The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-02-03 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1998 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 January 6 and 20, 1998. 3. Presentation to Mayor by Mt. Buller Students. (5 mins.) 4. Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority Presentation by Mike Gallagher, Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority (ECRTA) Chair; Jim Shrum, ECRTA Director; and Vicki Maddox, Financial Adviser, Senior Vice President of George K. Baum & Company. (1 hr.) BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Council has requested a more clear analysis of all implications for withdrawal of funding (completely or proportionately) from original "funding partners." This discussion is based on healthier than expected sales tax collection, the ECRTA's current fund balance, and financing options open to the Authority for long term capital improvements. Under the original "funding partners" commitment, the ballot initiative was approved in 1995, and 1995 funding was considered the first year of the five year commitment, continuing through 1999. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In approval of their 1998 fiscal budget, Council had allocated $115,000.00 to be set aside for 1998 funding of the ECRTA. Council should move to approve the full amount, a portion of that amount, or no funding for the current year. 5. Vail Tomorrow Building Community Team Update. (5 mins.) Stan Cope ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Receive an update on the Team's efforts to begin the dialogue to create a Vail Community Center. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Last August 26, the Vail Town Council approved and accepted the concept of six community-endorsed actions presented by the Vail Tomorrow Building Community Team. One of the requests was to: "Initiate a public process to facilitate creation of a multi-purpose building that meets community needs, serving peop!e from all demographic groups, all ages and full-time, part-time and seasonal residents." At the time, the Council responded by acknowledging that a community center is actively under consideration in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan process and that a community center also could be a focal point in a parks and public facilities planning process to be undertaken in 1998. Additionally, Council stated that it may be desirable to have a separate process dedicated to a location and desired program for one or more community facilities. f Now, five months later, volunteers from the Building Community Team wish to return to Council to announce a grassroots effort to pursue the concept of a Vail Community Center in a thorough and synergetic fashion. 6. Presentation by the Vail Tomorrow Affordable Housing Team by Kent Rose. (30 mins.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen to presentation, provide direction to the Affordable Housing Team as to ways Council and the team can work together to address affordable housing issues. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Affordable Housing Team has been meeting twice monthly since January of 1997, pursuing a variety of potential solutions to the housing problem. From this work, the team would like to make recommendations as to the approaches with the greatest potential for solving the problem. 7. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1998, first reading of an Ordinance Amending Tom Moorhead Section 1-5-11A Establishing the Time of the Town Council Regular Meeting Dates. (5 mins.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve/Modify/Deny Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1998, on second reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Vail Town Council requested the opportunity to consider an ordinance amending the time of the regular meeting which is presently set at 7:30 p.m. The ordinance as drafted will allow each Council to consider the appropriate starting time at its organizational meeting following the biennial Council elections. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 2, 1998 on second reading. 8. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1998, second reading of an Ordinance Dominic Mauriello Amending Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Section 12-7c-5(a)(3), to Waive the Major Exterior Alterations Application Deadlines for 1998 for the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Study Area. (15 mins.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve/Modify/Deny Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1998, on second reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Town is currently engaged in stage 3 of the five stage Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan process. The plan is at a crucial stage where issues of bulk and mass are being studied and recommendations are being formed. Staff believes it will be detrimental to the master planning process to have property owners submit redevelopment proposals in the Lionshead Study Area before issues of bulk and mass have been determined. Complicating this issue is the fact that in the Commercial Core 2 zone district, there is a restriction that applications can only be submitted twice a year for major exterior alterations. The deadlines are the fourth Monday in February and the fourth Monday in September. Applicants who want to proceed through the review process in 1998, are therefore required to submit applications at the end of February. Staff believes that we should allow the master planning process to proceed and at the same time allow potential applicants more flexibility with submittal deadlines in 1998. These deadlines were originally developed to address staff workload issues. The concept was essentially have all applications reviewed at once. For many years these deadlines have not benefited the staff or the public and staff will be reviewing this section of the Zoning Code later in 1998 to determine if a code change is necessary. t The proposed ordinance places a new application date of June 15, 1998 and allows applications to be submitted anytime after June 15 for the 1998 calendar year only. This will allow time for the master planning process to proceed and allow applicants to submit proposals this summer. Included in your packet is Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1998 as approved on first reading. Since first reading a concern has been raised regarding other development proposals located in the Lionshead Study Area, but not zoned CC2. Staff has included in your packet a "draft" revised ordinance which delays all development proposals in the Lionshead Study Area until June 15, 1998 (excluding sing le-family.and two-family uses). Changes are highlighted in bold. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of "draft" Ordinance No. 1, 1998 on second reading. 9. Loading and Delivery Update. (15 mins.) Bob McLaurin Greg Morrison ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen to presentation by staff, receive public input and give direction to staff regarding Hanson Ranch Road and Check Point Charlie "experiments" over the Christmas Holidays. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: In December 1997 Council directed staff to conduct two experiments over the Christmas holidays: man a check point on Hanson Ranch Road from 8:00 to 10:30 am and 2:30 to 4:40 pm every day and to staff Check Point Charlie from 7am-7pm every day. The Hanson Ranch Road check point was staffed from Dec 15th through Jan 4th, Check Point Charlie continues to be manned 7am-7pm every day. To accomplish the experiment on Hanson Ranch Road, an unbudgeted temporary CSO was hired for 9 of the 21 days involved. On two of the days, on-duty CSOs were pulled from other duties and assigned to Hanson Ranch Road, and on ten days off-duty police officers, CEOs and CSOs were paid overtime to perform the duties. The total 21 day cost of the Hanson Ranch Road experiment was approximately $2,000. The expanded hours at Check Point Charlie are being staffed both by pulling on-duty CEOs and CSOs from other duties and by hiring CEOs, CSOs and police officers on overtime. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Town should continue to man Check Point Charlie 7am-7pm, seven days per week, 365 days per year. This service positively impacts the entire village core, numerous businesses and provides a valuable customer service to our guests, however, continuing to do so year round will require additional staffing. Staff recommends that the Hanson Ranch Road check point not be continued because it's limited benefit is not cost effective. 10. Town Manager Report. (10 mins.) 11. Adjournment - 10:05 p.m. NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) I I I I I I I THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 2/10/98, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 2/17/98, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 2/17/98, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. COUNCIL FOLLOW-UP TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 1997 Three possible locations in the atrium (hallway) were discussed - with the 116198 ADDITIONAL LEGAL NOTICE requests having been turned over to Facilities Maintenance (John POSTING LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE Gallegos) on 1/23/98. TOV Kevin Foley 1/27/98 CHRISTMAS LIGHTS AT THE While recognizing we did upgrade lighting in several We'll be upgrading this area for the 99's. It will be expensive, estimated VTRC locations, including both roundabouts and nice $20,000. We'll be asking for a supplemental appropriation to do this. Sybill Navas enhancements in Lionshead, something still needs to be done at the Village Structure. If "big power" needs to be brought in to provide lighting opportunities, rather spending large dollars, perhaps we should look at "trimming out" the roof line of the Information Center? January 30, 1998, Page 1 LOCAL HOUSING CRITICAL STRATEGY FACILITATE THE PROVISION OF A RANGE OF HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES WHICH WILL PROVIDE LOCALS AN OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE IN VAIL. THE TOWN BELIEVES LOCAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SHOULD INCLUDE OWNER-OCCUPIED DEED RESTRICTED UNITS, RENTAL UNITS AND UNITS FOR USE BY SEASONAL EMPLOYEES. THE TOWN OF VAIL RECOGNIZES THAT LOCAL HOUSING IS IMPORTANT TO MAINTAINING OUR SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IS CRITICAL IN SUSTAINING THE VIABILITY OF TF.E LOCAL ECONOMY. Objectives a. Maintain the existing rental housing base in Vail. b. Facilitate the development of new seasonal housing. c. Facilitate the construction of new long rental housing in Vail. d. Facilitate the development of new owner occupied units in the Town of Vail. e. Develop partnerships to help implement the Town's housing goals and strategies. f. Update and revise existing housing regulations as necessary. g. Continue to utilize and enforce existing employee housing regulations. h. Use the TOV land development regulations to help achieve the Town's goals. 1997 Actions Responsibility Time Budget Impact ? Plan, design and construct Public Works Housing Project Knudtsen, Grafel, Hervert complete $250,000 ? Construct Seasonal Housing at Public Works Knudtsen, Grafel, Hervert 1/98 $2,100,000 ? Complete GRFA revisions Mollica, Forrest $5,000 ? Identify housing components of LH Master Plan Knudtsen, Connelly 12/97 NA ? Participate in Eagle County Housing Task Force Knudtsen on going NA ? Determine the appropriate use of the Berry Creek property Council, McLaurin, Connelly, Moorhead 12/97 NA LOCAL HOUSING (continued) 1998 Actions Responsibility Time Budget Impact ? Plan, design and program housing at Manager's lots Knudtsen, McLaurin 10/98 $150,000 ? Construct Red Sandstone Units Knudtsen 12/97 $875,000' ? Plan, design and program Arosa A Frame Knudtsen, McLaurin 10198 $50,000 ? Evaluate opportunities for availability of Timber Ridge units Knudtsen, Moorhead, McLaurin 12/97 NA 1999 Actions Responsibility Time Budget Impact ? Construct housing at Managers lots Knudtsen, McLaurin 10199 ? Construct housing at Old Town Shop Knudtsen, McLaurin 10/99 ? Redevelop Arosa A Frame Knudtsen, McLaurin 6199 ? ? ? ? Plan, design and program housing in Lionshead including old shop Knudtsen, McLaurin 10/98 'The TOV will fund the construction of these units from the Housing Fund. When the units are sold, this fund will be reimbursed. ECONOMIC STABILITY CRITICAL STRATEGY PROMOTE A STRONG, VIABLE LOCAL ECONOMY THROUGH A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR. THE LOCAL ECONOMY SHOULD HAVE A SOLID ECONOMIC BASE AND REASONABLE RATE OF GROWTH. THE TOWN WILL STRIVE TO STRENGTHEN VAIL'S ECONOMY WHILE MAINTAINING ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN EXCELLENCE. Objectives a. Enhance economic development opportunities. b. Strengthen the relationship with the business community. c. Encourage responsible redevelopment in Vail Village, Lionshead and West Vail. d. Increase the number of live beds in the Vail Village and Lionshead. e. Work with the private sector to improve the quality of existing bed base. f. Work with the private sector to increase taxable retail sales. g. Improve customer focus and service. h. Encourage special events and create festive retail opportunities. 997 Actions Responsibility Time Budget Impact/Funding ? Complete Develop Review Improvement Process Counicl, DRIP Team, McLaurin 12/97 yA ? Complete Village loading and delivery study McLaurin, Grafel, Hall, Morrison 12/97 $30,000 ? Develop plan for Lionshead Redevelopment Council, McLaurin, Connelly, Grafel on going and form partnerships to implement plan ? Develop non peak strategies TOVNA Task Force on going $10,000 ? Complete Vail Tomorrow Effort and implement Council, Silverthorn, Connelly, McLauirn 12/97 $50,000 relevent actions ? Participate in planning for 1999 WASC McLaurin, Grafel, Morrison 2/99 $112,000 1998 Actions Responsibility Time Budget Impact/Funding ? Participate in planning for 99 WASC McLaurin, Grafel, Morrison 2199 $112,000 ? Develop non peak strategies TOVNA Task Force on going $10,C 00 1999 Actions Responsibility Time Budget Impact/Funding ? Work with WF, VA to implement WASC Council, McLaurin, Grafel 2199 $112,000 ? Develop non peak strategies TOVNA Task Force on going $10,[00 INFRASTRUCTURE CRITICAL STRATEGY THE GOAL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL IS TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUC"'URE NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR RESIDENTS AND ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF THE EXPERIENCE FOR OUR GUESTS. Ob' c ive Measure *o Plan, prioritize and fund infrastructure necessary to maintain and enhance the quality of life and the quality of experience in the community. Prepare a 10 year capital budget which prioritizes the TOV capital needs. Identify and construct capital improvements necessary to enhance the 1999 WASC Commit to and fund a systematic street reconstruction program. Identify additional funding sources to help fund major capital projects. 1997 Actions Responsibility Time Budget Impact/Fundina r r TRANSPORTATION CRITICAL STRATEGY PROVIDE FOR THE SAFE AND EFFICIENT MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS WITHIN THE TOWN. THE TOWN IS COMMITTED TO A MULTI MODEL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL. Ob'ec iv s a. Improve the efficiency of the TOV Transit System. b. Work with the Regional Transportation Authority to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Regional Transportation System. c. Work to provide for the efficient delivery and distribution of goods in Vail Village and Lionshead. d. Provide for the safe movement of bicyclists and pedestrians within the TOV and in the region. e. Maintain a safe and efficient street system in the Town of Vail. Minimize congestion. f. Work with the Rail Coalition to secure the abandoned Southern Pacific railroad right of way. 1997 Actions Responsibility Time Budget ImpacV:7undina ? Develop Transportation Plan for 1999 WASC Grafel, Rose, McLaurin 9/97 n q ? Continue to participate in the Regional Transportation Authority Foley, Rose, Grafel, McLaurin on going $115,000 ? Complete loading and delivery study McLaurin, Grafel, Morrision 12/97 $30,00 ? Continue to implement Holiday Management Grafel, Rose annually NA ? Replace six buses Scholl, Rose, Grafel 12/97 $1,250,000 ? Implement Traffic Code modification (speed limits) Hall, Moorhead NA COMMUNITY COLLABORATION CRITICAL STRATEGY EXERCISE COUNCIL LEADERSHIP TO IMPROVE COMMUNITY DIALOGUE AND FOSTER A MORE COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITY. Objectives a. Foster a more collaborative community b. Improve community dialogue and participation in the creation of programs and policies that enhance our community's quality of life. c. Build trust and credibility within the community through promotion of responsible and responsive decision-making by TOV staff and ;ouncil. d. Identify (conflicting) needs, values and concerns of the community audience segments. e. Articulate and clarify key community goals and issues to audience segments. f. Create an environment of informed community consent on major public decisions 1997 Actions Responsibility Time 3ud et Impact/Funding ? Increase presence in community through organized appearances Council, McLaurin, Silverthorn on going NA presentations to Village & Lionshead Merchants, Rotary, etc ? Host regular Mayor/Council walkabout through neighborhoods & businesses Council, McLaurin, Silverthorn on going NA ? Host town wide community breakfasts on a quarterly basis Council, Silverthorn, McLaurin on going $5,000 ? Complete the Vail Tomorrow process and implement relevant actions Council, Silverthorn, Connelly, McLaurin 10/97 NA Use public participation to identify the preferred alternative for loading and delivery in the Vail Village Council, Silverthorn, McLaurin Hall Grafel 12/97 $20,000 ? Use public participation to complete the Lionshead Master Plan effort Silverthorn, Connelly, McLaurin 1/98 $400,000 ? TOV/VA Community Task Force Counicl, McLaurin, Silverthorn on going $7,500 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1998 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, January 6, 1998, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rob Ford, Mayor Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Pro-Tem Bob Armour Sybill Navas Michael Jewett Kevin Foley Mike Arnett TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. There was no citizen participation. The second item on the agenda was the consent agenda to approve the minutes from the meetings of December 2 and 16, 1997. Councilmember Bob Armour made a motion to approve the minutes from the meetings of December 2 and 16, 1997, seconded by Councilmember Sybill Navas. A vote was taken, there was unanimous approval, 7-0. The third item on the agenda was the CARTS (Corridor Alliance for a Rapid Transit Solutions) presentation by Miller Hudson. Miller Hudson, representing-CARTS (Corridor Alliance for a Rapid Transit Solutions), requested funds ($7,000) from the Town of Vail for CARTS. He gave a presentation of where, why and how CARTS was formed and what they are trying to accomplish. CARTS was initially formed in Clear Creek County and supports the concept of a rapid transit system along the 1-70 corridor instead of widening the current interstate. The group is in the process of raising $100,000 to set up a transit authority or some other governing agency to develop a transit solution in more detail. Miller stated that there were general public meetings held to obtain public support and now CARTS is going to several government agencies to request funds. Councilmember Ludwig Kurz asked if there was a breakdown on the budget for the $99,000 that is being requested. Miller stated $15,000 was earmarked for Colorado School of Mines students to help with the study, $2,000 month for his consulting fees and for administrative bills such as telephone bills, etc. Several Council Members had concerns about the equity in the funding request. Clear Creek County's portion for this request was only $2,000. Councilmember Bob Armour asked if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is planned. He stated it may take 5 years to complete an EIS. Miller Hudson stated that an EIS may take 5-6 years away from putting any plan in action. Councilmember Bob Armour asked if this group had gone to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for funds. Miller Hudson stated he is open to doing that, but they hadn't approached CDOT at this time. Jim Mandel, representing Vail Resorts, stated the resort industry supports the concept of rapid transit, the industry hasn't fully embraced the efforts of CARTS at this time. There are concerns about cost, environmental impacts and there isn't enough information to act on at this time. Joe Macy, of Vail Associates, stated the importance of interim improvements for the 1-70 corridor. He said even if funds were available now, a rail solution is still 15-20 years away. The Council agreed to hold off in considering the funding proposal until the final MIS 1-70 corridor study is completed by the Colorado Department of Transportation. Mayor Rob Ford thanked Miller Hudson for the presentation. The fourth item on the agenda was second reading of Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1997, amendment to the Town of Vail Police and Fire Employees' Pension Fund. Steve Thompson, Finance Director stated the amendments to the pension plan have little impact to participants. The only change that might impact participants, is the Town may refund accounts less than $3,500 if there has been a break in service for one year. Councilmember Bob Armour made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1997 on second reading, it was seconded by Councilmember Kevin Foley. A vote was taken, there was unanimous approval, 7-0. The fifth item on the agenda was second reading of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1997, amendment to the Town of Vail Employees' Pension Fund. Steve Thompson, Finance Director, stated the amendments to the pension plan have little impact to participants. The only change that might impact participants, is the Town may refund accounts less than $3,500 if there has been a break in service for one year. Councilmember Bob Armour made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1997 on second reading, and was seconded by Councilmember Kevin Foley. A vote was taken, and there was unanimous approval, 7-0. a The sixth item on the agenda was Resolution No. 1, Series of 1998, a Resolution Designating a Public Place within the Town of Vail for the posting of notice for public meetings of the Vail Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board, and Other Boards, Commissions, and Authorities of the Town of Vail. Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager stated the resolution designates the bulletin board at the entrance to the Vail Municipal offices as the official public notice posting location within the Town. Councilmember Kevin Foley suggested posting the agendas at other locations throughout the Town. Councilmember Michael Arnett suggested posting the agenda notices on the Internet. Councilmember Bob Armour made a motion to approve Resolution No. 1, Series of 1998, and the motion was seconded by Councilmember Sybil Navas. A vote was taken, there was unanimous approval, 7-0. The seventh item on the agenda was Resolution No. 2, Series of 1998, a Resolution Adopting the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Vail and Eagle River Water & Sanitation District. Tom Moorhead and Andy Knudtsen gave a report on the agreement. In November of 1997, the Council gave staff direction of what requirements were needed in the agreement. On December 9, 1997 in Executive Session, the Town Council gave direction to the Town Manager to finalize the reviewed draft and to execute the Agreement which has been entered into between Eagle River Water & Sanitation District and the Town of Vail. The agreement outlines a new partnership between the two entities to design and build between 17 and 22 locals housing units at Red Sandstone Creek. The Town of Vail will take the lead in the project in an effort to reduce costs by as much as 30% from the previous effort that was facilitated by the water district. Tom Moorhead stated the Town of Vail is bringing 25% of the land cost to this transaction. The allocation of units is based on amount of land brought together. The Town of Vail has more flexibility to keep costs down than the water district because of the Town of Vail's home rule status. The Town of Vail will have an opportunity to sell or lease six units to its "critical" employees such as firefighters, police officers, dispatchers and snowplow drivers. The water district will have the opportunity to sell or lease the balance of the development to its employees and/or the Town. Councilmember Mike Arnett made a motion to approve Resolution No. 2, Series of 1998, and was seconded by Councilmember Bob Armour. A vote was taken, there was unanimous approval, 7-0. The eighth item on the agenda was the Town Manager Report. Bob McLaurin, Town Manager invited the Council to the upcoming Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) meeting in Frisco. He said a discussion on affordable housing will be on the agenda. Andy Knudtsen, Town of Vail Housing Planner, will be on the panel. He also gave a report on the ridership of the Town buses over the peak holiday season from December 26 through January 4. Bus ridership was up 15% over last year's figures. There were 41,000 passengers carried on New Year's. The number of parking structure transactions were up 6.4 percent from last year. However, revenues were down more than 30 percent due to this season's expanded Park Free After 3 program. Bob stated he is hoping the revenues will be offset by increased sales tax collections. He may have to request a supplemental appropriation in the future. He also praised the Police, Fire and Public Works departments for their hard work during the holidays. Councilmember Kevin Foley had concerns about the scheduling and closing of the Library for renovation and remodel work. He is concerned that the closure will impact and create inconveniences around school schedules. Councilmember Bob Armour asked when the Vail Recreation District will have their election. He asked that information on the election be added to the Council's meeting minutes. As there was no further business, Councilmember Bob Armour made a motion to adjourn, Councilmember Sybil Navas seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert E. Ford Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson Town Clerk VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1998 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, January 20, 1998, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rob Ford, Mayor Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Pro-Tem Bob Armour Sybill Navas Michael Jewett Kevin Foley Mike Arnett TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Mayor Rob Ford stated this was the first day to ski with Council and it was a success. He reiterated that anyone interested in skiing with the Town Council members may do so every first and third Tuesdays of the month from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The next "Ski with the Council" event will be February 3. He also stated at the Council's retreat they developed a new format for the Council meetings. Effective immediately, Council work sessions during the afternoons will be used for Council study and interaction and the evening meetings will be reserved for decision-making and citizen participation. The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowners Association (EVHOA), stated that the EVHOA will actively engage in the affordable housing issue on a regional basis. He requested the Council direct staff to analyze the development proposal of the Stolport property with respect to locals housing. He also requested the Council register an informed opinion about the Vail Valley Centre development plan with Eagle County. Jim also stated he would like Council to request Eagle County set aside all or a portion of the property taxes collected in Vail to be used for the construction of affordable housing in the upper valley and also requested that Eagle County require mixed housing units in future development approvals. The second item on the agenda was Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1998, AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE amending Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Section 12-7c-5(a)(3), to waive the major exterior alterations application deadlines for 1998 for the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Study Area. Dominic Mauriello explained the Town is currently engaged in stage three of the five stage Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan process. The plan is at a crucial stage where issues of bulk and mass are being studied and recommendations are being formed. Staff believes it will be detrimental to the master planning process to have property owners submit redevelopment proposals in the Lionshead Study Area before issues of bulk and mass have been determined. Complicating this issue is the fact that in the Commercial Core 2 Zone District, there is a restriction that applications can only be submitted twice a year for major exterior alterations. The deadlines are the fourth Monday in February and the fourth Monday in September. Applicants who want to proceed through the review process in 1998, are therefore required to submit applications at the end of February. Staff believes that we should allow the master planning process to proceed and at the same time allow potential applicants more flexibility with submittal deadlines in 1998. These deadlines were originally developed to address staff workload issues. The concept was essentially have all applications reviewed at once. For many years these deadlines have not benefited the staff or the public and staff will be reviewing this section of the Zoning Code later in 1998 to determine if a code change is necessary. Staff feels this date would be a detriment to the Lionshead process as it is now. The proposed ordinance places a new application date of June 15, 1998 and allows applications to be submitted anytime after June 15 for the 1998 calendar year only. This will allow time for the master planning process to proceed and allow applicants to submit proposals this summer. Mike Mollica, Assistant Director of Community Development, stated that this is for the Lionshead area only, and it does not affect the Vail Village zone district. Dominic said this does not have to be an emergency ordinance. It can be a first reading and staff will come back for a second reading on February 3. Staff would like to notify developers as soon as possible of the decision. Several Councilmembers have advocated abolishing the application deadlines altogether. Jim Lamont stated that EVHOA supports removal of the ordinance if Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II are treated fairly. Councilmembers expressed discomfort in enacting an emergency ordinance, which requires only one reading, due to the reduced level of public notification. Instead, the measure will be reviewed as an ordinance with two readings. Second reading is scheduled for February 3, 1998. Dominic Mauriello stated that the emergency ordinance was originally selected to provide advance notice to those properties contemplating the February 23, 1998 filing deadline. Councilmember Sybil Navas made a motion to approve Ordinance 1, Series of 1998, on first reading, with the change from an emergency ordinance to an ordinance with two readings, Councilmember Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion was passed 5-2, Mike Arnett and Bob Armour dissenting. The third item on the agenda was Resolution No. 3, Series of 1998, a Resolution Adopting the Intergovernmental Agreement to Provide Dispatch Services by the Town of Vail Communications Center. 4 Tom Moorhead stated Eagle County is currently served by two Emergency Service Communications Centers, one operated by the Colorado State Patrol in Eagle and one operated by the Vail Police Department. The Wolcott exit on 1-70 is the approximate boundary line between the two service areas. The State Patrol Communications Center in Eagle will be closing by June 1998. The agencies currently being served by the CSP Communications Center have expressed interest in contracting service from the Town of Vail. Tom explained that-all IGA's (Intergovernmental Agreements) must be approved by resolution. Greg Morrison, Vail Police Chief, indicated all numbers presented to future users have been approved by them and all additional costs have been passed on to these users; there will be an economy of scale through merging the two communication centers and an opportunity to provide higher quality service; and a separate line item will be set aside so that moneys remaining in that account can be put toward future capital acquisitions/improvements, etc. It is contemplated that these services will begin being provided on or before July 1, 1998. Councilmember Bob Armour made a motion to Adopt Resolution No. 3, Series of 1998, Councilmember Sybil Navas seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The fourth item on the agenda was the Town Manager Report. Bob McLaurin reminded Council of the upcoming Colorado Association of Ski Town meeting in Frisco. He also announced the closure of the Vail Public Library from January 26-31 for a remodel/renovation project and acknowledged a cooperative effort between the town and Ski Club Vail to resolve parking problems along Vail Valley Drive. Council requested confirmation of funding already received by CARTS prior to their consideration of potential funding. Bob McLaurin indicated he would have that information to Council by the January 27, 1998 work session. Council also requested a presentation by Jim Shrum of the Regional Transportation Authority and Vicki Maddox (of George K. Baum) regarding continued funding by the original funding partners of the Authority. As there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert E. Ford Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson Town Clerk All, ! yr-, ` PROCLAMATION NO. 1 SERIES OF 1998 A PROCLAMATION HONORING VAIL RESIDENTS CHAD FLEISCHER, SACHA GROS, SARAH SCHLEPER AND BARRETT k CHRISTY AS 1998 U.S. WINTER OLYMPIANS. WHEREAS, Chad Fleischer, Sacha Gros and Sarah Schleper have qualified and will compete in the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan, as members of the United States Olympic Alpine Team; and WHEREAS, Barrett Christy has qualified and will compete in the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan, as a member of the United States Olympic s~ Snowboard Team. .nos NOW, THEREFORE, I, Mayor Ford, by virtue of the authority vested in me fi as Mayor of the Town of Vail, on behalf of the Vail Town Council and the Vail a community, wish to express Vail's congratulations to Chad Fleischer, Sacha Gros, X Sarah Schleper and Barrett Christy on qualifying for the 1998 Winter Olympics and r mg " extend the community's best wishes for a safe and successful competition. ~y ~ vc INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of { f February, 1998. . i . s~ - Fem. Robert E. Ford, Mayor tp ATTEST:; H:. Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Rc~~~vt 4- 2 1991 Eagle County Regional Transportation / rity, December 22, 1997 4t iL W-S Rob Ford, Mayor Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Rob: On August 7the, 1997 representatives of the "funding partners" met to discuss the need to continue honoring their 1995 verbal commitment. Prior to the 1995 ballot issue for transportation, there was discussion and general agreement that the "funding partners" would continue their transportation contributions at the 1995 level, $450,000 annually, for five years including 1995. There had been some question as to the need for a continued commitment in light of healthy sales tax collection and the ECRTA's current fund balance. At the meeting ECRTA was asked to review the necessity for this continued contribution and other options. Since that meeting, ECRTA has worked with our financial adviser Vicki Mattox, Senior Vice President of George K. Baum & Company, to review various scenarios involving future transportation needs for Eagle County. Attached is a memo from Vicki which indicates without the continued contributions by the "funding partners" planned improvements of our transportation system will cost taxpayers an additional $184,800 to $1,111,800 in interest payments. For this reason ECRTA requests that the "funding partners" continue their commitment through fiscal year 1999 as originally considered. The Authority thanks you for your previous contributions and continued commitment in meeting our current and future transportation needs. Please contract Jim Shrum at your earliest convenience if you believe another meeting is required. Sincerely, ichae all g e , Chainn Eagle County Regional Tr portation Authority cc: Tony O'Rourke, BCRC Bob McLaurin, TOV Bill Efting, TOA Jim Hartmann, Eagle Co. Benchmark Plaza #204 (J70) 745-0702 PO. Bn_r 1 ?h4 FAX 070) 748-0710 .91,012, CO 51620-1504 4b e-mail: mo.5ilitv(a?vail.net U eoTe K. Ra 11 m & Company I1 VEM, IENT ]BANKERS MEYEE71 NEOVYOWA lTOc• E,XXCIMANOU INC ?VIT( Not CNCAGO MC[ EXCNAVGE -hC DEMVF4 Gd OIIADO 4CfC1 TEIEP40NE iUS) "2.11WC : TO. Jim Shrum, Director, Eagle County Regional 7!r=spoztation Authority Prom: Vicki Mattcx, Scuioc Vice PrczidoutoA Date: November 1.2, 1997 Re: FLYN- G PARTNERS COMMiTMFNr You have asked me to estim2te the financial impact of a loss of the funds currently contributed by the funding partners to the Authe rity. If die funding partners stoppod their contributions the Authority would probably be unable to continue to pay for capital acquisition and improvements with cash and would be forced to finance those acquisitions. The interest expense ascnciatod with the additinnal financings range between S184,800 and $1,111,800 depending on which projects are financed. The Authority currently plms iv expuad $2,166,300 fur capital acquisitions (primarily rolling stock) and Improvements during 1998 witi anther $518,582 of capital expenditures planned between 1999 and 2000 for a 3-year total capital program cost of $2,684,882 (before any expenditures associated with the proposed maintenance facility). Tf the Authority uses le•ise porchasing rather than cash to finance the acquisition of $1,500,000 of its planned capital purchases of rolling stock over the next three years it will incur $184,800 of interest expense. $1,500,000 a 4% for 5 years = interest expanse of $184,800 (level amortization) If the Authority uses cash to purchase the planned capital acquisitions for the next three years (rolling stock) it will probably be unable m cnntrihuto any cash to the Planned maintenance facility if the fimding partnen commitments cease. If the Authority increases a certificate of participation issue to pay for the maintenance facility by $1,500,000 the interest axpense for that ;facility will increase by $1,111,800. $1,500,000 ® 6 % for 20 years = interest expense of $1,111.800 (slightly increasing amortization) If the funding partners stop their contributions and the Authority chooses to use cash for capital xcgWsition the Authority's fund balsace will decrease. The two summary charts below show that impact. ORDINANCE NO. 2 Series of 1998 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1-5-11A ESTABLISHING THE TIME OF THE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING DATES. WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council wishes to have greater flexibility in establishing the time of the regular meeting dates. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT SECTION 1-5-11A SHALL BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Time and Place: pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Town Charter, the Town Council shall have regular meetings on the first and third Tuesdays of each month, to be known as the regular meeting dates, except as provided in subsection A2 of this Section. The meeting time shall be established at the Town Council's first organizational meeting to be held within seven (7) days from the election as described in Section 1-5-3 of the Vail Town Code. Such meetings shall be conducted in the Municipal Building of the Town. Section 2. 