HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-06-24 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
GC~ ~
, VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1997
2:00 P.M. AT TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item.
1. PEC/DRB Review. (15 mins.)
2. Community Survey Results. (45 mins.)
Chris Cares
Suzanne Silverthorn
3. A request to review the proposed public view corridors to be
Dominic Mauriello considered in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. (1 hr.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review the proposed public view
corridors, if any, to be considered in the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: See June 23, 1997 consultant memo for a
complete description of the proposed public view corridors.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review the proposed public view corridors
as recommended in the consultant memorandum to be considered in the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. An Ordinance approving ;he
. view corridor, if any, will be reviewed by Council on July 1st (evenPng
meeting). Formal consideration and adoption will occur in Stage 5 of the
master plan process.
4. Final review of the Public Works seasonal housing development.
Andy Knudtsen (45 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review project and final budget
and approve/deny/modify the plans to proceed.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Staff has been working with the architect
and contractor to finalize the budget. Final bid figures and a guaranteed
maximum price will be presented to the Council during the work session.
Additional background is provided in the staff memo concerning costs of
other seasonal housing projects in the valley and as well as outlining
other options to this project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Proceed with proposed project.
5. Interim Financial Report. (45 mins.)
Steve Thompson
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review Iist of Capital Projects for
1997, including funding for Public Works Housing. .
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The interim financial report is to update the
Town council and staff on the Town's estimated financial condition
compared to the budget. It is also an opportunity to review the revised
list of Capital Projects now that bids have been received on all the
projects. '
6. {nformation Update. (10 mins.)
001,
7. Council Reports. (10 mins.)
8. Other. (10 mins.)
9. Adjournment - 6:00 p.m. -
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
` THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION
WlLL BE ON TUESDAY, 711197, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 7/8/97, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 711/97, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
IIIIIII
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice
or 479-2356 TDD for information.
C:IAGENDA.WS
2
~
PUBLIC NOTICE
VAIL TOWN COIINCIL MEETING SCHEDULE
(as of 6/17/97)
JllLY, 1997
In an attempt to respond to scheduled meeting demands, as well as adhere to mandated ordinance
and charter requirements, Council meetings are scheduled at the following times:
EVENING MEETINGS
Evening meetings will continue to be held on the first and third Tuesday evenings of each month,
starting at 7:30 P.M. These meetings will provide a forum for citizen participation and public
audience for conducting regular Council business.
WORK SESSIONS
Work sessions, which are primarily scheduled for Council debate and understanding of issues before
the Council, will now be scheduled to begin at 2:00 P.M. (unless otherwise noted) on everv
Tuesday afternoon.
THE 1lILY. 1997. VAIL TOWN COllNCIL MEETING SCHEDIILE
IS AS FOLLOWS:
Tuesday, July 1, 1997
Work session............ 2:00 P.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda)
Evening meeting......... 07:30 P.M.
Tuesday, ]uly 8, 1997
Work session............ 2:00 P.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda)
Tuesday, July 15, 1997
Work session............ 2:00 P.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda)
Evening meeting......... 07:30 P.M.
Tuesday, )uly 22, 1997
Work session............ 2:00 P.M. (swrting time determined by length of agenda)
Tuesday, ]uly 29, 1997
No work session............ (5th Tuesday of the month)
TOWN OF VAIL
~~~,f,~
Pamela ~
A. Brandmeyer
Assistant Town Manager
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice
or 479-2356 TDD for information.
~ Agenda last revised 6/24/97 9 am
1
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, June 23, 1997
FINAL AGENDA
Prolect Orientation /LUNCH - Communitv Development Department 11:00 am
View Corridor Regulation - Presentation by Tom Moorhead - 15 minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Greg Moffet Ann Bishop
Greg Amsden
Galen Aasland
Diane Golden
John Schofield
Gene Uselton
Site Visits : 12:00 pm
1. Texaco - 2313 N. Frontage Rd. West
2. Lionshead - View Corridors (1 hour)
Driver: George
-
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a variance from Section 18.30.060 (Setbacks), to allow for a canopy to be
located in the front setback and a variance from Title 16, to allow therooftop sign to
exceed 20 sq. ft. and to allow a free-standing sign to exceed 8' in height and 20 sq. ft. in
. size, located at 2313 North Frontage Road West/Tract B, Vail Das Schone 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Dick Dilling, represented by JMP Architects
Planner: George Ruther -
MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 6-0
APPROVED WITH TWO CONDITIONS:
1. That the sign proposed atop the canopy is removed and replaced on the south
end of the canopy underneath the roof overhang and that the sign is 20 square
feet, or less in size.
2. That the freestanding sign is relocated to the landscaped area on the southeast
corner of the applicanYs properry and that the maximum height of the sign be
lirnited to 13' feet in height above grade and that the maximum sign area not
exceed 20 square feet.
*VAIL
TOWN~
~
:
Agenda last revised 6/24/97 9 am
2. An appeal of a staff decision regarding a proposed batting cage on the outdoor dining ~
deck of Garton's Saloon, located at 143 East Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village
1 st Filing.
Appellant: Dave Garton
Planner: Lauren Waterton
MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 5-1 (Greg Amsden
opposed)
OVERTURNED STAFF'S DECISION WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed use be considered an accessory use to the existing outdoor
dining deck. The batting cage must be reviewed as an amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit for the outdoor dining deck. This use will also require
DRB review and approval.
3. A request for a worksession to discuss a zoning code amendment, to allow for outdoor
commercial ski storage, as a conditional use and to allow for commercial ski storage
(indoors) in all building levels, located in the CCI and CCII Zone Districts.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy
Planner: Lauren Waterton
WORKSESSION - NO VOTE
4. A request to amend Chapter 18.71-Additional Gross Residential Floor Area of the Town
of Vail Municipal Code, with the addition of a new section pertaining to the addition of
new GRFA created by the conversion of interior space in existing dwelling units.
, Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Russ Forrest
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 5-1 (Galen Aasland
opposed)
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL WITH AMENDMENTS:
1. That grade provisions be clarified (i.e., walk-out basements).
2. That roof dormers be clarified with an illustration.
3. That the amnesty program be pursued.
4. That a recommendation be directed to Council to include multi-family structures.
5. A request for a worksession to discuss potential public view corridors in Lionshead as
part of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Consultant Team
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6-0
RECQMMENDATION TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL WITH THE ADDITION OF VIEW
CORRIDAR #1
2
Agenda last revised 6/24/97 9 am
6. A request for changes to an approved development plan, to allow for the removal of a
bicycle path, located at Innsbruck Meadows on Kinnickinnick Road.
Applicant: Bob Borne, represented by RKD
Planner: George Ruther
APPLICATION WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT
7. A request for a variance from Section 18.28.070 (Setbacks) and a conditional use permit
for an outdoor dining deck, to allow for a deck expansion at Crossroads, located at 143
East Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Mountain Top Ice Cream (Haagen Daz), represented by Bill Pierce
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL JULY 14, 1997
8. A request for a conditional use permit and a variance from Section 18.22.140 (On-Site
Required Parking), to allow for the operation of a real estate office in the Swiss Chalet,
located at 62 East Meadow Drive/Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1st Filing.
i4pplicant: Johannes Faessler
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL JULY 14, 1997
9. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit, to allow for the
construction of the Alpine Garden Education Center, located at 620 Vail Valley
Drive/Tract A, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Vail Alpine Garden Foundation
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL JULY 28,1997
10. Information Update
11. Approval of June 9, 1997 minutes.
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356
TDD for information. '
Community Developmerrt Department
3
Agenda last reviscd 6/18/97 9 am
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, June 23, 1997
AGENDA
Projgct Orientation /LUNCH - Communitv Development Department 11:00 am
View Corridor Regulation - Presentation by Tom Moorhead - 15 minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits : 12:00 pm
1. Texaco - 2313 N. Frontage Rd. West
2. Lionshead - View Corridors (1 hour)
Driver: George
• e~
~•~~t' ..;i
i ~+r(lr' `L. ..'i
. ~
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a variance from Section 18.30.060 (Setbacks), to allow for a canopy to be
located in the front setback and a variance from Title 16, to allow the rooftop sign to
exceed 20 sq. ft. and to allow a free-standing sign to exceed 8' in height and 20 sq. ft. in
size, located at 2313 North Frontage Road West/Tract B, Vail Das Schone 1st Filing.
Applicant: Dick Dilling, represented by JMP Architects
Planner: George Ruther
2.. An appeal of a staff decision regarding a proposed batting cage on the outdoor dining
deck of Garton's Saloon, located at 143 East Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village
1 st Filing.
Appellant: Dave Garton
Planner: Lauren Waterton
3. A request for a worksession to discuss a zoning code amendment, to allow for outdoor
commercial ski storage, as a conditional use and to allow for commercial ski storage
(indoors) in all building levels, located in the CCI and CCfI Zone Districts.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy
Planner: Lauren Waterton
4. A request to amend Chapter 18.71-Additional Gross Residential Floor Area of the Town
of Vail Municipal Code, with the addition of a new section pertaining to the addition of
new GRFA created by the conversion of interior space in existing dwelling units.
i
Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russ Forrest *VAIL
TOWNO1
Agenda lasl rcviscd 6/I8/97 9 am
5. A request for a worksession to discuss potential public view corridors in Lionshead as
part of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Consultant Team
6. A request for changes to an approved development plan, to allow for the removal of a
bicycle path, located at Innsbruck Meadows on Kinnickinnick Road.
Applicant: Bob Borne, represented by RKD
Planner: George Ruther
APPLICATION WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT
7. A request for a variance from Section 18.28.070 (Setbacks) and a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining deck, to allow for a deck expansion at Crossroads, located at 143
East Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Mountain Top Ice Cream (Haagen Daz), represented by Bill Pierce
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL JULY 14, 1997
8. A request for a conditional use permit and a variance from Section 18.22.140 (On-Site
Required Parking), to allow for the operation of a real estate office in the Swiss Chalet,
located at 62 East Meadow Drive/Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL JULY 14, 1997
9. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit, to allow for the
construction of the Alpine Garden Education Center, located at 620 Vail Valley
Drive/Tract A, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Vail Alpine Garden Foundation
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL JULY 28,1997
10. Information Update
11. Approval of June 9, 1997 minutes.
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356
TDD for information. s
Community Development Department
Published June 20, 1997 in the Vail Trail.
2
Agcnda last rcvised 6/ 19/97 9 am
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA
Wednesday, June 18, 1997
3:00 P.M.
PROJECT ORIENTATION / LUNCH - Community Development Department 12:00
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Brent Alm Clark Brittain
Tcd Hingst
Bill Picrcc
Gene Uselton (PEC)
SITE VISITS 1:15
1. Lindstrom-Forken - 1521 Buffehr Creek Road
2. Kylc - 1479 Aspcn Grove
3. Lohre - 1895 West Gare Creek Drivc
4. Mills - 1612 Matterhorn Circle
5. Heard - 45 Forest Road
6. Flanncry - 186 Forest Road
7. Kjcsbo - 5111 Black Bear Lanc
Driver: Laurcn
PUBLIC HEARING - TOWN COUNCiL CHAMBERS 3:00
l. Curtin-Hill Sports - A requcst for a changc in awning colors and lettcring. Dirk
254 Bridge Street/Lot L, Block SC, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Teak Simonton, represented by Annie Egan
MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 3-1 (Ted Hingst opposed)
APPROVED
2. Logan - A final review of a new single family with a caretaker unit. Tammie
815 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch.
Applicant: Kent and Vicki Logan, represented by Pierce, Segerberg and Assoc.
MOTION: Ted Hingst SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 3-1 (Bill Pierce opposed)
CONSENT APPRUVED
3. Zneimer - A final review of a new single family residence. Tammie
1718 Buffehr Crcek Road/Lot 4, Tract B, Lia Zneimer Subdivision.
Applicant: Ed Zneimer, represented by Brent Alm
MOTION: Ted Hingst SECOND: Bill Pierce ! VOTE: 3-0-1 (Brent Alm abstained)
CONSENT APPROVED
1
. T. ~
4. Zeltman - Final review of a new singlc family. Lauren
1779 Sicrra TrailiLot 18, Vail Viilagc Wcst Filing 1.
Applicant: Bob Zclhnan
MOTION: Ted Hingst SECOND: Bill Piercc VOTE: 3-0-1 (Brent Alm abstained)
CONSENT APPROVED
5, Wiest - Final review of an addition of parking area. Lauren
220 West Meadow Drive/Lot 2, Vail Village 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Otto Wiest, represented by Saundra Spaeh
MOTION: Tcd Hingst SECOND: Bill Piercc VOTE: 4-0
CONSENT APPROVED
6. First Bank of Vaii - A final rcview of an addition to the First Bank Building Dominic
in West Vail. 2271 N. Frontagc RoadlTract C, Vail Das Schone Filing #1.
Applicant: First Bank of Vail, represented by Joseph Millcr
MOTION: Bill Picrce SECOND: Tcd Hingst VOTE: 4-0
APPROVED WfTH TWO CONDITIONS:
1. That two trccs (sprucc, 6'-8') bc addcd to thc north side.
2. That thc applicant providc a common ncwspaper box.
7. Town of Vail - Ncw cntry addition for thc Administration and Policc building. Dominic
75 South Frontagc Road West/Unplattcd.
Applicant: Town of Vail, rcpresented by John Gallegos and Kirk Akcr
MOT10N: Tcd Hingst SECOND: Bill Piercc VOTE: 4-0
CONSENT APPROVED
8. Milis - Residcntial remodel and facadc improvemcnts. Lauren
] 6l2 Mattcrhorn CircleJLot 27A, Matterhorn Village.
Applicant: Paul and Julia Mills, represented by Alice Parsons
MOTION: Ted Hingst SECOND: Bill Pierce VOTE: 4-0
APPROVED WITH THREE CONDITIONS:
1. That the railing detail be provided to staff.
2. That the parking be worked out with staff, in order to provide for additional landscaping.
3. That the applicant line up the windows on the north elevation.
9. Lindstrom-Forken residence - Conceptual review. Dominic
1521 Buffehr Creek Rd./Lots 3c4:4, The Valley Phase V, SDD #34.
Applicant: Mr. Lindstrom, represented by Jack S now
CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE 2
10. Austria Haus - Conceptual revicw. George
242 East Mcadow Drivc/on a part of Tract C, Qlock SB, Vail Villagc l st Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, lnc., represented by Gordon Pierce _
TABLED UNTIL JULY 2, 1997
1 1. Borne - New single-family residence. Lauren
3846 Lupine DrivclLot 13, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addition.
Applicant: Bob Bornc
MOTION: Ted Hingst SECOND: Bill Picrce VOTE: 4-0
CONSENT APPROVED
12. Hcard - Residential remodel. Lauren
45 Forest Road/Lot 33, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Daniei Heard, represented by Steve Riden
MOTION: Ted Hingst SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 4-0
APPROVED WiTH TWO CONDITIONS:
1. That the window changes on the west sidc be approved by staff.
2. That thc color samplcs bc shown to staff.
13. Lohre - A conccptual review of a new primary/5econdary residence. Tammie
1895 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 26, Vail Village West Filing No. 2.
Applicant: John Lohre, representcd by Erich Hill
CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE
14. Flannery - Conceptual revicw of a new primaty/secondary. Tammie
186 Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Villagc 1 st.
Applicant: Mike Flannery
CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE
15. Kyle - Conceptual review of a new single family. Lauren
1479 Aspen Grove/Lot 2, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing 2.
Applicant: Peter Kyle
CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE
3 /
, • t.
16. Kjcsbo - Ncw singlc-family with a Type [ cmploycc housing unit. Tammic
5111 Black Bcar Lanc/Lot 1, Block 2, Gore Crcck Subdivision.
Applicant: Rollie Kjesbo, represented by Jim Bryan
MOTION: Tcd Hingst SECOND: Gcne Uselton VOTE: 3-0 (Biil Pierce abstained)
APPROVED WITH ONE CONDITION:
1. That the limits of disturbance bc shown on the site plan.
Staff Annrovals
Pazzo's - New awning and sign. Dirk
122 E. Meadow DrivelBlock SE, Vail Village 1 st
Applicant: Tom Clinton and Mike O'Meara
Lionshead Gondola Building -Change in landscape plan. GR/Dirk
Tract B/Vail Lionshcad l st Filing. .
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Brian McCartney
Vail das Schone Shopping Ccntcr - Addition of parking spaccs. Dominic
2111 N. Frontagc Rd./Vail das Schone.
Applicant: Dcnnis Wyatt
Safeway - Rcviscd landscapc plan. Dominic
2131 N. Frontagc Rd./Vail das Schonc.
Applicant: Dennis Wyatt
Bridgcs - Entry addition. Dirk
2460 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 20, Block2, Vail Village 13th Filing.
Applicant: C. Plowden Bridges
Borgen - Reroof. Lauren
1280 Spraddle Creek Road/Lot 10, Spraddle Creek.
Applicant: Erik Borgeri
DeBooy/Howard - Reroof. Lauren
4022 Willow Way/Lot 11, Bighorn Subdivision.
Applicant: Henri DeBooy
Bannister - Dormer addition. Tammie
2943 Bellflower DrivelLot 4, Block 6, Vail Intcrcnountain.
Applicant: Frank Bannister, represented by RKD
Aldrete - Change to approved plan. George
Lot 3, Vail Village West No. 2.
Applicant: Antonio & Val Aldrete
~
4
. .
Davis - Dcck addition. Dirk
1480 Buffehr Crcck # 1 B(Grousc Glen)/Tract B, Phase 11, The Valley.
Applicant: Carol Davis
Lachcr - Window modifications. Dirk
400 E. Meadow Drive (Thc Tyrolean)Nail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Michael & Judy Lacher
Rondeau - Window additions. Dirk
930 Fairway Drive/Lot 7, Vail Valley l Oth Filing.
Applicant: Paul & Nancy Rondcau
Pomboy residence - Additon of 4 cntry pillars. Dominic
781 Potato Patch/Lot 21, Block l, Vail Potato Patch.
Appiicant: S. Pomboy
-Jost - Boiler room addition. Dirk
5013 Snowshoe Lane/Lot 24, Vail Meadows # 1.
Applicant: Tom Jost
Vail Athlctic Club - Phasc I landscaping. Mike
352 E. Mcadow Drivc/Lots A&B, Vail Villagc lst Filing.
Applicant: JWT 1987 Vail Limited Partncrship
Mill Crcck Building - Plantcr boxcs. Dirk
302 Gore Creek Drive/Lot l, Block SA, Vail Villagc Sth Filing.
Applicant: Mill Creck Court Condominium Association
Express-o and La Cantina - Ncw signs. Dirk
241 South Frontagc Rd. E. (Vail Transportation Ccnter)/Block SD, Vail Village l st Filing.
Applicant: Lucinda Nussbaum
Brooktree Townhomes - Stair and wall replacement. Dirk
980 Vail View DriveBlock B, Lions Ridge #1.
Applicant: Brooktree Townhomes
Pepi's Gasthof Gramshammer - Exterior stairway. George
231 Gore Creek Drive/a part of Lot A, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project
planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 5outh Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for
information.
e
5
6
TOWN OF VAIL ANNUAL COMMUNITY SURVEY
Fast Facts
• Pur ose
Measure satisfaction levels
Probe policy issues
- Identify trends & patterns
Shape future municipal priorities
• 1997 Marks TOV's 10th Survey Year
5th year with independent analysis
• New Format
Shorter (4 pages)
Tabulated by optical scanner for faster results
• Distribution
4,381 post office box holders
3,349 street addresses
1,200 absentee property owners
8,930 total distribution
• How We're Listeninq
Past survey results have been used to:
? Fund improvements to the Main Vail and West Vail Interchanges
? Appoint a full-time housing coordinator
? Establish a walk-in service counter for customers of Community
Development .
? Streamline the town's development review process (now underway)
? Emphasize citizen involvement in community problem-solving
• Election Barometer
De-Brucing ballot issue in 1993
Donovan Park Cemetery ballot issue in 1994
6/97
Community Information Office
.
.
.
Al Town of Vail Community Survey 1997
The following questions probe certain issues related to the adequacy and perfo?mance of the Town of Vail govemment. We would appreciate
your response to the extent which you are able. Please darken the appropriate circles using blue or black ink or pencil. If you have no opinion,
or no knowledge of a pa?ticular subject, please leave blank or indicate in fhe appropriate space. Please attach sheet for any addftional
comments or suggestions
1 What do you believe are the three biggest issues, in order of priority, facing the Town of Vail?
1.
2.
3.
2 Are you aware that the Town has focused attention on a Citizen Participation Program with emphasis on an open, honest and fair
process?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=805 n=274
1) 68 56 Yes
2) 17 22 No
3) 15 23 Don't know/no opinion
3 Has it made a difference?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=450 n=9S
1) 57 67 Yes
2) 43 33 No
Why do you say that?
. 4 How satisfied are you, in general, with the overall performance and responsiveness of the Town of Vail govemment?
NOT AT ALL VERY
SATISFIED SATISFIED mean n
1 2 3 4 5
Current Town Council resident 3 14 43 34 7 3.3 795
absentee 2 6 44 37 10 3.5 209
Boards and Commissions resident 5 18 47 26 3 3.0 757 -
absentee . 2 7 46 33 11 3.4 201
Town of Vail staff residenf 4 10 33 40 14 3.5 780
absentee - 7 35. 39 18 3.7 218
5 Over the past year, how would you rate the responsiveness of the following groups:
GETTING STAYED THE GOTTEN
BETTER SAME WOR E mean n
1 2 3 - -
Current Town Council resident 46 46 7 1.6 725
absentee 38 52 11 1.7 167
Boards and Commissions resident 20 71 9 1.9 665
absentee 25 69 6 1.8 157
Town of Vail staff resident 37 55 8 1.7 700
absentee 35 59 6 1.7 159
And why do you say that? Do any particular departments, boards or commissions stand out in terms of changes you have seen, either
positive or negative? Do you have specific suggestions on how we could be more responsive?
I
6 How do you rate your satisfaction with the following services in the Town of Vail?
~
PUbIIC WOfkS NOT AT ALL VERY
SATISFIED SATISFIED mean n
1 2 3 4 5
Snow removal resident 4 7 14 38 37 4.0 882
absentee 2 2 10 36 50 4.3 277
Road and street maintenance (potholes,
crack sealing, drainage, etc.) resident 24 28 29 15 4 2.5 888
absentee 7 15 27 30 21 3.4 277
Neighborhood park availability resident 7 8 24 35 25 3.6 810
absentee 4 7 18 35 36 3.9 242
Park playground equipment safety resident 2 2 21 41 34 4.0 510
absentee 2 1 14 42 41 4.2 162
7 Have you used bus system within the past 12 months?
RESlDENT ABSENTEE
n=785 n=255
1) 88 91 Yes
2) 11 9 No
NOT AT ALL VERY
SATISFIED SATISFIED mean n
1 2 3 4 5
The Bus System
Frequency of bus service:
In-town shuttle resident 4 9 18 30 39 3.9 743
absentee 2 6 11 31 49 4.2 265
Sandstone route resident 1 5 16 38 40 4.1 185
absentee 3 5 14 37 41 4.1 59
East Vail route resident 1 4 14 31 50 4.2 331
absentee 2 8 17 34 40 4.0 119
West Vail route resident 5 11 18 35 31 3.8 368
absentee 4 15 16 38 27 3.7 74
Golf Course route resident 7 8 33 29 23 3.5 141
absenfee 14 12 18 21 35 3.5 57
Lionsridge Loop route resident 3 8 21 31 37 3.9 147
absentee 2 6 15 34 43 4.1 67
Ford Park route resident 4 6 28 32 30 3.8 129
absentee 9 5 14 40 33 3.8 43
Qual?ty of bus service:
Bus driver courtesy resident 2 8 18 36 36 4.0 772
absentee 1 3 15 35 45 4.2 280
Dependability of bus service resident 3 6 16 38 37 4.0 778
absentee 2 6 14 33 44 4.1 275
Cleanliness of buses residenf 2 6 19 43 30 4.0 770
absentee 1 3 16 44 36 4.1 270
Cleanliness of Vail Transportation resident 3 4 24 38 30 3.9 649
Bus Terminal absentee 3 5 23 37 32 3.9 205
Comments/sugges6ons for improvement in the above categories:
8 Have you used public parking within the past 12 months?
~ RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=841 n=282
1) 94 81 Yes
2) 6 19 No
NOT AT ALL VERY
SATISFIED SATISFIED mean n
1 2 3 4 _5
Parkina
Discount parking program (deba card/biue, gold pass) resident 11 9 25 29 25 3.5 364
absentee 10. 6 27 24 34 3.7 105
Booth attendant courtesy resident 2 5 20 37 37 4.0 801
absentee 1 5 18 38 39 4.1 219
Speed of transaction at exit booth resident 3 5 23 40 27 3.8 803
absentee 2 4 26 41 26 3.8 223
Overall parking fees/pricing structure resident 19 19 30 21 11 2,9 791
absentee 12 19 28 26 15 3.1 226
The "Park Free After 3" experimental program resident 5 2 4 15 73 4.5 823
absentee - 1 4 15 80 4.7 216
Cleanliness and lighting of parking structures residenf 4 11 29 34 22 3.6 839
absentee 3 7 25 40 24 3.8 245
Comments and suggestions for improvement in any of the above categories:
The Community Development Department provides planning, design review, environmenfal, health, and building inspection services.
9 Have you used the Community Development Department with the past 12 months?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=813 n=257
1) 24 9 Yes
2) 76 91 No
~
10 Please rate your satisfac6on with the following aspects of this department.
NOT AT ALL VERY ,
SATISFIED SATISFIED mean n
Overall service and efficiency resident 4 14 32 35 15 3.4 260
absentee 5 7 39 34 15 3.5 41
Courtesy and attitude resident 4 12 25 34 24 3.6 252
absentee 2 5 33 37 23 3.7 43
Competence and professionalism resident 6 17 25 33 20 3.4 256
absentee 2 14 23 41 20 3.6 44
Development review process-staff resident 12 16 34 25 14 31 227
absentee 3 13 36 32 16 3.4 31
Development review process-Design Review Board resident 22 21 33 16 8 2.7 213
absentee 9 32 26 24 9 2.9 34
Development review process-Planning and
Environmental Commission resident 18 21 36 18 6 2.7 206
absentee 9 18 42 21 9 3.0 33
Building permit plan review resident 16 16 35 17 15 3.0 195
absentee 20 23 17 23 17 2.9 30
Building permit tumaround time resident 14 15 35 18 19 3.1 170
apsentee 18 18 15 22 26 3.2 27
The walk-in service counter resident 4 7 24 35 30 3.8 216
absentee 12 8 19 27 35 3.6 26
Building inspections residenf 6 12 31 32 19 3.4 170
absentee 8 21 29 29 12 3.2 24
Restaurant inspection and education program resident 12 14 38 25 10 3.1 96
absentee - 15 38 31 15 3.5 13
Environmental planning program resident 10 19 36 19 16 3.1 152
absentee 15 20 25 25 15 3.0 20
Commentslsuggestions for improvement in the above categories:
How do you rate your satisfaction w'dh the following services in the .Town of Vail?
NOT AT ALL VERY
SATISFIED SATISFIED mean . n
Fire 1 2 3 4 5
Fire protection and response time resident 2 1 11 42 44 4.3 443
absentee 1 10 44 45 4.3 91
Emergency medical services resident 1 1 9 39 50 4.4 426
absentee - 1 14 33 52 4.4 101
Fire education services resident - 4 21 37 37 4.0 309
absentee - 3 26 33 38 4.1 39
Courtesy and attitude resident 1 2 14 36 46 4.2 512
absentee 2 14 35 49 4.3 106
Fire department plan review resident 3 9 23 31 35 3.9 227
absentee - 8 30 30 32 3.9 37
Fire inspection program resident 3 4 19 36 37 4.0 314
absentee 2 7 24 31 36 3.9 45
Fire code enforcement resident 4 4 21 34 36 4.0 320
absentee 2 4 24 33 37 4.0 54
?
NOT AT ALL VERY
` SATISFIED SATISFIED mean n
Frontage Road Maintenance 1 2 3 a 5
(provided by the State of Colorado) resident 34 26 24 13 4 2.3 835
absentee 10 18 30 28 14 3.2 253
Animal Control Services (contracted from Eagle County)
Patrols for leash law violations resident 24 21 21 17 17 2.8 531
absentee 27 19 18 18 19 2.8 101
Response time to complaints resident 19 13 28 17 23 3.1 328
absentee 19 19 23 19 21 3.0 43
Overall quality of service resident 17 13 31 20 18 3.1 449
absentee 20 11 20 23 26 3.2 70
Police
Overall feeling of safety and security resident 2 4 17 41 36 4.1 841
absentee - 1 10 43 46 4.3 260
Visibility of police foot/vehicle patrol resident 2 7 19 42 30 3.9 845
absentee 2 5 23 38 33 3.9 257
Friendliness and approachability of
Vail police departrnent employees resident 5 9 16 38 32 3.8 813
absentee 3 2 10 40 45 4.2 205
Overall quality of service resident 3 7 19 42 29 3.9 789
absentee 1 3 14 47 35 4.1 204
Overall fairness of police employees resident 8 10 24 32 26 3.6 645
absentee 3 5 13 41 38 4.0 145
Enforcement of traffic regulations (speeding,
reckless driving, DUI, etc.) resident 8 10 27 32 22 3.5 668
absentee 6 8 12 43 31 3.9 147
Comments/suggestions for improvement in the above categories:
11 List the top three problems or activities you would like the Police Department, officers and employees, to spend their time addressing
and performing.
1.
2.
3.
12 Have you visited the library within the past 12 months?
RESIDENi ABSENTEE
n=868 n=291
1) 79 46 Yes
2) 21 54 No
~
.
How satisfied are you w"?th the following services and facilities?
NOT AT ALL VERY
SATISFIED SATISFIED mean n
Librarv 1 2 3 4 5
Research information residenf 2 4 18 40 35 4.0 570
absentee 3 1 16 29 52 4.3 77
Circulation senrices resident 1 3 18 40 38 4.1 563
absentee - 2 14 33 51 4.3 81
Fiction books resident - 2 19 44 35 4.1 492
absentee - 1 18 32 49 4.3 80
Nonfic6on books resident 1 4 22 41 32 4.0 536
absentee - 4 23 26 48 4.2 82 .
Magazines and newspapers resident - 2 12 42 43 4.2 567
absentee - 2 8 37 53 4.4 95
Alternate media including videos and books on tape resident 1 5 17 37 41 4.1 489
absentee - 6 19 28 47 4.2 68
On-line databases resident 2 6 17 37 38 4.0 369
absentee 2 5 14 21 58 4.3 43
Youth materials resident 1 4 11 40 45 4.2 259
absentee - - 5 29 66 4.6 56
Youth programs resident 1 2 13 37 46 4.3 237
absentee - - 6 30 64 4.6 50
New library hours resident 4 7 19 39 31 3.8 455
absentee 2 2 6 31 60 4.5 65
Comments/suggestions for improvement in the above categories:
13 Do you hold a library card in the Town of Vail?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=903 n=309
1) 75 36 Yes
2) 25 64 No
14 Do you and your family members feel welcome at the library?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=861 n=292
1) 82 57 Yes
2) 5 22 No
3) 13 41 Don't know/no opinion
15 How satisfied are you with the following services and facilities?
' NOT AT ALL VERY
SATISFIED SATISFIED mean n
Town Administration 1 2 3 4 5
General administration (manager's affice,
finance department, clerk's office, staf) resident 1 4 32 38 25 3.8 448
absentee 1 4 26 42 27 3.9 78
Information dissemination (meeting notices,
announcements, project updates) resident 2 6 30 37 25 3.8 582
absentee 2 8 28 41 21 3.7 98
Municipal Court resident 3 3 32 34 28 3.8 309
absentee 6 9 28 25 31 3.7 32
Finance(cashier window resident 1 2 31 39 26 3.9 348
absentee - 8 30 28 34 3.9 50 Sales tax & business license services resident 7 6 31 33 24 3.6 324
absentee - 3 29 26 43 4.1 35
Comments/suggestions for improvement in the above categories:
Since 1980, the Town of Vail has used a one percent real estate transfer tax (RE1T) for the purchase of open space and development and
maintenance of parks and trails within the Town of Vail.
16 Would you support maintaining the current status OR expanding the use of this fund for additional needs?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=832 n=296
1) 57 65 Maintain
2) 32 23 Expand
3) 10 12 Don't know/no opinion
17 Specifically, would you support utilizing a portion of RETT revenues to support (MARK ALL THAT APPLY): [Results shown are oniy for
persons indicafing "2 - expand" on previous question]
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=272 n=67
1) 40 - 55 Acquisition/protection of open space OUTSIDE the Town of Vail 2) 75 43 Acquisition of locals housing WITHIN the Town of Vail
3) 50 49 Acquisition of locals housing OUTSIDE the Town of Vail
4) 11 1 Other
Comments?suggestions 18 Would you support completion of the Town of Vail Streamwalk along Gore Creek from the Covered Bridge to the Vail Interfaith Chapel?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=840 n=275
1) 82 79 Yes
2) 12 10 No
3) 6 10 Don't know/no opinion
19 Would you support completion of the Streamwalk from the Covered Bridge to Lionshead?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE '
n=834 n=285
1) 81 79 Yes
2) 14 12 No
3) 5 10 Don't know/no opinion
Comments
20 How satisfied are you with the manner in which loading and delivery is handled at the present 6me in:
NOT AT ALL VERY
SATISFIED SATISFIED mean n
1 2 3 4 5
Vail ViIlage resident 18 18 31 21 11 2.9 526
absentee 12 18 34 22 14 3.1 183
Lionshead resident 13 16 34 23 14 3.1 393
absentee 5 17 34 28 18 3.4 131 .
If a problem, please explain:
21 In your opinion, should the Vllage Commercial Core (Bridge Street, Gore Creek Drive, etc.) be designated (MARK ONE ONLY):
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=779 n=249
1) 22 32 A pedesman-only area at all times (would restrict all surface vehicles)
2) 75 68 A pedestrian-only area some of the time (would allow loading and delivery during a portion of time in
designated areas and locations)
3) 3 1 Other:
Please explain your suggestion (hours, location, size of vehicles, etc.):
22 Are you aware of the "Park Free After 3" program in the Vail ViIlage and Lionshead parking structures between 3:00 pm and 7:00 am?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=798 n=267
1) 99 75 Yes
2) 1 18 No
3) - 8 Don't know/no opinion
23 How has the availability of free parking changed your use of the Vail commercial core areas since March 1?
NO GREATLYINCREASED
CHANGE U E OF AREA mean n
1 2 3 4 5
In Vail Village resident 32 6 14 27 22 3.0 814
absentee 36 4 12 30 18 2.9 225
In Lionshead resident 40 7 14 23 16 2.7 74$
absentee 44 4 15 24 13 2.6 199
In what way?
,
24 Are there any additional actions by the Town or merchants that would increase your use of businesses in the ViIlage commercial core
~ or Lionshead?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=651 n=204
1) 42 24 Yes (please describe)
2) 23 28 No
3) 35 48 Don't know/no opinion
25 How would you rate the overall sense of community (forexample, knowing yourneighbors, caring concemed citizens, etc.) in the Town
of Vail at the present time?
POOR EXCELLENT mean n
1 2 3 4 5
resident 12 21 38 23 6 2.9 757
absentee 8 12 43 30 6 3.1 217
26 Comparing Vail to other resort communities you are familiar with, what is Vail's greatest strength in terms of the sense of community?
27 And what is Vail's greatest weakness?
28 Over the past several years has the sense of community within the Town improved, gotten worse or stayed the same?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=853 n=272
1) 15 14 Improved
2) 43 16 Gotten worse
3) 29 35 Stayed the same
4) 13 35 Don't know/no opinion
Comments:
29 Over the past year, in which of the following have you participated? (MARK ALL THAT APPLY)
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=804 n=254
01) 10 2 Ford Park Management Plan meetings 02) 21 4 West Vail Interchange meetings
03) 30 11 Vail Tomorrow meetings
04) 14 7 Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan meetings
05) 27 5 Town of Vail Clean Up Day
06) 11 6 Trees for Vail
07) 6 3 Path Clean Up Day
08) 35 13 Attend Town Council and/or board and commission meetings
09) 8 2 Other:
10) 31 72 None
30 Are there other events or activities that you participate in that make you feel especially "connected" to the Vail community?
,
31 Do you have any comments regarding the value of participating in Vail activities, or how processes can be improved for volunteering in
Vail? ~
32 How do you prefer to receive information from the Town? (MARK ALL THAT APPLY)
PREFERRED METHOD(S) BEST METHOD
RESIDENT ABSENTEE RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=884 n=289 n=780 n=260
1) 16 6 - - Attend meetings
2) 62 81 42 65 Mailings from the Town
_ 3) 85 57 43 16 Newspapercoverage
4) 35 16 3 2 Public no6ces, announcements, advertisements
5) 35 10 4 - Radio
6) 27 15 2 - Television (channels 5, 8)
7) 6 9 - 2 Intemet
8) 8 18 6 14 E-mail:
What is your address?
