HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-01 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
~
t
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, JULY 1, 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 • Joe Kochera - 25 Year Anniversary. (5 mins.)
2• Northwest Colorado Council of Governments - Quality and Quantity
Monique Gilbert Committee, update on water quality standards project. (30 mins.)
Lane Wyatt
Robert Ray
3. Executive Session - Land Negotiations. (30 mins.)
4• Discussion of Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1997, an ordinance
George Ruther establishing Special Development District No. 35, Austria Haus, and
providing for a development plan and its contents; development
standards; and other provisions; and setting forth details in regard
thereto. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon
Pierce. (15 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review and discuss Ordinance
- No.12, Series of 1997.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On June 17, 1997, the Vail Town Council
reviewed and approved Ordinance No. 12, Series of 9997, on First
Reading (5-0). The Council's approval carried with it several
modifications. Each of the changes has been incorporated into the
revised ordinance which establishes Special Development District No. 35,
Austria Haus.
5. Consider modification to GRFA Policy to allow interior conversions.
Russell Forrest (45 mins.)
Tom Braun
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review ordinance language to
allow interior conversion of existing single family, duplex, and
primary/secondary structures that have no remaining Gross Residential
Floor Area (GRFA).
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Vail Town council directed staff to
evaluate the existing GRFA system and determine whether this is an
effective and appropriate tool for regulating mass and bulk when
compared to other alternatives. The Vail Town Council, on April 15,
1997, directed staff to implement Alternative 1, the interior conversion
alternative. Alternate 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. The purpose of this work session is to review the
staff and Planning and Environmental Commission recommendations for
implementing Alternative 1. In addition, staff is recommending
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.
~
i
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Implement Alternative 1 as per the staff
and PEC recommendations and consolidate GRFA references into one
section.
6. Rockfall Mitigation for Booth Falls Condominium Association. (40 mins.)
Russell Forrest
Jerry Greven ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL:
1) Use of Town of Vail Land to construct rockfall mitigation and to
proceed through the process to obtain approval for Rock#all mitigation.
2) The Association is requesting up to $20,000 for design of the
mitigation.
3) The Association is requesting that the Town fund the construction of
the mitigation in lieu of issuing bonds which requires a vote of the
homeowners that would be assessed in a local improvement district.
Such a vote must be done in November as per Amendment 1.
4) Commitment of staff time to assist in expediting the process.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: At 11:20 on March 26, 1997 a 20ft x 8ft
piece of the rock face broke off the rock band above the Booth Falls
Town homes. Units 14, 15, 16 were impacted by several large rocks.
The fargest rock went through the watl of unit 14 and pushed a bed
through the 1st floor and into the basement area. On March 27, 1997
staff met a USFS team and Johnathon White of the Colorado State
Geological Survey to determine the risk of additional rockfall incidents.
Through further site investigation and an analysis done by the State
Geological Survey, it was determined that the area was in a high rockfall
hazard area as indicated on the Town's hazard maps which means
rockfall incidents are likely in the area. However, the risk of a rockfall
incident was no higher now than "usual." On May 6th, 1997 a Council
work session was held to review the incident and to determine what
should be done to mitigate the hazard. Council did direct staff to assist
the Homeowners Association in determining a cost for mitigation.
7. Regional Marketing Funding Discussion. (45 mins.)
Sybill Navas
Steve Thompson BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Town Council charged the Vail Valley
Marketing Board to find a permanent source of funding for regional
marketing. Participants in the regional marketing fund, VVTCB and the
Chamber have been brainstorming options, and would like to get the
Town Council's feedback on a proposed Lodging Tax of 1.5% to
permanent fund regional marketing on an equitable basis. The proposed
plan not only addresses funding but also inctudes a restructuring and
reallocation of seroices that the VVTCB and the Chamber perform.
8. Information Update. (10 mins.)
9. Council Reports. (10 mins.)
10. Other. (10 mins.)
11. Adjournment - 6:00 p.m.
2
~
1
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 7/8/97, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 7115/97, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 7/15/97, 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:WGENDA.WS
3
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
EVENING MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1997
7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS
' AGENDA
NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to
determine at what time Council will consider an item.
1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. (5 mins.)
2. CONSENT AGENDA:
A. Approve the Minutes from the meetings of June 3 and 17, 1997.
(5 mins.)
3. Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1997, second reading of an ordinance
George Ruther establishing Special Development District No. 35, Austria Haus, and
providing for a development plan and its contents; development
standards; and other provisions; and setting forth details in regard
thereto. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon
Pierce. (30 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance
No.12, Series of 1997, on second reading.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On June 17, 1997, the Vail Town Council
reviewed and approved Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1997, on first
reading (5-0). The Council's approval carried with it several modifications.
Each of the changes has been incorporated into the revised ordinance
which establishes Special Development District No. 35, Austria Haus.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance No. 12, Series of
1997 on second reading.
4• A request to review and approve the proposed public view corridors to be
Dominic Mauriello considered in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The final
adoption of public view corridors, if any, will occur in Stage 5 of the
Master Ptan process. (1 hr.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve/Modify the proposed
public view corridors, if any, to be considered in the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: See the July 1, 1997 staff memo and the
June 23, 1997 consultant memo for a complete description of the
proposed public view corridors.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the proposed public view
corridors as reviewed by Town Council on June 24, 1997. The exact
view points and delineated views will occur in Stage 5 of the master
planning process. The views recommended by Council at the June 24,
1997 meeting include: _
View #2 (from east end of the parking structure) to be
included as a design parameter.
View #3 (from west end of the parking structure) to be
designated in Stage 5 as a view corridor. Views #6 or 7 (from mall area looking up gondola line) to be
designated in Stage 5 as a view corridor.
View #8 (from east of Landmark looking south through the
VA core site) to be included as a design parameter.
View #9 (from east of Landmark looking south through the
VA core site from a higher elevation than #8) to be
designated in Stage 5 as a view corridor
(Formal consideration and adoption of public view corridors, if any, will
occur in Stage 5 of the Master Plan process.
5. A Town Council call-up of a Ptanning and Environmental Commission
Lauren Waterton decision (5-1, Amsden against) to overturn 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. (1 hr.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Uphold / modify / overturn the
PEC's decision to overturn the staff's decision regarding the proposed
use.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On June 23, 1997, the PEC overturned,
by a vote of 5-1 (Amsden against), a staff decision regarding a proposed
batting cage on the outdoor dining deck at Garton's Saloon. See the
Council packet for the staff memo to the PEC, dated June 23, 1997, for a
complete description of the appeal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council
overturn the Ptanning and Environmental Commission's decision.
6. Town Manager Report. (10 mins.)
7. Adjournment - 10:20 p.m.
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
I I I I I I I
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 7/8/97, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON Tl9ESDAY, 7/15/97, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BE ON TIDESDAY, 7115/97, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
I I I I I I I
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice
or 479-2356 TDD for information.
C:WGENDA.TC
~ COUNCIL FOLLOW-UP
TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 1997
; 05/6 BOOTH FALLS CONDOMINIUM LARRYIGREG H./RUSSELL: Work w/Gerry and other , Council Work Session planned for July 1st to review pracess to develop
ASSOCIATION (Gerry Greven) affected property owner(s); Jonathan White and other mitigation for rockfall hazard at Booth Falls Townhomes.
specialists - in evaluating appropriate rockfall mitigation and
setting up SID or other financial arrangement.
06104 PAY IN LIEU BOBIMIKE MlDOMINIC: Research the following:1) Pull
together a list of properties in CCI and CCII that have access
to public ROW, to exclude their eligibility for pay-in-lieu
parking; 2) Analysis of the TOV's current parking
requirements; compare CCI & CCII to West Vail; and 3)
Discuss parking analysis with Ed Delduca of NWCCOG and
the Town of Avon.
June 26,1997, Page 1
r~
~
ORDINANCE NO. 12
~ Series of 1997
AN ORDIIdANCE PFiOVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISiiMENT OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT NO. 35, AUSTRIA HAUS; ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPEGIAL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 35 IId ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL
MUNICIPAL CODE; AND SElTlNG FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes special development
districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in
order to promote its most appropriate use and to improve the design character and quality of new
development within the Town of Vail and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in
the Vail Comprehensive Pian; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council believes that the establishment of Special Development
District No. 35 benefits the Town of Vail by enhancing and preserving the hotel bed base, increasing
retail shopping opportunities, generating sales tax revenue, implementing streetscape improvements
to East Meadow Drive and Slifer Square, and ensuring deed restricted employee housing for at least
12 employees; and
WHEREAS, the developer, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., has submitted an application for the
establishment of Special Development District No. 35, for a certain parcel of property within the
Town, legally described as on a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing and more
commonly referred to as the Austria Haus; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental
Commission, on June 9, 1897, and with the Design Review Board on April 14, 1997, held public
hearings on the establishment of Special Development District No. 35, and has forwarded their
recommendation of approval to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080, have been sent to the aaaoopriate
parties; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to
the i own anci its citizenry, inhabitants, and visitors to establish Special Development District Uo. 35;
a.~ d
WHEREHS; the Town Councii ras heia a pubiic hearing as required by Chaoter 18.66 af tt;Q
Municipal Code of ihe i own ol 'vail.
NOIti, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOVW COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VHIL,
COl_URADO, THAT:
eroinar,e !2
Series ot 1997
~
t
SECTION 1
The Town Council finds that all the procedures set forth for Special Devefopment Districts
in Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied.
SECTION 2
Special Development District Na. 35 is established to ensure comprehensive development
and use of an area in a manner that will be harmonious and compatible with the general character
of the Town, will provide adequate open space, deed restricted employee housing for twelve (12)
employees, streetscape improvements to East Meadow Drive, public improvements to Slifer Square
and other amenities, and will promote the objectives of the Town's Zoning Ordinance. The
development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council and the Planning and
Environmental Commission, and there are significant aspects of the Special Development District
which cannot be satisfied through the imposition of a standard zoning district on the area.
SECTION 3
Special Development District No. 35 is established for the proposed development on a parcel
of land, legatly described as on a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing, comprising
24,089 square feet/ 0.553 acres in the Vail Village area of the Town. Said 24,089 square feeU 0.553
acres may be referred to as "SDD No. 35."
SECTION 4
The Town Council finds that the Approved Development Plan for SDD No. 35 meets each
of the standards set forth in Section 18.40.080 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, or
demonstrates that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution cansistent
with the public interest has been achieved. In accordance with Section 18.40.040, the Approved
Development Plan for SDD No. 35 is approved. The Approved Development Plan is comoriseci of
those plans submitted by PiercP, Segerberg and Associates, Architects and consists of the following
documents:
1. Existing Conditiens, dated Apri! 14, 19917, (?;erCe, Segerberg and Associates, Architects).
2. Comparison of Existing and Proposed Buifdings, dated June 5, 1997, (Pierce, Seserberg and
Associates, Architects).
3. Overall Site Plan, dated July 1, 1997, (Pierce, Segerberg and Associates, Architects).
4. Landscape Plan and Grading Plan, dated July 1, 1997, (Pierce, Segerberg and Associates,
Architects).
5. Garage-Level Floor Plan, dated June 5, 1997, (Pierce, Segerberg & Associates, Architects).
6. First-Level Fioor Pian, dated June 5, 1997, (Pierce, Segerberg & Associates, Architects).
^rd;r.arice 12
Se';?scf 1467
n
r
t
7. Second-Levei Fioor Plan, dated June 5, 1997, (Pierce, Segerberg & Associates, Architects).
8. Third-Level Floor Plan, dated June 5, 1997, (Pierce, Segerberg & Associates, Architects).
9. Fourth-Level Floor Plan, dated June 5, 1997, (Pierce, Segerberg & Associates, Architects).
10. Roof Plan, dated June 5, 1997, (Pierce, Segerberg & Associates, Architects).
11. North/South Elevation Plan, dated June 5, 1997, (Pierce, Segerberg & Associates,
Architects).
12. EastlWest Elevation Plan, dated June 5, 1997, (Pierce, Segerberg & Associates, Architects).
13. Streambank Restaration Plan, dated July 1, 1997, (Pierce, Segerberg & Associates,
Architects).
SECTION 5
In addition to the Approved Development Plan described in Section 4 above, the following
development standards have been submitted to the Planning and Environmental Commission for its
consideration and recornmendation and are hereby approved by the Town Council. These standards
are incorporated in the Appraved Development Plan to protect the integrity of the development of
Special Development District No. 35. The ;ollowing are the development standards for Special
Development District No. 35:
A. Lot Area - The lot area consists of approximately 24,089 square feet/ 0.553 acres.
B. Density Control - The maximum GRFA for the Austria Haus shall not exceed 35,224
square feet. This figure includes 10,261 square feet of hotel accommodation units and 24,963
square feet of fractional fee club units. The approved density for the Austria Haus includes eighteen
(18) fractional fee club units, twenty-five (25) hotel rooms (accommodation units) and one (1) on-site
manager's residence (Type III tmployee Housing Unit), for a total of 31 dwElling units.
C. Site Coverage - The maximum site coverage for Speciaf Development District No. 35
shall not exceed 17,525 square feet; or 73% of the !ot area, and shall be as indicated on the
Approved Develooment Pians.
D. Setbacks - The setbacks of ine Austria Haus building shall be as indicated on the
Approved Development Plans.
E. Landscaping - All landscaping shall be in accordance with the Approved Development
Plans.
F. Height - The maximLlm height of the Austria Haus bailding sha!l be as indicated on
the Anproved Development Fians.
G. Parking and Loading - Section 18.52 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code prescribes
the parkirg requ+rements for development. A minimum of sixty-three (63) underground, an-site
veh:cle parking spaces shaii be prcvideU, in accordance with the Approved Development Pfans. The
orc;rance ;z
Series of 7997
ti~
h
A
required number of loading and delivery berths shali be a total of 1 berth, in accordance with the
Approved Development Plans.
H. Commercial Area - The maximum commercial area for Speciaf Development District
No. 35 shall not exceed 5,402 square feet, or 15% of the allowable GRFA, and shall be as indicated
on the Approved Development Plans.
1. Common Area - The maximum allowable common area for Special Development
District No. 35 shall not exceed 12,714 square feet, or 36% of the allowable GRFA, and shall be as
indicated on the Approved Developmer:t Plans.
J. Uses - The underlying zoning for Special Development District No. 35 shall be Public
Accommodation. The permitted, corditional and accessory uses sha{I be those listed in Chapter
18.22 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail with the exception of restaurants or similar food
service operations, which shall not be allowed.
SECTION 6
The developer, agrees with the,following conditions, which are a part of the Town's approval
of the establishment of Special Development D9strict No. 35:
1. That the applicant prepare a deed restriction or covenant, subject to the Town
Attorney's review and approval, restricting the current and future owner's ability to
locate a restaurant or similar food service operation on the Austria Haus property.
Said deed restriction or covenant shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and
Recorder's Office prior to the applicant submitting for a building permit.
2. That the appl:cant submit the following plans to the Department of Community
Development fior reviPw and approval as a part of the bui!ding permit application for
the Austria Haus:
a. Tree Preservation Plan;
o. Erosion Control and Sedimentatian Plan;
c. Gonstruction Staging and Phasing Pian;
d. Storrrwater Management Pian;
e. Site DPwatering Plan; ar,d
i raffir.: Controi Plan.
0. Roafi ^rojec'fior Plan (mechanicai equipment)
3. That the appliGant provide deed-restricted !?ousing, which complies with the TQwr o€
Vdii Ertp!oype Housing reauirPmen'ts hapter 18.57), for a minimum of 12
ernployees, anci that said dPeu-restricted housing 'rae made avaiiable for occuqancy,
a; c_he deed restrei;iions recordea with t'r,e Eagie Couniy CiQrk & Recoraer, priQr to
O~dinence 12
Series cf SC97
requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Austria Haus. The units
which shall be deed-restricted for employee housing include the on-site
manager's unit in the Austria Haus, and unit numbers 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, & 16,
Solar Vail Condominiums. If the applicant transfers the deed-restriction within the
project, or outside of the project, said transfer shall not result in a greater density of
housing (employees/square foot) than that proposed by the applicant in the letter
from Johannes Faessler to George Ruther dated 5/20/97 and attached to the staff
memo (6/9/97). A transfer of deed-restriction shall be reviewed and approved
by the Town of Vail via a minor SDD amendment, pusuant to Section 18.40.100
of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail.
4. That the fol(owing design considerations be carefLiily reviewed by the Design Review
Board:
A) That the mullions on the windows and dcors, as depicted on the building
elevations, be a required element of the Austria Haus project.
B) That partial improvements recomrnended for East Meadow Drive, as depicted in
the approved Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, be implemented as a part of the
Austria Haus project. This includes a reduction in street width from 30 feet to 26 feet
(14 foot bus lane and 12 foot attached, asphalt pedestrian walk).
C) That the applicant increase the roof overhangs on the building. Currently, the
overhangs vary from two feet to three feet. Staff would recornmend that all the roof
overhangs be a minimum of three feet.
D} That the applicant prepare a comprehensive sign and exterior lighting program for
the Austria Haus. The comprehensive exterior lighting and sign program will be
reviewed by the DRB. .
E) That the applicant submit plans indicating the proposed design of the bus sheiter
in Slifer Square. The plans shall be submitted prior to DRB conceptual review.
F) That the applicant submit plans indicating the location, type, and quantity of roof
tap mechanical squipment prior to DRB conceptual review.
G? That the applicani submir aetailed building elevation plans adequately labeled io
identi'Ey architectural detaiis (raiiings, irim, fiascia, etc.) and exterior building materiaEs
a.nra colors prior to DR3 concepr.ua.i review.
5. Based upon ti-ie Approved Ceveiopmeni Pians, and by agreemeiit between the Towr
Oi 1r`aii andii;t aNpi:caTt, there wiii be an Exchange ofi land between the parties. i his
wiil be by general warranty deed, pursuant to any required provisions in the Charter
Ordinance !2
Series of 1997
5
and the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Prior to the execution of such deeds,
access to the property can be obtained by the applicant, via an easement from the
Town of Vail. Additionally, there is required an approval of a minor subdivision by the
PEC within ninety (90) days frorn the effective date of Ordinance #12, Series of 1997
and that all costs incurred to subdivide the property be the responsibility of the
applicant and not the Town of Vail.
6. That the PEC approval of Special Development District #35, the approval of the
conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club in the Public
Accommodation Zone District, and the approval of a minor subdivision shall be
conditioned upon the approval of this SDD establishment request by the Vail Town
Council.
7. That the applicant incorporate the originally contemplated design which incorporates
the loading and delivery facility in adjacent to the underground parking structure.
Trying to accommodate loading and delivery in the porte-cochere area will result in
conflicts between pedestrians, vehicles accessing the parking structure, and delivery
trucks. Although the original design option may not be the desire of the owners of
the Village Center Condominiums, the impact can be mitigated with appropriate
screening and managemenf. There shall be a loading/delivery management plan
which minimizes the impacts of loading and delivery on pedestrians and adjoining
property owners. This plan may include, but not be limited to, signage, timing and
scheduling, staffing, etc.
S. _ , ,
,
iL... ..+r......,......Il. {L.e LuF,:re
8. That the develAper shall Ee responsible for the following off-site improvementS:
A,lThe clesiqn, cQnsf?°ucfion and al9 costs inrurrpd to imarove East lN~adow
Drive, Tnis Pnriudes, bUx sha19 not bp, iimited tca, afl the impravemQnis identifiec'
op the Anprove.~ ~eve[capmpr~t Rans (stremat lights, curb/gutter, pavinq, uti±ities,
gatEon, et:c,j and subsequent constraIction rJocuments. Tre
d=ainaae, !rr'sc
;nstaliaf?on of the 12-foot wide, cancrere unif paver, pedestrian walkway, as
:C~emil'3ec: liS 4.he T Awn c,l Va4z airee-YScapQ Masfer Pfan, shall not be res,u~red.
The developer shai; insfaif and be reimbursed by the '1'own of Vail, all costs
incurred to instail a streef heating sys#em under East Meadow Drive on a
Ordinence 12
_ Series of 1997
~J
.
cost/square foot basis should the Town wish to heat East tiAeadow Drive. The
Town of Vail sha!l provide construction documents to the developer for the
heating system.
~ B) The design, construction and ail costs incurred to instal( a boulder retaining
walf on the north side of East Meadow Drive. The design of the wali shall be
determined in cooperation with.the Town of Vail prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
C) The maintenance and upkeep of the landscape planters in the Town of Vail
right-of-way, on the north side of the Austria Haus.
D) The design, construction and all costs incurred to improve the westernmost
sixty (60') of Slifer Square, as measured from the eastern property lines of the
Austria Haus, and as identified on the Approved Development Plans, and
subsequent construction documents. This shall include, but not be limited to,
the bus shelter, landscaping, paving, seating, lighting, irrigation, street heafing
system, etc. The design of the bus shelter shall be reviewed and approved by
the Town of Vail prior to the issuance of a building permit. The operation and
maintenance of the street heating system in this portion of Slifer Square shall
be the responsibility of the Town of Vail.
E) The construction of al1 other improvements to the remaining portion of Slifer
Square should the Town wish to pursue improvements. The Town of Vail shall
reimburse the developer on a cost/square foot basis. The operation and
maintenance of a street heating system under this portion of Slifer Square shall
be the responsibility of the Town of Vail.
F} The design, consfruc#ion and a!I costs incurred to construct a belvedere in
Slifer Square. The design and location of the belvedere shall be reviewed and
approved by the Town of Vai{ prior ta the iSSUance of a building permif. T'he
beivedere shaii be instailed as part of the repuired Gore Creek Streaenbank
improvements.
GJ T'rie design, consfiructson, a<<d aii cosfs incurred to construct the Gare Creek
streambank improvements in Tract 1, Vaii Viliage First Filing, from the CQVeresi
Bridge tA the west property 9ine of the Austria Fiaus. The improvements sinai9
be those iden#9fied Qn the Austria Haus Streambank Restoration PEan, and
suiasequenx construcf.ion dACUrnents, i he Pian shail be reviewed and approved
by the Town of Vail at second reading of Ordinance # 12, Series of 1997.
