HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-01-12 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1999
2:00 P.M. AT TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
NOTE: Time of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied
upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item.
1. A joint work session meeting discussion with the Town Council
George Ruther and the Planning & Environmental Commission to discuss the
Tom Braun proposed amendments to the Public Accommodation Zone
District. (45 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Engage in a discussion
with the applicant, staff, and Planning & Environmental
Commission regarding amendments to the Public Accommodation
Zone District development standards and provide input and
direction on the subject.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On December 14th, the Planning &
Environmental Commission held a work session to discuss
amendments to the development standards prescribed for the
Public Accommodation Zone District. In discussing the subject,
the Commission members requested a joint work session with the
Town Council to discuss the subject in greater detail. The
Commission strongly believed that policy direction was needed
from the Council in order to proceed in the most effective and
efficient means possible.
A copy of the applicant's report to the PEC, the staff memorandum
to the PEC and the December 14th meeting minutes have been
attached for reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend that the
Council provide policy direction to the applicant, staff and PEC
with regard to the proposed amendments.
2. A joint work session meeting with the Town Council and the
George Ruther Planning & Environmental Commission to discuss the proposed
Henry Pratt redevelopment of Marriott's Mountain Resort at Vail. (45 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Engage in a discussion
with the applicant, staff and the Planning & Environmental
Commission regarding a major amendment to Special
Development District # 7 and provide the staff and applicant with
direction and input on the redevelopment of the hotel.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The applicant, Marriott's Mountain
Resort at Vail, represented by Henry Pratt of Gwathmey, Pratt
Architects, is proposing a redevelopment of the existing hotel.
The purpose of the work session meeting is to allow the applicant
an opportunity to present the proposed redevelopment to the
various Town boards and for the Town to provide direction to the
applicant on various aspects of the redevelopment project.
Please see the attached staff memorandum dated 1/12/99 for
further details.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council
provide policy direction to the applicant, staff and PEC with regard
to the proposed hotel redevelopment. .
3. PEC/DRB Review. (15 mins.)
George Ruther
4. Discussion of CARTS Funding for 1999. (10 mins.)
5. Ford Park Managed Parking. (30 mins.)
BACKGROUND: Staff has provided a detailed memo containing
background and information Council requested. Staff cannot
reconvene the Ford Park Managed Parking Committee until
Council makes a decision re: previous policy statements it has
approved as a part of the Ford Park Master Plan.
STAFF REQUEST: Reconfirm or modify the Ford Park Master
Plan re: how Council wishes to proceed w/summer'99 parking
issues at Ford Park.
6. Information Update. (10 mins.)
7. Council Reports. (10 mins.)
8. Other. (10 mins.)
9. Executive Session - Negotiations. (30 mins.)
10. Adjournment - 5:25 p.m.
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/19/99, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/26/99, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/19/99, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-
2332 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information.
NOTICE
SKI/SNOWBOARD WITH THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
On the following Wednesday dates the community is invited to Ski/Snowboard with the Vail
Town Council. The hours are from 8:30 a.m. to noon on:
January 13, 1999
February 10, 1999
March 10, 1999
April 14, 19999
Meet at the Vista Bahn and provide your own equipment, lift ticket and lunch.
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
X24 ~dAd~l'4, T L~ ``Ainiviz TtCtb-WTTrroTg A
~~9M7.30 A.M. Q- 4:00n 4 CANCELLED
JANUARY 19, 1999 - AT ITS REGULAR WORK SESSION THE TOWN
COUNCIL WILL DISCUSS STRATEGIC GOAL
SETTING AND PRIORITIES
FEBRUARY 2, 1999 - THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION HAS
BEEN CANCELLED.
FEBRUARY 2, 1999 - THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING
WILL START AT 5:00 P.M. IN THE VAIL TOWN
COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
FEBRUARY 9, 1999 - THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION HAS
BEEN CANCELLED.
COUNCIL FOLLOW-UP
TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS
1998
7/28/98 MUD LOT (LOT A ADJACENT TO RUSSELL/ANNIENRD/TOM/PAM: Kaye Ferry expressed During the '99 Championships, this lot will be used for loading and delivery
THE HOSPITAL AND LIBRARY concern that the lot reserved for VRD library and for staging of the various events occurring in the Dobson arena.
personnel, and Because of limited staging space for a variety of venues, the lot is integral
Council hospital staff is underutilized, after experiencing difficulties to make this all work.
herself in dropping off an injured person and securing a
parking space. It was suggested original agreements w/the
hospital be revisited re: the parking lot west of the hospital,
as well as the parking structure to the east. Staff will return
to Council w/their findings.
1/12/99 Ford Park Tot Lot TODD/LARRY: When you re-do the above, please do FOLLOW UP: What is scheduled is simply maintenance and replacement
Navas something really creative, singular, and interesting w/the tot of a couple pieces of outdated equipment. Todd understands the request
lot. from the discussions w/unique community facilities in which we've been
involved, but the $50,000.00 currently budgeted will not cover a re-do of
this park facility.
January 8, 1999, Page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 14, 1998
SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss proposed text amendments to
the Public Accommodation Zone District regulations amending the
various development standards and revising the development review
process
Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Tom Braun
Planner: George Ruther
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, Johannes Faessler, represented by Tom Braun of Braun Associates, Inc.,
is requesting a worksession with the Planning & Environmental Commission to discuss
amendments to the Public Accommodation Zone District. In a report prepared by the
applicant's representative, two problems have been identified with the existing Public
Accommodation Zone District. One of the underlying problems that the applicant has
identified is that the existing development standards (GRFA, density, setbacks, etc.) do
not allow the flexibility necessary to develop a viable, high quality lodge.
A second problem that was identified is the current development review process. Since
the existing development standards of the Public Accommodation Zone District appear
to be outdated, a majority of the recent proposals for redevelopment in the Public
Accommodation Zone District have been requests for Special Development Districts.
Special Development Districts have been utilized for redevelopment as a means of
achieving the necessary flexibility needed to develop a viable, high quality lodge. One
need not look very far to see that the special development district review process is a
very difficult and arduous process rarely ending in a true win-win situation. Several
problems identified by the applicant with the current development review process for
special development districts include potential inequities in the review process, ill-
defined development standards, uncertainty in the decision-making process, and the
vast amounts of time and energy required of the process itself.
This memorandum provides a brief history of the Public Accommodation Zone
District and identifies issues for discussion. The purpose of this worksession is to
open a line of communication between the community, applicant, staff and the
Planning & Environmental Commission with regard to possible amendments to
the Town's Public Accommodation Zone District Regulations. To facilitate this
discussion, staff has identified four issues which we believe need to be discussed
in greater detail. Each of these issues is discussed in Section III of this
memorandum.
1
IY11VAW AIL
While the applicant proposing the amendments to the Public Accommodation Zone
District is Johannes Faessler, representing Sonnenalp Resort, the proposed
amendments are intended to address the Public Accommodation Zone District town-
wide, and are not intended to address only those properties owned by the applicant.
A copy of the report prepared by Braun Associates, Inc. for the applicant addressing the
proposed amendments has been attached for reference.
II. BACKGROUND
According to Section 12-7A-1 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the purpose of the
Public Accommodation Zone District is,
"intended to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors,
together with such public and semi-public facilities and limited professional
offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor oriented uses as
may appropriately be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation
District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities
commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of
the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional
nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature
of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, and where
permitted are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging
character of the District. The Public Accommodation District is intended to
provide sites for lodging units at densities not to exceed twenty five (25) dwelling
units per acre. (Ord. 30(1977) § 7: Ord. 8(1973) § 7.100)."
According to the Official Zoning Map, there are eighteen properties in the Town of Vail
zoned Public Accommodation. These properties are generally located around the
periphery of the village commercial core area and include the Austria Haus*, Bavaria
Haus, Chateau at Vail (Holiday Inn), Christiania Lodge*, First Bank of Vail, Galatyn
Lodge*, Lot P-3, Marriott, Mountain Haus, 9 Vail Road (Holiday House), Ramshom
Condominiums*, Swiss Chalet, Roost Lodge, Talisman, Tivoli Lodge, Vail Athletic Club*,
Vail Village Inn*, and Villa Valhalla. Of these eighteen properties, seven have received
approvals for special development districts and have been identified with an asterisk
A copy of the existing development standards prescribed for the Public Accommodation
Zone District and a map illustrating the locations of the properties zoned Public
Accommodation can be found on pages 7 & 9 of the applicant's report.
The applicant has prepared a development history of the eighteen properties located in
the Public Accommodation Zone District and has provided several conclusions based
upon the development history. This information can be found on pages 10 through 14 of
the applicant's report. The report demonstrates the validity of many of the problems
identified with the existing development standards and the current development review
process.
2
Ill. DISCUSSION ISSUES
Again, the purpose of this worksession is to open up a dialogue between the community,
applicant, staff and the Planning & Environmental Commission with regard to possible
amendments to the Town's Public Accommodation Zone District. To facilitate this
discussion, staff has identified four issues which we believe need to be discussed and
addressed prior to the Commission making its final recommendation to the Town Council
on the proposed amendments. The following discussion issues have been identified:
1. Uses
Sections 12-7A-2, 12-7A-3 & 12-7A-4 of the Municipal Code prescribe the permitted,
conditional and accessory uses in the Public Accommodation Zone District. According
to the purpose statement of the Public Accommodation Zone District, in part, the intent
of the district is to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for our
guests and visitors. To date, the applicant has proposed only to amend the permitted
use section of the regulation. The proposed amendment would remove the 10% floor
area limitation currently placed on accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail
establishments.
Upon reviewing the existing conditional and accessory uses, staff believes there may be
an opportunity to make further amendments to the use sections. Specifically, staff would
recommend that the applicant, staff, and Planning & Environmental Commission
consider the elimination of churches, hospitals, medical and dental clinics, medical
centers, private clubs and public and private schools as conditional uses in the Public
Accommodation Zone District. If the intent of the district is to provide sites for lodges
and residential accommodations for our visitors and guests, we believe these uses may
be in direct conflict with the intent of the district. Staff believes that the allowable uses,
whether permitted, conditional, or accessory, should be of the type which directly benefit
the intent of the district and meet the development objectives of the Town.
2. Review Process
The applicant has proposed an amended development review process. The proposed
process would be applicable only to those properties zoned Public Accommodation and
is very similar in nature to the current review process utilized by the Town for properties
in the core areas. The essence of the amended review process is that proposals for
development would be reviewed for compliance with the Vail Village Urban Design
Guide Plan. Historically, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan has been the
planning document used by the Town when reviewing projects in the Village Core.
Given the location of the majority of the Public Accommodation zoned properties,
relative to the Village Core, it would appear that the Guide Plan would be a reasonable
and appropriate tool to use when reviewing projects in the Public Accommodation Zone
District.
There are two Public Accommodation zoned properties in the Town that are not located
in the general vicinity of the Village Core; The Roost Lodge and The Marriott. Of these
two properties, the most problematic with regard to the development review process is
the Roost Lodge. The Roost Lodge would need to be reviewed more similarly to other
properties in Town that are not within master planned areas. In the case of the Roost
3
Lodge, staff would suggest that the design guidelines outlined in the Zoning Regulations
apply to the property.
While the Marriott is not approximate to the Village, it is within the Lionshead Master
Plan area. As such, the Lionshead Master Plan and the design guidelines contained
within will adequately address the redevelopment issues of that building and future
rezoning of that property would likely result in a new zone district, hence no longer
zoned Public Accommodation. Staff would recommend that the existing review process
for CC1, CC2, and the Public Accommodation districts be refined to be less arduous.
3. Development Standards
The applicant has proposed numerous changes to the development standards
prescribed for the Public Accommodation Zone District. These changes are summarized
on pages 16 & 17 and illustrated on pages 30 through 32 of the report. The following list
highlights the amendments: 0 eogme
50 10
? GRFA ratio is increased from 80% (0.80) to 120 % (1.20)
? The 35% common area limitation is eliminated.
? The 10% limitation on accessory eating and drinking establishments and
retail is eliminated.
? There is no limitation on accommodation units or fractional fee units. Instead,
the overall bulk and mass controls will be used to regulate the number of
units.
? An increase in allowable site coverage from 50% to 70%. (80% currently
allowed in CC1 and 70% in CC2).
? The elimination of the minimum setback requirements currently prescribed.
Setback requirements would be determined by the Planning & Environmental
Commission similar to the General Use Zone District and in accordance with
the Urban Design Guide Plan.
? A decrease in the landscape requirement from 30% to 20% to correspond
with the proposed increase in site coverage.
The proposed changes are in response to the findings of the research completed by the
applicant of past redevelopment projects. In most instances, applicants for
redevelopment in the Public Accommodation Zone District have sought relief from the
GRFA, common area, density, site coverage and setback standards by requesting
variances or special development districts. The intent of the proposed changes is to
reduce the need for variances and minimize the use of special development districts
while providing the necessary flexibility to redevelop a lodge or hotel property. The
intent is to also provide incentives for properties to redevelop.
Staff would recommend that the applicant, staff and Planning & Environmental
Commission discuss the proposed amendments and determine if the amendments are
necessary and appropriate, and whether additional amendments or changes are
required. For example, the applicant is not proposing to amend the building height
limitation. However, as a result of discussions during the development of the Lionshead
Master Plan, the Town has determined that increased floor to ceiling heights are
necessary to achieve current industry standards and to meet guest expectations.
4
4. Applicability of the Regulations
The applicant has suggested the possible need to apply the proposed amended
regulations to the Public Accommodation Zone District only to those properties in the
general vicinity of Vail Village. In effect, this would exclude the Marriott and the Roost
Lodge from realizing the benefits of the proposed amendments.
Staff would suggest the applicant and the Commission discuss the validity of applying
the proposed amendments to all properties zoned Public Accommodation in the Town of
Vail. Again, as stated previously, a redevelopment on the site of the Marriott would be
reviewed under the guidelines prescribed within the Lionshead Master Plan. The Roost
Lodge would be the only property which would be reviewed in the absence of a master
plan.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As this a worksession to discuss possible text amendments to the Public
Accommodation Zone District regulations amending the various development standards
and revising the development review process, staff will not be providing a formal
recommendation at this time. However, at the time of final review by the Planning and
Environmental Commission, staff will provide its recommendation.
5
19~B
I~ I I
t I I
I f'roF%o>~d I
I 6uddinq ~ I
F~ I I
Y s "'3 <.{:,; • I eature ea /
[~UiUnq 29,049 67
~andscane 9.81 n 2-2
Privewaij, 1,-7B
- - - Nq
3 ~t
t < I L - - - - - I 5ite 45,560 00
.I
.1 C,`.~I? III - '.~~~..~~II
` "PROPOSED AME
E.
A):
NE -DISTT: :
October ;.1.998
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE
PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION (PA) ZONE DISTRICT
Prepared For:
Sonnenalp Resort of Vail
20 Vail Road
Vail, CO 81657
Prepared By:
Braun Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 776
Minturn, CO 81645
(970) 827-5797
October 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I . INTRODUCTION 1
II. PROBLE=M STATEMENT 3
III. ASSUNIPTIONS 5
IV. ABOUT THE PA ZONE DISI'KICT 6
V. RECENT DEVELOPMENT HISTORY OF THE PA ZONE DISTRICT 10
VI. CONCLUSIONS 13
VII. OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PA ZONE
DISTRICT 15
VIII. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PA ZONE DISTRICT 18
IX. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE DEFINITION OF GRFA 33
EXHIBITS
VAIL VILLAGE AREA PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION ZONED
PROPERTIES 9
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to provide background information on proposed amendments to the
Town of Vail's Public Accommodation (PA) Zone District and a related amendment to the
definition of GRFA for lodging facilities. This report and proposed amendments have been
prepared by Braun Associates, Inc. for the Sonnenalp Resort at Vail. While this report has been
commissioned by the Sonnenalp, proposed amendments address the PA zone district and 'do not
focus specifically on PA property owned by the Sonnenalp.
This report presents a brief development history of PA zoned properties in Vail, identifies issues
with the current PA Zone District and establishes assumptions pertaining to lodging facilities in
Vail. The findings made as a result of this evaluation conclude that the PA Zone District is in need
of refinement. These findings provide the basis for specific amendments that are proposed for the
PA district.
This report includes the following sections:
I. Introduction/Purpose of this Report
This section provides an introduction to this proposal and an ouihne of this report.
TT. Problem Statement
The two underlying problems with the PA Zone District and the Town's development
review process are summarized in this section.
III. Assumptions
This section lists assumptions that have been made regarding the Town's overall
development objectives and other factors relative to the PA Zone District.
IV. About the PA Zone District
A brief history of the PA Zone District, the purpose of the District, a list of properties
currently zoned PA and the level of development permitted by the PA Zone District are
outlined in this section.
V. Recent Development Histon, of the PA Zone District
A synopsis of recent development activity in PA zoned properties is provided in this
section.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 1
VI. Conclusions
This section summarizes the findings of this report, identifies specific elements of the PA
Zone District that warrant further evaluation and outlines the rationale for the amendments
proposed for the PA district.
VII. Overview of Proposed Amendments
An overview of amendments proposed to the PA zone district is provided in this section.
VIII. Proposed Amendments to PA Zone District
Specific amendments proposed to the PA Zone District are presented in this section. In
order to understand proposed amendments, all new text and changes to the existing PA
zone district are indicated by italics and all text deleted from the existing PA zone district is
indicated by rte '1
IX. Proposed Amendments to the Definition of GRFA
A related amendment to the definition of GRFA for lodging facilities is presented in this
section.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 2
II. PROBLENAI STATEMENT
Two distinct, yet related problems have prompted the need for this evaluation of the PA Zone
District. The underlying problem that has been identified with the PA Zone District is that existing
development standards do not allow the flexibility necessary to develop a viable, high quality
lodging facility. The related problem is that the Town's development review system does not
include a well-defined, workable process for seeking relief from the standards of the PA zone
district.
Existing PA Standards
Standards for lodging facilities have been established by the market place and these
standards are dramatically different today than they were twenty to thirty years ago. This is
particularly true in high-profile resort communities such as Vail. These differences are
reflected in people's expectations regarding the size of rooms, the quality of lobby and
interior spaces, the number and type of dinning options, the size and availability of meeting
facilities and indoor recreational amenities. For example, twenty years ago a comfortably-
sized lodge room was approximately 300 square feet in size. Today, the minimum size of a
high-quality lodge room is in the range of 450-500 square feet. In addition, there is great
demand for one and two-bedroom suites which require even more square footage. While
today the typical lodge guest in Vail is willing to spend far more for their lodging than they
were in the past, they also expect much more from +heir stay in terms of the size of their
room and the overall quality and type of luLlge facilities.
Review Process Alternatives
Over the past decade, a significant number of PA properties have been upgraded and
expanded (additional information regarding the re-development of PA zc~cu p:cperty is
provided below in Section V.). By and large, each of these re-developments have involved
additional floor area devoted to lodge rooms or other guest service facilities such as
lobbies, meeting facilities, restaurants or other on-site amenities. These re-developments
have also included overall upgrades to the design and aesthetics of these lodges.
In most cases, PA zoned properties that have been re-developed were at or over
deveiopment levels permitted by the PA Zone District. As such; the majority of these re-
developments have utilized the Special Development District (SDD) process to obtain
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 3
development approvals. Over the years the SDD process has come under increased
scrutiny and particularly in the recent past, SDD's have proven to be an arduous process
for the applicant, the staff, the decision-makers and the public. Problems that have
frequently been cited with SDD's include the potential for inequities in the review process,
ill-defined development standards, uncertainty in when and how decisions are made, and
the tremendous amount of time and energy required by all involved in the process.
The difficulties with the SDD process seemed to come to a head during the review of the
Austrian Haus in 1997. While today there appears to be a very strong consensus in
support of the project that was ultimately approved by the Town Council, much has been
made of the difficult and at times cont:_tious process that evolved during the review of this
application. By all accounts the building now under construction will be a positive addition
to the community and one that will meet the goals of both the town and the cieveloper.
However, if nothing else the review of the Austria Haus demonstrated that there must be a
better way to facilitate the review of proposal to upgrade lodging facilities in the Town.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 4
III. ASSUMPTIONS
A number of assumptions, or "givens" have been made relative to this evaluation of the PA Zone
District. These assumptions include:
• The underlying intent of the PA Zone District is valid - a zone district designed specifically
for lodge development is critically important to the Town's livelihood and character;
• The re-development and upgrading of lodge facilities should be encouraged;
• Based on the existing level of development found on most PA parcels, the existing
development standards outlined in the PA Zone District allow little latitude, and little
incentive, for the re-development of lodge facilities in a manner that will satisfy the
expectations of the marketplace;
• Over time, additional PA zoned properties will be candidates for re-development and
upgrading;
• If PA zoned properties are permitted to re-develop in a manner that exceeds allowable
development standards, provisions must be in place to provide the Town with the controls
necessary to ensure that such re-developments make a positive contribution to the
community.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 5
IV. ABOUT THE PA ZONE DISTRICT
The Public Accommodation District (PA) zone district was established by the Ordinance t`7 of
1969, the ordinance v.,hich enacted the Town's first zoning regulations. In addition to "hotels,
motels and lodges", the original PA district also allov,,ed "single-family and two-family dwellings"
and "professional, service and business offices and studios" as uses by right. The first PA Zone
District did not include a purpose statement. However, multi-family dwellings were not permitted
in this district and as such it could be inferred that the original intent of the district was for
overnight guest facilities. The allowable floor area ratio was 1.5:1 and there were no limits on the
total number of units or on the amount of square footage devoted to accessory uses such as
restaurants or common spaces.
Ordinance #19 of 1976 enacted comprehensive amendments to the Town's zoning code. This
ordinance limited permitted uses in the PA Zone District to "lodges, including accessory eating,
drinking, restaurant, recreational and retail establishments not to exceed 20 percent of the total
gross residential floor area of the main building". Limiting permitted uses to "lodges" firmly
established the PA Zone District as the Town's lodging zone district. Gross residential floor area
was reduced to .8 of the total site area and there were still no limits on the total allowable number
of units per acre. While records are somewhat inconclusive, it appears that a maximum density of
25 dwelling units per acre was added to the PA Zone District by Ordinance #30 of 1977. At the
same time, the definition section of the zoning code was modified such that accommodation units
were calculated at .5 dwelling units.
There are currently eighteen Public Accommodation zoned properties in the Town of Vail:
1) Austria Haus'-
2) Bavarian Haus
3) Chateau at Vail
4) Christiania Lodge*
5) First Bank of Vail
6) Galatyn Lodge*
7) Lot P-3 (VA/Christiania parking lot)
8) Marriott*
y~ Mountain Haus
10) 9 Vail Road
11) Ramshorn*
12) Swiss Chalet
13) The Roost Lodge
October 1998 6
14) Talisman
15) Tivoli Lodge
16) Vail Athletic Club*
17) Vail Village Inn*
18) Villa Vahalla
* = properties that have received SDD approval
With the exception of the Roost Lodge and the Marriott, all PA parcels are located in the Vail
Village area. PA zoned properties extend from just west of Vail Road to Golden Peak and tend to
be located on the perimeter of Commercial Core I, the core area of Vail Village. Refer to the
attached map of Vail Village Area Public Accommodation Zoned Properties for an indication of
where PA zoned properties are located.
The following summarizes the existing development standards for the PA Zone District:
Uses Lodges, along with accessory eating, drinking, recreation or retail
establishments within main building not occupying more than 10% of the
total GRFA on the site.
Density 25 dwelling units per acre, or 50 accommodation units per acre of buildable
site area.
GRFA .8 of the total buildable site area, provided at least 50% of the allowable
GRFA is devoted to lodge rooms.
Common Area The definition of GRFA excludes from calculation as GRFA all common
.,,~:,as (hallways, lobby aicas, icLicau011 iawilUeS, meeting facilities, office
space, etc.) up to 35% of the total allowable GRFA. Common area in
excess of 35% counts as GRFA.
Site Coverage Up to 55% of the site may be covered by buildings.
Building Height Up to 45' for fl:, an~ ^ Q' for pitched roofs.
In order to understand these development standards, the following development could. occur on a
PA parcel one acre (43,560 square feet) in size:
Density- 50 accommodation units
GRFA-
~-.,~-o feet
Common area- 12,196 square feet
Retail, rest., etc- Up to 3,484 square f,--t rtl,;, cn„ara fnntaaP is ralrnlnfed nc GRFAI
Site coverage- Up to 23,958 square feet of the site may be covered by buildings
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 7
The total amount of building square footage permitted by the PA Zone District on a one-acre lot is
47,044 square feet (34,845 square feet of allowable GRFA and 12,196 square feet of allowable
common area). This equates to a total floor area ratio of just over 1:1 (LOS: I). In order to put
these numbers into perspective, consider a project on a one-acre lot that utilizes all allowable floor
area (47,044 square feet) and all allowable site coverage (23,98 square feet). All of this floor area
could be accommodated i : just a two-story building.
Refer to the summary of re-developed PA properties for a better understanding of the relationship
between the allowable level of development in the PA Zone District and projects that have been
approved in the recent past.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 8
i
VAIL VILLAGE AREA
Public Accommodation Zoned Properties
VAIL, COLORADO
OCTOBER 1998 BRAUN ASSOCIATES, INC.
r
- y
a
v~
t
y
x
O T
it
LEGEND:
Public Accomodat ion
.5
Public Accomodation/SSD \
CCI \
N.T.S Cal
? HDMF
NOTES: ? PS/2-FAM
1) All property boundaries are approximate. Open Space
2) The Roost Lodge in West Vail and the
M,.+rrfn• 11""I ."„..1," --1 t'.- t" I Other (Parkine. General I NO -
. RECENT DEVELOPMENT HISTORY OF THE PA ZONE DISTRICT
The First Bank of Vail, the Villa Vahalla and Lot P-3 (the VA/CMstiania parking lot) are the only
three PA parcels that have not been developed as lodges. Nine of the fifteen PA parcels that have
been developed as lodges (60%) have been re-developed in the recent past using either the SDD or
variance process. Only two PA properties, the Tivoli Lodge and the Bavaria Haus, have been re-
developed in the recent past without utilizing the SDD process. However, both the Tivoli and the
Bavaria Haus relied on approvals of numerous variance requests in order to allow for their
respective re-developments in the late 1980's.
The following table lists all PA zoned property, when the last major re-development of the property
occurred, whether the re-development is in compliance with PA development standards, and the
specific deviations to the PA Zone District that were approved to facilitate the re-development.
LAST MAJOR COMPLIANCE W/ APPROVED
PROPERTY RE-DEVELOPMENT PA STANDARDS DEVIATIONS
Austria Haus* 1998 NO/SDD#35 GRFA, density, common
area, setbacks, site coverage,
landscaping, retail
Bavaria Haus 1991 NO(variances) Common area, parking,
height
Chateau at Vail N/A N/A N/A
Christiania Lodge; 1990 NO/SDD#28 GRFA, density, common
area, setbacks
First Bank N/A N/A N/A
Galatyn Lodge* 1988 NO/SDD#19 GRFA, setbacks, definition
Lot P-3 N/A N/A N/A
Marriott 1981 NO/SDD#7 Density, height
Mountain Haus N/A N/A N/A
C) 1%711_1 n , N/A N/A N/A
Ramshorn* 1988 NO/SDD#17 Density, parking, definition
Swiss Chalet N/A N/A N/A
The Roost Lodge N/A N/A N/A
Talisman N/A N/A N/A
Tivoli Lodge 1989 NO(variances) GRFA, density, setbacks,
parking
Vail Atlh' ;,;1998 NO/SDD#30 GRFA, density, site
coverage, setbacks, height,
common area, retail
Vail Village Inn* 1992 NO/SDD#6 Density, mixed-use
Villa Vahalla N/A N/A N/A
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 10
The following is a brief summary of the nine PA properties that have re-developed in the recent
past:
Austria Haus
This recently approved SDD allowed deviations to GRFA, density, common area and retail
square footage, site coverage and setbacks. Approved GRFA is 197% of allowable,
dwelling units are 149% of allowable, common area is 116% of allowable, site coverage is
130% of allowable and retaiUcommercial space is 166% of allowable. Public benefits of
the project include the upgrading of an existing lodge, streetscape improvements, increased
bed base and development of retail space along Meadow Drive.
Bavaria Hats
An SDD initially proposed for the re-development of th.: Bavaria Haus was withdrawn and
the project was redeveloped in 1988 after variance approvals for building height, parking
and common area. The property is within allowable GRFA and density levels, however
the common area with the Bavaria Haus is 136% of allowable common area.
Christiania
This SDD allowed for the addition of dwelling units, common area, bar space and enclosed
parking. The approved GRFA is 107% of allowable, density is 150% of allowable and
common area is 137% of allowable. An EHU, enclosed parking, paved parking,
landscaping and a path along Mill Creek are public benefits of the project.*
Galatyn Lodge
This SDD approved setback encroachments, slight increase to allowable GRFA and a
deviation to the definition of a lodge (ratio of GRFA allocated to accommodation units vs.
dwelling units). Public benefits included two restricted employee units, underground
parking, streetscape improvements and a bus stop.*
Ramshorn
Density 126% of allowable, a reduction in required parking and a slight deviation to the
definition of a lodge were approved by this SDD. Public benefits included use restrictions
on dwelling units and a sidewalk along Vail Valley Drive.*
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 11
Tivoli
An SDD initially proposed for the re-development of the Tivoli was withdrawn and the
project was redeveloped in 1988-89 after variance approvals for setbacks, parking design,
density (120% of allowable) and GRFA(120% of allowable).
Vail Athletic Club
This recently approved SDD allowed deviations to GRFA, density, common area and retail
square footage, site coverage and setbacks. Approved GRFA is 141% of allowable,
dwelling units are 188% of allowable, site coverage is 127% of allowable, common area is
176% of allowable and retail/commercial space is 133% of allowable. Public benefits of
the project include the addition of six EHU's and streetscape improvements.`
Vail Villaae Inn and Marriott
Both of these SDD's were originally approved in the mid-70's and have been amended
many times over the past twenty years. These project differ somewhat from other
examples listed above in that the original SDD set the stage for the ultimate development of
the property and subsequent amendments essentially facilitated the phased development of
the project as opposed to tiie re-deveiopineiii of the project.
