HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-01-26 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 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. Art In Public Places Master Plan Discussion. (45 mins.)
Nancy Sweeney
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Review examples of what other
communities are doing for their Art In Public Places program.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Respond to how these
solutions may apply to Vail.
2. Arosa/Garmisch Affordable Housing Development. (30 mins.)
Andy Knudtsen
Nina Timm ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide direction on one
configuration of six units on the site. Whether it is acceptable to
cluster the six units on the east end of the site.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On November 17, 1998, the Town
Council approved affordable housing and park uses for the
Arosa/Garmisch site. In addition to the uses, Council determined
six units would be appropriate and one street cut should be used
for the site. Direction was given to staff to work with the plans and
return to finalize the development program and address two
outstanding issues.
Recommendation: Please see staff memo.
3. Affordable Housing Buy-Down Criteria. (30 mins.)
Russell Forrest
Nina Timm ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review and approve
criteria for new program
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Affordable Housing Buy-
Down concept was identified by the Vail Tomorrow process and
the subsequent Common Ground process as an effective way to
create deed restricted affordable housing units for locals. Staff
has developed suggested criteria that could be used to determine
which for-sale units would be purchased by the Town, deed
restricted, then resold to qualified purchasers.
Recommendation: Please see staff memo.
4. PEC/DRB Review. (15 mins.)
George Ruther
5. A work session with the Town Council to discuss a major
George Ruther amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village inn,
Phase IV, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Plaza Hotel.
(1 hr.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Engage in a discussion
with applicant and the staff regarding the proposed major
amendment and to provide initial feedback on the proposal to the
applicant.
i
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On January 11, 1999, the
applicant Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson,
appeared before the Planning & Environmental Commission with
a request for a final review of the proposed redevelopment of the
Vail Plaza Hotel. Upon conducting a public hearing and taking
testimony from the public, the Commission voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the major amendment to the Vail Town
Council. In making their decision to recommend approval of the
request, the Commission found that, "the proposed major
amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn,
complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12=9A=8 -
of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Additionally, the applicant
has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that any
adverse effects of the requested deviation from the development
standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public
benefits provided."
A copy of the final meeting minutes is attached for reference. A
copy of the memoranda was provided to the Council on January
12, 1999.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As this is only a work session, staff
will not be providing a recommendation at this time.
6. Information Update. (10 mins.)
7. Council Reports. (10 mins.)
8. Other. (10 mins.)
9. Executive Session - Personnel Matters. (45 mins.)
10. Adjournment - 6:15 p.m.
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSIONS OF FEBRUARY 2"D AND 9T" HAVE BEEN
CANCELED.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 2/16/99, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 2/23/99, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 2/2/99, BEGINNING AT 5:00 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.
COUNCIL FOLLOW-UP
TOPIC QUESTIONS
FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS
1998
1/5/99 AUGUST 24th and 31st SPECIAL PAM: In reviewing the master calendar for Ford Park, these I left a message for Bill last week and we discussed today (1-13-99). Bill is
EVENTS dates are obviously available and might a-VAIL themselves following up w/a couple booking agent/promoter types and will carry this
Kevin Foley to special entertainment at the Amphitheater? information back to the Special Events Commission.
1/5/99 MARKETING DISTRICT ELECTION BOB/PAM: Schedule discussion time re: the ramifications of
Mike Arnett both a successful and UNsuccessful fall '99 election re: the
marketing district, including discussion about a VAIL
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE being instituted should the
election prove successful (as well as what to do w/the
business license fee).
115/99 RED SANDSTONE PED/BIKE PATH GREG HALL: Another serious accident at night recently Estimates are $300,000 to $,600,000 depending on type of light and
LIGHTING occurred. Should we re-examine stubbing in electricity and spacing and length of project.
Kevin Foley lights along this path?
January 21, 1999, Page I
Memorandum
To: Town Council
From: Russ Forrest
Andy Knudtsen
Nina Timm
Subject: Arosa/Garmisch Affordable Housing
Date: January 26, 1999
1. Background
On November 17, 1998 the Town Council approved housing and park uses for the
Arosa/Garmisch site. This decision came after extensive public involvement. The
Council stipulated that the housing component be made up of six dwelling units, that it be
accessed fi-om a single curb cut, and that it be located on one side of the park, not both.
There was a suggestion made to consider the west side of the site for the housing, as it
would reduce the visibility of the development. Council also stipulated that the park be
designed based on the input from the community during the previous three months.
Since that meeting in November, staff has worked with these goals in mind. After
consulting with architects, builders and landscape architects, we have tried to find the
building program and park program that work best with the site.
II. Key Issues
The remaining decisions to be made at this time are limited to two issues: .
which side of the site is the most appropriate location for housing, and
what building form (duplex, four plex, six plex) works the best with the site.
With the direction provided by these decisions, staff will take the next steps in the
development review process. These are outlined in detail at the end of this memo.
III. Analysis
Initially, staff worked with the west side of the site for the housing component. We
looked at duplexes, a six plex of townhouses, a clustered six plex of condominiums,
clustered duplexes, and variations of these. After considering these plans, we found that:
The grades on the west side of the site would require retaining walls or
extensive stair systems. All building types on the west side required a double
\'FAIL\DATA\EVERYONE\ANDY\99AD~IIN\W V_TCDEV.DOC
set of six foot retaining walls to the rear of the units or up to 43 steps on the
fi-ont side of the units;
The concept of clustered condominiums would not be economically feasible
as it would require construction of a water proofed, below grade parking
structure with clear spans of up to 60 feet;
Repetitive duplexes would not be favorably viewed by the DRB,
The townhouse style of development would be'the most desirable to the
perspective buyers, primarily due to the direct connection of the garage to the
home;
An "L" shaped set of townhouses would not only be visually appealing, but
would work well with the topography on the east side of the site; and finally
and potentially most importantly,
The park and housing components work the best by locating the housing on
the east side, using an "L" shaped layout for the housing.
IV. Recommendation
Based on this analysis, staff is recommending the plan, which is attached to this memo.
It has been taken one step further by breaking the development into a combination of a
duplex and a four plex, yet maintaining the "L" shape that works with the park and the
topography of the site.
The DRB reviewed the housing portion of the plan on January 20 and generally approved
of it. They specifically cited the "L" shape layout of the buildings, the parking area, the
finished grades and the combination of the four plex and duplex as strong elements. The
board made several recommendations, which can be included in the final architectural
design. For example, use durable exterior finishes, screen the dumpster, incorporate
substantial supports of the decks, articulate the ridge lines, increase the size of two of the
units to accommodate families and identify snow storage areas.
V. Development Review Process and Schedule
Based on the direction provided by Council, staff will proceed with the rest of the
development review process. This includes annexation, rezoning and replatting with the
Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and design review with the Design
Review Board (DRB). The land under the housing will be rezoned to Residential Cluster
or Low Density Multi-Family. The park will be rezoned to Outdoor Recreation.
Conceptual park and the housing designs will be presented at each of the PEC. hearings,
with detailed designs to be prepared for the DRB hearings in April and May.
In addition to development review, the Town will be conducting a Request for
Qualification (RFQ) process to retain a development team. This will take place
\TAIL\DATA\EVERYONE\A.\DY\99ADMIN\wV_TC DEV.DOC
concurrent with the annexation and rezoning. The Town Council will have opportunities
to review each of the decisions during this process. Upon completion of each of these
steps, staff will provide a complete presentation to the Council to get final approval prior
to moving forward with building permits. The schedule for these steps is listed below.
1. Design Review Board (DRB) Conceptual Review January 20
2. Town Council Adoption of Development Program January 26
3. Annexation/rezoning Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) hearing February 22
4. Annexation/rezoning Town Council first reading March
5. Annexation/rezoning Town Council second reading March
6. Replatting Planning and Environmental Commission
(PEC) hearing March
7. DRB Initial Review April
8. DRB Final Review May
9. Final Council project approval (including the design
for the park and housing and budget for both) May
10. Proce6d with construction drawings Mid-May
11. Building permit review June
12. Ground breaking Mid-June
Note: Hearing dates after February 22 PEC have not been scheduled since additional
survey work may be needed for the annexation.
\3?AIL\DATA\EVERYON E\ANDY\99ADNIIN\W V_TCDEV.DOC
i
i
pitI c7
• are - -
i / / M1A
WMSr VAli--
N
Date Recei
AN zo ag
,r
Memorandum
To: Town Council
From: Russ Forrest
Nina Timm
Date: January 26, 1999
Re: Affordable Housing Buy Down Program
1. Purpose
In addition to building new, deed restricted homes within the Town of Vail, staff has been working on
creating criteria to purchase already existing units which can be resold with a deed restriction, similar to
Vail Commons and Red Sandstone. The following is a brief background of the "Buy Down Program" and
a list of proposed criteria. Staff is asking Council to evaluate and adopt the proposed criteria and then
give approval to begin purchasing units for the Buy Down Program.
H. Background
The proposed plan is to purchase 10 units by the end of the year 2000. Approximately 5 units can be
purchased in 1999 and another 5 units will be purchased in the year 2000. The Town will look at units
listed in the MLS as well as for sale by owner units. The plan is to purchase units of various sizes,
dispersed throughout the Town. There may be a focus on units in East Vail, as there are few new units to
be built in that area.
There is currently S100,000 per year in the budget to be used in the buy down of the units. The units
would be purchased and then a subsidy would be added to them, from the S 100,000, and they would then
be resold, with a deed restriction, to local employees. A lottery would be conducted like those held for the
sale of Vail Commons and Red Sandstone units.
III. Suggested Criteria
The first step in establishing this program is creating criteria for the units. The criteria proposed are
general guidelines to be used to evaluate units. Each unit would then need to be evaluated on its own
merits. The following are proposed criteria for buy down units:
1. The location of the unit within the Town of Vail.
2. The number of deed restricted units in the immediate neighborhood. To insure
distribution throughout the Town of Vail.
3. The units proximity to the bus stops.
4. The age of the units and the quality of the construction.
-This will directly impact the future affordability of owning the unit.
5. The resources of the Home Owners Association.
-The owner's cost associated with any future work needing to be done
(assessments).
-The monthly cost of the Association dues and what these include.
6. The number of bedrooms in the unit.
-There may be a focus on one bedroom units as the economy of scale to build
one is less cost effective. Also, the demand seems stronger for smaller units.
7. The cost of purchasing the unit as well as the total monthly cost of owning the unit
including mortgage expenses, condo association dues, utilities and upkeep.
s
After initially evaluating units based on these proposed criteria staff would then bring the unit to Council
for final approval.
iV. Costs associated with the units in the buy down program:
Staff is also asking that Council create a budget for the purchase of the buy down units. There would be
some risk associated in the purchase of these units. The proposed plan is to purchase the units and then
conduct a lottery and sell the unit as quickly as possible. If there was not demand for the unit the Town
would be in a situation where it owned a housing unit that it had not intended to own. The budget for the
purchase of units for the buy down program would then be tied up until such a point that the unit could be
sold.
Staff would recommend a budget of approximately 5200,000 to purchase the units. Staff recommends
using General Fund balance. This money could be used for each of the five proposed purchases, simply by
not purchasing another buy down unit until the previously purchased unit has been sold.
The Town would have the Town Attorney, acting as a realtor, representing the Town in the closing. This
would provide approximately a three percent savings in commissions on units being sold by realtors. Also,
there would be no Real Estate Transfer Tax because the unit will be deed restricted. Together these can
save 4% on the re-sale price of the units.
In order to achieve the goal of purchasing five units per year within the 5100,000 budget the plan would
be to purchase units with these financial guidelines:
>For a one bedroom unit the Town would be looking at a purchase price of 5140,000 or less.
The proposed re-sale price with the deed restriction would be in the 590,000 to $100,000 range
or perhaps higher depending on the unit.
>For a two bedroom unit the Town would be looking at a purchase price of S 175,000 or less.
The proposed re-sale price with the deed restriction would be in the 5130,000 to 5140,000 range
or perhaps higher depending on the unit.
It is recognized that with a budget of 5100,000 that we may not achieve the goal of 5 units per year. The
plan is that some units will require a greater subsidy while other units may not require as much, hopefully
allowing us to reach our goal of 5 units per year with a $100,,000 budget.
Another option for the buy down program would be to have units evaluated on the monthly costs of
owning the unit and what steps could be taken to reduce the monthly costs. Instead of taking the fiill
dollar amount from the buy down program as a reduction in sales price the Town could have a unit energy
rated and make it more energy efficient, thus reducing the monthly cost of owning the unit and
contributing to the environmental soundness of the unit.
V. Generally the costs associated with these dollar amount mortgages would be as follows:
(December 14, 1998)
$90,000 mortgage = 5645.00/month (principal, interest, PMI (568.00/month)) based on a 30 year
mortgage with 6.625% interest rate. (The current 5 year ARM rate at. First Bank Vail.)
A person working 40 hours a week would need to make approximately S16.00/hour to "afford" a
mortgage payment of 5645.00/month.
$100,000 mortgage = S716.00/month (principal, interest, PMI (S75.00/month)) based on a 30 year
mortgage with 6.625% interest rate. (The current 5 year ARM rate at First Bank Vail.)
**A person working 40 hours a week would need to make approximately 517.00/hour to "afford" a
mortgage payment of 5716.00/month.
$130,000 mortgage = S 1008.00/month (principal, interest, PMI (S54.00/month)) based on a 30 year
mortgage with 8.00% interest rate. (Special home buyers plan at First City Financial that lowers PMI with
an increase in tax deductible interest.)
Two people working 40 hours a week would need to make approximately 512.75/hour per person to
"afford" a mortgage payment of 51008.00/month.
$140,000 mortgage = 51080.00/month (principal, interest, PMI (560.00/month)) based on a 30 year
mortgage with 8.00% interest rate. (Special home buyers plan at First City Financial that lowers PMI with
an increase in tax deductible interest.)
Two people working 40 hours a week would need to make approximately 513.50/hour per person to
"afford" a mortgage payment of S1080.00/month.
NOTE: All mortgage expenses shown include private mortgage insurance as it has been assumed that the
down payment would be 3%.
In 1996 the Eagle County per Capita income was S30,398. This is roughly equivalent to 514.61
per hour based on a 40 hour work week, 52 weeks per year.
VI. Discussion Points
Staff would request Councils input on:
1) Is the criteria acceptable`?
2) Is the Council comfortable with the budget for this project?
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE
Monday, January 25, 1999
FINAL AGENDA
Project Orientation / PEC LUNCH - Community Development Department 12:00 p.m.
AIPP Master Plan - "Focus" group discussion- Nancy Sweeney
Com Dev Liaison to AIPP - Jeff Hunt -1 hour
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Greg Moffet Tom Weber
John Schofield
Galen Aasland
Diane Golden
Ann Bishop
Brian Doyon
Site Visits : 1:30 p.m.
1. Fowler -1850 S. Frontage Rd. West
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 modifications from a previously granted conditional use permit, located at
19 Vail Road / Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant:. Vail Interfaith Chapel, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt Architects
Planner: Jeff Hunt
MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 4-1-1 (Brian Doyon
recused and John Schofield opposed)
APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS:
1. The approval is subject to compliance with the conditional use permit approved on
August 24, 1998.
2. Should the use create significant conflicts with adjacent properties, including
traffic congestion or parking, then this permit may be revoked by the Planning and
Environmental Commission.
z
TOW4va
1
2. A request for an amendment to an approved development plan, to allow for an increase
in site coverage and reconfiguration of a building envelope, located at 1850 S. Frontage
Road West/Lot 6, Alpine Creek Townhomes.
Applicant: Jim & Sharon Fowler, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Smith
Planner: Allison Ochs
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 6-0
1. That all other conditions from the previous April 27, 1992 approval be met including:
a. Maintain a ten foot separation between buildings
b. GRFA is limited to 2300 sq. ft.
C. Height is-limited to 32 ft.
2. That all conditions stated in the approval letter (attached) from the Alpine Creek
Townhomes be met prior to Design Review Board approval.
3. A request for a final review of a proposed locker room 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 Rather
TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 22, 1999
4. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-9 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to
allow for site coverage in excess of 20% on a Primary/Secondary Residential zoned lot,
located at 362 Mill Creek Circle / Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Walter Forbes, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt Architects
Planner: Allison Ochs
TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 22, 1999
5. 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 FEBRUARY 22, 1999
6. Information Update
7. Approval of January 11, 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
2
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA
Wednesday, January 20, 1999
3:00 P.M.
PROJECT ORIENTATION / LUNCH - Community Development Department 12:30 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Brent Alm
Clark Brittain
Hans Woldrich
Bill Pierce
Greg Moffet (PEC)
SITE VISITS 2:00 pm
1. Arosa/Garmisch Employee Housing Site - Arosa/Garmisch
2. Mereles/Firman residence - 1924 Sunburst Drive
3. Nancy's Nest - 765 Forest Road
4.
Driver: Jeff_
PUBLIC HEARING - TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:00 pm
1. 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 6'h Filing.
Applicant: Nancy Adam, 'represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Smith Architects
MOTION: Clark Brittain SECOND: Hans Woldrich VOTE: 4-0-1
APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION:
1. That the encroachments on site be removed, as required by staff.
2. Mereles/Firman residence - Conceptual review of an addition/remodel of a Allison
primary/secondary residence.
