HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-23 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
0
Ag '
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 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 • Discussion of Employee Generation. (45 mins.)
Andy Knudtsen
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Employee Generation is a tool other resort
municipalities have used to address the employee housing issue. With it,
the Town could require developers to provide housing for some percentage
of additional employees generated by new development. The attached
memo outlines the aiternatives and identifies the policy issues which Council
will have to consider, if choosing to move forward with this concept.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Decide to move forward and direct
staff to provide the next level of detail or decide to discard the approach.
2• Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. (45 mins.)
Dominic Mauriello The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan team would like to make a
Ethan Moore presentation regarding several redevelopment scenarios which are based
Dave Corbin, VA on a redeveiopment model and its application to a hypothetical structure in
Lionshead. This model looks at different approaches that a developer or
condo association might take with respect to redevelopment and considers
the costs of that redevelopment. Ptease refer to back-up material provided.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: No action is requested at this time.
For discussion purposes only.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Please refer to material in Council packet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: No action requested.
3. PEC/DRB Review. (15 mins.)
4. Discussion of Business License Fees by Vail First. (30 mins.)
Kaye Ferry
5• An appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission decision denying
George Ruther the applicants' request for a building height variance, site coverage variance
and density variance at 193 Gore Creek Plaza Condominiums/Lot A, Block
5-B, Vail Village First Filing. (20 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Uphold, overturn, or overturn with
conditions, the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision denying
the applicants' variance requests.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On Monday, April 27, 1998, the applicants,
Rodney and Elizabeth Slifer, appeared before the Planning and
Environimental Commission witii a request for a minor i;Ci exterior alteration,
building height variance, site coverage variance and density variance at 193
Gore Creek Plaza Condominiums. Following the completion of a site visit to
the applicants' residence and a presentation on the requests by the
Community Development Department, the Planning and Environmental
Commission passed a motion (6-1)(Bishop opposed) denying the applicants'
requests.
A copy of the staff memorandum and the approved minutes from the April
27, 1998 meeting have been attached for reference.
a
. . ~
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department
recommends that the Town Council uphold the Planning and Environmental
Commission's decision denying the applicants' requests. Should the Town
Council choose to uphold the Commission's decision, staff would
recommend the Council make the findings listed on page 5 of the staff
memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated April
27, 1998.
6. Refinancing Discussion of a Portion of Town of Vail's Debt. (30 mins.)
Steve Thompson -
Steve Jeffers ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Decide how to proceed with the
process. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Town can refinance a portion of the
Town's outstanding debt. Because interest rates have dropped this can be
done without an election if there is present value savings. The Town could
free up between $2.2 million and $3 million between the year 2000 and
2005 depending upon the refinancing option selected. Steve Jeffers will be
here to discuss the process, including timing, selecting an underwriter, and
the options for restructuring the debt service.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Refinancing the debt using one underwriter
on a negotiated basis. We do not see the need for a financial advisor to
select an underwriter.
7. Village Core Construction Update. (10 mins.)
Larry Grafel
Ford Park Managed Parking Update. (10 mins.)
Larry Grafel
Greg Morrison
9• Public Works Tunnel Reconstruction Project. (15 mins.)
Larry Grafel
Greg Hall BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The original bid for the Public Works tunnel
Susie Hervert reconstruction includes: lowering the road so semi trailer trucks can access
the Public Works facility rather then unloading on the South Frontage Road;
installing a 6 ft. sidewalk, which is a requirement for a CO to be issued for
the employee housing; and drainage and utility improvements that must go
under the South Frontage Road. Staff has worked with CDOT, as well, to
refine the design to their standards.
The original estimate was $485,000. A firm bid from Viele Construction, as
the general contractor, has been received for $520,000, but this bid contains
no contingency. Staff believes because of the scope of this project that a
contingency is critical. Currently, we have $55,000 in capital street
maintenance savings from the recent chip and seal bids. Staff believes
there are other savings in the capital street maintenance projects that can
also make up the deficit. The final $10,000 will come from the capital
projects fund balance.
$485,000 staff estimate
520.000 Viele Construction bid (Alpine Engineering has
value engineered three times)
<$35,000> shortfall without contingency
$ 35,000 shortfall without contingency
30.000 contingency
$ 65,000 total shortfall
$485,000 staff estimate
65,004 total shortfall
$550,000 TOTAL COST OF PROJECT
2
r
A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To authorize the increased funding from the
capital street maintenance savings to allow the contractor to move forward
. with work commencing Wednesday, June 24th.
10. Vail Village Overlay Rebid. (5 mins.)
Greg Hall
11. Information Update. (10 mins.)
. 12• Council Reports. (10 mins.)
13. Other. (10 mins.)
14. Adjournment - 6:15 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, 7/7/98, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 7/14/98, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL COMMON GROUND EVENING MEETING
W1LL BE ON TUESDAY, 6/30/98, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
I I I I I I I
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice or
479-2356 TDD for information.
C:IAGENDA.WS
3
PUBLIC NOTICE
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE
(as of 6/19/98)
)t1LY, 1998
In an attempt to respond to scheduled meeting demands, as well as adhere to mandated ordinance
and charter requirements, Council meetings are scheduled at the following times: -
EVENING MEETINGS
Evening meetings will continue to be held on the first and third Tuesday evenings of each month,
starting at 7:00 P.M. These meetings will provide a forum for citizen participation and public
audience for conducting regular Council business.
WORK SESSIONS
Work sessions, which are primarily scheduled for Council debate and understanding of issues before
the Council, will now be scheduled to begin at 2:00 P.M. (unless otherwise noted) on everv
Tuesday afternoon.
THE IULY. 1998, VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDIlLE
IS AS FOLLOWS:
Tuesday, ]uly 70 1998
Work session............ 2:00 P.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda)
Evening meeting......... 07:00 P.M.
Tuesday, ]uly 14, 1998
Work session............ 2:00 P.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda)
Tuesday,]uly, 21, 1998
Work session............ 2:00 P.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda)
Evening meeting......... 07:00 P.M.
Tuesday, ]uly 28, 1998
Work session............ 2:00 P.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda)
TOWN OF VAIL
Pamela A. Brandmeyer
Assistant Town Manager
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice
or 479-2356 TDD for information.
COUNCIL FOLLOW-UP
TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS
~
~
1998
4121/98 CORRIDOR NOISE BOB MCLAURIN/GREG MORRISON: Although noise Bob wiil write to Col. King wICSP.
Kevin Foley/Councii - "barriers" are included on CDOT'S 20 year STIP, the Council
is interested in a more pro-active stance. Should we be
considering a more multi-faceted approach, i.e., request a
step up in enforcement by CSP, request a lowering of the
speed limit to 55 through this corridor, involve our own PD,
enlist the aid of all TOV residents in calling the 1-800 # to
REPORT A GOOD DRIVER, etc.
5119198 EAST VAIL LIGHTS LARRY: 2 of the 6 East Vail lights are still out. What is the CDOT has repaired 6 of the 8 lights. There is still a break in the service
Kevin Foley status? line and will be repaired when CDOT can re-schetlule their crew back
here.
5126198 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL AND LARRY: With the current construction for heated pavers in
LARGER PRINT SIGNS FOR THE VTRC - the VTRC, clear, concise, readable, user-friendly signs are
Ludwig Kurz needed. Current signs contain too small print (on the
concrete supports) and we need to step up our efforts to
compliment the progress of the VTRC project progress on a
dail basis.
June 19, 1998, Page 1
619198 DANCING BEAR CHECK TODD 0: Since we're almost ready to sign off on the W. Vail
Bob Armour roundabout landscaping, what are we doing w/the $1,100+
, check we received from the Dancing Bear? Let's see a
piaque or a bench or something installed to commemorate
this donation.
619198 VTRC CLEANLINESS John Gallegos: The transportation center is really looking
Kevin Foley cluttered and trashy. Can we step up our efforts to keep it
clean, even during all the construction?
6/9/98 BE1TY NEAL COMPUTER TRAINING Anne: Please contact Betty to arrange a training session for Betty is on vacation untii August 24th. We will schedule a class when she
Kevin Foley interested Council members. retums. The class will most likely be held from 12:30 to 1:30 at CMC.
Please contact Anne with any interest in attending the session when it is
scheduled.
June 19,1998, Page 2
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, June 22, 1998
AGENDA
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Galen Aasland .
Ann Bishop
Diane Golden
` Greg Moffet
John Schofield
Brian Doyon ,
Tom Weber
Site Visits : 12:45p.m.
1. Wieman - 2662-2692 Cortina Lane
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 Hearina - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for an extension of a conditional use permit for the Lionshead Children's Tent,
generally located next to the Lionshead Children's ski school/Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1st.
Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by David Thorpe
Planner: Christie Barton
APPROVED FOR ONE YEAR
2. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for an amended final plat to allow for interior
conversions, in Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision.
Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. William Esrey
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
APPROVED WITH ONE CONDITION
1. That the applicant provide a revised plat with all required signatures for
' recording.
3. A request for a wall height variance, to allow a 25-foot tall retaining wall to repair a failing
retaining wall, located at 2662 through 2692 Cortina Lane/Lots 7, 8, 9& 10 , Block B, Vail Ridge
Subdivision.
Applicant: Homeowners, represented by Hans Wieman (Yenter Companies)
Planner: George Ruther
APPROVED WITH ONE CONDITION
1. That the applicant transplant and/or replace a minimum of 25 caliper inches of
Aspen trees and a minimum of 48 linear feet of Spruce trees between the top of
the wall and Cortina Lane.
4. A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to Special Development District No.
6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment, located at 100 East Meadow Drive, Lots M
and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st.
Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson
Planner: George Ruther
NO VOTE
1
5. A proposal to amend the zoning regulations to allow single-family and two-family structums to
expand by 500 sq. ft. or less in allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), withoutt
compliance with certain design requirements; allowing interior GRFA conversions for multiple-
family structures and reorganizing the conditional use section of the Zoning Regulationsi.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
APPROVED WITH ONE CHANGE -
6. A request for a side setback variance, to allow for the construction of an additional garagp,,
located at 813 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch.
Applicant: Liz & Luc Meyer, represented by William Pierce
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL JULY 13, 1998
7. A request for a minor subdivision, located at 1410 Buffehr Creek Road, Lot G-1, Lion's RRiige,
Subdivision Filing 2.
Applicant: Eric Johnson, representing Leroy Schmidt
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL JULY 13, 1998 •
8. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of an inclined elevatmn.tU be
located at 2701 Davos Trail/ Lot 15, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: Homeowners, represented by Galen A. Aasland
Planner: Christie Barton
WITHDRAWN
9. A request for a worksession to discuss a setback variance, to allow for the extension offEa2nd
story deck, Jocated at 5025 A Main Gore Place/Lot 5F, Sundial Phase I.
Applicant: Harry Ruffalo
Planner: Christie Barton
WITHDRAWN
10. Information Update
11. Approval of May 18, 1998 and June 8, 1998 minutes.
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during rogUor
office hours in the project planner's office tocated at the Town of Vail Community Developmentt
Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Heamga
Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published June 19, 1998 in the Vail Trail.
2 lQ~4VAX
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, June 22, 1998
AGENDA
Prolect Orientation / LUNCH - Community Devefopment Department 12:00p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits : 12:45p.m.
1. Esrey - Spraddle Creek Estates
2. Wieman - 2662-2692 Cortina Lane
3. Ruffalo - 5025 A. Main Gore Place
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 Hearina - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for an extension of a conditional use permit for the Lionshead Children's Tent,
generally located next to the Lionshead Children's ski school/Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1 st.
Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by David Thorpe
Planner: Christie Barton
2. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for an amended final plat to allow for interior
conversions, in Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision.
Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. William Esrey
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
3. A request for a wall height variance, to allow a 25-foot tall retaining wall to repair a failing
retaining wall, located at 2662 through 2692 Cortina Lane/Lots 7, 8, 9& 10 , Block B, Vail
Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: Homeowners, represented by Hans Wieman (Yenter Companies)
Planner: George Ruther
4. A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to Special Development
District #6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment, located at 100 East
Meadow Drive, Lots M and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st.
Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson
Planner: George Ruther
5. A proposal to amend the zoning regulations to allow single-family and two-family
structures to expand by 500 sq. ft. or less in allowable Gross Residential Floor Area
(GRFA), without compliance with certain design requirements; allowing interior GRFA
conversions for multiple-family structures and reorganizing the conditional use section of
the Zoning Regutations.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello .
1
6. A request for a side setback variance, to allow for the construction of an additional
garage, located at 813 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch.
Applicant: Liz & Luc Meyer, represented by William Pierce
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL JULY 13, 1998
7. A request for a minor subdivision, located at 1410 Buffehr Creek Road, Lot G-1, Lion's
Ridge Subdidvision Filing 2.
Applicant: Eric Johnson, representing Leroy Schmidt
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL JULY 13, 1998
8. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of an inclined elevator,
to be located at 2701 Davos Trail/ Lot 15, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: Homeowners, represented by Galen A. Aasland
Planner: Christie Barton
WITHDRAWN
9. A request for a worksession to discuss a setback variance, to allow for the extension of
a 2nd story deck, located at 5025 A Main Gore Place/Lot 5F, Sundial Phase I.
Applicant: Harry Ruffalo
Planner: Christie Barton
WITHDRAWN
10. Information Update
11. Approval of May 18, 1998 and June 8, 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 479-2356, Telephone for the
Hearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published June 19, 1998 in the Vail Trail.
2 *Y/dL
mwx
DESIGN REVlEW BOARD AGENDA
Wednesday, June 17, 1998
3:00 P.M.
PROJECT ORIENTATION / LUNCH - Community Development Department 12:30 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Brent Alm Hans Woldrich
Clark Brittain
Bill Pierce
Ann Bishop (PEC)
SITE VISITS 2:00 pm
1. Lowe - 4435 Gien Falls Lane.
2. Raether - 278 Rockledge.
3. Vail Snowboard Supply - 600 East Lionshead Circle.
Driver: George
PUBLIC HEARING - TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:00 pm
1. Vail Snowboard Supply - Painting request within Lionshead area. Brent
600 East Lionshead Circle/
Applicant:
MOTION: PIERCE SECOND: BRITTAIN VOTE: 4-0
TABLED UNIL JULY 1, 1998
2. Shannon residence - Addition to a primary/secondary residence. Dominic
245 Forest Road/Lot 22, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st.
Applicant: Mike Shannon, represented by William Reslock
MOTION: BRITTAIN SECOND: BISHOP VOTE: 4-0
APPROVED
3. Dayco Holding Corporation - Final review for a gazebo. Dominic
1315 Spraddle Creek Road/Lot 12, Spraddle Creek Estates.
Applicant: David Argo, No Name Architects
MOTION: BRITTAIN SECOND: BISHOP VOTE: 4-0
APPROVED
4. Thomas & Sally Lowe - Construction of a single-family residence with caretaker unit. Christie
4435 Glen Falls Lane/Lot 3, Forest Glen Subdivision.
Applicant: George Greenwald
MOTION: BRITTAIN SECOND: PIERCE VOTE: 4-0
APPROVED
1
TO{YNO*VAIL
5. Bakalar - Conceptual review of new single family residence. Christie
780 Potato Patch /Lot 17, Block 1, Potato Patch.
Applicant: Tom Cole, represented by Morter Architects
MOTION: BRITTAIN SECOND: PIERCE VOTE: 4-0
a. That the stonework be continued from the chimney to the front elevation.
b. That landscaping show a transition between Lot 2 and Lot 3 so the mowable grass and
native grass not be in a straight line along the property line.
6. Raether - Conceptual review of a new signal family. George -
278 Rockledge Road/Lot 15, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st.
Applicant: Noel Rollins
MOTION: BRITTAIN SECOND: BISHOP VOTE: 4-0
CONCEPTUAL, NO VOTE
7. Dauphinais - Moseley Construction - contruction of a new single family residence 1426 Moraine
Drive / Lot 13, Dauphinais, - Moseley Subdivision #1
Applicant: Dauphinais - Moseley Construction
CONCEPTUAL, NO VOTE
Staff Approvals
McLaughlin - Enclose deck to form new sun room. Brent
3241 Katsos Ranch Road/Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Village 12th.
Applicant: Brandy McLaughlin
Holiday Inn Chateau at Vail - Temporary business identification banner. Brent
13 Vail Road/Parcel C, Vail Village 2nd.
Applicant: Bill MacDonald
Dore' residence - Minor exterior changes and an interior conversion. George
100 Vail Road/Lot 35, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st.
Applicant: William J. Dore'
Deverich/Kayser - Remodel. Brent
1760 Alpine Drive/Lot 4, Vail Village West #1.
Applicant: John Deverich
Main Vail Roundabout - New WASC sign. George
Main Vail Roundabout
Applicant: Town of Vail
Holiday Inn Chateau at Vail - New sign. Brent
13 Vail Road/Parcel C, Vail Village 2nd.
Applicant: Holiday Inn/Bill MacDonald
Bridges residence - Construction of a free-standing deck. Christie
2460 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 20, Block 2, Vail Village 13th.
Applicant: Dr. C.P. Bridges
Flannery Properties/Gary Bossow - Wall relocation. Christie
186 Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st.
Applicant: Flannery Properties
2
, ~Staff Approvals - continued
Burillo residence - Landscape plan. Brent
365 Mill Creek Circle/Lot 16, Block 1, Vail Village 1st.
Applicant: Northwind Development
Bolen residence - New slab, flagstone for pool deck. Brent
990 Fairway Court/Lot 4, Vail Village 10th.
Applicant: Dr. James Bolen
East Vail residence - New primary/secondary. George
4969 East Meadow Drive/Lot 11, Block 5, Bighorn 5th Filing.
Applicant: JAG Vail
Pitkin Creek Park Condos Building #12 - Roof overhang/extensions. Brent
4021 Bighorn Road/Pitkin Creek Park Condominium Subdivision.
Applicant: PCP Condo Association
Neiss/Carpenter residence - 2 new parking spaces, revised retaining walls, new deck. Dominic
4153 Spruce Way/Lot 10, Block 9, Bighorn 3rd Addition.
Applicant: David Neiss
Accardo residence - Residential addition to the secondary unit. George
1998 Sunburst/Lot 19, Vail Valley 3rd.
Applicant: Nate Accardo
Bass residence - Residential addition to the primary and secondary units. George
345 Mill Creek Circle/Lot 14, Block 1, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Lee Bass
Keck residence - Exterior painting. Brent
1358 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 21, Vail Valley 1st.
Applicant: John Keck
Meyer residence - GRFA addition. Dominic
813 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch.
Applicant: Luc and Liz Meyer
Mauzy Chalet - Revised light fixtures. Dominic
2704 Larkspur Lane/to16, Block 3 Vai1 Intermountain.
Applicant: Cathy Mauzy
Mountain Top Ice Cream Company of Vail, Inc. (Haagen Daz). Dominic
141 East Meadow Drive (Crossroads Plaza)/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Ric Almas
Capstone Condos - Dumpster enctosure. Brent
1817 Meadow Ridge Road/Lot 21, Buffehr Creek.
Applicant: Capstone Condo Association
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 479-2356,
Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
3
L ~
Memornndum
To: Town Council
From: Andy Knvdtsen
Suhject: Employee Generation
Date: Junc 23, 1998
1. Yntroduction
, Employee generation is a tool which has been used in other resort communities to require new
development to provide affordable housing for a portion of the employees which it generates.
With this approach, growth pays its own way as the add'ztional employees generated come hand
in hand in hand with additionai units provided by the developer.
TtZe purpose of this memo is to describe the elements of an employee gener-ation ordinance. The
background information is provided to help Council members determine if this approach is one
which they would like to use in V,ail. Below, staff has provided:
? a suxnmary of similar efforts in other resort communities, and
? a list of policy questions which the Council wzll need to consider to move fotward
with this approach.
It is important fio note that this tool is vne of many curzently undez consideration by the Tovsm.
One prvgram is not enough, in itself, io solve the housing problem. Staff believes that an
empioyee generation ordinance lends itselF best to seasonal housing needs, as many (though not
all) of the employees generated by new development are typically seasonal. This approach
compliments other effons, such as those recommended by Comnaon Ground, specifically as they
relate to ownership housing.
II. Background from other communities
Staff surveyed other resort towns of Aspen, Banf,f, 7ackson, park Czty, Crested Butte, Telluride
and Whistler. The themes which run throughout the reseazch indicate that the employee
generation tool is seen as an effective one, although several are considering modifications to the
original ordinances to improvc upon them.
1
~ j
All of the communities with whonn staff has spoken have reported that the programs are weII-
supgorted by the community-at-large; in the case of Crested Butte, where the houszng obligation
is a very recent one, there is some dissent on the part of the devetopers, but it is fully supported
by the commurr,ity, pn the other hand, Aspen, where the requirements have been on the books
since 1978, fully accepts the concept as it is so we]l established.
There are varying degrees of success in terms of actual number of units created. In a case such as
Crested Butte, the program is too new to have generated a subsiantial number of units (although
five have been creaced out of the one new development which has fallen under the ordinance).
Aspen's program has been quite successful, but even there there are loopholes in the programs
which develppers can exploit, thus decreaszng 1he number of uruts created. In almost all cases,
the towns are undertaking rEVisions to the ordinances to address this issue. One of the major
components requiring modification is the pay-in-lieu fee. Except for Aspen (which has a tZefty
pay-in-lieu fee), the other communities offezing this option have set the fee so low that the
developers unfailingly go that route in meeting their houszng obligation. The rnonies collected
are insufficient to cover the cost of a housing unit and the towns (e.g., Whisder and Banft) have
been unable to use the funds. The payment-in-lieu option is the least desirable from any
municipality's point of view, and it is irnportant to rnake it an expensive one to select_
Commercial growth of small businesses has been negatively impacted both in Aspen and Banff,
primarily because the cost is too high for thenn to bear at their scale of operacion. Changes to the
ordinances are being considered to accommodate thezn. In Whistler, however, the program haS
not stowed growth, in part, because of the relative ea,se which developers have had fulfiIlin,g the
ernployee generation requirements. While the codes provide for a cash-in-lieu option that is Iow,
especially when compared to other resort communities, the program has still created an
$8,000,000 fvnd which the Housing A,uthority is using to purchase land and lay plans for
development.
Aspen has the most technica.lly compiicated and strict code involving employee generation. Zt is
completely tied to their Growth Marxagement Plan which was established in 1978. $ased upon
very high standazds for numbers of employees generated by the various uses, developers are
given the qption of addressxng the housing requirement on-site, off-site, wzth buy-downs or by
paying a hefty cash-in-lieu. While th.is comrnunity is more apt to support these types of
regulations than most, and since the program has been on the books since 1478, there is not
widespread community opposition to it. However, the cambination pf employee generation and
growth controls ha,e been so successfnl that they have had a majar zmpact on the development
community and, in the opinion of the planner with which staff d'zscussed the program, has
stopped maj or growth developments.
2
~
~
In Banff, the program is well-supported and has worked relatively well. It ]ias been around since
the Town's incorporation. Some amendments (e.g., increa,sing the cash-in-lieu fee and
decreasing the small business assessments) are needed and these are currently underway. In
Banff, deyelopers must either build the housing (oniy new housxng fulfills the requirement) vr
pay the cash-in-Iieu. At $15,000 per bedroom on a three-bedroom maximum, the developers
most often do the latter. The town thcn waits until enough rr?oney accumulates to build, as the
fee is to low to cover actual cocts. TYae first unit to be built is now in the planning stages.
In Jackson, the ordinance has been around since 1995. The town has targeted seasonal honsing
as the market to be filled and requires new or expanded commercial uses to contribute to hoasing
the empIoyees they are creating. They provide a number of options to meet their obligation,
including the construction of new on- or off-site housing, building campgrounds or making a
cash-in-lieu payment (currently $16,864 per employee). Simiiar tv Telluride, where the
employee housing is built within a non-residential development, the parking requirement is
waived. There has been no one available in Jackson with whom to discuss the successes and
problems with their program.
' In Fark City, a new ordinance .is in the nnaking. It will require that a mininnum of 10% of new
developments be affordable housing. A two-bedroom unit is the minirrxum standazd which will
meet the obligatxon. Land donation, buy-downs of existing units (meeting the zninimuzn standard
unit size) or a payment-xn,lieu (Set at the actual cost of construction) are also offered as options.
In Telluride, the town has targeted both residential and nonresidentaal development as bearing
responsibility for housing a por[ion of the employees whi.ch they create. A number of options aze
provided to do thzs; i.e., the production of new Affordable housing unitS (on or off-site),
purchasing and deed-restricting existing market-rate units (at a rate of the rcquired number of
unzts divided by 13), conveying land for affordable housing and ma.lcing a cash-in-lieu payment
(equivalent to 15% of the total affordable housing requirement). For new developrzient, at least
15% of the development must be affordable. A minimum of 350 square feet pec employee must
be provided under all options. Insofar as parking is concerned, one space per unit is required
unless it is in a free-znarket developmeut, in whiCh case the requirement is completely waived.
II. PoIicy Questions
As there are znultiple levels of is5ues to consider, staff has outlined the policy questions below
sequentially, listing the most significant ones first.
