HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-08-05 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session
{
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
EVENING MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 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 July 1 and 15, 1997. (5
mins.)
3• Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1997, second reading of an ordinance that
Russell Forrest would allow interior conversions and consolidate references to Gross
Tom Braun Residential Floor Area in the zoning code. (15 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance
No.13, Series of 1997, on second reading.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Vail Town Council, on April 15, 1997,
directed staff to implement Alternative 1 after considering the various
alternatives to the existing GRFA policy. 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 wauld only allow interior conversions for homes existing at the date of the approval of this policy by the Town Council. New construction would
not be eligible for interior conversions. In addition, staff would
recommend consolidating the numerous references to GRFA in the
Zoning Code into one consolidated section. This would help to better
communicate current policy on GRFA to applicants.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance No. 13, Series of
1997 on second reading.
4• Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1997, second reading of an ordinance
Steve Thompson making Supplemental Appropriations from the Town of Vail General
Fund, Facilities Maintenance Fund, Heavy Equipment Fund, and Real
Estate Transfer Tax Fund, of the 1997 Budget and the Financial Plan for
the Town of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the expenditures of said
appropriations as set forth herein; and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (15 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance
No. 14, Series of 1997, on second reading.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The required Supplemental Appropriations
were discussed and approved by the Town Council on June 24, 1997,
when the interim Financial Report was presented to the Town Council.
The majority of the $1.6 million of the required supplemental is for RETT
projects, $1.1 million.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance No. 14, Series of '
1997 on second reading. I,
~
x1
.
~
5. Presentation of Endorsed Vail Tomorrow Actions and Request for
Greg Moffet Implementation by the Town of Vail. (1 hr.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Accept presentation and direct
staff to report back to Council with recommendations on some or all of
requested actions, as determined by Council.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: This presentation is the culmination of the
first year of Vail Tomorrow efforts to create actions within the community-
determined priority goal areas of Affordable Housing, Building
Community, Natural and Built Environment, Regional Cooperation, World
Class Resort, and Youth.
6. Appoint Two Community Task Force Members. (5 mins.)
Bob McLaurin
Suzanne Silverthorn
7. Consideration for Use of a Limited Space on the Top Level of the
Diane Johnson Lionshead Parking Structure for a Skate Park. (30 mins.)
Robin Litt
Mike Knox ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Consider use of 60 X 160 ft. of the
Larry Grafel top level of the Lionshead parking structure for a temporary skate park.
Steve Thompson
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Based upon recommendations from the
building community subcommittee, the youth subcommittee and the Vail
Police Department, there has been consideration for a possible location
for a skate park. This is an alternative recreational facility tFiat has been
proven to be successful in other communities and is currently unavailable
in the Town of Vail. The need for such a recreational facility within the
Town was amplified by the self-help creation of a BMX park by young
people in West Vail.
Resource material indicates that the experiences of other communities
from the creation of skate parks are:
1. Insurance experience has been very positive;
2. It is recommended that the park be open to "free play" without
supervision;
3. That abundant signage be posted of hours of operatii n and
required use of safety equipment; and
4. Skate parks have lured loiterers from malls leading to a positive
law enforcement experience.
The Vail Police department, especially through the observations of Officer
Mike Knox, has held the belief that the existing conflict befinreen skaters
and pedestrians in the Village and Lionshead core areas could be
reduced by the availability of such a facility.
An application for a conditional use permit for this recreational facility has
been filed. In the event Council approves of such use of thelspace on the
top level of the Lionshead parking structure it will proceed before the PEC
on August 25, 1997.
It is intended that the facility will remain in use for as long as the weather
allows. It is anticipated that would be principally September and October.
It is believed that this temporary use of such a facility will help provide
direction as to whether or not a permanent facility would be appropriate.
I
There has been a cross section of support and commitment to the skate
park from the community. It is anticipated the cost for creation of the
park will be between $2,500 and $8,000. These funds will be available
from the Rotary Club, Vail Associates, and other private contI ributions.
The Vail Recreation District has been an active partner in these discussions and designs of the facility and has committed continued
support. This item is to be reviewed by the Vail Recreation District Board
on August 12th.
~
The obvious negative implications are the use of the parking structure
and the loss of the parking spaces for the period of time that the skate
facility will be in use as well as the noise factor affecting the adjacent
residential neighborhood. It is not anticipated that this would continue
however into November or the beginning of the ski season due to the wet
fall weather.
Town Manager Report. (10 mins.) .
9• Adjournment - 9:55 p.m.
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL T1MES 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, 8112/97, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 8/19/97, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 8119/97, 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.TC
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 5, 1997
SUBJECT: Discussion of proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to permit outdoor
commercial ski storage in the Commercial Core 1 and Commercial Core 2
Zone Districts.
Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by Joe Macy
Planner: Lauren Waterton
Vail Associates has submitted an application to the Town of Vail to amend the Zoning Code to permit
outdoor commercial ski storage in the Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II Zone Districts.
The following amendments are proposed:
1. Add "outdoor commercial ski storage" as a conditional use in the Commercial Core 1
and Commercial Core 2 Zone Districts;
2. Add definitions to the Zoning Code for "commercial ski storage", "outdoor
commercial ski storage" and "ski racks"; and
3. Add additional conditional use permit review criteria for outdoor commercial ski
storage.
These amendments are specifically outlined in the attached staff inemorandum to the Planning and
Environmental Commission, dated July 14, 1997.
The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed this application during two
worksessions and at a final hearing in July. On July 14th, the PEC recommended approval (by a
vote of 4-2) of the requested amendments, with the following condition:
Conditional use criteria 8a, be changed to reflect that the outdoor commercial ski storage not
be freestanding, but may be attached to any landscaping or site walls when not obstructing
views, from or into outdoor dining decks or transparent storefronts. The design of the access
to the storage shall be at the applicant's discretion, per the Design Guidelines, with the
recommendation that access be via side-hinged doors and not via overhead doors.
The two PEC members who voted in opposition, Ann Bishop and Galen Aasland, were generally in
support of the request, but specifically wanted to prohibit overhead doors on any enclosed outdoor
commercial ski storage. However, the remaining members of the PEC did not want to make this a
specific requirement, but only a suggestion (as reflected in the above-listed condition).
This information is provided for discussion only. First reading of an ordinance is schedUled for
August 19, 1997.
r ,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 14, 1997
RE: A request for amendments to Chapter 18.04, Sections 18.24.060, 18.26.040 and
18.60.060 of the Zoning Code to add Outdoor Commercial Ski Storage as a
conditional use in the Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II zone districts.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy
Planner: Lauren Waterton/Mike Mollica
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the zoning code to allow for commercial outdoor ski
storage. Since the PEC worksession on June 23,1997, the applicant has withdrawn the
request to allow commercial ski storage on all building levels in Commercial Core I(CCI) and
Commercial Core II (CCII). The applicant is still requesting to amend the zoning code to allow
outdoor commercial ski storage as a conditional use in CCI and CCII. Additionally, the applicant
is proposing to add definitions for commercial ski storage, outdoor commercial ski storage and ski
racks and to add additional conditional use permit review criteria.
The proposed code revisions include: amending Sections 18.24.060 (Conditional Uses Generally)
and 18.26.040 (Conditional Uses Generally) of the CCI and CCII zone districts; adding definitions of
"commercial ski storage", "outdoor commercial ski storage" and "ski racks" to Chapter 18.04
(Definitions); and amending Section 18.60.060 (Criteria - Findings) of the Conditional Use Permit
Chapter to add specific criteria review related to outdoor commercial ski storage. The proposed
additional review criteria are based upon the elements of the Vail Village Urban Design
Considerations and the Lionshead Urban Design Considerations.
II. BACKGROUND
In 1989, the zoning code was amended to allow commercial ski storage as a permitted use only in
the basement and garden level of buildings in CCI and CCII. At that time, there were several
existing ski storage facilities located in basements, that had been approved by the Town of Vail as
an accessory use to an existing ski shop.
There are a number of outdoor ski storage facilities that have been erected over the years. The
existing regulations do not permit outdoor ski storage facilities to be installed. Earlier this year, staff
denied a request by Vail Associates for Design Review Board approval for ski storage in Lionshead,
next to the Gondola Suilding. Upon appeal of that staff decision, the PEC upheld the staff's
decision that a previous nonconforming use had been substantially changed so that the use had lost
the nonconforming status.
On June 9, 1997 and June 23, 1997, the PEC held worksessions to discuss the proposed changes
to the code, as described above. The PEC discussed the appropriateness of indoor and outdoor
commercial ski storage and the proposed definitions. The PEC and members of the public
expressed concern regarding the aesthetics of outdoor ski storage. In an attempt to address these
concerns, the applicani and the staff have developed specific review criteria for a conditional use
permit for outdoor commercial ski storage. These criteria are in addition to the existing conditional
use permit criteria. The proposed review criteria relate to location, design and development
standards and are based upon specific design considerations of the Vail Village Urban Design
Guide Plan and the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan.
III. CONFORMITY WITH THE TOWN'S RELEVANT PLANNING DOCUMENTS
In considering the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code, staff has relied on several relevant
planning documents. Specifically, staff reviewed the purpose sections of the CC1 and CC2 zone
districts and the goals and ebjectives stated in the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master
Plan.
7_onina Code
According to the purpose statements of the CCI and CCII zone districts, these zone districts are
intended to provide sites for commercial establishments which are compatible with oth,er uses in the
district. Staff believes that ski storage can a compatible use with permitted and conditional uses
within these zone districts. Staff further believes that ski storage is a needed service and guest
amenity and will complement the existing uses within the CCI and CCII zone districts.
Vail Land Use Plan
The following goals found in the Vail Land Use Plan support this proposal:
Goal 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should
work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more
efficiently.
Goal 4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be
preserved (scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural
setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality).
Goal 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth.
Vail Villa e Master Plan
"fhe following objectives found in the Vail Village Master Plan support this request:
Objective 2.1 Recognize the variety af land uses found in the 10 subareas thraughout the
Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established
land use patterns.
Objective 2.4 Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where
compatible with existing land uses.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommsnds appraval of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to allow outdoor
commercial ski storage as a conditional use in the CCI and CCII zone districts, add definitions for
commercial ski storage, outdoor commerical ski storage and ski racks, and add specific review
criteria for a conditional use permit for outdoor commercial ski storage.
2
Proposed text changes:
Definitions
Amend Section 18.04 - Definitions to add the following:
"Commercial Ski Storage" means storage for equipment (skis, snowboards, boots and poles)
and/or clothing used in skiing-related sports, which is available to the public or members,
operated by a business, club or government organization, and where a fee is charged for
hourly, daily, monthly, seasonal or annual usage. Ski storage that is part of a lodge, or
dwelling unit, in which a fee is not charged, is not considered commercial ski storage.
"Outdoor Commercial Ski Storaae" means storage for equipment (skis, snowboards, boots,
and poles) used in skiing-related sports, which is available to the public, operated by a
business, club or government organization, and where a fee is charged for hourly or daily
usage. Outdoor ski storage must be either enclosed in an accessory building or be in the
form of vertically installed coin-operated ski locks, subject to design review approval.
"Ski Racks" means racks available to the public for the temporary storage of skis, poles and
snowboards, in which a fee is not charged.
Commercial Core I zone district
Amend Section 18 24 060 Conditional Uses - Generallv to add the following:
F. Outdoor commercial ski storage
Commercial Core II zone district
Amend Section 18 26 040 Conditional Uses - Generallv to add the following:
J. Outdoor commercial ski storage
Existing Conditional Use Permit criteria
The following are the existing conditional use permit review criteria that will be used to evaluate any
outdoor commercial ski storage proposal (Section 18 60 060 Criteria - Findinas):
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town;
2. The effect af the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation
facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities
needs;
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian
safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and
removal of snow from the street and parking areas;
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located,
including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses;
3
.
5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed
use;
Additional Conditional Use permit criteria:
The following are proposed to be added to cQcri^n 18 60 060 riteria - Findinas:
8. Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for outdoor commercial ski storage,
the following shall be considered:
a. Any outdoor commercial ski storage, that is considered a coin-operated ski
lock, and that is not enclosed in an accessory building, must be affixed to an
exterior wall of a building or structure. It may not be free-standing, attached
to any landscaping, or site walls.
b. The architectural character of the building of which the outdoor commercial
ski storage is attached shall not be comprised or negatively impacted.
c. Outdoor commercial ski storage may only be permitted seasonally. Any
outdoor commercial ski storage facility must be removed no later than June
1 st of every year and cannot be installed, or re-installed, prior to October
15th.
d. Outdoor commercial ski storage shall not block any display window on the
, first floor of any building, nor shall it block the view from or into any outdoor
dining deck.
e. No landscaping shall be permanently displaced.
f. Any outdoor commercial ski storage which is enclosed and is less than 120
square feet in area, shall not be considered floor area, for the piurposes of
calculating site coverage. Any outdoor commercial ski storage ~ hereby the
combined area is greater than 120 square feet, shall be included in the
calculation of site coverage.
g. Parking shall not be assessed for any outdoor commercial ski storage.
4
" ' C t r •'l.'.-` " -:-F.' `•'..,:t : : ' i. ~
' - 1.' . a~., .1;'-• :>_`•...r.~wi ~ ;r ":S_... ~,1:' _ _ - ..4.'.. , " mf:.
w'4f'O''~ '•~J' Ji
. .f=... . x"V . .
;i~. .:1. ;.i• - . 4
'.t1 - . .
. t . . Y,L ` ' + : t • . . - ••X.=``_ _ . _ r j t . _ . ' . ' ' , . . ' U'ril.
• ' . . . _ ' + ' . . p..
S ' ' , , . . . , . . • . . . . . • , , ' . , ' ' . ' _ • . . . . _ _ ' .
' . • - • . , t - , . , . .
- . . . - - - ; Chris 'Moffet . , . : , . . . . -
. 1753 Shasta Place. . .
Vaii, CO 81657 . ' . 479-9522 . . . . - . , -
July 25, 1997 - Vail Town Council .
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Council Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to apply for the Community Task Force again.
Please consider the following as my "Letter of Interest".
As a Vail resident, small business owner, mother of school-age children and active member of the community, I feel I have a lot to offer the Task Force. A brief
background may address the issues to which you seek responses.
Professionally I am a management consultant, specializing in human resource
issues and training. My client base includes many organizations here in Eagle County
including a ski area operator, a full service lodge, a county volunteer coalition and a
multi-store retail company. I also maintain clients outside the valley including a
Fortune 500 bank holding company. Once upon a time I spent a season as an entry
level employee on the mountain.
Personally, I am the mother of a 6 year old and a 4 year old and the wife of a
year old. I am very involved in community issues relating to kids. I've been president
of ABC Preschool Board of Directors and currently serve on the RSES PTA. I also
commit time to issues relating to the future of our community. Specifically, I am on the
Vail Tomorrow Coordinating Committee and have been very involved in that process
since its inception.
Recreationally, I.have been skiing Vail since the mid-70s. I have the advantage of having been here as a college kid on spring break, an out-of-state tourist here for a
mid-season week, a front range day skier, a weekend resident condo owner and a full
time resident. I still ski. I also run, snow shoe, mountain bike, hike and lounge.
My interests as they relate to the Task Force are varied. I am very obviously
interested in addressing our issues with an eye on the impacts to the people who still
make Vail their home. As a small business person I also want to see continued
intelligent economic growth. As someone who loves our quality of life I want to see our
environment and recreational opportunities protected. In short, I am not a single item
agenda applicant, and I have not formed intractable opinions on these issues.
As to strengths and perspectives, I am open minded. Also, I problem solve and
consensus build for a living. Some say am pretty good at it. Because of the diverse
Oase of my clientele, I listen to views and issues facing a variety of businesses. I am
able to take multiple perspectives and generate concise, coherent solutions. In other
,•Y:' " .;i~):. ,.•t-Sf't ' 1 • ai 'T
.K.: ~~:1~ /j: - '1'.' f ~l it% •~J~ _ ~ rµ`~~ .~X"~~
+5-- 'fr"',i~ ' ' '4 .~z•.'. ' . r`~i2~:;'`:~
17
r
`i.
,FTy>a,,
- - , ~ - ~ " . _ . ~ • , 3~;,
~ • ~ ' . ~ - . . . . - - . . . ->~~°r.,•_.~.
. ~ . . . . ~ :s--.~
. , . . . - . . . . . ~ : . . . . ~ _ . : . : . , • , r , ~ ~ . ~ . . . •
• • • - ~
. ' . . ' ~ ..r : . : . . . _ • - .
w~ords'°-I:can tiring #he perspective,ofa cu, stomer;:a-resident; a mother and a service : - -
provider dependent on our economy.
1 look forward:to..the opportunity "tofurther serve our communify. Please le# me
know if you have any..questions.
~ - : - . . - ~ . . . . . ~.Sincerely. . . . . : _ :
A~~ ~ , . .
Chris Moffef ~ - .
•
. A,
~
July 19, 1997
vafl Towm councfl
JUL 2 3 1997
~
% Holly McClutcheon
75 S. Frontage Rd ~ ~ -
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: Community Task Force at-large seat Dear Town Council, -
I wish to continue serving on the Community Task Force. I am available on Thursdays.
I believe I bring a valua.ble perspective to this board. My long term involvement on
various town boards and task forces as well as a large variety of other activities involving
schools, condo associations, environmental issues, social issues, parenting, business
woman and life experiences, gives me broad based experience and insight into many
issues.
The focus of the organizations represented on the task force is ultima.tely financial and the
ma.jority of the representatives are present because of their professions. That is to be
expected and not a negative thing but it is imperative that the task force have some
individuals coming from a different focus so that other critical elements and issues, some
minute and some huge, are brought into the discussion. Otherwise, the task force is just
. another marketing board. I feel that Vail will loose ground if the narrow economic and
marketing emphasis on all issues continues. The task force must discuss more than how
to bring people here throughout the year and then how to move those people around or
there will be no people. We can not remain "economically healthy" if we only give lip
service to "quality of life." The Town of Vail and Vail Associates document, "Strategies
for the Future", clearly ca11s for a broader discussion. .
The value of the task force really is in the broader discussion! To have a forum where
"privileged" information is respected and participants feel they can freely express their
views and concerns, allows everyone involved, and ultimately the entire community, to
understand each other's needs and, therefore, to understand how all the parts can work
together for the good of the whole. And that is the only way for Vail to maintain and
improve its stature as a resort and community. It is a delicate balance.
I believe my input represents the interests and concerns of many individuals including
those who truly caze but never take the time to be involved. I do think my comments and
input make solution finders look at problems in a way that they might not otherwise look
and consider things they might not and that helps in finding solutions. My input is always
honest and never to serve the interests of a small faction.
,
My commitment to the task force is made in the belief that this is the organization that has
the potential to positively affect the future of Vail which is also the future of m~ family
and myself. The resort can not succeed without the community and the community can
not exist without the resort.
I consider it a privilege to serve on the task force. Thank you for your positive
consideration. Please call if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Diana Donovan
1014 Homestake Circle .
Vail, Colorado 81657
476-3511
fax 2789
'
MEMORANDUM , .
Tp: Planning ancl F_nvironrnental Commission
FROM: ComrnUnity Deve:lopmenl Department
DATE: ,July 2£3, 1997
SUE3JF_CT: A iequest for a worksession to discuss the proposed Betty Ford Alpine Garden
Education Center located at 620 Vail Vailey Drive/Trac[ A, Block 2, Vail Village 71h
Filing.
Applicanls: Vaii Alpine Garden FoLmdation', represented by Helen Fritch
Planner: George Ruther
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Vail Alpine Uarden Foundation, represented by I-lelen Fritch, is requesting a worksession
willi tlie f'lanninq and Environmenlal Commission (PFC) to discuss the proposed Belly Ford
AIpine, Garden Educalion Center. Thc (oliowing issues are to be discussed:
' 1. Parking, Loading and Dclivery;
2. Site Planning;
3. Off-site Improvements; 4. Outstanding Submittal Requirements and Code Compliance; and ~
5. Proposed Development Standards.
l hr, e(111calion c;enl~r is proposed to be located at the wesi end o( the Ford Parlc socr.er (ield,
adjar,enl lo lhe parkinci lol. -fhc: applicanl IIas indica(ecl IlMl 1ht; Cducalion cenler will servc as a
r.on1niLniily (ar,ilily devoW'd lo (oslering an underslanding o( Vail's (ragile environment. The .
building will be approxinialF.;y 23,141sq. il. in size (including paiking slructure). The ce;nler alone;
is 7,639 sq. ft. The space wifhin the center is proposed to be broken down inlo several different
types of uses. The applicant is proposing approximately 785 sq. it. o( adminislrative office
spac:o, 1,387 sq. (t. o( gift shop/relail space, 239 sq. ff. o( botanical library space, 3,009 sq. fi. of
exliibit Iiall and classroom space witli the rei-naining 2,219 sq. ft. to be usecl as
worksliop/storage, restrooms, mechanical space and common area.
i ;
II. BACKGROUND •
The land on which Gerald R. Ford Park sits was acquired by the Town of Vail in 1973. The
expressed goal of the $3.3 million land acquisition was to preserve the quality of life in Vail. On '
January 18, 1977, the Vail Town Council unanimously passed a resoltation designating the
property as the Gerald R. Ford Park. This unique and hiqhly valuable 39 acre'park site
represents the last remaining parcel of land central ta i_ise by all residents and visitors of the Vail
community. ~
f:\everyonelpec\97\memos\betty.728 • . • i
,t ,t)v.,;: i
r-._.
: • ~
• TOIf'N OF_ 1'A1LI
. :
,
In January ol 1985, Ihe process of crealing a masler plan for ihe developmeni ot Ford F~ark
bcc~~~n. In AtuIusl of lli~il sai~~c year, tfie Gerald R. Ford Park and Donovan Parl~ Master Plan
was complelecl. Accordinc] lo lIie tinal report prepared by tlie projecl consulianl, Ilie Masler Plan is inir,nded 1o clirecl ihe fulure development o( the E.»ric and establish gt-iidelines for ilie impiementation of ilie IuIure improvements to Ihe park.
On M1y II, 1995, Ihe applicanl appeared before ihe Planning and Environmental Conimission
wilh a requesl to amend the f=ord Park Master Plan. 7he applicanl was proposincJ to aiiiend the •
f=ord Paik Master Plan to allow for the construcfion of the proposed education cenler in Phase IV
of the AIpine Gardens (lower bench). Upon review of the request by fhe Planninc~ ~nd Environmenlal Commission and by lhe Town Council, it was de(ermined thal the applicant's
rcquest fo amend the Ford Par4< Master Plan should be tabied until such a time as the Town of
Vail looked into updatiny tlle existing Master Plan.
In July oi 1995, ilie Town o( Vail, along wi(h Ihe major stakeholders of Ford Park, underlook a
planninc~ F~rocess to update the exisling Ford Park Master Plan. Since that time, fhe Town staff
Iias rnet willi ilie sla{<eliolder groups, conducled (octas group mectinys and held public I~ earings on a proposed Ford Parl< Masler P1ati updafe. The results o( Ihis public pianning process has
been a prcliminary dra(t ol the "Forcl Park Mailaaement Plan: an amendmenf (o lhe Foral Park Wsler_Plan," Containecl within the Ford Par{c Management Plan documenl are illustralive?-naps
indicaling tlie possible localion of llie Betry Ford Alpine Garden Educalion Cenle;r. According to .
Ilie prr.liniinary drall of ilie Managemenl Plan, the mosl appropriate place for the educalion cenler is on ilie west end o( ilie soccer (ield, adjacent lo Vail Valley Drive. A copy o( the site pian
indicating the proposed educalion cenlcr has been atlached.
On Fr.brimry 24. 1997, Ilic applicanl appc;arc;cl hefore thc F'lanning and E.nvirorinienlal
Coninlission ai a worksession niecling lo discuss tlie parl<ing and loading/delivery requirements
for liic dcvcic~4~rnenl. nt tl»l ineclinc~, Ilie sla(f was reromrnending lfial lhe PEC providh the
applicanl willi ciireclion orl Iiow ihe parlcinc7 and loading requirements would be assc:sscd. A }
review of tlie minules froni ilie February 24 worksession rneeting indicates thal the Commission felt that the applicant needed to accommodate the increased parking demand resulting
(t'Olll lfle pt'OpOSed dGVL'IOpI11CIlt. A COpy OI IIIL ap')I"OV('CI 171111UICS I1aS b('LIl aIlached (or
re(erence.
On April 1, 1997, the Vail Town Coiincil passed Resolution No. 13, Series of 1997, which ,
formally adopled ilie "Ford_('ark Man~ge menI_Plan:_~n amendmenl to the Ford Parlc Master
Plan."
•.i•i' _
III. REVIEW QF THE RELEVANT PLANNING RELATED DOCUMENTS
TYie following documents were reviewed by the staf( in the preparation of this worksession
memorandum: •
. _ .
1. Town of Vail Municipal C;ode/7_oning Map, •
2. Ford Park Management Plan,
3. Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and
4. Vail Village Master Plan.
f:\everyt3ne\pec\971memos\betty.728 2 _
y 1.~.
'f
Town of Vail Municipcil_Cocle/Zonin-9 Map '
Acr,ording l0 1he Of(icial Town o( Vail 7_oning Map, Ford Park is zoned General Use (GU). As
slaled in Ihe Loning CodE., the purpose a( the General Use 7_one Dislricl is as (ollows:
"The General Use Zone District is intended to provide sites (or public and quasi-public
tises which, because of tlieir special characlerislics, cannot be approprialely regulated by
the development slar?dards desciikx;d (or otlier zoning dislricls, and tor which
developmenl standards especially prescribed for ear,h parlicular development proposal or
projc,cl are necessary to achieve thr purposes prescrihed in Section 18.02.020 (genera)
provisions) and to provide (or ifie public welfare. The General Use Dislricl is in(ended to
inst-jre the puhlic buildings and grounds in certain rypr,s oi quasi-public uses permitted in
the Disliict are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and
visitors to Vail, to harmoni;,e with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and
oflier stniclures, 10 insure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities
appropriate permitted rypes of uses."
The General Use Zone Districl allows ior permitted uses, coriditional uses, and accessory
uses. In liie General Use Zone DisU-ict, developnrient standards in each of tfie (ollowing
categories shall be prescribecl by the PEC:
a. I_o1 arca and silc dimensions; b. Selbac{<s;
` C. f3uildinc) hei07h15;
d. Dcnsily conlrol;
e. Si1c cOV('I'tloC: I_andscapiriq and sitc development; and '
9. Parking and loading.
Ttic~ developinent slandards (or tfie General Use Zone District shall be proposed by Ihe applicant
as parl oi a conclilional use permit appliccflion. Site speci(ic developmenl standards shall then be
delc;rminecl by Ihe PI_C clurinc) Ilic review 01 1110 conclilional use pernnit recluest in accordance
willi Chapler 18.60 (Conditional Use Permits). Any addilional regulations pertaining to site
developIYtenl slandards, in ttic dcvelopmenl of the land in the General Use Dislrict, are found in
Chapter 18.58 (Supplemental Regulalions) of the Municipal Code.
Ford Park__Manaqement Plan
Ttie Ford Park Management Plan is an amendnlent to the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan. The
purpose of the plan is to guide the outcome of future developrnent, formulate design alternatives,
and recommend development guidelines for Ford Park.
' J '
The location of the proposed Betly Ford Alpine Garden Fducation Center is in general
'
compliance wilh the plan. The plan designates the proposed site as a potential site for future'.
development within the park.
. ~t _ .
f:\everyone\pec1971memos\betty,728 ~ .
.s~ta>>:~ ~ .
t The (ollowing goals and objectives are relevanl to Ihis proposal:
Goal 1I4 Resolve parking shartage and South Froiltage Road access problems.
4_1_ObjecDevelop a Parl<ing Management Plan to include direcled '
parlcing, enlianced shuttle bus service and olher incenlives
to reduce the parking demand. '
Action Step-4.1.4: Improve pedestrian rouies to lhe park by improving `
signs, lighting and palhway design. 4.2 Objeclive: Improve vehicular access from the South Frontage Road
and improve parkiny lot tlesign to maximize the nu~mber of -
spaces, aesthetics, and safety, while mitigating
environn-ienlal impacts.
Action Step 4.2.2: Design and conslrucl improvements to all existing
parl<ing areas thal maximize the number of parking
spaces with landscape bu(fering and treating
sur(ace stormwater run-off. Goal #5 Improve internal pedestrian circulation within Ford Park ancl the
pedestrian connections between Ford Park and Vail Village.
Policy Statement 14: nny uses addecl to Ford Park, in 11ie fulure
shall be slruclured to encouragc users or participanls to wal{c ar,
ride the bus ralher than drive.
Policy Statement 15: Pedesirian access to the Park from Vail
Villaqe sliould be easy and visible. The park sliall be as
pc:deslrian-friendly as possiblc;.
5.2 Objec ivc: Improve pedestrian roules to Ford Parlc.
,r..,.
5.3 Objec ive; Improve internal pedestrian circulation wilhin Ford Park.
Town of Vail Streetscape Mastcr Plan
The purpose of the Streetscape Master Plan is to provide a comprehensive and coordinated
conceptual design for streetscape improvements that are supported by the comrnunity, enrich tFie
aesthetic appearance of the Town, and emphasize the importance of craftsmanship and creative'~'~'`` '
design in order to create an excellent pedestrian experience.
According to the plan, the proposed developinent site is located within the East Village Study
Area. The East Village Study Area is defined'as that part of Town generally located east of Mill
Creek to the Town soccer field. The primary goals for improvements within the East Village
Study Area identified in the plan are to create a safe environment for the pedestrian along Vail Valley Drive while accommodating the heavy vehicular traffic, and to direct pedestrians to key
destination points, sucli as the Gold Peak ski base facility, the Children's Center, Ford Park, and
the amphitheater. The proposed streetscape improvements for the East Village Study A~rea are,
in part;
f:leveryone\pec197\memos\betty.728 4
i e
. Vail Valley Drive (soulh side, (rom Manor Vail's north enlry to the soccer (ield):
- Concrele iinit pavcr walkway, £3'-10' wide.
- Retaining walls will be needed in somc areas due to an inadequate righl-o(-way
and a hillsidc being immedialely adjacenl to the roadway.
- There is no sidewal{c proposed (or the norlh side of the street due lo Ihc light
physical constraints along the norlherly right-of-way line.
- Landscaping and site iurnishings should be included where possible as the
streelscape improvements are made. All bus stops and feature areas stiould
provicle a full compliment of site (urnishings. "
Vail Villaye Master Plan
The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and
policies for coordinating development by the public and private seclor and in implementing
comr7iunily goals (or public improvemc:nts. The plan emphasizes the critical need lo balance and
coordinate parking and transporfation systems with (uture irnprovemenls. It is an underlying goal
a( the plr.in lo ensure tliat the public spaces and pedestrian areas of Vail are nol jusf remnants of
privafe developn?en?, bu? rallier dominanl (ealLires in the experience ot tfie Village.
The Parlcing and Circulatian Plaii, an elemant of the Vail Village Masler Plan, recognizes the
establislicd paltcrn ol parl<inq 811c1 ciiculalion lhrouglloiil 1110 Villagc. A Iong slanding goal of the
plan is to irnprove Ihe pedestrian expeiience lhrougii lhe development o( a continuous networl< of
paths and sidc:waIl<s. Tlie illuslrative rnap of the Parking and Circulalion Plan indicales ti-le need
for a pedeslrian way attached to lhe sUeet along Vail Valley Drive, from lhe Children's Center io
the soccer field al Ford Park. n copy of tlie, Parking and Circulation Plan has been atlached (or
refereiice.
The staff idenli(ied tilc (ollowing goals, objc;clives and policir,s as Iiaving relevance lo Ihe
prc>posed clevelopiY1enl:
Goal lt1 Encouraqe high quality redevelopment wtlile preserving the unique
architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of
community and identity.
1.3 Obiecti_ve: Enhance new development and redevelopment through
public imp'rovernents done by private developers worlcing in
cooperation with the Town.
1.3,1_f'olic;.y: Publi.r, improvements shall be developed with the ;
participation- of the private sector working with the
Town. •
Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking ` experience throughout the Village.
Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways hy
landscaping and other iniprovemenits.
f:\everyone\pec1971memoslbetty.728 5 .
,
3.1 1_Pplicy; Privale developmenl projects shall incorF~orale
slreetscape iinprovemenis (such as paver I
Ircalmenls, landscaping, lighting and sealin.g
areas), along adjacenl pedestrian ways.
3.1.3 Policv_: Flowers, trees, water ieatures and other
Iandscaping shall be encouraged ihroughout the
Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, pubiic
areas.
3.4 Objective: Develop addilional sidewail<s, pedestrian-only waikways
and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks
and slrea?n access.
3.4.2 Policv_ Private development projecls shall be required to
incorporale new sidewaUks along sUeels adI acent to
the projecl as designated in the Vail Village Master ,
Plan and/or Recrealion Trails Masler Plan.
Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. : .
5.1 ' iv • Meel parlcing demands wilh public ancl private parlcing '
, tacilities.
5.1.1 Polir,y: f=or new development Ihat is localed otilsid~e of the
Commercial Corc 1 Zone District, on-sile parlcing
sliall bc provided (ralhei than paying inlo tlic parking (und) to mect any additional parking . demand as reyuired by the 7_oning Codc.
r- , I
~.1
3,F'c~.licy; c. ,,ec.lc localions for addilional slruclured puf~lic and
private parking.
5.1.5 Policy; Redevelopmenl projects siiall be slrongly.
encouraged to provicle underground or visually
concealed parking. I
5.4 Objectiv_e_ Improve the streetscape of circulation corridors throughout
" the Village: •
IV. DISCUSSION ISSUES
Since this is a worksession, staff has not prepared a formal recommendation concerning the
proposed Betty Ford Alpine Garden Education Center. Instead, the staff has identified the following issues which we wotald like to discuss fi.irther with the PEC and the applicant: ,r
f:\everyone\pec197\memos\betty.728 6
1 .
.
4
ParkiLi ic,.LoaclincJ_and Deliv_ery.
/1s rr.quired by the Municipal Code, it shall be tlie applicant's responsibilily lo propose a
parl<ing plan which, in the opinion o( Ihe PFC, adequalely addresses Ilie parkincJ and
loading needs tor lhe proposed developmenl.
Historically, parking has proven to be a reoccurring problcm at Ford Parl<. The
r,onsiruction of an ecll.ication center associated with tlie Belly Forcl Aipine Gardens would,
accordinq to sta(f, no doubl increase lhe parking demand on Ford Park.
F?arking
Tlie staff would recommend that the parking and loading requirements prescribed in
Cliapler 18.52 o( the Municipal Code be applied to the administrative o(fice use and the
gi(1 sfiol-Vrelail use. According to the parking and loading requirements, pro(essional
o(fices shall provide 1.0 parking space per each 250 sq. ft. o( net floor area and gift
shop/retail siores sliatl provide 1.0 parking spaces per each 300 sy. fl. of net floor area. .
E3ased ol these (igures, Ilie proposed education cenler would be required lo provide 3.14
parl<ing spaces (785 sq. fl. C? 1 space/250 sq. (1.) (or Ihe ot(ice use and 4.6 parking
spac;es (1,387 sq. (t. q 1 space/300 sq. (t.) for the gifl shop/retail.
Staff continiie;s to reconimend tlial a parking and loading requirement bc prescribed tor
the exhibil Iiall and classroorn spaces. The exhibit Iiall and classroom areas are
• clesiqned to accoiYiniodale sealing (or 75 individuals. Accoiding lo Chaplcr 18.52 of the
Municipal Code, n'leeting roc>i7is (auditoriLnns, classrooms, etc.) are required lo provide
1.0 par{<ing spacc:s lor each eici1i1 seats. F3ased ori liiis ligure, lhe edL.ica(ion cenler woulci
be required Io provide 9.4 parlcing spacc;s (or the audilorium and classroom (75 sc;als c
1 spact:/£3 seals). Thc; tolal parlcing requiremenl (or the education cenler is 17.14 spaces.
Lo~~cf_ing
The proposed educalion cenlc;r is a CC)IICIIIIO11aI USC: 111 IIIC General Use Zone Dislricl.
According to Cliapler 1£3.52 oi the Municipal Code, any use listed as a conditiorial use
shall bc! required lo provicie loading facililies based on a determinalion made by the Town
Counc;il. "flie loadinq lacilily requiremenl shall nol be Iess lhan the comparable
requirement (or a similar type of use. Based on the types o( uses proposed, and the size
of the building, slatf would recommend tliat the applicanl be required to provide one
loading berth. One berth is the minimum requirement prescribed by the Municipal Code.
l-iie applicant is proposing one berlli at tiie front drop-o(f area of tfie building.
According to thP Ford Park ManagemPnt Plan, the existing soccer field parking lot has the
potential to accommoclate 65 starface parkinq spaces. 57 surface spaces exist today.
The aprlicant is pmposinq to rPmovP the si_irfacp Int and to rer.,onstruck 66 pa.rking spaces
as part of tlie development. nf ihe 66 parking spaces, the applicant is suggesting that 41
stirface spaces be located to the sni.ilh of the edLacation renter with thP remaining 25
spaces enclosed in an underground parking structure. Therefore, the applicant is
rroposinq to increase ihe current parking capacity by 1 parking space. Staff would like
the applicant ancl the F'EC to discuss the parkinq issues. More specifically, sta.ff woulci
request that the Pla.nning and Fnvironmental Commission and tiie applicant disruss the
following: _
, f:\everyonelpec1971memoslbetty.728 7
• `ici~lU~,7'i
i,
• How should the parking and loading requirements be assessed? Sta,ff would .
recommend the PEC require Ilie applicant to comply wiUi the parking and loading
req~.iiremenls prescribed in Cliapler 18.52, o( tlie Municipal Code.
• How will the underground parking structure be managed and operated? It is
tlic staf('s opinion tlial since the applicanl is nol proposing to provide all tlie '
required narl<ing, as a result of the coristruction of tlle education center, tl-iat 65 of
tlie 66 reconslri.icted parkinq spaces remain open and available lo Ilie public at all
tiines. Therelore, only one space could be reserved for the exclusive usc of the
education cenler.
• 1-low will large vehicles be accommodated o.n and off the site? Ar.corcJing to
the applicant, the education cenler will be a resource available for use by, the
scliools. Sfa(f would anticipate thal the sludenls of the schools will arrive to the
education cenler via large buses.
Site Plan S1al( Iias reviewed Ihe proposecl site; plan and idE:nlified issues we believe tfie F'EC and
Ihe applicanl sliould cJiscuss. Those issues are: I
• Has ttie Vail Recreation District _yranted an approval for the education center
improvements to encroach upon their lease area? On February 24, 1,997, the
. applicanl providr;d a wriUc;n Slaleirienl fioni Piel Pielers, Fxecutive Uiiecior of the
Vail Recreation f.)isliicl, cIran;inq approval for Ihe irnprovc:mt:nls to encro,'icii upon
Ilie VRD's lease arc<<. Staff wo uld recomi7iend that the applicant provide a similar
Ietler basecl upon Uie revisod plans.