1984 Sunburst Drive/Lot 20, Vail Valley 3`d.
Applicant: R. Mereles & R. Firman, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Smith
CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE
3. 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
MOTION: Bill Pierce SECOND:'Greg Moffet VOTE: 5-0
APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION:
1. That the approval is for the building only; additional sign approval is required.
1 TOWNOFV
4. 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: Clark Brittain SECOND: Greg Moffet VOTE: 5-0
APPROVED AS PRESENTED WITH A YOSEMITE GREEN ROOF
5. Arosa/Garmisch Employee Housing Site - Conceptual review of proposed employee Allison
housing 6-plex.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by.Andy Knudtsen
CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE
Staff Approvals
China Garden Express - New signage. Brent
143 E. Meadow Drive/Crossroads East.
Applicant: Sharon Mou
Beaver Dam, LLC residence - Office addition. Allison
443 Beaver Dam/Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3`d.
Applicant: Beaver Dam LLC
Zevada residence - Revisions to previously approved plans. Brent
1337 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Valley 1St
Applicant: Spad International, Ltd.
Daily Grind - Courtyard iron fence as required for liquor licensing. Brent
288 Bridge Street/Rucksack Building.
Applicant: Daily Grind Coffee Co.
Solar Vail - Revised antenna location. Dominic
501 N. Frontage Rd. West.
Applicant: Western Wireless
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.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telepho
the Hearing Impaired, for information.
2
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
January 11, 1999
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT:
Greg Moffet Diane Golden Russ Forrest
John Schofield Dominic Mauriello
Galen Aasland. George Ruther
Ann Bishop Brent Wilson
Brian Doyon Judy Rodriguez
Tom Weber Tom Moorhead
Public Hearing 2:00 p.m.
Greg Moffet called the meeting to order at 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
Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant, public or Commissioner's had any comments. There were no
comments.
Ann Bishop made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
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
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add.
1
Planning and Environmental Commission
Mnutes
January 11, 1999
J
Tom Braun, the architect representing the Remonov Company, said the intent of the application
was to clean up the place and that because of egress issues, they could not build 2
condominiums. He explained that there was no physical square footage addition to the building
and the floor space was there without having to expand the existing shell of the building. He said
the project would not harm anyone in the area and he stated the presence of the existing building
was a hardship. He said for the applicant to adhere to the code, it would be a hardship with the
building as it existed. He said the real essence was what the Town had done in the last year
addressing interior conversions with ordinances and that the Town made a policy to use the
interior space if the building wasn't expanded. He said this would not be a grant of special
privilege, since other properties had done this and again said there would be no adverse impacts
on anyone. He stated that it wouldn't serve anyone not to do this.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were none.
Galen Aasland stated he had sympathy for this request, as it was relatively minor, but he said the
proposal was dangerous for the Town. He said that other properties in the area do not enjoy this
and therefore, it was clearly a special privilege.
Ann Bishop made a disclosure that the applicant was a client of hers, but that she saw no
conflict. She said she thought interior conversions were ok, since this building has had a tough
history.
Dominic Mauriello agreed that this was dangerous and explained that there was no existing
dwelling unit on the property, just commercial space. He explained that the Interior Conversion
Ordinance only applied to existing dwelling units.
Tom Braun said the ordinance could apply to a multi-family building with a commercial
component. He reverted back to the allowable use of the project and said it was lacking in logic
and common sense. He said there was a distinction between this and the Crossroads situation.
Tom Weber said he had a problem with drawing the line with regard to future conversions and
that it was tough to quantify how much was appropriate. He said the applicant was creating it at
the same time as he was converting it.
Brian Doyon agreed with Galen in that.it was dangerous precedent.
John Schofield asked Tom to explain the 400 sq. ft., as there were some areas designated, but
at this point in time, the 400 sq. ft. was not designated. He said the applicant's intent was to sell
the condo, but he had a problem with it being a hardship. He said he wished the variance code
had a common sense section of the code, but that it did not. He said they had never granted a
GRFA variance of this type and the interior conversion agreement was convincing, but the PEC
couldn't stray from the code.
Greg Moffet said the PEC was required by law to enforce the law. He said he didn't like the fact
that the ordinance encouraged the applicant to get cute. He said when the PEC granted
variances in the CC1, AU's and hotel beds were created, or other elements of the Master Plan
documents were implemented, allowing for relief. He said it was a clearly enumerated public
policy and he didn't see that here.
2
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
January 11, 1999
Tom Braun said mixed use was encouraged and that this couldn't match Pepi's live beds. He
said it fit the criteria to say yes and that the PEC had latitude with the interior conversion
ordinance.
Greg Moffet said the code was clear on this and if, granted, it will push us down a slippery slope,
as it could be used as a precedence. He said the application encouraged you to skirt the law.
Galen Aasland made a motion for denial, in accordance with the staff memo, with the finding that
it would be a special privilege.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
The motion for denial passed by a vote of 4-2.
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
George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo and included a change to condition #8 .
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Jerry Wurhmann said he questioned the condition requiring 74 parking spaces.
Greg Moffet said that staff just revised the parking pay-in-lieu.
Gerry Wurhmann said the date of October 31, 1999, was not appropriate, as the validity was for
one year and so it should be after that.
Greg Moffet agreed to amend the approval with the date after the 2"d reading. He then asked for
any public comment. There was none.
Tom Weber stated he was in favor of this.
Brian Doyon had no comment.
John Schofield said he agreed with 52 parking spaces.
Galen Aasland said he hoped the applicant would be able to do this.
Ann Bishop echoed Galen's comments.
Greg Moffet said he would like to see this with a change to Condition #8 so that the applicant
would pay-in-lieu on spaces not provided on-site above the 52 spaces proposed and that the
approval would lapse 1 year from the date of the second reading of an ordinance amending the
district by Council.
3
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
January 11, 1999
John Schofield made a motion for approval with the above two changes to the conditions.
Brian Doyon seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
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
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Kurt Segerberg, the architect, gave an overview of some illustrations. He explained the location
of the parking structure requiring the 98 cars on-site and said they were trying to keep as much of
the entrance across form the Vail Professional Building, as could be. He said the bike path
would remain as is and the architecture was redressing the existing building. He stated that this
was a fairly linear site, but landscaping and color would break it up, giving it a residential feel on
the Frontage Rd. side. He said the new facility would be a stand-alone facility; just skin work to
the existing building and that the parking requirement would be met with the structure. He said if
9' parking spaces needed to be added it would create an entry problem by pushing the structure
to the east. He said that CDOT wanted to align the exit with the Vail Professional Building. He
said that widening of the bridge was not a part of this proposal, even though there would be a
stacking up of cars at the bridge. He said the 22' aisle width was below the 24' required aisle
width in the parking structure.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was no public comment.
Galen Aasland said Kurt had done what we asked him to do from the last meeting. He stated he
had a problem with the 8' wide parking spaces, but said there needed to be standard spaces by
pushing the building closer to the creek. He said he was ok with more office space and the
EHU's and didn't see the necessity for more EHU's. He said snow storage could be hauled away
and that the site was being used in an appropriate way, however, it could use more trees.
Ann Bishop shared Galen's comments and agreed with needing more trees.
Tom Weber said the building could go taller. Tom said he had one concern with the parking and
he was not concerned if it moved to the east. He said he was not sure about CDOT's reason for
lining up the exit.
Kurt Segerberg said there were heated ramps.
4
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
January 11, 1999
Tom Weber said he didn't see a need to make it look residential. He said he didn't see a
generation of employees and so would like more office space with no EHU's. He said he had no
problem with hauling off snow.
Brian Doyon disclosed for the record that he worked for a tenant in this building. He, said big
trucks don't fit in 8' wide spots and more handicapped spaces were needed. He said putting in a
new building cancelled the handicap access and there needed to be an accessible route
between buildings. He said he would like to see an elevation of how the parking structure would
work with regards to the grading. He said the applicant would be removing large, tall trees by the
bike path and so there needed to be some screening.
John Schofield said he had no problem with more height, the residential nature was not required,
he agreed on the 9' spaces and snow storage hauling was acceptable. He suggested, since this
office space wouldn't generate new employees, to stick the EHU's on top of the structure, to
increase the parking down below.
Greg Moffet said parking was the tail wagging the dog. He said we needed more office space to
maintain the economic viability in Town and in that direction, he encouraged the applicant to look
at how parking was handled in other situations. He suggested getting employees to park
someplace else, or to charge for parking, which would make the blue pass a good deal. He said
he would like to see more office space on this site and that an EHU was nice, but not necessary
in this context. He summarized the consensus from the PEC was to squeeze more on the site.
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
Greg Moffet asked for the Commissioner's to disclose any relationships with the applicant.
Galen Aasland said he worked for Zehren a dozen years ago and Jay Peterson was his attorney.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment to be limited to 5 minutes each and stated the
meeting would be immediately adjourned, if any arguing ensued.
George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo and attachments and said this would be a
recommendation to Town Council. He said that since the packet, he had received 5 additional
letters, which would be available in the Town's file. He then went over the publishing dates for
this proposal as 11/27, 1998 and then the item was tabled. He said that according to Section 12-
3-6 of the Town Code, notice was sent at least 15 days in advance to property owners adjacent
to the property.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, said that George had worked on the report for the past
6 months. He went through a few of the comments from the last meeting and what had been
done since that last meeting. He said the PEC had stated that this was an appropriate site and
liked the detail of the smaller building and he said that the traffic engineer was here today.to
answer any questions. He said this building was a story and a half lower than presented at the
last meeting and a view analysis was included in the packet. He said the project needed to
better relate to the streetscape and that they had lost approximately 60 hotel units. Jay said that
5
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
January 11, 1999
this had taken 2 years to put together and we did go around the business community to ask what
they thought of our concept. He said the consensus was that a major hotel with conference
facilities would be the best thing for the Town, as a large conference hotel would be another
marketing arm for the Town. He said the applicant would be cutting back revenue for the Town
of Vail by cutting back the size of the project. He then handed out a response to the 1/8/99 Daily
Trail paid advertisement. He said in the last 10 years a recreation center and performing arts
center had been voted down by the Town and hence, they are down valley. He mentioned that
there would be various people objecting today, since their views would be blocked from the Vail
Gateway Building. He stated that those. condominium units sold for a lot of money, but that a
document was recorded in 1989, prior to the sale of any unit in the Gateway, with Leo Palmas
obtaining a signed waiver from each property owner stating that they would not object to the
potential redevelopment of the WI. There have been numerous encroachments on views being
blocked, but Jay stated that there were only 5 views that were protected in the Town of Vail. He
then commended staff for a great job. He said the economic health of the Town was of great
concern and that 1998, for the first time, will be a negative growth with an actual decrease in
sales tax revenue. He stated the Town has taken the bull by the horns in Lionshead, but the
Village needs the same. He said there has been an increase in tax from grocery stores, but Vail
Village is flat and dying. He said by taking an outlying area and putting in mass and bulk, the
economic benefit would trickle into the Town of Vail.
Tim Losa, with Project Management, explained the roof height illustrations.
John Schofield asked for a brief explanation of the traffic flow.
Chris Fasch, a Senior Transportation Member, estimated that trips generated by this project,
using the ITE manual of rates and equations, would be 3000 trips per day, coming in and going
out. Having each of the uses in one complex, would require less trips and the trip generation
estimation net increase, with the redevelopment, would be 2000 trips per day, which included
everything, not just guests. He said the relative impact of the net additional traffic was a 4-6%
increase in front of the proposed building and was less through the roundabout, which the
roundabout could accommodate. He said the level of service was a traffic engineering report
card. He said the level of service calculations was. a "B" or better in the peak seasons, which
included other growth from other development, as well as our development. He stated two
improvements as being the right turn deceleration lane and the median, which would prohibit the
left turn in eliminating the conflict by using the right turn deceleration. He said the median
improvements would be designed to harbor a vehicle, allowing the driver to deal with each
direction of flow individually. He said they wanted to make sure the Town supported the project
before they went to CDOT. He explained that if you increase the curbcut traffic by 20%, you had
to go to CDOT.
Brian Doyon did not like having to cut across 3 lanes to get to the highway.
Tim Losa explained the loading and delivery and how the deceleration lane would be expanded
for trucks to pull in and then back down. He said the fully enclosed loading dock would have no
fumes and noise. He then explained the access from Vail Road, by backing in.
Tom Weber said it is a stretch to ask a truck to back up, as it would stack up the traffic and he
asked why they would load there, rather than off the Frontage Rd.
Tim Loss explained that the Frontage Road would be to service the guests and we were asked to
provide this for the other redevelopments. He said no backing would occur from the Frontage
Rd.
6
Planning and Environmental Commission
bfinutes
January 11, 1999
Tom Weber asked about pulling straight in.
George Ruther stated that Greg Hall said the turning maneuvers do function properly.
Tim Losa said turning radius's for buses can be accommodated.
Brian Doyon questioned the turning radius for buses in the front.
Tim Losa said there would be 2-4 valet parking spaces in the front and we would know in
advance if buses were coming.
Brian Doyon asked if this was overflow or valet in the garage.
Tim Loss said, overflow. He said the corridors would be 7.5'- 8' ceiling heights. He said the
bedrooms in the lower level would have 9' ceilings, with the exception of the vaulted ceilings on
the upper floors.
Galen Aasland asked about the Frontage Rd. exits and if CDOT doesn't approve, what is the
applicant prepared to do.
Jay Peterson said an option, if a left turn can't be made out of the project, would be to turn left
farther down the road away from the roundabout. He said this would be paid for by the applicant.
Tom Weber asked if cars could exit onto Vail Road, providing a right hand turn with a ramp up for
exit only.
Tim Losa said that would significantly increase the trips in the roundabout and the applicant was
trying to reduce impacts on the roundabout.
Tom Weber said most of the traffic was coming from the other side of the roundabout.
Jay Peterson said we had committed to other phases of SDD 6 for loading and deliveries and
that there were huge expanse of concrete in that area. He said they were trying to keep as much
traffic off of Vail Road as possible.
Galen Aasland asked if it was angled when entering into the facility in front of Gateway .
Tim Losa said any improvements occurring on the Town right-of-way could be granted approval
by the Town.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment.
Charles Lipcon, a second homeowner from Miami who spends 4 months a year in Vail, quoted
from Confucius from 2500 years ago; "when words lose their meaning, people lose their
freedom." He said that in 1976, Joe Stauffer entered into an SDD approval. He said there were
no set of approved plans located between the TOV and Joe Stauffer. He said they were not to
build over 3 stories and the Gateway project was moved around in order to protect the view
corridor established by the Vail Village Inn development plan and the TOV. He said this new
project would windfall profit for the developer. He said that the traffic to this hotel will be internal
to the Village and right now the circle backs up under 1-70 in the morning and afternoon and It will
become a traffic nightmare. He said the project would be a 2% increase yearly and he asked
about the domino-effect with everyone wanting to go to 8 stories. He said the cutting off of the
7
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
January 11, 1999
r
view corridor was the 2nd problem. He read from a publication that quoted; "breathtaking vistas"
at every turn," and now they would be gone. He stated that this building was far too big, with 6
stories on Vail Road and that it was violating the Master Plan that allowed 5 stories on the
Frontage-Road. He gave an example of walking out the south door of the Vail Gateway, seeing a
70' wall 20' away from the door, as being the first canyon alley in Vail and he said this alley would
be double what's needed to create a canyon. He stated that the buildup of fumes would be
unsafe, as well as sunlight being cut off from this bunker, not to mention the ice build-up. He
said without amending the Master Plan, the SDD could not be passed. He said the height would
be 87', instead of 47' in some places. He said this monolithic structure would cause people not
to come here, because they love the little village. He asked where the tax revenue was. He said
the Town would get inverse condemnation suits.
Galen Aasland asked about the south entrance on the Gateway Building.
Charles Lipcon quoted from a letter from the TOV to the Gateway, requesting a strong pedestrian
connection, which this alley wouldn't address.
John Dunn, representing Charles Lipcon, said he believed the Master Plan was a regulatory
document. That being said, he said one definition of the guideline was that a lesser height might
be more appropriate, as it was in excess by 100%.
Greg Moffet said the Gateway Building exceeded the zoning by 67%.
Tom Moorhead said the plan stated that it was intended as a guide and he said the State of
Colorado stated the Master Plan of a municipality was advisory only. He said he concurred with
the view corridors in the staff memo.
Teak Simonton, representing Curtin Hill, supported this project, as the bed base needed to be
increased and a convention facility would be a good step for the off-season.
Istaccio Cortina, owner of the Lionshead Inn, said he was monitoring the process as he wants to
redevelop as well. He said the alley and traffic were negative, but we needed to keep on working
on Vail and he supported this, as we needed a bed base. He said the Lionshead Inn had 52
hotel rooms but occupancy was 30% below last December. He said we were 40% occupied our
1 St year.
Joe Stauffer stated he was not here to either support or oppose the project, as it would be a
conflict of interest. He then explained the SDD. He said since he couldn't sell the property, he
developed it himself and the Town asked him to have an SDD adopted in 1976, adding that
GRFA was taken away from him. He said the SDD said the pedestrian plaza movement area
required a 2 story building area through the plaza over East Meadow to the Village. He said he
was allowed 5 stories on the Frontage Road, by cutting down to 2 stories on the plaza. He said
the Town was very concerned that skiers be seen on Gold Peak, so the view had to be
protected. He envisioned that the last phase would be in the year 2000 or 2002, when Craig's
market was completed. He said he was here only to explain what his thoughts were regarding
the SDD.
