Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-16 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2001 6:30 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING VAIL LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT 1. ITEM/TOPIC: Vail Local Marketing District (VLMD) Resolution #1, Series of 2001, a resolution adopting a budget and making appropriations to pay the costs, expenses and liabilities of the Vail Local Marketing District, for its fiscal year January 2, 2002, through December 31, 2002. (30 min.) 7:00 P.M. TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. (5 min.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of September 4th and 18th minutes. (5 min.) ITEM/TOPIC: Bill Gibson Second reading of Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2001, an ordinance amending the Vail Town Code, Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Section 10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, D. Building Materials and Design, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (5 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with conditions, or deny Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2001, on second reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On Tuesday, October 2, 2001, the Vail Town Council approved by a vote of 6-1 (Navas opposed) the first reading of Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2001, an ordinance amending the Vail Town Code, Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Section 10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, D. Building Materials and Design, and setting forth details in regard thereto. At the work session on October 2, 2001, the Town Council requested that one text revision be made to the Ordinance 25, Series 2001. The phrase "over time" has been added to the proposed text amendments of Ordinance 25, Series 2001, per the Town Council's request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council approve Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2001, on second reading. ITEM/TOPIC: Mountain Bell Site. Allison Ochs Second Reading of Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2001, An ordinance amending the official zoning map for the Town of Vail in accordance with Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Chapter 5, Zoning Map, Rezoning Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision to Housing Zone District and setting for details in regard thereto. (20 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with conditions, or deny Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2001, on second reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On September 24, 2001, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted to forward a recommendation of approval regarding the proposed rezoning and land use plan amendment of the employee housing site at Mountain Bell. Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2001, amends the official zoning map to reflect the zoning of Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision to the Housing Zone District. Lot 2, Middle Creek Subdivision will remain zoned General Use, and Tract A, Middle Creek Subdivision will remain zoned Natural Area Preservation District. Ordinance No. 29 is contingent upon the recording of the final plat of Middle Creek Subdivision and the adoption of a development plan for the housing site. On October 2, 2001, the Town Council voted to approve Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2001, on first reading. The Council expressed a desire to discuss Ordinance No. 29 further at second reading. The staff memorandum for the September 24, 2001, Planning and Environmental Commission meeting has been included for reference. No changes have been made to Ordinance No. 29 since first reading. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council approve Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2001, on second reading 3. ITEMITOPIC: Russ Forrest Proposed Fee Schedule for Development Review. (30 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Motion to approve, modify, or deny the new planning fee schedule and rebate for environmental certification BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On September 18, 2001 staff asked Council whether development review fees should reflect the cost of providing those services. At that meeting the Town Council directed staff to develop a proposed fee structure that more accurately reflected the true cost of providing those services. The purpose of this meeting is for the Council to provide direction on a proposed fee structure. In addition, staff will review comments provided from the design and construction community regarding these proposed changes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is requesting approval of the proposed planning fee structure. 4. ITEM/TOPIC: Ord. #30, Second Reading, Steve Thompson ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE: ADOPTING A BUDGET AND FINACIAL PLAN AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS TO PAY THE COSTS, EXPENSES, AND LIABILITIES OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, FOR ITS FISCAL YEAR JANUARY 1, 2002, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2002. (20 min.) 5. Information Update (5 minutes) 6. Council Reports (15 minutes) Sybill Navas VMS Dinner-with-Council Raffle (10 min.) 7. Other (5 minutes) 8. Town Manager's Report. (5 min.) Bob McLaurin 9. Executive Session - Legal Matters C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b) and Personnel Matters C.R.S. A24-6-402(4)(0. (20 min.) 10. Adjournment (9:15 P.M.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2001, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN THE TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2001, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN THE TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2001, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. COUNCIL FOLLOW-UP TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOWUP 2001 6126/01 VRD PARKING SPACES AT FORD COUNCIL: Agreement was reached for Council to PARK observe and review these signed spaces for a possible Piet Pieters continued allowance of not moving them to the east lot. (Kevin/Rod: Piet said they are requesting this because it is very difficult to monitor the spaces, as is, and if they're in the east lot, staff will not be able to see them.) 6/26/01 BLACK GORE BRIDGE GREG H.: Coordinate w/Pam Hopkins on a suitable Diana Donovan light design that is in accordance w/approved safety guidelines. 7-24-01 BIGHORN MOTEL (formerly) EAST DAVID RHOADES: Another one for "the list"I" This David Rhoades will locate this property and report back to Council. VAIL property is owned by the Sonnenalp for employee Council/Susan Pollock housing. Complaints were made re: trash, weed problems, and it is looking generally unsightly and unkempt. 7-24-01 4957 JUNIPER LANE, WEST HALF DAVID RHOADES: The list and the letter: Exterior of Matter referred to Gary Goodell to review for Building Code violations. the building is a mess, including deteriorating facia, siding, holes in the deck surrounding the hot tub. Owner: Hugh Ferdows, SCIC, INC., 801 Corporate Avenue, Lamar, CO 81052. 8114101 CONTRACT WNRD RE: THE ICE BOB: Include "free days" for Council use in contract. DOME Diana Donovan 8121101 ADDITIONAL HOUSING NINA: Ask Housing Authority whether it would be AUTHORITY TASK willing to explore development of a mixed-use project Greg Moffet along the south side of the Village parking structure. 9/4/01 GROSS SALES VS. TAXABLE I STEVE: Please attach latest back up. SALES F:lmcasterlbsalterlagendalfol Iowup110-16-01 cfu October 16, 2001 - Page 1 COUNCIL FOLLOW-UP TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOWUP 2001 - J Greg Moffet 9/11/01 INCREASE IN COUNCIL BENEFITS JP: Please do a survey of recent comparable council Sybill Navas compensation (s), to include the cost of providing health benefits. Schedule a work session agenda item no later than October 2"d, to allow first and second reading of an amending ordinance should Council wish to proceed prior to the November 61' regular municipal election. 9/11/01 POTATO PATCH HOMEOWNER'S ALLEN: Do we have any recourse in seeking a more In researching the files, it appears that the caretaker's unit was never DUES just and equitably reflective dues assessment for our separated from the common element and it is not subject to Council unit at Potato Patch? assessment. A solution with the new town attorney will be forthcoming and a recommendation will be submitted to the Council. 9/11/01 CONSULTANT TO REVIEW TCI BOB: Hire consultant. AGREEMENT Council 10/02/01 RUSSELL: With no kitchen facilities in these units, VVI LONG TERM RENTALS there is a huge concern of line overloads for Kevin Foley microwaves, hot plates, etc. 9/18/01 SANDWICH BOARDS LARRY: As a further means of notification, place Kevin Foley sandwich boards in neighborhoods where crack-sealing and other maintenance work is to be performed. 9/18/01 PARKING DURING MOUNTAIN JOE: What was the "parking plan" during the Mountain The parking plan for the 2001 WMBC consisted of this being a Village BIKE CHAMPIONSHIPS Bike Championships, since cars were parking on both event. The Police Department advertised with the variable message Kevin Foley sides of the Frontage Road, thus creating an unsafe signs that parking was in the Village and Lionshead garages. Mike situation. If people didn't realize the parking structure Rose had parking attendants working on Friday, Saturday, and was free in the summer, this could have added to the Sunday. Once the village parking garage was filled parking was problem. Perhaps that could be alleviated through the allowed on the frontage road. Sgt. Erb did advise there was one day addition of "free parking" on the variable message signs in which parking on the frontage road occurred before the village F:lmcasterlbsalterlagendalfollowup110-16-01 cfu October 16, 2001 - Page 2 COUNCIL FOLLOW-UP TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOWUP 2001 during the summer? garage filled, but eventually the garage did fill. In regards to advertising on the VMS that summer parking in the village and Lionshead garage is free is a good idea and just helps to promote what a bargain summer Vail really is. 9118101 FIRE DEPARTMENT DONATION JOHN: What sort of equipment was donated to Red TO RED CLIFF Cliff? Kevin Foley 9118101 SMART GROWTH GRANT BOB: What is the status of a letter of support from the Please see attached letter. REQUEST town on a Smart Growth grant request submitted by the Sybill Navas Northwest Colorado Council of Governments to study the economic impacts on second home communities? 9/18/01 LOCATION OF ABC/LEARNING NINA: Supply an update as to the location of the TREE SCHOOLS ABC/Learning Tree schools during construction of a Diana Donovan new facility at the Mountain Bell site. F:lmcasterlbsalterlagendalfollowup110.16-01 cfu October 16, 2001 - Page 3 STAFF MEETING THURSDAY, October11, 2001 9:00 A.M. IN THE ADMINISTRATION CONFERENCE ROOM AGENDA/FOLLOW-UP 1. Review next week's agenda. 2. Council Follow-Up Sheet. 3. Citizen Inquiry. 4. Next Week's Schedule. 5. Departmental Items. Bob - Recognized Chris Stouder for updating budget document. Potato Patch unit sold for $215,000. Steve - Alternative Cuts Handout to Staff J.P. - Training for 2001 pulled (including Covey). Darcy's position will not be filled at this time. Insurance 12% under expenditures from last year. VSP has cancelled free eye exams for next year. Child Care - 9 spaces filled - need 20. Advertising in paper. John Gulick - County Commissioners meeting with Fire Chiefs to discuss impact fees. Annie Fox - Scarecrow Party at Library Sat., Oct. 13th, 11:00 - 3:00. Timer has been placed on e-mail stations. Joe Russell - 37 year old male death at Timber Ridge - under investigation. Wheel Base burglary in Lionshead. Red SandstoneNail Mountain School lockdown drill to be scheduled. Greg Hall - Parking meetings being held re: Chateau 1-70 PIS Open House scheduled for Oct. 17th - 4:00 - 6:00 p.m. Paid parking to begin Wednesday before Thanksgiving (11122) 6. Other. 7. Critical Strategies. UPCOMING ITEMS: October 23. 2001. Work Session Development Review Fees Discussion DRB/PEC Report October 30. 2001 - 5th Tuesdav. No Meetinq November 6. 2001. Work Session Appeal of Gateway re-paint. November 6. 2001. Evenina Meetinq AIPP Strategic Plan Resolution No. 1, Series of 2001 A RESOULUTION ADOPTING A BUDGET AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS TO PAY THE COSTS, EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES OF THE VAIL LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT, FOR ITS FISCAL YEAR JANUARY 1, 2002, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2002. WHEREAS, the Vail Local Marketing District board received and approved the operating plan and budget for the fiscal year 2002 on September 25, 2002; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CRS section 29-1-106 a notice of budget hearing has been published; and WHEREAS, notice of this public hearing to consider the adoption of the proposed Vail Local Marketing District budget was published in the VAIL TRAIL on the 5th of October, 2001; and NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED by the Vail Local Marketing District of Vail, Colorado, as follows: The Vail Local Marketing District Board adopts the submitted budget and appropriates $2,015,000 for marketing related expenditures beginning on the first day of January 2002 and ending on the 31St day of December 2002. Attested: Signed: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Secretary i MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Steve Thompson Finance Director DATE: October 12, 2001 RE: BUDGET MESSAGE The 2002 Vail Local Marketing District Budget was prepared on a cash basis. The 2002 revenue and expenditure budget is $2,015,000. Therefore, fund balance remains unchanged. The primary revenue is a 1.4% lodging tax on Town of Vail lodging revenues. The funds are used to market the shoulder and summer seasons. We have not reduced the 2002 lodging tax revenue budget for possible shortfalls. If we adjusted lodging tax revenue as we did sales tax, we would budget $250,000 less than we are currently budgeting. 09127101 Vail Local Marketing District 2002 Budget 2000 2001 YTD 2001 2002 Actual Actual 9/27 Budget Budget Income Lodging Tax 1,532,584 1,077,906 1,596,000 1,690,000 Business License Fee 310,043 60,190 80,150 310,000 Am Ex Off-set 15,000 Other Income 4,964 Interest Income 8,539 5,223 Total Income 1,856,131 1,143,319 1,676,150 2,015,000 Expense Destination Print Advertising 253,712 229,154 230,000 234,000 Online Advertising 48,000 33,875 35,000 18,000 E- Mail Advertising 12,700 Direct Mail Advertising 38,000 Production 59,781 21,011 40,000 44,000 Cross Sell 29,469 36,000 35,000 Video 45,038 50,000 34,500 Data Base Management 56,000 Strategic Alliances 10,000 Public Relations 39,021 52,100 54,700 Web Site 37,897 53,000 38,700 Fulfillment 30,000 Total Destination 361,493 435,464 496,100 605,600 Groups and Meetings Print Advertising 138,575 144,977 127,000 130,000 Online Advertising 16,231 (600) 27,000 22,500 Travel/Tradeshows 110,919 51,133 105,000 112,000 Memberships 11,413 4,822 10,000 10,000 Direct Mail 21,754 5,160 30,000 - Collateral 25,668 5,685 25,000 20,000 Telemarketing 28,027 4,960 28,000 15,000 Database/Postcard Program 5,336 6,045 25,000 30,000 Tradeshow Booths 10,394 575 Familiarization Trips 298 26,782 10,000 25,000 FR Mtg Planner Reception 7,650 - 14,000 Production 1,906 12,724 9,000 18,000 Strategic Alliances 5,000 Public Relations 8,308 11,060 32,200 Web Site 8,202 11,500 10,000 Total Groups and Meetings 378,172 278,771 432,560 429,700 Page 1 of 2 09127101 Vail Local Marketing District 2002 Budget 2000 2001 YTD 2001 2002 Actual Actual 9/27 Budget Budget Front Range Radio 235,704 109,943 110,000 180,000 TV 15,000 136,517 215,000 25,000 Production 12,505 59,000 20,000 Promotions 2,535 10,000 10,000 Brochure/Direct Mail 57,348 35,000 30,000 Newcomers Event 20,000 Strategic Alliances 5,000 E- Mail Marketing 10,000 Data Base Management 24,000 Public Relations 36,587 48,840 25,100 Web Site 1,037 1,400 Total Front Range 250,704 356,473 479,240 349,100 Fulfillment 16,187 25,802 35,000 Photography 23,000 41,000 25,000 25,000 Research 22,146 - 30,000 100,000 Professional Fees Web Site 35,000 2,902 4,100 4,100 Advertising Agency Fee 200,000 152,000 228,000 228,000 Marketing Coordination 63 75,263 145,000 145,000 Public Relations 195,000 82,584 110,000 110,000 Legal and Accounting 252 10,752 15,000 15,000 Insurance 3,500 Miscellaneous 9,854 1,788 Total Administration 440,168 325,289 502,100 505,600 Interest Expense 8,867 Total Expense 1,500,737 1,462,799 2,000,000 2,015,000 Net Income 355,394 (319,480) (323,850) - Begining Fund Balance 0 355,394 355,394 31,544 Ending Fund Balance 355,394 35,914 31,544 31,544 Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE CONCERNING PROPOSED BUDGET OF i tip: VAIL LOCAL MARKETING DISTRICT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a proposed budget has been submitted to the Board of Directors of the Vail Local Marketing District (District) for the ensuing year of 2002. That a copy of such a proposed budget has been filed in the office of the Assistant Town Manager for the Town of Vail, who serves as secretary to the District, at 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado. Where the same, proposed budget, is open for inspection by the public. And that such proposed budget will be considered at a public meeting of the Board of Directors of the District to be held at the Town Council Chambers in the Vail Municipal Building, 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado, on October 16, 2001, at 6:30 P.M. Any elector within the District may, at any time prior to the final adoption of the budget, file any objections thereto. Vail Local Marketing District Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Secretary Published in the Vail Trail October 5, 2001 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL R E V I S E D EVENING MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 7:00 P.M. -TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS The regular scheduled evening meeting of the Vail Town Council was convened at approximately 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 4, 2001. Members present: Mayor Ludwig Kurz Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro-Tern Diana Donovan Kevin Foley Greg Moffet Rod Slifer Chuck Ogilby Staff members present: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager Allen Christensen, Acting Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Michael Cacioppo appeared before the Council with a request to allow softball players to park on the "safe" side of the Frontage Road, calling it unfair for skiers to be allowed to park on both sides of the road when the parking structures fill. Town Manager Bob McLaurin stated the request would be considered as part of a review being conducted by the Vail Parking Task Force. The second item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda: The first item under the Consent Agenda was Proclamation #3, Series of 2001, a Proclamation Designating September 9 - 15 as "TRY TRANSIT WEEK". Councilmember Kevin Foley read the proclamation into the record and then made a motion to approve the proclamation. Councilmember Greg Moffet seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The next item under the Consent Agenda was Ordinance #19, Series of 2001, second reading, an ordinance amending the Housing Zone District ordinance. The amendment was prepared at the advice of a land use attorney who had been hired by the town to review legislation in anticipation of a possible court challenge. The recommended amendments would allow greater flexibility to the zone district by adding a non-deed restricted employee housing unit component as a conditional use. The amendment also would modify the definition of an employee housing unit by clarifying the current definition and removing redundant regulations. Councilmember Greg Moffet made a motion to approve Ordinance #19 on second reading. Councilmember Rod Slifer seconded the motion. Mayor Pro-Tem Sybill Navas stated she would be voting in opposition because of a provision that allowed up to 30 percent of the development to include free market units with no restraints on height, mass or density. Councilmember Diana Donovan stated she would be voting in opposition due to her objections with the definition of employee housing unit. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Association, addressed the Council, urging the Council to allow an undefined number of free market units within the ordinance. Kaye Ferry, Vail Chamber and Business Association, expressed her objection to the definition of employee housing units, stating occupancy should be restricted to those who work in Vail rather than Eagle County. A vote was taken on the motion and the motion passed 5-2, Councilmember Diana Donovan and Mayor Pro-Tem Sybill Navas opposing. The next item on the Consent Agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 2001, an ordinance approving the Booth Falls Townhomes Rockfall Easement. Councilmember Greg Moffet made a motion to approve Ordinance #23, Series of 2001, on second reading. Mayor Pro-Tem Sybill Navas seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The third item on the agenda was the Vail Center Update. Russell Forrest, Director of Community Development, addressed the Council stating he was coming back tonight as directed by Council on August 7`h to review progress to date and take a look at the schedule for moving forward. Mayor Kurz stated he had received a call from Porter Wharton from Vail Resorts,lnc., apologizing for not being at the meeting. Wharton requested more time, as they were working very diligently on the project, but were not able to complete it at this time, because of the complexity of it. It was agreed to allow Vail Resorts, Inc. additional time if they would agree to put a time limit in writing to return to the Council with a decision. Councilmember Diana Donovan stated her frustration in the fact that she felt the town would be in the ground by now if we had not waited for a decision by VRI. Donovan stated she felt the Council should decide what was best for the community and move forward - with or without VRI's help. Councilmember Greg Moffet stated he felt the town could build the recreational elements of the project by ourselves, but would need an invested partner to help build a conference center. Councilmember Rod Slifer stated he felt the Council did need to wait to hear from Vail Resorts and this might be an issue the new Council will need to talk about. Councilmember Chuck Ogilby stated he was under the assumption the Council was going to hear from VRI at this evening's meeting on Plan C. Moffet stated he thought VRI was an important part of the project, and felt they will participate strongly. Moffet suggested the Council pick a date within a month's time to ask VRI to respond to the Council. Moffet stated he felt it important to have an Alternative C in place before the election. Mayor Pro-Tem Sybill Navas felt it made little sense to wait until after election to make the decision to move forward. Councilmember Kevin Foley seconded Navas' comments. Councilmember Greg Moffet stated development reviews had been discussed regarding the Vail Mountain School expansion, which would benefit both the town and the Vail Mountain School. Along with getting a date from VRI for a response, staff was encouraged to to contact conference operators to discuss possible partnerships. The fourth item on the agenda was Ordinance #20, Series of 2001, a Supplemental appropriation and budget adjustment for 2001 totaling a spending reduction of $2.2 million. Steve Thompson, Finance Director, presented the ordinance to the Council, stating the reduction was coming from three funds, with a net decrease of $2.2million. Those funds including Capital Projects reduction of $709,371, Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) Fund reduction of $3.2 million and increasing the General Fund by $1.7 million. Thompson stated that most of the Capital Project reductions were not permanent reductions, but actually moving to another year or another fund, including $3.4 million for the Donovan Park pavilion project. Councilmember Greg Moffet made a motion to approve Ordinance #20, Series of 2001, on first reading, Mayor Pro-Tem Sybill Navas seconded the motion. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Association, addressed the Council, stating he felt the pavilion issue should be put on the November ballot for a public election to determine if the community was in favor of it being built. Councilmember Kevin Foley stated he would be voting against the ordinance, objecting to the $90,000 that was spent on the July 4th safety campaign. Foley also expressed opposition to the Donovan Park pavilion, noting management and competition concerns, as well as the lack of affordable housing tied to the project, and the possibility of the pavilion competing with businesses in Vail. Councilmember Rod Slifer stated for the record vote noted his opposition to the design and cost of the pavilion. Councilmember Diana Donovan agreed with Kevin Foley's comments, but stated she would be voting in favor of the ordinance A vote was taken on the motion and the motion passed 6-1, Foley opposed. The fifth item on the agenda was Ordinance #24, Series of 2001, Gateway SDD. Allison Ochs, town planner, presented Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2001: An ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1988 and Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1196, providing for the major amendment of Special Development District No. 21, Vail Gateway, to allow for the change in underlying zoning from Commercial Core I to Commercial Service Center, amending the approved development plan for Special Development District No. 21, Vail Gateway; amending Title 12, Chapter 7, Article E, Section 4, to add "private club" as a conditional use in the Commercial Service Center zone district; amending Title 12, Chapter 2, Section 2, to add a definition of "private club". The applicant, Braun and Associates, had requested a major amendment to Special Development District No. 21, to allow for the redevelopment of rezoning of the underlying zoning from Commercial Core I to Commercial Service Center.A major amendment to Special Development District No. 21.A text amendment to the Commercial Service Center zone district to allow for private clubs as a conditional use and a text amendment to Regulations. Mayor Kurz stated for the record a discussion was held at the afternoon's worksession regarding this ordinance. Councilmember Greg Moffet made a motion to approve Ordinance #24, Series of 2001, on first reading. Councilmember Rod Slifer seconded the motion. Mayor Pro-Tern Sybill Navas stated she would be voting in opposition, as she did not want to see the commercial square footage turned to high-end residential. Councilmember Diana Donovan stated she was struggling with her decision as the Gateway uses were designed to compliment the first redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn which was never completed. Those uses would still compliment the two current redevelopment proposals for the VVI and the Holiday Inn. Councilmember Greg Moffet was enthusiastic about the town getting office space and was excited to see the project go forward. A vote was taken on the motion and the motion passed, 5-2, with Navas and Foley opposing. The sixth item on the agenda was Ordinance #26, Series of 2001, an ordinance amending the Housing Zone District ordinance. Nina Timm, Housing Planner, addressed the Council, stating the amendment was prepared at the advice of a land use attorney who was hired by the town to review legislation in anticipation of a possible court challenge. Timm stated the recommended amendments would allow greater flexibility to the zone district by adding a non-deed restricted employee housing unit component as a conditional use. Timm also stated the legislation modified the definition of an employee housing unit by clarifying the current definition and removing redundant regulations. Allen Christensen, Acting Town Attorney, stated that after meetings with housing authority and council, drafted an ordinance to appoint the housing authority to act as its representative. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Association, urged the Council to allow an undefined number of free market units within the ordinance. After further discussion, Councilmember Greg Moffet made a motion to approve Ordinance #26, Series of 2001, on first reading. Mayor Pro-Tem Navas seconded the motion. Councilmember Diana Donovan stated she would be voting no on the motion, as she felt the project was being rushed through and that zoning issues were not being given adequate public attention Donovan felt this lends credence to charter change efforts. Mayor Kurz commended the housing authority for the last 2-3 months making affordable housing a reality. This will serve as a potential for other projects needed in this community. Councilmember Rod Slifer thanked Councilmember Chuck Ogilby for his time spent on the committee, as well as the other members' time. Nina Timm stated there would be an open house from 4:00 - 5:00 P.M. on Wednesday, Sept. 5th, at the West Vail Lodge. A vote was taken on the motion and the motion passed 6-1, Donovan opposed. The seventh item on the agenda was Ordinance. #21, Vail Village Inn SDD, second reading. George Ruther, Town Planner, presented the ordinance to the Council, noting conditions and the expiration date of May 1, 2003. Ruther advised the Council of receiving a copy of letter of Charles Lipcon, objecting to the renewed effort to seek approval of the project. Copies of the letter from Lipcon was circulated to the Council. Councilmember Greg Moffet made a motion to approve Ordinance #21 on second reading. Councilmember Chuck Ogilby seconded the motion. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Association, expressed his frustration with the applicant's inability to work out compromises with adjacent property owners and hoping for a better compromise being worked out by the Council. Acting Town Attorney Allen Christensen advised the Council of a recent hearing in District Court in which Judge Richard Hart declined a request by adjacent property owner Charles Lipcon to halt Council's proceedings. A vote was taken on the motion. The motion passed 4-3, with Foley, Navas and Donovan in opposition. The eighth item on the agenda was Ordinance #22, second reading, an ordinance defining the Charter Amendment. Allen Christensen presented the ordinance to the Council, stating that changes were made in the charter question being posed on the ballot. Councilmember Greg Moffet made a motion to approve Ordinance #22, Series of 2001, on second reading. Councilmember Kevin Foley seconded the motion. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Association, suggested exploring procedural differences between statutory towns versus home rule towns in regard to the charter referendum. Councilmember Rod Slifer suggested citizens run for the four available seats on the Council in the upcoming election. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The ninth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. Town Manager Bob McLaurin requested authorization to proceed with the Westhaven Street reconstruction project increase to $210,000. McLaurin stated a contract should be decided in the next 5-7 days between B&B and CWS, depending on the cost of the concrete. Councilmember Rod Slifer made a motion to increase the budget to $210,000. Councilmember Greg Moffet seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Information Update - Colorado Ski Museum Gala will be held on Oct. 19t'. It was agreed by Council to sponsor a table for the event. The Building Appeals Board interest has been minimal and it was suggested to widen the applicant base to individuals in the county. It was suggested a list be compiled of local possibilities before going out-of-town. A request from the Alpine Garden for maintenance assistance was referred to discussion at an upcoming meeting. Greg Moffet, Council representative on the Vail Valley Chamber of Commerce, reported favorable support from the Chamber's membership regarding a merger proposal with the Vail Valley Tourism and convention Bureau. Sybill Navas reported on her discussions with Sen. Wayne Allard regarding attempts to change immigration policies to assist with seasonal employment opportunities. She also reported on her attendance at a meeting on alternative entertainment options for New Year's Eve that would appeal to families. The meeting was also attended by Councilmember Diana Donovan. Councilmember Rod Slifer congratulated those who conducted the duck race over Labor Day Weekend. Councilmember Chuck Ogilby inquired as to the status of parking this fall Town Manager Bob McLaurin stated the staff was in the process of reviewing policies. Kim Langmaid expressed concern for finding a new home for the Gore Range Natural Science School. Langmaid expressed interest in coming to Vail with the school. Suggestions as to where this school could go in Vail included CMC and the tennis courts in Lionshead. Councilmember Chuck Ogilby challenged the Council to do this. Diana Donovan suggested the need for a weekly CEO report written by Town Manager Bob McLaurin. McLaurin stated he would provide Diana with as much information as she needed from him and would try to provide info that is pertinent. Councilmember Rod Slifer stated he felt we get enough information from the town manager. Councilmember Sybill Navas suggested the need for a discussion regarding increasing Councilmember benefits as well as being added to the town's health plan coverage. It was agreed to schedule a time to discuss this before the election. Councilmember Kevin Foley noted the town's flags need to be cleaned. Foley also inquired as to when the designer utility and manhole covers would be installed in Lionshead. Foley also inquired as to the schedule for the Ice Dome at the Nordic Center. Foley also acknowledged Jacques Lazier for his winning race. Also mentioned by Foley was the question of galleries and jewelry stores being exempt from state and county taxes. As there was no further business, Councilmember Kevin Foley made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Councilmember Greg Moffet seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk REVISED VAIL TOWN COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 7:00 P.M. EVENING MEETING MINUTES A regularly scheduled meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, September 18, 2001 at approximately 7:00 P.M. Present: Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro-Tem Diana Donovan Kevin Foley Greg M offet Rod Slifer Absent: Chuck Ogilby Staff Members Present: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager Allen Christensen, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Mayor Kurz called for a moment of silence in observance of those who lost their lives and for the families of the victims as a result of the attack of September 11 to Acting Police Chief Joe Russell acknowledged Moses Gonzales from the Police Department, crediting him with saving the life of a man visiting in Vail who was suffering from a heart attack. Because of Moses' attention to the gentleman's symptoms, he was taken by ambulance to Vail Valley Medical Center and treated for a heart attack. Moses was presented with two Avalanche tickets. Melinda Gladish, representing Citizens for Quality Education, addressed the Council asking for support for a cost of living increase for Eagle Valley Schools to be on the November ballot, costing the taxpayer $13 per $100,000 assessed valuation resulting in $3.1 million for cost of living increases. Councilmember Greg Moffet reminded Vail voters to mail in their ballot. Michael Cacioppo also addressed the Council, in protest of the cost of living increase for Eagle County Schools, stating problems he felt were wrong with ballot issue as well as the legality of it. Cacioppo encouraged a "No" vote on the issue. Chefs Tom Salamunovich of the Larkspur Restaurant and Steve Virion from La Bottega, addressed the Council, announcing a local promotion to support the American Red Cross Disaster Fund. Local restaurants will be donating 50% of their profits from lunch and dinner receipts to charity on Thursday, September 20th. Additional events include a Vail Jam on Pepi's deck Thursday, Sept. 27th Montine Hansl, Vail resident, addressed the Council, inquiring as to how the town could support the nation in our efforts for relief. Hansl thanked the chefs for their participation and encouraged Vail to be creative in finding additional ways to help in the relief. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Association, asked the Council who was conducting an anonymous phone survey regarding the proposed Vail Town Charter Amendment. Tom Steinberg, Vail resident, stated he had also received a phone call saying he would be paid $75 to attend a meeting on Thursday in Vail Library Community Room. He also stated the caller would not identify himself and sounded disorganized. Councilmember Rod Slifer also got a call and thought it was a promotion for a timeshare. Mayor Kurz presented a plaque to Town Manager Bob McLaurin that he had received in recognition to World Bike Championships. Kurz thanked the town and the town staff in the way they volunteered and performed under some very trying conditions and for their help organizing and volunteering. The second item on the agenda was an update of the 2001 Community Survey. Suzanne Silverthorn, Community Information Officer, made a presentation to the Council, stating that for the 14th consecutive year, the Town of Vail has conducted a community survey to evaluate levels of satisfaction with respect to a full range of community services and to gather opinions on selected issues facing the Vail community. Silverthorn stated the survey was conducted entirely over the Internet this year as a pilot program to evaluate accuracy and effectiveness. The results, which are now available on the Town of Vail Web site, www. vailcrov. com, suggested future use of the Internet as a viable and cost-effective tool. Silverthorn gave a background of survey results and methodology leading up to it, stating the use of the Internet cut costs in half. The time period of the survey was March 23 - May 16, 2001, with 251 responses; 170 full time residents, and 75 part-time residents. Silverthorn stated the largest improvement noted was in frontage road maintenance and credited this high rating to the town assuming maintenance responsibility on the frontage roads. Silverthorn reported the lowest rating was in regards to the overall parking fees. Mayor Kurz thanked Suzanne for her outstanding work on getting this done on the Internet. Councilmember Kevin Foley asked Silverthorn if she was pleased with the responses. Silverthorn responded in the affirmative, stating the town was looking for constructive comments and suggestions this year. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Association, also thanked Suzanne for getting the survey on the Internet, as well as Mike Cacioppo, who stated he had tried to do something similar 20 years ago. The third item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Greg Moffet made a motion to approve the August 7 and 21, 2001 minutes with corrections as stated earlier in the worksession. Mayor Pro-Tem Sybill Navas seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The second item under the Consent Agenda was Ordinance #20, Series of 2001, second reading, an ordinance making supplemental appropriations to the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, and the Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund of the 2001 Budget for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations. Councilmember Greg Moffet made a motion to approve Ordinance #20, Series of 2001. Mayor Pro-Tem Sybill Navas seconded the motion. Councilmember Kevin Foley stated he would be voting no on the ordinance on second reading for the same reason he had voted against it on first reading, that being the fact that the Donovan Park pavilion was a "want" and not a "need" and it was too costly from construction to maintenance of the facility. Foley stated he also felt the pavilion was competing with Vail businesses. Councilmember Diana Donovan stated she would be voting no for the same reasons. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Association, questioned discussions this afternoon. Councilmember Rod Slifer suggested tabling the vote on this ordinance until the next meeting when all seven Councilmembers would be in attendance. After further discussion, Councilmember Rod Slifer made a motion to table Ordinance #20, Series of 2001, to October. 2, 2001. Councilmember Kevin Foley seconded the motion. Councilmember Foley stated he felt this would give the Council time to look at economic forecast for a couple of more weeks with regard to the Sept. 11 t" events. A vote was taken on the motion and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Town Manager Bob McLaurin stated that appropriations would lapse on December 31St and without a budget no authorization to spend money on personnel would be available. The third item under the Consent Agenda was Ordinance #24, Series of 2001, second reading, an ordinance repealing and re-enacting Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1988 and Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996, providing for the major amendment of Special Development District No. 21, Vail Gateway, to allow for the change in the underlying zoning of Commercial Core 1 to Commercial Service Center; amending the approved development plan for Special Development District No. 21, Vail Gateway; amending Title 12, Chapter 7, Article E, Section 4, to add "Private Club" as a conditional use in the Commercial Service Center Zone District; amending title 12, Chapter 2, Section 2, to add a definition of private club. Councilmember Greg Moffet made a motion to approve Ordinance #24, Series of 2001, on second reading. Councilmember Rod Slifer seconded the motion. Nina Timm, Housing Planner, advised the Council of one minor change in the memo in the packet, allow up to 9 dwelling units. Timm stated the vote was 5-2 on first reading and needs 4 votes to pass on second reading. Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, addressed the Council, asking for a straw vote to see what the outcome might be. Councilmember Sybill Navas stated she would vote against if it was not changed to include employee housing. Mayor Kurz stated in light of the economic climate, he felt it might get some vitality back again in Vail and hoped to approve this, stating he would much rather see a project go forward than to have it sit there empty. Kevin Deighan, with Timberline Real Estate, addressed the Council, stating there was office space available for lease and he had a letter of intent for some of the restaurant space. Dee Deighan felt two tenants could possibly be occupying the building by Christmas. Councilmember Rod Slifer stated he had not changed his mind. After further discussion, a vote was taken on the motion and the motion passed 4-2, Councilmember Kevin Foley and Mayor Pro-Tem Sybill Navas opposed. Councilmember Kevin Foley stated for the record that no requirement for employees at Donovan Park in Ordinance 20 was another reason he was not in favor of passing the ordinance. The fourth item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2001, An Ordinance Amending The Official Zoning Map For The Town Of Vail In Accordance With Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Chapter 5, Zoning Map; Rezoning Lots 1-4, Vail Meadows Filing 2 And Lots 15 And 16, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition To "Natural Area Preservation District". Brent Wilson, town planner, presented the ordinance to the Council, stating the ordinance was drafted to formalize policy decisions made recently by the Town Council on open space purchases within the "Vail Meadows Filing 2" and "Bighorn Second Addition" subdivisions. The rezonings, along with an associated Vail Land Use Plan amendment, will formalize the development limitations on these town-owned properties and prepare them for potential future designations as perpetual open space. A staff memorandum outlining the details of the rezonings and master plan amendment was also attached for reference. Wilson stated At its August 27th meeting, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) voted unanimously to recommend approval of these rezonings to the Vail Town Council. The PEC also requested the Town Council consider the expenditure of Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) funds for signage and parking areas encouraging public use of Lots 15 & 16, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition. Councilmember Kevin Foley moved to approve Ordinance #27, Series of 2001, on first reading. Councilmember Greg Moffet seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The fifth item on the agenda was Resolution No. 5, Series of 2001, A Resolution Amending The Town Of Vail Land Use Plan, Changing The Land Use Designation From "Low Density Residential" To "Open Space" For Lots 1-7 And Lot 12, Vail Meadows Filing 2 And Lots 15 And 16, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition, And Setting Forth Details In Regard Thereto. Brent Wilson presented Resolution No. 5 to the Council, stating it was drafted to formalize policy decisions made recently by the Town Council on open space purchases within the "Vail Meadows Filing 2" and "Bighorn Second Addition" subdivisions. Wilson stated the Vail Land Use Plan amendment, along with associated rezonings,wouid formalize the development limitations on these town-owned properties and prepare them for potential future designations as perpetual open space. A staff memorandum outlining the details of the rezonings and master plan amendment was attached to this ordinance for reference. Wilson stated at its August 27th meeting, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) voted unanimously to recommend approval of this amendment to the Vail Town Council. Councilmember Greg Moffet moved to approve Resolution #5, Series of 2001. Councilmember Kevin Foley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The sixth item on the agenda was the second reading, Ordinance #26, Series of 2001, an ordinance appointing the Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA) as VLHA special fiduciary agent to implement the Mountain Bell Project. Nina Timm, Housing Planner, stated the attached development agreement was the same as was presented at the last meeting. Timm stated attorney Jim Mulligan was in attendance if the Council had any questions or concerns for him. Councilmember Greg Moffet moved to approve Ordinance #26. Mayor Pro-Tem Sybill Navas seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1, Councilmember Diana Donovan opposing. Mayor Kurz thanked the Housing Authority for coming to the meeting and for their work. Councilmember Diana Donovan stated she wished to explain her "no" vote, stating that she did not want the Housing Authority to be carrying out previously set Council wishes, stating she felt the new Housing Authority should be a free thinking board and more independent of Council. Mayor Kurz stated he felt they were. The seventh item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. Bob McLaurin passed out a list of short-term recommendations form the Parking policy committee. McLaurin stated these recommendations would be discussed in full at the Sept. 25th work session. Councilmembers authorized McLaurin to prepare a letter of agreement with the Vail Recreation District to share in the cost of construction of a new exit and installation of smoke management system at the Dobson Ice Arena. The $100,000 in improvements will increase the building's capacity from 1,000 to 3,000 people. McLaurin stated the District did not feel they could pay anything towards the improvements at this time, but would be agreeable to divide the costs with the town and repay the town within the next year or so. Council agreed to go ahead with the improvements. McLaurin stated the Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) would be holding their meeting in Minturn a week from Thursday and invited the Council to attend. A presentation will be made on the changing economics of ski towns. Mayor Pro-Tem Sybill Navas thanked Finance Director Steve Thompson for putting together the changes for the upcoming budget hearings. Councilmember Kevin Foley reported that Fireman Tom Talbot's father had passed away last week. The Council expressed their condolences to the Talbot family. As there was no further business, Councilmember Greg Moffet made a motion to adjourn and Councilmember Kevin Foley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Mary A. Caster ORDINANCE NO. 25 SERIES OF 2001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE VAIL TOWN CODE, TITLE 14 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HANDBOOK, SECTION 10 DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES, D. BUILDING MATERIALS AND DESIGN, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has held public hearings on the proposed amendments in accordance with the provisions of the Town Code of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has recommended approval of these amendments at its September 10, 2001, meeting, and has submitted its recommendation to the Vail Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the proposed amendments are consistent and compatible with existing and potential uses within the Town of Vail and generally in keeping with the character of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the proposed amendments will make the Town's development review process less problematic and more "user friendly"; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the proposed amendments are necessary to ensure the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the Town Code to clarify the existing regulations regarding the use of building materials, to create review criteria for the proposed use of building materials, to codify existing unwritten Design Review Board policies into the Development Standards, to allow the Development Standards to be more responsive to the requirements of building and fire codes, and to allow the Development Standards to be adaptive to changing building material technologies. -1- Section 2. Title 14 Development Standards Handbook, Section 10 Design Review Standards and Guidelines, D. Building Materials and Design, is hereby amended as follows: (Text that is to be deleted is StfiGkeR. Text that is to be added is italicized.) 1. °uilding Mat94a,c shall-be r2dem+~u~t t> ; GI w sh GWiRg, weed drakes; aRd nati%te-stei43. e; 3k is wssoPtG 3 IJ Utiliza-d-,-ffces ta-Xt::~os and suFfaee-fcawr ct appear erialc sla ea:fa meFe-a GCPtF-WP- tau yr G k..M, steel, n nr nl^c+}in Gid;Rg, nnr sir;u~tied stene c, brisk-shall chcll n^} be permit}n,-. 