= indicates public benefits are based on a Town of Vail Community Development Summary
of SDD's.
This table and these summaries demonstrate a very clear pattern for PA zoned properties that have
been re-developed in the recent past. Each of the nine re-developed PA properties have relied on
either the SDD process or on variances in order to obtain development approvals. Not a single PA
property has initiated a major re-development without SDD or variance approvals. This pattern
alone indicates that existing PA zoning standards are "out of sync" with the type of lodge re-
developments that have been done in Vail. The Town's approval of all nine re-developments
would indicate that each of these projects included enough in the way of "public benefit" to warrant
approval - essentially the Town has determined in all nine cases that the community benefits of
upgrading lodge facilities outweighs the strict and literal adherence to the PA development
standards.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 12
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions have been derived from the evaluation presented above:
1) In the past ten years every major re-developments of PA properties has utilized either the
SDD or variance process;
2) Every re-development of PA property in the past ten years has received approval by the
Town to exceed or deviate from at least one of the following development standards:
• GRFA
• Density
• Common area
• Retail, commercial square footage
• Parking
• Setbacks
• Site coverage
• Height
• Definition of lodge
The vast majority of these redevelopments have exceeded allowable GRFA, density and
coln-"n i, t.nni. n:. any of r.'aese io
by a 4 s.,nifi an ~ amount.
3) The PA development standards appear to establish arbitrary limits for how a lodging
property can be developed and these limits are not consistent with the type of development
necessary to create quality lodging facilities in today's market place.
4) The Town has demonstrated a willingness to not only consider but approve lodge re-
developments that exceed allowable development standards provided public benefits are
provided by the project.
5) By virtue of the "final products" provided by PA re-developments, it has been
demonstrated that through the review process it is feasible to design and construct projects
that may exceed arbitrary development standards yet "fit" with the feel and character of
Vail's built environment.
6) The review process could be made smoother for all concerned if the number and extent of
"unknowns" could be reduced. For example, proponents of a project struggle with the
unknown level of development that may be approved and the public improvements that may
be required to obtain project approval while the Town struggles with proposed levels of
development, its relationship to allowable development, and the ever present "precedent"
issue.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 13
It seems readily apparent that existing PA development standards warrant modification to ensure
that they are consistent with the needs of the lodging community and with community-wide goals.
In addition, there is a need for a more refined review process to facilitate the redevelopment of
lodge properties.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 14
VII. OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Specific amendments proposed to the PA Zone District and a related amendment to the definition of
GRFA are found in the following two sections of this report. In order to understand proposed
amendments in the context of existing zoning regulations, all new text and changes to existing
regulations are indicated by italics text and all text deleted from existing regulations are indicated
by stY44z A brief summary of proposed changes is also provided at the end of each section.
The following summarizes the major elements of proposed amendments to the PA zone district and
outlines the basis for such amendments.
1) Applicable Properties
Proposed amendments will apply to all PA properties located in the Vail Village area.
Applicable properties include those PA zoned properties as indicated on the Vail.Village PA
and PA/SDD Zoned Properties Map. Proposed amendments will not apply to the Marriott
and the Roost. It is assumed that the Lionshead Master Plan process will more
appropriately address the Marriott property. The Roost property has been excluded from
these amendments because its West Vail location is not consistent with the cliaracteristics of
PA properties located in Vail Village.
2) Implementation
Proposed amendments will be implemented with the addition of a new section within the
PA zone district entitled 12-7A-12: Public Accommodation Properties Located in Vail
Village. This section establishes development standards that will apply to these properties
and a review process for such properties. Upon adoption, the provisions of this new
section will apply to all existing PA properties located in Vail Village. There will be no
need to re-zone individual PA properties in order to apply the proposed development
standards and review process.
3) Review Process
History has demonstrated that the Town's review process has been quite successful in
ensuring new development be of high quality and provide positive community benefits.
That said, history has also demonstrated a pattern of PA properties relying on the SDD and
variance review process, which has resulted in a level of frustration for both the Town and
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 15
the applicant. The review process proposed for PA properties in Vail Village is intended to
provide a degree of flexibility for the applicant, establish a review process that will consider
characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, and provide the Town with defined criteria
for evaluating development proposals. As a major element of this amendment process, it is
important that the review process establish a level playing field with some degree of
predictability so that the Town and applicant have an idea of expectations going into the
process.
As proposed, this review process for PA properties located within the Vail Village area will
utilize the criteria and review process outlined by the Vail Village Urban Design Guide
Plan. The Urban Design Guide Plan has served the Town well for over 15 years and has
proven to be an effective tool for reviewing development proposals in the Village Area.
While currently the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan technically applies only to
properties in the Commercial Core I zone district, the Guide Plan maps and design criteria
are applicable to a larger area and in fact over the past few years the Town has used the
Guide Plan to review development proposals on properties located outside of the CCI
district. Utilization of the Guide Plan will provide an excellent framework for reviewing
development proposals for FA properties located witl;in the Vail Village area.
4) Development Standards
A number of changes are proposed to uses and development standards for PA properties
located in the Vail Village Area. In keeping with the format of the CCI zone district and the
Urban Design Guide Plan, many of the development standards proposed for PA Properties
located in Vail Village reference the Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations.
The following summarize amendments proposed to development standards:
• GRFA ratio is increased from .8 to 1.2 site area. This amendment is intended to
allow increased flexibility in the design of lodging facilities and is also consistent
with the amount of GRFA approved for recent development projects in the PA Zone
District. GRFA will be regulated by the overall bulk and mass controls established
by the Urban Design Guide Plan.
• The 35% limitation on common spaces is eliminated. This amendment will
eliminate a zoning control that restricts the development of common facilities such
as lobbies, spas and meeting rooms - uses typically associated with the
development of quality lodging facilities. "Common" floor area will be regulated
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 16
by the overall bulk and mass controls established by zoning standards and the
Urban Design Guide Plan. This amendment will be accomplished by modifying the
definition of GRFA pertaining to common area within buildings that contain more
than two units. A new paragraph has been added to this section which excludes
lodges from the 35% limitation. The 35% limitation will remain in place for inulti-
family buildings which do not meet the definition of lodge (i.e. condominiums).
• The 1017o limitation on retail and restaurants is eliminated. This floor area will be
regulated by the overall bulk and mass controls established by the Urban Design
Guide Plan.
• There is no limit on a.u.'s or frac,ional fee units. This change is consistent with the
recommendations of the Lionshead Master Plan and is seen as an incentive for the
development of such units. The total number of units on a property will be
regulated by limitations on GRFA, bulk and mass design controls and requirement.
• Site coverage increases from 50% to 70%. This amendment will allow increased
flexibility in site development and is consistent with existing site coverage
regulations in Lionshead. The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan will also be
used to evaluate the appropriateness of site coverage proposed for new
de veiopm~-nt.
• Arbitrary setbacks requirements are eliminated, setbacks will be determined based
on compliance with Urban Design Guide Plan Criteria and Design Considerations.
This change is intended to encourage building design that responds to site
conditions, public street and surrounding buildings.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 17
SECTION VIII. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 7
COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS DISTRICTS
ARTICLE A. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION (PA) D?STRICT
SECTION:
12-7A-1: Purpose
12-7A-2: Permitted Uses
12-7A-3: Conditional Uses
12-7A-4: Accessory Uses
12-7A-5: Lot Area And Site Dimensions
12-7A-6: Setbacks
12-7A-7: Height
12-7A-8: Density Control
12-7A-9: Site Coverage
12-7A-10: Landscaping And Site Development
12-7A-11: Parking And Loading
12-7A-12 Public Accommodation Properties Located in Vail Village
12-7A-1: PURPOSE:
The Public Accommodation District is intended to provide sites for lodges and residential
accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semi-public facilities and limited
professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor oriented uses as may
appropriately be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District is intended to
ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to
maintain the desirable resort qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development
standards. Additional nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the
nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, and where permitted are
intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the District. The Public
Accommodation District is intended to provide c;f-r for lodging units at densities not to exceed
twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre. (Ord. 30(1977) ' 7: Ord. 8(1973) '7.100)
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 18
12-7A-2: PERMITTED USES:
The following uses shall be permitted in the PA District:
Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments located within
the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor
area of the main structure or structures on the site; additional accessory dining areas may be located
on an outdoor deck, poach or terrace.(Ord. 37(1980) 7: Ord. 19(1976) ' 8: Ord. 8(1973) ' 7.200)
12-7A-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the PA District, subject to issuance of a
conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
Bed and breakfast, as further regulated by Section 12-14-18 of this Title.
Churches.
Eating, drink=ing, recreational, or retail establishments not occupying more than ten percent (10%)
of the total gross residential floor area of a main stricture or structures located on the site in a
nonconforming multi-family dwelling.
Fractional fee club as, further regulated by Section 12-16-6A7 of this Title.
Hospitals, medical and dental clinics, and medical centers.
Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street,
walkway, or mall area.
Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations.
Professional and business offices.
Public buildings, grounds and facilities.
Public or commercial parking facilities or structures.
Public or private schools.
Public park and recreational facilities.
Public transportation terminals.
Public utility and public service uses.
Ski lifts and tows.
Theaters, meeting rooms, and convention facilities.
Type III employee housing unit as provided in Section 12-13-6 of this Title.
Type IV employee housing unit as provided in Section 12-13-7 of this Title.
(Ord. 22(1996) '2: Ord. 8(1992) ' 19: Ord. 31(1989) '7: Ord. 3(1985y' l: Ord. 27(1982) ' 1(b):
Ord. 6(1982) ' 8(a): Ord. 8(1981) '2: Ord. 26(1980) ' 2: Ord. 8(1973) '7.300)
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 19
12-7A-4: ACCESSORY USES:
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the PA District:
IIoino occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the
provisions of Section 12-14-12 of this Title.
Minor arcade.
Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreation facilities customarily incidental to
permitted lodge uses.
Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for
the operation thereof. (Ord. 6(1982)' 8(b): Ord. 8(1973) ' 7.400)
12-7A-5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS:
The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet of buildable area and each
site shall have a ininimum frontage of thirty feet (30'). Each site shall be of a size and shape
capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet (80') on each side within its boundaries. (Ord.
12(1978) ' 3)
12-7A-6: SETBACKS:
In the I A DisErict, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20'), the ininimum side setback
shall be twenty feet (20'), and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20').
(Ord. 50(1978) '2)
12-7A-7: HEIGHT:
For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty five feet (45'). For a
sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty eight feet (48'). (Ord. 37(1980) ' 2)
12-7A-8: DENSITY CONTROL:
Not more than eighty (80) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for
each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Not more than eighty (80) square feet of
gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable
site area for any conditional use as listed in Section 12-7A-3 of this Article. The total density for
permiueu uses, conditional uses, and accessory uses shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet of
gross floor area for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Total density shall
not exceed twenty five (25) dwelling units per-acre of buildable site area. (Ord. 50(1978) ' 19:
Ord. 12(1978) ' 2)
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 20
12-7A-9: SITE COVERAGE:
Site coverage shall not exceed fifty five percent (55%) of the total site area. (Ord. 17(1991) ' 7:
Ord. 8(1973) ' 7.507)
12-7A-10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT:
At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum width and
length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15') with a minimum area not less
than three hundred (300) square feet. (Ord. 19 (1976) ' 8: Ord. 8 (1973)' 7.509)
12-7A-11: PARKING AND LOADING:
Off-street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. At
least seventy five percent (75%) of the required parking shall be located within the main building or
buildings and hidden from public view. No parking or loading area shall be located in any required
front setback area. (Ord. 19(1976) ' 8: Ord. 8(1973) 7510)
NOTE: Sections 12-7A-1-11 above apply to PA zoned properties located
Gui:side of the Vail ','il age area (tile Marriott and the Roost). No
changes are proposed to these sections.
The provisions of Section 12-7A-12 below will apply to PA properties
located within the Vail Village Area. While all of this section is new,
it closely follows the content and format of sections 1-11 above. In
order to understand proposed amendments, all new text and changes
to the existing PA zone district are indicated by italics and all text
deleted from the existing PA zone district is indicated by r*--u.
12-7A-12 PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION PROPERTIES LOCATED IN VAIL VILLAGE:
A. ApplicabiliA,
The following development standards shall apply to all PA-zoned properties as indicated 0,7
the Vail Village Area Public Accommodation Zoned Properties Map. The development
standards outlined below shall supersede the provisions of sections 12-7A-1 through
12-7A-11 above.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 21
Changes To Existing PA Zone District
This new section establishes a linkage between the development
standards and review procedures outlined below with the PA
properties indicated on the Vail Village Area Public Accommodation
Zoned Properties Map.
B . Purpose
The design of built improvements and the pedestrian orientation of the Vail Village Area is
unique to Vail and is one of the community's defining characteristics. The purpose of the
development standards outlined in this section is to establish development standards that will
allow design flexibility and creativity in the development and re-development of PA zoned
properties in the Vail Village Area while also establishing review criteria and a review
process that will ensure that new development is consistent with the unique design
characteristics of Vail Village. Further, the purpose of this section is to provide incentives
for the continued upgrading and redevelopment of PA zoned properties located in the Vail
Village Area. This will be accomplished by establishing the Vail Village Urban Design
Guide Plan and Design Considerations as review criteria for development of PA-zoned
properties located within the Vail Village Area.
Changes To Existing PA Zone District
This new section states the purpose of the development standards and
review procedures outlined in this section.
C . Permitted Uses
The following uses shall be permitted in PA-zoned properties located within the Vail Village
Area:
1. Lodjes i} el b . b- Zt n~, resTe~ ^ ' or- ~ Est I94`sh e t~
f
}Aieated wit4ia the-pi4 Gipal use and fletaesu a mer-e rtha44 toil r (194)
b ,
e.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 22
Changes to Existing PA Zone District
This section eliminates the 10% limit on accessory eating, drinking,
recreational and retail uses. These uses are now listed as "accessory
uses" and would be permitted with no limitation to floor area.
D. Conditional Uses
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in PA-zoned properties located within the
Vail Village Area:
1. Bed and breakfasts as further regulated by Section 12-14-18 of this title.
2. Churches.
3. Eating, drinking, recreational, or retail establishments not occupying more than ten
percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area of a main structure or structures
located on the site in a nonconforming multi-family dwelling.
4. Fractional fee club as further regulated by Section 12-16-6A7 of this Title.
5. Hospitals, medical and dental clinics, and medical centers
6. Major arcade, so long as it does no have any exterior frontage on any public way,
street, %valkway or mall area.
7. Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations.
8. Professional and business offices.
9. Public buildings, grounds and facilities.
10. Public or commercial parking facilities or structures.
11. Public or private schools.
12. Public park and recreation facilities.
13. Public transportation terminals.
14. Public utility and public service uses.
15. Ski lifts and tows.
16. Theaters, meeting rooms, and convention facilities.
17. Type III employee housing unit and provided in Section 12-13-6 of this Title.
18. Type IV employee housing unit as provided in Section 12-13-7 of this Title.
Changes to Existing PA Zone District
This section is identical to the existing PA Zone District.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 23
E. Accessorv Uses
The following conditional uses shall be pennitted in PA-zoned properties located within the
Vail Village Area:
1. Home occupations subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance
xvith the provisions of Section 12-14-12 of this Title.
2. Minor Arcade.
3 . Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreational facilities customarily
incidental to permitted lodge uses.
4. Eating, drinking, recreational and retail uses
5. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to pennitted or conditional uses, and
necessary for the operation thereof.
Changes to Existing PA Zone District
This section makes "accessory eating, drinking and recreational uses"
an accessory use with no limitation as to floor area.
F. Exterior Alterations or Modifications
1. Subject to Review: The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing
building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing
building which modifies exterior rooflines, the replacement of an existing building,
the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor
diming deck shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) as follows:
a. Application: An application shall be made by the owner of the building or the
building owner's authorized agent or representative on a form provided by
the Adrr.inistrator. Any application for condoininiumized buildings shall be
authorized by the condominium association in conformity with all pertinent
requirements of the condominium association's declarations.
b. Application; Contents: An application for all exterior alteration shall include
the following:
(1) Completed application form, filing fee, and a list of all owners of
property located aacent to the subject parcel. A filing fee shall not be
collected for any exterior alteration which is only for the addition of
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 24
an exterior dining deck; however, all other applicable fees shall be
required. The owners list shall include the names of all owners, their
mailing address, a legal description of the properry owned by each,
and a general description of the property (including tiie name of the
property, if applicable), and the name and mailing address of the
condominium association's representative (if applicab?e). Said names
and addresses shall be obtained from the current ta'V records of Eagle
County as they appeared not more than thirty (30) days prior to the
application submittal date.
(2) A written statement describing the proposal and how the proposal
complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail
Village Design Considerations, the Vail Village Master Plan,
Streetscape Master Plan and any other relevant sections of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan.
(3) A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating existing
conditions on the property including the location of
improvements, topography, and natural features.
(4) A current title report to verify ownersieip, easements, and other
encumbrances, including Schedules A and B.
(5) Existing and proposed site plan at a scale of one inch equals ten feet
(1 10'), a vicinity, plan at an appropriate scale to adequately show
the project location in relationship to the surrounding area, a
landscape plan at a scale of one inch equals ten feet (1 " = 10'), a roof
height plan and existing and proposed building elevations at a
minimum scale of one-eighth inch equals one foot (118" = F). The
material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and
improvements as necessary to demonstrate the project's compliance
with urban design criteria as set forth in the Vail Village Urban
Design Guide Plan, Vail Village. Design Considerations, and any
other relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
(6) Sun/shade analysis of the existing and pro-sed building for the
spring/fall equinox (March 211September 23) and winter solstice
(December 21) at ten o'clock (10:00) A.M. and two o'clock (2:00)
P.M.unless the Department of Community Development determines
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 25
that the proposed addition has no impact on the existing sunshade
pattern. The following sun angle shall be used when preparing this
analysis:
Spring/Fall Equinox Sun Angle
10:00 A. M. 400 east of south, 50 declination
2:00 P. Al. 420 west of south, 500 declination
Winter Solstice Sian Angle
10:00 A.M. 300 east of south, 200 declination
2:00 P.M. 300 tivest of south, 200 declination
(7) Existing and proposed floor plans at a scale of one-fourth inch equals
one foot (114" = F) and a square footage analysis of all existing and
propused uses.
(8) An architectural or massing model of the proposed development. Said
model shall include buildings and major site improvements on
adjacent properties as deemed necessary by the Administrator. The
scale of the model shall be as determined by the Administrator.
(9) Photo overlays and/or other graphic material to demonstrate the
special relationship of the proposed development to adjacent
properties, public spaces, and adopted views per Chapter 22 of this
Title.
(10) Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the
Administrator or the Town Planning and Environmental Commission -
(PEC). The Administrator or the Planning and Environmental
Commission may, at his/her or their discretion, waive certain
submittal requirements if it is determined that the requirements are not
relevant to the proposed development nor applicable to the urban
design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide
Plan and Vail Village Design Considerations and any other- relevant
sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
C. Application Date And Procedures: Complete applications for major exterior
alterations shall be submitted biannually on or before the fourth Monday of
February or the fourth Monday of September. Submittal requirements shall
include all information listed in subsection 1. b above; provided, however,
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 26
that the architectural or massing model shall be submitted no later than three
(3) weeks prior to the first formal public hearing of the Planning and
Environmental Commission. No public hearings or work sessions shall be
scheduled regarding exterior alterations prior to the biannual submittal date
deadlines. At the next regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental
Commission meeting following the submittal dates listed above, the
Administrator shall inform the Planning and Environmental Commission of
all exterior alteration submittals. The Administrator shali commence With the
review of exterior alterations following this initial Planning and
Environmental Commission meeting.
(1) A property owner may apply for a major exterior alteration (greater
than 100 square feet) in any year in which he or she shall submit an
application on the February or September dates as set forth in
subsection 1. c above. Said application shall be termed a "major
exterior alteration. "
(2) Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of an
existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area of
not more than one hundred feet (100'), applications to alter the
exterior roof lines of an existing building, applications for new
outdoor dining decks and applications for modifications to existing
dining decks may be submitted on a designated submittal date for any
regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission
meeting. Said applications shall be termed "minor exterior alteration
The review procedures for a minor exterior alteration shall be as
outlined in this Section. All enclosed floor area for an expansion or
deletion pursuant to subsection Lb.(2) shall be physically and
structurally part of an existing or new building afui,3hali nut be u
freestanding structure.
(3) A single property owner may submit an exterior alteration proposal
which removes or encloses floor area of one hundred (100) square
feet or less o;: n. ~ecigjtntn 1 submittal date and will be reviewed by the
Planning and Environmental Commission at any of its regularly
scheduled meetings.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 27
d. Work Sessions: If requested by either the applicant or the Administrator, all
submittals shall proceed to a work session with the Planning and
Environmental Commission. The Administrator shall schedule tine work
session at a regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission
meeting and shall cause notice of the hearing to be sent to all adjacent
property owners in accordance tivith subsection 12-3-6C of this Title.
Following the work session, and the submittal of any additional material that
may be required, the Administrator shall schedule a formal public hearing
before the Planning and Environmental Commission in accordance with
Subsection 12-3-6C of this Title.
e. Hearing: The public hearing before the Planning and Environmental
Commission shall be held in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of this Title.
The Planning and Environmental Commission may approve the application as
submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny
the application. The decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission
may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with Section 12-3-3 of
this Title.
f. Compliance With Applicable Comprehensive Plans: It shall be the burden of
the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning
and Environmental Commission that the proposed exterior alteration is in
compliance with the purposes of the PA Zone District as specified in Section
12-7A-12 B. of this Article, that the proposal is consistent with applicable
elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Town of Vail Streetscape Master
Plan, and the Vail Comprehensive Plan; and that the proposal does not
otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood. Further, that
the proposal substantially complies with the Val Village Urban Design Guide
Plan and the Vail Village Dcs:o:: C~::- :derations, to include, but not be
limited to the following urban design considerations: pedestrianization,
vehicular penetration, streetscape framework, street enclosure, street edge,
views, service/delivery and sunshade analysis; architectural considerations;
and that the proposal substantially complies with all other elements of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan.
g. Approval: Approval of an exterior alteration under subsection F. 1. e. and f.
above shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 28
improvements including siting, building setbacks, bulk, height, building bulk
and mass, site improvements and landscaping.
h. Lapse Of Approval: Approval of a major or minor exterior alterations
prescribed by this Article shall lapse and become void two (2) years
following the date of appro:•al of the major or minor exterior alteration bY the
Planning and Environmental Convi-ission unless, prior to the expiration, a
building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently
pursued to completion.
i. Design Review Board Review: Any modification or change to the exterior
facade of a building or to a site shall be reviewed by the Design Review
Board in accordance with Chapter 11 of this Title.
2. Compliance Burden: It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence before the Design Review Board that the proposed
building modification is in compliance with the purposes of the PA Zone District as
specified in Section 12-7A-12 B. of this Article; that the proposal substantially
complies with the Vail Village Design Considerations or that the proposal does not
othenvise alter the character of the neighborhood.
Changes to Existing PA Zone District
This change establishes the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and
Design Considerations as the primary review criteria for development
of PA zoned properties located in Vail Village. The same review
process currently in place for CCI properties will be used and as such
this change ensures PEC review of all development proposals on PA
zoned properties located in Vail Village.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 29
G . Lot Area and Site Dimensions
The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet of buildable area and
each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30'). Each site shall be of a size and
shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet (80') on each side within its boundaries.
Changes to Existing PA Zone District
This section is identical to the existing PA Zone District.
H. Setbacks
In the PA District, the fFent set4ac-lsl~ i- tw-o' feet (24) tho min m
tbaek shall h l ~n(I thA inim,7lm r~nr catho~t-_chnll ha ti~ tir foot
'Je
there shall be no required setbacks except as may be established pursuant to the Vail Village
Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations.
Changes to Existing PA Zone District
This section eliminates the arbitrary 20' setback requirement and
establishes setback requirements based on compliance with the Urban
Design Guide Plan. The proposed section is identical to the setback
section of M.
I. Height
For a flat or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty-five (45') feet. For
a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty-eight (48') feet.
Changes to Existing PA Zone District
This section is identical to the existing PA Zone District.
J, Densitv Control
No more than one hundred twenty (120) square feet of gross residential floor area shall be
permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Density shall not
exceed twenty-five (25) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area, provided however
there shall be no limit as to the total numbed accommodation units or fractional fee units.
'I
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 30
Changes to Existing PA Zone District
This section increases allowable GRFA from .8 of buildable site area
to 1.2 o buildabl.- site area and eliminates limitations on the total
number of accommodation and fractional fee units. The increase to
allowable GRFA is consistent with the amount of GRFA that has been
approved in PA redevelopments over the past few years. Excluding
accommodation units and fractional fee units from calculation as
dwelling units is consistent with the recommendations of the
Lionshead Master Plan and is considered an incentive for the
development of such units.
K . Site CoyerngP
Site coverage shall not exceed fifty five per-Gent (55%) seventy (70%) of the total site area,
except as may be established pursuant to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and
Design Considerations.
Changes to Existing PA Zone District
This section increases site coverage from 55% to 70% and establishes
the Urban Design Guide Plan as applicable review criteria.
L. Landscaping and Site Development
At least 444t~, peree^t (30%) twenty percent (20%) of the total site area shall be landscaped,
unless othenvise specified in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design
Considerations.. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall
be fifteen feet (15') with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet.
Changes to Existing PA Zone District
This section decreases landscape requirements from 30% to 20% of the
site area, unless otherwise specified in the Vail Village Urboji Design
Guide Plan and Design Considerations. This change is in response to
the proposed increase to allowable site area.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 31
4
M. Parking and Loading
Off-street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title.
At least seventy five percent (75%) of the required parking shall be located within the main
building or buildings and hidden from public view. No parking or loading area shall be
located in any required front setback: area.
Changes to Existing PA Zone District
This section is identical to the existing PA Zone District.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 32
J
SECTION IX. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 15
GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA
12-15-3: GRFA DEFINITION. CALCULATION. AND EXCLUSIONS:
A. Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: The total square footage of all level's of a building, as
measured at the inside face of the exterior walls (i.e., not including furring, sheetrock,
plaster and other similar wall finishes). GRFA shall include, but not be limited to, elevator
shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical chases, vents,
and storage areas. Attics, crawl spaces and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces or
patios shall also be included in GRFA, unless they meet the provisions of subsection A1, or-
2 or 3 below.
1. Single-Family, Two-Family, And Primary/Secondary Structures:
(No changes to this section pertaining to single-family, Two-family and
Primary/Secondary structures)
2. Multiple-Family Structures: Within buildings containing more than two (2) allowable
dwellings or accommodation units, the following additional areas shall be excluded
from calculation as GRFA. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square
footage of a building as set forth herein. Excluded areas as set forth shall then be
deducted from the total square footage:
a. Enclosed garages to accommodate on-site parking requirements.
b. All or part of the following spaces, provided such spaces are common spaces
and that the total square footage of all the following spaces shall not exceed
thirty five percent (35%) of the allowable GRFA permitted on the lot. Any
square footage which cxceeas tnc Uiiiq iivc percent (35 ;u) maximum shall be
included in the calculation of GRFA.
(1) Common hallways, stairways, elevator shafts and airlocks.
(2) Common lobby areas.
(3) Coi:,mon enclosed recreation facilities.
Common heating, cooling or ventilation systems, solar rock storage
areas, or other mechanical systems. Square footage excluded from
calculation as GRFA shall be the rni.:~ m fcctagc r_° uir°t? to
allow for the maintenance and operation of such mechanical systems.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 33
(5) Common closet and storage areas, providing access to such areas is
from common hallways only.
(6) Meeting and convention facilities.
(7) Office space, provided such space is used exclusively for the
management and operation of on-site facilities.
(g) Floor area to be used in a Type III or a Type IV "Employee Housing
Unit (E-HU)" as defined and restricted by Chapter .13 of this Title,
p.rovi:led said EHU floor area shall not exceed sixty percent"(60%) of
the thirty five percent (35%) common area allowance defined above.
Any square footage for the Type III or Type IV EhUs which exceeas
the sixty percent (60%) maximum of allowed common area shall be
included in the calculation of GRFA. If a property owner allocates
common area for the purpose of employee housing, and subsequently
requests a common area variance, the Town shall require that the
housing area be converted back to common uses and that the
employee housing units be replaced within the Town.
C. All or part of an airlock within an accommodation or dwelling unit not
exceeding a maximum of twenty five (25) square feet, providing such unit
has direct access to the outdoors.
d. Overlapping stairways within an accommodation unit or dwelling unit shall
only be counted at the lowest level.
e. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet (5') or less, as measured from the
top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the
structural members of the roof directly above. Attic areas created by
construction of a roof with truss-type members will be excluded from
calculation as GRFA, provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty
inches (30") apart.
f. Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve (12)
square feet in area, with five feet (5') or less of ceiling height, as measured
from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor members of
the floor/ceiling assembly above.
g. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or similar features or
spaces with no more than three (3) exterior walls and a minimum opening of
not less than twenty five percent (25%) of the lineal perimeter of the area of
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 34
said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature or space, provided the
opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an allowance
for a railing of up to three feet (Y) in height and support posts with a
diameter of eighteen inches (18") or less which are sp;:ced no closer than ten
feet (10) apart. The space between the posts shall be measured from the
outer surface of the post.
3. Lodges: Within buildings that co zfor;n to the definition of "Lodge " as set forth in
Section 12-2-2, the excluded areas as set forth in Paragraph 2 b. (1-8) above shall
apply. Provided, however, that there shall be no limitation as to the total square
footage of common area or the percentage of common area as related to allowable
GRFA.
Amendments to PA Zone District
October 1998 35
woe I
COPY
~
*IL eav
TO
ti~l1Department of Community Development ® •
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2138
FAX 970-479-2452 TM
December 11, 1998
Henry Pratt, AIA
Gwathmey, Pratt Architects, P.C.
1000 South Fronta«e Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Marriot Mountain Resort at Vail
Dear Henry,
The purpose of this letter is to follow-up on our telephone conversation of Wednesday, December 9`h with
regard to the redevelopment of the Marriot Mountain Resort at Vail.
As discussed, I have scheduled a joint meeting with the Design Review Board, Planning & Environmental
Commission and the Town Council on Tuesday, January 12`h at 2:00 p.m.
