HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-04-14 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
I
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1998
2••00 P.M. AT TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS
REVISED AGENDA
I
NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to
determine at what time Council will consider an item.
1. PEC Review. (15 mins.)
I 2. A work session with the Councii to discuss proposed alternatives and
Mike Mollica concepts relating to height, density and mass of buildings for the
I Dominic Mauriello Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. (1 hour, 30 mins.)
Ethan Moore-Design Workshop
Dave Kenyon-Design Workshop
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Discuss issues of building height,
density and mass in a work session format. Provide feedback and
direction to staff and project consultants, as necessary.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Town is currently involved in Stage 3
of the Master Planning Process for Lionshead. Stage 3 will determine the
regulatory framework for the height, density and mass of buildings within
i the Lionshead Master Plan study area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review and provide direction on potential
alternatives. Please see the two staff memorandums, dated March 23,
1998 and March 9, 1998, for more detailed information.
3. Distribution of dwelling units at the Red Sandstone Employee Housing
Andy Knudtsen Development. (45 mins.)
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Town Council has provided general
~ direction to the staff concerning the priority group of employees targeted
for the sales of the Red Sandstone units. Providing direction, based on
the policy questions outlined in the attached memo, will enable the staff
to refine the method for distributing the units.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide direction to staff to
formalize the criteria for buyer selection for this development.
RECOMMENDATION: Please see attached memo.
4. Mayors and Managers Update. (10 mins.)
Rob Ford
5. Information Update. (10 mins.)
6. Council Reports. (10 mins.)
7. Other_ (10 minc 1
I 8. Adjoumment - 5:10 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, 4/21/98, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 4/28/98, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 4/21/98, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
I I I I I I I
bign ianguage mterpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice
or 479-2356 TDD for information.
C:WGENDAWS
2
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1998
2:00 P.M. AT TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to
determine at what time Council will consider an item.
1 . PEC Review. (15 mins.)
2• A work session with the Council to discuss proposed alternatives and
Mike Mollica concepts relating to height, density and mass of buildings for the
Dominic Mauriello Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. (2 hrs.)
Ethan Moore-Design Workshop
Dave Kenyon-Design Workshop
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Discuss issues of building height,
density and mass in a work session format. Provide feedback and
direction to staff and project consultants, as necessary.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Town is currently involved in Stage 3
of the Master Planning Process for Lionshead. Stage 3 will determine the
regulatory framework for the height, density and mass of buildings within
the Lionshead Master Plan study area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review and provide direction on potential
alternatives. Please see the two staff memorandums, dated March 23,
1998 and March 9, 1998, for more detailed information.
3• Distribution of dwelling units at the Red Sandstone Employee Housing
Andy Knudtsen Development. (45 mins.)
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Town Council has provided general
direction to the staff concerning the priority group of employees targeted
for the sales of the Red Sandstone units. Providing direction, based on
the policy questions outlined in the attached memo, will enable the staff
to refine the method for distributing the units.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide direction to staff to
formalize the criteria for buyer selection for this development.
RECOMMENDATION: Please see attached memo.
4• Mayors and Managers Update. (10 mins.)
Rob Ford
5• Information Update. (90 mins.)
6• Council Reports. (10 mins.)
7• Other. (10 mins.)
8• Adjournment - 5:40 p.m:
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
I I I I I I (
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 4/21/98, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 4/28/98, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 4121198, BEGINNI{dG A7 7:00 P.M. fN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
I I I I I I I
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice
or 479-2356 TDD for information.
C:IAGENDA.WS
2
COUNCIL FOLLOW-UP
TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOWUP SOLUTIONS
~
1998
2124197 VAIL PASS BIKE PATH LARRY: Since the west side of the path is in Region 1(John Larry is preparing a letter to John Unbei jweust, Region I Director for
Kevin Foley Unbeuweust), perhaps a different strategy can be worked CDOT, re: the needed repairs on the Vz il Pass bike path. He will provide
out to repair the numerous potholes, etc. Cooperating an info. copy of this letter to you.
parties: Trails Committee from fhe ECRTA, TOV
commitment of equipment/operators, and CDOT.
3/10/98 VTRC CARBON MONOXIDE BOB/SUSIE C: A low level indication of CO has been found We are gathering information and will pr3vide that to you at the next work
Mike Arnett at the Village parking structure. session update re: what steps have bee i taken to this point and what steps
need to be taken, is any. We have mon tored this before and the results
have indicated that the levels are well bE>lovy those that pose a health risk
to humans.
3124198 COUNCIL STORAGEIOFFICE PAM: Is there an area in the municipal building where Staff will poll Council members as to act aal need and make appropriate
SPACE Council members can store materials, have access to a arrangements
Sybill Navas phone, and arrange meetings?
4l7/98 CITY MARKET SIGN Although this DRB approval was not appealed by the Town
Mike Jewett Council, staff will bring back information re: the sign's
conformance to current standards.
417198 HB 1200 STATUS PAM: Pam to contact Sam Mamet re: "next steps" Frank Johnson has already talked w/Sari Mamet. Our plan of attack is to
get the amendment eliminated. Frank h. is talked w/both Jack and Sam
and they feel the bill "would have passec" without the amendment. It
appears four of the six Conference Cominittee members agree. They will
discuss again this next week and if all gces as "expected," the revised bill
(our original version) will go back to the ;;enate floor to be re-ratified.
Frank will kee us u dafed.
Apri19, 1998, Pa;e 1
4/7198 EAST VAIL INTERCHANGE LIGHTS CHARLIE O./JIM H.: the lights are out. Please contact We've already notified the maintenance Jistrict with CDOT to get this
Mike Jewett CDOT or repairlreplace if they're our responsibility. repaired. Terry out of the Eagle office irformed staff that it is a problem
Sybill Navas they have been working on and that it bE+longs to a private contractor.
There is apparently a broken circuit and they are waiting for the ground to
thaw out ta proceed with a solutian. The i will get to it as soon as they can.
It has been out for at least 3 months. Wa'll keep on it.
4/7198 GORE CREEK PROMENADE RE- TODD 0: Establish schedule and notification of surrounding
SOD neighborhood for this project, keeping in mind the Jeep
UVhitewater Kayaking event held Memorial Day weekend,
5123.
Apri19,1998, Pige 2
~
Updated 4/14 9am
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, April 13, 1998
FINAL AGENDA
NEW MEMBER ORIENTATION - Brian Doyon and Tom Weber 11:00 am
Project Orientation /LUNCH - Community Development Department 12:00 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Greg Moffet Ann Bishop
John Schofield
Galen Aasland
Diane Golden
Brian Doyon
Tom Weber
Site Visits : 1:00 pm
1. City Market - 2107 N. Frontage Road
2. Watkins - 1799 Sierra Trail •
3. Quayle - 1230 Westhaven Circle
4. RAD Five L.L.C. - 4469 Timber Falls Court
Driver: George
. NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. Swearing in of new PEC members Brian Doyan and Tom Weber and reappointed PEC
members Galen Aasland and Diane Golden - Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk.
2. Election of 1998 Chair/Vice-Chair - Greg Moffet - Chair / John Schofield - Vice-Chair
3. A request for a recommendation to Council on Stage 3 of the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan. Stage 3 includes the rationale and desired outcomes, which establish the
regulatory framework for height, mass and density of buildings in the study area.
Planners: Mike Mollica/Dominic Mauriello
Consultants: Ethan Moore & David Kenyon (Design Workshop, Inc.)
(See Attached)
1
]YI{9N*YK
Updated 4/14 9am
4. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a temporary garden center, located at
2107 North Frontage Road/unplatted, Vail das Schone.
Applicant: City Market, Inc.
Planner: Christie BaRon
MOTION: Diane Golden SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 5-1 (Greg
Moffet opposed)
APPROVED WITH 3 CONDITIONS:
1. That the applicant shall keep the hours of operation between 8:00 A.M. to 8:00
P.M.
2. The use shall be limited to one 5 square foot sign attached to the temporary
structure. The design shall receive Design Review approval.
3. That this use shall discontinue after the proposed 8 week operation (April 28,
1998 to june , 199- July 4, 1998) and the structure will be removed within 10
days. This approval shall be allowed to occur during this time period year after
year, unless called up by the PEC.
5. A request for a final review of the proposed Major CC1 Exterior Alteration to the Hong
Kong Cafe Building, located at 227 Wall Street/Lot B& C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st
Filing.
Applicant: ASI Vail Land Holding, L.L.C., represented by Kathy Langenwalter
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Tom Weber VOTE: 6-0
APPROVED WITH 7 CONDITIONS:
1. That the applicant pay into the Town of Vail Parking Fund to meet the requirement
of the additional parking demand resuiting from the redevelopment proposal prior
to the issuance of a building permit. The exact doElar figure shall be determined
by the Town of Vail at the time of building permit application based upon the
parking pay-in-lieu fee at the time and the configuration of the interior floor space.
2. That the applicant submit a tree preservation plan for the review and approval of
the Town of Vail Landscape Architect prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. The current plans show no mechanical equipment atop the redeveloped building.
Should mechanical equipment be proposed, a roof-top mechanical plan shall be
submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for their
review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4. That the owner of the property in question be responsible for the upkeep and
maintenance of the planters and landscaping as identified on the approved
development plan dated April 13, 1998.
2
Updated 4/14 9am
5. That the applicant execute a revised lease agreement for the landscape planter
on the south side of the building.
6. That the sauth elevatian balcony be extended atrt in canjunction with #he. . Janter
belaw:
That tl~~ awning be rttare substantiai in its' rfesign and be constructed' of a material
vfher than canuas.
6. A request for a final review of a Major CCI Exterior Alteration and a site coverage
variance, to allow for a remodel and expansion to the Slifer Building, located at 230
Bridge StreeULot B, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Slifer Designs, represented by Jim Buckner
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 6-0
APPROVED WITH 4 CONDITIONS:
1. That the applicant pay into the Town of Vail Parking Fund to meet the requirement
of the additional parking demand resulting from the redevelopment proposal, prior
to the issuance of a building permit. The exact dollar figure shall be determined
by the Town of Vail at the time of building permit application, based upon the
parking pay-in-lieu fee at the time and the configuration of the interior floor space.
2. That the owner of the property in question be responsible for the upkeep and
maintenance of the planters and landscaping, as identified on the approved
development plan dated April 13, 1998.
3. That the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission approve the site
coverage variance request of 3.2% to allow for the maximum site coverage to be
97.1
4: Tbiat tho east sicie af'fhe building be cleaned up per fhe suggestiont ou#Ii~~t[ in
the staff;merno:
7. A request for a site coverage variance, setback variance and additional GRFA utilizing
the 250 ordinance, to allow for a residential addition, located at 1230 Westhaven
Circle/Lot 32, Glen Lyon.
Applicant: Marilyn Quayle, represented by Eric Hill
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Tom Weber VOTE: 6-0
TABLED UNTIL MAY 11, 1998
8. A request for a building height variance, to allow for an increase of one-foot in building
height, located at 1799 Sierra Trail/Lot 17, Vail Village West First Filing.
Applicant: Julia Watkins
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6-0
DENIED
f:\everyona\pec\namos\98\basemt.413 3
.
Updated 4/14 9am
9. A request for an amendment to a previously approved plan for the Timber Falls
Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Court/unplatted.
Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C.
Planner: Dominc Mauriello
1 st MOTION: Galen Aasfand SECOND: John Schofie{d VOTE: 6-0
APPROVED - That Building #19 is a vested right in the exact same form, size, density,
and configuration as Building #18 and that anything "in addition to" or "different than"
specifically that, will require a review of an amended plan.
2nd MOTION:Galen Aasland SECOND: Tom Weber VOTE: 6-0
TABLED UNTIL MAY 11, 1998 - The request to amend a previously approved
Development Plan.
10. A request for a final review of a proposed west entry remodei to the Mountain Haus,
located at 292 East Meadow Drive/Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1 st.
Applicant: Moun#ain Haus Condominium Association
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 5-0-1 (Weber
abstained)
APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION:
1. That the approval is subject to ~ Town of Vail lease with the appiicant, regardirig
#he right of-way encr0achr~ier~t:
11. A request for a minor subdivision, located at 1410 Buffehr Creek Road, Lot G-1, Lion's
Ridge Subdivision Filing 2.
Applicant: Eric Johnson, representing Leroy Schmidt
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL APRIL 27, 1998
12. A request for a site coverage variance, to allow for a residential addition, located at Unit
#602, Vail 21 Condominiums, 511 East Lionshead Circle/Part of Lot 3, Block 1, Vail
Lionshead First Filing.
Applicant: Bill Walker
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
WITHDRAWN
f:\everyonelpec\nemos\98\basemt.413 4
Updated 4/ 14 9am
13. A request for a side yard setback variance and a conditional use permit, to allow for the
addition of a car wash, located at 2154 South Frontage Road/unplatted.
Applicant: Sonny Caster, GTS, Inc., d.b.a. Vail Conoco Service
Planner: George Ruther
WITHDRAWN
14. A request for a conditional use permit to construct four multiple-family dwelling units and
variances from Section 12-7E-8 (Building Height), Section 12-7E-19 (Landscape Area)
and Section 12-7E-7 (Setbacks), to allow for commercial and residential expansion,
located at 143 E. Meadow Drive (Crossroads East Building) / Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village
1 st.
Applicant: Crossroads Plaza, Trevina L.P., represented by Bill Pierce
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
WITHDRAWN
95. Information Update
• 1998 PEC rep. to the DRB -
Jan. - Mar. - John Schofield
Apr. - Jun. - Ann Bishop
Jul. - Sep. - Tom Weber
Oct. - Dec. - Brian Doyon
Jan. - Mar. `99 - Greg Moffet
• 1998 AIPP Appointment - Diane Golden
• 1998 Open Space Committee - Galen Aasland
16. Approval of March 23, 1998 minutes.
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office Iocated at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356
TDD for infarmation.
Community Development Department
f:\everyone\pec\nemos\981basemt.413 5
%
Updated 4/08 10 am
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, April 13, 1998
AGENDA
NEW MEMBER ORIENTATION - Brian Doyon and Tom Weber 11:00 am
Project Orientation /LUNCH - Community Development Department 12:00 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits : 1:00 pm
1. City Market - 2107 N. Frontage Road
2. Watkins - 1799 Sierra Trail
3. Quayle - 1230 Westhaven Circle
4. RAD Five L.L.C. - 4469 Timber Falls Court
Driver: George
..5
,
,
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearina - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. Swearing in of new PEC members Brian Doyan and Tom Weber and reappointed PEC
members Galen Aasland and Diane Golden - Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk.
2. Election of 1998 ChaiNVice-Chair.
3. A request for a recommendation to Council on Stage 3 of the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan. Stage 3 includes the rationale and desired outcomes, which establish the
regulatory framework for height, mass and density of buildings in the study area.
Planners: Mike Mollica/Dominic Mauriello
Consultants: Ethan Moore & David Kenyon (Design Workshop, Inc.)
3:00 p.m.
4. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a temporary garden center, located at
2107 North Frontage Road/unplatted, Vail das Schone.
Applicant: City Market, Inc.
Planner: Christie Barton
1
m *VM
Wx
s
Updated 4/08 10 am
5. A request for a final review of the proposed Major CC1 Exterior Alteration to the Hong
Kong Cafe Building, located at 227 Wall Street/Lot B& C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1 st
Filing.
Applicant: ASI Vail Land Holding, L.L.C., represented by Kathy Langenwalter
Planner: George Ruther
6. A request for a final review of a Major CCI Exterior Alteration and a site coverage
variance, to allow for a remodel and expansion to the Slifer Building, located at 230
Bridge StreeULot B, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Slifer Designs, represented by Jim Buckner
Planner: George Ruther
7. A request for a site coverage variance, setback variance and additional GRFA utilizing
the 250 ordinance, to allow for a residential addition, located at 1230 Westhaven
Circle/Lot 32, Glen Lyon.
Applicant: Marilyn Quayle, represented by Eric Hill
Planner: George Ruther
8. A request for a building height variance, to allow for an increase of one-foot in building
height, located at 1799 Sierra Trail/Lot 17, Vail Village West First Filing.
Applicant: Julia Watkins
Planner: George Ruther
9. A request for an amendment to a previously approved plan for the Timber Falls
Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Court/unplatted.
Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C.
Planner: Dominc Maurisllo
10. A request for a final review of a proposed west entry remodel to the Mountain Haus,
located at 292 East Meadow Drive/Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1 st.
Applicant: Mountain Haus Condominium Association
Planner: George Ruther
11. A request for a minor subdivision, located at 1410 Buffehr Creek Road, Lot G-1, Lion's
Ridge Subdivision Filing 2.
Applicant: Eric Johnson, representing Leroy Schmidt
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL APRIL 27, 1998
2
1
Updated 4/08 10 am
12. A request for a site coverage variance, to allow for a residential addition, located at Unit
#602, Vail 21 Condominiums, 511 East Lionshead Circle/Part of Lot 3, Block 1, Vail _
Lionshead First Filing.
Applicant: Bill Walker
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
WITHDRAWN
13. A request for a side yard setback variance and a conditional use permit, to allow for the
addition of a car wash, located at 2154 South Frontage Road/unplatted.
Applicant: Sonny Caster, GTS, Inc., d.b.a. Vail Conoco Service
Planner: George Ruther
WITHDRAWN
14. A request for a conditional use permit to construct four multip(e-family dwelling units and
variances from Section 12-7E-8 (Building Height), Section 12-7E-11 (Landscape Area)
and Section 12-7E-7 (Setbacks), to allow for commercial and residential expansion,
located at 143 E. Meadow Drive (Crossroads East Building) / Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Vllage
1 st.
Applicant: Crossroads Plaza, Trevina L.P., represented by Bill Pierce
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
WITHDRAWN
15. Information Update
• 1998 PEC rep. to the DRB -
Jan. - Mar. - John Schofield
Apr. - Jun.
Jul. - Sep.
Oct. - Dec.
• 1998 AIPP Appointment -
16. Approval of March 23, 1998 minutes.
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356
TDD for information.
Communiry Development Department
Published March 20, 1998 in the Vail Trail.
3
t
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Team
Mike Mollica/Dominic Mauriello
Ethan Moore & David Kenyon (Design Workshop, Inc.)
DATE: April 13, 1998
SUBJECT: A request for a final review and recommendation to Town Council on Stage 3 of
the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Stage 3 includes the rationale and
desired outcomes, which establish the regulatory framework for height, and mass
of buildings in the study area.
1. OVERVIEW OF PROBLEM/OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT POLICY OBJECTIVES AND
PROCESS
A. Lionshead Redevelopment Problem/Opportunity Statement:
* Lionshead lacks the charm, character, appeal and vibrancy expected
of a world-class resort. It lacks a sense of arrival and sense of place.
* Pedestrian flow through the mafl can be confusing and disconnected.
* The architecture lacks a unique identity or reference to Vail's historical
antecedents or its alpine environment.
* Many of the buildings are physically aging and functionally under-
utilized, resulting in negative impacts to property values, private profits,
and public revenues. Potential hospitality, retait and recreational uses,
and community amenities are unmet or unrealized.
* It would be short-sighted to ignore these conditions and do nothing.
The opportunity exists for the public and private sectors to act
collaboratively to renew and revitalize this important component of our
community.
B. Lionshead Redevelo,.pment Policy Objectives: --adopted by Council on
November 4, 1996.
Objective 1. RENEWAL AND REDEVELOPMENT
1
~
TO{9NOFYAIG
,
Lionshead can and should be renewed and redeveloped to become a warmer,
more vibrant environment for guests and residents. Lionshead needs an
appealing and coherent identity, a sense of place, a personality, a purpose, and
an improved aesthetic character.
Objective 2. VITALITY AND AMENITIES
We must seize the opportunity to enhance guest experience and community
interaction through expanded and additional activities and amenities such as
perForming arts venues, conference facilities, ice rinks, streetscape, parks and
other recreational improvements.
Objective 3. STRONGER ECONOMIC BASE THROUGH INCREASED "LIVE
BEDS"
In order to enhance the vitality and viability of Vail, renewal and redevelopment in
Lionshead must promote improved occupancy rates (i.e., "live beds" or "warm
pillows") and the creation of additional bed base through new lodging products.
Objective 4. IMPROVED ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
The flow of pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle and mass transit traffic must be
improved within and through Lionshead.
Objective 5. IMPROVED INFRASTRUCTURE
The infrastructure of Lionshead, including streets, walkways, transportation
systems, parking, utilities, loading and delivery systems, snow removal and
storage, and other public and private services must be upgraded to meet the
capacities and service standards required to support redevelopment and
revitalization efforts and to meet the expectations of our guests and residents.
Objective 6. CREATIVE FINANCING FOR ENHANCED PRIVATE PROFITS
AND PUBLIC REVENUES
Redevelopment in Lionshead must be undertaken in a financially creative, but
feasible, manner so that adequate capital may be raised from a{I possible sources
to fund desired private and public improvements.
C. Process
We are currently in the 3rd stage of a 5-stage process.
* Stage I: Defined Opportunities and Constraints.
* Stage il: Developed Wish List for Lionshead Redevelopment.
" Stage III: Finalizing density, height and mass standards.
2
~
Stage IV: Develop and Adopt Master Plan and Design Guidelines - April-
July, 1998.
* Stage V: Adopt Required Code Modifications- July-September 1998.
II. ACTION vs NO ACTION
A. Ski Area Trends
National skier visits, (per the Kottke Study) were down 2.8% for the
1996/97 season. That equates to 52.5 million skiers vs 54.0 million.
* interesting commonalities of three prospectuses for the public offerings of
Vail, Intrawest and American Skiing Co. (per the Harbaugh Study--Ski
Area Management):
1) The name of the game is asset utilization, given commitments to
invest hundreds of millions of dollars.
2) The primary customer is the baby boomer. Those who can afford
to stay for at least a week.
3) Competition and marketing is changing. Size and multiple
locations gives competitive synergies in marketing. This is
anticipated but not yet proven.
4) Coordinated development of real estate and other mountain assets
can work to significantly increase value and cash flow of both.
5) Cash flow is everything!
6) Finally, a lot can go wrong. Risk Factors--seasonality, capital
expenditures, integration of acquisitions, real estate development,
growth limitations, competition, unfavorable weather conditions,
economic downturn and substantial leverage and financial risks.
* Industry changes during the transition to matu(ty (per the Harbaugh Study-
-Ski Area Management):
1) Slowing growth means more competition for market share.
2) New products and applications are harder to find.
3) Firms are increasingly selling to experienced repeat buyers, who
are choosing among brands--not whether or not to buy.
4) Competition often shifts towards a greater emphasis on cost and
service.
5) There is a topping-out problem. Capacity addition must slow or
over-capacity will occur.
3
~
6) Manufacturing, marketing, distribution and selling methods are
often changing.
7) International competition increases.
8) Industry profits fall during the transition period. Capital becomes
hard to raise.
* The skieNsnowboarder profile is changing. While the total number of
"visitor days" by these groups has remained flat over the past decade, the
amount of time spent on snow during a trip is falling. It is common to see
less hours skiing, and frequently visitors are taking a day or two off from
skiing during their stay. When not out on the mountain, they are looking
for more to do and retailing, restaurants and other off-mountain choices
have become more important than ever.
" The demand for improved base facilities and services will be felt in
restaurants and retailing, but it is particularly in the "short term" bed base
that demands are greatest. The overall quality of Vail lodging is rated
relatively poorly when compared to other resorts and this deficiency will
become even more pronounced as new opportunities become available in
other mountain resorts. The new lodging and meeting facilities will be a
draw in both winter and in summer. Summer could become a particularly
difficult time for Vail because it is the season when Vail's unique mountain
becomes less of an overall draw.
* There will be increased competition closer to home, as well.
Improvements in Beaver Creek, and the continued expansion of lodging
and retail/restaurants in Avon, Edwards, Mintum, Cordillera and potentially
at the Vail Valley Centre all invite "leakage" of dollars to areas outside the
Town of Vail.
B. What other ski resorts are doina:
" Aspen Highlands - New base area planned in summer of `98.
" Beaver Creek - Villar Center, ice rink, new transportation center.
Winter Park - 3 phase redevelopment process, Phase I starting this year is
$45 million. Has already pre-sold $46 million in condominiums in the new
village (developer-Gerald Hines). Estimated costs are $325 per square
foot (very competitive).
" Whistler - Continuing significant improvements on and off the mountain.
* Telluride- Mt. Village improvements continuing, new gondola very
successful.
" Copper Mountain- $66 million on mountain improvements.
* Crested Butte: Grande Butte Hotel will receive a major remodel (262
rooms).
4
" Keystone- New hotel slated for River Run and significant new retail in
village.
' Snowmass-working on a base mountain planning improvement process.
* Jackson Hole- New plan will double size of base ski village, significant bed
base expansion, new village amenities planned.
* Steamboat- Working on base area and village improvement plan, new
resort hotel planned.
* American Skiing Co.--owners of nine ski area (including Steamboat,
Heavenly, Killington, Mount Snow and Sugarbush) have spent $105 million
this season on capital improvements and real estate development.
C. Highlights of Town of Vail--Retail Study- August `97
" People have less time to shop and are increasingfy looking to vacations to
catch up on their shopping needs.
* Even in resort communities, local patronage is important to financial
stability and long term success.
* The most successful retail businesses benefit from a community with
charm, appeal, history, culture and identity.
" The architectural style, design of public spaces, tenant mix, visual access,
and building scale all contribute to a pleasant sense of place and,
therefore, retail success.
* A village center is important in increasing the sense of community and a
place which meets visitor's expectations.
A clear pedestrian connection fhat is easy, interesting and well-signed
should be created between Lionshead and the Vail Village.
* The connection of Lionshead to Vail Village would create the critical mass
which leads to success for all. The more square feet of appealing retail,
the better!
Lionshead is not an island unto itself, nor is the Vail Village.
As Lionshead Village grows, so grows Vail....
Lionshead Vil/age + the Vail Village = the Vail Resort
The benchmark for destination resorts in the 21 st century!
5
~
III. LIONSHEAD TODAY:
A. Issues and Problems:
" Vehicular/pedestrian circulation conflicts and confusing circulation pattems.
* Lack of vitality in public spaces and corridors.
* Aesthetic issues, both architectural and softscape.
* Lack of connection to the ski mountain and Gore Creek.
B. Redevelopment potential:
* Lionshead, as it is today, will not provide sustainable economic growth and does not
provide a high quality resort experience.
* Lionshead, in today's marketplace, is not competitive industry-wide.
" Lionshead is a vital component in the continuing status of Vail as a world class resort.
IV. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTIONS ON STAGE III
On July 1, 1997, the Council designated five public view corridors within the Lionshead
Master Plan study area.
On December 17, 1997, the Council unanimously voted to accept the direction of the 14
framework elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The 14 elements are
as follows:
1. Public View Corridors and Natural Environment Connections--reminder of the
locations of the five public view corridors previously designated by the Town
Council and opportunities for enhancement of natural connections.
2. Real Estate Opportunity Areas-identification of known development and
redevelopment opportunities.
3. Public Lands Opportunity Areas-identification of enhancement opportunities on
public lands; overlaps somewhat with Natural Environment Connections.
4. Locals Housing Opportunity Areas--identification of possible locatians.
5. Land Use Framework Diagram--identification of focus of redevelopment and
development areas.
6. Pedestrian Circulation Framework--enhancement to Lionshead pedestrian
circulation system.
7. Modified Service and Lodging Access-new skier drop-off and regional bus
stop, realignment of South Frontage Road, and modifications to existing vehicular
circulation on East Lionshead Circle.
6
8. Loading and Delivery Components--identification of locations for loading and
delivery functions that reduce or eliminate conflicts with pedestrians and other
vehicles.
9. Parking Opportunity Areas--idenfification of locations for possibie additional
parking.
10. Transit Framework Discussion-Central Spine long term--a concept to create a
stronger connection between the east and west ends of Lionshead either by
reserving right-of-way for a central corridor in the event that future conditions and
improved technology warrant implementation of the concept, or by running a
transit line parallel to the Frontage Road, or by some other means that would
accomplish the connection.
11. Pedestrian Gateways-locations for creation of significant pedestrian arrival
points into Lionshead. _
12. Vehicular Circulation Gateways--locations for creation of significant vehicular
arrival points into Lionshead.
13. Lionshead Core Corridors, Intersections and Public Gathering Places-
opportunities for enhanced retail and public gathering spaces.
14. Improved Connection between Lionshead and Vail Village
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff is recommending that the PEC approve the remaining Stage III elements of the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan:
1) Floor-to-floor height of 11' 6".
2) Geographic distribution of building heights. (See pages 3-4, of the March 9th PEC
memo attached).
3) Building height and mass proposal. (See page 4, of the March 9th PEC memo
attached).
VI. UPCOMING STAGE IV OF THE MASTER PLAN WILL INCLUDE:
1) Drafting of Master Plan.
2) Architectural and Site Guidelines.
3) Employee Housing Generation Analysis.
4) Capacity Analysis.
5) Development Standards (i.e density--GRFA, site coverage, etc).
6) Economic Impact Analysis
F:IEVERYOfVE1PECNAEMOS1981LIONSHEA.413
7
i
MEMORANDUM
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 23, 1998
. RE: Worksession - Lionshead Redevelopment Master-Plan - Stage 3, Bulk and Mass
. ' In response to PEC direction at the last worksession, staff has prepared several analyzes of . .
existing conditions in Lionshead and potential future increases in development in Lionshead.
More information will be provided on charts, sketches, and diagram at the meeting. The meeting
is a worksession, and therefore, no decisions are required of the PEC at this meeting. Please
also keep in mind when reviewing this information, the original problem statement and policy
objectives for the planning effort. The Town Council adopted problem statement and policy objectives have been provided in order
to guide the review of Stage 3 of the master plan. Included in this packet are: a cursory analysis
of existing building height; an analysis of existing floor area and density by building; a future
development scenario; a building orientation concept; and the worksession memo from the
March 9, 1998 PEC meeting.
Problem/Opportuni Statement:
Lionshead lacks the charm, character, appeal and vibrancy expected of a world-class
resort. It lacks a sense of arrival and sense of place. Pedestrian flow through the mall
can be confusing and disconnected. The architecture lacks a unique identity or
reference to Vail's historical antecedents or its alpine environment. Many of the
buildings are physically aging and functionally under-utilized, resulting in negative
impacts to property values, private profits, and public revenues. Potential hospitality, -
retail and recreational uses, and community amenlties are unmet or unrealized. It
would be short-sighted to ignore these conditions and do nothing. The opportunity exists
for the public and private seetors to act collaboratively to renew and revitalize this important component of our community. Lionshead Red velopment Policy Obj ives:
OBJECTIVE 1. RENEWAL AND REDEVELOPMENT
Lionshead can and should be renewed and redeveloped to become a warmer, more
vibrant environment for guests and residents. Lionshead needs an appealing and
coherent identity, a sense of place, a personality, a purpose, and an improved aesthetic
character.
1
~
TOIYNOFY~
OBJECTIVE 2. VITALITY AND AMENITIES
We must seize the opportunity to enhance guest experience and community interaction
through expanded and additional activities and amenities such as performing arts venues,
' conference facilities, ice rinks, streetscape, parks and other recreational improvements.
OBJECTIVE 3. STRONGER ECONOMIC BASE THROUGH INCREASED "LIVE
. BEDS" .
in order to enhance the vitality and viability of Vail, renewal and redevelopment in
. . Lionshead must promote improved occupancy rates (i.e., "live beds° or "warm pillows") ti- and the creation of additional bed base through new lodging products. -
OBJECTIVE 4. IMPROVED ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
The flow of pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle and mass transit traffic must be improved within
and through Lionshead. OBJECTIVE 5. IMPROVED INFRASTRUCTURE
. The infrastructure of Lionshead, including streets, walkways, transportation systems,
parking, utilities, loading and delivery systems, snow removal and storage, and other
public and private services must be upgraded to meet the capacities and service
standards required to support redevelopment and revitalization efforts and to meet the
expectations of our guests and residents.
OBJECTIVE 6. CREATIVE FINANCING FOR ENHANCED PRIVATE PROFITS
Redevelopment in Lio sh a d mB st be un ertaken in a financiall cre t'
manner so that adequate capital may be raised from all possible sou ces to fund d sired
private and public improvements.
2
Existing Building Height Analysis:
Afield analysis was conducted of the existing buildings in Lionshead, in order to determine the
number of building stories for each structure. Additionally, at the PEC's request, staff has estimated the percentage of building mass which is over the allowable height, for those existing
buitdings which exceed the building height standard. Stories were generally counted on the
south side of each building or where the highest stories exist. Lofts were counted as one story
and are also indicated below.