• Where will plowed snow be stored on the site? f-listorically, the slall has
requirod that an area 25%, o( Ihe size ol tlie Plowed surface be allocalecl (or snow
storagc;. Thc; proposed plowed sur(acr area is approximalely 18,285 sq. fl. in
sizc. E3ased upon the 251% figure, an area 4,571 square fcet in size will be needed
to provide adequale snow storage. Currently, no snow storage areas are ,
indicatcd on the sile plan.
• How will on-site pedestrian circulation be accommodated? Li4ce the applicant,
the sfaif bclieves lhat many o( tPie visitors to the education cenler will ar riive on
foot. Furtherinore, slaff believes tha.t the vast majority of the pedestrians will be
arriving to the site from the Village via Vail Valley Drive, or from the lowe'r bench
of Forcl Park. Given these assumptions, staf( believes it is imperative that an
adequate on-site pedestrian network be provided. Staff would recommend a six- .
. foot wide sidewalk be constructed on the site.
Off-Site Improvements ~ • Should the applicant be required to construct or provide a bond for the •
construction of a sidewalk adjacent to the development site? As dis~cussed
previously, many of the Town's planning doctiments recommend that pUblic !
improvements be provided by the private se.r,tor in ordPr to mitiqate any impacts
tiieir project may create. Staff concurs a.nci believes it is reasonahle ancl
appropriate for the private ser,tor to aid in the implementation of the suggested
improvements. Specifically, the staff would suggest tfiat the applicant r,~nstruct
, rt~;.~i7'i•~d"~~'^ i.
. f:\everyonelpec%97\memoslbatty.728 $
- : 1r
. . T,ki
sidewalic in the public righl-o(-way, adjacent lo Iheir development site, which will
provido access lo Ihe exisling pedesirian ramp leading to ihe lower bench of Ford Paik. The sidewall< will providc; improved pedeslrian circulalion, increased sa(ety
ancl (urlher enfiance tIie aesllie(ics ol Ilie area. Slaff wotald lurllier sugqest tlial
Ihe landscaping and site iumisliincJs associated witli tiie sidewall< be in
compliaiice wilh the rrcommer?dalions ou?lined in the Streclscape Masler Plan.
Pro_~osed Development Standards
In tiie General Use 7_one District, the development standards shall be proposed by tile
applicant as part of a conditional use permit requesL 7he standards shall be determined
by the Planning and Environmental Commission during the review of the condilional use
pernnit. The development staridards proposed by the applicant, for the education center, ,
are sLnnmarized in Ihe zoning analysis below:
ZONING ANALYSIS
Lol Sire: 57,137 square (eet
,
Setbacks: (ronl: 25'
sides: 158'/40' ,
rear: 48' . .
' l3uilding I-Ic;ight: /1pproxinialely 16'
Sitt; Coverayc: 7.874 square (eel , , .
Landscaping: N/A Par{<irig/Loading: GG parking spaces (25 enclosed, 41 surface)
I loadinq/dclivery beith '
Uses: Adminisfrative office, retail, exhibit space ,
Are the proposed development standards appropriate for this development? The sia(( woiilri rec:ommend Ihat the PF.C ancl applicant discuss the development slandards
propased by the applicant and that Ihe F'FC provicle direction to the applicant on any
necessary revisions. Of the proposed standarcis, sta(f generally conctars with tlie
applicant, wit1i the ex,r.eption of the propbsed parkinq. Staff believes the applicant should
be required to provide a su((icient number of parking spaces to accommoclate the
increased parking demand resulting trom the construction of the education center.
Outstanding Submittal Requirements.and Code Compliance Issues
The staff has completed a preliminary review of the proposed edlacation center. Upon
campletion of our preliminary review, the stafi has determined that the following items
mtast be subi-nitted prior to fina.l PFC review: '
1. Please provic:it, a siqnecl and stamped topographic survey of the development site.
The topograpfiic survey sliall also include spot elevatioris, at 25' intervals, along
Vail Valley Drive adjacent to the development site. ~ .
f:\everyone\pec\97\memos\betty.728 9
2. Please provide an area for slreelscape furnishings (bustop be;nch and
streellights). The site furnishings shall be provided by the applicant.
3. n 20' inside turning radius shall be provided for Ihe driveway and in ihe parking
slructUre.
4. Please provide a detailed grading plan. The grading plan shall show existing and
proposed contours and indicate adequale drainage.
5. 7he parl<ing plan shall provide exterior parking spaces, 9x19 in size, witii a?_4'
wide drive aisle. Inlerior landscaping sliall also be provided in the parking areas. , I .
6. The proposed retaining walls exceed the G' Iieight maximum. Please revise the +
grading to insure that tile retaining walls do not exceed 6' in heighl. I 7. f'lease subinii a delailed landscape plan. The landscape pian shall include a
legend indicaling all planls species and quantilies.
8. Please submit detailed building elevation drawings. The applicanl is lentatively schediiled lo appear before lhe Planning and Environmenlal
Coirimission on Monday, AucJtisl 11, 1997, for a final review af a conditional use permit
lo allow for Ilie construction of (he Betty Ford Alpine Garden Educalion Cenler. In order
Ior the applicant lo reinain on Ihe nuqusl 11 agenda, atl o( ihe outstanding submittal
requirc;niE:nls and code colnpliance issues inusl be resolved by no laler than Montlay,
Augusf 4, 1997. If tlic applicanl is uiiable lo resolve the issues by lhe August 4 deadline,
the (inal revic:w shall be lablecl tanfil sueh a time as wlien tlie issues Iiave becn
addressed.
V. STAFt__RECOMME_NDATION. ~
Since lhis is a work session, no formal staff recominendation will be provided at this time.
However, slaif requests thal the above-listed issues be discussed so the applicari t can '
receive speci(ic direction on how to proceed with the proposed design anci parki.ng
requiremenls for the E3etty Ford Alpine Garden Education Center.
r -
' .a•
10 , y-
.
1 6. A request for a worksession to discuss the development standards for the proposed '
Alpine Gardens Education Center, to be located generally west of tlie Ford Park Athletic*
Fieids, on a part of Tracl A, Block 2, Vail Village 7tli Filing.
Appiicant: Betty Ford Alpine Gardens
Planner: George Ruther
George Rutller gave an overview of the staff inemo and said that ihe discussion today wauid
only include trie parking and loading issue, or something else tiiat was relevant to parking and
loading. He said that trie inclusion of two classrooms and auditoriums required the parking to be
assessed according to the various types of the uses in the building. He said the discussion
needs to include the use of the auditorium and classrooms and that the applicant needed
direction from the PEC. , .
7
Greg Moffet asked for the applicant to comment.
Helen Fritch, President of the Board, said she was accompanied by Sammye Meadows and ~<.D a v i d Ken yon of Des'i gn Worksho p. She said:she had moved the building to the soccer field at
the request of the neighbors and the Town s#aff. She was pleased with the move, as there was
now access to park. She explained that this was the first-drawing from Fisher Architect and Galvin Design. She said that the whole building would have the capacity to open up and be a': gathering space for receptions, etc., and that it would be for multi-purpose use. She said that the`;' :
purpose of the auditorium was for orientation with a theater for exhibits. Helen said that the staff.;;>7,
office space may need to be larger. .
Plaruiing and Gnvironmental Conunission
Minutes ~ .
' ' Pcbruary 24, 1997 • 9
David Kenyon, Design Workshop, said tha( he had been worl<ing wifh I-Ielen for several months.
Fle then showed aerial drawings wilh the first conceptuai locafion and described it as an
orientation documenl. He was asked to reconfigure the existing parking and said that lliere were
57 shriped spaces in lhe parking lot today. He said the Town staf( saici there would be 65 spaces
as the base line if reslripcd. David explained that over 20 studies had been done regarding the
building design and parking. He said they modified the building shape to maximize the surface
parking spaces south of it. I-ie said there would be retaining walls inside the berm for roc{<
gai-dens and that ttie building was built directly into the berm wilii the courtyard looking alt the
Gore Range across the soccer field. f-le said thai this was a compromise from the old donut-
shape plan. He said tliat the berm came up to the top roofline, so you couldn't see the roofline
as you approached from the west. He then showed the parf<ing lot two ways. He said th~e drop-
off area allowed for valet-type parking. He said the building was still conceptual witli two parking
lot altemalives. He said there had also been discussion on whether or not to add a parking
slructure to this site. I-le said Todd Oppenheimer had taken a look at it and he had adde~d 6-8
par{<ing spaces. He said Ihat a parking sfructure wotald encroach inlo the soccer field with the
access ramp cutting in?o the Northwoods berm and that there were off-site consideration's to be
considered with a structure. F-le said the applicant would like some feedback on how many
spaces would need to be added to the baseline of 65 parking spaces. He said that stackable
chairs would be used in the auditorium space which would be used as lecture space or qroup
gatherings.
George Rulher asked how often did the ex I
y pecl to use the cenler as a multi-purpose space;
once a weelc or once a monlli?
I-lelen Frilcli said small presentalions wotald be on-goirig trirougliout tflc year to include, •
approximately 10 people.
Satnmye Meadows said 3-5 evening lectures would occur during the week.
I-lelen Fritcli said tlia( tliis was a shared par{cing space witli Bravo and the soccer field in tlie
suniiner.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment.
Jim Lamont, representing EVHA, said the neighborhood along Vail Valley drive would prefer to -
have the same principals as for Gold Peak; no net increase in parking with a management plan._. He said that the management plan could mitigate a lot of the issues that came up at the Imeeting
Susan, Lauren and I attended. He said our position fias not changed from the Golden Peak
situation. He felt an efficient parkirig structure couldn't happen on tliis site without complications. ,
He said that 65 spaces should be made the maximum using a management plan for the
allocation of the spaces. He stated that meetings would be episodic, but the auditorium might be_
showing a vicleo all the time. He said the Rec District, Bravo and the Alpine Garden would all
tiave episodic meetings, but the garden would have an on=going use. He said it needed a
management plan. He felt it should be opened in the summer. He said for special events a~y
special event gate would go down with an attendant to monitor it. He said a drop-off function
the elderly became a major point of concern, since people wouldn't be able to back out. IHe felt,;'`„" "
the width of the access road would cause looky-loo visitors and parking would be a problem in
tlie winter. He said the intent should not be a skier parking lot which exasberbates the traffic flow!.~~
_ . ,
Planning and L'nvironmcntal Commission
M inutcs
l'cbruary 24, 1997 10
througti there. He said Iie was supportive of this location change. F-le said that Northwoods was
extremely nervous and if tliis would be a major tourist attraction, then Northwoods wanted bus
access. He said the Rec District was concerned that the parking lot was inlo their golf area,
wiiicli would be one o( tlie major deterrents in additional parking spaces. He said tliat
Northwoods was waiting to see the design of ttie building. To have ttie parking drive the site,
when it's operating like a hotcl has to be looked at, since this was a passive use facility. He said
they didn't see ttie econornics oi a covered parking structure similar to Golden Pealc. If tllis was
a tourism venue, then parking should be in the nortii lot and if it was well managed, then there -
wouldn't be a parlcing problem. He saicl the neighborliood was not for any parking structures. -
John Schofield asl<ed who Jim represented.
Jim Lainonl said from Nortliwoods to ttie Vorlauffer, but not east of that.
Greg Moffet asked for any additional public comment. There was none.
Jolin Schofield said the potential would be the 114 seats would be used on a real regular basis .
and tlie existing parking areas were fulf. F-le felt the applicant would need to supply a substantial
supply of parking; at least as many spaces as are already there. He felt the quantity oi parking
and management o( parking were his 2 concerns.
I-lelen Fritcfi said they were relying on tiie Ford Park Managemenl Plan to increase ttie bus ' system to be on the Town sliuttle bus. She said library users almost tolally ride the bus. She
• said aur sumrrier sludies sliow visilors came by bus. Sfie said not to assume that everyone
would go to this parlcing first and then go to the cenler. Helen felt tliat rnanaging the parking was
very imporlant, as in thc win?ertime i( was used for skier parking, wilh a lot oi cars blocking in
other cars. She said she didn't see tiiat as a problem in tiie summer, as Bravo uses tlle parking
in tiie summer. .
John Scho(ield said there was a fair amount of overlap and it needed to be taken care of now, so
that it did not becorne considerable.
Gene Uselton said wedding reception participants wouldn't ride the bus.
Helen Fritch said tlie wedding party could park and allocate thc guests to park elsewliere. She
said if lfiere was a Bravo concert, tiien Bravo should contribute to ttle management of the .
parking. She asked about the illuminated signs by the Blue Cow Chute stating parking was full. Jim Lamont said the management plan needed to,be addressed by the Commission before this
got approved. ! , .
Gene Uselton said people preferred to drive their cars.
. . .
Jim Lamont said these were issues that needed to be put-in writing and addressed by Bravo and ii :
the Rec Center before this could proceed.
, .
Gene Uselton asked said what ihe EVHA wanted to do? ~
Jim Lamont said the neighborhood wanted to see a managed parking plan.
Planning and L'nvironmental Conunission
Minutcs
rebruary 24, 1997 11
George Ruther said the draft of the Ford Park Management Plan was based upon the schedule of events. He said that new development needed to accommodate its own parking on the site • •
with no net loss of parking. ,
Greg Moffet said if a net increase in use was perceived, then new parking was needed. .
George Ruther said new development should not be allowed without accommodating new
parking.
Jim Lamont said this was tiie first project to go through and we needed to manage it. Fle said
there wasn't any proven management system. I
George Ruther saicl some rnanagement solutions would be to incentivise bus service. The bus
service was not being used as articulated by the VVF and the gardens. I
Sammye Meadows said when people have called for directions to the gardens in the past, they
were told to park in the structure and ride the bus and that had worked.
Todd Oppenheimer said the master schedule for Ford Park will take care of that.
Greg Mof(et said there was not a management plan, so let's talk about the development standards for this project. .
Greg Amsden said development standards established for other zone districts need about 18 • rriore spaces. IAe agreed tiiat tliere needs to bc a management plan in place prior to a f~irial
decision on this project. ,
Galen Aasland saw this as a wonderful amenity for the community and that the move had now
rnzdc il a clestinalion. f-le felt tlial lhc hus would not solve all the problems and there was a need '
for more parlcing spaces. He said access needs to be providcd for catering, deliveries, 'etc. and that tfiis was going to create a use for additional parking.
Diane Golden said if you build it they will come; that it was human nature that people wanted to
drive. She asked about the valet parking.
David Kenyon said that alternative A in the packet showed 65 spaces with a brick surface with a
roll curb to allow spaces that could be blocked in. He said this would afford an additional 10-11 cars to be parked but it pushes the surface parking lot 18'-20' into the golf course whicfi would cause resistance from the Rec District. He said today there were 57 parking spaces and with a
restriping the baseline would be 65 spaces. He asked the PEC to determine how many spaces
would be needed based on code. ,
Helen Fritch mentioned that David was trying to fit all the spaces on the surface without going to' 2 levels.
' • _ .,r~:
Jim Lamont said there was no bus service presently to this site and there had to be a
commitment from the Town to provide bus service to this site.
Planning and Lnvironmental Commission
Minutcs '
February 24, 1997 12 "
;
F-Ienry Pratl saicl that Iie was pleased to move the buiiding out oi the garden and create a
destination. Henry said ttie reaction is to apply TOV parking to tiiis tacility to accommodate the
use. He (elt that the parking area proposed was totally adequate. He said i( it was made larger
there would be a lot of gol( balls into windowshields. He said to eliminate thc parking lol and
leave only enough for handicapped parking and staff. I-le suggested, in order to solve the no-net
loss of parking, putting the parlcing on the Frontaye Road or a structure at the east end over by
the 8-lane iiigliway. He advised to not increase the parking, reclaim some of ttie asphalt and
only have a drop-oif and turnaround area to get ihe parking out of lhere. He said we learned
from Golclen Peal<, and the same standards slIould be applied as Gold Peak. Henry said he was
not in entire agreement with ttie Ford Park Master Plan. He didn't want retaining walls.
Todd Oppenheimt:r said we were talking only surface lots. Henry Pratt said a structure over tliere is nol that far off in ihe future, since the Village Structure was full anci it needed to be plugged into the Ford Par{< Master Plan
Diane Golden disagreed with F-fenry, as no parking was unrealistic for the children's activities.'
She said Ihat this Town i-iad to be kept viable for families.
Greg Mo((et said ultimately a bigger solution needs to happen and we needed to see the Master plan to address ttie parking issues. He said this would create a stunning setting for weddings,
but will result in a need for increa.sed parkirig. He said there needs to be a sufficienl increase in,
parking, but on what kind o( a regular basis are the uses. He said that managed solutions do not '
' address tlie times wtien no orie was (ully-sla(fed. He staled ttie concern o( lower bus .
frequencies, as there were not enouyh drivers. He said he was very leery with depending too ,
much on a managed solution. I-Ic said ttie PEC role was to develop standards (or lhis use. Greg
felt that there should bc; 25-45 nel new par{<ing spaces. 'Greg Amsden said the success of this center would be ils access and to eliminate thc island. •
David Kemyon said fhe eliminalion of the island would destroy the Gore Range view. .
Jim Lamont said Dave Corbin, with VA, would be interested in managing the lot if il could be
used for iiis employees. He said that everything in Vail was managed. He said the only option .
was managed parking, as money was not ttiere for a structure.
Helen Fritch said a lid could be put on it in the future. .
Susan Connelly suggested astroturfing one of the playing fields. Jim Lamont said the visual impact from the Northwoods residents had to be considered. He said
what was being dealt with now should keep the parking status quo for the use now. He felt
Henry's solution was too quick. He said there'was parking enough to justify that building and to
proceed with a managed parking w/gate solution.
Greg Moffet thought Henry's suggestion was too much to swallow at once.
David Kenyon said Henry's suggestion was good as it would green up more space. He said if there was more demand at a later time, they could contribute to additional parking at the other ;
structures in Ford Park.
Planning and I:nviromnental Commission Minutcs
Pcbruary 24, 1997 13
. . .
I-lenry Praft said that he was pleased to move the building out of the garden and create a
deslination. Henry said the reaction is to appiy TOV parking to ihis facility to accommodate the``~ 'use. He fell that the parl<ing area proposed was totally adequate. He said if it was made larger • =there would be a lot of golf balls into windowshields. He said to eliminate the parking lot iand leave only enough for handicapped parlcing and staff. He suggested, in order to solvc the no-net
loss of parking, putting the parking on the Frontage Road or a structure at the east end over by the 8-lane highway. He advised to not increase the parking, reclaim some of the asphalt and
only have a drop-off and turnarouncl area to get the parking out of there. He said we learned • from Golden Peak, and the same stanclards should be applied as Gold Pea{<. Henry said he was
not in entire agreement with the Ford Park Masler Plan. He didn't want retaining walls. -Todd Oppenheimer said we were talking only surface lots. .
:•i,:: .
Henry Pratt said a structure over tiiere is not that far off in the future, since the Village Structure
was full and it needed to be plugged into the Ford Park Master Plan
Diane Golden disagreed with Henry, as no parking was unrealistic for the children's activities.
Sfie said that this Town had to be kept viable for (amilies.
,
Greg Moffet said ultimately a bigger solution needs to fiappen and we needed to see the Master
plan to address the parking issues. He said this would create a stunning setting for wedclings, but will result in a need for increased parlcing. He said there needs to be a sufficient increase in
parking, but on what kind oi a regular basis are the uses. He said that managed solulions do not
address tfie times when no one was fully-staffed. t-le stated the concern of lower bus .
irequencies, as there were not enough drivers. He said iie was very leery with depending too •much on a managed sofution. f-le said the PEC role was to develop standards for this use. Greg
fcll that there should be 25-45 net new parl<ing spaces. I
Greg Amsden said the success of tfiis cen.ter would be its access and to eliminate the island.
David Kenyon said the eli?nination of the island would destroy the Gore Range view.
Jim Lamont said Dave Corbin, with VA, would be interested in managing the lot if it could be
used for his employees. I-le said that everything in Vail was managed. He said the only option was managed parking, as inoney was not there for a structure. .
Helen Fritch said a lid could be put on it in the future.
Susan Connelly suggested astroturfing one of the playing fields.
Jim Lamont said the visual impact from the Northwoods residents had to be considered. He said ' what was being dealt with now should keep the parking status quo for the use now. He felt
Henry's solution was too quick. He said there was parking enough to justify that building and to '3 t'r~•'»I
proceed with a managed parking w/gate solution. • .t
Greg Moffet thouglit f-lenry's suggestion was too much to swallow at once. .
„ ~ c..
David Kenyon said Henry's suggestion was good as it would green up more space. He said if
there was more demand at a later time, they could contribute to additional parking at the other ' :
structures in Ford Park. ; ,
~I.. .
Planning and linvironmental Comtnission -
Minutcs Fcbniary 24, 1997
- - - _
, . ~
- . - - ~ .
,
~ - - - -
..r
~
_ .
_ - - -
.
. . ~ ~
- , - -
. - -
. . " - - - - -
. .
, .
~ - \ _ - ` - " - _ - -
-
. .
.
- - -
• . ..1 - -
. - - -
. ~ - - - - - - - ,
- - - _ _ , ~ ~
~
~
• - -
~
~ . . . ~ - - - - - -
- -
- _ - -
. . _ _ -
.
- - .
- _
- - -
~ _ . . ~
.
- - - - -
- • - . - - - - - - - . _
.
- -
.
_
I 1 ~ r
-~~----~t . - -
. _ - -
,
. ,,.~.~xr:.7~rr_• =,~._,u_~_ . ' - _ _ _ ' "_.c'_' _ ____t~._~'.--'-::= - ~
.7,'C~_.. - - -1~, . , ' _'~~•:J - ° - ~ - -
~
' ' - '
.
. . - - - - -
. . - - - - - - - - ' - •
(
i - - -
_ , • .
- - -
. _ - 1.._ 1 ~ - - • - - - - _ ~
~4:'".. • ~.J~-'t ~~;•r,: ~.c~ ~ f. ~ ~ : ~ . -
, . -
--_c .,:-.-i-- :.a• W' : ~ ~
~ _ . r _
~ . ....ii
L •
. . . . i
.
:
• ;f . e , ,
. . . _ . .
. . . . ,
. ' 7_
. ~ . .
. , . _ .
.
.
.
If
~
. ~ . ,
.
. .i.i .
. ~ . . . .
. . . . . ~
. . . . .
, . .
~
. . _ _ _ _
I, .
.
l~
. . . . _ r..
• . `
1• 1 ,
. , r,._.... . . • ~
, ' ~.i•.~~ l,j;
) • ~ `i ro
. , . , . ~ ~ .
P,,T~R
. ~..;i: • r;;;r ; : - 1 1 ~ ) ~ ~ ' . . ~ ~ ,
ori .a,rie~ r nnN~:,cc
r nC11r:n111 rAnK\
~~-~~c ' r _ • : ~ . / ~ o
- ' ; , ~ \ _ . . .'..i ~ ~ ~ • . . ~
jf.\
,_~1 I ~ ..._<~,.._'I.J
•i:, 'o-,; t - `
`a.:
:..r~.. • ` • ~ ~
1T =l ,s ~ , , , r,.'~. ' ..f ._,\\\1r . . J~~~
_ ` ~ . . . t, / . ' ~ . ' . ~ •
J'~ '.~1~ .•.7 : ` .~~`I~• .r~. 1!// -''t . • \~-'r. ' l
. .
/
• ~ ~ .
. .
.
.
• ' "
' _
, ~ ~ , . . ' . V .
, ~ . .
~ _.j...f'.i,.l / • \ ' .i"
• 11 . . r 1. •
\ ~ ' q .
~M1~.!.~i,:.l~~.~ , f 1,, . ~ ' . . ~-I l. _ . .I 1.._. . .
. - ) , ~f r ~
c~ l.
~~..1~,'~__~;~~~~, _ i.~ . ; . ! ; ~ .
~ z ~ ~ • ~
7,
I ~ , 1
, ~ ` . ' , • ~;~1 :I ! 11 ,I / ~~.;t. \ • y/;~
~ , ~ .,va::~~,;;,.,: ~ • '1 ' . . ,
• . , , J,i. ~1~ _ ~ . . ' . • ~ f:~ .
~'~~~t • . ;:i~\( _
` ~ , . • ~ . ~l ~ ' ~ / • . . " ,r. . ~J%;~i
~ . ,I . , , ' ~ ' • . 1i~1~ • i
. T,; " 1fIf~~' ~1 , , t. '....~.'1 y~ ~~_.,d+t;:
:j~\'\,,'~ I r.,.~ `I. ''\~~`V_.. _ •I'•`.i'••~\~,1 ,~~i~~ `~~-R~w V-~.n / -
- :~~.~~,-..1~ . . ( J' : ' ' : _ ~ : . . /
.
• '
. .
.
.
. . :i
, . . . . . ; . ,
.
. . . -
,
~
, . f . . _
~ .
.
~
. . , .
. ..i
~ . :
S ~ , ' ' .
. ~ . . ~ ~'i
. . ,
.
.
. .
~
, •
. .
,
.
. . . •
,f.,~
. .
.
. .
~ ~ ..C'~
. , . . . _
\
. . , . I ;
• ~t~`,'•,~ . ~ ~ , ~ ' ~ ' , ~ > " ~ ( '
..'11 /r' , / l. _ , . _
_ . • : ; •
4~ j . . . ~ : - _ ~ _
~`s.._ ` . . - . / , ,S~ ~ ~ ~ ~
: - I .nl~j _ 1 ' f. - ,
_
f
fX
r ~
I~,~/---.~---
;_j / NG AND
PAIRKi
~ r' . /
; ~~~r : ~ ~ ~ti;~~ J i~.~ ~~~~UL ATION
~LAN
~n,1. i
~
3 'VAIL VILi.AGC PLAN
. ~ ~ -
ISTING PUDLIC PARIfING LEGEND
Y AREA P[O[STHIAN NETY'/CfiK .
MtUEStRUNOIRC[IS•MOOqUWI[OAVIOS%AU7.
~ . 2 • WAlK3 ALOIiO 61R([IS- AIf~CNfO ECFW-IKl1 . I e • • ~ ~ ' ' • •
01ocsrn"Ny ew.ne :Infua MrN AuToa
. 3
' A ' / \ r..u~..• r.,~ :
~ '1 euf=--u 0M11YCD. WAY! I NENIjrLOllqM SIPft171 • ~
5 rn..C-Jm WMKIMO ?AfN "..r
. ~s, - . .
~ . SL a ~ (JC / ~
. . - • .~?;?i« . ~ v c
. . - ~ / ~ •10' ~ ' % --'"t~ \ -
/ axis~4i 0z~ =!~I , IAL 10' !tl~, ::L4Sl~\ ip
_ ng 6~ 3U1~7!N5 t,JING
V~ p 2<.
, ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~ _ ~ I I _ ~ • ~ ~ J ~
Vo;i Villoge. Seventh Filinq
~ ' i i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ f . ~ 27'
:5.2 i1••, P~
Sr~P.G°S
C SL~~A.,t IV.~ 57
. ' ~ I ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' 1, ``e ~A~,~,c 4J s"~i`-S
I ~iiti I~ e S
i I ~ ~ ~ I i ~ ~ ' . • ~
~~I~,I~~ ~ . , UU
• ' " ' ~ I ' ~ i ' ' i -
I ,
~ i
' ~ ! ~ • 1 . 1~ 61].D]'
~ ; ; ~ ~ ! ; ~ ; I,~ , ~ t l ~ - - ' •z,.s
a. `----f--------
~ ~ 1 •
- 6236'____1~ R..treom ' ~y~~ ~ ~
~.DU CAI.1ON . . EVI°ED ON~,EP UAL f E LAN
C'ff N:~ E R - n .
C T ~ T ~
~ ReTTY FORD A LPIN~ ARv~\~5
~ .
. / ~ ~ ~ - ' -SUt3•S~?-~.ti= ~,~.a.;tl~G
!25 St~~~:S)
/ e.~u.,b,. ~ • i ~ ' i`ti~ 1 \
/ 821 ,,4
~oi
S~M
;z
~
..6
1 I ? ~ ~ ~ ~ I 2
/ • ~ ~ - i
Lot A. B!ock 2
Voil Yltoqe. Seventl r'il;nq
i 27.7
. . ~LFt L1 ti
I ~ \
i I
I1f +
ST°~t f~7 ~
j~ ~ i I i i ~ ~ ~ i r - - f _ . 1 Is gD' ~ , \
I 1
3~
y,~••~" - - ~
~ . ' i i l 1 ~ ~ ~ , ~ i • ~ ~ e~s.o~' .
~ i i L - . ~ ~ ? , ` ` ~
~
~
• i ~ ~l ~ vai,
j
5236 fDUCATION CEN i ER KEVISED (:ONC=PTUAL ~ITE~ pLA~
I ~
. . ; RCTTY F02D nLDINE ('TA2J°\~ ~ i--
k2r
~
\ ~5 ! I`J~.NTIiY SiGN<+G:
~lg • v.A'+Z,e,~,~ ~N i
=s
- ~
AGG°_55 ~ 2~~
' i -
. „ .
~ A, SU"ia~~~iNG - 66 57,•~~S
. . • ~ Gk-
~S-
- __j 1 ~ ~ ~ . • ` ~ '
~ ~ i ' 'F76'c e E '
. . ~zmTNNING WA(_L
. . ~ ~ I 6•
~ ' .
. If \
1
. ~
, . , - . ~ ~-21'
I
1,h 22.0
-
• , " ~ ~ r btti5-cyVG
: ~ 1g L' 10' x 2p' ~ 2j Sh.~G~S~
~
1 •
i
~~tN. \ aaU1LbINC-. oV;.LW~
. . ~ ,-STAii~ ~02~1..it.~. -•~t~o~i~ ~ .
:I~
. if ~ /
• • ~L~YATO~- j ~ /
~w b~~T.
, . . . ~KC"'f v lii ';•lif ~ ~ .
~ -
. ' . . q.:~
..,~~.'4~,~I. . . . • ~ . . ` .
\
\ .
\
O \ /
. . _ . . • - •-ti.._.. y ~
~ - - ~ - ~
. . ~
V OG • L
MCtiHAWfPA., , ~I - , " ~ O
~ • ~ ~
. - ~ . n .
\ ~ I i f~r = r-o•
. J`.;N- Zn ip°7
~ i
!~i~li;lill i II
~ - .
u
4. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit, to allow for the
construction of the Alpine Garden Education Center, located at 620 Vail Valley
Drive/Tract A, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, represented by Helen Fritch
Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica gave an overview of the memo. He stated there was a 17 parking space deficiency.
He said as proposed, loading was a concern, because backing out would be a problem on Vail
Valley Drive and the VRD had not yet approved an encroachment in their lease area. He said
the VRD must give their approval. He explained that snow storage and landscaping would be
detailed at the final review. He said that the Town staff was relying on the Vail Village Master
Plan and Streetscape Master Plan, as it related to Vail Valley Drive improvements and that the
pedestrian connection was imperative, in the least, to the Northwoods property adjacent to the
west.
Helen Fritch asked where the Town's walkway would extend to.
Mike Mollica said it would go to Gold Peak.
Greg Hall said the only requirement Northwoods had, was for a sidewalk.
Mike Mollica stated all outstanding issues needed to be addressed by August 4th, if the final PEC
review would be August 11th.
Plaruiing and Lnvironmental Comiuission
Miuutes
July 28, 1997 5
Helen Fritch said she wanted to have this be an approvable plan and the direction frorn Council
was to use the surface parking for the public and the Center's parking under the building. She
stated that the plan was expandable to add more parking in the future, if others wanted to
participate in the expense.
David Kenyon, from Design Workshop, said there was a lot of concern about the VRD and the
encroachment. He said they used the existing surface parking lot as our baseline limit and
squared the parking lot, which increased the parking by about 7 spaces. He said the parking you
spaces were maximized in an efficient pattern. He mentioned that from two perimeteir ~s~e surface
would not see the building with the sod roof being built under the berm and therefore,
parking would also be hidden.
Helen Fritch said all the parking was to be addressed under the Ford Park Management Plan and
there would be no problem with the bustop, or pedestrian walkway. She said they were
proposing racks of plantings that could be sold and also be an architectural form. She said this
project added an amenity to the Town, as it would operate throughout 4 seasons, could be a
community gathering place and was a tax opportunity for the tax revenue with the plant sales.
She said it was more usable then open space. She said the parking was covered, wlell lit and
protected and they didn't want an additional 16-17 parking spaces to encumber this plan.
1
Todd Oppenheimer said the whole connection from the Education Center to the Alpi ne Garden
didn't work. He also said the whole site drained into the garage, which was a mistake and would
need an extra storm sewer. Larry Grafel said the Town's philosophy was no net loss of parking spaces.
Helen Fritch said this was not the message we were getting from the Town Council. She said
they were directed to go back to surface parking. She said that the Council said the,y wanted this
building and if someone could tell us how to put in more parking spaces, to do so.
Bob Kinney, a representative of the Alpine Garden Board, said the lot now had 57 parking
spaces and the Council wanted to see 65 parking spaces.
Galen Aasland asked if the underground parking could have a 2nd level.
David Kenyon said cost would be a factor.
Ann Bishop asked why 65 parking spaces.
Mike Mollica said there were 57 parking spaces there now, however, and the benchmark was 65
spaces. He said the applicant requested that the Town be a partner in this venturel . The Council
declined. He said the PEC had the ability to determine if 17 more parking spaces were required.
David Kenyon said they had a discussion with the Town Council and thought perhaps no parking
should occur here, because it was Ford Park, which led us to this design with 66 parking spaces.
I
Ann Bishop said there should be no net increase in parking, with parking only for people unable
to walk. She said it was such a beautiful space and should be used for a plaza.
Planning and Luviroimiental Commission
M inutes 6
July 28, 1997
Ann Bishop said to keep parking to a minimum, as it was to be used for an education center, with
the money being spent on education, not on parking.
Pam Brandmeyer said the same number of spaces were to be kept and it was up to the PEC to
determine the appropriate number of spaces.
Jim Lamont, representing the EVHA, said there should be no net loss and no net increase of
parking. He asksd if this was nat a non-profit, would it be treated differently. He said there was
general agreement that this was the project for this site and it would get mediated out as part of
the management plan, because there were alot of uses for this parking. He said that all uses
should share in the use of this facility. Fie said he had a meeting with a resident of Northwoods,
who was not thrilled with the surface parking on this site, with a request that the surface parking
go away. Jirn said it was not common sense to add two layers of parking and also get this
project accomplished and so, managed parking would have to be addressed.
Diane Golden asked if handicap parking had to be designated.
Mike Mollica said it would need to be provided.
Bill Kinney said we wou{d push the standards, as we want the elderly.
Galen Aasland asked if the applicant talked to the VRD.
David Kenyon said no, that they did not own the land and only a small area was in their lease.
Helen Fritch said when parking went underground, the VRD was concerned with getting
deliveries in and we have solved that.
Galen Aasland said parking was a big issue and huge challenge. He thought it should be further
to the east, with a loading zone to pick-up soccer kids.
David Kenyon said the school bus could stop at the bustop. He said there would be a drop-off
for ADA and small vehicles in front of the center.
Helen Fritch said soccer pick-up could be where the bus turnaround was.
David Kenyon said there would be 41 spaces accessible to the public; not 65 helter-skelter
spaces.
Galen Aasland said there would be more people here and there needed to be a place to pick kids
up and also for loading. He said he didn't see room for a UPS truck or catering truck. He
suggested the loading space could be diagonal on the corner. He asked where the applicant
would store snow.
David Kenyon said on the soccer field.
Galen Aasland said there should be a way for more short-term parking and suggested the
applicant go to the Council to get the number of spaces.
Planning and Cnviromnental Co?nmissio?
Minutes
July 28, 1997 7
Ann Bishop said others sharing the lease, should share the parking management plan. She said,
regarding elderly people and kids on bikes, she was not certain it was safe. She sai8 having
movable modules with plants was interesting, in a visual sense.
Helen Fritch said the forms could be turned into a handicap space.
Diane Golden was supportive of this project. She said that parking was used by many
organizations and should stay that way. She said that soccer moms stay to watch their kids play
and need to park here.
David Kenyon said the intent of the education center was to have views and parking up to the
windows would destroy that.
Greg Amsden asked if there was any elevation change between the windows and the plaza.
David Kenyon said would go from a$6 million project to a$14 million project, if more parking
needed to go underground.
Helen Fritch said there would be outdoor receptions and weddings in the summertime and we
would need the plaza.
Diane Golden said the applicant had made a concerted effort that this would not be parking for
just the Alpine Gardens, but for other uses as well. She asked where would the sch'ool buses
wait.
Helen Fritch said groups now wait at the top of the Vail Village Transportalion Center.
Diane Golden asked about off-site improvements.
David Kenyon said there would be improvements along the road.
Diane Golden said there needed to be a sidewalk.
Helen Fritch said we needed to know where the sidewalk should go, as it was unresolved, but it
would be nice to tie the sidewalk into the Nature Center.
Gene Uselton asked if there would be a lot of activity in the winter.
Helen Fritch said yes, and compared it to the Library, as a place for non-skiers.
Gene Uselton asked if a lift operator could park in the lot at 7:00 in the morning.
Helen Fritch said we were looking to the Ford Park Management Plan for managing parking for
large events, not being in conflict with soccer games, etc.
Gene Uselton asked if the PEC was constrained by the Ford Park Management Plan.
Todd Oppenheimer said no, as a lot of the parking was deleted and the PEC was to deal with it
on a case-by-case basis.
Planning and Enviromncntal Commissian
Minutcs 8
July 28, 1997
, .
Larry Grafel said the public must have an opportunity to park and that managed parking denies
the public parking by limiting it.
Helen Fritch said the Town may want to have underground parking in the future.
Larry Grafel said we would want the applicant to provide for the future funding for the sidewalk
with a commitment. He said the drainage problem was part of the site development.
Gene Uselton supported the sidewalk and bustop.
Ann Bishop said there needed to be a bike path with the number of kids on bikes.
Larry Grafel said the plan was anticipated and agreed it was very congested.
Ann Bishop said to expect a lot more traffic, if this was as wonderful as it looked, but it was very
unsafe.
Larry Grafel said ihis was no different than any other developer, with the off-site improvements.
Diane Golden left at 4:20 p.m.
Greg Amsden stated there needed to be a bustop on Vail Valley Drive at the expense of the
applicant. He said there needed to be a parking structure and the applicant should sacrifice
some of the plaza for more parking. He said that all the parking would be absorbed by the need
for skier parking. Greg Amsden said there should be some solutions for the different seasons.
He said it was a historic use by ski instructors.
Helen Fritch said VA declined to participate in any underground parking.
Jim Lamont said the Town was not obligated to provide parking for all its employees. He said to
argue "first in line," would not be consistent with a management plan that might be developed.