O,dinance 72
S@rig50~ 7~9?
7
,
9. The developer shall work cooperatively with a representative from the Village
Center Condominium Association on the relocation of the outdoor pool
identified on the Approved Devetopment Ptans.
SECTION 7
Amendments to the Approved Development Plan which do not change its substance may be
approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing
in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.66.060 and 18.40.100. Amendments which change ;
the substance of the Approved Development Plan shall be required to be approved by the Town Council after the above-procedure has been followed. The Community Development Department
. shall determine what constitutes a change in the substance of the Approved Development Plan, in
accordance with the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail.
. ~
SECTION 8
The developer must begin construction of the Special Development District within three (3)
years from the effective date of this ordinance, and continue diligently toward completion of the
project. If the developer does not begin and diligently work towards the completion of the Special
Development District, or at any stage of the Special Development District, the developer shall
recommend to the Town Council that either the appraval of Special Development District No. 35 be
;
extended, that the approval of Special Development District No. 35 be revoked or that Special :
Development District No. 35 be amended.
SECTION 9
If any part, section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to
be invalid, such decision shall not affPCt the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; anci
the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereaf, regardless of the fact that any ane or more parts,
sections, subsections, sentences, r4auses, or phrases be dsclared invaiid.
SECTION 10
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary
and proper for the health, safety and" tiveffare of the Town of Vaii and the inhabita.nts thereoi.
INTRODUCED, READ OPJ FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED
PUBL(SHFD ONCE IN FULL ON F4RST READ!NG this 17th day of June, 1997, and a public hearing
far second reading of thic Ordinance set for ihe 1 st day of July, 1997, in the Council Chambers of
the Vail MLmicipai Suildir,g, Vail, CoEorado.
` o-di^znro 12
Se ~es c' !997
a
u
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
Attest:
Holiy L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED IN FULL this
day of , 1997.
Rabert W. Armour, Mayor
Attest:
Hoily L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
CrJin2r;ce 12
Series Ci 1997
4
,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: July 1, 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 the Town Council, primariVy to examine how to create more
flexibility within the existing system.
The Vail Town Councii, 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 alfow 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 worksession is to review the Planning and Environmental Commissions
recommendation for implementing alternative 1 and to receive Council's direction on final
language for an ordinance. Section V of this memo describes staff's recommendation for
ordinance language to implement alternative 1 which the PEC supported with several
modifications that are described in section VIII. In addition, staff would recommend
consolidating the numerous references to GRFA in ihe 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 (See Attachment A).
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)?
.
1
*VAIL
TOWN O
r The givens for this process include:
A) The Vail Town Council will make the final decision with input from the community and
recommendations from the PEC and staff.
B) There will be some form of regulatory control of size and mass.
C) This process will only address residential development (single-family, duplex, and
prim ary/second ary type structures).
D) "No action" (i.e. keeping the existing GRFA system) is a viable alternative.
E) Homes should not get significantly larger in size.
F) 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 rnajarity 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
Councii considered this information on November 26ih. At the conclusion of these meetings the
staff was directed to further asses the following three alternatives in greater detail.
* Aliow interior modifications io exceed the rnaximum 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.
" Eiiminate 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. Ths 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
2 °
staff. At the evening meeting on April 15th, Council directed staff to work on the implementation
of alternative one.
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. Ocp ~
ober, 1996
2) Public meetings to review pros and cons of existing GRFA system 01 si be~r96 30th &
and alternatives.
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 imalement alternatives and identifv the imaacts of each alternative
q) Complete analysis of alternative approaches. December & January
1996/1997
5) PEC worksession to review 3 alternatives February 10, 1997
g) PEC hearing to recommend an alternative March 10, 1997
7) Councilworksession April 1, 1997
8) Evening Council meeting to decide on alternative April 15, 1997
Phase III Leaislative Review of preferred alternative (assumes code modifications)
8) Staff prepares language to modify Town Code May/June, 1997
9) PEC: hearing to consider code revisions June 23, 1997
10) Town Council: worksession to review proposed revision to July 1, 1997
the existing GRFA regulatlons
11) Town Council: first reading of an ordinance July 15, 1997
12) Town Council: second reading of an ordinance August 5, 1997
* Currently on step 10
3 `
J V. RECOMMENDED APPROACH FOR GRFA IMPLEMENTATION
A. Proposed Ordinance - Interior Conversions
The interior conversion amendment will be implemented by creating a section in a new
consolidated 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
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. Purpose
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) without increasing the size of the building. 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 amoiant 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. A~qlicabilitv
Single family, duplex, and primary/secondary type dwelling units that meet or 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 eligible to
add additional GRFA, via the "interior space conversion" provision in excess of
existing or allowable GRFA including such units located in a Special Development
District, provided that such additional GRFA complies with the standards outlined
- herein.
• For the purpose of this section, "existing uniY" shall mean any dwelling unit within a
structure 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 for a new house ~
prior to the approval of this ordinance. ,
e Multi-family dwelling units are not eligible for additional GRFA permitted by the
provisions af this Section.
4
3. Standards
• No application for additional GRFA under the provisions of this Section shall be made
until such time as all the allowable 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 shall 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
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 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 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 (or dormers) does not
exceed 50% of the length of the sloping roof, per roof plane, from which the dormer
projects.
• Proposals for the utilization of interior conversion GRFA under this provision shall
comply with all Town of Vail zoning and building 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 Developrnent Department staff on forms
provided by the Department. Application for interior conversions to units located in a
Special Development District (SDD) shall also be accompanied by an application for a
minor amendment to the SDD. Minor amendments to an SDD can be staff approved. The
piar.ning 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 appraved by the DRB before the effective date of this ordinance. Submittal shall
inclLide:
e Application fees pursuant to the current fee schedule.
5 '
s 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-built" 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 Community Development or shall be forwarded to the Design
Review Board in accordance with Chapter 18.54 of the Municipal Code. Proposals
deemed to not comply with this Section or applicable zoning and development
regulations shafl 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 sorne 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:
. Reoulate vaulted saaces
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.
6
. f
• Require waitinci 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.
o Desiqn 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 utilizina the interior
cnnversion 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
allowabie GRFA and this provision is consistent with this goal. GRFA permitted by
the 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 canversions 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 housing.
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 currently analyzing how to improve the
EHU section of the Zoning Code.
~
. 7
4. Whv the "date certain" proaosed to define when a unit is "existina"?
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 construction 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
ihis GRFA amendment. _
5. Whv limit the size of dormers?
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 rnade that will increase the size of existing buildings. This scenario
would be contrary to the underlying goal of this ordinance.
6. What canpeople do who have already co mpleted interior conversions without zonina
or buildina permit approvals?
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 conversions to just permanent 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 done.
Hawever, 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.
s art of demo/rebuild proiects?
8. Why not allow interior conversions aP
The underlying goal of this amendment is to allow for flexibility in the use of existin interior spaces in a way that does not increase the size of homes. Allawing
demo/rebuilds to utilize this ordinance wauld be inconsistent with these goats.
i,
~
9. Why 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 a Special Development District that mav have
specific GRFA limitations?
The ordinance has been structured such that GRFA which is created by interior
conversions shall be permitted in addition to allowable GRFA through the application
and approval of a minor SDD amendment. Minor amendments can be staff approved
and can be concurrently reviewed with an interior conversion application.
11. Is a property eliqible for an interior conversion if plat 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
possib{e if there is a plai amendment or a change in the applicable covenants.
12. How will staff determine whether conversion are located within space that was
exi tina prior 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 Imqlemented
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 level.
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.
recreation/family 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
conversian 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
home). Due to the use of the 250 Ordinance, this application would require review `
9
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.
Pr s-This proposal would not be allowed because the garage was constructed
using the 600 sq. ft. garage GRFA credit.
4. The Mason's would like to add a 200 square foot loft as an element of a major
remodel of their home. The loft would be located in a new vaulted space to be
constructed as a part of the remodel. 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.
Proces - 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 approval 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.
10
VI. rONSOLIDATION OF GRFA REGULATIONS IN THE ZONINQ CODE
A. Purpose for Consolidation:
There are numerous references to Gross Residential Floor Area within Title 18 of the Zoning
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
18.16.090 LDMF
18.18.090 MDMF
18.20.090 HDMF
18.22.090 PA
18.24.130 CC1
18.26.100 CC2
18.27.080 CC3
18.28.100 CSC
18. 29. 080 AB
18.32.090 AOS
18.57 EHU
18.71 Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250)
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 sectian. 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
ll
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:
e i n Title
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 Additianal 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 tool 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 homeovirners to make interior
conversions to their existing homes even if they do not have any remaining GRFA allowance.
Staff would 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 constructed in the future will want to convert crawl spaces into basernents or turn lofted
areas into floor area.
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 recommendations:
~ 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
convPrsions.
* Structures must not have any remaining GRFA allowance (excluding the 250 GRFA credit)
before applying for interior conversion GRFA. .
• tmplement 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. ~
12
VIII PEC RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed the staff recommendation far
implementing Alternative 1 on June 23, 1997. the PEC recommended implementing alterative 1
as per the staff recommendation with the following additional amendments:
` That grade provisions be madified to allow access (i.e., a door) to basement levels. The
PEC felt that limiting grading to 2 feet below the existing grade would prevent safe access
to basement space.
` That the 50% cumulative roof dormer limitation be clarified with an illustration.
The following are requests by the PEC for the Town Council to consider:
' That the amnesty program be pursued.
* That a recommendation be directed to Council to include multi-family structures.
The PEC approved this recommendation 5-1 (Galan Aasland dissenting).
:
E.
13
Attachment A
Current Staff Policy for Calculating GRFA
Calculation:
` Interior walls are included in GRFA calculations. For duplex and primary/secondary structures,
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
inciude 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 caiculations.
* 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 credit:
' 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.
* Garage space in excess of the allowable garage credit shall be counted as GRFA.
14
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 additionai
GRFA under the 250 ordinance when analyzed using current GRFA regulations.
' Pre-existing crawi 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. Crawl 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, these areas shall not be counted as GRFA if ALL of the following criteria are met:
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 ihe 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).
~
15
Primary/Secondary units:
* The 425 s.f. credit per unit shall be applied to each unit AFTER the 60/40 split has been caiculated
(i.e., the secondary unit shall be allowed 40% of the total GRFA + 425 s.f.).
On Primary/Secondary and Duplex lots, GRFA is calculated based on the entire lot.
€
16
Attachment B
Example of Consolidated Table for GRFA
:<?.<:':'..:>:::
g'~,t`.:;::.>;;;nf>;:;:.::
: : : : : : : . : . . : . . . . . . . . . . . .
74)nc Diclricts GRFA CxFA
Rat1n/Perceola2c Credits
(added lo results of applicatfon of pcrccotagc)
II}t 20% of lot area ot first 21.780 sq. ft. + None
Ilillside 5% of lot area over 21,780 sq. R.
Residential
SFR 25% of lot area of first 12,500 sq. ft. + 425 sq. R. per allowabie dwelling unit
SlnRle Family 10% of lot area over 12,500 sq. R.
ResidenUsl
{Z 25% of bt area of first 15,000 sq. R. + 425 sq. ft pcr allowable dwclling unit
Twn-Fa mily 10W/o of lat area mcr 12,500 sq. ft. and up to 30,(N)0 sq. A. +
Residendal 5% of lot area over 30,000 sq. ft.
p/S 25% of lot area of first 15,000 sq. R. + 425 sq. R. per allowable dwelling uni[
pribary/ 10% of lot area over 12,500 sq. R. and up to 30,0)0 sq. It. +
Sewndary 5% of lo[ area over 30,000 sq. ft.
Residentlal (the secondary unit shall not exceed 40% of GRFA on-site prior
• [o application of credit)
x(C 25% of buildable lot area 225 sy. ft. for single-fanuly and avo-family stnicnires only
Residenlial
Cluster
LDMF 30% of builAable lot area 225 sq. R. for single-family and two-family structurcs only
Law Density
Multiple
Fanilty
D1DNiF 35"/o(builAablelotnrca 225sq.(I.forsinglafumilyandtwafamilystnicturesonly
Medium
Denslty
Multipic
Namlly
IIDMF 60°/ ofbuildablebtarca Nonc
Iligh Denvlly
Mulliplc
Family
pp 8(P/ of buildablc lot arca EEI Nonc
Public Accom-
mndation
(,ri S(1°/ o(huildablelotarea None
Com mcrcial
Core 1
r~,c 80% of buildable lot area None
mercial
e 2
3 30%ofbuildableb[arca None
mercial
ore e 3
CSC 40%o(buildablclotarea None ,
Coromercial GRFA shall not excced 50%of total building iloor area on any
ice Cent site
Serv er
ABD 60°/a of buildable lot area None
Arterlal
Business
11S None permitted None
Ileavy Service
Up to 2,000 sq. ft. total None '
Agricultural .
and Open
Spxce ]'OWN OF VAIL
17
. .
. . .
:;:Yi:<<:>;;::'z:~;>;'
~tLr~................. <::<>;;:;:
Zone DLvMctc CRFA CRFA
Ralio/Percenlagc Credits
(added In results of applicatlon of pcrcenlagc)
p(Z None pertnitted None
Outdoor
Recreation
p None pcrmitted None
Parking
Cp PerPF.Capproval None
General Use
NAP Nonepermitted None
Natural Arca
Preservatlon
SBR Unlimited, per Council approval None
Skl Bacc
Recreallon
SDD Per underlyingzoning or per development plan approval by None
Specixl Council
Develnpmenl
District
f:everyone\russ\memos\grfa.623
~
18
t. n
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: July 1, 1997
SUBJECT: Request by Booth Falis Homeowners Associations to fund the design and
construction of Rockfall mitigation.
Staff: Russell Forrest & Greg Hall
1. PURPOSE
The Booth Falls Condominium Association asked for this worksession to make several requests
of the Town Council. These requests include:
1) Permission to proceed through a process to use Town of Vail Land to construct rockfall
mitigation on Tract A, Vail Village 12th Filing.
2) The Association is requesting up to $20,000 for design of the mitigation.
3) The Association is requesting that the Town fund the construction of the mitigation in
lieu of issuing bonds which requires a vote of the homeowners that would be assessed in
a local improvement disirict. Such a vote must be done in November as required by the
Bruce Amendment.
4) Commitment of staff time to assist in expediting the process.
II. BACKGROUND
The Booth Falls Condominiums are in Vail Village 12th Filing which was plated in the Town of
Vail in 1972. The Town of Vail issued building permits for units 1-3 on March 27, 1973. Today
there are a total of 18 units at Booth Falls. In 1984 Schmueser and Associates Inc. prepared
the official Rockfall Hazard maps that were adopted by the Town of Vail. These maps indicate
.that the Sooth Falls Townhomes are in a high rockfall hazard area along with development to the
soi.itheast of the Townhomes. In 1989 and 1990 after several rockfall incidents, a rocktall berm
uvas .r.reated anr.l financP<i thrQUgh a local impravement distrirt. This berm was not sxtended
farther to the west to protect the Booth Falls Townhames because of the proximity of the
Wilderness Area Boundary. ,
1
1Y1W
*VAtL
At 11:20 p.m. on March 26, 1997 a 20ft x 8ft piece of the rock face broke off the rock band
above the Boath Falls Town homes. Units 14, 15, 16 were impacted by several large rocks. The
largest rock went through the wall of unit 14 and pushed a bed through the 1 st floor and into the
basement area. On March 27, 1997 staff inet a USFS team and Johnathon White of the
Colorado State Geological Survey to determine the risk of additional rockfall incidents. Through
further site investigation and an analysis done by the State Geological Survey, it was determined
that the area was in a high rockfall hazard area which means rockfalls are likely in the area.
However, the risk of a rockfall incident is no higher now than "usual" at this location. It should
also be noted that rockfall incidents can occur at any time in the year. Rockfall incidents unlike
debris flow or avalanches are not limited to one season.
On May 6th, 1997 a Council worksession was held to review a report prepared by the Colorado
Geological Survey and to determine what should be done to mitigate the hazard. Councit did
direct staff to assist the Homeowners Association in determining a cost for mitigation. The
Colorado Geological Association (CGA) agreed to assist with providing a bidders list and criteria
for constructing the mitigation. Subsequently the CGA informed staff that time constraints would
limit their involvement. At the same time the Homeowners Association began actively pursuing
companies that could design and/or construct the necessary mitigation. At this time staff has
investigated the process to design and construct the necessary mitigation. There have been
several meetings between Town Staff and the Homeowners Associations to determine how to
best mitigate the hazard. An engineer has also been retained by the homeowners association to
assist with design of the mitigation. Four possible solutions exist to mitigate the hazard.
1) An impact barrier wall system,
2) An impact barrier wall with a ditch and berm,
3) Ditch and berm similar to the existing berm on the site, or a
4) Rock fall fence.
3. PROCESS
A. Supnarios for Financing Construction
The process for completing mitigation depends on how the Town Council and the Homeowners
would like to finance the design and construction of the mitigation. There are three basic
scenarios. Scenarios 1 and 2 require developing a local improvement district. The process for
developing a local improvement district is specified in section 20.04 of the Town Code.
Scenario 1: Town issues bonds to fund mitigation: This is how the Town funded the
existing berm. This involves a bank financing the mitigation through a bond issuance. Issuing
bonds involves creating a debt for more than 1 year and is subject to the Bruce Amendment.
One of these requirements is that a ballot issue occur in the month of November that would
involve either the affected party (Homeowners Association) or the Vail voters deciding
on whether to allow the Town to incur a debt to fund the mitigation. Since a vote is required in
November, it wauld not be possible for the mitigation to be constructed this year. If there was a
favorable vote to construct the mitigation, then the Town would issue the bonds and create a
IoGal impravment district. It should also be noted that this was a lengthy multi-year process for
the existing berm.
Scenario 2: Town finances I,he mitiaation: This would involve the Town financing the cost
of design and canstruction by using existing Town funds. This would be considered an
2
investment since the Town would recoup interest on the use of this money for a locai
improvement district. However, if a homeowners failed to pay the special assessment the Town
would have to foreclose on that property. Under this scenario, a November election is not
required. However a local improvement district would need to be established.
Sc°nario 3: Homeowners finance mitiqation: The homeowners could each apply for a
home equity loan and finance the design and construction themselves. This is the most
expedient process and would have the greatest likelihood of mitigation being constructed in
1997. However, this scenario would involve each homeowner applying for and receiving a loan.
If one home owner did not receive loan approval then scenario 1 or 2 would need to be pursued.
B. Process for each scenario
The following are approximate time lines for each scenario if ihere were no unforseen problems
in the financing, design, and construction of mitigation. It should be recognized that the process
to create a local improvement district (LID) takes 5-8 month. It is staff's experience that
mitigation of natural hazards can be complex and unexpected problems are common.
gtep Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
LID & Issue Bonds LID & TOV Finance Self Finance
1) Council approves July 1 July 1 July 1, 1997
use oF TOV land
2) Obtain pre-qualification N/A N/A August 1, 1997
for home equity loans
3) Choose Designer/ August 1 August 1 H.A. already has chosen
Engineering Team consultant
4) Design Mitigation September 1 September 1 August 1, 1997
5) PEC Review Design September S September 8 August 11
6) DRB Review Design September 17 September 17 August 20
7) Engineering Estimate October 1 October 1 September 1
for projeci. Should include Contractors
cost of barrier, soil tests, Bid project
landscaping, project management,
Assisting with the establishment
of local improvement district
8) Obtain Financing for home equity N/A N/A September 5
loan
9) Develop ballot language October 7 N/A N/A ,
for election
10) Election November 18, 1997 N/A N/A
3
, .
11) Resolution of Intent December 2 October 7 N/A
for local improvement dist.
12) Notification to establish December 3 October 8 N/A
local improvement district
13)Public Hearing January 6 November 4 N/A
1 st Reading Ordinance to direct
Town Manager to contract
for service to construct
mitigation and to create
a local impromvent
district.
14) 2nd Reading of Ord January 20 November 18 N/A
15) 30 day waiting period February 21 December 19 N/A
for protests
16) Ordiance to issue March 3(1st) N/A N/A
bonds and create March 17 2nd)
local improvment
district 1 st & 2nd Reading
_ 17) Notice to Bidders April 15 Jan 5
18) Award Contract April 21 February 3 September 8
19) Begin Construction May 1 ASAP September 12
20)Complete Construction June 30 1-2 months after start October
4. STAFF RESPONSE TO REQUESTS
Staff feels that every practical effort should be made to expediently construct rockfall
mitigation for the Booth Falls Condominiums since this is a life safety issue. The timing for
construction will greatly depend on how mitigation is financed. The following are staff's
comments regarding each of the homeowners requests.
1) Permission to proceed throuc~h a process to use Town of Vail Land to construct rockfall
mitigation on Tract A Vail Villaqe 12th Filina.
Staff would recommend that this request be approved at the July 1 worksession.
21 The Association is reauesting ua to $20 000 for desian of the mitiaation.
The Town of Vail pravided $25,000 for the construction of the existing berm prior to the
deuelopment of the IoCal impravement district. This is a risk (and was a risk for the
existing berm) since there will not be a formal agreement that the Town would be
cQmpensated far this expenditure. However, this money is needed to expediently move
fiarward with the design and construction of the mitigation. Staff would recommend that
. up to $?_.Q,OOQ be authorized for the design of the mitigation. This would include any
additi4nal roGkfall modeling, design of the mitigation, landscaping, topography, soil tests,
and othsr actions needed to develop an estimate for construction. Staff would
4
recommend that these funds be available for design with the following conditions:
a) The Town Engineer approve of the design team chosen by the homeowners
assaciation.
b) That Town staff review the design.
3IThe Association is reguesting that the Town fund the construction of the mitiaation in lieu of
issuing bonds.