The purpose of the joint meeting is to present the proposed redevelopment project of the Marriot Mountain
Resort at Vail to the various Town boards and receive any early direction they may have.
In preparation of the joint meeting, please contact me after the first of the year so we may schedule a time
to sit down and discuss vottr proposal in greater detail.
If you have any questions or concerns with regard to the information addressed in this letter, please do not
hesitate to call. You can reach me most easily by telephone at 479-2145.
Good luck with your project.
Sincerely,
George Ruther, AICP
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
RECYCLED PAPER
c
Gwathmey
• •
Architects, p.c.
1000 S-Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81657
Tel: (970).476-1147
Fax: (970) 476-1612
December 2, 1998
Dominic Mauriello
Town of Vail Community Development Department
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Marriott's Mountain Resort at Vail- major amendment to SDD
Dear Dominic,
Subsequent to our pre-application meeting on 10/19/98, before making a formal application
and accordance with the new policy, we would like to schedule a joint meeting with the
PEC, Town Council and possibly even the DRIB as early in January 1999 as possible. As
requested, here is a synopsis of what exists at the hotel and what is being proposed.
Existing Hotel
The existing hotel is comprised of 3 buildings of varying age and construction. We refer to
them as Phase I, Phase II and Phase Ila and the west Parking structure. Uses in the Hotel are
AU, DU, commercial, various food service operations, and convention. For the purposes of
our project, we will address only the uses of AU, DU and one particular restaurant space.
Prints of each building's original design documents are in your archives under different
names. The following information is based on these documents (I would like to point out
that many of the units defined as DU's are owned by the Hotel and are operated as AU's).
The current unit mix is as follows:
Phase AU DU GRFA
1 74 14 38,380
II 97 12 48,212
Ila 35 27 50,555
Total 206 53 137,147
Lot area (including the parking structure) is approximately 222,273 SF. Under PA zoning,
allowable GRFA would be 80% of that or 177,818 SF. Existing GRFA is therefore 77% of
allowable.
The "Windows" restaurant, with a seating capacity of approximately 85 seats, is no longer
in operation and is used only for special functions.
Existing parking is located below the buildings and in the west structure. By count, there are
407 spaces with 205 in the west structure. We are assuming that existing parking is
adequate and will be "grandfathered" in as such.
Proposed New Construction & Changes
1 . Convert the "Windows" restaurant space and 5 adjacent AU's into 3 or 4 DU's.
Parking requirements decrease by 1.6 spaces (85 seats/8 seats per space less 4
spaces (2 units < 2000 SF) and 5 spaces (2 units > 2000 SF?).
2. Upgrade exterior appearance of existing hotel buildings by doing the following:
a. Add steeply sloped roofs to lower the eave lines of the various buildings.
Roofing material proposed to be 40 year shadow-line type fiberglass shingles.
b. Add "landmark" roof elements to buildings II and Ila.
C. Remove wood siding at balconies on all buildings and install new metal railings in
various colors and patterns.
d. Remove most of the existing wood siding and replace with EIFS in several colors.
e. Repaint existing stucco.
f. Existing standing seam metal roofs remain to a large extent.
g. Add new retail spaces with heated sidewalks along West Lionshead Circle at
Phase I and Phase II when future economic conditions warrant.
h. Remodel existing pone cochere.
3. New Phase III atop existing west parking structure with interval ownership units in
accordance with the Lionshead Master Plan.
a. 66 new units (see unit mix table below) totaling approximately 75,000 SF of
GRFA. Current drawings reflect the following unit mix and area:
Number Unit type GRFA
50 1050 SF 2 BR 52,500
12 1450 SF 3 BR (2 BR w/ loft) 17,400
4 Studio units. 2529
66 72,429
b. Building amenities including front desk and Owner lounges.
C. Addition to parking structure with internal ramps and providing for completely
covered arrival. 61 new parking spaces with an easy additional 15 via valet
positioning.
4. Converting 9 existing DU's in Phase Ila into deed restricted EHU's; 8 units are studios
with minimal kitchens and one unit is a one bedroom unit with full kitchen.
5. Modifications to landscape on Gore Creek side of complex including removal of most of
the existing high berm thus opening up to the bike path and the creekscape. One
tennis court to remain, the other one and the volley ball court will go. Other
modifications per the submitted plans.
Proposed total GRFA would be 209,576 SF or 118% of the total allowable on the site. This
is far less than the 250% maximum that would govern in Lionshead and even less than the
150% granted the Austria House in the Village.
Compliance with Lionshead Master Plan and Design Guidelines- November 17 issue
Existing Buildings:
1. Proposed modifications to roofs comply with the design guidelines even though the
proposed slope exceeds 12:12; the steeper roofs will lower apparent eaves, balance
roof area with wall area.
2. The proposed "landmark" roof elements will give the western edge of Lionshead the
presence of a "grand old hotel".
3. Proposed streetscape elements do comply with the Plan and guidelines.
New Building:
1 . New building is right at maximum height limits with the proposed steeply sloped roofs
and small areas of flat roof. We are well below the roof height average required.
2. Our proposed 15:12 roof pitch is steeper than the 12:12 specified but again provides
significant aesthetic advantages the satisfy the intent of the guidelines: lower eave
heights and wall heights and a better balance between wall area and roof area. This
aesthetic benefit and addressing of intent is the basis for which we would seek
conditional approval as provided in Section 4.2.8.3. As for the small areas of flat roof,
they are comparable to those found at the Sonnenalp and would be visible only from
high on the mountain. They are also allowed under Section 4.2.8.1.
3. The issue of height and flat roofs could be resolved if the datum for measuring height
is set at the top of the existing parking garage instead of at surrounding grade. We
have an unusual case here for new construction in that we do not have the option of
putting the structure completely below grade as could be done with other new
buildings.
I hope this gives you an adequate overview of our project. We look forward to the meeting
with the Council and PEC and a subsequently smooth approval process. We could
reluctantly accept staff approval on this one if required to do so.
Sincerely,
GW THMEY PRATT RCHITECTS, P.C.
Henry R. Pr tt, AIA
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD.AGENDA
Wednesday, January 6, 1999
3:00 P.M.
PROJECT ORIENTATION / LUNCH - Community Development Department 12:00 pm
AIPP Master Plan - "Focus" group discussion- Nancy Sweeney
Com Dev Liaison to AIPP - Jeff Hunt - 1 hour
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Brent Alm Clark Brittain
Hans Woldrich
Bill Pierce
Greg Moffet (PEC)
SITE VISITS 2:00 pm
1. Galbreath - 4445 Glen Falls Lane
2. Lionshead Center Condo #306 - 520 E. Lionshead Circle
Driver: George
PUBLIC HEARING - TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:00 pm
1. Lionshead Center Condominium #306 - Balcony enclosure. Allison
520 E. Lionshead Circle / Lionshead Center Condominiums #306.
Applicant: Robert Presson
MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Hans Woldrich VOTE: 4-0
APPROVED
2. Galbreath residence - Final review of a new single family residence.. Allison
4445 Glen Falls Lane/Lot 4, Forest Glen.
Applicant: James Galbreath
MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND: Hans Woldrich VOTE: 4-0
APPROVED WITH 6 CONDITIONS:
1. That the limits of disturbance be delineated.
2. That the stone foundation be carried around to the garage.
3. That the window theme be continued to the front windows and break up the large panes
of glass.
4. That natural wood siding be used on the garage door and dormers.
5. That the Dutch eaves be continued throughout the building.
6. That the building height requirement be met.
3. Northwoods - Conceptual review of an approved development plan. Allison
600 Vail Valley Drive/Northwoods Condominiums.
Applicant: Fritzlen, Pierce, Smith
CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE TOW4Va
1
4. McDonald's - Building addition. George
2171 North Frontage Road West/Lot 2B, a Resub of Lot 2, Vail das Schone 3`d Filing.
Applicant: George Greenwald
TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 20, 1999
5. Ball Residence - Final review of a new single-family residence. Jeff
2835 Snowberry Drive / Lot 8, Block 9, Intermountain.
Applicant: Chris & Mary Ball, represented by Beth Levine
MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:
TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 20, 1999
6. Nancy's Nest - Final review of a demo/rebuild of a primary/secondary residence, Brent
with a Type II Employee Housing Unit
765 Forest Road / Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Village 6th Filing.
Applicant: Nancy Adam, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Smith Architects
TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 20, 1999
Staff Approvals
Vail Shirts - Hanging and awning sign. Allison
Bridge Street/Casino Building.
Applicant: Tom Bosilli
Manrico Cashmere - New sign. George
242 East Meadow Drive/Austria Haus.
Applicant: Claudia Calzoni
Half Moon Saloon - New wall sign. Allison
2161 N. Frontage Rd. West/West Vail Mall.
Applicant: Maggie Hurley
Rec Sports - New awning sign. Brent
2211 N. Frontage Road/West Vail Lodge.
Applicant: Dick Hauserman
VA North Lot, West Lot, Maintenance Yard - Parking lights. Jeff
North Lot (north of Landmark), West Lot (west of Marriott), Maintenance Yard (southeast of
Cat storage area).
Applicant: Ted Ryczek
Furclub of Vail - New awning sign. Brent
174 Gore Creek Drive/Lodge at Vail.
Applicant: Ronnie Lipton
Fallridge Condominiums - Revised front entry stairway. Brent
1850 E. Vail Valley Drive/ Fallridge, Sunburst Filing #3.
Applicant: Fallridge Condominium Association
Kirkpatrick/Delude residence - Replace existing crib retaining wall. Brent
1462/1464 Greenhill Court/Lot 19, Glen Lyon.
Applicant: Doug &Joan Kirkpatrick
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office
in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Fri
Road.
2
r
41
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, January 11, 1999
FINAL AGENDA
Proiect Orientation / LUNCH - Community Development Department 11:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Greg Moffet Diane Golden
John Schofield
Galen Aasland
Ann Bishop
Brian Doyon
Tom Weber
Site Visits : 12:30 p.m.
1. Vail Plaza Hotel -100 E. Meadow Drive
2. Vail Village Club - 333 Bridge Street
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 Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a Type II Employee Housing Unit at a proposed primary/secondary
residence, located at 95 Forest Road / Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Philip Hoversten, represented by Snowdon & Hopkins Architects
Planner: Jeff Hunt
MOTION: Ann Bishop SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 6-0
APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Type II
EHU deed restriction to the Town of Vail Department of Community
Development. This document will be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and
Recorder's Office and will require that the employee housing unit be permanently
restricted for employee housing.
1
TOWNO WAIL
4
7
2. A request for a variance from Section 12-713-13, Town of Municipal Code, to allow for the
conversion of existing floor space to gross residential floor area (GRFA), located at 333
Bridge Street (Vail Village Club)/ A portion of Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: The Remonov Company, represented by Braun & Associates
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 4-2
DENIED
3. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village),
to allow for a fractional fee club and a change to the approved Development Plan,
located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominium Cascade Village Area A.
Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 6-0
APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL WITH 11 CONDITIONS:
1. That the applicant submit a detailed contractor's cost estimate identifying the
costs necessary to relocate the existing overhead utility line along the applicant's
north property line underground, and that the applicant establish a financial bond
with the Town of Vail in the sum of 125% of the said relocating costs to insure
the undergrounding of the utility line.
2. That the applicant regrade and revegetate the knoll located at the northwest
corner of the development site at the time of the final grading of the Westhaven
Club & Lodge. Due to the exposure and aspect of the hillside, the knoll shall be
regrading to slopes not exceeding 3:1. The regrading shall be reviewed and
approved by the Town Engineer.
3. That the applicant provide Type III Employee Housing Unit deed-restrictions ,
which comply with the Town of Vail Employee Housing Requirements (Title 12,
Chapter 13, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code) for each of the 21 employee
housing units, and that said deed-restricted housing be made available for
occupancy, and that the deed restrictions be recorded at the Office of the Eagle
County Clerk & Recorder, prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of
Occupancy for the Westhaven Club & Lodge.
4. That the applicant submit detailed civil engineering drawings of the required off-
site improvements (street lights, drainage, curb and gutter, sidewalks, grading,
etc.) to the Town of Vail Public Works Department for review and approval prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
5. That the applicant record a twenty foot (20') wide pedestrian/bike easement for
that portion of pedestrian/bike path traversing the applicant's property and as
identified on the Topographic Map prepared by Intermountain Engineering Ltd.,
dated 12/22/94, and that said easement be recorded at the Office of the Eagle
County Clerk & Recorder, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The exact
location and language of the easement shall be reviewed and approved by the
Town Attorney and Town Engineer prior to recordation.
2
f,
6. That the applicant provide written documentation from the Public Service
Company granting approval of the construction of the Westhaven Club & Lodge in
the location identified on the site plan relative to the high pressure gas line.
Written approval shall be granted prior to the issuance of a building permit.
7. That the applicant record an access easement along the east property line for that
portion of the driveway and access and trash enclosure which encroaches upon
the adjoining property and that said easement be recorded at the Office of the
Eagle County Clerk Recorder. The exact location and language of the easement
shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney and Town Engineer prior to
recordation.
8. That the applicant pay-in-lieu on spaces not provided on site above the 52 spaces
proposed.
9. That the final landscape plan and architectural elevations be reviewed and
approved by the Town of Vail Design Review Board.
10. That the approval of this major amendment to Special Development District #4
shall become lapsed and void one year from the date of a second reading of an
ordinance amending the district, and that should the approval lapse, the applicant
shall be required to remove the "ruins" and restore and revegetate the site by no
later than October 31, 1999. A bond providing financial security to ensure that
said removal occurs shall be required following second reading of an amending
ordinance. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to provide a cost estimate of
the removal work. The bond shall be a minimum of 125% of the removal costs.
11. That the applicant revise and submit an amended site plan, landscape plan, and
grading plan indicating improvements to the existing boulder retaining wall along
the east side of the access driveway. Each of the plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Town staff and the Design Review Board.
4. A worksession to discuss a major amendment to Special Development District #4
(Cascade Village), to revise 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
WORKSESSION - NO VOTE
5. A request for a final review of a major amendment to Special Development District #6,
Vail Village Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment, located at 100 East Meadow Drive,
Lots M and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st.
Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 6-0
APPROVED WITH 10 CONDITIONS:
3
1. That the applicant submit the following plans to the Department of Community
Development, for review and approval, as a part of the building permit application
for the hotel:
a. An Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan;
b. A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan;
C. A Stormwater Management Plan;
d. A Site Dewatering Plan; and
e. A Traffic Control Plan.
2. That the applicant provide deed-restricted housing, which complies with the Town
of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13), for a minimum of 160
employees, and that said deed-restricted housing be made available for
occupancy, and the deed restrictions recorded with the Eagle County Clerk &
Recorder, prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail
Plaza Hotel. The ratio of units required shall be reduced to 2:1 for units provided
in Town versis units provided down valley.
3. That the applicant receive a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a
fractional fee club, in accordance with Chapter 12-16, prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
4. ~ at the ,.r e applicant remove the eighth floor of the yuiiling in "n a#en to lepier the
zte remove the
overall hci~ht of habUilding, pFieF t}appeariRg beferethe Tewn of Vail gesigR
Devi rcview Board.
. Level 3 °n^..I I_e.\/el A along Vail Read to provide additinnal nrtio~~lntinn in the
T .emu
.
6. That the applicant receive final Design Review Board approval for the proposed
off-site improvement, prior to application for a building permit.
7. That the applicant submit a complete set of civil engineer drawings of all the off-
site improvements, including improvements to the South Frontage Road, for
review and Town approval, prior to application for a building permit.
8. That the applicant submit complete set of plans to the Colorado Department of
Transportation for review and approval of an access permit, prior to application for
a building permit.
9. That the applicant explore alternatives to decreasing the depth of the enclosed
main loading/delivery area to reduce the impact of the Vail Plaza Hotel at the
ground level of the building on the adjoining property to the east. The final
change shall be at the discretion of the DRB.
10. That the applicant meet with the Town Staff to prepare a letter of agreement
outlining the requirements of the off-site improvements, prior to second reading of
an ordinance approving.
11. That one, on-site employee housing unit be provided as a manager's type of unit.
12. That additional architectural articulation be provided on all north and south levels.
4
6. A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed arena expansion at the Dobson Ice
Arena, located at 321 East Lionshead Circle/ tot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represented by Odell Architects
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1999
7. A request to amend the Town's "Public Accommodation" Zone District, Chapter 7 and
amendments to Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), Town of Vail
Municipal Code.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Braun Associates, Inc.
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1999
8. Information Update
9. Approval of December 28, 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
5
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, January 11, 1999
AGENDA
Project Orientation / LUNCH - Community Development Department 11:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits : 12:30 p.m:
1. Vail Plaza Hotel - 100 E. Meadow Drive
2. Vail Village Club - 333 Bridge Street
Driver: George
0
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 Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a Type II Employee Housing Unit at a proposed primary/secondary
residence, located at 95 Forest Road / Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: . Philip Hoversten, represented by Snowdon & Hopkins Architects
Planner: Jeff Hunt
2. A request for a variance from Section 12-7B-13, Town of Municipal Code, to allow for the
conversion of existing floor space to gross residential floor area (GRFA), located at 333
Bridge Street (Vail Village Club)/ A portion of Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: The Remonov Company, represented by Braun & Associates
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
3. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village),
to allow for a fractional fee club and a change to the approved Development Plan, located
at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominium Cascade Village Area A.
Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson
Planner: George Ruther
4. A worksession to discuss a major amendment to Special Development District #4
(Cascade Village), to revise 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
TOWN0FUna''A
1
5. A request for a final review of a major amendment to Special Development District #6,
Vail Village Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment, located at 100 East Meadow Drive,
Lots M and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st.
Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson
Planner: George Ruther
6. A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed arena expansion at the Dobson Ice
Arena, located at 321 East Lionshead Circle/ Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represented by Odell Architects
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1999
7. A request to amend the Town's "Public Accommodation" Zone District, Chapter 7 and
amendments to Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), Town of Vail
Municipal Code.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Braun Associates, Inc.
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1999
8. Information Update
9. Approval of December 28, 1998 minutes.
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the
Hearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published January 8, 1998 in the Vail Trail
2
4VAIL
TOWN OOffice of the Town Manager •
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157
TM
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Larry Grafel
Pam Brandmeyer
Robert W. McLaurin
DATE: January 6, 1999
RE: Ford Park Managed Parking Update
Due to some of the issues raised this week, we are uncomfortable reconvening the Ford Park user
group committee until several fundamental issues are resolved by the Town Council.
Current direction provided through the approved Ford Park Master Plan calls for reducing conflict
between all Ford Park venues (Goal #3) and (Goal #4) resolving parking and South Frontage Road
access problems.
1) Specifically under Goal #3, Policy Statement 8: "Overlapping or simultaneous events that
exceed the available community parking or other park infrastructure shall be discouraged."
Because the number of conflicting events grew from last year's 36 to this year's projected 38,
have we reached a point where user groups must be constrained from adding to their venue
schedules?
2) Policy Statement 9: "No one event or type of use will be allowed to dominate the usage of the
Park."
3) Policy Statement 10: "The Park is a Town of Vail community facility and in the case of
conflicting uses, functions that best serve the interests of the community will have the highest
priority. In all cases, final decisions regarding the Park rest with the Town Manager."
4) Under Goal #4, is Objective 4.1: "Develop and implement a parking management plan for Ford
Park."
5) Goal #5 calls for improving the pedestrian connections between Ford Park and the Village.
6) Action Step 4.1.4: "Allocate close-in parking on the Frontage Road and Vail Valley Drive
through reserve ticket purchases or on a fee basis. Parking attendants will be on-site to manage
entrances and exits. Establish a ticket surcharge or parking fee price schedule which will
generate sufficient funds to cover attendant and shuttle bus service costs. Fee parking is to be
in effect for high-parking demand days only."
~fw_ RECYCLEDPAPER
Four out of seven Council members voiced opposition to the summer'99 managed and paid parking
plan as agreed to by four out of five groups using the park. If we remove all the current choices the
Town of Vail has provided for accessing the park, e.g., free parking at the structure, enhanced bus
service, additional bike/ped path from the VTRC along the Frontage Road, the path behind the Wren,
OR $5.00 close-in paid parking, the Town will experience a return to congestion, parking on, and
decreased safety on the Frontage Road. Conflicting venue patrons will then fight for any and all
available parking spaces. We will not have achieved any equity between user groups and their
venues.
We need Council consensus and direction on the following:
a) Is there a parking problem at Ford Park when we have conflicting events?
b) Are the Goals, Objectives, and Action Steps as outlined above from the approved Ford Park
Master Plan still valid?
c) Is managed and paid parking still a valid option for managing the parking problem?
d) If it is a valid option, who pays for the operational expenses?
Should it be the patrons of the individual venues?
Should it be the event sponsor, i.e., VRD, VVF, VAGF, BRAVO?
Should it be the Town of Vail? The Town remains the only user group that does not collect
revenue from the services it provides. We collect no rents from any user groups.
There is, in fact, urgency in confirming the managed parking plan in that all user groups requested
approval of the plan by the first of the year in order to incorporate the paid and managed parking
dates in their early mailings and information brochures.
To date, the Town of Vail's investment in the lower bench of Ford Park is significant.
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS:
Increased bus service (to support summer events) $ 14,000
Increased police staffing/extra duty (to support summer events) 9,000
Routine summer maintenance/upkeep - (partial labor and materials only) 21,000
$ 45,000
RECENT CAPITAL INVESTMENTS IN THE PARK INCLUDE:
1998 Ped/bike path along S. Frontage Road (includes design) 700,000
1998 Enhanced electric upgrade 36,000
1998 Chip sealing parking lot 35,000
1999 Raising Manor Vail bridge 200,000
1999 Playground safety & maintenance improvements to
lower bench tot lot 50,000
$1,021,000
Attached is Mountain Valet's summary of operating revenues and expenses, hours of service
provided, and number of cars parked from the 1998 summer event parking program. This program
was deemed a success and essential to the management of the park by the user groups. By the end
of January, in order to honor the early notification to user groups, we must have a decision on
managed parking for the summer of '99. This can be achieved through one final attempt to reach
agreement with the VRD, and lacking that, a decision by the Vail Town Council.
ONE CORRECTION: Mike Arnett asked how many patrons the BRAVO! series enjoyed this past
summer. The number is 37,000, rather than the 60,000 1 optimistically recollected and spouted.
After I said that, I felt it was wise to check w/the source.
LG/PAB/RWM/aw
Attachments
ID: FEB 21'01 18:32 No.001 P.01
goods and materials too large or heavy to be carried by non-motorized means;
access for people with disabilities or limited mobility; public transportation; and
emergency services.
2.2: Reduce the conflicts between vehicles and park users.
Action Step 2.2.1: Coordinate delivery schedules to reduce the frequency of
delivery and service vehicle intrusions into the park during peak use time periods.
Action Step 2.2.2: Improve loading dock facilities in the Amphitheater to
expedite the unloading and setup for performances and to reduce the need' ii)r
large vehicle parking outside of the Amphitheater area.
Action Step 2.2.3: 1niprove the configuration of the east access mad to allow use
by large delivery vehicles, thus reducing the overall number of trips on the west
access road and the need for the backing and turning of large vehicles on the
lower bench of the park.
RGoal #3?
educe conflicts between all Ford Park venues,
Objectives:
3.1: Coordinate events on all Ford Park venues.
Action Step 3.1.1: Expand the master schedule kept by the Town Clerk to
include all venues within the park.
Action Step 3.1.2: Hold preseation and monthly event/activity coordination
meetings.
Action Step 3.1.3: Hold semiannual (2x per year) coordination acid input
meetings to include the Town Staff, leaseholder representatives, and
-neighborhood and adjacent property owner representatives.
Tolfcy Statement : Overlappink or simultaneous-events-that exceed the
available communityparking or other park infrastructure shall be discouraged
Policy Statement 9: No one event or type of use will bc_3llowed to dominate 111c7
(,usage of the Park.
jPolicy Statement 10: The Park is a Town of Vail community facility and in the/
tease of conflicting uses, functions that best serve the interests of the community
will have the highest priority. In l1_cases,_final decisionsregarding the Park~resi
{with the Vail 'Town Manager. _ - -
Policy Statement 11: The day-to-day management and coordination of activities
14
ID: FEB 21'01 18:32 No.001 P.02
L
in the Park will be assigned to the Park Superintendent. The Park Superintendent
will coordinate, as necessary, with a representative of.
• the Town of Vail
• the Vail Valley Foundation
• the Vail Alpine Garden Foundation
• the Vail Recreation District
3.2: lmprove buffers between different use areas within the park.
Action Step 3.2.1. Enhance the buffer zone bct.ween the softball fields and the
amphitheater and gardens by reversing the orientation of the center and east
softball fields
Action Step 3.2.2: Enhance existing and new buffer zone areas through the
addition of landscape planting.
Goal #4: Resolve parking and South Frontage Road access problems.
U_bjeetivrs:
Q. l : Develop and implement a parking management plan for Ford Park. i'
Action Step 4.1.1: locate a variable message sign between the main roundabout
and entrance to the Village Structure for the purpose of informing drivers that
close-in parking at. Ford Park is restricted, at a fie, or full, and parking in the VTC'
is free and shuttle bus service is available.
Action Step 4.1.2: Schedule shuttle bus service from top deck of the Village
Structure to the Ford Park Frontage Road stop for special event/high demand
days. Extend in-town shuttle bus service to Ford Park Vail Valley Drive stop. .
Action Step 4.1.3: Designate drop-nff parking from the Frontage (toad using 15
spaces north of bus stop. Enforce 5 minute time limit. The drop-off Jane will
function as a turn around once lot is filled. Schedule attendants on-site to manage;
drop-off spaces and to assist users in loading; and unloading.
Action Step 4.1-A Allocate close-in parking onthe FrontaSc Road and Vail
"Valley Drive through reserve ticket purchases or on a The basis. Parking
attendants will be on-site to manage entrances and exits. Establish a ticket
surcharge-orparking-fee price schedule which will-generate sufficient funds to
cover attendant and shuttle bus-service costs. Fee parking is to be in effect-fort
high-parking demand days only.
15
ID: FEB 21'01 18:33 No.001 P.03
r
Action Step 4.1.5: Construct a Frontage Road sidewalk from the Village
Structure and improve the sign system as necessary to accommodate pedestrian
traflic to Ford Park.
Policy Statemcnf 12: Adequate parking for the needs of the park are to be 7
provided in the park and at the Village Structure)
4.2: Improve vehicular access from the South Frontage Road and improve the parking, lot.
design to maximize the number of parking spaces, aesthetics, and safety, while mitigating;
environmental impacts.
Action Step 4.2.1: Design and construct improvements to the South Frontage
Road to meet C DOT requirements for obtaining a state highway access permit.
Action Step 4.2.2: Design and construct improvements to all existing parking
areas that maximize; the number of parking spaces; provide landscape bullcring
and treatment of storm water run-off.
Goal #5:
(improve internal pedestrian circulation within Ford Park and improve the ;
C_pedestrian connections between Nord Park and Vail Village.lf---
Objectives:
5.1: Improve directional and informational signs to and within Ford Park.
Action Step 5.1.1: Develop a comprehensive sign plan to direct Ford Park
visitors from central sites in the Vail Village find from each level of the Village
Parking Structure to destinations within lord Park.
5.2: Improve pedestrian routes to Ford Park.
Action Step 5.2.1: Design improvements to existing pedestrian routes that will
correct grading, surfacing, and lighting, and will further provide resting; and sitting
areas.
53: Improve internal pedestrian circulation within Ford Park.
Action Step 5.3.1: Design a central pedestrian path to enhance the connection
between the upper and lower bench areas of the park.
Policy Statement 14: Any uses added to Fiord Park in the future shall be
structured to encourage users or participants to walk or ride the butt rather than to
drive.
16
4-- Ford Park Soccer Field
0
1998 Summer
aU Revenue Staff Expense Report
Date $/NO #CARS TOTAL REV STAFF HRS
R7
d Fri, 5/29198 $ ? 780 POLICE
Sat, 5130/98 NO ? NIA POLICE
Tues,6116198 NO 324 NIA 26.5
Tues, 6123198 NO 353 N/A 21.5
Sat, 6127198 Cancel NIA 7.5
Sun, 6128/98 $ 192 960 19
Tues, 6130/98 NO 312 N/A 25.75
Wed. 711198 $ 124 623 32.25
Thurs,712/98 Cancel NIA 12.75
Friday ,713/98 $ 669 3349 66.25
Sat, 714198 $ 469 2349 61
H Sun, 715/98 $ 225 1125 25
w Mon, 716/98 $ 169 845 20.75
J
Tues, 717198 NO 253 NIA 13
Z Fri, 7/10/98 $ 176 680 19
Q Sat, 7111198 $ 174 870 19
Z Sun, 7112198 $ 105 540 12.5
Tues, 7114/98 NO 334 NIA 16.25
O Wed, 7115198 $ 210 1050 12
Fri, 7117198 $ 147 735 14.5
Q Sun, 7119198 $ 170 850 18.5
a, Tues, 7/21198 NO 328 N/A 15
Wed, 7/22198 $ 207 1035 14.25
u? Fri, 7124198 $ 190 950 17.25
o Sat, 7125/98 $ 237 1184 42.75
Sun, 7/26198 $ 356 1779 49.25
Q' Tues, 7128198 NO 249 N1A 16.25
Wed, 7129/98 $ 248 1240 13.25
CD Fri, 7131198 $ 675 3375 65.5
Sat, 811198 $ 658 3290 60.25
Sun, 812198 $ 685 3426 55.75
C
M Fri, 817198 $ 213 1065 16
Sat, 818/98 $ 359 1795 45
Sat, 8115198 $ 283 1415 46.75
Total 9094 35510 900.25
Z
I-a
Memorandum
To: Town Council
From: Russ Forrest
Andy Knudtsen
Nina Timm
Subject: Common Ground: Process for the West Vail site and the A-Frame site
Date: January 12, 1999
This memo is intended to be an update on the housing and park project for the West Vail
Site. Since the Town Council meeting of November 17, 1998, staff has taken the
direction provided by Council to design six affordable housing units and a neighborhood
park on the site, with only one curb cut. Working within these parameters and consulting
with architects and builders, staff has tried to find the building program with the least
impact to the site.
