The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-08-11 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1998 2:00 P.M. AT TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. 1 • Proposed Refinancing of the Town of Vail's Debt. (30 mins.) Steve Thompson ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve to refrnance the Town of Vail's debt as proposed. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Staff would like to review with Council the final numbers in the proposed refinancing. The option that is proposed would level the Town's existing debt service to the year 2012. After approval on Tuesday the plan is to issue the bonds in September, with first and second reading of the bond ordinance on August 18th and September 1 st, respectively. STAFF RECOMMENDAT(ON:. Refinance the debt as proposed. Z• PEC/DRB Review. (15 mins.) 3• Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. This work session is intended to Russ Forrest continue the discussion from Town Council's July 21, 1998 work session on Dominic Mauriello_ • proposed building height alternatives and associated design standards. Ethan Moore (2 hrs.) Jack Zehren ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve/Modify the proposed building height alternatives presented. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Please refer to memorandum in Council packet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Select an appropriate alternative. 4. Discussion of Employee Generation Ordinance. (30 mins.) Tom Moorhead Andy Knudtsen ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide additional direction regarding the policy decisions identified in the staff memo that will shape the proposed ordinance. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Based on the response from the Council's initial discussion of a proposed Employee Generation ordinance, staff has provided an example to show how the ordinance would be applied to future development and provided background on two key policy issues. 5• Distribution of Units at the Red Sandstone and A-Frame Developments. Andy Knudtsen (10 mins ) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide direction for the allocation of units at both the Red Sandstone and A-Frame developments. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Prior to proceeding with the community-wide lottery, staff wants to confirm that the allocation plan developed by the Council in April of this year does not need to be changed. 6• Village Core Construction Update. (10 mins.) Larry Grafel 7. Information Update. (10 mins.) 8• Council Reports. (10 mins.) 9• Other. (10 mins.) 10. Executive Session - Personnel Matters. (30 mins.) 11. Adjournment - 6:35 p.m. NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) I I I I I I I THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION. WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 8/18/98, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 8/25/98, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VA1L TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 8/18/98, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. fllllll Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. C: W GENDA. WS 2 . COUNCIL FOLLOW-UP TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 1998 619198 DANCING BEAR CHECK TODD 0: Since we're almost ready to sign off on the W. Vail We're purchasing a Bench and a wood ;arved Bear to be piaced near the Bob Armour roundabout landscaping, what are we doing w/the $1,100+ Dancing Bear to recognize their contribi ition and cooperation for the check we received from the Dancing Bear? Let's see a project. There will also be a plaque placed outlining their contribution, plaque or a bench or something installed to commemorate this donation. 6/9/98 BETTY NEAL COMPUTER TRAINING Anne: Please contact Betty to arrange a training session for Betty is on vacation until August 24th. k Ve will schedule a class when she Kevin Foley interested Councii members. returns. The class will most likely be h&d from 12:30 to 1:30 at CMC. Please contact Anne with any interest ir attending this class. 7121198 VAIL PASS CLEAN UP LARRY: Please write thank you to CDOT for responding to i have personalfy thanked Michael Dodson, and Kandi Ctaybrook who is Kevin Foley the clean up for the bicycle ride. Also, please ask what the the maintenance supervisor, for the cles n up for the courage classic and status on completion of the Vail Pass rest area is? !t appears tripie bypass cycle rides over Vail Pass. to have been under construction for two summers Regarding the rest area, construction still continues and the project wili be finished this fall. There was a comprehE nsive article in the Vail Valley Times on Tue that outlines the scope ard duration of the project if council needs more s ecific info. Please see at:ached article. August 7,1998, 1'age 1 ~ ~ . 7/21/98 ENTRANCE TO VTRC LARRY: Considering the 4-6 lanes of traffic by the entry, is The "boulevard" concept for the S front;age road to the entrance of the Ludi Ku2 there a way to make the entrance more attractive/ parking structure was originally part of t ie remodel in 1989. It was appealing through landscaping, islands, channeling traffic, removed because of budget constraints. The concept was then put on the addressing safety issues, etc.? Can we spruce up our Capital Improvement list subsequent to that and remained there until 1994 primary entrance to the Viilage? when it was removed. The concept is still viable and like ali other capital improvements can be atlded to the CIP list and compete for approval and dollars, if the council desires to proceed with this project. 7/21/98 VMS . LARRY: Although you had talked about another color/ Public Works is exploring several optiors to reduce the visual impacts. Mike Arnett treatment for the VMSs (something other than orange), Mike One action after the summer season is ;o repaint them to a brown or has provided a drawing showing a rock retainer wall/shield, green, They are afso looking at other ideas i.e. skirting, etc. There will as well. Any way to make this look more attractive? continue to be a requirement to place the orange reflective cones around the sign since they will continue to be a safety hazard in the traveled way on the street. 7/28(98 CROSSWALK TO STREAM PATH LARRY: The appearance of the stamped and stained We will investigate the cost to have aspfialt stamping and coloring done. Kevin Foley asphalt at the top of Blue Cow Chute is very attractive + Once the cost and availability of a contractor to do this work has been helpful to visitors. Can this also be done between the established, we will complete this request. southeast exit of the VTRC and the streamwalk over into ' Ford Park? 7128198 MUD LOT (LOT A ADJACENT TO RUSSELUANNIENRDlTOM/PAM: Kaye Ferry expressed THE HOSPITAL AND LIBRARY) concern that the lot reserved for VRD, library personnel, antl Council hospital staff is underutilized, after experiencing difficulties herself in dropping off an injured person and securing a parking space. It was suggested original agreements wlthe hospital be revisited re; the parking lot west of the hospital, as well as the parking structure to the east. Staff wilf return to Council wltheir findings. ~ August 7,1998, ;'age 2 ~ ~ G0VERNPA :::,N11` [d?VI ,bCIRS, INC. IM7E.?<-~,r, August 6,1998 Robert W. McLaurin Steve Thompson Town Manager Finance Director Town of Vail Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road 75 South Frontage Road Vaii, CO 81657 Vail, CO 81657 RE: Town of Vail, Colorado - Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series Z998A&B Dear Bob and Steve, Attached ta this letter is a table and two charts, which indicate the existing and proposed debt service levels for the Town's Sales Tax Revenue Bonds. As you are aware, the refinancing and restructuring of the Sa1es Tax Bonds was first presented to the Town Counsel as far back as December 1995. It was discussed in more detail in March of 1996, but interest rates did not warrant the refinancing of the bonds at that fime. Because of today's low municipal interest rates, it is possible to refinance and restructure the Town's debt to maintain a level debt service of approximately of $2,330,000 per year starting in 1999. It is our recommendation to proceed with the marketing of the transaction on August 1$th with the debt struciure as presented in the attached table and charts. Re (~4~ Peter Zent /pwz Attachments P.O. ac:aX 6403 ~s ~NEL.~::~r~o~~r,: ~ 970 1926-1647 IN 1 ERNa°eT ~ ~ ':t . i t n "ItV[1- ~ ~t. ,!'fit(oVe:II.tlt.f t Town of Vail Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds Level Debt Service Existing Proposed Date Debt Debt Difference 1998 1,154,495 895,146 259,349 1999 2,540,553 2,329,605 210,948 2000 3,414,468 2,326,770 1,087,698 2001 3,417,926 2,331,235 1,086,691 2002 3,416,503 2,330,988 1,085,515 2003 3,414,448 2,330,888 1,083,560 2004 3,415,358 2,329,588 1,085,770 2005 3,398,188 2,329,738 1,068,450 2006 1,756,888 2,330,513 (573,625) 2007 785,056 2,332,406 (1,547,350) 2008 784,659 2,330,109 (1,545,450) 2009 782,234 2,325,709 (1,543,475) 2010 787,475 2,330,450 (1,542,975) 2011 789,903 2,328,588 (1,538,685) 2012 554,500 2,330,860 (1,776,360) 30,412,654 33,512,593 (3,099,939) Present Value: $ (23,208) Prepared by: Peter Zent Government Financial Advisors Vail, Colorado Date: 8/6/98 . *k , Town of Vail t ± . Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1998 Existing Debt Service 4,000,000 - 3,500,000 ~ , , : . . , . : . ; ~ ~ 3,000,000 w 2,500,000 - _ _ , - - - - _ - . . , . _ 2,000,000 1,500,000 ~ 1,000,000 3 ~ ,g 1 500,000 Date 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Prepared by: Peter Zent Government Financial Advisora Vail, Colorado Date: 8/6/98 t ~ Town of Vail ~ Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1998 Proposed Debt Service 4,000,000 r 4 ~ 3,500,000 t ~ 3,000,000 ~ . ~ , 2,500,000 `k _ _ - I i 2,000,000 ~ ~ 1,500,000 ( ~ 1,000,000 ~ I ~ 500,000 Date 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Updated 7/28 1 pm PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, August 10, 1998 FINAL AGENDA Proiect Orientation / LUNCH - Communitv Develoqment Department 12:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Greg Moffet Diane Golden John Schofield Galen Aasland Ann Bishop (left at 4:30) Brian Doyon Tom Weber Site Visits : 12:45 p.m. - 1. Glen Lyon - 1000 S. Frontage Rd. West 2. Spad International - 1337 Vail Valley Drive 3. Mountain Haus - 292 East Meadow Drive 6.1 Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearina - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a bedroom and bathroom addition to a two-family residence, located at 1337 Vail Valley Drive/ Lot4, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing. Applicant: Spad International (Zevada), represented by Railton-McEvoy Architects Planner: Christie Barton MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITfONS: 1. That the plywood siding be removed and the siding upgraded to meet the minimum requirements in the Design Guidelines(Title 12, Chapter 11.5.C). 2. That the chimney be brought into compliance with the Design Guidelines. 1 mwN~ oFUArti Updated 7/28 lpm 2. A request for a setback variance and additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a living room addition, located at 1241 Westhaven Circle/ Lot 44, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Howard & Cathy Stone, represented by Michael Hazard Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED 3. A request for additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to alfow for an addition and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a Type II EHU (Employee Housing Unit), located at 443 Beaver Dam Road/ Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing. Applicant: Beaver Dam, LLC, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Ann Bishop SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 5-1 (Galen recused) APPROVED WfTH 2 CONDITIONS: 1. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a Type II, Employee Housing Unit deed-restriction with at the Office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. 2. That the applicant submit a revised site plan to the Town of Vail for review and approval illustrating the location of the seven required parking spaces on-site. The one required parking space for the employee unit shall be enclosed and located within the existing garage. 4. A request for a site coverage variance and a setback variance, to allow for a revised west entry addition at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadow Drive/Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: The Mountain Haus, represented by John Railton Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Ga1en AasVand SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS: 1. That an easement agreement be executed with the Town of Vail. 2. That there be a defined ADA access and in the future, if greater ADA access is required, it come out of the applicanYs space and not encumber on the Town's space. 2 Updated 7/28 1pm 5. A worksession to discuss an amendment to Special Development District No. 4(Glen Lyon), revising the Glen Lyon Office Building site (Area D), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: Dominic Mauriello/George Ruther WORKSESSION - NO VOTE 6. A final review of a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Interfaith Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/ Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Vail Interfaith Chapel, represented by Gwathmey/Pratt Architects Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 24, 1998 7. A request for an amendment to a previously approved plan for the Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Court/unplatted. Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg Amsden Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 24, 1998 8. Information Update 9. Approval of July 27, 1998 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department 3 Updated 7/28 1 pm PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, August 10, 1998 AGENDA Project Orientation / LUNCH - Community Development Department 12:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 12:45 p.m. 1. Glen Lyon - 1000 S. Frontage Rd. West 2. Spad International - 1337 Vail Valley Drive 3. Vail Village Club - 333 Bridge Street 4. Mountain Haus - 292 East Meadow Drive Driver: George ce,~`:. s NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a bedroom and bathroom addition to a two-family residence, located at 1337 Vail Valley Drive/ Lot4, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing. Applicant: Spad International (Zevada), represented by Railton-McEvoy Architects Planner: Christie Barton 2. A request for a setback variance and additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a living room addition, located at 1241 Westhaven Circle/ Lot 44, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Howard & Cathy Stone, represented by Michael Hazard Planner: George Ruther 3. A request for additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for an addition and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a Type II EHU (Employee Housing Unit), located at 443 Beaver Dam Road/ Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing. Applicant: Beaver Dam, LLC, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther TOW 4Ya Updated 7/28 1 pm 4. A request for a site coverage variance and a setback variance, to allow for a revised west entry addition at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadow Drive/Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: The Mountain Haus, represented by John Railton Planner: George Ruther 5. A worksession to discuss an amendment to Special Development District No. 4(Glen Lyon), revising the Glen Lyon Office Building site (Area D), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: Dominic Mauriello/George Ruther 6. A worksession to discuss the remodeled entryway with additional GRFA and site coverage variance, located at 333 Bridge Street/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Vail Village Club P{anner: Christie Barton 7. A final review of a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Interfaith Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/ Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Vail Interfaith Chapel, represented by Gwathmey/Pratt Architects Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 24, 1998 8. A request for an amendment to a previously approved plan for the Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Court/unplatted. Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg Amsden Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 24, 1998 9. Information Update 10. Approval of July 27, 1998 minutes.. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project plannePs 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 479-23.56, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published August 7, 1998 in the Vail Trail. 2 Agenda last revised 8/06/98 11am DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, August 5, 1998 3:00 P.M. PROJECT ORIENTATION / LUNCH - Community Development Department 12:30 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Brent Alm Clark Brittain Hans Woldrich Bill Pierce Tom Weber (PEC) SITE VISITS 2:00 pm 1. Huttner - 5128 Grouse Lane 2. Padden - 5064 Black Gore Drive 3. Lot 24 - 1844 Glacier Court 4. McDonald's - 2171 N. Frontage Road 5. Vail Village Club - 298 Hanson Ranch Road. 6. Ford Park Bridge - Ford Park Driver: George PUBLIC HEARING - TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:00 pm 1. Padden Residence - Construction of an accessory storage unit Brent 5064 Black Gore Drive/ Lot 4, Vail Meadows First Filing Applicant: Patrick Padden MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Hans Woldrich VOTE: 4-0 DENIED (based on separation) 2. McDonald's - New roof. George 2171 N. Frontage Road/Lot 26, Vail das Schone #3. Applicant: George Greenwald CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE 3. Switzer residence - Interior condominium remodel, exterior additions. Christie 223 Gore Creek Drive/ Creekside Condominiums. Applicant: Peter Switzer MOTION:BiII Pierce SECOND: Tom Weber VOTE: 4-0 APPROVED WITH 5 CONDfTIONS: 1. That the bay windows have a 45°angle at the base. 2. That the storage area addition drop the roof down 3' below the existing roof and set back the walls 1' on the south and east exterior sides and that the roof ineet the wall line then dies into the wall on the east side. 1 rowrooFUar~''~ 3. That the deck be as shown. 4. That the shed roof be as shown with the slanted roof extending 1' past the new roof. 5. That the stucco on the east side of the building be painted (condition of previous approval). 4. Chateau Tremonte - Proposed deck addition. George 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge 3rd. Applicant: Jay Stanzer MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Hans Woldrich VOTE: 4-0 CONSENT APPROVED 5. Huttner - Expansion/additions to a two-family residence. Christie 5128 Grouse Lane/ Lot 8, Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Owner, represented by Peter Lazzara TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 19, 1998 6. Construction of a new primary/secondary residence. George 1844 Glacier Court/ Lot 24, Block 2, Lion's Ridge #3. Applicant: Dauphinais-Moseley Construction CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE 7. Vail Village Club - Conceptual review of a new entry addition. Christie 298 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: TABLED UNITL AUGUST 19, 1998 8. Ford Park - Raise Covered Bridge at Manor Vail and other landscape improvements. George Ford Park Applicant: Town of Vail MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Hans Woldrich VOTE: 4-0 CONSENT APPROVED Staff Approvals Ball residence - Addition of two windows. Brent 4470 Timber Falls Court #1407/Timber Falls. Applicant: Warren and Beatriz Ball Kinnonen residence - New planter wall/driveway re-gravel. Brent 1350 Sandstone Drive/Lot G3, Lions Ridge 2nd Filing. Applicant: Victor Kinnonen 2 ~ i ~ Vaii Snowboard Supply - Storefront painting, new signage. Brent 600 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Heath Nielsen Riva Ridge North Condominiums - Window shutter addition. Brent 133 Vail Road/Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Riva Ridge North Condominium Association Remonov, Vail Village Club - Temporary window sign. Brent 333 Bridge Street/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Remonov and Company, Inc. Joe's Famous Deli - New awning/sign. Brent 244 Wall Street, Unit A-1/Lot C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Joseph Joyce Vail House - Driveway addition. Brent 556 Forest Road/Lot 2, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: Greg Eby Cross residence - Roof extension and window replacement. Brent 1190 Casolar Drive/Lot 6, Casolar Vail. Applicant: Saltire Development Salamunovich residence - Skyfill infill, egress window, residing, painting. Brent 1905 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 27, Vail Village West #2. Applicant: Nancy & Thomas Salamunovich Hilliard residence - Garage conversion and remodel. Christie 2049 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley 4th Filing. Applicant: Kiwi Hilliard Adair residence - Roofing and exterior painting. Brent 3035 Booth Falls Road/Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 13th. Applicant: John Adair The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. 3 : w MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Team DATE: August 11, 1998 SUBJECT; Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan A. Purpose of Worksession and Evening Meeting: The purpose of this worksession is to get direction on the building height alternative to include in the master plan for Lionshead. The general direction that was given at the Council's July 14, 1998 worksession was to develop some alternatives that focused on the building height of 82.5' (5 stories plus and roof). Staff has prepared 4 alternatives that revolve around a building height of 82.5'. The general consensus was to also eliminate the bonus criteria. The Council was not unanimous on the direction that was given. Two Council members (Kevin Foley and Mike Jewett) stated they felt more comfortable with 71', which represents 4 stories plus a roof. Five Councilmembers (Navas, Ford, Arnett, Kurz, and Armour) gave the direction that 82.5' as a height limitation was appropriate. Additionally some members believed that some portions of buildings could exceed the 82.5' limitation, as long as an average building height of 82.5' was achieved. B. Goals and Policy Objectives. of the Lionshead Master Plan Objective 1. RENEWAL AND REDEVELOPMENT Lionshead can and should be renewed and redeveloped to become a warmer, more vibrant environment for guests and residents. Lionshead needs an appealing and coherent identity, a sense of place, a personality, a purpose, and an improved aesthetic character. Objective 2. VITALITY AND AMENITIES We must seize the opportunity to enhance guest experience and community interaction through expanded and additional activities and amenities such as performing arts venues, conference facilities, ice rinks, streetscape, parks and other recreational improvements. Objective 3. STRONGER ECONOMIC BASE THROUGH INCREASED "LIVE BEDS° In order to enhance