This would be different than the existing berm in that the Town would be financing the
design and construction of the berm instead of a lending institution. This approach would
be considered an investment in that the Town would receive a 7.5% return on its
investment. A local improvement district would still need to be created to place liens on
the 18 homes in the association. This approach, although much simpler than issuing
bonds is still complex in that a local improvement district still needs to be created. Based
on the time lines discussed above, it would be very difficult to construct mitigation in 1997
with this approach. The only way to reduce the time frame mentioned in scenario 2 would
be to have the homeowners association be responsible for the design of the mitigation.
The Town would review and approve the design. This would save some up-front time in
choosing an engineering firm to construct the berm. The most expedient approach to
construct the mitigation is for the homeowners to apply for home equity loans. This is a
simple processes with each homeowner applying for a$12,000-$15,000 home equity loan
depending on the total cost of the mitigation. The net effect for the homeowners is very
similar to having to pay back the Town. However, this approach would require all the
homeowners to apply for and receive a loan. This form of "self financing" would be the
most likely way to construct the mitigation this year.
Staff would recommend fhat self financing be pursued until September 5th. This
is the most expedient and least cost alternative for both the homeowners and fhe
Town. If financing was not approved for all the homeowners by that time, then
the Town could still pursue a local improvement districf. Because of the legislated
time frame for a local improvement districf, mitigation construction could not occur
until next spring.
,4) Commitment of staff time to assist in ex e~ditinq the rop cess•
The staff time commitment to assist with the process to design the mitigation, form the
local improvement district, and construct this mitigation is significant but necessary. Staff
does recammend that a project manager be hired for the development of a special
improvement district and mitigation construction to reduce the impact to other Town
projects.
5
, A
MINUTES
: VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING June 3, 1997
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, June 3, 1997, in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor
Kevin Foley
Rob Ford
Michael Jewett
Ludwig Kurz
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro-tem
Paul Johnston
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager
Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none.
Second on the agenda was the Consent Agenda which consisted of the following items:
A. Approve the Minutes from the meetings of May 6 and 20, 1997.
B. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1997, second reading of an Ordinance Authorizing the Conveyance of
Fee Title to Condominium Unit B-3, Vail Commons, Town of Vail, Colorado To Mountain Valley
Developmental Services.
Ludwig moved to approve the Consent Agenda with a second from Kevin Foley. A vote was then taken which
passed unanimously, 5-0.
Agenda item number three was Resolution No. 14, Series of 1997, a Resolution adopting the Inter-County Mutual
Aid Agreement. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town of Vail Fire Chief, Dick Duran presented the item and
presented the following background: Municipalities and Special Districts within Eagle County, Garfield County,
Grand County, Lake County, Mesa County, Rio Blanco County, Routt County, Summit County, and Pitkin County
have agreed to a pact for mutual aid. This Agreement will be for the purpose of assisting in controlling or combating
disasters pursuant to "The Mutual Aid Operations Pact." The term of the Agreement shall commence on execution
by all parties and shall end on December 31, 1997. The Agreement shall automatically be renewed for successive
one year terms beginning on January 1, 1998. Any party wishing to terminate their participation in the Agreement
can do so by providing written notice at least thirty days prior to the renewal of the subsequent year of the Agreement. Any party to the Agreement requesting the aid of other jurisdictions shall not be called upon to assume any liability
for the direct payment of any salary, wage or compensation to any officers, employees, or volunteers of the aiding
party. Each party to the Agreement shall continue to maintain comprehensive and public liability, professional liability,
automobile and worker's compensation insurance coverage. A party requesting assistance shall be responsible for
any and all damages to or consumption of an assisting parties' equipment from the time the assisting party arrives
at an incident location until the assisting party is released.
Chief Duran explained that the resolution came about as a result of a natural gas disaster in Steamboat Springs years
ago, which resulted in local resources being exhausted. The expansion of the pact will include the majority of
Colorado Counties into the program. The staff recommendation was to adopt Resolution No. 14, Series of 1997.
Ludwig moved to approve Resolution 14, Series of 1997, and Rob Ford seconded the motion. A vote was taken
which passed unanimously, 5-0.
Fourth on the agenda was the appointment of three Local Licensing Authority Members. Council members were
asked to appoint the three applicants, currently all members of the Local Licensing Authority, to additional two-year
terms.
Ballots were distributed and tallied. Ludwig Kurz then moved the following appticants be re-appointed to the Local
Licensing Authority for two-year terms:
David Chapin
M. Kathy Vieth '
Mary C. Zarba
Rob Ford seconded the motion. Kevin Foley thanked all members of the Local Licensing Authority, an outstanding
board, he said. A vote was then taken which passed unanimously, 5-0.
1 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes June 3, 1997
f
- Agenda item number five was a report from the Town Manager.
,
Mayor Bob Armour inquired about the Rock Hard Mining Company of Texas, and their plans to explore the possibility
of mining claims on forest service property. Tom Moorhead explained that any mining claims granted would be
administered by the USFS, and stated the company could be required to produce environmental reports. Further,
he said that although the property was adjacent to Town of Vail lands, it was not within the Town's boundaries, and
that currentty there is no indication town-owned property would be used to access the forest service lands. One
concern, was that the area could be located within the 5 mile water shed, in which case, the Town of Vail could
require there be no activity that would be detrimental to the Town's water supply (Gore Creek). Tom said that
meetings had occurred between the Forest Service and the town's Environmental Health Officer, Russell Forrest,
and that the Town will be advised of all plans regarding the mining claim. Town Manager Bob McLaurin said a letter
would be drafted for the mayor's signature addressing the town's concerns.
There being no further business, Kevin Foley moved for adjournment, and the motion was seconded by Rob Eord.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted,
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
Minutes prepared by Holly McCutcheon
(*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.)
2 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes June 3, 1997
,
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING .
June 17, 1997 •
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, June 17, 1997, in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor
Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro-tem
Rob Ford
Michael Jewett
Ludwig Kurz
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Foley
Paul Johnston
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager -
Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none.
Second on the agenda was presentation of the Town's Audited Financial Statements. Town of Vail Finance Director,
Steve Thompson, Finance Manager Christine Anderson, and Auditor, Jerry McMahon presented the audited financial
statements for 1996. Jerry complimented Town of Vail finance staff, and stated that no major adjustments were
made. In answer to a council member question, Jerry said the audit was required by state audit law and the home
rule charter. Mayor Armour thanked the Finance Department for a job well done.
Sybill then moved to accept the 1996 audit and financial statements, and Ludwig seconded the motion. A vote was
taken which passed unanimously, 5-0.
Agenda item number three was Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1997, First Reading, an ordinance establishing Special
Development District No. 35, Austria Haus, and providing for a development plan and its contents; development
standards; and other provisions; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town
Planner, George Ruther presented the item. The Applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., was represented by Gordon
Pierce.
George referred to a memorandum prepared by the Community Development Department staff dated June 17, 1997
to the Vail Town Council and a memorandum dated June 9, 1997 to the Planning and Environmental Commission,
("PEC"). On June 9, 1997, the PEC recommended a conditional approval (6-0) of the applicant's request for the
establishment of Special Development District No. 35, Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/on a part of
Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village 1st Filing. The staff recommendation was for approval of Ordinance No. 12, Series
of 1997 on First Reading. .
Gordon Pierce presented a revised development plan which had been scaled down considerably from the applicant's
previous proposal, having removed approximately 5,205 square feet of GRFA. The newly proposed project included
18 member-owned fractional fee club units, 25 hotel rooms and one on-site manager's residence, plus 5,402 square
feet of commercial/retail space, meeting room facilities, an outdoor pool and other hotel/lodge accessory facilities.
Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners Association urged council members to modify the Vail Village Master
Plan; to rezone the property as well as the Vail Athletic Club and the Mountain Haus sites; and to refine the town's
SDD process.
Gary McDaniel representing the Village Center Condominium Association commented on 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.
Ludwig moved approve Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1997 on first reading contingent upon the following conditions
being incorporated into the ordinance by second reading:
• Work with Village Center residents to move the outdoor pool as far east as possible.
• Create a belvedere 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 calls 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.
• 1 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes June 17, 1997
~
• Remove an off-site improvement requirement to ptace $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.
Sybill seconded the motion and a vote was taken, which passed unanimously, 5-0.
Fourth on the agenda was a Council call-up of a request for a conditional use permit to allow for a brew-pub and a
request for a variance from Section 18.26.040 J, to the requirement that no more than 45% of the annual production
be sold for off-site consumption and a variance to the requirement for 50% of the parking to be located on-site
(Section 18.26.150), located at 600 Lionshead Mall (Gondola Building)/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing.
Town of Vail Planner pominic Mauriello presented the item and gave the following background: the applicant was
Vail Associates, Inc., and was represented by David Thorpe.
The PEC, at its June 9, 1997 meeting, approved the applicant's request for a conditional use permit for a brew pub,
a variance allowing 90% of the product to be sold for off-site consumption, and a variance allowing all parking to be
provided via payment into the pay-in-lieu fund. The approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. That the conditional use permit shall be subject to call-up and review by the PEC if it is found that the use is
not operating in compliance with the conditional use permit.
2. That if the building is substantially reconstructed, the conditional use permit shall become void.
3. That the brew pub shall be equipped with an air filtering system to reduce potential odors associated with the
brewing process.
4. That the applicant submit a detailed loading and delivery plan which addresses all uses that utilize this loading
facility to the town staff for review and approval. Prior to obtaining a TCO, the site shall be in compliance with
all applicable health codes and other Town requirements. Provisions shall be made for pedestrian access
and other vehicles shall only be parked in designated parking spaces on-site. The PEC also made the following findings:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations
on other properties classified in the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. At the PEC hearing, the application was modified to allow for an outdoor dining area. The revised parking
requirement is 31.38 parking spaces (4,725 sq. ft./120 sq. ft. - 8 parking space credit), requiring a payment of
$530,494.59 ($16,905.5 per space) into the parking fund. The Staff Recommendation was for approval of the request
per the PEC approval and conditions.
Those present from Vail Associates included Dave Thorpe, Jack Hunn, and Joe Macy. Dave Thorpe explained that
the building owner, Vail Associates, wanted to lease the space to a Bavarian Brewery. Finn Knudtsen, representing
the leaseholder was present and addressed the proposed brewery operations, including amount of production, plans
to curb odors associated with production, and loading and delivery plans, among other issues.
Jack Hunn, Director of Real Estate Development for Vail Associates said he agreed with the staff's parking
calculations, and understood that the fees would run with the land as an investment toward future redevelopment.
PEC Chairman, Greg Moffit, stated that the PEC was very comfortable with the proposed plans for the site and
explained that the initial brew pub ordinance was very restrictive and overprotective. He said he was impressed with the company's ability to move manufactured product up the mountain to other sites, without much impact to current
traffic flows.
Although he felt a brew pub would work well in Liosnhead, Rob Ford stated he objected to the pay-in-lieu requirement,
as he felt spaces should be provided on-site. He said he was concerned that the future Lionshead redevelopment
proposals would rely on the parking-pay-in-lieu program rather than providing the spaces on-site.
Town of Vail Senior Planner, Mike Mollica stated that redevelopment should be considered separately when the time
came, taking into consideration the code in effect at the time of redevelopment. He said that cucrently the code
provides for a pay-in-lieu program.
Other council members 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
,
2 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting. Minutes June 17, 1997
required. `
A motion was made by Mike Jewett to uphold the decision of the PEC with the above-referenced conditions, with a
second from Ludwig. A vote was then taken which passed, 4-1, Rob Ford voting in opposition.
Agenda item number five was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin stated he had only one additional
item to add to his report: the new HTE computer system for the 911 dispatch services would be going on line Friday.
Mayor Armour informed feltow council members of a request from the Vail Tomorrow World Class Resort Team for the Town to contribute to an effort which would encourage local lodges to upgrade their properties. Sybill moved to
approve a$1000 contribution out of Council Contingency for the project, and Ludwig seconded the motion. A vote
was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0.
Other - Mike Jewett said he had received 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. Bob McLaurin said he would have the Police Department look into the matter.
There being no further business, a motion was made for adjournment and seconded. The meeting was adjourned
at approximately 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly McCutcheon, Town Cterk
Minutes taken by Nolly McCutcheon
(*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.)
• 3 Vail ToWn Council Evening Meeting, Minutes June 17, 1997.
_ . _ . _ _ . . . _ - -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Team
DATE: July 1, 1997
RE: Public View Corridor selection to be considered in Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan
The Town Council, at its June 24, 1997 worksession/site visit, examined the potential public view
corridors to be considered in the Lionshead Redevelopment Masier Plan. The Town Council
expressed interested in considering five potential view corridors.
The Planning and Environmental Commission, at its June 23 meeting, recommended View #1
(over the Library), View # 2(from the east end of the parking structure), View #3 (from the west
end of the parking structure), View #7 (from the main mall area looking up the gondola line), and
Views 8 and 9(from east of the Landmark looking south through the VA core site).
The Town Council suggested the following views be considered in the devetopment of the Master
Plan:
View #2 (from east end of the parking structure) to be included as a design
parameter.
View #3 (from west end of the parking structure) to be designated in Stage 5
as a view corridor.
Views #6 or 7 (from mall area looking up gondola line) to be designated in Stage 5
as a view corridor.
View #8 (from east of the Landmark looking south through the VA core site)
to be included as a design parameter.
View #9 (from east of Landmark looking south through the VA core site from
a higher elevation than #8) to be designated in Stage 5 as a view .
corridor.
y
Final designation and adopfion of any public view corridors will occur, via ordinance, in t,y
Sfage 5 of the master planning process. .
Staff Recommendatian:
Staff recommends that the public views recommended by Town Council on June 24, 1997, be
considered in the master planning pracess as critical design constraints.
File: f:leveryone\councilMemos\viewcor.701
%VAIL
1T?W
. . - , . . . .
To: Planning and Environmental Commission ORIGINAL
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:
I. 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 thjei- May 20°i meeting, the Vail Town Council approved the use of the existing Town of Vail 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 e~i~sting
ordinance. The master plan team applied these criteria to the full range of views in Lionshead, arid
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"' (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 Walkin T~urs. 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°i, 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
;
_
Vic.w Critical :'Cons~der Do Not .Consider Bar ?ra base~ u on number of "crifical",:votes ~
1 2 9 14 n? Q~
2 4 10 10
3 11 9 3 ON t. .
4 15 5 2
5 12 4 4
6 13 5 2
7 19 2 3 d~
8 11 7 5
9 8 5 10
10 3 8 13
11 4 9 G
12 5 10 8
13 6 5 8
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 existipg
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.
.
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 ad~opted
in accordance with existing Town code.
1. View number two. This view is seen from the east end of the Liorishead 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 ma11 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
' . _ . ' - . Y .
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 nol 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.
~
, r..
~
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.
0 Has opportunity of creating important visual and pedestrian link through the VA core 'site,
on a north-south axis. View 9 . ~
, ~y..
• Recommended for designation as "design parameter" in master plan, but not as forrria.l,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.
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.
'a
.ION8HEAD MA8TERPLAN e-8-07 ~
?
~ -
lap for Potentiai View Corridors C3
~ a El° CO
o ~ o ? o ~
ORTH . ~
~ O ?
~ Q o
~ o is
~ :Q o
0 ° ~
~ . ~
7
1 ~ ~N
g
2
~ 1'I y
~
t!: Y:
:k
-d-
~ ! . ~ . ~
r• Y„
. .y.
, ~'~'~.91 • ,il~ ~ C~~z¢ a~S~,;.t.f , , .
',J •l,, . . u; '~r:. . ~.,~,t.s, ~ •.yr wA,~i
,~~i
li Jp ''~v A•
1~ ~ '4(~ • r
. 5 ,f ~~h~ ~ ~ ~ Y'~q. ~ j ~:r3h r•.
~ ' :+t~?'r`.
1~ t tl'W t'''?'~1
+ I
{ , r' iF' , t•
r
~
:f
j ~ :9}'e'`rI,~1~ i;i ~ ~ ~ ' . ~b , i ~ . i , v,. ~ '
~
t . . ' ~ , ~'Y . . • _ ;L. r 1 . r
f i ~ ~ 6 .r'`{ ,~a r .t, a !'Y~~ ~C~,:~S ~ ' . . ,j.]I.~e1A ,~1}~t1 iJ ~.c
ilrC{, ;'t,.~a~ ; r +r•
VIEUJ CORRIDOR CANDIpATE *I
~ Jr' µ:~~n i Tit"' 1{}~+;~'
1~..~r~_~t 'f: ,p } . ~~,'7.v*T. q,:. , 71i~~t~~° Ys~.3 •''y1,~' , . ~ • T'~ ;.~~.2,~,ryi ~ .d. ~r
7t~:qq•y~,}r~ ~ r. :~•Js.. . . {3 . ( .~'S~! ~ 1S ~
r~,'m+ •n h~3 f~:~1 5~' l f.j .
1 ~ ~ .t ~ ;:i.{`.1 „~~t.~~~~ ~ y 4 %
l ~ • ~t ~d7 ~
, ~ 1, •;~sM ~ i't, ~ . t .b ~ f ' A~: f'
`+e~ . -ny`,~r~:'~k.~•~'in ~°r ' ' ~~:i~,f.,7s. ` ~t ~'x~
? t'
'~j~ 1~~:~ 1 1 S ~ : ~
ev'0'I
1'+ i /•(4~i. .r~i `y `1: f` :%V f
;
..,~gT~. ,;F A 4-, '1 •
k
d
(
i~~i . v' ~..-..-.,.,i .a ' 1..,. •
~ ° ~ S~. 'll I {':J `~r•
.~•a
rr,: ; : Gk • _ . . . . -
. .
i •~r_: ~A' ^ 4 ~ `
~.y' .;y?
1/IEUJ GORRIpOi"2 CANpIp,4TE 02
, ; L:Z~:~ '.Jr,=Si•~5:~.~L'i~1:.'~,::;~~~,Lj,~~'~,l
' ',Y. "t;'i..~' ~..:_y'f~+ -fi: • i.~r.~.+Q~}',,~.
'j.•f ~:~:~~:ti. .
. _~l.C:`~;C~'.•:i3s;.!'.
. ~ . . . .
~,r? r>
R` ~ ~ •,.:}r ~ ~
~A s::: ~f~ q
.~j
~
ttttt ~i
'',y
' ~ + ~ :a. ~~Y ..~~:t~..
_ .y. ~~.k; ri .~:.`'4 r ~f~, ~
'.i?i ~'v';•~j;.M',~.4~...`~~'~f:~!~.t';~"~~n'~';:~i::N~ . 3:: ~~N~`C~!;;.\ _
~ ~iA .:~r~~~ ~ ~1yp\~.~.~,~~t.
,i.~t`i3i~~wce``~'~'~?i!-!f "'',~,~.a;r'..:,r;--~'~t ' :'.-~'•~`4~: ~
r , . . . , ~,'~..+~..~L: •q.':•.!^i:~~~::
.,,.}."'`*:,'r,.~~,lt•, -......,:':..;....'.y._ y.;:.:l::;.• ~
. . 1
il:: J. rn:i~:-•i
VIEUJ GORfzIDOiz CANDIDATE 03
~r;:; .;~~;~,:s:• v,i`~;..Y; ,>;..,;.:1,;,;~,~;4,..,,.;:,;;;e,.
'i, ;~.i:•;i~,~i~" ':~'.f'11'ti(f'~<;;'~';•%,+'i n'!~1~~;r`,;i;~';.i?,`~~•~
: • SI~ )i,:, ..1 ~
. :~I::' ~ ~ " :~t:y~~~
tl}~''%' I: r,'I~,tt~~'•'.i
' ~•i ..,,r 5;,j~~
~ ' . ''~~f,~ ~:.`j`; :~C ;.°rr.::'ir`%~!~`,~;"-.t•,';•:~
~ • ' , - , . ~;t~;
~ . . . , 7,
. • ;i~S.
.;t.8..,
~ F'.•f~ ~.i.
~N
1
r"
i
. .S
. ~
:
• ~
\/IEUJ COR21pOR CANDIpATE 04
. ' '.F.
~ 6:~tr:. ~ n;~; (~fy~,.(~`+ A - ~'yt;.
~
.
,
.
,
. . . , '
z
,
.
~
,
~
~
.F
. '
- , • r ' _ ~~:`~i~ C' ~ . .
~,1.~ ,~~41.. Y$:f• . ' . .
~~.~•r. ?.p_ jl•
^!yiYw . . '.~;'t:y',+4 i~,~
a d : i •w
v ...:r
,~1..'.
~'-t ~t' '1s4~:,~~:''' :,p•Mn . ;`:i'P~ ~'a1:~ -.e~i~Yj.;J~^~.ir ~3~.1. ,.';{p
7yt1i ' h~~ ' .e r -°S . '4 ,g 1~• .
~i~:~:}:l''N~~. " . . ~:S V i~ ..Z •'i.:;p .(.j;::%~:r'~, d.~.
„ : . , . , .:}~;.it! • i~J ;~~tit" ~ ;,y'.5 'f ' ~
. ~ i': ~ . h '1v ~I . 4 . • ~.4~~': ~ ~W„~~' f - ~ .
`A~~ ~ j7k: : .'Xr ._s ^1
A`~ ~
,
~•`r fti;'
vh~r
UIEU.1 GORRIDOR GANDID,4TE 05
y `I , f.' :.f:
, ' . 4 Yy''({~' ~:1'r.Il ~i~Jn - • ~ .
~ ~ ~ ~;;~i'! ,
j ; , c; ~ • .
f 4~ • n , . : ; ''~~~k ; «
.~'A,~-• ' y~'.t jY7 F 'r:
,,.r ~ ~ ¢i ' , '.,=i, . • ; °il ;'.}r?r : 1,,~; ~ .
. t • t ~ 7 ~ ~y 1
r4. i.f • , . Y V { ~ , w t:tiL~~~~i{~:}``"
i:i:` 'C•. , f_ ~`•4 ~r`4. ' ' I•' . i9. ~~tl + ,~....~^~~k`,~ t~'.:.
