Loading...
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