A. Shovld new development be zesponsible for providing housing, in one form or another,
for the employees generated by the new developrzzent'?
3
~
The program may appear attractive to the Vail community as it includes the private sector
directly in the resppnsibility of creating housing solutions. CJnder this provision, new
growth provzdes housing through a variety of options. However, application af the new
policy may not be as attrac[ive to existing busineSSes looking to expand and may be a
disincentive to those property owners looking to upgrade. During the Common Ground
process, one group of workshop participants recommended that ttcis type of ordinanee be
created and applied to large developrnents, but that small developments be exempted. No
solution to the housing problem ever comes without iznpacting some segment of the
community.
B. What options should be made available to the develapers to fulfill their housing
requiremen[?
Ideally, alI new housing required as part of this ordinance would be incozporated on-site,
, as part of the new development. This is not realistic, however, as most developers will
state that the value of the land under consideration requires t.hat they construct revenue-
generating uses, rather than employee housing. Qther options exist, such as construeting
urtits off-site either in the Town of Vail or down valley. Buying-down existing units and
deed-restricting them or providing cash-in-lieu of eonstruction are two other alternatives.
. To address the range of options, the Town could require differing amounts of hvusing
depending upon which is considered to be the most effective in addressing the Counci!'s
goal_ For exampie, housizig on-site may be considered to be the best solution, as it
provides locals housing in areas that have few year-round residents, enlivens the
corumercia] cores, reduces traffic, and establishes a solid, year-round community and
economy.
Another solution is off-site housing within the Town of Vail. Although not directly
impacting the core areas with the same level of benefit, the employees would still be
residents within the Town of Vail, adding to the number of Iocal residents and creating a
better sense of local community.
A third option is down valley housing. With the regional transportation serviee, thas
could be viable; howevcr, many times seasonal employees wh4 find down valley housing
find the convenience and satisfaction of down valley jobs exceed Vail options. Giverz
that the housing to be created would be contralled by a Vail commereial use, this may be
less of an issue. However, down valley residents would tend to spend their tizne and
mpaey in down-vailey businesses as well, which does not move Vail towards its goal of
enhancing the sense of community.
A fourth option is buying down and deed restriccing existing naarket-rate units in town,
thus creating a larger pool of affordable housing xn Town without developing more Iand.
4
This may or may not increase the actua,( supply of housing, but it may insure the
availability of units for the future.
Finally, the cash-in-lieu option allows the developer to opt out of construction for a fee.
In most cases, municipalities have some difficulry creating the housing from these funcls,
whether is be fxom community opposition to construction or lack of adequate funds to
cover expertses. It is impartant to note two examples which set the high and low end of
the spectrum for pay-in-lieu progranns. Aspen sets the price at $70,000 per bed wh.ile
Whistler has set it at $5000 per bed. Aspen has set their figure ba,sed on the cost of
construction, as shown by the track record of the Aspen Housing Office. Whisder based
their pay-in-leu fee on a finanCial analysis identifying the gap between the cost of
construction and the revenue generated by the sale or Iease of the housing. Staff at
Whistler have said that the initial calculation were significandy optimistic and does not
cover the constzuction expense. No units have been buiIt in whistler as a result, whereas
Aspen has built a significant number of units.
In conclusion, Council may have interest in offering these options, as well as others, in a
way that incentivises the top priority and disencentivises the lowest priority. $pecifically,
an ordinance could be drafted which would require, hypothetically, two units of
affordable housing for the proposed development. If the developer chose to fulfill this in any variety of ways, as shown in the chart belorv:
Base requirement of Ratio, applying 12e.sulting
two un;ts, ba.sut on the incentivc:s and re;yuirement, based on
proposed devetopment disincentives prioriry ol' Town
Council
On-site 2 1;0.5 l
Off-site, in Town 2 1:1 2
bown valley 2 1:1.5 3
Buy Downs 2 1:2 4
Cash-in-lieu 2 1:3 6
Note that the examples listed above are hypothetical. The effectiveness of the cash-in-
lieu option depends entirely on the amount required from developers - Aspen charges
$70,000 per bed and Whistler chazges $5,000 per bed. In general, a built product is more
attractive to most conrununities than a fund.
C. What percentage of the total number of ernployees to be generated must developers
house?
5
s ,
A critical element of a successfuI ordinance is detemuning the appropniate percentage of
the total number of eznployees generated for which the developer is responszble.
Determining the actual number associated with certain uses is a technical challenge that
can be substantiated w.ith reseazch, beterm.ining the percentage of those to be housed lies
in the policy arena.
In other commanities, the requirement ranges froxn 15 percent to 100 percent. Aspen .
uses 609'0, Telluride uses 40%. One of the advantages of using the percentage is that it
enables the Town to group uses, simplifying the overall ordinance. At the same time, it
builds a relief vaIve into the ordinance that accommodates differing hiring pzactices
among employers. Some communities have based the percentage to reflect the ratio of
affordable units in the community to the total number of units. This may be more
appropriate for the .inclusionary housing requirements affecting new residentiai
development than requirements geared for commercial growth. In any case, politiea.i
, viability is qften mentioned as the most significant factor involved in setting the
appropriate percentage.
b. Once the nunnber af employees has been deternuned, how many units must be required to
accommodate the number of employees?
There aze two znethods whieh can be applied to translate an employee requirement to a
dwelling unit requirernent. pne is to require a certain squaze footage of housing, hased
on the number of employees required. In this case, for example, the Town would
determine that each employee would need 350 square feet. The developer would then be
required to construct (or secure) a specific square footage of housing, independent of the
numher of dwelling units involved.
The other method is to focus on dwelling units or bedrooms. The Town could determine
the nnaximum number of employees per bedroom and the maximum bedroozn per
dwelling unit which could be provided to fulfill the requirements. The developer would
tfien take these figures and provide a certain number of dwelling units. A, variation on
this would be to set the standard for beds or bedrooms.
E. To what degree should the ordinance be tailored for different uses?
To hdve an effeeuve ozdinance, specific uses must be identified along with their
correspondzng employee generation znaltiplier. By multiplying the square ;footage of the
new use by the employee generation factor, the resulting number o:f employees can be
determined. A percentage is usually applied to that to determine the housing requirement.
In some communiaes, each type of use has been isolated and specific generation figures
6
have been listed. In otlier communities, all uses have been boiled down to a single
category.
For example, art expanded range of specific uses which could be targeted inclade;
Construction trades
Real Estate/Property mandgement
Bar/restaurant
Professional office
Professional services
FinanciaUinsurance
General Retail
Utilities
Tndustriai
i Local gpvernrnent
Grocery/liquor/convenience
Warehouse
Hotel - xooms
HotEl retail
Hotel restaurant
Ski area
Although each has its own corresponding multiplier, creating arn ordinance which is
tailored to this Ievel of detail would reqaire an significant regulation of all uses and floor
areas within the Town. In the event of a change of tenants, the proposal would require
zoning review and could triggcr additionai housing requirements. The additional step in
the regulatory process requiring any chazzge of Use for tenants within existing commercial
space to be approved by the Town would be a burden ta the landlord, the tenant, and the
Town staff.
An alternative is to create a simp]er ordinance with major use categories (commercial,
hoteUlodging, residential, restaurant) with the aim of assessing the housing requirement at
time of construction. Whistler, for example has only two, which are commercial and
short term accommodatian. Thus, uses can change and tenant spaces can turn over to
other uses without review by staff.
The challenge is to strike a balance with the number of categories. The dxsadvantage of
applying a single category to a multitude of uses is that some develope.rs may challenge
the requirement, stating that the requiremcnt does not reflect that actual number of
ernployees anticipated to be hired for the operation of the proposed use. The advantage is
simplicity for both futuze Towzz staff and future commercial tenants.
7
iv. xext StePs
t3ased on the direction of the Council, staff is prepared to take the concept to the next level. Staff
has atready completed a detailed survey of the Village and Lionshed commercial areas to
determxne local ratios of employees for different categories of use. In cvnjunction with the staff
from RRC, Town staff as compared the Iocal research to data bases created from several other
resort commnnities and are ready to stazt combining actual numbers to policy, enabling the
Council to continue to consider the approaeh at a finer level of detail.
8
a .
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Dominic Mauriello, Chief of Planning
DATE: June 23, 1998
SUBJECT: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
Attached, are six redevelopment scenarios which are based on a redevelopment model and its
application to a hypothetical structure in Lionshead. This model looks at different approaches
that a developer or condo association might take with respect to redevelopment and considers
the costs of that redevelopment. David Corbin, of Vail Resorts Development Company, and a
member of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Team, will make a presentation of this
information to the Town Council.
No action is requested of Town Council with respect to this information.
F:\EVERYONE\COU NCI L\MEMOS\98\LH.623
y~Y
POWNOFY~1Ll
. .
Vail Resorts DeyelopmeIlt Company
Vail . Breckenridge . Keystone . Beaver Creeks • Bachelor Gulch@ • Arrowhead
June 16, 1998 ~
~ QD
Dominic Mauriello
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Lionshead redevelopment - hypothetical financial comparisons
Dear pominic:
Kindly find enclosed six scenarios for a hypothetical building redevelopment in
Lionshead. The scenarios depict various alternatives, which include razing and
rebuilding a three-story structure to four, five or six stories. The financial impacts of
redevelopment by a third party developer are also contrasted with redevelopment by
the condominium ownership itself. Finally, remodeling, without razing the building,
is also considered.
These hypothetical models are not specific to VA's core site, but are more broadly
useful in examining likely redevelopment or major remodeling of other typical
Settingthe condominium projects currently standing in Lionshead.
Smndard for
Worid Class
A/plneResorts! In the course of Lionshead master planning questions have been posed by Council,
town management, and the public concerning the likelihood of redevelopment or
remodeling of typical aging buildings and the source and adequacy of funds derived
from added density. These simple comparisons provide some insight into the
magnitude of the challenge to improve such properties and some hope for revenue
sources which might be applied to exterior improvements. Please share these with
Russ and Bob. If you wish I am happy to describe the scenarios to Council in
worksession.
Very truly,
Vail Resorts Development Company
, i`~ David G. Corbin
• • p Attachments
V areg/dgc/dmaurielloLHltr61698
~ 137 Benchmark Road . PO Box 959 . Avon, Colorado . 81620-0959 . phone 970.845 2535 . fax 970.845 2555
Lionshead Redevelopment
Scenario 1
• Demolition of existing three story building.
• Construction of new four story building.
• Addition of one floor; represents 33 1/3% increase in density.
• Project undertaken by 3`d party developer.
• Land purchase price is the equivalent of purchasing all existing condos @$350/sq.ft.
• Sales price of new condos @$700/sq.ft., or double current market.
• Hard costs are estimated @$200/sq.ft., (a reasonable but not extravagant finish level for new steel or pre-cast
structures).
• Developer profit margin target is 20%. Margin is not reflective of Return on Investment, which will differ.
Assumptions Current Proposed
f'
# Floors 3
# Units 27 36
Sq. Ft. per Condo 950 950
Sq. Feet Condo 25,650 34,200
Sq. Feet Common @20% 5,130 6,840
Sq. Feet Parking @350 per unit 10,000 12,600
Total Sq. Feet 40,780 53,640
Rev/Cost
Revenue Sq• Ft• per Sq. Ft. $ Total
Sales @36 units 34,200 700 23,940,000
Cost of Sales @9% 34,200 (63) (2,154,600)
Total Revenue 34,200 637 21,785,400
Costs
Land @$sso sq ft 25,650 350 8,977,500
Demolition @$s.so sq n 40,780 6.5 265,070
Hard Cost @$200 sq ft 53,640 200 10,728,000
Soft Cost @30% hard cost 53,640 60 3,218,400
Total Cost 53,640 432 23,188,970
Profit (Loss) 53,640 (26) ,7U~I
Margin 'i°!o
Lionshead Redevelopment
Scenario 2
• Demolition of existing three story building.
• Construction of new four story building.
• Addition of one floor; represents 33 1/3% increase in density.
• Project undertaken by 3`d party developer.
• Land purchase price is the equivalent of purchasing all existing condos @$350/sq.ft.
• Sales price of new condos @$900/sq.ft., represents the price required to justify redevelopment from the 3`d party
developer's perspective.
• Hard costs are estimated @$200/sq.ft., (a reasonable but not extravagant finish level for new steel or pre-cast
structures).
• Developer profit margin target is 20%. Margin is not reflective of Return on Investment, which will differ.
Assumptions Current Proposed
# Floors 3 4
# Units 27 36
Sq. Ft. per Condo 950 950
Sq. Feet Condo 25,650 34,200
Sq. Feet Common @20% 5,130 6,840
Sq. Feet Parking @sso Per unit 10,000 12,600
Total Sq. Feet 40,780 53,640
Rev/Cost
Revenue Sq. Ft. per Sq. Ft. $ Total
Sales @36 unas 34,200 F ~ s~Qt~ 30,780,000
Cost of Sales @s% 34,200 (81) (2,770,200)
Total Revenue 34,200 819 28,009,800
Costs
Land @$350 sq ft 25,650 350 8,977,500
Demolition @$6.50 sq ft 40,780 6.5 265,070
Hard Cost @$200 sq tt 53,640 200 10,728,000
Soft Cost @30% hard cost 53,640 60 3,218,400
Total Cost 53,640 432 23,188,970
Profit (Loss) 53,640 90 ~
Margin
Lionshead Redevelopment
Scenario 3
• Demolition of existing three story building.
• Construction of new five story building.
• Addition of two floors; represents 66 2/3% increase in density.
• Project undertaken by 3`d party developer.
• Land purchase price is the eqoivalent of purchasing all existing condos a$350/sq.ft.
• Sales price of new condos a$700/sq.ft., or double current market.
• Hard costs are estimated @ $200/sq.ft., (a reasonable but not extravagant finish level for new steel or pre-cast
structures).
• Developer profit margin target is 20%. Margin is not reflective of Return on Investment, which wili differ.
Assumptions Current Proposed
# Floors 3 PI"~~
# Units 27 45
Sq. Ft. per Condo 950 950
Sq. Feet Condo 25,650 42,750
Sq. Feet Common @20% 5,130 8,550
Sq. Feet Parking @350 per unit 10,000 15,750
Total Sq. Feet 40,780 67,050
Rev/Cost
Revenue Sq. Ft. per Sq. Ft. $ Total
Sales @45 units 42,750 700 29,925,000
Cost of Sales @s°io 42,750 (63) (2,693,250)
Total Revenue 42,750 637 27,231,750
Costs
Land @$350 sq tt 25,650 350 8,977,500
Demolition @$6.50 sq n 25,650 6.5 166,725
Hard Cost @$200 sq ft 67,050 200 13,410,000
Soft Cost @30% hard cost 67,050 60 4,023,000
Total Cost 67,050 396 26,577,225
Profit (Loss) 67,050 10
iky
Margin ~ ~ 'fa'
Lionshead Redevelopment
Scenario 4
• Demolition of existing three story building.
• Construction of new six story building.
• Addition of three floors; represents ] 00°/a increase in density.
• Project undertaken by 3`d party developer.
• Land purchase price is the equivalent of purchasing all existing condos @$350/sq.ft.
• Sales price of new condos @$700/sq.ft., or double current market.
• Hard costs are estimated @$200/sq.ft., (a reasonable but not extravagant finish level for new steel or pre-cast
structures).
• Developer profit margin target is 20%. Margin is not reflective of Return on Investment, which will differ.
Assumptions Current Proposed
# Floors 3
# Units 27 54
Sq. Ft. per Condo 950 950
Sq. Feet Condo 25,650 51,300
Sq. Feet Common @20% 5,130 10,260
Sq. Feet Parking @350 Per unit 10,000 18,900
Total Sq. Feet 40,780 80,460
Rev/Cost
Revenue Sq. Ft. per Sq. Ft. $ Total
Sales @54 units 51,300 700 35,910,000
Cost of Sales @s% 51,300 (63) (3,231,900)
Total Revenue 51,300 637 32,678,100
Costs
Land @$350 sq tt 25,650 350 8,977,500
Demolition @$s.so sq tt 25,650 6.5 166,725
Hard Cost @$200 sq ft 80,460 200 16,092,000
Soft Cost @30% hard cost 80,460 60 4,827,600
Total Cost 80,460 374 30,063,825
Profit (Loss) 80,460 32 ~ 4~~7v'
Margin ~7fa,
Lionshead Redevelopment
Scenario 5
• Demolition of existing three story building.
• Construction of new four story building.
• Addition of one floor; represents 33 1/3% increase in density.
• Project undertaken by the current property owners.
• No land cost.
• Sales price of new condos @$700/sq.ft., or double cunent market.
• Hard costs are estimated @$200/sq.ft., (a reasonable but not extravagant finish level for new steel or pre-cast
structures).
• Contribution per member is $321,000, reflecting the estimated assessment required of each current condo unit to
complete the development.
Assumptions Current Proposed Incremental
# Floors 3 4 1
# Units 27 36 9
Sq. Ft. per Condo 950 950 950
Sq. Feet Condo 25,650 34,200 8,550
Sq. Feet Common @20% 5,130 6,840
Sq. Feet Parking @350 per unit 10,000 12,600
Total Sq. Feet 40,780 53,640
Rev/Cost
Revenue Sq. Ft. per Sq. Ft. $ Total
Sales @9 units 8,550 700 5,985,000
Cost of Sales @s°ia 8,550 (63) (538,650)
Total Revenue 8,550 637 5,446,350
Costs
Land @$350 sq tt 25,650 0
Demolition @$6.50 sq ft 25,650 6.5 166,725
Hard Cost @$200 sq it 53,640 200 10,728,000
Soft Cost @30% hard cost 53,640 60 3,218,400
Total Cost 53,640 263 14,113,125
Profit (Loss) 53,640 (162) (8,666,775)
Margin -61.4%
Contribution Per Member 950 (338) aQ.r.., 3~~
~
Lionshead Redevelopment
Scenario 6
• Remodeling of existing three story building.
• Construction of an additional floor.
• Addition of one floor; represents 33 1/3% increase in density.
• Project undertaken by the current property owners.
• No land cost.
• No demolition cost.
• Sales price of new condos @$700/sq.ft., or double current market.
• Hard costs are estimated @ $250/sq.ft.
• Profit (available for remodeling) is $1,088,100, reflecting the estimated profit from the sale of the condos which
could then be used for remodeling.
Assumptions Current Incremental
# Floors 3 1
# Units 27 9
Sq. Ft. per Condo 950 950
Sq. Feet Condo 25,650 8,550
Sq. Feet Common @2o°ia 5,130 1,710
Sq. Feet Parking @350 per unit 10,000 3,150
Total Sq. Feet 40,780 13,410
Rev/Cost
Revenue Sq. Ft. per Sq. Ft. $ Total
Sales @9 units 8,550 700 5,985,000
Cost of Sales @s% 8,550 (63) (538,650)
Total Revenue 8,550 637 5,446,350
Costs
Land @$350 sq n 25,650 0
Demolition @$6.50 sq tt 25,650 0.0 ~
u
F
Hard Cost @$250 sq rt 13,410 3,352,500
Soft Cost @30% hard cost 13,410 75 1,005,750
Total Cost 13,410 325 4,358,250
ProfiUAvailabie for remodeling 40,780 27 F~,.
~QOI
25.0%
Per Member 950 42 40,300
To: Vail Town Council
From: Vail lst Organizing Committee
Jack Curtin Steve Simonett Kaye Ferry Herman Staufer
Howard Gardner Joe Staufer
Jim Lamont Packy Walker
Steve Rosenthal Ron Weinstein
Re: Formation qf Vail lst and reallocation of the
Business License Fee '
Date: June 19, 1998 -
MISSION STATEMENT
To promote the Town of Vail through the marketing of special
events, training and services which are geared towards in-
creasing business in Vail.
STRUCTURE
1. The money currently collec}ed via the BUsiness License
Fee will no longer be funnelled in to the Marketiny
Board but will remain with the Town of Vail and will
be administered by Steve Thompson.
2. A new organization will be formed called Vail lst. This
organization will have the responsibility of reviewing
all applications for BLF funds and making recommendations
regarding those disbursements.
3. As_applications are approved,direction will be given
for the implgmentation of such activities according to
allocated budget, In some cases the VVTCB will be requested
to organize events with the budgeted dollars chanr.eled to
them. In other cases, outside agencies will be contracted
with to provide the necessary services.
4. Presentations will be made quarterly to the Town Council
by Vail lst for the purpose of keeping the TC advised of
expenditures and to seek input when necessary and/or
required.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Vail lst Board of Directors will be broad based and will
be comprised of inembers of the Vail business community.
It will be made up of inembers representing the followiny
segments of the community.
, -
3 Vail Village
2 Lionshead
1 East Vail
1 West Vail
These members will be appointed by their respective
merchants' groups.
$UDGET
$25,000 Turn It Up!
$25,000 The Guide to Vail
$90,000 Special events ie. Family Fest and Chili
Cook Off, International Fest, Jazz Thurs- -
days etc.
~78,000 Advertising
$35,000 Special Projects ie. Construction Wall
Project, Employee of the Month
$35,000 Administration
30,000 Contingency
$318,000
SYNOPSIS The ma-4n priority of Vail lst is to focus on the promotion
of the Town of Vail and to have that focus_determined by
the business community from which the BLF are collected.
While jae all support a valley wide marketing approach it is
our recommendation that ELF dollars generated in the Town
of Vail be used for promoting the TOwn of Vail exclusively.
_ It is expected that the Town of Vail will continue to fund
the Marketing Board with the additional $185,000 that it
contributed this year.
It is the hope and intent of this organization that by
bringing self determination to the fore front, we can insure
that Vail will remain lst as a resort and a community.
REr,EIVEQ JUN .0 1998 ~ 1998
Trevor & Celeste Bradway
PO Box 2583
Vail, CO 81658
(970) 476-1117 Fax (979) 476-3264
June l, 1998
Mr. Rob Ford, Mayor
VAII, TOWN COUNCIL
Town of Vail,
Vail, CO 81657
Reference; 1Vlountain Haus West Side EntranceBradway Addendum
Request for permission to use Town of Vail Land
Dear Rob:
Sam and I are owners of four commercial Mountain Haus condominium units
which are adjacent to Slifer Plaza and right next to the proposed new Mountain Haus west
entrance. You are probably fanvliar with the Mountain Haus Associations' request for
land to construct their new west side entrance which I believe has already been approved
by Council. The Mountain Haus' proposal was recently amended slightly to better suit the
needs of adjacent unit owners including ourselves. Bath we and the Mountain Haus
would prefer that our custorners access our facility from the outside rather than through
the building and Fire Marshall Mike McGee also sees the relocation of our present main
access (now inside the building) to the outside as a significant fire safety improvement.
Our architect came up with what we all believe is the best approach to this which
is reflected in the enclosed elevation and plan. As you can see, our entrance access would
be separate but integrated with the Mountain Haus access and our walk and steps would
be architecturally compatible.
We are aware of the concern about exiting trees and landscaping and, while our
small addition to the Mountain Haus plan is some five to six feet from existing trees, we
are retaining the services of Mark Stelle of Precision Tree Works to amend his previously
submitted report to take our plan into consideration.
It appears that we only require a few hundred square feet additional to that which
has already been approved and we would hope this may be accomplished thraugh an
minor addendum or revision of the ground lease agreement between the Mountain Haus
and Town of Vail. We expect our small walk and steps would be Mountain Haus
common elements (as would the entrance) and they would be the sole lessee.
MHOl1.WPS
6/1/98
PAGE TWO OF TWO PAGES
Our end of the overall West Entrance construction project is relatively minor and
we would expect to have everything completed this fa11 if not sooner. We have been
working with George Ruther on all this and will stay in close touch with him. We and our
architect are available for any questians you or staff may have.
look forward to your favorable decision on our request.
Best reg ds,
Tre or & Celeste Bradway
Enc/ Elevation and Plan
Copy/ George Ruther
File/ Mountain Haus West Entrance
MH101
Mxotiwrs 6/1r98
9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 23, 1998
SUBJECT: An appeal of a variance denial made by the Planning and Environmental
Commission on April 27, 1998. The appellants were denied a building height
variance, site coverage variance and a density variance to allow for a residential
addition to the penthouse at 193 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5-B, Vail Village
First Filing.
Appellants: Rodney and Elizabeth Slifer
Planner: George Ruther
1. SUBJECT PROPERTY
Slifer project. Located at 193 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5-B, Vail Village First Filing.
II. STANDING OF APPELLANT
Staff believes the appellants have standing to file an appeal in this case as they are the owners of
the subject property.
II1. BACKGROUND
The applicants, Rodney and Beth Slifer, were requesting a Minor CC1 Exterior Alteration, a building
height variance, a site coverage variance and a density variance, to allow for a bay addition to the
penthouse unit in the Gore Creek Plaza Condominiums, located at 193 Gore Creek Drive.
The applicants were proposing to construct an 18 square foot bay addition to their residence. The
addition would have been constructed on the west side of the building between the Gore Creek
Plaza Condominiums and the Sitzmark Lodge. The bay addition was intended to provide additional
dining room space within the penthouse.