The CC2 zone district was adopted in 1970 (Ordinance No. 8; Series of 1970). In this ordinance there was no building height limitation established. In July of 1973, the CC2 zone district was modifed to establish a building height of 45' (Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973). Today, the CC2
zone district allows a sloping-roof building to be 48' in height. Included below in parenthesis is an '
indication of the when buildings were constructed in Lionshead. • -
Stor(es Buildinas Total Number of Buildinas Percentage of Build(ng
Mass Over Allowable
ei ht
2-storyConcert Hall Plaza (1978) 1 p%
3-story Lion's Pride (1974) 3 0%
Lionshead Arcade (1972) p%
Landmark Townhomes (1972) p%
4-story Lodge at Lionshead (1&2) (1973) 8 0-5%
Lodge at Lionshead (3) (1978) p%
Lionshead Center (1972) 0-5%
Lifthouse Condos (1972) p_Sq,
Gondola Building (1972) 0-5%
Montaneros (1972) p%
VailGlo Lodge'(1972) p%
. Lionsquare North (4, w/loft) (1974) p%
5-story Vail 21 (actually 5.5 stories) (1972) 3 5%
Lionshead Inn (1972) 20%
Enzian Condos (includes garage) (1973) 0-5%
6-story Sunbird (including garage) (1972) . 5 0-5°!0 - Vail International (1972) 15-20%
Vantage Point (1972) 20-30%
Vail Spa (1977) 5-10%
Westwind (w/loft) (1969) 5%
7-story Treetops (w/loft) (1971) 2 30%
Marriott (1977) 30-40%
8-story Lionsquare (1-3) (1971) 2 10-20%
Antlers (w/loft) (1972) 30%
9-story Landmark (1972) 1 40-50%
3
T
Buildinas blilt beforp 1973 h iaht reg~
(19 buildings) Buildinas built after ~q~_ height r_ns_
Antlers (1972) (6 buildings) _
Enzian Condos (1973) Concert Hall Plaza (1978)
Gondola Building (1972) Lion's Pride (1974)
Landmark (1972) Lionsquare (4) (1974)
Landmark Townhomes (1972) LOdge at Lionshead (3) (1978)
Lifthouse Condos (1972)- Marriott (1977)
Lionshead Arcade (1972) Vail Spa (1977) . .
Lionshead Center (1972) . Lionshead Inn (1972) Lionsquare (1-3) (1971) • -
Lodge at Lionshead (1 &2) (1973) . '
Montaneros (1972) Sunbird (1972)
Treetops (1971)
Vail21 (1972)
Vail International (1972) - -
VailGlo Lodge (1972)
Vantage Point (1972)
Westwind (1969)
Lionshead Existing Conditions (GRFA, Density, and Commercial Floor Area):
The attached spreadsheet was created utilizing several different sources of information. The
GRFA information was developed from file research, lot size was developed from file research
and surveys, and density was developed from file research and surveys of property owners.
Commercial floor area and total floor area were developed utilizing 1998 tax assessor data. The
information is very generalized. Vail 21, Lifthouse Condos, Lion's Pride, and the Lionshead
Arcade were combined as these developments occur on a single parcel. Landmark Tower and
Townhomes were combined as they exist as one parcel.
Of the 21 parcels analyzed, 9(or 43%) are over the allowed GRFA. Of these 9 parcels, 5 parcels
exceed the allowable GRFA by 20% or more, and 1 building (Enzian Condos) exceeds the
allowable GRFA by 60%.
Of the 21 parcels analyzed, 1-3 (or 62%) are over the allowable number of units. Of these 13
parcels, 9 parcels exceed the allowable density by 20% or more. It should be noted that accommodation units were counted as 1/2 a dwelling unit per the Zoning
Regulations.
F:\EVERYONE\PECWIEMOS\98\LIONHEA.323
4
Lionshead Existing Conditlons -1998
Nots: Thfs dafa fs for planning purposes only and ahould not be relled upon for devetopment purposss.
• uensiry .
Units Densiry . Tax
GRFA GRFA GRFA Total Ailowed Existtng Density Existing Assessors
Lot S(ze Allowed Existing Varlance % of Residentlal (Dwelitng (Dweliing ' 96 oi Commercial Totel
_Butidinq Name (sq, ft) (sq, ft.) (sq, it.) (sq, it.) allowed Unk Count UnIUAcre) UntUAcre) ellowed Sq. Ft Sq. Ft.
. Antlers 52,390 41,812 49,914 (8,002) 119% 69.0 30.1 57.4 19196 0 55,871
Concen Heli Plaza 11,283 9,026 0 9,026 096 0.0 6.5 0.0 096 16 452 16 452
Enzlen Condomintums 12,866 10,293 16,450 6,157 160°6 12,0 7.4 40.6 5509'0 0 19,072
Ciondola Bulldlnq 59,810 47.848 0 47,848 0% 0.0 34.3 0.0 0% 49,695 49.695
i.ionshead Inn (L'ostello) 40,367 32,294 18,611 13,683 58% 26.0 23.2 28.1 121%
i.anamarK Tower ? 30
,342
& Townhomes 65,122 52,098 58,334 6,236 112% 58.0 37.4 38.8 104% 13,511
Lion Square Lodge 72,948
Phases 1-3 78,416 62,733 73,660 10,927 117% 81.5 45.0 45.3 101% ' 12,321
Lion Square North 90,399
Phase 4 41,513 33,210 29,505 3,705 89°k 27.0 23.8 28.3 119%. 0 25,455
Llonshead Center 40,206 32,165 29,468 2,697 92% 26.0 23.1 28.2 12296 17,405 46,869
Lodge et Lionshead
Phas91 &2 59,629 47,703 57,841 10.138 1219b 42.0 34.2 30.7 90% 1,487 45,727
Lod e et Lionshead Phase 3 42,785 34,228 20,043 14185 5996 12.0 19.7 12.2 6296 0 23,840
Meniott Mountain Resort 225,205 180,164 134,000 46,164 7496 176.0 129.2 34.0 26% ? 138,991
Montaneros 44,848 35,878 44,298 8,420 123% 42.0 25.7 40.8 158% 3,649 51,520
Sunbird Lodge 26,527 21,222 17,741 3,481 840/0 51
Treetops 0 15.2 83.7 5509'0 10,610 40,225
38,690 30,952 36,794 (5,842) 1199'0 29.0 22.2 32.7 147% 8,525 46,676
van irnernationai 78,408 62,726 59,396 3,330 95°6 56.0 45.0 31.1 69% . 0 56,310
Vail Spe Condominlums 152,460 121,968 85,501 36,467 70% 55.0 87.5 157 189'0 2,765 96,802
vau io Loa a 27,977 22,382 10,798 11,584 4896 17.5 16.1 272 17096 0 15,768
Vanta o Polnt 68,520 54,816 69.167 14 351 126% 65.0 393 41.3 10596 0 67,931
Wastwind 36,988 29,590 36,253 (6,663) 12396 35.0 21.2
a 41.2 1949'0 ? 37 685
Llithouse Condos
Llon's Prtda .
' Lionshead Arcade 90,000 72,000 50,693 21,307 7096 78.0 51.7 37.8 7396 - 31400 80,912
Notes: ' •
Denaity,lor the Marrlott Ia based on 13 du's and 326 au's. tor the Lionshead Inn.52 au's, fir the Ltonsquaro Lodge, 88 du's and 31 au's, and for the Vailglo Lodge. t-du and 33 au's.
Commetclal sq: footage Is based on 1998 tax essessor data.
The Marriott Is conforming to SDD V. The GRFA and density ftgures are based on the undedying zoaing at 25 unitslacro.
LIONCTD.XI.S " • •
~
Lionshead Master Plan Building Height/ Potentiai Densi Increase Analysis ~ .
NOTE: The following analysis is based upon a set of basic assumptions. Due to the
. many factars,that influence the eventual building program, and buiit form, of a project, it
is extremely difficult to predict with any degree of accuracy what development ma
happen in the future. Some of the different factors that may influence the even y
• form and density of a project include: . . tual built . - y 1. Town of Vail regulatory factors:
-a. Site coverage
b- GRFA
c. Building height
d. Pazking requirements e. Density limitations -
2. Mazket issues .
a• What land uses is the mazket drivin ? A' DU's, FFU's, commercial,
etc..). Ali of these uses have differ nt impacts from a densi econo '
and aa infrastructure standpoint. . tY, uuc,
b. Financing? Vhat is the economic ability of a given ro
redevelop their property given their abili P p~' to retrofit or
for ihe project? tY (or inability) to get fmancing
3• Physical configuration of the ro e How much of the ro e
developed from a site constraints s d oint? P p~' ~an be
the pro p e ri y i n fluence t he shape and si e oftheHazchitecture?S~ ~d sha p e o f
Aside from the Town of Vail regulatory issues, all of the above factors will change based
upon the property and the current economic and market conditions. Given these issues,
how can the potential density increases best be estimated? For the purposes of this
a.nalysis, the existing conditions in Lionshead have been studied to-determine the existi.n
average site development data. This data does not represent any specific project in • g
Lionshead, rather it is a representation of the average of all developed properties in
Lionshead.
Assum tions Used in Potential Densi Increase Anal sis
1- T1vs analysis assumes an average floor to floor height of 11.5' on an
2• This analysis assumes that a new structure today, under current height r stric ons .structure
would have four stories. ,
.
37 An average site will achieve 40% site utilization for vertical architectural mass, The '
current average site coverage in Lionshead is 41 However, the percent of this
gross site coverage that translates into a vertical architectural mass of taxed, regulated
square footage (based upon county tax records) is closer to 30% existing in
.
Lionshead today. This analysis is assuming a more efficient use of space and an
increased site coverage for new projects.
4. The first level of a new project will be all commercial, non-residential uses.
5. All levels starting with the second floor will be residential (no distinction is made
. regazding type of residential use- i.e., no distinction is made between DU's, AU's,
EHU's, FFU's)
6. Density projections aze based upon an average unit size of 1,500 square feet
(averaged across all residential product types and unit sizes), and an average 2.5 beds
per unit. This average is based on the current mazket driven tuiit sizes, and is larger' -
. than the average existing unit size in Lionshead. . .-.7. This analysis assumes that an average 25% of gross residential space will be utilized ' as common space.
8. This analysis assumes that an average site will have 50% of its building mass oriented
east-west, and 50% oriented north-south. .
9. This analysis assumes that the following roof heights (based on a 65' wide double
loaded building) will net the following amount of gross square footage per floor plate:
a. 5/12 roof pitch, 14' roof allowance- 28% of floor plate available. This
space most likely will be viable only as loft space to the lower unit.
b. 9/12 roof pitch, 24' roof allowance- 56% of floor plate available.
c. 12/12 roof pitch, 33' roof allowance- 68% of floor plate available, 32% of
floor plate available in upper loft space.
7. This analysis assumes the removal of GRFA as a development constraint.
8. This analysis does not include density restrictions.
9. All data is averaged per acre. .
Potential Average Development Scenarios
Existing conditions average development data
1. Acreage of existing residential developed properties. Includes site 28 acres
area of all pr.ojects with any residential development within Lionshead
2. Total Existing Unit Count (includes all residential unit types) 1,103 3. Existing Average Gross Retail Space per acre (from county tax 11,$82 s.f.
records, includes AU's as commercial space)
4. Existing Net Residential Space per acre (from county tax records, 27,567 s.f.
excludes AU's as residential space)
5. Existing Average Units per acre (average of all residential unit types) 39.4
6. Existing Average Beds per acre (average of all residential unit types) 64
7. Existing Average Beds per Dwelling Unit 1.9
8. Existing Average Site Coverage per property 41 %
9. Existing Average Unit Size 825 s.f.
~
,f
Scenario A. Development under euisting zoning, given all assumptions outlined above:
• 45' flat roof height, 48' sloped roof height _
1. Gross Retail Space per acre 17,424 s.f.
2. Net Residential Space per acre (25% common space removed) 39,204 s.f.
3. Potential Units (1,500 s.f per unit average) 24.5 /acre
. 4. Potential Beds (2.5 bed per unit average) 61.26 /acre -
• 5. Percentage Change From Existing Average Units Per Acre -33.6%
Scenario B. Development given five story building with 14' roof allowance '
: • 57.5' eve height, 71.5' total peak height ' - _ 1. Gross Retail Space per acre 17,424 s.f.
2. Net Residential Space per acre (25% common space removed) 55,931 s.f.
3. Potential Units (1,500 s.f. per unit average) 37.3 /acre
4. Potential Beds (2.5 bed per unit average) 93.22 /acre
. 5. Percentage Change From Existing Average Units Per Acre -5.36%
= b. Percentage Increase From Scenario "A" Units Per Acre 42.67%
Scenario C. Development given five story building with 14' roof allowance on east-west
bazs, five story building with bonus 33' allowance on north-south bars
* 57.5' eve height, 71.5' total peak height E-W
* 57.5' eve height, 90.5' total peak height N-S
1. Gross Retaii Space per acre 17,424 s.f.
2. Net Residential Space per acre (25% common space removed) 60,635 s.f.
3. Potential Units (1,500 s.f per unit average) • 40.4 /acre
4. Potential Beds (2.5 bed per unit average) 101 /acre
5. Percentage Change From Existing Average Units Per Acre 2.60%
. 6. Percentage Increase From Scenario "A" Units Per Acre 54.67%
Scenario D. Development given five story building with 24' roof allowance on east-west
. bars, five story. building with bonus 33' allowance on north=south bars
• 57.5' eve height, 82.5' total peak height E-W
• 57.5' eve height, 90.5' total peak height N-S
1. Gross Retail Space per acre . 17,424 s.f.
2. Net Residential Space per acre (25% common space removed) 6 2,465 s.f. •
3. Potential Units (1,500 s.f per unit average) 41.64 /acre
4. Potential Beds (2.5 bed per unit average) 104 /acre
5. Percentage Change From Existing Average Units Per Acre 5.69%
6. Percentage Increase From Scenario "A" Units Per Acre 59.33%
. t
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Team
Mike Mollica/Dominic Maurieilo DATE: Marcti 9, 1998
' SUBJECT: Stage 3--Lionshead Master Plan--A work session to continue discussions,. . '
regarding height, mass and density parameters. The culmination of Stage 3 will be the adoption of a rationale and desired outcomes which establish the
regulatory framework for height, mass and density of buildings in the Study Area.
*The goal of this worksession is to provide the PEC with additional background information
with regard to: a) floor-to-floor heights;
b) geographic distribution of building heights;
c) bonus heights;
d) development standards; and
e) density parameters.
The Master Plan Team is looking for directian on the above 5 items. Any outstanding
issues and concerns should be articulated and the team wiii be prepared to directly
address those concerns and issues at the next worksession.
. 1. STAGE 3 SCHEDULE
Stage 3 of the Lionshead Master Plan has been in-progress since May of 1997. At this .
. time, we are nearing completion of the third stage of the Master Plan and would propose
the following schedule:
Tuesday, March 3---- Joint PEC/Council work session - completed.
Monday, March 9---- PEC work session.
Monday, March 23---Final PEC recommendation on Stage 3.
Tuesday, March 24--Council afternoon work session. .
Tuesday, April 7------Council afternoon work session; and
--Council evening meeting--DECISION on Stage 3.
Please keep in mind that this proposed schedule can be modified if additional meetings
are deemed necessary.
A
1 rowxoF~,~u
~
II. OUTSTANDING ISSUES LA ED TO S AGE 3
The following is an overview of the Stage 3 outstanding issues which staff believes need
further discussion and consensus:
A) Determine the appropriate floor-to fioor height. .
. ' Staff has contacted the foilowing architects about floor-to-floor requirements on projects
• they are working on. All assume at least a 9' floor-to-ceiling height for residentiaUlodge.
_ units. The results are as follows: .
Henry Pratt, Gwathmey Pratt, Vail ' Stated he is working on the Marriott and is finding an average of 11' floor-taflaor as being
tight. The Liftside project (Cascade ViIlage) was constructed at 10.5' floor-to-floor and
was very tight/not very manageable. (Fora 5-storybuilding his average would be ll'
f/oor-to-f/oor.)
Steve Isom, Isom and Associates, Eagle
Stated that for a commercial building, the first floor needs 10' floor-to-ceiling and 15" of
structure resulting in 11.25' floor-to-floor. For residential levels with 9' ceilings, one needs
10.25' floor-to-floor. (For a 5-story building his average would be 10 45' f/oor-to-f/oor.)
Bill Pierce, Fritzlen pierce Briner, Vail
Stated that the first floor commercial needs to have a floor-to-floor height of 14'. He
stated that 10.5' for other floors can be done but is difficult. An 11' floor-to-floor works,
but 12' would be ideal. (For a 5-story building his average would be 1 1.6' f/oor-ta
f/oor.)
Galen Aasland (Architect/PEC Member), Vail
Stated that a project he is working on in Idaho had an average 10.9' floor-to-floor.
Recommends a first floor at 16' and 11' for other floors. Stated that one might need more
than 9' ceilings for quality condos. (For a 5-story building his average would be 92' ffoor-
. to-f/oor.)
Gordon Pierce, Pierce Segerberg Architects, Vail
Stated that a 9' floor-tafloor is not realistic. Stated that the first floor commercial needs
to be 12' minimum for the floor-to-floor. Recommends that the upper floors (residential)
be a minimum of 10' floor-to-floor. (For a 5-story building his average i,vould be 10.4'
f/oor-to-f/oor.)
Terry Willis, Urban Design Group, Denver
Terry stated that in "luxury condos", such as in Bachelor Gulch, there needs to be 15'
floor-to-floor for the first level retail. Then he recommends that there be 11' floor-to-floor
for the upper residential levels. (For a 5-story building his average wou/d be 1 1.8' f/oor-
to-f/oor.)
Cottle Graybeal Yaw (CGI) Architects, Aspen
CGY has provided cross section drawings (see attached of
upper level residential units. The section drawings indicate ~ 4.5I floor tafloor fo the
lower level commercial and an 11-11.5' floor-to-floor for the upper level residential. The
6" difference is due to two different types of heating systems (forced air vs hydronic 2
baseboard). (For a 5-story building his average wou/d be 92. I ' f/oor-to f/oor.) in summary, the average floor-to floor height recommended by the architects
surveyed above is 11.31.
Examples of floor to floor heights in buildings currently under construction in Vail:
Austria Haus: First floor - 10' • •
. Other floors - 11.44' (average)
Average - 11.08' (based on 4 f/oors) International Wing:
First floor - 16'
Other floors - 9.96' (average)
Average - 91,97' (based on 3 f/oors) B) Geographically identify permitted heights of floors, plus a roofl and establish the
acceptable «bonus heights" and associated performance criteria for achieving the bonus
height.
The proposed building height guidelines for the Lionshead Master Plan are outlined
as foilows:
1. Maximum by-right height limit based upon geographic location of property within
the study area.
a. Area "A" -(see map) - This area is characterized by existing single family
and duplex homes. It is proposed that any new development in this area
conform to this fabric and be limited to the existing development standards
. in place (maximum height of 33' for a sloping roofl.
b. Area "B" -(see map) - This area is currently open space, located south of
Gore Creek and is characterized by wetlands, steep embankments and
undeveloped open space. It is proposed that this area be maintained as
an open space resource, with no structures permitted. However, any
open, recreation-type support structures that the Town of Vail may see as
appropriate in the future shalt be limited in height to 1-story, plus a roof.
c. Area "C" -(see map) - This area is characterized by the commercial core
and multi-family residential uses. It is recommended that structures in this
area have a by-right height limit of five stories, plus a roof. Structures in
this area also are eligible for bonus heights based upon their orientation
and conformance to pertormance criteria.
2. Roofs. The roof height allowance is defined as the increase in height from the
maximum permitted eve height, to the ridgeline of the roof.
3
a• Slooed roof requirement. Due to the desire for a consistent, high quality,
alpine architecturai style in the Lionshead area, it is proposed that flat -
roofs no longer be allowed on any new construction, building additions or
rehabilitation to existing buiidings.
b• Bv riaht roof allowance. In conjunction with the requirement for a sloping
roof, it is recommended that every building be required to have a minimum
5/12 pitch roof, with a maximum by-right roof height of 14 feet, (this is
based on the height of a 5112 pitched roof on a typica165' wide, double-
- • loacted building).
3• Bonus Heights. The proposed height bonuses for Area °C" of the Lionshead studY
area are divided into two sections - additional stories (building height before the
roof starts), and additional roof height.
a• Additional stories: Any structures that are predominately oriented north-
south, (with average double-loaded corridor), are eligible for a bonus sixth
story, according to conformance with the performance criteria.
b• Bonus roof hei ht allowances: Based on the predominant orientation of the
buildmg and the conformance to perFormance criteria, it is recommended
that the following bonus roof allowances be created:
1. 9/12 pitch with a maximum roof height of 25' (this height is based
on a 9/12 roof on a typical 65' wide double-loaded building). This
bonus roof height would be available for all buildings in Area "C"
regardless of fheir orientation, if they meet the pertormance
criteria. This roof height will allow for the creation of a narrower
"loft" story inside the roof.
2• 12/12 pitch with a maximum roof height of 33' (this height is based
on a 12/12 roof on a typicaf 65' wide double-loaded building). This
bonus roof height would be avaifable for any building in Area "C"
that is predominately oriented north-south and meets the
perFormance criteria. This roof height will allow for the creation of
an ad.ditional story, plus a loft space inside the roof.
4• Exclusions. The following exclusions to by-right or bonus building heights are
proposed in order to protect the character and visual quality of certain spaces
within the Lionshead Study Area. It is suggested that building setbacks, build-to
lines and architectural step-backs will be detailed in the architectural and site
guidelines.
a• Any building adjoining the Gore Creek stream corridor or adjoining the ski
yard shall be limited to a 4story maximum permitted eve height, and must
conform to the architectural design guidelines for buildings fronting these
areas. However, this is not intended to prevent a bui{ding from attaining
its bonus height after stepping back from the restricted building face.
4
b. Any part of a building that is south facing, north facing, or adjoining the
Lionshead retail mall area shall be limited to a 5-story maximum permitted
eve height. This is not intended to prevent a building from attaining its
bonus height after stepping back from the restricted building face.
c. All buildings in Area °C" shall conform to the Lionshead architectural and
site design guidelines, which may influence the initial eve height and building step-back requirements. .
. d. All building shall respect the established public view corridors. • '
' 5. Maximum Building Height Synopsis. The fo1(6wing maximum attainable building ' heights under the above proposals are based on an assumed 11.5' floor-tafloor
height.
a. 71.5 Feet - Maximum By-Right building height, with no bonus story and no
bonus roof height (57.5' for five stories, plus 14' for the roofl.
b. 82.5 Feet - Building height with no bonus stories and the initial bonus roof
height, (57.5' for five stories, plus 25' for the roofl.
• c. 90.5 Feet - Building height with no bonus stories and the maacimum bonus
roof height, allowed only for north-south oriented buildings (57.5' for five
stories, plus 33' for the rooo.
d. 102 Feet - Building height with bonus sixth floor and maximum bonus roof
height, allowed only for north-south oriented buildings (69' for six stories,
plus 33' for the rooo.
C) Development Standards:
a) GRFA--staff recommends that the existing GRFA regulation (80% of buildable area) be
. eliminated for properties in the Lionshead core area.
b) Site Coverage--staff recommends that the existing 70% site coverage limitation be
eliminated for properties in the Lionshead core area.
c) Setbacks-staff recommends that the existing 10-foot set6ack requiremenf be
eliminated for properties in the Lionshead core area. It is suggested that building
setbacks be delineated in the architeetural and site guidelines, in conjunction with
Building and Fire Code requirements.
d) Landscaping---staff recommends that the existing 20% minimum landscaping
requirement be eliminated for properties in the Lionshead core area.
D) Density (units/acre) standard-maintain current standard of 25 units/acre. AU's, EHU's
and fractional fee units (FFUs) would not count towards density.
5
Staff has outlined some ideas on evaluating density in the Lionshead commercial core
area:
1• Retain the existing density provisions (CC2 - 25 units/acre, HDMF - 25 units/acre, MDMF - 18 units/acre).
2• Exclude accommodation units (AUs), employee housing units (EHUs), and
fractional fee units (FFUs) from the calculation of density. This may encourage
. the development of these unit types. Dwelling units (DUs) would only be allowed
• up to the existing density allowance (i.e. X units/acre). Generally, buiiding height, architeetural and site guidelines, and parking requirements will determine the carrying capacity of the site (i.e how many units can be accommodated on a site).
3• The gross square footage added to a struature via the height bonus (sixth floor and floor area in the rooo must be added in the form of AU's, EHU's or FFU's.
This is not to say that these uses must be located on the sixth floor and in the roof
area, but that the additional gross square footage must be located somewhere in
the structure.
4• AUs and EHUs shall meet minimum requirements to ensure that quality units are
constructed. Examples would include:
AU - 9' ceiling height.
EHU - 450 sq. ft. minimum and 9' ceiling height.
5• Allow any properties which are currently nonconforming with respect to density to
rebuild to existing/constructed density.
F:IEVERYONEIPECWIEMOS1981LION.303
6
r
?
o
0
r:._
lei
C
0
00
~
~
O
00
0
o '
0
4d
. .
0
.
. ~
, .
.
~ . .
~ i
ZONE 'A'
LLLLU
I
ZONE ,B,
.
zONE 'C'
REcoMMENraaTloM FoR RE IL
FLOOR TO FLOOf? HE(GNT: -
.T •I
5" L,7. lUr. CONCRETE
~ ON ME7Al, LATH
~ e .
' I0'' SA77` fN5t1L,47tON
Fv
- - Nor : coL.p warER .
- SLlt'PLY t RS7URN FoR -
" FORC~D AIR 61'6T~M ~
!0° FORGEp AIR DUGt
PLt.IMB1NG -
WASTE PIPE
FIRE PROTEGTION -
SPRINKLER PEED LINE
r B" REGE56ED INCANDESCENT
LiGN71NG
~
;d. 3" STONE PAVERS
~
~
N
M OUR EXMRIENGE, A Cr:IING
NEIGHT 15 6TRONGLY PREFERREp B
'~YP. RETAIL TdDQ?Y'S F2ETA1L TEN,4NT5. A 2'-6"
FLODR/G~ILINCs ASSEMBLY AS SNd
MEM MINIMIJM COpE REQ1,tlREMENT
OP A ONE NOUR SEPARA1't0N. TNf9
. pIAGRAP9 REPRE5ENT5 SUFFICIETIT
SP4CE FQi? GOORpiN,4TlON OF FIRE .
PROTEGTIpN, MEGWANIG.41_,
ELEGTR(CAL. AND $'i'~IJCT'IJRAL.
51'STEMS. IDE4LLr, tWE CO[vTR,4CT0
WOtJLD REQUIRE 1'-3" 59LOW STEEL
FOR COORDINATION OF BUILDING
5t'3T~Mb.
, , ~ • • •
'T-„ .~.r r
• 1 • • '
i • i •
0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0
COTTLE RETAIL Bl11LDING SEGTION -
GRAYHEAL -
JJ YAW 2 24~8
ARCHITECTS
LTD U.~
ste ~tsr mu ?mai, a uou ?(rra n "MRne I'-D" AGD
SiS ' d L69 1 ON 0:) ld'lA3Q S180S38 -IItiA WdOZ : S 866Z ' bZ '933
RECOi'11rIENDATION FOR
i"(ID-LEVEL GONDD FL001@ T4
FLOOR HE ICsHT: _ , . ' 5" L.T. WT. CONCRETE .
pN MEYAL L.ATN
s =
• 0 0
. C14 10" BATT INSULATION * . . . ~
NOT WATER 5LlPPLY t
RETURN FOR NYDRONIC
BAfiEBOARD HEAT pLLlMB1NG
WA9Trz plpE
FIRE PROTEGTION ~
9PRINICI.ER FEED L1NE
0 8" RECE98ED INCANDmSGEN7
L IGHTINCs
~ TYP. ROdM
~
~ NYDRONIC BA9I! BOARp
NEAT 51'STEM
NO'I'E:
M OlJf2 EXPERIENCE, A 9'-0" GE11NG
NElGHT IS TNE pESURED MINIMUM PG7
" CONpOMlNIUM5 IN TN15 MARlCET. A-0"
rLOOR/CEILINCz A55rzT'IBLY Ag 8
- - MEETS MINIMU°i GODE REQlI1REMEN'C
OF A ONr NOUR StPARATIM TMI$
DI.4CsRaM, NoWEVER, MAr FMczc,IIRE
REROIJTING, RE5IZING. AND
. .s~. . I?ECOORp1NATiON OF 5Y5TEM5 DURt
' - GONSTRIJCTtON. A MORE 6t$FICIENT
4SSEM6L1' POR tWl3 tJSE WOt1Lp pr: A
21-6" INTERSTITIAL SPAGE, 7NBREFORE
AI.I.OWING MORE SPACr: BELOW $TEEL
BEAMS. IDBALLY, THrz. CONTR4CTOR•
WOULD REoUIRe 9" BELUU1 S1'EEL F6R
COORDINATION OF BUILDING 5Y5TER5.
COTTLE M!D-coST GotvDO 6UILp1NG 5EG7tON
GRA'Y'HEAL
YAW 2-24-r18 ~
AIiCHITECTS
; m aAGO
ta t,r ~I Wa,WIwI Kno1c~-~ x~m~.~e
SiE ' d L69 ' ON 03 1dN3Q S1210S38 1IdA Wd6j : S 866Z ' bZ ' fi33
RECOMMENDATION FOR
UPPER-LEvEL CONDo FL06}` ~ -
TO FLOOR HEIGHt:
.
_ • . 5" LT. IUT. GONGRETE
ON METAL LATN
. ~D 0
~
ifa'' BATT INSI,lLATION
cc1 • . + .
~ . _
NOT t COLD UJATER • -
SLIPPi.Y t RETURN FOR
FORGED AIR 6Y5TEM
10" PORGED AIR DUGT
PI.tJMBING
UJAStE PIPE
PIw PP.O7EG7tON -
~ SPRINKL,EF2 pEEp LINE
6" REGESSED ING.4NDESGENt
LlcsuTlNcx
~
e tYP. ROOM
o~
_ IN OUR EXPER1ETlGE, A 9'-0" GE[INCs
HEIGNT IS T14E DESIRED MINfMtJM PPO
CONDOMiNlUM6 IN TNiS M,4WCET, A
2'-6" FLOOR/GEILING ASSEMBLY ,4$
SNOtLN M5ETS MINIMUI'1 GppE . REQLIIREMENTS OF ,q ONE Hp{,{R
' 9EpARATION. THI9 D1,4GRqP1
REPRESENTS 511FF1GiENT SPAGE FOR,
cooRnINa7iorl o~ ~IRE FIRorEcrI • , „ MECHANICAL, E1.ECTRIC,4L, ,qNp
, . . , : • ' S?RUGTURAL. 91'BTEMg fDEALLY, THE
CON7RAGTOR U10lJLD REGn11RE
BELOW STE6L FOR G40RpIN4TipN pF
6LIfLDING 5Y5TEM5.
COTTLE
GRAYBEAL HIGH-GOST GONDO BUILpING SEGTI ~
`
AiRCHITECTS rxon=
~
ik 16l~ QtI~N ~ LD IbU L72
!(71pwi-n I'-O" aeunr m
AGD .
S>b'd L69 ' ON 03 1cfV13Q S12lOS38 1ItiA WdOZ : S 866t ' bZ '~3.4
LIONSHEAD HEIGHT & MASS pUBLIC MEETINGS SUMMARY
Presidents' Weekend 1998
Sun a Feb a 15
Members of the public present.• 2(representing Lifthouse)
Opinions, comments and concerns; • Concerned about loss of private views; TOV.should consider condemnation of a portion
. of the VA core site to preserve views and address pedestrian congestion.
- • Concerned about congestion problems in ski yard and pedestrian areas, especially if the =
. size of the pedestrian walkways are to be reduced. . - Concerned about accuracy of ski association studythat shows 40 percent of those visiting
ski areas to be non-skiers during winter and that shopping is the number 2 activity in
resort destinations.
• Widen skier pedestrian bridge and make partof it pedestrian only. :
Monday. February 16
Members of the public present: 15
Opinions, comments and concerns:
. ~ Are you really seeking public input? It really doesn't sound like it.
• This plan is just "smoke and mirrors" so VA can get its project built..
• Which of the four height concepts did the Vail Town Council favor?
• It upsets me to hear about a TRC in Lionshead near the Landmark (too much noise,
would devalue our property).
• I eat in Vail Village, then like to go back to my "quiet" condo in Lionshead.
• What is the noise factor for all these plans?
• I send my kids to the General Store and it is safe for now. We don't want any more bars
in Lionshead. I want this to be a family place.
• There has been no place for my under-l8-year-old daughters to go; nothing to do at night.
• We bought in Lionshead because it was quiet; we do our shopping in Vail Village.
• • Is there some other use for redevelopment of VA's core site other than a massive hotel?
•I like the idea of low buildings; we don't want to recreate a New York City here..
• We bought our place because we tike our view; this project stands to negatively impact
our view.
• Which side of the building would you measure the height from? There ought to be a
fixed height. I'm afraid VA could "buy" (through the height bonus public benefit
process) a 25-story building.
• What's the by-right height? Are there guidelines you need to meet just to go to the basic
height? Go back to the public domain enhancements to drive building height on a site-
by-site basis.
• I agree with the pedestrian and retail concepts 100 percent; I'm just concerned about
height.
• I'm concemed about a large, tall hotel blocking views and creating noise. How many
more live beds are needed in Lionshead? There are already more live beds in Lionshead
than in the Village. I have friends who can still rent condos at the last minute in
Lionshead. What is the need for live beds?
• I'm concerned about dark corridors caused by tall buildings.
• You're opening up a can of worms when you say `this building should be this high, and
this building should be something else.' _
• Open up the Concert Hall Plaza area; use that space as a skier drop-off.