9) 2 2 1 1 Other:
Please desaibe
33 From the list above what is the BEST way to reach you with town informafion? (SEE RESPONSES ABOVE)
34 How do you prefer to OFFER constructive feedback to the Town?
35 Do you have computer access to the intemet at home, at work, or at school?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=871 n=303
1) 49 38 Yes
2) 51 62 No
36 (IF NO) Do you intend to gain access in the next year?
RESIDENT. ABSENTEE ,
n=396 n=112
1) 34 41 Yes
2) 42 39 No
3) 24 20 Uncertain
37 Have you tried accessing the intemet at the Vail Library?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=858 n=283
1) 25 7 Yes
2) 75 93 No
38 Have you used the internet to access Town of Vail information via the vail.net system?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=828 n=259
1) 14 19 Yes
2) 86 81 No
~
39 What town, or local information and/or services would you like to see made available on the Intemet? (MARK ALL THAT APPLY)
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=495 n=166
1) 53 66 Phone numbers
2) 40 29 Codes and regula6ons
3) 49 36 Council, PEC, DRB agendas
4) 35 17 Forms
5) 66 74 Information and announcements
6) 47 28 Job openings
7) 69 79 Calendar listings
8) 8 6 Other:
Please desaibe
Please provide the following demographic information. Feel free to leave blank any questions you are not comfortable answering. Again,
surveys will remain anonymous. Please do nof write yourname oraddress on this suroey.
40 Where is your residence within the Town of Vail located?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=874 n=312
01) 23 28 East Vail
02) 4 2 Booth Falls and Bald Mountain Road areas
03) - - Booth Creek/Aspen Lane
04) 2 7 Golf Course
05) 5 18 Vail Village
06) 2 14 Lionshead
07) 10 12 Potato Patch, Sandstone
08) 4 2 Buffehr Creek, Lionsridge, the Valley
09) 2 - Vail Commons/Safeway area
10) 13 7 West Vail (north of I-70)
11) 8 4 Matterhom, Glen Lyon
12) 8 3 Intermountain
13) 19 2 Not a resident of the Town of Vail
41 Do you own or rent your residence?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=892 n=320
1) 66 97 Own
2) 31 6 Rent
3) 3 - Other (specify)
42 Do you own or operate a business within the Town of Vail?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=879 n=316
1) 32 4 Yes
2) 68 96 No
43 Which of the following categories best describes your residency status?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=886 n=296
1) 85 5 Year-round Vail resident
2) 5 37 Seasonal Vail resident
3) 1 51 Owner of vacation property in Vail
4) 2 1 Non-resident, owner of business or commercial property in Vail
5) 8 5 Other:
,
44 How long have you lived within the Town of Vail (or owned property if a non-resident)? "
~
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=842 n=321
1) 6 5 Less than 1 year
2) 25 24 1-5 years
3) 34 37 6-15 years
4) 35 34 More than 15 years
45 Which of these categories best describes your marital status?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=884 n=310
1) 40 9 Single, no children
2) 20 13 Couple, no children
_ 3) 26 33 Household with children 4) 14 45 Empty-nester, children no longer at home
IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN
46 How many are in the following age groups?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
mean n mean n
a) 2.2 114 1.2 46 0-5 years
b) 1.7 119 1.5 64 6-12 years
c) 2.6 111 1.8 72 13-18 years
47 Including yourself, how many persons reside in your household?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=811 n=271
2.9 3.6 mean
48 Which of these categories best describes your age?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=868 n=308
a) - - Under 20
b) 2 - 20-24
c) 30 5 25-34
d) 27 13 35-44
e) 23 30 45-54
~ 11 32 55-64 _
g) 5 18 65 or over
h) 1 2 Do not wish to reply
49 Which of these categories best describes the annual income of your household (before taxes)?
RESIDENT ABSENTEE
n=865 n=309
a) 2 - $0-14,999
b) 22 1 $15,000-34,999
c) 16 3 $35,000-49,999
d) 18 6 $50,000-74,999
e) 10 6 $75,000-99,999
fl 8 10 $100,000-149,999
g) 11 52 $150,000 or more
h) 10 21 Do not wish to reply
Thank you for your participation in our continuing evaluation program.
Please attach sheet for additional comments or suggestions.
i
~
TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY 1997
~
Priority Number One
• 1999 Championships
• A multi-purpose Communiry Center
• Ability of town to be able to handle the large # of tourists in a quality way; toilet facilities,
parking, bus service
• Absentee ownership
• Accessible housing for seasonal employees
• Activities for youth 12-21
• Actual affordable resident housing vs. million dollar vacation properties
• Adequate and affordable parking (increase size of existing)
• Adequate funding to finance needed infrastructure improvements -
• Aesthetics of I-70
• Affordable first class ski resort
• Affordable housing (numerous responses)
• Affordable housing and transportation
• Affordable housing/dominance of real estate industry
• Affordable rental units
• Aging infrastructure
• Asserting itself against VA
• Bad driving habits; stop sign enforcement needed
• Bad management
• Be realistic with affordable housing - do not over-promise what we don't have
• Beautification of the Vail Village core; streetscape etc.
• Better road systems
• Bike safety
• Buildings becoming larger and taller
• Category III
• Category III, development of that area and beyond
• Community moving down valley
• Competition down valley in lodging, retail, dining
• Construction - how are we going to rob Peter to pay Paul
• Containing growth
• Continual upgrading of existing facilities • Continued greed and growth by VA
• Control VA
• Controlled growth .
• Controlling growth / VA encroachment
• Controlling the growth of VA so it doesn't take over business and the character of Vail
• Controlling the power of VA
• Controlling VA growth
• Coordinated, responsible, thoughtful growth
• Creating a caring community
• Dealing with interstate noise (fence, ultimately cover the road)
• Decently priced housing
• Deteriorating village core
• Dogs at large
• Education; K-12
• Employee housing (several responses)
• Employee housing for families
,
TOWN OF VA1L COMMUNITY SURVEY 1997
i
Priority Number One
• Employees and associated housing, transportation
• Environmental quality, air pollution, noise and water pollution
• Excessive commercial and residential growth
• Expansion
• Expansion of Category 3
• Figuring out the road mess in front of Safeway - why isn't there a turning lane
eastbound?
• Filling off-season beds
• Financing new projects without raising taxes
• Fixing existing roads
• Gaining consensus on ways to achieve positive change in Lionshead
• Giving good customer service
• Giving tickets to people who park in "wrong" places because there is no place else to
park
• Greed
• Growth (too much, too fast, needs control, etc.-numerous responses)
• Growth including parking and associated traffic etc.
• Growth/expansion of Cat. III
• Guest relations
• Harassment by Gestapo cops!
• High taxes
• Hospital mismanagement; administrators should all be fired; does anyone really know
what's going on there-you should; the administrators have ruined VMC's atmosphere
• Housing for locals who want to raise families
• How can the town be more efficient receiving/servicing tourists
• How to bring all the 70s arch itecture/plan n ing into the next century
• I-70 noise
• Illegal aliens working in the area
• Improve roads
• Improving looks of I-70 corridor
• Inability of 2 to 5 year locals to live in town
• Infrastructural improvements in village core
• Infrastructure-roads, buildings, signage, potholes
• Infrastructure maintenance i.e. roads are terrible
• Isolation from the rest of the valley
• Job security for locals
• Keeping a viable community here
• Keeping aesthetics as pleasing as possible
• Keeping small ski town feeling
• Keeping Vail Resorts from trying to suck Vail/Lionshead dry
• Keeping/attracting permanent residents-iYs a ghost town!
• Lack of a sense of place
• Lack of affordable housing opportunities for young people
• Lack of employees
• Lack of hotel beds
• Lack of sufficient parking
• Lionshead redevelopment
• Lionshead redevelopment that controls Vail Associates' greed
,YTOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY 1997
Pnority Number One
• Local businesses can not vote in Vail at elections due to home being Down Valley
• Local housing
• Local housing-Timber Ridge is a dump
• Losing housing and business down valley
• Losing its vitality; not enough people living here; everyone thinking more community
Down Valley
• Loss of community
• Loss of sense of community due to decrease in locals and increase in second
homeowners
• Low cost housing
• Low standard of living for VA employees .
• Lower taxes - stop spending so much money - even with lots being built on and you
gaining higher taxes there, you still raise taxes by 33%
• Maintain development without corresponding development of town • Maintaining balance as growth/building/population continues
• Maintaining infrastructures up to date with quality
• Maintaining open space
• Maintaining our world class image and experience
• Maintaining standard of service we have in the past
• Maintaining the unique vitality of the village core
• Maintaining what we already have - upkeep of streets, parks, etc.
+ Managed growth (several responses)
• Marketing Vail, not the Eagle Valley
• Need for a convention center
• Need more affordable employee housing sponsored by TOV otherwise cost of buying
house/condo will keep any owner from renting room at rate in line with what employees
are paid; housing near Safeway was a good start
• Need to improve appearance
• Night skiing-no! no! no!
• Noise from I-70
• Not enough parking
• OpeFl space presenration (numerous responses)
• Over congestion of people and traffic
• Over development of the Village core; real estate greed
• Overpopulation
• Overdevelopment; overbuilding
• Painting lane lines in roundabouts
• Parking (several responses)
• Parking in winter is too expensive for locals
• Parking shortage
• Parking without using Ford Park
• People who work for the town do not live in the town
• Pot holes; traffic problems
• Preserving open space, no swaps
• Preventing Forest Service trades which will allow development on our surrounding land
• Providing a quality of life for residents without infringing VA's and the town's agenda on
citizens
• Quality affordable housing to keep quality employees
i
TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY 1997
?
Priority Number One
• Quality of labor force
• Quality retail
• Really affordable housing
• Redevelopment-Lionshead Village-residential
• Redevelopment of core areas
• Regaining a sense of community
• Reluctance of Vail voters to support capital improvement initiatives
• Rental housing shortage
, • Retain open space
• Revitalize economy -
• Road conditions/construction (several responses)
• Runaway escalation of rents, season passes, and season parking passes
• Save open space
• Second homes with no rental units and unoccupied most of the time
• Sense of community
• Should Vail cater primarily to tourists or rich part-timers?
• Sprucing up Village core areas to remain competitive
• Stabilizing the tourist based economy
• Staying away from affordable housing, this is predominantly a VA issue
• Stopping Cat III
• Sustainable economic vitaliry
• Sustainable growth
• Takeover of town purchased park lands with transfer tax money for "employee housing" -
this is BS
• Taking care of its customers
• Taxes are pushing locals out
• The changes in Vail Associates' operations and their repercussions in many areas of
town life and business
• The citizens are the town, not the government
• The greed of Vail Associates
• To be ready for the '99 World Championships
~ To somehow maintain some sense of a small town community like it was not very long
ago
• Too little natural open space
• Too many buildings
• Too many people
• Too much "planning"
• Too much construction in the summer
• Too much growth
• Too much growth; especially in the core
• TOV government
• TOV relationship and balancing of VA plans
• Town Council as a true representative government
• Town Council continuing to listen to the people
• Town roads; accessibility and high volume traffic
• Town sleeping with VA
• Transportation for guests
• Uncontrolled growth
~
TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY 1997
t
Priority Number One
• Upkeep of infrastructure and housing
• VA-its demands and changing aggressive attitude
• VA controlling town
• VA driving out small businesses and restaurants
• VA merger
• VA treatment of locals
• Vail Associates getting too big without much aid to lessen burden to town
• VA's merger and their plans for the valley
• VA's unchecked growth plans
• Water .
• Water supply with growing population
• What's good for Apollo is not necessarily good for the TOV
• Winter road repair
• Zoning - will it be rewritten? Density - upgrading the core
TOWN OF VAII COMMUNITY SURVEY
Satisfaction Ratings by Full•TimeResidents Versus Absentee Respondents
TOV PUBLIC BUS BUS COMMUNITV F. ROAD b TOWN
5.0 GOV. WORKS FREQUENCY SERVECE PARKING DEVELOPMENT F1RE ANIMAL CONTROL pp(1CE LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION
~
4,5
4,0
.
.
b
d
~
~
~O
c cn ,5 . _ _ . .
_ _
c ~
o ii
. =
H d 3.0 _ _ . _ .
a~ . _ _
_
cm N
~o -
Qa2.5 . _
~
0
z
ii
~
v
2.0 _ . I . _ _
1,5 _
1.0 Qf
(n C ~ ~ ~ ` O O 7 $ ~ E ~ ~ ~ E C ~ U ~ U C Z' 0! U ~ 0~ yj N N La fn N C N
E 8~ o ~ E 9~O d. ~ c. p
~ ai u ~ E m x~ ~ Y~ t c c
.N (O ~ ~ ~ ~ Wo u5 A
S' c o r. ~ o N ~ ~ a7 , Z ~ 9
E aix 9 ' '~o §q U¢? a U`¢ 4~ E a a ~ a a~ a a v ~ a u~ ~o v~~
E w a .g > > ~ oe v, w ~ rn 5 ~ <n N a ~ ~ E H ~9
~ ~ a D 2 N J ~ ~ ~ ~ c q N ~ I ~ 7 10 ~ ~ - (,~j Q
~ 0 e a t Z ~ ~0 g ~ ar
~
°
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u'~ ~i ~ U o ~ c a 8 W c a 5 ~ 'o d t
~ ~ E } `a o ' a o ~
W
A g ` sL ~~`e ~m ~`s ~ ~ao ~W-"`~r ~ € E g ~'LL ~ZZ ~
~ {p
¢ 8 a~ § = m E 9 w~~ n. ~ v aQ1 rn d ~ ~ gy m E ~ V ~ 1p x yc~ i
' ~ ~~p (j ~ fd $ ~ N ~ LL lL LL ~ a O Ol U ~ C C7 E ~ I
LM Q' a p) ~ 2 a 7 d LL ~ LD LL ~ ~ ly ~ ~
y Q~ (J m E LL d ~Q y m ~ c F-
Z l11 LL ~j 2 a W y
V a~
A
N
Resident Average Satisfaction kating o Absentee Average Satisfaction Rating
Source; RRC Associafes
1997 Results
8oulder, CO
. , ~
To: Planning and Environmental Commission
From: Lionshead Master Plan Team
Date: June 23, 1997
RE: Lionshead Master Plan Proposed Public View Corridor Designation
This memo is an overview of the Lionshead Master Plan public view corridor selection process, and
makes recommendations for public view corridors within the Lionshead Master Plan study area. The
information in this memo is outlined as follows:
1. Lionshead view corridor designation criteria
II. View corridor public input sessions
III. Summary of public input
IV. Master plan team recommendation for Lionshead public view corridors
V. Action Requested of the Planning and Environmental Commission
Attachment "A"- Master plan team evaluation of 14 initial view corridor candidates
Attachment "B"- Map and photos of 14 initial view corridor candidates
Attachment "C"- Photographs of view corridors proposed for designation
Attachment "D"- Overview of Lionshead Design Charette
. 1. Lionshead View Corridor Designation Criteria
At thjel- May 20°i meeting, the Vail Town Council approved the use of the existing Town of Vai( view
corridor ordinance as the criteria to be used during the Lionshead master plan process for the selection
and designation of public view corridors. In essence, the criteria define what a view must meet in order
to qualify for protection under the town's ordinance:
1. Is the view critical to the identity, civic pride, and sense of place of Lionshead? In other words,
being a nice view is not enough- the view must be such that without it the identity and civic
pride of Lionshead would be damaged or lost.
2. Is the view seen from a commonly recognized and accessed, public view point? Again, views
from private property cannot be recognized or protected by this ordinance.
3. Is the view threatened? Is there development potential on the properties or real estate in front of
the view that has the potential for blocking it?
If a view meets these tests, then it can be considered for designation under the language of the existing
ordinance. The master plan team applied these criteria to the full range of views in Lionshead, and
narrowed the initial field of 45 views down to 14 potential public view corridors. As outlined in the
following section, these 14 public views were then presented to the community for input.
U. View Corridors Public Input Sessions
A. View corridor walkin tours. Two public walking tours were given, on Tuesday June 3`d (9
attendees) and Sunday June 8`h (7 attendees). Attendees were provided with a packet containing
~ photographs of the 14 views, plus a locational map of Lionshead (attached). They were asked to
: rank each view as "critical", "consider", or "do not consider". During each walking tour, an
explanation of the criteria for each potential view was given by the consultant, and attendees were
- encouraged to submit any additional view opportunity they thought had been left off the list.
B. Self Guided Walking Tours. In addition to the guided walking tours, the tour packets were placed
in public input boxes so that members of the public could complete the walking tour on their own.
Three responses were received through this opportunity.
C. Public Input Forum. On June 16`h, from 4 to 7 p.m., a forum was held in the library community
room where members of the public were able to respond to the view corridor candidates in the same
format as the walking tours. Approximately 20 people took advantage of this input opportunity.
D. Internet Web Page. The final ongoing public input opportunity regarding the view corridors was the
Lionshead web site, where visitors were able to view the individual view corridor candidates, and
respond with e-mail in the same format as the walking tours. 2 responses were received from the
Lionshead web site.
E. Total Public Response. The complete public involvement included approximately 42 people, from
which was received 26 written responses.
M. Summary of Public Input
View iCritical.: :Con§i~er po`Not Coosider Bar ra h baseil`u on numbcr of "critical" vofes
1 2 9 14 1`
2 4 10 10
3 11 9 3
4 15 5 2
5 12 4 4
C 13 5 2
7 19 a 3 MIN~
H 11 7 S ` n.~a H F r7x ,
9 g s 10 04 I119NrIN .
10 3 8 13
I 1 4 9 6
12 5 10 8
13 G 5 8 $108 01~
14 10 5 8
IV. Master Plan Team Recommendation for Lionshead View Corridors
The recommendations for designation of public view corridors is broken down into two sections:
A. Public view corridors with specific view points, recommended to be protected under the existing
Town of Vail view corridor ordinance in Stage V of the master plan process.
1. View number three. This view corridor is seen from the west end of the Lionshead
parking structure, standing at street level at the main pedestrian exit from the parking
structure, looking southwest towards the gondola lift line. Options for this view also
included view points from the first stair landing and the top of the structure, but this "at
grade" designation will by default protect the views from the higher vantage points.
Second to view number seven, the views from the west end of the parking structure
received the greatest amount of "critical" responses from the public input process.
~ i
This view fulfills the criteria outlined in section I of this memo:
a. It fosters civic pride and is central to the identity of Lionshead
b. It is taken from a commonly recognized, publicly accessible vantage point. This
area is not only the primary point of entry for pedestrian traffic (from the parking
structure), it is also the primary drop-off and pick-up point in Lionshead for the
Vail bus system and private shuttles.
c. It is potentially threatened by redevelopment in the foreground of the view (from
a building height standpoint).
2. View number seven. This view corridor is seen from the pedestrian plaza area in front of
the Lifthouse Lodge, adjacent to the current location of the popcorn wagon, looking
south directly up the gondola lift line. View six, taken just east of this view point, will by
default be protected by view seven. This view received the greatest amount of "critical"
responses from the public input process.
This view fulfills the criteria outlined in section I of this memo:
a. It fosters civic pride and is central to the identity of Lionshead.
b. It is taken from a commonly recognized, publicly accessible vantage point. This
view represents the first full view of the ski mountain from the Lionshead core,
for pedestrians walking from the west end of the Lionshead mall.
c. It is potentially threatened by redevelopment in the foreground of the view,
particularly concerning the redevelopment of the Vail Associates core site.
Note: it is uncertain how the Vail Associates core site (gondola building, Sunbird Lodge) on the west
side of the proposed view corridor will be redeveloped, and it is recommended that the definition of this
view be made with consideration of this potential redevelopment.
B. Public view corridors where the view point or foreground of view is likely to be redeveloped. As
outlined in the May 19 consultant memorandum to the Town Council, these views will be described
as a design parameter within the master plan. Upon adoption of the Lionshead Master Plan by the
Town Council, and upon application for redevelopment by a property owner affected by the
designated future view corridor, the extent to which the applicant creates the future public view
corridor described in the master plan will be a consideration for approval or disapproval by the
Town. In addition, if the redevelopment application is approved by Council, and upon completion
of the redevelopment project, the new view corridor would then be surveyed and formally adopted
in accordance with existing Town code.
1. View number two. This view is seen from the east end of the Lionshead parking structure,
and looks south across the Lodge at Lionshead buildings towards the ski mountain. It is
possible that this eastern site will be developed as some form of public facility in the future,
and this view may become more commonly accessed and important at that time.
2. View numbers eight and nine. These two views, both looking south through the center of
. the Vail Associates core site, have the potential of creating a north-south penetration, both
~ visual and pedestrian, upon the redevelopment of this site. This view would not only be
; accessible from the Lionshead mall area, but from the frontage road and north day lot area as
. well. Given the possible redevelopment scenarios for this part of Lionshead, this potential
corridor could be of great significance, both from an aesthetic and pedestrian circulation
standpoint.
V. Requested Action of the Planning and Environmental Commission
It is important to note that the designation of these proposed view corridors at this time is not a formal,
legal adoption as described in the view corridor ordinance. Rather, these designated view corridors, if
any, will be considered as critical design constraints for the duration of the Lionshead Master Plan
process, and will not be formally surveyed and adopted until Stage V of the master plan process. The
available actions for the Planning and Environmental Commission on this recommendation are as .
follows:
1. Approve the Master Plan team's recommendation for view corridor designation as described
in section IV of this memo, or
2. Add or delete view corridors to be designated according to the criteria described in section I
of this memo, or
3. Do not approve any view corridors for designation at this time.
~ ~
Attachment A
Master Plan Team Evaluation of 14 initial View Corridor Candidates
View 1
• Not recommended for designation
• Does not fulfill test of "civic pride", is not noticed by many people
View 2
• Recommended for designation as "design parameter" in master plan, but not as formal view
corridor
• Meets "civic" pride test
• Currently, view point is not greatly accessed, but this could change given the potential
development scenarios on the east end of the parking structure
View 3
• Recommended for designation as protected view corridor.
• Clearly meets "civic pride" and "identity" test.
• Is perhaps most commonly recognized and accessed view in Lionshead.
• Is potentially threatened by increased height or expansion of buildings in foreground
View 4
• Will be protected by designation of view 3.
View 5
• Will be protected by designation of view 3.
View 6 • Will be protected by designation of view 7.
View 7
• Recommended for designation as protected view corridor.
• Clearly meets "civic pride" and "identity" test.
• Is commonly recognized and accessed view.
• Is potentially threatened by redevelopment of VA core site.
View 8 • Recommended for designation as "design parameter" in master plan, but not as formal view
corridor.
• Has opportunity of creating important visual and pedestrian link through the VA core site,
on a north-south axis.
View 9
• Recommended for designation as "design parameter" in master plan, but not as formal view
corridor.
• Has opportunity of creating important visual and pedestrian link through the VA core site,
on a north-south axis.
View 10
• Not recommended for designation.
• Very nice view, but does not meet "identity" test, relates more to Vail Village than
Lionshead.
i ~
View 11
• Not recommended for designation. • View is primarily accessed by vehicles; not pedestrians.
• Buildings in foreground could experience significant height increases without threatening
view.
View 12
• Not recommended for designation.
• Open passage between Antlers and Lionsquare Lodge is owned by Town of Vail, view is not
threatened.
View 13
• Not recommended for designation.
• Open passage between Antlers and Lionsquare Lodge is owned by Town of Vail, view is not
threatened.
View 14
• Not recommended for designation.
• While this view is extremely important, it is highly unlikely that it will ever be developed due
to its function as the ski yard and skier queing/ staging area in Lionshead.
• Land use designation/ zoning is the more appropriate method of ensuring the preservation of
this view across the ski yard.
~ ~
Attachment B
Map and Photos of 14 Initial View Corridor Candidates
The following pages contain the original 14 view corridor candidates that were presented to the public
in the walking tours and the view corridor preferences forum.
~ ~
LION8~'HEAD M A 8 T E R P L A N 8-8-97 ~
_ ? -
~
Map for Potential View Corridors
~ CD ?o
o ~ ? ? ? ~
NORTH c~ ? ~ ~
o Q o
Q ~
O o ,4
ED 12
8-
2 ~ .
jj
..~.w..,..r~ 10
~y,sPjO
? O 8 ~+"oo.v
~
` ' ~'~~zp ~h.,;~:~-f .3•- : .
, Z'~'~/ y . !~it ~'~i'.i .;^Ni}Q~ i7..~r~~' ~;,..'K'I~~:'w.: f Aav
8 l~ t^' ~ J'f ~;W- } ~ •i- ~1 ~t ~j'
~ ~ ~ i i:. i' I ~z: ~tp1'~'t;1?,P ''"•n~.{~ .
1' . ~ ' `'q• c
P
' ~R ~ ' . . , ~~'n,'- ~ ~ -
7
7:1,:~'
r~~.: , y~t''1'•'6'~, s.. . ~~.A
y'%~, ,fii1,..J!:°~r.~.•,.
vIEUJ GORRIDOR GANDIDATE "I
•M :.1' w :~f' r^~r+ N.:,~~
M %bl?~H k~'~7~~~, x ~
~ r• 4. '~l~ rf~{, P ~
'?:,~j .,A,,.~~b•,,~i. ~~'°f3~~,~.r~. ~,1,~:~'-~'~~'~2:1~}T"'ie~..:5-~~ 7'.\L~i~'~'~Y.•G./oh.,{"'
~'n'1 fi y SJ t : 'a;'r '~l • ~ :.1 r~, . • ~ ,
+r K ~''~~~'fSf~; " t •'i .~'~~x~ , 5 ~
r; .F; ~ q
r~ ,'•}~}1 +.~:1~;~~'e 1 i, .:f~,.~~, ,r t
.
~ ~it
, ;M. ~ . ; < , x
~i~, S~ .t:; a.•+ ~t~` :;."r:
~ a
tr~'+C4+u~i ~ : 4
t: t
.
( ~ Y
Li ~
.F'0 k..., ' •
~
d
VIEUJ CORRIpOR G.4NpIpATE *2
:t'~ %I Z~.;.;y:; :'a•*i,.; .
. _ ;C. .s,~~...~•. 'j~; y,~~•
,t'' • yr~,,~.h~~'~+';Yut`{~•"~~`.°j ~'1:r'~:~r~,~}.~^
- . ~~^~,V •'~.'1.1l~i'.*f~ ~„~~.~~y~{'
. . . . . ' . .i..e,~,
~ . . • . '~'1'.,,
M.
j.~ , .
1
u.. ~ •
i• ~
. ` • ,ti.~.
;~k ~ . i' h ~~F~ I :.~'.t`.
a Y. ?
- ~Y~' .ri '1''~: t r:'.lAf
fII~
• :.il./~..,~ ~,y_': ~1.
`~.iTj;.•~~ ,:.i~tty'':4~;~[Ml`,. :.wi' ~~;w• Per:;}~' .
d'~t ~L . _ . , . ; . M%,~,;,~~,•,•,•;
7' .~y i,.,'. '.t...;'~.i.~,:};;,~~.~~.J:~'.:~~•
•
. . r'^r'. ~ • 41~::.: y. Y, ~1.~:Z!
C~.; ' : ~ i: . . . ~ •w j:. ~.'~"i;:
~ ~,rr' ..J:',;,;, ~;~y1' 4:,;.~
T:%'" ~ •?,'c;.;:~~;;~`~~~~p~te.~!?~~ :F rct;±,~:i.uJ{,i.47:'',(~~
~'1:•~IJi~'~;1~'•~~!'~! S .~•~',~',~I~I ..1•,~..,~~ .~:.:.I.;~: r. . .
~e: ~~i;~,_;qrn•r
. ,i:'r.:., .':.u~.. . . . . .
i•.~.r.~~~a.C:'.i•iiav_ii'1i~1~'~'i~:~T:iS75'
:•i~
vIEI.U GORfZIDOR GANDIDATE 03
.;f.i,•.4r:)~~~e ' •~~'i.),'(
:.1, . `i` ~I~ . : 1~~./,' S:. '
• .:l~t'.::.~'r',l,'},'.Y1:::+''~~7 I'V li1C4~1;:~~1~
'i'.~~~~ ;ViI`~.'~`'• -.i,l''?:-'i=,!~~~.l.i,~JP•'~~' 1')ti::'~:'i;~,:;~i;l~~~
. , ~ ~ i;~C~~r+f'y..~~
.ii•~ ~~,,1.. .
I_ I II' ~
• ~
vl~
',t , ~ ;V
.17; . ~t •
- . -
~,`•'0.';n~`.
+
. .i.
•-~wa~ ~ S.ie.~': ~1 h5
vIEUJ CORRIDOR CANpIp,4TE 04
. . . ' . . . ~ . ' ~ ~ l~t.4:
~r ~ ' • , ' ' _ , ' ,,t.'S•
~ T1.~~ d. y~, ~~L...• t ..lt1~:}:~..~!y..• . i.tt~b
, .
, .
IY
,
. ~
•
IIV `1
.
,
I
!
, ti-
. ~
. ~
i~
, S-
r'
. . . .
. . ~
2.
• i~l '•i. ;
u 5;.:,: ;h } ' f;., `J. '',`;•~~~n
A'~?• - !`kL. ' ~ ' ~ o .r•
~T • { . ^'~1 t,]}~C. ' . . .
y~,~~~i\~J ,".t ~f .~t'yY.~1
•~iS~~,'~i{r ~ i, ' A! Vl9 i 4~ ~
~ ~•'~4 :,1 t~: ';i:' ~ y t., i~:f'. 't*±~,'
,~'r.~:... F~O+` •s .
a ic:~t-..;., . , t.` ~~'v , ~ y~ '.'•S
.r~ - •K: :j;~' 'rl ;}~~;5',~~
r :t:^~ 'r't,~.,'~';° '.k~ :r 1• ~p
~yyk,. ' ' ~l.. Yi r'~ ~ ."y_~ •1 , t~+~'_.~: ~ ~j / 4~1~,~ ¢
~~.{~t~.~~;~ . F . .~[..:r't..f.jf;.;~`•(,~;~i'r/~.
; : ~it ~t ` ~1~,1~ j, ~~ir ~ i ~ y~•~ ~ ti'^ 71~ t~,ry, ~
`~.i':~ ~ "C•~'~~.~~t 4!~"~ ~5,~`.;~.'i-..:~i.iA,+lw~,y.~'~
_ .h • ~ ~t t~ ~'~~~.•~f':%:``:' -
;~r ~.y't. t~7 . . • "fjT;~: 3~(iJ i'~t~ Y ~ ;:'!~."g' ~ .
y ~ :1v ~ . •~.1i~'.':~iY}:r~ - .
; ~ •
_ 1. • ' _,,d~~
`(uiriF2%~; ~
•,..a_. . . _
~ .
YF~r '•`•~r,~ ~R L~ ~
~I
UIEUJ COR21DOfiz GANDID,4TE 05
1~~~y ( ''yw~ yy~ ~:~%11~•'
ju~. _ ~i;,' , •,'s~; ~ ./,.t, d, ,
l a iG
~ ~ ~ ..R ~ .r . : 'b;) ; ,'J'_~ Y ' S.• .
~f y". ~ , J . ~ 1 ,.S~i~.~i~:a:Y..ri.. :Y~~
~r . . i ~ ' ~i ~ ,;:y:.`:i~~`i~, I:I:.
y.~~ 4 ~ • 'I," '1~ 6 1;~~ + ~4`, ~}~t~::. .
4!: ~ ,''l.. I ~ • ~ ~
• . t: . jLi .n~~ S~' ~ ' 1 ~k
's~-$~ y1~ ~~7w
, . .U
. ~
~ I 11
VIEUJ GORRIDOR CANpip,4TE 'l6
-x~ ~ ~ * - ~ . ~,r.. . .
~N. ~.f - ~~'~':fi! ~...J',`.ti,;.li.~•1'~~~~~.F~'/~Q~ y.~''~•~~•Y~
Z,y'-~ ~ .'tY . ' , '.1' ~':i :`47
J~• '
~
~ '~1~
t ~7~ ?S :•l + ' `~~2- ~ { ~ ' , x
~ r ~
I ';1
tjrl
;:,,,,~.:;~?i` tl* ':'s`°"K^~ `
~ V~C' ~.~5 ~ ~ ' ' A' u:~ ~ y ' ,'*~_•,,,,r„~r+A,..~;~ • .
VIEUJ GOR21DOiZ C,4ND f D,qTE +9
~j., ;'~,;:;4.•~ A i~~
' •;;.:.,,~3.'..,'.~ ,'r
. i•..,.. ~s. ~ c•.. .
. . "~c': I~!•F~:~:.(:l.?:'Tf'a~'~t,~~ A;t
r ~ l i a C~:(' ~ t K.~ii; il ~'j.~"Y ~ ~
~ L~ F ' ~ y }~'G,.~. ~~1 ~ • . t Lt . I .1
T ^~'j'~,4 z
~T a
d d
t
'~.i4{y~~;s;~'; ~ '::,:r . ~ ~ "•-ti.
;~l.,ii S~~ fi.:: ' . f . .
:a k •,fF.~i'::•.i
f 5i..
•tiJ :
. , ,
r
a.
YIEI.U GORRIDOR G,4NpIpATE
~?g
. . • , '.r~~~h''~', ~ ~ ;~i•}K~1-y3"Z~LY'y tS
NQ
:s .•.ar
' • .:t'.*t 'i~~•~t1~7~'`'~~.:"ti,;, 1r.}.
^i rf'.~,r~ ~ r'~ i~.~'•:'~
~ _.!~ti ~~w'r..~•` 1': ~ ` .:4+.~~~~.~
•-M
JL!~ a•.
z ~ - •h~..
T
rn
' ^r''•~~'fj ~~Y~'w
F S I 1
E~ ~ ~ , c p,.•~;=~~;s
;.a.
' , _ta w."~t?.:,z,~ •
4;.
• _ , ~ ~~4:-l~,~ ~''N ~ ,-:~l
~,tv
- ' r3~ . . i.~.: j 1' ~ ~ •
, ~y' . ~.k." ~t.y,'~~"~., "
• . ..;K
N -
vIEI.U GORRIDOiZ CANDIDATE 09
,'~~'1'~'4~F•~~~ti+ ~
4, .J;:f~ J,.,,~ . ''i:"'~,: - ~
~,~•''r,t~ ,~,~y.,; j ~ . . 'r ~i~':• ~ . .
, r. . . •`i ~ . , . . .
~ . .
,
. . r
. `~`t~p~. ~i~ •r',:ii'<:. ' .
t,~ . . ' _ ~J*,a~'ik;S:r.'iL•.','
:.31'.:.i.,.:: ir:!. ,~;•W~ ,
~ s .i'. .
'fl 'ir'-~• ;~'I
.
- . .t'a , ~ . ..~y~i.S;:?.yF~}; •r';
.r .f``:•;:(y r',r :~}~t
,e~~~ . . .
:
?
.
.
i .
,7 ^ x
i.. .
. f~i. . .
r
~.i • .i ~;.j: , A+°~ ~ ~I
.
rt; ~
:aa.:•1':J
rt.:
I 4 . . .
11 4'~
~ VIEW COfzRIDOR C,4NDIpATE 010
,.xf;;Si 1
~,•',ri
• '
A ~ a' c ta ~7 ~
.
~ . y
.;:~.,~~~'~1;~(•;~,.
~t.t '5f
....y.~` . ~.'?,r
,
.a, (j•~' I.li~~:~i~ ' A4~l,, 2
` Y~ ;'~,`•r Y ~r,"`.'~`~'~' ~;r`
~ ~ tii ~:•~t ~ ~
f~ I
. .
. . ~ y
• • 1 l'.'1J1~ •
. ~ t~~ ~r'.. i ~i • :
1, ~~t..~s ~
\/IEUJ GORRIDOfZ CAND(D,4TE Oll
~ , .
~:xy~;'j;~'~~:.'
•'1,1': } „•rrv.~',',i!4-iL~, 1 ~ 7 ~r
r 't _
} ~ ;
~ , • ;f~,s~rd..
~ • , . ,.~'~iy~~f
t ~ Ic(~. ^i•.
. 4. ,.,~c..
' ' . _ -
;~r,•.a .
~.r~.!f ~•ah~f~.ihL^..._~'. ~ ,
1/IEIU CORRlpOi2 CANpIp,4TE *12
, . Y ~ -a ;yy3• ~y ' . ' . . , . a:.
,i~ ~ ~ F' '1•3-n,'~; ,S' r ~:~r:'~. „_:~y~_
-•~":S`^:.~:=~- ;'z,~.•S-
~4i, r'-- ; i:~ ~ ' - ' ~ ti" ~ • ._,c9'~.~
+ : >~"v ' i"~i•';:: ' . ,
c'y:ifn•
,;u1::_t~.