During the review of the options, it has been suggested that we go to the Design Review
Board for initial comment about the design before proceeding. We are recommending
that we present the conceptual drawings to the DRB, incorporate their comments, then
return to Council for adoption of the development program. If individual Council
members would like to see the drawings prior to the DRB hearing, please contact Andy
Knudtsen at 479-2440. In order to keep the interested community members aware of
their opportunities to participate, we propose sending out a letter with the revised
schedule.
The schedule that staff is proposing is shown below:
Technical staff review (fire, public works) week of January 11
Mass mailing to all who January 13
participated in the West Vial process
DRB Conceptual Review January 20
Town Council Adoption of Dev. Program January 26
Annexation/rezoning PEC hearing February 22
Annexation/rezoning Council hearing March 2
Replatting hearing PEC March 8
Issue RFQ for development team March
Evaluate respondents,
Interview development teams, if necessary
Select development team.
DRB Initial Review April
DRB Final Review
Final Council project approval (including the design
for the park and housing and budget for both)
Proceed with construction drawings Late April
1
Building permit review June
Ground breaking Mid-June
A-Frame
There is a window of opportunity to redevelop the A-Frame site in conjunction with the
West Vail site. While nearly impossible to achieve an economy of scale with a small site
like this one, it is feasible if combined with the West Vail site. The goal is to link the two
sites together with the same development team and progress on both sites at the same
time.
One of the factors influencing the schedule is the amount of neighborhood involvement.
Staff has spent time talking with each of the neighbors in the area individually and
understands that the concept of an affordable housing redevelopment is generally
supported as long as final product is an owner-occupied duplex. Although premature to
set prices, there has been an understanding with the neighbors that each half would sell
in the same range as other Town developments (ie a three bedroom townhome in Red
Sandstone will be selling for $178,500.) There is a potential of adding a third unit to the
site without changing the zoning, as long as it meets the definition of a caretaker unit.
This does not have neighborhood support.
Staff proposes to conduct a single neighborhood meeting to explore two options a
duplex and a duplex with caretaker. Factors such as mass and bulk, parking, curb cuts,
density will each be considered. Simple design concepts will.be presented to exemplify
each of the factors listed above. Following the meeting, staff proposes to present
Council with the comments from that meeting, the original design concepts and
potentially a modified design concept that addresses concerns. Council will be asked to
approve a development program for that site, which then can be incorporated into the
West Vail development schedule. If Council members are interested in seeing the
design concepts prior to the neighborhood meeting, please call Andy Knudtsen.
The schedule for this process is not set; however, staff is proposing to conduct the
neighborhood meeting in late January and present the concept for Council approval of
the development program in late February. The RFQ would then be issued in early
March.
F:\everyone\co unci l\memo\99\wvai I
2
u
~y
TOWN OF VAIL
Department of Public Works & Transportation
1309 Elkhorn Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2158 / Fax: 970-479-2166
MEMORANDUM TM
TO: Vail Town Council
N
FROM: Larry Grafel,
Directo
,r~6f Public Works & Transportation
SUBJECT: Report on Magnesium Chloride Deicer
DATE: January 12, 1999
Attached for your information is a copy of the interim draft report regarding the
environmental effects of magnesium chloride being used as a deicer. The draft report
was prepared for the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) by Dr. William
Lewis from the University of Colorado.
As you are aware, two communities, Basalt and Mintum, have banned the use of
magnesium chloride as a deicer. The reasons stated for banning the use centered on
needing more information on the environmental effects of the continued use of this
chemical solution. It is hoped that this report will help inform you as to the current
environmental findings on the use of this chemical deicer.
We have been using magnesium chloride for six years within the Town of Vail and it is
an effective deicer when used correctly. We use it only at the roundabouts and ramps,
emergency routes, at selected intersections and on steep sections of road way within the
town. Our tactic is preventative so we pre-wet whenever we get a forecast of a
snowstorm. We spray approximately four double lane miles of the 36 within the town,
and it is applied at the rate of approximately 25 gallons per single lane mile. CDOT uses
around 40 gallons per single lane mile and up to 80 during a major storm. Our mixture is
approximately 70% distilled water, 27% magnesium chloride, and 3% rust inhibitors.
Advantages we have found are several. It reduces the sticking of snow and subsequent
ice pack build up, it reduces the use of cinders, it reduces the occurrence of air borne dust
particles as opposed to crushed cinders or sand salt mixtures, and it increases vehicle
safety. On the negative side, it is mildly corrosive, it does bond to the surface of vehicles
and more windshield washer fluid is being consumed.
I hope this information helps. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call and
we will be happy to respond to your questions or concerns.
RECYCLEDPAPER
Studies of Environmental Effects of Magnesium Chloride Deicer
in Colorado
Interim Report
Prepared by William M. Lewis, Jr.
Date of Preparation 7 April 1998
Executive Summary
1. The Colorado Department of Transportation plans to increase
its use of magnesium chloride liquid deicers. Advantages of deicer
soiutitins on roadways at high elevation include reduction in the use
of salt and sand mixtures and improvement of road conditions during
storms beyond what is possible by the use of sand and salt mixtures
alone.
2. In preparation for increased use of magnesium chloride
deicers on roadways at high elevations, the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) initiated environmental investigations during
late 1996. These environmental investigations focus on the effects
of magnesium chloride deicers on water quality and aquatic
ecosvstems. The studies include field analyses of water quality and
aquatic communities as well as biotoxicity testing.
3. The field and laboratory studies of magnesium chloride
deicers were preceded by a literature review. The review showed that
magnesium and chloride, the main ingredients of magnesium chloride
deicers, are unlikely to produce adverse environmental effects except
under very unusual circumstances. Chloride may damage vegetation
very close to roadways, but is diluted by runoff to such an extent
that it is very unlikely to exceed the concentrations that are known
to be harmful to aquatic life. Aside from the main ingredients,
magnesium chloride deicers can be expected to contain rust inhibitors
as well as contaminants that are included inadvertently. Rust
inhibitors and contaminants of deicing mixtures have seldom been
studied.
4. Analysis of the deicing mixtures that were in use by CDOT
during the winter of 1996-97 showed unexpectedly high concentrations
3
i
of lead, arsenic, and cadmium as well as phosphorus. While the
presence of contaminants such as these can be expected to some degree
in salt mixtures, the concentrations of these particular contaminants
seemed excessive and caused CDOT to tighten its restrictions on
vendors for supplies purchased by the state for the winter of 1997-
98. Preliminary analysis of the '1997-98 deicers shows that the
amounts of contaminants are substantially reduced.
5. The expected dilution of deicer solutions on roadways was
estimated as one means of evaluating the expected concentrations of
deicer components in runoff as it exits the roadway. The median
expected dilution of deicer solutions applied to roadways is
approximately I to 1000 on the rcadwa,i itself (i.e., prior to exit of
the deicing solution from the roadway).
6. Oraanic materials are expected components of deicers because
rust inhibitors may consist of organic compounds. An analysis of the
deicing solutions in use during 1996-97 showed that the deicers
contained between 850 and 1000 mg/L of organic carbon, and that this
amount of organic matter would be expected to induce a total oxygen
demand between 600 and 2000 mg/L of deicer applied to the roadway.
Given the extensive dilution of the deicer on the roadway prior to
enter'_ng the environment, however, this potential oxygen demand
appears to present no environmental threat through the depletion of
oxygen in streams or other acuatic environments.
7. The actual biochemical oxygen demand of deicers was measured
experLmentally. Control sites (i.e., sites not receiving deicing
materials) showed biochemical oxygen demand between 0.04 and 0.11 ma
O_/L/day. No significant increase in HOD could be detected as a
result of the addition of 0.3% deicer solution. In addition, no
significant change in BOD could be observed as a result of the Q
addition of 0.6% salt and sand.
8. Tadpoles of the boreal toad were subjected to bictoxicity
testing under controlled laboratory conditions through exposure to a
range of concentrations of deicer. The boreal toad is of particular
interest because of its s-atus as an endangered species, and its
presence in aquatic environments near roadways that receive deicer.
The tadpoles showed no mortality over 96-hour intervals at deicer
concentrations of 0.1%, which would be the expected median
concentration of deicer concentrations in runoff as it exits the
roadway. The concentration of deicer required to cause 50% mortality
(LD50) among tadpoles over a 96-hour period was estimated as 0.32%.
Tadpoles were similarly affected by pure solutions of magnesium
chloride (LD50=0.65$).
9. Juvenile rainbow trout were tested for response to varying
concentrations of magnesium chloride deicer. The threshold for
mortality over 96-hour exposure intervals was approximately 0.5%.
The LD50 for rainbow trout was estimated as 1.4% magnesium chloride
deicer.
10. The aquatic invertebrate Ceriodanhnia was tested for
response to a range of maan~sium chloride deicer solutions over an
interval of 48 hours. The =hreshold of mortality for Ceriodauhnia
was approximately 0.1%. The LD50 for Ceriodamhn±a was estimated as
0.19% (48 hours). A test of reproductive capability was also
performed on Ceriodachnia. The reproductive test indicates the onset
of negative physiological effects for Ceriodanhnia at about 0.1%
deicer.
11. The algal genus Selenastrum was tested for response to
magnesium chloride deicer over intervals of 96 hours. The test
showed significant suppression of division rate for the algal cells
occurring at deicer concentrations slightly in excess of 0.1%. Other
indicators of physiological stress appeared at concentrations of
approximately 1%.
12. In overview, toxicity tests show that various kinds of
aquatic organisms differ in their sensitivity to magnesium chloride
deicer. The most sensitive kinds of organisms included in these
tests begin to show observable effects at about 0.1% macnesium
chloride deicer during exposures ranging from 48 to 96 hours.
Because of the presence of melt water, magnesium chloride deicer
applied to roadways is diluted to approximately 0.1% prior to leaving
the roadway.
13. Mass transport was analyzed for magnesium, chloride, and
sodium at 6 field sites (stream study segments) during 1997. The
amount of magnesium added in the form of magnesium chloride to
roadways during the year was consistently below 7% of total annual
transport of magnesium. Addition of magnesium chloride raised the
concentrations of magnesium in streams by as much as 13 mg/L above
baseline concentrations of 2-3mg/L. Winter concentrations are most
strencly affected because stream discharge is low during winter, and
thus dilutes the magnesium less than during spring. Even thouch
chances in concentration are easily detectable, they fall well within
the natural range of magnesium concentrations in Colorado waters and
raise no specific environmental concerns.
14. For chloride, two different sources that are likely to
raise cencentrations and mass transport above background: magnesium
chloride and salt and sand mixtures. Background cencentrations of
chloride are very low (0-42 mc/ L) , and -he combination of magnesi
chloride and salt and sand raises these backcround concentraticns by
30 to 60 mg/L during winter, when dilution is lowest. Even so, the
peak concentrations are below concentrations that could be considered
potentially harmful to the most sensitive forms of aquatic life.
Unlike the situation with magnesium, chloride transport is accounted
for mainly by chloride added to the roadways in the form of salt and
sand and deicer. When the two materials are applied together, the
salt/sand mixture is the strongly dominant source of chloride;
magnesium chloride accounts for a small proportion of the total.
15. Sodium is added to roadways in the form of salt and sand
mixtures, but not as a component of magnesium chloride. Use of salt
and sand mixtures raises the peak concentrations of sodium in stream
waters from the range 2-5 mg/L to the range 20-50 mg/L. These
concentrations are not within a range that could be considered
environmentally damaging, however. The amount of sodium added along
with sodium and chloride constitutes only a small percentage of the
total annual transport (1-11%).
16. Comparisons were made of algal communities at three
locations receiving deicer and three locations not receiving deicer
(controls). Detailed analysis of the algal communities indicate no
statistically significant difference in the algal communities of
control and treatment sites.
2
Introduction
The state of Colorado, through the Colorado Department of
Transportation (COOT) has used magnesium chloride solution at
selected locations for highway deicing. COOT has found that
magnesium chloride offers numerous benefits. These include reduction
in the need for application salt and sand, and improvement in road
conditions beyond what would be possible with salt and sand alone.
Reduction in the use of salt and sand is valuable environmentally
because of the connection between salt and sand and fine particulate
.material that is regulated for protection of human health, and also
because large volumes of sand can be detrimental to roadside
environments, and particularly small streams. Improved deicing
performance also contributes to maintenance of traffic volume,
particularly at high elevation, and potentially could contribute to
safety as well.
Given the benefits of magnesium chloride, COOT has moved from
experimental to routine use of magnesium chloride over the last few
years. This type of use for magnesium chloride is by no means
unprecedented, given that many local governments as well as
governments of other states have in the past used magnesium chloride
extensively as a deicer.
Prior to making even further commitments to the use of magnesium
chloride, COOT has anticipated the need for environmental evaluation
of magnesium chloride in the context of the Colorado montane
environment where extensive amounts of magnesium chloride will be
used. A project designed to accomplish this goal was designed in
1996 and implemented toward the end of 1996 and beginning of 1997.
The project, which is anticipated to last three years, has two major
components: 1. A review of the literature on environmental effects of
magnesium chloride with emphasis on Colorado conditions (Task 1), and
2. Experimental and monitoring work intended to test the
environmental effects of magnesium chloride use in Colorado (Tasks
2-8). The first of these two components is complete in the form of a
report that reviews the literature on magnesium chloride.' A second
component of the project involves field and laboratory work that will
be in progress for many more months (Table 1, Figures 1-3). The
present report provides interim information on the field laboratory
studies to date.
The contents of this interiii report do not support final
conclusions, which can only come from the final report for the
project. The interim report does serve as a means of making
information available in summary form, however.
For purposes of clarity, order of presentation of results below
differs slightly from the order of tasks shown in Table 1.
Chemical Composition of Deicing Materials
Inorganic Materials (1996-97)
During the winter of 1996-97, CDOT District 1 was using two
types of deicing materials: GMCO and Envirotech FreezeGard Zero. Task
2 of this project called for analysis of these deicing mixtures as a
means of determining main ingredients and contaminants that might be
of environmental interest.
'Lewis, W.M. Jr. Magnesium Chloride Deicer: A Literature Review
with Emphasis on the State of Colorado. 7 July 1997.
x
3
i
Eisenhower
Tunnel-
West Portal
Control-
No Deicer,
No Sand e*
IJ e
G~
I-70
~ a
~ ~ Sam
~o S`t a\~r e` P~JS
Town of Oe`~ N
Dillon I
t
~oP I
61 / Secti p 1 2
5`Q, MILES
A, Sampling Site
Figure 1. Study segments in the West Portal area.
p0 '
co
~1.70
US 40
West
Empire Fork
T
N
l I I
0 1 2
Wellands MILES
(control)
Sampling Site
Georgetown
4)
a,
1.70 U
Clear CreeK D
6akervllle V CO
)
Eisenhower Wetlands ~
O
Tunnel (Deicer, 0 U
East Poriai Sand) CO O
Pius Sand o Z
pelcer
Study Section c`
o
V
h
Q
h
1J
1
\e
North Poo
C/o
dr
Creek
Control Section
Sand, No Deicer
Blac 'hawk
~o
T ~/off 9
l ~ l i l
o t 2
MILES
Sampling Sile Study Section ,
Deicer Plus Sand L,p L~
Ci s e~' s
Ge
Figure 3. Study segments along 17orth Clear Creek.
4
Task and Description
Task I A Literature Review
Task 2 A Biochemical Oxygen Demand of Deicer
B Chemical Analysis of Deicer (organic)
C Nutrient Analysis of Deicer
D Metal Analysis of Deicer
Task 3 A Toad Toxicity Test
B Trout Toxicity Test
C Ceriodanhnia Toxicity Test
D Algae Toxicity Test
Task 4 Mass Balance Studies
Task 7 Synoptic Field Studies
Task 8 Community Analysis (algae)
Table 1. Summary of Tasks (Tasks 5 and 6 were canceled).
5
Samples of the GMCO and FreezeGard Zero materials were obtained
from CDOT's storage tanks, and were analyzed for a spectrum of
substances including the main ingredients of the mixture (magnesium
and chloride) as well as other substances potentially of
environmental interest. The results are summarized in Table 2.
The intended composition of the deicing material includes
magnesium and chloride ions composing approximately 30% by weight of
the deicing mixture, water, which makes up the bulk of the mixture,
and a small amount of rust inhibitor that may be organic or
inorganic, and is typically treated as a proprietary component of the
mixture.
As shown by Table 2, the main components of the deicer are as
expected: dissolved materials in the mixture are dominated by
magnesium and chloride ions. In addition, other substances are
present. This is not surprising, given that the parent material for
the deicer is taken from solar ponds, which in turn receive their
salts from the Great Salt Lake, a natural source. The material is
processed to some extent by vendors, mainly for the reduction of
sulfate concentrations.
Both the GMCO and FreezeGard Zero deicing material contained, in
addition to magnesium and chloride, notable amounts of calcium,
sodium, and potassium. These ionic substances are not regulated for
water quality purposes, unless they were present at such high
concentrations that they might influence the total salinity of the
water. The presence of calcium, sodium, and potassium in the mixture
raises no -bvious environmental issues related to water quality.
i
6
i
i
I
i
i
milligrams per liter
I
Standard Typical Ratios
Stream Deicer
Enviro6 GIMCO Envirc GMCO
Concentration
Major ions (non-toxic)
Ca None 20 2260 70 113 3.5
Mg None 3.5 71,000 65,000 20,380 18,600
Na None 3.5 1800 1500 515 429
K None 0.5 820 540 1640 1080
Cl 250 4.0 200,000"j 180,000` 50,000 45,000
Inorganics (Potentially toxic)
Cu 0.00651 0.2 0.2 31 31
Pb 0.00151 3.4 3.0 2270 2000
Zn 0.0691 1 39 14 560
As 0.050 6.4 5.1 128 100
Cd 0.00071 0.6 0.5 860 710
NH3 2.32 0.010 5.3 3.4 2.3 1.5
Nutrients
Total P None 0.015 12 82 800 5500
(1) Approximate, based on hardness of 50 mg/l
(2) At 15 C, pH 7.5; varies with pH and temperature
(3) Loading limit exits for Lake Dillon
(4) Computed from molar ratio to magnesium
(5) Ratio of deicer concentration to typical concentration
(nontoxics and nutrients) or to standard (toxics).
(6) Envirotech FreezeGard Zero
Table 2. Chemical composition of two sources of MgCl, deicer used by
CDOT during winter, 1996-97.
'y
7
Both deicing mixtures also contained measurable concentrations
of a number of heavy metals and some other substances such as arsenic
and selenium. These substances are regulated in surface waters for
the protection of aquatic life. A number of them are also regulated
for the protection of drinking water supply, although the aquatic
life limits are considerably more stringent and therefore will be the
focus of this analysis.
Although the presence of some metals and other contaminants in
the sample is anticipated, the concentrations that were found in the
1996-97 samples were surprisingly high, especially with regard to the
state of Colorado water quality limits~:for these substances.
Because the water quality limits for individual substances vary
widely, Table 2 includes a listing of the concentration limits for
substances that were found in the deicing mixtures. For metals, the
limits are not fixed, but rather are calculated on the basis of
hardness. For purposes of preparing Table 2, a characteristic
hardness was assumed in the calculations. The hardness of mountain
waters is relatively low, and this increases the stringency of the
state standards for metals. The table also shows the ratio of the
concentrations in the undiluted deicing material to the stream
standards. In all cases, the concentration of materials in the
undiluted deicer greatly exceeds the stream standards, but this in
itself is not necessarily cause for concern because very substantial
dilution of the material is inevitable as melting occurs on the
roadway surface. More meaningful is the last column in the table,
which shows the amount of dilution required to bring the
concentration of each substance down to the stream standard.
i
8
The table also shows the concentration of ammonia, a non-
metallic substance that is regulated for the protection of aquatic
life, in the deicing materials. Although the deicing mixture does
contain easily measurable amounts of ammonia, the ammonia
concentrations are of less concern than the metals because ammonia is
converted to nitrate or organic nitrogen by natural processes in
streams.
The table also contains information on the amounts of phosphorus
in the deicing material. Unlike heavy metals, phosphorus is not
regulated by statewide standards. Instead, it is regulated by site-
specific standards. In general, mcntan'a waters are expected to have
t
low concentrations of phosphorus, and the addition of large amounts
of phosphorus has the undesirable effect of causing eutrophication,
which results in excessive algal growth and other undesirable
outcomes. The deicing mixtures do contain significant amounts of
phosphorus; particularly the GMCO material. Phosphorus is an
effective corrosion inhibitor and may have been used in the GMCO
mixture as a corrosion inhibitor.
Overall, analysis of inorganic materials in the 1996-97 deicing
materials raised some concerns about potentially excessive amounts of
heavy metals and phosphorus that might be leaving the highway
surfaces and entering headwater streams in the montane areas. In the
absence of field work involving sampling of the headwater streams, it
would not be possible to say whether the dilution involved in the
melting of ice from highway surfaces and highway shoulders is
sufficient in itself to cause adequate dilution of these regulated
substances.
9
Upon receiving the information in Table 2, COOT management
collected additional samples of the 1996-97 deicer and, although the
exact concentrations of various substances varied from one sample to
another, confirmed that the concentrations of metals and phosphorus
were sufficiently high to raise concerns and to be cause for
discussion with vendors.
The source of metals and phosphorus in the 1996-97 deicing
materials remains to some extent unexplained. High concentrations of
phosphorus in the GMCO material probably reflect the use of phosphate
corrosion inhibitors, and in this sense were intentional and subject
to reversal by use of other inhibi.tors:,J Metals could have come from
the source ponds, or could have been added or augmented by the
processing of the deicing material for removal of sulfate. It is
also possible that some or all of these materials came from COOT
storage tanks rather than vendor sources, although the consistency in
presence of contaminants from different tanks casts some doubt on
this possibility. It is also possible that the material sampled in
1996-97 was atypical in the sense that it was left over after deicing
had ceased (Spring 1997).
Inorganic Materials (1997-98)
For the 1997-98 season, COOT set more stringent conditions for
vendors, and preliminary analysis of the deicing material by CDOT
showed that the material does not have the high concentrations of
metals and nutrients that were characteristic of the previous year.
Indenendent analysis of the deicing material in the middle of the
deicing season is part of the second year Task 2 activities for this
project (in progress).
I
14
a
Because of the new emphasis in 1997-1998 on the comparison of
chloride deicer with salt and sand mixtures, BCD tests were done also
on salt and sand available in winter 1997-98.
For tests involving deicer, water was transported from the field
sites to a laboratory incubator where the water could be maintained
l
at a temperature close to the temperature of water at the field site
3
(1-5°C). Water from all sites was tested in duplicate, and each site
was represented by two stream water controls to which nothing was
added. The test bottles for magnesium chloride deicer received 1 ml
of deicing solution, which yielded a concentration of 1/333, or 0.3%
deicer. This dilution was selected because it is representative of
.j
the maximum likely concentration of deicer in runoff leaving the edge
of the highway. For tests of salt and sand, 2 g were added to each
bottle (333 ml). The bottles were shaken periodically during the 24-
hour test interval. In addition to the test bottles and site-
specific controls, two deionized water controls were included for
quality assurance purposes (no oxygen change would be expected in
these bottles because of the absence of organisms and bictically
active organic substrates).
The results for the BCD tests are shown in Table 4 and Figure 4.
As indicated by the table, the deionized water controls showed no
change in oxygen, as expected.
It is useful first to examine the oxygen demand for all of the
stream water controls. There were six pairs of these (two replicates
from each of six sites). The controls show evidence of site-to-site
variation extending from about 0.05 to 0.10 mg OZ per liter per day.
Natural variation of this magnitude is expected. There is no
a
6
c
E
13
the practical effect of the organic matter would depend very much on
the rate at which it is. degraded in surface waters. This matter will
be considered in part B of Task 2 (see below).
a
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
- 3
s
one way in which deicers might impair surface waters would be
through the transmission of organic materials to surface water in
sufficient quantities to raise the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of
the water. Impairment of this type is most likely under two i
conditions: 1) addition of subs tantialriamounts of organic matter, and
2) rapid use of the organic matter by microbes. In addition, stream
temperature would be expected to govern the BOO caused by the
addition of organic matter, given that higher temperatures produce
higher BCD if all other factors are equal.
Although the chemical testing of deicing material suggests that
the amount of organic matter present in deicers probably would be
insufficient to cause major changes in BCD, direct tests of,BOD.were
also made. The tests were performed in bottles of water (333 ml)
that were closed to the atmosphere after the addition of measured
amounts of deicing materials. The change in oxygen content of the
water was measured over 24 hours.
The HOD test was designed in such a way as to demonstrate not
only the potential of deicing materials to alter oxygen content of
stream water taken from the sampling sites, but also the degree of
natural variation in HOD from one site to another. For this reason,
each deicer was tested with water from a different field site.
i
I
10
Organic Materials in the Deicer (1996-97)
Corrosion inhibitors often are organic. Because the inhibitors
are proprietary, the vendors may not reveal their composition.
Therefore, the purpose of this task was to determine the general
chemical nature of the inhibitor, and thus whether it might be of
some environmental concern.
After the project started, vendors voluntarily revealed directly
to CDOT the composition of their inhibitors. Therefore, the emphasis
of this task shifted to quantification of the total amount of organic
material in the deicer, and computation of the oxygen- consuming
capacity of organic matter in the deicer.
r
The total amount of organic material in deicing material was
determined by use of a carbon analyzer, which converts all organic
materials to C02. The C02 is then measured to provide an estimate of
the total amount of organic material.
Table 3 shows the results of the carbon analysis. Both deicers
contained substantial amounts of organic matter by comparison with
natural waters (200 to 800x), but the presence of substantial organic
matter is not surprising, given that the deicer is a concentrated
substance. The two sources differ in amount of organic matter. This
is probably because one source contained an inorganic rust inhibitor,
whereas the other contained an organic rust inhibitor that involves
the addition of organic matter to the deicer.
Table 3 also shows the estimated oxygen consumption capacity of
the organic matter in the deicer, and the volume of water from which
the deicer could consume the oxygen holding capacity (assumed 7mg/1)
y
E
11 -
Type of deicer Amount of Total Volume of water
96-97 organic potential (liters) providing
material oxygen demand total oxygen
(mg/1 carbon) (mg/1) demand for 1 liter
of deicer
GMCO 280 640 91
Envirotech* 840 1920 274
*FreezeGard Zero
Table 3. Summary of information on organic carbon content of deicer
(1996-97).
~I
12
if all of this oxygen demand were expressed over a short pericd~of
time.
The environmental significance of the organic material cannot be
evaluated solely on the basis of Table 3. It is also important to
know how fast the organic material is consumed by microbes, which is
the means by which oxygen demand is shown in the environment (next
section).
Application rate for magnesium chloride on an annual basis
varies by location (see the mass balance analysis for more detail)
An approximate rate of application for high elevation is 50,000
liters of deicer per mile of highway (f.our-lane) per year. For the
96-97 deicers, GMCO would have a potential oxygen demand equivalent
to 4500 cubic meters of water at oxygen saturation (7mg/1). For
FreezeGard Zero, the potential oxygen depletion capacity corresponds
to 13,700 cubic meters per mile of highway per year.
The amount of runoff at high elevation varies greatly from year
to year, but averages close to 300 mm/year. The drainage area per
mile of highway required to produce enough runoff to satisfy the
oxygen demand for deicer over a one year interval would be
approximately 15,000 square meters for GMCO or 45,000 square meters
for FreezeGard Zero. For comparison, a mile of four-lane highway
would have an area of approximately 160,000 square meters. Because
this is several times higher than the runoff needed to supply oxygen
demand, and because the drainage area adjacent to a four-lane highway
would normally exceed by a great amount the drainage area of the
highway itself, drastic effects on oxygen appear unlikely, except
possibly in ponded areas very near to the highway that might receive
and hold deicer diluted only by roadway runoff. Even in this case,
15
Sample Location/Type Description BCD (mg 02/L/day)
Deionized Water Control Control 1 0.000
Control 2 0.003
Mean 0.0015
S. Clear Creek Control Control 1 0.067
Control 2 0.055
Mean 0.061
Salt/Sand Redimix 18% 97-98 1 0.043
Redimix 18% 97-98 2 0.052
Mean 0.0475
Clear Creek Control Control 1 0.043
Control 2 0.070
Mean 0.0565
Deicer GMC098ST Silverthorne 97-98 1 0.061
GMC098ST Silverthorne 97-98 2 0.046
Mean 0.0535
Deicer GMC098 ST Empire 97-98 1 0.083
GMC098 ST Empire 97-98 2 0.028
Mean 0.0555
Laskey Gulch Control Control 1 0.110
Control 2 0.113
Mean 0.1115
Deicer FreezeGard 96-97 1 0.073
FreezeGard 96-97 2 0.104
Mean 0.0885
Straight Creek Control Control 1 0.061
Control 2 0.080
Mean 0.0705
Salt/Sand Everist 5% 97-98 1 0.034
Everist 5% 97-98 2 0.101
Mean 0.0675
N. Clear Crk-Upper Control Control 1 0.073
Control 2 0.080
Mean 0.0765
Deicer FreezeGard 97-98 (Tank) 1 0.113
Freezeaard 97-98 (Tank) 2 0.101
Mean 0.1070
Deicer FreezeGard 97-98 (Truck) 1 0.043
Freezegard 97-98 (Truck) 2 0.040
Mean 0.041E
N. Clear Crk-Lower Control Control 1 0.092
Control 2 0.092
Mean 0.092
Salt/Sand Mt Aggregate 5% 97-98 1 0.092
Mt Aggregate 5% 97-98 2 0.095
Mean 0.0935
Table 4. Results of BCD tests.
Effects of Deicer on BOD
0.12-
0.1-
/
13
0.08
Control
N j
O 0.06 ®Deicer
E 0.04 / ? Salt/Sand
O
m 0.02
~
o
NCC1 NCC2 CC SCC STR LAS
Water Source
Figure 4. Results of BOD tests.
16
evidence that the upstream and downstream locations for individual
stream segments differ in any consistent way.
The table compares each of the deicing and salt and sand
mixtures with its appropriate site-specific control. As indicated by
the table, there is no evidence for consistent increase in SOD as a
result of the addition of either magnesium chloride solutions or salt
and sand mixtures. In other words, the differences between controls
and treatments-in the table fall generally within the range of
controls, and therefore cannot be viewed as significant differences.