• Concert Hall Plaza could benefit as a redevelopment area; would make a nice movie
theatre or entertainment complex. • Is VA talking about redevelopment of the tennis courts? • There is great difficulty in redeveloping anything in Lionshead due to condo association
declazations. • For the most part, the plan is good; lots of hard work on behalf of the project team really
. shows.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Andy Knudtsen, Senior Housing Policy Planner
DATE: April 14, 1998
RE: Distribution of units in the Red Sandstone and A-Frame affordable housing
developments
1. Overview
The purpose of this discussion is to determine how many units to make available to Town employees
and how to distribute them. The criteria provided below are intended to be used for an internal
process. If any units remain after the District, the Town, and their employees have had an opportunity
to purchase them, the Council may want to make them available to the general public. If there is a
need for an external process for units to be distributed to the general public, staff will return to
Council and review criteria and methods at a later date. All 18 units in the development will be deed
restricted, consistent with the Vail Commons development, as will the 2-3 units at the A-Frame site..
The remaining policy issues to resolve regarding the intemal distribution of the Red Sandstone and
A-Frame units are summarized below:
A. How many units would the Council like to purchase for rental to TOV employees?
B. What criteria should be used to rank the TOV employees who are the potential purchasers?
C. What stipulations should be applied to the purchase and resale of the units?
U. Policy Analysis
A. Determining the number of units for TOV ownership.
Of the 18 units to be constructed in the Red Sandstone devetopment, 12 are allocated to the District
and 6 are allocated to the Town. If the Town Council would like to use funds to purchase units to
rent to Town of Vail employees, it must specify the number out of the total pool of 6 for this
purpose. The remainder could then be made available for saie to Town of Vai1 emplayees.
1 f:\everyone\andy\98_nemos\TC Redsand.414
The units to be built at the A-Frame site will be available for purchase by the Town or its
employees. As of Apri19, 1998, Habitat for Humanity has withdrawn their proposal to develop the
site. The Stevens Group is now responsible for the development. Either two or three units can be
built on this site, as a"duplex" or as a"duplex with a careta.ker unit." The PEC must approve the
caretaker unit, after deternuning that it meets conditional use criteria and does not impact the
surrounding neighborhood.
Below are some ball park costs per unit which can be used for these discussions:
• 1/2 duplex at A-frame site - $175,000
• Caretaker at A-frame site - $ 60,000
• 1 Bedroom at Red Sandstone - $105,000
• 2 Bedroom at Red Sandstone - $135,000
• 3 Bedroom at Red Sandstone - $ 175,000
At the beginning of this year, Council transferred $300,000 into the housing fund. $80,000 was
approved to be used for the Common Ground planning process, leaving a balance of $220,000.
While Council can move funds from other sources, it appears that the housing fund has
approximately $220,000 which could be used for acquisition of units.
2. Setting criteria to rank prospective purchasers.
Staff has drafted the criteria shown below, reflecting the primary goal of getting critical employees to
live in Town:
a. Critical employees who are first time home buyers.
b. Critical employees who currently own homes outside the Town of Vail.
c. Critical employees who currently own homes inside the Town of Vail.
d. Other TOV employees who are first time home buyers.
C. Other TOV employees who currently own homes outside the Town of Vail
f. Other TOV employees who currently own homes inside the Town of Vail.
Note that the deed restrictions do not allow for ownership of more than one property; thus, current
home owners would have to sell their home to purchase a Red Sandstone unit. Mobile homes are
viewed as personal property, not real estate.
This list is much simpler than the criteria developed for Vail Commons. Given the fact that
significantly fewer units are available and that the lottery is made up of applicants internal to the
TOV, simpler may be better. Note that the proposed criteria are not weighted for family size or for
longevity.
2 f \everyone\andy\98-inemos\TC-Redsand.414
3. Stipulations for purchase and resale.
As this project has been targeted toward critical employees, Council has expressed interest in adding
resale stipulations to the deed restriction. Staff has listed these below for Council discussion:
• Require residents to sell the Red Sandstone home upon leaving the Town's employ,
• Provide funds for the Town to purchase the unit within a certain time frame of the last
day of employment (e.g. 90 days),
• Sell the unit to another Town employee, using the criteria listed above.
Staff believes the Town's role as intermediary broker is a benefit as it gives the TOV more options in
the effort to house critical employees. For example, at the time of sale, if there are no critical
employees needing housing, the former employee would quickly move through the adopted criteria
list, potentially selling it to a member of the general public. If the Town holds the unit, it can choose
when to sell waiting until a critical TOV employee is interested in buying or choosing to sell it to
the general public. In all scenarios, deed restrictions will remain in effect, requiring the resident to
work an average of 30 hours a week at a business located in Eagle County and that the resale value is .
capped at an annul appreciation of 3% (among other requirements).
M. Background on the current level of demand for the development
The District plans to purchase 4 of their available 12 units and rent them to employees. There are 5
District employees who are interested in purchasing a unit for their personal residence. Any of the
12 units allotted to the District, which are not purchased by the District or its employees will be
available to the Town and its employees (and visa versa).
At this time, six Town of Vail employees have expressed interest in the Red Sandstone development.
Of these, three are critical employees. Depending on the number Council would like to purchase,
there coutd be 0- 3 units available to the general public.
IV. Nezt Steps
Staff will use the direction provided by Council to finalize the intemal method of distributing the
units to be constructed in the Red Sandstone and A-Frame developments. Upon deternvning the
number (if any) of units available to the general public, staff will return to Council to set the criteria
for that lottery.
3 f:\everyone\andyU8 memos\TC Redsand.414
beautification ' -
Subject: beautification
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 15:55:09 -0700
From: Kathryn Benysh <kbenysh@vail.net> .
To: ssilver@vail.net
This web site is a great idea! I'm much more likely to participate in
town government now.
There are three things that I'd like to suggest to the TOV staff:
1) There is too much trash around town and we shouldn't have to wait
until the May cleanup for it to look nice. How about asking the police
foot patrols to carry a trash sack with them and pick a few things up?
2) The bathrooms at the top of Bridge Street are disgusting. They
stink and are often dirty. They are an embarrasment to the town.
3) The many newspaper boxes are an eyesore. Let's replace them with
something more attractive and uniform.
Thanx for reading this. I think these are inexpensive ways to improve
the core area.
1 of 1 4/7/98 5:19 PM
• _ xc. ~.~,u.e.~ ,
. ~
EMPLOYMENT GENERATION RATES
A Background Analysis Based on Survey Research
June 1991
Revised December 1991
ROSALL RF,MNIEN CARES
, , .
.
EMPLOYMENT GENERATION RATFS
INTRODUCTTON
lfiis report summarizes the results of survey research conducted in several ski/tourism communities.
It reviews the results from questionnaires addressed to employers that, among other topics, explored
the relationship between the number of square feet (s.f.) in the commercial establishment and the
number of employees working in the particular business. These surveys were conducted in Eagle
(136 interviews), Routt (174), Summit (242), Pitkin (169), and Blaine (Sun Valley/Ketchum-162
interviews) Counties and Estes Park (224). The sample includes 1,107 commercial and governmental
establishments ranging in size from the smallest to largest in the various counties.
This information is presented to the Town of Vail to assist in discussions concerning the appropriate
standards for adoption into proposed Code amendments, with particular application to the SDD
process. A number of different "cuts" at the data are presented that allow overall total measures to
be developed, along with some figures describing the situation in Eagle County, and specifically
within the Town of Vail.
In addition to the various commercial/employment figures, several other attachments have been
provided. These include:
• • Excerpts from a report that provides an overview of "linkage" programs and
describing the status of such programs in a variety of communities. Linkage is a
term that is used to describe codes or requirements that tie new development to
requirements for providing funds or mitigation to meet the identifiable impacts
associated with the new development. Such programs are in various stages of
evolution, and are relatively uncomman in the mountain towns. Nevertheless, there
are proven examples that merit attention.
~ A summary of the current Aspen and Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines
: for determining "Generation of Employee Units" by various land use categories.
• An excerpt from a field survey of establishments conducted by the Director of
Community Development in the Town of Breckenridge. It is showing employment '
levels that aze similar to those being obtained through the RRC study.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
As shown in the Appendix tables and in the graphs on the following pages, there is wide variation
in the number of employees generated by the various types of commercial activity. For example,
the Figures poRray the average number of employees per 1,000 square feet by business type, and
they also show the average number of square feet per employee (both calculations combine two
different measures of commercial activity). The average number of employees in retail businesses
in the ski/tourist towns surveyed is 11.3 but the number of reported employees ranges from 1 to 155
per establishment. Obviously, it is difficult to generate a single measure that will perfectly describe
the situation within the wide range of retail establishments that exist. Similarly, the average numbfr
of employees per 1,000 s.f, was found to be 4.36, but it also showed wide vaziatiol
ROSALL REMMEN CARES ~ PAGE 1
EMPLOYMENT GENERATION RATES ,
1fie figures portray results based on the aggregate of all the resort communities. Although there was
discussion of developing standards based on just Eagle County or Town of Vai( employment patterns,
the wide variation in businesses makes it difficult to develop a measure based only on local data.
Given the fact that there truly exists considerable variation on a case-by-case basis, the regulations
that were adopted in Aspen reflect those variations in employment levels by establishing ranges rather
than single fixed measures for several of the employment categories. On the other hand, some
communities have chosen a single standard that they apply to all categories of business. Based o4
the local data_which ,we_collected,. it.,is our opinion that the Town ofrVail may want to consider arr~,
approach that uses a range much like the Aspen or Snowmass model.
The results summarized in Figure 1 show that bar/restaurants, real estate, and construction all have
relatively ]arge numbers of employees per building, when measured in square footage.__In_general;
the em lo ment numbers from the resoris are somewhat higher than some traditional measures t~
are used in other types o com 5~~. trttsuretire-irigner figures to the skieconomy n
general, and to the fact that these surveys were conducted during the peak winter months. The retail
economies in the ski towns have been strong over the past several years resulting in relatively high
employment levels per establishment, especially for those businesses that are centrally located.
While the employment estimates are valid for the winter season, it should be noted that reductions
occur during the summer and spring/fall months, especially with respect to "seasonal" jobs. To a-----
certain extent, employment fluctuations are becoming less pronounced as Vail moves toward a year- • -
round tourist economy. -Nevertheless, a more conservative standard of required guarantee of housing
for employees, for example, in the range of 20 percent on whatever is reasonable and recognizes the r~
~
inherent seasonat fluctuations which occur during the course of the year.
In addition, it should be remembered that we are measuring the total number of employees at a point
in time. Many of these individuals may be working multiple jobs (we found an average of about _
1.35 jobs per person) so there is some double counting that is taking place when the entire set of
businesses is considered. We suggest that the tables that are adopted in Vail should reduce
employment levels to address multiple job holding in the formula itself. This calculation has been
done in the table which follows.
ROSALL REMMEN CARES PAGE 2
F1viPtAYMEM' CENERATION RATES
FYGURE 1
EMPLOYEES PER GROSS 1,000 SQUARE FEEI'
' 10 9.93
9 ~
77
8 y y
n
• ~!yi'H
7 : .
~ 6 6 ~
W 5 4.94
~ 4 ' 4.07 3.95 4.15
3 2.28 Y
2 ,
:
2,09 `
x w
f'a~;
O T ~ 4 ~ ~ k 3 ~ r 6r ~j ~n ` ; xa. ~yi f: ~ 3~. ~ ~~'kuv. ~ ~ ~ sz w::
. < ~a,"~~ -c~: ? z:: f.~:
'g
0
ig
. u
E
m
RGuRE 2
SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPAC& PER EIvIPLOYEE
500 4918
~ 450
400
350 '
~
d 300 298
~
= 250 246 253 241
X 200 202 5 ~ . 2
~
150
100 101
~
^
50
. . . ~ ~ ' '
. . : . .
r _
. : ~ :
~ ~ ' . ~ . . :
~ . . . . .
K
~~R
a = ~ s ~
E
~
ROSALL RFa-Qv[BN CARES
PAGE 3
EMPLOYh1ENT GENERATION RATES
In addition to compiling figures on square footages, RRC tabulated data describing the employment
pattern within the County and the Town of Vail. 'Ihese results are based on data provided by the
State describing all businesses in che County that main[ain unemployment insurance. These results
show that within the Counry, the retail sector represents about 33 percent of all businesses, and about
27 percent of all jobs. In the Town of Vail the retail sector represents about 40 percent of businesses
and about 30 percent of jobs. These results are useful and important in [hat they indicate in which
sectors most of the future development activiry will occur. They are the retaii/services, lodging, and
to a lesser extent, construction and medical/health sectors.
F7GURE 3
TOWN OF VAIL/EAGLE COUNTY
EMPLOYIv1ENT BY MAIOR COMNIERCIAL CLASSIFICATION COMPARED
ao%
35%
30%
s~ o.. ....,,.i r..o.....n a ~.w r..d......
2 S 96
20%
15 % -=r
' . 10% *0AM
5 96 0% a ~ $ x g F s ~ ~
~ ' ~ ~ 5 e ~ o za YZS
? COYI1ry X OI BVMM60.8 ~ Town of VrI % of'Budm-• 0 Counry X ol JoO, (M Town of Vail % of JobCounty % Town of Vail % County % Town oi Vail %
of Businesses of Businesses of Jobs of Jobs
A0ric/toresvy 2% 1% 2% 0%
Construct/minin ~
9 17% 9% 15% 796
Manufacturinp 2% 1% 1% 1 9(,
Manufacturinp 096 0% t% 0%
Tranaportation 5% 4% 4% 396
RetaiUwholesale 32% 40% 2796 31%
Real eswteKinlnsur 1196 , 14% 9% 13%
Hotel, Lodpinp, Other Retail 17% 18% 25% 31 %
Medical, Health, Other 1296 14% 10% 9%
Government 2% 196 5% 4%
The measurements for ]odging should probably be based on rooms rather than square footabs.
Again,• the data indicate wide vaziations with several facilities having about one employee per 10
rooms, vvhile others are at more than one employee per room. Vail properties are especially likely
to have higher employment ratios. As shown in the attachments, the Breckenridge research showld
.8 employees per room. Overall, the RRC database showed 1.09 employees per rooift. However,
if just the permanent full-time employees are considered, the ratio drops sharply to 16 etttployfts
per room, or close to the one employee per three rooms figure that has been used by some
professionals in past estimates. '
ROSALL REMMEN CARES PAGE 4
EMPLOYMENT GENERATION RATES
Regarding implementation of the standards, regardless of the specific level of requirement which is
adopted, we believe that a certain level of flexibility regarding the location of the employee housing
should be maintained. For example, it may not be appropriate from a land use or "employee"
perspective to always house the employees on the same site as the commercial development. It may
well represent a better solution for the applicant to find a suitable alternate site from the commercial '
development which would house the workers. Preference should be given for locations within'the ,
Town of Vail; although under unusual circumstances the Town might wish to provide opportunities
for the developer/applicant to seek approval for sites which meet all other operational criteria, to be
located outside the Town boundaries. We do not believe such variances should be commonly ~
granted, but special situations might arise whereby the Town believes such alternatives adequately
serve the objectives of this requirement and might be worthy of approval.
A second issue or concern involves the question of what happens over time when specific tenants or
occupancy of a project change, yet the housing was approved for a different mix. It is our opinion
that rriost shifts of tenancies that do not require a new or amended SDD or special application, will
occur within the general framework of the approved housing plan. For those which do require an
amended or new application, specific modifications in the required housing based upon the new plans
(expansion, change of use, renovation, etc.) can be identified and reviewed at that time. It might
be necessary to require additional housing to be built in some situations, kept at the same level in
• some, or might conceivably be reduced in others. Reductions could occur either by releasing deed
restrictions on designated units, or by transferring/selling those units to another developer/applicant4l
who might need them to meet their own requirement.
Finally, a standard ratio of employees to housing type should be established which is consistent with
the then current Town of Vail codes. Currently there exists four unit types:
Type I Occupancy per code - 2 persons per bedroom plus 2 additional
. Type II 300-900 s.f, maximum, not to exceed 2 persons per unit
Type III 450-900 s.f. maximum, not to exceed 2 persons per bedroom
Type IV 300 s.f. maximum, not to exceed 1 person per unit
' " ~
.~S
ROSALL REMMEN CARES PAGE 5
_ i
• ~ Y Y~`'~'~'~ ~~G 1.~~~-C ~"C~--~
:-3, 9';
IERATION EMPLOYMENT RA7'ES
EXHIBIT A
1d~7~ ~~sl ~--P~,..y~ J~r'»t ~-~y~-~' ~ -
SUGGESTED EMPLOYMENT CATEGORIES AND RANGES FOR VAIL
EXPRESSED AS ETSPLOYEES PER lOOO SQUAxE FEET
,,4~101LJ RRC RESF-AxcH
OVERa.LL SUGGESTED
AVERAGES RANGE
Bar/Restaurant 5.7/1000 s.f. 5-8/1000 s.f, ; j of3
~ Retail and Service Commercial 5.9/1000 5-8/1000 ,/Z a~Retail: Groce /Liquor/Convenience 1.8/1000 1.5-3/1000
Office: Real Estate 7.6/1000 6-9/1000 .
Office: Financial 3.1/1000 2.5-4/1000
Cl~ Office: Professional/Other 6.6/1000 5-8I1000
Conference Center _.NA 1/1000
Health Club NA • 1-1.511000 X~ C//4
Lodging* 1.3/room .25-1.25/room -7 S
~ Local Government 6.5/1000 5-811000
Construction (Offices, Interior Storage, etc.) 10.6/1000 9-13/1000
. Multi-Family N/A 0.4/unit
Single Family N/A 0.2/unit
Other: To be determined through the SDD ~
process, upon submission of adequate
documentation and a review of the application
materials.
12S /Q ( e q~i~ _ ~ /~C~J (
* Lodging/acco~mod~tio s has parficularly large~variation of ployees per roo , epending
upon factors such as size of facility and level of service/support facilities and amenities provided. 3 2~`3
The standards present a wide range of employment, but it is anticipated that a definitive report
will be submitted by each lodging property requesting an expansion, which would then be
evaluated on a case-by-ease basis.
~
~ J I 1 f(
LJ
ROSALL REMMEN CARES LQ 4 3 2 PAGE 6
EMPLOYMENT GENERATION RA'I'FS
EXHIBIT B
, ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY CALCULATIONS OF EMPLOYEE GENERATION IIIVITS
Land Use Category Employees Generated
Residential See Occupancy Standards
Tourist Accommodation/ 0.2 to 0.4 employees per room
Lodge
Commercial
Professional/Office 3.9 employees/1000 s.f. or 1/256 s.f.
Retail/Wholesale/Services 3.5 employees/1000 s.f, or 1/285 s.f.
Warehouse 0.4 employees/1000 s.f, or 1/250 s.f.
Manufacture 1.5 to 4.0 employees/1000 s.f
Restaurant/Bar 5.0 to 10.0 employees/1000 s.f.
Utilities/Quasi Governmental 1.5 to 2.5 employees/1000 s.f.
Other Based on review of APCHA
CLARTFTCATTONS FOR CITY/COUNTY GEIVERATION:
a. The above Employee Generation calculation figures are intended to be consistent with Section
8-109, Affordable Housing, of the City Code and Section 5-510 of the County Code.
b. Employee generation for commercial uses shall be based on net leasable squaze footage (see
Definitions) and shall be verified by review of the APCHA.
c. Affordable housing may be provided on the same site or on an alternate site from the
• proposed development, provided that credit shall only be given for dwelling units located
within the City of Aspen or the Aspen Metro Area, as this area is currently defined by the
Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Policy Plan. Applicants proposing to provide
affordable housing on an alternative site shall be required to demonstrate its feasibility
'
through demonstrating that they have an interest in the property or dwelling units, and be
specifying the size and type of units to be provided and any physical upgrades to be
accomplished.
d. The Aspen City Code Growth Management Section 8-106G(4)(d) refers to the Provision of
Affordable Housing. This section allows for the advice of the City Council's housing
designee to be used in the determination of the number of employees the proposed
development is expected to generate. The standards for employee generation represent the
various levels of service which reflect the types of ]odge operations in existence or proposed
for the City of Aspen. This section allows that the applicant be given the opportunity.
ROSALL REMMEN CARES PAGE 7
EMPLOYMENT GENERAT70N RATES
EXHIBIT C
, THE HOUSING/E111PLOYMENT FIGURES FROM SNOWMASS VILLAG~
~
Job generation rates and therefore, the number of employees generated as a result of development
varies by the type of land uses which comprise the development. In order to adequately determine
. the number of jobs which will result from a project, the following job generation rates shall be
applied to each type of use in the deveiopment that creates a winter time impact on the community.
Type of Use Number of Jobs Generated
Commercial 5.57 jobs/1000 interior s.f.
Office 3.78 jobs/1000 interior s.f.
Multiple Family 0.50 jobs/unit
Single Family 0.30 jobs/lot
Hotel/I,odge Room 0.44 jobs/room
Ski Area Restaurants 4.58 jobs/1000 interior s.f.
Ski Area 82.6 jobs/1000 sires at one time
; ~ ~ ers
Miscellaneous
Conference Center 0.97 jobs/1000 interior s.f.
Health Club 1.47 jobs/1000 interior s.f.
Others To be determined through subdivision
or Planned Unit Development Process.
a. ` The number of jobs generated by all types of uses, as determined in Section A, shall be
divided by 1.3, the average number of jobs per employee, which will determine the number
of new employees which will be generated by the development.
~ .
b. The Town Councii has determined that it is desirabte to house 60% of these new employees
in Snowmass Village. ~
.
ROSALL REMMEN CARES PAGE 9
-
EMPLOYMENT GENERATION RATES
EXHIBIT D
. WORK SHEET
EMPLOYEES REQUIRED FOR VARIOUS USE TYPES
(From Breckenridge; not adopred, use for discussion purposes only)
Restaurants
6 examples 22,858 s.f.
126 employees = 1 employee/181.41 s.f.
Retail
General (2 ex.) 1.310 s.f.
10 employees = 1 employee/131 s.f.
Ski shops (6 ex.) 26.982 s.f.
79 employees = 1 employee/341.54 s.f.
TOTAL RETAIL
. 8 examples 28.292 s.f.
89 employees = 1 employj~~0317. $8 s. f.
Offices
6 examples 13.928 s.f.
77 employees = 1 employee/180 s.f.
5 examples 9.606 s.f.
44 employees = 1 employee/218 s.f.
~
TOTAL RETAIL AND OFFICES
14 examples 42.220 s.f.
166 employees = 1 employee/254 s.f. TOTAL COMMERCIAL (RESTAURANT/RETAIL/OFFICE)
65.078 s.f.
292 employees = 1 employee/222 s.f.
Hotels
3 examples 733 rooms
592 employees = 0.8 employees/room
ROSALL REMMEN CARES PAGE 9
' IrI. . •
• EXHIBIT E
INTERIM REPORT:
THE HOUSING LINKA.GE STUDY
F'rank Schnidman
Principal Investigator
Project Staff
Teresa R. Herrero, Thomas D. Wilson, Research Associates
Christine M. Baccia, Ann M. Farwell, Jeffrey H. Hendry,
Ann T. Reagan and Lynn VYheelan, Research Assistants
FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY/FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
JOINT CENTER FOR ENVgtONMENTAL AND URSAN pROBLEMS
SEPTEMBER 30,1989
Page 10
HOUSTNG LINKAGE STUDY
CO NTENTS
FORWARD BY DR. JOHN M. DEGROVE (FORTHCOMING)
PREFACE
EXECUTNE SUMMARY (FORTHCOMING)
: CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
- . CHAPTER 2. EXISTING LINKAGE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED
STATES 4
- 2.1 ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMg 4
_ 2•2 ESSENI'IAL INGREDIENTS FOR A WORKABLE LINKAGg 12
PROGRAM
2.3 REGIONAL DEVELOPNIENT DISTRIBUTTON AND pLqNNING 17
• IMPLICATTONS OF LOCAL, LINKAGE PROGRAIviS 2.4 DESCRIP'ITON OF PROGRAMS 20
CHAPTER 3. SELECTED INCLUSIONARY PROGRAMS IN THE 50
UNTTED STATES 3.1 ANAI,ySIS OF PROGRAiv(S 50
3.2 DESCRIP'ITON OF PROGRAMS 56
~
CHAPTER 4, LEGAL ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS 76
' 4.1 FLORIDA LQCpi, GpVERNMENT AUTHORTI'Y TO ENACT 77
LINKAGE PROGRAMS
4.2 CONSTTTUTTONAL ISSIJES 78
4.3 LEGA.L CHECKLIST FOR LOCAL GOV'ERNMENTS IN gp -
FLORIDA
Page 11
CHAPTER 5. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LINKAGE PROGRAMS 81
AND OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPROACHES.
, 5.1 REVIEW OF OTF-iER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS 81
5.2 INCORPORATION OF LINKAGE PROGRAMS IM'O 87
COMPREHF-NSIVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGIES
5.3 GUIDELINES FOR INCORPORA'T'ING LINKAGE PROGRAMS 89
WTO A COivPREHENSIVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEG Y
• CHAPTER 6. HOUSING LINKAGE PROGRAMS AND THE 91
CAPITALIZATION OF HOUSING TRUST FUNDS
6.1 DESCRIPTION OF HOUSING LINKAGE PROGRAMS' 92
CAPTrAL.tZaTTON OF LOCAL HOUSING TRUST FUNDS
6.2 FINANCING AFFORDABLE HOUSING'I'RUST FUNDS 94
CAPITALIZED THItOUGH LINKAGE PROGRAMS
6.3 OTHER POTENTTAL SOURCES OF REVENUE FOR LOCAL 97
HOUSING TRUST FUNDS
CHAPTER 7. GUTDELINES AND MODEL APPROACHES FOR LOCAL ' GOVERNMENTS IN FLORIDA TO DEVELOP A HOUSING
LINKAGE PROGRAM (FORTHCOMING)
7.1 ISSLTES WF-IICH MUST BE ADDRESSED
7.2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MODELS
7.3 WORKABLE HOUSING LINKAGE PROGRAM DESIGN AND
INIPLEIvtENTATION OPTTONS
7,4 LINKAGE GUIDELINES AND MODEL APPROACHES
CHAPTER 8. CONCLUDING COMMENTS (FORTHCOMING)
APPENDICES. I. BIBLIOGRAPHY
II. RESOURCE PERSONS
III. SELECTED ORDINANCES AND GUIDELINES CITATION
N. SELECTED ORDINANCE AND GUIDELINES TEXTS
(BOUND SEPARATELY) (FORTHCOMING)
Page 12
TABLE 1.1 HOUSINC LINKACE PROGRAMS -
CITY DATE PROGRAM TYPE
Boston, Massachusetts 1983
Quasi"Mandatory Pcogram !or new and substantially rehabilitaced
developmcnt over 100,000 sq. ft requiring variancts
Cambridge, Massachusetts 1988
Quasi-Mandatory linkage for dcvelopmcnt over 30,000 sq. ft
needin8 SPecial permits in three districcs or in PUDs
Cherry Hi11, New JerseY 1988 Mandaco housin
rY 8 impact fee for all developers
Hartford, Connecticut 1986 Opdonal deruiry bonus fa downtown commercial development
Jersey City, New Jersey 1985 Voluntary linkage for office and commenial development
Miami, Florida 1983, 1984 Opaonal density bonus in two zoning districu
Menlo Paric, Califomia 1988 Mandatory linicage for commerciai and induswiai development
over 10,000 sq.ft
Palo Alto, Califomia 1984 Mandatocy linkage for new and expanded commerrial and
. industiial development over 20,000 square [eet
Princeton, New Jersey iggq-__ - Mandatory linkage for non- residential development
Sacramen[o, Califomia 1988 Mandacory linkage for non-residential development
San Francisco, Califomia 1980 Mandatory linlcage for new or subscantially rehabilitaced
downcown commerciai development over 50,000 square peet
Santa Monica, Califomia 1986 Mandatory tinkage for all office development over 15,000 square
feet or additions over 10,000 square feet
Seattle, Washington 1984
Opaonal density bonus for commercial developmen[ in three
downcown zones
Tampa, Florida 1988 Optionai density bonus program
CITg',S PRESETITLY CONSIDERING pROGRAMS
Washington, D.C. Los Angeles, Califomia
Madison, Wisconsin (on hold)
FAILED TO PASS
Stamford, Connecdcut Chicago, IIlinois
PROGRAMS CHALLENGED IlY COURT
Sacramento, Califomia (upheld)
Chester Township, South Brunswick, and 11Tiddletown, New JerseY (mandat.ory fee ordinances for ail new
development, including commexcial, to rehabilitate substandarYi housing, were declared w consdtu[e illogal taxes)
Princeton, and Checry Hill, New Jersey, (1ileIy to be a{fected by above ruling) .
Page 13
. .
TABLE 1.2 SELECTED INCLUSIONARY ZONING PROGRAMS
CIT'Y DATE PROGRAM
Aspen, Colorado 1988 Growth Managemenc Quota System
Boulder, Colorado 1978 Moderace Income Housing Ordinance
Fairfax Counry, Vuginia 1977 C.ow and Moderate Income Housing Provision
Lee Counry, Florida 1986 Deruity bonus inclusionary program
L,ewisboro, New Yoric N/A Density bonus Muld-Family Residence District prog-am
Menlo Park, California 1988 _ Below Market Rate Housing Program for Residendal
Development
Montgomery County, Maryland 1974 Modcracely Priced Housing Law
Newton, Massachuseus 1984 Reviscd 20% Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance
Norwallc, Connecdcut 1988 Moderate Income Housing Regulaaon
Orange County, Califomia 1979 Inclusionary Zoning Ocdinance
1986 Housing Opportunities Program
Peabody, Massachusetts 1978 Proposcd Inclusionary Zoning Amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance Stamford, Connecricut 1988 Inciusionary Zoning Provision in Planned Development District
South Brunswick, New Jersey 1987 Affordable Housing Disuict Ordinance
DISCONTINUED ~
Cupercino„ California 1976 Below Marlcet Rate Program
Page 14
TABLE 2.1 LINKA,CE PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
A1USICIPAI.• DATE AND APPLICABLE ^REA RECQ, DESCAIP-
17Y TYPE DEVELOP• OPTInNS TF.RIHS OF RF~UL7S
vINC COfYi'R( TIONS PAYMENT
. MENT BUT(ONS
Boston, 1983 Office, rctail, Downtown: SS/sq [i ovcr Cash; In Downcown: 546,852,225
Massachuxcts Mandatory insut buildings 10% in ncigh- 100,000 Sq fL Construcaon, paid ovu 7 yrs c o m m i t t c d
ovrr 100.000 s9• borhood. Out- ahcr bldg. pa- which has as-
fc, nccding zon- sidc: 2096 in
in chan mit; Outsidc: sistcd in the
B 8cs, ncighborhood, uvcr 12 yrs 'af_ construction of
tcr CA. Con- 2,480 unics,
swct. oC units:
. bcforc C0.
• . Cambridge• 1988 Bldgs, nccding Nonc idcnti-
• Missachuxns ;y1n~~ sus4 << ~'eT Gsh; Con- Bcforc CO, Two projecis
aY WeaaLl pcmucs fied. 30.000 tt
ia 3 disaiccs or ~ scruction; land aPPnoved buc
in PUD's. donadon. appcuval chal-
]cagcd.
Chcrry Hill, 1988 All non-residcn. None idcnti- S1/s ft of
. Ncw lcrscy Mandatory tiai (and resi- f~. b~& ~ f~ 2~% bcfore $225.000 (no
- duidal) dcvel- bldg pcrmit.
noa-residcadal 2096 at CO; nst
°pcrs- or 3% of con- in 3 annual
swct, cou insullrnaiu.
, Harcford, 1986 D o w n t o w n Uniu must be Densiry boctus: Cash; Before CA. No funds cont:
Conneacut Opdonal c o m m e rc i a 1 on-sice. S15/bonus sq ft Consuvcrion.
~ bldgs, on-site (maz. FAR °r unlcs built;
• (scv. projccts
uniu, incrcase:4). at proposat
sta8°~
lcrscY Ci ry. 1985 . New retail and Friority given One unit/2,595.
Cash;
New lcrsey Voluntary commercial to *inaer.cit s ft abover Con- 2596 before Around 311
p~ojects , ovcr S(~~, y I~ ~ struction at bldg pcrmit; units, more cX.
1~.~ fc. ul fL 2090 of in licu 2596 at CO: pected, Toca]
~ Negotiated for fees; ' Financ- remaindcr pro- cont thr-ough
` (xg°L CO"trib. bidgs under ing at 8096 of ratcd xcording &nancing could
' for smalla pmj_ 100,000 ft.
. s9 fee• to leuing. not be esti-
- mated
Alcnto Park, lggg COmmcrcial or
Glifornia None identi- 51.39 sq, ft. Cash or Before frst ;78,431
Mandatory indusniat build- fcd, ovcr 10,000 59• conswction. gradin or
8 received, '
• ings ova 10.000 ft or for lower building permit• $238,500
sq' ft' intcnsiry usu: comrnitcd.
