The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-07-07 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1998 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. 1 • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. (5 mins.) 2• CONSENT AGENDA. (5 mins.) A. Approve the Minutes from the meetings of June 2nd and 16th, 1998. 3• Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1998, first reading of an ordinance repealing George Ruther and re-enacting Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1991, to provide changes to Jay Peterson Special Development District No. 22, Grand Traverse, that concern the number of lots, the lot sizes, the corresponding development standards and the architectural guidelines; and setting forth details in regard thereto. (20 mins.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with conditions, or deny Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1998, on first reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On Monday, June 8, the applicant appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission with a request for a major amendment to Special Development District #22, Grand Traverse, and a major subdivision to Lots 5- 10, Dauphinais- Moseley Subdivision Filing #1, a resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing #3. The Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved a motion recommending approval of the applicant's request. The Commission's approval was per the staff memorandum with the addition of 600 square feet of garage credit for employee housing units instead of the 200 square feet requested by the applicant or the 300 square feet recommended by staff. A copy of the June 8, 1998 staff memorandum and the approved meeting minutes have been attached for reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council approve Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1998, on first reading 4. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1998, first reading of an Ordinance Dominic Mauriello Amending Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Chapter 11, Design Review, Section 12-11-5: Design Guidelines; Adding a Provision Allowing Legal Nonconforming Single-family, Two-family, and Primary/secondary Residential Dwellina Units to Be Exnanded hv 5nn qn Ft nr iAee Xnr+h„- Requiring Structures and Sites to Be Fully Compliant with the Design ~ Guidelines; Amending Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (Grfa), Section 12-15-5: Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance), Deleting Subsection 12-15-5(c) Which Allows a 250 Sq. Ft. Addition to Multiple-family Dwelling Units; Amending Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (Grfa), Section 12-15-4: Interior Conversions, to Allow Interior Conversions in Multiple-family Residential Dwelling Units; Amending Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, and Creating a New Section 12-16-7: Use Specific Criteria and Standards. (15 mins.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve/Modify/Deny Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1998 on first reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The PEC, at its June 22, 1998 meeting, made a recommendation of approval of the proposed ordinance with the one modification to the design review trigger shawn with the double ~ underline on page one of the ordinance. . See PEC memo for defails of proposal. . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends approval of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1998, on first reading. 5. Vail Valley Marketing Board (WMB) Summer Marketing Update. Ross Boyle (40 mins.) Dave Reece 6. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. This work session and Russ Forrest evening meeting are intended to continue the discussion of building Dominic Mauriello height scenarios, development standards, and economic/revenue Ethan Moore impacts of building height scenarios. Stan Bernstein will be presenting Stan Bernstein the Town of Vail revenue benefits of the different building height David Kenyon scenarios. The master plan team will also be presenting a revised density proposal for the Lionshead area. (2 hrs.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve/Modify the master plan team recommendation for building height, mass, and density for the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Upon Council direction to staff, staff will begin drafting the Master Plan document. Council will review the document prior to final adoption. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Please refer to memorandum in Councit packet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the master plan team recommendations on building height, mass, and density. 7• Town Manager Report. (10 mins.) Bob McLaurin Adjournment - 10:35 p.m. NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) I I I I I ( I THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 7/14/98, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 7/21/98, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 7/21/98, 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 47Qa3~F Tnn f.,r infnrm~finn C:WGENDA.TC - . COUNCIL FOLLOW-UP TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS F 1998 4/21/98 CORRIDOR NOISE BOB MCLAURINIGREG MORRISON: Although noise Bob will write to Col. King w1CSP. Kevin FofeylCouncil "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 caliing the 1-800 # to REPORT A GOOD DRIVER, etc. 5/19/98 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-schedule their crew back here. 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 wlthe $1,100+ check we received from the Dancing Bear? Let's see a plaque or a bench or something installed to commemorate this donation. 619198 BETTY NEAL COMPUTER TRAINING Anne: Please contact Betty to arrange a training session for Betty is on vacation until 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 an interest in attendin this class. July 2, 1998, Page 1 6123198 ART INSTALLATION AT THE WI RUSSELLID4MINICINANCY: in the past week two art These art pieces were voluntarily removed by Dean Knox. 8ob Armour pieces, bright red and yellow skier sculptures, have appeared off the South Frontage Road at the entry to the WI. What was the process for these installations? Did they go through an approval process at DRB? Or AIPP? 6/23198 PEC ROLE RE: REVIEW PROCESS Concern was expressed about PEC's reluctance to adhere to Tom will follow up with Council. Ludwig Kurz + Council and to enforce current zoning regs. in deference to a perceived uitimate political decision by Council at some later time. Council wishes to discuss w/staff how to work wIPEC to ensure this board makes sound recommendations based on the town's codes and regulations, 6/23198 250 ORDINANCE/INTERIOR Where are we with this? Council reviewed this as a part of the "design review trigger" at their June CONVERSIONS FOR MULTI-FAMILY 16th work session. It also includes reorganization of the conditional use Ludwig Kurz section of our code and will be heard by Council for first reading at the evening meeting on July lth. July 2, 1998, Page 2 l Agenda last revised 6/30/98 3pm DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, July 1, 1998 3:00 P.M. PROJECT ORIENTATION / LUNCH - Community Development Department 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT SITE VISITS 1:00 pm 1. Adam - 706 Forest Road 2. Gray - 1694 Matterhorn Circle 3. Craythorne - 2701 Davos Trail 4. Vail Mountain School - 3160 Katsos Ranch Road 5. Gorsuch - 263 Gore Creek Drive 6. Herman - 343 Beaver Dam Road Driver: George PUBLIC HEARING - TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:00 pm 1. Adam residence - Residential addition. Christie 706 Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6th. Applicant: Nancy Adam, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Briner Architects MOTION:CIark Brittain SECOND: Hans Woldrich VOTE: 3-0 (Tom Weber & Bill Pierce recused) APPROVED 2. Gray residence - Conceptual Review/Separation Request for EHU Dominic 1694 Matterhorn Circle/Lot 12, Matterhorn Village Applicant: Harry Gray MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Hans Woldrich VOTE: 5-0 DENIED (separation request) 3. Herman residence - Conceptual review of a residential addition. George 343 Beaver Dam Road/Lot 1, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd. Applicant: Michael Herman, represented by Mark Donaldson CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE 4. Gorsuch - Conceptual review of a store front remodel. George 263 Gore Creek Drive/Lot E, Block 5, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Gorsuch Ltd., represented by Tom Frye CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE 5. Raether residence - New singfe family residence (demo/rebuild). George 278 Rockledge Road/ Lot 15, Block 7, Vail Village First. Applicant: Homeowners, represented by Pierce, Segerberg & Associates TABLED UNTIL JULY 15, 1998 rowN*VAIL 1 i 6. Roth - Deck expansion. George/Brent 1890 Lionsridge Loop Unit #2/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge 3rd Filing. Applicant: Bubbles Roth MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Hans Woldrich VOTE: 5-0 DENIED (lacks compatibility with the multi-family building) 7. Craythorne residence - Construction of an inclined elevator. Christie 2701 Davos Trail/ Lot 15, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision. Applicant: Homeowners, represented by Galen A. Aasland MOTION: Clark Brittain SECOND: Hans Woldrich VOTE: 5-0 APROVED WITH 3 CONDITIONS: 1. Staff approved structure if it received the variance from the PEC. 2. All equipment is to be approved by testing agencies/manufacturer. 3. Add landscaping to help screen tow (work out with staffl. 8. Vail Mountain School - Conceptual construction of a cupola to contain 4 antennas. Christie 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Applicant: Liberty Wirestar CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE Staff Approvals Current residence - New fence. Brent 3235 Katsos Ranch Road/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Village 12th. Applicant: Bill & Nancy Current Passages - Add logo to awning. Brent 244 Wall Street. Applicant: Peter Apostol Capstone Condominiums - Dumpster enclosure. Brent 1817 Meadow Ridge Road/Lot 21 Buffehr Creek. Applicant: Capstone Condo Association Red Lion Penthouse - Add wrought iron to stairs, change awning text. Brent 304 Bridge Street/Block 5A, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Mary Hart & Burt Sugarman ABC Children's Acre Building - Concrete deck and stairs. Brent 249 N. Frontage Road/Unplatted. Applicant: ABC Children's Acre Linn residence - Water feature. Brent 2897 Timber Creek Drive Unit D24/Lot 14 Glen Lyon. Applicant: Robert Linn & Alexandra Palmer Linn 2 Jennings residence - Interior remodel. Brent 1853 Lions Ridge Loop/Lot 3, Block 3, Lions Ridge #3. Applicant: Jeb Jennings West Vail Lodge - Replace existing sign. Brent 2211 N. Frontage Road. Applicant: Reaut Corporation Dugan residence - Repair existing stairs and deck. Christie 2642 Kinnickinnick Court/Lot 5, Block 2, Intermountain. Applicant: Suzanne Dugan Bolen residence - New pool deck. Brent 990 Fairway Court/Lot 4, Vail Village 10th. Applicant: Dr. James Bolen Samuels residence - 250 addition. George 224 Forest Road/Lot 11-B, Block 7, Vail Village First. Applicant: Forest Road Trust Adair residence - Landscape modification. Christie 3035 Booth Falls Road/Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 13th. Applicant: John Adair Johnston residence - Repaint. George 1184 Cabin Circle/Lot 2, Block 2, Vail Valley First Filing. Applicant: Paul Johnston Schwartz residence - Landscape renovation and lighting plan. Christie 1136 Hornsilver Circle/Lot 10, Block 6, Vail Village 7th. Applicant: Alan & Cathy Schwartz Esrey residence - Interior conversion. Dominic 1314 Spraddle Creek Road/Lot 15, Spraddle Creek Estates. Applicant: William Esrey Ruffalo - Deck expansion. Christie 5025 Main Gore Place/Lot 5F, Sundial Phase I. Applicant: Harry Ruffalo Riva Ridge South Condominium Unit #755 - Window addition. Brent 74 Willow Road/Lot 7, Vail Village First. Applicant: Robert and Tina Adams Walker residence - Reroof. Brent 1730 Sierra Trail/Lot 21, Vail Village West #1. Applicant: Forrest & Joan Walker Jost residence - Reroof. Brent 5013 Snowshoe Lane/Lot 24, Vail Meadows #1. Applicant: Thomas Jost Alfond residence - Window addition and interior conversion. Christie 44 Willow Place #3/Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Ted Alfond 3 - Garvie residence - Interior conversion. Christie 1600 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 20, Dauphinais-Moseley Subdivision Filing #1. Applicant: Robert Garvie Golden residence - Interior conversion. Christie 1403 Moraine Drive/Lot 24, Dauphinais-Mosley Subdivision Filing #1. Applicant: Diane & Paul Golden Muncaster - Carport addition. Dominic 3887 Lupine Drive/Lot 5, Block 1, Bighorn 1st Addition. Applicant: Neil Muncaster 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. 4 , • 105 LAW OFFICES DUNN, ABPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JOHN W. DUNN 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST TELEPHONE: ARTHUR A. ABPLANALP, JR. SUITE 300 (970) 476-0300 ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN FACSIMILE: DIANE L. HERMAN VAIL, COLORADO 81657 (970) 476-4765 R. C. STEPHENSON KAREN M. DUNN SPECIAL COUNSEL: CERTIFIED LEGAL ASSISTAN7 JERRY W. HANNAH July 7, 1998 Town Council Town of Vail HAND DELIVERED JULY 7, 1998 RE: LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Dave Ransburg: 463 Beaver Dam Road Larry Fields: 586 West Forest Road Jack Baylin: 596 West Forest Road Barry Andrews: 586 West Forest Road Jim Cannon and George Cannon 616 West Forest Road Burt Glazov 454 Forest Road Dear Council Members: This letter is written on behalf of the above named clients who hereby state their opposition to a master plan allawing a change of zoning within the area adjoining Lionshead on the south, which is now zoned agricultural open space, and, specifically allowing a change within the area that is now occupied by tennis courts. The limited open space in Vail should be preserved until those in opposition to such change have been fully advised and given an opportunity to voice their objections, if any, and the Town Council has been fully informed as to the nature and effect of such change on the limited open space and development in Vail. As ground for such opposition, the following statements are made, to wit: 1. The residents and property owners south of Gore Creek have historically relied upon the stability of the zoning of the valley floor. The adoption of a master plan which makes a change in that zoning virtually certain, without active notification of those residents and/or property owners, is not an effective or responsive manner to conduct the governmental process concerning changes in use. 2. The question of changing the plan for any area south of Gore Creek is worthy of separate and identified consideration, publicized in the community. If the Town of Vail is determined to consider the possibility of development in such open space, the question shouldn't be buried in an unrelated program, it should be severed, publicized, and debated. A decision should be made only after that debate is focused on the appropriate question. 3. The residents of West Forest Road have already been subjected to the experiment of attempting to develop a commercial activity at the tennis court location, when the competitive tennis league was located there several years ago. The impact of that activity was one which the residents and owners still remember and regret. The development of the tennis court area, whether for commercial or residential purposes, is an impact which the area should not be required to bear. 4. Even under present conditions, snowcat traffic and staging associated with mountain operations, which occurs at the location where West Forest Road terminates in the winter directly above the tennis courts, is disruptive and makes safe travel on West Forest Road difficult. Increased congestion, whether caused by commercial or residential development at that location, will compound an already intolerable situation. 5. The effect of the designation of the tennis court area for construction to a height of thirty-three feet is nothing more or less than a gift to Vail Associates (or Vail Resorts), under which open space valued by the community and recreational facilities which are unique west of the Ford Park will be eliminated, in favor of an open invitation for Vail Associates/Resorts to apply for a zone change under which the area between West Forest Road and Gore Creek can be developed into structures of up to three stories in height, and that zoning will not necessarily be residential in use. 6. The Lionshead redevelopment master plan is intended to revitalize the businesses and residences of Lionshead and to make the area more attractive. Making lands which are not in Lionshead more easily zoned for development has nothing to do with the revitalization of either the businesses or the residences in Lionshead, and certainly does not make Lionshead more attractive. 7. The project in which the Town is involved is identified as the Lionshead redevelopment master plan. The lands south of Gore Creek are not now and have never been part of Lionshead, and the inclusion of those properties is inappropriately included in an effort which the Town of Vail represents to the public, through the title of the program, as being related only to Lionshead. Your decision not to include in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan any change to the agricultural open space would be greatly appreciated. Yours truly, DUN , ABPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C. eJtephenson Jul. L.iyyd 8:28AM ZEHREN AND ASSOCIA No. 6838 P. 4/11 • • From:0700 • - 1:7/1 to 13 II2 TDJII fIl-to-height ratios 3.1.4.2 Domaui - Public - Semi-Aublic - Semi-Priaate - Privute - Tmnsparency Relationshfps 3.1.4 Public Plazas U . 3.15 View Corridors ~d{;Q 3.1.5.1 Existing Comdors 3.7.5.2 Proposed Cozridors 3.1.5.3 Opportunity Areas 3.1.6 Street Frontage 3.1.4.1 Sic3ewalk Cafes 3.1.4.2 Colonnades, Loggias and Atria 3.1.7 Sun Pockets ~ 3.1 _7_1 Exisbing Swn Packets 3.1.7.2 Oppartunity Areas 3.1.8 Couztyuds and Gazdens / Patios and Y7ecks 3.1.9 Grading and Drainage . 3.1.10 Driveways " 3.1.11 Site Lighting 3.1.12 Public Art 3.1.13 Utility Sareening 3.1.14 Solid Waste CoIlection and Service Areas 3.2 Architecture 3.2.1 Introduction Tlre gaal of the Architectuml Guideliiies is to estab(ish a destgn philosophy for lionshead, zvhich zuhrn integmted zvith the Master Plan and Site Developnrent Gufdelines, tvilr 3iclp tn establ{sh IavnsHead as a coherettf, unified, rtnd dyrearnic pime. ~ Thc GuideIines are not intended to be a strict dicfafion of a specific "slyte" or 3 Jui, L 19y8 8:Z8Ak ltbkEN ANll ASSOCIA No. $$3b P. 5/11 - From:0700 "therne" for Lionshead, but rather to prouide a unifted brciiding frametoork based upon timeless design prenciples such as fnnn, scale, and order_ 77us frameurork will • aIiarn individuat ymperly otoners freedom of design and expnession zuitlun the persottnlities of tlieir buildings ml:ilc establishing and mnintaining fhe voernll rmage fnr the entire concmunity. ~ 3.12 Building Form and Massing ~ - Bnse/ground of burlding ta adrlress/define the pedestrian strut . - Building mass to address urt?an design principlcs such as pedestrian street bu:Td- _ to iines, sun pockets, vitru corrir3ors, specific rote bui'Idings, etc. - Building:s must step hack frorn pedestrian stnet res they increase in heigltt (see - 3.2.3) - Broken masses, tuith varying heights ared forms, required - Vrrtieal "bIock" buildings not permitted 3.23 Building Height - Absoliite building height is defirred as tlte distarut mmsured uestically, at any given point around a structure from exis#ng grade or finislW grade (:ohicheaer is more restrictrae) to the top of the roof directly aboae said given point - Absviute building lreight cannot exaeed tn Lionshead - Maximum stories or height from grade as measured to the eave or top of facing gRble at pedestrian street (stories contmned Taithin tlre ronf do not count ~ torvarcis this height Iimit) - sethack to next building rnrrssing, zuhich bns a maximum height of stories or fioin grade to the eave vr top of fucing gable (stories corrtained taifhin the roof do not count tazoards this height (imil} - setback to next building mnssing which cannot exceed absotute building height (stories contained in the roof do count to7vards this height lirnit) BuiIding 1ieights shuuid aIso step tvitli site - Chimneys, cupolas, tower elen:ents, arrd otlier special elements may be higlter at the discreteon of the DItB 3.24 Bnilding Floor Area - lncreased 6uilding footF'irint at pedestrian level ta encpurage grorvth of buildings cmd to engage/define pedestrian streets, pJnzas, ar:d otlter outdoor spaces - Increased vverall building square fnotage !ny adding additiemal residential Iemts zoithin mof - Codr: issues znith building expans7on 3.25 Exterior Walls 3.25_1 General - Ctear dcfinition of bRSe, tniddle, top ~ - June* June 23 July 7 io August ` > FwDevelopmen ;1r3:F:..`>>~'~;;;: :;~ti'~~?~~',"~:~:~3~;.>< Developmen%~ n ~::~:.wv}z,:<.>: ;x Lionshead f~° ` Desi n Standard Redevelo ment .:;:s 9 5 .~4:: aste p :::~;:t~.:.:.~: , ~~~x~ ~.,Et M r P lan DRAFT : MASTER PLAN Standarcis Remaining Process DOCUMENT ~ f~ilsftv #~ts~cC~ Carrying Capacity EmPloYee z::N;'.': i:i:::,`:;v'<,+<`,`~.' :'E:.•.. Generation Review Building Height Scenarios ' ~ 4 f1001'S + Densiry ' roof Pop, AU, DU, Economic Visual FFU, EHU, Benefits Implications no onentation Commerical ! 5 flOOrs + 1'oOf Density Pop, AU, DU, Economic Visual Decision on by right FFU, EHU, Benefits Implications Building Height no orientation Commerica! 5 floors + roof e/w by right Density 6 floors + roof n/s Pop, AU, DU, Economic Visual AU, EHU, FFU (as a FFU, EHU, Benefits Implications Commerical conditional use permit) JUly 7th MEMORANDUM ~ TO: Town Council FROM: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Team DATE: July 7, 1998 SUBJECT: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Pian A. Purpose of Worksession and Evening Meeting: This worksession and evening meeting are intended to continue the discussion of building height scenarios, development standards, and economic/revenue impacts of building height scenarios. Stan Bernstein will be presenting the Town of Vail revenue benefits of the different building height scenarios. The master plan team will also be presenting a revised density proposal for the Lionshead area. Staff believes a decision on the direction that should be taken should occur at the evening meeting following public input. This direction is necessary so that the master plan team can begin drafting the master plan document. Attached is the revenue model, a work in progress of the design standards, and a draft copy of ~ the carrying capacity study. B. Proposed Schedule. . July 7, 1998 - Council Worksession - Discussion - Evening Meeting - Decision - Economic analysis - Building height scenarios - Impacts of scenarios - Benefits of increased height and density - Carrying capacity - Development standards - Design concepts July 8- August 4 -Preparation of master plan document August 4, 1998 -Council worksession to review draft document C. Staff Recommendation on Building Height: The proposed building height guidelines for the Lionshead Master Plan are outlined as follows: (Note: At Council's direction, the staff has reviewed the grandfather clause for existing buildings contained in the staff/PEC building height comparison. This ~ 1 4wL 1T119~c . . b~ June 2 June 23 July 7 August ;:3~::>}'"'.. •.s!:~~~>ri<' i">:: n Standards Lionshead RedeveloDment Desi9 :y~,... . DRA FT Ma r ste PI an Development MASTER PLAN Standards DOCUMENT . . Remaining Process Carrying Capacity Em lo ee Generation ~~4:'~~~ Review Buildin 9 Height Scenarios 4 fI00CS Density no roof Pop, AU, DU, Economic Visual no orientation FFU, EHU, Benefits Implications Commerical 5 floors + roof Density Pop, AU, DU, Economic Visual Decision on by right no orientation FFU, EHU, Benefits Implications Building Height Commericai 5 floors + roof e/w by right Density 6 floors + roof n/s Pop, AU, DU, Economic Visual AU, EHU, FFU (as a FFU, EHU, Benefits Implications Commerical J conditional use permit) Uly 7th r ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Pian Team . DATE: July 7, 1998 SUBJECT: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan A. Purpose of Worksession and Evening Meeting: This worksession and evening meeting are intended to continue the discussion of building height scenarios, development standards, and economic/revenue impacts of building height scenarios. Stan Bernstein will be presenting the Town of Vail revenue benefits of the different building height scenarios. The master plan team will also be presenting a revised density proposal for the Lionshead area. Staff believes a decision on the direction that should be taken should occur at the evening meeting following public input. This direction is necessary so that the master plan team can begin drafting the master plan document. Attached is the revenue model, a work in progress of the design standards, and a draft copy of the carrying capacity study. B. Proposed SGhedule: July 7, 1998 - Council Worksession - Discussion - Evening Meeting - Decision - Economic analysis - Building height scenarios - Impacts of scenarios - Benefits of increased height and density - Carrying capacity - Development standards - Design concepts July 8- August 4 -Preparation of master plan document August 4, 1998 -Council worksession to review draft document C. Staff Recommendation on Building Height: The proposed building height guidelines for the Lionshead Master Plan are outlined as follows: (Note: At Council's direction, the staff has reviewed the grandfather clause for existing buildings contained in the staff/PEC building height comparison. This 1 117~YIVO *Aa ~ K provision has been modified to allow existing buildings to be rebuilt to their existing height if greater than the proposed limitation.) 1. Maximum by-right height limit based upon geographic location of property within the study area. ~ a. Area "A" -(see map) - This area is characterized by existing single fam~y and duplex homes. It is proposed that any new development in this area conform to this fabric and be limited to the existing development standards in place (maximum height of 33' for a sloping roof). ' b. Area "B" -(see map) - This area is currently open space, located south of - Gore Creek and is characterized by wetlands, steep embankments and undeveloped open space. It is proposed that this area be maintained as an open space resource, with no structures permitted. However, any open, recreation-type support structures that the Town of Vail may see as appropriate in the future shall be limited in height to 1-story, plus a roof. c. Area "C" -(see map) - This area is characterized by the commercial core and multi-family residential uses. It is recommended that structures in this area have a by-right height limit of five stories, plus a roof. Structures in this area also are eligible for bonus heights based upon their orientation and conformance to performance criteria. 2. Roofs. The roof height allowance is defined as the increase in height from the maximum permitted eve height, to the ridge line of the roof. a. Sloped roof requirement. Due to the desire for a consistent, high quality, alpine architectural style in the Lionshead area, it is proposed that flat roofs no longer be allowed on any new construction, building additions or rehabilitation to existing buildings. b. By-right roof allowance. In conjunction with the requirement for a sloping roof, it is recommended that every building be required to have a minimum 5/12 pitch roof, with a maximum by-right roof height of 14 feet, (this is based on the height of a 5/12 pitched roof on a typical 65' wide, double- laaded building). 3. Bonus Heights. The proposed height bonuses for Area "C" of the Lionshead study area are divided into two sections - additional stories (building height before the roof starts), and additional roof height. a. Additional stories: Any structures that are predominately oriented north- south, (with average double-loaded corridor), are eligible for a bonus sixth story, according to conformance with the performance criteria, subject to a conditional use permit. b. Bonus roof height allowances: Based on the predominant orientation of the building and the conformance to performance criteria, it is recommended that the following bonus roof allowances be created: 2 r ~ 1. 9/12 pitch with a maximum roof height of 25' (this height is based on a 9/12 roof on a typical 65' wide double-loaded building). This bonus roof height would be available for all buildings in Area "C" regardless of their orientation, if they meet the performance criteria. This roof height will allow for the creation of a narrower "loft" story inside the roof. 2. 12/12 pitch with a maximum roof height of 33' (this height is based on a 12/12 roof on a typical 65' wide double-loaded building): This bonus roof height would be available for any building in Area "C" that is predominately oriented north-south and meets the " performance criteria. This roof height will allow for the creation of an additionaf story, plus a Ioft space inside the roof. 4. Exclusions. The following exclusions to by-right or bonus building heights are proposed in order to protect the character and visual quality of certain spaces within the Lionshead Study Area. It is suggested that building setbacks, build-to lines and architectural step-backs will be detailed in the architectural and site guidelines. a. Any building adjoining the Gore Creek stream corridor or adjoining the ski yard shall be limited to a 4-story maximum permitted eve height, and must conform to the architectural design guidelines for buildings fronting these areas. However, this is not intended to prevent a building from attaining its bonus height after stepping back from the restricted building face. b. Any part of a building that is south facing, north facing, or adjoining the Lionshead retail mall area shall be limited to a 5-story maximum permitted eve height. This is not intended to prevent a building from attaining its bonus height after stepping back from the restricted building face. c. All buildings in Area "C" shall conform to the Lionshead architectural and site design guidelines, which may influence the initial eve height and building step-back requirements. d. All building shall respect the established public view corridors. 5. Maximum Building Height Synopsis. The following maximum attainable building heights under the above proposals are based on an assumed 115 floor-to-floor height. a. 71.5 Feet - Maximum By-Right building height, with no bonus story and no bonus roof height (57.5' for five stories, plus 14' for the roof). b. 82.5 Feet - Building height with no bonus stories and the initial bonus roof height, (57.5' for five stories, plus 25' for the roof). c. 90.5 Feet - Building height with no bonus stories and the maximum bonus roof height, allowed only for north-south oriented buildings (57.5' for five stories, plus 33' for the roof). d. 102 Feet - Building height with bonus sixth floor and maximum bonus roof height, allowed only for north-south oriented buildings (69' for six stories, 3 ~ F plus 33' for the roof). 4 . '3 +.,s' , ~.~t t? ' ~•1, ~ < ~ ~'.4 T~ , 4 ~ ' _ . ~ ~ }.t• ~ 4~ ~ t } ~ ~ ` ! t ~ F • ' , , , Ao 0 . i. _ • , . . . . . ~ ~ ~ . , ~ Jr r ~ t ~ ZONE '/t' ZbNE 'A' " r....'.."~ - .....---r"- ~ . ~ i Staff Recommendation 5 D. PEC Recommendation on Building Height: Lionshead Master Pian Comparison of Recommendations April 21,1998 Proposal for Building Staff Recommendation PEC Recommendation Council Height Actfon Average floor-to-floor 11.5' 11.5' height Zone A 33' (sloping roof) 33' (sloping roof) Building height based on geographic zone Zone B 1 story, plus roof 1 story, plus roof Building height based on for recreation-type structures, if any for recreation-type structures, if any geographic zone 2one C-1, By Right 5 stories + 5:12 roof (71.5') E/W 8uilding Building height based on - 3 stories + 5:12 roof (48.5') geographic zone: N/S Buildings (commercial core) - 5 stories + 9:12 roof (82.5') Zone C-2, By Right 5 stories + 5:12 roof (71.5') E/W Building Building height based on - 5 stories + 9:12 roof (82.5') geographic zone: N/S Buildings (frontage road) - 6 stories + 9:12 roof (94') _ Zone C-3, By Rlght 5 stories + 5:12 roof (71.5') Within reasonable parameters, this area shall be Building height based on allowed to contain greater densiry and building geographic zone: height for the development of EHU's, AU's, and (west area) office space. 6 Proposal for Building Staff Recommendation PEC Recommendatfon Council Height Action 2one C-1, Sonus ENV Buildings - E/W Buildings Building height based on -5 stories + 9:12 roof (82.5') - 4 stories + 5:12 roof (60') geographic zone: N/S Buildings - N/S Buildings (commercial core) - 6 stories + 9:12 roof (94') - 7 stories + 9:12 roof (105.5') - 6 stories + 12:12 roof (102') Zone C-2, Bonus ENV Buildings - E/W Buildings Building height based on -5 stories + 9:12 roof (82.5') - 7 stories + 9:12 roof (105.5') geographic zone: N/S Buildings - N/S Buildings (frontage road) - 6 stories + 9:12 roof (94') - 8 stories + 9:12 roof (117.0') - 6 stories + 12:12 roof (102') Zone C-3, Bonus E/W Buildings - Within reasonable parameters, this area shall be Building height based on -5 stories + 9:12 roof (82.5') allowed to contain greater density and building geographic zone: N/S Buildings - height for the development of EHU's, AU's, and (west area) - 6 stories + 9:12 roof (94') office space. - 6 stories + 12:12 roof (102') Buildings adjoining creek Building must step back after 4th story Building must step back after 4th story or skl yard Buildings adjoining main Building must step back after 5th story Building must step back after 4th story east/west pedestrian mall Existing Buildings Allowed to be rebuilt to existing height Allowed to be rebuilt to existing number of stories with 11.5' average floor-to-floor height Bonus Height or Equal square footage of bonus floors must exist on site Equal square footage of bonus floors must exist Pertormance Criteria as EHU's, FFU's, or AU's on site as EHU's, AU's, or office space ~ ~ , . PEC Recommendation E' . y f~ F ` 1. ' F r ~ ~ C ~ i J-~ . I ~ ;I f I f ~ i K o U ~ . i ' 1 1 ~ 1 R / ~ 1 a il 1I~~ • {e•J_I _ . . _ ' ~ - ~ ~ } ! _ t.•~R'f ' n` ~ t. -~1 ~ ti • ~ f• ~ t 7 ~~~'4{.~y~~ `i. . .~;r, ~ .i~ f ~ I F 4 ~ ~ _ _ , ' ,i ~ ~ _ ~ ~.~1•. ~ . _ ~ ~/i . ~r.~ r ,55~ ^l ~ ~ t~ 9 _ ` •L% i R ~ r. ~ i. ~ ' . .4" ~ ~ N~~• j ~ rc. ~ y.~s~I ' ZOM6 #A' ZDHC M. ~_l - . •f`~' r~~ t ~ --y=_ --r'`.~---"~r I ~ - y--~--~- ~ zoNE LONE'C-2' ~ ZONE'C-S' . ~ L[ON3HEAD BULDfNG IfIaHT ZONES i ; / - ~ i i 8 ~ E. Proposed Development Standards: Development Standards Lionshead Master Plan Note: In order to utilize these proposed deve/oprnent standards, an entire project must comp/y with ail e/ements of the Master P/an, including, but not limited to, Design Guidelines, build-to lines, etc. These provisions only apply to properties located within `Zone C" of the Lionshead Study Area. New Development ~ Redevelopment, Demo/Rebuild, and - Additions to Existing Buildings Density: Density: 25 DUs per acre (no change) 33 DUs per acre or 33% increase over existing DUs, whichever is greater, subject to a Conditional Use Permit EHUs, FFUs, or AUs do not count toward density EHUs, FFUs, or AUs do not count toward density Nonconforming buildings able to build back to - existing density GRFA: GRFA: Eliminate GRFA and rely on building height, Eliminate GRFA and rely on building height, architectural guidelines, site coverage and architectural guidefines, site coverage and setbacks to define building bulk and mass. setbacks to define building bulk and mass. Setbacks: Setbacks: Build-to lines along public corridors Build-to lines along public corridors Maintain existing 10' setback in other areas Maintain existing 10' setback in other areas not defined by build-to lines not defined by build-to lines Site coverage: Site coverage: 70% (of site area max.) (no change) unless 70% (of site area max.) (no change) unless otherwise directed in master plan otherwise directed in master plan Landscape area: Landscape area: 20% (of site area min.) unless otherwise 20% (of site area min.) unless otherwise directed in master plan (no change) directed in master plan (no change) F:\E V E RYONE\COU NC I L\ME MOS\98\LH.707 9 LIONSHEAD MASTER PLAN TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE IlVIPACT MODEL JUNE 24,1998 Prepared sy: STAN BERNSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A: EXECUTIVE SiJMMARY AND I{Ey ASSUMPTIONS SECTION B: REVENUE IlvIpACT GRAPHS SECTION C: REVENUE IMpACT MODEL - ALL SUPPORTING SCHEDULES 1 J ~ \ SECTION A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEy ASSUMPTIONS LIONSHEAD REVENUE IlVIPACT MODEL L INTRODUCTION Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc. was retained by the Town of Vail (the "Town") to-develop a Revenue Impact Model (the "Model") identifying the incremental revenue impacts to the Town . associated with six Lionshead development scenarios as described in the LIONSHEAD MASTER PLAN, PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT DATA MODEL JCTNE 3 1998 prepared by Design Workshop Incarporated ("DWI"). The six development scenarios assume three building height scenarios (four stories, five stories, and six stories, each scenario also including a rool), with each height scenario including two analyses, one weighted towards the creation of Dwelling Units, the other weighted towards the creation of Fractional Fee Units. The development scenarios are also based on an analysis of which properties in Lionshead are likely to sustain new development, redevelopment, expansion of existing development, and/or ground level retail expansion. The six development scenarios are described as follows: Scenario A-1: Four story building plus a roof, weighted towards Fractional Fee (intervals) product on new development. Scenario A-2: Four story building plus a root weighted towazds Dwelling Unit (condominiums) product on new development and redevelopment. Scenario B-1: Five story building ptus a roof, weighted towards Fractional Fee product on new development. Scenario B-2: Five story building plus a roof, weighted towards Dwelling Unit product on new development and redevelopment. Scenario C-1: Six story building plus a roof, weighted towards Fractional Fee product on new development. Scenario C-2: Six story building plus a roof, weighted towards Dwelling Unit product on new development and redevelopment. 1 , LIONSHEAD REVENUE IlVIPACT MODEL IL MODEL S[TIVIlVIARY Exhibit I, which appears on the following page, presents a Summary of the incremental revenue impacts to the Town associated with each development scenario. Exhibit I presents (i) a summary of significant recurring incremental Town revenues at full-buildout; (ii) a summary of non-recurring incremental Town building permit related revenues generated during the buildout period and real estate transfer tax revenues generated from the initial sales of condominium and interval ownership residential units; and (iu) other significant information such as incremental skier days, taxable sales and assessed valuation. Exhibit I relates all revenue impacts to the 1998 Town budget so that readers of this report will be better able to understand the relative magnitude of the forecasted incremental revenues: A concise nan-ative summary of Exhibit I is presented in the following paragraphs: . Recurring incremental Town revenues are forecasted to range from $2.1 million for Scenario A 2 (four story, dwelling unit product weighted) to $4.0 million for Scenario C-1 (six story, fractional fee product weighted). These incremental revenues are significant in tenns of comparing them to the 1998 Town's budgeted revenues - Scenario A-2 incremental revenues represent 9.3% of comparable 1998 Town revenues and Scenario C-1 incremental revenues represent 18.0% of comparable 1998 Town revenues. . Forecasted incremental revenues for all three fractional fee product scenarios are approximately 300/o more than the incremental revenues forecasted for the three related dwelling unit product scenarios. This is because it is assumed that fractional fee units will have an average annual occupancy rate of 75% compazed to the 30% occupancy rate assumed for dwelling units (i.e., more guest nights and skier days will be generated assuming the fractional fee product scenarios) . . Real estate transfer tax revenues generated from initial condominium and intervals sales are significant and are forecasted to range from $2.8 million for Scenario A-2 to $6.0 million for Scenario C-l. Real estate transfer tax revenues are significantly higher assuming the fractional fee product scenarios compared to the dwelling unit scenarios. • Construction related pernvt revenues are forecasted to range from $2.4 million for Scenario A-1 to $3.6 million for Scenario C-2. These revenues will be the same assuming the fractional fee or the dwelling unit scenario because construction costs should be identical for both ownership scenario . Incremental skier days at buildout are forecasted to range from 54,500 for Scenario A-2 (3.2% of 1996-97 Vail Mountain slder days) to 141,750 for Scenario C-1 (8.4% of 1996-97 Vail Mountain slder days). Skier days are significantly higher assuming the fractional fee scenarios compared to the dwelling unit scenarios. • Incremental assessed valuation at buildout is forecasted to range from $37 million for Scenario A•1 to $53 million for Scenario C-2, and represents 8.2% and 11.8% respectively of the Town's current assessed valuation of $448 million. • Incremental taxable sales at buildout are forecasted to range from $38.5 million for Scenario A-2 to $75.3 million for Scenario C-1, and represents 10.5% and 20.5% respectively of the total 1997 Town taxable sales base of $367.5 million. 2 A DQ!.81T I LJONSHEAD MASTER PLAN - TOWN OF VAIL INCREMENTAL HEVENUE FORECAST TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE FORECAST SUMMARY - PLANNING SCENARIOS A-1 THROUGH C-2 . A-1 =2~~~~=~~~-2 1998 ~ ~ F7E4%SALES G REVENUES AT LL-BUILDOUT & S.O. TAXES $167,435 $167,435 $203.685 $203,685 $240,799 $240,799 $2,054.140 TAXES 1,990,382 1,540,118 2,498,T90 1,932,894 3,Oi4,973 2,331,693 14,557,735 TTAXES 140,352 81,756 176,132 102.488 212,615 123,695 2,16.4,288 STATE TAXES 160,040 113,780 199,200 141,060 239,680 169,480 1,700,000 00 BUSINESS LICENSES 19,904 15,401 24,988 19,329 30,150 23,317 341,500 COUN7Y SALES TAXES 74,639 57,754 93,705 72,484 113,061 87,438 465,619 CIGAREITE TAXES 17,714 13,707 22,239 17,203 26,833 20,752 128,393 ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND 36,904 36,904 44,894 44,894 53,074 53,074 539,798 FRANCHISE FEES 75,634 58,524 94,954 73,450 114,569 88.604 557.255 TOTAL REVENUES 005 2 5 380 358 587 607 486 754 3 138 $22.508,728 % OF TOWN'S 1998 BUDGET 11.996 9.396 14.996 11.696 18.096 13.996 1% REAL ESTATE TAXES $4,001,000 $2,844.500 $4,980,000 $3,526.500 $5.992,000 $4,237.000 $1,700,000 CONSTRUCT. RELATED PERMITS 2,462.473 2,462,473 2,999,848 2,999,848 3.554,098 3,554,098 550.000 TOTAL REVENUES 463 473 5 306 973 7 979 848 6 526 348 9 546 098 7 791 098 50 000 SKIER DAYS 93.568 54,504 117.421 68,325 141,743 82,463 1.686,790 % OF 1996-97 ACTUAL 5.5% 3296 7.0% 4.1% 8.4% 4.996 ASSESSm VALUATION $36,903,948 $36,903,948 $44,893,808 $44,893,808 $53,073,928 $53,073,928 $448,552,540 % OF 1997 ACTlJAL 82% 8.2% 10.096 10.096 11.8% 11.8% TAXABLE SALES $49,759,538 $38,502,938 $62,469,750 $48,322,350 $75,374,325 $58,292,325 $367,525,500 % OF 1997 TOWN ACTUAL 13.5% 10.5% 17.096 13.1% 20.5% 15.996 tt-IE NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYtNG REPORT ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS EXHIBIT. TOTALS MAY NOT ADD DUE TO COMPUTER ROUNDING. THE NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING REPORT ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS DCHIBfT. THERE WILL USUALLY BE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL RESULTS BECAUSE EVENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FREQUENTLY DO NOT OCCUR AS EXPECTED AND THOSE DIFFERENCES MAY BE MATERIAL 3 ~ S L•IONSHEAD REVENUE IMpACT MODEL IIL SLfMMARY OF SIGIVIFICANT PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS A. Commercial property will be assessed at an uninflated actual value of $275 per square foot. B. The commercial assessment rate will remain at 290/o of actual value and the residential assessment rate will remain at 9.74%. C. The average condominium and interval unit will be 1,600 square feet and will have an . actual value of $500 per square foot or $800,000 per unit. No inflation has been assumed. D. Annual uninflated taxable retail and restaurant sales have been estimated as follows: 1. It is assumed that an average of four people will occupy each dwelling unit 300/o of each year, and that each person occupying a dwelling unit will spend an average of $100 per day for food, drinks, and shopping (this daily spending rate is supported by a survey conducted by RRC in 1996 and 1998). 2. It is assumed that an average of four people will occupy each fractional fee week 75% of each year, and that each person will spend an average of $100 per day for food, drinks, and shopping. 3. It is assumed that an average of two people will occupy each hotel room 65% of the year, and that each person will spend an average of $100 per day for food, drinks, and shopping. E. The average condominium and interval nightly rental rate is assumed to be $300. No inflation has been assumed. F. The average condominium annual occupancy rate for rental purposes are assumed to be 25.0% and the average interval unit annual occupancy rate for rental purposes is assumed to be 5.0%. G. Annual skier days generated per interval unit are assumed to be 252; annual skier days generated per condominium unit are assumed to be 101; and annual skier days generated per hotel unit are assumed to be 138. H. Effective taxable ski lift revenues per skier day are assumed to be $37.50. No inflation has been assumed. 1. The average sales price of an interval week is assumed to be $25,000. No inflation has been assumed. J. The annual rate of secondary sales for condominiums and intervals are assumed to be 4% of total inventory. 4 LIONSHEAD REVENUE IlVIPACT MODEL III. SIfMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS K. The existing assessed valuation of Vail Resort's Inc. core site is estimated to be $5.0 million. - L. Property tax revenues are based on the Town's current 4.321 mill levy and specific ownership taxes are assumed to be 5% of property tax revenues. M. County road and bridge fund revenues are calculated based on a continuation of the Eagle County road and bridge fund levy of approximately 2.0 mills. N. Construction permits are calculated by applying a factor of .0075 to the actual value of new construction. 0. The Eagle County sales tax rebate is calculated by applying a factor of .0275 to the Town's incremental annual sales tax forecasts. P. Cigarette tax revenues are calculated by applying a factor of .0089 to the Town's incremental annual sales tax forecasts. Q. Franchise fee revenues are calculated by applying a factor of .038 to the Tovm's incremental annual sales tax forecasts. R- Business license revenues are calculated by applying a factor of .01 to the Town's incremental annual sales tax forecasts. 5 f A ~ \ SECTION B REVENUE IMPACT GRAPHS INCREMENTAL RECURRING REVENUES AND 4,500,000- % OF TOWN'S 1998 BUDGET $4,045,754 4,000,000 3,500,000 $3,358,58-7 $3,138,852 3,000,000 _ $2,683,004 $2,607,487 2,500,000 $2, 085, 379 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 11.9% 9.3% 14.9% 11.6% 18.0% 13.9% 0 a a a a a Q. m} N~ f2 E2~' • LI) a~0 a~} a~ ai>- p ~ cw 0 ~ Oc~i~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ mof caW ~ j a) X o~ .>°c~ o> 5~ o~ U LL > U LL U LL Li t` LL ~ B-1 , INCREMENTAL NON-RECURRING REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAXES 6,000,000 $5,992,000 5,000,000 $4,980,000 $4, 237, 000 $4,001,000 4, 000, 000 $3,526,500 3,000,000 $2,844,s00 2,000,000 1, 000, 000 - 0 n a a a a a ~ r ~ r s P • a~ a0 a~ `m~ O a~} a~ioC ~ 0o O~ O~ p~ po po m~ co ~w a) X o~ 00 o> t~ o X .>Z Fn U~ O 7~ t5 V- ~ UFD > N LL LL Li B-2 ~ i INCREMENTAL NON-RECURRING CONSTRUCTtON PERMITS 4,000,000 3,554,098 3,554,098 3,500,000 2,999,848 2,999,848 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,462,473 2,462,473 2,000,000 1,500,000 - di 1,000,000 500,000 E. a n a a a t ~ L uti a m0 mm c O ~ 0 a ~ O . Ou~j m~ Oo O~ O~ O~ 'Fa a~ a) w ~ a~ X W > o0 .°c~ o> 0~ oX . o ~ ~ m LL LL LL LL s B-3 » INCREMENTAL SKIER DAYS AND °!o OF 199611997 SKIER DAYS 160,000 141,743 140,000 120,000 117,421 100,000 , 82,463 80,000 68,325 60,000 64, 40,000 20,000 5.5% 3.2% 7.0% 4.1 % 8.4% a a a. n Q o. N ` ~ ~ a O aD a~i } aD ~ ~ O ~ O OO m~ m~ O~ O~ ~ W aD ~ ~ a~ X 00 0~ o > z ~ oX ~ LL ~ tL ~i ~ LL ~ B-4 INCR.EIVrENTAL ASSESSED VALUATION AND % OF 1997 TOWN OF VAtL ASSESSED VALUATION 60,000,000 $53,073,928 $53,073,928 50,000,000 $44,893,808 $44,893,808 40,000,000 - $36,903,948 $36,903,948 30,000,000 - 20,000,000 - 10,000,000 0 8.2% 8.2% 10.0% 110.0% 011.8% 011.8% - a a a a a a ~r ~ • a~~ a~0 c>- °~o (D~ O ~ ~ O~ O0 O~ OO m m~ O ioW ~ j , a) X s~ o> .c°~ oX ' o0 c~o u' ~ c~o ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ LL LL LL B-5 ~INCREMENTAL TAXABLE SALES AND % OF TOTAL TOWN OF VAIL . TAXABLE SALES 80,000,000 $75,374,325 70,000,000 $62,469,750 60,000,000 58 292 325 50,000,000 $49, 759, 538 8 352 350 40,000,000 $38 502 938 30,000,000 20, 000, 000 10,000,000 13.5% 10.5% 17.0% 13.2% 0.5% 15.9% a n. n. a a a N N} f~p N} N L} • N~ ~O N} N~ N~~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 C. (~O Q~ 0 ~ W j '5 U) OO L~ O> jlL OX L>~ ~LL ~ ~LL > > U LL LL LL B-6 , SECTION C A:EVENUE IMPACT MODEL - ALL SUPPORTING SCHEDULES LIONSHEAD MASTER PLAN ' . TOWN OF VAIL INCHEMENTAL REVENUE FORECAST - RECURRING AT FULL-BUILDOUT WORKING DRAFT DATED 6-24-98 TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE FORECAST SUMMARY - PLANNING SCENARIOS A-1 THROUGH C-2 PROPERTYTAXES_ -2 i Development of Open Lands 90,691 90,891 105,842 105,842 121,330 121,330 Redev. of Existing Properties 45,223 45,223 61,230 61,280 77,384 77,384 Addn. Density Added 20,538 20,538 23,905 23,905 27,609 27,609 Ground Levei Retail Expansion 31009 31009 3J009 3.009 3i09 3,009 Total Property Taues 159.462 159.462 193.986 193,986 229.332 229.332 4% SALES TAXES: Development of Open Lands 984,186 609,258 1,191,141 797,373 1,402,695 868,335 Redev. of Existing Properties 832,529 757,193 1,105,512 993,384 1,378,824 1,229,904 Addn. Densiry Added 173,667 173,667 202,137 202,137 233,454 233,454 . Graund Level Retail Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 0 . - Total Sales Taxes 1.990,382 1,540.118 2,498,790 1,932,894 3,014.973 2,331,693 4% SKI UFT TAXES: Development of Open Lands 81,213 32,421 98,291 39,239 115,748 46,208 Redev. of Existing Properties 49,898 40,094 67,085 52.493 84,444 65,064 Addn. Density Added 9,242 9,242 10,757 10,757 12,423 12,423 Ground Level Retail Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Ski Lift Taxes 140.352 81,756 176,132 102.488 212.675 123.695 t % flEAL ESTATE TAXES: Development of Open Lands 107,000 68,480 129,500 82,880 152,500 97,600 Redev. of Existing Properties 33,520 25,780 46,980 35,460 60,940 45,640 Addn. Densiry Added 19,520 19,520 22,720 22,720 26,240 26,240 Ground Level Retail Expansion o 0 0 0 0 0 Total Real Estate Taxes 160,040 113.780 199,200 141,060 239.680 169,480 BUSINESS LICENSES: Development of Open Lands 9,842 8,093 11,911 7,374 14,027 8,683 Redev. of Existing Properties 8,325 7,572 11,055 8,934 13,788 12,299 Addn. Density Added 1,737 1,737 2,021 2,021 2,395 2,335 Ground Level Retaii Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totai Business Licenses 19.904 15.401 24.988 19.929 80.150 23,317 COUNIY SALES TNCES: Development of Open Lands 36,907 22,847 44,668 27,651 52,601 32,563 Redev. of Existing Properties 31,220 28,395 41,457 37,252 51,706 48,127 Addn. Density Added 6,513 8,513 7,580 7,880 8,755 8,755 Ground Level Retail Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total County Sales Taxes 74.839 57,754 93,705 72,484 113,061 87,438 CIGARETTE TAXES: Development of Open Lands 8,759 5,422 10,801 8,563 12,484 7,728 Redev. of Existing Properties 7,410 6,739 9,839 8,841 12,272 10,946 Addn. Density Added 1,546 1,548 1,799 1,799 2,078 2,078 Ground Level Retsil Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Cigarette Taxes 17.714 13.707 22.239 17.203 26.833 20.752 ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND: Development of Open Lands 20,988 20,988 24,495 24,495 28,019 28,079 Redev. of Existing Properties 10,466 10,466 14,170 14,170 77,909 17,909 Addn. Density Added 4,753 4,753 5,532 5,532 6,389 6,389 Ground Levei Retail Expansion 596 ggg 696 e95 e96 696 Total Road and Bridge Fund 36.904 36,g64 qq,ggq 44,ggq 53,074 53,074 SPECIFIC OWNERSHIP TAXES: Development of Open Lands 4,535 4,535 5,292 5,292 8,088 6,066 Redev. of Existing Properties 2,281 2,261 3,061 3,061 3,889 3,869 Addn. Density Added 1,027 1,027 1,195 1,195 1,380 1,380 Ground Level Retail Eupansion 150 150 180 150 150 150 TOtal S.O. Te7(es 7y978 L973 9I699 9-ig9 11.487 11.467 FRANCHISE FEES: Development of Open Lands 37,399 29,152 45,263 28,020 59,802 32,997 Redev. of Existing Properties 31.838 28,773 42,009 37,749 52,395 46,738 Addn. Density Added 8,599 6,599 7,681 7,681 8,871 8,871 Ground Level Retail Expansion 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Franchise Fees 75,634 58,524 94.954 73,450 114,569 88,804 TOTAL REVENUES: Development of Open Lands 1,381,520 883,887 1,667,004 1,084,728 1,958,832 1,249,589 Redev. of Existing Properties 1,052,487 952,496 1,402,398 1,253,573 1,753,532 1,555,873 Addn. Density Added 245,141 245,141 285,328 285,328 329,534 329,534 Ground Level Retail Expansion 185g 3 g,_gg_ i g,~5g i$,~~ 3.856 3,856 TOTAL REVENUES 2 683,005 2 380 3 8 58 12L7,486 4 04~ 5.754 3 138.852 7HE ABOVE INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY AUDRED, DCAMINED, REVIEWED OR TESTED FOR REASONABLENESS. TOTALS MAY NOT ADD DUE TO COMPUTEfl ROUNDING. THE NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING REPORT ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS IXHIBfT. THERE WILL USUALLY BE DIFFERENCES BEIWEEN ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL RESULTS BECAUSE EVENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FREQUENTLY DO NOT OCCUR AS EXPECTED AND THOSE DIFFERENCES MAY BE MATERIAL. C-1 ~ L1GNSHEAD MASTER PLAN TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE FOFtECAST ' WORKING DRAFT DATED 6-24-98 NEW DEVELOPMENT - REDEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS - PLANNING SCENARIOS A-1 THROUGH C-2 BUILDOUT \ 1. North Dav Lot Retail Sq. Ft. 3,537 3,537 3,537 3,537 3,537 3,537 \ Dwelling Units (Condos) 0 26 0 31 0 36 Fractional Units (Intenrals) 26 0 31 0 36 0 2. West Dav Lot Retail Sq. Ft. 11,018 11,018 11,018 11,018 11,018 11,018 Dwelling Units (Condos) 0 90 0 108 0 126 Fractional Units (Intervals) 90 0 108 0 126 - 0 3. VA Service Yard Retail Sq. Ft. 27,787 27,787 27,787 27,787 27,787 27,787 Dwelling Units (Condos) 0 81 0 99 0 118 Fractional Units (Intervals) 81 0 99 0 118 0 4. Face of Parkinq structure Retail Sq. Ft. 7.697 7,697 7,697 7,697 7,697 7,697 Dwelling Units (Condos) 0 12 0 15 0 18 Fractional Units (Intervals) 12 0 15 0 18 0 5. Infill at East Bus Drop-off Retail Sq. Ft. 4,049 4,049 4,049 4,049 4,049 4,049 Dwelling Units (Condos) 0 5 0 6 0 7 Fractional Units (Intervals) 5 0 6 0 7 0 6. Totsls - New Develooment Retail Sq. Ft. 54,088 54,088 54,088 54,088 54.088 54,088 Dwelling Units (Condos) 0 214 0 259 0 305 Fractional Units (Intervals) 214 0 259 0 305 0 THE ABOVE INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY AUDITm, EXAMINED, REVIEWED OR TESTED FOR REASONABLENESS. TOTALS MAY NOT ADD DUE TO COMPUTER ROUNDING. THE NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING REPORT ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS EXHIBIT. THERE WILL USUALLY BE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL RESULTS BECAUSE EVENI'S AND CIRCUMSTANCES FREQUENTLY DO NOT OCCUR AS IXPECTED AND THOSE DIFFERENCES MAY BE MATERIAL. C-2 LIONSHEAD MASTER PLAN , A TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE FORECAST WORKING DRAFT DATED 6-24-98 , NEW DEVELOPMENT - REDEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS - PLANNING SCENARIOS A-t THROUGH C-2 A-1 A-2 I B-1 B-2 C-1 q C-2 ASSESSED VALUE AND PROPERTY AND S O TAX REVENUES General Assumptions: Retaii Value - Sq. Ft. $275 $275 $275 $275 $275 $275 Condo./Interval Sq. Ft. 