Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-11-04 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session~., AGENDA EVENfNG MEETING 7 P.M. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2003 (Late Start) 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. 1TEMITOPIC: Citizen Participation (5 min.) 2. ITEMITOPIC: Consent Agenda re: Approval of Sept. 16, Oct. 7 and Oct. 21 Evening Meeting Minutes (5 min.) 3. Russell Forrest. ITEMITOPIC: Resolution No. 12, Series of 2003, Creating an Urban Renewal Authority and Designating the Vai( Town Council as the Governing Body of the Urban Renewal Authority (30 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Lionshead Task Force is requesting the Vail Town Council review and approve Resolution No. 12, Series of 2003, to create an Urban Renewal Authority. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Lionshead Task Force has been working over the last two years to develop a plan for implementing the public improvements identified in the Lionshead Master Plan. A variety of traditional financing tools have been evaluated to pay for the needed public improvements in Lionshead. The preferred tool recommended by the Lionshead Task Force is tax increment financing. It is now important to move forward with the implementation of a public financing tool following the submittal of applications from Vail Resorts for the development of its Lionshead properties. The Task Force is requesting the Vail. Town Council review and approve Resolution No. 12, Series of 2003, to create an Urban Renewal Authority. Furthermore a petition has been received and verified from the Vail Town Clerk to create an Urban Renewal Authority. The proposed name of this authority is the Vail Reinvestment Authority. The resolution as written would make the Vail Town Council the Vail Reinvestment Authority. STAFF RECOMMEDATION: Staff is recommending the Town Council approve Resolution No. 12, Series of 2003. 4. George Ruther ITEMITOPIC: Appeal of the Sept. 22, Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) decision to approve the development plan for Vail's Front Door Project, located at 145 Vail Road/Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision (1 hour) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Uphold, uphold with conditions or overturn the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission'sdecision to approve the proposed development plan for Vail's Front Door Project. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On Sept. 22, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission approved the proposed development plan for Vail's Front Door Project, located at 145 Vail Road/Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision. On Oct. 2, Mrs. LuAnne Wells, represented by Karen Romeo of the law firm of Stevens, Littman, Biddison, Tharp and Weinberg, L.L.C., filed an appeal of the Sept. 22 Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission decision to approve the development plan for Vail's Front Door Project. The appeal filed on behalf of Mrs. LuAnne Wells was filed pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 3, Section 12-3-3(C), Vail Town Code. Please refer to the memorandum to the Vail Town Council from the Community Development Department, dated Nov. 4, 2003 for additional information on the appeal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends the Vail Town Council upholds the Sept. 22 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission decision to approve the proposed development plan for Vail's Front Door Project, located at 145 Vail Road/Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision. 5. Greg Hall ITEM/TOPIC: Resolution No. 11, Series of 2003 Vail Village Streetscape Warren Campbell Master Plan Addendum (20 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial on Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan amendments. The Town council is being requested to approve or deny Resolution No. 11, Series 2003, Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan amendment. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Planning and Environmental Commission has forwarded a recommendation of approval of the Vail Village Streetscape Master Plan Addendum to the Town Council. The following suggestion of the PEC accompany the recommendation. That the applicant should verify that all materials proposed for use in the streetscape are low maintenance, have a long lifespan, and are durable so as to avoid costly maintenance and upkeep. The Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan was adopted on November 20, 1991. The purpose of the plan as stated within the document is to: "... provide a comprehensive and coordinated conceptual design for streetscape improvement that: 1) is supported by the community; 2) enriches the aesthetic appearance of the Town; and 3) emphasizes the importance of craftsmanship and creative design in order to create an excellent pedestrian experience. " The Town of Vail streetscape Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide for developing detailed streetscape improvements. The addendum is proposed to facilitate the culmination of ideas for updates and refinement which evolved from multiple meetings held over the past year by a focus group which included several members of the Town Council and business owners. The DRB has no review authority on Town of Vail Master Plan updates. The DRB shall review the final plans when decisions on the specific materials have been made prior to the start of construction. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Town Council is requested to review and approve Resolution No.11, Series of 2003, Town of Vail streetscape Master Plan Addendum based on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. 6. Matt Gennet ITEM/TOPIC: Second Reading of the new proposed draft of Title 11, Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2003, Sign Regulations, an ordinance reflecting changes addressed at the Town Council's first reading of the draft on Oct. 21 (30 min.) Issues identified at the last meeting include, but are not limited to; • The location and proximity of signs to surrounding signs is an important issue and should be addressed; • The text should not be the only aspect of a hanging/projecting business sign that is measured; • Window signs may be allowed up to 15 percent of the total window area without further specification; • Second-floor businesses should be allowed appropriately-sized signs; • The allowed size of business signs should not exceed that of building signs; • Joint directory signs should be allowed up to one square foot for a business; • The color of Private No-parking signs should not be regulated strictly; • A Temporary Site-Development sign should be removed prior to the issuance of a TCO; • A distinction should be made between "wind-induced movement" and animation, in relation to prohibited signs; • Any change in the ownership of a business should require that non- conforming signs be brought into compliance. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: A vote on the second reading of title 11, Sign Regulations, is requested at this time. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On April 28, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval to the Vail Town Council the proposed modifications to Title 11, Sign Regulations. The commission determined that the objectives set forth by the community, town officials and staff had been. accomplished in the proposed new draft. The Town Council discussed the new draft of Title 11 at previous regularly. scheduled meetings held on Sept. 2, Sept. 16 and Oct. 7. The first reading of Title 11 took place on Oct. 21. Since first reading, minor changes have been made according to the comments solicited from Council. 7. Matt Mire ITEM/TOPIC: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2003, Dwight Henninger Parking Fine Ordinance, an Ordinance Amending Title 7, Chapter 3, Article D "Parking Infractions," and Amending Chapter 6 "Transportation Center," of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto (10 min) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve/Amend/Deny BACKGROUND RATIONALE: An ordinance was requested by Town Council to increase parking fines. Additional amendments were also necessary to Title 7, Chapter 6 of the Vail Town Code to more effectively enforce Town of Vail parking regulations. 8. Matt Gennett ITEM/TOPIC: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2003, an ordinance amending Title 14, Section 10, Development Standards Handbook, to allow for the use of temporary, pliable, transparent sidewall enclosures for covered outdoor dining decks associated with eating and drinking establishments, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Outdoor Dining Decks (5 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with conditions or deny Ordinance No. 27, Series of 2003, on second reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) held a public meeting to consider this request on Aug. 25, at which the PEC forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Town Council after determining that the use of .these enclosures, on an intermittent, seasonal basis, would be an asset to the vitality of Vail. A copy of staff's memo to the PEC from their Aug. 25 meeting has been attached for reference. The Summary section (Section 1) of the attached memo articulates the rationale behind staff's request. 9. Stan Zemler ITEMITOPIC: Town Manager's Report (5 min.) 10. Adjournment (9:50 P.M.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO GRANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BEGIN AT 2 P.M. ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 IN THE TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 6 P.M. ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2003 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. To: Vail Town Council From: Russ Forrest &Lionshead Task Force Date: November 4, 2003 Subject: Creation of the Vail Reinvestment Authority,. Resolution # 12, Series of 2003 1. INTRODUCTION The Lionshead Task Force has been working over the last two years to develop a plan for implementing the public improvements identified in the Lionshead Master Plan. The Task Force includes Town Council members, Lionshead property managers and owners, and Vail Resorts. A variety of traditional financing tools have been evaluated to pay for the needed public improvements in Lionshead. The- preferred tool recommended by the Lionshead Task Force is tax increment financing. One of the two ways to implement tax increment financing is with an urban renewal authority. Based on recent legal decisions in _ the State of Colorado the Lionshead Task Force believes that using an urban renewal authority (versus a downtown development authority) is the. best approach. It is now important to move forward-the implementation of a public financing tool with the submittal of applications from Vail Resorts for the development of its Lionshead properties. The Task Force is requesting that the Vail Town Council review and approve Resolution No. 12, Series of 2003 to create an urban renewal authority (Attachment A). As .required by the Urban Renewal Law, a petition has been received and verified from the Vail Town Clerk which is the first step in creating an urban renewal authority (Attachment B). The second step is the passage of a resolution to create an urban renewal authority. The passage of this resolution does not yet create a special district or begin tax increment financing. The specific process for implementing tax increment financing is further explained below. 2. BACKGROUND On March 18, 2002, the Vail Town Council reviewed the various public improvements proposed in the Lionshead Master Plan. Staff received preliminary input from the Vail Town Council that Frontage Road improvements, new streetscape, and dealing with circulation issues were priority public improvements. In October 2002, both the Council and the Lionshead Task Force directed staff not to use sales tax revenues to fund public improvements in Lionshead. In November 2002, Council again reviewed options for moving forward with public financing and directed staff to proceed with the Lionshead Reinvestment Study. This study has confirmed that the Lionshead area meets the legal criteria for the creation of either an urban renewal authority or a downtown development authority. The major point of concern regarding the creation of an urban renewal authority has been the issue of condemnation. An urban renewal authority can have the .power of condemnation. The Lionshead Task Force believes that condemning property from one property owner for conveyance to a developer is not necessary or desirable. However, it has become apparent that a number of old covenants may impede redevelopment of Lionshead. These covenants prescribe uses and place other limitations on development which are inconsistent with the vision of the Lionshead Master Plan. Many of these covenants were put in place before the Town of Vail was incorporated, and, in some cases, the covenants conflict with one another. Condemnation with the concurrence and cooperation of owner of the fee interest may be needed to extinguish these obsolete covenants. Resolution No. 12 addresses this issue with the following statement "WHEREAS the Vail Town Council believes that any condemnation by the Vail Reinvestment Authority should be undertaken with the concurrence of the owner of the underlying fee interest." 3. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS The following are a summary of public improvements proposed in the Lionshead Master Plan and their estimated costs. Frontage Road North Day Lot Streetscape West Lionshead East Lionshead East Lionshead Portal $15 million $5-15 million $9 million $1.5 million $1 million 3 million $34.5-$44.5 million The three most critical public improvements include: 1. Streetscape Improvements. 2. Acceleration and deceleration lanes on the Frontage Road. 3. Transportation Facility 4. REVENUE POTENTIAL FROM TIF Staff has updated the revenue potential for tax increment financing based on the latest plans submitted from Vail Resorts. Staff did include both property and sales tax increment for reference only. Council has to date only directed staff to utilize property tax. Bonding for these public projects cannot occur until the new Lionshead development projects are ready to move forward. It is important to note that these revenue projections will change based on the composition of the project, interest rates, and the value of the property. The following is a summary of the projected revenuepotential for TIF in the Lionshead Master Plan area assuming at 20 year loan ,period and a 35% coverage factor: Increment Type Bonding Capacity Annual .Increment Property Taxlncrement: $9,861,885 $1,208,000 Sales Tax Increment: .$9,090,239 $1,113,746 Total $18,952,124 $2,321,746 Other revenue sources include the Colorado Department of Transportation and private developers. However, staff still anticipates a shortfall and believes it will be critical to #urther value engineer the public improvements. This should be done concurrently with negotiating a development agreement with Vail Resorts. The three top priorities mentioned above i.e., streetscape, Frontage Road, and transit center, could be further reviewed to reduce their cost. For example, the total cost of the Frontage Road could be reduced to $10 million by ending that improvement at the Wastewater Treatment site and not continuing it to the Cascade Hotel to the west. The Town has only planned to pay 33% of that total cost or $3.3 million of the Frontage Road improvements. The maximum cost the Town was planning to pay was $3 million for streetscape costs. Staff is developing alternative designs for the transit center on both the North Day lot and an alternative location at the Lionshead parking structure, and we are hopeful to decrease the total cost of that improvement. 5. PUBLIC NOTICE AND'INVOLVEMENT The Lionshead Master Plan involved significant community involvement between. 1997 and when it was adopted in 1999. This involvement included numerous public meetings and meetings with merchants and homeowner associations. In section 9-8 of the Lionshead Master Plan, the plan states "tax increment financing is one of the most effective tools available for redevelopment of Lionshead." Subsequent meetings with homeowners confirmed that a financing tool which did not raise taxes but leveraged new incremental growth in property values to pay for public improvements was desirable. In December 2002, the Town sent a letter to all homeowners in the Lionshead area to inform them of tax increment financing. On October 22, 2003, another letter was mailed to Lionshead homeowners updating them on the proposed Lionshead redevelopment and the Council meeting on November 4th to consider a resolution to create an urban renewal authority. In addition, a public notice was published in the Vail Daily ten days prior to the meeting on November 4th, as required by the Urban Renewal Law. Also, a meeting with Lionshead property managers occurred on October 23, 2003, to review Vail Resorts' plans and to review the process for implementing tax increment financing. Over the last five years, the Town has had numerous meetings with individual homeowners and .homeowners' associations in Lionshead to discuss redevelopment and the financing of public improvements. In addition, staff has discussed tax increment financing with Eagle County, the School District, CMC, Vail Recreation District, and Water District officials. 6. NEXT STEPS After receiving a petition signed by 25 valid registered voters, the Town Clerk published a notice 10 days prior to November 4~' that a resolution would be considered to create an urban renewal authority in the Town of Vail. The boundary of the Vail Reinvestment Authority will be the same as the boundary for the Town of Vail. The resolution as written would make the Vail Town Council the governing body of the Authority. However, approval of Resolution No. 12, Series of 2003, will not create any district or allow the Authority to take action without the approval of an urban renewal .plan. The proposed name of this plan is the Lionshead Public Facilities Development Plan. The next step after the Authority is created is for the Town Council to approve the Lionshead Public Facilities Development Plan. This Plan will designate the area to be included in the urban renewal district and will authorize the use of tax increment financing to fund public improvements and the use of condemnation to extinguish covenants which impede redevelopment. Adoption of this Plan will also begin the 25-year period in which the tax increment can be used to fund public improvements. Following adoption of the Plan, the Authority will negotiate a development agreement with appropriate developers in Lionshead to ensure that construction of the anticipated facilities that will .generate the "increment" necessary to pay off the bonds. Staff anticipates the following series of actions: 1. Finalizing the specific geographic area for the district 2. Updating the Lionshead Reinvestment Study if necessary 3. Finalizing the .Lionshead Pubic Facilities Development Plan. This plan will have specific language similar to Resolution No. 12 which will address condemnation and the need to extinguish specific Lionshead covenants. A draft plan is attached for reference only. 4. Notification (but not approval) to Eagle County and the Eagle County School District that a hearing has been set to review and approve the Plan. 5. Planning and Environmental Commission hearing to ensure that the Plan is consistent with the Lionshead Master Plan. 6. Vail Town Council approves the Plan. 7. Complete negotiations and execute a development agreement with Lionshead developers. Attachments A. Resolution no. 12, Series of 2003 B. Petition C. Frequently Asked Questions about TIF D. Summary of TIF Process E. Lionshead Reinvestment Study F. Working Draft: Lionshead Public Facilities Development Plan Attachment A `Resolution no. 12, Series of 2.0:03 RESOLUTION No. 12 Series of 2003 DECLARING IT TO BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT AN-URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY BE CREATED AND DESIGNATING THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN Of VAIL AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail has adopted the Lionshead Master Plan detailing improvements needed in the Lionshead area to properly guide redevelopment of the Lionshead Area; and WHEREAS, URS Corporation, pursuant to the a contract with the Town of Vail, has .prepared the Lionshead Reinvestment Study, dated Decerrtber, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Lionshead Reinvestment Study describes certain deficiencies in public infrastructure and development that constitute blight as defined in Section 31-25-103(2) of the Urban Renewal Act; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council supports the creation of advisory boards consisting of business and property owners located within any future Urban Renewal Authority district(s); and WHEREAS, it would enhance and facilitate the redevelopment of the Lionshead area if public infrastructure could be enhanced and redeveloped using the financial mechanisms authorized by the Urban Renewal Act; and WHEREAS the Vail Town Council believes that any condemnation by the Vail .Reinvestment Authority should be undertaken with the concurrence of the owner of the underlying fee .interest; and WHEREAS, the creation of an urban renewal authority for the Town of Vail would assist in the redevelopment of public infrastructure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, that: 1. There exist in the Town of Vail at least one blighted area and that the development or redevelopment of that area is necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, morals, or welfare of the residents of the Town of Vail. 2. It is in the public interest that the Vasl Reinvestment Authority be created and be authorized to exercise those powers provided in the Urban Renewal Law. 3. Pursuant to C.R.S. Section 31-25-115, the Town Council of the Town of Vail shall serve as the governing body for the Vail Reinvestment Authority. The members of the Town Council shall serve in that capacity on the Vail Reinvestment Authority during the term of their office as a member of the Town Council and shall automatically cease to be a member of the Vail Reinvestment Authority when, for any reason whatsoever, they cease to be a member of the Town Council. MUR\57037\441917.01 INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED his 4~' day of November, 2003. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor, Town of Vail 2 Attachment B Petition PETlTlOfV t=Ql~ UPl3Aid RE~a~'~t°~!_ /~UTHG~I,;lTY TO: Lorelei Donaldson To~vn Clerk ofi the Town of Vail. We, undcrsi~ned registered electors o the Town of ala'sl, hereby sef: fiorth fhroegh this petition, in accordance v~~ith C.R.S. § 3 r-25-904, Thai there is a nccci for an urban renewal authority to function in the Town of Vail because: blighted arca~ Exist in tl'ie Town of Vail; and the acquisition, clearance, rehabilitation, conservation, dcvolopmer~t, or redevelopment, or a combination thereof ofi such areas i or welfare of the residents of the Town is necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, more s, of Vail. Accordingly, we hereby request that the Town Council of the Town of Vail create an urba renewa! authority pursuant to C.R.S. § 31-25-104. i r~A~•., Ap A A A A P J Printed lame -- Si~sature t~e~~r~:~;~ ~~ t~eaictcrgco in Vat! ------ / ~ ~~// 1. e..rLlA /YIAESE! ~ ~ ,~.~.t r ~ -D 2. ~ ~ ~'~ r -----~ -7~t~~-~ • ! u liti '~ z~ - c , r~ - ~ + . . . r ~~ ~ ~~-~R~~ -~ ~ " '1'L ~ 5. _ - T ~ x1 ~ 7_ ~7 . 1 fi~ ~ v , .. L ti*' o L ~,?~- ~; ., - ~ ~ ~ .r ~ ! d 4 ~ 1 a ~` ~ _ ~.~.~ - - c - ~- 13 : "t' v . r ~ ~ U ~ 1 t~ s o ~ ~ _ , tl~! ;~ t~t... " ~ ~ ~ ~~.. f o ~ 14. nit ~- ,. ~..,..~~f~ /~-,~°' ~ ~ ~_,~'r~ -~ ~ ~ ~- _ /f ~ - Z4_o3 1rJ. t'~1t~.r' 1~~,~~r~Cf' V ~ Carta" /+~1/ ~~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ 16.~6~t r Lfi~ ~ . let fl ~ ' 2~~i v'3 '~~i~~!~.._ v ~~T ~a~ r ~n::,~.,rr>rr.~. ~ / 20. ~,.h~s ~~,ttx~ 22: ~~~~~ • ~'~ /~ 1 z ~ ~ ~ ~- ..~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ r W, Pd ~ ~T to Lo 3 -~ A Page 2 I'~TITIG'`~l FCC 9~f~F!',l~ F.C.r,lr~y~tAl A°JTF'=.ORITY We, undcrsigrzcd registered cieciors of the Town of Vail, hereby set forte, though this petition, in accordance v~ith C.R.S. § 31-25-104, that there is a need for an urban renewal authority to function in the Town,of Vain because:.la;ig'~ttcd areas exist in the TotiF~rn of Vail; and the acquisition, clearance, rehabiiitation, ccnsenratien, dcvelopi~cr~$, or rcdevclo}~r~~c;.t, or a combination ti3vreof of such areas s is nece~~ary in the interest of tt~°:> public hcaith, safEty, morals, or welfare of the residents of the Town of Vail ~Accordiragiy, eve hereby request that the To~~n Council ofthe Town ofi Vail create an urban renewal autliorit~~ pursuant to C.R.S. § 31 ;2h-104. A A ~' Rrinted i~arr~eT._ ignature Address of Date ______ I?osiclcnce in lfail - ~ ~~:.- --l -~ _ _ _ 31. /'~,,,~}r(i~] t~..~- v : ~ ~ ,;~~- f~.,,~,~~ . _-- ' ' 7 ~ 3 sip s /~ ~i /o - z~ ~ o 32. !~~ c1 ~'~r ~> t ~~_~ ~- r ~~~~,~ ~6t~":~~~1x ~.r~.#t- l ll~~l. ~U~ ~~ ~~ 34. / Cz ~ ~' s ~0 ~ Jt?~ . f ~ ~!r _ ~2~r-~ .%?:. !!~/4~' ~~~ ~ ~D --ao -0.3 ~ ~` ~' f T ,, Attachment C 'Frequently Asked Ques#ions a-bout TIF Urban Renewal and Tax Increment Financing Lionshead Village Vail, Colorado Frequently Asked Questions Q. What are Vail's public financing needs as it relates to private-sector redevelopment in Vail Village and Lionshead? A. An estimated $750 million in private redevelopment is anticipated in the two villages over the next five years, representing 50 percent of all the land area in Lionshead and Vail Village. Along the way, the town anticipates leveraging private sector contributions to fund a majority of the estimated $40 million in costs associated with improvements to Vail's public infrastructure, leaving the town to fund a much smaller share. In Lionshead, Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is the leading funding mechanism under consideration to cover much of the remaining public costs. Those projects include: dedicated acceleration and deceleration turn lanes along South Frontage Road; road and ..pedestrian :improvements along West Lionshead Circle; lighting, landscaping and snowmelt surface improvements to the Lionshead pedestrian mall; improvements to the East Lionshead Pedestrian Portal, including removal and relocation of service and delivery vehicles, private skier drop-off and local transit shuttles; road and streetscape improvements to East Lionshead Circle; and a transit center on-the North Day Lot. Q. How does Tax Increment Financing (TIF) work? A. By .leveraging future anticipated tax revenue growth associated with Lionshead's redevelopment, bonds can be issued in advance to pay for public infrastructure 'improvements within the targeted area. What's appealing about this approach, which has been used successfully across the country, is that it is not a tax increase or a new tax. Instead, TIF anticipates a corresponding growth in ..property values as a byproduct of the redevelopment. With TIF, the incremental growth in taxes is returned directly to the neighborhood over a 25 year period, .bypassing the other taxing districts, such as Eagle County, Colorado Mountain College, the Town of Vail, etc. Current estimates indicate TIF could generate a :.bonding capacity of approximately $7 million within the Lionshead area. To initiate TIF, the town must adhere to provisions of the Urban Renewal Law of the State of Colorado. {See Urban Renewal Law of the State of Colorado, Article 25 of Title 31, Colorado Revised Statutes.) Q. How is it that blight could'be used to describe conditions in Vail? A. The blight definition in the Urban Renewal Law defines conditions that can impair the sound growth and development of a municipality. In Lionshead these conditions are found in deteriorated public infrastructure or infrastructure that does not adequately serve the area. Examples include faulty street and lot layout, unsafe conditions for pedestrians, erosion of concrete, deteriorating street pavement and inadequate facilities for stormwater run off, among others. These findings are well documented in the Lionshead Master Plan and a major reason for town adoption of the redevelopment plan in 1999. As a follow up, the town commissioned a Lionshead Reinvestment Study prepared by URS Corporation of Denver, dated December 2003, in which 7 of 11 conditions of public infrastructure deficiencies are documented as defined by the Urban Renewal Law. This document is one of several steps necessary to establish Vail's :ability to draw upon Tax Increment Financing for the revitalization of Lionshead. (See Lionshead Reinvestment Study, URS Corporation, December 2003). Q. So, why must Vail associate itself with blight? A. This action, allowed by Colorado state statutes under the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, enables Vail to address conditions in a proactive manner to prevent further erosion in Lionshead that, without intervention, could jeopardize the town's future economic stability. This proactive approach enables Vail to use a popular tool called Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to fix the streets and pedestrian areas in Lionshead. Vail's leadership supports TIF, calling it the most desirable of all the available financing options. This is because it allows the district to generate revenues for itself while utilizing existing property tax rates. Q. Won't declaration of blight in Vail give us a black eye nationally? A. Vail has always been on the cutting edge of innovation as a resort industry leader. While it may be unusual to use such a tool in Vail, this action is being supported locally as the catalyst needed for Vail's renewal. Cities and counties all across America are dealing with a declining tax base. We think most governments would want to be in a position that allows for local control and self determination. Q. If Vail moves forward with TIF, what would the money be used for? A. Proceeds from the bonds would be used to improve public .property, such as widening the frontage road, and rebuilding other public streets and pedestrian -areas within the TIF boundary area. The town has currently identified a list of more than $40 million in needed improvements on public property in Lionshead. This list will be outlined in a Lionshead Urban Renewal Plan that will accompany formation of the proposed Urban Renewal Authority, which would be called he Vail Development Authority. Q. Who decides how this money would be spent? A. The Vail Town Council will sit as the Urban Renewal AuthorityNail Development Authority. The Authority, in turn, will determine how money from the district will be spent. An advisory group could also be appointed with recommendations forwarded to the Authority. This governing structure is similar to the current role of the Town Council as it sits as the Vail Local Marketing District Board. The use of the money would also be identified in a Lionshead Urban Renewal Plan which would require approval by the Town Council as well as consultation from the Eagle County Commissioners and the Eagle County School District. The draft .plan is available on line at www.vail ov.com. Q. What is the urgency for TIF? A. Vail's public investment must be timed to coincide with millions of dollars in private investment that is now being proposed in Lionshead. While Vail meets the .criteria for implementing TIF, we have the unprecedented opportunity to ensure .the town's long-term position as the No. 1 ski resort in North America. Q. Why can't private developers like Vail Resorts pay for the public improvements? A. A private sector cost-share is contemplated in the Lionshead Master Plan to pay for a significant share of the public improvements. However, a 100 percent -offset by developers is considered to be unrealistic. Q. What other cities have used the state-mandated blight declaration for revitalization? A. The cities of Boulder, Denver, Estes Park, Golden and Westminster have done so. 1n addition, Grand Junction, Fort Collins, Longmont and Mt. Crested Butte have created Downtown Development Authority reinvestment programs aimed at preventing blight. Q. I thought Vail was considering a Downtown Development Authority (DDA) at one time. Why is it now contemplating an Urban Renewal Authority (URA)? A. While either of the two approaches would provide Vail with the mechanism to authorize Tax Increment Financing, the URA is the more expedient of the options and has withstood two important legal challenges in Broomfield and Golden. Q. How does this affect properties in Lionshead that have no future plans for redevelopment? A. With this significant investment in private properties and public infrastructure, property values are anticipated to increase. It is anticipated that over time, property tax assessments will increase for all properties in Lionshead, due to the redevelopment of surrounding properties. Q. Could the blight reference reduce property values in Lionshead and elsewhere in Vail? A. That's not likely. Given the redevelopment initiatives that are already in the pipeline, the Eagle County Assessor has predicted property values will increase by $747,000 a year as a result of the redevelopment, which is the foundation for which the Tax Increment Financing tool has been created. A recent survey of property values in Urban Renewal Districts in the State of Colorado indicates that property values increase as the result of implementing an Urban Renewal Authority. (Colorado Municipal League, 2003) Q. Will the blight declaration negatively impact tourism? A. No. Redevelopment of Lionshead will cause tourism to increase once improvements are complete. Among other things, the redevelopment will expand Vail's bed base, which will increase tax collections and contribute significantly to the overall economic health of Vail. Q. Will the other taxing jurisdictions in Eagle County voice opposition? A. There is no veto power afforded to the other taxing jurisdictions, however, the town has been consulting with representatives from each of the jurisdictions to let them know what is anticipated. Also, any immediate shortfalls in taxes paid to the Eagle County School District, by law, must be replenished by the state. It is hoped the remaining jurisdictions will support our plan and the premise that without the redevelopment efforts, these tax dollars would not materialize. Q. 1've heard the URA process eliminates the need fora .public vote? A. That's true. An Urban Renewal Authority is exempt from the Tabor Amendment. This means the authority can be created by a vote of the Vail Town Council It also means that once appointed by the Town Council, the Urban Renewal Authority is able to issue bonds without a public vote. This is why it's extremely important to make sure members of the community understand and support this approach. Q. Doesn't an Urban Renewal Authority raise concerns about condemnation powers? A. This was an issue raised by the Vail Village Homeowners Association. To satisfy those concerns, the Town Council has agreed to strictly limit the powers of condemnation in the proposed Lionshead Urban Renewal Plan to those requiring -the consent of the underlying property owner. As such, the Town Council believes it has addressed all community concerns expressed to date regarding this initiative. Q. So, what happens next? A. Creation of the Vail Development Authority (Urban Renewal Authority) is the first step. This requires a petition requesting establishment of the Vail Development Authority, signed by 25 registered voters, and submitted to the Vaii Town Clerk. Such a petition was submitted to the Town Clerk's Office on October 20, 2003. The next step is a public hearing before the Vail Town Council, which has -been scheduled for the November 4, 2003 Vail Town Council meeting in which the Town Council will consider a resolution authorizing formation of the Vail Development Authority. If the resolution is approved by a majority vote of the Council, the next step would be the eventual adoption of a Lionshead Urban Renewal Plan that would be used to guide activities to occur in the area. The timeline for adoption of the Lionshead Urban Renewal Plan is in 2004 as private redevelopment becomes imminent. Q: What is the immediate impact in forming the Vail .Development Authority? A: While formation of the Vail Development Authority is the first in a series of actions that will assist in the redevelopment of Lionshead, the step with the greatest impact will be adoption of the Lionshead Urban Renewal Plan, which will be used to freeze the existing tax base in the urban renewal district from which future incremental property tax growth will be calculated. Creation of the Vail Development Authority, in and of itself, has no immediate impact unless and until a renewal plan is adopted. Q: What are the geographic boundaries of the Vail Development Authority? A: While the Authority jurisdiction would include the entire Vail town boundaries, a geographic district is required to qualify for Tax Increment Financing (TIF). The area must also meet the conditions of blight as described previously and a renewal plan with established boundaries must also be adopted by the Vail Town Council. In the case of Lionshead, the proposed boundaries of the TIF district would be from the Lionshead commercial core area, with boundaries running generally from Middle Creek by the Vail Library west to Red Sandstone Creek near the Vail Resorts maintenance facility and from Gore Creek on the south to I- 70 to the north. It is not uncommon for Urban Renewal Authorities in other Colorado municipalities to operate with multiple TIF districts.. The Vail Development Authority would function under those same provisions granted. by state statutes. Q. What if I have additional questions? A. The Town of Vail wants to be sure it hears from as many people as .possible and to address as many issues in advance of the Nov. 4 public hearing. Please share your thoughts as soon as possible with the Vail Town Council by sending a fax to (970) 479-2157; or an a-mail to towncouncilr~ci.vaiLco.us; or by mail to Vail Town Council, 75 S. Frontage Rd., Vail, Co., 81657; or by voice mail at (970) 479-1860, ext. 8. Watch for additional workshops and information sessions throughout the 2003-04 winter season. Also, go to www.vail-mail.com and subscribe to an a-mail information service sponsored by the Town of Vail for pertinent updates on this and other topics. Specific questions can be directed to Town of Vail Community Development Director Russell Forrest at (970) 479- 2146 or rforrest .vailgov.com Prepared by the Town of Vail Community Information Office February 2003 and updated October 2003 Attachment D Summary of TIF Process URA PROCESS ' ~I -=r ~ 7 etem7lne Completa` C i rr ~( ~ T lerk~~ Councfl holds After hearing Councilor t "TIt ~ .~ draft len, c F-rollshes hearing on Council Council Authority ~ P;t T Wher~er to ~~:~ P F ~ ~? Com lets submits PEC submits Council adopts I ~ ~ s - - ~ ; a-~~~ ;: -- r t - 1,:;6ce for formation of P recommendati submits lan resolution approves of r'.~ I ~ mplement a UI2ti ~ ( t I ~ -~ hear o~ ~! URA & asses p issuin of { Plan URA Plan ~~ qra DD -'~ I - ~ ` ~' - ~ 1 p to PEC on to Council to County approving of bonds 25 l~ _ . - ~ ~ i - ~. - J ~. ~ creating OF ~ resolution O f~_,_ for review plan .~'~ Base Is Frozen Years Shaded boxes are completed steps &~rdll ~~~ m~a; , N. Attac h rn e n t E Lionshead Reinvestment Study TOWNOF~AIL ' LIONSHE,AD [ZEINVESTMENT STUDY DECEMBER 2002 prepared by 1225 17th Street, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80202 303.293.8080 Lionshead Reinvestment Study Decer~er 2002 Table of Contents 1.0 REINVESTMENT STUDY PURPOSE ...............................................................1 2.0 STUDY AREA LOCATION ............................................................................. ..1 3.0 STUDY AREA DEFINITION ............................................................................ .. 3 4.0 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION ....................................................................... .. 5 5.0 COLORADO URBAN RENEWAL LAW ......................................................... 10 6.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 12 7.0 DETERMINATION OF CONDITIONS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA ................ 13 8.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .............................................................................. 17 Table of Figures Figure 1: Study Area General Location Map ............................................................. 2 Figure 2: Study Area Map ........................................................................................ 4 Figure 3: Existing Land Use Map ............................................................................. 7 Figure 4: Existing Zoning Map .................................................................................. 8 Figure 5: Existing Property Ownership Map ............................................................. 