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 3. 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 more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 5 All hvlaws nrriarc mcnlllfinne nnrll nrinnni.~n nr -,4G 4"a-._r v d. 13. 10--, 01 NG1 % 111v1 GI/l, 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 No. 2, Series of 1998 1 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 3rd day of February, 1998. A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the 17th day of February, 1998, in the Municipal Building of the Town. Robert E. Ford, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED (IN FULL) (BY TITLE ONLY) THIS 20th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1998. Robert E. Ford, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1998 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1 Series of 1998 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, SECTION 12-7C-5(A)(3), TO WAIVE THE MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS APPLICATION DEADLINES FOR 1998 FOR THE LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN STUDY AREA. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail is presently engaged in preparing a redevelopment master plan for the Lionshead Study Area and generally for the Commercial Core 2 (CC2) zone district. The Commercial Core 1 district is also being amended to treat both areas fairly; and WHEREAS, said master plan is not to a level of completeness to accurately review redevelopment proposals in Lionshead in the first half of 1998, and therefore, requiring applicants to submit development proposals by the 4th Monday in February and the 4th Monday in September could have a detrimental effect on the master planning for Lionshead; and WHEREAS, said detrimental effect can be mitigated through temporarily waiving these submittal deadlines so that potential applicants may submit proposals after the master plan is to an appropriate level of completeness and, hence, avoid potential conflicts with the master plan; and WHEREAS, the Town Council feels an interest in treating various zone districts equally and fairly; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined it is appropriate to waive the application deadlines for major exterior alterations in the Lionshead Study Area and CC1 for 1998. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, BE AMENDED FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The submittal deadlines contained Sections 12-7C-5(A)(3) and 12-76- 7(A)(3) of the Municipal Code are hereby waived for project applications for the 1998 calendar year. Section 2. 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 3. 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 more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1998 1 Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 20th day of January, 1998. A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the 3rd day of February, 1998, in the Municipal Building of the Town. Robert E. Ford, Mayor ATTEST: A(Areleiinaldson, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED (IN FULL) (BY TITLE ONLY) THIS 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1998. Robert E. Ford, Mayor ATTEST: ALele' Donaldson, Town Clerk N OF 1 DEAL = //III 0 ` p, p 0 L 1 OR Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1998 2 rn m . t 13 G~ Q o a oo Z I • o `3 a- APO • -OW LIONSHEAD STUDY AREA BOUNDARY ~o ¦ s ¦ ¦ 0 Q a a O ~ D 6 • o q Oil O Z07 . lop r ¦ ,ftwwmwftr.~ e VAIL ROUND-A-BOUT 1 HORTM LIONSHEAD STUDY AREA ORDINANCE NO. 1 Series of 1998 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, SECTION 12-7C-5(A)(3), TO WAIVE THE MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS APPLICATION DEADLINES FOR 1998 FOR THE LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN STUDY AREA. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail is presently engaged in preparing a redevelopment master plan for the Lionshead Study Area and generally for the Commercial Core 2 (CC2) zone district; and WHEREAS, said master plan is not to a level of completeness to accurately review redevelopment proposals in Lionshead in the first half of 1998, and therefore, requiring applicants to submit development proposals by the 4th Monday in February and the 4th Monday in September could have a detrimental effect on the master planning for Lionshead; and WHEREAS, said detrimental effect can be mitigated through temporarily waiving these submittal deadlines so that potential applicants may submit proposals after the master plan is to an appropriate level of completeness and, hence, avoid potential conflicts with the master plan; and WHEREAS, these submittal deadlines were originally adopted to address Town staff workload issues. It was intended that all commercial projects be reviewed in a comprehensive manner; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined it is appropriate to waive the application deadlines for major exterior alterations in the Lionshead Study Area for 1998. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, BE AMENDED FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The submittal deadlines contained Section 12-7C-5(A)(3) of the Municipal Code are hereby waived for project applications for property located in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area (map attached as exhibit "A"). For the 1998 calendar year, project applications for major exterior alterations located in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Study Area may only be submitted on or after June 15, 1998, in accordance with the regular Planning and Environmental Commission schedule. Section 2. 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 3. 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 Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1998 1 i l remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 20th day of January, 1998. A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the 3rd day of February, 1998, in the Municipal Building of the Town. Robert E. Ford, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED (IN FULL) (BY TITLE ONLY) THIS 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1998. Robert E. Ford, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1998 2 f a m t d~ Q o a 00 L U d4 rn 0 0' ° a tr 0 ADS f LIONSHEAD STUDY AREA BOUNDARY n o ~ Q a 0 0 A a p o O o o ° oI Y 1 ..r 0 • o~ /f • '`wrr•rr•` a ~ t~R7. f7q.Ct~1! VAIL ROUND-A-BOUT I "01" LIONSHEAD STUDY AREA Draft ORDINANCE NO.1 Series of 1998 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, SECTION 12-7C-5(A)(3), TO WAIVE THE MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS APPLICATION DEADLINES AND CREATING A NEW DEADLINE FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS FOR 1998 FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN STUDY AREA. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail is presently engaged in preparing a redevelopment master plan for the Lionshead Study Area (see attached map) and generally for the Commercial Core 2 (CC2) zone district; and WHEREAS, said master plan is not to a level of completeness to accurately review redevelopment proposals in Lionshead in the first half of 1998, and therefore, requiring applicants to submit development proposals by the 4th Monday in February could have a detrimental effect on the master planning for Lionshead; and WHEREAS, said detrimental effect can be mitigated through temporarily waiving these submittal deadlines and delaying the submittal of all development proposals in the Lionshead Study Area until June 15, so that potential applicants may submit proposals after the master plan is to an appropriate level of completeness and, hence, avoid potential conflicts with the master plan; and WHEREAS, these submittal deadlines were originally adopted to address Town staff workload issues. It was intended that all commercial projects be reviewed in a comprehensive manner; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined it is appropriate to waive the application deadlines for major exterior alterations and delay other development proposals (such as major Special Development District amendments) in the Lionshead Study Area for 1998. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, BE AMENDED FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The submittal deadlines contained Section 12-7C-5(A)(3) of the Municipal Code are hereby waived for project applications for property located in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area (map attached as exhibit "A"). For the 1998 calendar year, project applications for major exterior alterations and all other development proposals thereby increasing floor area by a minimum of 100 sq. ft., adding or removing dwelling units or accommodation units, adding fractional fee or timeshare units, and similar proposals, Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1998 1 C regardless of the zone district in which the property is located (excepting single-family, two-family and primary/secondary residential uses), located in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Study Area may only be submitted on or after June 15, 1998, in accordance with the regular Planning and Environmental Commission schedule. Section 2. 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 3. 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 more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 20th day of January, 1998. A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the 3rd day of February, 1998, in the Municipal Building of the Town. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1998 2 Rob Ford, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED (IN FULL) (BY TITLE ONLY) THIS 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1998. Rob Ford, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1998 3 p m t ob Q o Gt oo Z m oa ~ QQ x oa o • P° • Vol ! ~ t UONSHEAD STUDY AREA BOUNDARY ! G 1 0 Q o Q 0 a 0 Q o p o 0 o 0 ~ I ~ ¦rrr o? M ? Q ~ 1 y i~ , ~r¦'rryr-r a VAL ROUND-A-BOUT Nom LIONSNEAD STUDY AREA ORDNANCE NO. a SERIES 1993 AN ORDMANCE REPFAUNG AND RF..EKACTING SECTION 1824.065 AND 1826.045, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF PAIL. SETTING FORTH NEW PROCEDURES FOR EXTEMOR ALTERATIONS OR MODUR"TIONS OF BUILDINGS W THE COYYERQAL CORE i AND COMMERCIAL CORE 11 ZONE DMT U=; AND PROVMtNG DETAILS 24 REGARD THteRET0. WHEREAS. the Town Council believes VW the following arnendntents wig da* and make more effeetive the exterior alteration and mociftwons pmeedure for Commercial Core I and Commercial Care Il. NOW. THEREFORE. be it oniaated by ttre Town County of the Town of Vac. Colorado: 1. Section 1824.465 - Ederior alterations or n ons - Proa xkw for Commercial Core Zone District I - of the Mkutldpal Cade of the Town of val is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 182a 465 Exterior aReratlons or modit =ft - Procedure for the Commercial Core I Zone District A. The eonsstrucdon of a new building. the afteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed ffoor area. Ste alteration at an exating buiiding which modiffes exterior roof lines, the replacement of an existing bonding. the adddion of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Conmrission (PEC) as follows: 1. 'on An application shall be made by the owner of the building or the building owner's auth mw agent or representative on a form provided by the Director of Community Development Any application for niniurmdad buddngs shalt be authorized by the Condominium Association in confommy with all pertinent requirements of the Condominium AssociatieWs declarations; 2. Aaolrcadgn - Cow An application for an exterior alteration shall h Uude the following: a) A completed application form. firing fee, and a list of ad owners of property Located adlacsnu to the subject parcel. A Ong fee scrag not be collected for any exterior alteration wt=n is only for the addition of an exterior dining dedC however. all other applicable fees shall be required The owners list shall include the name of an owners, their mailing 1 Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 Civil Action No. 95-CV-362 v. address, a legal description of the property owned by each, and a general desawtion of she property (inducting the name of the property if applicable), and the name and mailing address of the Condominium Association's represwtabve (if applicable). Said names and addresses shall be obtained from the careen tax records of Eagle County as they appeared not more than ttxaty (30) days prior to the application submittal date; b) A written statement describing the proposal and how the proposal cornpiies with the vag village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Urban Design Consideratiom the Vail Village Master Plan. Streetscape Master Plan. and any other relevant sections of the Vad Comprehensive Plan: c) A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor ind1a31 ng existing conditions on the property including the location of improvements, topography. and natural >}eatrues; d) A current title report to verify ownership, easements, and other encumbrance& including schedules A and S; e) Existing and proposed site plan at a scale of t inch equals ten feet; a vicinity plan at an appropriate scale to adequately show the project location in relationship to the surrounding area. a landscape plan at a scale of 1 inch equals ten feet, a roof height plan and existing and proposed building elevations at a minimum scale of 1/8 inch equals 1 toot. The material listed above shalt include adjacent buildings and improvements as necessary to demonstrate the projects compliance with Urban Design criteria as set forth in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. Vail Village Design Considerations. the `Jail V'uage Master Plan, the Streetscape Master Plan, and any other relevant sections of the Vag Comprehensive Plan; f) Sunshade analysis of the existing and proposed building for the sprttxyfalt equinox (March 21/September23) and winter solstice (December2t) at 10:00 A.M. and 2:30 P.M. unless the Community Development Department of the i own of Vag determines that the-proposed addition has no impact on the existing suntshade pattern. The following sun angle shall be used when preparing this analysis: Spdng/FaU Equinox Sun Ang% 10:00 A.M. 40' east of south. S0' declination 02.*00 PA. 42' west of south. SO' declination Winter Solstice Sun Angle 10-00 A.M. 30' east of south. 20' declination .?2:00 P.M. 30° west of south. 20' declination 2 R 9) Existing acid proposed floor plans at a scale of 1/4 inch equate 1 toot and a square footage anairss of all existing and proposed uses: h) An architecumi or massing model of the proposed development. Said model shall include Wiidings and major site impmverrrertb on a*cent properties as deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development. The scale of the mode! strati be as determined by the Director of Community DevebpmeM Q Photo overlays andfor oaten grapttic maoesial to demonstrate the relationship of the proposed development to adjacent properties. public spaces. and adopted views per Chapter 1&73 of the Town of Vag Municipal Code. Any addrtanaf inforrrt1001h Or MAIW ad as deetefad accessary by the Director of Community Development or the Town Of Vati Phrasing and Environmental Cortm k ion (PEC). The Dineector or the PEC may. at his or her or their discretion. waive certain submittal requirements 9 it a determined that the requirements are not relevant to the proposed de velopment nor applicable to the Urban Design aftnig, as set forth in the Vad yMage Urban Design Guide Plea and Val Village Design Considerations and arty other relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Part. 3. AoefiQEon Date and Procedures Complete applications for major exterior alterations Shall be Submitted bi- annually on or before the fourth Monday of February or the fourth Monday of September. For the year of 1994. the submittal dates shalt be the fourth Monday of FeWuary. May. September, and November. Submittal requirements shall include all information listed in subparagraph number 2 above, provided however, that the amlidec n-ai or massing model shall be submitted no later than One weeks prior to the first formal public hearing of the PFC. No public hearings or work sessions shall be Scheduled regardnq exterior alterations prior to the bi-aEnnuW submittai date deadlines. At the next regularly scheduled PEC meeting following the sutxrnitial dates listed above. ate D•mecior shall inform the PEC of all exterior alteraion subMitta is. The Director shall commence with the review of exterior alterations following this initial PEC meetinr, a) A property owner may apply for a major exterior alteration (gre=r than 100 square feet) in any year during which he or she shall submit an application on the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the Code. Said application shall be termed a *major exterior ath ation.- b) NoWMs=xffng the foregoing. applications for the alteration of an 3 gngung buikfing which adds or removes any enclosed floor area of not more than 100 square feet, applications to alter the oftMr roof Imes of an wasting bhnk%M. applications for new outdoor dining decks and appfcatona for modifications, to existlsg dining decks may be submitted on a designated submilfaf date for any regularly scheduled PEC meeting. Said applications shall be termed a'ntinor exterior alteration.' The mview fora minorexterior alt mWn shaft be as outfahed in this section. All endoseci tfoor area for an expamon or deletion Pumu2m m ttM srrbpaT ragraph 3(b) shell be physhrally and structurally part of an adoring or new bu M M orb snap not be a free standing structne. c) A single property owner may submit an extsrar aftrallon prop which rernoves or endows floor area of 100 square feet or lest on a designWed submftW date and wi l be reviewed by the PEC at any of its regularly scheduled =w&x s, 4. Work Sessions If requested by either the applicant or the Director at Community Development. subrnnft shat proceed to a work session with the PEC. The Director shag schedule the work session at a regularly scneduied PEC am" and shaii cause notice of the Bearing to be sent to all adjacent property owners in accordance with the ad. * .'stratjve cmapler of this code. Section 18.66.080 - Hearing - Notice. Following the worts session. and the submittal of any additionai material that may be required. the Director shad schedule a formal public hearing before the PEC in accordance with Section 18.66.080 - Hearing - Notice. S) Hearin The public hearing before the PEC shaft be hekf to accordance with the administation diapter of the Code, Sections 18.66.060 through 18.66.090. The PEC may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifcadons. or deny the application. The dedsion of the PEC may be appealed to the Town Count in accordance with Section 18.60.070 - A=eai to Town Count. 6) Comofiance with Comtxehenshm Able Plans It shaft be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the PEC that the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CCI Zone District as specified in Section 1824.010 - Pure; that the proposal is cort%Oest with applccabie elements of the Vac Village Master Plan, the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and the Vail COmprelmensive Ptah; and that lime proposal does not otherwae negatively alter the d=actsr of the neighborhood. Further, that the proposal substarmtfa9y 4 * compiles with the Vail V»age Urtan Design (,ride Plan and the Vail Village Design Corsideratio= to include. bur riot be limited to the following urban design considerations: pedestrianaation. ,rehiculas POWbatlon. streetscape trarnework. street enclosure. street edge, bt kin height, views. se<vice/deiirery and =ntshade analysts: and that the proposel wily complies witty ali other siements of the Vad Comprehensive Platt. 7) AacmNnid Approval of an exterior alteration under parwaphs 5 and 6 above shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of irrtproveenents odudng sitIng. budding setbacks. hei^ building bulk and mass, site improventerft and tamping. 8) hose of Aoorovaf ApprovaI dt a mapr orminorexterwalt0ration aspresrsibedby titisehatpter shall lapse and become void (two yews following the date of approval of the major or minor exterior alteration by the PEC unless, prior to the. expiration, a buuldttg permit is issued and construction is corranenced and diligently pursued to completion. 9) DRS Review Any rnoctikatfon or Mange to the exterior facade of a bulldog or to a site within =1 shag be reviewed by the ORB in accordance with Mapter 18.54 - Desion Review of this Code. It WW be the burden of the applicant to prove by a Preponderance of the evidence before the ORB that the proposed building modification is in compliance with the purposes of the dstrict as wed in 1824.010; Mat the pro posal toy complies with the van Village design considerations, and that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character of the neighborhood- 2 Section 1826.045 - Exterior alterations or modifua km - Procedure for the Commercial Core 11 Zone DisWlct - of the Municipal Code of the Town of Van is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 1826.045 - Exterior aReradorts or modttieadons - Procedure for the Commerdal Core It Zone District A. The constriction of a new building, the alteration of art acstirg building which adds or remves any enctosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building which modifies exterior roof lutes, the replacement: of an existing building. the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or the awdficabon of an existing ouWoor dining deck strati be subject to review by the Planning and 5 Environmental Conunisswn (PEC) as fottowsr An application Sri" be made by the owner of tfse bu&rLrtg or the building owners auM=sd agent or repmmu mve on a form provided by the Dirtcior of COmrmrnbty p nent. Any application for condormniumaed buildings shall be authorized by ttte Condominium asgociation in coi ffmty with all per>snertt requirements of the Condominium ,Awaciation's declart6orts; L7) Anoidon - Contsnts An apocalion for an amior attera*m shall include the following: a) Competed apple at;on form. tiring fee. and atilt of all owners of plow tv located ad~acernt to the subject parcel. A stung fee shad not be ootlxted for any exterior alteration which a only for the a*0don of an aiderior d mV deck however. an other vocable fear shalt be required. The owners dst strait include the name of all owners. their mating addesr, a legal dexsiptlon of the property owned by *aMN and a generat desaiptfon of the property (including the name of the property it appligbte), aced the name and mLTwV address of the Condominium Aeon's representative (if appdcable). Said names and addresses shad be obtained from the current tax records of Eagle County as they appeared not more than thirty (3c) days prior to the application submittal date; b) A w. Mai SMWMnt des dwV the proposal and how the proposal Mlg*es with the Vail Lgxmhead Urban Design Guide Pfau and the Vad Lmshead Design Considerations and any other relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Ptan: c) A survey stamped oy a licensed surveyor Indicating eudstjrtg cord ions on the property inducting the location of improvements. topography. and natural fea>sues; d) A current title report tD verity ownership, easements. and other encumbrances, including sdwduies A and 8; el Esistfrtg and proposed site plan at a scale of 1 inch equals ten feet. a vicinity plan at an .appropriate scale to adequately show the project location in relasonstW to ithe surrourxfwtg area. a landscape plan at a scale of 1 inch equals teen feet a roof height plan and existing and proposed burtkOng etevatlons at a minimum scale of 118 inch equals t foot. The material rsted above shall include aerjacent buildings and improvements as necessary to demonstrate the pmjecrs compliance with Urban Design criteria as set forth in the Vail Lionshead 6 Urb3n Das+4n Guide Ptah. Vaal Luxwj ead DeSW CorLsiderabons. and any omen relevant SOCOOm of to Val Comprenensive Ptah: 8 Surt/sttade analysis at the existing and Proposed building for the springnap equip= (Marcn 21 /Septsffsbw 23) and winter solstice (December 21) at 1 AIL and 290 PAL unless the Comrmatity Development Department of the Town of Vaal determines that the proposed additboa has no impact on the eaoesting sunishade PZWn The foUowirrg.sun angle shalt be used when preparing this analysis: SprirgfFall EgLdncx Seat Angle 1090 A.M. 400 asst of souttf. W declination 0200 PAL 42' west of south, dedifIRIM Winter Sotsdaa Star Angle tt}90 A.M. 300 east of sw-41% 20' dedbtation 0200 P.M. 30• west at soutk 2r declination g) Existing and proposed!loan Pf= at & scale of 114 inch equals 1 foot and a squats footage analysis of all erosting and proposed sues: h) An architectural or massing model of the proposed development Said model 9W indude buiici n and major site improvernerm on WW= properties as deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development. The scale of the model SW be as determined by the Director of coma traty Development. Photo overlays and/or other graphic material to denwnsbate the special relationship of the proposed development to adjacwt PrOPertim pubic spaces, and adopted views per chapter 18.73 of To Town of Vad Municipal Code. D Any ade bonal infomtation or material as deemed necessary by the Director of Coma unity Development ort m Town of Vaal Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). The Director or the PEC may. at his or her or ftir discretion, waive certain subrnitml raegammerrts d it is determined that the requirements are not relevant to the proposed development nor applicable to the Urban Design criteria. as set IOM in the Val Uonshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionsnead Design Canader mcns and any other relevant seasons of the Vail Cornprettensive Pan. 3) Aoolication Date and Procedures Complete applications for major exterior alterations snail be submi ted bi- annually on or befae the fourth (Monday of February or the fourth Monday of September. For the year of 1994, the submittal dates srtml be trio fount Monday of February, May. September. and 7 November. Submittal nequirernerrts st= include ad intorriMon Umd in subparagraph number 2 above. Provided however. that the architectural or rri =19 model strati be submitted no later than three weeks prior to the first formal public hearing of the PEC. No public hearings or work - sessions shalt be scheduled regarding exterior alterations prior to the bi-anrsral submitmt date deamines. At the next regularly sawKl,ted PEC meeting following the submittal, data listed above. the Director shad inform the PEC of ad exterior alteration submittals. The Director shall commence with the review of exterior alterations following this initial PEC mee&S a) A property owner may apply for a mayor exterior alteration (greater than 100 square-feet) in any year which he or she shag submit an appfteation an the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the Code. Said appkmgon shalt be tamed a . 'mteW exterior alteradon.' b) NotwiCis-Miding the fbregokS applications for the alteration at an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area of not more than 100 feet applications to after the exMftr roof fines of an axis-I g bolding, appacadons for new outdoor dining decks and appiicadorts for modi5cadonss to existing dining decks may be slued on a designated submittal, date for any regularly scheduled PEC meeting. Said applications shag be termed 'minor exterior alteration.- The review procedures for a minor exterior alteration shalt be as oufyned in this section. Ad enclosed floor area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this V&PMRgrJPh 3(b) shad be physically and structurally part of an existing or new building and shad riot be a free standing structure. c) A single property owner may submit an extanar adoration proposal which removes or endorses floor area of 100 square feet or less on a designated msbmsittai date and will be reviewed by the PEC at any of its regularly scheduled meetings. 4) Work Sessions It requested by either the applicant or the Director of Caramurnay DeveicpmerTL all mbmitt t shalt proceed to a Work Session with the PEC. The Director shall schedule the worts session at a regular schedu[W PEC meeting and shall cause notice of the hearing to be sent m all adacent property owners in accordance Witt. in ZM*ftuwm chapter of this code. Section 18.66.080 - Hearin - Notice. Following the Work Sewn. and the submittal of any additional material that may be required. the Doctor shalt schedule a format public hearing before the PEC in accordance with Seaton 18.66:080 - Heartno - Notice. 8 5) HeRnM The public hearing before the PEC Shag be heW in arxx>rutartoe wiltt the administration cnaptcr of the Code, SecSoes 18.66-060 through 18.68.090. The PEC may approve the application as sabnMled, approve the appkabon wilts conditions or ntoKlfieado= or deny the appticoon. The decision of the PEC may be appealed to the Town Caind in 'accordance with Section 18.60-070 - Appeal to Town Couatd 6) Comcimce wish Aacdcable CornaehMMM Mans it shag be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preporderarm at the aft" befae to PEC that the proposed owior atieradon is in =q* mm with to purposes of the CCII Zone Di *ta as specified in Section 1826.010 - P.~;, that the proposal is own tent with applicable eftments of the Vail LionshmW Urban Design Guide Plana and to Val Lionshead Design Camideratkm% and that the proposal does not otttew ise negatively alter the d>aracter of the neighborhood; and that the proposal gy compbs with adl outer applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 7) Approval Approval of an exterior alteramon under pardgtaptss 5 and 6 above sting eonsliho approval of the basic form and Ioeacon of improvements Odrmfng siting. btakftV setbadrs, bulk height, building bulk and mass6 site improvements and Eng. 8) Loose of Aoacvval Approval of a major or minor exW-ioraftra*m aspsescnbed by thfs chapur shag wpm and become void two years following the date of approval of the major or minor exterfor aiterafton by the PEC unless, prior to the expiration. a buddng permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued to completion. 9) DAB Review ` Any moditaWn or change to the exterior facade of a buadng or to a site within CCII shag be reviewed by the ORB in accordance with Chapter 1854 - Design Review of 'this Code. It shag be ttte burden of the applicant to prove ay a preponderance of 9* evidence before the design review b a rf that the proposed bu ildrhg modificadon is in eomprance v ft the purposes of the CCII district as specdIed in 1824.010; that the proposal substansdaity eomp6es with the Vaal Llonshead design considerations or that the praposef does not otherwise after the dtaracser of the neighborhood 9 3 It any part sectiom subsection. sentence, clause or phrase of no onsnatsce is for any reason held to be invalit such 1eQ7ioet shall not affect the validity of the ntinaam~g portions of this ordnance; and tale Town Council hereby dedams d would have passed this oer5rsarsee. and earl part, section, subsection. siantsence. douse or phrase thhereo 1 regal of the fact that any one or more parts. sections. moons. setsesc>ces. damn or phrases be declared kwafid. 4. The Town Council hereby finds. debw...ines. and dedama that fts oet5rnnce is necessary and proper for the heatlt . safely. and welfare of the Town or Vail and the inhaboafs tweet. • S. The tepee! or the repeal and reouactment of any provision of the Ltgdcqmd Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shad not after any right wttiCll has a=nmd. any duty unposed. arty violation dw occurred prior to the due dots tweet, any prosecution commenced, not arty other action or proceedings as ODnfinenced udder or by *hw at the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted,. The repeal of any provision hereby shag not revive arty provision or arty ordinanos previously repealed or superseded union a ly stated herein. & AU Wievvs, ordem resokmons. and oftuncem or parts thereof, inert herewith are repeated to the extend onty of such inconsistency. This repeater shat) not be construed to revise any bylaw, order. resottWon, or ordinance. or part thereof. theretofore repeated. INTRODUCED. READ. APPROVED. AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN PULL ON FIRST READING this 72, day of December. 1943. and a public hearing stall be hold on this CnCinartce on the 21st day of Decernber,1993, at 730 pm in the Counal Chambers of the Vag kiddpal B uldufg. Vag. Colorado. Margaret Osterfoss. Mayor ATTEST: Ho L roll. Town Clerk 10 READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED in frAt m 21st day of December 199a. MwgamVA. Otsted=% Mayor ATTEST: mogir-L- Town Clerk c~oioaa 11 i MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 27, 1992 RE: A request for a worksession to discuss amending Commercial Core I, Section 18.24.065 Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure, and Commercial Core II, Section 18.26.045 Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer + .xjiy-:.M:.:'xi~i: +4+>,....... - ....::?Jivn{: :?:>:4Y:..'ltl..rii:\%!-IVtii?CriYfiv..,i .::::.::::.::x.::.:;:-::..:.:N+;:o: ::.:f;:ay::»:.,...:.:.::::...; -..y •n:w..n' ':::%YS::::;:::.>-.~,: ..+,.i~:`v ..~:+-:aa.y:.;~~,,..,.;...:.:~::::r..,:x.',::o ,xrayL6+pu-• ?~r7-•e. `ff.?~~... v v::vw.vrwvnvr+..wirmwwiwwvww-y.-iw.-iw.wwwnKiw.-.w•3rwrtriD:iGSi:4>+:W:?~A+w+w. The Community Development Department staff proposes the Sections of the zoning code listed above, relating to the exterior alteration procedures in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core 11, be modified. These changes are taken from recommendations made in the October, 1991 Development Code Revision Report, Phase I. The following is a list of issues, staff recommendations and related recommended zoning code modifications. Section 18.24.065 Commercial Core I Exterior Alteration or Modifications - Procedures will be - discussed first, followed by a discussion of the issues and the related staff zoning code modification recommendations for Section 18.26.045 Commercial Core II Exterior Alterations or Modifications. The text modifications proposed for CCI and CCII are identical. I. COMMERCIAL CORE I SECTION 18.24.065 - EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS PROCEDURES A. Issue The review procedures for development proposals are outlined in this section of the zoning code. However, the two semi-annual submittal dates do not allow for the timely review and subsequent construction of projects. Staff Recommendation Move the submittal dates for major projects up two months, from November and May to September and March respectively. The purpose of this change is to complete Town project reviews at an earlier date in order to allow project construction to begin in the spring immediately following the end of the ski season and in the fall prior to the beginning of ski season. i 1 . Plaintiffs Exhibit 4 Civil Action No. 95-CV-362 E. Issue Any exterior alteration development proposal which adds or removes floor area is required to go through the exterior alteration review process. Site development alterations, specifically outdoor dining decks are related to many of the design criteria, yet do not require exterior alteration review by the PEC. Staff Recommendation The addition of a new dining deck or the modification of an existing dining deck should be added to the list of development activities that trigger the exterior alteration process. Currently, proposals for new or expanded dining decks require PEC review for a conditional use permit. However, exterior alteration criteria are more appropriate criteria to use to evaluate the impact of this type of development than are the conditional use criteria. This change will not add a new meeting to the review process of these proposals but, instead, will allow the PEC to consider urban design criteria in evaluating a new dining deck or the modification of an existing dining deck. Under this change, outdoor dining deck proposals would no longer be reviewed under the conditional use process. Therefore, the outdoor dining deck use would no longer be a conditional use in this district. Instead, outdoor dining decks and patios would be listed as an accessory use in Section 18.24.080 - Accessory Uses. This will require changes to CCI Section 18.24.080 - Accessory Uses and CCII Section 18.26.050 - Accessory Uses. Changes to these sections of the code must be advertised and formally discussed by the PEC at a later date. F. Issue The PEC and Design Review Board (DRS) both participate in the review of exterior alterations. However, the role and authority of each board is not clearly defined. Staff Recommendation The PEC is to review the siting, form, massing, circulation and other large-scale urban design issues. The DRB's responsibilities are to review landscaping and detailed architectural considerations. Generally, these roles are delineated in the Urban Design Guide Plan. While there will always be some overlap, the roles of each board should be more clearly set forth in this section of the code. G. Issue Under this section of the code, applications for the alteration of an existing area which add or remove an enclosed floor area of 100 square feet or less may be submitted for review at any regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. However, a single property owner is limited to one such submission in any two year period. 3 A. The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building which modifies roof lines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission as follows: 1. Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the Director of Community Development Any application for a condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations; 2. An application for an exterior alteration shall include the following: a. Completed application form, filing fee and a list of all owners of property located adjacent to the subject parcel. Said names and addresses shall be obtained from the current tax records of Eagle County as they appeared no more than sixty days prior to the date of the scheduled public hearing. The owners list shall include the name of all owners, their mailing address, the legal description of the property owned by each, and a general description of the property (including the name of the property, if applicable); b. A written statement describing the proposal and how the proposal complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Village Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan (i.e., Vail Village Master Plan, Streetscape Master Plan, etc.); C. A survey, stamped by a licensed surveyor, indicating existing conditions on the property including the location of improvements, topography, and natural features; d. A current title report, including schedules A and B; e. Existing and proposed site plan, vicinity plan, landscape plan, a roof height plan and existing and proposed building elevations. The material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and improvements as necessary to demonstrate the project's compliance with urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; f. Sun/shade analysis of the existing and proposed building; r a. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of an existing building which add or remove any enclosed floor area of not more than one hundred square feet, applications to alter the roof lines of an existing building, applications for new outdoor dining decks and applications for modifications to existing outdoor dining decks may be submitted for any regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. Said applications shall be termed 'minor exterior alteration'. The review procedures for minor exterior alteration shall be as outlined in this section. All enclosed floor area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this Subparagraph 3(a) shall be physically and structurally a part of an existing or new building and shall not be a free-standing structure. A property owner may apply for an expansion -greater than one hundred square feet in any year in which he or she submits an application on the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. b. If a single property owner has not submitted an exterior alteration proposal of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, a proposal may be submitted at the required time of the month for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission at any of the Commission's regularly scheduled monthly meetings. C. If a single property owner has submitted a redevelopment proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, said applications shall be submitted for review on a semi-annual basis on or before the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. 4. The public hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be held in accordance with the Administration chapter of the code, Section 18.66.100 - Amendment-Prescription. The Planning and Environmental Commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. A decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with Section 18.66.110 - Amendment-Initiation; 5. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission that the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CCI district as specified in Section 18.24.010; that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Comprehensive Plan; and that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character of the neighborhood. Further, that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited 7 t A. The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building which modifies roof lines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission as follows: 1. Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the Director of Community. Development Any application for a condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations; 2. An application for an exterior alteration shall include the following: a. Completed application form, filing fee and a list of all owners of property located adjacent to the subject parcel. Said names and addresses shall be obtained from the current tax records of Eagle County as they appeared no more than sixty days prior to the date of the scheduled public hearing. The owners list shall include the name of all owners, their mailing address, the legal description of the property owned by each, and a general description of the property (including the name of the property if - applicable); b. A written statement describing the proposal and how the proposal complies with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; C. A survey, stamped by a licensed surveyor, indicating existing conditions on the property including the location of improvements, topography, and natural features; d. A current title report, including schedules A and B; e. Existing and proposed site plan, vicinity plan, landscape plan, a roof height plan and existing and proposed building elevations. The material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and improvements as necessary to demonstrate the project's compliance with urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; f. Sunshade analysis of the existing and proposed building; 9 i a. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of an existing building which add or remove any enclosed floor area of not more than one hundred square feet, applications to alter the roof lines of an existing building, applications for new outdoor dining decks and applications for modifications to existing outdoor dining decks may be submitted for any regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. Said applications shall be termed "minor exterior alteration". The review procedures for minor exterior alteration shall be as outlined in this section. All enclosed floor area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this Subparagraph 3(a) shall be physically and structurally a part of an existing. or new building and shall not be a free-standing structure. A property owner may apply for an expansion greater than one hundred square feet in any year in which he or she submits an application on the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. b. If a single property owner has not submitted an exterior alteration proposal of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, a proposal may be submitted at the required time of the month for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission at any of the Commission's regularly scheduled monthly meetings. C. If a single property owner has submitted a redevelopment proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, said applications shall be submitted for review on a semi-annual basis on or before the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. 4. The public hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be held in accordance with the Administration chapter of the code, Section 18.66.100 - Amendment-Prescription. The Planning and Environmental Commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. A decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with Section 18.66.110 - Amendment-Initiation; 5. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission that the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CCII district as specified in Section 18.26.010; that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Lionshead Urban Desion Guide Plan or that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character of the neighborhood; and that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 11 . PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 9, 1992 Present Staff Greg Amsden Kristan Pritz Chuck Crist Mike Mollica Diana Donovan Jill Kammerer Ludwig Kurz Andy Knudtsen Kathy Langenwalter Shelly Mello Dalton Williams Amber Blecker Gena Whitten The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Diana Donovan at 1:05PM. 1. A request for a worksession for a minor subdivision and a zone district chance from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multiple Family for the Schmetzko property, generally located at 2239 Chamonix Lane more particularly described as: Parcel A: A tract of land containing one acre, more or less, located in the South 1/2 of the South East 1/4 of Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NE comer of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11; thence westerly along the northerly line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 bearing south 86 20' W a distance of 167.80 ft. to a point: Thence southerly along a line 167.80 ft. distant from and parallel to the east line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4,- a distance of 200.00 ft. to a point: Thence easterly a distance of 167.80 ft. along a line 200.00 ft. distant from and parallel to the north line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 to a point on its east line; Thence easterly on a line parallel to the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to a point: Thence northerly and parallel with the west line of the east 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11, a distance of 200.00 ft. to the point of intersection with the extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11; Thence westerly on a deflective angle left of 95 21'00" along the extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to the NE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, being the point of beginning. Planning and Environmental Commission • March 9, 1992 • Page 1 Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 Civil Action No. 95-CV-362 Kristan Pritz replied that the referenced section only applied when the use concerned was already listed as a conditional use in the Code. If it was not listed, the Commission could not grant a conditional use permit. Ned-felt it was ridiculous that, since the space had predominantly been used as an office, that it was not allowed at this time. Diana said that retail use in the Village Core was to be encouraged. Ned reiterated this was not viable retail space. Greg Amsden believed it would be a dangerous precedent to change the uses in the Village to allow office where retail/service uses are currently required and considered important to the life of the Village. Diana summarized the Commission's position to state they could not endorse the appeal. Kathy Langenwalter moved to uphold the staff's decision regarding grandfathered office space in the Mill Creek Court Building, 302 Gore Creek Drive/a part of Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. It was upheld, 7-0. 7. A re uest to amend Chanter 18.24 - Commercial Core I and Chanter 18.26 Commercial Core ][[of the Town of Vail zoning code relating to exterior alterations or modifications, and the Vail Village Design Considerations (1) Sun-Shade. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer Jill Kammerer reviewed the major portions of the proposal, answering questions from the Commissioners regarding changes from the previous review. She clarified submittal dates, requirements for dining decks and exterior alterations. Diana Donovan disagreed with having the second application for a minor (under 100 sq. ft.) alteration being restricted to the "major" alteration submittal dates. Diana indicated she would like to continue to limit the review of 100 sq. ft. or less to one proposal every two years. Further, she did not think it was a good idea to make a minor alteration easier, as making applicants wait could help produce better projects. Dalton Williams asked that the intention for both submittal dates be given, i.e., that February was for smaller projects and September was for the large, major requests in order to allow time for approvals before the spring construction season. Staff clarified that the change in submittal dates did not relate to the size of the project, but rather the purpose of the change was to allow earlier review of projects by the Town in order to allow construction to begin in the spring immediately following the end of the ski season, and in the fall prior to the beginning of the ski season. Jill asked the Commission's feelings on having the exterior alterations good for 2 years. Kristan said 2 years was nice for the more minor alterations, as it gave them more than 1 building season for the alteration to be constructed in the event financing was not immediately obtainable. Kathy Langenwalter was in favor of being consistent with the recent Planning and Environmental Commission - March 9, 1992 - Page 14 changes to the time period variance and conditional use approvals are effective, and allowing 2 years. Dalton disagreed, stating that if the approval was only good for 1 year, it would help ensure the applicants thought out their request more thoroughly. Kristan did not have a problem restricting the approval to one year. Jill asked for comments regarding the sun/shade portion. Dalton asked why the measurements were to be taken at 10:00AM and 2:OOPM. Jill said measuring the sun angles at these times showed the shade impact in the morning and in the afternoon. Chuck Crist asked if the summer shade effect on dining decks could be determined Kathy agreed that it would' be a good idea to request applicants provide this information. Gena Whitten thought the times for the readings to be taken should be later in the day. Jill informed her the rationale behind the times was that later in the day, the shadows were generally too long and it would be difficult to determine anything from the analysis. Dalton believed the readings should be taken when there was pedestrian activity - 9AM and 3PM, for example. Kathy thought sun/shade analysis information should only be required to be provided if shadow was cast on a public way. The consensus of the Commission was for a 1 year expiration on minor exterior alteration approvals. Diana Donovan asked for wording to be included that additional "appropriate" sun-shade analysis could be requested by staff. Dalton Williams moved to recommend the to Town Council approval of the request to amend Chapter 18.24 - Commercial Core I and Chapter 18.26 - Commercial Core II, of the Town of Vail zoning code relating to exterior alterations or modifications, and the Vail Village Design Considerations (1) - Sun-Shade per staff's memorandum with the changes as discussed above. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. Kathy Langenwalter asked that the rationale behind the review periods be explained in the ordinance, and that the final ordinance be placed in the Commissioners' packets prior to presentation to the Town Council. Dalton so amended his motion, and Greg agreed to the second amended motion. It was unanimously approved, 7-0. 8. Avvroval of February 24, 1992 meeting minutes Chuck Crist moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Gena Whitten seconded the motion. It was approved 6-0-1, with Ludwig Kurz abstaining, as he was not present at the February 24, 1992 meeting. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:OOPM. Planning and Environmental Commission - March 9, 1992 - Page 15 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 9, 1992 SUBJECT: A request to amend Chapter 18.24 - Commercial Core I and Chapter 18.26 - Commercial Core 11, of the Town of Vail zoning code relating to exterior alterations or modifications, and the Vail Village Design Considerations (1) - Sun-Shade. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jill Kammerer :IXJCWG::O}" n.^^^..friY viW..•-M..T3•"• `:]')iiY'4 ' :tiii~::iiv ::i::::: vvv: n: :v.4.~ 'v {C;}..O' A 46JC.iC ::..kt-:}:"'v: ^9C roF :vv::::.v::::: .:x ............i..: ..v.::::v: v.w.v:: m-:-.. vr'-i '.J "-:f>~j. }N:/. YnK;iK:•x,'-•-.-•.K+~Y':i4.C..-.;•}}}.w.::??.}J}:•?:h.:SAivi .wf.rw.•..•.. N}%L.O. .v , .tr n ':iA'a}.:'.::': v'.:. v. ..tr - v:\i9}\::: nkMvi:}}v.:C~ This request was discussed as a worksession item at the January 27, 1992 Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) meeting. At this meeting, the members of the PEC recommended the Vail Village Design Considerations (1) Sun-Shade also be modified in conjunction with these CCI and CCII zone district code changes to require applicants to submit a four-season sun-shade analysis. The Vail Village Design Considerations were approved on May 20, 1980 by Ordinance No. 16. Therefore, changes to the Vail Village Design Considerations (1) Sun-Shade must also be made by ordinance. The Community Development Department staff proposes to modify the sections of the zoning code listed above, relating to the exterior alteration procedures in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II. These changes are taken from recommendations made in the October, 1991 Development Code Revision Report, Phase 1. The following is a list of issues, staff recommendations and related zoning code modifications. Section 18.24.065 Commercial Core I Exterior Alteration or Modifications - Procedures will be discussed first, followed by a discussion of the issues and the related zoning code modification recommendations for Section 18.26.045 Commercial Core 11 Exterior Alterations or Modifications. The text modifications proposed for the CCI and CCII zone districts are identical. 1. COMMERCIAL CORE I SECTION 18.24.065 - EXTERIOR ALT=RATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS PROCEDURES A. Issue The review procedures for development proposals are outlined in this section of the zoning code. However, the two semi-annual submittal dates do not allow for the timely review and subsequent construction of projects. i t Plaintiff s Exhibit 7 Civil Action No. 95-CV-362 Staff Recommendation Move the submittal dates for major projects up two or three months, from November and May, to September and February respectively. The purpose of this change is to complete Town project reviews at an earlier date in order to allow project construction to begin in the spring immediately following the end of the ski season and in the fall prior to the beginning of ski season. B. Issue Applications for the alteration of an existing area which add or remove an enclosed floor area of 100 square feet or less may be submitted for review at any regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. However, a single property owner is limited to one such submission in any two year period. Staff Recommendation Staff believes limiting the review of additions of 100 square feet or less to one proposal every two years is unnecessary and acts as a disincentive to property owners who want to upgrade their properties. Staff proposes the code be modified to allow the review of additions or redevelopment proposals of 100 square feet or less in the following manner: • A single property owner who has not submitted an exterior alteration proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two years may submit a redevelopment proposal of 100 sq. ft. or less for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission, at any of the Commission's regularly scheduled monthly meetings. • A single property owner who has submitted an exterior alteration proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less, within the last two years would have the opportunity to submit any additional exterior alteration proposals which remove or enclose floor area for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission on a semi-annual basis on or before the fourth Monday of February or the fourth Monday of September. • No public hearings or work sessions before the PEC shall be scheduled regarding major exterior alterations or minor exterior alteration applications which must be submitted on a semi-annual basis, prior to the applicable semi-annual submittal date. 2 i • Exterior alteration applications which call for the addition or removal of any enclosed area of 100 square feet or less shall be considered minor alterations. Any exterior alteration proposal which adds or removes any enclosed floor area of more than 100 square feet shall be considered a major exterior alteration. C. Issue The sixty or ninety day review process as outlined in this section is not consistent with the manner in which applications are actually handled. Staff Recommendation Review procedures stipulate a sixty or ninety day review period as may be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). In reality, the review of exterior alterations is primarily dependent on the applicant's submittal of material, and not on the review period established by the PEC. Staff recommends this section of the code be amended to state that the formal review by the PEC will be scheduled by the Director of Community Development following a worksession (if necessary) and planning department receipt of all of the required submittal materials. D. Issue The code does not set forth formal submittal requirements for exterior alterations. While the staff and the PEC ultimately determine what materials must be submitted in order for the review of the exterior alteration application to occur, minimum submission requirements should be specified in the code, so the applicant knows what is expected. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the code be modified to include a list of submittal requirements similar to the Special Development District (SDD) submittal requirements. The Community Development Director should be allowed the flexibility to add or delete submittal requirement material as may be appropriate, depending upon the magnitude of the project. E. Issue The code does not specifically address who may submit an exterior alteration application. Staff Recommendation Concern over who may submit an exterior alteration application has to do with condominiumized projects. Under the SDD review process, all property owners within the project area are required to sign the SDD application, unless, the 3 condominium by-laws give a condominium association representative (or officer) the authority to submit an application with a majority vote of approval by its members. Staff recommends this same SDD language be incorporated into this section of the code. F. Issue Any exterior alteration development proposal which adds or removes floor area is required to go through the exterior alteration review process. Site development alterations, specifically outdoor dining decks, are related to many of the design criteria, yet do not require exterior alteration review by the PEC. Staff Recommendation The addition of a new dining deck, or the modification of an existing dining deck, should be added to the list of development activities that trigger the exterior alteration process. Currently, proposals for new or expa zed dining decks require PEC review as a conditional use permit. However, the exterior alteration criteria are also appropriate criteria to use to evaluate the impact of this type of development. Therefore, staff recommends new dining deck applications and applications which propose the modification of an existing dining deck be evaluated using the exterior alteration and conditional use criteria. This change will not add an additional meeting to the review process of these proposals but, instead, will allow the PEC to consider urban design criteria in evaluating a new dining deck or the modification of an existing dining deck, as well as the conditional use permit review criteria. G. Issue The PEC and Design Review Board (DRS) both participate in the review of exterior alterations. However, the role and authority of each board is not clearly defined. Staff Recommendation The PEC is to review the siting, form, massing, circulation and other large-scale planning and urban design issues. The DRB's responsibilities are to review landscaping and detailed architectural considerations. Generally, these roles are delineated in the Urban Design Guide Plan. While there will always be some overlap, the roles of each board should be more clearly set forth in this section of the code. H. Issue Alterations to the roof line of existing buildings are not currently reviewed under the exterior alteration section of the code. Changes to roof lines can impact sun/shade analysis, established view corridors, street enclosure, streetscape framework, etc. 4 r Staff Recommendation Require all changes to the existing roof line on structures located within the CCI and CCII zone districts to be reviewed using the exterior alteration criteria. This type of request would be considered a minor exterior alteration, assuming no square footage over 100 sq. ft. was added. 1. Issue Exterior alteration approvals do not lapse or expire. They are effective indefinitely. Trying to evaluate future exterior alteration proposals on adjacent structures based on exterior alteration approvals which may or may not be constructed becomes complex. Further, all other zoning requests have a specified time period for the approvals. Staff Recommendation Approval of any exterior alterations as prescribed by this Chapter shall lapse and shall become void two years following the date of approval of the exterior alteration by the Planning and Environmental Commission unless, prior to the expiration of the two years, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. Staff believes two years is an adequate approval time which matches the approval time for variances and conditional use permits. SDDs are valid for three years. An exterior alteration would need to be renewed after two years when it is associated with an SDD. J. Issue Timing for implementing recommended code changes. Staff Recommendation All code changes shall become effective upon approval of the changes by ordinance. This will result in an additional (3) major exterior alteration submission deadlines for the balance of 1992 (May, September and November). Beginning in 1993, there will again be only 2 major exterior alteration submission deadlines (February and September). This approach should avoid creating scheduling problems for any applicant who is considering a project submittal for 1992 using the previous deadlines. II. TEXT MODIFICATIONS TO SECTION 18.24.065 The following are the proposed text modifications to Section 18.24.065, which address the Issues and Staff Recommendations set forth above: 5 "Site development, the construction of a new building, and alterations to the exterior of an existing building in CCI shall comply with the following procedures: A. The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building which modifies roof lines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission as follows: 1. Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the Director of Community Development Any application for a condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations; 2. An application for an exterior alteration shall include the following: a. Completed application form, filing fee and a list of all owners of property located adjacent to the subject parcel. Said names and addresses shall be obtained from the current tax records of Eagle County as they appeared no more than sixty days prior to the date of the scheduled public hearing. The owners list shall include the name of all owners, their mailing address, the legal description of the property owned by each, and a general description of the property (including the name of the property, if applicable), and the name and mailing address of the condominium association's representative (if applicable); b. A written statement describing the proposal and how the proposal complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Village Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan (i.e., Vail Village Master Plan, Streetscape Master Plan, etc.); C. A survey, stamped by a licensed surveyor, indicating existing conditions on the property including the location of improvements, topography, and natural features; d. A current title report to verify ownership, easements and other encumbrances, including schedules A and B; e. Existing and proposed site plan, vicinity plan, landscape plan, a roof height plan and existing and proposed building elevations. The material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and improvements as necessary to demonstrate the project's compliance with urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail 6. Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; f. Sun/shade analysis of the existing and proposed building for the spring/fall equinox (March 21/September 23) and winter solstice (December 21) at 10:OOAM and 2:OOPM; g. Existing and proposed floor plans and a square footage analysis of all existing and proposed uses; h. An architectural or massing model of the proposed development. Said model shall include buildings and major site improvements on adjacent properties; i. Photo overlays and/or other graphic material to demonstrate the spatial relationship of the proposed development to adjacent properties, public spaces, views and formally adopted Town of Vail view corridors; j. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development. The Director may, at his or her discretion, waive certain submittal requirements if it is determined that said requirements are not relevant to the proposed development and applicable urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 3. Complete applications for exterior alterations shall be submitted semi- annually on or before the fourth Monday of February or the fourth Monday of September. Submittal requirements shalt include all information listed in Subparagraph 2. above, provided however, that the architectural or massing model may be submitted three weeks prior to the first formal public hearing by the Planning and Environmental Commission. No public hearings or work sessions shall be scheduled regarding exterior alterations prior to the semi-annual submittal date deadlines. At the next regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission meeting following the two submittal dates listed above, the Director shall inform the Planning and Environmental Commission of all exterior alteration submittals. The Director shall commence with the review of exterior alteration proposals following this initial Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. The next step in the review process shall be a work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission, provided however, that applications made in accordance with Subparagraphs 3(b-d) of this Section may be exempt from this required work session if determined unnecessary by the Director. The Director shall schedule the work i 7. session at a regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission hearing, and shall cause notice of such hearing to be sent to all adjacent property owners in accordance with the provisions of the Administration Chapter of the Code, Section 18.66.080 - Hearing-Notice. The Director shall schedule a formal public hearing with the Planning and. Environmental Commission in accordance with Section 18.66.080 - -Hearing-Notice, following this work session and the submittal of any additional submittal material that may be required. a. A property owner may apply for an expansion -greater than one hundred square feet in any year in which he or she shall submit an application on the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. Said application shall be termed a "major exterior alteration.- b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of an existing building which add or remove any enclosed floor area of not more than one hundred square feet, applications to alter the roof lines of an existing building, applications for new outdoor dining decks and applications for modifications to existing outdoor dining decks may be submitted for any regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. Said applications shall be termed a "minor exterior alteration". The review procedures for a minor exterior alteration shall be as outlined in this section. All enclosed floor area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this Subparagraph 3(b) shall be physically and structurally a part of an existing or new building and shall not be a free-standing structure. C. If a single property owner has not submitted an exterior alteration proposal of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, a proposal may be submitted at the required submittal date for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission at any of the Commission's regularly scheduled monthly meetings. d. If a single property owner has submitted a redevelopment proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, a minor exterior alteration application, as defined in Subparagraph 3(b), shall be submitted for review on a semi-annual basis on or before the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. 4. The public hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be held in accordance with the Administration chapter of the code, Sections 18.66.060 through 18.66.090. The Planning and Environmental Commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. A decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission 8 may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with Section 18.60.070 - Appeal to Town Council. 5. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission that the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CCI district as specified in Section 18.24.010; that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and the Vail Comprehensive Plan; and that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood. Further, that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to the following urban design considerations: pedestrianization, vehicular penetration, streetscape framework, street enclosure, street edge, building height, views, service/delivery and sun/shade; 6. Approval of an exterior alteration under Subparagraph 5 above, shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements, to include siting, building setbacks, building height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping. Following approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission, all exterior alterations shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board in accordance with Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. In addition to the design review criteria, the Design Review Board shall review the proposed exterior alteration for compliance with the Architectural/Landscape Considerations of the Vail Village Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to roots, facades, balconies, decks and patios, accent elements, landscape elements and service. 7. Approval of the exterior alteration as prescribed by this Chapter shall lapse and shall become void two years following the date of approval of the exterior alteration by the Planning and Environmental Commission unless, prior to the expiration of the two years, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. B. All alterations under subsection A above shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board following Planning and Environmental Commission approval in accordance with Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. The Design Review Board shall review the same to insure that the same comply with the Vail Village Design Considerations. C. The modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or to a site within CCI shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board in accordance with the following review procedures and the review procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.54 - Design Review: J 9 1. Application shall be made by the owner of the building or his agent on a form by the zoning administrator; 2. The hearing before the Design Review Board shall be held in accordance with Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. A decision of the Design Review Board may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Chapter 18.54 - Design Review; 3. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Design Review Board that the proposed building modification is in compliance with the purposes of the CCI district as specified in 18.24.010 - Purpose; that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village Design Considerations, and that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood; 4. The Design Review Board may approve the application as submitted; approve the application with conditions or modifications; or, if the Design Review Board finds that the applicant failed to meet his or her burden of proof, it may deny the application; 5. The zoning administrator may approve minor modifications as provided in Section 18.54.040(C)(3) - Staff Approval. A decision of the zoning administrator may be appealed to the Design Review Board for review. III. COMMERCIAL CORE 11, SECTION 18.26.045 - EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS - PROCEDURES All of the issues and staff recommendations related to Commercial Core I, Section 18.24.065 - Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedures, also apply to Commercial Core 11, Section .18.26.045 Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedures. Staff recommends all modifications to be made to the CCI Section 18.24.065 of the code occur simultaneously to the CCII Section 18.26.045. IV. TEXT AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 18.26.045 The following are the proposed text modifications to Section 18.26.045, which address the Issues and Staff recommendations as more fully explained in Section I of this memo. These changes are identical to the changes proposed for CCI Section 18.24.065 with the exception of the referenced planning documents to be used in evaluating development proposals. "Site development, the construction of a new building, and alterations to the exterior of an existing building in CCII shall comply with the following procedures: A. The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building 10 which modifies roof lines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission as follows: 1. Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the Director of Community Development. Any application for a condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations; 2. An application for an exterior alteration shall include the following: a. Completed application form, filing fee and a list of all owners of property located adjacent to the subject parcel. Said names and addresses shall be obtained from the current tax records of Eagle County as they appeared no more than sixty days prior to the date of the scheduled public hearing. The owners list shall include the name of all owners, their mailing address, the legal description of the property owned by each, and a general description of the property (including the name of the property if applicable), and the name and mailing address of the condominium association's representative (if applicable); b. A written statement describing the proposal and how the proposal complies with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; C. A survey, stamped by a licensed surveyor, indicating existing conditions on the property including the location of improvements, topography, and. natural features; d. A current title report to verify ownership, easements and other encumbrances, including schedules A and B; e. Existing and proposed site plan, vicinity plan, landscape plan, a roof height plan and existing and proposed building elevations. The material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and improvements as necessary to demonstrate the project's compliance with urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; f. Sun/shade analysis of the existing and proposed building for the spring/fall equinox (March 21/September 23) and winter solstice (December 21) at 10:00AM and 2:OOPM; g- Existing and proposed floor plans and a square footage analysis of all existing and proposed uses; h. An architectural or massing model of the proposed development. Said model shall include buildings and major site improvements on adjacent properties; L 'Photo overlays and/or other graphic material to demonstrate the spatial relationship of the proposed development to adjacent properties, public spaces, views and formally adopted Town of Vail view corridors; j. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development. The Director may, at his or her discretion, waive certain submittal requirements if it is determined that said requirements are not relevant to the proposed development and applicable urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 3. Complete applications for exterior alterations shall be submitted semi- annually on or before the fourth Monday of February and the fourth Monday of September. Submittal requirements shall include all information listed in Subparagraph 2. above, provided however, that the architectural or massing model may be submitted three weeks prior to the first formal public hearing by the Planning and Environmental Commission. No public hearings or work sessions shall be scheduled regarding major exterior alterations prior to the semi-annual submittal date deadlines. At the next regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission meeting following the two submittal dates listed above, the Director shall inform the Planning and Environmental Commission of all exterior alteration submittals. The Director shall commence with the review of exterior alteration proposals following this initial Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. The next step in the review process shall be a work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission, provided however, that applications made in accordance with Subparagraphs 3(b-d) of this Section may be exempt from this required work session if determined unnecessary by the Director. The Director shall schedule the work session at a regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission hearing, and shall cause notice of such hearing to be sent to all adjacent property owners in accordance with the provisions of the 12 Administration Chapter of the Code, Section 18.66.080 - Hearing-Notice. The Director shall schedule a formal public hearing with the Planning and Environmental Commission in accordance with Section 18.66.080 - Hearing-Notice, following this work session and the submittal of any additional submittal material that may be required. a. A property owner may apply for an expansion greater than one hundred square- feet in any year in which he or she shall submit an application on the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. Said application shall be termed a "major exterior alteration." b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of an existing building which add or remove any enclosed floor area of not more than one hundred square feet, applications to alter the roof lines of an existing building, applications for new outdoor dining decks and applications for modifications to existing outdoor dining decks may be submitted for any regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. Said applications shall be termed a "minor exterior alteration". The review procedures for a minor exterior alteration shall be as outlined in this section. All enclosed floor area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this Subparagraph 3(b) shall be physically and structurally a part of an existing or new building and shall not be a free-standing structure. C. If a single property owner has not submitted an exterior alteration proposal of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, a proposal may be submitted at the required submittal date for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission at any of the Commission's regularly scheduled monthly meetings. d. If a single property owner has submitted a redevelopment proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, a minor exterior alteration application, as defined in Subparagraph 3(b), shall be submitted for review on a semi-annual basis on or before the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. 