Loading...
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