John Schofield asked Joe Stauffer about the agreement with Leo Palmas in 1989.
Joe Stauffer said Mr. Palmas was going to rent the condos as hotel units and I was concerned
that they needed to know there was an approved building going up in front of them. He said he
assumed that Mr. Palmas advised his tenants.
8
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
January 11, 1999
Paul Zuger, owner of a retail gallery at the Gateway Building, asked about the building height in
the agreement.
Joe Staufer said buildings were allowed up to 5 stories on the Frontage Rd. side.
Paul Zuger said 95% of the traffic comes from the south side. He said the 80' wall was not
acceptable for his business and would put him out of business. He said the fumes were a
concern and a terrible eyesore.
Hans Woldrich, a DRB member, said it was glaringly obvious that the traffic situation was totally
unresolved. He said handling one car at a time was not acceptable when a banquet lets out.
Anthony Gemolino, a 3-year business owner of Phoenix Rising, spoke on behalf of the
merchant's point of view, saying the area was very dark and a facility in the back would enhance
it and improve the area.
Jay Peterson said that Joe gave a good rendition, but he left out two approvals. He said In 1984
Tony Kempf amended it for site specific for Phases 1 and 2 . He said Tony brought in the a 67'
tall building behind the gas station. He said in 1988, before Phase 5, Mr. Hillis included the gas
station site and was never built because it had all kinds of contingencies, so the 1984 plan held.
He said they just showed pockets of height. He said in the Town of Vail in the winter, most of the
people arrive by public transportation and during the summer more people drive. He said the
loading fumes were from the Gateway's trucks. He said there was a pedestrian connection
through the hotel, if the dumpster was moved. He said if you look at our numbers they are less
than the Austria Haus, except for height and he didn't respond to threats of lawsuits.
Greg Moffet stated the public hearing was now closed.
John Schofield asked if the view encroachment agreement was a public record.
Jay Peterson said the owners all had a copy.
Ann Bishop asked if the view encroachment showed up on the Gateway title policy.
Charles Lipcon said the agreement referred to the then-approved plans; or 3 stories in the view
corridor.
Jay Peterson said this was not a true statement and the document spoke for itself.
Tom Weber thanked the public for their input. He said SDD's were dynamic in nature and didn't
take into account previous applications. He said that SDD's put all the cards on the table, stating
what was best for the Town. He said some of the conditions were negligible, such as taking out
the 8th floor level penthouse or the stepping back on Vail Road. He said he would take out
Condition #4 of the staff memo.
Brian Doyon said this was a good project and with the outside participation, it would result in a
good quality project for the Town of Vail. He agreed with Tom to remove-Condition #4, as it had
little impact. He said he would insist traffic circulation be looked at carefully and he was very
concerned with the valet parking, as well as the route to get to 1-70 when leaving the hotel to go
to Denver. He said the applicant would really need to take a serious look at this, as it was
dangerous, especially with heavier snows and locals who tend to gun it in the roundabouts. He
9
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
January 11, 1999
again said that that issue had not been finally resolved and they need to get cars away from the
roundabout. He felt the number of EHU's could be dropped significantly if a large percentage of
EHU's were located in the Town of Vail. He said that this was a tax base for the Town, so they
cannot be located down valley. He said he would consider 1 unit in Town to 2 units down valley.
He said the elevation along Vail Road needed a better architectural feature. He stated there still
needed to be circulation and flow towards the Gateway Building.
John Schofield said there were no ideal projects during a re-development phase, which the TOV
would be in for the next 30 years, so we need to think of the bettering of the TOV and not
individual owners. He thought the applicant and staff could come up with some kind of EHU
number.
Galen Aasland said this building would have real consequences for the neighbors; but it would
be good for the Town. He said he appreciated taking the height out of the building and the floor
to floor height was not excessive. He said he had real concerns about traffic, with people leaving
the hotel going towards Denver. He said the south door of the Gateway needed to be
addressed. He said the west wing needed to be a condition, so we don't have flat walls. He said
the net result of reduction of rooms was good and bad. He said there needed to be an on-site
manager's unit, as part of the approval, living there 24 hours of the day in a nice unit, which
would be a good commitment on the part of the developer.
Ann Bishop conducted her own study when living at Crossroads 365 days a year. She said there
were times there was no one in Town and we need this facility to keep us viable. She said she
would hate to see what would happen if this project did not occur. She said from experience, it
was very difficult to coordinate a convention in the Town of Vail now and so we must have a
convention center. She said the view encroachment document was very clear to the people who .
owned units in the Vail Gateway Building and she found it hard to believe that this comes as a
big surprise.
Greg Moffet said he was strongly in favor of this type of development and scaling this project
back would run contrary to public policy and the local economy. He said he was in agreement
with the finding and it was appropriate for this type of hotel, as we know smaller products were
not viable and we needed to commit to size. He said a conference for 400 people would not go
to Beaver Creek. He said in May and October, there was not enough economy for businesses to
stay in business. He said our elected officials have stated the community objectives and this
meets those objectives. He said he agreed with Brian regarding the EHU. He said he didn't
agree with Conditions 4,5 & 9, as we have nickeled and dimed the applicant to death. He said
there was sufficient excess parking on-site in the winter and the bottom line was that the PEC
was concerned with left turns out of this project.
John Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the findings in the staff memo,
with changes to Condition #2, to read the ratio of units required shall be reduced to 2:1 for units
provided in Town versus units provided down valley and to delete Conditions #4 and #5 and
Condition #9 read 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.
Ann Bishop seconded the motion.
10
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
January 11, 1999
Galen Aasland asked for additional architectural articulation on all north and south levels on the
north and south elevations of the west wing and that one, on-site employee housing unit be
provided as a manager's type of unit.
Greg Moffet said he will vote, but he would like to see #5 eliminated.
Jay Peterson said we would look at it at the DRB level
Brian Doyon said he wanted Condition #5 removed, but not the removal of Condition #4, but with
articulation only.
John Schofield said so moved.
Ann Bishop said so seconded.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0,
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 Towns 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
Tom Weber made a motion to table items #6 and #7 until January 25, 1999.
Brian Doyon seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
8. Information Update
Dominic Mauriello reminded the PEC of the joint Council worksession tomorrow.
9. Approval of December 28, 1998 minutes.
Ann Bishop made a motion to approve the minutes as read.
Galen Aasland seconded the motion.
c
_ 11
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
January 11, 1999
The motion passed by a vote of 5-0-1 with Brian Doyon abstaining.
John Schofield made a motion to officially cancel the 2/8/99 PEC meeting due to the
Championships.
Ann Bishop seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
Galen Aasland made a motion to recommend to Council Town Council remove a PEC
representative on DRB.
Ann Bishop seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-2, with John and Greg opposed.
John Schofield made a motion to adjourn.
Brian Doyon seconded the motion.
The meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m.
12
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
January 11, 1999
1
M11
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road Municipal Court
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2129 January 20, 1999
Fax 970-479-2248
Mayor Rob Ford and the Vail Town Council
RE: Municipal Judge's Evaluation
Mayor Ford and Council Members:
I look forward to my evaluation meeting with you as I
start my twenty-first year as the Vail Municipal Judge. I feel
lucky to be able to follow my professional pursuits while
working with quality people at the Town of Vail. As we have
discussed at prior evaluations, the balance between being an
employee while maintaining judicial independence makes the
evaluation process unique for all involved. The opportunity to
get your perspective and to hear your observations is
appreciated.
Because most of you are not in my Court and don't see my
work product, a personal evaluation is challenging. The
appeal process for my work goes to the Eagle District Court
which is outside of the Town of Vail Government and the ethical
and procedural standards I follow are set at the state and
federal level, thus making my evaluation somewhat unique.
With that background, I have worked to develop and
maintain a sound working relationship with Bob McLaurin and Tom
Moorhead. I have developed strong functioning connections with
other department heads. I appreciate my solid working
relationship with you, the town council and I enjoy keeping
abreast of the issues facing the community. While I hesitate
to speak at public meetings, I am comfortable sharing my
thoughts on matters with you in an informal setting.
My primary responsibility is to conduct the Municipal
Court in a manner to insure the effective administration of
justice while safeguarding the rights of Defendants, Victims
and the People. There is also a desire to achieve these goals
in a comfortable and congenial environment where individuals
are respected. My goal is to address the needs of both the
individual and community while upholding our constitutional
standards and judicial ethics. In doing so, the public's
confidence in the Municipal Court is maintained and enhanced.
My appointment this year as the Breckenridge Municipal Judge
indicates that I am meeting that goal. Incidently, that
position rounds out my weekly schedule and provides me with a
wider perspective on ski area issues.
RECYCLEDPAPER
I appreciate your input and observations on the operation
of the court and my performance. I will be happy to answer any
of your questions. Following the evaluation process I believe
a regular compensation review is appropriate.
In closing, I thoroughly enjoy working for you and the
Town of Vail. Looking back, the job interview on January .2nd,
1979, certainly had an impact on my life. I feel very
fortunate to have been able to contribute to this community
over the last two decades. I look forward to continuing our
.association for many more years.
Yours truly,,
&J l%&'-
Buck Allen
t
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX 970-479-2157
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 22, 1999
Contact: Andy Knudtsen, 479-2440
Project Manager
TOV READY TO RESERECT HOUSING PLANS FOR WEST VAIL "A-FRAME" SITE
(Vail)-The Town of Vail is resurrecting plans to add to its affordable housing inventory
with a teardown-rebuild project on a parcel known as the "A-frame" site on Arosa Drive
in West Vail. Although the project has been on the Town of Vail's work program since
1997, it had been back burnered due to the town's inability to find a willing development
partner.
But now, an opportunity exists to redevelop the property using the same development
team who'll be working on the town's 6-unit housing and park development at Arosa-
Garmisch. "While it's nearly impossible to achieve an economy of scale with a small site
like the A-frame, it is much more feasible if we combine it with the West Vail site," said
Andy Knudtsen, the town's housing consultant. "Our goal is to link the two sites together
with the same development team and progress on both sites at the same time."
The A-frame property was acquired by the town in 1996 as part of the Trappers Run
acquisition. It is zoned primary/secondary and contains a four-bedroom A-frame home
that has been used to house Town of Vail seasonal employees. Because the 20-year-
old home has fallen into disrepair through the years, town studies show it would be more
cost effective to tear the structure down and rebuild rather than renovate the existing
home, Knudtsen said.
(more)
RECYCLEDPAPER
3
•
Add 1 /A-frame site
Last March, the Vail Town Council accepted a design-build proposal to partner with the
local chapter of Habitat for Humanity to redevelop the site. Habitat's proposal had
included construction of two units'with the potential for the addition of a smaller
caretaker unit added to the site. However, the proposal was withdrawn by Habitat two
months later, as there were concerns within the organization about Habitat's. ability to
successfully complete the partnership. Since then, Knudtsen says the town has been
looking for a willing partner. "We think the Arosa-Garmisch development team will be
able to easily include this site in the construction process and will be able to achieve a
better economy of scale, particularly for the A-frame site," Knudtsen said. The team will
include a developer, architect and general contractor.
Before presenting the project to the Vail Town Council for approval, Knudtsen says the
first step will be to meet with the adjacent property owners to review preliminary site
plans and architectural concepts. He says the Council has expressed interest in
building two or three units on the site; either a duplex, or a duplex with a caretaker unit.
All units will be deed-restricted. The addition of a caretaker unit would require a
conditional use approval from the town.
Following the neighborhood discussion, the schedule will include a review by the Town
Council in mid-February; reviews by the Planning and Environmental Commission, if
needed, in March; reviews by the Design Review Board in April; final consideration by
the Town Council in May; and ground breaking in June.
In addition to the town's A-frame project and the 6-unit for-sale Arosa-Garmisch
housing development, construction is currently underway on an 18-unit for-sale housing
development at Red Sandstone, a partnership between the town and the Eagle River
Water and Sanitation District.
(more)
Add 2/A-frame
Currently, there are 399 deed-restricted affordable housing units within the town's
boundaries; most are in private ownership.
For more information, contact Kundtsen at 479-2440, or Nina Timm in the Community
Development Department at 479-2144.
r
TOWN OF VAIL MEMORANDUM
TO: Robert McLaurin
Council Members
FROM: Judy Popeck
I IQ
DATE: January 13, 1999
RE: Investment Report
Enclosed is the investment report with balances as of December 31,
1998.
The estimated average yield for the capital projects fund was 4.720
and 5.752% for the pooled cash fund. Currently the yield curve
for 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year are 4.440, 4.430, and 4.280
respectively.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Town of Vail, Colorado
Investment Report
Summary of Accounts and Investments
For the Month Ending 12/31/98
Balances Percentage
.12/31/98 of Total
Money Market Accounts (see page 3)
Commercial Banks $2,588,809 23.15%
Colorado Investment Pools $6,074,743 54.33%
Money Market Funds $221,477 1.98%
Total $8,885,029_._ 79.46%.
Commercial Savings
Banks & Loans
Certificates of Deposit (see page 4)
Eagle County Institutions $1,099,000 $1,099,000 9.83%
Total $1,099,000. $1,099,000 9.83%
Percentage of Portfolio in Savings & Loans 0.00%
U.S. Government Securities (see page 5)
ARM'S & SBA'S $1,196,933 10.71%
Total __$1,196,933_ ____10.71%_
Total Portfolio $11,180,962 100.00%
Maturing Within 12 Months $8,984,029 80.35%
Maturing Within 24 Months $1,105,875 9.89%
Maturing After 24 Months $1,091,058 9.76%
.$11,180,962. 100.00%_
12/31/98 Page 2
DEC98.WK4
Money Market Accounts
as of 12/31/98
--For the Month of Dec-98
Institution Balances
Type of Accounts High___ Low Average_ .12/31/98
COMMERCIAL BANK ACCOUNTS
First Bank of Vail - Operating
Interest 4.740% 4.040% 4.040%
$3,276,351__$2,392,881_-.$2,828,5.6__2_ _
Balance $2,587,794
US Bank Super Now Account
Interest 2.850%
General Operating Account
Balance $1,015
Total Commercial Bank Accounts $2,588,809
LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOLS
Colotrust General Fund
Interest 4.690%
Balance $6,074,743
Total Local Government Investment Pools Accounts $6,074,743
MONEY MARKET FUNDS
Bank One Money Market Fund - Dana Investments
Interest 4.370%
Balance $143,947
Fidelity Investment Government Money Market Accounts
Interest 4.720%
Bond Issue Reserve Account
Balance $77,530
Total Money Market Funds $221,477
Total all accounts $8,885,029
12/31/98 Page 3
DEC98.WK4
•
Certificates of Deposit
as of
12/31/98
Bank Name, Location Days to
Rates Purchase Maturity Maturity Maturity
Ins Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Value
Weststar Bank, Vail Colorado
FDIC 5.900% 5.900% 28-Jan-98 28-Jan-2000 730 $1,000,000
Firstbank of Vail, Vail Colorado
FDIC 5.900% 5.900% 26-Jun-98 25-Jun-99 364 $99,000
Avg Yield 5.917% _,$1.,099,000.
12/31/98 Page 4
DEC98.WK4
t
4
Government Securities
as of 12/31/98
-Federal Agency Discount Notes & Bonds"'
Days/Years
Interest Rate f Purchase Maturity to Maturity Book Original
Agency Fund. _Coupon Yield_ Date Date at Purchase Value Cost_
FNMA Pooled - Dana 9.050% 11-Jun-98 10-Apr-2000 1.8 $105,281 $105,875
SBA Pooled - Dana 9.475% 29-Jun-94 25-Feb-2008 13.7 $27,861 $82,749
SBA Pooled - Dana 8.975% 26-May-94 25-Mar-2008 13.8 $53,252 $109,734
SBA Pooled - Dana 9.475% 18-Aug-94 25-Jul-2008 13.9 $34,031 $109,875
SBA Pooled- Dana 9.020% 18-Aug-98 25-Feb-2011 12.5 $92,680 $94,503
SBA Pooled - Dana 8.125% 31-Oct-96 25-Jan-2013 16.2 $24,851 $65,558.