He thought we could lease spaces for VA, to have control over these spaces.
David Kenyon asked if we wanted to generate traffic on Vail Valley Drive.
Greg Moffet said that 135 parking spaces went out of circulation with Gold Peak. He said that
four times last season the structure was sold out, and this project would make the parking
structure full more often.
Larry Grafel said that 83 days in the winter both structures were full, which is triple.
Jim Lamont said the Town was obligated to correct the problem if the structure goes over a
certain number of days being full.
Larry Grafel said the overflow onto the Frontage Rd. was 20 days, up from below a 15 day
threshold.
Greg Moffet was concerned about taking another 65 spaces out of the pie, as it would alienate
our customer base and it would also be unsafe to walk down Vail Valley Drive.
Plauiiing and Environmental Coirviussion
Minutes
July 28, 1997 9
Bob Kinney said that in the winter there would be 66 spaces, with only 4 reserved for the Alpine
Gardens.
Jim Lamont asked about winter events that take place on a Saturday.
Helen Fritch said the management plan would kick in.
Greg Amsden said the management plan may not be in place for 30 years.
Jim Lamont again said a condition of approval could be to have a management plan.
Greg Amsden suggested considering usage of the plaza in the winter and also the east side of
the plaza, which was underutilized.
Pam Brandmeyer said the Town had increased bus service. She said that VA had purchased 45
parking passes to make up for the loss of parking at Golden Peak. She suggested plutting
together a parking recommendation for the Town Council, as this was the first test ofl a case-by-
case review. She said there would be huge conflicts with parking with this increased use in Ford
Park. Greg Moffet said a managed solution accomplished nothing. He said that because this was a
GU Zone District, he would look the other way for the parking requirement on a day-t~~o-day basis.
Greg said he was in favor of this request with the caveat that no "reserved" parking ~space signs
be in place for "Alpine Garden only." He would consider adding underground parking to the blue
' pass inventory to fully utilize the parking. He suggested letting the parties, Alpine Garden, VRD
and the Foundation, work it out. He said that government should not work it out. G jeg said a
bustop was needed to work out the site planning issues with the VRD. He said there should be a
sidewalk in front. He agreed with Greg Amsden, in wanting 17 more parking spaces.
Helen Fritch said the skiers were cruising to locate an empty space and making the
neighborhood unsafe and that VA would be interested in renting spaces.
Ann Bishop suggested another worksession on the parking.
Jim Lamont said the users had to work it out amongst themselves.
Larry Grafel said we would have 5 more sessions with VA to get a management plan for this
year, but we would not have a plan until October 11 th. He said the dilemma was th~at there was
plenty of parking in the summer and not enough in the winter, which was on a first-come, first-
serve basis. He said that the developer said they couldn't pay for more parking and we can't
predict what the Town Council wants.
David Kenyon said all five plans have been alternatives for the parking issue.
Helen Fritch again said the plan was expandable, if a need was required.
Ann Bishop asked how much would it cost for one underground space.
David Kenyon said about $25,000-$30,000 per space.
Planning and Lnvironmental Conunission
Minutes 10
Jidy 28, 1997
~ ' .
Larry Grafel said there were 83 days that one or the other structure was filied and he said they
filled a Friday night in Lionshead for the first time ever.
Jim Lamont said that when we were looking at the swimming pool, none of these issues were a
problem and if this wasn't a worthy amenity, then you should tell them to go away.
Greg Amsden suggested putting parking (in the winter months) to the east, at the end of the
soccer field.
Greg Moffet asked for a summary of the parking issue.
Greg Amsden wanted more parking.
Galen Aasland said he was not in favor of adding parking spaces; just increased usage of the
existing spaces. He said he would like to see spaces added on the south and adding parking
underneath.
Ann Bishop said she didn't feel the applicant needed to add more spaces.
Greg Moffet said not to add spaces.
Greg Amsden suggested adding spaces during the winter.
Helen Fritch said that this was a TOV lease, not VRD, and asked if it needed to be worked out
with the Public Works Department.
Gene Uselton agreed with Greg Amsden.
Greg Moffet worried about large delivery trucks, with regards to loading and he stated that the
PEC was ok with all the other issues.
Plannivg and EnviroNnental Conunission
h4inutes
July28, 1997 ~-1
MEMORANDCIM
Datc: August 5, 1997
To; Vail Town Council
From: Gcorgc Ruthcr, Town Planncr
Mikc Mollica, ASSistant Dircctoc of Community Dcvclopmcnt
{Zc: Alpinc Gardcn Education Ccntcr Proposal Updatc
On Monday, July 28, 1997, the Planning and Environmcntal Commission hcid a workscssion
mecting to discuss thc proposcd Alpine Garden Education Centcr in Ford Park. In preparation
tor the mccting, staff prepared a memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission.
(A copy ofthe manorandum and dratt minutes were provicled in the Council Packet) Section IV
af the mcmorandum outlincs scvcral issucs which the staff had idcntificd and fclt should bc
discusscd by the Planning and Environmcntal Commission and the applicnnt. E3clow is a sunimary
of thc discussion on cach of the issucs:
Parkina Loading and Deliverv
• llow should the parking and loading requirements be assessed and how will the
underground parking structure be managed and operated?
OF,ill thc i5sucs discLrsscd, thcsc two issucs gcncrltcd the most ciiscussion and dcbatc.
Thc Planning and Environmcntal Commistiion fclt that the parl<ing issuc nccds lo bc
discusscd and resolvcd with hclp of thc Town Council. Thc PEC fclt thc parking issuc
rclating to the cducation ccntcr is vcry similar to the parking policy issucs the Town and
Vail Associatcs discusscd as pait of the Gold Pcak ski basc ccdcvclopmcnt. As such, the
staff bclicvcs the Town Council, the applicant and the othcr potcntially affcctcd parties
nccd to schcdulc a meeting. Thc purposc of the mccting would bc to discuss and scek a
resolution to the parking policy issues at the soccer field parking lot resulting from the
construction af the education ccnter.
• liow will large vehicles be accommodated on and off the site?
As proposed, large vehicles (delivery trucks) cannot turnaround on the site. At the
rcqucst of the PEC, the applicant has agrecd to revisit the site planning of the proposal
with the intcnt of providing turnaround capabilities for large vehicles. The applicant has
proposcd the use of a bus stop that they will construct adjacent to the education center to
accommodate a drop-off location for school and tour buses.
1
itc Plan
• 1[as the Vail Recreation District granted an approval for the education center
improvements to encroach upon their lease area?
Thc applicant hati agrccd to mcct with rcpcc5cntativcs fi-om thc Vail Rccrcation District to
discuss thc cducation ccntcr proposal and to scck approval of thc improvcmcnts which
cncroach upon thc District's lcasc Zrca. Thc prescnt proposal only slightly incrcascs thc •
impacts on the District's lcase area than currently cxist. The PEC urgcd thc a~ipplicant to
bcgin discussions with thc Vail Rccreation District.
• Where will plowed snow be stored on the site?
The applicant has proposed to use the soccer field to accommodate the stoc-age of snow.
Thc PCC was agrccablc with the proposcd snow storagc arca.
• How will on-site pedestrian circulation be accommodated?
Thc applicant 1nd PEC both agreed that therc is a need for a sidewalk at thc ~cducation
ccntcr to acconunodatc pcdcstrian traffic. Thc applicant will rcvise thc sitc plan ancl
propotic a location and dcsign for thc sidcwalk.
Off-Site Improvements
• Should the applicant be required to construct or provide a bond for the construction
of an off-site sidewalk adjacent to the development site?
Thc PEC and thc applicant agrccd that a sidcwalk nccds to bc providcd adjaccnt to thc
dcvclopmcnt sitc. Thc intcnt of thc sidcwalk is to providc pcdcstrian accctis to thc
cducation ccntcr fcom thc cxisting acccss to thc lowcr bcnch of Ford Park and Vail
Villagc. Thc applicant and PEC bclicvc that thc sidcwalk improvcments sho~luld bc bondcd
and constructcd at a futurc datc along with strcct improveinents to Vail Vallcy Drive.
Thcrc was still some qucstion regarding the financial responsibilities f'or thc construction
and maintcnancc of thc sidcwalk that needs to bc resolved.
Pronosed Development Standards
• Are the proposed development standards appropriate for this development?
With the exccption of the parking and loading requiremcnts, the PEC bclieved that the
development standards ( i.e. uses, setbacks, building height, site coverage, e~ltc.) being
proposcd by the applicant werc appropriate for the proposed development site.
;r
;
.
R
1 .
~
Agencl:a las[ revised 7l30/97 y am
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, July 28, 1997
FINAL AGENDA
Proiect Orientatiora /LUNCH - Communitv Develop.ment Department 11:00 am MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Greg Moffet John Schofield
. Greg Amsden
Galen Aasland Gene Uselton
Diane Golden
Ann Bishop
Site Visits : 12:00 pm
1. Lashovitz - 1780 Sierra Trail
2. SBC Development - 1094 Riva Glen
3. Garton's - 143 E. Meadow Drive
4. Alpine Gardens - 620 Vail Valley Drive
5. Dobsen Ice Arena - Review of design charette results.
Driver: Mike
• Lionshead Master Plan - Review of design charette results (at Dobsen Ice 1:00 - 2:00
Arena) with Ethan Moore (DRB invited to attend)- 1 hour
(DRB members Brent Alm and Clark Brittain attended)
..;;~..o
~•:a;~:,o "
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearina - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a minor subdivision, to amend the location of the platted building envelope,
located at 1094 Riva Glen/Lot 4, Spraddle Creek Estates.
Applicant: SBC Development, represented by Resort Design and Associates (Gordon Pierce)
Planner: Dirk Mason
MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6-0
APPROVED WITH ONE CONDITION:
1. That prior to the PEC chairperson signing the amended plat, the applicant shall
submit to the Town of Vail Department of Community Development, a letter of
approval to amend the building envelope on Lot 4, from the Spraddle Creek
Architectural Control Committee.
TOWNOF~,116 ~
1
'Tok
Agenda last rcuiscd 7/30l97 9 am
2. A request to amend the existing conditional use permit for the outdoor dining deck, to
allow for the outdoor operation of a batting cage, located at 143 E. Meadow Drive/Lot P,
Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Dave Garton
Planner: Dirk Mason
MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 5-1 (Greg Amsden
opposed)
APPROVED WITH 13 CONDITIONS: (10 original conditions and 3 new conditions) .
1. The approval is granted until the use is modified or discontinued;
2. The use shall comply with Town of Vail noise standards, all other standards, and
shall remain compatible with other uses in the area;
3. Landscaping and general maintenance of the area shall be maintained and
remain in an orderly and aesthetic condition;
4. No outside cooking due to restrictions in Vail ViNage;
5. Maintenance of access to the ADA lift through the deck area;
6. Loading activities for Garton's must occur at approved Crossroads loading areas
only;
7. Valet parking will be provided as necessary by Garton's;
8. A curfew of 10:00 PM on all activities on the outdoor dining deck;
9. An automatic timer shall be installed to shut the music off promptly at 10:00 PM;
- 10. Prohibition on any banners or signs associated with the outdoor dming deck area
and activities and all other signage on site shall comply with the Town of Vail Sign
Code;
11. The batting cage hours of operation shall be from no earlier than 10:00 a.m. to no
later than 10:00 p.m. daily; and
12. The batting cage is to be removed during the winter months and during any one
week period of non-use during the summer months.
13. Any permanent or temporary storage of the batting cage, if on-site, must be
enclosed within the main structure.
~
e '
~ Agenda last revised 7/30/97 9 am
3. A request for a site coverage variance from Section 18.13.090 and side setback variance
from Section 18.13.060 of the Municipal Code, to allow for the construction of a garage
addition, located at 1780 Sierra Trail/Lot 24, Vail Village West Filing No. 1.
Applicant: Marc Lashovitz
Planner: Lauren Waterton
MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6-0
. APPROVED WITH THREE CONDITIONS: 1. That the applicant submits a Geologic Hazard Report, pursuant to Chapter 18.69,
of the Vail Municipal Code. The Geologic Hazard Report shall be reviewed and
approved by the Town of Vail, prior to the applicant submitting plans for a building
permit.
2. That the applicant installs a guardrail, or landscaping could be substituted subject
to review and approval by the Town staff, along the top of the existing retaining
wall (on their property) adjacent to Sierra Trail. The design and location of the
guardrail or landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail, prior
to the applicant submitting plans for a building permit.
3. That the garage addition (and stairs) not extend beyond the existing retaining wall.
The applicant shall submit a complete set of revised plans to the Town of Vail
Community Development Department for review and approval.
4. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit, to allow for the
construction of the Alpine Garden Education Center, located at 620 Vail Valley
Drive/Tract A, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, represented by Helen Fritch
Planner: Mike Mollica
WORKSESSION - NO VOTE
5. A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 2355 Ba1d
Mountain Road, West/ Lot 25, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing.
Applicant: Orthodontics Associates, represented by Rich Brown
Planner: Tammie Williamson
STAFF APPROVED
6. A request for a conditional use permit and a variance from Section 18.22.140 (On-Site
Required Parking), to allow for the operation of a real estate office in the Swiss Chalet,
located at 62 East Meadow Drive/Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 25,1997
3
Agenda last reviscd 7/30/97 9 am
7. Information Update
8. Approvat of July 14, 1997 minutes.
Tfie applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 .
TDD for information.
Community Development Department
4
X G
Oftab
~ vic,ru.0 l~.~d,~e,t~
40P
Town Council Update
Tuesday, August 5, 1997
April 2, 1997, the Art In Pubfic Places board and selection jury came before the Town Councii with a
recommendation to pursue design development with Jesus Bautista Moroles and Design Workshop for the
redevelopment of Seibert Circle and inclusion of a public art component. The recommendation was based
upon the following strengths in their original proposal:
1.) The use of natural materials and indigenous color scheme.
2.) The artist's ability to capture the flavor of our natural surroundings.
3.) The design opens the plaza and breathes life into the space.
4.) The combination of polished and rough-cut granite is elegant, enduring
and maintenance free.
5.) The use of text creatively conveys Peter Seibert's story.
6.) An artist of international reputation and recognition.
At the suggestion of Bob McLaurin, the Council tabled action on the Seibert Circle art piece to allow time
to explore options that would maintain the integrity of the selection process initiated by the AIPP board and
respect the wishes of Vail founder Pete Seibert, after whom the circle is named.
In response to Pete Seibert's concern that none of the artists or design teams had spoken with him
directly, the AIPP board brought Jesus Moroles back to Vail.
April 29, 1997 Pete Seibert, Sherry Dorward and Jesus Moroles met. That evening a Community Meeting
was held at the Ski Museum. Pete expressed his desire for the design to include a French quote, be more
reflective of the area, offer a comfortable gathering place, and the need for the piece to speak of Vail and
the mountains. The community voiced their design objectives for this public space as well. The general
consensus was that Moroles and Seibert needed to spend more time together and continue their
discussions.
Seibert went to Houston and visited Moroles' studio in Rock Port Texas in May. Foflowing this trip,
Moroles returned to Vail to meet with Seibert and learn more about the Vail Valley.
Jesus Moroles has been working with Design Workshop on response drawings which will be presented to
the AIPP board by Friday, August 8. The drawings will be on display in the hallway at the Municipal
building and the suggestion box will be available for comments. AIPP will also introduce the drawings to
through the local papers and will solicit community feedback. An AIPP board member will be contacting
each of the Town Council members to discuss and answer questions prior to August 19. AIPP's objective
for the August 19th evening Town Council meeting, is to have a vote regarding how Council would like to
proceed with the project. Three possible options include:
1. Contract with Design Workshop and Jesus Moroles as the selected
artist /design team.
2. Table the discussion and effectively delay redevelopment of Seibert
Circle until after the `99 World Championship.
3. Bring closure to the Moroles/Design Workshop design development
and pursue another option.
Se.iber_t Cir_cle_Rssl~v-eJ_opment Timetable
Aug 1- Sept 1, 1997: Concept Development.
Sept 1, 1997: Concept Approval.
Sept 1- Jan 1, 1998: Design Development (including Holiday lag time.)
Jan 1, 1998: Design Approval / Artwork Development cont.
Jan 1- March 1, 1998: Bid package development.
Mar 1- April 1, 1998: Bid package to contractors.
April 1, 1998: Bid opening
April 1- May 1, 1998: Construction contracts and negotiations.
May 1, 1998: Begin construction.
May 1- July 1, 1998: Site construction.
July 1, 1998: Construction complete: Artwork installation.
+6 ~s d s• ~7
~Gd'Q7~~
J.L. Viele Construction, Inc.
1000 S. Frontage Road West, Suite 202 X C /~u I
C U ~w
Vail, Colorado 81657 ~
Tele 970. 476. 3082
Fax 970. 476. 3423
July 21, 1997 Mr. Larry Grafel
_ Director of Public Works
Town of Vail
1309 Vail Valley Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Larry,
In response to your letter dated July 17, 1997, I offer the following clarification
and would appreciate it being read to the Town Council during its next work session.
The delivery truck which was apparently parked in front of the Christiana Lodge
belongs to United Restaurant Supply of Denver. J. L. Viele Construction, Inc. has no
subcontract agreement with nor any responsibility to that compan y with respect to the Vail
Village Club. As you may know the project is in the final stages and the Developer has
contracted directly with certain companies to provide and install furniture and equipment,
work that falls outside of the construction contract between J. L. Viele Construction, Inc.
and the Developer.
These deliveries are similar to any other business in the core who receive deliveries
of inventory, furniture, equipment etc. to maintain their businesses. These deliveries
should not be restricted to the construction staging plan.
J. L. Viele Construction, Inc. has invested a huge amount of time and effort into
, cooperating with the core neighborhood and Town of Vail staffto keep this very difficult
project from conflicting with neighboring business interests. We do not want this issue to
reflect negatively on J. L. Viele Construction, Inc.
We in+end to continue tn oi-ve 11p%, towards continvinu_ to abide by t.he town's
rules and regulations and cooperate with neighboring businesses while we put the finishing
touches on the Vail Village Club over the next few weeks.
S' erely,
.
ames L. Viele
President
cc: Larry Pardee
:
~ .
MINUTES
' VAiL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
July 1, 1997
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, July 1, 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
Kevin Foley
Rob Ford Michael Jewett . Paul Johnston (arrived at approx. 7:45 p.m.) Ludwig Kurz
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager
R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Joe Staufer of the Vail Village Inn urged Council to reject
the concept of a lodging tax to fund regional marketing. Staufer said a study by the American Hotel/Motel Association
indicates a bed tax is detrimental to resort communities and harmful to convention cities. Additionally, he said the
burden should not be placed on one segment of the community to carry the load for marketing.
Next, Intermountain resident, Sue Dugan suggested the town address several problems impacting the success of
the Main Vail roundabout. Her suggestions included adding directional arrows and/or striping to the lanes. She said
the roundabout is more like a"race track" with most offenders being locals.
Lou Meskimen, Vail resident and owner of Masked Man Services, suggested the town consider converting its seasonal employees to full time with benefits to help with retention.
Agenda item number two was the Consent Agenda which consisted of the following: A. Approval of the Minutes of the meetings o# June 3 and 17, 1997.
Ludwig moved to approve the Consent Agenda with a second from Kevin Foley. A vote was then taken which passed
unanimously, 6-0.
Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1997, second reading of an ordinance 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 of Vail Planner, George Ruther presented the item. The applicant
was Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., and was represented by Gordon Pierce. Council was asked to review and discuss
Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1997. George reviewed in detail conditions which had been incorporated into the
ordinance following first reading and provided the following background:
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 had been incorporated into
the revised ordinance which establishes Special Development District No. 35, Austria Haus. The project includes
18 member-owned fractional fee club units, 25 hotel rooms and one on-site manager's residence, plus 5,402 sq. Ft.
of new commercial/retail space, meeting room facilities, an outdoor pool and other accessory facilities commonty
associated with hotels and lodges. •
Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners Association applauded the project, stating a part of the Village Master
Plan had been achieved. He then asked Council to consider revising the town's SDD, rezoning, and master planning
process to better serve the community.
Ludwig Kurz moved to approve Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1997, on second reading with the following conditions:
That Section G be included in the Developer's Agreement, and that a restoration plan for the streambank be worked
on with town staff.
Kevin Foley stated he still had concerns about loading and delivery on the west end of the project. He also said he
was disappointed the streamwalk was not maintained, as supported by the community survey. _
Paul Johnston said he supported the Austria Haus redevelopment after reviewing the construction schedule, which
indicated construction would cease during the ski season.
Sybill Navas said she hoped the process would be improved future projects, especially when redevelopment in
1 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes JulY 1, 1997
~ Lionshead comes before the Council. She expressed frustration that a draft streambank restoration plan wasn't
available until the day of second reading. She said Vail's stream issues need to be taken more seriously.
A vote was then taken which passed 6-1, Kevin Foley voting in opposition.
Item number Four on the agenda was a request to review and approve the proposed public view coRidors to be .
considered in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The final adoption of public view corridors, if any will occur
in Stage 5 of the Master Plan process. Town Planner, Dominic Mauriello, presented the item and referred to the staff
memo dated July 1, 1997; as well as the consultant memo dated June 23, 1997 (attached).
The recommendation of staff was for approval of the proposed public view corridors as reviewed by 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 meeting included: View #2 (from the east end of the parking structure) to be included as a design parameter.
View #3 (from the west end of the parking structure) to be designated in Stage 5 as a view corridor.
Views #6 or 7(from the mall area looking up gondola line) to be designated in Stage 5 as a view corridor.
View #8 (from the east of the Landmark looking south through the VA core site) to be included as a design
parameter.
View #9 (from the east of the Landmark looking south through the VA core site from a higher elevation that
View #8) to be designated in Stage 5 as a view corridor.
Formal consideration and adoption of public view corridors, if any are to occur in Stage 5 of the Master Plan process.
Ethan Moore of Design Workshop showed slides of the 5 views.
Rob Ford moved to approve the proposed public view corridors, with a second from Paul Johnston.
David Corbin of Vail Associates, said he supported the view corridor recommendations. The idea of knowing that
a design constraint exists will be useful to VA as it looks to design its core site, he said. Also, Dave said he
appreciated the fact that the view corridors and design parameters haven't been narrowly defined that might
otherwise inhibit design concepts. In addition, Dave said the view from the popcorn wagon area may need
adjustment following a survey of VA's property line (since view corridors may only be preserved from public spaces.)
Sybill Navas noted that although other views were found to be critical in Lionshead, they don't need additional
protection because the views don't appear to be threatened by any future devetopment or redevelopment.
A vote was then taken, which passed unanimously, 7-0.
Agenda item number five was a Town Council call-up of a Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) 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 E. Meadow Dr., Vail, Colorado. Appellant: Dave Garton.
Town of Vail Planner, Lauren Waterton presented the item, and explained that the issue centered on interpretation
of the zoning code and corresponding definitions of permitted uses, conditional uses and accessory uses. The
request was to place an accessory use outside, and that staff's interpretation was that only a permitted use could
be allowed out of doors. Therefore, staff had originally denied the request. Dave Garton then appealed the decision
to the PEC, and the PEC voted to overturn staff ruling, finding that an accessory use be allowed outside.
Council members then discussed the operation with Dave Garton and Steve Olson from Garton's Saloon, who
explained their request in detail. Brian Canepa, a Minturn resident spoke for the added use, expressing his feeling
it would benefit the local youth baseball population.
Jim Lamont stated his concern with the process, urging Council to use the criteria to involve adjacent property owners
in decision-making.
Town resident, Lou Meskimen said that although a batting cage was a good idea, Garton's was not the place for it,
due to traffic concerns, views and lighting. He suggested placing the amusement at on the softball fields.
Paul Johnston moved to uphold the decision of the PEC, allowing the appellant to go through the application process
for an amendment to its conditional use permit to allow for operation of a batting cage on its outdoor dining deck.
Rob Ford seconded the motion.
Mike Jewett felt the operation of a batting cage was an amusement devise, and said he was in favor of the motion.
Ludwig Kurz was concerned about how the neighborhood would be impacted, enticing minors onto a liquor licensed
2 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes July 1, 1997
establishment, and noise issues.
,
Mayor Armour felt the code was clear and that the request did not fall within what was allowable.
Sybill Navas recommended the code should be more clearly defined, and Kevin Foley agreed that the applicant
should go through the application process.
A vote was then taken which passed, 6-1, Mayor Armour voting in opposition. Sybill then moved to direct staff to
evaluate accessory uses as a conditional use and clarify language. Rob seconded the motion. A vote was taken
and approved unanimously, 7-0.
Next, Paul Johnston addressed fellow council members from behind the podium as a citizen representing the
interests of the Vail Village and Lionshead. He asked Council to revisit the Town's policy on the hours of construction
occurring in the business districts. Current hours allowed by the Town Code are 7 AM to 7 PM, Monday through
Saturday, and from 8 AM to 5 PM on Sunday. Paul said the policy should be changed to be more in keeping with
the needs of overnight guests, and suggested no work be allowed on Saturday or Sunday during the months of July,
August and September. Also he proposed an 8 AM to 5 PM workday Monday through Thursday, and an 8 AM to
4 PM schedule on Fridays.
A report from the Town Manager followed. Bob McLaurin noted the 1-70 underpass at West Vail would be shut down
Wednesday and Thursday to allow for paving of the underpass and the north side roundabout. The work should be
completed by the end of the day Thursday, he said.
Finally, Dick Stratton, District Manager for Holy Cross Electric, introduced himself and provided an update on the
utility's new emphasis on improved customer service.
There being no further business, a motion was made for adjournment by Kevin and seconded by Rob Ford. The
meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:40 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.)
,
3 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes July 1, 1997
~ MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
July 15, 1997
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, July 15, 1997, in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Buitding. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor
Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro-tem
Kevin Foley
Rob Ford Michael Jewett
. Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none.
Second on the agenda was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1997, first reading of an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 18.71 (Additional Gross Residential Floor Area) of the Vail Municipal Code; amending section 18.04.130
(Definition of GRFA); providing for the consolidation of Gross Residential Floor Area requirements into one chapter
entitled "Chapter 18.71 Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA)"; providing a new regulation allowing interior
conversions of existing single family, duplex, and primary secondary dwellings with no remaining allowable GRFA;
and amending Chapter 18.40 Section 18.40.020 Paragraphs B& C to allow interior conversions and 250 additions
in a SDD.
Mayor Armour fead the title in full. Town of Vail Environmental Health Official, Russell Forrest and consultant, Tom
Braun presented the item and provided the following background: ,
The Vail Town Council, on April 15, 1997, dieected staff to implement Alternative 1 after considering the various
alternatives to the existing GRFA policy. Alternative 1 involves keeping GRFA as a tool to control floor area but
would allow interior conversions for existing homes that have no remaining GRFA allowance. Alternative 1 would
only allow interior conversions for homes existing at the date of the approval of this policy by the Town Council. New
construction would not be eligible for interior conversions. In addition, staff would recommend consolidating the
numerous references to GRFA in the Zoning Code into one consolidated section. This would help to better
communicate current policy on GRFA to applicants.
The staff recommendation was for approval of Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1997 on first reading.
Russell reviewed the steps that had been taken to date with regard to the alternative, and reiterated that the ordinance would apply only to existing homes or homes that had received DRB approval as of August 5, 1997
(second reading of Ordinance 13, Series of 1997), that conversions must be for interior space that exists as of August
5, 1997, and that conversions cannot increase bulk and mass.
Russell then reviewed some minor changes which had been incorporated into the ordinance since its review at an
earlier work session.
Consultant Tom Braun told council members that he felt the new changes were a positive step in addressing the
GRFA issue, although incorporation of the procedures would create additional work for town staff .
Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners Association said he saw no reason why the ordinance could not apply
to all zone districts. He commented on the creation of disparities in the ordinance in two separate classifications. He
complained that individuals living in multi-family neighborhoods didn't understand why they could not convert interior
space as well. He said he and the East Village Homeowners were also in favor of coming up with design guidelines.
Sybill Navas moved to approve Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1997 on first reading, and Kevin seconded the motion.
Sybill then commented that the absence of public input was a compliment to the process and to the efforts of Tom
and Russell. GRFA has been a subject of much controversy, she said. .
Mayor Armour reviewed the positive aspects of the ordinance and echoed Sybill's comments. He agreed that in spite
of the increased workload on Town of Vail staff, the new changes were for the better. A vote was then taken and
passed unanimously, 7-0.
1 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes July 15, 1997
,
' Mayor Armour then congratulated Russeli on the birth of his new son, William.
1 •
.Agenda item number three was Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1997, first reading of an ordinance making
Supplemental Appropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund, Facilities Maintenance Fund, Heavy Equipment
Fund, and Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, of the 1997 Budget and the Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado;
and authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations as set forth herein; and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town of Vail Finance Director, Steve Thompson presented the item of
supplemental appropriations and explained that the largest majority was due to the RETT projects, which was $1.1
million, as that budget was not completed the prior year. The required Supplemental Appropriations were discussed
and approved by the Town Council on June 24, 1997, when the interim Financial Report was presented to the Town
Council. The majority of the $1.6 million of the required supplemental is for RETT projects, $1.1 million.
The staff recommendation was for approval of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1997 on first reading.
Paul Johnston moved for approval, with a second from Rob Ford. A vote was then taken which passed unanimously,
7-0.
Next on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager which included an update on the TCI presentation •
regarding proposed changes to the TCI Franchise Agreement, and TCI's proposal to eliminate the system upgrade
and provide enhanced channel capacity through a digital compression system. Bob McLaurin suggested setting up
a tour of the National Digital Center in Littleton or of other communities using the system.
Other:
Paul Johnston updated fellow council members of comments he'd heard from out of town guests that Vail is the hot
spot for the celebration of the 2000 New Year. He recommended the town begin preparing something special for
the celebration.
Kevin thanked the Vail Valley Foundation for organization the 97 Cycle Classic, the Vail Valley Arts Council for a
successful Arts Festival and congratulated Mike Kloser who has retired from competitive mountain biking.
There being no further business, a motion was made for adjournment by Rob and seconded by Kevin. The meeting
was adjourned at approximately 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert W. Armour, Mayor '
ATTEST:
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Nolly McCutcheon
(*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.)
2 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes July 15, 1997 'i
I
~
ORDINANCE NO. 13
Series of 1997
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 18.71 (ADDITIONAL GROSS
RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA) OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE; AMENDING SECTION
18.04.130 (DEFINITION OF GRFA); PROVIDING FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF GROSS
RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA REQUIREMENTS INTO ONE CHAPTER ENTITLED
"CHAPTER 18.71 GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA)"; PROVIDING A NEW REGULATION ALLOWING INTERIOR CONVERSIONS OF EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY,
TWO-FAMILY, AND PRIMARY SECONDARY DWELLINGS WITH NO REMAINING
ALLOWABLE GRFA; AND AMENDING CHAPTER 18.40 SECTION 18.40.020
PARAGRAPHS B& C TO ALLOW INTERIOR CONVERSIONS AND 250 ADDITIONS IN A
SDD.
WHEREAS, controlling the bulk and mass of residential buildings is critical in
maintaining the alpine character of the Town of Vail;
WHEREAS, GRFA is an effective tool for timiting the size, bulk, and mass of dwelling
units;
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to limit the size of residential buildings to ensure
compatibility of structures and to ensure adequate light and air in residential areas and districts; WHEREAS, interior conversions of existing single-family, two-family, and
primary/secondary dwellings that have no remaining GRFA allowance will allow greater
flexibility to make improvements in a structure while not affecting the bulk and mass of the
structure;
WHEREAS, allowing flexibility to expand livable floor space inside an existing home has
been identified as a need by Town residents;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has
recommended approval of this amendment to the Vail Municipal Code at its June 23, 1997
meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safety, and
welfare to amend said Chapter and Sections of the Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1.
Chapter 18.04, Section 18.04.130, is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.04.130 Floor area, gross residential (GRFA).
The total square footage of all levels of a building, as measured at the inside face of the exterior
Ordinance 13, Series of 1997 1
ti
i.walls (i.e., not including furring, sheetrock, plaster and other similar wall finishes). Refer to
Chapter 18.71 for GRFA regulations and requirements for GRFA calculation. (Note: Remaining
section is stricken)
Section 2.
, Chapter 18.40 Section 18.40.020 paragraphs B& C are hereby amended to read as follows
(note changes in bold).
B) MINOR AMENDMENT (STAFF REVIER: Modifications to building plans, site or
landscape plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved
special development district, and are consistent with the design criteria of this
Chapter. Minor amendments may include, but not be limited to, va~riations of not
more than five feet (6) to approved setbacks and/or building footp~rints; changes
to landscape or site plans that do not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular
circulation throughout the special development district; or changes to gross floor
area (excluding residential uses) of not more than fve percent (5%) of the
approved square footage of retail, office, common areas and othe j nonresidential
floor area, except as provided under sections 18.71.040 (Interior
Conversions) or 18.71.050 (250 Additional GRFA).
C) MAJOR AMENDMENT (PEC) AND/OR COUNCIL REVIEW): Any proposal to
change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the nu I ber of
dwelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand any approved
special development district (other than "minor amendments" as defined in this
Section), except as provided under sections 18.71.040 (Interior
Conversions) or 18.71.050 (250 Additional GRFA).
Section 3. -
Chapter 18.71 is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
CHAPTER 18.71
GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA)
Sections:
18.71.010 Purpose
18.71.020 GRFA Requirements by Zone District
18.71.030 Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions
18.71.040 Interior Conversions
18.71.050 Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance)
18.71.010 Purpose
This Chapter is intended to control and limit the size, bulk, and mass of residential structures
within the Town of Vail. Gross residential floor area (GRFA) regulation is an effective tool for
limiting the size of residential structures and ensuring that residential structures allre developed
in an environmentally sensitive manner by allowing adequate air and light in residential areas
and districts.
18.71.020 GRFA Requirements by Zone District
Ordinance 13, Series of 1997 2
~
::::::::::::;:::~:i:::::
;::'::''<;';;y:»<~':'~~~:~;:~'::''<'::::>::;:;:::::::>:>::':'«':;>:::>::::>:>':;<:':::::':'<':;'':::::>:<':~:::>
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : ~ . : ~ . : : : : . . : . ~ : . . : : . : : : : : : : :
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
: : : : : : : ;
Zone Districts GRFA GRFA
Ratio/Percentage Credits
(added to results of application of
percentage)
HR 20% of lot area of first 21,780 sq. ft. + None
Hillside Residential 5% of lot area over 21,780 sq. ft. SFR 25% of lot area of first 12,500 sq. ft. + 425 sq. ft. per allowable dwelling unit
Single-family 10% of lot area over 12,500 sq. ft.
' Residential
R 25% of lot area of first 15,000 sq. ft. + 425 sq. ft. per allowable dwelling unit
Two-Family 10% of lot area over 15,000 sq. ft. and up to
Residential 30,000 sq. ft. + ,
5% of lot area over 30,000 sq. ft.
P/S 25% of lot area of first 15,000 sq. ft. + 425 sq. ft. per allowable dwelling unit
Primary/ Secondary 10% of lot area over 15,000 sq. ft. and up to
Residential 30,000 sq. ft. +
5% of lot area over 30,000 sq. ft.
(the secondary unit shall not exceed 40% of
GRFA on-site prior to application of credit)
RC 25% of buildable lot area 225 sq. ft. for single-family and two-family
Residential Cluster structures only
LDMF 30% of buildable lot area 225 sq. ft. for single-family and two-family
Low Density Multiple structures only
Family
MDMF 35% of buildable lot area 225 sq. ft. for single-family and two-family
Medium Density structures only
Multiple Family
HDMF 60% of buildable lot area None
High Density Multiple
Family •
PA 80% of buildable lot area None
Public
Accommodation
CC1 80% of buildable lot area None
Commercial Core 1
CC2 80% of buildable lot area None
Commercial Core 2
CC3 30% of buildable lot area None
Commercial Core 3
CSC 40% of buildable lot area None
Commercial Service GRFA shall not exceed 50% of total building
Center floor area on any site
ABD 60% of buildable lot area None
Arterial Business
HS None permitted None
Heavy Service
A Up to 2,000 sq. ft. total None
Agricultural and Open
Space
OR None permitted None
Outdoor Recreation
P None permitted None
Parking
GU Per PEC approval None
General Use
NAP None permitted None
Natural Area '
Preservation
Ordinance 13, Series of 1997 3
.
Zone Districts GRFA GRFA
Ratio/Percentage Credits
(added to results of ap lication of
percentage)
SBR Unlimited, per Council approval None
Ski Base Recreation
SDD Per underlying zoning or per development None
Special Development plan approval by Council
District
18.71.030 De finition, Calculation, and Exclusions
1. Gross Residential Floor Area
The total square footage of all levels of a building, as measured at the ins ide face of the
exterior walls (i.e., not including furring, sheetrock, plaster and other similar wall
finishes). GRFA shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each
level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical chases, vents, and storalge areas.
Aftics, crawl spaces and toofed or covered decks, porches, terraces or patios shall also
I
be included in GRFA, unless they meet the provisions of subsections A or B below.
A. Single-Family, Two-Family, and Prima ry/Secondary Structures
Within buildings containing two (2) or fewer dwelling units, the following areas
shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA. GRFA shall be calculated by
measuring the total square footage of a building set forth in this definition above.
Excluded areas as set forth herein, shall then be deducted from to I tal square
footage:
1 . Enclosed garages of up to three hundred (300) square feet per vehicle
space not exceeding a maximum of two (2) spaces for each allowable
dwelling unit permitted by this Title'
2. Aftic spade with a ceiling height of five feet (6) or less, as r I neasured from
the top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the
structural members of the roof directly above. Affic area cr leated by
construction of a roof with truss-type members will be excluded from
calculation as GRFA, provided the trusses are spaced no greater than
thirty inches (30") apart.
3. Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not greater t Ian twelve (12)
square feet in area, with five feet (5') or less of ceiling heig , as
measured from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor
members of the floor/ceiling assembly above.
4. Roofed or covered deck, porches, terraces, patios or simil ir features or
spaces with no more than three (3) exterior walls and a mi imum opening
of not less than twenty five percent (25%) of the lineal peri eter of the
area of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature or space,
provided the opening is contiguous and fully open f ro m floo r to ceiling
with an allowance for a railing of up to three feet (3) in height.
B. Multiple-Family Structures
Within buildings containing more than two (2) allowable dwellings or
accommodation units, the following additional areas shall be excluded from
calculation as GRFA. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square
footage of a building as set forth herein. Excluded areas as set for~h shall then
be deducted from the total square footage.
1 . Enclosed garages to accommodate on-site parking requirements.
2. All or part of the following spaces, provided such spaces ar e common
spaces and that the total square footage of all the following spaces shall
not exceed thirty five percent (35%) of the allowable GRFA permifted on
Ordinance 13, Series of 1997 4
w
the lot. Any square footage which exceeds the thirty five percent (35%)
maximum shall be included in the calculation of GRFA.
a. Common hallways, stairways, elevator shafts and airlocks.
b. Common lobby areas.
c. Common enclosed recreation facilities. .