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,800 1,600 1,600 Condolinterval Value per Sq. R. $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 1. North Dav Lot Actual Value Retail 972,675 972,675 972,675 972,675 972.675 972,675 Ass VaI Retail @ 29% 282.076 282.076 282.076 282.076 282,076 282,076 Actual Value Condos/intervals 20,800,000 20,800,000 24,800,000 24,800,000 28,800,000 28,800,000 Ass Val Condo/Interval @ 9.74% 2,025,920 2,025,920 2,415,520 2,416,520 2,808,120 2,805,120 • Total Assessed Value 2,307,996 2,307,996 2,697,598 2,697,598 3,087,196 3,087,196 - Town Mill Levy 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 Town Property Taxes 9,973 9,973 11,656 11,658 13,340 13,340 Town 8.0.Taxes 9 5°k 499 499 583 583 687 667 2. West Day Lot Actuel Value Retail 3,029,950 3,029,950 3,029,950 3,029,950 3,029,950 3,029,950 Ass Val Retail @ 29',6 878,885 878,685 878,885 878,885 878,885 878,685 Actual Value Condos/Intervals 72,000,000 72,000,000 86,400,000 88,400,000 100,800,000 100,800,000 Ass Val Condo/Interval Q 9.74% 7,012,800 7,012,800 8,415,360 8,415,960 9,817,920 9,817,920 Total Assessed Value 7,891,488 7,891,486 9,294,048 9,294,046 10,N6,606 10,896,606 Town Mill Levy 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 Town Property Taxes 34,099 34,099 40,160 40,160 46,220 48,220 Town S.O. Taxes @ 5% 1,705 1,705 2,008 2,008 2,311 2,311 3. VA Service Yard Actusl Value Retail 7,841,425 7,641,425 7,641,425 7,841,425 7,641,425 7,641,425 Ass Val Retail 0 29% 2,218,013 2.216,013 2.218.013 2.216.013 2.216.013 2,216.013 Actual Value Condos/intervals 84,800,000 64,800,000 79,200,000 79,200,000 94,400,000 94,400,000 Ass Val Condo/lnterval @ 9.74% 6,311,520 6,311,520 7,714,080 7,714,080 9,194,560 9,194,560 ` Total Assessed Vaiue 8,527,533 8,527,533 9,930,093 9,990,093 11,410,573 11,410,573 Town Miil Levy 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 Town Property Taxes 38,847 36,847 42,908 42,908 49,305 49,305 Town S.O. Taxes @ 5% 1,842 1,842 2.145 2,145 2.465 2.465 4. Face of Parkina Structure Actual Value Retail 2.118,675 2.116.675 2.116,675 2.116,675 2,116.675 2,116.675 Asa Val Retail @ 29% 613,836 819,836 613,836 613,838 613,836 613,836 Actual Value Condos/Intervals 9,800,000 9,600,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 14,400,000 14,400,000 Ass Val Condo/Interval @ 9.74% 995,040 935,040 1,188,800 1,168,800 1,402,580 1,402,560 Totai Assessed Value 1,548,876 1,548,876 1,782,63g 1,782,636 2,016,396 2,016,396 Town Miil Levy 4.321 4.321 4.921 4.521 4.321 4.321 Town Property Taxes 6,893 6,893 7,703 7,703 8,713 8,713 Town S.O. Taxes 9 5°.6 335 336. 385 385 436 436 5. Infill at East Bus Droo-off Actual Value Retail 1,113,475 1,113,475 1,113,475 1,113,475 1,113,475 1,113,475 Ass Val Retail 9 29°k 322,908 322,908 322,908 322,908 322,908 322,908 Actual Value Condos/Intervals 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,800,000 4,800,000 5,800,000 5,600,000 Ass Val Condo/Interval 9 9.74% 389,600 989,600 467,520 467,520 545,440 545,440 Total Assessed Value 712,508 712,508 790,428 790,428 868,348 868,348 Town Miii Levy 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.921 4.321 Town Property Taxes 3,079 3,079 3,415 3,415 3,752 3,752 Town S.O. Taxes @ 5% 154 154 171 171 188 188 6. Totais - New Development Actual Value Retail 14,874,200 14,874,200 74,874,200 14,874,200 14,874,200 14,874,200 Ass Val Retail @ 29°,6 4,313,518 4,913,518 4,313,518 4,313,518 4,919,518 4,313.518 Actual Value Condos/Intervals 171,200,000 171,200,000 207,200,000 207,200,000 244,000,000 244,000,000 Ass Val Condo/Interval @ 9.74% 16,874,880 18,674,880 20,181,280 20,181,280 23,765,600 23,785,600 Total Assessed Value 20,988,398 20,988,398 24,494,798 24,494,798 28,079,118 28,079,118 Town Mill Levy 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 Town Property Taxes 90,691 90,691 105,842 105,842 121,330 121,330 Town S.O. Taxes 9 5% 4,535 4,535 5,292 5,292 8,066 g,068 County R&B Fund Q 1 Mill 20,988 20,988 24,495 24.495 26,079 28,079 Construct. Permfts @.0075 1,395,557 1,395,557 1,865,557 1,665,557 1,941,557 1,941,557 THE ABOVE INFOflMATION HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY AUDITED, EXAMINED, REVIEWED OR TESTED FOR REASONABLENESS. TOTALS MAY NOT ADD DUE TO COMPUTER ROUNDING. THE NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINED IN TNE ACCOMPANYING REPORT ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS EXHIBIT. THERE WILL USUALLY BE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL RESULTS BECAUSE EVENTS AND CIflCUMSTANCES FREQUEN7LY DO NOT OCCUR AS EXPECTED AND THOSE DIFFERENCES MAY BE MATERIAL. C-S + LIOh"SHEAD MAS7ER PLAN TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE FORECAST MNORIQNG DRAFT DA7ED 6-24-98 NEW DEVELOPMENT - REDEVBOPMENT ASSUMP'itONS - PLANNING SCENARIOS A-1 THROUGH C-2 ~ -2 -1 -2 -1 -2 4% SALES TAX REVENUES Genetal Assumptions: People Generffied/FFU &AC 4 4 4 4 4 4 Exp/O'Night Gues! - Aes!/Ret. $100 $100 $1 00 $100 $100 $100 . Occupany Rate/FFU (Irterval) 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% Occupany Rate/DU (Condo) 30% 30°,6 3096 30y6 30g6 30g6 CondoMterval Nightly Rental qat $300 $3pp g300 $gpp $300 $300 CondoAnnual Rental Occ. 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% Interval Annual Rental Occ. 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 1. North Day Lot . Annual People Nights 28.470 11.388 33,945 13,578 39.420 18.768 _ Tax.Sales-Annual-ReffiB/Rest 2,847,000 1,138,800 3,394,500 1,357,800 3,942,000 1,578,800 41/Sales Taxes-Armual-R8R 113,880 45,552 135,780 54,312 157.680 83.072 Condo Units 0 26 0 31 0 38 Intervel Unis 28 0 31 0 38 0 TazableSales-Annual-Lodging 142,350 711,750 189,725 848,825 197,100 985,500 4%Sales Tax - Annual-Lodgirj 5,694 28,470 8,789 33,945 7,884 39,420 Retail, Rest. & Lodge 4°k Taxes 119,574 74,022 142,569 88,257 185,584 102,492 2. West Day Lot Annial People Nighis 98,550 39,420 118,280 47,304 137,970 55,188 Tax. Sales-Anrwal-Retai/Rest 9,855,000 3,942,000 11,828,000 4,730,400 13,797,000 5,518,800 4%ShcesTaXes-AMUal-RBcR 394,200 157,680 473,040 189,218 551,880 220,752 Condo Units 0 90 0 108 0 128 Interval Unds 90 0 108 0 128 0 Taxable Sales-Annual-Lodging 492,750 2,483,750 591,300 2,958,500 889,850 3,449,250 4% Sales Tax - Anrwal-Lodgir5 19,710 98,550 23.852 118,280 27,594 137,970 Retail, Rest. & Lodge 4S', Tattes 413,910 258,230 498,692 307,476 579,474 358,722 3. VA Service Yard Mrnal People Nighis 88,895 35,478 108.405 43.382 129,210 51.884 Taz. Sales-Annual-Reffii/Rest 8.889,500 3.547,800 10,840.500 4.338,200 12,921.000 5.188.400 41% Salea Taxes-Amual-R8R 354,780 141,912 433,620 173,448 518,840 206,736 Condo Units 0 81 0 99 0 118 Interval Unds 81 0 99 0 118 0 Taxable Sales -Annual-Lodging 443,475 2,217,375 542,025 2,710,125 640,050 3,230,250 4%Sales Tau - Annual-LodgirK 17,739 88,095 21,881 108,405 28,842 129210 Retail, Rest. 8 Lodge 4% Taxes 372,519 230,007 455,301 281,853 542,882 335,90 4. Face af Parking structure Mnual People Nights 13,140 5,256 18,425 8,570 19,710 7,884 Tax.Sales-Anrwal-Reffii/Rest 1.314.000 525,600 1.642.500 857,000 1,971,000 788.400 4%SalesTaxes-Amual-R8R 52,580 21,024 85,700 28,280 78,840 31,538 Condo Units 0 12 0 15 0 18 Interval Unds 12 0 15 0 18 0 Taxable Sales -Annual-Lodging 85.700 328,500 82,125 470,825 98,550 492,750 4%Sales Tax - Annual-Lodgin{ 2,828 13,140 3.285 18,425 3,942 19,710 Retail, Rest. S Lodge 4% Taxes 55,188 34,184 88,985 42,705 82,782 51,248 5. Infil at East Bus Drop-off Anrnal People Nights 5,475 2.180 8.570 2,628 7,885 3.068 Tax. Sales-Annual=Retai/Rest 547,500 219,000 857,000 282,800 788,500 308,600 4%SalesTaxes-Amual-R&R 21,900 8,760 28,280 10,512 30,880 12,264 Condo Uni1s 0 5 0 6 0 7 Interval Unks 5 0 8 0 7 0 Taxable Sales -Annual-Lodging 27,375 138,875 32,850 184,250 38,325 191,825 4%SalesTax-Annual-Lodgin4 1,095 5,475 1,314 8,570 1,533 7,865 Retail, Rest. 8 Lodge 4% Taxes 22,995 14,235 27,594 17,082 32,183 19,929 8. Totals - New Development Mnual People Ni9Ms 234.330 93,732 283.805 113,442 333,975 133.590 Tax.Sales-Mnual-Reffi1/Rest 23,433.000 9,373,200 28.380.500 11,344,200 33,397.500 13,359,000 4%SalesTaxes-Amusl-R8R 937,320 374,928 1,134,420 453,788 1.335.900 534.360 Condo Unita 0 214 0 259 0 305 Interval Unks 214 0 259 0 305 0 Taxable Sales -Annual-Lodging 1,171,650 5,858,250 1,418,025 7,090,125 1,889,875 8,348,375 4%Sales Tax - Annual-LodgirK 46,888 234,330 58,721 283,805 88,795 333,875 Retail, Rest. & Lodge 4°.6 Taxes 984.186 809,258 1,191,141 737,373 1.402;695 888,335 County Tax Rebate @.0375 38,907 22,847 44,068 27,651 52,601 32,563 Cigarette Taxes @.0089 8,759 5,422 10,801 8,583 12,484 7.728 Franch'se Fees @.038 37,399 23,152 45,283 28,020 53,302 32,997 Business License 9.01 9,842 8.093 11,911 7,374 14,027 8,883 THE ABOVE INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY AUDI7ED, EXAMINED, REVIEWED OR TESTID FOR REASONABLENESS. TOTALS MAY NOT ADD DUE TO COMPUTER ROUNDING. THE NOTES AND ASSUMPTtONS CONTAIIYED IN THE ACCOMPANYING REPORT ARE Mt INTEGAAt PART OF THIS DO-IIBlT. THEAE WILL USUALLY BE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ESTIMATED AND AC7UAL RESULTS BECAUSE EVENTS /WD CIRCUMSTANCES FREQUENiLY DO NOT OCCUR AS DXPEC'fFD AND THOSE DIFFERENCES MAY BE MATERIAL_ C-4 UONSHEAD MASTER PLAN . TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE FORECAST WORKING DRAFf DATED 6-24-98 - NEW DEVELOPMENT - REDE/ELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS - PLANNING SCEPiAR10S A-1 THAOUGH C-2 4% SKI LIFT TAX REVENUES General Assumptions: \ Anrwal Skier Days/FFU 253 253 253 253 253 253 \ Annual Skier Days/DU 101 101 101 101 101 101 Effective Revs/Skier DaY $37.50 $37.50 $37.50 $37.50 $37.50 $37.50 1. North Dav L.ot Condo Units 0 26 0 31 0 36 Interval Units 26 0 31 0 36 0 Skier Days 6,578 2.626 7,843 3,131 9,108 3,636 Taxmble Lift Revenues 246,675 98,475 294,113 117,413 341,550 136,350 4% Ski Lift Taxes 9,867 3,939 11,765 4,697 13,662 5,454 2. West Dav Lot Condo Units 0 90 0 108 0 126 Interval Units 90 0 108 0 126 0 Skier Days 22,770 9,090 27,324 10,908 31,878 12,726 Tamble Lift Revenues 853,875 340,875 1,024,650 409,050 1,195,425 477,225 4% Ski Uft Taxes 34,155 13,635 40,986 16,362 47,817 19,089 3. VA Service Yard Condo Units 0 81 0 99 0 118 Interval Units 81 0 99 0 118 0 Skier Days 20,493 8,181 25,047 9,999 29,854 11,818 Teumble Lift Revenues 768,488 306,788 939,263 374,963 1,119,525 446,925 4% Ski Lift Taxes 30.740 12,272 37,571 14,999 44,781 17,877 4. Face of Parkinq structure Condo Units 0 12 0 15 0 18 Interval Units 12 0 15 0 18 0 Skier Days 3,036 1,212 3,795 1,515 4,554 1,818 Taxable Lift Revenues 113,850 45,450 142,313 56,813 170,775 68,175 4% Ski Lift Taxes 4,554 1,818 5,693 2,273 6,831 2,727 5. Infill at East Bus Drop-off Condo Units 0 5 0 6 0 7 Interval Units 5 0 6 0 7 p Skier Days 1,265 505 1,518 606 1,771 707 Taxable Lift Revenues 47,438 18,938 56,925 22,725 66,413 26,513 4% Ski Lift Taxes 1,898 758 2,277 909 2,657 1,061 6. Totals - New Development Condo Units 0 214 0 259 - 0 305 Interva! Units 214 0 259 0 305 0 Skier Days 54,142 21,614 65,527 26,159 77,165 30.805 TaxEible Vft Revenues 2,030.325 810,525 2,457,263 980.963 2,893,688 1,155,188 4% Ski Lift Taxes 81,213 32.421 98,291 39,239 115,748 46,208 T1iE ABOVE INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY AUDfTm, EXAMINED, REVIEWED OR TESTED FOR REASONABLENESS. TOTALS MAY NOT ADD DUE TO COMPUTER ROUNDING. THE NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING REPORT ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS DCHIBIT. THERE WILL USUALLY BE DIFFERENCES BEfWEEN ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL RESULTS BECAUSE EVENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FREQUENITLY DO NOT OCCUR AS EXPECTED AND THOSE DIFFERENCES MAY BE MATERIAL. C-5 4 LIQNSHEAD MASTER PLAN TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE FOAECAST . WORKING,DRAFT DATED 6-24-98 NEW DEVELOPMENT - REDEYElOPMENT ASSUMP'T10NS - PLANNING SCENARIOS A-1 THROUGH C-2 -1 •(-~~i~-~~~~~~ 1% REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX REVENUES General Assumptions: Ave. Sq. Ft./Condo/Interval Unk 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 Ave. Price per Sq. Ft.. $500 $500 $500 $5pp $500 $500 Ave. Price per Condo $800.000 $500,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800.000 $800,000 Ave. Price per interval Weefc $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25;000 $25,000 $25,000 Secondary Sales Rate 4.0096 4.0096 4.00% 4.0096 4.00;6 4.00% . 1. North Dav Lot Condo Units 0 26 0 31 0 36 Interval Units 26 0 31 0 36 p Tamble Initial Sales 32,500,000 20,800,000 38,750,000 24,800,000 45,000,000 28,800,000 1% RETT Taxes - Initial Sales 325,000 208,000 387,500 248,000 450,000 288,000 1% RETTTaxes - Secondary 13,000 8,320 15,500 9,920 18,000 11,520 2. West Dav Lot Condo Units 0 90 0 108 0 126 lnterval Units 90 0 108 0 126 0 Taxable Initiai Sales 112.500.000 72,000,000 135,000,000 86,400,000 157,500,000 100,800,000 1% RETTTaxes - Initial Sales 1,125,000 720,000 1,350,000 864,000 1,575,000 1,008,000 1% REl?Taxes - Secondary 45,000 28,800 54,000 34,560 63,000 40,320 3. VA Service Yard Condo Units p 81 0 99 Q 1 l8 Interval Units 81 0 99 0 118 0 Taxable Initial Sales 101,250,000 64,800,000 123,750.000 79.200,000 147,500,000 94,400,000 1% RETT Taxes - Initial Sales 1,012.500 648,000 1,237,500 792,000 1,475,000 944.000 1% RETT Taxes - Secondary 40,500 25,920 49,500 31.680 59,000 37,760 4, Face ot Parkinq structure Condo Units 0 12 0 15 0 18 Interval Units 12 0 15 0 18 0 Taxable Initial Sales 15,000,000 9,600.000 18,750,000 12,000,000 22.500,000 14,400.000 1% RETT Taxes - Initial Sales 150,000 96,000 187,500 120,000 225,000 144.000 1% RETT Taxes - Secondary 6,000 3,840 7,500 4,800 9,001) 5,760 5. Infill at Easi Bus Drop-off Condo Units 0 5 0 6 0 7 Intervai Units 5 0 6 0 7 p Tamble Initial Sales 6,250,000 4.000,000 7,500,000 4,800.000 8,750,000 5,600,000 196 RETTTaxes - Initial Sales 62,500 40,000 75,000 48,000 87,500 56,000 1%RETTTaxes-Secondary 2,500 1,600 3,000 1,920 3,500 2,240 6. Totals - New Development Condo Units 0 214 0 259 0 305 Interval Units 214 0 259 0 305 0 Taxable Initial Sales 267.500,000 171,200,000 323,750,000 207,200.000 381,250.000 244,000,000 1 %RETTTaxes - Initial Sales 2,675.000 1,712.000 3,237,500 2,072,000 3,812,500 2,440,000 1% RETT Taxes - Secondary 107,000 68,480 129.500 82.880 152.500 97,600 THE ABOVE INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY AUDITm, EXAMINED, REVIEWED OR TESTED FOR REASONABLENESS. TOTALS MAY NOT ADD DUE TO COMPUTER ROUNDING. THE NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING REPORT ARE AN INTEGHAL PART OF THIS DCHIBIT. THERE WILL USUALLY BE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL RESULTS BECAUSE EVENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FREQUENTLY DO NOT OCCUR AS EXPECTED AND THOSE DIFFERENCES MAY BE MATERIAL. C-6 LJONSHEAD MASTER PI.AN ' r TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE FdRECAST WORKING DRAFT DATED 6-24-98 - REDEVELOPMENT OF IXISTING PROPERTIES - REDEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS - PLANNING SCENARIOS A-1 THROUGH C-2 PROJEC A-1 1 A-2 BUILDOUT 1. Concert Hall Plaza • Retail Sq. Ft. - Net 65 65 65 65 65 65 Dweiling Units (Condos) 0 7 0 9 0 11 Fractional Units (Intervals) 7 0 9 0 11 0 2. Vail Associates Core Ske Retail Sq. Ft. 50,633 50,633 50,633 50,633 50,633 50.633 . Dwelling Units (Condos) 11 11 14 14 17 17 - Fractional Units (Intervals) 17 17 21 21 26 26 Acxomodation Units (Hotel Rs) 123 123 158 158 192 192 3. Landmark Townhomes Retail Sq. Ft. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dwelling Units (Condos) -Net 0 3 0 9 0 14 Fractional Units (Intervals) 3 0 9 0 14 0 4. Lazier Arcade Reffiil Sq. Ft.- Net 2,405 2,405 2,405 2,405 2,405 2,405 Dwelting Units (Condos) - Net 0 0 0 0 0 2 Fractional Units (Intervals) 0 0 0 0 2 0 5. Lions Square North - IV Reffiil Sq. Ft. 0 0 Q 0 0 0 Dwelling Units (Condos) -Net 0 15 0 24 0 32 Fractional Units (Intervals) 15 0 24 0 32 0 6. Lionspride and Parkinq Structure ReTail Sq. Ft.- Net 4,366 4,366 4,366 4,366 4,366 4,366 Dwelling Units (Condos) 0 18 0 22 0 26 Fractional Units (Intervals) 18 0 22 0 26 0 7. Totals - Development of 6cistinq Properties Retail Sq. Ft. 57,469 57,469 57,469 57,469 57,469 57,469 Dwelling Units (Condos) 11 54 14 78 17 102 Fractional Units (Intervals) gp 17 85 21 11 l 26 Accomodation Units (Hotel Rms) 123 123 158 158 192 192 THE ABOVE INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY AUDtTm, EXAMINED. REVIEWED OR TESTED FOR RFASONABLENESS. TOTALS MAY NOT ADD DUE TO COMPUTER AOUNDING. THE NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING REPORT ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS EXFiIBIT. THERE WILL USUALLY BE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL RESULTS BECAUSE EVENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FREQUENTLY DO NOT OCCUR AS DCPECTED AND THOSE DIFFERENCES MAY BE MATERIAL. C-7 LJONSHEAD wiASTER PLAN t TO':OIN OF VAIL REl/ENUE FORECASj WORKING DRAFT DATED 8-24-98 REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING PROPERTIES - REDEVELOPMENT ASSUYPTIONS - PLANNING SCENARIOS A-1 THROUGH C-2 A '1 = ASSESSED VALUE AND PROPERTY AND S O TA7( REVENUES General Assumotions• Reteil Valua - Sq. Ft. $275 $275 $275 $275 $275 $275 Condo/Inter Sq. Ft. 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 11600 1,800 Condo/Inter Value per Sq. Ft. $gpp Sspp aspp a500 $500 $500 ~ Hotel Value per Room $750,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 \ 1. Concert Hall Plaza Actual Value Retail 17,875 17,875 17,875 17,875 17,875 17,875 Ass Ya! Aetail 0 29% 5,184 5,184 5,184 5,184 5,184 5.184 Actual Value CondoaMtervais 51800,000 5,800,000 7,200,000 7200,000 8,800,000 8,800,000 Ass Val Condo/Interval Q 9.74% 545,440 54$.440 701,280 701,280 857,120 857,120 Total Assessed Value 550,824 550,624 708,484 708,484 862,304 882,304 Town Mill Levy 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 Town Property Texes 2,379 2,378 3,053 3,053 3,728 3,726 Town S.O. Taxes @ 5% 119 119 153 153 188 186 • 2. Veil Assxiates Core Site Ac1ualValueRetail 13,924,075 13,924,075 13,924,075 13,924,075 13,924,075 73,924,075 Ass Val Reteil @ 29% 4,037,982 4,037,982 4,037,982 4,037,982 4,037,982 4,037A82 Actual Value Condos/Intervals 22,400,000 22,400,000 28,000,000 28,000,000 34,400,000 34,400,ppp Ass Val CondoMterval @ 9,74% 2,181,780 2,181,760 2,727,200 2,77/200 3,350,580 3,350.580 AcNal Value Hotel Rms 78,450,000 18,450,000 23,700,000 23,700,000 pg,gpp,ppp 28,800,000 Ass Val Hotel Rms @ 29% 5,350,500 5,350,500 8,873,0W 6,873,000 8,352,000 8,352,000 Total Assessed Value 71,570,242 11,570,242 13.830,182 13,638,182 15,740,542 15,740,542 Total Assessed Value Exist. 5,000,000 5,000.000 5,000,000 5.000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 Total Net Assessed Value 6,570,242 8,570,242 8,838,182 8,838,1 B2 10,740.542 10,740,542 Town Mill Levy 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 Town Property Taues 28,390 28,390 37,326 37,328 48,410 48,410 Town S.O. Taxes 9 5% 1,420 1,420 1,888 1,866 2,320 2.320 3. LandmarkTownhomes AcWaI Velue Reteil 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ass Val Retail Q 29% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Actual Value Condos/Intervals 2,400,000 2,400,000 7200,000 7,200.000 71200,000 112pp,000 Ass Val CondoMterval @ 9.74% 233,760 233,760 701280 701~ 1090,880 10go 880 Total Assessed Velue 233,780 233.780 701,280 701280 1.090,880 1,090.880 Town Mill Levy 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 TownpropertyTexes 1,010 1,010 3,030 3.030 4,714 4,714 Town S.O. Taxes @ 5% 51 51 152 152 236 238 4. LazierArcade AcWal Velue Retail 881,375 881,375 861,375 661,375 881.375 651,375 Ass Val Reteil Q 29% 191,798 191,799 191.799 191,798 191,798 197.798 AcNel Valua Condos/Intervals 0 0 0 0 1,800,000 1,8001000 Ass Val Condo/Intervel @ 9.74% 0 0 0 0 155,840 155,840 TotalAssessedValue 101,799 191,799 191,798 191.769 347.839 347.839 Town MIII Levy 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 Town Property Texes 829 829 829 829 1,502 1.502 Town S.O. Texea @ 5% 41 41 41 41 75 75 5. Llons Sauare North - IV Actual Valua Retail 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aae Val Retail @ 29% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Achial Value CondosMtervals 12,000,000 12,000,000 10,2pp,000 192pp,000 25,8pp,000 25,E00.000 Ass Vel Condo/Intarval Q 9.74% 1,188,800 1,188,800 1,870,080 1,870.000 2,493,440 2,499,440 Total Assessed Value 1,168,800 1,188,800 1,870,080 1,870.080 2,493,440 2,493,440 Town MIII LevY 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 Town Property Taxes 5,050 5,050 8.081 81081 10,774 10,774 Town S.O. Taxes @ 5% - 253 253 404 404 539 639 6. Lfonswide and Rerkino SVucture Actual Value Reteil 1,200,850 1,200,850 1,200,850 1200,850 1,200,850 1200,050 Ass Val Reteil Q 29% 348,189 348,189 348,189 348,189 348.189 349,789 Actual Value Condos/Intervals 14,400,000 14,400,000 17,800,000 17,epp,000 20.800,000 20,800.000 AssYalCondoMterval@9.74% 1,402,580 1,402,560 1,714,240 1,714240 2,025,920 2,025,920 Total Assessed Value 1,750,749 1,750,749 2,082,429 2,082,429 2,374,108 2,374,109 Town MIII Levy 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 Town Property Texae 7,565 7.5p5 9,012 8,912 10,259 10,259 Town S.O. Taxes @ 5% 378 378 419 44C 513 513 7. Totels - DeveloomeM of Exlstlna Prooertles Actunl Value Retall 15,803,975 15,803,075 15,8«i,975 15.803,975 15,8a3,975 iS,L«3,975 Aes Vel fletell Q 29% 4,583,153 4,683.153 4,593,153 4,583,153 4,583.153 4,583,153 AcWal Value Condos/Intervals 5C,800,000 56,800,000 79200,000 79,200.000 102.400.000 102,000,000 Ass Val Condoflnterval Q 9.74% 5,532,320 5,532,320 7,714,080 7,714,080 9,973,780 9,973,780 Actuel Value Hotel Rms 18,450,000 18,450ppp 23,700,000 23.700ppp 28A00,000 28 800 000 Asa Val Hotel Rms @ 29% 51350,500 5,350,500 8,873,000 8,873,000 8,352,000 8.352,000 Totel qssessed Velue 15,465,973 75,465,873 19,170,233 79,170,233 22,908,913 22,908,913 Totel Assessed Value Exist. 5.000.000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000.000 5,000,000 Totel Net Assessed Value 10,485.973 10,485.973 14.170.233 14.170.233 17,908.913 17,908,913 Town MIII Levy 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 Town Property Taxes 45223 45223 61230 81,230 77,384 77,384 Town S.O. Taxes @ 5% 2,261 2261 3,061 3,081 3,86D 3,8W County R8B Fund @ 1 Mill 10,498 10,488 14,170 14,170 17,fl09 17,flpp Construct. Permiis @.p075 882,905 582,905 890,2gp 890280 1,102.530 1,102,530 THE ABOVE INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY AUDtTED, p(AMINED, NEVIEWm OR TESTm Fai REASONABLENESS. TOTALS MAY NOT ADD OUE TO COMPUTER ROUNDING. THE NOTES AND ASSUMPT10N8 CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING REPORT ARE AN INTEGRAI. pppT OF 7HI8 EXHIg(T, THERE WILL USUALLY BE DIFFERENCES BETNEEN ESTIMATEp /WD ACTUAL RE8ULT3 BECAUSE El/ENTS AND pRCUMSTANCE3 FREOUENTLY DO NOT OCCUq AS EXPECiEO AND THOSE DIFFEAENCEg MAY BE M/?TERIAL C-e UON9HEAD MASTER PUN TBWN OF VAIL REVENUE FORECA8T . WORKING DHAFT DATED 6-24-98 REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTINO PpOPEflT1E9 - REDEVEIOPMENT ASSUMPTONS - PUNNINO SCENAHIOS A-1 THNOUGH C-2 A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2 4%SAIES TAX REVENUES Gensral Assumotlona: Paopls Generated/FFU d AC 4 ? 4 4 d s Exp/O'Night Guest - HesVRet $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 Occupeny Rate/FW (IntsrveQ 75% 75% 73% 73% 73% 75% Occupsny ReteNU (ConEO) 30% 90% 30% 30% 90% 90% ContlopntsrvelNfqMty RsntalRel $900 $300 $300 $300 =900 $300 Condo Annuel Rentel Occ. 23% 23% 23% 23% 23% 23% IntervelAnnuelRentalOtt. S% Sx SX s% 3% 5% HotsINiBMh AeMalRets t250 i250 $250 $250 $230 i250 HotelAnnual RsntelOccupancy E3% 65% ES% 63% OS% 65% Peopb asneretsd/HOblRoom 2 2 p z 2 Z 1. Concert Hall Pleza Annual Peopb Niphta 7,066 9,0E0 9,033 9,042 12,045 4,818' - Tax. Spbs-Annuel-Retell/Rest 706,500 90E,000 D83,500 304,200 1,206,000 481,E00 4%SabsTexes-Annuel-H3R 90,6E0 12,204 99,420 13,708 48,180 10,272 ' Coodo Unib p 7 p fl p 11 Interval Unhs 7 0 D 0 11 0 Texebb Saba -Annuel- Lodging 38,923 191,023 49,273 24E,315 60,223 301,123 4%Sabs Tax - Annwl-Lotl9lnf 1,539 7,ee5 1,977 0,855 2,40~ 12,015 RstaU, Rest.B Lotlps4%Texas 92,103 10,020 I1,591 23.023 30,6E9 91,317 2. Vsil Aaaocietea Core Sils Annual Peopb Nights 81,707 81,797 101,098 104,098 127,020 127,020 TaxSabs -Annual- Rstall/Hsst 8,170,850 8,170,650 t0,000A00 10,409000 12,702,000 12,702p00 d%SaMaTazes -Annual- RdR 927,186 327,10E 41E,792 4t6,302 50E,000 500,080 Condo Unks 11 11 14 14 17 17 IntervnlUnha n n zi 21 ze ze 7axeble Ssbs-Annual-Lodpinp 904,200 304,200 49e,223 408,220 607,723 007,720 4% Saba Tax - Annuel-LodOInS 13,7E8 13,768 19,929 10,929 24,909 24,309 Hotel Units 129 123 150 158 192 102 Tauabb Sebs - Annual - Hotel 7,205,498 7,295,0.98 0,371,375 0,971,375 11,900,000 11,98eA00 aX Salss Taxss - Annual - HoG 291,018 201,E18 371,835 974,863 433,320 433,320 Retell.Reot.BLodfls4%Taxea 694.772 694,772 Btt,f70 911,176 987,909 987,900 9. Lantlmerk Townhomsa Annual PeopN Ni9hh 9,285 1,914 9,005 9,042 15,930 8,132 Tax SaNs-Annuel-qeteiURest 32B,500 131,400 980,600 301,200 1,539,000 E/5,200 4%SebaTexse-Annual-R6R 13,140 3,28E 97,420 15,768 E1,320 24,528 conao unm o a o 0 0 14 IntsrvalUnks 0 0 0 0 ts 0 Taxebk Saks-Annual-Lodplnp 16,423 82,125 49,275 210,375 76,E30 953,250 4% Saba Tax - Annual-LOdqin{ E37 9,283 1,971 O,WS 9,000 13,330 Retell, Rsat. 8 Lotlge 4% Tsxss 13,797 E,311 ?1,3Y1 23,027 61,30E 99,958 t. 4zbr ArCetle Annual PeopN Nlphts 0 0 0 0 2,f00 876 Tex Sabe-Annuel-RetaiURest 0 0 0 0 210,000 87,000 4%SabsTezea-Annuel-RdR 0 0 0 0 8,700 9,504 Condo UnMS o 0 0 0 0 2 Intsrvsl UnMa 0 0 0 0 z p Taxabb Saba -Annual- Lodplnq 0 0 0 0 10,930 51,750 4% Sebs Tax - Annual-Lodplnt 0 0 0 0 130 2,190 Reteii, Reat. 6 Lotlps 1% Texes 0 0 0 0 9,198 S,E" 9. Wna Sauere North - IV Annual Paopb Nlghb 10,125 e,570 20,280 10,512 95,010 51,016 Tax 3aks-Annual-RatsWRSSt 1,E42,900 677,000 2,E28,000 1,0.71,2D0 9,501,000 1,401,E00 4%SebsTaxss-Annusl-RdR E3,700 2E.280 105,120 42,048 140,160 56,064 Contlo Unlta 0 13 0 . 21 p 32 Interval UnRa 75 0 21 0 92 0 Taxe6k Sebe -Annual- Lodqinp 82,125 410,023 131,400 E57,000 173,200 870,000 4% Saba Tax - Annusl-Lodpini 3,283 16,123 3,25E 2E,200 7,008 35,010 Retail,Rest.BLodqes%Texen 68,985 42,705 110,376 68,328 147,1E8 91,104 E. LJonaoritle entl Pqrkina SVUCturo Annuel Peopk NipMa ' 10,710 7,ee4 24,090 0,650 28,170 11,388 Tax Seles-Annuel-RetaiURsst 11971,000 780,100 2,409,000 963,600 2,817,000 1,198,800 4% Sabs Taxea-Annuel-RdR 78,E10 91,370 98,380 38,514 110,800 40,552 Condo Unila 0 fE 0 22 0 20 Intsrwl UnMs tE 0 22 0 2E 0 TaxabN Saba -Annual- Lodpinp 9e,550 492,750 120,150 002,250 142,350 711,760 4% Babs Tax - Annual-LodOMf 3,942 19,710 4,e10 21,090 5,e94 25,170 Reta0.Res1.8Lodp. 1%Ta"o 02.702 51.24E f01,178 02.0.11 119,671 71,022 7 Totab - DewloomeM o} Ei3tlna Aooeitiaa Annual Poopk NIQBb 120.111E2 100,631 174,17E 132.100 220,095 1E4.260 Tax 8aNs -Annwl-RsteWHeM 12.eee,150 10,00.7A50 17.417A00 13,213p00 22.009}00 10,176000 4%SabsTexss -Annual-RdR 313,920 402,522 600,712 520,320 880,3e0 057,000 ConAO Unha 11 51 14 78 17 702 IMarvelUnRe 00 17 E3 21 111 2E TaxabM Ssbs - Annual- Lotlplnp 829.025 1,371,323 810,625 2,280,225 5,073,100 2,934,000 4% Sabs Tax - Annual-lodqin{ 23,105 62,053 39,015 00,000 42,924 117,3l4 Hotsl Uni[a 123 123 138 15E 192 192 Texebb Sebs - Annuel - Hotsl 7,295,438 7,203,438 9,071,073 0,971,075 11,088p00 11,3E8,000 4% sebs Texes - Annual - Mote 291,E18 201,810 974,033 971,835 455,320 453,520 Feteil, Rsst. 8 Lodqe 4% Texes 832,529 737, f09 1,103,512 069,381 1,97E,E24 1,2II0,004 County Tax Rebete Q.OJ7S 31,220 28,395 41,457 37,252 51,70E I6,121 ClQaretts Texes Q.0080 7,410 E,730 9,839 8,E11 12,272 70,94E Franchiee Feee@ .038 91,0.70 28,779 12,009 37,749 52,303 40,730 BusMssa Uesnes 4.0 t 8,323 7.372 11,055 9.934 13.7ee 12.299 THE ABOVE INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENOENTLY AUOITED, EXAMINEO, REVIEWED OR TESTED FOp REASONABLENE88. 70TALS MAY NOT ADD OUE TO COYPUTEH qOUNDINO. THE NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINED IN TME ACCOYPANYINO REPORT ARE AN INTEORA6 PART OF TNIS E7CMIBIT. THERE WILL USUALLY BE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ESTYATED AND ACTUAL HESULTB BECAUSE EVENTB AND CIRCUMSTANCE8 FHECUENTLY DO NOT OCCUH AS EXpECTED AND THOSE DIFFERENCES MAY BE MATERIAL C-0 , LIQNSHEAD MASTER PLAN TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE F073ECAST - WORKING DRAFr DATED 6-24-98 RmEVELOPMENT OF DCISTING PROPERTIES - REDEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS PLANNING SCENARIOS A-1 THROUGH C-2 F-~~-2 4% SKI LIFT TAX REVENUES General Assumptions: Annual Skier DaysJFFU 253 253 253 253 253 253 • Annual Skier Days/Hcrtel Rm 138 138 138 138 138 138 Annual Skier Days/DU 101 101 101 101 101 101 Effec:tive Revs/Skier Day $37.50 $37,50 $37,50 $37,50 $37.50 $37.50 1. Concert Hall Plaza . Condo Units 0 7 0 9 0 11 - Interval Units 7 0 9 0 11 - 0 Skier Days 1,771 707 2,277 909 2,783 1,111 Taxable !ift Revenues 66,413 26,513 85,388 34,088 104,363 41,663 4% Ski L'rft Taxes 2,657 1,061 3,416 1,364 4,175 1.667 2. Vail Associates Core Site Condo Units 11 11 14 14 17 17 Interval Units 17 17 21 21 26 26 Skier Days 5,412 5,412 6,727 6,727 8,295 8,295 Taxable Lift Revenues 202,950 202,950 252,263 252,263 311,063 311,063 4%Ski LiftTaxes 8,118 8,118 10,091 10,091 12,443 12,443 Hotel Units 123 123 158 158 192 192 Skier Days 16,974 16,974 21,804 21.804 26.496 26,496 Taxmble Lift Revenues 636,525 636,525 817,650 817,650 993,600 993,600 4% Ski Lift Taxes 25,461 25,461 32,706 32,706 39,744 39,744 4%Ski LiftTaxes - AII 33,579 33,579 42,797 42,797 52,187 52,187 3. Landmark Townhomes Condo Units 0 3 0 9 0 14 Interval Units 3 0 9 0 14 0 Skier Days 759 303 2,277 909 3,542 1,414 Taxmble Lift Revenues 28,463 11,363 85,388 34,088 132,825 53,025 4% Ski Lift Taxes 1,139 455 3,416 1,364 5,318 2,121 4. Lszier Arcade Condo Units 0 0 0 0 0 2 Interval Units 0 0 0 0 2 0 Skier Days 0 0 0 0 506 202 Taxable Lift Revenues 0 0 0 0 18,975 7,575 4% Ski Lift Taxes 0 0 0 0 759 303 5. Lions Square North - IV Condo Units 0 15 0 24 0 32 Interval Units 15 0 24 0 32 0 Skier Days 3,795 1,515 6,072 2,424 8,096 3,232 Taxable Lift Revenues 142.313 56,813 227,700 90,900 303,600 121.200 4% Ski Lift Taxes 5,693 2,273 9,108 3,636 12,144 4,848 6. Lionspride and Parkinq Structure Condo Units 0 18 0 22 0 26 Interval Units 18 p 22 0 26 0 Skier Days 4,554 1,818 5,566 2,222 6,576 2,626 Tamble Lift Revenues 170,775 68,175 208.725 83,325 246,675 98,475 4% Ski l7ft Taxes 6,831 2.727 8,349 3,333 9,867 3,939 7. ToTals - Develooment of Existina ProDerties Condo Units 11 54 14 78 17 102 Interval Units 60 17 85 21 t i i 26 Skier Days 16,291 9.755 22,919 13,191 29.800 16,880 TaxAble Lift Revenues 610,913 365,813 859,463 494,663 1,117,500 633,000 4% Ski L'rft Taxes 24.437 14.633 34,379 19,787 44,700 25,320 Hotel Units 123 123 158 158 192 192 Skier Days 16,974 16,974 21,804 21,804 26,496 26,496 Taxmble Lift Aevenues 636.525 636,525 817,650 817.650 993.600 993,600 4% Ski lift Taxes 25,461 25,461 32,706 32.706 39,744 39.744 4% Ski Lift Taxes - AII 49,898 40,094 67,085 52.493 84,444 65,064 THE ABOVE INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY AUDffm, EXAMINED, REVIEWED OR TESTED FOR REASONABLENESS. TOTALS MAY NOT ADD DUE TO COMPUTER ROUNDING. THE NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINED IN 11iE ACCOMPANYING REPORT ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS DCHIBIT. THERE WILL USUALLY BE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL RESULTS BECAUSE EVENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FREQUENTLY DO NOT OCCUR AS EXPECTED AND THOSE DIFFERENCES MAY BE MATERIAL C-10 UONSHEAD MASTER PLAN TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE FORECAST WORKING DRAFi' DATED 6-24-98 REDEI/ELOPMENT OF DCISTING PROPERTIES - REDEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS - PIANNiNG SCENARIOS A-1 THROUGH C-2 2~ 1% REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX REVENUES ~ General Assumations: \ Ave. Sq. Ft./Condo. 1.600 1,600 1,600 1.600 1,600 1.600 Ave. Price per Sq. R.. $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 Ave. Price per Condo. $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 ' Ave. Price per Week $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Secondary Sales Rate 4.00% 4.0096 4.00% 4.0096 4.0096 4.00% 1. Concert Hall Plaza Condo Units 0 7 0 9 0 11 Interval Units 7 0 9 0 11 0 Taxmbte In'itiai Sales 8,750,000 5,600,000 11,250,000 7,200,000 13,750,000 8,800,000 1% RE17 Taxes - initial Sales 87,500 56,000 112,500 72,000 137,500 88,000 1% REfTTaxes - Secondary 3,500 2,240 4,500 2,880 5,500 3,520 2. Vail Associates Cae Site Condo Units 11 11 14 14 17 17 Interval Units 17 17 21 21 26 26 Taxmble Initial Sales 30,050,000 30,050,000 37,450,000 37,450,000 46,100,000 46,100,000 1%RETTTaxes - Initial Sales 300,500 300,500 374,500 374,500 461,000 461,000 1% REfTTaxes - Secondary 12,020 12,020 14,980 14,980 18,440 18,440 3. Landmark Townhomes Condo Units 0 3 0 9 0 14 Interval Units 3 0 9 0 14 0 TaxRble Initial Sales 3,750,000 2,400,000 11,250,000 7,200,000 17,500,000 11,200,000 1% RETTTaxes - Initial Sales 37,500 24,000 112.500 72,000 175,000 112,000 1% RETT Taxes - Secondary 1,500 960 4,500 2,860 7,000 4,480 4. Lazier Arcade Condo Units 0 0 0 0 0 2 Interval Units 0 0 0 0 2 0 Taxetble Initial Sales 0 0 0 0 2500000 1600000 1%RETTTaxes - Initial Sales 0 0 0 0 0 0 1% RETT Taxes - Secondary 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Lions Square North - IV Condo Units 0 15 0 24 0 32 Irrterval Units 15 0 24 0 32 0 Taxable Initial Sales 18,750,000 12,000,000 30,000.000 19,200,000 40,000,000 25,600,000 1% RETTTaxes - Initiai Sales 187,500 120.000 300,000 192,000 400,000 256,000 1% REiT Taxes - Seccondary 7,500 4.800 12,000 7.680 16,000 10,240 6. Lionspride and Parkinq Structure CondoUnits 0 18 0 22 0 26 Interval Units 16 0 22 0 26 0 Tazable Initiai Sales 22,500,000 14,400,000 27,500,000 17,600,000 32,500.000 20,800,000 1% REITTaxes - Initial Sales 225,000 144.000 275,000 176,000 325,000 208,000 1% RETf Taxes - Secondary 9,000 5,760 11,000 7,040 13,000 8,320 7. Totals - Develoomerrt of Existing Properties Condo Units 11 54 14 78 17 102 Irrterval Units 60 17 85 21 111 26 Taxable Initiai Sales 83,800,000 64.450.000 117,450.000 88,650,000 152.950,000 114,100.000 1%RE7TTaxes - Initlel Sales 838.000 644,500 1,174,500 886,500 1,523.500 1,141,000 1% RETT Taxes - Seccondary 33,520 25,780 46,980 35.460 60,940 45,640 THE ABOVE INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDEMIY AUDITm, EXAMINED, REVIEWED OR TESTED FOR REASONABLENESS. TOTALS MAY NOT ADD DUE TO COMPUTER ROUNDING. THE NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING REPORT ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS DCHIBIT. THERE WILL USUALLY BE DIFFERENCES BET'WEEN ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL RESULTS BECAUSE EVENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FREQUENTLY DO NOT OCCUR AS DCPECTED AND THOSE DIFFERENCES MAY BE MATERIAL. C-11 UONSt-tEAD MASTER RUW TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE FURECAST . WORKING,DRAFT DATED 6-24-98 ADDITIONAL DENSITY ADDED - REDEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS - PLANNING SCENARIOS A-1 THROUGH C-2 A-1 ~I~1 -2 BUILDOUT 1. Antlers Retail Sq. Ft. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dwelling Units (Condos) 16 16 19 19 23 23 Fractional Units (Intervals) 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Lifthouse Lodae Retail Sq. Ft. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dweiling Units (Condos) g g g g g g Fractionaf Units (Intenrals) 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Mariott Mountain Resort - Retail Sq. Ft. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dwelling Units (Condos) 37 37 44 44 51 51 Fractional Units (Intervals) 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Totals - Additional DensiN Added to Existinq Properties Reffiil Sq. Ft. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dwelling Units (Condos) 61 61 ?i 71 82 82 Fractional Units (Intervals) 0 0 0 0 0 0 THE ABOVE INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY AUDITm, IXAMINED, REVIEWED OR TESTED FOR REASONABLENESS. TOTALS MAY NOT ADD DUE TO COMPUTER ROUNDING. THE NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING REPORT ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS EXHIBIT. THERE WILL USUALLY BE DIFFERENCES BEfWEEN ES7IMATED AND ACTUAL RESULTS BECAUSE EVENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FREQUENTLY DO NOT OCCUR AS EXPECTED AND THOSE DIFFERENCES MAY BE MATERIAL C-12 LJONSHEAD MASTER PLAN , TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE FORECAST ' WORKING DRAFT DATED 6-24-98 , ADDfTIONAL DETISITY ADDED - REDEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS - PLANNING SCENARIOS A-1 THROUGH C-2 -2 ASSESSED VALUE AND PROPERTY AND S.O. TAX REVENUES General Assumptions: Reffiil Value - Sq. Ft. $275 $275 $275 $275 $275 $275 • Condo/Interval Sq. Ft. 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,6pp 1.600 Condo Value per Sq. Ft. $500 $500 $bpp $500 $500 $500 1. Mtlers Aclual Value Retail 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ass Val Retail @ 29% 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 Actual Value Condos/Intervals 12,800,000 12,800,000 15,200,000 15,200,000 18,400,000 18,400,000 Ass Val Condos/Intervals @ 9.74' 1,246,720 1,246,720 1,480,480 1,480,480 1,792,160 1,792,160 ToffiI Assessed Value 1,246.720 1,246,720 1.480,480 1,480,480 1.792,160 1,792,160 Town Mill Levy 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 Town Property Taxes 5,387 5,387 6.397 6,397 7,744 7,744 Town S.O. Taxes @ 5% 269 269 320 320 387 387 2. Lifthouse Lodae Actual Value Reffiif 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ass Vai Retail @ 29% 0 0 0 0 0 Q Actual Value Condos/Intervals 6,400,000 6,400,000 6,400,000 6,400,000 6,400,000 6,400,000 Ass Vai Condas @ 9.74% 623,360 623,360 623,360 628,960 623,360 623,360 ToTal Assessed Value 623,360 623,360 623,360 623,360 623,360 623,360 Town Mill Levy 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 Town Property Taxes 2,694 2,694 2.694 2.694 2,694 2,694 Town S.O. Taxes @ 5% 135 135 135 135 135 135 3. Mariott Mountain Resat Actual Value Reffiil 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ass Val Reffiil Q 2996 0 0 0 0 0 0 Actual Value Condos/Intenials 29,600,000 29,600,000 35,200,000 35,200,000 40,800,000 40,800,000 Ass Val Condos @ 9.74% 2,883,040 2,883,040 3,428,480 3,428,480 3,973,920 3,973,920 Total Assessed Value 2,883,040 2,883,040 3,428,480 3,428,480 3,973,920 3,973,920 Town Mill Lsvy 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 Town Property Taxes 12,458 12,458 14,814 14,814 17.171 17,171 Town S.O. Tazes 9 5% 623 623 741 741 859 859 4. Totals - Additional Densitv Added to Existina Properties Actual Value ReLail 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ass Val Reffiil @ 29% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Actual Value CondosJlntervals 48,800,000 48,800,000 56,800,000 56,800,000 65,600,000 65,600,000 Ass Val Condos @ 9.74% 4,753,120 4,753,120 5,532,320 5,532,320 6,389,440 6,389,440 ToffiI Assessed Value 4,753,120 4,753,120 5,532,320 5,532,320 6,389,440 6,389,440 Town Mill Levy 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 Town Properiy Taxes 20,538 20,538 23,905 23,905 27,609 27,609 Town S.O. Taxes 9 5% 1,027 1,027 1,195 1,195 1,380 1,380 County R&B Fund @ 1 Mill 4,753 4.753 5,532 5,532 6,389 6,389 ConstrucK. Permiis @.0075 366,000 966,000 426,000 426.000 492,000 492,000 THE ABOVE INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDEN7LY AUDITED, EXAMINED, REVIEWED OR TESTED FOR REASONABLENESS. TOTALS MAY NOT ADD DUE TO COMPUTER ROUNDING. THE NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING REPORT ARE AN IM'EGRAL PART OF THIS DCHIBIT. THERE WILL USUALLY BE DIFFERENCES BE7UVEEN ESTiMATED AND ACTUAL RESULTS BECAUSE EVENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FREQUENTLY DO NOT OCCUR AS D(PECTED AND THOSE DIFFERENCES MAY BE MATERIAL C-13 . LJG'NSHEAD MASTER PLAN , TOWN OF VAIL RE/ENUE FaRECAST ^ WORKING DRAFf DATED 6-24-98 ADDITIONAL DENSIIY ADDED - REDEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS - PLANNINCa SCENARIOS A-1 THROUGH C-2 4% SALES TAX REVENUES ~ General Assumptions: People Generated/FFU & AC 4 4 4 4 4 4\ Exp/O'night Guest - Rest/Ret. $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 Occupancy Rate/FFU (Intenral) 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% Occupancy Rate/DU (Condo) 309~f, 30g6 30q6 309(, gp% 30% Condo/Interval Nightly Rertal Rat $300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $300 Condo Annual Rental Occ. 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% Interval Annual Rental Occ. 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% ' S% 1. AnUers Anrxial People Nights 7,008 7,008 8,322 8,322 10,074 10,074 Tax Sales-Annual-Retaii/Rest 700,800 700,800 832,200 832.200 1.007,400 1,007.400 4% Sales Taxes - Annual-R&R 28,032 28,032 33,288 93,288 40,296 40.296 Condo Units 16 16 19 19 23 23 Interval Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taxmble Saies-Annual-Lodging 438,000 438,000 520.125 520,125 629.625 629,625 4%Sales Tax - Annusl-LodginK 17,520 17,520 20,805 20.80.5 25,185 25,185 Hetaii. Rest. & Lodge 4%Taxes 45,552 45,552 54,093 54,093 65,481 65,481 2. Lifthouse Lodqe Annual People Nights 3,504 3,504 3,504 3,504 3,504 3,504 Tax. Sales-Annual-Retail/Rest 350,400 350.400 350.400 350.400 350,400 350,400 4% Sales Taxes - Annual-R&R 14,016 14,016 14,016 14,016 14,016 14,016 Condo Units 8 g 8 8 8 8 Interval UniLs 0 Q 0 0 0 0 Tamble Sales-Annuai-Lodging 219,000 219,000 219,000 219,000 219,000 219,000 4% Sales Tax - Hrmual-Lodginc 8,760 8,760 8,760 8.760 8.760 8,760 Reffiil. Rest. & Lodge 4%Taxes 22,776 22,776 22,776 22,776 22,776 22,776 3. Mariott Mourtain Resort Mnual People Nights 16,206 16.206 19,272 19,272 22,338 22,338 Tax Sales-Annual-Retail/Rest 1,620,600 1,620,600 1,927,200 1.927.200 2.233,800 2,233,800 4% Sales Taxes - Annusl-R&R 64,824 64.824 77,088 77,088 89,352 89,352 Condo Units 37 37 44 44 51 51 Interval Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tamble Sales -Annuml- Lodging 1,012,875 1,012,875 1,204,500 1,204,500 1,396,125 1,396,125 4% Sales Tax - Annual-L,odgirK 40,515 40,515 48,180 48,180 55,845 55,845 Retaii. Rest. & Lodge 4%Taxes 105,339 105,939 125,268 125,268 145,197 145,197 4. Totals - Redevelopmerrt of Existing Proqerties Annual People Nights 26,718 26,718 31,098 31,098 35,916 35,916 Tax Sales-Annual-Retail/Rest 2,671,800 2,671,800 3,109,800 3,109,800 3,591,600 3,591,600 4% Sales Taxes -,qnnual-R&R, 106,872 106,872 124,392 124,392 143,664 143,664 Condo Units 61 61 71 71 82 82 Interval Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taxitble Sales-Annual-Lodging 1,669,875 1.669,875 1,943.825 1.943.625 2244,750 2.244,750 4% Sales Tax - Annual-LodgiN 66,795 66,795 77,745 77,745 89,790 89,790 Retail. Rest. & Lodge 4%Taxes 173,667 173,667 202,137 202,137 233,454 233,454 Courriy Tau Rebate Q.0375 6,513 6,513 7,580 7,580 8.755 8,755 Cigarette Taues @.ppgg 1.546 1,546 1,799 1,799 2.078 2,078 Franchise Fees Q.038 6,599 6,599 7,681 7.681 8,871 8,871 Business License @.01 1.737 1,737 2.021 2.021 2.935 2,335 THE ABOVE INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY AUDITm, EXAMINED, REVIEWED OR TESTED FOR REASONABLE7VESS. TOTALS MAY NOT ADD DUE TO COMPUTER ROUNDING. THE NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINED !M 7NE ACCOMPANYING REF'ORT ARE AN lNTEGRAL PAAT OF THIS D(HI8lT. THERE WILL USUALLY BE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ESTiMATED AND ACTUAL RESULTS BECAUSE EVENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FREGlUENTLY DO NOT OCCUR AS EXPECTED AND THOSE DIFFERENCES MAY BE MATERIAL C-14 LIONSHEAD MASTER PLAN , TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE FORECAST WORKING DRAFT DATED 6-24-98 ^ ADDITIONAL DENSITY ADDED - REDEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS - PLANNING SCENARIOS A-1 THROUGH C-2 1 A-1~- 4% SKI LIFT TAX REVENUES General Assumptions: Anrwal Skier Days/FFU 253 253 253 253 253 253 Annual Skier Days/DU 101 101 101 101 101 101 Effective Revs/Skier Day $37.50 $37.50 $37.50 $37.50 $37.50 $37.50 1. Antlers Condo Un'rts 16 16 19 19 23 23 • Interval Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 - SkierOays 1,616 1,616 1,919 1,919 2,323 2,323 Taxable Lift Revenues 60,600 60,600 71,963 71,963 87,113 87,113 4% Ski Lift Taxes 2,424 2,424 2,879 2,879 3,485 3,485 2. Lifthouse Lodqe Condo Units 8 g g 8 8 8 Interva! Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 Skier Days gpg gpg gpg gpg gpg 808 Taxable Lift Revenues 30,300 30,300 30,300 30,300 30,300 30,300 4%Ski LiftTaxes 1,212 1,212 1,212 1,212 1,212 1,212 3. Mariott Mountain Resort Condo Units 37 37 44 44 51 51 Interval Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 Skier Days 3,737 3,737 4,444 4,444 5,151 5,151 TaxEible Lift Revenues 140,138 140,138 166,650 166,650 198,163 193,163 4% Ski Uft Taxes 5,606 5,606 6,666 6,666 7.727 7.727 4. Totals - Redevelopment of Existina Properti es Condo Units 61 61 71 71 82 82 IMerval Uniis 0 0 0 0 0 0 Skier Days 6,161 6,161 7,171 7,171 8,282 8,282 Taxable Lift Revenues 231,038 231,038 268,913 268,913 310,575 310,575 4% Ski Lift Taxes 9,242 9,242 10,757 10,757 12,423 12,423 THE ABOVE INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY AUDREU, EXAMINED, REVIEWED OR TESTED FOR REASONABLENESS. TOTALS MAY NOT ADD DUE TO COMPUTER ROUNDING. THE NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINED IN T1iE ACCOMPANYING REPORT ARE AN IM'EGRAL PART OF THIS D(HIBIT. THERE WILL USUAILY BE DIFFERENCES BEi1NEEN ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL RESULTS BECAUSE EVENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FREOUENTLY DO NOT OCCUR AS IXPECTED AND THOSE DIFFERENCES MAY BE MATERIAL. C-15 , LIQNSHEAD MASTER PLAN TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE FORECAST . WORKING DRAFf DATED 6-24-98 ADDfTIONAL DENSITY ADDED - REDEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS - PIANNING SCENARIOS A-1 THROUGH C-2 1% REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX REVENUES General Assumptions: Ave. Sq. Ft,/Condo. 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 Ave. Price per Sq. Ft.. $500 $500 $500 g500 $500 $500 Ave. Price per Condo. $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 . Ave. Price per Interval Week $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Secondary Sales Rate 4.0096 4.00% 4.0096 4.0096 4.00% 4.0096 1. Antlers Condo Units 16 16 19 19 23 23 Interval Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taable initial Sales 12,800,000 12,800,000 15,200,000 15,200,000 18,400,000 18,400,000 1% REIT Taxes - Initial Sales 128,000 128,000 152,000 152,000 184,000 184,000 1% RETTTaxes - Secondary 5,120 5,120 6,080 6,080 7,360 . 7,360 2. Lifthouse Lodqe Condo Units g g g g 8 8 Interval Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 TaxEtble Initial Sales 6,400,000 6,400,000 6,400,000 6,400,000 6,400,000 6,400,000 1% RETT Taxes - Initial Sales 64.000 64,000 84.000 64,000 64,000 64,000 1% RETT Taxes - Secondary 2,560 2,560 2,560 2,560 2.560 2,560 3. Mariott Mounffiin Resort Condo Units 37 37 44 44 51 51 Interval Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 TaxEtble Initial Sales 29,600,000 29,600,000 35,200,000 35,200,000 40.800.000 40,800,000 1 % RE7TTaxes - Initial Sales 296,000 296,000 352,000 352.000 408,000 408,000 1% REIT Taxes - Secondary 11,840 11,840 14,080 14,080 16,820 16,320 4. Totals - Redevelopment of Existinq Properties Condo Units 61 61 71 71 82 82 Interval Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tamble initial Sales 48,800,000 48,800,000 56,800,000 56,800,000 65.600,000 65,600,000 1% RETT Taxes - Initial Sales 488,000 488,000 568,000 566,000 656,000 656,000 1% RETf Taxes - Secondary 19,520 19,520 22,720 22,720 26,240 26,240 THE ABOVE INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY AUDITm. EXAMINED, REVIEWED OR TESTED FOR REASONABLLBVVESS. TOTALS MAY NOT ADD DUE TO COMPUTER ROUNDING. THE fJOTES AND ASSUMFTlONS CONTAINED 1N T]iE ACCOMPANYING REPORT ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF 7NIS DCHIBfT. THERE WILL USUALLY BE DIFFERENCES BEfWEEN ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL RESULTS BECAUSE EVENTS AND C(RCUMSTANCES FREQUENTLY DO NOT OCCUR AS DCPECTED AND THOSE DIFFERENCES MAY BE MATERIAL C-16 LIONSHEAD MASTER PLAN . , TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE FbRECAST WORKING DRAFT DATED 6-24-98 GROUND LEVEL RETAIL DCPANSION - REDEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS - PLANNING SCFTIARIOS A-1 THROUGH C-2 i ~-2I~Z-~ C-2 BUILDOUT \ 1. Town of Vail Park Parcel Retaii Sq. Ft. 2,650 2,650 2,650 2,650 2,650 2,650 \ Dwelling Units (Condos) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fractional Units (Intervals) 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. lazier Arcade Reffiil Sq. Ft. 6,083 6,083 6,063 6,083 6,083 6,083 , Dwelling Units (Condos) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fractional Units (Intervals) 0 0 0 0 0 ' - 0 3. Totals - Ground Level Reffiil Expansion Retail Sq. Ft. 8.733 8,733 8,733 8,733 8,733 8,733 Dwelling Units (Condos) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fractional Units (Intervals) 0 0 0 0 0 0 THE ABOVE INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY AUDITm, EXAMINED, REVIEWED OR TESTED FOR REASONABLENESS. TOTALS MAY NOT ADD DUE TO COMPUTER ROUNDING. THE NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING REPORT ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS DCHIBIT. THERE WILL USUALLY BE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL RESULTS BECAUSE EVENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FREDUENTLY DO NOT OCCUR AS EXPECTED AND THOSE DIFFERENCES MAY BE MATERIAL C-17 LIONSHEAD MASTER PLAN • TuWN OF VAIL REVENUE FORECAST WORKING DRAFf DATED 6-24-98 GROUND LEVEL RETAIL EXPANSION - RmEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS - PLANNING SCENARIOS A-1 THROUGH C-2 l A-1-1 ASSESSED VALUE AND PROPERTY AND S O TAX REVENUES General Assumpfions: ReTail Value - Sq. Ft. $275 $275 $275 $275 $275 $275 i. Town of Vail Park Parcel Actual Value Retail 728,750 728,750 728,750 728,750 728,750 728,750 Ass Val Retail 9 29% 211,337 211,337 211,337 211,337 211,337 211.337 Town Mill Levy 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 Town Property Taxes 913 913 913 , 913 913 913 Town S.O. Taxes @ 5% qg qg qg qg 46 46 • 2. Lazier Arcade AcWal Value Reffiil 1,672.825 1.672,825 1,672.825 1,672.825 1,672,825 1.672.825 Ass Val Reffiil @ 29% 485,119 485,119 485,119 485,119 485,119 485,119 ToffiI Assessed Value 485,119 485,119 485.119 485,119 485,119 485,119 Town Mill Levy 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 Town Property Taxes 2,096 2,096 2,096 2,096 2,096 2,096 Town S.O. Taxes @ 5% 105 105 105 105 105 105 3. Totals - Ground Level Retail EXOansion Actual Value Retail 2,401,575 2,401,575 2,401,575 2,401,575 2,401,575 2,401,575 Ass Val Retail @ 29% 696,457 696,457 696,457 696,457 696,457 696,457 Total Assessed Value 696,457 696,457 696,457 696.457 696,457 696,457 Town Mill Levy 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 4.321 Town Properiy Taues 3,009 3,009 3,009 3,009 3,009 3,009 Town S.O. Tazes @ 5% 150 150 150 150 I50 i50 County R&B Fund @ 1 Mill ggg 696 696 696 696 696 Construct. Permits @.0075 18,012 18.012 18.012 18,012 18,012 18,012 THE ABOVE INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY AUQITm, EXAMINED. REVIEWED OR TESTED FOR REASONABLENESS. TOTALS MAY NOT ADD DUE TO COMPUTER ROUNpING. THE NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING REPORT ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS DCHIBIT. THERE WILL USUALLY BE DIFFERENCES BEIWEEN ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL RESULTS BECAUSE EVENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FREDUENTLY DO NOT OCCUR AS EXPECTED AND THOSE D(FFERENCES MAY BE MATERIAL C-18 UONSHEAD MASTER PLAN TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE FORECAST WORKING DRAFT DATED 6-24-98 GROUND LEVEL RETAIL DCPANSION - RmEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS - PLANNING SCENARIOS A-1 THROUGH C-2 I~-2 i 4% SALES TAX REVENUES General Assumptions: • People Generated/FFU & AC 4 4 4 4 4 4 Exp/O'nightGuest-Rest/Ret. $100 $100 $100 $100 $tpp $tpp Occupany Rate/FFZ1(Interval) 75% 75% 7546 75% 75% 75% Occupany Rate/DU (Condo) 3096 30% 3096 3096 309G 3096 , 1. Town of Vail Park Parcel - Annual People Nights 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taable Sales - Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 4% sales Taxes - Annual 0 0 0 0 0 p 2. Lazier Arcade Annual People Nights 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taxmble Sales - Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 4% sales Tawes - Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Totals - Ground Level Retail Expansion Annual People Nights 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taxable Sales - Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 4% sales Taxes - Annual 0 0 0 0 0 0 County Tax Rebate @,Q375 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cigarette Taxes @.0089 0 0 0 0 0 0 Franchise Fees @.038 0 0 0 0 0 0 Business License @.