$5.31 sq, ft
Miami. F7orida 1983 Opdonal Non•rcsidcntial Vyith;n distrin DrnSicy, bonus: Cash• Cash rcceived $248,300
buildings in two oc in , $4 to $6.67/ Constructim or consnroaiun collected and
s p x c i + i disa?as. d e s i g n a t e d bonus sq. ft oc of units begua $1.8 million
ptvjcct area. .15 sq, ft, of - b4fore bldg. mocz upecte&
buiit ra. spaW pamit fa bo-
bonus sq. ft nus arsa.
Palo Alto. 1974 All bniidings None identi-
~~u 52.80/sq, ft. to SQg~, 10 $2.2 million;
MandataY ova 20= sq. fia ovcr 20,000 scl• housing fund day: of first 200 aew or
ft xw oon-re. fL
' sid. or cz~r~. °r ~n8 Pu~fi rrhab. inict
sions ovcr .~~on. 50% Frior to assesscd,
20,000. Co.
Page 15
1 .
TABLE 2.1 LINKA.GE PRC)GRAM DESCRIPTIONS (CONTINUED)
Nl"NICIPAL• UATE AND APPLlCABL.E ARk:A RE:CII • DESCRtP• OPTIUN$ TERMS OP RESULTS
• 1'fY TYPE DEVELOP• ViNC COK- TIONS PAYMFXT
MkNT TRIOtIiiO(YS
Princccon. 1984 Ncw and adQi- Nonc 5339 sq. fc. Cnsh 2-5Sb u sice plan S50,000 rc-
Ncw lcrscY Mandarory tions ro non- idcntiticd (S42,700 pcr ipproval; 259o ccivcd: $2.8
r e s i d c n t i s I unit). u consavction: mil. ezpcctcd
buildings. SQ% at CO. !rom proj. na
yct builL
Sacramcnco. 1988 Non-residcndal Affordabic Fccs: trom Cash; con- Fcc must be S1,800 tr.ccivcd
Cilifornia Manduay ncw or tshab. units must bc S.25 (warc- s tru c t i o n: paid bcforc $121.000 com-
bildings. wic}un 7 milcs housc) to 5.95 2096 of fcc bldg. permit. mItted-undcr
of dcvctop- (of[icc/sq ft. plus numbcx Uniu bailt 2 legal challcngc.
mcnL of units Gc- ycus afuz bldg.
• pcnding on pcr:uit; beforc;
. type oC dev. CO.
San Francisco, 1990 powntown new None idcnti- $5.69 sq. ft. Cash; con• Fccs: bciore 528.1 mil., as-
Cnlifornia sistcd in thc
Mandat or addicions to (icd. ovcrS0,000sq. scruction; ot Unics: ~nst. of 5,110
officc dcvcbp- It. . Onc unit: _ combination. startcd within l unics(3,387 af-
• axnt of 50.000 $14,737.70 y~' of fordabic). Add.
sq. ft. or mort.
580 expcctcd.
' Santa Monica; iggb New office None idcnti- S215134• ft for Cuh• Letta of atidifi $3 million
Glifornia Niandatmy building over rcd, fust 15,000; $S eoruuuction, u% befOm CO; conuibuced.
15,000 sq. fc. ot foc rcmaindcr. 1tmunda In 3 No funds cx-
additioa• over • One unit pcr eQuil annual pcadeb
10.000 sc{. fc. $34,596. PsYm=a..
Suttle, 1984 OpoacW D o w n t o w a D o w n t o w n Daisiry bonus: Gsh; Fee: . before 274 uniu
. Wuhington e o m m e r c i a t area $15.30 ot S101 Consavcdon. uuviriat and assiued.
projccts in 3 boaus sq..tL shocing. Units: •
d o w n I o w n ]etta of credit
~s• rctaincd until
. mmplction
Tunpa' Fl°°d, 1988 pPdOnAl Non-residendal None identi- ,81 low ro Cash: Negotiated; ded 5300,000 rc- ,
devdopmeat ia ficd. modcrue; .61 Conswction. co pamit sugu. aivcd anothcr
spcrial disaicu, muket rate; $70,260
37,026 per ezpccccd.
pOinL
Page 16
pe9e 6-1he.Daf/Y, Tuesda
Y, April 7, 1998
en~. .
1Il ents to lod
ging
tax b e• . .
~l1
sk
ew~n objg ective
By Sarah S. Chung
Daily $uff Writer
' For supporters of local market-
~ ing districts, there's good news and
bad news in the state Senate passing The orzginal agreement was to ~
{ of HB 1200.
I The good news is that the mea- StYZCtll~. ke2p jt t0 lOdg2ng. - sure has survived Senate scrutiny;
_Ni
the bad news is that with all the
amendments, the original author of q- - Rep. Jack Tay/or
the bill barely recognizes his own
work.
"With the amendments, HB 1200
is expanded so drastically in its -
funding sources, it has become a local level, said Chamber of 'But as a member of the
exactly what people didn't want," Commerce president Kate Care confer-
said state
Rep. Jack Taylor (R- Y• ence committee made up of three
Steamboat S rin~ . But in the amendments attached representatives and three senators
~ Pls )"The original by the Senate. the fundina
i agreement was to strictly keep it to ~ of the to look over the bill, Taylor still has
lodging... If it was kept low ke district would expand from just a chance to get the measure back to
then it wouldn't o aQ y lodging to include all amusements its roots before headina
'
voters didn't want, which was ro ax (1°cluding lift tickets), food and two through the a ~ 1°to round
i _
this and that and everything else." drink, and some modes of trans- Senate. The committee can elzcand
The business district bill princi- P°rtation to name a few additional sendthe bill back as is, without the
pally sponsored by Taylor and state sources. amendments, or it can kill the mea-
Sen. Dave Wattenberg (R- Walden) "It was a two and a half page sure. •
was intended to allow communities amendment with 15 categories over In su =
a mechanism to help with market- the one category in the oriQina] Carey~ hope rtthef nu erous letter
ing since the repeal of funding bill." Taylor said. written by approximately 50 cham-
~ tourism with part of the state's sales As it stands. Taylar contends the ber membecs will persuade leRisla-
tax. The option would allow an area amendment does more ti:an slisht- tors to reinstate the bil] as ori-inally
to create a district and use a per- 131 revise the measure; it distorts proposed. `
centage of its ]odgin_ proceeds to both the purpose and the people it "I've heard one senator told a
go toward regional marketing "'ould effect. In particutar, he has caller that he'd support the bill as
efforts. concerns that the amended bill long as she'd stop writinR,
The lodging tax would have to would give the perception that a said. "So w~e're at least makinaran
be approved by local voters and the business district would help impression."
i scope of the tax, who it would rourism across the state when in Sarah Guorg corers Eugle Cuunh~
effect, and how it would be admin- fact it would only benefit market- and educatinn. Shn cair be,eaclred ar
istered would all be determined on ing in that specific district.
(970) 949-055_5, ext. 615.
~
tb.~
„
TOWN OF YAIL
~
75 South Frontage Road . .
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
. .M
FAX 970-479-2157
TM
MEDIA ADVISORY
Apri I 8, 1998
Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115
Community Information Office
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR APRIL 7
Please note: The start time for the evening meeting has been changed to 7 p.m.,
30 minutes earlier fhan the previous sfart time.
Work Session Briefs
Council members present: Armour, Arnett, Ford, Jewett, Kurz, Navas
--Employee Anniversary
Sgt. Mike Warren and Officer Brad Baldwin of the Police Department were each
recognized for 10 years of service to the town.
--Design Review Board Review
During discussion of the most recent DRB meeting, Councilman Michael Jewett
suggested the Council call-up DRB's approval of a staff decision to approve an exterior
wall sign for City Market. Jewett, who said there had been a question as to whether the
sign conforms to TOV's sign code, suggested calling up the matter within the required
10-day waiting period so as not to impede or delay the applicant's progress. Although
Jewett's motion died for lack of a second, Town Manager Bob McLaurin said the staff
would research the matter and take appropriate action. For more information, contact
Dominic Mauriello at 479-2150.
--Inclusionary Zoning Presentation
Chuck Ogilby, a volunteer from the Vail Tomorrow Affordable Housing Team, presented
examples of inclusionary zoning that have been approved in Whistler, Snowmass
Village, Crested Butte, Telluride, Aspen and in other ski resorts. He asked the Council
to move forward in adopting similar legislation within the Town of Vail to be applied to
commercial projects. As proposed, Ogilby suggested using a formula similar to the
Snowmass Village ordinance that would house 62 percent of a project's employees on
site. A second tier would provide the balance of the 62 percent figure within the town's
boundaries. A third (and least desirable) option would provide a cash-in-lieu formula
(more)
RECYCLED PAPER
I
Vail Council Highlights/April 7, 1998/Add1
similar to the town's parking pay-in-lieu formula. Ogilby said the inclusionary zoning
concept should be considered as a funding--and siting--source for housing during the
Common Ground public involvement process. Because of the increased possibilities
within Lionshead and other commercial areas, Ogliby said the increased possibilities
for additional housing in Vail are "phenomenal." And, he said the concept would take ,
the pressure off the possibility of using some of the town's open space parcels for the
construction of affordable housing. Reaction by the Council was cautiously favorable.
Councilman Michael Arnett said the proposed pay-in-lieu component could be helpful in
generating the funding needed to pursue the possibility of adding housing to the top
deck of the parking structures, while Councilman Michael Jewett expressed concerns
about equitable employee-employer relationships among those who would reside on-
site. Mayor Rob Ford said the Town Council may well be moving in the direction of
inculsionary zoning or an employee generation ordinance, depending upon the
outcome of the Common Ground process. Ford said the controlling factor in the
discussions in Vail and throughout the county will be the amount of available land for
affordable housing. Ogilby said if the Town of Vail took the lead in such an effort,
Eagle County would likely follow close behind. Chuck Ogilby can be reached at 476-
3070.
--Discussion af Temporary Signs during Vail Village Summer Construction
In preparation for the evening meeting, the Council reviewed a draft ordinance that
would allow for additional flexibility in the type and number of signs to be allowed on a
temporary basis during the summer construction season in Vail Village. Up to 16 public
and private construction projects are planned for the area between mid-April and mid-
September, including the renovation of Slifer Plaza, installation of heated stairways at
the Vail Village Parking structure and the Seibert Circle streetscape project. Weekly
Thursday briefings have been scheduled for contractors, merchants, and property
owners beginning at 10 a.m., April 16 at the Red Lion. Please see evening meeting
briefs for a recap of the ordinance, which was approved on first reading by a vote of 6-
0. For more information, contact George Ruther, senior planner, in the Community
Development Department at 479-2145.
--Information Update
Announcements included: Vail Village Merchant Assn. meeting at 8:30 a.m. April 8 at
the Colorado Ski Museum; the Lionshead Merchant Assn. meeting at 10 a.m. April 9 at
Montauk; and the Community Development Department's open house during
International Building Safety Week.
Town Manager Bob McLaurin presented an update on a recent meeting of the Vail
Village Property Owners Assn. He said the organization has expressed interest in
helping to cost-share a heated streets program. McLaurin said he's currently
researching various financing mechanisms which could include creation of a special
improvement district. McLaurin said it's possible the group could bring the matter to a
public vote in the November 1998 election. Councilman Ludwig Kurz noted the
timetable appears to be tight.
(more)
Vail Council Highlights/April 7, 1998/Add2
--Council Reports
Bob Armour gave an update on the status of two bills in the state legislature. HB-1200,
which would enable a Vail Valley taxing district for marketing, has been heavily
amended and will be going to a joint conference committee. Also, he said a fixed
guideway bill has cleared another hurdle. The bill is supported by the Colorado
Association of Ski Towns.
Sybill Navas said the delegation from Mt. Buller, Australia, thoroughly enjoyed their visit
to the Vail Valley last week. She said the group looks forward to hosting a reciprocal
visit by representatives from the Vail Valley in August. Also, Navas reported on her
recent attendance at a Northwest Colorado Council of Governments meeting in
Jackson County.
Michael Jewett said he, too, enjoyed hosting the Mt. Buller delegation. He said he
looks forward to the creation of an equitable exchange program between the two
parties.
Rob Ford said the area mayors and town managers would be meeting on April 8 to
continue their work in developing a meaningful relationship with the Eagle County
Commissioners. Ford said the group was encouraged that proponents of the Vail
Valley Centre proposal asked that the matter be tabled to allow for additional revisions.
Ford also encouraged participation in the Common Ground public workshops next
week and announced that the expanded Town of Vail web page is up and running on
the Internet. The address is vail.net/tov.
--Other
Ludwig Kurz said he spent a day hosting a group from a ski resort in Austria recently.
The group was particularly impressed with Vail mountain, he said, as well as the
heated sidewalks and the Vilar Center at Beaver Creek.
Michael Jewett thanked Town Manager Bob McLaurin and staff for working with the
Colorado Department of Transportation to commit to install a guardrail on the South
Frontage Road near the Ruins in West Vail . The work will be done this summer.
Jewett had been advocating the project on behalf of a constituent.
Sybill Navas received confirmation that the Gore Creek Promenade area in Vail Village
would be re-sodded this spring. She also reported that the lights are out at the East
Vail interchange. In addition, Navas said she would fully support an inclusionary
zoning ordinance.
Michael Arnett said an inclusionary zoning ordinance or employee generation
ordinance should be an essential component of the Lionshead Master Plan. On
another topic, Arnett said that he and Ludwig Kurz attended a contractors meeting for
the Vail Village summer construction season. Arnett stressed the importance of
creating effective staging plans for both private and public projects to help minimize the
impacts.
(more)
Vail Council Highlights/April 7, 199$/Add3
Councilmembers received an overview of next week's Common Ground public
workshops scheduled for April 14 and 16.
Evening Session Briefs
Council members present: Armour, Arnett, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Kurz, Navas
--Citizen Participation
There was no citizen participation.
--Vail Athletic Club The Council voted 7-0 to approve second reading of a major amendment to the Vail
Athletic Club Special Development District. The vote came after Councilmembers
modified the ordinance to specify a completion date of May 1, 2000 after hearing from
Stan Cope, the projecYs applicant, that some construction is planned for this year, with
the bulk of the renovation to occur in the spring and summer of 1999. The town
originally approved the VAC's application for a Special Development District in 1993.
The most recent approval allows for modifications to the parking garage, restaurant,
common areas and accommodation units, the conversion of one two-bedroom dwelling
unit to a"presidential suite" accommodation units, and the expansion of one dwelling
unit. Overall, the VAC will have a total of 54 hotel rooms, 3 dwelling units and 4
employee housing units. For more information, contact Mike Mollica in the Community
Development Department at 479-2144.
--Temporary Signs During Summer Construction in Vail Village
The Council voted 6-0 (Jewett had left the meeting briefly to attend a caucus) to
approve first reading of an ordinance that allows for increased flexibility in the use of
temporary signs within Vail Village between April and Sept. 8. The ordinance, to help
mitigate construction impacts, is similar to legislation passed last year to assist
merchants in West Vail during construction of the roundabouts. In addition to
directional signs for public property, the measure allows for one additional window sign
per frontage limited to a coverage of 20 percent of the total window space (up from the
current 15 percent coverage area) with signs covering no more than 14 sq. ft. (up from
10 sq. ft. of any window space). For more information, contact George Ruther, senior
planner in the Community Development Department at 479-2145.
--Mayoral Proclamations
The Council approved four mayoral proclamations: Teacher Appreciation Week; Days
of Remembrance for 1998; international Building Safety Week; and a proaclamation
honoring American athletes who medaled in the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano. For
copies, please contact Suzanne Silverthorn in the Community Information Office at
479-2115.
(more)
Vail Council Highlights/April 7, 1998/Add4
--Berry Creek Fifth After a motion failed on a 3-4 vote to reject a conceptual plan for the Berry Creek Fifth
property, the Council voted 4-3 (Armour, Arnett, Foley against) to approve the
conceptual plan. The conceptual plan calls for pooling the 105-acre Berry Creek Fifth
property with the adjacent 108-acre Miller Ranch property (owned by the school district)
to create: 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. Although the other
funding partners had previously approved the concept, Vail had veto power over the
plan because of its 60 percent ownership status. The Council majority yesterday, while
still advocating an interest in eventually selling Vail's ownership share, approved the
concept, saying that the larger planning effort will better preserve the value of Vail's
asset. Next steps include creation of an intergovernmental agreement that would allow
for the redistribution of the parcels' ownership for future development. Other partners
formed by the Eagle County Recreation Authority in 1989 are the Town of Avon, Eagle
County and four metropolitan districts (Arrowhead, Beaver Creek, Eagle-Vail and
Singletree). For more information, contact Tom Moorhead, Vail town attorney (who
also serves as the recreation authority attorney), at 479-2107.
--Vail Valley Centre Town Council Summary of Action
Mayor Rob Ford read a letter sent to the Eagle County Planning Commission regarding
the Council's continuing concerns regarding the Vail Valley Centre proposal. The letter
is attached.
--Common Ground Public Workshop Notice
Mayor Rob Ford encouraged community members to attend next week's public
workshops on the Common Ground process. The workshops are from 9 to 11 a.m.
Tuesday, April 14, at the Vail Cascade Hotel and from 5 to 7 p.m. Thursday, April 16, at
the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus. For more information, contact Suzanne Silverthorn in the
Community Information Office at 479-2115.
--Town Manager's Report
Bob McLaurin noted the following: the Vail Village Merchant Assn. will possibly request
funding from the town to assist with free Vista Bahn lift tickets this summer to mitigate
construction impacts; discussions continue with the Vail Village Property Owner's Assn.
regarding the potential for a special improvement district to be created for heated
streets; free parking in the structures begins April 13; and spring bus service begins
April 20.
Mayor Rob Ford announced the town's new Internet web site is up and running. The
address is vail.net/tov.
(more)
I
,
Vaii Council Highlights/April 7, 1998/Add5
UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPtCS
April 14 Work Session
PEC Review
Lionshead Master Plan, Stage III
Selection and distribution of Red Sandstone units/lottery
April 21 Work Session
DRB Review
Lionshead Master Plan, Stage III
Town Council Review of DRB approval of Red Sandstone; Review of Resolution No. 6;
and Review of Ordinance No. 4, re: Red Sandstone Elimination of SDD
April2l Evening Meeting
Lionshead Master P1an, Stage lil
Second Reading, Ordinance No. 5, re: Village Core Signs for Summer Construction
1998
First Reading, Ordinance #4, Red Sandstone Elimination of SDD
First Reading, Ordinance #6, Open House/Garage Sale Signs
First Reading, Ordinance #7, Regulating Parking of Recreational Vehicles
Resolution No. 6, Approving Red Sandstone
USFS/Both Falls Burn
Presentation of Design Review Process
# # #
.
~
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road April l, 1998 Off ce of the Mayor
Yail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2100
FAX 303-479-2157
Eagle County Planning Commission
Eagle, CO
Delivered via telefax 328-7185 Dear Planning Commission,
We have previously written you expressing our concerns over the Vail Valley Center project.
Last Tuesday, we had the opportunity to hear a more detailed presentation of the project from the
developers. We remain deeply concerned over the size and magnitude of this project.
The size and density of the Vail Valley Center project causes Vail great concern because we feel
the adverse effects of this project will be felt not only on Vail but county wide. We feel Vail and
much of Eagle County is struggling to cope with our present affordable housing problem. The
Vail Vatley Center project will just drastically aggravate the situation. The amount of affordable
housing being proposed by the developer, while it may look like a step in the right direction, is far
from addressing the impacts of this project. We also feel the significant impacts this project will
have on the transportation infrastructure are not being adequately addressed and or studied by the
county. We feel approval of this project as presently conceived should be denied by the planning
commission.
Vail feels that this property can and will be developed. However, a successful development must
include the input and approvals of the two municipalities on each side of it, Vail and Avon. The
necessary affordable housing must be accommodated on site so as to not further aggravate the
disastrous situation in the county. And finally, the transportation impacts must be further
addressed and resolved to the satisfaction of Vail, Avon and Eagle Vail.
I know the planning commission will make the right choice for Eagle County and deny this project
in its present form.
T4ao . C dial l
RoorMayor
u
~y
TOWN OF VAIL
~
75 South Frontage Road • .
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
.
FAX 970-479-2157
TM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 7, 1998
Contact: Mike Rose, 479-2349
Transit Operations Coordinator
FREE PARKING IN VAIL STRUCTURES BEGINS APRIL 13
TOV SPRING BUS SERVICE BEGINS APRIL 20
(Vail)--IYs spring transition time for the Town of Vail. Starting Monday, April 13 the
Town of Vail will make its annual transition to free summer parking in both the Vail
Viltage and Lionshead parking structures.
Then, on the following Monday, April 20, the Town of Vail will implement its off-season
bus schedule with hourly peak service mornings and afternoons on outlying routes and
20-minute service on the in-town route serving Vail Village and Lionshead. The spring
bus schedule runs through May 31. As always, the service is free.
Outlying Routes
Hourly peak bus service will be offered between 6:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. and from
2:30 p.m. to 6:10 p.m. Two-hour service will be available during the remainder of the
day and evening.
The West Vail Green Route runs westbound on South Frontage Road to eastbound
on North Frontage Road and alternates service with the West Vail Red Route. The
West Vail Red route runs westbound on North Frontage Road to eastbound on South
Frontage Road. Both routes provide bus service between the Transportation Center
(more)
C~~ RECYCLEDPAPER
Spring TOV Bus /Add 1
and the far end of West Vail.
Ford Park will be serviced by the East Vail route and in-town shuttle. The Lionsridge
Loop route will not run in the spring.
The West Vail Green route along the North and South Frontage Roads will depart
from the Transportation Center each morning at 6:30 a.m., 7:30 a.m., 8:30 a.m. and
10:30 a.m. Afternoon and evening departures are at 12:30 p.m., 2:30 p.m., 3:30 p.m.,
4:30 p.m., 5:30 p.m., 6:30 p.m., 8:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. This is a change from the
winter schedule of 30 minute service.
The West Vail Red route will depart from the Transportation Center each morning at
7:50 a.m., 8:50 a.m., 9:50 a.m. and 11:50 a.m. Afternoon and evening departures are
at 1:50 p.m., 3:50 p.m., 4:50 p.m., 5:50 p.m., 6:50 p.m., 7:50 p.m., 9:50 p.m. and 1 i:50
p.m. This is a change from the winter schedule of 30 minute service.
The East Vail route will depart from the Transportation Center at 7:10 a.m., 8:10 a.m.,
9:10 a.m. and 11:10 a.m. Afternoon and evening departures are at 1:10 p.m., 3:10
p.m., 4:10 p.m., 5:10 p.m., 6:10 p.m., 7:10 p.m., 9:10 p.m. and 11:10 p.m. This is a
change from the winter schedule of 15 and 30 minute service.
The Sandstone route will depart from the Transportation Center at 7:10 a.m. 8:10
a.m., 9:10 a.m. and 11:10 a.m. Afternoon and evening departures are at 1:10 p.m.,
3:10 p.m., 4:10 p.m., 5:10 p.m., 6:10 p.m., 7:10 p.m., 9:10 p.m. and 11:30
p.m. This is a change from the winter schedule of 20 and 30 minute senrice.
The Golf Course route wi11 depart from the Transportation Center at 7:30 a.m., 8:30
a.m., 9:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. Afternoon and evening departures are at 1:30 p.m.,
(more)
~
N
Spring TOV Bus/Add 2
3:30 p.m., 4:30 p.m., 5:30 p.m., 6:30 p.m., 7:30 p.m., 9:30 p.m. and 12:30 a.m. This is
a change from the winter schedule of hourly service during non-peak.
In-Town Shuttle (Vaii Village-Lionshead) -
Spring schedules for the in-town departures are posted at bus stops throughout the
Village to Lionshead route. Daily service will be provided every 20 minutes from 6:30
a.m. until 11:10 p.m.
Bikes on Buses
Bike racks have again been installed on the front of the town's outlying vans and
buses to accommodate two bikes per rack. Bikes are not permitted inside vans or
buses except after dark. Bikes are never allowed on the in-town shuttles.
The spring schedule will utilize 9 vehicles per day and 11 drivers. That compares to
21 buses and 30 drivers per day in the winter season. A summer schedule for service
beginning June 1 will be available mid-May.
With 24 hour notice, TOV operates a wheelchair lift equipped paratransit service for
those who are unable to use the fixed route buses. For more information, call 479-
2358 or TDD 479-2825.
Spring bus schedules are available at the Vail Transportation Center and the Vail
Municipal Building. For additional information on the spring bus schedule, call the
town's 24-hour recorded information line at 328-8143.
Vail's bus system is thought to be the largest free operation in the country, carrying
more than 3 million passengers per year.
# # #
Y
11
TOWN OF vAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 6, 1998
Contact: Rob Ford, Vail Mayor, 479-1860 or
Bob McLaurin, Vail Town Manager, 479-2105 or
Andy Knudtsen, Project Manager, 479-2440
Don't Miss It...
PEOPLE WHO ATTEND COMMON GROUND PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, APRfL 14 & 16,
WILL HAVE A DIRECT HAND IN KEY DECISIONS: DIRECTION TO BE SET ON
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND COMMUNITY FAC[LITIES
(Vail)--Some of the most important decisions in Town of Vail history will be at stake during
public workshops on April 14 and April 16, sponsored by the Vail Town Council. The workshops,
part of the Common Ground public involvement process, will be used to evaluate--and
site--Vail's unmet community needs, including affordabie housing, parks, open space and
community facilities, such as a performing arts center or skateboard park. The Common Ground
process will also determine a dedicated funding source for affordable housing.
The workshops are designed to bring together a diverse group of people to help sort out
what's important for the community as a whole. "If you'll be in town next week, it's absolutely
critical that you get your income taxes out of the way beforehand and take the time to attend,"
said Mayor Rob Ford. "These are tough decisions that shouldn't be decided by seven
councilmernbers in a vacuum." In this case, Ford says it's important that people work together to
strike a balance between their individual interests, their neighborhood issues, and the interests
of the greater community. "We think the best public decisions are made when people can get
information first-hand and discuss issues face-to-face," he said.
Although the affordable housing crunch has served as a catalyst in getting the Common
Ground process going, Ford says the Town Council doesn't intend to short-change discussions
(more)
RECYCLED PAPER
`
~
Public Workshops/Add 1
on parks, open space and community facilities. "Even if you don't agree with the Town Council's
decision to make housing a priority, there are stifl choices to be made through this process with
respect to a funding source for housing and where--or where not--to site affordable housing,
parks, open space and community facilities," he said.
Since Vail is already 93 percent built-out, Ford said he expects those decisians to be
especially chatlenging. "We've got a tough road ahead. It's obvious that we can't fulfill
everyone's needs with the scare lands that remain. And thaYs why it's important that people who
are affected by these decisions have a fair and equal chance to have a say. This Common
Ground process is designed to give everyone that chance."
The free public workshops will be held from 9 to 11 a.m. Tuesday, April 14 at the Vail Cascade
Hotel, and repeated from 5 to 7 p.m. Thursday, April 16 at the Sonnenaip Bavaria Haus. The
workshops are open to alt who want to participate; however, the Vail Town Council's
responsibility is to both full and part-time Vail residents, employees and business owners.
Reservations are not required. On-site child care will be provided at each workshop, sponsored
by the Vail Recreation District. Also, a light dinner will be served at the April 16 session.
The agenda for each of the two workshops is as follows:
• Presentation of information on siting guidelines for open space, parks, affordable
housing and community facilities.
• Written responses to the siting guidelines and for housing funding suggestions.
• Presentation on background information regarding local needs.
• An update on the TOV Community Survey responses.
• Small group work to identify which community needs are most important
and to site those needs on a map.
For those who are unable to attend, the Town of Vail has created two off-site participation
opportunities so that no one is left out. An Internet site at vail.net/tov and a telephone response
line at (970) 479-2451 have been established. All feedback received between now and April 10
will be forwarded to the April workshops.
(more)
Public Workshops/Add 2
Following next week's public workshops, the six-step process will move into step two with
development of siting options and alternatives. These will be based on preferences from the
workshops, plus a technical analysis of feasibility. Those alternatives, along with possible
funding sources for housing, will then be presented for public evaluation during step 3 at a
second workshop series on June 3 and June 4. Following the second round of community
workshops in June, the town will develop preferred plans during step four, and before submitting
them to Town Council, will ask one more time for a community response during step five. The
final recommended plan and housing funding package in step six are scheduled to go before
Council for final approval on June 30.
Mayor Ford says the process has been compressed into a three-month timetable, in part, so
as not to lose focus on the Town Council's commitment to get an affordable housing project
underway this year. "Many members of the community have told us they don't want a
long-drawn-out process," Ford said. "But along with that comes the responsibility of participating
on the front end of this process."
Ford said the process will be heavy on communications with newspaper ads, direct mailings
and television coverage to make sure community awareness is high. "There shouldn't be
anyone who shows up at the eleventh hour to say they didn't know about this process," he said.
"This Town Council will not accept an eleventh hour protest from people who didn't participate
from the outset. That wouldn't be fair to the people who'll be taking the time to participate."
The Common Ground process is designed to respond to five intersecting actions previously
endorsed by the Vail Tomorrow strategic action plan: 1) establish a funding source for
affordable housing; 2) set aside specific town-owned land for acquisition of affordable housing;
3) pursue the concept of a community center; 4) develop more neighborhood parks; and 5)
complete implementation of the 1994 Comprehensive Open Lands Plan.
For more information, contact Ford at 479-1860 or; Bob McLaurin, Vail Town Manager, at 479-2105; or
Andy Kundtsen, project manager, at 479-2440; or Suzanne Silverthorn in communications, at 479-2115.
# # #
Apr-09-98 12:05 p_pz
IIC
M. D. ANESTHESIA SERVICE, LTD.
. 915 EAg7 FlRST $TFIEET
DULUTH. MINNESQTA 3'SAO'S
• PMOtaE (21e1 724•s332
Paul T. Grags. M.D. FGix-iilsi 7ze-s3w
Georga J. Schaenser. H.D.
Dona24 L. I,+;kt, M.D. '
HoYmaa J. boucher. M.D.
Joha R. G=ay, M.D.
David C. Saason. M.D.
Scacy A. Colftn. M.D.
Richard T. Jahnson. K.D.
3820 . iloc.k.v.iew c,t.
DccP.u,th, MN, 55804
1 Apn,i.1 91
Va.it Town C.ounc.it
15 S. FRONTAGE Rd
Va,i,P, Co,k1657 To the Va,i.Q. Town Cuunc,ix,
T am no.t ane- ta utKite .Cettehe a6 pna.test- bu.t. T mudt da ev in
oppob.iti..on to the phupus.6e.d Vu,it. Abeoei.a.ti.nn plan ta inene.aee bec,i,e.d.i.ng
and maeb .e.ize .to eu.i.t th.e.in. puhpobe. A.a a 10 -yQan pan.t .t.tme nebiden.#
oi Va,i,Q an.d Vantage Po.irit, iAecu the toae o6 'ouV u.n-i.que v.i.ew4 a6
Vait Mvun,ta.i.n and .the. Gon.e. Ra.n.ge ouen .the. nP.ahby bu,i..Pri,t.ng an.d pahking
etAucfiwc p,.
I am bune yau h.ccve he.ahd a,P.t. the neaeone why .the. pnoeee.a that.P_ nn
dhaU- nat go 6onwcue.d, but .i.,t eari be. aum?ned up be.e~t, 7 SvP..~, by the
te,tte~c a.ppea~ng .~n ~:he. Z Japuccvcny .i.e.eue v6 the Va,i..L' Tna,i.l ~hom Joan and
G.i:P M.in.tz. I have enc-L.obed a copy o6 .thar te.#.ten SoA _youh he.conda.
Thanlz you Jon. youuA a.tte_ntivn .ta my pte.a.
Sincen.ety,
Paul T. Gice99,MD
Apr-09-98 12=05 P_03
" ~-'nuil - Jonucay 2, 1998
FYOm preulous /xrge
Pur more bc?urintd ered renovat- beby with the bath water. ~,4~ 8e would serve to destroy the cen-
.~.:vto, W . . .
ing juet xbout everything fpr We have bon follaWing the ' spund barrier6, plue there ie lit- tral nrea of Vail Village,
the 1999 chnmpiotuahipn, but develppmeat of the Lionohead tis Concern wit,h proriding pasd- It secmA i,o us that Vail
our only solution to our elk Maeter Pian, atCended the Wil ing truCICB SIId autOA Wlth 8bet- ' A880C1:lCCA' recommendatione
problem ie to murdpr them. Tbmorraw anim ain. Naw Yark ter view of Vail Mount,ain, In for Lionehead are thoge of a
Yleaee, don t jump to a deci-. CiEy and agc+pe ,~ith tbe glppl tq aqY avent, the fsct tbat eome of public t~~an Cocusi
eion f.hat could have devast8~ pruvide I.ioushe~d ~rP~'e ~g on
ing condequencea on our elk. "desirable ~'thO existing etsucCuna exueed ite quurter-to-quarter ear?linge
Linda Wolsh ~r 1?reeant toning height reetrio- per ahare, which ie what a pub-
and •more vibrarit tic= y.certairdy ao reawn to lic corporation ie pmbably sup-
Edwarda Vail e1Lnd ~v etructures to ezosed
P1~IYi ~seame . ~ Poeed to do, but whicl~ id not
v~'~ Lionsheae~ ~ be in contliet - wit,h- the ~~6ht restrictiona_ Its kind neoeeenrily benefieial to the
Lioneheed Master P1aa, to cr+e- of like making a ceee for ueing residente of LionshQad,
tBn't Tlgh.t f0r ata a Lianahead vi1]age •core," aebestos in new school eon- Joan and Ciil Mintz
r Fort Lee, N.J.
the future of Vail. Tm v&"Agsocitos _T!o~-
ment plane: for $h l!':$aird
Editor's note~ 77te follaveng ..z c: . •::;~:s:
letter was addreased to Yail I~~-and' .