the vitality and viability of Vail, renewal and redevelopment in Lionshead must promote improved occupancy rates (i.e., "live beds" or "warm pillows") and the creation of additional bed base through new lodging products. TOWNO *VAIL ~ Objective 4. IMPROVED ACCESS AND CIRCULATION The flow of pedestrian, vehicular, bicycte and mass transit traffic must be improved within and through Lionshead. Objective S. IMPROVED INFRASTRUCTURE The infrastructure of Lionshead, including streets, walkways, transportation systems, parking, utilities, loading and delivery systems, snow removal and storage, and other, public and private services must be upgraded to meet the capacities and service 'standards required to support redevelopment and revitalization efforts and to meet the expectations of our guests and residents. Objective 6. CREATIVE FINANCING FOR ENHANCED PRIVATE PROFITS AND PUBLIC REVENUES Redevelopment in Lionshead must be undertaken in a financially creative, but feasible, manner so that adequate capital may be raised from all possible sources to fund desired private and public improvements. C. What Happens Next? Once Council provides direction on a height standard, staff will begin drafting the master plan document. This document will then be reviewed by the PEC and Council. Following adoption of the master plan, staff will begin implementation ordinances which will get into the details and specifics of the code language and also provide an opportunity for public and Council input. D. Lionshead Master Plan Buildina Heiaht and Mass Proaosals - DesignWorkshop, July 29, 1998 1. Building Massing Principles- Apply to all Alternatives The following building mass principles shall apply equally to all buildings in all the alternative building height proposals outlined below. Please note that while these are perhaps the most critical architectural building mass principles, thev do not constitute the comqrehensive izuidelines to be included in the final architectural desiiin ¢uidelines. 1. On all property edges fronting a primary retaiUpedestrian street, 50% of the total building face shall have a maxirrium 16' eave height, at which point the building face must step back a minimum of 12' (see figure A). 2. On all property edges fronting a primary retaiUpedestrian street, 50% of the total building face shall have a maximum 36' eave height, at which point the building face must step back a minimum of 12' (see figure A). 2 ti 3. On all property edges fronting either the ski yard or the Gore Creek corridor, that are not already designated as a prima.ry retaiUpedestrian street, building faces shall have a maximum eave height of 48', at which point the building face must step back a minimum of 12' (see figure B). 4. On any property edge not meeting the above situations, the building faces shall have a maxirrium eave height of 60', at which point the building face must step back a minimum of 12'. . 5. Notwithstanding the above setback requirements, there shall be no vertical face greater than 35' on a building without a secondary step in the building face (see figure C). This requirement is intended to prevent large, unbroken planes in the middle of the building face, to further mitigate the visual impact of the building height, and to provide for higher quality and more interesting articulation of the structure. It is recommended that no minimum or maximum dimension be placed on this secondary step, but that the developer must demonstrate that the intent of the design guidelines have been met. 6. All buildings, regardless of perrnitted building heights and massing principles, shall conform to all established public view corridors. 7. In accordance with existing Town of Vail code, special "landmark" building elements, such as chimneys, towers, or other landmark architectural forms, may exceed the maxirrium ridge height, subject to approval by the Design Review Board. This provision is intended to provide for architectural creativity and quality of building form, and shall not be used as a means of circumventing the intent of the building height limitations. . 8. For major roof elements, the minimum roof pitch shall be 6/12. On a typical double loaded.building mass (65' wide), this minimum roof pitch would result in an approximate eave height corresponding to the following ridge heights: a. 55' eave for a 71' ridge height b. 66' eave for a 82.5' ridge height c. 78' eave for a 94' ridge height d. 89' eave for a 105.5' ridge height 3 ~ II. Building Height Zone Descriptions The following areas within Lionshead are designated for the purposes of building height and massing nnlv. These areas have been delineated based on input from both the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the Vail Town Council, recognizing that different parts of Lionshead are able to appropriately support different building heights a.nd ma.sses. In addition, all parts of the Lionshead study area on the south side of Gore Creek have been removed for purposes of this building height discussion. The three building height areas are as follows (see figure I): ' l. Area `1'- Constituting Lot 4, Block 1, Yail/Lionshead firstfiling, and Lot 2, Block 1. Yail/Lionshead third filing, this area of the Lionshead core has been identified as a priority area for the location of a high-end resort hotel product. 2. Area `2'- This area constitutes the Lionshead resort core (excepting Area `I plus the residential properties south of the parking structure. This area consists of retail on the IS`floor and primarily residential (condos) on the upper floors. While not targeted for a new hotel as Area `1 the future redevelopment and/or renovation of these properties is critical to the eventual implementation of the master plan 's objectives. . 3. Area `3'- This area constitutes the northern periphery of the Lionshead core, adjacent to the frontage road, as well as the area west of the Lianshead core. Based upon previous PEC and Town Council meeting input. this area has the potential to support greater building height and mass than areas `I ' and III. Building Height Alternatives- Alternative A 1. Area "1" and Area "2" See Figure D a. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, the maximum ridge height of any building shall not exceed 82.5' b. Regardless of final built height, no building shall have monotonous, unbroken ridge lines, but shall provide visual interest through the use of varied peak heights, roof forms, gables, and other appropriate architectural techniques. 2. Area "3" See Figure D a. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, the maximum ridge height of any building element shall not exceed 94' 4 M b. Regardless of final built height, no building shall have monotonous, unbroken ridge lines, but shall provide visual interest through the use of varied peak heights, roof forms, gables, and other appropriate architectural techniques. IV. Building Height Alternatives- Alternative B 1. Area "1" and Area "2" See Figure E - a. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, the following height limitations shall apply to the remaining building area: - - b. The average height of the building may not exceed 82.5'. c. Any percentage of a building that exceeds the average building height of 82.5', a minimum of this same percentage of the building must decrease in height by at least the same vertical distance d. The absolute maximum height of any building shall not exceed 94' 2. Area "3" See Figure E a. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, the following height limitations shall apply to the remaining building area: b. The average height ofthe building may not exceed 94'. c. Any percentage of a building that exceeds the average building height of 94', a minimum of this same percentage of the building must decrease in height by at least the same vertical distance. d. The absolute maximum height of any building shall not exceed 105.5' 5 V. Building Height Alternatives - Alternative C 1. Area "1" See Figure F This area of Lionshead, (constituting Lot 4, Block 1, Vail/Lionsl:ead first filing, and Lot 2, Block 1, Yail/Lionshead third filing), has been identified by the Master Plan as a priority area for the location of a high-end resort hotel. Towards that end, and in consideration of the potential program r•equirements of the desired hotel product. the following building height parameters are proposed, subject to the approval.of a conditional use permit (note- if the above described hotel product is not part of the development application for this area, then the conditional use permit would not be met. and the height limitations will be the same as for area 2): a. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, 60% of the remaining building shall not exceed a maximum ridge height of 82.5 feet b. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, 40% of the rema.ining building shall not exceed a maximum ridge height of 94 feet. 2. Area "2" See Figure G a. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, 40% of the remaining building shall not exceed a rnaximum ridge height of 71 feet. b. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, 60°/a of the remaining building shall not exceed a maximum ridge height of 82;.5 feet. 3. Area "3" See Figure G a. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, 40% of the remaining building shall not exceed a maximum ridge height of 82.5 feet. b. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, 60% of the remaining building shall not exceed a maximum ridge height of 94 feet. 6 1 VI. Building Height Alternatives - Alternative D 1. Area "1" and Area "2" See Figure H a. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, 30% of the remaining building shall not exeeed a maximum ridge height of 71 feet. b. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, 40% of the remaining building shall not exceed a maximum ridge height of ~ 82.5 feet ~ c. After meeting the building ste-a-back requirements outlined in section A above, 30°/a of the remaining buildin€ ihall not exceed a maximum ridge height of 94 feet. 2. Area "3" See Figure H a. After meeting the building ste -back requirements outlined in section A above, 30% of the remaining buildin€ shall not exceed a maximum ridge height of 82.5 feet. b. After meeting the building ste -back requirements outlined in section A above, 40% of the remaining buildin( ;hall not exceed a maximum ridge height of 94 feet. - c. After meeting the building ste -back requirements outlined in section A above, 30% of the remaining buildint shall not exceed a maximum ridge height of 1105.5 feet. File: F:\everyone\dom\lionshead\98\lion8-11 ~ 7 ° At pLAN v i cw (R 1a Hr), I L' Mi N ARPas oP It,' r,14x HT ~ ~ AT fL!~.-t~lt~ fi 1usT F~Q Upl, A"LASoF 3~ ~ (P p r''1*.Y. HT rr.~sre~ti~e srrowN < _ rf~D E s'f' jlt-IAN 'r (k tr- AREAsof I I"iAY. H ~Afk~EI?s oF 3(0' r4?X Ht L ~ M IL~ MINIthVM ~ ~ T ~ . E stRl^jV 15UILpIKC4 11ASSINA FikiNe.irLP.-S ~ L r ~tGUF•P- A M ~ . At pI,Aw v IeW uo(Le ep-txV- I `fAfZp fNoNTAUES GAN Ncrt WrT+~o~ 12SeT~K . ~ - P~sp~t~v~ s?~owN . ~ c, o R ~~-bow• . = E ? o cR~~. K Go~f~~D oft L AReA OL~ ~ 1 1 t A ~ L CoR P~ tl-) Iti'nlN~ ~ r'A 14 e- - . o~ x v ~ R Q U SVILDING 1''Ass104 tt~?N~tPt- 1~ ~lu~RE ~ ~ ° IN ADDIt?oN Yo otti~~ Qy, ~O~ SE7~Azl~ ~QVIfLP.t'1GN~"S~ ~p 0~ N o P>LDeA FACCS 1"bq`( X ~XG~p 3S~ ftGlk H'r . ~ W ItNOtT FtoNZc1VTAL st~Ps . _N a 4V, ~ .O B ax ~ . ~ ~U i Lp 1 NG~ rtqs~ f t~lG hax htt NGI Pl.~t B~ f~°Nr~e liv ~ . . ° ("I,~.XITIVTI (tID~E I-~EI~N'~S II.I.Ils'tRAtF-O 6ELoW "F-. AR.EAS t /UJ D 2t AN D ~i~A 3 ~IN P~?