- d. Common heating, cooling or ventilation systems, solar rock
storage areas, or other mechanical systems. Square footage 'excluded from calculation as GRFA shall be the minimum square
footage required to allow for the maintenance and operation of
such mechanical systems.
e. Common closet and storage areas, providing access to such
areas is from common hallways only.
f. Meeting and convention facilities.
g. Office space, provided such space is used exclusively for the
management and operation of on-site facilities.
h. Floor area to be used in a Type III or a Type IV "Employee
Housing Unit (EHU)" as defined and restricted by Chapter 18.57
of this Title, provided said EHU floor area shall not exceed sixty
percent (60%) of the thirty five percent (35%) common area
allowance defined above. Any square footage for the Type I I I or
Type IV EHUs which exceeds the sixty percent (60%) maximum
of allowed common area shall be included in the calculation of
GRFA. If a property owner allocates common area for the purpose
of employee housing, and subsequently requests a common area
variance, the Town shall require that the housing area be
converted back to common uses and that the employee housing
units be replaced within the Town.
3. All or part of an airlock within an accommodation or dwelling unit not
exceeding a maximum of twenty five (25) square feet, providing such unit
has direct access to the outdoors.
4. Overlapping stairways within an accommodation unit or dwelling unit shall
only be counted at the lowest level.
5. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet (6) or less, as measured from
the top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the
structural members of the roof directly above. Attic areas created by
construction of a roof with truss-type members will be excluded from
calculation as GRFA, provided the trusses are spaced no greater than
thirty inches (30") apart.
6. Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve (12)
square feet in area, with five feet (6) or less of ceiling height, as
measured from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor
members of the floor/ceiling assembly above.
7. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or similar features or
spaces with no more than three (3) exterior walls and a minimum opening
of not less than twenty five percent (25%) of the lineal perimeter of the
area of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature or space,
provided the opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling,
with an allowance for a railing of up to three feet (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.
Ordinance 13, Series of 1997 5
' t'•;~
~
2. Additional Calculation Provisions
A. Interior walls are included in GRFA calculations. For finro-family and
primary/secondary structures, common party walls shall be considered exterior
walls.
B. Greenhouse windows (self-supporting windows) shall not be counted as GRFA. .
Greenhouse windows are defined according to the following criteria:
1. Distance Above Inside Floor Level - In order for a window to be
considered a greenhouse window, a minimum distance of ~36" must be
provided between the bottom of the window and the floor surFace, as
measured on the inside face of.the building wall. (Floor surFace shall not
include steps necessary to meet Building Code egress req~uirements).
The 36" minimum was chosen because it locates the wind ~ow 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 altowed 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 sq. ft. This figure was derived on
the assumption that the maximum height of a window, in a~n average
sized room, is 4' and the maximum width for a 4' high self-supporting
window is between 6' and 8' (approximately 32 sq. ft.). Sin~~ce the window
would protrude no more than 18", the addition of side windows would
bring the overall window area to approximately 44 sq. ft.
5. Quantity - Up to two (2) greenhouse windows will be allowed per dwelling
unit, however, the 44 sq. ft. size limitation will apply to the combined area
of the two windows.
6. Greenhouse windows do not count as site coverage.
C. Vaulted spaces and areas "open to below" are not included in GRFA
calculations.
D. Garage credit:
1. Allowable garage area is awarded on a"per space basiswith a
maximum of two spaces per allowable unit. Each garage s~pace shall be
designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. All floor area
included in the garage credit shall be contiguous to a vehicular space.
2. Alcoves, storage areas, and mechanical areas which are located in the
garage and which are 250/o or more open to the garage area shall be
included as garage credit.
3. Garage space in excess of the allowable garage credit shall be counted
as GRFA.
E. Crawl and attic space:
Ordinance 13, Series of 1997 6
I
1. 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.
2. 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:
a. The area cannot be accessed directfy from a habitable area within
the same building level;
b. The area shall have the minimum access required by the Building
Code from the level below (6 sq. ft. opening maximum);
c. 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;
d. It must be demonstrated by the architect that a"truss-type" or
similar structural system cannot be utilized as defined in the
definition of GRFA; and
e. 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.
F. Primary/Secondary units:
- 1. The 425 sq. ft. credit per unit shall be applied to each unit AFTER the
60/40 split has been calculated (i.e., the secondary unit shall be limited to
40% of the total GRFA + 425 sq. ft.).
2. On Prim ary/Seconda ry and Two-family lots, GRFA is calculated based on
the entire lot.
18.71.040 Interior Conversions
1. Purpose
The interior conversion section of this Chapter provides for flexibility and latitude with the
use of interior spaces within existing dwelling units that meet or exceed the allowable
Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA). This would be achieved by allowing for the
conversion of existing interior spaces such as vaulted spaces, crawl spaces, and other
interior spaces into floor area provided the bulk and mass of the building is not
increased. This provision is intended to accommodate existing homes where residents
desire to expand the amount of usable space in the interior of a home. The Town has
also recognized that property owners have constructed interior space without building
permits. This provision is also intended to reduce the occurrence of interior building
activity without building permits and thereby further protecting the health, safety, and
welfare of the community.
2. Applicability
Single-family, two-family, and primary/secondary type dwelling units that exceed
allowable GRFA will be eligible to make interior conversions provided the following
criteria are satisfied:
A. Any existing single-family dwelling unit or any existing dwelling unit within a
structure containing no more than two dwelling units (exclusive of Employee
Housing Units as defined in the Zoning Code) shall be eligible to add 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 GRFA complies with the standards outlined herein.
Ordinance 13, Series of 1997 7
B. For the purpose of this section, °existing unit" shall mean any dwelling unit within
a structure containing no more than finro dwelling units (exclusive of Employee
Housing Units as defined in the Zoning Code) that has been constructed prior to
August 5, 1997 and has received a certificate of occupancy, or has been issued
a building permit prior to August 5, 1997 or has received final Design Review
Board approval prior to August 5, 1997.
C. Multi-family dwelling units are not eligible to add GRFA pursuant to this Section.
. 3. Standards A. No application to add floor area pursuant to 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 to add floor
area that utilizes all allowable GRFA for the property.
B. Applications to add floor area pursuant to this Section shall be constructed
utilizing the floor area or volume of the building that is in existence' prior to
August 5, 1997. New structures or exterior additions to existing sitructures built
after the effective date of this section will not be eligible for inteno I conversions.
Examples of how floor area can be increased 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.
• C. Proposals for GRFA pursuant to this Section may involve exterior modifications
to existing buildings, however, such modifcations shall not increase the building
bulk and mass of the existing building. Examples of exterior modifications which
are considered to increase building bulk and mass include, but are not limited to,
the expansion of any existing exterior walls of the building, re-grading around a
building in a manner which exposes more than two (2) vertical feet of existing
exterior walls and the expansion of existing roofs. Notwithstandin~g the two
. vertical feet limitation to regrading around a building described above, additional
regrading may be permitted in order.to allow for egress from new iI nterior spaces.
The extent of such regrading shall be limited to providing adequate egress areas
for windows or doors as per the minimum necessary requirement for the Uniform
Building Code. 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, and window-wells. Subject to design approval,
dormers may be considered an exterior modification in conjunction with interior
conversions permitted by this section. Prior to approval of proposed dormers or
regrading for windows or doors as described above, the staff or the DRB shall
find that they do not add significantly to the bulk and mass of the building and
are compatible with the overall scale, proportion, and design of the building. 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(s) does not exceed 50% of the
length of the sloping roof, per roof plane, from which the dormer(s) projects.
Langth of roof plane
Length of dormer
j
~
• - . - _~Y~ ~
r"
nri
r_
Cumulative Length ot dormer(s) may not exceed 509/6 of the
length of the roof plane.
Ordinance 13, Series of 1997 8
~
D. Proposals for the utilization of interior conversion GRFA pursuant to this Section
shall comply with all Town of Vail zoning standards and applicable development
standards.
E. Floor area within a garage that was originally approved through the garage
space credit may not be converted to GRFA pursuant to this Section.
4. Process
- Applications shall be made to the Community Development Department staff on forms
provided by the Department. Applications for interior conversions to single-family, two-
family, and primary secondary type dwelling units located in a Special Development
District (SDD) pursuant to this Section shall also be allowed without amending the
GRFA provisions of the SDD. However, properties with GRFA restrictions recorded on
the plat for the development shall be regulated according to the plat restrictions unless
the plat is modified to remove such restrictions. The planning staff will review the
application to ensure the proposed addition complies with all provisions of the interior
conversion section. Submittals shall include:
A. Application fees pursuant to the current fee schedule.
B. 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.
C. 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 applicabie zoning
and development regulations_shall be denied. .
D. Upon receiving approvals pursuant to this Section, applicants shall proceed with
securing a building permit prior to initiating construction of the project.
E. 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.
18.71.050 Additional Gross Residentia! Floor Area (250 Ordinance)
1. Purpose
The purpose of this Section is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing
dwelling units which have been in existence within the Town for a period of at least five
(5) years by permitting the addition of up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross
residential floor area (GRFA) to such dwelling units, provided the criteria set forth in this
Section are met. This Section does not assure each single-famiiy or two-family dwef(ing
unit located within the Town an additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet, and
proposals for any additions hereunder shall be reviewed closely with respect to site
planning, impact on adjacent properties, and applicable Town development standards.
The two hundred fifty (250) square feet of additional gross residential floor area may be
granted to existing single-family dwellings, existing two-family and existing multi-family
. dwelling units only once, but may be requested and granted in more than one increment
of less than two hundred fifty (250) square feet. Upgrading of an existing dwelling unit
under this Section shall include additions thereto or renovations thereof, but a
demo/rebuild shall not be included as being eligible for additional gross residential floor
area.
2. Single-Family Dwellings and Two-Family Dwellings
A single-family or two-family dwelling unit shall be eligible for additional gross floor
residential area (GRFA) not to exceed a maximum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet
of GRFA in addition to the existing or allowable GRFA for the site. Before such
additional GRFA can be granted, the single-family or two-family dwelling unit shall meet
Ordinance 13, Series of 1997 9
, .:.y
the following criteria:
A. Eligible Time Frame: A single-family or two-family dwelling unit shall be eligible
for additional GRFA, pursuant to this section, if it is in existence prior to
November 30, 1995 or a completed Design Review Board application for the
original construction of said unit has been accepted by the DepartIment of
Community Development by November 30, 1995. In addition, at least five (5)
years must have passed from the date the single-family dwelling or two-family
dwelling unit was issued a certificate of occupancy (whether temporary or final)
or, in the event a certificate of occupancy was not required for use of the
dwelling at the time of completion, from the date of original completion and
occupancy of the dwelling.
B. Use Of Additional Floor Space: Proposals for the utilization of the additional
gross residential floor area (GRFA) under this provision shall comply with all
Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards~. If a variance
is required for a proposal, it shall be approved by the Planning and
Environmental Commission pursuant to Chapter 18.62 of this Title~ before an
application is made in accordance with this Section. The applicant must obtain a
building permit within one year of final Planning and Environmental Commission
approval or the approval for additional GRFA shall be voided.
C. Notification: Adjacent property owners and owners of dwelling units on the same
lot shall be notified of any application under this Section that involves any
external alterations to an existing structure. Notifcation procedures shall be as
outlined in Section 18.66.080 of this Title.
D. Garage Conversions: If any proposal provides for the conversion of a garage or
enclosed parking area to GRFA, such conversion will not be allowed unless: 1)
either the conversion will not reduce the number of enclosed parking spaces
below the number required by this Code; or 2) provision is made for creation of
such additional enclosed parking spaces as may be required for tlie new total
- GRFA under this Code. Plans for a new garage or enclosed parking area,_if
required, shall accompany the application under this Section, and shall be
constructed concurrently with the conversion.
E. Parking: Any increase in parking requirements as set forth in Chapter 18.52 of
this Title due to any GRFA addition pursuant to this Section shall be met by the
applicant.
F. Conformity With Guidelines: All proposals under this Section shall be required to
conform to the design review guidelines set forth in Chapter 18.54 of this Title. A
single-family or two-family dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall be
required to meet the minimum Tawn landscaping standards as set forth in
Chapter 18.54 of this Title. Before any additional GRFA may be permitted in
accordance with this Section, the staff shall review the maintenance and upkeep
of the existing sin le-famil or two-famil dwellin and site includin
9 Y Y 9 , 9
i.
landscaping, to determine whether they comply with the design review
guidelines. No temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any
expansion of GRFA pursuant to this Section until all required improvements to
the site and structure have been completed as required.
G. Applicability: No pooling of gross residential floor area shall be allowed in single-
family or two-family dwelling units. No application for additional GRFA shall
request more than two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross resi'dential floor
area per single-family dwelling or two-family dwelling, nor shall any, application
be made for additional GRFA uritil 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 GRFA that utilizes all allowable GRFA for the
property.
Ordinance 13, Series of 1997 10
~
;
H. One Time Grant: Any single-family or finro-family dwelling unit which has
previously been granted additional GRFA pursuant to this Section and is
demo/rebuild, shall be rebuilt without the additional GRFA as previously
approved.
1. Demo/Rebuilt Not Eligible: Any single-family or finro-family dwelling unit which is
to be demo/rebuilt shall not be eligible for additional GRFA.
3. Multi-Family Dwellings
Any dwelling unit in a multi-family structure shall be eligible for additional gross
residential floor area (GRFA) not to exceed a maximum of two hundred fifty (250) 'square feet of GRFA in addition to the existing or allowable GRFA for the site. Any
application of such additional GRFA must meet the following criteria:
A. Eligible Time Frame: A multiple-family dwelling unit shall be eligible for additional
GRFA, pursuant to this section, if it is in existence prior to November 30, 1995 or
a completed Design Review Board application for the original construction of
said unit has been accepted by the Department of Community Development by
November 30, 1995. In addition, at least five (5) years must have passed from
the date the building was issued a certificate of occupancy (whether temporary
or final), or, in the event a certificate of occupancy was not required for use of
the building at the time of completion, from the date of original completion and
occupancy of the building.
B. Use Of Additional Floor Space: Proposals for the utilization of the additional
GRFA under this provision shall comply with all Town zoning requirements and
applicable development standards. If a variance is required for a proposal, it
shall be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant to
Chapter 18.62 of this Title before an application is made in accordance with this
Section. The applicant must obtain a building permit within one year of final
Planning and Environmental Commission approval or the approval for additional
- GRFA shall be voided.
C. Parking Area Conversions: Portions of existing enclosed parking areas may be
converted to GRFA under this Section if there is no loss of existing enclosed
parking spaces in said enclosed parking area.
D. Parking Requirements Observed: Any increase in parking requirements due to
any GRFA addition pursuant to this Section shall be met by the applicant.
E. Guideline Compliance; Review: All proposals under this Section shall be
reviewed for compliance with the design review guidelines as set forth in Chapter
18.54 of this Title. Existing properties for which additional GRFA is proposed
shall be required to meet minimum Town landscaping standards as set forth in
Chapter 18.54 of this Title. General maintenance and upkeep of existing
buildings and sites, including the multi-family dwellings, landscaping or site
improvements (i.e., trash facilities, berming to screen surface parking, etc.) shall
be reviewed by the staff after the application is made for conformance to said
design review guidelines. This review shall take place at the time of the first
application for additional GRFA in any multi-family dwelling. This review shall not
be required for any subsequent application for a period of five (5) years from the
date of the initial apptication and review, but shall be required for the first
app(ication fled after each subsequent five (5) year anniversary date of the initial
review. No temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any expansion
of GRFA pursuant to this Section until all required improvements to the multi-
family dwelling site and building have been completed as required.
F. Condominium Association Approval: If the proposed addition of GRFA is for a
dwelling unit located in a condominium project, a letter approving such addition
from the condominium association shall be required at the time the application is
submitted.
Ordinance 13, Series of 1997 11
r
G. Deck And Balcony Enclosures: No deck or balcony enclosures, o r, any exterior
additions or alterations to multi-family dwellings with the exception of windows,
skylights, or other similar modifications shall be allowed under this Section.
H. Applicability: The provisions of this Section are applicable only to GRFA
additions to individual dwelling units. No pooling of GRFA shall be~ allowed in
multi-family dwellings. No application for additional GRFA shall request more
than two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area per .
dwelling unit nor shall any application be made for additional GRFA until such
time as all the allowable GRFA has been constcucted on the property.
1. Nontransferable To Demo/Rebuilt: Any. building which has previously been
granted additional GRFA pursuant to this Section and is demo/rebuilt, shall be
rebuilt without the additional GRFA as previously approved.
J. Demo/Rebuilt Not Eligible: Any multiple-family structure or dwelling unit which is
to be demo/rebuilt shall not be eligible for additional GRFA.
4. Procedure
A. Application; Content: Application shall be made to the Department of Community
Development on forms provided by the Department of Community Development
and shall include:
1. A fee pursuant to the current schedule shall be required with the
application.
2. Information and plans as set forth and required by subsection 18.54.040C
of this Title.
3. A list of the names and addresses and stamped envelopes of all the
adjacent property ovvners and owners of dwelling units on the same lot as
- the applicant.
4. Any other applicable information required by the Department of
Community Development to satisfy the criteria outlined in this Section.
B. Hearing Set; Notice: Upon receipt of a completed application for additional
GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall set a date for a
hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.070 of this Title. Notice shall be given,
and the hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Sections 18.66.080 and
18.66.090 of this Title.
C. Compliance Determined: If the Department of Community Development staff
determines that the site for which the application was submitted is in compliance
with Town landscaping and site improvement standards, the applicant shall
proceed as follows:
1. Application for GRFA additions which involve no change to the exterior of
a structure shall be reviewed and approved by the Depart rnent of
Community Development.
2. Applications for GRFA additions involving exterior changes to a building
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental
Commission in accordance with the provisions of this Section.
D. Compliance Required: If the Department of Community Development staff
determines that the site for which additional GRFA is applied for pursuant to this
Section does not comply with minimum Town landscaping or site standards as
provided herein, the applicant will be required to bring the site into compliance
with such standards before any such temporary or permanent certificate of
occupancy will be issued for the additional GRFA added to the site. Before any building permit is issued, the appticant shall submit appropriate plans and
Ordinance 13, Series of 1997 12
I
~
materials indicating how the site will be brought into compliance with said Town
minimum standards, which plans and materials shall be reviewed by and
approved by the Community Development Department.
E. Building Permit: Upon receiving the necessary approvals pursuant to this
Section, the applicant shall proceed with the securing of a building permit prior to
beginning the construction of additional GRFA.
Section 4
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason
held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance; and the Town Councif hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and
each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that
any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared
invalid.
Section 5.
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and
proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
Section 6.
The amendment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall
not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to
the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as
commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision
hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded
unless expressly stated herein.
Section 7.
All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are
repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise
any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed.
Ordinance 13, Series of 1997 13
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 15th day of July, 1997, and a public
hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 5th day of August, 1997 ~ in the Council
Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
Attest:
Hofly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED IN FULL this
5th day of August, 1997.
• Robert W. Armour, Mayor
Attest:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
Ordinance No. 13, Secies of 1997 14
a. ~
r
ORDINANCE NO. 14
SERIES OF 1997
AN ORDINANCE MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE TOWN OF
VAIL GENERAL FUND, FACILITIES MAINTENANCE FUND, HEAVY EQLTIPMENT FUND,
AND REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX FUND, OF THE 1997 BUDGET AND THE FINANCIAL
. PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURES
OF SAID APPROPRIATIONS AS SET FORTH HEREIN; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN
REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, contingencies have arisen during the fiscal year 1997 which could not have been
reasonably foreseen or anticipated by the Town Council at the time it enacted Ordinance No. 23,
Series of 1996, adopting the 1997 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and,
WHEREAS, the Town has received certain revenues not budgeted for previously; and,
WHEREAS, the Town Manager has certified to the Town Council that sufficient funds are
available to discharge the appropriations referred to herein, not otherwise reflected in the Budget,
in accordance with Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail; and,
WHEREAS, in order to accomplish the foregoing, the Town Council finds that it should make
certain supplemental appropriations as set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF VAIL, COLORADO that:
1. Pursuant to Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado, the Town
Council hereby makes the following supplemental appropriations for the 1997 Budget and Financial
Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado, and authorizes the expenditure of said appropriations as
follows:
FUND AMOUNT
General Fund $ 317,215
Facilities Maintenance Fund 28,489
Heavy Equipment Fund 32,314
Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund 1 109 200
$1,487,218
2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part,
section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or moxe
parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
n
3. The Town Council hereby finds, deternunes, and declares that this ordinance is
necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants
thereof.
4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty
imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced,
nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or
repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inco sistent herewith
~
are repealed to the extend only of such inconsistency. T'his repealer shall not be construed to revise
any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE 1N FULL
ON FIRST READING this 15th day of July, 1997, and a public hearing shall be held on this
Ordinance . on the Sth day of August, 1997, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST: ~
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this Sth day of August, 1997.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
`i'brinance97.14
~
TOWN OF VAIL
SCHEDULE OF REQUIRED 1997 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
FUND ADDITIONAL .
DEPARTMENT 1997
EXPENDITURE OR PROJECT EXPENDITURES
GENERAL FUND:
Town Officials
Vail Tomorrow 46,751
Eagle County Recreation Authoriry . 4.750
VVF - Excellence in Education, Sports, or the Arts 5.000
56.501
Administration
Computers & Monitors for Training Room 20.000
Exempt Committee Review of Community Info Officer 5,062
25,062
Community Development
Harvard Senior Executive Program 1,500
GRFA Phase II 8,000
Design Guidelines 60,000
Environmental Health- Restaurant Ed 600
Environmental Health- Solid Waste 3.349
Environmental Health- Env Ouality 649
Environmental Health- Gore Creek Habitat 3,054
77,152
Transportation
Salaries & OT for Additional Service 150.000
Police
Student Police Officer Program 8,500
Transfer Out .
_ Trensfer to Capital Projects Fund to Cover Deficit p
Subtotal - General Fund 317,215
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE FUND
Council Chamber Upgrades 22,456
Garage Door Upgrades 6,033
Subtotal - Facilities Maintenance Fund 28,489
HEAVY EQUIPMENT FUND
Truck Equipment 32,314
REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX FUND
See Projects List (Page 7) 1,109,200
Total Supplemental Appropriation 1,487,218
SUPP7.XLS 1 7/31/97
f
~
~
~
VAI L TOMORROW
ACTIONS ENDORSED ON APRIL 16 & 17, 1997
Affordable Housing Goal Area
. . ¦ Achieve a net gain in affordable housing in Vail for both seasonal and year round employees '
from 38 percent to 62 percent living in Vail who work in Vail by the year 20 10.
¦ Continue to use the Real Estate Transfer Tax for open space acquisition and improvement;
a portion of it should also be considered for use for affordable housing.
¦ Initiate Inclusionary Zoning which includes the requirement that affordable housing be
included in a development plan in order for the proposed development, redevelopment or
special development district to receive governmental approvals.
¦ Build seasonal units over both the Lionshead and the Village Parking Strudures.
¦ Build employee housing on Town of Vail-owned Town Shops site at the west end of
Lionshead between South Frontage Road and the river,
¦ Build seasonal housing on Vail Resorts, Inc.-owned sites such as that on South Frontage
Road currently used for maintenance shops and the warehouse.
¦ Build deed-restricted housing similar to the Commons in Lionshead, perhaps on sites
between seasonal units and the rest of Lionshead.
¦ Establish a Housing Trust Fund, a permanent, regionally-supported source of funds to be
used specifically and solely for the purpose of creating a net increase in the availability of
affordable housing in the valley.
¦ Initiate a program within Vail to ofFer significant incentives for property owners who
contribute to solutions to the affordable housing problem.
¦ Encourage the Town of Vail to use all measures available to it to maintain and increase
existing employee housing units.
¦ Encourage the Town of Vail to require that Vail Resorts, Inc. set a goal of housing 62
percent of its owrr seasonal employees :who are renters.
Building Community Goal Area
¦ Initiate a"Welcome Program" for Vail newcomers.
¦ Initiate regularly scheduled informal gatherings with elected officials.
¦ Initiate "Getting to Know You Gatherings."
¦ Provide motivation, encouragement and opportunities for neighborhoods to get together.
¦ Develop a Speaker Series, creating opportunities for the community to reflect together and
to promote inner personal development and foster meaningful relationships.
¦ Develop pocket parks, small neighborhood parks with playgrounds and picnic tables.
¦ Create a multi-purpose building that meets community needs, serving people from all
demographic groups, all ages and full-time, part-time and seasonal residents.
f ~
r
~
,
.
Natural and Built Environment Goal Area
¦ Conduct a Town of Vail inventory of infrastructure and natural resource carry
ing capacities.
¦ Donovan Park should be used in the following way: the lower bench should bpreserved
as open space; the middle bench should be used for affordable housing; and Ithe upper
bench should be used for a combination of open space and affordable housing.
¦ In lieu of withholding approvals of Lionshead redevelopment construction, tfie foilowing
schedule was endorsed, with emphasis on citizen involvement and technical analysis:
, January, 1997, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan process initiated; wis~ list -
development; analysis of water supply, sewer, air quality, traffic, Parking, telephone lines, _
building codes and other energy codes and employees; two alternative plans present to
Town of Vail Counci{, one selected and master plan adopted, if needed; December 1997,
design guidelines completed.
¦ Review and update Town of Vail design guidelines.
¦ Establish an energy code for Town of Vail construction ( redevelopment.
¦ Actively participate in the Town of Vail development process.
¦ Implement incentive / certification program for energy, water, and waste management.
¦ Enhance, improve and support clean-up events.
¦ Complete solid waste study, improve recycling, encourage the reuse of building materials.
¦ Monitor current and future land exchanges; seek appropriate zoning on lands involved in
exchanges.
¦ Continue implementation of Open Space Plan to protect neighborhood "scale" open space
lands.
¦ Solicit the support of Congress and the U.S. Forest Service to monitor and prevent any
public sale of public lands to private developers.
Regional Cooperation Goal Area
¦ Create a venue to begin discussion of the issues and the opportunities related to regionaf
cooperation. Issues that have been identifed for resolution are: consolidation of
emergency / other municipal services; regional marketing funding; regional housing trust
funding; Berry Creek Fifth Filing; government interaction (i.e. Regional Cooperation
Coalition / Council of Governments); transportation / trails; and open space / environment.
Worid Ciass Resort Goal Area
¦ Initiate a Lodging Upgrade Initiative, to include: a letterto property owners flom the Town
of Vail, Vail Associates, Board of Realtors, Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau, etc.
urging renovation; survey guests to determine lodging problems and prioritie in upgrade
programs; develop community standards for acceptable rental lodging; provide hotels and
management companies with tools to encourage renovation; and, as a last resort, remove
substandard units or management companies from eligibility for sale through central
reservation.
¦ Support current Guest Service Training program.
~
l
, Youth Goal Area
¦ Resolve issues that surround participation at the aquatic facility in Avon.
¦ Establish a County-wide Youth Task Force, directed by youth.
¦ Pursue development of some facilities and activities identified through a survey of youth
administered in area schools, such as a Water Fun Park and / or Imax facility and Under 2 I
Club, perhaps in concert with proposals from other Vail Tomorrow teams (Community
Center).
¦ Conduct an annual review of local education through an education summit.
¦ Create community dialogue to resPond to youth issues and facilifate communication of ,
. them to the decision-makers. ¦ Promote growth of healthy and constructive youth culture. "
Additional Agreement Reached
¦ Vail Tomorrow believes that open space and affordable housing are both important to the
Vail community, and that one should not be pursued at the exclusion of the other.
AUG 04 '97 11=07AM VAIL ASSOCIATES P.2i3
TALKIIdG POINTS FOR UII..DINd COMMUNITY P 3ENTATION TO IlVIPLBNIEN1'ING
ORGB~ S.
`°WHBNBONDS BETWWENPBOPLE =,ST, ALL BEIVBFIT IN THE LONG Rr1N... ~
WELCOME PBOGRAM F R NEWCOIVIERS:
• welcome packet: single source resource; contains information not readily available
• multiple distribution points
• person-to-person distributiop
Ratfonale: provides friendly, welcoming embrace, links newcomers, builds community
Disbribution centere: Chamber; benks; professional affc.cs; Eagle Couuty; Eagle Coullty Schools;
Land Title Companies; large Employers; Rotary
Implementers: Town of Vail, Turn it i7pl, Board oPRcaltora, Vail Public Library, Vail Rec District, Vail
Religious Fouadation, Vail Valley Medical Genter, Vail Associates, YVTCB
CONMENITY T 3ESSIOn&
• regulatly scheduled 'mfoimal gatherings with elected officials, Rec District, School Hoard, VA, Eagle
County Commissioners, etc. Encourage organizations to bold open forums twice a year in this end of
the valley.
R94onale: foium to expross ideas aud opinions in e non-intimidating atmosphere
Implementersa TOV, VA, School Board, Esgle County, etc.
NEYGHBO OODS - C'OMMUNITY BUYLDING BLOCKS;
• ptovide motivation, eacouragement and opportimities for neighborhoods to get together• Encouragc
continuation of curreut small events.
Rstionale: building a sense of community throngh: naighbors workit?g togethet; social and wo1'!c-
oriented activities; integration of socond home-owners and fuU time reaidents
xmplementers: Town of Vail, individuals in neighborhoode
SPEAIPR BERIE&
• An opportunity for the community to retlect togcther: inner personal develapment; foster meanuigfiil
relationships. .
• oppordinity for groups to share speakers wbeu an organization brings m a spcaker for private use.
Ratioaale: Vail is a resort. The service industry requires constant politeness. Authenticity and
vulnerability are more difficult here. Bmaden ability far locals to attead speakers. Create discussion /
reflection as part of evant Focus on pereonal growth.
Implemeptere: TOV, Eagle County, Vail Associtates, c6ambsr of Commerce, Vail Religious Foundation,
Vail Symposium, Vail Vallay Foundation, Colorado Mountain College.
POC1ET AM:
• smal] ueighborhood psrlcs with playgrounde and picnic tables
Rxtfonale:. people natuually congregate in parke: spontanEOUS iateractioa; limited parking need; ldds
can safely scccss.
Actlon: focus on areas with 6igh concentration of year-round reeideuts, where parks don't currently exist.
Identify small lots with little development value potential.
Zmplementers: Town of Vail, Vail Board of Realtors.
Volunuxrs to build park8 - as a way to `build community' b'ke Habitat for Humanity building days
AUG 04 '97 11=08AM VAIL ASSOCIATES P.3i3
GA G PL
• promote- dte use of existitlg structiues fot'vatioty of gathesings.
Implementere: SCh.oo1 Dietrict, Vail Public Lib[ary, Colorado Mountain College, Vail Valley Foundation
(Ford Amphitheater)
COMMI= CENTELt:
• creatiott of a multi-putpose buildiag that meete comtn.uuity needs: crose-dcmographic, mnlti-
generBtioDal, foz fiill tims, part time and seasonal tesidents and visitors.
Rattonale: a place wheie acfiviries bring people together. A community cross-roads• A placa for people
to cali their own. Incorporating functions prioritized at the last confarence on the survey (Bee below)
Implementers: TOV, Vail Rec Aistrict, Private Sector, Colorado Mountain College, Vail Valley
Foundation, . Iaonahe8d Noster Plan.
3urvey resutts: (see attached)
CO Y CENTER SURVEY
PRIORITIZED COMPONENTS FOR A C011UVIUNITY CENTER
RESULTS FROM THE SPRING 1997 CONFERENCE
Results are from a total of 92 survey forms.
Priorities are listed from the most important to the least important:
69 Multi-purpose Meeting Rooms
63 Youth Center
49 Community Theatre
43 Child Care
42 Cyber Cafe / Coffee House
38 Bowling Alley
38 Arts and Crafts / Activities Room
37 Gymnastics / Sports Activities
32 Public Display Space
28 Outdoor Pool
27 Gymnastics Facility
23 Skate Park
23 Second Ice Rink
20 High-tech Multi-Media Center
19 Information Center
, , .
15 I-Max Theatre
14 Laundromat
12 High-tech Game Arcade
9 Women's Center
OTHER CONIlVIENTS INCLUDE:
5 Pocket Parks
2 Performing Arts Center
1 Public Gazebo
1 Indoor Playground
1 Indoor pool (like Breckenridge)
1 Indoor BasketbalUVolleyball
1 Recreation Facility
1 Convention Facility
1 Family Fun Center (with billiards, bowling, video arcade and table
tennis)
1 All Purpose Hall
1 Parks along the river
1 None of the above
"I think your intentions are good. In a healthy community you
shouldn't have to spend this much tax money to persuade
people to come together. It seems contrived and superficial.
We already have PLENTY of gathering spots and activities we
can share. And now, with free parking, we can even meet in
town! Let's keep the new building to a minimum, the taxes to a-
minimum, and the parking free! Then we'll be a community of
happy people. With a little imagination, we'll have no trouble `-finding places to get together!
1 IDO NOT EVEN CONSIDER 1VIGHT SKIIlVG!
e&b .
~t,~ u,~ 8• s-y7
NATURAL AND BUII,T ENVIRONMENT TEAM
Goal: To preserve and protect the ambiance, charm, warmth and natural beauty of Vail
as a mountain community focusing on the natural and built environments and the
integration of the two.
Redevelopment
• Identify and inventory the critical natural and infrastructure resources. Identify their
thresholds for use and bear in mind as redevelopment occurs. Resources include:
water, waste water treatment, roads, trash removal, sanitatioq traffic, clean air,
pa.rking, etc.
• Review and update Design Guidelines.
• Establish energy code or guidelines for construction and redevelopment.
• Incorporate above mentioned actions into the planning process for Lionshead.
Resource Manaaement .
• Implement Incentive/Certification Program for energy, water, and waste management
and identify businesses and organizations to start the program.
• Enhance, improve, and support clean-up/community events.
• Complete solid waste study, improve recycling, and encourage the reuse of building
materials.
Land Use
• Monitor current and future land exchanges with the Forest Service and other
governmental agencies to preserve the integrity of the TOV borders and open space.
• Identify additional needs for open space and coordinate with housing groups to have
active recreational open space compliment existing and future housing projects.
• Protect the lower bench of Donovan Park as open space. The middle bench should be
used as housing and the upper bench should be considered for a mix of open space and
housing. A master planning process should be implemented as soon as possible that
involves the surrounding neighborhood and the community as a whole.
WORLD CLASS RESORT TEAM (WCR)
Currently, the WCR group is working with two "foundation" programs, which are already
in ptace, but will continue to need support from all corners.
A. The Vail Lodging Quality Initiative (LQn developed as the result of a 1996 / 97
survey.
1. An effort to lift and maintain Vail's lodging standards to the "pinnacle" of
international resorts and have 100% valley wide participation prior to 1999
World Alpine Ski Championships
a. Self - policing program directed toward all levels of short term
lodging facilities ie: condominiums, property management and home
owners who have rental units b. Sets stand,ards by which to judge rental suitability of properties
and offers a Renovation Resource Guide to assist in reaching and
maintaining those standards
c. Non - compliance with inspecting and rating of units will result in
not being listed with VBCR or WTCB reservations
2. Requested of the TOV
a. Continued shared funding of survey programs
b. Continued council & staff support for program
c. Possible adoption of LQI as a requirement for business licence
B. Turn It Up Vail Program
1. The desire is to expand the current 97/98 program and re-establish Vail as
a recognized leader in resort guest services
a. Provide community business owners, managers and employees
with skills & resources which will continue to enhance guest services
b. Establish consistent high standards for quality guest service
2. Requested of the TOV
a. Continued financial and moral support for 97/98 program
~
RECEIVED JUL 2 8 1997 Xe,: ekc,utu
~
Ua Dl IRT R ieaTion July 24, 1997
~
Bob McLaurin •
292 W. Meadow Drive Town of Vail
75 Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657 Vail, CO 81657
970-479-2279
FAX: 970-479-2197
_ Dear Bob;
V AIL GOLF CLUB
1778 Vail Valley Drive - •
479-2260 I understand the Town is giving serious consideration to creating a skate
GOLF & PARK park for both skateboarders and in-line skaters. Diane Johnson, our Youth
MAINTENANCE Services Supervisor, has pursued.the possibility of a skate park off and on
1278 Vail Valley Drive over the last six years. She has ke t me informed of recent develo ments
479-2262 p p
and the momentum this project has gained through Vail Tomorrow. I would
VAIL TENrIIS CENTER like you to know that the Vail Recreation District stron 1 suPPorts a facili
700 S. Frontage Road g Y
479-2294 of this type being built in town.
JOHN A. DOBSON ARENA
321 Lionshead Circle As you know, the VRD Board of Directors has procedures we must follow
479-227' before we can lend any ofFicial support to the project, but I greatly
VAIL YOUTH SERVICES appreciate the time and commitment of the town staff and how closely they
395 E. Lionshead Circle have worked with Diane to accomplish the ground work for this project. A
479-2292
skate park would definitely address another market of our existing taxpayers
VAIL NATURE CENTER and visitors as well as increase Vail's appeal to families with teenagers
Vail Valley Drive
479-2291 choosing a vacation. It is important that it be conveniently located in town,
MARKETING and if it cannot be in the core, then the Town's outstanding bus system
292 W. Meadow Drive should have a stop close to the park.
479-2446
I am encouraged by the steps already taken by town staff to put this on the
fast track. Additionally, the group working on the project is strong because
it is a cooperative effort representing both public and private sectors.
Having this type of representation and commitment increases the chances
for success for the skate park. The topic is on our Board Agenda for August
12, although I know Diane will be working more with the town in the
interim and I look forward to hearing how we can be of more support.
Sincerely,
~
Piet Pieters
Director,
Vail Recreation District
R/pieUtov/skateprk
. .
" ~V~?,~
~y
TOWN OF YAIL
~
Office of the Town Manager
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
. DO-USA
970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157
TM
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Councii
FROM: Robert W. McLaurin, Town ManawJl
DATE: August 1, 1997
SUBJECT: Town Manager's Report
Loading and Delivery Update
We continue to work on developing alternatives for the truck ban ordinance requested by Council.
This week we met with the Colorado Trucking Federation to understand their perceived impacts
of a ban of large trucks in the Vail Village. We are also finalizing the scope of work for a technical
study to be conducted by Centennial Engineering. This study would help us to better understand
the potential range of solutions using a decision tree technique, which is a deliberate process to
reach a decision through cascading questions and answers. We are currently scheduling individual
meetings with merchants, property owners, and trucking interests to be conducted next week to
continue our work on this issue.
TOV Dispatchinca Services
As you are aware, the Town of Vail Communications Division currently provides dispatch services
for the TOV Police Department, TOV Fire Department, and the TOV Public Works Department.