The Planning and Environmental Commission, at its April 27, 1998 meeting, denied the applicants'
variance requests and made the following findings (see attached minutes):
1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the building height, site coverage and density limitations on other
properties classified in the Commercial Core 1 Zone District.
2. That the granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the
Gore Creek Plaza Condominiums.
3. That the variance is not warranted for the following reasons:
1
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the building height, site
coverage and density regulations does not result in a practical difficulty or
unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning
Code.
b. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other
properties in the Commercial Core 1 Zone District.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the building height, site coverage
and density regulations does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed
by the owners of other properties in the Commercial Core 1 Zone District.
IV. NATURE OF THE APPEAL
The appellants are appealing the PEC decision denying the building height variance, site coverage
variance and density variance requests. The appellants believe they will suffer practical difficulties
and/or unnecessary physical hardships if the three variances are not granted. The applicants'
appeal application has been atached for reference.
V. REQUIRED ACTION
Uphold/Overturn/Modify the Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of the building
height variance, site coverage variance and density variance.
The Town Council is required to make findings of fact in accordance with the Town of Vail
Municipal Code. The required finding is listed below:
Findinp: The Town Council shall on al1 appeals make specific findings of fact based
directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact
must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the
requirements of this title have or have not been met.
Further, if the Town Council chooses to overturn or modify the Planning and Environmental
Commission denial of the variances, the Town Council shall consider the following factors and
make the following findings related to the granting of a variance:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicinity.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility
and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, pubtic facilities and utilities,
and public safety.
B. The Town Council shall make the following_findings before granting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the
2
same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council uphold the Planning and Environmental Commission's
denial of the three variance requests and recommends that the Town Council make the following
findings:
1. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 12 (Zoning)
have not been met.
2. That the granting of the variances will constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Commercial
Core I Zone District.
3. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that are
applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the Commercial
Core I Zone District.
4. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulations does not
deprive the applicants of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the
Commercial Core I Zone District.
3
MAY-14-96 THU 12:34 PM SIIFER DESIGN EDWARDS FAX N0, 19709268220 P. 01
~ • Sli(cr Desiges,lnc.
Slifer Deslgns Mailin8 tlddrtss: P.0 8ox 554o, Avon, Colorado 81620 .970•926.820o 97o.yr6,g24g
fax
Street Address: ros Edxards Viltaqe Blud., Edwards, Coloradu 8r632
MAY 5, 1998
DEAR MR. RUTHER,
WE ARE INTRESTED IN APPEALIiNG THE VAIL PI.ANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMISSEON'S pECISTON TO DENY THE VARIANCB ON THE TWENTY-SEVENTH OF APR[L.
THE VARIANCE WAS A REQUEST FOR M1NOR CCI EXTTERIOR ALTERAT[ON, BUILDING
HEIGHT, SITE COVERAGE, AND DENSiTY LOCATED AT 193 GORE CREEK DRIVE / GORE
CREEK PLA7_A CONDOMIN[UMS.
SINCERELY,
HUNTER NELSON
.
ived
Date Rece
~~~MAY 14 1998
4VAff,
TD[[1APPEALS F RM
REQUIRED FOR FILING AN APPEAL OF A STA,FF, DESXGN REVIEW BOARD OR
pLANrIING ANDEN'VIXtONMENTA,L CONLMISSION ACTION
A. AGTION/UECISION $E iNG APPEALED: AL - ~ ~
t~~D - 1 1
HLE4~L
~ ~V S 1
~i-
~ -
B. DATE OF ACTION/DECISION:
C. NAME OP BOARD OR PERSON RENDERING THE DECJSION/TAKiNG ACTION:
7Ta N1~~1CO MknI 1~sl ' .
D. NAME OF ApPELLANT(S):
M.A.ILNG ADDRESS: C-O
?HYSICAI.. ADDRESS TN VAIL: q HONE: "T-TCo` I2692
LEGAL DESCRIPT'ION OF APPELLANT'S PROPE;ZTY IN VAIL:
1---0 A
'
E. SIGNATURE(S): J C31 ~ y
Page 1 of 2
. ~ •
F. Does ttus appeai involve a specifrc parcel of land? N I 11:Z~ If yes, please pro-vide the following infotmahon:
are you an adjaeerzt praperty owner? Yes _ no
If no, give a detailed explanation of how you aze an "aggrieved or adversely affectcd person." "Aggieved or
adversely affectcd pecson" means any person who wi:I suffer an adverse effect to an intcrest protected or
fiuthered by thzs titIe. The alleaed adverse interest may be shared in common with othcr mcmbas of thc
community at larbe, but shalI exceed in degree the general interest in communiry good sharcd by a!1 persons.
G. . Provide thc names and addresses (both pcz5on's maiIing address and proputy'S physical address in Vail) of a.ll
owzzcxs of property which are the subject of the appeal and all adjaecnt property owners (incIuding properties
separated by a right-of-way, strea,n, or other intcrvcning bartiers). Aiso provide addxesscd and stamped envelopcs for
cach properry owncr on tk?c Iist.
H. On sepazate sheets of paper, srsecifv the precise nature of the appea!_ Piease cite snecific code secrions havzne
relevance to the action being appealed.
I. FEE: S0.00
Page 2 of 2
WS (~d3~8 ~~~6
Underwriting Discounts
Issuer Par Amount Rating Date of Issue Last Maturity Discount
Fremont County COP $15,220,000 Aaa/AAA (insd) October, 1997 2017 15.00
Montrose County Hospital Rev $12,940,000 AA (insured) December, 1997 2017 9.90
Colo State Board of Agriculture Rev $13,420,000 Aaa/AAA (Insd) November, 1997 2017 10.00
City & County of Denver Rev $14,500,000 AA- September, 1997 2017 6.00
Castle Pines Metro Dist G.O. $18,910,000 Aaa/AAA (insd) August, 1997 2015 12.75
Thorton Development Auth Rev $6,990,000 Aaa/AAA (insd) March, 1997 2007 7.00
Woodland Park S.D. RE-2 G.O. $5,370,000 Aaa/AAA (insd) October, 1997 2004 9.00
Cherry Creek S.D. 5 COP $6,635,000 Aaa/AAA (insd) October, 1997 2007 7.50
Centennial W&S Dist, Rev $30,765,000 Aaa/AAA (insd) October, 1997 2017 10.50
EI Paso S.D. 20, G.O $19,350,000 Aaa/AAA (insd) October, 1997 2017 7.75
Mountain Village Metro Dist., G.O. $11,730,000 Aaa/AAA (insd) October, 1997 2017 9.00
Colo Post Secondary Ed (Regis) $10,345,000 Aaa/AAA (insd) October, 1997 2016 7.50
Colo State Board of Agriculture Rev $4,420,000 Aaa/AAA (insd) November, 1997 2012 10.00
Weld Co. S.D. RE-7, G.O. $6,235,000 Aaa/AAA (insd) November, 1997 2017 5.75
Salida S.D. R-32, G.O. $7,370,000 Aaa/AAA (insd) November, 1997 2017 12.20
Norwood S.D. R-2J, G.O. $3,695,000 Aaa/AAA (insd) November, 1997 2022 11.25
Town of Berthoud Rev $5,805,000 Aaa/AAA (insd) October, 1997 2017 11.50
Average Discount, all issues 9.56
~
~ ~
~Pjs bd3~g ~'~6
.
SILVERTHORNE EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS
SUMMIT COUNTY, COLORADO w,
PRELIMINARY PRICING ANALYSIS JANUARY 27, 1998
$6,300,000 $9,800,000 $9,800,000 $6,805,000
Siverthorne Brighton S.D. Weld S.D. 7 Garfield S.D. RE-2
Excise Tax Rev G.O. Bonds G.O. Bonds G.O. Bonds
Aaa/AAA (Insd) Aaa/AAA (Insd) Aaa/AAA (Insd) Aaa/AAA (Insd)
Year 01/27/98 01/22/98 Difference 01/21/98 Difference 01/20/98 Difference
5.94 5.82 5.82 5.78
1998 3.70 3.70 3.70
1999 3.85 3.85 0.00 3.80 -0.05 3.80 -0.05
2000 3.95 3.90 -0.05 3.95 0.00 3.90 -0.05
2001 4.00 3.95 -0.05 4.00 0.00 3.95 -0.05
2002 4.05 4.00 -0.05 4.05 0.00 4.00 -0.05
2003 4.10 4.05 -0.05 4.10 0.00 4.05 -0.05
2004 4.20 4.10 -0.10 4.15 -0.05 4.15 -0.05
2005 4.25 4.20 -0.05 4.20 -0.05 4.20 -0.05
2006 4.35 4.25 -0.10 4.30 -0.05 4.30 -0.05
2007 4.40 4.30 -0.10 4.35 -0.05 4.35 -0.05
2008 ~ 4.45 4.40 -0.05 4.40 -0.05 4.40 -0.05
2009 4.55 4.50 -0.05 4.45 -0.10 4.45 -0.10
2010 4.65 4.60 -0.05
2011 4.75 4.70 -0.05 4.60 -0.15 4.60 -0.15
2012 4.80 4.75 -0.05
2013
2014
2015
2016 5.00
2017 5.10 5.05 -0.05
SILVERTHORNE EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS
SUMMIT COUNTY, COLORADO
FINAL PRICING ANALYSIS
28,Jan-98
$6,300,000 $9,800,000 $9,800,000
Silverthorne Brighton S.D. Weld S.D. 7
Excise Tax Rev G.O. Bonds G.O. Bonds Aaa/AAA (Insd) Aaa/AAA (Insd) Aaa/AAA (insd)
Year 01/28198 01/27/98 01/22/98 Difference 01/21198 Difference
5.94 5.82 5.82
1998 3.85 3.85 3.85 0.00 3.80 -0.05
1999 3.95 3.95 3.90 -0.05 3.95 0.00
2000 4.00 4.00 3.95 -0.05 4.00 0.00
2001 4.10 4.05 4.00 -0.05 4.05 0.00
2002 4.15 4.10 4.05 -0.05 4.10 0.00
2003 4.25 4.20 4.10 -0.10 4.15 -0.05
2004 4.30 4.25 4.20 -0.05 4.20 -0.05
2005 4.35 4.35 4.25 -0.10 4.30 -0.05
2006 4.40 4.40 4.30 -0.10 4.35 -0.05
2007 4.45 4.45 4.40 -0.05 4.40 -0.05
2008 4.55 4.50 -0.05 4.45 -0.10
2009 4.65 4.60 -0.05
2010 4.70 4.75 4.70 -0.05 4.60 -0.15
2011 4.80 4.80 4.75 -0.05
2012
2013
2014
2015 5.00
2016 5.05 5.10 5.05 -0.05
Annual Total $9,799,455 $9,812,548
NIC 4.9072% 4.9226%
Sheetl Chart 2
Debt Service to Maturity
3,500,000 . .
~
3,000,000 - - ~ • -
f•:
2,500,000 f:
2,000,000 f. -
f . f~ . . . . - , ~ , . . `
C : .
Q • " .i. ii { . . . _
1, 500000
, %r - . ~ . • - - . - . - - - ~ - -
1,0Q/~ II,0Q/~ f f r F; f.
l
' : f y / ;
i :;i l . : . % ,t % ; ~
un F . fr . $
500,000 /f _ r ~ : J l ~ . S
0 Cost to Ref
¦ Existing Debt
13 No Cost Ref
:
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year
Page 1
eiow ~ Compaiiy
1998 Refunding Analysis
Town of Va*11
June 1998
~
sk Alk Ull Cipa Market Saies bta istics
Me now& A; I t
7 7% of all municipal bond issues nationwide were negotiated sales
The Colorado market is heavily dominated by negotiated sales
A I n 1997, 204 af the 2 12 bond issues sold using a negotiated process.
A- In terms of dollar amount, $4.8 billion (96%) were sold on a negotiated basis and
$ 2( I million on a competitive basis.
* Campetitive sales are used for large bond issues and frequent bond
.
issues
Negotiated sales are used more heavi(y in Colorado because of smaller
issue size and the differing issuer characteristics. In this respect, the
underwriter actively sells/markets the issuer bonds to investors.
.
of VaI ~
~
Negofiated i
tive vs. Competitive Negotiated
Gross Spread (1997 National Avg) $6.64 $7.23
Financial Advisor Required Yes (additiona] cost) No
T`ypical Issuer Large, Prequent Issuer All issuers
1~ypical Bond Type G.O. Bonds All bond types
Advantages ? Provides public bidcling process ? A11ows underwriter to negotiate
on the day flf sale price/structure with national firms
? Sa1e date can be changed
? Structure can be adjusted during
order perioci to reflect market
conditions
Disadvantages ? Sale date must be determined in ? Pricing must be verified by
advance comparing to other bond issues
? Structure must be determined
prior ta bidding pracess
of Uai l
~
liond Bu*ai.*.r Index
March 1998 -June 1998
5.50%
Hi; 5.44%
o Low; 5.16%
-
5.40 o Average: 5.27%
5.30% -
5.10%
03/02/98 03/18/98 04/03/98 04/21 /98 05/07/98 05/25/98 06/10/98
03/10/98 03/26/98 04/13/98 04/29/98 05/15/98 06/02/98 06/18/98
of Vail
? ; .,=t
~
304*Year U.S. Treasury Bonds
Price Volatility: June 17 - June 22
107.50
107.00 Hi: 107.2
- - - - - - - - - -
Low: 105.0
Average: 106.0
106.50 -
106.00 -
105.50
105.00
2AM 2PM 2AM 2PM 2AM 2PM 2AM 2PM
8AM $PM 8AM 8PM 8AM 8PM 8AM 8PM
June 17 June 18 June 19 June 22
.
~
0f Va•ll
,
e, :..~y . .
~
~ ? ~
Kisks of a Competitive Sale
The planned sale date for a competitive sale is determined weeks in
advance of the sale date. Interest rates can change dramatically during
the interim period. More importantly, interest rate volatility can be
significant during a single day. The more volatile the market
environment, the weaker the bids for a competitive sale.
• Changing market conditions can change can foster weak bids for an
issuer's bonds. If the issuer's credit is not well knawn in the national
market, few firms may bid on the bonds.
If the issuer declines the bids received, investors will perceive the issuer
negatively on future bond sales. Investor will effectively impose an
interest rate "penalty" on future competitive sales. Thus, the issuer is
virtually forced to accept the bid on a competitive sale regardless of
the interest rate.
~v~~ ~`ail
, ~
~ ~
- COMMON GROUND CITIZEN RESPONSE FORM 6/23/98
ADVANTAGES
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
1. funding is great - no new taxes is always appealing. We will not be a community; we will have more 9 more dark Monica Benderly
windows (2nd homeowners); services wili continue to detenorate
(level of quality) due to lack of employees.
the primary advantage ia that we will continue to be a premier
resort & a community. If we don't address these problems now,
we are not going to be #1 after 1999.
2. the funding is a good mixture of sources; deed restriction is If a unit is sold does the owner - occupancy 8 full-time Michael
essentiat. employment still exist? Staughton
3. In addftion to the obvious merits of direct benefits (more compared to the advantages? none Rob Levne
affordable housing dedicated open space, etc.) If it is passed, it
indicates an enormous stride in govemment working in the
Town's overall best inerest, over the objections of a few. -
4. what commounity? - none to the community town funding, raising density zoning in neighborhoods, lower Nevin Nelson
property values for existing property adjacent to proposed high
density low costs housing.
5. You present a large spread..... if lower bench houses 480 & $ will there be enough budgeted to maintain parks 8 open space.
Timber Too the density will be convenient for transportation / Af. housing should be attractive lwell maintained, etc.
management enforcement of common ares.
DO not use small pocket parks for 10.20 homes, put density on Small parks for housing use Mt. Bell, Timber, HUD, large Sheila Sullivan,
larger parcels 8 leave smaller ones to parks parcels. Enforcements, transportation more effecient if dense, keep up the good
small parcels important to the neighborhood work & hear from
everyone
6. see my letter to the TOV Council & staff dated 6/15/98 Funding plan does not utilize the scenario of selling parcels of Paul Rondeau
prime property at top dollar to developers & then using monies to
purchase sites for common ground housing within non-fair share
paying neighborhoods
No mention or targets of affordable housing though incentives
for property owners (see actions endorsed in August 1997, Vail
Tommorow glossy). Suggest an aggressive goal be set, backed
up with a program to make it happen
7. Tract A east was given to TOV for public use, Tax dollars should not subsidize private ownership. Land is Ross Davis
reduced by density increases.
Hud Wirth should not be acquired - double density in exchange Lionshead - must be owned by TOV mot VA.
for dded restriction and let him build.
Timber Ridye - prant current owner a doubling of density in Landlocked parcels should not be purchased at premium pricer -
exchange for a 20 extension of deed restriction - make him build Kara Buetel in a single family lot with no legal access - not worth
pedestrian overpass - maximize 20°.6 of project under $400 K
construction in any given year.
forget cash buy-downs - use only as a trade out for small Tract C- TOV should reimburse owners for a pro rata share of
increases in density. Tax dollars should not subsidize private assessment made for rock control.
owner.
Page 1
I
T.. C_
LAW OFFICES
DUNN, ABPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C.
A PROFESSIONAI CORPORATION
JOHN W. DUNN 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST TELEPHONE:
ARTHUR A. ABPLANALP, JR. SUITE 300 (970) 476-0300
ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN
DIANE L. HERMAN VAIL, COLORADO 81657 FACSIMILE:
(970) 476-4765
R. C. S7EPHENSON
KAREfJ M. DUNN
SPECIAL COUNSEL: CERTIFIED LEGAL ASSISTANT
JERRY W. HANNAH June 2, 1998
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail CO 81657
Re: Vail Plaza Hotel Project
Dear Commission Members:
We represent three residential unit owners at Vail Gateway Plaza and have been
requested by them to provide you with written comment with respect to the application of
Daymer Corporation for a major amendment to Special Development District #6, the Vail Village
Inn Site ("the Vail Plaza Hotel Project" or "the Project"). Having reviewed the plans submitted
to the Town, we wish to set forth our concerns with respect to the relationship of the Project to
the Vail Village Master Plan.
From our review of the plans, it appears that the portions of the Project located
immediately adjacent to Vail Gateway Plaza will be 60 to 84 feet above the existing grade to the
south of Gateway Plaza on Vail Road and 70 to 100 feet above the existing grade to the east of
Gateway Plaza on Frontage Road. This proposed building height is not in conformity with the
Conceptual Building Height Plan of the Vail Village Master Plan, which establishes a building
height guideline on those parcels adjacent to Gateway Plaza of 3-4 (stepped) building stories.
Inasmuch as the Conceptual Building Height Plan defines "building story" as nine feet, the
corresponding building height guidelines are 27 to 36 feet. Nor is the proposed building height in
conformity with the Sub-Area # 1-1 Plan at page 37 of the Master Plan, which requires that the
mass of buildings "step-up" from pedestrian scale along Meadow Drive to 4-5 stories along
Frontage Road. Construing the two together, the srructure to the south of Gateway Plaza could
not by any interpretation exceed four stories or 36 feet.
The proposed building heights for the Project adjacent to Gateway Plaza therefore
exceed master plan limitations by as much as 33 to 48 feet on Vail Road and 43 to 64 feet on
Frontage Road. In other words, the plan proposes a building that is at least twice the height
limitations of the Vail Village Master Plan on those parcels.
Section 12-9A-8 of the Vail Municipal Code includes as part of the design criteria
for approval of an SDD "conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan,
Town policies and urban design plans" and provides, with reference to those standards, that:
"It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and
the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or
demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution
consistent with the public interest has been achieved:
We are not able to find anything in the applicant's submittal to suggest that the
height limitations of the master plan are not applicable or that the applicant is proposing a solution
to the conflict with the master plan which is consistent with the public interest. We can only
conclude that the applicant is asking that the height limitations of the master plan be ignored for
purpose of the application. It is therefore the purpose of this lette: to provide you with a review
of Colorado law on the relationship between master plans and zoning, including in particular the
type of zone district know as the "planned unit development" ("PUD") or, as it is known in Vail,
the special development district ("SDD"). Based upon our review of that law, it is our belief that
the master plan must be strictly adhered to in the consideration of SDD zoning, and we
respectfully request that your commission so determine at the outset of its consideration of the
application.
The Colorado Supreme Court first addressed the effect of a master plan in
Theobald n. Board of ('oiinty Comm 'rs, 644 P.2d 942 (Colo. 1982). In that case, the court held
that a master plan is advisory only and that, in order for it to have a direct effect on property
rights, it must be further implemented through zoning. Thereafter, in Beaver Meadows v. Board
of County ('omm'rs, 709 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1985), the court held that, while a master plan as an
advisory document is not necessarily binding on the zoning discretion of a governmental body, it
is binding when the zoning legislation requires compliance with it.
Most recently, in Board of Cotuity Comm 'rs v. Conder, 927 P.2d 1339 (Colo.
1996), our supreme court was faced with a subdivision application which conformed with
applicable zoning but not with the county master plan, which had been adopted as a"guideline"
by the subdivision regulations. Over two dissents, the court held that the county could enforce
the master pian compliance provision legislatively adopted as part of the subdivision regulations.
Taken together, those cases tell us that, to the extent that zoning is inconsistent with the master
plan, the master plan will prevail, provided compliance with it is required by some regulation.
We recognize that the Town has great flexibility in the amendment of special
development district zoning and that a purpose of an SDD zone district is to encourage flexibility
and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use. We also
recognize that our local district court has upheld the Town council's adoption of SDD zoning
over a challenge based upon the argument that the adoption of it constituted "spot zoning" in
contravention of the Town's master plan. However, we are not arguing that the present
application violates objectives or policies of the master plan, which are aspirational in nature.
Rather, we are arguing that no zone district within the town may violate a very specific height
limitation imposed by the master pian, given the master plan's incorporation into the Town's
zoning, including SDD zaning.
It should a(so be mentioned that, so far as we are aware, there has not been district
court review of a rezoning in this county since the Conder decision. Prior to that decision, it
might have been argued that an SDD zone district, because it establishes special rules for that
zone district, may override master plan requirements. However, in Conder the court affirmed
Larimer County's denial of an application for a PUD subdivision based upon the subdivision's
creation of density in conflict with the county master plan, even though (as the court emphasized)
the proposed use of the land was in compliance with the county's zoning resolution. It must
therefore be concluded that, if the entirety of the Larimer County zoning resolution could not
have the effect of overriding the county master plan, PUD or SDD zoning could not have that
effect.
We also recognize that zoning is a matter of local and municipal concern; that the
Town's zoning authority is governed by its own charter and ordinances, Zavala u City & County
of Dettver, 759 P.2d 664 (Colo. 1988); Service Oil Co. v. Rhodus, 500 P.2d 807 (Colo. 1972);
and that the cases cited in this letter address county master plans. However, the grant of zoning
authority is contained in statute, § 31-23-301, C.R.S., and that authority is conditioned upon the
adoption of a master plan by § 31-23-303, C.R.S. Further, the statutory purposes governing the
adoption of a municipal master plan, § 31-23-207, C.R.S., track with those governing the
adoption of a county master plan, § 30-28-107, C.R.S., and both counties and municipalities are
required to find master plan compliance as a condition to approval of a PUD, § 24-67-104(1)(fl,
C.R.S., absent a superseding ordinance of the municipality. Vail's ordinance in fact is consistent
with that statute. Finally, the discussion contained in the county cases cited are a discussion of
general principles of land use law. It is therefore our conclusion that your commission must give
literal effect to the Vail Vii[age Master Ptan, including in particular the heignt limitations
contained in it, in considering the application for the Project.
Of course, the Town's master plans may be amended, but that process should only
be initiated by the Town council. Pursuant to § 31-27-207, C.R.S., "careful and comprehensive
surveys and studies of present conditions and future growth" are required. Initiation of that
process, we believe, ought not be motivated by a single application.
It is our understanding that the applicant believes that the economic benefit of its
project to the community, including hotel accommodations and conference space, outweigh the
importance of master plan compliance. In that connection, it is well to bear in mind the purposes
of the Town's zoning regulations as they are set forth in § 12-1-2, Vail Municipal Code:
"these regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety,
morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and
harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance
its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential
community of high yuality."
That purpose, we suggest, is intended to preserve the character of the town and not to promote
economic development.
We need not remind you that members of the public, including our clients, have
relied on the Town's land use regulations. Our clients were told, when they purchased units at
Gateway Plaza, that they would continue to have unobstructed views, and they made major
investments based upon that information. If those views are obstructed, their investments will be
significantly devalued. Our clients understand that the Town's zoning was not enacted to protect
their personal view comdors. However, because they are adjacent landowners and because the
value of their property may be affected by your recommendation to council, they have standing
before you.
Section 12-3-3, Vail Municipal Code, provides for administrative determination or
interpretation of the provisions of the zoning crdinance and for review of such determination or
interpretation by your commission. We urge you to request an interpretation of § 12-9A-8(D),
Vail Municipal Code, and a determination that that provision requires that the application before
you strictly comply with the building height limitations of the Vail Village Master Plan.