(~NtH~.sEs) ~IDuE H~tuHtt ~oR GHIMNE`(S AND -toWGdiS ~V ( ~W CC <.,/~F~E- B`(' G/?S.E ~ d d LoNG o v (VDCiE LINES eo Z j %I + ul u flt`~ 1o N W i;~ w ~ ~ PulLDiNG MassINO FF%INOIELP-S FIGVF-T-- D (ALtEFNAtIVE- A~ r w ~ r"1AX1T''1uT'1 (ZIDA~, HFIAHtS ILt,ustRAtF.D 3et.ow FoI'- . AR6AS I AN D 1 i AN D AReA 3 (iN rAP-ANTHOX-rA) ~ , ("44A EAV t ytS ( HAYe4HEa) D~tGhf1~NGD g'( j`ftoNtAa~ q4' (los.s'~ t'1O, AW, oVt,atBLE _ (tIDAE Ht S44oWN AT AR~ ~'Y,.' ~x (~~caE ff~tayt A ~ r'1 AtN lNtA ARSA g2.s' (94'~ ('1Ust 6P- No t.FSs tNAN ..X~ A%JG (tl DuE tft ~ S ~I~G,~ HEIliH'ts Fo(~ ~ GH I t1 N E`(s AN D 1' oW E(,,5 "V I B W~ GASE 'B-'( - t.,A~'>E a- ~ N N Oo Q ^ N e- l N P NILb IN G MAssING rF, IN c 1 I.f-t FtauRx-- F- (A~t~.~rtAT ~v e i . ° MAXlt'1Ur"1 ~,IDGE !-1ElAkiS Il,l.ustF-ATF~D B~L.oW FoR ARr-A ( oNt,Y MAX EAft WS (FIA-TGttPD) DEtEFP'IIN60 RS`( rNoNTAeAE (Na'T (NGI. IN (pO j" GALGS) / ~ r9Pg M1IDGiE F?t?hHt 2 2.S' At (v0'/e OF ~ F5 LDA /tiREA tIAX F,IAAf~ tF'f ~ 82.5' A-t c?o•l. tIAx JWDaE F4eikkt 14' At 40% oF MAK F~ID61E Hwt ~I.DH ftjt.~P-A 141 At 40•% ~IlE~1~ LoNC, . g x (ZIpAE LINES L ~ N ~ t 4- Z ~ X s~ • N \ 15UILbING MASsINy PKINcl LEs Fiavrp. F (ALTr- " AttvF, GI) i ? o (iA-AIr1 UP"1 RIDaF- kEIAHtS IL-L-UStN~F•D M4..eN? FoF< A"AS 2 AnlD 3 oNt-`(. r"IAX EAVP- HtS (HAtGttED) . D~T ~ I"'? l N tD 6`( F(zO NtAU G INeL. IN koj&o G/tl.c5) - ~ hptA (~lpAE HeluHt ~ "!I' (SZ.s') At 40•% oF 12W16DINA AI«A M. MAx RiCae REja++ X ~ At (so• o oF ~ L J~PUII.DINA AR&A ~ r` IV V) 1iAx (iI DA P. Ht ~ 60 S1•s' (11') /?t 40°4 N ~ 11AX jtlDuE H1 00 r "11 E 2. GO A'r 40-t J~F--EAr-- L aN ' ~IDA~ I.~NGt ~ X ~O SUILpiNG MASSIN4 pj~I NGIPLEs FI c,V F-~F~- 64 ~ ~Al-7EfZNA'f'NES C2 AND G3) i . t o ("IAXIr"IUt'1 RIDa6 HF-IGH1'S 11.1.tlstftAtED BSt-oW fb(l- ARMAS ~ AND 2, aN u RRA 3 (IN tP`RAN?HASCS) CIA-4 tAVt {;fiS (HAtGH4D) FtioNfistc~E . DptERt•'IIN&D 961 CNo't 1N~L IN 3ol'to~ 3o cAt,cS) MAK I~IDuT- F4e-IuHt s t. 11' (81•5'~ At 30-4 oF Bt111.DINt4.AREA L ~ ~c MPrX F-ID E HC1AHt os.s~i?t 4o%oF w r !1 f3U11.t~IN(~ AREA o c- LP v v ri %8 o, h'1AJK jZIDAb N01 ANt a~- C, 81.$' (q'F') At 301/0 oF 00 - ~ ~UILDING~ ARL` ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ASttF.p LINE tp ~i1DAE P~E~oN~ . ~ ~ T 2 O • ` r a a' ~ BU ILDIN4 MAssl NG pRiNCojPLf-s Fl GcIRE N (AVttMlAtivE D) - o T - _ = I= _ _ . - - -=--T: - - - - - ~ _ - - - - - - - - - - - i ~ i ci ~ I I ~ 1 ~ \ I I I I I I 1 ~ 13 ? o, l ~ ~ E5 o ~ e~ . o ~ ~ ~ ' AREA ' 1' i 7 ~ ~ ? AREA '2' AREA '3' . Figure I- Building Height Areas ~ Memorandum To: Town Council From: Andy Knudtsen Subject: Employee Generation Date: August 11, 1998 1. Introduction The purpose ofthis memo is to provide Town Cauncil with an additional level ofdetail to consider as we develop an employee generation ordinance. The policy issues listed below are the framework for the ordinance. Staff requests direction from Council on the first few issues, and with that, will begin defining the rest of the ordinance and returning to Council for additional comment. II. Overview and Example The effect of an employee generation ordinance is to link affordable housing to future development. As new development comes on-line, additional housing units will, too. The developer must provide the new housing units in proportion to the size and use of the development. For example, 1 Use General Retaii 2 Proposed Square footage 1500.00 3 Employee multiplier 5.31 4 Totai employees generated 7.97 5 Vail Percentage (percentage of employees housed) 50% 6 Net employees to be housed 3.98 7 Square footage of housing required for each employee 400.00 8 Square footage of housing 1593.00 9 Location Multiplier 0.50 10 Square footage of affordable housing required of 796.50 developer 11 Minimum number of bedrooms to be constructed 1.99 1 A proposal to construct 1500 square feet of generate retail (lines 1 and 2) would generate 7.97 jobs (line 4) This is determined from the research of the local business community for similar uses (line 3), described in greater detail below. The developer would be responsible to provide housing for only a certain percentage of these jobs (in this case 50% see line 5), resulting in a net requirement of 3.98 employees. The minimum square footage per employee is 400 square foot (line 7), resulting in a total requirement of 1590 square feet of housing (line 8). Depending on where these units are located (on site, in town, down valley, etc.) the square footage is adjusted (line 9). This factor provides flexibility as it allows units to be located anywhere in the Valley, but incents the creation of units on site and disincents them being located downvalley. The final requirement is listed both as a total square footage (line 10) as well as a bedroom count (line 11), to ensure that the product created by this ordinance has the greatest efficiency and use for future employees. M. Specific Policy Considerations There are several different factors to be included in the Employee Generation Ordinance which affect the final requirements of future developers. The research staff has provided below provides a framework for the decisions to be ma.de about each element of the proposed ordinance. The research summarizes the efforts of seven other mountain resort communities in the area of employee generation. In some cases there has been a high degree of similarity among the different entities regarding specific elements - in other areas, each entity has applied its own, unique standards to the equation. In general, staff is recommending that the proposed Vail ordinance reflect the policies of others where there is a high degree of consistency. Where there is not that same level, staff has provided multiple examples, showing how the ordinance can be put together. A. Number of catep-ories to include in the ordinance Tbere is wide variation in the numbers of employees that are typically generated by various types of commercial uses. As a result, staff believes that the proposed ordinance should differentiate between several categories of activity. Ideally, the ordinance will identify enough categories to cover the majority of applications, but not create so many sub-categories that it implies a level of precision in the measurements that does not exist. Another concern with attempting to include too many categories is the future implementation of the ordinance. Change-of-use approvals from the Community Development Department will be required when a new commercial tenant falls into a different category. The new tenant will have to meet any additional employee generation requirements. The fewer the number of categories, the fewer change-of- use reviews will be necessary. 2 ~ A significant difference among the potential uses is the one between commercial and residential. In some communities, both types of uses are listed in the employee generation ordinances (with several sub-categories). While residential uses generate a large number of employees during construction, the level drops drama.tically once the construction is complete. Those residences which are rented on a short-term basis generate more employees over time, but are a small percentage of the total housing stock within the Town. Ultimately, the Town must identify which uses trigger the employee generation requirement. While staff can provide the research and state the average number of employees generated by a typical use, there may be some which wont have the factors identified in the ordinance, but will fall into an "other" category. This will be an important element to include in the ordinance, and will serve two purposes: it can accommodate those developers who do not believe tbe numbers of employees they ultimately generate will be consistent with the averagesprovided in the ordinance (providing a"variance" procedure). It will also serve as a stopgap measure to cover the unique circumstances that cannot be anticipated and codified. Staff has completed a survey of businesses in Lionshead and Vail Village, focusing on the employment needs of the businesses during both the winter and summer seasons. The needs were further broken down into full time and part time employees, which were translated to full time equivalents based on the ratio that three part time employees constitute one full time employee. The businesses surveyed have been classified into twelve groups, based on the uses. The employee requirement for each category were then consolidated into an overali average. Extreme values were excluded from the average to prevent artificial inflation of the results. These were then compared to other resort communities, using the data base of RRC and Associates. In most cases, the results from the staff survey were close to the average or above the average. These categories, and the corresponding generation rates, are as follows: Business Ciassifications and Employees per 1000 square feet Bar/Restaurant 10.18 Grocery/Liquor/Convenience 5.63 Ski/Recreation 5.75 General Retail 5.31 Hotel/Lodging 4.06 Service 5.11 Professional 5.86 Financial 4.2 Real Estate/Property 9.76 Other Services 6.84 3 he categories reflect Vail's current mix of businesses in the Village and Lionshead, but other communities have identified other categories in their employee generation ordinances. These include Ski Area Operations, Multiple Family Homes, Single Family Homes, Conference Center, Health Club, MunicipaUUtility Services, HospitaUMedical Setvices, Heavy Service, Industry, Warehouse, etc. Actual employment rates for these uses can be determined based on additional research in Vail and/or from research in other jurisdictions, depending on the number of categories Council would like to see included in the ordinance. A list of the categories targeted by other communities in their employee generation ordinances follows: TOWN LAND USE TYPE Aspen Comm'I Core Svice/Comm'I/Indus Office Comm'I Lodge Residential (second home) Banff Retail Restaurants/Bars Office Other comm'I Hotels Jackson Comm'I retail RestauranUBar Heavy retail/svice. Service Office Comm'I Lodging Industry Crested Resid. Sub. Butte - 7elluride Comm/Public Hotels/Accommod. Residential Whistler Comm'I Hotel/Accommod. 4 . Although the range of options available is limitless, staff recommends that the Town target commercial development, excluding low density residential uses. The basis for this is to apply the most effecting tool available to each situation. Given the number of commercial properties which are likely to be redeveloped in the near future, the ordinance will be an effective method to address housing. While there are a number of residential areas undergoing a significant amount of redevelopment (Forest Road and the Golf Course area, for example) staffbelieves there are other tools which may be more effective to address residential development and /or redevelopment. For example, the Town could require an on-site Employee Housing Unit for a structure over a given size (3000 square feet, for example). It will be important to distinguish between low-density residential and the commercial nature of many of the condominium developments located in the commercial core areas. Based on the range of options, staff would like direction as to the number of categories to include in the ordinance and the specific uses to list. As a point of departure, staff recommends a focus on commercial uses with the following categories to be included in the proposed ordinance: Bar/Restaurant Retail and Office Hotels/Accommodation units Ski Area Operations Other - to be determined on a detailed analysis of the proposed use. B. Location Factor A critical element to the ordinance will be the method used to locate the units. Flexibility is key and providing multiple options for fulfilling the requirements is critical. As was discussed at the previous worksession, there was consensus regarding the priority locations for the affordable housing units. Staff had applied factors to incent or disincent the location of new units, based on the location. These include: 