4. The public hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be held in accordance with the Administration chapter of the code, Sections 18.66.060 through 18.66.090. The Planning and Environmental Commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. A decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with Section 18.60.070 - Appeal to the Town Council; 13 5. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission that the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CCII district as specified in Section 1826.010; that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Design Considerations or that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood; and that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 6. Approval of an exterior alteration under Subparagraph 5 above, shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements, to include siting, building setbacks, building height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping. Following approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission, all exterior alterations shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board in accordance with Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. In addition to the design review criteria, the Design Review Board shall review the proposed exterior alteration for compliance with the Architectural/Landscape Considerations of the Vail Lionshead Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to roofs, facades, balconies, decks and patios, accent elements, landscape elements and service. 7. Approval of the exterior alteration as prescribed by this Chapter shall lapse and shall become void two years following the date of approval of the exterior alteration by the Planning and Environmental Commission unless, prior to the expiration of the two years, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. B. All alterations under subsection A above shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board following planning and environmental commission approval in accordance with Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. The Design Review Board shall review the same to insure that the same comply with the Vail Lionshead Design Considerations. C. The modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or to a site within CCII shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board in accordance with the following review procedures and the review procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.54 - Design Review: 1. Application shall be made by the owner of the building or his agent on a form by the zoning administrator; 2. The hearing before the Design Review Board shall be held in accordance with Chapter 18.54. A decision of the Design Review Board may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Chap,,-?r 18.54 - Design Review; 14 3. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Design Review Board that the proposed building modification is in compliance with the purposes of the CCII district as specified in 18.26.010 - Purpose; that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Uonshead Design Considerations, and that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood; 4. The Design Review Board may approve the application as submitted; approve the application with conditions or modifications; or, if the Design Review Board finds that the applicant failed to meet his or her burden of proof, it may deny the application; 5. The zoning administrator may approve minor modifications as provided in Section 18.54.040(C)(3) - Staff Approval. A decision of the zoning administrator may be appealed to the Design Review Board for review. V. THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (1) SUN/SHADE The Vail Village Design Considerations (1) Sun/Shade currently reads as follows: "Due to Vail's alpine climate, sun is an important comfort factor, especially in winter, fall and spring. Shade areas have ambient temperatures substantially below those of adjacent direct sunlit areas. On all but the warmest of summer days shade can easily lower temperatures below comfortable levels and thereby negatively impact uses of those areas. All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring and fall shadow pattern (March 21 through September 23) on adjacent properties or the pubic R.O.W. In all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall height consideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shade considerations are not intended to restrict building height allowances, but rather to influence the massing of buildings. Umited height exceptions may be granted to meet this criteria. Staff recommends the text be changed as follows. Please note the recommended text additions have been shaded. ..All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the sprinoall equinox (Nlarch,:21/September '23) or`winter solstice (December 211 shadow pattems on adjacent properties or the pubic R.O.W. In all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall height consideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shade considerations are not 15 intended to restrict building height allowances, but rather to influence the massing of buildings. Limited height exceptions may be granted to meet this criteria. ]n order to determine the sunistiade iactf::a project, applicant§ .shall submit a sunlshade`analysis tar !0 Qt}AM.and2.'OOPM for the sprrngTPalf equinox and the y?r nter solstice -Tbe following sun angles should-be used when doing; this analysis Spr{nglFal{ E(M noz Surt Angie I:D:OOAM 420East ,e South S#V. decJinabon 2-DOPM 42° West a# S+3uth,t dedinafron . Whit .:SIbWC' e** ~~~4AM 3D° East<af South, 2£)° d- in on 2..DOP-M 3E1° West. South, 2W Winatlon V1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the above code amendments. We believe the amendments will clarify these two sections of the code. Staff would like to emphasize that if the proposal is approved by the PEC, certain code references and specific wording may be adjusted when the memo is changed into ordinance form. cApecltovlexta]Mg 16 1 u OWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 CERTIFICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE ) The undersigned hereby certifies the foregoing are full, true and correct copies of documents identified and requested by Lia Woodall of the Lawfirm of Jacobs Chase Frick Kleinkopf & Kelley, as maintained in the records of the Town of Vail Department of Community Development, PEC Agendas and Memos, January, 1992 - March 23, 1992 files. Dated November 25, 1996. Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE ) Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th day of November, 1996, by Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk, Town of Vail. Notary Public Anne E. Wright. Notary Pubric MY Commission Expires 617-1999 My commission expires: 75 s. Fronta-.o'cad RECYCLED PAPER PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 1993 MINUTES PRESENT STAFF Diana Donovan Kristan Pritz Chuck Crist Mike Mollica Dalton Williams Shelly Mello Jeff Bowen Tim Devlin Greg Amsden Andy Knudtsen Gena Whitten Jim Curnutte Kathy Langenwalter Russell Forrest 1. The Planning and Environmental Commission was called to order at 2:00 p.m. to discuss an update for the establishment of a Special Development District, a CCI exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change, and an amendment to View Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A,B,C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc./Vail Associates, Inc./Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica/Tim Devlin TABLED UNTIL APRIL 12, 1993. Clark Willingham requested that this item be tabled until March or April of this year so that he could tie up loose ends concerning covenants, zoning, etc. He also stated that he wanted to wait and see what happens with the possible redevelopment of Cyrano's. A general discussion was then held concerning looking at both the Golden Peak House and the Cyrano's projects together. Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1993 Plaintiff s Exhibit 9 Civil Action 'No. 95-CV-362 Dalton Williams thought that this made sense, to look at the whole area and then establish general guidelines concerning property lines, setbacks. easements and variances. Chuck Crist inquired about whether it was possible to have an SDD with different owners. Kristan Pritz responded that it is possible but all the pieces must fit together (i.e. Cascade Village). She suggested that a work session regarding the Golden Peak House and Cyrano's would be wise prior to a final hearing. Clark Willingham stated that the Golden Peak House and Cyrano's need to be organized and constructed as one project with regard to Town disruption. Greg Amsden stated that he was in favor of a postponement in order to get the specifics concerning the Golden Peak House worked out. Jeff Bowen motioned to table this discussion. A unanimous vote of 7-0 tabled this request until April 12, 1993. 2. A request for a setback variance, at the Manor Vail Lodge, to allow the construction of a trash enclosure, located on a Part of Lot 1, Block B, Vail Village Seventh Filing/595 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 8, 1993 Dalton Williams moved to table this request with Chuck Crist seconding the motion. A unanimous vote of 7-0 tabled this request until February 8, 1993. 3. A request for a work session for a major amendment to SDD #4, Cascade Village Area A, Millrace 111, to amend the approved development plan to allow for one single family residence and one duplex located at 1335 Westhaven Drive, more specifically described as follows: - A part of the SW NE Y., Section 12, TOwnShip 5 SOum, Range 81 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: Beginning at a point of the North-South centerlins of said Section 12 whence an iron pin with a plastic cap marking the center of said Section 12 bears SO0°38'56-W 455.06 feet; thence along said cemerline N00°38'56-E 122.81 feat to the southerly ROW line of 1-70; thence departing said ROW line N66.53-25-E 39.15 feet; thence departing said ROW line S81°23'19-E 165.42 feet to a point of curve; thence 122.83 fast along the arc of a 143.20 toot radius curve to the left naving a central angle of 49-0851- and a rnord that bears S15°5745-E 119.10 feet: thence 540.32.1 TE 3.00 feet; thence 66.30 feet along the arc of a 77.21 toot radius curve to the right, having a central angle of 49°12'10' and a chord that bears S15°56'05'E 64.28 feet; thence S8°40'00'W 90.27 feet; thence N38°42'24'W 224.55 feet; thence S78°1 0'32-W 101.44 teat to the Point of Beginning. Applicant: MECM Enterprises, Inc. represented by Michael Lauterbach Planner: Jim Curnutte Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1993 2 Staff made a presentation per the memo reiterating the staff's concerns pertaining to this project. Mike Lauterbach then explained to the PEC his position regarding the staff's concerns. During the last work session on December 7, 1992, there was discussion concerning GRFA credits for overlapping stairways and up to 600 sq. ft. on the garage. Mike stated that since his garages are only 500 sq. ft. he assumed he could use the additional 100 sq. ft. per unit elsewhere in the units. He would also like to stay at the site coverage that he has now. Concerning the Gore Creek riparian zone, he feels that he is within the parameters of the SDD for setbacks. Conceming the building heights, he believes that he is within the parameters of the SDD, but he would be agreeable to lowering on the roofs a few feet, so that the building height of the single family unit will be 40' and the duplex will be 41'. Mike stated that in order for the single family unit to get to 33 ft., it must shed from the east and west, and the building would end up looking like modular construction. Concerning the road setback, if the buildings are moved back from Gore Creek there will be virtually zero landscaping in front of the buildings due to sight distance requirements. Mr. Lauterbach believed the buildings will look better the farther they are from Westhaven Drive., Mr. Lauterbach was agreeable to the minor facade changes that the staff has proposed. The issue of Westhaven Drive improvements was then addressed by the PEC. Mr. Lauterbach stated that Fred Otto owns Westhaven Drive and that his share in the Cascade Village Homeowners Association is less than 3% . He does not believe that he should have any bearing on the road or that he has a legal requirement to bring it to the Town's standards. He feels that this is an issue between Fred Otto and the Town of Vail and that it has no bearing on this present hearing. Staff pointed out that one of the criteria used by the staff, PEC and Town Council when determining the appropriateness of this request was adequate and safe circulation. Diana Donovan stated that Town Council will have a meeting to discuss the road issue before the PEC meets again on February 8, 1993 to discuss this application. Kristan Pritz stated that Town Council will meet on February 2, 1993 and the Mr. Lauterbach's final hearing is scheduled for February 8, 1993 so hopefully this issue may get resolved before Mr. Lauterbach's finial hearing. Chuck Crist inquired about how much GRFA Mike Lauterbach was asking for. Jim Curnutte advised him that 6,309 sq. ft. is currently shown without counting stairs (150 sq. ft. per unit) or garage areas. Jim then pointed out that the previously approved triplex, if calculated according to today's definition was 6,355 sq. ft. including stairs. So, in order to compare apples to apples we need to add back in the 150 sq. ft. per unit for stairs. Now the comparison is 6,355 for the triplex and 6,759 for Mike's project. Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1993 3 Dalton Williams then advised that this project was 404 sq. ft. larger than the GRFA of the previous approval. Michael Lauterbach stated that it was his belief that the GRFA for this project was always under 6,675 sq. ft. and that he did not know it was calculated over that. Diana Donovan inquired of Mr. Lauterbach what his basis was for his square footage calculations. Michael Lauterbach stated that in the old GRFA definition there were allowances ranging from 200-400 sq. ft. for stairs, closets, mechanical rooms, etc. He pointed out that he assumed a credit of 225 sq. ft. per unit which is what is used in the multi-family density zone districts for single family units. This interpretation would allow him 6,675 sq. ft. of GRFA. Kristan Pritz stated that LDFM and RC single family units get 225 sq. ft. allowances. Otherwise, multi-family developments do not get a flat out allowance per unit of 225 sq. ft. Michael Lauterbach inquired about the common area credit in the multifamily zones. Kristan stated that common areas are not included, up to a certain percentage of the GRFA. Dalton Williams inquired about what the base zoning is for this project. Kristan Pritz responded that there is no underlying zoning for Cascade Village so, when appropriate, Community Development tries to use RC zoning (i.e. Coldstream). Diana Donovan stated that she thouaht it would be helpful to explain how Mr. Lauterbach got his numbers. Kathy Langenwalter stated that it was her feeling that it is not the numbers that are the key concern, it is the design. This design still does not appear to be sensitive to the site. The extra 300 sq. ft. is a moot point because it does not meet SDD criteria (i.e. design compatible and sensitive to the environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties, etc.). She further stated that the exterior facade (i.e. gable roof) is not appropriate for the area and that a lower profile is needed. Dalton Williams agreed with Ms. Langenwalter concerning the 300 sq. ft. not being the issue. The issue is that the project is not sensitive to the site. He further stated that everything (Items A,B,C,D of the memorandum) excluding the corrugated metal pipe and Westhaven Drive were real problems. Greg Amsden stated that the building is very heavy on the creekside and that the structures need to be moved from the creek. He also stated that three buildings may be too many for this area and that a major building with stucco exterior is scary. He Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1993 4 suggested to Mike Lauterbach to move the bike path to work in his favor. He stated that this may not be a site to build economically on and made five suggestions to Mr. Lauterbach: 1.) get more creative with the design of the project; 2.) minimize setbacks along Westhaven Drive; 3.) there will be some participation required on your (Mr. Lauterbach's) part for upgrading Westhaven Drive; 4.) provide a better turnaround so that cars can head out onto Westhaven Drive facing forward; and, 5.) build as far from Gore Creek as possible. Chuck Crist agreed with all of the items that Greg Amsden suggested except for relocating the bike path. Jeff Bowen then suggested that if the dead trees on the site were removed that the smaller living trees would be allowed to grow. He stated that moving the bike path and adjusting the project to the north would place the residence very close to the road. He also stated that he has a problem with the size of the development going in on this site and that it does not seem to work well. He finished by suggesting that Mr. Lauterbach consider reducing the size of the project. Gena Whitten stated that it may need to be a smaller project, one that is more sensitive to the site. Diana Donovan stated that the northwest corner of the single family and duplex needed to be pulled away from the creek and flip flop the single family unit to create a single driveway at the north end of the single family unit. She then asked staff about the need for sidewalks. Kristan Pritz stated that none were proposed in that area. Jim Curnutte stated that Greg Hall did not say anything about them on either set of plans that he reviewed. Michael Lauterbach said that it would be difficult to move the bike path. Greg Amsden inquired about the bike path being moved to the creekside. Diana Donovan inquired of Mr. Lauterbach what questions he had to ask the PEC. Mr. Lauterbach stated that he will redraw the plan with possibly a hip roof and he will get the volume package down. Dalton Williams stated that the general design was all wrong and that Mr. Lauterbach needed to "start over". He said that nothing there works on the site. Gena Whitten concurred with Dalton Williams and added that the degree of steepness warrants less building on the site. Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1993 5 Mr. Lauterbach responded by saying he had done what the PEC had told him at the last meeting. Dalton Williams responded that Mr. Lauterbach needed to create a design for a small site and that the current design, in his opinion, is not sensitive to the SDD criteria. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the duplex has a flat area that can be built on and pull it out of the steep hillside and that a hip roof would lower the profile of the building. Greg Amsden inquired why the project could not be moved up 8-10' towards Westhaven Drive away from the creek area. He said what the PEC saw staked during the site visit "knocked our socks off". Michael Lauterbach responded that the first 15' of the north end of the site is for the bike path and that an entry or driveway could not be moved into that area. Greg Amsden stated that it appears that the driveway is currently blind and that the setback was more sensitive along the creek. Chuck Crist suggested putting a stone wall between the buildings and the bike path so that they can get a little closer. Kathy Langenwalter restated her feeling about working with the flat area and showed one example to PEC about how this might be accomplished. Greg Amsden stated that creek front preservation is the most important issue and that PEC will work with Mr. Lauterbach on the other sides. Jeff Bowen stated that the buildings are square and rectangular and that reshaping the buildings could possibly help the site. Michael Lauterbach stated that this would be difficult to do. Jeff Bowen responded that a different shape and smaller buildings were needed on the site. Kristan Pritz said that if Mr. Lauterbach desired to go ahead on February 8, 1993 that additional information would need to be submitted by this Friday January 29th or Monday February 1st at 9:00 a.m. at the latest. It was then determined that Mr. Lauterbach would appear again on February 8, 1993 for a final hearing on this item. 4. A request for a work session to amend Chapter 18.24 Commercial Core I and Chapter 18.26 Commercial Core It of the Town of Vail Zoning Code (relating to exterior alterations). Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1993 6 Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Shelly Mello Staff advised that both Chapter 18.24 and Chapter 18.26 had previously been reviewed three times in 1992 and that most issues had been discussed. Diana Donovan started the discussion by referring to Page 3, Item C of the Memorandum concerning the 60/90 day review process. She stated that this was.okay and the PEC would need to have a policy, where if there ended up being a lot of items on a single agenda, as a result of this change that the PEC would just need to take a break during their meetings. Dalton Williams suggested not having more than one SDD in each PEC meeting. Kathy Langenwalter stated that PEC needed to work on shortening the length of their meetings rather than restrict the number of items. Kristan Pritz stated that the development community thinks that the development process is difficult, and that it is hard to walk the line between accommodating the public and the commission. Dalton Williams suggested limiting the items by scheduling applicants for PEC meetings. Kristan Pritz advised against this. Shelly Mello agreed, stating that picking and choosing who would go to what meetings would take more time and add to the frustration. Concerning the time issue, Kathy Langenwalter stated that each PEC commissioner had control over the length of time they spent talking on an issue. She also stated that each commissioner needed to be succinct and keep to the time schedule. Diana Donovan stated that the length of the meetings was their (PEC's) fault. Kathy Langenwalter inquired about Page 4, Item F. concerning, outdoor dining decks. Her question concerned whether or not it would be a conditional use. Shelly Mello inquired whether they should use the Conditional Use Permit and Exterior Alterations. She stated that Exterior Alterations review criteria is probably more applicable to dining decks. Dalton Williams inquired about whether the PEC is losing the capability to control the noise on decks by using the Exterior Alterations item and not the Conditional Use permit process which can be revoked if problems arise with the use of decks. Shelly Mello responded that they probably would lose that capacity. Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1993 7 Kathy Langenwalter stated that the Conditional Use item should be kept. Dalton Williams concurred with Kathy Langenwalter. Diana Donovan than inquired about classifying decks as an accessory use. She then stated that both Conditional Uses and Exterior Alterations should be left in and all the members of PEC agreed. With regard to Item I, concerning exterior alteration expiration, Diana Donovan inquired whether that should be two years. Shelly Mello stated that there are two levels, major and minor alterations. An SDD is for three years so it made sense to make a major exterior alteration valid for the same. Dalton Williams then inquired about a shorter time frame when a project is not an SDD. A general discussion followed and Kristan Pritz concluded that it would be best to keep the expiration at two years for both minor and major levels. With regard to Item K. , Shelly Mello stated that new criteria under staff recommendations came out of Tom Braun's report. She further stated that it can be amended at the next PEC meeting if the PEC wanted to change them. Diana Donovan stated that Item 1 in the Staff Recommendation section on Page 6 did not read correctly concerning the effect of use. Kristan Pritz suggested that "the effects" might read better. Diana Donovan agreed. With regard to Section II, Part 2, Item f, Kathy Langenwalter feels that the sun/shade equinox is an exercise in futility on most minor projects. Shelly Mello state that it is the responsibility of the applicant to show that there is no effect. Kathy Langenwalter inquired about whether a survey is always necessary for projects. Shelly Mello stated that it was necessary to confirm lot size and other existing conditions. Diana Donovan stated that Page 14, Item C concerning required submittal dates is confusing. A general discussion was held concerning this item and Shelly Mello stated that it Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1993 8 would be fixed. 5. A request for a work session to amend Chapter 18.32 and Chapter 18.38 of the Vail Municipal Code relating to uses allowed in open space zone districts. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jim Curnutte WITHDRAWN 6. Explanation of public notice by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - a request for a Section 404 permit (discharge of fill material) for the proposed nine-hole, par 3 golf course, located between 1-70 and Bald Mountain Road. Applicant: Vail Recreation District Planner: Mike Mollica/Russ Forrest Russ Forrest reviewed the letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with the PEC and stated that the U.S. Corps of Engineers is now soliciting comments from the public on this project. Diana Donovan inquired as to whether the U.S. Corps of Engineers would be coming to a PEC meeting. Russ Forrest said that PEC needs to notify them by February 8, 1993 and invite them to a hearing, if that is desired. The next step will be an environmental assessment and more public hearings (i.e. an environmental impact assessment with more public input). Diana Donovan inquired why a hearing was necessary. Russ Forrest stated that a hearing would provide a public forum to identify environmental issues that need to be addressed in the Corps' environmental assessment. Kristan Pritz stated that this could come from the adjacent property owners. Kristan said that Rob Robinson had told her that he had offered to notify the adjacent property owners but the Corps would not allow this. She stated that this is a strange process. Gena Whitten inquired whether such a hearing would include safety issues. Russ Forrest stated that the Corps is requiring an individual 404 Permit because of safety concerns and cumulative impact to wetlands in the Vail Valley. Russ Forrest stated that the main issue was whether the par 3 golf course was worth the loss of 1 /2 acre of wetland and 10 acre ft. of water being taken out, potentially impacting four endangered fish species. Diana Donovan stated that wetland and cumulative effects of the project would also be a main consideration. Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1993 g ._t i Kristan Pritz stated that staff does not have a clear position on this issue. She also stated that even if PEC deems a public hearing appropriate, that the Corps could still say such hearing is inappropriate. Russ Forrest suggested a scoping meeting might be helpful for issues to be assessed under an environmental impact statement. Dalton Williams questioned whether such a public hearing would be economica!'y feasible. for the Federal Government and a good use of tax dollars. Diana Donovan stated that a forum would be necessary. Dalton Williams stated that a process in the Town would also be necessary. Diana Donovan stated that there was no such process. Dalton Williams stated that such a process would be inefficient and expensive. He also wondered why this issue could not be discussed at a PEC meeting. Russ Forrest stated that it was up to the public and the Corps to identify the issues. Kristan Pritz stated that Rob Robinson had offered to put an ad in the Vail Daily and the Corps did not seem to like this idea. Russ Forrest stated that the Corps has given the Town three options: 1.) submit comments by February 8, 1993; 2.) hold a closed meeting with Corps; 3.) or request a public forum. Kristan Pritz said that the rules specify that closed meetings are not allowed because the public must have access to them. Diana Donovan suggested that Town Council should recommend such a meeting. Kathy Langenwalter agreed with Diana Donovan and motioned that Town Council make a recommendation for a hearing but that PEC needs to better informed of what the golf course is doing (i.e. fill, plans). Chuck Crist seconded the motion with Dalton Williams opposing the motion because he feels such a hearing is a waste of taxpayer's money. 7. Kathy Langenwalter motioned that the minutes of the PEC meeting of January 11, 1993 be approved and Dalton Williams seconded the motion. The minutes were then approved. 8. Further discussion was held concerning the Lauterbach project. 9. A discussion was held concerning term limitations. Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1993 10 Kristan Pritz stated that a person who has already served eight years may reapply if there are not enough people to fill a position. 10. Jeff Bowen discussed attached memo. Planning and Environmental Commission January 25, 1993 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 25, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a work session to amend Chapter 18.24 - Commercial Core I and Chapter 18.26 - Commercial Core II, of the Town of Vail zoning code (relating to exterior alterations or modifications), and to amend the Vail Village Design Considerations (Section 1) - Sun/Shade. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Shelly Mello }i}y:h:4}::.i4:dA.}}£i::4?}}:yi.Y:vw}ri4i}irii.}~{n.•,yyy{{Off.40t{:.v:4:{:4}'{b:M[•QYN.K{S:;:LFJ;;~%SM•• v....... F....:::. -v::Y?.?:{{~.}}:4:;{iy'l:-.}.:: .4:....[ .n... A. .+w:vv..: Fi:::. --p.. v:::::::::w: w.v:nv:.i.Y.{SsrwY{tiv... n......'. nx v+Y: m}. }...vvvv M.v .vn4eq.}n+.x A.xvn::n..:9v:Ti+ii•}::ivJC45MxA}%4Y2.Fii• rci:I:i}+.riw4}:i:{~ ii'r:~: is{~i:}C::: ::i:;:+;:;':';>:;i>::i::iii:%::j:::::j:>:%:::i::::. This request was last discussed during a series of three Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) worksessions held in 1992. At those meetings, the members of the PEC recommended that the Vail Village Design Considerations (Section 1) Sun/Shade also be modified in conjunction with the CCI and CCII zone district code changes. The Sun/Shade modifications would require applicants to submit a four-season sun/shade analysis. The Vail Village Design Considerations were originally approved on May 20, 1980 by Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1980. Therefore, changes to the Vail Village Design Considerations (Section 1) Sun-Shade must also be made by ordinance. The Community Development Department staff proposes to modify the sections of the zoning code listed above, relating to the exterior alteration procedures in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II. These changes are taken from recommendations made in the October, 1991 Development Code Revision Report, Phase I. Section 18.24.065 Commercial Core I Exterior Alteration or Modifications - Procedure will be discussed first, followed by a discussion of the issues and the related zoning code modification recommendations for Section 18.26.045 Commercial Core II Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure. The text modifications proposed for the CCI and CCII zone districts are identical. The following is an outline, followed by a detailed analysis of the list of issues, staff recommendations and related zoning code modifications for CCI and CCII: 1. Commercial Core I and II Exterior Alterations Changes: Exterior alteration submittal dates; Minor exterior alterations; 60/90 day review process; Exterior alteration submittal requirements; Exterior alteration - owners signatures; Outdoor dining decks - review criteria; PEC/DRB review criteria; Roof line modifications; Exterior alteration expiration; Timing of the proposed changes; 1 Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 Civil Action No. 95-CV-362 Conditional use permit criteria. II. Text Modifications to Commercial Core I and II of the Zoning Code III. Modifications to method of analysis for Sun/Shade described in the Urban, Design Guidelines I. COMMERCIAL CORE 1. SECTION 18.24.065 - EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS PROCEDURE A. Issue - Exterior alteration submittal dates The review procedures for development proposals are outlined in this section of the zoning code. However, the two semi-annual submittal dates do not allow for the timely review and subsequent construction of projects. Staff Recommendation Move the submittal dates for major projects up two to three months, from the fourth Monday in November and May, to the fourth Monday in September and February respectively. The purpose of this change is to complete Town project reviews at an earlier date in the calendar year. This would allow project construction to begin in the spring immediately following the end of the ski season, and to finish up in the late fall, prior to the beginning of the ski season. B. Issue - Minor exterior alterations Applications for the alteration of an existing area which add or remove an enclosed floor area of 100 square feet or less may be submitted for review at any regularly scheduled PEC meeting. However, a single property owner is limited to one such submission in any two year period. Staff Recommendation Staff believes that limiting the review of additions of 100 square feet or less to one proposal every two years is unnecessary and does not provide any incentive to property owners who want to upgrade their properties. Staff proposes that the code be modified to allow the review of additions or redevelopment proposals of 100 square feet or less in the following manner: • A single property owner who has not submitted an exterior alteration proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two years may submit a redevelopment proposal of 100 sq. ft. or less for review by the PEC, at any of the Commission's regularly scheduled monthly meetings. • A single property owner who has submitted an exterior alteration proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less, within the last two years would have the opportunity to submit any additional exterior alteration proposals which remove or enclose floor area for review by the PEC on a semi-annual basis on or before the fourth Monday of February or the fourth Monday of September. 2 • No public hearings ar work sessions before the PEC shall be scheduled regarding major exte"rior alterations or minor exterior alteration applications which must be submitted on a semi-annual basis, prior to the applicable semi-annual submittal date. • Exterior alteration applications which call for the addition or removal of any enclosed area of 100 square feet or less shall be considered minor alterations. Any exterior alteration proposal which adds or removes any enclosed floor area of more than 100 square feet shall be considered a major exterior alteration. C. Issue - 60/90 day review process The sixty or ninety day review process as outlined in this section is not consistent with the manner in which applications are actually handled. Staff Recommendation Review procedures stipulate a sixty or ninety day review period as may be determined by the PEC. In reality, the review of exterior alterations is primarily dependent on the applicant's submittal of material, and not on the review period established by the PEC. Staff recommends this section of the code be amended to state that the formal review by the PEC will be scheduled by the Director of Community Development following a worksession (if necessary) and Community Development Department receipt of all the required submittal materials. D. Issue - Exterior alteration submittal requirements The code does not set forth formal submittal requirements for exterior alterations. While the staff and the PEC ultimately determine what materials must be submitted in order for the review of the exterior alteration application to occur, minimum submission requirements should be specified in the code, so that the applicant knows what is expected. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the code be modified to include a list of submittal requirements similar to the Special Development District (SDD) submittal requirements. The Community Development Director should be allowed the flexibility to add or delete submittal requirement material as may be appropriate, depending upon the magnitude of the project. E. Issue - Exterior alteration - owners signatures The code does not specifically address who may submit an exterior alteration application. Staff Recommendation Concern over who may submit an exterior alteration application has to do with condominiumized projects. Under the SDD review process, all property owners within the project area are required to sign the SDD application, unless, the condominium by-laws give a condominium association representative (or officer) 3 the authority to submit an application with a majority vote of approval by its members. Staff recommends this same SDD language be incorporated into this section of the code. F. Issue - Outdoor dining decks - review criteria Any exterior alteration development proposal which adds or removes floor area is required to go through the exterior alteration review process. Site development alterations, specifically outdoor dining decks, are related to many of the design criteria, yet do not require exterior alteration review by the PEC. Staff Recommendation The addition of a new dining deck, or the modification of an existing dining deck, should be added to the list of development activities that trigger the exterior alteration process. Currently, proposals for new or expanded dining decks require PEC review as a conditional use permit. However, the exterior alteration criteria are more appropriate criteria to use to evaluate the impact of this type of development. This change will allow the PEC to consider the urban design criteria in evaluating a new dining deck or the modification of an existing dining deck. Outdoor patios will be deleted as a Conditional Use from Sections 18.24.020(C)10 - Permitted and Conditional Uses - Basement or Garden level, 18.24.030(C)7 - Permitted and Conditional Uses - First Floor or Street level, 18.24.040(B)9 - Permitted and Conditional Uses - Second level and will added as an accessory use. G. Issue - PEC/DRB review roles The PEC and Design Review Board (DRB) both participate in the review of _ exterior alterations. However, the role and authority of each board is not clearly defined. Staff Recommendation The PEC's responsibility is to review the siting, form, massing, landscaping, circulation and other large-scale planning and urban design issues. The DRB's responsibilities are to review landscaping and detailed architectural considerations. Generally, these roles are delineated in the Urban Design Guide Plan. While there will always be some overlap, the roles of each board should be more clearly set forth in this section of the code. H. Issue - Roof line modifications Alterations to the roof tine of existing buildings are not currently reviewed under the exterior alteration section of the code. Changes to roof lines can impact sun/shade analysis, views and established view corridors, street enclosure, streetscape framework, etc. Staff Recommendation Require all changes to the existing roof line of structures, located within the CCI and CCII zone districts, to be reviewed using the exterior alteration criteria. This type of request would be considered a minor exterior alteration, assuming that the added floor area does not exceed 100 sq. ft. 4 a I. Issue - Exterior alteration expiration Currently, exterior alteration approvals do not lapse or expire. They are effective indefinitely. Trying to evaluate future exterior alteration proposals. on adjacent structures based on exterior alteration approvals which may or may not be constructed becomes complex. Further, all other zoning requests, such as conditional use permits and variances, have a specified time period for the approvals. Staff Recommendation Approval of any minor exterior alteration as prescribed by this Chapter shall lapse and become void one year following the date of approval of the minor exterior alteration by the PEC unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward - completion. Any major exterior alteration would be valid for a period of three ears'unless prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. Staff believes that one year for a minor exterior alteration and three years for 'a major alteration are adequate approval periods -and would also be consistent with the approval time for variances and conditional use permits. A Special Development District is valid for three years. An exterior alteration would need to be renewed after three years if the project is not constructed when it is associated with an SOD. J. Issue - Timing of the proposed changes All proposed code changes shall become effective upon approval of the changes by ordinance. To avoid scheduling problems for applicants during the spring of 1993, staff is recommending that for 1993, there be three major exterior alteration submission deadlines (May, September and November). Beginning in 1994, there will again be only two major exterior alteration submission deadlines (February and September). Staff Recommendation This approach should avoid creating scheduling problems for any applicant who is considering a project submittal for 1993 using the previous deadlines. K. Issue - Conditional Use Permit criteria There is a great deal of overlap between the existing criteria and they do not address all of the issues that should be considered when reviewing conditional use Bequests in CCI. The existing criteria are as follows: 1. Effects on vehicular traffic on commercial core I district; 2. Reduction of vehicular traffic in commercial core I district; 3. Reduction of nonessential off-street parking; 4. Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles; 5. Development of spaces for use by pedestrians; 5 6. Continuance of the various commercial, residential and public uses in commercial core I district so as to maintain the existing character of the area; and 7. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in commercial core I district so as to maintain the existing character of the area. Staff Recommendation Consolidate the criteria. Issues not covered by the existing criteria, but critical to the character of the Village should be addressed by adding new criteria. These issues include qualitative aspects such as streetlife, vitality, activity and mixed uses. The staff would recommend the following criteria be used for evaluating conditional use requests in the Village. 1. The effect of vehicular traffic, off-street parking, loading and delivery and service vehicles generated by the proposed use on the pedestrianized area of CCI; 2. The ability of loading and delivery facilities to accommodate the service z Delivery of the proposed use without adversely impact- :.Ie pedestrian character of the district; 3. The effect of the proposed use on streetlife, pedestrian activity, and vitality of the established mixed use character of the area; and 4. The effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the quality of life and environment on the CCI district. II. TEXT MODIFICATIONS TO SECTION 18.24.065 - Commercial Core I The following are the proposed text modifications to Section 18.24.065, which address the Issues and Staff Recommendations set forth above: "Site development, the construction of a new building, and alterations to the exterior of an existing building in CCI shall comply with the following procedures: A. The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building which modifies roof lines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to review by the PEC as follows: 1. Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the Director of Community Development. Any application for a condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations; 2. An application for a major or minor exterior alteration shall include the following: a. Completed application form, filing fee and a list of all owners of property located adjacent to the subject parcel. The owners list shall include the name of all owners, their mailing address, the legal description of the property owned by each, and a general description of the property (including the name of the property, if applicable), and the name and mailing address of the condominium association's representative (if applicable). Said names and addresses shall be obtained from the current tax records of Eagle County as they appeared no more than thirty days prior to the application submittal date; b. A written statement describing the proposal and how the proposal complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Village Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan (i.e., Vail Village Master Plan, Streetscape Master Plan, etc.); C. A survey, stamped by a licensed surveyor, indicating existing conditions on the property including the location of improvements, topography, and natural features; d. A current title report to verify ownership, easements and other encumbrances, including schedules A and B; e. Existing and proposed site plan at a scale of 1"= 10', a vicinity plan at an appropriate scale to adequately show the project location in relationship to the surrounding area, a landscape plan at a scale of 1"=10', a roof height plan and existing and proposed building elevations at a minimum scale of 1/8"=1'. The material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and improvements as necessary to demonstrate the project's compliance with urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; f. Sun/shade analysis of the existing and proposed building for the spring/fall equinox (March 21/September 23) and winter solstice (December 21) at 10:OOAM and 2:OOPM. The following sun angles shall be used when preparing this analysis: 7 Spring/Fall Equinox Sun Angle 10:OOAM 42° East of South, 50° declination 2:OOPM 420 West of South, 500 declination Winter Solstice 10:OOAM 300 East of South, 20° declination 2:OOPM 30° West of South, 20° declination g. Existing and proposed floor plans at a scale of 1/4"=1' and a square footage analysis of all existing and proposed uses; h. An architectural or massing model of the proposed development. Said model shall include buildings and major site improvements on adjacent properties. The scale of the model shall be as determined by the Director of Community Development; L Photo overlays and/or other graphic material to demonstrate the spatial relationship of the proposed development to adjacent properties, public spaces, and views per Chapter 18.73 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code; j. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development or the PEC. The Director or PEC may, at his or her discretion, waive certain submittal requirements if it is determined that said requirements are not relevant to the proposed development and applicable urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 3. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted bi-annually on or before the fourth Monday of February or the fourth Monday of September. Submittal requirements shall include all information listed in Subparagraph No. 2 above, provided however, that the architectural or massing model may be submitted three weeks prior to the first formal public hearing of the PEC. No public hearings or work sessions shall be scheduled regarding exterior alterations prior to the bi- annual submittal date deadlines. At the next regularly scheduled PEC meeting following the two submittal dates listed above, the Director shall inform the PEC of all exterior alteration submittal. The Director shall commence with the review of exterior alteration proposals following this initial PEC meeting. The next step in the review process shall be a work session with the PEC, provided however, that applications made in accordance with Subparagraphs 3(b-d) of this Section may be exempt from this required work session if determined unnecessary by the Director. The Director shall schedule the work session at a regularly scheduled PEC hearing, and shall cause notice of such hearing to be sent to all adjacent 8 property owners in accordance with the provisions of the Administration Chapter of the Code, Section 18.66.080 - Hearing-Notice. Following this work session, and the submittal of any additional submittal material that may be required, the Director shall schedule a formal public hearing with the PEC in accordance with Section 18.66.080 - Hearing-Notice. a. A property owner may apply for a major exterior alteration (greater than one hundred square feet) in any year in which he or she shall submit an application on the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. Said application shall be termed a "major exterior alteration." b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of an existing building which add or remove any enclosed floor area of not more than one hundred square feet, applications to alter the roof lines of an existing building, applications for new outdoor dining decks and applications for modifications to existing outdoor dining decks may be submitted for any regularly scheduled PEC meeting. Said applications shall be termed a "minor exterior alteration". The review procedures for a minor exterior alteration shall be as outlined in this section. All enclosed floor area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this Subparagraph 3(b) shall be physically and structurally a part of an existing or new building and shall not be a free-standing structure. C. If a single property owner has not submitted an exterior alteration proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, a proposal may be submitted at the required submittal date for review by the PEC at any of the Commission's regularly scheduled monthly meetings. d. If a single property owner has submitted an exterior alteration proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, a minor exterior alteration application, as defined in Subparagraph 3(b), shall be submitted for review on a bi-annual basis on or before the February or ,September dates as set forth in this section of the code. 4. The public hearing before the PEC shall be held in accordance with the Administration chapter of the code, Sections 18.66.060 through 18.66.090. The PEC may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. A decision of the PEC may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with Section 18.60.070 - Appeal to Town Council. 9 5. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of evidence before the PEC that the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CCI district as specified in Section 18.24.010 - Purpose; that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and the Vail Comprehensive Plan; and that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood. Further, that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to the following urban design considerations: pedestrianization, vehicular penetration, streetscape framework, street enclosure, street edge, building height, views, service/delivery and sun/shade analysis; 6. Approval of an exterior alteration under Subparagraph 5 above, shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements, to include siting, building setbacks,. building height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping. 7. Approval of a minor exterior alteration as prescribed by this Chapter shall lapse and shall become void one year following the date of approval of the minor exterior alteration by the PEC unless, prior to the expiration of the year, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. A major exterior alteration shall lapse and become void after a period of three years unless, prior to the expiration of the year, a building permit is issued and _ construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion.) B. All exterior alterations under subsection A above shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board (DRB) following PEC approval in accordance with Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. The DRB shall review the project to insure that the it complies with the Vail Village Design Considerations. In addition to the design review criteria, the DRB shall review the proposed exterior alteration for compliance with the Architectural/Landscape Considerations of the Vail Village Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to roofs, facades, balconies, decks and patios, accent elements, landscape elements and service. C. The modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or to a site within CCI shall be reviewed by the DRB in accordance with the following review procedures and the review procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.54 - Design Review: 1. Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the Director of Community Development. Any application for a condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations; 10 r 2. The hearing before the DRB shall be held in accordance with Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. A decision of the DRB may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Chapter 18.54 - Design Review; 3. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the DRB that the proposed building modification is in compliance with the purposes of the CCI district as specified in 18.24.010 - Purpose; that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village Design Considerations; and that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood; 4. The DRB may approve the application as submitted; approve the application with conditions or modifications; or, if the DRB finds that the applicant failed to meet his or her burden of proof, it may deny the application; 5. The zoning administrator may approve minor modifications as provided in Section 18.54.040(C)(3) - Staff approval. A decision of the zoning administrator may be appealed (or called up) to the DRS for review. III. COMMERCIAL CORE II SECTION 18.26.045 - EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS - PROCEDURE All of the issues and staff recommendations related to Commercial Core I, Section 18.24.065 - Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure, also apply to Commercial Core ll, Section 18.26.045 Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure. Staff recommends that all modifications to be made to the CCI Section 18.24.065 of the code occur simultaneously to the CCII Section 18.26.045. IV. TEXT AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 18.26.045 - Commercial Core II The following are the proposed text modifications to Section 18.26.045, which address the Issues and Staff Recommendations as more fully explained in Section I of this memo. These changes are identical to the changes proposed for CCI Section 18.24.065 with the exception of the referenced planning documents to be used in evaluating development proposals. "Site development, the construction of a new building, and alterations to the exterior of an existing building in CCII shall comply with the following procedures: A. The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building which modifies roof lines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to review by the PEC as follows: 11 1. Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the Director of Community Development. Any application for a condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations; 2. An application for an exterior alteration shall include the following: a. Completed application form, filing fee and a list of all owners of property located adjacent .to. the subject parcel. The owners list shall include the name of all owners, their mailing address, the legal description of the property owned by each, and a general description of the property (including the name of the property, if applicable), and the name and mailing address of the condominium association's representative (if applicable). Said names and addresses shall be obtained from the current tax records of Eagle County as they appeared no more than thirty days prior to the application submittal date; b. A written statement describing the proposal and how the proposal complies with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; C. A survey, stamped by a licensed surveyor, indicating existing _ conditions on the property including the location of improvements, topography, and natural features; d. A current title report to verify ownership, easements and other encumbrances, including schedules A and B; e. Existing and proposed site plan at a scale of 1 10', a vicinity plan at an appropriate scale to adequately show the project location in relationship to the surrounding area, a landscape plan at a scale of 1"=10% a roof height plan and existing and proposed building elevations at a minimum scale of 1/8"=1'. The material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and improvements as necessary to demonstrate the project's compliance with urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; f. Sun/shade analysis of the existing and proposed building for the spring/fall equinox (March 21/September 23) and winter solstice (December 21) at 10:OOAM and 2:OOPM. The following sun angles shall be used when preparing this analysis: 12 Spring/Fall Equinox Sun Angle 10:OOAM 42° East of South, 501 declination 2:OOPM 42° West of South, 500 declination Winter Solstice 10:OOAM 30° East of South, 20° declination 2:OOPM 30° West of South, 200 declination g. Existing and proposed floor plans at a scale of 1/4"=l' and a square footage analysis of all existing and proposed uses; h. An architectural or massing model of the proposed development. Said model shall include buildings and major site improvements on adjacent properties. The scale of the model shall be as determined-by the Director of Community Development; i. Photo overlays and/or other graphic material to demonstrate the spatial relationship of the proposed development to adjacent properties, public spaces, and adopted views per Chapter 18.73 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code; j. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development or the PEC. The Director or the PEC may, at his or her discretion, waive certain submittal requirements if it is determined that said requirements are not relevant to the proposed development and applicable urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Design Considerations and any relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 3. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted bi-annually on or before the fourth Monday of February or the fourth Monday of September. Submittal requirements shall include all information listed in Subparagraph No. 2 above, provided however, that the architectural or massing model may be submitted three weeks prior to the first formal public hearing of the PEC. No public hearings or work sessions shall be scheduled regarding exterior alterations prior to the bi- annual submittal date deadlines. At the next regularly scheduled PEC meeting following the two submittal dates listed above, the Director shall inform the PEC of all exterior alteration submittal. The Director shall commence with the review of exterior alteration proposals following this initial PEC meeting. The next step in the review process shall be a work session with the PEC, provided however, that applications made in accordance with Subparagraphs 3(b-d) of this Section may be exempt from this required work session if determined unnecessary by the Director. The Director shall schedule the work session at a regularly scheduled PEC hearing, and shall cause notice of such hearing to be sent to all adjacent 13 property owners in accordance with the provisions,of the Administration Chapter of the Code, Section 18.66.080 - Hearing-Notice. Following this work session, and the submittal of any additional submittal material that may be required, the Director shall schedule a formal public hearing with the PEC in accordance with Section 18.66.080 - Hearing-Notice. a. A property owner may apply for a major exterior alteration (greater than one hundred square feet) in any year in which he or she shall submit an application on the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. Said application shall be termed a "major exterior alteration." b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of an existing building which add or remove any enclosed floor area of not more than one hundred square feet, applications to alter the roof tines of an existing building, applications for new outdoor dining decks and applications for modifications to existing outdoor dining decks may be submitted for any regularly scheduled PEC meeting. Said applications shall be termed a "minor exterior alteration". The review procedures for a minor exterior alteration shall be as outlined in this section. All enclosed floor area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this Subparagraph 3(b) shall be physically and structurally a part of an existing or new building and shall not be a free-standing structure. C. If a single property owner has not submitted an exterior alteration proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, a proposal may be submitted at the required submittal date for review by the PEC at any of the Commission's regularly scheduled monthly meetings. d. If a single property owner has submitted an exterior alteration proposal which removes or encloses floor area of 100 square feet or less within the last two years, a minor exterior alteration application, as defined in Subparagraph 3(b), shall be submitted for review on a bi-annual basis on or before the February or September dates as set forth in this section of the code. 4. The public hearing before the PEC shall be held in accordance with the Administration chapter of the code, Sections 18.66.060 through 18.66.090. The PEC may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. A decision of the PEC may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with Section 18.60.070 - Appeal to Town Council. 14 r 5. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of _ evidence before the PEC that the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CCII district as specified in Section 18.26.010 - Purpose; that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Lionshead Design Considerations, or that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood; and that the proposal substantially complies with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 6. Approval of an exterior alteration under Subparagraph 5 above, shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements, to include siting, building setbacks, building height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping. 7. Approval of a minor exterior alteration as prescribed by this Chapter shall lapse and shall become void one year following the date of approval of the minor exterior alteration by the PEC unless, prior to the expiration of the year, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. A major exterior alteration shall lapse and become void after a period of three years unless, prior to the expiration of the year, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion.) B. All exterior alterations under subsection A above shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board (DRB) following PEC approval in accordance with Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. The DRB shall review the same to insure that the same comply with the Lionshead Design Considerations. In addition to the design review criteria, the Design Review Board shall review the proposed exterior alteration for compliance with the Architectural/Landscape Considerations of the Lionshead Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to roofs, facades, balconies, decks and patios, accent elements, landscape elements and service. C. The modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or to a site within CCII shall be reviewed by the DRB in accordance with the following review procedures and the review procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.54 - Design Review: 1. Application shall be made by the owner of the building, or the building owners authorized agent or representative, on a form provided by the Director of Community Development. Any application for a condominiumized building shall be authorized by the condominium association, in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations; 15 2. The hearing before the DRB shall be held in accordance with Chapter 18.54 - Design Review. A decision of the DRB may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Chapter 18.54 - Design Review; 3. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the DRS that the proposed building modification is in compliance with the purposes of the CCII district as specified in 18.26.010 - Purpose; that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Lionshead Design Considerations; and that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood; 4. The DRB may approve the application as submitted; approve the application with conditions or modifications; or, if the Design Review Board finds that the applicant failed to meet his or her burden of proof, it may deny the application; 5. The zoning administrator may approve minor modifications as provided in Section 18.54.040(C)(3) - Staff approval. A decision of the zoning administrator may be appealed (or called up) to the DRB for review. V. THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS (1) SUN/SHADE The Vail Village Design Considerations (1) Sun/Shade currently reads as follows: - "Due to Vail's alpine climate, sun is an important comfort factor, especially in winter, fall and spring. Shade areas have ambient temperatures substantially below those of adjacent direct sunlit areas. On all but the warmest of summer days shade can easily lower temperatures below comfortable levels and thereby negatively impact uses of those areas. All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring and fall shadow pattern (March 21 through September 23) on adjacent properties or the pubic R.O.W. In all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall height consideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shade considerations are not intended to restrict building height allowances, but rather to influence the massing of buildings. Limited height exceptions may be granted to meet this criteria. Staff recommends the text be changed as follows: " ..All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring/fall equinox (March 21/September 23) or winter solstice (December 21) shadow patterns on adjacent properties or the pubic R.O.W. 16 In all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall height consideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shade considerations are not intended to restrict building height allowances, but rather to influence the massing of buildings. Limited height exceptions may be granted to meet this criteria. In order to determine the sun/shade impact of a project, applicants shall submit a sun/shade analysis for 10:OOAM and 2:OOPM for the spring/fall equinox and the winter solstice. The following sun angles shall be used when preparing this analysis: Spring/Fall Equinox Sun Angle 10:OOAM 420 East of South, 500 declination 2:OOPM 42° West of South, 500 declination Winter Solstice 10:OOAM 300 East of South, 20° declination 2:OOPM 300 West of South, 200 declination VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the code amendments described above. We believe that the recommended amendments will clarify and improve the CC[ and CCII sections of the zoning code, as well as the Vail Village and the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Considerations. The PEC recommendation will be forwarded to Town Council in ordinance form for final approval. Staff would like to emphasize that if the proposal is recommended for approved by the PEC, certain code references and the specific language may be adjusted, due to legal considerations, when the memo is placed into ordinance form. c ApeclmemoMe xtalt.125 17. .r MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 7, 1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, December 7, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. Tile meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Johnston Svbill Navas Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Jan Strauch TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT': Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Kent Rose welcomed new Council members, Paul Johnston, Sybill Navas, and Jan Strauch, and welcomed Peggy Osterfoss back as Mayor. I le also welcomed new Town Manager, Bob Mclanrin. Mr. Rose then presented specially designed T-shirts reading, "SOS - Save Open Space - Defend Davos,- to Council. Porter Wharton advised that Bob Armour, Kent rose, and he comprised the Executive Committee of the 'Save Open Save - Defend Davos" group. Mr. Wharton presented a check to Council in the amount of $500.00, profits realized from the sale of 100 of the above referenced T-shirts, to be used for the purchase of open space. Mayor Osterfoss (flanked the group and stated she could not recall when a group of citizens had ever presented TOV with a check, and she hoped it signified what could be more public/private partnership efforts. She briefly discussed the recent s,rccessful passage of the Amendment One modification, and expressed appreciatirn, (or the support of that ballot issue. As a result of the passage of that ballot issue, she indicated a snhstaniial increase in real estate transfer tax (RF.Tr) funds over last year was anticipated. It was noted those fonds were used for purchase of open space, as (veil as maintenance of existing parks and recreation trails. She said it appeared there would also be some wiles tax increase, and TOV would not need to go back to the voters to ask how those funds could specifically be used. She felt passage of the Amendment One modification was a tremendous show of trust and confidence on the part of the community. Merv Lapin moved to accept the 3500.00 contribution from the Defend Davos group, and that it be added to TOV's RETT fund to be earmarked for acquisition of open space. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. After brief discussion, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 2 was approval of the Minutes of the November 2, 1993, November 9, 1993, and November 16, 1993 Evening Meetings.- Merv Lapin moved to approve the minutes of November 2, 9, and 16, 1993, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 3 was a request for final approval and adoption of the Town of Vail Cemetery Management and Master Plan for the Town of Vail Cemetery to be constructed in the upper bench of Donovan Park located generally southeast of the Matterhorn neighborhood and west of the Glen Lyon neighborhood. The applicant was the TowT, of Vail. Andy Knucitsen advised that Sherry Donvard, Vice President of Alpine Inter,ational had been the lead conslltant who had coordinated Iwo other firms, The Sloane Constrlling Group, cemetery n,anagerneot specialists, and IiEPY, a cemetery design consultant. Andy noted the site selection process for this project began in 1989. The Donovan Park site had been recommended as the best site according to a number of criteria. Ms. Donvard advised that their team had been selected in October, 1992, to begin development of a Master Plan for a cemetery on that site. The mission of the team was to develop a physical plan for the layout of the cemetery, recommend capacity of the cemetery, types of burial places, and a way it could be feasibly managed and paid for. After a number of interviews with Council, other officials in Town, and with religious leaders in the Valley, The Sloane Consulting Group recommended that the cemetery be managed by the Cemetery District. Ms. Dorw•ard noted it had been running on a light budget for years, but that it was a feasible management structure. She explained that at the time the first draft of the management report came out, it was possible to fund the cemetery via the District through a one time mill levy assessment. Amendment One made that difficult, but it still seemed that was the best source of fcrnding. Funding through bond issues was rejected, not only l,ecause of the long term interest costs, but also because, under the terms of Amendment One and the law pertaining to Cemetery Districts, the bond indebtedness could not be incurred. She further noted the mill levy tax had not passed in the November, 1993, election, but (lie District remained The Sloane Consulting GronP's preference for the management of the cemetery. This issue had been discussed with County officials and Council, and it seemed the Disu-ict made the most sense because TOV did not want to 1 Plaintiffs Teen Cenne l FnemnR M.,(inT Alfnm Exhibit 14 Civil Action No. 95-CV-362 F Cenhelerv (:ask Force if) come op with financial alternatives with respect to building the cemetery. Join Steinberg encouraged them to proceed, and if it was necessary to go back to another vote, then the facts of the issue could fie better presented In the votrrs. lim Shearer agreed. Merv Lapin asked if it would be worthwhile to wail until there was aotilhrr vote before any further work was done. Kristan said they world not want ill get into the position of promoting the project. She felt dischlssiorh should be porsnrd with flip District and (he Task Force as to what they might want to do will bring that ilhfornhwfion back to Council. Merv inrloired what the altitude of the private sector loward taking the cemetery over might be. Since it had been agreed that the Master I'lao war valid, it seemed that exploring all finanrial opporhotlies to get it boil( was the next step. Mayor Osterfoss slated there seemed to be a high level of consensus, with the exception of jar Slrauch, that staff should move ahead and come back in the short roll with some suggestions as to how to proceed. She also felt Diana Donovan's suggested concerning retaining Donovan Park as part of the cemetery name was appropriate. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 4, Sprier of 1993, firs) reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 1R.24.065 and 18.7.6.(145, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, setting forth new plorr(hrrec for exterior nlleralions or mndificallons of buildings in the Commercial Core 1 and (:onnhercial Core 11 Z.coe Districts; and providing details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Shellv Mello slated this ordinance proposed a series of clarifications for the exterior alteration Section of Commercial Core I and Commercial Core If. She indicated there were a number of changes proposed which marle the Code more extilanatofy. She highlighted some (if the prolx?sed chwoper which included changing the application dales for the bi-annual submittal, as well as including exterior dining decks and roof line modifications in the exterior alteration process. Tile remaining, changes served to further detail the appliration materials and the review criteria. Kristin )'ritz staled the staff would also like ill establish the requirement of payment of one fee nmy for dining decks. Mayor O sterfoss suggesled information shoot the one fee be spelled out in the ordirnnce, and Tom Moorhead recommended including Ihet in the ordinance. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1993, on first reading, with the addition of langoage to specify Thal only one fee would be charged for exterior dining decks. Tom Steinberg seconded the molino. Itefore a vole was taken, Merv L,wpin asked if stiff had discussed these changes with any of the architects or people who would he amrcted by elem. Kristan Pritz said there had been general discussions concerning this, but nn specific meetings had been held. Merv suggested some of file local architects be contact(,(] for their inpol (ill these changes before second reading. Kristin indicated this would be done. A vote (vas taken and the notion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 21, Series of iQ93, first reading, an ordinance rezoning 7.710 acres from Agricullural and Open Space, Section 18.12 to Low Density Mulli-Family, Section IR.16located between 'I rwct C, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch and Parcel 11. 'I Ile applicant was Town of Vail/Vail I hosing Authority. Mayor O sterfoss read the title in hill. Andy Knudsen noted, at this time, the I loosing Authority was trying to work out the derails of this proposal and requested this item be fabled rmtil February 1, 1994 Merv lapin moved to lable Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1993, first reading, until February 1, 1994, with a second from Jim Shearer. Before a vote was taken, Tom Steinberg asked if Council consensus could he reached as to whether this item should the withdrawn alloprlher, bill Andy indicated he wws not sure the I touring An(horily wanted to withdraw this ilemh and he did not feel that decision could be made without therm at this time. A vole was taken and the (,notion passed unanimously, 7-0. Ilem No 6. was Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section IR.04.170 and Section 18SR.020(C) - fences, hedges, wills and screening, of flip Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; and providing details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read tike title in hill. Shelly Mello indicated the proposed change addressrd height definition and wrnnld not modify the building height allohvance, bill w(lold serve to rlari(y thus section of the Code. The change to flip hall height section of the Code wws proposed in order to correct the height limit for walls in the from serlack. l he rnerno to the PF.C dated May 24, 1993, and minutes which detail the discussions regarding the proposed change In Ihp Code w(,1p available for review. llhis proposal was approved by the PfiC by a vote of 6-0. Toni Steinberg moved to approve Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Merv Lapin. After discussion clarifying the intent of Section 18.04.170 of the ordinance by the addition of "vertical" to clarify the definition of height, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Ilem No. 7 was Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance making Supplemental Appropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, The Real Estate Transfer l:wx Fond, Police Confiscation Fund, f feavy F(luiplnerhl fund, West Vail Debt Service Fund, and Vail Mwrketiog Fund of the 1993 Budget and the Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and aolhorizing the expenditures of said appropriations as set forth herein; and selling forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read (lie title in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. 