SBA Pooled - Dana 8.725% 29-Jun-94 25-Jun-2019 25.0 $66,245 $108,523
SBA Pooled - Dana 8.975% 12-Jul-94 25-Jun-2019 25.0 $26,063 $108,744
SBA Pooled - Dana 8.725% 08-May-95 25-Dec-2019 24.6 $83,553 $99,391
GNMA Pooled - Dana 6.625% 12-Aug-97 20-Sep-2025 28.1 $47,768 $76,141
GNMA Pooled -Dana 7.000% 24-Nov-97 20-Oct-2025 27.9 $50,290 $83,701
GNMA Pooled - Dana 6.875% 27-Apr-98 20-Jan-2026 27.8 $45,216 $76,509
FNMA Pooled - Dana 7.309% 21-Nov-96 01-Jan-2021 24.1 $77,246 $91,486
FNMA Pooled - Dana 7.534% 30-Oct-98 01-Apr-2024 25.4 $83,924 $97,048
FNMA Pooled - Dana 6.753% 01-Jul-96 01-May-2026 29.9 $34,448 $55,304
FNMA Pooled - Dana 7.750% 24-Jun-96 01-Jun-2026 30.0 $5,290 $71,318
FNMA Pooled - Dana 7.336% 27-May-94 01-May-2020 25.9 $59,851 $100,577
FHLMC Pooled Dana 8.175% 23-Jun-98 01-Aug-2025 27.1 $65,097 $79,539
FHLMC Pooled - Dana 7.490% 28-Mar-96 01-Mar-2026 29.9 $6,063 $9,323
FHLMC Pooled - Dana 8.573% 28-Aug-94 01-Aug-2018 23.9 $48,962 $74,245
FHLMC Pooled - Dana 8.432% 28-Jun-94 01-Mar-2019 24.7 $30,636 $66,355
FHLMC Pooled - Dana 6.475% 22-May-96 01-Feb-2036 39.7 $28,405 $60,461
NAVOT Pooled - Dana 6.7506/. 06-Apr-98 15-Mar-2002 3.9 $99,920 $101,519
Average Yield 6.62% ___$1,196,933 $1,822,603_
Total __$1,196,933.
12/31/98 Page 5
DEC98.WK4
To: Vail Town Council
Company:
Fax number: +1 (970) 479-2157
Business phone:
I
From: eileen
Fax number: +1 (970) 479-1132
Business phone:
Home phone:
Date & Time: 1/21/99 10:12:47 PM
Pages: 2
Re: Environmental Propaganda
Distribution:
Again I've made you aware that to intentionally misrepresent Vail as environmental to the world
will display your low quality and character, however you still have a change to redeem
yourselves. You can still agree to commit to serious environmental actions, say ask Al Gore to
introduce a film and ask as shown in the Vail Daily new dad Richard Dean Anderson to host an
environmental educational film to be delivered to every school in the country with Vail before and
after it, teaching students how and why to be responsible in your daily lives. Then we could
begin an association with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, etc. you know, everything
you have refused to commit to and do to date. Of course you have made me expect nothing from
you in terms of environmental leadership, except intentional false misrepresentation that you are
environmentally proactive and responsible. But then again that is coming from some of the most
environmentally ignorant people I know of. However that could change too, but it seems as
community leaders, really community dictators, you are uninterested, however the most serious
side of that is most of you are parents also, and I find parents are the most non-willing to be
responsible to their childrens future, because after all ignorance is bliss isn't it.
Again I am asking that you either committ to serious, progressive and responsible environmental
actions or shut up about it. Starting could be very easy. Again I am asking you to support a film
to be distributed to every school in the U.S., etc. I know uou have the ability to do it, of
course, censored from public knowledge, you just can't be concerned or responsible, not
even to those you have brought into the world.
Unless there is swift change in your direction, you are the lowest quality individuals I have
ever come across in my life.
Eileen Connors
I
H CENSORED IN VAIL NEWS
VA e;tvXCSlssrs;;cs. "I' i;;sc wz`rL rz:AN sfx!_•= is fs ?~tizr in a;sy sscsry: And 'his zlsarly lY:)sss'f 11~91tii{r!." I'urflu•r.
.It's ^ne fici;;g Er! riY{• info. hr:;ia;c it i csE :ir!tt. 3's!::'Vr; gctt to £;{;c ci 4; fxrs}>erli~c." f t;s:• s:ini:; lifne Andy
C. '1L. :SS'£ielCJ #fS°•' t2'{ ':;;;;.'<1L :•y•r• , JCS{!!;' rCtiCzir{ItL'{I and x;;
.:lzrte{•~f ;tia•{•srttiL;2:;t; {!f:zta ;ssc;c...".
j "To withhold :;z!wp is £n p$us I-o::." T -.e VniB Daily in in pzf;,,r F>:: , rdv cr£isim;k ;is.
While printing the above quotes for years, Vails distributors of news have withheld information from the public they have been
presented and know to be true, and instead they present the in isolation press releases they know aren't balanced. There are many areas
where both these statements are misleading, but this edition will discuss that the Vail Daily printed the above VA quote after refusing
for some time to present VA's true environmental position. The important not presented information is what VA won't do
environmentally, because what VA won't do is much more important than what they will do, and is the balance of their presentation.
The Vail Daily's Position on Their Censorship
On Oct. 29 I asked Matt Fults editor of the Vail Daily for his position to ensure he is accurately represented, but Matt did not return my
call. I talked to Bob Brown the VD publisher. He greeted me nice, but then I said Bob you printed VA's above quote while you for
some time had refused to print the balance to VA's in isolation press releases. Since you printed it and advertise yourself as someone
who would not withhold news as you are withholding news, I'm looking for your position to accurately represent you in the Censored
in Vail News. Suddenly there was no connection between me and Bob. I called back and asked Mary the receptionist to ensure that
Bob hung up and not that he accidently lost me when he tried to switch from the speaker phone to a hand phone. Mary asked Bob and
confirmed Bob hung up, and I told Mary to tell Bob that is his official position on his withholding the news, because what VA won't
do is much more important than the very low level actions VA will do, and the Vail Daily helps misrepresent as grand.
The Daily Trail's Position On Censorship
David Williams editor of theDaily Trail said he is not for censorship. I told David I know he's a new editor but his publisher has also
refused for years to print what VA don't do environmentally, while proclaiming VA great with the very low level actions VA does do.
David said to call hum back the next day, but I really figured if Dave had something to say he'd call, because I'm tired of dealing with
editors who refuse to provide you information so you can make intelligent decisions.
Highlights of What Vail Refuses To Do Environmenta y, What You C'an't Know
Category 3
I have the most valid to 1998 Category 3 argument, yet the only time the press has mentioned it is when I paid to have it printed, and
quite honestly with the censorship that goes on in this town, I'm quite surprised they did. Category 3 is based on deforestation and the
increased use of fossil fuel generated energy. It is everything the environmental experts recommend against and it is a grand slam home
run of greenhouse gas emissions. Since the political powers here have ensured you remain environmentally illiterate, you do not
understand the implications of this, and neither do our leaders who have refused to educate themselves so they can make an intelligent
environmental decision. Through my self study knowledge I guarantee this proposal is environmentally irresponsible and I have asked
if our political leaders here do not believe me, to have experts verify my concerns. This was also not only rejected as an option, I
believe it was not even considered. But that didn't stop Andy Daly from guaranteeing you that, 'through careful research and planning
we (VA) have mitigated and minimized the environmental impacts of the proposal', yet to the best of my knowledge Andy has refused
to have my concerns researched, never mind minimize and mitigate. To the best of my self study knowledge, I believe to minimize and
mitigate VA would be planting thousands of acres of trees, or VA would be increasing the volume of and/or making colder the oceans,
or VA knows another way(s) and is acting on them, but I don't believe that is the case, and VA refuses to respond.
Vail 99,
VA, the Vail Valley Foundation (VVF) and the Town of Vail (TOV) are proceding with plans to represent Vail as environmentally
proactive and responsible and for environmental education. Although these organizations have participated in some very low level
environmental actions and educational programs, these programs are nothing to proclaim yourself great for doing. More importantly,
what these organizations won't do, unknown to you, is much more important than what they will do. What VA, the TOV, the VVF and
the press intentionally failed to mention was our leaders refused to go to Rio and win the 99 WASC with an environmental marketing
proposal. The following are highlights of what VA, the TOV and the VVF refused to commit themselves to, what I believe is the
balance of their in isolation press releases and press distribution.
o The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is located in Golden, CO, 2 hours east of Vail. For years VA has refused to
begin an association with the NREL which is supported by tax dollars. Chris Ryman, then Sr. Vice President of Mountain Operations
for VA gave me a ski pass in part to begin this association, but since Chris offered me the deal, he has refused to talk to me and to live
up to the aggrement he offered me. I took Chris to court where Terri Diem instructed me, Chris lived up to the agreement because he
gave me the pass, and this is what big companies do. Chris and every other VA person has refused this action, as has the TOV, but you
- i-
1
t
~ L
can't know that. I guess this information would be irrelevant in helping someone determine Vail's true level of environmental interests,
actions, and responsibility. The press has known this for years yet has refused to make the public aware of this while proclaiming to
withhold the news is to play god. The VVF is well aware of this refusal and was also responsible for rejecting a 99 WASC
environmental marketing proposal, but plans on going before the world at Vail 99 proclaiming Vails environmental greatness.
The NREL told me they would love to work with Vail as they work with many big companies/organizations. This was about 4-5 years
ago, and in that time everything that could have been accomplished hasn't been. The environmentally ignorant Chris Ryman believes
d as he instructed me the first time we discussed this, it would be impossible to get our lifts operating from solar energy, but since Chris
has refused himself an environmental education he does not know every 15 minutes the sun delivers to the earth the amount of energy
i we produce world wide yearly. Ford is now advertising they run plants off renewable energy, but VA refuses to invest time into the
encouragement of responsible energy sources, so we have no results. VA's position on this is silence. I provided Chris Ryman now
with George Gillette the opportunity to represent his position on waving a carrot in my face, and then refusing to live up the agreement
he offered me, and gave me a complimentary ski pass at your expense for, but Chris does not respond.
o Provide environmental education so that you can understand the consequences of your daily actions, and gain an appreciation as
opposed to your current expectation for many irresponsible actions and products you do and use every day. VA and the TOV have
supported low level environmental educational programs like Ske-cology and the Gore Range Natural Science Center, but these
programs teach what I learned as a kid under the title nature. They do not contain material that is reflective of why the word
environmental is used so much today. The second half of the reason Chris Ryman gave me a free ski pass was for a topic a week daily
t environmental educational column designed for the comics page, because everyone who opens a paper opens to the comics page.
Chris refused to use the material. I've paid the Vail Daily to have this printed, but they refuse stating no reason and I can't believe it is
lack of quality, because syndications complimented it for years before deciding there was no market for it. Vail could help provide the
market, but instead as the Vail Daily advertises, 'Always remember to care for the earth well. It was not left to you by your parents, it
was loaned to you by your. children', the Vail Daily won't educate you on how to take care of the earth.
o The second environmental education program VA, the TOV and the VVF have refused to sponsor is a film that would be delivered
to every school in the U.S. that would on a high level teach students how to be responsible to the environment in their daily actions.
This film could have been produced and distributed years ago, but VA, the TOV and the VVF refuse to be this responsible, and even
the environmentally misrepresented Al Gore refuses to ensure the environmentally illiterate U.S. becomes literate and makes easy
responsible changes in their daily actions. Instead through illiteracy, we remain the most environmentally destructive nation on earth.
For some time now I have referred to top level VA, TOV, and VVF as environmentally ignorant because when you deny yourself an
education is when you downgrade your level of non knowledge, and your decision making abilities. This valley and this nation remain
environmentally illiterate because you are censored an education. I have offered these organizations the opportunity to represent their
positions on these refused actions, but the only answer VA, the TOV, and the VVF ever have regarding their position on these issues
is silence, and looks of complete irritation that I mention it, because no one is suspose to know.
o VA and the TOV refuse to build environmentally responsible structures using the latest technologies. The NREL is developing many
of these technologies, but we refuse to associate ourselves with responsible environmental progress.
o VA has refused to convert their restaurant operations from the environmentally irresponsible disposable to the responsible reusable.
Environmental experts state disposable products are what is strangling the planet, and had you been presented an environmental
education you'd know what is wrong with these products. When VA, the TOV and the VVF use disposable products while
simultaneously stating they do right for the environment, you don't understand using them is not good. That is the biggest problem
with the ignorant ensuring the rest of you remain illiterate, because as they continue to represent themselves as proactive and
responsible, they continue with irresponsible and destructive actions, you don't know the difference, so you think what they do is
responsible because they told you it was. VA has illogical excuses, which I have countered, so the bottom line appears ignorance is
not a responsible leader, that VA could care less, or Leon and friends have stock in disposable products.
This is the highlights of what Vail, the TOV, VA, and the VVF refused to commit to and use as a marketing proposal for the 99
WASC. Now they have bought into actions so minimal they were the bottom of my proposal for the 99 WASC, and these actions
would of been accomplished years ago. Instead your leaders and the press for years now have refused to provide you this information
so you could decide where Vail leaders stands environmentally. If you'd like to see Vail encourage responsible energy sources, do real
environmentally responsible actions, provide a reflective of 1998 environmental education, and have responsible news presented to
you, call the sources of non action and out of balance press releases VA 476-5601, Andy Daly 845-2510, Adam Aron 845-2326, VVF
949-1999, TOV 479-2100 and the Vail Daily 949-0555.
Eileen Connors
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
December 14, 1998
Dear Sir/Madam,
The attached article on public art and mitigating the adverse effects of
freeways appeared in a professional journal earlier this year. It is based on a
particular freeway in Phoenix, Arizona - the Squaw Peak Freeway.
We are sending the article both for information and also for any comments
that you may have. If this is the case please send your remarks to the address
below, or, alternatively, call Dr. David Pijawka (602) 965 8738; or John Blair
(602) 965 2903.
Thank you,
David K. Pijawka
John M. Blair
MAIN CAMPUS ,
COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
School of Planning and Landscape Architecture
PO Box 872005. Tr,.MPI:. AZ 85287-2005
(602) 965-7167 FAX: (602) 965-9656
t
Freeways often bring adverse visual
and environmental consequences. This
study reports on two surveys of resi-
dents who were asked for their views •
on using public art as a component of public Art 1 n
a freeway mitigation program. The re-
sults suggest that the public strongly
supports public arts programs, but is • • •
ambivalent about their use for freeway
mitigation. Four factors contributed to
Mitigation
a general disapproval of the freeway
public art program: the costs of the •
art, perceptions ofa low level of public Planning
involvement in selecting the art, lack of a regional art theme, and inappropri-
ate placement of the art. Although The Experience of the Squaw
public art's potential to raise contro-
versy is familiar, emphasizing its use as
a freeway mitigation tool when other Peak Parkway in Phoenix
adverse freeway effects have not been
fully addressed can make matters
worse and even jeopardize the mitiga- ;
tion program as a whole. The paper john M. Blair, K. David Pijawka, and Frederick Steiner
considers the role of public art in plan-
ning and how planners may reconcile
the conflicting objectives of the artist,
the public, and local government.
Blair is a research associate in the n the last fifteen years, public art has received substantial attention,
School of Planning and Landscape Ar- much of it in the form of controversies about art themes and subject
chitecture, Arizona State University, matter, the financial resources required to carry out public arts pro-
where he was Faculty Associate of Ur-
ban Planning. His interests include grams, and their acceptance by the public (Dubin 1985; Balfe and Wys-
environmental management and its re- zomirski 1986; Lennard 1987; Korza 1988; Burton 1989; Lary 1996; and
lationship to land use planning. He Novitz 1996). Although public art as an element of mitigation programs
has published articles on sustainable for urban development has generally been little recognized, art and aes-
agriculture in the Southwest, urban
traffic noise and its mitigation, and en- thetics have received considerable attention in the City of Phoenix.
vironmental effects on property val- Through its programs for public art and mitigation of freeway effects,
ues. Pijawka is a professor in the the city has attempted to integrate art into infrastructure development,
School of Planning and Landscape Ar- particularly freeway projects, with some success. To reduce the visual ef-
chitecuire, and Center Professor, Cen-
ter of Environmental Studies, Arizona fects of the Squaw Peak Parkway, and to enhance adversely affected neigh-
State University. His interests are en- borhoods, Phoenix aggressively expanded its freeway mitigation program,
vironmencal planning, sustainable which used public art and landscape design along with other mitigation
development, and social/behavioral strategies.
aspects of planning. He is a co-author
of ne Environment Comes Home, on sus- The parkway and the art mitigation program became the focus of
tainable building design, and One Hun- intense public controversy in the early-to-mid-1990s. Evaluations of the
dred Centuries of Solitude: Redirecting public art program for this urban freeway have been inconsistent (Porter
America's High Level Nuclear Waste Polity
(Westview Press, 1996). Steiner is a 1992; Kroloff 1995; and Dunbar and Whitehurst undated), partly because
professor and Director of the School of a lack of empirical data on how people reacted to the art and to its use
of Planning and Landscape Architec- as a freeway mitigation tool. To seek such data, two surveys of Phoenix
cure at Arzona State University. He
residents were conducted after the construction of the Squaw Peak Park-
the co-editor ditor of the recently published
Ecological Design and Planning (John Wi- way and the installation of public artwork. The studies, done about three
ley, 1997). and one-half years apart, used public perceptions to assess the use of pub-
Journal of the art in freeway mitigation.