5 1 t Base requirement Ratio, applying Resulting of two units, based the incentives Requirement, based on proposed and on the priority of the deve{opment disincentives Town On-site 2 .5:1 1 Off-site, in Town 2 1:1 2 Down valley 2 1.5:1 3 Buy Downs 2 2:1 4 Cash-in-lieu 2 3:1 6 Staff needs direction from the Council regarding the weighs assigned to the different locations shown in the table above and will incorporate the direction into the development of the ordinance. IV. Negt Steps Staff will return to the Council with a concept for an ordinance. Staff proposed initiating a public process that would engage the business community in the development of this ordinance and builds on the discussion of these issues. Remaining policy issues for future discussion include: Percentage of employees for which the developer is responsible Square Footage of housing required per employee Pay-in-lieu fee Requirement for unit types and bedroom counts 6 ~ Memorandum To: Town Council From: Andy Knudtsen Subject: Red Sandstone and the A-Frame Date: August 11, 1998 1. Introduction The purpose of this memo is to update the Council regarding the proposed allocation of units at the Red Sandstone and A-Frame affordable housing developments. As you recall, there will be 18 units constructed at Red Sandstone. Twelve of these are for the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and their employees and six are for the Town. This breakdown reflects the land contributed to the project by each organization. There are likely to be two units constructed at the A-Frame, with the potential for a caretaker unit to be added, if it is appropriate for the site. Staff will begin the development review process for the A-Frame in early September, during which the decision on density can be ma.de, with opportunities for input from the neighbors, PEC, and the Town Council. The architect will be providing conceptual drawings showing plans with and without the caretaker unit for the initial discussions. Tom Stevens, the developer for the Red Sandstone project, will also be building the A-Frame project and will begin construction in October. H. Criteria for allocating units The Red Sandstone information packet, provided in the July 24 Council packet, included plans and a schedule of the proposed community-wide lottery. Staff will be presenting lottery criteria to Council at the August 18th worksession and finalizing the criteria at the August 25 worksession. Applications will be available September 1, due October l, with the lottery to be held November 5. Un April 14, 1998, Council provided the following direction for the allocation of the six Town units at the Red Sandstone site and the two at the A-Frame site. This reflects the Council's intent for critical Town of Vail employees wanting to purchase a unit at Red Sandstone or the A-Frame. Note that many of the points will also apply to the community-wide lottery. The upcoming worksessions will be the appropriate time to finalize the elements of the community-wide lottery criteria. 1 l. Modify deed restrictions to require that the prospective purchasers are employees of businesses located within the Town boundaries at the time of closing. Owners my subsequently take jobs located elsewhere in the County (but not outside the County). At time of resale, the future purchaser must be employed at a business located within the Town of Vail. 2. All units will be deed restricted with Vail Commons type restrictions, requiring owner occupancy, employment of 30/week or more, and a cap of 3% annual appreciation (among other items). 3. The Town will have a first right-of-refusal on 6 units at Red Sandstone and the two (or three) units at the A-Frame site. 4. Of the eight units the Town controls (plus another potential unit at the A-Frame), four will be made available to the general public through a lottery similar to the one held for Vail Commons. Four will be ma.de available to critical Town employees. 5. If all four of the units made available to the critical employees are not purchased by critical employees, staffwill return to Council and Council will consider buying them for rental to Town employees. 6. The criteria to be used to distribute the four units to critical employees* is as follows: a. Critical employees who are first time home buyers. b. Critical employees who currently own homes outside the Town of Vail. An employee must meet one of these two criteria to qualify to purchase a unit. If they don't, they must apply for a unit through the lottery with the rest of the general public. *Note: Critical employees have been defined as: sworn police officers, CEO's and CSO's, fire personnel (except administration), dispatch employees, plow drivers, and information systems employees (computer services). III. Current level of demand The deadline for Eagle River Water and Sanitation District employees and critical Town of Vail employees to enter into reservation contracts is August 12, 1998. At this time, it appears likely that 10 of the District units will be under contract by this deadline. Two Town of Vail critical employees are also interested and likely to meet the deadline. Both of the Town of Vail employees are first time home-buyers. (One works in Dispatch and one works as a Community Enforcement Officer.) Five other Town of Vail employees, 2 4 ' who don't fall in the critical category, expressed interest in buying a unit. Sixteen community members have picked up an information packet about the development. There are no prospective buyers for the A-Frame units at this time as there are no plans and sales prices have not been set. IV. Next Steps Based on the direction provided April 14, 1998, four units were to be made available to the general public and four were to be offered for sale to critical Town employees. Staff will proceed with making the four Town units (and the remaining District units) available to the public if that continues to reflect Council's priorities. Staff recommends waiting to allocate the A-Frame units until the design has been completed and the price determined. At that time, staff can allocate the units according to the priorities listed by Council previously, which are to: 1-- Sell the units directly to Town of Vail critical employees; 2-- If any remain, return to the Council to see if the Town should purchase the units and rent to Town employees; and finally, 3-- Offer them to the general public through a lottery. Before moving forward with the community-wide lottery, staff would like to confirm with Council that: 1-- Any remaining District units at Red Sandstone be combined with the four Town units for the community-wide lottery; and 2-- The A-Frame units be allocated in the order listed above. 3 ~~a\ u ~y TOWN OF YAIL ~ 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: August 7, 1998 RE: 8/11/98 Executive Session The purpose of the executive session is to discuss the working relationship between the Town Council and the Town Manager. RWM/aw C~~ RECYCLEDPAPER T ~ August 3, 1998 Mr. Michael Jewett Town Council Member Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd. Vail, Colorado 81657 For the Information of All Council Members Dear Mr. Jewett: As members of the Bravo! and Vail Dance Festival Guild, we have seen how uncooperative the Town of Vail bus people have been in working out arrangements to get attendees back into the village after the Bravo! and Dance performances. No, we are not talking about the paid parking rule, we are talking about having buses available when the music concerts are over. This is a special problem when the Ballet performances are over at 10:00 p.m. when it is dark. Last Friday evening, there were storms during the performance followed by heavy rain right after the final bows. About 100 or more people walked up the hill to stand waiting for buses that did not arrive very soon. It just seems to us that someone should be softhearted enough to realize that not everyone of the 950 people attending that performance could come by car. While I think most of those people could afford the $5.00, where do you put all those cars, even at that price. We drove both nights and paid the $5.00. As ushers, we were among the last to leave. On Friday, we had no problem filling our car with people that were wet and cold, left standing at the bus stop in the dark. On Saturday, the weather was not a special problem but the people we picked up that night were very cold and had been waiting more than 30 minutes. Please do what you can to make arrangements so that people who have enjoyed the beautiful music and dance do not have a sour note as their final impression. The Town of Vail should show that it appreciates being part of the wonderful music and dancing that is provided for local residents and visitors--all taxpayers. Sincerely,-, ~ Mr.and Mrs. Ronald Kovener 17 Vail Rd. #2 Vail, Colorado 81657 (970) 476-5990 r ~ Il TOWN OF YAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 ~ 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 TM MEOiA aDveSoRY August 4, 1998 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-21 i 5 Community Information Office VAiL TOWN COUNClL HIGHLirHTS FOR AUGUST 5 Work Session Briefs Councilmembers present: Armour, ,lewett, Kurz, Navas --DRB Appeal The Council voted 4-0 to overturn a Design Review Board (DRa) decision requiring relocation of a proposed single-family residence in order to preserve a 40 to 50 ft. ta-!! spruce tree on the development site at 278 Rockledge Rd. in making a motion to overturn the DRB decision, Councilman Bea Armour said that whi!e he apprecia#ed the DRB's concerns, he feared the tree wouldn't survive di.iring constructicn excavatian. In his motion, Armcur asked that 10 blue spruce trees between 18 and 22 ft. high be required to mitigate the loss of the spruce. The motion was approved. ' --A Work Session to Discuss Redevelopment Concepts, the Antlers at Vail Councilmembers reviewed redevelopment concepts proposed by the Antlers at Vail. The session was a follow-up to similar discussions with the Design Review Board and Planning and Environmentai-Commission. General Manager Rob LeVine had asked for feedback to determine what options might be possible under the context of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, which is currently being formulated. As proposed, the Antlers project would increase from 72 dwelling units to 96 (only 26 are allowable under current zoning) and wouid exceed allowable GRFA (gross residential floor area) from 36,000 sq. ft. to 87,088 sq. ft. (55,638 sq. ft. currently exists). The plan also calls for 7 employee housing units on site. Two employee housing units already exist on site, but are not deeci restrictsd. During discussion, Councilmembers expressed general support for the increased size, scope and uses proposed, given the location and existing circumstances of the property. However, there were several concerns expressed about the project's exterior design. Councilmemb2rs Armour, Kurz and Navas, in particular, asked ihat steeper roof pitches be considered, as well as other architectural treatments. Councilmembers aiso suggested bringing the total number of employee housing units on site to 9. For more information, contact Dominic Mauriello in the Community Development Department at 479-2148. --Discussion of Vaii Youth Recognition Award Criteria Following a presentation by Councilmember Sybill r1avas, the Council adjusted the annual Vail Youth Recognition Award application process. Applicants (must live in Vail) will now apply directly to the towii rather ihan being nominated by the two schools (Vail Mountain Schooi and Battle Mountain High School). A selection committee would then be formed to name a winner (mcre) ~4M- RECYCLED PAPER x . Add 1/TOV Council