In making that request, we do not wish to minimize other aspects of the Project
which would require that on the merits your commission make a recommendation of denial of the
application. The impact of the Project on Frontage Road is difficult even to imagine. Traffic flow
through the roundabout intersection and along Frontage Road would be increased very
substantially, with the attendant noise and pollution caused by vehicular traffic. Without an
impact analysis, it is impossible to say what the effect of the Project would be on level of service
at the Main Vail Roundabout. That impact is aggravated by the absence of pedestrian access
from the village core. Further, the refocusing of activity on Frontage Road, together with the
overall height and mass of the Project, would have a fundamental, potentially devastating effect
on the feeling and character of Vail.
We intend to press those issues at time of hearing on the application, if that stage
is reached. We again urge that an initial determination be made that the Project must comply with
the Vail Village Master Plan. That determination, for obvious reasons, would serve to focus
consideration of the application.
Yours very truly,
DUNN, PLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C.
e
JoHn W. Dunn
JWD:ipse
cc. Mr. Lipcon
Mr. Johnston
~ June 15, 1998
To: Town of Vail Council, TOV Community Development Department
and TOV Town Manager
Subject: Donovan Park and the Common Ground Process
The Donovan Park benches appeared to be the most heavily focused
sites in the Common Ground work sessions held in April and early
June. Much of this focus was due to (a) attendees knowing where the
sites are located, (b) the large .rii.zmber of acres depicted on the
maps and (c) a mind-set that the Matterhorn neighborhood as already
being an employee housing area. This was understandable, but its
now time to temper the direction things seem to be going with a
comprehensive decision methodology that will consider many more
and more positive factors.
A key factor that needs to be woven into the decision methodology
is a measurement of neighborhoods absorbing their "fair share" of
employee/affordable housing. Clearly if all neighborhoods are to
absorb their fair share, this will have to involve purchasing
expensive lots or "tear down" properties--coupled with re-designating
existing, improved, open space--to accommodate Common Ground housing.
This is the only way to really address the NIMBY issue.
The problem with all the Common Ground alternatives presented in
the early June worY sessions, is they require the Matterhorn
neighborhood to pay more than their fair share. All three Donovan
Park "benches" need ta be discussed to support this claim:
o Lower bench: Problem: (a) density is too high, effectively
creatinq another Timber Ridge project in the Matterhorn backyard
and (b) creating a public safety issue with access to the
South Frontage Road at the bottom of a steep hill, currently
with a 45 MPH speed limit. Solution: (a) reduce the proposed
density, (b) re-designate the proposed "seasonal" housing to a
new category of "annual lease" housing--as a middle category
between "seasonal" and "for sale" housing, and (c) change the
speed Iimit to an enforced 30-35 MPH, coupled with regrading the
hill.
o Middle bench: Problem: the 60 den.sity proposal is too great
and not consistent with the rest of the neighborhood and even
the new high density development just being completed on the
property adjacent to the middle bench. Solution: (a) reduce
the proposed density to 30 from 60 and (b) move 15 of this
reduction to the eastern panhandle of the upper bench--and
abutting the adjacent neighborhood.
o Upper bench: Problem: This beautiful parcel, with its views
and constant use by wildlife (deer, elk, foxes,bears) and dog
walkers needs to now be protected in perpetuity. Solution:(a)
put the parcel (minus the eastern panhandle) into a land trust,
since established zoning may have lost its role in public trust and
something to be counted upon and (b) designate the upper bench
as a memorial par:c/meditation garden--i.e. implement the on-file
cemetery plan, minus the grave sites.
.
-2-
` The Donovan Park issues and some of the suggested solutions
can help to improve the entire Common Ground process in these .
areas:
l. Measuring the"fair share"absorption of Common Ground housing
in neighborhoods and proactively fighting NIMBYism.
2. Linking the Common Ground process with an updated land use
master plan--something with "teeth" in it, that cannot be
changed every year. A land trust may be the only way to do
this,it appears.
3. Creating a new middle category of Common Ground housing, call.ed
"annual lease", falling between "seasonal" and "for sale."
4. Constructing a comprehensive Common Ground decision process=-
the approach taken to date is a start, with lots of folks
involved, but without a rigorous methodology. It needs to be
refined in a way that citizens 5, 10 and 25 years hence wili
understand past decisions--e.g. a tracking of the master plan's role.
5. Calling in an ir.dependent auditor to verify statistics and
assumptions that drive the whole Common Ground process. The
Town of Vail has spent considerable sums of money for consultants
and verification on projects that have much less long term impact
on the communty_(note:_the_survey work has been well done).
6. Working through potential scenarios where we initially achieve
some statistical goal (e.g. 500 of Vail employees are able to
live in Vail), only to find down the road that individual
employers are unable to obtain the "in-pocket" number of beds
they need at the season's beginning. This can happen when the
effectiveness of deed-restricted housing is watered down over
time through lack of enforcement or initially eligible owners
who go onto other non-Vail service employment (yet still keeping
their deed-restriced housing).
7. Bring the Common Ground process to a point of ccnceptual
closure and then step back to gain perspective about the notions
of using up open space:
a. Look at park-rich Denver--how did the city resist the
. temptation to use up its open space for a myrid of"better
uses"?
b. What would be the impact of the USFS actively soliciting the sale
or exchange of adjacent land for employee housing under a
new Congresss and White House?
c. What would be the impact of a light rail systei« tieing Vail to the Leadville to Gypsum corridor--might prospective
employees prefer to live outside of Vail for a lot of positive
reasons? Can Vail still be considered an island?
d. What would be the impact of creating many new acres by burying
I-70•? Note the "big ditch" project of burying the highway in
central Boston is being done with technology unknown five
years ago:
e. What creative ways are open for private enterprise and
citizens to play a bigger role in addressing the housing
issue? Ad hoc groups have been working on this --and its now
time to review this work.
_ f. Will the Common Ground recommendations be validated with a
public vote? Clearly this is the only way to protect
against 20/20 hindsight of what the Town of Vail should
have done "back in 1998" if we've "got it wrong.!
~
• '
. -3-
g. Lastly, can any government--however well intentioned as an
arm's length facilitator of last resort--provide the structure
to deal with the complex interactions that invariably occur
within communities? Watering down of deed restricted housing,
rent controlled properties and project housing are but three
examples of almost "built-in" failure of government's good
attempts. Perhaps we need to use the Common Ground's public
focus to now think "outside the box"?
The Common Ground process is a big deal, with long term impacts in
a variety of areas. The author is a team player, attending the work
sessions and addressing issues involving Donovan Park--under the
assumptions that this open space will be carved up. The author
has then solicited the decision makers to take a step back and
answer some very real "what if" questions that have got to be
addressed. I trust many of the issues and questions presented
will be "worked through" by the TOV Council and professional
staff --and then presented to the public.
Finally, it should be noted this is not an "eleventh hour charge."
The Vail Tomorrow and Common Ground participants were told we should
"go with the flow" and not<.get hung up on-precedent issues early
on as there would be an opportunity to bring these larger issues up
near the end of the detail work. We are now at that point. Thanks
for your attention.
Paul Rondeau
Vail Resident
Karin Scheidegger
2436 Chamoniz Lane
Vail, CO $1657
970 476-8254
June 17, 1998
Dear Council Members:
It is very upsetting to see the aggressive positions that the TOV Council and Staff have
taken regarding affordable hausing.
The town should not be involved in promoting development of the last few neighborhood
fields that give us a little breathing room, and I strongly object to RETT moneys being
used for this purpose.
I am very opposed to the building of any housing on the town-owned West Vail property
known as the Arosa-Garmisch property. The narrow hillside roads of this neighborhood
cannot safely accommodate any increase in traffic. The entire parcel should remain open
to serve as a park and natural space for this aiready dense neighborhood.
This is our neighborhood's only open parcel. It is fair for us to expect our government to
provide us with the same kind of space that it has provided other neighborhoods. Let us
have one Iarge open space ar pazk within our neighborhood.
In regard to the Hud Wirth property (behind Texa.co) and other Vail properties, I feel it is
not fair for the Town to consider any upzoning when it has denied this to ma.ny property
owners. Some properties have even been downzoned, including four of my lots. Is this
fair for the Town to have double standards?
As more and more people are flying into Eagle, West Vail has become a gateway to the
Vail area, like East Vail. Is extremely high density the first impression we want our
guests to have of Vail?
I hope the town does not ignore the feelings qf so many long time locals who have been a
strong part of this community and hopefully will continue to be part of this Town. D!on't
give us more and more reasons to move down valley or leave Vail altogether.
Once you develop land, there's no going back. As a fuil time resident and property owner
since the mid sixties, I trust you will give this your consideration.
Sincerely,
e-C'. Va;/ ~ra~~
~
1
„
TOWN OF VAIL
•RLD
Office of the Town Manager CHAMPIONSHIPS
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657 999 , . A , , R CREEK
,
970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157
MEMORANDUM T""
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager
DATE: June 18, 1998
RE: 2001 World Mountain Bike Championships
Vail has been selected as the U.S. candidate far the 2001 World Mountain Bike Championships. A
selection will be made later this year by UCI for the selected site.
PAB/aw
t~ RECYCLEDPAPER
Mm0 ~t
COLORADO ASSOCIAT/ON OF TRAIVSfIAGENt7E5
News Release
Date: June 15,1998
Contact: Jeanae Erickson, Executive Director, CASTA
Phone: (303) 839-5197 COLORADO STATE BLjS ROAllEO Champians Announced
COLORADO SPRDiGS. CO - The tenth annuai Colorada Bus Roadeo competition was hetd ihe weekend of June 13-14, 1998 at F'atcon Stadium, U. S. Air Force Aca.demy.
Thirty-six drivers from around the state competed in three divisions including a timed
driving competition, written test, pre-trip inspection exercise and a wheelchair Iift and
securement exercise. Winners received cash prizes and ceramic plaques specially
designed by Evergreen artist, Tom Edwards. All participants received certificates
attesting to their skill at the awards reception attended by Bus Roadeo enthusiasts frozn
around the state at the Press Box Club at Falcon Stadium, U. S. Air Force Academy.
Drivers had competed in agenc}• Bus Roadeos to qualify for the statewide event.
The Transit Coach Division top finishers werc Curtis King, Town of Vail Transit in first
place, Bill Jackson_ Transfort. Fort Collins in second place and in third place CharIes
Gould Universih, of Colorado Transportation BouIder.
Thc Mini-bexs Division first pIace vvinner was Curtis King, Town of Vail Transit, in
second place was Jack Souders, Silver Kev Senior Services Colorado Sprin~s and in
third place was Mike White. Durango Lift. ~
First place winner in ihe Van Division competition was Les Harciing, Summit Stage,
Frisco; in second ptace was Chan Messer_ Eastem Colorado Services Sterlin~, and in
third place was Traci Clarv_ Mesa Develo mental Services Grand Junction.
Curtis King, knowm as "Cinci" because of his Cincinnati hometov%m roots was sutprised
and pleased to find himself the winner in two divisions_ "Cinci" wilI compeie nationally
in the American Public Transit Associatioa (APTA) Bus Roadeo ia New York- City in
October 1998 and the Community Transportation Association of America (CT.AA) Bus
Roadeo in New Orleans in May 1999.
Les Harding; of Summit County, won the right to compete in the Commnnity
Transportation Association (CTAA) Bus Roadeo in New Orleans in May 1999 after
cflming in 2"d in the 1997 CoIorado State Bus Roadeo.
Over eigfiry smail and iarge transit agencies located ia nearly every couaty of the state
. provide vansit services to passengers throughout Coiorado. The BUS ROADEO offers
drivers an opportunity to hone driving sIalIs and to receive well-deserved recognirion for
their expertise.
225 EAST 16th AVENUE, SUiTE 1070 • DENVER, COLORADO 80203 •(3Q3) 839-5197 •(303) 832-3053 FAX
~
u
~y
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
MEDIA ADVISORY
June 17, 1998 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115
Community Information Office
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR JUNE 16
Work Session Briefs
Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Kurz, Navas
--Presentation of March 1998 TOV Bus Ridership Study
Linda Hill, president of Hill & Tashiro Marketing and Advertising, presented an overview
of a bus ridership survey. The survey was administered to riders on Vail's outlying
routes as part of an overall market research study conducted by the Eagle County
Regional Transportation Authority. Key findings are: awareness of the bus service
comes from a variety of sources (referrals from friends, the Transportation Center, locaf
newspaper, hotel staff and travel agents); if the Vail bus service were not available,
most said a personal vehicle would be the most relied upon method of transportation;
residents reported making an average of 14 bus trips each week, while visitors
. expected to use the Vail bus an average of nine times each way during their stay; most
riders felt the number of bus stops was just right; employee riders were more likely to
not have a parking space provided by their employer (63%) than to have a space
provided (32%); overall satisfaction ratings were relatively high; and suggested
improvements included a request to run the bus service later in the evening. Hill said
the transportation authority is considering authorization of a similar ridership survey in
August, plus a possible telephone survey to probe why people r n riding the bus.
She said the data would then be available for development of a marketing plan if the
authority chooses to move forward.
--Discussion of Parking Program for the 1998/99 Ski Season
In preparation for the evening meeting, Councilmembers reviewed a proposal for next
seasan's parking program. The proposal, presented by Larry Grafel, public
works/transportation director, is as follows: ,
--No change in the daily parking rate fee structure
--Replacement of "Park Free After 3" with "Drive After 5"
--Status quo on $1,000 Gold Pass for unrestricted parking in both structures
--Additional restrictions on the $525 blue pass which would prohibit parking in the
(more)
L4M, RECYCLEDPAPER
~
TOV Highlights/6-16-98/Add 1
Village structure from November 1998 to March 1, 1999, due to space constraints
caused by the World Alpine Ski Championships. --Restrictions on the $5 per entry/exit Value Pass which would prohibit parking in the
Village structure from November 1998 to March 1, 1999.
--Ford Park would remains free, with the exception of event-related World Alpine Ski
Championship activities.
--Continuation of private ly-ope rated valet parking program using space at Ford Park for
the storage of cars.
--Implementation of a$2 pre-pay fee for summer parking to help manage increasing
summer traffic issues.
Overall, parking transactions were up while parking revenues were down by $255,240
last season. Sales tax was up $368,289 over last season. However, Councilmembers
noted that the bulk of the sales tax increase occurred in geographic areas other than
Vail Viltage and Lionshead. The valet program averaged 27 cars a day with a total of
3,901 cars parked during the season. P/ease see evening meeting briefs for additional
information.
--Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau Request for Reallocation of Council Funds
Previously Allocated to Support the AVP (pro beach volfeyball) Open at Vai1
The Council heard a funding request from Bill Brice of the Vail Valley Tourism &
Convention Bureau. Brice asked the Council to consider reallocating a$30,000
contributiQn that had been earmarked for the now-cancelled AVP pro beach volleyball
Open at Vail. His proposal included a$5,000 request to fund a July 29 kick off for the
Eagle County Fair and Rodeo to be staged in Vail, plus use of the remainder of the
funds to enhance a series of special events leading up to the World Alpine Ski
Championships. Later during the meeting, the Council voted 4-2 (Foley and Navas
against) to reallocate $15,000 of the $30,000 request towards the County Fair and
Rodeo event and selected Vail 99 events; the remainder will be used to provide
additional security during the July Fourth holiday.
--Discussion of Design Review Trigger
After reviewing a draft ordinance that was prompted by a suggestion from Councilman
Michael Arnett (who was absent from the day's discussion), Councilmembers asked
that the ordinance, which contained additional provisions, be simplified to address
Arnett's concern about undue hardships caused by the current design review trigger
which requires the paving of parking areas, placing utility service lines underground and
other expensive modifications for minor renovations and allowing interior conversions in
multiple-family dwelting units. Arnett had proposed increasing the threshold to 500 sq.
ft. before the design review provisions are triggered. While that provision was
contained in the draft ordinance, three other sections of the code were proposed to be
amended: change type II employee housing units from a conditional use to a permitted
use, reorganizing the conditional use chapter and allowing interior GRFA conversions
for multi-family dwelling units. Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners Association
suggested the need for consideration of allowing the "250" ordinance to be expanded to
allow exterior additions on multiple-family dwelling units as an incentive to allow multi-
family structures to be renovated. Instead, Councilmembers asked that the Type II
(more)
,
TOV Council Highlights/6-16-98/Add 2
employee housing unit revision and Lamont's concerns be addressed separately with
only the design review trigger provisions scheduled for first reading on July 7. For
more information, contact Dominic Maurielto at 479-2148.
--Funding Proposal for August 1998 Sister Cities/Vail Valley Exchange Trip to Mt.
Buller, Australia The Council voted 3(Armour, Ford, Kurz) to 1(Foley), with 2 abstaining (Navas and
Jewett) to appoint Councilmember Sybill Navas to join an Eagle Valley delegation that
will travel to Mt. Buller, Australia in August. The action also allocated up to $4,000 in
Council contingency funds to help pay for the sister cities trip. Navas, who represents
the Council on the Vail Valley Exchange sister cities board, said she was particularly
interested in learning more about consolidation of governments and regionalism during
the trip, as well as continuing to strengthen the employee exchange program.
Councilmember Michael Jewett, who also is involved in the Vail Valley Exchange
program, had expressed interest in joining the delegation, as well, which is why he and
Navas abstained from voting.
--Discussion of Motorola Funding/Purchase of Radios
The Council voted 5-1 (Foley against) to authorize an agreement with Motoroia to install
an 800 megahertz system for the dispatch center. The $800,000 proposal is $254,000
less than the "state contract" rate due to a partner sponsorship by Motorola for the 1999
World Alpine Ski Championships. The Federal Communications Commission has
given local agencies a timetable in which to convert to the 800 megahertz format.
--July Fourth Planning
After turning down a revised proposal to sponsor a concert in the Ford Amphitheater
(intended to provide an after-the-fireworks outlet for the under 21 crowd), the Council
voted 4-2 (Foley, Navas against) to spend up to $15,000 to hire additional security to
assist the Police Department over the July Fourth holiday.
--Village Core Construction Update
During an update on construction in the Village core, Larry Grafel, public
works/transportation director, indicated that all three town-related projects (Slifer Plaza,
Seibert Circle, and the Transportation Center snowmelt project) are all on schedule.
Also, effective June 15 construction hours in the Village have been tightened to reflect
increased tourism activity. Permitted hours of construction are now 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Sunday through Thursday; 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Friday; with no work allowed on
Saturdays for any projects. Also, no construction wiff be permitted on July 3, 4 or 5.
--Information Update
Announcements included: managed, unpaid parking was scheduled to take place at
Ford Park later that evening; the TOV employee picnic is July 31 at Ford Park; three
drivers competed in the Colorado State Bus Roadeo with Curtis King winning the transit
coach division and the mini-bus division. King now moves to the national competition in
New York City in October 1998.
(more)
TOV Council Highlights/6-16-98/Add 3
Town Manager Bob McLaurin received the go-ahead from Council to continue to probe
the possibility of refinancing the town's debt. The town's current debt service is $22.9
million. By extending the payment period and locking into a lower interest rate,
refinancing could free up between $2.5 million and $3 million between 1998 and 2005.
--Council Reports
Kevin Foley reported on the recent Liquor Board meeting which was well attended by,
representatives from Vail's bars and restaurants. The overflow crowd caused Foley to
ask if better accommodations could be made in the future. Otherwise, Foley said the
" meeting was productive in establishing a dialogue about the need for additional alcohol
awareness training. Foley also complimented the Transportation Department for the
new bus stop at Golden Peak and reported on the recent Vail Pass clean-up sponsored
by the Eagle County Trails Committee.
Ludwig Kurz reported on the annual board meeting of the Colorado Ski Museum and
reminded councilmembers of an earlier request by the museum to defer rent due to
construction impacts at the Transportation Center. As landlords of the building, the
Council agreed to defer the $650 monthly payments for June and July.
Sybill Navas said the Art In Public Places Board (AIPP) was interested in hosting a
reception for the merchants once the Jesus Moroles art pieces have been placed in
Seibert Circle.
--Other
Following up on comments earlier in the meeting by Councilmembers Michael Jewett
and Sybill Navas, the Council agreed to expand citizen input during the afternoon work
sessions, so long as the new format doesn't inhibit dialogue among the
councilmembers.
Councilmembers agreed to a concept that would provide them with modest office space
(a shared computer, file cabinet, phone and meeting space) in the Municipal Building
that would be available for access during regular business hours.
Rob Ford asked if anyone on Council would be interested in attending a regional
cooperation meeting in Summit County this week.
Following up on a constituent request, Michael Jewett inquired about the status of the
skateboard park in Lionshead. (It's open).
Kevin Foley inquired about the status of the IGA between the town and the Eagle
County Regional Transportation Authority. (It's coming).
Evening Session Briefs
Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Kurz, Navas
(more)
1
TOV Council Highlights/6-16-98/Add 4
--Citizen Participation
Herman Staufer, a Vail restauranteur, appeared before the Council and suggested the
town explore doing something special for visitors this summer due to the construction
impacts in Vail Village. Staufer suggested the town give away concert tickets, throw a
party or distribute flyers that would make guests feel welcome while they're here. He
compared this summer's Village construction to last summer's West Vail roundabouts
project as "open heart surgery" versus a"tooth ache."
In anticipation of the next agenda item, Vail resident Ginny Culp expressed objections
in the way the town prepared, distributed and tabulated the annual community survey. Culp said it was inappropriate to distribute surveys to Vail post office box holders (since
the sampling would include people who didn't necessary resid6 in Vail). She also
objected to including the nonresidents/nonproperty owners in the overall tabulations
and charged the town staff and Town Council members of biasing the survey questions
(and tabulations) related to affordable housing. She said the Council would be better
off monitoring the community's interests through direct phone calls and letters than a
townwide survey. In addition, Culp criticized the town for its use of citizen involvement
processes in its decision-making, calling them a waste of time and money for taxpayers
who "have to live with the consequences." She then went on to criticize specific
components of the Lionshead Master Plan process and the Common Ground process,
questioning the Council's willingness to listen to constituents. And lastly, Culp thanked
the Council and the Public Works Department for assisting her with an on-going
volunteer clean-up program.
In response, Mayor Rob Ford said the Council was elected on a housing platform--now
substantiated by the community survey-- and that Council was prepared to move ahead
with its pledge. He invited Culp to assist the town in developirig future community
surveys and explained relaxation of a Council policy that had previously limited citizen
input during discussion of the Lionshead Master Plan during at a past Council work
session. -
Next, Vail resident Diana Donovan expressed frustration with the town staff and Council
for failure to respond or acknowledge a letter she'd presented to the Town Council at its
May 19 meeting. The letter listed 30 suggestions for using Real Estate Transfer Tax
funds in Vail, along with 30 ideas on how to fund affordable housing without using
RETT funds or open space. Later in the evening, she too, criticized preparation and
validity of the community survey.
--1998 Community Survey Results
An overall summary of the town's annual community survey was presented by Chris
Cares of RRC Associates, the Boulder-based research firm which prepared the study.
Survey respondents listed housing as the top issue facing the fown, followed by
controlled growth/development and open space/environment issues. Results also
showed a slight decline in the satisfaction levels of many of the town's basic services
when compared to the 1997 survey. Ratings for building inspections and building
permit turnaround, for example, dipped from 1997 to 1988, a possible reflection of the
(more)
TOV Council Highlights/6-16-98/Add 5
department's recent turnover in its staff. The "Park Free After 3" program received the
highest satisfaction rating with a score of 4.6 out of a possible 5.0. Respondents also
gave high marks for snow removal, bus service, emergency response by the Fire
Department and an overall feeling of safety and security within Vail. An explosion in
Internet access was also documented by the survey, as well as increased use of
properties owned by second homeowners. During discussion, Councilmember Michael
Jewett, referring to a slight decline in library ratings, said the town needs to fund more
Internet stations at the library to reduce frustrations. For a copy of the survey ~report,
call the Community Information Office at 479-2115. .