4 VIII T.- C.-il ?:-1., M- in, MIn,R~~ 1217M ~f discussion, Merv Lapin moved to approve the Pineridge Townhouses sign variance on staff recommendation as detailed in the CDD memo to Council dated December 7, 1993, memo, with a second from Paul Johnston. A vole was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. There being no further business, a motion. to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. tsterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Fiolly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk W wea taken by Omianne S. Derv C:WINSCEC.93 9 V-a T-C-ftfl F-10.1 M-tinm Minntn IWV.l t =Y MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 21, 1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, December 21, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Merv Lapin. As the meeting was called to order, Mayor Osterfoss, Jim Shearer, and Jan Strauch were not yet present. They each arrived moments later. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Johnston Sybill Navas Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Jan Strauch TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Merv Lapin, as a citizen, asked Joe Macy about the status of signs at the Golden Peak building which did not appear to be in compliance. Merv was advised the matter had been taken care of. Item No. 2 on the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of two items: A. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 18.(M.170 and Section 18.58.020(C) - fences, hedges, walls and screening, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; and providing details in regard thereto. B. Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance making Supplemental Appropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, The Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Police Confiscation Fund, Heavy Eqoipment fund, West Vail Debt Service Fund, and Vail Marketing Fund of the 1993 Budget anti 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. Merv Lapin read the titles in full. Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1993, was removed from the Consent Agenda for further discussion concerning additional detail Merv had requested from Steve Thompson. Merv Lapin moved to approve Consent Agenda item A, Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1993, on second reading, with a second from Paul-Johnston. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Steve Thompson distributed a detail of the 1993 Proposed Supplemental Appropriation Items and discussed the changes made to the General Fund amount since first reading of Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1993, noting the increase was partly a result of the enhanced bus service program, lie explained that when that enhancement had been discussed, it had been thought it was a 1994 cost, but, the enhancement began in November, 1993, and had to be accounted for in 1993. Tom Steinberg questioned whether there was any problern with PUC because the enhanced service extended beyond the Town of Vail. Steve advised that Mike Rose had contacted PUC, and was told there was no problem as long as the service was free to riders. Steve was directed to look into TOV's insurance coverage of this service. Steve also noled funds authorized by Cormcil for (lie U.S. Ski Team from the 1994 Special Events budget had to be accounted for in the 1993 budget because the check was being written in 1993. He said the amount for this wmdd be reflected as an adjustment in 1994's budget. Further, Workman's Compensation and Unemployment Insurance figures also had to be adjusted because the budgeting procedure for those had changed. Mayor Osterfoss inquired about the "Bus Grant Lobbyist - Avon" detail listed on the report Steve had distributed. Steve said, beside the grant for Avon, it was his understanding that TOV had entered into a contract for approximately V;0,000.00 for services provided by Liz Robbins for her professional services in trying to get bus grants for the Town. He added Ms. Robbins was uncertain of her potential success rate and charges would probably not reach $50,0(10.00 He was not certain, but believed to date $10,000.00 had been i V.0 T-C--Q F'..ft M•Alnr Ml-t- 1Z71MI Plaintiff's Exhibit 16 Civil Action No. 95-CV-362 t x billyd In 10V by her. Mayor Osferfoss noled file Avon bus grant had not been approved in Congress, and conversations were ondenvay with the Secretary of Transportation's office. She asked Sleve ff it was still necessary In roofinne payinr Ms. Robbins until there was some success. Steve said lie would have to check (fit 111x1 and on what had been paid year to dale. He said he understood if Ms. Robbins fell Ihat a grant could not be rotten for 10V, she was tint going to ronfinoe billing 10V. Tom Steinberg proved to approve Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1993, with a second from Paul Johnston. A vote was liken and life motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 3 on the agenda was Otdirlance No. 4, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section I8.24.005 and 18.26.045, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, selling forth new procedures for pxtrrfor alteralions or modifirnlions of buildings in flip Conurlercinl Core 1 atilt Commercial Core 11 7.oor Districls; nod providing details hq regard thereto. Mayor Oslerfoes read the title io full. Shelly Mello distributed resells of slaff'c research with local xrrhilects as recruesled by Council on first renotne. There wax discussion about the specific changes made to the orcftnmlce since first reading, rrsolung in our iddilional change to to made on second reading to indirate that a filing fee shall not be collected for any exterior alteration which was only for the addition of an exterior dining deck; however, all other applicable fees would be required. The change would apply to b olli CCI and CCI1. 'There was further clarification by Kristan Pri tz regarding flexibility of remodel submittal dates and issues related thereto, and she added lire Planning and Fatvirrmmental Commission fell that it world be appropriate to limit submittal dates for exterior alterations of less than 1(10 square feet In encourage people to do their projects at one time every two yrnrs. Slaff hall no problem with allowing minor exterior alterations to be submitted at any lime as it was felt the minor exterior alterations upgraded the Core areas. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1991, on second reading, with the suggested change regarding exterior dining clecks. Jim Shearer seconded life motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Tlem No. 4 on life agenda was Rrsololion No. 17, Series of 1993, a resolution authorizing certain 'town employees and officers to sign checks drawing on existing, accounts or accounts to he opened io the fuhrre of the Town at the FirstBank of Vail and further authorizing certain employees of the 'I own to stake deposits in said account. Mayor Oslerfoss read the title in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. 17, Series of 1993, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 5 was an appeal of the Planting and E.nvironrrnenhl Commission (rEC) approval of the Payne Minor Subdivision, Lot 1, Mock 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing. The appellants were Lyon and Nancy Byers. Kristin Pritz recalled that the 1'FC had approved the Payne minor subdivision conditioned on Council's approval of file associated rezoning requests in Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1'JO3. Council had denied that ordinance on first reading on December 21, 1993, and, therefore, this ksoe was now moot. To handle this appeal through proper procedure, the issue was before Council for an official vote. Merv Lapin moved to dismiss this appeal as the question was moot. Jito Shearer second the motion. A vole was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Before adjournment, Paul Johnston asked ff the Lindholm land exchange issue would be on the )amtary 4, 1991, agenda. Kristin Pritz advised she had spoken with Bill Post about Council's desire to hear this issue while fetr. Lindholm was available. She was advised Mr. Lindholm could be present it the January 4, 1994, Evening Meeting, and the issue formal would primarily he that of a poblic input session. Me- ',,rill felt it was hrnportant Ihal file community wax aware of Mr. Lindhol 's proposal, specifically regarding land exchange issues near Vail's boundmies. Also before adjournment, at i'atll Johoston's request, Krislan Pritz discussed in depth staffs work with Diefpr Menzel and Leo Palmer regarding 10V procedure by lie followed for a Polentfal minor amervdmeof to an SL)D of i'almos Cappnrcion Sph its. It was established Ira( an application for flint request had not yet been suhoillyd for flip desired minor amendment, although applications for the L,ignor Authority process had open received by the'lown Clerk. Kristin explained staff had been trying In help Mr. Menzel anti Mr. Palmer through file process for applying for the minor amendment and (fining deck fn the courtyard Mr. Menzel wanted of Palmos. Details of the parking, seating capacity, storage spaces, and building codes related to this issue were discussed. Turn Steinberg noted past Council had encouraged the Community Development Department (CUD) to he mote "user friendly," however, io this case, he felt Mr. Menzel was taking advantage of the COD. Krislan did not feel drat was so. She felt the applicant io this case had become frustraled with the rrgolaHoos and the COO was making efforts to help the applicant proceed through the process. Torn Moorhead advised the exlenf of the potential modifications for file deck would need to be established hefore the Liquor Authority coold even hear the issue. Torn Steinberg remained concerned at+oul such extensive TOV involvernpot. Krislan said live CDD was willing to extend a little extra undecstmxltvvg. which she fell resulted in achieving end resells more quickly and amicably. Tom Steinberg was reassured by Kristan indicating that there was a limit to what they can do, and that 2 Von T", CmmM f:«Mrryl Al-ff'r Ml"I" 1"1/9.1 r< was where the line was drawn. Merv Lapin stated he was pleased with the way this Issue was being handled. Kristan advised she would pass that on to staff members who had done the work. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 r .m. Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor C ATTEST. Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Won Won ty Doesme S. Delo 3 V.II T- C nil P-W4 MMInR M1nW 1202191 EAST VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. Officers: President - Bob Galvin Secretary - Gretta Parks Treasurer - Patrick Gramm Directors - Judith Berkowitz - Dolph Bridgewater - Ellie Caulkins - Ron Langley - Bill Morton - Connie Ridder To: Mayor Rob Ford and Town Council Members From: Jim Lamont, Executive Directors Date: January 30, 1998 RE: Loading and Delivery/Golden Peak Traffic Issues At the January 20, 1998, Town Council work session, the Council agreed that until a pub- lic hearing could be conducted at its next regularly scheduled evening meeting on February 3, 1998, the Council would withhold a decision regarding the continuation of a "manned checkpoint" that limits access to Hanson Ranch Road at Vail Valley Drive during the morning and afternoon peak traffic periods. The Police Department at the January 20, 1998, work session recommended that the manned checkpoint be abandoned due to its estimated $100 per day cost, and the inconve- nience to departmental personnel to staff the checkpoint due to a manpower shortage. The Homeowners Association has communicated with representatives of property owners in the neighborhoods surrounding the Golden Peak Ski Base regarding the Holiday Season traffic control program. Effected properties are adjacent to Vail Valley Drive and include neighborhoods being served by feeder roads, Hanson Ranch Road, Gore Creek Drive and Mill Creek Circle. Property Owners surrounding the Christiania Parking Lot (P-3 & J Sites) reported a sig- nificant decrease in illegal parking, traffic congestion and a marked increase in pedestrian safety. No noticeable difference was reported by property owners on Gore Creek Drive, west of Vail Valley Drive. Illegal parking and ski drop-off/pick-up traffic increased on Mill Creek Circle and on Vail Valley Drive at the Children's Center Parking Lot and Golden Peak Shuttle Bus Stop. The Golden Peak North Skier Drop-Off/Pick-up Parking Lot was not being properly operated to serve its intended purpose. The Rams Horn Lodge experienced some minor inconvenience from illegal ski drop-off/pick-up traffic. It is the recommendation of the Homeowners Association, that the Hanson Ranch Road "manned checkpoint" be continued through the February and March peak ski season. Further, it is recommended that enforcement be increased for the no skier drop-off/pick-up and no parking zones on Mill Creek Circle and Vail Valley Drive during the morning and afternoon peak traffic periods. Finally Vail Associates must be required to operate the Golden Peak North Skier Drop- Off/Pick-Up Parking Lot at its full turnover capacity during morning and afternoon peak traffic hours. The Homeowners Association emphasizes that the North Skier Drop-Off/Pick-Up Parking Lot was not being properly operated during the Holiday Season test period for the Hanson Ranch Road manned checkpoint. As a consequence, the intended purpose of the North Skier Drop- Off/Pick-Up Parking Lot, in the approved Golden Peak Development Plan, relieving surrounding neighborhoods from the impact of drop-off/pick-up traffic and illegal parking, has not been put into effect or adequately tested. During the Golden Peak Redevelopment planning and approval process, it was acknowl- edged by all parties, that there would be a period of time where increased enforcement would be Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (970) 827-5680 Message/FAX: (970) 827-5856 EVHA/TOV/TC: Loading and Delivery/Golden Peak Traffic 1/39/1998 necessary in the residential neighborhood surrounding the Golden Peak Ski Base, to induce skier traffic to use the new drop-off/pick-up facility. The Homeowners Association considers the Han- son Ranch Road manned checkpoint and increased traffic enforcement on Mill Creek Circle and Vail Valley Drive necessary to induce skiers to use the new Golden Peak North Lot Drop- Off/Pick-Up facilities. The issue of traffic congestion on Vail Valley Drive, illegal parking and skier drop- off/pick-up traffic was and remains a primary concern of property owners in the neighborhoods surrounding the Golden Peak Ski Base. If the volume of skier drop-off/pick-up traffic and illegal parking in these residential neighborhoods is not constrained, it should be expected that property owners in these neighborhoods will insist that the North Golden Peak North Drop-Off/Pick-Up Parking Lot be removed and all streets in the surrounding neighborhoods be included in the Vail Village limited access pedestrian district. This perspective was vigorously and repeatedly ex- pressed by property owner representatives during the Golden Peak redevelopment planning and approval process. cc: Bob Galvin and Board of Directors Golden Peak President's Advisory Committee 2 EAST VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. Officers: President - Bob Galvin Secretary - Gretta Parks Treasurer - Patrick Gramm Directors - Judith Berkowitz - Dolph Bridgewater - Ellie Caulldns - Ron Langley - Bill Morton - Connie Ridder To: Mayor Rob Ford and Town Council Members Bob McLaurin, Town Manager From: Jim Lamont, Executive Director Date: January 30, 1998 RE: Vail Village Loading and Delivery Planning Process - Phase II/Scope of Services The scope of services, as recommended by MK Centennial Engineering, for the second phase of the Vail Village Loading and Delivery planning process, was forwarded by the Town Manager to the Homeowners Association for comment and suggestion. The proposal has been forwarded to all interested parties affiliated with the Homeowners Association regarding the load- ing and delivery issue. Additional correspondence regarding the Phase II study is attached. It is requested that the following comments be considered and suggested modifications to the scope of study be included: 1. The public participation process as proposed is ill-defined and appears to be inadequate. It must be recognized that Town Administrators or the Town Council do not have autono- mous authority to resolve this issue. Any acceptable solution will require a mediated approach to result in a long term partnership among the affected interest groups. a. The public forum method of the public participation process in the Phase I - Short Tenn Solutions was limited in its effectiveness because it was fragmented and exclusionary. It did not allow for representatives designated by each of the primary interest groups to have face to face problem solving and negotiation sessions. It did not allow for equal standing of all interests. It skewed the advisory process towards the interests of Town Administrators by placing them above and beyond the problem solving and negotiation processes. As a result the "public forum" method of public participation heightened frustration or further confused the issues. The heighten frustration and confusion caused interested parties to posture and become defensive rather than contribute to substantive consensus building and problem solving. The Phase II - Loading and Delivery Analysis public participation process appears to mimic that of Phase I. The complexity of issues and proposals to be considered indicates that the public forum results will be more contentious than constructive. The following description of the public mediation method is recommended as an alternate approach to the public forum method. This is the participation model used by the Homeowners Association to cause fundamental changes to the truck delivery procedure in 1996-97. There is general agreement that the close-in/front door approach advocated by the Homeowners Associ- ation has improved the delivery system. b. The public mediation method is an inclusionary/partnership approach to problem soly- in,. A negotiator or team of negotiators, for each interest group participating in the process, par- ticipates with other negotiators in mediation forums. Mediation sessions are published and open to the public. Mediation sessions, with the consultant engineering firm and Town Administrator attending in an informational capacity, are used to inform and elicit comments and concerns from negotiators and their constituents under conditions of procedural etiquette. Each interest group's negotiators are responsible for communicating the outcome of negotiation sessions to their Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (970) 827-5680 Message/FAX: (970) 827-5856 EVHA/TOV/TC: Loading and Delivery Plan - Phase II/Scope of Service 1/30/98 constituent group and eliciting their responses. Negotiators are to report their findings back to other negotiators. Public forums, where the general public registers its concerns regarding the merits of proposals under negotiation, are conducted at critical stages of problem and proposal analysis. The final agreed upon proposal(s) are referred to each interest group for ratification or amendment prior to being sent to the Town Council. The process can be initiated upon mutual agreement among those interest groups willing to participate in negotiations. 2. Documentation of existing conditions in neighborhoods is inadequate as proposed. A base line of existing conditions in all residential neighborhoods influenced or to be influenced by the delivery system, must be documented. These conditions include noise level analysis but should also include traffic flows by vehicle type and volume, as well as visual and aesthetic factors. 3. Video Analysis of daily loading and delivery traffic should be expanded to include documentation of all residential neighborhoods influenced or to be influenced by the delivery sys- tem. From the camera vantage points being described in the scope of study, it is impossible to adequately document the areas in which truck deliveries now occur. All sites where truck delivers now occur throughout Vail Village should by documented during the same time period. Televi- sion documentation should be done simultaneously from each vantage point for a one week dura- tion 8-12 hours per day during a week of peak occupancy. This phase of the documentation should also include the distribution of vehicles at the Main Vail Roundabout. Documentation should be undertaken showing the effects of limiting access on Hanson Ranch Road at Vail Valley Drive. 4. Time schedules for the project should have sufficient flexibility for proposed alterna- tives, (including those rejected by the consultants,) to be circulated to negotiators and affected property owners, prior to any final determination by the Town Council. Town Administrators should budget sufficient funds to distribute proposals by mail and electronically. Distribution documents should be accompanied by an objective analysis of the pros and cons of each proposal, supported by analytical information and data to affected property owners and constituent groups. All analytical information and data should be made available to all interested parties as it becomes available to Town Administrators. Public Forums should be documented for transmission on pub- lic access television. Information provided by the engineer should be placed on an appropriate website so that interactive criticism of the proposal can be made via the Internet. 5. Separate private meetings between Town Administrators and consulting engineers with interest groups, during the Phase I public participation process, fostered a climate that was detri- mental to building trust between representatives of the primary interest groups. Private meeting should be discouraged. 6. The study needs to include an analysis of loading and delivery sites in Lionshead that can augment loading and delivery facilities in Vail Village. 7. Consensus proposals need to include a evaluation by the consultant as to operational capacity and practicality, financial requirements with alternatives, zoning and land use implica- tions as well as methods of management and operation with alternatives. Consultant evaluations need to be available to negotiators and the public prior to recommending a final consensus propos- al to the Town Council. cc: Bob Galvin and Board of Directors Loading and Delivery System President's Advisory Committee 2 r r r RUDY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys and Counsellors at Law Suite 210, WestStar Bank Bldg. Suite 201 108 South Frontage Road 715 West Main Vail, Colorado 81657 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 476-8865 (970) 925-8774 FAX (970) 479-9773 FAX (970) 479-9773 Michael W Standard, Esq. January 27, 1998 Reoly to YAM Office Jim Lamont, Executive Director East Village Homeowners Association, Inc. P.O. Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 RE: Phase H - Loading and Delivery Planning Process Dear Jim: This letter is in response to your January 7, 1998, memorandum addressing the proposed scope of services to be . provided by MK Centennial Engineering. After reading, almost painfully, the proposed scope of services developed by the Town and/or MK Centennial, I am inclined to agree with your alternative approach. The current proposal is only vaguely defined and does not recognize that Vail extends beyond the intersection of Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive. Further, the current proposal is a "top - down" process for problem solving that simply will not work here. I do not mean to sound harsh, but MK Centennial is a company of "outsiders," and I do not believe they possess expertise in the areas of local political problem solving or consensus building. The top-down approach stands to fragment the different constituencies and leave the Town of Vail with another ill-conceived and, possibly, inadequate loading and delivery scheme. I am also confused by the puzzling narrow-minded view of the area to be considered. I look out my window in Vail every day and all I can see is Lionshead. Why are we not taking a comprehensive and far-sighted view of this issue and consolidating Vail with Lionshead? Even if Vail and Lionshead end up with separate and/or different solutions, prudent business and planning requires that the solutions not be developed in a vacuum; rather, they should be considered together and integrated as much as possible. Again, this is why I favor your proposal over the current one. r Jim Lamont EVHOA January 27, 1998 Page 2 Even though I represent Bishop Park, I would like to work with the different constituencies to develop a solution of which we can all be proud. I am not proposing that anyone be shut out of this process. However, I believe everyone would be better served by providing "public comment on [a] subset of alternatives" determined by their own representatives, or negotiators, rather than alternatives provided by consultants working with Town staffers whose agendas are not always clear. Mediation between representatives from all interest groups will generate much broader support for a single solution and greatly decrease the risk of wasteful and divisive litigation should one particular segment bear the brunt of the noise and congestion associated with the ultimate solution. Finally, through our conversations, you and I recognize that finger-pointing between the different neighborhoods, merchants and businesses would lead to disastrous results. This possibility increases tenfold under the current proposed process. Bishop Park is already joining with neighbors and fellow property owners in order to present a unified from on this issue. Under the current process, we will have no choice but to send as many individuals to the public forums as possible. What is the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." Other concerned neighborhoods will do the same thing. The results will be divisive and counter-productive to a universally popular solution. Under your proposal, these neighborhoods can be part of a collaborative process rather than a contentious one. I, believe MK Centennial, if they are to be part of this process, would be better suited to strictly a consultant role. They should work with the different constituencies to develop and fine tune the alternatives developed in the mediation process. This is their expertise; not consensus building through undefined "open house forums." I am greatly disappointed by the current proposal. On behalf of the Bishop Park Homeowners Association, I offer my support to the process you have proposed to the Council. Very truly y , Michael W. Standard cc: Brooks Thomas, President, Bishop Park Homeowners Association EAST VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. Officers: President - Bob Galvin Secretary - Gretta Parks Treasurer - Patrick Gramm Directors - Judith Berkowitz - Dolph Bridgewater - Ellie Caulkins - Ron Langley - Bill Morton - Connie Ridder To: Bob McLaurin Larry Grafel Greg Hall From: Jim Lamont Date: August 26, 1997 RE: Scope of Study Recommendations for Load and Delivery Study Request For Proposal The attached memorandum and attachments were broadly circulated to the Association's President's Advisory Committee on Loading and Delivery. Comments,, concerns and modifica- tions were solicited by the Association for its recommendations regarding the scope of study for the Town of Vail's Loading and Delivery System Request For Proposal. The memorandum was circulated to all individual and condominium association members, including affiliated constituencies that would be affected by the proposed study. There were no proposed changes or modifications received by the Association's to its recommended scope of study. There was a communication from residential properties located near the Lodge at Vail Land Exchange Site, based upon their present perception, that object to locating a major truck ter- minal on the Land Exchange Site. Their concern, as expressed previously to the Association, is a perception that truck traffic will increase on the Vail Road access route to Vail Village. The following is the Homeowners Association recommended scope of study for the Load and Delivery System Request For Proposal. Summary: The Homeowners Association has taken the position that the Lionshead Master Plan must include the analysis of capacity and location of a facility or facilities to accommodate all or aspects of the truck loading and delivery system for both Vail Village and Lionshead. Consequently, it would be inappropriate to study the loading and delivery system for Vail Village without taking into consideration of Lionshead's needs and its po- tential to contribute to the solution of the overall loading and delivery system. Within the Association's perspective of seeking a systemic solution, the following analytical components are requested of the Town of Vail for inclusion in the requirements for the Loading and Delivery Study Request For Proposal. A. Update inventories that quantify present loading and delivery demand; provide demand projections base upon anticipated quantity of zoned uses for both Vail Village and Lionshead. B. Review all public and private parking sites for their usefulness to augment specific as- pects of the loading and delivery system. Public Parking sites include the Vail Village and Lion- shead Parking Structures. Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (970) 827-5680 Message/FAX: (970) I EVHA/TOV: Loading and Delivery Request For Proposal C. Incorporate Lionshead sites and delivery needs with those of Vail Village resulting in a combined systemic report. D. Conduct traffic circulation, environmental, aesthetic, capacity, distribution methods and neighborhood compatibility studies of proposed loading/delivery sites and access routes. E. Provide a series of systemic design alternatives which defines the physical facilities as to location, design parameters including capacity, functionality, construction/operational/main- tenance costs. Once these technical studies are complete, then public participation and consensus building processes should follow on. cc: Town Council EVHA Board of Directors President's Advisory Committee on Loading and Delivery 2 xc : , RIVEREDGE FACT SHEET DESCRIPTION RiverEdge is a new 104 Unit employee housing complex which has been specifically designed and built for seasonal workers at Vail and Beaver Creek. The design and features were based on extensive research compiled by Vail Resorts, Inc. and Comm Real Estate Group, Inc. over the last two years. Surveys and focus groups will be conducted with the current residents of RiverEdge in order to continue to refine the design. Vail Resorts, Inc. has made a significant commitment to seasonal housing by contributing this parcel or prime real estate for the project, as well as guaranteeing the financing for the project and providing ongoing operating subsidies. COMPLEX FEATURES • Studios, Lofts, 2BR, 3BR and 4BR Units Available • 104 Units in 3 Buildings • 292 Bedrooms • 21 Lofts • Fire Sprinkler System Throughout • Within Beaver Creek PUD • On Eagle River • Walking Distance to Commercial Center BUELDING FEATURES • TV Room/Lounge • Vending Machines • Ski Workshop • Laundry Facilities • 88 General Storage Lockers • 36 Ski Storage Lockers UNIT FEATURES • Fully Furnished Units • Built-in Automatic Dishwashers • Full Size Appliances DEVELOPMENT TEAM FINANCING BY: Owner: BC Housing, LLC • Kirkpatrick Pettis a Vail Associates, Inc. • Nations Bank • Beaver Creek • Norwest Bank Metropolitan District • Texas of Colorado • Corum Real Estate Group, Inc. Developer: Corum Real Estate Group, Inc. BOND ISSUER: Architect: Paul T. Bergner, AIA, PC Contractor: Colorado First Construction • Eagle County 37723 U.S. Highway 6 & 24 • P.O. Box 708 9 Avon, Colorado 81620 • (970)748-0799 • FAX (970)'148-0835 d•3.9g VAIL TOWN COUNCIL FEBRUARY 3,1998 VAIL TOMORROW AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE One of actions endorsed on April 16, 1997, by Vail Tomorrow, was to "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 2010". A draft action was promulgated to "Support the passage of a Town of Vail ordinance allocating a portion of the Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) to affordable housing". The Affordable Housing Committee is here tonight to lend its support to the Town Council's effort to establish a permanent funding source to help attain that goal. We still firmly believe that a commitment of up to 50 percent of the RETT could be allocated to housing without materially affecting the remaining needs of the open space program. Yearly revenue from RETT is estimated to be-- $2,000,000 Yearly expenditures are projected: For maintenance-- $300,000 For park and pathway improvements-- 550,000 For Golf Course debt service-- 340,000 For a total of-- $1,190,000 Golf Course debt service retires in 1999, reducing total expenditures to-- $850,000 Available yearly funds would then be-- $1,150,000 A one-time reimbursement from the USFS to the Town of Vail for Trappers Run will be-- $1,700,000 The future looks bright for RETT. There are funds available to form the partnerships we need with Vail Associates, the business community, the real estate community and the Town of Vail to stop giving lip service and start solving the number one problem facing our community, affordable housing. With the proper foresight and planning, and an appropriate reallocation of RETT funds we can have our Donovan Park, our community center, our protected open space and the affordable housing this community so desperately needs. 4ILL TOWN OOffice of the Town Manager 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157 TM MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager DATE: January 30, 1998 SUBJECT: Town Manager's Report Lionshead Update As you are aware, we are working to develop a series of recommendations which will address height, bulk and mass in the proposed Lionshead Master Plan. We have developed a number of baseline data which outline how existing structures conform to existing zoning. We are proposing that the Council meet jointly with the Planning Commission on February 10th to begin a review of the existing conditions and to discuss design principles which will help drive these recommendations. If you concur, we will invite the Planning and Environmental Commission to the February 10th Council work session so that we can have a discussion on these issues with them. Vail Village Summer Construction It appears that between TOV projects and several major private redevelopments that there will be a significant amount of construction in the Vail Village this summer. The projects that are currently proposed for this summer include an addition to Gasthof Gramshammer, the Vail Athletic Club, Mountain Haus, Austria Haus (on-going), Hong Kong, VA pedestrian easement up to the Vista Bahn, and Gore Creek Drive (Holy Cross and other utilities). Additionally the Town of Vail is contemplating and has budgeted reconstruction of the stairs at the Transportation Center, Slifer Plaza, Seibert Circle, Gore Creek Drive overlay from Check Point Charlie to Vail Valley Drive and new pavers at Check Point Charlie. We need to discuss if you wish to cut back on some of these projects in order to minimize the impacts associated with the construction for the coming summer. The only project that it is absolutely critical that we proceed on is the Transportation Center stairs. This project will not only enhance the appearance of the village but will ease some of our operational constraints with respect to hand shoveling and snow removal. to~~ RECYCLED PAPER J Town Manager Vacation I will be out of town from Wednesday, February 4th through Sunday, February 8th, dealing with some family matters on the east coast. Pam Brandmeyer will be Acting Town Manager and I will be available by phone and be checking phone messages on a daily basis. Anne will have my number so please feel free to call me if you need anything during this period. Upcoming Council Meetings 2/10/98 WS PEC/DRB Review Lionshead Master Plan Stage III Request by VRD to proceed through the planning process 2/17/98 WS Assessment of publicly held lands - bus tour 2/17/98 TC 1 st read Ord. re: amending SDD #4 2nd read Ord #2, re: change in public meeting time 2/24/98 WS Jim Spell - 20 year anniversary PEC/DRB Review LHMP Stage III AIPP presentation - Seibert Circle RWM/aw Hand In Hand For Quality"'' are You are cordially invited to the Grand Opening Celebration of Bright Horizons at . . Vail Commons - Quality Child Care at Work Speakers include: John Caldwell, City Market ,X Trish Andrews, Vail Valley Medical Center " Cricket Pylman, Learning Tree Preschool Sally Schramm, Bright Horizons - Children's Crafts Center Tours Entertainment by Alan Echtler, guitarist Quilt Ceremony Ribbon Cutting Ceremony Ref reshments Tuesday, February 10, 1998 4:30 pm - 6:30 pm 2105 Zermatt Lane Vail, CO 970-479-6680 From I-70 take exit 173 in West Vail, go East on Frontage Road until you see City Market - Public parking on West side of Vail City Market, 2109 North Frontage Road West - Sri, ` fb C 9 tia - } i va-"A i RECEwn IAN 7 8 January 26, 1998 Vail Town Council 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 To Whom It May Concern: As the owner of unit 504 in Vantage Point Condominiums, I was very concerned to hear that the Town of Vail is considering altering the building zoning regulations so that Vail Associates can redevelop its property in Lionshead. According to preliminary plans presented by Dave Corbin from Vail Associates at our recent Homeowner's Meeting, the peak height of their proposed building would be ninety-three feet. As I understand, the current height restrictions in Lionshead is forty-eight feet. To almost double the current height restrictions is absurd. The most common complaint I have heard regarding the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan is, "don't create another Beaver Creek in Lionshead", by allowing tall buildings to create a view block of the surrounding mountains. Currently Lionshead has a very open feeling with the best views of the ski mountain. Allowing the building code to increase height would be devastating to Lionshead. I would like to go on record as a homeowner in Lionshead, that I am opposed to any increase in height restrictions to the current building codes. Sincerely, Karen Walsey KW:dmd cc: Planning and Environmental Commission TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 1999-VAIL-BE AVER CREEK FAX 970-479-2157 TM January 28, 1998 George Lamb SSFNARE 230 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 Dear George: Thanks for your involvement in the Slifer Plaza renovation project. Please join us for a work session with the Design Review Board at 2:00 P.M. on. February 4 in the Council Chambers. At that time, we will present a conceptual design based on input from the January 19 workshop and the brainstorming session on January 23. The conceptual design includes: Narrowing the width of the bus lanes to give East Meadow Drive a more "street-like feel." Removing the existing central planter and reorienting the spruce trees and planting areas. Rearranging the open spaces within the plaza to add more sunlight and create spaces for public gatherings and people-watching. Maintaining the 10th Mountain Division piece (as well as other existing art pieces) in the space. Enhancement of the green space adjacent to Gore Creek. Replacement of deteriorating infi-astructure. Following the February 4 session with DRB, the Slifer Plaza conceptual design will be presented to the Vail Town Council at its February 10 work session. Final design approval is scheduled for February 18 with DRB and February 24 with the Vail Town Council. We invite you to stay involved in the project to ensure the project's goals are