9 0 Lionshead Reinvestment Study December 1.0 REINVESTMENT STUDY PURPOSE This document is the completion of a study initiated in August 2000 to determine whether the Lionshead Reinvestment Study Area (the "Study Area") meets the criteria for tax increment financing within the meaning of Colorado Urban Renewal Law, and whether the Study Area should be recommended for such urban renewal efforts as the Town of Vail may deem appropriate to prevent further deterioration of the Lionshead area. 2.0 STUDY AREA LOCATION The Town of Vail is located in north central Colorado, approximately 100 miles west of the City and County of Denver. It is situated along the I-70 corridor approximately 25 miles west of the Continental Divide. The Base elevation of Vail is 8,120 feet, and the peak elevation is 11,455 feet. The Study Area location is situated towards the western side of the Town of Vail, south of I-70, in an area generally known as the Lionshead area. The exact Study Area boundaries are identified in the next section. See Figure 1, Study Area General Location Map l~^~ - _J _ _ . ._ ~~~~ Colorado Figure 1 Study Area General Location Map ~a6v~ r. URA BRVo Lionshead Reinvestment Study December 2002 3.0 STUDY AREA DEFINITION The Lionshead Reinvestment Study Area consists of those parcels generally bounded on the north by I-70, on the south by Gore Creek and, near the Lionshead Parking Structure, by East Lionshead Circle, on the east by the eastern parcel boundaries for Vail International, the Dobson Ice Arena, and the Town of Vail Library, and on the west by the point of convergence of the I-70 and South Frontage Road West rights-of-way. See Figure 2, Study Area Map, for the specific boundaries of the Study Area. 3 URS a~w~ Lionshead Reinvestment Study Decerr~er 2002 4.0 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION Unlike many other Colorado mountain communities which began as a base camp for mineral extraction, the Town of Vail was developed in the early 1960s as a destination winter resort. Its population in 2000 per the U.S. Census Bureau was 4,531 for year-round residents. The town has expanded to the east, west and north of its original boundaries. The Study Area is located in an area generally known as Lionshead Village and is approximately 65 acres in size, excluding roadway right-of-way. The Vail ski resort is operated by a private entity, Vail Resorts, Inc. The general opening date of the ski slopes is mid to late November through late April, when enough snow is present to support skiing and other winter outdoor activities. Skiing facilities in Vail include 4,644 skiable acres, 380 snowmaking acres, 174 skiing runs, and 33 lifts including one gondola. The number of skier visits to Vail was approximately 1.5 million for ski season 2001/2002 by Colorado Ski Country USA. Summer and fall off-season activities occurring in and around Vail include hiking, bicycling, -camping, golfing, fishing, and horseback riding, along with other outdoor events such as concerts and rodeos. However, visitation during the summer and fall is not significant when compared to numbers for the winter peak season: As a result, some retail establishments are closed during these off-peak seasons. Existing Land Uses A variety of land uses occur within the Study Area. These land uses include mixed use, lodging/condominiums, retail/commercial, service station, community facilities (ice arena and library), open space., parking, and public/utility. Of these, the dominant land uses within the Study Area are mixed use and lodging/condominiums. See Figure 3 for the Study Area Existing Land Use Map. Existing Zoning The Study Area is comprised of 6 zoning districts. These districts are labeled as follows: High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) -This zone designation permits lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than 10% of the total GRFA of the main structure or structures on the site; additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch or terrace. The maximum density permitted under this zone is 25 dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. • Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LHMU-1) -This zone designation has three different permitted uses pertaining to floor level. For the basement or garden level permitted uses include banks, commercial ski storage, eating and drinking establishments, personal services 5 Lionshead Reinvestment December 2002 and repair shops, professional offices, lockers and storage, recreation facilities, retail establishments, skier ticketing/schools/services, daycare, travel agencies and any additional uses deemed similar. The first floor or street level permitted uses include banks, eating and drinking establishments, recreation facilities, retail establishments, skier ticketing/schools/services, daycare, travel agencies and other similar uses. Uses permitted on all floors include land uses such as banks, conference facilities, eating and drinking establishments, liquor stores, personal services, professional offices, radio and TV stores and repair shops, recreation facilities, retail establishments, skier servicing facilities, theaters, time-share units and additional uses determined to be similar. The maximum density permitted is up to a 33% increase in the existing number of dwelling units on a property or 35 dwelling units per acre, whichever is greater. • Lionshead Mixed Use 2 (LHMU -2) -This zone allows similar uses to the LHMU-1. For all levels of a .building or outside buildings, the allowed uses are the same as those identified for LHMU-1, but also include vehicle maintenance and warehousing. The density restrictions are the same as those defined for the LHMU-1. • Arterial Business District (ABD) -Permitted uses in this zone include eating and drinking establishments, personal service and repair shops, retail/office businesses, and other uses determined to be similar to permitted uses. The total density permitted is 25 dwelling units per acre, with a limit of not more than 60% of a buildable site developed. • General Use (GU) -Under this zone designation passive outdoor recreation areas, open space, pedestrian and bike paths are the permitted uses. Other various public and quasi-public conditional land uses are permitted under this zone designation. Development standards are prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission. • Agricultural and Open Space (A) -.The permitted use under this zone includes plant and tree nurseries, and raising of field, row and tree crops, public parks, recreation areas, open spaces and single-family residential dwellings. Other various conditional semi- public uses are also permitted. The maximum density permitted is one dwelling unit per 35 acres. See Figure 4 for the Study Area Existing Zoning Map. Property Identification and Ownership The property ownership in the Study Area is predominantly private, with the majority of parcels owned by either Vail Resorts, Inc., other private property owners, or in joint ownership by Vail Resorts, Inc. and another private entity. The remaining parcels are owned by the Town of Vail, and consist primarily of the Lionshead Parking Structure, .the Dobson Ice Arena and the Town of Vail Library. See Figure 5 for the Study Area Existing Property Ownership Map. 6 ® Cemmunpy Facldliee own eP~o. Parking - PunpdUlNHy Mb[ee Uss (mail, reaburam, olfke, IOtlpIn0. SCOn eominNlms) Scale: 1" = 500' 500 0 500 .m,.„..a. a~P.M., otl'°`~ ~~~ ~„'`~ ~~ Tw. NV.i P.ro.l B.u.tl.x.. Legend 2aninB A.Aeuaw.l6 0... SP.e. _ NNu ~.I Pau I~.e.n.W. ® ,n.~a amM.a u..n.a wu<a u.. I .I...n..tl.~.tl~.., x4n D...w u.gNPwnw • • Figure 4 Existing Zoning Map 5~~e ,~ = 500 500 0 500 Feet TO1NN f V.AIL U~iS slew -td4tf~tlir a a:.,_.. Vail R worts, Inc. Private Ownership A Combination of Vail Resorts. Inc. entl Private Ownershp• Scale: 1" =500' 500 0 500 Feet Figure 5 Existing Property Ownership Map Lionshead Reinvestment Study Decerr~er 2002 5.0 COLORADO URBAN RENEWAL LAW A community's built environment-its public assets in the form of streets, sidewalks, utilities and facilities, and its private assets in the form of residences, businesses, and institutions- has afinite lifespan. The ongoing effects of time, use, growth, changing economies, and the environment require the community to be continually reinvesting in and improving its public and private infrastructure. This is the case in a community like Vaii, where the Town's original public infrastructure is showing the effects of decades of service. However, before remedial action through the use of tools such as tax increment financing can be taken by a public agency, Colorado Urban Renewal Law requires a finding by the appropriate governing body that a specific area (such as the Study Area) has sufficient evidence of deterioration,~which the Colorado Urban Renewal Law characterizes as "blight." The determination that an area meets the criteria of the Colorado Urban Renewal Law is a cumulative conclusion attributable to the presence of several physical, environmental, and social factors. Indeed, blight is attributable to a multiplicity of conditions, which, in combination, tend to accelerate the phenomenon of deterioration of an area. For purposes of the study, the definition of a blighted area is premised upon the definition articulated in the Urban Renewal Law, as follows: "Blighted area" means an area that, in its present condition and use and, by reason of the presence of at least four of the following factors, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare: a. Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures; b. Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout; c. Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness; d. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions; e. Deterioration of site or other improvements; f. Unusual topography; g. Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title non-marketable; h. The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire and other causes; i. Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in because of building code violations, dilapidations, deterioration, defective design, physical construction, or faulty or inadequate facilities; j. Environmental contamination of buildings or property; or k. Inadequate public improvements or utilities. . Several principles have been developed by Colorado courts to guide the determination of whether an area meets the criteria under the Urban Renewal Law. First, the absence of widespread violation of building and health codes does not, by itself, preclude a finding of blight. The definition of "blighted area contained in [the Urban Renewal Law] is broad and encompasses not only those areas containing properties so dilapidated as to justify condemnation as nuisances, but also envisions the prevention of deterioration." 10 Lionshead Reinvestment Study _ December 2002 Second, the presence of well maintained buildings does not defeat a determination that an area constitutes a blighted area. A determination of blight is based upon an area "taken as a whole," and not on abuilding-by-building basis. Third, one of the purposes of the Urban Renewal Law is to prevent future decline of an area. Therefore, an area need not evidence widespread dilapidation to qualify as blighted so long as factors which lead to further decline are present. Fourth, an authority's "determination as to whether an area is blighted...is a legislative question and the scope of review by the judiciary is restricted." A court's role in reviewing such a blight determination is simply to independently verify if the conclusion is based upon factual evidence and consistent with the statutory definition. URS was .retained by the Town of Vail to perform an independent survey of the Study. Area in August 2000, but did not complete the study at that time at the request of the Town. In November 2002, URS was asked to resurvey and complete this study. Based upon what is observed in the Study Area, this report makes a recommendation as to whether the Study Area meets the criteria in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law.. The actual determination itself remains the responsibility of the Town's legislative body. 11 Lionshead Reinvestment Study December 2002 6.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY. An important objective of this Reinvestment Study is to obtain and evaluate data, where possible, on a wide range of physical conditions that are present in the Study Area. Data about the Study Area were collected from various public agencies and supplemented by a careful field survey of the Study Area. This Reinvestment Study included the following tasks: • Task 1: Determination of Project Issues • Task 2: Base Mapping • Task 3: Data Collection and Research • Task 4: Field Survey and Verification • Task 5: Documentation and Findings • Task 6: Presentation of Reinvestment Study Appendix A contains a map showing the location of photographs that were taken of a variety of site conditions and public improvements within the Study Area. Appendix B provides the photographs themselves. 1~ 12 Lionshead Reinvestment Study December 2002 7.0 DETERMINATION OF CONDITIONS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA The overall findings of the Town of -Vail Reinvestment Study Update are presented in this section. The analysis addresses general building and site conditions, and the condition of public improvements throughout the Study Area to determine whether the area could-meet the criteria outlined in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law. Presence of Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures and Sites Overall, degrees of site or structural deterioration are identified below: Standard, Sound These buildings or sites contained no or relatively minor defects, were adequately maintained and required no treatment outside of normal ongoing maintenance. Substandard, Minor Deficiencies These buildings or sites contained deficiencies which required minor/major repairs to secondary structural elements such as fascia/soffits, gutter/downspouts, exterior finishes, windows, doors, stairwells, and fire escapes. Sites with pavement deterioration of 25-75% of the site were considered minor deficiencies. These type of deficiencies might possibly be corrected through normal maintenance, however, replacement or rebuilding or components by skilled people in the building trades is recommended. Substandard Major Deficiencies These buildings or sites contained major defects over a widespread area and would be difficult to correct through normal maintenance. These buildings would require replacement or rebuilding of components by people skilled in the building trades. Sites with surface pavement deterioration greater than 75% of the site area were considered major deficiencies. The many structures within Study Area were surveyed for their degree of deterioration based on the three condition categories defined above. Most structures were found to be in the "Standard, Sound" condition, with a few that could be classified into the "Substandard, Minor Deficiencies" category. Those structures that could be classified into the "Substandard, Minor Deficiencies" category typically contained superficial exterior deficiencies such as the need for a fresh coat of paint on wood siding, balcony railings, and the like. These minor deficiencies are also typically the result of the often harsh winter conditions found in Vail's mountain setting, which can be, and usually are, remedied through periodic maintenance. As a result of the type and scale of the minor deficiencies identified in the many publicly and privately owned structures in the Study Area, it was determined that those deficiencies were insufficient to qualify as a finding of blight under the "Presence of Deteriorated or Deteriorating Structures and Sites" criterion. 13 Lionshead Reinvestment Faulty Street Layout December 2002 Faulty street layout is common in the Study Area. Proper street access is not provided to several parcels. For several parcels located in the Study Area, they cannot be accessed without passing through another parcel. In addition, lack of adequate turning- lanes from frontage .roads to lodgings backs up traffic. Town buses sometimes have difficulty making left turns because of the inadequate street gradients, and the volume of traffic that competes with buses for breaks in the frontage road traffic. As a result of faulty street layout in Lionshead Village, vehicular traffic heading towards lodgings poses a significant conflict with the large volume of pedestrian traffic crossing from parking. See Photos 12 and 18 in Appendix B for examples of this condition. Faulty Lot Layout Faulty lot layout occurs in the Study Area. In one instance, motorists accessing a particular lodge need to pass through another property in order to get to the desired lodge's entry and parking. Another example of faulty lot layout pertains to iot shape. There exists no standard lot size or shape within the Study Area, as can be observed on the attached Study Area Map exhibit. Within the Study Area there are at least three lots that are a shape that renders them inadequate or inaccessible. See. Photos 12 and 18 in Appendix B for examples of this condition. Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions that Endanger Life or Property Numerous unsafe conditions for pedestrians exist in the Study Area. In some areas the absence of sidewalks and crosswalks causes pedestrians to cross streets anywhere, creating a very dangerous conflict with private vehicles, delivery vehicles, and the regional transit. buses. Pathways pedestrians use to get to the ski yard are narrow and icy during the winter. Overflow parking on streets during the peak season creates a dangerous conflict between through-vehicle traffic and pedestrians. Pedestrian access to the mall area is unmarked and the points of entry are sometimes unclear. Safe crossings are made more difficult by winter road conditions and traffic congestion. In addition, pedestrians are often wearing ski boots and carrying skis, which affects pedestrian movement and flow. Vehicular traffic heading towards lodgings poses a significant conflict with the large volume of pedestrian traffic crossing from parking structures towards the mall area. Lack of pedestrian crossings to residential properties adds to unsafe conditions for pedestrians. Inappropriate drop off sites for skiers at the western end of the parking structure located off of I-70, which is not designated for this purpose, create unsafe conditions for pedestrians, as automobiles confront pedestrians crossing from the parking structure. Winter snow makes for icy conditions in addition to limiting space for vehicle passage. Snow cats'and snowmobiles must cross the frontage road to access the mountain. As a result, conflicts with traffic on the frontage road occurs. Lack of directional signage to lodgings slows traffic and causes congestion. Some parking lots are sheets of ice in the winter due to poor gradients. See Photos 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 17 in Appendix B for examples of this condition. v~ 14 Lionshead Reinvestment Study December 2002 Deterioration of Site or Other Improvements The most evident sign of deterioration of public improvements is the erosion of concrete in Lionshead Village due to the freeze/thaw cycle that occurs between winter and spring. In addition, snow cats are rough on roadways and walkways and contribute to deterioration of paved surfaces. Concrete erosion can be found often on stairways. In addition, many streets in Lionshead Village are characterized by deterioration of concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Other forms of deterioration include the poor quality of retaining walls and site furniture in the mall area. See Photos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 13 in Appendix B for examples of this condition. Unusual Topography Unusual topography is present in the Study Area. It has associated safety issues in that the steep terrain in some areas causes icy spots during the winter, which contribute to vehicle and/or pedestrian accidents. Additionally, the steep terrain contributes to the unusual shape of many parcels, the inefficient arrangement of many streets and driveways, and the orientation and configuration of structures on their parcels. The Existence of Conditions that Endanger Life or Property by Fire and Other Causes The example of the "existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire and other causes" that is most evident in the Study Area is the difficulty of access by fire and emergency vehicles to certain sites and structures. In some locations, ground level retail extensions make the vertical mass of buildings inaccessible to fire protection (fire department ladders cannot reach buildings). In other instances, residential buildings do not provide the 150 foot frontage required for fire/emergency access. Other examples of limited. emergency access include delivery trucks that park in the fire lanes and the mall's vehicle access routes have many dead ends and fire trucks are not provided with the appropriate amount of space for their turning radii. Additionally, winter snow creates icy roadways in addition to limiting space for adequate fire truck/emergency vehicle passage in some areas. This difificulty of access by fire and emergency vehicles to certain sites and structures is primarily the result of three other factors already discussed: Faulty lot layout, faulty street layout, and unusual topography. The mountainous terrain that exists within the Study Area creates a situation that results in parcels and streets that are less than optimally arranged. Since Vail's native mountain terrain is not only at the heart of its existence as a resort community, but a characteristic of the town that will never change, certain difficulties "come with the territory." As a result, while improving fire and emergency access is a ongoing effort by the Town, it was determined that this factor alone is insufficient to qualify as a finding of blight under the "existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire and other causes" criterion. 15 Lionshead Reinvestment December 2002 Buildings That Are Unsafe or Unhealthy for Persons to Live or Work In Because of Building .Code Violations, Dilapidations, Deterioration, Defective Design, Physical Construction, or Faulty or Inadequate Facilities Periodically, building code violations will exist in all communities as a part of the ever- changing nature of the built environment. However, it is reasonable to expect that before a finding under this criterion can be established, it would be necessary to document a sufficient quantity of violations on one or several properties or an abundance of violations under one or several codes throughout the Study Area. Violations to this degree were not identified within the Study Area; therefore, it was determined that there is insufficient evidence for a finding under this criterion. Environmental Conditions Environmental contamination has occurred within the Study Area. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there may still be a fuel tank leak at one of the service stations within the Study Area, although this issue has been deemed resolved in court. Unpaved parking lots (gravel) in the Study Area cause soil contamination from cars leaking gasoline, automobile oil, and anti-freeze. Stormwater running off from paved surfaces flows into creeks, sends pollutants into streams and impacts groundwater sources as well. See Photo 15 in Appendix B for an example of this condition. Inadequate Public Improvements or Utilities There are examples of inadequate public improvements found in the Study Area. In the eastern edge of the Study Area underground fuel tanks in some cases are buried only 4 feet under ground due to a high water table. In some cases tanks have required strapping down to avoid floating. Snow cats tear up roads, concrete sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and create noise and visual pollution. The Vail Sanitation Plant was almost at capacity in 1998 according to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Overhead utility lines are present in the Study Area., Stormwater runoff from paved surfaces that carries pollutants is discharged into streams and contributes to water quality degradation. Additionally, several streets are lacking in curbs and gutters and sidewalks. See Photos 16 and 19 in Appendix B for examples of this condition. 16 Lionshead Reinvestment Study December 2002 8.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The conclusion of this study is based on the following .summaries of the seven criteria described in the previous section in which conditions were found in the Study Area that meet the criteria identified in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law: 1. Faulty Street Layout. Within the Study Area, there is the presence of faulty street layout that does not provide adequate street access for motorists, pedestrians and/or emergency vehicles. Turning lanes are needed to ensure adequate traffic flow at certain intersections. 2. Faulty Lot Layout. There is the presence of faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility and usefulness in the commercial areas of the Study Area. These include: inefficient and unworkable layout of parking and loading areas in relation to commercial and residential structures, which creates poor and dangerous traffic circulation. 3. Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions• Conditions that Endanger Life or Property. There is the presence of unsanitary or unsafe conditions within the Study Area. These primarily consist of unsafe and hazardous conditions for pedestrians and motorists. 4. Deterioration of Site or Imorovements. There is the presence of deterioration of site and other improvements within the Study Area. In the commercial areas, this includes the deterioration of parking areas and deterioration of street curb and gutter surfaces. Concrete erosion is a common occurrence in the mall area. 5. Unusual topography. There is the presence of conditions of unusual topography in the Study Area. Steep slopes contribute to icy winter conditions. Retaining wall failure is occurring in the Study Area. 6. Environmental Contamination. There is the presence of environmental contamination in the Study Area. These conditions are primarily related to unpaved parking areas, and stormwater runofif from paved surfaces. 7. Inadeauate Public Improvements Utilities. There is the presence of inadequate public improvements and utilities in the Study Area, including: deteriorating or non-existent street pavement, curb and gutter, overhead utilities, and inadequate facilities for stormwater runoff. It is the conclusion and recommendation of this study that the Study Area, in its present condition and use, as of December 2002, meets seven of the criteria in Colorado Revised Statute § 31-25-103(2), (exceeding the minimum of four of the eleven factors required). By reason of the presence of these seven factors identified in Section 103(2) of the Urban Renewal Law and discussed above, the Study Area impairs or arrests the sound growth of the Town of Vail, retards the provision of housing accommodations, constitutes an economic 17 Lionshead Reinvestment December 2002 or social liability, and is a threat to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. These factors indicate .problems with .public infrastructure and. those private site improvements which are accessible to the public rather than deterioration of private structures; however, uncorrected deficiencies identified in this Report could lead to a decline in many of the private structures in the Study Area. 0 18 Lionshead Reinvestment Study Decerr~er 2002 Appendix A: Photo Location Map ~~ Uonshead Reinvestment Study _ December 2002 Appendix A: Photo Location Map Numbers shown on this map correspond to the Photo Numbers in Appendix B and represent the general location where the photograph was taken. O =Non-Location-Specific =rrs~ __ _.~. Lionshead Reinvestment Appendix B: Photograph Survey of Conditions that Meet Colorado Urban Renewal Law Criteria Decerreber 2002 0 Lionshead Reinvestment Study Decerr~er 2002 Photo 1 Site maintenance problem with deteriorated brick pavers. Photo 2 This is a photograph of a base of what used to be a street light. See metal nails exposed at the top. Lionshead Reinvestment Study Dece~er 2002 ~~ . Photo 3 Deteriorated stairs and poor drainage. Photo 4 Poor drainage and curb deterioration. Lionshead Reinvestment December 2002 __ ~ v:. ... __ _,,_ - -' ,, ~ ~ ~ } , y' c,"x. - ~ 'k ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ j t.. ~ E fi ~ ~ ~F~, 4~~ f i j ~} ~ ~ y~Y "~' j+ ~. z I ~ 1~. ~ ~ _ ii X~b $ _ ~} ~ ~ ..t ~ ~~ Q _ - _ - _!~ ~ I~ .. 4 -' t . . r ,~- i a Cr 1 ~" ( ~, i f;^ ~ ~ ..~' 4 y a ; _ .k 1" a rF l ...~.. ~ '. r ,~. ~ ~__ -^. ..... _ .t rt t .. ~ .. Photo 6 Evidence of unscreened trash found in the Study Area. Photo 5 This is a photograph of handrail posts that have rusted through with concrete erosion on a mall stairway (concrete erosion is common and results from the freeze/thaw cycle that occurs along with snow cats that chip away ice and snow -and concrete - to clear walkways and roadways). Lionshead Reinvestment December 2D02 Photo 7 Evidence of settling sidewalks cracking in the Study Area. Photo 8 Conflicts between delivery vehicles, motorists, and pedestrians often occurs at this site, and are exacerbated by the presence of snow and ice during the peak season. Lionshead Reinvestment Photo 10 Poor drainage and cracked pavement. December 2002 Photo 9 Inadequate and unsafe drainage pipe existing in a drive through area. Lionshead Reinvestment December 2002 Photo 12 Faulty street and lot layout of these two parcels (parking lot of public utility plant adjacent to a public maintenance facility parcel) requires an easement from the property owners of the right parcel to provide adequate street access to the parcel on the left. l~ ^~ Photo 11 Presence of trash, lack of site maintenance, and cracked pavement. Lionshead Reinvestment Study December 2002 3 :~ J + _ - 1~ 3 _ - ~.i -~- AGy 1. - ._K-_ +, ~~i. ~ ~ ,~,-" ~~~ ~ ;_ _ _ ~ s - - -,_. - - ~ - t { rib - ~s ~~;,~ ~ ,r~ 7" 4r~lh ~: -~ e ~_ ~ '~'` Apr ,b:~ - } ~, ( ^~ ~4 = ~ ='X ~ ~ ~ t ~.f "!f ~ a ~ a ~~ ~ ;A ~y F ~ +~} ~s_ t '~ ~ •~ ~ -'~: ~ ~f _~ '"~ ~;~~ ~ ~ LNG . ~~:"~~ ~+.~t~.'.---'~' ~,,, _ +k. Photo 13 Deteriorating walls of parking facilities (inside underground lot buckling walls due to hydrostatic pressure build up). ~. .; ?~ ~~~ - G~ -. R 1. ' ~ rf~..: ~ ! ~, 1r / ~ ~_ k4 i II ~ ~' ~-.-" _ ' !!! ~4_ _ -_ - -_4~r~ -___- ,_. .. ~ ~. ~- ,, ~= . ~~ .__ ~_ _. - ~~- _. - -._ _ .. ,~_ _~ ,. n i. .rL~. Photo 14 This parking deck can not support the weight of a fire truck, which limits access to the building in the event of an emergency. Lionshead Reinvestment Study December 2002 Photo 15 Unpaved parking areas lead to environmental contamination due to fluids leaking from motor vehicles. Photo 16 Steep driveways become troublesome and potentially dangerous during the winter. Lionshead Reinvestment # ~ ~ - ~- .. December 2002 ~~ Photo 18 Faulty street layout adds to potential pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. Photo 17 This turnaround has the potential for many pedestrian and vehicle conflicts that would only be exacerbated by increased visitation and icy conditions during the peak season. Lionshead Reinvestment T. ~TJ December 2002 Photo 19 Lack of walkways increases risks for pedestrian and vehicle conflicts. A#tachment F Lionshead Public Facilities Development Plan ~'A FT % r, 1 ,~. ~~, LIONSHEAD PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PLAN VAIL REINVESTMENT AUTHORITY WORKING DRAFT MUR\57037\436628.01 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1 1.1 Preface .............................................................................................................................1 1.2 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Definitions .......................................................................................................................2 2. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS ....................................................................................................2 2.1 Qualifying Conditions ................................................................. 2.2 Projects ........................................................................................ 2.3 Planning Approval ...................................................................... 2.4 Consultation ................................................................................ 2.5 Public Hearing ............................................................................ 2.6 Boundaries of the Plan Area ....................................................... 2.7 Other Findings ............................................................................ 3. DESCRIPTION OF PLAN OBJECTIVES ........................................ ................................ 2 ................................ 3 ................................ 3 ................................ 3 ................................ 3 ................................ 4 ................................ 4 .................................5 4. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................................5 4.1 Redevelopment and Rehabilitation Actions .................................................................... 5 4.2 Property Acquisition and Land Assernblage ................................................................... 6 4.3 Relocation Assistance and Payments .............................................................................. 6 4.4 Public Improvements and Facilities ................................................................................ 6 4.5 Redevelopment Agreements ........................................................................................... 6 4.6 Interagency Cooperation ................................................................................................. 6 4.7 Advisory Committee ....................................................................................................... 7 5. PROJECT FINANCING ..........................................................................................................7 5.1 Tax Increment Financing ................................................................................................ 7 5.2 Additional Taxing Entities .............................................................................................. 8 5.3 Participating Interest in Projects ..................................................................................... 8 6. MODIFICATIONS TO THIS PLAN ......................................................................................9 MUR\58179\432486.01 1 LIONSHEAD PUBLIC FACILITIES INVESTMENT PLAN December 2003 I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Preface This Lionshead Public Facilities Investment Plan ("Plan") has been prepared by the Vail Reinvestment Authority ("VRA") for adoption by the Town Council of the Town of Vail pursuant to provisions of the Urban Renewal Law of the State of Colorado, Article 25 of Title 31, Colorado Revised Statutes. This Plan is prepared and adopted to satisfy the requirements of § 31-25-107, C.R.S., that an urban renewal :plan be adopted by .the governing body of the municipality before an urban renewal authority undertakes an urban renewal project. The administration of this project and the enforcement and execution of this Plan shall be performed by VRA. 1.2 Background The Lionshead area is one of four base areas for the Vail Mountain Ski Area. The area was originally developed from 1972-1974 as the base for the Lionshead .gondola. Lodging, condominiums and retail were constructed over a period of years, often without coordinated planning of circulation and public transportation facilities of the area. The Lionshead parking garage was built in 1981 significantly increasing the pedestrian traffic in the area. An extensive bus system has developed as the major means of moving people around Vail. The Lionshead area now accounts for approximately 45% of the skier access to Vail Mountain. As a result of this :rapid development activity, the traffic and transportation network for personal vehicles, :pedestrians and delivery vehicles does not work well. There are many vehicle/pedestrian conflicts creating unsafe conditions throughout the Lionshead area. In addition, the public infrastructure in the Lionshead area has deteriorated. Extremes of temperature and topography as well as the intense utilization of the area by residents and .guests has caused streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and retaining walls to be subject to accelerated deterioration. Inadequate attention to runoff from impervious surfaces and deteriorated drainage facilities have contributed to water quality deterioration in the Gore Creek. The Lionshead Master Plan, adopted in 1999, identifies specific public infrastructure improvements that need to occur and provides incentives for private redevelopment. A major implementation action in the Master Plan is the redevelopment of the Lionshead gondola and Sun Bird building sites into ahigh-end hotel. Other major development sites include the remodeling of the Marriott and Antler properties. These development projects will place many more guests and residents into the Lionshead area. To properly support this major private reinvestment in Lionshead, the supporting transportation infrastructure needs to be upgraded. Sidewalks and streets need to be constructed or MUR\58179\432486.01 reconstructed. A transportation center must be built to accommodate the increased usage of the Lionshead area, and improvements to the Frontage Road are needed to serve the increased traffic. This Plan is intended to provide the f nancial mechanisms necessary to support the renovation and reconstruction of the public infrastructure in Lionshead. 1.3 Definitions Cooperation Agreement: Any agreement between VRA and the Town of Vail or any other public body .regarding action taken pursuant to any of the powers set forth in the Urban Renewal Law, or in any .other provision of Colorado law, for the purpose of facilitating public undertakings deemed necessary or appropriate by VRA under this Plan. Plan: This Lionshead Public Facilities Investment Plan as it may be modified from time to time. Plan Area: The area described in Section 2.6 of this Plan, and depicted on Figure 1, which has been found to be blighted and for which the undertaking of urban renewal projects is declared to be necessary. Redevelopment Agreement: An agreement between VRA and a developer or developers representing. the redevelopment or rehabilitation of property within the Plan Area. 2. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS 2.1 Qualifying Conditions Based on the Lionshead Reinvestment Study prepared by URS Corporation, dated December 2002, and evidence presented at the public hearing, the Town Council finds that there exists blight, as defined by § 31-25-103(2), C.R.S., in the Plan Area. The Lionshead Reinvestment Study found that blight conditions were prevalent throughout the area. The conditions found to exist include: a) Defective and inadequate street layout: Street system does not provide adequate access for motorists, .pedestrians and emergency vehicles. Turning radii are often inadequate. b) Unsafe conditions that endanger life or property: Traffic and circulation patterns are dangerous for both pedestrians and motorists. c) Deterioration of site improvements: Public parking areas and concrete retaining walls are deteriorating. Curbs and gutters on public property also show deterioration. d) Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title unmarketable: Restrictive covenants controlling uses on #~-certain properties and other MUR\58179\432486.01 2 conditions of title impair the redevelopment of key parcels in the Plan Area. In many instances, covenant provisions conflict or have been ignored by prior development. e) Environmental contamination: Runoff from unpaved parking areas and stormwater runoff from paved surfaces contaminate Gore Creek. f) Inadequate public improvements: Streets and sidewalks on public property are not adequate for the traffic and do not provide a safe separation for pedestrians from motor vehicles. Pavement, curb and gutter and retaining walls on public property are deteriorating. Overhead utilities are presents and stormwater management is inadequate. The Town Council finds that the presence of these factors substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the Town of Vail, retards the provision of housing accommodations, constitutes an economic and social liability and is a menace to the public health, safety, .morals and welfare of the Town of Vail. 2.2 Projects The Plan Area is appropriate for one or more urban renewal projects and other undertakings of the VRA as authorized by the Urban Renewal Law. 2.3 Planning Approval A .general plan for the Town of Vail, known as the Vail Comprehensive Plan, has been adopted by the Town Council. In addition, the Lionshead area is the subject of the Lionshead Master Plan which is the Town's official planning document for guiding the redevelopment of the Lionshead area and is a part of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. This Plan has been submitted to the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail for review and recommendations as to its conformity with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and the Lionshead Master Plan. The Planning and Environmental Commission met on and has submitted its written recommendations to the Town Council. 2.4 Consultation This Plan has been submitted to the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County as required by the Urban Renewal Law. The Eagle County School District has been advised of this Plan and has been given an opportunity to provide comments. 2.5 Public Hearing The Town Council of the Town of Vail has held a public hearing to consider this Plan after public notice thereof in compliance with the Urban Renewal Law in the [Vail newspaper of record], describing the time, date, and purpose of the public hearing, identifying the Plan Area and outlining the general scope of the projects being considered MUR\58179\432486.01 3 for implementation pursuant to this Plan. Notice of the ..public hearing was sent to owners, residents, and business owners in the Plan Area at their last know address at least 30 days before the date of the public 'hearing. 2.6 Boundaries of -the Plan Area The boundaries of the Plan Area shall be as set forth in Figure l attached hereto. The Town Council finds that the boundaries of the Plan Area have been drawn as narrowly as feasible to accomplish the planning and development objectives of this Plan. 2.7 Other Findings 2.7.1 One or more of the projects will require the demolition and clearance, subject to other restrictions, of certain public improvements within the Plan Area as provided in this Plan. Such actions may be necessary to eliminate unsafe conditions, eliminate obsolete and other uses detrimental to the public welfare, and otherwise remove and prevent the spread of deterioration. 2.7.2 In order to eliminate or reduce the qualifying conditions currently existing within the Plan Area, as well as those qualifying conditions which-may be reasonably anticipated to develop within the Plan Area in the absence of public action, it is the intent of the Town Council in adopting this Plan that VRA exercise all powers authorized to be exercised by VRA under the Urban Renewal Law and which are necessary, convenient or appropriate to accomplish the objectives of this Plan. It is the intent of this Plan that VRA shall exercise all such powers as may .now be possessed or hereafter granted to VRA for the elimination of qualifying conditions within the Plan Area. 2.7.3 Many properties in the Plan Area .are subject to restrictive covenant provisions from previous subdivisions of property in Vail and Lionshead. In many cases, the covenant provisions conflict with one another and in some cases have been ignored by .existing development. These restrictive covenants create an impediment to the redevelopment of properties within the Plan Area, particularly the financing of improvements which are key to the redevelopment of the Plan Area. VRA is authorized to use the power of eminent domain, with the consultation and concurrence of the owner of the underlying fee interest, to eliminate restrictive covenant provisions and other conditions of title which prevent redevelopment of properties within the Plan Area. 2.7.4 If it becomes necessary for individuals, families or businesses to relocate as a result of the implementation of this Plan, a feasible method exists for the relocation of individuals, families, and business concerns that may be displaced, insuring that decent, safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations and business locations can be made available. MUR\58179\432486.01 4 2.7.5 The powers conferred by the Urban Renewal Law are for public uses and purposes for which public money may be expended and the police powers exercised, and this Plan is in the public interest and necessity, such finding being a matter of legislative determination by the Town Council. 