1. Predominantly natural building materials shall be used within the Town of Vail. The exterior use of wood, wood siding, wood shingles, native stone, brick, concrete, stucco, and EIFS may be permitted. Concrete surfaces, when permitted, shall be treated with texture and color; however, exposed aggregate is more acceptable than raw concrete. The exterior use of stucco or EIFS with gross textures or surface features that appear to imitate other materials shall not be permitted. The exterior use of simulated stone or simulated brick shall not be permitted. The exterior use of aluminum, steel, plastic, or vinyl siding that appears to imitate other materials shall not be permitted. The exterior use of plywood siding shall not be permitted. The exterior use of any building material, including those not specifically identified by this Section, shall only be permitted, unless otherwise prohibited by this Code, where the Design Review Board finds: a. that the proposed material is satisfactory in general appearance, architectural style, design, color, texture, and quality over time; and, b. that the use of the proposed material complies with the intent of the provisions of this Code; and, c. that the use of the proposed material is compatible with the structure, site, surrounding structures, and overall character of the Town of Vail. 6-~sef vw fasiag~,:~.fc,^ materials shall be Gernpatible iiththesitsandSUFFOURdiRg luildinge. The and-metal ra3fs is aa63P:ab: , heweveF OF; RE) ir,--!an e ,Il metal r &U-Ji^ha ar• med. If r~stal reefs are use 4ey scull ba s~°fused with a law-gl3cc finsh aF ara &all gGRerally hava a e'1C.r;diRg seam e endue a heavy gauge. halt w4d # befgkc-cc 3hiRglec be permoued provided that t!ey Weigh csc'.f,= three n and selefte-fie Gempatihle ~hn ron~n+ of +his 913G!ieR. 6. The use of wood shake, concrete tile, slate, metal, asphalt shingle, fiberglass shingle, and built-up tar and gravel roofing may be permitted. Metal roofing, when permitted, shall not reflect direct sunlight onto an adjacent property and shall be surfaced with a low-gloss finish or be capable of weathering to a dull finish. Metal roofing, when permitted, shall be of a heavy gauge and designed to provide visual relief to the roof surface (including but not limited to a standing seam). Asphalt and fiberglass shingles, when permitted, shall weigh no less than three hundred (300) pounds per roofing square. The use of rolled roofing shall not be permitted. The use of any roofing material, including those not specifically identified by this Section, shall only be permitted, unless otherwise prohibited by this Code, where the Design Review Board finds: a. that the proposed material is satisfactory in general appearance, architectural style, design, color, texture, and quality over time; and, b. that the use of the proposed material complies with the intent of the provisions of this Code; and, c. that the use of the proposed material is compatible with the structure, site, surrounding structures, and overall character of the Town of Vail. -2- INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 2nd day.of October, 2001 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 16th day of October, 2001, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 16th day of October, 2001. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk -3- ORDINANCE NO. 29 Series of 2001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 5, ZONING MAP; REZONING LOT 1, MIDDLE CREEK SUBDIVISION TO HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that this zoning designation is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses, is consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations, and is appropriate for the area; and WHEREAS, The Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has recommended approval of this zoning map amendment at its September 24, 2001, public hearing, and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, all notices as required by the Town of Vail Municipal Code have been sentto the appropriate parties; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to amend the official Town of Vail Official Zoning Map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail is hereby amended as follows: Lot 1,, Middle Creek Subdivision shall be rezoned to Housing Zone District, in accordance with the attached map Exhibit A. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect on such date that the Final Plat of Middle Creek Village Subdivision has been filed with the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado. Section 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 5. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 6. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 2nd day of October, 2001 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 16th day of October, 2001, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 16th day of October, 2001. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: September 24, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a major subdivision, a request to amend the Vail Land Use Plan to change the designation from "Open Space" to "High Density Residential", and a request for a rezoning from "Natural Area Preservation District" to "Housing Zone District" to allow for the development of employee housing at the site known as Mountain Bell, located on an unplatted piece of property at 160 North Frontage Road. A complete metes and bounds legal description is available at the Department of Community Development. Applicant: Town of Vail Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The Town of Vail Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects, is in the process of developing employee housing at the Mountain Bell site. The first step in this process includes the following actions: 1. A major subdivision, to allow for the platting of the site known as Mountain Bell. The subdivision will be known as "Middle Creek Subdivision," and will consist of Lot 1 (the housing site, known as Middle Creek Village), Lot 2 (the Mountain Bell tower site), and Tract A (the open space parcel). This is discussed in Section V of this memorandum. Reductions of the preliminary plat are attached in Appendix A. 2. A Land Use Plan amendment, to change the land use designation from "Open Space" to "High Density Residential"of Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. This is discussed in Section VI of this memorandum. (Refer to Appendix B). 3. A rezoning, to rezone Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdvision, from "Natural Area Preservation District" to "Housing Zone District". This is discussed in Section VII of this memorandum. (Refer to Appendix C). II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY The Mountain Bell site was annexed into the Town of Vail by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1969. In 1974, as part of an agreement with Vail Associates, Inc., regarding bus service, the property was deeded to the Town of Vail. A portion of the site is owned by Qwest and is the site of the Mountain Bell tower. In addition, ABC and Learning Tree are located on the site. The remainder of the site is currently open space. A title report has been attached in Appendix D. 1 TOWN OF VAIL O4 K III. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS W A. MAJOR SUBDIVISON Plannina and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval/denial of a major subdivision. The PEC shall review the proposal and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the subdivision with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact on the general welfare of the community. Desian Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on major subdivisions.. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. B. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT Plannina and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the consistency of the proposed amendment with applicable review criteria and the policies, goals and objectives outlined in the Vail Land Use Plan and other applicable master plan documents. Desian Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on Land Use Plan amendments. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to consistency of the proposed amendment with applicable review criteria and the policies, goals and objectives outlined in the Vail Land Use Plan and other applicable master plan documents. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. 2 I Town Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial of a Vail Land Use Plan amendment. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the consistency of the proposed amendment with applicable review criteria and the policies, goals and objectives outlined in the Vail Land Use Plan and other applicable master plan documents. C. REZONING REQUEST Plannina and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed zoning with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact on the general welfare of the community. Desian Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on zoning/rezonings. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning Regulations. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial of a zoning/rezoning. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A. MAJOR SUBDIVISION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the preliminary plat for Middle Creek Subdivsion located at a Part of the S1/2 of the SE1/4 Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, based upon the criteria evaluated in Section V of this memorandum. The recommendation of approval includes the following findings: 1. That the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Major Subdivision Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. 3 1 2. That the application is appropriate in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, and effects on the aesthetics of the Town. In addition to the findings above, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. At any time within one year after the Planning and Environmental Commission has completed its review of the preliminary plat, the applicant shall submit a final plat to the Department of Community Development for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission. 2. The final plat shall not be filed with the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado until such date that the Planning and Environmental Commission has approved a development plan for Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. B. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT The Department of Community Development recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the proposed amendments to the Vail Land Use Plan, based upon the criteria for evaluation listed in Section VI of this memorandum and the following findings: 1. The proposed plan amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the Town of Vail's development objectives. 2. That the proposed amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the area. 3. That the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the public health, welfare and safety. In addition to the findings above, staff recommends the following condition: 1. That the Land Use Plan amendment shall take effect on such date that the final plat for Middle Creek Subdivision has been filed with the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado. C. REZONING REQUEST The Department of Community Development recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the proposed rezoning, based upon the criteria for evaluation listed in Section VII of this memorandum and the following findings: 4 • 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the Town of Vail's development objectives. 2. That the proposed rezoning is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the area. 3. That the proposed rezoning is in the best interest of the public health, welfare and safety. In addition to the findings above, staff recommends the following condition: 1. That the Land Use Plan amendment shall take effect on such date that the final plat for Middle Creek Subdivision has been approved and filed with the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado. V. MAJOR SUBDIVISION A. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF A MAJOR SUBDIVISION Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code establishes the review process and criteria for a major subdivision proposed in the Town of Vail. Pursuant to Chapter 13-3 (Major Subdivision) of the Town Code, the first step in the review process is for the -applicant to meet with a Town Planner to discuss the preliminary plan. Staff has met with the applicant on several occasions to discuss the proposal and address submittal requirements. Staff feels the applicant has successfully complied with the initial step in the review process. The Town of Vail is required to notify the following agencies that a major subdivision is proposed and that preliminary plans are available for review: a. Department of Public Works. b. Town Fire Department. C. Town Police Department. d. Public Service Company of Colorado. e. Holy Cross Electric Association. f. U.S. West g. Cablevision company serving the area. h. National Forest Service. i. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. j. Vail Recreation District. k. Eagle County Ambulance District. 1. Other interested agencies when applicable. All of the above agencies have been notified. The next step in the review process shall be a formal consideration of the preliminary plan by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. The applicant shall make a presentation to the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. The presentation and public 5 1 hearing shall be in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Town Code. The applicant's appearance before the Planning and Environmental Commission today shall serve to meet the public hearing and presentation requirement. The burden of proof that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Zoning Code and other pertinent regulations shall lie upon the applicant. In reviewing the preliminary plan, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to: 1. Subdivision Control; 2. Densities proposed; 3. Regulations; 4. Ordinances, resolutions and other applicable documents; 5. Environmental Integrity; 6. Compatibility with surrounding land uses; and 7. Effects upon the aesthetics of the Town and surrounding land uses. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall have twenty-one days from the date of the review of the preliminary plan to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions or modifications, the major subdivision request. Within ten days of making a decision on the request, the staff shall forward the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision to the Vail Town Council. The Council may appeal the Planning and Environmental Commission's action. The appeal must be placed within seventeen days of Planning and Environmental Commission's action. If the Council appeals the Planning and Environmental Commission's action, the Council shall hear substantially the same presentation by the applicant as was heard at the Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing. The Council shall have thirty days to affirm, reverse, or affirm with modifications the Planning and Environmental Commission decision. The appeal hearing shall be held during a regularly scheduled council meeting. The final step in the review process of a major subdivision request, after Planning and Environmental Commission preliminary plan review, is the review of the final plat. At any time within one year after the Planning and Environmental Commission has taken action on the preliminary plan, a final plat shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The staff shall schedule a final review of the final plat. The final review shall occur at a regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing. The review criteria for a final plat are the same as those used in reviewing the preliminary plan as contained in Section 13-3-4 of the Subdivision Regulations. The Town of Vail has the ability to require certain improvements when approving a major subdivision. The following improvements shall be required by the applicant unless otherwise waived by the zoning administrator, Planning and Environmental Commission, or Council: 1. Paved streets and parking lots; 6 I 2. Bicycle and pedestrian path linked with the town system and within the subdivision itself; 3. Traffic control signs, signals or devices; 4. Street lights; 5. Landscaping; 6. Water lines and fire hydrants; 7. Sanitary sewer lines; 8. Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers; 9. Bridges and culverts; 10. Electric lines; 11. Telephone lines; 12. Natural gas lines; 13. Other improvements not specifically mentioned above but found necessary by the Town Engineer due to the nature of the subdivision. B. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A MAJOR SUBDIVISION Section 13-3 of the Town of Vail Code provides the criteria by which a proposed major subdivision is to be reviewed. Section 13-3-4: Commission Review of Application; Critera states: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13-3-3C above. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. 1. Subdivision Control There are three lots being platted as part of this major subdivision request: Lot Zoning Lot Size Buildable Area Frontage Lot 1 Housing 6.673 ac. 4.573 ac. 1145.75 ft. (proposed) 290,676 sq. ft. 199,200 sq. ft. Lot 2 General Use 1.096 ac. Not applicable Via 40 ft. 47,742 sq. ft. easement Tract A Natural Area 17.226 ac. Not applicable 1545.02 ft. Preservation 750,365 sq. ft. Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision: Lot 1 is proposed to be zoned to the Housing Zone District. According to Section 12-61-10: Other Development Standards: 7 1 Prescribed By Planning and Environmental Commission: In the H District, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as proposed by the applicant, as prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and as adopted on the approved development plan: A. Lot area and site dimensions. B. Building height. C. Density control (including gross residential floor area). Therefore, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall prescribe the minimum lot size and frontage requirements. Staff believes that the lot size of 290,675.9 sq. ft. and the frontage of 1145.75 ft. are appropriate in this subdivision. Lot 2, Middle Creek Subdivision Lot 2 will remain zoned General Use. According to Section 12-9C-5: Development Standards: Prescribed By Planning And Environmental Commission: In the General Use District, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission: 1. Lot area and site dimensions. 2. Setbacks. 3. Building height. 4. Density control. 5. Site coverage. 6. Landscaping and site development. 7. Parking and loading. Therefore, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall prescribe the minimum lot size and frontage requirements. Staff believes that the lot size of 47,741.8 sq. ft..is appropriate for this subdivision. The frontage proposed for Lot 2 is via the existing platted access easement, which is 40 ft. Generally, the minimum frontage requirement within the Town of Vail varies from 30 ft. (residential zone districts) to 100 ft. (higher intensity commercial zone districts). Staff believes that given the current access and use of the site, the 40 ft. access easement provides acceptable access to the site. Therefore, staff believes that no frontage is acceptable for this subdivision. Tract A, Middle Creek Subdivision Tract A will remain zoned Natural Area Preservation District. There are no minimum lot size or frontage requirements in the Natural Area Preservation District. Staff believes that the configuration of Tract A is appropriate for this subdivision. 8 r 2. Densities Proposed The density proposed for the entire 25 acre site is 192 dwelling units. This is approximately 7.68 dwelling units per acre. However, the development will be clustered on the 6.7 acre housing site. This will keep development out of the 40% slopes as required by the Chapter 12-21 of the Town Code. Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision Lot 1 is proposed to be zoned Housing Zone District, with a land use designation of High Density Residential. The density allowed in the Housing zone district is prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The applicant is currently proposing 192 dwelling units on Lot 1. This is approximately 42 dwelling units per buildable acre and 29.7 dwelling units per gross acre. For comparison, the density allowed in Lionshead Mixed Use 1 is 35 dwelling units per acre. The land use designation of High Density Residential states that density in this designation would exceed 15 units per buildable acre. Staff believes that this density is appropriate for this subdivision. Lot 2, Middle Creek Subdivision Lot 2 is zoned General Use, with a land designation of Public/Semi- Public. No dwelling units are proposed on Lot 2. The only allowable dwelling units in the General Use Zone District are Type III employee housing units. Tract A, Middle Creek Subdivision Tract A is zoned Natural Area Preservation District, with a land use designation of Open Space. No dwelling units are permitted in the Natural Area Preservation District. 3. Reaulations Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision Lot 1 is proposed to be zoned to the Housing Zone District. For a discussion of the rezoning, please refer to Section VII of this memorandum. The Housing Zone District regulations have been attached in Appendix E for reference. The Housing Zone District requires an approved development plan in conjunction with development on the site. The rezoning is contingent on the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval of the development plan. Lot 2, Middle Creek Subdivision Lot 2 will remain zoned General Use. The existing use of the property will continue. Any changes require an amendment to the approved development plan, subject to approval by the Planning and Environmental 9 Commission. The General Use Zone District regulations have been attached in Appendix F for reference. Tract A, Middle Creek Subdivision Tract A will remain zoned Natural Area Preservation District. The Natural Area Preservation District regulations have been attached in Appendix G for reference. 4. Ordinances. resolutions and other aonlicable documents In reviewing this proposal, staff relied upon the Town Code and the Vail Land Use Plan. The issues relating to the Town Code have been addressed previously. The Vail Land Use Plan contains goals which staff considers to be applicable to the major subdivision request. The applicable goals include: 1.0 General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.6 Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5.0 Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 10 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. The Vail Land Use Plan identifies this neighborhood as Medium Density Residential. According to the Land Use Plan: The medium density residential category includes housing which would typically be designed as attached units with common walls. Densities in this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre. Additional types of uses in this category would include private recreation facilities, private parking facilities and institutional/public uses such as parks and open space, churches, and fire stations. 5. Environmental Intearitv According to the Town of Vail hazard maps, Middle Creek Subdivision is located within a Medium Severity Rockfall hazard and Moderate Hazard Debris Flow. A site-specific study has been completed by R.J. Irish, dated August 16, 2001, and is attached in Appendix H. The consulting engineering geologists acknowledges that the risk of debris flow from the Middle Creek Valley to be high during the lifetime of the project, with a volume described as "small to quite large." The report indicates that the entire site is located within a high hazard debris flow area. The report also suggests that the risk could be minimized by mitigation measures. The report also acknowledges that the risk of rockfall is medium during the lifetime of the project. Mitigation recommended by the report includes dislodging exposed boulders by hand prior to construction. It further states that any boulders would likely be trapped in the channel of the creek. The hazard reports have been included for reference. Staff continues to have concerns regarding the hazards on the site. The study indicantes that the entire site is located within a high debris flow area. Staff believes that prior to the final platting of the site, the mitigation of this debris flow should be further examined. Mitigation measures will be reviewed with the final platting of the site. As required by Chapter 12-21 of the Town Code, no development will be permitted on slopes greater than 40%. The lots have been configured to minimize the 40% slopes on Lot 1. An Environmental Impact Report has been completed by Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc., and has been attached in Appendix I for reference. The report stated that while the proposed development of Lot 1 will have an impact on plant and animal communities presently inhabiting the property, the loss of the 6.5 acres does not represent a significant impact to plant and animal communities. The report recommends that all trash dumpsters need to be made bear-proof and exterior lighting will need to be minimized. The report additionally states that the impact to Middle Creek could include runoff from paved parking areas. A drainage study has also been included. 11 A wetlands assessment is currently being performed and will be submitted prior to final platting of the site. The drainage report has been completed by Peak Civil Engineering, Inc., which Is attached in Appendix J for reference. The drainage study states that runoff from the proposed development will follow existing drainage patterns. A preliminary traffic study has been attached in Appendix K for reference. Generally, the study states that the traffic generated by the proposal will be less than most apartment complexes, due to the proximity to other forms of transportation. When a design is finalized, a more in-depth study will be provided. All of the environmental studies will be updated to reflect the development plan as the development of Lot 1 is refined. All of the studies will be included in the final review of the plat. 6. Compatibility with Surroundina Land Uses Adjacent uses to the entire Middle Creek Subdivision include the following: Solar Vail - a multiple-family housing project currently zoned High Density Multiple Family. Tract C, Vail Potato Patch - an open space tract currently zoned Natural Area Preservation District. Parcel B, Spraddle Creek Ranch - an open space tract currently zoned Natural Area Preservation District. This property is adjacent to Lot 1. 1-70 Right-of-Way - land owned by CDOT but located within Town of Vail boundaries. As a road right-of-way, there is no zoning on the property. This property is adjacent to Lot 1. White River National Forest - land owned by the United States Forest Service outside of the Town of Vail boundary. Staff believes that the subdivision is compatible with surrounding uses. 7. Effects Unon the Aesthetics of the Town and Surroundina Land Uses The existing Mountain Bell tower and structure will not change with this application. Approximately 17 acres will remain open space. Lot 1 will be developed within the parameters of the Housing Zone District. According to Section 12-61-11: Development Plan Required: Compatibility With Intent: To ensure the unified development, the protection of the natural environment, the compatibility with the surrounding area and to assure that development in the Housing District will meet the intent of the District, a development plan shall be required. As the development plan will be approved at a later date by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board, staff believes that 12 there will be no negative effects upon the aesthetics of the Town and the surrounding land uses. VI. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT A. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN The Vail Land Use Plan was initiated in 1985 and adopted in 1986 by the Vail Town Council. The main purposes of the Land Use Plan are two-fold: 1. To articulate the land use goals of the Town. 2. To serve as a guide for decision making by the Town. The Vail Land Use Plan is intended to serve as a basis from which future land use decisions may be made within the Town of Vail. The goals, as articulated within the Land Use Plan, are meant to be used as adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. In conjunction with these goals, land use categories are defined to indicate general types of land uses which are then used to develop the Vail Land Use Map. The Land Use Plan is not intended to be regulatory in nature, but is intended to provide a general framework to guide decision making. Where the land use categories and zoning conflict, existing zoning controls development on a site. To be effective, the Land Use Plan must be updated to reflect current thinking and changing market conditions. The Vail Land Use Plan can be amended in three ways: 1) The Community Development Department can update and revise the plan periodically. The Community Development Department then makes recommendations for the proposed changes to the Planning and Environmental Commission, where these changes would then be considered in a public hearing format. The Planning and Environmental Commission would then make a recommendation to the Town Council, where another public hearing would be held. The Council then adopts the changes by resolution. 2) The Planning and Environmental Commission or Town Council can also initiate amendments to the Land Use Plan. Again, both boards hold public hearings and the changes are adopted by the Town Council by resolution. 3) The private sector can also initiate amendments to the Vail Land Use Plan. Applications may be made by a registered voter, a property owner, or a property owner's authorized representative. The amendments are then heard by both the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council. The Town Council then adopts the changes by resolution. The applicant is proposing to change the land use designation from Open Space to High Density Residential. The Open Space designation is described as follows: 13 Open Space (OS): Passive recreation areas such as greenbelts, stream corridors and drainageways are the types of areas in this category. Hillsides which were classified as undevelopable due to high hazards and slopes over 40% are also included within this area. These hillside areas would still be allowed types of development permitted by existing zoning, such as one unit per 35 acres, for areas in agricultural zoning. Also, permitted in this area would be institutional/public uses. The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies the Mountain Bell Site as "approximately half of the property is intended for affordable housing and the remainder of the site will remain open space." The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan is intended to identify and recommend actions for the protection of sensitive land and open space, not as a guide for development of other properties. The High Density Residential designation is described as follows: The housing in this category would typically consist of multi-floored structures with densities exceeding 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. Other activities in this category would include private recreational facilities, and private parking facilities and institutional / public uses such as churches, fire stations and parks and open space facilities. The Vail Land Use Plan describes the Mountain Bell site as Tract 35 and states: The Mountain Bell microwave facility and two day care centers are located on a 25 acre site owned by the Town of Vail which is north of 1-70. A portion of this site under the microwave facility is owned by Mountain Bell. Part of the entire site in located in an area of medium environmental hazards and should continue to remain in its present use, with possible expansions of the day car centers. It may also be an option for the cemetery, further discussed later. B. CRITERIA FOR CHANGING THE LAND USE PLAN Any amendments to the Land Use Plan require a public process. Adjacent properties are notified, the Planning and Environmental Commission holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the Town Council on the proposal. The Town Council adopts the changes by resolution. Any changes to the Land Use Plan must address the following three criteria: Criterion 1: How conditions have changed since the plan was adopted The Vail Land Use Plan was adopted in 1986. Since then the Town of Vail has completed three other important studies which involve the Mountain Bell site. 1. Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study (1990) The Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study was completed in 1990. The primary purpose of the study is to provide guidance and direction by developing a series of policies and recommendations to address the 14 community's need for expanding the supply of affordable housing for its local residents, both year-round and seasonal. The Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study provided the following recommendations: a. Provision for accessory units in single-family, primary/secondary, and duplex zone districts. b. Create new definitions in the land use code for permanently deed restricted affordable housing and studio housing units. c. Consider the role of the Town of Vail in overseeing and demonstrating actions on affordable housing. Create a Town of Vail Housing Authority to assist in the coordination and administration of the affordable housing program. Also, establish a demonstration housing project which is planned and coordinated by the Town of Vail, with the assistance and participation of the private sector. d. Amendment of standards and criteria for Special Development Districts to provide for affordable housing unit developments. e. Special development districts for commercial, mixed-use, or free market residential development to provide for affordable housing units. f. Waiver of development land processing fees related to the construction of deed restricted affordable housing units constructed within the Town of Vail. By Resolution No. 25, Series of 1990, the Town of Vail established the Town of Vail Housing Authority. The Housing Authority evaluated different sites for housing potential. The Mountain Bell site was the Authority's recommendation as the housing project to move forward with first. However, in 1993, the Town Council opted not to move forward on this project due to political concerns. 2. The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan (1994) The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan primary purpose is to identify and develop strategies for acquiring or protecting key remaining open lands in Vail that would be valuable for recreation, protecting sensitive environmental resources, extending or connecting trails, providing adequate neighborhood open space, and creating a small amount of contingency land for unforeseen needs (e.g. employee housing, public facilities). The comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies the Mountain Bell site and states: Approximately half of this property (7.71 acres) is intended for affordable housing and the remainder of the site will remain in open space 3. The Housing Needs Assessment (1999) The Housing Needs Assessment was completed in 1999, sponsored by Eagle County, Town of Eagle, Town of Vail, and Vail Resorts, Inc. The purpose of the assessment is to better understand current housing 15 problems and to provide information that can be used to address identified needs. The Housing Needs Assessment identifies the need for additional housing in Eagle County. Specifically, it states: Develop affordable housing throughout the county except for seasonal workers, whose housing should be concentrated in Vail. Staff believes that these studies, all completed since the adoption of the Vail Land Use Plan, establish a need for additional housing opportunities in the Town of Vail. The Mountain Bell site, specifically examined by the 1990 Town of Vail Housing Authority and the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan, has been identified as a suitable site for housing. Staff believes that the conditions have changed since the adoption of the Vail Land Use Plan. Criterion 2. How the plan is in error The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic Hazard Studies are presented in Appendix H of this memorandum. As the studies indicate, the site is developable with mitigation of the existing hazards on the site. The Vail Land Use Plan indicates that minimum development should occur on the site, due to the hazards. However, staff believes that the Vail Land Use Plan is in error regarding the development potential of the site. The preliminary studies indicate that the site is developable for housing with mitigation. The hazards on the site and possible means of mitigation remain a concern of the staff. Criterion 3: How the addition, deletion or change to the plan is in concert with the plan in general Staff has identified the following objectives and goals, which staff believes are relevant to this proposal from the Vail Land Use Plan. 1.0 General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.6 Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from 16 the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1.10 Development of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and open space) may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public use. 1.11 Town owned lands shall not be sold to a private entity, long term leased to a private entity or converted to a private use without a public hearing process. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5.0 Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Staff believes that the proposed Land Use Plan amendment is in concert with the plan in general. VII. REZONING REQUEST A. ZONING REGULATIONS OVERVIEW The Town of Vail Zoning Regulations are intended to: Promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. In contrast to the Land Use Plan, which serves as a guide in land use decision making, the zoning and subdivision regulations are regulatory tools used to control development for the benefit of the public health, safety and welfare. The 17 zoning regulations are specific with regards to development on property, including density, setbacks, height, etc. Where conflicts exist between the Land Use Plan and the zoning for a site, existing zoning controls development. However, in cases where a change in zoning is considered for a site, the land use designation and land use objectives as identified in the Land Use Plan are important considerations in the decision making process. B. REZONING CRITERIA The Town of Vail has established the following criteria in the review of a rezoning request: 1) Is the existing zoning suitable with the existing land use on the site and adjacent land uses? The existing zoning on the entire Mountain Bell site consists of Natural Area Preservation District and General Use. The General Use designation includes the portion of the site with the Mountain Bell facility and the two day care facilities. The rest of the site is designated Natural Area Preservation District. According to Section 12-9C-1 of the Town Code, the purpose of the General Use zone district is as follows: The General Use District is intended to provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 12-1-2 of this Title and to provide for the public welfare. The General Use District is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi public uses permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. According to Section 12-8C-1 of the Town Code, the purpose of the Natural Area Preservation zone district is: The Natural Area Preservation District is designed to provide areas which, because of their environmentally sensitive nature or natural beauty, shall be protected from encroachment by any building or other improvement, other than those listed in Section 12-8C-2 of this Article. The Natural Area Preservation District is intended to ensure that designated lands remain in their natural state, including reclaimed areas, by protecting such areas from development and preserving open space. The Natural Area Preservation District includes lands having valuable wildlife 18 habitat, exceptional aesthetic or flood control value, wetlands, riparian areas and areas with significant environmental constraints. Protecting sensitive natural areas is important for maintaining water quality and aquatic habitat, preserving wildlife habitat, flood control, protecting view corridors, minimizing the risk from hazard areas, and protecting the natural character of Vail which is so vital to the Town's tourist economy. The intent shall not preclude improvement of the natural environment by the removal of noxious weeds, deadfall where necessary to protect public safety or similar compatible improvements. The existing zoning is suitable with the existing land use of the site. However, the current proposal for the site is to establish employee housing on Lot 1 of Middle Creek Subdivision. Lot 2, Middle Creek Subdivision will remain General Use. Tract A will remain zoned Natural Area Preservation District. This rezoning request is to rezone Lot 1 to the Housing Zone District. Staff believes that this zoning designation is more appropriate given the proposed development of the site. The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies this site for employee housing. Adjacent uses to the entire Middle Creek Subdivision include the following: Solar Vail - a multiple-family housing project currently zoned High Density Multiple Family. Tract C, Vail Potato Patch - an open space tract currently zoned Natural Area Preservation District. Parcel B, Spraddle Creek Ranch - an open space tract currently zoned Natural Area Preservation District. This property is adjacent to Lot 1. 1-70 Right-of-Way- land owned by CDOT but located within Town of Vail boundaries. As a road right-of-way, there is no zoning on the property. This property is adjacent to Lot 1. White River National Forest - land owned by the United States Forest Service outside of the Town of Vail boundary. Within Middle Creek Subdivision, Lot 1 is adjacent to Lot 2, and Tract A. 2) Is the amendment presenting a convenient workable relationship with land uses consistent with municipal objectives? The Town has continually stated that the provision of employee housing is an important objective and a high priority for the community. Staff believes that the amendment presents a convenient workable relationship with land uses consistent with stated municipal objectives. The purpose of the Housing Zone District is: The Housing District is intended to provide adequate sites for employee housing which, because of the nature and 19 characteristics of employee housing, cannot be adequately - regulated by the development standards prescribed for other residential zoning districts. It is necessary in this district to provide development standards specifically prescribed for each development proposal or project to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 12-1-2 of this Title and to provide for the public welfare. Certain nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses, which are intended to be incidental and secondary to the residential uses of the District. The Housing District is intended to ensure that employee housing permitted in the District is appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents of Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the allowed types of uses. The Housing Zone District is similar to a special development district in its flexibility in the development standards of the zone district. The Housing Zone District provides the following: Lot Size: as approved by the PEC Density: as approved by the PEC GRFA: as approved by the PEC Site Coverage: 55% or as approved by the PEC Landscape Area: 30% Setbacks: 20 ft. or as approved by the PEC Parking: per Ch. 12-10 or as approved by the PEC As part of the rezoning of Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision, to the Housing Zone District, the Planning and Environmental Commission would be adopting a development plan for the site. This will occur at future Planning and Environmental Commission meetings. The rezoning does not take effect until the final plat for Middle Creek Subdivision is approved and filed with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 3) Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly viable community? In accordance with the provisions of the Town of Vail Zoning and Subdivision Regulations and Vail's Comprehensive Plan elements, staff believes this rezoning provides for the growth of an orderly viable community. The Housing Zone District sets forth development standards and uses which the Town has found to be in the best interest of the Town's health, safety, and welfare. Staff believes that the designation of the Housing Zone District on this site will suit the proposed use and development of the site. The Housing Zone District regulations have been attached for reference. The Housing Zone District allows deed restricted employee housing as a permitted use. In addition, as conditional uses, the Housing Zone District allows for Type VI employee housing units, dwelling units (not EHUs) not to exceed 30% of the total GRFA constructed on the site, and accessory commercial uses. Staff believes that the clear purpose and intent of the Housing Zone District, along with 20 the allowable uses within that zone district, will provide for the growth of an orderly viable community. 4) Is the change consistent with the Land Use Plan? The proposed land use designation of the property is High Density Residential, which, according to the Vail Land Use Plan, is described as: The housing in this category would typically consist of multi-floored structures with densities exceeding 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. Other activities in this category would include private recreational facilities and private parking facilities and institutional / public uses such as churches, fire stations, and parks and open space facilities. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies as stated in the Vail Land Use Plan. Specific Land Use Plan goals that are relevant to this proposal include: 1.0 General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.6 Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1.10 Development of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and open space) may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public use. 1.11 Town owned lands shall not be sold to a private entity, long term leased to a private entity or converted to a private use without a public hearing process. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 21 5.0 Residential - 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Staff believes the goals of the Vail Land Use Plan will be furthered by the rezoning to the Housing Zone District. The Vail Land Use Plan states that the provision of employee housing is an important objective of the Town. In addition to the Vail Land Use Plan, other Town documents support this objective. In 1999, the Town of Vail sponsored, along with Eagle County, Town of Eagle, and Vail Resorts, Inc., a housing needs assessment. The Housing Needs Assessment states: Develop more rental housing. The demand for units to house new employees and employees who now commute but want to live in Eagle County is sufficiently strong to support the additional development of apartments. Until the vacancy rates reaches a level more in line with other communities, efforts to develop apartments should not be curtailed. Staff believes that the rezoning of Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision to the Housing Zone District is consistent with the Land Use Plan and the Housing Needs Assessment. 22 Appendix A: Preliminary Plat Information Planning and Environmental Commission Preliminary Plat, Land Use Plan Amendment, and Rezoning Request Middle Creek Subdivision September 24, 2001 a ~ FINAL PLAT MIDDLE CREEK SUBDIVISION PART OF THE SA, OF THE SEya SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDAIN TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO 1 CERIIFlCATE a DEDICATION ANO oTINEMP 2. vnE CERTIFlCATE e/w xxw mNY Aar r wx Iwxwx Ala Ax7 ix70WYNN7 ME~xl7T NbI~NNA#~N MTOMwIL ILL W.ll4Nxi fINiN..PMN INI rII[WIIIM INNi N10MN OOIIIK ONpV0/ N)[NIN M Ixllx111 A w TW N'NI' MNN w A[ tl ixl 11 L w xQ NN NNx w ILL I IN NYNxwlm. YNrY M IN{MN N~fi,:~~pl~grar1100ii c:{~~ Nm~ WxNMI• wt~fe n~~M~xxgwrx ! SE9 SEC 6 A x~N-w uia P aQ w ia"ii v r SITE LOCAMN Nw1Y0 w M YxNwwf wN. P M NM. { Nlrw M llexalMYOIN0. P M LAME ItN°sr ag1Oii w 'w° M N ~Mw a~Nw P , NNN {aa~w xii w0°'~i us a l~"iN NO' xNre r-xv az xo ar a u, +a. ~qxx p ~x ip w pr~N~ Nye q YW r~xNlf•YI'YNY Ni d NON 1MfNYx10 MO i~N10 MMd{. MpY Mi111 iW NI1M Ills a MxMTAIi lixlNY W M r11ti1NN xxlr M 1 M >Y7M M 1~w !wx IINY x tl~IC'{T f Nllp xill lip4 ¦ s1Anv' r %APo IRb .rr rr xrlll7 M..•M' Y DW,Ip N7x WW x Iltlla/Y • IN.W IOR MOi s ifAl'!1' x N0.Po I@x PLANMNO AND ENNRONMENTAL CpgNS90N CERTIFCATE naxz s NrolrY r ma IRT W A rillr w A wN-T,wpt oNw -TTI Ae4 Ncn Im NaN M rA1 s un aulr Po M luT. YANG •YMa P 711xm ~~~II~Yww AYNY~N~+~yp'rOUMi ~vp°yi~x~ No. ~Wru~i°iwAwa x'rsgq ~aur~ da lxi rwa Nar.e A.nia~m w e[ WN: w wa nrlw NN r oarxY JMY1.~1.8~l~1 NyiTy1~0 MIN/~~ylAxaN:OI/x NO~W1~g/,NryN~MM(WIWAwM00'x'AO'r r AN -._GMa AO ]Y~ wi4M IIiY W K Nix Mwex All NW ! l lif NYIf . a Mi bfMY gqxxwI1twp~1 i At M11a Mw M N17 N6r IYIR w M iUM nYrY P M iounxtw gxnWl i w'Mr1' i M >•L.eAQg7~Ylw, un 1xfoY snow s.NS allw raw s two PorN a1aN axMNM _ PoM a MN. I71Ywxe Y7a a YM 111YrY11 ANt ~T~[na~ryv'm~°amreNNial~m r~wx~i i~in rx~aNww ~W mYwxa tYrf1016 rlx MkiMNMpW~Ia, • WW~~/s~ { ~p Y6t if M NN~rl4. IM[ tOw:YENMI{N1MII~WNRY EOL Y M M IG.II 0 A NYrt Nrx nAN T M 71N'7! Y II11Y M N7IIIIiriT d.w P Ella F 10111NP 1 AAKw W Yqf w M IN rAx tllx4 i /7'00' NN {Q9 AwY2 x N^. 1 r.tOM IQry I= i 1M Y NA1 rwY Po M MaM NNT w MY INI yxNY Yl q! wWI~NrtxlN, Ny MNON w pt w.Y1N'~ M6 P nlxxt x MFxF r aW Im rtaN M NNw x.t PT{Y 11[ a OaWx.R AN erM T70 ~ SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE wu"~n' Tai A`N4 x a w c xxM rm~11~s r ~ sxna i Nl.w NW Po M Iiw a „t,rWV ,m. ~ TWY w xxN wmrn w auc M Yt. M0. lws r1n IlOali i10N1 A RN YN4 MT wea M N.Y[ xo INIi T AI1A111ax. W Mln 1 AE P Wx ~ 0101. 