~ 5~.. A'~ ,'i.. ~ : 1 ~ ~ ~ .
7 . n.. ' ~~~~`~,~~~5(' ~ • ~
I y'
.
.
YIEUJ CORRIpOR C,4NDIp,4TE *(o
•~..>~y'' . ~ . ' ~~/,Y4~"r t~y~sr) - . ~ :r ;~QS ' y ~ ,-r.
: ':t: r~' :'7 ~~~"'~•~%L°.:+: y ~f ~ti..=,
•~~:1~..` < ..i_'~%-:~.1;"i:;;•;:,.-..i:''f;;;iWl:~~^~r'•'.
' ~nl~;~; . f;.• :12~:,;.~,,
~
i. • ~ ~~r..
i 1
f,~#:YFI~~,~,r,.:,
X~ , ;.~y x• ,
~ ~ •`r, h~
~:.r... ~ i i.,•. , • ~
~tZl` !q$.
, 4 , • '
4.~ .
~:~.i'.:~::', ~ ~ p ?~ji
- ~ ~•'.Yc '
: .~,-.J~.. . ~ J
, ~ .a..''ri.i~F,~„ •
>I,,;:~~ ri~~'~i.• , . ~""•7:~
y~Y~'' S"''•rK~~'~~~~ "4~^.Y'Y ..~.~~i -._'.-,S, r.~q~- , , wK.
vIEI,U GORRIDOfR C,4NDID,47E 0l ~
~:.g;
~ :y.:...r . s+14n"~
. r.~~:'t 7~J,•iil.rr.~ 1;'i r.Si•
1.
"l+~r~'`d lat . ! i 3,• !-~'~~~/rA~ ~ N" I~C'.~
't! ' . .+,t,:•, •
, t-~'.•~+~: ,r., •:.•~~~M1...
. ~ i3 -s t '•.,.rN"M'y:v~ ~ .
J iH
F. ~
.
x ~ ,eJ~',: ,r~•...7,~] _ -o k 'r 'fi ~3.
.
{i
'w:r..:.y_....~ii...u~.,:,..., r;.. ..~•~...v«:-w::~r!.m ~
, Fa.'
. Si
1/IEIU CORRIpOR C,4NpIDATE +?8
' • ' ~ ' ~ F: ~t..~. .t.i
. • . _ '.'C.~. ~ T ~:~~-~-~~•t
• ~K.+l~11~~.n{~ ,^`~~^~j`~•1JY~~ i.; S !t .1
. ' :f~~'3f..~•1.fnR2y~~1\ry+•j~):~~~4~ri4>~A~~•l~
v ~c~~'Q!•.~~ ~;'.ts':.'~;i:~..~~[:'E1~.
n;):~'y:. f~ ..~~+';~•yt;.-,;.:~t:s.:l~
' ' :.Y_7'j'~,'r' _`~11'l .I: .:~~.e ~,;i'~t •
:V
r '
=~6~',~•~~' ~ ~~~r~,~i~~;n;~;.
't. r r
•n ~ ~ ~ ~~~3~~~'~
' L`~, ,Y ~,y~~~''~,{;V;~,f~;as'~. •
r -z~ +w,+t~..,;i.•I)~
i
N~
u
• :+~„~~,:.h. _.`.''~n,~ti: ` !
••~F.~r- , .y j ,
,Ry •
, ' '
,C~~~..
~Tr
VIEI.U GORRIpOR CANDIDA7E #9 ~
If?Y . , h'~ •
. ~ ,~F'r~ . ' . ,
i_ , Y#?~~~ lw.R J„ 4'f 1~~•~
r.
. •.f:.i'. . .1. ~ . - ~ ~ .
~M ~ . . r~.~ . .
:.1 ~ • . ,w ' . . . .
• l
viEUJ CORRIDOR CANpIp,4TE *lm
* f~~ • 1
fi•;
~ _ . , : . . : •
~ ~ ~ : . : i ~rA.,
t ~ ` . ~1~~
~ , ~rf,,,~; •t:~,.'~;;~~~~~':. ~k f ir~,
M~.
a k~FJ,' ~ bF L r"~~~.G~~y<'~ ti!~'~i
..t Pi;S~'+;•:~~ni'G • ~v ,l r
d.. ~
~ yriJ;•'~
~ , y~.`:'~;~n~,~~"4
' 1. : "r~. • ,`:S',y„'
~ ,i~:: 1` . •,,.;~iar,~~~,ln;
. . : ~•',.:~:Y'~~;~~
1 ~
• ~ ._f~ti, • ~'j!` `YC'~~ ,~y~
VIEUJ GORRIDOR CANDID,4TE OII ~
''<;~<<r~~ ~~v .
, Il 1 .O~ p
' t I~ I
• !
f
U11
V
•~1. r~" ~ ~I
,~A;:i ~ •1.,NV;r
~,;;w~,~,,s~ • , :
n~t~~•r,p. f .~;y,~l~ ~~~Mt~,.'
r , 4 ~Q M yy~~',~ ~+tl h"~'I'1~~~ J:•~
p/` 11r. F # ~ ~l
.x..
S
1 .
{ s t
'~'y ~tr,^~>}~,~+'I;,N • ' ~ :1~:;:•;*:{, , .
,f~ ,.Y~ ;A1'.". ..d .'~._~Y~~'+i~y~,, `_4• t oK ~ i . `4,~J( ' r
'd4'+
?~~V ' ~ , ' ~Iip., '
' . . • 7r~ : ' .
~ al1:?`~•-e`tikf L^.• _ . .K '
1/fEUJ GORRIpOR C,4NplpATE *12
Y '1'C, • -a•..~(}:1' Ti t.i.• ' : . ; . .x.:.
„y .
~ `S;• y . y
~ fi t 'ji rs'..-;,....":''. ; ~
4" ..~~.'.;:~~,-1. :1~
.y • ` r~~~a~~ k~4$~Y .'.x.1'l~ t j
S ,
~c 5a5hi .:~id~ti' ~~i•'di,::' ~ ~ ~ - `~Z:• :
'
~,.'t • ' ~ : tir";: r,
' y'• >~t'~ .t. ~ °
~ ' ~ ::,`i` ~ ~ ~l~~~' ' . •
1 1:7
.F`~l
• l ~ ,
x,.. ~ . " • ; ?~~3'~, `:,+a~:: d'i' ~*;;i; ~jl • ,T~
i^~4 V
• f r 5.:: j, • ' ~~(i: i , , ~ J~7;
VIEUJ COfZRIDOR G,4NDIDATE *13
, 4~;. >x~ ~ a•.;f::~:'.,
1 ~~t 1~ ~ 4 I ~ ~
~ E:-1~,;.:;'• :
• ~ , ~a~i?`.. ; r~r.,r .
'F. { + r ~Ab. •
^ ,d
4;. .
. ..q 9~„yi... .
mJ,iuyiy!r~:H~'^,~ e!?n ~ ,7
~~r, M1,. . . ~..~i? r p
~ A...
.
. VIEI.U GORRIpOi? CANDIp,4TE *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.
r
~
~ ~ ~ ~
w?"~~ s`... .+i-i~'[ $ .•s • ~'n.: . R
+f~~,c~. `f{'
a.a•:T.y~ ,r T`~t" ' r r ir . ,ra+~~~;'y-~~~}- t~~`,~* y 7
~ .~~rf_~i'~:S':.A - " y F.~.. ~ .'1:-~: ,n -F'4'~~~R~ t~„`•~i ~ 4\'~/~ ~ 7-J' :~~F. J'r'~ ~~~;,1R `Y-
C ia 5' w- ~v. ,3~. ' • 7~ ~ C ~c 3 5 },7. ~.~?li t '~s ti;!r z~ ~Y ~ 'y j •`s~
O ~J „ - ~L_ ~i;`; i ' ' . ig ^ • 4 .y ~ q r' . t ~
.,jt--:~~'~ N IA'1,
j ri
'~.~#.Yth "~~.'4~Y ~ a~n...~.p,p. y ~ .~q i `tt ~ n-i~ F~~ ~ y~ ~ ~q,!
C
t~~
^ . ~,d.;~'~ ~ t s' s~ ~f.~'~'s.''° _ : ~!i~' . ~ y3~ f ` . • ~3'X i ~1 } 1) :
, , 1 ~~~~:T€T . t_ - s~~ _ ~ .k ~y ~ 4 /
ik ~ • - :3 ~ ~r~ ~ .."Y. L'v,
. • .~T , ~,r ~ : ~~ti`~' :Nt~ ~ .
~
_ -;y - • _ . Y'r.^'.?.r.: ...,a4if - ,R
',`~~t-
~ - • !~~1VIM_
:.,:;•'.'~~.:_i::~ _ ~i:• c i'J:;; ~ ~id~' .y
~ h •
'
- ' a T ~1~ i . : E.~.~~ +
r •r ~p.y~ t rry. ~eN
~.J .tC.= ..Y ~ S7~ ` , 'Y•~'~~ ~ ~ r~~
.cvi i3~: ~ ..s,• Ftt,~'..r;?'"""'~°~^+,.sT^"~-r.'~c--+.. z. _ - = r{_ ~r
`f 4 ..~''s1 •:v'a < ~'-r.:~ e`_
~
\J ! •'`~"-''s-.;~~:~ ! °
11 ~ _S'' i . . : . ~ ~ , . i ~
' . ' :j-~' ~ ~F 7~ . _ y •
i ~
i r
N , • ~~i
. . _ ~
~
_ ~ ~ _ ~j• - - - - ~ [ ~;~P,;t
;`t' i' '~Y..:.(-• .~I-: ~i. 1
, . . . ,r., l,t.~
. . , • , . `r:'.';.'• !'1'~`i:` .)~.'>.`'.;~(:C=~\r;i':-;~• ,.{rf•~r. _ v{ ^ . n. _ rYj:.~ ~F,
c ~ , ~ . : .tdt
i . ' - r : ~i,~, :;•~tti~ ~
. _ . . . ..l~~ , •~i~~f (.'~4t~~
~ . . . . . . ,1:. ~.t./tiy
• ' ' ..~1:fn ~ Y
e.~~~9?Yl:
~ ~'',)tr
%~ar~." + ••,,r~y.~;tt _ i ~~~~'~r"'~'':
~1'~ ~ ~P '1 ~ .~t a~~{`~~l t ~t~ ~a~~''' , y.~i>1`• . i • ; iv .
~ ~'•;j~tf:':>+.~t',,.r~ F., ~ P 'yd. K
s j~ . ' ` • ~
,~.7.,1 : 1'~i`~(`~' ~ s • 4 t . ' ' .
y~S~ I~ •.t.WJb~tli~l~l^ ',~••.'l~ :.aNN ,~~j:+ry_ }1
~ , ' . i f°• ' ~:1 ~ ~ .
" ~~'.~7Y~<;~~ •iy . ~ . - '~?~~1} `w; '~,~.t?I.,Y jt
~j' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~t'~ ':1 .Y,~~~'~j. ~~%''.i• i
f , ~ , , . t y V i
"f'~s;l ~ d•~~``. 's t~~ 74' ~i: ~~r;1,i~,~Y,r.::t:.,4,
:a ~ q • c• ~ ~~~~y~~,' t ~~;i ~''i.
•.ri":y I',,~.r J r'~f~',F ..,.~~.~~,l4. ~r W:!'ti.~~ ..L'.; . ~ ~ ,1. -.1~;(?~,q•`,. ~ L c,,.,.
M1 u ,7(,~,y,~,~, i. ; ,j~' ~
:i; N }t, ~4 r ~ I r •.`G, ,5;. .k..
r
t
'_~~r+
~ 1 ~r'~r v a f ~ ' r^ 2 .r '•7~~ ~ ~ e ~ ••r
JY+~~ 9.- ~t t....... .
~;i: , tr ~,•i r + T r7, ! -..i..a''
.\,';t ~ Y l~t~. c.•i. .1:. ~y!~r { ` ;y~~ •1.
,~-,;!~b~ Fya'~' t; , _ , tiM~~~~~_ 'y' .r
.ti• .,1~"ti°~'. ° r .4~ _ ~~~,'~"~~'f~ ~r'i;~,~ i'~',' ~k~ '
'
~
1.lc ~y'1 .c c ( "7 rn~v~,r:~ 4„ . y. ~ i .'E ' r . . ~ ~r. r~ 6' `~{n{ 'Jzi 1.~, ~F'y~,i.An(~'• ~L,'~~t4t~ r .AT,(..
1'.A ~ , . t'1,N~~ rt F yr ~1Ji. f~J~a~~ ~ ~ ~r s o`.~3' ~2N 1 ~ *.:yd ,'i ti r :i3~ . ~,~~l~,;?'iN ~ ,y'-7:;t?~,Myt~~i~iry~yyq~ 5~{'•
~ ~ +•~c t'~`'
J.V.~ i ~ zw-~. y s ~ i 3 k .t 4~ } At~"`~~* G ~1~ ~f~~ ' f~ r. .
Yf t r ~ ~ r a ~A f~`,}~ t 3~~,4 ~ Fy. ,h.fi-~G'1~f:~~,~+. S.' 5~~,~ TM
+ ~ Y ; J(s~.. nr'~F,, j . 1.y n . j. { ~(~~y i ~ ~ i ~ ~ k~ y~ kYTS+~lj~~ ~ ~~~~.a~n' ~ i • f~ ~i~c .
FJ i{ ~ Y 1G - i~ w. t'I r ~S,s~?, laYr rwt ~ ~ .
, Vt
Y.
~ti ~'.y~y''°
S OMNI 4Xom,
o~ ~ ~J~~ ~t ~~l,~
~A~h
+ 7 ~ t 1 Z( Jj,. r'^t+rJ+N ~ Vt 1~' ~ ~'r G ~ ~{~.,.k. e. • j t
~rxJy
~ ~
~~~~I FD()Fz~?
•:~`C
.r' , . . '~dJ~?.;~.'T'; ~1I'". ..d.l~+•.: p(~{•9. ~.V.~~l
' i,:. ~tt,~:: } r_~,. t.. q^ t.
' ~ r: ~~~C~... :~j'. i.~. : f`2: 1-'~.~,•:
. y ~ • t
1~ . • . . . ' ~ ' ' , . . `j
. - t- . , . . , .
-'.z ' - a• ..',r ; ~l ~ ~ ~ ~ I`
1
. i
•
,
• ~ ~ :~~r~a .
~ ~r ; • }
4: . , ~ 'f ~ ',n N ~~1 i7 ~ r r~'~~ ~k~;~r~ w~.~; ~:.4~+~Y"~~~'f~~v 1~J '~,U I ~ ~'i ~ ~~`s ~ Cj'~ ~ Y ~ G `fat }~tl Y~,f~, .
!r:~•4 C~+~4'S. ~ i ' ~~'~r ~ ~ ~ t t ~ 3r
~ur~t '.Y ~ ~ ~1 • a ~ r
.~~c.
~ ' i ; ~ ~t . ~',t~ •F ` ; , ~3.
• f r,{ . Ri f' ~'~~w " i~~ t ~
Nr~' riJV~' . . ' ~•~a'
Y { ~ ~ S~"1~y f~ 5 r 1 : 1 ~ ' ~
x
'
. ~ . ~ Y
ix
' ~ ~~~`z~~~~~v~~L~ ~ ~ ~'~j
y4 ~~y~~ 1 1~~'.~! 1C, ~R},~j~~~~ i.tl'~ •
r
IY'
r ,i ~ ~y~'Y. • , t .4 ;-.y..~,: ~:':'~Y_. N,,.~_ ~,~h
r
' ~ '_T'S'«~ltii~9a'y,+fn.... '.c i~ ' ~ ~ • ~;~c sr . t~ ; w~1 , t':.; `~n1. ' _ ~ t ~ a Y i.
-rs J~.:~c.nr*1~ :ta
~ R • ~~~1~~~j , .t~ I'?i 1 '~r ~ . , ~~v
~ 3 1, r F~`!N~{w''~:Ye.(.f~' :~.~.r r; f~t;3.•'-• ^r•_ ,.''.'~'su~ , i: •p.
~~~~~~o f;;:~
# ~
- : . : ; _^;:.z=:~. kY. ~~s~;'. •
',,`~,~..:'•a;::;i;%; ' :.:;5,`;_Y;Y;'-u2:
~ . ~ , . . ~ . ' •~L' ',i:.'~ ' ,..T.I~~.;Sl,,r`~'i~,a~•:%~:: :~.~.:r~°~.ri.`~- 1~~';.1~i
. . . ' . ' , . ' . _ ' '•':~t " 1-ii~ q^.^~?:?::~ :X~.°('.Y~~'w'
~ ' t , f, ,r.-~`s~-'~+~~'`'•~1'S ~it.
' i s } `~~~i~./~`u"'~`•
~ - - . . . ' . ? _ ` - ;1'_-'i.%jip:'^y~:'?.
y~
`^rJ~:tt.'C''~::i,,;,ry:`.=;i
:3^_~- - . •
r'
~ y ~ .,,Es fi-; ~ ~ 7 .,!i:~T f .n'Zt 1,~,~ r y~t-."`_ ~"I T ,~F-~Y~~'~~'~ d:y. ~y z j:+s.~c. tr~r'*s~ - .F~_ ; ti~_ .
V ~ C".~ ,c 'a.-^~~' ~ c~~- y~ ~-a'4 3*.~-,~'2,.~~. ,.s~ r ~7x:... atr--~.r-` ....,i4 .~S~~~y.ts.~ ~ Y . . • 4, j ~ ~ , ' < ~
t ~ '2~:- ..s,r~ ` ~ , :i.._~. 2r ~s ? "
. .e~ :34. zi- • . " . ~ . i~h~• . . ~ .
i~ . r' + ' ~T ~ i.X ;'.'.{z _ ~ . , '~-tx a .s .
4~t,c ~~.a 1~2~; r -7"'42-~ - _ ~i
n
~ • ' ' ~`~r T~ ~~~7., y:. '~k c ~ .
~ ~'yXi . r }t~ ~j ~~s s~+~{~„ ~ ~ y~ 'd ~?F~ y~'~.. ~ ~Y6;J~~'t • y
13
. / , _
- '
^7_ ~y- y~ ya.ch:e~~-sn~_ _ -;.~T ^=.r_r :h-,•ic`~.^=,'.~.5..:..;...=_:U"-i',~`, ' _ .;;.-a~~_$E.
~ S ~ h ryi4~t;.y.
r..~.:
V ~
~
~
.77
, . i. ' . ~ :.1';".':;'.~~~..;1 `y~~{;~;'~'.~.~ p •t'-y,7" S'~. 7~`~
~ , . , y~r....'Y~"+K.~j`L'.~.J~rSi,~•~y !Yl".F.~.~,f~;'(~•;..,~'4~•'~rl
~ ' .i/..`~i•.~~...;..~,•t.;.q.,, ~•~,M..
'r ....,ti~ _ i=~..~ ..:...~y r,•.,..:~u,, i.,.
. . . . . .~•Y:v~~~ti.i~~~~ lif. . (~•%'-l.~'.a_Y~.' u~.
.'•`',~;:'~~~:~..'.f~j~:..~~A: tj~~ .j~r
. . . ~ ~ :~ia!1':'{~ 1~' u e~:~Y: r~ . ~
. . . .~.7:«,• '~Ii.~-.
. • ~.i: ' :i~.~• ~~.f~.~^~tr,''~ ~
, . . . '~i _.a. '.ie:=,~ ..:,~v~r:fi. i~; t
, ' . ' . ; . . ',"r.^~!~'.~~%.7.:r ~I.„,;::"~~~~ 's~:- t"~• ~
, ~ , ` ~i •",1 j''~'.e ~ :~-:,:sc4;;~71
, , , Scry' : , t j .w~i~t ~t.~ ~
S A . . J * a
s ~ ~ ' ~ , r• ~ , ~Ta i 5 r
~'ri`hl?1s~J ~p ~ "t )t ~ .'N ~ , ~~j~:i,~-~r } " r t v • + M~:...~ ~ , . ~
f• ~ . A' ~'y' i
• y p ~ t p ~Y ~j~~y~ ~ . ~ J
• ~j.r 'ii~.i Frtn~1~ ~ ~.~~`.e t J;k
r• i tu ~ ~r r~~ {'I'.~ ~a ~r~?,.:
•~t?( .pq 'i ~ t• ; ,1 ' ~ ~ j ' :~f i r ~ •
t ~~n 4 .,r~ . El
~R k W ~ t 1~ y~ ~ l d ttl t 'f1 (y
~ ~ ~)~t. t' ` ~ kµ.J. .•.r7j , ~ i~~~~ yf~ ~ •
i 1 ~ n 1 ~2 ' ~ fi a•1}: ~ at t ~ . ~ f ~t~ ~ ~ ~r ~ i ~
L
,e • '~..C r`~iI 3yr • yt "~t~a~y.gt
1
•J.~,h ..t.
1 • , I
W,k ; i •~f • '1.
w
~ • , 'r.;. ~ y. j~ ~ t~,v~,`"~''„~4`q,~~`~ '~,L;~3~r,.
~ , .s.~ • . 'S~y~ip ~ .'Ir~ ' ~ '~'k~~y;~ a ~y~'~{, "~r ~
..a ' '.i~.~. ;,i'.. , t r`~ ._t ~
'.J., Yv rSi'j:~ d7~t~ . •1<1:..//'1 ::.~~~'~l'~y • ~
, ~ Nlj•yj~J' i
, . _ t.y
, , ' i •i~:',.;'r t~. ~ ~ .~`~.a~ ~~"°F.~r~~~ 4 , ' ~~~Y~r"~~y'. ~i4a ~
.i~.' ' :;i.~ . i • ~ ~n ~ r4''pf'
• . r~~~r,~;,
. • ~ ~'k ~ '~{~NJ.Y ;;~,~R . .
i '
~~'•L .v.,.r,~.~ i... ' .
