just as big or bigger than what we saw continue to
come down in the future," Forrest said. In addition, the team concluded that a berm
. installed in1990 has been extremely effective in preventing property damage for the
area it provides mitigation for, according to Forrest.
He said the two geologists will attempt to reach the area on foot next week for an
additional inspection. From there, a report will be issued on or around April 7 by the
Colorado Geological Survey assessing the risk and including recommendations for
possible mitigation. The U.S. Forest Service will issue a report on its findings, as well.
In the meantime, residents who live in the high rock fall zone hazard are being asked
to be aware of the usual risk for rock falls during the spring season.
# # #
RECYCLED PAPER
ee
e4
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
MEDIA ADViSORV
. March 27, 1997
. Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115
Community Information Office
Rock Fall UpcBate
20 RESIDENTS REMA9N EVa4ClJATED FF$OM BOOTH FALLS COIVDOS
PENDING ASSESSAAENT FROM US FOREST SERV6CE
(Vaii)--A team from the U.S. Forest Service will arrive here early this afternoon to
assess the stability of a rock ridge above Vail's town boundary on the north side of I-70.
The inspection follows a rock fall which occurred around 11:30 p.m. last night (3-26)
which caused extensive damage to a three-unit building within the Booth Falls
Condominium complex in East Vail. There were no injuries and approximately 20
residents of the complex have been evacuated until results of the Forest Service
assessment have been completed.
In all, about six boulders of various size broke lose last night, falling about 500 to 600
yards below. The biggest boulder, approximately the size of a Volkswagen beetle,
crashed through the front door of unit 14 in ihe condominium complex, torn through the
first floor and landed in a basement storage area below. A resident of the unit was
trapped in the building (due to damage of the front entryway) and had to be evacuated
through a bedroom window. A second resident was at work at the time. Her bedroom
was completely destroyed. The building's two other units also sustained damage.
Building inspectors for the Town of Vail have red-tagged the building and will require a
report from a structural engineer to determine if any of the units are safe to inhabit.
Residents were allowed to return to.their units at their own risk for a brief period this
morning to retrieve some of their belongings. The area has seen been re-secured and
will remain so until town officials confer with representatives from the Forest Service
later today.
Representatives from the Mesa County Red Cross are on their way to assist the
residents who have been displaced.
For more information, contact Suzanne Silverthorn in the Community Information Office
at 479-2115.
# # #
RECYCLEDPAPER
0
,
dd .
e4 .
TOWIV OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
FOR IMilflEDOATE RELEASE
March 31, 1997 ` . , Contact: Susie Combs, 479-2114
ADA Coordinator, TOV
Judi Anderson-V1lright, 479-3072 voice; and 479-3071, TTY
Accessible Programs and Services M_anager, Vail Resorts, Inc.
TOV SPONSORS FREE WORKSHOP APRIL 23 TO PROflIIOTE LOVV-COST IDEAS
FOR 9NCREASED ACCESSBB1L9TV FOR IiVDIVBDUALS WITH DBSABELITDES
(Vail)--The Town of Vail, in partnership with Vail Resorts, Inc., is offering a community
workshop to help local businesses and other service providers increase accessibility for
individuals with disabilities. The free accessibility forum, called "Making Sense of the
Americans with Disabilities Act" (ADA) will be presented from 1 to 4 p.m. Wednesday,
April 23, in the Vail Public Library Community Room. Reservations for up to 25
participants will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. To sign-up, call
479-2114 by Thursday, April 17. Creative and cost-effective tips to improve access and service for individuals with
disabilities will be presented during the training. Often the sotutions are easy, cost
effective and can be of benefit to everyone, says Susie Combs, the town's ADA
coordinator. For example, when a business chooses to build a ramp at its entrance, it
i-nakes access easier for older patrons, parents using strollers and those who are
temporarily and permanently disabled, she said. Suggestions on barrier removal,
alternatives to barrier removal, signs, restrooms, parking and guest services will be
(more)
RECYCLEDPAPER
fADA Forum/Add 1
discussed. Also, each participant will receive an ADA implementation and resource
manual. Similar workshops cost as much as $200 to $400 per participant, Combs said.
The forum will be presented by Judi Anderson-Wright, a local authority on
accessibility issues. Anderson-Wright serves as manager of accessible programs and
services for Vail Resorts, Inc., and serves on the Governor's ADA Council and
President Ciinton's Committee for the Employment of People with Disabilities.
As a local resource on accessibility, Anderson-Wright says she receives as many as
50 calls a day from people all over the world asking for help in planning their Vail ski
vacations. "They want to know where they should stay. Where to eat. Where to shop
and where to park," she said. In many instances, she directs them to Lionshead. "The
Lionshead area has really come on strong," she said. "There are now accessible
lodges, restaurants, services, and restrooms in the area. It's been a great
transformation."
She's hoping representatives from properties in Vail Village will attend the workshop
to become similarly inspired. "When we presented the forum two years ago, there was
a moment of enlightenment for Gary Boris of Montauk (a restaurant) in Lionshead," she
said. "Gary's improvements served as a catalyst for making Montauk the first fully
accessible restaurant on the mall," she said. "Then, Bart & Yetis followed suit with a
ramp. After that, the General Store and the Lionshead Liquor Store both added
portable ramps and signage." There's also the Marriott remodel which has met ADA
standards, plus significant improvements at Lion Square Lodge and the Evergreen
(more)
a
ADA Forum/Add 2
Lodge, she said.
In the Village, the Sitzmark Lodge has come on line with some much-needed improvements. But Anderson-V1/right says there's much more to be done.