--Discussion of Parking Program for the 1998/1999 Ski Season
Although a final decision isn't scheduled until July 7, the Council reviewed and offered
reaction to a series of recommendations on parking programs for the 1998/1999 ski
season (please see work session briefs for an overview of the recommendations). This,
after hearing from 10 citizens, most of whom encouraged Council to continue the Park
Free After 3 Program. A proposal for summer parking fees was immediately nixed by
the Council. Support for continuation of the Free After 3 program varied with Sybill
Navas and Michael Jewett expressing support. Kevin Foley suggested starting free
parking at 4 p.m. Bob Armour, Ludwig Kurz and Rob Ford each expressed concerns
about how much subsidy the town should provide given other town needs and expressed disappointment in the lack of program's promotion by the business
community. Councilmembers also expressed concern about a recommendation to
restrict blue and value pass-holders from accessing the Village parking structure from
November to March (to accommodate activities associated with the World Alpine Ski
Championships). Instead, Councilmembers asked for additional flexibility for those
pass-holders. Also, Council directed staff to explore a modest increase in the daily
parking rates to help offset the free parking program. Prior to sharing their thoughts,
Councilmembers first heard from members of the audience: Lew Meskimen expressed
concerns about employee hardships that would be created by blue and value pass
restrictions in the Village parking structure. He also suggested the town be reimbursed
for a portion of parking fees collected by the private ly-ope rated valet service. Jack
Curtin of Curtin-Hill Sports said the Park Free After 3 program contributed to an
increase in his store sales last year. He encouraged the Council to continue the
program and suggested using business license fees, parking pay-in-lieu funds or some
other business-generated fund to make up the shortfall. Representing the Vail Village
Merchant Association, Kaye Ferry also encouraged Council to stay the course on Park
Free After 3, noting the program helps retain employees who might otherwise choose to
work downvalley. Ferry also said the recommendation to restrict blue and value passes
from November through March was unacceptable. Rod Slifer of the Vail Village
Commercial Property Owners Association encouraged continuation of Free After 3,
noting it received the highest satisfaction rating in the community survey. Slifer also
said a$2 fee for summer parking would be a mistake; he humorously suggested the
town instead consider paying people to park in the structure this summer given the
construction impacts. Next, Nancy Rondeau, a Vail host, urged the Council to retain
local drop-off access at Golden Peak. Last season, she said the area was used nearly
exclusively by the valet parking service and those who attempted to use the public
(more)
,
,
TOV Council Highlights/6-16-98/Add 6
drop-off weren't made to feel very welcome. Joe Staufer, a longtime businessman, also
expressed support for park Free After 3; he wondered how businesses might have
survived last season if the program hadn't been in place. Joe also suggested asking for
a subsidy contribution from Adventure Ridge. Herman Staufer added another voice of
support for Park Free After 3's continuation, saying the program has worked well and
was worthy of town subsidy. Staufer said waiting until 5 p.m. for free parking would
cause a hardship for employees. He also advised against summer parking fees. Also
weighing in on the issue was businessman George Knox who suggested a status quo
approach, as well as businessman Ron Riley who expressed disappointment that many
businesses seemed to take the Free After 3 program forgranted last season and failed to market the program. Riley suggested additional efforts to study the correlation
between free parking and increased sales. The last to speak from the public was
restaurateur Michael Staughton who expressed concerns about recommended
restrictions on blue and value passes. The discussion will continue at the July 7
evening meeting.
--Resolution No. 6, Library Desposit Transactions
In a housekeeping measure, the Council voted 6-0 to approve a resolution that
authorizes certain employees to handle check deposits for library transactions.
UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS
June 23 Work Session
PEC/DRB Review
Mtn. Haus Request to Proceed through Planning Process
Appeal of PEC Decision re: Slifer Variance Denial
Discussion of Business License Fee by "Vail First"
Discussion of Ordinance No. 7, RV Parking
Lionshead Employee Generation
Lionshead Master Plan
June 30 Special Evening Town Council Meeting, 7 p.m.
Common Grounds Conclusion
Ju/y 7 Work Session
DRB Review
Lionshead Master Plan Discussion
Discussion of Ordinance #9, re: SDD #22
Discussion of Marketing Bill
Ju/y 7 Evening Meeting
First Reading, Ordinance #9, re: SDD #22
First Reading, Ordinance #10, re: Design Review Trigger
First Reading, Ordinance, re: Model Traffic Code
Marketing Presentation by Frank Johnson
Parking Discussion
Lionshead Master Plan
# # #
M
v \
1/
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 16, 1998 _
Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115
Community Information Office
VAIL TOWN SURVEY RESULTS SHOW AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AS TOP ISSUE OF CONCERN WHILE OVERALL SERVICE RATINGS
DECLINE FROM LAST YEAR'S LEVELS
(Vail)--Respondents to the Town of Vail's 1998 Community Survey have
overwhelmingly identified "housing" as the most important issue facing the town.
Results also show a slight decline in the satisfaction levels of many of the town's basic
services.
Key findings of the 125-question survey were presented to the Vail Town Council this
evening (6-16) by Chris Cares, principal of RRC Associates, a Boulder-based research
_ firm which, has conducted the annual survey for the past six years.
The survey of residents, business owners, commuters and second homeowners has
been used to identify community priorities for the use of town-owned lands as part of
the ongoing Common Ground process. It also will be used to assist in preparation of
the town's work program for the next two years. The town mailed approximately
11,200 surveys in March to residents and second homeowners; 1,305 were returned,
representing a response rate of about 12 percent.
When asked to identify the three biggest issues facing the town, a dominant 34
(more)
L~ RECYCLEDPAPER
K
TOV Community Survey/Add 1
percent of the respondents listed affordable housing as the top concern. The second
biggest issue was controlled growth/development as identified by 12 percent of the
respondents, followed by open space/environment with 10 percent. "Housing is clearly
a concern expressed by both full-time residents and second homeowners," said Cares.
"This is the first time we've seen this question dominated by a single issue."
The housing topic was further reinforced by response to a question that asked
whether new development should be responsible for housing some of its workers.
About 82 percent of residents and 60 percent of second homeowners gave support for
this requirement, with both groups indicating an average of about half (50 percent) as a
target percentage. Although full-time residents and second homeowners are generally satisfied with the
quality of services provided by the town, there was a pattern of lower satisfaction
ratings this year than previous years. Ratings for building inspections and building
permit turnaround, for example, dipped from 1997 to 1998, a possible reflection of the
department's recent turnover in its staff.
Services provided by the Fire Department, Library and Police Department received
the highest department ratings. The "Park Free After 3" program received the highest
satisfaction rating of all with a score of 4.6 out of a possible 5.0. Respondents also
gave high marks for snow removal, bus service, emergency response by the Fire
Department and an overall feeling of safety and security within Vail.
Animal control, the Community Development Department and parking fees were
(more)
~
,
TOV Community Survey/Add 2
among the lowest rated services. "As we've seen in past years, these departments
receive relatively lower ratings because of the nature of the services provided; there is
often an enforcement aspect to these services that can cause a negative response," Cares said.
The most improved satisfaction rating from last year to this year was road and street maintenance.
In addition, respondents gave strong support for involvement by the town to improve
the community's economic vitality. Seasonal worker housing was strongly supported by
residents, while summer marketing and an improved streetscape were two economic
initiatives that received support from residents and second homeowners alike,
according to Cares.
Increased use of the Internet also was documented by the survey. Last year's survey
showed that 49 percent of residents had Internet access; this year the figure is at 64
percent. Similarly, among second homeowners, the figure climbed from 38 percent last
year to 74 percent this year. About 40 percent of the second homeowners surveyed
and 24 percent of residents said they would use the Internet to keep up to date on TOV
activities.
The survey also was used to help identify future visitation trends and patterns among
Vail's second homeowners. The results suggest there may be continuing shifts in the
use of those properties, which account for an estimated 70 percent of the homes in
Vail. The trends include: more use in summer and the shoulder seasons, owners are
(more)
r
?
TOV Community Survey/Add 3
more likety to call their Vail residence a"primary" residence; and owners are more likely
to invest in significant upgrades and improvements. "Looking to the future, these shifts
could signal a segment of owners that are more likely to become interested and
involved in community, culture, recreation and elections," Cares said.
In the meantime, there remains a general concern by respondents with Vail's "sense of community." Forty-three percent of the full-time residents say the sense of
community within Vail has gotten worse over the past several years, compared to 25
percent of the part-time residents. Other survey findings show:
--Strong interest in both a"youth center" and other family oriented programs,
especially among residents. A performing arts center, conference
facilities, an indoor swimming pool and a community theater also garnered
support.
--Dedicating a portion of sales tax and reallocating a portion of the real estate
transfer tax were the most preferred methods of funding housing
programs.
--Noise from I-70 is of moderate concern with 23 percent of respondents and
16 percent of second homeowners calling it "a problem." On the other
hand, about one in three of each of the demographic segments called I-70
noise "no problem."
--Part-time residents tend to give higher satisfaction ratings for town services
than fiull-time residents.
--37% of the full-time residents and 29% of the part-time residents say the
current Town Council's responsiveness is "getting better", while most say
responsiveness has "stayed the same" over the past year.
--Most respondents are satisfied with the levels of attention being given to
services. However, Art In Public Places (AIPP) was called out more
frequently than any category as receiving "too much" attention. Notably,
housing was seldom mentioned as receiving too much attention, a further
indication of community sentiment in support of the priority attention being
given to this topic. The library was most often mentioned as receiving "too
little" attention, followed by cleanliness (in general), infrastructure
upgrades and police patrols.
For more information or a copy of the results, call 479-2115.
# # #
,
~y
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
MEDIA ADVISORY
June 17, 1998
Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115
Community information Office
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR JUNE 16
Work Session Briefs
Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Kurz, Navas
--Presentation of March 1998 TOV Bus Ridership Study
Linda Hill, president of Hill & Tashiro Marketing and Advertising, presented an overview
of a bus ridership survey. The survey was administered to riders on Vail's outlying
routes as part of an overall market research study conducted by the Eagle County
Regional Transportation Authority. Key findings are: awareness of the bus service
comes from a varie#y of sources (referrals from friends, the Transportation Center, Jocal
newspaper, hotel staff and travel agents); if the Vail bus service were not available,
most said a personal vehicle would be the most relied upon method of transportation;
residents reported making an average of 14 bus trips each week, while visitors
expected to use the Vail bus an average of nine times each way during their stay; most
riders felt the number of bus stops was just right; employee riders were more likely to
no have a parking space provided by their employer (63%) than to have a space
provided (32%); overall satisfaction ratings were relatively high; and suggested
improvements included a request to run the bus service later in the evening. Hill said
the transportation authority is considering authorization of a similar ridership survey in
August, plus a possible telephone survey to probe why people aren't riding the bus.
She said the data would then be available for development of a marketing plan if the
authority chooses to move forward.
--Discussion of Parking Program for the 1998/99 Ski Season
In preparation for the evening meeting, Councilmembers reviewed a proposal for next
season's parking program. The proposal, presented by Larry Grafel, public
works/transportation director, is as follows:
--No change in the daily parking rate fee structure
--Replacement of "Park Free After 3" with "Drive After 5"
--Status quo on $1,000 Gold Pass for unrestricted parking in both structures
--Additional restrictions on the $525 blue pass which would prohibit parking in the
(more)
RECYCLEDPAPER
,
TOV Highlights/6-16-98/Add 1
Village structure from November 1998 to March 1, 1999, due to space constraints
caused by the World Alpine Ski Championships.
--Restrictions on the $5 per entry/exit Value Pass which would prohibit parking in the
Village structure from November 1998 to March 1, 1999.
--Ford Park would remains free, with the exception of event-related World Alpine Ski
Championship activities.
--Continuation of private ly-ope rated valet parking program using space at Ford Park for
the storage of cars. _
--Implementation of a$2 pre-pay fee for summer parking to help manage increasing
summer traffic issues.
Overall, parking transactions were up while parking revenues were down by $255,240
last season. Sales tax was up $368,289 over last season. However, Councilmembers
noted that the bulk of the sales tax increase occurred in geographic areas other than
Vail Village and Lionshead. The valet program averaged 27 cars a day with a total of
3,901 cars parked during the season. P/ease see evening meeting briefs for additional
information.
--Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau Request for Reallocation of Council Funds
Previously Allocated to Support the AVP (pro beach volleyball) Open at Vail
The Council heard a funding request from Bill Brice of the Vail Valley Tourism &
Convention Bureau. Brice asked the Council to consider reallocating a$30,000
contribution that had been earmarked for the now-cancelled AVP pro beach volleyball
Open at Vail. His proposal included a$5,000 request to fund a July 29 kick off for the
Eagle County Fair and Rodeo to be staged in Vail, plus use of the remainder of the
funds to enhance a series of speciaf events leading up to the World Alpine Ski
Championships. Later during the meeting, the Council voted 4-2 (Foley and Navas
against) to reallocate $15,000 of the $30,000 request towards the County Fair and
Rodeo event and selected Vail 99 events; the remainder will be used to provide
. additional security during the July Fourth holiday.
--Discussion of Design Review Trigger
After reviewing a draft ordinance that was prompted by a suggestion from Councilman
Michael Arnett (who was absent from the day's discussion), Councilmembers asked
that the ordinance, which contained additional provisions, be simplified to address
Arnett's concern about undue hardships caused by the current design review trigger
which requires the paving of parking areas, placing utility service lines underground and
other expensive modifications for minor renovations and alfowing interior conversions in
multiple-family dwelling units. Arnett had proposed increasing the threshold to 500 sq.
ft. before the design review provisions are triggered. While that provision was
contained in the draft ordinance, three other sections of the code were proposed to be
amended: change type II employee housing units from a conditional use to a permitted
use, reorganizing the conditional use chapter and allowing interior GRFA conversions
for multi-family dwelling units. Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners Association
suggested the need for consideration of allowing the "250" ordinance to be expanded to
allow exterior additions on multiple-family dwelling units as an incentive to allow multi-
family structures to be renovated. Instead, Councilmembers asked that the Type II
(more)
.
.
TOV Council Highlights/6-16-98/Add 2
employee housing unit revision and Lamont's concerns be addressed separately with
only the design review trigger provisions scheduled for first reading on July 7. For
more information, contact Dominic Maurielio at 479-2148.
--Funding Proposal for August 1998 Sister Cities/Vail Valley Exchange Trip to Mt.
Buller, Australia
The Council voted 3(Armour, Ford, Kurz) to 1(Foley), with 2 abstaining (Navas and
Jewett) to appoint Councilmember Sybill Navas to join an Fagle Valley delegation that
will travel to Mt. Buller, Australia in August. The action also allocated up to $4,000 in .
Council contingency funds to help pay for the sister cities trip. Navas, who represents the Council on the Vail Valley Exchange sister cities board, said she was particularly
interested in learning more about consolidation of governments and regionalism during
the trip, as well as continuing to strengthen the employee exchange program.
Councilmember Michael Jewett, who also is involved in the Vail Valley Exchange
program, had expressed interest in joining the delegation, as well, which is why he and
Navas abstained from voting.
--Discussion of Motorola Funding/Purchase of Radios
The Council voted 5-1 (Foley against) to authorize an agreement with Motorola to insta!l
an 800 megahertz system for the dispatch center. The $800,000 proposal is $254,000 less than the "state contract" rate due to a partner sponsorship by Motorola for the 1999
World Alpine Ski Championships. The Federal Communications Commission has
given local agencies a timetable in which to convert to the 800 megahertz format.
--July Fourth Planning
After turning down a revised proposal to sponsor a concert in the Ford Amphitheater
(intended to provide an after-the-fireworks outlet for the under 21 crowd), the Council
voted 4-2 (Foley, Navas against) to spend up to $15,000 to hire additional security to
assist the Police Department over the July Fourth holiday.
--Village Core Construction Update
During an update on construction in the Village core, Larry Grafel, public
works/transportation director, indicated that all three town-related projects (Slifer Plaza,
Seibert Circle, and the Transportation Center snowmelt project) are all on schedule.
Also, effective June 15 construction hours in the Village have been tightened to reflect
increased tourism activity. Permitted hours of construction are now 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Sunday through Thursday; 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Friday; with no work allowed on
Saturdays for any projects. Also, no construction will be permitted on July 3, 4 or 5.
--Information Update
Announcements included: managed, unpaid parking was scheduled to take place at
Ford Park later that evening; the TOV employee picnic is July 31 at Ford Park; three
drivers competed in the Colorado State Bus Roadeo with Curtis King winning the transit
coach division and the mini-bus division. King now moves to the national competition in
New York City in October 1998.
(more)
TOV Council Highlights/6-16-98/Add 3
Town Manager Bob McLaurin received the go-ahead from Council to continue to probe
the possibility of refinancing the town's debt. The town's current debt service is $22.9
million. By extending the payment period and locking into a lower interest rate,
refinancing could free up between $2.5 million and $3 million between 1998 and 2005.
--Council Reports , Kevin Foley reported on the recent Liquor Board meeting which was well attended by
representatives from Vail's bars and restaurants. The overflow crowd caused Foley to
ask if better accommodations could be made in the future. Otherwise, Foley said the ,
meeting was productive in establishing a dialogue about the need for additional alcohol
awareness training. Foley also complimented the Transportation Department for the
new bus stop at Golden Peak and reported on the recent Vail Pass clean-up sponsored
by the Eagle County Trails Committee.
Ludwig Kurz reported on the annual board meeting of the Colorado Ski Museum and
reminded councilmembers of an earlier request by the museum to defer rent due to
construction impacts at the Transportation Center. As landlords of the building, the
Council agreed to defer the $650 monthly payments for June and July.
Sybill Navas said the Art In Public Places Board (AIPP) was interested in hosting a
reception for the merchants once the Jesus Moroles art pieces have been placed in
Seibert Circle.
--Other
Following up on comments earlier in the meeting by Councilmembers Michael Jewett
and Sybill Navas, the Council agreed to expand citizen input during the afternoon work
sessions, so long as the new format doesn't inhibit dialogue among the
councilmembers.
Councilmembers agreed to a concept that would provide them with modest office space
(a shared computer, file cabinet, phone and meeting space) in the Municipal Building
that would be available for access during regular business hours.
Rob Ford asked if anyone on Council would be interested in attending a regional
cooperation meeting in Summit County this week.
Following up on a constituent request, Michael Jewett inquired about the status of the
skateboard park in Lionshead. (It's open).
Kevin Foley inquired about the status of the IGA between the town and the Eagle
County Regional Transportation Authority. (It's coming).
Evening Session Briefs
Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Kurz, Navas
(more)
.
.
TOV Council Highlights/6-16-98/Add 4
--Citizen Participation
Herman Staufer, a Vail restauranteur, appeared before the Council and suggested the
town explore doing something special for visitors this summer due to the construction
impacts in Vail Village. Staufer suggested the town give away concert tickets, throw a
party or distribute flyers that would make guests feel welcome while they're here. He
compared this summer's Village construction to last summer's West Vail roundabouts
project as "open heart surgery" versus a"tooth ache."
In anticipation of the next agenda item, Vail resident Ginny Culp expressed objections _
in the way the town prepared, distributed and tabulated the annual community survey.
Culp said it was inappropriate to distribute surveys to Vail post office box holders (since
the sampling would include people who didn't necessary reside in Vail). She also
objected to including the nonresidents/nonproperty owners in the overall tabulations
and charged the town staff and Town Council members of biasing the survey questions
(and tabulations) related to affordable housing. She said the Council would be better
off monitoring the community's interests through direct phone calls and letters than a
townwide survey. In addition, Culp criticized the town for its use of citizen involvement
processes in its decision-making, calling them a waste of time and money for taxpayers
who "have to live with the consequences." She then went on to criticize specific
components of the Lionshead Master Plan process and the Common Ground process,
questioning the Council's willingness to listen to constituents. And lastly, Culp thanked
the Council and the Public Works Department for assisting her with an on-going
volunteer clean-up program.
in response, Mayor Rob Ford said the Council was elected on a housing platform--now
substantiated by the community survey-- and that Council was prepared to move ahead
with its pledge. He invited Culp to assist the town in developing future community
surveys and explained relaxation of a Council policy that had previously limited citizen
input during discussion of the Lionshead Master Plan during at a past Council work
session. Next, Vail resident Diana Donovan expressed frustration with the town staff and Council
for failure to respond or acknowledge a letter she'd presented to the Town Council at its
May 19 meeting. The letter listed 30 suggestions for using Real Estate Transfer Tax
funds in Vail, along with 30 ideas on how to fund affordable housing without using
RETT funds or open space. Later in the evening, she too, criticized preparation and
validity of the community survey.
--1998 Community Survey Results
An overall summary of the town's annual community survey was presented by Chris
Cares of RRC Associates, the Boulder-based research firm which prepared the study.
Survey respondents listed housing as the top issue facing the town, followed by
controlled growth/development and open space/environment issues. Results also
showed a slight decline in the satisfaction levels of many of the town's basic services
when compared to the 1997 survey. Ratings for building inspections and building
permit turnaround, for example, dipped from 1997 to 1988, a possible reflection of the
(more)
.
.
TOV Council Highlights/6-16-98/Add 5
departmenYs recent turnover in its staff. The "Park Free After 3" program received the
highest satisfaction rating with a score of 4.6 out of a possible 5.0. Respondents also
gave high marks for snow removal, bus service, emergency response by the Fire
Department and an overall feeling of safety and security within Vail. An explosion in
Internet access was also documented by the survey, as well as increased use of
properties owned by second homeowners. During discussion, Councilmember Michael
Jewett, referring to a slight decline in library ratings, said the town needs to fund more
Internet stations at the library to reduce frustrations. For a copy of the survey report,
call the Community Information Office at 479-2115.
--Discussion of Parking Program for the 1998/1999 Ski Season
Although a final decision isn't scheduled until July 7, the Council reviewed and offered
reaction to a series of recommendations on parking programs for the 1998/1999 ski
season (please see work session briefs for an overview of the recommendations). This,
after hearing from 10 citizens, most of whom encouraged Council to continue the Park
Free After 3 Program. A proposal for summer parking fees was immediately nixed by
the Council. Support for continuation of the Free After 3 program varied with Sybill
Navas and Michael Jewett expressing support. Kevin Foley suggested starting free
parking at 4 p.m. Bob Armour, Ludwig Kurz and Rob Ford each expressed concerns
about how much subsidy the town should provide given other town needs and
expressed disappointment in the lack of program's promotion by the business
community. Councilmembers also expressed concern about a recommendation to
restrict blue and value pass-holders from accessing the Village parking structure from
November to March (to accommodate activities associated with the World Alpine Ski
Championships). Instead, Councilmembers asked for additional flexibility for those
pass-holders. Also, Council directed staff to explore a modest increase in the daily
parking rates to help offset the free parking program. Prior to sharing their thoughts,
Councilmembers first heard from members of the audience: Lew Meskimen expressed
concerns about employee hardships that would be created by blue and value pass
restrictions in the Village parking structure. He a{so suggested the town be reimbursed
for a portion of parking fees collected by the private ly-ope rated valet service. Jack
Curtin of Curtin-Hill Sports said the Park Free After 3 program contributed to an
increase in his store sales last year. He encouraged the Council to continue the
program and suggested using business license fees, parking pay-in-lieu funds or some
other business-generated fund to make up the shortfall. Representing the Vail Village
Merchant Association, Kaye Ferry also encouraged Council to stay the course on Park
Free After 3, noting the program helps retain employees who might otherwise choose to
work downvalley. Ferry, also said the recommendation to restrict blue and value passes
from November through March was unacceptable. Rod Slifer of the Vail Village
Commercial Property Owners Association encouraged continuation of Free After 3,
noting it received the highest satisfaction rating in the community survey. Slifer also
said a$2 fee for summer parking would be a mistake; he humorously suggested the
town instead consider paying people to park in the structure this summer given the
construction impacts. Next, Nancy Rondeau, a Vail host, urged the Council to retain
local drop-off access at Golden Peak. Last season, she said the area was used nearly
exclusively by the valet parking service and those who attempted to use the public
(more)
s
w~ •
~
TOV Council Highlights/6-16-98/Add 6
drop-off weren't made to feel very welcome. Joe Staufer, a longtime businessman, also
expressed support for park Free After 3; he wondered how businesses might have
survived last season if the program hadn't been in place. Joe also suggested asking for
a subsidy contribution from Adventure Ridge. Herman Staufer added another voice of
support for Park Free After 3's continuation, saying the program has worked well and
was worthy of town subsidy. Staufer said waiting until 5 p.m. for free parking would
cause a hardship for employees. He also advised against summer parking fees. Also
weighing in on the issue was businessman George Knox who suggested a status quo approach, as well as businessman Ron Riley who expressed disappointment that many
businesses seemed to take the Free After 3 program forgranted last season and failed
to market the program. Riley suggested additional efforts to study the correlation
between free parking and increased sales. The last to speak from the public was
restaurateur Michael Staughton who expressed concerns about recommended
restrictions on blue and value passes. The discussion will continue at the July 7
evening meeting.
--Resolution No. 6, Library Desposit Transactions
In a housekeeping measure, the Council voted 6-0 to approve a resolution that
authorizes certain employees to handle check deposits for library transactions.
UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS
June 23 Work Session
PEC/DRB Review
Mtn. Haus Request to Proceed through Planning Process
Appeal of PEC Decision re: Slifer Variance Denial
Discussion of Business License Fee by "Vail First"
Discussion of Ordinance No. 7, RV Parking
Lionshead Employee Generation
Lionshead Master Plan
June 30 Specia/ Evening Town Council Meeting, 7 p.m.
Common Grounds Conclusion
Ju/y 7 Work Session
DRB Review
Lionshead Master Plan Discussion
Discussion of Ordinance #9, re: SDD #22
Discussion of Marketing Bill
Ju/y 7 Evening Meeting
First Reading, Ordinance #9, re: SDD #22
First Reading, Ordinance #10, re: Design Review Trigger
First Reading, Ordinance, re: Model Traffic Code
Marketing Presentation by Frank Johnson
Parking Discussion
Lionshead Master Plan
# # #
,
u
/y
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2I57
FOR IMMEDIATE REl.EASE
June 17, 1998 .