~~9~i~: ; y~%~~ '4, ~ . • 'Y; _ : ..f., , w~ "q
N~ ~ y i
~:j,~ a ' r~;";:. ~ . ~ ` ' ~ ~
AR J~~ ^ ~ ' '
F ~4~~~ ~ ~ •'~jy '.M'~
~V ~ YJ- 4 ~ . ~y • i
~ ~a~ , , ~ e t~ -F' • :i , ~
r.-
'
k~
Fi20F0SEE) v «U.J Cn~f;;-z? f F)
n~ # ~
~ .
Attachment D
Overview of Lionshead Master Plan Design Charette
On Saturday, June 14"', 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:
I. 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 Eitsplay
in Dobson Arena.
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 23, 1997
SUBJECT: 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: Garton's Saloon, represented by Dave Garton
Planner: Lauren Waterton
L SUBJECT PROPERTY
The batting cage is proposed to be located on the outdoor dining deck of Garton's Saloon, at 143
East Meadow Drive, Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing. According to the Town of Vail
Zoning Map, the property is zoned Commercial Service Center (CSC).
11. STANDING OF APPELLANT
Staff believes the appellant has standing to file an appeal in this case as the appellant, Garton's
Saloon, is the operator of the outdoor dining deck.
III. BACKGROUND
On May 23, 1997, Dave Garton requested approval to place a batting cage on the approved
outdoor dining deck, located on the top level of the parking structure at Crossroads. The batting
cage was proposed to be 14 feet wide, 50 feet long and 12 feet high and constructed of a metal
frame with a nylon netting surrounding the frame. Staff reviewed the request and found that the
batting cage did not comply with zoning, and therefore, denied the request.
The outdoor dining deck is allowed as a conditional use within this zone district. In 1996, the
PEC granted permanent approval for a conditional use permit for the operation of an outdoor
dining deck at Garton's. Previously one-year approvals were granted in 1994 and 1995.
A batting cage is an amusement device, which is defined in the Zoning Code as,
"any device which upon insertion of a coin, slug, token, plate or disc, or payment of
consideration may be used by the public for use as a game, entertainment, amusement, a
test of skill, either mental or physical, whether or not registering a score, which shall
include, but shall not be limited to: pool tables, snooker tables, foosball tables, pinball
machines, electronic games, fixed stand coin-operated kiddie rides, and mechanical bulls,
but shall not include radios, devices that provide music only, or television carrying
cammercial broadcasts."
*VAIL
T019N
The Zoning Code specifies that amusement devices are allowed in minor and major arcades. A
L.ninor arcade is defined as:
"A place of business where an individual, association, partnership or corporation
maintains four (4) or fewer amusement devices."
A maior arcade is defined as:
"A place of business where an individual, association, partnership or corporation
maintains five (5) or more amusement devices."
Staff determined that Garton's is a major arcade because it maintains more than four
amusement devices. However, Garton's has proposed to reduce the number of devices to four
or less (including the batting cage) in order to be considered a minor arcade.
Major arcades are conditional uses within this zone district and a minor arcade is an accessory
use.
The conditional use section of the Commercial Service Center Zone District states,
"The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the CSC district, subject to the
issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with the provisions of Chapter 18.60:
1. Any use permitted by Section 18.18.28.030 (Permitted Uses) which is not
. conducted entirely within a building."
According to the above section, only permitted uses are allowed to be located outside, subject to
a conditional use permit. Staff denied the request because neither an accessory use, nor a
conditional use is _not explicitly permitted to be located outside as part of the conditional use
permit.
IV. NATURE OF THE APPEAL
The appellant is appealing the staff decision denying the operation of a batting cage on the
approved outdoor dining deck. The appellant has indicated that as part of the conditional use for
the dining deck, accessory uses are permitted to be located outside. Therefore, the approved
conditional use permit allows all accessory uses to a bar or restaurant. The applicant has also
stated that because two pool tables were approved to be located on the deck in 1995, a
precedence has been set to allow accessory uses on the deck.
V. REQUIRED ACTION
Uphold/Overturn/Modify the staff's denial of the request for approval of batting cage.
The Planning and Environmental Commission is required to make findings of fact in accordance
with Section 18.66.030 (5) shown below:
The Planning and Enviranmental Commission shall on all appeals make specific findings
af fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact
must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements
of Title 18 have or have not been met.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission uphold the staff's denial of
the batting cage on the outdoor dining deck and recommends that the Planning and
Environmental Commission make the following findings:
1. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 18
(Zoning) have not been met.
2. That a batting cage, by definition, is an amusement device, which is considered
an accessory use within the Commercial Service Center Zone District.
3. Accessory uses are not permitted to be located outside, as part of the conditional
use process.
F:\everyone\peclmemo\gartons.623
6 A R ~c G R 1 L s.
P.O. BOX 1057 • VAIL, COLORADO 81658
970-479-0607 • FAX 970-476-7455
,
Greg Moffet ' , ; . May 30,1997
Chairman PEG;.
Town Of,:Vail
;
re. Appeal of Lauren Waterton's tlecision on proposed batting'cage,':at Garton's '
Mr. Chairman,
We at Garton's;Bar & Grill.are :appealing the decision;by Town Planner:Lauren
,
Wate6n to disallow the use of a batting cage on the deck.in front of Garton's :
The:.reasons that we feel tiie use should:be permitted are"as follows
: . _ .
:
, . « ::.:.us.; ,;,e.: ::ati
:Garton s has been: ranted a Conditional use,: 18.28.040-I An. e .:n
9 Y 9
,
dnnking establishmentCocktail lounges, taverns and bars" secti6n18,28.030 - E) per '
m.itted by Section :18.28030.which is not conducted entirely within;a building", for.:the.::.:
deck outside.
. .
.
ar
. We::feel >that.."amusement;;devices ..e:directlY::associated with. tayerns and bars;;ttiere'~::`<; !
for fall under section 18.28:040 I and also.,untler 18:28, 050 ,C, ("Other uses, customari,
, _ . <
I°::incrdental;:and accesso to ermitted or'conditional;uses;:;and<necessa.. ,;:fo:r;;;:th
Y e:<:
rY P rY.... . . .
:.;nth : ; .
:
io
oPerat;ereof , > <
:>:<;:<::::.
2. Lauren consi.ders: ;Garton's as. a" Minor Arcade"04.254) „inrhich is an° "Accessory
use" (18.28.050 D) By definition:(Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary) Accessory is
"a thing of secondary or subordinate importance". We: feel tli'at>this: accessory use is a
subordinate use to our main business (restaurant; tavern, bar); a,;`p;ermitfed use"
(18.28.030-E) therefore is included in the granting of'the.:conditional use to Garton's.
Other accessory uses include outdoor items sucti as pools;:fennis courts and patios.
3. There has been a precedent set when Garton's. was granted permission to have 2
pool tables (amusement device 18.04.005) outside on the deck in 1995. The only stip-
ulation was that the covers to the tables be painted a certain color. During this sum-
. • 7,000 SQ. FEET OF FUN •
mer (`95) there were no complaints directly associated with this use.
4. This is a device that wifl draw people from throughout the val{ey to the Commercial Service
Center District of Vail. There is not a batting cage anywhere in the valley. Participants will include
Little League Baseball teams, VRD Softball teams and tourists.
This will provide revenues for Garton's and the Town businesses in general which will provide
greater tax revenues for TOV.
5. There will not be any intrusive visual or audible effect on the surrounding community. The posi-
tioning of the amusement will provide for coverage on three sides, two sides by the building and one
by a line of existing Aspen trees. The cage is made of dark green nylon netting with eight dark
green supporting poles and one- 1/8th inch cable running the length of the cage.
The mechanism is run by electrical, quiet running motors which will have no audible impact.
In conclusion, we hope that in review of this appeal the Board will agree with the reasons stated
above and will find nothing in the zoning statutes that directly says no to this use therefor permitting
this unintrusive amusement at Garton's for the enjoyment of patrons to the Town Of Vail.
Thank you for your understanding and consideration.
David Garton Stephen Olson
General Partner General Manager
i.
{
:
, x
~4~i`% ' ~ s~".~~, ~ j'~Sa ~S ~ °~sx . ~'0~ ~
AA4`~k
. . - ~ . . ' .
~ .
,
: ~ .
~ . ~ . ~ ' ~
~
. ~
~ ~ . . ~ .
~
i
. . o
R
q~
~
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
Greg Moffet disclosed for the record that Garton's Saloon was a customer of his, but he didn't
see it as a conflict with this application.
Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the staff inemo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Dave Garton introduced Steve Olson, the GM of Garton's. Steve Olson handed out diagrams to
the PEC, as Dave Garton explained that a bar like his always had games such as, Lasso Calf,
pool tables, etc. He said the size had been cut down to decrease danger. He went on to explain
the diagram of the deck and handed out a sample of the netting for the batting cage. He said he
received a letter from Brian Canapa, a coach for 10-11 yr. olds in the valley, who would make this
batting cage available for our kids to use. The batting cage would be open from 4:30 p.m. until
10:00 p.m. He said the batting machine would throw both hard balls and softballs. He explained
that he had space outside Garton's for the batting cage and that Vail stood for recreation and this
would fit. Dave said that this was an accessory to a bar and not visibly, or audibly obtrusive and
no neighbors would be bothered by it, so it was a win-win situation for the Town. He closed by
saying he would like this to be an accessory use to Garton's conditional use.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none.
John Schofield asked staff if this would be allowed inside.
Lauren Waterton said yes, as a conditional use, as Garton's would be considered a major
arcade, since Garton's already had 4 other games.
John-Schofield said he would support this idea, however, code is clear that it is not permitted.
He suggested the code be changed to permit it and that would have to go to Council, as the
PEC's hands were tied.
Steve Olson said it was a matter of interpretation.
Gene Useltan asked Lauren to read the code section regarding conditional uses and then asked
if thP PFC wauld be prohibited from approving the request.
Mike Mollica stated that was the question to be answered today.
Planning and F3nvironmental Commission .
M in! i±es
Jume 23. 1997 2
Greg Moffet said there was nothing in the code that says a use was prohibited.
Mike Mollica read from the code, stating that any use listed as a permitted use may be focated
outside, subject to a conditional use permit. However, he said we were discussing an accessory
use.
Greg Moffet asked if it was permitted by exclusion?
Mike Mollica said, yes, only those uses specifically listed were permitted.
Steve Olson added "which is not entirely conducted inside." He said they would be conducting
business outside and that games were a part of our business.
Gene Uselton asked about the interpretation.
Greg Moffet said we had to apply the code.
Mike Mollica said letter I of the code stated that permitted uses not located entirely within a
building may be located outside, subject to a conditional use permit.
Steve Olson said it would fall under "other uses customary to do business."
Gene Uselton asked if it went to Council, could Council approve it without changing the code?
' Mike Mollica stated that staff, PEC and Council all must use the same criteria in reviewing this.
Gene Uselton asked when children would be using the batting cage.
Steve Olson explained that Garton's was trying to attract families into the bar.
Greg Amsden stated a batting gage was not necessary for the bar's operation.
Steve Olson said the cage would be taken down on Friday, as Garton's didn't want to have to
police it. He explained that the cage was totally portable.
Greg Amsden asked if it was that portable, why weren't there more batting cages in Vail. He said this was an inappropriate use for that location in Town and although the Town needed batting
cages, he was shocked to see it at Garton's.
Dave Garton agreed, but said the Town of Vail didn't have any in Town.
Steve Qlsan reminded the PFC that visually, you wouldn't see it.
Greg Amsden asked staff if this would go before the DRB and said that it didn't fit the Design
Guidelines.
Galen Aasland didn't understand why permitted uses were allowed outside.
Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes
June 23, 1997 3
Mike Mollica said any permitted use was a conditional use outside. But he said that this was not
a permitted use, but an accessory use. He said the code was silent, as it related to accessory
uses to be permitted outside. Mike said that if a use was not listed, it was therefore, not allowed
and thaYs how the Zoning Code worked.
Galen Aasland stated he would like to find a way to see this happen.
Diane Golden said we needed batting cages in this valley. She asked if it would require
supervision.
Steve Olson said it was coin operated and the power would be shut off, so children wouldn't be
able to just come up and use it.
Greg Moffet said he was having trouble with the memo prohibiting this use. He said the code
only allowed permitted, enumerated uses outside. He said if we could not permit accessory
uses, then this was removing discretion, rather than adding discretion. He said that the code
should permit more latitude and that he was having a hard time adopting staff's interpretation of
the ordinance.
John Schofield agreed that, after looking at the code, it was less than clear and open to
interpretation.
Steve Olson said staff said that accessory uses couldn't be used outdoors.
Greg Moffet said the Town Council should address this as a code change to make accessory
uses permitted outside. He said as a Planning Commission, our purview was limited and the
elected folks make the interpretation.
Dave Garton said that would be too late.
Gene Uselton made a motion to overturn the staff decision.
Galen Aasland seconded the motion.
Mike Mollica asked if the PEC was saying that accessory uses were permitted uses and should
be one and the same.
Gene Uselton said no, that the definitions were difficult and these should be reviewed on a case-
by-case basis.
Mike Mollica said this would have implications on other projects.
Galen Aasland suggested Gene amend the motion with a finding.
Greg Moffet said he had trouble with the Zoning Code not permitting accessory uses to be part of
a canditianal use. He particularly had difficulty with the finding no.3 of the staff inemo.
Gene Uselton said we didn't have the right to make that judgment and applications should be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Planning and Environmental Commission .
Minutes
June 23, 1997 - 4
rt
Greg Amsden asked staff if we had a history of accessory uses being denied for outdoor use.
Mike Mollica said there was a gyrospere application from the Hubcap that was not allowed.
Greg Amsden asked the applicant why they couldn't put the cage inside.
Steve Olson explained that there would be more use outside and the patrons would prefer it
outside. Greg Moffet said that because this was an accessory use, there needed to be an amendment to
the motion that stated that this was an accessory use, for which they would have to modify their
conditional use permit for the outdoor dining deck.
Greg Amsden asked for future ramifications.
Mike Mollica said as long as it was incidental and necessary, it could be an accessory use.
Gene Uselton said we were interpreting the code, but amended the motion that the proposed use
be considered an accessory use to the existing outdoor dining deck and the batting cage must be
reviewed as an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the outdoor dining deck, requiring
DRB review and approval.
Galen Aasland seconded the amended motion.
The motion passed to overturn the staff's decision by a vote of 5-1. (Greg Amsden opposed)
Planning and }:nvironmental Commission
Minutes
June 23. 1997 5
u
TOWN OF VAIL
•RLD
Office of the Town Manager CHAMPIONSHIPS
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657 1999-VAIL-
. .R
970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157
TM
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager
DATE: June 27, 1997
SUBJECT: Town Manager's Report'
East Vail Rockfall Update
As indicated on the agenda we have scheduled time to update you on our efforts to work with the
homeowners to construct a berm in the Booth Falls area. Russell Forrest, Greg Hall and Steve
Thompson have met with Jerry Greven who represents the homeowners' association on this issue.
Because of a tight time schedule and the need for additional information from lending institutions,
we have not had an opportunity to complete the memo for this item. We will make a presentation
on this issue on Tuesday.
In summary, the homeowners association is requesting four actions from the town of Vail. These
include:
1. Use of Town of Vail land for construction of the rockfall berm.
2. Providing $20,000 to design the berm.
3. Provide internal financing for this project.
4. Commitment of staff time for construction management and DRB review and approval.
On Tuesday we will provide a complete report on this matter. Mr. Greven and other members of
the homeowners association will attend this meeting.
Seibert Circle Uqdate
as you are aware, Pete Seibert has met with Jesus Moroles to explore additional design concepts
for the Seibert Circle public art project. It is my understanding that Jesus is preparing additional
design sketches. These new designs are scheduled to be complete by July 10th. At that time they
will be reviewed by the AIPP. We have tentatively scheduled time at the July 15th work session
for the Council to review these sketches.
I will keep you advise as this project proceeds.
RWM/aw
RECYCLEDPAPER
• • y
B A R & G R 1 L L
P.O. BOX 1057 • VAIL, COLORADO 81658
970-479-0607 • FAX 970-476-7455
Town Council
7/1
/97
Town Of Vail::>:;'
,
Council Mem'ber5, ;
. .
: . . . : : . : .
; ;
<:1Ne' at Gar~on's Bar & Grall: have: a ealed ths .deccsjo n:Y
b:Town Planner Laure .
: f~~ : . : n»:
: : . - . <:::;:::<::<:>><:;;::: > .
Vi/at:erton: to disallo h
w:te us+~ of;~a;batting cage on the dqck cn front,:of„Garton s: ;
,
The rpasons thaf we feet ti~e use should be permitted are as foliovus... .
. ;
, .
.
: . : Gar~on s has>been : rar~ted a Cond~t~onal: use ] 8.28.04 -1 An < ~ .
J.:.: 4.,,) ..y
: ;::~atmg
::;::;'>::<:;::<::''
'
: : . . .
:
rinkrri establishment~Cocktail loun esi:;tav.erns:and bars" 30
9 : ~ : p.:
; ; . „
i~ b Sectio 8: 8:' 30 which:i ond c+d tirel within> ~
y n: s ,r~o~_ e... u te en a b~ ~d~n , for;the
e.+c <:outside.
~ t vices ;.are directl ated wit , -
I ~ t at «a
e
IIVe fe musemr~ de
~so h t b r ;
: :ci
y a~re~~: an a s t.~re
: : <;;
: . A8
~t
::::::::d r , .
un e section : 8.~8;~04i~and also under:.28.050-G<:C}ther::<uses customari`~:':'
ar fa 1
:
:
: : : .
::IC1CtdClltal;and"aGGeSSO. ':tt~; 'Qf'CYTtt#~d Or:Caridltional us85 :::r~t1d:l~e+ce5 " f
> Y rY p sary or the
~ .
<>o eratiQn ther:eof. <,;< ; . . .
. .
::::<;:<>::::::::::
„ . . : . .
2. :e:;:; att~n +ca e'i~ould: be an 'Accesso :us~ 18.28':05O-D . B definition
J 9 rY { ) Y
(Webster's New Gotiegia#e' Dic#ionary) Acc~sst~ry thing of secondary or subordi-
xxx:
nate importanc.+~" Vlie feel, tl: at;thls accessory use is a subo..rdinate use tQ our;main..:`
_ _ .
business (restaurant;;:tav~rn;:bar) ~pe:rrn,t~ed: use: (18.2~:03€~-E);;.therefore;;~s;>Fncfiuded
in the granting of the conditional use'to Garton's. Other accessory uses Jnelude out-
door items such as pools, tennis courts and patios: The;::only;;eFiange:;ould be to the
visual plan of the conditional use.
3. There has been a precedent set when Garton's;was<:granted permission to have 2
pool tables (amusement device 18.04.005) outsiden the deck in 1995. The only stip-
ulation was that the covers to the tables be painfed a certain color. During this sum-
mer (`95) there were no complaints directly associated with this use.
• 7,000 SQ. FEET OF FUN •
. .
4. This is a device that will draw people from throughout the valley to the Commercial Service
Center District of Vail. There is not a batting cage anywhere in the valley. Participants will include
Little League Baseball teams, VRD Softball teams and tourists.
This will provide revenues for Garton's and the Town businesses in general which will provide
greater tax revenues for TOV.
5. There will not be any intrusive visual or audible impact on the surrounding community. The posi-
tioning of the amusement will provide for coverage on three sides, two sides by a line of existing
Aspen trees and one by the building. The cage is made of dark green nylon netting with eight dark
green supporting poles and one- 1/8th inch cable running the length of the cage.
The mechanism is run by electrical, quiet running motors which will have no audible impact. When
delivered the machine and reservoir bins are blue in color. These items may be painted any color to
suit the visual appeal.
In conclusion, we hope that in review of this appeal the Council will agree with the reasons stated
above and will find nothing in the zoning statutes that directly says no to this use therefor permitting
this un-intrusive amusement at Garton's for the enjoyment of patrons to the Town Of Vail.
Thank you for your understanding and consideration.
David Garton Stephen Olson
General Partner General Manager
June 23, 1997
Mr. Dave Garton .
Mr. Steve Olson
Garton's Bar 8y Grill '
143 East Meadow Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Dave and Oly:
' I am the coach of the Athletics, a team of 10-12 year olds playing in the
Vail Recreation District Program.
As I mentioned to Oly, if you guys were able to install the batting cage
you described on your outdoor, deck at Garton's, I would be very excited
about bringing my entire team in to practice their batting skills. I know
that all my fellow coaches in the Rec District Program would feel the
same way.
~
Please use this letter as my strong endorsement of your batting cage idea
at Garton's; I hope this letter will help you persuade the Town td allow
you to install this piece of equipment at Garton's.
Sincerely yours,
B'rian Canepa
Coach, Vail Recreation District
Softball Program
.
. . y . . 'S;. -'«c;_.::.,
~ .
. . . . . . . . .........:'..::::::"Y:::'::~.:.'~:: : ~'<i:':::
v y.
J
~ . . .
. . e . . ...e : ....::...v .
. - .<1. . d^ .a . i'iiivF`i:$' .
. . . . ...5v . .
. . a . . . . .
. . . . . . . . ...::r~
ec' _ . . i . _
. . . ~ . . .
. . _
, . .
. . . - .
_
. . . ~ ~ :
y .
: , . . . . . .
r;
. . . ~ :
~
t
. d . ....:::::.:::.:s... _
. .
t~ y
. _ . ~
.:::;:i>~
i~..
4 . W.Zr...
. . ~x:.. . . . :
. . . . . . ~ ' .
,.y
. . . :r
,
. , w
, y
.
r. .
0
n
. : . ~ .
. ,
. ~
rNS .
,
y
°
. ,::j".. .
<
. . . ~
,
,
, . .
. ~:[ii[~i
. ' > . '
: . .'.:,~~y
. . . - . ~ .
. . . . .o°~ . . u,:.; ~i
. . ~ . ' ' . , ~ . . . . .
. • ~ ~ :.~r::r?t.~
. . .
' . . .
..o
.
.:.a . ~
........:.....H
~ . . .