met. Regards, Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 TOV Community Information Office cc: Vail Town Council C~ RECYCLEDPAPER u ~y TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 MEDIA ADVISORY January 28, 1998 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR JANUARY 27 Work Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Arnett, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Navas Please note: The format of the afternoon work session has changed. These sessions, beginning at 2 p.m. each week, are now used for council information- gathering and discussion, while the twice-a-month evening business meeting will focus on citizen input and legislative decisions. Both sessions are open to the public. Also, Councilmembers have asked to change the start time of the evening meeting to 7 p.m. (30 minutes earlier) and to keep the length of the evening meeting to a maximum of three hours. An ordinance changing the start time will be considered for first reading at the Feb. 3 evening meeting. --PEC/DRB Review During a review of Monday's Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) meeting, councilmembers inquired about the status of a request for a building height variance for a hotel addition to the Gasthof Gramshammer in Vail Village. The variance request, for the 60/40 roof height to be varied by 12.29 percent, was approved by PEC by a vote of 6-0. --Eagle County Recreation Authority/Eagle County School District Conceptual Plan for Berry Creek Fifth and Miller Ranch Properties The Council heard a presentation covering the 10-year evolution of a conceptual land use plan, first for the 105-acre Berry Creek Fifth property, and more recently, a combined effort involving the neighboring Miller Ranch property (108 acres owned by the Eagle County School District), as well as the Berry Creek Fifth parcel. Rick Pylman, a planner with Peter Jamar Associates, said the current proposal for the two properties includes an equestrian center; a 25-acre high school; a 40-acre recreation parcel; 28 acres of housing; an elementary school; the current middle school; 40 acres of open space on the easternmost edge of the Miller Ranch property; plus two alternative use sites as determined by the school district for such uses as a charter school, administration building, bus barn, or other educational uses. Plyman said the latest land use concept has been accepted by members of the Eagle County Recreation Authority and the school district--with the exception of the Town of Vail. Vail holds a 60 percent ownership in the Berry Creek Fifth property, meaning the concept could end up in an impasse without Vail's support. Other partners formed by the authority in 1989 include the Town of Avon, Eagle County and four metropolitan districts (Arrowhead, Beaver Creek, Eagle-Vail and Singletree. Council reaction to the plan was mixed yesterday. Mayor Rob Ford expressed concern about the emphasis of schools on the property, which he said wasn't the original intent when the authority purchased the Berry Creek Fifth property in the late 1980s. Ford said he understood the original intent was for recreation and housing. He noted that although the land size has doubled as a (more) La RECYCLEDPAPER r TOV Council Highlights 1-27-98/Add 1 result of the joint planning, he said the proposed housing component hasn't really grown much. Ford went on to say that as far as he's concerned, Vail should try to sell its ownership share to someone else. Councilman Bob Armour agreed. He suggested the school district make an offer for the land. Councilman Michael Arnett also suggested pulling out of the property. Arnett said a housing component in Edwards won't supply quality employees in Vail, especially if the . Vail Valley Centre project is approved with its one million square feet of retail space. As it stands now, Arnett said the Berry Creek Fifth property doesn't serve the, common good of the Town of Vail. Councilman Michael Jewett disagreed. He said the plan was a good one that couldn't be duplicated anywhere else. Jewett said he thought constituents in Vail would support the plan because of its recreational and housing components. Councilman Kevin Foley also expressed support, advocating a regional approach in addressing such issues. Next steps will occur at the next meeting of the recreation authority when Vail's representative, Councilman Ludwig Kurz, will be asked to approve or disapprove the conceptual plan on behalf of Vail. If Vail approves the concept, an intergovernmental agreement would be formed between the recreation authority and the school district, with the plan moving forward for county review. For more information, contact Tom Moorhead, Vail's town attorney, at 479-2107. --Requirements for Upgrading Properties When Expanding With Allowable GRFA At the suggestion of Councilman Michael Arnett, the Council directed the town attorney to draft an ordinance that would codify current staff interpretations regarding small additions or upgrades to properties when utilizing allowable square footage. Arnett has been critical of the town for requiring upgrades to driveways, undergrounding overhead utilities and other costly improvements that are triggered by a homeowner's interest in a modest upgrade. In the past, the requirements have caused owners of Vail's older properties to either move away or forego the upgrades, Arnett said. The ordinance to be drafted will eliminate upgrade requirements to an existing structure for additions of up to 500 square feet (for those using available GRFA). However, those seeking to utilize the "250 ordinance" (after utilizing all available GRFA), will continue to be required to bring the entire structure up to design review standards. For more information, contact Mike Mollica in the Community Development Department at 479-2144. --Review Need to Establish Regulations Concerning Parking of Recreational Vehicles After exploring three possible options, the Council directed Town Attorney Tom Moorhead to draft an ordinance that would restrict the parking of any recreational vehicles to those areas of a lot, parcel or tract of land that has been designated as a parking area or driveway, as indicated on the approved plans for such lot, parcel, or tract of land. The issue, which was first brought to the Council's attention by Michael Jewett, is intended to address constituent concerns regarding visual problems associated with the storage of RVs on private property. During discussion, Moorhead said the town has learned that some RVs are being brought into Vail from Summit County, Eagle-Vail and elsewhere because storage is restricted in those areas. Vail's restrictions apply only to use, which prohibits RVs from being used for overnight accommodations. Another option presented by Moorhead is to prohibit the parking or storing of recreational vehicles in any area within the town that is not enclosed. A third option is to do nothing. Moorhead talked about the difficulty of enforcement yesterday as well as the conflicting rights of property owners. While Jewett said his intent was to find a way for neighbors to be more considerate of one another with respect to the obstruction of views, Moorhead said it would be hard to draft legislation "that makes neighbors be good neighbors." Councilmembers agreed to consider an ordinance that requires recreation vehicles to be parked on designated parking areas to see if such legislation makes a difference. For more information, contact Town Attorney Tom Moorhead at 479-2107. (more) hTOV Council Highlights 1-27-98/Add 2 --Newspaper Box Update Much to the Council's delight, Town Attorney Tom Moorhead presented an update on efforts to consolidate newspaper boxes in Vail Village and Lionshead. Moorhead said the town is currently working with publishers and distributors to create a fair and uniform distribution system within the two commercial core areas. Given the spirit of cooperation between the town and the publishers, Moorhead said he expected the project to move ahead without much difficulty. The Design Review Board will consider a proposed design for uniform newspaper racks at its Feb. 18 meeting. Once a voluntary agreement is entered into with the distributors and publishers, Moorhead said the agreement will form the basis of an ordinance which will aid in providing uniformity of distribution throughout town. For more information, contact Moorhead at 479-2107. --Information Update The Council voted 5 to 1 (Jewett against) to authorize $3,000 from council contingency funds to support CARTS (Corridor Alliance for Rapid Transit Solutions). With representation from Denver County west to Eagle County along the 1-70 corridor, CARTS was formed to advance the concept of rapid transit along the 1-70 corridor (as an alternative to widening the interstate). The group hopes to raise $100,000 to set up a transit authority, planning agency or some other governing agency to develop a transit solution in more detail. Announcements yesterday included: representatives from the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority will make a presentation to the Council at its Feb. 3 evening meeting (this will help councilmembers determine if Vail should continue its $100,000-plus annual contribution to the authority over a five-year period); the kick-off for the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championship begins at 6:30 p.m. Saturday at the Children's Fountain; officials from the Mt. Buller, Australia region will be in Vail at the end of March (funds are likely needed to host a dinner or reception for the group); and planning is currently underway to send a Vail Valley delegation to Mt. Buller in August. At the suggestion of Town Manager Bob McLaurin, councilmembers agreed to consider an amendment to an ordinance passed on first reading at the Jan. 21 meeting which rolls back the major exterior alterations application deadline for properties within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area this year only, from February 23 to June 15. The amendment will add large-scale special development districts (SDD), SDD amendments and all zone districts within the Lionshead study area to the June 15 application date for added consistency. The ordinance comes up for second reading on Feb. 3. Councilmembers asked that affected properties be notified of the amendment consideration as soon as possible. For more information, contact Mike Mollica in the Community Development Department at 479-2144. --Council Reports Kevin Foley, Vail's representative on the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority, noted that new bus service to Red Cliff and Minturn has begun. Foley encouraged those residents to take advantage of the system. Sybill Navas, Vail's representative on the Special Events Commission, distributed the group's funding allocation for upcoming events. Navas also reported on a recent meeting of the Business Alliance, which is working on a permanent funding source for regional marketing. Navas said the enabling legislation for a marketing district is being carried in the state legislature by Rep. Jack Taylor and Sen. Dave Wattenburg. If successful, next steps would be to petition the county for a ballot issue within the newly-created district (with preliminary discussion showing a district from Wolcott to Vail.) Navas said the council should begin discussions regarding the future of Vail's business license fee if an alternative funding source makes it on an upcoming (more) y 'r TOV Council Highlights 1-27-98/Add 3 ballot in the form of a lodging tax. She said Vail might also want to consider adding an additional lodging tax for voter consideration to be used for infrastructure; bricks and mortar, such as a performing arts center; or perhaps locals housing in Vail. Bob Armour noted last week's meeting of the Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) in Frisco. --Other Councilman Kevin Foley shared concerns about bottlenecks occurring on the in-town shuttle, caused by town vehicles blocking the bus routes. Foley also complimented the town for completion of the Public Works administration building expansion and the quality of the seasonal housing units that are currently being built on the site. Councilmember Sybill Navas shared constituent concerns regarding construction of a stage at the Children's Fountain this week. The activity has been blocking visibility to a business and creating other unsightly obstructions. Navas suggested additional sensitivity when planning events associated with the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships. Also yesterday, Navas asked about the status of extending the town's holiday lights to the Vail Village parking structure, suggesting the Visitor Center be trimmed in lights if lack of electrical power is a problem elsewhere. UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS February 3 Work Session Lionshead Master Planning Process, Stage 3, Height & Density Introduction Vail Tomorrow Affordable Housing Team Presentation Vail Tomorrow Building Community Team Presentation February 3 Evening Meeting First Reading, Ordinance No. 2, re: Change of Public Meeting Time to 7 p.m. Second Reading, Ordinance No. 1, re: Major Alteration Applications in Lionshead Study Area Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority Presentation Loading and Delivery/Hanson Ranch Road Barricade Discussion February 10 Work Session PEC/DRB Review Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, Stage 3, Height & Density Discussion February 17 Work Session Assessment of Publicly-Held Lands Bus Tour February 17 Evening Meeting First Reading, Ordinance, re: SDD #4 Amendment Second Reading, Ordinance 2, re: Change of Public Meeting Time to 7 p.m. Please note: The Vail Recreation District Board of Director election is May 5, 1998. The deadline for filing of petitions for a board seat is February 27, 1998. For more information, call the VRD offices at 479-2279. Pitkin County homeowners elect to fight for voting rights r Second-homeowners in Pitkin County think they have the numbers and money to win voting tights. ° Organizers of the Pitkin County Homeowners Coalition, a newly formed group of 12 homeowners associations, reported last week that they have signed up 1,206 property owners, representing both full- and part-time residents. Those property owners represent a huge financial base to back the coalition, a number of members and potential members reported at the organization's first official meeting. -The Aspen Times tfC _L ~,.r... .RECEIVED JAN 2 9 1998 T 1435 Wagontrain Drive, S.S. Albuquerque, New Mexico 87123 Vail Town Council 25 January 1998 Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Members of the Vail Town Councils My purpose in writing you at this time is to voice some of my concerns about the Height and Mass Discussions of the Lf~nshead Masterplan which you will epnsider at your meetings in early February. I have participated by continued correspondence with the"MasterfuP plan during the past couple of years. As co-.owner with my son of condminium 405 in the Westwind at Vail, I have submitted proposals and suggestions at the various stages of the planning and followed the planning and your decisions closely. While I endorse some of the concepts, especially the one related to low-cost housing for employees, you adopted at your meeting in December, there are two others that I hope you will consider with intelligence and wisdom. The first of these relates to the height and mass topics. I do not favor the con- struction of new buildings that are massive and higher than the present buildings in Lionshead. Such edifices would limit the lines of sight from existing buildings toward Vail Mountain and the lifts Neon. No huge buildings should be constructed in the village. They would counteract the overall appearance d f what should be a small village as it is now and would make Lionshead a community of high-rise structures, thereby changing the ambience and appearance of Lionshead. My second concern is the proposal to create a main street through Lionshead. I do not believe that it is necessary to do so, creating a main thoroughfare through the village with its resulting traffic and disturbing the present walk that is wertainly adequate for pedestrian traffic. I see no reason to establish such a major thoroughfare since access to the present walkway is sufficient for the use of pedestrians, access to shops, irestaurants, and the ski lifts, and for supply and town services. Commercial tre~,f'ic on such a proposed thoroughfare would defeat the present community status of the village. I hope that you will give these concerns your consideration and enable you to defeat the two proposals. Yes, I do love Lionshead as it is and would not like to see it change to high-rise buildings and a commercial center resembling such projects in major cities. I also am acquainted with Breokinridge and Aspen, neither of which consists of massive, high-rise buildings. If Vail Lionshead becomes such a different place, I believe that it would destroy the present small village concept and be less appealing to owners and visitors. My congratulations to you and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan committee for your organization and planning to date. Please know that Is as an owner since 19729 am continually interested in the progress of the plan and your concepts developed to the resent. Si cerely, Oakah L. Jones Co-owner, Unit 405, Westwind at Vail k T- - R (EJAN291998 Vail Town Council 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Jan. 25, 1998 Dear Vail Town Council, We love Vail ! Our residence in Vantage Point has been a gathering place for our family and friends for over 20 years. We treasure our condominium more than anything for all the special memories and events that it has afforded our family. It is in this spirit we are writing to express our concern about the proposed re-working of building height restrictions which would enable the construction of a 93-foot high complex in Lionshead - not only would Vail Associates be permitted this - ultimately any future building plan would be designed within these zoning restrictions - impairing the integrity of the Lionshead Master Plan as it was originally conceived by a majority of community members. We appreciate the economic and aesthetic development that Vail Associates has brought to Vail Valley and Lionshead. Vail Associates is a strong corporation that is capable of achieving any goal. Part of their goal should be to maintain and defend the integrity of the Lionshead Master Plan. The "overly tall" buildings along I-70 may act as sound barriers, however, they are also the book-ends of an inclusive architectural infrastructure: allowing their residents a view of the mountain as well as their town center in Lionshead. These are the main reasons we continue to return to Lionshead year after year. Indeed, for 20 years, we have willingly and gladly kept pace with increasing tax assessments because we believe in the integrity of Lionshead and the zoning restrictions of its Master Plan. We urge Vail Associates to use their resources to challenge themselves to develop a new Gondola Building that follows the Lionshead Master Plan zoning specifications. Challenge your planners and architects to dream of and design a development that includes Lionshead and its many long-time residents - not alienates them. Indeed, Lionshead is a town of its own unique atmosphere and identity. We challenge the Vail Associates to respect this and design new buildings which conform to the zoning restrictions already in place - put there by a community who loves and values their town and its environs. Please use your strength and resources to maintain the integrity of the Lionshead Master Plan. Challenge yourselves to incorporate, not exclude, the Lionshead community of property owners and visitors We love Vail ! We love Lionshead ! Please help us maintain its beauty and infrastructure - not create a "separate" Vail Associates compound that excludes the participation of a majority of property owners and visitors. Sincerely, The Hedger Family 1013 N. East Avenue Oak Park, Illinois 60302 2 IA TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 MEDIA ADVISORY January 30, 1998 Contact: Annie Fox, 479-2195 Library Director VAIL LIBRARY CLOSURE EXTENDED THROUGH FEBRUARY 2 Closure of the Vail Public Library has been extended through Feb. 2 as work continues on a maintenance and remodeling project. The library will reopen at 10 a.m. Tuesday, Feb. 3. Due dates for library materials will continue to be modified to accommodate the closure. Once complete, the remodel will result in more access to the world wide web for reference use; a new location for e-mail users; quieter study areas around the fireplace; more tables for research use; additional seating areas; and improved traffic patterns and entry access, as suggested by comments in the annual Town of Vail citizens survey. Beginning Feb. 3, the library's regular hours will be reinstated: 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Thursday; 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Friday; and 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. L~~ RECYCLED PAPER 1A TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 23, 1998 Contact: Susan Connelly, 479-2140 Community Development Director CONNELLY TO LEAVE POST AS TOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (Vail)--Susan Connelly, director of the Town of Vail Community Development Department, has resigned her post of three years to explore a return to the private sector--and the big city. Connelly, who's returning to her pre-Vail hometown of Chicago next month, will continue with the town in a consulting capacity during the search for a new director. Russell Forrest, the town's senior environmental policy planner, will assume the department's day-to-day responsibilities. Mike Mollica, the department's assistant director, will take over management of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Planning process. Connelly, a former land use and governmental attorney, was hired in 1995 in what Town Manager Bob McLaurin has described as a "non-traditional" appointment in that Connelly's qualifications and experience had occurred outside the ranks of a municipal planning department. "Susan was brought in as a change agent and she has made significant contributions to the organization and the community in that role," said McLaurin. He listed Connelly's work in improving the department's customer service levels, creation of a housing division, her behind-the-scenes involvement in the Vail Tomorrow process, and her initiation (more) RECYCLEDPAPER Connelly/Add 1 and management of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Planning project as top accomplishments. "Susan's passion and enthusiasm for her work enabled her to accomplish so much in so little time," McLaurin said. "She's been a catalyst for creative problem solving throughout the organization and we've been fortunate to keep her here for as long as we have." - With her department now fully staffed following the recent appointment of several key positions, Connelly says it's time to move to the next challenge. "Working for the Town of Vail has been a very positive experience for me," she said. "It has been a wonderful opportunity to both learn a great deal and to make a real contribution. While it is time for me to move on to other opportunities and back to a more urban lifestyle, I will miss my colleagues and friends here and will look forward to returning to Vail often as a visitor. I know that I'm leaving the community in good hands with the strong team at Com Dev." With a staff of 17 and a $1 million operating budget, the Community Development Department is responsible for the town's planning and zoning, building permitting and inspections, environmental policy and health, and affordable housing operations. 01/31/98 SAT 21:12 FAX 9709499227 SHAMROCK ~Town Council Mem 0 001 I)v f ~ Vail oo'di Village Merchant Association PO Box 2135, Vail, CO 81658 NOTES FROM JANUARY 14,1998 WMA MEETING i SLIFER PLAZA: $540,000.00 has been put aside to improve Slifer Plaza, the area in front of the Covered bridge, between the Mountain House and the Austria Haus. The town wants your input as to what should be done in this area. There was a meeting on Monday the 19" at 6:30 at the Ski Museum. If you missed it and want to express your ideas get in touch with someone from the TOV. WMA DUES: Another dues letter has been sent out. If you are not a member yet please pay by February 1St. If you are already a 97/98 member thank you for your support! TIU! This year's sessions were very successful with 570 people attending the front line sessions. There were two more sessions on January 27 b. Invoices have been sent out. If you have not already done so, please make your payment as soon as possible. i THE GUIDE: It's a go. Will be funded by VVMA, LHMA, TOV and NOVUS. CJ Tenner and Bob Bachelor will be getting in touch with you about advertising. Please give them some of your time. This will be an all-inclusive guide for Vail only. There is a March deadline for a June publication. Also, remember that NOVUS' participation in The Guide is contingent upon merchant participation with the Discover card. The VVTCB will be contacting you soon. If you do not presently take the Discover card please do so. NOVUS is contributing $13,500.00 to this effort and we need to show our cooperation and participation. LOADING AND DELIVERY: There have been some problems with vehicles in the Village. ' If you have a problem call dispatch @ 479-2200. If you don't get a satisfactory answer, ask for a supervisor. You can also help by calling the company of the problem vehicle and telling them your concerns. HOUSING: There is a critical shortage of housing in the valley. The Town of Vail has put aside $300,000.00 to look into housing options. The time is right to get involved in this issue and to get things moving through the TOV and the Town Council. The possible use of RETT funds to fiord housing was explored. There is no longer a need to use all of the money collected from RETT funds for open space because most lots of open space land are accounted for. The first priority is toiget some affordable seasonal housing within the Town of Vail limits. Some thought where to build are over the Village parking structure and in the Lionshead redevelopment area. The goal is to have 62% of the people who work in Vail live in Vail, right now only 38% do. On February 3,d at 7:00 there will be a presentation to the Town Council on this issue with time for public input available. Please attend any public meetings concerning housing. A letter is attached. 01/31/98 SAT 21:13 FAX 9709499227 SHAMROCK ~Town Council Mem I M002 Vail noel Village °doa Merchant Association PO Box 2135, Vail, CO 81658 To: VVMA Members From: VVMA Board of Directors i Re: Employee Housing Date: January 30, 1998 At the 01/12/98 meeting, the VVMA discussed employee housing at length. A presentation was made by the Vail Tomorrow Housing Team and three main issues were raised. 1. The type of employee housing needed. 2_ The locations for employee housing. 3 _ The sources of funding for employee housing. Here is a brief synopsis of these discussions. 1. There was a very clear consensus that solving the seasonal housing issue should be the first plan of attack. Very specifically, while no one voiced opposition to another Vail Commons type of project, a solution to seasonal housing is the priority of the Vail Village Merchants. 2_ The locations available were not widely explored. However, the village parking structure was suggested and was received with great support. The conversation was so enthusiastic over that one possibility that we didn't have time to move to another location. But again, there was consensus and that was that the problem has to be solved in the Town of Vail and not, at least initially, with down valley locations. 3. There was a detailed account of the possible use of RETT (Real ' Estate Transfer Tax) for funding. Initially, RETT was created for ` the acquisition and preservation of open space. At that time there were 51 parcels identified as targets for purchase with these funds. Since that time 38 parcels have been acquired with 13 01/31/98 SAT 21:14 FAX 9709499227 SHAMROCK Town Council Mem IM003 i remaining. Of the 13 remaining 8 may be available to the Town of Vail at no cost and 5 have obstacles reducing their risk of development and therefore may not need to be purchased. The end result is that, for all practical purposes, the original goal has been achieved. RETT produces about two million dollars a year in revenue. In addition, $340,000.00 will be available in 1999 as a result of the retiring of the Golf Course debt. There now needs to be a new focus for the direction of these funds in the future and the most obvious and critical is employee housing. The Town Council is about to tackle the employee housing issue. While we would like you all to attend any or all meetings concerning this topic, we realize that this will not happen. The second choice would be to have you all write letters to the Town Council outlining your concerns and providing some suggestions for a solution. We also know many of you do not have time for that either. For these reasons, we have enclosed a letter for your signature. Please feel free to make any changes and add your signature and the name of your business. You can either mail your letter to Vail Town Council 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Or fax it to Vail Town Council 479-2157 Or drop if off at the Daily Grind and we'll get it to the Town Council for you. Your support and attention to this matter will do a great deal to assure the Town Council's awareness of the problem, your concerns, the VVMA'S priorities and the urgency with which we'd all like this problem addressed and resolved. Please take a minute to forward either the enclosed letter or an original version. In addition, the Vail Tomorrow Housing Team will be making a presentation to the Town Council on Tuesday, February 3rd at 7:00. Your attendance at this meeting could greatly influence the direction the Town Council takes on solving the Employee Housing crisis. Please try to attend. 01/31/98 SAT 21:14 FAX 9709499227 SHAMROCK Town Council Mem Q004 I i To: Vail Town Council From: Re: Employee Housing Date: At the 1/12/98 VVMA meeting, there was a lengthy discussion of the current employee housing shortage. While things have reached critical levels this year, it is anticipated that the strain will be more severe next year. With the proposed expansion of Category Three, the 1999 World Championships and the ever increasing competition for employees it would seem that the problem will continue to escalate. We would like to suggest that the solution to the employee housing problem ; will require setting priorities and looking for solutions in new, different and creative ways. At the meeting, it was determined that the housing of seasonal employees is the VVMA's first priority. We need to do this as quickly, cheaply and in the greatest numbers as soon as possible and it has to happen within the Town of Vail. The use of a portion of the RETT funds seem to be on appropriate means for funding employee housing. It is our opinion that an aggressive position must be taken and any help you can give to solving this critical problem will be appreciated. Thank you for your consideration. i r SKI AREA MANAGEMENT Ski* Industry Consoli'edati* o11 or F 0 • inancing 90s Style This expert says the ski industry's mode of consolidation is not the classic type seen in other industries. Rather, it's a new way of doing business in today's market. by Jeffrey A. Harbaugh J.A. Harbaugh & Co. Financial Services Part one of a two part series. Part two will be in the January 1998 issue of Ski Area Managmeent. Well, in the immortal words of Yogi Berra, "It's deja vu all over A Little History, A Few Numbers again." Likewise the automobile industry in the second decade Presently, there are about 800 ski areas in North America, down of this century or the banking business or the funeral home busi- 22 percent from 1,025 in 1985. In total they generated 70 mil- ness or the ski business-industries tend to consolidate, with lion skier days in the 1996-97 season. The 520 areas in the a smaller number of larger players taking an increasing mar- United States generated about 52 million skier days. Those num ket share. bers have been more or less constant for some years. The four So is it now the ski area's turn? But turn for what? Consol- largest resort groups in North America accounted for approx- idation is a generic term and the speed, extent and motivation imately 18 million of those visits during the 1996-97 season, for any industry's consolidation are specific to that industry. or 26 percent. This article has three basic premises. First, that what is going The reason for the decline in the number of ski areas, accord- on in the ski business is not a consolidation in the traditional ing to the preliminary ASC Holdings, Inc. prospectus for its ini- sense w ere t e number of resort-managing companies will be tial public offering, is "technological advances and rising reduced to a comparative handful. That conso i ation, the result infrastructure costs." That is, as the bar of acceptable perfor- ofte transition from growth tom- is already over in the mance got raised, competition got tougher. A smaller moun- ski business. tain may literally not have been able to fit enough people on Second, that consolidation is motivated more by financial its hill to make a profit given the growing investment that had market conditions than by industry changes. To put it another to be made to get them there and offer a satisfying experience. way, low interest rates an ig mar et valuations are followed This was especially true once participant growth had stopped by people doing dea s as sure y as new snow is followed by kids and the main source of new visitors was motivating skiers to sli ~c own i s. change ski areas, with its associated marketing costs. Finally, it is happening, and will continue to happen, in a basi- In other words, this gradual 10-year decline in the number call positive way. That is, I don't expect the landscape to be of ski areas was the result of increasing competitive pressures strewn with the bankrupt remains of resorts that weren't "con- in a maturing market. It's largely over, which isn't to say that solidated." Unlike snowboard companies, mountains don'tjust some more areas won't succumb in the normal course of busi- disappear, nor are new ones created fast enough to matter. ness. The ongoing aggregation of resorts is the result of fear of competitive pressures in the emerging market and offering Finally, you are not as young as you used to be and are begin- prices for ski areas that are hard to turn down combined with ning to think about retirement and estate planning issues. some retirement and estate planning concerns. None of these conditions mean you have to make a deal today or even in the immediate future. But along comes the Business Theory and Reality president of the Mega Resort who offers you nine or ten times in a consolidation associated with a maturing industry, certain your earnings. You scurry off to consult with your financial advi- trends are common. Michael Porter, in his 1980 book "Com- sor. He informs you that a valuation like this for a ski area has- petitive Strategy," discussed these trends. They are summarized n't been seen in a long while and probably won't last long. With in the chart below. visions of the lifestyle to which you plan to grow accustomed dancing in your head, you track down the president of Mega Industry Changes During the and ask, "Where do I sign?." Transition to Maturity It's a done deal and you don't spend much time contem- l. Slowing growth means more competition for market plating why Mega would be willing to pay such a high price. share. To Mega, the price isn't high. It cost $10 million to buy each 2. New products and applications are harder to find. $1 million of earnings. The stockmarket will immediately value 3. Firms are increasingly selling to experienced repeat buy- those earnings at the same price/earnings ratio that Mega had ers who are no longer deciding whether or not to buy the enjoyed before the acquisition. Let's say that's 30. (For refer- product, but choosing among brands. ence, Intrawest's current P/E ratio based on their last twelve 4. Competition often shifts towards a greater emphasis on months of earnings is approximately 21 and Vail's, calculated cost and service. the same way, is 36). That is, they've paid $10 million for some- 5. There is a topping-out problem. Capacity addition must thing and overnight it's valued at $30 million. slow or over-capacity will occur. The implication becomes clearer if viewed from an earnings- In 1 6. Manufacturing, marketing, distribution and selling meth- per-share perspective. Keep in mind that earnings per share are wanl ods are often changing. the most critical factor in driving a stock's price. lifts 7. International competition increases. Mega's stock is trading at $27. Its 12-month trailing P/E is winn 8. Industry profits fall during the transition period. This can 30. It has around 25 million shares of common stock out- pora be temporary or permanent. Capital becomes hard to raise standing and earned $0.65 per share in the fiscal year that just an o when it is needed most. ended, or $16.25 million. The company's market valuation (the seas( "Competitive Strategy" by Michael Porter number of shares outstanding times the price per share) is $675 respc million. to dr These generic trends never precisely fit any industry at a point Mega buys a company with $100 million in revenue that has A in time and the ski area industry is no exception. But most of a net income of $5 million and pays 10 times earnings, or $50 ciam these trends, though they may still be industry factors, have million for that company. It decides to finance the purchase more been around for years with the result that the number of ski of the company with the sale of stock. It sells 1,851,851.85 guidf areas has been reduced by 22 percent. As that occurred, the shares at $27 and raises the $50 million that it pays for the talke industry did not experience the current level of aggregation. company. ident The conclusion, I believe is that consolidation in the ski indus- Following the acquisition, Mega has 26.852 million shares Rand try is not textbook consolidation being driven b emer ing of stock outstanding. Adding the acquired company's earnings Th tren s in a maturing industry. Rather, it is being driven b finan- to its own gives Mega earnings of $21.25 million. Earnings have Stratt cia mar et conditions. Ina word, it's haooenina because it can. increased to $0.79 a share from $0.65 (21.25 divided by wish 26.852). ufact Financial Market Magic woulc Currently, United States Treasury securities with maturities of Public Versus Private a becar 30 years have interest rates around 6.5 percent. Money is cheap Public markets always give a company a higher value than and banks are eager to lend. The price/earnings ratio (P/E) it can realize as a private entity. That is largely because of of the Dow Jones Industrial Average stocks is 20.7 where, his- the liquidity the public markets confer. You can buy and sell torically, it's been around 14. That means people are willing shares in Vail anytime you want and you know what the to pay $20.70 for one dollar's worth of earnings where, his- price will be on a given day. You can't do that with Jack torically, it's been around $14.00. Earnings are being priced son Hole, for example. Even the people who own them can't high in the stock market. Inflation is low, the economy is grow- easily and quickly sell stock for a price that reasonably `i ing and unemployment is down. Everybody is happy. Ain't life reflects their value. Shares in private companies, especially grand? minority shares, sell at large discounts to their value as pub- It is, if you're trying to buy ski areas. Or, for that matter, if licly-traded companies. -JH you're interested in selling one. Let's look at a hypothetical example. You're the owner of Ski So Mega increased its earnings per share because Mega's ' P Daddle Mountain. Though your mountain has been profitable current market valuation allows it to buy earnings for a lot less for years and is running smoothly, you've got some concerns. than the financial markets will value those earnings. Not You're afraid you're going to lose some business to larger resort because the resort did anything better or differently. Theoret In star groups. You don't really want to spend the money you need to ically, this can go on as long as there is a big discrepancy sheave on capital improvements and you aren't sure you can get it. (Continued on page 74) I bar all - CONSOLIDATION 'VE REINVENTED (Continued from page 52) between earnings valuations in private THE HYDRANT! and public markets. In practice, it's not that simple. The higher public market valuation of earnings THE INNOVATIVE HYDRO- OTHER FEATURES: has to be turned into cash flow to support TECH SNOWMAKING HYDRANT EXCLUSIVE VALVE DESIGN the purchase price, capital improvements WILL REDUCE DOWNTIME AND OFFERS PRECISE WATER and working capital requirements. Resorts SAVE YOU MONEY. ALL THE CONTROL WITHOUT can be, and are, purchased for cash, stock, CRITICAL PARTS, INCLU UDING ~tw VIBRATION. assumption of liabilities Or payments DRAIN VALVES, ARE CONTAINED x PATENTED INTERNAL SELF- based on various contingencies. Often, IN A REMOVABLE VALVE ASSEMBLY. THE HTM HYDRANT DRAINING VALVE DESIGN. some combination of two or more of these CAN BE COMPLETELY SERVICED x 2000 PSI INLET PRESSURE have been used. WITHOUT REMOVING IT FROM RATING. THE GROUND, MAKING THE x AVAILABLE IN 2 INCH AND The Art of Real Estate HTM HYDRANT THE BEST 2 INCH SIZES. Then there's the little matter of real LONG-TERM (NVESTMENT ON * 10 STANDARD RISER estate. The art of developing the real THE MARKET. 