Tbrun Crxtncil. , would aetttally creat+e
We love Vait! °ty" eMTOunding the ~ •
We have becn skiing here for to the mouatain. The viewa of : :~ar«
20 yeare and, after vscatiotling the mouiit8in fcvm the Yeat 4f
. ~ '
at sici reeorW throughout Lionehead would be either
Eurape and the United 5retee eliminated or drsst'ically re-
and owning a eki houae ~n duced. It would-al~pst'ct'~te a.~_~~,~
S6ratton; Yt., we ht a con- 81CtEy~ VY of ~ iLtuA.A Cltjr t0 ~ lYCZll-
rest Of I.lOI16h88d. €s:c~e . . c:. • >:~a33;;""
dOminium in the I,andmark • "
There would be a'^Vail Aeeoc. atruction becauee a BoodlY pir-
Tower in Lionsheed in 1889. iateb villa " and then there ,.centOP of euating echoola were
We lovc I.ionehead! We love Would ~the rwt of Limhead b,,;it with aebaetoe.
the accessibility Lo the litts, the We don't The ereetion of a mein eit~CU-
spectacular viewe of the moun- thi~k }~is .ia the g~al
6ain that we can ecc throughout of the I.ioAShe~ p~4 iation '40rr?l~. . tih0 r'!~aY
the village and the openneee of '`h~ ~ r- ~10~
the central plaza. Lionsheact •-S tbe "bold
CertainlY there ie room far. . th ~ , - ~ ~
e preeent zoning lawe,permit. ing central p[aza area, wluch ie
improvement - the Sunbird Perhspe'ElialVe wby We have }he very epepal. Skieie arriving in
Lodge is an eyesore and thc preaent height ieetrictione, to Vail V'illage by bus are prnbably
addition of bouEique shops and prevent Lioqahgad frmn becolh_ further flrom the lilU t},an
reetaurante woald be appreci- ing enother' J3eaver:-CrVSk-1ike etien arriving in Lionrbead by
ated. ville8e, of weilld: ~ 'of'these bue
BuL•, le6'e riot throw awaY ~ roverl tsll bw]~ , Y~t nobody hae recpm-
Y " dusO 8re 41Qfig ffietlded a"bOkl Htr01C6 LhBt
r::,. . . .
i
It.
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 13, 1998
SUBJECT: A request for an "amendment to a previously approved development plan" for the
Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Court/unplatted.
Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg Amsden
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REGIUEST The applicant is proposing an "amendment to a previously approved development plan" for
Timber Falls. The applicant contends that plans in the Town's files from 1976 and a building
permit plan from 1982 are still binding and indicate allowable development rights. This issue
revolves around a six dwelling unit building (#19) which remains unbuilt on the properry. The
applicant would like to construct 4 single family residences or 2 single family residences and 1
duplex on the site. See applicanYs statement attached.
Staff has not seen documentation to substantiate the position that there is a binding approved
development plan for this property.
The applicant has not submitted a survey of the entire Timber Falls development with which to
determine buildable area (site area excluding slopes in excess of 40% slope, red avalanche
hazard, and areas of flood plain) and hence determine density and GRFA remaining in the
project. Since staff is not in possession of this survey, we, nor the PEC, can accurately or
properly evaluate the remaining development potential of this property based on the zoning of the
property (LDMF). Therefore, staff recommends tabling this item until such time as an
adequate survey of the entire property of Timber Falls has been provided.
II. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Timber Falls was annexed to the Town of Vail in 1974 (Ordinance No. 13, 1974 and Ordinance
No. 20, 1974 attached) in accordance with Chapter 20, Annexed Areas, of the Zoning
Regulations (these annexation regulations were adopted in 1973). At that time, Phases 1 and 2
of Timber Falls were already constructed. The property which was annexed included what is
currently called Timber Falls and Forest Glen. The plans which the applicant has submitted, and
contends are the binding (vested) development plan, also show what is now Forest Glen as a
part of the Timber Falls development plan. No annexation agreement was developed or
approved with this annexation. The annexation ordinance includes the statement that the land
was annexed "without special terms or conditions" which we believe indicates that no additional
development rights were granted to the landowner. The property was zoned in the interim by an
emergency ordinance (Ordinance No. 23, 1974) and ultimately zoned Low Density Multiple
Family (LDMF) by Ordinance No. 26, 1974 (attached).
4VM
]YI{9
r
Since no annexation agreement was established for the property annexed, it is subject to the
LDMF zoning adopted for the property.
From 1975 until 1982, approvals were given by the Town of Vail for phases 3- 11. These
phases were reviewed and approved by the DRB and were evaluated in accordance with the
development standards of the LDMF zone district (i.e., GRFA, density, building height, etc.).
In 1991, this same applicant applied for a Special Development District (SDD #27 Forest Glen).
This SDD carved out a 7.5 acre parcel from the original Timber Falls development to create a
separate and stand-alone development. This SDD was evaluated based on the underlying
zoning of LDMF and on a survey for the property. The development plan which the applicant is
claiming is a binding (vested) development plan on the Town of Vail was substantially modified
from the originai plan by carving out this 7.5 acre parcel and therefore has produced density and
GRFA implications to the Timber Falls parcel as it exists today.
Summary of facts: -
- Timber Falls (with Forest Glen parcel) was annexed in 1974
- Annexation approved without an special agreement as to density or development
- Last Town approval of a new phase in Timber Falls 1982 (16 years ago)
- SDD #27 (Forest Glen) approved removing 7.5 acres from Timber Falls in 1991
Please see memorandum from Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney, regarding vest rights legislation.
III. FURTHER DISCUSSION
The following arguments may be made with respect to this application:
1. Since the annexation is "silenY" on this development plan, the Town of Vail must accept
the original Eagle County approved development as a vested development (vested
forever).
Staff response: Staff believes that since there is no annexation agreement, there is no
"approved development plan" with vested rights to density, beyond that of the LDMF
zoning. Vested rights legislation did not exist in the Town of Vail, or the State of
Colorado, until 1991 or 1988, respectively. Vail's vested rights ordinance allows vesting
given specific conditions for a period of 3 years.
2. The site plan and building permit dated 1982 for building #20 shows a footprint for
building #19 (the unbuilt 6-unit structure). This permit, with the Town approval stamp, is
evidence that the Town had accepted the development plan for Timber Falls and building
#19, despite any density implications.
Staff response: Staff agrees that this site plan in fact shows building #19. However, we
do not believe this was an "approved development plan" which vested any rights to
density beyond that of zoning. If, for the sake of argument, one accepts that this was an
approved development plan, DRB approval of such plans are only valid for a period of
one year, and therefore would have expired 15 years ago in 1983. Additionally, if the
Forest Glen land (7.5 acres) had not been removed from the Timber Falls development in
1991, there most likely would not be a density implication for building #19 today. Forest
Glen substantially modified the "development plan" for Timber Falls, by removing 7.5
acres of land, and has potentially created density implications for the remainder of Timber
2
~
Falls. Staff can not determine if there is a density implication as the applicant has not
provided a survey of the property with which to determine buildable area.
3. The Town of Vail must review any development on this site in accordance with zoning
regulations in effect at the time of annexation and has no right to regulate existing
(constructed) buildings which were constructed under County regulations.
Staff response: Staff believes that if you accept that argument, then any changes to
zoning in the Town of Vail would only have effect on undeveloped property. Therefore,
the Town would not be able to regulate the single-family houses and commercial areas
which were annexed into West Vail and would never be able to change or modify zoning
restrictions. Staff believes this argument suggests that the application of zoning is not
legal in the Town of Vail.
4. The Town of Vail has continuously approved the phases of Timber Falls and therefore
must have accepted the "vested" development plan. -
Siaff response: The DRB did in fact approve all phases up to this disputed phase of
Timber Falls. Density and GRFA standards have been applied to the development
proposals as each phase was approved. Density and GRFA figures were based on an
estimate of buildable area in the Town files, which cannot be verified without a survey.
5. According to the applicant, all other development standards in the LDMF zone district
apply to this development (i.e., GRFA, building height, setbacks, etc.).
Staff response: If this development plan is a vested development plan, then why would
other LDMF zone district standards be applicable? Why then would the density
provisions not apply and why would GRFA have been applicable to all future phases of
this development? Staff believes that all of the development standards of the LDMF zone
district are applicable, including density. A landowner is not able to pick and choose
development standards as to best suit their needs.
In 1984, the applicant, in consideration of development on the parcel of land included in Timber
Falls, but hence developed as SDD #27 (Forest Glen), prepared an analysis (see attached) of
development potential on the 7.5 acre parcel in accordance with the LDMF zone district. It would
appear that the applicant at that time recognized the zoning on the property as controlling density
and development standards, but is now contending that the "approved development plan"
controls the density.
A review of the Municipal Code has revealed that the term "development plan" is only used in the
following instances:
1. In reference to the establishment of CC1, CC2, CSC, and HS zone districts.
When such a district is originally established the applicant is required to provide a
general development plan for the area. Though, this plan must show locations of
buildings and uses, however, it does not establish density provisions or
development standards.
2. An SDD requires a development plan which establishes development limitations
and standards. This development plan expires after 3 years from the date of
approval.
3
a
3. The vested rights chapter of the Zoning Regulations defines a development plan
and vested right as:
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Shall mean and be limited to a
final major or minor subdivision plat, or a special development district
development plan.
VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT: The right to undertake and complete the
development and use of property under the terms and conditions of the
site specific development plan, and shall be deemed established upon
approval of a site specific development plan.
A site specific development plan under this section expires after 3 years and must
contain the following language:
"Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuarrt to
Colorado Revised Statutes title 24, article 68, as amended."
This section goes on to state: "Failure to contain this statement shall invalidate
the creation of the vested properry right."
Therefore, what the applicant has produced as a"development plan" has no basis in the code.
IV. ZONING ANALYSIS
Zoning: Low Density Multiple Family
Hazards: High and Moderate Debris Flow
High Severity Rockfall
Snow Avalanche Area of Influence
Lot area: Cannot be determined w/out a survey
Buildable area: Cannot be determined w/out a survey
Standard Allowed/Required Existina
Density: Cannot be determined w/out a survey 116 dwelling units
GRFA: Cannot be determined w/out a survey 133,241 sq. ft.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends that the PEC table this request until
such time as the applicant has provided the necessary survey and information for the property to
be properly evaluated by the staff and the PEC.
Further, staff believes that the only two Town of Vail processes that allow deviations from zoning
density provisions available to the applicant are the variance process or the Special Development
District process.
F:\EVERYON EPECVNEMOS\98\TIM BFALL.413
4
"The Chalets at Timber Falls"
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant is proposing to amend the previously approved development plan for Site #19 of
Timber Falls Condominiums. The following amendments are proposed:
1. Reduce density from 6 residential units to 4 residential units.
2. Changing the residential structures from a condominium format to a single-family
or duplex format.
3. Reduce the remaining GRFA available in the Timber Falls Condominiums (Site #19
is the last undeveloped parcel in this project) from approximately 38,657 sq.ft. to
9,500 sq.ft..
The applicant has established defined building envelopes for each of the 4 units proposed. No
structure shall be located within 10-feet of an adjacent unit in accordance with UBC
requirements for fire protection. Exterior materials will be similar to those products used in the
existing buildings at Timber Falls. Stucco base with natural wood siding, possibly some stone
accents. A11 other development standards for this zoning district shall be adhered to under this
proposal.
History of Tim6er Falls Condominiums:
Ownershin
The Timber Fa11s praject has been under the same ownership (Timber Falls Associates) since
original work began to develop the property in 1972.
Eagle County
The 21.8 acre site was received Sketch Plan approval from the Eagle County on January 3,
1973, for Lots 1-7, Timber Falls Subdivision. The lots were zoned multi-family and each lot
was to contain several condominium buildings. The breakdown is shown below:
Lot 1 Future site of Glen Fa11s Subdivision.
Lot 2 Avalanche area and recreational amenities.
Lot 3 Buildings 17, 18, 19 and 20.
Lot 4 Buildings l, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Lot 5 Buildings 14, 15 and 16.
Lot 6 Buildings 10, 11 and 12.
Lot 7 Buildings 8 and 9.
The owner performed extensive avalanche studies, which are well documented in the remaining
files at the Eagle County Planning Department, to satisfy zoning authorities at the time. The
avalanche area was required specific mitigation and only recreational amenities were allowed
to be constructed in this area.
Buildings #1$ (44 units on 2.5 acres) were approved and permitted through Eagle County ~
prior to annexation of the Timber Falls parcel into the Town of Vail on November 4, 1974.
Town of Vail
The Town of Vail annexed the subject property on November 4, 1974. Annexation
documentation on file at the town does not reference any density or developer improvement
requirements.
In 1976, a development plan Town (see Exhibit "A" - Development Plan, obtained from files at
the Town of Vail) was filed with the Town of Va.il outlining the overall Timber Falls site plan
and showing a total of 19 building sites (there was no Building #13). Buildings #10, 11 and 12
were approved, permitted and constructed between 1976 and 1978.
In 1978, the Town of Vail Planning Department requested a master plan be submitted outlining
the proposed "build out" for the remaining development in the Timber Falls project. According
to the owner, this plan was submitted and approved by the Town ( See Exhibit `B" - Master
Plan, obtained from files at the Town of Vail). This approved Master Plan clearly defines the
remaining development as 7 buildings containing a total of 48 units. The breakdown is shown
below:
Building #14 7 Units
Building #15 7 Units
Building 9 16 10 Units
Building #17 6 Units
Building #18 6 Units
Building #19 6 Units
Building #20 6 Units
Total Density 48 Units
The approved plans for each of these buildings, excluding Building #19, are contained in the
files of the Town of Vail. Both the approved site plans for Building #18 and Building #20 (See
Exhibit "C") specifically denote the proposed location and size (identical to the 6-unit
configurations in Building #18 and Building #20) of Building #19.
Buildings #14 through #18 and Building #20 were all constructed in accordance with the
approved building and site plans on record at the Town of Vail, and the Master Plan filed in
1978.
After receiving inquiries and an offer for the purchase of Site #19 at Timber Falls, the owner
approached the Town of Vail Planning Department regarding the remaining GRFA available in
the project. A response letter from Tim Devlin at the Planning Department (See Exhibit "D"),
dated March 3, 1993, indicated the remaining GRFA as 38,657 sq.ft..
A second letter from Tim Devlin at the Planning Department (See Exhibit "E"), dated March
11, 1993, questioned the accuracy of the previously represented GRFA number and
recommended using it only as a"rough estimate" until such time as a stamped survey confirms
2
the site area and net "buildable" area. Much to the surprise of the owner and contrary to the
development plan and master plan on file in the records of the Town of Vail, the letter goes on
to indicate a remaining density of 2 units for Site #19 at Timber Falls.
The owner responded in a letter to Tim Devlin (See Exhibit "F"), dated March 17, 1993,
stating that the Town of Vail's analysis was flawed. If the Town's technique of using current
zoning criteria in 1993 (disregarding a.tl past approvals) to analyze the remaining density in the
Timber Falls project, then the Town must focus their current zoning standards in 1993 to those
lands annexed into the Town in 1974, or 10.575 acres. This approach would arrive at a
remaining density of 23 units and a even higher remaining GRFA for Site #19. No further
discussions or any applications were filed at this time.
Purpose of Application:
The applicant, AMS Development, Inc. (Crreg Amsden) negotiated a contract on December 29,
1997, to purchase Site #19, Timber Falls Condominiums, from the Owner. The applicant
requested verification of existing density and GRFA for the subject parcel from the Town of
Vail Planning Department in early 7anuary, 1998. After approximately 30 days of discussions
involving the Town of Vail planning staff, town attorney, owner, applicant and applicant's
attorney, the Town of Vail responded in a letter to the applicant (See Exhibit "G"), dated
February 9, 1998. , and further stated that the decision as to existing density for Site #19
cannot be determined by the planning staff or the Town attorney. According to state statute,
this decision must be determined by a Commission or Boaxd seated at the Town of Vail.
3
~
l
Building Site #19, Timber Falls
~`~.y,.
. ' . ' ?tr._
These photos show different angles of the site on March 13,1998.
, .
. . ~
_
~ -
-
View of Building #18 View of Building #20 View looking south at
Buildings #16 and #17
~t
,
r
a"s
g
,
. : . . .
. . .
_ i. ~ . . r~-o,. . . .
View of Building #3 View of Building #18 View looking east at
Buildings #1 and #2
~ .
~
d: . .
T t
x-
R
View looking west over Glen Falls Subdivision
-------------c\ =----------i-----
w S ~
) -,------------r-------T----~~ rqF ~ , -
,~G\~ -----T----_..~_- , ~
AMs~o
FOURTH ADO~ITION C~R~LE L~--
~ S,~REpM BIGNOR SUBDIVISImN
j ~ ta-•~\\~, G~~\ I I ~ ~
%
~EK \ ~~~E"'„y~`'',1 ~ ' , °9~\•.~_. i i - -I ~ti
,
~ ' , , ~ - - _ - ~ ~~`r , , • r~ l.~ , . .
1- ~ tri ~ ; f~; ~ I Iq r~ ~v~ •acr~-qvw I I.,~~...
GCui.j,
\ ` y' ~ r,.~\ :1~1 ~l~ ii~ . ~ ~
~ 'R ° : - ` ~ ) . ~ "~"'~--•~x. ~
, ~ \ \ \ ~ ' ~ , . ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ \ _ . i ..i~uno r.~~~n~ ra.
v ! ~cy(~
~ ` ~ \ ~ i . ' J~r~r
~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~,t"; . ~ ~ ~ 1"`
I {
/ , ~ ~ ~ , , , ~ . ~ . ~
` MEADOW DRIVE
~i ~ ~4 ~ ~ i~ , ` , V + ri'~ . = .i ti l l l~ ti. ~ ~ ~ 1 J x• `~~lR~ , ` : - , o. ~ s
1 ~ \
~ _ _ w~T ~ ~ ~ w . ' I/ ~ . ' I~~~I~~ , , ~ f i~' /
~wo ' - r ~ ~ . 1i~.1 ~ ~ ~ t \ : J• 'iie •u~ ~ (9, • ~ ~ , I vu~i~a ~
\ '7 ~ ' l~fi' ~ - i ! ; . -1-~o ~ . v , ,y
,~~`~~_•'i : , / `1/' \ I . k) ~l~r °
_ • ~i 1 ' - r.a~e.-- .7(''~.~~
WMIT! Illvtll
` ~ I>o0
?a ~ ` / ~ ~ _ \ ; - : • ~ ~
NATIONIt /011[6i •
i
0 wxtro ewte ~
. ; _ I . ~)k^! NATIOMAI I011921
`
• -
• ~ y.
timb? ~
er falls
. development plan ~
' Va l' r~ol ora d o timber falls I I I I
• , eorporation decembor 1976 - Seals1'•50'
. ' . s_ .
. EzNi51r "B"
~ TIMBER -'ALLS CONDOMINIUMS
, . . .
. . .
s i irr~qMSioE-''---_
. G o iIE C R E G K .
~ Yy
l.
~HOOL . ~ GppF
CRE~
l ~ ' ? ~ ' ~ . ~ COMMON A~~
TIMBEFi ~FALLS CIRCLL
CJ ' • ~ ~I~ ~6
O ,.f~ , ~ ~ i~~ '
Cow. tD 0
r ' • Te
a
UTURe
_ DtVr.LUPW~ • ••j . , t' 3 - ~ g -
,
;,k- ~ ~ ~ ~ - - . O
~ l7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~FUT~/Rf Z ~ OFFICE
REGWEAT/0\,
.y ~ , ~ \ : q' , , p
_ n ~:T'~ . ~ ty , : ~ l ; ~ us£ . ~ • ~ ~o~fJtiio
V. 3
V ;~~,,1- , Jj ~ .F` i_ g ' ~
~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ) ' ~l ~
~ ~ . . ~ , ' ~ ~ ~ji+ 1. I ..f
"
T~M~o R~ z
A C~ ~RHA~ 7
O ' ~~~~V~~''~~ . ~ 17 'A
COMMON AREA f' ~ ~ . ~ ~~v - - . . .
rv~,.
~ I r Mt:ADOW ^ ORIV~-
v
16 PNAS { 4 -
' : ` P 2r.
12
qT : .r 14
O;
( Ft\ ~S
Q
~ g _
3 O
~ I .
EX4IeIT -"C
,
r...- ~ ~ ` ` . i ~ P. xo' • e/00,1160
• a~. '
1.
• . .
\
\ \ M
r•••+~'~ ~ ` ` ` ` ` , ' . 4i 1 U/=,
. ~ ~ ~ f ~ \ ,r w : / ~ ~ .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s \ li~~•~r;~~ .
rE
vI s~(/~
1 i ~ . ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ f~ • \ \ ~ti~ ~ ~ ~r ~ ""^1„ .Y7Y
~ I l ?"``...,,r , .
) f ~ . -
,
( r , ~ . "r,,.._' °'^w-~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ,,,,,..,,r .M....~ ~ • . `
~ / ~ ~y ~ ~ ~ ~
r ( ~ ~ ~ \ ' ~ ~,_,.~-r •~--''~~y~ Y,~.
-Z7/ { ~,,...r"~J \ \ ~~'i
~
,,vc.
105
i
: j-
~ ~ .
,~--''.i'"~,-~'~ 1 ( , ~ ` . , . . ' c.oi :
~ , ~ ~ . ~ _ ~ ` ~ f : ~ f ,
EXHIBIT "D"
. '
M" ~9
TOWN OF VAIL ~
?S Soutb Frontage Road Department of Community Development
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2138 / 479-213! _
"C,, J"Oa~ ~~~3
~
March 3, 1993
Mr. Ron Riley
228 Bridge Strei ~
Vail, CO 81657 _
Dear Ron: ~j-
Upon review of though the following
area numbers c,
Total Site Area.
Total Buildable Area: 571,732 sq. n.
Allowable GRFA: 171,520 sq. ft.
Existing GRFA (3/2/93): 132,863 sq. ft.
Remaining GRFA: 38,657 sq. ft.
Please let me know if I can answer any further questions thaf you may have.
Best regards,
%l~~~°`''` L~ , ~,i!~ J-~ -
Timothy N. Devlin
Town Planner
xc: Mike Mollica
~
'i
EXHIBIT "E"
. ~
,'y~~l
TOWN OF vAIL 75 Soutb Frontage Road Department of Community Development
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2138/479-2139
March 11, 1993
~-tl,'+,,.• 1.... S `J : 3; >
Mr. Ron Riley
228 Bridge Street
Vail. CO 81657 _
Dear Ron:
As a foilow-up to my letter of March 3rd to you, and upon further review ot the Timberfalls file
on record with the Town of Vail, I have discovered the foilowing in regard to the allowed
density for Timberfalis:
Total Site Area: 782,157 sq. ft.
Total Buildable Area: 571,732 sq. ft.
The allowed density in the Low Density Multiple Family (LDMF) zone district is 9 units per
buildable acre. As I believe you are aware, "buildable area" means any lot or parcel, or
` portion thereof, which does not contain designated floodplain, red hazard avalanche area, or
areas in excess of 40% slope. Since the buildable area shown in our files is 571,732 square
feet, or 13.125 acres, this results in a total density of 118 dwelling units for Timberfalls.
Further, our records show that 116 units have been constructed, resulting in 2 units that could
still be built.
Although the Town's records indicate a total site area and a total buildable area for the
Timberfalls project, we are not in possession of a stamped survey verifying those numbers. In
order for us to accurately determine the remaining allowable density for Timberfalls, it will be
^
:T.+~. a ah?,.,r.~
necessary or yau to provide us with s.: ~:h ~~cum,,,,,..~,pn~~+ion. Unt;.,~,~ a ~ n h
numbers shouid only be used as a rough estimate of the available density at the Timberfalls
project. If you should have any questions, please contact me at the Office of Community
Development, 479-2138. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Best regards,
Timothy N. Devlin
Town Planner
xc: Mike Mollica
i
yk;; EXHIBIT "F,,ir
onald ~iley
March 171993
= '.MOZI..1C&
,
ity DeveloPment
o~p~ofiVail z ~ 34
Frontage Road
• ai ~CO g1657
..s.i- i-t . -~,y~-~'.,~ai ~ _ • . < , ~
ent~lemen: trIt.
in response to your lette.r of 3j11/93. Your and,~y.~~
awed, in that the Town of Vail zoning regulations wou1~-~riQ
~
applicable until 11/4/74 (the date the parcel was annexet~.>~;~'h¢.,~yh~.*
wn, :of Vail ) . Phases 1 & 2, comprised of 44 units and~~QVe~~.~~
F- ~.2:~55 -acres, were completed prior to the annexation s:~` raC'~iri
S . . . dy,: ~k ' e
hA~es 1.& 2, leaves 10.575 acres of buildable ground "resul~~.rig,~.z1.~~
" "of 95 units available to be built:'`72 units~ have~~~eeA~;;
7-.4acompleted after annexation, leaving 23 units lef~ t6?' be;;
'`~he*~arcel .
ZTtie ~,$ame: analysis relative to GFRA would produce a'
. . f . .
~.igure.;than identified in yo.ur letter of 3/3%93
than a sufficient GFRA, it's not necessary'`,,'~o~ 1ilAke •~c:~~,'~ r;y~'
a1,0, ulations.
~ ~ ' e„" y 4~~ 'ik -~q ~OyX ~•Y'~`G1ff.; ~ . ~ ' . : ~~~j,~~ 3~o~C
~7 F
need anymore information relative to this matte _-e s,e' ~r'
@ZVB 'me a Ciall•
~ - ~ a{ a"°~`"~~ : :r r w'`- •y
fi
~
e
+o+.,kM°;
Y k{ g~; s~.~} S i n c e r e l
Y ,
5
4,
~y ~5~~ ~ ~EA L5~7.~ :
~
Vf~
~ a ..L 1 __~xf~y }`~~~yy~.k .f
R O 11 aZ d H. R 1lE y
* a '
~at'~"'
y"h~~+4 w ? ~ ~ ~y
4I~RHR/chl a~yO~ p%-,eet'~
tt. ~4 y> +l~x. ~hT, i! .ti£. t
.'y7.m A`~'~_
rx s~ . .-c
u'~~r t r°,..,rox
9vt~-^~"
y~~t~~4
~ 4 ~ '4 n
-
rr:r
ti
N/~ A'T~ f!"Ti~•Z 'wi'i.
228 Y3ridge Street 6i1 C`~olouado 81657 • 303-476-3 roqi4iso
>
r s . . a. . ' . .'.u `x ...c3'
EXHIBIT "G"
u
1~
TOWN OF YAIL
Department of Community Developirietit
75 South Frontage Road
vail, Colorado 81657
. .
970-479-2138
FAX 970-479-2452 TM
February 9, 1998
Greg Amsden
Amsden, Davis & Fowler
500 South Frontage Road East, Suite 112
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Timberfalls Development PotentialBighorn 4th Unplatted
Dear Greg,
At your request, the Town of Vail Community Development Department, with the aid of the
Town Attorney, has reviewed the status of the development potential for Timberfalls.
Upon review of Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code, the Colorado Revised Statutes, the Town's
files and the materials you have provided, we have not seen evidence that indicates that all of the
requirements of the vested property rights provision of the Municipal Code and the Colorado
Revised Statutes have been met.
I have enclosed a copy of Chapter 19 for your review. The Town files are available for review
at the Community Development Department. Should you have any questions or concerns, please
do not hesitatQ to ca1l me. You can reach mP ry telephone at 479-2145.
Sincerely,
OR
George Ruther, AICP
Senior Planner
xc: R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney
L • RECYCLEDPAPER
12-19-1 12-19-4 ,
CHAPTERI9
VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS
SECTION: 12-19-3: NOTICE; HEARING: No site
specific development plan shall
12-19- 1: Purpose be approved by the Town Councii or any
12-19- 2: Definitions Town board or commission as applicable,
12-19- 3: Notice; Hearing until after a public hearing proceeded by
12-19- 4: Approval Procedure written notice of such hearing, in accor-
12-19- 5: Effective Date Of Approval dance with Chapter 3 of this Title. Such
12-19- 6: Vested Property Rights; Duration notice may, at the option of the Town, be
12-19- 7: Notice Of Approval combined with the notice for any other
12-19- 8: Exception To Vesting Of hearing to be held in conjunction with the
Property Rights hearing on the site specific development
12-19- 9: Payment Of Costs plan for the subject property. At such hear-
12-19-10: Other Provisions Unaffected ing, persons with an interest in the subject
12-19-11: Limitations matter of the hearing shall have an opportu-
nity to present relevant or material evidence
as determined by the Town Council or
. Town board or commission as applicable.
12-19-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of this (Ord. 2(1991) § 1)
, Chapter is to provide the proce-
dures necessary to implement the provi-
sions of Coforado Revised Statutes title 24, 12-19-4: APPROVAL PROCEDURE: The
article 68, as amended. (Ord. 2(1991) § 1) action of the Town Council or
Town board or commission as applicable
for approval of a site specific development
12-19-2: DEFINITIONS: plan shall be in the same form as that re-
quired to approve any request being con-
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN: sidered for the subject property in conjunc-
Shall mean and be limited to a final major tion with the hearing on the site specific
or minor subdivision plat, or a special de- development plan, such action being either
velopment district development plan. by ordinance, resolution, or motion as the
case may be. If any action by any board or
VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT: The right to commission is appealed to or called up by
undertake and complete the development the Town Council, approval shall be
and use of property under the terms and deemed to occur when a final decision of
conditions of the site specific development the Town Council is rendered approving the
plan, and shall be deemed established site specific development plan. The approv-
upon approval of a site specific develop- al may include such terms and conditions
ment plan. (Ord. 2(1991) § 1) as may be reasonably necessary to protect
the public health, safety, and welfare, and the failure to abide by any such terms and
Town of Vail
, 12-19-4 12-19-8
conditions may, at the option of the Town Failure to contain this statement shall inval-
~ Council or Town board or commission as idate the creation of the vested property -
' applicable, and after public hearing, result right. In addition, a notice describing gener-
; in the forfeiture of vested property rights. ally the type and intensity of use approved,
; (Ord. 2(1991) § 1) the specific parcel or parcels of property
affected, and stating that a vested property
right has been created, shall be published
12-19-5: EFFECTIVE DATE OF AP- once, not more than fourteen (14) days
PROVAL: A site specific devel- after approval of the site specific develop-
opment plan shall be deemed approved ment plan in a newspaper of general circu-
, upon the effective date of the approval lation within the Town. (Ord. 2(1991) § 1)
action relating thereto by the Town Council
or the Town board or commission as the
case may be. (Ord. 2(1991) § 1) 12-19-8: EXCEPTION TO VESTING OF
: PROPERTY RIGHTS: A vested
; property right, even though once estab-
12-19-6: VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS; lished as provided in this Chapter, pre-
DURATION: A property right cludes any zoning or land use action by the
• which has been vested as provided for in Town or pursuant to an initiated measure
' this Chapter shall remain vested for a peri- which would alter, impair, prevent, diminish,
od of three (3) years. In the event amend- or otherwise delay the development or use
ments to a site specific development plan of the property as set forth in the site spe-
are proposed and approved, the effective cific development plan, except:
, date of such amendments for purposes of
the duration of the vested property right, A. With the consent of the affected land-,
~ shall be the date of the approval of the owners; or
original site specific development plan, ,
unless the Town Council or applicable B. Upon the discovery of natural or man-
board or commission specifically finds to made hazards on or in the immediate
the contrary and incorporates such finding vicinity of the subject property, which
in its approval of the amendment. (Ord. hazards could not reasonably have
2(1991) § 1) been discovered at the time of site
specific development plan approval,
and which hazards, if uncorrected,
: 12-19-7: NOTICE OF APPROVAL: Each would pose a serious threat to the
map, plat, or site plan or other public health, safety, and welfare; or
document constituting a site specific devel-
opment plan shall contain the following C. To the extent that the affected land-
language: owner receives just compensation for
' all costs, expenses, and liabilities
Apprnva/ of fhis plan may create incurred by the landowner, including
a vested property right pursuant but not limited to all fees paid in con-
. to Co/orado Revised Statutes sideration of financing, and all archi-
title 24, article 68, as amended. tectural, planning, marketing, legal,
and other consultants fees incurred
after approval by the Town Council, or
Town of Vail
12-19-8 12-19-11
applicable Town board or commission, ment the provisions of Colorado Revised
together with interest thereon at the Statutes title 24, article 68, as amended. in
legal rate until paid. Just compensa- the event of the repeal of said article or
tion shall not include any diminution in judicial determination that said article is
the value of the property which is invalid or unconstitutional or does not apply
caused by such action. to home rule municipalities such as the
Town of Vail, this Chapter shall be deemed
D. The establishment of a vested proper- to be repealed, and the provisions hereof
ty right pursuant to law shall not pre- no longer effective. (Ord. 2(1991) § 1)
clude the application of ordinances or
regulations which are general in na-
ture and are applicable to all proper-
ties subject to land use regulation by
the Town, including but not limited to,
Building Codes, Fire, Plumbing, Elec-
trical and Mechanical Codes, Housing, -
and Dangerous Building Codes, and
design review guidelines. (Ord.