4 Nwx iNw W .4Y C01wY MT 1 M a nAlllx. lul/ NIAOlY7111071®wWl M A ill NIIin1110Y ) Y. p MAYKw 11NIlll4w INMD YMIYN M Wr w[ P M 10011rMr xNNlp P 1OOw ANK {llNxf01` M LND NN NATIaI xOIOIONw MN 11NIM I~NI IIMf x!N rU1T t - N N M NIN P YI{. w 07w NOOY M ~ ATOM w71f0Y 0. iwa NI'ifN'i - aN{q pw Ox+NIN w xro[ nNy M A0.1xAN Y11NY a ax rANam w w Nx tlxxl W Nx I' "'Y Ip M wNyina d nMN1w ~om NMw,M'V wI1NOM1Y N0Y1 M IYa110x MR1 wllxxw a M IAII. aLOllt NO NI14w P NYD !R IYVIIf tLL w M 1{~~p M01 IM 01101 pN0/p !t 11gw ~ 7 00"pmV. M IwCOw NNwx N1101Y1.M 0 M fIY [ M I wlY®wa M NIOIIx M Wax/Ilw yN //NpA{[ M IV110 M U1i 01 TII NNO~ NI Mi100111MN1i NAT 4 NOa RM MNWM1 bow IxIxOM NxD w01 M 0W rINN IwxNla OROY M IIiO.MWq i. a 1M10. p }y~ 9/ .w iY N.w1Y NCI M[ MNa N l xIMO M I I~. M IIIwON 1N1~y MN M NOM W MTMI OAIi a 1 . Y Ma YANI'AN MYfaMY wWW M wwY 111?tM1111t Ya ICwO CI11Nt NN w a'M4 am I08Nw A NR 1Na W IIY CNYMIY W6 Ms 4N. NONI. I M0i NY W IWO Mo wp. 11M WY P M. WIa M wNxbxi AM OxNYIY O Awc r. NNIII //11x/ or Twu i. M 1xwN NOfll IIrTN10 AMt w aN11w Ixer M CNIOCIGIL xAaw It1xY N[QII. M MY' a tAn M Iar70111 OIAa11rN wNIINI~pLO, 7xw~ MPL IN HC ~ aY P w1NU01w w x.E 7®1 oxw1111011111xMp aiIOWI. Na aID MMJw n fOOI xs ? V.t YIt1 ,vwnNlNw4 a1c. I 001011PNO ~IGL 1®I 4110 awxaMO aft m. M M 9NL w1aM0 P" Ms N!M W OOIYIYa a0 7 INK wx /OxLYM MR xNUw IlOM M ALlI~/row lxa x118 axNr MT ATm Naasr. NN, w rcN tA. xI1wY11{ 16 ra M ia1NxYY IrxNIAAw x111N aNMO A wlloru tNlx/1 VAL W "m M rm xAW w 11xx N0 aNNM1 IIK nxNa.4 Yo w{MY s N. NN M 1711[ aiwOY alol0axx NN aWiNPo ax¢ ~,M RNO I M 1012 NlwOli w Aw Nx/ NO x W ANA lw w aw 21 RNi A s arMlMiaNm~ina.non-Ap.sYm.M aaaNSnxvi® In 01l7• trr 111N NAY rax Nw10iD w we x{i tuMM4 ixYrrxR NOa Yl YmrN, CERI1FlCAlE OF TAXES PAID w,.. W w® nla x Nn AT aA rx. ~ M , ro 1Nai m4Y' Mr M 01Nx Mawr s xNw Nx ANwxWlw W AM0°aawNt W'narxr IAr Wu xxr WNlN4 rxY 10x6 raxY aNw 1lall Mr mmT oui t. irrii M a uNM u ryas a I7Al /NtN wirN® a _w w ` N v 914 NNN MA YW INaI' OxxNw xtN 0ai0r. N KO tYOx~ 1111 MT rl[ r. N ML "xiw.. NN MwTx N NOIN AYM lal O xM WY w A0. 90. . NIIMIY P 1M KNM N K W M IOIONtl.iaAa Wi0M01~1YN~CNO OtlN w 1N6 ~ MY P 17YIAlIInN P a1N[ 00111nT JN 7 PN 1PWN x YNL A N,NRR gpgAppl. W OOICgI a1Nw I ILUI lIC tlYY11xY N11CIi W KNO Aw OIIYYL tNL au1111 rwrr. Alllaa Mw uw ur1 axlA ta4 . xR CLERN AND RECORDER'S CERTFICATE 1w f 1.aN tars YNJAw YNOr A aT law IIIaaIxPrML R tw uNlm iKf NAT ws ww rA NAM N M mu w =a t. WNW AT TOTAL Atw11N. ~ A 110 AY P rlx x N{Y x~ M0 NW®1 pel nlxl! txA xN~T rAIILN. II. M' UNA= A4xw C sXSar i 01 z 9GLil' - m am ' M .L 107, FINAL PLAT MIDDLE CREEK SUBDIVISION PART OF THE SA, OF THE SEX SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDAIN TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO l~ 1 n rv, , /ar.mrs II WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST anm,an °V' (u.SF.S) roue r earl ow - aa,relaran~' 1' S6e7210'E - 263e.93' ~ - mmw rm) TRACT C WaA" Lm ex eal sin q VAL POTATO PATCH TRACT A OPEN SPACE xa xr rmowre • , 2w ma ' L01T88 VAIL POATO ATCH a ""arr T'7" 1~ arva.mxnla J~rI" saY LINE TABLE Byy y,•23"el - 3%76 ,~.~c•fa LOT 2 " I ~ay9 e.weWa_'a"a nano ^ Y.t1Y' 424.4W u Lomm \ ~ p[a aaw "xa uxm a lUSr um ow Oft PAX r.u fair as, r>a _ 1 _ _ _ 960V6'42'YI -211.80' I OIL!" \ -Tr- ~f¢ a r~ Mm+ralt • >,w rr) mr J aw.a sm~ae \ ow"iri~e R- Doc 024!'3Y tmsnranal uain 7o' mo xu.rtr _ w 9 T~ . t~ l~ Hrcu•6ow - 2N. Am r { L: 202.67 tma a®p , _ - rla l,rl \ -•+ra~ mo ..i°pr. a Y CH- 20285 ,m,w lm ~ t, Cl~ CO- 886R7'3rW ow. 0 OM ~ INTER (NORTH STATE HG~ No 70 \ a0 • (a.a1r H7r36'01IN - It-' r~wa1q. x~i(nm°wr~aoa \ wo r mma aw { Pa am .ae e \ ~"aaci { Su ~E~i SEC. 6 \'m law r sk." ow -wa.l amino,. \ aarw ww, ww[a awrrr Ou.T \ 74,41W (CALM - 4L -ar~sax_wr1Grc? - r.lma--.--._.-._.-.--.--.-- X - mHaer owm4I '«exrnzarw f~l lser,x ral,rrr n+.aa I CURVE TABLE 1 u "'a O rgle rlima a?a rarraxrrt alWx A/.x Yglrl a JI • ex w. l aw nr .unilr W to rr. mar ? rsle,?e~laem,ulrlrAeur.nw It dK T4a: ' C. SHEET Z of 2 { D"m rt .am J " re. ,ddm 1 ~ ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY LAND SURVEY PLAT PART OF THE SA OF THE SEy SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN TON OF VAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO 41 «Iw. WY IWBa ~i. "MOY«'«f IOtMV fi YYN~ .OT9A ~ b1Mlb ~0 Y~ 'r.~Y! wrol.l y~pY~ wgpWY rw Y y~ Mt «M ~O ~ rY.M4• r ~MiY1M~t l MY • Y / ? Y bYY r fMYrY YMYbA! rtlw YyYYM N /MI t«[ f 1[ WYOI N~Y~1 f _ v0Y a teM e101rlrt ~ Ylyr ~ ¦.MN el?wuc M M ywK~a asa~rWwpYmY~SYay.a~et~YM/Y ~Yw~yYP~f pY~1~, r~/K , M ra~Y xY~Y\ ~ Y~i[ MOy! GYM/ M NYyMM~Ipb f~1re~~ f«R~aiY\~eeMfi~tgLY` «i f I~YtYYP ~ ..1f ~ ? 11a 1tlOr~tt w~ Mp IwY aw'O YY11le OAq «M s wa YmY«l YNM ~ M«IN1-P~ I MIbYw1Y IMM• iY A N~'~'• is f°K- ~ acl? 5EC ~ IYI M1b OYgMY n, DO U««~/W r Ifl' ud1Yl t 1 OI~ wr IYYY1p0 bY6 I1/q~rrtKr~ Yy~r eelwYYAYUO IKf IYY YfIK YOM ff mm IYt v wmmu MW 1a rR mmomm WK w Li if Y YifY w~i s.mY iow n:fW °4 Otn Yw i~?~[ Ya w>,ss •mbloot + SM 10CA" LEAP >OM • efftr ? fa« 1RR ) tMY1 r.w twe M rM}1K M6 wsM1 Iwq t?ef w w a?wr 1os1 Y user r,e1» 1m 11112 r rrw r Mrt1 Mm - r .Y twnM r1YU ??YS s ti lee.we w trI MY'e1«t wb 1.?« neec 1 roelr r oue raa _ ww'~{ia "Y w+Y ~a'~vi ~w w 1w4 t elsar t wq «te Iola t etb'K r rue Ircr « Y /«rt s ? YeY.nrMlr Mwle M~2Ot1~Yr~/.f If! MfM M[ III~C«f? pWgCglR~yq M tfiY IYMY'~Yy111Y~bY f iMf OI YO ~•f MYfYI WOf MYO YYIM~,f Y[ q? Y pMY~eOM~11}}O.v OYYYOM 104 K W b1i YO P M Ip«I MM/ f K r u•N 1Y a M.'rr b1Mlt M ¦(~Y~ OI« HMO/ IMt ~ ~°«rA`YYY/~ eY1i ~ 1Y K bn~llr CDlw~ f K W IWM WYYNI C~ /«1 ~ Y ~~m row1K axWp11I wvfK s t NK.OY bM4t O/ K iM1w °w.',°L'Si` pbvp ~ « K «M1 v w rlwat /t I~tws MYr4~ ww w trY f e Wt n w M1MS q ?t1114YYb! WI• f M YEIM!COSIK f _ ~ ~ •K ~wfY lf. wp•AO yp~ /e~010yY. ~wG K¦/YYGpI~O p111O w/ OY MR! f qW ?sa~« 1onM'9q KW Wf r as YLb f ti4C~1.K f~CYa.ld1 Yw9pywq~ W%MIb~WKY M- a~ ~W~~^-n• 11 rMMY UMYL 41yY~Y~1YM«Y«~Np1Y1-f pEY YmleYr~Y11410 ObYa~f e0 «tl O 1[ YM~M09WI1, blabna~~.~ W~ MlY t~Mb~wLLYY •'NON • I«Ogwm~gM~IMYY+i !~YUwM Y? a pRw.~Yl~tYO YvLY1M 11111 «YgOYwpYYyMpOM~~M~ 1fbYY4 Y A IOwf nl?e0 !ti Y b01Y t 1141 18 ?OY1«Ilf OOYO r Y011C11 a « r" ^ 1YM~11 Y?Owr t W1w atM b Otf1 r K .eI1 141ft Y mm [ pY11161 1018 yW Yry ~p1 Y eYlf • N30 R1 1«K ~>Mp«O.1«fIYQ1~p1Q0Q t~LTfyt~A~11.Y~iR~! 1018 '.tM« YYS1 f tl1 ~Yw1w A Y04 ~gK Oo~i1 9w~Yli ~ eW ~MWgnpY 1~11~pY~w~t g1«1¦0pY111Y~Yy1(1)«q~f~MY~Y1O~{f.W1O110y1~ -0T ~IMp~«~~ Ot~YO OYY YOIItl 1 01 wY M1M« K Ip10«IO ONeYMO~1M~fpU1,II « «p yYY W ~pyY~Y IOU14 ~ ~ 0 1[ M /Y.IMt OO,Mn~ WIY~I OIYOrImtO~ wa« K~ OT . /001! t~« R1?b PRi Y ]QOY«' 1 NOI 1'[ 1MI11/N OOMa f f®}YI p0t,VtMM, Ytw o M 1?1 /a4 M.rs O ma/ .ss 1411 nmK< w b1fiJ' Y R«Iw~ 101K t t wN Ri q K Yeew Ow: r IwY 11M r NwGR 14 00411 MY«• M MW ren MeM K YY1w wort f IYY 11r r wvwq Iwo r w. iii A~l~o ~w~ea1«a s vret Y was we m 11Y r«n f YAAOmbWIMO 11Yf ww1Y+ q s /IAfftTisWi~~cwi«a rt ¦p[YO ~•1i'O4w«aY1w ~1?rO1~tt.EeullYwe~ w11IY MO N .1,~~f 'e1 YE01M161w1 K •1w.r MYy a Mw~ilews ~iaY rwwY M/Y1OO1« YYOM e/rwoa IM OeMONO 1p YIMOM IAO ~1U «q{Yt• bq ~u w ver LdGdX~ x( M•.w1w1 •s vMm 1rc w Me a.1?1s 8 utwr ty wa wn w Y.w eM. w.t ~ .ceM..1.. O M O w..wr, w1Ma av w Mw/w? ~ w wwMMgJ lwosrer,Ml wa rw+wtw?mrr«?4s M.1s,. ww.eM.M s . w..r+s s n1.ss. a14YR 1Yt b /eMYY M wwr Mwrgosw?:1 ° wIM u4 ~y~~y ~y~ wl tre.Y?w -.•MY-w.~w- arww per-.-O~~O~ reM «Olw ~.wV~-~eM.~~l~ t1004fYw SHMET I OJ 3 't1uY11 on am I We ML ton SURVEY SIXTH PRINCIPAL ~EPIDIAN THE ALTAIA~ND SND URVEY P TITLE ENCE 60 NEST OF Tp1iN5xIP aF EpGLF,. STATE OF COL0~O TAE SE• SECT F VAIL, COUNTY " , ! ~.~`w•107~ PART OF THE OF TORN NnnA_ FOREST ,~y 141E RIVER ~U.S i.s) ONES I ML SZao"S - a W°"r'rr w q A PjpoN 6U+ P.Y. 11 ~ P. RAN T we 4:, t I"L ,,,ACT 6 PATCH / . ? rer~ a . V'- VAR PD R r ~rex wu~ arr -,14. MCOVO'9Q'W a,W' t 1E~~:};~. ~:j:'s4? `'1.»:~'"`' r+p ~aawoe th.w'we_..,reuea 1.0T SE yas' asa+t.,~eo a. Vhn.POSAi'OPATG~ rn"" • - - ..~ti is - N43''W '~'=25~'h.:'f --A,.. .~.~a.:fa. m,^r:"........... ,.?^'MIN, u~.~ 1• +n L ,a od 1 / + ,rt' ~ il~'~u''E,nwmn au.•s~""''°` N7Yn'~"M~w:ro J `t/ ~,rr ar6,v. ~,vrt.- wy'A''" srerR ' Nri'~~M.~?+ son sr ""'r two iNSERSTAlE HIGHWAY NO. 70 ore. (NORn+ IrRatw Raw) ar °3, o`er SEC, 8 S i1 p,Mpf MUI~ + gp~W_µ~p ~p - ~M~v`~' p~~t - .o... sur"+.r r ram si al+ Tll ABBE " of $ o,a+ a o~ y` w~ $g~6T E ~ ~ ~w„~"°r.mrwu'°aww m+~ ,pew gas ori+M' SURVEY IxTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ND TJ TA/AGSM SURVEY pLATcE 8o W ES ROTHE s AL CStv)) OF 5 SOUTK= STATE SHIP CO I ~ OCOUNTY OF FACLTs> SECTo - uNPI AT aD z 01 P"A sovm. Sji~ OF TSF SFYT p1P p° wRT 900' ~ TM em v'"' F Of PAJ-T o (o 06 Liz ?''M f R„ _T ~T - ~ vn'.rars ra' emn MT r.ev n."n Nas'a'sYi VOW, T . - 1 49 ~,1d ' too" INTERSTATE HIGHWAY No. 70 (NORTH "TAM ROAD) 4uY ~OUNO luau.. -.r us Vol PARCEI , ;R u S'llol 3 of s t 1 y a - NMI, 32 ~O _ ~y-.~-~~~i'_.r-~'__~..-~._..._-^_~-,-.,~.~;-mss:-~--- i-''--_.~.~~~ t !fp -ter: fi ' • - - - ~P. kprr s~ • ? • ~ R 822 • '^.C ~ 8~J Y u ~ yy. C::: i lit uor nrorA ;:'tom ~ w-: .~.~y -may,,,, ~ ~ _ .~t: W-0-1 iNTERSTA-M HJGHWAy N.. t (NORM il'RDgJTACE ROAD) w~r•'•je0` F too _ • .r.'w~a 1 w" w~"'-- _ •~„„qp Wi+r~ W ~Q Sam P `n° N ar~° \ ` Ok[G \ !„s SII~'.ET seas p•~w , °.k.+ y..m " y.+cavrra »~•rrec~•¦•°' pRA 1039T P9 ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~p°r'iw~ ir•.^ ~Y 4 w„'• r a eap~ ~ °r ??P9*e.pr.+~~'."'""'rrYRwmw, a ~rryM ~ruic~~n» ~y1~1 Pena ~r11[p~0 •~y; y~µ~ry~^f ,~,,e~~ tlYO/i NMM4•?}~ ~'t ~ 1 l~-/~'.1 yM?L. ~pf{V~°~~ IIWMp I~'~ ~v' -•..~r ~?wyysr •w MA ~Mw~'~°"~p1~~IM~y~^"yVM Ft ~-aw'"'•-'fir` W"' •~~a YS ro r \1 M+ re^a ,aR!';~ 7 4 ri ..m ~ roa• aw.wc.em N,a~ aW ~~~~o O V GOx POt « - - _ - ~ IORV - ~ ..--,.tom"~ r M w7;tiw o+app°°~ INTERSTATE HIGHWAY No. 70y dta OZ>;'t (NORTH FRONTAGE ROAD) yppp.omet R• Oct Tf tOt~ a®1 g~•4y36~ ~~,,..~•t sy N.+x V~P"~pt ~Yij"• M yam.'- ~ 0~ ~ ~ f.~ cwna+ w tos9 Pt.0 s/o+ w+~ „O,~~~.~~"'~~,~ SHEET of 2 VAN 21 ROOM 0 NA logo "WAS C7< JJ r A GRAM SCAM T / T T + l A-4 W16 WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST 263463' OwMft- maw IM _ V TRACT C t VAIL POTATO PATCH e qq 8 AI g EN SPA ?7 y"' W LOT 88 *y o VAIL POTATO PATCH 8 - e g LOT S. g84'Ot'20'N !1 - a aT . . ¦o. A m a s M OWAIYW - 211.67 '°W r I V > 00"3wt - anw ow l p o Uttar '37' (a ew-q N74.26'69'W - 20470' 8 0 Q T. Maw Onw I" 0"wt-oN.w'-N Navuwr-4tsc rM ~'41'1It- ~.202.6rS-ww A.iNVMO.MN101 Mf10W M~~ I ~y goo 0" 202.65 O.W-d H 06- s6S'2r36'W "mut m" N7136'D6"w - 16Lar ~j W INTERSTATE HIGHWAY No. 70 NN9set-Nawo~ \ (/1 Ga"J (NCRTN FRONTAGE ROAD) O (P.O.W.) aO ~a rn a MMAM SLOPE OF 4OR OR OREA18R LOLL am =Z%; !"8'74021%l TOTAL Sp. FL . 1041014 4 Ft. APEA ER 101F -156066 S14 R AREA UNOER 4O1 - 200366 4 FL AREA OVER 40A: -64162E Sq. F4. 401 - (4) 6066 s4. FL REA - Ent sa FL ORAIAW i TOTAL WWASE AREA - 1IM26 24 FL REMEMPD: PLO .100# 1038 OAM 08/23/01 NOTE THE t00 TEAR FLOOOPLAM DOES NOT LIE WINK LOT I. SHEET 2of2 = - - 34S~ - - B5,06 i _ _ - x \ \ - C~ =7- i 1`70 NORTF{ FRONT AGE ROAD - - m SCALE: 1° = 100' a E r - - - 02; lll~ - - w \ 5 = 82 - ti 1j1 t - m d usom r arc+im s qL py +at SCALE: 1' = 100' a~r a ' C( At Alit, •~i.,fi~r .~-Ii'...`~ r f ~ _..'.-+-~i-` .vf~_ ~ ~ u,, ~r^ .~7"~_~._-tf.1/fl(' 4J-` MgIfM f10~iihaE RDM ~ , ~ ..+i..... .;,~jr~5`h~1f"r w...._.~~T ~ f~TiJV". rum ,r?:4r K'- _ OKM tp3• Pic ae 0*51 o t -81 •isy , i(! , i \ .,@n~~ ` v\ All, _ _ - - _ _ ..-_M'^_- --_s''x r.J~tP\t; `.r51Y• \\„-,;a;.~3~•`~ ~ ' _ _ f~ `?i ~ _ ~ - Q_ _ _ i.`,}.};, ~ ~ mil- ? V - - 5 C3 \ Ada^.. - w - - r - _ s,'-•r- _ - - - - -'mss-=~~~ 75 .s _ - . J - P _"y" ~ , .-ham ! - ~~"r-~.w^~:.;•~.1.+e;;~'-'- ~='~e•~'_''`"` r:.~T• _ - ___Y;i±~-. .'.%/ia£s''.. ~~~a-" \ i~/~i// ~t i ~ ~ ~~:.R''`•~--= ~ '::.ass'-,.,;;_-==._ w~"1'`-.1. _ ~i~_'~\ ,1f.!/ yyNt»t eC+' ~ '1.ry-~-`--'- '-.~'•',.Gf,~.~1''-»-:,....= - _a'~,•~~ _ - - - 'r~~~~~/%~!'i tl u6'~tN~t +1\` ~J ':i~` Mr r / c' _ - - - - _ -".'r""'.«,..~`""'~• r _ i•'_.•+-~~5~- 9'iyi'~'~~.~-i tV i t_•-_._ _y"•' - _ _ /r - _ - s ij~/iii -OI'fl~. IW I ~.d}. , /0 9~~%~ • 90, ~ ~ - r,r _ - ' - '~~i:-::. t ~ t-t ~`•`t+_` e P S~ _ - ~li:.u .r, ~ ' ~C. `~1aL_!_'-.,,~- , s: ~",+'r! r'r-.i sj ~ °!r ~ I`-r ~ •_e~q,~oo ov~o.., _ _ -_~~~~~r~i.. ~ - r+ \ ~at~ra~M\WCt,\ Y' `u"~a.~.1+3r Y..:. ~~~•.it?--` "~r.~ - -//'~1 - a~- ~+w - - ~.ne._. - r, -.ItQ11, F•^)"•AQ IIMO r G%w 03 '"LO Joe# oefm 9A•~ oGypV 1 i P Ar..•.....a'" ~,..^~~?a'/` f~ t ~,I,\\~ t~~+. ~~`'\~,-•,..«.84110 w»~` t` ~y.r-'-` ....•"r."a _ ~r -+r^,/"a-„~ /ia~ ~ t \ j t ~ - • r S 8350 _ . ~`t\``~?~ 4* r- '1 a~~^~F ~j ~.-"'°`..a~^~+•~-' r ±~-.'t ,j..~ti[. Y~'-....~•..-~~ 8300-.` `Y'•-=.._~__...... t``~^` -a ' f .a/' ~a l~ ?-a" r~ - • ..8•,290"-- I......'_-+....w ~~rr.+•"'.~ 'a1 as ~1 ~ ~I- ..rF "~1 r'/ " ~ • fro. J7S ~ L_,_._.~e J . 1 712- ••~.._.'-"r+-_'_-_ , - _ - -8200. ao~ •-T^- ~ Joao 7~ v~ ~mt2o/b 9 j Appendix B: Land Use Plan Amendment Planning and Environmental Commission Preliminary Plat, Land Use Plan Amendment, and Rezoning Request Middle Creek Subdivision September 24, 2001 nd Use Plan Amendment Middle Creek Subdivision 160 1 f(i~ AEC vl-Fll MOUNTNN BELL ? PublidSemi-Public High Density Residential TE \ /+e p PARKLION ~UCDTURE - _ / EXI ® Open Space ~OVAIL INTERNATIONAL 395 VAIN / 4 25 J 300 UU 1 1 hQY' EVERGREEN CONWUNI 1 / DOBSON 2 LOPME ICE ARENA 250 FIt G 1 EAST LIOMFIEADQRQE 5 1 111 I,' \ MJNICIPAL OFFICES 7 327 380 - 5 75 TREETOPS LODGEAT 6 U ~u'IS') 1 6 UONSHEAD LIBRARY I JI VAIL VALLEY STSTAR - O ~ 452 5 10 F IVEDICAL CENTER BANK SCORPIq, D 5 TRACTJ 292 281 E D-2 SUBDIW31; 520.E A 181 108 LOT D / g VAL A LAGS SKAAL I_-VU A-_" CHATEAU AT VAIL ALPINE C STAND GATEWA HOUSE FIUAiI~RN r 13 FILING2 V 272 D A N UNPLATTED TRACT B 8 WEST UE.ADOW DR 121 28 I 12 \ \ 252 7 232 3 2 HOLIDAY p 1\`\ 142. 122 HOUSE w RACT 6 5 4 7 21 1 162 a~ g j M September 24, 2001 Appendix C: Zoning Amendment Planning and Environmental Commission Preliminary Plat, Land Use Plan Amendment, and Rezoning Request Middle Creek Subdivision September 24, 2001 Zoning Armndrmnt Middle Creek Subdivision KIK)UNTAIN BELL i,}C1L j 0 General Use n Housing 7-~ LIGNSHEAD . ~ ¦ Natural Area PARKING STRUCTURE 395 VAIL INTERNATIONAL/ VAIL ' Preservation District /U EVERGREEN COAMUNTr I 1 DOBSON 2 LOPMEN I ICE ARENA 250 \1 / ~Fl NG 1 EAST11CMHEADCrnctE C MJN 4 \ ICIPAL OFFICES c~{ 321 75 \ TREETOPS LODGE AT 6 \ I NSHEAD I 6 LIO J 360/ LIBRARY VAIL VALLEY II~ryE 452 I _ 5 -1 y~ F MEDICAL CENTER I STST,4R D 5 292 X 2s1 E c2 SUBDIW' RACT J 31: 11 IL A 81 :2 LL~OAT~DA~~ f 520 ~J"(; i2 CHATEAU AT VAIL ALPINE g L NG 2GE. HIX1 ES FI LIALPFiDRN C STAND/+PW GATEWAY 272 VAI 121 13 28 12 UNPLATTED \ TRACTB ~ 8 WEST MEADOW DR 1411 252 _ \ 7 3 2 HOLID 232 AY RACT 6 5 q 142 122 ~HOUSE 21 1 162 a g > M i September 24, 2001 Appendix D: Title Report Planning and Environmental Commission Preliminary Plat, Land Use Plan Amendment, and Rezoning Request Middle Creek Subdivision September 24, 2001 f Land Title Guarantee Company CUSTOMER DISTRIBUTION Date: 08-27-2001 Our Order Number: VC272436 Property Address: US WEST PARCEL PEAK LAND SURVEYING 1000 LIONS RIDGE LOOP VAIL, CO 81657 Attn: BRENT BIGGS Phone: 970-476-8644 Fax: 970-476-8616 Sent Via Fax Form DELIVERY Land Title Guarantee Company YOUR CONTACTS Date: 08-27-2001 Our Order Number: VC272436 Property Address: US WEST PARCEL Buyer/Borrower: TO BE DETERMINED Seller/Owner: THE MOUNTAIN STATES TFT FPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, A COLORADO CORPORATION, AS TO PARCEL 1 TOWN OF VAIL, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AS TO PARCEL 2 If you have any inquiries or require further assistance, please contact one of the numbers below: For Closing Assistance: For Title Assistance: Vail Title Dept. Roger Avila 108 S. FRONTAGE RD. W. 1/203 P.O. BOX 357 VAIL, CO 81657 Phone: 970-476-2251 Fax: 970-476-4534 EMail: ravilaoltgc.com Need a map or directions for your upcoming closing? Check out Land Title's web site at www.Itgc.com for directions to any of our 40 office locations. ESTIMATE OF TITLE FEES Information Binder $175.00 TOTAL $175.00 Form CONTACT THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER! Chicago Title Insurance Company ALTA COMMITMENT Our Order No. VC272436 Schedule A Cust. Ref.: Property Address: US WEST PARCEL I. Effective Date: April 26, 2001 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Policy to be Issued, and Proposed Insured: Information Binder Proposed Insured: TO BE DE rtrxMINED 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: A Fee Simple 4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: THE MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, A COLORADO CORPORATION, AS TO PARCEL 1 TOWN OF VAIL, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AS TO PARCEL 2 5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: SEE ATTACHED PAGE(S) FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION Our Order No. VC272436 LEGAL DESCRIPTION F PARCEL I A TRACT OF LAND IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER, SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER, SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT BEING 1170.20 FEET NORTH 36 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 25 SECONDS WEST FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 180.11 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88 DEGREES 34 MINUTES WEST 143.67 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 60 DEGREES 09 MINUTES WEST 107.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 26 DEGREES 17 MINUTES WEST 32.25 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 30 MINUTES WEST 120.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 36 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST 65.24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 83 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST 411.93 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO. TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR ACCESS TO AND EGRESS FROM THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED TRACT BY PEDESTRIAN, VEHICULAR, AND MOTOR TRAFFIC, FOR AERIAL AND BURIED TELEPHONE AND ELECTRIC POWER LINES AND FOR BURIED WATER, SEWER, GAS, AND OTHER UTILITIES TO SAID TRACT OVER AND ACROSS THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY, TO WIT: A TRACT OF LAND IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER, SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER, SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGININNG AT A POINT BEING 1170.20 FEET NORTH 36 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 25 SECONDS WEST FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 40.25 FEET; THENCE NORTH 83 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST 382.48 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 15 DEGREES 49 MINUTES WEST 88.18 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 70; THENCE NORTH 74 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 35 SECONDS WEST 40.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 70; THENCE NORTH 15 DEGREES 49 MINUTES EAST 122.20 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 83 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST 411.93 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO. NOTE: THE FINAL POLICY DOES NOT IN ANY WAY GUARANTEE OR INSURE THE DIMENSIONS OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LAND, THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS DERIVED FROM THE CHAIN OF TITLE AND ONLY AN ACCURATE SURVEY CAN DETERMINE THE DIMENSIONS. PARCEL 2 A TRACT OF LAND IN THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT THAT IS N 00 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 16 SECONDS W A DISTANCE OF 686.60 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF INTERSTATE 70; THENCE N 00 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 16 SECONDS W ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION Our Order No. VC272436 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 6 A DISTANCE OF 633.40 FEET; THENCE N 89 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 21 SECONDS W A DISTANCE OF 2633.76 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST BOUNDARY LINE OF VAILIPOTATO PATCH FILING; THENCE S 00 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 12 SECONDS E ALONG SAID EAST BOUNDARY LINE A DISTANCE OF 351.21 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE, SAID CURVE ALSO BEING ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF INTERSTATE 70; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY ON THE FOLLOWING 8 COURSES: 1) A DISTNACE OF 204.62 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 18 SECONDS, A RADIUS OF 3990.0 FEET, AND A CHORD BEARING N 85 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 10 SECONDS E A DISTANCE OF 204.60 FEET; 2) N 80 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 06 SECONDS E A DISTANCE OF 211.80 FEET; 3) N 84 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 50 SECONDS E A DISTANCE OF 319.70 FEET; 4) S 79 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 28 SECONDS E A DISTNCE OF 424.40 FEET; 5) S 69 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 21 SECONDS E A DISTANCE OF 303.20 FEET; 6) S 74 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 35 SECONDS E A DISTANCE OF 204.70 FEET; 7) S 83 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 29 SECONDS E A DISTANCE OF 826.30 FEET; 8) S 71 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 45 SECONDS E A DISTANCE OF 196.10 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LAND DESCRIBED IN WARRANTY DEED, RECEPTION 114010, BOOK 218, PAGE 419, FILED OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK AND RECORDER OF EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO. NOTE: THE FINAL POLICY DOES NOT IN ANY WAY GUARANTEE OR INSURE THE DIMENSIONS OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LAND, THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS DERIVED FROM THE CHAIN OF TITLE AND ONLY AN ACCURATE SURVEY CAN DETERMINE THE DIMENSIONS. ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B - Section 1 (Requirements) Our Order No. VC272436 The following are the requirements to be complied with: Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to-wit: Item (c) Payment of all taxes, charges or assessments levied and assessed against the subject premises which are due and payable. Item (d) Additional requirements, if any disclosed below: THIS COMMITMENT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY, AND NO POLICY WILL BE ISSUED PURSUANT HERETO. ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B - Section 2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. VC272436 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes or special assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the public records.o the Treasurer's office. 7. Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any.. In addition, the owner's policy will be subject to the mortgage, if any, noted in Section 1 of Schedule B hereof. 9. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED MAY 24, 1904, IN BOOK 48 AT PAGE 503. 10. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED MAY 24, 1904, IN BOOK 48 AT PAGE 503. 11. WATER AND WATER RIGHTS, DITCH AND DITCH RIGHTS. 12. RIGHT OF WAY 40 FEET IN WIDTH AS DESCRIBED IN CONDEMNATION FOR RIGHT OF WAY AWARDED TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 12, 1935 IN BOOK 116 AT PAGE 349. 13. RIGHT OF WAY AS GRANTED TO THE STATE OF COLORADO IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JUNE 8, 1940 IN BOOK 127 AT PAGE 466. RIGHT OF WAY AS GRANTED TO THE FLEMING LUMBER AND MERCANTILE COMPANY IN ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B - Section 2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. VC272436 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: INSTRUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 13, 1943 IN BOOK 127 AT PAGE 563. 15. RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT AS GRANTED TO GAS FACILITIES, INC. IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 17, 1966 IN BOOK 192 AT PAGE 149 AND IN BOOK 192 AT PAGE 161 AND RECORDED MARCH 9, 1966 IN BOOK 192 AT PAGE 203 AND AT PAGE 207. 16. EASEMENT AS GRANTED TO VAIL WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED APRIL 7, 1966 IN BOOK 192 AT PAGE 365. 17. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF NONEXCLUSIVE UNDERGROUND RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT AS GRAN i tili TO HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. RECORDED JUNE 08, 1994 IN BOOK 642 AT PAGE 344. 18. EXISTING LEASES AND TENANCIES. LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that: A) The subject real property may be located in a special taxing district. B) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained from the County Treasurer's authorized agent. C) The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. Note: Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or tiling in the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform, except that, the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which space is provided for recording or filing information at the top margin of the document. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3-5-1, Paragraph C of Article VII requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed". Provided that Land Title Guarantee Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lenders Policy when issued. Note: Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: A) The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. B) No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material-men for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. C) The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed mechanic's and material-men's liens. D) The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium. E) If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within six months prior to the Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company, and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given: A) That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and B) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. This notice applies to owner's policy commitments containing a mineral severance instrument exception, or exceptions, in Schedule B, Section 2. Nothing herein contained will be deemed to obligate die company to provide any of the coverages referred to herein unless the above conditions are fully satisfied. Form DISCLOSURE Appendix E: Housing Zone District Planning and Environmental Commission Preliminary Plat, Land Use Plan Amendment, and Rezoning Request Middle Creek Subdivision September 24, 2001 ARTICLE I. HOUSING (H) DISTRICT SECTION: 12-61-1: Purpose 12-61-2: Permitted Uses 12-61-3: Conditional Uses 12-61-4: Accessory Uses 12-61-5: Setbacks 12-61-6: Site Coverage 12-61-7: Landscaping and Site Development 12-61-8: Parking and Loading 12-61-9: Location of Business Activity 12-61-10: Other Development Standards 12-61-11: Development Plan Required 12-61-12: Development Plan Contents 12-61-13: Development Standards/Criteria for Evaluation 12-61-1: PURPOSE: The Housing District is intended to provide adequate sites for employee housing which, because of the nature and characteristics of employee housing, cannot be adequately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other residential zoning districts. It is necessary in this district to provide development standards specifically prescribed for each development proposal or project to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 12-1-2 of this Title and to provide for the public welfare. Certain nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses, which are intended to be incidental and secondary to the residential uses of the District. The Housing District is intended to ensure that employee housing permitted in the District is appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents of Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the allowed types of uses. 12-61-2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the H District: Deed restricted employee housing units as further described in Chapter 12-13 of this Title. Passive outdoor recreation areas, and open space. Pedestrian and bike paths. 12-61-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the H District, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Commercial uses which are secondary and incidental (as determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission ) to the use of employee housing and specifically serving the needs of the residents, and developed in conjunction with employee housing, in which case the following uses may be allowed subject to a conditional use permit: Banks and financial institutions. Eating and drinking establishments. Health clubs. ` Personal services, including but not limited to, laundromats, beauty and barbershops, tailor shops, and similar services. Retail stores and establishments. Dwelling units (not employee housing units) subject to the following criteria to be evaluated by the Planning and Environmental Commission: A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing employee housing on the property and; B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the property. The GRFA for dwelling units shall not exceed 30% of the total GRFA constructed on the property and; C. Dwelling units are only created in conjunction with employee housing and; D. Dwelling units are compatible with the proposed uses and buildings on the site and are compatible with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. Outdoor patios Public and private schools and educational institutions, including day-care facilities. Public buildings and grounds. Public parks. Public utilities installations including transmission lines and appurtenant equipment. Type VI employee housing units, as further regulated by Chapter 12-13 of this Title. 12-61-4: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the H District: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-14-12 of this Title. Minor arcades Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 12-61-5: SETBACKS: The setbacks in this district shall be 20' from the perimeter of the zone district. At the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission, variations to the setback standards may be approved during the review of a development plan subject to the applicant demonstrating compliance with the following criteria: A. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. B. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. C. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. D. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. Variations to the 20 ft. setback shall not be allowed on property lines adjacent to HR, SFR, R, PS, and RC zoned properties, unless a variance is approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant to Chapter 17 of this Title. 12-61-6: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed fifty-five percent (55%) of the total site area. At the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission, site coverage may be increased if 75% of the required parking spaces are underground or enclosed, thus reducing the impacts of surface paving provided within a development, and that the minimum landscape area requirement is met. 12-61-7: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. 12-61-8: PARKING AND LOADING Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. No parking or loading area shall be located within any required setback area. At the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission, variations to the parking standards outlined in Chapter 10 may be approved during the review of a development plan subject to a Parking Management Plan. The Parking Management Plan shall be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission and shall provide for a reduction in the parking requirements based on a demonstrated need for fewer parking spaces than Chapter 10 of this title would require. For example, a demonstrated need for a reduction in the required parking could include: A. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation including, but not limited to, public transit or shuttle services. B. A limitation placed in the deed restrictions limiting the number of cars for each unit. C. A demonstrated permanent program including, but not limited to, rideshare programs, carshare programs, shuttle service, or staggered work shifts. 12-61-9: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY: A. Limitation; Exception: All conditional uses by 12-61-3 of this Article, shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted loading areas and such activities as may be specifically authorized to be unenclosed by a conditional use permit and the outdoor display of goods. B. Outdoor Display Areas: The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. 12-61-10: OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Prescribed By Planning and Environmental Commission: In the H District, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as proposed by the applicant, as prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and as adopted on the approved development plan: A. Lot area and site dimensions. B. Building height. C. Density control (including gross residential floor area). 12-61-11: DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIRED: A. Compatibility With Intent: To ensure the unified development, the protection of the natural environment, the compatibility with the surrounding area and to assure that development in the Housing District will meet the intent of the District, a development plan shall be required. B. Plan Process And Procedures: The proposed development plan shall be in accordance with Section 12-61-12 of this Article and shall be submitted by the developer to the Administrator, who shall refer it to the Planning and Environmental Commission, which shall consider the plan at a regularly scheduled meeting. C. Hearing: The public hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be held in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of this Title. The Planning and Environmental Commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with Section 12-3-3 of this Title. D. Plan As Guide: The approved development plan shall be used as the principal guide for all development within the Housing District. E. Amendment Process: Amendments to the approved development plan will be considered in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-9A-10 of this Title. F. Design Review Board Approval Required: The development plan and any subsequent amendments thereto shall require the approval of the Design Review Board in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 11 of this Title prior to the commencement of site preparation. 12-61-12: DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONTENTS: A. Submit With Application: The following information and materials shall be submitted with an application for a proposed development plan. Certain submittal requirements may be waived or modified by the Administrator if it is demonstrated that the material to be waived or modified is not applicable to the review criteria, or that other practical solutions have been reached. 1. Application form and filing fee. 2. A written statement describing the project including information on the nature of the development proposed, proposed uses, and phasing plans. 3. A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating existing conditions of the property to be included in the development plan, including the location of improvements, existing contours, natural features, existing vegetation, watercourses, and perimeter property lines of the parcel. 4. A title report, including Schedules A and B4. 5. Plans depicting existing conditions of the parcel (site plan, floor plans, elevations, etc.), if applicable. 6. A complete zoning analysis of the existing and proposed development including a square footage analysis of all proposed uses, parking spaces, etc. 7. A site plan at a scale not smaller than one inch equals twenty feet (1" = 20'), showing the location and dimensions of all existing and proposed buildings and structures, all principal site development features, vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems and proposed contours and drainage plans. 8. Building elevations, sections and floor plans at a scale not smaller than one- eighth inch equals one foot (1/8" = 1'), in sufficient detail to determine floor area, circulation, location of uses and scale and appearance of the proposed development. 9. A vicinity plan showing existing and proposed improvements in relation to all adjacent properties at a scale not smaller than one inch equals fifty feet (1" _ 50'). 10. Photo overlays and/or other acceptable visual techniques for demonstrating the visual impact of the proposed development on public and private property in the vicinity of the proposed development plan. 11. An architectural or massing model at a scale sufficient to depict the proposed development in relationship to existing development on the site and on adjacent parcels. 12. A landscape plan at a scale not smaller than one inch equals twenty feet (1" = 20'), showing existing landscape features to be retained and removed, proposed landscaping and other site development features such as recreation facilities, paths and trails, plazas, walkways and water features. 13. An environmental impact report in accordance with Chapter 12 of this Title unless waived by Section 12-12-3 of this Title. 14. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by Administrator. B. Copies Required; Model: With the exception of the model, four (4) complete copies of the above information shall be submitted at the time of the application. When a model is required, it shall be submitted a minimum of two (2) weeks prior to the first formal review of the Planning and Environmental Commission. At the discretion of the Administrator, reduced copies in eight and one-half inches by eleven inches (8 1/2" x 11") format of all of the above information and additional copies for distribution to the Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board and Town Council may be required. 12-61-13: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS/CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION: The following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a proposed development plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed development plan complies with all applicable design criteria: A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and when possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. F. Compliance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and other applicable plans. Appendix F: General Use Zone District Planning and Environmental Commission Preliminary Plat, Land Use Plan Amendment, and Rezoning Request Middle Creek Subdivision September 24, 2001 12-9C-1 12-9C-3 CHAPTER 9 SPECIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICTS ARTICLE C. GENERAL USE (GU) DISTRICT SECTION: 12-9C-2: PERMITTED USES: The follow- ing uses shall be permitted in 12-9C-1: Purpose the GU District: 12-9C-2: Permitted Uses 12-9C-3: Conditional Uses Passive outdoor recreation areas, and open 12-9C-4: Accessory Uses space. 12-9C-5: Development Standards 12-9C-6: Additional Development Pedestrian and bike paths. (Ord. 21(1994) Standards § 10) 12-9C-3: CONDITIONAL USES: 12-9C-1: PURPOSE: The General Use District is intended to provide A. Generally: The following conditional sites for public and quasi-public uses uses shall be permitted in the GU which, because of their special characteris- District, subject to issuance of a con- tics, cannot be appropriately regulated by ditional use permit in accordance with the development standards prescribed for the provisions of Chapter 16 of this other zoning districts, and for which devel- Title: opment standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or Churches. project are necessary to achieve the pur- poses prescribed in Section 12-1-2 of this Equestrian trails. Title and to provide for the public welfare. The General Use District is intended to Golf courses. ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi-public uses per- Helipad for emergency and/or commu- mitted in the District are appropriately locat- nity use. ed and designed to meet the needs of resi- dents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with Hospitals, medical and dental facili- surrounding uses, and, in the case of build- ties, clinics, rehabilitation centers, ings and other structures, to ensure ade- clinical pharmacies, and ambulance quate light, air, open spaces, and other facilities. amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10) Major arcade. Plant and tree nurseries, and associ- ated structures, excluding the sale of June 2000 Town of Vail 12-9C-3 12-9C-5 trees or other nursery products, vided such use is accessory to a park- grown, produced or made on the pre- ing structure: mises. Offices. Public and private parks and active outdoor recreation areas, facilities and Restaurants. uses. Ski and bike storage facilities. Public and private schools and educa- tional institutions. Sundries shops. Public and quasi-public indoor com- Tourist/guest service related facilities. munity facility. Transit/shuttle services. (Ord. 6(2000) Public buildings and grounds. § 2: Ord. 21(1994) § 10) Public parking facilities and structures. 12-9C-4: ACCESSORY USES: The follow- Public theaters, meeting rooms and ing accessory uses shall be convention facilities. permitted in the GU District: Public tourist/guest service related Minor arcade. facilities. Other uses customarily incidental and ac- Public transportation terminals. cessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof, Public utilities installations including with the exception of buildings. (Ord. transmission lines and appurtenant 21(1994) § 10) equipment. Seasonal structures or uses to accom- 12-9C-5: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: modate educational, recreational or cultural activities. A. Prescribed By Planning And Environ- mental Commission: In the General Ski lifts, tows and runs. Use District, development standards in each of the following categories Type 111 employee housing units shall be as prescribed by the Planning (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of and Environmental Commission: this Title. 1. Lot area and site dimensions. Water and sewage treatment plants. 2. Setbacks. B. Proximity To Parking Required: The following conditional uses shall be 3. Building height. permitted in accordance with the issu- ance of a conditional use permit, pro- 4. Density control. June 2000 Town of Vail 12-9C-5 12-9C-6 5. Site coverage. 6. Landscaping and site development. 7. Parking and loading. B. Reviewed By Planning And Environ- mental Commission: Development standards shall be proposed by the applicant as a part of a conditional use permit application. Site specific development standards shall then be determined by the Planning and Envi- ronmental Commission during the review of the conditional use request in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10) 12-9C-6: ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Additional regula- tions pertaining to site development stan- dards and the development of land in the General Use District are found in Chapter 14 of this Title. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10) June 2000 Town of Vail Appendix G: Natural Area Preservation District Planning and Environmental Commission Preliminary Plat, Land Use Plan Amendment, and Rezoning Request Middle Creek Subdivision September 24, 2001 12-8C-1 12-8C-3 CHAPTER8 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION DISTRICTS ARTICLE C. NATURAL AREA PRESERVATION (NAP) DISTRICT SECTION: not preclude improvement of the natural environment by the removal of noxious 12-8C-1: Purpose weeds, deadfall where necessary to protect 12-8C-2: Permitted Uses public safety or similar compatible improve- 12-8C-3: Conditional Uses ments. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10) 12-8C-4: Accessory Uses 12-8C-5: Development Standards 12-8C-6: Parking And Loading 12-8C-2: PERMITTED USES: The follow- 12-8C-7: Additional Development ing shall be permitted uses in Standards the NAP District: Nature preserves. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10) 12-8C-1: PURPOSE: The Natural Area Preservation District is designed 12-8C-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The to provide areas which, because of their following conditional uses shall environmentally sensitive nature or natural be permitted in the NAP District, subject to beauty, shall be protected from encroach- the issuance of a conditional use permit in ment by any building or other improvement, accordance with the provisions of Chapter other than those listed in Section 12-8C-2 16 of this Title: of this Article. The Natural Area Preserva- tion District is intended to ensure that des- Equestrian trails, used only to access Na- ignated lands remain in their natural state, tional forest system lands. including reclaimed areas, by protecting such areas from development and preserv- Interpretive nature walks. ing open space. The Natural Area Preser- vation District includes lands having valu- Parking, when used in conjunction with a able wildlife habitat, exceptional aesthetic permitted or conditional use. or flood control value, wetlands, riparian areas and areas with significant environ- Paved and unpaved, nonmotorized, bicycle mental constraints. Protecting sensitive paths and pedestrian walkways. natural areas is important for maintaining water quality and aquatic habitat, preserv- Picnic tables and informal seating areas. ing wildlife habitat, flood control, protecting view corridors, minimizing the risk from Other uses customarily incidental and ac- hazard areas, and protecting the natural cessory to permitted or conditional uses character of Vail which is so vital to the and necessary for the operation thereof, Town's tourist economy. The intent shall Town of Vail 12-8C-3 12-8C-7 with the exception of buildings.- (Ord. 21(1994) § 10) 12-8C-4: ACCESSORY USES: Not appli- cable in the NAP District. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10) 12-8C-5: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Not applicable in the NAP Dis- trict. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10) 12-8C-6: PARKING AND LOADING: Parking and loading require- ments will be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission during the review of conditional use requests in accor- dance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10) 12-8C-7: ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Additional regula- tions pertaining to site development stan- dards and the development of land in the Natural Area Preservation District are found in Chapter 14, "Supplemental Regulations", of this Title. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10) Town of Vail Appendix H: Geotechnical Report and Hazard Report Planning and Environmental Commission Preliminary Plat, Land Use Plan Amendment, and Rezoning Request Middle Creek Subdivision September 24, 2001 Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 12364 W. Alameda Pkwy - Suite 115 • Lakewood, CO 80228-2845 LAKEWOOD AVON SILVERTHORNE (303) 989-1223 (970) 949-6009 (970) 468-6933 (303) 989-0204 FAX (970) 949-9223 FAX (970) 468-6939 FAX August 23, 2001 Odell Architects, P.C. 32065 Castle Court, Suite 150 Evergreen, CO 80439 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic Hazard Studies Proposed Development - 6.5 Acres Middle Creek Village at Vail Vail, Colorado Job No. 01-136 As requested we have performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation and geologic hazard study for the subject property. The purpose of this letter is to present our general conclusions regarding the preliminary geotechnical investigation and geologic hazards. We anticipate that the subsurface conditions throughout the development will consist of granular alluvial soils. These soils should safely support spread footing foundations and slab-on-grade floors for the proposed structures. Excavation of these soils will require heavy-duty construction equipment. It is our opinion, that development of this site will require typical mountain construction techniques. Based on current and previous geologic hazard studies, the subject site is within a rock fall hazard and a debris flow hazard. Fortunately, both of these geologic hazards can be successfully mitigated. For additional information regarding preliminary geotechnical recommendations and geologic hazards refer to our Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic Hazard Studies report, dated August 23, 2001. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this service. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office. KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Scott B. Myers, P.E. Project Engineer (8 copies sent) KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND GEOLOGIC HAZARD STUDIES PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 6.5 ACRE MIDDLE CREEK VILLAGE AT VAIL VAIL, COLORADO ~`~e~~?ItiPitft?trtgrrir4 O.~~` ®0 R EG/s a ~ t oe ~ A µ l~~ea~,o 10,N- Prepared for: Odell Architects, P.C. 32065 Castle Court, Suite 150 Evergreen, CO 80439 Job No. 01-136 August 23, 2001 DENVER: 12364 West Alameda Prkxy., Suite 115, Lakewood, CO. 80228 (303) 989-1223 AVON. (970) 949-6009 SILVERTHORNE: (970) 468-6933 August 23, 2001 KOEC11LEIN CONSUL TING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 01-136 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 SITE CONDITIONS 3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 4 GEOLOGIC HAZARD STUDIES 5 INVESTIGATION 5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6 GROUND WATER 6 CONDITIONS INFLUENCING PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 7 FOUNDATIONS 8 FLOORS 9 UTILITY CONSTRUCTION 9 SITE WORD 10 General 10 Cut Slopes 10 Fill I 1 Retaining Walls 11 SITE DRAINAGE 12 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN 12 Preliminary Flexible Pavement Desie_n 13 Preliminarv Rigid Pavement Design 14 FURTHER INVESTIGATION 15 LIMITATIONS 15 VICINITY MAP Fig. 1 SITE PLAN Fig. 2 CURRENT GEOLOGIC HAZARD STUDY Appendix A PREVIOUS GEOLOGIC HAZARD STUDIES Appendix B August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 01-136 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers SCOPE This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed commercial development of 6.5 acres located in the Mountain Bell Site in Vail, Colorado. The approximate site location is shown on the Vicinity Map, Fig. 1. The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and to provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. This report includes descriptions of anticipated subsurface soil and ground water conditions based on adjacent properties and our experience with similar projects, the geotechnical conditions influencing the proposed development and recommendations for development of the site. This report presents anticipated subsurface conditions for the proposed development. Site specific geotechnical investigations should be performed for individual building sites and pavement subgrade, as recoinmended in this report. A summary of our investigation findings and conclusions is presented in the following section. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Based on adjacent properties and our site reconnaissance, we anticipate that the subsurface conditions will consist of either topsoil or existing fill underlain by alluvial soils. The alluvial soils should be characterized by medium dense to dense, sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. We anticipate that the existing fill will be characterized by a loose to medium dense, sand and gravel with cobbles. August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC Job No. 01-136 Consulting Geolechnica[ Engineers - 2. Because Middle Creek appears to have been rechanneled to its current location, it is possible that ground water could be encountered in isolated underground channels throughout the proposed development. Refer to the GROUND WATER section of this report for additional details. 3. Two buildings with associated amenities and utilities are currently located on the subject site. All existing foundations, slabs-on-grade, utilities and associated fill should be removed to expose the natural soils prior to construction of the proposed development. 4. Based on our site reconnaissance, we anticipate that existing fill will be encountered during construction of the subject project. We believe that the existing fill will be characterized by sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. In our opinion, the existing fill, free of deleterious material, may be used as structural fill for the development of the project. 5. In our opinion, the proposed buildings within the development may be supported by spread footing foundation systems bearing on the natural sand and gravel soils. However, because these soils are alluvial soils, differential settlements are possible. Refer to the FOUNDATION section of this report for more infonnation. 6. In our opinion, the natural sand and gravel anticipated throughout the development will support slab-on-grade floors. Refer to the FLOORS section of this report for more information. 7. Cuts up to 10 feet in height may be necessary along the access road to the proposed parking structure. Large cut slopes, greater than 10 feet, will need to be evaluated by a Professional Geotechnical Engineer. Refer to the EXCAVATION section of this report for additional cut slope recommendations. 8. Retaining walls and fills may need to be constructed along the proposed southern parking lots. Refer to the SITE WORK section of this report for additional details. 9. Utilities will be installed for the proposed development. Because cobbles and boulders are anticipated throughout the development, it is our opinion that heavy-duty excavation equipment will be required to complete excavations within the proposed development. 2 August 23, 2001 XOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC Job No. 01-136 Consulting Geotechnicat Engineers 10. We anticipate that paved roads are to be constructed for the proposed development. The paved roads may include both rigid and flexible pavements. Preliminary pavement recommendations based on anticipated subsurface conditions are presented in the PAVEMENT DESIGN section of this report. SITE CONDITIONS The proposed development is to be located on 6.5 acres in the Mountain Bell Site in Vail, Colorado. The site is bordered by the North Frontage Road West to the south and partially by Mountain Bell Road to the north. The Mountain Bell Tower borders the site to the west while open space will border the site to the east. The subject site is shown on the Site Plan, Fig. 2. Two existing buildings with associated amenities and utilities are located on the subject site. The buildings are single-story buildings and are of wood frame construction. Because of the previous development on the site, existing fill was observed throughout the proposed development in the area of the existing buildings. Existing fill was not observed in the area south of Mountain Bell Road. The topography of the site consists of moderate slopes of 5 to 10 percent to steep slopes of 15 to 20 percent. The overall drainage of the site is generally to the south. Vegetation on the site consists of grasses, bushes, trees and aspen trees. 3 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 01-136 Consulting Geotecknical Engineers PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The project consists of the development of 6.5 acres in the Mountain Bell Site in Vail, Colorado. A preliminary site plan for the proposed development was provided by the Architect prior to our investigation. The preliminary development plan is shown on the Site Plan, Fig. 2. We understand that the proposed development may consist of townhouse type, multi-family, commercial buildings with associated access drives and parking lots. The buildings will be constructed south and southeast of Mountain Bell Road. Parking areas for the proposed buildings will be constructed to the south of the buildings and to the north of the proposed buildings. We understand that the parking area constructed to the north of the buildings may consist of a two-level parking structure with the top level being at grade. We understand that the multi-family buildings will vary from 2 to 4 stories in height and will be stepped to match the existing ground surface. By stepping the proposed structures with the existing ground surface, we anticipate that maximum excavations of only 10 feet in depth may be required. We anticipate that pennanent cuts and fills will be required for construction of the proposed development. Maximum wall loads were assumed to be those normally associated with multi-family commercial construction. 4 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 01-136 Consulting Geotecl:nical Engineers GEOLOGIC HAZARD STUDIES A current geologic hazard study was performed for the proposed development in order to identify any geologic hazard that may exist on the subject site. The Geologic Hazard Study was prepared in August of 2001 by R. J. Irish Engineering Geologist and is presented in Appendix A. In addition to the geologic hazard study prepared by R. J. Irish, previous geologic hazard studies for the area have been prepared. Three previously prepared geologic hazard studies or summaries are presented in Appendix B. INVESTIGATION Because of the existing buildings, shrubs and trees on the subject site, access to the site with excavation or drilling equipment is extremely difficult. In order to obtain access to the site, an access road must be constructed through the proposed development. Because of the inaccessibility of the site, exploratory test pits or borings were unable to be excavated or drilled on the subject site. In order to obtain a general idea of the subsurface conditions throughout the subject site, an engineer from our office reconnoitered the site on August 14, 2001. The engineer observed the subsurface conditions exposed within cut slopes throughout the proposed development and observed the soils on the exposed ground surface. The subsurface conditions observed during our field reconnaissance were compared to subsurface conditions encountered during our 5 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 01-136 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers investigations of nearby sites. The anticipated subsurface conditions presented in this report are based on our site reconnaissance, information from nearby soil investigations and our experience with similar locations within the Vail area. When access to the site has been constructed, we recommend that a site specific investigation be performed. We recommend that site specific geotechnical investigations be performed for each building at the time the buildings are being designed. In addition, we recommend that a final subgrade and pavement investigation be performed for the proposed access roads and parking areas. If requested, we can perform the additional investigations. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Based on our experience with nearby projects and our site reconnaissance, we anticipate that the subsurface conditions will consist of either topsoil or existing fill underlain by alluvial soils. The alluvial soils should be characterized by medium dense to dense, sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. We anticipate that the existing fill will be characterized by a loose to medium dense, sand and gravel with cobbles. GROUND WATER Because Middle Creek appears to have been rechanneled to its current location, it is possible that ground water could be encountered in isolated underground channels throughout the proposed development. However, ground water encountered during the 6 August 23, 2001 XOECHLEINCONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 01-136 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers development of the project can generally be controlled by using standard excavation and trenching techniques. Therefore, we do not anticipate that ground water will adversely affect the proposed development. CONDITIONS INFLUENCING PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Construction of the development will require excavation of the near surface soils. We anticipate that these soils will consist of the medium dense to dense, sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. Because cobbles and boulders are anticipated, it is our opinion that heavy duty construction equipment will be required to complete the necessary excavations. Due to inaccessibility of the site at this time, exploratory test pits or borings were not excavated or drilled in the proposed development. The anticipated subsurface conditions presented in this report are based on our site reconnaissance, information from nearby soil investigations and our experience with similar locations within the Vail area. When access to the site has been constructed, we recommend that a site specific investigation be performed. We recommend that site specific geotechnical investigations be performed for each building at the time the buildings are being designed. In addition, we recommend that a final subgrade and pavement investigation be performed for the proposed access roads and parking areas. If requested, we can perform the additional investigations. 7 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. - JobNo.01-136 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers FOUNDATIONS We anticipate that the materials at potential foundation elevations will consist of either existing fill or sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. In our opinion, the existing fill will not safely support foundations for structures within the proposed development. Therefore, all existing foundations and associated fill must be removed from the proposed development prior to construction. We believe that the anticipated sand and gravel will safely support spread footings for the proposed buildings within the development. However, because the anticipated natural soils are alluvial soils it is possible that loose, silty sand pockets or layers could be encountered beneath the proposed development. Foundations constructed on these types of soils can experience large differential settlements. Provided that no loose sand pockets or layers are encountered beneath the proposed foundations, it is our opinion that the anticipated sand and gravel will safely support spread footings for the proposed buildings within the development. We anticipate that spread footing foundation systems for the buildings within the proposed development may be designed with a maximum allowable bearing pressure varying from 2,500 psf to 6,000 psf. The allowable bearing pressure will depend on the amount of cobbles and boulders within the building envelope. The maximum allowable bearing pressure can be better defined during the site specific investigations. 8 August 23, 2001 XOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 01-136 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers FLOORS The materials at the potential floor slab elevations may consist of topsoil, existing fill or sand and gravel. In our opinion, the existing fill or topsoil will not safely support slab-on-grade floors. However, the natural sand and gravel will safely support slab-on- grade floors with a low risk of movement. The presence of loose, silty sand pockets or layers will have less of an impact on slab-on-grade floors. However, if these pockets or layers are encountered, they should be removed and replaced with properly moisture conditioned and compacted fill. UTILITY CONSTRUCTION Construction of utilities below grade will require the excavation of the near surface soils. We anticipate these soils will consist of topsoil or existing fill underlain by sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. Because cobbles and boulders are anticipated, it is our opinion that heavy-duty construction equipment will be required to complete the necessary excavations for utilities. Sand and gravel soils without ground water classify as Type B soils in accordance with OSHA regulations. OSHA regulations should be followed in any excavation. 9 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. _ Job No. 01-136 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers SITE WORK General Construction of buildings and access roads may require cuts and fills to obtain the desired grades. Any cut or fill slopes greater than 10 feet in height should be evaluated by a Professional Geotechnical Engineer. Retaining wall systems may be required in some areas to reduce the extent of cuts and fills. We anticipate that on-site sand and gravel may be used in fill areas. Proper moisture treating of the natural soils will be required prior to or during placement and compaction of fill. Surface drainage should be carefully evaluated during design and construction of the proposed development. Slopes around retaining walls and buildings should be graded so that positive drainage is maintained away from these structures. Cut Sloped Any cuts, which are greater than 10 feet in height, should be evaluated on an individual basis. If requested, we can perform the evaluation of these slopes. In general, slopes of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) up to 10 feet in height should be stable on the subject site, if properly drained. Surface drainage should be carefully designed to divert surface water away from the slopes. All cut slopes should be vegetated as soon as possible after construction. 10 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 01-136 Consulting Geolechnical Engineers Fill Fills over 10 feet may be required for this development. Any fill slope greater than 10 feet in height should be evaluated on an individual basis. If requested, we can perform the evaluation of these slopes. In general, fill slopes of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) up to 10 feet in height should be stable, if properly drained. Fill may consist of anticipated on-site sand and gravel free of deleterious materials or an approved imported granular fill. No cobbles or boulders larger than 12 inches should be placed in fill areas. Fill areas should be stripped of all vegetation, topsoil, existing foundations and existing fill. The resulting surface should be scarified and properly moisture conditioned and compacted. Fill should be placed in thin loose lifts, moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted. The degree of compaction will vary depending on the use of the fill. Retainnna Walls Retaining walls may be needed to reduce the magnitude of cuts or fills for development of this site. The types of walls that are possible on this site are conventional concrete retaining walls, MSE (mechanically stabilized earth) walls, timber crib walls and boulder retaining walls. The retaining walls need to be 11 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 01-136 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers designed to resist lateral earth pressures. Lateral earth pressures depend on the type of backfill, slope of ground surface behind the retaining wall, height of retaining wall, and type of retaining wall. We can provide the design, or the geotechnical design criteria, for the retaining walls once the specific site conditions and proposed construction are finalized. SITE DRAINAGE Surface drainage should be carefully evaluated during design and construction of the development. Overall drainage of the site is generally down to the south. Construction areas should be carefully sloped to reduce the possibility of infiltration of surface water into the cut and fill slopes. In addition, slopes around retaining walls and buildings should be graded so that positive drainage is maintained away from these structures at all times. The surface drainage of the development should be evaluated prior to establishing final grades. PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN It is anticipated that the roads and parking areas within the development will be paved. Based on the subsurface conditions, it is our opinion that flexible asphalt and rigid concrete pavements are possible. It has been generally found that concrete pavements tend to perform better than an asphalt and base course pavement. The initial 12 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 01-136 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers costs are generally higher for concrete pavements, however, the long term maintenance costs are less. We anticipate that both flexible pavement and rigid pavement could be used at this site. We recommend that rigid pavement be used in high traffic areas such as entrances or where heavy vehicles (trash trucks, delivery trucks, etc.) turn or maneuver. Two preliminary pavement sections based on high volume traffic and low volume traffic are presented for the flexible pavements. High volume traffic areas are considered to be access roads or fire lanes. Low volume traffic areas are considered to be parking areas. The following sections present design assumptions and preliminary flexible and rigid pavement sections. In order to properly design the required pavement sections, we recommend when final subgrade elevations have been achieved, a final subgrade and pavement investigation be performed. Preliminarv Flexible Pavement Desien The design of the preliminary flexible pavement was based upon an Equivalent Daily Load Application (EDLA), anticipated soil properties and the Colorado Department of Transportation pavement design manual. Preliminary design calculations were based on assumed engineering soil characteristics. Based visual observations of the surface soils and review of soil investigations in the area, we anticipate that the subgrade soils will classify as A-l-b soils, as defined by the 13 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 01-136 Consulting Geotechnicat Engineers AASHTO Classification system. The preliminary pavement designs are based on the subgrade soils having an AASHTO classification of A-1-b. This soil type will generally have a Hveem Stabilometer R-value ranging from 50 to 75. The R-value was estimated from the AASHTO classification of the soil. Because the R-value of the natural soil was assumed to be 50 to 75, the use of roadbase will not reduce the pavement thickness. However, roadbase may be required to establish a finished grade prior to paving. The EDLA for high volume traffic for residential developments was assumed to range from 10 to 20. The EDLA for low volume traffic was assumed to range from 3 to 5. Two flexible pavement designs, based on the above method, are shown below in Table A. These flexible pavement designs include two full depth asphalt pavements. Table A Summary of Preliminary Flexible Pavement Alternatives Traffic Volume ` Full-Depth Asphalt (inches) Parking Areas I 3.0" to 4.0" Access Roads { 4.0" to 5.0" Note: Because the R-value of the natural soil was assumed to be 50 to 75, the use of roadbase will not reduce the thickness of pavement. However, roadbase may be required to establish a finished grade prior to paving. Prelimnarv Rigid Pavement Design A preliminary rigid pavement section was designed using the same values of 14 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSUL TING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 01-136 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers the EDLA and R-value as those used in the high volume traffic flexible pavement design. The Colorado Department of Transportation pavement design manual, along with the above mentioned design values, were used to determine a rigid pavement section. The preliminary rigid pavement design resulted in a design section of 4.0 to 5.0 inches of concrete. FURTHER INVESTIGATION Due to inaccessibility of the site at the time of this investigation, exploratory test pits or borings were not excavated or drilled in the proposed development. The anticipated subsurface conditions, presented in this report are based on our site reconnaissance, information from nearby soil investigations and our experience with similar locations within the Vail area. When access to the site has been constructed, we recommend that a site specific investigation be performed. We recommend that site specific geotechnical investigations be performed for each building at the time the buildings are being designed. In addition, we recommend that a final subgrade and pavement investigation be performed for the proposed access roads and parking areas. If requested, we can perform the additional investigations. LIMITATIONS The anticipated subsurface conditions presented in this report are based on our site 15 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 01-136 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers reconnaissance, information from nearby soil investigations and our experience with similar locations within the Vail area. Variations in the subsurface conditions from those assumed in this investigation are possible. Any variations that exist beneath the development generally become evident during site specific investigations. This report presents the anticipated general subsurface conditions and guidelines for planning and design purposes. When access to the site has been constructed, we recommend that a site specific investigation be performed. We recommend that site specific geotechnieal investigations be performed for each building at the time the buildings are being designed. In addition, we recommend that a final subgrade and pavement investigation be performed for the proposed access roads and parking areas. 16 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 01-136 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers We appreciate the opportunity to provide this service. If we can be of further assistance in discussing the contents of this report or in analyses of the proposed development from a geotechnical aspect, please contact our office. KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. goo Rf~,s ONAV it. nill Scott B. yers, P.E. Project Engineer Reviewed by: VYLI x William N. Houlette, P.E. Senior Engineer (8 copies sent) 17 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers .w,WU-g.... >;nr yA=R _ w«t•"e~'i"n',':3o'c`cxN.,,-:..-.. a:,.,''Sl„M' ..,_'tx >r8•,eSa F. '.=.%.3a~ ,="y,,., i'::~x:„?,. d. '.;t p-~ r•'k • "'N~x9Y~, 's' <,l'rr - t„'Y~ ".':,=cec rc• 3'"'-'., ~t - v .~..k'~,:'...wa u...xv.-r'.:tr' nx ,t_''i-~.' ..42- a : . I >k,. °Z4'y ~'t 2; '`,~'tS' .'i<.< . 4"! rY1°~ .-ymo,d. "•Y,'`~ «'<-fi i';~ 4. A`., <''Y., t.', :'.xk,'',i..: •.^~y ':.'.uI ,+>b^."lay, ~,'.P•, v'ra-~i'?,`.sF C.~eC+:i. i`,3a. - p " .u ,,~~{a4M .t. „ram t - .'f<5 I'M 70'~XI 4~~~~•:~~"~,«"{:gara<_o'°:~i'~:.~r:~~°'"'.,«:'.''.;:`''r~'.'sti~~°^~~;`,,t`.:,.~•.....-.. ~k-j~j~T~. TigS;.,°`ds,~lf-'s,k '~~:7c;.~.; _ r'p ~ 7 4 ys^..~;j i^• .,YQ v:-r y1,,t {i:-t•}=,'y<-,,*^ e • ,~w 5 n s 9`: 'y , µ^.fa~~~ r ~ ~'#z.~ ff(~ =iv ~ye~:' ^~fi• ~ :::ar`t' <.«`x v l `IV:` c.„ .0.r ak, Y'.r ^z,~,-^$=IiNEk Mis c f 1M:4 $ ^ - tL 4d°t' 11.':._ y.: Csx-n :;,iw ~e:%a.%.,~., o,'~~,,;,-•~'r.~t:, ,.r;~:c-, t.rC:: <,::ir_<:.,a',,.~ - . t ;a „ s•~e ~y"-:: <::,.:'w . ar,, « R~Cyy ~ ; n. -"?fc~ f~eeftU- ~y,N ;sa_, 4w ~ a C e , e, E } < „ ak{ x a.. . ,jf.G.. - ei 1T t g ,~xic,, m~ 3k :S i f. SITE NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP JOB NO. 01-136 FIG. 1 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 01-136 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers APPENDIX A CURRENT GEOLOGIC HAZARD STUDY 7101 West Yale Ave R. J. Irish Avenue, No. 60l Denver, Colorado 80227 303.986-6658 Consulting Engineering Geologist, Inc. August 16, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS 12364 West Alameda Parkway Suite 115 Lakewood, CO 80228 Re: Engr. Geologic Hazard Study, Middle Creek Village at Vail Development, Vail, Colorado. Job No. 564 Gentlemen: In response to your call, we have geologically reconnoitered the site in Vail, Colorado, planned for the Middle Creek Village at Vail Development, which is to incorporate affordable, multifamily housing and appurtenant facilities on about 8 acres. This irregularly shaped tract is located in a part of the S1/2 SE1/4 Sec. 6, T. 5. S., R. 80 W., Eagle County, Colorado, north of the north service road immediately west of the Old Vail/Interstate Highway 1-70 exit, and adjacent to an existing Mountain Bell telephone tower (Fig. 1). It lies at the foot of the northern slope of the west-trending Gore Creek Valley where that slope is breached by a canyon section of the Middle Creek Valley. The ground surface across the property slopes generally southward at about 10:1 (horiz. to vert.) from Elev. 8290 feet to Elev. 8220 feet. The western two-thirds of the property is forested with aspen and scattered evergreens. Some of the latter are quite large. The eastern third of this tract is covered by sagebrush and other brush types. Our objective has been two-fold: 1.) to generally delineate geologic conditions across the property and immediate vicinity, and to evaluate the probable influences those conditions will have on the planned construction, with special reference to geologic hazards, such as landslides, debris flows, and rock falls, that could impede the development of the property; and, 2.) conversely, to assess the probable impact of the planned construction on the natural geologic conditions. An ancillary goal has been to suggest means to ameliorate the risk posed by any geologic hazards that may be discovered. During the course of our work we have stereoscopically examined aerial photographs of the property and vicinity, and have geologically reconnoitered the site and vicinity (on August 15, 2001). Our interpretations of geologic conditions across the site and vicinity are illustrated by a geologic map, Figure 1 (attached). We conclude that the tract to be occupied by the Middle Creek Village at Vail Development is subject to debris flows periodically emanating from the valley of Mill Creek, as well as rock falls from the lower part of the adjacent sector of the steeply inclined, northern slope of the Eagle Creek Valley. We assess the debris flow risk to be high, and the rock fall hazard to be medium. The former risk, we believe, could be substantially reduced one or more of several alternative mitigating measures. These could be selected and designed when the final plans for the project are developed. The latter risk could be reduced materially by hand-dislodging boulders, allowing them to roll down the hill and onto the floor of the debris fan before buildings are constructed on this site. Consultant to Designers, Contractors, Planners R. J. Irish- Consulting Engineering Geologist, Inc- Site Geologic Conditions The Gore Creek Valley has been eroded into the interbedded sandstones, siltstones, shales and limestones of the Pennsylvanian-age (about 325 to 286 million years ago) Minturn Formation by both streams and glaciers. Glaciers repeatedly occupied the valley of Gore Creek during the Ice Age, which began about 2 million years ago, and terminated only about 8,000 years ago in this part of the Rocky Mountains. The glaciers deposited morainal soils across the lower slopes of the valley and both glacial outwash and morainal soils across the valley floor, aggrading it by as much as 100 feet or more. The upper reach of the Mill Creek Valley was occupied repeatedly by glaciers also, as evidenced my multiple cirques at the head of the Valley, and a U-shaped transverse topographic profile that extends down valley to about the Elev. 9800-foot contour. That contour crosses the floor of the canyon about 2 miles upstream from the junction of that valley with the Gore Creek Valley. The morainal soils generally are an heterogeneous, medium dense to dense, mixture of sands, gravels, cobbles, and scattered boulders in a silt matrix. Mostly the soils are granitic rock debris, but include sandstone, siltstone, and limestone debris as well. The permeability of this soil typically is low, on the order of 10"5 cm./sec., but may include lenses of much more permeable sands and gravels. The soils deposited by glacial meltwaters (the glacial outwash deposits) typically are interbedded, medium dense to dense sands and sandy gravels that commonly are cobbley and bouldery. These typically are quite permeable, on the order of !0"2 cm./sec. to 10"4" cm. sec. The morainal soils blanketing the toe of the northern slope of the Eagle Valley adjacent to this property are estimated to range from about 5 feet to 20 feet thick. Since the end of the Ice Age, fast-moving floods charged with soil and rock debris (essentially mud flows) repeatedly have coursed down the Middle Creek Valley, and have deposited their bed loads out across the floor of the Gore Creek Valley at the confluence of those valleys where the Middle Creek Village at Vail Project is to be sited. Those flows are referred to as debris flows. Moreover, many "normal" floods have carried soil and rock debris out onto the floor of the Eagle Valley at this confluence, as well. In consequence, a debris/alluvial fan has been constructed at the mouth of the Mill Creek Valley. It is about 2000 feet long along its toe, and about 1200 feet wide from its apex in a canyon section of that valley to its toe adjacent to Gore Creek. It is expected to be formed of torrentially interbedded loose to dense, sands, gravels, cobbles and boulders in a silty matrix. The soils, granitic metamorphic rock, sandstone, and siltstone debris, are expected to both overlie and interlense with the morainal, alluvial and glacial outwash soils underlying the floor of the Gore Valley. These fan soils probably range to several tens of feet thick across the center of the fan. The permeability of these debris/alluvial fan soils probably ranges widely, due to a widely ranging "fines" content, from an estimated 10'3 cm./sec. to 10"5 cm. sec. The ground water table in these soils probable lies about 15 feet below the ground surface at the southern edge of the property, but probably is much deeper in the head area of the fan. The interbedded, fine grained and fine to coarse grained sandstones, siltstones, shales and microcrystal line to very fine grained limestones of the Minturn Formation crop out sporadically across the foot of the northern slope of the Gore Creek Valley adjacent to, and within the 2 R. J. Irish Consulting Engineering Geologist, Inc. canyon section of Mill Creek Valley. These are relatively well indurated, strong, hard rocks. Their unconfined compressive strengths, we estimate, range from about 10,000 psi to 15,000 psi for the sandstones and siltstones, 25,000 psi to 30,000 psi for the limestones, and 5,000 psi to 8,000 psi for the shales. The shales are only poorly fissile. These strata are thin to thick bedded, and their near-vertically dipping joints typically are several feet to 10 feet apart. The beds strike north-northwestward and dip about 25° west-southwestward, thus nearly parallel to the contours of the valley slope, rather than out of the slope. These rocks, including the sandstones, have very little, if any, intergranular permeability, but ground water undoubtedly flows along some of the joint planes. No faults are known to us to disrupt the bedrock strata underlying the project area, but several have been reported in the vicinity. These are believed to be inactive. Assessment of Geologic Hazards Debris flowage is the principal geologic hazard attendant to the Middle Creek Village at Vail site. In fact, this site effectively spans the upper sector (i. e., uphill sector) of the debris/alluvial fan, thus could be flooded if a debris flow or "normal" flood should leap the banks of the channel of Middle Creek at the apex of the fan at the mouth of that valley. A debris fan is deposited by multiple debris flows, which are high-energy flows of surface water charged with soil and rock debris. The flow is debouched from a steep-floored ravine onto the floor of a main. valley, where its bed load is deposited to form part of a fan-shaped deposit, the debris fan. Typically a debris flow is initiated by localized, high intensity rainfall that quickly washes loose soil and rock from the catchment area of a ravine or canyon. This debris is carried essentially as a mud slurry. Commonly the debris flows and the companion flood flows abandon the channel occupied by the creek on a debris/alluvial fan, spread out across the fan surface, and even create new channels during some events. These flows, both debris and "normal' flood flows, can seriously damage or destroy buildings and their infrastructure, as well as harm the occupants of those buildings. We assess the risk of debris flows from the Middle Creek Valley to be high' during the lifetime of the project, although we cannot predict their average recurrence time interva12. That recurrence time interval is likely to be quite erratic. Their volumes could range from small to quite large because the drainage area of Middle Creek incorporates about 6 to 7 square miles. The high risk posed by debris flows, as well as by "normal" floods, could be reduced by one or a combination of several mitigating measures. The designs for these could be incorporated in your final development plans. Additionally, debris fan soils tend to be subject to differential settlement when wetted, but the potential impact of this can be moderated by foundation engineering practices well within the state-of-the-geotechnical engineering practice. Our assessment of risk is couched in qualitative, empirically-derived terms (high, medium, and low). The state-of-the-geologic-art does not permit a rational quantitative analysis. z An experienced engineering hydrologist should evaluate the risk of "normal" flooding. 3 R. J. Irish Consulting Engineering Geologist, Inc Large and small boulders of granitic rock and limestone are scattered across the steeply inclined surface of the foot of the valley slope overlooking the eastern half of the project area. Most of these appear to be embedded in the morainal soils that blanket that area, but a few appear to be perched on top of that ground. Both could be dislodged by slopewash erosion, thus could tumble down into the project area. We consider the risk of such an event to be medium during the lifetime of the project. That risk could be reduced substantially, we suggest, by dislodging the exposed boulders by hand, utilizing a steel bar, and allowing them to fall onto the surface of the debris fan down slope before any buildings are constructed on this tract. The area to be serviced extends from the northern side of the fan surface up to a terraced section of the slope about 150 feet in elevation above the fan surface, and from the eastern side of the property to the eastern side of the mouth of the Middle Creek Valley. Boulders perched on, and partly embedded in the morainal soils across the toe of the Eagle Valley slope west of the mouth of the Mill Creek Valley may be dislodged naturally from time to time and roll down the slope, but they should not travel into the western section of the planned development area. Instead, they are likely to be trapped in the channel of the creek, which traverses along the toe of that slope. Any that may skip over that channel, however, should be trapped by the dense brush and aspen west of the Mountain Bell tower, or impeded by the tower buildings. The soils and rock underlying the Eagle Valley slope in the vicinity of the planned development site appear to be relatively stable. We observed no landslides there or ground surface cracks that might presage landsliding. The granular soils of the shallow sloped debris/alluvial fan do not evidence instability or incipient instability. The 40-mile long Gore Fault, a major mountain-bounding structure on the western side of the Gore Range, lies about 4 miles east of the project site (at its closest approach); the 50-mile long Mosquito Fault lies about 12 miles to the west; and the 25-mile long Sawatch Fault terminates (at its northern end)'about 24 miles south of the site. Some seismologists consider these 3 faults to be potentially active; but most seismologists, nonetheless, consider the risk of a strong earthquake generated by those faults or any other fault within a hundred miles of the project site to be low to insignificant during the next 100 to 200 years. This is not to say that this part of Colorado is seismically quiescent, but the earthquakes generated by the reactivation of faults in this region should have small magnitudes. Earthquake intensities of V to VI, with peak accelerations of 0.05g, we conclude, are unlikely to be exceeded at this site during the life of the project. So long as the construction of the planned buildings and appurtenant facilities does not materially change the existing ground conditions of the natural soils and/or bedrock, slope stability should not be impaired. If cuts or fills in excess of 5 feet high are needed, however, they should be designed by a geotechnical engineer experienced in that work. Ponding of water on the debris/alluvial fan slope, of course, should be avoided because seepage water from a pond could build pore water pressure in the debris fan soils, thus could trigger ground movement. 4 R. J. Irish Consulting Engineering Geologist, Inc. 4 Otherwise, the construction as planned should not increase the geology-related hazard to other property or structures, or to public buildings, roads, streets, rights-of-way, easements, utilities, or facilities. We have appreciated the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions, please call. Yours truly, 6~~ Robt. James Irish, P. G. Consulting Engineering Geologist 5 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 01-136 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers APPENDIX B PREVIOUS GEOLOGIC HAZARD STUDIES n~lLJfiCbl by: 14 3[36707162 ODELL ARCHITECT PAGE DEBRIS FLOW AND ROCKFALL RA..ZAI D ANALYSIS. "NIVUC`(TA'(IN BELL" SITE VAJ1, COLORADO J Prepared For w Mr. Dunne Piper Prepared By Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Lnc. Gunnison, Colorado November, 1992~D cep 4ot ..col eiz. Z4 saabtF~tlbG UVLLL ARCHITECT PAGE 03 I SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDAMNS The following surnrnarfzcs the findings of this study and provides recommendations. Additional detail is given in Sections 2 - 4 of the report. ROCKF,ALL Rockfall is not a potential hazard to the proposed development as shown on a conceptual site plan prepared on 3-19--92 by Alpine International. This conclusion is based on the following observatiom;: a. Rockfall source areas do not exist above the eastern portion of the proposed development (the "East Parcel"); b. Although rockfall may occur above the "West Prircel" it Nvill consist of moderate-sized, rare rockFall cven(s that will not reach the proposed buildin;. DEBRIS FLOWS Debris flows will not affect the East Pareel but c n overrun tl}c Wcst Parcel. This conclusions are based on the following observations:/ a. The East Parcel is not in line with debris flows; P ' b. The West Parcel is located on an alluvial fan produced by debris-flow deposition as evidenced by 1) granite boulders 1 - fcct long on the surface, 2) depositional lobes S feet high, and 3) a large source area; C, 111, flows may be deep as they are channelized through the canyon eroded into the bedrock directly above the site, RECOMNIl .NDATIONS T"ne following recommendation alternatives are based on the conclusions outlined above and on my expericnee with the debris-flow process in Vail and at other locations: a. Avoid construction on the West Parcel; or . b. Design structures on the West Parcel for impact and depositional forces from debris flows; or c. Proceed with the development plans as shown on the 3-149-92 conceptual study, build no mitigation, and accept the risk of flows with return periods of approximately 300.- 1000 years that would damage structures. 1 ~Ed[aE. ~ ~ UL~tLL 1-at-.`1~H11tL1 ~,~dE col Cal L QI J7. i4 JYA f YJ f itl.S'1S/}itS A?Ufr J. it: 43 yA.X 1)70 0 4 64 0454 T$tiRAC()tY I i US West Wireless LLC 1 rerra n i 4301 E. Colfax Street, Suite 314 301 N. Howes • P.O. BN SO Denver, Colorado 80220 FoA carrwrs. Color" W621-0503 ! (973) W-0959 Fax: (970` 04.0454 i Attn: Mr. Jason Little Re: Geologic Hazard Investigation (Revision I) I US West Cellular Site, MTN-108 Vail, Colorado ( Terracon Project No. 25985148 Dear Mr, Little, As requested, Terracon has completed a geologic hazard investigation for the above referenced site. it is our understanding that the existing U5 West building and tower are to have a small addition placed on the north side of the existing facility. The addition is to be a 15 ft. by 16 ft. equipment shelter that will be located at the northeast corner of the existing facility. On June 11, 1996 an engineering geologist from Terracon performed a site reconnaissance and reviewed the city of Vail's debris flow and rock fall hazard maps. The site is located in the southeast quarter of Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 80 West on the north side of Interstate 70. The site slopes moderately to steeply to the south. A creek flows out of a narrow canyon that issues from the mountains just north of the site, _ The creek bends around the west side of the US West facility. A child care facility is located east of the proposed facility, The existing US West facility is a multi-story concrete ' structure with an existing tower., A concrete water diversion swale was noted around the I north, east, and west sites of the existing building. The site Is located on Quaternary (Bull Lake) age alluvial fan deposits. The deposits are poorly sorted mixtures of silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders. The gravel to boulder i clasts are subanguiar to subrounded and do not appear to exhibit a dominant direction of orientation. The bedrock underlying the Quaternary deposits is the Pennsylvanian Mintum Formation. The Mintum is comprised of red to pink Interbedded units of sandstone, conglomerate, shales with some carbonate deposits. The Mirtum strikes towards the north and dips approximately 150 to the west. Outcrops of the Minturn Formation were observed approximately 300 to 400 feet north of the US West facility near the mouth of the canyon from which the stream issues. ! The city of Vail debris flow and rock fall hazard maps show the US West site being situated between rock fall hazard zones and east of the debris flow hazard zone. The rock fail hazard zones are mapped as being on the west side of the stream, and directly adjacent to the east side of the site. Based on the hazard maps and our site reconnaissance, it is our opinion the proposed addition is not located within either of the r?1 M Z" a A& W%" a Cdofatlo • Warta a uYnois a im" ar Kansas • Mlnneaoto a A "Wo • morbm Nobroaka a Noveds a NaW ANeA o G Nonh DArato It Oklah&rw a rerYwssla ¦ 111M 0 Utah ¦ N/4oonon a Wyowdng c omy E , „ . , , SlAe* IONS FADE 05 303h737162 ODEUU ARCHITECT Qot3 tidi ~V/1Jnii~i U' V"4 13:44 i+'AA HTU 484 04.0 TERSZACQIV i ' two rock fall hazard zones which are adjacent to the site. The debris flow hazard map identifies this hazard zone as closely following the existing course of the stream. It is our opinion that the entire alluvial fan upon which the existing facility and the proposed addition are located could be included In a debris flow hazard zone. However, because the stream is incised into its channel and the existing facility has diversion structures in place, we believe the risk of debris flows affecting the facility is minimal. Also, the proposed addition will be an unoccupied storage shed, from economic and engineering perspectives, it does not appear that corrective engineering or mitigative procedures are wan anted for tfie addition. It. is also our opinion that the construction of the 15 by 16 toot addition win riot increase the geologic hazards to other structures cr properties- No evidence of other geologic hazards such as landslides, soil creep, or other forms of mass wasting were observed during the sitQ reconnaissance. The analyses and recommendations in this report are based upon visual observations performed at the location. The sca of services for this project does not include any geotechnical recommendations in regards to particutar construction methods or procedures which may be required t build in this particular geologic setting. If the client is concerned about the geotechnice aspects of the project, it is suggested that a full geotechnicai soils investigation be pe, ormed. We appreciate the opportunity to wor with you on this project, if you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may of further service to you, please do not hesitate to ' contact us. i Sincerely, of truer ' TERFtACON Reviewed: AiPG i ppi y'•n......? QZ''~ 0 ug Leaf en, s u, 11tiam J. Attwo P.E. Engineering Geologist ° Ee a w Office Manager Copies to: Addressee (2) t riot, L3/ zuul Li 1j: 14 - JdJb I F3726Z ODELL ARCHITECT PAGE 06 Nicholu Lampiris, Ph.D. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 0793 VALLEY ROAD - CARBON DALE,.COLOFRADO 81623 (303) W3Z8W(24 HOURS) MAY 28, 191?0 f-fal l y F;t.ct:hrar•ford r ni rectrar • ABC School 129 N. irrontage Roaid Voi1, CO. 81658 Fit=: Fmc--k. fal.1 Evall-cation O ear Mm. P'Utheriord: I hzve visited the site of your school imd noted tnea ::area -for planned expansion on the north side of the eXiGti.nrj structure. The proposed addition -is si-lown undrr_r separate cuvr~rr . T, have ~-al sc3 noted the position of the school with reamp ct to the geologic ron:,fall hazard mapping that. I prodLcced ' Dr the Tot-in o-f Vail in '1984. The Irchccsl is 51-i-ovin withir) the category, o•f "moderate r'ock•fail I hazi'ArCl but on dL*ailed in pection 6 bc*lieve that the llne should he amended tr shcjw that your zr_hmol and its proposed addition :aria not with n A rockfalI hazard cone. I SLIbmitted a.n oyclr-j,gay to the Learning Tree school in 19Q6 which showed a new west boundary u,~ th* mapped hazard cone +Ltrther to the east and therefore not inc.ludin'g your school. I do, however, ,find that t'heru ::s a :'ebr i s flow hazard to the school, This can, and shoc.tld, be (nitigatecd as we, discussed in the •fi.eld lawt week,, by extending and perhaprrl ridding to the E~;,:istinci low, linear rocky hillside, mar•thwe!;t of the tachool, which was 4ormad by a previous debris flour decades agcy. The cl,:.kttcr) can be extended to a point part w,ay to the steep hillside beyond the school to provide protection to the e".',i sti nq building and the proposed rddi ti ran, or it c.an bC ei, tended all -the way to the steep hillside, thesrety Ar atcteting thw play9rcaukd areas nort'hwavat r.•f the school at% well, The configuration of the berm in either case should be established in the field in Concert with your arr_-hi tect•. , bc.;t. Gain be rarcpected to have a finished neyt'vertical rz•li.ef on its west, Zidc U+ about 8 to 10 ¢eet. ra; ~.i/ L~ bl U'~J: 24 3036707162 ODELL ARCHITECT PAGE 07 In the • owner case, debri would tie 4crr'ced to -f Iow around Lhe schoa And the prnpospd additi on t:Q both rai des: sr,, the 1 otter raSt., raI I the: debri rs wouI d be f orce d tc. •f I ow bet,w~eri the a-,(bj ~c~_ pc-tppprty and the Nli . l e1 I. imFa tki I.I.at:,i nn tC. t il0 w(~r .t:.. T;,ey are (,r~bral3ly aware o-( i:he Kjot-ent'i al 1•icl".".ard b6?C_ili.Ase th.y, habv(e buiI.t a concrete di•t0.h and (Jt7.'fIEJI'isii:r!'! 3t E!,71, 't;c: !:1r0r".e',ct tni.t,r proporty, but I am not cnnv:inceij that wh. t th!_v hav:- ;'-onii-vLrucct:ed will provide it-, ei,,v;i lt;. kzcF ck large Citt:b:"7.25 fl(nW temanat.ing -frvn thtr+ Q(.,O-)•v tr-- ~ i r*:cTi, f', -rhr? two C:l1t~iCCS for' nll'~i(~aZt:]11C~ debris "flan ha-,-aird you;- site that I havw dwzcribed will nat. inr_ra-ass,., ttie Ii~7~.. d to other pror.wrty or structures, Ur' to far..(bl;fr_ !:~uilt~inys, ir7hk:~ Q+--way, roads, stree't%,• Easement s, uti 'i i iii 5 or f~a'_'.i l1 CiC?!1 0!" Other properties of any kind. 1r t h! ijr"e ar(v •r•l.tr t.l-er Cuestions, please do not hesitatc::• tv ctar,r•<:.rW : m~_. Si ncarol Itlic.hala:~ !_:ic p.ris C c~ n t_t .l. t ;i r-1 ~ C w Cj I c~ j i s t; l Hazard. Areas Mountain Bell Site Key Debris Flow - High Hazard Debris Flow • Moderate Hazard Debris Flow High Harald Debris Avalanche Rockfall Approved Mitigation High Severity Rockhlt Medlum Severity Roeidall NTown Boundary - •1 i. L,01PV.TTED r. u••y AIL - / 1S ~`~•5 14p $CFiQOL C ` . y 1AO.NTAIN BELL LJ NTAGEI 1 „ . { `DINT 1 JI UONSHEAD . ! PARKING STRUCTURE j - 1~ L r,-.`~ - _ 1 . J ^ VAIL INTERNATIONAL/ - S1• SOB 1 386 EXIT 176 VAIL VILLAGE y; ; Ir / 30D /F U \ .123 EVERGREEN COMMUN1IY i ! . VAIL 211 BS l 2 DEVELOP ICE ARENA MENT' ~ - ( ! 621 1 . 230 F.ASTLIONSLIEADL7IMLE S r -;R -i_._..-_.~ .~1 r / - -`MUNICIPAL OFFICES - t ONSMEAD 40 ~RC • ! %RCADE 3BD 1 rgGL`~~ 7S f T r TREEEOPS LODGE AT S Ill) ate' - yt ~d B LIONSHEAD l 360 USRMY A/ ! 452 VAR. VALLEY 292 e D-2 F MEDLCAL CENTER SAW (]SCORPIO f'--• -.fir A _ 7NSNEAO 3 1 - TRACT J 2811 D•1 ENTER 520 A 1B1 131 HSWLA4 ~ CHATEAU AT VAIL - MM NOT To SCALE L C- _ - - p 7 I STALPNE AN.ARi~ GATEWAY ALPNO r C f ' 272 _ D 0•2 j 13 A N Bawd at Me OMC W Town of Vail UNPLATTED 1f1~ t21 r 12 I PACT D ! TRACTS WfS'f MEADOW OR 2$ 2 Roddaa and WW* Flow Hazard Maps 7 I y HOLIDAY p Adopted by Counts TRACT R { 134 ly - - HOUSE ae RnokMm No, 13. Sorb of 2000 17. 2M . f October Pro&x*d by lbe Town of Vail Comwntury 0._ Dgnonnml Tom. Aapm 22.2001 Appendix I: Environmental Impact Report Planning and Environmental Commission Preliminary Plat, Land Use Plan Amendment, and Rezoning Request Middle Creek Subdivision September 24, 2001 STEWART ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Consulting Engineers and Scientists Office & Laboratory: 3801 Automation Way, Suite 200 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970) 226-5500 FAX (970) 226-4946 stewart@webaccess. net Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Prepared by. Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. Consulting Engineers and Scientists Fort Collins, Colorado August 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 11. PURPOSE 1 III. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION 2 Site Concept 2 Building Concept 2 IV. SITE DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY 3 Location 3 Zoning 3 Site Usage 3 Hydrologic Conditions 3 Geologic Conditions 4 Biotic Conditions 4 V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 VI. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 7 A. Land Acquisitions and Displacements 7 B. Land Use and Zoning 7 C. Visual Conditions 7 D. Air Quality 7 E. Noise 8 F. Light Pollution 8 G. Flooding 8 H. Navigable Waterways and Coastal Zones 8 1. Traffic and Parking 8 J. Energy Requirements and Potential for Conservation 8 K. Construction 9 L. Aesthetics 10 M. Community Disruption 10 N. Secondary Development 11 0. AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED 11 VII. SUMMARY 11 VIII. ASSESSOR QUALIFICATIONS 14 FIGURES 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Site Map 4. Photographs APPENDICES A. Eagle County List i I. INTRODUCTION Odell Architects, PC retained Stewart Environmental Consultants Inc. to perform an Environmental Impact Assessment of the proposed Middle Creek Village development. The property is located adjacent to the Mountain Bell facility, directly north across Interstate 70 from Vail Village. The proposed project consists of multi-family housing constructed on a 6.5-acre site owned by the Town of Vail. The purpose of the project is to provide affordable housing for people currently employed in Vail, who are presently living in or near the community. The project owner is Coughlin and Company, 140 East 19th Ave., Suite 700, Denver, Colorado 80203-1035. The site location is depicted on Figures 1 through 3. Photographs of the site are provided as Figure 4. II. PURPOSE The purpose of performing the Environmental Impact Assessment is to achieve the following objectives: A. Availability of Information: To ensure that complete information on the environmental effects of the proposed project is available to the Town Council, the Planning and ' Environmental Commission, and the general public. B. Environmental Protection A Criterion: To ensure that long-term protection of the environment is a guiding criterion in project planning, and that land use and development decisions, both public and private, take into account the relative merits of possible alternative actions. C. Review and Evaluation Procedure: To provide procedures for local review and evaluation of the environmental effects of proposed projects prior to granting of permits or other authorizations for commencement of development. D. Avoid Geologic Hazard Areas: To ensure that the buildings are not constructed in geologic hazard areas, by way of illustration, flood plains, avalanche paths, rockfall areas, where such hazard cannot practically be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council. E. Protect Water Quality: To ensure that the quality of surface water and ground water within the Town of Vail will be protected from adverse impacts and/or degradation due to construction activities. [Ord. 37 (1980) 10: Ord. 19 (1976) 14: Ord. 8 (1973) 16.100] 2850-001 Environmental Impact Report Page 1 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. III. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION - Site Concept The initial conceptual design approach for Middle Creek Village housing is meant to reflect a new model of multi family housing in mountain communities. The site parameters and community context were the prime motivators for the layout of the buildings and parking; however, the solution incorporates some planning principles of a more "urban" nature. The buildings are arranged around a pedestrian oriented "street" which creates an axis running east to west across the site. The "street" rises to the center of the project, following the contours of the site. Entries into individual units as well as project amenities will occur along the path, and it is envisioned to include both hardscape and landscape areas. The pedestrian street will be an active place reminiscent of other village centers in the community. Encouraging the use of alternate transportation, our team proposes to work with the Colorado Department of Transportation and the Town of Vail to create a project specific transit stop, as well as develop pedestrian and bicycle access from the site into town. These are accessible to the residences along a central pedestrian spine that runs down the hill and through a two-story opening in the center building, ending at the proposed transit stop. Given that a large segment of the market for this project will be seasonal employees, our team believes the daily use of the automobile can be minimal. Consequently, the relationship between the car and the building is downplayed in our solution. Separating vehicle parking from the buildings allows the project to create a pedestrian oriented "village" character and allows the buildings to be sited closer together, thus visually reinforcing this image. This is similar to the exterior pedestrian spaces created by the architecture at areas such as Bridge Street in Vail Village and Lionshead Village. The siting of the parking areas behind the buildings will also help shield views of the lots from the frontage road and from across the valley. The Early Learning Center has been sited to the far eastern edge of the site, but is easily accessible from the residences on the loop road. This configuration provides a nicely separated site for the children's facility. The overall site concept adheres closely to the existing contours of the site. The buildings rise and fall across the length of the site with the terrain, creating an undulating profile that further reinforces the "village" concept. Building Concept Further reinforcing the "village" concept, the buildings are designed as three separate building types. All the buildings will be one unit deep, creating cross flow ventilation and economy of construction. There are no enclosed walkways or stair towers, as the site allows the majority of units to be accessed at grade. Internal floor plans will develop stacked plumbing cores, and the mix of units will be designed to minimize structural offsets and maximize construction simplicity. Each of the six residential buildings includes a one-story element on the end which houses laundry and storage facilities for that building. The building orientation creates maximum 2850-001 Environmental Impact Report Page 2 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. southern exposure for every unit. The fact that the buildings are simply one unit deepcreates excellent opportunities for flow-through ventilation. Our proposal will incorporate highly efficient mechanical and electrical designs. We believe on a scale of zero to five our development will achieve a five, or the highest efficiency rating available. Since all units are accessed from grade or a small stair, there are no interior corridors to heat or cool, further enhancing overall energy efficiency. Please refer to our preliminary LEED evaluation in Section VW for additional information on energy and sustainability. The overall character of the building design is meant to reinforce the "village" concept, with varying building types, massing, and styles creating a cohesive whole. Stylistically, we will incorporate the tradition of Vail Valley architecture while maintaining an economical design. This can be achieved by the judicious use of distinct design elements throughout the project. In a cost sensitive project, forms may be simple, but the sensitive use of massing, scale, and rhythm can create an architecture that is respectful of, and complimentary to, the surrounding architecture of Vail Valley. The exciting architectural design and pedestrian street space will create a of choice for potential employees. IV. SITE DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY Location The subject property is an irregular shaped, approximate 6.5-acre mountainside site; its location is described as a part of the South '/2 of the Southeast Y of Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6t' PM, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado. The property adjoins the existing Mountain Bell property located north of the 1-70 North Frontage Road. Zoninq A majority of the subject site is presently zoned "NAPD" (Natural Area Preservation District), and a small portion of the site where two early learning centers are located is zoned "G" (General). The proposed project will require rezoning the 6.5-acre site to the designation "H" (Housing). Site Usaae The property is owned by the Town of Vail. Onsite development includes two small wooden structures presently housing early childhood learning centers. They are located directly east of the offsite Mountain Bell structure. Site development plans call for demolition of the two early childhood learning facility structures with construction of a new learning center at the southeast portion of the site. The remainder of the site is undeveloped open land except for the existing road and parking area that serves the off-site Mountain Bell facility and the onsiteearly learning facilities. The proposed use of the property was described in Section I, above. Hvdroloaic Conditions No surface bodies of water are located on the proposed project site. Onsite surface drainage is mainly via sheet flow and is generally southerly, although the western portion of the site likely drains to Middle Creek, located off site just to the west of the entry road. A man-made drainage 2850-001 Environmental Impact Report Page 3 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. channel adjoins the eastern side of the Mountain Bell structure. Soil and drainage issues are described in reports provided under separate cover by Koechlein Engineering and Peak Land Consultants, Inc. Geoloqic Conditions A geologic report by RJ Irish, Consulting Engineering Geologist, Inc. is provided under separate cover. Biotic Conditions Ecologically, the property is located in the Montane Zone at elevations of approximately 8,220 to 8,300 feet above mean sea level on a southerly aspect. Regarding plant communities, the site is described as complex as it contains elements of several communities. These include Montane Grasslands and Mixed Mountain Shrubland located on the eastern portion of the mountainside with Aspen stands occurring at the southeastern portion of the site. These communities include representatives of most of the life forms of the plant kingdom including ferns, grasses, forbes, shrubs, and trees. Native and non-native vegetation is present including invasive species of noxious weeds. The western area of the property is mainly Montane Riparian Forest dominated by Narrow-leaf Cottonwoods (Populus angustafolia) and a scattering of Thin-leaf Alder (Alnus incana) and Aspen (Populus tremuloides). Presence of Aspen as well as species of invasive weedy forbes indicate the likelihood of past disturbance such as fire. Climax community species such as Colorado Blue Spruce (Picea pungens) are located off site higher up the Middle Creek drainage, but Blue Spruce and other climax community trees were not observed on site. Wildlife uses the site; large mammals including deer and elk browse on the Serviceberry and Current located in the Mixed Mountain Shrubland Community. Other mammals including Black Bear, Coyote, Fox, Rabbits, Chipmunks, Golden-mantle Ground Squirrels, Pocket Gophers, and other rodent species likely feed and/or inhabit the site. Reptiles, such as species of Garter Snakes also likely inhabit the site. No major wildlife migratory routes appear to be located on site. Although Middle Creek is located off site directly west of the property's western boundary, the creek is not likely used as a migratory corridor. Interstate70 and development adjoining the south side of 1-70 preclude use of the corridor for migratory use. Middle Creek is contained within a culvert from the north side of 1-70 to its confluence with Gore Creek south of 1-70. No known threatened or endangered species of plants or animals have been identified at the site. However, no onsite surveys for such species are known to have been performed. The Colorado Natural Heritage Program's Conservation Status Handbook (1999) lists the status of various animals, plants, and plant communities found in Eagle County. A copy of the Eagle County list is provided in Appendix A. We recommend having the Colorado Natural Heritage Program perform a GIS "Environmental Review" of the subject site and adjacent area. The review searches known ecological information regarding the status of plants, plant communities, and animals within a specified radius of the subject property. The review will report the status of these communities. Middle Creek, a relatively pristine stream that likely contains Native Cutthroat Trout, traverses the adjacent property to the west of the subject site. The creek flows out of a saddle located to 2850-001 Environmental Impact Report Page 4 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. the north upslope from the site. It flows southerly down slope, jogs west around the Mountain Bell building, and then flows southerly for approximately 150 feet paralleling the west side of the entry road to Mountain Bell. It enters a culvert beneath 1-70 and the associated frontage roads and flows through the culvert south of 1-70 to its discharge point into Gore Creek south of the interstate. Gore Creek flows westerly to its confluence with the Eagle River near Minturn. The existing creek channel may not be the historic creek channel. Stream modification (channelization) appears to have been conducted upstream of the culvert adjacent to the entry road. This 150-foot reach is likely the closest location of the stream to the subject property. The stream bank, as well as its associated vegetation, appears disturbed along this reach. Observed vegetation was mainly upland in nature with both native (Western wheat grass- Agropyron sp.) and non-native species of grasses (brome-Bromus enurmus), as well as invasive noxious weeds (See Figure 4 photographs, page 2). Upstream from this reach and off site from the subject property, a riparian corridor of wetland vegetation adjoins the stream channel. Adjoining the east side of the entry road, adjacent to its 150-foot north/south orientation, is a Narrow-leaf Cottonwood (Populus angustifolia) community. This species is referenced in the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service publication, National List of Plant Species That Occur In Wetlands: Intermountain (Region 8). Its indicator category is listed as "Facultative", which is described as "Equally likely to occur in wetlands or nonwetlands (estimated probability 34%-66%). The presence of this community may be due to a former location of the stream channel or may be due to high groundwater conditions existing near the stream channel. The Narrow-leaf Cottonwood Community continues to the north (off site) and south (on site) of the entry road after the road turns east. Figure 4 Photographs, page 2, depicts the entry road along its east/west orientation with the Narrow-leaf Cottonwood Community adjoining both sides of the road. The presence of this community is an indicator of the potential existence of wetlands; it does not necessarily confirm their presence. Actual wetland existence can only be determined by performing a wetland assessment, which not only considers vegetation type, but also investigates other factors including the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Montane Environmental Solutions of Vail, Colorado is presently investigating wetland issues at the site. A letter regarding the status of their investigation is provided under separate cover. V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed Middle Creek Village will impact plant and animal communities presently inhabiting the property. Site development including earth moving activities and building/parking lot construction will strip a majority of the existing native and non-native vegetation and displace wildlife from the approximate 6.5-acre site. However, existing vegetation and wildlife are not site specific. Surrounding property to the north, east, and west contain vast square miles of similar plant communities, wildlife habitat, and wildlife species. The loss of these 6.5 acres does not represent a significant impact to the plant and animal communities. Displaced wildlife will find and inhabit nearby similar habitat. 2850-001 Environmental Impact Report Page 5 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. Landscaping including grass, shrubs, and trees will cover a minimum of 30% of the developed site. Middle Creek Village will be sensitively integrated into environmental surroundings. Birds, insects, and possibly small mammals will utilize the landscaped areas, which will mitigate some habitat loss. The presence of Middle Creek Village will have impacts on use of adjacent property by wildlife-- particularly large mammals. Increased human presence and reflected light may influence adjoining habitat use. Adjoining property is private so that residents of the village should not be using adjoining properties. Human/bear interaction is possible. All trash dumpsters will need to be covered and otherwise made bear proof. Lighting designed to reduce reflected light and conform to the Town of Vail building code will be incorporated into the site design. Impact to Middle Creek from surface runoff will be minimized. Potential impacts include grease/oil runoff from paved parking areas and sand/gravel runoff from winter sanding of roads. The location of accumulated snow piles resulting from plowing will be addressed. The piles will be located such that snowmelt containing grease, oil, silt, sand, and gravel do not impact Middle and Gore Creeks. Any such contaminants discharged to Middle Creek may impair water quality of the creek and potentially impact the fisheries of both Middle and Gore Creeks. Engineered drainage swales, berms, dikes, etc. will be incorporated into the project design to prevent impact to Middle Creek. Construction will be in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations and standards. If dewatering is required during construction, water will be retained on site. As previously referenced, drainage issues are addressed in a report under separate cover. Montane Environmental Solutions is performing a wetland assessment. As previously referenced, a potential exists for the existence of jurisdictional wetlands in the vicinity of the Narrow-leaf Cottonwood Forest located adjacent to the existing access road. The presence of this community is an indicator of the potential existence of wetlands; it does not necessarily confirm their presence. We recommend performing a wetland assessment conforming to US Army Corps of Engineers (The Corps) guidelines. If on-site wetlands are identified, several alternatives are available. These include: 1) establishing development setbacks from the wetlands 2) wetlands can be taken through the 404 Permitting process and replacement performed to mitigate the loss or 3) if the wetlands are below minimum surface areas established by the Corps„ they may be removed and built upon. If on-site jurisdictional wetlands are identified, The Corps is the agency regulating such matters. A parking facility is proposed at a location just east of the Mountain Bell structure. Middle Creek lies north and west of this area. Impacts to the riparian corridor and wildlife using the corridor adjacent to Middle Creek will to be minimized. This can be accomplished by constructing the parking area as far as possible from Middle Creek. Drainage issues as previously referenced are also a concern in this area of the site. Engineered drainage swales, berms, dikes, etc. will be incorporated into the project design to prevent impact to Middle Creek. 2850-001 Environmental Impact Report Page 6 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. VI. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS A. Land Acquisitions and Displacements The impact is "Generally Not Significant". Approximately 6.5 acres of land is required; the developer/project owner is Coughlin and Company, 140 East 19th Ave., Suite 700, Denver, CO 80203-1035. The Town of Vail owns the land. It is proposed that the Town of Vail will lease the site to the developer for a 53-year period at which time the property will revert to the Town. Two displacements will result from implementation of the proposed project. The ABC and the Learning Tree early childhood learning centers will be displaced. The existing buildings will be demolished, and new facilities will be constructed at the southeastern portion of the site. State regulations require a full National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) asbestos inspection of the buildings prior to demolition. If the inspection identifies asbestos-containing materials, regulations require their removal prior to demolition of the buildings. No minority communities, households, or minority-owned businesses are located on site, and therefore, will not be impacted by any potential negative environmental concerns such as noise, air, or water pollution; or from the construction of the facility. B. Land Use and Zoninq The impact is "Generally Not Significant". A majority of the subject site is presently zoned "NAPD" (Natural Area Preservation District), and a small portion of the site where two early learning centers are located is zoned G. The proposed project will require rezoning to the designation "H" (Housing). C. Visual Conditions Parking areas will be located behind housing thereby shielding it from view from the Town of Vail. Overall project form and massing is in character with existing Vail Village. The height, mass, and materials that will be used in the proposed Middle Creek Village will convey a sense of permanence and contextual and regional appropriateness. D. Air Qualitv The impact is "Generally Not Significant". The project will conform to all applicable local, state, and federal air quality regulations and standards, including, but not limited to those regulating odor, dust, fumes of gases, which are noxious, toxic, or corrosive, and suspended solid or liquid particles. 2850-001 Environmental Impact Report Page 7 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. Fireplaces will not be installed in the development thereby eliminating wood smoke. There will be no balconies or decks that would provide space for grills or barbecues. There may be a grill in a public area of the complex. The Middle Creek Village project is designed to discourage vehicle usage and encourage other modes of transportation such as buses, biking, and walking. TDA of Colorado performed a transportation impact analysis regarding the proposed Middle Creek Village. Their report is provided under separate cover. The report indicates that the impact of traffic generated by the proposed project will be "Generally Not Significant". E. Noise The impact is "Generally Not Significant". Stewart Environmental identified no noise-sensitive land uses on adjacent properties. The proposed site is located adjacent to the north side of 1-70. The noise from the interstate is far greater than any that would be produced by the development. F. Liqht Pollution The Middle Creek Village development will have minimal light trespass from the residential buildings. G: Floodinq The impact is "Possibly Significant". Peak Land Consultants, Inc. addresses flooding issues in a report provided under separate cover. H. Naviqable Waterwavs and Coastal Zones The impact is "Generally Not Significant". The proposed site is not located near or affected by a navigable waterway or a coastal zone. 1. Traffic and Parking The impact is "Generally Not Significant". TDA of Colorado performed a traffic study. Their report is provided under separate cover. J. Energv Requirements and Potential for Conservation The impact is "Generally Not Significant". The proposed project is expected to result in energy conservation. The Vail Affordable Housing Project, Vail, Colorado incorporates principles of sustainable design and utilizes design strategies to reduce its energy and environmental impact. The U.S. Green Building Council's 2850-001 Environmental Impact Report Page 8 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system is here used as a preliminary sustainable design measure of the project. As it is currently written, LEED version 2.0 is a system designed to rate new and existing commercial, institutional, and high-rise residential buildings. It specifically rates low-rise residential projects. The USGBC is currently developing a residential version of the LEED rating system. Nevertheless, the sustainable design principles embodied in LEED v. 2.0 serves as useful goals, guidelines, and measure for sustainable features of the Vail Affordable Housing Project. The LEED rating system consists of seven prerequisite criteria and 32 user-selected criteria organized into five categories: • Sustainable Site Development • Water Efficiency • Energy and Atmosphere • Materials and Resources • Indoor Environmental Quality LEED is a voluntary, consensus-based, market-driven building rating system based on available proven technology that evaluates environmental performance from a "whole building" perspective over a building's life cycle. The following preliminary LEED analysis incorporates input from the design team to more accurately evaluate the conceptual design of the Vail Affordable Housing Project. K. Construction The impact is "Generally Not Significant". Construction of the Middle Creek Village is anticipated to commence in March 2002 and will last for approximately 18 months, therefore any construction impacts will be temporary and of short duration. All construction staging will be located on site and construction activities predominantly will be confined to this site. Contractors will be required to obtain the necessary permits and comply with all relevant town, state and federal regulations regarding construction and safety. Potential construction impacts are described below. Noise No noise-sensitive land uses are located on adjacent property. Construction hours and noise levels will comply with the Town of Vail policies. Disruotion of Utilities It is anticipated that there will be no disruption of utilities, and therefore no significant impact with this activity. Construction of all utilities to serve the site will be contained within the proposed site. Disposal of Debris and Spoil 2850-001 Environmental Impact Report Page 9 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. Demolition of two buildings is required as previously referenced. All construction debris _ will be disposed at an approved landfill and transported on designated truck routes. The general contractor will be responsible for on-site cleanup and disposal of debris. Soil fill may be required to elevate buildings above the 100-year flood plain. Disposal of soil is not required. Water Qualitv and Runoff Project construction will not impact existing water quality. The general contractor will comply with water quality requirements for site construction to meet state water quality regulations. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented during construction including the use of erosion control measures. Access and Disruption of Traffic City streets will not have any significant impact since the site is located directly off the I- 70 North Frontage Road. Any frontage road diversions will be addressed with a detour plan. Air Qualitv and Dust Control Standard construction practices and BMPs will be used to control and minimize onsite dust and emissions. Safetv and Securitv Standard construction safety measures will be observed on site. Town of Vail police will ensure security. Disruption of Businesses No businesses are located in the immediate vicinity of the project area. L. Aesthetics The impact is "Generally Not Significant". The height, mass, and materials that will be used in the proposed Middle Creek Village will convey a sense of permanence and contextual and regional appropriateness. In addition, the facility design will promote an orderly circulation and efficient integration of buses, other vehicles, and pedestrians. M. Community Disruption The impact is "Generally Not Significant". No businesses or residential sectors will be disrupted or displaced, and no segments of the community will be isolated as a result of this proposed project. 2850-001 Environmental Impact Report Page 10 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. N. Secondarv Development The impact is "Generally Not Significant". The proposed project will not generate secondary development. The project is an outcome of the community's determination to provide affordable housing for people already employed in Vail and are presently living in or near the community. The proposed housing project indirectly addresses the cause of traffic-related problems. 0. AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED Agencies and Personnel ? Colorado Division of Wildlife, Vail Area - Bill Andree, Wildlife Conservation Officer ? Colorado Natural Heritage Program at Colorado State University- Beth Van Dusen ? Denver Regulatory Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Terry McKee ? Colorado State University, Department of Entomology, Phyllus Pineda References Used 1. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Conservation Status Handbook, Volume 3, No. 2, May 1999. 2. Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior, National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Intermountain (Region 8), Biological Report 88, May 1988. 3. Mitsch, WJ & Gosselink, JIG, Wetlands, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 2nd Ed, 1993. 4. Kittel, G., E. Van Wie, M. Damm, R. Rondeau, S. Kettler, A. McMullen, and J. Sanderson. 1999c. A Classification of Riparian Wetland Plant Associations of Colorado: User Guide to the Classification Project. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 VII. SUMMARY Odell Architects, PC retained Stewart Environmental to perform an Environmental Impact Assessment of the proposed Middle Creek Village development located in Vail, Colorado. Based on the findings contained in this report, the following conclusions have been drawn and opinions and recommendations made: 2850-001 Environmental Impact Report Page 11 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. Findinas. Conclusions. Opinions and Recommendations _ 1. The proposed Middle Creek Village development is located adjacent to the Mountain Bell facility, directly north across Interstate 70 from Vail Village. The proposed project consists of multi-family housing constructed on a 6.5-acre site owned by the Town of Vail. The project will not promote secondary development. The purpose of the project is to provide affordable housing for people currently employed in Vail who are presently living in or near the community. The project owner is Coughlin and Company, 140 East 19th Ave., Suite 700, Denver Colorado 80203-1035. 2. A majority of the subject site is presently zoned "NAPD" (Natural Area Preservation District), and a small portion of the site where two early learning centers are located is zoned G. The proposed project will require rezoning to the designation "H" (Housing). 3. Environmental issues regarding the proposed project are addressed in reports provided under separate cover. These include a) geologic hazards - RJ Irish, Consulting Engineering Geologist, Inc., b) drainage issues - Peak Land Consultants, Inc., c) soils - Koechlein Engineering, and d) traffic - TDA of Colorado. 4. Wetland issues were identified and are addressed within this report. Montane Environmental Solutions of vail, Colorado is presently performing an in-depth investigation of the wetland issues. A letter regarding the status of their investigation is provided under separate cover. 5. Wildlife uses the site; large mammals including deer and elk browse on the Serviceberry and Current located in the Mixed Mountain Shrubland Community. Other mammals including Black Bear, Coyote, Fox, Rabbits, Chipmunks, Golden-mantle Ground Squirrels, Pocket Gophers, and other rodent species likely feed and/or inhabit the site. Reptiles, such as species of Garter Snakes also likely inhabit the site. No major wildlife migratory routes appear to be located on site. Although Middle Creek is located off site directly west of the property's western boundary, the creek is not likely used as a migratory corridor. Interstate70 and development adjoining the south side of 1-70 preclude use of the corridor for migratory use. Middle Creek is contained within a culvert from the north side of 1-70 to its confluence with Gore Creek south of 1-70. 6. No known threatened or endangered species of plants or animals have been identified at the site. However, no on-site surveys for such species are known to have been performed. The Colorado Natural Heritage Program's Conservation Status Handbook (1999) lists the status of various animals, plants and plant communities found in Eagle County. A copy of the Eagle County list is provided in Appendix A. We recommend having the Colorado Natural Heritage Program perform a GIS "Environmental Review" of the subject site and adjacent area. The review searches known ecological information regarding the status of plants, plant communities and animals within a specified radius of the subject property. The review will report the status of these communities. 7. The proposed Middle Creek Village will impact plant and animal communities inhabiting the property. Site development including earth moving activities and building/parking lot 2850-001 Environmental Impact Report Page 12 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. construction will strip a majority of the existing native and non-native vegetation, including noxious weeds, and displace wildlife from the approximate 6.5-acre site. However, existing vegetation and wildlife are not site specific. Surrounding property to the north, east and west contain vast square miles of similar plant communities, wildlife habitat and wildlife species. The loss of these 6.5 acres does not represent a significant impact to the plant and animal communities. Displaced wildlife will find and inhabit nearby similar habitat. 8. The presence of Middle Creek Village will have impacts on use of adjacent property by wildlife, particularly large mammals. Increased human presence and reflected light may influence adjoining habitat use. Adjoining property is private so that residents of the Village should not be using adjoining properties. Human/bear interaction is possible. All trash dumpsters will need to be covered and otherwise made bear proof. Lighting designed to reduce reflected light and conform to the Town of Vail building code will be incorporated into the site design. 9. Impact to Middle Creek from surface runoff will be minimized. Potential impacts include grease/oil runoff from paved parking areas and sand/gravel runoff from winter sanding of roads. The location of accumulated snow piles resulting from plowing will be addressed. The piles will be located such that snowmelt containing grease, oil, silt, sand, and gravel do not impact Middle and Gore Creeks. Any such contaminants discharged to Middle Creek may impair water quality of the creek and potentially impact the fisheries of both Middle and Gore Creeks. Engineered drainage swales, berms, dikes, etc. will be incorporated into the project design to prevent impact to Middle Creek. Construction will be in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations and standards. If dewatering is required during construction, water will be retained on site. 10. A parking facility is proposed at a location just east of the Mountain Bell structure. Middle Creek lies north and west of this area. Impacts to the riparian corridor and wildlife using the corridor adjacent to Middle Creek will to be minimized. This can be accomplished by constructing the parking area as far as possible from Middle Creek. Drainage issues as previously referenced are also a concern in this area of the site. Engineered drainage swales, berms, dikes, etc. will be incorporated into the project design to prevent impact to Middle Creek. 11. Two displacements will result from implementation of the proposed project. The ABC and the Learning Tree early childhood learning centers will be displaced. The existing buildings will be demolished and new facilities will be constructed at the southeastern portion of the site. State regulations require a full National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) asbestos inspection of the buildings prior to demolition. If the inspection identifies asbestos-containing materials, mitigation (abatement/removal) per regulations will be performed prior to demolition of the buildings. 2850-001 Environmental Impact Report Page 13 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. VIII. ASSESSOR QUALIFICATIONS _ Stewart Environmental has performed environmental consulting services for more than 2,800 different clients since 1980. With a staff of 25 professional engineers, scientists, and technicians, Stewart Environmental is qualified to perform environmental impact assessments. The following is a list of key Stewart Environmental personnel and their responsibilities on this project: ? Richard G. Patterson, PE Project Administrator ? . Robert J. Blinderman, REPA Environmental Scientist Mr. Patterson (registered professional engineer) provided overall project administration and project review. Mr. Blinderman (M.S. Natural Sciences, M.S. Industrial Science, registered environmental property assessor, and certified asbestos inspector) performed the records review, site reconnaissance, interviews, local governmental official contacts, and prepared the report of the findings of the environmental impact assessment. Mr. Patterson reviewed the final assessment report. This report was: Prepared by: Under the direction of: Robert J. B#innlerman Richard G.,Patterson, PE Environmental Scientist Vice President 2850-001 Environmental Impact Report Page 14 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. Figures Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. J)t i t k I ~ ` '!`,.%f/ !/r 1 , r ~ t i. t tt j ~ j ( 1 e{ 1 % t _ ~r ~yl,\ ~d`~ ~ t i . r~--=~----•,,,~~.. f/i;`~j'J` ' ~ i t'rkf t r t i t 1 111 ~ r-.,ti .,y l tf t~ti ~~4 l~ j i j ft',t~'~«``« t, tr t t 1 k 1 ly,~ Y~. r.a t ~ r r~ a'~t ~k, ~ 4 t ~ j i i r , \ ~ 4-:~;': ~ ' r l ~ 1( ~ . 1 \ 4 _ ( / l ~f1 J h ~3-~,;.. 4i ~ 't ~ 1 ~ ~ f E + ~ ,~i ~ t~ { ~/~i % •~i t rl'i i f ~ t ` y!' ` ' 1 i _ ff %'I/r r'! 1 1 1 1 1+t ; tti ~•l \~i 1.•+~. f/rl / % { ! { l-~ 'i ` t ti` ill ~~1+` r - -«.•.i It , ~ 111 , f ~ 1 1 y r 5 n t, ~?ti t ; : ( f r t % kt ` t\. / lr..~ `~~,,,=+,._.~-••ivt0(~ r} r,'' .1 J} F j ! r • . /j _ .i r t +tit J. ``iy: i , k t !I _ - r j: {tl 1\\ J~`!~ i l~?t i`• r 7 JS ?.r t t 4 ' 4 ~/fJ f / (v ri. 17 T if ! k ` ,+~1~ -=i'`,~.t\.+~'4 •sS~+.t, t k,t..:: I ti`,'} 1 \''O` t 1 - i -'k • ti f- ~'7 t , , • 'J1 11' , y rr t 1 N tr I)~, t: i 1~--~-`~..~ 5 ~I r! E:~`C t,` :~'ti", ::}~-y.~:;:;;G+~'.`~`} t y ~ . ''//~/~R/„ ''Y~ It,,` 1 ~ ! f t t 4; `4'•\; In, + t ; 1 ~t tht. w ` ~"`\`r`•'`-/i i(; r ti ~ lJ !it'{ } t l r t ~ - •f ,1 ! y ~ i! `t I i>' _ i ~ J/;`.1. f•:: Yr%'_ ,y,, 11.4 ~s.-_ r'rtt, t ttt t~1~ , _ .:~~fr i ~ { r ; - r;~ ''i`. _r;ft1'~{+! rl, f tt{ t /r/r;r f-}: / ~/Jr , J. l(l,r - '4t`^1, 44. ~ ~~A,`\ 'J r^•.,, ~ll~%-~ ii)S ~t'+ ~r F,'~-t { + t t t +y\ f/~ ~r f~l~J~ `ti _-75 'tY ~Y , y / \ : % ( / _;.9/C~ i l 1 , E (j •-i d~y f/Il' f/!F ! 7~ \_~A Fr-^;•.,`• / . ti... f r s ' ~r (l! + , / Sri /f / ' ~ . = , i~~ ~f `ki _ } ` /~r ~ ~ t,r, f l/ .~Ft lj j j j,Fr ~ 1~ Y `i y?' :,ti, •/",t'\':,i ltt\` ``f~_"i '/°jt+ J + ' t F ( y 1`{1' ~I3 1 - r 'if tt~',.4+. .-J , ;°~/J-? V,./Jf ' fJf,?'ff Ilt ~i+, l`'`.~ - _ _ - :'c. "t ii kt',~`,•'ti fjj - ~ s%/ .J r, '+B ~l t fi. ~~~,,~'4 OEM: 1 c_ 11 1`ut' '`1'lt f~ V 4 'S ' . / ,~f j l s i),• 1~ .ti-.. ~•~`~/ll~Jr.!'` ~ ti_•.~..t. .Jf rt+i t ±l•~,~+..ti"`.'•~.Y -ii-i - =J~,= -:fi~~%%~~'' / rl ~ }`i 4 ` ~~'it,''t• ` \ ' •!~'r:--~°`.':.~r~._"._:-= /rr cf~ ~,C`ti, ` ij~'+• i• l+' fi/// 'r/l! ! J f `'e~~ _~`-r~;t;`\.;~.,, f j! y~`•;`y,'•... --'`,`''+``i :`'i''-:'-_~ -."~1 r t':'' I y { ~i r t~,.:.~ J 1 rj r` - ` i t ( r t t V+ - - ,;i\ 1~lJ Fr 1}jtJ '}~l ~l`\•`" ,'~.//.'(t >t ` ~t~,' l ~8~ ~i+ti~t ~ w y -~->•'K ~~f is If: •j +,~.'4`~ ,ti,,,``~-i r ; ' ~ t,,, , ~ j~r ~ ` r -',,~...-r-." `-r ''•i,{{.. i .ti\j(}t:~''1 ':y;~.,,.. ~ it . :i~t'}~ly,~`ti~\_"_~ jl{, .~1 ~:~:~~~.~,r r !~~yY~,.``.~-/!``:- , N 1, INS- S11 IE IMON LOCIJ 41 r, , t' rr' . ¦ IYS~+t! Jy?;> tf r rr+.', :.tw.s " l1s.a+• ti j _ ail If r jr 1~ - ' 2r- 'i' sa;.rr.- • ` Sj,klY 'Y oy isS"/ i:sf~ 1 / ~ z"i -I i i~-' i s~'" • - r." --py.o i- If ..iifr~° ~ v i „s . l'" - ~"t-'`~ .off > ~ ~ ~ - . ' • ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ .r _ 3 _ _ _ ~ sib'-••l ~.~3' ._a -`4•'.-•-,_=-=_ =-~-'~i~", _ :`''•f / tr/ ~t;,li- _ -r"-~. ~~4`°~\\.~~. ~t l' ,~yr~ 1 / j~~~ ./~r='',i=;?,.~"ti~.,;~~~-- - f fJ j, r\, ;01ir r'~ ! J~"r.l-=_~'= _J"`ka'`"is~-.^- G+-^w.l;/r~~s -.tr~I ....r '"~,~__'ii_'•~:f ,-_ti.,~{~'n1~C:Jf1'j,'j.' /'f r~ 1r s ~ 't.ri~-~- ~~'ry- "23=Y"'-Y-„Y'-.~/f ~t , 1 tl~yll( f ~ -J' _ - - \-`~~1 f ~!r r r `/i' [X f ` t 11~ ~~~r~ :I'f +t i_~_~`~~`~ tJ`; t) 1':r~ @~%' /•y-:_;•~,...~--_____ - y~~~pl'1 1~, t J ~t, r r ~~'--..-~.~_,~:._~.fJ j+ J 1fi i!/ d-._, 1 Ir t t t}j rti ~d .iJi; Jfi '1,., -r"-,,, _,.,,-f _ ,,,.-~--!~~?r,_e; - `~~1 t'y4 ~ l ftt i t1 f\ I ~ -`~~ja.~,; t 1 l 4_ i- t%>` , . ~ y ~ . - ~ -.-Ir ^ _ - ~ u+r d't j ' i, tie 4- r' r~'1 lr;f ~t; i ~ -h' =`__.'C ~-ca's_. Ih y+ t ~'y ° t t~ ~ , _ , 't~ ~l~>r/, i -=~-s~•--•~„~:.a".C9~'-",_,- yy GSA jai \ti ~w 2.4 4p0 soup CES: ~ SCALE ~ VA~IOFEET VAiLEAST,CoQUAD RANGLE 5 GONJoVRINTER 1NTURN 15 024 SST. COLO GLE NWt4 M 39106-F3-Tf- VAIL1570 URE NYVf4M~ 39119 0 0 OMA4763111N$e~5V877 c7 ~~~j iQfevsed 1987 t/877 die Creek Vllage L pho 0 _senes M ER d Colorado 111 NW PROJECT ~r`''8 , DMA 4763 C `ON 28,50-001 vaF' VtRONMENTAL DATE STEWART EN INC. August 2001 R CONguItAN~eef~ Scientists -;i CQnsultin9 En9 s5 4 ~c ~ ~,F~ .aF ~ x72 v `il: ~ ~ ~ , ~ t ' ~ ~ A t F ' ~'F`t r1k./1 19e~~~ 77'~ ;,i3s yr +tae ,~Y ?~xy~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ x 'ti'' ~••C Nk; .s r~ - V• yc ' ? a to ~ fY. f ,,lY ~4.'^'a'i'~'~ ~ e . ~ ~f1t; ~;t' ! ate„ ~w J,. t~ FA. 4 l -ge JIN 44 4-1 t"A AWL 'Am t r, '1Z 4 Rk " e _ C-S~' .r f t Zr f 9 w~ s ,E ~ Fs ~ ~ ~ yf,v t A { aYr e'- . •5.,,, ~ F ~ac# v f ~ y~.. ~ - s "u Adti,: e ~ ~ aa ~ ~ PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT Ky STEWART ENVIRONMENTAL 2850-001 w Middle Creek Village FIGURE 2 - CONSULTANTS, INC. DATE z~ Vail, Colorado AERIAL PHOTO Consulting Engineers and Scientists C~ Au gust 2001 3 N EXt5TING LEARNING - • CENTERS 1 pRAWAGE J ~T , )(~LUSION' RSA - \ 1 I--'"e'er _ _ - J ~i"-" _ j !l~~--~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - enoo etno~--_ FIGURE 3 VILLAGE SITE MAP _ c MIDVAI~ COLORADO 0-001 NTS AUGUST 2000 STEWART ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSIINC• IE CONSUil1NG ENGINEERS AND SCNStS'f5 1 Appendix A Conservation Status Handbook, 1999 Eagle County, Colorado p. 147 - 149 Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. County: Eagle Amphibians CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status Scientific Name Common Name Tracking Global State Agency Federal State Status Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status Bufo boieas pop I boreal toad (Southern Rocky Mountain Y G4T1Q Sl FS C E population) Birds CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status Scientific Name Common Name Tracking Global State Agency Federal State Status Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status Accipitergentilis Northern Goshawk W G5 S3B, FS/BL Aegolius funereus Boreal Owl P G5 S2 FS Amphispiza Belli Sage Sparrow P G5 S3B, Bucephala islandica Barrow's Goldeneye Y G5 S2B, BLM SC Cypseloides niger Black Swift Y G4 S3B FS Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Y G4T3 S3B, LE Grus canadensis tabida Greater Sandhill Crane Y G5T4 S2B, FS T Fish CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status Scientific Name Common Name Tracking Global State Agency Federal State Status Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status Gila robusta roundtail chub Y G2G3 S2 BLM SC Oncorhynckusclarkipleuriticus Colorado River cutthroat trout Y G4T3 S3 FS/ BL SC Mammals CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status Scientific Name Common Name Tracking Global State Agency Federal State Status Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status Gulo gulo wolverine Y G4 Sl FS E Lynx canadensis lynx Y G5 51 FS E Plecotus townsendii pallescens Townsend's big-eared bat subsp. Y G4T4 S2 BLM Mussels and Snails CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status Scientific Name Common Name Tracking Global State Agency Federal State Status Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status Lymnaea stagnalis swampy lymnaea Y G5 S2 Plant Communities CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status Scientific Name Common Name Tracking Global State Agency Federal State Status Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status ABIES LASIOCARPA-PICEA Montane Riparian Forests Y G5 S5 ENGELMANNII/ALNUS INCANA ABIES LASIOCARPA-PICEA Montane Riparian Forests Y G5 S5 ENGELMANNII/MERTENSIA CILIATA ABIES LASIOCARPA-PICEA Montane Riparian Forest Y G5 S4 ENGELMANNII/SALIX DRUMMONDIANA ALNUS INCANA-CORNUS SERICEA Thinleaf Alder-Red-Oiser Dogwood Riparian Y G3G4 S3 Shrubland ALNUS INCANA/MESIC FORB Thinleaf Alder/Mesic Forb Riparian Y G3G4Q S3 Shrubland BETULA OCCIDENTALISIMESIC FORB Foothills Riparian Shrubland Y G3 S2 CARDAMINE Alpine Wetlands Y G4 S4 CORDIFOLIA-MERTENSIA CAREX AQUATILIS Montane Wet Meadows Y G5 S4 147 CAREX SCOPULORUM-CALTHA Alpine Wetlands Y G4 S4 _ LEPTOSEPALA CAREX UTRICULATA Beaked Sedge Montane Wet Meadows Y GS S4 CORNUS SERICEA Foohthilis Riparian Shrubland Y G4 S3 DANTHONIA INTERMEDIA Montane Grasslands Y GU S3S4 DESCHAMPSIA Mesic Alpine Meadows. Y GU SU CESPITOSA-LIGUSTICUM ELEOCHARIS QUINQUEFLORA Alpine Wetlands Y G4 S3S4 JUNIPERUS Xeric Western Slope Pinyon-Juniper Y G5 SU OSTEOSPERMA/ARTEMISIA Woodlands JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM/CORNUS Riparian Woodland Y G4 S2 SERICEA PICEA PUNGENS/ALNUS INCANA Montane Riparian Forests Y G3 S3 PINUS EDULIS-JUNIPERUS Xeric Western Slope Pinyon-Juniper Y GU SU OSTEOSPERMA/STIPA COMATA Woodlands POPULUS ANGUSTIFOLIA-JUNIPERUS Montane Riparian Forest Y G2G3 S2 SCOPULORUM POPULUS ANGUSTIFOLIA-PICEA Montane Riparian Forests Y G4 S4 PUNGENS/ALNUS INCANA POPULUS ANGUSTIFOLIA/ALNUS Montane Riparian Forest Y G3? 53 INCANA POPULUS ANGUSTIFOLIA/CORNUS Cottonwood Riparian Forest Y G4 S3 SERICEA POPULUS ANGUSTIFOLIA/SALIX Narrowleaf Cottonwood Riparian Forests Y G1 Si ERIOCEPHALA VAR. L1G ULIFOLIA-SHEPHERDIA POPULUS TREMULOIDES/ACER Montane Riparian Forests Y G2 S1S2 GLABRUM QUERCUS GAMBELII-AMELANCHIER Mixed Mountain Shrubland Y G3G5 SU UTAHENSIS SALIX Lower Montane Willow Carrs Y G3 S3 DRUMMONDIANA/CA LAMAGROSTIS CANADENSIS SALIX DRUMMONDIANA/MESIC FORE Drummonds Willow/Mesic Forb Y G4 S4 SALIX EXIGUA/BARE GROUND Coyote Willow/Bare Ground Y G5 S5 SALIX MONTICOLA/CALAMAGROSTIS Montane Willow Carr Y G3 S3 CANADENSIS SALIX MONTICOLA/CAREX Montane Riparian Willow Carr Y G3 S3 UTRICULATA SALIX MONTICOLA/MESIC FORE Montane Riparian Willow Carr Y G3 S3 SALIX PLANIFOLIA/CALAMAGROSTIS Subalpine Riparian Willow Carr Y G3 S3 CANADENSIS SALIX PLANIFOLIA/CALTHA Subalpine Riparian Willow Carr Y G4 S4 LEPTOSEPALA SALIX WOLFII/CAREX UTRICULATA Subalpine Riparian Willow Carr Y G4 S3 SHEPHERDIA ARGENTEA Foothills Riparian Shrubland Y G3G4 S1 Plants CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status Scientific Name Common Name Tracking Global State Agency Federal State Status Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status Botrychiunt lunaria Common Moonwort Y G5 S2S3 Cypripedium fasciculation Purple Lady's-Slipper Y G4 S3 FS Droba rectifn+cta Mountain Whitlow-Grass Y G3? S2 Erioplwrunt altaicum oar neogaeum Altai Cottongrass Y G4T7 S3 FS Gymnocarpium dnjopteris Oak Fem Y G5 S2S3 Limnorchis ensifolia Canyon Bog-Orchid Y G4G5T3? S3 Listera borealis Northern Twayblade Y G4 S2 BLM 148 Lycopodium annotinum var purigens Stiff Clubmoss Y G5T'U SU Lycopodium dubium Stiff Clubmoss Y G5TU SU Penstemon cyntkophorus Middle Park Penstemon W G3G4 53S4 Penstemon harringtonii Harrington Beard tongue Y G3 53 FS/ BL Platanthera sparsiflora vnr ensifolia Canyon Bog-Orchid Y G4G5T3? S3 149 ©N T ~ a IJVU~IIV ll G=~11VL~ 77 k,~ dMf _ ~~L sotiti~ Otis Odell Odell Architects 32o65 Castle Ct, Suite 150 Evergreen, CO 80439 August 24, 2001 Dear Mr. Odell, At you request Montane Environmental Solutions Ltd (Montane) visited the proposed affordable housing development located at the `Mountain Bell site', on August 23rd, 2001. The purpose of the visit was to review an area identified in the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as a narrowleaf cottonwood community with a potential for containing wetlands. It was our finding that although not extensive, there were some areas of the woodland that did have the potential for being wetlands. To identify wetland areas areas, we propose to conduct a jurisdictional wetlands delineation in a format acceptable to the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). From our visit yesterday it appeared that jurisdictional wetland areas (areas under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers) are probably rather limited and would therefore be likely to fall into the `Nationwide Permit' category of federal permitting. The Nationwide Permit system is a streamlined permit system for small impacts, not considered to be of significant environmental impact. Do not hesitate to call if you have any more questions. We look forward to working with you further on this project Sincerely Nicola RIpley P.O. BOX %0-470eavle, C9LO IDO 82631OPH- NEMAX (9701 328- e 1580V H-03-mum Ax [870) 468_0450 i Appendix J: Drainage Study Planning and Environmental Commission Preliminary Plat, Land Use Plan Amendment, and Rezoning Request Middle Creek Subdivision September 24, 2001 Preliminary Drainage Report For Middle Creek Village Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado August 27, 2001 Prepared For: Odell Architects Prepared By: Peak Civil Engineering, Inc. 1000 Lions Ridge Loop Vail, Colorado 81657 Introduction The Middle Creek Village site is a parcel of land in the Town of Vail, located in the Southeast'/4 of Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 80 West. The site is north of the north frontage road of I-70 approximately '/4 mile west of the main Vail interchange. The attached vicinity map shows the project location. The existing site proposed for development is approximately 8.1 acres and includes the existing Mountain Bell Road and the Qwest (old Mountain Bell) microwave tower building. The proposed development plan consists of 8 multi-unit buildings with related parking and appurtenant structures. Mountain Bell Road would be extended through the site to create a loop to and from the north frontage road. Existine HvdroloLyv Middle Creek passes through the property from north to south approximately 250 feet west of the existing Mountain Bell Tower building. The Middle Creek drainage basin is approximately 6 square miles and is included in the Flood Insurance Study of the Town of Vail dated November 2, 1982. The hydrology of the drainage basin will remain largely unchanged as a result of the proposed development. The 100 year floodplain based on stream depth, as shown on flood profile panels 07P thru 09P, has been delineated and is included in the appendix. The westerly 1/3 of the proposed development site (2.8 acres) is within the Middle Creek drainage basin. The existing Mountain Bell Tower building, parking lot and driveway to the north frontage road occupies 0.9 acres of the proposed development site. The easterly 2/3 of the site (5.3 acres) flows south to the roadside ditch along the north frontage road which flows east toward Spraddle Creek. All hydrology calculations in this study utilized the Rational Method. This method has been shown to be appropriate for calculating the hydrology of small drainage basins of fewer than 100 acres. Runoff coefficients were taken from the Urban Drainage Manual, Denver Regional Council of Governments, Table 3-1, and rainfall intensities were taken from the Town of Vail "Intensity - Duration - Frequency Curves". The table and curves are presented in the Appendix. Proposed HvdroloLv The development of the existing site will utilize the existing drainage basins with 1/3 of the site draining to Middle Creek and 2/3 of the site draining to the north I-70 frontage road ditch. Approximately 9.4 acres of offsite drainage flowing through the site are included in the rational method calculations. Proposed drainage patterns through the site will approximate the existing conditions. No detention is proposed for the site. The summary table presents the results of the study with hydrology calculations shown in the appendix. Hydrology Summary Table West Exist. West Proa. East Exist. East Prop. 2.8 ac. 14.7ac. O 10-Year 2.5 dfs 3.3 ds 7.0 ds 11.3 ds O 100 - Year 6.7 ds 7.6 ds 27.2 ds 1 32.8 ds Water Oualitv Issues Proposed inlet design will include additional depth in accordance with Town of Vail standards to facilitate sedimentation. Proposed sedimentation pond at the southeast _ corner of the project site will also act to promote sedimentation and infiltration of runoff from the site. All swales will be grass lined or lined with rip-rap when water velocities and slope mandate. Additionally, silt fence and straw bale dikes will be used throughout the site during the construction process. Proposed Drainage Improvements Proposed drainage improvements include extension of the existing Middle Creek culvert to the north, catch basins in Mountain Bell road at both the southwest entrance and the southeast entrance to the site, and culverts under the Mountain Bell road entrances to accommodate the north frontage road drainage. Hydraulic calculations for the drainage improvements are included in the appendix. Conclusions Runoff from the proposed development will follow existing drainage patterns. The proposed sedimentation basin will serve as a water quality feature to promote sedimentation and infiltration. Catch basins will have additional depth to further facilitate sedimentation. Inlets, catch basins and culverts will be designed to safely pass the 10-year event. Surface drainage improvements will be designed to safely pass the 100-year event without damage to property. As the site plan is refined, this drainage study will need to be updated. endix k°I t- _ _T ~m y . P:\Mountain Bell Site\1039\dwg\LOCATION.DWG'.Wed'Aug 22.12 i6.5i 2001. GKM r r - A N V D i o RANGE 80 WE T, 6th P.M. I ~ \ W N v V 7 z N ~ MIDDLE CREEK VILLAGE E : U VICINITY MAP i ;<< TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO xa oerz onosntn er ~ DRAINIAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RUNOFF TABLE 3-1 (42) RECONHIENDED•RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS AND PERCENT IMPERVIOUS - LAND USE OR PERCENT FREQUENCY SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS IMPERVIOUS 2 5 10 100 Business: Commercial Areas 95 _ .87 ' .87' .88 ..89.. Neighborhood Areas 70 .60 .65 .70- .80 Residential: , Single-Family * .40 .45 .50 .60 Multi-Unit (detached) 50 .45 .50 .60__ .