7. LENGTHS. estate and the ski facilities in a coordi- nated way is critical to maximizing the HYDRO-TECH value of both. But real estate that's HTM going to be turned into condominiums ~e,MANUFACTURING and sold hasn't generated any earnings 1081 RICHTER STREET, KELOWNA, BC, CANADA V1Y 2K5 to put a multiple of value on, though it's TEL. (888) 766-9486 / (250) 868-0767 FAX: (250) 86M717 obviously worth a lot and resort buyers EASTERN U.S. DISTRIBUTOR: SKI-TECH PRODUCTS, P.O. BOX 667, TOLLAND, CT 06084 have paid a lot for it. TEL: (860) 870-7599 FAX: (860) 872-6159 EUROPE: BORER TECHNIK AC, 4227 BUSSERACH, SWITZERLAND How do you value real estate if you're TEL•(061) 785-6111 FAX: (061) 785.6112 buying a resort? Turning raw land into an earning asset, no matter how high the For more information circle No. 055 return, is a big cash drain until the pro- jects can be completed and sold, even A "Sirius" with some units pre-sold. To cut to the CROWD CONTROL chase, the question is whether resort Thank You. . . NETTING aggregators can maintain the cash flow ? they need to improve facilities, build con- we'd like to say a special BARRIER NETTING dos and fund operations until the real thanks to our new clients & LINES estate earnings come on line. If market for choosing Sirius Software ? valuations stay high, interest rates low, and making this our best SAFETY NETTING the economy strong and it snows, year ever! ? prospects are good. If not, well, they're not Crested Butte Resort, CO EVACUATION LINE so good. Heavenly Resort, CA & NV ? Finally, there are anticipated operating Crystal Mountain Resort, WA LIFT TOWER NETS and marketing synergies that are Holiday Valley, NY ? expected to improve the financial results Belleayre Sunburst st Ski Ski Area, NY BLOCKS & HARDWARE of the combined resorts. Are they real? Sunbrea, wi If money wasn't easy to borrow, and Canaan Valley Resort, wV Discovery Basin Ski Area, MT Al1d for the off season: stock valuations weren't high, investments Searchmont Resort, ONTARIO GOLF in facilities would be tougher to make DRIVING RANGE NETS and the current aggregation wouldn't be Ski Ash/and, OR Brundage Ski Area, /D happening-at least not at the prices we Ski Homewood, CA LFS are seeing. Hogadon Ski Area, wY Next issue, the prospectuses of the two SPORT & SPECIALTY public and one about-to-be-public resort s _ ticketing, season pass, operators will be compared to see how photo I. R.F. access y control, bar r coding, rental shop mgt, ski school the deals were done, what the financing . 1~ T7~ l~ J ® I;, reservations, int credit card proceesgsrated ~I I`I TM packages look like, how their strategies Processing, 1 V 1~ Windows interface. Sci:r>° E. compared and where, in general, syner sirius software gies are anticipated. Strategies for resorts s I 8800-nm ~ (800) 426-8860 00.351.0633 that don't expect to be acquired will be discussed. ¦ For more information circle No. 166 For more information circle No. 179 74 SKI AREA MANAGEMENT nq z Jim Lamont-managingeaITOr of Scene a ffi 'Stan Hawes, publisher of "community. The publication The Vail Scene will feature residents alike. the Vail Scene magazine, is distributed through todg articles =which represent The Vail Scene is begin announced this week that ing facilities and `retail out-' how we see ourselves as ning its advertising sales Jim Lamont has accepted lets in the community. well as how the non local program this week with a the position of managing Lamont said that his first : views our behavior. We will four person sales force. editor for the publication. task is to initiate the continue -,to • provide the Sales persons are Mitzi. . r Lamont, formerly the di- magazine's ' winter issue community's guests with the . Johnson, Kathryn Wheeler, wd. ' rector of Community Devel- scheduled for distribution in most complete guide inform Rick Schultz and Andy Kauf- S opment for the Town of Vail, late Novermber. The pub ation to the community. man. The publication is i will assume his duties with lication is being expanded to Improvements will be made a - ~ presently. reviewing the > the-magazine immediately. .-include features that give in the graphic presentation work of local photographers, greater insight into the life of the publication with more graphic designers and au The Vail. Scene, fast pub of the Vail community. Vail' emphasis ' on photography thors. Any person wishing to fished in 1973, is a biannual has come to represent a way. and . the graphic arts. Our submit their work for consi- publcation -oriented -too- of life and place that isas readers will have 'a public- deration shoo uld contact the wars giving the guest and attractive to our; visitors as ration that gives amore com - = Vail Scene off ices by Sept. resident the most complete = our ,dramatic scenery -.and late understanding of what.. Information. on the Vail superb recreation facilities, : Vail offers, to our guests and 29. Jim 'CaMoniw .l 6 1n B uxm an too en roeer tore in Sinowm as s r Sriowmass Center Gen-. Village Market in the Cross and has `.been, '`.able . to Pharmacy and Drug Store, . -"store "manager." Buxman re- " (variety of merchandise and eral Partners, Fritz'Benedict ` roads- Shopping' Center..compete effectively; there Liquor Store, retail :arcade . layed "I'm very, excited brands, We plan on offering and Nick"costa"s,"both of - -Benedict and - Coafes with -the large chains. shops, :'and -a . number ; of. abou# the town of Snowmass choice meats or better and a Aspen,have announced that: stated that 'Buxman had :,The Snowmass'„Center, professional and medical . and extremely pleased to be :large selection of fresh fruits the new;grocery , storelease:i• -been selected to,operate •the Snowmass' first -neighbor offices. f ..a part of that growing and vegetables. Cn,addition, in'tfie hew 45,000 Fsquare 7,000 square foot store over" hood ;shopping center, : is Prior to acquiring community."' ` we- will maintain'. ,a: fresh foot $nowmass Center has anumber'of larger super presently undern;construc Min turn super market in 196;"- "Buxman continued ,"What bakery, oR the_premises" been awarded fo John Bux market "chains due to the 'lion and '-'seheduled f,or "and staving ` the Village we • are trying to - do 'in Buxman is married with man;-president of..Village`._.fact that he_has. been very -complaonon March : 1, Market, "in Vail in "1968, Snowmass' is; fa ''give the ".three:children'and his son, f arket,1ric. of Vail. Buxman. :-successful 'in running' -'a 1979. Present plans call for Buxman Worked for20years Snow-mass ° residents ;"and x'18,-John jr.,' is a "member-of presently operates- Super; similar, size supermarket in the Center to house the for a national chain serving visitors alike a supermarket- the U.S. Ski Team Develop- :Foods inMin#urn.;and #he.A fheresortcommunityofVail town's Post :;Offices Bank; as district. manager and tYPe oAeration with a large ':ment'Squad r. 'Roger B~eh~~ern=am ed l s ;Bank= resident Roger A-YBehler has been, banks are subsidiaries. Colorado's Graduate School data processing... manager 2a member "of the Vail Rotary' _ y 1976 in a small space- on named . president of the Behler - is~ a 'native, of of Banking `He began work- in 1974: In may of 1977;• he Club 'and treasurer of the Walf Street in_Vai1. Its assets Firstbank , of Vail. Behler Wheat Ridge, where he ing part-time as s-a teller and became senior vice pres- -Vail Ski Club. As a'member -recently reached an all time P succeeds Roger- L. Reisher attended high school before a computer: operator;for"the ident of Firstbank of "Vail.,: `of the Colorado High School high of .$26,000,000. Since who-remains as chairman of.; obtaining ,-his - Bachelor.-, of - Firstbank, `of Westland 'in . -.-Behter; his wife,-Lindi, and'" Football Association, he of 1973, it 'has occupied, its the executive committeee Science =degree=,in_, :math- 1970 while he rnras still- in -'their_tliree children;tive at ficiatesat high school foot- . own ,building next to the Reisher is also-president of ematics from the University, school: Betifer assisted with ' Eagle VailHe 'is `'on the ball games in the Denver Chapel on Vail- Road. Plans the Firstbartk =..HOIding ,.-of Colorado in 1971. He also the"opening of the Firstbank board of directors' of the and Vail areas. The first- are now being finalized for a Company of which the First-, has completed a three year of North Longmont in 1972 Rocky Mountain`Automated bank . of Vail opened -with 2,000 square feet addition course-at the University of an t bank of Vail -and ,nine other returned.to.Westland_a5,., Tearing douse Association, w:assets of$325,000 Nov. 30, :to, that building.' 'Too.- to set emptoyee .hous in9. Policy Counc ~I _ 0% Vail CIA A supplemental appropri- ployee housing that VA and He said this area could be this possibility with the ilicy is established. District assessments. ation from -the general fund the Town is exploring. used for multiple purpose, Forest Service, to be certain He said Council is having He said that since the d was passed,-by Vail Town Marshall said the Lions providing additional parking that the situation met VA's a special meeting Tuesday assessments were'based on % Council Tuesday night for Head day parking tot has which is needed, and em- . Parking requirements ac -at 8 a .m. to discuss a policy . zoning and the ultimate use $631000 about-400 parking spaces. -ployee housing -could be cording to its permit on gross -residential .floor of the property, several of The ordinance provides With the addition of a deck, built over-the parking area, The Council instructed area and they could develop the property owners effect- Fit $1,500 Jo Ski Club Vail; it could park about 1,000 with parking provided. the staff to work with VA on a policy on housing at that ed by the downzoning ordi- $8,000 for cloud seeding for cars. One possibility; he said, -the feasability of such a joint time. have requested a enture, and to also explore reduction have the original 1978-79,; $20,000 for Lions- He said the construction would be for VA to build the v nances . > 'the Bighorn Sandstone bus park-, , with how it could best be 'done. Deputy Town Manager assessment. Head Malls and $20,000 to would not be as costly as the parking and housing g Mayor Rod Slifer said it, Stan Bernstein reported to According to the report, Transportation Center the Town of: Vail, issuin system, ing 'because one level-'of- industrial revenue bonds, was his feeling, and he the Council thatthe various g downzonin and hazard or= 18 property owners. are ,:'At the afternoon ` work parking would be from the and when completed VA believed that 'of Council's, g affected and the 'reduction session, Jack Marshall; pres Frontage Road level, and the would lease' it to the Town. that no ' endorsement for dinances -recently He said it would be revenue bonds for any have effected some proper- in _ assessment would be jclent of, oci second lower adopted $20,299, Vail Assates, or level, would .discussed a plan for, em be on the "bus road" `level _ necessary for VA to explore builder . be made ; until a ties in the Bighorn Paving LH as ke{ 1 vva nts n ew em loyee tax, c red it extended yen Floyd. K.,._ Haskell-.. The beauty of the jobs limit of 12 new jobs.-The bill 'people to work in the private cation and extension of the including Sen. -Paul Laxalt has introduced =-x credit is its simplicity. It also .would simplify pro 'sector," hei said. `-`When we present program is again a (R-Nev.), Sen. Thomas .,legislation '-that would, ex= reduires absolutely, no.new`. cedures for determining it a create jobs 'in the private top- priority: McIntyre (D-N.H.), n. Haskell said he hopes the Lloyd Bentsen (D Tex,), Sen. - ( H } , tend 'for two years -a pro- pro business .is eligible.for the sector we reduce payments Silrms, no certification gram granting tax;credits^to :ess and no identification of. credit and would lower the 'from Spark . Matsunaga DA the federal treasury for bill will, be included in tax; Sen. Jake Garn (R-Utah), small b"inesses when they. new employees," <HaskeU limitation on the total pos- unemployment benefits and J,gislation currently Pend- ck hire new'empioyees.' saO. 'With, simple arith-.' Bible tax . credit from -other social ser)ices and i in the Senate Finance Sen Richard Bicker and en ow r~.ac. using figures which $100,000 to $25,000. increase federal - tax Committee. He said that a ell, (Ni Con . Haskell, -who in r1976 eal are already on hand for the. Haskell said that accord- revenues.." because =of tha, strong ti II i (RH e "Most.im ortant,.we are sponsored legislation cyea:= puroose of calculating un ' P partisan support for the I, hearri gs this ! summererto ing to the National Alliance and the strong support it,is ing the lobs tax-credit, skid .Ampoyment taxes, a buss for Business, small business 'creating meaningful, perma determine if changes in the the program has beer 'ooth ness6erson : can calculate nent jobs- for persons who receiving from ,small busy "effective and popul-.`: This accounted for almost 80 per . program should be included the credit infive minutes. cent of the new jobs created otherwise. might not -have ness organizations,-'.,he . is . in.the legislation to extend is the only. ; govt r omen( Ha'skell's bill, cosponsored in the past 10 years. such opportumties~ , he said. Optimistic that the Senate the program; He -said the will adopt his proposal. program was simplified fol program aimed of spurring. by eight ..other Senators, Haskell said adoption of w - employment in the private WOUId extend the, -current ''The'only„long term SOW' the jobs tax credit was a, top , : sector; and it is clear that it tax credit of $2,100 for each tion' to our nation's unem priority of small businesses Eight Senators have co (owing suggestions from has worked. new employee hired ~'up to-a ployment problems is to put `last year, and that simplifi sponsored the - legislat?on small business witnesses. Tf~eos looks foreword to general election campaign. , counties. =gave . him over- era? campaign work provide them with maximum election, and to-express his There: is Distrc g i t' 57th le islative , -candidate assistance `they badly need s appreci ation to ,compared with-,haying the House seat; as he surveyed whelming majorities The legislative ncere the resultspt.last Tuesday's in extending his thanks to -said that the vote in'two of in -the _ state General Susan Milhoan, his primary confidence, of hundreds . of _ i the primar ersori °tupoorting 'the"counties mostaffected Assembly. opponent, for her kind offer and neighTiors.' every p y:. Theos_said That was the statement . Theos noted that neigh- him, Theos said he can now by serious growth impact he particularly of full cooperation in the made by Nick Theos, Re burs"who know him best in eagerly anticipate two problems revealed, people wanted to- ;thank al[ those general election campaign. - W, .,{+ilihi to ..,L.n ..•n 1:aa rlir®rtlti for IS c . T CL C,a ) rEAST VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. Officers: President - Bob Galvin Secretary - Gretta Parks Treasurer - Patrick Gramm Directors - Judith Berkowitz - Dolph Bridgewater - Ellie Caulldns - Ron Langley - Bill Morton - Connie Ridder To: Mayor Rob Ford and Town Council Members From: Jim Lamont, Executive Directors Date: January 30, 1998 RE: Loading and Delivery/Golden Peak Traffic Issues At the January 20, 1998, Town Council work session, the Council agreed that until a pub- lic hearing could be conducted at its next regularly scheduled evening meeting on February 3, 1998, the Council would withhold a decision regarding the continuation of a "manned checkpoint" that limits access to Hanson Ranch Road at Vail Valley Drive during the morning and afternoon peak traffic periods. The Police Department at the January 20, 1998, work session recommended that the manned checkpoint be abandoned due to its estimated $100 per day cost, and the inconve- nience to departmental personnel to staff the checkpoint due to a manpower shortage. The Homeowners Association has communicated with representatives of property owners in the neighborhoods surrounding the Golden Peak Ski Base regarding the Holiday Season traffic control program. Effected properties are adjacent to Vail Valley Drive and include neighborhoods being served by feeder roads, Hanson Ranch Road, Gore Creek Drive and Mill Creek Circle. Property Owners surrounding the Christiania Parking Lot (P-3 & J Sites) reported a sig- nificant decrease in illegal parking, traffic congestion and a marked increase in pedestrian safety. No noticeable difference was reported by property owners on Gore Creek Drive, east of Vail Valley Drive. Illegal parking and ski drop-off/pick-up traffic increased on Mill Creek Circle and on Vail Valley Drive at the Children's Center Parking Lot and Golden Peak Shuttle Bus Stop. The Golden Peak North Skier Drop-Off/Pick-up Parking Lot was not being properly operated to serve its intended purpose. The Rams Horn Lodge experienced some minor inconvenience from illegal ski drop-off/pick-up traffic. It is the recommendation of the Homeowners Association, that the Hanson Ranch Road "manned checkpoint" be continued through the February and March peak ski season. Further, it is recommended that enforcement be increased for the no skier drop-off/pick-up and no parking zones on Mill Creek Circle and Vail Valley Drive, during the morning and afternoon peak traffic periods. Finally, Vail Associates must be required to operate the Golden Peak North Skier Drop- Off/Pick-Up Parking Lot at its full turnover capacity during morning and afternoon peak traffic hours. The Homeowners Association emphasizes that the North Skier Drop-Off/Pick-Up Parking Lot was not being properly operated during the Holiday Season test period for the Hanson Ranch Road manned checkpoint. As a consequence, the intended purpose of the North Skier Drop- Off/Pick-Up Parking Lot, in the approved Golden Peak Development Plan, relieving surrounding neighborhoods from the impact of drop-off/pick-up traffic and illegal parking, has not been put into effect or adequately tested. During the Golden Peak Redevelopment planning and approval process, it was acknowl- edged by all parties, that there would be a period of time where increased enforcement would be Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (970) 827-5680 Message/FAX: (970) 827-5856 EVHA/TOV/TC: Loading and Delivery/Golden Peak Traffic 1/39/1998 necessary in the residential neighborhood surrounding the Golden Peak Ski Base, to induce skier traffic to use the new drop-off/pick-up facility. The Homeowners Association considers the Han- son Ranch Road manned checkpoint and increased traffic enforcement on Mill Creek Circle and Vail Valley Drive necessary to induce skiers to use the new Golden Peak North Lot Drop- Off/Pick-Up facilities. The issue of traffic congestion on Vail Valley Drive, illegal parking and skier drop- off/pick-up traffic was and remains a primary concern of property owners in the neighborhoods surrounding the Golden Peak Ski Base. If the volume of skier drop-off/pick-up traffic and illegal parking in these residential neighborhoods is not constrained, it should be expected that property owners in these neighborhoods will insist that the North Golden Peak North Drop-Off/Pick-Up Parking Lot be removed and all streets in the surrounding neighborhoods be included in the Vail Village limited access pedestrian district. This perspective was vigorously and repeatedly ex- pressed by property owner representatives during the Golden Peak redevelopment planning and approval process. cc: Bob Galvin and Board of Directors Golden Peak President's Advisory Committee Interested Parties 2 Susanne L. Bain CogRailway1870s- 201JSA - 12039 N. 60th PI. • Scottsdale, Az 85254 Phone/Fax (602) 596-8040.:v V"~ 'T l z ov4,nC6jjn6j-f- 75 South R ointagge lKoad CO 81657 1 i # # a; g = p # ! pp p e g j #;?F?##k~2kEI#£#£t#i£~###Ya#### fill ##I£ki.F#~k##£?~k~#$£~£I#:# Susanne and Kevin Bain . Are Pleased to announce The Publication of Susanne's book, Home Schooling A Better Education for Your Chiid a 200-page comprehensive guide to Traditional Education through Home Schooling now available from Blue Bird Publishing 2266 South Dobson Road #275 Mesa, Arizona 85202 (602) 831-6063 or fax (602) 831-1829 E-mail: bluebirdCbluebirdl.com Website: http://www.bluebirdl.com $14.95 plus $3.00 shipping *Please request signed copy if desired. SEIV~ BY: 1-26-98 ; 9:40AM ;VAIL VALLEY FNDATION-, 3034792157;# 2/ 2 Tentative Schedule .1998 BARXESAt1IWCANSKI CLASSIC 7~~sday, March s 3:00pm Golden Peak Stadium-Vail Challenge Sid Race 4:00pm Bella Riva - Vail Challenge Party WAdtresdaY,lArc* 4 8:00am Lodge at Vail Registration Opens 7:00pm Bella Riva - Vail Welcome Party 7"hursdaY, March 5 13:30am Golden Peak Stadium-Vail Tag Iieuer Legends Giant Slalom 12:30pm Golden Peak Stadium-Vail Tag Heuer Legends Giant Slalom Fu ds 2:00pm Olden Peak Stadium-Vail Awards 3:00pm Golden Peak Stadium-Vail Ford Cup Handicapping 7:00pm Lodge at Vail Ford Cup Team Party Biday, Marsh G 9:30am Golden Peak Stadium-Vail Visa Ford Cup - Race Day #1 2:00pm Golden Peak Stadium-Vail Future Legends Race 7:00pm Lodge at Vail Legends Banquet Satu~d8y. A~larrh 7 9:30am golden Peak Stadium-Vail Visa Lord Cup - Face Day #2 2:30pnt Golden Peak Stadium-Vail Visa Ford Cup Finals 3:30pm Golden Peak Stadium-Vail Visa Ford Cup Awards 7:00pm Vail Village Legends Bib Pick/Street Party Sunday, March 8 9:30am Golden Peak Stadium-Vail Tag Heuer Legends Downhill Training 11:OOam Golden Peak Stadium-Vail Tag Heuer Legends Downhill Race 2:00pm Golden Peak Stadium-Vail Awards 3:0Opm Dodge at Vail Tea Dance updated IfM98 SFNT BY : 1-26-98 ; 9:40AM ; YA I L VALIEY FiVDAT I O1V- 3034792157;# 1/ 2 ~ vAIL VALLEY FOUNDATION F.AX phonc 970-949-1999; fax 970-949-9265 TM •1O: Christine Andersott 4'OMPANY: Town of Vail tRUM: I~nxalic Hill lsom RE: 1398 Ford Cup Race Spot UATE: Januury 23, 1:M TOTAI. !'AGES TO t'OLLOW: 1 FAX: 479-2157 Per your agreemem regarding sponsorship of the 1998 Ford Cup races, you are entitled to two race spots and an altecnate. I have enclosed a Schedule of Events for your review. Please note that your raccr must be prescnt on both Ford Cup race days. We look forward to yous participation in this year's event_ Sincerely, 41 The Vail Valley Foundation Yes, l will use my Ford Cup race spots. My racers' names are: Age Age _ qge _ (Atternale) No, I will not use my Ford Cup race spots Pi.EASE FAX 1'IIIS FORM BACK W1TH YOUR REPLY TO 970-949-9265 BY FEBRUARY 13, 1948. ~ P.O, Boz 309 •Yail, CAando 81658 •(970) 949-1999 • Fax (970) 949-9265 *A Projccc of s6e Vail Yalky Foundadoa From: T.J. NOONAN To: Jim Lamont Date: 213198 Time: 11:59:36 AM Page 1 of 1 Memo Regarding Traffic control and parking issues surrounding.Golden Peak J To Mayor Rob Ford and Town Council Members ( From T. J. Noonan, Manager O Date/Time 2/3/98 at 11:31 AM Subject Personal observations z W The following is a brief outline of the continued problems with traffic control and parking at Golden Peak Ski Club Vail continues to be a problem as cars are parking illegally on Vail Valley Drive, when the Police do not enforce the rules cars are r n continuing to pick up and drop passengers. 0 During Christmas I witnessed cars parked illegally on the sidewalk next to the Children's ski school, on one occasion the Town Traffic control vehicle was parked on the sidewalk This will ruin the sidewalk in a very short time. Cars were backed up at the Children's center obstructing traffic on Vail w Valley Drive during brief periods, during the Christmas rush. Our driveway is used continually as a turnaround point for Ski Club Vail cars and others that are dropping off skiers. I have noted the skier drop-off parking at Golden Peak has many vehicles parking for a long duration of time, why? hope that these brief observation are helpful for further action to resolve the traffic issues. Fax 02/03/98 TUE 11:32 FAX 11002 VINCENT I DUNCAN 23M SOUTH TOWER 60017TH STREET DENVER, COLORADO MW (303) 623-4158 February 3, 1998 Mayor Rob Ford, Town Council and Town Council Members 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Gentlemen: The East Village Homeowners Association, Inc., has been studying the traffic control and parking issues in neighborhoods surrounding Golden Peak. Their recommendation is to continue experimenting with Checkpoint Charlie and the "manned checkpoint" that limits access to Hanson Ranch Road at Vail Valley Drive. I am a homeowner at 1418 Vail Valley Drive. I agree and support the position of the East Village Homeowners Association, Inc. Very truly yours, Vincent I Du an Faxed: 213198 Q 11:30 a.m. Town Council: (970) 479-2157 Homeowners Association: (970) 827-5856 SENT BY:JACK MORTON COMPANY 2- 3-98 1:41 MAIN FAX J MORTON 3034792157;# 1/ 1 WILLiAX LMORTON February 3,1998 Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Co 81657 VIA FAX: (970) 479-2157 Dear Mayor and Town Council Members: I wish to indicate my vigorous support for the East Village Homeowners Association's position regarding traffic and parking in the neighborhoods surrounding the Golden Peak Ski Base Area. The checkpoint on Hanson Ranch Road was very effective in reducing traffic near the Mill Creek Court Building, where I am an owner. We wish to see it continued through the ski season. Si ncerely, William Morton WM/bj 02/02/1998 11:04 19704766823 VAIL SKI & BOOT REPR PAGE 01 013. U3 SAL I i • j' To: Vail Town Council T 254 E. WALL $T From: P.0- BOX Boa VAIL, COLORADO 81858 Re: Employee Housing 476-2M Date: At the 1/12/98 VVMA meeting, there was a lengthy discussion of the current employee housing shortage. While things have reached critical levels this year, it is anticipated that the strain will be more severe next year. With the proposed expansion of Category Three, the 1999 World Championships and the ever increasing competition for employees it would seem that the problem will continue, to escalate. We would like to suggest that the solution to the employee housing problem will require setting priorities and looking for solutions in new, different and , creative ways. At the meeting, it was determined that the housing of seasonal employees is the VVMA's first priority. We need to do this as quickly, cheaply and in the greatest numbers as soon as possible and it has to happen within the Town of Vail. The use of a portion of the RETT fiords seem to be on appropriate means for funding employee housing. It is our opinion that an aggressive position must be taken and any help you can give to solving this critical problem will be appreciated. Thank you for your considerat• FEB-02' 98 (SAT) 16:26 P.001 Essex. Corporation KEVIN E. CROWE CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER February 2, 1998 Town of Vail Town Council Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Sirs: As a property owner in Vail since 1968, I was very disturbed to learn about the new plans to route buses through Lionshead Plaza and to bui Id seven and eight story buildings at the foot of the mountain- T understand that other people share my strong negative opinion of bus traffic through Lionshead, and so I will focus more here on the building height and density issue. I realize there is a need to build something in place of the old gondola building, but we do not need to build a "concrete wall" between Lionshead Plaza and the mountain. It would do very little for the aesthetics of Lionshead, and certainly would increase the traffic density and probably block the lovely views of Inany loyal and dedicated residents and investors in die Lionshead area- Please do not let the Master Plan turn Lionshead into the site of seven and eight story concrete towers, just to satisfy the economic needs of some developers who probably don't live there. It would forever change the look and character of that area that has been so well received by visitors and residents. Sincerely, cc- Vail Daily Newspaper 825 THIRD AVENUi- • NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10022 212-371-0303 SHAMKO(:I( J.T. 004 C. , rC. To. Vail Town Council From. Re: Employee Dousing Date: At the 1/12/98 VVMA meeting, there was a lengthy discussion of the current employee housing shortage. While things have reached critical levels this year, it is anticipated that the strain will be more severe next year. With the proposed expansion of Category Three, the 1999 World Championships and the ever increasing competition for employees it would seem that the problem will continue to escalate. We would lice to suggest that the solution to the employee housing problem will require setting priorities and looking for solutions in new, different and creative ways. At the meeting, it was determined that the housing of seasonal employees is the VVMA's first priority. We need to do this as quickly, cheaply and in the greatest numbers as soon as possible and it has to happen within the Town of Vail. The use of a portion of the RETT funds seem to be on appropriate means for funding employee housing. It is our opinion that an aggressive position must be taken and any help you can give to solving this critical problem will be appreciated. Thank you for your consideration. J I ~ I 10-d 81-66-6LV-OL6-1 doyS AOvd PUV 628 d5£=I0 86-ZO-q0A 2-02-1998 8:49PM FROM FINISHING TOUCH/VAIL 1 970 476 7944 P_1 VV ...iV1.11 !A1A aeVo:aa«r anA"UOLA 68a 411a Wilson 14004 Xc ; ~e- To: Vail Town Council Flom.: .rrY! Re: Employee Housing Hate: At the 1/12/98 VVMA meeting, there was a lengthy discussion of the current employee housing shortage. i While dings have reached criVcal levels this year, it is anticipated that the str& will be more severe next year. With the proposes expansion of Category Three, the 1999 World Chainpionships and the ever increasing competition for employees it would seem that the problem will continue to escalate. We would like to suggest that the solution to the aWloyee housing pmbiem will require setting priorities and looking for solutions in new, different and creative ways. At the meeting, it was determined that the housing of seasonal employees is the VVMA's first priority. We need to do this as quickly, cheaply and in the greatest numbers as soon as possible and it has to happen within the Town of Vail. The use of a portion of the RETT funds seem to be on appropriate means for funding employee housing. It is our opinion that an aggressive position must be taken and any help you can give to solving this critical problem will be appreciated. Thank you for your consideration. , 2-02-1998 9:07PM FROM COLTON 201 467 9716 P_1 ~e ~ r11 I N T E R MEMO 0 F F I C E To: Town Council, Vail Colorado Fax: 970-479-2157 From: Stewart and Judith Colton Subject: Town Council Meeting, February 3, 1998 Date: February 2, 1998 We are property owners at 303 E Gore Creek Drive, and we agree with the position taken by the East Village Homeowners Association, Inc. re: Traffic Control surrounding Golden Peak. We urge the council to consider the issues raised by the Association for both congestion and safety reason and vote as they recommend. cc: Homeowners Association Fax: 970-827-5856 To: Vail Town Council Members Feb. 2, 1998 Rob Ford, Mayor Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Pro-tem Mike Arnett Bob Armour Kevin Foley Michael Jewett Sybill Navas From: Ellie and George Caulkins 304 Mill Creek Circle Vail 81657 (476-5310) RE: Traffic control/Parking Issues surrounding Golden Peak area Thank you for addressing the issue of illegal parking and skier drop- off/pickup. We support the position of the East Village Homeowners Association and request that you continue to monitor the Hanson Ranch Road checkpoint. Additionally I would hope that you would recommend having a CEO or CSO check on the "No Skier Drop-off- No Parking except for Residents and Guests" signs in and at the entrance to Mill Creek Circle. They are either placed or worded ineffectively, as we continue to have a.m. and p.m. problems. We appreciate the new entrance to Mill Creek Circle and believe the perception that its narrower width makes it somewhat less attractive to illegal parking and drop-off/pickup. FEB, 1.1998 9:12AN CASTLE REALTY GROUP NO.598 P.1 ALL SEASONS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 434 GORE CREEK DRIVE C~ VAII., COLORADO 81657 (970) 476-5641 (970) 476,0470 FAX i l~+ederick Wyman II, President ~ 93 Whippoorwill Road (914) 273-3145 Armonk, NV 10504 (914) 273.5118 Fax TO: VAIL TOWN COUNCIL FROM: ALL SEASONS CONDOMINIUM ASSOC. (Fred Wyman Pres.) DATE: l/1/98 RE: TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PARKING ISSUES GOLDEN PEAK The All Seasons Condominium Association Board supports the position outlined in the East Village Homeowners Association, Inc. memo to Mayor Rob Ford and Town Council Members dated 1/30/98_ The All Seasons parking lot has been used not-only as a pcdcstrian access way to the Golden Peak Ski Facility but also as a skier drop off area. The incidence of illegal parking in our lot has increased and people wanting to use our lot are frequently vandalizing our gate. We encourage the Town Council and 'Wail Associates to tape whatever actions are necessary to relieve the neighborhood surrounding Golden Peak of these traffic and parking issues. CC: East village Homeowners Assoc, Chritiania Inc. l 02-01-1998 11:59AM FROM PARKER TO 19704792157 P.01 FAX COVER SHEET Date: 2/1/98 Sheet 1 of 1 FAX TO: Mayor and Town Council FAX No.: 970-479-2157 FROM: Foxhail A. Parker FAX No.: 914-763-8306 Owner, Unit No. 9 Phone No.: 914-763-3856 Villa Valhalla Condominiums SUBJECT: Loading and Delivery/Golden Peak Traffic Issues I am writing to endorse the recommendations of the East Village Homeowners Association on this subject conveyed in Bob Galvin's memorandum to you dated January 30, 1998. To complete the "experiment" previously agreed to, the Hanson Ranch Road check point must be continued, while the Golden Peak North Skier Drop-Off/Pick-Up Parking Lot is operated properly, long enough to determine whether this facility will relieve excessive traffic and illegal parking in the affected residential neighborhoods- I thank you for your attention to our concerns- Copy: Jim Lamont TOTAL P.01 FEB- 1-98 SUN 12:09 PM 24747842642 FAX NO. 303 476 0470 P. 1 EVHA/TOV/TC: Loading and Delivery/Golden Peak Traffic 1/39/1998 necessary in the residential neighborhood saurounding the Golden Peak Ski Base, to induce slier traffic to use the new drop-offlpick-up facility. The Homeowners Association considers the Han- son Ranch Road manned checkpoint and increased traffic enforcement on Mill Creek Circle and Vail Valley Drive necessary to induce skiers to use the new Golden Peak North Lot Drop- Off/Pick-Up facilities. The issue of traffic %naestion on Vail Valley Drive, parking and slier drop- offl .pick-u traffic was ppd remains a g~Marv concern of owners in the neighborhoods ngroua ft tine Olden Peak Sid Base If the volume of skier drop-off7pick im traft and illegal parkins in these residential neighborhoods is not constrained. it should be exaected that property owners is these 2Mhborhoods will insist that the North Golder! Peak North 'ck-U Nadm Lot be removed and all streets in tats MLTKmdmz m&wboQ& be irtcl ed in the VW Vii &e limited access vedestrian district. This perspective was vigorously and repeatedly cx pressed by property owner reprewntatives during the Golden Peak redevelopment planting and approval process. cc: Bob Galvin and Board of Directors Golden Peak President's Advisory Cmwittee Interested Parties Past-It" Fax Note 7671 I $ vs;r,~ to L -r Co.IDOPL co t 1. Phone # Phone. FexM .a 1 ,.~~a~ Fax# 7~/~`f yb I 2 From: N.J. Nicholas Jr To: Vail Town Council Date: 2/1198 Time: 18.20:19 Page 1 of 1 Lynn & Nick Nicholas 303 Gore Creek Drive #14 P.O. Box 3163 Vail, Colorado 81658 February 1, 1998 To: Mayor Rob Ford and Town Council Members From: Lynn and Nick Nicholas Re: February 3rd agenda item on Golden Peak traffic issues We live on Gore Creek Drive west of Vail Valley Drive and are writing to support the position of the East Village Homeowners Association on the question of the manned checkpoint that limits access to Hanson Ranch Road. The "experiment" that you conducted during the Christmas holidays was extraordinarily effective in limiting skier drop-off in my neighborhood. The results were obvious to all of us who live there: considerably less traffic congestion and enhanced pedestrian safety and pleasure. We note that the Town Staff recommends that the Hanson Ranch Road check point be discontinued "because its limited benefit is not cost effective". Please - let's not abandon the concept until its been given a fair test. We understand that during the holidays, VA's management of the North Skier Drop-off/Pick- up Parking Lot was in a "start-up" phase and probably inadequate. Not surprisingly, this caused a number of problems in the areas surrounding Golden Peak. We believe that with time, VA will operate the North Lot far more effectively and with beneficial consequences for the neighborhood and for skiers who wish to park. Thank you for considering our views. Respectfully, s/Lynn & Nick Nicholas FEB- 1-98 SUN 7:06 PM JON & MARY SHIRLEY FAX NO, 425 454 8962 P. 1 FAX TRANSMITTAL. FROM JON AND MARY SHIRLEY 366 Hanson Ranch Rd. Vail, CO 81657 FAX: 970-476-6053 PHONE: 970-476-5948 Date: 02/01/98 PAGE 1 of 1 To: Vail Town Council I wish to indicate my strong support for the East Village Homeowners Association position regarding traffic and parking in the neighborhoods around the Golden Peak Ski Base Area. The checkpoint on Hanson Ranch Rd. was very effective in reducing traffic in front of our property and we wish to see it continued through the ski season. Very truly yo , Jon A. Shirley i -PROM Dr. L. M. Edwards PHONE NO. : 516 759 6247 Jan. 31 1998 11: 04PM P1 FAX to VAIL TOWN COUNCIL: 970-479-2157 Lee M. Edwards President, Texas Townhouse Association PO Box 489 Locust Valley, NY 11560 phone: 516-671-8857 fax: 516-759-6247 1/31/98 To the attention of the Town Council: On behalf of the Texas Townhouse Association, I recommend that the Hanson Ranch Road "manned checkpoint" be continued through the February and March peak ski season. Enforcement should be increased for the no skier drop-off/pick-up and no parking zones on Mill Creek Circle and Vail Valley Drive, during the morning and afternoon peak traffic periods. Finally, VA must be required to operate the Golden Peak North Skier Drop- off/Pick-up parking lot at its full turnover capacity during morning and afternoon peak traffic hours. If some sort of compliance is not reached then I support the suggestion of the EVHA that all streets in the surrounding neighbourhoods of Golden Peak be included in the Vail Village limited access pedestrian district. Yours sincerely., Dr. Ladc'~~dwards President, Texas Townhouses cc. EVHA