' ^v.~ih,;•~ ~
~ 1 • ~ ;f d
~
.1
t,.,":!t ,.:r :t:.•.,r i:i. i
~ `~'ffi y:i' i •~:i~:~ 'i' '~l'Ti,~%y'~zti
~f~t/!. y~yy~ y..' ..~~•t J
8 ~'•~•".'J~'," . i'.~ rf'
_•Jwii~~~'~'~'~,~.;Y}!:Y~.ji'~.LLr~ .tMl.~~
:.a .
~
';,,',is~,;f~; • , , •
VIEI.IJ CORfZIDOiZ CANDIDATE 013
~ ~ E,?'~: .~°i`, ,r ~
• *~~M11'';:l';';i.'.~,,~ ~ ~ ,.t;;..
r ~ ry r;;;~;~~.~.:. . i;~,'•.
,i'•`,
f I
.
^Y', ~t.M _,.r.,. •
~ .
,~t r~ • ,
I Nc. . . ~~;5
"~.+-~:~.~~?~I.yy~;{~~;~~i+q~P r...:.'~;'i.o..~+ra...... 1•~~ ~ ~
i;
. , . ~ mr~.. .
~I...
• ~~~'''-'F:.:
VIEUJ GORRIpOR CANpIpATE *14
Attachment C
Photographs of View Corridors Proposed for Designation
The following pages contain images of the view corridors proposed for designation, as outlined in
section IV of this memo.
~ ~
•s:, ~?~~'M;
~ ,~1•::3' G '
k `2 ~T;1~. ~f r~'~'''•1~3q.~y• .~,~v`ns ^~.<i~ ' ' . ".i'~'~, ' _ ~•.~:h:.~r
n3• ' Z''Dr A
_ ~E ~ Y'v _ yt-:'•y _ Q
- • _ ~ ~~s'°~ . _ ~ r~. _ ,r
.~r -•r: -~i-~ - - - ' - ~ ~ 3
. ~r :_t:~?,i, .:n .~c.' - , . - . ~ . 'L`:
J ' -ti - -
..p . _ - ..y ~
7V
~
t ' •~l., F" Yr; ~ ' ytr ~ ~ _
Sr _ ' " X. ~ ` .31•* -.tr
. . E.
• ~ ~n ' '7" 'C :'c, "l:. • ~ ~
- ~J~':i " •.1`~ " . 5. J
* ' a,r--',~~~t~.'.. ~5,~ , i:;~. - -:4;~,~• 'F„~" "a~I • 'e j:~.~
^ ~~~r . 3~ l.
l~L3-yCW' ~ S r-Y= n%.. .3
.
- - - m
r- -
-
' •r._ i i
' : :3~.~ i . _ ' . - . ~a! ~ '•t
F- ~ A' ~j iJi:-' C~~ }-.5 ' R•J . + 1
.Lt~~ 1 J-P,~ " ~ ~ ~ _R~ ~
~ ~ S,`y ~`f ~ ~ ~~d •j' f~3: "....rY:. Or5
u; . c ~f'~ Z"~' o ~,~~t;'~'. , •.~s F.; ~ ~`~•••~t ,~,}.E~i;~ .h`?.~'~'~'~`'-~= ~ .a?F 't%~~~ ~
~"'j""~ R~~~T ~a~~~ t` ' - _4 # ; { .r•~ '`''rG< ~1+ I .
I ' I 1. 'L~ :J~ ~y~ •y~i~~
1
t2~ .~~1 . ?
~
, ~ ; '
v~1: f. _~~-L~ • ~L ~ ~ ya~
i ~ . a~ ~ `i.i•: :
~ C ,rJ 3 r ;£y • i .
4 L ~ „
CA r.'!±~
~ 'r<:~'.J t~^Y``4~•.ns' ~ =~T~.~~. v y fl `~T_~~(`!~!e. j Ti~
al . ..`ti~i: .k~ .'C_•` ~a.~~ww~~' ' `~T 4
l
+a.".' ~ . . m .
~ ~ ~ _ ~:..:d=~ • ' .~+-,'~1
~ j . ~ ~t~'~ ; . ` .
x~.;~iFi,.
N !
• _ ::r.:. ~ /,if
. ~ . ~ . . . . . ~;~~~t:~ ~l.(.r,~;~' ~~<:'•I;1r;. .c.
. , . . . , . . . , • . ~ y'~ti
' . ' . ,.1 . " . ' ' . . ,b~' ~i'~~!`~%~t,,:`•I,~~.
• . ~ ' ~ ' . . : _.,7.~0 ~
Y.
' ~.'1r ~ 4~s\F
1~:~~~~~~.• .
~ • ?;1,~: ~x.
{d.iN ~ ~~lY ' iY~ ~ ti•~ ' i'~Y ~ ~ . 'y,',;-'.
. 1y, t~ s.~,~'y/y~~~,' %i),`.(rc~?,' ~F„'"• ':t~,.
.~yt,
C:1'~au ~I r m .:1k 1V' ~ r ~v !r.~•~',~~,3~1,::i~q.-~ ~
, ~ ,~t4'~p~'`il'~~:'.-~~ 4 ~ • ; is5:_ ;^t~, ` . +j
~ ~ ~ . jJ~i{~ .f ~'S' S . F
. S~`{
• ,,I'. ~ r .
1 't'~~p j 9 ~ t~;,
~ 2{•{ ;
, , + 3 •
~ ~'lYY'~;.~ ~ , ,~;.t} ~ ~ ~~t~j ,
'%;r;,:: ,j •~~rj . ' ~ 5~; y, ?
. ~ .t a,.~ : ~ ~ : ' ~ 'j~::
~ ~ 'i j i.~' I ~ ~y~y . i . l
~
Irl F~, ~ ~ j• y!,~:1:.
w, . ' . ~ _ ~ ~ . F
: , . .(~i.~4~ ~ . ~ ;~~~~i~ ~f,~~~ ~y~~..
t ~ t'!s + t.,, ~ F;,; 7 ~ ,~~~M~'t'. ~ , 'a•. i y.
~a " S' " ~ ` • ~ ~ ~ ~ j~~ ~ ~ r; ;
4 ' • .
• ~ ~ • " . ~
. rf i,~,~}Z , i i. ~ t r_ '';4~•
~
r~iSyT '
'::h. , ~ _l. ~~(i, ` 'y J ~1
/ .1 • .A'+.
. ~ ~;j ~ ` 4'J~`,1•~~.'~~~i 'i~~•-w- ' I : K V'~~ y~ ~
Y• li;p
& ~~rj1~. . , tI N~ g ~lha~, ~7, y, ~ . `r.. ; :
iV~~
'~F4j ( ~ ~;~y~~~~ 4 fi 4'T ~ 1 a ~ ~ a r t ~ i ~'i-,..•'I • y @ ~.l+~ l I- t .:l.
1• kl~ r ,.l!ifi.5..f~ u'~',~ -c } rGr`,YL 7z~i, f~ .".n ~S.~j~'~~ . , ~y ~ r~. ''l:'; ~ * i f'r
. : ~
~~li~ ~~~~;5p~ Y.,~.1~ q,, !,1-~~ ~~.~~-e.~~i jt,'`.~~ j• ti~aa...~_,.: ' . ~S t1vJ:w7' ~i :
. . ._,:4~.
•.\;~•,+,~r , i ~ ~:.1'c. ~ ~ • ~ - .
,.z.:.;..:i^;r•~ , •~.,u,f ~ ~ • ~a,..._~~
_ ..fJ. a. ,,11~11,1":~~ ~Y^~::;^....:^'i; ~ n`'' - s;,.~"~r,~;~•~'Y9c'~"',~~ks,<-~,.:"
ry ~ k
~ ..~;~:~e ~k~.Y 1'=r.:. ,>r.-;,:;k" G: ki..`~,
. C, y~1~... r~`i«:.~r' .e~~S1'[~S,~~rN^':~.i.:e-~ °~aif~~:..4 ~i1p;,,..~~ ~~z'~a'•':r,i.~ ~~,,,t ~,y~. .~r1:':.::'
c . , . ~ . .~";~~.y' ~.I:. ~~'-.~.'x ~ t L ~ ti n~ L~ YM .l(~ . . . ; ~ :
^ . V• Y,.+~•~ Fy~ ~~:.i,~,.,.,`• J.!~
C. u.t~'~nc,7...,1~'i,~''.~'~w~#`^Sf'~..=ti:~frr','•,~.43:lSR~
y;1~ yiM' ~~;y,.~,cI~f 7• ~~{,~~j ~~~^~`df"..~ r 3 n
~~`f~h~~~tr~kT~~'~2'~
~ i ts1 n r~. f sr ? . ~~1 ~ i. .r;.~~:~:.`: ~.'3`~ G A t*~M
Zh+ y~qXT~IZ
ara.. a .
~ .•IZ~.k~~~.rF Tip ~ f r:rrfdy~~`.'~-1 ~t tity ~~/y ~'1 ~ i~c ~ J 'i l r!p,
'I'I 7 1 ~i a ~ ~ 2~ ti j at+ D~? {''h`T ~ ? S "
,j"~r
WS~.? t1~.~~~ fr 7~ ,p t ' '
a
is~t '~i~' ~ • r~ 1 1~ ~ ~ri
' ? A~ n~'~~ ~ 4:'7~f~ ~ M-~ ~yy lv4e ~ ~ n rt~ y% ~ ~ ~i~ y.>( ry . ~c +~Lr ..,`Fr •A~
T l'4a7il~•~i~~~~~~ ~ N~~~ f 4f+~YG~la:t-1^~~7r.c ~ 1~ v;~ t~(1~5~~~~1.~~1~ ~t
~YtV~!~~ ' v
C
fi FP-,,0 FO SEE) VfEUJ C O i~i~ I I~ O~# 3
.J 'r3`~Ij . " ~ . . - :'~•.i'~ .I~::.f.hl;:
_ , ~§;:i;:~_ :~'i~`,'~: .7~t t,f •Cj~::. 1
. ~.1~ i.l'..4~,.~I~ :.1.!~•'~ ' 3,•~ ,L' 1~',y'a~ _K ~T 4
`l: .rt, - - _ .:s•;- :+r'y..~ ~7 `i~-'4°)t.,,..., y
~ : 1 .j•n• o.,'~ .j' : `~:N: •
~!(.~..",n.~: •~f.~.~ ~~~,~-T
;,{i~;~ ; :~~~r~ ~)a'
~ . . . ~~.i:{ :.r~~ ~:V:"..~~.,`,•~ f I
~ , , - - ~
~
r"
.
-
,
~r~~r . • . . ~ . , . , .
. y.
, 7 . ~r-• 'U ~ ~~t
( f ~~~.+j~ ?f ~ . t~3~
i ~r : ' • ' 1 ~;1{;~.~ •
~ ; ~ • `~~i"~s
7`'M
{ ,.a~~, ' -.h~~~~ftr . „~ii~ i, l~~.~,„ :
~ ; ~ 1 r,~ •+5"t:ui~'~} f f y;~" .P' Po`.~4,ir,J`c t v ~'~'K o~t~~4> N.., F~ Y r' ' '
; ~ t4~ I h~ ~i~~r ;~~Y~f ~ h e~~~ ,i~Fi?~~?,' ~ ~ • y C~~;4 ~ t~ ..y,~
1~f~er;+ , x ~ bkr ! ~ e o ~ ~ ~ , ;`F~i : ~ ~
l~r'~I
`-saiK~,s~j{,~Cr,'~~'}
y~ ?rjS 5 gr
~t
v vM~ `,Fr
yre x ~~~Y g.•~.~ ~~r ~ }~s
i~~$;•'r;' ~ _.kK •
}tE : r ,,::,1 ;y ; j ~
~i~,. I' ' 4? . r. Y' ~ Ij 1
71~t ,jI '
• T•i , . 1 ~Yd! C a
C! • i~ 1~ ~ r ' k $1.4~ i. ~~tr4~~~':
' ~r,~ i 1 4 ~ ' i'' ~ ~`fi'r 1t'~ KS•., 4~t L
`7, } :~~Y. r. '~1~ y
t~, ~ .t...,~ 1.~' " ~ h, I~•a "
! ~ , " }p~ ~ s ' 1 . I . . ~,1 ~ ~ ? t.., F
5!~~ ~.~r~, ~,i~. ;11,~.,~~~. ~,~r.fv ,t p1~'j~ yyS~'• .Y
I ~IGK~;•'(~ ..,~,~j{I ~t J1~J' ,A pU
!ia
u
yr-..
I
h I~ ~ L
.
. ~ F s fr 1 y H' ~ f 7 p~~' .
a~?~'~~ ~J,t~y~~~i~' ~'lrX~;~~~~~'~tl~~"iJtc1(h~l f`y}~•
~ Y t
i ~ y v.,,~~.,, . ' , :
~ • y,~ • . nK~ r.
,
R {.b~'~. <~~~i;{~~`.t?'r(f~'• ~Y,~ ' f^~l+f'3:u. y t ~ .,~r-r.. , 1 . x
F-"ROFOJ~~ ~~f;~f;Z[D0{;R # I
' , ' ~ . . ~ ~ 1 . }?Y } ~ .T I~' ~ f
~ . . . _ `'5,~,_ iN 4 STr't~';~~~~ ~
. i ~.4- za.r:
r k.;. , `~1 F
71
j„ ~ ` .if~ .4:"'ti~:.~ - i^
~ v!~. ' ^7.i _ ~ ~ G J.:.~ y~~'.: ~ . . . . 1~ w~.. J.~G;'J* i~ _.,.~y . k~ ' .
•^,y`:ti<, ~ 1 ~ V' ~-1~ ~ 'i~ lh ~ ~~'~Ci !P'~~i'~~y~ ~.>r
_tw:aJrc ~.'K.r,' ':.t» 3,..3`*,;.. :¢,x^i ~ s~~~b~~"' ~?:fi-r•s,._k ~T.~.~y^ *
~ i \ . pi ~•-~,~'s:'~x ~ ~
-
~1--,~-y1 - i~-rS~ir,_ ~ ~ +i i ~=J z < ~i '~s.. t . y ~ L~
3TV ~ ~ J . 1
x•~"+i v:
~~43-~r-U
~ :r 1 Y~ ~ t M S
~ ,kt(t""s - ~~V ' . • . . '7 .JI : _ I ~ i--... 1
a
{A!?y'`i~7
. 'Yr , ~y ,yi~2• "~l ~ s a~: S.r
~ ~ j , ~ ~.£T . ~ ~ . tY `•l~i.-'~ S"' .~'~'i ~ ~;g,~7` Y•
\ • 'j F e~ ~ ' ' `3'~ .t: _ _ . - r ~.',:;tr~-:.3::: -.:w:^=r•=sv:.~~ti~,t~T- _ a
~ J
~ *'Sa, -..ryrscq-s .:f ';-,i7~w_Y: i,~_:•.:.,.j,-~:? .y,.:.-,~ _ _ .,E~
" w ~ ' _ . .~~',",'`-.i~~ ."~~.a~.-+,'K ~`r,'_'G- _ ~ _ f ,r ~ -'^~r- r't5~:: ~fiC
L ~ . ~ .
20
_ :a5~.`~,.,.~s~.x:~:i; : ..~.s,.,.i,.~'~ :~a.~.r y. -o.~x-^•.: _ - ' ' ~Y~.: ~ ~'k ~ . ~r,~.•;:p
~.L ~ Kj s.s'. 1 4C~• •
i' ~ YY,,-• 'J~
~
, .
. <`'~'~``~:!~~3::+~~1f~}'S>=;~~: rc'~.r:*c' 'p: ;•i~..•_: ;.~k3
. Z~.;• _ . { r~
• - .•'i'~:.t:~,r ' ir ;i.Klu:ro'.L~'~ia:••'r~yi~i,' c~, .r'; ,a(~(;{~. i
. ~ _,J:~;* ±~_t': , ~,..~,.,~;j~
. - ' • r•.
'~i(;; i.'.;~: `yrc~~.r :~i=~'.?~.`' ,:T`i~~~"F'f~r:!'j'(~~<''?C..`- •'f1~ 'y~ ~
. . :7:. •.l ~,r,,.." ti ; '.~,,'t~~' y ~j! {~'l'C: ~ . r.. ay: ~ ~ f,'•;i
~ .;,..ti= ~x, 7:.
. . . . `ri'. . ..J~l ~.:i~:~"I.~•,~''~! !
~ ~ • : ~ ~ : 3.;~'`=r•"
. . ' ...f: .•F"'-.i~"1J.. Y't'
. . . •~1,~~• :i: :t~' :i?'~~~za~
~ ~h `
S~: ` F ' ! j~2:'~'~.` •~?t .
a~~ ~ ' :y~;;~`. Y ~ ~4 . T
~`;r y'~'p~Y~3' t Y, • rb ~ ~ ~ ~ ` x ,
Ls.t/ rq~,ii .tA?t ~t~ j
,~^,g' `t . .i...
r ;t~.:. q • ~y ~
rt~ e 1 ^a
~s• ! + ~`.c~~y-,% ' .:,"`;~ti ~ i {-~-do'
_ ~'~•;~i: ~ v~d ~ ~ ff L r . ~ . 1 t , J,~C
•~A r~,~4 tiT , ~ S ~ L ~ , 7 } I
,y~
~ t fi 3 r n t
r~h . 7.• ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~7 S rti~}~
~ ~ Y 1 } , f
'•i ,'A:,:~., ,,G~U ~ ~ ~ .',c- ~ ..~~:~:~3'1
~
. . ; .
; ' , '`'-p Y~ ,
rY~ •
.
' .C s ~~r~~• . ~ ~r4ykr .
'd. ' , ^
1 ~ g
. . • . ~ F. • a.:' `l•. . ap.~l'iYi~~• ~v.yn , r
. . ~i'~'f~~'f+,•'.'':. ~QS~`: ,~~y' ~ f
. . , . . <.fi~.~,~ ~ . ~''~f~, w~i~*~r`:
~ :~%:.t'• h.=~:. ;:.i.'~7 cy71~ ' . ,
,~rpe' ~M~ '
~i:>:~.~. , ~~~2~' .'pi~~% ' '
.o ' t~y...~y;•~;.
• IF ~11'.. ~~`I, i.Il '
.y7'F~ `.~.~4~'~b,~ . " . .4` . • ' . W..... ~
" ~{r~: 73.'s~.y ~ . +4 •'e~!.i., , ,
~15.
`:j F ~ J`~:h . , : . ; .:.•f.f;•:i~~ . .
~r Y:• ~ :t.::'~ ~ f t
'rk..t:, •i. . ~'1 r ~
F,,C.. ";~~~;'y ~ ~.~.is:-•:' <1 '.v'1r
~ ,,.`,?i,i~••~'~'~~''°":.i; ' _ `~kt
(a.~.,.x. . ~,Ytiir' ~•:1. -~~.y.~ • - ~'.i~..
~J 1/ t!:!.': ?4'v'~' ~l~ ~~t.' ' •
Vf El,U COF~RIIDOR # g
1 ~
Attachment D
Overview of Lionshead Master Plan Design Charette
On Saturday, June 14°i, approximately 30 architects, landscape architects, and planners met from 8:00
a.m. until 7 p.m., at the Antlers conference facility, and brainstormed about the future of Lionshead.
This event, organized by the master plan team, brought together some of the most talented and
experienced minds in our valley, and produced a wide range of intriguing thoughts and potential
solutions to the issues present in Lionshead. Attendees were randomly divided into different teams for a
morning and afternoon session, with each team tackling one of ten pre-defined problem statements. The
problem statements studied were as follows, and addressed the most prominent public "wishlist" items:
1. Treatment of the Gore Creek Corridor
2. Lionshead Architectural and Streetscape Guidelines
3. Treatment of Vail Associates Core Site
4. Development Potential for East end of Parking Structure
5. Treatment of South Side of Parking Structure
6. Central Services and Delivery Complex
7. Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation
8. Locals/ Seasonal/ Affordable Housing
9. Concert Hall Plaza/ Lionshead West Gateway
10. West Lionshead
Firms represented at the Charette included:
1. Colorado Alpines, Landscape 7. Michael Hazard Associates,
Architects Architects
2. Cottle, Graybeal & Yaw Architects 8. Morter Architects
3. Design Workshop, Planning, 9. Pierce Segerberg Architects
Landscape Architecture 10. Robertson Miller Terrell, Architects
4. Fritzlen Pierce Briner, Architects 11. Vail Associates
5. Land Art, Landscape Architects 12. Zehren & Associates, Architects
6. Land Designs by Ellison, Landscape 13. James Lamont, Planner
Architects 14. Saby Ben-David, Architect
Design Workshop and the Lionshead master plan team would like to thank all of the architects,
landscape architects, and planners who made this event a success. Results of the charette are on display
in Dobson Arena.
~ ~
w ~ I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Andy Knudtsen, Senior Housing Policy Planner
DATE: June 24, 1997
SUBJECT: Analysis of the Public Works Seasonal Housing Costs
l. PURPOSE
The purpose of the worksession is to review the final budget for the Public Works Seasonai
Housing Development and to give final approval of the project or to recommend a different
approach to addressing the seasonal housing problem. The information provided in this packet is
intended to provide an overview of:
A. The housing efforts of other entitics in the Valley;
B. Other options the Town could pursue for seasonal housing;
C. The short term and long term financial costs to the Town; and
D. The short and long term benefits to the Town.
As with all projects, there are pros and cons. There are also alternative plans which can be
pursued in the event the Council would like to take an another route. The purpose of the memo
is to provide a thorough analysis of the alternatives to provide a foundation for discussion.
II. BACKGROUND '
After completing the initial cost analysis, site capacity testing, and generating public comment in
January and February of this year, staff presented the recommended conceptual design to Council
on March 4, 1997 and received approval to proceed with PEC and DRB review. At that time, the
general contractor for the project estimated the construction costs to be $2,320,000 and that
figure was set aside in the 1997 capital fund for this proiect.
Since the initial estimate, the total costs have increased. An exact figure will be provided at the
worksession. Rather than waiting a week to incorporate the bids into the memo, staff will present
them verbally with the goal of saving a week in the construction process. The bids are anticipated
to be slightly higher than the budgeted arnount.
l
At the March 4th worksession, the Council stated it wanted to review the project again, once final
numbers had been set, before proceeding with construction. The design has not changed
significantly during the review and budgeting process. It is still a single building, 24 unit
development, made up of 21 studio units and 3 one bedroom units. There are 24 parking spaces
located in front of the building, plus two accessible (handi-capped) spaces for residential and
Public Works office use.
The PEC approved the project on Apri128, 1997 (memo attached as Exhibit A for additional
description). The DRB approved the project on May 21, 1997. Since the board approvals, the
architect has refined the drawings and the general contractor has put them out to bid.
Subcontract bids are due on Friday, June 20th, and staff will present them to the Council on Tuesday. June 24th. With Council review and approval, the conlractor is available to begin work
on Monday, June 30.
IiI. HOUSING EFFORTS OF OTHER ENTITIES WITHIN THE VALLEY
Vail Valley Medical Center:
Vail Valley Medical Center, Edwards campus, $3.6 million bond issue. 34 - 36 beds in
Phase I. (Phase II can be accommodated in future, but is not funded at this time.) 17 - 18
units per building. $100,000 per bed.
Vail Associates RiversEdp-e:
Vail Associates, Riverside. 300 beds in project. $57,000 per bed (Including soft costs,
per JerryFlinn) . Some key differences between this project and the others is the
economy of scale, the floor plan layout of "suites" (a group of four to five rooms accessed
from a common kitchen/living area), a$400,000 casb subsidy and a fee waiver, as the
developer will be taking an equity position in the development rather than charging a fee.
The Ruins: Ruins: 17 beds in project. All studio units. 'Would sell finished product to Town for
$100,000 per bed (per owner/developer Jerry Whwman) . Monthly dues for studio units
would be $150 per month or $30,600 per year for project.
IV. ALTERNATIVE ROUTES THAT PROVIDE SEASONAL HOUSING
Puchase e3cistin nit
Current real estate listings in the Town of Vail include 28 condominiums priced at less than
$200,000 (excluding Simba Run, and two Village/Lionshead properties which lend them selves to
2
' ?
short term accommodations). Selecring the least expensive of the available units with at least one
bath per bedroom, it would cost the Town $2.4 million dollars to purchase the equivalent of 24
bedrooms, or $100,000 per bedroom. Thcsc would be made of up 10 one bedroom units and 7
two bedroom units. The cost does not include the condominium dues or assessments, which
would run approximately $175/month or $36,700/year, according to a local Realtor. Staff used
the listing price for these calculations, which is conservative, as the actual sales price would be
less than asking price. A detailed layout of the data is shown in Exhibit B.
Master lease existing units
Staff reviewed advertisements for rental units in the Vail Daily over the week of June 16 - 20,
1997 and has provided a summary of the rcntal rates, age and size of units, and location in Exhibit C. Similar to tbe method used in selecting "for-sale" units, staff chose the least expensive units
availablc, resulting in a pool of eight one-bedroom units and eight two-bedroom units. Thus, the
size of the pool is roughly equivalent to the proposed Public Works project, with a total of 24
bedrooms for each.
Master lcasing 24 bedrooms for one year, based on rental rates and available units as of June 1997
would cost approximately $177,000 per year. For the purpose of comparing the master leasing
scenario with the proposed project, staff assumed a rental revenue of $570 for a one bedroom unit
and $520 for an efficiency or for a shared two bedroom unit. These rates are based on charging
30% of the gross wages of a starting seasonal bus driver and have been used in all rental
scenarios. Ultimately, the rents can be raised or lowered by the Town, but for the purposes of
this analysis, has been kept constant. Using these rental rates, the anticipated revenue from the
master leased units would be $104,640 per year, requiring an annual subsidy of $72,360.
The $72,360 figure translates to a subsidy for $3015 per bedroom per year. Assuming a 5%
annual increase in rates (from the landlord, as well as tenant), the Town would spend $210,000
per bedroom over a 30 year period.
V. SHORT AND LONG TERM COSTS TO THE TOWN AS DOCUMENTED IN
THE ATTACHED PROFORMA FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The two attached proforma (attached as Exhibit D) estimate the revenue stream the proposed
development will generate. The first anticipates 90% occupancy, and the second anticipates 65%.
Staff believes the higher occupancy rate is feasible, but may not match the Council's goals for the
project. If units are to be available in late fall for newly hired seasonal workers, then many of the
units will need to remain unoccupied over the summer months and the proforna with the lower
occupancy rates should be used.
The proforma has been taken out 30 years, as that is a standard time frame for financing. The
internal rate of return is interest rate which the Town would receive, if it were to invest the funds
and receive the annual payments projected in the proforma. The primary purpose of this
information is to show that although the development will require subsidy, there is a return on the
investment and there will be a monthly positive cash flow.
3
I ~ Occupancy rate 90% 65%
Year one net operating income $ 84,504 $ 46,614
Year thirty net operating income $ 397,527 $ 241,567
Internal Rate of Return 5.23% 1.95%
VI. SHORT AND LONG TERM BENEFITS TO THE TOWN FOR PROCEEDING
`.'yITH THE PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Observations about the short term nroblems
Each season, the Town hires approximately 40 seasonal bus drives and another 50 other seasonal
employees. Last year, there was a shortage of eight bus drivers, reyuiring the Town to spend
$54,000 on over time. This has been the case for the past few years.
Training costs for the Town run approximately $4000 per driver.
Hiring after mid January is not feasible due to the lengthy training period. Therefore, it is crucial
to hire and train employees early on in the season to reduce training and overtime costs.
Housing is a key component. This problem is now apparent with our summer seasonals as well.
Short Term Benefits
Return drivers save the Town thousands of dollars in training costs.
A full staff will enable the Town to provide world class service, particularly for the 1999 Worid
Championships.
Providing quality affordable housing for seasonal bus drivers will enable the Town to be fully
staffcd and to provide the level of service we are known for.
Long term benefits
In the scenario of the proposed Public Works housing development, the Town will own housing.
'Over time, the initial expense will be repaid by the rental income and will provide a positive cash
flow to the Town.
This project adds to the overall inventory of housing in thc community and helps sustain a healthy
economic climate.
Projects are not likely to get any cheaper in the future. Acting now will lock in the project costs
at 1997 rates.
4
VII. C'nNCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed development at Public Works.
¦ It is a good location, as the residents will be able to walk to work.
¦ The quality of the housing will draw potential employees. In the staff research on
master leasing, we found that one bedroom and studio units are highly desired and
difficult to find. The studio units provide privacy and are intended to attract high
quality employees.
¦ The current project meets standards of PEC and DRB and all necessary planning
approvals have been secured.
¦ Other potential sites for housing within the Town are limited, particularly for a
seasonal housing development.
¦ Most importantly, this development will ADD housing units to the overall supply
of housing in the community.
¦ It maintains momentum the Town has established with its housing efforts.
¦ Community members are not opposed to this development. The site is not
encumbered with Nimby problems.
5
. '
MEMORANDUM -
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 28, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow twenty-four Type III EHUs for
seasonal employee housing, located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/legally described as
(Public Works Facility): beginning at the Northwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the
Sixth Principal Meridian thence S 89°31'49" E 2333.84 feet, along the North line of said
Section 9, to a point on the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70
lhence along the northerly right-of-way fence line of Interstate Highway No. 70 as follows:
S 67°41'33" W 415.82 feet; thonce S78°13'02" W 1534.29 feet, to a point of curvature;
thence 456.43 feet on a curve to the right witli a radius of 5580.00 feet, the chord of which
bears S80°33'38" W 456.30 feet to a point on the Westerly lino of said Soction 9: thence
departing the northerly right-of-way fenco line of Interstate Highway No. 70 and following
the Westerly line of said Section 9, North 00°8'21"E 565.11 feet to the point of beginning.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen and Susie Hervert
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
1. DE RIPTION OF THE REQUEST
This site is zoned General Use (GU) which allows Type III Employee Housing Units as a conditional use. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction
of 24 Type III Employee Housing Units at the Public Works site. The proposed dwelling units are
intend.ed to accommodate the Town's (Public Works') seasonal housing needs. The employee
housing standards require a minimum GRFA for a Type III FHU of 450 sq. ft. The proposal-
consists of 21 studio apartments (451 sq. ft.) and 3 one-bedroom dwelling units (528 sq. ft.).
The dwelling units are proposed in one, three-story structure. The proposed building is 30.8' in
height from existing grade at both the east and west ends of the building. The proposed building
will be 34.8' in height from finished grade at both ends of the building.
The proposal also includes 26 parking spaces, 2 of which are handicap parking spaces. One of
the handicap parking spaces is required for the Public Works Administration Building. Therefore,
25 parking spaces are available for this development. The parking required for the development is 24 parking spaces (one space per unit). There are 3 guest spaces on the proposed lower level
parking area for day use and an additional 9 spaces available in the evening hours.
. s,
,
EXHIBIT A
~
1tiWNOf YAII.
The proposal also includes a dumpster which is accessible from both the upper and lower lev_el
parking areas. The dumpster is below the upper-level parking area grade and allows tenants to
drop trash into the dumpster. The proposed enciosure does not include a roof.
The proposal also includes a 5' wide paved pedestrian access from the south side of the lower
level parking area to the Souih Frontage Road.
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
. The development standards for the GU district are determined by the PEC. The PEC must
determine what development standards are needed on a site specific basis. The proposed
standards are as presented on the site plan and building plans for the site.
Zoning: General Use (GU)
Use: 24 Type III EHUs
Lot Size: 740,520 sq, ft. or 17 acres (entire site without USFS addition)
Standard Allowed/Required Existinq Proposed
Site Coverage: per PEC 48,921 sq, ft. (6.6%) 54,071 sq. ft. (7.3%)
(w/admin. addition)
GRFA: per PEC 0 sq, h. 11,055 sq. ft.
Setbacks:
Front: per PEC N/A 85'
Sidos: per PEC N/A 500' (east), 1,000' (west)
Rear: per PEC N/q 90.
Parking: 24 spaces N/A 26 spaces (includes 1 handicap + 1
' additional handicap for admin.)
Guest Parking: per PEC N/A 3 spaces + 9 evening spaces
Internal Parking
Landscaping: 908 sq. ft. (10%)' N/A 963 sq. ft.
Snow Storage: per PEC , N/A_ 3,370 sq. ft. (30%)
Building Height: per PEC NIA 30.8' from existing grade
34.8' from finished grade
Nolo: 'required by code for all other zone districts but not necessarily for tho GU district
111. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST
In addition to the conditional use criteria, staff has included the purpose statement from the
zoning code, as we believe this will help the PEC in its evaluation of the request.
The Public Works employee housing is located in the General Use (GU) zone district. According
to Section 18.36.010 of the zoning code, the purpose of the GU district is:
~ A
i ~
2 .
"to provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their speciai
characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards -
prescribed by other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially
prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve
the purposes pre: cribed in Section 18.02.020 and to provide for the public welfare. The
General Use District is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain
type:; of quasi-public uses permitted in the Districc are appropriately located and designed
to n,-*-,et the needs of residents and visitors to Vai1, to harmonize with surrouncling uses,
anc;. in cases of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open
spa;:es, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses."
Type III Employee Housing Units may be permitted in the GU zone district subject to the
issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60. For the
PEC's reference, trie conditional use permit purpose statement indicates that:
"in order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified
uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so
that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with
respect to their affects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this
chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between
conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as
conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and
limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the..
conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objeclives of the Town and_
will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised,
to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permit shall be denieci."
The conditional use permit consideration of factors are as follows:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town.
Staff beteives that the proposed development will have a positive impact
on the development objectives of the Town. The Town has determined
that the provision of emploVee housing and seasonal employee housing to,
be goals in severaf planning documents, including the Vail Land Use Plan.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities,
and other public facilities needs.
The proposed facility will have minor impacts on these issues. The
proposal will provide housinq far workers wha will generally work out of
this site, therefore reducing traffic impacts especially during peak hoars.
The development includes some areas for recreation which will be an
asset to ihe project and the Town as a whole. The proposal will have •
minimal, if any, impacts to utilities or schools.
f
. ~ 3
~
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, -
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas.
As stated above, the proposed location allows occupants to essentially live
at work. This will reduce the need tor workers to travel to and from the
site during peak hours. However, pedestrian access through the I-70
tunnel will likely increase. The proposal includes improving vehicular and
pedestrian access through the tunnel, by improving lines of site, grades,
and providing a 5' wide paved pedestrian path. Additionally, the
, development has been properly planned to include areas for snow storage.
Overall, staff believes the project design has adequately addressed these .
issues. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses.
The proposed building is a three-story structure that appears as a typical
apartment building. The other buildings found on-site are industrial in
nature and therefore this building will be compatible with the other
structures on-site. The character of the building is not "Alpine" in nature
and would not probably be compatible in other areas of the Town. The
building appears to be well suited to the site and for the purpose it is being
constructed. However, the building will be visible across the valley and
the DRB and PEC should consider this in their review of the project.
The building is one single structure and therefore presents a large mass
on the site. Staff beleives that the correct use of landscape materials and
other building accents, such as decks, could help reduce the perceived
bulk and mass of the structure.
Overall staff believes that this criterion has been addressed by the
development.
The conditional use permit findings are as follows:
The Pl~nnina and Environmental CommiSSi n shall mak the followin findings before
r n in -a_con_di i n.al use-MrMiL
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes
of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes
of ihe district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
~
~ 4
IV, ISSUES ADDRESSED _
Below are issues brought up at the March 24 and April 14 worksessions with the PEC.
7. Building Location/Building Height/View AnaJysis
The building is proposed on the east end of the Public Works property. The building is proposed
along a natural bench area on ihis portion of the site and appaars to be the logical location for
this structure. Staff also believes this is the appropriate area of the site for housing as it is
located farthest away from the more industrial elements of the site.
The applicant is proposing a building height of approximately 34.8' from finished grade and 30.8'
frorn existing grade. For reference, the High Density Multiple Family zone district allows up to 48' .
in building height for a sloped roof building and the Medium Density Multiple Family zone district
allows up to 38' in building height for a sloped roof building. Staff believes the proposed building
height is appropriate for this site.
The applicant has provided a cross section through the property showing the relationship of
building height to the elevation of I-70. The view analysis provides 3 photographs taken from 3
different public locations along Vail Valley Drive. The proposed structure was superimposed on
the photographs at the proper scale. It is clear from this analysis that the upper two floors of the
structure will be visible from this area of town. It is also clear from this analysis that the parking
will not be very visible on the site from the "public" spaces across the valley.
2. Architectural Compatibility
The site is currently developed with industrial type buildings and administrative offices:
Therefore, architectural compatibility with other structures on-site is not necessarily desirable.,\
The proposed building form is a three-story structure. The building has been further articulated
by providing off-sets and voids which help to break-up the perceived bulk and mass of the
structure. The PEC had some concerns regarding the suitability of the overall architecture in the
Town as a whole. The applicant has provided more wood elements on the fascia and around
windows to make the building appear more in character with the Town of Vail. The PEC,
however, should concentrate on the overall bulk and mass of the building and any issues related
to materials should be left with the Design Review Board.