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 THE ABOVE INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY AUDITED, D(AMINED, REVIEWED OR TESTED FOR REASONABLENESS. TOTALS MAY NOT ADD DUE TO COMPUTER ROUNDING. THE NOTES AND ASSUMPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING REPORT ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS DCHIBIT. THERE WILL USUALLY BE DIFFERENCES BECWEEN ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL RESULTS BECAUSE EVENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FAEQUENTLY DO NOT OCCUR AS EXPECTED AND THOSE DIFFERENCES MAY BE MATERIAL. C-19 . Jul. 2.1998 8:27AM ZEHREN AND ASSOCIA No.B838 P. 2/11 • • From:0700 . y . LYONSHEAD DESIGN GUYI7ELINES ~ DRAFT OUTLINE ~ A 1 JULY 1998 O ~ 1. Vision Statement The Lionshead neighborhood zvithin Vail ptesents an oppot't:ttrifij fo esfabiish a dyrtamfc and cxtiting community zoitl:in one of the prenrier resorts in the:ovrid. Lionshecrd's mounfnin location, cvmbined zuith its proxfmit~j to the ski slopes of Vail and its ample residential Iiase - evokes a vision of a truly unique n,rd special p[ace fhat zoi11 neaer be lacking in vitaIity. xhis vision cRn he rrchieved through redevelopinent of tlse communihj reiatizae to bofh site and arehitxcturnl issues. Pertinent site issues revolve around the qualify of pubIic spaces anc~ buiIding rotes zuithin the comnrunity. T7te pedestruin experience of the pubiic spaces zvitltin Lionshead is the mnst criticat site issue for redcvelopment. Aublic syaces ntust Fre desigtted tn addtess and intensi fy the perlestrian experience zvithin tlre community. Cteating sun pockets zoitI estabtislt pletisant gathering places, such as plazas and seating areas. Mnintarning viezv corridors, either expansive and szveeping or carefully framed by buiidings, rvill estabiish visuallinks to the environment. Desibrning indoor pubIic spuces cvill take rrdaantage of close buiidings and r,nrroto spaces zultile ofr+ering an eseape frvrn incielnent zueather. But tlu most vital and erucurl aspect of creattrtg quulitij pubIic spnce zerithin Lionshead is t)m fmprozvrnent of tfre pedestrian street. Pedestrian streets link various nodes of interest zvitltin the coinncunity, and act as the rnmmon circulatioit threads znlticlt he.tp to bind the community together_ Pedestrian streets must establish eontinurty, he c o rn f o r t a b l c in s c a t e , engaging in inferest, crnd dynumic in energij. Continuifij is achieaed 6y establtshing "buitd to" Iines for each property. Buildings tluit address and fmnt on the street, create a ura'f~ied streetscape :vlzich becontes the defining edge of the pedestrian experience. Cornfortnble scaie is achieved by determining allawaHte ratios for the zvidths of otttdoor spaces to their heights, in an efrot't to adequately define streets 7i,ithout creuting overbearing spaces. Interest is created by visually dynamic vnriation at tlie pedestrian IevcI. Variation in slzopfronts at street IeveI Itelps to avoid a mcmotonous streetscape. Jualicious use nf ornnment, demil, signuge, and color can reflett individuality and establish rr aariety of experience. Energy is created through the Tveaving of public, semi puhlic, and private ctnmains. Barriers, Ixoth physirnl and psyc]iotagicai, betweert public and semi-public domains must be avoiafed to maintain enough transparency for tlwse fzwdomains to intemct. While aIt lnti(dings zuitltin Liottsliead »tust respond to trenting successful pub[ic spaces, certain buitdings take on speciai importauce, and nre idenf~'fred to play specifec rotes in deftrting and ztvrtving the comrnunity together. Within these Guidelines, some huftdangs wiIt Hc cRIted upon to act as portals or entrances, ot'iiers as tcrndmttrks and edge defzmrs. The archifecture of Lionshead is not envisioned ns a strict dictateon of a specif~c "styte" or "thenre" but rafher be formed mithin a unified buiiding framezurnk based upon tirneless design pnnciptes such as form, scale, rmd order. This frametuork rviIi allozv individual ~ . t Jul. 2. 1998 8:27AM ZEHREN AND ASSOCIA No. 8838 P. 3/11 . • From:0700 . , property aroners freedprn vf design and expression zvithin the pprsonalities of tlzeir buildings rvlcile estnbtishing Rnd mrrintainircg an overaIl urtifying cliaracter and image for the entire cnmmunity. T)iis image forY,ionshead should rnoae tozvards the future -using historical alpine references and Vail Viilage as mttecedents; it can tftetl evolzae zoith the sbon$ influences and Ireritage of Cntorado nnd Vriil's alpine sefting tn create a nofion of "regional modernism." AcidrPSSing speciic design consideratians genernted tnj the lotaiion, cIimate, and surrouncling environment, such as rnaneging snozvfalI, addressing vie:us, recognizing the ski industrij on zu)tich tlte cotnmunity thtives, rnaximizing sotar gain tn the Tvinter, using i»digenvus brlilding materials, and the iike, slwuld be paramount. I7e.signing in response to regional prineiples, adhering ta a consistent arcliitechuraI ` frameruork, and enhancing the puhlic experienoe zui11 enabie Lionslread to define its vrvn individual heritage...making it a spectial and unique plaoe not just:uithin the onnfext of Vail, but zvithin the kindred mountain rnmmunities around tlie zvortd. 2. Pttrpose of Design Guidelines - Enhance exisiing expesience - Fucus dirrction for future groTVth - Maintain qunlit J of Ii fe - Iniprove property values 3. Design GuideIines 3.1 Site Improvements 3.1.1 Introducrion Tlw goal of the Sife hnproveinent Guidelines is to en]tanoe the qualifij of experience zuithin the public spaces of Lionshead. Enhancing the pedestrirm experienee rvithin Lionshend zuill go a long zumJ tozuards estabifslttng a sense of pIace and bringing Lron.shead together as a uniqiie, cohesizv, and jained community raitliin Vail. 3.1.2 Bui2ding Siting 3.1.2.1 Builci-to Lines 3•1.2•2 Site Coverage 3_1.3 Building Roles 3.1.3_1 Defining Outdoor Spaces 3.1.3.2 Portals 3.1.3.3 Edge Definers 3.1.3.4 X.andmarks 3.1.4 Pedestrian S#reets 3_1.4.1 Width-to-Height Retationships ~ ~ Jul. 2.1996 8:28AM ZEHREN AND ASSOCIA No.8838 P. 4/11 • From:0700 . . - 7:7/2 to 1-3 ~/i tnidth-to-height rntios 3.1.4.2 Domau1 - Public - Semi-Publac - Semi-Priaate - Private - Tmnsparency Reiationships 3.1.4 Public Plazas _ 3.15 View Comdors 3.1.5.1 Existutg Comdors 3.1.5.2 Proposed Corridors 3.1.5 3 Opportunity Areas 3.1.6 Street Frontage 3.1.4.1 Sidewalk Cafes 3_2.4.2 Colonnades, Loggias and Atria 3.1.7 Sun PockeEs 3_1_7.1 Existing Swn Pockets 3.1.7,2 Opportunity Areas 3.1.8 Courtyuds and Gazdens/Patios and Y)ecks 3.1.9 Grading and Drainage 3.1.10 Driveways _ 3.1.11 Site Lighting 3.1.12 Public Art 3.1.13 Utiliry Screening 3.1.14 Solid Waste Collection and Service Areas 3.2 Architecture 31.1 Introduetion Tl1e goal af the Arrhitectural Guideliiies is to estabtish a destgn phtIosophy for Lianshead, zohich zuhen integrnted zvith the Master Plan and Site DerreIoprlient Guidelines, rvill jielp to establish Lionshead as a coheriznf, unified, and dynarnic place. Thc Guidelines are not intended fn be a strict dicfation of a specif=c "styte" or 3 1u1. 2.1998 8;28AM ZEHREN AND ASSOCIA No.8838 P. 5/11 , . • From:0700 . "theme" for Lionshead, but rather to provide a unifreri building frametoork based upon ffrrreIess design prittcipies such as farm, scale, and order. 77us frametnork urill attorv r'ndividuai pmperh,/ o:uners fieednm of design and expression zuithin the F?e~rsonrrIities of tlzeir buildings wl:ile establishinS and maintaining fhe oaerail image fnr the entire concmunity. ~ 3.2.2 Building Form and Massing ~ - Base/ground of building to address/define the pedestrian street -,Building rnass fo address urban design principles such as pedestrian street build- to lines, sun pockets, vierv corririors, specific role buiIdings, etc. - Buildings must step hack from pedestrian street ns tluy increase in height (see - 3.2.3) - Broken masses, zvfth varying {eights and forms, r+equired - VerticaI "block" buildinRs not permitted 3.2.3 Building Height - nhsoY:tte Huilding heigl:t is defined as tlte distance mcasured verticalIy, at any given point around a structure from exis#ng grdde or finislLoci grade (mhichever is more restrictizie) to the top of the roof directly above said gizen point - Absotutr building lteight cannot exaeed 10' in Lionshead - Maximum 3 stories or 35' heigltt from gmde as measured to the eave or fiop of facing gable Rt pecestrian street (stories contained zvithin the roof do not rount totvards this heiglzf Iimit) - IS' setback to next building mrissing, zuhich hns a maximum height of 5 stories or 55' froin grade fo the eave vr top of facing gable (stories contained zuitkin the taof do not count tozuards this height Ii»rit) - IS' setback to next building mnssing zvhich canrwt execed absoiute builditig height (stories contained in the roof dn count tozvards this height timif) Building lieights should alsv step zvith site - Chirnneys, cupolas, toutr elements, and otller sExcial elernents may be higlter at -the discretion of the DRB 3.2.4 Building Floor Area - Increased 6uilding footprint at pedestriatt 1evel to encourage growth of buildings crnd to engage/define pedestrian streets, plazas, and otlier outdoor spaces - Increasea cveraIt building square footage by adding additicmal residential leml5 zvithin roof - Codc issues 7uith buiitling expans7on 3.25 Exterior Walls 3.25_1 General - CIear definition of base, rniddYe, top r ! ~ - Jul. 2,1998 8:29AM ZEHREN AND ASSOCIA No.8838 P. 6/11 , . - From:0700 - Base to be visually dynaniic to heightcn pedestrian expe?ienae - Base to interfuce zvith the topography of fhe site and provide a tmnsitian from enrtlc to buitding - MddIe to recud as n quiet muss whirh nlmost disappears as a backgmund and unifres t)re cotnmunify visually - Tops of tvnlIs to engage zvatl plrtnes to roofs, and to visually reduce TOOf IICiglIfS 3.2.5.2 Dimensional Guidelines - 30-ft maximum horizontal span perntittedaf street-tevel zvalls . zvfthnuf vaTying ut least 2 vf the folIozaing clunncteristics: Colar Materia! Fereestrafion Massing 3.25_3 MateriaLs - Speciftc require»tertts and a fiimted palette for major buitding . irarterials zvitl create a umfying visuat harmony throughout LionsJtead - Major 6uilding elements (oaer 150 sfl to be made of indigenous materials to crerrte a sense of Cnlorado heritage (see belarv) - Mfnor building elernents (150sf or less) af varying materiaIs :ui1J be atlvzued fo add design f fext'btlity, individual expression, and aisual ii:terest - Bnse to be constnccted of strong, anchvring materials blended :vith dz transparenty of retail sltop fronf - Stnne he.aring zoaIIs, cnncrete, concrete bloek - Thick vcneers - Optionnl battering - Additional accent materials can be used at base to add visuizl dynnraics rrnd interest to the pedesttian experience; hazvever, accent materials inust romplement fteld materials - Middle to be constructed of neutraf, uniform materials - Stucco - Top ofta11 plane - Wood ns nsficulation of sMtcture to engage roof 3.2.5.4 Colors - Colors to complement the naheral envirnnn?ent - Major building elenients (aver 150 sf) restricted to neutraI earth tones: - Beiges - Tntts ~ ~ 2. 1998 8:29AM ZEHiiEN AND ASS4CIA No. 8838 P. 7/11 - - - From:0700 . , - Light grnys Number of colors useci on major building elements lirnited to 3 or less - Mina bui(ding elements (I50 sf or less) at pedestrian street teve1 not • restricbed fo rtlIoru dynamic colors nnd visual interest; hornever, accent colors neust cmnplement f'ieId colors 3.2.5.5 Trim - Trim colors to arncplement field colors 3.2.6 winaows ana noors 3.2.6.1 General - Express ns deep rezleals in inasss zaalls of stone or stucco - Winrlvzv and clovr sizes, shapes, h, fpes, materials, and colors to relate to tri-pnrtitr hrerarchy 326.2 Windpw Sizes, Shapes and Types - 8asc - Large shopfronts - Lirnited variety of sizes and slurpes - Deeply recessed to acanterate nrass of base niaterials - 12erniI bay, 6oru, and box zuindozvs encouraged - Middle and rop ~ Generally verficaI and rectangutRr sizes, shapes and pAtterns, zuitjc (imited variety affotoed tvithin dn»ne-rs and roof eIements - Windozvs in rniddle to be arranged in a regular pattern - Treat as deeply recessed, punched openings ~ Sonx large viezu rvrndoras are permitted - Douhle hung, ataning, casernent, picture permitted Provide visual interest tuithin tvrndocv units tvith use of mullfon, inuntirr, and lite patterning 3.2.6.3 Window Materials and Colors - Base _ Copper - Aiuminurn storefronf rvidi baked enarneI firrish of aarying colors - Middle and tap - Coppsr dad rvood - AJurninuiii cIad zvood zuith baked enamel finish of neutral earth- tom colors 3.2.6.4 Window Glazing - Lotv-E, insuIated (double gIazed) ~ - Jul. 2. 1998 8:30AM ZEHREN AND ASSOCIA No. 8838 P. 8/11 From:0700 - Non-rejlective - Tempered at Irirge vieTn Yvindozus and zvhere nquired by Code 3.2.6.5 Door Sizes, Shapes, and 7ypes \ - I.rrrge entry donrs at retail ieuei \ - Gewrally rectangulrrr zvith special s/wpes permitted at ntail tevei - Szving, sliding, or fenace - Dccorative life patterns encouraged 3_2_6_6 Daor Materials and Colors - Woad ~ Copper and aYuminum clad - Copper patina and baked enameI - Glass - I ron 3.2.6.7 Door Glazing - No lirni[s ta amount of glazing in doot's at retaft Ievel - Low-E insulated (douhle glazed) - Non-rettectitic 3.2.6-$ I7oor Hardware - Varicrus nurterials pe»nitted at retait level for individuai crerttive expressioir - Otjur ]evel door luardzvare materiats to complerrent surrounding materinIs ana colors 3.2.7 Balcoaies and lZailing6 3.2.7.1 Materials and Designs - Creatizrity zuit)zin design pararneters encouraged - Wovd, decorative iron - No pipP raiIs, glass, or plastic - Neutral, earth tone rnlvrs at middie and top of buildings - I.irnited Tiariety of coTors at retail levels permitted 3.2.8 Building AppuYtenaaces 3.2.8.1 Exterior Building Lighting 3.2.8.2 Buxlding Signage 3.2.8.3 Miscellaneous IIectrical and MechanicaI F.quipmEnt . ^ T TOWN OF VAIL COLORADO . - ~ CARRYING CAPACITY STUDY , ~ 0 DRAFT July 1, 1998 CARRYING CAPACITY Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Background 1 2. Demographic Overview 2 _ 3. Ecological Capacity 3 - 3.1 Water Resources 4 3.1.1 Water Quantity 4 3.1.2 Water Quality 5 3.2 Forest Lands 7 3.3 Recreation g 3.4 Wildlife g 3.5 Air Quality 11 3.6 Noise 12 4. Physical Capacity 12 4.1 Development Potential 12 4.2 Mountain/Skier Capacity 13 4.3 Housing 14 4.4 Lodging 15 5. Facility Capacity 16 5.1 Solid Waste 16 5.2 Energy 17 5.2.1 Electricity 17 5.2.2 Natural Gas 18 5.3 Water & Sewer 18 5.4 Transportation 19 5.4.1 Roads 19 5.4.2 - Buses 19 5.4.3 Airport 20 5.4.4 Parking 20 5.5 Police 21 5.6 Fire 21 5.7 Education 22 5.8 Hospital 22 5.9 Communication 22 6. Social Capacity 23 6.1 Economy 23 6.2 The Village 23 6.3 Holiday Experience 23 6.4 Local Culture 24 Appendix A Recommended Water Quality Goals 25 Appendix B Questions for Consideration 26 CARRYING CAPACITY 1. 1NTRODUCTION ~ 1.1 Purpose \ Planning traditionally focuses on where and how growth should occur. Carrying capacity adds the extra dimension of how much should occur based on available natural and man-made resources. This paper defines a carrying capacity for the Town of Vail. The purpose is to identify natural and man made carrying capacity thresholds to help identify impacts and opportunities for - future development. There is no universal definition for carrying capacity. The following is a definition best suited to this study: • Carrying capacity is the maximum number of people who can use a site without an unacceptable alteration in the physical environment, an unacceptable decline in the quality of experience gained by visitors, and an unacceptable adverse impact on the society, economy, and culture of the tourism area.' Carrying capacity will be used in this report to define how many people the Town of Vail can support without exceeding the critical thresholds for natural and man-ma.de resources. Exceeding the carrying capacity of an area may lead to: • irreversible damage to the physical environment • socioeconomic and cultural problems • decline in the resident and guest satisfaction In a resort atmosphere, it is important to consider tourists perceptions of change in environmental quality which may decrease their enjoyment or appreciation of the area. In Vail, a major reason why our residents and guests have come to Vail is because of its natwal beauty. 1.2 Background on Carrying Capacity Carrying capacity, however, is neither a static, exact, nor necessarily an ideal number. The analyses in this paper define a carrying capacity for critical resources at a specific use level, assuming a fixed and known relationship between use level and impacts. These capacities will change if other ma,nagement parameters alter that relationship, if management objectives are changed, or if user values change radically.Z For example, technological advances, a change in the 1Mathieson, Alister, and Geoffrey and Wall, Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts, New Yark: Longman, 1982, p. 21 zShelby, Bo and Thomas A. Heberlein, Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings, Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press, 1986, p. 18. 1 . , ~ accepted quality of life standard, a change in consumption pattems, or if a developer or the public is willing to spend the money necessary to mitigate adverse effects (the reason for greater capacity in urban areas where land values range higher), the carrying capacity will change. Accommodating the maximum number of people may not always be wise either. Compromises on comfort, unconstrained activities, and safety may be made. An optimum cariying capacity may be the more desirable target. Higher numbers of people are traded for other benefits.3 A balance between our demand and supply of resources must be found. We have determined the Town of Vail's carrying capacity through the analysis of numerous limiting factors, factors that . ~ limit growth or resource use such as natural resources and pollution, and by trigger factors, new ~ or changed environmental factors that set off a chain of environmental system impacts such as population, the economy, and tourism growth. The factors are divided into four categories: • Ecological Capacity • Physical Capacity • Facility Capacity • Social Capacity This report begins with an overview of the Town of Vail and Eagle County, then explores each of these four categories. The report concludes with a summary and calculation of the overall carrying capacity for the Town of Vail. ~ 2. DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW The Town of Vail, situated in Eagle County, is the number one ski resort in the United States. Population in the Town and the County vary seasonally due to the tourism industry and the high number of secondary home owners. Following is basic information in regards to the Town and the County. > . . , . . : . . . . . . , . . . . . ;~>:~;<4~<; »<;:::~::::':~~:'~>z;•:..•.>:,,,:,.~ ::::.;.::::;.:.::.::.::.....,:•~::::;........;c..:,,•,.: ~ • , . . ~x;;:•~::.:: : ~ . Population Year Eagle County Town of Vail Permanent 1997 31,721 4,479 Year-round Avg 1997 83,056 23,072 Peak 1997 (1991) 50,000 34,470 3Shelby, Bo and Thomas A. Heberlein, Carrying Capaciry in Recreation Settings, Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press, 1986, p. 9. 2 The Eagle County population is projected to continue to grow as Table 4-2 shows. Eegle County Population ,..a: < +.zzzzr........ 3 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 >'33':i;•'::~:" :2>y, ..y~.,;..:, . ;y,~ 20,000.00 3i;~#;~,,:`x.,~:,v,.;;:.. .i: .••:;4.~:+...*::~• .;vQiS?~'~ 10.0 0 0.0 0 •.4\ ~.ti:;:::i7k~. >.i.: y~~~k.A~'. {::•j: iiii+ , ' 1990 7995 " pVail 3716 4354 MEagle County 21928 28620 y::...;....:.:....:::...........:...:....::.:::...........::...::.:.................:.:..,.:..:. ~x;~>i;:o:>::: •a::::: . w..::: . : ~ ~ . } . : t: . . . . . :v: • : ~ : •tt . . : , , : . (:~F~ , ?;;:;;;`;;,;+?;,;_"',;;;;;,;;;:+S::;j X+'~i . . i i~ . .:.:.........:~.t~~!~1f.F..........................:i......:~:,...............~~:....................... .................................~.~~..~..~..~...~.,Y.'..:.......:,.:i+:+::...; :aw.....,.;~:. :::::::::::::....::::::::;att:•i:~>:~•: . . . t;a:>::,;:•::::>• ~:.;;:.:........:>:;•+:;.:~:;:::;•+:t;;•r•o-+»»:•::•:•r.;;;•:•>::;:.: r<::a::•::~. . . . . ;~:.•>r:::; . . . , • +':~k i . . ;~ii:;:::iX:~:; i:;~ii:::i,;::; . ~ :~ati:~ . ::.:.:.r.,...:...:.:.~.,,:_:~::.,•::::::.~.. . . . ~ ..~»~~•::•:::>:c:":to: : • . . ~ ~:::::^>:..•::::::::::?::::t:•`.t'.•»:~::;::::.>:o-:::::.::::.::::o:::a: : . , , I:~~.~t. Year Population % C6ange 1990 22,118 n/a 1995 28,680 30% 2000 34,903 22% 2005 39,709 14% 2010 44,129 11% 2015 48,255 9% 2020 52,142 8% IMMEMMEM Source: NWCCOG, "Eagle Count 1997 3. ECOLOGICAL CAPACITY Natural resources are a limiting factor. The constraints natural resources place on the human population are a function of the rates at which it can provide resources and assimilate residuals and wastes. The balance between what a natural resource can produce as an output and assimilate as an input represents the stress limit within which the system can compensate and still retum to its original condition.4 4House, Peter William, The Carrying Capaciry of a Nation: Growth and the Qualiry of Life, Lexington, MA: Lelcington Books, 1976, p. 42 3 . . , 3.1 Water Resources 3.1.1 Water Quantiry ' OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE TIIE EAGLE RNER WATERSHED SUPPLIES MOST OF EAGLE COUNTY'S POPULATION AND SEVERAL FRONT RANGE COMMUNTTIES WITH TT~ \ WATER SUPPLY. CRITICAL THRESHOLD: 6 CFS. COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD: COST FOR BUII.DING A WATER STORAGE FACIIdTY. MITIGATION: SUPPLEMEIVITNG DEPLETED FLOWS. The Town of Vail falls within the Eagle River Watershed which supplies most of Eagle County's population and several front range communities with its water supply. Gore Creek is a tributary to the Eagle River and runs all the way through the Town. Multiple creeks also flow from the mountains into Gore Creek. While our prima.ry concern is Gore Creek since it is the body of water physically in the Town of Vail, it is important to understand that Gore Creek is part of a system within the Eagle River Watershed. Activities in the Town of Vail directly impact Gore Creek and therefore, indirectly impact the Eagle River. The section of the Eagle River between Gore Creek and Beaver Creek is the most impacted section of the Eagle River by activities in the Town of Vail. The instead flow standard for this portion of the Eagle River during the summer is 85 cfs and 35 cfs during the winter. The estimated frequency of flow shortage during the summer is once in 5 to 10 years, and once in 5 to 10 years during the winter months as we11.5 Water usage in the Town of Vail that effects the quantity of water in Gore Creek is as follows: Domestic- water is taken out at the Forest Road plant, treated, and provided to hames and businesses. Approximately 90% of the water ordinally diverted is treated at the Avon waste water treatment plant and returned to Gore Creek. A depletion in stream flow between the golf course and the Forest Road Vail plant is likely. The highest level of use is during the winter months due to the tourism industry when water flows are lowest. Snowmaking - water is diverted for snowmaking prima.rily during the months of October, November, and December, when flows are typically lowest. The spring melt retums approximately 80% of the water when the flow is typically high. An in-basin water storage project may be considered to supplement the deficit. Golf course - The golf course diverts water for irrigation throughout the growing season. Some of the consequences of low flows are fish kills, loss of insect populations, additional stress on wildlife populations, a reduction in recreational experiences and a decrease in water quality. SEagle River Assembly, Phase I Report, 1994 4 , , . There are 3 basic alternatives to manage new growth from a water quantity viewpoint: 1. Increase capacity for growth by implementing water management techniques - water storage, conservation, pump back systems 2. Don't increase capacity for growth - permit development only if it does not significantly degrade stream flows or aquatic habitat or if a significant public benefit is achieved. 3. Take no action to manage water resources and no action to manage growth. The result will be an increase in stream flow deficits and aquatic habitat degradation.6 Recommendations on how to reach optimum flows include conservation, reuse, and land use and growth management. The amount of water constituting optimum flows depends on a variety of , objectives. Providing supplemental water flows to reduce the amount of stream poUutants and reduce stream temperatures may be more water than occurs naturally in the stream. Supplementing depleted flows is a common sense approach which works well for the Vail area, although the cost for constructing a water storage facility is between $4,000 and $8000 per acre foot of storage that is developed. A 10,000 acre foot storage project could cost $40 to $80 million. Development of joint -use facilities would significantly reduce the cost of providing water for in-basin purposes.' Depletions from snowmaking could be an issue for the Town of Vail. 3.1.2 Water Qualiry OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE GORE CREEK PROVIDES AESTHETIC AND RECREATIONAL ELEMENT TO THE TOWN AND IS TFiE SOURCE OF VAIL' S WATER SUPPLY. CRITICAL THRESHOLD: STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS (SEE APPENDIX A) COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD: INCREASE IN TREATMENT COSTS FOR DRINKING WATER, LOSS OF FISHERIES MITIGATION: OT'HER PROGRAMS ARE IMPLEMENTATION OF A BEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (BMP' S) FOR ALL LAND USES, CREATE A BUFFER ZONE (UNDISTURBED, PROTECTED AREA OF UP TO SO') FOR CRITICAL HABTTATS, IMPLEMENT A WATERSHED WIDE PLAN WHICH LIMTTS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA VERSUS PERVIOUS SURFACE AREA (RATIO MUST BE <15 % PERVIOUS) AND DETERMINE ACCEPTABLE LIMTTS OF POLLUTANTS IN STREAMS. Gore Creek is-a dominant feature in the Vail Village and Lionshead with development encroaching upon its banks. In this situation, negative impacts on water quality in certain areas are difficult to avoid. Human activities that have the largest impacts on water quality in Gore Creek include construction activities, hazardous materials spills, road sanding, recreation, urban stormwater and snowmelt runoff, water diversions, and wastewater treatment dischaxge. (Pie chart represents pollutants that reduce water quality). The Town of Vail has purchased over 50% of the stream tract to protect riparian areas. 6Eagle River Watershed Plan, 1996. 7 Eagle River Assembly, Phase I Report, 1994. 5 These impacts degrade water TOW A11M PlDllUdrt LMdS t0 GOm Q'eek quality in Gore Creek, however, Gore Creek's water Boftrical. Amraia N=jen, 01 & Q,eme quality does meet state water Ocyigen 0.1% 1}4V 160/o quality standards for Danwd 0.7% FW agricultural and domestic uses, Sp% mmals, tatal the protection of aquatic life 0.20/o and recreation uses (Eagle - ~ CgAc River Watershed Plan, 1996). Ntrogm Most development in Vail has 0.40/o occurred in the past twenty years. Some of the impacts Tctd from this development on Gore Total ~ded Creek were documented in a ?ssol%ed Sdi&-, 1991 study, where it was Splitb 44.3% shown that dissolved solids, 47.6'/o conductivity, & nutrient concentrations worsened between 1979 & 1991. The table below lists some of the parameters that have increased thereby decreasing water quality. . . iv':~:.:~:::::: ....................y::::::::::.~: . . v . ...~v w.::::::}ii:ii?iii~;}~• . . ~ . ...»v.~:::::..:..;.....v> t•.~v:.~.~.v.~~•:::::::.v»:•~{•:::::':~::.J?:....... . .4+~~i~?iiii:i ~ ~:::i:?i\•~ ~'+'>•::.y:::::. • i::. ~ i~:~i: i:•i}:~~T: i::i::~:~ ~.i:.::..~::i.i:•:~:•.~• . M. . . ....~t.* :v .........................n................:n.~~. •w::::........~::. :::.:::::.........t::::::::::::.~:::.~: :•:::::::n . . . . . ; • ::i•~ ~.v {::::.:+i•i:{Jii??i:ivi~ii: •i:•\:•i:•ii:?:iii~ti-0:>.:::iiti::ti:i•i:ti•T::•i'•:{{{•i II . r:.ii J:::: w:::.~~. ~ ~ ~ v: . : v.:~:::::.i': tii. . . . . ~ ii:!l:~~•~. : iiiti4ii?:~•?>\•: i.:'v:':::v.v ::v::: :•::::::::.~:::::~.....,.'~.~....~,.............................»...............,....................,v..,.., x~:::.,v. ...........................................::i:4:....................................:........................ v:::::.~:::::.~: :w::::: k:::.~::: Parameter 1979 1991 % Change Dissolved Solids (Milligrams per liter) 178 192 +8% Salt Concentrations (conductivitymeasured in microhms) 270 305 +13% Nutrients (ex. Phosphorus in milligrams per liter) 0.18 0.26 +44% Source: Ea e River Watershed Plan, 1996 Metal pollutants in stormwater are toxic to aquatic life and are a health risk in drinking water. Furthermore, water treatment costs escalate when metals removal is necessary. Zinc, for instance, is a problem in Gore Creek. The non-urban background concentration for zinc is 17 pounds. In 1991, approximately 1,700 pounds of zinc entered Gore Creek from the Vail area. These stormwater heavy metals come mainly from vehicles. Overall levels of heavy metals and fecal coliform have improved since 1979, although peak loads show up in sampling data due to seasonal fluxuations. Many of the peak times for heavy metals are in the late fall and early winter. This is most likely due to the accumulation of heavy metals pollutants on pavement. The peak loads are recorded as the streets are experience higher precipitation levels and runoff carries pollutants into the stormwater system 6 Temperatures in the Eagle River should optimally not exceed 59 degrees Fahrenheit. Low temperatures occur due to low flows and loss of the riparian habitat. Other problems associated with poor water quality are nutrient overloads (phosphorous and nitrogen inputs from lawn care and detergent use) and sediment from erosion and stormwater runoff. These non-point sou'rce pollutants increase the treatment costs and destroy aquatic habitats. ~ Trout Unlimited estimates each fish has a return of $350 in revenue. Loss of the fisheries resource and other tourist revenues. The 1996 Eagle River Watershed Plan recommends provides a number of ideas on how to improve water quality: increase inventory and monitoring efforts, apply for grants to increase funding sources for large water quality itriprovement projects, maintain Vail's municipal stormwater management plan, improve public information dissemination and develop wellhead protection programs. Other programs are implementation of a Best Management Program (BMP's) for all land uses, create a buffer zone (undisturbed, protected area of up to 100') for critical habitats, implement a watershed wide plan which limits impervious surface area versus pervious surface area (ratio must be <15% pervious) and determine acceptable limits of pollutants in streams. 3.2 Forest Lands OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE OUTDOOR RECREATION OPPORTUNTTIES, PARTICULARLY HIKING AND MOUNTAIN BIKING, ARE BECOMING INCREASINGLY POPULAR IN VAIL. CRITICAL THRESHOLD: CAPACITIES CURRENTLY EXCEEDED BOOTH CREEK TRAIL & GORE CREEK TRAII.. COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD: RESTORATION AND BUILDING OF NEW TRAILS. MITIGATION: WILDERNESS AREAS HAVE A"USE-CAPACITY" WHICH, IF EXCEEDED, WILL RESULT IN A LOSS OF TBE AREA'S WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS.B OUTDOOR RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES, PARTICULARLY HIKING AND MOUNTAIN BWJNG, ARE BECOMING INCREASINGLY POPULAR IN VAIL AND ARE PLACING PRESSURES ON TBE RECREATIONAL RESOURCES PROVIDE BY SURROUNDING NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE LANDS. THE HIGH ELEVA'TION, FORESTED ECOSYSTEMS ARE FRAGILE AND NEED TO BE MONTTORED TO MAINTAIN FOREST HEALTH. On the front side of the Vail Ski Area, Vail Associates offers 23 trails, totaling neaxly 59 miles in length. Eight trails, totaling 13.2 miles are designated for "hiking only." Four sections, totaling 14.5 miles, are designated "biking only." Eleven sections, totaling 30.9 miles, are designated "multiple use."9 There are numerous other trails that exist in the surrounding area for use by visitors to Vail. For gStewart M. Brandborg, "On the Carrying Capacity of Wilderness," Living Wilderness, pp 28-29. 9Fina1 Environmental Impact Statement, Vail Categary III Ski Area Development, August 1996, p. 3-69. 7 . . example, the Two Elk National Recreation Trail offers 9 miles of recreational use to non- motorized activities. Between July 1 and September 15, 1994, an estimated 2,594 people utilized this trail. A popular back country route in the area is the Commando Run Trail, which connects Shrine Pass with the Town of Vail.10 The US Forest Service is currently preparing a new Draft Forest Management Plan, which is expected to be published in December 1998. The Forest 5ervice will be updating their Management Indicators, which contain theoretical capacities for use. These change for each management designation; for example, if they are in a ski area designation or a semi-primitive motorized area designation, the numbers of persons at one time will change. 3.3 Recreation Outdoor recreational activities are what support the Town of Vail. Activities of particular interest in the Town include hiking, biking, wildlife watching, rafting, kayaking, camping, hunting, cross country and downhill skiing, golf, rock climbing, sledding, snowmobiling, picnicking, jeeping, horseback riding, and berry picking. Ensuring a quality experience is important to keeping the tourism industry intact. This means maintaining a high quality environment and setting an acceptable level of congestion. The US Forest Service reports use for the Booth Falls trail is 8,636 Recreation Visitor Days (RVD's - the use in a 12 hour day). Overuse of the Gore Creek watershed is a primary concem. Fishing, rafting, and kayaking are the most popular activities on Gore Creek. Appropriate public access that is sensitive to the riparian and aquatic environment is a consideration. Most kayakers access Gore Creek at the East Vail exit or on the golf course, and take out downstream, generally where any bridge crosses the creek. A new public access eJCists at the confluence of Gore Creek and the Eagle River that was developed with the Town of Vail bike path to Dowd Junction. This access serves as a rest stop and fisherman access, but it does not provide boat access. Other areas of access to Gore Creek include Ford Park, Booth Creek, and Pitkin Creek. A second concem is that of a quality recreational experience. The feeling of solitude is often an essential aspect of a quality recreational experience. During the public participation process for the development of the 1996 Eagle River Watershed Plan, the general consensus was that River was not too crowded yet, but that it had the potential to be in the future. As use increases, the potential for conflict increases as well. Another potential problem is stormwater that goes directly into Gore Creek. The non-point source pollutants can damage the recreational resource that are so important to Vail residents and visitors. `oFinal Environmental Impact Statement, Vail Categary III Ski Area Development, August 1996, p. 3-69- 71. 8 • 1 R A 1991 survey done by the Colorado River Outfitters Association estimated that each rafter spent $168 per day, including secondary expenditures. Using these estimates, a total of approximately $1,300,000 was spent by people rafting the Eagle River in 1991. Direct expenditures of fishermen in 1989 in Eagle County totaled $7,642,000 according to the CDOW study titled Colorado Wildlife Impact Model. 3.4 Wildlife OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE ONE OF TI-IE TOP REASONS THAT PEOPLE ENJOY LNING IN EAGLE COUNTY IS BECAUSE OF THE ABUNDANCE AND VISIBILITY OF WII.DLIFE. CRITICAL THRESHOLD: LEVEL OF FISHERMAN BELOW 100 ANGLER HOURS PER ACRE COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD: LOSS OF TOURISTS OR HLJNTERS. MITIGATION: PRESERVE CRITTCAL HABTTAT OR MIGRATORY ROUTES. One of the top reasons that people enjoy living in Eagle County is because of the abundance and visibility of wildlife. The Town of Vail is surrounded by the White River National Forest (WRNF), which is known to provide habitat for 72 species of mammals, 202 species of birds, 11 species of reptiles, 5 species of amphibians, and 17 species of fish. • Common large ma.mmal species include elk, mule deer, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, black bear, and mountain lion. • Typical small mammals are yellow-bellied marmot, American beaver, snowshoe hare, American pika, northern pocket gophers, and marten. • Familiar bird species include clark's nutcracker, gray jay, northem flicker, steller's jay, and mountain bluebird. • The typical forest habitats near Vail are dominated by spruce-fir, lodgepole pine, or mixed coniferous forest cover types. We are concerned with maintaining the areas native biodiversity, or its natural level of different numbers of species. Human impacts on the wildlife's habitats can disrupt this natural level. One of the most critical, yet most altered and sensitive habitat areas within the Town of Vail are the riparian areas around Gore Creek and its tributaries. The riparian areas Eagle Rver, '97 Intensive Creel Oensus provide important wildlife habitats, 4.00 , migration corridors, breeding, nesting, o a i y 4 fawning, and calving areas. ^ Developments and activities along Gore - 2 Creek disrupt and sometimes eliminate ~ 1 • w' ; , these sensitive habitat areas. This topic 0 Q is discussed in the above section on 1 2a 2b 3a 3b 4 Gore Creek. Of particular interest in Savo"'H -%e the Gore Creek habitat is fish M Iwv Fagia, oo ¦ Sw Pagion oo 0 Eagle Roer productivity. 9 . , Gore Creek is rated as a"Gold Medal" fishery below Red Sandstone Creek and is a Catch and Release designated area. The designation requires at least 40 lb. per acre and at least 12 trout 14 inches or longer per acre on a sustained basis. Stream segments must be a minimum or two miles in length and standing water must be a minimum of 50 acres in surface area. The impacts of increased fishing pressure on aquatic wildlife include catching the bigger fish which are of \ spawning size and increased stress from being caught a number of times in the catch and releas~ program, which reduces the fishes ability to react to other stresses such as increased water levels, pollution, etc. There will be some die-off from this increa$ed stress. As fishing pressure increases, productivity (catch rate) declines. A catch rate for Eagle River ranges from 0.61 to 131 fish per hour, with the catch _ rate for comparable rivers is 2.06 to pxjler Hmm Fbr Am - 4.0 fish per hour. The Eagle River is Q,PM,~tD Cow OciaracloWws fished from 77 to 425 hours per acre, as compared to 11 to 46 hours per acre for comparable waters. Another area of particular 400 importance is the northern portion of the Town of Vail which is known to be bighom sheep winter range. This extends from Booth and Pitkin 1 Creeks to the town public works shop. Construction of another mitigation berm may have a negative 1 2d 23 3"d 3b 4 effect although the herds appear to ~ingSte like the grass on.the berms. Other ~~~~~~~~m 00 DWIdTratVkers a EWe critical habitats include eagles nests in Booth Creek and Pitkin Creek; elk winter range on the south side of the highway between the gondola and Dowd Junction; and migration routes for deer on the south side of , the highway along Game Creek Ridge. This area is closed to skiing although there seems Land Status of Big ~m Habftm to be a problem with skiers crossing private property and the deer migration routes. The 80000- MBk habitat that has been paved and built on is lost KOM Winter to big game use. In Eagle County, this is Range about 40% of the population of the deer herd 40~0°° reduced since the 1970's. Realistically, _1WL ~~.in popula.tion levels won't be able to be returned o Range to original levels. The elk herd may reach the r~~ Pritete ~ point that the Colorado Division of Wildlife ~reM Land Lwid (CDOV) will need to reduce herd e management objectives, as evidenced by elk that are crossing the highway to reach winter habitat. 10 ) 1 3.5 Air Quality OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE OF THE EFFECTS POOR AIR QUALITY CAN HAVE ON PUBLIC HEALTH, ESPECIALLY AT HIGH ALTITUDES. CRITICAL THRESHOLD: TIIE STANDARD FOR PARTICULATE MATTER (PMl O) UNDER 10 MICRONS IN SIZE IS SO MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER (SO UG/M3) FOR TBE ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEAN STANDARD AND iSO UG/M3 IN A 24 HOUR PERIOD. COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD: MAY REQUIItE PRNATE CONVERSION FROM FIREPLACES TO GAS FIREPLACES IF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP CHANGES. MITIGATION: FURTfER REDUCE TfE NUMBER OF WOOD BURNING FIREPLACES. - The Vail Valley has low wind speeds typical of mountain valleys. These low wind speeds prevent dispersion, which in turn, increases the likelihood of inversions in this area. Inversions typically last approximately 16 hours with a maximum of 22 hours: The average height is approximately 920 feet with a maximum of 1,150 feet. The Vail Valley is open at both the west and east ends which facilitates a west-to-east movement of pollution out of the area. The Town of Vail has enacted an ordinance limiting the particulate output of fireplaces and wood stoves (Title 5, Chapter 3). The Environmental Protection Agency , S=W0b1rt1'ib"t0T0W PM10 regulaxes siar criteria pollutants: sulfur dioxide SOz, carbon monoxide CO, ozone 21X 2c 03, lead Pb, nitrogen dioxide N02, and fine particulates (P1V) with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less PMio. In the Vail region there are no major sources of SOz, Os, or Pb. .....4 'a., k Automobile emissions and wood burning are the primary sources of CO and NOz. 5"D/c The main sources of PMio are vehicular re- entrained road dust and wood burning. B FrqJaDeS 0 3ardrg ?Wide 6hast 0 Qills PMIO is the primary pollutant of concern due to the topography and climate in the Vail Valley. However, the Vail Valley does not exceed any of the standards for all of the criteria pollutants, and therefore is in "attainment." 3.5.1 Yisibility The reduction of woodbuming fireplaces will help improve visibility deteriorations, however, mountain communities are frequently subject to inversions and a total reduction of brown haze may not be possible. 11 The Forest Service has defined the acceptable limits of visibility as not more than 5 percent change in contrast of the top 10 percent "good view" days at sensitive view areas. The 90th percentile standard visual range (SVR) for camera sites at Eagles Nest and Maroon Bells are 214 miles and 150 miles, respectively. 3.6 Noise OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE NOT ONLY CAN NOISE BE A N[JISANCE, BUT TT CAN BE A HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARD. CRITICAL THRESHOLD: SS DECIBELS RESIDENTIAL; 90 DECIBELS FOR CONSTRUCTION - COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD: LOSS OF TOURIST VISITS MITIGATION: MUFFLERS ON ALL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, SNOWCATS; PUT I-70 UNDERGROUND. BUILD NOISE WALLS. Noise is defined as unwanted sound. In the Town of Vail, where people try to escape much of the urban atmosphere and seek a tranquil mountain vacation, noise can be a factor which diminishes a visitor's experience. The two greatest sources of noise in the Town of Vail are the I-70 corridor and construction. Other sources of noise are special events, snowma.king, grooming, lift operations, routine snow removal, and periodic peak days which generate appreciably higher levels of automobile and bus traffic. One particular source of noise that has been identified as an issue in the 1998 survey is noise from I-70. The Code of the Town of Vail (Title 5, Chapter 1-7) limits the noise levels in all zoning districts. 4. PHYSICAL CAPACITY The Town of Vail is constrained by a physical carrying capacity. This section explores the Town's physical elements looking at land supply, mountain/skier capacity, the Village, housing, specifically employee housing, and recreation. 4.1 Development Potential OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE THE TOWN HAS A SPECIFIED AMOUNT OF SPACE, LIMITING DEMAND BY THE QUANTTTY OF TIM SUPPLY. CRITICAL THRESHOLD SOS ADDITIONAL HOUSING LINITS IN VAIL, WITH A RANGE OF 341- 515 POTENTIAL iJNITS IN LIONSHEAD. Estimated land available for development as of July 1997: • 11 lots zoned single family residential district • 25 lots zoned two fanuly residential district • 81 lots zoned two family primary/secondary residential district • 9 lots zoned residential cluster district (6 units per acre) • 1 lot zoned medium density multiple family district (8 units per acre) • 13 lots in a special development district 12 , • 1 lot in a general use district • 3 lots in a parking district • 25 lots in East Vail not within the Town of Vail boundary • 10 unplatted developable tracts of land \ Vail is approximately 93% built out. Developable land in the Town of Vail is primarily in Eas~ Vail and West Vail. There are an estimated 129 vacant lots within the Town of Vail and an additiona125 vacant lots within Vail but outside of the town boundary, for a total of 154 vacant lots. In addition to these vacant lots, there are an estimated 13 unplatted tracts with approximately 65 acres that are available for development. Given current zoning of-the 154 , vacant lots, a maxirrium estimate of an additiona1310 units is possible, of which approximately 150 would be single fa.mily prima,ry homes and 160 would be secondary homes or multi-family residential units. The unplatted lots are primarily zoned for two family residential. With an average of 3 units per acre, the 65 acres could hold a possible additional 195 housing units. This brings the grand total of additional housing units the Town of Vail could possibly accommodate with existing zoning to 505. The Lionshead Master Plan has the potential to add 341-515 additional units, depending on which scenario is chosen by the Vail Town Council. The 1990 Census calculated an average of 2.2 persons per household in the Town of Vail. With an average of 2.2 persons per household, there could possibly be an additional 1,100 people accommodated in the Town of Vail, and an additiona1750 - 1,133 people in Lionshead. 4.2 Mountain/Skier Capacity OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE ON-MOUNTAIN SERVICES CAN BECOME TAXED DURING HIGH-USE DAYS IF FACTORS SUCH AS BAD WEATI-IER OR POOR SNOW CONDITIONS, WHICH LIMIT USE OF TuE BACK BOWLS, OCCUR AT T-HE SAME TIIviE. CRITICAL THRESHOLD: 19,900 SKIERS AT ONE TIME COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD: LOSS OF PERMIT FROM THE US FOREST SERVICE The Vail Ski Resort Facts: • 4,014 skiable acres • Maximum Capacity: 19,900 skiers at one time (SAOT) • peak period of use: Christmas to New Year's Day. • Peak days are those days when skier visitation exceeds about 18,000 skiers. a High-use days are those days when skier visitation is between 15,000 and 15,000. • Only on one occasion in history did skier visitation exceed 19,000. • Intermediate skiers make up approximately 50% of the skiers. • 36% of trail capacity is intermediate • 1994 - 1.5 million annual visitor days-with the expansion of Category III, this could feasibly increase to an estimated 1.9 million annual visitor days by the year 2005. On high-use days, the mountain infrastructure and the TOV can norma.lly handle this level of activity. During early and late season, and during periods of poor snow or visibility conditions, 13 . the south-facing Back Bowls, which make up two-thirds of the skiable terrain, are vulnerable to closure. When this occurs, skier densities on the front side of the ski area increase and the quality of the experience is reduced. The maximum capacity of the Vail Ski Area is 19,900 skiers at one time (SAOT). If skier opportunities increase with Vail Associate's Category III expansion on the mountain, the 19,900 SAOT manage-to capacity will not increase. However, skier visitation averages and totals are eacpected to increase for the area as a whole. Approximately 50% of Vail skiers are intermediate. Fifty percent of the 19,900 capacity if 9,950 skiers. Current intermediate terrain capacity is 4,690 skiers on the front side and 3,329 skiers in the Back Bowls, for a total of 8,019 skiers. Therefore, on days when total skier capacity is reached, 19,900, intermediate skier capacity is over exceeded by 1,931 skiers. If the Back Bowls are unusable, then capacity is . exceeded by 5,260 intermediate skiers. 4.3 Housing OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF DWELLING iJ1JITS ARE SEASONAL. CRITICAL THRESHOLD: SOS ADDITIONAL I.TNITS AND 341 - 515 ADDIT'IONAL POTENTIAL UNITS IlV LIONSHEAD Due to the tourism industry, a high percentage of dwelling units are seasonal. The seasonal housing units are not distributed evenly throughout the county however. Vail, Eagle-Vail, and Avon contain a majority of the seasonal housing. The remaining counties are primarily made up of permanent residents. Type of housing also varies throughout the county. • 4.31 Emplvyee Hnusing OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE SERVICE AND RETAIL JOBS COMPRISE 60% OF THE TOTAL JOB MARKET. CRITICAL THRESHOLD: 1,E80 ADDITIONAL BEDS COST FOR REACHING THRESHOLD: $12.14 MILLION OVER 8 YEARS. MITIGATION: IMPLEMENT COMMON GROUND HOUSING PLAN. The services and retail sectors comprise the greatest percentage of jobs in Eagle County, capturing over 60 percent of the total job market in 1994. Another problem that compounds the affordable housing issue is that most TOV emergency personnel (police and fire departments) cannot afford to live within the town limits. In the event of a major emergency that closed Dowd Junction, additional emergency personnel would be unable to respond in a timely manner. Seasonal homes now comprise 71 % of the dwelling units in Vail. One unanticipated result of the high percentage of seasonal housing is the true loss of community. Long term residents have identified this in recent Town of Vail surveys. The Town currently has 399 deed restricted dwelling units (at 2.2 people/unit) and is aggressively pursuing providing an additional 1680 beds 14 of affordable/seasonal housing. The following table reveals the distribution of seasonal housing, single family housing, and multi- family housing in Eagle County. . . . . ~ . .