64, can No. 2, Planning Spring The first survey was of City of Phoenix residents. Although the re-
Association, Lionion, Vol. American
1998. 1998. °American Planning spondents strongly supported public art in principle, the response to us-
Association, Chicago, lL. ing art for impact mitigation was much less enthusiastic. These findings
APAJOURNAL- SPRING 1998 221
t'
JOHN M. BLAIR, K. DAVID PIJAWKA, AND FREDERICK STEINER
were confirmed in a second survey, of residents in Places program (now dwindling and perhaps disap-
four neighborhoods adjoining the Squaw Peak Park- pearing) (Balfe and Wyszomirski 1986).
way. Promoting aesthetics while other important In the United States today, however, art is largely
mitigation measures for traffic management and uncoupled from culture. Many artists view themselves
neighborhood protection have either been ignored or as the vanguard of the counterculture, while main-
not implemented, or been unsuccessful may have pro- stream Americans are suspicious of art themes that are
duced negative views of the Squaw Peak public art. not readily apparent, and of art used in the service of
Moreover, when mainstream contemporary art is a political ideology (Balfe and Wyszomirski 1986).
given a public use, enhanced community scrutiny and Public art programs have attempted to bridge the gap
involvement are expected. That did not occur in the between vanguard art and the general public. In the
Squaw Peak use of art as mitigation, which may have 1970s and 1980s, despite numerous successes with
amplified resident hostility. Since it is not only the government-sponsored public art projects like the Art-
product, but also the process that is important, a key in-Public-Places program, some art projects aroused
element of using public art successfully in mitigation vigorous debate about artists' freedom of expression
planning must be the extent and the effectiveness of and the public's role in selecting public art; Richard
public involvement in its design and selection. This Serra's Tilted Arc is a notable example. The construc-
approach expands the planning team's public involve- tion of Maya Lin's Vietnam Veterans Memorial stimu-
ment functions into areas not traditionally empha- lated interest in public art as memorials, especially to
sized by urban planners, and it helps to ensure that memorialize historical injustices to particular social or
multidisciplinary project planning coordinates the to- ethnic groups. Sugiyama (1996) has recently observed
tality of landscape design with other issues. the iinportance of ethnic public art and memorials in
Pl the redevelopment and "place-making" of the Little
Planning and Public Art Tokyo section of Los Angeles. The World War II me-
The protection of the "public welfare" is a princi- morial now being developed in Washington, DC sug-
pal rationale for planning in the United States. gests that even commemorative art may not be free
Throughout history, art has been integral to culture of controversy.
and thus to the welfare of societies. Public art was an
essential element of the early planning profession in Percent for the Arts in Phoenix
the United States. Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. and his The City of Phoenix began its percent-for-the-arts
progeny regularly collaborated with artists. Olmsted's program in 1986. It was the last major city to form an
team produced the World's Columbian Exposition of arts agency (1985) and "came late into the national
1893, which led to the City Beautiful Movement. dialogue about public art" (Whitehurst 1992, 8). By
From Philadelphia to Cleveland to San Francisco, pub- the time Phoenix acted, other major cities that had
lic art and, frequently, art museums were customarily had percent-for-the-arts programs in place for several
part of City Beautiful plans. The public arts also years included Philadelphia (1959), Seattle (1973); Sac-
played an important role in New Deal planning, nota- ramento (1979), and Portland (1980). Phoenix officials
bly through the Works Progress Administration's Fed- learned quickly from these cities, especially Seattle,
eral Art Project. and in 1988 produced a widely heralded plan. See, for
As with many other aspects of American culture, example, Muschamp (1993) and McGuire (1993). The
the 1960s brought a renewed interest in public arts, director of the Phoenix Arts Commission, Deborah
first with the creation of the National Endowment of Whitehurst, 'conceived public art as a tool of urban
the Arts in 1965 and subsequently with the state arts planning"-(Muschamp 1993, 30). The city's plan was
agencies (Harris 1979). Federal and state support developed by William Moorish, Catherine Brown, and .
brought into being many community arts councils Grover Mouton in collaboration with citizens, civic
and municipal arts agencies. Requirements that one leaders, and public agencies (Moorish and Brown
percent of the capital investment be spent on art be- 1988).
came a feature of many cities' programs; that is, one Instead of focusing on simple projects to enhance
percent of the total construction cost of a public proj- public spaces, the Moorish-Brown-Mouton plan for
ect is required to be devoted to a public arts project Phoenix sought to integrate the arts program into the
(Harris 1979). Although commonly called the "one planning, funding, and design of capital improve-
percent for art" law, the actual percentage varies from ments. The goal was nothing less than to create a new
city to city, from 0.5 to 2 percent (Harris 1979). Locally identity for Phoenix through its infrastructure (Jen-
generated resources can be matched by funding from sen 1996; Kroloff 1996; and Steiner 1996). The former
the National Endowment for the Arts, Art-in-Public- public works director for the city urged this idea: "We
222 APA JOURNAL • SPRING 1998
PUBLIC ART IN MITIGATION PLANNING
need a new vision for the way we design, build and borhood quality, and loss of property values (Niven
operate our infrastructure.... We must begin to invest 1992). The city's mitigation plans for the Squaw Peak
in what I call`The New Infrastructure'-multipurpose, freeway included home, buyouts, redesign of inter-
citizen friendly and education-oriented facilities that changes, extension of noise walls, landscape design,
meet a range of community needs, rather than just and placing artifacts and sculptures, mostly on the res-
provide a basic service. These projects will be the prod- idential side of the noise walls; some sculptures were
ucts of multi-disciplinary teams operating in an open in the shape of vessels placed on the freeway walls. It
environment with extensive citizen input" (Jensen was this artwork that became the focus of public con-
1996, 58=9). troversy (Lebow 1996).
The plan provided "a flexible way of seeing the city
whole" (Lebow 1996, 54). Moorish and his colleagues Enhancing Freeway Aesthetics: From Mitigation
identified fifteen "working zones" as priority areas to Controversy
where the city could obtain the best results for its pub- In 1985, when the City of Phoenix approved $18
lic arts money. The zones included both city services million in overall funding for freeway mitigation pro-
and infrastructure systems. Many projects resulted, grams, approximately $6 million was allocated to the
using teams of artists, landscape architects, and engi- Squaw Peak Parkway, of which $858,000 was for land-
neers. Citizens and public officials, including members scape enhancement, public art, and other neighbor-
of the Phoenix Planning Department staff, collabo- hood projects (Niven 1992). The project, initially
rated in the creation of public art. The range of proj- called the Squaw Peak Public Art and Landscape
ects enhanced include: a solid waste management Enhancement Project, became officially known as Wall
facility, a freeway overpass, street improvements, park Cycle to. Ocotillo, referring to the art works installed in
and recreation facilities, canal projects, transit centers, 1991-1992. The artwork alone accounted for $474,000.
and more. (Stodola 1992). Generally, the ambitious The project's goals were to improve the compatibility
Phoenix arts program was very well received by resi- of the freeway with adjoining neighborhoods, and to
dents. However, controversy did erupt over art used in strengthen the sense of place and visual identity for
a freeway mitigation program in central Phoenix. the affected communities (City of Phoenix 1991).
A related purpose of Wall Cycle to Ocotillo explicitly
Background of the Freeway Mitigation Program stated by the artists was to link the neighborhoods
In 1983, the Phoenix City Council decided to con- severed by the new freeway through a theme in the
struct a six-lane, controlled-access freeway through a
publi
art. The theme chosen was vessels, which are
c' art. The theme chosen was vessels, which are
major residential area in Phoenix. Known as the universal forms in domestic life in manv different cul-
Squaw Peak Parkway, the road runs from Shea Street tures and historical periods. The vessel has special
in north Phoenix, south to Interstate Highway I-10 meaning in the American Southwest as a container of
(map 1). The Squaw Peak corridor was identified for a water and of useful planting environments in the arid
freeway as early as 1960, but design and planning were climate. The artists saw the vessels as providing a uni-
not started until the 1980s (Niven 1992). Although fying image to link residents who had originated in
the Squaw Peak Parkway was designed and built by different pasts of the world to the local sense of place.
the City of Phoenix, it is part of a larger regional trans- They also intended the vessels to .help bridge the -dif-
portation plan prepared by the Arizona Department ference in scale between the neighborhoods' domestic
of Transportation. (The city views the Squaw Peak as world and the monumentality of the freeway. Finally,
a "parkway," the state as a "freeway.") In 1985, county placing some pots atop the walls and allowing others
voters approved a sales tax increase to fund the ex- just to peep above them was intended to help the two
panded regional freeway system (Niven 1992). disjoined neighborhoods sense a psychological conti-
The City recognized that superimposing a freeway nuity. To the artists, the road, the wall, and the vessel
on residential neighborhoods could have significant sculptures paradoxically might connect as well as di-
adverse effects. To minimize them, Phoenix approved vide the communities (Harries and Heder 1991).
specific mitigation plans in 1988. Obtaining citizen According to Dunbar and Whitehurst (undated),
involvement was viewed as important; the plans in- the public art of the freeway mitigation project was
cluded a broad-based effort to solicit the concerns of needed to soften the severe visual unpleasantness of a
affecred residents and inform them about the freeway freeway close to a neighborhood of homes.
plans. Responses to a 1989 City of Phoenix survey of
corridor residents did reveal serious concerns about The Squaw Peak project required the artist
the proposed freeway, including increased through team-which included urban planners, landscape
traffic, noise, dust, aesthetic impacts, decline in neigh- architects, and engineers-to fix problems in
APA JOURNAL- SPRING 1998 223
JOHN M. BLAIR, K. DAVID PIJAWKA, AND FREDERICK STEINER 1 ,
1 1
I 1
1 1
_ coo ~ I
Squaw Peak
Parkway (SR 51 >
e
I I
i -
N ~
1- 10
Loop 202
Phoenix Central Business District
Location of pots
Distribution of neighborhoods identified for the household survey
Freeways completed
- - - Freeways under construction or proposed
MAP 1. Squaw Peak Parkway (SR 51)
the freeway design. The hard edges, monumental The installation of the artwork was completed in
scale, increased traffic, and noise were among the early 1992. It unleashed a region-wide uproar that not
complaints leveled against the freeway and con- only undermined other Squaw Peak mitigation proj-
tributed to an impression among neighbors adja- ects, but also jeopardized Phoenix's entire public arts
cent to the freeway that the road was ruining the program. In all, 3S individual sculptures were placed
quality of their lives. (2) at 20 locations along the 10 miles of massive concrete
224 APA JOURNAL•SPR.ING 1998
f PUBLIC ART IN MITIGATION PLANNING
ur
i I
=~•"'o-. 'iY ~I'I i i III .
- y _ ~if I ~~II yf.
ILLUSTRATION 2. Freeway mitigation art atop the noise
x wall, visible from both the freeway and the residential
" z neighborhood
4
ILLUSTRATION 1. Freeway mitigation art atop the noise
wall, visible from both the freeway and the residential '
neighborhood A _
a ~
O 2
noise wall, with six atop the wall. The vessels use the
wall in a variety of wavs as shelves or backdrops, or as
seating niches and special environments cut into the
wall (illustrations 1 and 4). By engaging the wall,
which had cut off streets and divided communities,
the artists aimed to make it part of the work of art,
transformed from a looming inert mass into a playful
container of surprises (Harries and Heder 1991).
Some of the vessel sculptures, particularly those
on top of the freeway wall, resembled large coffeepots
or cooking pots (illustrations 2-3); they incurred
public ire and derision. The "Squaw Peak pots" con-
troversy (Lebow 1996), fueled by media criticism, cen-
tered around the art's appropriateness, its theme, its
costs, the degree of public involvement in its selec- ILLUSTRATION 3. Freeway mitigation art atop the noise
Lion-and, fundamentally, whether public art is an ef- wall, visible from both the freeway and the residential
fective wav to minimize the harm done by a freeway. neighborhood
The role of the press in the Squaw Peak pors con-
troversy is noteworthv for its unusually virulent criti-
cism, bordering on ridicule. The depth of bias against
the artwork in the press may have influenced how the
APA JOURNAL • SPRING 1998 225
JOHN M. BLAIR, K. DAVID PIJAWKA, AND FREDERICK STEINER
Among many critics are Plagens (1995), who calls pub-
lic art "plop art"; and Lacy, who suggests that. criticism
is reacting to the propensity of the commissioning in-
° scitution and the artist to "parachute into a place and
JII
displace it with art" (Lacy 1996, 24).
Traditional public art has been created with only
minimal dialogue between the public (the intended
_ audience) and the artist about the artwork's theme,
subject, content, and location. It has been suggested
that though such public art may have been technically
excellent, the underlying philosophy carried a hint of
privilege and wealth (Tuer 1995). Further problems
have often been the remoteness of the artist, as well as
- the fact that highly literate intellectuals have an inch
- nation to evaluate art, and they indulge in linguistic
ILLUSTRATION 4. Freeway mitigation art adjacent to convolutions about art that are an obstacle to commu-
the noise wall; visible only within the residential neighbor- nication (Lacy 1996).
hood. These artworks form the vast majority of the total
art in the freeway condor. New Genre Public Art
At the other end of the scale from traditional pub-
lic arc is new genre public art. This is effectively activist
public responded to it. The media coverage made no art (Phillips 1995), dealing with some of the most pro-
attempt to clarify the issues for the public, nor did it found issues of our time: AIDS, environmental pollu-
provide a forum for public debate on the issues. Balfe rion, and the crises in health care. It uses both
and Wyszomirski (1986) noted, instructively, that the traditional and nontraditional media to interact with
media cannot be counted on to help define policy on a diversified audience about issues seen as directly rele-
public art. vant to their lives. The resulting art forms and the cre-
Several writers have suggested that the contro- ative process are diametrically different from the
versy diverted attention from other elements of the traditional process as well as the traditional forms.
mitigation program and jeopardized its overall suc- The new public art is communitarian in the sense that
cess. Others argued chat the emphasis on the artwork the public are more participants than passive onlook-
limited the discussion to the nature of the artwork it- ers. Artists who work in this way describe it as a trans-
self, rather than the larger issues of freeway miciga- formative experience: it challenges artists to stretch
rion. Kroloff(1995) argued: "The pots have been such their traditional skills and results in works that are
a magnet for criticism, in fact, chat many other facets similarly transformed (Lacy 1996). Many Phoenix pub-
of the design have received inadequate attention. One, lic art projects embrace this concept. In contrast to
of those elements is the landscape architecture." Wall Cycle to Ocotillo, another Squaw Peak project, the
Thomas Road overpass (illustration S), involved the
Public Art: Theory and Practice public in the creation and installation of the work.
The sculptures and ocher arts of the City Beautiful The overpass not only avoided controversy, but is well
Movement and the Works Progress Administration regarded (Steiner 1996).
were figurative and representational, and they were New genre art demands public involvement. In-
very popular with the public. After this zenith, public censive discussions are obligatory; indeed, activist art
art languished until the late 1960s, but it is now en- is impossible without them. The involvement may
joying a resurgence (City of Los Angeles 1996). The even mean participation in the actual making of the
many definitions of public art vary from the simple piece, an ultra-democratic and nontradirional expres-
(Hein 1996) co the complex (Lacy 1996). The cerm gen- sion of community. Even from a less ideological point
erally has been used to describe sculpture and installa- of view, new genre art is sensitized to the potential of
tions in parks, plazas, and corporate open spaces. Such representative democracy. Gee (1995) suggests that if
areas were hailed as splendid opportunities to create people are not involved in the process, they are not
new exhibition space for the art previously available engaged and will dislike the product. Engagement also
only in museums; but they have been handled with reduces the chances of vandalism. From another angle,
lictle concern for the effects of the installations. in implying respect for the community, the public art
226 APA JOURNAL - SPRING 1998
j PUBLIC ART IN MITIGATION PLANNING
publicly funded and in a public place. Although Maya
I '
Lin's Vietnam Veterans Memorial also had met with some
controversy, it survived because it was privately funded
t' even though sired in a public place (Hein 1996). At the
f F `i" ( same time, however, Mava Lin's habit of working with
people led co ultimate success for the project (Kelly
1996). In chat way the Vietnam Veterans Memorial offers
a promising model of how to manage public art and
_ its attendant controversies.