The issue of exterior decks came up at the previous meetings. It was discussed that decks
would serve several purposes. To help break-up the overall bulk and mass of the building, to
make the dwelling units more livable and to improve the.design of the building. The applicant
has chosen not to provide decks on the building. Staff believes that decks in some areas would
be an asset to the project by providing variety and interest to the building, making these very
small units more livable, and further, that decks would provide additional wood elements to the
building making it more "alpine" in nature.
The roof line of the building has not changed since the last PEC worksession. A flat section of
roof has been provided in order to break the building into what is perceived as two structures.
Staff believes the previous roof line, which contained a sloped roof over this proposed flat area,
was mare appropriate and aesthetic.
A lighting plan and color samples will be required as part of the DRB review of this project.
.
!
t 5
3. Landscape Plan
The applicant has provided a landscape plan which provides 29 evergreens, ranging in size from
6' to 10' in height and 19 Aspens at 2" caliper. The plan provides for planted landscape areas
within the parking lot. Staff believes the landscape areas are a very positive addition to the
project. The PEC/DRB suggested at a worksession that the proposed trees should be
substantial in size, especially in front of the building.
The plan also provides site improvements to the recreation area to the west of the building.
These improvements include a volleyball court, picnic tables, and a grill. Access to this area is
provided via a foot path.
4. Snow Storage
The site plan shows areas to be used for snow storage on-site. The areas provided are
appropriately planned.
The current standard being applied on private developments is that snow storage areas shall
equal 30% of the paved area. The driveway and parking area for this development equal
approximately 11,300 sq. ft. and the proposed snow storage areas equal approximately 3,370 sq.
fL (30%).
5. Retaining Walls
The proposed plan will contain several retaining walls. The standard applied to developments in
the Town (in accordance with Section 18.58.020 "Fences, hedges, walls, and screening") is a
maximum height of 6' for retaining walls. The GU district (Section 18.36.060 "Additional
development standards") requires compliance with this standard. All proposed retaining walls
are less than 6' in height and the majority of the walls are less than 4' in height.
6. Solid Waste Disposa!
The plan provides for the location of a dumpster for this development. The proposed location is
below the upper-level parking grade and is enclosed on 4 sides. Tenants will drop trash into the
dumpster from above, as the dumpster enclosure does not have a roof covering. Staff is '
concerned about not having a roofed enclosure. Without a roof, snow will accumulate in the
enclosure and cause a maintenance problem. Staff is also concerned that without a roof the
wind will blow trash out of the dumpster. A roof will also provide an extra level of screening for
occupants on tbe upper stories of the building. Consideration should also be given to "bear-
proofing" the enclosure.
7. Site Access
This site is accessed via the tunnel below I-70. This tunnel is a constrained roadway with a width
of 20'. Ideally, this access should be wider, however, to widen this tunnel, if allowed by CDOT, it
would be very costly. Staff and the applicant have met with CDOT and have received approval
from CDOT for the development without additional requirements, either to the S. Frontage Road
or the underpass.
The approach to the tunnel has been improved (on the north side of the tunnel) which will
imprave visibility, lessen grade, and reduce the chance of accidents. Improvements are also
proposed along the S. Frontage Road in order to improve lines of site when exiting the Public
Works site.
,
i 6 '
B. Pedestrian and Bus Access
As explained above, the access through this tunnel is less than perfect. By providing housing on
this site, the EHU occupants must have safe pedestrian/bicycle access through this tunnel. The
applicant is proposing a 5' wide paved pedestrian/bike access through the tunnel to the S.
Frontage Road.
The persons occupying the employee housing may rely on public transit to get around Town
(probably more so than the general public). The applicant has indicated that a bus stop will be
provided near the Pulis Bridge on the Golf Course route in order to allow convenient bus access.
This stop will be known as the Pulis Bridge bus stop. There will not be a bus stop structure
provided.
This will be a"request only" bus stop.
9. Environmental Hazards
A portion of the Public Works site is located in a High Severity Rockfall Hazard and Debris Flow
Moderate Hazard. The proposed site for the housing is not located in the identified hazard area
and staff has reviewed a preliminary hazard report which states that the proposed housing site is
not affected by the hazard. A final hazard report will be provided prior to the issuance of a
buitding permit.
10. Historical Resources
There is a remnant of an old log cabin on the site. This structure may be from the turn of the
century. The applicant has shown this structure on the site plan and it is outside of the area
being graded on-site and therefore will not be disturbed.
11. Phasing Plan
It has been indicated by the applicants that some of the improvements may be phased over the
next two years in order to have enough capital to complete the improvements. The Town has
. allowed other developers to also provide such phasing as long as the improvements are
guaranteed by a Letter of Credit.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit for 24
Tjrpe III Employee Housing Units, subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the GU
zone district.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be
operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
wel(are or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the
conditional use permit Section of the zoning code.
7'he recommendation of approval is subject to the following conditions:
. A
i ~
;
~
7
1. That the applicant provide 8-12 decks on the south, east or west elevations of the
building. The final location and size of the decks shall be subject to DRB review
and approval.
2. That the applicant provide a roof over the dumpster and appropriately secure the
facility to lessen potential impacts from bears.
3. That the applicant provide a revised landscape plan which reflects all of the
changes made to the site plan prior to DRB review and that the Design Review
, Board closely review the landscape plan, among other design issues, to ensure
that the mass of the building is appropriately broken-up.
f :~everyone\pecUnemosywbhous3.428
\
. A.
8
- . _ . ~ -
o,.: ~ % -
m~a.~.n _ L------ - . ~:?~y~: , ~ ~ ~
- ,O'~~~ M.•y~v~v,`.,. ~--5 .i,+'~ ` . ,
J ~ ~^'^Y"~\•':' M ~ ..:.7,'.~'~ • ..I~
~ • _ M~.. ' l~w . _ _
j~ti .,,a"~~~. ~G<•~:x'..,<:i:. , . ...r,;' - ~
, r <r.:.: ~r,:r.,•r.:;
u
, ~ '7"'-"' l,•'~!i r' ~Q '-t
; ` ~ti': i:; ~~:•n~.~yY"Yn';~v~. i'' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (f)
i'i: s`'.`:.:~ `~:j.~~,,~~.:<~,:. ..c•.vt?c~r:~~~`. . ~C L
ll 1
_ r~n O O ~j
Ar~
111j L
0 0
•
,
J -
-
: ~ = .......W , I Cl
..yn...
. .
- - k . _ . _
..K.._ -
t.'Y.
:r
~ . • J•
"
.
~-"'~f . _...---'~~L.i _ - [1-~(
~ ! - - - -
' ~ ~ - - - -
~ : J_.. . - ' " - - - - - _
_ - - . _ - d._..._,
. r--
I _ •
' i . / • . . ::~J--~ ..-r„"~ r ~~.v.v..,., t.]:=' _ - - - - ~ ;l'
. _ . - . ~ 1.,.~•
. . ,
~•1. r< . : i - - - -
_ . ~
, - -
' ~ .r,...... . ~'_ar-y-i - _ _ ~ r. _ ;i!" ` _itu _-T' _ ; ~ ' ~ ~ / ' ~ ~ ~ - r.
l _ ~ s - ' r ~ •
~
t.~ .i ~ c: . . . ' . .
ti. ~ .
• • ~
- ( ~ ~ J!r ' " ~ ~ ~ ~ - ?'--•~J~J•` ,p~' I I I
: r'~ ' _ ~ ~Y a~~• r.: ~
~
~x
.
~
-
d
? - R
.
~
~~ii: ~ - - - - ~ • ~ . h ' i :.C~• a....., '~~'w 6 I I ~ ,
~
~
~ - ~ ' _ - _ ~.-.t.~.J._: i, '..'f", J C>/ , C// • ~ e..._.~ .
_
~
~
•-4 ~ . v.
.
h
~•r-~-'J - ,
_
oi ? _ ~ ' - '
'
. - w... ' _
.
,
_ _
_ .
:
~ .
_ _ _ _ •r..N....~
...P!_'Td
_ ~ . ,
~ - - -
J" ~ .
• ~ • ~
. .
, / . .
.
. . : .
- u...-•;~------_ _ _
_ . _ • ~ _ ; ~ I I I i
_ . .
- . ZS'.. .
CS _ ~
- ~ _
k-~
o i _:..--~.-.:___--.:-::__:.-==:i~ ~ 7~ ti ~ ~a...~a".~.',..~~''.•".w.."' , .7~'.'~~..
~
N - ' _ _ - - ~ ~ _ w ~ ~r~•a,.~ ~ •
`
pS()UNO
TB
r° 1^~ 70
! T ° ~ n
RDAo
-
I .
r -
. - . - :r:, - - - - - - - - - - - _ _
• w.~......e.....n.,.. ~,.~.,~..nm.~.,~. - - - ~ - -
..~ww M r 7
NOTE: ~6EE GIVIL ENGINEERI1Ki
GF.1DING F1.AN FOR ALL MFOF7IqTIGTI
a+aa P[RT~I1NIMa TO GRADI1,iG, DRAIN4GE,
AN'J RETAINII,Y WALL9.
v
~ ,~~t'•2,.~- eiro (i~
:~'u~Y•. .:}:'~,~:'S: +l~ ' ~ .:1 y
,•;1' kI..
.vo -?•~ti: i., m ~ti~;;: - yt, 9
~ ~ '•''~>:z.,:i~5 ~'~4~' .c:.. enc ~y do
.:~v..,.. Ci 4
V7*w~n r'~^~lnn ~ ~V
~p KlCtl r°w~tAW~ ~L
~t
6
pp~oueTMna+ _ ''~9'
b
p1.11LD11~ n- _ . VAK VKLt~ D~M1Y I I I I I I
11?)Y~ lY~lO ~!t L~t~ .
Ip~.jV~~ `'~LUP1¢
n+'""~D 11`{ ~ ekr~ro eewi ~ ,
SCNEhinTIG BITG PLAN ~
INTERStATE 10
t~cran.r^ owLonn a-3 era+iee
e wire p¢n eTOrvr
WITO TOTAL
PAPoCPai. .t RIDLIC WadCO . 'b EPAGEE
. HGG1[IRC . ]l EPq[EE fRIC1UpE0 ) GUEli/
I /LVmK.M . ) MAGlO
OTAL r • 174 OPAG! !
I ND EI/81GiLRFD rAM:R1G
3
. ? ,
. ,
-
. oi,- -
~4.1o
i D ~ ~
~
~t
ldJlT bl4 WIT I01G IMIT 10~C L4UlORY ulli b4C lAlIT k.^5G
WI7 IObC l1NtT ImIC IIT 108G ro A ~
UNIT 201A U11T 7025 UNIT 7036 LAUlDRY lAllT 794B W IT 1d5B WIT I065 IA,
NlT ]0lB ~ T 70AB
t,
UNIT 701A WIT l01B UNIT 9035 hIEG11Af11CAL WIT l9aB l1
V
Wli 3D513 WIT 90615 IAlIT !JlB I
u'uT 30ee
c-)R~>
BUILGItY PLM! - THIRD LEVEL F~ O 4
- t. I.
f`
• ~ ~ " _ ' - - n~a _ '
fD I I I II
• (.~~J ~~f1 ~ ~_,l ~Il_ ; - (~~~R~~ _r = q 4 '
- =-=~J~Q_t d
-
jH:RALEvEL-iwncn TWRpLEvELy~,nw•~w~~ vaie~i~v~uur~ 7~IiRt~LF.v[L wia•rw~~w~~
.w.r..
in~s/.lUa.u '.iFI)'1117.:n/fi"' w..n i~ AI7~{T7diyD
. ~l> s/ twLh~ .Mes er ~~u wn • • . .Ie01 ~r. oaX! ~ ti
i.
f O ~ _ .
i i iD
- = 2 M! r,~
Q! ~--Q--- R~r ~ ~ s
,-F~_ i t R - ~
FIRBT LEVEL tuioRr ~ovt FIR9T LEVEL um rew u}p uu~ ~c• nm ~mi FIR9T LErEL wt r• ma~rt wni ~
~c.u. m w. . rr .ni ....ur,u 7i~TT~7 ~c~aa r.e 1 ` .
e'• ~v si. awoae . I ~ws er. awxe uu ~i. ow i
- , ' .
.
~ -
- - -
~
o
- - -
t
-
- ~
- -
~----r .
-
ELI1LGItJG ROOF PLAN ~ ~
L T _ _ . . 4 O
]w n•b -u~ ~M W,orws +n= 0.NC, la'. I'.G' ~ r U R
J
1
r
~ ~`•d -'Cm' + ~ ~ {~IfjJf~~'^ (yyy(~//(/J~((/// c~ ,a 4 H
_ ° _ ~ x~ C ' u fdf11!(I r -Z: wl-. [p R c°,
- - - _ _ - - ~.a„' r F • O 4
0 0`~ - _ _ _ _ , ~ - = i =8= `
~ ~ .~•.~.....b ~ - - = _ = = I I I
~I~ ~ ~ bw,~~ _ _ e e ~ ••,'~~u+ • ( ~RONT~ (90UTH .)LLE VATION
-
~ i ?;•e `..al+?', l~ _ : ~;.~n `~~=j=_L~ ..,r. ,,:;.a ~ ~ - - !ll:~~~ ~ s a
- bsa e v ' ~m • - ' CI.
_ . . - . .
. . •
` • : ' _ y' j
-~-~Yn.,r~e,,,., i~w~evr'D _ / Nnav.:~'t' _ J a.../,>. ---~ti _
- - ° - - .
,
;
0N '
CC U.g 5T [IEVATION •~,o \ `
~ a~<i~ ~•T~ i~o--'----
OEAST EL[vATION SEGTIGN \2~~
~~e.^ue.-w•.r.o-_'_____.___ 1~- r . e.~ -
a: a ~ -
- - - _ - - = - - ~
~
. , - i NORTH ELEvATION
~i23
, , ,
~I
Lei (!!9.- w
~ .
L ~
f - . =
assa.~ o~rwmam Q ~ C];J~-°~
Q9oUTN (FROhT) ELEVATION ~EA9T ELEVATION ~~„o ca k ~
ecxe. v.•.r,n.
LJ ac.ae, v.•. r.e•
F.p 4
nuP°~.HU~e (t
. ~ II
~-~0 • I IIIIIII
~ TRASH ENCLOBUREFLOOR pLAN
~ NORTHELEVATI O
GN 0 LLESTELEVATIGN ~ ~e.v~.r.o•
O sc.ui. w• . ra~
KKG. Y~'.I.p•
E:S o
i Y .
EA
.QSEGTION u
~wJ ~cN.e. w• . r.o~e,R,,.- ri - i Y
. • -i em n' '
. 3
ao
~
--0 .nr u.n
• ~ Bsa~.o
i
saww ~ ~
Q81TE BECTION
~e. w• . r.o• ~ q
. ~ , ~ .
-
r_`
f_rJ~' ~ ~ ,:J~I
,
; ; -r---- ' ~
~ ~ ~,y ~ ~we
; : - , . . =3- , c~-=
11d3 ` ~ 1 - ; X r~ ~ ~'R• ~ S
t. .~TIr.. 1}-
lQ~
' / ~1/ A~`` li~u~T ~a/ ' ' ~ .~~~_~•~~-•~^4~~'J~w7~~ I " ' __1 ' ~fO~'T+%
i~~i"~`~'4-` ~ K n'w :rr•- ) ~ ~
c_ ,~J ~ ~ ~ ~j o
~'•r. - ~ , - -t r._., ~ r u ~
j!y~
kl
~ v \1 ~ -~,i~. F\~: ~ \ ~ ~ •,~~_-l ) ~ ~
H O
\
r'; ri~nrvl uvc tvorr•.s PLAN'1' LLGEND
. \I ~ r~ ~ / ~ ~a.Je~H...r C..snM~r Lv
~ ~ % ~ " ~ / • ~ o~.."~ 4... 4~~ w.~~,.~L,.i:_~ ~ ,,i
" ~ hr
_
~ ` ~ / / / n~ i~.jt..~~1Tn~~ r.~u. I
~ ~ / • • i ,.rv v• I~ ~~+~'-w ~y C^ _ _'._-__I
- .
y..u.~.~~..r
/ ~ibM+ ~'.~y w~~.~1
u.w~~i,~.....w.~i,~id
~ . • r ~
1
Sheetl ' .
price bedroom bath one bedrooms two bedrooms
$119,000 1 1 $119,000
$119,500 1 1 $119,500
$129,500 1 2 $129,500
$129,500 1 2 $129,500
$130,000 1 2 $130,000
$132,000 1 1 $132,000
I $132,500 2 1
$134,500 1 2 $134,500
$135,000 1 1 $135,000 _
$139,500 1 1 $139,500 .
$155,000 2 2 $155,000
$159,900 2 2 $159,900
$163,000 . 2 2 $163,000
$170,000 2 2 $170,000
$179,000 2 1
$182,500 3 3
$186,900 2 2
~ $187,500 2 2
$190,000 2 2
$194,500 2 1
$132,500 2 1
$160,000 2 2 $160,000
$177,500 2 2 $177,500
; $199,000 2 2
, $117,500 1 1 $117,500
$130,000 2 1
$171,500 2 2
$157,500 2 2 $157,500
1$4,314,800 $1,286,000 $1,142,900
i 10 one bed 14 bedrms
i, $1,286,000 $1,142,900 $2,428,900
EXHIBIT B
Page 1
Comps for. Studio and One-Bedroom Rentals within the TOV
Management Company Type of Square Location Approsirnate On Bus Furnistied? Utilities Monthly Rent
TUnit Feet Age Route? Included
Vail Management Company Studio 350 Bell Tower Building 30 years Yes No Water $700
Vail Management Company 1-Bedroom 400 Interlochen 25 years Yes No None $700
Prudential Gore Range 1-Bedroom 500 Gore Range Condos 27 years Yes No Heat $950
Vail Racquet Club 1-Bedroom 550 Vail Racquet Club ZO years Yes Yes None $900
Owncr-managed (476-0449) 1-Bedroom
West Vail Yes Yes Heat, Elec $700
Owner-managed 1-Bedroom 600 Larkspur Lane 15 years Yes No None $825
Owner-managed 1-Bedroom East Vail None $1,100
w/ loft
Owner-managed I-Bedroom 650 Intermountain 25 years Yes No Alt $650
Owner-managed 1-Bedroom 540 Vail East Condos 30 years Yes Partially Heat, $800
Water
xnlBIT C
- - - , .
Comps for Two-Bedroom Rentals within the TOV
Location On Bus Route? Furnished? Utilities Included Monthly Rent
Timber Ridge Yes Yes None $950
Sandstone Yes Yes Heat $1,050
East Vail Yes PaYtially Water $850
Brooktree Yes Yes $1,200
East Vail Yes Yes All $1,450 \
East Vail Yes No None $1,150
Nlatterhorn Yes No None $1,200
Sandstone Yes Yes Heat $1,200
West Vail Yes Partially $1,200
West Vail Yes No Heat $925
West Vail Yes No None $1,200
Reni~l t'ro Forma ~ •
- year 1 f - ~
I_Ycar 2 Ycar 3 e~r 4--~-- - Year 5__ 1'car 6 _
Gr+>ss Rental Incoinc Ycar 7 _ 1'car S~--year 9 Ycar 10'
E fticicncy (21 units at $520/month -
5"/o annual incrcasc assumcd) $131 Oa0 ~
, $137,592 $144J85 4$151,695 $159,280 $167,244 $175,606 ,
Onc Bcdroom (3 units at $570/month - $184,386 $193,606 a203,286
5% amnual increase assumc~l) $20,520 $21,546 $2375~! $24942 $2(,189 ~
VacancyIixpensc(10%assumcd) , 156) s5,914)
~ 27,499
$=8,874 1 $30,317 $31,833
($17,545)
1 18,422 Effcctivc Gross Income $136,404 $143,224 _(a19,343) ($20310) ($21326)1 $22,392) ($23,512)
$157,905 $165,800 $174,090 $182,794 $191,934 $201,531
ses S2 I I ,607
pen
Adl~iinistration and ManaE;cment $6,000 300 $6,615 - - - -
Property Taxcs ----$6,946_ ---$7,293 _ $7,658 • $8,041 $8,443 i -
lusurance _ $0 $p $0 - _ ~8,865 S),308
$3,000 $3,150 $3,308 $3,473- ,020
$O $o $0
iJtilities - $O $U - ----$3,6471_ _ $3,829 $4 _ $4,221 $4,432 S4,654
Water and Sewcr - --$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -
$0
$14,400 $14,832
Gas $15,277 _ _ $15,735 ----$16,207 $ I C,694 $ l 7,194 $0
$5,000 $5,150 - - $17,710 $18,24 I
Electric $5,305 _ $5,464 $5,628 $IR,789
$6,000 $6,365 - - $5,796 $5,970 $6,149
$6,180 _ $6,334 2
_ Yhone - $p - $0 556 -----$6,753 $6,956 $7,164 $7,379 ---57,601 ~G,5,4
- $0 ` $p " b7,8_9
-
Cable
$0 $0 $0 - - $p~--- $0 $p -
-g0--
~ --7-----$~ $0 ~ - $o
TrashRemoval - $0 $0; $0 -
$6,000 $6,180 $6,365_ -_$6,556 ------$6,753 $6,956 gp
Snow Shoveling $7
,164 - $0 $0 K
$0 $0--- - - - - $7,379 - $7,601 -a7,R29-
Gcncral Maintcnancc/ReMairs - ~ $U $0 $0
~ $0
$5,000 $G,000 $0
Rcscrve -----$7,000_ $7,350 $7,718 $8,103 $S,S09
$6,500 ~ $6,825 $7,16G ~------$7,525 $8,934 $9,381 S9,950
Landscape Q- - $7,901 _ ---$8,296 $8,71 I $9,146
$9,603 .
- $O $ 10,(i44
$0 $p -$0
-
'I'otal Opcrating Ex~cnses $0
$51,900 $54,617 $0 $0 s0
$57,401 $59,605 I ,899 $64,287 $66,773 - -
- --$69,362 $72,058 ---_$74,f:GS
Net Opcrating Income $84,504 $88,607 $92,984 - - _ ~
$98,300 $103,901 $ I 09,803 $116,021
$122,572 - -
$129,473 $I 3(,,742
-
~
Dcbt Service (int. only) -
-
ebt Scrvicc (prin. & int.)
-lo- - -
- - -
ashFw aftcr P & I Dcbt Scrvice $84,504 $88,607 $92,984 ~ -
- $98,300 $103,901 $109,803 $11 6,021 $122,572 - $129,473
Pagc I - 10% Vacancy ,
I - l o ~l• '
~ .
XHIBIT D
;
, - - . _ _ .
~ ' ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~
-
~ - ----Y'ear 11 Ycar 12 _ Ycar l3_1__ Ycar la 1-- Ycar 15--- '---Ycar 16 i-----------~-------------~--
~ ' Ycar 17 i Ycar 18 j Year 19 1 Ycar 20
~ ---i
i - i - - -
GrossRetital Income - -
Efficicncy (21 units at $520/month - ------i---------- --I--------- ------I -
i"/o_annualincreaseassumed) $213,450 $224,123 __$235,329 _$247,095 j $259,450 ~ $272,423 $286,044 ~ $300,346 $315,363 $331,132
- - - - - - - - - - - r---
Onc Bedroom (3 units at $570/month - I I
5%annual increase assumccl) $33,425 $35,096 $36,851 $38,694I $40,-628-,
$42,660 $44,793 $47,032 $49,384 $51,853
- -
---h-----
Vacanc Ex ensc I0% assumcd ~ - - -
Y p ( ) ($24,688) ($25,922) ($27,218) --($28,579)--- ($30,008)'.--- ($31,509) ($33,084) ($34,738) ($36,475) ($39,299)
Effcctive Gross Income $222,188 $233,2 7 - $244,962 $257,210 $270,071 r $283,574 $297,753 $312,640 $328,272 $344,686
- - - - - - - -
i
EYpenses - - -
Administration and Management $9,773 $10,262 $10,775 $1 1,314- ' $11,-8801 $12,474 $13,097 $13,752 $14,440 1 $15,162
- - - - .
Property Taxes _ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I $0 $0 $p - $p $p
- - - -
[nswance $4,887 , $5,131 $5,388 $5,657 $5,940 ~ $6,237 $6,549 $6,876 $7,220 $7,SS1
- -
Utilities (5% armual incrcasc assu:ned) $0 $0 - $0 $0 $0 -
; $0 $0 , $U $0 $p
- - -
- - -
aterandScwer $19,352 $19,933 $20,531- ---$21-,147-,-_ $21,781 j $22,435 _ $23,108 $23,801 $24,515 $25,250
- - - -
- -
Gas $6.720 , $6,921 $7,129 $7,343 $7,563 ~ -
$7,790 $8,024 $8,264 $8,512
$9,768
- - -
Elcctric $8,063 $9,305- - $8,555- - $8,811 $9,076 : $9,348 $9,625 -$9,917- -$10,215 $1-01521
- - ~ - -
- -
one $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -----$0- $0 $0 $0
- - - -
Cablc $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 i $p $p $p $0 go
t
Trash Removal $8,063 $8,305 $8,555 $8,81 l $9,076 i $9,348 $9,628 { $9,917 $10,215 $10,521
- - - -
Snow Shovelin r $ $ -r-----------------
g 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
j.-- - $0 ~ -
-
Gcneral Mainicnancc/Rcpairs ----$-10,342- $10,859. -$11,402 ----$11, 972 ' -$12,571 $13 ,200 $-1- 3,860- $14.552 $15,280 $ I 6,0•;-;
- -
cscrvc $10,588 $11,117 $11,673 $12,257 $12,870 $13,513 $14,189 $14,898 $15,643 $10,425
- - - - ~ -
-
an scape $0 _ $0 $0 $U $0 ! $0 $0 $0 $0 <_r+
_ ~ _ .
TotalOpcratingExpenscs____ _ $77,789 $80,835 $84,007 $87,312 $90,755 i $94,343 $98,092 $101,978 $106,039 $I 10,272
- . . -
- -
- ~ -
- . - -
et perating Incomc $144,399 $152,463 _$.160,955 $169,898 $179,3 15 $189,231 $199,671 $210,662 $222,233 $234,414
- - - ~ - - - _ - _ - ~ - - -
Dcbt Scrvicc (int. only) - -
Dcbt Scrvice (prin. & int.)
- - _ - - - - - - . . .
Cash Flow aftcr P& 1 Debt Scrvice $144,399 $152,463 $160,955 $169,898 $179,315 $189,231 $199,671 $210,662 $222,233 $234,414
Page 2 - 10% VacancY .
~ •
~ ~
- . ` ~ ~ ' :a
- i ~ - .
_
---------1-----
- - ~ - - - - - -
ear 21 Year 22 Yc:ir 23 Ycar•24 Year 25 ~ Year 26 I Year 27 ~ Year 28 Year 29 ' Year 30 '
- l._..~-
ross Rental Incomc ~ - • ~ . •
- a
efrciency (21 uni
ts at $520/month -
,
5% annual incrcase assumed) 53,17,689 $365,073 $383,326 $402,492 $q22,617 1 $443,748 $465,935 $489,232 5513,694 ~ $539,378
Onc - -
Bcdraom (3 units at $570;month - - -
5'% annual increase assumed) _ $54,446 $57,168 $60,026 $63,028 $66,179 $69,488 $72,962 ~
$76,611 $80,441 ~ $81,463
VacancyExpensc(10%assumed) _($42,224) _ ($44,335) ($46,552) ($48,880) ($51,324) ($53,890) ($56,584)~__ ($59,413): ($62,384)
EffectiveGrosslncomc _ __$361,920 _ $380,016 _ $399,017_ _$418,969 $439,917 __$461,912 $485,008 $509,258 ~534,721 i $SG1,~157
- - - ;
-
.spenses
- - - ,
Administration and Mana cment ~
- - - -
S ---$15,9_0 $16,716 $17,552 $18,429 $19,351 $20,318 " $21,334- $22,401
$23,521 ~ $2~t,697
Propcrty Taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 ----------i------- - -
- - $0
- $0 $0 $0 ; $0
-
Insurance $7,9GU $8,358 $8,7Zfi $9,215
_
--$9,675 $ ] 0,15) $10,667 $1 1.200 $11,760 ; $12,348
Utilities (5% annual increase assumed) $0 $p $p $0 -
- $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- ; ~p
- -
Water and Sewer - $26_008 $26,788 - $27,592 $ 28,420- $29,272 $30,150 $31,055 $31,987 $32,946 ° $33,935
- - -
as $9,031 $9,301 , $9,581 $9,868
r~-~ 10,164 -$10,469 _ __$10,783 $11,106
- - - - $11,440 _ ~ $11,793
Electric $10,837 $11,162 $11,497 $11,842 $12,197 ~ $12,563 $12,940 $13,328 $13,728 $ I 4
- _
$U
. .
'139
_
ne $0 $0
$o $p r-------- go
- - - $0 $0 • $0
cab~e
$o $o
- $0 $o_ $o $o $o $o ' xo
-
7'r-ashRcmoval $10,837 $11,162 $11,497 $11,842
- $12,197 $12,563 $13,328 - $13,728 ; $ I zI, 139
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Snow Shoveling $0 $0 . $0 - - ~
- - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -
; $0-
Gcncral Maintcnancc/Re iirs . .
$16,946
$17,6A9 $18,573 $19,502 $20,477 $21,50! $22,576 $23,704 $24,890 ! $?~;,13q
. .
Rcservc _
17,246 $ I $,109 $19,014 $19,965 $20,963 $22,011 $23,112 $24,267 $25 481 ; $26 ,755
' -
Lan scapc $0 $0 $U $0 $0 $0 $0 i S;l;
0
-
-
~'otal Opcrating Expenscs - ----$114,684 $119,284 $124,080 $129,091 $134 296 $139,734 $145'406 - c
T-- ;
- $151,322 ~ 157,493 i . , 30
-
- -
Net Operating ]ncome $247,236 _ $260,732 _ __$274,937 $289,887 $305,621
.-$322,179 $339,602 $357,937 $377,229 $397,537
_ ~ - '
- - - - -
- - . . . _
Dcbt Servicc (int. only)
- - ,
- - - . _ _
Dc t Scrvicc (prin. & int.) . , - .
- - - - - - - - _
Cash Flow after P & 1 Dcbt Scrvicc _ $2q7- ,236 _ $260,732 $274,937 $289,887 $305,621 $322,179 $339,602 $3579--937 $377,229 1 $397,527
~ , . , ~ , ~ . . •
Pagc 3 - 101/6 Vacancy .
, . ~ , I ' J'! • . ~ ~ ' • 'i; , i( , i; t) ~;~.1• lI . ~ ~ , i i,., . .
' • ~ •l~. .l. j i ~ , . . . . t~ , 1' . ~q , • , .
. , . . . , ~ • • ' ' . ~ , , .
~ , • ~ . . " ~
. . . ;i. - . •
-
Rcntal Pro Fonna
___-----..._..._.-------------i..• , :
- -
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 1'ca-
~ ~
-r 5 Year 6 ~ Year 7 Year 8 ~ Year 9 Yc:ir 10
- - - -
~
t:ross Rcntal Incomc -
~ ~
- -
I:fticicncy (21 units at $520/month - I -~l-------
- -
i
5% annual increase assurned) _ 31,040 $137, 592 $144,472 $151,695 $159,280 , $167,244 $175,606 $184 ,386 _ $193,606 ~203,2RC
-
nc Bcdroom (3 units at $570/month -
:i% annual increase assumed) $20,520 $21,546 $22,623 $23,754 $24,942 $26, I R9 - -$27, -
499 . $28,874 $30,317 $3 I ,£33
-
acancY ~ Ex cnse (35% assiunc(i) ($53,046) _ ($55,,698) ($58,483)
($61,407) --($64,478) - ($67,702), ($71,087) ($74,641)r ($78,373) ($82,292)
-
_
Effcctivc Gross Income $98,514 $103,440 ~ - -
- $108,612 - -----$1 14,042- $119,744 $125,732 $132,018 -
$138,619 $145,550 - $152,828
- ,
- - -
-
Expenses
- -
Administration ancl-Ma-nagcment $6,000 $6'300
$6,615 $6,946 $7,293 ~ • "
$7,658 $8,041 $8,443 $8 865 $9,305
' -
Propcrty Taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- - 0 $0
Insurance $0
$3,000 - - - - ~4 ,43~~ $0
$3,150 $3,308 --$3,473 - $3,647 $3,829 $4,020 $4221 -2 - $-=1,-654--
- - - -
Utilitics $0 $0 $0 0 .$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- . -
Watcr ancl Scwcr
---$14,400_ --$14,832 ,---$15.277 - $15,735 $1.6,207 - - - $16,694
- $17,194 $17,710 $18,241 $18,789
- --Gas-
$5,000 $5,150 $5,305 $5,464 $5,629 $5,796 ~ $5,970 $6,149 $6,334 $6,524
-
Electric $6'000 $6,180 $6'365 - - -
- $6,556 $6,753 $6,956 ! $7,164 $7,379 57,601 $7,o~q
-
Phone $0 $0,
$(1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$U
CaUle $p $0
$o $o $0 $o..r..---- _$o.. ____---_$o~-------
- , $0 Rn
"frash Rcmoval - $6,000 -
$6,180 $6,365 $6,556 $G,753 $6,956
~ $7,164 $7.379
- - - - - _ _ _ (
$7,601 $7.829
Snow Shovcling-- $0 $0 $p
$0 $0 i $0 $0 $0 $U
Gcncral Maintcnancc/Repairs_ $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $7'350 -
- -
$7,71 R $8,103 $8,509 $8=934 $9.381 $9 ,p
- - -
Rcscrvc $6,500 $6,825 $7,166 $7,525 $7,901 ~ -
$8.-9G $8,711 $9,146 $9,603 9~ l 0,c)5~~1
- . .
Lan~ sc;irc $0 ~ $0 $0 $0
I'ota eratin Ex cnscs
f?~-- F? $51,900 $54,6l7 $57,401 $59,605 $6I,899 $64,297 ~
- ~ $66,773_ $69,36_ $72,058 $74.Y65
- - - -
~ - . . . ,
- - ~ ~
- I- - _ - ~ ~
NetOP eratin Income ~
$46,614 $4R,8..3 $51,211 $54,437 $57,846 $61,445 $65,245 $69,257 $73,492 ____.$77 . ,9 . 6.1- I
- . '
Dc t Scrvicc (int. only)
- .
- - _ . _
Dcbt Scrvicc (prin. & int.) ~
-
Cash Flow aRcr P &I Debt Scrvicc $46_614 $~18,823 $S 1,21 I $54,437 $S7,R4f .g( I ~ 445' $C5,245
$C9,7.57 $73,492
, ' a' , . ~ : ~ . ~ , .
. . Pagc 1 - 35% Vacancy
1 ~ ~ ~ / ~ • ~ ; , t, ~ . .
:.f . f ; ~ t1 ~t, ;f' , „ , ~ ~ . ~ , . . . ~ . ~ ,r~ „ , . ~ , • ~ ' ~ , ;r.';, +,`~i.~.~
>l.' i~i~ 'l~i% iY~".i~~ •'~qu~:.
i ~ ~ N; ~j ~ . . ~ .i ' . ' u:~`. . :~'a ~ . . , i • . ~t~ 1.,~,.
~ ~ i • i
~ . I ' ~ . . . i , . . ' ii• ~.l~S_ 1 l i!ir.~i:i . , , ;~C, •t ~ ;s~~'? .
~ • ~ . . : ' . . , , ~ :rs ~1 j . .t ~ . . . '
, . '~f •a
~
, .
- ~
----1----- - ~ ' ~ . t _
. Ycnr 11 Ycar 12- l'car 13 ' ~ - - ~
~
Y'
Cross Rental lncome I car 14 car 15 ~ 1"car 16 i Year 17 '
-
- Ycar 18 1 1'car 19 Ycar 20
f ffcicncy (21 units at $520/month --------------I - ~ , - .
-
5"/o annual incrcasc assumcd) $213,450 S124,123
"
-
One F3edroom (3 units at $570/month - - . $235,329 $247,095 $259,450 ~ $272,423 $386,044
~ $300,34C> $315,363 $331,132
S'%annualincreaseassiimed) .
$33,425 $35,096 $36,851 $38,694 ~
$40,6_8
Vacancy Expensc (35% assumcd)
($86,406) ($90,72/) ($95,263 ~ 42,6f0 $44,793 $47,032
- - ----$49,384
' $51,853
) ($100,0_l) I05,027), I 10,279
f:ffectivc Gross ]ncomc $-160 ) ($115,793)
,469
$ t GR,492
($121,582): ($127,662) ($134,045)
$176
- - ,917 $IRS -
---------------'763
$195,051 $204,804 $215,044 $2 -
-25,796----------
$237,086 $248,940
Expenses _ _
Administration and Management
$9,773 $10,262 $10,775 $11,314 $11,980 $12,474-------------- -
Property Taxes
$0 - - • $13,097 $ I 3,752 $ I 4,440 $ I S I G2~
$p - -
$0 $0 $0
Insurance 4 - ,
- - - $0 $0 -
$ 887 $5,131 $5,3RR $5,657
$5, $G,237
tJtilitics 940
- $6,549 --~7
$0 $0 $0
$0 - ------$6,R76 ----'2~~
$p $0 T $7ater and Sewer
$0
$19,352 $l9;933 $20,531 ~ -
Gas $21,781 $22,435
$23,108 - -
$6,720 g6,921 $'7, 1?9 - t--- $23,801 . --$~4.515 $25,250
Electric - - $7,343 $7,563 $7,790 !