Additionally, we provide dispatch services through contracts with the Town of Minturn, the Town
of Avon, and the Ambulance District. Last week the Colorado State Patrol announced it will close
its Eagle Communications Center sometime between October 1, 1997, and July 1, 1998. When
this closure occurs, CSP dispatching services currently provided in Eagle will be transferred to
Grand Junction. In addition to dispatching the Highway Patrol, this center provides dispatch
services for the Eagle County Sheriff's Office, the Eagle Police Department, the Eagle Fire
Protection District, the Gypsum Fire Protection District, the West Eagle County Ambulance District,
and the Eagle County Animal Control.
With the change in dispatch location, the agencies currently being dispatched by CSP must choose
whether to continue to be dispatched from Grand Junction, create their own communications
center, or to contract with the Town of Vail. Several of the agencies have expressed an interest
in having the TOV Communications Center dispatch their agencies.
We are currently exploring the operational and economic impacts of providing services for these
agencies. Unless the Council objects, it is our intention to offer to provide dispatch services for
these agencies. We are currently preparing cost estimates for bringing one, or some, of these
agencies on line. It should be noted that bringing on additional agencies will require hiring of
RECYCLEDPAPER
. .
supplementary personnel in the Communications Center, as well as requiring other operational
modifications. However, any additional personnel and operational modifications costs would be
paid through user charges. There would be no net increase in costs to the Town of Vail. Once we
have provided a cost of service, each of the agencies will make an independent determination of
how they wish to receive dispatch services.
I will keep you advised as this matter proceeds. If you wish additional information, I can make
arrangements for Tom Collins, the TOV Communications Supervisor, to make a formal
presentation to you at your next work session.
Town Manaqer Vacation
I will be out of the office taking several vacation days next week. Anne will have a number where
I can be reached where you can get in touch with me and I will also be checking my voicemail and
E-Mail on a regular basis.
RWM/aw
Town of Vall
Sales Tax Estlmation Worksheet
7/29/97
% Chanpa % Cftnpo
Month raas 1007 raes 19e9 iaoo vsnt 1992 1093 laae 1095 taos auayat E.rtm.ro wn.noo taoe eudaar
~
Janua 890,585 1,063,196 1,126,496 1,465,870 1,599,123 1,713,091 1,709,654 1,855,364 1,805,707 1,894,597 1,935,782 2,016,779 2,051,271 34,492 5.970/. 1.71 %
Februe 946,552 1,135,786 1,205,101 1,561,286 1,695,850 1,737,343 1,780,568 1,828,766 1,814,495 1,816,107 1,993,389 2,059,387 2,086,639 27,252 4.68% 1.32%
Msrch 1,316,652 1,378,782 1,591,705 1,939,758 1,897,718 2,051,820 1,977,995 1,988,090 2,250,656 2,139,298 2,240,865 2,315,035 2,575,836 260,601 14.95% 1127qo
A rll 430,877 425,961 550205 567,684 634,174 616,648 691,163 864,303 794,668 791,092 966,993 1,008,389 869,400 138,989) -10.09% -13.78%
Ma 244,987 245,518 170,567 215,548 236,359 250,809 268,000 257,248 287,315 324,681 318,920 326,661 326,376 285) 2.340/. -0.090/0
June 361,627 331,581 329,039 393,470 448,227 468,948 468,598 475,161 548,820 590,685 594,907 610,715 614,516 3,801 - 3.30% 0.62%
Total 4,191,280 4,580,824 4,973,113 6,143,616 6,511,451 6,838,659 6,895,978 7,268,932 7,501,661 7,556,460 8,050,856 8,336,966 8,524,038 187,072 5.889'0 2.24%
, MW, WE
Ju 479,507 479,201 559,663 649,139 665,094 737,288 742,750 811,538 892,830 893,483 963,717 994,187
Au uet 512,513 536,904 575,887 668,119 678,071 761,992 767,257 825,954 891,566 867,125 990,650 1,022,592
September 374,060 442,402 422,502 469,032 482,328 491,684 485,954 560,535 725,205 645,902 630,453 653,323
October 237,504 273,951 291,204 335,740 364,002 324,802 367,578 400,525 408,405 461,791 413,573 426,080
Novambar 376,657 386,270 376,235 430,820 438,731 428,086 497,907 553,681 594,491 611,147 601,208 624,917
Decambar 1,167,280 1,245,612 1,455,948 1,615,278 1,625,219 1,691,775 1,846,223 1,974,553 1,992,855 1,894,540 2,068,851 2,144,603
~
WAR
Total 7,338,801 7,945,164 8,654,572 10,311,744 10,764,896 11,274,286 11,603,647 12,395,718 13,007,013 13,030,448 13,719,308 14,202,668 8,524,038 187,072
. . . -
Jq1Y 30; 1997 .
THB TIAIO
~
i
. . . .t : !
r . . # Yv:Y+ ? ~ .
?'.:f:..%. £.~'h >d'%/.
Yes, it's true* A list is ' a list-as time by
just goes ith the year just more than half •Visit The return on my money in perpetuity. paternity test she's been demanding of
past, I realize there are so many Club in Vail •Look up my old London me.
things I thought I would have Village for the first acquaintance, Mick Jagger, and see if he •Open an automatic deposit accour
done by now, but, alas, have not. time ever without ~t ever started that band that he was with a no-load globally diversified
I thought it would be a good idea to having tourist 4, ~ always talking about. emerging markets mutual fund that us,
wrire them down, as a checklist of sorts, friends prod me to •Quit saying "cool" and "dude" so a bottoms-up, value-oriented,
. to remind myself what needs to be done go there. much. quantitative analysis approach to small
in the 154 days that remain in the year •Learn where •Learn to spell "Kinninnickiinickck," company growth investing.
of Nineteen-hundred-and-ninety-seven. everything is you know, that road in West Vail. • Win the lottery and waste away in
Perhaps some are on your list as well. stocked at the Vail • Wave good-bye to the last Union Margaritaville.
' • Write to my elected officials. City Martcei. Pacific train through Minturn. • Debate the origins of the universe
t~ .•Call mom. •Find out why MIKE SPAN(OLA ` 'Start thinking about Christmas with Stephen Hawking. (Alternate: Tell
•Keep all those promises that I made Kroger only uses shopping (for last year). crude jokes with the boys at the Brass
to God a few years ago when I got the name "City •Forget about the threat of lawsuits Parrot.)
U caught in a snowstorm at 14,433 feet . Market" in mountain towns. and write about the truth, dammit. • Work for my fifth area newspaper.
• above sea level. •Ask people why they have to write •Start a campaign to charge local gas •To say, "Good morning," and reallN
•Think of a substantive topic for the checks or use credit cards for $2 station owners 30 percent more for mean it.
July 30 editorial. (Oops, too late for this purchases. everything they buy, explaining to them •P1ay lead guitar for Giant Stonefl)
one.) • Hike Mt. Sopris. (Note to Dan and that it's the high cost of local land and •Ask any of the' numerous area
~ •Apologize to all then-Vail council Andy: You guys are my heroes. I am not labor, and not price-fixing. millionaires if they would be so kind a:
members for saying the Vail roundabouts worthy to carry your backpacks...and • Buy all my gas in Glenwood and to pay off my car loan.
wouldn't work. don't ask me to, either.) Silverthorne. (Insert your own "West Vail •Remember more oE the good time
•Tell current Avon council members •Retire by investing aIl I have in the Taco Belt joke" bere.) and less of the bad.
that their roundabouts aren't going to stock market, which will yield me a •Finally break down and give in to •Figure out how to get all these
work. nearly guaranteed 30 percent annual Cindy Crawford and take that damn things done by the end of next year.
.
: VAM ~ALL~Y ~,'IlV~S
. ;ep -ner of 7 ~'n(orado Press 1996 Awards T '
^
- ~ . . ~ K. .
. • TOS'YN,OF VAIL
. • Inp,it/Inquir~' ~sponse Record .
The attached comacercts were recently received by the Town af yaiL yye encouray•
. residents and guests to give us sach input and we s~ve for '
~DRESS T1~FSE CONCERNS yyrh~ ~'VE WORKII~IG DA~y y ons E
COMPLETED FO R M 70 P A M B RA~~ g y~ T H I S
:
DEPAR 1 ~ TO HA~yDI,F IrTQUgZY ' G~ p ~ • ~ ~ . • .
~
: . ~ tNDIVIDliAL TO H~vDLE INQUIlZY ~
A, (Wkb S
' . DAI'E TOV RECErVED INgTjT/IlVQLTjRY f~ 9 7 . , . _ •
TmF QF ~TT/NO ~Z~'; , .
P~ ON c CALL (indicate date) . .
. LH:1 c: (at'zc:ned) ,.~'~JCLC~L r,~,~
OLSE C(at=ached)
• q7
. TYI'F OF RFzF pNcF rcheck oT,P1• ' . . Li.1 1 C.t (attach coPY)
. P~-QN-E CALL (indicate date) .
, . . - .
U~fqRY OF RFSPn nR e rJSGVFR Tn r~rnrrrfl. ; • - . .
- . ,
~ DA=c OFRESrONSc FOILtii?~.'RIVFJ BYDEFAIZ 1~ TTO PAM B
RWVDN¢Ya
-A eapy oi t4iy irtquiry and forrst wiII reraaia oa F~Ie at tl:e I-7 V C~munity qrlatioas offiC ti$or &sLhiSIoCMu reiunedb?
annd:zsever, this incctiry :vil[ be qnsidt:rd c.+osea,
' ; _
H•
GnxY A. 8C LINDA MCDANIEL R E C E I V E D AUG 1 1997
4057 LUPINE DRIVE
Vntt.. CoLow+Do 81657-4816
(970) 476-7170
July 30, 1997
Vail Tawn Council
Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Council Member; -
I am writing you on behalf of the stepchild of the Vail Valley, East Vail.
Now that the issue of employee housing is being addressed, roundabouts are
under construction, bicycle path thru Dawxl Junction is near completion I
would like to point out that the roads in E.• Vail are in critical need of
repair and resurfacing.
These roads have crumbled margins and potholes; they are cracked and un-
patched. Only Bighorn road is in good shape. It is imperative that a
paving plan be made and with a timetable for the repair and resurfacing
of this neglected part of towm.
Paving should be overlay; chip and seal is a waste of time and money.
Sincerely,
"Gary A. McDaniel,
~
,
Linda R. McDaniel
cc: Mr. Bob McLaurin, Tawn Manager
~
TOW
4IL
N Office of the Town Manager ORLD
CHAMINSHIPS
P O
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157 ' ' k ' '
August 1, 1997 T""
Mr. Deitrich Menzel
Menzel, Inc.
Gateway Plaza
12 Vail Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Deitrich:
On behalf of the Vail Town Council, I would like to thank you for spending so much time in
quantifying and qualifying thoughts you have over a wide variety of issues. I have taken the liberty
of sending this letter on to Andy Knudtsen, the Town of Vail's Housing Coordinator; Ceil Folz with
the Vail Valley Foundation; and Frank Johnson and Bill Brice with the Vail Valley Tourism &
Convention Bureau.
Thank you again, Deitrich, for focusing on a broad range of events, venues, and suggestions that
alone, or in part, could be very beneficial to the Town of Vail and this entire valley. We appreciate
very tnuch your support and consideration of issues that are facing our community. If you would
like to discuss these further, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Robert W. McLaurin
Town Manager
RWM/aw
xc: Vail Town Council
Andy Knudtsen
RECYCLEDPAYEX
~ 4 I •
c , -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 28, 1997
SUBJECT: A request to amend the existing conditional use permit for the outdoor dirling deck
operation, to allow for the outdoor operation of a batting cage, located at 143 E.
Meadow DriveiLot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Garton's Saloon, represented by Steve Olson
Planner: Dirk Mason
1. DFSCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Garton's Saloon is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) amend an
existing conditional use permit to allow for the outdoor operation of a batting cage, associated
with an outdoor dining deck. The dining deck is located on the top level of the parking deck at
Crossroads Shopping Center. The batting cage will be constructed of 12 dark green poles and
dark green netting to match, with a 1/8 inch cable running down the middle to support the netting.
Please see the attachments for the exact location of the proposed batting cage.
II. BACKGROUND
On June 10. 1996, tiie PEC approved a request for a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining
deck on the top floor of the parking structure at Crossroads Shopping Center. The noise impacts
on the surrounding residential and commercial areas were the major concerns addressed at tliat
meeting and at previous meetings. The 1996 conditions of approval included the following
conditions:
1. The approval is granted until the use is moditied or discontinued;
2. The use shall comply with Town of Vail noise standards, all other standards, and
shall remain compatibie with other uses in the area;
3. Landscaping and general maintenance of the area shalt be maintained ancJ
remain in an orderly and aesthetic condition;
4. No outside cooking due to restrictions in Vail Viliage;
5. Maintenance of access to the ADA lift through the deck area;
6. Loading activities for Ga; ton's must occur at approved Crossroads loading areas
only;
f:leveryonelpec\memos\97\g artons.728
rnw:vnF VAal.'%~
7. Valet parking will be provided as necessary by Garton's; ,
g. A curfew of 10:00 PM on all activities on the outdoor dining deck; ,
g. An automatic timer shail be installed to shut the music off promptly at;10:00 PM;
and ~
10. Prohibition on any banners or signs associated with the outdoor dining deck area
and activities and all other signage on site shall comply with the Town of Vail Sign
Code. Currently, the conditional use permit is valid until modified or discontinued by the applicant. A
conditional use permit can be called-up for review by the PEC and revoked if the use violates the
existing town ordinances. ;
111. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST ~
Tfie review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town of Vail Municipal
Code. In addition to the Conditional Use criteria, staff has included criteria from the zoning code
and ihe Vai1 Comprehensive Plan, as we believe this wilf help the PEC in its evaluation of the
requesl. ~
i
A. THE TOWN OF VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE
The proposed use is located in the Commercial Service Center (CSC) zone district. ~According to
Section 18.28.010 ot ?he zoning code, the purpose of the CSC district is: ;
°to provide sites for general shopping and commercial facilities serving the town, together
with limited multiple-family dwelling and lodge uses as may be appropriate w;ithout
interfering with the basic commercial functions of the district. The commercial service
center district is intended to ensure adequate tight, air, open space, and other amenities
appropriate to permitted types of buildings and uses, and to maintain a convenient
siiopping center- environment for perinitted commercial." '
Outdoor dininq shall be permitted in ihe CSC zone district subject to the issuance of a conditional
use periYiit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60. For the PEC's reference, the
conditional use permit purpose statement indicates that: ~
"in order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified
iises are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit.
Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so
that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with
respect to their affects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this
chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between
conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as
conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and
limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the
condit+onal iises will be in accordance with the deve{opment objectives of the Town and
will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised,
to ac;hieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permit shall be denied."
f:\everyone\pec\memos\97\gartons.728 2
~
B. VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Several elements of the Vail Compreliensive Plan address outdoor dining areas. The reievant
elements and sections are listed below:
1. Land Use Plan
4.3 The ambience of the Village is important to the identity of
Vail and should be preserved. Scale, alpine character, .
small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size,
cosmopolitan feeling and environmental quality should all
be maintained or enhanced. 2. Vail Village Master Plan
2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial
activities that are compatible with existing land uses.
2.4.1 Policy: Commercial in-fill development consistent with established
horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to
provide activity generators, accessible green spaces, public
plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian
network ihroughout the Village.
2.4.2 Policy: Activity lhat provides nightlife and evening entertainment for
both the guest and the community shall be encouraged.
3.3 Objective: Encourage a wide variety of activities, events and street life
along pedestrian ways and plazas.
3.3.2 Policy: Outdoor dining is an important streetscape featLire and
shaU be encouraged in commercial in-fill or redevelopment
projects.
IV. CRI7ERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development Department
recommends approval of the conditional use permit request to amend the outdoor dining deck
operaiion at Garton's Saloon located at 143 E. Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village First
Filing (Crossroads Plaza), based upon the following factors:
A. CONSIDERATIUN OF FACTORS:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of
the Town.
The proposal provides for the continued economic viability of a unique use within
the Vai! Village area. The proposed outdoor batting cage promotes and
implements many of the policies of the Town, by bringing people into the Village.
f:\everyone\pec\memos\97\gartons.728 3
F
' I •.~1~..
i
I ~
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of popuiation,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreaition
facilities, and other public facilities needs.
Staff believes lhe proposal will have no negative impacts on any of the above
criteria.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, ~automotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control,
access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the str;eet and
parking areas. ;
The proposal should have no negative impacts on these items. The plans reflect
consideration for pedestrian access and maneuverability and provides for the
convenience of valet parking. The proposal will not change the existi;ng loading,
delivery and parking requirements for this use.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposetl use is to
be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in
relation to surrounding uses.
This proposal is in harmony with the character of the area. The outdoor dining
and batting cage implements several objectives and policies of the Town by
encouraging outdoor dining and bringing people to the Village with new
commercial aciivities. The proposal does not increase the scale or bulk of the
structure. ~
This proposal inclUdes the addition of two lights inounted on poles twelve feet in
tieight. The proposed lighting must conform to the Town of Vail lighting
slandards.
~
B. FINDINGS
The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall rnake the following findings before
grantina a conditional use qermit: ;
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with th'e purposes
of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and tlie purposes
of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurioias to properties or
improvements in the vicinity. '
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
f:\everyone\pec\memos\97\gartons.728 4 ,
I , ~
y. .
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of this request. Staff finds that the applicant's request
complies with all of the above criteria and findings necessary for granting conditional use permit
approval in the CSC zone district. The recommendation is subject to the ten conditions from the
previous approval and two additional conditions, as follows:
1. Tiie approval is granted until the use is modified or discontinued;
2.. The use shall comply witli Town of Vail noise standards, ail other standards, and
shall remain compatible with other uses in the area; ,
3. Landscaping and general maintenance of the area shall be maintained and
remain in an orderly and aesthetic condition;
4. No outside cooking due to restrictions in Vail Village;
5. Maintenance of access to the ADA lift through ihe deck area;
6. l_oading activities for Garton's must occur at approved Crossroads loading areas
only;
7. Valet parking will be provided as necessary by Garton's;
8. A curfew of 10:00 PM oii all activities on the outdoor dining deck;
9. An autoinatic; timer shall be installed to shut the music off promptly at 10:00 PM;
' 10. Proliibition on any banners or signs associated with the outdoor dining deck area
and acfivilies and all other signage on site shall comply with ihe Town of Vail Sign
Code;
1 1. The batting cage hours of operation shall be from no earlier than 10:00 a.m. to no
later than 10:00 p.m. daily; and
12. The batting cage is to be removed during the winter months and during extended
periods of non-use (summer months) and any permanent or temporary storage of
the batting cage must be enclosed within the main structure.
f:\everyone\pec\inemns'~97\gartons.728 5
N
p ~ p p o 0 0 0 o p o 0 o po O OC) O O o G
O O C) UD CD O0O~p GOO G~ oC) oG O
~
Token 6ox light light ~ Q
4 ~
G
Cage Dimensions 55'long 14'wide ~ ~ ~ '
Pitching Machine
~
~
a~
~
cz
~
c 0
~
~ •
O O
Bar
000000 00 00 ~
~
- Stairs
.
a~` R ~ ?t-l r~ D..+et'1
\ w~~~ " . ift4 • ,f.~r11'`+i'r fa ' r ~ . . ~A ~ t M . z ~+"~+c
2.J; w ~ ~ . ' ~ JA , ^.H- ~ 4v+x~} ~7F' r
},x.: r . ~t ~itt~ : *''s d~+ ~`3 ~t , 5•
.,lt v „ .aC .i +~,'"!c - ~ v ~*y • . . ~ Y: -.l _ ..i,Y ~4 .£s.. ~`:>T .j ~ gf: ~01- j FU
~z... . ' ~ ' , t `~'t~.~}' 2 a , . 4 "~:s ~y,yfs•~ vt~,~.2~'~ f ~ ~ y;.
S~;PZ"`,`''~ k ~ ~ ~~y"S ~'v~,~`iGC"~;- ` 4~ »..fa4 ~ - F S tt ~ ~ ~Y ~!r ( f i ,1 ~PtT.~
. ~ y,,,i~
; ~ ' . 4 ~ , ~i~ , +'~?,r~i~.'r~c,. t'~'-,Y .~u 3 ' 1'i t• ~ ~~rrie~r}~ .~[~1~,~f~; r
~ ~r'3 . ~~i:: 5s . [ . ,,y~ ~{;~.~,5r s;; ~i`, •r.
k }s" T~ ' y, ~Cf . ~ ' ~.L T'r -•i~.~ S s i .
_ ~ ~..c ~ " f '•'iY-,k..~`` ? 1~4 ; K.~,
_N_ ~~a i.!!!R
~ ..4 . w' ~'i<~ 3?~~~y` ~ ' Y~ ""~E'~'~'W~'~
. h=' ~s fY . "'~i
_ ~e ~t ~1 ••~Y ~ '-~y,1sx . , jm jj~~
. ~ R~yS~y~~ h J•~ N' ~ . . l .1 1 . ~J ' ~r'i('- ~ ^ r~, ~ ~ , ~f
~t~" ~ ~ . ~ Xl~~• J r.w;' ,.E -LY r~~ Y . :
W - ~ .
.~•~_4;:t ,(.X'• i1 ~ ?s.^9a°,' - . .''~J~I~~~~f:~j`~se~r-,. ~ K~'2!~~ _ ~ti
A2.** :----.~a;
~.M;
T Y 1'
" . : . i ? .r. • w...
~ ~?~y~.,~.t ' ^a T 3~i .r ~ • ~ .
~
~51..s~'"1.'~..
MMOIJ
r
~ ~ ' i;~" +R1t •t
.
' t - • + Y w, 4 ~Y • 72'. 1 `r'~~r'T. ' I-~ ,~gR -
~
i 1, ~ r:' ~ . ~ j ' • ~;'t , ~ ~
. ~
h ~ ` Y . .
. ~ • ~ ~ f R L•it . ~
e tr . ' • ' ` I • `i h- ~ ! ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~;,,7' a~, _ i . .
. ,
I
s
1r- .e : ,t l ~x N „a di ~ rtf t ~ .,s;~u~f a ~ :
AO.w
M
, lI j~ ~ J•~ S:Y 7~ ..jf t 3 r . ~ S n ~'q~i"Y ~~•C rt~~~`~~ri~ ~ i t l 'S.
~ 3'. • : ~i, r n,~ r i L ~~c- ^ < t ~'u,.~~' ~ ? ~~-,.a ~f~ r~{ ~
t' ~ i t .•y :~.~4i ~ c" 4i t ~4a. t r ° t,. • f ~ - r ,t } r 's^!S q .
} t ~ ~ t ; Y ...r.~~;,L`~,~,/r' t,r~'~`'~Z'~~~ ~ r ~aK~;{ ~<7~ ~ ~s~r [ ~ ~r~~ R ~1 [~•`t ry ~i' . .
:.ta
j ywt~`9,_
{t - s~ ,.i ,~f IN
~ t - -
l • i i ~y "p` ,t~..g
~ ~ 1 ' _ ~•'..Yi K.y .
y i
( ~ ~-~•s r
1 ~ • ~ ~ I ~I
t _ . ~y'~.r ; . f~r--i• ~ t
ti:• i ~'~rr
- ' r
-
- . .f
t ~ ~ ~ 1~•., ) j~ y°~ L ii1' Y ?r• ~ ~
7~9 ''~'A(y 1 Y
i. A
, _ ; ~ r.. ~~~y?~]. i... . ~e! ~.Lgt
'cCn,~„'. rr •j -~c.~ i X.-° ..~if.._.; ~ t , ; ~ , °,`y j ~
_ ~ ~ ! ti . u.. . . .s:~t
. ~ F ~ is a'`..:~~ '(I ~-.w:., 'y. ~ ~ r i~
, ~ 4 ~ ~i~CY~i'~ ~ _ 1~ 'i ~ ~ ~ y~l~i..
v } ,y: ''k!J~•A+, w .i ,'"`I~ t ~:,,,,.~~^Rlf~~ ~y,
~ f~kr i ~S' 1a. 7 rI i.' a i 1 . . . '•~Mi
'i;.,q' . . , y-•' ~ = r ~ ,S ~ix ~s3.te+, ~
~ • ~1 S' L!~.~ / L . ~ Z..~ ub tY ~ ~~u
'L .t. 'a.' . "3 _ . . . ^'t*4 J~` ti ~ ~a 4' y , ~ •~'w'~. '
~ t • ~L ~ ~ k~ Y ~ C.:,~'~' wi; Z • ~,,,~'.~;:.w~Y
71
. ~ « y.1'rt++ ~,t, ''(~`!bsjP ""r~F, y~{ .:~~j Y j- 't K`z ~ i t'y~,l Y ~ ~'..a-~ 7„~,.f,v~~ a'K.~~~ ~.a
K
a...~
w-
i V~4%.
~ 4VAff, MAY 1997 VA
IL BUSINES S
Tou~v REVIEW
. July 23, 1997
This edition of the Vail Business Review examines May sales tax collections for monthly filers.
Overall May sales tax increased 2.6% with Retail increasing .2%, Lodging increased 22.6°/Q,
Food and Beverage increased 4.8% and Other (which includes items such as utilities, taxable services
i.e. plumbing, electrical and rentals or leases) decreased 2.1
The Jeep Whitewater Festival is the only event that took place in May 1997 and May 1996.
Please remember when reading the Vail Business Review that it is produced from sales tax
collections, as opposed to actual gross sales.
Two business license were issued in May (one home occupation and one retail) and three
business licenses were closed (one retail and two service).
If you have any questions or comments please feel free to call me at (970) 479-2125 or Steve
Thompson at (970) 479-21 l6.
Sincerely,
Sally Lorton
Sales Tax Administrator
~ . ~S
MA Y SALES TAX ~
VAIL VILLAGE
MAY MAY MAY
1996 1997 %
Collections Collections Chan e
: . .
.
.
,
,
~:ti::~<..~, :
- - ,.:x.:~.,~.
. - :.,:~.v . :
.
.
.
- , z . .
. . . : ~ z.;
. . . . . . ~-,:,'r
, -
. . . . _ . ; x...:,.c:e :;s. ::'.k::',.
. - b:ti,;:..~.
"'.3;:
>y.. ~
. . .
.,i:-,-"..::
.
5
. .
. V{:?::;~: ~
ti`.~~,:.
. " ' ~~XT:`ir:'ie::.:~'^ y,!•`,`•,.~~~.~~:~:~:~i~~i'.y'?:: - .
~.,r
3 3=;;~ ~~:::`~=~;:~;~:;~~.;w::::,~~:;::R;~~"~`
eta .
R il
, , ~~,4~1~ 1:~1~`10:
,
_ - >:_o'
~;~i~;:~: `~`~::::~~~'~`:::-`'=::~:`~Syii`f;.'::~i`:°:'~::.<'s:';~;~:::',i;'~,:..,;;:'`;;~::<>.;i.>ti:,.;;..,..~,~:.~~;:.;,`~.~;:~~~~~-~';i::-:'::~..`~:;:``;~:":<:~;.'>:
L in
od
9 9 . . 7 ~9:5 ~,,293 . ~~'.'~J:lo
, .
.
~
.
:
. . . ;
- <<.r.;:::<
:
F _
ood &
.
°~ti.:ti, .
.
.
.Q;:,
,
, . ,
:.;,,`k~;`;;?:<:..~:~_;,:>::,?.:~~;.:°-
B v r
eeae
~~32"~?.tl:.
9 . . : ::?:~i,:
, ~9,49
. . . ~ .
. ~ . . .
.
_ _ , . . . . . ;
_
. _ _ .
~ , .
;
. . . , -
: <
:
Ya.l.,..`•~~,^4~,.,r.
. ,
_ .
,
Other
.
.
~2~~..
.
. . .
. : .
. . . ~ .
. . . .
_ . ......:i,.,.,,,~ : ;
. . .
. ' ; ...a'.;:.:. ,.~y„ '
~.r~.~.".:...::"
, . ~'S
. ~ . . . . . . .
i:~L.~.
~ Y
. ~ 's
3:~::;
1~:
98 G5S~4~:.;~~::-~;'~.:::.>;~-:;`::
. . . : ;
:<~5 ~
T i
ota
. :
~~:5
. ,
. LIONSHEAD
MAY MAY MAY
1996 1997 %
- Collections Collections Chan e
.
. .
-';1
: :
. : .
; .
; .
3`297:~<:~ : ;
R 'I
etai
. , . , i 3`„378 ;
. . .
~~:6>~0.;
.
: .
, . . ,
_ . ,
. _ _
_
. -
. _
:
_ .
. _ . _ . ~
. . , :
:
: ,
,a;
. . . . :
~od in , . .7 797.... .
, . : . .
9
3 fi'= : ~':1~9~~:./o,
9 9 . , . , . . . . .
. :
~
> ,
F
ood
&
:
.
,
. ,
<
: : .
. . . . . _ ~ ;
. :
Bevera e _ : :;.:9 4:~ 8;; : - . : : ~ , : . . : ~
1 ~:..2f,~L /o.
9 ~,~9
.
:f ,
~;a `
,,`2 : _
96J;.~«:~ ~ :::;::::~:;::A~<'~;:",;`:;
O her
t
, . 2,049 ..31,.0:.10',
.
^,'.,k~.
5;~,
: _
. .
. ,
s::::~;:;.. ~
,
„
1~:-;:~ , 3 ` .°7..
:-`3~
. ~
T
I
ota
3"48~:
.r -
_ . . .
s~`:s
. .
_ . , .
o
. . . . :
,
: ;
_ .
, ,
:
: .
. .
. _ . . .
. . . . .
~ MAY SALES TAX
CASCADE V/LLAGE/EAST VAIL/SANDSTONElWEST VAIL
MAY MAY MAY
1996 1997 %
Collections Collections Chan e
:
Retail . .
,
.
.
: . . . :
. , ,
:
.
: . . _
:
_ . ~ ~ . . . . , .
,
LOdgi ng `--2~.~°,~o ;
F od
o &
Beverage
. .
Other . 8,J33 3,~~9
.
,
r .
.
.
:
.
TotaI
~ ~ :
~3~
. .
.
~:2:
,
. .
; : .
~ . : .
. . ~
OUT OF TOWN
MAY MAY MAY
. 1996 1997 %
Collections Collections Chan e
Retail 9,,951 19,04~' 3~~0~
.
Lodging 0:;.<:;:..,:;;:;;-1~
.
. .
Food &
,
:
, . <
: - .
. . :
;
B ver .
. . :
,
_ . _ .
,
ea9e
. . . .
,
, . .
. . . .
~ . : : .
Other 62~~tf~t~,, 6+5,1 5fl
. .
Total 72
i5
MAY SALES TAX
TOTAL
MAY MAY MAY
1996 1997 %
Collections Collections Chan e
Retail
• 4 ~
4
k
Lodging
4 \
Food &
,
Beverage
Other
~
t
; e
Total ; . 306,~4G3
,
_ - I
. ~
RETAIL SUMMARY
MAY MAY MAY
1996 1997 %
COLLECTIONS COLLECTIONS CHANGE FOOD 52,129 46,672 -10.5%
LIQUOR 7,824 7,885 .S%
APPAREL 14,636 14,647 .08%
SPORT 22,371 19,352 -13.5%
JEWELRY 5,951 5,633 -5.3%
GIFT 5,415 5,279 -2.5%
GALLERY 880 1,049 19.2%
OTHER 33,152 42,168 27.2%
HOME 0 0 N/A
OCCUPATION
TOTAL 142,358 142,685 .2%
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
• Ju),,-2B 1997 20:0:47 Via Fax 3834792157 Town of Vail Page 801 Of BB2
Vai 1 Resorts, Inc.
FOR A.VIlVEAIATE RELEASE
_ Media Contacts:
Jim Felton (970) 845-5722
Paul Witt (970) 845-5720
VAIL RESORTS MERGER VVITH BRECKENRIDGE AND KEXSTONE SM
. RESdYtTS FORMALLY APPROVED
Colo.--July 28, 1997--'V'ail Resorts, Inc., long-tune owners of the Vaal and Beaver
G^reek mountain resorts announced toda it received a Final Order issued b
, Y y the federal
U.S. Disirict Court iocated in Denver, Colorado which foxmally approved its mexger with
~e ski areas of B~reckenridge and Keystone. These two xesorts were formerly ow~ae~i by
Ralcorp Holdings; inc. azid were acquired by Vail Resoxts, Inc. with cash and stock on
January 3, 1997. , I
The integration of these hxro companies was approved on that same date, January 3,1997,
subject to an agreement between Vail Resorts, the U.S. Depaztment of Justice and the
Colorddo Attomey General that called for Vail Resorts to clivest itself of the Arapahoe
~ Basin skii au'ea. That agreement, approving tlie merger providing the divestiture of
Arapahoe Basin, vvas approved by the court Friday. Friday's action marks the final
necessary approval in the merger process.
I
~ -more-
~
Po Rox 7• Vail, Colorado ; 81658, phone 970 4 76 5601
I
. Ju;:ZB 1997 ZB:18:14 Via Fax 3834792157 Town of Vail Page BBZ Of 8BZ
V,AIJ.. RESORTS MER.GER AP'PRQ'VED
2-2-2
Commenting on the Court's action today, Vail Resorts Chaizman and CEO A,dam Aron
said, "Tlris is quite a good day for Vail Resoxts. We are highly gratified by the Court's swift decision. Now we can continue to move forwzurdwith our excitimg plans to operate
these four world-class resozts,
"We axe committed to bringing the skiing and snowboarding public the finest mowntain
resorts in the world and managing them in a manner that provides attcactive returns to our
shareholders."
~
Vail Resorts is North America's premier alpine resort opezator, operating the Colroado ski
ateas of Vail, Beayer Creek, Breckenridge and Keystone.
I
-30-
~
~
I ~
RECEIVEt1 JUt 3 0 199T y
` MARILYNN J. THOMA
140 MELROSE AVENUE
KENILWORTH, ILLINOIS 60043
July 28, 1997
Mayor Bob Armour Vail Town Council
755 Frontage Road Vail CO 81657 .
Re: Art in Public Places/Siebert Plaza
August 5, 1997, Meeting and Discussion
Dear Mayor Armour and Vail Town Council,
I heard recently of the coming decision regarding choice of sculpture for Siebert Plaza
arid wished to share my thoughts with you and other officials involved in the final
selection. My husband and I enjoy Vail as our second home, and we also devote
considerable energy to our art collection. I recently placed a granite sculpture by Jesus
Morales (who, I understand, is one of the contenders) in a corporate collection in Chicago
where employees and visitors have responded favorably ta its inviting textures and
intriguing shapes.
I'd like to register several thoughts for your consideration:
1. The art should have appeal to the wide range of people who visit Vail and make it
their home. As an international destination, Vail's body of public art should appeal
to young and old, American, European and Latin American. It should not necessarily
reflect the work shown in local galleries which tend to favor highly representational,
Southwestern or mountain subject matter. The common theme, it seems to me,
should be tastefulness which will endure beyond our time.
2. The current choices of public art take advantage of different media - light, water,
bronze, glass. This variety of inedia seems worth pursuing; great variety remains in
works of art that move with the wind, that offer interesting textures, that change with
the light, that provide different materials and colors and forms.
3. Not everyone will be pleased with the choice of artist or final work of art.
Consequently, it seems all the more important to rely on the organizational rigor of
the group charged with that task and the professional input they have mustered for
that purpose. I enclose a recent account of just such a project in Wilmette, Illinois,
near my primary home.
4. Regarding the work of Jesus Morales, I recommended the sculpture for the Chicago
installation after a lengthy search for acceptable sculpture. Most sculpture, 1 worried,
.
would look dated in fifteen years. Or, it would not appeal to conservative and
contemporary tastes alike. The Morales granite pieces, being of the earth, seem more
timeless, simple, and classic. Their beauty and appeal seems to lie in the strong,
lyrical shapes and beautiful surface treatment. Like the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
in D.C., Morales' work tends to be based on simple concepts, executed beautifully.
There are doubtless other worthy sculptors for Seibert Plaza, but Morales should
certainly be considered a strong contender.
_ With best wishes for productive deliberations, I am
Sincerely yours,
Marilynn T ma (Mrs. Carl)
140 Melrose
Kenilworth, IL 60043
(847)256-2660
1220 Ptarmigan
Vail CO 81657
; .
- - - - - - -
"Thursday, July 17,1997 . . . _ . . . . _ . _ , . . , . . . . . . - ~ ~
. WICMETTE LIFE - . _ . : .,_.~5.:.~. .
.
. .
i
. ~ YO U C
.
:
~ ~OCa l = - ~
' ' . . . . .
. . " , l. . _ . . .
. . ; !i.-: .t - . 'I• .
• . • . , . ' , . ' . . ' _
Fl _ _ . na fists'. Chos,en o r
a e-:..
. e s c U'l t u"-' -r' _ . p.
By KEN GoZE
' from the village's Clampitt Fund was ~ WC' d1dIl't W3rit.t~11S t0 ,]USt be a SpaCE. Wlth: referred to the Pillage Board's Ad-
Plans to commission a new down= SOri1('thlri9 * plOppeC1,C~pwt11I11t. y rninistration Committee'for consider-
town sculpture commemorating Wil- ation. r.The Glampitt F(ind is an
mette's 125th anniversary moved undesigriated fund created by a dona- .
forward with the selection of three Helmick, who teaches at the School The work that is ultimateI se-_ hon from a descendant of ,a founding
out-of-state finalists last week. . of the Museum of ~ne Arts in Bos- . lected is intended to evoke a theme of w~ette family.. .
The Wilmette Village Board on July ~n, has created 10 public sculptures. : Wilm~~ ~~ry and compliment Streetscape _work current,~y. under . •
8 approved $500 honoraria for each of ~s recent work includes "Ghost otYi~ eetscape - itnprovements iri way alOng Wilmette and Central Ave- .
the three artists and travel expenses . Writer" (1994) at the Evanston Public the area nues is scheduled for completion
of.up to $500 to visit Wilmette and de-? Library, the Jackie and Mack Robin- Aug. 22: velop proposals for a work of public % son Memorial (1997) in Pasadena, "We wanted someone who showed., . Sidewalks, plantings. and lig ht i n g .
a r t: C a l i f.,° a n d T h e S t e v i e R a y V au g han t h e a b i l i t y t o u t i l i z e t h e e n t i r e s i t e. . in t he V'illage Center will be. replaced. .
The sculpture will.be placed at the Memorial (1993) in Austin, Tex. We didn't want this to just be'a space Civil Engineer Paul Woszczak said '
southwest corner of Wilmette and Lefevre's works have been commis- with something plopped down in it," new sidewalks closest to the build-
Central Avenues "We hope to have a sioned fpr Chicago's Bronzeville said Brian Barnes, staff liaison to the ings have been installed and curb and
project ut the model stage by the time neighborhood, the Naperville Public committee. "We wanted an artist who gutteT refinishing shouldt be done
of the village fair in September," said . Library, Highland Pazk's Port Clinton showed imagiriation and creativity a week.