. ..R:::
. . : .
. a ~ . ~ . ~
.
^M .
. . . ui . y
.
:_.,v...
:
?'k::`:.. ~
.
~ .
. . . . . :
. . . .
: :
. . ~
:~.e:.~.•
. . . . t .
.
..va - . . . . .
y~o... _
..:<.r.r
. ,
~ :~x . . . > . ~ ,
~ ~ :
.e . . .
. . . ~ . . . .
z..,..
. . . : . .
r:s
. . .
. : . .
~ . .
i
. . . . . .
. , .
..::~Y : . . . . . . . . . .
, . . . . . ~ " .
. . . . . . .
. .
. . . . . ,..:~.w.. . ,
. . . . . xe«..... ..:::r: L:_:.: :~de
: ~ _
' ~.f" y~. . , ,
. . ..,o . .
. . ; . _ .
. . . . . .
.,re.^. , :
rc:i~. ..w..~:, - . . .
. . . i . : ~ r~
. .<K:%.
i
~
e .
. ~ . .....1 Sa'w....rt.rc.u.. ~ i ~ ; . . .
...r'~'......... .v. ::~r...a. . . ji, q J ~I
. o . .Yn .:a.a...... . f"S°' ,F,. . ,~.~G.v y.y, ii„ ~ II ~ 1 . . . . .
r.:.'..!,......E l..M~. .....aY:::~.. ~ ..m:..Y... ~,i~'. ~~i .
. . . . ,.n ~ ~ .....,~.,4G P d i ~ i i
> , ~ . ~
. . ......a... .:n• i.;r )m..;.. .9 . ~ ' ~ .
~
• x~ . . s:~>~ K.,. ~ „ ~ i ;
_
;
• w:. . ::,..x.
•r~'~:;,.,; g:,;::~.:;.• ;'..~?::.i::::;i'::~i:;~;
~ < .
rn
.
~
. . , fi ~ ' .....SR
, : : ; ' H . ~p. . ~ .
£ 9
~
: Y .
k
~ ~
J .
3.
r~
~ ' ...E'..:~ : .:....::`c?...~.'.^ ' .i..
,
. . t . ~ .~...n _ -.k........ -
~a
:.,,..........:s :::::.::::...Fa.t.................::..~#..s..~^.:::`.:::.::~• h:..;.......~~.. :~.3a".:::~..:.::E:::~:'...".:r^ .:~~,`~,`.::~."..o::~~~`:?:~;5~:~::.'.,.,
. .'?c.....,;,..: . . .t ti... .'@. ,..'~S".... ...iS~zt ~.yz::::.n,::~ ..,'3
. . . .~t.,
. .taF....... ...'::?::'a....:.. ~
. . . _ . . . , x.......>....... . ~ . .;,-ij::ii ~
: ~ . .g.:..v .
. ~ ~ . ~ . . . . ...~e.............,..,....,... ....:.~.:::.r_.~.",:~.: ii :a. a.....;;, i
. . .r..:rr:.~ . ...............,...........,...,i.k...... .
.c. ~ ~ J n.... . i' . . . y .
, . . . .
. . . .tS . . ............:z..~?'3'.. . .~w.... . . . h£.
. ..m s ,.......::._:..::~:.>.-.::~ttttttttttts,<7't:[;:'^i:`:p:
. x_. Z... ~ ::c:t.~? . , :::.::::~....k.. . ::::.:..a
~ c: < . . . . ~s. ....p:r :::»:::r:::~~~>
. , . . . . R._e.,.,.........._......a < _ .._rn..... 7ii:EE[::>fE~:"j
J . , . . y . on~. . < • ~~u~..... ...m. ~i. ~..<.;._..;<..., . ~~:"~':Y.:,`.i
. ~~r a...o. ~a..::...,~ ~ :Fi.~'~'~'ry~
e:, .~;;x:~~.
ro~
. . . . ~r H ..a....~~ ...s'.
„ ......:a... i .s ~ ....::±~Ki` ~.?5??::.,. ~~y:<;.~
, . . <r~:c~
. . . . e::.:. ~ , ~
. ~ ~ . .
~e .~p > .
?
, . .
. . r...::':: .
. .
i.:. i.:,y.. 3:' .
,ro ,r.n~' ~ • a... . .n .._,_'n:~::- ~g
:r ~ ~ . . : . F
~ ay M '
;
a. ~ . . .
. _.:8 ;~sh::: ~ e
, : ~:~;€a:: , ,.s•S~-` , ~e~ s,'~
. ,q
,x
: ; V ' `h ~ ~ ,z~, ~ ~ ;,.-x
...~y .
:
. . , v, . . ~ . . . ~s~ .
_ . . , . . . . .
' • "::::i:::.c'..::::..:~::~:~`~s~
.
.
:~S . , .
. .
.
. e zteb ~ ~
. . .
.:.:::,y~T.~..,:,._ ..3r~.~;:
.
. . . . y ~.....a.x{' % , ..~,.a ~2: E#
. .
.....x r"P.
. . . . . q'v::
, . n . '
i
. .
. ~ . ....i ~ ~ . ~
k.. -
SEEEEEiEEE':
~
: ~ : . ..e~.w..... : .......:~X:,
. ~ . . . . < . ~ ~'i
. . ;'N.~,
. .
....::::::.......::::~:.a~:y y~,'•. '~E..v~ ::::s.
~
, ...,,q: '.'~~nY~ : ':9:`~'~•`'' .'y@'.YG...
. :.n.Y..
. + .
. . . .v ,,,s i,. ..v . ~ :.nM
. ~
.c . r ~
. . . s. .
.
. . . . ~ .
.q. I ' . . . . ~'~~:...i:::::i'iiii'' ~ i`:~:E:~:.;.z
r.:::. ~
n
. . . - si;i.:
^
. . . ....:3~::::
. ~
. . ~
_
. .
~ : - . . . . . ~::..i::::~:'.: '::A..'., ~•ii
. , . . . ;
. , e. . . . .
~
. . . ~ :
. . . . . . . . :
. '~'.s . .
. . . :
. . ...T:>:::~>: ~
. . . .....y
. ^Y .
' . ~ . . F
~ . . , .y.
::..n
r...
. . . . ..n./G~,'. h"..~.:::::>?. .
. .YS: ~ ~
. . . : ~
3 ...1 :
_ . . . ;x
~
~.u¢
. > . . ~ m,
~
i~
~y
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road Department of Conununity Development
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-21381479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
.lunc 26, 1997
Brian G. McCartney
Director of Gucst Serviccs
Vail Associates, Inc.
1'O Box 7
Vail, Colorado 81658
Ucar Brian;
This lettcr is in response to your Junc 18, 1997 letter addressed to Mayor Bob Armour, rcgarding
thc usc of culturcd stonc within thc Town of Vail. Following ow- convcrsation on Tucsday, June
24th, [ havc subscqucntly schcdulcd a discussion with thc Dctiign Rcvicw I3oard (DRB) for .fuiy
2nd, rcgarding thc usc of culturcd stonc as an allowablc building matcrial.
Shouid thc Dcsign Revicw l3oard dccidc thc usc of culturcd stonc is an acccptablc building
matcrial within the Town of Vail, direction will bc given to staffon July 2nd to change thc Design
Guidclincs. I cncouragc you to attcnd thc workscssion on July 2nd to providc your valuablc
input.
Should you have any qucstions, please do not hesitate to contact me dircctly at 479-2150.
Yours truly,
Dirk D.Mason
Town Planner
DDM/jr
cc: Town Council
Bob McLaurin
Susan Connelly
RECYCLED PAP~ER
YOU ARE INVITED...
to help us celebrate the Vail Town Council's unanimous decision to
: approve the Public Works Seasonal Housing Project. (see attached
media release)
.1oin us for the ground breaking ceremony at 12:00 nooii,
Monday June 30, at the site.
' Please RSVP to Kris Widlak at 479-3447 by 8:00 am Monday, . June 30. Feel free to leave a message on voice mail. .
t'i nas
<Ids: The TV LISTIN6S ON PA6E 5E
~shoW .
, . .
BAC KST GE
~ ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT ThursdaY, June 19,1997
- 8E THE DENVER POS't'.I,~; ~ . -
;.;o%~t, •
' _ _ _ •A`r.
. ~ R ~ ; ` . .
~ • • f., f~~~'4~ ~t 5 _ : ~ :"7.. ^ CJ . .
, . ~ ~ • .
t
~s'~t`
.t s a ~'ca~
....a.. h~ " ~~~P'
~ t.
~ ~ . iEy ~ , . yi~.. ~ 4{s ~ - . .
V5
' g.~5^Y t'i'~'k~ r . .
.
~
.
,
Y~
7 . . <
`~5
"
411
.
I;! ,i~,,., t • " l.~' '~,r~~. . .~h"" 4`; . 7. .
a a ~ . i ~i ;
y~' J', .r" y¢ .y ' _ ~C' ~ •
! ~w • q w, ~'~f,: #~a
rf: ~3 ~
. ~ ~
, ~ S J
~i ..y,T, . . . . ' . . . . r~I• ~
yr~"
J6sus Bautista-Moroleswith:one of his sculptures at-the Artyard Outdoor Sculpture Gallery;`1251 S. Peart St., in Denver.
4
aj • ' / ? ~
# , - i . • • t
4i . --`I,1V111
g granlte the artist's canvas
~
i B Howie Movshoviti that make u the
: J e~ . u.s_ M~ o-r-o l. e s , y P granite.
Oenver Post Staff Writer Moroles, whose work is on display at Ar- : c
r' - ne way to understand the sculpture tyar d Ou t door Sculpture Gallery, as well as
of J@sus Bautista Moroles is climb the indoor and outdoor spaces of the Museum
into Moroles' big carved granite of Outdoor Arts, literally makes the granite
Othrone at the Museum of Outdoor sing. In several "musical fish," he's sliced the
Arts. IYs a great place to sit. Moroles carved rock so the pieces look like harps resting on 0
' ,r' .
the armrests at a good height, and as you set- t6eir backs. You can stroke the "strings"-with
$ tle there, surveying the tandscape, you feel a fingemail or a key. The tinkly sound of'~•
the elemental quality of the stone. rough scale makes you marvet at, the deltca- :1•:
cy from such unrelenting material. A
Like most of Moroles' granite sculptures; -this chair has no problem with ambiguity. A number of the pieces on display are V_~
The granite can be shaped and polished, yet formed with various slicing patterns. Mo-
, • ~ no artistry can eliminate the weight, the roles saws a tiered effect into some of the :i
! roughness and the fact that it's made from a vertical sculptures. If you sight it from the
•.z..••'.., r huge chunk of the earth itself. right angle, the tiers in "Spirit las Mesas,"rr, r:
Moroles calis anite "livin stone° be- few feet from the chair, line up with the tiers-- q,-j .
' ~ g of the first building to t6e west of the sculp=1~.:,
cause "it's pushed up from the center of the ture garden. This piece also sings to a strok~;< ..'s
Earth." T'his is hard rock - far tougher to with a stick or a key, and although Moroles
c work than rnarble - and no degree of polish fi.,
can hide the quartz, mica and other minerals Please see MOROLES on 3E
i n,i c
Thursday;'Juhe~':t8;-~1997:. . . . • i r L•'HEllE1~IVER~YOSTa . 3!
.
%
d~ • Sptor;a=l:.Vloroles lbols'his'gran~teE~works:~ w~th ex uls• ~te detaiL
JL .
MOROLES#YOm Page 8E. huge space for performances. His He already has exhibited across ist's imagination or audience's control with them. "But they rock Moroles says the rock is "torn"
,-a~r,~,~k~r art has been collected, or installed, the United States and in Europe, taste affects the work. When he , really gently. IYs like being in a from yet bigger pieces and from
has sliced away muc6 of the rock all over the United States and Eu- with permanent installations at, ; sculpts he has to think in terms of womb. You really feel the weight the earth.
to make the tiers, he's left a gcace- rope, and one reason for the new CBS across from the Museum of the width, length and weight ca- , of them. "When I started, I thou
ful curve of t6e core material visi- studio in Spain is to develop his Modern Art, the Smithsonian, the pacities.of*a semi-trailer - at He became a sculptor because in ght t6at i,
ble on We inside. IYs an extraordi- presence in Europe. Museum of Contemporacy Art in, about 40,000 pounds per truck - art school it was the oniy course in was a struggle between me and th,
nary,pi¢ce:?~'., Monumental granite sculpture is Chicago and his °Houston Police • the Atlanta sculpture needed three. which he got a B instead of an A. granite, and it always won. I liked
Momles, 46, was born in Corpus , not done by a lonely artist. When Officers Memorial" in Houston. Moroles said that even at very . But he never studied stone carving . it because it pushed back and.if
Clu'iati:'
Tegas, raised in a housing , Moroles talks in the first-person Moroles is one of eight American high prices it's hard to make mon- at all. "I rented a trailer and overwhelmed me.".
. .
pmject in Dallas and headed no- ' plural, it's not because (as Mark artists represented in the sculpture . ey on big commissions. A one-day bought some tools. I don't know the T6e scn/ptures of Juan Bautista
where.'"14" `Twain says) he s either a king or he garden at the White House. crane rental. in New York, wit6 correct way to carve." Moroles will 6e on dispiay at Ar-
"At 10," he said, "I was a very 6as a tapeworm. "He" really is a He also serves on the board of perm'its, insurance and all the oth- Which may explain the nervy tyard Outdoor Sculpture Gallpry,
bad student, but a teacher took me "we." His staff of 14 full-time as- trustees for the Art Museum of er costs, runs about $140,000 - if blend of light and airy shapes on 1251 S. Pearl (777-3219) and the Li
as a project and overhauled me. He sistants coordinates schedules, South Texas, the board of directors nothing goes wrong. If his bids take the outside of a piece, which lead door Exhibition Gallery of t6e Mu-
taok me from a C and D student to shows, commissions, granite and of the International Sculpture Cen- into account all the possibilities for you into instead of hiding the pow- seum of Outdoor Arts, 7600 E. Or-
an A and B student. By 13, I al- tool purchases, equipment rentals, ter in Washington and a sculpture ' disaster, he worries that he'll price erful cores. chard Road #160N (741-3609) °
ready, had one-man art shows. I did , freight and travel. board at the Smithsonian. He also himself out of the commissions. Viriually every piece in the three through Aug. 7. The Samson Park
40-foot murals in four public Moroles browses granite quar- lectures and dces benefits. Moroles also says he doesn't shows teases the implacable si- show adjacent to Fiddler's G'reen
places,, and when I finished high ries for pieces of rock that strike' peggy Mangold, co-director of think much about money: 'I don't lence of the stone with the possibil- Amphitheater runs until May.15,
school I had my own silk-screen his fancy. Sometimes a rock will Artyard, says that Moroles is "on _ know how much granite costs. I try ity or actuality of voice. 1998. -
business.". ' sit at a studio for years before he the brink of being a blue-chip art- not to burden myself with those ,
He also had an uncle, a master decides what to do with it. ist.'.' - things."• mason, who introduced him to Much of the labor on the sculp- Moroles is a big man with a po-, ~•Asked about the self-indulgence
stone.`.~~'`~'~•1'~~ tures is done by assistants; but un- nytail, a goatee and a moustache. of that remark, he smiled. `
After college, he spent a'year in der tight control. His colleagues do He thinks ih terms of wtiole spaces "I don't even own a car. I don't
Vietuam'as a computer repaIrman : one step on a piece, and then he'll - to control the entire scene in- really have a house. I don't think of
in the Air Force, and then went to check it out and decide what he stead of discrete, single tabletop ~ material things that much. I'd like
Italy, looking for direction td his wants next. They might do the ma- pieces. He arranges smaller pieces to live like a monk, but I have this
liEe. It came in an uneapected jor cuts on one of his stelae (Ma- indoors on big gianite checker- ' inciedible overhead. Money is just
form. yan-style monoliths) - before Mo- boards, placing other work around to be able to'do more. That's all it's
"I was in a car accident and I al- roles comes in to carve out the the perimenter. He also designs the for:" ' '
most died. When I got out of the pattern. , , lighting for the room. Larger Moroles talks about his work in
hospital, they said I couldn't ham= ' All told, what he calls his "finan- pieces he sees in the context of ` clear, simple, tactile language. Of
mer and chisel, so I got tu travel. . cial family" includes about 100 neigh6orhoods and cities. several other rocking chair-like
At t6e end of visiting Rome, Ven- people. Many of them are relatives A sculpture in Atlanta stands 40 pieces in t6e outdoor exhibit, he
ice, Florence (and other places), L - his brother, sister, father and feet high and weighs about 160,000 said that he had to shim them ap '
decided that I'd really gotten a sec- mother, as well as an uncle, a pounds. A new piece will be fash- because people might get out of ,
ond chance. I came back to,this; - , brother-in-law and some nieces ~ ioned ,wfth three 30-foot fountains.
country totcgally start,some worki s a andJnephews during school vaea h•„ F"' On tlus scaly, Rioi'e.t6an,the arU N
and I had a pession for life and get- ~ton time ,~.i,.~ ,
king Wings done.~~~'~ - -I.don'i t[ve any,where~" he §aid
Morolea is incr"edibly activ`e He K~ My office is ai;port's: It s soe
11 usuallytias flve,or~'sis4shotvs go~~~
aroundthe t ~oBI need to do. I can't stayuin ~
count a any 'one fnttudio and liope" someone t~_:,
t~me. ?s stud~o mfCeiillosf outsidediscovt~e°",~, for
t r n„ t/ f S)K
Santa,Fe,;ls also,a galler~
}~qf~wijW~i ay~ isY;c,,a.~o~,~,d "mayttiot be a pm~ble~ `
j7~
~t°~E~~Pl;vr~
• June 18, 1997
~ THE TIMES
~
'rWil1: this male bondingJ. • reld
art f6r- Vail's'Se~iliert Circle?~"
; _ . ' . , " •,-~ty~~_ ' _
By Allen Best that meeting that Seibert should go to
-'.Jimes Staff Writer Tegas, where Moroles lives, and Moroles
= Vail founder Pete Sebert St and artist , should spend more time in Vail.
Jesus Moroles drank beer together. They B°th tdPs have"occurred: Seibert went
_r~.played golf togethez The quesrion now is to Houston, joined Moroles for a round. bf, . .
~ whether they can.make art togetheL . golf, to visit his gallery and to visit ~Padre . The acid test will be within the nem Island, where a collection that includes` `
few -weeks when Moroles and the Design . Moroles's work is located. `
' Workshop are scheduled to submit In ftun, Moroles came [o Uail, liiiked up- `
sketches to Vail town. officials for the area with Seibert to play gnlf at. Beaver Creek,
. at. the head of Bridge Street known as =and generaUY spent time to get a, feel for .
Seibert Circle. - the place.
" Iast year the tnwn's Art in Public Places Others believe the two men commun-
'Soard set out to get art for the circle, icated well , in addidon to sharing mutual
~::s.ending out a nationwide. inquiry about interests.'The question now seems to bea
•,,ideas from artists..Some 88 responses weie matter of whether Moroles, having spent ;
received, and from them the list was culled ame with Seibert and the communiry,. can •
to five finalists. Those five submitted create something that reflects what,Se~bert
elaborate sketches, and in March the believes is important about the.resort and
.'public was given a peek at the ideas. They his role as founder. _
:•ranged from the stone totem pales They do agree that stone is azi accep-
::.groposed by Momles to tepees., table medium. ' .
Seibert, meanwhile, had stayed in the Nancy Sweeney, director of ttie Artin "
background, saying he didn't want to influ- Public Places program, says she expects to
ence the art. Even when the.ideas went oq see sketches within the neatt few weeks,
;public view, Seibert only politely grum-._, ~d soon after it will be appazent whether
~bled. Others, however, were less reticent. --the project. can be done in time forJhe
3everal members of the public rnmplained; 1999 World Alpine Ski Chaznpionships.
.'tliat they rnuld discern not so much as a ~suming a concept is accepted soon,
,,humble nod towud Vail's skiing tradition she~ said, construction drawings can be
and Seibert's role. Pressed a bit, Seibert ~ted in time that the physical work can
k'did acknowledge that he thought that Vail, be& in the summer of 1998, However, _ if ~
Seibert Circle and himself all deserved the proposed art is unaccep[able to Seibert better. - and the town council, it's uncertain wtiat
`
`
. It was not his wish to have a statue of ~ be in Seibert Circle as the ski racing'
iinself, he said. "I never wanted to be- World arrives for the championships in
'bronzed; and in fact, I never even wanted 1999. .
. my baby shoes bronzed," he said. . Asked for comment; Seibert said he _
: The issue came to a head at a reception Would reseive discussion for a few weeks; .
Y-held at the Colorado Ski Museum in late ' Moroles, in the past; had coinmented .
May attended by 40 or 50 area residents , ~at it would. be very easy to walk away
many of them long-time business owners h'°m ttie `controveisy, but, that he-. dcesa't
on Bridge Street. There was rnnsensus at Want to and he won't, but will instead try
to create,art acceptable to the rnminunity.,
f
r--•
i~
~y
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157 MEDIA ADVISORY
June 25, 1997
Contact: Suzanne Siiverthorn, 479-2115
Community Information Office
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR JUNE 24
Work Session Briefs
Council members present: Armour, Ford, Jewett*, Johnston, Kurz, Navas
'arrived late
--PEC/DRB Review
During a review of Monday's Planning and Environmental Commission meeting, the
Council voted 4-1 (Ford against) to call up a request by Garton's Saloon to apply for an
amendment to a conditional use permit to allow for a batting cage on the bar's deck.
On Monday, the PEC Monday voted 5-1 (Amsden against) to overturn a staff decision
which held the request to be invalid due to a staff interpretation of accessory use.
When the call-up is heard at the July 1 evening meeting, Council members will decide if
accessory uses can be conducted outside of a building. For more information, contact
Lauren Waterton in the Community Development Department at 479-2454.