~.~:.Ti??:::{::jjTiii:::::i:}~vi:?i: i+: _ ' i::. ::~?~?t'•~; ::::::::::::::.:::::n~v: . . ' ~ ~ ~ • ~ ::n\~•:::i~:`i. .:~\~:::i~...~~.~........~ ' ' . . : :v:V::.~.~+::. ..........ti.:::.~ :•:e?::T:i:::::?::::::::~•: . .i ti ~ ¦ •i:?i~ .ty . . :::::~:::.j~::.::......,~ +~•::i.\+ ' \ . , t. . :i.~,-...,-..v.......: \ \i{i.::r.:{.~;.~::i~i~•.v;+: .....~•::::::i'.;~};.;.:~.:: lv.::.v.»•::::.~•::~+iii:ii'::::: ..i ?.M. • ~~i:~.'•i~i?ii•. ~ .'~ili~l4~~\:~~ ' i\+:+T:{+.:'v:i.ii:~i:?:i ~\{•ii:i.~:::::??:~:~~?::{"• ...........v~'v~.~ ' ~ • . v.~:.~Ji~.....\...~... . . v:::::...'J?:ii•i~iii: t:.:•.i^~::i:v n........ v\•:~':::n:'p' ..y•::::::: .....~v::n ....:x::: Jurisdiction 1990 1995 % Single °/a Multi- % Other % Seasonal Fam 1995 Fam 1995 1995" 1995 Avon 1,344 1,885 3% 64% 33% 37% Basalt 435 608 60% 26% 15% 4% Eagle 624 834 49% 33% 18% 0% Gypsum 642 787 50% 10% 40% 0% Minturn 434 456 58% 14% 28% 2% Red Cliff 98 99 82% 3% 15% 1°/a Vail 6,102 6,581 7% 84% 10% 59% Unincorp 5,547 7,804 33% 43% 24% 18% Total 15,226 19,054 23% 58% 19% 34% Source: 1990 U.S. Census and State Demo hers Office 4.4 Lodging In support of tourism, the Town of Vail's bed base is more than 32,000 with a county-wide bed base of 47,500 beds. Forty percent of these are considered rentable, providing Vail with 12,800 beds and the county with 19,000 beds. A ratio of 1.8 beds/room is used to determine the number of rentable rooms (7,111 raoms in Vail and 10,556 rooms in the county). The rentable rooms fill on the Christmas holiday and Presidents Day weekend. Other busy times are Easter week, the month of March (school vacations) and the Fourth of July weekend. As the season becomes busier, the business spreads down valley. People look for ski in-ski out accommodations and if that's not available, to be close to the bus system The Lodging Industry in Eagle County makes the majority of its income during the 4 winter months, with a 50% occupancy rate. High end hotels with conference centers have a higher occupancy rate (65%) since they can book a large portion of the summer business. A major concem from surveys done though the lodging industry is the age of the accommodations. As the units age, too much is charged for units with old decor. Guests can stay at Deer Valley which is a newer development for less money. Repeat business is a common occurrence in Vail, and guests book early for the next years' accommodations. 15 s. FacILirir caPacIrY The Town of Vail's public service system and available infrastructure was structured and built to accommodate a given population. These resources' bearing capacities are deterniined by their to provide a service and recover after pea.k demands without evidence of deterioration. The ~ following aspects of the Town's infrastructure are analyzed: • Solid Waste • Energy (Electricity & Gas) 0 Water & Sewer • Transportation (roads, buses, airport, parking) • Police • Fire • Education 0 Hospital • Communication • Public Works - Town of Vail • Community Facilities 5.1 Solid Waste OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE A CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE OF LIFE EXPECTANCY FOR THE LANDFILL MAY BE SOMEWHAT LESS THAN 30 YEARS. - CRITICAL THRESHOLD: WASTE CAPACITY IS ESTIMATED TO BE 4,544,000 CUBIC YARDS. COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD: $750,000 CAPTfAL COSTS AND $350,000/YEAR IN OPERATiNG COSTS. MITIGATION: RECYCLING, HHW PROGRAMS, BULKY WASTE LANDFILL. The Eagle County Landfill is located two miles north of Wolcott and approximately one mile east of Highway 131. It is the only permitted solid waste disposal facility within Eagle County. It is situated on a 180 acre tract of land leased from the Bureau of Waste Sources fn Tons Land Management (BL1V), with approximately 60 37,375 28,098 acres permitted for waste disposal. The current area of operation at the landfill was opened for waste disposal in 1990, after a design, operations, and closure plan was prepared in 1985 and subsequently eCO"S'"'°t'°" was'e approved by the Colorado Department of Health. ¦ Residentail / Cornmerical Waste The previous site for waste disposal is approximately one-quarter of a mile south of the current facility, and was operated from about 1967 to 1990. In 1995 it became apparent that in order to expand disposal cells laterally and, at the same time, remain in compliance with new solid waste regulations which became effective in October 1993, a redesign of the remaining disposal area was in order. An entirely new design, operations, and 16 , • t. r closure plan was developed and approved by the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment in July 1996. With the new design, waste capacity is estimaxed to be 4,544,000 cubic yards. The expected site life was Eagle County Waste Sources ordinally estimated to be about 34 years, however, increasing waste M inturn volumes over the past several years due Eagle-Vail 4.6% 2,90, to the explosive growth in the Eagle Town of Valley and an accompanying large A vo n/ B C V a i I amount of construction debris from 2 3.9 % 3 s. o°i° maJ'or ProJ'ects have diminished the . projected site life of the landfill significantly. It is difficult to estimate w o i co tc R e d c I iffe remaining site life at this time, however, 3.7°/a 0.3% Eagle a conservative estimate ma.y be E d w a rd s 9.4% Unincorp Gypsum 7'8% somewhat less than 30 years. 4.9% 6.7% Eagle County's landfill lease with BLM expires in 2016. Site life will probably extend beyond that date. To ensure that a landfill site is available in the future, Eagle County has undertaken the process to purchase the lease area, plus additional lands, from the BLM. Because land availability is limited in Eagle County, it is critical that provisions be made now to ensure a landfill site for future use. An educational program to increase recycling and reduce solid waste generation would extend the life of the landfill. 5.2 Energy 5.2.1 Electricity OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN 1MPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE A NORMAL HOUSE USES AN AVERAGE OF 800 KW/MONT'H, MORE IF TfEY HAVE ELECTRIC HEAT. CRITICAL THRESHOLD: TBERE IS ADEQUATE SURPLUS TO MEET FUTURE DEMAND. COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD: ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION DUE TO BURNING COAL. MITIGATION: CONSERVATION / SWTTCH TO RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES. Holy Cross Electric supplies Vail with approximately 155,319,550 kilowatt hows per year (this includes commercial, residential and Vail mountain). A normal house uses an average of 800 KW/month, more if they have electric heat. Electricity is supplied from coal generation at the Craig and Hayden plants and there is adequate surplus to meet future demand. Holy Cross is participating in a number of educational conservation programs. The cost of environmental degradation is not reflected in today's cost of energy generation and supply. Conservation in the town of Vail would help protect our clean mountain air and quality of life. " 11 Holy Cross, Glenwood Office, Energy Conservation Officer - Craig Tate & Del Wurley, electricity purchasing agent. 17 l T1 * . 5.2 2 Natural Gas OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE THE AVERAGE ENERGY DEMAND FOR A HOUSE IN VAIL IS 375 THOUSAND BTU'S PER HOUR. CRITICAL THRESHOLD: SUFFICIENT NATURAL GAS SUPPLIES TO ENSURE A SUPPLY FOR VAIL AT BUILD OUT CAPACITY, EVEN W1TH AN INCREASE IN VERTICAL GROWTA POSSIBLE IN LIONSHEAD. COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD: ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION (LOSS OF OZONE FROM BURNING FOSSIL FUELS). . MITIGATION: SAME AS ELECTRICITY. The average energy demand for a house in Vail is 375 thousand BTU's per hour. T'he Public Service Company has sufficient natural gas supplies to enswe a supply for Vail at build out capacity, even with an increase in vertical growth possibte in Lionshead. Gas lines are replaced and upgraded as projects happen so the cost is reduced since it happens when the roads are disturbed. Steel pipes are replaced with PVC pipes one size larger. This one pipe size increase will quadruple capacities so pipes won't need to be replaced. Under perfect combustion, COZ and water are produced. Under imperfect conditions, CO is produced. Although there is no current shortage of natural gas and the pollutants are low compared to other fossil fuels, conservation measures are important to keep pollution levels as low as possible and to ensure future supplies.12 5.3 Water & Sewer OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE TI-IE TREATMENT OF PLANTS ARE LOCAL SOURCES. CRITICAL THRESHOLD: 800 ADDITIONAL UNITS. COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD: $600,000. 5.3.1 Water Supply The Upper Eagle River Water Authority (UERWA) has recently cornpleted upgrades for their water supply system Their goal was to increase the water storage capacity in order to avoid going below minimum in-stream flow capacities, (6 cfs at the Forest Road bridge, as identified by the Colorado Water Conservation Board in consultation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife). Their current capacity is 6000 single family equivalents (SFE's) and are serving 5,600 SFE's. The Black Lake storage area (2lakes near Vail pass) have an annual yield of 300 acre feet, and have been operational for the past five years. The Eagle Park Reservoir (near Fremont Pass / Climax mine) will be operational this fall and has an annual yield of 2,000 acre feet. UERWA will release water to the Eagle River in dry years to maintain the minimum in-stream flow. Additionally, an interconnect between Avon and Vail has been constructed so water can flow down Gore Creek to maintain stream flows, then be diverted in Avon for use in Vail. UERWA believes the impacts are less than they were five years ago. 1996 peak demand was 6 million gallons per day; UERWA holds the rights to 22 million gallons of water per day. 'Z Greg Hall, Public Service 18 5.3.2 Waste Water Treatment The first phase of upgrading the Upper Eagle River Water Authority's wastewater treatment plant would optimize the present facility on Forest Road. This would cost $600,000 and increase capacity by an additional 800 units. Phase II of upgrading would involve a$1.5 million cost and would increase capacity by an additiona1750 units. An expansion of the plant would be \ necessary, and this estimate does not take land costs into account. The obvious area of expar~sion would be to the adjoining parcel owned by the Town of Vail which houses the former town shop. The final expansion possible would be to increase capacity by an additional 1,300 units and would build at the entire site. This would cost $10 million and is considered not likely to be necessary. 5.4 Transportation 5.4.1 Roads OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE ROADS ARE TIHE BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE OF OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. CRITICAL THRESHOLD: ALL THE ROUNDABOUTS HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 1000 CARS PER HOUR CAPACITY. COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD: $S -$10 MILLION (N.S. CROSSING), 3.25 MILLION (~/z INTERCHANGE) MITICATION: IMPROVE MASS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. The construction of the roundabouts has increased the capacity of the roads by 55%. The current counts on the main Vail south roundabout is 3,800 vehicles per hour with a potential capacity of 5500 vehicles per hour. All the roundabouts have an additional 1000 cars per hour capacity. The frontage roads carry approximately 1700 vehicles per hour. Both frontage roads have a total capacity of 3060 vehicles per hour. If the use increases much more, the Town/State would need to install signals or increase the number of Code Enforcement Officers to direct traffic. One of the limiting factors to expansion is the tightness of I-70 to the frontage roads. The Town has reviewed plans to add another north-south crossing in the area of Simba Run. This would cost between $5 and $10 million. Another possible upgrade is adding half an interchange on the old Holy Cross parcel (near the Public Works facility) which is owned by Vail Associates. This would cost approximately $3.25 million. The frontage roads axe not currently over utilized because the entry of cars onto the frontage road is slowed by the ticket processing in the parking garage. If the gates were opened, traffic would be a problem 5.4.2 Buses OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE THE TOWN OF VAIL BUS SYSTEM PROVIDES SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY YEAR-ROUND. CRITICAL THRESHOLD: 25,000 PEOPLE PER DAY. COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD: PURCHASE NEW BUSES AT $260,000 TO $293,000, HIRE NEW STAFF ($35,000, HIRE 2 PER BUS). 19 • I 4 . The Town of Vail transit system has 35 buses and provides service to the community year round. The department employs 65 drivers in the winter, 18 drivers off season and 30-35 drivers in the summer. The transit system regularly moves 14,000 to 17,000 people per day. A sustainable maximum for long periods is 24,000 to 25,000 people and on New Years Eve, the department transported 42,000 people. This is the expected demand during the 1999 Worid Championships. 5.4.3 Airport OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE TfE NUMBER OF GUESTS ARRNING BY AIR IS INCREASING. , CRITICAL THRESHOLD: FAA SETS THRESHOLD FOR FLIGHT TRAFFIC. . COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD: FAA LIMITS FLIGHTS. MITIGATION: IMPROVE AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE. Approximately 20% of the guests at Vail Resort arrive at the Eagle County Airport. The number of people using the ECRA has increased since 1993. The airport receives an Airport Eagle County Airport - enplanements Improvement Project grant from the FAA 173,573 on an annual basis. The grants pay for 90% 122,430 of the expansion / improvement and the 62,930 85 ,503 remaining 10% is paid for by Eagle County. The 1997 grant expanded the commercial 4,508 ramp area and the 1998 grant is paying to extend the runways to allow Category D jets to land at the airport. The airport is 1993 1994 1995 isss 1997 working to achieve each operation paying 10 Number of people getting off of the piane for itself by balancing expenditures based on anticipated revenues. 5.4.4 1'arking OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE WE HAVE A HIGH LEVEL OF OUT-OF- TOWN VISTTORS. CRITICAL THRESHOLD: WHEN TBE PARKING STRUCTURES FILL UP 100 DAYS/SHI SEASON. COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD: BUILD A NEW PARKING STRUCTURE $25 -$35 MILLION. MITIGATION: IMPROVE MASS TRANSPORTATION. Currently, 4800 parking spaces are available in the town of Vail. '2400 of these spaces axe located in Town parking structures with the rest in private lots and hotels. The turnover is 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 times per day, with an increase expected once numbers from the Free After Three program are calculated. The Town of Vail parking structures provide approximately 9000 parking opportunities per day. In 1998, the TOV parking structures filled up 100 days out of a 156 day season. Current numbers show that the Village structure fills up 50 days per year and the Lionshead structure fills up 20-30 days per year. The future development at Lionshead is 20 . " r expected to shift the utilization of the Lionshead parking structure and the utilization rates should even out. These numbers do not reflect a need to build a new structure that would cost $24,000 to $30,000 per parking space. Another problem is finding a suitable location for a new structure that is close to the slopes and the core areas. 5.5 Police OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE TBE POLICE DEPARTMENT PROVIDES FOR TBE PUBLIC SAFETY OF TI-E COMMLJNITY. - CRITICAL THRESHOLD: PEAK HOLIDAY SEASONS. COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD: LOSS OF PUBLIC SAFETY. MTTIGATION: HOUSING FOR OFFICER WTTHIN T'FiE TOWN LIMITS / INCREASE NUMBER OF OFFICERS. The Town of Vail Police Department is authorized to staff the department at 31 of~'icers. This level staffs the department at a 20,000 person population level. Normally the officer to population ratio is 1:2000 but the population fluxuates so much with seasonal populations that a higher level is necessary. The department covers a jurisdiction from mile marker (East Vail by the lower truck ramp) to mile marker 172 (1 mile east of Dowd Junction). During peak times the department goes into a mandatory no time off to deal with calls. Peak times are holidays (Fourth of July, Christmas/New Years), spring break, and Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights all winter. The department also staffs code enforcement and responds on a reavtive basis. It would be more effective to work on a proactive basis. The department would run into staffing problems if Dowd Junction remained closed for a long period of time. 5.6 Fire OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE TfEY PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (FIRES AND MEDICAL EMERGENCIES). CRITICAL THRESHOLD: CONCURRENT EMERGENCIES. COST FOIZ EXCEEDING THRESHOLD: INCREASE NEW STAFF LEVELS / BUILD NEW FIItE STATION AT APPROXIMATELY $1.5 MILLION. MITIGATION: INCREASE STAFF LEVELS, PRNAT7ZE SERVICE CALLS, PLAN REVIEW DUTIES, AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL CALLS. The Town of Vail Fire Department answers approximately 4400 calls per year with 17 fire personnel, 1 administrative person, 12 students and 3 volunteers. There are 6 people on duty for each 24 hour period. The department covers fire calls, medical calls, hazardous material emergencies and service calls (water leaks, COZ alarms, etc.). The department also reviews plans for new buildings with sprinklers and has a.n ambitious program for retrofitting older buildings with sprinkler systems. Their jurisdiction covers Vail, the area between Dowd Junction and Vail Pass, and includes a mutual aid agreement with all the communities between Vail and Gypsum. The Fire Department reaches an overload in their system when they need to respond ta back-to- back calls (for example, a fire and a car accident that occur concurrently). The Fire Department 21 M i • anticipates the need for a new Fire Station in West Vail to provide better coverage to the area and improve response time to emergencies. This would cost approxima.tely $1.5 million plus land costs for a 2.5 acre site, a new fire truck $325,000 and an additional four firefighters $1'73,600). 5.7 Education \ \ OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE HIGH QUALITY EDUCATION IS A CRITICAL COMPONENT OF OUR COMMLJNTfY. CRITICAL THRESHOLD: RED SANDSTONE: 355 STUDENTS, MINTURN 475 STUDENTS, BATTLE MOUNTAIN HIGH SCHOOL 725 STUDENTS. . COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL $10 M, MIDDLE SCHOOL $12M, HIGH SCHOOL $25-$35 M. The Eagle County School District enrollment increased by 25% between 1992 & 1995, from 3,094 in 1992 to 3,865 in 1995. The general population grew by 18.6°/a during the same period.13 Vail is served by Red Sandstone Elementary School, Minturn Middle School and Battle Mountain High School. The average class size is 22 students as a board policy, although Red Sandstone has an average of 17 students per classroom Red Sandstone has a capacity of approacimately 365 students and are currently at a 250 student level. The elementary school employs 22 certified teachers and 5 teachers assistants. Minturn Middle School has 182 students and a capacity of 475 students. The school empioys 18 teachers. Battle Mountain High Schooi has 530 students enrolled and a capacity of 725 students. The school employs 48 teachers. If new schools need to be built in the future to account for growth, an elementary school would cost $9-10 million, a middle school would cost $12 million and a high school would cost $25-30 million. 5.8 Hospitai OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE A LOCAL HOSPTTAL FOR EMERGENCIES CAN BE A LIFE OR DEATH STTUATION. CRITICAL THRE5HOLD: 49 BEDS FOR PATIENTS. COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD: LOSS OF LIFE. MITIGATION: RESTARTING TBE FLIGHT FOR LIFE HELICOPTER PROGRAM. The Vail Valley Medical Center has 49 beds for patients. Overflows occasionally occur during ski season and the patients are rerouted to outlying hospitals (Denver, Glenwood Springs, Grand Junction). Air and ground transportation is used when necessary. 5.9 Communication The recent expansion of phone, faac and Intemet lines has caused the communications industry to upgrade existing phone lines with fiber optic cables. The industry is working to meet the demand 13NWCCOG, Demographic Review 1997 22 by mstalluig addrtional phone luies and telecommumcations facihties when necessary. 6. SOCIAL CAPACITY Socio-psychological carrying capacity is a subjective quality of life standard. 6.1 Economy OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE TfE TOWN OF VAIL MAINTAINS TIE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE. , CRITICAL THRESHOLD: ANNUAL INCREASE OF 3°Io OF SALES TAX REVENUES TO KEEP PACE WI'TH . INFLATION. COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD: INCREASE IN THE MILL RATE. Town of Vail The Town of Vail has a mill rate of 4 mills (an average city has a mil rate of 28 mills). The sales tax for the town is 4%, half of which goes into the general fund and half of which goes into capital projects. An additional4°lo comes in from Vail Associates under a lift ticket tax agreement and funds the day to day operations of the transit system Fiscal resources are limited by voter decisions - past history shows a record of turning down bond issues (ex: aquatic center, convention center). The Town has ten years left on its debt service. A zero growth model would be in the Towns' best interests since fiscal resources would not be able to keep up with inflation (which is currently about 3% in Colorado). Lodging, services, and retail sales account for approximately 60 percent of the county's overall employment.'a 6.2 The Viilage The Vail Village is a pedestrian core area with a high level of character and architectural design. These unique qualities are protected by a strong Municipal Code and the concems of the Design Review Board. The attractiveness of the landscape is a valued attribute and is protected within the village area by View Corridor regulations in the municipal Code. 6.3 Holiday Experience OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE IT IS THE PEAK SEASON FOR VAIL. CRITICAL THRESHOLD: OVERCROWDING IN TI-E VILLAGE. COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD: LOSS OF REPEAT BUSINESS. IVIITIGATION: CATEGORY III EXPANSION. Sociological carrying capacity determined by willingness to pay for a wilderness experience with 'aFinal Environmental Impact Statement, Vail Category III Ski Area Development, August 1996. 23 K • ` • the chance of encountering more or less people.15 Public lands provide the primary outdoor recreational opportunities in the Vail Valley. Approximately 80% of the total land base of Eagle County is federally controlled. More than 350,000 acres of public lands sunound the Town of Vail. Skiing is the Town of Vail's dominant recreational attraction and accounts for 45% of the total recreation visitor days on the White River National Forest. Skiing currently increases approximately 2% per year (based on a ten year average annual increase). 16 The US Forest Service estimates the utilization rate of skier visits to be 59%. Trail capacity is over utilized during peak periods when the back bowls are closed. - There are, however, an array of other activities that draw people to Vail including hiking, mountain biking, fly fishing, rafting, golf, tennis, and camping. Growth and increasing popuiarity of these outdoor recreational opportunities has placed pressures on the recreational resources provided by surrounding NFS lands. 6.4 Local Culture OVERVIEW: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE BECAUSE TBE PERMANENT RESIDENTS MAINTAIN TfE MOUNTAIN LIFESTYLE THAT VISTTORS ENJOY. CRITICAL THRESHOLD: 71 % OF HOUSING UNITS AS 2''1D HOMES MAY BE TOO HIGH. COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD: LOSS OF TBE PERMANENT POPULATION. MITIGATION: INCREASE NUMBER OF PERMANENT RESIDENTS AS HOMEOWNERS. What is the optimum level of tourism that can be absorbed without a negative impact on the sociocultural life styles and activities of the local community? What level of tourism will help to maintain cultural monuments, arts, crafts, belief systems, customs, and traditions without detrimental effects? The quantity of people has an impact on the tourist's experiences. Too many people or not enough people can negatively impact a visitors environmental or cultural experience, degrading the quality and popularity of the Town of Vail. To support the visitors to the Town of Vail, the town's retail mix includes more than 100 bars and restaurants and 300 shops.17 "Fisher and Krutilla, "Determination of the Optimal Capacity of Resource Based on Recreation Facilities," Natural Environments: Studies in Theoretical and Applied Analysis, pp 115-141. 16Fina1 Environmental Impact Statement, Vail Category III Ski Area Development, August 1996. "Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vail Category III Ski Area Development, August 1996, p. 3-68. 24 . , . APPf NDIX A Recommended Water Quality Sampling Procedures and "Not to Exceed" Goals ~ ~ Parameter "Not to Exceed" Goal Copper (dissolved) 0.005 mg/l Manganese (dissolved) 0.050 mg/l Zinc (dissolved) 0.010 mg/1 Total Suspended Solids 10 mg/1* Total Dissolved Solids 100 mg/1* Ammonia 0.002 mg/l Nitrate and Nitrite 0.80 mg/l Total Phosphorus 0.075 mg/l Oil and Grease Not detected Fecal Coliform Bacteria 200/100 ml Aquatic Macro invertebrates Species diversity > 3.25 * will probably experience seasonal exceedances The species diversity should exceed this value 25 . ~ „ , APPENDIX B Questions for Consideration The following questions are topics for discussion: Tourism image - find the number of visitors that are compatible with the image of the Town of Vail, • At what point aze the ski slopes too crowded? • At what point does the cost of the holiday become too expensive? • At what point does the quality of and therefore the interest in the local culture and friendliness of locals . degrade? . Sociocultural environment • What is the optimum level of tourism that can be absorbed without a negative impact on the sociocultural life styles and activities of the local communit}~? • What level of tourism will help to maintain cultural monuments, arts, crafts, belief systems, customs, and traditions without detrimental effects? Economy • What level of tourism employment is suitable to the local economy9 • At what point does the quality of and therefore the interest in the locai culture and friendliness of locals degrade? Areas of concern questions to ask: • General description of the system, how it works • How is the system used • Current use level and impact • Minimum use level and impact • Optimum use level and impact • Maximum use level and impact The factars fall within three categories: • resource bearing capacity - a resource's bearing capacity is determined by it's ability to provide a service and recover after peak demands without evidence of deterioration in ambient environmental yuality. • system constraint capacity - non-renewable resources are limited by quantity of supply ar technological and institutional inability to process and distribute the resource. • social capacity - resources are limited to use based on individual perceptions of satisfaction (quality of life).18 'gA Bruce Bishop, "The Concept of Carrying Capacity," Final Conference Reportfor the National Conference on Managing the Environment, p V-31,33 26 CARRYING CAPACITY MATRIX 712/98 RESOURCE CRITICAL THRESHOLD COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD Vall implicatlons Ecolonical Caoacitv Water QuantRy 6 cfs building new storage facility at Climax (costs paid for Increased use, decreases flows between golf by new tap fees) course and treatment plaM Water Quality State water quality standards. Phosphate may 6e a Loss of fisheries resource $2,541,000, Increased cost USGS Survey indicates heaRhy trout critical issues in Vail of water treatment for drinking water population in Vail Recreation 25 °r6 increase in Forest use since 1970. Booth Ck Loss of recreation opportunities, $8,942,000 (rafting North Trail wiil increase trail capacky in Vaii , and Gore Ck Trail used beyond capacity. USFS & fishing revenues) Management Plan will help define thresholds Wildlife 40°,6 decrease in herd size in county since 1970 Purchase developed land & restore critical winter Open Lands Plan has protected remaining habitat crRicai habitffi in Vail Air QualRy PM10 50 ug/m3 (annual) Conversion of wood burning fireplaces to gas TOV in compliance wkh all standards. I-70 PM10 150 ug/m3 (24 hour period) will be a source of future concern Noise 55 Decibels - residential Increase of heafth 8 safety costs Community survey reflects strong concern 90 Oecibels - construction over irrterstate noise Phvsical Caoacitv Undeveloped DU's Additional 505 units based on zoning 341-515 potential units in Lionshead Mountain/Skier 19,900 skiers Loss of permit from the US Forest Service Capacfty Housing 62°r6 of employees living in the Town of Vail Lack of employees TOV working on creating 1,680 additional beds (goal) Currently have 32% of employees living in Vail Lodging bedbase of 32,000 Inadequate conference space, results in lost opportunities Facilkv Caoacitv Solid Waste Landfiil life expectancy = 8-10 yrs $750,000 capital costs to expand landfill 2% increase in CouMy growth will decrease Max capacky of 4,544,000 cubic yards landfill capacity by 1 year. Energy (Electricity) Adequate surplus to meet future demand Conservation measures Energy (gas) Adequate surplus to meet future demand Conservation measures Water Treatment 400 Single Family Equivalerrt Capacity Fewer impacts to stream flow than five years ago. Black Lake Reservoir yield of 300 acre feet; There is a interconnect between Eagle River and Eagle Park Reservoir yield of 2,000 acre feet Gore Ck. ' Sewage Treatment 800 units additional capacity, 750 units additional $600,000 pays for internal improvemeMs to Forest District working on plans to expand Forest capacity, 1,300 units addkional capacky (Estimate Rd plant Road facility, tap fees will cover expansion for build out) costs $1.5 M+ land costs - Requires addkion to existing CurreM capacky of round-a-bouts is 3,800 facilRy vehicle ! hour, froritage roads is 1,700 vehicle/year t r ` ~ . ~ CARRYING CAPACITY MATRIX 712i98 ~ RESOURCE CRITICAL THRESHOLD COST FOR EXCEEDING THRESHOLD Vall Impllcatlons $10 M- Cost of Complete Build out Roads Round-a-bouts 5,500 veh/hour $5 - 10 million for a N-S crossing of I-70 at Samba Peak use currently at 3,800 veh/hour Run FroMage Roads 3,060 veh/hour $3.25 million for instaliation of a 1/2 iMerchange Current use at 1700 veh/hour Buses 25,000 people per day New buses at $260K -$290K each; new staff at At capacity on New Years, (46,000) and will $35K (hire 2/ bus) be during 1999 World Championships. TransDortation Authoritv imorovina reaional Airport no capacity issues 20°r6 of guests arrive at ECRA Parking full less than 100 days/156 days season $28 to $36 miliion for new parking structure Police 31 officers (existing) $370,300 for 7 additional officers at buildout current population estimates 23,072, staffing level for 20, 000 population, national ratio 1.5 officers / 1000 population Fire Based on ISO rating system, Vail Fire resources are station at $1.5M + cost of land + fire truck at $325K + National ratio is 32 FirefigMers/25,000 pop. pushed to capacity. Dept is concerned about 4 firefigMers $173K TOV has 17 Firefighters/23,072 population adequate coverage in W. Vail estimate Education Elementary school = 365 studeMs New schools: Elementary school $9-$10 M Red sandstone currently at 250 studeMs Middle school = 475 students Middle school -$12 M Middle School at 182 students High school= 725 students High school -$25 -$30 M High School at 530 students HospRal 49 Beds Reinstate lifestar helicopter program No capacity issues Communication No threshold at this time TOV Staff Full-time 207 employees, wiMer seasonal 80 On-going challenges filling vacancies employees, summer seasonal 30-40 employees Community Facilities Ford Park currently utilized at capacity , Soc+al Caaacitv Economy Minimum of 3°.6 increase in sales tax revenue Increase in mill rate, Loss of repeat business TOV budget projections planned in budget The Village Holiday Experience 19,900 skiers at one time Cat I II expansion Overcrowding in the Village Loss of repeat business Local CuRure 71 % of housing unks as 2nd family homes in Vail Common Ground iMended to provide 1680 may be detrimental new beds over 10 years for locals housing ORDINANCE NO. 9 Series of 1998 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE NO. 10, SERIES OF 1991, PROVIDING FOR CHANGES TO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 22, GRAND TRAVERSE, THAT CONCERN THE LOT SIZES, THE NUMBER OF LOTS, THE CORRESPONDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, Chapter 9 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Special Development Districts within the Town; and WHEREAS, The Town Council approved Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1991 Special Development District No. 22, Grand Traverse; and WHEREAS, Dauphinais-Moseley Construction has requested to amend the existing Special Development District No. 22; and WHEREAS, Section 12-9A-10 of the Vail Municipal Code provides procedures for major amendments to existing Special Development Districts; and WHEREAS, The applicant has complied with the requirements outlined in Section 12-9A-10 of the Vail Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, The Special Development District provides for creativity and flexibility to allow for the development of land within the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, There is an identified need for quality affordable housing in the community; and WHEREAS, On June 8, 1998, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the major amendment proposal and has recommended that certain changes be made to Special Development District No. 22, Grand Traverse; and WHEREAS, The Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to repeal and re-enact Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1991 to provide for certain changes in Special Development District No. 22, Grand Traverse. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1991 is hereby repealed and re-enacted to read as follows: Section 1. Amendment Procedures Fulf!led. Planning Commission Report The approval procedure prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 9, Section 10(B) of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Vail Town Council has received the report of the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending approval, of 1 the proposed development plan for Special Development District No. 22. Section 2. Special Development District No. 22 Special Development District No. 22 (SDD 22) and the development plan therefore, are hereby approved for the development of Lots 1 through 19, Block 2, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing 3 within the Town of Vail consisting of 10.69 acres. Section 3. Purpose Special Development District No. 22 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail. The development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council and meets each of the design standards and criteria as set forth in Section 12-9A-8 of the Vail Municipal Code. There are significant aspects of Special Development District No. 22 that are difficult to satisfy through the imposition of the standards of the underlying Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. Special Development District No. 22 allows for greater flexibility in the development of the land than would be possible under the current zoning of the property. The smaller single-family lots provide the opportunity for a common open space for the subdivision as well as the means to preserve the southerly ridge line of the property. Special Development District No. 22 provides an appropriate development plan to preserve the visual quality of the site from within the subdivision as well as adjacent properties in the community in general. Section 4. Development Plan A. The development plan for SDD 22 is approved and shall constitute the plan for development within the Special Development District. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Dauphinais-Moseley Construction and consists of the following documents: 1. Site development plan, Lionsridge Resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Vail, Colorado, Intermountain Engineering, dated July 7, 1998. 2. Conceptual landscape plan, Intermountain Engineering, dated July 7, 1998. 3. Final Plat of Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 5, A Resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 3, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, sheets 1 and 2, Intermountain Engineering Limited, dated April 19, 1989 and Final Plat of Dauphinais-Moseley Subdivision Filing No. 1, A Resubdivision of Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 7 10, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, Intermountain Engineering, dated July 21, 1998. 2 4. Construction, grading and drainage drawings for a resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, and Lionsridge Lane, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 3, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, Intermountain Engineering Limited, sheets 1-8, dated March 9, 1989. 5. Soils and Foundation Investigation for Lots 1-24, Lionsridge 5th Filing. 6. Lionsridge Color Palette, Arnold/Gwathmey/Pratt Architects, March 1990. 7. The subdivision plat for Dauphinais-Moseley Subdivision recorded August 23, 1990 and July 21, 1998. B. The development standards shall be as follows: 1. Acreage: The total acreage of this site is 10.69 acres or 465,650 square feet. 2. Permitted Uses: The permitted uses for SDD 22 shall be: a. Single family residential dwellings b. Open space c. Pubiic roads d. Employee dwelling units as defined in Section 5, paragraph G of this ordinance. 3. Conditional Uses: a. Public utility and public service uses b. Public buildings, grounds and facilities c. Public or private schools d. Public park and recreation facilities 4. Accessory Uses: a. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single-family uses. b. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-14-12 of the Vail Municipal Code. c. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 3 I 5. Lots Sizes and Maximum GRFAS: MAX GRFA INCL. 425 SQ. FT. LOT SIZE GRFA ALLOWANCE PER UNIT 1 11,805 2,293 2,718 2 16,248 4,070 4,495 3 11,500 3,171 3,596 4 11,761 2,293 2,718 5 23,330 5,889 6,314 7 15,393 4,070 4,495 9 14,588 4,070 4,495 10 14,429 4,070 4,495 11 10,803 3,171 3,596 12 12,981 3,171 3,596 13 15,159 3,171 3,596 14 11,151 3,171 3,596 15 8,538 2,293 2,718 16 8,494 2,293 2,718 17 8,494 2,293 2,718 18 10,062 3,171 3,596 19 9,148 2,293 2,718 20 9,801 3,171 3,596 21 10,237 3,171 3,596 22 9,409 2,293 2,718 23 9,148 3,171 3,596 24 10,629 2.293 2.718 69,052 78,402 GRFA shall mean the total square footage of all levels of a building, as measured at the inside face of the exterior walls (i.e. not including furring, sheetrock plaster and other similar wall finishes). GRFA shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, mechanical chases, vents, and storage areas. Attics, crawl spaces and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces or patios shall also be included in GRFA, unless they meet the provisions of paragraph A below. A. Within buildings containing two or fewer dwelling units, the following areas shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA: 1. Garage spaces of up to three hundred (300) square feet per garage space not exceeding a maximum of two spaces for each allowable 4 dwelling unit and two spaces for each constructed employee unit. 2. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet or less, as measured from the top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above. Attic area created by construction of a roof with truss-type members will be excluded from calculation as GRFA provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty inches apart. 3. Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve square feet in area, with five feet or less of ceiling height, as measured from the surFace of the earth to the underside of structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. 4. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or similar feature/space with no more than three exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than 25% of the lineal perimeter of the area of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature/space provided the opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to three feet in height. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth in Section 12-2-2 of the Vail Municipal Code. Excluded areas as set forth in paragraph A shall then be deducted from total square footage. In addition to the above, four hundred twenty-five square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each allowable dwelling unit not to include any restricted employee housing unit. 6. Setbacks: Minimum setbacks shall be as indicated on the approved site development plan by Intermountain Engineering, dated July 7, 1998. A 4-foot roof overhang shall be allowed in the front setback for Lots 15-19, provided the rear setback is increased by 4 feet. A 4-foot roof overhang shall be allowed in the rear setback of Lots 20-24, provided the front setback is increased by 4 feet. Roof overhangs shall be allowed to encroach up to 21 feet into the required side setback of 10 feet for each lot. An unenclosed, unroofed, deck or patio within 5 feet of finished grade may encroach into the rear setback by 5 feet for Lots 1-14 and Lots 20-24. No other setback encroachments shall be allowed. 5 7. Densitv: Approval of this development plan shall permit a total of 22 single-family dwelling units on the entire property. A minimum of 6 employee dwelling units shall be incorporated into any 6 of the single-family units. A maximum of 22 employee dwelling units (including the six required employee units) may be included within 15 of the single-family units if desired by the developer or individual lot owner. 8. Building Height: For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of the building shail not exceed 30 feet. For a sloping roof, the height of the building shall not exceed 33 feet. The height calculation shall be made by measuring from the existing grade as indicated on the Intermountain Engineering Topographical Survey dated March 13, 1990 or finished grade. Height shall be calculated per Section 12-2-2 of the Vail Municipal Code. 9. Site Coverage: Not more than 25 percent of the total site area on each lot shall be covered by buildings with the exception of Lot 5. On Lot 5, not more than 20 percent of the total site area shall be covered by a building. "Site coverage" shall mean the ratio of the total building area on a site to the total area of a site, expressed as a percentage. For the purpose of calculating site coverage, "building area" shall mean the total horizontal area of any building as measured from the exterior face of perimeter building walls or supporting columns above grade or at ground level, whichever is the greater area. Building area shall include all buildings, carports, porte cocheres, arcades, and covered or roofed walkways. In addition to the above, building area shall also include any portion of roof overhang, eave, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than four feet from the exterior face of perimeter building walls or supporting columns. 10. Parkina: Parking shall be as required in Title 12, Chapter 10 of the Vail Municipal Code. Each employee dwelling unit shall be required to have at least one enclosed garage parking space. 11. Design Guidelines: The development of each lot shall be guided by the architectural and landscape design guidelines as approved as part of the Special Development District No. 22. The guidelines are as follows: a. Architectural. The architectural design of the buildings upon the site shall be such that buildings relate harmoniously to each other. This is not to imply that each building must look exactly similar to those around it, but that compatibility be achieved through the use of scale, materials and colors, and building shape and form. The overriding concem is that, upon completion, 6 the Speciai Development District, because of the clustered nature of the small single family lots situated around common open space, should appear to be an integrated development possessing a common architectural quality, character, and appearance. To this end the following general design criteria shall be followed by the developer and individual lot owners: b. A palette of colors shall be as set forth in the Lionsridge Color Palette from Arnold/Gwathmey/Pratt dated March 1990. Colors are indicated for the use on different types of building materials and elements such as stucco colors, siding colors, metal flashing, windows, accent colors, etc. The palette of colors indicate a ranae of acceptable colors in order to encourage similarity on one hand, but also diversity within the acceptable ranae. c. The following building standards and materials shall be adhered to: (1) Roof. The roof pitch shall be a minimum 8/12 and a maximum of 12/12. A gable, clipped gable or hipped roof shall be mandatory. Dormers shall be allowed and reviewed by the Design Review Board. The roofing material shall be cedar shake shingles with staggered butts. (2) Chimneys. The chimneys shall be stucco with chimney caps of weathered copper. (3) Flues. All flues shall be galvanized or "Paint Lols" sheet metal, painted to match the roof. (4) Main Fascia. The main fascia shall be a solid color stain, with brown, taupe, or gray. (5) Secondary Fascia and Metal Railings above the First Floor. The secondary fascia and metal railings above the first floor shall be a muted accent trim color to be reviewed by the DRB. (6) WaNs. Walls sha!l be of stucco and horizontal or vertical wood siding. Stucco colors shall be gray, beige or off-white. Wood siding colors shall be gray, brown or taupe. (7) Stone. Residences will have a minimum of a two foot high stone wainscot in rainbow mix with a sandstone cap around the perimeter of the structure except under docks where substantially concealed by landscaping. (8) Windows. Windows shall be recessed a minimum of two inches from the outside wall plane and have a sandstone sill. Trim shall be whiter taupe or brown. 7 (9) Outdoor Lighting, Outdoor lighting shall be indirect with a concealed source except for an entry chandelier which may be exposed globes with a fixture of black or weathered cooper (ook metal. The maximum number of outdoor lights permitted on each lot shall be 15 regardless of lot size. Outdoor lights which conform with Ordinance #22, Series of 1997, shall be exempt. All exterior lighting shall be reviewed by the DRB. (10) Garages. No garage doors shall directly face the street, except on Lot 24 and Lot 14. (11) A residential address/nameplate if desired by the owner shall be located on the side of the garage facing the access point to the lot. (12) When the individual landscape plans are designed for individual lots, special care shall be taken in the design of side yard landscaping in order to provide adequate screening between structures. 12. Recreational Amenities Tax: The recreation amenities tax shall be assessed at the rate for a single-family residential zone district. Section 5. Conditions of Approval A. The major amendment to Special Development District No. 22, Grand Traverse, shall not be effective until the major subdivision is recorded by the Town of Vail at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. B. The major subdivision shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to a building permit being released for any construction on Lots 2, 5, 7, 9 or 10. C. The development of Special Development District No. 22 will have impacts on the available employee housing within the Upper Eagle Valley Area. In order to help meet this additional employee housing need, the developer of Special Development District No. 22 shall provide employee housing on site. The following restrictions shall apply to all employee dwelling units within SDD No. 22: 1. The developer shall build a minimum of six employee dwelling units within the subdivision. Each employee dwelling unit shall have a minimum square footage of 400 square feet not to exceed 800 square feet and is allowed to have a kitchen. The GRFA and number of employee units shall not be counted toward allowable density or GRFA for Special Development District No. 22. The developer may 8 choose to transfer up to 300 sq. ft. of GRFA from the primary unit to the employee unit. The GRFA transferred will be deducted from the total allowable GRFA of the primary unit. The developer may provide up to 15 employee dwelling units including the 6 required dwelling units if so desired. 2. The employee dwelling units may be located on any of the lots within the subdivision providing all the development standards are met for each lot. Only one employee dwelling unit shall be allowed per lot with a maximum of 15 units allowed. An employee dwelling shall be incorporated into the structure of the primary residence and shall not be allowed to be separated from the primary unit. Each employee dwelling unit shall at least one enclosed garage parking space. This parking space shall not be detached from the single-family garage or structure. Each phase of construction shall include a minimum of one employee dwelling unit until six employee dwelling units are constructed and available for rental. 3. The Employee Housing Unit shall be leased to tenants who are full- time employees who work in Eagle County. An EHU shall not be leased for a period less than thirty consecutive days. For the purposes of this section, a full-time employee is one who works an . average of thirty hours each week. 4. An EHU may not be sold, transferred, or conveyed separately from any two family dwelling it may be a part of. 5. The EHU shall not be divided into any form of timeshares, interval ownership, or fractional fee ownership as those terms are defined in the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. 6. No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of each employee housing unit within the town which is constructed following the effective date of this chapter shall submit two copies of a report on a form to be obtained from the Community Development Department, to the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail and Chairman of the Town of Vail Housing Authority setting forth evidence establishing that the employee housing unit has been rented throughout the year, the rental rate, the employer, and that each tenant who resides within the employee housing unit is a full-time 9 employee in Eagle County. 7. The owner of each EHU shall rent the unit at a monthly rental rate consistent with or lower than those market rates prevalent for similar properties in the Town of Vail. 8. The Town of Vail Housing Authority will determine the market rate based on the study of other units of comparable size, location, quality and amenities throughout the Town. The market rate shall be based on an average of a minimum of five rental rates of comparable units. If the unit is not rented and is not available at the market rate it shall be determined to be in noncompliance. In addition to any other penalties and restrictions provided herein, a unit found to be in noncompliance shall be subject to publication as determined by the Housing Authority. 9. The provisions of these restrictive covenants may be enforced by the Owner and the Town. 10. The conditions, restrictions, stipulations, and agreements contained herein shall not be waived, abandoned, terminated, or amended except by the written consent of both the Town of Vail and the Owner of the property. D. The architectural and landscape design guidelines shall be incorporated into the subdivision covenants before the final plat is recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. The Town Of Vail shall be party to these agreements. Section 6. Amendments Amendments to Special Development District No. 22 shall follow the procedures contained in Section 18.40.100 of the Vail Municipal Code. Section 7. Expiration The applicant must begin construction of the Special Development District within 3 years from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward completion of the project. If the applicant does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the Special Development District or any stage of the Special Development District within the time limits imposed by the preceding subsection, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the Special Development District. They shall recommend to the Town Council that either the approval of the Special Development District be extended, that the approval of the 10 Special Development District be revoked, or that the Special Development District be amended. Section 8. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of. this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases by declared invalid. Section 9. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and inhabitants thereof. . Section 10. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 11. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS 7 day of July, 1998, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 21 day of July, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. 11 Ordered published in full this 21 day of July, 1998. Robert E. Ford, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED By Title Only this 21 day of July, 1998. ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk 16 12 • • s ~ e, ~ 7 Ryy ~ rt MEMORANDUM V TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 8, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #22, Grand Traverse, and a major subdivision to Lots 5- 10, Dauphinais-Moseley Subdivision Filing #1, a resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing #3. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The applicant, Pat Dauphinais, is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District #22 (SDD) Grand Traverse, and a major subdivision to Lots 5- 10 in the Dauphinais-Moseley Subdivision Filing #1. The major amendment to SDD #22 includes: • an increase in the allowable GRFA for all existing and proposed employee housing units from 500 square feet maximum to 800 square feet maximum, • a change in the allowable enclosed parking area (garage) square footage credit from 600 square feet to 800 square to permit adequate enclosed parking for constructed employee housing units, • replat Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9& 10 into Lots 5, 7, 9& 10, thus eliminating two lots within the Grand Traverse development area, • an increase to the maximum number of outdoor lights allowed on each residential lot to 15 per lot total, • a modification to the required setbacks on Lots 5, 7, 9& 10, • a reapportioning of GRFA within the Grand Traverse development area, and • a reapportioning of the 600 square foot garage credit. The major subdivision within the Dauphinais-Moseley Subdivision includes: • the replatting of existing Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9& 10 and creating new Lots 5, 7, 9& 10 (reduction of 2 lots). A copy of the existing subdivision and the proposed final plat have been attached for reference. f:\everyone\pec\memos\98\sdd22.608 1 *VAIL TO{9N II. BACKGROUND Special Development District #22 Major Amendment • On May 7, 1991, the Vail Town Council introduced, read and approved Ordinance #10, Series of 1991, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance #13, Series of 1990, to provide changes to Special Development District #22 that concerned lot size, corresponding GRFA, employee dwelling units, and architectural guidelines. Ordinance #13, Series of 1990 was the original ordinance establishing SDD #22. • On September 22, 1997, the Community Development Department approved, and the Planning and Environmental Commission upheld, a minor amendment to SDD #22. The minor amendment allowed for changes to the architectural guidelines outlined in Section 11 of Ordinance #10, Series of 1991. The changes included: • architectural guideline requiring that all the residences in the SDD have copper gutters and downspouts, and • the ability for the residence constructed on Lot 14 to have the garage doors of the residence facing the road. Pursuant to Section 12-9A-2, Definitions, a major amendment to a Special Development District is, in part, "Any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand any approved Special Development District." The staff has determined that, since the applicant is proposing to change the number of dwelling units in the SDD, to increase the allowable GRFA for employee units, this application shall be a major amendment. Major Subdivision • On April 17, 1990, the Vail Town Council approved the final plat for the Dauphinias- Moseley Subdivision, Filing #1. The final plat created 24 residential lots comprising 6.042 acres and established 3.741 acres of dedicated open space. The 24 lots and the dedicated open space make up the area of Special Development District #22. With the exception of a vacation of a property line defining the boundaries of Tract C, no changes to the original plat have been made. In accordance with Section 13-2, Definitions, of the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations, a major subdivision is defined as, "Any subdivision involving more than four (4) lots, or a subdivision proposal without all lots having frontage on a public, approved street, or with a request to extend municipal facilities in a significant manner, or a proposal which would negatively affect the natural environment as determined under Section 12-12-2." The staff has determined that since this application involves more than four platted lots, it is a major subdivision to the Dauphinais-Moseley Subdivision. f:\everyone\pec\memos\98\sdd22.608 2 III. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REVIEW CRITERIA The following are the nine Special Development District review criteria to be utilized by the Planning and Environmental Commission when evaluating a Special Development District major amendment: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Staff believes the proposed major SDD amendment will not have any negative impacts on the above-described criteria. The proposed major amendment does not effect the design compatibility of the development, nor will it affect the architectural design, scale, identity, etc. relative to the existing neighborhood and adjacent properties. The amendment will have a slight impact on the bulk and mass of six of the residences constructed in the SDD. The applicant is proposing to eliminate two lots within the SDD, however, the applicant is not proposing to eliminate the GRFA approved for those lots (replat Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9& 10 into Lots 5, 7, 9& 10). Instead, the GRFA from the combined area of existing lots will be reapportioned among the newly created lots and Lot 2. This reapportioning of GRFA, if approved, will result in more GRFA on several of the lots which equates to slightly larger buildings in terms of both bulk and mass. An analysis of the GRFA redistribution is provided below: Lot No: Lot Area: GRFA: Garage: Site Coverage: Existinq Proposed Existinq Proposed Existin Proposed Existin Proposed 5 12,197 23,330 2,718 6,314 600 1,200 25% 20% (+11,133) (+3,596) (-5%) 7 11,543 15,393 3,596 4,495 600 750 25% 25% (+3,850) (+899) (N/C) 9 11,456 14,588 3,596 4,495 600 750 25% 25% (+3,132) (+899) (N/C) 10 11,979 14,429 3,596 4,495 600 750 25% 25% (2,450) (+899) (N/C) 2 16,248 16,248 3,596 4,495 600 750 25% 25% (N/C) (+899) (N/C) B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efFicient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Approval of SDD #22 permits a total of 24 single-family dwelling units on the entire Grand Traverse property. A minimum of 6 employee dwelling units are required to be 3 built into any 6 of the single-family dwelling units. Additional employee units, up to a total of 24, may be constructed in the development if desired by the developer or the individual lot owners. The applicant, via a major subdivision application, is proposing to reduce the total number of residential lots in the Grand Traverse development from 24 to 22. Staff does not believe that this reduction will have any negative impacts on the existing or potential uses, activities or density within the surrounding areas. As mentioned previously, the developer shall build a minimum of 6 employee dwelling units within the development. Each employee dwelling unit shall have a minimum square footage of four hundred (400) square feet not to exceed five hundred (500) square feet, according to the SDD ordinance. The GRFA shall not be counted toward allowable GRFA for the SDD. The developer may choose to transfer up to three hundred (300) square feet of GRFA from the primary unit to the employee unit. This GRFA transfer shall be deducted from the total allowable GRFA for the primary unit. The applicant is proposing to increase the total allowable GRFA for the empioyee dwelling units from five hundred (500) square feet maximum to eight hundred (800) square feet maximum. This GRFA increase shall only be available for use when constructing an employee unit. The additional three hundred (300) square feet of GRFA shall not be eligible for use in the primary unit. No other changes to the development standards are proposed (i.e., site coverage, building height, etc.). Staff believes that this request is reasonable and will have no negative impacts on the existing development or surrounding uses. Staff believes that the additional GRFA will improve and enhance the overall quality and livability of the employee units constructed in the development. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10. Pursuant to Subsection 413(5)(A)(1) of Ordinance #10, Series of 1991, (the ordinance establishing SDD #22), "garage spaces of up to three hundred (300) square feet per garage space not exceeding a maximum of two spaces for each allowable dwelling unit and one for each allowable employee unit," shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA. Historically, staff has interpretation this to mean that whether an employee unit is constructed or not, the maximum allowable garage credit shall be six (600) hundred square feet total. The applicant has disagreed with the staff's interpretation and wishes to resolve the issue. The applicant is proposing to amend the text in Subsection 413(5)(A)(1) to read as follows, "Garage spaces of up to three hundred (300) square feet per garage space not exceeding a maximum of two spaces for each allowable dwelling unit and three hundred (300) square feet not exceeding a maximum of one space for each allowable employee housing unit. This regulation shall apply to each of the lots in the development with fhe exception of Lots 2, 5, 7, 9& 10. On these lots, the garage credit for the primary unit shall be as follows: 4 Lot 5- 1,200 square feet Lots 2, 5, 7, 9& 10 - 750 square feet" Staff believes the text as amended is consistent with the intent of the off-street parking requirement outlined in Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code, with the exception of the increased garage credit for the primary units on Lots 2, 5, 7, 9& 10. On those Iots, staff does not believe that an increased garage credit is reasonable, nor appropriate. Staff can find no justification for increasing the garage credit on these five lots in the development. Again, with the exception of the increased garage credit for five primary units, staff believes that the clarified interpretation is consistent with the off-street parking requirement for employee units in other zone districts. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. Chapter 11, Design Review, of the Municipal Code regulates outdoor lighting on residential lots in the Town of Vail. According to Section 12-11-5(J), in part, "For lots in residential zone districts, the maximum number of outdoor light sources per lot shall be limited to one light source per one thousand feet of lot area. The location of the lights shall be left open to the discretion of the property owner, so fong as the lights are in compliance with this Code." Additionally, the following lighting regulation was adopted with the establishment of SDD #22, " Outdoor lighting shall be indirect with a concealed light source except for an entry chandelier which may be exposed globes with a fixture of black or weathered copper-like metal. All exterior lighting shall be reviewed by the DRB." The regulation prescribed for SDD #22 makes no mention of the maximum number of lights. The establishment of SDD #22 (1990), and the lighting regulations contained within, pre-dates the adoption of the Town's Outdoor Lighting Regulations (1991). Prior to the adoption of the Town's lighting regulation, there was no restriction on the maximum number of outdoor lights on the lots in the SDD. Since the adoption of the Town's regulation, the staff has regularly applied both the Town's lighting regulations, as well as the regulations prescribed in the SDD. Due to the clustered nature of SDD, and the resulting lot sizes, outdoor lighting within the development has been limited to as few as eight lights per lot. The applicant has requested to increase the maximum number of lights per lot to one light per thousand square feet of lot area plus seven (i.e., 10, 000 square foot lot = 1/1000 square feet (10) + (7) = 17 lights total. Staff agrees that there should be a change to the outdoor lighting maximums, however, we disagree with the applicant's approach. Due to the relative similarity of lot sizes in the development, staff would prefer to simply allow 15 lights per lot regardless of the lot size. Staff believes that 15 lights is reasonable given Uniform 5 Building Code lighting requirements and the use of outdoor lighting for aesthetic purposes. Additionally, the Town has recently amended the Outdoor Lighting regulations exempting certain type of low level, fully cut-off, ground lighting. Staff would suggest that Subsection 4A(11)(a)(ii)(9) of Ordinance #10, Series of 1991, be amended to read as follows: "Outdoor lighting shall be indirect with a concealed light source except for an entry chandelier which may be exposed globes with a fixture of black or weathered copper-like metal. The maximum number of outdoor lights permitted on each lot shall be 15. Outdoor lights which conform with Ordinance #22, Series of 1997 shall be exempt. All exterior lighting shall be reviewed by the DRB." E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. There are no naturat and/or geologic hazards, or floodplain that affect this request. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. To facilitate the proposed major amendment, the applicant is also requesting a major subdivision to the Dauphinais-Moseley Subdivision. The major subdivision would reduce the total number of lots in the subdivision from 24 to 22. As a result of the major subdivision and the creation of the new lots, there will be a slight modification to the setbacks on the new lots. Setbacks for the entire development are prescribed on the Approved Development Plan prepared by Amold/Gwathmey/Pratt Architects, dated March 22, 1990. The applicant is proposing to amend the rear and sideyard setbacks on the newly created lots only. No other changes to the setback requirements are requested. An analysis of the revised setback is provided below: Setbacks Lot No: Side: Front: Back: E)dstinca Proposed Existina Proposed Existina Proeosed 5 10' 20' (+10) 10' 10' (N/C) 60' 60' (N/C) 7 10' 12' (+2) 10' 10' (N/C) 57' 57' (N/C) 9 10' 12' (+2) 10' 10' (N/C) 54' 55' (+1) 10 10' 12' (+2) 10' 10' (N/C) 48' 48' (N/C) 6 G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. The staff believes that this review criteria is not applicable to the applicanYs proposed Major SDD Amendment. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The staff believes that this review criteria is not applicable to the applicant's proposed Major SDD Amendment. 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. As discussed previously, a major subdivision to the Dauphinais-Moseley Subdivision is proposed. See Section IV of this memorandum for greater details. IV. MAJOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA According to Section 13-3-4, Commission Review, Criteria, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13-3-3C above. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision controi, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town." The first set of review criteria to be considered by the PEC for a major subdivision application is as follows: A. Lot Area There is no minimum or maximum lot size prescribed for SDD #22. The majority of lots range in size from 8,494 square feet to 16,248 square feet. Staff believes that the proposed lot sizes comply with the intent of SDD #22 and are compatible with surrounding development. B. Frontaae The Subdivision Regulations require a minimum frontage of 30' along a public or private street. All of the new lots proposed by the applicant meet this requirement. 7 C. Site Dimensions The Zoning Regulations require that each site be of a size and a shape capable of enclosing a square area, 80' on each side, within its boundaries. The applicant's proposal adheres to this requirement. The second set of review criteria to be considered with a major subdivision request is as outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, and is as follows: The subdivision purpose statements are as follows: 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: One purpose of subdivision regulations, and any development control, is to establish basic ground rules which the staff, the PEC, the applicant and the community can follow in the public review process. Although this request does not involve the creation of a new subdivision, this is the appropriate process to amend the subdivision. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent property. Staff Response: Staff does not believe the requested major subdivision will result in conflicts with existing or potential development in the vicinity of SDD #22. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Response: The proposal will not have a negative impact on this criterion. 4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff Response: Staff believes the proposed major subdivision continues to be in compliance with the intent of SDD #22 and will achieve harmonious, convenient, workable relationships among the surrounding land uses and is consistent with the Town's development objectives. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schoots, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Response: The proposal will not have a negative impact on this criterion. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonab(e and desirable construction, design standards and procedures. Staff Response: The proposal will provide accurate legal descriptions for the property. 8 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of land. Staff Response: This proposal will not have any negative impacts on the above-described criterion. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Special Development District #22 Major Amendment. The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested major amendment to Special Development District #22. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria and factors outlined in Section III of this memorandum. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve #he applicnt's request, the staff would recommend the Planning and Environmental Commission make the following conditions part of the approval: 1. That the maximum garage credit for each of the primary units constructed in the development not exceed six hundred (600) square feet. 2. That the maximum number of outdoor lights permitted on each of the lots in the development not exceed 15 lights total. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's requests, staff would recommend the Planning and Environmental Commission make the following findings: That the proposed major amendment to Special Development District #22, Grand Traverse, is consistent with the intent of the district and the purpose of special development districts, as defined in Section 12-9A-1 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. The Commission further finds that the major amendment complies with the criteria outlined in Section 12-9A-8 of the Municipal Code and Section 111 of the staff inemorandum. Major Subdivision. The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested major subdivision to Special Development District #22. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria and factors outlined in Section IV of this memorandum. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's requests, staff would recommend the Planning and Environmental Commission make the following findings: That the proposed major subdivision to the Dauphinias-Moseley Subdivision, Filing #1 complies with requirements outlined in Section 13-3-4 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail and Section IV of the staff inemorandum. 9 7. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #22, Grand Traverse, and a request for a major subdivision for Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Dauphinais-Moseley Subdivision Filing #1. Applicant: Patrick Dauphinais Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Pat Dauphinais gave the history that this was put in place in 1990 and granted 500 sq. ft. for the employee housing units. He said 500 sq. ft. was too tight for the EHU's and so they were asking for 800 sq. ft. units. He said the debate was whether we were entitled to any square footage for an EHU. He said he wrote the verbage that brought a garage into the scheme of things. He stated the primary owner was shorted and the secondary garage was very tight. He said by getting a larger house, he didn't want to walk away from any of the square footages. He stated, in the process of doing an SDD, their ordinance was more restrictive that what the Town required. He said the square footage of the lot determined the number of lights allowed. He said the total of 17 lights caused a problem. He said two soffit lights should be above the doors, but they are only allowed one. He said that the covered deck lights would have no effect on the surrounding areas. He said there would be no lights between the houses and the only time there would be a light on the backside of the garage was when there was an EHU which needed a light for the the EHU walkway. He mentioned that they had an allowance for an additional 4 lights, when putting in an EHU. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 7 George Ruther clarified the role of the PEC stating that this would be a recommendation to the Town Council. Pat Dauphinais said he was allocated 9 driveway cuts and would like to preserve the mature landscaping, by requesting one more driveway cut. He said that all the driveways were heated. George Ruther stated that Public Works or staff has not had an opportunity to review the curbcuts . John Schofield said the driveway was no# on the application, but the PEC could discuss it. Pat Dauphinais asked if we could add the driveway to the application at this time. George Ruther said it could be passed onto Council for a recommendation. John Schofield asked for any public comments. There were none. Galen Aasland said he agreed with Pat's comments that the Lighting Ordinance needing updating, but that the PEC was not here to debate the Towns Lighting Ordinance. He said this needed to be treated with consistency, regarding the street cut. He stated these were not 60' spruce trees and could be replaced. He said he had no trouble with the square footage trade-off and was fine with the replat. He said the garage credit needed to be treated with consistency throughout Town. He said by giving a 1200 sq. ft credit, the ordinance should be adhered to. He said he was in favor of a larger EHU. Ann Bishop stated she was in accordance with the staff recammendations. Tom Weber agreed with Galen, but agreed with adding lights for egress for another dwelling unit. He said he was struggling with this. Brian Doyon agreed with the staff recommendation, regarding the lighting and the garage. Pat Dauphinais said he was not asking for any additional site coverage. Brian Doyon asked about adding lighting for an EHU. George Ruther said staff chose 15 lights because of the cluster nature of the development. Brian Doyon said the aspens that were there were not of subsequent worth and so it was not necessary to reroute the driveway. John Schofield agreed with the increase in EHU from 500 sq. ft. to 800 sq. ft. He then asked Pat if he was having good luck selling the units with the deed restriction in perpetuity. Pat Dauphinais said that all the units were appropriately rented and that he did receive some resistance from the buyers, but that resistance was in the minority. He said that once he explained to the buyers that the Town didn't operate with ghosts, and that workers were needed in Town, he was able to sway the buyers in favor of the deed restriction. He said this was accomplished by education and not enforcement, as enforcement meant nothing. John Schofield thought replatting the lots was going in the right direction. He said the number of Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 8 4 lights in the code was short-sighted. He stated that there was a conflict between the Lighting Code and the Building Code, which required a separate light for each entry. He thought because of this, the PEC could grant some variance in the Lighting Code. He said the reallocation of GRFA was fine. Galen Aasland asked staff if an EHU were to be built on less than 15,000 sq. ft., would the applicant get a 300sq. ft. or 600 sq. ft. garage credit? George Ruther said 600 sq. ft. Pat Dauphinais said, regarding the lights, that every lot in Town was allowed one light per 1,000', but none of those lights had specs pertaining to spotlights. He added that all his lights were downlights or washing walls. He said he imposed this on himself and stated he was not lighting like everyone else and because of this, could the PEC pass on to the Town Council their support in favor of more lighting, since his lighting was indirect. Major Subdivision Galen Aasland made a motion for approval for a recommendation to Town Council, in accordance with the staff memo, including the finding on page 9 of the staff inemo. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. SDD #22 Maior Amendment Galen Aasland made a motion for approval for a recommendation to Town Council with the following 2 conditions: 1) That the maximum garage credit for each of the primary units constructed in the development not exceed six hundred (600) square feet, unless and EHU is constructed on the lot, in which case, an additional 600 sq. ft. garage credit be allowed, and 2) That the maximum number of outdoor lights permitted on each of the lots in the development not exceed 15 lights total. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. John Schofield asked the PEC if they wanted a motion on the driveway curbcuts. There was no recommendation on the curbcuts. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes June 8,1998 9 COMMENTS TO THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL, JULY 7, 1998,BY AUL RO~-C.~, G~ ~ ~~Go-~ The June 30 speci.al meeting of the Council was well organized for the public input section--with the 3-4 minute time limit a good outcome. Many thanks to not only Judi Anderson-Wright, but Pam Brandmeyer alaQ aa;a ,tvzp-some at the timeout table. One of the papers reported something Tike 35 against and 25 in favor of the Common Ground proposal. I think any thoughtful person attending the session would have been touched with many of the comments made by persons counted as "against." They really should have been counted as middle of the road, and certainly not "confrontational." We heard people sharing their personal/family tradegies and hardships. It was uplifting to hear of folks struggling to become stakeholders in Vail through their efforts to acquire rental housing and become good landlords--in many cases owning units that otherwise might have been obtained by 2nd homeowners. It would be great if we could replicate or clone these "old guard" individuals who weave a two way responsibility between tennant and landlord in providing a real sense of neighborhood. In continuing the Common Ground Process, I am suggesting focus be kept on three principles of representative government: (1) Compromise and Balance: Compromise was listed as item # 11 in the Common Ground flowchart handout. I was impressed with Bob Armour's comments that reality probably exists between an earlier goal of 50 units per year and Common Ground's 200 per year. Others expressed some reservation, but taking a"watch this space" approach. Michael Jewett has a"laundry list" and I encourage you all to work through it. In any case,the Council has to get specific--complementing the efforts of the staff. We are now past the point of one-liners and sound bytes. F'inally, regardless of your position on the June workshops--from excellence in action to leaving something to be desired--they could not weave in compromise. This task is reserved for politicians--namely this body. (2) Government Providing a Screening Process: Public input includes the involved, the informed, the uninformed, the hidden agenders and probably most importantly for Vail,the silent ones--those out of town during the shoulder season, 2nd homeowners and those who don't speak out for a variety of reasons. Sorting out/screening this input ma_y have . failed in the Common Ground/Vail Tomorrow procedures. For example, Chuck Ogilby expressed his frustration at.the June 30th meeting, that his thoughtful ideas regarding inclusionary zoning and other subjects fell between the cracks--not getting enough.support to become mainstream in a statistical sense or picked up as anecdotal information that needed to be recorded. This is "process methodology speak:" I have suggested that a Record of Decision be prepared (similar to USFS's Cat III document)to record the history and.assist in the work and decisions that have yet to be done. In other words, the act of preparing such a document will positively affect the outcome and decisions, as you plan such a document in parallel to the actual work. (3) Referendums: if you have a good product and get middle-of-the- roaders behind you, there should be no problem of successfully taking this precedent-setting item to a vote.I certainly consider myself in the middle--my prepared handout at the June 30th meeting suggested accepting all the groposals(less 15 in mid/upper bench), but at•the minimum range for Timber Ridge and the lower bench. The proviso, of course, to pick up the balance with 10/20/30 bed clusters in . those neighborhoods not paying their fair share as it now stands. If you do this work and include Designated Open Space protection for open space (small "o" and small "s") not used for housing, you will have my vote, and perhaps a majority of others. Thanks for your attention. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1998 7:00 P.M. . \ A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, June 2, 1998, at 7:00 P.I~ in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rob Ford, Mayor _ Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Pro-Tem Bob Armour Sybill Navas Michael Arnett Michael Jewett Kevin Foley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager The first item on the agenda was citizen participation. Steve Rosenthal, representing the Village Merchant's Association, stated the Association has decided to match the funding of $5,000 toward the "construction murals". Vail Resorts is also matching the $5,000 bringing the total amount to $15,000. Steve said Brian Hall came in with a budget that is under $15,000 to paint the construction walls in the Village with various murais and paintings. Sue Dugan, a Vail resident, thanked the Town Council for the great job on the addition of the West Vail Roundabout. She stated that the Avon roundabout sign program should be looked at by Council. She also thanked the Council for appointing Russ Forrest as the Community Development Director. Sue also said she thought there had been recreation vehicle rules already in place. She also expressed she felt there were too many rules as it is and there was not enough enforcement to maintain the rules and regulations we have in town. As for open house signs, she felt the ordinance needed to allow for more directional signs. She also stated she would like the Town to consider allowing more fences to be constructed in residential areas to address trespassing issues and also feels the town needs an animal control officer. Mayor Rob Ford stated there is an animal control officer that is presently contracted through Eagle County. He said the town council has also come to the conclusion that the Town needs its own animal control officer. The second item on the agenda was the consent agenda approving the town council minutes from the meeting of May 19, 1998. ? Council member Bob Armour made a motion to approved the town council minutes from the May 19, 1998 meeting. The motion was seconded by Council member Sybill Navas. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The third item on the agenda was the presentation of the Mauri Nottingham Environmental Awards. . Patrick Hamel, Environmental Health Officer for the Town of Vail, presented the winners and runners up of the Mauri Nottingham Environmental Award. Patrick thanked the members of _ award committee for their work. He presented the individual award to Ken Neubecker of Eagle for his participation in the Eagle River Cleanup and involvement in the Eagle River Water Shed Plan and on the environmental committee of the Vail 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships. The business award was presented to the Vail Alpine Garden for promoting environmental education and protection. The Vail Alpine Garden programs include xeriscaping seminars, nature walks and talks, adoption of rare plants, and involvement of Greenstar, an environmental certification program. The student award was presented to Eagle Valley High School for participating in the Environmental Education and Wetlands Project and Stream Watch program sponsored by the Coforado Department of Wildlife. The students monitored temperature, flow, color and soil content of local wetlands and later planted shelter-providing trees and shrubs. Runners up included Kim Walter in the individual category and the Trial Action Group in the business category. On behalf of the selection committee, Council member Mike Arnett thanked the contributors of the prizes. Mayor Rob Ford congratulated all participants and award winners. 'The fourth item on the agenda was an update on the 1999 Warld A{pine Ski Championships. Ceil Folz, representing the Vail Valley Foundation (WF), updated the town council on the activities the WF is working on for the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships. The WF has a finalized schedule, the Opening Ceremonies start on January 30, 1999 and the championships running through February 15, 1999. The Men's Super G was moved to Beaver Creek, and the Men's Slalom moved to Vail. There are some race schedule changes to accommodate the television prime time viewing schedule in Europe. There will be hospitality houses from Italy, Austria and Germany, and twenty different hospitality houses are expected. FIS personnel will be here in June to inspect and review courses, etc. FIS congress accredation system is ready to go and she outlined where all the teams will be housed. There will be 56 flag poles going up and staying up. The flags should be in place by July 4. KUSA, is the official Denver television station for the `99 Championships. Tag Hauer is the official timer, Delta and Swiss Air are the official airlines. There are 675 volunteer applications already in. . ~ The Councii thanked Ceil and the WF for all their hard work and enthusiasm. The fifth item on the agenda was second reading of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1998, Supplemental Appropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund, Heavy Equipment Fund, Parking Structure Fund, Housing Fund, Capital Projects Fund, Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, and Facility Maintenance Fund, of the 1998 Budget and the Financial Plan for the Town of Vail,• Colorado; and Authorizing the Expenditures of Said Appropriations as Set Forth Herein; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto. Steve Thompson, Finance Director, stated there was one modification to the ordinance, the _ drug enforcement grant is coming out of the General Fund and not the Police Confiscation Fund. This does not change the dollar amount of the supplemental appropriation. Council member Bob Armour moved to approve Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1998 on second reading, the motion was seconded by Council member Mike Arnett. A vote was taken and was passed by unanimous approval, 7-0. The sixth item on the agenda was second reading of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1998, an ordinance amending Title 4, Business and License Regulations to Include Regulations for Garage and Yard Sales, an Amendment to Title 11, Sign Regulations to Provide for Temporary Signs Regarding Garage and Yard Sales and Real Estate Open Houses. Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney, said the requested changes were made to the ordinance as directed by Council. There is a provision for one on-site temporary sign and one off-site directional sign for both garage sales and real estate open houses. Additionally, the temporary sign for real estate open houses will be permitted during the period of time that the property upon which the sign is located is available for an open house presentation or three (3) days, whichever period of time is shorter. Tom also said he guessed the size of the temporary open house real estate signs was under three square feet and he had not been contacted by anyone from the real estate community. Council member Bob Armour stated that there was someone from the real estate community at the council meeting and asked Sue Dugan for her comments. Sue Dugan, a local realtor, stated the open house signs generally used are about 3 feet x 3 feet in size. She requested more directional signs be allowed for open house events because of the difficulty of getting people to some sites in town. Council member Mike Arnett stated the reason this ordinance was drafted was to address illegal sales of commercial goods in residential areas and it is not necessary to regulate garage sales by requiring exemption forms. Tom stated the municipal code does not address garage sales at this time. This ordinance permits garage sales to take place and no sales tax will be collected for these sales. He said the police officers, code enforcement officers and the finance department are in support of this ordinance. . c Council member Mike Jewett asked if this ordinance would prevent retail sales peopte to take goods from commercial establishments and sell the goods in residential neighborhoods. Tom stated this is correct. Council member Mike Jewett asked if open house signs are permitted now. Tom explained that open house signs are not permitted now. The police department picks up the signs upon complaints to their department. . Mayor Rob Ford sfated he has spoken with several members of real estate community, and , they do not feel that the town needs to regulate signs and they recommend the Council table this ordinance indefinitely. Council member Kevin Foley stated the ordinance helps the code enforcement officers do their job. If the ordinance is tabled, the town won't be in a position to pick up open house signs, provide for garage sales, etc. Council member Sybill Navas stated the request to aflow temporary open house signs came from real estate community saying they wanted to be allowed to have temporary open house signs. She was disappointed that there wasn't more representation from real estate community at the meeting. She is also concerned that the town has to regulate and write ordinances governing these issues. Tom Moorhead stated this ordinance will allow the activity already occurring to continue to occur and the ordinance is reasonable in its approach. He also reiterated that commercial sales activity is occurring in residential areas. Council member Mike Arnett stated a compromise would be to allow a conditional use permit for commercial goods to be sold at garage sales. Tom said this ordinance allows for that process to happen and we can do away with requiring an exemption form if necessary. Council member Mike Jewett made a motion to approve on second reading, Ordinance No. 6, 1998, and was seconded by Council member Kevin Foley. Council member Sybill Navas asked if the motion could be amended to exempt the need for the exemption form. Council member Mike Jewett stated he would agree to amending the motion to delete the requirement for an exemption form and was seconded by Council member Kevin Foley. Council member Bob Armour asked which section of the ordinance this takes place. Tom Moorhead said he would add a sentence to Section 2 under the business and license section which will include fanguage to waive filling out of an exemption form. A vote was taken, the motion passed with a vote of 5-2, Council members Mike Arnett and . r Mayor Rob Ford against. The seventh item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. Bob McLaurin, Town Manager, stated they are looking at bond market changes, Motorola 'and and at increasing the town's presence on the Internet. He asked the Council to approve an position to be added to this department. He said it is prudent to advertise and fill the position now. He explained the department used to be four-man department and is presently a two-man department. The Town has more computers and technology needs than in the past and feels the Town needs to move forward on this request. Council member Ludwig Kurz asked about the budget implications for adding this position. Bob stated the position may need to be partially funded by supplemental appropriations but they may be able to fund the position without a supplemental appropriation. Council member Ludwig Kurz supported this request. Council member Sybill Navas stated the town council has asked for more IS services and supports the request also. Council member Bob Armour stated Motorola needs to be aware of black out areas for emergency dispatch. Further discussion ensued regarding expense, signal concerns, and timing. Mayor Rob Ford announced there will be a Common Grounds meeting tomorrow and Thursday. As there was no further business, Council member Kevin Foley made a motion to adjourn, and Council member Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The meeting adjourned 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert E. Ford Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson Town C(erk ~ . VAIL TOWN COUNCIL - MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1998 7:00 P. M. The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held in the Town Council Chambers on Tuesday, June 16, 1998. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Rob Ford, Mayor Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Pro-Tem Bob Armour Kevin Foley Michael Jewett Sybill Navas ABSENT: Michael Arnett STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Asst Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was 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. 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 no nresidents/non property 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. 1 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. The second item on the agenda was a discussion regarding the 1998 Community Survey Resu{ts. 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 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. The third item on the agenda was a 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 The Council was not in support of a proposal for summer parking. 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 Vi{lage 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, Councii 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 r ~ restrictions in the Village parking structure. He also suggested the town be reimbursed for a portion of parking fees collected by the privately-operated 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 Vai1 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 Viilage 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. 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 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 for granted 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 vaiue passes. The discussion will be continued at the July 7th evening meeting. The fourth item on the agenda was a Resolution No. 6, Series of 1998, Library Deposit Transaction, authorizing certain employees to handle check deposits for library transactions. Town Attorney Moorhead presented the resolution to the Council, stating it was mostly a"housekeeping" resolution. After some discussion Councilmember Navas made a motion to approve Resolution No. 6, Series of 1998, and Councilmember Armour seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Town Manager's Report. Town Manager stated he had nothing to add to the report. As there was no further business, a motion was made by Councilmember Armour to adjourn the meeting and seconded by Councilmember Foley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. a The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M.. Respectfuily submitted, Robert E. Ford Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson Town Clerk e ~ ORDINANCE NO. 9 Series of 1998 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE NO. 10, SERIES OF 1991, PROVIDING FOR CHANGES TO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 22, GRAND TRAVERSE, THAT CONCERN THE LOT SIZES, THE NUMBER OF LOTS, THE CORRESPONDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, Chapter 9 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Special Development Districts within the Town; and WHEREAS, The Town Council approved Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1991 Special Development District No. 22, Grand Traverse; and WHEREAS, Dauphinais-Moseley Construction has requested to amend the existing Special Development District No. 22; and WHEREAS, Section 12-9A-10 of the Vail Municipal Code provides procedures for major amendments to existing Special Development Districts; and WHEREAS, The applicant has complied with the requirements outlined in Section 12-9A-10 of the Vail Municipaf Code; and WHEREAS, The Special Development District provides for creativity and flexibility to allow for the development of land within the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, There is an identified need for quality affordable housing in the community; and WHEREAS, On June 8, 1998, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the major amendment proposat and has recommended that certain changes be made to Special Development District No. 22, Grand Traverse; and WHEREAS, The Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to repeal and re-enact Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1991 to provide for certain changes in Special Development District No. 22, Grand Traverse. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1991 is hereby repealed and re-enacted to read as follows: Section 1. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled. Planning Commission Report The approval procedure prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 9, Section 10(B) of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Vail Town Council has received the 1 report of the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending approval, of the proposed development plan for Special Development District No. 22. Section 2. Special Development District No. 22 Special Development District No. 22 (SDD 22) and the development plan therefore, are hereby approved for the development of Lots 1 through 19, Block 2, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing 3 within the Town of Vail consisting of 10.69 acres. Section 3. Purpose Special Development District No. 22 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail. The development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council and meets each of the design standards and criteria as set forth in Section 12-9A-8 of the Vail Municipal Code. There are significant aspects of Special Development District No. 22 that are difficult to satisfy through the imposition of the standards of the underlying Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. Special Development District No. 22 allows for greater flexibility in the development of the land than would be possible under the current zoning of the property. The smaller single-family lots provide the opportunity for a common open space for the subdivision as well as the means to preserve the southerly ridge line of the property. Special Development District No. 22 provides an appropriate development plan to preserve the visual quality of the site from within the subdivision as well as adjacent properties in the community in general. Section 4. Development Plan A. The development plan for SDD 22 is approved and shall constitute the plan for development within the Special Development District. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Dauphinais-Moseley Construction and consists of the following documents: 1. Site development plan, Lionsridge Resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Vail, Colorado, Intermountain Engineering, dated July 7, 199$. 2. Conceptual landscape plan, Intermountain Engineering, dated July 7, 1998. 3. Final Plat of Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 5, A Resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 3, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, sheets 1 and 2, Intermountain Engineering Limited, dated April 19, 1989 and Final Plat of Dauphinais-Moseley Subdivision Filing No. 2 1, A Resubdivision of Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 7 10, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, Intermountain Engineering, dated July 21, 1998. 4. Construction, grading and drainage drawings for a resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, and Lionsridge Lane, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 3, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, Intermountain Engineering Limited, sheets 1-8, dated March 9, 1989. 5. Soils and Foundation Investigation for Lots 1-24, Lionsridge 5th Filing. 6. Lionsridge Color Palette, Arnold/Gwathmey/Pratt Architects, March 1990. 7. The subdivision plat for Dauphinais-Moseley Subdivision recorded August 23, 1990 and July 21, 1998. B. The development standards shall be as follows: 1. Acreage: The total acreage of this site is 10.69 acres or 465,650 square feet. 2. Permitted Uses: The permitted uses for SDD 22 shall be: a. Single family residential dwellings b. Open space c. Public roads d. Employee dwelling units as defined in Section 5, paragraph G of this ordinance. 3. Conditional Uses: a. Public utility and public service uses b. Public buildings, grounds and facilities c. Public or private schools d. Public park and recreation facilities 4. Accessory Uses: a. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single-family uses. b. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-14-12 of the Vail Municipal Code. 3 c. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 5. Lots Sizes and Maximum GRFAS: MAX GRFA INCL. 425 SQ. FT. LOT SIZE GRFA ALLOWANCE PER UNIT 1 11,805 2,293 2,718 2 16,248 4,070 4,495 3 11,500 3,171 3,596 4 11,761 2,293 2,718 5 23,330 5,889 6,314 7 15,393 4,070 4,495 9 14,588 4,070 4,495 10 14,429 4,070 4,495 11 10,803 3,171 3,596 12 12,981 3,171 3,596 13 9 5, 9 59 3,171 3,596 14 11,151 3,171 3,596 15 8,538 2,293 2,718 ~ 16 8,494 2,293 2,718 17 8,494 2,293 2,718 18 10,062 3,171 3,596 19 9,148 2,293 2,718 20 9,801 3,171 3,596 21 10,237 3,171 3,596 22 9,409 2,293 2,718 23 9,148 3,171 3,596 24 10,629 2293 2.718 69,052 78,402 GRFA shall mean the total square footage of all levels of a building, as measured at the inside face of the exterior walls (i.e. not including furring, sheetrock plaster and other similar wall finishes). GRFA shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, mechanical chases, vents, and storage areas. Attics, crawl spaces and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces or patios shall also be included in GRFA, unless they meet the provisions of paragraph A below. 4 A. Within buildings containing two or fewer dwelling units, the following areas shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA: 1. Garage spaces of up to three hundred (300) square feet per garage space not exceeding a maximum of two spaces for each allowable dwelling unit and one trroe spaces for each constructed employee unit. 2. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet or less, as measured from the top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above. Attic area created by construction of a roof with truss-type members will be excluded from calculation as GRFA provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty inches apart. 3. Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve square feet in area, with five feet or less of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. 4. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or similar feature/space with no more than three exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than 25% of the lineal perimeter of the area of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature/space provided the opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to three feet in height. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth in Section 12-2-2 of the Vail Municipal Code. Excluded areas as set forth in paragraph A shall then be deducted from total square footage. In addition to the above, four hundred twenty-five square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each allowable dwelling unit not to include any restricted employee housing unit. 6. Setbacks: Minimum setbacks shall be as indicated on the approved site development plan by Intermountain Engineering, dated July 7, 1998. A 4-foot roof overhang shall be allowed in the front setback for Lots 15-19, provided the rear setback is increased by 4 feet. A 4-foot roof overhang shall be allowed in the rear setback of Lots 20-24, provided the front setback is increased by 4 feet. Roof 5 overhangs shall be allowed to encroach up to 2' feet into the required side setback of 10 feet for each lot. An unenclosed, unroofed, deck or patio within 5 feet of finished grade may encroach into the rear setback by 5 feet for Lots 1-14 and Lots 20-24. No other setback encroachments shall be allowed. 7. Densitv: Approval of this development plan shall permit a total of 22 single-family dwelling units on the entire property. A minimum of 6 employee dwelling units shall be required. A maximum of 22 employee dwelling units shall be permitted on the entire property. 8. Building Height: For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of the building shall not exceed 30 feet. For a sloping roof, the height of the building shall not exceed 33 feet. The height calculation shall be made by measuring from the existing grade as indicated on the Intermountain Engineering Topographical Survey dated March 13, 1990 or finished grade. Height shall be calculated per Section 12-2-2 of the Vail Municipal Code. 9. Site Coverage: Not more than 25 percent of the total site area on each lot shall be covered by buildings with the exception of Lot 5. On Lot 5, not more than 20 percent of the total site area shall be covered by a building. "Site coverage" shall mean the ratio of the total building area on a site to the total area of a site, expressed as a percentage. For the purpose of calculating site coverage, "building area" shall mean the total horizontal area of any building as measured from the exterior face of perimeter building walls or supporting columns above grade or at ground level, whichever is the greater area. Building area shall include all buildings, carports, porte cocheres, arcades, and covered or roofed walkways. In addition to the above, building area shall also include any portion of roof overhang, eave, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than four feet from the exterior face of perimeter building walls or supporting columns. 10. Parina: Parking shall be as required in Title 12, Chapter 10 of the Vail Municipal Code. Each employee dwelling unit shall be required to have at least one enclosed garage parking space. 11. Design Guidelines: The development of each lot shatl be guided by the architectural and landscape design guidelines as approved as part of the Special Development 6 District No. 22. The guidelines are as follows: a. Architectural. The architectural design of the buildings upon the site shall be such that buildings relate harmoniously to each other. This is not to imply that each building must look exactly similar to those around it, but that compatibility be achieved through the use of scale, materials and colors, and building shape and form. The overriding concern is that, upon completion, the Special Development District, because of the clustered nature of the small single family lots situated around common open space, should appear to be an integrated development possessing a common architectural quality, character, and appearance. To this end the following general design criteria shall be followed by the developer and individual lot owners: b. A palette of colors shall be as set forth in the Lionsridge Color Palette from Arnold/Gwathmey/Pratt dated March 1990. Colors are indicated for the use on different types of building materials and elements such as stucco colors, siding colors, metal flashing, windows, accent colors, etc. The palette of colors indicate a ra_ nae of acceptable colors in order to encourage similarity on one hand, but also diversity within the acceptable ranpe. c. The following building standards and materials shall be adhered to: (1) Roof. The roof pitch shall be a minimum 8/12 and a maximum of 12/12. A gable, clipped gable or hipped roof shall be mandatory. Dormers shall be allowed and reviewed by the Design Review Board. The roofing material shall be cedar shake shingles with staggered butts. (2) Chimneys. The chimneys shall be stucco with chimney caps of weathered copper. (3) Flues. All flues shall be galvanized or painted sheet metal, painted to match the roof. . (4) Main Fascia. The main fascia shall be a solid color stain, with brown, taupe, or gray. (5) Secondary Fascia and Metal Railings above the First Floor. The secondary fascia and metal railings above the first floor shall be a muted accent trim color to be reviewed by the DRB. (6) Walls. Walls shall be of stucco and horizontal or vertical wood siding. Stucco colors shall be gray, beige or off-white. Wood siding colors shall be gray, brown or taupe. 7 (7) Stone. Residences will have a minimum of a two foot high stone wainscot in rainbow mix with a sandstone cap around the perimeter of the structure except under docks where substantially concealed by landscaping. (8) Windows. Windows shall be recessed a minimum of two inches from the outside wall plane and have a sandstone sill. Trim shall be whiter taupe or brown. (9) Outdoor Liahting, Outdoor lighting shall be indirect with a concealed source except for an entry chandelier, two carriage lights and one pilaster light which may be exposed globes with a fixture of black or weathered copper look metal. The maximum number of outdoor lights permitted on each lot shall be 15 regardless of lot size. Outdoor lights which conform with Ordinance #22, Series of 1997, shall be exempt. All exterior lighting shall be reviewed by the DRB. (10) Garages. No garage doors shall directly face the street, except on Lot 24 and Lot 14. (11) A residential address/nameplate if desired by the owner shall be located on the side of the garage facing the access point to the lot. (12) When the individual landscape plans are designed for individual lots, special care shall be taken in the design of side yard landscaping in order to provide adequate screening between structures. 12. Recreational Amenities Tax: The recreation amenities tax shall be assessed at the rate for a single-family residential zone district. Section 5. Conditions of Approval A. The major amendment to Special Development District No. 22, Grand Traverse, shall not be effective until the major subdivision is recorded by the Town of Vail at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. B. The major subdivision shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to a building permit being released for any construction on Lots 2, 5, 7, 9 or 10. C. The development of Special Development District No. 22 will have impacts on the available employee housing within the Upper Eagle Valley Area. In order to help meet this additional employee housing need, the developer of Special Development District No. 22 shall provide employee housing on site. . 8 The following restrictions shall apply to all employee dwelling units within SDD No. 22: 1. The developer shall build a minimum of six employee dwelling units within the subdivision. Each employee dwelling unit shall have a minimum square footage of 400 square feet not to exceed 800 square feet and is allowed to have a kitchen. The GRFA and number of employee units shall not be counted toward allowable density or GRFA for Special Development District No. 22. The developer may choose to transfer up to 300 sq. ft. of GRFA from the primary unit to the employee unit. The GRFA transferred will be deducted from the total allowable GRFA of the primary unit. The developer may provide up to 15 employee dwelling units including the 6 required dwelling units if so desired. 2. The employee dwelling units may be located on any of the iots within ; the subdivision providing all the development standards are met for ' each lot. Only one employee dwelling unit shall be allowed per lot with a maximum of 15 units allowed. An employee dwelling shall be incorporated into the structure of the primary residence and shall not be allowed to be separated from the primary unit. Each employee dwelling unit shall at least one enclosed garage parking space. This parking space shall not be detached from the single-family garage or structure. Each phase of construction shall include a minimum of one employee dwelling unit until six employee dwelling units are constructed and available for rental. 3. The Employee Housing Unit shall be leased to tenants who are full- time employees who work in Eagle County. An EHU shall not be leased for a period less than thirty consecutive days. For the purposes of this section, a full-time employee is one who works an average of thirty hours each week. 4. An EHU may not be sold, transferred, or conveyed separately from any two family dwelling it may be a part of. 5. The EHU shall not be divided into any form of timeshares, interval ownership, or fractional fee ownership as those terms are defined in the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. 9 ~ 6. No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of each employee ' housing unit within the town which is constructed following the effective date of this chapter shall submit two copies of a report on a form to be obtained from the Community Development Department, to the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail and Chairman of the Town of Vail Housing Authority setting forth evidence establishing that the employee housing unit has been rented throughout the year, the rental rate, the employer, and that each tenant who resides within the employee housing unit is a full-time employee in Eagle County. 7. The owner of each EHU shall rent the unit at a monthly rental rate ' Pi u E consistent with or lower than those market rates prevalent for similar properties in the Town of Vail. 8. The Town of Vail Housing Authority will determine the market rate based on the study of other units of comparable size, location, quality and amenities throughout the Town. The market rate shall be based on an average of a minimum of five rental rates of comparable units. If the unit is not rented and is not available at the market rate it shall be determined to be in noncompliance. In addition to any other penalties and restrictions provided herein, a unit found to be in noncompliance shall be subject to publication as determined by the Housing Authority. 9. The provisions of these restrictive covenants may be enforced by the Owner and the Town. 10. The conditions, restrictions, stipulations, and agreements contained herein shall not be waived, abandoned, terminated, or amended except by the written consent of both the Town of Vail and the Owner of the property. D. The architectural and landscape design guidelines shall be incorporated into the subdivision covenants before the final plat is recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. The Town Of Vail shall be party to these agreements. Section 6. Amendments Amendments to Special Development District No. 22 shall follow the procedures contained in Section 18.40.100 of the Vail Municipal Code. 10 Section 7. Expiration The appficant must begin construction of the Special Development District within 3 years from the time of its fina{ approval, and continue diligently toward completion of the project. lf the applicant does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the Special Development District or any stage of the Special Development District within the time limits imposed by the preceding subsection, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the Special Development District. They shall recommend to the Town Council that either the approval of the Special Development District be extended, that the approval of the Special Development District be revoked, or that the Special Development District be amended. Section 8. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of. this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardfess of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases by declared invalid. Section 9. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and inhabitants thereof. Section 10. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 11. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resofution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed. 11 INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS 7 day of July, 1998, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 21 day of July, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Robert E. Ford, Mayor ~ ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 21 day of July, 1998. Robert E. Ford, Mayor ATTEST: ~ Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk 12 ORDINANCE NO. 10 Series of 1998 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 11, DESIGN REVIEW, SECTION 12-11-5: DESIGN GUIDELINES; ADDING A PROVISION ALLOWING LEGAL NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY, TWO-FAMILY, AND PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE EXPANDED BY 500 SQ. FT. OR LESS WITHOUT REQUIRING STRUCTURES AND SITES TO BE FULLY COMPLIANT WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES; AND AMENDING CHAPTER 16, CONDITtONAL USE PERMITS, AND CREATING A NEW SECTION 12-16-7: USE SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND STANDARDS. WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to allow homeowners the ability to construct small additions to dwelling units without overburdening owners with costs associated with bringing legal nonconformities into compliance with existing design guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Town Council believes reorganizing certain sections of the Zoning Regulations will make them easier to read and use; WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has recommended approval of this amendment to the Vail Municipal Code at its June 22, 1998 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to amend said Chapter and Sections of the Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Title 12, Chapter 11, Design Review, subsection 12-11-3 is hereby amended to add the following paragraph: C. Nonconforming sites and structures; Effect of Design Guidelines: Buildings and sites which are not in conformance with the Design Guidelines, due to annexations or changes in code provisions (i.e., legal nonconformities), shall be required to conform with the Design Guidelines when allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA) (the GRFA that is permitted by the density control section of various zone districts), commercial floor area, or garage area credit is added to any existing structure or site. From the effective date of this ordinance (July 21, 1998), there shall be permitted a one-time exclusion from this provision for an expansion to single-family, two-family, and primary/secondary residential dwelling units. This one-time exclusion shall be allowed for a single expansion of 500 sq. ft. or less of allowable GRFA or garage area credit per dwelling unit. In which case, structures may be expanded without requiring upgrades to entire structures and sites to conform with the Design Guidelines. The addition itself, however, shall conform with the Design Guidelines. An expansion which is greater than 500 sq. ft., or any subsequent expansion to a structure, regardless of size, shall require full compliance of the dwelling unit with the Design Guidelines. General maintenance and upkeep of a property shall continue to be required regardless of the amount of floor area added to a structure. The one-time exclusion noted above shall not preclude the Design Review Board, pursuant to the Design Guidelines, from requiring landscaping and other improvements necessary to buffer or mitigate development impacts associated with the expansion/remodel. Expansions made pursuant to Section 12-15-5, Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance No. 10 , Series of 1998 ~ ~ Ordinance), shall require full compliance of the entire site with the Design Guidelines. Interior conversion additions pursuant to Section 12-15-4, Interior Conversions, shall not trigger the requirement for upgrading sites and structures to fully comply with the Design Guidelines, unless it can be classified as a demo/rebuild, pursuant to Section 12-2-2 of this Title. Section 2. Major arcade, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Sections 12-7B-2(C) and 12-7E-4 of the Municipat Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Major arcade. Section 3. Barber shops, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Section 12-7B-3(C) of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Barber shops, beauty shops, and beauty parlors. Section 4. Bakeries and confectioneries, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Sections 12-7B-2(B)(1), 12-713-2(13)(3), 12-713-3(13)(9), 12-7B-4(A)(6), 12-7B-4(A)(7),12-7B-5(B)(1) and 12-7B-5(B)(2) of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Bakeries and confectioneries. Section 5. Brew Pubs, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Sections 12-7C-4, 12-7D-2, 12-7E-4, 12-7F-4(A), and 12-7F-4(B) of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Brew pubs. Section 6. Commercial storage, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Sections 12-7C-4 and 12-7D-2 of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Commercial storage. Section 7. Television stations, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Section 12-7C-4 of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Television stations. Section 8. Transportation businesses, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Sections 12- 7D-2, 12-7F-4(A), and 12-7G-3 of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Transportation businesses. Section 9. Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, subsection 12-16-6(A)(7) is hereby deleted in its entirety. Section 10. Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, Sections 12-16-7 and 12- 16-8 are hereby renumber as 12-16-8 and 12-16-9, respectively. Section 11. Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, Section 12-16-7 is hereby added to read as follows: 12-16-7: Use Specific Criteria and Standards: The following criteria and standards shall be applicable to the uses listed below in consideration of a conditional use permit. These criteria and standards shall be in addition to the criteria and findings required by Section 12-16- 6. Uses and Criteria: Bakeries and confectioneries The use shall be restricted to preparation of products specifically for sale on the premises. Barber shops, beauty shops and beauty parlors No exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area is permitted. Brew pubs a. There shall be no exterior storage of supplies, refuse, or materials on the property upon which the brew pub is operated. b. The operator of the brew pub shall comply with the Town's loading and delivery regulations as set forth in this Title. c. Brew pubs which sell beer or ale at wholesale or which sell beer for off-site consumption are allowed so long as the total of wholesale sales and sales for off- site consumption do not exceed forty five percent (45%) of the product manufactured by the brew pub on an annual basis. Ordinance No. 10 , Series of 1998 2 Commercial storage No exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area is permitted. Convenience food stores a. Maximum store size shall be 8,000 sq. ft. b. No more than thirty three percent (33%) of the gross building area of the entire structure on-site. Major arcade a. No exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area is permitted. b. Amusement devices shall not be visible or audible from any public way, street, walkway, or mall area. Television stations a. The production room/studio shall be visible from the street or pedestrian mall. b. The television station shall be "cable-cast" only, requiring no additional antennas. Time-share estate, fractional fee, fractional fee club, or time-share license proposal: Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for a time-share estate, fractional fee, fractional fee club, or time-share license proposal, the following shall be considered: a. If the proposal for a fractional fee club is a redevelopment of an existing facility, the fractional fee club shall maintain an equivalency of accommodation units as are presently existing. Equivalency shall be maintained either by an equal number of units or by square footage. If the proposal is a new development, it shall provide at least as much accommodation unit gross residential floor area (GRFA) as fractional fee club unit gross residential floor area (GRFA). b. Lock-off units and lock-off unit square footage shall not be included in the calculation when determining the equivalency of existing accommodation units or equivalency of existing square footage. c. The ability of the proposed project to create and maintain a high level of occupancy. d. Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment fractional fee club project requesting density over that allowed by zoning. The number of employee housing units required wilt be consistent with employee impacts that are expected as a result of the project. e. The applicant shall submit to the Town a list of all owners of existing units within the project or building; and written statements from one hundred percent (100%) of the owners of existing units indicating their approval, without condition, of the proposed fractional fee club. No written approval shall be valid if it was signed by the owner more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of filing the application for a conditional use. Transportation businesses a. All vehicles shall be parked upon approved parking areas. b. All vehicles shall be adequately screened from public rights of way and adjacent properties, consisting of landscaping and berms, in combination with walls and fences, where deemed necessary to reduce the deleterious effects of vehicle storage. c. The number, size and location of vehicles permitted to be stored shall be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission based on the adequacy of the site for vehicle storage. Consideration shall be given to the adequacy of landscaping and other screening methods to prevent impacts to adjacent properties and other commercial and/or residential uses. Ordinance No. 10 , Series of 1998 3 d. Parking associated with transportation businesses shall not reduce or compromise the parking required for other uses on-site. Section 12. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 13. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 14. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 15. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 7th day of July, 1998, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 21 st day of July, 1998, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Robert E. Ford, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 21 st day of July, 1998. Robert E. Ford, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1998 4 MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 22, 1998 RE: Ordinance revising the Design Review Chapter (adding a design review trigger), allowing interior conversions for multiple-family dwelling units, and reorganizing the Conditional Use Chapter. Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST. On March 17, 1998, the Town Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance which would clarify when a nonconforming site must be upgraded to meet the Design Review Guidelines. The Design Guidelines include such requirements as paving parking areas, placing utility service lines underground, compliance with the lighting restrictions, and not utilizing plywood as a siding material. The code currently requires all nonconforming properties to be brought into compliance with the Design Guidelines with any addition of square footage. The staff interpretation, which has been used for the past couple of years, allows expansions to single-family, two-family, and primary/secondary residential uses of 150 sq. ft. or less without complying with the guidelines. The Town Council directed staff to increase the threshold to 500 sq. ft. (excluding 250 ordinance additions) and therefore, staff has been implementing the 500 sq. ft. over the past several months. Staff presented 2 alternatives to the Town Council. One proposal allowed expansions of up to 500 sq. ft. for single-family, two-family, and multiple family developments. Council did not want to extend this new threshold of 500 sq. ft. to multiple-family developments but instead directed staff to include multiple-family developments in the interior conversion regulations. The proposal requires the upgrading of commercial and multiple-family developments with any addition of floor area, units, common area, or garage area. The proposal allows nonconforming single-family, two-family, and primary/secondary uses a one-time expansion of up to 500 sq. ft. without compliance with the Design Guidelines. The changes proposed for the Type II, Employee Housing Unit have been removed from the proposed ordinance at the Council's direction and may be discussed in a separate proposal. Staff is also proposing to clean-up the conditional use section of the code by creating a new subsection which wiA contain all use specific criteria and standards for uses listed as conditional uses. The proposal will eliminate the use specific criteria which are repeated throughout the zone districts and consolidate them in one section. For example, the section from the code listed below is from the CC2 Zone district, under the conditional use section: 1 *VAa 1O{9N 12-7G4: CONDITIONAL USES; GENERALLY: The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 12-14-18 of this Title. "Brew pubs" as defined in Section 12-2-2 of this Title, subject to the following conditions: A. There is no exterior storage of supplies, refuse, or materials on the property upon which the brew pub is operated; and B. The operator of the brew pub •shall comply with the Town's loading and delivery regulations as set forth in this Title; and C. Brew pubs which sell beer or ale at wholesale or which sell beer for off-site consumption are allowed so long as the total of wholesale sales and sales for off-site consumption do not exceed forty five percent (45%) of the product manufactured by the brew pub on an annual basis. Under the proposed ordinance, A, B, and C above would be deleted and repfaced with simply, "Brew Pubs." These criteria will then be moved to the new subsection in the Conditionai Use Chapter. This is similar to what was done for fractional fee clubs last year. Specific criteria were created for this use and placed as additional standards in the conditional use section of the code. This amendment will create a consistent way of treating such criteria when amending the code in the future. II. SUMMARY OF CHANGES (see ordinance for specific language): Design Review Trigger Section 1. This section creates a new paragraph within the Design Review chapter. This contains the language allowing the 500 sq. ft. expansions without requiring upgrades of existing nonconforming conditions on site. 250 Ordinance Sections 2 and 3. These sections eliminate the 250 sq. ft. additions for multiple-family developments. 250 additions for multiple family dwelling units are only allowed to be interior, and therefore by adding multiple-family dwelling units to the Interior Conversion section, there is no use for these provisions. This change does not take any existing right away from a multiple family dwelling unit owner, but rather expands rights to interior expansions of floor area. Interior Conversions Sections 4 and 5. These sections amend the Interior Conversion section of the code by adding multiple- family dwelling units. All regulations in the area stay the same except that provisions precluding multiple family developments are removed. This allows multiple family units to expand floor area beyond the previous 250 limitation. 2 Conditional Uses Sections 6 -14. These sections amend the conditional uses listed in each zone district by removing any specific conditions that a use must meet. These specific conditions are moved to the conditional use chapter of the code. This is similar to what was done last year for fractional fee clubs. Any use specific criteria is list in the conditional use chapter, instead of being repeated throughout every district in the code. Section 15. This section creates a new subsection (12-16-7) in Chapter 16 of the Zoning Regulations, entitled "Use Specific Criteria and Standards." In this subsection, all conditional use permit standards and criteria are listed for any use requiring additional review criteria and standards. This reorganization is needed to develop a consistent method of amending the code. The Town Council directed staff to revise this section in review of a proposed amendment to the code. Staff believes this will make the code less cumbersome to read. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. F: \ E V E A YO N E\ P E CUvI E M O S\98\D E S I G N T R.622 3 ~ . ORDINANCE N0.10 Series of 1998 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 11, DESIGN REVIEW, SECTION 12-11-5: DESIGN GUIDELINES; ADDING A PROVISION ALLOWING LEGAL NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY, TWO-FAMILY, AND PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE EXPANDED BY 500 SQ. FT. OR LESS WITHOUT REQUIRING STRUCTURES AND SITES TO BE FULLY COMPLIANT WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES; AMENDING CHAPTER 15, GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA), SECTION 12-15-5: ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (250 ORDINANCE), DELETING SUBSECTION 12-15-5(C) WHICH ALLOWS A 250 SG1. FT. ADDITION TO MULTfPLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS; AMENDING CHAPTER 15, GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA), SECTION 12-15-4: INTERIOR CONVERSIONS, TO ALLOW INTERIOR CONVERSIONS IN MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS; AMENDING CHAPTER 16, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, AND CREATING A NEW SECTION 12-16-7: USE SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND STANDARDS. WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to allow homeowners the abiliry to construct small additions to dwelling units without overburdening owners with costs associated with bringing legal nonconformities into compliance with existing design guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Town Council believes reorganizing certain sections of the Zoning Regulations will make them easier to read and use; WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has recommended approval of this amendment to the Vai( Municipal Code at its June 22, 1998 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to amend said Chapter and Sections of the Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Title 12, Chapter 11, Design Review, subsection 12-11-3 is hereby amended to add the following paragraph: C. Nonconforming sites and structures; Effect of Design Guidelines: Buildings and sites which are not in conformance with the Design Guidelines, due to annexations or changes in code provisions (i.e., legal nonconformities), shall be required to conform with the Design Guidelines when allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA) (the GRFA that is permitted by the density control section of various zone districts), commercial floor area, or garage area credit is added to any existing structure or site. From the effective date of this ordinance (July 21, 1998), there shall be permitted a one-time exclusion from this provision for an expansion to single-family, two-family, and primary/secondary residential dwelling units. This one-time exclusion shall be allowed for a single expansion of 500 sq. ft. or less of allowable GRFA or garage area credit per dwelling unit. In which case, structures may be expanded without requiring upgrades to entire structures and sites to conform with the Design Guidelines. The addition itself, however, shall conform with the Design Guidelines. An expansion which is greater than 500 sq. ft., or any subsequent expansion to a structure, regardless of size, shall require full compliance of the ~1{ir~a ~ar~it site other ' ' with the Design Guidelines. General maintenance and upkeep of a properry shall continue to be required regardless of the amount of floor area added to a structure. The one-time exclusion noted above shall not Ordinance No. 10 , Series of 1998 1 L . ? preclude the Design Review Board, pursuant to the Design Guidelines, from requiring landscaping and other improvements necessary to buffer or mitigate development impacts associated with the expansion/remodel. Expansions made pursuant to Section 12-15-5, Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance), shall require full compliance of the entire site with the Design Guidelines. Interior conversion additions pursuant to Section 12-15-4, Interior Canversions, shall not trigger the requirement for upgrading sites and structures to fully comply with the Design Guidelines, unless it can be classified as a demo/rebuild, pursuant to Section 12-2-2 of this Title. ' Section 2. Title 12, Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), subsection 12- ' 15-5(A) (Additional Gross residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance)) is hereby amended to read as ; follows: [Note: Text which is s#rielcen is being deleted and text which is sttod~ is being added.] A. Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwelling units which have been in existence within the Town for a period of at least five (5) years by permitting the addition of up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) to such dwelling units, provided the criteria set forth in this Section are met. This Section does not assure each single-family or two-family dwelling unit located within the Town an additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet, and proposals for any additions hereunder shall be reviewed closely with respect to site planning, impact on adjacent properties, and applicable Town development standards. The two hundred fifty (250) square feet of additional gross residential floor area may be granted to existing single-family dwellings;::;akhtl existing two-family ' dwelling units only once, but may be requested and granted in more than one increment of less than two hundred fifty (250) square feet. Upgrading of an existing dwelling unit under this Section shall include additions thereto or renovations thereof, but a demo/rebuild shall not be included as being eligible for additional gross residential floor area. Section 3. Title 12, Chapter 15, Gross Residentia! Floor Area (GRFA), subsection 12- 15-5(C) is hereby deleted in its entirety. Section 4. Title 12, Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), subsection 12- 15-4(B) (Interior Conversions) is hereby amended to read as follows: [Note: Text which is s#r+eken is being deleted and text which is s~~~i~tl is being added.] B. Applicability: y;;t~u;;;U,i:it , two , ~e+lin~ s that exceeds allowable GRFA will be eligible to make interior conversians provided the following criteria are satisfied: 1. Any existing s+ng+etafn+l~ dwelling unit „ „ shall be eligible to add GRFA, via the "interior space conversion" provision in excess of existing or allowable GRFA including such units located in a special development district; provided, that such GRFA complies with the standards outlined herein. 2. For the purpose of this Section, "existing unit" shall mean any dwelling unit within~ that has been constructed prior to August 5, 1997 and has received a certificate of occupancy, or has been issued a building permit prior to August 5, 1997 or has received final Design Review Board approval prior to August 5, 1997. Section 5. Title 12, Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), subsection 12- 15-4(D) (Interior Conversions) is hereby amended to read as follows: D. Process: Applications shall be made to the Department of Community Development staff on forms provided by the Department. Applications for interior conversions to at1y::dW#[1in~ unit ' , ' , ' located in a special songle two development district (SDD) pursuant to this Section shall also be allowed without amending the GRFA provisions of the SDD. However, properties with GRFA restrictions recorded on the plat Ordinance No. 10 , Series of 1998 2 for the development shall be regulated according to the plat restrictions unless the plat is modified to remove such restrictions. The planning staff will review the application to ensure the proposed addition complies with all provisions of the interior conversion section. Submittals shall include: [remainder of paragraph remains unchanged] Section 6. Major arcade, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Sections 12-7B-2(C) and 12-7E-4 of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Major arcade. Section 7. Barber shops, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Section 12-7B-3(C) of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Barber shops, beauty shops, and beauty parlors. Section 8. Bakeries and confectioneries, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Sections 12-76-2(B)(1), 12-713-2(13)(3), 12-7B-3(B)(1), 12-7B-4(A)(6), 12-7B-4(A)(7),12-7B-5(B)(1) and 12- 7B-5(B)(2) of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Bakeries and confectioneries. Section 9. Brew Pubs, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Sections 12-7C-4, 12-7D-2, 12-7E-4, 12-7F-4(A), and 12-7F-4(B) of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Brew pubs. Section 10. Commercial storage, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Sections 12-7C-4 and 12-7D-2 of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Commercial storage. Section 11. Television stations, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Section 12-7C-4 of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Television stations. Section 12. Transportation businesses, et a(, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Sections 12- 71D-2, 12-7F-4(A), and 12-7G-3 of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Transportation businesses. Section 13. Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, subsection 12-16-6(A)(7) is hereby deleted in its entirety. Section 14. Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, Sections 12-16-7 and 12- 16-8 are hereby renumber as 12-16-8 and 12-16-9, respectively. Section 15. Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, Section 12-16-7 is hereby added to read as follows: 12-16-7: Use Specific Criteria and Standards: The following criteria and standards shall be applicable to the uses listed below in consideration of a conditional use permit. These criteria and standards shall be in addition to the criteria and findings required by Section 12-16-6. Uses and Criteria: Bakeries and confectioneries The use shall be restricted to preparation of products specifically for sale on the premises. Barber shops, beauty shops and beauty parlors No exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area is permitted. Brew pubs a. There shall be no exterior storage of supplies, refuse, or materials on the property upon which the brew pub is operated. b. The operator of the brew pub shall comply with the Town's loading and delivery regulations as set forth in this Tiile. c. Brew pubs which sell beer or ale at wholesale or which sell beer for off-site consumption are allowed so long as the total of wholesale sales and sales for off- site consumption do not exceed forty five percent (45%) of the product manufactured by the brew pub on an annual basis. Commercial storage No exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area is permitted. Ordinance No. 10 , Series of 1998 3 ~ . t Convenience food stores a. Maximum store size shall be 8,000 sq. ft. b. No more than thirty three percent (33°to) of the gross building area of the entire structure on-site. Major arcade ~ a. No exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area is permitted. ' b. Amusement devices shall not be visible or audible from any public way, street, walkway, or mall area. Television stations a. The production room/studio shafl be visibfe from the street or pedestrian mall. b. The television station shall be "cable-cast" only, requiring no additional antennas. Time-share estate, fractional fee, fractional fee club, or time-share license proposal: Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for a time-share estate, fractional fee, fractional fee club, or time-share license proposal, the following shall be considered: a. If the proposal for a fractional fee club is a redevelopment of an existing facility, the fractional fee club shall maintain an equivalency of accommodation units as are presently existing. Equivalency shall be maintained either by an equal number of units or by square footage. If the proposal is a new development, it shall provide at least as much accommodation unit gross residential floor area (GRFA) as fractional fee club unit gross residential floor area (GRFA). b. Lock-off units and lock-off unit square footage shall not be included in the calculation when determining the equivalency of existing accommodation units or equivalency of existing square footage. c. The ability of the proposed project to create and maintain a high level of occupancy. d. Empfoyee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment fractional fee club project requesting density over that allowed by zoning. The number of employee housing units required will be consistent with employee impacts that are expected as a result of the proj ect. e. The applicant shall submit to the Town a list of all owners of existing units within the project or building; and written statements from one hundred percent (100%) of the owners of existing units indicating their approval, without condition, of the proposed fractional fee club. No written approval shall be valid if it was signed by the owner more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of filing the application for a conditional use. Transportation businesses a. All vehicles shall be parked upon approved parking areas. b. AII vehicles shall be adequately screened from public rights of way and adjacent properties, consisting of landscaping and berms, in combination with walls and fences, where deemed necessary to reduce the deleterious effects of vehicle storage. c. The number, size and location of vehicles permitted to be stored shall be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission based on the adequacy of the site for vehicle storage. Consideration shall be given to the adequacy of landscaping and other screening methods to prevent impacts to adjacent properties and other commercial and/or residential uses. d. Parking associated with transportation businesses shall not reduce or compromise the parking required for other uses on-site. Ordinance No. 10 , Series of 1998 4 , . Section 16. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 17. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 18. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 19. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 7th day of July, 1998, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 21 st day of July, 1998, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Robert E. Ford, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED IN FULL thiS 21 st day of July, 1998. Robert E. Ford, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk F:\EVERYONE\ORD\98\ORD10.98 Ordinance No. , Series of 1998 5 Colorado Travei Trends -1991 us 1992 , 1992 was an important benchmark, since it was the last year of full funding for the Colorado Tourism Board. Since that time, spending on statewide tourism promotion has been minimal. Our tracldng data show that the loss of state funding has had a serious negative impact on Colorado Ouernight Pleasure Trips to Colorado tourism. It took two years for the business to 1992 to 1991 bo`t°m °ut. 25 By 1994, the number of overnight pleasure trips dropped by 2.7 million. Total visitation has recov- 20 ered gradually since then, and in 1997 fmally Q - exceeded 1992 levels. However, this recovery is . 1 5 based entirely on a significant increase in visits to -?iF o friends/relatives. The VFR segment is low-value o 10+9.9 Zo e and is driven mainly by population growth, not _ 17.6 17.2 ns 19~4 marketing. Higher value "marketable" pleasure ~ trips to Colorado actually declined by 1.6 million 5 (13%) during a period when U.S. pleasure travel o showed major growth. 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 As a result, the state's competitive position has eroded dramatically: • Since 1992, Colorado's share of U.S. overnight pleasure trips has declined by 30%. • After years of being a leading summer resort destination (ranked first among U.S. states in 1993), Colorado has failed to make the top 10 in recent years. • Colorado residents are now accounting for a significantly greater proportion of the state's tourism pie, vs. out-of-state visitors. • Adjusting for inflation, tourism spending in Colorado has dropped by $847 million (15 since 1992. Structure of Colorado's Colorado's Share of U.S. Ouernight Pieasure Trips Pleasure Trauel Market 15 n 2. F 0 10 ~ _ U 1, O N ~ 5 s.s ~ O 7.3 ~ ~ 0 0. 1992 1997 1992 1997 Visit Friends/Relatives Other Pleasure Trips 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 ; t ' Colorado's RanK Among 50 States as a Pleasure Trauel Expenditures Summer Resort Desdnation s 1992 us 1997 = $847 Million 6 y 5 - - 0 4 co 6.5 10 2 ~ ~ 15 ` - * 17 'Adjustedforinflation 1992 1997 20 - The Bottom Linc 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 The 1997 Colorado travel story has elements of both good news and bad news. The good news is that the tourism industry made a huge contribution to the state's economy, generating $7.1 billion in expenditures, $1.5 billion Pleasure Trips by Colorado Residents in payroll, 112,000 jobs, and $388 million in state and local taxes. These are conservative numbers, with no assumptions about "multipliers" and 35 "ripple effects." Even better news is that the taxes are coming largely from 30 " the pockets of non-residents, who only pay taxes in Colorado when they visit. 25 ~ The bad news is that business has declined in terms of both quality and r(-D 20 - quantity. Without a strong marketing stimulus, Colorado is changing from a 15 32 _ a national to a regional destinadon, one that is increasingly driven by local ~ ~ 21 - residents and people visiting family and friends. The result is a 15 % decline in expenditures, taking inflation into account, and a 30% drop in Colorado's 5 share of the U.S. pleasure travel market since 1992. 0 ' If Colorado had maintained its competitive position, the result would be 1992 1997 over $2 billion in additional tourism expenditures in 1997 alone. This report was prepared for the Calorado Tourism Board and the Colorado Travel and Taurlsm Authority by~~~gwoods ~ International. Visitor volume and market share data come from Travel USAO, Longwoods' syndica#ed surv+ey of the U.S. travel market that contacts a representative sample of 200,000 U.S. households annualiy. Foilow-up surveys of Colorado travelers identified through #hat program provided additional information, including traveler spending data, 1997 traveler spending estimates were developed by Dean Runyan Associates using the survey data and various other sources of information including Colorado room tax receipts and sales tax receipts on lodging, the Rocky Mountain Lodging Report - Denver Edition, and data from Colorado campgrounds. The 1992 pleasure travel spending estimate is from Longwoods' 1992 report for the Colorado Tourism Board and is based on survey data only. The impacts of traveler spending on payroll, employment and taxes were estimated by Dean Runyan Associates based on business spending, employment and payroll data provided by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, payroll and receipts data published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, and relevant local and state tax rates. - r= savowmanKnw u TOWN OF VAIL ~ Office of the Town Manager 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 . . . . . 970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157 TM MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager DATE: July 2, 1998 SUBJECT: Town Manager's Report 4th of Julv Weekend We are prepared for the anticipated crowds on the 4th of July. In addition to the Vail PD, we have hired 6 additional officers on Thursday, 12 additional officer of Friday, and 11 additional officers on Saturday. Additionally, we have arranged for the Crossroads Theater to show two movies at 12:15 a.m., Armageddon and Six Days Seven Nights. Cost is $7.00 for the public and we have guaranteed at least $700.00 in revenue for the theater. Because of the excessive dry conditions the Fireworks have been canceled. This decision was based on recommendations from the Vail Fire Department and the U.S. Forest Service. RWM/aw L~~ RECYCLEDPAPER ~ 'Er • :,,'u.'~.:,;:,` . ':y,t+,"~, .g, r„ . 06/ 30/ 1998 12: 32 9704766008 UVTCB • E''" ,~„i # ' ! • ' ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~?i.~, VARJLa VALLEYSUY ~ vAtL - BFAVER tRCFK! Rf50RT AV`Q~ Y $a y,~ ~4 7. ' Xl~ i f ~ k a+ - 5 r F", C1 <rmD 4.~ no~~ Date: June 307 1998 To: xown Manager's Office FoC: RoU Ford, lrloyor 'W. a~,~?tA~,vas.•, . NV4 Vail Town Council Members Bob McLaurin From: Frank Johnson Invitation to participate in Marketing jBoard 1999 Planning Session k (Attached) Qs., • < : , . d~ v k ~ ti _ Y S~h , ' r~A•py~.' *f~'a,~n.4~ • st - Y,3:~ ~:3•~ ~ _ _ 4E • v'Y ~~~h"~ . ' • , l' ~ _ - ° i t` ' . • ~ _Y.,~ ;,i:.l;i.:~ ~'k_";, ;:a` - ' • _ ~r:: : y ~ ~ ' , ~ ~.`t • 1;~ ' , V,~~~ V,~Ltf_v MnnKr.'i'iNi, l~~~xrtn iuu L,4S-r MrnuuW OFtvr. VaiL. COlana»o 8,657 a~;< 06/30/1998 12:32 9704766008 VVTCB ` PAGE 02/02 g i- . x.~~ 'sX ~,y ~ t F ~ VM~. ~.~I.Y SUAO r r ~ yy _VAIt • nEnVER GeEk'K RESORT W t,.jK - ° ~a» YOU ARE CORDIALLY INVITED TD JOIN THE VAIL VAx.LEY MARKETIlNG BOARD . •.r in tbeir 1999 PRUGRAM "B17AIN5TORMINC SESSION" , , . Xteview past Sumroer Marketing Campaigns and initial planning for 1999 Campaign --1' A~ ; . { Q a~ k Monday, July 6 7_30 a.m. -12 noon . 5 "A ~A.. 