2.7.6 VRA may, in its discretion, issue bonds, including bonds or other obligations, to the extent permitted by law. 3. DESCRIPTION OF PLAN OBJECTIVES This Plan is an important tool to address the problems confronting the Lionshead area. The Plan helps to further the goals for the area previously outlined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The objectives for the Plan include the following: • Create a sense of place and an improved aesthetic character for Lionshead for 'both residents and guests. • Renovate or redevelop the deteriorated and/or outdated residential and commercial buildings and provide enhanced amenities. • .Enhance the aesthetic appearance of the area to make it more appealing. • Improve pedestrian, bicycle, mass transit and auto accessibility and circulation. • Eliminate impediments to the redevelopment of key facilities with the Plan Area. • Upgrade and restore public infrastructure including transportation facilities, parking, sidewalks and streetscapes. 4. -PLAN IMPLEMENTATION In order to accomplish the objectives of this Plan and to fully implement this Plan, VRA shall be authorized to undertake the following activities: 4.1 Redevelopment and Rehabilitation Actions Redevelopment and rehabilitation actions within the Plan Area may include such undertakings and activities as are in accordance with this Plan, the Lionshead Master Plan, and the Urban Renewal Law, including without limitation: demolition and removal of public buildings and improvements as set forth herein; installation, construction and reconstruction of public improvements as set forth herein; elimination of unhealthful, unsanitary or unsafe conditions; elimination of obsolete or other uses detrimental to the public welfare; and other actions to remove or to prevent the spread of deterioration. VRA is authorized to negotiate and enter into agreements with landowners, developers, and investors regarding appropriate projects throughout the Plan Area which will .generate incremental property tax revenues. MUR\58179\432486.01 5 4.2 Property Acquisition The principal purpose of this Plan is the rehabilitation and enhancement of public infrastructure in the Plan Area and the support of new private investment occurring on private property. Restrictive covenants and other conditions of title interfere with new :private investment. The power of eminent domain as authorized by the Urban Renewal Law may be utilized as VRA determines necessary to eliminate and remove restrictive covenants and other conditions of title which interfere with new private investment. 4.3 Relocation Assistance and Payments In the event it is necessary to relocate or displace any business or other commercial establishments as a result of any property acquisition, VRA may adopt relocation policies for payment of relocation expenses. Such expenses may include moving expenses, actual direct losses of property for business concerns, and goodwill and lost profits that -are reasonably related to relocation of the business, resulting from its displacement for which reimbursement or compensation is not otherwise made. 4.4 Public Improvements and Facilities VRA may undertake certain actions which would make the Plan Area more attractive for private investment by providing public improvements consistent with the Lionshead Master Plan. These improvements include street and traffic improvements, streetscape improvements, a transportation center, landscaping, park and recreation facilities, utility improvements, open space acquisition, stormwater improvements, public art projects, and other similar improvements necessary to carry out the objectives of the Lionshead Master Plan. 4.5 Redevelopment Agreements VRA is authorized to enter into one or more Redevelopment Agreements with developer(s) and such other entities as are determined by VRA to be necessary or desirable by VRA to carry out the purposes of this Plan. Such Redevelopment Agreements may contain such terms and provisions as shall be deemed necessary or appropriate by VRA for the purpose of undertaking the activities contemplated by this Plan or the Urban Renewal Law, and may further provide for such undertakings by VRA, including financial assistance, as may be necessary for the achievement of the objectives of this Plan or as may otherwise be authorized by the Urban Renewal Law. 4.6 Interagency Cooperation VRA may enter into one or more Cooperation Agreements with the Town of Vail or other public bodies pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law. Cooperation Agreements may provide, without limitation, for financing, for construction of public improvements, for administration, for technical assistance and for other purposes. MUR\58179\432486.01 6 4.7 Advisory Committee 5. VRA shall establish an advisory committee of Lionshead residential and commercial property owners to advise the VRA on matters related to theimplementation of the Plan. The .composition of the committee shall be determined by the VRA. PROJECT FINANCING 5.1 Tax Increment Financing The primary method of financing the projects undertaken in furtherance of this Plan shall be the use of property tax increment financing pursuant to Section 31-25-107(9), C.R.S., which is by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in its entirety. If there is any conflict between the Urban Renewal Law and this Plan, the provisions of the Urban Renewal Law shall control. All property taxes collected within the Plan Area shall be divided as follows: a) That portion of property taxes equal to the amount collected within the boundaries of the Plan Area in the twelve-month period ending on the last day of the month prior to the effective date of the approval of this Plan shall be paid into the funds of each such public body as are all other taxes collected by or for such public body. b) Except as VRA may legally provide otherwise under the Urban Renewal Law, the portion of such property and sales taxes in excess of the amounts described in paragraph a), above, shall be allocated to and, when collected, paid into a special fund to fund VRA's obligations with respect to any project within the Plan Area, including payment of the principal of, the interest on, and any premiums due in connection with the bonds, loans or advances to, or indebtedness incurred by (whether funded, refunded, assumed, or otherwise) VRA for financing or refinancing, in whole or in part, the projects in the Plan Area. c) When such bonds, loans, advances, and indebtedness, if any, including interest thereon and any premiums due in connection therewith, have been paid, but in no event later than 25 years following the adoption of this Plan for the construction of the projects' improvements, any excess property and sales tax collections not allocated pursuant to this paragraph or any Cooperation Agreement between VRA and Town or other taxing jurisdiction, shall be paid into the funds of said jurisdiction or public body. Unless and until the total property tax collections in the Plan Area exceed the base year property tax collections in the Plan Area, as provided in paragraph a), above, all such property tax collections shall be paid into the funds of the appropriate public body. VRA reserves the right to enter into Cooperation Agreements with select taxing jurisdictions relative to allocation of incremental tax revenues. MUR\58179\432486.01 7 d) The adoption of this Plan shall be deemed an adoption of a provision that taxes, if any, evied after the effective date of the approval of this Plan upon taxable property in the Plan Area shall be divided among VRA and various taxing entities for a period of 25 years thereafter or such lesser period as provided in Section 31-25-107(9), C.R.S., as exists on the date hereof, or in any Cooperation Agreement between VRA and a county, the Town or a special district. Municipal sales taxes collected in the Plan Area each year or the municipal portion of taxes levied upon taxable property within the Plan Area, or both such taxes, may be allocated as described in this Section 5.1 for a period in excess of 25 years after the effective date of adoption of this Plan if the existing bonds are in default or about to go into default. e) VRA and the Town may, by Cooperation Agreement or other agreement, provide for the method by which sales tax increments shall be allocated and paid to VRA pursuant to the provisions of this Plan and the Urban Renewal Law. Such .agreements, and similar agreements between VRA and other public bodies, may provide for additional assistance by the Town and cooperation between VRA and the Town in support of the projects as may be more fully set forth in the provisions of such Cooperation Agreement or other agreement. 5.2 Additional Taxing Entities VRA recognizes that tax increment financing is the primary tool for funding redevelopment activities. However, Colorado law allows the creation of additional political subdivisions within a municipality to provide services within a defined area. These entities include metropolitan and other special districts as well as business .improvement districts. These districts have available certain taxing powers that can generate revenues in addition to those generated by tax increment financing. VRA is committed to exploring a variety of strategies and mechanisms to complement tax increment financing. VRA recognizes that it is imperative that financing mechanisms be flexible and creative to provide necessary assistance to a broad range of redevelopment activities. 5.3 Participating Interest in Projects VRA -may require a participating interest in private development projects for which it provides financial assistance. Public assistance is frequently needed for redevelopment projects in order to fill the gap between traditional equity and debt financing and the additional costs of a redevelopment project. In the event the project generates revenues at or greater than market return, the public should share in the success of the project. The terms of the participating interest will be specified in the Redevelopment Agreement at a level and on terms appropriate for each project. MUR\58179\432486.01 8 6. MODIFICATIONS TO THIS PLAN This Plan may be amended or modified pursuant to provision of the Urban Renewal Law as provided in § 31-25-107, C.R.S. Modifications to this Plan will require appropriate notification in accordance with the Urban Renewal Law, including submission to the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County and written notice mailed to .all property owners, residents, and owners of businesses in the Plan Area not less than 30 days prior to the consideration of an substantial modification. MUR\58179\432486.01 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 4, 2003 SUBJECT: Appeal of the September 22, 2003, Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission's decision to approve the development plan for Vail's Front Door Project, located at 145 Vail .Road/Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision. Appellant: Mrs. LuAnne Wells, represented by Karen Romeo of the law firm of Stevens, Littman, Biddison, Tharp and Weinberg, L.L.C. Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Jay Peterson of the law firm of Bailey & Peterson, L.L.C. Planner: George Ruther t. SUBJECT PROPERTY Vail's Front Door Project development site is located at 145 Vail Road/Lots 1 & 2, Mill Creek Subdivision. A Vicinity Map has been attached for reference (attachment A). II. STANDING OF APPELLANT Pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 3, Section 12-3-3(C), Vail Town Code, in part, `An appeal maybe initiated by an applicant, adjacent property owner, or any aggrieved or adversely affected person from any order, decision, determination or interpretation by any administrative official with respect to this Title. 'Aggrieved or adversely affected person" means any person who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by this Title. The alleged adverse interest maybe shared in common with other members of the community at large, but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons. The Administrator shall determine the standing of an appellant " As the appellant, Mrs. LuAnne Wells, is the owner of property located at One Vail ,Units 4 & 5, Vail, Colorado, 81657, which is adjacent to the approved Vail's Front Door Project development site, Staff finds the appellant has standing to file an appeal, pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 3, Section 12-3-3(C), Vail Town Code. III. BACKGROUND On January 6, 2003, Vail Resorts Development Company represented by Braun Associates, Inc. submitted 14 development review applications to the Town of Vail Community Development to facilitate the redevelopment of Vail's Front Door Project. On eighteen (18) different occasions, over a ten (10) month period of time, the applicant appeared before either the Vail Town Council, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission, or the Town of Vail Design Review Board for review and consideration of the proposed plans intending to facilitate the redevelopment of Vail's Front Door Project. A complete copy of the meeting minutes from each of the respective public hearings is kept on file at the Town of Vail Community Development Department and available for public 1 inspection upon request. On September 22, 2003, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission held a public hearing which was duly noticed pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 3, Section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code on the applicant's request for approval of a development plan in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 8, Article E, Sections 12-8E-6, 12-8E-7, 12-8E-8, and 12-8E-9, Vail Town Code. Upon review of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing by the Town Staff, applicant, and public, the Planning & Environmental commission voted unanimously to approve with conditions the proposed development plan for Vail's Front Door Project. A copy of the Memorandum to the Planning & Environmental Commission, dated September 22, 2003; a letter to the Town of Vail design Review Board from LuAnne Wells and the Wells Team, dated September 12, 2003; an exhibit presented at the hearing by Andy Littman, entitled "FRONT DOOR- UNRESOLVED ISSUES"; and a copy of the Approved Planning & Environmental Commission Public Meeting Minutes, dated September 22, 2003, have been attached for reference (attachment B). On October 2, 2003, Mrs. LuAnne Wells, represented by Karen Romeo, of the law firm of Stevens, Littman, Biddison, Tharp and Weinberg, L.L.C., filed an appeal of the September 22, 2003, Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission's decision to approve the development plan for Vail's Front Door Project, located at 145 Vail Road/Lots 1 & 2, Mil{ Creek Subdivision. The appeal filed on behalf of Mrs. LuAnne Wells was filed pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 3, Section 12-3-3(C), Vail Town Code. A copy of the Appeals Form and Supplement to Appeals Form Exhibits "A" and "B" has been attached for reference (attachment C). The procedures for considering an appeal of a decision of the Planning & Environmental Commission are prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 3, Section12-3-3(C), of the Vail Town Code. Pursuant to Section 12-3-3(C), Vail Town Code, "1. Authority: The Town Council shall have the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination or interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission or the Design Review Board with respect to the provisions of this Title and the standards and procedures hereinafter set forth. 2. Initiation: An appeal maybe initiated by an applicant, adjacent property owner, or any aggrieved or adversely affected person from any order, decision, determination or interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission or the Design Review Board with respect to this Title. "Aggrieved or adversely affected person" means any person who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by this Title. The alleged adverse interest maybe shared in common with other members of the community at large, but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons. The Administrator shall determine the standing of an appellant. If the appellant objects to the Administrator's determination of standing, the Town Council shall, at a meeting prior to hearing evidence on the appeal, make a determination as to the standing of the appellant. if the Town Cauncil determines that the appellant does not have standing to bring an appeal, the appeal shall not be heard and the original action or determination stands. The Town Council may also call up a decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission or the Design Review Board by a majority vote of those Council members present. 3. Procedures: A written notice of appeal must be filed with the Administrator within twenty (20) calendar days of the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision or the Design Review Board's decision becoming final. if the last day for 2 filing an appeal falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or aTown-observed holiday, the last day for filing an appeal shall be extended to the next business day. Such notice shall be accompanied by the name and addresses (person's mailing and property's physical) of the appellant, applicant, property owner, and adjacent property owners (the list of property owners within a condominium project shall be satisfied by listing the addresses for the managing agent or the board of directors of the condominium association) as well as specific and articulate reasons for the appeal on forms provided by the Town. The filing of such notice of appeal will require the Planning and Environmental Commission or the Design Review Board to forward to the Town Council at the next regularly scheduled meeting a summary of all records concerning the subject matter of the appeal and to send written notice to the appellant, applicant, property owner, and adjacent property owners (notification within a condominium project shall be satisfied by notifying the managing agent or the board of directors of the condominium association) at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the hearing. A hearing shall be scheduled to be heard before the Town Council on the appeal within thirty (30) calendar days of the appeal being filed. The Town Council may grant a continuance to allow the parties additional time to obtain information. The continuance shall be allowed for a period not to exceed an additional thirty (30) calendar days. Failure to file such appeal shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this Chapter to appeal any interpretation or determination made by the Planning and Environmental Commission or the Design Review Board. 4. Effect Of Filing An Appeal: The filing of a notice of appeal shall stay all permit activity and any aroceedinas in furtherance of the action appealed unless the `rative official ren~ certifies in writing to the Town Council and the appellant that a stay noses an imminent peril to life or property, in which case the appeal shall not stay further permit activity and any proceedings. The Town Council shall review such certification and grant or deny a stay of the proceedings. Such determination shall be made at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Town Council. 5. Findings: The Town Council shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of this Title have or have not been met': IV. NATURE OF THE APPEAL The appellant, Mrs. LuAnne Wells, represented by Karen Romeo, of the law firm of Stevens, Littman, Biddison, Tharp and Weinberg, L.L.C., is appealing the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission's decision to unanimously approve with conditions the proposed development plan for Vail's Front Door Project. The appellant has provided written justification for the appeal. A copy of the Appeals Form and Supplement to Appeals Form Exhibits "A" and "B" has been attached for reference (attachment C). Staff has summarized the appellant's stated concerns and allegations below: 1. Appellant's Allegations: `According to the Town Code, section 12-61-y3, the Planning and Environmental Commission must apply the following criteria when considering a development plan: 3 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. (Ord. 19(2001) § 2: Ord. 3(2001) § 2) Mrs. Wells asserts the Planning Commission did not correctly apply the criteria set forth in i2-61-13 when approving the Development Plan for the Front Door Project. Specifically, 1) The Planning Commission failed to adequately scrutinize the design of the skier service building as required by 12-61-13(A), (B), and (C). 