Wilbur Pell, chairman of the Ad Hoc. Square and in parks, schools and cor- and has a style that is universally ac- ,
Public Art Committee. porate locations throughout the coun- cepted, rather than something totally pn~,~, ~er ~ng work for will holiday include sprinklers
displays az~d
From a nationwide search involv-tiy. abstract that only a few people could
ing more than 1,400 invitations and G „ understand." replacing the modernistic stseetlights
rygutis created the .~Tribute with a brighter version of the tradi-
50 responses, the committee selected bench for Martin Luther King Drive Pell said the committee will begin tional green lightpoles in residential
Ralph Helmick, of Newton, Mass.; in Chicago and numerous sculptures raising funds for the work, which is areas.
Gregg Lefevre of New York City; and in the Southwest and elsewhere in expected to cost no more than The ongoing work will limit park-
Barbara Grygutis, of Tucson, Ariz, the United States. , $50,000. A request for a 10 000
grant ing in the aiea on some days.
, 3UL. 30. 1997' 4:44PMim UR PUBI,IC REI,ATIONS 0848 PP. 1/5
T O: T O V 7 13:35 rpR3EN-WRuKE ASSOC, ~•iNC. 212 F. e246
FY
,
e.a~aa~ct: ~Gxe~nic~ ~ T~s~a
Vai1 Rasorts, Inc,
970-845-2494
FOR DOMIATE RF.I.EASE -
. pavid Walke/Robert P. Janas ~
Miriam Adler-Fiuanciat Media Contact
- Margea-wallmAssoctates ,
- (212) 850.S600
VAIL RUMTS ItEPQRT5TIBYtD QUAgTF.R RLRMTS
- Cmpleres Record 8mab'iRg 3U Seamn
Vail, CO, ~uly 30; 1997 - Vau'1,R,esom, Inc- (NYSE;MTN) taday mnoanced fiaancW irsuIts fot the Sscsl
dtiWqaae,qded Jtme 3Q,1997. . ResaR ReveQUe (Wbich eaochtdes revarue fiom real Mate opaMons) for the ihird Escal qUaft COded Jtme
30,1997, on a pm foima basis, a?ss $28.0 milIiaa vmus S29,3 =11I4am in ffie oomparable period last year. Yes
uvu'-year comWrisM wece negaavely? afPected hy the timiag of che Lasta holiday wbid < in tbis year's secoad
fiNd 9MW mnPaied to rhe *&d fiseel qumr= of 1996. PYo fonma ToW Revenues (a+hie,h includes revmaes
from x+eat estate apeRations) iacYvwW to 537.9 mllian from $31.6 miUian in t6e comparablc period last year_
For the &rd fi" qWter. tbe COnngany repon,ed a gro fom loss Scm maat operariaas befiote iate=
imome taxes, deproc6daa and umorcization Moon $BITDA") of 57.9 m7Ron vavs a loss of $7.0 million in
the eomparable period 1m year.
The net IoM oa apro folm 14sig~for the third fisca1 qoarter eadcd Jaae 30,1997, was S125 miiliw% or
50.36 per s6ue6 cammed tp Im ycar's facal tlwd quarm pm fomma aet ]oss of ai6.0 mi1li:on, or a0.47 per share.
Tbe loss fof the qoRrter arns anticipated due so the seasonetCty of'dte ski btt5iaess.
'rhis thied fiscal qaarta ooncludes a zeeottd i 996-97 eld season fnr o,,, Compuy, 9Icier dayS, Skfer
m?emes and boftcu line camings aU broke aIl-bime CoapaIIy:ecam& for lhis jut MM16ted smm" commentea
Adem Amn, Zthe C~ ~d CEO. "Building offtWs seasvn, aus Copany is cxtr~ely we,H ~d~~ ~v~1 *Mm8W, fim ffis year's magerwhitaYstm anj B~~keaeidge, our S74 million
~ pLa~med ~+esott ' 7vaad s vstidty af ianovauve matgtiAg pMgmm m„ bekg developed,"
I
PO em 7. vall, totaaao . i16Se. ppene 9TO d76 56a t
~`A
• JUI.. 30. 1997' 4:45PMaM VR PUBI.IC REI.ATIONS rN4. 0848 FP. 2/5
1lL '`+9-M 1:3= 36 M*4IqUKE RSSOC. ,1 NC. 212 P. 03/06
Rwan R+evenue, ft the Wae mau& aW Juae 30, i997, on apro fom bas* kaeosed 8.9% to $267.9
miilicn ft+am S245.9 millioa ia the ooaiprable pftiod last ym. ho fo= Rfmx+ monrtbs Tota! Reveaues inqeased
17-1% to a329.9 suiIlion versus $281.7 ,n,ffion ;n the compmbu pcdoa t= yar-
Pro hiaa Resort EB1TDA, tot tM tiaemonft eaded JuAe 30,1997, incmased 6.4% to 598.5 =Moa
vum prc forma Remt EBIYDA of $'90.9 millioa in &e campszsble podod !M yaar.
Nei Iacome, oa a pro forma basi.~, foT 9wniae usoon~hs ended Jm 30,1997 was $39.$ miIIion, ot S I.15 per
shM oompWed ao g30:0 milliam, ar $0.87 per shM ia tbe comPstalale Pai«i last yea, a 321% incmse in
Total slciec visits far the ai= mouth peciod, which Wudes the emue 1996-97 s1v season, were oy 5,3% to
a ncard 4,590,033 compercd to 4,643,777 ia the cntapacable paiod laqc year_ Far d8 atied q=cear, sltiar viaits
incrmsed 0 % to 5190615 from 49809Z3 ia die compaTable period Iest yeat
Pxo fam Imft a:s~..••••- Va7's Xniaal Pa& Qffain6 (IPO) and tho acquisitioa of tha 8rec]cemidge attd.
Keptune nsom qocu~red a~t the b~Ag Iof'th,e P~~ P~~d, raer thaa the a~ Jaruery 3, 1997
dge ~ 1 e bnu ary 4, 1997 IPU Ma Pro fonme resvlts also ex,ch* t]w opandoes of Arapa6oe Hasia
Vh i c b 3s to b ed iv2sbe d ,p,=u~to a consmt dmee with the Depurtment of Justice. ne ResoffB,BI?D4, Nct
hncome aad EPS Scures above exaude a pSCViousty 8=0=00d oaatime, pTe-rax, $2.2 million renaaization
MOme =wed aunug the ftd &aat quartar af 1997.
Vail Rports, Ync. is the prama,ipr moemtein resoit operator in Nvrth Amezica. The Compay opGtates cbw
Calonda Mons of Vaa, BrmrczCmk BrcxJmnntid&e md Keystone,
slarmena fw *r ftkmn omm daor fwnmna afIFisra.icat b*mxwpy
oplabr,ftEe and ~ Secv?~'er L~pn /~orrh Ad of 1995. Sr~cli~a
11~ co~dd ea~a ~~l ro d~ a~y'~'~ ~ to
p~ie aoid'~r ~ellanee EF
~d~?mltr~ u4mebM~ wJ~Ti ~JI ~sd R~ad~ cre eaNioi+ed Nor eq
b~r m9e xar liMired rq, bx~r and O1~ ~°f ~ S~ql~ riiEr mrd aorcwro(M~si hklrrdG
Imsrb~ ar~ alra 1104rk e00109; co?W44WfWoW Ar rlieiiti olydreaot fqd`erliy; md aie weavirr.
~~eed to or~a rirrh d~d M doe~o~ra, JF1Rd 6Y * CoNOYOW ,Wb nM0 SWw*w =dZ.ej..V Cawwvr:o?L
(fsbla W f0II4W)
I
. JUI,. 30. 19977 4:45PMaM VR PUBI,IC RElATIONS . rN4. 0848 FP. 3!5
Ju~ dtt-i9yr 33Q6 M3TEN4qJ(9 AS90C.?iNC. 212 P.84i06
. • , •
YoI RoSOZiS, IC.
cotwudaWd Fiaemcia! sanmm
(in dmounmmds of dotlara accxpt per Aare amoum)
4Mo FoRMA-
'tbeoe Mon& Ended June 30. Niae Montht En&d Jdoe 30,
1997 •
NatRev=es 1996 1997 1996
lead ~,G31 29299 267,786 245,906
Rwl es4m • 9 8
.4 78 ua 62.141 35
,T98
NetRevamm ; 37,909 311587 329,927 Z~I,704
ojpgrthg Eacpeoses ~teargeamion c6a~ge 8~ 35,310 i66,006 151,602
~ ~ ~7,752 3.8Z7 54,2 06~ 31,180
cmpmft amn , 1.153 979 3,Z33 3,451
bepmc'~ati°n God am°re'maaon _ if.,704 9,364. 29,476 ~80
T°al qpwadog =wen= 550610 49,480 254,983 2I3,6I3
hmme from operadm (19,701) (17,893) 74~945 A091
Othec nnoame (wpenqe) I
Tnvemeatiaocme , 589 I,079 1,658 l,934
Int~esL~cpmse : • (4,,610) (4,331)
Ga ~•rj~
m (less) aa sk of Fixod ~ ' (iZl ) (2.42~ (17,157~ (j (103) (2,153)
Otlte.r , ?3.7 ].350 ~ 6`54
Inoane brfare u,como wM (Z 1,606) (24,920)
Pmvisiontormcamet= ~1.711 933 64.997 S l,S l6
s82 146a
1
Net inemc :13,89 15,98 ` 3&415
~
We*bd an?Mge AarCS oubmmdiag .
r 081 34,4 67 99g 34
~ 4S 0~1
p P& ~
~ a1.11 10_87
' Other tl~:
~ ~ ~h flow , {6,~170) (6.011) 1Ql,7S0 94,304
Net incobne l"~•~3) (b,990) 98,S47 90,853
Ean4o Pe* sharc '(124537) (15,98~ 39,774 3q048
(sa36) tao.a~ zi.Is aa.~
~ ~ [l ~e ~g ; 9;g78 2~?.~S 62~141 35,79E
"MftPom 2,126 (1,539) 8,074 4,618
* ~'On °P~si ~6 flow. xe~oet E'~1TpA, ~ ~~1e ~ p~ ~~Rie Imder'odror
v~ caJ~vleted tot
~ ehe ano-tim~0. pm-t~ 52.2m111~ ieoqani~oo eag~ense ;~,euefe~d m tbe ~ 9uaner. amwamdre
, JUI.. 30. 1997, 4: 46PMaM VR PUBI.I C REI.AT I ONS . tNO. 0848 FP. 4/5
.II.L-dM)-ly9't 13~40 MaMEN-WAUCE ASSOC. P INC. 212 P_8546
, .
Yoll RMRB. Y=,
- Cmuolidated Fiaxtcfat Stsuments
. (5atMc§Wds of dolm,s ocoap per shere mooo)
-ACTGAir
7broe Mond?s Ended June 30, Nbe Monft Faded !me 30,
.
Ntt livvmas 1997 , 1996, 1941i 1996,
- -
Rem 22.031 14,192 233p621 132.258
RAW alaw _ 9.878 2.679 61.689 35.714
Nec Revmues 37,909 16,870 297.510 167,972
•
Resort 34,801 16,093 ~3e.zo6 ~,z3g
Ri~im c~gc 2~0 - Z~pp _
A752 3,758 53.gga
capalftcwmm 1 !53 979 3,233 3o451
DqpecWm and emaWmioit 9.704 4402 24AIZ 13,590
Total oAuadnS aPmsas ' 55.610 25,312 24043 I25,241
Yncame fram opewipns ,(17,74I) (9,442) 75,467 42,731
Odicr ineome (expame)
Invwftmcot inaome 589 89 1,226 944
lntntagmse (4,610) (3r=30) (15,85'3) (13,678)
Lm aa sak oftaaed a9sec~ (u1) (2,635) (I56) (~.~g)
~ 237 1 50 87
Yacome bdm inome wces (21,606) (15,468) 60,771 26,489
Pruvisw s~ tmm 7,711 6.3% .sst ~fi)
Neti~oome 33 89 (9,072 ~ 36,720 15,263
weighbad aveap siares ourstg"ng 3 73 863 _ s~ 2 531.456 20,3 ~68
,40 0:44 S1.23
`$0.74
~ f5oel~tdes e+etYk ofItaLsm,o Reum ' ~ mchides reuJa 4FItamm Resonz ior the 1744ry peraed frem Jpyay 4,1997 to Jm 34,1999.
JUL, 30. 1997' 4:46PM'M VR PUBI,IC REI.ATIONS fNO. 0848 PP. 5/5
JlL-29--1997 13:41 ,MMRGei-WRIJCE AS,'UG. . IhIC. • 212 P. W.,1g6
~ ,
. '
, Vaff RtlOt'b, TIIc.
(it dwusade)
' 97 °i6, hM Y1'D 96 y TD97 ~
Raorckwmum (pro fmm) .
Lift ticket _ 512,245' SI0,57$ -13.6% $127,663 S135,884 6.4%
B1a gdhnol 20995 ' 1,999 •33.3% 33y091 34,471 4.29/0
Foodsnvioe 4,448 5,010 12.63'b 3Z,341 36,535 13.0°l0
RouLteaW ' 1,311, 1,576 20.2% 12,75$ 16,406 25.6%
HoqftnY 4,303 ; 4~644 7.99A 25,244 26,435 6.70/9
Odet 3 997 , ~ 5.7% 14.889 17r55S I8
Toffil R~t,~e~ 2g 2 2g,03I .4:390 M,906 26 9_99?,
. ~
Tolid SIier Y9sib 49_ $;923 ,SI4,615 4.1% 4,643,777 090.033 53"/e
From: Kate Carey To: Suzanne Siiverthom Date: 815/97 Time: 00:09:48 Page 1 of 1
CUA Nil r
August 4, 1997
Dear Member:
The Chamber of Commerce Nominating Committee is seeking two new board members for terms
beginning January, 1998, and continuing through December, 2000. The board of directors is a group
offifteen member representatives who are responsible for creating policy, direction, and long-term
planning for the organization. According to the Chamber bylaws, "the board of directors represent a
geographic area from Vail to W olcott and preferably include a mix of inembers from the lodging,
activity, restaurarrt, retail, service, professional, construction, and real estate businesses."
While all individuals who are interested in serving on the board are encouraged to apply, the
Nominating Committee has identified a need for more "up valley" respresentation- specifically Vail
business people. The committee is interested in representation from communications/media,
construction, lodging, and activity companies. Individuals with a strong financial background aze also
being sought. ~
If you or any of your associates are interested serving on the board of the Chamber, please fax this
application to Larry Stone, Nominating Committee Chair, a/o The Scarab, at 827-5578. Applications
a.re requested by August 14, 1997. La.rry will contact all applicants and provide additional
information on the roles, responsibilities, and selection process of the board.
? Yes, I'm interested in being considered by the Nominating Committee for a Chamber Board of
Directors position for January, 1998, through December, 2000. Please contact me with additional
information.
Your Name:
Business Affiliation: Phone: Fax: E-Mail:
Mailing Address:
Fax or mail to-Larry Stone, Nominating Committee Chair. F i: 827-5578, c% The Scarab, P.O.
Box 563, Minturn, CO 81645. Applicants are requested to respond by August 14,1997
XC: ~6t,t,~r.~t.L
~ RECEIVED
~
= • ,Northwest olo .do Codncil of'Governments
TO: Region XII Local Governments
FROM: Linda Venturoni, NWCCOG Co-Executive Director DATE: July 23, 1997
SUBJECT: NWCCOG Demographic Report
Attached please find a complimentary copy of NWCCOG's first comprehensive
"Demographic Review". We have compiled information about our six county area in a
format that we hope will be helpful to everyone. The first section of the report
contains regional demographic material followed by a spreadsheet of regional "Trend
Indicators" for 1992 - 1995. The following six sections are specific to each of the
counties in Region XII: Eagle, Grand, Jackson, Pitkin, Routt and Summit.
The report contains information on the following indicators:
? Births
? Population
? Average sale price of a single family home
? Vacancy rates
? Labor force
? Wage and salary jobs
? Average weekly wage
? Personal income
? Retail sales
? School enrollment -
? Skier days
? Assessed valuation
? Emplanements
Please call me at (970) 468-0295x109 if you have any questions. Additional copies of
the report may be purchased from NWCCOG for $10.00.
~
t '
Northwest Colorado
.
- - Council of ~
Govemments
R~~_.,_•'i~iw:::: y~,'~'~'..
• •
f~ ~ ~ • \ .
L ~
.t.1VC'~SO~,
\
.
•
Demographic Review
July 1997
~
July 1997
. Welcome to the Region 12 Demographic Report !
We have a ver_y interesting region, and we frequently receive requests for various types of
demographic information about our towns, counties and region. This is our first attempt to
compile data and statistics about our six county area into one publication. We hope it will be a
handy reference to you and that you will use it frequently.
Statistics are always out of date as soon as you publish them. It is our intent to update the data in
this report on a regular basis. We have included information from a sequence of years so that
trend analysis can be derived from the information.
We also included some information from the 1990 Census that shows how the counties in Region
XII stand out from all of the other counties in the country. For instance, do you know:
. • Which county was #1 in the countrv for highest female participation in the workforce?
• Which countv was 46 in the countrv for highest per capita personal income ?
• Which county was 41 in the countrv for percentage of adults who are high school graduates
or above?
Read the report and find out! And please let us know what you think'of it. There is a questionnaire on the last page_that you can fill out and return to NWCCOG, P.O. Box 2308,
Silverthorne, CO 80498 or call (970) 468-0295. We would welcome your suggestions, comments
and ideas so that we can improve this publication.
We hope you enjoy the NWCCOG DemoKraphic Report and use it often. Additional copies of
this publication may be purchased from NWCCOG @$10.00 each.
Sincerely,
~
%
c~
Linda Venturoni
Co-Executive Director
w
Table of ll~eg*on XRE ll~epo~°ta Contents:
Introduction: Region XII is situated in North Central Colorado just
west of the Front Range and the Continental Divide. It includes Eagle,
Grand, Jackson, Pitkin, Routt and Summit Counties and the 26 '
IntrodUCtion .............1 municipalities within these counties.
The purpose of this Demographic Report is to present -
Notes on Sources...... 1 information about recent population, employment and economic trends
wliich are affecting governments, businesses and people who reside in
Region XII ................2 tlle area. The information is organized in seven sections; the first section
contains general information about the region and the following six
sections detail the information by specifc county. There are three broad
Eagle County ............8 categories of data within each county section: 1. Population and
Housing; 2. Employment and Income; and 3. Sales Indicators.
Grand County........ 15 Region XII is characterized by its mountainous terrain and very
high overall altitude. The region is home to the State's largest ski resort
Jackson County...... 22 complexes, including Arapahoe Basin, Arrowhead, Aspen Mountain,
Aspen Highlands, Beaver Creek, Breckenridge, Buttermilk, Copper
Pitkirt Count3.......... 27 Mountain, Keystone, Silver Creek, Snowmass, Steamboat Springs, Vail
and W inter Park. ToQether these resorts account for over 80% of the
Routt Counrir..........33 State's skier days. ~
V The economy is based on tourism and recreation. ln 1994, jobs
Summit Countv......39 in the retail and service sectors accounted for over 60% of the wage and
° salary jobs in the region.
The region has been experiencing significant growth in
population, an average of 23.2% from 1990 - 1995. The 1995
population estimate is 87,601 persons.
Housing is another significant focus of this report and the trend
for prices of single family homes has certainly been upward. In some of , the resort counties the housing prices have made it impossible for an
average wage earner to own a home anywhere close to wllere he or she
is employed.
Notes on Sources: The Colorado State Demographer is the source
of the demographic information. The demographic data presented in the
DemoRraPhic Report is either actual census data or estimates and
projections of population prepared by the State Demographer.
Gross and retail sales information is from the State Department
of Revenue. Labor market data is provided by the Coiorado Department
of Labor. Additional income information is from the U.S'. Bureau of
Economic Analvsis (BEA) and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data
on skier davs are obtained from Colorado Ski Country USA.
Local sources of information were used for school enrollments,
assessed valuation, and housing prices.
Northwest Colorado Council of Governmefrts I
Julv 1997
~
1995 Region XRff Populationo
Population
Estimates: There were 55,248 Region XI I people residing in the
counties: six counties that Population Growth 1980-1995
EAGLE 28680
GRAND 9155 comprise Region XII 90M
JACKSON 1723 in 1980. The region aoooo i
PITKIN 14284 70DOO ~
Roun 16617 experienced an ,
eoooo ~
SUMMIT 17142 average 3.84%per soooo
TOTAL 87601 year growth rate from ~ x~3
1980-1985. 200DO
Towns: Growth slowed from 10000
0
AVON 2489 1985-1990 to a rate of 1ee0 1985 1e90 +s~s
EAGLET 1578 2070 1.16%. ,
GYPSUM 2215 In the 90's the rate y ~~E•
107
MINTURN 1 295 has averaged 4.05%
RED CLIFF
VAIL 4354 per year. UNINCORP. 14788 The 1995 PoPulation estimate is 87,601. The column on the left lists the
FRASER sss individual numbers for eacli county as a whole, each town and then the
GRANBY 1114 unincorporated part of each county.
GRANO LAKE 291 It is important to note that these growth rates have all been considerably
HOT SULPHUR 13401
47 higher than the corresponding state rates of 2.05% (1980-1985). 0.52%
KREMMLING
WINTER PARK 581 (1985-1990) and 2.48% (1990-1995 ) per year.
UNINCORP. 4762 Region XIt represents 2.3% of the state's population.
WALDEN 938
UNINCORP. - 785
ASPEN 5630 Percent Growth in Population From 1990-1995 tlie
SNOWMASS 1587 1990-1995 region experienced
UNINCORP 6851 an average
HAYDEN 1569 coW„o population increase
I I
OAK CREEK 765 P-9- xtl of 23.2%, while the
STEAMBOAT 8241 5~,,,,,., =state average was
YAMPA UN NCORP. 5683 13.7%.
BLUE RIVER 575 The fastest growing BRECKENRIDGE 1603 G,a ~
;~wF,:counties in the region
DILLON 647 Egl, were Summit and
FRISCO 2399 o s ,o 15 zo 25 zo J35"Eagle with 33.1 %
SI~LVERTHORNE 68 2804 ~ and 30.8% increases
UNINCORP. 9046 recorded
TO7AL 87601 respectively.
These figures are cumulative for the five year period. The average
annual percent change in the region for this time period is 4.05% per
year.
Northivest Coloradn Council of Governntents 2
1„lu 1007
. -r
M
T'he population
County distribution is higher R@91011 XII COUf1tl@S
Population among the I-70 Population Distribution 1995
counties with Eagle,
Summit and Pitkin G,,,,d Jackwn
Projections: 10% 2% PMn
counties accounting ,sx
.
for a total of 69% of ~i
the region's
" 2000 pOpUI2t1011. eagle Roun
The US 40 corridor 19%
EAGLE 34,903
GRAND 10,530 (Grand, Jackson and
JACKSON 1,818 summrc
PITKIN 15,935 Routt counties) 2WI
ROUTT 19,043 accounts for the other
SUMMIT 19,992 31 % of the • - • -
TOTAL 102,220 population
distribution.
2005
Population density varies from a low of 1.1 persons per square mile in
EAGLE ss,~za
GRAND 11,791 lackson County to a high of 28.4 in Summit County.
JACKSON 1,901
PITKIN 17,682 Table 1. 1995 Region XII Ponulation Densitv
ROUTT 21,478
SUMMIT 22,261 County 1995 Square Miles Pop. Density
TOTAL 114,838 Population per Sq. Mile
Eagle 28,680 1,681 17.1
Grand 9,155 1,854 4.94
2010 Jackson 1,723 1,622 1.1
EAGLE aa,147 Pitkin 14,284 973 14.7
GRAND 12,957
JACKSON 1,980 Routt 16,617 2,330 7.13
PITKIN 1e,469 ROUTT 23,804 Summit . 17,142 604 28.4
-
SUMMIT 24,282 . Total 87,601 9,064 9.7
TOTAL 126,638
The largest municipalities in the region are:
2015 ~-Steamboat Springs (pop. 8,241)
EAGLE 48,275 %-Aspen (pop. 5,630)
GRAND 14,070 ~-Vail (pop. 4,354)
JACKSON 2,058
PITKIN 21,289
Roun 26,029 Some of the fastest growing municipalities in the region (from
SUMMIT 26,176 1990-1995) include:
TOTAL 137,898
%Silverthorne 58.6% (pop.2,804)
~-Frisco 49.8% (pop. 2,399)
%Avon 38.4% (pop.2,489)
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments 3
July 1997
~
Tidbits
RegIlon XIIo ~~~~~~~~~t and ffncome
fro m th e
1990 Census: The total Region Xt1 workforce has grown by 10,869 workers (a 25.5%
increase) since 1990. Unemployment rates are typically lower than the .
statewide average. In 1995 the Statewide average was 4?% while the
(Region XII counties Region XII average was 3.7%.
rated in the top 25 of
all counties in the Table 2. Region XII Labor Force Averages 1990-1995
country on selected
subjects.) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 % Change
1990-1995
Labor Force 42,702 43,391 44,963 47,822 51,530 53,571 25.5%
Highest female Employed 40,692 41,053 41,926 45,289 49,596 51,597 26.8%
civilian labor Unemployed 2,010 2,338 3,037 2,533 1,934 1,994 -0.8%
participation rate: Unempl. Rate 4.7% 5.4% 6.8% 5.3% 3.8% 3.7%
1. Summit 84.1°/a
2. Routt 78.4% The labor force averages reported above are an estimate of the overall
3. Eagle 78.2% Region XII residents engaged in work activities. The "jobs" identified
5. Pitkin 77.20%
7. Grend 74.4/o in the table are only those covered by unemployment insurance. There
are many job classifications that are not covered by unemployment
insurance including most proprietors and self-employed individuals,
Highest personal militarv employment, many home-based businesses, some religious
income per capita: ~~'orkers, mam~ agricultural workers, railroad workers and others.
6. Pitkin S32,360 Table 3. Region XII Wage and Salary Jobs 1990-1994
. 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 % Change
1990-1994
Flighest percentage qgr.,For.,Fish 742 895 906 1,037 1,165 57.0%
of movers 1985- M;n;,,9 1,271 634 594 632 ssz 47.9%
1990: Construction 6,663 6,606 7,006 7,877 9,415 41.3%
6. Summit 72.8% Manufacturing 1,505 1,416 1,581 1,703 1,831 21.7%
22.. Eagle 66.5% Trans..Comm.,Util. 2,393 2,477 2,472 2,629 2,822 17.9%
Wholesale Trade 829 926 1,017 1,033 n/a n/a
RetailTrade 16,545 17,090 18,124 19,358 20,813 25.8%
Highest percentage Fin.,tns.,Real Est 9,145 9,004 9,021 9,570 9,887 8.1%
of one-person Services 26,617 28,008 29,110 31,120 32,471 22.0%
households: Government 6,152 6,463 6,714 6,866 7,180 16.7%
Total 71,862 73,519 76,545 81,825 86,246 20.0%
10. Pitkin 35.4%
The greatest percent increase has been in the category of "Ag. Serv,
Forestry, Fish & Other" (landscape contractors, veterinary services, etc.)
and the greatest percentage decrease has been in "Mining". ln sheer
numbers the "Services" category has added the greatest number of jobs.
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments 4
July 1997
, K
' • Personal Iacome is the sum of:
~l~bltS 1. Net Earnin s b Place of Wor '
g Y k
~ 2. Dividends, Interest & Rent
3. Transfer Payments
. The numbers in the chart below show the sum total of these revenues for
each county in millions of dollars. The numbers are adjusted for Highest percentage inflation. Region X1I represents 2.9% of the state's total personal
of adults who ace income.
• high.school Table 4. Personal Income 1980 and 1994
graduates or higher. In Consta t 1994 Dollar ( milli n)
County 1980 1994 % Change
1. Summit 95.5% • 1980-1994
3. Pitkin sa.7~io Eagle 315.81 750.32 137.6%
13. Routt 91.7% Grand 142.75 184.36 29.1 %
Jackson 30.33 28.41 -6.'3%
Pitkin 320.22 568.06 77.4%
Highest percentage Routt 327.83 411.49 25.5%
of adults with a Summit 201.85 437.74 116.9%
bachelor's degree or Total 1,338.79 2,380.38 77.8%
higher.
5. Pitkin 49.8% Table 5. Per Ca ita Personal Income 1980 and 1994
22. summit 39.7% Region XII Compared to Colorado In Constant 1994 Dollars
1980 1990 1994 % Change
1980-1994
Region XII $24,150 $26,555 $28.207 16.8%
Highest median Colorado 9.286 $22,066 $22,293 15.6%
value of specified
owner-oCCUpied The regional per capita personal income has exceeded the state average
housing utlits. consistentlv since 1980 and has grown at a slightly higher rate. Within
the region there are significant differences among the counties.
2. Pitkin $452,800 Table 6. Per Capita Personal Income 1980 and 1994
In Constant 1994 Dollars •
F County 1980 1994 % Change
Highest money 1980-1994
income per capita: Eagle $23,544 $27,461 16.6%
Grand $18,953 $21,142 11.5%
3. Pitkin $26,755 Jackson $16,004 $16,373 2.3%
Pitkrn $31,247 $39,898 27.8%
Routt $24,425 $25,522 4.5%
Summit $22,609 $26,938 ~19.1%
Total (Average) $24,150 $28,207 16.8%
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments
July 1997 ~
,
w
REGION XII TRE1V ~ ~ ~ICATORS RE
A~
G~
1992 1993 1994 7885 P~
V<
Po ulation: 24,175 25,633 27,323 Y:
Ea le Coun 8,315 8,480 8,720 28'~
Grand Coun 1,621 1,705 1,735 9,155 ,
Jackson Coun 13,233 13,846 14,238 1'723 RPitkin Coun 14,921 15,559 16,123 14'2~ Tc
Routt Coun 13,471 14,609 16,250 1s'617 T~
!Summit Coun 75,736 79,832 84,389 ~~'142 o
!Region XII Total Po ulation ~ 87,601
u
I
Assessed Valuation: $731,268,690 $839,257,050 $815,580,160 $970,977,7pp ~
Eaqle County_ E
Grand Councy $201,643,850 $184,268,370 $180,352,260 $188,224,930
.lachsonCounty $22,136,730 $22,902,330 $23,335,0001 $21,003,37p C
Pitkin County $828,708,170 • $850,785,730 $869,497,470 $958,302,15p~ J
Routt County $276,236,100 $291,156,920 $305,368,010 $337,302,47p F
Summit County $448,996,500 $464,167,880 $483,675,120 $550,174,350 F
~
Region XII Assessed Valuation_ $2,50$,990,040 $2,652,538,280 $2,677,808,020 33,025,984,970
'
i '
Gross Sales million : '
Eagle Coun I $683.6 $828.7 $1,001.3 $1,051.3 E
Grand Count $170.9 $181.4 $221.4 $225,2 E
~Jackson County $38.4 $30.4 $27.2 $23.8
~Pifkm Coun $559.4 $615.0 $679.0 $822,9
F
iRoutt Coun $357.5 $398.7 $444.2 $478.4 ~
'Summit Coun ~ $582.0 $633.7 $747.5 $803.1 F
Total Region XII Gross Sales million) i $2,391.8 $2,687.9 $3,120.6 1 $3,404 7 `
i
Distribution of Gross Sales ~ F
Ea~le County 28.6% i 30 8% ! 32 1%' 30 9% , I!
Grand County 7.1 % 6 7% ' 7 6 6% i '
iJackson Count 1.6% ! 1.1 0.9% I, 07%' i
iPitkin Count ~ 23.4% I 22.9% I 21.8% ~
242./o
IRoutt Count ' 14.9% I 14.8%I 14.2% 14 1~a %
`Summit Coun - I 24.3% I 23.6% 24.0% 23.6% i
ITotal Re ion XII 100.0% 100.0% . 100.0% 100.0% i
I
I I ~ . ISkier Visits ear of season'end ~
Ara ahoe Basin ~ 219,7~8 I 242,322 257,358 262,240
IArrowhead 31,881 23,721 28,641 21,722
Aspen Hi hlands 152,3791 , 145,364 106,197 159,288
~Aspen Mountain 395,5911 394,568 359,846 329,535
IBeaver Creek 445,802 1 488,603 ~ 504,5167538,897 ~
16reckenrid e 1,023,323; 1,164,000! 1,215,0131 1,227,357
IButtermilk 163,6581 161,463 172,948 168,439
~Copper Mountain 810,4931 878,000' 842,210 770,973
iKe stone 1,012,5131 1,041,781 1,095,857 1,042,171
ISiiver Creek ' 72,692 79,312 I 93,516 92,547
iSnowmass 732,617' 825,7221 814,853 767,509
ISteamboat 1,005,9221 1,053,022 I 1,021,149 1,013,606
IVail i 1,540,018 1,570,350 1,527,698 1,568,360
IWinter Park 961,061 , 1,019,181' 1,008,040 986,077
I7otal Re ion XII Ski Resorts 8,567,748; 9,087,409 9,047,842 8,948,728
Total Colorado Skier Visits
10,427,9941 11,111,290 91,164,262 11,705,106
~Total Re ion XII Ski Resorts 8,567,748 9,0874
09 9,047,842 8,948,728 'Re~ion XII % of Total Colorado Skier Visits 82.16%, 81.79% 81.0480.58% 'Northwest Co/orudo Cou17cil of Governnrents 6
Julv 1997
-
REGION XII INDICATORS CONT 1992 1993 1994 1995 y
Ai ort En lanements
Grand Coun Ai ort
. ~ f *
Pitkin Coun Ai ort 243,907 251,914 239,050 200,685
VaiUBeaver Creek Jet Center
Yam a Valle Re ional 54,886 64,364 77,882 110,454
Ai ort . 58,643 66,317 69,299 93,173
Re ion XII Em lo ment
Total Labor Force 44,963 47,822 591
51,530 53,
Total Em lo ment 41,926 45,289 49,596 51,597
Unem lo ment
Unem lo ment 3,037 2,533 19341 1,994 Rate 6 8% 5 3% 3 8% 3.7%
, Labor Force Avera es
G and 13,949 14,653
Coun 16,280 , 17,100 ty ' 4 628 t
IJackson Coun 4 856 i 5 018 5,327
;
962 i 1,085;
Pitkin Coun 969 887 ;
Routt Coun ~ ~73 8,433 g;871 g 9Ll
Summit Coun 9,356 9,829 10,220
Total Re ion XII ~ 8977 9,439 10,563 11,146
44,963 47,822 51530, 53,591 i
;
Em lo ment
Ea le Coun ~
I 12,986 13,885 5, 16,533
Grand Coun , 4,347 4,609 4,856 5,161
IJackson Coun
lPitkin Coun I 7,8091 7,898 898 821
[Routt Coun 8,451 8,482
ISummit Coun I 8,1381 8,834 9,948 9,787
8,450 To tal Reion XII 9,048 10,258 . 10,813,
I 41,926 1! 45,289 49,596 ; 51,597 i
IUnemployment
Eagie County
I ' !
jGrand County 963 7681 595 567 ,
2811 247, 1621 166;
IJackson Coun
;Pitkin Coun ~ 66; 701 711, 66 ~
~
Routt Coun 630, 535i 4,20~ 429!
~
Summit Coun 570' 522 381j 4331
391 333
305i
ITotal Region.Xll 527 - • 3,037, 2,533 1,934:
11,9941
. I I
I ,
~Unem lo ment Rate ,
IEa le Coun ! 6.9% I
IGrand Coun 5•2~ ~O 3.7%
IJackson County ' 6.1%j 5.1°/a 32% 3.1%
~Pitkm County 6 9% i 6 5% I 7 3% I 7 4% !
81%I 63%I 47%48%;
Irtoutt County 6 6% I 5 6% i 3 9% 4 2%
l5ummit Coun 5.9% 4.1% i o~ o,
~
!Total Region XII , 2 9~/~ ~ 3.0/o
68/0l 53%; 380/oi 37°Jo
I i
Indicates Data Unavailable I ' ~ !
i ~
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments
Julv 1997 ~
, 0 .
~
~on and Housing
Eagle PopulatCounty Eagle Counh' has the largest PoPulation of the six counties in Region
XII. The 1995 estimate is 28,680 persons. Between 1980 and 1990. the
county grew by 65% and was second only to Douglas County in .
percentage growth for Colorado's 63 counties. More recently (1990 -
1995) Eagle County was the 12th fastest growing county in.the state. -
The population density is 17.1 persons per square mile.
Table 7. Eagle County Population 1990 - 1995
Jurisdiction ' 1990 1995 % Change
Avon 1,798 2,489 38.4%
Births: Basalt 1,084 1,362 25.6%
Eagle 1.580 2,070 31.0%
1990 425 Gypsum 1,750 2,215 26.6%
Minwrn 1,066 1,107 3.9%
1991 430 Red Cliff 297 295 -.7%
Vail 3,716 4,354 17.2%
1992 428 Unincorporated 10,637 14.788 39.0%
• Total 21,928 28,680 30.8%
1993 439
Just over half of the countv residents live in the unincorporated part of
1994 448 the countv which has also been growing at the fastest rate. Avon,
Eagle. Gypsum and Basalt have all been growing at rates above 25% in
the five year period 1990 - 1995.
1995 441 Vail is the largest tawn in the countv and is essentially "built out"
which accounts for the somewhat smaller growth rate.
Eagle County
Population Distribution 1995
Red Clift pvon
1 % 9 % Basalt
JD5%
nincorp. Eagle
51% 7%
Gypsum B % intum
Vail 4 %
15%
i ' z.
1Vorthwest Colorado Council of Governments g
Julv 1997
. , . . . : :
Housing prices have been rising steadily as evidenced in the cHart
below, which tracks the selling price of single family homes from 1992
through 1995. These statistics were compiled by Data Research
Associates in Breckenridge.
T.~bl~ 8. Average ale Price of a Sinaip ~y Ho~ig
~a~le o ~ntv 199_2 ~ Qo~
7Basalt iction 1992 1995 % Change ~
$164,819 $448,062 172%,
1995 $ i s6,9~ ~ $Z SS,830 65%
V$CanCy Eagle $124,568 $197,447 59% .
. Rates : GYpsum $ ] 01,481 $146,666 0
45 /a ,
Minturn $92,250 $286,542 211%.
Red Cliff $0 $76,900 n/a
Avon 36,g7a/o
Vail $701,984 $711,750 1o/a ~
Basalt 14.31% Unincorporated $557,256 $660,442 '
Eagle 6.59% Although Minturn shows the highest percent change, it is important to
note that the number of transactions has been small, in the range of 7 to
Gypsum 3.3% 12 homes. ,
Minturn 10.96% Avon also has a large percentage increase and a small number of .
transactions, in this case ranging from 5 to 16 homes.