'X'HE PINES LODCxE, BEA'VER CREEK Continental Breakfast will be served ~ Please plsn to attend:' , s 4~Y R.S.V.P. to Jean at 476-1000, Exteasion 3007 or fax 4764008 , . Vt VniC VnLLF.1' ~1,~n~:F'il~i. Ba,~ttu i00 Fns'i' MLA[~qw DKIVE ~t.. C~Lnr.nnc~ 8,6~7 \ l~ TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 ~ 970-479-21 DO FAX 970-479-2157 ~ MEDIA ADVISORY July 1, 1998 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office VAIL TOWN COUNCiL HIGHLlGHTS FOR JUNE 30 Special Evening Meeting Briefs Council members present: Armour, Arnett, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Kurz, Navas --Consideration of Common Ground Recommendation After hearing from 59 citizens during more than four hours of testimony, the Council voted 6-1 (Jewett against) to approve a resolution adopting the Common Ground plan for hausing, parks, open space, sites for community facilities and a funding plan to provide for the improvements. The plan was modified yesterday to reflect community concerns that have been expressed since publication of the recommended plan. The most significant change was a decision to remove all references to density in the plan. Density decisions on the 12 housing sites will now be made during the development review process. The resolution states the town will use criteria such as "compatibility o` the density of adjacent development, traffic and parking constraints, impacts to neighborhood services and the abifify to cost effectivefy achieve the town's housing goals" in determining density of the future housing projects. Risc yesterday, Council established an inteni to use no more than $340,000 a year--the amount equivalent to the soon-to-be retired golf course mortgage payment--to be sunset in the year 2006 from the Real Estate Transfer Tax as one of five funciing sources for the plan--but only if the RETT funds are "absolutely necessary" after the four other funding sources have been exhausted. The other funding sources include refinancing the town's debt; proceeds from the sale of two town-owned sites on Willow Way and Beaver Dam Rd.; continued use of the town's hausing fund; and revenues generafed by the safe of lahd acquired through the TOV/USFF land exchange. Specifically, the plan will add 130 acres ef open spacs, four new parks, 12 housing developments, as well as three sites for community facilities over the next eight years. During discussion last night, public reaction was mixed and fairly balanced. Some called for a public vote on the plan, while others said that although the plan wasn't perfect, the Council should move ahead. There were density concerns and questions about the town's housing role, as well as criticism of the business community for nat doing more to hefp sofve the problem. Some called upon the town to preserve its open space, while others argued that using 19 acres of the town's 1,100 acres of open space was a small price to pay to bring more affordable housing into Vail. Six of the seven councilmembers opted to move forward, noting the multiple opportunities ahead for public participation in establishing densities for the housing sites. The dissenting vote from Michael Jewett came after Jewett suggested tabling the plan for a month and/or taking it to a public vote. The plan adopted last night now serves as a conceptual document that will guide a series of implementation steps. Each housing and park site will undergo a development review process. The open space sites will be processed for protected designation status, while discussions on (more) L~ RECYCLEDPAPER TOV Council Highlights/Add 1/7-1-98 appropriate uses for the community facility sites will begin soon. Also, an ordinance to consider a change in the allocation of the RETT funds will be prepared. For more information, contact Andy Knudtsen, project manager, at 479-2440. UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS July 7 Work Session Bond Refinancing Discussion _ " DRB Review Lionshead Master Plan Discussion of Ordinance #9, re: SDD #33 July 7 Evening Meeting First Reading, Ordinance #9, re: SDD #22 First Reading, Ordinance #10, re: Design Review Trigger Marketing Presentation by Frank Johnson Parking Discussion Lionshead Master Plan July 14 Work Session PEC Review Discussion of Marketing Bill July2i Work Session DRB Review Budget Meeting (noon to 5 pm) July 21 Evening Meeting Second Reading, Ordinance #9, re: SDD #22 Second Reading, Ordinance #10, re: Design Review Trigger 1997 Audit Report - AIPP Slide Lecture by Professor Erika Doss # # # • 6 4VAIL TOWN OF 75 South Frontage Road vail, Colorado 81657 ' 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 • • ' • MEDtA ADVISORY TM July 1, 1998 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office FOURTH OF JULY PARADE IMPACTS Vail's annual Fourth of July parade begins at 10 a.m. Saturday starting at Golden Peak and ending at Lionshead (staging area will be on Mi!I Creek Circle). Due to the route of the parade, Vail Valley Drive and Hanson Ranch Road will be closed periodically from approximately 9 a.m. until the parade passes through. In addition, traffic at West Meadow Drive at Vail Road, South Frontage Road at West Forest Road and West Lionshead Circle will be controlled but congested and drivers are urged to use alternate routes until the end of the parade. For more information regarding travel access during the parade, contact the Vail dispatch center at 479-2200. PARKING OPTIONS TO INCLUDE PAID, CLOSE-IN PARKlNG AT FORD PARK Ford Park's managed parking program will be in place from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. July 3, 4 and 5. The $5 per car close-in parking program will be effective at three lots: the Ford Park lot on South Frontage Road, and the soccer field and Golden Peak Children's ski school lots on Vail Valley Drive. Parking is traditionally tight during the annual Vail America Days celebration with both parking structures filling early each day. Parking will be allowed on South Frontage Road once both parking structures fill. SAFETY REMINDER FOR FOURTH OF JULY FIREWORKS Remember, it is illegal to use fireworks within the Town of Vail. If it flies, explodes or generates smoke, iYs illegal. Today's reminder from the Vail Fire Department comes after fire destroyed a playground Monday (6-29) at Stephens Park in Vail, causing an estimated $75,000 to $100,000 in damages. Fireworks are believed to have caused the blaze. The fire danger is very high this week due to the dry conditions. For more information, please contact the Vail Fire Department at 479-2250. TOWN OFFICES CLOSED FR1DAY FOR JULY 4TH HOLIDAY Town of Vail offices will be closed for business Friday (7-3) for the holiday weekend. However, emergency personnel, including police and fire departments will be on duty and the buses will be running as weil Friday. The Vail Public Library will be closed on Friday (7-3) and Saturday (7-4), however the Library's annual book saie will be held on those days from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the Library's community room. The Library will reopen its doors on Sunday at 11 a.m. For more information, contact Annie Fox, Library director, at 479-2184. ~,s4 RECYCLED PAPER Jul-01-98 05:01P AL LITWAK 303 771-0213 P.02 T ~ Alfred Litwak 7273 South Ga.rfield Street Littleton, CO 80122 July 1, 1998 Town Council Town of Vail 75 Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Council Members: My wife and I are property owners in Lionshead and I am writing with brief reactions to the proposals for Lionshead redevelopment. I have read the Apri121, 1998 memo to Council from the Master Plan Team and found it quite disturbing. The memo exaggerates the defects of Lionshead and underestimates its virtues. The Team appears to be in the process of creating a bustling urban environment ia what is now a tranquil, family-friendly, sicier-friendly mountain community. I hope that the Council wili reject proposals that will radically alter Lionshead's character. The Team's memo describes a Lionshead that is foreign to those who visit frequerrtly and appreciate what Lionshead has to offer--space, views, areas to stroll through casually, limited building mass and many other desirable features. True, rehabititation and improvement in some properties could enhance the visitor's experience. But some of the Team's recommendations are so drastic as to aher fundamentally the nature of Lionshead. What's more, some of the Team's objectives may be mutualiy inconsistent. For examp[e, the proposed addition of activities and amenities, in my view, would reauce the appeal of Lionshead as a relatively tranquil family community. As a result, "the creation of additionai bed base" would not bring a"stronger economic base", because Lionshead's traditional clientele wouId be alienated. Occupancy would decline, not improve. Buildings as high as 94 feet would create a claustrophobic environment in what is now open and pleasurable space. Masses like those proposed by the Team would be utterly revolting to many who come to Vaif to escape the confines of an urban environment. In short, the Team's recommendations have an ivory tower quality whose results will not be applauded by the Lionshead community as a whole. I hope that the council wilt reject those recommendations of the Team that woutd greatly increase masses and alter Lionshead's intimate character. At very least, the Council should defer a decision on the Team's recommendations until a representative cross Jul-01-98 05:01P AL LITWAK 303 771-0213 P.01 . section of the community has had the opportunity to react to the specifics of the Master Plan. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. I know how busy the Council is and I commend its members for taking time to consider dissenting views. Thank you very much. Si rely, , Alfrad I:itwalc . RECEIVED JUL 1 10 Vail 00 Village Merchant Association ~ ' PO Box :.135, Vail, CO 81658 X C: CBtw~u,t, _ ' rt,c,~al~ ~ . ~ - << ~ v To: Bob McLaurin From: Kaye Ferry, Chairman Family Fest and Chili Cook Off Re: Summer Construction Larry Pardee Date: June 28, 1998 On behalf of the Family Fest and Chili Cook Off, I would like to express "our sincere appreciatiion for the efforts of Larry Pardee over the last few days. When I expressed our concern about Siebert Circle and its availability for use during the weekend of June 26, Larry spared no effort in working with us so that the space was cleared and ready for us. We all know that it was no small task and his energy in coordinating the proj ect was greatly appreciated as we11 as the efforts of Todd Oppenheimer. I might take this opportunity to acknowledge the positive way with which he has managed the entire situation this summer. In my experience, he has done everything possible to work with the merchants in addressing concerns and problems and he has done so in a patient and polite manner even in the face of some very tedious and difficult situations. While I know that you receive your fair share of complaints about employees, it is important that you be made aware of employees that are a credit to the Town and the . community. It has been a pleasure working with him and his staff in _ what could have been difficult circumstances. SinTFerjry ely, Kay cc: Larry Grafel Memorandum To: Town Council From: Andy Knudtsen Subject: Common Ground Taking the process to the next level Date: July 2, 1998 " 1. Next Steps Moving forward in the Common Ground process, staff has identified the steps which must be taken to implement the decision made this past Tuesday. Staff will provided a detailed plan for the Council to discuss at its July 14th worksession that will build on the outline provided below. A. Community Facilities Identify Start date for public involvement process Potential involvement of the VA/TOV task force B. Open Space Reconvene committee to review open space parcels and give recommendation to Council Set date for presentation to Council for dedication C. Parks Work with Public Works to revise work program to address design and construction of Phase I parks Incorporate recommendation into RETT budget D. Housing Acquisition of sites (Hud Wirth, Timber Ridge) Plan process for determining appropriate densities Implement funding sources Sale of land acquired from the LOA Sale of two parcels Refinance the Town Debt On-going dedication of Housing Fund Rett Business Community Participation Role for future partners E. Other efforts Employee housing district rezoning Employee generation ordinance ~ ~ U. Themes During the Council discussion on June 30, the following themes were expressed by members of the public who addressed the Council. Staff has provided them to identify the points which the community continues to emphasize. Listening to the comments and continuing to address them will increase the community's confidence in the process. ? Involve the business community financially in the development of seasonal housing. ? Clearly document the funding needs, the appropriations, and the product to be created. ? Involve all neighborhoods, more than what are included in the final Common Ground recommendation. This could be done via the buy downs. ? Most community members acknowledged the need to address housing, although there was debate as to the best way to address the need. ? Provide additional opportunities to contribute and influence the process. ? Continue to distribute housing through out the community. ? Reduce densities. ? Continue to address all four categories parks, open space, housing and community facilities. ? Simplify the information made available to the public for comment. ? Include other options to solve the housing problem, in addition to the siting and funding proposal. An employee generation ordinance is an example of this. III. Resolution Staff has attached Resolution 9, Series 1998 approved on June 30 with Eachibit A, documenting the siting plan, specified uses, phasing, and funding sources. RESOLUTION NO. 9 SERIES OF 1998 ADOPTING A PLAN FOR HOUSING, PARKS, OPEN SPACE, SITES FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND A FUNDING PLAN TO PROVIDE FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS. WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council, Town staff and over two hundred interested citizens and homeowners have participated in a public process known as Common Ground; and WHEREAS, the Common Ground process has provided a well reasoned basis for the Vail Town Council to established a phased development plan to provide for-sale housing developments, seasonal housing developments, parks, open space and sites for community facilities; and WHEREAS, the analysis provided in the Common Ground process has identified densities which will be adjusted during the development review process to maintain the integrity of existing neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail will use, but not be limited to, the following criteria to detertnine density of future housing projects identified in Exhibit A during the development review process: compatibility to the density of adjacent development, traffic and parking constraints, impacts to neighborhood services, and the ability to cost effectively achieve the Town's housing goals; and WHEREAS, the Common Ground process has also provided a basis to adopt a funding plan. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado that: 1. The Vail Town Council adopts Exhibit A which is attached hereto as the siting matrix and funding plan to be implemented over the next eight years. 2. The Town Manager is hereby directed to take whatever steps are necessary to affect the actions and goals identified in the attached Exhibit. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. TTTmn /lTr r/'ir~ T+r~ . r. • 11....L~~~;~',rr1%-ivvhL) Hlv1J ADUrit is sUth day ot`Jun 1998. ~~ptlillinitt!,ytllJi~i'ir ~ 0 F = s EA L Robert E. Ford, Mayor ATTEST: ~ 3 • ' nmORuN rel ' onaldson, Town Clerk Resolution No. 9, Series of 1998 ' COMMON GROUND SfTiNG MATRIX 6/30198 Flrst Phase Location " Housin costs' swx oom 199&1999 ParlIts Portion of Lower 8ench 3-4 acres $360,000 Portion of West Vail 3.5 acres $75,000 Open Space L. Ladner 7.5 acres $40,000" Booth Cresk Stream Tract 2 acres $p Lionshead Sheam 7rad 3.5 acres gp Potato Patch Open Space 15 acras gp East Vail Water Tank 6.8 acros gp Upper Bench 30 acres gp Housing Tract C sale east $150,000 West Vail sale west $100,000 . Lionshead seasonal cenVal $p Lower Bench seasonal west $3,000,000••• buy-dawns $440,000 Acquisitions acquire Timber Ridge $75,000-•-* acquire Hud Wirth g1,200000 Community Facilrties Oefne needs and deternine funding options For selected sites Charter Bus Lot GoIF Coursa Club Hcuse Second Phase 20Q0 - 2002 Parks Tract A- West 4 acres $250,000 Portion of Middie Bench 1 acres $110,000 Open Space Tract A- Middle 5 acres gp Ka2 Butell 46 acres S400.000- Nousing Tract A- East sale east $0 Middle plus Dog Leg ol upper sale West $420,000 Hud Wirth sale west $p Timber RiJge seasonal west $3,000,000 Buy Downs sale dispersed $440,000 Community FacilRies Construct community facilities according to Phase I conclusions 7hird Phese 2003 - 2006 ' Parls none $0 Open Space Snowberry 13.9 acres $135,000" HcuE:lg WaterTreatment sale east $330,000 Mountain Bell sale central $600,000 Ir.termountain sale west $75,000 O!d Town Shops seasonal central $250,000 Buy Downs sale dispersed $440,000 Coir,runiry Facilities Will have b=en completed 'Gosts shown reAect the gap between ant cipated expendi!ures and projected revenues. Revenues have been based ^"affordable" sales and rental 2tes oF approximately $125'sq.ft. and 342511pedrocr'month respectively. Financing =ssumptions play a kay role in the seasona.l anaylsis. Off, site constructicn costs p!ay a key role in fie for-sa!e analysis. "Open space parcels to be purchased eppertunity Fcr betow-market acquisR:~as become ava;:able. "'i"t•; r. f;gure refleds the cost of cons:rucc; a park'n., ;:r,;-ture for totn the housc and par?c use;. Chezc=r ake~rc.!iGes are availab!e, but reduce pa.~^, area. Rec :c:n; se;sonal cen,itytypiv. - eases costs, as ecc.^~cmies of scale are reduced. This figure reftects the costs of assemb!ing a deva,oprrert team. Cnnsultants wi;i be required to provide objective opinions as to development potentia!. w i COMMON GROUND PREFERRED FUNDING PACKAGE PHASE I 1998-1999 Funding Sources: • Proceeds from sale of two land exchange properties** $2.5 million **(requires Council vote to use RETT funds for this purpose) • Proceeds frorn sale of two Town-owned sites ' $2.2 million (Willow Way and Beaver Dam Rd.) • TOV Housing Fund (funded out of capital budget) $300,000/year PHASE II 2000-2002 Funding Sources: • Refinancing of Town debt (first three of six annual payments) $500,000/year • Retired RETT-funded golf course mortgage payments** $340,000/year **(requires Council vote to use RETT funds for this purpose) • TOV Housing Fund (funded out of capital budget) $300,000/year PHASE III 2003-2006 Funding Sources: - • Retired RETT-funded golf course mortgage payments** $340,000/year **(requires Council vote to use RETT funds for this purpose) • Refinancing of Town debt (last three of six annual payments) $500,000/year • TOV Housing Fund (funded out of capital budget) $300,000/year Note: Allocations of retired golf course mortgage payments (RETT-funded) to be sunsetted in year 2006 Memorandum To; Town Council ' From: Andy Knudtsen ~ ~ Subject: Key Contacts Date: July 2, 1998 While many community members have participated in the Common Ground process and support the community's recommendations, there are several who have expressed reservations about the action Council has taken. Whether the statements threatening legal challenges lead to fiuition remains to be seen. To the extent Council members can contact individuals who have expressed concems and encourage their participation in the upcoming discussions on progranung and density, the support for the recent decision will solidify. The following general points may be helpful to mention in your conversations: Thanks for coming to the meeting on June 30th. We look forward to your continued participation. The Council is committed to moving forward in four different areas: parks, additional open space, housing and community facilities. The shape of the community facilities and the housing are yet to be determined your involvement is critical as the programing for the community facilities will be set and the densities for the housing will be set in the near future. Your participation will improve the final product. Bob Armour Stan Cope 476-0700 Sally Jackle 476-1300 Karin Scheidegger 476-8254 Michael Arnett Farrow Hitt 476-7906 Suzanne Sibly 476-4539 Valarie Fauland 476-8322 Rob Ford Jeff Gorsuch 479-9548 Kathy Landgenwalter 476-2585 3 Dick Cleveland 476-2585 Ludwig Kurz Paul and Carol Hymers 476-6033 Pete Feistrnann 476-4590 Ron Jones 476-0648 Sybill Navis Chas and Charmaine Burnhard 476-4712 - Flo Habberneck Russ Forrest Cynthia Burks 479-0670 Jerry Sibley 476-3791 Andy Knudtsen Paul Rondeau 476-4688 Alice Parsons 926-0449 Tom Moorhead Mary Jo Bamardo Suzanne Silverthorn Art Kleimer 479-0862 4 07/05/98 SUN 22:48 FAX 9709499227 SHANROCK Town Council Mem Z001 , , • • D n1zrnuI2 LCatLO /2 WMA MEETING - ~ WEDNESDAY, July 8, 1998 8:30AM , COLORADO SKI MUSEUM AGENDA ~ . • VAIL VALLEY EXCHANGE International Exchange Program • INTERNATIONAL FEST August 29th o SIEBERT CIRCLE PARTY August 8th • FREE AFTER THREE Parking pass program for 98/99 9 BUSINESS LICENSE FEE ~ TOWN OF VAIL 42 West Meatloiv Dri>>e Yail Fire Departirient Yail, Colorarlo 81657 970-479-2250 Press Release Date: July 2, 1998 Subject: Fiteworks Display Cancellation Town of Vail, 4th of July Celebration Contact: The Vail Fire Department, Chief Dick Duran 479-2250 Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau, Emily Jacob 476-1000 ext. 3015 U.S. Forest Service, Philip Bowden 328-6388 Vail, Colorado--July 2-- In a joint decision by the Town of Vail, the United States Forest Service, Vail Associates and the Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau (WTCB), the fireworks display in the Town of Vi?il, scheduled for 10 p.m. Saturday, has been canceled due to extremely hot and dry conditions. Taking ilito consideration the firs prevention orders from the White River National Forest Supervisor, the Bureau of Land Nlanagement District Manager and the fire ban from the Eagle County Sheriff, the decision to cancel was unznimous; this decision will not be reversed. "The risks associated with firing fireworks above the dry grasses and lodgepole pines in the Golden Peak vicinity is far too high to take any chances," according to Assistant Fire Chief John Gulick. The personnel and equipment usually available for such a fireworks display has been spread thin due to fires burning within the state and the forecasts of continued dry weather. The conditions are so extreme that according to Philip Bowden, Fire Management officer with the U. S. Forest Service, "In all the 15 years of data collection, less than 8°/a of the days within the fire season have been this dry." The Town of Vail will not tolerate any private fireworks and the White River National Forest also lias fire restrictions that will be enforced, according to Gulick. While other mountain communities have followed suit in canceling fireworks displays, the Town of Avon will not be affected by this decision, because the fireworks will be discliarged over Nottingham Lake. The festivities in Vail and Lianshead villages for Friday, Saturday and Sunday will go on as planned, with the exception of the fireworks display. People are encouraged to come out and enjoy the free entertainment in town, including live bands, the annual parade, roving entertainers and sidewalk sales. "It's unfortunate that we had to cancel Saturday night's show, but this was the most prudent Jecisiun we could make due to the extremely high fire danger in the area," said Bill Brice, director of special events and communications for the WTCB. The fireworks originally purchased for the July 4th display will be used iur future events within the Town of Vail. All of the agencies involved in this decision are concerned with fire safety. "We'd like to stress that with the hot, dry conditions people really need to follow all fire restrictions in place at this time." said Bowden. -END- • . ' RECE)1?Ep JUL 3 0 . ~ ELECTION . E . , . . - 1998 The Electimon. A Municipal Primer on Key Issues and How You Can Ma- ke a Difference ML 1660 Lincoin Street, Suite 2100 • Denver, Colorado 80264-2101 • Phone (303) 831-6411, FAX (303) 860-8175 CML 1660 Lincoin Street, Suite 2100 • Denver, Colorado 80264-2101 • Phone (303) 831-6411, FAX (303) 860-8175 MEMORANDUM To: Mayors, Managers or Clerks In Municipaliries Without A Manager, Municipal Caucus, Execurive Board From: Sam Mamet, Associate Director Subject: City/Town Involvement In Upcoming Candidate Elections Date: July 1, 1998 PLEASE SHARE THIS MEMORANDUM AND ENCLOSED MATERIALS WITH YOUR MUNICIPAL ' COLLEAGUES Introduction 1998 is a major election yeaz for the state. There are candidate races for the legislature, Congress, Governor and other statewide offices, and county commissioner. The outcome of these elections will affect municipal government in many ways. Your involvement is critical in expressing the local government viewpoint. Your active, informed, and nonpartisan parUcipation is strongly encouraged as one way to get the municipal position across to candidates rnnning for offiCe. . Now is the time for that communication to begin and continue throughout the upcoming election cycie. Candidates right now are getting political action questionnaires and surveys in order to gauge their positions on numerous state and federal issues--marry of ivhich are aimed at restricting the authority of cities and towns and impeding local control and home rule. What follows is a brief discussion on how you can exert greater leadership during this election yeaz. Setting The Tone While municipal funds may not be used to influence the outcome of candidate races (1-45-116(1)(a), C.R.S., which prohibits a muniGipali _ty from, among other things, "making any contribution or contribution in-kind in campaigns involving the nomination, retention, or election of any person to any public office"), appropriate municipal activity, especially cominp- from elected officials. will certainly help get candidates familiaz with the municipal perspecrive on state and federat issues. Your participation doesn't have to be fancy or slick. As a matter of fact, the more informal, the better: *Become familiar with the candidates and the posirions they have taken. Invite them in to meet with your ciry council or town board. Sponsor a forum where they can present their views to your municipal colleagues and the community as a whole. *Invite them over for a cup of coffee and show them your various municipal facilities. Get them acquainted with your operations and the services your municipality provides. For example, if your city or town owns and operates its own electric or gas system, make sure candidates see and understand this. Doing so will help you better explain the impacts of utility deregulation, for example. Especially point out things supported in part or in whole by state or federal grants. If your new community center was built with state energy imgact funds or a federal community development block grant, let a candidate for the state legislature or Congress know about the value of the program. If you just resurfaced a portion of your streets and used highway users taac fund revenue, 1et them lrnow how important it is for the state to share its transportation dollars with local communities. If you were previously getting a portion of the county's road and bridge mill levy, and it has -2- since been reduced or eliminated, let someone running for county commissioner know your concems. *Inform candidates about the importance of Iocally-raised revenues, especially die property and sales tax. Explain to them how your city or town has been impacted by TABOR and other restrictions. Give them a copy of your municipality's budget or other pertinent fiscal information. If your municipality is home rule, give a candidate a copy of your charter and explain the importance of local control which is represented by the charter. Whatever infomiarion or material you provide to one candidate should be provided to all candidates. This _ will impress upon these individuals that your municipal government is an excellent infarmation resource-=an attribute upon which a lasting reladonship can be built. Elected officials may want to become actively involved in candidate campaigns. While there is no better linkage than an elected official letting a candidate know about the municipality's concems on issues, make it clear that your individual involvement should not be construed in any way as an endorsement of that candidate by the municipality. Your city or town may also have policies in place goveming this activity that should be consulted. Personal endorsements are not without politica/ risks, especially if your candidate loses the election. You may want to weigh all the options befvre grving an endorsement. Finally, let us lrnow if you have endorsed a particular candidate. That information can become very useful to us here at the League as we develop our own relationship with candidates for office. Presenting the issues Enclosed with this cover memorandum is an issues paper we prepared for use in dealing with candidates running for statewide office, and a different one prepazed for candidates running for federal office. These will be sent to candidates shortly. You may want to develop your own issues statement modeled after ours. The more personalized the approach, and the closer the statement matches your own municipality's concerns, the more impact upon a candidate you are likely to have. You should outline in your statement what services your city or town provides, the importance of state and federally-shared revenues/grants in financing those services, and previous bills in the General Assembly and Congress that may have affected those services or programs and the positions you took on the measures. We'd appreciate your emphasis on the importance of the League and your support of League activity. Secure a pledge from each candidate that if elected that candidate will stay in regular communication with your municipality to get input on emerging issues and bilis that have or wiil be introduced. If your city or town has a legislative monitoring process in place, explain to the candidates how it works and who to contact. Supplying candidates with a list of key municipal contacts and their phone numbers will be appreciated by the candidates. Conclusion If your municipality develops some type of handout for candidates, please share it with us. If you need assistance in developing one, please don't hesitate to call us. Whatever success the League may enjoy under the Dome either in Denver or in Washington in 1999 and beyond will be due largely to your municipality's participation and attention to this important aspect of intergovernmental relations. Attachments CML encovrages mvnicipa/ officials to get involved with cand id ates by Sam Mamet, Associate Director \ share any he upcoming August primary and that. Municipal officials should try to avoid state higiiway needs only =alities. November general election will being seen as "just another speciai inter- of this with counties and deteimine Colorado's governor est." Stress the importance of a Sscal partner- and other statewide offices, the Wtule state law prohibits the expendi- st?ip with local govemment when meeting state's six U.S. House members, ture of public fimds toward political office with candidates. one of the state's two members of the U.S. campaigns [1-45-116(1)(a), C.R.S.J, noth- • Ensure thatkey federal-municipal Senate, half of the Colorado Senate, the ing prohibits municipal officials, especially program.s don't receive undue cuts--Exam- entire Colorado House of Representatives, elected off cials, from involvement with ples in this area include various environ- and many counry commissioners. political candidates during the clection mental programs like wastewater treahnent The decisions of federal, state, and cycle. Please check your own municipal- funding and the community development county officials weigh heavily on the oper- ity's policies, which might further govem block grant program. ations of municipal govemment. participation in partisan campaigns. • Don't mandate--Enough said! Where appropriate, municipal officials Here are a few issues to discuss with • Protect the county road and bridge mill are encouraged to participate in the devel- candidates: levy as a means of compensating municipal opment of party platfonns and the selec- • Keep home rule at home and local residents against double taxation. Let can- tion, nomination, and election of federal, control local--Too often there appears to didates running for counly commissionet state, and county officials. be a growing inclination by state and fed- know that you expect full consultation and There is no better time to get a candi- eral officials to preempt municipal suthor- cooperation in ttus shareback arrangement date's attention on vital municipal con- ity and decision making, especially when and in all other ways in which the deci- cerns than during a political campaign. the impetus is generated by a constituent sions of county govemment affect munici- T'here are many opporhinities to do this: complaint. Stress the importance of pro- pal interests, like land use poliey and spe- • Municipal officials, acting in an indi- tecting home rule and local control at every cial district formations. vidual capacity, may wish to work on can- opportunity. When speaking with candi- Secure a commitment from any candi- didate campaigns. This gives you an op- dates, let them lmow about home rule. date that if elected they will communicate portunity to educate candidates and their Give them a copy of your charter. with your city or town as often as possible campaign staff about the importance of • Retain local control over the sales tax-- to secure yow input on pending legislation. local government. At the state level, various proposals con- Let candidates Irnow you support the • Invite candidates to a meeting of the tinue to surface to raise the state sales tax work of the League and that your munici- town board or city council in order to be- or alter the state base. Indicate to legisla- pality is involved in the legislative policy come better acquainted. Tuin it into a tive candidates how a state inctease in the development of CML as the statewide community participation event where oth- sales tax or other changes (such as to the voice of municipal govemment. ers can participate in such a municipal base) may well affect your local collection Remember, what information you share forum. Ask the local media or other orga- and rate-setting capabilities. At the with one candidate should be shared at the nizations (like your local chamber, the national level, there have been proposals to same time with all other candidates. Your League of Women Voters, homeowner establish a national sales tax. Such a pro- municipality should be viewed by candi- associations, neighboring municipalities, posal could have significant impacts, many dates as an impartial, credible source of and other local govemment officials) to co- negative, upon municipal sales tax reli- infonnation. host it. ance. Other proposals have surfaced in During the coming weeks, the League • Provide candidates with position pa- Congress to preempt state and local tax will be distributing additional information pers on various municipal concems and policy in specific areas (i.e., intemet taxa- to each member municipality on emerging specific factual background on the opera- tion). statewide issues. tions of your city or town (e.g.. a copy of • Share increased state-collected, locally Numerous special interest political ac- your latest budget to emphasize the impor- shared revenues with local government-- tion committees are gearing up right now tance of state and federal sid or a copy of Strange as it may seem, state lawmakers to pressure candidates on their concerns, your home rule charter to emphasize the from time to time will consider raising end they back up that pressure with finen- notion of local control). state-collected, locally shared taxes, like cial contributions. • Elected officials might want to moder- the cigarette tax, and forget to share the You can rest assured that many of those ate forums or debates between candidates. proceeds with counties and municipalities. concerns are hostile to the interests of local This gives local government a prominence Instead, they'll sometimes consider cap- control and local community empower- in any discussion of the issues. ping or reducing local shares. Of particular ment--likely emerging as bills next legisla- • Don't ask candidates to fill out ques- concern has been ihe recent trend of the tive session that the League and municipal tionnaires or surveys. They get enough of state to expend general fund revenue for officials will have to fight. CML l[fill 9#•11 fil 1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 2100 • Denver, Cotorado 80264-2101 • Phone (303) 831-6411, FAX (303) 860-8175 MEMORANDUM - To: Candidates For State Level Office From: Sam Mamet, Associate Director Subject: Municipal Government Background Date: July 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this background memorandum is to provide you with some brief information on some key issues of statewide municipal concem, the structure and organization of municipal government in Colorado, and the League and it's functions. We hope you find the following information useful. 1998/9 STATEWIDE ISSUES OF MUNICIPAL CONCERN Local Control and Home Rule. The League believes strongly in the philosophy of local control allowing municipal govemments maximum flexibility and discretion in levying taxes and fees, carrying out local policy (like land use and aoning), and delivering public services. We encourage you to consider this philosophy as you develop your own position on issues. We feel strongly that local control should remain local and that home rule should stay at home, not centralized at the State6ouse. Preservation of Municipal Land Use Authority. The League encourages the legislature to resist incursions into municipal authority over ]oca] land use issues. With increasing frequency, the General Assembly has considered legislation preempting the authority of local officials in making these policy decisions. Nothing is more basic to the notion of local control and home rule than community decision=making over land use. Protection of Local Sales Tax Authority. Some 70 exemptions to the state sales and use tax base have been enacted over the past 20 years. These exemptions have substantially reduced the state base, thereby restncting revenues available for state programs. Just as importantly, these exemptions have also hurt municipalities and counties in the state sales tax collection system because, with a few exceptions, their sales tax base must confonn by law with that of the state's. Also, various proposals have been considered in recent years to increase the state sales and use tax rate for vanous state programs. As municipalities and counties continue to increase their reliance upon the local sales taxes . (which thereby reduces reliance upon the property tax), the League opposes raising the state's rate. Finally the League strongly supports retention of the authority for home rule municipalities to collect their own sales taxes and determine their own sales tax bases. Transportation Finance. Municipal officials believe that the adequacy of the statewide transportation system - state and local streets and transit systems - is vital to Colorado's future. With $13 billion of unfunded state and local transportation needs identified, the League supports increasing funding for both highways and alternative modes contingent upon an equitable portion of new revenues being returned to cities and towns. Fiscal Fair Play. Colorado cities and towns are impacted by many state finance policies. Adherence to the following "fiscal fair play" objectives, we believe, will enhance a positive relationship and partnership between state and municipal officials and enable municipalities to meet reasonable service expectations of their residents without mfnnging on the state's ability to address its other responsibilities. To this end, the League would urge you to: • Support sharing with municipalities equitable portions of existing and increased revenues derived from traditional state-collected, municipally shared revenues (i.e., cigarette tax, highway users tax fund, lottery). Support sharing state surplus revenues with local govemments for programs such as transportation. • Oppose state action reducing local property or sales tax revenues or their bases unless adequate replacement revenues are provided. • Avoid or exercise restraint in cash funding state programs affecting municipalities, especially in the areas of state technical assistance, in programs where municipal participation is mandated by state law, and in regulatory programs affecting municipalities where a benefit is derived by the public at lazge which should be supported by the state general fund. Mandates. The impact of state and federai mandates upon locai government is a major poiicy concem of many municipal officials. Towards that end, we urge the state to resist imposing additional, mandated responsibilities upon cities and towns without providing the financial resources to fund such mandates. State and IocaI leaders also must continue working together to convince the federal government to resist additional mandates being placed upon us . collectively. - Governmenta! Immunity. The General Assembly has considered measures offered by the plaintiffs bar to expand the liability of state and local govemment agencies through changes to the state's Governmental Immunity Act. These changes do not come without increased Sscal costs to the taxpayers. The current Act strikes a fair balance between plaintiff and taxpayer interests. Please be sensitive to this important government issue. Statewide Sotutions to Local Issues. Frequently, the legislature considers bills intended to address a real or perceived problem in one community, thereby creating adverse consequences for many other cities and towns. As constituents and special interest groups approach you with such statewide solutions, please reflect on what consequences such approaches might have in other areas of the state and whether there is even a psoblem to solve in the first place. Electric UtiGty Deregulation. This is an issue that has profound impact upon municipal governments, as well as other sectors of the state. Municipal implications include: franchise fee and tax revenues; access to rights-of-way; and impacts upon those cities and towns which own and operate their own utility systems among many other items. A legistatively-directed study is starting this summer on the issue. We urge your restraint in considering iegistation in the area until the study is finished. MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BACKGROUND INFORMATION What follows is some additional backgound infonnation on city and town govemment in Colorado, and the League as an organization. The data cited comes from a variety of state and CML sowces. Incorporation. An area becomes a municipality when citizens incorporate an area as a city or a town pursuant to applicable state law. T'here are 269 cities and towns in Colorado: 190 are statutory municipalities, 77 aze home rule municipalities and 2 are territorial charter municipalities. Towns aze incotporated areas generally 2,000 and under in population and cities aze incorporated areas generaily above 2,000 in popularion. Some differences in organizational structure and legal powers exist between cities and towns. Based upon current state population data, 7 1 % of Colorado"s citizens reside within municipality. In addition to municipalities, the state has 62 counties, 176 schoo] districts, over 800 special districts, and ] consolidated city and county government (Denver, which is also home rule). Home Rule, Statutory and Territorisl Charter Municipalities. Home rule for municipalities has a rich legal history in Colorado, both in the state's Constitution and statutes. This legal framework has been in effect since the tum of the century, first for Denver (when it was consolidated as a city and county in 1902) and with the option at the same time for other municipalities over 2,000 in population to adopt home rule. Powers of home rule cities were expanded with the adoption of another constitutional amendment in 1912. In 1970, the Colorado Constitution was amended again to grant to the citizens of any municipality, regazdless of population size, the power to become a home rule municipality. Today, 77 municipalities throughout the state are home rule. These home rule municipalities include within their boundaries 65% of ihe state's popularion. In general, municipal home rule is premised upon the public policy that the citizens of a city or town in Colorado should have the right to decide how their local govemment should be organized and local problems solved. Article XX of the Colorado Constitution grants to home rule municipalities "the full right of self-govemment in local and municipal matters." The home rule process is initiated with an eleotion establishing a study commission made up of the municipality's residents, who meet to write a charter governing the affairs of the municipality. Then, an election is held on the charter's adoption or rejection. If the charter is approved, the municipality organizes as a home rule community. The charter serves as that community's local constitution. In short, home rule represents the essence of local control for - cities and towns in Colorado, providing important policy and legal flexibility to a municipality and its citizens. There are 190 other cities and towns in Colorado which are statutory municipalities. Statutory municipalities are under general statutory control of the General Assembty with respect to their creation, organization, and powers. In general, a home rute municipality looks first to its charter and enabling ordinances to see what ?t can and cannot do; a statutory municipality looks first to state law, generally Tide 31 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, to ascertain what it can and cannot do. Finally, two other municipalities, Black Hawk and Georgetown, operate under charters originally granted to them by the territonal state government. These two municipalities are lrnown as temtorial charter cities. Their charters are amended from time to time by the Creneral Assembly. Municipat Revenue Sources. Among the major state revenue sonrces received, by municipalities aze: the motor fuel taac, vehicle registration fees, cigarette tax, severance tax, lottery, police and fire pension funds, mineral lease, and ° various state budget programs. " In addition to these important state revenues, a brief review of municipal own source revenue is in order, the foremost being the sales and use tax. In Colorado, municipalities and counties generally may levy up to a total of a four-cent local sales and/or use tax. The state generally has three cents reserved to itself for the general fund, which is in addition to the local government levy. The most recent data indicates that 46 counties and 205 municipalities are levying a sales and/or use tax. Forty-seven of the municipalities administer iheir own sales tax with the balance being collected and administered by the State Department of Revenue. Municipal sales taxes have been on the Colorado fiscal scene since 1948. Municipal sales and use taxes in Colorado constitute 7 1 % of municipal tax revenues. As emphasis upon the sales tax has increased among municipal officials in the state, reliance upon the property tax has declined. The municipal portion of the property tax, as a percentage levied by al1 units of loca] government in Colorado, has declined from 21.4% in 1945 to 4.9% in 1996 (excluding Denver). Nevertheless, the property tax remains a very important tax source for many municipalities. WHAT IS THE COLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE The Colorado Municipal League was founded in 1923 to provide technical assistance and advocacy on behalf of our municipal membership. The League now represents 261 ciries and towns comprising over 99.90/o of the municipal population in Colorado. The League conducts a variety of different programs and workshops; answers numerous inquiries on hundreds of local govemment questions; produces new publications of interest for municipalities, and follows well over half of al1 measures introduced during a regular legislative session. A 19-member Executive Board elected by the membership govems the League. Several standing committees of the League met and develop legislative and policy recommendations. This work is then presented to the League's Policy Committee, to which every member municipality can send a representative. In addition, the League has 20 sections (i.e., planning officials, police chiefs, city managers) and 14 regional districts which can also be represented on this Policy Committee. Final actions are then taken on the recommendations of the Policy Committee by the Executive Board. Our Executive Board and Policy Committee meet during each legislative session to develop League positions on bills and issues coming before the legislature. Bill Ray, Cortez City Manager, is the League's President. CONCLUSION We hope the information we have provided you in this memorandum is useful, and that you will keep the municipal government perspective in mind as you consider your own positions. We encourage you to contact your own cities and towns for additional information. They have been sent this material as well. Should you need additional material or assistance, please feel free to contact us. Best of luck! CML ~ 1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 2100 • Denver, Colorado 80264-21Q1 • Phone (303) 831-6411, FAX (303) 860-8175 MEMORANDUM . To: Candidates For Federal Level Office - From: Sam Mamet, Associate Director Subject: Municipal Government Background Date: July 8, 1998 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this background memorandum is to provide you with some brief information on some key federal issues of municipal concem, the structure and organization of municipal government in Colorado, and the League and it's functions. We hope you find the following information useful. 