2) The Planning Commission failed to adequately scrutinize how pedestrian and skier traffic will flow in the Village and in the Vista Bahn ski yard, given the location of the hand truck portal as well as the location of the new skier services building, as required by 12-61-13(and D) 3) The Planning Commission failed to fully consider an appropriate environmental impact report for the project as a whole. The Planning Commission failed to requires the applicant to provide appropriate environmentally sound mitigating measures. As such, the Planning Commission failed to comply with 12-61-11 and 12-61-13(E) 4) The Planning Commission failed to consider an appropriate economic cost v. benefit analysis for the entire project as well for the loading and delivery facility as required 12-61-13(F). 5) The Planning Commission failed to give due consideration to a traffic study and management plan for the loading and delivery facility, as required by 12-61-12 and 14 and 12-61-13(F) 6) The Planning Commission otherwise failed to consider and properly apply applicable criteria such that the interests of Mrs. Wells as a landowner and the citizens of the Town of Vail as a community are adversely impacted in a manner inconsistent with the historical Town of Vail planning documents, applicable rules/regulations, and a healthy sense of development for the future of the Town of Vail. " 4 Staff's Response: Section 12-61-13, Vail Town Code, is the development standards/criteria for evaluation, for proposed development in the Housing (H) zone district. According to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, the development site for Vail's Front Door Project is located in the Ski Base Recreation - 2 (SBR-2) zone district, and therefore, Section 12-61-13, of the Vail Town Code, is not applicable to the review of the development application for Vail's Front Door Project. More correctly cited, Section 12-8E-9, Vail Town Code, is the design criteria to be used by the Planning and Environmental Commission when evaluating proposed development in the Ski Base Recreation - 2 zone district. According to Section 12- 8E-9, Vail Town Code, "The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of a proposed development plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved: A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, .visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter i0 of this Title. D. Comprehensive .Plan: Conformity with Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural And/Or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the development plan is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 1. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the development plan. 5 J. Annexed Lands: Conformity with the terms of an annexation agreement and demonstration of a compelling public benefit which furthers the public interest. 1) The appellant's allegation that the Planning & Environmental Commission failed to adequately scrutinize the design of the skier service building is false and unfounded. According to the public record on the application, the Planning & Environmental Commission on no less than seven (7) occasions held public hearings where the matters of design as it relates to building design, architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation to the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood, improvements, uses and activities, and their impact on adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood, and the community as a whole, open space, landscaping, etc. of the skier service building was discussed. This fact is well documented in the approved meeting minutes of the Planning & Environmental Commission public hearings held on the following dates: June 23; July 14, July 28, August 11, August 25, September 8, and September 22, 2003. In addition, on August 6, 2003, and again on September 3, 2003, the Town of Vail Design Review Board held public hearings to discuss the conceptual review of the application for approval of the development plan for Vail's Front Door Project. The comments of the Board were forwarded to the appellant's consulting team as well as to the Planning & Environmental Commission for consideration in evaluating the proposed application. Copies of the approved meeting minutes of the Planning & Environmental Commission are included in the public record on the application and available for public inspection upon request. 2) The appellant's allegation that the Planning & Environmental Commission failed to adequately scrutinize how pedestrian and skier traffic will flow in the Village and in the Vista Bahn ski yard, given the location of the hand truck portal, as well as the location of the new skier services building, as required by 12-61-13(C and D), is false and unfounded. According to the public record on the application, the Planning & Environmental Commission on no less than three (3) occasions held public hearings where the specific matter of pedestrian and skier traffic flow in the Village and in the Vista Bahn ski yard, given the location of the hand truck portal as well as the location of the new skier services building was discussed. Again, this fact is well documented in the public record of the application and the meeting minutes of the Planning & Environmental Commission. For example, on July 28, 2003, the Planning & Environmental Commission held a worksession to discuss the proposed improvements and development applications associated with the Vista Bahn ski yard and Vail's Front Door Project. Specifically, the Commission directed their attention to the operational and management issues associated with the proposed loading and delivery facility and the conclusions of the revised traffic impact report. To help understand the impacts of the loading and delivery facility the Commission members and members of the appellant's consulting team visited the centralized loading facility in Beaver Creek. In response to information gained during the site visit and as a result of discussions during the public hearings, the Commission directed the applicant to make revisions to the proposed plans as they related to the location of the hand truck portal to ensure compatibility with the prescribed design review criteria. Additionally, to further ensure compatibility with the prescribed design review criteria, as a condition of approval of the development plan approval request (See Amended Conditions of Approval dated 9/22/03) the Commission required that the applicant and the Town of Vail determine the feasibility of providing improved hand truck delivery access to Gore Creek Drive from Founder's Plaza via the Wildflower alleyway. According to the condition, If it is determined by the Town of Vail and the Developer that proposed improvements are both feasible and advantageous for providing handtruck delivery access to Gore Creek Drive via the Wildflower alleyway, the Developer shall submit a revised set of Off Site Improvements Plan to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval and further agrees to construct the improvements as approved. 3) The appellant's allegation that the Planning Commission failed to fully consider an appropriate environmental impact report for the project as a whole, that the Planning Commission failed to require the applicant to provide appropriate environmentally sound mitigating measures, and therefore, the Planning Commission failed to comply with 12-61- 11 and 12-61-13(E) is false and unfounded. According to the public record on the application, the applicant submitted an Environmental Impact Report to the Town of Vail Community Development Department on January 6, 2003. The Report was prepared in accordance with the provisions outlined in Section 12- 12-4, Vail Town Code. To that end, the studies conducted and data collected in the preparation of the Report includes hydrological conditions, soils conditions, atmospheric conditions, biotic conditions, other environmental conditions, visual conditions, land use conditions, circulation and transportation conditions, population characteristics, and alternate development scenarios. The Report was prepared for the project as whole. The contents of the Report respond to each element of the Project which includes the Lodge. at Vail, the Vista Bahn Park, the Residence Club, the Ski Club, and the development on Lots P3 & J (Vail Park). A copy of the Environmental Impact Report was forwarded to the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission on April 14, 2003, for their review and consideration. Prior to the Planning & Environmental Commission meeting on July 28, 2003, the applicant submitted a revised Environmental Impact Report for Vail's Front Door Project to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The revised Report was submitted to the Town in response to revisions made by the applicant to the proposed development plan application and in response to questions raised by the appellant's consulting team. The primary focus of the revised Report was on the impacts the proposed development would have on vehicular circulation on Vail Road, operational aspects of the loading and delivery facility and air and noise quality concerns. The revised Traffic Engineering Study was drafted by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. The Air, Noise, and Odor Impact Assessment was prepared by Greystone Environmental Consults. The findings and conclusions of the revised Environmental Impact Report were discussed by the Commission at the .public hearing held on July 28, 2003, and subsequent hearings. The applicant's traffic engineering consult was present at the public hearings to respond to questions of the Commission and public. As required in Chapter 12-12, Vail Town Code, the original (January 6, 2003) and revised (July 27, 2003) copies of the Environmental Impact Reports for Vail's Front Door Project are available for public review in the offices of the Town. 4) The appellant's allegation that the Planning Commission failed to consider an appropriate economic cost v. benefit analysis for the entire project as well for the loading and delivery facility is true. The Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission in the course of reviewing the proposed development plan for Vail's Front Door Project not once considered or reviewed an economic cost v. benefit analysis for the entire project or for the proposed loading and delivery facility. According to the public record on the application, on no less than two (2) occasions the appellant's representatives argued at a public hearing that the Town of Vail Planning & 7 Environmental Commission was required to evaluate the merits of the proposed development plan based upon an economic cost v. benefit analysis. On each occasion, the Planning & Environmental Commission found, based upon review of the Vail Town Code, that the Commission is not required to evaluate the merits of a proposed development plan in the Ski Base Recreation - 2 zone district based upon an economic cost v. benefit analysis. Additionally, the Commission made a finding that based upon the evidence and testimony presented on the proposed development plan that an economic cost v. benefit analysis would not be required of the applicant 5) The appellant's allegation that the Planning Commission failed to give due consideration to a traffic study and management plan for the loading and delivery facility, as required by 12-61-12 and 14 and 12-61-13(F) is false and unfounded. The public record on this matter is very clear. According to the public record on the. application, on January 6, 2003, the applicant submitted a Traffic Engineering Study. The Study was prepared for Vail Resorts Development Company by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for use in evaluating the traffic impacts of Vail's Front Door Project. Additionally, on July 7, 2003, and again on July 25, 2003, draft Vail Village Loading and Delivery Plans were submitted for consideration by the Town Staff and Commission. On three (3) more occasions, the applicant submitted additional Traffic Engineering Studies intended upon responding to concerns and questions of the Commission and the appellant's representative regarding the conclusions of the Traffic Studies. On no less than four (4) occasions the Planning & Environmental Commission evaluated and provided due consideration of the findings and conclusions of professionally prepared studies on traffic engineering and management plans for loading and delivery. In fact, upon consideration of the findings and conclusions of the required studies and plans, the Commission required amendments and revisions to the plans. The purpose of the required amendments and revisions to the plans was to ensure that the proposed development plan complied with the applicable criteria and standards for development. The Commission's deliberations and conclusions with regard to traffic circulation and loading and delivery management are well documented in the approved meeting minutes of the Planning & Environmental Commission. 6) The appellant's allegations that the Planning Commission otherwise failed to consider and properly apply applicable criteria such that the interests of Mrs. Wells as a landowner and the citizens of the Town of Vail as a community are adversely impacted in a manner inconsistent with the historical Town of Vail planning documents, applicable rules/regulations, and a healthy sense of development for the future of the Town of Vail is false and unfounded. As demonstrated above and as further documented in the public record on the development application for the review of development plan for Vail's Front Door Project, it is painstakingly clear that the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission appropriately considered and properly applied the applicable criteria such that the interests of Mrs. Wells as a landowner and the citizens of the Town of Vail as a community are not adversely impacted in a manner inconsistent with the historical Town of Vail planning documents, applicable rules/regulations, and a healthy sense of development for the future of the Town of Vail. In reviewing the development application requesting approval of the development plan for Vail's Front Door Project, the Planning & Environmental Commission conducted public hearings in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Vail Town Code, applied the appropriate and applicable criteria to the review of the application, carefully scrutinized and properly considered the evidence and testimony presented on the application, and in the end, found, "That the applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence and testimony presented before the Planning and Environmental Commission at a public hearing, that the submittal material, as presented, and the development plan, as proposed, comply with each of the design criteria outlined in Section 12-8E-9 of the Zoning Regulations, or has demonstrated that one or more of the criteria is not applicable to the proposed development, or has demonstrated that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved as a result of the proposed development plan. Furthermore, in keeping with the adopted purpose statement of the Ski Base Recreation - 2 zone district, as prescribed in Section 12-5E-1, of the Zoning Regulations, due to the likelihood of the district being located at the base of Vail Mountain, and upon some of the most critical and important lands to the future success and resort character of the Town, development within the districtshall be evaluated based upon its ability to meet the specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations and to provide "compelling public benefits which further the public interests" that go beyond any economic benefits to the landowner, the Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission, that the proposed development plan for Vail's Front Door Project, will provide compelling public benefits which further the public interests. Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed development plan for Vail's Front Door Project furthers the development objectives of the Town as outlined in the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan and provides benefits and amenities that will serve the residents, guests, and community at-large, both now and into- the future." V. REQUIRED ACTION Uphold/Overturn/Modify the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission's decision of September 22, 2003, to unanimously approve with conditions the proposed development plan for Vail's Front Door Project. Pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 3, Section 12-3-3, Vail Town Code, "The Town Council shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of this title have or have not been met " Further, if the Town Council chooses to overturn or modify the unanimous decision of the Planning & Environmental Commission, the Town Council shall consider the design criteria in accordance with Section 12-8E-9, Vail Town Code. According to Section 12-8E-9, "The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of a proposed development plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved: A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural 9 design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship; Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural And/Or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the development plan is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 1. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the development plan. J. Annexed Lands: Conformity with the terms of an annexation agreement and demonstration of a compelling public benefit which furthers the public interest. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Town of Vail Community Development Department recommends that the Vail Town Council upholds the Planning & Environmental Commission's unanimous decision of September 22, 2003, to approve with conditions the proposed development plan for Vail's Front Door Project. Staff's recommendation to uphold the Planning & Environmental Commission's decision is based upon the evidence and testimony presented during the Commission's review of the development plan approval application and the evidence and testimony presented by the appellant at the appeals hearing. Should the Vail Town Council choose to uphold the Commission's unanimous decision of September 22, 2003, to approve with conditions the proposed development plan for Vail's Front Door Project, Staff recommends that the following finding be made as a part of a motion: "That based upon the review of the public record on the applicant's development application and the evidence and testimony presented before the Vail Town Council at a public hearing on an appeal of the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission decision to unanimously approve with conditions the development plan for Vail's Front Door Project, the Vail Town Council finds: 10 f 1) that the Planning & Environmental Commission appropriately applied the applicable design review criteria, as required by Section 12-8E-9, Vail Town Code; 2) that the submittal material, as presented, and the development plan, as approved complies with each of the design review outlined in Section 12-8E-9 of the Vail Town Code, or has demonstrated that one or more of the criteria is not applicable to the approved development, or has demonstrated that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved as a result of the approved development plan. Furthermore, in keeping with the adopted purpose statement of the Ski Base Recreation -2 zone district, as prescribed in Section 12-5E-1, of the Zoning Regulations, due to the likelihood of the district being located at the base of Vail Mountain, and upon some of the most critical and important lands to the future success and resort character of the Town, development within the district shall be evaluated based upon its ability to meet the specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations and to provide "compelling public benefits which further the public interests" that go beyond any economic benefits to the landowner, the Council finds that the applicant had demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning and Environmental Commission that the approved development plan for Nail's Front Door Project, will provide compelling public benefits which further the public interests. Specifically, the Council finds that the Commission's finding that the approved development plan for Nail's Front Door Project furthers the development objectives of the Town as outlined in the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan and provides benefits and amenities that will serve the residents, guests, and community at-large, both now and into the future are appropriate and proper given the evidence and testimony presented. VII. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map, entitled "Nail's Front Door Project-Development Site'; dated November 4, 2003. B. Memorandum to the Planning & Environmental Commission, dated September 22, 2003; Letter to the Town of Vail design Review Board from LuAnne Wells and the Wells Team, dated September 12, 2003; Exhibit presented at the hearing by Andy Littman, entitled "FRONT DOOR -UNRESOLVED ISSUES" ;Copy of the Approved Planning & Environmental Commission Public Meeting Minutes, dated September 22, 2003. C. A copy of the Appeals Form and Supplement to Appeals Form Exhibits "A" and "B" dated October 2, 2003. 