2(1991) § 1)
12-19-9: PAYMENT OF COSTS: In addi-
tion to any and all other fees and
- charges imposed by this Code, the appli-
cant for approval of a site specific develop-
ment plan shall pay all costs relating to
such approval as a result of the site specif-
ic development plan review including publi-
cation of notices, public hearing, and review costs. At the option of the Town, these
costs may be imposed as a fee of one hun-
dred doltars ($100.00). (Ord. 2(1991) § 1)
12-19-10: OTHER PROVISIONS UNAF-
FECTED: Approval of a site
specific development plan shall not consti-
tute an exemption from or waiver of any
provisions of this Code pertaining to the
development and use of property. (Ord.
2(1991) § 1)
12-19-11: LIMITATIONS: Nothing in this
Chapter is intended to create
any vested property right, but only to imple-
Town of Vail
~
~t pp1~t~~~ p+ra ptr~n, ~ -
, ,
. ~ ~
TREFS6"CALANDI.ANC.EN:
p c.~
INDICATES EXISTING CONIiER ~
O F q ~ q ~ q N C H ~ ~.c.,xy~7~•lY 1S..7P . ~ ^ ~A&
~ \ I F Z O Iy inou,Ares ecisrrvc or:auuous ~
. ~ . , /
PHASE 9 , ~ • I , ' .
• \ . ~ ~ " ~ ~ , . , ~
. . i
~U
~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ . ~ •r ; J '
~ EX16TI~G BUIL01`C
7 ' L . \ • 9 ~'11 I 1 ~ . ' ` 'r'
1 I ~
• \ . ~ \ . \ ` ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' 'j ~ . ~
~ ' ~ .d~~ . . ~ ~ ~ ' • t
i ' . ~ . ~ y I ' ! ' 1 r ~ . • / i ~ r
, ~ . i
. . ~ ~ ~ ; ) ' ~ ~ • . z ~
~ ' ~ / I oZ +
~ . \ . ol~';'~ , .i, W~~'' F
E%IS ING A5?IIAt.T DRIVE y I ~ ~ ; p~ i p~ Q
1
~ A / f ' ' • < ~ 1 ' I . I . ' ` ~ I 6 .
• AC ~ESS
LIMITED COMM 'NAPU~p . • ' .
' O
l~ ~ J '~•j;, a, i a
. • y4•~ ~ ;0 • ~I . - . ~ •
• PNASE 11
I ~ ~
[X1171NG Bt'11A1\(: f,, ~ ~ / ~ ~k fl,I ~ ~ •
~ . . . r / /
•!Pt'. YlJ.9h~
~ ' / • ' / ' ~I , / /I I , , / ,M,
~
rFInsE i ~
. - y''-~. ~ . . • e :
. . ~
~ EXISTING CONDITIONS • ° ` ~
\ . errvei.oee A: t.soo sQ. er.
C O M M O N A R E A errvewre s: i.soo sQ• Fr• ~
ENVELOPE Ce' 3,250 SQ. FT.
FjNVPLnor. D: 2.150 SO. FT.
TOTAL: 9,500 SQ. PI'. CRFA ~
E D C~ • ~ ALL IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDINC p ~
O F A V A L ' •.5.tk•Z~•N..~~, 1t1.2`. . ' ENTIRELV WiTHIN THE BUILD NGTED .
• A N ENVEIAPES. o ~
Ns.` • ' ~N~,
. : ; , • I ' \ ~
~ • ~ ENVELOPE D
P N A S E 9
. ' / . I, „ ~ .
\ . I 3.230 SQ.RY. CRFA.\UX. ENVELOPE.G
LO' iROM OU7SID . J PABKIryG SPACES, N11N.
LI
PROP. NE.TYP. 2,3S0 SQFT. GRFA
~0.~ . 7 FARK7N~. SPACE$, ~11N~
. E7(ibTING BlqLD1RG
%
. , . ~ . 7:
. . q~ , ' ` . ' ~1 . . ~ • ~ ~ Y i/~ . ~
. . • I' ' • , I ' . ~ r1
1 1 ' ~ {o. . ~ , ' , • I , ' . I I Z
• ~ • _.tN LOP'E B`'~ I ' ~ ~ • ~ I ' ( I, ~,1 inO
. ' . . ` , ' • ~ I . . ~ , I )i ~v ~J ~
. . LSOOSQ.iT CRFA.RtA%.~
4 MNKINC~PACES. MiN. I I a. I i A
lCISTINCASPHAI.TDRIVC ' . 1 • I . I ' I . I • ' I`' ~Ij: ~ ~ `
\
1 ~
\ ~ . . ~ : . . I I 1 N
~'L~ ~ I ' . ~ f ' j I• ~ ZK F :~e
LIMITED COMMON AREA r4
' ~ I I ~ ~ ' j r O ~ I ! •
' rHASE 11 ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ' . . / 1 : ~ '~•wsl:Tt(,,c ; ~ , ?
ENVELOVE A
y ~ ' A47WEE\ E(~Y~LOPI't,'M'P. I l ' ~ SO•!'pi:f:K f; 1CN
~y i . ~ r ~ ? ~
,F. 7MOAO.FT.GRFA.AIAX.
1 ?ARKINC S?ACES, AIIN.
. / / - .
_ , .
EXISTING BUII.DINI:
. ' ~ . . . ~ '
• / / " ~ • ' ' ~ •t.,.r' ; ~ . ~
, • - ~ / ~ ' ~ a~ PHASF, 1
'
.3~'PROFfOUI'SIDEPR•
OP.LItt&Tl'P.~ ' . a/ ~ ~ , ~
•
~ ~i
PROPOSED DEVELOPIVIENT
:
COMMON AREA ~
• 1 ~ ~ ''i;;''=.
• ~ 3 , t r~
E p .H..t.
O' F A V A
CIN
O
/ c•:, .
PHASE ~
•9 $y . . . ; / , • < •
~ ~,w~ uvuL~e~ murd. y ?
~ \ , - , . , 1 ~ ' •
~ , . 'L. 1 'S~ : , : ~ ~ j~~ ~ /
. exisnNC suiw~ r I . . ,
~ , ~ , ~ ~ • ` ' , : ~ ; ~ ` 'r ~
, ~ ~ ~C l ~ ~ ' ; . . ~ 1 % : 1
~ ~ \ ~ ? , 1 : , ' ' ~ ~ ~ , /
44 ~ ~ ' 1~--~- ' . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ • ~ i ~ ~/l
, _ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~
o
' ~ ~ ~ , . . • , ~ ~ ' ~o
` . ~
>
\ ` \ - . ~ ~ ~ • ~ . , " ~ . ~ I~``' ' > F
` ~ ~ ~ ' : I • I C
EXISTINCAS?IIALTDRIVL
\ ~y ~ , \ ' ~ ; I • ; . . ~ ' ~ ' . ~ ~ t 1 N ~ .
~ IRE7AUC STACI AVD /
ry IRIHA~U~D EA . . ~ ,
\ ~"f.~ ; ; ' , ; ~ . I ; . ~i
~ i ~F' ~ ! aH
~ a
LIMITED COMMON i1~Ati~ ~ ~""~°^'~.vr~'u:.n' ; . : ' ' • • 1 ~ ' ! ~ 's' O
` ~ \ \ ~ ~ 'I/ , . . ~ l • ~ V ~ ~
PNASE il q ~ -1 . . , . I.~ 1 • .
. ~ ~ $$$\\\Nb~~'wsTO W~ i. , . , • I (l`
. '$i . ~ ~ / • i . . ' . . . . ' i ~
. ~ • 1 ~ \ ' ± ~ ;ti
. , . . :
, : . . . ,
_ .•a ~ . , . .
exisnnceuu.mac . "'•'""°a'~ , ~
, / IOW[III.Iy[1.~111 I , , ~ / . / _ 1
. , . ~ . ~ ~ • - , . i . ~ c
• • ~ / ' r,,.,.nrt'~`r.l~~ ' ~ ~
PHASE 1
.
~'EXA MPLE OF DRIVEWAY AND
~ RESIDENCE LAYOUT ~
X
J •
i:. ~~~~`O~ .
OEtDINANCE N0. 13
? W
Series of 1974
`t
'AN ORDINANCF, ANNE:tIPIG A PORTION
OF TIiE BIGHORN AREA TO TIIE TON]N
i
WHEREAS, at least ten per cent oz the
qualified electors, who are resident in and landovmers
of the area proposed to be annexed, which is situated in a
h county of less than twenty-five thousand inhabitants, filed
ai
, a petition for an annexation election w?th the Town Clerk
of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the 22nd day of Alarch,
1974, in accordance with Section 139-21-6(2), Colorado
Revised Statutes 1963, as amended, requesting the municinalitv
to commence proceedings for the holding of an annexation
election to determine the mztter of the proposed annesation
o oF a portion of the Bighorn area, County of Eagle, State
ZNJ of Colorado, described in Exhibit A attached hereto and
made a part hereof, to the Town of Vail;
~ J
taHEREAS, the Town Council oi the ^'own of Vail,
Y7.
' Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the "Town", found t':;e
netition for annexation election to be in substantial ;:o:nplianco
' wiL•'.z the aforesaid statute and ar",opted Resolutior. No. 9,
:cries of 1974, which is incorporated herein by re£erer.ce
ar_d made a part hereof;
j^IHEREAS, on the basis of competent evidence
r
>
presented 'in the public heariny on the Petition rcr anr:exation
` election on the 9th day of June, 1979, the Town Council
~
.C .
determined that the applicahle provisions of The Municipal
~ Anne::ation Act of 1965, as amenaea, had been zatis_*:ieci
~i~.. t. .
p:aY*af'- . . .
} n~
F
+{r g
s~ ~ •
S
~ .r..~=., r .
l (
of Colorado, entered on the 9th day of August, 1974, the Town of Vail, Colorado, hereby annexes without snecial
terms or conditions a oortion of the Bighorn area, County
of Eagle, State of Colorado, described in Er.hibit A hereof.
Section 3. Annexation costs. ~
All costs and expenses connected with the
anneaation, incZuding coinmissioner fees not e:cceeding for
each commissioner $2,00 for each hour of necessary service,
, shall be paid by the Town of Vail, Colorado,
Section 4. Filing of annexation maps.
Within thirty days after the effective date
~
hereof the Town Clerk of the Town of Vail, Colorado, shall ,
file one copy of the annexation map, a copy of which is on
file in the District Court in and for the County of Eagle,
State of Colorado, wzth the original of this annexation
ordinance in the records of the Town, one copy of said map
with the County Clerk of the County of Eagle, State of
. Colorado, and one copy of said map with the Division of
~
Local Government of the Department of Local Affairs, State ~ i of Colorado.
Section 5. Zoning of annexed Bighorn arez.
, . ~
ulithin ninety days after the effective date
hereof the Town of Vail, Colorado, shall impose zoning on
. the annexed Bighorn area in accordance with its Zoning ~
~I
~
Ordinance, Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973. :
i~
~
; Section 6. Effective date of annexation. I~
The annexation, except for the purpose of
~
general taxation as provided in Section 7 hereof, shall
i ta}:e effect upon the effective czate of this anne:cation
i ordinance.
i: •
. •
i
I'
1 ~ ~ f r
I i
I ~
1 ~ N
I ' • M
t- ' Ag
f ' A
Section Effect?ve date of general taxation. u
For the purpose of general taxation the annexatior_ ~
~
shall be effective on and after the lst day of January, 1975. H
u
Section B. Effective date. ~
i;
~ This ordinance shall take effect five days ~
,
~ . after publication following the final passage hereof. '
t
i i INTRODUCED, READ OiJ FIRST READING, APPROVED. eZS i1MErdDED,
~ I ArID ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IrI FULL, this 20th day of August, °
~
1974, and a public hearinq on this ordinance shall be held -
i
at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of "
, C Vail, Colorado, on the 3rd day of September, 1974, at 7:30
P.r4., in the Municipal Building of the Town.
~ . . or
OL
D! c '
~ . ATTESTv,
Town\~Clesk ,
~
I I; '
~
,
~
,
; .
~
~
~
:
; .
~
i •
l
i ,
i '
~ r
, , ( ~ • . i ~
. r •
• . . ' ~
' • ~
. • ~ ~ .
. ~ ~
EXH1017 A ~
' • L[GAL OESCRIPTION
A parcol of land lying In tho soui•h I/2 of Sectlon 2, Township 5 ~t
south, rargoA1 wesfi, the sonth I/2 of the south I/2 of Soct(on 3, p
7ownshfp 5 sbouth, ranoo.fli wost, the east I/2 of the northeast t
I/4 of Soction II, Township 5 south, rango 81 west, tho west 1/2
and tho southeast i/A of Sectlon 12, Township 5 south, range £11
west, the northoast 1/4 ot the northeast I/4 of Sectlon 13, Township
5 south, rango 8 1 west, and the not thwest I/4 of the northwest.
(/A of the northwest I/A of Seci-lon 18, Township 5 south, rango 80 i
west of the 6th prtncipal meridlan, Eagle County, Colorado, and j
descrlbed as: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Section 3; . ~
~
thenco along the south Iine of said Sectlon N 89°23'3F3" W 367E3.17
feot; thence tJ G3`'01'24" E 665.00 fee-t; thence N 17`01124" E 255.00
fee-t; thence N 58°01' 24" E 340.00 feet; thence iJ 15c10' 13" W ~
126.41 feQt; thenco N 70039143" E 230.00 `eet; thence S 67120117" E ~
300,00 feet; thence S 83"20117" E 300.00 feet; thence N 8°38'29" W .
414.45 foet to the south right-of-way line of interstate 70; j
thence along sald south Ilne ori the following courses: S 89159152" E ~
868.40 feet, N 65°10'31" E 32.95 feot to the northwest corner of
Va(( Vit(age Eleventh Filing; thence alona the westernmost line ~
of said Subdivislon on the follow(ng coursos: S 0°04'S7" E 27.22 ~
feot; S 30046113" W 194.73 feet; S 50035114" 11 52.77 feefi;*thence (
along the southernmost line of said Subdivision on the following ~
courses; S 6200714411 [ 564.72 feet; S 80032100" E 225.00 feet;
N 45°28100" E 280.00 feet; N 64024100" E; lII0.00 feet; N£39`58'30" E ~
410.00 feefi; N 74100100" E 220.00 feet: S 89039100" E 270.00 feet; ~
td 33030100" E 220.00 feet; N I40561I8" E 62.67 feet to the south ~
right-of-way Ilne of interstate 70; thencc N 14056'I8" C 337.48 ~
foet to the north right-of-way ilno of Interstate 70 and the soufihern-
most line of Va.il V1•ilago Twelfth flling; thence along satd comrnon
I1 no on the fol loH i ng courses: S 87133105" E 811.08 feet; N 86041140"
E 645.34 feet; a curve -ho the right of which has a radius of 2190.00
foefi and Interior angle of 70II120", the long chord oi whlch bears
S 750061II" E 274.59 feo-t; thence aiong said north right-of-vtay
I l ni: on a curve to the r I ght wli i ch has a rad i us of 2190.00 f'ee-h
and ini•erfor angie of I047147", the lonq chord ot tirhich bears S ~
70029144" E 68.66 feot; thence S 56017106" E 425.70 feefi; thence ~
N 89058138" E 2227.73 feet to tho east line of said Sectfon 2; ~
thencL along said east Iine S 0025102" E 1311.44 fcet to 1•ho north- ~
west corner of said Soctton 12;thence along the north Ilno of suid
Sec-tion N 89°46104" E 1325.25 feet; thonce S 0022132" E£i64.47 ~r •
feot to the north rtght-of -way l ine of infersta-te 70; thonco along ~
said north line S 39015151" E 595.60 feet; thencc N 89°56'II" E ~
950.37 feet; thenco S 0°20'04°~E 513.23 feet 1•o the north right- • of-aray ilne ot Interstate 70; 1-hence S 0020104" E 504.83 fcet to ~
the Sou-th right-of-rray itne of Interstate 70; fihence S 0020104" E ~
312.00• feQt; 'thence S 89052142" E 1329.00 feet; thenco S 0003100" E ;
1325.45 feet; thence N 89056113" E 1316.11 foet; thenco S 0000'00" 1320.85 feet to the northtirest corner of said Sectlon ifi; thenco . !
along i•ho north Iine of said Sectlon 18 S 89°531210" E 247.70 feet; j
thenca S 25°01159" MI 585.38 foet to the west Ilne of sald Sectlon I8;thence M 90000100" titi' 7.00 feet; thence S 0000100" 177.00 feet;
thence.D! 90"00100" E 7.00 feet to the cast Ilne of sald Sectlon 13; j
thence S 0000100" 614.81 feet; thence 1l 89053124" Yt 1306.E35 foet;
thence N 0"00100" 1322.68 feot to the south line of said Sectlon 12;
tlienco along sald south Ilne N E49053124" 41 1306.'45 feet; thenco . ~
id 0`48' I4" 4! 1312.99 fcet; thenco N 89°57'00" W 1123'.90 fcet; thenco
N 891'49109" 1-1 1541.45 feet to the west Itnc of said Section 11;
thenco along sald west Ilne N 0°P9'00° l•J 1983.12 feet; thence ~
$£i9°50'S4" W 662.59 feet; thenco N 0019104" 1.1 660.59 tooi•; thonco
N 339°49'OG" Y1 662.59 feet; thenco PJ 0002140" E 1320.76 fect to tho
south I(no of Sald Sect(on 2; 1-hence along said south Ilno Pl 89115214211 W 1325.25 feot; thenco PJ 09043145" W 2692.51 feet to tho truo pofnt
of beginning, a traci- of land rlhich contalns 653.464 acres, moro or ,
. .
• IQ.^!s.
~
• • (
' ' • ~
; . tyn
ORDINANCE NO. 20
; I Series of 1974
I
i.
~ AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING TIiE ORDI-
. DIANCE ANNEXING A PORTION OF THE BIGIiORN
AREA TO THE TOWN BY THE INCORPORATiON
TIIEREIN OP THE CORRECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OF THE ANNEXED AREA
l;
WFIEREAS, the Town of Vail, Colorado, hereinafter
I
t~ referred to as the "TOwn", annexed a portion of the Bighorn
~I
; area, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, through the enact-
i
ment by the Town Council of Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1974,
;
` on the 3rd day of September, 1974, the effective date of which
;
r`
was the llth day of September, 1974;
~
, WFiEREAS, the legal description of the annexed area,
; set forth in Exhibit A of said annexation ordinance, contained
; ministerial errors, to-wit the erroneous designations of ,
n W' Range 80 as Range Sl and Range 79 as Range 80;
.a a .
m o' WHEREAS, in order to correct the legal description ~
'c w ;
~ nof the anne:ced area in all documents pertaining to the annexa- ;
- J '
J4, I
ciW tion which contain the aforesaid ministerial errors the Town
J '
' obtained from the District Court in and for the County of
i I
Eagle, State of Colorado, an Amended Order Authorizing Annexa-
tion which will take effect nunc pro tunc as of the filing or
j'
j! effective date of said documents; and
I~! WAEREAS, the Town Council finds that it is necessary
! for the preservation of public property, health, welfare,
i'
i, peace, or safety to enact this ordinance as an emergency mea-
sure so as to incorporate the correct legal description of the
~ annexed area in the annexation ordinance and to preclude any
' issue as to the efficacy of the annexation; '
IdOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOjdN COUEdCIL
OI TIiE TOPiN OP VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOPIS :
. ~
4
_ • ' ~ 0
'Y
~
' F
. ,
• a ~
I
~ i
Section 1. Title.
• This ordinance shall be known.as the "Ordinance 1?q ~
Amending Bighorn Annexation Ordinance by Incorporating Cor-
rect Legal Description of Annexed Area".
t~
r,
Section 2. Amendments to Ordinance Annexing a i
T
Portion of the Bighorn Area to the Town. ,I
The following sections of Ordinance No. 13, Series
: of 1974, of the Town of Vail, Colorado, are hereby amended as
`I
hereinafter provided:
A. Section 2 is amended to read as follows:
.
• Section 2. Annexati;on of a portion of the Bighorn y~
area to the Town. ~
'i
Pursuant to the Amended Order Authorizing Annexation
.i
of the District Court in-and for the County of Eagle, State of
Colorado, entered on the 25th day of October, 1974, taking ;
effect nune pro tunc as of the filing or effective date of
all documents pertaining to the annexation, a certified copy
of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, the Town
;I
, of Vail, Colorado, hereby annexes without special terms or I
conditions a portion of the Bighorn area, County of Eaqle,
State of Colorado, described in Amended Exhibit A Legal Des- f'
cription of said order.
B. Section 4 is amended to read as follows: Section 4. Filing of annexation plat.
Within thirty days after the effective date hereof '
~
the Town Clerk of the Town of Vail, Colorado, shall file one
copy of the Amended Annexation Plat, a copy of which is on
• ~i
file in the District Court in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with the original of this annexation ordi- .
nance in the records of the Town, one copy of said plat with
the County Clerk and Recorder of the County of Eagle, State ~ uf Colorado, and one copy of said plat with the Division of ;
, .i
~ Local Government of the Department of Local Affairs, State of
Colorado.
~ .
2
~
AME(vDED '
, EXHIBIT A
LEGA L DESCR[ PTION ;
A parcel oF land lying in the south 1/2 oF Section 2, Township 5 south, range ~
80 west, the south 1/2 oF the south 1/2 oF Section 3, Township 5 south, range SO west, the east 1/2 oF the northeast 1/4 oF Section 11, Township 5 south,
range 80 west, the west 1/2 and the southeast 1/4 oF Section 12, Township
5 south, range 80 west, the northeast 1/4 oF the northeast 1/4 oF Section 13, ~
Township 5 south, range 80 west, and the northwest 1/4 oF the northwest 1/4 ;
oF the northwest 1/4 oF Section 18, Township 5 south, range 79 west oF the '
6th principal meridian, Eagle County, Colorado, and described as: Beginning
at the southeast corner. oF said Section 3; thence along the south line of said
Section N 89°23'38" W 3678.17 feet; thence N 63°01'24" E 665.00 feet; thence '
N 17°01'24" E 255.00 feet; thence N 58°01'24" E 380.00 feet; thence N 15°10113"
W 126.41 feet; thence N 70°39'43" E 230.00 feet; thence S 67°20' 17" E 300.00 .
feet; thence S 83°20'17" E 300.00 feet; thence N 8°38'29" W 414.45 feet to the
south right-of-way line of Interstate 70; thence along said south line on the
fotlowing courses: S 89°59'S2" E 868.80 feet, N 65°10'31" E 32.95 feet to
the northwest corner of Vail Village Eleventh Filing; thence along the western-
! most line oF said Subdivision on the following courses; S 0°04'57" E 27.22 feet;
S 30°46'13" W 194.73 feet; S 50°35'14" W 52.77 feet; thence along the southern-
most line oF "said Subdivision on the fotlowing cburses: S 62°07'44" E 564.72
feet; S 80°32'00" E 225.00 feet; N 45°28'00" E 280.00 feet; N 64°28'00" Eq
180.00 feet; N 89°58'30" E 410.00 feet; N 74°00'00" E 220.00 feet; S 89°39'00"
E 270.00 feet; N 33°30'00" E 220.00 feet; N 14°56'18" E 62.67 feet to the south
right-of-way line of Interstate 70; thence N 14°56'18" E 337.48 feet to the north
right-of-way line of Interstate 70 and the southernmost ltne of Vail Village
Twetfth filing; thence along said common line on the following courses: S
87°33'05" E 811 ,OS feet; N 86°41'40" E 645.34 feet; a curve to the right oF
which has a radius oF 2190.00 Feet and interior angle oF 7°11'20", the long
chord of which bears S 75°06'11" E 274.59 feet; thence along said north right-
of-way line on a curve to the right which has a radius of 2190.00 feet and inter-
ior angle of 1°47'47", the long chord oF which bears S 70°29'44" E 68.66 feet;
thence S 56°17'06" E 425.7C feet; thence N 89°58'38" E 2227.73 Peet to the
east line oF said Section 2; thence atong satd east line S 0°25'02" E 1311.44
feet to the northwest corner oF said Section 12; thence along the norYh line of
satd Section N 89°46'04" E 1325.25 feet; thence S 0°22'32" E 864.47 feet to
the north r{ght-of-way line oF Interstate 70; thence along satd north line S
' 39°15'S1" E 595.60 feet; thence N 89°56'11" E 950.37 feet; thence S 0°20'04"
E 513.23 feet to the north right-of-way line oF Interstate 70; thence S 0°20'04"
E 504.83 feet to the south right-of-way tine oF Interstate 70; thence S 0°20'04" .
E 312,00 feet; thence S 89°52'42" E 1329.00 feet; thence S 0°03'00" E 1325.45
feet; thence N 89°56'13" E 1316.11 feet; thence S 0°00'00" 1320.85 feet to the
northwest corner oF said Section 18; thence along the north line oF said Section .
18 S 89°53'24" E 247.70 feet; thence S 25°01'S9" W 585.38 Feet to the west
line oF said Section 18; thence N 90°00'00" W 7.00 feet; thence S 0°00'00" 177.00
feet; thence N 90°00'00'1 E 7.00 feet to the east ltne of said Section 13; thence
S 0°00'00" 614.81 feet; thence N£i9°53'24" W 1306.85 feet; thence N 0°00'00"
1322.68 feeY to the south line of said Section 12; thence along said south line
N 89°53'24" W 1306.85 feet; thence N 0°48' 18" W 1312.99 feet; thence N
89°57'00" W 1123.90 feet; thence N 89°49'09" W 1541.45 feet to the west line
. oFsaid Section 11; thence along said west line N 0°19'00" W 1983.12 feet; thence
S 89°50'54" W 662.59 feet;thence N 0°19'04" W 660.59 feet;thence N 89°49'06"
W 662.59 feet; thence N 0°02'40" E 1320.76 feet to the south line oF said Section
2; thence along said south line N 89°52'42" W 1325.25 feet; thence N 89°43'45"
W 2692.51 feet to the true point oF beginning, a tract oF land which contains
653.464 acres, more or tess.
; IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE
i~ COUNTY OF EAGLE DIS"fRIC7 C::NiT
i • Eagle County, (.ol:Mado
STATE OF COLORADO CertifiecJ to be full, tr:a a, d cc:rrct
~ .
.y.
coay of tiie o: i my cust^-.
Civil Action No. 2206 Ddte ......4..f ~s~ f=
ekCl
iN THE MATTER OF THE By ANNEXATION OF A PORTION C{erk
; OF THE BIGHORN AREA, ) AMENDED ORDER
I • EAGLE•COUNTY, COLORADO, ) AUTHORIZING ANNEXATION
° i TO THE TOWN OF VAIL, ) .
COLORADO ) • • •
~ . . .
, . . .
I . . :
~ ~ . After consideration of the ex parte Motion for Amended
Order Author(ztng Annexation filed heretn pursuant to Section 139- .
I ~."J . • •
~ 21-11, Colorado Revised Statutes 1963, as amended, and there being
i
i .
~ good cause therefor, .
; - •
i IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: '
w. i 1. The ministerial errors in the tegal descriptior) of the
o i . .
annexed area cuntained in Exhibit A c° the Petition to Hold an Annexa-
I
~
J~ tton Election, the Annexation Plat, and various other documents filed
UW
J
' herein and pertaining to the annexation, to-wit the erroneous designa-
~ tions of Range 80 as Range 81 and Range 79 as Range 80, were technical,
minor, and had no appreciable effect on the annexation election and
. constituted harmless errors with respect to the annexation. 2. The correct legal description of the annexed area is set
forth in Amended Exhibit A Legat Description which is attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
3. All documents filed herein and pertaining to the annexa-
. tion which contain the aforesaid ministerial errors in the tegal descrip-
. tton of the annexed area are amended by the substitution therein of the
legal description of the annexed area set forth in Amended Exhibit A
_ Legal Description for the erroneous legal description.
F"
` :
4. In accordance with the result oF the annexation election held on the 6th day oF August, 1974, wheretn there were 151 votes for
annexation and 68 votes against annexation, a majority of the votes. cast betng in favor oF annexation, the Town oF Vail, Colorado, ls
• authorized to annex without speciat terms or conditions a portion oF
the Bighorn area, Eagle County, Colorado, described in ;qm-eridecl E~xhibiti A :L"egal Description. ' • ,
• 5. Atl costs and expenses" connected with the annexation., . ,
tncluding commissioner fees not exceeding for each commissioner
$2.00 for each hour oF necessary service, shall be patd by the Town
of Vait, Colorado. •
. 6. Petitioner will forthwith file herein an Amended Annexa-
tion Plat whtch contains the legat description of the annexed area set , •
forth in Amended Exhibit A Legal Description. .
7, With respect to all documents filed herein and pertain(ng
, Yo the annexation upon the filing hereof this order will take effect nunc
pro tunc as oF the filing or effective date of said documents. ~
DATED; Eagle, Colorado, this 25 day of October,
1974. . • .
Charles R. Casey
JUDGE OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT
r . .i (
r• ~ 1 ' , 1 , ~
~ .
ORDINANCE NO. 26
Series of 1974
AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING ZONING DISTRICTS ON THE
PORTION OF THE BIGHORN AREA ANNEXED TO THE
TOWN AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
, WHEREAS, the Town of Vail, Colorado, hereinafter
referred to as the "Town", annexed a portion of the Bighorn
area, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, effective on the
• llth day of September, 1974;
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance-No. 8,
Series of 1973, of the Town of Vail, Colorado, as amended, is
applicable to any area annexed to the Town and contains pro-
cedures for the imposition of zoning districts on an annexed
area; and
WHEREAS, Section 139.21-14(2), Colorado Revised
g,
~ o Statutes 1963, as amended, requires the Town to bring the
m~
W ti annexed Bighorn area under its Zoning Ordinance within ninety
z
days after the effective date oY the annexat3on;
UW
J
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE T.OWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLOftADO, AS FOLL0WS:
~ Section 1. Title.
i
This ordinance shall be known as the "Ordinance
Imposing Zoning Districts on Annexed Bighorn Area".
Section 2. Procedures Fulfilled.
The procedures for the determination of the zoning
districts,'to be imposed on the annexed Bighorn area which are
prescribed in Section 22.300 of the Zoning Ordinance have been
fulfilled.
Section 3. Imposition of Zoning Districts on Annexed
Bighorn Area; Addition to Official Zoning Map.
~ Pursuant to Article 22 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordi-
narice No. 8, Series of 1973, of the Town of Vail, Colorado,
Town erk,
Dep y
Ord. 26, 1974 Page 2
~
as amended, the portion of the Bighorn area annexed to the
Town through the enactment of Ordinance No. 13, Series of
1974, of the Town of Vail, Colorado, as amended, effeative
on the llth day of September, 1974, is hereby divided into
zoning districts as shown on a map incorporated herein by
reference which amends and shall become an addition to the
Official Zoning Map.
, Section 4. Change in Official Zoning Map.
The addition to the Official Zoning Map adopted
by the Town Council in Section 3 hereof shall be entered on
the Official Zoning Map promptly by the Zoning Administrator
in accordance with Section 1.203 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 5. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall take effect five days after
publication following the final passage hereof.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISIiED ONCE IN FULL, this 19th day of November,
1974, and 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 December, 1974, at 7:30 P.M., in
~ the Municipal Building of the Town.
• ayor
ATTEST:
<
Deputy;Town C1 rk
' ' ' ~ .
C)
r
' .
~y
TOWN OF VAIL
~
Office of the Town Attorney
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
.
970-479-2107/Fax 970-479-2157
TM
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Environmental Commission
FROM: R. Thomas Moorhead
DATE: Apri17, 1998
RE: Vested Property Rights
Effective January 1, 1988, Colorado adopted a statutory vested property rights scheme.
Pursuant to state statute, a vested property right is established upon the approval of a site specific
development plan, following notice and public hearing, by the local government in which the
property is situated. Each vested property right confers upon the land owner the right to undertake
and complete the development and use of the property under the terms and conditions of the site
specific development plan.
The property right vested pursuant to this statute shall remain vested for a period of three years. The
vesting period sha11 not be extended by any amendments to the plan unless expressly authorized by
the local government.
A vested property right once established precludes any zoning or land use action by a local
government which would alter, impair, prevent, diminish.... or otherwise delay the development or
use of the property as set forth in a site specif c development plan.
A"site specific development plan" pursuant to this statutory framework means a plan which has
been submitted to a local government by a land owner or his representative describing with
reasonable certainty the type and intensity of use for a specific parcel or paxcels of property.
Including, but not limited to, a planned unit development plan, a subdivision plat, a specially planned
area, a planned building group, a general submission plan, a preliminary or general development
plan, a condition or special use plan, a development agreement or any other land use approval
designated as may be utilized by a local government. What constitutes a site specific development
plan pursuant to this statutory framework that would trigger a vested property right shall be
Cow, RECYCLEDPAPER
w
. r
finally determined by the local government either pursuant to ordinance or regulation and the
document that triggers such a vesting shall be so identified at the time of its approval.