$8,024 as
0G3
$8, ,
8,2G4
Ion $8,305 $8,555 $8,811
~8,512 7G8
$9,076
Plc $9,8
$0 $0 $0 $9,34$..i__-- _f'.. $9 917 $10,215 $10,521
Cablc -----~--$0 -I-------- -
- ` $0 $p - -
$0 $0 -
"frash Rcmoval $p - --$0 $0 $U
$8,3Q5
$8,063 - -
$R,555 -
- $ 4, f~ I I
Snow Shovcling - $0 _ - $9,076 $9,348 $9,.629
-
• $0 _ _ _ - -
$p $0 $9,917 I0'21~5 $10,5
I
- - - - - -
Gcneral Mainlcnancc/Rc-airs $0 -
$10,859 - $p
$10,342 $p
-
Kescrvc $11,40_ - $0 ~p
_ _ - - - . . . . -
- '11,97 . 2 $12,571 $13,2U0 ~
~
$ I 0,588 9~ 1 I ,G73 ~ " $ I 3,RG0 $14,552 - -
$11,117
15,280 $ I h,():;q
$I_,257
,870
Lan-dscape $12
$13,513 $14,189 $14 898
--...._$15,643 ----$I6,42_5
ota Opcr;~ting Expcnscs
.----$77,789 _ - -
- $90,835 $84,007 $H7,312 -
- -
$90,755 $94,343 _ $98,082 ~ - '
xI0 , 10,272
039 1
Nct O craling Incomc - !
--$82,G80-
$87,658 $92'910 $98,451 $104 ~ --_t
- - - - ,29C $ I I 0,4C,0 $116,962
__$123,8 I R '
- - - - - $131,047 $138,669
I
Dcbt
Scrvice (int. only)
. - - . _
; Debt Service (prin. & int.) - - -
I Cash Flow aRcr P& I Dcbt Scrvicc '
~ $92,910 $98,451 . , • ;
$10429G • . .
, $1 10,460 $ I I'6,962. S 123,R 18 $131,047 $138,1C>4 ,
. • ~ , • . .'tfi : , . ' ~i ~~i ,
~ Page 2 - 35% Vacancy : ~ i ; . i f t~,• I + ,
i
~ ' / ~rc- . ~ ~ • ~ ~.`4,
~ . a: . . . . , ~ • i . „ ~ i ~+I
~ . , ' ; ~ 7 ~ • . • ~ ~ ' il ' ~ • , ~ • i~.,~~. .1,~1.~ . .~^~r~uF~`(j`-~,.~'l~
:.J
. . i. y }
, . ~ . ' • . ~ ' ' . . ~ ..1 . 1 L'~' ! G°i~ItF~.~.J1S~~ 17~.~
, . , . . i. . . , _
j . ~ ' ~ . . . r
t .
,
- . . . . ' . ' . . . _ ' ~w;'~'
- ---------1--.......--- - '
- -
-r 25 -Yc-
1'ear 21 Ycar 22 ' Year 23 I Ye:~r 24 -Yea- -
-~r 26-- - ; ; Ycar 27 I 1'ear 28 ; Ycar 29 Year 30
~
I-------------------------------~---_.._...-------------------- .
f;ross 12ental Incomc i ~ •
I:f(icicncy (21 units at $520/month -
5% annual incrcasc asswncd) $347,688 $365,073 $393,326 $402,492 $422,617 $443,748 I $465,935 $489'232 ! $513,694 $539,318
'
- --------I----------•----- --...i-----------
Onc Bedroom (3 units at $570/month -
5%annualincrcaseassumcd) $54,446 $57,168 $60,026 ~ $63,028 $66,179 $69,488 $72,962 $76,611 $80,441 b84,463 ~
'
Vacancy Expcnse (35% assumcd) ($140,747) ($147,784) ($15~,173) ($162,932) ---($171,079) __($179,633) -.---($188,614) ($198,045) ($207,947) ($218,345)
Effective Gross lncome ~ $261,387 $274,456 $288,179 $302,598 $317,717 $333,603 $350,284 $367,798 $386,188 $405,497 ~
- - - - - - ----J- '
- ,
- - ;
Expenses •
- - -
AJministration and Managcment $15,920 $16,716 $17,552 $18,429 $14,351 $20,318 , $21,334 $22,401 I $23,521 $24,697 '
-
Property Taxes $0 $0 $0 $U $0 $0 $0 $0 ~ $0 $0
lnsurancc $7,960 $8,358 $8,776 $9,215 $9,675 $10,159 $10,667 $11,200 $11,760 $12,343
- - -
L?tilitics $0 $0 $0 $U $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Watcr and Sewcr $26,008 $26;788 $27,592 - ----$28,420- -----$29,272 $30,150 $31,055 -----$31,987 I------$32,946 -^$33,935
- - - .
Gas $9,031 $9,30I !$9,581 $9,863 $10,164 ---$10,469 $10,783 $11,106 $11,440 $11,783
-----Electric - $10,837 $11,162 $11,497 $11,842 $12,197 $12,563 $12,940 $13,328 $13,728 $14,139
- - -
Phone $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 , $0
- -
Cable $0 $0 $U $0 $0 $U ~ $0 $Q $0 30
- - - - -
Trash Rcmoval $ I0,837 $11,162 $11,497 $11,842 $12,197 $ I2,5G3 $ I2,940 $ I3,338 i $13,728 $14,139
- - - - - - ~ - ~
iSnow Shovcling $0 $0 • $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ~ $0 $p
- - _
iC;cncral Maintcnancc/Repairs---.-- $16,846 $17,689 $18,573 $19,502 $20,477 $21,501 $22,576 $23,704 , $24,890 $26,134
Rcscrvc $17,246 $18,109 $19,01 4 $19,965 $20,963 $22,011 $23,112 $24,267 : $25,481 $26,755
- - .
- - _ .
I .an dsc=~-~~-------=------------
- - - _ I~- . .
'Total Operating Expcnscs $114,684 $119,294 $124,080 $129,091 $134,296 $139,734 $145,406 $151.322 i $157,493 $ I C3,9?(1
- - - ~ . . _ . ~ . - - - - -
- - - -
Net Opcrating 1 ncomc $146,703 $155,172 $164,099 $173,507 $183,422 $193,870 $204,878 $216,476 $228,695 $241,567
. . -
;I)cbt Scrvicc (int. only)
- - ~ _ . .
Dcbt Scrvice (prin. & int.) ~ • _
- ' - -
C:ash Flow after P& I Debt Service $146,703 $ I55,172 $164,099 $173,507 $183,422 $193,870 $204,878 $216,476 S228,695 $241,567
. ' , , , : ~ • Pagc 3 - 35% Vacaiicy
, i
~ , , • . ~ ' . . , . ~~i~ ' :I'::';r ' i _ ~t:'', , ~ :t~ ;
, . , , . , . , ~
~ . ' , , : •,i :.~ti:; • :t , ; . ~ • ~ , ~ . ,
~ . , ~ ~
Ih• . ~ ! . . ~ ~ • . . 3 ' - ~ .
~ , .
• . : .
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Counci)
FROM: Andy Knudtsen, Senior Housing Policy Planner
DATE: June 24, 1997
.SUBJECT: UPDATE to the Analysis of the Public Works Seasonal Housing Costs
Bids for the construction of the 24 units Public Works Scasonal Housing Development have been
submitted and the cost of the project is $2,5000, which is less than the final cstimatc provided
in carly May. 5
Thc brcakdown of this figurc is as follows:
= Sitc work and czcavation 609,500
Building and parking construction 1,604,694
Fcc 219,850
. Opcn spacc 6,180 Vail Vallcy Drivc improvcmcnts adjaccnt 104;005
to thc administration building .
= Total 2,545,000
`This figure docs not includc improvcmcnts to Vail Vallcy Drivc in thc vicinity of the tunncl. Thc
cost of those improvements is estimated to be $480,000 and is scheduled for a later year.
In each of the examplcs listcd in thc prcvious mcmo, staff uscd the cost per bedroom as the
comparison. In this case, per bedroom costs and per units costs arc the same. Using the bid
number for thc housing dcvelopment, and excluding thc among for Vail Valley Drivc,
improvcments adjacent to the Administration Building, the cost per bcdroom is $101,708. This
figure assumes single occupancy of the larger, one bedroom units.
As staff prepared the earlicr memo, we believed the cost would come in higher than what has been
submittcd. Rclative to other options and othcr cfforts, staff continues to believe .that the project is
worthwhile and recommcnds approval.
cv5 cj•rq• jn Mr,r
„
TOWN OF VAIL
~
Office of the Town Manager
75 South Frontage Road
vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157
TM
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager
DATE: June 24, 1997
RE: Town of Vail/Vail Associates Community Task Force
As you are aware the TOVNA Community Task Force was created in March, 1995 following
execution of our Managed Growth Agreement with Vail Associates. The mission and purpose of
the Task Force is to:
? Explore mechanisms to better utilize the existing resources during the non-peak periods
and recommend a plan of action.
? To seek out ways to coordinate events and pricing with the business community, the Vail
Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau, and the Vail Valley Foundation to enhance non-peak
period visitation.
The TOV/VA agreement calls forthe Task Force to be comprised of community residents, business
owners, and members of the Assessment Committee' and should meet at least four times per year.
The Task Force has been meeting for approximately two years. During this time it has achieved
some successes. Other endeavors have not been as successful as we had hoped.
In order to increase the effectiveness of the Task Force, it is my intention to work with the Mayor
and other members of the Task Force to modify the Task Force structure to better accomplish its
mission. The original mission and purpose would remain in tact. However, representation on the
Task Force would be expanded to include additional constituencies.
1The TOVNA Growth Management Agreanent elso established an Assasment Committee to monitor peak period usa. The Assasment Committee was comprised of two
representatives from the TOV and two from VA. It was to meet periodically during the ski season and on an ad hoc basis if and when the 19,900 SAOT is exceeded.
L~ RECYCLEUPAPER
Representation/membership on the Task Force would be as follows:
TOV Bob Armour, Bob McLaurin, Rob Ford
VA Chris Ryman, Chris Jarnot
WTCB Frank Johnson
Lodging To be appointed
Village Merchants To be appointed
Lionshead Merchants To be appointed
. Restaurants To be appointed
Vail Valley Foundation To be appointed
Chamber To be appointed Vail Recreation District To be appointed
Community at Large To be appointed
New entities that would be added to the Task Force include, the Vail Recreation District, the
Chamber, and the Vail Valley Foundation. Additionally, we are proposing that two "at large" seats
be allocated. The Task Force would be staffed with support from Suzanne Silverthorn, Robin Litt,
and Chris Cares of RRC.
It is our intention to meet with each of these groups to ask them to submit a representative who will
serve as a liaison befinreen the Community Task Force and their respective groups. It is anticipated
that the two "at large" seats would be appointed by the Vail Town Council following a public
application process.
The proposed agenda for the Task Force is as follows:
. Summer - Focus on early season non-peak period.
Fall - Focus on January/February non-peak period.
Winter - Focus on spring ski season non-peak period.
Spring - Focus on summer.
If you do not object, I would like to implement these changes in the next few weeks. I look forward
to discussing this matter with you.
RWM/aw
xc: Robin Litt Suzanne Silverthorn
Chris Cares
- RECEIVED JUN 1 ~ 1997
= HAYNES
MECHAN/CAL
~ = SYSTEMS
June 16, 1997
The Town Council
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CQ 81657
Reference: Property Owners Objection to the Stream Walk
Gentlemen:
As an owner of property in The Talisman Condominium, I would like to express my
objection to the construction of the Stream Wa1k.
Ordinances and amendments for over thirty-five years have been on the town books
addressing the use of areas paralleling Gare Creek. As recently as 1993, the town council
voted overwhelming in favor of supporting the existing ordinance and amendme.nts.
The views expressed by the 1993 turndown clearly reflect the views of the constituency
that the town council represents. This view today, as it was in 1993, should be respected
and the Stream Walk issue should, once again, be defeated and permanently be removed
from further consideration.
Very truly your ,
Fred Haynes
H&W Properties - Tnit # 190, Talisman Condominiums, Vail, CO
cc: Tom Saalfeld - Ptarmigan Management
F:061697vc
5654 Greenwood P/aza B/vd. • Greenwood Village, Co/orado 80111-2385 • 303 / 779-0781 • 303 / 779-0714 (FAX)
\
TOWN OF YAIL
75 Soutb Frontage Road Department of Public Works/Transportation
Yail, Colorado 81657
303-479-21581FAX 303-479-2166
_ June 12, 1997
Mr. Gordon Crown
P.O. Box 601
Vail, CO 81658
Dear NTr. Crown,
Just a short note to let you know I appreciate and share your concem regardina the lack of
lighting on the North Frontaae Road Bike Path. I do foresee us adding lights in the future but
cannot give you a definite time frame. As mentioned in my previous letter,
I will add this request to the project list in 1998, and it will compete with other projects for
funding in the Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund (RETT).
As always, public safety is a top criteria in evaluating potential projects. Please contact me if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
La . Grafel, irector
Department of Public Works/Transportation
cc: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager
Bob Armour, Mayor, Town of Vail
Town Council
RECEIVED JUN 1 3 1997 16 a b
Record runners
Cool weather was a blessing for the record ~
number of athletes.in the m Steamboat Marathon.
~
s 4, #:r~r1!_;,T4'I~1c:
Wednesday, June 11, 1997 V~'71; 7 i;: R~~ 50 cents
va?, co 8i6,?
I - _ - - . Xc: T~-
.
.
~
Cr
y
-
se~
v
'Y
A a.ys Off
st$10 million' hote.1 be ing. built
Deborah Olsen Staff writer In Steamboat Springs, voters are being asked to approve a DDA that could fund ~
The vote to form a Downtown similar projects, except for the recreation `
Development Authority in Mt. Crested center. Local DDA proponents have also
; Butte was 36-16. suggested the possibility of funding new
Town manager Chuck Stearns figures schools, pedestrian walkways,, a transit
he could probably list, by name, the voters center and a transfer lift that would take
on either side of the issue. people from the ski area remote parking lot
Steamboat Springs City Council's to the Gondola Transit Center.
decision to hold a similar election here on Funding for DDAs, as described by
- ' Tuesday, June 24, has prompted locals on state statute, comes from Tax Increment
either side of the issue to point to Mt. Financing, which generates revenues from
Crested Butte's authority. new development within a DDA district
A number of comparisons and contrasts without a property or sales tax increase.
can be made between the two Western State law allows the property and/or
Slope communities. Mt. Crested Butte is sales taxes from new development within
located at :,the base of Crested Butte Ski the DDA boundaries to be allocated to the
Area and consists mainly of retail space, DDA, instead of being distributed to the
two hotels plus one in the works, three normal taxing jurisdictions. In Steamboat's
smaller lodges, vacant land and limited res- case, this would include Routt County, the
idential space. school district, the library district and
A three-mile corridor connects Mt. Colorado Mountain College, among others.
Crested Butte to the old town of Crested In Mt. Crested Butte, the DDA district
Butte, which is a historic district that includes approximately 140 acres of land,
~ includes single-family residences and a few about one-sixth of the total land in the
small lodges and bed & breakfasts that ben- town.
efit from the ski area. i~
Unlike Steamboat SPrings, where both hour,I can walk around this area in about an
~ Stearns said, adding that it onl y '
Old T o w n a n dt h e m o u n t a i n a r e p a rt o f t h e t a kes that long because some of the terrain
same city, Mt. Crested Butte and Crested is steep.
Buite are separate municipalities. The Mt. Crested Butte DDA covers
Mt. Crested Butte residents voted to about 45 percent of the town's assessed
support a DDA last APril, and the authority valuation; it re resents 7.23
P pereent of the.
has since reeeived appioval from the town county's valuation and 8.45 percenr of the
council for a general plan of development school district's valuation.
t h a t i n ci u d e s possi bi li ties for par king struc- Steamboat Springs City Manager Van
tures, a recreation center, commercia] space James says the local boundaries would.
and/or a convention center. ~
- include about 45 percent of Steamboat's
Tyler Arroyo/Stemnboat Pilot The first priority, Stearns said, will be valuation. Routt County Commissioner ~
Rlver during the river fest;val to hire an urban design consultant who can Nancy Stahoviak says it vanslates to about
guide the council in ranking the projects to
~ be built with DDA funds. ? See Mount Crosted Butte: 2A
sioners .
W F RPflrnW1 r1 Q ~
. . - . . . . . i _r.~
. ` , . . . ,
June 11, 1997 . ? . .
Mount Crested Buite
FLYING F'ROGS
~ ~ ? Continue~ from: lA . r 27 percent, of the county's assessed ponents first introduced the subject
lnin g Costo valuation, and school board mem- at a city council meering in April,
As the time to buy! ber Jim Gill says the DDA would approximately three months before
encompass 38 percent of the the vote will be held in Steamboat.
~ today for information assessed valuation in the Steamboat No vote of the general elec- ~~-these amazing zero down school district. torate has yet been , held in Mt.
:)n the purchase of your In Mt. Crested Butte's DDA, Crested Butte. Money began accu-
ry residence! the town decided to match TIF . mulating in DDA coffers as soon as
irecK:879-5$$$ money from property tax with 1 the plan of development received
percent of the town's sales tax. approval from the . town council,
Each of the taxing entities from and the authority is waiting.to see
A which funds would be diverted spoke how quickly the funds can be raised "k='.:
out against Mt. Crested Butte's DDA, before bonding for.money.for.a spe-
' Stearns said. "It was definitely cific project. Only then would a
D opposed by all the other taxing juris- vote be held, Stearns said.
e'' ' dictions, some more vigorousiy than Im Stearriboat Springs; propo-
~
. others. We involved all of the other nents tiave said that they, plan to put
taxing jurisdictions and ttiey never a DDA bond issue on theNovember
bought into it." election ballot, if ~:the authority
In Steamboat, representatives receives approval from voters in the ;
from the county and the school dis- district on Jun~.24 and city council
trict have said they need more infor- subsequently approves : a.plan of
mation before they can support the.. development.: ;It --:is. ;important to
• Storage Rooms proposal. They both _have voiced note, however;', thei't- TIF
;'funding
• LI'11e11 CIOSefS serious concerns about it, too.., :-would commenc.e, :as s.oon as the
In Mt. Crested Butte, the DDA plan , of, development. is approved;
• Pantries district was redrawn to include a fire no city-wide vote would be ri eeded
• laundry Rooms station within its boundaries. The for that to happen, Stearns said. ,
proposed boundaries for a Steambaat , If Stearns could say one thing
• Mlldl'00111S . DDA were redrawn..to include the''`" to,r Steamboat Springs voters, . it
• Bedroom .Closets potential school site at Whisder Paik;~ 'would be this: ~ .
the Human Services Centerand the "`.`DDAs are part of, the;public
• Garages high school property. Also, James;,:"policy, in~so many state'.laws for-a
pledged that the city would take ~-;,reason. They •have, worked well
O~ whatever legal recourse :it could : to. throughout=. :the country. ,aiid they
~roWW~ . prevent school district funding'from.'-'have supported reflevelopment. ,
being harmed by the,DDA. Your. concerns . are. unfounded as .
CUSTOM CLOSETS The vote to form a DDA in Mt. "'.long as ihe DDA proves ifself to be •'~u~~:f4"~;~,~°"We put a lof into a lifHe room" ' Crested Butte was held within sixa'good partner. The problem,s come RileY Agudslo and' `
_ .
months of the first discussion of it; . when authorities get ;,too ~greedy, pOg In
Stearns said. Steamboat DDA pro- ' and they can get greedy."_ Gondols Square'0=8
.~=s~
. . ' . . . • . a; . .?`j~'• .
~ A nR.9. . . 0.. . 1
St'eamboat~S pr
: . :
. .
RE ~
Look for the red tags throughout 4
-for extra-specjai savin on 'at
, ~ - "•'ri rt. Cl~~ ti•..aW IIWi(~!... .Utti~ L"J:li~'•!i: 'i: :.21:~53.
i1J
6 1 y 163 1'1
h '
' ~ .
k ' . F
•
~
:
_ .
- ~ 119999 ~
ft. 12"M .
saye 1100
Craftsman 15. 2-in. I
' awn
- tractor. Turbo cooled Platinum
engine and 6-speed fender shift.
25852/802. Tiaclas reQuire wme a
ssembly'
~ Hydrostatic drive model,
30/803. 149199, $ears low price
. „ .
s,-, ` • -
._L,.s,Y
. .13
. . - . 1
4IL
TOWN O75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657 _
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 17, 1997
Contact: Officer Tom Sheely, 479-2200
TOV Police Department
VAIL POLICE TO REWARD SAFETY-CONSCIOUS BICYCLISTS
WHO FOLLOW RULES OF THE ROAD THIS SUMMER
(Vail)--The Vail Police Department wiil approach bicycle safety this summer with a new
community outreach program that rewards law-abiding cyclists. Beginning next Monday (6-23)
and extending through fhe summer, police officers wil( not onty issue tickets to riders in vio/ation
of traffic regulations. They'll also issue "tickets" to those exhibiting safe bicycle riding habits.
The tickets are redeemable for discounts, free food and merchandise at various West Vail
businesses.
The program was created by Officer Tom Sheely to raise awareness about the rules of the
road. "Bicycle riders must follow the same traffic laws as motor vehicle operators, including
, stopping at stop signs, yielding to pedestrians, signaling turns and using proper safety
equipment such as lights and reflectors," Sheely said. "We think it makes sense to reward safe
riding practices so other riders can model these behaviors."
Sheely has teamed up with 10 West Vail businesses who are supporting the program with
prizes and discounts: Ace Hardware, Dairy Queen, Dancing Bear, Eve's Print Shop,
McDonald's, Mickey's Mountain Pizza, Poppyseeds Bakery, Subway, Taco Bell and Wendy's.
Sheely said the bicycle safety program will be implemented townwide. However, officers will
be paying particular attention to the Vail Village and Lionshead pedestrian areas, in which
bicyclists are required to slow down due to competing uses of the roadways.
Also, Sheely says there is an extra dimension to safety awareness this summer because of the
(more)
L~~ RECYCLEDPAPER
Bike Rewards/Add 1
volume of bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists converging around the West Vail road
construction and the soon-to-be-completed Dowd Junction bike path. _
Officers will have the discretion to issue the reward "tickets" while on foot, on a mountain bike
or from their patrol car.
For more information, contact Sheely at 479-2200.
# # #
~
d ~
u
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
. MEDIA ADVISORY
June 18, 1997
Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn,.479-2115
Community Information Office
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR JUNE 17
Work Session Briefs
Council members present: Armour, Ford, Jewett, Kurz, Navas
--Site Visit and Discussion of Buffehr Creek Park Use
Following a site visit, a discussion with neighborhood representatives and review of a
recommendation from the town's insurance broker, Councilmembers voted 5-0 to
remove a dirt bicycle track which had been constructed (without permission) on Town
of Vail property adjacent to Buffehr Creek Park. In voting for the track's immediate
removal, Council members sympathized with the users but said they had no other
choice but to discontinue use of the track due to liability concerns. The town's
insurance broker, Bill Adams, raised liability concerns about the track, especially for
younger users who may not be old enough to realize the dangers involved. A separate
insurance policy was estimated at $10,000 to $25,000. To minimize the risk, Adams
suggested modifying the track to remove the jumps. But Councilmembers feared a
re-worked track could cause additional liability to the town. Adams said his bike track
concerns were not meant to discourage the community's exploration of a possible
skateboard park in Vail. ThaYs because skateboard parks have engineering standards
and other specifications approved by insurance carriers. Also yesterday, the Council
directed staff to mow the lot and asked that a dirt bicycle course continue to be
included on a list of possibilities for the property's future use. The town purchased the
quarter-acre parcel last June for $190,165 in an effort to expand West Vail's
recreation/open space and to further enhance and enlarge the existing Buffehr Creek
Park for the current neighborhood, as well as to include the new Vail Commons
homeowners. The town's timetable includes a public process to identify uses for the
park during 1998, with construction (if needed) occurring in 1999. For more
information, contact Assistant Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer at 479-2113.
--Brew-Pub Site Visit
The Council visited the gondola building in Lionshead in preparation for discussion of a
conditional use permit for operation of a brew-pub on the building's second floor. The
request, which had been approved by the Planning & Environmental Commission, was
upheld by a vote of 4-1 at the evening meeting. See evening meeting for details, or
contact Dominic Mauriello in the Community Development Department at 479-2148.
(more)
RECYCLEDPAPER
d
TOV Council Highlights/Add1
--Presentation of Silver Wreath of Valor to Fred Carsky
Acting Police Chief Jeff Layman presented the silver wreath of valor award to Fred
Carsky, a community service officer for the town. Carsky was recognized for an
incident that occurred last March when he stopped a run-away horse carriage in Vail
Village. Carsky chased after the carriage, jumped on, grabbed the reins and steered
the horse into a dead end driveway, preventing serious injury to bystanders. The silver
wreath of valor is the second highest award among six levels of recognition given by
the department. It recognized an act involving risk to the life or physical safety of an
employee, an officer of another police department, or a civilian. For more information,
contact Sgt. Steve Erickson at 479-2249.
--Austria Haus SDD
In preparation for the evening meeting, the Council reviewed the Austria Haus SDD
proposal. Most of the discussion focused on the applicant's financial obtigations
associated with off-site improvements. Gordon Pierce, representing the applicant,
asked that a provision to place $100,000 into an escrow account for the possible
construction of a streamwalk be removed from the agreement. Pierce said a town
requirement to improve the streambank was more than adequate in addressing the
streambank issue. He said the escrow provision was creating an unnecessary red flag
for the project. Councilman Rob Ford asked that the project's swimming pool be
relocated to accommodate concerns expressed by the adjoining property owners and
that the streamwalk escrow provision be removed. Also, during the afternoon session,
Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners Association asked that a streambank
restoration plan be presented for review during second reading of the ordinance. Later
in the evening, the Council voted 5-0 on first reading to approve the SDD with nine
conditions, including removal of any references to a streamwalk. See evening meeting
briefs for more information, or contact George Ruther in the Community Development
Department at 479-2145.
--Contribution Requests
The Council agreed to use a process developed last year for contribution requests from
outside agencies for the 1998 budget. Interested applicants will be asked to contact
the town by mail, fax or phone to request an application. All applications will then be
mailed out on the same day and will be due back to the town four weeks later. The
applications will be reviewed by staff and Council, and available funds will be awarded.
The process eliminates presentations given by applicants in previous years. The town
usually awards approximately $100,000 in discretionary dollars to outside groups.
Typically, requests out-number the dollars earmarked by two to one. Funding
decisions are based on proposals that support: 1) a positive, sustained economic
climate; and 2) an environmentally sensitive high quality of life. For more information,
contact Christine Anderson in the Finance Department at 479-2119.
--Information Update
Public Works Director Larry Grafel said the Dowd Junction bike path is currently being
paved and should be ready for use by week's end. Also, he said the West Vail
(more)
~
TOV Council Highlights/Add2
roundabouts project is running on schedule, with reopening of the underpass occurring
June 20. The Marriott Streamside bridge has been removed and will be recycled and
put to use on bike paths throughout the state, he said. Paving and curb and gutter
work.will be occurring on the intersection's north side this week.
--Other
In response to last week's Council request regarding the outdoor display of
_ merchandise on Town of Vail property, Dirk Mason, a planner in the Community
Development Department, gave a brief update on his research. Following a walk- -
through of Vail Village and Lionshead, Mason said it appears between 50 and 60
stores are displaying outdoor merchandise. He said the next step will be to determine
which of the businesses are using town property for their displays. Because of this
information, there could be a review of the outdoor displays regulation. The issue
surfaced at last week's work session when the owner of a Lionshead bike rental shop
asked the town to consider allowing him to lease town property to display his shop's
bikes. Councilmembers said last week they'll consider possible leasing criteria once
the extent of the problem is understood. For more information, contact Mason at
479-2150.
--After hearing an update on the West Vail bike path project from Town Manager Bob
McLaurin, the Council agreed to authorize a contract for construction. Low bidder is
Continental West Constructors with a price of $320,000. The path will extend from the
West Vail interchange to Donovan Park, where it will connect with the existing path.
--Assistant Town Manger Pam Brandmeyer gave a brief report on improvements
needed at the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens to comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA). She said the improvements would be the responsibility of the Alpine
Garden Foundation.
--In reviewing the town manager's report, Council members expressed concern about
interest by TCI Cablevision of the Rockies to revisit the current franchise agreement.
The 15-year agreement, signed in 1994, provided for a new system that would utilize a
fiber optic technology to improve signal reception and provide increased channel
capacity. The deadline for the system rebuild is Jan. 5, 1998. Several weeks ago, TCI
expressed interest in eliminating the system rebuild by providing increased channel
capacity through "digital compression technology." Town Manager Bob McLaurin said
a change would require a modification of the franchise agreement and would require
approval of the Town Council. McLaurin says he's waiting for a reply from TCI.
Evening Session Briefs
Council members present: Armour, Ford, Jewett, Kurz, Navas
--Citizen Participation
There was no citizen participation.
(more)
i
- :
TOV Highlights/Add 3
--Audited Financial Statements
The Council accepted the audited financial statements for 1996 from auditor Jerry
McMahon of McMahon and Associates. McMahon commended the town's Finance
Department for exceptional work, noting the independent review found no material
weaknesses in internal controls. The auditors issued a clean audit opinion.
--Austria Haus SDD
The Council voted 5-0 to approve first reading of the Austria Haus Special
Development District. There were nine conditions attached to the approval: -
• Work with the Village Center residents to move the outdoor pool to the east.
• Create a belvedere (look-out area) in Slifer Square as part of the off-site
improvements.
• Install the infrastructure for heated pavers at the west end of Slifer Square.
• Eliminate a provision in the ordinance that called for the applicant not to
remonstrate against a streamwalk should the town choose to expand the
streamwalk in the future.
• Include a list of off-site improvements to the ordinance for second reading.
• Include a streambank restoration plan to the ordinance for second reading.
• Modify condition number seven to include the words "adjacent to" the
underground parking structure.
• Remove an off-site improvement requirement to place $100,000 into an escrow
account for the possible construction of a streamwalk along the property.
• Require an amendment to the SDD should the applicant wish to transfer any of
, its employee housing deed restrictions to another site.
The scope of the project has been scaled down considerably from the applicant's
previous proposal. For example, 5,205 sq. ft. of GRFA has been removed; the
maximum building height was reduced to 48 ft.; and the number of building stories was
reduced from five to four. The project now includes 18 member-owned fractional fee
club units., 25 hotel rooms and one on-site manager's residence, plus 5,402 sq. ft. of
new commercial/retail space, meeting room facilities, an outdoor pool and other
accessory facilities commonly associated with hotels and lodges. During public input,
Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners Association thanked the Council for its
role in reworking the proposal and urged the town to refine its SDD process. He also
asked that the Vail Village Master plan be updated to include a rezoning of the
property, as well as the Vail Athletic Club and Mountain Haus sites. Also appearing
before the Council was Gary McDaniel of the Village Center Condominium Association.
McDaniel stated the Center's opposition to a streamwalk and said the group was
disappointed to hear that a swimming pool had been added to the Austria Haus project
at such a late date. Following the project's first-round approval, Mayor Bob Armour
said he took responsibility for the problems associated with the original SDD
application process. He said he and the other Council members didn't want to make the
same mistakes in the future. Armour and other Council members favor becoming
involved in the SDD process at an earlier stage to clarify the Council's expectations.
For more information, contact George Ruther in the Community Development
Department at 479-2145.
(more)
~
r
TOV Council Highlights/Add4
--Lionshead Brew-Pub
The Council voted 4-1 (Ford against) to uphold the Planning and Environmental
Commission approval of a conditional use permit to allow for a brew-pub to be located
on the second floor of the old gondola building in Lionshead. During discussion,
several issues were raised, including a parking-pay-in-lieu requirement of $530,494, or
31 spaces for the site. Councilman Rob Ford objected to the pay-in-lieu requirement,
saying the spaces should be provided on-site. Ford said he was concerned that future
Lionshead redevelopment proposals would rely on the parking-pay-in-lieu program
rather than providing the spaces on-site. However, other Councilmembers said they
felt comfortable with the request since there was not space on site to provide additional
parking and because the applicant was prepared to contribute to the pay-in-lieu fund
for the amount required. For more information, contact Dominic Mauriello in the
Community Development Department at 479-2148.
--Town Manager's Report
In his town manager's report, Bob McLaurin said a new computer system for the area's
911 dispatch services will be going on line this Friday. Also, McLaurin requested and
received authorization from the Council by a 5-0 vote to spend $1,000 out of council
contingency funds to help with implementation of a Vail Tomorrow project
recommended by the World Class Resort Team. The funding will be used to send a
letter to out-of-town property owners urging them to upgrade their properties used for
short-term rentals.
--Other
Councilman Michael Jewett said he had been receiving complaints from residents on
Lionsridge Loop regarding speeding traffic. He suggested signage such as "children at
play," installing a speed bump or dip, or having the Police Department do radar checks.
Town Manager Bob McLaurin said he'd look into the matter.
UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS
June 24 Work Session
PEC/DRB Review
Community Survey Results with Chris Cares of RRC
Public Works Seasonal Housing Discussion
Lionshead View Corridors
First Quarter Financial Report
July 1 Work Session
Joe Kochera, 25 Year Anniversary
NWCCOG Water Quality/Quantity Update
GRFA Discussion
July 1 Evening Meeting
Second Reading, Ordinance #12, Austria Haus SDD
Lionshead View Corridors
(more)
~
,
,
TOV Highlights/5
July 8 Work Session
DRB Review
Parki ng Fees
# # #
.r;. . _ _ . . . - . . . - isine
-BANDWAGON: Four Colorado firms ready IPOs this week. 3B ~
PARTNERS: Philips, Lucent form telephone venture. 3B SLIGHT SLIP: Blue chips close u
lower for second day. 9B 14
, , 11997
gets he,lp -on
. t ¦ -
ness.- Facing huge stock sale MAGNESS DEAL -
to pay estate taxes' firm ~3 - ~ ~ Y4-~~q- - 1. ¦~,..s~~~q.
~'i~3+~~j ~~'W
cuts a ~weetheart deal Q~~~~~~
By John Accola Ltrli
M+~~~
Rocky rLlountain iVews Staff Wriier bas
J~~-~
When it comes to a$500 million ht~`~~~`~~~'~ ' :z~
~_W~2- -
tax crunch, it helps to have friends
1~.
on Wall Street. ;R TCI ~
Denver's .Tele-Communications j y ~
Inc., averting a fire sale of its super-
voting stock, has lined up M A
errill
Lynch and Le
hman Brothers to help
v
pay the mammoth taxes on the' 1C
estate of company founder Bob J. ~
Ma ~ (~~I ~
ess.
It's a classic -case of TCI fi- - ~'bar~n~i'i~~of tehrn~.ctVB~hers~c ~ be"clo.
nesse," said Tom wolzien, a New ~
~a
share
York media analyst frmis-agreed ttkho['~~ .90
~Magness 72 died in November, y' -
° g ~ k~asa~r~on b bac?gt~a~~'
leaving all but about $70 million of a ~ siVic
. $1 billion-plus stock and real estate ~ a
„ nvestrrs~ ~ y : saidm .
fortune to sons Kim and Gary. The
two brothers have until Aug. 15 to t; ±.he
f ~ LEHMANBRO'IT~RS - :.Pl°,e=
estimated $500 million tax
pay an i76-~`
b i ll o n t h e i r i n h e rit a n c e, t h e b u l k o f $52 8 65'
it in TCI stock with a 40 percent r r i l l l. ch
~
voting stake. n a,%
Li quidatin g t h o s e s h a r e s o n t h e
o z~ ~ ~
pen market could hammer TCI's L'~~.- o r
stock price, which closed TuesdaY 77~
OVla.es~esca#e:uses,Pro.dsoftnWsale~x~.~~~~ -~po~u~lat
at $17, up 28 percent for the yeaz
Instead; the estate's executors ~ -
have agreed to an unusual stock-for- Rocky Mounmin rveM,s the Mr
cash swap in which the investment Under the new deal, the Magness uidiry it needs, and it has done so
?`banks will pay. the estate nearly estate is exchanging 30.5 million without the disruption that a sale of . -=.*e $529 million for a block of stock that TCI Class B super-voting shares for this magnitude .might create in the the cable-TV conglomerate can buy the same number of Class A com- public market," said Malone, TCI's • United
back two years from now mon shares, ensuring Malone's con- largest individual shareholder with. 0: sr:
The deal also follows an agree- trol of the company. just.under 30 percent of the voting To'~nt
ment nearly 10 years ago in which In turn, the estate will sell to stock.