-70 Multi-Unit (attached) 70 .60 .65 .70 .80 =n_ 1/2-Acre Lot or Larger * .30 .35 .40 -.60 _ Apartments 70 .65 .70 .70 .80 Industrial - - Light Areas; 80. .71 .72_ ..76 .82 Heavy~ Acres 90 .80 .80 - .85 { Parks Cemetari es . - 7 :10 .18 .25 - Playgrounds 13 .15 .20 _ : 30 .50 j Schools: 50 .45 _ _ - - To 9 P.a i 1 road Yard Areas: 20 .20 _ .25 .35 - 45 Undeveloped Areas:4 l Historic Flom Analysis- 2 = (See "Lawns") x Mg, Greenbelts, Agricultural Offsite Flow Analysis 45 .43 .47 .55 .65 (when land use not defined) Streets: Paved 100 .87 .88 .90 .93 - = r . Y Gravel (Packed) - 40 .40 - .45 `.50 .60 Drive and Walks: 96 .87 .87 .88 .89- y J- Roofs: 90 .80 .85 .90 .90 Lawns, Sandy Soil 0 .00 .01 .05 .20 Lawns, Clayey Soil 0 .05 .15 .25 .50 NOTE: These Rational Formula coefficients may not be valid for large basins. *See Figure 2-1 for percent impervious. FRW: DRCOG URBAN STORM DRAINAGE CRITERIA-MANUAL 11-1-90 I • 110QA~' nDA P., Irc AMn ci nnn rnniTn,,, *~7111 INTENSITY -DURATION FREQUENCY CURVES 6 . . i t I I - -1 t :l 1 Cc- - , f.:4 5 I :1z - \ _71 _F y_ - , 1 - -1 FT7 lilt 4 _ t 71 _T T-Fl# <LL5 ~'ry a- t t ' - - ' 1'r 44+ `y I j ! 2 7 t I f ~ I ~ -11 I I _Lil _r b ~0 20 30 40 50 60 CTIME MINUTES). VA 1 L , COLORADO droio Ca~~ulations K 0 w ay, t - _ ¢ ~"San wo,ic 'Iflt f~~. ` _ ~y -7 e If y ~t~ln ~ e i~! ~ ` - 1'.t, o •.li\~./' Z1 d1i~ -~o° v•,, ~ ~ w (`ra~l 1~ `r, 1 IsCsl ~ t ~ , .sqo``°~' k~ t ~ • , G z, r9ti ~ r~ i ~ l l \ ~ .411 ~ i'~ ~ /y 1 _ (ir(d(y tEi~! j/,-_~' tom. ,I: •i:,~.,i Ili ~l~ii" ~ 4 \ i ; ser 8 i. uj / cri Y uj 15 Q ~i IN\ CNJ CI's C;~~\\\~_ t t g` 5 p by t t~l -0 oN% PLC c. DIM SCALE° 00 r z :two°~~ E CO co tD G a O Q- 0 ua m~uwwy r¢ _,sp % r..a wa / i F / 0.8 AC. 300' I S = 0.40 1 { / I i ~J ! o a o ~ J I I ~ p TOPOGRAPHY FROM t z r 7.5 MIN. SERIES WEST VAIL AND EAST VAIL / F - j QUADRANGLES 1 i m Z I p Y / W Z W &7 AC. j 950' i ~5=0.66 Q Ir Z ti { 0 ¢ I ' E w LL- _ W p ' p AST BASF ! j 14.7 AC. / I J f 1 5.2 AC. I i WEST BASIN ' isoo S00 0.40 j • ~ _ ~ ,r i J ter`--"'_-_ 550 I T. BECt S - 0.40 SITE fir, ~O ~ ~ - f l f ` f ~ i~, ' ~ -.~.J.-~. • ' i ( , ~ s ~'-~,-~/'',s''_/' / / j~ i Vic. ~~t ~ i - soo; 0 `l DRAM! 901 901 1~ - r .E PLC JJBR low DAM OVUM SCALE, 1' = 200' SFEr=T 1 MIDDLE CREEK VILLAGE 8/21/01 WEST DRAINAGE AREA - EXISTING CONDITIONS RATIONAL METHOD TOTAL AREA = 2.8 AC Job No. 1039 By: GKM C1 - PVMT & BLDG 0.7 AC C10 = 0.88 C100 = 0.89 Runoff Coefficient - C from Table 3-1, Urban Drainage C2-FOREST 2.1 AC C10 = 0.25 C100 = 0.50 Runoff Coefficient - C from Table 3-1, Urban Drainage C10= (0.88 x 0.7) + (0.25 x 2.1) / 2.8 0.41 C100= (0.89 x 0.7) + (0.50 x 2.1) / 2.8 0.60 TIME OF CONCENTRATION T1 = SHEET FLOW, 300 FT c@ 40%. T1 (10 yr) _ (1.1 - 0.41) x Length ^112 / S ^113 16.23 min.` T1 (100 yr) _ (1.1 - 0.60) x Length ^1/2 / S ^1/3 11.78 min. T2 = SHALLOW FLOW, 550'@ 40% n = 0.025 A/p = 6/13 - 12'Wx0.5'd V10 = 1.49 / N x (A/P)^ 2/3 x S^ 1/2 11.78 fps s = 0.11 V100 = V10 11.78 fps T2 (10 yr) = 550'1 11.78fps x 60 0.78 min. T2 (100 yr) = 550' / 11.78fps x 60 0.78 min. ' TOTAL Tc10 = 21.4 + .8 = 17.0 min. TOTAL Tc100 = 11.8 +.8 = 12.6 min. ' INTENSITY (1) = Intensity (1) from Town of Vail IDF curves 110= 2.2 in.1hr. 1100 = 4.0 in./hr. PEAK FLOW RATE ( Q) Q = CIA Q 10 = (0.41) x (2.2) x (2.8) = 2.51 cfs Q 1100 = (0.60) x (4.0) x (2.8) = 6.69 cfs MIDDLE CREEK VILLAGE 8122/01 EAST DRAINAGE AREA - EXISTING CONDITIONS RATIONAL METHOD TOTAL AREA = 14.7 AC Job No. 1039 By: GKM C1 - FOREST 14.7 AC C10 = 0.25 C100 = 0.50 Runoff Coefficient - C from Table 3-1, Urban Drainage TIME OF CONCENTRATION T1 = SHEET FLOW, 300 FT @ 40%. T1 (10 yr) = (1.1 - 0.25) x Length 11/2/S ^1/3 19.92 min. T1 (100 yr) = (1.1 - 0.50) x Length ^1/2 / S ^1/3 14.06 min. T2 = SHALLOW FLOW, 950 FT @ 66%. 10' WIDE, 0.5' DEEP V10 & V100 = 1.49/n x (A!P)^.67 X S^.5 n = 0.05 V10 & V100= 1.49/n x (5111)^.67 x .66^.5 14.27 fps Alp = 5/11 -10'Wx0.5'd s = 0.66 T2 (10yr) = 950 / 14.3 x 60 1.1 min. T2 (100yr) = 950 / 14.3 x 60 1.1 min. T3 = CHANNEL FLOW, 500 FT @ 9%. n = 0.05 ROADSIDE DITCH - 2' DEEP 3:1 SIDES, n = 0.05 Alp = 12/12.6 4 s=0.09 ` V10 & V100 = 1.49/n x (A/P)^.67 X S^.5 V10 & vl00 = 1.49/n x (12/12.6)^.67 x .09^.5 8.65 fps N T3 (10yr) = 500/ 8.7 x60 1.0 min. T3 (100yr) = 50018.7 x 60 1.0 min. ` - TOTAL Tel 0 = 19.9 + 1.1 + 1.0 = 22.0 min. TOTAL Tel 00 = 14.6 + 1.1 + 1.0 = 16.1 min. INTENSITY ( I) (Vail IDF Curves) _ 110= 1.99 in./hr. Intensity (1) from "Zt Town of Vail IDF curves 1100 = 3.7 in./hr. PEAK FLOW RATE (Q) Q = CIA Q 10 = (0.25) x (1.9) x (14.7) = 6.98 cfs Q 100 = (0.50) x (3.7) x (14.7) = 27.20 cfs YAI Q CRje FRCM QUA fA WE'sr ; ~RANG4zS r VAIL 50.AC. Q SR 0.66 J 1 mr t ! rj (fi ':D / 4 ~ Q© 7 Z. U ~w ~1 O 4 c ~asr $asr C3 sr $astN 74.7 aC N p 2.8 AC } 3 JOp r Y 1 fr; / S R 0.40 550' 1 p t ! 0,09 R Q40 r / $lii~ t~ , n : _--..;~~~:+.S~.~an«:~ r - -tc_,\ i _ .-a""' '6210 '~t ~N FRONTA~„ROAO.. . t -ti ~y NOR ' ` ORh~ By. - q£dEY'FDc SW 1 i ? V ~saag~,r i a MIDDLE CREEK VILLAGE 8/21/01 WEST DRAINAGE AREA - DEVELOPED CONDITIONS RATIONAL METHOD TOTAL AREA = 2.8 AC Job No. 1039 By: GKM C1 - PVMT & BLDG 1.3 AC C10 = 0.88 C100 = 0.89 Runoff Coefficient - C from Table 3-1, Urban Drainage C2-FOREST 1.5 AC C10 = 0.25 C100 = 0.50 Runoff Coefficient - C from Table 3-1, Urban Drainage C10 = (0.88 x 1.3) + (0.25 x 1.5) / 2.8 0.54 C100 = (0.89 x 1.3) + (0.50 x 1.5)1 2.8 0.68 TIME OF CONCENTRATION T1 = SHEET FLOW, 300 FT @ 40%. T1 (10 yr) _ (1.1 - 0.88) x Length ^1/2 /S ^1/3 13.07 min. T1 (100 yr) _ (1.1 - 0.89) x Length ^1/2 / S ^1/3 9.82 min. T2 - SHALLOW FLOW, 550' @ 40% n = 0.025 1/2 11.78 fps Alp = 6/13 -12'WxO.6d V10 = 1.49 / N X (A/P)^ 2/3 X SA s = 0.11 V100 = V10 11.78 fps T2 (10 yr) = 550' / 11.78fps x 60 0.78 min. T2 (100 yr) = 550' / 11.78fps x 60 0.78 min. TOTAL Tc10 = 13.0 +.8 = 13.8 min. TOTAL Tc100 = 9.8 +.8 = 10.6 min. INTENSITY (I) = Intensity (1) from - Town of Vail IDF curves 110= 2.2 in./hr. 1100 = 4;0 in./hr. PEAK FLOW RATE { Q) Q = CIA Q 10 = (0.54) x (2.2) x (2.8) = 3.34 cfs Q 100 = (0.68) x (4.0) x (2.8) = 7.63 cfs MIDDLE CREEK VILLAGE 8122101 EAST DRAINAGE AREA - DEVELOPED CONDITIONS RATIONAL METHOD TOTAL AREA = 14.7 AC Job No. 1039 By: GKM C1 - FOREST 12.0 AC C10 = 0.25 C100 = 0.50 Runoff Coefficient - C from Table 3-1, Urban Drainage C2 - PVMT & BLDGS 2.7 AC C10 = 0.88 C100 = 0.89 C10= (0.25 x 12.0) + (0.88 x 2.7) / 14.7 = 0.37 C100= (0.50 x 12.0) + (0.89 x 2.7) / 14.7 = 0.57 TIME OF CONCENTRATION T1 = SHEET FLOW, 300 FT @ 40%. T1 (10 yr) _ (1.1 - 0.37) x Length ^1/2 / S ^1/3 17.21 min. T1 (100 yr) _ (1.1 - 0.57) x Length ^1/2 ! S ^1/3 .12.38 min. T2 = SHALLOW FLOW, 950 FT @ 66%. n = 0.05 10' WIDE, 0.5' DEEP A/p = 5/11 - 10'Wx0.5'd s = 0.66 V10 & V100 = 1.49in x (A/P)^.67 X S^.5 V10 & V100= 1.49/n x (5/11)1.67 x .66^.5 14.27 fps T2 (10 yr) = 950 / 14.3 x 60 1.1 min. T2 (100 yr) = 950 / 14.3 x 60 1.1 min. T3 = CHANNEL FLOW, 500 FT @ 9%. n = 0.013 n. CURB & GUTTER - 6" DEEP, n = 0.013 A/p = 3.5/14.5 - 14'Wx0.5'd s = 0.09 V10 & V100 = 1.49/n x (A/P)^.67 X S^.5 V10 & v100 = 1.49/0.013 x (3.5/14.5)^.67 x .09^.5 13.27 fps T3(10yr)=500!13.3x60 0.6 min. _ T3 (100 yr) = 500 113.3 x 60 0.6 min. TOTAL Tel 0 = 17.2 + 1.1 + 0.6 = 18.9 min. TOTAL Tel 00 = 12.4 + 1.1 + 0.6 = 14.1 min. INTENSITY (1) = Intensity (1) from Town of Vail IDF curves 1110= 2.1 in./hr. 1 100 = 3.9 inJhr. PEAK FLOW RATE (Q) Q = CIA Q 10y= (0.37) x (2.1) x (14.7) = 11.29 cfs Q 100 = (0.57) x (3.9) x (14.7) = 32.77 cfs mcreek-culv2 (1600x1200x24b jpeg) p~x uv •«r \a ` d ~ `h. ~b . +`f. ' , °wu :n •~~'~u. .~Y,;,;, rski^ l~ E"' 3w~~; srz ~aac;.~•:a 4:I ~H,~i}.2; .F. ^`;;GC•3?hh'na~"'. ~ '<y, ;.:v,... a , .r:• E" , r < s% ~ , "sir` " yr, . S;,v'sPS: a,~2,~z..k ~.,.„3{,...t•~\i" ;aS'> .rta. "J' ,'.,2 s E• ?i:Y:.l ;A: / . f RAI, . >?>~.c if AC .3:1Q. .2 ^.tfa, :!s C. a .i" . •((r' < a ..^k... ..R< f a3 m:~t .'YS.. `..t :tea.:.; .a:~``1~ § ~"RE~a. ) ~i; q. °25,.,< ,T a:.;°, a •`f£:»?.a s L Ri" ,'.`f+ ' ,',~,2:iS.. ai~" i~:vai• .3 cP S,,P ,.'q:,`' 3 . •~a'c: 'tau ~.,~i'~ 't~~...~: "w.` ~L 'r`~~~... :cv~ ~ ,s.., ~s3"•t.?sEF':.^,~.,Y . ~ ff '8C g~ s C a:2. Ya ~<r. "<rti"~^k t a \L..>: .w".zcs,.;'.:Y~c „sic .L, .N,. b ` ~4"Sv ~:r.\, `.¢..3•:: ~.,i; ..i:,,: <.fY ~~yt`~t ?s , ;ss." ~~P i m":,~ s n.z. ~x~.:>•. a~':c`'x; ,,,..,i>• i ~ ~l't.<.., aw,,. ,x t:'„«:=•,v, •.,,>:w;.;.,;^ a .&r'".4 A~'r .,i" J . V"tis n :>1:'f, ',.€o<'i>, :t.i:i'A'•:.~'.~`2 .3`.., S>t, .wA~ki: h ..i0a i.L. .F `2,: ;ai,\ ' .R> `C . kii: E i~. a.o.rb,. 2v<. ,Y(" PJ°k•a•' . `A.. ~ y .4 4,: J ? 5.., 'nN•.ALw 'R 2,;,.N.. ,L. Y~:: »"f ,.T cY ~SYaLu:?r. F. 6:;YR:~~,...°VA ' ~ ~ ° ° a. a a. ~ a ,c;~t•': a.. ,.:5 ~Saa. @.. .:G ..'F,.. : Y 'a~ca~3 . : °v, tC. >.:>;a , e` c`•~,,:,.» .:.sq . ~t .~:'i> $ ,•y.,, Y:t3%;' . "E~ ..0 :"i:.. a";'~'- ...ir: a.3•i~ut•>...,:x t. > . ~~.~s..L« o.w., , 6s?F.,. '+~a;:~ ~LT:,huarCS . a. < .a~>esp s >4•^. . ~ `~sr.z): `.Lz•x.:»<S~'rc;' Jg.. Mkt,. .~~..v:r;.; ...3"3~': ::.2. '.fie. .e2. ;e.:~«~:.,•4. ,,,G n,3. • t` „c c ~i^'~ ,.£.z . •322~:>i,2:; <2. : y..,?}?Sr . E,,. ..i ~ `:t^ `;'Sam . w ,.Y. ~ca.~':;` ^a\' .:Z• ~;Y.. ,s~<ts:.'.., e~`x;% ~ .S.,a?: ,Sg•,. A<, „v d".':>•r ~a.•c ;S.s .L,.:'~~~.> ,.&,`r. ::s~ r.: F,;ss .;3~'i,'"•i1 '2•ex\ ?S'Y<. :,x., `~f., e~ :§pp;3~~S,a.R '~V"a x, ;6 ^!8'~.s. ~~x.. a. ,•,aP,rS, S:^. y~ ..a: .,~i~ .`.,a 4o°}'"~.>. .i ..s:Ya y~,~ .s,.;°;. .~..,.,,^.,;z `4:,';r;°4~:t. z.d~ •dF, ~~3...P,;': .rye :s`".`..;' ~i.:< :!a . .z; e"#~:.:?C;~ . .g,„ ^ ~ ..~`~3 ~ s3 P a . `2axt 'F, "'Si?s, q3.r^',.~'k.:.:.v . ,'L.. G e ~ .f,<~. r. a ~`":`l. z's :P : i23c. , c.2:;° >:x:. ; ¢s:` :Ac. . e a:',c .?iE'..7,£L .•k• s?'2X"« » °c::r..;3f• y<lL%° >ar, ,5,w 'Yac»"~'!~ f : f~~.:r,~~..rte.~.~ a3i~~ 'r-. ss:'"iy{fix.. ~Sa\~Y .JLfa . , ~..~st`. sa :{f ~ • v?{. ..Y« . p~`"~.iykE~., ' .,.'a+. ~ .yd"a'Y Y r,. ".,~t< y A ' ~.:F: .'.i~3 ~ a iR' ` .i :'C' ` , < Y L,, . •.,a :ti•~'. kR.~L T+~rr.>~a e , a.. ~`~<%.~.l..l',.'h, `s ~ '~'S`: „'.°:'yi:`GF> z~a. ^E:'•e~ ~~k r z': ~',t. .l.a ~x.. "it:>d'a~3~oti~ei~~« ~s•z '4~"a;q.,~.: < a-: ,fyr 1 yu~ "`..t~' tt~;' .vc . ~Z:!^ . YU'a r;,.,,s~ >!<•r `,1r 1r . 3"' r. q; r: ;it # .SC;". '^F? :2' .E ,~e @: c~„ 3`. ~ ,~S~.~v'';°•,'~.~c4'Y`!~~&~.~: .,Y~. t"-.,,1`tF:;e~. rsi ' . 3r .a+-~' , ~ . ,'w. , ' ~ , df S„~f~.: ~ :Sa°~,'r vt.~, < . . ~ ~yh-.;:,.; y z.p sr i>^~ F'..Y . a' s ' f.E;;r s-~ 7{ .1..'3''~ y A `v,">' " .rf°P'•ad~ f'.3~b; ;:.'D. .~•aa s:Sy.S ' ; y:..,;{`;;. ,~,s`§~ °>a .x`3.<~ i y~. as"" Fir ~ ~r,`S~ : ~~~~y 3+~.' ^ ° g., { c~ : S., <9 ~rz~ .;~Y<r3, .~k•~ e. s~....; :~f}'~.Y , sYf°. kY` :A.aY .ems. .S;' .tY.,ls yY:° peZs ~ ~ F R 4 . ~~•.r~' .q. „ss ' ;a ~ ~ ~ ,~,Y +fiw'~ ~`6 ~ s2• ~~2~s't. ' 63' sN,, >3y°^'88;;R¢. ~~~rg~ E: < s~~tf.: ~,3'G<s,-nY: s`iT. a,~"et a f pL,A L F'' '~i7:R~ 8,~y,„., '~'`n:]~.g~J~c3°• `'4<v ~~-~a S< `f , .'.~~x~" ";fyry trf.~:. ` t > rf d:: i1 ~Y;fR< s~z` ,°•r. PzJ` ~ ~~E"R,,. °r .c >g.?. ua',v ~ifif,•'~ ~;i";y:. ,c~~~+. e:k ~•'.F'g°k :'3:~'B;S~ a,,y:Ja;.,<x, .X: >o;s^s<°<':, ~s~rc~8 :•.~'t;~~ ~.fr;, _'f«/'a . z~~°r,~1.~~>, A`i^.,A, .,`•$:a ;,D , a(. ,3 .,.2t..,V a,•K'J..f>..ft..°sf ~ ::3'~'PU.3. "s c ' a{~ ~t ~2 is . M. )<f~f ,..ite'~. sf3:£: r}?r«,;:. ` E.~C:cv .,!c:. ,vs; P•., ;fs°".;r<r.&3°".Tj., ^:2f< '.a.E~.Sy(a.z ':E?;oaf.,~xi~ax.+q,.s«~~,':.~+<~..?. ,.2. ~,a~.a •s. `8 y/. ,@, ..'K ty~`~ V<RS ,-O'E..~9<ATn.a .,~;Ai'i'ia;3s ^'.>:t R:.,^v.i i!'a ~IQ F F%?". y;~'t,' <:J~i ~ wS:w A....: `°„'.~R) w ;y~; ,A°.."a£).~ ~.,;P~6': ~b4" A..S;. .q l : ,"•S`.~~~2 > ~ i ? w't' ! ~~tl~ ,8 yC f Pa yF ~ `.>.°(~s£2„T;`. C^ •PL' 3~~i~~, ~a~ y ''s ,,{4 Tir':P ~,,.r .G:R... aa, ~`,sc, ~'a{; ;~=>~'.2w s{ l" s CC~~~RR. i..::t:>.aa'afix.C f,.. ~35~., aok..,T, v'~<y .ral.R.. ~u. • t, „3s is ~S^• s..,a .5 sa•' .~~3:.°nYR:,a ~`'k: .~Zn i ?4r~ ¢ i^;ai.,..a...l;;... 9`: .'>'W«:syi. s.fa,f,c.,l f. ' r:#:> :s>... ::;,fig •;,a . ~JS: L x j ?`fF e a. F a .z 4 s::x s> k' ..p o,cg2 ssn:: ^i : s >1tli~::!f: l:l;k £7 q .t s4>.. »:<L cr:r 4. :~•~Pr :i•;r reg.;`. it...<. Y~a.i:.. x F ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ F. ` • r " 'ia `c'4f{ ~ r), ~ Yrov~, ~.w"a: ,.,.ys, a~£; r >'<2°•::a:~j ,s E.a`,' s:>„r Ar .i E. .:;f?hc. dxif K,sc,,,:.Es. ..,Y;~ya a, •..;~.c~1'~i`r ,~\~,;'~i.:;>:.<:rh~ 4, s,'P,t,,ki ' r:s`."T,';r~f'r..~`,,.5. :\i~~T~.. ^A •'.:K„F'•C' >,~:ra 3"it~^'y >:Y$k: , "4F'.<~;° ~ ~ .p a c. s Y '~e k::> k ....cfSx.f.:. fsi: ~th':•a?.., obi., '.ip: a" .r' .a'":c , L,a 2~. an c~,L^~ f 3>`ii~~"r9Elroki,«s' r#7~J" , Y~ ~a <W;; ; ,:Y::;,?... '.1r' ~:54?mR,;°~'0'4'•:2~:'3,`.. .,)`a„a,L2^?, ~ y ' ' a ~ ,.:a » a~':''' r~ `,"~~<+i~<z,,,s>4~!Py.~.,., ~ s':~:'` , ~ddR,~,,~ ~ ~ "c: 'i`K , C, > f ft. , .Y .,Y w, f <w: j n «....a,.~...a°..:e. a.:.r..a,...f~...::..,::::..:..:...•s>:c::,aror:ri:r2aa~::.c:::: :.:.,;arrz'$'. x?e'~. ' MIDDLE CREEK VILLAGE 8/22/01 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS INLETS: SUMP CONDITION Use D&L 1-3386 Grate Open area = 2.5 sf Ponding Depth = 0.5 ft K = 0.7 (30% clogged) C = 0.6 entrance loss coef. ORIFICE EQUATION - V = C x (2gh)^912 and Q = KVA V= 3.4 fps Q = 6.0 cfs West Drainage Area - Q10 = 3.4 cfs, Q100 = 7.6 cfs 2 -inlets (one on each side of Mt. Bell Road - 6 cfs X 2 = 12 cfs QI o n d ~G ? ~.r East Drainage Area - Q10 = 11.3 cfs, Q100 = 32.8 cfs 2 - Inlets (one on each side of Mt. Bell Road - 6 cfs X 2 = 12 cfs l o o k 1 %nt Side Inlet Catch Basin Frame 1®3234 and Cover 1 ~3/4' Appx. Wt. 91 lbs. 1/2 } 4~fp o 21 3/4' rc 5/16' j"2• 3/4' S 8 1/4' u Concave Gutter Inlet Frame Appx. Wt. 590 lbs. and Grate Available with: 23• 'A' Grate 1/4' Vane Grate Y ^4 I 31 2r II 39 3/4' L.. 4• - 37 L4' I, I - - 39 L4• VANE GRATE 'A' Grate I V4• E ( 1 s' t4~3 0zrS ~31~ 0~f Curb"fnlet`Frames and Grades 27 1/r 25 Vo i - s I ,s e ~ 25 1/4• ~ I 32 /4' 33 3/a f - I l9 I/2' I - _ E `vz• I 21 3/4' 19 31 L i 25 1/2- l7 3/4• Z 3, OR 4-SIDED FRAME co t/2' Catalog No. 9 Type of Grate Total Weight Catalog No. T"P of Grate Total Weight -3440 Q 2 Sided Concave 340 I-3446 .3 -Sided Flat 360 1-3442 2 Sided Flat 340 1-3448 4 Sided Concave 380 1-3444 3 Sided Concave 360 1-3450 4 Sided Flat 380 gum OftSUPPLY 95 • Table Rating Table for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c:\ e.fm2 Worksheet 18" CULVERT Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Constant Data Mannings Coefficient 0.010 Depth 1.30 ft Diameter 18.00 in Input Data Minimum Maximum Increment Channel Slope 0.005000 0.050000 0.005000 fUft _ Rating Table Channel Slope Discharge Velocity (ft/ft) (cfs) (ftls) 0.005000 10.09 6.20 0.010000 14.26 8.77 ( ! n = 3 G 5 ~,~L 0.015000 17.47 10.74 0.020000 20.17 12.40 0.025000 22.55 13.86 0.030000 24.70 15.18 0.035000 26.68 16.40 0.040000 28.53 17.53 0.045000 30.26 18.59 0.050000 31.89 19.60 08!22101 F{owMaster v5.15 04:43:52 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Table Rating Table for Circular Channel Project Description Project File § e.fm2 Worksheet 24 CULVERT Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Constant Data Mannings Coefficient 0.010 Depth 1.75 ft Diameter 24.00 in Input Data Minimum Maximum Increment Channel Slope 0.005000 0.050000 0.005000 ftlft Rating Table Channel Slope Discharge Velocity (ft/ft) (cfs) Otis) 0.005000 21.85 7.50 , 0.010000 30.90 10.60 r 0.015000 37.84 12.98 7-- n0 = 33 ~-~S I S Te~f CC/. 0.020000 43.70 14.99 o - E 2,L~J n (,5ojp 0.025000 48.86 16.76 7 1. 0.030000 53.52 18.36 0.035000 57.81 19.83 0.040000 61.80 21.20 0.045000 65.55 22.49 0.050000 69.09 23.70 08/22/01 FlowMaster v5.15 04:42:53 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Appendix K: Traffic Study Planning and Environmental Commission Preliminary Plat, Land Use Plan Amendment, and Rezoning Request Middle Creek Subdivision September 24, 2001 Transportation Consultants TDA COLORADO INC. August 23, 2001 Lee Mason Odell Architects, P.C. 32065 Castle Court, Suite 150 Evergreen, CO 80439 Re: Vail-Middle Creek, Traffic Dear Lee, As agreed, we have prepared this initial review of traffic issues associated with development of 150 to 200 affordable housing units in the town of Vail along North Frontage Road, west of the Vail Road north roundabout. We will follow this initial review with a detailed traffic impact assessment at a later date as the project proceeds through the Town of Vail's development review process. At this time our review covers two site planning considerations: potential vehicle trips generated by this project and, site access and circulation Vehicle Trip Generation We understand the project will be up to four stories, specifically zoned as Affordable Housing. Occupants of the studio, one- or two-bedroom dwellings will be seasonal workers primarily, employed in the Vail Valley. The approximately 6.5-acre parcel will also have a freestanding early childhood learning center. This will replace an existing day care facility on the property. Most of the parking will be located in the hillside behind the clustered housing units, east of the existing Mountain Bell tower. Typically, a multi-family clustered development of this type could be expected' to generate vehicle trips at a rate of 6 to 7 trips per unit per day. Entering and leaving the site is two trips, one in and one out. If the site were to have 200 dwelling units perhaps up to 700 vehicles would enter and leave the site each day; yielding 1,400 vehicle trips daily based on typical trip generation characteristics. However, Nye believe actual vehicle trip activity at full occupancy would be noticeably less than the typical suburban townhome or apartment complex. We believe walk, bike and public transit will substitute for many of what otherwise would be local vehicle trips. Reasons for this are: Reduced Auto Availability - Many of the occupants will be seasonal and local workers. Auto ownership will be relatively low with many seasonal residents relying on public transportation or carpooling for discretionary trips to avoid the cost of owning and operating a private vehicle for a short term. 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers publication Trip Generation, 4" Edition 1675 Lorimer Street, Suite 600 Denver, Colorado 80202 - (303) 825-7107 - FAX: 825-6004 - E-Mail: TDAColo@aol.com Lee Mason 8/23/01 Page 2 - Site Location and Layout - The location of the site, about 1/4 mile from Meadow Drive in • the heart of Vail Village, will be convenient for walking or biking to many of the Town's job locations, eateries, convenience shops and recreation opportunities. The site layout, with a strong street orientation and parking tucked behind the units, follows the tenants of Transit Oriented Development (TOD). Residents choosing to walk or use public transit will have access to a planned bike /ped trail and a bus stop literally "outside their front door" as depicted on your site plan. The Town of Vail's public transit system is one of the most heavily used in the State of Colorado. From our experience at a number of resort communities throughout the western US, Vail is the standard which other transit systems strive to emulate. Residents and visitors will have access to Avon, Beaver Creek and downvalley via ECO Transit (Eagle County) express buses connecting at the Town's transportation center - about a 10-minute walk and in-Town shuttle trip from the site. Car drivers, on the other hand, will park in a lot behind the building complex, driving around the complex to access North Frontage Road. This configuration is the equivalent, on a single family neighborhood scale, of alley parking and front yard porches. The message that the automobile is of lesser importance in-site design choices is clearly conveyed. We expect the access, convenience and economics of alternative modes for the seasonal residents of Middle Creek Village will yield a vehicle trip reduction of 30 to 35 % from the "typical" as determined by standard trip generation references. Instead of the 1,400 daily vehicle trips that a 200-unit apartment complex could generate in a typical suburban setting, we estimate trip generation for this project will be in the order of 950 trips per day. Site Access and Circulation The site will have two North Frontage Road access points as shown on your site plan. The west access is the existing road to the Mountain Bell tower. This drive will be used by residents parking in the small lot near the frontage road at the west end of the site and by those driving west of the project. The east drive will be convenient for day care trips and others driving through the main Vail I-70 interchange. North Frontage Road is located within the I-70 right of way and is under the administrative jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of Transportation. In accord with the State Highway Access Code, each drive will need formal access permitting. The existing west access will need a repermitting since there will be a change in use of the access. 'The east drive will need an access application submitted and approved by CDOT Region 3 in Grand Junction. CDOT usually requests local concurrence before issuing a new permit. We can work with your civil design firm (Peak Land Consultants) to prepare the necessary application documents at the appropriate phase of your design development process. CDOT has a maximum of 45 days from the time a complete application is submitted to render their decision. From our discussions with Jim Ellerbroek of Peak Land, there does not appear to be any sight limitations along the section of North Frontage Road. Location of the east drive should consider right turn deceleration in a zone where vehicles coming out of the roundabout will be accelerating up to the 35-mph posted speed. At a minimum the east drive should be stopping sight distance from the roundabout which for 35 mph is 250 feet (wet pavement). CDOT may Lee Mason a 8/23/01 Page 3 require a right turn deceleration lane or just a right turn taper for the east access. Acceleration lanes are typically not required when the posted speed is below 40 mph. We trust this initial traffic review will assist you with your upcoming project discussions with Town staff. We look forward to working with you, if needed, on future traffic impact analysis for the Middle Creek housing development. Please call me if you have any questions on this review. Sincerely, TDA Colorado, Inc. v David D. Leahy, PE Principal y Appendix L: Letters from other organizations Planning and Environmental Commission Preliminary Plat, Land Use Plan Amendment, and Rezoning Request Middle Creek Subdivision September 24, 2001 United States Forest White River Holy Cross Ranger District Department of Service National 24747 US Highway 24 Agriculture Forest PO Box 190 Minturn, CO 81645-0190 (970) 827-5717 TTY (970) 945-3255 FAX (970) 827-9343 File Code: 1560 Date: September 11, 2001 Ms. Allison Ochs Planner II Town of Vail, Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Ms. Ochs, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed major subdivision project on the "Mountain Bell Site" in Vail. Our understanding from recent newspaper reports is that the project is intended to provide affordable housing. We support the projects goal of meeting this crucial area need. It appears that provisions have been made to keep development out of the floodplain of Middle Creek and off of the steeper slopes of the property, The scale of the materials provided made it difficult to analyze the project in any detail. We request that serious consideration be given to facilitating access to the "North Trail" by residents of the proposed development and current trail users. It seems likely that the proposed development will generate a substantial increase in use of the trail. We would encourage planners to incorporate parking and access to the trail in their project planning. Sincerely, a CALVIN G. WETTSTEIN District Ranger Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper ROsS C- ~F 0 e. 3 799 HIGHWAY 82 • P.O. DRAWER 2150 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 > (970) 945-5491 • FAX (970) 945-4081, O dF SSO~O September 11, 2001 Ms. Allison Ochs, AICP Department of Community Development Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Middle Creek Village Subdivision Dear Ms. Ochs: The above mentioned development is within the certificated service area of Holy Cross Energy. Holy Cross Energy has existing power facilities located on or near the above mentioned project. These existing facilities have adequate capacity to provide electric power to the development, subject to the tariffs, rules and regulations on file. Any power line enlargements, relocations, and new extensions necessary to deliver adequate power to and within the development will be undertaken by Holy Cross Energy upon completion of appropriate contractual agreements. Please advise when you wish to proceed with the development of the electric system for this project. Sincerely, HOLY CROSS ENERGY G2;?52 Ted Huskey, Engineering Service Supervisor TH:vw Location #52-65 AUG 20 2001 13:18 FR EAGLE VAIL SC 970 949 3289 TO 4768615 P.01101 r ne PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY P0-Box43D Minturn, Colorado 81645 August 20, 2001 Peak Land Consultants, Inc. Attn: George Mossm,an 1000 Lionsridge Loop Vail, Colorado 81657 Subject. Service Availability Dew Mr. Mossman: in accordance witb our tariffs filed with and approved by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, gas facilities can be made available to serve your project at Middle Creek Village (the Mountain Bell Site). Cu,.,...~'ly our lead time.for design is 4 weeks and lead time for construction is 8 weeks. Due to workload, matoriat availability and design complexity, design and construction lead times are approximate and subject to change. Please submit your plans at the earliest opportunity to better assure meeting your proposed schedule for receiving service. Gas costs will be calculated in conformance with our filed SERVICE LAd t r-A.L CONNECTION AND DISTRIBUTION MAIN EXTENSION POLICY. ? Electric Costs for the project will be calculated in conformance with our filed SERVICE CONNECTION AND DISTRIBUTION LINE EX irNSION POLICY. If you have any questions or comments, or if I can be of further assistance, please call me at the number listed below. My normal work hours are 5:00 a.m. to 5:017 p.m, Monday through Friday. Sinc ely, I'~a n B o~rt Technician 970-262-4070 TOTAL PAGE.01 AUG-23.2001 11:46AIll HOLY CROSS VAIL 1,40.458 P.2 cROSS o 3799 HIGHWAY 92 • P.C1 DRAWER 2150= GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO $1602 r Q (970) 945-5491 • FAX (970) 945-4081T S S C7 August 22, 2001 Mr. George Mossman Peak Land Consultants, inc. 1000 Lions Ridge Loop Vail, Co 8165 7 RE: Middle Creek Village - "Mountain Bell Site" Dear Mr. Mossman: The above mentioned development is within the certificated service area of Holy Cross Energy. Holy Cross Energy has existing power facilities located on or near the above mentioned project. These existing facilities have adequate capacity to provide electric power to the development, subject to the tariffs, rules and regulations on file. Any power line enlargements, relocations, and new extensions necessary to deliver adequate (Sower to and within the development will be undertaken by Holy Cross Energy upon completion of appropriate contractual agreements. Please advise when you wish to proceed with the development of the electric system for this project. Sincerely, HOLY CROSS EIVERCY Ted Huskey, Engineering Service Supervisor TH:vw Service Location #52-65 M_ EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT 846 Forest Road • Vail, Colorado 81657 (970) 476-7480 • FAX (970) 476-4089 August 21, 2001 Mr. Jim Ellerbroek Peak Land Consultants, Inc. 1000 Lionsridge Loop Vail, CO 81657 Subject: Middle Creek Village Development Ability to Serve Letter for Water and Sewer Dear Jim: As of August 14, 2001,the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District will provide domestic water and sewer service to the above-referenced development. The District has excess capacity to process domestic water and sewer to its constituents at the present time. The Vail Wastewater Treatment Plant (VWTP) is currently serving approximately 5607 Single-Family Equivalent (SFE) units. The current design capacity of the VWTP is 7500 SFE units. Accordingly, upon compliance with the rules and regulations, and the payment of app,up.,iate tap fees, the District will provide domestic water and sewer service. Construction for all main line extensions is the responsibility of the developer; however, all construction drawings must be pre-approved by the District. If you have any questions or concerns please contact the District at 476-7480. Sincerely, sjs I - -r'r-t' &Q_ Fred S. Haslee Regulations Administrator c Customer Account File FSH/mem F:\I5WSD\8REGSWBILTSRV\FORN (jX vt(J 'R U ff -OWRATIONS & MANAGEMENT SERVICES 6A 8-23-01; 2: 1OPM; QV?EST ENG. ;970 384 0257 # 1/ 1 I 8-23-01; 2:OBPM 9704788618;# 2 August 23, 2001 To whom it may concern: Qwest confirms our ability to serve the proposed site (Middle Creek Village) as shown on the "Location Plan" dated August 20, 2001 prepared by Peak Land Consultants, Inc. We understand that the plants transmitted are conceptual only. Jason` anaipe, Qwest Field En&eer Jason Sharpe Eger CPF7etd &O'Rer Q1N eS t~ Lour Wmak Options '~"C~. 921 Wnd Avenue - GlenwoodSRf9S, Cob-ido 81601 970 384 0238 _g7O61 9706187573 Cef 970g280317{a9f , :Ka 970 384 0257 fax MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Department of Community Development Staff: Russ Forrest DATE: October 16, 2001 SUBJECT: Development Review Fees 1. PURPOSE OF MEETING: The purpose of this hearing is to receive direction from the Town Council on the proposed fee schedule described on page 2 of this memo. Attached is a memorandum to the Town Council dated September 18, 2001. The purpose of that worksession was to ask Council whether development review fees should reflect the cost of providing those services. At that meeting the Town Council directed staff to develop a proposed fee structure that more closely reflected the true cost of providing those services. 2. PROPOSED FEE STRUCTURE: Staff has recently reviewed the fee structure for the Town of Vail's development review process and found that approximately 60% of the total cost is paid by fees and the other 40% is subsidized by the Town and the taxpayer. The following is a summary of the existing fee structure: Approximate Revenue: $ 819,000 ($39K Planning & $780K Building) Development Review Cost: $1.336,000 ($100,000 + reduction in last 3 yrs) Difference: 516,000 (Difference not paid by developers) The proposed fees are in the shaded column and are compared to average actual cost for an application and the current application fee. Council and staff were both interested in providing a fee for repairs and maintenance that was relatively inexpensive so as to not discourage basic maintenance and improvements to properties. The fee for this type of an application as proposed would be $50 versus $20. 1 Planning icabons Act QC!~ ~,ce Av c4pya Cast CL ! (Actual- Total (Labor+ Appliation CG ; ! Application Type Flours U,...I .GrAJ) Fee Fee) F. q.J Fee ORB B Mrnor repair/main des tz P-c 2 $ 66 NA $ 50 Mnor Al la aeon $ 264 $ 20 $ 244 $ 250` New Cu Lli uction $ 660 $ 400 $ 260 $ 660 Adclitions $ 330 $ 50 $ 280 $ 300 2 $ 83 $ 25 $ 58 $ _ . . 50 PEC $ _ $ _ Varies 1 $ 4% $ 250 $ 245 450 Cal itional Lbffi 20 $ 660 $ 200 $ 460 $ 650 ('~st ~ hogs) and $30 for emery Na for A Wtti ' $ 825 $ 200 $ 625 hoer after hors) & $30 for eey N40rA uJ $ 6,600 $ 1,000 $ 5,600 haxafter- MraA . J, tents SDD 401 $ 1,320 I $ 500 I $ 820 $ _1,000; $1500 (1st 50 hogs) & $30 for eay har NNor SubcNsi $ 1,650 $ 1,000 $ 650 air Mra S-bdvisicrrA 201 $ 6601 $ 2501 $ 4101 $ _ . $ 1300 ~ if-,A 401 $ 1,3201$ 2001$ 1,1201 Buildina Fees: The current fee structure for Building Permits is based on the 1991 code that is 20% less than the 1997 UBC fee schedule which nearly all the other jurisdictions in Eagle County have adopted. Staff would be proposing within the next year to change to the 1997 UBC fee structure. Environmental Rebate: The Town Council has expressed an interest incentivizing an environmental certification program for construction called Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design. Staff is also investigating having a 20% rebate for LEEDS (Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design). An applicant would be assessed the fee structure mentioned above. Then upon proof of receiving LEED certification 20% of the building fee would be returned back to the applicant. 2 3. INPUT FROM DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COMMUNITY The Community Development Department did a mass mailing (over 1000 pieces) to individuals and companies that have gone through the development review process and registered contractors. This mailing included our service standards and the proposed fee schedule. We also emailed the letter and the proposed fee structure to the Vail Chamber for their review. PEC and DRB have also reviewed the proposed fee structure. We requested that individuals with comments or ideas fax their comments back to the Town of Vail. In addition 3 open houses occurred on the following dates: 12:00-1:00 p.m. on Friday October 5th (lunch included) 4:30-6:00 p.m. on Monday October 8th 4:30 - 6:00 p.m. on Monday October 15th At these meetings staff solicited input on how we can improve our service to the community and the proposed fee structure. Comments as of October 10th, 2001 were very limited. Comments, if any, from the October 15th open house will be forwarded to the Town Council on October 16t . Comments received included- • Need to improve enforcement for mechanical equipment. Some owners/contractors are installing with out the necessary screening. • If increased fees will insure faster turn around time and that staffing will not be lost "go ahead and increase them". Comments from several focus groups the Department conducted in the Spring of 2001 included: • "You get a great bang for your buck in Vail" • Service is better than other jurisdictions • TOV should increase fees for planning to correspond to actual cost. That would keep us from wasting time with applications that were not serious. 4. DIRECTION REQUESTED FROM THE TOWN COUNCIL Staff is requesting direction in the form of a motion regarding the following questions: 1) Does the Town Council want to adopt the new fee schedule for planning applications as outlined on page 2? 2) Does the Town Council want to create a rebate for LEEDs certification along with other comparable certifications? Within the next year staff will be coming to the Council with the new International Building Code which is intended to provide one building code for the entire Country. It is more performance based and allows applicants additional flexibility in achieving performance standards. Staff anticipates this being ready for Council review by the 1 st quarter of 2002. When this occurs staff would also be proposing a modified fee structure for building permits. FAcdeOCOUNCIUMEMOS\01 \DRTFees.101601.doc 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Department of Community Development Staff: Russ Forrest DATE: September 18, 2001 SUBJECT: Development Review Fees 1. PURPOSE OF MEETING: The purpose of this worksession is to ask Council whether development review fees should reflect the cost of providing those services. Staff has recently reviewed the fee structure for the Town of Vail's development review process and the cost for providing that service and found that approximately 60% of the total cost is paid by fees and the other 40% is subsidized by the Town and the taxpayer. The following is a summary of the existing fee structure: Approximate Revenue: $ 819,000 ($39K Planning & $780K Building) Development Review Cost: $1.336.000 ($100,000 + reduction in last 3 yrs) Difference: 516,000 (Difference not paid by developers) The current fee structure is back end loaded in that the most significant fees are incurred during the building process and the planning related fees are relatively low. Staff has also looked at the fee structure for other jurisdictions and found that our fees are low particularly with respect to planning related applications. Staffs rational for examining the fee structure includes the following: • When compared to other jurisdictions, staff questions why the Vail community should subsidize development costs. • The overall budget is increasingly limited to pay for an increasing demand for services. Increased revenue from development review fees that reflect a true cost could help provide additional revenue and ensure a high level of service for development review applications. • The boards and staff feel that the low cost of certain applications leads, in some cases, to poorly conceived plans. • Staff is interested in exploring with Council whether incentives (through the fee structure) should be developed for environmentally friendly development, retail enhancement, and owner occupied housing. If Council feels that fees should reflect the cost of providing development review fees, staff would request working further with the building and design community to revise the fee schedule and bring a revised fees schedule back to the Town Council for their approval. 1 2. BACKGROUND The Town Council and the Design Review Board met on September 4th. One of the issues discussed, was how the current development review fees do not cover the expense of providing development review services. Council expressed interest in scheduling this issue for discussion. At the PEC meeting on August 27th, the Planning Commission expressed interest in raising fees for commercial applications to reflect their true cost and to ensure that more expensive residential development also pay for their true cost. The zoning code addresses fees and generally states that fees should cover expenses. For example: • Sign Applications: Section 11-2-2 states that "the fee shall be sufficient to cover the cost of Town staff time and other expenses incidental to the review of the application." • Sign Variance: Section 11-7-3 states "the fee shall be sufficient to cover the cost of Town staff time and other expenses incidental to the review of the application." • Design Review Regulations: Section 12-11-7 states that" the Town Council shall set a design review fee schedule sufficient to cover the cost of Town staff time, consultants fees, and incidental expenses." • Conditional Use Permit: Section 12-16-3 states "the Town Council shall set a conditional use permit fee schedule sufficient to cover the cost of the Town staff time and other expenses incidental to the review of the application. " • Variances: Section 12-17-3 states "the Town Council shall set a variance fee schedule sufficient to cover the cost of Town staff time and other expenses incidental to the review of the application. " Based on existing regulations it is clear that the Town Code provides direction to set development review fees at a rate that covers the direct costs for providing those development review services. Staff has met on several occasions with small focus groups of builders and designers. Initial input is that our fees are extremely low compared to other jurisdictions in Eagle County. Services that are critical to both the design and construction community are the counter service and the overall turn around time of the development review process. Staff has also received input from the design and construction community that applicants have taken advantage of the low fees and submitted applications to simply test an idea or to raise property values by increasing vested rights. Increasing fees to comparable rates to the rest of Eagle County may reduce frivolous applications. 3. EXISTING TOWN OF VAIL FEE STRUCTURE The most significant fees come from the building permit which is based on the total valuation of the construction. Building related fees are incorporated into the various Building, Fire, Mechanical, Pluming, and Electrical codes adopted in the Town Code by reference (Section 10-1-2). It should be noted that the current fee structure for Building is based on the 1991 code which is 20% less than the 1997 UBC fee schedule which 2 nearly all the other jurisdictions in Eagle County have adopted. The planning fees have not changed in last 12 years. The Town will typically only receive $40,000 in fees in a typical year from planning applications. Planners, engineers, and the Fire Department are also heavily involved in reviewing building applications and ensuring that conditions of approval are met during construction. Therefore the building fees also help pay for other staff time and is not just compensation for building inspectors. Attachment A summarizes the existing fee structure and a four-year average for revenues. 4. ACTUAL COST TO PROVIDE SERVICES The actual cost to provide development review services is approximately $1.3 million with approximately $990,000 of that cost is labor. This includes labor costs from Fire, Public Works, Administration, and Community Development directly attributable to the development review process. The other $344,000 reflects other non-labor costs such as utilities, building costs, publishing, and other costs to support the boards and the process. The major discrepancy between the cost of providing services and the fees collected are the planning related fees. The following is a summary of the actual estimated cost for a typical application. Actual Cost for Planninq Applications Actual Difference Average Cost Current (Actual- Total (Labor+ Appliation Current Application Type Hours Overhead) Fee Fee) DRB Minor Alteration 8 $ 264. $ 20 $ 244 New Construction 20 $ 660 $ 400 $ 260 Additions 10 $ 330 $ 50 $ 280 Signs 2.5 $ 83 $ 25 $ 58 ing fees based on valuation $ - $ - TOTAL DRIB $ - $ - PEC $ - $ - Variances 15 $ 495 $ 250 $ 245 Conditional Uses 20 $ 660 $ 200 $ 460 Exterior Alterations 25 $ 825 $ 200 $ 625 Major Amendments SDD 200 $ 6,600 $ 1,000 $ 5,600 Minor Amendments. SDD 40 $ 1,320 $ 500 $ 820 Major Subdivisions 50 $ 1,650 $ 1,000 $ 650 Minor Subdivisions 20 $ 660 $ 250 $ 410 Rezonings 401 $ 1,3201 $ 2001 $ 1,120 5. EFFORTS TO REDUCE COST WHILE MAINTAINING SERVICES A reasonable question to ask is has the Town taken all reasonable actions to reduce costs and operate more efficiently. The most significant action the Town has taken is to reduce staffing by two (a planning and administrative position) in the last 4 years. In addition the housing planner/coordinator was a position that previously was a planner 3 working on the development review process. In addition, Public Works and Fire have reduced administrative staffing levels that assisted in the development review process. To improve long term efficiency and customer service, an existing planning position is focused on providing Geographic Information Services and electronic permit tracking services. A goal is to provide as much information as reasonable over the internet so that customers can use many of the Departments services via the internet. Already placing the Town Code, agendas, and applications on the Internet is saving on time while improving customer service. In addition the Development Review Team has established quality standards for turning around applications. We are monitoring our ability to meet these expectations and are integrating these expectations into personnel performance reviews. Attached is a list of these customer expectations (Attachment B). The Community Development Department has also implemented a survey for customers. We are working on improving participation in customer surveys through direct mailings. The feedback, the Town receives from actual customers is generally very good in terms of being treated fairly and staff being helpful in the process. Staff has received input that our service has been impacted by recent cuts particularly in the front office. We have tried to mitigate these losses by cross training counter staff so that they can cover for each to address both building and planning questions. However, there has still be a loss of service due to these personnel cuts that our customers have noticed. If additional revenue were available in the future, we would like to ensure staffing is adequate to meet customer expectations and continue to improve our service. 