The statutory provision concerning vested rights applies only to site specific development plans
approved on or after January 1, 1988.
In 1991, the Town of Vail adopted a vested property rights ordinance to provide the procedures
necessary to implement the provisions of Colorado Revised Statutes, C.R.S. Title 24, Article 68.
Pursuant to that ordinance a site specific development plan shall mean and be limited to a final major
or minor subdivision plat, or a special development district development plan.
A property right which has been vested as provided for in the Town of Vail ordinance shall remain
vested for a period of three years. -
Additionally, each map, plat or site plan or other document constituting a site specific development
plan shall contain the following language:
"Approval of this plan may created a vested property right pursuant to Colorado Revised
Statutes, Title 24, Article 68 as amended. This Town of Vail ordinance does not create any
vested property right, but only implements the provisions of Colorado Revised Statutes."
RTM/aw
CApec.mem
-.A . A~t
.__sis +
~6t"Ir&levN _ ~
~ Berridge Associates, Inc.
Pfannmg . Landscape Archiiecture
October 18, 1984
Ron Riley
TimberFalls Corporation
449fi East Meadow Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Ron,
Enclosed is the completed survey from Intermountain Engineering which depicts
the topography of the entire Timberfalls Estates parcel. We have iniiicated the
100 year Floodplain, areas over 40% slope and denoted the total buildable area.
Due to the increase in the area of over 40% slope the unit cbunt has changed
to 58.14d.u.. The area of over 40% slope which consists of "man-made" area
amounts to .09 acre which equates to .131 unit in density.'
I have had discussions with Peter Patten end he has tdtd me that these areas will
"probably not" be counted as unbuildable but has not made a definite decision
at this time. Should he decide that we will not tie' "penalized" for this portion of
the area greater than 40%, the tot,al number of units allowed will be 58.95d.u..
I will try to get a definite answe'r from Peter this week.
Regarding the vacation of the lot lines between the two Timberfalls parcels, I
still need to receive information on phases 1-3 in order to calculate the existing
GRFA. I will be out of Town until October 25 and will call you then. 1f you can
have the plans compiled by someone in your office we can calculate the existing
GRFA and determine the amount that could potentially be transferred.
Sincerely,
. Peter Jamar
Be i ge Ass ciates, In .
J:pm
enclosure
245 Vallejo St. . San Francisco Catiforni2 94111 .(415) 433-2357
P. O. 8ox 6364 • Denver Coiorado 80206 • r3031863-1059
1000 Sc Fron;age Rd Wes! Swle 10u • V2,: CoiUrado 81657 •(3031476-0851
Berridge Associates, Inc.
Planning . Landscape Architecture
October 18. 1984
" ZONING ANALYSIS - TIMBERFALLS ESTATES
Introductian •
This Zoning Analysis of Timberfalls Estates was conducted fnr the primary
purpose af establishing a unit count and allowable square footage for an
unplatted 7.5 acre percel located in the NE -1. af SW I., of Section 12. T55,
RBDW., 6th P.M., Town of Vail, Eagle County Colorado. The Analysis is
based upon a review of Town of Vail records and files. Town of Vail Floodplain
and Avalanche Hazard Information, and a Topographical Survey completed
by Intermountain Engineering on April B. 1982.
Current Zoning
The Timberfalls Estates parcel is currently zoned Low Density Multiple Family
Zone District [LDMF). The LDMF Zone allows single family, two-family, and
multiple-family dwellings per buildable acre of land. The LDMF District allows
not more than thirty square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area [GRFA) for
each one hundred square feet of buildable site area.
5ite Analysis/Potential
An Analysis of the Timberfalls E'states parcel was cbnducted (copy attached)
and reveals that a total of 6.46 acres of the site is considered under the Town's
definition as buildable. "Buildable Area" is defined by the Town as that poriion
of the site which is not within the 100 year floodplain, avalanche hazard erea,
. or in excess of 40% slope. This buildable acreage was utilized to compute the
information in the following Table.
245 vallejo St • San F,ancisco. Califomia 9411t.(at 5) 433-2357
P. O Box 6364 . Denver Coloraoo 80206 •(303) 863-1059
1000 So Fronlage RC West. Suite 1 0G • Vail. Co'oraao 81657 •(3G3) 476-0851
~
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL '
~
~
~
with man-made erea included in "over 40% slope" without men-macle erea included in "over 4
Totel Site Area: 7.5 ecres (326,700 sq.ft.) 7.5 ecres (326,700 sq.Ft.) ~
Buildsble Area: 6,,46 acres (281.398 sq.ft.) 6.59 ecres [285.3L& sq.ft.)
AIlowable Jk Dwelling Units: 58,1,4 d.u:Q. 58.95 d.u.'s ~8.8fo
Alloweble GRFA: 84.419 sq.ft. 85,595 sq.ft.
Maximum allowabl~ height: Flat roof - 35Ft. Flat roof - 35ft.
Sloping roof - 38ft. 5loping roof - 38ft. {
Parkinq Requirement: 2 Speces per unit 2 spaces per unit
Allowable Site Coverege: 114.345 sq.ft. (35%) 114,345 sq.ft. f35%) Landscaped Area Requirement: 130.680 sq.Ft. (407) 130.680 sq.ft. (40%)
F
~
G
~
,
;
!
i
• r.
, N
~
f
~
~
u
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road Office of the Mayor
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2100
FAX 303-479-2157
MEMORANDUM ,
TO: Town Council
FROM: Rob Ford, Mayor
DATE: Apri19, 1998
RE: Lionshead One-On-One Meetings
We will be holding one-on-one meetings regarding Lionshead at Design Workshop on Thursday,
April 16th between 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Please be prepared to schedule your meeting at the 4/14
Council work session.
REF/aw
IIl
„
TOWN OF VAIL
~
Office of the Town Manager
75 South Frontage Road
vail, Colorado 81657
. . .
970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157
TM
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
Staff
FROM: Pamela A. Brandmeyer
DATE: Apri19, 1998
RE: Pine Beetle
A question was asked at the 4/7/98 work session about the status of our pine beetle response.
Todd Oppenheimer indicated he had attended a part of a meeting with the Forest Service on March
31 st, and that although he was there for the funding discussion, he was not there for the actual plan
and the priorities that were established. The Forest Service was going to send him a copy of the
notes, as well, which he has not yet received. As far as the funding question goes, we (e.g., the Town
of Vail) may be able to get a portion of the $85,000 which was allocated to the State Forest Service.
However, that money is for Eagle, Grand and Summit counties combined. I will send those notes
to you as soon as we receive them.
Russell is going to call Lorren Kroenke with the Forest Service to set up a meeting to discuss both
fire and beetles with staff.
PAB/aw
RECYCLEDPAPER
~y
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 9, 1998
Contact: Ginny Culp, 476-5704
Vaii Tomorrow Natural & Built Environment Team
Larry Grafel, 479-2173
TOV Public Works/Transportation Director
COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERS TEAM UP WITH TOV TO LAUNCH ONGOING
NEIGHBORHOOD CLEAN-UP PROGRAM
(Vail)--A comprehensive townwide clean-up program that wili rely on community volunteers in
partnership with the Town of Vail is now underway. The effort is being organized by Ginny Culp
and other members of the Vail Tomorrow Natural and Built Environment Team.
Volunteers are being sought to claim a section of frontage road, recreational path or other area
within the town and to make clean-up sweeps through the area once every three weeks.
Supplies, liability waivers and other coordination responsibilities will be provided by the Town of
Vail.
"We want our guests to know that those of us who live and work in Vail take pride in our
community and its natural environment," Culp said. "Hopefully this pride will be contagious."
Sixteen frontage road sections, 16 recreation path sections, and six corridors within Vail
Village and Lionshead have been identified as primary "adoption" sites.
Sign-ups may be made by calling Debbie Roeland in the Public Works Department at
479-2159.
Culp says the new program will supplement the town's annual clean-up day scheduled for May
16 this year. "The annual clean-up day is a wonderful activity that really shows what this
(more)
L~ RECYCLEDPAPER
Neighborhood Clean-up/Add 1
community can do when it works together. We want to build upon the annual event by
sustaining the clean-up year-round," she said.
Groups and individuals who have already signed up for the program include: Bob and MaryLou
Armour; Ginny Culp; Eagle Valley Cycling Coalition; KZYR Radio; Patti and Charlie Langmaid;
Legacy Communications; Lionsquare Lodge; Susan Pollack; Prudential Gore Range Properties;
Red Lion; Slifer, Smith and Frampton; Sonnenalp Hotel; Vail Athletic Club; Vail Recreation
District and its Youth Services Division; Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau; and Karen
and Robert Wilhelm.
For more information, call the Town of Vail Public Works Department at 479-2159.
# # #
Ralph Silversmith
202 Vantage Point ~ Vail, Colorado 81657 (970) 476-0784
March 30, 1998
Robert McLauxin
Town Manager
Town Council
City of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: Proposed Zoning Hei t Changes in Lionshead
Dear Commissioner McLaurin:
It has been brought to my attention that you soon will be considering new zoning
regulations for the Lionshead area. My further understanding is that the proposed
new building height limits will substantially change the view corridors in
Lionshead. Of particular concern to me, many of the Vantage PQint
condominiums may lose their view of the mountain. Many long-time Vail
residents at Vantage Point will be left with a view of only I-70.
I purchased unit #202 in Vantage Point about 25 years ago. My dream, all these
years, has been to retire to Vail and enjoy my apartment with an unobstructed view
of Vail Mountain. I have enjoyed this dream. One of my favorite pastimes is to
read a book while relaxir?g with a view of the gondola and the mountain. I sit on
my balcony and bask in the beauriful Colorado sunshine. As a Colorodoan for 70
years, I cherish our beautiful days.
It appears that the proposed new height limitation sought by VA for the Lionshead
area would allow a new tall building next to Vantage Point. This would not only
destroy my view that I have waited so long to enjoy, but it would also block most
af my sunshine. Brakers tell me that the value of my unit could depreciate by
approximately 50%. More importantly, the quality of myr life in Vail will be
significantly impacted.
March 30, 1998
Page Two
Before you bless a rezoning that may not only exacerbate crowding in Lionshead
but also destroy both the quality of Iife and the value of the adjacent condominium
units, please give serious consideration to the affect such a rezoning will have on
the quality of life for both the town and the neighbors. Does Lionshead reaily
need taller buildings?
Some Lionshead residents wish that they could claim that Lynx wander the
Lionshead streets so that VA's growth aspirations could be checked.
I trust that you will make the right decision.
Sincerely,
Ralph Silversmith
RS/wmr
i0'd id101
Vail Recreat~oII
~ I S T!t I C'~ VAIL RECREATION DISTRICT TO HOST
CANDIDATE FORUM APYtli,16
CONTACT: Susanne Chazdoul FUR 1MMADIATE RELEASE '
292 W. Meadow Drive 479-2446 Apnil 10,1998
Suitc A
Vai 1, CO 81657 The regular election for the Vail Recreation Disuict will be held on
970-479-2279 Tuesday, May 5 to elect three Board of Direcmrs positions.
FAX: 970-479-2147 A Candidate Fonam will bc hc]d an Thunday, April 16 at 730 pm in
VA1L GOLF CLUB the Town of Vail Council Chambers to inhoduce the candidates for the three
1778 Vaii Vallq Dtive
Vail, Calondo 81657 positions to the voters_
970-479-2260
Fax: 970-479-2355 "We have e9Sbt PeoP ~ le runn'S for thrce seats." said VRD Director Piet
'
GpL.F St PARK Picters. "It is very exciling for us to have this kind of cnergy and cntfiusiaam Cor
MAINTSNANCE our electiOn"
I278 Vill VmIICy V(lYC
47e-2262 The vacencies arose whea current boerd mernbers Hermann Staufm
vAtL TfslvNls CfHTEi[t , Ross Davis and Kirk Hanscn's appointments expired. Staufer will nvt se.ek re-
700 S. Fipntige Road liast
479-2294 election+ althougbL both Davis and IIaosen are to serve ~e VRD for
Fax; 479-7281 anpther term.
IOHV A. DOB50N ARENA T1tie eight ceadidates for the threc positions are Susan Bird, Davis,
321 Lionshead Circle
479-227 ! James Earle, Thomas Garnan, Hansea, Chris Moffet, Nancy Stevens and Bill
Fu: 479-2267
Suarez ' valL YoU1't; sERVtCES
395 G Lionihr.ad Ciicle 'me Publ.ic Foruz?x will be moderated by foimer VRD Board of Director
479_2292 Chairrman Ken Wilson. Candidates will each address various issues far the
Nax: 479-2835
VA1L NATURE CENTE[t public and then will answer que.stions fromi the floor. All interested in the Vail
vail v.tley u,ri.c Itecreation Uistrict end its facilities ere eneouraged to attLnci
419-2291
For futther infonmation, please contact the Vail Recreation District at
MARK6'f ENG 479-Z279.
292 W. Meadqw Ihiee
479-2446
ADULT & YOUTH SPORTS ~
700 S. Frontagc Road East
479-2280
Fax: 479-2281
T0iti0'd L6tZ 621b 202 '1SIQ NOIlFi3b032! IItifl ZS:Eti 866i-0ti-21dti
\
TOWN OF VAIL -
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 10, 1998
Contact: Patrick Hamel, 479-2333
TOV Environmental Health Specialist
TOV SEEKS CANDIDATES FOR MAURi NOTTINGHAM
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AWARD; NOMINATIONS DUE MAY 9
(Vail)--Citizen nominations are now being accepted for the valleywide Mauri Nottingham
Environmental Quality Award. The award is presented annually to recognize outstanding
actions or programs that protect the valley's environment. Coordinated by the Town of Vail, the
award is sponsored this year by Holy Cross Electric, First Bank of Vail, Images of Nature and
Vail Resorts.
Nominations are due May 1 in three categories: 1) individual, 2) corporate or 3) student, ages
5-18.
To nominate a person or business, simply write a brief letter containing the foltowing
information: name and address of nominee; your name and phone number; brief description of
the action or project; and a description of the demonstrated benefits of the project or action.
Nominees need not be located within the Town of Vail, so long as the program or action
produced an environmental benefit within the Vail Valley.
Nominations may be mailed to: Town of Vail, 75 S. Frontage Rd., Vail, Colo., 81657 or faxed to
the Town of Vail at 479-2157.
Examples might include energy or water conservation; waste reduction or recycling;
conservation of dirty burning fireplaces; car pooling programs or use of alternative forms of
transportation; volunteer work for environmental projects; environmental education programs; ar
(more)
L,~~ RECYCLEDPAPER
Mauri Nottingham Awards/Add 1
habitat improvement, among others.
A 10-member award committee will review the nominations and select the winners. Each
category winner will receive a plaque, townwide recognition at an award ceremony in June and
one of the following prizes: a$250 savings bond from FirstBank of Vail; artwork from Images of
Nature, a photo galtery in Vail Village; and from Holy Cross, a$1,000 credit on the winner's
electric bill. Runners-up in each of the three categories will receive a three-day ski pass from
Vail Resorts.
The Mauri Nottingham award was created in 1994 and is named for the founder of the We
Recycle program. Past recipients have included: the Johnson family of Eagle for its land trust
conservation efforts; Byron Brown of Vail for coordination of the annual Eagle Valley Rummage
Sale; Kerry Donovan of Vail for her work with the Division of Wildlife in monitoring water quality
on the Eagle River; students of the Eagle Valley High School Bio-Building project; John Wright
of Vail for his volunteer work with the River Watch and Nature Center programs; the Antlers at
Vail for its fireplace conversion program; and Coyote Cafe in Beaver Creek for its adopt-a-
highway efforts.
If you have any questions about the award, or would like to make a nomination, please contact
Patrick Hamel in the Town of Vail Community Development Office at 479-2333.
# # #
Town of'Vail Counci[ April 13, 1998
PlanninB and Envirosunental Commission
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657 .
Dear Sirs,
I have been following the summaries of the Lianshead Master Plan and I vn
cancerned that the direction of the recornmendations to this point wntimu to run counter
to the Community Wish List that statted this planning process. The recommendations on
the table in favor of a sterile, high-density core are at odds with the calls far a warni,
intimate setting favoring pedestrians. When considering possible bonus heights, new
buildings may reach as high as 102 feet or ttie equivalent of a 10 story building. Of
course, one can claim this is only a"five story" building with 14 foat ceilings and sloping
roofs, but the bottom line is a 100 foot building is still a 100 foot building! Such zoning
heights will obliterate views of the slopes to the south as well as the Gore Range to the
east. Preferential treatmern for narth/south oriented buildings seems misguided_
Moceover, thc possible elimination of setback and landscape requirements will only sexve
to devad frora the Lionshead experience not enhance it. The lack of logic, reasoning,
justification, and accaumability behind these recommendations is disappointing. At face
value it seems these recommendations favor the cosporate world and not the castomer
himself. What is the attraction in a Lionshead with more ten story buildings, narrow
pedestrian carridors, and limited view corridors? This reminds me of some of the
cottcxete jungle, post-modern ski resorts in France and South America. Maybe sorne
peopie would £eel comfortable in a village consisting of vertical sardine cans, but I just
cannot see the attraction of encouraging higher buildings and narrower wallcways. The
preseret Lionshead certainly could use some improvements, but the recommendations you
are receiving are going in the oppasite direWon. The proposed sloped roof requiremeert
will not yieid " a consistent high quaiity alpine architectural style in Lionshead", rather it
will lead bo an ugly mix of anachronistic and inconsistcnt architecburel M"esN After
more than 25 years one cannot try to unpose a new "sense" af consistency to Lionshead
at this point. It seems that the proposed zoning guidelines are moving more in the
direction of a high density Besver Creek-like village after the fact. However, it should be
retnembered Beaver Creek now has a perfarming arts center and ice skating rink ta give
its village a heart and soul. You are moving in the direction of cncouraging thc
construction af a sterile, hullcing core for the body of Lionshead without any heart and
soul. Every evening there is a parade of people up the mountain to A,dventure Ridge.
Give the people a reason to stay in Lionshead at night. Don't drive us aw:ey with higher
~ Z0'd LSTZ6Lb0L68 01 Z9Lti 98Z i0E: 33IJ:-10 NOISIftIQ 0L6 ~U LZ:ZO 86. EZ 8dH
20'30Hd -U101
buildings and lesser views of the roountains. Give us reasons to stay in Lionshead for
apres ski and a pleasant evening. For exampie, opea up an area for an ice skating rink,
provide incemives for small cafes to line it, and think of ways to give Lionshead a heart
and soul, and not drive a stalce into Lionshead with tall, tea story buildiags. Sincereiy,
Antoni61. Busalacchi, Ph.D.
14106B William St.
Laurel,lvlD 20707
20 'd LSIZ6Lb0L68 01 T9LT 98E Z0E 33IJJ0 NOISI(tIQ 0L6 dJ Zz:LO 86, £i ddH
Lionshead Master Plan
Subject: Lionshead Master Plan
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 07:07:04 -0400
From: Antonio Busalacchi <tonyb@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov>
To: ssilver@vail.net
Town of Vail Council April 13,
1998
Planning and Environmental Cominission
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657 ,
Dear Sirs,
I have been following the summaries of the Lionshead Master Plan and I am
concerned that the direction of the recommendations to this point continue
to run counter to the Community Wish List that started this planning
process. The recommendations on the table in favor of a sterile,
high-density core are at odds with the calls for a warm, intimate setting
favoring pedestrians. When considering possible bonus heights, new
buildings may reach as high as 102 feet or the equivalent of a 10 story
building. Of course, one can claim this is only a"five story" building
with 14 foot ceilings and sloping roofs, but the bottom line is a 100 foot
building is still a 100 foot building! Such zoning heights will obliterate
views of the slopes to the south as well as the Gore Range to the east.
Preferential treatment for north/south oriented buildings seems misguided.
Moreover, the possible elimination of setback and landscape requirements
will only serve to detract from the Lionshead experience not enhance it.
The lack of logic, reasoning, justification, and accountability behind
these recommendations is ctisappointing. At face value it seems these
recommendations favor the corporate world and not the customer himself.
What is the attraction in a Lionshead with more ten story buildings, narrow
pedestrian corridors, and limited view corridors? This reminds me of some
of the concrete jungle, post-modern ski resorts in France and South
America. Maybe some people would feel comfortable in a village consisting
of vertical sardine cans, but I just cannot see the attraction of
encouraging higher buildings and narrower walkways. The present Lionshead
certainly could use some improvements, but the recommendations you are
receiving are going in the opposite direction. The proposed sloped roof
requirement will not yield "a consistent high quality alpine architectural
style in Lionshead", rather it will lead to an ugly mix of anachronistic
and inconsistent architectural "styles". After more than 25 years one
cannot try to impose a new "sense" of consistency to Lionshead at this
point. It seems that the proposed zoning guidelines are moving more in the
direction of a high density Beaver Creek-like village after the fact.
However, it should be remembered Beaver Creek now has a performing arts
center and ice skating rink to give its village a heart and soul. You are
moving in the direction of encouraging the construction of a sterile,
hulking core for the body of Lionshead without any heart and soul. Every
evening there is a parade of people up the mountain to Adventure Ridge.
Give the people a reason to stay in Lionshead at night. Don't drive us away
with higher buildings and lesser views of the mountains. Give us reasons to
stay in Lionshead for apres ski and a pleasant evening. For example, open
up an area for an ice skating rink, provide incentives for small cafes to
line it, and think of ways to give Lionshead a heart and soul, and not
drive a stake into Lionshead with tall, ten story buildings.
1 of 2 4/13/98 6:57 AM
Lionshead Master Plan
Sincerely,
Antonio J. Busalacchi, Ph.D.
14106B William St.
Laurel, MD 20707
2 of 2 4/13/98 6:57 AM
letter to town council
Subject: letter to town council
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 15:04:35 -0600
From: "Rob LeVine" <rlevine@csn.net>
To: "Suzanne Silverthorne" <ssilver@vail.net>
April 11, 1998
Dear Council Members,
I apologize that I will not be able to make the meetings on April
14th and 21st. However, I'd like to offer a couple thoughts, if
Z may.
As you have heard me stress before, 20 out of 25 building in -
Lionshead are condominiums. I think the whole discussion about
height and densitygindicates our recognition that the only way
those properties ~1`ill make substantial improvements is with the
economic incentive of additional development.
However, it is just not realistic to think that they will add
hotel rooms, or interval ownership units. Those are very
different operations than running a condominium association and
the rentals thereof. These properties aren't in that business
ar.d they're not going to get into that business.
We need to allow them to build new condominiums and then figure
out a way to insure that those new units are in the rental pool.
This can be done. Whatever "profits" come from the sales of
these new condominiums should be plowed into all the things
identified as necessary in the masterplan (architectural
improvements, employee housing, better pedestrian circulation,
more parking, etc. etc.).
I realize that hotel rooms are wonderful, and only allowing their
construction would appear to be the easy way to insure live beds.
But the fact is, SOo of Lionshead simply will not be able to
consider that alternative. If we discourage new condominiums, a
few properties (like Vail Associates') will redevelop in time,
but the vast majority of Lionshead will remain unchanged
(although continuing to decay) for a long, long time.
Thanks very much for your time and consideration. As you know, I
will do everything I can to help you with these issues when I
return to Vail next month.
Regards,
Rob LeVine
Antlers General Manager
1 of 1 4/13/98 6:53 AM
Y + . if>fd1.8. , . . .ru . . e I!. , r . r . "5",
WEST VAIL/EAST VAIL
1 b a 1 ,ed at the dep1 u
listed b 1. 1 ~ ~ ~ bus providing pe1 1 dep V
p
EST VAIL GREEN EAST VAIL WEST VAiL RED E
AM bus departure times: AM bus departure times: AM bus departure times:
6:30A-(7:30A)-8:30A-10:30A 7:10A-(8:10A)-9:10A-11:10A 7:50A-(8:50A)-9:50A-11:50A T
12:30P 1:1 OP
H
PM bus departure times: PM bus departure times: PM bus departure times:
2:30P-(3:30P)-4:30P-(5:30P) 3:10P-(4:10P)-5:10P-(6:10P) 1:50P-3:50P-(4:50P)-5:50P E
6:30P-8:30P 7;10P (6:50P) -7:50P
LATE bus departure times: (10:30P last WVG run) 9:1 OP -(11:10P last EV run) 9:50P -(11:50P last WVR run) C
r
ransportation Center(depart) . :30 ransportation Center (depart) :10 ransportation Center (depart) :50
ail Municipal Building .32 spen Lane :15 andstone School :53 R
:oncert Hall Plaza :3a ooth Falis :16 imber Ridge :56
f
:ascade Crossing :36 ilitkin lls At Vail :18 ost Office :57
;ascade Viilage :38 Creek :20 uffehr Creek / Frontage :58 C
atterhorn :ai upine/Bighorn Road :21 est Vaii Mall :oo ~
'tarmigan :4 3 olumbine/Bighorn Road :22 hamonix :02
Ulnderpass :qs treamside Circle :23 hamonix / Arosa :03
ntermountain :47 imber Falls :24 nderpass :os B
leadow Creek ;ag acquet Club :25 ntermountain :07 ~
inderpass ;51 ighom Park :26 eadow Creek :os
:hamonix :53 eadow Lane East :27 nderpass :11 C ~
eadow Driv~e :28 pruce Creek :12 '
:hamonix / Arosa :sa
lest Vail Lodge :55 ain Gore/Juniper :29 atterhorn :14
ail Commons :56 ain Gore/Bhghorn :30 armigan :16
uffehr Creek ;57 acquet Club Townhomes :31 pruce Creek :17
imber Ridge :oo treamside EasUBighorn :32 ascade Viilage :19
andstone School :02 olumbine/Bighorn :33 ascade Crossing :20
ail East Condos :34 oncert Hall Plaza :22
ransportation Center (arrive) ltkin Creek Park :35 unicipal Building :24
alis At Vail :36 ransportafion Center (arrive) 1111111111:301
ooth Falls :37 BUS STOPS AT DESIGNATED BUS STOPS ONLY!
• i ~ ald Mountawn Road ~38 X designates request stops.
ransportation Center (arrive) :50Use stop request cord or strip.
Departure Times from the TRC: ~ , • Useful Information:
7:30A- (8:30A)- 9:30A- 11:30A- 1:30P ? Be early to your stop.
31:30P-(4:30P)-5:30P-(6:30P)-7:30P ? There is no charge to ride the bus.
9:30P Departure Times from theTRC: + please do not stand in front of the ellow line.
(12:30A last run) 7:10A-(8:10A)-9:10A-11:10A Y
pp o On outlying routes pull the stop request cord or
rains ortation Center (de art) :30
3:10P- (4:10P) - 5:10P- (6:10P)- press the yellow strip be/ore your stop.
ainsen Ranch Road 7
32
. :~0P " 9:10P ? Gather all your belongm' gs before exiting the bus
olden Peak :33 .
.34
oi~cer Field (11 ,30P 18St fun)
Ptarmi an West :ss ransportation Center (depart) :10 Be early to your stop, watches ma
Ptarmigan East :36 andstone School ;13
44~8 Vail Valley Drive :37 ed Sandstone Road :75 vary. Buses use:
610 Sunburst :38 ail View/Red Sandstone Road ;17 Greenwich Mean Time: 303-
lub House :40 andstone Creek Ciub ;tg 499-71 1~
610 Sunburst :ai imba Run :20 Actua/ arrival times may vary due
Pulis Bridge :42 ail Run :21 to traffiC, construction Or weather
For'd Park :44 andstone School :23 COnC/lfi0l7S.
ransportation Center (arrive) :50 ransportation Center (arrive) :30
. ^ C 4
~
r, .
_ , .f . . , ~ . . . 'k Y ir'. . .,F.
. ..F.. .
; . - . . . 1:~ e
. . . ~ , . . . - if .
.
. , . . . .
~ BIKES ON BUSES: ~ .
Bike racks are provided on the
front of outlying vans and buses.
Two bikes can fit on a rack. Bikes are not
;
permitted inside vans or buses except after
dark. Bikes are not allowed on the Vail
:
Village/Lionshead vans or buses.
_ _ . . BUS SCHEDULE
ATTENTION RIDERS!
Times and routes may vary due to 1998
construction. Route variations, if they
occur, will be posted in bus shelterss and on ApTil 20 - May 31
bus stop posts.
*EAST VAIL*GOLF COURSE* ~
WEST VAIL*SANDSTONE
l
. . . ~:i.:.N}.T}yy;};...... -0;•;:..v,'~:,.,.,:.•:: •.~4+'?^:ti.'~::hv{:.w{s{.•'rSi~. ti ~ ~
.'.+{.n~ytir4::i~::: ;:~~~:v:; .~:~$'.:;7};;:}yi;hti,':~•::~'+•~'''i::yiy;:;•.~,.~4\;{i~ :~~'\:•::~+:+~':jki:
:':~\\i\};:}.i;i ~i}iv;•?:i:~; S;:l$>~'v,:i}+nS,. <4'4~~:.:•::.:. :~i:{i;`.; ~ k;:;,••,;•4".,+,,'a~o-,`.; '''..3>i>5:
V ~;~;•~;ti~??~,~ik';,'~+,~4:;;:?;ti:^v;:;~;',...~,~..,~..+."a,;:`~ `,•'•.,.},;'h•'•'~':; 3` '3:.,'~'~,',~+.'+,.''+':C;;;~3:
:^•+Y,•;i'ri;{~i{;~}:`i;::?:?SVti~;"i;:^ ':;tii-0"+ii`i:ti{~".~~' {i~}.ii~:~ •~~;•:;'':i•'.:ti:ii~ni:`~~kii~:?;::
S ; +fi a ? ~.yfi.~{
i ~'x 2~ ; A, »:o •t:.
/ t+ t r~
; . ? + C,4'.... :;r.
- . a.~°x: s:;;:>;,;~'t,y+ ~ . • 3y,+.~+:~~ :~r:;~.:i:
~ . t o ~ . t''y}.:ti . qi
k }~44'+M1k
)i ~ ?a;Y;;;;iy:ktiy.i'•}L:i~~'.~j~o{:\{5:
. ~C• 4 ~,t"i'~.:.•O{.~y~,*+,}i'{:j
~ y'~''~'~v~~~~~~' . . . r k.•,
:titi<~~~``ii:;:{i:•{}Y,.''i :•:`h~~,?,....v..;.•k}::.}k'
} t•. k `4. • . : • y.: M1•::. +•{:;ti;:;:'
i `2.,2."'' S:'"r. ,?::~i;;:~:::;: ~.<,C2.;;i;,.;.;,
, .
~cy;;+,;~•;+,:;~:
/r
v~ ••Yi+%Y:.:;:ii
"tiv:J~};titi:':•i~:±iii'i.•`.~i :y~~,}., ti•i1~:•:>.•';~\
#n'i;s,•`..+>w+~i:`•:•;•`.?:;.;:;;::~g:~::~??:~:~~.;;?'::::::.:.. :::>{'$i;y:•:>i<:i::..~~~~"~,t;i.\,`;'ti:';:;\.;~~'Y,.',~„\y .
i•:,'y`•i: :;~k}, '••:4i:v:~~\•Cti'hk'}:•:
;:ti;:;:y:i,>..::ii::•:i
;'v;:,':';,:;~•,':;:;;:\ti:jjt~: ' : i~: i~: A::~.'~i ~ ~ 'k. ,,:,.r::» n "'.:'A;::., 4. j;:
Rollerblades are ' ~
not to be worn on ~,)•::.:;:v.; ,w>kn;
k..; : • . {y.'v..}~'~'~;~~'L ~~k: 4.•
ti <~s•+,~+•; ; :+::,,•:.'+••::•.,;t•...4+1
;k'•:~:t».:'•'•::;;c,.;•'•::i:' oxu:•:,+;+:~::',.#.2,.r;•~g ,f'~~+,y'~,.',.
`¦¦(~~e r' L ~ ~+:ti~.~•:y~ ~,+,}..t,Q:.:i'.ti:' }p'i:tirJ~C+~~y,~:' ~ k
411 ;j~? r~ti ~{.•.:`';:;:'.,i,'i'... . Mv+f~.,l:{~y..y;:' S"z:+ ~i~ K~'• ~:t
R/us :v4•S:4~i~' 4v\ ~ 'v~~ ~ :\.i:7+4..•ry'v~,'+1 1~y$
• . T'{ii'.~~u.~.ti~~:;~^•.• ~ •tii~:i*. :.~~A:.., '~.v.~~~
±~;:?::~ti ~;~'.2;;:ir,.; • :.y Y}'; ..'M1Yt, ,,....:'•y,•r` ~ '::3~',C~'i.~l~,'~~'.; y~;,a~~
i;.~~.+:''~' . '~a'-•.,.:.,
,'>.~~•~:c;; ;.~w:.~s..•:..
'.;;c;;•.;~... w.:•~c„~.,~.~~,,
, ;r.+:•.,••s:•,.,y}:0:':
W .v; t,y. .fiw: • •c>%:;... ';~!'tl.;;:.,. •C~,.,:r`.t.•
:;~'•';~','~i•'':~:^~i:`•:h:y, ::;~•;3i~" ti.,:::;`:'.+ ;',*3'::~•::K:~`Y.:ri""::
.