Magness promised. TCI Chairman 1Vlerrill Lynch and Lehman 32 mil- -As for TCI, "we have control of a.. The
John Malone the right of first refusal lion Class A shares for $528.6 mil- very valuable block of voting stock." - fe~r
on any shares that are sold out of, lion, or $16.52 each.
the Magness estate. "The estate has received the liq- ~ See TCI on 20
mqw tm mo _ M
. ..r~ ~ _ . _ . _ 0: . ~
-i5 •S. its chairman; the credif.
100 5t27.4e s,o2.s2 , ~ r , • SitiO' - -
. ouse Banking Committee voted ' But proponents of the bipartisan -provision
~oo s191.23 siss.as overwhelmingly Tuesday to adopt amendment said the change is LaFalce, D-T
00 $254.98 s204.64 a Sweeping measure to allow needed to catch up with the reali- Democrafs ?
00 s318.72 s255.80 banks to buy commercial compa- ties of the fast-changing financial supgort:fo4ti
lher amounts available- ..;~=,y I11eS, tearing down the traditional world. legl$13t10II:.._
do Ho~neowners Since 195s walls between the two arenas. "We must be forward-thinking : Clinton-adm
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan in our approach to (financial) mod- -.if `the::` F
Greenspan.had recently urged the ernization," said Rep. Marge . included.~;;.
panel to approve legislation allow- Roukema, R-N.J. She called the "The con:
ing mergers of banks and other amendment "a small, incremental tected," L`aF
. financial businesses but to post= step to mixing-banking and com- , ference:-:Iie
y , ...,;K. pone action on the more radical merce." proposed~;cc
step of letting banks and com~er- Under the provision, a bank- "will -_be~hi:
cial companies combine. holding company would be allowed shaping'~the
Rep. - Jim Leach, R-Iowa, the to invest up to 15 percent of its . on the..bat~tc
- ~ t ~ ~-;r committee's . . chairman, warned , ~ass domestic revenue in a com- . . ' ~""tr ~''`t" ,r~.~.. ,-'z~~~_+' ~+.a;~~~ _ ! ¦
a)one's 0"'11
. n(L
Deincreasi- als M
B0" W~~ voti ng control to
f" - TCI from iB "But the bottom line is TCI con-
~_U~~~~~~~ - trols the bulk of super-voting
- . . : . ' ._•.•C
, TCI said Lehman and Merrill shares and has a twayear window ~0°' ~5
wi71 get 16 million shares each. to figure out what to do with the -
Those shares w~71_then be placed in Class A shares."
itM ofi E53(1-M~ CoUpesr453Q0 and - wasfut~c
, ~ the brokerages' fieasuries, ~ving What's in it for the inves~ent of . c~+edi~ca
ets ~r~ au~~-yeac fifstoW TCI a twayear ophon to buy them bankers? .~=~:p~
es as fow back at the same price. The deal is' TCI is paying the two Wall 9~.~PF
especially sweet for Malone. He . Street firms interest of roughly 7-Ong ~r ~F
~p irros~ av_aifable _ won't have to lay out cash for the percent ~~i~~E
44d#ItabIE _ estate's super-voting shares, which But Kersch speculates there is • AssoeiatiaKs~
nGt applt'Cable _ wM be taken off the market, and his more, possibly an agreement that _ It sai".:
' overall voting control rises from ensures the investment bankers card accou
~W~:~EqueS~ tTO g1~t5;~ n~ g~m~cks~ 16.9 percent to 19.7 percen~. will be tapped by TCI for future the first~.
Denver telecommunications an- public stock deals. from the recc
fearly ma~ked on ~ y F - alyst-~Chuck Kersch said the deal "Merrill Lynch. and Lehman fourth qu'°`"~rte
honed by the. estate's executors, aren't going to come up with $529 quarter-&4:
TCI director ponne Fisher and million if they don/t see a way to accoun , wf
le comes "wrth tfie - - University of Denver Chancellor make a good return on their mon- ments.
ipeciatty, Se~riee ~free Dan xitct~e, seems the most work- ey, he said. - It may: h
able plan for resolving the 55 per- Keeping the TCI super-voting . but ther~;ar
C as 1Gn ~S Ou;own or cent tax bite. incurred by the largest shares out of the public market also sky," sai.J~
gx estate in Colorado history. avoids buyer confusion at a time : economiff'fo;
ehiele, free Saturday car ~LITLf . Ile estate retains about $460 when TCI is trying to make its Pay_meuts ,
nueh more~. - _ L Us million programming and satellite stock more appealing and less com- quent ~en t
: ` holdings through TCI's separately plex to investors. days ove
m~ - = - traded Liberty Media and Tsat "It's becoming more like a tra- Since~:199
stock as well as a good chunk of the ditional common equity company," workinif~t6
~ - parent company said Ted Henderson, an analyst for debt oa.tliek
"The Magness estate still owns Janco Partners in DenveL ..for lateayi
in ea~cess of 2 million shares of TCI frequen c
Class A stock and 286,000 shares of ' Associated Press contributed to thu ing credttlitn
9339 _ super-voting stock," Kersch noted. repork tom
_ ZT! =
.ee?.~, Me"-~L~.i~.m~
19-97 CLEJ&MMNCE.'
IONARCM VOLVO'S 5EM1-ANNUAL COURTESY CAR & pElY10~A.~.
sale
MSRP Discount Price COURTESY CARS MSRP Discoun
i #8316 $27,205 $2500 $24,705 ~ rg
P-598 '97 VOWO 855CTAS SK miles, ~$35,310 1490C
IGTAS #8446 $32,390 $2900 $291,490 P_621 '97 VOLVO 8546TAS 4K miles $31,395 9:
;TO #8366 . $29,020 ~2700 - Z6,3Z0 .
iTOS #8488 $ 31, 800 $ 3000 , ~
lT-5 #8540 $37,385 $4400 $32,985 P'622 97 VOLVO 854A 3K miles $29,760 ::~387~
lT-5 #8325 $38,790 $4500 $34,290 P-623 '97 VOLVO 855CLT Leather 6K miles $36,120 $423'.
' . .
1997 Statehouse Conference On Small Business
Co-cha=rs
Lina8 s. i.oaenkamper
s„„rr a- a-u
Carol O'Dowd
Womn1 Emromic Iknebpment Counei!
SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS URGED TO ATTEND... -
~a
dlinorify B-Aduimry Counci!
WHAT: . the Vail Regional Conference in prepazation for the 1997 Statehouse Conference on
Small Business. The Statehouse Conference provides a forum for small business owners
to develop an acrion agenda for the State of Colorado by identifying, discussing and ° .
proposing solurions for problems which, if resolved, would enhance the prosperity of their businesses. Issues considered at regional conferences throughout the state are
brought to the Statehouse Conference where delegates refine them into a smallbusiness agenda which will be lobbied during the 19981egislative session and presented
to other appropriate decision-makers. Delegates elected at the Vail Regional .
Conference will join those elected at other regional meetings and appointed by State
Legislators and the Governor. -
WHO: Small business owners who want to have a voice in public policy issues impacting small
business.
WHY: To influence public policy in Colorado
To be elected as a delegate to the Statehouse Conference
WHEN: Monday, August 18, 2- 6 p.m.
WHERE: Town of Vail Chambers, 75 South Frontage Rd., Vail, Co. 81657
HOW: Ca11 Debbie Ducic at 970-479-I851 and ask for a registration fornt. Or send form below.
Cost is $5. Walk-in registrations @$7 also accepted as space is available.
CONTACT: Debbie Ducic, 970 479-1851 f
S! I will attend the regional meeting for the 1997 Statehouse Conference on Sma11 Business!
Enclosed please find a check for $ ($5.00 per person)
lease fll out form or attach business card. Make checks payable to 1997 Statehouse Conference on
Small Business, and mail to: Debbie Ducic, P.O. Box 4431, Vail, CO. 81658,
Name Phone
CompanY Fax
Address e-mail
City, Zip ( attach additional names on a separate sheet of paper)
at issues are you planning to bring to this meeting ( ranked in order
1.
13515 Cascade Street • Broomfield, Colorado 80020
RECE{~~ ~ ~ r n ~..±,.1 r! ^ i
vail X G'
~~it~`J
. Alptne
Garden
Foundahon
`~6
June 14, 1997 , , ; ~ ~
V N1i
Mr. Bob Armour
Mayor, Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road ,
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Bob:
Translating our vision of Betty Ford Alpine Gardens into the reality of an
environmental education center has been a more difficult task than I and other
members of the Board imagined... especially when the garden itself is now a
beautiful and beloved feature of Vail's summer landscape.
Insider, a special newsletter created to communicate with you and other Friends of
Betty Ford, has outlined the Town of Vail process to update the master plan for
Ford Park and earlier public opposition to our underground building within Betty
Ford Alpine Gardens. As a compromise, the Town Council offered (and we
accepted) a new site for our Education Center across Gore Creek on the town
shuttle bus route. (Please call me if you would like copies of these letters.)
The Town of Vail has been very generous to Betty Ford Alpine Gardens,
providing the land for both the gardens and future center. The lease for the garden site has recently been executed, and the Town has signed a letter of
commitment to a second long-term lease for the Education Center site. That lease
is currently being negotiated. Despite clear endorsement, encouragement, and
support to date, financial constraints and other priorities of the Town have made it
necessary for the Council to deny financial support to construct an underground
parking facility at the site at the present time. We are disappointed because this
underground facility was an integral part of the "consensus plan" we had
developed with input from Town staff and our Ford Park neighbors. We are once
again "back to the drawing board" to develop an approvable site plan to shepherd
through the Town of Vail approval process.
We realize how much our plans have changed since your investment in our vision, and it would appear that changes are, not yet over. We have been as frustrated by
"Our floiuers in the suninaer are as glorroats as our snoiu in the ruinter. "
183 GORE CREEK DRIVE • VAIL, COLORADO 81657 • 970.476.0103
~ Prmieoon
RetVCle(7 PaDe'
delays as you are, but we are confident that there is a solution that will meet
everyone's need. My commitment and that of other Board members to making
this happen for Betty Ford and the Vail Valley has not changed, and we are doing
all that we can to make this building happen as soon as it can.
In the meantime, the funds you and 66 other Friends of Betty Ford have entrusted
to us are safely tucked in a special FirstBank of Vail account, awaiting their release
to get to work on construction of the Education Center. Capital expenditures to
date have come from other contributions and have been limited to direct expenses
associated with site design, architectural plans, and supporting activ'ities that will
accomplish these plans for the Center.
I would be glad to talk further with you as the new plans evolve. I am personally
very grateful for your generosity and continuing support. I believe that you know
Vail and understand that new development is not easy in this town. T'he slow,
steady progress of this project is characteristic of the process. With perseverance,
patience, and understanding, it will happen, and you will have helped to make it
possible. _
Sincerely,
~ .
Helen S. Fritch
President of the Board
~
cr,prna, aige,rle„s
Silrer l.rrprne
e Printed on
Recycletl Pao?
X C : Cb4.(vu~- r~G~~.a~~ot
IVEP JUN 199.7 ~ .
C~pRSU
LTD ~ ~
A ,Skirr's Traditiol~
June 18, 1997
Mayor Bob Armour
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mayor Armour,
Thank you for your letter dated May 13, 1997 regarding the "Pazk Free After 3" program. We
are very interested in participating in the afternoon work session on July 8, 1997. Either David,
Jeff, or I will attend.
During the month of March our Village store did $1,779,507 worth of business. Every person
who walked into the store saw the attached sign on one of our four front doors. We received a
very favorable reaction to the "Park Free After 3" program and we hope that it is considered
again next winter.
Sincerely,
a M,LJ
Renie Gorsuch
263 E. Gore Creek Drive, Vail Colorado 81657 970/476-2880 Fax 970/476-4323
y' l)-
_
00
EM EM B E/
F OZEE -PA'10?KI
, .
At t/z
.
.
3 ¦
• • nlue
.
.
0 0
s
~
V
~1 w ~ ~ w • •
1
' RECEIVED JUN 1 ~ .
y 1997
k*Y`1~11. ,
~ ~1 Vail - X~~ Ck.w&k
Alpine 1'
Garden
~ Foundation
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Sammye Meadows
RELEASE DATE: June 13,1997 970-476-0103
Vail Valley Festival of Flowers Lecture & Workshop Series
Features Native Wildflowers
June 21,1997
VAIL, CO: On the third weekend of this summer's Vail Valley Festival of Flowers, the
Summer Solstice, Vail Alpine Garden Foundation offers a workshop on wildflower
identification and a lecture on native plant conservation.
Both talks will take place at Manor Vail Lodge, across Gore Creek from Betty Ford
Alpine Gardens. At 9:00 am, Nicola Ripley, noted aipine plant ecologist and the
Foundation's Education Officer, will conduct a workshop on local wildflower
identification. There is no charge for admission. Following at 11:00 am, Chris Paque of
the Colorado Natural Heritage Program will discuss native plant conservation efforts
across the state. This summer, approximately 25 Foundation volunteers are participating
in Adopt-A-Rare-Plant, a collaboration with the Natural Heritage Program to identify raze
plant communities in Eagle County. Admission for Mr. Paque's lecture is $5.
The Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, a non-profit organization, creates and maintains
Betty Ford Alpine Gardens and promotes public understanding of the unique nature of
high altitude plants through education, research, and local gardening projects. Betty Ford
Alpine Gardens is the highest public botanic garden in North America, encompassing
three distinct gardens, with plans underway for an Alpine Rock Garden. Proceeds of all
Vail Valley Festival of Flowers events fund the care and maintenance of Betty Ford '
Alpine Gardens and its educational programming. Sponsors of the 1997 Summer Lecture & Workshop Series are Eagle River Water &
Sanitation District and Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority. Additional funding is provided by the Vail Valley Foundation and the Stanley Smith Horticultural Trust.
For more information, or to reserve a seat for the June 21 workshop or lecture, please call
the Vail Alpine Garden Foundation at 970-476-0103.
"Our flowers in the sumnaer~are as glorious as our snow in the winter. "
183 GORE CREEK DRIVE • VAIL, COLORADO 87657 • 970.476.0103
Prmteaon
Recycied Paper
0. ~
. .
i
Vai1
Alpine
~ Garden -
Foundation
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Sammye Meadows
RELEASE DATE: June 13,1997 970-476-0103
Mrs. Ford To Present Area Gardening Awards
VAIL, CO: Amateurs and professional area gardeners are vying for awards as the lOth
Annual Vail Valley Festival of Flowers garden competition gets underway. Hosted by
the Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, entries are being accepted now through July 7 at
noon. Judging will take place July 11. .
All contestants will receive a free garden evaluation by this year's team of judges who
will review entries based upon artistic design, use of color, variety of plant material, and
creativity. "Contestants love receiving the free evaluation," says Barbara DeVoe,
chairperson of the judging. "The feedback helps them make changes this year so next .
year their gardens are even more spectacular,". she adds. "The free evaluation also
encourages all area gardeners to learn more about gardening in our high altitude mountain
community."
Gardeners can enter in categories .that include professional, commercial, large & small
residential, first year gardens, container gardens, children's gardens, combination
flower/vegetable gardens, and environmentally friendly gardens. Winners compete for
"traveling" silver bowls and a Grand Prize.
All awards will be given out by Mrs. Betty Ford at "A Midsummer Night," the annual
garden champagne reception hosted by President and Mrs. Ford and Vail Alpine Garden
Foundation. Locals.and visitors are also invited to A Midsummer Night, which will be
held at Betty Ford Alpine Gardens on Saturday, July 12, 1997, from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm.
Guests will enjoy a delightful garden party setting, hors d'oeuvres, complimentary champagne, and music under an open air tent. A Midsummer Night will again precede
Bravo! Colorado's evening concert - this year featuring the Billy Taylor Trio.
Tickets for the benefit are $35 and $70 and are available by calling the Vail Alpine
Garden Foundation at 970-476-0103. The Foundation also has tickets for the Billy Taylor
Trio performance. Mastercard and Visa are accepted.
"Our flowers in the surnmer rrre as glorious as our snow in the avinter. "
183 GORE CREEK DRIVE • VAIL, COLORADO 81657 • 970.476.0103
Pnntea on
~ {7ewCIeA Paoe
~ .
,
1
Vail Valley Festival of Flowers is a month-long celebration.of flowers, with various
events designed to educate and entertain visitors of all ages. The Vail Alpine Garden
Foundation, a non-profit organization, creates and maintains Betty Ford Alpine Gardens
and promotes public understanding of the unique nature of high altitude plants through
education, research, and local gardening projects. Betry Ford Alpine Gardens is the
highest public botanic garden in North America, encompassing three distinct gardens,
with plans underway for an Alpine Rock Garden.
A Midsummer Night is sponsored by the Sitzmark Lodge, Johnson & Wales University,
and West Vail Liquor Mart/Schieffelin & Somerset.
For more information and to reserve tickets, please call the Vail Alpine Garden
Foundation at 970-476-0103. ,
. .
Luplnrrs ar;,enteus 2
Siht-r Ltrpine ,
~ Printed on
Recycled Paper
r
YQ ~T
ll . ~
Alpme
~ Garden
Foundation
NEWS RELEASE
, FOR IMM-EDIATE RELEASE Contact: Sammye Meadows
RELEASE DATE: June 20, 1997 970-476-0103
President and Mrs. Gerald R. Ford to host
A Midsummer Night Benefit July 12, 1997
VAIL, CO: The Vail Alpine Garden Foundation (VAGF) and President and Mrs. Gerald R. Ford announced they will host "A Midsummer Night," an annual champagne reception
to benefit Betty Ford Alpine Gazdens, on Saturday, July 12, 1997, from 4:00 pm to 6:00
pm in the Gardens. The benefit will also honor the Foundation's Vail Valley Festival of
Flowers garden competition winners. .
Guests will enjoy a delightful garden party setting, hors d'oeuvres, complimentary
champagne, and music, under an open air tent. A Midsummer Night will-again precede _
Bravo! Colorado's evening concert - this year featuring the Billy Taylor Trio.
Tickets for the benefit are $35 and $70 and are available by calling the Vail Alpine
Garden Foundation at 970-476-0103. The Foundation also has tickets for the Billy Taylor
Trio performance. Mastercard and Visa are accepted. _
The Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, a non-profit organization, creates and maintains
Betty Ford Alpine Gardens and promotes public understanding of the unique nature of
high altitude plants through education, research, and local gardening projects. Betty Ford
Alpine Gardens is the highest public botanic garden in North America, encompassing
three distinct gardens, with plans underway for an Alpine Rock Garden. All proceeds of
A Midsummer Night fund the care and maintenance of Betty Ford Alpine Gardens.
A Midsummer Night is sponsored by the Sitzmark Lodge, Johnson & Wales University,
and West Vail Liyuor MartlSchieffelin & Somerset.
For more information and, to reserve tickets, please call the Vail Alpine Garden Foundation at 970-476-0103. .
"Ourflowers in the sunzmer are •as glorious as our snow in the iuinter. "
183 GORE CREEK DRIVE - VAIL, COLORADO 61657 • 970.476.0103
~ RePrini¢tlon
wcietl Paper
~ 11ai1
Alptne
~ Garden
Foundation
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Sammye Meadows
RELEASE DATE: June 20,1997 970-476-0103
,
Vail Valley Festival of Flowers Concludes With Wildflower Field Trip, July 13,1997
VAIL, CO: The Vail Alpine Garden Foundation announced today that its Tenth Annual
Vail Valley Festival of Flowers will conclude on Sunday, July 13, 1997, with a
wildflower field trip to Shrine Ridge, high above Vail Pass.
The trip will be guided by Nicola Ripley, noted alpine plant ecologist and the
Foundation's Education Officer. The cost is $5 per person. The trip is limited to 20
people, who will leave from the parking lot at the Vail Pass Visitor Center at 10:00 am
and return at 3:00 pm. Participants should wear sturdy hiking shoes and.bring water,
, sunscreen, extra clothes, and rain gear. Pre-registration is strongly advised. ,
Vail Valley Festival of Flowers is a month-long celebration of flowers, with various
events designed to educate and entertain visitors of all ages. The Vail Alpine Garden
Foundation, a non-profit organization, creates and maintains Betty Ford Alpine Gardens ,
and promotes public understanding of the unique nature of high altitude plants through
education, research, and local gardening projects. Betty Ford Alpine Gardens is the
highest public botanic garden in North America, encompassing three distinct gardens,
with plans underway for an Alpine Rock Garden.
As part of the 1997 Summer Lecture & Workshop Series, the Wildflower Field Trip on
July 13 is sponsored by Eagle River Water & Sanitation District and Upper Eagle
Regional Water Authority. It is also funded in part by grants from the Vail Valley
Foundation and the Stanley Smith Horticultural Trust.
For more information or to register for the Wildflower Field Trip, please call the Vail
Alpine Garden Foundation at 970-476-0103.
"Ourfloruers in the summer are as glorious as our snoru in the tointer. "
183 GORE CREEK DRIVE • VAIL, COLORADO 81657 • 970.476.0103
Pnnleaon
Rerycled Paper
Those who know us RECEI'dEU JU'd ? 0 1907
'
appreciate us 'fhanks to our funders
ASpel1 FOlU9dqh011 Fa, the first tinle sitlce 1've lived here, Aspen Rotarv Cluh A
1, feel optiniistic that the cohintunit is y ~ , ~ _ Aspen Tl~ri~t Sliop , ~LLEY
comin
g ori hoarrl regarcling driig ai1d City of Aspe~~~ RTK£R
,
alcohol issUes. To~~n of Si~ox~n2nss Vilinge ~uG P~ProR
Pitkiri Coiinty ~~T~ON
Tom Farrell, Superintendent Pitkin Coiinty Neighhoi- to Neighhor
Aspen Public Schoofs Colorndo Department of Peihlic Health
There is a conscioitsness in our society ana' E~2i~ironment
that traditional nieans of mitigating Our Mission TEAM Ft. Collins
dr-ct
g use ha>>e been unsuccessfitl. Boogie's Diner
Dialogire, education, and a sensrtivity The mission of the Valley Tl1e Weinglass Foauidatio»
to addictive behavia•s are surfacin as g Partnership for Drug Prevention .iai-ealistic approach to interdictiiig the is to promote the prevention of
growijtg use of unhealthy substanees,
alcohol, tobacco, and other drug We rely on donations from businesses ~
The Val[ey Partnership for Drlrg use among Roaring Fork Valley and people like you to support our
Prevention is leading this path toK~ard programs and to prove to other
a healthier• valley. youth by providing education,
resources, and leadership to funders how strong our local
Tom Dalessandri, Sheriff schools, families, and our Stipport is.
Garfield County community. Board of Directors
LOCally we see o>>er 90% of c'1111d ` " r.. Karla S. Bacsanyi Lily Gmiicld
'j..; . ~j',.;,,`':'~; ''3~'~~~~ ~ r~r • Ju(iithA. Burwcll P,,dgcll F. Pyles. Ph.D.
abiise cases involving siibstarlce abcrse .,<w Artl,urc. oi,~l
Va~~ey, ~BC~IICI'S~lp fOC . ; " • y Tcrry Schacfcr, CPA
as H~ell. 1 see the damage to faniilies . +
Monicu C. Bbaugh, Ph.l). ral
Gcd R. Scay
~ - , Drug Preve` _.on.
alid kids evel~y xJeek, and it is Tom Farrell Suc Smcdstad
• ;~'~S+'` i ` ' Palricia Franks
conifortiii,q to knovi, we I1QVe Q SfI'Oll lohn D. WaIi,I
g 0405 Castle Creek d., Suite q.
oi-gcrizization wa•king to prevent ~ Aspen,.Colorado 81611
suhstatice ahlise probleirls in our
contntunity.
Phoqe; (910) 925•5188 FBR; (970) 925-$O21 Formerly the Aspen Substance Awareness Project and the•As n Parlnershl for
Kate Jan ula Director ~ P
g, ! email: Vpd~l@TOf IICt , Healihy Community
Pitkin County Social Services
Whose problent is alcohol
arad other drug abuse?
i..;~i
f~r
V.v`
7~\/ ~~~,Y n~s ar~d Track R~co~rd
LLL T ~1y~, ,~ir
~~~µ9~~,t~
' . QT~I .•~y~}'~~'2Y' ' sd
t\ 1 1 V£ i s, R our~yorKpl>~x~'~ce~` {~"1
ry~~ pR~ tdg~flln4>,,~.~~~id~traimqg for~~manag~ar~ An~"`supetvisors ih` a.°
ii) ~ OR u~pe'rat~on ,SRA~a~d~ ~£~A, end also pide on~si#e:technicalk aseistaf~ce tQ_
NTI~
C ,A dQvQlpp b~tter aleqhort ~idibt~ei dra~s in the`workplAce policieg~pr` r`owd~ b tbns~to ~
~ "
sz~assnu~TS I ss~~oF , ~m lo Ar~nh~ 'p A, P
DROWNINGS j 8-$ ~CIf,C ~ X1C ~ 'G"~
~f,~~ ~q
r: f< t W y dP ~,:tu•a,y n:. : r' . ,
nLcoHoLaNO Oqt Commu~ItyfPartn~
r~ r5~ip PCogr~m`has ledtd,#he creation;af~.the IQ 12 Student ,
OTHER DRUGS ARE
` +
A FACTOR IN MOST WBIIIi~S$~>rW iillli
r eO, Latir~b. Netw,~rlcing C4uncil -Educ'
atoJa S4Ppo~ngParehts group ,
38% Of H ~ ~ , , I. ~ CHILD ABUSE SOCIAL PROBLEMS, 20-35% OF
INCLUDING... SUICIDES G`ommun~y /IotyTIm~arl~l Youtk~ Action Teari These groups;
'l'he Valley Partnership for Drug Pre~~entiun rvolve peoplQ #rom yarious wejks'of Cfe'+o define the ~ee~s of~ opr'cn~muni~
G
a0igaai2e program8,,proJectaT:a~ '60
aker$ to provi~a~ syst~m df prehensive' ~(fonnerly the Aspen Substance Awareness
K~dmmLnity%i~de sybstaACe abuse pt v~r~ and
UPTO50% 50% TRAFFIC ` J~` t; r„ 1 ~ S. t
Project) has been committed to tlle SPOUSEABUSE FATALITIES ~vSuppo~E#he har~ wo~C o~' othe01 hro ughout the v~llsy Wfio ~r~ try,ing to ~re~~te a t`S R
prevention of drug abuse since the earl healthier, drug free;commuriity,for our ebiPdrert
Y ~ M1 ~ ~ s F y~~p~~ i ta~,~ ~ 7..{ ~Y" • i . ~ ~ . 4~ a r . ~ ~W i..
r i. ..ate.
s and was incorporated as a nonprotit • P9II~y At~~iocecye~ortthavehelpedithe Gfty qf Aepeh 6reate
1980a sbpar Liqdror 4
L Author~,iaruh~Mave help~d P~tlun Gountq~ put.an pigco 664o(the ~ab~~'smost+"
organization in 1987. Vn r~ Wnse
~~~ressiqe Cle Inddor l'r Qr~jrt~~es,
t hM. ?.'h.~17~1^ 1 E4;) 4t17 t~ ! l 1? Alcohol and other drug abuse is direcdy
Like you, we would like a communitY associated with most social problems. '•~°'t "`0~1~c ~e*
o`~d ~f C4mnlunlty"i~l~la0ve ~~eludes ~xtenswe mXolvement in cre~t~ng
r a,.
without the tragic stories we hear about dru ar9a~i{~qpna~ tA:~~et t~~ h~~s~rnGes nes,gf our cpfnmyn~ty Eor eza~np~s, we took
b ? One af every eight Americans is the child ^ r, : t~~d ~?le~n~r~ri~ the 'Y.oSt~~`vent0, tlte,,A90eh Peer $upDort Program~ and
abuse, without overdoses and kids raising
e0~
H. f yA yY Yl 1.~~ ¢5f~ #1"II~' ~'Y PN {fyy ~f i"t ~ lC,,' f i`. `
of an alcoholic.
~ . ~ 'etOp T --~f i~< +Y~~~~~~~d~rl,~ ~ o~~t. ~ . i ~•4,a, v,. . .
themselves in families wilh alcoholic parents. ~ The annual estimated economic cost of DreVen~p~1~e~`Qrte FiA~e4lniti~te~y~th s~Jq~ir'~h ssetion pro~r~ma~yth `
We believe preventing these stories is only alcohol and other drug use to the United r0~ ~~G~''~m~unity eihcaz~ess ofirdanger~ of ~'ot~,ceo w~
r r u„r a-'L vC # .~possible if all parts of our comtnunit become States is over $400 billion. ~Y PbCGIe$ ~ ~ • `
Y r ( 1i}~
active agents for change. Business people, `
? Alcohol-related automobile crashes are still ~tre~tsh~ve ~o~nded'tlie' ~
P ~In~y Ior many. oeal
school ersonnel, law enforcement ofticers,
P the leading cause of death for young people
the clergy, the media, parents, and many ages I5-24.
r,,
I~ .e~ ~ p~t~r~t>~pGOVid'es fu`q!ta element~~ a~id 'middle ~
~~a~t ry
otherti must be part of the solution or we will ? Smoking tobacco kills over 400,000 ~"s~r ~hleh mc~~ase the -atudent's,.bond wit~ the ~
develop a solution destined ro fall Short. Americans every single year, alcohol use aur,! Com{nymty,4
results in another 100,000 deaths.
h90.6 u~A"nt~with.dru~ preve~ion
We need your financiaM support to continue It's a problem for all of us. ~•~x ~1 ~Iulle groyps, ln idd~dpn, some studepta ge~to
aCRedRibbaq~i
our efforts with pur many programs which
NIAAA Special Reporl lo Congress
are proving effective everyday,
JOUfllili Of 1hC AI11C1'ICilll MCdICiIl A5SOCIi1t1011 ~t~^~~ r•Y : ~'u ~ . ~ ~ ,R U 5: V i. t~ti a 'y Y n } r + t , ~ , n. , •1' t I . , ..F
- '4
i,
'i"4'~'~~ '++.:i: iC• :
~ `•..J~ L~. i::.yy+:iii ~iii , '
i. r
J • .h.? ~~~.T~:
~ ~T1pN
"Our mission is to promote the preventiott of alcohol, tobacco and other drug use
amot:g Roaring Fork Valle>>>>ouih by providing resources, educatioli and leadership
to schools, families and our communin.."
• .
. ~
Bvard of Directors
I~ y
~ Karla Bacsmvi
S~ea~s r . Jrrdi &rnce!!, i%icc -Cltair
Ar-r Uuil,
Ce Monicu Ebau
..~vca( ~ro 05-
. Tont Farrell
~ ~ ~D YV,I / • LihY Garfield
i ~
Edgell Pyles
~
Tern, Schaefer, Treasirrer
Sete Smedstad
.Q
' John Wa!!u. Cltarr
Iq9G
o $ so.oo p $ 500.00
O $ 100.00 O $ 1000.00
O $ 250.00 O $ Other
_
Name
Address
Business (if applicable)
City/State
ZiP . Day Phone
0 Check this box if you wish this domain to remain anonymous. You will still receive a receipt for tax purposes.
- ^,s
Put Stamp
Hcrc
Thc Posl Offitc
will not dcliver
mail widiuut
' poswge
Valley Partnership for Drug Prevention
(formerly ASAP)
0405 Castle Creek Rd., #4 '
Aspen, CO 81611
MEMORAND UM
TO: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager
FROM: Andy Knudtsen, Senior Housing Policy Planner
DATE: June 20. 1997
RE: Noise Complaints at Vaii Commons
Since the opening of the City Market grocery storc, the noise generated by the ventilation system
has been a concern to neighboring residents. Noise readings were taken in the vicinity of the
mechanical building June 11, 1997 and May 6, 1997. Copies of both readings are attached. In
addition to these two readings, Community Development staff has had numerous conversations
and on-site meetings with Darlene Borstad, Allen Dinnet and other residents.
ln responsc to the initial complaints, City Market eliminated a$40,000 piece of exhaust
equipment, as the mechanical system could function adequately without it. This action improved
the situation, as it removed the fan which cycled the most frequently and created the greatest
disturbance.
At this time, the results from the police reports show that there is no violation to the ordinance.
Although the noise comes very close to the allowed limit of 65 decibels at the property line, it
does not exceed the standard. A potential solution to the problem would be to construct a wall
between the exhaust vents and the neighbors. Staff is currently looking at the cost associated
with this type of solutior?.
VAIy POLIC$ DEPARTMFIqT a l~ ~ ~o
IJo 1 S~' ~~~I/~~9 i•c! T ~c(~ l ~Y ~
eRlz~ Fr,.. ZOT I17 Ot-l,a.wtA ~ L-X,
oass as assmn~~ aaT os ~ass.
O<o ~ l ~l ~ I nmtnisaQiinasa or o~moe.
o?O 35 ul F-.D ..Q
vsncs~ r..r I s.s. I ae~.i eoaa:, s
feela 7'W/1~csq~ I L1a~a~ t l77~ snce TU
COai ~ 117NR ( . TS9Il. 1QIIDLi1
11mpQlR1!!
/~5i AD , l~~4,e[.~l(F tf~t-.~Y1~4 1 ,r.~a..
eaaxsat. xar:.=iuP oo= I veW s
- ~ Aaaa:n e aesazGr.rvzarrain / ~s caot aas r
oId 7~l ~f1A?'l o.e~~SC G.v g ~A ~ L. C' o ~ 8 t e6 S 8 I 'I ~o - m!o Q~-.
•oeassd. aQ2aas6iae=arz~ ~ e~s y~ r
c roia S.r.,VA rt-ni~
_ ~_l /S2A2£55z`'P, Ui4 ?L 0 a (seia n.=.? ~
o~3oq~~ ~i w F 5o
F I ~o a _ I t3 0 - " S~~ 7-1
I r...-1 6k..,4J ~ r
c o a s~ :wa cLaas. r,aer. ~a~ra~ I ars". I
mumRin
Amas,.. ra:raai~a e= ~ am= r
Aaeusst Mezcu.Maz=a ( zza ~s I ~a~ ~
AcnaaSa. szs cc= { som s
a.a.a. mz aacs ~ r.. *r. I
I I I ( I I sua ssst we asc amsa
(-7s ~aoassr.? was, r.t{- I:~t s( va~r:-!/ I I a~oa~ ~rc~psz~
/ mm' Ss... riv.. Sasai t. eu:. I ~asm a~s a~m
virsa sc~. I r Oa :«.r
7 I I I ~ I
R :_,tcu.a
0
R s I I
s.as•a .
v
T ! I I I
7law1•n i
~~701~e~e I I t f
AT
n ~KAPX~r7- 97vJ .4D,T~' o T To L
I,tiD:d~17?-ED (o5n~,~iti
~Da.1S ~iJ1Z~/ • _1.- ~ y i ~ ~D aO R5 , ~ D F YL1 ~Nvin~G ~ f3N ~ .~11£~Ti~T'~i~ 6e&- :.)stttlJ
A n~ ~y ~,vuAT3F~J i A; ~ 7-4 Tfft 'faLc)ti; c F UA ~ L f~2o L.*ML. W, Tl4 l~ ruA~. ~t~,
vvt A-D E fEVEKAL-' l"Qwn P14t,,j-r:t5 At~rr Tt~~ 9o r 5E o va--Z
44b Bet-,J C ~ ~D 2
Dl ~M~i 4w~
O/af.t~, ~7/ ~'r.••• ,iii/!
mlO@mm- Sw~-
Otti~q l~ ~ ~l O!! 1r IRiCLI
Q!lS~s TY~~ tmwV
ZTy~ y r, t,
,
VAIL POLICS DEPARR'MMq'I'
aa s.~+i~vrs ua~oao~ f] t°''° roe~rsai. .
/U o l S~ l: e M~tPt~} T ~jd•+=..,W
nass w~. r~. ans or aaarni°r~ ~ ay~,
vZIICi,
I sd ~L ~/ii
~iecta I Ioar 1d
ol~ I
-
R ens ~o~N s =7D~ ~eas~ ~S! s
s0xogic- '
m0ii aO Ifi/S. 1za!!. XZZpii1
A~881 ]OZLai/SSD COni ~
AslYL • IACpYUS. DSltSCiLRSi2SM
y~ t
ius~~s AOOQSse W933Wt/OCf9li?Smf aD m0=
•
0l90:
A1COAV:- I I i
A= I f~LT I fS , . ( R.
I i
CC=. wa (wr. :ra,:. ~au~ / I .rsa.. I ~ .mo,.rxrs
I nonsu... Y+?ir.aoizza co~ I~~ ~ I.
arr~ae s ~I
I JICWtfS. iiltSCJi./viSZ-.,Mc a9 C4= /iom f
7ttO~ec, J10DAt/~~ DQ1DR~//OCS7RT~~t iI7
0saos c0[ 110R i
~
a.tmeff_~ .