11 ,A ,. Attachment A Vicinity -Map, entitled "Nail's Front Door Project-Development Site'; dated November 4, 2003. ~ r hu' ~n~;r: '.f ~. C ~ ~~~ -'" ~? ~ ,~ r~ a ~ ~~ ~ 1s S#~ ^ ~- s i' i~ ~ar . t , ~c S ~ ~ ~ v S~ ~. ~ r ~ ~ _, ?.~~~~ r lye ~. 11 '~~~ ~. ~¢~ 1 !~~ , a < °r ;~~ ~ ,~n '" ~t1' ~ ' <<~.~ ' ~ . ~m'"_°`~a~i rM.r` °'.cr~4. ~ ,7 ~ r .,M^''v~ ~ r~~~, u ~ ~ J '„~ ~a, Yy ~'4 ` ~~ ~ . l n ~~ ~ ~ Y ~~ if ~ 4 t~ ~ _~. o; 1 r~ ~a~~* h I 1 ~{ ~ d ~r .!+~a1F* ~ k ~ 1p~~~~gy`~,'~`~~ ~ ., ~ ~~`yyl,~.. ~qy ~ ~S ~ 7 , F t _ ~'i~4.T ~~~ 3~~ y~i.,9 ~~~ •'~-e~'+$~~~., ~~r `.,r, Ir. ~~~ .d E i~;~` ~ ~T .-,..2d °~9 '9tizyc~ ~a. .tip"'' ~ ~.~1`~F~ e ,~+ r~s -F~~.: ~1. +-i _ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~^ ~ c.. k~' d 't ..a ~~, ,FS •e* ta{k i err t ~ ~' ~~.' o ~~ Y rJ' ~~ hr~,~~~~, t` ~ F f 1i ',~C~~ ~.r/~ y ~ Ir$$~., h~.~`, T r yT1a £~. ,~iL ~ ~ -! F #'h.~ ~ ^'"„~''h, u , ~.,r:' t.; ~ ~r~ Vi;^ N.~y"r'R' _, ~ ` 3" F~ yy_~r ,.f.~ ~~4 ~ ~ +"~ ~y~y,~ 4 '»i~.s ~-$ ri J' '"~ ~~'.~: '' ~ PP '~~ w Y ~ a ~y3; r.. ~ ,,.^' ~ ~ ~ t ~~<W" ~ ~ '~r."~1~.', FI~~"F '~° t' :,~t ~, ~ ~' ~,~ - ~~pS.,~ ~ ?y ~{a .~} ~ t y ~ } JJ lei' .ix~ _ ,i ~. ~~`~` f~~S ~ ~~ h ~ ~i ; r ~ ~, ~, '. 'i i t7 rY~ .. ~ ~ '4~ ` ^_ ~ ;V t ~-j~ , N.p 'r r -ft ,. ~ ~ r~~1.` ~. ".- r i', a ~ s.. r'sxE ~d~.C i1 '~~7 $. ~, i ~~.,~ i 4. N-Y ~ h ~ 'J" .re 1 +• , ~ ` ~ i r ~L~ V' 2 ~L,y ~ 1" ;`.r< ~ e ,~~' `4 } '~~.{ '~r'~j~; ) ~ 'i.~. ~ "~ rh' ' pt's ~~,y ~ F q'jr ~ ~ . _ k "~rfy r,, . 1 '~, ~ ~*~, " 1 ~ ~ s r ''r y£K~ ~~k ~ . ~ ~ t :~{.~ ~ j `,'~; P' ~f '~ J ~ ,b'', r ~ 1 ~;, ~,~e„ tp r~`iil ~ h~'^ 'F ~'.l 1 ~ ' {~' ~ 24 # ?~L'~ N a ~ r, ~ ~` k~hlTl"'~~~~ P;. ~I ~ ~ ~ -; .! '~~,E~, 1 ~_f '~. ~4R ~ ..:~~u~~~S1 y ~ r ~ ~ ~'~~~,dflh~',~~ 9' ' -4 r ~ ~.'~~ S +~' ''~ i _ -rr ~ ,~ ,~'~a ' ~~~~ ::~. ti ~ ~~ ~ iH w ~ ~{r ~ ~~ >yt r. ~ ~ ~`d~ fir" ~ ~, ~ ~ ~°~f ,~ti ~~' ~. f r F, ~s ii °~ . !~ ~ ~ .c. ,~ ~ ~ ~. ~~ ~/ +~[ .~i~' t --r k ._.~ ~ '_ '~ t~ ~ '+ y,;' ~ .-~ i 4 ~~, ,~~ .~ ti r~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ s y 5 ~y f F r .~`' ~~ ,s i-, ~~zl ~ ) Yl Y ~l~F f;, {~~• g _ rio~ e a~.'. u fir' ' '~'" ~ r I~ a+.. Fy a r rr~~~ 5" 6 ~%~ y ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~1 ~~ ~ !,Y ` 1` ~ r '_' '" ; ~~ ~ ~ ~' r- :. ~ ~ ~ )G~ ~ G,r - ~ .. ~ ~.; { > 7~ ~ ~~ .!~ `k, ~' ~ `~'#+ ~ ~~ ~ roj ~ 4 ~ i~ l ~~ r~ ~2~~ ~ ~ "TS - ~.. r ~ 9 ~ .. .. ATTACHMENT B • Memorandum to the Planning & Environmental Commission, dated September 22, 2003; • Letter to the Town of Vail design Review Board from LuAnne Wells and the Wells Team, dated September 12, 2003; • Exhibit presented at the hearing by Andy Littman, entitled "FRONT DOOR - UNRESOLVED ISSUES"; • Copy of the Approved Planning & Environmental Commission Public .Meeting Minutes, dated September 22, 2003. w MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 22, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; a request for a variance from Section 12-21-10, Development Restricted, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 17, Variances, Zoning Regulations, to allow for the construction of multiple-family dwelling units on slopes in excess of 40%; and a request for the establishment of an approved development plan to facilitate the construction of Vail's Front Door, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (A more complete metes and bounds legal description is available at the Town of Vail Community Development Department) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther I. SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company (VRDC), represented by Jay Peterson, is requesting a final review of three development review applications intended to facilitate the development of Vail's Front Door project. Staff has reviewed the three applications is recommending that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves with conditions the applicant's requests. Staff recommendation is based upon the review of the applicable criteria, as outlined in the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations and the evidence and testimony presented. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company (VRDC), represented by Jay Peterson, is requesting a final review of three development review applications intended to facilitate the development of Vail's Front Door project. The three applications include: 1) an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; 2) a request for a variance from Section 12-21-10, Development Restricted, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 17, Variances, Zoning Regulations, to allow for the construction of multiple-family dwelling units on slopes in excess of 40%; and, 3) a request for the establishment of an approved development plan to facilitate the construction of Vail's Front Door project. A written description of the three applications is described in greater detail below: ,, 1) Major Exterior Alteration or Modification in the Commercial Core I zone district The applicant is requesting approval of a major exterior alteration or modification to allow for an exterior addition and modification to the Lodge at Vail, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, of the Vail Town Code. Pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, in part, "The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building which modifies exterior rooflines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC)" The applicant is proposing to renovate a portion of the Lodge at Vail. The proposed renovation includes remodeling existing space on the first floor of the Lodge to accommodate a new spa facility. To accommodate the new spa facility, three hotel rooms on the first floor of the Lodge will be removed. The combined area of the rooms to be removed is approximately 1,100 square feet of GRFA. To replace the lost area of the three rooms, the applicant proposes to reconstruct two new hotel rooms on the second floor of the Lodge. The approximate total square footage of the new hotel rooms is roughly 2,000 square feet of GRFA. As a result of the proposed changes, there will be a net reduction in the number of required parking spaces associated with the hotel room use. In addition to the new hotel room improvements, the applicant proposes the construct a new pool and patio area on the south side of the Lodge. These new recreational amenities will be shared between the Lodge at Vail and the proposed skier's club. The new pool and patio area will be located atop a sub-surface parking and loading facility which serves to replace the existing outdoor gravel surface parking lot and loading and delivery area. A copy of the reduced proposed plans and elevations has been attached for reference. 2) Variance The applicant has requested a variance from Section 12-21-10, Development Restricted, of the Vail Town Code. According to Section 12-21-10, in part, "No structure shall be built in any flood hazard zone or red avalanche hazard area. No structure shall be built on a slope of forty percent (40%) or greater except in Single-Family Residential, Two-Family Residential, or Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential Zone Districts. The term "structure" as used in this Section does not include recreational structures that are intended for seasonal use, not including residential use." 2 r +- The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the proposed 13 residential dwelling units to be constructed on slopes in excess of 40%. A copy of the topographic survey depicting the areas of 40% slopes or greater relative to the location of the proposed building footprints has been attached for reference 3) Approved Development Plan The applicant is requesting approval of an Approved Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-8E-6, Development Plan, of the Vail Town Code. Pursuant to Section 12-8E-6, "Prior to site preparation, building construction, or other improvements to land within the Ski Base/Recreation 2 District, there shall be an approved development plan for said District or portion thereof. An approved development plan shall be the principal document in guiding the development, uses and activities of land within the district. A development plan shall be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Development standards including setbacks, site coverage, landscaping, density (GRFA) and parking shall be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission as part of the approved development plan. This determination is to be made based on the proposed development plan's compliance with the design criteria outlined in Section 12-8E-9 of this Article. " The request for approval of an Approved Development Plan is intended to facilitate the development of Vail's Front Door project. Vail's Front Door project is the comprehensive redevelopment of one of three primary portals to Vail Mountain and is intended to create aworld-class arrival point and transition between Vail Village and Vail Mountain. Vail's Front Door project includes the following components: Vista Bahn Park - A comprehensive redesign of the ski yard and ski base area. Lodge at Vail - An addition of a new spa facility and renovations to a number of existing lodge rooms. Residence Club - A fractional fee residential project compromised of thirteen new ski-in/ski-out residences at the base of Vail Mountain. Member's Ski Club -Anew ski club that will provide members with a variety of skier-related. amenities such as a skier's lounge, changing rooms, ski storage, lockers, outdoor pool and hot tubs, and member's parking at the base of Vail Mountain. Vail Park -The development of a new neighborhood park and private parking structure on Lots P3 and J, in Vail Village. Skier Services Building -Anew skier-related facilities building designed s to provide a variety of guest and mountain employee services at the base of Vail Mountain. Delivery, Loading and Circulation - An entirely underground parking, loading, and delivery facility that replaces an existing surface parking lot and loading area at the base of Vail Mountain. A copy of the reduced plans has been attached for reference. Upon consideration of the three development review applications, the action requested of the Commission by the applicant and staff is to either, approve, approve with conditions, or deny the applicant's requests. III. BACKGROUND On January 6, 2003, the Community Development Department received the applicant's submittal of 14 development review applications to facilitate the redevelopment of Vail's Front Door project. On February 10 and 24, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held worksessions to discuss the applicant's proposal and requests to amend various planning documents of the Town of Vail. On March 10, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval of the applicant's request to amend the Vail Land Use Plan, Vail Village Master Plan, and the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations to the Vail Town Council. On April 1, 2003, the Vail Town Council approved Resolutions No. 2 and 3, Series of 2003, amending the Vail Land Use Plan and Vail Village Master Plan, and approved Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2003, amending the Town of Vail Zoning Regulation, upon first reading. On April 14, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to discussed the proposed plans for improvements to Lots P3 and J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5`h Filing (Vail Park). On April 15, 2003, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2003, amending the Town of Vail Zoning Regulation, upon second reading. On June 9, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to continue discussions on the proposed plans for improvements to Lots P3 and J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5`h Filing (Vail Park). The Commission tabled the final review of the four development review applications directly associated with the Vail Park improvements until the July 14, 2003, public hearing of the Planning and Environmental Commission. On June 23, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to discuss the proposed improvements and development applications associated with the Vista Bahn Ski and Vail's Front Door project. Upon presentation of the 4 +- proposed plans, the Commission accepted public comment and then provided feedback to the applicant. In providing feedback to the applicant, the Commission raised a number of questions. The applicant and staff agreed to provide answers to those questions at the July 14, 2003 meeting. On July 14, 2003 the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to discuss the proposed improvements and development applications associated with the Vista Bahn Ski and Vail's Front Door project. Upon presentation of the proposed plans, the Commission accepted public comment and then provided feedback to the applicant. In providing feedback to the applicant, the Commission raised a number of questions. The applicant and staff agreed to provide answers to those questions at the July 28, 2003 worksession meeting. The more significant issues raised by the Commission and public were questions regarding traffic impacts, loading and delivery operations and management, and the summer and winter programming of the Vista Bahn ski yard. On July 28, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to discuss the proposed improvements and development applications associated with the Vista Bahn Ski and Vail's Front Door project. Specifically, the Commission directed their attention to the operational and management issues associated. with the proposed loading and delivery facility and the conclusions of the revised traffic impact report. To help understand the impacts of the loading and delivery facility the Commission members visited the centralized loading facility in Beaver Creek. The Commission also focused their attention on the site plan location and design concepts of the skier services building. On August 6, 2003, the Town of Vail Design Review Board held a hearing to discuss the proposed design concepts of the four major components of Vail's Front Door Project. Following a presentation on the proposed Vail Park, the 13 residences, the member's ski club, and skier services building improvements, the Board provided their initial comments and input. On August 11, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the proposed improvements to Lots P3 & J and a request to amend the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map. Upon evaluation of the applications, the Commission voted to approve the requests, with conditions, and to forward a recommendation of approval of the zone district amendments to the Vail Town Council. On August 25, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to continue discussions regarding the proposed improvements for Vail's Front Door Project. The main purposes of the meeting were to present the revised plans for the skier services building and to visit the proposed development site to view the staked locations of the improvements. In discussing the~roposal in light of an anticipated final review of the application on September 22" ,the Commission provided the applicant and staff with a list of additional materials and items that would be required for review and consideration by the Commission prior to taking a final vote on the proposed project. On September 2, 2003, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2003, amending the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail to zone Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision Ski Base Recreation - 2 District and Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, .~ Vail Village First Filing Parking District, upon first reading of an amending ordinance. On September 8, 2003, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to continue discussions regarding the proposed improvements for Vail's Front Door Project. The focus of the meeting was to respond to the list of additional materials and items that the Commission identified at their August 25tH worksession meeting. Upon consideration of the applicant's and staff's responses to the identified list of materials and items, the Commission directed the staff and applicant to proceed towards the consideration of a final review of the proposed improvements at the September 22, 2003, public hearing of the Planning and Environmental Commission. On September 16, 2003, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2003, amending the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail to zone Lots 1 .and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision Ski Base Recreation - 2 District and Lots P3 & J, Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing Parking District, upon second reading of an amending ordinance. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code According to Sectionl2-7B-1, Purpose, Vail Town Code, the purpose of the Commercial Core I zone district is to, "provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core 1 District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish .the Village. " According to Chapter 8, Vail Town Code, the regulations for development in the Ski Base Recreation - 2 zone district are as outlined below: Chapter 8 Open Space and Recreation Districts ARTICLE E. SKI BASE/RECREATION 2 (SBR2) DISTRICT SECTION: 12-8E-1: Purpose 6 r 12-8E-2: Permitted Uses 12-5E-3: Conditional Uses 12-8E-4: Accessory Uses 12-8E-5: Location of Business Activity 12-8E-6: Development Plan 12-8E-7: Development Review Procedures 12-5E-8: Submittal Requirements 12-8E-9: Design Criteria 12-8E-10: Lot Area 12-8E-11: Setbacks 12-8E-12: Height 12-8E-13: Density Control 12-8E-14: Site Coverage 12-5E-15: Landscaping and Site Development 12-8E-16: Parking Plan and Program 12-8E-17: Mitigation of Development Impacts 12-8E-18: Amendment Procedures 12-8E-19: Time Requirements 12-8E-1: PURPOSE: The Ski Base/Recreation 2 District is intended to provide sites for facilities, activities and uses necessary for and appurtenant to the operation of a ski mountain. A variety of other facilities, uses and activities, including but not limited to residential, public and semi-public uses and special community events typically associated with a vibrant resort community are also permitted within the District. The Ski Base/Recreation 2 District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to permitted and conditional uses throughout the District. In order to achieve this objective and to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses, all permitted uses, development and 7 activity within the District shall be subject to approval of a comprehensive development plan in accordance with the provisions of this Article. Furthermore, due to the likelihood of this District being located at the base of Vail Mountain, and upon some of the most critical and important lands to the future success and resort character of the Town, development within this District shall be evaluated based upon its ability to meet the specific purposes of this Title and to provide "compelling public benefits which further the public interests" that go beyond any economic benefits to the landowner. 12-8E-2: PERMITTED USES: A. The following uses shall be permitted within the Ski Base/ Recreation 2 District: 1. Ski base-oriented uses including the following: Ski trails Ski lifts and tows Ski racing facilities Snowmaking facilities Skier and guest services including but not limited to uses such as basket rental, lockers, ski repair, ski rental, lift ticket sales, public restrooms, information/activity desk Ski school facilities Ski patrol facilities Commercial ski storage on the basement or garden level of a building Retail stores and establishments Special community events, including but not limited to ski races, festivals, concerts, and recreational, cultural and educational programs and associated improvements/facilities, subject to the issuance of a Special Events License. 2. Eating and drinking establishments including the following: 8 r Bakeries and delicatessens with food service, restricted to preparation of products specifically for sale on the premises Coffee shop Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants Cocktail lounges and bars 3. Residential Uses including the following: Single-family residential dwelling units Two-family residential dwelling units Multi-family residential dwelling units Accommodation units 4. Lodges 6. Private or public off-street vehicle parking structures 7. Private or public off-street loading facilities 8. Public parks and outdoor recreation facilities 12-5E-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the Ski Base/Recreation 2 District, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapterl6 of this Title: 1. Brew pubs 2. Fractional fee units 3. Private and public clubs 4. Public utility and public service uses 5. Outdoor dining decks and patios 6. Type 11l employee housing units as provided in chapter 13 of this title 9 7. Additional uses determined to be similar to conditional or permitted uses -, described in this chapter, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12- 3-4 of this Title. 