Next, Town Attorney Tom Moorhead provided an update on a building issue that has
surfaced this week regarding the remodel of a residence at 226 Forest Road. In
receiving town approval for the remodel,_the residence was required to leave its main
support in place because the building is located in the front setback. Upon inspection
of the remodel, Moorhead said town building official Dan Stanek has found the work to
be in violation of the condition of approval and has subsequently red-tagged the
building. Moorhead said Stanek's next steps will be to revoke the building permit. For
more information, contact Moorhead at 479-2107.
--Community Survey Results
The Council heard an overview of the community survey results from Chris Cares of the
research firm RRC Associates in Boulder. Cares said the response rate of 15 percent,
or 1,281, was good for a survey repeated year-to-year. There were 945 responses
from locals, representing a response rate of 13 percent, while the 336 responses from a
sampling of part-time residents represented a 30 percent return. Cares said a phone
survey could be used to probe additional issues to reach those who didn't respond to
the mail-back survey. Cares said the survey's findings showed satisfaction levels to
be higher for part-time residents than permanent residents. When asked to describe
the top three issues facing the Town of Vail, respondents noted: growth, employee
housing, parking, concerns about changes in Vail Resorts operations within the
(more)
C~ RECYCLEDPAPER
4
~
TOV Highlights/Add 1
community, maintenance of infrastructure and economic vitality as priority concerns.
The survey also showed support for expansion of the streamwalk, improvement in the
levels of satisfaction in the development review process and support for the existing use
of the real estate transfer tax. (Please see news released issued June 24). During
discussion, Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners Association said the
streamwalk survey questions had been asked out of context because respondents
weren't asked to prioritize a list of capital improvements. For a copy of the survey
results, including year-to-year comparisons and other charts, contact Suzanne
Silverthorn in the Community information Office at 479-2115.
--Lionshead Public View Corridors
Following an on-site tour of 14 possible public view corridor candidates within
Lionshead, the Council narrowed the list to five possibilities for consideration at its July
1 evening meeting. Once designated, the public view corridors will be considered
"critical design constraints" throughout the remainder of the Lionshead Master Plan
process and won't require formal survey and adoption until the master plan process is
complete in step five. The five candidates include three corridors that would be
protected under the town's view corridor ordinance and two views that would be
designated as "design parameters" during a property's redevelopment. For a complete
listing of the five public views, contact Dominic Mauriello in the Community
Development Department at 479-2148.
--Final Review of the Public Works Seasonal Housing Development
After reviewing a detailed cost analysis, the Council voted 6-0 to break ground on a 24-
unit housing development for the town's seasonal bus drivers and other employees.
The units will be located just east of the Public Works Administration building north of
the Vail Golf Course. A public ground breaking is scheduled for noon Monday, June
30, at the site. (See today's news release for project details). Also during yesterday's
discussion, the Council asked staff to being pursuing interim housing for seasonal bus
drivers for the upcoming ski season. That's because completion of the new housing
development won't be completed until next spring. For more information, contact Andy
Knudtsen in the Community Development Department at 479-2440.
--Timber Ridge Update
Town Attorney Tom Moorhead said the town has begun discussions with the owner of
Timber Ridge in the town's pursuit of retaining iocals housing on the site. Deed-
restrictions on the project's 198 units are set to expire in the year 2001. Moorhead said
the owner has been extremely cooperative in discussions, thus far.
--Interim Financial Report
Finance Director Steve Thompson reviewed an interim financial report with the Council.
For details, contact Thompson at 479-2116.
--Information Update
Assistant Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer asked Councilmembers to mark July 19 on
their calendars. That's when owners of the Dancing Bear intend to host a check-
(more)
r
l`
TOV Council Highlights/Add 2
passing ceremony for the West Vail roundabouts. Brandmeyer also updated the
Council on efforts to mitigate the noise produced by compressors at City Market.
Several neighbors have complained about the situation.
Town Manager Bob McLaurin shared a proposal to modify the TOV-VA Community
Task Force by expanding the group's representation and reaffirming its purpose. As
proposed, McLaurin said two of the Task Force seats would be held by citizens at-large
selected by the Town Council.
--Mayoral Proclamation
The Council voted 6-0 to approve a proclamation commending the Lacrosse Shootout
for its presence in Vail.
--Council Reports
Ludwig Kurz, who represents the Town Council on the Colorado Ski Museum board,
reported on the successful Beaver Creek Homes Tour. Bob Armour reported on the
latest meeting of the Eagle Valley Leadership Coalition in which the group is
determining how to serve as a catalyst for employee housing initiatives. Armour also
spoke at the Johnson & Wales graduation ceremonies and has agreed to serve as
president of the Colorado Association of Ski Towns.
--Other
Armour asked that stickers on the Lionshead skier statue be removed in preparation for
the upcoming holiday weekend.
UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS
July 1 Work Session
Joe Kochera 25 Year Employee Anniversary
NWCCOG Water Quality/Quantity Update
GRFA Discussion
Regional Marketing Funding Discussion
July 1 Evening Meeting
Second Reading, Austria Haus SDD
Lionshead Pubfic View Corridors
Town Council Call-up of Garton's Saloon Request
July 8 Work Session
DRB Review
Parking Fee Overview
July 15 Work Session
PEC Review
Parking Fee Discussion
Housing Action Items
AIPP, Jesus Morales Updated Design(s)
July 15 Evening Meeting
Seibert Circle Design Approval
First Reading, Ordinance to Revise GRFA
# # #
~
:
u
~1
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 25, 1997
Contact: Bob McLaurin, 479-2105 Andy Knudtsen, 479-2440
Town Manager Senior Housing Policy Planner
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SAYS "YES" TO SEASONAL HOUSING
GROUND BREAKING FOR 24 UNIT DEVELOPMENT TAKES PLACE MONDAY
Media Note: A color rendering of the projecYs exterior will be available for distribution this
afternoon from the Community Information Office. Call Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115.
(Vail)--The Vail Town Council voted 6-0 (Foley absent) yesterday to construct a
24-unit housing development for the town's seasonal bus drivers and other employees.
The units--representing the town's second full-scale construction project--will be located
just east of the Public Works Administration building north of the Vail Golf Course. A ground breaking is scheduled for noon Monday, June 30, at the site. The public is
invited to attend.
The Council's decision yesterday came after reviewing a financial analysis of the
development which showed the construction cost, $2.4 million, or $101,000 per unit, to
be compatible with housing efforts of other entities, including Vail Valley Medical
Center's housing plan in Edwards and an approved development known as "The Ruins"
at Cascade Village in West Vail. The $2.4 million cost reflects $1.6 million for
construction; $600,000 for site-related improvements; and $200,000 for fees.
The Council explored options of purchasing or master leasing existing units, but
concluded construction of new units would add to the overall inventory of housing in the
(more)
t~ RECYCLEDPAPER
i
.
Seasonal Housing/Add 1
community for longer term benefits. Atso, a proforma for the project shows a return on
investment with positive cash flow in the first year. For the proforma, rents were set
one-third below market rates to reflect the wages of seasonal employees. Even with
that magnitude of subsidy, the project generates a 5.9 percent return on investment for
the town. - Town Manager Bob McLaurin said the Council decision represents a milestone for
Vail. "This will put us in a strong position to be a competitive employer to enhance this
community's ability to staff its bus system at the levels our guests and residents have
come to expect," he said. A shortage of drivers over the past few seasons has caused
the town to spend significant dollars in overtime pay to maintain service levels,
according to McLaurin. The construction will be funded by the town's capital and
housing budgets.
The seasonal housing development will be made up of 21 studio units and three one-
bedroom units. Andy Knudtsen, the town's senior housing policy planner, says the
single occupancy design is reflective of the desires of the town's seasonal employees
for privacy. In the past, the town has made units available which have remained
unoccupied, he said, as employees do not wish to live with others whom they don't
know. Although more expensive to build, the design will be more effective in attracting
high quality employees, Knudtson said.
The design/build team of Mark Donaldson and Viele Construction was hired by the
town to create the development plan. The project has been approved by the Planning
and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board.
Knudtsen says the units will be available for occupancy next spring or early summer.
(more)
i
.
Seasonal Housing/Add 2
The town will try to set rents at one-third of starting wages for a seasonal bus driver.
Town of Vail seasonal employees will be given first priority for the units.
Knudtsen said the Planning and Environmental Commission members first planted
the seeds for housing two years ago when they required three employee housing units
as a condition of approval for improvements at the Public Works shops facility. From there, the concept grew to a housing development that would make full use of the town-
owned site, he said. "The Council's commitment to increasing the supply of affordable
housing units continues the momentum to address housing in town," Knudtsen said.
Once completed, the 24 units will add to Vail's overall employee housing inventory of
171 units, which breaks down to 53 for-sale deed-restricted units at Vail Commons; 10
other owner-occupied, deed-restricted homes; and 108 deed-restricted rental units.
For more information, contact Knudtsen at 479-2440 or McLaurin at 479-2105.
# # #
RG~+GI Y L.U vv~I L. -
, x'c,
,
OLO-R-ADO
TRAVEL y TOURISM AUTHOR[TY
P.O. BOX 3521 • ENGCEWOOD, COLORADO 8015i
COLORADO TRAVEL NEWS June, 1997
~A5~~ 4' , , . . .
4' ~f,.,~'YF~~~ :M t 1 ( . L. u <r 3+r,t! iirl~ R'.~M:f3N f* ««i { ttFittr i,lflrfiN f f« ir IfFAn«i f«f
Planning is underway for the 1998 edition of the Officia! State Vacation Gurde. Preparations are
in progress regarding the production, design and advertising sales. The Guide will return to a
single piece publication, featuring a regional format with inclusion of the travel services directory
of CTTA member tistings within the Guide.
We are conducting a survey regarding the 1997 Guide from a random sampling of consumers who
requested the Guide, as well as inviting advertisers and destinations to share their perceptions of
the Guide. We additionatty welcome your comments - please write to us at P O Box 3524,
Englewood, Cotorado 80155. We will consider all comments as we prepaze for production of the
1998 Guide.
Advertising opportunities will again be availabie in the upcoming 1998 Official State Yacation
Guide. If you are interested in receiving advertising infotination, piease contact Publication
Representatives West at 303/534-3078.
. , ,
, . . . .
colorado.com, the official website ofthe Colorado Travel and Tourism Authority, has recently
been redesigned. The enhanced site, which includes directory tistings for ali members, is quite
extensive in size, comprising over 250 pages of information. We will continue to refine and
devetop this site. If you would like to share your perceptions of our new website, please write to
us at P O Box 3524, Engiewood, Cotorado 80I55.
. .
q
i. . . . e . .
, . . ~ . .w:..: . ' ' . . " . 'r'.n. xp : ..^n : . . .
: : : . i.wrCi: . n ; : r' . . . . . : .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . r!t . ,t . ~i~.. . . A`: . a!i'se :
m'TERNRTIOi++Ai- POWWOVJ, rhe premier annual woi-tdwide trade show spo,esvreti by the
Travel Industry Association, was held May 31 through June 4, I997 in Nashville, Tennessee. The
trade show was attended by over 6000 international tourism representatives. Mary Motsenbocker
of Internationat Tourism Marketing was the official representative of CT"TA and its members at
the Colorado booth. Trade show teads are being distributed to CTTA Level Three members.
„
Korean Airlines inaugurated direct air service from Seou1, Korea to Denver International Airport
on May 23, 1997. CTTA secured a consuitant agreement with DIA to pian, organize and
implement a program to promote DIA, Denver and Colorado to inbound Korean visitors. Mary
Motsenbocker, CTTA's internationat tourism partner, is acting as subconsultant to execute the
program, which will consist of, but not be limited to, collateral development, sales missions,
seminars and trade shows.
CTTA, P 0 BOX 3524, Eng/ewood, CO 80155 Phone: 301WQ-3384 Fax: 303298-2015 hKp:/Mmw.coforado.com
q,
: . . . ' '
. . r , , . . . . . : ~ . . . . . ?,,,rr{,r +x ayr{rrrrr rr ~rX~r; ir,.r+rrrrrir rx r ~h.nrrrxrxxr.drr,enrt?. rrux rrivi.r r~.rr d.~ ++t,rr rcr.r.xx af+ rf,.'r.irr. rrr'
Please remember that the Colorado State Map is available in unlimited quantities! CTTA has
printed 500,000 copies of the Colorado state road map, which is available in unlimited quantities
to your business for distribution to your guests/customers. Some of our members and partners
throughout the State have agreed to store quantities of maps in their places of business to
facilitate distribution of the map. These distribution points are:
Boulder Boulder Convention & Visitors Bureau 303/442-29I 1
Colorado Springs Colo. Springs Convention & Visitors Bureau 719/635-7506
Denver Cotorado Travel and Tourism Authority 303/296-3384
Durango Durango Area Chamber Resort Assn. 970/247-03I2
Estes na; k Castte & Mcr'r: egcr rdour.tain Lodges 970!259-0274
Ft. Collins Ft. Collins Convention & Visitors Bureau 970/482-5821
Frisco Summit County Chamber 970l668-205I
Glenwood Springs Glenwood Springs Convention & Visitors Bureau 970/945-6589
Grand Junction Grand Junction Convention & Visitors Bureau 970/244-1480
Greeley Greeley Convention & Visitors Bureau 970/352-3566
Lamar Southeast Economic Development Council 719/336-3850
Monte Vista San Luis Valley Information Center 800/214-1240
Montrose Montrose Convention & Visitors Bureau 970/240-1400
Nathrop Dvorak Kayak & Rafting Exp. 719/539-6851
Pueblo Puebto Convention & Visitors Council 719/542-I704
Steamboat Springs Steamboat Springs Chamber Resort Assn. 970/879-0882
Sterling Logan County Chamber/Visitors Center 970/522-5070
Stratton Trail's End Campground 719/348-5529
Maps are available in untimited quantities at aII distribution points and may atso be shipped
directly to you for a nominal charge. For direct shipping information, please call the CTTA office
at 303/296-3384, ext. 2 or 3.
I997 requests for Colorado travel information received through I-800-COLORADO, mail, Internet, and reader service:
January 20,871
February 25,443
March 29,419
April 30,977 May 27,292
134,702
CTTA, P 0 BOX 3524, Engfewood, CO dOf56 Phone: J03/286-93dI Fax: 303/2lS-2016 hKp:/Avww.co/orado.can
,
,
. . ,y r y4',: v...'IM •w„~s r
` ~~~r"
. q. . a. aa aa3 iiaa ,aaaiay:q taaasaa,aa,a3iiaa~ p a 3aa~3 a fa ~ r i._,~aqaq> ><9, a~a4aa a a a qaai3aaiaa aq~aaii+aaa3 a~a a» Pia aliliiaNf3aaiql~Ofii jaqii~55
CTTA is offering to its member businesses qualified teads from inquiries through
1-800-COLORADO, mail, Internet and reader service requests. During 1996, CTTA received
over 275,000 requests for information about Colorado through these sources. As a CTTA
member business, you are eligible to participate in CTTA's Lead Sharing Program at betow
market rates to acquire these leads. Additionally, members at the $7501evel are entitled to 2000
free leads, with those members at the corporate level ($2500+) entitled to 10,000 free teads.
Please contact Kristi at the CTTA office at 303/296-3384 ext. 2 for further details.
,
, r . . : . 'I:
. . . . . . . . • ..n . . . . .
For a limited time, you may reserve your advertising space for the next edition of the Colorado
State Highway Map. The first edition of the map is printed and 500,000 copies are in distribution..
The next edition of 500,000 will immediately go into production, and will include new editorial
and new photography. The publication date is September 1997.
Please calt now space is limited. For further information, please call Pubiication
Representatives West at 303/534-3078.
. . : .
.
.
n
. „
r ~,F: :
:
.q: . . . ; . ' ' . . . , . ' :
. : .i:'.. : . , , . ; .
. i.i ..3 . . . , ~ u: : . : .
. a „r:. . . . . . ' . . : . . :
..::.?:..i,.~.~
. . :.:::M.:.F4'' .i.., i':
...::....,.:....,.....:.....:.A.:,.: . . . . 1' ....,~iiiiNd:.
CTTA hopes to convey the message to the nearly 5,000 leaders and media representatives visiting
Colorado June 20-22, 1997 for the Summit of the Eight that Colorado is a great place to
vacation. Lori Thomason, Manager of Marketing and Communications for CTTA, sits on the
Summit Showcase Committee, and has been instrumental in bringing Colorado as a destination to
the visiting media.
The Colorado Showcase wilt be displayed in Lobby B of the Denver Convenrion Center. This
dazzling display "showcases" Colorado as a riational and international tourism destination,
representing the way Cotoradoans live work and play. The lobby will be deGora±ed wich native
plants , such as aspen and blue spruce, together with native Colorado animals such as mountain
goats, black bears and foxes. Visitors will also be able to sample river rafting equipment, settle
down in a relaxing dude ranch setting, get a taste for popular winter activities, snowbiking and
skiing, and tearn about the history of the I Oth Mountain Hut Division. John Fiedter, renowned
Colorado photographer will present a slide show featuring Colorado State Parks and Monuments
and a11 the natural beauty Colorado has to offer.
CTTA, P 0 BOX 3624, Ertgfewood, CO d0156 Phare: 3U288-33QI pax; 30128g.2016 Mtp:/M,ww.coloradc.com
.
.
O u. fL1 i;. i o n Y o u r S u r c• e
~ , .
MCOLORADO
•~~^~'~~~TRA VEL Li TOURISM AUTHORITY
For Immediate Release Lori Thomason
June 12, 1997 Manager of Marketing-Communications
phone: (303) 296-3384
fax: (303) 296-2015
Colorado State Highwav Maos Available for Summer Travelers
Memorial Day is here and gone. It is known as the weekend that kicks off Colorado's summer
vacaticn seascn. As you may lcnow, one of the mos: requested items from visitors is a s-tate highway r.iap.
Now you can provide it, free of charge, to all vacationers stopping by your place!
In the past, the Colorado Department of Transportation produced a limited amount of the state
highway map. This year CTTA is producing 1 million copies, 500,000 of which are currently available.
They are also being sent with the Official State Vacation Guide through 1-800-COLORADO. The
remaining 500,000 will be ready for disVibution beginning the first of September.
You can pick-up maps at any of the following distribution points around Colorado. Call ahead
for availability and arrangements.
Boulder Convention & Visitors Buresu Castle & McGregor Mountain Lodges
Caroline (303) 442-2911 Watren Clinton (970)259-0274
Colorado Springs Convention & Visitors Bureau Durango Chamber Resort Assn.
Carol Furgeson (719) 635-7506 Jodi Bemard (970) 247-0312
Dvorak Kayak & Rafting Ft. Collins Convention & Visitors Buresu
Bill or Jackie Dvorak (719) 539-6851 ,Allison Maher (970) 482-5821
Glenwood Springs Convention & Visitors Bureau Crrand Jnct. Convention & Visitors Bureau
Laura Meyers (9970) 945-6589 Mark Smith (970) 243-7393
Greeley Gonvention & Visitors Buresu Logan County Chamber
Sarah MacQuiddy (970) 352-3566 Elda Lousburg (970) 522-5070
Montrose Convention & Visitors Bureau Pueblo Convention & Visitors Council
Nancy Rumburg (970) 240-1400 Cindy Montenez (719) 542-1704
San Luis Valley Information Center Southeast Economic Dev. Council
Steve Sheeley (800) 214-1240 Jan Godert (719) 336-3850
Steamboat Springs Chamber Resort Summit County Chamber
Janet Nichols (970) 879-0882 Gene Haznmes (970) 668-2051
Trails End Campground CTTA - Denver Metro Area
T.C. Travis (719) 348-5521 Lori Thomason (303) 296-3384
For shipping requests call the CTTA office (303) 296-3384. We provide all materials free of charge,
however, we ask that you pay for shipping and handling.
Interested in advertising on the map? There is limited space available on the next edition. Put your order
in today with Publication Representatives West at (303) 534-3078.
P.O. BOX 3524 • ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80155
TELEPHONE (303) 296•3384 • FAX (303) 296•2015
I
f
~l
TOWN OF YAIL
75 South Frontage Road Department of Community Development
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-21381479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
June 23, 1997
Ms. Dana Sakalas
1945 Windward Way
Vero Beach, FL 32963
RE: Town of Vail Real Estate Transfer Tax (.RETT)
Dear Ms. Sakalas:
Mayor Bob Arniour asked me to respond to your letter of June 9 expressing your concerns about the
Real Estatc Transfer Tax. The Town concurs with you about the iinportance of maintaining open
space in and around Vail. Protecting open space for environmental and recreational reasons has been
and will be a high priority. Housing is also a high priority, and we are looking at ways to preserve
critical open space ~nd provide opportunities for housing.
Bcfore discussing the details of the use of RETT, I would like to refer to the housing strategy of the
Town, which is a need that some in the community believe warrants additional funding. The Town
Council's articulated strategy bchind the locals housing effort is two-fold: to create economic
vitality and to enbance our sense of community.
1. The lack of affordable housing within the Town of Vail affects our status as a world-class
resort. Our econornic vitality is threatened as necessary jobs go unfilled or are filled with
unmotivated workers. Competition for employees is no longer just between ski areas or
between regions, but has now become an issue within the Vail Valley. Employees who
find housing down valley are likely to find jobs there, too. This problem has directly
impacted the Town of Vail in its efforts to fill employment positions.
2. Bolstering the sense of community in Vail is critical as much of the community is made
up of homes which house part-time residents. Although able to make a unique
contribution to the Town, part-time residents are not able to fully engage on a day-to-day
basis. The condition improved in 1996 and 1997 with the addition of 53 owner-occupied
units at Vail Commons. Still, with approximately 70% of the homes in Vail dark most
of the year, the need to create housing opportunities for full-time residents continues to be
critical.
1
RECYCLED PAPER
,
~
Whether any changes are made to the RETT fund or not, the Town is committed to an open, honest,
and fair discussion of the merits of the proposal. To facilitate that, I have provided a summary of key
points regarding the RETT fund below. Same of the points may be overly simplistic; however, our
goal is to provide all participants with complete, accurate, objective information to facilitate the
dialog.