~AM I Ucs I ra ~ M. I Wr. ssss aoc rse ~mva I
/
SuMU?.Rx: OnR-zxf ,e GzG~ivl~L ~ e~ilPl.~r~~?E.,PAL Wd- -Ps l4Cso Zw21.uL
&&A')~Ej) Ac.i 1AJ?S5,T76ArceIQ aA-)Z)
rV
e F T!-+*T' 47 -77+!-6 Ti,vdlE ,~T ,,.L T1~DbZ f~ ~~D(NG 195 Atu!@e1-6
~ Lf t4l;~-~77On.? tb,
,
7.
' Oa ri.~Z) 4c: AIN :~Ay, IUE ujR s e--0,Ajv *Tpy W, -,-Tf-
~w ~ L~? ~ ~ ' ~ F~~ r~;o r 5E ~A7 N~ i ' ~ rze:gU"T--Z G -1[-17 :r?-r lR~46c,T zo Am , 1
1 v o K 4 1CkA-n,Ak. u'141ect a -7- A L'e,J6;Aar- )eA7,W-. Gt~~ r r~ -7;~-fc; Asv
7-0 ?31E gti: AtiD &iZ.STr-+-D FEEL.-5 ~Ue /?~l : t5 L~"-i ~c1G~ po~i ~
~(T T?+£ AAI mA., E 2A}.S-,- /FjF-4D/Au 6 Gc)I'45 TA Kf--Av
LJF~f Q..f4 QESuL?'~a l nJ Pi5: A DlrSC-. C4
o ~ s e~. _ a?s osss..e s~. ~araasi awa+s..r saawc~i~u. a~asa~~ ws -s
....~el-
~e gr~~ ~ Mcxr=~- (
•Nct to be released arithout au:horizatioa. IIse of tltis la:axrsaatioa requlated by lax.•
va.~v
ai o ice epartmen oise epo orm , Number cA-i - a 3 0,7
O(fense or Inpdent tatute/Ordinanoe Number UCH
1\~okS.e D`I- CCOO
Date at Report Time IDay DatefllmelDay ot Oxurence BeMreen DatefrimeiOay
S- -ct ~i I C 3 i 'J e - Q o r-\o?J
locauon of Occurence ~p ~e
AtL CO s1 b5`1
OG9 1,1 rro~,jtA5e V
Code: S• eusoect R!P • rooornnq panv W- wNneus
Code Name: LasC First, Mlddle Uoense NumbenState
p, R 42 e LARRv C~a- cC' i
~ Date of Birth Age Raoe Sex Hgt WL Hair Eyes 8uild Sodal Sewnry Number
? P c:~ A 3L- C.I 30 w M 5'a"' 1 61 QrrJ p~~ Nl -ZCL{ - ,2 I-/L//
Descripaon (ot the person)
I
! Address: Residence Zip Coce Phone I
~
. ~eA2~rnp AVON C0 bl~a~0 ~ '
G~I~i- ~G
Aff@Si Address: Visiting/Mailing Tp Cooe Phone
N/., N/A
Address: Business/OccupaUOn Tp Code Phone
S rvoNt,, P Ra. vAIt + Sr~ 5'7 v~ Q8
Code Name: LasL Firsti Middle Lioense NumbedState
~-reg 0-4,
G;~ - OQC- a ~
jDate of eirth Age Race Sex Hgt Hair Eyes Build Sodal Seanry Number
. 01 - 2e-yF, yq W M 58i8G 13t%, Qlv M 24.I - 3F- $7 G
Descripuon (of the person)
Address: Aesidence Zlp Code Phane
i53aG HwY 55 0 vRAK, C0. 81 ~o N0h.1t Aff2St Address: Visiting/Mailing J Zp Code Phone
00 y'/5 IIpeR d ZF-'l ale - ?A,~ c1~-r9 - 9,-t 53
Address: Business/Oxupaticn Zip Code Phone
LItJ , C -}vVff",p+J ArL COr7NlGAJS OTPCT 6,1~5~ 119 ' 0 30(0
;ource of saund (musician, amplifier, etc.)
RQFY'~ aerA+oY ~.a ~-~'s aT <<-t ~ 4 klt
iound meter used: YES ~ NO ? If NO, why not?
SOUND METEA ReaCing #1Tme Reading #2/71me
READINGS Spa At1.~C1~.aC) 5E+~-ttf Sp~ A.~},,,cL,ac3
t2 readings at 5 Decibel Meter 8rand Name Serial Number Calibrauon Date(s) Used acoording tolnscuction;
Winute intervats) Q~9 r I- M C ~ 0 y- a r7 -cl 7 NS Eg NO ?
ARRATIVE
- ('"~U 10Q`l 4~ A Qv-i,'+. J.+7L( ~ GAYV~r PArAOQ C AH>C
M.P YO f4 n'rr4 U i^, SC %fG l~LoM h P VA~ M N' ( i f v MAY V4 't
~ C
Y'-fSf+~~e~ s+r ~?Di ~,P' A AJ)~ Ar /nvYr~Y~~7.~aS i -T- 7-i:01C nJCl R+-A~.11q
i
2:7 TeC K /?Q ac) ~N C1 ,d1S ^ r C H st n-1 6k1 iA, Ll r- A^: A C N y~+ -e
RS A'T 2 0'7c1 Ci-tqMS~r-15 X. LN. ronC1~;,~ca5 f?A tiaP~ FvoM b9 ~ ec -6•l~
R_T i h? TiMG A(,L X "P ;7'ri20YAfOP, (JAl•fis ~.lJP2P G16NG 71,, e AJL!?LJAhl_
L~MrT (S ~r~5 Z -tqlk-o~~ L~roG r.;C~ ~C(?k~.st4U(i'c:n; 5,
e ~
A i3c,: 7.. 7-Grv Pvc bC.,M H, SiA~a~ ffP WCu I ~ f) i S iCtitt.j,:~ +~.P C3lcv.;oRS
Tot-;•_a~,T. F°erRLl o!(v i.v~c(vD~ _ Lveul6 r-ef.~rr.J aT l'g 3C
t0 -t- ke Mc RF k3 C) <pA AQ toor f? DAa.-IJ
icer Signature T Unit Date/rime of action Waming 0 Supervisor
.25" O Summons f-1
v rvv" rvnCS U@pI. W Continuation
? Minturn Dept. of Public Safery ? Supplement NARRATIVE case
~ Vaif Potice Dept. NuMeER .23~ •
Go^^econw cw .
~ Oeronr w lineal
Lle Co , SMut., o,wrianc. N,.,
N o i i
P ~ \w1 ~ D~ti ~ms !4oort
ITEM r I OT"~ I BRAND NAME OESCAIPTION -
vALUE
'The Sa-1 hrpe L ,4 f16 A-1
r-e I N C l ~ v T~ ~
12 C ~ - o a r1 1 1M o
1~ O r P O f G. ~ ti
C?v L,e 2 i^I 7` G~ P A Y . TI~ Q o A 5 C ' M A`~ R P
A[4 The
13A kGrG' :JN 1 A)r
, fA ~ A r,eA . sas o c s t
Q An°T~' T'
SC; MIli p
+
. _ f-l -e i-c c~ r.e A c-) ~ nJ a s f?.~ ..z q
~'h rPo / ~ 'ficni S
A+ ~ .7 1; a N c~ f (Z' f-t 2 5 M A Y
~i M A`Y a. ~ A 'r G x -0< „ i
A\r2A MCre R~.41, rl,k7
. _ A+ tL,,s t~M ~
Z> v- ~
N T R U~V
\r,~
t~ 1 k Q r': rD
C.. d l i i,; i ~
P
~ r nn
o S F' ~x M n v kA
' L Y'.D
r' t o M
Q.j Ci A- v A A 111-P o ; L C
A rv c~ ~r N ~ ~1-}- , . . ~ A S ~ -
~,^^R T r-IA~IP
16 O T heA li k.1 +D ^ C' Mi L1i, NoJ d
T R ~
. a r~~ bLfl ~
Disposition: OPEN ? INACTIVE ? CLEARED ? AFiqEST ?
UNFOUNOED ? Computer Entry
Adult SUMMONS ? ? YES
Investigator Assigned ' Juvenile EXCEP710NAL ? ? NO
Aeoomng ftny Siqnatun i i amrm mu mrorrinytan o trw arw cornct. I Ott~ur
X unn Suw.vuw
I ~0
PAGENUMBER
Case number
NOISE COMPLAINT DAILY LOG
Officer C~ e 2 i c k.e Number
Date E~'1 A" 5 t q q"'1 Day
Time Location lst reading 2nd reading 3rd reading
iQ3~ P~ t Litio ~ I Co
P, 3 3 Paxk Q loT 2 O?Q [H MX. S I
~tei ? ~ R-, o, CHAM)( i
~
I ( I :T 'Y
F
. I
`7
Case number
NOZSE C0I4PLAINT DAILY LOG
Officer A o D lP nAfi -e Number
D at e S- S-~"1 D ay
Time Location lst reading 2nd reading 3rd reading I
oZ Q'l LIfj 71 I sD
a 3cI P, L~r .~~~q hIAiM G
C~o
~30 Sfa~RS , ~1, cH Mx. ~C C
I
L oti S3
~ f S ~ A ,,i c, ! r•.1" 2C ,f C 4441"X.
C; ) f S I St~ ~ R 7 C N~ u`7 44 -7 Ll "I
I
I .
~
I
~ ~ . . _.,..~•-xG: 4,~LXr
- k) t ,
30
.Sunda , June 22, 1997 THE DF.NVER POST
.
a~mro en ea~m
: Rib s saLaleummer s
~ l Strong opposition `Life's too damned short.'
thwarts developer's
- Real-estate developer Fred Kummer,
plans for ski resort , on why he abandbned his two-decade
battle to build the Adam's Rib ski aree.
By Allen Best
I sPeaei a me nenrer Posc ect, but it wamed him in a May 8 meeting
that his project had significant environ-
ed Kummer began dreaming of
creatiag a new ski resort while on a mental problems.
vacation in Vai! during the late • "We were pretty honest with each oth-
~.ker," said District Ranger Anne Huebner.
1960s. For more than 25 years, he
wvould chase the dream he had named Ad- • v' The next day, he pulled the plug in a let-
ter faxed to the Army Corps of Engineers
am's Rib. . , ~
' But in May, the 68-year-old Kummer and the Forest Service, informing them
joid the U.S. Forest Service to forget the • • that his application for the ski area was
aki area 15 miles south of Eagle. : , , ~ • . being withdrawn. Lite's too damaed short," he explained ~~•;;*,.t. , 5_rt' The primary opposition group, Con-
)ater in an interview, grumbling about the cerned Citizens of Eagle County, celebrat-
,yovernment aud obstructionist environ- ed the end of the ski area at a potluct din-
mental groups. A ner near Eagle.
' Shortty before his May pronouncement, °It was sure fun fighting it tor 24 years,"
$orest Service personnel had issued a blis- said Gene Lorig, a retired lawyer who
tering appraisal of Kummer's plans, con- , headed the group.
;cluding that the quality of skiing on public "lt was a great 6obby," added Lorig,
•)and was secondary for Kummer to the ad- ~ '•who had often skewered Kummer at public
;jacent real-eslate development. meetings. Like many, he said he found
Today, the only active permit for a new Kummer consistently Patronizing to local
~ } ~ ~ " residents.
~zN
ski area on federal land in Colorado is for q ~ t, ~ ,~n , rr~. ` ~ _ _ . .
~ .
~k-dl'dL1UUlll IlCill^Jll':IIIIUUdI JJll /ll6a. uut
tinaocing tor that ski area was yanked two Personel style was Achilles' hee)
years ago, leaving its tuture uncertain. z~W Even core opponents confided that, aaide
Nationally, tde ski industry faces an un-
from the many environmentel rnncerns,
rertaio tuture as well, with growth figures ~ ~ ~g ` , , ' 3 . ~ • ~ ~ .aRummer's personality was the key imm
that are as Oat as Kansas. According to 0~~~ .%:,t, Accustomed to buildunB hosP{tals and bo-,
indust trade rou s, even in Colorado, F s:, ' ~~°s h; f~, • ~ r~,<
~ a~`~-• ~ tels in cities, he never seemed tp pnder.
ahere ~ski areas reported 30 percent ° stand why building
a new sti resort on tbe
qrowth in visils during the last 13 years, • T~edge of a wilderness area wonld Canae
some skl-indust veterans sa there are ~ n
tar easier ways to deve lop rea l es ta te t h a n ~~y massive heartburn, they satd. ,
Beyond the puzzle of Fred Kummer,
to build a new ski area. would-be ski-area mogul, is the uncert8in
The official policy of the Region VIII of- • '
future of the ski industry. NationaUy, atter
tice of U.S. Foresl Service is to encourage f~~r; ~ a~ i . . demand is essentially flat. In Ute last 13
ex p ansion of existin g ski areas. y e a r s, t h e s k i e r- s n o w b o a r d e r v i s i i a i n t h e
In t he la te 1960s, a l l Co lora do s ki areas , ~ } i~, 3' ' •
looked like potential gold mines. Most no- 'A` J InniRoc k~ ntai ~so tates tthe 'veetcent
'table was Vail, which had opened shakily ~ ~ ; y Mo y grown
in 1962 to small skier numbers and a repu- 9.1 percent. In Colorado, they've grown 30
• , ~ percent. That growth, 6owever, has pri-
tation as the new kid on the block. By the marily benefitted the larger skl areas,
:time Kummer arrived in Vail on vacation ~ .
•in the late 1960s, Vail had grown into a growth, a dkVailg wit6 h 37.8. percent
proven winner. Eager to accommodate growth. The Aspen-area resorts during
what then was the new ski industry, the that same time have grown only 7 percent
Forest Service had inventoried potential ~ ' • "r - From 735 ski areas in the Ualted Statea
downhill ski sites. Kummer eaamined that • `4~~ . ~ • R
, ' ~ . . in 1983, the number o[ ski areas has drop.
list, settling upon 11,144-toot Adam Moum
, , ~ . ~ ~ ped to 519 as of last year.
:tain, identified as having about the same , 1 ~ ; 1~, ~l -~~`~r~:. Jerry Jones, a former akl ezecutive at
vertical drop as Vail Mountain. The Forest 1 . pDAM'S R ~ g . . Vail, Ke ystone, Snow m a s s a n d S u n V a lle y,
Service report noted favorable snow condi- ' • '•1 ~ , , ~ • ~ , , RAN(~ Calif., says the Forest Service pmbably dld
tions but some base-area problems. • 1 ' Kummer a favor with its blunt language.
By 1970, Kummer had begun buying_ e i~ ` ~RIVpTE PROP`~T~~ Assuming =50 mlllion In lntrastructure and
-ranch land at the base of the mountain planning costs before the flrst llft tlctet la ~
:and, in 1973, he applied for a permit from ' A~CE$$ sold and then coaaing a maximum 100,000
:the Forest Service. A ski area the size of skier visits wit6 the most sawy marketing,
Beaver Creek, itsel( still a dream, was en- I Kummer would have run a $1.5 mllllon an-
visioned. A newspaper story described it as ~ ~ pERMISS10N ~~`Y nual deficit on the ski operation, Jones flg-
Vail without the sprawl." Even then, ac-
ures..There are cheaper waqa to aell real
cording to a story in The Denver Post, Ea- estate, Jones says, includ'wg golf coutsea.
gle was fearing a' Vail syndrome." Kum- Jones maintains that the neat big akl re- t
mer speculated an opening for the 1976-77 sort built on public land won't be built for ~
season. another 20 years, desplte lndustry etiorta
The timing wash't right to attract the interest and pilfer the pock- '
' - ets of the 78 million "echo boomers," chll- ~
Had Kummer succeeded with that am- dren of the baby boomers.
~ bitious schedule, he might have taken part Harry Frampton, another skl-industty
in the Colorado ski industry's boom. As the and land-development veteran fmm Vall, `i
baqy-boom generation took to the slopes, ' .;y, ' said any developments wlll get only more
increases of 10 percent to 20 percent annu• difficult in rapidly urbanizing resort aiea ~
ally were not uncommon at resorts along like Eagle County. ' the;Interstate 70 corridor just then coming Only those who work with local resi- I
• on iine.
dents in detining what theq want to aee '
But the environmental analysis required speciai to Tne oenver aost i Airon eesc will get anything built," said Frampton, ~
for Adam's Rib was far more rigorous than A gate marks the property near Vail where real-estate devel- This piCture looks into the Holy Cross Wildemess Area with who is developing land adjacent to Rum• 41
had been mandated for Vail only a decade oper Fred Kummer had ptenned to build Adam's Rib ski area. 12,050-toot Charles Peak on the horizon. mer's near Eagle that will double the slse ~I
~ before. There also was immediate strong of the town. 'I
: opposition to Adam's Rib within the nearby seeking a permit from the U.S. Army drawing board. His new plan was bold, al- specialists from the region ended two Rummer may be out the esdmated =8
; sm8ll town of Eagle, a ranching and log- Corps of Engineers to disturb wetlands. though laughable to some. A glacier eons years of examination by concluding that million to E7 miltion he s nt in urau1
• ging center. pe p 1?B yi
It was a swamp from which he never ago left a lateral moraine of boulders ris- skiing appears to be a secondary amenity various permits, but he should be amply j.
; r cally' Kummer was then well on his emerged. • ing 120 feet from the valley floor in front to real-estate development around the rewarded for this ESO mvlfoa-plus invest-
way to great success as a builder. His St. From the outset, Kummer had been of the two mountains, hence the "rib" for 'base of the mountain." ment. He could sell the 5,280 acres he owns
Louis-based HBE Corp. has now built more faced with a tricky development challenge Adam. Kummer proposed to chop off the While mindful that developers needed sout6 of Vail, or develop the land. Either
~ than 500 hospitals and other health-care at Adam's Rib. The valley that curves top 30 feet of that moraine, creating a base-area profits to justify on-mountain way, Kummer should be able to turn a Udy
; tacilities. By that time, he also was build- around Adam Mountain constricts, leaving bench in the side of the mountain where he improvements, they believed the public profit in Eagle County's screaming-hot
• ing hotels. Today, he owns 18 major hotels, little room for development. A somewhat could build restaurants, condos, and a hotel would get an inferior skiing product from real-estate market. He asserts t6at 6is ma-
~ including the 1,230-room Adam's Mark in Wider area of the valley, called Vassar With conference space. Still encountering what Kummer had in mind. His ski runs jor problem at Adam's Rib was t6e fedetal
; Downtown Denver, which took its name Meadows, is rife with wetlands. In that ar- great opposition last winter, he announced spun off the mountain toward a base area government.
; From the mountain near Eagle. ea Kummer envisioned his base area. For he would reduce the number of ski runs. at the side, instead of tollowing the moun- Others, though, say his problem started
In Eagle County, though, he has tloun- federal agencies seeking to minimize deg- "I find it hard to imagine a more desir- tain's tall line. It would be, explained one, when he pulled a bad apple oft the Forest
. dered. He had success with local and feder- radation to air, water and wildlife, none of able development than this," he said. like putting the base area foP Vail Moun- Service inventory list and mistakenly
; al govemments in the early 1980s but mo- Kummer's plans looked appealing. The It wasn't his style to ask if anybody had tain out in East Vail. thought he was in Eden.
• mentum was stopped by litigation of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1993 de- any better ideas. The Forest Service never denied Kum-
~ local opposition group. In 1987, he began nied a permit, sending Kummer back to his On March 18, Forest Service ski-area mer permission to proceed with the proj- Allen Best is a, ireelance writer in Avon.
,
~
r
~
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road Office of the Town Attorney
vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2107/Fax 970-479-2157
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney
c(
DATE: June 24, 1997
RE: Executive Summary of Vail Alpine Garden Foundation/Town of Vail
Lease Agreement for the Environmental Education Center.
A proposed lease agreement has been presented to the Alpine Garden Foundation and has
been approved with the singular request that in addition to the original 49 year term that the
lease be able to be extended for an additional 49 year term in the event that the Foundation is
in compliance with all terms and conditions of the lease at the termination of the first 49 year
period. See attached letter from Sammye Meadows, Executive Director.
The present draft provides as follows:
1. A 49 year term.
2. The term is conditioned upon a successful fund raising effort. The Foundation
will establish a schedule and goal for their fund raising effort which will be
provided to Town Council no later than March 31, 1998. If the Foundation does
not reach its goal by the end of the agreed upon campaign, the lease shall
terminate.
3. The Foundation has nonexclusive possession of the property until such time as a
building permit has issued for the construction of the environmental education
center. The Foundation will have access to the property as necessary to
develop plans to proceed through the approval process.
4. Any issues concerning covenants and/or encroachment shall be the obligation of
the Foundation to work with the Vail Recreation District and other adjacent
property owners to resolve.
5. The Town of Vail will continue to be responsible for costs concerning the
operation of the presently existing surface parking lot. Any future parking
maintenance issues will be subject to further agreement.
6. The Foundation will be responsible for any taxes that may be assessed against
the property.
RECYCLED PAPER
~
r
7. The Foundation will be responsible to present a construction staging and access
plan to the Town and will be responsible to repair or restore those affected areas
of Ford Park, the athletic field, the Vail golf course or other adjacent property.
This lease is specifically for the construction of the environmental education
center.
8. The Foundation is responsible for all maintenance and utility cost for the
operation of the environmental education center.
9. The Foundation is responsible to procure all necessary permits and shall secure
surety bonds for any work to be perFormed on the property in excess of a total
sum of $50,000.00.
10. The lease agreement contains standard language in regard to lien waivers, -
insurance, indemnification, assignment, financing, and default and termination
provisions.
Please advise me of Council's willingness to allow the lease to be extended for an additional 49
year term after the completion of the initial term.
RTM/aw
Attachment
~
,
~igi Vail
Alpme
Garden June 20, 1997
~ Foundation
Mr. R. Thomas Moorhead HAND-DELIVERED
Town Attorney
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Education Center Lease
Dear Tom: ,
Thank you for your help on Wednesday regarding our proposed lease with the Town
for the Soccer Field Parking Lot/Environmental Education Center. We are in
agreement with all of the conditions of the lease, and,the changes we made that day,
with one exception that we hope can be easily resolved -.an option to renew.
We very much appreciate the Council's generous agreement to a 49 year term, and.we
respectfully request the option of an extension for a second 49 years. Our current lease
for the Gardens site, executed last month, stipulates one 49 year term, which we feel is
adequate since the Gardens site will not contain the sizeable investment and
improvements of the Education Center site (in the neighborhood of $4.5 to $5 million).
In order to protect that investment, we hope that the Council will grant us the option of
a renewable term. We would suggest additional sentences to Paragraph 2 of the
Agreement to read something like:
The Town and Lessee shall have the option to extend this Agreement,
upon the same terms. and conditions or as modified by mutual agreement,
for an additional term of forty-nine (49) years commencing on
and ending on . Said option may be exercised by written
notice as provided herein not less than days prior to the expiration
of the first term. Thanks, Tom, for all your help. We look forward to the Council's response.
Sincerely,
Samrri>ye I eadows
Executive Director
"Our flotuei•s in the summer are as gloi•ious as our snow in the iuinter. "
183 GORE CREEK DRIVE • VAIL, COLORADO 81657 • 970.476.0103
Pnmea on
RetyNetl Pacer
Vail
Village
Merchant
Association PO 6ox 2135, Vail, CO 81658
June 23, 1997
To: The Vail Town Council
Re: Analysis of the Public Works SeasonaL:Housing Project
As I have previous commitments on Tuesday, I will be unable
to attend the session of the Town Council dealing with the above
mentioned topic. Not withstanding that fact, however, I would
like to share with you a few thoughts on the housing situation.
At the present time I am orfithe EVLC and we are struggling with
what our role should be in regards to housing. There seems to
be a great disparity of thought on a county wide basis as to
the possible solutions. The only consensus among the group
seems to be that a severe problem exIsta ttnd-'it -is -a problem
that is of paramount importance in the minds of people up
and down the Valley.
At the same time I am on the Vail Tomorrow Housing Team and am
that group's representative to the Lionshead Redevelopment
Project. Again, both V.ail Tomorrow and Lionshead, after much
discussion and public input, view housing as a primary priority.
After reviewing Andy's memo, it's clear that a great deal of time
and effort has been given to developing a welqdocumented analysis
of the proposed site. And while I think the numbers seem high at
first reading, we can probably safely guess that they will only
increase with the passage of time. I think that it's urgent to
come to some conclusion on this topic and I think it's urgent
for many reasons. To begin with, the need is critical and putting
off a decision yet again will not only be counter productive but
will also send another message that again noone takes the problem
seriously enough to take a stand on it. Secondly,as I mentioned,
delaying the decision to a future date will probably only cause
it to ultimately cost even more. I doubt that a determination
such as this has ever been made at a time when the community could
afford it or thought they could afford it.
While I don't in any way feel knowledgeable enough to assess the
proposal from a technical or financial perspective, I feel
comfortable on an,emotional and moral level to say that something
must be done and it must be done now. Iwould only urge you that
if this project cannot be approved for any reason, please don't
leave this topic until another solution can be found.
Kaye Ferry
. . .
. . . ' RECEIVED JUN 2.. 1997.
x c•Co~,,~~
Va.il Assoclates, Inc. 44LA'
VkA),
~ .
June 18, 1997
The Honorable Robert Armour
Mayor of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81658 Dear Mayor Armour,
Although I may not have all of my historical data exact I am close.
In 1989 there was a bit of a controversy over the construction of the "Welcome" wall to
be located at the entrance to Vail. One of the problems was the suggestion of utilizing
cultured stone, "fake rock," as the building material. At that time this material was fairly
new to the market and frankly did not look very good. Subsequent to this discussion a
town ordinance was passed that precluded the use of cultured stone on any building
project in the Town of Vail.
I believe that the council should reconsider this ordinance.
1. Today cultured stone is widely accepted. The process by which it is made has
Owners and Operators of
Vail, Beaver Creek°1 Resort greatly improved to the point that you really cannot tell the difference.
-
andArrowheadMOUntain' 2. The expense of regulaz types of natural rock is going sky high as it is
becoming harder to find and often is transported great distances when it can be
found. 3. Once purchased natural rock is significantly more expensive to install.
4. Another thing that may happen, which should be considered, is that builders •
will select a less attractive finish due to budgetary constraints.
5. FYI - cultured stone has been used on several projects in the town without
anyone recognizing the difference. I will not spill the beans on the locations, '
but one of them is a public park.
6. In a short conversation with some of the staff, they seem to feel that cultured
stone is now acceptable and were going to have an informal chat about its use. At this point I have no vested interest in this issue, but believe it would be a worthwhile
conversation for the future "look" in town. I know of tow jobs today wanting to upgrade
their look but cannot afford natural rock.
vi
1"9 WOILD ALPIxE
Se CHAYPIONfHIPS '
TAI11111vlltIt![
C 0 L 0 A , o 0 PO Box 7 • Vail, Colorado • 81658 • phone 970 476 5601 J
' . ~ . . . . . . .
If it would be of any value I would be happy to attend a work session and bring samples
so that everyone can judge for themselves.
If you agree that this would be a worthwhile process, let me. know how I can help.
, Sincerely yours,
: - ~ . I~j re~-~ . - . . . . _ _ - _ _
Brian G. McCartney
~ Director of Guest Services
/mc
cultured mck.doc
A
~
. . . .:s.. ~ . . ~ . . . •
. : . : , . , . ~ . . .
. . . . . ' . . , .n~ * _ ' . . • ~ ' . ' . , :'i_:: ~ , ' . ' . ~ . ' ' '
.
.
' , : ~ . . . .
~
, . . . . , . . . . . . . . . ~ .
~ . . . . , . , „ .
. . . :F . •G~,"~ ° - p~ "~Y ~4 ~x ; •11 5 .;G ~ " i~i`':~ t`~ ~u j y~. j, !+A 2 p . . . . ' . ,
' ~ ' ' . ~ y~ 1~~.~y y :~~~.s~ Z~~~~y,, ~~`P~'~tF'I'I ~~ryt't~~r~LLI~P'~};~'f.F 1~~~ `Vw-~~~~+.}~-~k~t~ .Xk~,~~.fr )S~ .~f1~~'~ ~f`Frlxi . .
: 5 F,~_ '~~o ~h 3+q`5~,~ h~'~ ~ ,,;j,Z ~ !I'~ i ~ ~ ' ~ f fi ~1/Fd •;r-t ti`n~ 1. ri 7~'4 ~ ~:~~*s'~ . v t C~,~a `~~y.
l~~
j"
( ~'4`\( ~ It~iyxrf.~x re 'k a~ e*~~~i r~ ~ . ~t4 ~L ~ t7~ 3~ J 3}~`~ qi ~j~ t~i' +~~~•n
1 The Bqard of ri i
stee5
' ,:y. ' ( , . ~ ,i'
}h
.-o~` llle fv,. ' .
' t ~ ~ k[' t 9 ...3j~ 7 ~ ' t f• ~ lt ~ .~y.: . ~ . ~ Sv. ,-S
' i ~t~ ;t ~ ,~-a ! F~ S .L? {1: f~^ < .~t, ~~.I •.S~ ~ \ ~ ~ i~ ~i~ ;f ,r ..~5' ~ ,t~ ti, ~•i ~J'S/"I
, r . TRx i~. ^+,,i,E.l ~ yw , . ' , • ~ {y
-:Bravo! Color~do-Vai1 valleY,Mus1c'juestiva1~~
c, , ' ` ' • ; . . f ( ~ ` ` i ~
invite you .to; the
. . / ~ i ~ y r~, ~r ~i~ I ~ i ~ ..y. , r ' ~ ~ i~C~ ~ ~ Iri i' : • 1 1
r t !q ~
~ s..~ ~~t l0th Anniversary~i 1,; ~ ~ rf r+,~•; , ~ {i
;t~Don~"r~Appre`ciation Concert `and. Recetion~
i ~1~ ~ . • : : i> Tl
t \ ~
Tuesday~ .TuIY 8. :1997':'
L\~ ; t".
`i~ Cucina ~Zustica
~ 1,,~ . r'~~., , : r ~'i ~ l 4s~ ~ : ~ a'. l. . ai' ~ • { ~i '~,~e '~i ~
The =Lodgq: at ;Vail`
. , ; / V ~ , f ~ 1 5, i . ' d ~ ` , ~ : . , y ' , , . ~ . .
1 /
V.00y p md..~ rf r~ j~tR
+ ~ ~c~ ! 4 ~ ~~.ni Ic f ~ . ~ {.'r ~ c . ' ~ ~ ~ t, r ~ i /!i ?"1'1
41
`imT'. . , l H~; r ~ . h "s r
~RSVi 1827-5,700,
~J •1 1 `r~+ 1 Y ~iy ~ , :e
, 3 ~:I! ~ r v~. ~ 'A t ~a r '1'^ I 1 1. : ~ f -I ' . ' J . ~T ~ ~ : ~ ~ t ~ ~ ;4
i ~ % ~rc ~z ~ .kh.f t . . ~ . ' i"" . . ~ ~ .
ry(~ ~ 1 ( (V ~ 1
. , I qf• . . l'~ . . , ~ _ . . • , . 'S ~ . , ~
. . . ~ ~y. ' ~ .
. . ' . . v~l., ' ~ . " . _ '
~ ' . . . . . . ::T~'1,
. . . . . . . ~ ' ~~~~1: ' . ' . ~ . . .
: . ~ . - . . . . . . . - .
.
. . • ~ . . . . . .
- . : . ' ,
. ' . ~ . ~ .
, . . . ' '~1r,•'" . . ~ . :~j~! 7.,.~ ~ . .
. .
, .
~ ~ . ' ' . 4 ~ , . . i. .
• ~ ~ , ..'4?,'+.! ~ . ~ V . , • . ' • .
.
. ~
.
, . : ~ . , ' . . . ~ . . .
. . ~ . . ~ . : . ~
. ' . ' . ' - . . ' - '
. . ~ . . . . ~ . , . .
. ~ ' ~ . . ~ ~ :ij~... ' ' : . , . • .
• , . . . ~ ~ ~:~'~4~.~ . . . ~ , . . °.i' . . . . . . . , . ' ~ , ,
. . . S;.i . . . . ,
. . . . . ' ~ . ,,..ti:' ~ . . ~ " . , , ' .
, • . • . :~~r`' . . ' . ~
. . . . . . . , : . . , t;"`,; ~ ~ , . . . .
. ' . . . . . . ' {l~f' ' . ` ' . . . . . . , .
. . . . . . . . , ~ • " . . . . . . J . `•~Sr~~ . ' . ~ . . . . , . ' ' , . . . . ~ ' ,
c~ .
~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: June 23, 1997
SUBJECT: Request to amend the Zoning Code to allow interior conversions
Staff: Russell Forrest & Tom Braun (Consultant)
1. PURPOSE
The Town of Vail has been reviewing three potential alternatives to the existing Gross
Residential Floor Area policy for single family, duplex, and primary/secondary development. The
review was initiated at the request of ihe Town Council, primarily to examine how to create more
flexibility within the existing system.
The Vail Town Council, on April 15, 1997, directed staff to implement Alternative 1, the interior
conversion alternative. Alternative 1 involves keeping GRFA as a tool to control floor area but
would allow interior conversions for existing homes that have no remaining GRFA allowance.
Alternative 1 would only allow interior conversions for homes existing at the date of the approval
of this policy by the Town Council. New construction would not be eligible for interior ~
conversions.
The purpose of this hearing is to make a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on how
Alternative 1 should be implemented. Section V of this memo describes staff's recommendation
for ordinance language to implement alternative 1. In addition, staff would recommend consolidating the numerous references to GRFA in the Zoning Code into one consolidated
section. This would help to better communicate current policy on GRFA to applicants. This
consolidation would also include the codification of several staff interpretations currently being
used to calculate GRFA.
II. PROBLEM STATEMENT & GIVENS
In 1996, the Vail Town Council directed staff to evaluate the existing GRFA system and
determine whether this is an effective and appropriate tool when compared to other alternatives.
Three reoccurring issues have been raised by the Town Council which include:
A) Is GRFA an effective tool in controlling mass and bulk;
B) Is it appropriate that the Town should be 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 Cauncil will make the final decision with input from the community and
recommendations from the PEC and staff.
<
1
*VAIL
TOWNO
,
i
B) There will be some form of regulatory control of size and mass.
C) This process will only address residential development (single-family, duplex, and
primary/secondary rype 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) New design guidelines should not inhibit design creativity.
III. BACKGROUND
A. Initial Public Process
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,
" Alternative 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. ~
~
B. Review of Alternatives
The PEC reviewed the background paper and public input on November 11, 1996 and the Town
Council considered this information on November 26th. At the conclusion of these meetings the
staff was directed to further asses the following three alternatives in greater 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.
C. Choice of Alternatives
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. On March 10, 1997, the PEC, in a
4-3 vote, recommended alternative one with several conditions. At the April 1 st Council
worksession, staff reviewed the alternatives along with the recommendations from the PEC and
staff. At the evening meeting on April 15th, Council directed staff to work on the implementation
of alternative one.
2
<
s• IV. PROCESS OVERVIEW
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 Afternatives
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 November 11&
(PEC) public input. The purpose of these public meetings was to November 26
determine if any of the alternatives could be eliminated. 1996
Phase II Analyze how to implement alternatives and identifv the impacts of each alternative
4) Complete analysis of alternative approaches. December & January
1996/1997
5) PEG worksession to review 3 alternatives February 10, 1997
6) PEC hearing to recommend an alternative March 10, 1997
. 7) Council worksession April 1, 1997
S) Evening Council meeting to decide on alternative April 15, 1997
\
Phase III Legislative Review of preferred alternative (assumes code modifications)
S) Staff prepares language to modify Town Code May/June, 1997
9) PEC: hearing to consider code revislons June 23, 1997
11) Town Council: worksession to review proposed revision to July 1, 1997
the existing GRFA regulations
12) Town Council: first reading of an ordinance July 15, 1997
13) Town Council: second reading of an ordinance August 5, 1997
* Currently on step 9
V. RECOMMENDED APPROACH FOR GRFA IMPLEMENTATION
A. Pro op Sed Ordinance - Interior Conversions
The interior conversion amendment will be implemented by creating a section in a new
cansolidated GRFA Chapter of the Zoning Code. This new consolidated GRFA Chapter
would incorporate the GRFA definition, current staff policies for calculating GRFA, a
summary of GRFA regulations for each zone district, the 250 sq. ft. additional GRFA
provision, and the proposed interior space conversion provision. The only substantive
3
<
.
change in GRFA policy through this consolidation of GRFA regulations would be the
interior conversion provision.
The following is staff's recommended approach to implement alternative one. Following
PEC review, staff will prepare the formal ordinance language for this amendment.
1. P r o e
The purpose of this section is to provide flexibility and latitude with the use of interior
spaces within existing dwelling units that meet or exceed the allowable Gross Residential.