- "Increasingly, we're getting complaints about inaccessibility issues in the Village,"-she .
said. One of those complaints was from an individual who uses a wheelchair who had
to ask a stranger to enter a store to buy a package of disposable diapers. "Installation
of a call-button at a cost of about $50 not only would have retained this person's dignity,
but would have caused a positive sales transaction at this particular store," she said.
"Instead, the incident caused the guest to our valley considerable frustration and
personal embarrassment."
As she challenges the community to become more proactive in addressing the
accessibility issue, Anderson-Wright says she'll volunteer to help draft an improvement
plan for individual businesses if that's what it takes to continue the transformation.
An estimated 50 million people in the U.S., or one out of five individuals has been
diagnosed with a disability, she said. "Many disabilities are not visually apparent, but
_ these individuals are protected by the ADA and they are eager to be embraced by our
community," Anderson-Wright said. Vail hosts as many as 3,000 adaptive skiers each
season, including members of the U.S. Disabled Ski Team.
For more information or to make a reservation for the free accessibility workshop,
contact Susie Combs at 479-2114 by Thursday, April 17.
# # #
East Village Homeowners Associ970-827-5856 03/31/1997 03:17:12 PM P.1
EAST V~LLAcGE HoMEOwNERs Assoc~ATIoN, INco
Officers: President - Bob Galvin Secretary - Gretta Pazks Treasurer - Patrick Gramm
Duectors - Judith Berkowitz - Dolph Bridgewater - Ellie Caulldns - Ron Langley - Bill Morton - Connie Ridder
T0: TOV/Town Council
4792157
FROM: East Village Homeowners Association
Jim Lamont, Executive Director
970-827-5856
DATE: 03/31/1997
Number of Pages: 4
Message:
l Subject: Creekside Building Expansion/Exterior Alteration
I Review by Town Council, scheduled April l, 1997
Special Instructions: Please circulated to the appropriate
parities as requested. Please provide to the Town Council for
their review of agenda item #12'at their afternoon work session
and agenda item #9 at their evening session on April l, 1997.
(
~
I Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658
Telephone: (970) 827-5680 Message/FAX: (970) 827-5856
East Village Homeowners Associ970-827-5856 03/31/1997 03:17:12 PM P.2
. 03/31/97 11:38 F.Aa 7022218044 M1C EQUIPMENT LV z001
• ~ ~
124 WLWW B E ROAD o ViILo COC.O 81659
D$te: , March 31, 1997 '
Yo: Tim Lamont
Froan: CTazy ]L.McAaniel -
SufJecY: Greekside Buelding
r~
Will yrna please distnbate the attached letter to the three adentified pacfies prior to their
I Aprif i, 1997aneeting. •
Thaalc you for your assistance
rimY
East Village Homeowners Associ970-827-5856 03/31/1997 03:17:12 PM P.3
. 03/31/9i 11:39 FA% 7032218044 Y9C EQLRPMENT LV Q 002
LACiE C'ENTER ASSOCIATION
124 WU-,,~~ BMDGE IZOe4D @ VA.M, COLORAW 81657
11h[arch 31, 1997
To: Town of Vag Couned
Planning and Envirmnridental Commission
Lswen WseertonPlanner
IF'rom: Gary L. liqc]Da&el
Sub3e&. Creeksade Building Expusion and Exterior Alterations
Vde ha~ne reeiewed ~e rcquest for expaasioa attd c~erior alteratioas to 4he Creek~de Building,
The anajority of i1'illage ~eiter Pro i
PertY owners lnok direcdy across Gore Creelc at the Creekside
Beailding and the Q"avre Cawk Promenade. V'illage Center has sevaW cancerns with the proposed
Cpeeksade expaasion. Theyy are:
I Il) Tiie desip fextiares am no4 in c,h=cter with VaW V'i1lage and are n,ot AJpine in
charaaeter.
~ 'Ae glass railing is not in chatacter and will look very cornempormy,
~y 'g'he ~s~anshade desiga is conteffiporary and ~vill l~k like an afterthought.
) T'he enciosure of 4he graund floar, addition of the second stoay deck, and the
trellis/spnshac9e.uill biock the view corridor bf s number ofyfte Center occupants_
5) Color scheme, what is it? TlliS wiD ha, a Iot to do w;th the ctrmcter of the
buiiding
The conc.ems listed above am based nn past experiences. The Sitzmatk Building has becn
8emodeied fiuvo or ftee bmcs. F-ach time, we believe the design features have been in keePlAB
wieh the unique arcchitectural feaWres of Vail V'age~ AlPine character, and high 4UalitY• The
additaons have bem'irchi4ecturst mtancements_
I Thc "boxcar bading°
tim occupied by Blu's, Sweet ~ and Sliffer has been gemodeled at least two
, es iat the past. ~'he additiom to Blu's ha.ve ttot bee+t Al
~ ~ cl~aracter ar qu~ty
~ea?ts. ~ P" S
sQu~re h~x buelt on toP to expand S1iftes condo has aa architectural
latacter and looks flke arn afterthoughe - this is why we M]I it the boxcar building. T'he
remodeting end additians ha~e not eWhamced the archi4ecturat chvacter
adkftwd on, and ~ de of the building, have beem
gra* to the Core Creek promeaade.
East Village Homeowners Associ970-827-5856 03/31/1997 03:17:12 PM P.4
' 03/31/9e" 11;39 F3g 7022218044 MAC EQtIPb(EINIT LV, 12003
Page 2 - -
ViliW Ceneer is not opposed ta quality improvements and dcsign &atures that snhance the
architectural characterisrics of the Creekside building. We do not believe the presem design fits
this description. If they wil! address our concems, tgen we will not be oPpased, and wi11 support
the Creckside expansion and exterior altera4ions.
Respectfuuy,
~y .
PrEStd ~ Of VA18p CQ'1ttEC ASSQC18Lian
am
aMdkS