1. Approximately $1.7 million dollars is co(lected annually from this tax. It is collected from a
1% percent charge on each real estate sale.
2. The RET°I' is collected from real estate transactions located only within the Town of Vail.
Other jurisdictions, such as Beaver Creek and Avon, have separate Real Estate Transfer
Taxes.
3. At this time, pursuant to the ordinance, the fund can be spent only for recreation or open
space uses. The bike path construction, such as the effort in Dowd Junction, is an example of
a recreation purpose.
4. As a note of clarification, none of the Real Estate Transfer Tax fund is used for planting the
flower beds around Town except those located within parks. Both the material and labor
costs associated with flower beds outside parks are covered by the General Fund.
5. Concerning open space acquisition, the Town adopted tbe Open Lands Plan in 1994 to
determinc which lands to acquire. An inventory of all undeveloped parcels in and around
the municipal limits was completed. 51 parcels were determined to have open space
value. Of the parcels identified in that plan, 38 have been purchased. Of the 13
remaining, eight may be acquired at no cost to the Town. The remaining five have
obstacles reducing the risk of development whether or not the parcels are TOV-owned,
although the plan does call for the Town to eventually purchase these lots.
6. Most, if not all, of the land surrounding the Town of Vail cannot be purchased for open space
by the Town of Vail, as it is National Forest land. These lands can be subject to land
exchanges; however, we believe that the risk of private exchanges (and possible development)
is low as a result of an agreement the Town has recently executed with the Forest Service.
7. There is also land within the Town which is designated open space. 340 acres, or 10°/a of the
land in Town, has been restricted as perpetual open space. The only way to waive this
restriction is by a vote of the people. 1100 acres, or 33% of the land in Town, is zoned open
space.
8. It is important to note that significant cost is incurred when improving open space. For
example, the lower bench of Donovan Park has been master planned as a park and
construction of this plan would require a significant amount of the RETT fund to complete.
2
Y
9. It is also important to note that the cost of maintenance of trails and open space areas will
increase in the future as they are improved. This would apply specifically to bike paths and
parks. Current expenditures for maintenance in 1997 total more than $273,000.
10. The 1997 budget funds most of the remaining bike path links which are needed to complete a
continuous bike path/lane system from Vail Pass tlirough Dowd Junction. There are some
exceptions, such as the Village and Lionshead, which are not designated for bike paths, as
, well as one link from tNe pedestrian overpass to the Roundabout on the north side of the
Interstate, which is not funded at this time. The Town is also working on a soft surface hiking
and mountain biking trail system around the Town.
i l. $340,000.00 is used each year to service the golf course debt. This debt repayment will
expire in 1999.
12. T'he cost associated with the current projected 10 year list of recreation and park
improvements exceeds the anticipated revenue, even if the fund is used exclusively for
recreation and park purposes.
13. This year's convnunity survey found that 60.2% of respondents wanted to maintain current
RETT status and 29.2% wanted to expand it.
The points laid out above are intended to help educate our community about the choices it has.
Concerning sites, privately held sites zoned for development may be better suited for housing than
those which are publicly owned, but the funds required for such acquisitions are limited. The
discussions about potential sites (both private and public) are in a broad brush stage. If any
development is proposed on Town owned land in the future, a thorough community engagement
process will be completed. Your participation in that process would be welcomed.
In conclusion, I hope you will continue to be involved in the dialog about the Real Estate Transfer
Tax. Please call me or Andy Knudtsen, the Senior Housing Policy Planner, if you would like to get an
update on the Vail Tomonow Housing Team schedule, which is just one of many ways to participate
in the dialog. You can reach me at 970/479-2106, or Andy at 970/479-2440. We appreciate your
input and encourage you to collaborate with the rest of the stakeholders of Vail to help shape its
futurc.
Sincc7rly,
R46ert W. McLaurin
Town Manager
cc: Vail Town Council
Andy Knudtsen, Senior Huusing Policy Planner
3 P:\everyone\andy\97_ieners\sakalas.623
n
RECEIVED JUN 1 3 1.997
X C ~ ~}t,~-e~:e, ~
~
l0'?~ .lc,~,~
nana sakalas (r1945 Wutdward Way
Yero Beach, FL 32963
June 9, 1997 a ,
t
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am a taxpayer and owner of property in East Vail. our family
has been coming to Vail for the past 30 years and one of our
daughters currently lives in East Vail and works at the Vail
Racquet Club.
Please, do not start niqht skiing in Vaill Vail has set the
standards for quality of skiing and apres-ski enjoyement for so
many years. Why cheapen it and become run-of-the-mill like the
many small resorts that have to do it to survive financially?
Vote NO for night skiinq.
Reqardinq the lo Vail transfer tax, I believe that 1% Vail real
estate transfer tax should not be used for affordable housinq.
That problem should be addressed by employers and not the Town of
Vail. The lo tax should continue to be used for purchase of
public land and maintaininq the beauty of Vail.
Please vote NO on the Austria Haus Project! Vail is already too
large and further development will destroy the small European
'Village ambience. High rises have ruined many beautiful
locations and if this is the direction Vail is takinq, I will
certainly be planning to sell my property and look elsewhere.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
- Sincerely ours,
Dana Sakalas
11~
„
~y
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 VailNail 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 qssessment Committee to monitor peak period uses. The Assessment Comminee was wmprised of Iwa
representfltives from [he TOV and rivo from VA. It was to meet periodically during the ski season end on an ad hoc basis if end when the 19,900 SAOT is exceeded.
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
~
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road Office of the Mayor
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2100
FAX 303-479-2157
June 24, 1997
Mr. Dan Chaves
Mr. Josh Olson
Ms. Liz Gallegos
c/o Battle Mountain High School
Post Office Box 249
750 Eagle Road
Minturn, CO 81545
Dear Dan, Josh and Liz:
The Vail Town Council offers its siricere support in regard to your representation of the United
States as members of the Colorado Western Slope All-Stars in the Holland International Basketball
Tour. We are certain you will have a wonderful experience through this tour.
Unfortunately, the Town Council cannot fund individual requests for travel, study, or competitions,
so we will have to decline your request for monetary assistance. We do wish you the very best in
your fund raising efforts, however.
The opportunity to compete internationally, to interact with foreign athletes your age, and to tour
historical attractions in Holland, is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Enjoy! We wish you the very
best and will be rooting for you.
Very t yours,
t.Annour
Robert Mayor
RWA/aw
xc: Vail Town Council
Robert W. McLaurin
Pamela A. Brandmeyer
~
18 May, 1997
To whom it may concern,
Our names are Dan Chavez, Josh Olson, and Liz Gallegos and we are Athletes from Battle Mountain High School.
We were recently selected to represent the United States as members of the Colorado Western Slope All-Stars in
the Holland International Basketball Tour.
We have been invited by the Holland Basketball Federation to compete in the Holland International Tour and
Tournament. This is a special competition for boys and girls age 14-18, and involves lugh school age teams from
throughout Europe. Boys and girls do not play together but they are all going to be traveling together and playing
in the same gyms.
We will be given the opportunity to compete internationally, interact with foreign athletes the same age, and tour
the historical attractions of the host country. We intend to utilize this opportunity to share our culture in hopes we
can enswe goodmrill relations in each of our future endeavors.
In order to participate in this once in a lifetime opportunity, we need your help. Currently, We are requesting
sponsorships from individuals and businesses to help alleviate the financial cost.
Your contribution will be tax deductible as an advertising expense and your name will be in the newspaper
recognizing your participation as an official sponsor. Checks can be made out to Sports Challenge International for
Dan Chavez, Josh Olson, and Liz Gallegos through account number; 2163954 at Weststar Bank in Avon.
Thanks for your support,
Dan Chavez 827-4185
Josh Olson 3284491 Liz Gallegos 827-5216
_RECEIVED JUN 2 6 1997
vatt
Alpme
Garden ~ Foundation , June 23,1997
Mayor Bob Armour
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657 Dear Bob: .
Thank you very much to the Town of Vail for its gift of $200 for our participation
in the TOV cleanup day. We like to say that keeping Vail beautiful is our
business. Indeed, it's everybody's business, and we appreciate the Town's good
work.
The Town's contribution will be used to support our horticultural and environmental education programming. Thank you again.
Sincerely,
U
Sammye Meadows
Executive Director
"Ourflotuers in the sunanaer are as glorious as our snotu in the tuinter.
183 GORE CREEK DRIVE • VAIL, COLORADO 81657 • 970.476.0103
~ Pnnted on
Recvclnr~ Pao^•
• `C ~ ~ ~~~E? ~~L~E4 XC . ~
~ ~ TD~
L4'N~
Pems-hopo
416 VAIL VALLEY DRIVE
PHONE (970) 476-5646 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 FAX (970) 476-0301
June 22, 1997
Town of Vail
Town Council
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vail, C0. 81657
Dear Members of the Town Council
The following is sent on behalf of the Rams Horn Condominium
Association and in reference to a letter sent to you May 13, 1997
from Mr. Wyman of the Al1 Seasons Condominiums.
The Rams Horn Condominiums are obviously also impacted by the
Golden Peak Redevelopment. We participated in the planning process
and attempted to provide input on many different phases of the
project.
We have delayed in commenting on the progress of the project since
. it is still under construction. We recognize that construction
clean up and landscaping will help the visual appearance of the
project. Our delay in commenting, however, is not to suggest that
we are without concern over the development.
We, too, share the owners concerns at All Seasons. The light from
the parking structure is less than acceptable and desirable. It
is discouraging that a project of this magnitude has a parking
structure that rather than enhancing the area, is unattractive and
also disturbing to the neighborhood. The light pollution of the
open structure leaves the impression of a delivery entry and is of
great concern to owners in our building.
You may recall that we were supportive of the project and
particularly the structure as we felt it would be an improvement
to the surface parking that previously existed. As a side note,
on any given day during winter, there were 40-45 vehicles surface
parked all day. We assume these were construction vehicles that
will not be surface parked upon project completion.
Our comments have also been delayed on the Golden Peak
RedeveTopment because we knew that landscaping was still to be done
- and we have maintained an optimism that this would help the
aesthetics of the situation. Although the crews are working on
this, it is too early to tell the end result.
In any event, we will continue.to monitor the progress across the
street and to share our concerns with the Council. It is in
everyones best interest that this important portal to the mountain
not be unattractive but rather an attractive and welcome addition
to the neighborhood.
Sincerely
11
~ ~c-1
Zo Is~i Murata
Board President
CC: Susan Connelly
Andy Daly
Jim Lamont
Al Selke
Frederick Wyman
Diane Milligan
xc-
the Wren Association
A RESORT CONDOMINIUM COMMUNITY
500 South Frontage Rd., Suite 116
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 / 476-0052
June 25, 1997
Mr. Bob McLaurin
Town of Vail Manager
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mr. McLaurin,
The Board of Directors, owners, guests and management at The Wren
wish to applaud the Town of Vail decision to press forward with
the installation of the sidewalk connecting the parking structure
and Ford Park on the Frontage Road. This issue has long been a
safety concern for us and we are so very pleased to know that the
Town is responsive to these needs. It seems that you plan to go
even further and maintain the sidewalk in the winter months as
well. This deserves a standing ovation.
What a fitting encore to improve the streamwalk path lighting and
consider maintaining the path for pedestrian traffic in the
winter! We thank you again for providing safe access through out
our community.
Please consider The Wren to be an ally in each of these
endeavors; we would very much appreciate being able to assist the
Town in doing whatever we can to facilitate the processes.
Si cerely,
a&.
GPs"
Lisa G. Wat General Manager
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road Office of the Town Attorney
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2107/Far 970-479-2157
June 30, 1997
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Robert Zeeb
Zeeb Construction
Post office Box 1997
Avon, CO 81620
Re: Krediet Residence/226 Forest Road
Dear Bob:
This letter is intended to clarify the status of the project at 226 Forest Road. As you are aware, the
building permit has been revoked for this project. The building permit was revoked because
conditions placed on the approval of the front setback variance have not been met. That condition
required that the existing structural elements and exterior walls must remain in place during the
remodel process. The condition was a part of the approval of the front setback variance because the
house was a nonconforming structure. The purpose of the "Nonconforming Sites, Uses Structures
and Site Improvements" section of the zoning code, is to limit the number of nonconforming uses
and strucfures and to prohibit or limit the enlargement and restoration after destruction. When the
Planning and Environmental Commission placed the condition on the approval, it was understood
that this was a minor addition in the front setback to the existing house. The purpose of the
condition was to assure that the structure was not removed and thereby lose its legal nonconfornung
status.
Additionally, as determined by Dan Stanek the construction that has occurred on site does not
conform to the approved building permit plans.
At this point, there are no approved plans for any project on this site. Any future work must include
plans to be approved by the Town of Vail's Design Review Board and a building permit must be
issued through the Building Department. In order to proceed, two options are available:
RECYCLEU PAPER
1. Submit an application to the PEC to request a new front setback variance. If PEC
approves this request, the Design Review Board must then approve the project.
2. Redesign a new structure that complies with all setback requirements and submit for .
Design Review Board (DRB) approval.
If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact me. If you have questions
regarding the options available concerning future work please contact Lauren directly at 479-2454.
Yours truly, -
TOWN OF VAIL
~
R. Thomas Moorhead
Town Attorney
RTM/aw
xc: Lauren Waterton
Dan Stanek
Rohn Robbins, Esq.
Ross Davis, Esq.
~ JUN. 30. 1997 12:46PM VR PUBI.IC REI.ATIONS N0. 0149 P. 1/2
• `TO : TOV .
VaYl Resorts, Inc.
FOR IlVIlVIEbIATE RELEASE: •
Media Contacts: ~
~ 7im Felton (970) 845-5722 ~ m
Paul Witt (970) 845-5720
Rob Palman (970) 845-5721
VAIL RESORTS NAMES SEN[OR'V'YCE PRESIDENT OF SALES AND NEW
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF MARKE7'YNG
VAIL, Colo: June 30, 1997-Vail Resorts announced today that Bruce Mainzer, 45, has
I ~
been named seaior vice president of marketing for Vail Resorts. ?he announcement was
~ made by Adam Aron, chauman and CBQ of Vail Resorts. He will join Brian Smith, 51, who
has been riamed senior vice president of sales. Vail Resorts' combined mazketing and sales
budget is more than $20 million. I
~
In his tzew position, Mainzer will owersee the market,ing depaztments at Vail, Hrtxkenridge,
Keystone and Beaver Creek, fawr o£the nation's premier mountain resaxts. Reporting to him
directly are the individual directors of marketing for each of the four resorts, advertising,
creative services, direct mail markefing, pxicing and analysxs, on-site guest marketing, and
I VuI Resoxts' marketing efforts on the Internet.
I
Smith will now assume the duties of senior vice president of sales overseeing domestic ski
I sales, intemational sales, coxpozate and tz'a.vel industry sales, conference and lodging sales,
cotporate communications, consumer promotions and the cetltXal reservations business of Vail
I Resorts.
"We' are extremely excited to have someone of Bruce's caiiber join us at a time when his
~
i talents an,d energy wi11 be invaluable as we put in place our marketing, anj sales pxogxams for
the coming ski and snowboard season at Vail Resorts," said Aron. "This move 5nalizes our
' reorgani2ation of the marketing and sales departments which we initiated two moaths ago. At
I tb,at time, we announced our intent to have two talented leaders for the marketing and sales
' functions of our newly merged company. In Brian Smith and Bruce Mainzer, we have found
two strong executives to drive our revenue growth,"
~
-more-
~
I PO 8ox 7. Vail, CplOrado. 91658. phone 970 845 5720. fex 970 845 5728 ~y
~
JUN.30.1997 12:47PM VR PUBLIC RELATIONS N0,0149 P. 2/2
VAII. RESORTS-MAINZER
2-2-2
Prior to joxning Vail Resorts,lVlainzer was most recently the executive vice president of
marketing and planning at Caznival Airlines in Miami where he oversaw the marketing and .
planning for the 28 aircraft airline. Formerly, he was the vice president of mazketing for
Norwegian Cniise Line where he was responsible for itinerary and product planning, pricing,
advertising, direct mail, market research aud public relarions. Main?zer served in a variety of key
marketing posts at'[Jnited Aixlines from 1985 to 1994 vcrhete he was re.sponsible for many of
United's advancements in yield management, market research and new products atud brands.
Among his travel industry accomplishments,lVlainzer W+as awatded the 1995 National Effie
(Marketing Effectiveness) for the travel category.
I
Smith joiped Vail Resorts following its merger v+rith the Ralston Resorts of Keystone and
Breckenridge earay in 1997. At Ralston, be was executive vice president of resort operations,
which he joined in 1991. He was promoted to hold four-resort responsibility with the May
aimouncement of the ceatralization of the sales and markering organizations of Vail Resorts.
"Ylcouldn't be more delighted to join Vail Resorts," said Mainzer. "As a long-time marketer in
the trave int~ustry, Y am very famiIiar with the resorts of Vail, Breckenndge, Keystone end
Beaver as world-class destinations. I will teke great pride as we continue to set the
standard and remain leaders in the tra'vel aund tourism indus~y.,"
"As I s u1l~tay, I am highly excited by my new challenges at Vail Resorts, and look forward
to worldng together with Bruce 1V~ainzer," said Smith. "After all, we jointly have the privilege of
geaerating revenue for four of the finest mountsin resorts in the world,"
I
Mainzet I , a native of Chicago, is married vvith on~e child. He received his bacheloxs degree from
' Cornell University and a masters fr+om Northwestern tJniversity. In his new role, he wiU work at
Vail R.esorts corporate offices in Avon, CO and will reside vviWin the Vail Valley.
Vail Resorts is the premier mauntain resart opcrator in North America. The company operates
the mountain tesorts of Vai1, Breckenridge, Keystone and Beaver Creek.
-34-
j.
I .
I ~
~
JUL. 1.1997 8:28AM VR PUBLIC RELATIONS N0.0164 P. 1/2
. .TOTOV
il Associates, Iac.
;
, FOR IlviMEAIATE RELEASE ~
. • ' Media contacts:
• Jun Felton (970) 845-5722
. Ro perlman (970) 845-5721
~ P Witt (970) 845-5720
V ASSOCIA,TES CONTRIBUTES 250 000 TO F Y LEAR~NG CENTER
~
'V , Colo. - 7uly 1, 1997 - Supporting the fundamental negd for additional quality child care
~ fac~ 'ties in Eagle County, Vail Associates is contributing ~$250,d00 toward the construction of
the Family Learning Center at St. Clare of Assisi Caxnpus'in Edwax'ds, Colorado, Andy Daty,
Pre 'd t of Vail Associates, announced today. 4
I ,
, . ~
` creation of the Family Learning Center is a strong response to the tremendous need for
accessible, high quaaity and affordable day care for infants, toddlers and preschool children in
Eagle County," said Daly. "The center will be a place for children and families of all faiths to
ileal and thrive through innovative and enga . ng child-initiated and family-centered pmgrams.
The quality of eazly child care and educati is not only critically important to the successful
sionAwd~a '"0`"dci" educational and emotional development of our children, but i also key to sustaining the high
~nekm,w
. qu ty of life in our dynamic Vail Valley. If we aze unable t provide outstanding child care
an ly development, as is becoming increasingly true, we will not be able to keep in the
, 'val qur young families who are such an important element of our communities and
, eco 9y. This is the most important family and edueational roject Vail Associates has ever
I
. . . , ,
• Th 'ly Learning Center will be the first facility specifically built and designEd as a
. '"S o of the 21s` Century," a designation given by Yale Unipersity. A11 other schools
,
des as such have been reconfigured from other facilities such as the nationally acclaimed
"Center" in Leadville, Colorado, aRer which the Family Learning Center at St. Clare is being
~ modeled.
i
-moro-
M PO 8ox 7 • Vail, Coloratlo • 81658 • phone 970045 5720 • fax 970 645 5728 • e-m I: vailpr@vail.net S~
. . I
~ ~ ~
JUL. 1.1997 8:29AM VR PUBLIC RELATIONS NQ.0164 P. 2/2
VAIL +OCIATES DONATES $250,000
2-2-2
"rhe Family Learning Center at St. Clare of Assisi Campus aims to provide quality child care to
I families regardless of their economic, social or religious backgrounds," said Monsigior Thomas
Dentici. "Vail Associates' commitment to the all-important community-wide issue of child care
facilitie is reflected in this genetous gift. And wlule Vail Associates has its own child care center,
it sees a eed far beyond what is arrailable in the Vail Valley."
i
`community has experienced bremendous growth during the past eight years, and tWs grovvth is
p~cted to continue well into the next century," said Daly. "There are few projects in the Vail
I
alley cqmmu~xty that firuly benefit the worldng family and so many children as this one does."
~
I
Th-
e, amily Learning Center, to be built in two phases, wi11 comprise approximately 24,400 square
et. At completion, the facility will accommodate up to 300 children, ages s'r~C weeks to five years,
' g the school day. There will also be before and after school programs for vlder children and
ts. , The center programs are tailored to the employment deznands of the resort community and
~
ill be ten seven days a vveek, 365 days a yeaz, providing child care from 530 a.m. to 6;00 p.m.
~ i
dparent education from 6:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.' General tuitions will be competitive with existing
c~pro~riders in the valley with a sliding scale payment systetn avauilable for at least 35% of
~ ~
7"~ild
according to need and income levels.I A scholarship pmgram willl also be ar?ailable.
The Family Leaming Center is a part of the larger St. Clare of Assisi Parish Cmpus, which will be
nsh ucted at the southeast corner of Highway 6land Squaw Creek Road in Edwards. Reverend
dward . Poehlznann is the pastor of St. Clare parash. The total eventual cost of the Family
n Center will be $5.3 million, with all funds to be raised frona donations. With Vail
Associ ' contzibutiou of $250,000 to be given over the next five years, the paedges and cash
I natxo for the project now total $3 million. Crroundbrealatig for the project is planned for later
this ~
s er. I
-30- ~
i
~
1
~