Balfe and Wyszomirski (1986) argue chat privately
funded artwork may be less likely than public projects
f ' to result in public controversy and rejection. Accep-
tance or disapproval of public artwork is explained by
"procedural differences in the type of community
involvement in the art commissioning process" (Balfe
ILLUSTRATION S. Squaw Peak overpass at Thomas and Wyszomirski 1986, 21). Tracing the history of
Road. The artist involved citizens in conceptualizing and in- public arts controversies, the authors note the advan-
stalling the art. tages of removing government from direct involve-
ment in the commissioning process by establishing
process can enhance the residents' self-worth, because "buffer" civic organizations. These organizations
the audience is working for a stake in its local environ- would be "instrumental in synchronizing artistic con-
ment. In such a process, art design is partly an infor- ception.with community ethos and in informing and
mation exchange between community and artist. It educating the public co enhance its understanding and
stimulates transformative currents, as noted above. A appreciation of new ideas and objects" (Balfe and Wys-
particularly useful outcome of such participatory art is zomirski 1986, 21). The authors' recommendations for
its ability to "make places" (City of Los Angeles 1996; avoiding controversies reinforce the findings of both
Sugivama 1996), rather than simply using public City of Phoenix surveys, that it is important for public
spaces. This purpose is in direct contrast to the earlier participation to begin early in a public arts program.
public artwork decried as "plop art," and conforms to
Lennard's (1987) view chat public art's responsibility The Public Perception Surveys
is to enhance the quality of civic life and the sense of in Phoenix
community, and to humanize cities. Perceptions of and responses to the artwork and
Not all art world professionals have embraced the the public arts mitigation program were assessed in
new genre public art. Plagens (1995) considers the Phoenix through two surveys. The first, conducted by
burden it places on mainstream public art as unman- a graduate class in Urban Planning Administration,
ageable. It must be "popular with the general public, questioned City of Phoenix residents, and the second
inoffensive to minorities and alternative points of focused on residential neighborhoods adjacent to the
view, profir-inducing (if connected with" a private de- freeway. The Phoenix-wide survey was conducted in
velopmenc), adminiscration-enhancing (if connected 1993 by telephone, using random digit dialing as the
with a civic one), and, somehow, aesthetically meritori- sampling procedure, and gathered responses from 163
ous. And, it isn't allowed to disturb very much" (Pla- households. Respondents were randomly selected
gens 1995, 65). Similarly, Hein's conclusion (1996) from the city as a whole, so the number of responses
that public art is an oxymoron is perceptive. from residents in neighborhoods near the freeway was
Two public art projects illustrate the possibilities insufficient to draw conclusions at the neighborhood
for dissent. Richard Serra's Tilted Arc is one example. scale. Nor did the results lend themselves to an analy-
Maya Lin's Vietnam Veterans Memorial, in Washington, sis of variation across neighborhoods with respect to
DC, is another. The former generated so much dissent the mitigating effectiveness of the artwork. Thus, us-
over its purported violation of public space that it was ing a city-wide sample population provided data about
removed (Mitchell 1992; Horowitz 1996). Tilted Arc's general perceptions and attitudes, but at the expense
cardinal sin was that it disturbed people, and "if" of responses from a useful level of neighborhoods af-
there's anything the new public art does not wish to fected by the freeway. Moreover, although nearly all
do, it's disturb" (Plagens 1995, 64). The public's cen- respondents had seen the artwork, usually what they
soring role was possible because Serra's sculpture was had seen was the pots on top of the freeway noise
APA JOURNAL • SPRING 1998 227
JOHN M. BLAIR, K. DAVID PIJAWKA, AND FREDERICK STEINER
walls. Many had not seen the more elaborate sculp- TABLE 1. Level of support for public arts in Phoenix,
tures and landscapes on the residential sides of the Arizona
walls, since those are not visible to freeway travelers.
The second survev was designed to overcome the How important is public art to the community?
deficiencies noted above. It consisted of household Neighborhood
interviews conducted in June 1996 in four neighbor- City Survey Survey
hoods bordering the freeway. Most of those inter-
viewed lived within 900 feet of a sculpture, and none Very Important 29.4% 27.7%
was farther than 1200 feet away from one. Each Somewhat Important 37.4 38.3
neighborhood surveyed had representative pieces of Neutral 16.6 14.2
artwork. The average number of residences in a neigh- Somewhat Unimportant 10.4 11.3
borhood was 110. A total of 141 randomly selected Very Unimportant 6.1 8.5
households was attained. Demographically, the neigh- 100.0% 100.0%
borhoods varied, though not strongly. Home owner- N = 163. N = 141.
ship levels were consistently about 50 percent, with *Percentages are rounded.
single-family dwellings dominating. The minority pro-
portions of the population in the areas were low, about
10 percent. Mean household income in 1989 was Findings from the Surveys
$55,000 in two of the neighborhoods and only $29,000 Data from both surveys clearly show a difference
in the other two. In one neighborhood the proportion between support for art in general and support for the
of families below the poverty line was relatively high, 8.1 art used in the freeway mitigation program. Table 1
percent, as opposed to 3 percent in the other three shows that about 68 percent of the sample in the first
areas. Personal observation suggests that this neigh- survey valued public art, and that 66 percent of those
borhood may have changed considerably since 1989. in the second survey, some four years later, did so, de-
Both surveys were designed to assess key percep- scribing it as "somewhat important" or "very impor-
tions and preferences about the aesthetics of public tant" to the community. This finding of a supportive
art, and its role in mitigating freeway effects. Many of attitude for public art is reinforced by 62 percent of
the questions in the two surveys were identical in or- the respondents opposing cuts in the budget of the
der to establish trends. First, it was necessary to mea- Phoenix Arts Commission, despite the controversy
sure the importance that Phoenix residents gave to over the pots. These contextual questions found rela-
public art in general. If they viewed public art as unim- tively strong support for public art in general in Phoe-
portant, then negative perceptions about the use of nix, which remained consistently strong even in the
public art for freeway mitigation could be readily ex- neighborhoods where the Squaw Peak Parkway pots
plained. On the other hand, if freeway art was viewed were located.
negatively but there was support for public art in gen- While public art was supported by the survey re-
eral, the public response to the freeway art was more spondents, support for the Squaw Peak freeway art
likely to be a function of the freeway mitigation pro- was less than enthusiastic. Table 2 shows that only 20
gram, its specific art forms, or factors in the process of percent of the City of Phoenix sample liked the art
selecting the art and its location. ("some" or "a lot") on a five point scale, about 51 per-
The principal dependent variable was a simple cent disliked it, and 21 percent were ambivalent. The
preference measure-the degree to which people liked neighborhood survey responses had an internal tem-
or disliked the art. The other dependent factor was poral measure and showed a slight rise in acceptability
whether people thought that art is a good method of over the time period. Consistently with the 1993 city
mirigating the effects of freeways in neighborhoods. survey, about 23 percent reported that they had liked
To help explain the variation in preferences for the art- the artwork when it was first introduced; 30 percent
work, the survey used several explanatory factors. A liked it at the time of the survey. However, the propor-
critical one was the importance respondents gave to tion disliking it also rose somewhat, a result of fewer
public involvement in selecting the art. Others in- responses in the "ambivalent" category.
cluded the attractiveness of the art form itself, the po- The survey also addressed the more general ques-
sitioning of some of the art, the amount of money tion of the appropriateness of applying public art as
spent, and the suitability of the artwork's themes. an effort to mitigate the adverse effects of freeways in
Lastly, public preferences about freeway mitigation art neighborhoods. A comparison of these responses to
might have been influenced by sociodemographic fac- those to the previous question is interesting. A much
tors: age, gender, income, education, and employment. larger percentage of the respondents supported using
228 APA JOURNAL • SPRING 1998
1 PUBLIC ART IN MITIGATION PLANNING
TABLE 2. Public evaluation of the Squaw Peak public art TABLE 3. Public response to public art in freeway impact
mitigation
How do you feel about the art on the Squaw Peak Parkway?
Neighborhood Survey Arc is a good method of reducing the impact of freeways on
neighborhoods.
City Survey At First Today City Survey Neighborhood Survey
Like it a lot 6.1% 5.7 9.9 Strongly agree 18.4% 8.5%
Like it some 13.5 17.0 19.9 Agree 22.1 32.6
Ambivalent 20.9 13.5 14.9 Ambivalent 14.7 163
Dislike it some 17.8 19.1 18.4 Disagree 17.2 22.7
Dislike it a lot 33.1 37.6 35.5 Strongly disagree 18.4 19.9
No answer 8.6 7.1 1.4 No answer 9.2 -
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
N=163. N=141. N=163. N=141.
public art for freeway mitigation. Table 3 shows that Some explanations can be discerned in the re-
in the City of Phoenix survey, 40.5 percent "agreed" or maining survey data. Table 4 shows the results for the
"strongly agreed" that art is a good method of freeway independent variables examined in the survey. Two
mitigation in general, and 36 percent disagreed. The variables-the cost of the art and the inappropri-
percentages for the neighborhood survey were 41 per- ateness of its theme-account for the largest percent-
cent and 42 percent, respectively. Although only 30 ages of negative responses. One theme in the freeway
percent of the neighborhood respondents liked the artwork-Southwestern Native American culture-was
present freeway art, about 41 percent agreed that art not an obvious theme. The public did not recognize
was useful in reducing the effects of freeways on its presence, and the controversy greatly amplified that
neighborhoods. perception-chat the art did not include a southwest-
There are three indicators in Phoenix that suggest ern concept. Furthermore, the pot sculptures atop the
the likelihood of public support for arts programs to wall were only a small part of the freeway art, yet pub-
mitigate the effects of urban freeways. One is that, his- lic dissent focused on those highly visible objects and
torically, artworks incorporated into freeway projects ignored the broader themes represented by most of
that involved citizens in design and/or installation the sculptures, which were visible only to neighbor-
have been well received. Second, the results of the two hood residents.
surveys show that public art in general is supported The data in table 4 show that city-wide survey re-
(table 1). Third, the surveys reveal significant minority sponses about the attractiveness of the art itself were
group support for public art being used to mitigate bimodal: 50 percent of the respondents were in
the effects on neighborhoods (table 3). It is illuminat- agreement that the art was unattractive; 32.6 percent
ing that, despite the antagonism towards the specific found it attractive; and 17.4 percent were ambivalent.
artwork, the responses to another question in the Neighborhood responses over three years later were
neighborhood survey support the principle of using little different: S3 percent, 3S percent, and 12 percent,
art for freeway mitigation. Moreoever, unsolicited but respectively. City-wide responses about costs, place-
frequent comments refer positively to the particular ment, and themes were skewed toward negative views.
type of sculpture integrated into one of the freeway Approximately 68 percent agreed or strongly agreed
bridges (illustration 5)., Why, then, were the pots the that the art was inappropriate for the location; 77 per-
objects of such public outrage that it almost caused cent felt it was too costly, and 77 percent felt the
the abandonment of the city's entire public arts themes were inappropriate. Furthermore, strong asso-
program? ciations were found between the dependent variable-
Sociodemographic factors were found to be insig- dislike for the art-and positive responses on the four
nificant in explaining preferences about the artwork . independent variables, the explanatory factors. For ex-
itself and about art for mitigation, in general. No sig- ample, of those respondents who disapproved of the
nificant associations were found between any of the art, 95 percent agreed that the costs of the art program
sociodemographic variables-age, income, gender, or were too high, and 87 percent said that the art was
education; and the measures and responses for art pref- inappropriately placed along the freeway, atop the
erences rarely diverged strongly across neighborhoods. noise walls.
APA JOURNAL • SPRING 1998 229
JOHN M. BLAIR, K. DAVID AWKA, AND FREDERICK STEINER
TABLE 4. Perceptions of elements of the Squaw Peak artwork
Art Is Unattractive. Art Is Inappropriate Too Much Money Theme of Art Is
for Location. Was Spent. Inappropriate.
Level of City Whood City . Whood City N'hood City N'hood
Agreement Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey
Strongly Agree 28.5% 27.0% 43.8% 22.0% 61.9% 51.1% 44.6% 32.6%
Agree 21.5 26.2 24.0 29.8 15.0 21.3 32.4 28.4
Neither Agree
nor Disagree 17.4 12.1 11.6 14.9 14.3 10.6 12.1 14.9
Disagree 21.5 26.2 10.3 26.2 4.0 13.5 4.1 19.8
Strongly Disagree 11.1 8.5 10.3 7.1 4.8 2.8 6.8 4.3
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
N=144. N=141. N=146. N=141. N=147. N=140. N=148. N=141.
TABLE S. Importance of public involvement in choosing
In the 1996 neighborhood survey, the negative re- public art (in general)
sponses about the appropriateness of the location, the
costs, and the themes, were 52 percent, 72 percent, Ciry Survey Neighborhood Survey
and 61 percent, respectively. Confirmation of strong %
°
associations between some of the variables at a very high level of significance came from Kendall's Tau-b Very Important 37.4% 39.
1
and Tau-c tests. For example, the question "How do Important 41.7 33.1
Ambivalent 12.3 16.3
you feel about the art today?" is very strongly associ- Somewhat Important 6.1 5.7
ated with the variables of location,, cost, theme, and Very Unimportant 2.5 5.0
attractiveness variables. 100.0% 100.0%
One important factor sustaining the controversy
was the importance that citizens gave to public N = 163. N = 139.
involvement in public art projects. As table 5 shows,
over 79 percent of the city sample felt that citizen
involvement in choosing public art is either "very im- successful as a mitigation measure, and only 13 per-
portant" or "important." In the neighborhood survey, cent viewed the artwork positively on this factor.
the figure is 73 percent. In contradiction of that Associated with this is the view of 77 percent of the
strongly held attitude, respondents perceived that the neighborhood households (table 6) that the money
process of selecting the artists, the media, and the lo- spent on art would have been better spent on other
cation of the artifacts was closed to the public. In the purposes. This is not as contradictory as it may seem,
1993 city survey, 75 percent of households expressed for the responses in both surveys support the concept
the view that the selection process for the Squaw Peak of public art while condemning the specific example
Parkway art should have been more open. Of those re- of the pots. For other spending options, adding more
spondents who did not like the freeway art, 89 percent plants was the dominant suggestion (40% percent of
argued that the Phoenix Arts Commission should have respondents). The next most suggested expenditure
been more open with the public. These findings sug- item was different art forms (12 percent), another
gest that the lack of procedural openness may explain slight on the Squaw Peak pots.
some of the public's view that the art was a poor A very high proportion of respondents (84 per-
choice. Even among those who liked and supported cent) felt that the new landscape development adja-
the art, 58 percent also criticized the lack of public cent to the noise wall was successful. (See table 6.)
involvement in the selection process. There was also a remarkably high preference (88 per-
Although approximately 40 percent of respon- cent of respondents) for using plants rather than art
dents in both surveys felt public art in general could to soften the obtrusiveness of the noise walls. Some of
be a good method of freeway mitigation (cable 3), 67 the reasons given are not valid (e.g., to absorb noise,
percent felt that the Squaw Peak sculptures were un- which is not possible in the circumstances), but al-
230APA JOURNAL • SPRING 1998
PUBLIC ART IN MITIGATION PLANNING
TABLE 6. Mitigation expenditure and landscape design: 1996 Neighborhood Survey
Vegetation better than Art Vegetation next to Spend Art Money on other
for Softening the Noise Wall Noise Wall Freeway Items
Strongly Agree 57.4% Successful 46.8% Yes 76.9%
Agree 30.5 Somewhat successful 36.9 No 17.3
Neither Agree nor Disagree 9.9 Unsuccessful 14.2 Don't Know 5.9
Disagree 2.1 Don't Know 2.1
Strongly Disagree -
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
N = 141. N = 141. N = 141.
most 62 percent pointed to the living, changing, and glance it is difficult to understand such perceptions,
attractive nature of plants as a screen. given the nutaber of workshops, meetings, and design
reviews that were held, and the information dissemin-
Discussion ated about the arts project. Yet the criticism may be
Although public art is generally supported as an valid, since a serious discrepancy occurred between the
important community amenity, the survey results purposeful effort to secure participation and the ac-
suggest that there are mixed emotions about its rele- tual process, which the public felt was closed. First, it
vance or effectiveness in freeway mitigation programs. was mostly art professionals who selected the artistic
There are at least two currents working here. First, conceptualizations, in line with conventional practice.
constructing freeways in urban areas is rarely free of Second, to seek public involvement after selection is
controversy. As the Squaw Peak mitigation project re- already an accomplished fact precludes meaningful
veals, comprehensive mitigarion for neighborhoods af- dialogue. It is unclear whether (a) neighborhood par-
fected by increased traffic, dust, and noise, and by ticipation was actively encouraged, and (b) whether
decline in neighborhood quality and identity is diffi- residents had opportunities to voice their views on the
cult to achieve. The inference from this is that using nature, extent, location, and type of aesthetic design
public art as a mitigation tool in such circumstances elements before those selections were made. It became
may be of little value and may even be counterproduc- apparent to the affected residents that they had had
tive by providing a vehicle for expressing more general no real power to influence the type of art selected for
dissatisfaction. That is partly because it was never clear their neighborhood, or to choose the artists.
to residents what the primary purpose of the public it is likely, moreover, that the serious public con-
art project actually was: to soften a secondary effect cerns about neighborhood dislocation, traffic conges-
of the noise walls, their visual aspect. Certainly, the tion, and noise, dust, and loss of property values made
sophisticated goals enunciated by the artists eluded all the aesthetic element of the mitigation program seem
bur the highly trained. superficial. Lastly, since serious effects on the neigh-
The second current springs from this point. Em- borhoods were foreseen, the residents' lack of op-
phasizing aesthetic design (especially public art) sepa- porrunity to make any basic choices among possible
rarely from, or as a substitute for, mitigating the direct mitigation measures also may have limited their sense
effects of traffic may sour the public's views about aes- of meaningful participation, whatever the official em-
theric mitigation in general. The Phoenix surveys re- phasis on their involvement. Seen from another angle,
veal substantial support for public art in general and perhaps the public might have been more satisfied
moderate approval for public art as a method of reduc- with their degree of involvement had the art itself
ing adverse visual effects in neighborhoods. Those been more acceptable-a further illustration of the
findings suggest that the controversy may have been complexity of behavioral investigation.
exacerbated by a general hostility to the new freeway In broader terms, the freeway pots study raises an
corridor, a view supported by Dunbar and White- important issue about public participation in plan-
hurst (undated). ning, for there are two competing philosophies at play.