One possible exception is the FreezeGard Zero sample taken directly
from the delivery truck. This sample sowed notably lower BOO than a
sample of the same material taken from the storage tank.. The lower
BOO suggests a mild toxicity effect involving the suppression of
respiration by microbes in the bottles to which deicer from the truck
was added. As shown by biotoxicity testing (given below),
biotoxicity effects could occur at this concentration, which is equal
to the strongest concentrations observed just as the deicing material
leaves the road. It is not clear why the effect would occur in
magnesium chloride taken directly from the truck but not in the same
material taken from the storage tank.
Overall, there is no evidence for any significant increase in
BCD of stream water. Very small increases might not be detected
without more extensive replication. Such small changes in BOD would,
however, have no significance with respect to the biological effects
of stream oxygen concentrations.
Biotoxicity Testing
Data for 1996-97 Deicer
1
-17
One means of estimating zhe environmental effects of chemical
mixtures is to determine the toxicity of these materials by
standardized testing under controlled laboratory condition. Testing
protocols for this type of work typically involve exposure of test
organisms to a progressive series of concentrations. If mortality
occurs and increases toward higher concentrations, it is possible to
calculate an index value for toxicity that may be referred to as the
LC50 (lethal concentration required to produce 50% mortality). In
fact, procedures of this type are the main basis for numeric
standards protective of aquatic life in Colorado, as determined by
the Water Quality Control Commission oflColorado and the USEPA
Region VIII.
Toxicity testing for 1996-97 Deicer was conducted on four kinds
of organisms: Boreal toad (Bufo boreas), rainbow trout (Oncorhvnchus
mvkiss), water flea (Ceriodaohnia), and unicellular algae
(Selenastrum). Some background on each of these organisms is given
in connection with the results described below. This range of
organisms represents the main groups potentially affected by deicer
in aquatic environments (amphibians, fishes, invertebrates, and
algae). While individual species of organisms do show variation in
chemical sensitivity, the inclusion of four very different kinds of
organisms provides a broad view of the level of toxicity potential
for magnesium chloride deicer.
Although protocols vary from one group of organisms to another,
ail organisms were tested under controlled growing conditions at a
range of concentrations of deicer. The concentrations were chosen on
the basis of some initial scope-finding work.
18
A special feature was added to the bioassay tests on tadpoles.
For these organisms, tests on deicing material were run parallel with
equivalent tests of a 57% solution of magnesium chloride from regent-
grade (pure) sources. The pure magnesium chloride solution differs
from the deicer in its lack of corrosion inhibitor and contaminants.
This allowed a comparison of magnesium chloride per se with deicer,
which contains not only magnesium chloride but also small amounts of
other materials that might affect the toxicity of the mixture.
As is standard for toxicity testing, all tests involved the use
of control, i.e., a group of organisms maintained under identical
conditions as the test organisms but not exposed to any of the
deicing material. Successful toxicity testing requires proof that
the organisms can be maintained in healthy condition within the
laboratory for the test interval, and this proof is achieved by use
of control organisms that are not exposed to potentially toxic
substances.
Tests on the toads, fish, and invertebrate species were
conducted under the supervision of Dr. Pat Davies and Mr. Stephen
Brinkman of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Tests of algae were
conducted under the supervision of Dr. Richard Dufford, consulting
phycologist.
Boreal Toad Tadpoles
The boreal toad is native to montane regions of Colorado and in
the past has been quite abundant throughout much of the Central
Rockies. Like many amphibians, the boreal toad. has been declining
steadily in abundance for over a decade. At present, the boreal toad
III
I
19
is listed as an endangered species because of its low abundance and
restricted distribution.
The boreal toad was chosen as a test organism because the
application of deicing materials occurs in watersheds where the
boreal toad is now present as reproducing populations. Thus the toad
no only represents amphibians in general, but also the special
concern for this particular species.
The tadpole stage of the boreal toad was used for testing
because this sta-a has an extended dependence on acceptable water
quality for growth and development to the mature toad, which is
primarily terrestrial.
Ten boreal toad tadpoles were used for each treatment and for
the controls. Test concentrations and controls were represented by
two replicates. The control consisted of source water only
(dechlcrinated tapwater), and the treatments consisted of 5%, 1% and
0.1% dilutions of deicing compound (FreezeGard Zero 1996-97) and 10%,
13 and 0.2% dilutions of a pure magnesium. chloride solution of
equivalent ionic strength to the deicer. The tadpoles were tested
during the middle stage of development. The tests were conducted in
250-mi beakers containing 100m1 each of water or test solution. The
beakers were aerated gently F.-id were kept at 12 dearees centigrade
with a 12/12 phctoperiod. Mortality was recorded daily. Living
tadpoles were transferred to fresh solutions every 24 hours over the
test interval of 96 hours.
Table 5 and Figure 5 summarize the test results. The table
gives not only the mortality in terms of numbers of individuals and
percentages, but also reports the hardness of each test solution.
The hardness of test solutions containing magnesium chloride deicer
r
r
Boreal toad
100 $
75
z so
c 0.1 °6 deicer
o
25
0
0 24 48 72 96
100
75
70
.2:' S0
1.0% deicer
t
0
25
0 m
0 24 48 72 96
100
! ! I
/5 r
I
50
5.09o deicer
I a ;
~ S ~ I I
0
0 24 48 72 96
i
Time (hrs)
Figure 5a. Biotosicity tests on the boreal toad tadpole.
i
I
21
Deicer Pure Magnesium
Chloride*
Control 0.1% 1.0% 5.0% 0.2% 2.0% 10.0%
Hardness (mg/L) 56 500 4110 21060 446 3572 16690
24 hr. 0 0 0 100 0 0 100
Mortality
48 hr. 0 0 10 100 0 0 100
Mortality
96 hr. 0 0 100 100 0 100 100
Mortality
* Shown here is for percent dilution of a pure MgCl, solution of the same
ionic strength as the deicer solution (27% by mass).
Table 5. Hardness and mean mortality of boreal toad tadpoles exposed to
various dilutions of 57% magnesi= chloride solution and deicing
compound (FreezeGard Zero, 1996-97) used by the Colorado Department
of Transportation.
i
22
In addition, a control was maintained. The tests were conducted
under environmental conditions and for durations as indicated above
for the boreal toad, except that each exposure as well as the control
was replicated 3 times instead of 2 times.
As shown in Table 6 and Figure 6, survival of the controls was
100%, which indicates that maintenance conditions for the fish was
satisfactory for the test. Mortality of fish began at the lowest
concentration of deicer (0.5$), but this concentration resulted in
low mortality over the longest holding interval (96 hours). At 1%
deicer, mortality was higher, but did not occur in the first 24
hours. At 2.5%, mortality was total b~ 48 hours, and at 5% mortality
was total after 24 hours.
The test results indicate that rainbow trout fail within the
same general range of sensitivity as the boreal toad, but that the
boreal toad is slightly more sensitive.
Cer.iodaonnia
Ceriodanhnia belongs to a group of organisms that occur commonly
in many kinds of aquatic environments of Colorado. In addition, this
organism thrives under culture conditions. Ceriodachnia is the mean
invertebrate test organism used in federally and state mandated whole
effluent (WET) testing. In fact the organism has been so widely used
in testing that protocols have been developed by the EPA for
standardized testing. These protocols were followed in the deicing
test (EPA 600/4-90/027F).
Rance finding tests showed that Ceriodachnia was likely to be
more sensitive than rainbow trout or boreal toad tadpoles. For this
BF oreal toad
100
75
7
a
t 50 0.2% MgC12
0
25
0
0 24 48 72 96
100
75
I
a
50
L 2.0% MgC12
° I
25
0
0 24 48 72 96
100
I ~
75
o
a I
50 i - 10% MgC12
25
j
o ~ -
0 24 48 72 96
Time (hrs)
Figure Sb. Biotoxicity tests on the boreal toad tadpole.
20
is higher than the control because magnesium is a component of
hardness. Hardness may be relevant to the interpretation of test
results because increased hardness reduces the toxicity of metal
contaminants in water.
As shown by Table 5, there was no mortality among the control
orcanisms over the entire 96-hour test interval. This indicates that.
the test conditions were satisfactory for the maintenance of the
living organisms. In addition, there was no mortality among
organisms treated with 0.1% deicer. Mortality occurred among
tadpoles exposed to 1% deicer, but only after a delay of 24 hours.
The 5% solution produced quick and consistent 100% mortality.
The pure magnesium chloride solution used for comparison shows
in Table 5 as similar in toxicity to the deicing material or perhaps
slightly less toxic. In other words, the results suggest that the
additive toxicity of contaminants and rust inhibitors in the deicer
is relatively small for boreal toads.
Rainbow Trout
The rainbow trout was selected for testing because it is
generally representative of the multiple salmonid species that may be
found at high elevation Colorado. Although introduced, rainbow trout
is the main basis for Colorado fisheries supported by stocking and
shows natural reproduction in Colorado waters. Rainbow trout is the
most widely used bioassay organism among the cold water fishes.
Hatchery reared rainbow trout with a mean length of 41 mm (0.68
grams) were tested in 2.5-liter glass chambers. Initial range
finding studies indicated that test solutions should be as high as 5
and as low as 0.5%. Treatments were as follows: 5%, 2.5%, 1%, 0.5%.
i
23
Control 0.5% 1.0% 2.5% 5.0%
Hardness (mg CaC03/L) 61 2240 4542 11650 _ i
3
Conductivity (AS/cm) 117 3520 6620 15520 -
24 hr. Mortality 0.0 0.0 0.0 63' 100
48 hr. Mortality 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 100
96 hr. Mortality 0.0 41 29` 100 100
ls.d.=7
2s.d.=26
3s.d.=33
Table 6. Hardness, conductivity, and mean percent mortality of
rainbow trout exposed to dilutions of deicer (FreezeGard
Zero, 1996-97) for 24, 48, and 96 hours.
J
Rainbow trout
100
75
z
50
g -y- 0.5% deter
0
25
0
0 24 48 72 96
100
75
50
1.0% deicer
o I
25
0 r
0 24 48 '11 72 96
77/ I
100
I
75
_ I
7
t
50
t --e- 2.5% deicer !
o ~J
25
III
I
o I
0 24 48 72 96
100
1
75
d~
m I 5 0% cuter
c
o
L I
25
i
I
1
0
0 24 48 72 06
rime ~hrs)
Figure 6. Biotoxicity tests on rainbow trout.
24
reason, the test solutions were set as follows: 0.031%, 0.062%,
0.125%, 0.25% and 0.5%. Following the EPA protocol, the tests were
run for only 48 hours rather than 96 hours as for the vertebrate
species. Dilution and control water were collected directly from the
Cache la Poudre river above the Division of Wildlife Poudre River
Rearing Unit rather from the tam water dechlorinator because of the
high sensitivity of Ceriodamhnia. Four replicates were used and
there were 5 organisms per replicate.
Table 7 and Figure 7 show the results of the Ceriodamhnia
toxicity test. As indicated in the table, mortality began to occur
at concentrations as low as 0.125% deicer material. At 0.25%,
mortality was. almost complete, and complete mortality occurred at
concentrations of 0.5% within 24 hours.
The tests indicate that Ceriodamhnia is considerably more
sensitive to deicer than either fish or tadpoles. Given the general
nature of literature on Ceriodamhnia and vertebrate organisms such as
tadpoles and fishes, the greater sensitivity of Ceriodamhnia is not
surer=sing, but may be reflective of relatively high sensitivity in a
variety of aeuatic invertebrates.
Because Ceriodamhnia reproduces more or less constantly during
laboratory culture, a second and more subtle type of toxicity test
was possible with Ceriodamhnia. Ceriodamhnia produces and holds
e.*nbrvonic offspring (neonates) in a brood pouch on the back of the
female organism (populations are parthenogenetic and typically
consist exclusively of females). The rate at which females prod)-7ce
neonates is a reflection of the health of the female For this
reason, slight physiological impairment of the female, even if
insufficient to cause actual mortality, will appear as suppression of
1
25
Control 0.03125% 0.0625% 0.125% 0.25% 0.5%
24 hr. 0 0 0 51 85 100
Mortality
48 hr. 0 0 0 52 95' 100
Mortality
ls.d.=10
2s.d.=10
3s.d.=19
`s.d.=10
Table 7. Mean mortality of Ceriodanhnia exposed to dilutions of deicing
compound (FreezeGard Zero 1996-97) for 24 and 48 hours during
the toxicity test.
i
i
i
25
I
i
I
Control 0.03125% 0.0625% 0.125% 0.25% 0.5% f
24 hr. 0 0 0 51 85' 100
Mortality
i
48 hr. 0 0 0 52 954 100 i
Mortality
t
ls.d.=10
zs.d.=10 t
3s.d.=19
`s.d.=10
Table 7. Mean mortality of Ceriodaahnia exposed to dilutions of deicing
compound (FreezeGard Zero 1996-97) for 24 and 48 hours during
the toxicity test.
Ceriodaphnia
25 - - \ -
20 ? '
I
ctS
-
15
ro 10 -
o
a~
Z
5-
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
FreezeGard Zero
Figure 8. Biotoxicity tests on Cerioda hp nia (neonates).
28
concentrations that were used in treatment flasks included the
following: 0.156%, 0.312%, 0.625%, 1.25%, 2.5%.
Cells from each flask were counted quantitatively at the end of
the 96-hr growth interval. The number of cells was counted and
converted to cells per milliliter. In addition, the appearance of
the cells was recorded for each flask.
Results of the algal bioassay are summarized in Table 9 and
Figure 9. The last column of numbers in the table shows the percent
growth over the 96-hour interval. As shown by the table, the
abundance of cells increased 50-fold over the 96-hour interval in the
control flasks. The increase was almost as great at deicer
concentrations of 0.156%. At greater concentrations of deicer, there
was a notable depression of the amount of growth. At concentrations
of deicer equal to 2.5%, growth essentially ceased. Cells ceased
dividing at concentrations of deicer above 0.3%, and began to show
signs of physiological stress at concentrations above 1%.
Overview of Bioassay Results
The bioassay results are summarized in Table 10 and Figure L0.
Results for tadpoles, trout, and Ceriodaphnia are expressed in terms
of LCSO, i.e., the threshold concentration required to result in 50%
mortality in the test population after the specified duration of
exposure. The data are expressed in slightly different form for
Selenastrum: the percent given for Selenastrum is the concentration
required to reduce the growth rate of the population by 50%.
Threshold concentrations shown in Table 10 vary from one type of
organism to another. Cericdachnia appears to )e the most sensitive
26
the production of neonates.
A neonate test was conducted with 7 replicates at low
concentrations as follows: 0.0125%, 0.025%, 0.05%, 0.10%, 0.20%.
Results are shown in Table 8 and Figure 8. The test was conducted by
recognized EPA methodology (EPA 600/4-89/001). Although the number
of neonates shows some irregularities in the low range of
concentrations, the number of neonates per female shows statistical
deviation from the control at deicer concentrations of 0.1% and
higher.
Selenastrum j
in streams receiving roadside runoff, unicellular algae will be
represented by a complex community consisting of 50 or more species.
Although species vary in their sensitivity, the genus Se lenastrum is
often used as a general representative of algal response to toxic
agents.
The protocol for the Se lenastrum bioassay is based on EPA
guidelines for algal bioassay (EPA 600-4-91-002; July 1994).
Individual flasks (125-mL) were seeded with equal numbers of cells
from an algal culture (Texas Culture Collection). The flasks
contained water and growth medium sufficient to ensure that the cells
could take up sufficient nutrients to grow at their physiclogica l
maximum (at 26°C) over the course of the incubation. The flasks were
maintained under continuous light at sufficient intensities to insure
rapid growth. The growth interval extended over 96 hours, and
included periodic agitation of the samples.
Growth of Selenastrum is referenced to a set of control flasks
containing water and growth medium but lacking deicer. Deicer
27
Control 0.0125% 0.025% 0.050% 0.10% 0.20%
Neonates 23.6(4.3) 20.1(6.1) 17.3(5.4)- 21.9(4.2) 8.6(4.0)- 0.3(0.8)-
per
Female
* Significantly different from control (p<0.05)
Table B. Mean number of Cericdaphnia neonates per female exposed to dilutions
of deicing compound (FreezeGard Zero, 1996-97). Standard deviations
in parentheses..
i
i
1
3
i
i
29
Deicer Start Stop
Concentration (0 hr) (96 hr) S. D $ Growth Comments i
s
Control 11929 600717 11959 4936 small green
dividing cells
0.156 11630 535340 37319 4503 small green
dividing cells
0.312 11800 387887 73172 3187 small green
dividinq.cells
0.625 11645 274656 55312 2259 small green cells
1.25 11602 73059 43843 525 large green cells
2.5 11566 26824 3007 132 large yellow
senescent cells
Table 9. Results of algal (Selenastrum) bioassay with deicer (FreezeGard
Zero, 1996-97). Numbers are cd~lls per mL.
Selenastrum
small, green, dividing
A
4
M
o• _0
U) small, green
0 0
0 I_C-
2 -
large, green
large, yellow, senescent
0
0 1.25 2.5
FreezeGard 96-97
A 96 hr
Figure 9. Selenastrum biotoxicity test.
Toxicity of Deicer to Aquatic Organisms
1.5
0
L
a~
N
-o
L
0 1 -
N
U-
--0
L
0.5
rn
0
U * 48 hr data
J
0
Rainbow trout Selenastrum Boreal toad Ceriodaphnia
Figure 10. Summary of biotoxicity tests.
II
30
Boreal Toad Rainbow Ceriodaphnia Selenastrum
Tadpoles Trout
Pure. Deicer Deicer Deicer Deicer
MgCl,
24 HR. 4.4 2.2 2.5 0.26 -
LC50(%)
48 HR. 4.4 1.8 1.8 0.19 -
LC50(%)
96 HR. 0.65 0.32 1.4 - 0.55"
LC50(%)
* Percent dilution in the table is for an MgCl, solution of the same ionic
strength as the deicer.
Concentration at which growth rate is reduced 50%.
Table 10. Summary of bictoxici.ty data.
31
and trout the least sensitive. Taking all the results together, it
appears that the threshold for observable biological effects over
exposures of short to medium duration would fall in the vicinity of
0.1% deicer. This impression is confirmed by the sensitive
Ceriodanhnia neonate test summarized in Table 8, which shows clear
evidence of sublethal effects at a concentration range between 0.05
and 0.10%. The boreal toad test involving pure magnesium chloride
suggests that a large portion of the toxicity is related to magnesium
and chloride ions.
Mass Balance Studies
r
The purpose of the mass balance studies is to relate the
application of deicer on the highways to concentrations of deicer
components in surface waters receiving drainage from highways.
Although this portion of the study could have been approached
strictly from the viewpoint of concentrations, a more fundamental
understanding is achieved by mass-balance analysis, which relates the
mass of substance applied to the highway to the mass transport of the
same substance by adjacent streams. Mass transport analysis allows
the calculation of efficiency of transport from the highway to the
drainage net under a range of conditions.
Studv Seaments
The mass balance studies are carried out in three pairs of study
segments, as shown in Table 11. For each of the three pairs, one
study segment served as a control, i.e., it received no application
of deicer. Some of the control segments did receive salt and sand
32
Study Section MgCl, Deicer Salt and Sand
Designation Gallons (Tons)
West Portal Area
Laskey Gulch 0 0
(control)
Straight Creek' 111,013 9,415
(treatment)
East Portal Area
.South Clear Creek 0 -
(control)
Clear Creek, Tunnel 182,021 15,053
to Georgetown
(treat-ment) Z
North Clear Creek
Above Blackhawk 1,644 491
(control)
Below Blackhawk 4,846 1,885
(treatment ) Z
Table 11. Amounts of deicer and-salt/sand added to study areas, 1996-
97.
'GMCO
2Envirotech FreezeGard Zero
33
mixture, however. Paired with each control segment is a study
segment that serves as the treatment, i.e., and it received routine
application of deicer at known rates during the winter of 1996-97.
Contrary to`planning, the control segment above Blackhawk did receive
some deicer 1996-97. This complication will be dealt with in the
results sections below.
One pair of study segments was located at moderate elevation
(near Blackhawk), and the other two were located at high elevation
(near the Eisenhower Tunnel), as shown by Table 11 in Figures 1
through 3.
For the mass-balance analysis, tte actual application rates for
deicing materials, and also the application rates for salt and sand,
are essential. A summary of the application rates for the winter of
1996-97 is shown in Table 11.
Discharge
The hydrograph for each one of the study segments is relevant
to the interpretation of concentrations and is a component in the
computation of mass balance for all substances. The hydrographs for
all six study segments are shown in Figure 11. As expected, all
hydrographs are dominated by spring runoff, and all study segments
show low flow between late fall and early spring.
Ma anesi urn
The concentrations of magnesium (Mg) for all six study
locations are shown in Figure 12. Figure 13 shows the mass transport
for the six stations, and Table 12 gives the annual total mass
transport and the amount of magnesium added in the form of magnesium
North Clear Creek
to
e
E a
o /
L ~
a
z
a
e o..
1~JanA7 10AM-97 21 ~1av97 02d~/-97 105497 02-0sC-97
f MC.CS O- IJCQ ( .
Clear Creek
,o
e
• .
L ~
P
.
2 e-
--r o o..
14-LV1.97 10•A4r•97 214Aav-97 02-JW-97 10Se0.97 02-Om-97
t CC O SCC
I
Straiaht Creek I
2.5
I
_2r
E 5 r /
m
L I I I ! 1
OS p O
14.Ja -97 10-A4Y 97 21 Miv-97 02.JW-97 I0-SeO.97 02 Dec 97 I .
f 5TR O LAS
L
Figure 11. Discharge at study sites.
34
Amount Amount
Leaving Added Percent Peak Conc.
Location kg/year kg/year Added (mg/L)
West Portal Area
Laskey (C) 73,300 0 0 1.9
Straight Cr (T) 396,000 27,300 6.9 6.8
East Portal Area
South CC (C) 402,000 0 0 5.1
Clear Cr (T) 2,270,000 48,900 2.2 7.8
jf
North Clear Creek
Upstream (C) 321,000 440 0.1 2.9
Downstream (T) 986,000 1300 0.1 16.2
Table 12. Mass transport analysis for magnesium C = Control; T =
treated with magnesium chloride.
North Clear Creek
20
E is
m
E
E
S
c
co
~ s
o-
14-}an67 10.44x-97 21- wt." 02-AA-97 10Sep67 024)ec-97
NCCI N=
Clear Creek
,o
E
m
E 6
E
m
2
0
14Jar,97 10-A4r-97 21-day-97 02JLi-97 105ep-97 02-Dec-97
i- CC 4 SCC
Straight Creek
8
cft
E 6
S
o r
c
mm
2
0
14-.Jan-97 10-44r-97 21 Ntw 97 02.Ju1-97 10-Sep-97 02.Oe+c-97
AI- STA o• LAS f
Figure 12. Magnesium concentrations
North Clear Creels
25
I
20
m -
Y
CL 3 15 0 m
CL 3
10 -
m
m
5
o ° o-.....-..
14-lan-97 10-Apr-97 214.1ay-97 02.JuN97 10-Sep-97 02-Dec-97
i- NCC7 o-• NCC2
Clear Creek
20
m 15
Y r
C /
Z= ce 1
CL ~ 10 /
c
r
O1 5
a
0
14-Jan-97 10-Apr-97 21-May-97 02-Jul-97 10-Sep-97 02-Dec-97
CC -o SCC
Straight Creek
~ J I
a
rn 2
a
a
c o
C N
m
i ¦
0 \
0 .0 0
14-Jan-97 10-Apr-97 21-May-97 02-Jul-97 10-Sep-97 02-Dec-97
STR O Las
Figure 13. Magnesium transport.
i
35
chloride during the course of the year. First, with respect to the
concentrations shown in Figure 12, there is an obvious effect of
magnesium chloride on the concentrations of magnesium during the
winter when magnesium is being applied. The control stations vary in
magnesium concentration for any given time of the year, as expected
given the variations in sizes of the streams and in their locations,
and this explains some variation from one control section to another.
• Even so, it appears that magnesium chloride in deicer increases the
concentrations of magnesium.
With reference to Table 12, it is clear that the total amount of
magnesium transport on an annual basis"for either the control station
or for the stations receiving deicer is very large. Individual
stations vary in total transport mostly in relation to the total
annual flow; stations with smaller total annual discharge transport
smaller amounts of magnesium. Important point to note in the table,
however, is that the amount of magnesium added to the roadway
expressed as a percentage of the total annual transport of magnesium
is verv small in all cases. In other words, the amount of magnesium
added is not sufficient to cause any significant perturbation of
total annual magnesium transport, simply because total annual
magnesium transport is very large for all stations.
The observation that perturbation of annual transport by
addition of deicer is very small seems to be in conflict with the
observation that stations receiving deicer have elevated
concentrations of magnesium during the winter. The conflict is only
apparent, however. Flows in the winter are very small, and account
for only a minor portion of total annual transport, which is
dominated by the season of high discharge (spring runoff;. Dur4ng
a
36 a
the winter, the discharge is sufficiently small that the magnesium
1
added to the roadway can influence the concentrations. During the
spring, this is no longer possible because the amounts of magnesium
3
moving past the stations are very large. '
We conclude for magnesium that transport is scarcely affected by i
i
i
the addition of magnesium to the roadway, but the concentrations of
magnesium can be affected by a factor of 2 or more during period of
low runoff. There is no obvious reason for concern over elevated
concentrations of magnesium, however, because magnesium in such small
quantities as these is not known to have any negative effects on
organisms or biological processes.
Chloride
The situation for chloride (Cl) is very different from that of
magnesium. To begin with, there are two anthropogenic sources of
chloride: magnesium chloride and salt and sand mixtures. In
addition, the background (natural) concentrations of chloride in
montane stream waters are very much smaller that those of magnesium.
Figures 14 and 15 show the concentration and transport of
chloride at all six stations, and Table 13 provides a summary of the
mass transport on an annual basis. Both concentration and transport
are strongly affected by addition of magnesium and sodium chloride
(NaCl), as,shown by comparison of Laskey Gulch where neither of these
substances was added, and the other stations, all of which received
some combination of deicer and salt/sand (the South Clear Creek
station receives only a small amount of salt/sand in comparison with
the other stations, and this difference is evident in the lower
transport and concentration numbers shown in the figures).
I
I -
i ,
North Clear Creek
40
JO
E
i m
E
20
z
I °
r
~ U
10
0
14-kwi,.67 IO AW-07 27 1Aty 67 02.kf p7 10-Sa¢87 02-0ec-97
f NCC7 t N=
I
i
Clear Creek
40
I
30 -
E
E
20
00
L
U
10
I
I 0
14-Jan-97 10-Apr-97 21-1Asy-97 02-k"7 10-Sep-97 02-Dar--97
t cc SCC
Straight Creek
8
60
m
E
o 40
c
00
t
U
20
0
14Jan-97 10-Apr-97 21-May-97 02-Jul-97 10Sep-97 02-Dec-97
f- STR o• LAS
Figure 14. Chloride concentrations.
North Clear Creek
i I
of 3
t : \ i }
2 7 j F
_m O / \ I tl
H I-- V
f
0 A y
d
L `
U
p
14-Jan-97 10-Apr-97 21-May-97 02-U-97 1o-Sep-97 02-Dec-97 j
1
--W NCC1 7 NCC2 i
Clear Creek
5
a 4
o v 3
d c /
C
N o
~ ~ 2 L
V
U 1 x
p p,- A ..n. as..........n ---i
14-Jan-97 10-Apr-97 21-May-97 02-Ju9-97 10-Sep-97 02-Dec-97 j
-a- CC o SCC
Straight Creek
m ~
i
i
o+ i I I
Y ~
2 ; i
CL a
p 2 > i
F
r
U i
p
0 0 0 0 ~
14-Jan-97 1p-Apr-97 21-May-97 02-Jul-97 10-Seo.97 02-Dec-97
A- STR o LAS
Figure 15. Chloride transport.
37
Amount Added
Amount Leaving AS AS Percent Peak Conc.
Location kg/year MgCl, NaCl Total Added (mg/L)
West Portal Area
Laskey (C) 1,300 0 0 0 0 0
Straight Cr (T) 2531800 751600 259,200 334,900 131 62
East Portal Area
South CC (C) 9,500 0 0* 0* 0 2
Clear Cr (T) 5101800 137,800 4141500 5521300 108 38
North Clear Creek
Upstream (C) 44,200 1,200 48,700 49,900 113 9
Downstream (T) 1601800 3,700 1861800 190,500 119 32
* Small (negligible) amounts of Sand and Salt. added.
Table 13. Mass Transport analysis for chloride (C = Control; T = Magnesium chloride added).
i
• 1
7
38
As indicated by Table 13, the amount of chloride added to the
roadway far exceeds the background mass transport. In fact, the
background mass transport is essentially undetectable because it is °
swamped out by the chloride that is added to the roadway.
Furthermore, the chloride moves quickly through the system: the total
amount of chloride added to the roadway is essentially equal to the
total mass transport observed below (differences observed in the
table are within the boundaries of error for the analyses).
Further examination of Table 13 reveals that sodium chloride is by
far the most potent source of chloride when both salt and sand and
magnesium chloride are used tcaether, as is typically the case. In
other words, the addition of magnesium chloride is a trivial addition
to the total mass transport of chloride if a salt and sand mixture is
already being used, or may even result in a reduction in the total
mass transport of chloride if the use of the deicer allows reduction
in the total tonnage of salt/sand mixture that is added to the
roadway.
Even thouch the perturbation of chloride transport by the addition
of salt/sand is very high, concentrations do not reach the thresholds
that are known to cause harm to aquatic organisms.
sodium
Sodium (Na) concentrations and mass transport are shown in Figures
16 and 17, and are tabulated in Table 14. The addition of deicer to
roadways is irrelevant in this case, of course, but the figures and
tabulated values give some insight into effects of salt/sand mixtures
on transport of sodium. The situation is very much like that for
magnesium, i.e., addition of sodium with salt/sand is not a strong
-i
.•1
North Clear Creek
s
40
30
I~
0 20
10
0..... ._p......._•O 0.........