Highlights/ 8-4-98 from each school. The winners would then participate in a sister cities exchange during the summer and agree to host a reciprocal visit from an exchange student during the winter. In the past, student nominees hadn't know they were being considered for the award, which caused summer scheduling problems: --Village Core Construction Update Town Engineer Greg Hall presented the following update on TOV construction projects: granite installation is still underway at Seibert Circle with a large concrete pour to follow; temporary lights have been added at the Slifer Plaza renovation work site; the center stairs at the Transportation Center have been removed for installation of a snowmelt system, with concrete pours to follow . on the upper bus deck; some night work is occurring at the Public Works tunnel site to mitigate impacts; and roadwork improvements at Big Horn Park are complete. Still to come are an overlay of Chamonix Rd. behind City Market, improvements to Checkpoint Charlie and an overlay of Gore Creek Dr. --Information Update Councilmembers received an update on the town's voice mail system, which went down over the weekend. Town Manager Bob McLaurin said efforts were underway to restore the service as quickly as possible. --Council Reports Bob Armour reported on last week's growth management workshop organized by Eagle County. He said the session was insightful. Also productive, was a dinner earlier this week between members of the Avon Town Council and Vail's Town Council, he said. In addition, Armour said he enjoyed the TOV employee picnic at Ford Park. Ludwig Kurz, who represents the town on the Eagle County Recreation Authority (Berry Creek 5th), said the board discussed the eventual need to cost-share expanded legal needs. Those needs are currently being provided by Vail Town Attorney Tom Moorhead. --Other On behalf of Kevin Foley (who was absent from the meeting), Michael Jewett asked about the status of Bright Horizons day care, which operates within the City Market complex. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead said he'd received a copy of a letter from City Market to Bright Horizons asking it to continue operating until City Market can find another day care operator to manage the site. Town Manager Bob McLaurin stressed the importance of keeping a day care facility at the Vail Commons site regardless of who operates it. That prompted an idea from Jewett that one of the day care providers at the Mountain Bell site might want to relocate there. He said a relocation would help free up the site for housing as recommended in the Common Ground plan. But Councilmember Sybill Navas said the town's original intent to insist upon a day care facility at Vail Commons was to increase the number of day care spaces within the town. She said Jewett's proposal wouldn't provide a net increase. On another topic, Jewett said he's been receiving negative comments about the managed parking program at Ford Park from the Vail Recreation District. Jewett also referred Councilmembers to a letter written by a constituent who was unhappy that shuttle buses weren't immediately available to pick up passengers following a recent ballet performance. That prompted a comment from Councilmember Sybill Navas who said the feedback she's heard centers on a perceived inequity of charging for parking on some nights, but not others. Town Manager Bob McLaurin suggested the Council evaluate the Ford Park management plan at the conclusion of the summer season. (more) r . Add 2/TOV Council Highiights/8-4-98 Next, Russell Forrest, Community Development Department director, referred Councilmembers to a memo written previously outlining next steps in the Lionshead Master Plan process and the Common Ground process. Forrest also asked Councilmembers to independently review a draft letter to the community outlining proposed next steps in the Common Ground process and to forward comments to the project manager by noon on Wednesday. The letter proposes 8 opportunities for community involvement and asks for feedback on the proposed process at the Aug. 18 evening council meeting. Councilmember Sybill Navas asked that the letter emphasize that Timber Ridge is the Council's number-one priority. Councilman Michael Jewett suggested changing the wording on Timber Ridge actions from "acquisition" to "potentiai redevelopment." At Jewett's request, copies of a lawsuit by the Glen Lyon group were distributed to Councilmembers. Evening Session Briefs Councilmembers present: Armour, Jewett, Kurz, Navas --Citizen Participation Jerry Sibley, vice president of the Donovan Park Neighborhood Association, read a news release from the group outlining concerns about the Common Ground plan. In particular, Sibley said use of land originally purchased by Real Estate Transfer Tax funds, such as Donovan Park, should not be used for housing. Instead, the group suggested the town move forward in providing the area with a quality park as well as open space. Next, Howard Stone, executive director of the Vail Jazz Foundation, gave an update on the organizations's fourth year of activities, which kicks off soon with a month-iong celebration of jazz in Vail. Guy Ayrault, also representing the Donovan Park Neighborhood Association, referred Councilmembers to a letter he and Sally Jackle had written to the Council explaining their opposition to the Common Ground plan. Ayrault said he had no choice but to take legal action against the town. He asked the Council to step back to consider fhe damage that would be caused if the plan were implemented. He said the plan would destroy the character of the town. - In asking the Council to reconsider its decision on Common Ground, Ronald Jones presented a letter outlining nine points of concern. Among them, Jones said the Council has ignored the concerns of the majority of the people who have spoken against the Common Ground pfan. Next, Diana Donovan said the Council must stop using the Common Ground process to validate a predetermined decision. Because of the Council's insistence on identifying housing sites, she said the process has not been a fair, open or honest discussion. She also encouraged Councilmembers to give its full attention to Timber Ridge. (That's because deed-restrictions on the 198 units are set to expire in 2001). Donovan also asked that any discussions on Common Ground be listed as an agenda item rather than reserving time under "other." Suszanne Mueller, a resident of the Matterhorn neighborhood, asked Council not to build housing on Donovan Park. On behalf of Mueller, Councilman Michael Jewett asked that meeting agendas be routed to Mueller and any other citizens who request them. Jewett also clarified that copies of the Town _ Charter are being made available to citizens free of charge and suggested including the charter on the town's Internet website. And lastly, Jewett suggested the need to consider a formal registry of neighborhood groups who would be given a direct communications link with the town on issues such as Common Ground. Jewett said he envisioned up to 20 groups would be (more) ~ . ~ Add 3/TOV Council Highlights/8-4-98 interested in registering. The idea isn't new, he said. Other cities across the state have a formal registration process. --Approval of Minutes of June 30 Meeting In moving to approve the meeting minutes for the June 30 special meeting on Common Ground, Councilmember Sybill Navas said the minutes reflect almost equal participation for-and-against. That caused several members of the audience to disagree. Councilman Michael Jewett noted that several individuals at the June 30 meeting spoke on behalf of other individuals. He also characterized many of those who spoke in favor of the plan as being individuals who had received funding or some other approvals from the Town of Vail. • --Rezoning of a Portion of Land on Rockledge Rd. to Reflect Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement The Council voted 4-0 to approve second reading of an ordinance that applies zoning to a portion of the land on Rockledge Rd. that was recently acquired by the town as part of the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement with the U.S. Forest Service. The property will eventually be sold to adjacent property owners to resolve encroachment problems. For more information, contact Town Attorney Tom Moorhead at 479-2107. --Report on Common Ground Litigation In an update to the Council, Town Attorney Tom Moorhead said two lawsuits had been received challenging Council's June 30 adoption of a resolution on Common Ground. Moorhead said the suits, one from the Donovan Park Neighborhood Association representing 23 property owners and one from Greenhill Court, representing 11 property owners, mirror one another alleging the resolution improperly: • allocated funds for budget purposes • authorized conditional use and rezoning actions • violated the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan and the Donovan Park Master Plan • violates the use of lands purchased with Real Estate Transfer Tax funds • exceeds Council's authority Further, Moorhead said the two lawsuits ask for an injunction to stop implementation of the plan, although no motion has been filed asking the court to consider an injunction at this time. A third lawsuit also has been filed in district court, but Moorhead said the town has not yet been served. On behalf of the town, Moorhead said he was prepared to answer the complaints in a timely fashion and would proceed through Eagle County District Court. In response to a question from Councilman Michael Jewett about allegations of improper use of lands purchased by Real Estate Transfer Tax funds, Moorhead said the argument was not a legally supported position. Jewett responded by saying the Council has a morale obligation to uphold previous commitments made by previous councils. He then asked his fellow councilmembers to reflect and give serious considerations to the current actions. UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS August 11 Work Session Revenue Recovery Group, Authorize to Enter Contract for Audit Services PEC/DRB Review Lionshead Master Plan Discussion Discussion of Employee Generation Ordinance August 18 Work Session Red Sandstone Lottery Discussion VRD Request to Proceed through the Process (more) ~ . Add 4/TOV Council Highlights/8-4-98 August 18 Evening Meeting First Reading, Model Traffic Code First Reading, Re: Bond Tree Ordinance Review Common Ground Process for Next Steps Discussion of Business License Fee by "Vail 1 st" # # u TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 ~ 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 TM FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 3, 1998 Contact: Tom Moorhead, 479-2107 Town Attorney TOWN OF VAIL PREVAILS IN DEFENDING 1983 APPROVAL OF INTERNATIONAL WING WITH RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION (Vail)--The Colorado Court of Appeais has ruled in favor of the Town of Vail and Lodge Properties, Inc., for the 1983 approval of the International Wing. The wing, a 65,000 sq. ft. addition to the Lodge Tower building at the base of Vail Mountain, features 24 new hotel rooms and 7,500 sq. ft. of conference space. Construction began in 1996 and was completed earlier this summer despite a lawsuit which was filed to block the development. The lawsuit, filed by two adjacent property owners in December 1995, contested the town's approval process on several matters and allegsd the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approvai in 1983 had expired. The neighbors, Luanne Wells and Anita Saltz, faced the loss of private views and access to open space as a result of the development. At issue was enactment of a 1993 ordinance that