The largest numbers of single famil_y home sales have been in Basalt,
Red Cliff 9.09% and the unincorporated areas with each averagin over 100 tr
for this four year period. ~ ansactions
Vail 70.22% While most of the jurisdictions have experienced steady increases iin sale
Unincorp. 28,45% prices each year, Vail displayed a much different pattern witli a
considerably smaller number of transactions in 1995 (only 16 compared
Eagle to 47 in 1994) and the average sale price being remarkably lower than
Count3, 40.74% the $997,677 average in 1994. Vail had a 42% increase in the average
sale price ofa single family home from 1992-1994.
Many of the homes, townhomes and condominiums purchased in Eagle
County are second homes whicli are not used as primary residences,. The
State Demographer's Office calculates a"Housing Vacancy Rate" which
includes both seasonal and vacant units. The resort areas tend to have
high vacancy rates due to the large number of second homes (see side
panel). In 1995, Eagle County had a 41 % vacancy rate compared to!the
State's average of 9%.
The Eagle County School District experienced a 25% increase in school
enrollment during this time period, with the number of students in 1992
(3,094) growing to 3,865 in 1995. During this same time period the;
general population grew by 18.6%.
~
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments
Julv 1997 ' y
Eagle County lpmploymeIl11t aIC11d ffICIIeome
Economy:
The economy has been The Eagle County labor force has increased from 13,949 workers in
dominated by jobs in the 1992 to 17,100 in 1995, a 23% increase. The unemployment rate has
service and retail dropped from 6.9% to 3.3% during this same time period. •
- sectors but the greatest
percentageincreases
have been seen in the agricultural and Eagle County Labor Force
construction sectors. 1992 -1995
Actually, these two
sectors go together hand
,eooo
in hand since the 16000
aericultural jobs are +aooo:
mostl landsca ino 1200°i :~~=3<
Y P b ,oooo.;
services associated with sooo; new construction. 6000~
aoooJ
2000
1 !
Mining represents the °
1992 1993 1994 1995
smallest number of jobs
and the smallest growth el`~
of amy of the economic ~
sectors. The table below examines the number of jobs in various economic
sectors of the countv and tlieir relative increase or decrease from 1990 -
The overall 28.7% 1994. These jobs are all covered by unemployment insurance and do not
-rowth in jobs represents include self-employed persons, sole proprietors and other jobs not
a healthy, growing covered by unemployment insurance.
economy, but the large
proportion of service and Table 9. Wage and Sala , Jobs
retail sector.jobs Eagle Gount3, 1990 - 1994
generally means low 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 % Change
wages and the need for (1990-1994)
residents to work more Agr.,For.,Fish 222 248 267 318 364 64.0%
than one job to make Mining 76 79 66 77 79 3,9%
ends meet. Combine this Construction
information witli the 2,509 2,498 2,702 3,024 3,684 46.8%
increase in Iiousing costs Manufacturing 421 323 455 499 575 36.6%
displaved in Table 8, and Trans.,Comm.,Util. 603 630 635 667 785 30.2%
1'ou will liave identified Wholesale Trade 229 244 273 302 329 43.7%
a major trend in Eagle Retail Trade 4,580 4,766 5,090 5,412 5,960 30.1%
County; salary and wage Fin.,Ins.,Real Est 2,560 2,669 2,700 2,905 2,978 16.3%
increases are not keeping Services 7,662 8,020 8,412 8,294 9,591 25.2%
up with increases in the
Government 1,555 1,676 1,752 1,820 1,933 24.3%
average sale price of a
single family liome. Total 20,417 21,153 22,352 23,318 26,278 2g.7°,
Norlhlvest Colorado Council of Governments 10
Jzrlv 1997
•tti~ys:;_" ;~,;:.:'t
- -
-
i •
~
T~ble 10 Average Wee lyW2ge for agle Countv Based od
~omn~red to the olorado Avera e ,
- Ist Quarter 1996
° ; ; Sector Eagle. Coloratlo of State
County Average
Agr., For., Fish $382 $340 112.4% :
Mining $1,133 : n/a
Construction $555 $536 103.5%
Manufacturing $527 $718 73.4%
Trans., Comm., Util. $436 $791 55.1%
Wholesale Trade • $673 $715 94.1 %
Per Capita Retail Trade $343 $289 118.7%
Income' Fin., Ins., Real Est. $516 $706 73 1oo
~ Services $421 $497 84.7%
Government $512 $585 87.5%
The per capita personal
income in Eagle County Average $437 $631 69,2%
in 1980 was $12,927. j
Earnings by Place of Work has increased dramatically in Eagle County
In ] 994 it was $27,461. from $137,007,007 in 1980 to $393,073,000 in 1990, or 187°/a. ln~ 1994
this number had risen to $628,238,000 or 60% in four years. This;
However, in constant number is then adjusted b}, Personal Contributions for Social Irlsirrance
•1994 dollars, per capita and the Adjustment, for Resrdence to calculate the Net Earnings bV Placc
personal income only ofResidence. It is interesting to note that the Adjustment for Residence
increased from $23,544 in Eagle County was a positive 0,595,000 in 1980 and a negative in 1980 to $27,461 in $13,699,000 in 1994 indicating that the county has changed from a ~
o attern of ex o ~
1994, or l 6.6 /o: P p rting workers to one that imports workers from other ~
counties.
. Table 11. Personal Income b Cate o as a Percenta e of Total ~
t
Personal Income: Eagle County 1990 & 1994 r
Category 1980 7761
Net Earnings by Place of Work 80.9% Dividends, Interest & Rent 14.0% Transfer Payments 5 1% 4 9% ~
Total Personal Income 100% 100% ~
Trarrsfer Payments are payments by government and business to ~ -
individuals and non-profit institutions. The largest source is Social ;
Security payments. The state average is 13.5%, so in Eagle County'
transfer payments represent a significantly smaller part of the econqmy.
Net Earnings and Dividends, Interest & Rent are both higher than the
state averages of 70.3% and 16.3% respectively for 1994. '
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments '
July, 1997 11 '
- - - ;7,•.~ :
~
- SaIlc~~ ~ndIlc~~~ors A'
B
E.
G
Retail sales have shown very healthy increases in Eagle Coun M
R
1990 - 1995 Avon, Basalt, Gypsum, and the uninco ry• From v
_ county have a11 recorded increases of over 1ppoo ~orated part of the ~
T
• Table 12. Retail
Eagl ountv 1 qon t nn' E
Jurisdiction 1990 1991 1992 1993 ~
$101.4 hanRe ~
1994 1995 70-1
$g4,3 Avon $66.4 $72.7 995 E
$119.1 $144.5 117.6%
Basalt $17.1 $19.2 $20.8 $25.0 $36.4 $37.4 118.7% ~
Eagle $28.0 $28.5 $27.5 $35.7 $41.8
$46.5 66.1 % I ~
Gypsum $4.3 $4.0 $4.0 $6.0 $9.2 $9.3 116.3°/a I
Minturn $10.1 $11.8 $12.5 $14.0 $16.4
$18.6 84.2% I E
Red Cliff $0.6 $0.5 $0.5 $0.6 $4 3 $0 5 6 2%
Vail $303.7 $310.4 $311.0 $348.7 $376.2 $369.6 21.7°jo
Unincorp. $159.4 $171.8 $181.4 $244.6 $302.2 $330.6 107,4% f
Total $589.6 $618.9 $642.0 $776.0 $905.6 $957.0 62.3°o E
E
~ ~
, The pie chart below shows the proportional share that each jurisdiction Ir
makes up of the county total. Vail has the largest portion of the retail jF
sales at 38% and the unincorporated area of the county is the next IarLest iF
at 35%.
f
I
Eagle County r
If
Distribution of Retail Sales 1995
- r
. Gypsum Avon Red CIIH ~
1% 15% p% i
I
Unincorp. .
35 % Wil .
38 %
Eagle Basalt Mfntum
5% 4% 2%
Avon is picking up a greater proportion of retail sales and accounted for
15% of the total in 1995. The other jurisdictions are much smaller
economic influences in Eagle County.
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments l:
Julv 1997
E6 L GLE V'O`L/ i V Y iL TREND I1 V D C6 1~~ORS +
1992 1993 1994 1995
Po ulation: 2,233 2,366 2,433 2,489
Avon 1,140 1,199 1.252 . 1,362
Basalt MCP 1,623 1,647 1,711 2,070
Ea le 1,877 1,946 2.139 2,215
G sum
' Mintum 1,116 1,134 1,135 1,107
Red Cliff. 298 302 302 295
Vail 3,812 3,870 4,419 4,354 .
Uninco orated Area 12,076 13,168 13,932 14,788
iTotal Ea le Coun Po ulation I 24,175 25,632 27,323 ~ 28,680
' IEa le School District RE50J Total Enrollment I 3,094 3,260 3,515 3,865.
I i
IEa le Coun Em lo ment
i Totai Labor Force I 13,949 14,653 16,280 17,100
Total Em lo ment 12,986 13,885 15,685 16,533
Unem lo ment , 963 768 595 567
I Unem io ment Rate 6.9% 5.2°/a ~ 3.70 /a
I ~
~ i
(Ea le Coun Assessed Valuation $731,268,690 I $839,257,050 , $815,580,160 I $970,977,700
I.Avon Gross Sales $92,398,102I $108,127,701 $127.945,528 $157,682,288
I ~
16asalt Gross Sales I $23,452,449 $27,496,278 $37,454,235 $39,659,478
Ea le Gross Sales ; $39,202,573 $36,267,269 $46,851,009 $56,382,855
iG psum Gross Sales ' $4,456,287 1 $31,283,525 ~ $49,610,796 . $55,970,628
iMmtum Gross Sales ' $13 089 682 ; $14 650 882 $17,332,505 1 $19,141,629 I
Red Cliff Gross Sales $586,347 ! $578,4701 $4,266,698 ! $556,4531
• IVail Gross Sales $315,953,783 i $355,004,000 ~ $403,251,791 j $378,611,343 ;
iRemainder of Count $194,483,113 ~ $255,265,064 ~ $314,547,479 1 $343,247,043 ~
;Total Eagle County Gross Sales $683,622,336 I $828,673,189 ~$1,001,260,0411 $1,051,251,717 1
IDistribution of Gross Sales
IAvon I 13.50/( 13.0°/Q I 12.8% 15.0%
' 3.4% 3.3% i 3.7% ' 3.8%
Basalt "
iEa le . 5.7% 1 4.4% 4.7% 5.4%
IG psum 0.7% 3.8% 1 5.0% 5.3%
IMinturn I 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 1.8%
IRed Cliff I 0.1%i 0.1% 0.4% 0.1%
IVail I 46.2% 1 42.8% 40.3% 36.0%
IRemainder of Count ~ 28.4% I 30.8% 31.4% 32.7%
iTotal Ea le Coun 100% 1 100°/a ! 100% 100%
~
i !
IReal Estate Activi -Town of Avon 16
i Total Sin le Famil houses sold 5 5 ~
I
; Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House $164,819 ; $184,8201 $259,200 I $448,062
IReal Estate Activi -Town of Basalt 79
; Total Sin le Famil houses sold ! 1061 155 95
i Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House $156,971 ; $177,902 $219,892 1 $258,830
! i
IReal Estate Activi -Town of Ea le I 46
Total Sin le Famil houses sold 221 26 60
Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House ; $124,568 $140,521 $180,132 $197,447
, IReal Estate Activi -Town of G sum ,
Total Sin le Famil houses sotd I 261 26 ~ 31 45
Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House ; $101,481 $95,3171 '$134,587 , $146,666
Real Estate Activi -Town of Mintum
Total Sin le Famil houses sold 12 7 11 12
Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House $92,250 $169,314 $154,700 $286,542
Real Estate Activi -Town of Red Cliff
Total Sin le Famil houses sold 0 6 5 5
Av.era e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House $0 $46,917 $68,600 $76,900
Real Estate Activi -Town of Vail
Total Sin le Famil houses sold 43 39 47 16
Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House $701,984 $737,404 $997,677 $711,750
i .
Real Estate Activi -Other Rural Areas
Total Sin le Famil houses sold 92 111 136 121
Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House $557,256 $466,999 $596,193 $660,442
i
IVail/Beaver Creek Jet Center j i
IEnplanements 54,886 64,364 ; 77,882 110,454
Skier Da s ear of season end)
Arrowhead i 31,881 23,721 28,641 21,729
iBeaver Creek 445,802 488,603 504,516 538,897
Vail 1,540,018 1,570,350 1,527,698; 1,568,360
~
i I
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments 14
July 1997
~
0
~ uIl~.° ~
Ga~ ~Il~~ ~~d Hous
i
Iln
~ . Gran d C
O~ n: ounty accounts for 10% of the regional population. 6rowth
has been occurring at a somewhat slower rate than some of the o her
counties in the region but is sti l l s lig ht ly higher than the state average
(13.7%) for the fve year period 1990 - 1995. The population density is
4.9 persons per square mile.
. Table 3 Grand Co t~ w p......~_
~ u~aiion iy"U 995 ,
diction 1990 1995
%.Change
573
659 1~5.0%
966 1,114 1,5.3%
L [Hh
e 259
Births: ur Sprin s 29~ ~?•4%
g 347 401 1$.6%
g 1, l 66 1,347 15.5%
k
1990 111 528 58 1 i o.b~o
ra
ted
4,127 4,762 1 S.4%
1991 9'] 7,966
9,155 14'.9%
1992 84 53% of the population lives in the unincorporated area. Kremmlinb,
located on the western part of the county, is the largest incorporated
municipality, accounting for I S% of the county population.
1993 92 Kremmling's growth is related to its proximity to Summit County and
many residents make the commute to the neighboring county's resort
1994 106 " areas for employment. ,
. ~
The county's growth pattern has been fairly consistent throughout' the
1995 106 county w;th
Granby, ;
Fraser, and Grand County Hot Sulphur Population Distribution 1995 ;
Springs all
experiencing
about a 15% Unincorp.
53%
growth rate.
~
Winter Park 6% I "
Kremmling Fraser
15% NotSulphurGrandLake Granby 7%
. 4% 3% 12% ,
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments
July 1997 ;15
V
Housing prices have been rising steadily as evidenced in the chart
_ below, which tracks the average sale price of single family homes from
1992 through 1995. These statistics were compiled by The Grand
County Board of Realtors.
Table 14. Average Sale Price of a Single Family Home
Grand County 1992 - 1995
1995 Jurisdiction 1992 1995 % Change
Vacancy Granby . $67,909 $110,527 63%
Rates: Grand Lake $88,856 $126,444 42%
Hot Sulphur Springs $43,100 $70,417 63%
Fraser 45.75% Kremmling $56,465 $80,019 42%
Winter Park $105,529 $197,763 87%
Granby 14.48%
The Fraser area statistics are included with the Winter Park numbers,
Grand Lake 83.81% and the unincorporated areas are usually included with those ofthe
closest town.
Hot Sulphur
Springs 26.40% The Winter Park area has the highest seliing price and the greatest
percentage increase in the county. The number of transactions in this
Kremmling 14.52% area has been between 45 and 63 home sales per year.
'
The greatest number of transactions has consistently been seen in the
Winter Park 82.84% Grand Lake area which varied between 76 and ] 06 home sales per year.
Unincorp. - 71.40% Many of the homes, townhomes and condominiums purchased in Grand
County are second homes which are not used as primary residences. The
Grand State Demographer's Office calculates a"Housing Vacancy Rate" which
County 65.61% includes both seasonal and vacant units. The resort areas tend to have
high vacancy rates due to the large number of second homes (see side
panel). In 1995, Grand County had a 66% vacancy rate compared to the
State's average of 9%.
The Grand County School District experienced a 12% increase in school
enrollment during this time period, with the number of students in 1992
(1.565) growing to 1,758 in 1995. During this same time period the
general population grew by 10%.
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments 16
July 1997
~
E~~~~~~~~t an~1 Income
Grand County
Economy: The Grand County labor force has increased from 4,628 workers in 1992
The economy has been to 5,327 in 1995, a 15% increase. The unemployment rate has dropped _ dominated by jobs in the from 6.1 % to 3.1 % during this same time period.
service and retail
sectors which accounted for 57% of the total jobs Grand County Labor Force
in 1994. The greatest 1992 -1995
percentage increases .
have been seen in the ~
Wholesale Trade and
szoo
Construction sectors.
sm
~
Mining has shown the 4800 ~
greatest decrease and 460°
Manufacturing has also 440°
been on the decline. 4=
1ss2 ,ass ,esa ,ses
The overall 15.7% 7 _
%h..
growth in jobs is less
than the regional average
of 20%. There is a large The table below examines the number of jobs in various economic
dependence on service sectors of the county and their relative increase or decrease from 1990 -
and retail sector jobs 1994. These jobs are all covered by unemployment insurance and do not
which generally pay low include self-employed persons, sole proprietors and other jobs not
wages. In Grand covered by unemployment insurance.
County's case _(as Table
16 on the next page ,
indicates) the wages for
Table 15 Wa p and Salary Jobs ,
jobs in these two are Grand County 1990 1994
considerable lower than
the state average. 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 % Change
(1990-1994)
Agr.,For.,Fish 79 93 87 g$ 104 31,6%
Mining 14 0 O
0 0 -100.0%
Construction 394 426 457 516 621 57.6%
Manufacturing 239 221 167 165 199 .16,7%
Trans.,Comm.,Util. 238 239 234 243 247 3.8%
Wholesale Trade 57 72
82 82 97 70.2%
Retail Trade 1,231 1,307 1,393 1,462 1,545
25.5%
Fin.,Ins.,Real Est 820 795 831 881 881
7.4%
Seroices 2,252 2,367 2,369 2,483 2,540 12.8%
Government 873 880 921 920 937 7,3%
Total 6,197 6,400 6,541 6,850 7,171 ; 15 7p
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments
Julv 1997 17
~ .
Table 16. Average Wee jy Wage for Crand ['n„oty BaQd JobY
Comnared to the Colorado Averaee
lst Quarter 1996
Sector- Grand Colorado °10 of'State
County Average
Agr., For., Fish $348 $340 102.4%
Mining $1 133 .
Construction $447 $536 83.4%
Manufacturing $279 $718 gg g% -
Trans., Comm., Util. $455 $791 57.5%
Wholesale Trade $313 $715 43.8%
Per Capita Retail Trade • $231 $289 79.9%
Fin., Ins., Real Est. $335 $706 47.5%
Income: Services $270 $497 54.3%
Government $453 $585 77.4%
The per capita personal Average $348 $631 55.1 %
income in Grand County
in 1980 was $10,439.
Earnings bv Place of Work has increased in Grand County from
In 1994 it was $21,142. $51,910,000 in 1980 to $93,053,000 in 1990, or 79%. In 1994 this
number had risen to $129,891,000 or 40°/a in four years. This number is
However, in constant then adjusted by Personal Contributions for Sociallnsurance and the
1994 dollars, per capita Adjustment for Residence to calculate the Net Earnings by Place of
' personal income onlv Residettcc. It is interesting to note that the Adjustment for Residence in
increased from $18,953 Grand Countv has been a positive number since 1980 indicating that the
in 1980 to $21,142 in county pattern is one of exporting workers to other counties.
1994, or 11.5%. Table 17. Personal Income b Category as a Percentage of Total
Personal Income• Grand County 1990 & 1994
Category , 1980 1994
Net Earnings by Place of Work 74.6% 67.5%
Dividends, Interest & Rent 17,3% 21.2%
Transfer Payments 8.1 % 11.2% Total Personal lncome ] 00% 100%
Transfer Pavmerus are payments by government and business to
individuals and non-profit institutions. The largest source is Social
Securitv payments. The state average is 13.5%, so in Grand County
transfer payments represent a slightly smaller part of the economy.
Net Earnings and Dividends, lnterest & Rent are both higher than the
state averages of 70.3% and 16.3% respectively for 1994.
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments 18
Julv 1997
I -
. i
, .
. .
. . .
- I
. . . .
' . . ' . . . . ' . =Saleslndicators ~
:
Retail sales have shown substantial increases in Grand County. The
distribution of retail sales is greatest in the Winter Park and'
unincorporated county area. The greatest percentage increases have
been in Winter Park and Kremmling.
Table 18 Reta.i saiPe re ..,•n• . ' -
~ ~rand ountv 199(~ ~gqq
Jurisdiction 1990 1991 1992 9993 1994 1995 LOX, Ch ange
90-1995
Fraser $16.6 $16.7$17.4 $19.5 $232 $23.7 42.8%
Granby $17.8 $19.2 $23.5 $24.4 $26.5 $24.1 35.4%
Grand Lake $9.4 $11.3 $11.5 $12.6 $15.3 $15.0 59.6%
Hot Sulphur $1.5 $1.3 $1.3 $1.6 $6.0 $2.1 40.0%
Kremmling $13.5 $33.2 $13.6 $16.1 $20.9 $24.1 78.5%
Winter Park $38.7 $40.7 $45.8 $48.1 $55.1 $52.6 35.9%
Unincorp. $32.1 $35.2 $35.9 $42.6 $54.3 $58.1 81.0%
Total $129.6 $157.6 $149.0 $164.9 $201.3 $199.7 54.1%
,
The pie chart below shows the proportional share that each jurisdiction
makes up of the county totai. The unincorporated part of the county has
. the largest portion ofthe retail sales at 29%, and Winter Park:is the next
largest at 26%.
_ Grand County ,
" Distribution of Retail Sales'1995
. ;
. Unincorp.
Winter Park 29 %
I `3
Zs% ~
Fraser
12 %
Kremmling
;
IL
12% HotSulphur Grand Lake Granby
1% 8% 12%
K
Granby, Fraser and Kremmling each account for 12% of the total
county retail sales. Grand Lake is next at 8% and Hot Sulphur Springs
accounts for onl_y 1% of the county retail sales. Northwest Colorado Council of Goverrrments I
July 1997 ~ 19
•
GRAND COUNTll TREND R1V ICA"FORS
1992 1993 1994 1995
Po ulation:
Fraser 599 610 627 659
Granb 1,011 1,029 1,060 1,114
Grand Lake 264 269 276 291
Hot Sul hur S rin s 364 371 381 401
Kremmlin 1,225 1,244 1,282 1,347
Winter Park 536 549 563 581
Unincor orated Area ! 4,315 4,407 4,531 4,762
Total Grand Coun Po ulation 8,314 8,479 8,720 9,155 East Grand School District Total Enroilment 1,065 1,073 1,093 1,193
IWest Grand School District Total Enrollment ! 500 , 513 539 565
I I
' IGrand Coun Emplo ment
i Total Labor Force 4,628 4,856 5,018 j 5,327
Total Em lo ment 4,347 4,609 4,856 5,161
.Unemplo ment i 281 247 162 166
Unemplo ment Rate 6.1 % 5.1 % 3.2% 3.1 %
IGrand Coun Assessed Valuation $201,643,850 $184,268,370 $180,352,260 $188,224,930
! i I
~Fraser Gross Sales , $17,770,687 $19,836,461 $24,039,180 $24,130,668
IGranb Gross Sales ; $29,229,302 $28,004,180 $30,215,532 $28,238,439
IGrand Lake Gross Sales $12,048,017 $13,107,739 $16,001,095 $15,341,306
:Hot Sulphur Sprin s Gross Sales i $1,382,020 $1,640,585 $6,365,962 $2,212,123
IKremmlin Gross Sales $15,603,5671 $16,587,3661 $21,587,212 $24,993,407
IWinter Park Gross Sales $46,927,041 i $49,268,368' $57,334,233 ! $54,858,698 ,
',Remainder of County $47,919,413' $52,926,388 i $65,859,195 I $75 392,725 i
~Total Grand Counry Gross Sales $170,880,047 i$181,371,087 ,$221,402,409 1 $225,167,366 ~
~ i
IDistribution of Gross,Sales ' j
IFraser ! 10.4% j 10.9% I 10.9% 10.7%
Granb . j 17.1 % 15.4% 13.6% 12.5%
IGrand Lake - 7.1%1 72% 7.2% 6.8%
,Hot Sulphur Sprin s. 0.8% i 0.9% 2.9°Io 1.0%
iKremmlin 9.1%I 9.1% 9.8% 11.1%
IWinter Park j ' 27.5%1 27.2% 25.9% 24.4%
IRemainder of Count ' 28.0% I 29.2% 29.7% 33.5%
Total Grand Counry 100.0°/a ~ 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.0% i
,Real Estate Activi -Town of Hot Sulphur Sp s
Total Sin le Famil houses sold
Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House $43,100 ; $58,917 1 $71,278 i $70,417
,
i
IReal Estate Activi -Town of Granb ~
Total Sin le Famil houses sold ' 12 201 27 22
Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House $67,909 $68,475 $93,631 $110,527
'Real Estate Activi -Town of Grand Lake
Total Sin le Famil houses sold 76 ; 97 ; 106 91
Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House $88,856' $89,611 $108,244 $126,444
IReal Estate Activi -Town of Kremmlin i
Total Sin le Famil houses sold 151 30 ~ 31 24
Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House $56,4651 $59,780 $72,003 $80,019
Real Estate Actlvl -Town of Winter Park
Total Sin le Famil houses sold 46 63
Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House 53 45
$105,529 $141,390 $136,773 $197,763
Skfer Da s ear of season end .
Winter Park 961,061 1,019,181 1,008,040 986,077
Silver Creek 72,692 79,312
93,5,16 92,547
I
i
'
i
,
- ~
. i
;
~
~
I
Northwest Colorado Councrl of Governments
Julv 1997 ~ 21
I~~~~ll~~io.~ an~1 IHIousing
Jacks-on .
C'ounty Jackson County accounts for 2% of the regional population. Jackson
County has t he sma l lest popu lation o f any county in t he region and
the smallest rate of growth. The population density is only 1.1 persons per square mile.
From 1980 - 1990 the county displayed a markedly different pattern
than the rest of the region by experiencing a decrease in population of
258 persons or negative 13.8%. The more recent statistics from 1990
- 1995 show slight increases in population for both the Town of
Walden and the county as a whole.
Table 19. Jackson Countv Population 1990 - 1995
Jurisdiction 1990 1995 % Change
Births: Walden 890 938 5.4%
Unincorporated 715 785 9.8%
1990 23 Total 1,605 1,723 7.4%
1991 22 Walden is the only incorporated municipality in the countv and its
population of 938 persons accounts for 54% of the total. The
1992 19 unincorporated area has been growing at a higher rate than the town
- itself.
1993 18.
Jackson County
1994 17 Population Distribution 1995
1995 14 Unincorp.
46%
~
~
Walden
54 %
~ ~ .
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments 22
Julv 1997
Jackson Coun IEmplloymmcnt'am~~l ffm~eom~
tY
Economy: The Jackson County labor force has fluctuated from a high of 1'1085
workers in 1993 to a low of 887 workers in 1994, displaying arr overall
8% decrease in the four year period. The unemployment rate has risen .
from 6.9% to 7.4% during this same time period.
The economy in Jackson Jackson County Labor Force
County does not displa), 1992 -1995
the same resort
dominated '
characteristics that are 1200 evident in the other +000
,
4d
counties in Region XII. eoo i ~ 4..
600: The greatest number of aooi' c
jobs are present in the Zaal
government, services o
retail trade, and 1992 1993 1994 1995
manufacturing sectors.
kw . 3
. r..p .~,3iN~i4s
The greatest percentage
increases have been seen The table below examines the number of jobs in various economic
in the services and sectors of the county and their relative increase or decrease from 1990 -
construction sectors. 1994. These jobs are all covered by unemployment insurance and do not
inciude seif-employed persons, sole proprietors and other jobs not
Tlle total number of jobs covered by unemployment insurance.
is small and has not been
showing a consistent Table 20. Wage and Salarv Jobs ~
growth rate, although the Jackson County_ 1990 - 1994
overall number of jobs 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 % Change
has increased by a (1990-1994)
healthy 23% during the Agr.,For.,Fisn n/a 64 62 66 71 h/a
time period of 1990 - Mining 19 18 18 27 15 '-21.1°/a
1994. Construction 47 59 86 88 60 27.7%
Manufacturing 154 142 159 167 139 '-9.7%
Trans.,Comm.,Util. 61 68 62 68 70 14.8°!0
Wholesale Trade n/a 10 11 n/a n/a n/a
Retail Trade 150 145 148 157 166
Fin.,Ins.,Real Est 33 30 30 30 30 -9.1%
Services 114 137 170 183 184 '61.4%
Government 173 166 180 188 189 ' g.2o/a
i
Tota1 751 839 926 974 924 ' 23.0%
I
~
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments ~ 23
Julv 1997
Table 21. Average Wee y Wage for Jackson County Based Jobs
Please Note• Comoared to the Colorado Average
Statistics on housing lst uarter 1996
prices were not Sector ':Jackson .'Colorado °k of State
available for Jackson County Average
County. Agr., For., Fish $316 $340 92.9%
Mining $1,133 '
Many of the homes and Construction $332 $536 61.9%
• ranches purchased in Manufacturing $747 $718 104.0%
Jackson County are Trans., Comm., Util. $203 $791 25.7%
second homes which are
Wholesale Trade ; $715
not used as primary
residences. The State Retail Trade $213 $289 73.7%
Demographer's Office Fin., tns., Real Est. $706
calculates a "Housing Services $230 $497 46.3%
Vacancy Rate" which
Government $390 $585 66.7%
includes both seasonal
and vacant units. Average $347 $631 55.0%
Jackson County displays
a similar pattern to the Earnings by Place of Work has increased in Jackson County from
resort areas for this trend $12,038,000 in 1980 to $15,906,000 in 1990, or 32%. In 1993 this
of having high vacancy number had risen to $22,657,000 and then fell back to $17,894,000 in
rates due to the large 1994 sliowing an overall increase of only 12% for the four year period.
number of second This number is then adjusted by Personal Contributions foi- Social
homes. In 1995, Jackson Insurance and the Adjustment for Residence to calculate the NeI
County had a SO% Earnirigs bv Place of Residence. It is interesting to note that the
vacancy rate compared Adjustment for Residence in Jackson County fluctuated from small
to the State's average of positive to small negative amounts indicating that the county is in a state
9%. of transition regarding the place of work of local residents.
1995 - Table 22. Personal Income by Category as a Percentage of Total
Personal lncome: Jackson Countv 1990 & 1994
Vacancy Category 1980 1994
Rates: Net Earnings by Place of Work 70.2% 61.4%
Dividends, Interest & Rent 19.7°ro 24.1 %
Walden 14.85% Transfer Payments 9.9% 14.4%
Total Personal Income 100% 100%
Unincorp. 66.45%
Transfer Pavnrents are payments by government and business to
Jackson individuals and non-profit institutions. The largest source is Social
Countv 50.11 security payments. The state average is 13.5%, so in Jackson County
° transfer pavments represent a slightly larger part of the economy.
Net Earnings is lower than the state average of 70.3% and Dividends,
Interest & Rent is higher than the state average of 163% for 1994.
Northwest Colorudo Courrcil of Governnrerlts 24
JulY 1997
Indicators
Retail sales have shown a substantial increase in Jackson County. .
Walden displayed a 73.6% increase in retail sales over the time period
1990 - 1995.
Table 23 Retail Sale ( million)
Jackson 1990-1995
Per Capita Jurisdiction 1990 1991 ' 1992 1993 1994 1995 % Change
1990.1995
Income: Walden $8.7 $9.8 $13.1 $12.9 $14.9 $15.1 73.6%
Unincorp. $4.7 $3.4 $4.5 $4.9 $4.6 $6.0 27.7%
The per capita personal Total $13.4 $132 $17.6 $17.8 $19.5 $21.1 57.5%
income in Jackson
County in 1980 was
$8,815.
The pie chart below shows the proportional share that each jurisdiction
In 1994 it was $16,373. makes up of the county total. Walden has the largest portion of the retail
sales at 72% with the unincorporated county area making up the
However, in constant remaining 28%.
. 1994 dollars, per capita
personal income onlv
increased from $16.004
1994gortor~116,373 in Jackson County , y 2.3%. _
. Distribution of Retail Sales 1995 .
. Unf n corp.
28 %
i
Walden
72 %
~y
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments 25
July 1997
V JACKSO1V (UOUNT1L TR ND I1V ICATORS
1992 1993 1994 1995
I
Po ulation:
894 937 951 938
Walden
728 768 784 785
Uninco orated Area
Total Jackson Coun Po ulation • 1,622 1,705 1,735 1,723
North Park School District R1 Total Enrollment 347 333 337 341
I IL
Jackson Coun Em lo ment
, Total Labor Force I 962 1,085 969 i 887
i Total Em lo ment I 896 1,0151 898 82~ ;
• Unem lo ment I 66 701 71 66 !
Unem lo ment Rate 6.9% 6.5% ; 7.3% 7.4% :
~
Jackson Coun Assessed Valuation i $22,136,730 $22,902,330 . $23,335,000 I $21,003,370
. . ~ I
$16,059,979 $16,764,675
Walden Gross Sales $14,111,283 $14,709,125 11
RemainderofCoun , $21,306,179 $15,710,789 $11,158,8401 $7,058,943
ITotal Jackson Coun Gross Sales I $38,417,462 , $30,419,914 I $27,218,819 I $23,823,618
. ~
~
IDistribution of Gross Sales
iWalden 36.7% I 48.4% ; 59.0% i 70.4%
!Remainder of Count 55.5°/o 51.6% ! 41.0% 1 29.6%
Total Jackson County 100.0%I 100.0% 100.0%1 100.0%
, ~ I I
Real Estate Activity Town of Walden i I" Not Available 7 I
Total Sin le Famil houses sold
Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House
IReal Estate Activi -Other Rural Areas ! Total Single Family houses sold i
Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House '
Noi•tlawest Colorado Council of Governments 26
AI1, 1997
. ' - • PopuIl~~~~n and IHIousing
P~tkin.
~ .
Pitkin County accounts for 16% of the regional population. The coun
grew at a moderate rate of 12.8% from 1990 - 1995. ~
The town of Basalt is located on the border of Eagle and Pitkin counties
with most of the town's population actually residing in Eagle County. .
The total town population growth for this time period was 30.4%.
The population density for Pitkin County is 14.7 persons per square
mile.
Table 24 Pltki[1 Couiltv PopLlatinn 1oo0 1995
Jurisdiction 1990 1995 % Change
Aspen 5,049 5,630 11.5%
Births: Basalt 126 216 71.4%
Snowmass Village 1,449 1,587 9.5%
Unincorporated 6,037 6,851 13.5%
1990 147 Total 12,661 14,284 12.8%
1991 145
48°/a of the population resides in the unincorporated area. Aspen is the
1992 150 largest town with 5,630 residents, or 39% of the total population. The
high price of housing in this area has forced tlie working population to
move "downvalley" to Basalt, EI Jebel, Carbondale, Glenwood Springs,
1993 157 Rifle and beyond.
1994 154 Pitkin Count
Y
1995 143 _ Populat'ion Distribution 1995
Unincorp.
48%
Snowmass .
Village
11%
Basalt
2%
Aspen
99 %
. '?fdan.i.r-..k. .wd'i
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments 27
Julv 1997
Housing prices have been rising to incredibly high selling prices as .
evidenced in the chart below, which tracks the selling price of single
family homes from 1992 through 1995. These statistics were compiled
by the Aspen Board of Realtors.
Table 25 Average Sale Price of a Single Family Home
Pitkin Countv 1992 - 1995
.1
1995 Jurisdiction 1992 1995 % Change
Aspen $1,242,131 $1,726,347 39%
Vacancy Snowmass Village $674,923 $1.002,904 49%
Rates: Unincorporated $298,853 $492,988 65%
Aspen 32.67% ln Aspen, the number of units sold has varied from a low of 65 units in
1995 to a high of 80 units in 1992. The average sale price has increased
Basalt 21.37% steadily during the four year period.
As reported in The Aspen Times, The Aspen Appraisal Group, Ltd.
Snowmass conducted a comprehensive stady of the Aspen-area real estate market in
Village 68.88% 1995. "As land prices have increased, the $l million threshold is not
what it used to be and in many subdivisions $1 million homes, and in
. Unincorp. 20.85% some cases $2 million homes, are'scrapers', ripe for demolition," said
Aspen Appraisal Group's overview.
Pitkin
County 36.70% In 1994, there were 60 sales of homes in Aspen for more than $1 million
- 45 percent were at prices over $2 million. In addition, 22 percent of
the sales, or 13 transactions were over $3 million. Another seven sales
were over $4 million, according to the Aspen Appraisal Group.
"This is the strongest activity we have had in these ultra-high price
ranges," the copyrighted study said. "It is evident that Aspen is
continuing to appeal to an ever more affluent buyer."
Manv of the homes, townhomes and condominiums purchased in Pitkin
County are second homes which are not used as primary residences. The
State Demographer's Office calculates a"Housing Vacancy Rate" which
includes both seasonal and vacant units. The resort areas tend to have•
high vacancy rates due to the large number of second homes (see side
panel). In 1995, Pitkin County had a 37% vacancy rate compared to the
State's average of 9%.
Tlle Pitkin Countv School District experienced a] 0% increase in school
enrol4ment during this time period, with the number of students in 1992
(1,125) growing to 1,224 in 1995. During this same time per.iod the
general population grew by 8%.
Northx,est Colorado Council of Governments 28
.Iulv 1997
- ----..w _ -
,
i
Pitkin County m]~loymc~Il71t ~1,Il71d IIl]1c~oIl]Y11cL
: Economy: The resort economy in The Pitkin County labor force has increased from 7,739 workers in 1992
Pitkin County has been to 8,911 in 1995, a 15% increase. The unemployment rate has: dropped
dominated by jobs in the from 8.1 % to 4.8% during this same time period. ; •
service and.retail ~
sectors. In 1994, these ' -
two sectors accounted Pitkin County Labor Force
for 40% and 24% of the 1992 -1995 total wage and salary
,
jobs in the county. 90M
BM
The greatest percentage eaoo
increases have been seen ezooj
in the agricultural and
7900 manufacturing sectors. 7600
7400
7200
~
Mining represents the 70°°
7992 1993 !1"4 1995
smallest number of jobs
and the greatest decrease ~
~~in growth (-97%) of any Wof the economic sectors. .