0
14Jan-97 10-Apr-97 214Aay-97 02Jui-97 IOZ7p 97 02-0eC•97
f NCC1 O NCC2
Clear Creek
zo
E I
E 10 ~
5 ~a
p.. ....0•-- -0-".......O......
0
14-Jan-97 10-Apr-97 21 clay-97 02Ju1-97 10-Seo-97 02-Dec-97
CC p SCC
Straight Creek
s
i ;
M//
ul 20 -
0 0-
0 0 0 0 0 c
14Jan-97 10-Apr-97 21-Mav-97 02Ju1-97 10-Seo-97 02 Dec-97
t STR p LAS
Figure 16. Sodium concentrations.
North Clear Creek
40
30 -
20
E
10
Q
0.-.- . O _
cn p
14-Jan-97 10-Apr-97 21-May-97 02Jui-97 10-Sep-97 02-Dec-97
NCC1 p• NCC2
Clear creek
25
20
Y -
= Q 15
$ a
N ~
C /
10
'A
0 s
O. O. G. _ 40
0 i
14-Jan-97 10-Apr-97 21-May-97 02-Jul-97 10-Sep-97 02-Dec-97
-a- CC o SCC
Straight creek
12 I
i
T i
10
8 a I-
A n n O P O P O 4 n n T
0 14-Jan-97 10-Apr-97 21-May-97 02-Jul-97 10-Sep-97 02-Dec 97
S7A O LAS
Figure 17. Sodium transport.
i
{
39
Amount Amount
Leaving Added Percent Peak Conc.
Location kg/year kg/year Added (mg/L)
West Portal Area
Laskey (C) 84,800 0 0 2
Straight Cr (T) 1,482,200 167,800 11 50
East Portal Area
South CC (C) 2,302,000 0* 0 2
Clear Cr (T) 3,124,300 268,300 9 18
North Clear Creek
Upstream (C) 557,900 31,500 6 5
Downstream (T) 1,511,000 121,000 1 39
* Small (negligible) amounts added.
Table 14. Mass balance analysis for sodium (C = Control; T = Magnesium
chloride added).
40
perturbation of sodium transport, but does cause considerable
increases in sodium concentrations in the roadway drainage during
winter. Even so, as with chloride, concentrations do not approach
those that are known to be harmful to aquatic life.
Overview of Mass Transport
For chloride, salt/sand mixtures are the dominant control on
concentrations and mass transport near roadways that are
simultaneously-receiving deicer and salt/sand mixtures. The
perturbation of total transport and concentrations is very high, but
does act approach concentration limits that are known to be harmful
to aquatic organisms. For magnesium, natural mass transport
overwhelms the mass transport that can be attributed to the addition
of magnesium chloride. Even so, wintertime concentrations of
magnesium are noticeably higher where magnesium chloride deicer is in
use, because there is little dilution during the winter. Much the
same is true of sodium. Concentrations in all cases are below those
that could be considered harmful to aquatic organisms.
Community Analysis
A community analysis was made of attached algae at all six study
reaches. Attached algae were chosen for this analysis because they
are not mobile and therefore reflect the conditions where they are
collected, and because they respond to both metals and nutrients.
The objective of the community analysis was to quantify the
abundances of all species of attached algae in each one of the six
study segments, and then to compare the community composition across
41
sites. If the application of deicers has a strong effect on
community composition, sites receiving deicing materials should
differ significantly from those not receiving the deicer.
The samples of attached algae were taken on September 19, 1997.
Four separate replicate samples were taken from each study reach.
Attached algae were scraped from rocks collected at random for each
replicate. The amount of area scraped was quantified, and the final
counts were then related back to the areas that were scraped. Algae
scraped from the surfaces in all cases were rinsed into clean glass
bottles and preserved.
All four replicates for each site4~were counted quantitatively at
appropriate magnification; counts were made at the species level of
identification. A mean was obtained for the four replicates for each
study segment, and comparisons were then made of the means across
different study segments.
Across all six study sites, 79 algal species were identified.
Of this total, 58 were diatoms, 9 were greer algae (chlorophytes), 1
was a golden brown alga (Chrysophyta), and were blue-green algae
(Cyanophyta).
The total number of cells per square millimeter ranged
considerably from one replicate to another within a given study
segment. Patchiness of this type is expected for attached algae.
The total density of cells also varied from site to site. Laskev
Gulch showed the highest densities of algae at about 40,000 cells per
square millimeter, and Clear Creek showed tae lowest at about 1200
cells per square millimeter (Table 15).
Control sites show consistently higher algal abundance than
sites receiving deicer treatment. This observation is difficult to
42
Upper North Lower North South Georgetown Laskey Straight
Clear Creek Clear Creek C-T Clear Creek Clear Creek C-T Gulch above Laske ry C-T
BACILLARIOPHYTA
Achnanthes linearis f.curta 0.0 200.8 -200.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Achnanthes microcephala 0.0 379.7 -379.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Achnanthes minutissima 4.0 0.0 4.0 254.6 62.6 192.0 196.8 286.1 -89.4
Diatoma mesodon 27.6 0.0 27.6 28.1 1.1 27.1 0.8 1.6 -0.8
Fragiliara pinnata 21.0 0.0 21.0 38.4 0.0 38.4 2.4 1.1 1.3
Fragilaria vaucheriae 1.3 0.0 1.3 71.0 13.1 57.9 0.0 32.0 -32.0
Gomphonema angustatum 0.5 0.0 0.5 10.5 0.3 10.2 0.0 349.7 -349.7
Gomphonema olivaceum 3.0 0.0 3.0 1.1 1.9 -0.8 0.0 33.6 -33.6
Gomphonema subclavatum 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.8 5.5 3.7 72.5 -68.8
Hannaea arcus var. arcus 60.3 0.0 60.3 26.1 6.5 19.6 1.9 134.4 -132.5
Nitzschia paleacea 2.4 2.9 -0.5 43.1 0.3 42.9 0.0 2.4 -2.4
Synedra ulna var. contracts 107.7 0.0 107.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2
Synedra ulna var. ulna 60.2 0.0 60.2 6.1 0.0 6.1 0.0 2.4 -2.4
CHLOROPHYTA
Ulothrix sp. 20.8 0.0 20.8 1.6 0.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Zygnema sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.3 0.0 99.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
CHRYSOPHYTA
Hydrurus foetidus 102.7 0.0 102.7 28.2 44.2 -16.1 141.1 190.1 48.9
CYANOPHYTA
Chamaesiphon sp. 270.1 221.7 48.5 2085.1 83.6 2001.5 6324.0 121.8 6202.2
Clastidium sp. 2.5 0.0 2.5 277.5 69.9 207.6 483.2 83.4 399.8
Homoeothrix sp. 1 170.0 11.3 158.8 5255.2 196.3 5058.9 33498.1 1984.5 31513.6
Homoeothrix sp. 2 135.8 29.4 106.4 1118.7 705.5 413.2 1943.5 4559.4 -2615.9
Leptolyngbya nana 170.0 375.6 -205.6 237.3 11.0 226.3 0.0 354.0 -354.0
Leptolyngbya sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.6 0.0 54.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Phormidium autumnale 11568.9 5.0 11564.0 3077.8 15.6 3062.2 15.5 27.8 -12.4
Pseudanabaena sp. 18.9 119.0 -100.1 19.8 0.0 19.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Cell Counts (including 12839.025 1356.35 11482.7 12818.95 1239.25 11579.7 42624.625 8291.3 34333.3
minors)
43 3
interpret. First, because there are only three pairs of sites, the
possibility of the three control sites differing consistently from
the three treatment sites is 25%, i.e., very little statistical
significance can be attributed to the observed differences. If these
differences were to hold up over more extensive comparisons, they
might well be explained by the tendency of the control site in each
case to be a lower order stream than the treatment site, and to be
receiving less suspended particulate material. In other words, the
role of suspended particulate matter,. which may mask and thus reduce
the development of attached algae, could be confused here with the
role of deicing materials. A more satisfactory comparison is based
on the kinds of algae rather than the total abundances, as indicated
below.
As shown by Table 15, there is a great deal of overlap in the
dominant members of the attached algal community from one segment to
another. There are numerous ways to compare community composition
from one site to another on a quantitative basis. For this community
analysis, percent similarity in species composition was used as an
index for comparing communities (percent similarity includes species
type and relative abundance). The total number of species in a
particular segment ranged from 34 - 67 and had a median of 54. The
total number of species shared between any two segments taken at
random varied between 5 and 25, and had a median of 18. Percent of
species shared between sites was calculated for all possible pairings
of sites. Various groupings of sites were then compared with each
other, as shown in Figure 18.
Figure 18 shows all possible pairings of segments. Three of the
pairings consist of an upstream control segment and a downstrea-m
44
segment receiving deicer. If the addition of deicer has a strong
effect on species composition of algal communities, these pairings
should be more dissimilar than pairings taken at random. As shown by
the figure, this is not the case: control and treatment segments show
similarities that fall in the mid-range of all observable
similarities.
Another way of viewing similarity data has to do with similarity
pairings of stations not receiving deicer. If the deicer has a
strong effect on community composition, segments receiving no deicer
should be more similar in community composition than other pairs of
segments. As shown by the figure, this: is not the case.
overall, the community composition of attached algae shows no
evidence for effects of deicer on community composition of attached
algae. Because there is a large natural scope of variation in
community composition of attached algae, subtle differences caused by
deicing materials might go undetected in a test of this type, but
certainly there is no evidence in this sample set of gross alteration
of community composition caused by the use of deicing materials.
i
14
0.8
13
ro 0.6
E
12
0.4 - U
8
3 2M
0.2 - 7 4
u 61 t51) 11 ~ O 10
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
Fraction of species in common
¦ Paired stns. ? Control Stns. o Other Stns.
03112198 COMPSUM.WK4 03:20 PM
Figure 18. similarity of algal community composition for all possible
pairwise combinations of the six stations.
' JAN-07-1999 15=23 SUZANNE J DUGAN P.01
SUZANNE J DUGAN, BROKER
BOX 3768
BAIL, 68 81G5tI TELEPHONE; 970 476-0764
EMAIL: dugan@1 ail.net
U.S.A.
FAX COVER PAGE
PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWINGS PAGE(S):
~Jv g
M: FAX # 970 476-2564
IRO
(HAVING TROUBLE FAXYNG TO ME?
MANUAL MA.CHD ES PRESS #11
BEFORE PRESSINC YOUR START
BUTTON)
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE:
DATE: t 7 TIME-
I
IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL 970 47(,-2564 (TELEPHONE ON
FAX MACHINE) MY GENERAL NUMBER 970 476-0764 OR EMML: dugan@vail,net
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
JAN-07-1999 15=23 SUZANNE J DUGAN P.02
Suzanne J. Dugan, Broker
2642 Kinuickinnick Courr ¦ Vail, Colorado (JSA 81 -57
M:1iling Address: P.O_ i~ x .3708 • Vaii, Celorado USA 51658
(970) 376-0764 • I-,-kX (970) 476-2564 • E-Mail dugaril-vaihict
To- Town of Vail Council
and Town Manager
January 7, 1999
Dear Sirs/Madam;
I am taxing a "Holiday Plan' sketch on my cul-de-say:, Ki~anickuuuc;c Court, Vail and a
letter from Pam Brandmeyer dated March 27, 1998 and an email $,:?m Eric Larson dated
March 6, 1998 and some notes from me.
Per Pam's letter, one meeting that sticks out in my mind, as I remevaber, was in December,
1995 as Eric Larson and myself dtuve to-gedier to that meeting, at the Town offices. I
disagree with Pam that the Town was there to facilitate and to atto apt to resolve the
parking issues. The message was stronger than that. Pam ran the n:.eeting and as I recall
it, we were told, by the Town, where to park and to abide by the Town's decision. If we
didn't then the Town would enforce. This suited me fine as I wanlPd to see the end to this
issue.
Well it is now 1999 and the violations still exist on this cul-de-sac. It's been at least five
years? We were explicitly told not to park in the fire lane by the firs, hydrant. All but the
residents, guests, invitees of 2672 Kinnickinnick Court have honor:A this arrangement. I
have made the Town stall aware if this more than once. I have sui%csted that the area
be given to 2672 as a parking space but I have been told this is nol acceptable. I have
asked that the area be signed but have been told that Council does; i.'t want more signs in
Town.
As it has been explained to inc, this is a safety issue as fire trucks r rod the space, next to
the hydrant, in the event of afire. Therefor, it could be a life threii teeing situation and/or
result in a loss of property, if the access is blocked.
One enforcement officer told me, last year, that they do not patrol :he residential areas of
the Town because they are too busy with enforcement in the Villalie. They only comae into
the residential areas when a resident complains. It would seem to ine that the residential
areas pay their taxes too so why aren't we getting the same serviCT? In the last'few
months I have been told to call the Police Dept_ when I see a vehicle parked illegally. I am
not on the Town's payroll so why is this my responsibility to enfol ;e? And that would
mean I would be calling every other day and I know the reaction t, iat will bring.
I'm sure you are all aware that.I got charged with harassment, Iasi year, for trying to take
care of a very late night noise problem which had been ongoing for months. After that, 1
had the opportunity to be told by the Prosecutors office that I can not take the law into my
JAN-07-1999 15=24 SUZANNE J DUGAN P.03
own hands and i should "pound" un the Pulicc Dept, to do their jol. of taking care of a
disturbance of the peace. Well, 1 foresee that if I consistently call f -Le Police Dept. to
report illegally parked cars I will once again be either charged or sL ad for harassment or
some other Ordinance that I don't know about- If three of the foul staff employees that I
called for help, on my noise problem, had either shown up to view the situation or had
even both"ed to return ury call or the 4th employee had advised nic that by making a
phone call in the middle of the night would get me three police offi,:,ers on my door with a
summons, I would never have place the call. Now I have a police record for the first time
in my life and because of this record, I may have to resign from the Buddies program, a
volunteer program that has given me much enjoyment over the yeas.
Over the last few years i have been threatened by the Town., with a law suit on a zoning
issue that I did not create- I was granted permission, last year, to ri:pair/remodel my
house. Then I was told by Community Dept. that they made a misl.ike but I could go
ahead anyway. Then, after having to wait three months for my cor, tractor to get freed up
again and ready to go, my permit was revoked. Then I am obargec with harassment and
then told, after the fact, that the Police can not do anything to cure the noise problem that
my tenants and I suffered. So we have the choice of taking sleeping; pills for as long as we
can or we move. After all this I don't really care to help the Town enforce issues that it
should be doing.
I want the parking issue resolved. I want the services that should come with living in this
Town. I don't care to leave town and have to worry about propev y and lives. It is my
understanding that all police offices have been briefed on this issue however last Sunday a
truck was parked illegally all day and I observed a police car drive sight by at 10.44am!
The same truck was there Monday night and to night. I. know the I I olice are fed up with
this just as much as I am and I can sympathize with them as they hiive better things to do
but if the lives of the residents of this address (and their property) i ire at risk, then I want
an explanation from the Town of Vail why this has been allowed to continue for so long,
especially since it is a safety issue?
The Town wants more people living here but as I see it the Town i;an't even service those
already here?
Let's not forget Animal Control. This neighborhood has been a joke lately. Dogs are
running loose all the time. I would like to suggest that Council re.iew bringing in the
leash law for all of Vail.
I would also like to suggest that you allow residents to build fenced i around their property.
Myself and two other neighbors constantly have trespass problems and try talking to those
people! You get insulted and then they still continue.
Sincerely,
Sue Dugan
JAN-07-1999 15:25 SUZANNE J DUGAN P.04
4VAK TOWN
Office of the Town Manager
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 816-57
970-479-2105/Fax 970-479.2157
TM
March 27, 1998
Ms. Sue Dugan
Post Office Box 3768
Vail, CO 81658
Dear Sue:
To the hest of my recollection, the following reflects meetings that occi,.rred in relation to a parking
dispute on Larkspur Court in the Intermountain area of Vail, Colorad,:,.
it is my recollection that between December of 1995 and the spring of 1996, two to three meetings
with the individuals that follow were held at the Municipal Buildin,!. at the Town of Vail. O?ac
meeting was held in the Police Department conference room and a second meeting was held in the
small conference room in the Administration section of the building. I believe those in attendance
were: Jim Hoza, Greg Hall, Gary Murrain, Jim Curnutte'Tom Sheely, ric Larsen, Sue Dugan and
Colleen and Harry Gray, as well as myself. The 't'own was brought JO to facilitate and to attempt
resolution of parking disputes between the three neighbors as list:.d alive. Agait?, it is any
recollection that following these meetings, revocable right-of-way p;,rmits were issued to Harry
Gray, Sue Dugan and Eric Larsen.
The above statements are to the best of my recollection given the tim.;: factor involved, with those
meetings being held two to three years ago. Further complicating my ;ability to recall accurately is
the fact that the revocable right-of-way permits are issued and signed off by the Public Works
• RFY,'n LGO PAPER
JAN-07-1999 15:25 SUZANNE J DUGAN P.05
Deparanent and are lidd in Mcs at lllc Cuuwm ity Development Dcp ianiont. I was nut a part of
the final resolution. If you have further question, please don't hesitate to contact me at 479-2113.
Sincerely,
TOWN OF VAIL
Pamela A. Brandmeyer
Assistant'Fown Managcr
PAB/aw
xc: Mike Mollica
Greg Hall
~ Us Eas.
\ 3)
LA mi
Ph 2- Ow w
VI (A
.00 Lot 5
4 14U
Ph I
C
v ~a N
/ Lot iC ~~r -Lot 6
f 1 \ R q
rrtul
Lot
a 1 ,
Lar
Lot 7
Lot 8'._.
Cl)
JAN-0?-1999 15:26 SUZANNE J DUGAN P.O?
y magWXJC°/67C/NETSCAPE/mad/M;)X?id=cccf9a6035005fo9@aol.com&number=1339
Re; Harry
Subject: Re: Harry
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:39:35 EST
From: Ac2ary9000 <Ac2ary9000@aol.com>
To: dugan@vail.net
i was up yesterday and saw his truck parked illegally. look!. like it's been
there since i moved. just a quick update. deanna is doing g:eat . back to
cchool full time and no m.nre treatments. sorry i missed skii.nq with you last
time but i was committed to the group i was with.hopefully ',re can get out
before the end of the season. eric
4~h A
/ ~ 14y~ c 6vYlZ 1'4 Y-,/
f U 8T1~,~~ft ,4 u~N2~ ~
10 ls~
-IA
t4 09
p,~.s 7~l~'~"? l ~ Lv1~,:S' ~ j O TAN ~~~7."
1 of i 03/07/98 08:52:34
SENT BY:EAGLE, CO 1- 7-99 ; 1:10PM 970 328 7207 9704792157;# 2/ 2
News Eagle County, Colorado ~
January 7, 1999
Immediate Release
COUN'1" Y EMPLOYEES THANK BUD GATES WITH A POTL J ; , Ah D _ 3I.EBRATlON
CI,OSE FRUMS AND ASSOCIATES ALSO INVITED
(Eap)e) You can tell a lot about a man by the number of employees that call him friend.
"It is because of this friendship that county employees are organizing a huge potluck and
celebration to say thanks to Bud," said county employee Angela Wurtsmith. "This is how much
Bud means to us."
The celebration is set for Monday at the Eagle County Fairgrounds Exhibit Hall in Eagle
from 4:30 p.m. to TOO p.m. "We are asking Bud's family, close friends and associates to also join
us for the potluck," said Janet Renzelman. "No need to RSVP, just show up Monday and bring
something to share."
"Some people want to make special presentations to Bud," Wurtsmith said. "They should
contact Ray Merry, the designated master of ceremonies." Ray Merry can be reached at 328-
8757.
"Employees are making sure guests don't go away hungry," said Renzelman. "Alica
Holder from our finance department is cooking up a brisket to feed 300 people."
For information on Bud's celebration you can contact Angela Wurtsmith at 328-8790 or
Janet Renzelman at 328-8701 or Johnnette Phillips at 328-8605.
500 BROADWAY. P.O. BOX 850 - EAGLE, CO 81631 - PHONE (870) 328-8605 - FAX (970) 32B-7207
JAN 07 '99 02:45PM GPCSC P.1
k'c : ?~io
January 7, 1999
Dear Town Council,
I am one of the many-concerned long term Vail residents that wish to
voice concern about the future re-development of Vail. I hope that you keep
in mind that those of us that live here year around want to continue to
identify with a Village center that is warm and low profiled.
The Center of Beaver Creek is considered by Vail Resorts to be a great
success while most residents see only pavement, high rise, and commercial
shops. Most of us feel closed in walking between the high rises with little
chance of even catching a view of a mountain or a blade of grass. Vail
Village is still quaint and warm in comparison with the sterile environment
of Beaver Creek. Let us not destroy what we have. As Boulder did years
ago, we should be adding flowers and greenery rather than adding more
buildings and walkways. Increasing height and densities in Vail Village is a
scary concept.
The whole question of expansive growth, development and
redevelopment should be considered with great care. Space availability,
open space, a labor shortage and environmental quality are all issues that
should negate consideration of increasing densities and building heights.
Many Vail Resorts employees are opposed to mountain expansion (although
they wisely only whisper their concerns) not because they do not want more
ski terrain but because they are want to protect a livable environment. Skiing
is only part of what we care about. We need to protect our open vistas, our
parks and open space. We do not want children playing in parking lots for
the sake of a little more shopping space or a few more tax dollars. We do
not want our Town to have the sprawling congested feeling of Avon or
Edwards. We do not want open space sucked up to accommodate employee
housing for a transient labor force that we do not need if we would just
check our growth. This kind of undisciplined growth suggests we need more
of everything but nobody prospers except the developers. The visitor to Vail
and the residents of Vail are the losers if we let developers have their way
with our community. .
GL-
1y
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
[pail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 7, 1999
Contact: Russell Forrest, 479-2146
Community Development Director
VAIL BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY SURPASSES PREVIOUS YEAR
(Vail)-Although falling short of the record year for this decade, 1998 construction
activity in Vail posted a strong showing nonetheless, surpassing the previous year by $2
million. The town's Community Development Department issued 1,162 building permits
totaling $74.7 million in construction activity last year. That compares to 1,133 permits
and a total valuation of $72.7 million in 1997. Russell Forrest, Community Development
director, attributes the strong showing last year to the $4 million major remodel of the
Gasthof Gramshammer, completion of the $10 million Austria Haus development and a
variety of other public and private improvements that were timed to be finished for the
upcoming World Alpine Ski Championships.
Vail's record year for this decade occurred in 1996 with 1,237 building permits totaling
$87.9 million in construction activity, which included construction of Vail Commons, the
Golden Peak ski base and the Vail Village Club.
As for development activity in 1999, Forrest predicts continuation of strong
reinvestment by the private sector. The town is anticipating redevelopment proposals
from Vail Associates for its core site in Lionshead (the old gondola building and Sunbird
Lodge), plus proposals from the Marriott Vail Mountain Resort, the Antlers at Vail and
(more)
r
~,y~ RECYCLED PAPER
Add 1/TOV Building Permits
from the new ownership of the Vail Village Inn. "The redevelopment of the Lionshead
properties will enable the town to realize many of the Lionshead master plan goals
sooner than originally anticipated," Forrest said. "The proposed projects in both the
Village and Lionshead indicates the strong interest in investing in the Vail community."
Forrest says his department is prepared to handle development proposals of any size.
"We're fully staffed, our internal review processes have been streamlined and we're
ready to go," he said. The department can process major building permit applications
within three weeks, he said.
Also, the department continues to operate a customer service counter that provides
walk-in customers with immediate answers on general building and planning/zoning
questions, as well as on-the-spot approvals for minor alternations and 24-hour
processing for minor building permits. Service counter hours are from 8 a.m. to 3:30
p.m. Monday through Friday.
For more information, contact Forrest at 479-2146.
Sheell
YEAR OF 1991 JANUAIIY FEBUARY M_Al1C1l APRIL MAY _ JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBEH_ NOVEMBER DECEMBER TOTAL _
NUMBEFi OF INSPECIIU_N
UME jgq - - 1p To ------154 263 ----287 30_1 ---298 - 278, 405 343 300 3033
VALbA OF PERMITS-- 17 8 - 17 56 _ 51 _ 59 49_ 54 75 61 39 532
_
VALUATION $405,675 $159,940 $6,688,234 $4,640,220 $3,004 ,718 -5323,400 3 -
$ ~ $ ,281,493 $2,933,581 $3.687,560 1-,831,520
$ $1,456500 261530
$ $33,674,37-1
YEAH OF 1992
JANUARY FEBUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE- JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DFC_EMDER TOTAL
1
Nl1MBLR Uf INSPECIION 54 122 - - 71 104 233 2311 339 276 - 305 417 - - 349 _ 312 - 2921
iB 24 26 64 G7 S9 ' SQ 59 79 GO 41 587
32
VALUATION $201,000 $363300 $3,286,870 $25,099,605 $7,528,600 $6,638100 209,000 - -
$ $4,127,000
'.>;:.>:;;:.>:;:;:.;:::<;::.:::.:::.;:.;<.;:.;:::;::.;::::..:;:<:;<5::::.:,;
::$4,298
,000 $1,22,000 $1,265,000
$1.097,000 $58,365,475
Y.:.:
3 :s;<:S:r„q::.;:::;:<:: :::i:>::;>;:.: ;>:.;;:.i:::;::::.: i;;;::::;;;::;:.>;:.;:.>;;:.;:.;•:. ~ ~
YEAR
OF 1
ss
.
JANUARY FEBUARY- MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMB_ER_ DECEMBER TO _
NNUMBER OF INSPECTION _TAL
224 159 127 118
- -U-M---BE=---R -OF PE IT t yB 314 293 325 429 477 - - 443 330 3437
MfIS - - - -
84 - - - - -
1G 2~ 21 61 Gy «
55 74 93 _ 86 98 - 22 664
$178 206 $385 -0 0- $-1.--3-2 6000 $9,294,800 $5,913,500 $19,652.750 $2,830,609 $3,963,86
0 $11 177,900 $5,359,650 $1,743,150 $481,550 - -62 3061 909
YEAH OF19y4_ _ JANUARY FEBUARY_ MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE _ JULY AUGUST _ SEPILM_BER OCIOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER TOTAL
NUMBER OF INSPECTION 234 - 219 16y 208 298 344 264 _ 272 304 288 410 236 3246
N N
NUMBER OF PERMITS 21 23 _ 15 67 _ 68 48 39 - 74 - 84--8-G 58 32 G 15-
VAL UA110N $254,100 $415,000 $393,000 $8,468,2.011 $4,522300 - $7,6311,390
. 2.
::.;;>:.::.;:;•;:.::;;:.;:.;:.;:.:;.;:<.;::<.>:;::<.;:.::;.::;:.;:.;:..:.>:.;:,;., $2,891,266 869 50(1
$6,538. f,73 $4,275A80 $3,631,75
V) :.;:.;;;o;:.>:.;:::.:< $478,650 $42,379,243
::;:i;;;;•::.:;:::.;:.;:.;:.:
YEAR OF
1995 JANUARY_ FEB(IARY.. . MARCH APRIL MAY _ JUNE JULY AUGUST _ SEPTEMBER OCTOBER_ NOVEMBER DEC..MBE_R_ TOinL _
NUMBER OF INSPECTION 182 14_6 158 142 23_6 _2.65 254 302 268 436 466 348 _3203
NUMBER_OF PERMITS 37
- 19 39 -----j14 t 15 125 68 - --g4 -160 ----140 -94 51 1026
VALUATION - -
$-762,650 $217,900 $2,184,983 $5,156,653 $5,603,821 $7,342182 3676704 $5,836,423 -
$
$7525 749 5 437 876
$ 1-4.5u-46-9- -$891 -
410 ' $49,225,320
YEAR OF 1996 JANUARY FEHl1ARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPI EMBEH OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER TOTAL _
NUMBER OF INSPECTION --242 - 227 -211 - - 194 --285 _ 325 360 417 -350 430 491 413 - 3945 Lrb~~' /
NUMBER OF PERMITS
_ ti Pa IC
VALU - 44 24 36 -104 _ 166
-
- _ 117 127 137 172 179 ----83 48 1237
ATION $354,426 $708,385 $2,413,714 $-17,-97 6,152 19,252 735 7,491,987 - - - - ' - - Lu1
10,002 584 6,540,624
12,747.304 5 259 528 2,941,774 2,183 569 87 872 98
2
p~ YEAR OI- 1997 '
JANUARY FEBUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST S_GPIEMBER OCIUUGH NOVEM13EI'I DECLMIEf 10 AL
F 11 NUMBER OF INSPLC I ION. 273 172 247 217 302 349 261 3311 370 265 473 402 3669
U $ I... - _ - - au
NUMBER OF PEHMI Is 35 42 48 - G
127 1U8 119 134 98 154 150 65 53 1133
VALUATION
$1,361,799 $2,342,468 $1,758,557 $7,396,883 4,329,867 7,171 756 153333
;i;;::i;:r,: t:;:isii0t:i:;;}:::i;;:i;::::.5::;`.;:y;>:::;:::~:»:;>:,•>:.:::~ 65 9,263,385
17,068,298 4,891,551 1,137,220
690,705 $72,746.854
YEAR OF I998 JANUARY PCBUAIiY MARCH APfiIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUSI SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEM -BER IOTAL
- 7
UMDERUFINSPECTIUN 237 241 163 162 277 398 378 366 363 440 399 39y 8881 1 430L'
NUMBER OF PERMIT S - - - -
- - - -
3y 34 70 125 _ _149 - 106
103 128 126 139 92 51 1162 VALUATION $1,739,980 $1,146,325 $13,093,628 $9,887,823 17713,084. : ,A 45
4,688,525 5,879,184 6,185,849 3,437,511 7,147,967 3,237,615 566,456 $74723,94 7
^
't'i>,':, _ .