invalidates PEC approvals of exterior alterations after two years, unless the applicant obtains a building permit and begins construction on the approved project. In the case of the International Wing, 13 years lapsed between PEC approval and construction. But the town had maintained that project approvais prior to enactment of the 1993 ordinance, such as the International Wing, were not affected. Following a trial in Eagle County District Court, Judge William L. Jones ruled in favor of the Town of Vail and Lodge Property, Inc. In his February 1997 opinion, Judge Jones found no (more) RECYCLEDPAPER Add 1/International Wing Court of Appeals basis for setting aside the Town of Vail approval process or that the Planning and Environmental Commission approval had lapsed. The District Court ruling was appealed by one of the plaintiffs, Luanne Wells, and just last month, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued an opinion which affirmed the decision reached by Judge Jones which was in favor of the Town of Vail and Lodge Property, Inc. The July 23 court decision held that the ordinance being challenged as causing the lapsing of the Planning and Environmental Commission approval was "clear and unambiguous" and did not cause the approval to lapse. For a copy of the 10-page decision, contact the Town of Vail Community Information Office at 479-2115. # # # From: Ivis Pardee To: Suzanne Silverthom Date: 8/6/98 Time: 5:17:18 AM Page 1 of 1 The AAA&? CHAMBER Of Commerce Vote! In the August 11t" Primary Election Primary Elections will take place on Tuesday, August 11, 1998 to determine who will be on the November ballot. Coloradans, registered with either the Republican or Democratic parties, are eligible to vote. According to Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, Sara Fisher, "voters will have the opportunity to vote only for candidates wha are members of their declared parry. The law allows unaffiliated voters to declare party affiliation as late as when they arrive at the polls on election day." Applications for absentee baHots are being accepted by the Clerk's oTfice and ballots were mailed beginning July 10"'. Voted ballots must be in the hand of the Clerk and Recorder by the time the polls close at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August lith, to be counted. The /ast day to request an absentee ba//ot is Friday, August 7th To verify your voter registration information or request an application far an absentee ballot, call the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's office at 328-8715. YdE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF CHAMONIX LANE, PETITION 1 THE TOWN OF VAIL TO ELIMINATE THE BUS ROUTE AT THE WEST END OF CHAMONIX LANE BECAUSE: 1) EXCESSIVE NOISE FROM BUSES GOING UP CHAMONIX LANE. 2) RESULTANT POLLUTION FROM THE EXHAUST. 3) CONCERNS REGARDING SAFETY WITH WINTER SERVICE. NAME ADDRESS DATE gq 6 Cj1~ c nE- 61- Li L,. ~ --.?-i-s P~~WUkwic- -~PCf -74~0 i 7 - L/ - q /'7b ~G ;L co c i - ;z _ El,,.ri9~( 0.t ?~o le-,l,.~ ~IC3 11 aOnO V16 1..h , r;: I Z 't -7 o G A a u..~~ ~x L a 7IL1~'~'~ ~ ~ 9 i~ ay~ C~'~ ~N ~ , ~j ~ A>._ ge>~Z' c2 ~7 ~ . ' WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF CHAMONIX LANE, PETITION THE TOWN OF VAIL TO ELIMINATE THE BUS ROUTE AT THE WEST END OF CHAMONIX LANE BECAUSE: 1) EXCESSIVE NOISE FROM BUSES GOING UP CHAMONIX LANE. 2) RESULTANT POLLUTION FROM THE EXHAUST. 3) CONCERNS REGARDING SAFETY WITH WINTER SERVICE. NA ADDRESS DATE a~- a ~zv ` ~ 3d T ! ow ' 41v 2 qbO Clla0t.071L i G~?,1i~ ~s 2 47d cz 2-°99 Tki ~~~M4-jWpj y,6 6r0 4L - '7 ~ . WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF CHAMONIX LANE, PETITION THE TOWN OF VAIL TO ELIMINATE THE BUS ROUTE AT THE WEST END OF CHAMONIX LANE BECAUSE: 1) EXCESSIVE NOISE FROM BUSES GOING UP CHAMONIX LANE. 2) RESULTANT POLLUTION FROM THE EXHAUST. 3) CONCERNS REGARDING SAFETY WITH WINTER SERVICE. NAME ADDRESS DATE ~ 0 - Y- r{ 7 f ~ r')i~ ` ; , . ! r ` r ( ! f c. f ~i~G~,`.~ ; _ c~~ J yt i'F••. l~?'~ / /8 ° /C&'~ . ~L ~C~---•. c f1~4 rzv ~ ,,r /c~ - 2-4 C' c1-4~K ~ Z;' 49 'rlr;~~-t 7& , lC~f I II~ 4VAIL TOWN 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 ~ 970-479-2100 FAX . 70-479-2157 TM FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE . August 7, 1998 _ Contact: Andy Knudtsen, Project Manager, 479-2440 Rob Ford, Vaii Mayor, 479-1 E6u VAIL TQWN COUNCIL SEEKS COMMUNITY REACTION TO NEXT STEPS LN COMMON GROUND PROCESS AT AUGUST 18 EVENlNG MEETING (Vail)--In a continuing effort to involve the community durina each phase of the Common Ground process, the Vail Town Council is again asking for hElp from citizens. This time, comments are being sought to help shape next steps in the process. These steps involve determining the appropriate density and architecturai style for seiected housing sites, as weli as programming preferences for park sites. The Common Ground plan, adopted by Ccuncil resolution on June 30 by a 6-1 vote, identifiQs 20 sites througnouf Vail for use as affordable housing, open space, parks or community facilities. Adoption of ihe resolution foliowed a four-month cc,nmunity involvement process that included a survey of residents and property owners, public worKShops, citizen response forms and an open house. In approvinq the ccrcept p(ar, CoUnci!members eliminated proposed housing densities, explaining that they wanted local residents to have a say in determining those densities. ThosE discussions, on a site-by-site basis, wou;d begin in September under a timetable being floated by the Town Councii. That time line, which includes a series of proposed bus tours, neighborhood meetings and an open house, has been drafted and is being mailed to 300 community members who've been directly involved in the Cammon Ground process. Recipients, along with anyone else who's interested in tre process, are asked to sugges; improvements to the schedule and to share (more) RECYCLED PAPER ~Add 1/Proposed Common Ground Next Steps those ideas on or before the Aug. 18 evening meeting of the Town Council. That meeting will be used to finalize next steps, and to develop a communications plan to ensure neighborhood awareness and participation. As proposed, West Vail and Lionshead are the first parcels up for community discussion. In West Vail, the parcel at the intersection of Arosa Dr. and Garmisch has been identified for a mixed use development to include a neighborhood park and open space on a portion of the property, with for-sale housing on the remainder. Also, the perimeter of the south side of the Lionshead parking structure has been selected for a seasonal housing development. The two town-owned properties are among six sites selected for housing and park development during phase one of the three-phase plan. As the two neighborhood discussions proceed, work wi{I also begin on the Town Council's number-one priority: to work with the owner of the 198-unit . Timber Ridge complex for possible expansion or redevelopment of affordable housing. Current deed restrictions on the units expire in 2001. Those discussions will be handled initially by Town Attorney Tom Moorhead who will negotiate with the property owner on behalf of the town. As for the West Vail and Lionshead properties, the Town Council has proposed an extensive process for meeting directly with people in the two neighborhoods to hear specifically what they're concerned about and asking them to help develop guidelines for development in their neighborhoods. Those discussions would include a bus tour of examples of existing affordable housing developments, as well as neighborhood characteristics; neighborhood meetings to brainstorm ideas about the development site; a week-long open house to review the themes expressed during the previous meetings as well as an economic analysis prepared by the town; and a community meeting for additional public comment and suggestions. Ultimately, proposed densities and other development criteria for each site will need Town Council approval. The parameters would then be used in the town's selection of a development team that would then follow the town's regular development review process, which involves a thorough (more) ~ Add 2/Proposed Common Ground Next Steps evaluation by the town's boards and commissions, along with a series of public meetings. Construction of the West Vail and Lionshead housing and park sites could begin next June, according to the proposed timetable (see attached). The Town Council's proposal also includes a second series of neighborhood discussions in the fall with a focus on two areas: the three benches of Donovan Park in the Matterhorn • neighborhood and the privately-held Tract C property near Vail Mountain School. Other more immediate actions in TOV's proposed work plan include: • Move forward with the Timber Ridge and Hud Wirth sites, working with the current owners in a collaborative manner to ensure the sites are developed and/or redeveloped for affordable housing • Begin a process to acquire existing properties and deed-restrict them (buy-downs) • Process the 5 parcels named in phase one as protected open space; acquire the sixth site, L. Ladner, when available • Establish a process to prioritize community needs and desires as they related to potential community facilities Despite legal actions which have been filed to block the initiative, six of seven Councilmembers have asked to move forward with the Common Ground plan. Although disappointed by the lawsuits, Mayor Rob Ford says the Council is not deterred from its commitment to work with the people in Vail to come up with a final plan that meets community needs and desires. "The town has been committed throughout this process to listening to what the community wants, and our commitment hasn't wavered," he said. For more information about proposed next steps, or to offer suggestions, contact Andy Knudtsen, project manager, at 479-2440. # # # Opportunity for involvement West Vail Lionshead ~ #1 Bus Tour - Purpose of ineeting is to review a range of site Monday, August 31 Monday, September 7 planning and architectural prototypes, tour developments of 5:00 -'7:00 pm 5:00 - 7:00 pm differing densities and see examples of existing affordable housing developments. Tuesday, September 1 Tuesday, September 8 Two buses, holding 20 passengers each, will be available. 