6. COMPARISON TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS As part of the ongoing effort to improve the Development Review process, staff has met with other jurisdictions to obtain ideas to improve customer service and efficiency. As part of this process, staff found some dramatic differences in fees that are collected for development review services (Attachment C). For example, Aspen charges for actual time spent ($205/hour) on either a planing or building application. In Breckenridge, the Town has calculated the average cost of an application and charges each application based on that average cost. It is interesting that several jurisdictions evaluated actually make money on the development review process. Breckenridge for example cleared nearly $800,000 last year. Staff specifically looked at application fees. Other building jurisdictions have gone to the 1997 UBC fees structure that is currently 20% more than the Town's building fee structure. However, the greatest differences are with planning related fees. Dramatic differences occur in the Valley when you compare the Vail minor DRB fee of $20 to a minor DRB application in Beaver Creek which could range from $200 to $4000. Brekenridge has a flat fee and then for certain applications has a per square foot cost that is added to that fee. Breckenridge does have a complex fee system based on 4 classes of permits (A-D). Application fees are compared in Attachment D. 7. PROPOSED NEXT STEPS Staff would recommend that fees be adjusted to more accurately reflect the cost of services. However, before a specific fee structure is developed staff would request that 4 Council first determine a goal for development review fees. Should special consideration be given for LEEDs certification and/or owner builders. With that input staff would recommend having a number of focus group meetings with customers to review a new fee structure that achieved that goal. Then staff would bring a new fee structure to Council for your approval. Therefore, staff would request that the Council respond to the following questions: • Should fees more closely reflect the cost of delivering development services? • Should there be a discount (fees could stay where they are today) for development that meets LEED certification, retail renovation, and/or for residential development that is owner occupied? Attachments • Attachment A: Existing Fee Structure and Revenue • Attachment B: Customer Expectations/Service Standards • Attachment C: Cost/Revenue comparison • Attachment D: Application Fee comparison 5 Attachment A: Current Fee Structure Average Application Type Number/year Cost/Application Total Fee DRIB Minor Alteration 343 20 $ 6,860 New Construction 15 4001 $ 6,000 Additions 14 501 $ 700 1 Signs 42 251 $ 1,063 1 Building fees based on valuation 372 1 $ 10,430 1 TOTAL DRIB 414 1 $ 25,053 I 1PEC I $ - I Variances 141 2501 $ 3,500 1 I Conditional Uses 17+ 2001 $ 3,400 Exterior Alterations 21 2001 $ 400 1 Major Amendments SDD 11 10001 $ 1,000 1 Minor Amendments SDDI 31 5001 $ 1,500 Major Subdivisions) 21 10001 $ 2,000 1 MinorSubdivisions~ 61 2501 $ 1,500 Rezoningsl 41 2001 $ 800 1TOTAL PEC 491 I $ 14,100 1 1 1 (Total Planninq j 1 $ 39,153 Building Fees I I A-Building I 1451 1 $ 111,853 A-Commercial I 1061 I $ 104,318 Demolition I 371 1 $ 9,522 A-MF I 1561 1 $ 115,525 B-build I 321 1 $ 158,998 B-elec I 3741 1 $ 51,142 B-Mec I 2681 1 $ 78,380 1 b-Plumb 1 2161 1 $ 47,621 Combuild 51 1 $ 35,756 F-sprin 211 1 $ 12,441 MF Build 71 1 $ 54,854 I I Building Total 1 13671 1 $ 780,410 I I GRAND Total I $ 1,830 1 1 $ 819,563 Attachment B Service Standards for the Community Development Department June 2001 Service Our Commitment Is Applications Community Development staff will meet the deadlines outlined below. If the application is not complete the application will not be processed. Applicants will be notified by 5:00 after the first business day after submittal if the application is incomplete. Walk In customer Buildina and Planning Services: Customers will be greeted inquiries immediately and asked what services the customer requires. Counter Techs. will provide customers with basic information or direct the customer to the appropriate team member. Counter hours are from 8:00 to 3:30. There are limited services between 12:00 and 1:00. Specific planners and building inspecors are available by appointment. Housing: The housing coordinator is available by appointment or as available. Environmental Health: Environmental Health Officer is available by appointment or if available. Can be paged in an emergency Phone Calls The 479-2139 or 479-2150 numbers will -be answered by a member of Community Development between 8:00 and 5:00. A customer is forwarded to voice mail when all lines are busy. Call 479-2149 to leave a building inspection request 24 hours a day. Staff will attempt to call back within the same day and will always return calls within 24 hours Emergencies called to Environmental Health and Building are available 24 hours a day to dispatch (911) or to respond to emergencies called in by Dispatch or Fire. Community Development during business hours Code Environmental Health: Same day response if environmental health Violations/Complaints officer is in the office. Buildinq: Within 1 week the building team will investigate the complaint. Planninq: Within 1 week the planning team will investigate the complaint. Please leave a name and/or phone number for follow-up or in case there are questions. Copying files for I Will be ready for pick up within 24 hours on business days. customers Input on Community I Please contact Russell Forrest the Director of Community Development Service Development at 479-2146. FAcdev\STAFF\SERVICE.DOC Time Commitments for Complete Applications Plannina Services Time Frame (In workina days) DRB/Staff Review Color Change 2 days if staff approval or 3 weeks for DRB Sign Applications 7 days if staff approval or 3 weeks for DRB Design Review-New Single Family 38 days for DRB action Design Review- Minor Alterations S.F. 14 days if staff approval or 38 days for DRB Design Review-Multi Family 38 days for DRB action Design Review- Minor Alteration for MF 14 days if staff approval or 38 days for DRB Interior Conversion 2 days if staff approval or 3 weeks for DRB Address Changes 14 days for staff action Duplex Separation Request 10 days for DRB action Duplex Plat 14 days for staff action PEC Review Conditional Use Permit Review by PEC within 5 weeks Variance Review by PEC within 5 weeks Zoning Application Review by PEC within 5 weeks Major or Minor Subdivision Review by PEC within 5 weeks Buildina Safetv Services Time Frame Buildina Permit Review: Plumbing & electrical upgrades, re-roofs, Issued or comments within 3 days miscellaneous repairs & demo permits Furnace & water heater installations, snow Comments within 3 working days melt systems, minor kitchen & bath remodels, etc. Minor remodels, new decks, mechanical Comments within 15 working days permits for new buildings, etc. Commercial remodels & major additions & Comments within 15 working days remodels to 1- & 2-family dwellings New 1- & 2-family dwellings & non-major-project Comments within 15 working days commerical and multiple-family buildings Major projects, new commercial, multiple- Family & mixed use buildings, complexes Comment within 20 working days with a complete set of building plans and submitting a comprehensive code review with application or 30 working days without a code review submitted with plans. Community Development requires complete plan submittal. FAcdev\STAFF\SERVICE. DOC Buildina InsDections: All types of on site inspections If inspection is requested before 5:00 on the previous day, the requested inspection will be performed on the next working day with the exception of Electrical inspections which will be performed all of Tuesday and Thursday and Friday mornings. F:\cdev\STAFF\SERVICE. DOC Attachment C: Cost/Revenue Comparison Eagle Jurisdiction Vail Aspen Breckenridge Boulder Park City County Population 4,531 5,914 2,408 41,659 Planning Staff 6 6 6 13.75 8 8 Average # Planning Apps 421 193 170 400 725 303 Total Planning Fees $ 39,153 $ 380,000 $ 734,086 $ 1,000,000 $ 140,000 $128,200.0 Permits/Staff $ 70 $ 32 $ 28 $ 29 $ 91 $ 38 Average Cost/App $ 93 $ 11969 1 $ 4,318 $ 2,500 1 $ 193 1 $ 423 WOMOMMOMM Building Staff 4.5 7 4 11 10 12 l BAverage # ulding Apps 1367 3071 1250 50001 7701 2752 Total Building Fees $ 780,410 $ 1,522,343 1 $ 1,312,657 $ 2,400,000 1 $ 970,000 1 $ 2,535,000 IPermits/Staff 1 3041 441 3131 4551 771 229 Average Cost/App 1 $ 570.89 1 $ 4,958.77 I $ 1,050.13 1 $ 480.00 1 $ 1,259.74 1 $ 921.15 ONE= Total Fees $ 819,563 $ 1,902,343 $ 2,046,743 $ 3,400,000 $ 1,110,000 $ 2,663,200 Total Cost 1 $ 1,336,177 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,250,000 I $ 2,000,000 1 $ 1,762,500 1 $ 1,790,000 I NET Revenue on Development Review $ (516,614) $ 402,343 $ 796,743 $ 1,400,000 $ (652,500) $ 873,200 Attachment D: Application Fee Comparison Application Type Vail * Aspen Breckenridqe Avon Beaver Ck Cordillera Rate structure varies DRB for historical dist 5% of the Small cost of Remodel modification, ($200- not to Minor Alteration $ 20 $205/hour $100-$425 $50 $4000) exceed $500 $350 (1 unit) Based on sq $3000 (100 feet ($4000- New Construction $ 400 $205/hour $850 units) $30,000) $4,500 Additions $ 50 $205/hour Signs $ 25 $205/hour $100 $50-$200 55 Compliance Non Deposit approved fee $20,000 I I 3x fee PEC I~ Pre Application Fee $ - 1$205/hour 1 Variances $ 250 1$205/hour $850+50 per sq ft 1 $250 1 Conditional Uses $ 200 1$205/hour I 1 Exterior Alterationsl $ 200 1$205/hour 1$1500+50 per sq ft I 1 1 Major Amendments SDD1 $ 1,000 1$205/hour 1$3000+$50 per sa ft. 1$500-$1000 1 Minor Amendments SDDI $ 500 1$205/hour 1$1500+50 per sq ft I Major Subdivisions $ 1,000 $205/hour $3000+$50 per sq ft. ! $300+$23 Minor Subdivisions $ 2501$205/hour $1500+50 per sq ft I lot Rezonings $ 200 1$205/hour +$850+50 per sq ft 1 500' SEP.11.2001 8:27AM DESIGN REVIEW ADMIN 970 845 2385 N0.332 P.2i3 APPENDIX A - DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION FEES Bachelor Gulch Village Design Review Board Application Fee Schedule for Single Family Residential Square Feet of Sketch Final Total Max. Gross Floor Area Plan Fee Plan Fee Fee 0 - 5,000 SF $2,000 $2,000 $4,000 5,000 - 7,500 SF $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 7,501 - 10,000 SF $3,000 $3,000 $6,000 Miscellaneous Notes: • Minor projects of under $250,000, fee is 1.5% of project costs, minimum of $150. • Modification to previously approved plans if implemented during initial construction, $150. • The DRB may impose an additional fee of $1,000 for any project having more than two Sketch Plan reviews or more than one Final Plan review. Homesite Amendments - 51,000. • Appeals - $500.. • Signs and/or Satellite Dishes if presented independently, $50. • Fees must be paid at time of submittal. Fees arc calculated on Maximum Gross Floor Area, defined as the toral floor • area measured from the outside of all exterior walls, not including crawl spaces, garages or area designed for parking or loading within a building. • Fees for projects outside the scope of the current fee schedule will be deter- mined by the DRB staff., Late submittal fee shall be an additional 50% of the fee due at that meet- ing. Acceptance of submittals after the deadline shall be at the discretion of the DRB staff. BACHELOR GULCH VILLAGE DcsIGN GuiAELINES A- 1 )ANUnRY 25, 2000 SEP.11.2001 8:27RM DESIGN REVIEW ADMIN 970 845 2385 N0.332 P.3/3 BEAVER CREEK DESIGN REVIEW BOARD V a.a SIL M&DULE DA 14.u: MAY, 200I RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS L MAJOR APPLICATIONS: Square feet of Sketch Final Total Gross Floor Area Plan Fee Plan Fee Fee 0 5,000 SF $2,000 $2,000 $4,000 5,000 7,500 SF $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 7,501 10,000 SF $3,000 $3,000 $6,000 10,001 15,000 SF $3,500 $3,500 $7,000 15,001 25,000 SF $4,000 $4,000 $8,000 25,001 50,000 SF $4,500 $4,500 $9,000 50,001 10,000 SF $5,000 $5,000 510,000 100,001 150,000 SF $6,000 $6,000 $12,000 150,001 200,000 SF $7,500 $7,500 $15,000 200,000 250,000 SF $9,000 $9,000 $18,000 250,001 300,000 SF $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 300,001 400,000 SF $12,500 $12,500 $25,000 400,001 And Above $15,000 $15,000 $30,000 MISCELLANEOUS: Revised Sketch or Final ]Design Approval $150.00 Appeal of Decision of the Board $500.00 Building Envelope Change $500.00 Log Lot Designation $400.00 Modification to Previously Approved Plans $250.00 Remodel Projects under $200,000 (with exterior design impacts) $200.00 - $4,000 (the greater of 213/6 of project cost or $ 200.00) Remodel Projects more than $200,000 (with exterior design impacts) (Calculate according to square feet of new gross floor area) Remodel Projects (without exterior design impacts) $250.00 II. MINOR APPLICATIONS: SIGNS, SCULPTURES AND SATELLITE DISH: $50.00 0471214 65 Jul-17-2001 11:07 From-TOWN OF AVON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9709495749 T-125 P-002/003 F-699 Town of Avon Development Review Application Fees Fallowing is the schedule of fees for Design Review, Zoning and Subdivision applications in the Town of Avon. Design Review Residential 1 - 3 Units Up to 3,500 square feet unit size $350 Over 3,500 square feet unit size 500 4 - 9 Units 750 10 - 20 Units 1,000 21 -40 Units 1,500 41 - 60 Units 2,000 6 - 100 Units 2,500 Over 100 Units 3,000 (Residential units within a mixed use project are assessed according to the Commercial fee schedule below.) Commercial, Industrial, and Mixed Use Up to 1,000 square feet (sf) $ 200 1,000 - 2,499 sf 500 2,500 - 4,599 sf 750 5,000 - 9,999 sf 1,000 10,000 -19,999 sf 1,500 20,000 - 49,999 sf 2,000 Over 50,000 sf. 2,500 Minor Project or Modification to Final Design $ 75 Non-approved Modification to Final Design 3 X fee Extension of Final Design Approval Y2 fee Signs Individual Signs (permit fee $47.50) $ 50 Master Sign Program 200 (Final Design application fees for commercial projects include Master Sign Program fee) Development Review Fees Effective April 18, 2000 - Ordinance No. 00-03, Series 2000 Page a of 2 lWhancetcd-pub iclfonnsVoe achedurewesign review fees. doc J~, ;7-2001 11:07 From-TOWN OF AVON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9709495749 T-125 P-003/003 F-699 Zoning Special Review Use Residential $ 25 Non-residential 100 Variance Request 250 Zone Change Request 500 Planned Unit Development 1 - 3 Units residential $ 500 Any commercial, multi-family, or mixed 1,000 use development Subdivision Exemption $ 50 Variance Request 50 Sketch Plan 3 or fewer lots $ 50 4 or more lots 50 + $3 per lot Preliminary Plan 3 or fewer lots $ 50 4 or more lots 200 + $10 per lot Final Plat 50 + $10 per lot (Does not include Eagle County recording fees, currently: $10 per Mylar and $5 per page) Condominium Plat (includes townhomes) 1 -10 Units $ 250 + $30 per unit 11 - 20 Units 350 + $20 per unit 21 -40 units 400 + $15 per unit Over 40 Units 650 + $10 per unit Miscellaneous Annexation $2000 + costs Special Consultant Services Cost plus 20% Appeal to Council $ 50 Development Review Fees Effective April 18, 2000 - Ordinance No. 00-03, Series 2000 Page 2 of 2 14fnancelcd-publicVornnsvee swedule{deogn review fees.doc ORDINANCE NO. 30 SERIES OF 2001 ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE: ADOPTING A BUDGET AND FINANCIAL PLAN AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS TO PAY THE COSTS, EXPENSES, AND LIABILITIES OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, FOR ITS FISCAL YEAR JANUARY 1, 2002, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2002. WHEREAS, in accordance with Article IX of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado, the Town Manager prepared and submitted to the Town Council a proposed long-range capital program for the Town and a proposed budget and financial plan for all Town funds and activities for the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the proposed Town budget and capital program was published on the 5T" of October, 2001, more than seven (7) days prior to the hearing held on the 16th of October, 2001, pursuant to Section 9.5 of the Charter; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Town Council to adopt a budget and financial plan for the 2002 fiscal year, to make appropriations for the amounts specified in the budget; and NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, that: 1. The procedures prescribed in Article IX of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado, for the enactment hereof have been fulfilled. 2. Pursuant to Article IX of the Charter, the Town Council hereby makes the following annual appropriations for the Town of Vail, Colorado, for its fiscal year beginning on the first day of January, 2002, and ending on the 31st day of December, 2002: FUND AMOUNT General Fund $20,675,725 Capital Projects Fund 14,479,436 Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund 4,597,089 Vail Marketing Fund 336,700 Debt Service Fund 2,328,929 Heavy Equipment Fund 1,932,522 Health Insurance Fund 1,750,078 Dispatch Services Fund 1.351.030 Total $47,451,509 Less Interfund Transfers (6.065.089) Net Budget $41,386,420 3. The Town Council hereby adopts the full and complete Budget and Financial Plan for the 2002 fiscal year for the Town of Vail, Colorado, which are incorporated by reference herein and made part hereof, and copies of said public records shall be made available to the public in the Municipal Building of the Town. This Ordinance shall take effect five (5) days after publication fo Ilowing the final passage hereof. 5. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 6. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 7. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. 8. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 2nd day of October, 2001. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the 16th day of October, 2001, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED in this 16th day of October, 2001. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk TOWN OF VAIL PROPOSED 2002 REVISED BUDGET OCTOBER 16, 2001 Second Reading INDEX Memorandum from Finance Director - 2002 Budget Highlights 1-2 2002 Budget Summary 3 This single-page schedule reports town-wide revenues and expenditures by category. An adjustment is made for interfund charges and transfers to illustrate both gross and net amounts. Summary of Revenue and Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance 4 This report shows in summary what the town's projected fund balances are for all of the town's funds in 2001 and 2002. It also shows the changes in fund balance is by fund. Major Revenue Analysis for 2002 Budget 5 This schedule compares percentage and dollar amount changes for 2000, 2001, and 2002 for the town's 10 largest revenue sources. 2002 Proposed Budget Adjustments 6-10 This schedule discloses in detail (for affected funds) what the differences are between the original revenue and expenditure 2002 Budget reviewed by the Council in 2000 and the amendments that need to be made to the 2002 Budget. Five Year Financial Projection - General Fund 11 This schedule shows in summary what the impacts are of projecting future increases to various revenue and expenditures in the town's General Fund, Dispatch Services Fund, and the Heavy Equipment Fund. The first year is estimated 2001, the second year is 2002 Budget and then we project out 3 years. The projections are based upon staff s best estimate of future growth for various line items in the revenue and expenditure budgets. INDEX (Continued) Five Year Financial Projection - Dispatch Services Fund 12 See explanation for General Fund, above. Five Year Financial Projection - Heavy Equipment Fund 13 See explanation for General Fund, above. Summary of Changes in Personnel 14 This report is used to show the cost and additional number of FTE's that will be added to the 2002 budget. Five Year Summary of Revenues and Expenditures - Capital Projects Fund 15 - 20 This plan and report is required by the Charter and is a projection of future revenues and projects for 5 years. Five Year Summary of Revenues and Expenditures - Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund 21 - 26 This plan and report is required by the Charter and is a projection of future revenues and projects for 5 years. Summary of Expenditures by Fund and Interfund Transfers and Charges 27 This report shows what the town's total expenditure budget is for each fund including 2000 actual, 2001 original and amended, and the 2002 budget. An adjustment is made for interfund charges and transfers, to arrive at the net expenditure budget. Summary of Revenue by Fund and Interfund Transfers and Charges 28 This report shows what the town's revenue budget is for each fund including 2000 actual, 2001 original and amended, and the 2002 budget. An adjustment is made for interfund charges and transfers, to arrive at a net revenue budget or the actual amount of money that is collected from outside entities. I ~y TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 Fax: 970-479-2157 www.ci.vail.co.us MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Steve Thompson Finance Director DATE: October 4, 2001 RE: 2002 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS • The net revenue budget is $32.4 million - the net expenditure budget is $41.3 million with a projected use of fund balance of $8.9 million. The use of $8.9 million in fund balance is to finish Capital Projects including the Donovan Park and Pavilion. • The ending projected fund balance for all funds is $10.1 million vs. $19 million projected for year ending 2001. • 2002 Budget includes 5.6 additional FTE's, however, we have not included the FTE's that may come from implementing Vail Standards or maintenance of Donovan Park. • Sales tax is projected to be $14.0 million which is 9.6% down from the $15.5 million estimated for 2001. • The 2002 Budget includes an increase in property tax revenue of 9.7% and the base mill levy would be left at 4.69 mills. • Total revenues for the town are projected to be $32.4 million in 2002, versus $34.8 million in 2001. • The split of sales tax to the Capital Projects Fund is 29.3% down from 43.0 % in 2001. • The 2002 Capital Projects Fund Budget is $14.4 million, which includes the following major projects: $2.5 million bus replacements, $750,000 for storage projects at the 1 RECYCLEDPAPER town shop, $2.6 million for the Donovan Park Pavilion, $714,000 in parking structure and general facilities improvements, $830,000 in capital street maintenance, $2.3 million in debt service payments. The projected fund balance in 2002 is $506,771. • The Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund 2002 Budget is $4.6 million, which includes the following major projects in 2002: Annual maintenance of parks and bike paths is $1.2 million, Donovan Park $2.5 million, Open Space Acquisition $500,000. The projected fund balance in 2002 is $3.5 million. Transfer Tax revenue is projected at $2.5 million, a decrease of 13.8% over 2001 estimated revenue. • The five-year model for the General Fund includes $250,000 starting in 2003 for the staffing and maintenance of a new fire station and includes $250,000 of unidentified revenue to support these expenditures. • The 2002 Budget includes a 5.5 percent merit increase for full-time employees, which will be implemented upon meeting revenue estimates. 2 Financial Overview 2002 BUDGET SUMMARY Revenues and Expenditures 2001 PERCENT 2002 PERCENT, Annual Revenues by Type: Local Taxes: Sales Tax 15,578,820 38% 14,078,820 37% Property and Ownership 2,567,758 6% 2,807,267 7% Ski Lift Tax 1,927,800 5% 1,727,800 4% Real Estate Transfer Tax 2,900,000 7% 2,500,000 6% Franchise Fees & Penalties on Taxes 605,485 1% 621,875 2% Licenses & Permits 1,192,100 3% 1,192,100 3% Intergovernmental Revenue 1,766,667 4% 3,413,643 9% Transportation Centers 2,000,000 5% 2,000,000 5% Charges for Services and ISF Charges 5,585,084 14% 4,132,115 11% Fines & Forfeitures 221,798 1% 206,690 1% Earnings on Investments 998,750 2% 428,750 1% Miscellaneous and Operating Transfers 5,537,451 14% 5,430,885 14% TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUES 40,881,713 100% 38,539,945 100°0 Less Interfund Charges and Transfers (6,024,192) (6,065,089) Net Annual Revenues 34,857,521 _ 32,474,856 Annual Expenditures by Type: Municipal Services: Town Officials 1,147, 330 1,136, 071 Administrative Services & Risk Management 2,441,671 2,358,339 Community Development & Housing 1,308,241 1,336,599 Police 5,071,102 5,326,042 Fire 1,425,328 1,620,054 Public Works & Streets 2,249,109 2,259,313 Parks & Al PP 918,950 935,965 Transportation & Parking 3,188,937 3,493,499 Facility & Fleet Maintenance 4,490,250 4,247,262 Library 753,121 791,826 Contributions, Marketing and Special Events 1,487,120 1,566,552 Health Insurance 1,703,660 1,750,078 Total Municipal Services 26,184,819 58% 26,821,600 57%J Capital Improvement Programs: Capital Projects Fund 10,451,452 14,479,436 Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund Projects 6,115,838 3,821,544 Total Capital Improvement Programs 16,567,290 37% 18,300,980 39%1 Debt Service 2,324,908 5% 2,328,929 5%1 (TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES 45,077,017 _ 100% 47,451,509 100% Less Interfund Charges and Transfers (6,024,192) (6,065,089) I fillet Annual Expenditures 39,052,825 41,386,420 3 TOWN OF VAIL 2002 PROPOSED BUDGET SUMMARY OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE 2001 2002 Beginning Rewntic Fudin, Revenue Ending Fund Estimated Budgeted Over(Under) fund Estimated Proposed ther(Under) Fund Fund TtpciFund Balance Revenue Fxpenditures Expenditures Balance Revenue Etpcuditures Espcnditures Balance General Fund 4,724,309 19,584,196 19,754,265 (170,069) 4,554,240 20,675,725 20,675,725 4,554,240 Snecial Revenue Funds: Capital Projects Fund 8,624,485 9,644,161 10,451,452 (807,291) 7,817,194 7,169,013 14,479,436 (7,310,423) 506,771 Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund 7,762,562 4,032,917 6,853,570 (2,820,653) 4,941,909 3,151,887 4,597,089 (1,445,202) 3,496,707 Vail Marketing Fund 28,292 336,700 336,700 28,292 336,700 336,700 28,292 Debt Service Fund 170,352 2,324,908 2,324,908 170,352 2,328,929 2,328,929 170,352 Internal Service Funds: Heavy Equipment Fund 1,329,482 2,063,769 2,365,144 (301,375) 1,028,107 1,745,259 1,932,522 (187,263) 840,844 Health Insurance Fund 477,396 1,578,660 1,703,660 (125,000) 352,396 1,750,078 1,750,078 352,396 Dispatch Services Fund 108,909 1,316,402 1,287,318 29,084 137,993 1,382,354 1,351,030 31,324 169,317 Totals 23,225,787 40,881,713 45,077,017 ; - (4,195.305) 19,034,482 38;539;945 47,451,509 (8,911,564) 10;118,919) fundsum02 4 10/11/2001 7 Major Revenue Analysis for 2002 Budget Original Revised % Change Revised Budgeted 2000 2001 2001 from 2001 2002 Increase Actual Budget Budget Original Budget Budget 2002 Sales Tax 15,368,598 15,578,820 15,578,820 No Increase 14,078,820 -9.6% County Sales Tax 517,260 517,500 529,421 2.30% 529,421 0.0% Property Tax Revenue 2,082,770 2,402,879 2,402,879 No Increase 2,635,958 9.7% Lift Tax Revenue 1,961,723 1,927,800 1,927,800 No Increase 1,727,800 -10.4% Road & Bridge Revenue 466,024 480,300 480,300 No Increase 489,906 2.0% Highway Users Tax 225,509 226,544 226,544 No Increase 219,358 -3.2% Parking Revenue 1,980,421 1,775,340 2,000,000 12.65% 2,000,000 No Increase Franchise Fees 576,904 581,785 581,785 No Increase 598,175 2.8% Building Permits 606,671 650,000 650,000 No Increase 650,000 No Increase 23,785,880 24,140,968 24,377,549 0.98% 22,929,438 -5.9%1 Total GF Revenues 19,120,357 19,254,911 19,584,196 1.71% 19,820,595 1.2% RETT Tax 3,518,178 2,900,000 2,900,000 No Increase 2,500,000 -13.8% RevenueAna12001 5 10/11/2001 2002 PROPOSED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Revenues Expenditures Description GENERAL FUND Revenues Sales Tax (1.166,281) Reduce $855K for 10% reduction Property Tax 136,964 Revised estimate based on 2001 collections Specific Ownership Tax 1,483 Revised estimate based on 2001 collections Ski Lift Tax (238..556) Reduce $200K for 10% reduction County Sales Tax 12,338 Revised estimate based on 2001 collections Highway User's Tax (9,451) Revised estimate based on 2001 collections Parking 237,000 Revised estimate based on 2001 collections Shared Costs 20,163 Community Info Assistant from VVTCB Administration: Telephone Use Charges 39,000 Underbudgetd line item Salaries & Benefits 38,407 Admin. assistants TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 77,407 Community Development: Transfer CEO position 7,070 Transfer D. Rhoades from PD Contract Labor 5,000 Temp help Hardware < $5,000 2,000 Fax machine Volunteer program 300 Uniforms, flowers, misc items TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 14,370 Housing: TOTAL HOUSING 20,520 26,130 Police: Transfer CEO position (2,450) Transfer D. Rhoades from PD Food Supplies 1,500 Meetings & training classes FTO pay (2,800) Reduce estimated training by 1 officer Contract Services 60,000 CSP, Detox, July 4 & Dec 31, light sources Radios R&M 10,000 $200/radio Ammunition (3,500) Reduce estimate Computer Hardware 6,500 Printer for digital photos Small Equipment 4,500 Crisis Response Phone TOTAL POLICE 73,750 10/11/2001 2002 Budget Changes 6 2:45 PM 2002 PROPOSED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Revenues Expenditures Description GENERAL FUND Con't Fire: Salaries & Benefits 120,333 2 FTE's & secretary Professional Fees 1,000 Legal fees for fire issues Telephone Use Charges 2,820 Quarterly pager fees of $705 Travel 3,000 For professional development Fire Protective Clothing 10,000 Revised estimate Hardware < $5,000 300 Fax machine TOTAL FIRE 137,453 Public Works Temporary help 2,400 To cover admin vacations in summer TOTAL PUBIC WORKS 2,400 Streets: Flagpole Maintenance 8,075 Replacement flags & flagpoles Gravel 3,249 Gravel $8,235 sand $1,008 TOTAL STREETS 11,324 Parking: Salaries & Benefits 45,154 For host program Uniforms 3,440 For 4 hosts Radios < $5,000 2,400 For 4 hosts Printing & Publishing 4,000 Maps Signs & Sign Materials 15,000 TRC sign maintenance Signs & Sign Materials 1,500 New rate sign for backlit fixture at TRC TOTAL PARKING 71,494 10/11/2001 2002 Budget Changes 7 2:45 PM 2002 PROPOSED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Revenues Expenditures Description GENERAL FUND Con't Facilities: Electricity 6,000 Wind power utilization TOTAL FACILITIES 6,000 Misc. Adjustments: Allocation of sales tax ] i 0.130 To balance GF adjusted for 10% reduction Contributions 424,643 Contributions over Budget Deficit in Pavilion Operations 20,000 Estimate Net-Cost to Operate Pavilion Dispatch Services (33,797) TOV share decreased Vail Standards 100,000 Adjust from $200K to $100K for 10% reduction HEF charges (230,000) Adjust for 10% reduction Other operating reductions (60.000) Adjust for 10% reduction Salaries & Benefits (All Depts.) 52,320 Adjust to salary spreadsheet across departments TOTAL MISC. ADJUSTMENTS 1,910,130 273,166 GENERAL FUND TOTAL CHANGES 924,310 693,494 Original Budget 19,751,415 19,982,231 GENERAL FUND FINAL REVISED BUDGET 20,675,725 20,675,725 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenue (501,719) See 5 year CPF schedule - adjusted for 10% redctn Sales tax allocation (1,910,130) See 5 year CPF schedule - adjusted for 10% redctn Project expenses 861,000 See 5 year CPF schedule - adjusted for 10% redctn CAPITAL PROJECTS TOTAL CHANGES (2,411,849) 861,000 Original Budget 9,580,862 13,618,436 CAPITAL PROJECTS REVISED BUDGET 7,169,013 14,479,436 10/11/2001 2002 Budget Changes 8 2:45 PM 2002 PROPOSED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Revenues Expenditures Description REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX Salaries & Benefits (3,961) Adjust to salary spreadsheet Overtime 5,681 Increase to an even $20,000 Trash 2,500 New item - Ford Park Safety Supplies 1,096 Increase to an even $5,000 Flowers 4,000 Increase to an even $33,750 Landscaping Supplies 2,631 Increase to an even $8,500 Improvements Other than Buildings 5,000 Increase to an even $45,000 Total Parks Division 16,947 Revenue (368,500) See 5 year RETT schedule Project expenses 1,775,460 See 5 year RETT schedule RETT TOTAL CHANGES (368,500) 1,792,407 Original Budget 3,520,387 2,804,682 RETT REVISED BUDGET 3,151,887 4,597,089 HEAVY EOUIPMENT FUND Interfund charges (230,000) Adjust for 10% reduction Salaries & Benefits 24,688 Adjust to salary spreadsheet Radios R&M 18,600 Increase 124 radios from $50 to $200 to Eagle Co Vehicles 18,000 Large cargo van for electricians Vehicles 21,000 Flatbed for mow crew Vehicles 20,500 Hybrid Toyota for CD Vehicles 14,000 Boom mower for Holder Vehicles (230,000) Adjust for 10% reduction Misc Cap Outlay (8,400) Reallocate to floor scrubber Equipment < $5000 8,400 Reallocate to floor scrubber Equipment < $5000 3,500 Wheel balancer for light trucks/cars Equipment < $5000 2,500 10 ton floor jack Equipment < $5000 2,400 Misc shop tools, impacts, sockets, contingency HEF TOTAL CHANGES (230,000) (104,812) Original Budget 1,975,259 2,037,334 HEF FINAL REVISED BUDGET 1,745,259 1,932,522 10/11/2001 2002 Budget Changes 9 2:45 PM 2002 PROPOSED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Revenues Expenditures Description DISPATCH SERVICES FUND Contribution revenue (2,608) Reduces in proportion to expense reduction Salaries & Benefits (14,145) Adjust to salary spreadsheet Bonus 3,000 Dispatcher recruiting bonus Telephone Use Charges 1,000 Cell phones/pagers for supervisors Access Charge 5,385 Fee to access CBI system for wants & warrants Office Supplies 820 Revise estimate Food 750 Supervisor & team meetings DISPATCH TOTAL CHANGES (2,608) (3,190) Original Budget 1,384,962 1,354,220 DISPATCH FINAL REVISED BUDGET 1,382,354 1,351,030 10/11/2001 2002 Budget Changes 10 2:45 PM GENERAL FUND Five year Financial Projection Budget Budget Projected Projected Projected 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 REVENUE Revised Budget Budget Budget Budget Sales Tax 8,893,755 9,948,885 10,857,080 11,474,659 12,325,534 Other Taxes 5,101,043 5,156,942 5,246,328 5,523,914 5,618,883 Construction Fees 650,000 650,000 666,250 682,906 699,979 Licenses & Permits 75,400 75,400 77,285 79,217 81,198 Intergovernmental 1,513,174 1,534,378 1,578,217 1,623,344 1,669,797 Charges for Services 291,840 294,489 301,851 309,398 317,132 Parking Fees 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,050,000 2,101,250 2,153,781 Fines & Forfeits 209,458 194,350 199,209 204,189 209,294 New Revenue for Fire Operations 250,000 262,500 275,625 Effect of supplemental #2 80,365 Interest Income & Other Revenues 769,161 821,281 841,813 862,858 884,430 TOTAL REVENUE 19,584,196 20,675,725 22,068,033 23,124,235 24,235,653 Percent Increase in Revenue 8.19% 5.57% 6.73% 4.79% 4.81% EXPENDITURES Salaries 8,498,656 9,112,603 9,568,233 10,046,645 10,548,977 Benefits 2,963,788 3,249,492 3,476,956 3,720,343 3,980,767 Wage & Benefit Savings (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) New Fire Station (New Personnel & Mtce) 250,000 262,500 275,625 Vail Standards Program 200,000 210,000 220,500 231,525 Contributions & Special Events 789,420 1,229,852 1,254,449 1,279,538 1,305,129 All Other Operating Expenses 4,226,430 4,345,906 4,519,742 4,700,532 4,888,553 Capital Outlay 231,329 237,441 200,000 200,000 200,000 Rental Operating 153,677 160,547 166,969 173,648 180,594 Contingency 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 Heavy Equipment Charges Operating 1,342,111 1,408,813 1,507,691 1,580,369 1,656,709 Heavy Equipment Charges Replace 396,162 166,163 387,509 387,509 387,509 Dispatch Services 473,646 464,514 489,584 515,751 543,365 Proposed 2002 Budget Adjustments 65,394 1,900 1,900 11900 Effect of supplemental appropriations 644,046 TOTAL EXPENDITURES _ 19,754,265 20,675,725 22,068,033 - 23,124,235 24,235,653 Percent Increase 896% 4.66% 6.73% 4.79% 4.81% SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (170,069) (0) (0) 0 0 ENDING FUND BALANCE 4,554,240 4,554,240 4,554,240 4,554,240 4,554,240 5yrfinproj02 11 10/11/2001 DISPATCH SERVICES INTERNAL SERVICE FUND Five year Financial Projection Budget Budget Projected Projected Projected 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 REVENUE Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget General Fund Contribution 451,091 442,395 466,270 491,191 517,490 General Fund Capital Contribution 22,555 22,120 23,314 24,560 25,875 E-911 Revenue 285,640 285,640 299,922 315,758 332,462 Agency Capital Contribution 26,529 30,105 31,736 33,432 35,222 Agency Revenue 530,587 602,095 634,722 668,647 704,447 TOTAL REVENUE 1,316,402 1,382,354 1,455,964 1,533,588 1,615,496 EXPENDITURES Salaries 790,507 818,695 859,629 902,610 947,741 Benefits 295,211 313,070 334,985 358,434 383,524 Operating Expenses 181,600 198,365 206,300 214,552 223,134 Capital Outlay 20,000 20,900 20,000 20,000 20,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,287,318 1,351,030 1,420,914 1,495,596 1,574,399 SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 29,084 31,324 35,050 37,992 41,097 ll ENDING FUND BALANCE 137,993 169,317 204,367 242,359 283,456 5ffiinproj02 12 10/11/2001 HEAVY EQUIPMENT INTERNAL SERVICE FUND Five year Financial Projection Budget Budget Projected Projected Projected 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 REVENUE Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget HEF Operating Charges 1,373,726 1,446,619 1,557,804 1,632,740 1,711,441 HEF Replacement Charges 411,912 181,913 399,000 399,000 399,000 Body Repair Revenue 43,681 41,027 42,873 44,803 46,819 Misc Trade In 214,450 55,700 58,200 49,900 126,800 Interest Income 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 TOTAL REVENUE 2,063,769 1,745,259 2,077,877 2,146,443 2,304,060 EXPENDITURES Salaries, Wages 507,713 550,118 577,624 606,505 636,830 Benefits 192,215 213,339 228,272 244,251 261,349 Motor Fuels 282,250 303,750 200,900 208,936 217,293 Vehicle Insurance 37,668 39,551 41,133 42,778 44,489 Parts, Supplies Util., etc 231,200 242,750 252,460 262,558 273,060 All Other Operating Expenses 235,495 247,514 257,415 267,712 278,420 Vehicle Replacement 878,603 335,500 367,300 523,450 740,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,365,144 1,932,522 1,925,104 2,156,190 W 2,451,441 SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (301,375) (187,263) 152,773 (9,747) (147,381) ENDING FUND BALANCE 1,028,107 840,844 993,617 983,870 836,488 5yrFlnproj02 13 10/11/2001 TOWN OF VAIL 2002 Revised Budget SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN PERSONNEL 2002 2002 Full Time Seasonal Cost Increase Increase of Department (Decrease) (Decrease) Positions Position FTE FTE W/ Benefits Administrative Services: Town Manager Executive Assistant 0.30 15,006 Town Attorney Legal Assistant 0.30 17,221 Public Relations Assistant 0.55 6,180 Budget for portion of position reimbursed Fire Department Firefighters 2.00 112,273 Department Secretary 0.20 8,060 Parking 5 Seasonal Paking Attendents 2.25 56,194 For host program [Total Increase (Decrease) in ITTE's I 3.35 2.25 214,934 Net Increase in IFTE's 5.60 This schedule does not reflect the additional FTE's that maybe needed for Vail Standards or for Donovan Park Personnelchg2002only 14 10/11/2001 Capital Projects Fund Five Year Summary of Revenue and Expenditures Allocation of Sales Tax to CPF 43% 29% 26% 24% 21% 43% Estimated Budget 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Project Information Revenues: Net Sales Tax 6,685,065 4,129,935 3,714,498 3,606,925 3,283,905 6,931,114 Federal Grant Revenue 66,854 692,625 300,000 230,000 $392,625 is finalized; the rest is estimated Lease Revenue 149,480 149,480 149,480 149,480 149,480 149,480 Lease revenue from City Market & employee housing land lease COP revenue 4,400,000 Lease revenue for Fire Station CDOT Reimbursement 1,000,000 Reimbursement for the roundabout construction Parking Assessments 12,340 12,340 Revenue from Parking Pay-in-Lieu Program Buy-Down Program 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Sale of Deed Restricted Units Purchased by the Town Sale of EHU 225,000 Sale of employee housing unit Sale of Assets 2,000,000 Sale of the Ruins Sale of Arosa Garmisch Units 1,134,844 Adjust to actual receipts Project Reimbursement 10,578 84,633 130,000 '03 is for Mill Creek Circle,'O1 &'02 are radio tower reimbursements Interest Income & Other 360,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Total Revenue 9,644,161 7,169,013 11,793,978 5,086,405 4,533,385 8,180,594 10/11/2001 CIP 5Yr2002-2006 15 3:00 PM Capital Projects Fund Five Year Summary of Revenue and Expenditures Allocation of Sales Tax to CPF 43% 29% 26% 24% 21% 43% Estimated Budget 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Project Information Expenditures: Equipment Purchases Fire Truck Replacement 653,228 485,000 Replace trucks at the end of their useful lives Fire truck for new station 400,000 Truck for new station included with building Document Imaging 117,720 120,000 Estimate to provide imaging hardware and software town wide (implementation staff not included) Snow Plow 49,297 Snow plow and sander for frontage road maintenance, only required if we take over maintenance of frontage roads 3rd Sheet of Ice 239,557 GPS System for Buses 280,000 150,000 150,000 375,000 In'04-'05 Outlying and sheltered stops,'06 replacement Technology Upgrade 50,000 - 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Allocate a portion of capital projects fund to keep up with technology Software & Hardware Upgrades 166,713 179,135 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 Replacement of PC's Web Page Development/Ecommerce 180,000 25,000 100,000 Web page development and future credit card payments Laptop project for PD 60,000 70,000 Laptops in police vehicles Radio Svstem 155.789 - 2 new stations and radio towers. Towers are partially reimbursed Less Project Reimbursement in'01 &'02 (x5 ' l 1 )Intormational adjustment only to show net cost. Subtotal uses $S 155,789. Net Cost (,0,578 Infomlational adjustment only to show net cost. Subtotal uses SSl55.789. Bus Ramp \ Wheelchair Lift 50,869 Repower Buses 152,000 126,000 44,000 Replace transmissions and engines to extend useful life Replace Buses 2.495.000 1,300,000 1,175,000 Replace huses at end of useful lives for outlying routes onlv Less projected grant ,,L »ements (6x2,625) (3¢0fl00) (_'3400()) Iniim moonal adjustment only to shoe- net cost. Subtotal u>es $2,S00,000_ etc; Net cost to replace buscs 1,7o2,375 1,000,000 945,000 Infonnatiunaladjustment only toshow netcost. Subtotaluses$_',S9b,00©,etc. 800 MHz radio system 152,372 152,372 152,372 Principal and interest payments to lease purchase radios in 1998 Subtotal Equipment Purchases 2,155,545 3,041,507 2,204,372 1,651,000 935,000 619,000 10/11/2001 CIP 5Yr 2002-2006 16 2:52 PM Capital Projects Fund Five Year Summary of Revenue and Expenditures Allocation of Sales Tax to CPF 43% 29% 26% 24% 21% 43% Estimated Budget 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Project Information Capital Maintenance Bus Shelter Replacement 26,000 10,000 30,000 10,000 30,000 10,000 Replace 1 old shelter each year and add a new one every other year Bear Proof Trash Containers 0 40,000 In the Village Capital Street Maintenance 474,150 830,000 725,000 740,000 890,000 932,000 Preventive maintenance, patching, overlays and seal coats Subtotal Capital Maintenance 500,150 840,000 795,000 750,000 920,000 942,000 Street Reconstruction Lupine Dr. 34,459 Vail Road 99,417 Vail Valley Drive - Design 100,000 75,000 VV Drive Golden Peak to Sunburst, and Mill Creek Circle, with bike lane Vail Valley Drive - 1st Phase 340,000 Reconstruct Vail Valley Drive in segments Soccer Field to Ptarmigan 800,000 Reconstruct Vail Valley Drive in segments Ptarmigan East to Sunburst 708,750 Reconstruct Vail Valley Drive in segments Mill Creek Circle 705,000 Less Project Reimbursement (130,000) Pntbrmational adjustment only to show net cost. Subtotal uses $705,000. Net cost' 705,000 h4olmational adjustment only to show net cost, Subtotal uses$705,000. West Third of East Vail 210,000 2,310,000 Bridge Rd, Columbine Dr, Spruce Way, Spruce Dr, Meadow Dr, Juniper Ln Middle Third of East Vail 210,000 Reconstruct East Vail in segments Subtotal Street Reconstruction 233,876 75,000 1,845,000 708,750 210,000 2,520,000 10/1 CIP 5Yr 2002-2006 17 1/20 2:52 PM M Capital Projects Fund Five Year Summary of Revenue and Expenditures Allocation of Sales Tax to CPF 43% 29% 26% 24% 21% 43% Estimated Budget 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Project Information Buildings & Improvements Library Building Remodel 75,000 80,000 145,000 500,000 Remodel of the Library Building, Community Room and Public Restrooms Medians in Frontage Road 50,000 550,000 From roundabout to Blue Cow chute, includes signing, lighting and landscaping -adds maintenance costs - discuss moving to RETT New Fire Station 100.000 180,000 4,400,000 Study & review prior studies in 2001; construction in 2002 Less projected GOP revenue _ (4.400,000) Informational adjustment onI to s Net cost J Y how nee -,L ~,abtotal uses lntormational a;llu -ime I ~t ,,nl, to show nct cost Subtotal uses K4(:1 nrr0_ Municipal Site Design 30,000 Fiber Optics in Buildings 100,000 Dobson Ice Arena 50,000 VRD - to expand capacity Way Finding Improvements 559,669 50,000 Includes signs in town, on I-70, and in parking structures - adds maintenance. Entry sign is budgeted in 2005 Town Shop Imp - Storage Project 750,000 Replace the storage at old town shops Town Shop Imp - Retaining Wall 100,000 Design of back retaining wall to create space for expansion Donovan Park Pavilion 55U00 2,650,000 $1.7 million funded from CPF, $1,5 million from GF Community Facility - Financing 58,456 Community Facility - Hub Site 235,000 To design the facility at the Hub site. VRD to share in $66,249 of the cost. Parking Structure improvements 502,547 410,000 435,000 535,000 440,000 450,000 Various Parking Structure Improvements General Facility Improvements 225,000 304,000 305,000 324,000 260,000 450,000 Various Facility Capital Improvements Subtotal Bldgs / Improvemts 2,385,672 4,424,000 5,435,000 1,909,000 700,000 1,000,000 Streetscape Projects West & East Meadow Drive 250,000 400,000 735,000 1,323,000 Construct Streetscape plan, drainage lighting public art and landscaping - adds maintenance from Library to Fire Station Subtotal Streetscape Projects 250,000 400,000 735,000 1,323,000 0 0 - CIP 5Yr 2002-2006 18 10/11/2001 2:52 PM Capital Projects Fund Five Year Summary of Revenue and Expenditures Allocation of Sales Tax to CPF 43% 29% 26% 24% 21% 43% Estimated Budget 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Project Information Housing Program Mountain Bell Housing 250,000 Legal, planning, & public relations for start-up costs Creekside EHU's 139,196 Improvements to Creekside water system EHU for TOV Rental Pool 378,286 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Estimates for rental units, not'for sale' units Arosa Garmisch Units 270,000 To Finish Project Ruins 2,100,000 Less sale proectcd in 20(13 (Z,(Hl(t,000) Informational adjustment only t h n~ „a cost Subtotal uses $ J w,,'0oo. Net cost 100000 Informational adjustment only to sh(m net coat. Subtotal uses .S2.1 Ot1,000. Buy-Down Program 1.100.000 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 Purchase Price of Deed Restricted Units, Includes $100k Subsidy Less projected Buy Down revenue- (1.000,000) (1,000,000) (1.000,000) 000.000) (1,000,000) (1.000.000) Informational adjustment only to show net cost. Subtotal uses $1,100,000. Net cost 100,000 1001,000 1 n0.000 100.000 1 n4000 100.000 Informational adjustment only to show net cost. Subtotal uses SI,100,000. Subtotal Housing Program 2,137,482 3,200,000 1,350,000 1,350,000 1,350,000 1,350,000 Other Improvements ADA Compliance 30,000 Allocate money for unspecified projects Lionshead Master Plan 213,395 Design costs to implement Town improvements Lionshead Financing 25,000 To Implement the Lionshead Improvements Parking Study 11,238 Transportation Studies 9,186 Street Light Improvement Program 75,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Add new street lights and refurbish residential lighting program Infrastructure Improvements 70,000 From Vail Today suggestions Drainage Improvements 100,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Continue implementation of drainage master plan Subtotal Other Improvements 463,819 170,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 Total before Transfers 8,126,544 12,150,507 12,514,372 7,841,750 4,2659000 6,581,000 1011112001 5Yr 2002-2006 19 2: 552 PM 2 PM Capital Projects Fund Five Year Summary of Revenue and Expenditures Allocation of Sales Tax to CPF 43% 29% 26% 24% 21% 43% Estimated Budget 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Project Information Transfer for Debt Service 2,324,908 2,328,929 2,334,053 2,332,153 2,331,703 2,331,703 To fund debt service on all Town bonds Debt Service on COP 368,189 368,189 368,189 368,189 Financed $4.4 million @ 5.5%, 20years. LTotal Expenditures 10,451,452 14,479,436 159216,614 10,542,092 6,964,892 9,2809892 Revenue Over (Under) Expenditures (807,291) (7,310,423) (3,422,636) (5,455,687) (2,431,507) (1,100,298) Ending Fund Balance 7,817,194 506,771 (2,915,865) (8,3719552) (10,803,059) (11,903,358) 10/11/2001 CIP 5Yr 2002-2006 20 2:52 PM Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund Five Year Summary of Revenue and Expenditures 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Project Information Revenue Real Estate Transfer Tax 2,900,000 2,500,000 2,900,000 2,900,000 2,900,000 2,900,000 Golf Course Lease 113,417 117,387 121,496 125,748 130,149 134,704 Lottery Revenue 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 Project Reimbursement 175,000 Red Sandstone School/Soccer Field Land Exchange Proceeds 296,500 296,500 Interest Income & Other 400,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 Recreation Amenity Fee 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 Total Revenue 4,032,917 3,151,887 3,259,496 3,263,748 3,268,149 3,272,704 10/11/2001 RETT CPSYr 2002-2006 21 2:52 PM r Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund Five Year Summary of Revenue and Expenditures 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Project Information Expenditures Annual Maintenance RETT Collection Costs 87,000 87,000 87,000 87,000 87,000 87,000 Collection fee remitted to the General Fund Rec Path Capital Maintenance 195,000 125,000 130,000 135,200 140,608 146,232 Capital maintenance of the town's rec path system Alpine Garden Support 38,500 56,460 56,460 56,460 56,460 56,460 For maintenance of gardens Tree Planting & Pine Beetle Control 100,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 Provide additional trees to Vail's public areas Street Furniture Replacement 20,000 20,000 20,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 Newspaper boxes in 2000 and replace, add street furniture Black Gore Creek Sand Mitigation 21,000 Bear Proof Containers 17,000 18,00() 9,500 10,000 In the parks Donovan Park Operating Costs 67,500 135,000 141,750 148,838 156,279 Maintenance of pavilion and fields Park, Path & Landscape Maintenance 737,732 775,545 806,567 838,829 872,383 907,278 Ongoing path, park and open space maintenance Subtotal Maintenance 1,199,232 1,208,505 1,313,027 1,353,739 1,400,288 1,438,250 10/11/2001 RETT CPSYr 2002-2006 22 2:52 PM Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund Five Year Summary of Revenue and Expenditures 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Project Information Recreation Path/Trail Development North Trail 85,000 Construction of trail from Red Sandstone Creek to Middle Creek Trail Signs 90,000 25,000 Create improved way finding to parks and trailheads Trailhead Development 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Improve trailheads N. Frontage Rd. ( School to Interchange) 500,000 Create a separated path from the pedestrian overpass to the north side of the main interchange in conjunction w/ Mtn Bell N. Frontage Rd. ( Timberidge to 450,000 Reconstruct the existing at-grade path as a separated path from Buffehr Cr.) Timberidge to the Brandess Building Katsos Ranch Bike Path Restoration & 55,000 Repair the path where washouts occur each year. Soft Service By-Pass Lionshead Nature Trail/Middle Creek 475,000 Construct the trail as part of the Lionshead and Open Lands Master Plans, includes bridge Gold Peak to Soccer Field 335,000 Bike paths - portion of Vail Valley Drive Project Soccer Field to Ptarmigan 375,000 Bike paths - portion of Vail Valley Drive Project Ptarmigan East to Sunburst 682,500 Bike paths - portion of Vail Valley Drive Project Frontage Road Bike Trail 500,000 550,000 Construct widened 6' shoulders along all frontage roads; first priority is Blue Cow Chute to East Vail, Phase 1 Subtotal Pathways 250,000 45,000 2,155,000 1,202,500 570,000 20,000 10/11/2001 RETT CPSYr 2002-2006 23 2:52 PM Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund Five Year Summary of Revenue and Expenditures 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Project Information Park Capital Maintenance Irrigation Control 76,505 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Last year of automating the town's irrigation system + raw water Bighorn Park - Safety Imp 60,000 Bring the playground and park up to current playground safety standards Red Sandstone Park -Safety Imp Bring the playground and park up to current playground safety standards Stephen's Park 46,401 Stream stabilization project Pirate Ship Park - Safety Imp Bring the playground and park up to current playground safety standards Public Art 9,100 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Additional amount for projects. $ l OK is for 10 hours of coordinator Ford Park Projects: Gore Creek Trail 100,000 Completion by June 2002 of School House Accesible Garden & Children's Garden expansion Central Trash 60,000 Consolidation of a central trash dumpster location for all the park users East Road 1,500,000 Re-engineer east path for access Nature Center Bridge Replacement 300,015 Subtotal Capital Maintenance 652,021 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,675,000 10/11/2001 RETT CP5Yr 2002-2006 24 2:52 PM Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund Five Year Summary of Revenue and Expenditures 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Project Information Park Development Buffehr Cr Park Expansion 1,354 Complete construction of the Buffehr Creek Park with tot lot and possible rest room and natural area Ford Park Playground Improvements 39,574 Finish project started in 1999 Donovan Park - Community Facility 3,500,000 2,500,000 Complete Project White Water Park 75,000 Finish project Gore Creek Promenade Bridge 25,000 Design in '01 Red Sandstone School Soccer Site 350,000 Complete construction Ellefson Park Development 176,389 Complete park at Arosa Garmisch Lionshead Park 100,000 690,000 Construction of a park to replace the Lionshead Park and meet the needs of the Lionshead Master Plan Booth Creek Park Redevelopment 830,000 Revamp the park Subtotal Park Development 4,167,317 2,600,000 690,000 0 830,000 0 10/11/2001 RETT CP5Yr 2002-2006 25 2:52 PM Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund Five Year Summary of Revenue and Expenditures 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Project Information Open Lands Butell 400,000 Land identified in the Open Lands Plan for acquisition to preserve open space located at the end of Willow Way Matterhorn Circle 350,000 Land identified in the Open Lands Plan for acquisition to preserve open space located at the end of Willow Way Snowberry 135,000 Land identified in the Open Lands Plan for acquisition to preserve open space located at the end of Snowberry Drive Open Space Acquisition 150,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 Unallocated land acquisition Subtotal Open Lands 500,000 500,000 535,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 Project Management 85,000 68,584 72,013 75,614 79,395 83,364 Funds a landscape architect/project manager to complete the projects Debt Service Total Projects 6,853,570 4,597,089 4,940,040 3,306,853 3,554,683 3,716,614 Revenue Over (Under) Expenditures (2,820,653) (1,445,202) (1,680,544) (43,105) (286,534) (443,910) Beginning Fund Balance 7,762,562 4,941,909 3,496,707 1,816,163 1,773,057 1,486,524 Ending Fund Balance 4,941,909 3,496,707 1,816,163 1,773,057 1,486,524 1,042,614 10/11/2001 RETT CP5Yr 2002-2006 26 2:52 PM TOWN OF VAIL 2002 BUDGET SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES BY FUND AND INTERFUND TRANSFERS AND CHARGES 2uol N)l Original AmcndcAl 2002 FUND Actual Budget 13udgct Bud,,et General Fund 18,048,723 19,110,219 19,754,265 20,675,725 Capital Projects Fund 9,270,671 10,421,030 10,451,452 14,479,436 Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund 3,102,176 12,661,232 6,853,570 4,597,089 Vail Marketing Fund 326,562 336,700 336,700 336,700 Debt Service Fund 2,321,431 2,324,908 2,324,908 2,328,929 Heavy Equipment Fund 1,661,373 2,275,541 2,365,144 1,932,522 Health Insurance Fund 1,533,962 1,703,660 1,703,660 1,750,078 Dispatch Services Fund 1,178,773 1,287,318 1,287,318 1,351,030 IlTotal Before Interfund Transfers 37,443,671 50,120,608 45,077,017 47,451,509 Less Interfund Charges & Transfers 5,738,724 6,024,192 6,024,192 6,065,089 INET EXPENDITURE BUDGET 31,704,947 44,096,416 39,052,825 41,386,420 Interfund Transfers and Charges: Transfer to Debt Service Fund 2,288,506 2,324,908 2,324,908 2,328,929 Heavy Equipment Fund Charges 1,569,530 1,785,638 1,785,638 1,628,532 RETT Collection Costs 87,000 87,000 87,000 Information Services Charge 30,000 30,000 30,000 Health Insurance Charge 1,036,707 1,323,000 1,323,000 1,526,114 Dispatch Services Charge 843,981 473,646 473,646 464,514 I1TOTAL INTERFUND CHARGES AND TRANSFERS 5,738,724 6,024,192 6,024,192 6,065,089 summaryofexpenditures.xls 27 10/11/2001 TOWN OF VAIL 2002 BUDGET SUMMARY OF REVENUE BY FUND AND INTERFUND TRANSFERS AND CHARGES 5 ^ !UO Gri~~~n;~l A~r~~nded ~(?O2 P'UND ' ,:mal BudgA~t Buel~~cl I3~td~;et General Fund 19,120,357 19,254,911 19,584,196 20,675,725 Capital Projects Fund 8,240,828 9,461,608 9,644,161 7,169,013 Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund 6,094,639 6,361,417 4,032,917 3,151,887 Vail Marketing Fund 354,854 336,700 336,700 336,700 Debt Service Fund 2,328,052 2,324,908 2,324,908 2,328,929 Heavy Equipment Fund 1,807,429 2,063,769 2,063,769 1,745,259 Health Insurance Fund 1,269,280 1,578,660 1,578,660 1,750,078 Dispatch Services Fund 1,249,887 1,316,402 1,316,402 1,382,354 IlTotal Before Interfund Transfers 40,465,326 42,698,375 40,881,713 _ 38,539,945 Less Interfund Charges & Transfers 5,738,724 6,024,192 6,024,192 6,065,089 INET REVENUE BUDGET 34,726,602 36,674,183 34,857,521 32,474,856 Interfund Transfers and Charges: Transfer from Capital Projects Fund 2,288,,506 2,324,908 2,324,908 2,328,929 Heavy Equipment Fund Charges 1,569,530 1,785,638 1,785,638 1,628,532 RETT Collection Costs 87,000 87,000 87,000 Information Services Charge 30,000 30,000 30,000 Health Insurance Charge 1,036,707 1,323,000 1,323,000 1,526,114 Dispatch Services Charge 843,981 473,646 473,646 464,514 I1TOTAL INTERFUND CHARGES AND TRANSFERS 5,738,724 6,024,192 6,024,192 6,065,089 summaryofrevenue.xls 28 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager RE: Town Manager's Report DATE: October 16, 2001 Jet Center Buildinq At the request of several members of the Council, several of our public works managers went down and looked at the Jet Center terminal building which is scheduled to be removed in the near future. There was some thought that this building might be useful to the town for the expansion necessary to accommodate storage when we transfer the old public works shops to the Water and Sanitation District. The Public Works staff toured the building available at the Vail Jet Center and report the building will not work for the purpose. The biggest hurdle is the roof snow load of this building being 40 pounds per square foot and the Town of Vail Building Code requires 80 pounds per square foot in Vail. Modification of the buildings structural capability would be a large undertaking even if it could be done. There are a multitude of windows and openings, which would require a complete residing. The third issue is there is only a 12-foot side height. This leaves doors at 10', which makes the use of loaders as forklifts as we operate today inoperable. I believe it would be more cost effective to add onto to the existing shop, or design a new stand alone building which meets the building code and operating procedures of the Department, than to retro this particular building. CAST Meetinq At long last, I have the correct information regarding the meeting of the Colorado Association of Ski Towns. As indicated on the attached agenda, this meeting will be held on October 25 - 26. As indicated on the agenda, there is a dinner at the Minturn Country Club on Thursday, the 25th, and the meeting itself will begin at 8:00 A.M. and adjourn at approximately noon. As I have indicated to you, I believe this is an excellent opportunity for you to meet your colleagues and peers in the other ski towns and we encourage you to attend if possible. Please let me know so I can provide Bill Efting with a head count. Donovan Park... the Seauel At the Council's direction, we have been working to value engineering at the Donovan Park Pavilion to bring it in at the original budget of $2.5 million. It is our expectation that this work will take several months and the Council will be in a position to decide early next year how to proceed with this phase of the project. The balance of the project is the park, soccer field, restrooms and associated amenities with the park. Attached to this memorandum is a letter from Chris Squadra concerning the park section of this project. As indicated in the letter, the GMP amount not to exceed is $3,422.00 and the completion date for this work is September 15, 2002. The scope of work is outlined in the letter, essentially finishing this park with the only outstanding piece being the pavilion. This amount ($3,422,000) is within the project budget for this portion of this project. We are asking authorization to enter into a contract with J. L. Viele to complete this section of the project. UPCOMING ITEMS: October 23. 