TOW ....::::::::.>:::<:•::::;::;:<::;::::s:<.,.:;.:::>'::::;>:::::.:::;.;:::'>:'>::s?:<:::<'::>;:>::::.{::::o:.>>::»::<::>:::Y::::<:;:`;:`:;`:'":;::;«»»:<::>::::`:':;:::{:<z:<:><:<:>:><:"^>;:;>::>:<::;::><z::.:>;
OF VAILS
- IONS-----__
- - - - - - - . _ - - - -
DEC US INCLUDE ART'S INSPECTIONS OF 263 AND LEO'S INSPECTIONS OF 148 - - - - - - - -
Pagel
EAST VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
Officer: President - Bob Galvin Secretary - Gretta Parks Treasurer - Patrick Gramm
Directors - Judith Berkowitz - Dolph Bridgewater - Ellie CauIldns - Ron Langley - Bill Morton - Connie Ridder
Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658
Telephone: (970) 827-5680 Message../FAX: (970) 827-5856
FACSIMILE COVER PAGE
To: Town of Vail/Town Council From:
Time: 11:03:36 Date: 1/7199
Pages (including cover): 3
Subject: Upcoming Town Council and Planning Commission Agenda Items concerning:
1. Vail Village Inn Special Development District 6 - Prado Amendments
2. Public Accommodation Zone District - Faessler Amendments
Special Instructions: Please review and forward to the Town Council and Planning Commission.
Anne Wright: Would you please forward to the Town Council in association with the above
upcoming
agenda items. Thank you.
Russell Forest: Would you please forward to the Planning Commission in association with the
above
upcoming agenda items. Thank you.
s
EAST VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
Officers: President - Bob Galvin Secretary - Gretta Parks Treasurer - Patrick Gramm
Directors - Judith Berkowitz - Dolph Bridgewater - Ellie Caulldns - Ron Langley - Bill Morton - Connie Ridder
To: Mayor Rob Ford and Town Council Members
Planning and Environmental Commission
From: Jim Lamont, Executive Director
Date: January 7, 1999
RE: Special Development District 6 - Prado Amendment
Public Accommodation Zone District - Faessler Amendments
The Homeowners Association objects to the proposed Waldir Prado Amendment to Vail Village
Inn Special Development District-6 (SDD6) and to the Johannes Faessler Amendments to the Public Ac-
commodations Zone District. On the basis of the following factors the Association recommends denial of
both proposals as currently proposed. There are merits contained within each proposal. However, the cu-
mulative scope of the proposals suggests that a comprehensive master planning process should be undertak-
en to amend the Vail Village Master Plan in order to substantiate the concepts underlying these proposal
within the broader context of Vail Village and the economic needs of the community. The community's
long held vision of accommodating appropriate and timely development within the context of controlled
master planned growth and the established character of the community's neighborhoods should continue.
I. Special Development District 6 - Prado Amendment:
1. The Prado amendment significantly exceeds the requirements of the existing SDD6 that its ap-
proval would be considered a breach of faith on the part of the Town of Vail to fulfill the terms of zoning
agreements it adopted, subsequent to negotiation with property owners, for the Vail Village Inn and Vail
Gateway sites. These zoning agreements and standards were based upon detailed planning and zoning
analysis of the site, adjacent sites, the surrounding neighborhood and Vail Village in general. The Amend-
ment causes a degree of departure that does not conform to the requirements of the Vail Village Master
Plan or follow the requirements to amend the master plan. In order to amend the Vail Village Master Plan
a comprehensive review of conditions, opportunities, and consequences is required for the site, adjacent
sites, the surrounding neighborhood and Vail Village in order to determine the impacts and compatibility
of the Prado proposal upon the established character of the surrounding neighborhood and Vail Village.
2. The bulk, mass, height and setbacks of the proposed structure is incompatible and inconsistent
with the surrounding neighborhood. Certain functional aspects of the proposal, such as traffic flow, air
quality and pedestrian routes will cause the potential for ongoing dysfunctional and detrimental activities
to occur on or adjacent to the site. The current proposal should be reduced in order to overcome these and
other detrimental effects upon adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood and Vail Village.
3. The degree of economic benefit is prejudiced towards the Prado Amendment at the expense of
prior property owners and all adjacent property owners. These property owners have been or are subject to
more onerous requirements enforced by the Town of Vail than would be Prado. If approved, the result will
be a grant of special privilege that creates a windfall economic benefit that will accrue solely to the gain of
the Town of Vail through increased tax revenues and the current property owner through increased density
and building size.
II. Public Accommodation Zone District - Faessler Amendments
1. In established residential neighborhoods where the Public Accommodation Zone District occurs
the proposal will cause radical changes in the character of these residential neighborhoods. The degree of
the increase in bulk, mass and uses would aggravate existing noxious conditions and therefore would be
detrimental to these established residential neighborhoods and Vail Village in general.
Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658
Telephone: (970) 827-5680 Message/FAX: (970) j
827-5856
EVHA/TOV - SDD6 and Public Accommodations Zone District Amendments 1/7/1999
2. The proposal creates the opportunity to concentrate an aggregation of commercial space on sites
adjacent to the main entrance to Vail. The scope of this opportunity suggests that a comprehensive master
planning process should be undertaken to amend the Vail Village Master Plan in order to provide guidance
to the scope of development being proposed. The Vail Village Master Plan was adopted in 1990 and is
considered a comprehensive long range master plan.
3. The proposal to grant increased exterior retail uses should continue to be limited to the interior
of a building or to buildings that front established pedestrian precincts or have ample required setbacks
from roadways.
4. The proposal in deregulating the amount of commercial space is inconsistent with the purpose
and intent of the Public Accommodations Zone District and as well, the proposal denies the same or similar
treatment to all similar types of lodging facilities and therefore appears to create a grant of special
privilege.
5. There are aspects of the Public Accommodations Zone District development standards that are
in need of reform in order to encourage the development of short term accommodations and affordable
housing. However, the degree of change advocated in the Faessler Amendments are far reaching and may
have unintended consequences.
III. Cumulative Effects:
1. The proposals appears to reinforce and aggravate existing infrastructural problems in Vail Vil-
lage. At a minimum, any proposal to increase the density, size or uses on any site must include require-
ments to absorb, on the site, a portion of surrounding neighborhood and Vail Village infrastructural needs.
For example, a pressing infrastructural problem in Vail Village is the need for dispersed off-street loading
and delivery facilities. Loading and delivery facilities should to be incorporated into new developments
that serve on-site, neighborhood and Vail Village needs. As well, the housing of employees generated by
new developments should be required.
2. If not properly master planned, the aggregate impact from increases in commercial square foot-
age and time share units may dilute the value of existing businesses and properties with the latent affect of
reducing the overall economic health of the community. Further, it would be useful to know the number of
new hotel rooms that are required to offset losses in recent years in the rental of condominium units and
from the migration of local consumers down valley. Additionally, efforts should be undertaken to reform
tax codes and sales tax rates so as to stimulate the condominium rental market or to entice businesses to en-
courage customers to pay their fair share of sales tax.
2
VAIL VILLAGE UN'DER
TTACK
The Town of Vail will consider over the next several weeks two proposals by private
developers that could damage the charming ambiance of Vail forever.
The proposals:
1. Increase. zoning density for the Public Accommodations Zone Districts.
(All hotels)
2. Increase the height and density for the Vail Village Inn Special Development District
In return for changing Vail from a village to a city, the developers sa the will:
1. Increase hotel rooms.
2. Enhance the shopping experience.
3. Bring more visitors.
4. Create more jobs.
5. Build newer, bigger buildings'
6. Pay more taxes to the town of Vail
7. Increase parking.
Do you want to allow their proposals to also:
1. Flood Vail Village with major new commercial retail space?
2. Create an unfair business environment for existing small business?
3. Cause the commercialization of some residential neighborhoods?
4. Increase air pollution, traffic congestion and noise? Traffic could triple.
5. Reshape Vail Village in the image of Lionshead?
6. Overwhelm the community's employee housing?
7. Cause more of our open space to be converted to employee housing?
8. Increase property and business taxes to offset the cost of new growth?
9. Grant special privileges to some property owners while denying the same right to others?
10. Block views of the mountain and create a canyon of buildings at the entrance
to Vail Village.
Do we have to he bigger to he better?
Let your town council know what you think.
It is in your power to shape their decisions.
Don't let these critical decisions be made behind closed doors.
Attend the public hearings, voice your concerns:
Send a Letter: Town of Vail, 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, CO 81657
Send a Fax: Town of Vail Fax Line: 970-479-2157
Make a Phone Call: Town Council Voice Mail: 970-479-1860
Send an E-Mail: Town Council E-Mail Address: ford@vail.net
Public Hearing Schedule
Planning Commission: January 11, 1999 2:00p.m. Town Council Chambers
Planning Commission: January. 12, 1999 2:00p.m. Town Council Chambers
Paid for by Concerned Properly Owners
DellMA1L • January 7, 199 9
u _
~y
TOWN O WAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
MEDIA ADVISORY
January 6, 1999
Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115
Community Information Office
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR JANUARY 5
Work Session Briefs
Council members present: Armour, Arnett, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Kurz, Navas
--PEC Report
During an update on the most recent meeting of the Planning and Environmental
Commission, Councilman Kevin Foley inquired about office space approvals for the
Austria Haus, in which 725 sq. ft. was approved. Foley also asked about the major
amendment to allow the tennis courts at the Vail Cascade Hotel & Club to be used for
conference space. The Council will be considering that request in the form of an
ordinance at an upcoming meeting.
--Interviews for Vail Valley Marketing Board Positions
In preparation for the evening meeting, the Council interviewed Barbara Black and Ross
Boyle for reappointment to the Vail Valley Marketing Board. See evening meeting briefs
for more information.
--Community Facilities Plan
The Council agreed to proceed with a community facilities plan in partnership with the
Vail Recreation District (VRD), but not before. Mayor Rob Ford expressed personal
concerns about such a partnership given current disagreements between the town and
VRD over parking at Ford Park (see next item). As approved, the community facilities
plan will build upon previous work laid by the Vail Tomorrow, Common Ground and
Lionshead Master Plan processes, as well as the 1998 TOV community survey. That
work established a core "wish list" of community facility needs as well as a list of
potential sites. Next steps include hiring three yet-to-be determined design groups who
will be asked to take the community "wish list" items, plus the available sites, as well as
other background information, and prepare some initial programming concepts for the
public's consideration. The timeline shows approval of a concept in July or August with
the possibility of an election conducted by either the Town of Vail or Vail Recreation
District--or both--in November, 1999. In addition to approving the process yesterday,
the Council agreed to six parameters that will be used to guide the program: 1) the
facilities programming will build upon the community facility ideas and lands that have
been identified through the Vail Tomorrow, Common Ground, Lionshead Master Plan
and other community processes; 2) the facilities programming will compliment both
recreational and cultural amenities that exist in the Vail Valley so as to create a world
(more)
RECYCLEDPAPER
Add 1/TOV Council Highlights/1-5-99
class network of community facilities in the valley; 3) the facilities shall be outstanding in
their design and programming; 4) the facilities will serve both Vail Valley residents and
guests; 5) public-private partnerships will be pursued; 6) the process will respect the
Town of Vail land use regulations and policies and the Town Council will be the final
decision-maker on any uses being proposed for town-owned lands. The community
'wish list" items include (in no particular order): second sheet of ice; gymnastics facility;
performing arts dance area for youth and seniors; arts and crafts room; community
swimming pool; youth center (arcade room, bowling alley, roller skate park, coffee.
house); community meeting rooms; neighborhood parks in West Vail; and high tech
multi-media center. During discussion yesterday, Councilman Ludwig Kurz was first to
endorse the plan, noting that a strong need has been shown for both cultural and
recreation amenities within the town. While both uses aren't always compatible, Kurz
said he looked forward to learning what might work. Although supportive, Mayor Rob
Ford noted that a strategy will be needed to garner widespread community support for
such a plan, something previous election initiatives have failed to do. Councilmember
Sybill Navas, who has served as a catalyst in moving the plan forward, expressed
optimism, noting that the approach will address multiple needs on multiple sites. One
idea brainstormed by Piet Pieters of the Vail Recreation District is to create an indoor-
outdoor adventure center with a climbing facility, kayaking facility, skateboard park and
other activities. Councilman Michael Arnett said he was excited about the possibilities
that could be built on the RV charter lot in Lionshead because of the ability to construct
multiple levels. For more information, contact Russell Forrest in the Community
Development Department at 479-2146.
--Ford Park Managed Parking
The Council heard an update from Public Works/Transportation Director Larry Grafel on
the status of a letter of agreement that supports a plan for managed and paid parking at
Ford Park during 38 peak days this summer. The agreement has been signed by the
Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, Vail Valley Foundation and Bravo! Colorado. However,
the board of the directors of the Vail Recreation District (VRD) hasn't signed the letter
due to concerns about a plan for paid parking during the Lacrosse and soccer shootout
tournaments. 'Speaking on behalf of the VRD, board member Bart Cuomo said that
while the VRD supports managed parking at Ford Park during peak use, paid parking
should not be implemented during events that bring guests from out of town because of
the "nickel-and-dime" factor. Noting that there would still be a cost to manage the
parking lots during those events, Grafel asked if VRD would be willing to fund the cost.
Instead, Councilmembers Michael Jewett, Kevin Foley and Michael Arnett wondered if
all user groups would be willing to help subsidize the managed parking program up front.
While Councilmember Sybil[ Navas continued to express concerns about the program's
inconsistency (paid parking for some concerts, but not all, for example), Mayor Rob Ford
and Mayor Pro Tern Ludwig Kurz criticized the Vail Recreation District for passing blame
on to the Town of Vail during last year's program rather than accepting responsibility for
it. At the close of the discussion, Councilman Kevin Foley asked that additional time be
spent to learn more about the specific costs required for the managed parking program.
He asked that an itemized list of revenues from last year be circulated to the Council.
Foley then volunteered to work with the user groups to help bring closure to the issue.
Last summer, there were 27 paid parking days
(more)
Add 2/TOV Council Highlights/1-5-99
at Ford Park and 9 free manged parking days; during the remaining days, the parking lot
was left unattended for free parking on a first come first-served basis. For more
information, contact Town Manager Bob McLaurin at 479-2105.
--Information Update
After reviewing an events schedule for the World Alpine Ski Championships, the Council
cancelled its work sessions scheduled for Feb. 2 and Feb. 9 and set a 5 p.m. starttime
for the Feb. 2 evening meeting. These changes will enable Councilmembers to actively
participate in the championship events.
--Council Reports
On behalf of the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority, Kevin Foley thanked
the town's transit staff for making adjustments to the Dotsero-to-Eagle bus route to
accommodate a surge in ridership during the holidays. Also yesterday, fellow
Councilmembers asked that Foley continue to represent Vail on the ECO authority.
Foley's current appointment expires in February.
Ludwig Kurz, who represents the Town Council as a member of the Vail Valley Arts
Council Board, described declining membership support for the organization and
inquired if the town would contemplate taking over the annual Vail Valley Arts Festival
event.
Michael Arnett, who represents the Council on the Vail Valley Tourism and Convention
Bureau board, reported on a recent meeting. Discussion topics included disappointing
reservation projections for December, improvements to the visitor's centers, a new web
site at vailvalley.com and the appointment of John Garnsey of the Vail Valley Foundation
to the VVTCB board.
Sybill Navas, who represents the Council on the Chamber board of directors, reported
on a presentation by Bruce Mainzer, senior vice president of marketing and sales for Vail
Resorts, in which Mainzer warned of declining booking problems for those who continue
to implement weeklong booking policies. Navas suggested inviting Mainzer to an
upcoming work session to discuss the situation in more detail.
--Other
Sybill Navas complimented all involved for a great holiday tree lighting ceremony, as well
as dedication of the bronze skier statue donated by sister resort, Mt. Buller, Australia.
Navas said the redesign of Slifer Plaza, in particular, made the two events especially
successful.
Praise also came from Michael Arnett who thanked the Police Department for handling
the New Year's Eve crowd with professionalism and courtesy. Also yesterday, Arnett
suggested consideration of a Vail-based chamber of commerce if a permanent funding
source for regional marketing is approved in the November elections.
Noting some empty dates on the Ford Park Amphitheater calendar, Kevin Foley
suggested adding two more Hot Summer Nights concerts on Aug. 24 and 31. Other
thoughts from Foley: consider adding lights along the recreation path by Red Sandstone
School (another injury accident occurred there in December); recognize Public
(more)
-5-99
Add 3/TOV Council Highlights/1 Works/Transportation Director Larry Grafel, who leaves Jan. 17 to become executive
director of the Beaver Creek Metropolitan District; consider keeping the lights blazing on
the Lionshead Christmas tree; distribute the Dec. 25 Vail Trail editorial to Council; and
keep Council posted on results of any studies on the use of magnesium chloride to de-
ice roadways.
Sybill Navas suggested that a plan to renovate the Ford Park tot lot include features that
will make the area memorable and unique.
Evening Session Briefs - -
Council members present: Armour, Arnett, Ford, Jewett, Kurz, Navas
--Citizen Participation
Longtime resident Joe Staufer appeared before the Council with an article from the latest
issue of Mountain Sports & Living magazine which named Vail as the fourth best resort
town in the country. The article fittingly described Vail as "charming," Staufer said. He
urged the Council to preserve Vail's charm and soul factor rather than cave in to
pressures to approve a proposal to upzone the public accommodation district which
Staufer says would overdevelop the village.
--Resolution for the Posting of Public Meeting Notices
The Council voted 6-0 to approve a resolution designating the bulletin boards at the east
and west entrances of the Town of Vail Municipal offices for the posting of public notices
for meetings of the Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission, Design
Review Board and other boards, commissions and authorities of the town.
--Ordinance Nov. 23, Major Amendment to the Cascade Village Special Development
District
The Council voted 6-0 on second reading to approve a major amendment to the
Cascade Village Special Development District in the Glen Lyon subdivision. The
amendment (in keeping with the Primary/Secondary Zone District), doubles the
allowable GFRA (gross residential floor area) on two lots within the subdivision from
3,100 sq. ft. to over 6,000 sq. ft. each; modifies the height restriction from 25 ft: to 30 ft.
for a flat roof or 33 ft. for a sloping roof; and requires the addition of a Type II employee
housing unit of at least 500 sq. ft. on each lot. In approving the ordinance, Councilman
Bob Armour thanked the applicant for agreeing to include the two employee housing
units as a condition of approval. For more information, contact Dominic Mauriello in the
Community Development Department at 479-2148. Media Note: This. action, requiring
large homes to add an employee housing unit on site, reflects one of the affordable
housing initiatives in the Common Ground plan.
--CARTS Update
The Council heard an update from Jim Scherer, executive director of the Colorado
Alliance for Rapid Transit Solutions (CARTS). Scherer said the organization is working
closely with the state-appointed Fixed Guideway Authority to identify a high-speed
technology that will climb steep grades from Denver to Glenwood Springs at a cost
equivalent to adding two lanes to 1-70 ($20 million per mile). With assistance from
students at the Colorado School of Mines, Scherer said the group is confident that a
technically viable alternative will be ready for the state's consideration a year from now.
(more)
Add 4/TOV Council Highlights/1-5-99
Plans call for a 3-mile demonstration test area from Frisco to Cooper Mountain in 2003
and asking voters for funding in 2008. He said a fixed guideway solution will have the
capacity equivalent to 10 lanes of pavement traffic. While the Town of Vail has pledged
$1,000 in 1999 to help fund CARTS, Scherer said he hoped Vail would increase its
contribution in the future.
--Appointment of Vail Valley Marketing Board Members
The Council voted 6-0 to reappoint Barbara Black and Ross Boyle to the Vail Valley
Marketing Board for a term of two years. Because there were no-other applicants for a
third vacancy to fill the term left by the resignation of Andre Fournier, the town will-
readvertise the position. For more information, contact Lorelei Donaldson, town clerk, at
479-2136.
--Resolution No. 2, Cable Television Franchise Consent
The Council voted 6-0 to approve a resolution acknowledging a merger agreement
between AT&T and TCI. The new company, AT&T Consumer Service, Inc., will replace
TCI Cablevision as the Town of Vail's cable provider. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead
said additional discussions regarding TCI's system upgrade and compliance with the
current franchise agreement will be concluded within the next 8 to 12 weeks. For more
information, contact Moorhead at 479-2107.
--Town Manager's Report
In his written report to the Council, Bob McLaurin provided a tentative schedule to design
and construct a new two company fire station at a site either at the Mountain Bell
property or on the Spraddle Creek site near the existing parking lot for the 10th Mountain
Division Hut. Fritzlin Pierce Architects will provide design services. The schedule is as
follows:
Dec. 1, 1998 Initiate schematic sight analysis and programming
Jan. 30, 1999 Complete site selection and initiate design development
March 1, 1999 Initiate public review process
July 1, 1999 Conclude public review process and initiate contract documents
Jan. 1, 2000 Distribute documents for bidding by general contractors
March 1, 2000 Select general contractor
June 1, 2001 Complete construction, occupy premises
--Ski/Board with the Council
In closing the meeting, Mayor Rob Ford reminded the television audience about the
upcoming Ski/Snowboard with the Council activity. The first outing of the season is
scheduled for 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon on Jan. 13. Meet at the base of the Vista Bahn.
Everyone is welcome. (Participants should assume responsibility for their own
equipment, lift ticket and lunch.)
(more)
Add 5/TOV Council Highlights/1-5-99
UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS
January 12 Work Session
Joint work session with PEC re: Proposed Redevelopment of Marriott's Mountain Resort
and Proposed Amendments to the Public Accommodation Zone District
PEC/DRB Review
Discussion of Contract Auditing Service
January 18 Council Retreat
January 19 Work Session
ECO Transit & Trails Update
Cascade/Thrifty Car Rental Major SDD Amendment
The Ruins
Discussion of Model Traffic Code
January 19 Evening Meeting
Aspen to Glenwood Rail Corridor Presentation
Presentation of Overview of Economic and Snow Sports Trends
First Reading, Cascade/Thrifty Car Rental Major SDD Amendment
First Reading, Model Traffic Code Ordinance
First Reading, the Ruins
January 26 Work Session
PEC/DRB Review
AIPP Master Plan Discussion
Arosa/Garmisch & A-Frame Housing Discussion
Vail Recreation District/Dobson Expansion
4 THE VAIL TRAIL-/ DECEMBER 25-31, 1998
weekly
PINIpN
.EDITORIAL
Let's think before we
settle on Vail land deals
The Town of Vail is in the process of sonic land
transfers to town residents, the end result of a 62-
acre land exchange with the U.S. Forest Service
that took place in 1995.
In most cases the transfers make good sense,
allowing property owners to buy small pieces of
land at reasonable prices (by Vail standards) to
solve long-standing encroachment issues. The
exchange also allowed the town to clean up its
boundaries, eliminating Forest Service lands
within town limits and reducing the chance of
private land exchanges.
But there arc sonic parcels in the equation that
deserve more consideration. For example, four
lots on Ptarmigan Road may be sold to a nearby
property owner for $1.1 million - as appraised by
the Forest Service. The deal: The land must be
held in a trust as open space.
However, is this a good location for public
open space'? What's more, estimates on this
prime land, if it were sold on the open market,
hover above $6 million.
It's money that could go toward the town's
housing program. It could secure open space
elsewhere. And even if all of us don't agree about
town money spent on housing, this is enough
money that it needs to be talked about - in pub-
lic. - TF
Oxu* Y 2T 9 V91`J WUVA ~..~.vrr .iv.«..•.? v.rr +
ID = 0 o Val a all item match)
TOT
Ref MLS# $ Complex Name Bld UNIT 4 PRICE SD HTH SQFT L. 0.
1+016945 pA VAIL FAST LODGING «~24 - - -$129,500 1 1 582 229
-
2x017343 A VAIL RACQUET CLUB C 9 4 $134,900 1 1 576 229
3+015994 pA VAIL RACQUET CLUB C 9 8 $139,500 1 1 130
4+017186 A VAIL RACQUET CLUB C 7 15 $139;500 1 2 576 356
5+016912 pA VAIL RACQUET CLUB C 7 13 $159,000 1 2 576 107
6+016772 pA VAIL RACQUET CLUB C 9 11 $159,500 1 1 576 401
7+016547 A PITKIN CREEK PARK D 4 5167,000 2 1 779 430
8+016163 pA PITKIN CREEK PARK C 12 $176,OCO 2 2 455
9+013670 PA VANTAGE POINT/VAIL 604 $45,000 3 3 1,284 x09
10+016599 A LIFT HOUSE 201 $145,000 1 437 477
11+016531 A LION SQUARE CONDO 460 $160,070 1 337 401
CAT - CND DETAILED SEARCH SUMMARY 0i/05/99 14;51:49
Photo Avail) = All item match)
~P - TOT
Ref MLS# S Complex Name Bld UNIT 4 PRICE SD BTH SQFT-+J L. 0_---
-
1+017190 A SNOW FOX CONDOS 301 $33,500 3 2 1,102 109
2+017264 A SIMBA RUN 2 402 $155,000 1 1 726 426
3+016561 A SNOW L1014 CONDO 101 $189,000 2 882 130
4+016571 pA BROOKTREF TOWNHOUSE A 105 $195,000 2 2 1,088 1407
5+016691 PA MEADOW BROOK CONDO 0 6 $149,000 2 12T
6+016536 A EAGLE POINTE CONDO/ 222 $163, 650
445
7+016994*pA SIERRA CONDOS B '500 2 2 1,:25
o~ ~vcu Q c~~
TO 39dd NVA0N0Q/N09GMA3N0H 68LZ9LVOL61 61:VZ 6661/50/10
EAST VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
Officers: President - Bob Galvin Secretary - Gretta Parks Treasurer - Patrick Gramm
Directors - Judith Berkowitz - Dolph Bridgewater - Ellie Caulldns - Ron Langley - Bill Morton - Connie Ridder
Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658
Telephone: (970) 827-5680 Message/FAX: (970) 827-5856
FACSIMILE COVER PAGE
To: Town of Vail/Town Council From:
Time: 00:56:32 Date: 1/6/99
Pages (including cover): 3
Subject: Retransmission of Memo Entitled - Town Council Retreat -EHVA Consensus Goals
Special Instructions: Replaces first transmission - date correction.
EAST VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
Officers President - Bob Galvin - Secretary - Gretta Parks Treasurer - Patrick Gramm
Directors - Judith Berkowitz - Dolph Bridgewater - Ellie Caulkins - Ron Langley - Bill Morton - Connie Ridder
To: Mayor Rob Ford and Town Council Members
From: Jim Lamont, Executive Director
Date: January 5, 1999
RE: Town Council Retreat - EVHA Consensus Goals
A representative for the Homeowners Association will be unable to attend the Town Council
retreat scheduled for January 18, 1999. The Association's Board of Directors desires the Town
Council to take into consideration, in defining your objectives for 1999, the results of our efforts
to establish and implement consensus goals among the organizations with which we frequently af-
filiate. We note that of the five short term objectives set forth for 1998, only one was accom-
plished.
The following statement was published in the Association Annual Report and Whitepaper that
was distributed to property owners and the community in April, 1998. The consensus goals have
been reaffirmed for 1999 by the Association's Board of Directors. We requested that both the
long and short tern goals specified in the following statement be included in the Town Council
objectives for 1999.
Consensus Goats
Following the Association's annual meeting in December, 1997, there have been broad ranging
public and private discussions regarding the important economic and social issues that challenge
the community. These discussions have led to an emerging consensus on the following goals to
achieve the central theme of improving the competitiveness of Vail's service-based resort
economy and society.
¦Economic and physical rejuvenation of the Town Centers
¦Beautification of the Town Centers
¦Increase and upgrade guest accommodations
¦Expand employee housing
¦Improve traffic management, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, mass transporta-
tion and loading and delivery.
¦Pursue philanthropic support for community facilities and improvements that enhance the
quality of life for guests, residents, employees and nonresident property owners.
These goals will take time for the community to fully complete. In the meantime, there is a
Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658-0238
Telephone: (970) 827-5680 Message/FAX (970) 827-5856
EVHA/Town Council - 1/5/1999
pressing need to reinforce the idea of forward momentum by agreeing upon and implementing
reasonably attainable projects that will be unifying achievements that motivate the community to-
wards accomplishing its broader goals.
The following attainable projects are to be accomplished during 1998. The projects are en-
dorsed by the Homeowners Association in consultations with Vail Associates, the Vail Village
Merchants Association and Commercial Property Owners Association and the Town of Vail.
¦Formalization of an ongoing, systematic review and reporting of socioeconomic indicators
for the Town of Vail and region.
¦Implementation of a comprehensive signage and street lighting improvements in Vail Village.
¦Resolve and adopt a planned approach to service and delivery issues.
¦Effect an amendment to the zoning regulation, similar to the GRFA infill amendment for
single family and duplex zone districts, that serves as an incentive to property owners to upgrade
multi-family buildings and the residential units within the building.
¦Identify improvement projects and facilities that could be financed through philanthropic sup-
port.
Subject to the presentation of completed proposals, the Association is considering its position
regarding the endorsement of Vail Village streetscape, parks and infrastructure improvement
projects; the development of community facilities; changes to zoning development standards and
the rezoning of specified properties in Lionshead; and policies, standards or projects relating to
the development of employee housing.
cc: Bob Galvin
Board of Directors
Adam Aron, Vail Associates
Andy Daly, Vail Associates
David Corbin, Vail Associates
Kaye Ferry, Vail Village Merchants Association
Rod Slifer, Vail Village Commercial Property Owners Association
Bob McLaurm, Town Manager
2
Printed by Anne Wright 1/11/99 8:00am
From: Susie Hervert
To: EVERYONE GROUP
Subject: Party for Larry Grafel G
===NOTE====------=====1/08/99==6:29pm==
Please come and help the Public
Works/Transportation Department thank
Larry Grafel for all his hard work as
Public Works Director and to also wish
him well in his new endeavor as the
Manager of the Beaver Creek Metro
District.
Larry's last day with the TOV is the
17th.
DATE: Thursday, January.14th
TIME: 4:00pm - 6:00pm
PLACE: Public Work's Admin conference
room
Appetizers will be served.
FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO, WE ARE
COLLECTING MONEY FOR A GIFT FOR LARRY.
ANNE WRIGHT HAS AN ENVELOPE AT HER DESK
AND PLEASE SEE ME TO DONATE IF YOU ARE
IN THE SHOP AREA.
Hope to see you there!!!!
Page: 1
~6- weekly
PINI1
EDITORIAL
Agree to disagree, but
move ahead on council
There's been some teeth-grinding among Vail
Town Council members lately. It seems its mem-
bers don't always agree. No board should agree
100 percent of the time. But boards should agree
to move forward in a positive direction. This stuff
shouldn't get personal.