Contact: Andy Knudtsen, Project Manager, 479-2440
Bob McLaurin, Vail Town Manager, 479-2105 or
Rob Ford, Vail Mayor, 479-1880
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMEIVT PROCESS PROVIDES DIRECTlON FOR
SITE, FUNDiNG PLAN FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, OPEN SPACE,
PARKS AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
PLAN AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AS VAIL'S
COMMON GROUND PROCESS NEARS FINAL STAGE
(Vail)--A phased site plan that would add 130 acres of open space, four new parks,
plus eight for-sale housing developments, four seasonal housing developments as well
as three sites for community facilities has emerged as the citizen-driven preferred plan
to address Vail's unmet needs. The recommended community site plan, along with a
$10.5 miflion draft funding package, is based on consistencies expressed through the
Common Ground citizen involvement process which was launched by the Vail Town
Council in April.
The preferred plan reflects elements from five alternative siting packages which were
presented during public workshops on June 3 and 4. Vail Town Council members and
town planners will now spend the next two weeks gathering public reaction to the
recommended plan before final consideration on June 30. An open house will be held
from 5 to 7 p.m. next Thursday (6-25) in the Vail Town Council Chambers to present an
(more)
C~ RECYCLEDPAPER
Preferred Plan/Add 1
overview of the preferred plan, field questions and record public comments. Also,
response forms will be published in the local newspapers to encourage feedback.
The preferred plan responds to community concerns and desires expressed
throughout the process, said Andy Knudtsen, Common Ground project manager. _
"While the recommended plan may not please everyone, we've been pleasantly
surprised by the consensus reached by people at the workshops when it comes to
location and neighborhood equity issues. This has enabled the preferred alternative to
fall into place," he said. More than 1,000 people have left their mark on the Common
Ground process either by filling out the Town of Vail community survey or by
participating in the public workshops. "The community brainstorming has been
invaluable," Knudtsen said. "It made our jobs easier because we haven't had to second
guess community needs or concerns."
SITING PACKAGE .
The recommended site plan calls for three phases over the next eight years,
according to Knudtsen. The most concentrated actions would occur during phase one.
Phase I 1998-1999
Recommended actions include developing two parks: a portion of the fower bench of
Donovan Park and a portion of a site in West Vail near the intersection of Arosa Dr.,
Garmisch and Chamonix. Five sites totaling 35 acres would be acquired or set-aside
for open space: a parcel known as the L. Ladner site north of Cortina in West Vail; the
Booth Creek stream tract; the Lionshead stream tract; a parcel in Potato Patch; and the
East Vail water tank site located east of Snowshoe Lane. Seven housing actions are
recommended: a 50 bed for-sale development on Tract C, east of Vail Mountain School
on Katsos Ranch Rd.; a 20-bed for-sale development on a portion of the site in West
Vail near the intersection of Arosa Dr., Garmisch and Chamonix; a 140-bed seasonal
development on the southern perimeter of the Lionshead parking structure; a 250 to
480-bed seasonal development on a portion of the lower bench of Donovan Park;
"buy-downs" of 30 existing beds, plus acquisition of the privately-owned Timber Ridge
housing development and the undeveloped Hud Wirth site north of the Texaco station
by the West Vail exit. Phase one would add between 490 and 720 beds to Vail's
(more)
.
Preferred Plan/Add 2
deed-restricted housing inventory, in addition to the park and open space amenities.
Also recommended in phase one is a plan to set aside the following sites for yet-to-be
planned community facilities: the Golf Course Clubhouse; the charter bus lot east of
the Lionshead parking structure; and the top deck of the Lionshead parking structure.
Phase II 2000-2002
Two more pocket parks would be added during phase two: a four-acre portion at the
west end of a site known as Tract A between Bald Mountain Rd. and I-70; and a
one-acre portion of the middle bench of Donovan Park. More than 80 acres of open
space would be acquired and/or designated: a five-acre portion in the middle of Tract A, a site between Bald Mountain Rd. and I-70; the Kara Butell property located south of
Nugget Lane in East Vail totaling 46 acres; and 30 acres of the upper bench of
Donovan Park. Six housing actions are recommended: a 75-bed for-sale
development on the eastern side of Tract A between Bald Mountain Rd. and I-70; a
30-bed for-sale development at the dog leg on the upper bench of Donovan Park; a 30-
bed for-sale development on approximately half of the middle bench of Donovan Park;
a 100-bed for-sale development on the Hud Wirth property north of the Texaco station
by the West Vail exit; an increase of 160 to 700 beds with the redevelopment of the
existing Timber Ridge site for seasonal housing; plus "buy-downs" of 30
existing beds. Phase two would add between 432 and 972 beds, in addition to the park -
and open space amenities.
Phase III 2003-2006
Phase three would add a ninth open space parcel to the town's inventory: a 14 acre
parcel at the eastern end of Snowberry in the Intermountain neighborhood. Five
housing actions are recommended: a 20-bed for-sale development at the water
treatment plant in East Vail; a 70-bed for-sale development on the Mountain Bell site
located north of the Main Vail exit and east of the Mountain Bell tower; a 15-bed
for-sale development on a parcel of land west of Stephens Park in the Intermountain
neighborhood; a 60-bed seasonal housing development at the old town shops site
located between the sewer plant and gas station; and "buy-downs" of 30 existing beds.
Phase three would add 195 beds to Vail's deed-restricted inventory.
Knudtsen said the site plan reflects nine recurring community themes which were
heard through the community involvement process:
Provide amenities in the development program to improve the neighborhood
quality. In three of the eight potential for-sale housing developments and in one
of the seasonal ones, parks are proposed to be developed in conjunction with
the housing.
Balance the acquisition of the open space parcels with the development of
housing in each part of Town.
Tackle more expensive projects first since interest rates are low and acquisition
costs only increase with time. The Town also has the opportunity to immediately
capitalize on one-time sources of revenue, which received favorable response
(more)
.
Preferred Plan/Add 3
during the June 3 and 4 public workshops. In future years, cash flow from
housing developments may defray costs for future, less expensive housing
projects.
Where possible, shift housing type from seasonat to for-sale. For example,
the information presented during the June workshops listed Mountain Bell
and Hud Wirth as both seasonal and for-sale in various alternatives. _ Response indicates the community prefers for-sale developments. This was
further substantiated in the pros and cons done by each table in analyzing the
five alternatives. -
Reduce density on the for-sale sites in response to community concerns, providing density which is appropriate to the neighborhood context.
To the extent possible, include projects from eastern and western portions
of Vail in each phase. Based on the workshop results, most all parts of Vail will
be affected.
To the extent possible, include a mix of seasonal and for sale projects in each
phase.
To the extent possible, include buy-downs as a vehicle for providing affordable
housing.
There are four sites recommended by participants for seasonal use (Timber
Ridge, Lower Bench, Lionshead Structure, Old Town Shops). The community
has suggested getting the best "bang for the buck" by increasing densities on
these specific sites (while expressing concern about too much density on the
for-sale sites).
Because of concerns expressed through the Common Ground process, one site, the
Village parking structure, has been eliminated as a housing component in the preferred
siting plan. This was due to the high cost associated with construction given the
number of beds that could be created, resulting in a subsidy of $1.3 million, Kundtsen
said. The site could remain an option in the future, he said, should outside sources
wish to pursue it.
FUNDING PACKAGE
The $10.5 million preferred funding package also reflects consistencies heard during
the process, which inciuded support for existing revenues, but no new taxes, Knudtsen
said. Of the 17 different funding sources considered at the June 3 and 4 workshops,
people selected eight of them as viable options. In order of preference, the eight
(more)
Preferred Plan/Add 4
recommended sources are: use of proceeds from the sale of land exchange properties; use proceeds from refinancing the town's debt; sell two parcels of town-
owned land (due to lack of public benefit); use funding from the Real Estate Transfer
Tax (RETT); use existing revenues from the housing fund; create partnerships with the
private sector; use funding from the business license fee should a permanent funding
source for marketing win voter approval in November; create an employee generation
requirement.
Knudtsen said the preferred funding package uses five of the eight sources listed
above and anticipates partnering with the private sector when appropriate. It does not
anticipate using any funds currently associated with marketing. The package includes
use of a portion of the Real Estate Transfer Tax fund (RETT) far housing. The
recommendation is to use funds previously earmarked to retire the golf course debt
which expires in 1999 ($340,000 per year), plus an additional $160,000 per year for an
annual total of $500,000. This represents 25 percent of the $2 million annual RETT
budget. This recommendation would require a vote by the Vail Town Council to use
RETT funds for uses other than parks and open space.
The recommended funding package is as follows:
Phase 1 1998-1999
Use proceeds from the sale of two land exchange properties, $2.5 million; proceeds
from the sale of two town-owned sites on Willow Way and Beaver Dam Road, $2.2
million; plus $300,000 per year from the Town of Vail housing fund (set aside from the
capital budget).
Phase II 2000-2002
Use the first three of six annual payments to the Town of approximately $500,000
generated from refinancing the Town debt, plus use $500,000 per year from the retired
golf course debt from the Real Estate Transfer Tax (requires a Town Council vote to
use RETT funds for uses other than parks and open space) and $300,000 per year
(more)
Preferred Plan/Add 5
from the town's housing fund (set aside from the capital budget).
Phase ill 2003-2006
Use $500,000 per year from the retired golf course debt plus an additional portion from
the Real Estate Transfer Tax (requires a Town Council vote to use RETT funds for uses
other than parks and open space) and $300,000 per year from the town's housing fund
(set aside from the capital budget).
Knudtsen said the funding and siting packages are based on the following
commitments from the town:
The Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) fund would be reimbursed for the two
parcels under consideration which have been purchased with RETT funds in the
past. The two parcels are Donovan Park and the East Vail water treatment site.
The capital fund has already reimbursed RETT for another parcel, the West Vail
site near the intersection of Arosa, Garmisch and Chamonix, which had been
purchased with RETT.
For-sale housing would be deed restricted, requiring owner-occupancy. No
absentee landlords would be allowed. Additional restrictions require full-time
employment at an Eagle County business. Resale value would be capped at a
maximum of a 3% annual increase. Sales prices would range from the $130's
for a two-bedroom to the $170's for a three-bedroom.
Seasonal housing would also be deed restricted, but would be rented. The
current model for this type of development is a 4-to 5-bedroom suite-style unit
made up of small bedrooms, a kitchen, living area, and a couple of bathrooms in
each unit. On-site facilities would include storage, workrooms, laundry and a
recreation room.
The Town would not be a housing landlord.
An outside management company would run the rental projects. It is very
important to the community that the seasonal properties be tightly managed.
Standards for design and landscaping would be developed and enforced.
Aesthetics are key.
In commenting on the process and the plan which will result, Vail Mayor Rob
Ford said, "This has been an open and fair process that has allowed everybody
who was really interested in these issues to roll up their sleeves and work with each
(more)
i
Preferred Plan/Add 6
other, Vail Council members and staff to come up with a plan that's best for this
community. The Town Council intends to honor what we heard through this process."
Ford said the goal of the process has been to build a world-class community. "Vail's
been a world-class resort for years. It's about time we also become a world-class
" community, and to do that you have to have people able to live here, and to have the
amenities that come with premier communities."
"We believe this is a reasonable and responsible way to create a great community.
We know it's going to be tough for some people to deal with the changes
recommended, but I truly believe that the direction people have given us through this
process and the plan that will resulf is best for the long-term future of the community."
For more information about the Common Ground process, contact Knudtsen at
479-2440.
# # #
.
' Sheetl
,
First Phase Housing costs sp7costs
199&1999
Parks Portion of Lower Bench 3- 4 acres Portion of West Vaii 3.5 acres Open Space L. Ladner 7.5 acres $40,000
Booth Creek Stream Tract 2 acres $0
Lionshead Stream Tract 3.5 acres $0
Potato Patch Open Space 15 acres $0
East Vail Water Tank 6.8 acres $0
$475,000
Housing Tract C sale east , 50 beds $750,000
West Vail sale west 20 beds $100,000
Lionshead seasonal cenVal 140 beds $0
Lower Bench seasonal west 250 - 480 beds $3,000,000
buy-downs 10 beds $440,000
490 - 720 beds
Acquisitions acquire Timber Ridge $75,000
acquire Hud Wirth $1,200,000
$4,965,000
Second Phase
2000 - 2002
Parks Tract A- West 4 acres $250,000
Portion of Middle Bench 1 acres $110,000
Open Space Tract A- Middle 5 acres $0
Kara Butell 46 acres $400,000
Upper Bench 30 acres $0
$760,000
Housing Tract A- East sale east 75 beds $0
Middle plus Dog Leg of upper sale west 60 beds $420,000
- , Hud Wirth sale west 100 beds $0
Timber Ridge seasonal west 160-700 beds $3,000,000
Buy Downs sale dispersed 30 beds $440,000
425 - 965 beds $3,860,000
Third Phase
2003 - 2006
Parks none $p
Open Space Snowberry 13.9 acres $135,000
$135,000
Housing Water Treatment sale east 20 beds $330,000
Mountain Bell sale central 70 beds $600,000
Intermountain sale west 15 beds $75,000
Old Town Shops seasonal central 60 beds $250,000
Buy Downs sale dispersed _30 beds $440,000
195 beds $1,695,000
Page 1
- " •;s rf:4a , r.
From: Robert LeVne To: Bob McLaurin Dale: 6/18/98 Time: 6:45:24 PM 'yPage 1 of 1
LIQNSHEAD MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION
c/o Montauk 549 W. Lionshead Circle Vail, CO 81657 476-2601 To: All Lionshead Merchants
From: Gary Boris, EI Jefe
Date: 6/17/98 One Page .
.
Lionshead Merchants m ` ' eetin g
Wednesday, June 24 --10:40 AM
Montauk. Seafood Restaurant & Fine
Dining Establishment Tentative Agenda .
1. Jammin' Jazz Nights Advertising Opportunity
2. Rodeo Kickoff in Lionshead {the running of the Bulls?}
3. Feedback on THE GUIDE
4. Lionshead 2000
5. The Crisis in Kosovo . 6. Campaign Reform
7. Tobacco Legislation .
8. Anything else you want to talk about (this is probably the most important item)
Until then,
Gary
~
Printed by Pam Brandmeyer 6/18/98 5:47pm
From: Pam Brandmeyer'
To: Pam B yer
Su}aj ect : COMMON GROUND XC•
Hello Council members! G
A gentle reminder that we have
scheduled an OPEN HOUSE re: Common
Ground this coming Thursday, June 25th,
from 5:00 - 7:00 P.M. in the Council
Chambers. Hope to see you all there!
Thariks.
Page: 1
4k
June 19, 1998
Dear Council Members, .
Here are the official petitions for the ArosalGarmisch property as
well as the Hud Wirth property in West Vail. More signatures will
be forthcoming.
Please do not ignore the people who already live here.
PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose the building of any housing on the town-owned West Vail property
adjacent to the town manager's house, for the following reasons:
• The narrow hillside roads of the neighborhood can not safely accommodate any increase in auto or
pedestrian traffic.
• This is the onlv space that can serve as a park or natural space for this fuiiy developed neighborhood.
Compared to what the town has provided other neighborhoods, a small pocket park surrounded by new
housing is not adequate or fair to this locals neighborhood. The entire parcel should remain open.
• This site is heavily used and valuable as a centrally located natural dog-walking area. It reduces fouling
of the very popular Davos hiking trail and private yards.
" • The centrai and hiliside location of this site make it very visibte, and development would create high
visual impact.
We believe the town council can come up with other creative ways to increase the number of locals and
employees living in Vail. We urge them to do so, instead of sacrificing the integrity of the existing locals
ne'ghborhoods that are still well-balanced and livable enough to be desirable to permanent residents.
J , 1998.
:':......`:::'~:~:::~;.::::;;::;;::;::;22:::::::;:?'::::;;::;;;::..:;:;::.::::;::::::::;:;:::::::::;;::2~~:~:~`~':~~~::
~ ~aC~R~ ..:::::::.::R.. E
.
Z-ozo /ense p----------------------- ~ ~
9kA ,I J _4_4 1'~a ~ ~ A, Sc~i ~e. ~ d ~
y Y1.7 Va
#Lt4 ~
a ~ - ~ /45
zl
.~L~ 79
?v(trs m~
YZ-31 y3
, .
~ tle
~ (A-4 ~-~A-~L&4i 5CF) YL)
~ .
a,~,~~ 2~~ ~W~uo1~~X UM L
t y~ n
Z~01
~
~ PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose the building of any housing on the town-owned West Vail property
adjacent to the town manager's house, for the following reasons:
• The narrow hillside roads of the neighborhood can not safely accommodate any increase in auto or
pedestrian traH'ic.
* This is the onlv space that can serve as a park or natural space for this fully developed neighborhood.
Compared to what the town has provided other neighborhoods, a small pocket park surrounded by new
housing is not adequate or fair to this locals neighborhood. The entire parcel should remain open. ~
, • This site is heavily used and valuable as a centrally located natural dog-walking.area. It reduces fouling
of the very popular Davos hiking trail and private yards.
• The central and hillside location of this site make it very visible, and development would create high ~
visual impact. ~
We believe the town council can come up with other creative ways to increase the number of locals and
employees living in Vail. We urge them to do so, instead of sacrificing the integrity of the existing locals
neighborhoods that are still well-balanced and livable enough to be desirable to permanent residents.
June, 1998.
5I. . : AT . :<:.<.
Nt~t~~.. ..~A~Vl~~ ;::~I~E
, . , . . . . : . :
.
p/eose print
•
r1 ~.~°o
, Zy47
~
~ ~ - ~ ~r~ ~rG~. ~ ~ v~~ L?~, Z ~J7~
r ~
%
44~ - ~s-~
J /1(/ li~.'~(.'~~~ ~Iv' ~ (
7
I T(3
Alo 7
Z7o z ~J. C~o~-7r•ua ~v - s~ 3 7
~ PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose the building of any housing on the town-owned West Vail property
adjacent to the town manager's house, for the following reasons:
• The narrow hillside roads of the neighborhood can not safely accommodate any increase in auto or
pedestrian tra.ffic.
• This is the onlv space that can serve as a park or natural space for this fully developed neighborhood.
Compared to what the town has provided other neighborhoods, a small pocket park surrounded by new
housing is not adequate or fair to this locals neighborhood. The entire parcel should remain open.
• This site is heavily used and valuable as a centrally located natural dog-walking area. It reduces fouling
of the very popular Davos hiking trail and private yards. .
• The central and hillside location of this site make it very visible, and development would create high
visual impact. - ~
We believe the town council can come up with other creative ways to increase the number of locals and
employees living in Vail. We urge them to do so, instead of sacrificing the integrity of the existing locals
neighborhoods that are still well-balanced and livable enough to be desirable to permanent residents.
June, 1998.
~IG<,;.::~;::.:~ R ::>:::<:::<:'::::;:::>::::::::;:::'::<::::., ::::::<::::::::::::>::::::>«>:«<:>:<?>::'::::::>:::<::':;<>;::>::>
N..... E. ;~4#~R~~~`r"~ I~fE
.
_ . .<:::::.::.._::..::.::::.::::<::.
.
p/eose print-------------------- --/y
, J .
,
f. i1 ~ ?~:~~.~~-li~ 1 17-76.?
V
i .
J c^ C;`. 1`Ll.k lrl
tA /
~
~'I
`t
~ ?
eL e.
. ~ . f - ~ ~
Vt ! } - (
f
i
~c-; ,~i6c i, _,j•.c.F
~
~ PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose the building of any housing on the town-owned West Vail property
adjacent to the town manager's house, for the following reasons:
• The narrow hillside roads of the neighborhood can not safely accommodate any increase in auto or
pedestrian traffic.
• This is the onlv space that can serve as a park or natural space for this fully developed neighborhood.
Compared to what the town has provided other neighborhoods, a sma11 pocket park surrounded by new
housing is not adequate or fair to this locals neighborhood. The entire parcel should remain open.
• This site is heavily used and valuable as a centrally located natural dog-walking area. It reduces fouling
of the very popular Davos hiking trail and private yards.
• The central and hillside location of this site make it very visible, and development would create high
visual impact. '
We believe the town council can come up with other creative ways to increase the number of locals and
employees living in Vail. We urge them to do so, instead of sacrificing the integrity of the existing locals
neighborhoods that are still well-balanced and livable enough to be desirable to permanent residents.
June, 1998.
a~I~~::~:*`'~ ~~2:~::~ E ::;;:?~:~::;;;;::::::::::;~:;::~:.:.;:.~:::2:`:~.;:`: ~i:::::::;:?::;:;::~~;:~~;~:;:.~ ;:::.:~~~~:::::::;;:::::i~:;:::::::<:~
..~1`V.~~~_ . #~i
p/ease print--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cJ ..j,.rn 7 1I/Y~!a/K/K
7 A
G ~ ~ ~ ~;~%~~~t ~ e' ~1. ~ -l~ `~•1
~
CD Lz~~ Q~cAtlv t_M*~
&0!,j_J.JA\ LAA; i~ 7
~~t,~r.fc~cJL ~rc(~ •~'cc.~Ne~ii`o~ Z,G 2, ~ ~Da r«v~ C~a~F ~1`~`7(, -069Y
rl I 1 96) ~ ~ ~~i- ~1 I
~
,
~ PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose the building of any housing on the town-owned West Vail property
adjacent to the town manager's house, for the following reasons:
• The nanow hillside roads of the neighborhood can not safely accommodate any increase in auto or
pedestrian traffic.
• This is the onlv space that can serve as a park or natural space for this fully developed neighborhood.
Compared to what the town has provided other neighborhoods, a small pocket park surrounded by new
housing is not adequate or fair to this locals neighborhood. The entire parcel should remain open.
• This site is heavily used and valuable as a centrally located natural dog-walking area. It reduces fouling
of the very popular Davos hiking trail and private yards.
• The central and hillside location of this'site make it very visible, and development would create high
visual impact. ~
We believe the town council can come up with other creative ways to increase the number of locals and
employees living in Vail. We urge them to do so, instead of sacrificing the integrity of the existing locals
neighborhoods that are still well-balanced and livable enough to be desirable to permanent residents.
June, 1998.
:>::::::'::>:<::««::<:::«:>«::<:>::»:<:::~:::<:''::;<:
~Am~......... f~,:::>:;:>;;:.;:.;:.;;.;.;:.
, .
p/ease print--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~ A ~
L.,( ~ -~41
~
~
00
f
/ 7
r ~
t1N Rrelns ~ ~ Aif, ~
~..7,72-
_i U,~ 1} o, j 1,
- ,
r
c
l_77 -
- ~ ~
PETITION We, the undersigned, oppose the building of any housing on the town-owned West Vail property
adjacent to the town manager's house, for the following reasons:
• The narrow hillside roads of the neighborhood can not safely accommodate any increase in auto or
pedestrian traffic.
• This is the onlv space that can serve as a park or natural space for this fully developed neighborhood.
Compared to what the town has provided other neighborhoods, a small pocket park surrounded by new
housing is not adequate or fair to this locals neighborhood. The entire parcel should remain open.
• This site is heavily used and valuable as a centrally located natural dog-walking area. It reduces fouling
of the very popular Davos hiking trail and private yards. _
• The central and hillside location of this site make it very visible, and development would create high
visual impact.
We believe the town council can come up with other creative ways to increase the number of locals and
employees living in Vail. We urge them to do so, instead of sacrificing the integrity of the existing locals
neighborhoods that are still well-balanced and livable enough to be desirable to permanent residents.
June, 1998.
~IGI~~T' i~
. . .
: . . .
,
please print--------------------------------------------------
r
~~'1 61- e,& v, NC
-57 7~S
6 0/2
l~ L()c7) 4
t~
~
2"( Y C,eAe.,.,• 1/l'( c`rlc Nwx, Di•
`il~~~`=,-._. - ~ ~ ,~•L ~/~.'~v ~`~~S~r~ > j O;S ~ ~'o ;`X Oc 1l ~ ' r'~
c~ + _ ( ? " ~
4- c.
v
j:2'fN-!~'C/`'~;~%~//,?H, 24L L L) L't'M <<,c51-. l~411 LI7(La,_'7z
-
,2 s/ d4-,P'C 41A ''11s 4 ~1e
~
. PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose the building of any housing on the town-owned West Vail property .
adjacent to the town manager's house, for the following reasons: ~
• The narrow hillside roads of the neighborhood can not safely accommodate any increase in auto or
pedestrian traffic.
• This is the onlv space that can serve as a park or natural space for this fully developed neighborhood.
Compared to what the town has provided other neighborhoods, a small pocket park surrounded by new
housing is not adequate or fair to this locals neighborhood. The entire parcel should remain open.
• This site is heavily used and valuable as a centrally located natural dog-walking area. It reduces fouling
of the very popular Davos hiking trail and private yards.
• The central and hillside location of this site make it very visible, and development would create high
visual impact.
We believe the town council can come up with other creative ways to increase the number of locals and
employees living in Vail. We urge them to do so, instead of sacrificing the integrity of the existing locals
neighborhoods that are still well-balanced and livable enough to be desirable to permanent residents.
June, 1998.
~ICNi~T~ ;'::::::><:::::::>:::::<':<>::>::<::::>::::<:.<,.,.t.,`,`<;::::::>::'::'::<<::?:>>:>;»<:>::'>;>::::;>~'`:':::
: f~E
,
' i P/eose print--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`
~ , . Z N ~J i C~1b S
,
'ir~Lt_' f_L 76 36,4-
~ A P1< Kis %N 5'iti rt it
k ~ L 6 ~j ~1 ~o5p ? A V,4'~ ~ - ~~z~
. ~ PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose the building of any housing on the town-owned West Vail property
adjacent to the town manager's house, for the following reasons:
• The narrow hillside roads of the neighborhood can not safely accommodate any increase in auto or
pedestrian traffic.