10:00 - noon 10:00 - noon Additional bus trips will be provided, if there is the demand. Meet at the Dancing Bear Meet at the Dancing Bear #2 Community Dialogue - Purpose of ineeting is to debrief from Wednesday, September 2 Wednesday, September 9 the bus tour and graphically record ideas about each housing or park 5:00 - 7:00 pm 5:00 - 7:00 pm development site. Inn at West Vail (Use Inn at West Vail (iJse , • Dancing Bear entrance) Dancing Bear entrance) Staff Analysis - Will evaluate options and provide detailed analysis September 7-18 September 14 - 25 as to economic viability, compatibiliry with neighborhood, sum- maries of themes expressed during the previous two meetings, etc. #3 Open House - Purpose of open house will be to communicate Week of September 21 - 25 Week of Sept. 28 - Oct. 2 all ideas generated in previous two meetings. Self-guided tour of M- F 10:00 am to 8:00 pm M- F 10:00 am to 8:00 pm material will be on display for the entire week. Vail Library Atrium Vail Library Atrium #4 Community Meeting Purpose is to take one evening during Thursday, September 24 Thursday, October 1 the week of the open house and listen to responses from community 5:00 - 7:00 pm 5:00 - 7:00 pm members. This will be an opportunity for you to focus on specific issues, ask detailed questions about rationale and express additional Vail Library Community Vail Library Community suggestions or solutions. Room Room #5 Council Meeting - Purpose is to take into account all Tuesday, October 6 Tuesday, October 20 information generated up to this point in the Common Ground 7;00 pm 7:00 pm process and approve specific development parameters for the site. These parameters will constitute the core of the Request for Vail Town Council Chambers Vail Town Council Chambers Proposals which will follow. Draft RFP October 1998 October 1998 Issue RFP November 1998 November 1998 Review Developer Proposals - A set of the proposals will be Nov/Dec 1998 Nov/Dec 1998 available for the community to review. Give us your thoughts on the range of development teams who respond to the RFP. #7 Select Developer Team The Town Council will confirm a December 1998 December 1998 development team seleciion at a regularly scheduled meeting. Please bring your comments and communicate them to the Council at the Tuesday aftemoon worksession. #8 Development Review Process There will be several January/February/March 99 January/February/March 99 opportunities to participate in the Development Review Process, as the designs progress through the standard order of public hearings, including Planning and Environmentai Commission - as needed - Design Review Boazd, and Town Council. Complete Design for Construcuon ApriUMay 99 April/May 99 Issue building pemut and begin construction June 99 June 99 Complete construction April 2000 April 2000 \ ` • ` TOWN OF VAIL ~ Office of the Town Manager 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 . 970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157 TM August 7, 1998 Mr. Jim Sluum VIA TELECOPIER 748-0710 Executive Director Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority Post Office Box 1564 Avon, CO 81620 Dear Jim: As you are aware, the agreement between the funding partners for the Eagle County Transportation Authority has fallen apart because of actions taken by the Town of Avon and the Beaver Creek Resort Company. It is my understanding that in fiscal year 1998, the County has funded approximately 50% of its obligation to the Authority. As you are aware, the Town of Vail has paid its full contribution ($86,000). Because of the unwillingness of the remaining funding partners to fund their obligation, the Town of Vail is requesting 50% of its 1998 contribution be returned. This would match the 50% contribution made by the County and is, in our judgment, the most equitable scenario given the present circumstances. Given the fact that no future funding will come from the Town of Avon or the Beaver Creek Resort Company, the Town of Vail will no longer provide funding for the balance of the five year period. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you have questions or need additional information please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Robert W. McLaurin Town Manager RWM/aw ' xc: Vail Town Council Eagle County Commissioners Christine Anderson L~~ RECYCLED PAPER ti08/08/98 SAT 15:08 FAX 9709499227 SHAMROCK Town Council Mem fdl001 ~ F-* w ~ Conlzmmn LCL~tl,0n 0 ~ VVMA MEETING ~ WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1998 8:30AM : COLORADQ SKI MUSEUM AGENDA : • INTERNATI4NAL FEST : • CONSTRUCTION UPDATE • VAIL 1 ST ...AND MUCH, MUCH M4RE. PLEASE ATTEND. t08/08/98 SAT 15:08 FAX 9709499227 SHAMROCK Town Council Nem Z002 f NOTFS FROM JULY 8T" MEE'TING GUII3E: The guide is out. What do you think? ff you have any comments or suggestians caU CJ @ 476-food. PARKING TIIIS VVINTER: The tawn is thinking of changing the hows for free parking. The top of the paxking structure will be the Expo azea during the 99 Championships. This means there wi11 be no parldng in this azea Also being discussied is limited use, up to two months, of blue and value passes this wiirter in the Village structure. Meetings should be attended and your voices should be hear4 concerning parking this winter, its going to be tough! EXP'OSITION IN STRUCTURE: There was some concern that the town was not getting any money from the Expo , but that it was going to the Vail Valley Foundation. There was also the thought that there should be restrictions on who shovld be able to participate in the Expo so that they are not in direct competition with the Village stores_ VAII. 1ST COIVIMITTTE: This group is working on keeping the business Iicense fees in the Town of Vail to promote the Town of Vail_ There will be a special district vote on this issue coming up. SEIBERT CIRCLE PARTY: Takes place on Friday, August 14th from 4-7. AVAR, VAI.LEY EXCHANGE: Karen Phillips spoke about how this group ~ belps bring international employees to the Valley. There are some costs and ' savings in having an international employee. CaII her with any questions. 1NTERNATIONAL FEST: Will take place on August 29`h. It will be an Irish theme. There will Ue a river dance and funk dance group performing at the base ' of the mountain The plan is to have two performa.nces with 500 people attending each. Support is needed for this festival! Please get involved and help out! This = will benefit everyone in the Village. To get involved ca.ll Steve Rosetrthal @ 476- 3130. ~ f RECEivEO Aus 1 o M 4% Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 Avon, Colorado 81620 (970) 748-4000 ZIWP- August 5, 1998 Vail Town Council Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Council, From those of us able to attend dinner at Alpenrose Monday evening, a hardy thanks. We all really enjoyed it. Next time it is Avon's turn. I think it was good we had a chance to talk about a marketing district and we understand where you are coming from (at least those at the dinner). I think a delay of a year with respect to a ballot issue will give us all a chance to think this through. Kindest Regards, Jack Fawcett Mayor . Town of Avon AUG-10-1998 12=35 MEADOW VAIL PLACE 3034799437 P.01 ~ 4j V~ TO: 479-2248 August 10, 199$ Vai[ Towm Council Members Town of i'ai! 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Coiorado $1657 Dertr Council Members: From my horne on West Mendow Drive I look out upon the Mvuntain $ell Tower and the divide in the mountuin u6vut which ai recent article in the Vail Trttil, "Housing Option #31 " referred. l`t seerns highly desiru6le as a locution, for empIoyee housing, especially,fot the T'crwn of Vail basinesses. There shorxld be no deiay in sturtin fJ the project sis+t:e the property is alrcady owned by the 'I'own of Vail! This option shouid be.-liven serious consideration by the Vail Town Countil and, while considering ttiis option, pteu.re bear in rnind that in the Alps there is stoted everything frow gold, emergency survivul foods and ammunitio», to airplanes, so w6y not us.! the RockiesfOr pprkiti$ autvmobiles? Sincerely, A concerned citizen TOTflL P.01 lc ~ r~ 24t5ONeMaERSNaY RECEIVE~,-~'G 1 0 1 Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 J~ August 4, 1998 Dear Vail Town Council Member: we are not a"Johnny come lately" family to Vail, as we have been • coming to Vail for 25 years and have been property owners for 21 0f those years. We currently spend two to three months in Vail during the winter season and two months in the summer season at our home on Sunburst Drive Upon arriving in Vail on July lst we were dismayed to find the excessive disruption throughout Vail Village due to town and private construction projects. You have known for approximately seven years that the 1999 Championships were coming and, therefore, should have planned this accordingly. Not only has this made being in Vail Village an unpleasant experience, you are also penalizing the merchants. I took the time on several days to ask people on Bridge and Core Creek Streets how they felt about the current construction environment. Responses ranged from old.timers saying.they.will stay out of the,Village and not frequent the merchants to first timers who were so disappointed they said they will never return to Vail. I also encountered one family who was cutting their two week vacation short by an entire week because they could no longer stand the mess. It is one thing to just complain. It another matter to offer a suggestion for the future. I am not a city planner but have some thoughts I would like you to consider. There should be three, five, seven and ten year windows of opportunity for construction. In other words, for the next two years there should be a moratorium on any new or replacement construction. Only emergency repairs may be permitted during this two year period. The Town of Vail and private enterprise may submit projects at any time to be slotted into these windows. Approval should be based on a first come basis as well as meeting all the standard requirements for project approval. However, part of the initial approval phase should be the submission of a"mission statement" as to how this project will contribute to the betterment.. of the community both socially and economically. The second part of my suggestion is to divide the town into two major grids. The first, Major Grid #1, would be from Gold Peak on the East, to the east side of the hospital on the West, and from the S. Frontage Road on the North to the Base of the Mountain on the South Vail Town Council Member August 4, 1998 Page Two (approximately at the Vista Bahn Lift). Major Grid #2 would be from the west side of the hospital to Forest Road, and from the S. Frontage Road to the Base of the Mountain (The Gondola). Situated within each major grid would be a smaller grid. The greater the existing density, the smaller the "grid section". , An example is shown below. Based on existing density, new projects would only be considered in grid sections with less density, thus encouragrng new development further from the Vail Center. New projects would promote additional jobs and increase the tax base. Preference would be given to new projects which meet the requirements. Redevelopment projects would be considered next. Each grid section would be limited to the number of projects that could be in progress at any one time, based on the size of that section. The smallest grid sections could have no more than one project in progress at any one time and failure to complete a project on time would be cause for substantial financial penalties. I would also suggest a campaign aimed at those who vacationed (or attempted to vacation) in Vail this summer, in suggesting they try Vail again, without the mess. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, ~~b~. OF Vikt~ ~OJ~UTP«?.! tl. 61 o~D JPM/clr FR.ONTqlE ROA-D lovol jm-vai[ FROM : P'Tech/Dalesandro/Feistmann PHONE N0. : 970 476 4590 Aug. 10 1998 03:45PM P2 ;*o . Peter H. Feistmann August 10, 1998 To: Vai1 Torxm Council Re: Employee Generation Since I will not be able to attend your work session tomorrow, I'd like to shAre some thoughts with you on thc hoeising responsibilities of employers. . I agree that we clearty need tv ta.ke action to create employee housing within the town boundaries. . However, if an asset that benefits all, open space, is used to create employee housing, tHe primary benefit goes to employers. The rest of us rnay get secandary benefits - more full t-ime residents, and potential greater economac heAlth, but the employers will be the big _ winners. Recent publicity suggests that your plarn is to only requi.re »ew employers, or those expanding their businesses, to bear any of the costs involved. Xt is patently unfair to . prnvide any "grandfathetirtg. " All emTloyers will potentinlly ben~ftt, therefore all should be required tn participate equitably [rt the eosts of hnucing their ernnlnyees. The absence of a detailed plan #'or employer burden sharing is a glaring oversight in the outcome of your Common Ground pracess. Don't compound the error hy ereafing an inequitable soluiion. . Tha»ks for your attention. box 2438 • vail, coldrado 81658 • 970-476-4590