1998/9 FEDERAL ISSUES OF MUNICIPAL CONCERN Local Control and Home Rule. The League believes strongly in the philosophy of local control allowing municipal governments maximum flexibility and discretion in levying taxes and fees, cazrying out local policy (like land use and zoning), and delivering public services. We encourage you to consider this philosophy as you develop your own position on issues. For example, right now, the League has serious concerns about federal legislation that wouid preempt ow land use authonty in the "takings" azena (H.R. 1534, S. 1204, S. 1256), and in the labor relations area, where a measure would establish nationat collective bargaining standards for public employees (H.R. 1173). We feel strongly that local control should remain local and that home rule should stay at home, not centralized in Congress. Preservation of Muoicipal Land Use Aut6ority. The League encourages the Congress to resist incursions into municipal authonty over locai land use issues. With increasing frequency, the Congress has considered legislation preempting the authority of local officials in making these policy decisions. Nothing is more basic to the notion of local control and home rule than community decision-making over land use. Mandates. The notion of unfunded mandates at the federal level always arises. Recently-enacted statutory provisions allow individual Members to raise unfunded mandate "points of order" in objecting to such legislation. It is used, unfortunately, not enough-especially when state and local government leaders are battling powerful special interest groups. We urge you to resist encroaching upon state and local govemment authority in this regard. Taz Policy. Congress has under serious consideration an effort to restrict the state and local taxation of intemet sales. This is a move strongly opposed by municipal officials. We view this not only as a potential revenue loss to state and local government, but also negatively impacting Main Street business interests. Similarly, there are several efforts in Congress to abolish the federal income tax, or otherwise modify the federal tax system. One proposal that has caught the attention of some federal policymakers is establishing a national sales or value added tax. Such a tax could have prnfound ramifications for a state lilce Colorado which relies upon the sales tax as a major source of revenue at the state level, and the most important source of revenue raised locatly at the municipal level of government. A flat tax could also impair the tax exempt status of municipal bonds and the ability of local govemment to finance vanous public improvements and infrastructure. Electric Utility Deregulation. This is an issue that will have a major effect upon municipal govemment and our residents, as well as many other sectors of the state. Municipal implications include: franchise fee and tax revenue losses; limits on access to rights-of-rights; and impacts upon those cities and towns which own and operate #heir own utility systems among many other items. A legislatively-directed stuciy with involvement by the Colorado Public Utility Commission will be under way this summer for the next 18 months. It is an issue creating lots of interest in Congress. The League opposes any federal legislation which preempts or otherwise mandates deregulation upon Colorado. Railroads. The federal Surface Transportation Board, which resolves disputes between companies and local govemments over rail traff`ic, construcrion, and related acrivities, has appazendy told railroad companies that they - are exempt from any type of municipal regulation (i.e., rate of speed through a city or town). Historically, however, locat governments have had crucial input conceming the public safety, land use, and environmental impacts of rail traffic. We urge you to support any efforts to mitigate this preemption by a federal regulatory board. International Trade Agreements. Currendy, the United States is negotiating a Multilateral Agteement on Investment (MIA). The draft treaty would give private corporations and foreign investors broad authority to sue state and local governments using a special MIA tribunal over such things as tax policy. To the extent Congress is given any oversight of these negotiations, we urge you to object to any restriction of state and local government powers. MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BACKGROUND iNFORMATION What follows is some additional background infoimation on city and town govemment in Colorado, and the League as an organization. The data cited comes from a variety of state and CML sources. Incorporation. An area becomes a municipality when citizens incorporate an area as a city or a town pursuant to applicable state law. There aze 269 cities and towns in Colorado: 190 are statutory municipalities, 77 are home rule municipatities and 2 are territonal charter municipaliries. Towns are incorporated areas generally 2,000 and under in population and ciries are incorporated areas generally above 2,000 in population. Some differences in organizational structure and legal powers exist between cities and towns. Based upon current state population data, 71 % of Colorado's citizens reside within municipality. In addition to municipalities, the state has 62 counties, 176 school districts, over 800 special distncts, and 1 consolidated city and county govemment (Denver, which is also home rule). Home Rule, Statutory and Territorial Charter Municipalities. Home rule for municipalities has a rich legal history in Colorado,-bothin the state's Constitution and statutes. This legal framework has been in effect since the turn of the century, first for Denver (when it was consolidated as a city and county in 1902) and with the option at the same time for other municipalities over 2,000 in population to adopt home rule. Powers of home rule cities were expanded with the adoprion of another constitutional amendment in 1912. In 1970, the Colorado Constitution was amended again to grant to the citizens of any municipality, regardiess of population size, the power to become a home rule municipality. Today, 77 municipalities throughout the state are home rule. These home rule municipaliries include within their boundaries 65% of the state's population. In general, municipal home rule is premised upon the public policy that the citizens of a city or town in Colorado should have the right to decide how their local govemment should be organized and local problems solved. Article XX of the Colorado Constitution grants to home rule municipalities "the full right of self-government in local and municipal matters." The home rule process is initiated with an election establishing a study commission made up of the municipality's residents, who meet to write a charter goveming the affaus of the municipality. Then, an election is held on the charter's adoption or rejection. If the charter is approved, the municipality organizes as a home rule community. The charter serves as that community's local constitution. In short, home rule represents the essence of local conh-ol for cities and towns in Colorado, providing important policy and legal flexibility to a municipality and its citizens. a There are 190 other ciries and towns in Colorado which are statutory municipalities. Statutory municipalities are under general statutory control of the General Assembly with respect to their creation, organization, and powers. In general, a home rule municipality looks first to its charter and enabling ordinances to see what it can and cannot do; a statutory municipality looks first to state law, generally Tide 31 of tiie Colorado Revised Statutes, to ascertain what it can and cannot do. Finally, two other municipalities, Black Hawk and Georgetown, operate under charters originally granted to them by the telritorial state government. These two municipalities aze lrnown as territonal charter cities. Their charters are amended from tune to time by the General Assembly. Municipal Revenue Sources. Among the major state revenue sources received by municipalities are: the motor fuel tax, vehicle registration fees, cigarette tax, severance tax, lottery, police and fire pension funds, and various state budget programs. F deral grant programs important to the interesis of cities and towns include the community development block grant program, various housing programs administered by HUD, water and wastewater grant and loan initiatives managed by the EPA, the COPS program in the Justice Depariment, and federal mineral lease revenue. We appreciate the parniership we have the federal government with these funding sources and urge their preservation and enhancement. In addition to these important state and federal revenues, a brief review of municipal own source revenue is in order, the foremost being the sales and use tax. In Colorado, municipalities and counties generally may levy up to a total of a four-cent local sales and/or use tax. The state generally has three cents reserved to itself for the general fund, which is in addirion to the local government levy. The most recent data indicates that 46 counties and 205 municipalities are levying a saies and/or use tax. Forty-seven of the municipalities administer their own sales tax with the balance being collected and administered by the State Depariment of Revenue. Municipal sales taxes have been on the Colorado fiscal scene since 1948. Municipal sales and use taxes in Colorado constitute 71 % of municipal tax revenues. As emphasis upon the sales tax has increased among municipal officials in the state, reliance upon the property tax has declined. T'he municipai portion of the property tax, as a percentage levied by all units of local govemment in Colorado, has dectined from 21.4% in 1945 to 4.90/o in 1996 (excluding Denver). Nevertheless, the property tax remains a very unportant tax source for many municipalities. WHAT IS THE COLORADO MITNICIPAL LEAGUE The Colorado Municipal League was founded in 1923 to provide technical assistance and advocacy on behalf of our municipal membership. The League now represents 261 cities and towns comprising over 99.91/o of the municipal population in Colorado. The League conducts a vanety of different programs and workshops; answers numerous mquiries on hundreds of local government questions; produces new publications of interest for municipalities; and monitors numerous measures introduced in Congress by following the advocacy work of the National League of Cities. A 19-member Executive Board elected by the membership governs the League. Several standing committees of the League met and develop legislative and policy recommendations. This work is then presented to the League's Policy Committee, to which every member municipatity can send a representarive. In addition, the League has 20 sections (i.e., planning officials, police chiefs, city managers) and 14 regional districts which can also be represented on this Policy Committee. Final actions are then taken on the recommendations of the Policy Committee by the Executive Board. Our Executive Board and Policy Committee meet during each legislative session to develop League positions on bills and issues coming before the legislature. Bill Ray, Cortez City Manager, is the League's President. CONCLUSION We hope the information we have provided you in this memorandum is useful, and that you will keep the municipal govemment perspecrive in mind as you consider your own positions. We encourage you to contact your own cities and tovms for additional infoimation. They have been sent this material as well. Shouid you need additional material or assistance, please feel free to contact us. Best of luck! Colorado's Nlajor State/Local Tax Revenne Sources R FY 1996-971 tax revenue ~ms,~~, State Income Tax _ structure hili„idual ----$2,545.5 91.9% CorQoiate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224.3 8.1 % 'ntai •ns Total . 52,769.8~ 10096 maa a I a n c e State/Local Sales & IIse Taaces State Sales Tax $1,300.0 State Use Tax . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.9 between State $1,412.9 47.796 RTD Sales aad Use Tax 157.3 t h r e e- ~n a¦ ~ n SCFD Sales and Use Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.1 ' Baseball D;stda Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.2 S ~ ~ C ~ S C°imt3' Sales Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214.8 County Traaat Ssles Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.8 State-Collxted City Sales Tax . . . . . . . . . . 110.6 I.ocally-Collected City Sales/Use Tax= . 1.006.5 When the major tax revenue sources $1,551.3 52.396 for both state and local governments are combined, Colorado, uniike TOtal • - • - • • • • • • • • • • - - • • • , . . . . . $2,964.2 100% many states, has a wei{-bafanced tax structure. Ttie three major I'0~l ~0~y T~~ revenue sources-income, sales/use, ~O°~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - • - • • • $1,570.7 56.49b and Juaior Colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.1 1.04b ProPertY taxes-each represent COuntia , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 560.2 20.196 approximately one-third of the totai, City & Coumey ofDeaver . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . 146.6 5.39b as shown in the accompanying Munic4W - • • - • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135.3 4.996 graph. Local Improvemeat & Special District . . . . . . . . 344.2 12.496 Total $2,784.1 10096 However, the state and various local governments rety more heavil 1~ ~R`po°' CO~O"d° Dep"`m`°` °fR""m" ("°~`Pc"°°"~ y on =19% Lxal Goveen,= Fm,aeial Compend'ium some revenue sources than others. 219% A-W Report. Diviim ofProperry Taatioa For exampis: • State govemment collects almost . twice as much revenue from state Ma,or Stete/LOCal Tax income taxes as from sales/use taxes. - Revenue Sourees in Colorado • Local governments collect more sates and use tax revenue (52.3 percent) than does the state (47.7 ~ ~996-97 (in $ millions) percent), as shown in the table above. o Colorado cities and towns derive ~ncome 32:5% Properly 32.7% nearly four times as much revenue $2.769.8 $2,784.1 from sa(es and use taxes as from Property taxes. • Conversely, schoofs, counties, and ~>,:f:~,~ . . . sPecial distri cts depend on property taxes as the major revenue source. SalesNse 34.8% $2,964.2 Prepared by colorado Municipal A We/%Ba/anced Tax Structure League, May 27, 1998 r ~ Focts about Colorado's Citi~s and Towns Number of incorporated municipalities: 269* Number of municipalities levying a locaf saies tax (1998): 205 Tatai 1996 Colorado municipai population (2,720,411) as a percerrt of total state population Average municipal sales tax rate (1998): 268% (3, 822, 676): 71.2% Sources of municipai tmc revenue (1996): Range in population of municipalities: property taxes: 15.4% 11 to 497,007 sales taces: 71.0% ather taxes: 13.6% Percerrtage of municipal population with . membership in CML (1998): 99.9% Percerrtage of municipal residents I'iving in a Structure of Municipal Govemmerrts municipality with a fu11-time mancger or in Colorodo administrQtor 96.6% (nat including the city and ~ of # of Population Muniapa( courrty of Denver) $tructure Cfies/Towns Served Poputation Structure of municipal govemmerrts (1998) Home Rule 77 2,478,449 91.0'/ Home Rule Cities/Towns: 77 Stctutory Gties 16 87,425 3.4% Statutory Cities: 16 Territorial Charter 2 1,227 0,04% Territoria( Charter. 2 Statutory Towns 174 153,310 5.6% . Statutory Towns: 174 TOTAL 269 2,720,411 100'/ Number of municipal elected officials in 1998 (mayor, mayor pro tem, councilmember, trustee): 1,861 FoRns of Municipal Govemmerrt Number of women eletted officials (1998): 504 in Colorado % of Miles of streets (1996): 111598.85 # of Population Munidpal FoRn Cities/fowns $erved Population Number of vehicle registrations (1996) 2,135,023 Council/Manager 61 1,923,028 70.7' Municipal portion ofthe statewide propertytmc bill: Maycr/Counal 86 224,746 8.3% (not includin Denver)• • 4.9°b mancger) 9 (1996) Mayor/Council 118 74,381 27% (w/o manager) Municipat assessed vaiuation (1996): $21.07 Mayor/Council 1 497,007 18.3% billion ($16.64 biilion plus Denver $4.43 billion) as (Denver*) a percerrt of tota( state assessed valuation ($33.59 Other 3 1,249 0:05% billion):62.7% TOTAL 269 2,720,411 100% *includes Foxfield in Arapahoe County, incorporated in * combinQd ciiy & county December 1994, Mountain ViIlcge in San Miguel Courrty, incorporoted in Jonuary 1995 (home rule cliarter cpproved in Marrh 1995); and Lone Tree in Douglcs Courrty, prepared by Colorado Municipal LeQgue incorporotQd in NovembQr 1995 (homo ruiQ charter May 1998 approved ,4prit 1998). i ~ HOT ISSUES . FROM - ~ L LAND USE, ANNEXATION, , AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT TRANSPORTATION ~ ~ ~ _ y . . . . . , ~ . • . . - . . ~ . . . . . . r a TRANSPORTATION-1998 AND BEYOND I'he issue. Municipal officials recognize that transportation is a statewide problem demanding a statewide solution. Access and mobility throughout Colorado aze critical to preservmg and improving our economic base and quality of life. As Colorado has an integrated and interdependent transportation system, transportation solutions must be comprehensive--at the state, county, and mimicipalleveIs-to adequately address the systemwide needs. The challenge must be met The aeed. Unfiuided transportation needs aze commonly uaderstood aad most recently documented in - a blue ribbon panel of business and government leaders report that identified more than $13 billion in unfunded state and local transportation needs over the next 20 years-$8 billion at the state level and $5 billion at the local level. While the state has received-additional funds for the unfunded state needs,($2.2 billion over the next 10 yeazs from the action of the General Assembly; plus an additional $.6 billion of federal funds over the next six years), there aze obviously still unmet needs at the state level, and, more importantly for local officials, local govemments have received no such additional financial sunvort. 1'he local network. Local govemments are responsible for a significant part of the transportation system: neazly 70,000 miles or 82% of the public roads in Colorado, over 4,000 local bridges, 32 puhlic transportation services, and other transportation components. Background. The statewide transportation neiwork is a parniership of state and local highway, streets, roads, transit systems, bike and pedestrian ways, etc. used by and benefiting all taxpayers of the state. A state-collected, locally shazed financing system which distributes revenues from taxpayers, tourists, and commerce to all entities responsible for building and maintaining elements of the transportation system is sound public policy. Colorado's quality of life can be enhanced by looldng beyond just highways, streets, and roads for improving the mobility and movement of goods and people, so funding for transportation should be flexible enough to be utilized as determined most appropriate by each entity. CMI. position. CML recognizes that transportation needs far outstrip..current resources, therefore: * CML supports additional statewide funding for transportation contingent upon an equitable local share. ' * CML supports increased fimding for multi-modal tiransportation solutions as well as for lughways, streets, and roads. _ * CML supports limitations on "off-the-top" diversions from the Highway Users TaY Fund so that dedicated revenues are spent exclusively for highways, streets, and roads. CML Staff Contact Jan Gerstenberger, intergovernmental affairs specialist, (303) 831-6411. - - - Prepared by CML, June, 1998 i LAND USE, ANNEXATION, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT THE ISSUE ~ Municipal officials have seen various legislative efforts to restrict the authority of . both statutory and home rule municipalities to regul,ate land use, manage growth, annex territory, and exercise eminent domain. Local controversies over growth may continue to percolate up to the Capitol and command the attention of state lawmakers. CML POSITION - CML supports the existing statutory framework in Colorado, which, along with fundamental home rule authority, affords municipalities a substantial amount of flexibility in regulating land use and managing growth. The League is also exploring ways i.n which to strengthen intergovernmental planning agreements, and mitigating growth, impacts - occurring along the "urban fringe" of munici-palities not directly under municipal control. The statutes are quite generous in delegating powers to local governments without encumbering every city and town in the state with bureaucratic minutiae or unfunded mandates. Annexation laws allow municipalities and landowners to negotiate most - annexations on a case-by-case basis. Both the constitution and statutes allow intergovernmental agreements when a more regional approach to growth and land use development is needed. And, above all, the state and federal constitutions provide basic protection for private property rights while recognizing the appropriate role of local government to regulate land use in the interest of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The League will start the 1999 session determined to preserve the ti.me-honored authority of local elected officials to plan, regulate, and grow (or not) as they deem necessary and appropriate in the interests of their own communities. All the while, CML is not oblivious to growth and regulatory concerns that have manifested themselves at every level of government. CmL simply believes that sweeping legislative mandates and one-size- fits-all solutions handed down from on high are not the way to go. AREAS OF CONCERN .40. Regulatory Takings.--Some proponents of "takings" legislation may return in 1999 with re-tooled bills aimed at enhancing private property rights. Recent experience in Colorado and around the country shows that takings legislation can assume many different forms, but the bottom line is almost always the same - to make local governments pay if their regulations are deemed to unduly affect the value of someone's property. Annexation. There is often an annexation battle occurring somewhere in the state that threatens to pique the interest of one or more legislators. Although the Colorado Constitution dictates that annexation is largely a consensual process driven by the landowner, same legislators are quick to blame municipalities for what they perceive as overly aqgressive annexation policies. Vested Riqhts. In 1987, Colorado statutes were amended to pronide procedures for developers to obtain a^vested property right" during the development review process, a right that would prevent local governments from changing development regulations in midstream. Some developers continue to allege that the 1987 law is inadequate, and that developers should be allowed to obtain a"vested right" earlier in the process. The League has disagreed with thie notion. Subdivision, P.O.D., and Development Review Procedures. Over the past couple of years, a number of bills have attempted to amend the existing land use enabling statutes directly, but these efforts have generally been limited to county powers as contained in Title 30. For example, one new law forces all counties to complete their review and approval of subdivision plats within a set time frame. Similar limitations may be directed at statutory cities and towns in the future through amendments to the municipal enablinq statutes. ~ ? Impact Fees. Although more and more communities are adoptinq the credo of "making development pay•ita way," the possibility of a legislative backlash against impact fees + is always lurking. In one way or another, this battle has been fought in Colorado for years, with the General Assembly pre-empti.ng the authority of local gavernments to charge school impact fees in particular in the waning days of the 1996 session. Eminent Domain. Hand in hand with the police power, eminent domain is another important tool sofime municipalities use to cope with growth pressures,, atool that can be esaential to expanding public infrastructure or promoting quality redevelopment. Again, however, as it has been seen in recent legislative seesions, any local controversy over the use of this power has the potential to blow up into statewide legislation, pa`~ticularly bills to limit the purposes for which eminent domain may be exercised. - Special Interest Legislation. The situation always exists for a particular industry to seek special statutory protection for its type of land use. In 1984, it was manufactured housing. Four years ago, it was the billboard companies.- Ne:gt year, it may be something else. The object of such legislation is usually to declare the matter to be of statewide concern and thereby usurp the authority of loca2 officials. Loca1 ReguZation of State Facilities. The authority of local governmenta in Colorado to control where and how the state locates its public facilities has always been somewhat limited. However, language in both the county and municipaZ enabling statutes suqgests that, at a minimum, the state should aubmit their proposals to local planni.nq officials for consideration before proceeding. THE MUNICIPAL RESPONSE - Despite persistent rumors that the growth boom in Colorado is abatinq, you wouldn't know it by the amount of energy being expended by many cities and towns on growth management. Some of these efforts will continue to filter through to state legislators and may be characterized as being "regulatory abuses" by local governments. Whether these charges are fair or unfair is almost beside- the point. Municipal officials must be prepared to defend their actions and understand.that repercussions from what they do may be felt well beyond their city or town limits. Strong intergoverrunental land use relationships.foster a healthy response to dealing with the many aspects of growth management in the etate. The League, through a standing Growth Committee, continues to explore methods by which regional and intergovernmental planning can be strengthened in a meaningful way. Similarly, many problems related to growth occur on the fringe of municipalities in urbanized, unincorporated areas under county government jurisdiction. They can be driven by the proZiferation of Title 32 special districts. The negative impacts which result upon a city or town need to be analyzed and solutions developed. What is most essential for local officials is to forge solid lines of communication and some semblance of trust with their leqislators. State senators and representatives should receive an open invitation to use municipal_officials in their districts as a sounding board whenever land use legislation comes down the pike. Local officials should not be reluctant to assert that they are, after all, the experts on land use planning and regulation because these functions have resided at the local level throughout the entire history of the state. Finally, municipal officials should encourage their 2eqis2ators to try and hear both sides of the story before assuming the worst about the regulatory behavior of local governments within their district. Given the turbulent crosswinds of local politics and a myriad of competing community interests and values, land use disputes are usually far more complicated than they may appear to be at first b2ush. CML CONTACTS The CML staff contacts on these issues are Danid Broadwell and Sam Mamet. Prepansd byQ?E Jwre,1998 RECEIVED ,iUl 3 10 On behal-F of #e. Toum of Avon, 1 ujouJd Ift -rp Aarx qoa kr 4he n(c6 adver-hse~j t" In 1~h2 ~la:~l Va((~T~n~es Ii~ hortor a+ oUu- jD6 blrthd~- Ujt 6Lpprec ia.k, tht Suppbrt you'yit, gi ver) us p~~r the 105f zo geM5 and IMc 4umd +a y ~ rror e' jbi rtt pnde"a r s"r t he mM nE`it, r`ILu Jiil. 6 as Alfred Litwak 7273 South Garfield Street Littleton, CO 80122 July 1, 1998 . . Town Council Town of Vail 75 Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Council Members: My wife and I are property owners in Lionshead and I am writing with brief reactions to the proposals for Lionshead redevelopment. I have read the April 21, 1998 memo to Council from the Master Plan Team and found it quite disturbing. The memo exaggerates the defects of Lionshead and underestimates its virtues. The Team appears to be in the process of creating a bustling urban environment in what is now a tranquil, family-friendly, skier-friendly mountain community. I hope that the Council will reject proposals that will radically alter Lionshead's character. The Team's memo describes a Lionshead that is foreign to those who visit frequently and appreciate what Lionshead has to offer--space, views, areas to stroll through casually, limited building mass and many other desirable features. True, rehabilitation and improvement in some properties could enhance the visitor's experience. But some of the Team's recommendations are so drastic as to alter fundamentally the nature of Lionshead. What's more, some of the Team's objectives may be mutually inconsistent. For example, the proposed addition of activities and amenities, in my view, would reduce the appeal of Lionshead as a relatively tranquil family community. As a result, "the creation of additional bed base" would not bring a"stronger economic base", because Lionshead's traditional clientele would be alienated. Occupancy would decline, not improve. Buildings as high as 94 feet would create a claustrophobic environment in what is now open and pleasurable space. Masses like those proposed by the Team would, be utterly revolting to many who come to Vail to escape the confines of an urban environment. In short, the Team's recommendations have an ivory tower quality whose results will not be applauded by the Lionshead community as a whole. I hope that the council will reject those recommendations of the Team that would greatly increase masses and alter Lionshead's intimate character. At very least, the Council should defer a decision on the Team's recommendations until a representative cross section of the community has had the opportunity to react to the specifics of the Master Plan. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. I know how busy the Council is and I commend its members for taking time to consider dissenting views. Thank you very much. Si erely, Alfred I;itwak N~, W~ 3CwA and NACIO Eagle County, Colorado AWARDWIkNER Jnly 6, 1998 Media Contacls: Uuvid G'arter (970) 328-8876 or For lmmediate Rclcase Dawn Caston (970) 845-1028 C.A,$II.QF P_$_QG1ZAlV1 DUIVATES MONEY,.F-nR DOWN PA'_YNLF.NT ASSI5TANCE ThC Vail Boiird of REALTORS presented a$5(},UUU check today for the Eagle County Dawn Payment Assistancc Funi1. 1'his fund wi11 be used to help families with down paynient and closing costs, and the donatioti dctnonsirales the Vdi1 Board of RE, ALTORS' eornmityxtc,~t to enabling local residents in Eagle Cqunty bec;ome homcowncrs. '1'his conlribution will be combined with other sourccs of funding totuling approximately $650,000. Today's donation by the Vail Board of REALTORS is from the Colorado Associalion of REA'LTORS Housing Opportunity I~`und (CARHQN) program. Money for this program is obtained from interest paymcnts on maney placed irt escrow for real cstatc transactions. Many local REALTQRS are already involved in the CARI-IOF program and it is the hope of the Vail Board of RF_AI,TORS that additional RE-ALTORS will also participate. Dee Combs of :k3xandywine Brokers ruid a director of the Vail Board of REALTORS ssid, "On beh.alf of all the itEALTORS in the County, and al1 the buyers who have supported 500 aROAOWAY, P.O. BOD( 850 9 LAGLE. CO 81631 • PFIpNE (9?0) 328-8M • FAX (970) 328-7207 us in allowing us to contribute all the in.tcrest in the escrow accounts this yeaz, we are pleased to be a partner in supporting affordtxble housing. This is the second year in a row that the Vai1 Board of REALTURS h.as tlac honor of bein.g #1 in the state in CARHOF donations." Dawn Casfion, Executive Vice President of the Vail Board of REALTORS statcd, "Thc REALTORS dp work hard to give baGk tQ our community and this is an extunple of how we do this." Bob Finlay, wifli Prudenlial Gore Range Properties and CARHUF CommittCe Ch.airperso.a adacd, "Tbcrc arc RFAI.TORS frum F.+ag1u, Avon, Gypsum, and Vai1 who contribute to the CA.RHUF fund raising." County Commissioner Johnnette Phillips st-dted, "The vision in our housing plan is that housing needs will be met through a publio-privatc partncrship, and we apprc:ciatc the donation from the Vail Board af ItEALTORS." Conunissioner Jamcs Johnson said, "This contribution to ihe Down Payment Nrogram will help a riumber of families in Engle County to achieve their dretun of lierme ownerslup." Commissioner Bud Gates added, "I thinlc the donation was very timely and suppartive of the housing program. Tt shows we need a partnership to make these things happen. The support and involvement of the Vtiil Board of REAL'I'OKS should send a signal to the rest of the county." Persons interested in taking advantagc of the i7awn Paymcnt Assistancc Pmgram to help wiih a home purchase should contact the .F,aglc County Housing Division at 328-8835 for information. m _ . N + a . ti m ~ 0 z - - - - - - - ---;v - - ~ ~d. ~f V• :l r I y' MOUif~ein Ne~ "9MB~„ ~ 2 r Den'ver ~ F- ~ Slere il~rer~. Cily Edibor- 892-6201 • a-na~ - rnetrC@demrer-rtnn.com A - . Ln c- - t cft lears way fo r airpo ote N ' w ~ • J tL-_.tent-roa&3 Lermin~i. The ga- cWs oe~otiated a 30-yeaz lease of thepco~ e~c~t's ~os~oa casE, aho~S32.2milliam mteaG ¢ Denver to give Westin ~ wi6 add ahuut 1,490 clos~in ~ E~9E5t8 Westin on sevenl or a6out S64 mllinrr. Den~er waJ qPestin's 6aseannualtentRauld > taxbreaks for ap to ~5~. s~sm m~a,,m~t oa zs w- re $s5o,ooo. n~ ~t ~ye ~ 14* as ineentive `~e thinlc ies s good deet tor ¦ As an inceative fflc the 300 cea~t oE wat amau~. eaposins the Pay the asuat aapat e years the ~atp, the aiLpa~t and ~Pesbn." loba e~xted m be c:ces[ed. Den- dt9 to ne ro $1S milfinn a yrat ~ reat an bop of that ' tlie Eourtl~ E t0 bUlid 17-St0ry hOtPl V'ecki&atmage[, UtElsdicednrof ver agreed ta pay Westia aa WcyGafalla s6act This wi1La11~sv yesywheaitwouldhavetopay2.5 ¢ adminiel[at'wn, tald the City amoaIIt 8qW to the a'tq's 3 per- Westim tc? ahtdn a lower inbemt ~enc~~onn gcass rerenuea up o0 m k VA* Fbm C.auncsl'sa¢port committee'I1Eea- oeat geaeal [usd sbate ci the tateovesall. ~35 ~p, Iodge~s tax. The Qaymeods would ¦'lhe c~y w0] spend $Z milEion Sharp ient inctaases kick in ~ Raotyb~re+~Namssr7o Me irport hobel iagaiag 6obe coatinue 60[ 14 yeazss after opea Gox public acocsq irq-vemenls efter tbat Weslin wnuld 6ave bo Weslm Hotets has ceached an Lhe auwo jewel ofourpxesence in iag az until $9.8 milliau Ytas 6aert 3ukiag the hotel lo roads aud pay ffiathet $250,000 0n tfie nPxt a~e~e~menc with Dmvec m~ an the Dmvec marke~" aaid Cr~ Qeid, whiabefet is ficst waLkways. $5 million in revenuer, ~d 15 p~ ~ iaceodve package cd tmc giee- 0'Soean, VVPeestin's SeauIe-hased gIf stite oonrts auTe that busi In exchaage, the cit9 epects cent on ali geoas. ocvebues be- ~ backsandsu6eidicsbobuildaui87 directnraEdeqe{opment neaseamustP$YPmPertYbx+esoa the hnket to generate incseased twem $qpmilliaaaM ;50miflion mlllian, 526-mam hntel at Deaver Under the tnmetable laid out tnr governmmt-owaed faca'Lities tfiep travel at DIA [ar hus'vmess meet- -aaadditioaal S1-54millon- 4 InternationalAiiporG thecounal-wbichmuatapQmre ~nt ~Fes#ia would Quafify lo irt~gs. The atp also pmjects it I[ Wes~ ever talaes. iaaa= 11te 17,stay hotel will be bui~t the deal firat - lhe ~o4e1 wauld exbead iFs lease Fas another 25 wautd eara S47.6 mllion in new than ~50 mmm a M ~t drould ~ an tap aE a cky-huilt Park+aB Sa open inZ001, pearato meoup tEiedifesenoe. taz nwwues over 80 peacs fmm m ge an the soulheaat coraec oE Tu os+l dewn the deai. DIA offf- willfizince lhr hotel, and DIA would ceoerve , SeeflGiEF.on 7A Z cant1idates : , RNINW7 } Y m m ~ All TA n: - + r~~, $~a. Clea1dif C0~1iL~ ~~tW tO Q~ ' ~ .)~e~ve:e~ withthe etro area's•' ~ ;t paol`s at'~26, givea a diouble ~ The 1obbY woul,d be on level siz, o a of chiorine to Wading- pools oonnected#o the termiaal bugdsng z small ch'sldren whece most ac- pay DTA 20 peroeat of all tliat - with a skybridgp equipped with -its ocr-'ur, sad(i Tony Heaken eatramon+ey. - - moving wall1waYs and an access a pool maintenance tecbiii_ Zye hQt,e~ would-starf at. tfie ram~p that will curve over to the ' fifth level with 34,004 sWre feet hotel enh:aace from the east ter- ds ate also "shncked" regu- of ineeting rooms and a 14,000- • tninaj's sigth-levsl Public drop-off -ah 10 dnes the usnal snix square-foot ballroom. Foar fevels drive. -ine 5oc added Qrotection, of Parldng would rema'sn under- Building the parking 8'ara$e un:- ns said. neath der the hatel wilI cost the cityr an The site will be 6u's!t for intuae estimated $18 raillion, aiready . ~?erny Marson comtri'b-- expansion with another tower of: budgeted from aupaLt boad pro- - fo 500 rooms. - • - ceeds: . . v ~ 0 V F- d ~ W A Cfl F- ~ O U7 W Ex J H Q ~ - . ~ a) m ' . 00 a) Q1 • Q1 a-1 ~ N Z ~ y JUL,7 6. 1998 5:41PM ~ N0, 0340 P. 1/6 , -~Yail AssoGiates, Inc. . . . . FOR IlbIlMEEDIATE RELEASE Media contacts: ~ . ' Paul Witt (970) 845-5720, paulw@vailresorts.com . Jim Felton (970) 453-3210, jimf@vailresorts.com . ~ ~ VAIY. RESdRTS TO WVEST S59 MII,L.IQN IN_ ESORT jMPRO'VEMENTS THYS 'St'EAIi . • • Keystone: $18 million for one nerw b,igh-speed four-passenger chaizlift; a new on- •-•mountain activities area, Adventure Point at Keystone featuring tubxng and other family attractions; the second phase of renovation of the Keystone Lodge; lighting improvements for night slciing; new beginner run trails near the River Run base area; and a new snowboard terrain on the "Jackwhacker" run; and the construction of a second, 18-hole golf course. • Breckenridge: $14 million, highlighted by the new TenMiie station mid-mountain " - restaurant on Peak 9; five new sxiowcats to significantly increase grooming levels; , upgrades to the Vista Haus restaurant; a major renovation to the Gteat Divide Lodge; and a new Pipe Dragon to introduce neW snowboatd attractions. • . Vail_ $10 miltion for yet another expausion of Vail's fleet of grooming machines to once aga.in increase grooming Ievels; snowmalcing system impmvements; adding a . new snow-sliding adventure azad additional capacity to Adventure Ridge; the introduction of a new "kid zone", Chaos Canyon; and upgraded restaurants. S~andmd kr •Beaver Creek: $9 million, iacluding an expanded children's ski school center; " "•'~P"""~'' improved snovurrxabng systems; new snowcats to significantly increase grooming levels; upgraded restaruant facilities; and additional trail and mountain improvements for the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships. • Other monies totaling $8 million for guest sexvice and direct-to-lift systexns; upgraded computer systems and major capacity improvernents to central reservations. 'V'AIL, Colo. - Juiy 6, 1998 - Continuing with its long-standing tradition of being the ; premier mountain resort operator in North America, Vail Resorts Inc. (NYSE:M'TN), . operators of the Vauil, Breckenridge, Keystone and Beavez' Creek mountain resorts in Colorado, plans to invest $59 million in resort unprovements for the upcoming winter season, according to Adam Aron, chairmam and CEd of Vail Resorts. -more- : , PO Box 7• Vail, Coforedo • 81658 • phone 970 845 5720 • fax 970 845 5726 . e-mail: vailpr@vail.nei ILO 1UI,., 6. 1998 5:42PM N0, 0340 P. 2/6 'V'AYY. RESORTS 1998 CAPITAL IlVIPROVENENTS 2-2-2 ",A core strategy of VaiI Resarts is to ensure that we offer the highest standard of qualiry to our guests," commented Aron. "With $59 million to be invested in our resorts this sutnmer, we once agtin reaffirm our long-term commitment to be the leading winter resort operator 1n the world." Highlights of the capitaI expansion include: KEYSTONE This year's slate of $18 million worth of projects wia1 see the nation's third most populaz mountain resort add refinements to its unique chaxactet. The Santiago lift, a fixed-grip triple chair, will be replaced with thc resort's fifth high-speed quad chairlift, providing faster and easier access to Keystone's North Peak. With the soazang popularity of snowboarding at Keystone, the "Jackwhacker" trai,] will be transformed into Colorado's most exciting snowboarding park, giving Keystone its second terrain park, .A, Pipe Dragon also is being added to the resort's half-pipe gooming atsenal. Follovving the lead from the success of Vail's Adventure Ridge, a new on-mountain activities area named AdverZttre Point will feature a tubing hill located on Keystone Mountaitt. Additional children's skiing attractiozxs, located neaz the Spring Aipper, Upper Payrnaster and Silver Spoon trails are also on the slate for summer projects. Additionally, the second phase of renovations to the Keystone Lodge, Keystone's premier lodging property, wi1l focus on fiuther upgrades to guestrooms, wnference faciXities and public spaces. The Lodge already carries the AAA's prestigious Four-Diaznond rating. Work also began this summer on Keystone's second golf course, The River Course at Keystone. This new 18-hole, par-71 cowrse will include recreational pathways for both winter and summer visitors to enjoy and is slated fpr completion in suzzzzner 2000. -morc- 1UI,.; E. 1998 5:42PM N0, D340 P. 3/6 V,A,II,, RESORTS 1998 C,A,PITAL IMPROVF,MEN'TS 3-3-3 "Keystone is hvly coming into its own as a destinafion resort in addition to being a favorite among Coloradoans," said rohn Rutter, Keystone's chief operating officer. "With the continued buildiung out of the village at River Run, upgraded lifts and other sicier arnd guest facilities, we are confident the resort wi11 remain in the top three in the cauntry." BRECKENRYriGE Breckeuzidge, the second most popular mountain resort in the nafion, will see $14 milIion? in capital projects this year. The hxgblight of this year's plan is TenMile Station, Breckenridge's f zst new on-mountain restaurant in more than a decade. Named for the views of the Ten 1Viile Range fitom the mid- mountain, peak 9 site, plans for the restaurant include seating for up to 300 peopie. Additional on-mountain restaurant upgcades will be seen at the Vista Haus, the popular on-mountain meeting spot at the top of Peak 8's Colorado Superchair. The Gceat Divide Lodge, purchased by Vail Reso.tts zn October 1997, will undergo a$3.6 million renovation this summer, seeing improveznents to guest rooms, rneeting facilities, restawcants, health club and public areas. "'We want to miake the Great Divide Lodge the premiex lodging prnperty in Breckenridge," said Bill Jensen, the resort's chief operatzng officer. To help better cover the mountain's 2,031 acres of sldable terrain, fir?e new snowcats ue being added to the resort's fleet, expanding grooming capacity by 20 percent. A new Pipe Dragon will be purchased to build and maintain new snowboard attractions. "It's all about responding to our guests, and building on what we already have," commented Jensen. "The new restaurant on Peak 9, refurbishing the Great Divide Lodge, the new snowboard attractions; these are a1l projects that will have long-term benefits for our guests, and that illustrate Vail Resorts' continued commatment to Breckenridge." 1UI,,. 6. 1998 5:43PM N0, 0340 P. 4/6 VAIL RESORTS 1998 CAPTTAL IMPRQVEMENTS 44-4 YAII, Approximately $10 million will be invested in resort improvements at Vail this season. Having increased the snowcat fleet to up groomxng capability by 30 percent on Vail Mountain last season, Vail wi11 up the ante even more th;is season with the addition of two snowcats iun response to guests' favorable reactions to additional groomxng, Chaos Canyon, a new, rnid-motntaiua "kid zone" will be developed, providi,ng innovation and excitement to the children's expexience. Additionally, fiuther enhancements to Adventure Ridge, the mountaintop family activity centcr, will continue to make Vail even more kid $iendly. Nearly $1 million dollars is being spent on upgrading restaurant facilities around the mountain, malcing an already nationally recognized dining experience even better for guests. At the Lodge at Vail, which was acquired by Vail Resorts last October, lobby-area remodeling and other upgrades will keep the hotel at the forefront of lodging experiemces, "This year's impmvements and refinements wiil set the stage for Vail to host the last great party of the 20'" century, the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships," said Paul Testwuide, senior vice president and chief operating officer of Vail. "The great thing is, these unprovements will always be here, benefiting ouz guests for many years to come and maintaining Vail's reputation as the premier winter destination resort in the world." Although last year saw "Fini," the celebratioia of the completion of the village at Beaver Creek, the upgrades and refinenrAents to one of the most elegant resorts in the country continue this year_ This year's $9 million in capital improvements will focus on the details of the guest experience. -more- 1UI...6.1998 5:43PM N0.0340 P. 5/6 VAJL RESORTS 1998 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 5-5-5 "$eaver Creek is renowned for its luxurious accozn.modations and fine dining, not to mention its world-class amenities," said Andy Daiy, pxesident of Vail Resorts. "It's the never-ending process vf subtle changes, in addition to the major improvemients, that continue to define Beaver Creek as a world-class xesort hideaway." A new electronic guest iztfozmation system will make it easier for skiers and boarders to find their way around the base area, while ino.pxovements to the snowmaking system and two additional snow cats will improve the experience on the slopes. In addition, the Childuren's Sld azad Snowboard School, which experienced tzemendous growth this past season, will see a doubling of capacity in facilities. Redtail Caznp, rebuilt Iast summer, will see -uzxprovements to its food service and bar areas in anticipation of it being the finish-azea spectator venue for three races durinig the 1999 World .Alpine Sld Championships. "Hosting the Championslups on the Baxds of Prey course, vvhich proved itself dwing last year's World Cup season, wiIl further cement Beaver Creek's reputation as not only a warld-class resort, but a world-class ra.cing venue as weII," continued Daly. EAL ESI:ATE In addition to the $59 in on-mountain and guest service related improvements, Vail Resorts will also spend $40 rnillion in reaI estate development tkuis year. Significant projects include infrashvcture in Beaver Creek; preliminary planning for golf course development near $eaver Creek currently awaatuig local government approval; continued village development in Bachelor Gulch and Arrowhead; and architectural azad engineering planning for future developments at each of the resorts. -more- 1UI,a 6, 1998 5:44PM NQ, 0340 P. 6?6 VAIL RESORTS CAPITAL IlVIPROVEMENTS 6-6-6 YAIL RESOJM CQMPANY-WIDE IMPROVEMENTS "We made great strides last year in our new four-resort guest progrms and systems," Da1y said_ "We are going to improve the ease and accessibility of our resort-charging and direct-to-lift programs, as well as our central reservations systems." Dal,y noted that PEAKS, the frequent-skier program instituted by Vail Resorts last year, and the Colotado Cad, the faur-resort value program, were extremely successfiil in moving guests to "cashIess" skiing expeziemce_ "We will be adding more on-mountain restaurants to our charging program, and hope to be able to offer the charging privileges in imany of our retail outlets as vvell," he said. "This aggressive capital invesimeiit program reflects our cozrututment to making our four resorts the highest-quality destination experitetxce in the world. We are committed to quality and growth and axe confident that these enhancements will enable us to deliver excellence fox our customers and growth in earnings for our shareholders," concluded VaiX Resorts chairman Aron. Seate,?sents in ihis press release, other than statements of historical infor?nafion, are fonvard looking ytatements that are made pursuant to the safe harborprov;sions of the Private Securitier litigatiorr Reform Act of 1995. Suci, forward-looking starenzentr are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cutrse aetual resulis ro der ?naeterially from those projeeted. Readers are cautioned not ro place undue relianee on these forward-looking statenienu, whici, speak only as of tke date hereof. Such risks and uncertainties irrclude, but are ttot lindied to, general business and econornic conditions, co,r,petitive facrors tn the ski and resorr indusrry; and the weather. lnvestors are also direered to other risks diseussed in documents filed by the Company wfrh the Securicies and Ezcleange Cornmr,ssion. -30- 7-06-1998 8_07AM FROM BERNHARDT-AT VAIL 970 476 7651 P.1 ~ 2695 South Frontage Road Vail, Co. 81657 July 05, 1998 To: Vail Town Counci1479-2157 Vail Daily 949-7094 Vail Trail 9490199 Vail Town Council: I am gla.d to see yow written word in the Daily Trail of 7/3/9$ "The council feels it is absolutely despicable that the only solution left to solve the problem is to use up otur open space." From this, I see we have some hope of saving our open spaces and parks which you are about to sacrifice. On May 19, the council was presented with 30 options rather than using our open spaces and parks. One of the council members told me that the council has not even considered any of these options, since the railroad was already on (oft) track to push thraugh the current agenda We have options, we have funding ideas. We look forward to meeting with yau to discuss these ideas. Sincerely: Chas Bernhardt Intermountain Homeawners Association. 3 ~ ~ : { r ` ~s v ~ 3 3 f , ro ~ n1 w ~ i s~ ,e F x~'~ r ~ t F ~ e . :1 L .e F ~a t a ~R r " ~ ~ . 6 _ b . ' . . f _ t 3A S i6 S> ~ ^ `eY, ~If _ , _ t~ ~ j ~ ; <n• i ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ o 5 ' 6 ~ . . `t $x t~?. Yry ~ 1 , A rv X~~ ~ ~ a ~ , fr , ~ R, 9 ~ i _ ~ ^ . . r ~ , ~ ' - s < < ~ TOWNOF UAIL ~ Sculpture by the following artists - will be on display in Willow Park = July 1- September 28, 1998 Russell Beardsley ~ a° Robert Mangold , Charies Parson Willow Park is located in Vail Village on Willow Road between Willow Bridge Road - and Vail Road Y Sponsored by Town of Vaii ¢ Art in Public Places Program. ~ 0 For information please call 970/479-2344. rou~v o~ *VANIL 1309 Yai1 Yalley Drive Art in Public Places Yail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2344 Fax: 970-479-2166 Sculpture by the following artists will be on dispiay in Willow Park July 1- September 28,1998: Russell Beardsley Robert Mangold Charles Parson PRESS RELEASE: On Thursday, July 2, a new temporary sculpture exhihit, sponsored by Art in Public Places, was installed in Wiliow Park in Vail. Wiliow Park is located in Vail Village on Willow Road between Wiilow Bridge Road and Vaii Road. While all of the pieces are contemporary, the purpose of the exhibit is to invoke discussion and interest within the community about the place and need for public art. The scufptures are the work of well-known and highly respected artists: Russell Beardsley, Robert Mangold and Charies Parson. The artists donated both the pieces and their time to lecture in Vail on August 2, at 4:30 p.m. at Colorado Mountain College. Whether positive or negative, response to and opinions about art are a vital part of life in a community. Unquestionably, these sculptures stimulate the viewer to ask questions and learn more about each piece. Russell Beardsiey's metal box, lighted by pinholes punched into the top, invites the viewer to peer inside. The interior holds a miniature star- scape, a toy planetarium enlivened by shimmering water. Robert Mangold's kinetic stainless steel sculpture resembles a dandelion. But this dandelion moves in the wind, creating kaleidoscopic reflections as the sun dances off the reflective surfaces. Charles Par dominant s ure is built of natural rock, steel and actual con ction materi . It is intended to make the viewer question 's relations ' o nature, the impact of construction on our natura urroundin nd the tension created by any imbalance. The public s encouraged to attend the artists' lecture on August 2. Bring your questions and opinions to this gathering and discuss what the artists' intentions were in creating these scuiptures. For information please call Art In Public Places, 970/479-2344. 6SCYCLEDPMSB a • • thanks `11r101 1 c~. royalty',* the Fords . . 6y Jeff Bradley meet the valley's first couple at the post Denver Post Critic-at l ar9e , ~n~ office, City Market or just out walking the I.ike unofficial royalty, Gerald and Bet- dag. To sense the affection people feel for ty N'ord have enriched the Vail Valley with them, you need only attend a Ford Amplii- ~ their presence for three decades, and it's theater concert during the annual Bravo! time for commoners to say thank you. Colorado Vail Valley Music Festival, Fbur anniversaries provide the occasion: which runs through Aug. 5. H'urmer Yresident Ford's 85th birthday Ju- The Fords, wlio summer in 13eaver ly 14, 13etty's 80th bir•thday April 8, the Creek and winter in ltancho Mirage, Calif, coupie's 50th wedding anniversary and the invariably receive a standing ovation Gerald and 50th anniversary of the young Gerry when introduced at concerts. An impromp- Betty Ford Ford's entry into public service as a Re- tu state occasion breaks out during inter- wave to publican congc•essman from Michigan. mission when people of all persuasions * guests as The celebrations began Saturday with a shuffle down the aisle to sliake hands and they arrive Fourth uf July tribute to the Fords at a share a few words with the 38th president for a FOUrth fi•ee patriotic concert by the Rochester and his wife. of July Yhiltiarmonic Orchestra in Vail's Gerald "T}iey're the uncrowned king and yueen ,A Celebration R. Ford Amphitheater. Community lead- of Vail," said longtime friend Sheika and tribute to ers plan a special dinner for the couple Ju- r,.ametin,yymo: ,-1y iy ii, anti ihe four Nord cnildren anq their - ' ' - ~u~- ii~em in Vaii J families have arrived at their parents' thof Gramshammer in the center of town On Saturday. Bea~er Creek home for the week. with her husband, Pepi, a former member Ini less hectic times, you're likely to X{ Please see FORD on 56 ' Jegsica uri a The Denverost fhanks Vail Va11ey'_-6ffer_s_ to `~in ff' 'c~ • o ~al royalty'. the Fords FORD from Page 1 B icon to us up here." "So we fented a place on Mill Saturday's tribute to the I'ords known to get down there and dig ley's explosive growth into an elon Pete Seibert, the foander who Creek Circle from (investor and was to include Souza's "Presiden- weeds with everybo(ly else. Of gated metropolis. Is it moving too oE the Austrian national ski team ran Vaii Associates for 17 years, homeowner) Dick Bass.° Opon tial Polonaise," the University of course there's also what she's done fast? and Ford's ski instructor before describes the Fords as "simple leaving the,White House, they rent- Michigan fight song, standards for breast cancer and for drug and bad knees fomed him to retire to country folks - sort of like a Nor- ed the haise for a couple of more from 1948 such as "StardusY" and alcohol abuse with her Betty Ford "I don't think so," said Ford. "I the golf course. man Rockwell painting. Our years and then built a spacious "You Made Me I,ove You" and Clinic. She's been instrumental think °He's a man who just never said thanks go out to them and their all- Beaver CYeek home in 1982. Copland's "Variations on a Shaker here in hel m eo le with Lhose iYs just part of a general pro- no," Gramshammer said of Ford's American support of VaiL" P B P P gression in an at.traclive ara~a as contribution to every worthy cause In a phone interview from his Every June, Ford hosts a World Melody" in lionor of the young 13et- kind of problems. She's just a real you Ro from the core to the next Forum at Beaver Creek Resort. ty Ford's time as a dancer with the treasure." step as long as if's krpt mider in the valley. "He put Vail on the Beaver Creek home, Ford said he Thls year's 17th annual think tank Martha Graham troupe. The only taint nn the Fords' love reasnnahle control and doesdt br map. When I used to go to New first brought his family to Vail at induded former Brilish Prime York an bu in tri s, eo le would Christmas 1968, havin tried As en Arts baeker aftair with Vail may bc the cal- come loo darned rommercial " ask me where~s Vail, and I had to and the LJtah resorts. g P MinisteT Margaret Thatcher, U.S. „ ense Secretary William Cohen Ford sees nothing wrong with po- say iYs between Denver and Aspen Vail was a small but very at- and fotmer French President Valc- litical leaders backing the arts. and is a new resort. When he be- tractive mountain skiing communi- ry Giscard D'Estain came president, everybody talked ty. There wasn't much here exce t g~ "When I was in Congress and the about the Western White House in lifts and a few condos and a cou e Citing the amphitheater that Wliite House, I supported funding VaiL" of hotels, but it had great charmp It bears his name, the new Vilar Cen- for the arts and humanities. I felt Before, during and after his 2~/z was a selt-contained communit ter for the Arts in Beaver Creek that with a few exceptions, the peo- Y and the valley's 11 golf courses, p]e responsible for Chem did a good y ears as president following the where younR children could be let Ford commented: "How can you do job. I'm disappointed when I rcad i esignation of Richard Nixon, Ford out at night, they didn't need a car much better?" remained the same down-to-earth and they could find entertainment, that some people in political life guy, his old friend said. It ust had a closeness the other He takes special pride in having want to wipe out the program. j helped raise $1.5 million 11 years That would be a mistake.° "When he was president, I said, Places diddt have." ago to build the covered am hithe- My God, what should I cook? I'n P The Omaha native, raised in having the president of the United Forced to move ater, which also hosts an annuaf GranH Rapids, Mich., beams with States for dinner!' You wanted to dance festival featuring I3ulshoi pride over the F3etty Ford Npine have the most fancy thin , but the The couple bought a Vail condo artists. "It was something tfiat was Gardens next to the amphitheater. g Y in 1969, but the Secret Service badly needed.° "It's getting bigger and better this aid, `You know what? He hasn't fhought the location too public It's been said F'ord doesn't even year. They're expanding up the had a pot roast in a long time, and when Ford was named vice presi- like dassical music. "I know noth- slope, (and) it wi(l be almost twice !Yiat's his favorite dish.' " dent in 1973 - succeeding Spiro ing about it technicall,y, but I do en- as big." And behind every great man? Agnew, wfio resigned - and be- joy it wheq you sit there in the Said I,inda Gaivin of the music "Betty has contributed just as came the country's first nonelected beautiful atmosphere of the the- festival board, another longtime much, if not even more. She is an president a Vear later. ater." friend and neighbor: "Betty's been ~