Last Monday's retreat at Lion Square Lodge
brought things to a head (at least by the phone
calls logged in this office) when councilman
Michael Jewett noted at the beginning of the meet-
ing that notice of the retreat hadn't been properly
posted. We believe it was an honest mistake, but
by law the council did the right thing by disband-
ing and rescheduling the retreat for Jan. 18.
In the meantime, the mixup cost the town
money in acquiring a facilitator and meeting
room. Mike, in the spirit of open meetings and in
the interest of the press and public, we're very
glad you called the matter into question. But next
time, do it sooner if at all possible.
Meanwhile, on to the Jan. 18 retreat. We're not
calling for consensus building, but some team
building and handshakes might be in order.
- TF
Avon jumps shi on Berry p Creek 5"th Fill , n
By Rajiv D. Narayana Created 10 suit the community's needs. we've got anything done. We've because it prevents duplication of
- - - - Daily Staff Writer years ago, the Some progress has been made, been very frustrated." efforts, it will make the approval
recreation and a concept plan was drawn up in The Town of Vail is looking at process go more smoothly and it will
At the Eagle County Recreation authotity was conjunction with Peter Jamar Associ- budget shortfalls that will require cut- result in cost savings.
Authority's regular meeting Friday, formed to obtainates designating 48 acres for elemen- Ling nearly $1 million per year, so The authority also formed a three-
the Town of Avon announced it no and develop the tary, middle and high schools, 42 there is mounting pressure to get member subcommittee to further
longer wants to be part of the author- Berry Creek 5th acres for open space, 41 acres for something done with its 60 percent solidify the affordable housing plan.
ity's development of its 105-acre Filing. The recreational use, 21 acres for an interest. Some authority members suggest-
Berry Creek 5th Filing, and Rob authority com- equestrian center, 16 acres for recre- "Housing is our primary consider- ed, with Avon's forfeiture of interest,
Ford, mayor for the Town of Vail, prises Eagle ation authority housing, 14 acres for ation," Ford said. the possibility of bringing in a private
said that if the project doesn't get County, with 11 FETING school district housing, 8 acres for an Andy Knudtsen, who is working entity to help get the project moving:,
moving, Vail may follow suit. percent ownership; the Town of Vail, alternative use and 7 acres for a char- with the involved parties on the 5th Chuck Powers, a representative,
"We want to sell. This is going to with 60 percent; the Town of Avon, ter school. filing, presented 12 steps to complete Creek Metropolitan
take hours and hours of meetings," with 6 percent; and the metro districts Ground breaking for the afford- the affordable housing parcel in the from District, the asked, Berry Cit feasible to seek "Is
Avon Town Manager Bill Efting of Berry Creek with 6.5 percent; able housing could begin as early as near future. Knudtsen said the author- another player?"
said. Arrowhead, with 5 percent; Beaver the spring of 2000. ity should define goals for develop- Anxious to deal with the demand
He said other large development Creek, with 5 percent; and Eagle- At the meeting, Efting informed meat, explore physical design Anx
for affordable housing in the im demand
projects in Avon will take a lot of the Vail, with 6.5 percent. the authority that Avon intended to options, study financial options, eval-
town's effort, and town officials sim- The recreation authority owns the sell its 6 percent interest in the Berry uate demand, get feedback from the diate future, Ford said, "Let's clean it
ply don't have the time to continue Berry Creek 5th Filing, southeast of Creek filing. community, check on progress, pre- up so we can get moving on it."
with the filing. the Edwards Interstate 70 inter Ford also showed signs of anxiety, ' sent the plan to the county, request "Let's have some fun and get it
Ford said Vail's interest lies most- change, and Eagle County School saying that if the, authority keeps and review applications from devel- done," he said.
ly in getting the project completed to District Re-50J owns Miller Ranch, moving at a slow pace, the Town of opment companies, construct the A meeting with the school district
meet the county's affordable housing an adjoining property. Mem- Vail would "rather take that money facilities, select residents and close and the recreation authority is sched-
demands. bers of the recreation authority and back to Vail." the deal. uled for Wednesday, Jan. 13 at Berry
"Let's make the best of it for the the school district decided that work- Ford said the way meetings have Knudtsen said it's good that the Creek Middle School to further clar-
people of Eagle County. Put the pedal ing together on the development of been going, "It makes it very difficult authority is working together with the ify what the Intergovernmental
to the,_W!a "pe.sajd„ LShtK,eRmtliued-214,acre& Would best a -.to gat anything dgne. I-don't think school district on affordable hou~sjpg,,xy rep gpt will entail.
Page AZ-The Ually r ~~Y,,,,, anlIu emY 9,1999 970!849-0555 S M1 k e w
SECTION
7~u_ - e NEW TERRAIN OPENINGS, A3
Y MINTURN SKI RESORT SNOWMOBILES, AS
h/l UJV}/ Vail
IONd} 'SKI SHOT DOWN, At,
January9, 1999
STOLPort parking Yanked for Vail 99
Misunderstanding .
causes last minute
parking scramble
r
By Dan Sullivan Qp ' -1 7L'G
Daily Sufi W.- C~aa ail'
~ f~ r::~ ? ~ r4,_ I:II:a111f.J•
It's not dear who peny'od the Gtr
useofthcSTOLpwn pro~nyowned Q!•- G1 G7
by land baron Magnus Lindholm for RI4, ¦
the coming 1999 World Alpine Ski l ~loop,~
Championships but the future Vil-
lage at Avon site [to longer an a . 1 t
option and has left several groups
involved with Vail99scrambling to
find allcmatncs - M 007 dy;
U•
Even organizers must find new I ~.;r. .
options for park-and-ride servo.:
overflow parking and 'county I wh
ties for the ClWmplonship which
are just thre'e weeks away.
N'hen Town of Avon Fne bier hf •.-~,.584~rr~-„, ~wx ` '
shal Carol Cdi Mulson took v r a.
4-~
Io isliealelu It rth't',III
rity subcommittee she aid sherd been assured permission had Iwcn :p ' . Yk--~^~• j: "1
granted to use the STOI-eon land ' u • t ! _ a '
~T-
cast of Avon for venous soup Aay 1- '
nerd, 4
:.s.a+ vY yr"'n , „ t`ta .'4, y xa S :t .a s
Upmtalking luLindhoImsatUa .w, • , .7~ :F a o s. ,
ncy, Bill Post. Gill-Mulson learned Dally file photo
that w,as cool the case. Vail '99 groups are weighing other options for park-and-ride services, Including the Confluence site in Avon, pictured above.
Sire said the conflict stcnuned -
front an apparent agreement lemveeu lequ'eted that, which is kind of a big "Its going to le a hit tight;" Gill- had discussed the use of the STOL: "hey just withdrew permission
thceccnt's erg;mirer,mhe Vail Vullcy misinterpretation. Mulson said offering no chic as to port property will] Lindholm, Post this week."the police chief said. -I
Foundation, and Village at Avon "The hmnn] tine is, they have why Lindholmn declined pcinlissiull said. think it wets just some politics going
planner, Jan]:o and Associates. known for months that Bill IPoso to use his properly. -They couldn't come a. agree- on.-
-I think Jn]a, and Associates had was the guy ]o go m to gel peonis- -We dealt with Bill Poosi. We men], so they' made other ;orange- I.iudholnm,n'ith vast laud hoklinps
given permission because they tilt Sion." never dealt directly wish Magnus mess:' he said. in Eagle L'nuuty. has been in the
that it wouldn't he any prublcu];' -I don't think anyone is at I:ulll (Lindh fin). We were asked to pro- "fhai's it in a nutshell" political limelight over the ),cars,
Gill-Mulson said. hcre.-Gill-Mulson smid,chalking the vide prod of liability insurance - "We were going to stage a lot of must mcceudy wilh the Villagc at
"T•he liamdation [bought they had situation up to bad communication. typical things. It wasn't anything oul our federal assets (here," said Vale Avon pmicct, a residential and com-
pennission,and they didn't.We`toed "Now we're all movedoverto[lie oflheonlinary. Police ChielandVail '99security memiadrenture that will donhhetile
lore-negotiate, but it didn't happen''" Continence site:' The security crew, "What it malty boiled down to, I subcommittee chair, Greg Morrison. sire ul' Avun over the next 20 years.
Vail Valley Foundation President ranging from local volunteers [o the think Bill would have [o answer- Those assets included the place- Aron, Daly and Beaver Creek-
John Gumseywas not available for Department of IXIinse, now will put "The best lcan understand is [hat men[ ul'anemergency helicopter pad based East West Partners principal
comment regarding the confusion. up on the smaller parcel of land someone internally, lower down on to trmspom paw enforcement and Harty Frampton alp sit tin the hoard
-I think somebody in the limnda- owned by Vail Resons just south of the nag, read in a memo that they medical personnel in the event op' an of the Vail Valley Foundation.
lion perhaps misinterpreted;' Peter the ski company's corporate head- had permission, and they just went Interstate 70 closure, a home base Frampton and Daly huh have .
Jamar of Jantar and Associates said. yuaners at the Season's building in ahead in planning it," Post said. for mobile communication vans, and expressed opposition it, the Village at
"We said we'd be happy in going to Avon. Al the request of Vail Resorts department of defense mobile Avon project, saying a project of
Von and Undhohntoxekappmval Other options are being explored Chief Execulive0((icerAdamAron, homes, which Morrison said had such magnitude willadverselyaffect
Sent By: W. Associates; 954 753 9775; Jan-10-99 4:29PM; Page 112
Xc ; 1 C
Village Inn Plaza Phase V Condominium Assoc.
100 East Meadow Drive #31
Vail, Colorado 81657
January 10, 1999
The Honorable Robert Ford
Mayor of Vail
Town of Vail Municipal Office
Vail, Colorado 91657
Subject: Construction of the new Vail Village INN
Your Honor,
I am writing as a director and officer of the above Association. During
the annual meeting of our association on Dec. 291h 1998 we were, for
the first time, allowed to review some information about the
construction plans of the new Vail Plaza Hotel to be erected on the
grounds of the current VVI.
1 _ We consider the planned project a substantial departure from the
Special Development District as approved on the property.
2_ It is in conflict with the quiet enjoyment of the property rights of
Phase V Condominium Association property owners in as much as
it violates the reciprocal easement and access agreement of 1987.
This agreement guarantees Phase V Condominium Association
Owners to have access across Vail Village Inn property to their six
parking spaces.
3. The owners represented at the meeting and other owners in VIP
Phase V Condominium Association have expressed great concern
over the impact a nine-story building would have on the overall
atmosphere of Vail Village. It would set a dangerous precedent
that could impact on other potential development plans of such re-
developable properties as the Sonnenalp Swiss Chalet, Chateau
Vail (formerly Holiday Inn), the Tivoli and possibly others.
Sent By: PW. Associates; 954 753 9775; Jan-10-99 4:29PM; Page 2/2
rL
May I ask that the above views, concerns and objections of the
owners of VIP Phase V Condominium Association be introduced and
considered in the upcoming planning meeting next week.
Respectfully,
Hubert Wagner
Director of VIP Phase V Condominium Association
CC: to all condo owners of record
This letter is submitted via Fax #970-479-2157 to the Town of Vail.
It was sent from my permanent residency:
Hubert Wagner
4100 N. W. 101 Drive
Coral Springs, FL 33065
Tel # 954-753-4808
Fax # 954-753-9775
JAN-10-99 SUN 22:44 L EDWARDS 3034799527 P.01
FAX to MAYOR ROB FORD AND TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS, PLANNING
AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, AND GEORGE RUTI-IER, SENIOR
PLANNER, TOWN OF VAIL 970-479-2452
1/10199
Lee M. Edwards, Ph.D
483 Gore Creek Drive # 5A
Vail CO 81657
Phone 970-479-9528
fax 970-479-9527
mailing address in Vail
2121 N. Frontage Rd., W #221
Vail CO 81657
re: Vail Village Inn and increased zoning density for all hotels
As a long time property owner in Vail I would like to voice goy
objections to the following proposals by private developers:
A) The plan to increase the height and density for the Vail Village
Inn Development.
B) The plan to increase zoning density for all hotel facilities.
Both proposals would ruin view corridors, increase traffic to
dangerous levels, create a skyscraper effect (which has already
obliterated the former attractions of Beaver Creek), increase
property taxes to unfair levels, and spoil the village atmosphere that
has long made Vail unique.
The proposed amendments, if passed, will turn Vail into another
urban mess with all the chaos that entails. Please don't let it happen.
It is our responsibility to protect the beauty of Vail.
Yours sincerely,
Lee M. Edwards
i
Ij
01/10/99 SUN 01:29 FAX 9709499227 'SHAMROCK Town Council Mem fij001
VVMA MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1999
W41Q 8:30AM
COLORADO SKI MUSEUM
AGENDA
• 99 CHAMPIONSHIPS
• OUTDOOR DISPLAYS
• OBJECTIVES FOR 1999
• MARKETING BOARD POSITION
• VVMA BOARD POSITION
• FRIDAY NIGHT STREET PARTIES
• PROPOSED CHANGES IN
1. Special development districts
2. Public accommodation zone districts
• FEBRUARY MEETING
l/
MEDIA ADVISORY
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road January 11, 1999
Vail, Colorado 81657 Contact: Mike Rose, 479-2349
970-479-2100 TOV Parking & Transit Manager
FAX 970-479-2157
19 Days and Counting...
TRANSITIONS AT VAIL TRANSPORTATION CENTER BEGIN TODAY
IN PREPARATION FOR 99 CHAMPIONSHIPS
In preparation for the World Alpine Ski Championships, several transitions are underway
this week at the Vail Transportation Center. If you're a user of public transportation or
the Vail Village parking structure, please note the following adjustments as organizers
prepare to transform the Vail Transportation Center into the main gateway to the Village
for the Championships.
Jan. 11-Feb. 17 Vail Transportation Center Terminal Building, 4th Floor
The 4th floor of the Vail Transportation Center Terminal Building (transit waiting area) will
be closed beginning today (1-11) at 3 p.m. through Feb. 17. All buses will continue to
arrive and depart from the west side of the terminal. The transit waiting area will be
temporarily relocated to the west side of the building where a heated tent with seating
and free coffee will await riders beginning Jan. 12. The Eagle County Regional Transit
Authority (ECO) and Greyhound service desks have been relocated to the west end of
the nearby Vail Village Visitor Center. Public restrooms, lockers and the La Cantina
Mexican restaurant on the building's third floor will remain open to the public through
Jan. 26. To access the third floor, use the stairs on the east side of the building.
Jan. 13-Feb. 15 Vail Village Parking Structure, Top Deck .
Beginning at 6 a.m. Jan. 13, access to the top level of the Vail Village parking structure
will be closed to all parking pass holders through Feb. 15. This area will be used to
erect the Frontier Center exhibition area where Championships sponsors, vendor booths
and concessions will provide a variety of products, as well as live entertainment and
other attractions. Vehicles must be removed from this area by 6 a.m. Jan. 15.
All Town of Vail-issued value parking cards will be accepted at the Lionshead parking
structure during the closure. Organizers also are encouraging use of public transit
during the closure as the bus system will be expanded with more routes, stops and
frequency to accommodate the increased demand.
Jan. 22-Feb. 17 Vail Transportation Center Terminal Building, All Levels
Beginning at 6 a.m. Jan. 22, all levels of the Vail Transportation Center Terminal
Building will be transitioned into space used for the Championships. In addition to the
transit waiting area, public lockers, restrooms and the La Cantina Mexican restaurant will
be closed as the entire building will be used for the Main Registration office for the
Championships. The nearest public restrooms will be available on the second level west
in the parking garage.
For more information, contact Mike Rose, Town of Vail parking and transit manager at
479-2349.
~ RECYCLEDPAPER
P _ [
JAN-11-1999 17 35 IDI GROUP COMPANIES 7035587399 P.01/0i
THE IDI GROUP COMPANIES
GIUSEPPE CECCHI, PRESIDENT
January 11, 1999
VIA TELEFAX
TOWN COUNCIL OF VAIL
Dear Council Members,
am writing to you today as a concerned Vail Village property owner to voice
my strong opposition to the changes that you are considering to the zoning density
and height restrictions with respect to the Public Accommodations Zone and Vail
Village Inn Development Districts-
Let me begin by saying that I have been coming to Vail since 1978 and have
owned a condominium in the Vail Village Inn since 1988. In that time I have
witnessed much growth and development in the town of Vail, which, in my opinion,
generally has been carefully planned to retain Vail's unique character and ambiance.
Indeed, this atmosphere of a small European village is what sets Vail apart from every
other resort area- If the zoning and density changes which are before you are
approved, the special atmosphere of the Vail Village would be destroyed and our
property values will suffer. We do not want or need another Lionshead in the Town
of Vail. I ask that you vote in opposition to the proposed changes that are before you.
S kcerely,
Z&)W
i
t Giuseppe Cecchi
Vail Village Inn - Unit 108
Village Inn Plaza
BALLSTON METRO CENTER E 901 N. STUART ST., ARLINGTON. VA 22203 ¦ 703/558-7300 ¦ FAX 703/558-7377
TOTAL P.01
01/11/1999 21:29 19704762789 HONEYWAGON/DONOVAN PAGE 01
74
00,
c.liY7,(~tJ i~J~ QrC~
/u 7
~ /u ~ ~r~ J 07-L ~~~~r~l~• ~/L~j
A
Uri-~..~~.z~ c~ e~?~-1~ ~-c~
9
At
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
MEDIA ADVISORY
January 12, 1999
Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115
Community Information Office
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL TO WEAVE RETREAT WORK
INTO JANUARY 19 WORK SESSION
The Vail Town Council has cancelled its day-long retreat scheduled for Jan. 18. Instead,
that work will be woven into the Jan. 19 work session with a discussion of strategic goals
and priorities. After a last-minute cancellation of a retreat scheduled for Jan. 4 (due to
an oversight in providing public notice), Mayor Rob Ford says he was asked by
Councilmembers to insert the retreat topics into upcoming work sessions in an effort to
save time and associated expenses. As mayor, Ford is responsible for setting the
Council agendas for both the afternoon work sessions and evening meetings.
Other discussion topics for the Jan. 19 work session include:
• Transit and Trails Update from the Eagle County Regional Transit Authority (ECO)
• Update on Berry Creek Equestrian Center
• Update on Countywide Housing Needs Assessment
• Cascade/Thrifty Car Rental Major SDD Amendment Discussion
• Discussion on Status of the Ruins at Cascade Village
The Jan. 19 work session begins at 2 p.m. in the Vail Town Council Chambers. The
public is welcome to attend.
Please note that the Vail Town Council work sessions for Feb. 2 and Feb. 9 have been
cancelled to enable Councilmembers to attend the World Alpine Ski Championships.
Also, the Vail Town Council evening meeting for Feb. 2 will begin at 5 p.m. (rather than 7
p.m.) in the Vail Town Council Chambers for the same reason as above.
i
i
i
- t
~~0 RECYCLED PAPER
JAN-12-1999 10:09 P.01 K~ O
i
i
4
TOTAL P.01
JAN-22-1900 09:13 P.01
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
VAIL PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT
d/b/a VAIL RECREATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
9:00 A.M.
Tuesday, December 8,1998
Krueger Room, Golf Clubhouse, Seasons at the Green Restaurant
1778 Vail Valley Drive
Called to Order at 9:02 a.m.
MEMBERS
PRESENT Ross Davis, Bart Cuomo, Steve Simonett, and Nancy Stevens.
MEMBERS
ABSENT Chris Moffet was absent with an excuse.
OTHERS
PRESENT Piet Pieters, Bob Trautz, Otis Odell, Shawn Geankoplis, Diane Johnson,
Jim Sanders, Ernie Bender, Tony Russo, Tom Gaylord, Jim Heber,
Susanne Chardoul, Loriane Skolasinski, Colleen McCarthy, and Rhonda
Hickman.
PUBLIC INPUT
ON ITEMS NOT ON
AGENDA Cindy Allard, a Homestead resident and parent of a gymnastics participant,
was present to appeal to the Board concerning the rate increases proposed.
Ross expressed his regrets at the decline of WECMRD and/or Homestead
to participate in the "buy in" program offered by VRD. At this time, Bob
Trautz and Diane Johnson spoke up on the availability of several youth
grants that are available for financial aid.
APPROVAL OF
NOVEMBER 10, 1998
MINUTES Bart opposed the unexcused absence notation as he discussed his need to
be elsewhere. That noted, Steve motioned to approve the minutes. Nancy
seconded. Passed unanimously.
7871 Date y pa9es?
i Post-it' kaxNote
s To From - _
GoJOapt
Phone t Phone
Fax i! Fax M
JAN-22-1900 09:13 P.02
DOBSON UPDATE Ottis Odell presented revisions made to the conceptual drawings after the
last DRB and PEC meetings. Design Workshop is now working with them
as a consultant. They have been involved in the Lionshead masterplan
redevelopment for the past two years. These new drawings include a
major makeover for the turn around located at the pedestrian exit of the
parking structure which is adjacent to the charter lot, which is in the middle
of its own plans for development. Ottis suggested separating this area
from the actual building reconstruction. Ross stated it is very important to
move forward with the building plans as the current gymnastics building is
scheduled for demolition in the fall of next year. Piet would like to tie this
into the mill levy election of the charter lot plans. Ottis will present these
plans at the next PEC and DRB meetings being held Dec. le and 16'
respectively. Bart asked to look into creating more conference type
amenities for the proposed building. This will include the possible
relocation of the bathrooms.
ADOPTION OF
1999 BUDGET After reviewing the changes that have been made to the budget figures,
Nancy stated she was opposed to raising the fees for the gymnastics
program. Piet said Chris told him she also was opposed to the raise in
those fees. Ross told the Board the budget adoption was on a strict
deadline and must be done today, however the fee schedule could be
modified at a later date.
RESOLUTION TO
ADOPT 1999 BUDGET Bart made a motion to adopt the 1999 budget. Steve seconded. Passed
unanimously.
RESOLUTION TO
APPROPRIATE SOURCES
OF MONEY Bast made a motion to appropriate sources of money. Steve seconded.
Passed unanimously.
CERTIFICATION OF
BUDGET Bart made a motion to certify the budget. Steve seconded. Passed
unanimously.
RESOLUTION TO SET
1999 MILL LEVY Bart made a motion to set 1999 mill levy. Steve seconded. Passed
unanimously.
CERTIFICATION OF
TAX LEVIES Bart made a motion to certify tax levies. Steve seconded. Passed
unanimously.
Steve was excused from the rest of the meeting due to a previous commitment.
t
JAN-22-1900 09:14 P.03
GYMNASTICS Piet reported that during the meeting with Mcrrlis Weed, the air was
cleared and she will be staying on as the gymnastic assistant with Tony
remaining the gymnastic supervisor. VRD made a statement that the.
gymnastics program would be staying at the recreational level which range
from Compulsory Level 1 to Optional Level 4. Piet, NUc, and Tony will
look into all future CARA meets for future competitions. If people wanted
to move to the competitive level, VRD would offer the facility to them to
rent with their own coaches, insurance, etc. Piet thanked the parents and
everyone involved for their input. He will be putting together a committee
for interested parties to look at other facilities to see what we should
incorporate into our plans. Bart wanted Tony's input as to the fees, the
plans for the new facility, and program guidelines to stay at the
recreational level. Tony thanked the Board for their interest and agreed
with Board's fees, stating this brought our fees in line with other Districts.
However, it would be a hardship for some families and wished there was
some for the way for the Board to make an exception for some out-of-
District participants that he has been working with for a number of years,
he also agreed with the decision to remain at the recreational level. When
he took over I I years ago, the kids with the program were at the lowest
level in the competitive league. Novv, there is a list of aprox. 240 kids
waiting to get into the program. Bart would like to revisit the fee schedule,
but feels it is essential for all the Board members to be present, as well as
Mike Ortiz, the department's Supervisor.
OUTDOOR ICE RINK
UPDATE Piet reported it has finally b gotten cold enou?h, and we are in the third day
ofmaking ice. We are ahead of last year's schedule. The Zamboni arrived
yesterday however, maintenance will be performed on it before using it.
BOARD RETREAT could all get the a BaY or the c=t. The members that were a present thought
o ~
around the 15"' would be the best.
VARIANCE REPORT Bob explained the District currently maintains a favorable variance of
$525,000 comprised of $83,000 in capital and $442,000 in operations.
DOWN VALLEY
BUY-IN Piet said Lake Creek, Beaver Creek, and Arrowhead wanted to know if
they could participate in the buy-in program. Piet also said they each had a
1% participation rate. After discussion, the Board came up with a $2,000
each annual fee subject to annual review. Bart motioned to approve.
Nancy seconded. Passed unanimously.
. f
JAN-22-1900 09:15 P.04
LADIES' GOLF CLUB Colleen McCarthy asked the Board to explain the background on why they
came to the decision to eliminate the $45 member rate for July and August
events, and asked them to reconsider. Piet explained he had gotten many
complaints from taxpayers stating they couldn't get tee times while down-
valley residents were able to play. Ross stated it was the Board's
continuing policy of treating all clubs equally. It was not imposed only on
the women's club, but also to the senior's and men's club as well. It is
paramount to consider the needs of the taxpayers above those who do not
contribute to VRD. This decision affected only I 1 tee times set aside for
the Ladies' golf club, as well as tee times for the men's and senior's clubs.
The VRD Board decided not to alter from their previous decision. All
leagues will not be able to use their discounted $45 rate during the months
of July and August.
CHARTER LOT
SITE UPDATE VRD has been asked to take a leading roll in the redevelopment of that
site. Piet said he was meeting this aftemoon with Russ Forrest and would
update the Board.
BOARD MEMBER
INPUT Nancy sympathizes with the Ladies' Club. At this time, Colleen stated the
Ladies' Club has attempted to be heard since August. Piet apologized the
agenda had to be shifted due to various time restraints and the length some
subjects took today.
EXECUTIVE SESSION Nancy motioned to go into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters
at 12:40 a.m., Bart seconded. Passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m.
The next meeting is scheduled for December 22, 1998.
A I Nancy Stevens, Se retary Rhonda Hickman, Admin. Assistant
R/MEKV12.8min
JAN-22-1900 09:15 P.05
MINUTES
WORK SESSION
VAIL PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT
d/b/a VAIL RECREATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
9:00 A.M.
Tuesday, December 22,1998
Krueger Room, Golf Clubhouse, seasons at the Green Restaurant
1778 Vail Valley Drive
called to Order at 9:09 a.m.
MEMBERS
PRESENT Ross Davis, Bart Cuomo, Chris Mofett, Steve Simonett, and Nancy
Stevens.
OTHERS
PRESENT Piet Pieters, Bob Trautz, Sharon Geankoplis, Diane Johnson, Mike Ortiz,
Susanne Chardoul, Kevin Foley, and. Rhonda Hickman.
PUBLIC INPUT
ON ITEMS NOT ON
AGENDA None.
LADIES
INVITATIONAL Piet thought the Board should discuss the tournament so they can start
planning for it. There are usually 90 players in it with the tournament
taking up 3 mornings with two tee shots. The course usually opens around
2:00 p.m. for other guests. After discussion, it was determined to charge
$45 which includes a cart. This does not go against the League discounted
rates. Practice rounds will be at the cuzrent going rate. The Board decided
not to host a Pro-Am as it will interfere with local and visitor play.
DOBSON EXPANSION At the last DR13 meeting, there was no consensus on whether to maket its
a gem, or whether to make it as inconspicuous as possible. VRD's g
to break ground the latter part of 1999, but we need to know if it is only the
locker room expansion or that plus the gymnastic facility. The community
task force is saying to hold off on a gymnastic facility and include this
phase with the charter lot redevelopment. The next Council meeting is
January 5`b, and Piet would like as many Board members to be present as
possible.
JAN-22-1900 09:15 P.06
FORD PARK
SUMMER PARKING Mike attended a meeting the TOV set up to discuss managed parking of
events held by the Vail Valley Foundation, The Alpine Gardens, and VRD.
Between all entities, the TOV earmarked 37 dates in which there is a need
for managed parkins. The starting time for fees will be 4 p.m. (2 hours
prior to an evening event) except those dates when multiple functions
dictate fees start earlier. Bart and Ross thought it was foolish to pay to
bring in events held on the weekend that benefit the town in sales tax, etc.
then turn around and charge participants to park near their event. It was
suggested-in order to get this on the Town Council's January 5' agenda,
Piet send a letter stating VRD recognizes there are certain times managed
parking is needed however we are opposed to the idea of managed parking
as a whole.
COMMUNITY TASK
FORCE UPDATE Piet updated everyone on the last task force meeting that was held Dec.
I I". In that meeting, the consensus was to create a sense of community
between the mountain and the town. Vail was to become "America's
greatest ski area" with a defined sense of arrival or welcome area. The
wording was to go on all business cards within the town whether it is the
town government or local businesses. Businesses should reach out to the
working locals to inform them of discounts, specials, or benefits they could
take advantage of.
EXECUTIVE SESSION Bart motioned to go into Executive Session at 10:30 a.m., Chris seconded-
Passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
Nancy Stevens, Secre Rhonda Hickman, Admin. Assistant
K/Wbad/I2-22min
I
TOTAL P.06
JAN.12.1999 2:17PM CASTLE REALTY GROUP NO.459 P.1/1
ALL SEASONS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
434 GORE CREEK DRIVE -
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
(970) 476-5641
(970) 476-0470 FAX
Frederick Wyman M Premident
93 Wbippoorwill Road (914) 273-3145
Armonk, NY 10504 (914) 273-5118 Fax
TO; Mayor Rob Ford & Town Council Members
Via Fax (970) 479-2157
FROM: Frederick Wyman II JLAX-
DATE: January 11, 1998
RE: Special Development District 6 Prado Amendment
Public Accommodation Zone District - Faessler Amendments
The All Season's Condominium Association is concerned regarding the two above
referenced matters that will be appearing shortly on your agenda.
We support the concerns articulated in the January 7, 1999 memo from the Past Village
Homeowners Association to the Town Board.
We respectfully suggest that the Town of Vail should consider these matters in
conjunction with a revision of the Vail Village Master Plan adopted in 1990 with specific
attention to the impacts, primarily traffic, of the new Vail Resorts facility at Golden Peak
and the potential for future redevelopment of the area at the base of Golden Peak.
FW:ml
rw\%% llfbrd112"
cc: J. Lamont
All Seasons Condominium Association