The perceived lack of public involvement in the art One philosophy, closely embraced by the planning
selection process was also strongly associated with profession, states that a profession so intimately con-
public dissent. It may have been the key factor. At first nected with people's living environment should in-
APA JOURNAL • SPRING 1998 231
JOHN M. BLAIR, K. DAVID PIJAWKA, AND FREDERICK STEINER
volve the public at all levels of decision-making, and information, which implies a failure in publicity and
most particularly at the local level, where conse- involvement. An associated point here concerns the
quences are most clearly felt. This principle is en- goal of Wall Cycle to Ocotillo. It was a failure in terms of
shrined in the 1969 National Environmental Policy popularity, but it could never have succeeded from a
Act as well as in the City of Phoenix's freeway miriga- technical standpoint, either. Thirty-six sculptures were
tion program and public art programs. designed to enhance the noise wall, but their distribu-
The contrasting philosophy questions the role of tion over 10 miles of freeway corridor hardly could re-
the public in deciding complex or technical issues, be- duce the overall bulk and image of the noise wall.
cause of their presumed lack of specialized knowledge. An underlying problem in the Squaw Peak contro-
In practice the two philosophies are often close to- versy is that the public discussion did not, initially, en-
gether; however, as noted earlier, in the field of public compass alternative mitigation measures. Although
aesthetics they have often been far apart. Should the the debate centered on the city-wide criticism of the
Squaw Peak artists and especially the conceptual de- freeway art, little or no attention was given to how the
signs have been selected by citizens, or was it accept- individual neighborhoods perceived the efficacy of
able for the Phoenix Art Commission, exclusively, to the proposed artwork as a mitigation tool. The results
approve the conceptual work? Relying on the commis- of the neighborhood survey suggest that the neigh-
sion could be construed as elitist, but it is more likely borhood residents would have preferred more land-
to give wide scope to the artists' creativity. Generally, scape design to mitigate the visual effects of the
contemporary artists have brooked little interference freeway, as well as shifting the funds allocated for art
with their creation and execution of works, and a to other kinds of mitigation.
number of art world professionals (Plagens 1995; Hein '
1996) have lamented that populist procedures for se- TII1Plications for Planners
lecting artworks may result in mediocre art being There is very little in the literature that describes
used. The choice does not, however, have to lie be- the processes and results of using public art to miti-
tween the elite and exceptional, probably accompanied gate the adverse effects of infrastructure projects. Ex-
by controversy; and the popular but mundane. cept during the City Beautiful Movement, public art
Policy guidance in this matter can be found in has not traditionally lain within the purview of the
people's reactions to public art in other cities. A gale planning profession in the United States, and the
of controversy has often swirled about the unveiling Squaw Peak Parkway artwork controversy illustrates
of an artwork, to be followed by acceptance and, later, the difficulties confronring planners involved in pub-
acclaim. It must be said that the two surveys in the lic art policy. In this case, the issues underlying typical
City of Phoenix reveal few signs that the "Squaw Peak public art controversies were confounded by the intro-
pots" brouhaha has reached a last stage of acceptance. duction of a new dimension, that is the use of art as a
One has to conclude that the pots project was an arris- mitigation tool in a major infrastructure develop-
tic success only for art professionals and, judging from merit. More work is needed on the application of pub-
the surveys, for a small minority of the public. In these lic art in community planning. Does public art in
circumstances the term "success" is misleading: a large infrastructure projects require approaches that are dif-
majority thought the work was poor, and to a consid- ferent from the more typical public art projects? To
erable extent it is immaterial whether they are correct what extent should public art contribute to the im-
or not. agery of the city, and should that be a criterion for
The background summary on new genre public art selecting public art? What are the factors that have
suggests that the pendulum of public participation produced successful public art plans in some cities?
has swung too far for token involvement to be accept- How have cities engaged their communities in design-
able today. The negative responses received from the ing the plans for public art? These questions might
public on the theme, location, and costs of the pots form the basis of a research agenda linking public art
reinforce this view, but also point the way to a more and planning.
credible public policy for art mitigation in relation to Until recently, public art has chiefly concerned
land use. One reason that the pots have not been those with specialized interests in three-dimensional
gauged a success is their themes: in some of the sculp- design. Landscape architects, architects, and artists
tares, the Southwestern theme, though present, was have been intrinsically enthusiastic about urban aes-
weak; and other themes that supposedly represented thetics, and so have design-oriented planners. The aes-
the Southwest were rather abstruse. thetic quality of the built environment may be a
Finally, another very negative response-to the secondary consideration in acoustic engineering and
cost of the artworks-was in part due to inadequate freeway planning, but it would be worth adopting a
232 APA JOURNAL • SPRING 1998
~s
PUBLIC ART IN MITIGATION PLANNING
strategy that encouraged all specialists in project tal enhancement may employ different aesthetic ele-
teams to be conscious of the ultimate effects and ap- ments. Certainly, responses that find any element
pearance of the development work. It is interesting to provocative should be seriously reviewed by the urban
note that the extEmsions to the noise walls constructed planning team. At the same rime, it should be remem-
in 1996 along parts of the Squaw Peak Parkway have a bered that whatever enhancement is selected for a
softer outline than do those erected earlier. Their tex- noise wall, whether in the form of public art or of
rural treatment by way of patterning and coloring is landscape design, it will do little (probably nothing) to
also an improvement. Clearly, structural aspects of de- further reduce the physical contaminant of excessive
velopment projects are being viewed in more than an noise. The larger lesson of the Squaw Peak Parkway
engineering perspective. project is that art (and other mitigating elements such
Controversy over public artworks reflects a dis- as landscape design) will be judged an insulting band=
cordance of objectives among artists, the public, and aid and may fail entirely, if the serious adverse effects
government. The planner is typically in a position to of a project are not dealt with simultaneously.
clarify public issues among parties who have conflict-
ing stakes, obligations, and values, and expertise in cit- AUTHORS' NOTE
izen participation. Planners can play an important role
in developing policies and plans for public art, and can We would like to thank the following persons, who helped
help to resolve conflicts over values. develop, administer, and report on the ciry-wide survey as
The city-wide and neighborhood surveys in Phoe- part of a course project: Ann Aubrey, Deanne Auch, Cheri
nix reveal that the public views art as a potentially Levenson, Scott Meek, Bob Sandblou, and Mary Simmeier,
valid mitigation tool, and also appreciates landscape from the School of Public Affairs, Arizona Scare University;
design as a screening medium. Clearly, both mitiga- and Aaron Bradford, Lynn Sugiyama, Chuck Bowers, Ru-
tion tactics are valid, so another strategy for urban pum Rajah, and Desmond McGeough, from the university's
planners is to view public art as an essential ingredient School of Planning and Landscape Architecture, who helped
of landscape architecture. The Squaw Peak Parkway conduct the neighborhood surveys.
arts mitigation effort tended to be an afterthought, an
adjunct to the noise wall. Urban design does not work REFERENCES
well in such circumstances: it must be treated holisti- Balfe, Judith H., and Margaret J. Wvszomirski. 1986. Public
callv to succeed. The ideal way to do so is in the infancy Art and Public Policy. The Journal of Ara Management and
of the project planning process. Even though final de- Law 15,4: 5-29.
cisions on public art still may be controlled by art pro- Burcon, Richard. 1989. The Arguments for Public Art. In Art
fessionals and government officials, mediating the for Public Places, edited by Malcolm Miles. Winchester, En-
natural tension between artists' rights and those of gland: Winchester School of Art Press.
the community is essential. That is where the coordi- City of Los Angeles. 1996. Placemaking: Public Art in Los
nating functions of the planner can act as a conduit Angeles. Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Los
for public arts policy, as well as contributing to it. Angeles.
The surveys indicate that it was not public art per Cicv of Phoenix. 1991. Public Art Fact Sheet. City of Phoenix,
Arizona.
se that was the problem in the Squaw Peak pots con- Dubin, Steven C. 1985. The Politics of Public Art. Urban Isfe
troversy. A more interactive process of selection and 14,3: 274-99.
approval would have produced somewhat different Dunbar, Nina, and Deborah Whicehursr. Undated. An Ele-
sculptures and would, in itself, have produced a more phanc in Your Living Room or the Squaw Peak Pot Con-
accepting public. Hence, finally, the dominant strategy troversy. National Assembly of Local Ara Agencies Monographs
is to enlist public involvement. Meaningful public par- 1,1: 1-8.
ticipation is time-consuming and expensive. But the Gee, Malcolm. 1995. Yes in My Front Yard: Community Par-
costs of discounting its value can be even greater, as ticipation and the Public Art Process. High Performance
illustrated by the aftermath of the Squaw Peak art 18,2: 60-5.
mitigation program. The study suggests that mitiga- Harries, Meirion, and Lajos Heder. 1991. Artists' Statement.
tion strategies should be discussed within a full public Cambridge, MA: Harries/Heder Collaborative, Inc.
involvement process in order to gauge preferences, and Harris, Janet I. 1979. Planning for the Arc. In The Practice of
Local Government Planning, edited by Frank S. So, Israel
that this may need to be done in individual neighbor- Scollman, Frank Beal, and David S. Arnold. Washington,
hoods. It may be that in some neighborhoods affected DC: International City Management Association.
by urban freeways or an infrastructure project, public Hein, Hilde. 1996. What is Public An? Time, Place and
art will play a strong role in enhancing the quality of Meaning. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 54,1: 1-7.
life, but that in other neighborhoods, the environmen- Horowitz, Gregg M. 1996. Public An/Public Space: The
APA JOURNAL - SPRING 1998 233
JOHN M. BLAIR, K. DAVID PIJAWKA, AND FREDERICK STEINER
Spectacle of the Tilted Arc Controversy. Journal ofAesthetics Niven, Keith W. 1992. Freeway Mitigation: A Case Study of the
and Art Criticism 54,1: 8-14. Squaw Peak Parkway Mitigation Effort. Master of Environ-
Jensen, Ron. 1996. Artists and the New Infrastructure. Places mental Planning thesis. Tempe, AZ: Arizona Scare Uni-
10,3: 58-9. versity.
Kelly, Michael. 1996. Public Art Controversy: the Serra and Novitz, David. 1996. Disputes About Art. Journal of Aesthetics
Lin cases. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 54,1: 15-22. and Art Criticism 54,2: 153-63.
Korza, Pam. 1988. Going Public. Amherst, MA: Excelsier Phillips, Patricia C. 1995. Peggy Diggs: Private Acts and Pub-
Printing. lic Art. In But Is it Art? The Spirit of Art as Activism, edited by
Kroloff, Reed. 1995. Brilliant Disguise. Landscape Architecture Nina Felshin. Seattle, WA: Bay Press.
85,3: 55-7. Plagens, Peter. 1995. What Happens When American Art
Kroloff, Reed. 1996. From Infrastructure to Identity. Places Goes Public? New England Review 13,3: 58-65.
10,3: 56-7. Porter, Douglas R. 1992. Phoenix's Friendly Highways. Plan-
Lacy, Suzanne, ed. 1996. Introduction. In Mapping the Ter- ning 58,8: 26-8.
rain-New Genre Public Art. Seattle, WA: Bay Press. Steiner, Frederick. 1996. Connecting Infrastructure to Deep
Lebow, Edward. 1996. Plans and Possibilities. Places 10,3: Structure. Places 10,3: 60-1.
54-5. Stodola, Betsy J., ed. 1992. Public Art Works: The Arizona Mod-
Lennard, Suzanne H. 1987. Toward Criteria for Art in Public els. Phoenix, AZ: The Phoenix Arts Commission.
Spaces. Urban Land (March) 46,3: 12-5. Sugiyama, Lynn. 1996. Place-making of Little Tokyo, Los Angeles.
McGuire, Struker. 1993. Phoenix on the Rise. Newsweek (12 Master of Environmental Planning thesis (unpublished).
July): 58-60. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.
Mitchell, W. J. Thomas. 1992. The Violence of Public Art: Do Tuer, Dot. 1995. Is It still Privileged Art? In But Is It Art? The
the Right Thing. In Art and The Public Sphere, edited by Spirit ofArt as Activism, edited by Nina Felshin. Seattle, WA:
W. J. Thomas Mitchell. Chicago: University of Chicago Bay ,Press.
Press. Whiceh" r, Deborah. 1992. Phoenix: The Challenge. In Pub-
Moorish, William, and Catherine Brown. 1988. Western lic Art Works: The Arizona Models, edited by Betsy J. Stodola.
Civic Art: Works in Progress. Places 5,4: 64-77. Phoenix, AZ: The Phoenix Arts Commission.
Muschamp, Herbert. 1993. When Arc Becomes a Public Spec-
tacle. The New York Times 29 August, Section 2: 1 and 30.
234 APA JOURNAL • SPRING 1998
From: Robert LeUne To: Bob McLaurin Date: 1123/99 Time: 1:06:28 PM Page 1 of 1
w'
Lionshead Merchants Association
c/o Montauk 549 W. Lionshead Circle Vail. CO 81657 970-476-2601 970-845-5099 fax
To: Bob McLaurin Date : 1/23/99 Time : 1:06:28 PM
Company : Town of Vail Pages including cover page: 1
"Employers Helping mployees with Housing"
The first Chamber Valley Business Forum Breakfast of 1999 will be held on
Tuesday, February 23rd at Manor Vail Lodge from 7:30 to 9:00 a.m. A panel of
employers, organized by Eagle County, will share their experiences and their
solutions for providing housing for employees. There are a number of different
programs and ideas that employers are implementing and this is a terrific
opportunity to discover ways you and your business can offer housing solutions for
your employees.
Chamber members and guests are invited to attend this free breakfast which is
made possible through the sponsorship Columbine Bakery and KTUN - The Eagle.
The Valley Business Forum breakfasts are taped and can be seen on Channel Five
Vail Valley Community Television. RSVP to the Chamber by Friday, February 19th
at 949-5189.
WinFax PRO Cover Page
,'p,ST PRA - - -
eNOOtiuo Lio Ep$j_9AOVIDfNCF
2 / oo +a
1, a o o ~L
° EPo¦o r,` DEPARTMENT OF POLICE
F~ Msea ` 750 WATERMAN AVENUE QQQ'
EAST PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND 02914-1723
TELEPHONE (401) 435-7600
CARL A. WINQUIST
Chief of Police
Mayor January 20, 1999
Town of Vail
Vail, Colorado
81657
Dear Mayor
First, I must apologize for not knowing your name. I recently returned
from a ski trip in Vail. I was impressed by the general appearance of the
village, the transportation system, and most important, the people. Waiters,
waitresses, clerks and everyone that I encountered were polite and helpful.
My trip would have ended on a negative note except for an unknown busboy
employed at The Dancing Bear Restaurant.
I took the liberty of attaching a letter that I sent to the management of
The Dancing Bear Restaurant. The bus boy exemplifies the people of your
community. Too often, the only letters received by public officials are
negative. My stay in your community was extremely positive.
Sincerely,
Carl A. Winquist
Police Chief, Retired.
'F~'~o~,RO~~a ~ U / Eps~ PROVIDfN~f
col IS(,
DEPARTMENT OF POLICE
cfMBEa , 750 WATERMAN AVENUE ~aQQ
EAST PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND 02914-1723
TELEPHONE (401) 435-7600
CARL A. WINQUIST
Chief of Police
The Dancing Bear January 20, 1999
2211 N. Frontage Rd. West
Vail- CO 81657
Att: Manager or Own-r
Dear Sir or Madam
On Friday, January 15, 1999, I enjoyed a great dinner in your restaurant.
When I returned to my hotel, I realized that I did not have my wallet. I
retur:~e:l to your restaurant searching for the missing wallet. As I entered,
our waiter, .;eff, stated that the bus boy found it.
I was pleased to find everything intact, about $700.00 in cash and a
variety of credit cards.
The bus boy, who I failed to get his name, should be commended for his
honesty.
As a retired police c?11ef, I appreciate the young mans honesty. Often, I
saw the negative side of people daring my police career. This was certainly
refreshing.
Please extend my sincere thanks to the young man.
Yours truly,
Carl A. WinQuist
Police Chief Retired.
x C 1_~
Garfield County Human Services hosts
REGIONAL
HUMAN SERVICES
QUARTERLY MEETING
Wednesday February 10, 1999
9AM-12noon
CMC Glenwood Center
1402 Blake Avenue, Glenwood Springs
AGENDA
9:00 Welcome
9:05 Introduction/Agency Rounds
9:45 Bill Hanisch, Executive Director
Roaring Fork Valley Community Health Plan
10:30 Diversity/Prejudice Film
Asistencia Para Latinos
11:30 Film Discussion & Additional
Regional Issues
A light breakfast buffet will be provided by Garfield
County members.
i -
_C1010 it
fail
onsors cri '99.,P
t~cal to.