„ ;k, ,s ++r''•.;:.:,t~ <x;:,•v,;;
: r$w;:: ' : •.:,;J'.;t;;.i::::: ' h,`~,N••+;u,.~~x, , '
:~::%i: . ; • . r.;;a'3,.:<:;`.>:
l..~ry{'Y..',i: . v~ F,.:::• { ~
2;i4~~~••,:>~ :.j$:;;i: N:1;:'•• .:ti.a:y:ti;~:i; k1:A:.:;ii';}:•••:{•S}
~ ..'•'?k:,.~',~..,}~,::b::i•$;n,yn:yl.4;.,{.~>?ry:
•i:3,~:+k•:::.;.:::.......
;::;ti;.:•:;
.3:at };:k;'•'::i~ y:'.••:.:'f:::•v~v • v:•:r..:~A.'•*''.'+.; ~•:x~:.,:.
.:~;`:i?%:~~'~~. ;:':>:t•:.:•;:;~;:,i?•::•~:::`a:'•:'•'r::.';::.;•{.;'•::;';`''•..~;.;q;;.;,.,...:.;.'ti..,.ti.,:
~ ~ ~ :;yy;,;;£,::•::•s;; •::3:;:•,;,s:;•r;:..".,',.~4, .:••:';:+:v ~+~h{.','~.~+. ',~.~~,j~+'.
~;';;>{i";; :::;,ti;i;:;;.. .:4.:•,.•• ;.~s•,• w,;•.:;3,:
;;~i .'•:;'r;::; ,;;3:;::;:%::;::3i::'y':~:::.?;::;#',•:c::~'r~ .6:•'r.<a.'+i.
r.v.. :./ti.;;.:::.»::::..;{,,x.,~,~:~;•.
. .;::...•;:.v>:•~~:::•~'.'~'•i,<:
THE
BUS SCHEDULE
. FJTIDk TAR, IIR, INFQR;MATION
litJs 24 hr. Bus Information: 328-8143
Lost & Found: 479-2358
Avoid parking hassles, traffic congestion Lost & Found (after hours) 479-2208
and the high cost of driving by riding with Supervisor's Office 479-2358
us every day. Operation's Manager 479-2174
Avon / Beaver Creek Transit 949-6121
witn 24 nour nohce tne Town of vail Eagle County Regiooal
operates a wheelchair lift equipped Transit Authority 748-0702
~ paratransit service for those who are
unable to use the fixed route buses.
For more information call: 479-2358 or
TDD 479-2825.
dp
ID: APR 13'98 ~:23 N0.00? P.01
I ~ Unked St~tq
Deparlmont of Agriculluro
I
! J Release
i Holy C?on Renger Disulct
P.O. Bovt 180
AMnturn, Cp 81845
: Qavid Van Norman
; (970)827-5715 ;
PUBI.IC MEETING TO DISCUSS MaUN7'AIN PINE BEETLE OUTBREAK CONYRdL PRQGRAM
' FOR
' 1998
~
i
~
MINTURN, CO (April 13, 1998) The Colorado 3tate Fnrest Service, U.S. Forest Service, and
tha Town of Vail has scheduled a public meeting to discuss mountain pine beetle coritrol options
in the Vail VaIley during the summer and tall of 1998. The meeting will be held Aprii 28 at 7;00
i
' PM at the Vail Public Library in the Communfty Haom. The obJecth?e of the meeting is to provlde
;
fnllawup Infarmation on the cunern stacus of the outbreak, answer questlons, and location of
, proposed cornrol actlvlttes during thp next year.
;
The meeting will be held at the Vail Publlc Llbrary bcated at 292 West Meadow Drfve In Vall. The
i
{ pubtlc is enCOUraged to attend to provlde Input on control options and Iocatlons oi cornrol
I
~ activities, For additional information coruact bavld Van Norman ar l.aren Kroenke ad 827-5715.
;
~
~
~
i
I
i
I
i
I
;
i
I
{
. 4 . . . . , , , , . , . , .
,COLORADO SKI MUSEUM 970 476 1879 P.01
£~~d~~~$~jx `.~~~~~Ih~~,T . I -~r- .i ..•R~~+'r"'I~+y,~h'V1'l~}~~4p~~..~~ ~la i tf n~7~w~'kil~d d<~~ ~ ~~.~g~'~ ~.~I.
< p.#. 1 e'~ A l f~~F.,nFJ~t F r ~Y- h ~ e
~ ' ~~Y~r• +1 . .i, y I.~}~ ' - • ~ ~ ' •
h . .
Numbe'r of ` ges inoluding cover sheet
.
ro: I ow,?"i tT Vu. L Cvv?WtiL. //FR4M. .,SA, oL_ Q r n e. s
~ .
coloraao~ ski Niuseuin
.
f'.O..Boz'997'6~' ~
; Varl, GD 81658 ~ " •
Phane
,
FaxPhone `179
' ' Phone ~ 9701476-1876
Fax ~Phone 9701476-1879
LC-C.-
REMARKS: ~ Urgent ~ For yvur review Reply ASAP Please Commenf
w'r. W dv co lov e +O lna1/ t nV +SL
CoYy`~, ~ f-{i11 ~~tJ~~". Cac,~~ w 1 a~i~• ~
cx v~3-~1D'KS ,
U
, , . . _ . . . . , _ . . , .
~r~.~=~ ;1
, : _ .
;..!~j •'.f _ ~~J.':'^1 I
~e
. " fi''. - -r;,.6.ui.~~-: ~~j;:!;'q,.. - . Sh 'r'ds,'(, .,.'~.t •i~,'~•::4YL:~: i~}'f:.;,,::,*.,~ d q
..f':i';1. %7~:• ,.~.;w.. : a . ~.s•„ ~.n,4#f-. . y:'.t;.. K !I" Gq „t r . .~ti ~ ; o~.f.:"'• a~'..t i^' .or~'~~~ =-r..
~ . ~ • . '
a.;~~ . -~`rf-•~..!~.?. - :.p' .fif+'i~:~.: -~~51,~ . ~:4..-~,'.i9'j;:.~ .f
. , . . , v y t. t. . . , • 1;. a „ f. ;_.~~~~~„r~..~~,~.c.~x*. a : . . . _ ..,`i
. • :
r+i.; : ' 4+ ~"i - ~i:' ~ . y- ~x: ~ i... r, .i . t• "`i~-'•
".~;A'-
i.
1IL>
~~y..~
~..5~.yy...1......'~f~"'a -.._.f. ,i~ .1 ::;A' _ ~.T'~ .,.7!. •.L~-,,.:. 1~11.... - t
„},.:i.i .~S f, ~T. il ~/e.~~~ ~'A~„H•~. .
~l ~Ft•~~}' ~r ~ . „ ~:i'hi. i h 4* .~h' -',PM:'r~~ ~lJ~:; a.^~~i+'.K:;'._• ~~~;.j. , _
~ :.~:ti9 ;S:a:" ,.~F.'~' :~i• ~^a'Q~: ~'~1''}'~l":•.~;~~ . ~.1~.,.::~.` . r s7.
. . ;.k , .~s:';' ~i" a.~' • - , { i::• .L' 'ti . ~
-:E, r`.::.. ;i:-s;;-.-.s ~ . ,~,i r ; -y.t- : ri ~ ; ti .
COLORADO SKI MUSEUM 970 476 1879 P.02
'I`hc•
v .
:``~~JII'].
t of
.
r iYIP~'1C~S
HAMPItINS
"THE SPIR,IT OFAME.RICf9'S CHAMPIONS"
An [?xhibit CelebrRting the Success of Ameticaci Ski, 5nowboarding and Disabied Teahis
Keeping the A,merican Spirit Alive!!!
F XIIIH1T SUMMARX
l:uchtion C;alorado Ski Museunt - Ski Hall of Fame, Vail, Colotado
natcs Grand Unveiling-Novenaber 199$
Thc_Exhibit Tite Spirit of Anraerica's Champions - Exhibit, was created by the Colorado 5ki
Museum - Ski I fall of Nante to celebXate the successes of the United Sttttes Ski, Snowbuard and
Uisablcd 'f'eams over the years. This exhibit wili be the first of its kind in America, fcaturing the
At!}Ictcs themsclves, their medafs, trophies, photo's, race footage, tapcd interviews, unifarms, anct
mt:morRhllta froni Olympic events, World Cup events and World Championship events. The
exliibit will affieially open in November, 1998, in conjupction with die1999 World C:hanipiunship
Sc:.kson.
The Atl&tes "These are just a few of the alhletes wbo have made contrihutions to "Thc Spirit of
Af11C1'IL':1's Cliamp'totts":
L)cbbic Annstrong, Moose Barrows, Rick Chaffee, Barbara Ann Cocltran, Robert Ccx:hran,
Marilyn Cochran atown, Susie Corrock Luby, David Curricr, Kiki Cutter, Jolin Davis, Barlkira
rcrrics, C'huck Feiries, Chad Fleischer, .linnmie Neuga, Bill Jolinson, Greg Jones, Hank Kashiwa,
liilly Kidd, A.J_ Kitt, Mike Lafferty, Daug Lewis, Steve & Phil 1Vlahre, Grcg Mannin,u, 'l'aniara
McKinney, /\ndy Mi11, Tommy Moe, Cindy Nelson, Terry & Tyler Palmer, Picabo Street, Sarah
S lich(eper, E:die Thys, Eva Twardokens, and Sarah Wial.
5 cclators i:ach year, the Colorado S[ci Museutn attracts over 50,000 ski attd snowboarding
cnthusiasts. With the help of the 1999 World Alpiae Ski Cbampionships, that iaumber will jump tu
i,vcr 100,000 during the 1998/99 seaso».
Natiunal Mcdia We will work closely with all major networks to capture the exhibit for the
vicwing publie. 7lie Cotorado Ski Museu?n will prqduce a tour of "The Spirit of America's
('hampions" on video that will be distributed to Network te)evision, it will also be availablc for
tiale. 'Clic Colorado Ski Museum will work di;rectly with SKl and SKIING Magazine to producc
cditorial and advertising opportunities for the contribvtors to "The Spirit of Anierica's
C'hat~pivns".
IteelU.nal Mcciia ln addition to the loca( Vai! Valley media outlets, "The Spirit of Ajnerica's
C'hamnion's" L'xhibit will receive Denvcr media eMposure thitough the ,Denver Posl, Rvcky
Alutnrluin Nc•tivs, KOA Radio and TCi Cablc Vision. The Denver P4st features a circulation of ovcr
?SC),OAO wltich translate into 1.5 million gross impressions, whilc 54,000 watt KQA is the largcst
AM statipn in Dcnvet and the tltird most powerful AM station in the United States.
PNM SFroTFn DY:
COLORADU SKl MUSI:UM
I',(). tiux 1976 • Vail, Coloxado 81.Gt'i8 •(970) 476-1876 Fax: (970) 476-1879
COLORADO SKI MUSEUM 970 476 1879 P.03
~1C
Spirit of
-1 America's
"a CHAMPIONS
The Colorado Sid
?eud 1$e S1wag'Co~l,y invite you
to capture the us for a media Clay extravAga=
photo session with the $pof America's C1:ampians-Metes.
"live in person" as we r Fowxbng Sponsors for
this e~p~g~~car e~uibit
a
L.' 1
Thursday April z 111998," ,.6
. ' I USE THE QLORAD
O.
e
3 r d L e v",?~-, .
Va *11 Transportation -
R.S.V".P. Sandy Story o ,,t76-.
8
.ri .
y
. OX1.SOr@ O0 Z'S: e, Ma t1n
`FROM : GORSUCH CAT PHONE N0. : 970 949 6257 Rpr. 13 1998 12:34PM P1
_ : . '
...,r.
To: Vaii Town Caunci{; C/O Robert Ford
From:
GORSUCH L7D... Jeff Gorsuch, 970-476-4323
Date
MondaY, April 13, 1998
Number o( Pages
3, including this cover pa$e.
If rau have any probtems or questions regarding this transmission,
please call 970-476-2294
pear Rob,
Thanks for the return phone call last week. ! wanted to write with sdme
thoughu on somQ of my ideas on the current issues. I spoke with Luddy briefly
and I look forward to seeing you at the common grounds meeting Tuesday.
Thank you,
JEFF G0RSUCH
'FROM : GORSUCH CAT PHONE N0. : 970 949 6257. Apr. 13 1998 12:34PM P2
LTD
,Sklcr x l~.ttlitKn.
4/ 13/98
V ail Town Council
C/O Robert Ford
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Uear Rob,
As a person wha has lrnown and loved the'Vail Valley as a home for more than 30 years, I
laok at Vail and our commun?ty and see the richness of ow past. As an optirnist, I look to the
future with bright hopes, that we may somehow have the foresight and wisdom to work and strive
to find creative solutions to some of our serious challenges and questions_ 14ow we act and
indeed the mieasures we take will largely define our future and determine where we are twenty to
fifty years from now and beyond.
I admire your ability to give your time axad efforts to the task of civic leadership_ I thank
you for caring and the tvme you have dedicated. I feel compelled to take a active roll in wbat are
sure to be some ofthe most importaint challenges of Vail's future. Challenges like the renewal and
beautification of the Vail Village core one, the re-establishment of Vail as a leader in mauntain
resort standards and a community committed to persons who want to live, work and establish a
family in Vail. This should be a reality, not a remote possibility.
The establishment of a comprehensive cornmunity employee housing initiative and plan is
essential_ Not just because it is a perceived crisis, but because long term, it is the best and right
tbing to do. Emplayee housing, but not at any cost. Not at the expense of open space, ar other
pritnacy concerns as spelled out in the community master plan_ Employee housing that wouid be
appealing to the year round family or individual comtx?itted to the town. Appealing to those many
individuals who may harre a dream mamy of us might once have had, to have a positive chance and
future in Vail. EffectivE employee laousing rnolded after the successful units xn the city market
complex. Housing that rneets the needs of a grovvin.g community in keeping wi#h the esthetic of
Vail. I feel strongly that our actions need to be carefully executed. This is not a new issue. Who
wouid sucb hpusing be available to? A fundamerrtal requirement far potential candidates should
be qusl't$cativns on the basis of their full time, year rouxtd employrnent in Vail.
As a business owner, my prunary concerns and loyalties are to our precious full-time year
round staff of 80 persons. It is my responsibility to first, provide staff with the rnost competitive
salary base, benefits and xncentives. This is part of our commitment to be an ernployer of choiee.
Many busu?esses in Vail are out of touch and barely meet the requirements of paying a living
wage, This is part of the prablem.
IKz r r_..,-., rrPpir nr:vP_ Vnii ('ninrado 81657 9701476-2$80 Fax 970/476-4323
"FROM : GORSUCH CAT PHONE N0. : 970 949 6257 Apr. 1.3 1998 12:35PM P3
In a free marlcet economy, we should explore participation in valley wide housing
opportunities. I..ets not get stuck on percentages such as the 62% employee rativ to housing in
Vail.. The complexity vf the problem requixes larger vision. We are naive to think that our
responsibilities and opportunities cease to exist at the boundaries of Dowd Junction. Successful
solutions will be broa,d based with careful analYsis o£ possible sights that tnay best solve the long
tei-rn requirements for employee housuag. I look fprward to participatin~$ in the common ~'ound
process. It is my hope that as a community, we may thitilc big thoughts and do the responsibte
and right thing for the Valley and its future.
Sincerely,
7eff Grorsuch
4IL
TOWN O1309 Yail Yalley Drive Department of Public Works & Transportation
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2158/Fax 970-479-2166
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
Town Manager re
FROM: Larry Gra , irector of Public Works & Transportation
DATE: April 13, 1998
SUBJECT: VTRC Carbon Monoxide
Councilman Arnett requested staff ta look into the report of carbon monoxide in the Vail
Valley Tourism and Conference Bureau (VVTCB) offices at the transportation center.
The Facility Maintenance Division within public works was notified in late October 1997
regarding a suspected carbon monoxide build up in the reservations office.
Subsequently a meeting with safety, building, fire, and facilities representatives was held
to determine what actions needed to be taken to verify and correct the situation, if
required. As a result of their investigation the following actions were taken:
• Facilities maintenance installed a separate HVAC zone that increased the air
circulation within the wark area.
• VVTCB was requested to unblock the return registers and to reduce the
occupancy of the room to its correct occupancy load.
• A carbon monoxide detector was installed to record and monitor the CO
levels,
• Havelick and Associates, Ltd., an industrial hygiene consulting firm was
contacted to do a study of the indoor air quality and to provide any
recommendations for correcting the situation as required.
• A letter dated December 1, 1997 was provided to WTCB outlining these
actions and also suggesting some actions they could take as welL (Attached)
On February 9, 1998 we received a report from Havelick & Associates, Ltd. (attached)
reporting their findings and recommendations. Their conclusions are:
• CO concentrations were found to be between 0 and 4 parts per million (ppm)
which is well below the established health standard for CO of 35 ppm.
• There is potentially a set of rare weather circumstances that could allow
exceeding of the standards.
• Recommend that we relocate the air intake which may further reduce any
chance of CO entering this space.
RECYCLEDPAPER
• Recommended that we put self-closing doors on the entry to the parking
garage by the Ski Museum which may also limit any CO from entering the
space.
As of April 3, 1998, and unannounced, the VVTCB has moved their reservations office
out of the west end of the information center area and it is now unoccupied.
If you have any further questions, please contact me directly at 479-2173.
i
~N ~
4VAIL
~
Department of Ccmsnunity Development . .
75 South Frontage Roud .
Vail, Colorado 81657 L
970-479-2138 f
FAX 970-479-2452 TM
December 1, 1997 '
r
Mr. Frank Johnson ~
Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau ;
100 East Meadow Drive -
Vail, CO 81657 a~.
,
Dear Frank,
P
I wanted to take this opportunity to review the actions the Town of Vail has taken to date to '
improve the working environment in the group sales office in the Vai( Village Transportation fCenter. In addition, I have summarized the actions that we discussed on October 31 st that we ~
believe will be helpful to address this issue.
~
Town of Vail Actions to date: '
~
.
F
' The Town oi Vail Facilities Management otiice installed a separate HVAC zone for that "
office area this summer. 7he iniake air comes from an outside source near the entrance
to the ski museum. This new zone has more than doubled air circulation in the office }
area. However, it has been observed that the air registers have been blocked in the "
group sales office. These registers need to be kept clear to allow for adequate air flow. ,
" The Town of Vail Facilities Management office had a mechanical engineer review the
air circulation system in that building. This system has been adjusted to provide the =
maximum amount of air exchange in the building. ~
" TOV Facilities Management has also confirmed that the thermostat in group sales
offices works properly.
° The Town of Vail Building Department has examined the space in this building and the
air circulation requirements. The 1991 Uniform Building Code (UBC) states that a 450 ~
square foot space divided by an occupant load of 100 (Table 33-A) can accommodate 4 ~
people in a office situation. However, the UBC Section 706 also states that 7 people
need 35 cubic feeUminute of air exchange. A mechanical engineer working for the Town F
has concluded that the 'vVTC6 office space does have at least 35 cubic feet/minute of
air exchange. However, the number of occupants (7) is in direct conflict with the UBC. ;
s
~
f'
~
F_
~
i a 4 RECYCLEDYAPER
. . ~
' The Town of Vail Facilities Management Division is planning on installing an air {
conditioning unit for that building in the summer of 1998 which should help lower }
temperature in that space.
~
,
' A carbon monoxide detector has been installed after a Fire Department visit to the
building in October. This monitor has detected CO levels ranging from 1- 26 ppm as ~
reported by VVTCB employees. Employees at the group office have expressed different '
, opinions on the source of the CO. We originally believed that the high levels occurred ;
when windows and doors are open in the office. However, we have also been told that ~
high reading have occurred at night when the office is closed. It is unclear at this time,
whether the CO is comming from Vans directly outside the building.
` I have visited the office twice within the last month. On October 31 st I met with you and
we discussed short-term and long-term solutions to Improve the situation.
* I have also spoken with representatives from your workmans compensation insurance ~
carrier about the problem.
~
It should be recognized that identifying the source of indoor air quality problems can be very
problematic. Potentially 1000s of different products commonly used in a office area can be an
irritant or cause health problems for an individual. Obvious issues in this case appear to be .
carbon monoxide and the amount of air flow in this space. An industrial health professional with
a focus on indoor air quality could be extremely valuabfe in assisting with this problem. Several .
specific recommendations for helping to resolve this problem are listed below: ~
" Given the structure of this office space and its proximity to vehicles, how it heats up ,
during the day, the amount of electronic equipment, building code requirements and the
size of the space it is recommended that the number of personnel be reduced to 3-4 -
people.
' It is critical to determine the source of the CO problem and a•more sophisticated CO ;
monitoring device should be rented for 2-3 days to determine exactly what time of the
day CO ievels are at the highest. This will be valuable in determining the CO source. •
' Personnel should be encouraged to maintain a lag of any physicaNy ilf efiects. ' Purchase a humidifier, adequate for the size of the office, to reduce the dryness of this
working area. This should help with eye irritation. -
` An air purifier could be purchased which may reduce particulates in the offices air
space. These units are available at Walmart.
' Protective shields that screen EMF can be purchased for computers which may also
help eye irritation.
" An industrial health professional that focuses on indoor air quality issues could provide
a more precise diagnosis of the office space. If the above mentioned recommendations
do not result in improvements, then it is strongly recommended to engage the services of
an industrial health professional that specializes in indoor air quality.
~
~
~
The prompt impiementation of the above mentioned recommendations wiil hopefully improve the
probiems in the group sales office. Please feel free to call me at 479-2146 if I or other Town
staff can be of any further assistance.
Sincerel
Russeli Forrest
Senior Environmental Policy Planner
x.c Susan Conneily
John Guliick
John Gallegos
Charlie Davis
c .
0
- Havelick & Associates, Ltd.
February 9, 1998
Suzy Combs
. Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road . .
Vzil, Colorado 81657 . StiBJECT: CARBON MONOXIDE TESTING RESULTS
TOWN OF VAII, PARKING GARAGE/OFFICE
Dear Ms. Combs:
On January 12, 1998 Havelick & Associates, Ltd. tested several locations at the Town of Vail
Parking Garage and the connected office building. Reports of slightly elevated carbon monoxide
levels had been received from a tenant in the building, the Vail Valley Tourism and Convention
Bureau. Our testing was conducted to determine actual levels and the mechatism(s) by which
carbon monoxide contamination was reaching the office areas of the building. The data suggest
that CO contaminated air is moving from the parking garage and entering the building through
the fresh air intake. Concentrations measured during the site visit and recorded on an occupant
log were not found to exceed occupational safety and health limits.
DESCRIPTION OF THE TEST AREA
The s:abject property was a structure located near the center of Vail, Colorado. The structure
consists of a mostly underground multi-level parking garage. At the center of the top level of the
parking garage is a two story office and retail building. The building houses a tourist
information center, a ski history museum, offices, and restaurant areas. The top level of the
building is occupied by an office and the tourist information center. A bus stop and surface
parking areas adjoin the north side of the building.
The parking garage has an extensive dedicated system of air supply and exhaust systems. A
separate HVAC system supplies the office and retail areas of the building.
Level Three of the parking garage surrounds the lower level of the Office Building on three
sides. The office and retail areas on the lower level open to a south facing courtyard that is
sheltered on three sides. An open walkway connects Level Three of the parking garage with the
courtyard. Immediately adjacent to the walkway is the air intake far the heating, ventilating, and
air conditioning system (HVAC) for the office building,
9753 Quay Loop, Westminster, Colorado 80021 • 303/429-4050 • fax 303/429-4057 • LinnH(c~,ix.netcom.com
. ~
Town of Vail Parking Garage/Office Building
Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Results
February 9, 1998
Page 2
Occupants of the Tourism and Convention Office have reported a number of instances of
elevated carbon monoxide levels within their work area. A log kept by the occupants showed , varying levels of CO on different dates and times. The CO levels had been measured by the
occupants with a wall mounted Marcurco, Inc. monitor. Monitoring on January 12, 1998 by ' .
Havelick & Associates, Ltd. appeared to indicate that the Marcurco instrument was functioning '
properly. The occupant log indicated levels varying between zero and a high of 37 ppm. •
Elevated levels indicated on the log appear to loosely correlate with morning and afternoon rush
hours.
CARBON MONOXIDE TEST PROCEDURES
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas that is commonly produced as a component
of vehicie exhaust. CO is a poisonous gas at elevated concentrations, and acts by displacing the oxygen carrying capacity of red blood cells. At low concentrations, carbon monoxide does not
disp(ace suffcient amounts of oxygen to cause harm.
Havelick & Associates, Ltd. used a GT-2400 Multi-Gas Meter to determine CO levels. The
meter was calibrated by OHA Instruments immediately prior to use in this study. Several
stations were selected for monitoring. Selection was based on several factors including
previously reported problems, sources of CO, building intakes, and building areas remote from
the problem area. Each station was monitored at intervals throughout the day to determine
whether correlations existed between concentrations from one area to another.
ln addition to the GT-2400 measurements, readings from an existing CO monitor/alarm that was
installed inside the Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau were also monitored. CARBON MONOXIDE TEST RESULTS
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration has established a Permissible Exposure
Limit of 50 ppm CO averaged over an eight hour period. The National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH), a research agency, has a recommended exposure limit of 35 ppm
CO averaged over an eight hour day. A"ceiling" levei of 200 ppm CO must not be exceeded at
any part of the day.
~
Havelick & Associates, Ltd.
Town of Vaii Parking Garage/Office Buiiding
Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Results
February 9, 1998
~
Page 3
~
.
;
The monitoring found that carbon monoxide levels in the Tourism and Convention Office varied t~
between zero and four parts per million (ppm) during the monitoring period. At the same time,
CO concentrations varied between zero and 8 ppm at the heating and ventilating system air ~
intake for the office areas, and between 0 and 41 ppm on Level 3 of the Garage: CO levels were
consistently zero at the bus stop outside the Office, with one exception when the levels ~
momentarily peaked at 9 ppm immediately next to a bus. CO levels in the Information Desk
Lobby were similar to those detected within the Tourism and Convention Office. Several sT
measurements were also performed in the Cantina area of the Office Building; those
measurements detected CO between zero and three ppm, similar to the Lobby and the Tourism
Office areas. 4
Table One on page three lists test results for the stations monitored. Figure One on page four
graphically illustrates the data from Table One. 4=
Monitoring did not start until after the morning rush hour was completed. Carbon monoxide levels were low at mid-morning and lunchtime. Levels began to increase at mid-afternoon, as
traffic in the parking garage increased. The highest levels in the parking garage were detected during the late afternoon.
i
Air movement through the garage walkway adjacent to the air intake was observed to frequently
change directions. At some points, air was moving into the garage, while at other times the flow -
was from the garage and onto the courtyard. Several instances were noted when elevated CO ;
concentrations were detected inside the garage and air was moving from the garage to the
courtyard. At those times, CO was easily detected at the air intake to the office building. When `
the air movement was into the garage, CO levels were typically non-detectable at the air intake. F,
r
t
s
Havelick & Associates, Ltd. Y
T
. .
Town of Vail Parking Garage/Office Building
Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Results
February 9, 1998
Page 4
- TABLE ONE: CARBON MONOXIDE TEST RESULTS VAIL OFFICELGARAGE COMPLEX
Tourism Air Intake; Gara~e ,Le~el ,3 . Bus,Stop (Outside) lnformation Desk -
, •
Convention Office Lobb
Time CO m Time CO m Time CO m Time CO m Time CO m
10:06 0 10:13 0 10:11 0 10:09 0
10:17 1 10:15 3
10:35 2 10:39 0 10:42 8 10:37 0 10:36 2
11:11 0 11:03 0 11:03 Z 11:09 0 11:10 0
11:22 0 11:26 0 11:27 3 11:25 0 11:24 1
12:00 0 12:04 11:39 211 12:03 0 12:02 0
12:49 1 12:52 0 12:06 3 12:51 0 12:50 1
12:54 0
2:36 0
2:45 3 2:43 4 2:40 12
2:52 0 2:54 7 2:49 0 2:49 3
2:59 8
3:05 2 3:17 0 3:13 10 3:05 0 3:07 2
3:22 2 3:21 3 3:18 8 3:17 0
3:27 3 3:25 2
3:28 0
3:32 3 d3:4 24 3:36 0
3:44 0 3:42 2
3:40 3 3:48 1 12
3:55 3 3:59 2 4:02 13 3:55 0 3:58 3
4:06 , 4 4:10 0 4:08 9 4:17 2 4:13 0 4:12 1 4:15 2
4:24 0 4:21 0
4:52 3 4:31 3 4:30 41 4:32 1 4:33 3 _
A -k Havelick & Associates, Ltd.
s e
•
Town of Vail Parking Garage/Office Building °
Carbon tilonoxide Monitoring Results
February 9, 1998 . .
Page 5 `
~
FIGURE ONE: CARBON 1VIONOXIDE TEST RESULTS
VAIL OFFICE/GARAGE COMPLEX . Sp . . .
4
5
i::
itzzi i•`:
; ~:i <zzti~<?
;t;cz w.....
~.:..:......:::...:..:....•:........:....•...•.,....,....;..t..,
, •.y. 2;.i ,
::t•'`.:
:::;;::..Y::•``.:.`':,•``."`` ~R:~:
. u........,•.,
...b....•..,....,.•..\~r•';`:::5:::::`. ~:'`..:.::`,`::'`.•`.::;:;"y~:;^
40 .
.\Y.......,.
..rt
~
.
. . . . . . . . .
;'q:i::';;::ii `.>>~i~~~"2:;;~;i::':::<~>?;':?:t 2:??t`:`<?}:y~::}~;:~2`~;<:<::::•>'.>:Y::.::?2"`"
:•`.ity.'\;ttJ:~:i ::`CY2.
~•::w'.? ??'t:;:
: ~.E%:' :
..i•;:'`•:
. ,
v:.~.~.:::.:::•:ti:•...: ::?t.:i~tii v.~vn~:•.u..vnt{i:•
.v :•.u.v::::.~:n ~~v:.vn}:::.: ~
.:..;'+•i:{.~:::.:i v ::n~ii:i~j:~i:~:>.L{~:i::::~:~:~:ii~
:.nv..v~w.4.:
35 . : . : : . . . : . : . . : . . . : : : : : : : : : : . ~ : : : : : . ~ : ~ : : : : : : . . . ~ : : : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C{M1iiii{L'i
iM1i{•.`i:4>'>
i: S• `i`.``:`•i":....... . i
30
0
Gara
e
Level 3
9
CO
m
Pp
25
Air int
a
ke
¦
CO
m
pP
20
~ Tourism ~
&
onve
C nf
on Offce
15
CO
m
Pp
10
5 ~
::::::...:.1:.;::.:;:
~ •
: ,
.
~ ~:•.:.I .r.~..... . ' ~:{Ot~/./.~~fi^, . ?,;.{fb :
0
. ~10 .19J ~V n Q•J ~O ~V ,
As can be seen in Figure One, during the afternoon elevated CO levels in the parking garage -
were quickly followed by moderately elevated CO levels at the offce air intake. This occurred ~
when air movement was from the garage to the courtyard through the walkway. The elevated ~
CO levels at the office air intake were then foilowed by slightly elevated levels in the Tourism
and Convention Office. ~
Havelick & Associates, Ltd. .
.
Town of Vail Parking Garage/Office Building
r;
Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Results r
February 9, 1998
:
Page 6 F:
.
F:-
. `
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS k .
.
Occupants of the Tourism and Convention Office have occasionally detected elevated levels of
carbon monoxide. The.occupants voiced concerns that the CO might originate from the bus stop •
area outside their window. However, it appears that the source of the CO is the parking garage,,
not the bus stop, and that the CO is entering the building through the ventilation system.
1. The CO concentrations detected and those previously monitored by the occupants were not found to exceed oceupational health standards.
?
2. A mechanism for contamination of office air was observed which could have the potentin-( to ;exceed occupational standards in rare circumstances. These circumstances would have •
combine particular weather patterns with continuous heavy traffic through the parking ~
garage. ~t.
3. The specific route by which contaminated air moves from the parking garage to the office f
and retail areas appears to be through the courtyard walkway and into the HVAC air intake.
4. The courtyard area allows contaminated air from the garage to remain next to the walkway ~
entrance and available to the HVAC air intake. p
5. Changing the location of the HVAC air intake may significantly reduce CO contamination.
One mechanism by which this could be accomplished would be to construct a ventilatiotl `
chase or duct from the current location directly up so that air wouid be collected from the . ~
surface level instead of the courtyard level. The surface level is not significantly sheltered ;
and is therefore less likely to be contaminated with CO. .
6. Installation of self-closing doors on the walkway would reduce air movement from the 4
garage onto the courtyard and then into the HVAC air intake. This may significantly reduce CO contamination of office building occupied areas.
r
Havelick & Associates
, Ltd. r
. ~
. ~ • ~
? '
Town of Vail Parking Garage/Office Building P
Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Results ~February 9, 1998
Page 7 .
~
~
~
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at any time. . Sincerly,
i~
Linn D. Havelick '
Certified Industrial Hygienist
American Board of lndustrial Hygiene ~
Certificate Number 3902
Havelick & Associates, Ltd.