• This is the onlv space that can serve as a park or natural space for this fully developed neighborhood.
Compared to what the town has provided other neighborhoods, a small pocket park surrounded by new
housing is not adequate or fair to this locals neighborhood. The entire parcel should remain open. ~
_ • This site is heavily used and valuable as a centrally located natural dog-walking area. It reduces fouling
of the very popular Davos hiking trail and private yards.
• The central and hiliside location of this site make it very visible, and development would create high ,
visual impact.
We believe the town council can come up with other creative ways to increase the number of locals and
employees living in Vail. We urge them to do so, instead of sacrificing the integrity of the existing locals
neighborhoods that are still well-balanced and Iivable enough to be desirable to permanent residents.
June, 1998.
A::::;;::.;: .>':~::>:::::<::>:::::>:::::'>:s:::::::::::::::::~«:>::>:::::::~:A:<;~::_:>~:::; >::::::::::::>::>::::.:>:?:::::;::>::;>:?:<::>'~::>>:<:>::~:::::::?>~
..I'7.~~~ ~ 27.~ . ....::.>:.::.s:.: ~ . >
. .::...........:...........::,.:.::::::::...........:::::::::.::::.:::.:..:.........:.....:::::......~...............................i:i::i.:....::;:.:..:::::::::~
. _ :
. . . .
p/ease print--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ •?c)/}'~ii 5c' ~C OC g
~
. ~
?ytR~~ , G g ,q c~. cc~ 2s
h
~
sce
,C' z~,~ f~7c~~ i Lo~-,.?-,.~-- ~ S.?-7 /~,zsz •-3 Vsi
~
PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose the bufldmg of any housmg on the town-owned West Vatl property ,
adjacent to the town manager's house, for the following reasons:
: The nanow iullside roads of the neighborhoad can not safely accommodate any increase in auto or
pedestrian traffic.
s This is the ontv space that r„-m serve as a park or na!ural space for this fully developed r.eighborhoad.
Compared to what the town has provided other neighborhoods, a small pocket park surrounded by new
housing is not adequate or fair to this locals neighborhood. The entire parcel should remain open.
• This site is heavily used and valuable as a centrally located.natural dog-walking area. It reduces fouling
of the very popular Davos hiking trail and private yards. ,
• The central and hillside location of this site make it very visible, and development would create high
visual impact.
We believe the town council can come up with other creative ways to increase the number of loeals and ~
employees living in Vail. We urge them to do so, instead of sacrificing the integrityo uf the existing locals
nei-hborhoods that are still well-balanced and livable enough to be desirable to permanent residents.
3une, 1998.
::>:::::<_:;<::.>.;:.:;;:.::::.::.:;.;;;;>;;;.:;:.;;:;
:<::<' <';::P
:::::<:::::>:><::>:::»::>::::>::::>
:::>::»<>:;>:<::: . .
~I~~1hT{11~ :»>:<::>:::»<:>::::>::::>::>::::::::-> = :<:»<:: ~:>~~lt~ ,A~~R~... : . .
_
p/ease print--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~ ~ mlm <
~
i'V `Jl..'`~ U
~ 4' " - ~
A/'1,~~' 1~~~~' ~ ~~,1~'rr` 1.; ; ~7~" '
LL., f ~ 3 i lf 76
~ r
~
C~,~~
6 ~
~e7
? ~ ~ ~ ~-~'Zi
v1` y 47L"
V-\
a
,
. ~ PETTTION
We, the undersigned, oppose the building of any housing on the town-owned West Vail property ,
adjacent to the town manager's house, for the following reasons:
• The narrow hillside roads of the neig;nborhood can not safely accommodate any increace in auto ur
pedestrian traffic.
• This is the onlv space that can serve as a pazk or naturai space for this fully developed neighborhood.
Compared to what the town has provided other neighborhoods, a small pocket park surrounded by new
housing is not adequate or fair to this 1ocals neighborhood. The entire parcel should remain open.
• This site is heavily used and valuable as a centrally located.natural dog-walking area. It reduces fouling
of the very popular Davos hiking trail ax:d private yards.
• The central and hillside location of this site make it very visible, and development would create high
visual impact.
We believe the town council can come up with other creative ways to increase the number of locals and- ~
employees living in Vail. We urge them to do so, instead of sacrificing the integrity of the existing locals
r.eighborhoods that are still well-balanced and livable enough to be desirable to permanent residents.
7une. 1998.
. .
. . . . . . . . . . .
::::>>::>::;>::>::<<:>::>;;>:::::>;::::~>::>:::
:E
~
~i~l~~ . .;.,q... _ »:>;:::>:<:::'.:.::;:'::<:. :
....~...........................:::::::.~~~.;:.;:;.;:::::.;::;;.>~:.:;:<::::::.~.:.;....G~~.:::..'~.~...:::::::.:..:::::::::::.:........
.
p/ease p7int---------------------------------------7 ---i-----------------------------------
N
~ :1 ~ ~N~~
`
r,CY
~
L ~ U~
f~,m?J+
Yi-
` A
~
100,
~
t l-+7
s -s- J u ' ~ q
C CaX ` c`1 iC ~
%+--o N~ x L ~i ~116-qK
.
G t--` 6 o Cc_ P+1.,' #;(Lc L K Gt rno N , x
l
/
PETITION
We, the undersigned, oppose the building of any housing on the town-owned West Vail property
adjacent to the town manager's house, for the following reasons:
• The narrow hillside roads of the neighborhood can not safely accommodate any increase in auto or
pedastrian traffic.
s This is the onlv space that can serve as a park or natural space for this fully developed neighborhood.
Compared to what the town has provided other neighborhoods, a small pocket park surrounded by new
housing is not adequate or fair to this locals neighborhood. The entire parcel should remain open.
• This site is heavily used and valuable as a centrally located.natural dog-walking area. It reduces fouling
of the very pupular Davos hiking trail and private yards.
• The central and hillside location of this site make it very visible, and development would create high
visual impact. ~
We believe the town council can come up with other creative ways to increase the number of locals and '
employees living in Vail. We urge them to do so, instead of sacrificing the integrity of the existing locals
neighborhoods that are still well-balanced and livable enough to be desirable to permanent residents.
June, 1998.
. ; ; ; : . ; : . ; : . ; ; : . > ; : . . ; :
' 1~lE
~
~::.M~:.:
p/ease print--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i'
~ 4,~ 6~~~ C' 1 .4~v~ X ti ~ - ~a
~ ~ f .
-~4
~ e~ ~ MAM M ' l I e-r? -d-lo qS q • / ~(3 -;I. _
f
Petition to the Vail Town Council
Spring 1998
We, Vail residents, prefer that the West Vail parcel referred to as Hud
Wirth remain as open space or at its present zoning of primary- _ secondary status, which was assigned to this land for years.
Under no circumstances should this land become high density. If ,
housing needs to be built on it, the zoning should be consistent with the
adjacent homes, which are single family, primary/secondary.
Signature Name Address Phone
7~101-lh Se~iei~-e I e 1'
. ~
-
~ .2 ZI 61
,
~
~
~~~G~.~.~iy~~ ~ 7r5 ~Cc ? rv~ cs c l r - V ~.li,~ ~l 7~ ' ~ ~ l 3
l ~ ~ ~-~ory
( < < 4A01 ~ ~Jq 16 - ~ ece 2Y4or z/_'ir c. 1-~ / L.
~ ~ ~C ~ C ~ ~-~c'Gti~i X~-~? '~ov~ ~
~
~
r` . ;,7"~TvIf`u.
1-702 /.v • Co~e~, ~ ~ ~7l - 3 7
Petition to the Vail Town Council
Spring 1998
We, Vail residents, prefer that the West Vail parcel referred to as Hud
Wirth remain as open space or at its present zoning of primary-
secondary status, which was assigned to this land for years.
Under no circumstances should this land become high density. If .
housing needs to be built on it, the zoning should be consistent with the
adjacent homes, which are single family, primary/secondary.
Signature Name Address Phone
~ Z4, 2, s E' f, 17 v c..
4`7 Lc: C~ t~ v
2ZI-~~
; ~21 77
n
~ s
."YI
~ / ~ ~ • ;
-1-";.
~
>
~1
Petition to the Vail Town Council
Spring 1998
We, Vail residents, prefer that the West Vail parcel referred to as Hud
Wirth remain as open space or at its present zoning of primary-
secondary status, which was assigned to this land for years.
Under no circumstances should this land become high density. If ,
housing needs to be built on it, the zoning should be consistent with the
adjacent homes, which are single family, primary/secondary.
Signature Name Address Phone
t 7131
~
6? r i S'E 6;- ( r+- c~h I q 7~
~
IN,
a
A-
ll ~i ,7~~,~ 7 ~~;,'F ~.i ; • ~<,e_ - , s„~ ; C, p ~ ` 1
1
~
/ y76-3.z 72_
~
L 7C`2 '/e1 .l e
I
Petition to the Vail Town Council
Spring 1998 .
We, Vail residents, prefer that the West Vail parcel referred to as Hud
Wirth remain as open space or at its present zoning of primary-
secondary status, which was assigned to this land for years.
Under no circumstances should this land become high density. If -
housing needs to be built on it, the zoning should be consistent with the
adjacent homes, whic6 are single family, primary/secondary.
Signature Name Address Phone
j11
, 2 ' Cli~'ci G'C~l e i; (4 L
2-'i~
IeA
~
y
Petition to the Vail Town Councit
Spring 1998
We, Vail residents, prefer that the West Vail parcel referred to as Hud
Wirth remain as open space or at ats present zoning of primary-
secondary status, which was assigned to this laad for years.
Under no circumstances should this land become high density. If
housing needs to be built on it, the zoning should be consistent with the .
adjacent homes, which are single family, primary/secondary.
Signatare Name Address Phone
uC
r
~
41ke 3 i S c ~ A~<q
f ,
~ ~ ` ~ / ~ ~ \ ....i . s ~ ~ ~ ( ~ r' i- a ..r ~ ~ • C~ 7 ~ ~ .S ~
~~.r` ~j<<( ~ ~y L ~i~.~
~1 ~A~ 5 y c~ C`~-.r~- ~+n ~ ~ ~ ~ T ' J .
G'Fti'1C lI I ~N ( ~ ~ ~ ?
IM"L ?
~ ~ I:v
~
ct-~,~ - .
~
- O
Petition to the Vail Towa Council
Spring 1998
We, Vail residents, prefer that the West Vail. parcel :referred xo as Hud
Wirth remain as open space or at its present zoning of primary-
secondary status, which was assigned to this bnd for years.
. Under no circumstances should this land become high density. If housing needs to be built on it, the zoning should be consistent with the .
adjacent 6omes, which are single family, primary/secondary.
Signature Name Address Phoae
e 1/115- E- k7
f=
.
a
Petition to the Vail Town Council
Spring 1998
We, Vail residents, prefer that the West Vail parcel referred to as Hud
Wirth remain as open space or at its present zoning of :primaay- _ secondary status, which was assigned ta this land for year.s.
Under no circumstances should this land become high density. If .
housing needs to be built on it, the zoning should be consistent with the .
adjacent homes, which are single family, primary/secondary.
Signature Name Address Phone
7 c(l
~
C4 12?
;
4~~'SS«
7L
- ~
c I/1 /l( or~;t Ul-~lL
C. t..
7
~
,
~
Petition to the Vail Town Council
Spring 1998
We, Vail residents, prefer that the West Vail parcel referred to as Hud
Wirth remain as open space or at its present zoning of primary-
secondary status, which was assigned to this land for years.
Under no circumstances should this land become high density. If .
housing needs to be built on it, the zoning should be coasistent with the adjacent homes, which are single family, primary/secondary.
Signature Name Address Phone
cJZ
t ~
I~C b0r, WS-'~-7*t
o r _ ,
C7, ,
r,c /Yl ~i1'lR ~ '~~1 rv~ ~ ~ t?~l[~? n C~ ~a ~ ~ ~Cs~~ ~'1C. ~ Vl~ "l~~i C~ ~ C3 U
~
`3
~s
I;_l,, /L e cw e~ L L- S 3 A U0"~'vt 7 U 5 Sl
,
?2 ;Rrtav4 v L( 76- 0 (9 9y
"Z S 3 7 A,,-c S cz. 4 `t 3 I
"7 6 ~ ~~i
. ~
MEMO ~ . ~
To: Pam Brandmeyer
From: Mike Rose
Re: Response to Karin Scheidegger
Date: June 17,1998
Karin called to complain about the new summer bus service in her neighborhood.
She wanted to know,
Q. How the service got started? A. Her neighbors put a petition together and brought it to the
council. The council directed staff to start summer service only.
Q. The value of her property was negatively impacted due to the placement of the stop on her
land. A. None
Q. How could the service be discontinued? A. Put together a petition and bring it to the council.
Q. Did the transit staff agree with the service? A. We had concerns for winter service. Summer
service didn't really matter either way.
I do not plan a written response to her letter. I think the 5-28-1998 letter to the council is in lieu
of a petition.
We will continue the summer service.
' RECEIVED MAY 2 8 1998
P=~~
k:ARIN SCHEIDEGGER ~
~t~Q.P~''a~ •
2436 CHAMONIX LANE
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
970 476-8254
Vail Town Council Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road '
Vail, Colorado 81657 _
Dear Members of the Vail Town Council:
I, hereby, respectfully request the Members of the Town Council to discontinue the use of
the Town of Vail busses on Chamonix Lane through the Chamonix Chalets for the
following reasons:
1. It is dangerous to have busses on these narrow roads.
The roads were not designed for this. The asphalt is not thick enough
and the roads are not wide enough. Last year a car went down the hill
on Chamonix Lane above Texaco and Wendy's.
2. The street going through Chamonix Chalets is of the steepest grade.
3. The intersection of Chamonix Lane and Arosa Drive aze high traffic areas.
Cars coming down Arosa Drive into Chamonix Lane have not been able to
stop and have gone into the fence.
4. The busses increase the amount of traffic in an already very busy street.
5. The busses add a lot of noise reducing the quality of life.
6. The busses add a danger to people .wallcing, nunning, and bicycling, ot which
we have quite a lot during this time of year.
7. Verv few people are usinp- the bus stop (less than 3people per day) especially
. since pazking is free in the summer.
8. Object to Bus Stop being in front of my property where I am planning to
build and have two driveways situated.
9. Lot is looking like a Utility Lot, with Bus Stop, Fire Hydrant, Street Light,
Yield Sign, etc. - all in front of one lot.
We hope that the busses will go back on the North Frontage Road and up Chamonix
Road as they use to do.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Karm Scheidegger
'i
l
, <J
RECEiVEDJUN
Paul Sands
2369 Chamonix Lane
Vail, CO 81657
June 19, 1998
Town Council
Town of Vail
Dear Council Members:
I am strongly opposed to a possible upzoning to high-density of the Hud Wirth property. ff you
take a drive through this neighbarhood, you'll see primary/secondary homes all adjacent to this properry on
Chamonix Lane. It has gotten to the point where Chamonix Lane has way too much vehicular traffic,
many of which drive above the speed limit. It's very dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. This area is
already high-density. Please don't devalue our neighborhood. Think about the visual impact when
people drive into West Vail. How about a visitor center, firestatian or pocket park?
About the Arosa & Garmisch property - is it fair to take the neighborhood's only open parcel of
land and make that into high-density as well? The town should respect the longtime locals who built this
neighborhood. Don't subsidize.
About the town employee housing at the Public Works area. Great! How much was the bid to
double-wide the underpass? Land is expensive also. How many more units could be built there if the
underpass is made double-wide?
The people and economy are moving down valley. This valley is narrow and our space is
precious. This town is starting to prostitute its values. Let's leave the lands as they were intended to be.
LeYs use our money to bring in the winter workers with more bus service. The longtime and year-round
locals, who love this town, all work very hard to live here and maintain our property. I don't think it's fair
to go high-density. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Paul Sands
• r c ~ L
;
Andy Knudtsen
Town of Vail Project Manager
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr. Knudtsen,
Regarding the possibility of building employee housing on open space
at Donovan Park upper and middle benches: My husband and I closed on a -
house on Matterhorn Circle in May. It is a newly constructed unit that we
have had under contract since September. When we decided on this unit it
was partially based on the (correct) information that the open space to the
west and southwest of us would remain open. We based our decision on this
information and spent $710,000 on the unit plus furnishing, etc. Now, we are
being told that employee housing may be built right next door. I do not think
that it is fair to us that the Town of Vail is reneging on a promise to spend
the 1°Io transfer fee on open space. I also do not think that Donovan Park is a
logical location for such housing. The Glen Lyon area has been increasing in
value over the past few years due"to the accessibility to the Cascade lift.
Matterhorn Circle has seen a change in the type of housing from older,
modest units to new, more expensive ones (scrape-offs). It makes no more
sense to put employee housing on Donovan Park than it would to put it on
Westhaven Circle. What you wi11 accomplish is hurting the property values
of Matterhorn Circle owners. By building employee housing on Matterhorn,
it would clearly dictate the future of the area. Right now it is on an upswing
toward nicer housing. High-density units would condemn it to a downswing
that buyers would shy away from. It is an area that people choose because it
is picturesque and quieter than the~ Vail Village or Lionshead areas. High-
density housing would change all of that.
It is also unfair that the TOV expects Matterhorn Circle to bear so
much of the burden. There are parks and open space parcels all over the
valley and yet Donovan Park is listed as 3 of the potential sites!
I think the TOV needs to decide whether it wants open space or _
_ employee housing. It is too small an area to have both. I also think that it is
dishonest for the council to misrepresent the purpose of the transfer fee. Thirdly, I think employee housing should go into areas that are not desirable
to non-resident/ tourist populations. Both locals and tourists want separation
if possible.
So what is the solution? There are certainly areas that are not in
demand for tourists such as near the highway, west Intermountain, near the
pass in East Vail, and Dowd Junction that would be convenient for locals. I
would not object to the use of Lower ponovan Park because there is only
one house located at that corner and it is not at the price level that would be
impacted by such construction. I would also support the Timber Ridge idea
(nothing could look worse than it already does!), the Lionshead parking
structure site (possibly a good dormitory site) and the Mountain Bell site.
Aspen constructed dormitories for seasonal employees in areas away
form town (not as desirable for tourists) but still convenient for locals.
If you choose to ignore the value of open space, sell the Middle bench
to a developer who will at least put attractive low-density units there. Cluster
homes or duplexes would at least maintain the value and character of the
neighborhood.
We may not live in Vail all year round, but we pay our taxes just like
locals. We support the restaurants and retail as much or more than locals.
We are a part of the equation, too. I think you should consider the effect you
will have on AU of the neighborhoods that you consider building this kind
r
h
of housing in. It is not fair to owners (any of them) in the Valley to just pick
some area to penalize.
Sincerely,
A
17
~
k
i -
Margaret Bathgate
6376 E. Tufts Ave
Englewood, CO 80111
(303) 770-6510
?
cc. Mayor Rob Ford, TOV manager Bob McLaurin
'L ? ~a.(..~~I,
D~m
FIELD CONTAINER COMP,ANY, L.P. LarryField
Chief Executive Officer
June 18, 1998
Rob Ford, Mayor
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
. Vail, CO 81657
Ree Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
Deaz Mayor Ford:
As I stated in my letter to the Vail Town Council dated May 5, 1998, I
own a home on West Forest Road in Vail, and am writing to you to
voice my strong opposition to the current effort to develop the land
upon which the tennis courts aze located.
This effort was to have been directed to developing a master plan for
Lionshead, and the tennis court prol2ertv whose limitations the Town
of Vail is changing is not now and has never been part of Lionshead.
Changing the direction for zoning (present and future) through the
proposed master plan while advertising the process as one relating to
"Lionshead" misrepresents the action being taken by the Town of Vail
and misleads people who believe that the activity only affects the
property referred to, i.e., Lionshead.
The tennis courts aze directly below my home and any building on the
tennis courts would be would dramatically change the nature of the
neighborhood.
The residents of Forest Road suffer froffi a density problem as it is
from the CATS coming down the road to access the mountain.
Additional traffic from more buildings would be horrendous.
Despite my previous letter faxed and then mailed to you on May Sth
and also letters from others which I know you have received, neither
the Council nor the planning staff referred to or acknowledged receipt
of those objections during the work session on June 9h.
Continued
1500 Nfcnolas 3ouie,:ard Teiephone847.956.3226
Elk Gro,.e `-'illaQe "linor 60007 Facsimile 847.956.9250
Page Two
June 18,1998
The Town intends to have a public hearing on the comprehensive plan
on July 7~', and I will do all in my power to oppose this revision and
encourage all of my neighbors to do the same.
Very truly yours,
~
Larry Fie d
/pm
` e
A
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
April 27, 1998
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT:
Greg Moffet Russ Forrest
Galen Aasland Mike Mollica
Diane Golden Dominic Mauriello
John Schofield George Ruther
Ann Bishop Judy Rodriguez
Tom Weber
Brian Doyon
Public Hearinq 2:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a recreational facility (skate park) on
the top level of the Lionshead Parking Structure, located at 395 E. Lionshead Circle/Vail
Lionshead First Filing.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica stated that he went over the memo in the pre-meeting and would now entertain
questions.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. They did not. He then asked for any
public comments. There were no public comments.
Gafen Aasland agreed with the 4 conditions in the staff inemo.
Ann Bishop had no comments.
Diane Golden asked about rules and enforcement of wearing helmets and said that she
supported this.
Diane Johnson said that insurance required helmets and peer pressure was used to get
everyone to wear them.
Tom Weber said he supported this.
Brian Doyon had no comments.
John Schofield suggested finding a permanent place in Town for the skate park.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
April 13,1998 1
P
Greg Moffet stated that the application met the criteria.
John Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff inemo.
Diane Golden seconded the motion
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
2. A request for a setback variance, to allow for parking in the required 20' front setback,
located at 4192 Spruce Way/Lot 5, Block 7, Bighorn 3rd Addition.
Appficant: Altair Vail Inn, represented by Kenneth Holsman
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff inemo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Ken Holsman, property manager for Altair, said there was no way for irrigation to service that area
and so he disagreed with the condition requiring trees along Spruce Way.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were no comments from the public.
Tom Weber asked if all the reserved signs were needed for the parking spaces, as they were
unappealing.
Rick Hersey, an Altair owner, said they were needed due to the limited supply of parking.
Brian Doyon said he supported the findings of the Town staff and that the plants were not surviving
because they were too small and impacted by the snow, but larger, more mature plants should live.
John Schofield agreed with Brian.
Rick Hersey said the two large pine trees would remain.
Tom Weber said to run PVC's under the asphalt, as long as the asphalt was being torn up.
Rick Hersey said they were not tearing up the asphalt.
Galen Aasland said the applicant needed to provide the trees with the condition that they live for 2
years.
Ann Bishop said it looked stark and supported the staff inemo. She thought the applicant could
improve on what was there now.
Diane Golden said the applicant needed to put in landscaping.
Greg Moffet stated that if a variance was granted, it would overcome a special privilege by bringing a
non-conforming property more into compliance.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
April 13, 1998 2
John made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff inemo, with the additional condition
that the large existing pine trees, located west of the existing parking lot, be protected during
construction.
Brian Doyon seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
3. A request for a density variance, a building height variance, a site coverage variance and a
minor exterior alteration, to allow for a bay addition, located at 193 Gore Creek Drive, Lot A,
Block 5B, Vail Village First.
Applicant: Rodney and Beth Slifer, represented by Jim Buckner
Planner: George Ruther
George Ruther gave an overview of the staff inemo.
Greg Moffet stated for the record, that the applicant was not present.
Galen Aasland said he had no problem with the exterior alteration request in the CC1 and no problem
with the site coverage or height variances, but he had a problem with the density request.
Ann Bishop had no comments.
Diane Golden said the bay window would be an improvement, but disagreed with the variance
requests.
Tom Weber agreed with the staff recommendation.
Brian Doyon agreed with Galen and also had a problem wifh density.
John Schofield had no comments.
Greg Moffet said he didn't think this application met the findings of the CC1 Zone District . He said it
was a special privilege and if the PEC voted to deny the variances, the exterior alteration in the CC1
would become moot.
George Ruther suggested tabling this item, since the applicant was not here to provide testimony.
Greg Moffet said the applicant woufd have to request this item be tabled.
Ann Bishop made a motion to table this item until May 11, 1998.
Galen Aasland seconded the motion.
The motion failed by a vote of 2-5.
Tom Weber made a motion for denial of the variance requests, as submitted by the Town of Vail.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes 3
April 13, 1998
Brian Doyon seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with Ann Bishop voting against.
4. 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., represented by Ams Development, Inc.
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Greg Moffet disclosed for the record that Greg Amsden was a customer of his, but that he felt there
was no conflict.
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff inemo and said that once they built the building,
there would be no GRFA left.