• • - The art
events,
il `c`9 ski
I<_,
SOBS I Page 1 L stage The Winter Driving Experi- of a deal
ence where consumers can learn
e rights are taken away, but how to drive a BMW, in - winter-
t the World
t isk is taken away as well," weather conditions. Banners Sk 1'i
by said. The risk, however, posted at the races will advertise aampionsWps
d`.. amount to much because the free driving school.
ni~igb-profile, international Other sponsors such as Milks BY Penny Parker
companies climbed on board as Chocolates, Grans Padano cheeses, Denver Post Staff writer
world-
major sponsors. and Carlsberg beer will be handing For two weeks at Vail, ss ath-
letes will hurtle down the slopes slopes o of a re
Based on the level of the spoII- out free samples to spectators. nowned resort in one of the premier inter.
sorship, each company gives mon- For their participation, the key national events of the sport of skiing.
q and donates products during the sponsors are provided with hospi- But that alone won't be enough to make
event. BMW, the lead sponsor, lent tality tents at Vail and Beaver the World Alpine Ski Championships fly.
njore than 60 vehicles to be used by Creek, where food and beverages . pony-
ing not said a ssa Ma se companies
athletes"and championship officials are available and each sponsor happen," said Iof t Mackintosh, Founda-
t executive
during the run of the event. gets its logo displayed on signs on vice president of the Vail Valley brought the
spokeswoman Karen Von- the race courses, at the finish line I prey the nonprofit group that brought the
derMeulen said her company chose and the start positions. prestigious ski racing events to Colorado's ocky to sponsor the world champion- What's more, those signs have I2 As with mans rt'
the
ships in Vail because of the "core the potential of being shown during Super Bowl to the Sprint Inte ationarl golf
values" shared by the upscale Ger- more than 21 hours of network and tournament yi Colorado, business sponsor-
man car maker and the sport of cable television broadcasts. NBC ships are playing a key role in the events at , which skiing. BMW would not disclose will broadcast 7% hours and ESPN Vail "To pay for the sporting events, you have
how much it paid to be lead spon- and ESPN II will broadcast 14 to bring in companies as title sponsors,-
s6r. hours of the championships. said Steve Sander, whose Denver market-
"We place a lot of emphasis on "The level of television coverage ipg firm, Sander/GBSM, handles several
performance, handling and precise is more than any before associated sports-related clients.
maneuverability that skiers also with skiing with the exception of puttThe of i
ing contthis _
display," VonderMeulen said. the Olympics," McCarthy said. skiing shindig is an $21
A
BMW, based in Munich, Germany, IMG also secured the licensin million. Butestimated with
hos had a long association with the rights for all the products that carg- million.
Austrian ski team. Hermann ry the official World Alpine Ski the mtlprnma y
Maier, the world alpine ski cham- Championship logo. SCI Inc., an sponsors, $z mil-
pion, tested his performance Englewood-based clothing manu- lion fora number
against the wind in BMW's wind facturer, bought the licensing niesocthatohave i WORLD)
Wnnel in Munich, VonderMeulen rights for fleece and denim gar- been hosting
said. menu. events to pro-
We associate ourselves with the SKI, a Salt Lake company, mote the World
Chaips, -HK
performance sports - like golf bought the sweat shirt and T-shirt a
ndmslubsid es
and skiing - that highlight individ- licensing rights. from towns in
ual performance," VonderMeulen "The reason corporate sponsors Eagle county
said. are involved in sports marketiII is that stand i ben-efit s
preview
also will present its new to create an affiliation with a mar- from the event offtthe upcoming
sport-utility vehicle - called the ket niche for their productMack- the foundation World Alpine Ski
X5 - in Vail, where the car will be intosh said. "They spend a lot of even, c break Championships in
tested in snow and ice. The BMW time and resources doing market , Mackintosh veil./i~ilen E
X5 will be on display at four Bea- research. finding out what kind of mil on shoo p$IJ
arable, taking inflation into
ver Creek and Vail locations. activities their consumers are in- account, to the amount raised through spon-
On Nottingham Lake, a frozen volved in. Skiing comes in very the eve 198a the last time Vail hosted
body of water in Ave^, BMW will high." the event, she said.
Snagging the sponsors -BMW, Peak
Performance Swedish clothing, Carlsberg
Beer, Milka Chocolates, 'Tag Heuer
watches, Fini Italian pasta, Grana Padano
Italian cheeses, Diesel jeans and Motorola
- was the job of International Manage-
ment Group, a Cleveland-based sports mar-
keting company with a 13-year-old Denver
office.
For the first time ever, all the sponsor-
ship and television rights to the 1999 World
Alpine Ski Championships were sold to one
company - IMG.
The five-year agreement formed a part-
nership between IMG and the European
Broadcast union, a conglomeration of tele-
vision networks in Europe, for all of the
commercial rights and sponsorship sales
surrounding the championship ski races.
"Our job was to consolidate and package
the rights and sell them off," said Sue Mc-
Carthy, IMG's project manager for the,
1999 World Alpine Ski Championships. "It's
the first time there is a centralization of all
of the rights related to the championships."
During prior world championship races,
the local organizers possessed the sponsor-
ship rights and sold them off to various
companies wanting to associate their
names-with skiing. For forfeiting those
rights, the FIS - the acronym for the in-
ternational Ski Federation - compensated
the Vail Valley Foundation, organizers of
the event.
Please see SPONSORS on 7L
01/25/1999 12:20 19704762789 HONEYWAGON/DONOVAN PAGE 01
c~G 9a-r-) 9~ !
®-1~
avw
U~
p lays o VC4,
74 --t2 7e19
.044,1, FF. ;v
'k I
c:
• hod°~ thep:;e
tie' ;std ciozf ttr {
ei ~W r co ttlvrp; ~
CIO ,f'c~l]t[l)~~(~'86 9i1~: •11C:.pA~iDlf'1SG ,
had a vt' '•'~9 c • : eire~6efin' ere
d- 'N
s, ve fir' r; d tlcaiit e u cq
A r b
a:,19:.:: ed''Rgd', [nAytif Gear,
es8.:.,frWe aie great. b(i1:NoWTh~, r
d6i
i
'~':filR1: ..c
,y..t,
al~
ter :'~ri yob
mod
1 W~' !?~':1n:dt' of~ CC1t
af: on'. n-;the
Yfi idiot g rrc ; v Y fog', 6t'
A; 11!
W[IiiOEigahah Minty
~'t~'aiFe Ia tai.
01/26/1999 07:04 FROM ROBERT FORD TO 4792157 P.01
i'
~r
01/26/1999 07:05 FROM ROBERT FORD TO 4792157 P.02
A futurist and snow country homeowner raises hackles «vlth his theorr• that
RESORTS GO UP. . 9 Q ;
DOWN
ByAndreu.Vemethy
• D "trucUon is usually associated with unexpected
natural disasters. But according to futurisi Au- +
gust St. John. "destruction" is perfectly natu- E
rll-indeed, inevitable-for resort and tourist towns. '
St. John, is a professor of marketing and future stud-
ies at Long Island University in New York. He has
developed a comprehensive theory on the life and rr
l r
death of tourist towns, which he says go through a
cycle of five stages: Welcome, Development. Resent- rY
went. Confrontation and finailly, Destruction. < - ,
It's the last stage, not surprisingly, that has raised t - i
eyebrows. By 'destruction,' St. John doesn't mean a /
physical catastrophe, but the ruin or disappearance, as
growth overwhelms a resort area, of the things that l
were the original attractions= neighborliness and sense ~ caN r , f
of community, a rural landscape, small-town atmo-
sphere, friendliness, low talc and low taxes.
As this occurs, he-says, communities break into hos- i
tale camps over development. Growth moratoriums,
lawsuits and contentious hearings often ensue. Many *flGVELO T
residents find they can no- longer afford to live and /
shop in their town. Faced with constant irritants to
remind them of their situation-traffic jams, soaring
rents--locals wear resentment on their sleeves.
And on their bumpers. In the resort community of
Manchester, Vermont, where St. John has had a home 4cQVFaNTATtorv w- .
since 1962, cars sport stickers saying, 'Welcome to
Manchester. Now Go Horne."
This is obviously no way for a resort to greet tour- pro( myna St Join ponders hu rue-pi w cpcle (resort ww
fists: but St. John says Manchester is in the Destruc-
clan Stage and this kind of animosity is typical. Not
surprisingly, local powers-that-be vehemently dis- saying. It's not better or worse. It's just different.-
s agree. They call him names, such as Trofessor Gloom- Though his tourism cycle is based on five years of '
` and-Doomr St. John has been branded everything studying Manchester, he says it applies to resort corn-
$m pro-development to anti-development, and ac- munities everywhere. Manchester hag been an ideal .
7 z:' cused of having a'bidden agende by the president of guinea pig, St. John says, because it has virtually
nearby Bromley and Magic Mountain sin areas. every facet of a tourism-based economy. The town has
He takes it all in stride, insisting he isn't taking a business sector dependent on tourists, imported
sides, just telling it like it i& workers who service the resort trade. old-wealth sum.
'Everything has patterns," St. John says. 'Every- mer residents. affluent newcomers. developers. a&.. .
thing changes if you wait long enough. ff something is sorted professionals and long-time natives.
• but, you wait long enough, it's cold. That's all rut It has a historic, 150-year-old resort village domi-
nated by the sprawling, restored Equinox Hotel. It's
1,: = A freelance writer living in the hills near Montpelier, also home to a booming commercial center with the
Vennnont, Andrew Nemetky has w t wed 80 yearn of upscale fishing and clothing company Orvis, all man-
' changa in Gmen Mountain resort Iowa. ner of outlet stores and boutiques. and grand develop.
. = VO COUMIh'QtM im i1.
01/26/1999 07:06 FROM ROBERT FORD TO 4792157 P.03
r.• RESORTS GO UP . AtND DO%N, contin aed - ~'r
R
ment schemes. And three ski resorts are nearby
Stzatron. Bromley and Magic Mountain FIGURING A Ivat~RTS STAiGE
Most of the flak St. John faces comes from his use of
the word 'destruction," but he says this stage isn't all
negative. It can also be "creative" and a "rebirth' Professor August St. John devised a survey. excerpt.
once a community realizes its original draw has disap- ed below, to pinpoint the development phase of a re-
peared and "something else has to be put in its place" sort town. Respondents rate the accuracy of the fol-
But if negative attitudes toward tourists do not change lowing statements on a scale of 0 (never happens) to 5
and conflicts remain, "theres no guarantee once you (always happens) for any small resort town The total
hit bottom that you can come back." points categorize the tow-n in one of five stages.
St. John. tit, a tanned. animated man with a neat l- Name-verbing. Residents of other areas turn the
Er-
Wt-and-pepper and a resemblance towels name into a verb la8 in Freeport, )Nairn): `'ague resem ample: Don't 'Freeport' our town '
to Sean Connery, is an unlikely lightning rod- He has 2. Teflon officials. Difficult or contusing to pi::
spent most of his Career teaching or consulting quietly responsibility for a town's growth pattern on elec=,
behind the scenes, using his background in economics/, or appointed officials. Example: Woos in choryc
sociology, psychology and marketing. around here?"
3. Growth backlash. Growth reaches a point wtwre.
Cycles fascinate St. John, much as statistics thrill a
a wffs development no longer pulls people in. but
baseball fanatic. He points out that as far back as 500 Pis people out. Example- The rwal simplicity.
B.C., his favorite Greek philosopher, Heraclitus ' l&e historic chasucter; cha m or mystique is eroded by
Obscure," said everything is always in 611W and that podcmt ofglitzy adornment and clatter.
'one cannot step twice into the same river.' 4. Character flip-flop. The character of a town no
Tourism communities must realize their business is longer affects growth decisions, rather growth des.,
in a state of flux and not immune to cycles, says St sions affect the character of the town. Example:
p~ajects such as mails. shopping cexte/s.
Commercial np demLo .
John. Sitting underneath the dark, exposed beams of st
b s"~i impie•ressietc .on). dominate
eoat flu etcthet/rer
an old, restored earriage bard that is his home, he bmwape (ooerull visual imp
predicts many r 1^ es for ski and resort areas:
_ taa~ arvrind.
• "There are only going to be two types of ski resort S. The Kwindow effect." New arrivals view the
The very expensive and the very cheap." Ski resorts in town as it is, not what it was or should be. Example:
the middle face difficulty and some will go bankrupt. As hidtor'it arckitecturai herald is contwmad by a
• 'People today want their money's worth." Ski emery maw, the now arrivals see the pr+e mt
areas have to deliver value to survive, whether it's a fps and adapt acewdbwly. As this process of
decent hamburger or coupons that give a discount at Vii" y a ~i herieage• cor+tima. cliang- .
tfila *a
local restatlydnts, 9 A om ofthe
C From feverish to sick. The "have•nots" will
*.,Fancy resorts that, cater to the cream of the mar- -never have." Exampte. Land values soar and/or af-
ket have to "savor the customer" and concentrate less fordable lwu.sinq becomes p>okbitive.
on capital investment and more on service. 'They've 7- Dq-tute of posh. Quality market replaced by a
got the. apple: They better start shining it." quantity market. Exam* Clutter. retail g1dz and
He points out that 20 years ago no one ever Mar feast food mstauraxft dominate the Gown; ~tpsedie" i
'
ined going to a ski resat and "never putting on skis.'- A new w te tem mplate. A A general depa7t and ' general l conse a emsensaim us th U. .at the.
But a long list of activities and amenities now e w P~ town has changed. Examplr 77te town's Hera lode is
plenty of diversions to attract non-shiers. better in donee, worse to dkm &f f erwd to dll.
_ 'The concept is wider- It's not just skiing," he says 9- A bitter pill. Present 'high" prices of real ewe
Some communities fart to recognize that as growth make past'lowee pziem to most previous sellers, a
actors, the local economy becomes driven less by tom'- ' reseadd memory.
ism than by development and a phalanx of architects. l0. wishful thinIau~ 'IYafllc activity does not
choluei with
eqdak*ippen ual lawyers, planners, contractors and engineers. Wben bUSrnessb activity.
.
fur other desibmtima.
development runs 'oat of steam the community is Total. 0 to o 10 - W stage; It to 21 - Vevel-
forced to cot hunt hove to maintain its ecommny. opment stage; 22 to 32 - Resentment stage; 33 to 49
WNW he musts that going from the welcome to = ConE=tation stage; 44 to 50 = Destruction stage.
"destructive" stage is inevitable, St. John says active
pL=ning can leg and control the progression by -
y.
u" helping preserve a resort town's appeal and character: so eommunitfes can find out where they fit in his Ewe-
s2 .r' 'It's like the diguence between two people. One of stage cycle (see aacampawjirrg box}. Using the infor-
Ys
" mation, a evttunttnity can look ahead and plan
them stn !lt std takes care of himself: the other..
drinks and gets dissipated," he says. M* future of the future: he says, sounding like a
St. John has developed a way to rate local attitudes modern-da<y Heraclitus, Is in the present.' Q~
i, `1t ~ 31'tOtft~ifttf~tPiU~1FB1990
Tel: S02-3G2--3845 August St. Holm P.O. Box 537 bancze3ter VT 05Zf 5:
TOTAL P.03
THE DENVER POST
I unda ,January 24, 1 gg9 ,
Colorado has four of Mobil's
26 highest-rated lodgings
Mobil has released its latest list of five-star hotels and the Four Seasons, both in Palm Beach
and restaurants in North America. Of the 26 highest- ¦ New York: Four Seasons, the St. Regis Hotel,
rated lodgings, four are in Colorado. Trump International Hotel & Tower and Carlyle; all
Among perennial recipients, the Broadmoor, Color in New York City; the Point, Saranac Lake
ra&Springs, set a.record by winning for the 39th'` 1 ¦ Texas: Mansion on Turtle Creek, Dallas J
eonsecutive year. Other Colorado five=star properties ¦ Vermont: Twin Farms, Woodstock
a e-Liole Nill,:Aspen, Tall Timber; Durango, and;C,.;t ¦ Virginia: The Inn at Little Washington, Washing-
batry U Ranch, Granby:,1'-, ton
t:.
~:'fhe,following'are'four-star lodgings in Colorado: ¦ Washington: Four Seasons Olympic, Seattle
Hotdl'Jerome and the St. Regis Aspen, Aspen; Hy- ¦ West Virginia: The Greenbrier, White Sulphur
att Regency Beaver Creek, Avon; Brown Palace Springs
and Loewe Giorgio, Denver; Home Ranch and Vista Restaurants
VOrd$,_Steamboat; Springs; Lodge and Spa at Cor-t ¦ California: L'Orangerie, Hollywood; the French
4 iHere,:Vail Valley:, t Laundry, Yountville
Four-star Colorado restaurants are: Renaissance ¦ Georgia: The Dining Room (at the Ritz-Carlton
and Restaurant at Little Nell, Aspen; Flagstaff Buckhead), Atlanta
House, Boulder; Palace Arms at the Brown Palace, ¦ Illinois: Charlie Trotter's and Everest, both Chi-
enver.
cago; Le Francais, Wheeling
-Mobil anonymously inspects and rates more than ¦ Louisiana: Grill Room (at the Windsor Court),
22,000 lodging and dining establishments, publishing New Orleans
the results each year in seven regional guides. ¦ New York: Chanterelle, Jean Gorges, Le Cirque
-The other five-star winners: 2000, Lespinasse and Les Celebrites, all in New York
¦ Arizona: Marriott's Camelback Inn Resort Golf City
Club and Spa and the Phoenician, both in Scottsdale ¦ Ohio: Maisonette, Cincinnati
,,",.California: Beverly Hills Hotel and Bungalows ¦ Pennsylvania: Le Bee-Fin, Philadelphia
and the Peninsula, both in Beverly Hills; Chateau du ¦ Texas: Restaurant at the Mansion on Turtle
Sureau, Oakhurst; Hotel Bel-Air, Los Angeles; the Creek, Dallas
Ritz-Carlton San Francisco; Inn & Links at Spanish ¦ Virginia: The Inn at Little Washington, Washing-
Bay;,-Pebble Beach ton
¦ Connecticut: Mayflower Inn, Washington ¦ Canada: The Beaver Club and Nuances, both in
111 Florida: The Ritz-Carlton, Naples; the Breakers Montreal
1