Floor Area (GRFA). This would be achieved by allowing for the conversion of existing
interior spaces such as vaulted spaces, crawl spaces, and other interior spaces into floor
area provided certain conditions and standards are met. This provision is intended to
accommodate existing homes where residents desire to expand the amount of usable
space in the interior of a home. The Town has also recognized that property owners have
constructed interior space without building permits. This provision is also intended to
reduce the occurrence of interior building activity without building permits and thereby
further protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
- 2, AqqIICaIJII~IY
Single family, duplex, and primary/secondary type dwelling units that exceed the
allowable GRFA will be eligible to make interior conversions provided the following criteria
are satisfied.
• Any existing single-family dwelling unit or any existing dwelling unit within a structure
containing no more than two dwelling units (exclusive of EHU units) shall be elig'ible to
add additional GRFA, via the "interior space conversion" provision in excess of
existing or allowable GRFA, provided that such additional GRFA complies with the
standards outlined in paragraph 3 below.
• For the purpose of this section, "existing uniY" shall mean any dwelling unit within astructure containing no more than two dwelling units (exclusive of EHU units) that has
been constructed and has received a certificate of occupancy, has been issued a
building permit or has received final Design Review Board approval prior to approval
of this ordinance.
• Multi-family dwelling units are not eligible for additional GRFA permitted by the
provisions of this Section.
3. Standards
• No applicatian for additional GRFA under the provisions of this Section shall be made
until such time as all the allowabls GRFA has been constructed on the property, or an
application is presently pending in conjunction with the application for additional floor
area that utilizes all allowable GRFA for the property.
• Additional floor area established under the provisions of this Section shatl be
constructed utilizing the floor area or volume of the building that is in existence prior
to the effective date of this ordinance. New structures or exterior additions to
4
~
existing structures built after the effective date of this section will not be eligible for
interior conversions. Examples of how additional GRFA can be established under the
provision of this Section include the conversion of existing basement or crawl spaces
to GRFA, the addition of lofts within the building volume of the existing building, and
the conversion of other existing interior spaces such as garages or storage areas to
GRFA.
• Proposals for additional GRFA under the provisions of this Section may involve
exterior modifications to existing buildings, however such modifications shall not
increase the building bulk and mass of the existing building. Examples of exterior
modifications which are considered to increase building bulk and mass include, but
are not limited to, the expansion of any existing exterior walls of the building,
re-grading around a building in a manner which exposes more than two (2) vertical
feet of existing exterior walls and the expansion of existing roofs. Examples of
exterior modifications which are not considered to increase building bulk and mass
include, but are not limited to, the addition of windows, doors, skylights, dormers and
window-wells. For the purpose of this Section, dormers are defined as a vertical
window projecting from a sloping roof of a building, having vertical sides and a gable
or shed roof, in which the total cumulative length of the dormer does not exceed 50%
of the length of the sloping roof, per roof plane, from which the dormer projects.
• Any existing dwelling unit which is to be demo/rebuilt shall not be eligible for additional
GRFA under this provisions of this Section.
• Proposals for the utilization of interior conversion GRFA under this provision shall
comply with all Town of Vail zoning standards and applicable development standards.
• Proposals which involve the conversion of a garage shall not utilize any garage space
obtained through a garage space credit.
4. Process
Applications shall be made to the Community Development Department staff on forms
provided by the Department. The planning staff will review the application to ensure the
building has utilized all available GRFA and that the proposed interior conversion would
occur in a structure that was built or approved by the DRB before the effective date of this
ordinance. Submittals shall include:
• Application fees pursuant to the current fee schedule.
• Information and plans as set forth and required by Section 18.54.040, subsection C of
this Title or as determined by the Community Development Department staff.
Applicants would need to submit "as-builY" floor plans of the structure so that staff can
identify the existing building from any new additions that have occurred after the
approval of this ordinance.
• Proposals deemed by the Community Department staff to be in compliance with this
Section and all applicable zoning and development regulations shall be approved by
the Department of Communiry Development or shall be forwarded to the Design
Review Board in accordance with Chapter 18.54 of the Municipal Code. Proposals
5
deemed to not comply with this Section or applicable zoning and development
regulations shall be denied.
• Upon receiving approvals pursuant to this Section, applicants shall proceed with
securing a building permit prior to initiating construction of the project.
• Any decisions of the Community Development Department pursuant to this Section
may be appealed by any applicant in accordance with the provisions of Section
18.66.030 of the Vail Municipal Code.
B. Issues Relative to the Proposed Amendment
The provisions for implementing this alternative are a result of input from the public, the
Planning and Environmental Commission, the Town Council and staff over the past six
months. The purpose of this section is tp explain the rationale for some of the major
elements of the proposed ordinance.
1. Why are interior conversions limited to existina units onlv?
The potential concern with allowing interior conversions for future construction is that new
homes will comply with GRFA but may 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 or to design additional or larger vaulted spaces on upper levels, both of
which could then be converted to floor area in the future if this alternative is available to new
construction. The end result of this scenario could be new homes that are larger than they
would otherwise have been (if interior conversions were not permitted). \
Three alternatives have been discussed for mitigating the potential impacts of new homes
being "over-designed" to allow for future interior conversions:
• Reaulate vaulted spaces
A multiplier to calculate floor area of vaulted space (over a certain height) at a higher
rate than spaces with normal floor to ceiling heights could be implemented. A
multiplier could discourage the over-design of vaulted space. A multiplier system is
currently used in Aspen. However, calculating the volume of vaulted space would
add to the complexity of the existing GRFA system.
• Require waitina period similar to 250 Ordinance
It has been suggested that establishing a waiting period before new homes could do
interior conversions could discourage owners who may otherwise over-design their
homes in anticipation of adding interior conversions in the future. However, this type
of provision would not be a guaranteed deterrent to the over-design of homes. This
provision also raises the question: if an interior conversion would be acceptable after
a five-year wait, why is not acceptable after a three-year wait or a three-month wait. ~
Without alternative means for controlling the size of buildings, allowing future homes
to utilize this ordinance would undermine the GRFA system and raises the question of
whether GRFA is even necessary.
6
~
• Desian Guidelines
A third alternative for addressing the potential impact of new homes being
over-designed for future interior conversions is to regulate the bulk and mass of new
homes with design guidelines. Conceptual design guidelines to control bulk and
mass were prepared for the "No GRFA alternative" and these types of guidelines
could be utilized to regulate the bulk and mass of new construction. While not a
formal element of this proposal, the staff is interested in pursuing revisions to the
Town's design guidelines. If bulk and mass guidelines were to be adopted they could
provide a viable alternative to prevent the over-design of new homes, in which case
the applicability of the interior conversions could be extended to future construction.
2. Why does all allowable GRFA have to be utilized prior to utilizing the interior
conversion ordinance?
This provision is suggested primarily as a"bookkeeping" measure intended to ease
the administration of this ordinance. The Town essentially has two types of GRFA -
1) allowable GRFA based on the size of a lot, and 2) GRFA permitted by the 250
Ordinance. GRFA permitted by this proposed ordinance would create a third type of
GRFA. Requiring all allowable GRFA to be used prior to utilizing "interior conversion"
GRFA will greatly simplify the administration of the GRFA system. The primary goal
of this ordinance is to allow for interior conversions to homes that have constructed all
allowable GRFA and this provision is consistent with this goal. GRFA permitted by
ihe 250 ordinance would not be affected by this ordinance. Any new addition that
utilizes the 250 addition (that occurs after the effective date of this ordinance) would
not be eligible for an interior conversion.
3. Why not include provisions for EHU's? ~
Establishing a"linkage" between GRFA and EHU's was originally discussed in the
context of abolishing GRFA. The scope (i.e. how much GRFA a person could
construct) of the interior conversion alternative is quite limited as compared to the "no
GRFA alternative" and as such linking interior conversions to GRFA is not considered
appropriate. In essence, the interior conversion ordinance is seen as a means for
addressing issues with the GRFA system, not issues with employee housirig.
This in not to say, however, that the Town should not pursue linkages between GRFA
and EHU's. GRFA could be used as an incentive, by allowing additional GRFA if
used to construct an employee unit. Staff is cu.rrently analyzing how to improve the
EHU section of the Zoning Code.
4. Why the "date certain"_ proposed to define when a unit is "existinq"?
As proposed, only existing homes would be eligible for interior conversions and the
"date certain" is proposed to define when a home is existing. While the proposed
date could be considered liberal in the sense that homes which have received design
review approval or are under construciion would still be considered existing, the date
does establish a cut-off point in order to prevent the over-design of homes as
discussed in item #1 above. The proposed cut-off date is the date of the approval of
this GRFA amendment.
5. Why limit the size of dormers?
~
7
The underlying premise of this ordinance is to allow additional floor area to existing
homes provided the size of the home is not increased. It is recognized that interior
conversions may require slight modifications to the exterior of a building to provide
light and air to new spaces and to also provide adequate egress. Dormers are
specifically defined to not exceed a percentage of a roof plane in order to prevent
proposals that would raise an entire roof plane under the guise of a dormer. The
concern is that if the size of dormers are not limited, proposals to raise large portions
of a roof will be made that will increase the size of existing buildings. This scenario
would be contrary to the underlying goal of this ordinance.
6. What can peo.ple do who have already completed interior conversions without zoni~
or buildina permit aR ro~vals?
It is recognized that many interior conversions have been completed over the years
without approvals from the Town. At the direction of the Town Council, the
Community Development Staff could investigate the feasibility of an amnesty program
which would allow homeowners the opportunity to have such improvements reviewed
and approved by the Town. Such approval would be subject to compliance with
applicable zoning and building code requirements. This type of amnesty program
could be implemented independent of this ordinance and as such, specific elements
of the amnesty program are not proposed at this time.
7. Why not limit interior conversipns to lust pPrmanent residents?
During the course of this process it has been suggested that any amendments which
increases allowable GRFA be limited to permanent residents only, in order to provide
an incentive for keeping local's in Vail. From a legal standpoint this could be dorie.
However, from a practical standpoint this would be difficult to administer. As with the
issue of EHU's, this ordinance is seen as a means for addressing issues with the
GRFA system, not issues with permanent residents and second-home owners. No
limitations are proposed with this amendment.
8. Why not allow interior conversions as part of demo/rebuild proiects?
The underlying goal of this amendment is to allow for flexibility in the use of xi in
interior spaces in a way that does not increase the size of homes. Allowing
demo/rebuilds to utilize this ordinance would be inconsistent with these goals.
9. Whv not allow multi-family units to convert existina interior spaces?
At the direction of the Town Council, this amendment process is limited to existing
single-family, two-family and primary/secondary units only.
10. What about homes that are located in aSpecial Development District that mav have
s e ifi RFA limitations?
This ordinance has been structured such that GRFA which is created by interior
conversions shall be permitted in addition to allowable GRFA - regardless of whether
the allowable GRFA is determined by a ratio of the lot size (as is the case with typical
zone districts) or by specific limitations established by an SDD. GRFA created in
accordance with this Section would essentially supersede GRFA limitations
. established by underlying zoning or by an SDD. The exception to this is if GRFA limits
are identified in the covenants or with the plat restrictions for an SDD. If this is the
~
8
case, then the plat and/or covenants would have to be changed to allow an interior
conversion to occur.
11. IS a property eligible for an interior conversion if qlat restrictions or covenants limit the
amount of GRFA within a structure?
If the plat or covenants for a property limit GRFA, an interior conversion may only be
possible if there is a plat amendment or a change in the applicable covenants.
12. How will staff determine whether conversion are located within space that was
existingprior to the effective date of the ordinance?
This will create an administrative challenge for the staff. Following approval of this
amendment, staff will begin requiring "as-builY" plans (prior to the effective date of the
amendment) for all new construction projects. Applicants will provide 8.5" x 11"
drawings of floor plans, which will be kept on file in order to document what space
was existing prior to the effect date of this amendment.
C. Examqles of how the Amendment will be Implemented
The following hypothetical scenarios have been prepared in order to provide an indication
of how this amendment can be used and to also understand some of the limitations of
this ordinance.
1. The Ruther's have constructed all allowable GRFA, including square footage allowed
by the 250 Ordinance. They would like to add a loft of 190 square feet to an existing
vaulted space. Two skylights would be added to the roof to bring light into the loft.
Process - The interior conversion ordinance would allow for this addition. Depending
upon the design of the skylights and subject to compliance with other zoning
regulations, this application would probably be reviewed at the staff levet.
2. The Waterton's have constructed all allowable GRFA, but have not utilized the 250
Ordinance. They would like to add a 225 square foot dining room by expanding an
existing exterior wall and to convert 1,000 square feet of crawl space to storage and a
recreationlfamily room. They would like to complete the project utilizing the provisions
of the interior conversion ordinance.
Process -The crawl space conversion could be accomplished utilizing the interior
conversion ordinance, however, the dining room could only be added by using the 250
Ordinance (because the expansion of exterior walls would increase the size of the
hame). Due to the use of the 260 Ordinance, this application would require review
and approval by the PEC. The 225 square foot addition would not be eligible for an
interior conversion.
3. The Williamson's have an oversized garage of 600 square feet which currently
accommodates two cars, storage and a workshop. They would like to convert 200
square feet of the garage to GRFA by modifying interior walls, leaving approximately
400 square feet in the garage. The Williamson's have used all allowable GRFA.
Process -This proposal would not be allowed because the garage was constructed
using the 600 sq. ft. garage GRFA credit.
9
4. The Mason's would like to add a 200 square foot loft as an element of a major
remadel of their home. The loft would be located in a new vaulted space to be
constructed as a part of the remodet. The remodel plans would utilize all allowable
GRFA, with the exception of the loft space, which the Mason's proposed to be
created utilizing the interior conversion ordinance.
Process - The square footage associated with the loft could not be constructed
utilizing the interior conversion ordinance because the loft is located in space that was
not in existence before this ordinance was adopted. The ordinance requires that
"additional GRFA shall be constructed utilizing the floor area or volume of the building
that is in existence at the time such application is made".
5. The Rodriguez's have an additional 800 square feet of GRFA available. They receive
DRB approvat and build an 800 square foot addition. Two years later they submit
plans to convert a crawl space under the original part of the house into a basement
and to add a lofted area in the new 800 square foot addition.
process- The Rodriguez's would be allowed to convert the crawl space into a
basement since it was part of their original house that existed prior to the interior
conversion amendment to the GRFA policy. However, they would not be allowed to
utilize the lofted space in the 800 sq. ft. addition since it was built after the approval of
the interior conversion policy.
VI, COrynaLIDATION OF GRFA REGULATIONS IN THE ZONING CODE
A. Purpose for Consolidation:
There are numerous references to Gross Residential Floor Area within Title 18 of the Zoriing
Code. To better communicate to the public how GRFA is calculated in different zone districts,
staff is proposing to consolidated references to GRFA into one section of the Zoning Code.
B. Proposed Changes
Currently GRFA is referred to in the following sections:
18.04.130 -Definitions
18.09.080-HSR
18.10.090 SFR
18.11.080 P/S
18.12.090 TFR
18.13.080 P/S
18.14.090 RC ,
18.16.490 LDMF 18.18.090 MDMF
18.20.090 HDMF
18.22.090 PA
18.24.130 CC1
1$.26.100 CC2
18.27.080 CC3
18.28.100 CSC
18. 29. 080 AB
18.32.090 AOS
18.57 EHU
t 18.71 Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250)
10
Staff would like to consolidate the above mentioned references and the interior conversion
provision into one section in the Zoning Code. The following summarizes this consolidation:
1) The reference to GRFA in the Definition section would be moved to the consolidated
GRFA section. In its place would be a simple definition of GRFA which could be simply:
"Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) means the total square footage of all levels of a
bulding as measured using standards in Section 18.(Consolidated GRFA Section)"
2) The GRFA section in each zone district would remain the same. A summary for each zone
district would be included in a table in the consolidated GRFA section. (See Attachment B for
an example of what this table would look like)
3) Section 18.71 (Additional GRFA) would be included in the consolidated GRFA Section.
4) The interior conversion standards, if approved, would be incorporated into the
consolidated GRFA section.
5) Staff interpretations currently used to calculate GRFA would be incorparated into the
consolidated GRFA section. See attachment A to review existing staff interpretations.
It is important to note that this consolidation would not change the Town's current policy for
regulating GRFA. It would simply help make the GRFA process easier to understand for
development review applicants. This consolidation would also codify existing staff interpretations
for calculating GRFA. Again, this would not result in a change in how GRFA is regulated.
Specific sections of this new consolidated GRFA Chapter would include: ,
Ti IP \ .
Section
18.80.010 Purpose and need for GRFA
18.80.020 Summary of GRFA for Zone Districts (This would be in a tabular format-See
Attachment B for example)
18.80.030 Calculation of GRFA (will incorporate definition section and staff
interpretations) 18.80.040 Interior Conversions
18.80.050 Additional GRFA
* Note: Section numbers are intended to be an example. Actual section references will be
assigned when and if the ordinance is approved.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Town Council has directed staff to implement Alternative 1. This alternative keeps GRFA as
a toal to control bulk and mass of structures but allows interior conversions to existing homes.
Staff recommends that the approach outlined in Section V of this memo is the most effective way
of implementing Alternative 1. With this approach, only existing homes on the effective date of
this ordinance that are existing or which plans have been approved by the DRB could take
advantage of doing interior conversions. This alternative will address the most pressing issue
that initiated this process, which was to create greater flexibility for homeowners to make interior
conversions to their existing homes even if they do not have any remaining GRFA allowance.
Staff wauld recommend that the policy of allowing interior conversions be reexamined after the
design guidelines have been modified, since staff anticipates that property owners of homes that
will be r.onstructed in the future will want to convert crawl spaces into basements or turn lofted
areas inta floor area.
~
]1
Staff also recommends consolidating the GRFA regulations in the existing Zoning Code to help
clarify current policy on Gross Residential Floor Area. Staff received numerous public comments
during the review of this policy on how difficult the GRFA policy is to understand. This
consolidation would not change how GRFA is regulated but would help clarify how GRFA is
currently calculated.
The following is a summary of the staff recomendations:
` Only apply interior conversion to structures that are in existence as of the effective date of
the approval of this ordinance.
* Additions to structures after the date of this amendment would not be eligible for interior
conversions.
` Structures must not have any remaining GRFA allowance (excluding the 250 GRFA credit)
before applying for interior conversion GRFA.
' Implement Alternative 1 as per the other standards outlined in this memo.
' Consolidate all GRFA references in the Zoning Code into one section.
* Reevaluate the GRFA policy after new design guidelines have been adopted.
\1
,
t
12
i .
Attachment A
Current Staff Policy for Calculating GRFA
Calculation:
' Interior wails are included in GRFA calculations. For duplex and primary/secondary siructures,
common party walls shall be considered exterior walls.
Bay windows, fireplaces, and mantels shall be included in GRFA calculations.
* Greenhouse windows (self-supporting windows) shall not be counted as GRFA. Greenhouse
windows are defined according to the following criteria (see graphic):
1. Distance Above Inside Floor Level - In order for a window to be considered a greenhouse
window, a minimum distance of 36" must be provided between the bottom of the window and
the floor surface, as measured on the inside face of the building wall. (Floor surface shall not
include steps necessary to meet Building Code egress requirements). The 36" minimum was
chosen because it locates the window too high to be comfortably used as a window seat and
because it allows for a typical 4' high greenhouse window to be used in a room with an 8'
ceiling height.
2. Projection - No greenhouse window may protrude more than 18" from the exterior surface of
the building. This distance allows for adequate relief for appearance purposes, without
substantially adding to the mass and bulk of the building.
3. Construction Characteristics - All greenhouse windows shall be self-supporting and shall not
. require special framing or construction methods for support, with the exception that brackets
below the window may be allowed provided they die into the wall of the building at a 45 degree
angle. A small roof over the window may also be allowed provided the overhang is limited to 4"
beyond the window plane.
4. Dimensional Requirement - No greenhouse window shall have a total window surface area
greater than 44 s.f. This figure was derived on the assumption that the maximum height of a
window, in an average sized room, is 4' and the maximum width for a 4' high self-supporting
window is between 6' and 8' (approximately 32 s.f.). Since the window would protrude no more
than 18", the addition of side windows would bring the overall window area to approximately 44
s.f.
5. Quantity - Up to two (2) greenhouse windows will be allowed per dwelling unit, however, the 44
s.f. size limitation will apply to the combined area of the two windows.
6. Greenhouse windows do not count as site coverage.
" Vaulted spaces and areas "open to below" are not included in GRFA calculations.
" Storage areas, mechanical areas, stairs, landings, void spaces, and the like are included in GRFA
calculations.
" The conversion of all areas counted as "credit area" prior to January 1, 1991 shall be allowed.
Rock storage areas may be converted to GRFA.
Garage aredit:
* Allowable garage area is awarded on a"per space basis," with a maximum of two spaces per
allowable unit. Each garage space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular
access. All floor area included in the garage credit shall be contiguous to a vehicular space.
` Alcoves, storage areas, and mechanical areas which are located in the garage and which are 25%
~ or more open to the garage area shall be included as garage credit.
13
' Garage space in excess of the allowable garage credit shall be counted as GRFA. . +
Crawl and attic space:
* Crawl spaces created by a"stepped foundation," hazard mitigation, or other similar engineering
requirement that has a total height in excess of five feet may be excluded from GRFA calculations
at the discretion of the Director of Community Development.
* Pre-existing crawl space or attic areas, no matter what the head height, can be converted to
habitable area only if the project or development has available GRFA or approval for additional
GRFA under the 250 ordinance when analyzed using current GRFA regulations.
` Pre-existing crawl space areas, unfinished with an earthen floor and limited access, no matter what
the head height will not be counted as GRFA until such time as conversion to habitable area is
proposed and approved through the normal design review process. Again, conversions can only
be approved if the project has available GRFA when analyzed using current GRFA regulations.
* All crawl spaces constructed must meet the following definition:
Crawl spaces shall include any below grade or substantially buried area enclosed within the
foundation walls, with a ceiling height less than or equal to 5 feet as measured from the
surface of the earth to the underside of the structural members of the floor/ceiling assembly
above. Crawt spaces must be accessed with an opening not greater than 12 square feet in
area.
Enclosed spaces not meeting this definition will be considered to be GRFA. Enclosed spaces
counted as GRFA will be clearly noted by the planner on the red-lined floor plans. True crawl
spaces shall be shown on floor plans and labeled with a note indicating: 1) that the height of
the space will be 5 feet or less, and 2) that access will be provided via a hatch or door not to
exceed 12 square feet in area. All crawl spaces shown on any approved floor plans shall have
such a note, or the planner will count the space as GRFA.
' If a roof structure is designed utilizing a non-truss system, and spaces greater than five feet in
height result,lhese areas shall not be counted as GRFA if ALL of the following criteria are me\
1. The area cannot be accessed directly from a habitable area within the same building level;
2. The area shall have the minimum access required by the Building Code from the level
below (6 s.f. opening maximum);
3. The attic space shall not have a structural floor capable of supporting a"live load" greater
than 40 pounds per square foot, and the "floor" of the attic space cannot not be improved
with decking;
4. It must be demonstrated by the architect (to the staff) that a"truss-type" or similar structural
system cannot be utilized as defined in the definition of GRFA; and
5. It will be necessary that a structural element (i.e., collar-tie) be utilized when rafters are
used for the roof system. In an unusual situation, such as when a bearing ridge system is
used, the staff will review the space for compliance with this policy.
25% contiguous opening:
' In order for a covered (roofed) area NOT to count as GRFA, there must be a continuous and
contiguous opening in the exterior walls of not less than 25% of the total lineal perimeter of the area
in question. An exception shall be made for railings up to 3' in height and support posts with a
diameter of 18" or less which are spaced no closer than 10' apart. The space between the posts
shall be measured from the outer surface of the post (see graphic).
PrimarylSecondary units:
' The 425 s.f. credit per unit shall be applied to each unit AFTER the 60/40 split has been calculated
(i.e., the secondary unit shall be allowed 40% of the total GRFA + 425 s.f.).
S • On Primary/Secondary and Duplex lots, GRFA is calculated based on the entire lot.
14
1 •
Attachment B
Example of Consolidated Table for GRFA
CHAPTERI5
GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA)
:;:::::.:::i::::i:ii::;::i:::::`: : . : : . . . .
: . : .,:.pfl;lXttb!:>~ :>:~9#~:~1~iX~C
ui~t~
~ .
•r,ane DLscrict4 CRFA cHFn
Rallo/Percenlage Credits
(added ln results of appllcalion ofpercentage)
11 R 201/6 of lot area of first 21,780 sq. ft. + None
Ilillcide 5^/ oFlot area ovcr 21,780 sq. R.
Residentlal
SFR 25% of lo[ area ot first 12.500 sq. R. + 425 sq. R per allownble dwelling unit
Single Family 10°/ of lot area over 12,500 sq. R.
Residenlial
?t 2$ / of lot area of first 15,000 sq. fl. + 425 sq. R. per allowable dwclling uni[
Two-Fanilly 101/6 of lo[ area over 12,500 sq. R. anA up to 30,000 sq. R. +
RecideMlal 5"/ of lot area over 30,000 sq. R.
p/ti 25^/ of lot area of first I S,IX)0 sq. R. + 425 sq. fl. per allowable dwelling unit
Prl mary/ 10% o( lot area over 12,500.4q. It. and up to 30.000 sq. R. +
Sernndary 5% of lot area over 30,000 sq. R.
Resldenilal (thc secondary unit shall not cxceed 401/6 of rRPA on-sile prior
to applica[ion of creAit)
RC 25% of buildablc bt area 225 yq. R. for singlo-family and nwo•family stnicttires only
licsldcnlisl
Clusler ,
LpMF JIP/ of buildablc lot area 225 sq. ft. for singic-fnmily and twn-fnmily stnicturcs only
I.ow Den+lty ~
111ulliple \
M'amlly
MDMb' 35% of buildable lol area 225 sq. fl. for single-family and two-femily stnictures only
Medlum
Denslty
Multiplc
b'amily '
IIDAIF GO%ofbuildablelotarca Nonc
Illgh Denslly
Multiple
F'rmlly
PA RIP/ of buildahle bt area None
Puhlic Accom-
modalion
CCl 80P/ of buildable In[ area None
Cnmmerclal
Corc 1
CC2 S(P/ of buildable lot arca . Nonc
Commercial ~
Cnrc 2
CC3 301/6 of buildable lot area Nonc
Commerclal
Corc 3
CSC 401/6 ofbuildablelotarea None
Commercinl GRrA sAall not exceed 50%oftotal building Oooraree on any
Service Cenler site
A BD 60% of buildeble lot area None
Artcrlal
Business a
1Y1WN OF VAIL
HS None pertnitted None
I{eavy Service
<
15
: . . .
. ,
. . . . . . . . . : : : : : : : : : : : : : . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
y~
.
. . . : . .r~ G~
~~::~f. 'T.JB~~:a;7~~,~,........
t
.:;:.::::.::.•:;;::....::•:;:;;::•»:;;;•:::;:.:;•::.,;:.;:.:::::.<•:;•:::.,,.>.~~t:,?~:: iA~Elkl~..........~'`
7onc Diclrlclx cxFn cxF•n
Ratlo/Percenlagc Credi(s
(added to rcaulls of appllca(lon of percrntage)
p Up to 2.000 sy. R. total Nonc
Agricullural
and Open
tipacc
p(t Nonc pcrmiUCd Nonc
Outdoor
Recrcrlion
p None pcrtnit[cd Nonc
ParW ng
(;U Pcr PFC approvai Nonc
Ceneral Use
NAP None permitted Nonc
Nalural Arca
Prescrvation
F SBR Unlimited, per Council approval None
Ski 13ase
Recreation
SDU Per underlyingzoning or per development plan approval by None
Special Council
Developmenl
District
f:everyone\russ\memos\grfa.623
~
\
t
~
16
. ' .
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmentai Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 23, 1997
RE: A request for a worksession to discuss amendments to Sections 18.24.030,
18.24.040, 18.24.050, 18.24.060, 18.26.040 of ihe Zoning Code to add
Commercial Ski Storage as a permitted use and Outdoor Ski Storage as a
conditional use in the Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II zone districts.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy
Planner: Lauren Waterton
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESl"
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the zoning code to allow for commercial ski
storage. The proposed amendments include permitting commercial ski storage on all levels of
the building in Commercial Core I(CCI) and Commercial Core II (CCII) and to allow outdoor
commercial ski storage as a conditionat use in CCI and CCII. Commercial ski storage is currently
permitted in the basement level of the building in CCI and CCII. Because the zoning code .
regulates permitted uses according to the level of building in CCI and CCII, the code must be amended to allow ski storage on other levels of the building.
II. BACKGROUND
In 1989, the zoning code was amended to allow commercial ski storage as a permitted use only
in the basement and garden level of buildings in CCI and CCII. At that time, there were several
existing ski storage facilities located in basements, that had been approved by the Town of Vail
as an accessory use to an existing ski shop.
There are a number of outdoor ski storage facilities that have been erected over the years. The
existing regulations do not permit outdoor ski storage facilities to be installed. Earlier this year,
staff denied a request by Vail Associates for Design Review Board approval for ski storage in
Lionshead, next to the Gondola Building. Upon appeal of that staff decision, the PEC upheld the
staff's decision that a previous nonconforming use had been substantially changed so that the
use had lost the nonconforming status. %
Qn June 9, 1997, the PFC held a worksession to discuss ihe proposed changes to the code
described above. At that mePting, all the PEC members agreed that a definitions of commercial
ski storage was necessary. It was suggested that definitions for different types of ski storage be
established. The PEC was split on allowing commercial ski storage on the first level of buildings
aiicl about ailowing outdaor commercial ski storage.
~
~
DISCUSSION ISSUES
A. Issues From Previous Worksession
Definitions
The PEC agreed that definitions for commercial ski storage should be established.
See below for the proposed definitions.
Appropriate building levels for ski storage
The PEC discussed the proposed change to the zoning code that would permit
commercial ski storage in CCI and CCII on all building levels and no concensus
was reached. Some members felt that it was appropriate to allow ski storage on
all building levels and others felt that the first floor should remain as active retail
storefronts. Staff believes that commercial ski storage should only be permitted in
basements and second floors.
Outdoor ski storage
1. Conditional use
The PEC discussed the proposed change that would permit
outdoor ski storage as a conditional use in CCI and CCII. There
was no concensus that outdoor ski storage would be an
appropriate use within this zone district. Staff believes that if
. outdoor ski storage is permitked, it should be a conditional use with
specific criteria that must be addressed.
2. Design parameters for outdoor ski storage The PEC agreed that if outdoor ski storage is permitted as a
conditional use, design guidelines should be established
specifically for ski storage. The staff strongly believes that
additional design parameters should be established.
3. Development standards
The PEC agreed with the staff recommendation that outdoor ski
storage should not have to comply with the standards for setbacks,
parking and exterior alterations. There was concensus that site '
coverage should be assessed only if the ski storage exceeds 120
square feet.
4. Other zone districts
Because Cascade Village also has mountain access via a ski lift, it
was suggested thac these changes be made to the Cascade
Village SDD, in addition to CCI and CCII.
S. Definition of Commercial Ski Storage
While the code currently permits commercial ski storage in the basement levels of
buildings in CCI and CCII, there is no definition of this use. Since the last
worksession, ihe applicant and staff have developed the following definitions:
t 2
~
, i
"Commercial Ski Storage" means storage for equipment (skis, snowboards,
boots and poles) and/or clothing used in skiing-related sports, which is available
to the public or members, operated by a business, club or government
organization, and where a fee is charged for hourly, daily, monthly, seasonal or
annuai usage. Ski storage that is part of a lodge, or dwelling unit, in which a fee
is not charged, is not considered commercial ski storage.
"Outdoor Gommercial Ski Storage" means storage for equipment (skis,
snowboards, boots, and potes) used in skiing-related sports, which is available to
the public, operated by a business, club or government organization, and where a
fee is charged for hourly or daily usage. Outdoor ski storage may be enclosed in
an accessory building, or may be unenclosed coin-operated ski locks.
"Ski Racks" means racks available to the public for the temporary storage of
skis, poles and snowboards, in which a fee is not charged.
C. History of Ski Storage
The zoning code was amended in 1989, to permit commercial ski storage in the
basement levels ot buildings in CCI and CCII. Prior to that amendment, the
zoning code did not specifically permit ski storage.
D. Sales Tax.
The PFC asked if sales tax is collected on the ski storage facilities operated by
Vail Associates in Lionshead, Vail Village and Golden Peak. According the the
Town of Vail Finance Department, sales tax is remitted to the Town for all three
locations. According to the -r'own's annexation plats, all these locations are within
the Town's Municipal Boundary E. Village Parking Structuro ,S_ki LQckers
The PEC asked if the ski lockers in the Village Parking Structure are a permitted
use. The parking structure is zoned Parking District. According to that zone
district, a conditional use permit is required for "...commercial uses that are
transportation, tourist or Town related and that are accessory to a parking
structure." Staff believes that ski lockers are a tourist related use, accessory to
the parking structure and is, therefore, permitted as a conditional use. The
Community Development Department records do not indicate that a conditional use permit was ever granted for this ski storage. Staff will follow-up with the
Public Works Department on this issue.
IV. CONFORMITY WITH THE TOWN'S RELEVANT PLANNING DOCUMENTS
In considering the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code, staff relies on several relevant
planning documents bPfore making a recommendation. Specifically, staff reviews the purpose
sections of the CC1 and C;C2 zone districts and the goals and objectives stated in the Vail Land
Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. Staff has provided the relevant sections below:
. 3
~
Purpose Section of Commercial Core I(CCI) zone district:
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.
Purpose Section of the Commercial Core II (CCII) zone district:
The Commercial Core 2 Zone District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of
muliiple dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified
development. Commercial Core 2 District in accordance with the Vail Lionshead
Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to insure
adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted
types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district
by establishing appropriate site development standards.
Vail Land Use Plan ,
Goal 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders
should work together closely to make existiny facilities and the
Town function more efficiently.
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).
Goal 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth.
Vail Village Master Plan
Objective 2.4 Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity
where compatible with existing land uses.
Objective 52 Encourage the use of public transportation to minimize ihe use of
private automobiles throughout Vail.
4
~ ,
~
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Since this is a worksession, staff is not making a recommendation at this time. However, staff
will make a recommendation at the time of final review.
5
~
•
u
TOWN OF VAIL
Office of the Town Manager
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157
TM
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager
DATE: June 24, 1997
RE: Town of Vail/Vail Associates Community Task Force
As you are aware the TOV/VA Community Task Force was created in March, 1995 following
execution of our Managed Growth Agreement with Vail Associates. The mission and purpose of
the Task Force is to:
? Explore mechanisms to better utilize the existing resources during the non-peak periods
and recommend a plan of action.
? To seek out ways to coordinate events and pricing with the business community, the Vail
Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau, and the Vail Valley Foundation to enhance non-peak
period visitation.
The TOVNA agreement calls for'the Task Force to be comprised of community residents, business
owners, and members of the Assessment Committee' and should meet at least four times per year.
The Task Force has been meeting for approximately two years. During this time it has achieved
some successes. Other endeavors have not been as successful as we had hoped.
In order to increase the effectiveness of the Task Force, it is my intention to work with the Mayor
and other members of the Task Force to modify the Task Force structure to better accomplish its
mission. The original mission and purpose would remain in tact. However, representation on the
Task Force would be expanded to include additional constituencies.
. 1The TOVNA Growth Management Agreement also established an Assessment Comminee to monitor peak period usa. The Assasment Comminee wav comprised of two
representatives from [he TOV and nvo from VA. It was to meet periodically during the ski season and on an ad hoc buis if end when the 19,900 SAOT is exceeded.
C~ RECYCLEDPAPER
Representation/membership on the Task Force would be as follows:
TOV Bob Armour, Bob McLaurin, Rob Ford
VA Chris Ryman, Chris Jarnot
WTCB Frank Johnson
Lodging To be appointed
Village Merchants To be appointed
Lionshead Merchants To be appointed
Restaurants To be appointed
Vail Valley Foundation To be appointed
Chamber To be appointed Vail Recreation District To be appointed
Community at Large To be appointed
New entities that would be added to the Task Force include, the Vail Recreation District, the
Chamber, and the Vail Valley Foundation. Additionally, we are proposing that two "at large" seats
be allocated. The Task Force would be staffed with support from Suzanne Silverthorn, Robin Litt,
and Chris Cares of RRC.
,
It is our intention to meet with each of these groups to ask them to submit a representative who will
serve as a liaison between the Community Task Force and their respective groups. It is anticipated
that the two "at large" seats would be appointed by the Vail Town Council following a public
application process.
The proposed agenda for the Task Force is as follows:
. Summer - Focus on early season non-peak period.
Fall - Focus on January/February non-peak period.
Winter - Focus on spring ski season non-peak period.
Spring - Focus on summer.
If you do not object, I would like to implement these changes in the next few weeks. I look forward
to discussing this matter with you.
RWM/aw
xc: Robin Litt Suzanne Silverthorn
Chris Cares