Greg Amsden, representing the applicant, stated that they couldn't limit the site to the development
plan, since there was no development plan. He said he disputed the second sentence of the second
paragraph of the letter. He said the applicant was after what would be an acceptable number of units
with a format that would be acceptable.
Greg Moffet asked the PEC members for guidance for the applicant.
John Schofield stated that there was GRFA regulation when this was originally platted by the County.
John said the development plan presented at the last meeting was very specific.
Greg Amsden said that could be established by a survey.
John Schofield questioned the common area and coutd not approve a plan which included the
common area as development potential.
Dominic Mauriello said the approved development plan showed all the spaces around the building as
common area.
John Schofield said the common area was not specific to that specific site, but pertaining to the
overaff plan.
Greg Amsden said the county records don't specify a common area. He then said the owner was just
trying to finish the development out.
Brian Doyon agreed with John.
Greg Amsden said the land was owned by RAD Five and never was represented to be part of the
association, so they had no right to it. He then said he wanted to focus on this site only.
Brian Doyon said there would be no more building available after this project.
Tom Weber said you could do Building 19 as a vested right, but stay out of the common area,
because the common area doesn't come into play for the development rights of Building 19.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes 4
April 13, 1998
Greg Amsden asked why the PEC wouid take away 2,300 sq. ft. of GRFA.
Tom Weber said the whole site had nothing to do with Building 19. He said the applicant would have
to give the PEC someplace to start, such as to overlay the zoning and the PEC needed to have the
applicant propose a site.
Diane Golden had no comments.
Ann Bishop had no comments.
Galen Aasland agreed with the three other members. He said the applicant had a vested
development right to build Building 18 on the Building 19 site and that if they wanted to make any
changes, there may be a reduction in square footage.
Greg Moffet said the owner had the right to build Building 18 on the site they have. He said the
owner had a vested interest in a development plan and the fair solution was the right to build a
building here. He said he was having trouble with this being a judgement equity case. He said the
applicant could go with the development plan or with the zoning, with the development plan being
compelling for a density variance. He said if the applicant relied on the history, he could get over the
special privledge to get the 7,300 sq. ft. Greg said he needed to see a good configuration.
Greg Amsden asked the PEC for input on the condos or the single family approach. He asked, given
the site, was it swallowable to the PEC?
Galen Aasland said, yes, it was reasonable, but he would expect to see the impacts on the site to be
similar.
Ann Bishop and Diane Golden agreed with Galen.
Tom Weber said, yes, but it comes down to the configuration.
Brian Doyon asked the applicant if he was suggesting that the owner was going to sell off the land.
Greg Amsden said they just wanted to build a product.
Brian Doyon said he was concerned on how the lot would be divided.
Tom Weber asked if they were going to plat separate lots and provide parking.
Greg Amsden said all the envelopes were on the site and parking would be contained and the
purpose from going from a condo to a single family would be beneficial.
Brian Doyon said by dividing up the parcels, the condos had no rights to that land.
Greg Amsden said the owner would deed all the remaining lands to the association, as it made sense
to put it all in one package.
Tom Weber asked if the condo association would have to purchase that land.
Greg Amsden said, no.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes 5
April 13, 1998
John Schofield said he was in favor of the single family approach.
Greg Moffet said he was not adverse to single family homes, but felt this was a site coverage issue
and he said that the PEC would be receptive, if the applicant would come in under the 7,300 sq. ft.
Dominic Mauriello summarized the PEC's comments; that the applicant seek a density variance or be
subject to GRFA statistics.
Galen Aasland said the density variance was hard to overcome.
Greg Moffet said he wanted to amend the existing development plan and not talk about zoning. He
said the alternative was apply LDMF, as a zoning issue. He said the development plan was grounds
for granting a density variance, since equitable argument was compelling.
Tom Moorhead said the PEC has determined that the vested right was to do the same as Building 18
and if anything else was done it would have to stand on its own.
Greg Amsden asked for a definition of "stand on its own," as he stated that staff would strictly enforce
the interpretation.
Greg Moffet said, from a conceptual discussion, the applicant had a different read from the
commission.
Dominic Mauriello asked the PEC for clarification on what application process the applicant needed to
go through.
Greg Moffet stated that it was up to the applicant and the PEC would not dictate what the applicant
could ask for.
Dominic Mauriello said the applicant could request an amendment to the development plan at his
own risk, or come back with a variance application.
Greg Amsden stated that there would not be specific floor plans at this time.
Greg Moffet said to come in with what he had.
Tom Weber said he wanted to see building heights.
Brian Doyon said he wanted to see massing and scale on how it fit in with the site.
Greg Moffet said on a conceptual basis, he would like to see GRFA and massing.
Dominic Mauriello stated that it sounded Iike a full application was needed.
5. A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to SDD #4, to allow for a
fractional fee club and a change to the approved Development Plan, located at 1325
Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominiums/ Cascade Village Area A.
Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson
Planner: George Ruther
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes 6
April 13, 1998
George Ruther said that this was a worksession on a limited scope and was the second worksession.
He said at this time, there were 4-5 issues that needed addressing.
Gerry Wurhmann, the applicant, said he conformed with the definition of a fractional fee club by
having no more than 12 owners per unit and the issue of on-site management with a reservation
system. He stated there would be a manager there 100% of the time, who would live in a decent
unit. He explained that the telephone at the entry way would go into the manager's residence and
also to the Cascade Hotel.
Ann Bishop was concerned about coverage for reservations, as well as managing the building.
Gerry Wurhmann said the Cascade Club would handle the reservation end of it, but the checking in
would be done by the manager. He explained that on Fridays and Saturdays, a separate party would
work the front desk. He said the manager would answer to the developer.
Greg Moffet asked if this front desk arrangement met the code.
Gerry Wurhmann said reservations would be done by the Cascade Hotel.
Greg Moffet said "on site" is in the building or in the neighborhood and asked if this constituted a front
desk.
Tom Weber thought this could work as being on-site.
Gerry Wurhmann suggested having someone at the next PEC meeting on May 11th, to explain how it
would work.
Brian Doyon said he felt this wouldn't fulfill on-site 24 hrs., as the manager would need to go on
vacation, etc. He said an office or station has not been provided, just a place to live with a title.
Gerry Wurhmann said the Cascade Hotel desk would be open 24 hrs.
John Schofield said the Austria Haus couldn't do it using the Bavaria Haus front desk. He said the
ordinance was drafted because of what might happen should the Sonnenalp no longer manage the
Austria Haus. John felt the front desk did not comply with the code, as the desire was to have a
warm body, not a telephone, to greet customers as they came in.
Gerry Wurhmann said the manager's job was located where he lived.
Greg Moffet reminded the applicant that this process was going to end up in front of Council, who
drafted this law.
John Schofield said the ordinance was very ciear.
Brian Doyon asked if people should be out searching around for a manager to get into their units.
Gerry Wurhmann said it was in our best interest to have someone there.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
April 13, 1998 7
Galen Aasland agreed with the other commissioners and said this application should be treated
consistently with the Sonnenalp. He didn't believe any leeway was given the Sonnenalp, on the
prime-times. He asked if the on-site management unit was going to be deed restricted?
Gerry Wurhmann said, yes.
George Ruther said the Austria Haus had to have 7 deed restricted units.
Galen Aasland said a manager on-call didn't meet the intent of the ordinance and should be treated
the same as the Austria Haus. He said this would need 5 people to manage this front desk.
Gerry Wurhmann said the night workers could check people in.
Galen Aasland said he would like to see some on-site, deed restricted units.
Greg Moffet said there were 21 deed restricted units in the building on the first floor.
Gerry Wurhmann said he would like to sell the units to get an owner-employee, rather than a renter-
employee.
Ann Bishop said the code was clear.
George Ruther said the Austria Haus had a warm body.
Diane Golden said she viewed this differently, as this was in close proximity to the hotel and was
much closer than the Austria Haus was to the Bavaria Haus. Greg Moffet said if the applicant physically connected this to the Cascade Club, he could view this as
an on-site front desk. He said there was no guarantee that there would continue to be a managing
relationship with the Cascade and therefore, the PEC needed to have an ironclad structure in place
that would contemplate any changes in management or ownership. He asked staff , in SDD land, if
there was some flexibility in the underlying zoning rules and if the PEC had authority to permit for-sale
EHU's in the building.
George Ruther said these were a combination of Type III and Type IV.
Diane Golden asked if 132 owners all called this number, what would the manager do?
Gerry Wurhmann said we would deal with it. He then defined the club portion and the 21 rental
EHU's , which would be owned by the developer or would be on its own, if the association sold. He
said the AU's would be owned by the developer and he then defined the ownership portion.
John Schofield asked how the Town could enforce this.
Gerry Wurhmann explained the platinum and gold members for prime time and stated that this was
not a rotating priority system, as there would be different classes of inembership.
George Ruther asked the PEC about pursuing the skywalk interconnect to the Cascade Club.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
April 13, 1998 8
Tom Weber liked the idea, but stated that this was not a slam dunk, as there were still operating
issues.
Gerry Wurhmann said access to the Cascade would be a marketing idea for club membership.
Brian Doyon said he would support this, as long as it didn't affect the streetscape or landscape plan.
He said he didn't want to see making a primary access, by foregoing the budget for the landscape.
He said'he would approve a streetscape improvement, before a catwalk.
John Schofield said he would want a skywalk.
Galen Aasland said if the applicant wanted a skywalk, that would be fine, but for the long term they
needed a management plan.
Ann Bishop had no comments.
Diane Golden had no comments.
6. A request for a minor subdivision of Lot G-1 to create a new lot, located at 1410 Buffehr
Creek Road, Lot G-1, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 2.
Applicant: Leroy Schmidt, represented by Eric Johnson
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL MAY 11, 1998
John Schofield made a motion to table item #6 until May 11, 1998.
Ann Bishop seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. .
7. Public Meeting Procedures & Discussion:
• Time allocation for public input.
• Closing public comment period.
• Debriefing of ineeting.
• Effective date of any changes.
Greg Moffet said this discussion was specifically for non-applicant input. He said the only problem
was enforcement; we would need to get a clock or flashing lights.
Mike Mollica said procedural elements can be posted, as staff was not advocating setting a time line.
He said it would give the chair the opportunity to close the meeting according to the operating rules.
Ann Bishop thought these were good suggestions that needed reviewing and she suggested
discussing them at the next meeting.
Diane Golden complimented the Chair for well-run meetings.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
April 13, 1998 9
Dominic Mauriello said with some applicants, the rebuttal can be confusing.
Diane Golden said she hesitated getting too strict, as the PEC had a good rapport with the public.
Ann Bishop agreed with Diane and thought the Chair could run it the way he wanted to.
Tom Weber said it would be good to have some guidelines.
John Schofield thought it a good idea to give the ability to the Chair, but not a specific time. -
Greg Moffet suggested maintaining flexibility, but he said with a"beast such as Lionshead," it would
be a good idea to hold everyone to 5 min.
Ann Bishop agreed, but suggested setting some ground rules. -
Brian Doyon thought it would be good for an applicant to sit down if discussion was getting too
heated.
Greg Moffet agreed that basic ground rules would be helpful.
Brian Doyon said a summary of the public at the end would make it clear.
Galen Aasland thought it would help if things became a challenge, to go back to a set of rules.
Mike Mollica stated he got the idea from an APA conference he went to and suggested posting it.
Greg Moffet asked if the Town would pay for the PEC members to go to a conference.
Russ Forrest said it was not in the budget at this time.
Greg Moffet asked for education in the pre-meetings.
Greg Moffet said this discussion will continue at the next meeting.
8. Information Update
Greg Moffet said the PEC was saddened to lose Mike Mollica.
Russ Forrest gave an update on the Common Ground.
9. Approval of April 13, 1998 minutes.
Diane made a motion to approve the amended minutes.
Tom Weber seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Ann Bishop abstaining.
Ann Bishop made a motion to adjourn.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes 10
April 13, 1998
I
Diane Golden seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes 11
Apri113,1998
UBULK RATEE
A ,
_ • {,C~Y'~~ .S. POST
G
ail Assistant To Ihe To ~~.y{~~ PAID
- LL. ~ B~~,Er ,
I Gienwootl Scrings. CO
5 S Frontage Ac~-1L'~
y~ ~_+Lji PERMR NO. 36
D Uo N E2(~~ Vr~•
~ JULY
~ ~ L.0 %.m 7 rm. 1998
; Serving the business communities from Aspen to Glenwood Springs to Vail to Parachute
INSIDE.,.
Coloraao's Summer e-conom ies
r~exports ~
Wedefri slope-
9YPoftm ffm*egons
• Technology products continue
to lead ttte stCte's
DYATS@OS 54195 i
• Montrose opens a - f
resource center r
Pages 12 and 13
~ Commercial
~ tueling _ _ • q , r -
,
Page 7
The rise of - - ~ ' ~ •
Good Healfih - ;
Page 16
_
Columns:
Legal Matters
~tte°~ ;ness Aspen and Vail gain more warm-weather visitors
$ureau - as traditionally strong Glenwood grows too
PQPB
~O~@Y ~hpS' . By DAVlD BUCK tax revenues for Aspen and Vail and summer festivals and events. The
Page 9 Mountain West Business Ledger for neiehboring Glenwood Sprines Aspen Music Festival draws most of
have risen steadily. While economic Aspen's visitors through the
Cash flow odviee Skiers from around the world growth can only occur in small summer. And for Glenwood,
for your business populate the slopes and shops of Vail increments in the saturated winter summertime is the town's peak
PCg6 14 and Aspen through the winter, but months. economic growtfi in the tourist season, when kids aze out of
The self-edueated the lure of cultural activities and summer is accelerating. school and the weather right for
entrepreneur w'arm-µ'eather recreation is bringing Summer *.ourism in Vail is rising visits to the Hot Springs Pool.
page 19 more visitors to these mountain at a rate twice that of winter levels. Although all of these rowns still
resons in the summer months. the result of a focused marketing~
' In the '90s, June-to-Au=ust sales- campaign and the addition of PI@dSesee'Summw.Ort Pag2 10
c
I
~
Summeirslmproving economy,.. ~
Continued hom Page 1 town council members, merchant associa-
expenence a notable decline in business in tion members and represen[atives from
the shoulder seasons of Aprfl and Novem- Vail Resorts and Beaver Creek aze on the
ber, svonger summer business helps s[abi- 13- to 14-person board.
lize the year's overall economy. Defining the region as a place ro hold
corporate meetings with easy access to
Vail: Marketing makes summer recreation is another tack the
board has taken. Golfing, cycling, hiking,
the difference kayaking and fishing are popular recre-
In the late'80s, the Vail Valley Market- ational activiues. A whitewater festival
ing Board was created to promote Vail as a kicks off the summer on Memorial Day ~ ' 3-
tourism destination. The board oversees the weekend.
region from Vail Pass to Beaver Creek. "The purpose of marketing the valley as u` _°i % t
Since [he board's incep[ion, the region's a desCination is that it is impo[tant to s[abi- ~summer business activity has increased lize the economy of the uea:' Boyle said.
from 20 percent of the year's [otal econo- Winter/summer cro ss selling is ano[her F- •
my to approximately marketing strategy used
33 percent, according to sellthe the area as a
to board chairman summer and yearvround
Ross Boyle. "Our real em destination.
"The reason why pf1a515 "From (the business) per-
summer growth is j5 to get people spective it makes sense ro ,
stronger is because get a more stable flow of t
we started from a here for the first people coming through,"
smaller base," Boyle time. If they come, Boyle explained. A sea-
said. sonal economy, based on
The emergence of there is a high prob-
skiing, creates a retrain- '~r'•
[he music festival ability they will ing problem for business-
Bravo! Colorado and come back." es because new employ- l
the Bolshoi Ballet in ees must be retrained
the region are attract- every winrer.
ing murists. A Shake- -ROSS BOyI@ And, by creating year-
speare festival will round positions, employ-
come [o the valley chairman, VOIl VQll@y ees looking [o buy a
laterthis summer. MOfk@11r19 BOafd home in the area have a '
"Our real emphasis steady income to depend
is to get people here on.
for the first time. If Increasing employee
they come. there is a high probability they income is another way to attack the afford- ~
will come back," Boyle said. able-housing problem, in addition ro subsi- ~
The marketing board spends close to dized housing. Boyle explained. Y"
$500.000 on advertising for summer ~ .t'.^• "
evems. That's a total significandy lower Glenwood Springs:
than the $10 million to $13 million spent
marketing the ski season. $pl@S-tC1X f@V@f1U@S 4r2
"With the resources we have we have highest in June
done well obviously the more money The Ho[ Springs Pool and the Strawberv
you have, the better the result." Boyle ry Days Festival help make summer the said. "We estimate that for every dollar PholobvJackAffleck - CourtesyofVOilResortslmoges
financially-svongest season of the year in
invested in promotion we retur;i $20 co Glenwood Sprin@s. Outdoor recreational activities, like mountain biking on one of Vail"5 Ski
$25 worth of spending." "
•Glenwood has traditionally been a mountains, and culturol events, like the the Aspen Music Festival, are
August is typicalty the most profitable
month for the town of VaiL ln August summer resort for over a century," said mokin9 the communities PoPulor os summer tourism destinations.
1997 the town collected $1.073.430 in Marianne Virgili, director of Glenwood's city's sales-tax revenues, which are high- Glenwood's busiest month of the winter
sales tax revenue, a 58 percent inctease Chamber Resort Association. est in ]uoe. The city collected $754,860 in season. but the fluctuation between sum-
"Summer is defini[ely our peak sea- sales-tax revenue in June 1997, a 77 er-
from August 1990 when the town collect- P mer and winter revenues is not as dramatic
son," said Laura Myers, tourism and group cent increase over 1990 revenues.
ed $678.071. as it is in Aspen and Vail. In March 1997.
B contrast, March is the rown's most sales director at [he chambec At $717.655. Glenwood's August 1997
y Glenwood collected $650.908 in sales tax
profitable winter-season month. ln 1997. Activity in town revenue.
March sales taa revenues rose to is highest when The lodging industry brings significant
$2,580,992, a 36 percent increase from children are out of Glenwood has traditionally been a revenue [o the city. "Last year we had a
March 1990. when the town collected school, making $Umm@r r2SOrt fOr OV@f C! C@IltlJn/. phenomenal year. We were up over 7 peo-
$1,897,718 in revenue. Four percent of summer the busy
every dollar in sales is retumed dicectly to season. People come cent cumulatively for the year in 1997 in
Vail in sales tax revenues. to Glenwood pri- -MdrlUnn@ VIf91Il accommodations (tax) receipts," Myers
The marketing board's work has marity for the pool, dIf2CtOf, Glenwood Springs said. On four weekends last summer the
increased summer business in its region an spa facilities and Winter Park ski train brought several hum
average of 8 percent a yeaz, Boyle said. The rafting on the col- Chamber Resort Association dred visitors to the city, samrating the
winter economy has grown at half that rate. orado and Roaring town's economy. However, problems with
A diverse collection of inembers make Fork rivers. the railroad prevented the remm of that
up the marketing board. "Each member The Svawberry offering this summer.
brings with them a very relevant expertise," Days festival brings 30,000 people ro town revenues outpaced July's by less than a On summer weekends, lodging in the
Boyle said. in June, and is the oldest civic celebration thousand dollars and were a 79 percent area is ofren sold out. This year, Glenwood
A former ad representative at a large west of the Mississippi, Virgili said. increase from 1990 levels.
firm in New York, a marketine maaager, The weekend event is a boon for the As it is in Vail and Aspen, March is Confinued n9Xt pag6
Page 10 July 1998 BUSINESS LEDGER
r f ~
,
stabilizes towns through year
Continued from last page visi[ors. [o Aspen.
is gaining two new lodging properties, a The average Aspen visiror is 48 years FiH'Y percent of For the Aspen Skiing Company, sum-
Hamp[on Inn and a Holiday Inn Express, old with an income of $131,000. Fifty Aspen s summer mer is spent Iargely preparing for the next
a total of 125 rooms, despite the loss of percent of Aspen's summer visitors visitors come Winter season.
two smaller establishments, come to town with the primary purpose "Winter is [he bulk of our business.
Myers said [he chamber is estimating a of attending cultural events; 20 percent specificall to attend
10 percent increase in accommodations come to participa[e in outdoor recre- y Summer is a very small frac[ion," said
receipts for July and August this year, as ation. Business meetings, vacation and an arts-related event. Kelley Murphy, the company's communi- -
a result of the new lodging propetties. At visits with friends and relatives are the For 20 percent, cations manager. "We aze not dedicating ,
1.5 percent, however, Glenwood's other reasons visirors cite as the rimar our energy and money to it. Operations
P Y outdoor recreation this sammer will be similar to past sum-
accommodations tax is unusually low for purpose of a summertime trip to Aspen.
the sta[e. 'Fhe tax ranges from 4.5 ro 5.5 Sixty-one percent of summer visitors is the primary mers."
percent in Denver. Pueblo and Boulder come to Aspen in July and Au ust, The skiing company employs 750 full- ;
8 9OQI Of G1 VISIt. time workers through summer. Three-
and is 1.9 percent for other small commu- which is reflected in the city's sales-tax
nities in the state, Myers said. revenue. thousand employees are needed [o opera[e
Although summer todging is healthy, (n June 1997, Aspen collected the company at the height of the winter
the chamber dces see room for improve- $404,320 in sales [axes, a 117 percent season.
men[. "One of our goals is to increase [he increase from lune 1990, but markedly Activities on Aspen Mountain in [he
number nights people stay, and educate lower than the $617,619 in sales taxes summer indude nature walks, gondola
them that there is more to do in the area collected in July and the $612,989 in June through September, 70 ercent rides and Iunch at Sundeck restaurant. On
S
like mountain biking and hiking," Myers August. July and August 1997 revenues of Aspen's visitors come from out og aturdays, students from the Aspen
Music
said. were up over 80 percent from 1990. state. ~ 1 Percen[ from the Denver area Festival play classical music in one -
~
Several miles from Glenwood, Sum The city of Aspen receives 1.7 per- and 10 percent from elsewhere in Col- °f the mountain's meadows.
light Mountain Resort is dedicated ro cent in sales tax revenues on every dollar orado. Fifty-two percent sta ed between if the Forest Service approves the
increasing its summer business. in sales, March 1997 led the Year with [hree and six da s, and 64 etcent of company's mas[er plan for the mountain, mountain
"Summer activities have definitely $853,840 in revenue. those surveyed were making ar eturn trip ummers. biking wilt be offered in future
grown," said Sunlight spokesperson Pa[ti
Hecht.
When the resort was purchased by its '
new owners in 1991, they did so with the F S~~~~ 1~~
goal of making Sunlight a profitable year- ~ Rev
'Q ~ t~~~
round business, Hecht said. Summer rev- 4 ~.~t
enues account for 3 ro 5 percent of the reson's yearly revenues. 1990-1997
"The priva[e parties we are doing are
verysuccessfol.° Ne,rht said. Sunlight ~
hosts weddings, family reunions and busi- i
ness meetings a[ its banquet facilities. 1990 1994 1997 Percent change
"
By April, half the weekends between
Memorial Day and Labor Day had been 1990 to 1997
booked. Privare parties and corporate vail
retrea[s aze the resorts' bread and butter
in the summer, Hecht said. .JUn@ $448,227 $548,820 $630,366 41%
From luly 1 ro Sept. 7, the reson runs
the only llama trekking trips in the state, JV+y $665,094 $892,830 $1,043,637 57%
Hecht said. On two of the Ilama vips 101UCJUSf $678,071 $891,566 $1,073,430 58%
"Numorist HerbalisP" Laurel Dewey will March
lead Nasses on plant and herb identifica- $1,897,718 $2,250,656 $2,580,992 36%
tion and use. Sunlight also runs a day
camp for children from June through Glenwacad Springs August.
As its summer business increases, Sun- JUne $426,861 $618,323 $754,860 77%
light is able to retain 25 to 30 year-round
employees, up from eight to 10 two years Juty $394,580 $594,707 $716,954 82%
ago, Hecht said. During the ski season, /4UgUSf $400,602 $609,298 $717,655 79qo
the resott's staff rises [o over 150
employees. MpICl1 $373,654 $532,050 $650,908 74%
By keeping employees year-round.
Sunlight can be known as a good employ-
er in the community, Hech[ said. Aspen
June $185,965 $337,606 $404,320 117% :
Aspen: A destination for July $339,806 $553,656 $617,619 82%
those seeking culture
Cultural events, specifcally the Aspen August $339,592 $572,818 $612,989 81%
Music Festival, draw most of Aspen's March $433J91 $738,349 $853,840 97%
visitors in the summer, according to the
Aspen Chamber Resort Association's
1998 summer visitor study. The wheeler On every dollar in sales Vait receives 4 percent in sales tax revenues, Glenwood Springs 3.25 percent and
opera House. Janus lazz Aspen ac Snow- Aspen 1.7 percent. March is the busiest winter-season month in each community. _
mass, Theater in the Park, the Food &
Wine Classic and the DanceAspen Festi- Salh• Lonon, who workr for the town of Vail, provided the sa[es-tax statisticsfor this table.
vaI are among the other events a[tracting
ausiNESS LEDGER July 1998 Page 11
. E
. 1
i