2001. Work Session Develop Review Fees Discussion DRB/PEC Report October 31. 2001 - 5th Tuesdav. No Meetinq November 6. 2001. Work Session Appeal of Gateway Repaint November 6. 2001. Evenina Meetinq AIPP Strategic Plan Election Results OCT-_ 2-01 T(3' 10:58 AM CAST FAX NO, 970 927 8456 P. 1/ 6 PLEASE DISTRIBUTE DA'Z'E: October 2, 2001 TO: CAST Mayors, Managers, Finance Directors FROM: Jacque Whitsitt RE: Minturn CAST Meeting October 25-26 As you know, I will be out of town until the day of the meeting. 'tease bring your packet with you, as this is the only one you will receive. You've been great on the early RSVP's. Nearly every town is comingM! If at this point, you still need to RSVP or have major changes in dinner head count, please call Bill Efting on 970-748-4072. OCT-,2-01 TVE 10:58 AM CAST FAX NO. 970 927 8456 P, 2/ 6 AGENDA Colorado Association of Ski Towns Minturn October 25-26, 2001 Thursdav, 6:00 PM Cocktails and Dinner Minturn Country Club Fridav Minturn Town Hall 7:OOAM Breakfast at Minturn Inn (for those staying there) S:OUAM Nick Teverbaugh, CAST President (PLEASE) Welcome and Call to Ordcr Introduce Montrose 8:15 Approval of August 24 Minutes Approval of Financial Statement 80.20 Updates/Old Business 8:30 Mayor Flaherty/Alan Lanning: Welcome to Minturn 8:45 Resort Economics: Today and Tomorrow Ford Fric"BC Research Ian Thomas-pending confirmation 11:00 What's Happening in Your Town/Tour of Town Hall 12:00 or later ADJOURN OCT- 2-01 TIDE 10;59 AM CAST FAX NO. 970 927 8456 P, 3/ 6 Colorado Association of Ski Towns Steamboat Springs, Colorado August 24, 2001 MINUTES Nick Teverbaugh, President called the meeting to order. There was a motion, second and unanimous approval of the minutes. There was a motion, second and unanimous approval of the financial statement, President Pro-Tern Kathy Connell welcomed CAST to Steamboat and turned the floor over to Wendy DuBord for a presentation on the planning, history and construction of Steamboat's new town hall. Affordable Housina/HB 1172; Nick explained the affordable housing enabling legislation. School Finance: There was discussion on Al White's bill that would allow for COLA to increase funding for school districts outside the constraints of equalization. Jacque agreed to contact Summit County for more information as they are proposing to implement this bill, Jim Spehar, Grand Junction council and Rural Resort Region invited CAST to hold our meeting there in 2002. He also invited CAST members to the RRR Immiaration Summit in Snowmass Villaae beina held SeutPmber 19-21. RRR is also sponsoring community meetings on regional revenue sharing and he would like to present the outcomes at the October CAST meeting. RETT Chuck Stearns outlined the work of the RETT subcommittee. Ken Brenner told the group about a conversation he had with Senator Pascoe, who may be willing to the sponsor the referendum. Chuck solicited input from the group regarding whether to include earmarking language in the bill. Jim Spehar said that if we don't include our preference for earmarking In the bill, the legislature will include theirs. He also suggested that we broaden our sponsorship. Ken Brenner suggested that one whereas might be "for redistribution of taxes". Bill Efting suggested a meeting of the potential partner organizations who would help us with the bill at the Legislature. Chuck Stearns suggested contacting the groups individually first, then having a larger meeting of all the groups once they are in Denver. Jim Spehar suggested that we obtain Input on the draft referendum from groups such as CIVIL, CCI and potential sponsors. This needs to be completed by December. Jacque will contact the RETT towns for information to be included in an educational white paper. PLEASE ASSIST IN GETTING THIS INFO BACK TO ME ASAP. 1 OCT- 2-01 TUE 10:59 AM CAST FAX NO, 970 927 8456 P. 4/ 6 Ma C12 Jacque provided a brief report on the MgC12 report. It will be complete by the end of September. Nick Teverbaugh summarized the July Executive Committee Conference call. The group agreed that CAST should do more information sharing and less lobbying. Other ideas suggested by the group for future CAST meetings: • Include industry professionals for Information on trends and future economics • Joint meetings of department heads • Use more subcommittees for specific issues • Possible speakers Ford Frick, Chris Cares, Ian Thomas, NWCCOG • Focus on the economics of skling-invite skicos to participate In panel discussions regarding the impacts of a flat industry and future direction Nick reminded the group that issues of skiing are really Issues of development, le Intrawest's $850M revenues are only 21% lift tickets VA's $550M are only 25-26% lift tickets lntrawest brings people to the resort 3-4 times, not for the skiing potential, but to close real estate deals. Future meetings are tentatively scheduled for: October 25-26- Minturn Results of Immigration Summit and Revenue Sharing Town Meetings--Rural Resort Region Bring HR Directors? Januarv 2,4-25i--- Cre ted Butte not confirmed) or Frisco Ford Frick/ Ian Thomas Bring Finance Directors March 21.22--------Denver----Legislative Efforts June--------CML In Breckenridae Auciust 22-23-------- Asoen-Snowmass (not confirmed) or Winter Park Affordable Housing October 24-25-•-----Grand Junction Other Suaaesteo Aaenoe Items (if yqu were not at the meetina. nlPese contact me with other Ideasl: • Michael Manchester presentation on council resort tour • Air service issues - Include Club 20 OCT-, 2-01 TU 11:00 AM CAST FAX NO. 970 927 8456 P. 5/ 6 • Water issues--Colorado Water Congress, QQ (Amicus brief on the golden case), others Montrose The membership approved of the Executive Committee recommendation to invite Montrose to join CAST. What's Haaaenina in Your Town? • Tim Gagen-Breckenridge invited economics experts and ski companies to discuss the dynamics of the market and future direction • Michael Manchester-rethinking identity and futures issues such as merging resort marketing functions, affordable housing funded by excise subsidies, air service issues-ACRA could speak at a future meeting • Arianthe Stettner--Steamboat will have a ballot question for November called "Transportation 1-2-3"-1% on restaurant meals, 2% on outdoor rec rentals (summer and winter) and 3% on lift tickets--proceeds for transit and airline subsidy. Total of $2.9M. • Chuck Stearns--Mt Crested Butte dealing with contentious annexation of ski area. The skico threatened to scale down because they felt the exactions were too onerous. The skico implemented cutbacks and the town lost 20% of sales tax revenue over 3 to 4 year, along with a shortened season and requests for airline subsidies. • Jim Spehar-Grand Junction also doing vision process--driven by the community, not government. Other issues include convention remodel project, St. Mary's Hospital undergoing large expansion, retail boom in GJ. • Bill Efting---Avon: Vail-Beaver Creek Bike Championships September 7th thru Sunday, September 16th. The 15th and 16th are the finals and would be a great opportunity for CAST towns to observe the races. • Nick Teverbaugh--Winter Park's big issue is who Denver will pick as a partner in the ski area and whether they will be able to negotiate a contract with them. Also trying to get a conference center and have acquired land for affordable housing project--single and duplex configuration. CML MEETING NOTICE: TRANSPORTATION COMM[ i i tE ON SEPTEMBER 11 FROM 9:30 TO 3:30. RSVP TO CEE OR KATHLEEN ON 303-831-6411 NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, SEP 7. FOR. A COPY OF THE AGENDA, CALL CIVIL OR ME. All that being said, the meeting was adjourned. CC) CAST CASH FLOW--10-1-01 by Month 1oz c~ 1!1101 Fhm ah 10/2101 pag O1IERALL Cl 1:,d..1 D.-. i p .LM VIM 2!7101 311M 417/'01 Shill 511'01 7lt11D7 8610! 9Jim 1017107 TOTAL mlFt~aws . Dun : is 13,457.00 t7,797.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UO 0.00 0.00 31,254.OC lntfnc 22.91 62.24 Q00 91.37 28.11 0.00 53.83 0,00 25.44 0.00 284.90 Rs1~riburswmts 0.00 560.00 0.00 1,568.00 0.00 2,467.25 0.00 0.0D 2,385.00 0.00 6,970.?; c~ A InAows 4,47507 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,475,07 ~n 0o TOTALINFLOM 17,954.98 18,409.24 QDD 1,65937 28.11 Z,467.25 53.83 0.00 2.411.44 0.00 42,964.22 ~ OUTFLOWS 0 C37) -A( AOcountinp Error 0.00 -600.00 Q00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.00 0.00 -wD.OC 8enh Chrg 18.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.00 Dues OM 175.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00 O.OD O,OD 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.00 o Legislative OAO 1,fi97.59 560.00 1,500.00 950.00 30D.00 50.00 O,OD 0.00 0.00 5,047.56 Meeting COSts 1,025.00 19315 5.253.75 Q00 0.00 1,44&03 0.00 987.62 105.00 O,OD 9,C1255 x Mileage 0.00 0.00 70.68 114.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.DO 0.00 185.38 cam=. mist 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0100 0.00 0.00 225.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 325.00 Office costs 62.85 0.00 123.20 73.71 9.94 4.48 1246 36.26 125.61 0.00 448.59 OtherE.*."-- D_00 15.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 QDO 0.00 0.00 15.00 Staff Contract 0.00 2,200.00 1,200600 1,175.00 400.00 725.00 1,125.00 1.050.00 3,449.00 D.00 11,324.00 Telephone 53.25 51.23 133.48 164.44 40.45 0.00 46.76 53.54 267.87 D.OD 811.12 Unc..., Fwd Ou7 mm 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.00 D_00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T07ALOIPFFLOWS 9,159,10 3,831.97 7,331.11 3,027.85 1,400.39 2,477.61 1,459.22 2,127.42 4,047.58 OAO 26,88215 l/ 1 O1IERALLTOTAL 18,795.88 14,577.27 -7,331.11 -1,358.48 -1.37223 -1026 -1,405,39 -2,127.42 •1,636.14 0.00 16,)22.07 E-- Q 0 0 0 N 0 Architectural Resource Consultants, Inc. 4440 Arapahoe Ave_ ¦ Suite 220 ¦ Raulder, CO $0303 0(3031443-03300(303)443-t SOS i Mr. Robert McLaurin October 12, 2001 Town Manager Town of Vail 135 Frontage Road Vail, CO 80 Dear Bob: ARC has reviewed the latest detailed estimate and schedule from J. L. Viele Construction, Inc. and has the following contract information summary, per your request: • The amount for JLV's contract will beat or below $3,422,000, which is very comfortably below the amount carried in the RETT-funded portion of the budget for this work. • The completion date for the work of the contract is 15 SEP 02. This contract for Phase 1 B work, together with the work completed under the Phase 1A will complete the following scope: • Earthwork & retaining walls • Site utilities • Soccer field • Restrooms • Pedestrian bridge • Parking lot & other, non-pavilion related vehicular paving • Concrete\asphalt walks and other non-pavilion related pedestrian paving • Landscaping, irrigation and site lighting not associated with the pavilion The contract amount will be increased only in the event the above scope as currently defined is increased by the Onwer, and contingency in the current, approved budget is available. Please feel free to call me with any questions you, or others at the ToV may have, and let me know what ARC can do to be of further assistance. Sincerely, Chris Squadra Via: Email cc: Tim Brekel Todd Oppenheimer Greg Hall Y MINUTES REGULAR MEETING VAIL PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT d/b/a VAIL RECREATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 9:00 A. M. Tuesday, September 18, 2001 Vail Golf Club House, Seasons at the Green Restaurant 1778 Vail Valley Drive MEMBERS PRESENT Hermann Staufer, Ross Davis, Nancy Stevens, Tom Saalfeld, Chris Moffet (Partial) TOV COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT Diana Donovan STAFF PRESENT Bob Trautz, Jim Heber, Wendy Cheff, Randy Houseman, Tom Gaylord, Lisa Isom, Jean McGuey, Kari Corbin, Jim Myers, Jim Sanders, Sean Riley, Mike Ortiz OTHERS PRESENT Colleen McCarthy, Len Bloom, Brian Wagner, Nino Liccardi, Anne Mardis, John Zahner, Michael Cacioppo CALL TO ORDER Hermann Staufer called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. and asked for a moment of silence in memory of last week's tragedy. All members of the Board are present. PUBLIC INPUT Brian Wagner noted that it has been a hectic week but we all have to go on and lead our lives, and not let this tragedy change our lives. Reported that Randy presented a new fee schedule to the Golf Committee last week and it generated a lot of conversation that was positive. Believes that this is a real opportunity for the VRD to do some constructive and positive things within the community and to get morale on the golf course to a new high. We have all underestimated how important it is to have an enthusiastic and positive membership at the core of golf course - the local taxpayers. This is what the VRD is to do - to create a great recreational opportunity within the community. Brian stated that he believes opening up the golf course to Eagle County residents is a great idea, and it will bring back people who originally were members. However, it could also dilute the availability of tee times for taxpayers. Recommended creating a new 4-day (96 hour) prior call-in period for local passholders and have the first opportunity at tee times, including two prime tee times (9 am-noon) every day. This would allow 1 the Board to make local taxpayers feel like they are special, and do have a special place on the golf course that they own and pay taxes to. Doesn't think revenue ramifications would be very great. League play has its own set of problems. Allowing league play only every other week very adversely affects league play, and Vail is the only course in the valley that does that. It was done for revenue reasons. Stated that the mill levy increase this December will be much higher than budgeted, allowing more funds for the golf course and should allow more league play. Every golf course throughout the country has league play, again to create a nucleus of local people that are enthusiastic about golf and can spread that enthusiasm throughout the community. League play allows local people to get enthusiastic about golf and weekly play would change the atmosphere in the golf community in a very positive way and offset competition. It is going to be a difficult future, at least for the next year, and this is one positive thing the Board can do. Nino Liccardi reported that the Men's Club has had a successful year until now. Randy and Sean have done a good job and been very supportive. Asked if the VRD Board and Management is adjusting their budget in light of decreasing revenues everywhere? Are they looking at expense lines, and tightening the belt? Why has the punch card fee has not increased along with the pass? Asked the Board to be receptive to what people have to say when they come to the Board with ideas and thoughts, and keep their minds open. Don't just assume that we are the enemy and are going after anything. We're all in it together. Hermann responded that the Board is looking at tightening the belt and there will be changes in the budget. You will see a proposal for passes and ID cards later on, and will address the punch card question at that time. Anne Mardis commented that there was a marked improvement of the Pro Shop and Staff over the previous year, and Randy and Sean have been really helpful with the various Ladies tournaments. Has been on the Golf Advisory Committee and was disappointed after the last Board meeting because the impression she got was that we (the Advisory Committee) were there to give advice and input. The Advisory Committee was scheduled to discuss the fee structure at 5 o'clock one evening and the next day the fee structure was in the Vail Daily. Felt that any input that they gave fell on deaf ears, and several other people at that meeting were really disappointed and felt that it was a total waste of their time. Ken Wilson also stated (at the committee meeting) that it really would be political suicide for the Board to raise rates this year. That was before the tragedy of last week, and no one knows what next year's economy will bring. Last year, she suggested that the Board should lower the rates, estimates that as of July, the Golf Club had taken in $150,000 less than last year, probably 2 because of raising the rates. Why are you considering raising the rates again in a very shaky economy and even shakier going forward? Have there been any further suggestions in regard to a merchant-type golf pass? Lots of the women are asking if they will get their 50% next year. Asked Hermann what happened to the bonds that are being issued. Hermann responded that the bonds would be addressed later on in the meeting. Tom Saalfeld said that he had also attended the Golf Advisory meeting and this is all part of a discussion, and a part of the process of setting fees. He has not had an opportunity to present what was said at the meeting to the other members of the Board. Nothing is set in concrete and Randy has presented a new proposal that will be discussed later. What was published in the paper was a proposal. Hermann added that he expected more proposals to come in and did not think it was likely to set fees on golf today, but has to be set by the first week of November, or before. Chris said that the fees printed in the paper were intended to promote discussion and generate feedback from the community. Stated that she valued input from the community. The Board is not even close to done on setting the fees. John Zahner stated that he looked through the July full-page ad and his understanding of the numbers is that it shows a deficit of about $300,000 in golf course revenues but that the revenues do not include the mill levy, which is about $1.35 million. So this $300,000 is about 20% of the mill levy, so presumes 20% of the mill levy would be used to cover this deficit, but 62% of the general VRD overhead and expenses is charged to the golf course, and that doesn't seem right to him. It seems as if the golf course should get 60% of the mill levy, but only get 20%. Bob said that the numbers were accounting estimates for comparative purposes. In essence there is not 62% of our general administrative expenses allocated out, those expenses go directly into the general fund, and they are funded by taxes. This is what a business would look like in the real world, but the golf course or the VRD are not regular businesses, and that is not how it is reported to State, accountants or anyone else. It is just for comparative purposes. Colleen demanded to know why we can't have proper numbers printed and see actual figures. Hermann replied that the ad was taken out in response to Brian's letter to show what the real overhead would be on the golf course if it were applied, which we have never done via a general allocation. 3 Colleen said that still doesn't answer the question. Why can't true numbers be printed? Hermann stated that the true numbers are approved and certified by the accountants. You can look at the budget - that's the real numbers. Again, the ad was a response to Brian's letter and presented the case of what would happen if the District were to apply the overhead to the golf course, which has never been done. They are not the real numbers, those are in the budget. Colleen accused the Board of distorting numbers, and said that (the ad in) the paper indicates that you have applied overhead to the golf course - that's what you told the taxpayer by printing that in the paper. Hermann repeated that the ad was an effort to show that the District would lose that kind of money - if it were to apply overhead to the golf course. John said again that no taxpayer money has been included in these figures. Taxpayer income is $1.35 million. Hermann replied that that is applied to all the other departments. John insisted that the golf course is getting 20% of that but bringing in 60% of the income. Exasperated, Hermann said that "We could sit here all morning and argue about figures and percentages, but won't get anywhere. If you want to have the real figures, you take our budget, which is certified by a public accountant, and you find where is the percentage I am referring to". The Board has to take the initiative to be sure that we do it legally right, and we have been doing it legally right. If you want the figure of what the overhead percentage is to each and every department, we can do it, but we are not required to do it. Expect to be off in budget this year, because it's not the way it was predicted, and you can come back to look at the figures and question them. If you want to do that, get with Bob, but we are ready to move on to another subject. We responded to something that we were accused of, because we saw it was wrong, and we still think it's wrong. Bob explained again that the tax revenue does not come into the Enterprise Fund, which is where the golf course is. It goes into the General Fund. By law, VRD is not allowed to move an amount more than 10% of the Enterprise Fund revenue, from the General (taxes) into the Enterprise Fund, and we average about 4% a year to cover capital costs. So that's where any taxpayer funds move into the Enterprise Fund. In essence, taxes do not support the golf course. Taxes support the Recreation District and all of the expenses in the General Fund, the Nature Center, Sports, Youth Services and all of those. The Enterprise Fund is not supported by tax revenue, that's the technicality. 4 Hermann repeated that if anyone wants to see figures, they are available. It cannot be done in a meeting. Brian asked to clarify things and be positive, and stated that he never accused the Board of doing anything illegal. His reason for bringing up figures, and to refute the charges that his statements were called "grossly misinformed" were only because figures were being used in error, and he has proved those figures. Talked to the VRD's attorney and he was told that the two funds could not be co-mingled. It was improper to show administrative overhead on the golf course in the ad in the Vail Daily to try and show that the golf course lost money - that's co-mingling figures, and that's inaccurate. He was trying to point out that a lot of things are revenue driven, it's just to be realistic that the golf course is now supporting a bond that's costing $275,000 a year that the Board is now trying to refute. The golf course is paying for it (the bond), and Wells Fargo has offered to come back and explain to the Board that the $3.1 million bond for Dobson Arena is financed and guaranteed by golf course revenues. Everyone has tried to say this was not the case. Addressed Hermann, saying that he himself (Hermann) was concerned that the golf course was taking on too much of the financial responsibility, that the budget was too dependent on golf course revenues. It is hurting the golf course and the participation in the golf course. Believes the VRD will be getting $300,000 more in mill levy this year because the reappraisal last year was so great, there is actually light at the end of the tunnel and the budget is not so bad as has been stated. Bob interjected that this was not the case. Nino said that he thought it was a mistake for the Board to respond in the newspaper to anyone, and hoped that this and future Boards would not respond in such a fashion. The numbers in the ad were what woke him up and prompted his questions regarding tightening the belt. There were some red flags that were published, and should make anyone ask. Colleen questioned why the financial officer of the VRD and the Board members do not believe the figures from the Eagle County Treasurer and the increase in tax revenue, when it was just published on July 25th, and accused the Board of thinking that they are not able to read. Bob replied that the District is not de-Bruced in revenues, meaning that there are limitations on the additional revenue that can be levied in any year - generally 5'/ % more than previous year. Valuation can go up, but it doesn't matter in terms of the revenue the District can receive. Colleen then asked for confirmation of the 10% limit than can be transferred to the Enterprise Fund. Bob confirmed that up to 10% of revenues of the Enterprise Fund can be transferred from the General Fund. Colleen then stated that when the property taxes come out next year, VRD taxpayers should see a substantial decrease in the mill levy amount. 5 Hermann said that that was possible. Bob added that they were looking at de-Brucing next year, like the Town did this year. Colleen then asked "And you believe the taxpayers would trust you to do that"? Bob replied that it wasn't relevant that he be trusted, but rather the Board be trusted as they were elected to be responsible for the running of the District. Colleen then said that was not a personal comment. John again asked about the percentage of tax revenue that can go to the golf course, and Bob again replied that the limit was 10%, and included Dobson Arena and Tennis. The rest of the money stays in the General Fund. John then stated that it was then irrelevant how much money the hotels paid in property tax, and how much claim they had on the golf course. Colleen then stated that the District was de-Bruced in the 1996 election. What does that mean? Bob replied that what was voted on, was that the 2.76 mill levy cannot be increased without voter approval. However, as property value increases, cannot exceed maximum amount that can be levied, or have to decrease the mill levy. The District is allowed to claim a temporary credit, so that if property values stabilize or go down, the mill levy itself would not change. It is a legal procedure. Can ask Jim Collins to come in and explain it at the next meeting. Colleen pointed out that the next meeting was a work session, and it was inappropriate to have Jim Collins at a meeting where the public could not have input. Hermann agreed to inviting Collins to attend the October 9''' meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Hermann asked for approval of the minutes of the August 14r' and 281h meetings. Ross moved to approve, Chris seconded. All voted in favor. 2002 FEES DISCUSSION Bob noted that there were very few fee changes for next year, except for golf, so asked the Board to approve those fees so that he can move forward on the budget. Nancy asked that, when the fees are published in the newspaper, the dollar amounts be shown in all cases, rather than saying "same as last year". Bob agreed. Hermann asked for a motion to approve the 2002 fees with the exception of golf. Chris made the motion, Ross seconded. All voted in favor. 6 GOLF FEES DISCUSSION Ross reviewed the present proposal, which would increase pass revenue by $6-7,000, and increase range pass revenue by $5-8,000. With this increase the course would just be treading water. Stated that staff should have discretion in generating the revenues necessary to run the course. Regarding Wagner's request for 50% of prime tee times, asked staff to research other course's policies, consider abandoning the pass system and moving to a more modern daily system with a local's rate. Stated that his personal philosophy was to let tourists pay for the prime tee times, and keep the local's tee time rates low, but if locals want 50% of those prime times, then they should pay substantially more than they do now. Noted that the Board has received several proposals, and Tom met with the Golf Advisory Committee and reviewed the present proposal. Tom said that he had received input on the present proposal and has been told that it is a bad time to raise rates. Other requests were a 4-day advance reservation period for locals, and weekly league play (see Brian Wagner's comments under the Public Input notes) at an affordable price. Hermann reported that Randy had made a new proposal, which was only received by the Board in time for this meeting. Tom asked for copies to distribute to the golf committee, (these were provided at meeting's end), so that they could digest it, rather than making a decision on it today. Randy reviewed his new proposal. Golf Operations and Maintenance expenses come to $1.5 million per year, and it costs $60 per round (not including administrative expenses which are paid for by the VRD) to run the course. Pass players pay only $30 per round, or $45 with a cart. Needs to make income up somewhere. In the new proposal, VRD taxpayers would pay the lowest rate and outside guests the highest, with a mid-range for Eagle County residents. Price considerations would be given based on time of year and condition of course. Would also tier access to the course. Revenue-wise, Friday is a very important day for the course, and would propose to restrict VRD and Eagle County residents from playing before 12 noon on this day as well. The reason for changing is that Friday, Saturday and Sunday are the busiest days for guest play, but moving the time of restriction back to noon instead of 2:30 p.m. would not affect revenue and would be appreciated by locals. VRD taxpayers would provide tax information and get an ID card. Eagle County residents would have to provide identification and proof of residency. Outside guests would just pay the daily rate. 7 Nancy inquired about the number of rounds played this year and Randy reported that it was now at 22,000. Nancy then asked Randy to pull up the number of passes sold and the number of times played on each pass, before deciding on a particular fee proposal. Chris asked which proposal Randy preferred and he replied that, from an operational standpoint, and pending financial standpoint, he would prefer the daily rate proposal. Hermann noted that Randy is a business manager and not involved politically. Randy can make proposals and tweak them, but the final decision is up to the Board. Randy answered that the original proposal he made was just an update to the existing system, this new proposal was developed at the request of Ross Davis to structure a plan that would work for operations. Tom stated that he personally believes that the Board should maintain the present format, as Randy proposed several weeks ago. Randy's new proposal has a certain logic, but now is not the time to change the system. Randy replied that the new proposal is the way most golf courses are run - it is simpler, easier to manage, and pays for itself. The VRD taxpayer would get an ID card, but instead of paying the pass fees up-front in May and June, would be on a pay-as-you-go basis. Hermann acknowledged that none of the Board had made up their minds but will need to do so in the next two months and need to wait for public input. Brian Wagner objected, saying they just gave public input and the Board disregarded it. Hermann called Brian out of order and said that the Board had just received a new proposal and wants to discuss it among themselves before making any decisions. Ross summarized the different structures presented. The proposal made three weeks ago will balance the budget, but management cannot have a restriction on how many tee times they can sell. They have to have the right to market the course and sell as many tee times as possible to visitors at full price and then locals get the rest after they make budget. Randy reiterated that two things have to be done pending the downturn in the economy - increase rates, and put restrictions on Friday mornings for pass holders. He and Bob have worked hard to decrease' expenses, but without increased income, the golf club is in bad shape. 8 Nancy reported that she had heard from some constituents about not being able to get on the range on Thursday mornings because of mowing. Randy said this was to prepare the range for the highest paying guests on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Jim Myers said it was a three-hour process and took until 10 a.m. Herman suggested that this was an operational decision, and that Randy and Jim should work to find a better time to do the necessary work, and yet not reduce revenues. Hermann summed up by saying that this is a proposal, others might come up with different ideas. They are all worthwhile looking at. But it is time to make a decision. Colleen accused the Board of running off golfers in the last five years, saying that the golf course use is down, but golf is rising in popularity. Demanded to know what has happened. Hermann responded, saying that there is greatly increased competition. He's hearing it from both sides, need to figure out how all can play next year at a reasonable rate, but it can't be free - things are going to change, just trying to do the right things for next year. Have to tighten the belt and go on in a different way. The Board needs the opportunity to talk about the various proposals. Hermann asked Randy to publish his proposal. Also asked him to look at a way to allow passholders more opportunities, to look at an employee pass/merchant pass scenario, and explore further steps. Nino asked for a meeting when it would be appropriate to bring in 75 people to voice their concerns, and asked that the Board listen to them and respect their opinion. Hermann agreed to the first meeting in October. Randy agreed that this is a good idea. Colleen said it didn't seem to matter, because the public has given input, and it has gone in one ear and out the other. Hermann demurred, saying that doesn't mean the Board didn't listen, and they've taken all input under advisement, but decided otherwise in some cases. DOBSON UPDATE Bob reported that the project is scheduled to be finished at the end of the month, and is basically on budget. Has just received documentation from Wells Fargo, asking the Board to refinance the bonds at a very favorable interest rate, averaging 4-3/4 to 5%. Has gotten Moody's rating and insurance for the bonds. The bonds are scheduled to be priced in the next week. Need to act now as rates have come down in the past three months. We are in a prime position, and have all approvals. Asked for a resolution to approve the refinancing. 9 Ross moved to approve the issuance of the Enterprise Revenue Bonds, Series 2001, for the John Dobson Ice Arena. Nancy seconded. Approved by Hermann Staufer, Ross Davis, Tom Saalfeld, and Nancy Stevens. Chris Moffet had left the meeting by this time. Bob added that the original bonds interest rate was 6%2% The new bond issue increases the face amount of debt, however, these bonds are refinancing the 6%2% bonds at a rate slightly under 5%. This favorable rate movement partially offsets the added cost resulting from the larger bond issue. Nancy asked Jim for the status of the capacity issue, as the Town has pledged to help the VRD pay for this. Asked for 50-50 confirmation. Jim replied that was what he had heard. Nelson will continue to work in the building. Bob said that he has a letter from Gary Goodell to allow the capacity to increase to 3,000. Michael Cacioppo asked what percentage of the $3.1 million went to Dobson, and Bob confirmed that that project received the entire amount GYMNASTICS UPDATE Bob reported that he had talked to Gary Fries at the Cascade Resort and they are trying to work out requirements, appropriate rent, etc. Maggie at the Cascade is moving forward in getting a commitment. Hermann commented that this would be a wonderful solution. ADJOURNMENT Ross moved to adjourn at 10:30 a.m. and Tom seconded. Approved unanimously. Next meeting to be October 9". /._--,-Ross Danis; Jr'S~e ary 'edn McGuey, Administrative Assistant j/01 BOD/9-18-01 minutes.doc 10 6 d - ~eachink electiOn IaW + - 3 pus ow a g money, should be spent on testing Nevertheless, he insisted "sev- FUi1dS improperly 'used a mass-transit system that even- eral governmental agencies within for 1710TIOTa11, fOf', Says tually could lead to a 167-mile Colorado are in clear violation" ofr TAINT BLEMISHED SEWING MACHINES! By John Sanko monorail between Denver Inter- the law. national to slight enamel blemishes Necchi Sewing Machine News CapitotBureau Airport and the - Eagle But Hudson, CART executive County Airport. . _ . director, said all of the money )mpany has just released for sale to the public a limited. Nine mountain communities Building a monorail would cost came before the measure was for- imber of new special 2001 HEAVY DUTY Zig Zag sewing may have violated Colorado's an estimated $3.9 billion. mally placed on the ballot by Da- achines that are made of METAL and sew on all fabrics, campaign law by contributing tax- Caldara last week filed a lawsuit vidson on Sept. 5. He questioned payer money to get a $50 million in Denver District Court challeng- whether the Independence Insti- VEN canvas, upholstery, nylon, stretch, vinyl, silk, monorail plan on the Nov. 6 ballot, ing whether proponents had suffi- tute, as a nonprofit agency, had V SEWS ON LEATHER! No attachments needed for an opponent charged Thursday. cient signatures to get on the bal- itself violated campaign laws by attonholes (any size), monograms, hems, sews on buttons, Jon Caldara, president of the lot. The secretary of state's office becoming involved in a political itin stitches, overcasts, darns, appliques and more. Just set Independence Institute in Golden, ruled that monorail supporters issue. als for utility or stretch stitches, including overlook and see filed a complaint with Secretary of had 33 names above the 80,604 Hudson said the cities have iagic happen without old fashioned cams or programmers. State Donetta Davidson chaIleng- signatures needed. No hearing has been paying dues since 1997 into a hese machines are suitable for home, professional or school ing what he said was improper use been set on that challenge. cooperative effort to find ways to >om sewing. 25-year warranty. Your price with ad $199. of nearly $30,000 in taxpayer mon- In his latest action, Caldara unclog the I-70 corridor into the ey. questioned contributions to the mountains. reviously priced at $429.00 Lisa Doran, a spokeswoman for Corridor Alliance for Rapid Tran- Vail City Manager Bob McLaur- the state. elections office, said the sit Solution (CART) by Avon in also dismissed claims that his issue will be referred to an admin- ($2,500), Idaho Springs ($2,500), city or the others had violated the NOW ONLY $199& OO istrative law judge to determine Breckenridge ($5,000), Frisco law. - whether a hearing should be held. ($4,000),. Vail ($9,000), Dillon "We made those contributions )ATE: FRIDAY AND SATURDAY OCT 12 & OCT 13 But Miller Hudson, a leader in ($2,000), Eagle ($1,000), Golden to CART as membership dues; the fight for the ballot issue, called ($400) and Silverthorne ($2,000). he said. "`We have been member's Place: Allyn ,international Corp it just another "bogus" effort by He conceded contributions by since 1997. We were very con Fe N. Santa Fe Drive 303=825-5200 opponents to derail an important Avon and Idaho Springs were scions of the fact they were mem- I0:00am TO 4:00 pm project. made before the issue received a bership dues and not political con'- Voters will decide if surplus ballot title. tributions." 1, 4 Eagle Mine f+ G= A r - Superfund ^s w y; x z j ««x171 ~b`~'`61 cleanup An abandoned railway follows . - the Eagle River- , past the Eagle nears end MA-` Mine south of Minturn. The By Steve Lipsher river is Denver Post Mountain Bureau - J substantially cleaner after a MINTURN - Terry Pierson remem- " hers turning on the tap at home two 14-year, $70 miles south of town and retching at the million thick, orange gunk gushing out. r environmental "It was just a nightmare," she said. - cleanup effort. "It was liquid rock. It was undrinkable. It even would turn our clothing red in r special to The Post the laundry." F Ed Kosmicki s That was the early 1980s, before the state Health Department and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stepped in to force the cleanup of the Eagle Mine site under the federal Su- perfund law, reserved for the most con- taminated spots in the country. The massive cleanup included: the beginning of this cleanup," said dent and senior environmental counsel, . On Friday, the government agencies, ¦ Removing hazardous materials Howard Roitman, who was a project couldn't say whether the cleanup has residents, the mine owner and contrac- from the abandoned mining town of Gil- manager for the Health Department in outstripped the mine's historic earn- tors celebrated a landmark in that 14- man, perched high on Battle Mountain, 1988. ings, but noted that the company had year effort that cost an estimated $70 and the Belden Mine below. And some things didn't go as planned: lost money at other mine sites. million: the completion of heavy con- 0 Plugging the mine to prevent the A disastrous effort to plug the mine re- struction at the site marks the 800th Su- flow of water into the Eagle River and sulted in even higher levels of pollution The mine has had a checkered owner- perfund project to reach that crucial building a pipeline for the overflow. when seeps developed, for example. ship history in recent years and re- threshold - joining a list that includes 0 Moving 100 million tons of mine "We learned how to take some risks mains a scenic ghost town along the notoriously polluted spots such as Love tailings and toxic "roaster" piles, the with some innovative things, and when steep walls of the Eagle River gorge. Canal in upstate New York and Times leftover of the ore-smelter process, into innovations don't work, how to react Once the largest business in Eagle Beach in Missouri - and the Eagle River a giant tailings pile buried to prevent quickly," Roitman said. Count roducin m once again runs clean enough for a further water contamination. The cleanup costs ultimately were y' p g ore than 12 million tons healthy population of fish. ¦ Construction of a water-treatment footed by media conglomerate Viacom of ore, the mine since has become "This addresses the age-old criticism plant,that filters up to 300 gallons each Inc., which took over Gulf & Western a liability. of Superfund, and that is that we never minute before splashing it back into the Inc., the company that operated the It contains an estimated 700 million clean anything up," said Max Dodson, Eagle River., lead-and-zinc, mine when it had as gallons of contaminated water trapped the EPA's assistant regional adminis- ¦ Restoring the Maloit Park wet- many as 400 employees during its hey- inside some 70 miles of underground trator for ecosystem protection. lands, once destroyed by the red muck day from 1966 to 1983. tunnels, creating the stark environmen- N, "There's no major conduction left brought downstream from t1t mine. Noting that the wate.^-treatment tal hazards that prompted Coloraflo of- - to be done at the site. Tha 1s; a moms= "There were an enormous number of plant costs about $750,000`annually to ficials to nomiiiate it among the state's mental achievement." issues that had to be worked through at operate, Jeff Groy, Viacom's vice presi- first Superfund sites. 1VWiV Ur VA1L Input/Inquiry Response Record The attached comments were recently received by the Town of Vail. We encourage Vail residents and guests to give us such input and we strive for timely responses. PLEASE VV ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS WITHIN FIVE WORKING DAYS AND RETURN THIS COMPLETED FORM TO PAM BRANTDMEYER. DEPARTVIENT TO HANDLE INQUIRY INDIVIDUAL TO HANDLE INQUIRY _4ak DATE TOV RECEIVED INPUT/INQUIRY 1 b l• 0 I TYPE OF INPUT/INOUIRY: PHONE CALL (Indicate data) LETTER (ATTACHED) V Q1 - WCoy-mot RESPONSE CARD (attached) TYPE OF RESPONSE (check one) LETTER (attach copy) PHONE CALL (indicate date) BRIEF SUNI EV ARY OF RESPONSE OR ANSWER TO INQUIRY: DATE OF RESPONSE FORM RETURNED BY DFPARTMENT TO PAM BRANDMEYER: PbsaitenTOV Input-Inquiry Response Record October 4, 2001 Mayor of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mayor: I have had a second residence in East Vail since 1976. There has been a longstanding problem with trailer truck noise from the use of jake brakes or engine brakes. I have noticed that only some of the trailer trucks use these brakes so it must be possible to brake safely without using them. In addition, most of the trucks that do use them, use them in a portion of the road that is relatively flat, well beyond the steep grade. The elimination of noise from jake brakes would make a great improvement in the East Vail atmosphere, both during the day and at night. I know that Vail has an ordinance against excessive noise and has signage to that effect on the west bound interstate as it enters Vail. However, the ordinance does not seem to be enforced. Is it unreasonable to enforce this ordinance to a greater extent? Sincerely, Wm. C. Klingensmith III 4720 East Oxford Avenue Englewood, CO 80110 and East Vail