The overall 10% growth The table below examines the number of jobs in various economic
in ,jobs represents a sectors of the county and their relative increase or decrease from 1990 -
stable economy, but the 1994. These jobs are all covered by unemployment insurance and do not
large proportion of include self-employed persons, sole proprietors and other jobs',not
service and retail sector covered by unemployment insurance. ,
jobs general}y means ,
lower wages. . Table 36 Wage-and Salary Jobs ~
Pitkin Countv 1990 - 1994 ;
The housing costs 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 %'Change
displayed in Table 25 (1990-1994)
identiN a major need in Agr.,For.,Fish 189 196 202 232 265 40.2%
Pitkin County for Mining 579 67 31 18 19 ,-96.7%
employee housing. Many Construction 1,570 1,274 1,251 1,423 1,770 ~ 12.7%
resort industry workers Manufacturing 294 320 346 382 397 i 35.0%
in Pitkin County make Trans.,Comm.,Util. 542 479 536 565 561 i 3.5%
tlie long commute from
areas with more ~Nholesale Trade 165 180 181 156 172 ; 42%
affordable housing Retail Trade 4,076 3,900 4,104 4,292 4,606 : 13.0%
prices. Fin.,tns.,Real Est 2,700 2,503 2,428 2,521 2,563 ,-5.1%
Services 6,336 6,469 6,794 7,574 7,759 22.5%
Government 1,238 1,262 1,272 1,313 1,369 i 10.6%
Total 17,689 16,650 17,145 18,476 19,481 ~ 10.1%
~
Northwest Colorado Council of Goverflments ~ 29
Jul v 1997
'
Table 27 Average We y Wage for Pit{tn Counri Based Jobs
omDared to the Colorado Average
Ist Quarter 1996
0
Sector:. ;:.Pitkin Colorado k af:State
County 'Average
Agr., For., Fish $465 $340 136.8%
Mining $1,133
Construction $603 $536 112.5%
' Manufacturing $513 $718 71.40/c~ Trans., Comm., Util. $501 $791 63.3% Wholesale Trade • $899 $715 125.7%
Retail Trade $346 $289 119•7%
Fin., Ins., Real Est. $660 $706 93.5%
Per Capita Services $420 $497 84.5%
Income: Government $516 $585 88.2%
Average $547 $631 86.7%
The per capita personal
income in Pitkin County Earnings by Place of Work has increased dramatically in Pitkin County
in 1980 was $17,193. from $165,968,000 in 1980 to $378,221,000 in 1990, or 128%. In 1994
this number had risen to $527,460,000 or 39% in four years. This
In 1994 it was $39.898. number is then adjusted by Personal Contributions for Social Insurance
, and the Adjustment,for Residence to calculate the Net Earnings by Place
However, in constant nf Residence. lt is interesting to note that the Adjustment,for Residence
1994 dollars, per capita in Pitkin County was a negative $34,236,000 in 1980 and has increased
personal income to a negative $115,138,000 in 1994 indicating that the county has greatly
increased from $31,217 increased in its pattern of importing workers from other counties.
in 1980 to $39,898 in
1994, or 27.8%. Table 28 Personal Income by Categorv as a Percentage of Total
Personal Income• Pitkin Couniy 1990 & 1994
Category 1980 1994
Net Earnings by Place of Work 70.0% 66.1 %
Dividends, Interest & Rent 26.8°/a 30.6%
Transfer Payments 3.2% 3.3%
Total Personal lncome 100°/a 100%
Transfer Pavments are payments by government and business to
individuals and non-profit institutions. The largest source is Social
Security payments. The state average is ] 3.5%, so in Pitkin County
transfer payments represent a significantly smaller part of the economy.
Net Earnings is lower than the state average of 70.3% and Dividends,
Interest & Rent is significantly higher than the state average of 16.3%
for 1994.
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments 30
July 1997
:1~
_ Sales IIl11dIlcatoICs
Retail sales have shown mostly steady increases in Pitkin County. From
1990 - 1995 Aspen, Snowmass Village and the unincorporated part of
the county have all recorded increases of over 35%. Table 29. Retail ale million)
Pitkin Countv 1990 - 1995 .
Jurisdiction 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 % Cnange
• 1990-1995
Aspen $294.2 $306.9 $337.4 $394.0 $422.8 $439.7 49.5%
Snowmass
Village $79.3 $79.3 $89.2 $96.3 $107.9 $1'07.7 35.8%
Unincorp. $103.9 $100.1 $114.2 $106.3 $118.0 $142.5 37.2%
Total $477.4 $486.3 $540.8 $596.6 $648.7 $689.9 44.5%
The pie chart below shows the proportional share that each jurisdiction
makes up of the county total. Aspen has the largest portion of the retail
sales at 63%, the unincorporated area of the county is the next largest at
21%, and Snowmass Village makes up the remaining 16%.
- Pitkin County
Distribution of Retail Sales 1995 Snowmass
ViIlage
16%
P4..~~
Aspen
63 %
Unineorp.
21%
.
:u:: .,..:..aa::'
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments 31
July 1997
. .
~ TITKIN (COUNTY TREND INDICATORS
1992 1993 1994 1995
Po ulation:
As en ' 5,181 5,406 5,558 5,630
Basalt MCP 178 190 200 216
Snowmass Villa e 1,495 1,544 1,58$ 1,587
Unincor orated Area 6,380 6,705 6,892 6,851
Total Pitkin Coun Population 13,234 13,845 14,238 14,284 .
I
Aspen School District Total Enrollment 1125 1160 1197 1224
, Pitkin Coun Emplo ment
Total Labor Force ; 7,739 8,433 8,871 ~ 8,911 I
Total Em loyment 7,109 1,898 8,451 ~ 8,482
Unem lo ment , 630 535 420 • 429
Unemployment Rate I 8.1 % I 6.3% ; 4.70/o 4.8%
; ~ I I I
iPitkin County Assessed Valuation ' $828,708,170 ; $850,785,730 ; $869,497,470 I $958,302,150 ;
i I I I ! _ I
! I
lAspen Gross Sales ~$350,151,343 1 $407,117,226 $445,657,431 $559,860,216 i
ISnowmass Village Gross Sales ~ $90,013,988 ~ $97,078,632 $109,030,282 $108,764,378
Remainder of Count i$119,250,912 i$110,791,548 $124,343,742 $154,287,130
ITotal Pitkin County Gross Sales I$559,416,243 $614,987,406 $679,031,455 $822,911,724
f I I
IDistribution of Gross Sales
,Aspen 62.6% ; 66.2% i 65.6% 68.0%
' Snowmass Villa e 16.1 %15.8°o j 16.1 % i 13.2916
Remainder of County ! 21.3% j 18.0% 18.3% 18.7%
ITotal Pitkin Count ~ 100.0% I 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
~
IReal Estate A-ctivity-Town of Aspen ~ I
Total Sin le Famit houses sold . ; 801 77 78 . 65
, Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House I $1,242,131 i $1,259,347 $1,743,762 $1,726,347
i .
~Real Estate Activi -Town of Snowmass VI
' Total Single Family houses sold 271, 27 45 34
Avera e Sale Price - Single Family House $674,923 ! $821,184 ~ $1,225,556 $1,002,904
~
lReal Estate Activity-Other Rural Areas
, Total Single Famil houses sold I ' 57 ! 72 64 43
Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House ~ $298,8531 $279,636 $386,398 $492,988
i
i
IPitkin Count Airport
I
En lanements i 243,907 251,914 ' 239,050 200,685
ISkier Da s( ear of season end)
!Aspen Highlands 152,379 i 145,364 106,197' 159,288
Aspen Mountain 395,591 i 1,381,753 359,846 329,535
IButtermilk ! 163,658 1 161,463 172,948 168,439
ISnowmass 732,617 ' 825,722 814,852 767,509
~
' ' i
7.
I ~
PopulatIl~n and Housing ~
Ro u tt
Geographically, Routt County covers 2,330 square miles making it the.
County
largest counry in the region. It accounts for 19% of the regional .
population with a population density of 7.1 persons per square mile.
The county has experienced an 18% rate of growth from 1990 - 1995 .
with Steamboat Springs exhibiting the greatest rate of growth (23.1 of any area in the county.
Births: Table 30. Routt County Populati9n 1990 - 1995
Jurisdiction 1990 1995 % Change
1990 199 Hayden 1,444 1,569 8.7%
Oak Creek 673 765 , 13.7%
1991 186 Steamboat Springs 6,695 8,241 23.1 %
Yampa 317 359 'i 13.3%
1992 186 Unincorporated 4,959 5,683 14.6%
Total 14,088 16,617 ; 18.0%
1993 185
Steamboat Springs has the largest population of any town in the region.
1994 175 W ithin the county, the town accounts for 50% of the total county
population.
The next largest population is spread out throughout the county in the
1995 169 unincorporated area, which altogether has 34% of the population.
The towns of Hayden, Oak Creek and Yampa make up_ the remaining
- 16% of the population.
Routt County ~
Population Distribution 1995
Yampa
2%
Steamboat Unlncorp.
Springs 34%
50 %
i } .
i
Oak Creek Hayden
5% 9% ;
a9:. ~
~
Northwest Colorado Council of Governnrents 33
July 1997 ;
• ~ f
Statistics on the average price of a single family home by town were
difficult to obtain for Routt County. The statistics we have are from the
Steamboat Springs Board of Realtors. They explained that they changed .
computer systems in 1994, and prior to that time all activity in Routt
County was combined. The chart below only reflects 1994 and 1995 data
by town.
Table 31. Average Sale Price of a in le Family Home
Routt County 1994 - 1995
Jurisdiction.' 1994 1995 % Change
Hayden $110,250 $ ] 01,307 -8%
Oak Creek $86,294 $141,370 84%
Vacancy Steamboat Springs $257,182 $277,891 8%
Rates:
In 1992 the average price of a single family home in Routt County was
Hayden 14.67% $156,485. By 1995 the average had risen to $248,039 or a 59%
increase.
Oak Creek 33.27% Many of the homes, townhomes and condominiums purchased in Routt
County are second homes which are not used as primary residences. The
Steamboat State Demographer's Office calculates a"Housing Vacancy Rate" which
Springs 45.41 % includes both seasonal and vacant units. Tlie resort areas tend to have
high vacancv rates due to the large number of second homes (see side
Yampa 30.65% panel). In 1995, Routt County had a 38.3% vacancy rate compared to the
State's average of 9%.
Unincorp. 30.55%
. The Steainboat Springs School District experienced a 9% increase in
Routt school enrollment during tiie time period of 1992 - 1995, with the
CountV 38.30% number of students in 1992 (1,744) growing to 1,904 in 1995. During
this same time period the general population in Steamboat Springs grew
bv 14.5%.
The Hayden School District enrollment was stable at about 478 students
and the Oak Creek School District grew by 16.4% during this time
period .
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments 34
July 1997
- - - -
.
ROUtt COUnty
Economy: TPmploymeIl]lt a1C]ld ffIl11CCo
me
The resort economy in .
Routt County has been
dominated by jobs in the
service and retail The Routt County labor force has increased from 8,708 workers in 1992 .
sectors. In 1994, these to 10,220 in 1995, a 17% increase. The unemployment rate has dropped
two sectors accounted from 6.5% to 4.2% during this same time period.
for 30% and 23% of the
total wage and salary ROVtt COUnty LabOr FOt'C@
jobs in the county.
, 1992 -1995
The mining sector
accounts for a greater ,osw
number of jobs than in ,oowJ
the other counties in the 9500~
region, but the number is 9000
decreasing, showing an
esoo
overall 3.4% reduction 8000
during the five year
7500
period. ,e92 1993 1994 1895
The greatest percentage v . ~ ~a ~
increases in wage and
salaryjobs have been The table below examines the number of jobs in various economic
seen in the wholesale sectors of the county and their relative increase or decrease from 1990 -
trade , construction and 1994. These jobs are all covered by unemployment insurance and do not
agricultural sectors. include self-employed persons, sole proprietors and other jobs not
Actually, tlie latter two covered by unemployment insurance.
sectors go together. hand
in hand since the Table 32. Wage and Salarv Jobs
agricultural jobs are Routt County 1990 - 1994
mostly landscaping 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 % Change
services associated with (1990-1994)
new construction. Agr.,For.,Fish 173 207 194 215 236 36.4%
Mining 505 420 425 453 488 -3.4%
The overal I 19.6% Construction 1,280 1,296 1,342 1,510 1,734 35.5%
growth in jobs represents Manufacturing 229 218 235 266 290 26.6%
a healthy, growing Trans.,Comm.,Util. 587 641 601 651 699 19.1%
economy, but the large Wholesale Trade 203 249 296 325 364 79.3%
proportion of service and ,
retail sector jobs Retail Trade 2,492 2,680 2,927 3,169 3,304 32.6%
generally means low Fin.,Ins.,Real Est 1,201 1,207 1,268 1,317 1,387 15.5%
wages and the need for Services 3,922 4,024 4,029 4,199 4,277 9.1 %
residents to work more Government 1,244 1,324 1,359 1,334 1,380 10.9%
than one job to make Total 11,836 12,266 12,676 13,439 14,159 19.6%
ends meet.
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments 35
July 1997
Table 33. Average Weekly Wage for Routt Counri Bas_ enhc
Compared to the Colorado Average
lst Quarter 1996
Sector Routt Colorado % of State
County Average
Agr., For., Fish $289 $340 85.0% .
Mining $1,005 $1,133 88.7% -
Construction $556 $536 103.7%
Manufacturing $392 $718 54.6%
Trans., Comm., Util. $581 $791 73.5%
Wholesale Trade $728 $715 101.8%
Per Capita Retail Trade $253 $289 87.5%
Fin., Ins., Real Est. $400 $706 -56.7%
Income: Services $306 $497 61.6%
Government $448 $585 76.6%
The per capita personal Average $496 $631 78.6%
income in Routt County
in 1980 was $13,453.
Earnirrgs by Place of Work has increased in Routt County from
In 1994 it was $25,522. $153,158,007 in 1980 to $241,701,000 in 1990, or 58%. In 1994 this
number had risen to $336,672,000 or 39% in four vears. This number is
However, in constant then adjusted by Personal Contributions.for Social Insuraticc and the
1994 dollars, per capita Adjustrnent for Residence to calculate the IVet Earnings bv Pluce of
personal income only Residence. It is interesting to note that the Adjustme»t_for Rcsidence in
increased from $24,425 Routt Countv was only a negative $888,000 in 1980 and had increased
in 1980 to $25,522 in to a negative $14,992.000 in 1994 indicating that the county has
1994, or only 4.50/o . significantly increased its reliance on importing workers from other
counties.
- Table 34. Personal Income by Category as a Percentage of Total
Personal Income: Routt Countv 1990 & 1994
Category 1980 1994
Net Earnings by Place of Work 80.2% 72.6%
Dividends, Interest & Rent 14.5% 20.7%
Transfer Pavments 5.2% 6.6%
Total Personal Income 100% 100%
Transfer Pavments are payments by government and business to
individuals and non-profit institutions. The largest source is Social
Security payments. The state average is 13.5%, so in Routt County
transfer payments represent a significantly smaller part of the economy.
Net Earnings and Dividends, Interest & Rent are both higher than the
state averages of 70.3% and 16.3% respectively for 1994.
Northwesl Colorado Council of Governments 36
Juh, 1997
`W
i
. i '
i
~
. '
IIl11dIlcato1Cs
;
Retail sales have shown healthy increases in Routt County,, especially in
Oak Creek which has increased 102.8% from 1990 - 1995. Steamboat
Springs and the unincorporated part of the county have eac}i recorded
increases of over 50%. The town of Hayden is the only part! of the
' county showing a negative numbers for growth in retail sales.
Table 35. •Retail Sales ( millionl ~
ROUtt -nnn~ 1990 1945 Jurisdiction 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 % Change
' 1990-1995
Hayden $13.3 $12.3 $9.5 $9.7 $9.6 $9.6 -27.8%
Oak Creek $3.6 $4.6 $3.9 $5.1 $4.6 $7.3 102.8%
Steambt Spg $196.1 $207.5 $234.9 $266.8 $287.7 $309.0 57.6%
Yampa $0.9 $0.9 $1.0 $1.0 Unincorp. $71.7 $0.9 $1.1 27.8%
$76.8 $80.3 $81.2 $106.8 $108.6 51.5%
Total F $285.6 $302.1 $329.6 $363.8 $409.6 $435.6 52.5%
The pie chart below shows the proportional share that each jurisdiction
makes up of the county total. Steamboat Springs by far has the largest
portion of the retail sales at 71 and the unincorporated area of the
countv is the next largest at 25%. ;
~
The other towns of Oak Creek, Hayden and Yampa reflect very tiny
amounts of the total retail sales distribution for Routt County.,
Routt County ~
Distribution of Retail Sales 1995
Yampa
0%
Steamboat
Springs
71% I
Unincorp.
25% # R'"
Hayden r~'F
Oak Creek Z %
2% '
I
1Vorthwest Colorado Council of Governments
Julv 1997 3 ~
~OUT11 CO4.J NT11. 11 RE D 111 ~ 1CAT'ORS
1992 1993 1994 1995
Po ulation:
Ha .den 1,503 1,569 1,523 1,569
Oak Creek • 685 715 741 765
Steamboat S rin s 7,200 7,520 7,994 8,241
Yam a 321 333 348 359
Unincorporated Area 5,212 5,422 5,517 5,683
Total Routt Coun Po ulation 14,921 15,559 16,123 16,617 ;
Steamboat S s Sch. Dist. RE2 Total Enrollment 1,744 1,787 1,885 1,904
Ha den School District Total Enroliment 478 483 470 477
Oak Creek Schoot District Total Enrollment 383 418 436 446
Routt Coun Emplo ment Total Labor Force 8,708 9,356 9,829 10,220
Total Em lo ment 8,138 8,834 9,448 9,787
Unem lo ment 570 522 381 433
Unemplo ment Rate 'i 6.5% 5.6% 3.9% 4.2% ,
i
Routt Coun Assessed Valuation ~ $276,236,100 $291,156,920 , $305,368,010 $337,302,470
Ha den Gross Sales $9,763,221 I $9,964,344 $10,543,071 $10,075,170 ,
10ak Creek Gross Sales I $4,319,437 $5,554,555 $5,209,767 $7,588,449
ISteamboat Sp . Gross Sales I, $254,117,221 $290,981,855 $310,989,373 $340,640,327
FYampa Gross Sales $1,071,038 1 $1,114,422 $991,456 $1,307,372
IRemainder of Count ' $88,271,217 j $91,106,903 $116,481,665 $118,788,664
Total Routt County Gross Sales $357,542,134 $398,722,079 i $444,215,332 . $478,399,982
, j
IDistribution of Gross Sales ! i I
i Ha den 2.7% ! 2.5% i 2.4% ! 2.1 %
I Oak Creek ! 1.2% ' 1.4% . 1.2% 1.6%
;Steamboat Sp . 71.1% 73.0% 70.0% 71.2%
Yampa " 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3%
IRemainder of Count 24.7% i 22.8% 26.2% 24.8%
(Total Routt Coun 100.0% I 100.0% . 100.0% 100.0%
~ I
f
IReal Estate Activi -Town of Ha den '
' Total Sin le Famil houses sold i 10 14
Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House $110,250 $101,307
i
IReal Estate Activi -Town of Oak Creek
Total Sin le Famil houses sold ALL Areas ALL Areas 171 23
, Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House Reported Reported $86,294 $141,370
' To ether To ether
;Real Estate Activi -Town of Steamboat Sp .
Total Sin le Famil houses sold 2091 233 171 151
, Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House $156,485 $181,636' $257,182 $277,891
~
iYampa Valle Re ional Airport
; lEnplanements 58,6431 66,3171 69,299 93,173
!I ~
ISkier Da s ear of season end I
ISteamboat ' 1,005,922 1,053,022 1,021,149 1,013,606
Northwest Colorudo Council of Governments 38
Juli~ 1997
v -
I -
- . _ I
I~o]~ul~l.tIlo~ll ~1Il11d IHIousIlIl11g ;
]l
SUMM'it,
C .
/
OUr1 Summit County. accounts for 20% of the regional PoPulati
on
and has
the highest population density at 28.4 persons per square mile.
The county exhihited the highest population growth rate of any county
in the region, and in fact was 2nd only to Douglas County for fastest
growth in the state from 1990 - 1995.
Within the county, the towns of Silverthorne and Frisco displayed
enormous growth rates of 58.6% and 49.8% respectively.;
Table 36. Summit ountyPrbnulation 1990 1995
Jurisdiction 1990 1995 % Change
Blue River 440 575 ; 30.7%
Breckenridge 1,285 1,603 ~ 24.8%
Births: Dillon 553 647 ' 17.0%
Frisco 1,601 2,399 49.8%
1990 205 Montezuma 60 68 13.3%
Silverthorne 1,768 2,804 58.6%
1991 211 Unincorporated 7,174 9,046 ' 26.1%
Total 12,881 17,142 ; 33.1 % 1992 210
53% of the population resides in the unincorporated area. The six towns
split up the remaining population with Silvertliorne, Frisco and
1993 204 Breckenridge being the largest population centers and Blue River,
Dillon and Montezuma making up the rest. 1994 2Q2 Montezuma is the smallest incorporated town in the region, with 68
residents. .
1995 201 Summit County ~
Population Distribution 1995
Unincorp. 53%
I
81ue River
3 %
~w'G3
Silverthorne Breclienridge . ~
16% Mantezuma Dillon 9~
~ ~ Frisco 4°0 '
14°/, '
Northwest Colorado Council of Governnaents ~
39
July 1997
~
Housing prices have been rising steadily as evidenced in the chart
below, which tracks the selling price of single family homes from 1992
through 1995. These statistics were compiled by Data Research
Associates in Breckenridge.
Table 37. AveraQe Sale Price of a Single Family Home
Sumtnit_ Count,y 1992 - 1995
Jurisdiction 1992 1995 % Change
Blue River $168,311 $248,779 48%
Breckenridge $243,570 $321,119 32%
Dil lon . • $125,081 $ ] 76,008 41 %
Frisco $164,781 $249,778 52%
1995 Montezuma $ ] 7,567 $68,660 291 %
Vacancy Silverthorne $134,659 $226,915 69%
Rates: Unincorporated $197,124 $287,280 46%
Although Montezuma shows the highest percent change, it is important
Blue River 56.21% to note that the number of transactions has been extremely small, in the
range of 0 to 3 homes. Silverthorne has experienced the next highest
Breckenridge percentage increase and has also had a sizable number of real estate
80.21% transactions, averaging 72 sales per year in this time period.
Dillon 75.00% The highest volume of home sales has consistently been in the
unincorporated area, which has averaged 131 homes sold over the four
Frisco 52.80% year period.
Montezuma 73.23% Breckenridge has consistently displayed the highest average selling
- prices each year, but other areas are quickly catching up, especially the
unincorporated area in the S~nake River Basin around the Ke stone
Silverthorne 19.37% Resort. y
Unincorp. 65.29% Many of the homes, townhomes and condominiums purchased in
Summit Countv are second homes which are not used as primary
Summit residences. The State Demographer's Office calculates a"Housing
County 63.82% Vacancy Rate" which includes both seasonal and vacant units. The resort
areas tend to have high vacancy rates due to the large number of second
homes (see side panel). In 1995, Summit County had a 64% vacancy
rate compared to the State's average of 9%.
The Summit County School District experienced a 20% increase in
school enrollment during this time period, with the number of students
in 1992 (1,903) growing to 2,277 in 1995. During this same time period
the general population grew by 27%.
Northwest Colorado Council of Governmerrts 40
Julv 1997
. . .
i `
~
~
Summit County E~ Il~y.ment and ;
Economy: ~ l~71C~o1I7YIlC~
The resort economy in
Summit County has been The Summit County labor force has increased from 8,977 workers in
dominated by jobs in the 1992 to 11,146 in 1995, a 24% increase. The unemployment rate has service and retail dropped from 5.9% to 3.0% during this same time period:
sectors. In 1994, these
two sectors accounted
for 42% and 27% of the
total wage and salary Summit County Labor Force
jobs in the county. 1992 -1995 ~
The greatest percentage
,zooo
increases in wage and
,oooo
salary jobs have been eoo
seen in the construction eooo and agricultural sectors. ~~Actually, these two sectors go together hand 200°in hand since the 0 1992 1993 1994 1995
oiijiL
agricultural jobs are
mostly landscaping
services associated with
new construction, The table below examines the number of jobs in various economic
sectors of the county and their relative increase or decrease from 1990 -
The overall 29.4°/o 1994. These jobs are all covered by unemployment insurance and do not
growth in jobs represents include self-employed persons, sole proprietors and other jobs not
a healthy, growing covered by unemployment insurance.
economy, but the large •
proportion of service and Table 38 Wage and Salary Jobs I
retail sector jobs Summit County 1990 - 1994
generally means low 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 °/a Change
wages and the need for '(1990-1994)
residents to work more Agr.,For.,Fish 79 87 94 108 125 58.2%
than one job to make Mining 78 50 54 57 61 _21.8%
ends meet. Combine this Construction 863 1,053 1,168 1,316 1,546 79.1%
information with the
increase in housing costs Manufacturing 168 192 219 224 231 37.5%
displayed in Table 37, Trans.,Comm.,Util. 362 420 404 435 460 27.1%
and you will have Wholesale Trade 175 171 174 168 181 3.4%
identified a major trend Retail Trade 4,016 4,292 4,462 4,866 5,232 30.3%
in Summit County; Fin.,Ins.,Real Est 1,831 1,800 1,764 1,916 2,048 11.9%
salar_y and wage Services 6,331 6,991 7,336 7,757 8,120 28.3%
increases are not keeping Government 1,069 1,155 1,230 1,291 1,372 28.3%
up with increases in the
average sale price of a Total 14,972 16,211 16,905 18,138 19,376 29.4%
single family home.
Northwest Colorado Council oJGovernments July 1997 41
.
c,
Table 39. Average Weekly Wage for Summit Counri Based Jobc
Compared to the Colorado Average
lst Quarter 1996
'`Sector ::Summit ':Colorado % of.State
> County . Average : .
Agr., For., Fish $936 $340 275.3%
Mining $1,133 a
Construction $540 $536 100.7%
Manufacturing $370 $718 51.5% -
Trans., Comm., Util. $572 $791 72.3°/a
Wholesale Trade . $460 $715 64.3%
Retail Trade $284 $289 98.3%
Fin., Ins., Real Est. $490 $706 69.4%
Per Capita Services $312 $497 62.8%
Income: Government $484 $585 82.7%
Average $494 $631 78.3%
The per capita personal
income in Summit Earnings bv Place of Work has increased dramatically in Summit ~
County in 1980 was County from $89,648,007 in 1980 to $251,682,000 in 1990, or 181%. In
$12,452. 1994 this number liad risen to $393,172,000 or 56% in four years. This ~
number is then adjusted by Personal Contributions for Social I»surance
, [n 1994 it was $26,938. and the Adjtrstmeirtfor Residence to calculate the Net Earnings by Place
of Residertce. It is interesting to note that the Adjustment.for Residence
However, in constant in Eagle County was a positive $7,561,000 in 1980 and a negative
1994 dollars, per capita $21,957,000 in 1994 indicatin-, that the county has changed from a
personal income only pattern of exportinti workers to one that imports workers from other
increased from $22,609 counties.
in 1980 to $26,938 in ,
1994, or 19.1 Table 40. Personal Income by Category as a Percentage of Total
Personal Income: Summit County 1990 & 1994
Category - 1980 1994
Net Earnings by Place of Work 83.3% 78.6%
Dividends, Interest & Rent 12.5% 16.6%
€
~ Transfer Payments 4.1 % 4.8%
~ Total Personal lncome 100% 100%
Trurrsfer Pavments are payments by government and business to
individuals and non-profit institutions. The largest source is Social
~ Security payments. The state average is 13.5%, so in Summit County
~
~ transfer payments represent a significantly smaller part of the economy.
i
~
! Net Earnings by Place of Work is higher than the state average of
! 70.3% and Dividends, Interest & Rent is close to the state average of
16.3% for 1994.
Norlhwest Colorado Counci] of Governnrents 42
4 Julv 1997
Y
. . . .
Sales IIl11dllcatoIC°s
Retail sales have shown very healthy increases in Summit County,
especially in Silverthorne which experienced an overall increase of
113.7% from 1990 - 1995. Activity picked up significantly in 1993 and '
1994 with the addition of Factory Store Outlets to Silverthorne's
business community. The towns of Blue River and Montezuma do not
have enough retail sales activity to register amounts in the table.
Table 41. Retail Sales (S million)
Sutnmit Countv 1990 - 1995
Jurisdiction 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 % Change
1990-1995
Breckenridge $140.7 $150.5 $169.9 $184.9 $208.8 $216.7 54.0%
Blue River
Dillon $25.2 $23.2 $28.3 $28.0 $32.1 $31.0 23.0%
Frisco $83.1 $85.7 $94.5 $105.5 $118.7 $129.5 55.8%
Silverthorne $95.2 $124.8 $136.0 $156.9 $190.9 $203.4 113.7%
Montezuma Unincorp. $124.6 $131.0 $134.0 $140.0 $172.3 $181.0 45.3%
Total $468.8 $515.2 $562.7 $615.3 $722.8 $761.6 62.5%
• The pie chart below shows tlie proportional share that each jurisdiction
makes up of the county total. Breckenridge and Silverthorne have the
largest portion of the retail sales at 28% and 27% respectively.
The unincorporated area of the county is not far behind at 24°/a. Frisco
accounts for 17% of the totai county retail sales revenues and Dillon is smallest at 4%.
Summit County Distribution of Retail Sales 1995
SilveRhome
27-Y. Unincorp.
24 %
Frisco -
17 / Breckenritlge
Dlllon 28 %
4%
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments ¢3
July 1997
~r
~ SU1 V 11 1 v.LL I11 COUNTY 1 V D 1L 11..v 11 Cd 11 ORS
1992 1993 1994 1995
Po ulation:
Blue River 461 494 539 575
Breckenrid e 1,360 1,459 1,591 1,603
Dillon 578 619 681 647
Frisco 1,682 1,820 1,998 2,399
Montezuma 60 64 69 68
Silverthorne 1,875 2,062 2,478 2,804
Unincor orated Area. 7,455 8,091 8,894 9,046
Summit Count Population 13,471 1416091 16,250 17,142 I
Summit School District RE-1 Total Enrollment 1,903 2,030 2,112 29*277
ISummit Coun Emplo ment '
Total Labor Force i $.977I 9,4391 10,563 11,14611
~ Total Emplo ment 8,450 9,0481 10,258 10,813
Unemplo ment 527 391 305 333
~ Unem lo ment Rate 5.9% 4.1 % 2.9% 3.0%
;Summit Coun Assessed Valuation ~ $448,996,500 1 $464,167,8801 $483,675,120 $550,174,350
I I ~
Breckenrid e Gross Sales $174,332,201 1 $188,903,749 !$213,310,595 $222,964,496
O1ue River Gross Sales `
Dillon Gross Sales ~ $30,031,221 $28,950,601 $33,281,070 $41,996,862
Frisco Gross Sales I $97,470,955 $108,387,349 $123,735,994 $134,172,290
ISilverthorne Gross Sales I $141,599,473 $164,186,071 $201,589,226 $216,519,921
IMontezuma Gross Sales ' I i '
!Remainder of Count $138,582,932 1 $143,226,849 i$175,543,564 ii $187,479,402 ;
iTotal Summit Count Gross Sales $582,016,782 $633,654,619 i$747,460,449 $803,132,971
I
iDistribution of Gross Sales
IBreckenrid e 30.0% i 29.8% 1 28.5% i 27.8%
iBlue River
;Dillon I 5.26/4.6% I 4.5% 5.2%
!Frisco . 16.7% 17.1% 16.6% 16.7%
Silverthorne - I 24.3% 1 25.9% I 27.0% 27.0%
IMontezuma ' '
IRemainder of Count I 23.8% 22.6% 23.5% 23.3%
;Total Summit Coun I 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0°/a
i
~
iReal Estate Activi -Town of Breckenrid e i
Total Single Family houses sold ' 72 i 91 90 68
Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House $243,570 $234,337 ; $303,635 $321,119
IReal Estate Activi -Town of Blue River i i
Total Sin le Famil houses sold ~ 511 71 62 62
; Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House $168,311 $200,673 $219,804 $248,779
IReal Estate Activi -Town of Dillon
Total Sin le Famil houses sold ; 26 321 34 36
Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House $125,0811 $146,442 $161,105 $176,008
I
IReal Estate Activi -Town of Frisco
I Total Sin le Famil houses sold 45 61 37 32
` Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House i $164,781 $191,383 $201,319 $249,778
Northwest Colorado Council of Governn:ents 44
July 1997
Real Estate Activi -Town of Silverthorne
Total Sin le Famil houses sold 66 63 ' 90 68
Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House $134,659 $177,211 $205,602 $226,915 ~
Real Estate Activi -Town of Montezuma
Total Sin le Famil houses sold 3 3 0
Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House i $17,567 $109,167 $01 $68,6601
• Real Estate Activi -0ther Rural Areas ~
Total Sin le Famil houses sold 121 157 118 129
Avera e Sale Price - Sin le Famil House $197,124 $209,838 1 $246,990 j $287,280 ;
Skier Da s ear of season end
Ara ahoe Basin i 219,7981 242,322 257,3581 . 262,2401 !
Breckennd e 1,023,3231 1,164,000 1.215,0131 1,227,3571
Co er Mountain i 810,4931 878,000 $42,2101 770,973 i `
Ke stone I 1,012,513 1,041,7811 1,095,8571 1,042,171 t
• I i
* Indicates information not available
i
' I
I
;
, j
~ k
,
. _ ~
,
;
~
~
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments 45
July 1997 ;
~ ' .
~
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments
Demographic Report Questionnaire
Please return to Linda Venturoni, NWCCOG, P.O. Box 2308, Silverthorne, CO 80498 or call
(970) 468-0295.
1. Did the NWCCOG Demographic Report provide data that was useful to you or your
organization?
_ Yes No .
2. What information was most useful?
3. What information was least useful?
4. What additional information would you like to see added to the next NWCCOG Demographic
Report?
5. What suggestions do you have regarding the format of the NWCCOG Demographic Repon ?
6. Other comments:
Additional copies of this publication may be purchased from NWCCOG @$10.00 each.
Name of Contact Person for follow-up:
Name:
Organization:
Address:
Phone:
AUG 02 '97 01:14PM V.A.RETAIL SERVICE.S p,2
. ~C -C
tVA11EY E X
`°~o~r~oo e.s•~' , • ~
MMoRarmuM PROMPT AClTONRKQUESTED
TO: Vail Valley Exchange r .
: FROM: Mcrv Lapin, Freeiderrt
DATS: August 1, 1997
5YJBJ8GT: Trip bo Mt. Buller, Austalia
. Davia Mullaly and Brisn Maguire of Mt Hulier have aslocd ue to recruit a group of 6-1 5
persons a+ho bavc aa intrest in traveling to Australia frnm Scptember 9/10-17 of this
. yesr. We wvuld hsve prefernad much mose notice, but if there is sufficiart interest we
will try to makc thie trip in the interest of mutusl good will. -
Mt. Huller has exteaded the invitation in 'onler bo roceive eseistance in eotting up their
Sister City vr$anintion in thc Delatite Shire ahere Mt. Huiler is- locatod. Curr=tly there azr, a number of intcneted individuals in their =a, however they pre unsure how to
proceed in edablishing an arpnizstion similar to the Vail Valley Exchaage. They have
seloed us to determine which of our members are interestcd and would be able to mak,e
this trip. '
Orocon Pty. Limitcd, the pueat compaay of Mt. Buller Lifts, is offering to covcr all land
expeases including hotel, meaia and grouad traneportation for the vieit. They will also
. provide the trip itiwary and achedule meotiage with govemmeirt officials and
represeatatives wh= appropriabe (or requested). Our only cost will be the ai:fare. We
expcct thia to nui betvrocn S1500-$1600 per persan. We will bc spending time ia
Melbou=ne and Victaria State (whe:e the Delatite Shire is locatcd). There ie also the
poesibility of aftnding your visit if you wish to do so aad are willing to pcrsanally cover
resulting additional costs. .
If the trip becamos a reality, the dalegates will officially repmsent the Vail Valley in
meeting aountmparts in Australia. We will be psrticipating in a limitied'yob fair" if thece
ia auough interest, for the purpose of irnerviewing potential trainees who wonld like to
eome to thc Vsil Valley for the wintor ecason.
Attached is a proposed itinerary, a?ith lodging iaformation.
Please contact us bawedletcly if yov are interested in spending this wcck in Austmlia!
Karea's numbers arc: 970-845-2472 (phono)
970-845-2465 (fax)
We look forward to hearing from you!
Ol'- 01:15P V.A lRTAIL SERVI BUI.il~ B1~I.LIFP6 I~Y02 -
~~{~RA.LV WW«rso^ ~-a~ i L'7~C'mf11Yt V!'~1Cum'+ Um /aP_314i 7/ d •
pROPOiED IYM1611AR1r YAIL VwLLEY EXCHAMOE VISIT TO DELAZITE BNIRg - YT.YULLER
V1hd iOth septmbsr DelaAatlen aapsfM vikiL
Thure.llih Saplamber CeM9etlon M1ve In AAelbourfla. Day SIOmsselnp
8hopplv ' Dinner - hoftd b11 u8 AudWan Chambrr af Gommen:o (wU{ MGM bdoF on delepAtion Mlm Haw ' Meboumm
Rri 12tFt GaplsnloW 9.00 A.al. DelepgIDn depan Ibl' QeloU ShIt+O. ,
1200 noon I?rrivs 1MUMeld
Loch hosed by Roh Hsusar CP_O Dekt7ts 611118 i
Shi~ Comm~ior~er~-
2.06 P.M. Ms" to eatabik+ Vail.Oeldte gxchanAe - objedhaa mtd opWMbne• '
5.00 P.M. Depatt MwWjsld tor UAt.BuNer .
6.00 p.m. Mt,Buller ,
Mt.Bullsr ChillBt liotsl
' 7.30 P.M. Dinner ' Hooad by CEO 8utler Skl LiRi Ltd.
Sat. 131h 9spternber Insped IM.Bullsr 6ldinplFres t1nne 6un 14th $spsmber R=hsn0a oaminer CaadinsOrd bY
Le Trobe Unhnrilqt 01 MLBuuerCunPus
Mon 1b'th. Ssptomber 9.00 a.m. oepart Mt. Bulter
10 QO a.m. Mfve ManslfeW
Jobfaidor Shir+e Taur
3.80 p.rn. QeWit Monsileld.
6.30 p.ln. ArriV@ llAslbOUfne • 14ya1t HOtel
Fr+eQ NipM.
'iuas 1dlh 9eptertder OeBanfsed meonp wlth DWJq? Prgmbr iGoveitlor of VkLoA@ '
Flyalt Hdd ¦ MolbaXtUQ•
wsd 17tb GepA+,mbor Depart LUIooums
, I
FDIC
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Division of Supervision Dalias Regional Office
1910 Pacific Avenue. Suite 1900. Dallas. Texa 75201 (214) 220-3342
• July 25, 1997
Mr. Michael Jewett
P. O. Box 314
Vail, Colorado 81658
Dear Mr. Jewett:
Subject: Alpine Bank
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
(Application to Establish a Branch)
Your letters relating to subject application were received
June 13, 1997, and June 24, 1997. Under Section 303.6(f)(3) of
the FDIC Rules and Regulations, you have exercised your right to
file comments concerning the application. In your letters you
requested that this office afford you the opportunity to present
your views on the application at a formal hearing.
After a careful review of your comments and objections, it has
been decided that the observations presented in your letters are
self-explanatory and that a hearing to present your views orally
is not necessary. However, please be assured that your comments
will receive every consideration in arriving at the final
decision concerning the subject application.
If you have any further questions regarding this matter, you may
contact Case Manager Alan K. Searsy at (214) 220-3342.
Sincerely,
--7Uv ~hoi C~
Keith W. Seibold
Regional Director