12-5E-4: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the Ski Base/Recreation 2 District: Accessory uses customarily incidental to permitted and conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof. Ski school offices, sales, and activities Ski patrol offices Skier and guest service employee offices, locker rooms, and meeting rooms Swimming pools, patios or other recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted uses. 12-8E-5: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY: A. Limitations; Exception: All offices, retail sales, and commercial ski storage conducted in the Ski Base/Recreation 2 (SBR2) district shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for approved special community events, outdoor display of goods, and outdoor restaurant seating. B. Outdoor Displays: 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. 12-8E-6: DEVELOPMENT PLAN: A. Development Plan Required Prior to site preparation, building construction, or other improvements to land within the Ski Base/Recreation 2 District, there shall be an approved development plan for said District or portion thereof. An approved development plan shall be the principal document in guiding the development, uses and activities of land within the district. A 10 - development plan shall be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Development standards including setbacks, site coverage, landscaping, density (GRFA) and parking shall be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission as part of the approved development plan. This determination is to be made based on the proposed development plan's compliance with the design criteria outlined in Section 12- 8E-9 of this Article. B. Application An application for approval of a development plan maybe filed by any owner of property within the Ski Base/Recreation 2 district or his (her) agent or authorized representative. The application shall be made on a form provided by the Department of Community Development and shall include: a legal description of the property, a list of names and mailing addresses of all adjacent property owners and written consent of owners of all property to be included in the development plan, or their agents or authorized representatives. The application shall be accompanied by submittal requirements outlined in Section 12-8E-8 A. of this Article and a development plan as outlined in Section 12-8E-6 C. of this Article. C. Contents The development plan shall be comprised of materials submitted in accordance with Section 12-8E-8 A. of this Article. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters within which land in the district maybe developed. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to, the approved site plan, floor plans, building sections and elevations, vicinity plan, off- street parking/loading plan, off-site improvements plan, preliminary open space/landscape plan, densities and permitted, conditional and accessory uses. 12-8E-7: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES: A. Pre-Application Conference Prior to submittal of a formal application for a development plan, the applicant shall hold a pre-application conference with the Department of Community Development. The purpose of this meeting shall be to discuss the goals of the proposed development plan, 11 the relationship of the proposal to applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, and the review procedure that will be followed for the application. 8. PEC Conducts Final Review The final review of a proposed development plan shall be by the Planning and Environmental Commission at either a regularly scheduled meeting or a special meeting. Prior to this meeting, and at the discretion of the Administrator, a worksession maybe held with the applicant, staff and the Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss development plan. A report of the Department of Community Development staff's findings and recommendations shall be presented at a public hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the development plan in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-8E-9 of this Article. 12-8E-8: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: A. Information and Materials Required The Administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for an approved development plan application. Certain submittal requirements maybe waived or modified by the Administrator or the Planning and Environmental Commission if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required is not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the Vail Comprehensive Plan. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the Administrator and filed in the Department of Community Development. 12-5E-9: DESIGN CRITERIA: The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of a proposed development plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved: 12 A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identify, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural And/Or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the development plan is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 1. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the development plan. J. Annexed Lands: Conformity with the terms of an annexation agreement and demonstration of a compelling public benefit which furthers the public interest. 12-8E-10: LOT AREA: The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet of buildable site area. 12-8E-11: SETBACKS: 13 In the Ski Base/Recreation 2 District, front, side and rear setbacks shall be as indicated on the approved development plan. 12-8E-i2: HEIGHT: In the Ski Base/Recreation 2 District buildings shall range in height from 0' - 43' and be indicated on the approved development plan. All development shall comply with the building height guidelines found in the Vail Village Master Plan Conceptual Building Height Plan. In no instance, however, shall the maximum building height exceed 43'. 12-5E-13: DENSITY CONTROL (DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE/GRFA); Total density shall not exceed eight (8) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. The total allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) shall as indicated on the approved development plan. 12-8E-14: SITE COVERAGE: In the Ski Base/Recreation 2 District, site coverage shall be as indicated on the approved development plan. 12-8E-15: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: In the Ski Base/Recreation 2 District, landscaping requirements shall be as indicated on the approved development plan. 12-8E-16: PARKING/LOADING PLAN AND PROGRAM: Off-street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. At least 95% of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings, and as approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission in review of the development plan. The off-street parking and loading plan shall be indicated on and described in the approved development plan. 12-8E-17: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts maybe determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity 14 improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Substantial off-site impacts may include, but are not limited to, the following: deed-restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, loading/delivery, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank improvements, public art improvements, parking, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large-scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off-site impacts. 12-8E-18: AMENDMENT PROCEDURES A. Minor Amendments: 1. Minor amendments are modifications to building plans, site or landscape plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved development plan, and are consistent with the design criteria of this Article. Minor amendments may include, but not be limited to, variations of not more than five feet (5) to approved setbacks and/or building footprints; changes to landscape or site plans that do not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation throughout the development site; or changes to gross floor area of not more than five percent (5%) of the approved square footage of residential floor area or retail, office, common areas and other nonresidential floor area. 2. Minor amendments consistent with the design criteria outlined in Section 12-8E-9 of this Article maybe approved by the Department of Community Development. All minor amendments shall be indicated on a completely revised development plan. Approved changes shall be noted, signed, dated and filed by the Department of Community Development. 3. Notification of a proposed minor amendment, and a report of staff action of said request, shall be provided to all property owners within or adjacent to the district that maybe affected by the amendment. Affected properties shall be as determined by the Department of Community Development. Notifications shall be postmarked no later than five (5) days following staff action on the amendment request and shall include a brief statement describing the amendment and the time and date of when the Planning and Environmental Commission will be informed of the staff decision. In all cases the report to the Planning and Environmental Commission shall 15 be made within twenty (20) days from the date of the staff's decision on the requested amendment. 4. Appeals of staff decisions maybe filed by adjacent property owners, owners of property within the district, the applicant, Planning and Environmental Commission members or members of the Town Council as outlined in Section 12-3-3 of this Title. B. Major Amendments: 1. Major amendments are any proposal to change uses; increases to residential floor area greater than 5% of the approved square footage; increases to retail, office, or common floor area greater than 5 % of the approved square footage; increases or decreases to the number of dwelling, accommodation, or fractional fee club units; any request to modify, .enlarge or expand the boundary of an approved development plan and any amendment to the approved development plan that is not a minor amendment as determined by the Administrator and defined in this Article 2. Requests for major amendments to an approved development plan shall be evaluated based upon the degree of deviation of the amendment from the basic intent and character of the approved development plan and reviewed in accordance with the procedures described in Section 12-5E-7 of this Article. All major amendments shall be indicated on a completely revised development plan. Approved changes shall be noted, signed, dated and filed by the Department of Community Development. 3. Owners of all property requesting the amendment, or their agents or authorized representatives, shall sign the application. Notification of the proposed amendment shall be made to owners of all property adjacent to the property requesting the proposed amendment, owners of all property adjacent to the district, and owners of all property within the district that maybe affected by the proposed amendment (as determined by the Department of Community Development). Notification procedures shall be as outlined in subsection 12-3-6C of this Title. 12-8E-19: TIME REQUIREMENTS A. Start of Construction; Completion: 16 The developer must begin initial construction of the development plan within three (3) years from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward the completion of the project. If the development plan is to be developed in phases, the developer must begin construction of subsequent phases within one year of the completion of the previous phase. B. Approval Voided: If the applicant does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the development plan or any stage of the development plan within the time limits imposed by the preceding subsection, the approval of said development plan shall be void. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the development plan upon submittal of an application to re-establish the development plan following the procedures outlined in Section 12-5E-7 of this Article. . Vail Land Use Plan The Vail Land Use Plan was initiated in 1985 and adopted in 1986 by the Vail Town Council. The main purpose of the Land Use Plan is 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. The Vail Land Use Plan contains the following goals: 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. 17 i .3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.5 Commercial strip development of the Valley should be avoided. 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. 1.8 Recreational and public facility development on National Forest lands may be permitted where no high hazards exist if: a) Community objectives are met as articulated in the Comprehensive Plan. b) The parcel is adjacent to the Town boundaries, with good access. c) The affected neighborhood can be involved in the decision-making process. 1.9 National Forest land which is exchanged, sold or otherwise falls into private ownership should remain as open space and not be zoned for private development. 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). 1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well as its potential for public use. 2.0 Skier/Tourist Concerns 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort white accommodating day skiers. 18 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more efficiently. 2.3 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together to improve facilities for day skiers. 2.4 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural opportunities to encourage summer tourism. 2.5 The community should improve non-skier recreational options to improve year-round tourism. 2.6 An additional golf course is needed. The Town should work with the down valley communities to develop a public golf course as well as other sports facilities to serve the regional demand for recreational facilities. 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. 2.8 Day skiers need for parking and access should be accommodated through creative solutions such as: a) Increased busing from out of town. b) Expanded points of access to the mountain by adding additional base portals. c) Continuing to provide temporary surface parking. d) Addition of structured parking. 3.0 Commercial 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 3.5 Entertainment oriented business and cultural activities should be encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More nighttime businesses, on-going events and sanctioned "street happenings" should be encouraged. 4.0 Village Core /Lionshead 19 Objective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Objective 1.3: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. Objective 2.1: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 11 sub-areas throughout the Village and allow development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. Objective 2.3: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. Objective 2.4: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. Objective 2.5: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. Objective 2.6: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. Objective 3.1: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. Objective 3.2: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible. Objective 3.3: Encourage a wide variety of activities, events, and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas. Objective 3.4: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. Goal #4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. Objective 4.1: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with greenspaces and pocket parks. Recognize the 22 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. 4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved thorough implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 4.3 The ambiance of Vail Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) 4.4 The connection between the Village Core and Lionshead should be enhanced through: a) Installation of a new type of people mover. b) Improving the pedestrian system with a creatively designed connection, oriented toward a nature walk, alpine garden, and/or sculpture plaza. c) New development should be controlled to limit commercial uses. 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. 5.2 Quality time-share units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up. 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. Vail Village Master Plan The Vail Village Master Plan is based on the premise that the Village can be planned and designed as a whole. It is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in Vail Village and in implementing community goals for public improvements. It is intended to result in ordinances and policies that will presence and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village. Most importantly, this Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review boards, 20 and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. Furthermore, the Master Plan provides a clearly stated set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village will grow in the future. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to be consistent with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, and along with the Guide Plan, it underscores the importance of the relationship between the built environment and public spaces. Goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. While there is a certain amount of overlap between these six goals, each focuses on a particular aspect of the Village and the community as a whole. The goal statements are designed to establish a framework, or direction, for the future .growth of the Village. A series of objectives outline specific steps that can be taken toward achieving each stated goal. Policy statements have been developed to guide the Town's decision-making in achieving each of the stated objectives, whether it be through the review of private sector development proposals or in implementing capital improvement projects. The Vail Village Master Plan's objectives and policy statements address key issues relative to growth and development. These statements establish much of the context within which future development proposals are evaluated. In implementing the Plan, the objectives and policies are used in conjunction with a number of graphic planning elements that together comprise this Plan. While the objectives and policies establish a general framework, the graphic plans provide more specific direction regarding public improvements or development potential on a particular piece of property. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide to the staff, review boards and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. The most significant elements of the Master Plan are the goals, objectives, policies and action steps. They are the working tools of the Master Plan. They establish the broad framework and vision, but also layout the specific policies and action steps that will be used to implement the Plan. As noted on page 35 of the Master Plan, "It is important to note that the likelihood of project approval will be greatest for those proposals that can fully comply with the Vail Village Master Plan. " Staff believes this statement re-emphasizes that the Master Plan is a general document providing advisory guidelines to aid the Town in analyzing development proposals and that full compliance is not required in order for a project to be approved. The stated goals of the Vail Village Master Plan are: Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 21 different roles of each type pf open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. Objective 4.2 Improve and expand the opportunity for active and passive recreational activity throughout the Village. Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. Objective 5.1: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. Objective 5.2: Encourage the use of public transportation to minimize the use of private automobiles throughout Vail. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. Objective 6.1: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. Objective 6.2: Provide for the safe and efficient functions of fire, police and public utilities within the context of an aesthetically pleasing resort setting. FRONT DOOR SUB-AREA (#11) The following is language describes the Front Door Sub-Area: The Front Door sub-area plays a critical role in the interface between the ski mountain and the fabric of Vail Village. As the premier guest portal to Vail Mountain, the Front Door area should reflect in both use and design the world-class stature of the Vail resort and community. The goals for development in this sub-area are as follows: • To provide for ayear-round, world-class guest experience at the interface between Vail Village and the ski mountain. • To provide new and improved guest service facilities at the top of Bridge Street that will not only improve the quality of the entire guest experience, but will increase evening guest retention in Vail Village. • Provide for new below-grade loading and delivery facilities to better serve the Front Door and upper Bridge Street areas, consistent with the overall "dispersed quadrant" approach of the Vail loading and delivery master plan. • To provide a venue for outdoor cultural/art and sporting events and other similar special community events. • Provide for the removal of surface vehicular traffic and parking that currently occurs within the sub-area. 23 • To provide for limited (6-10 dwelling units/acre) medium density residential development. • With the exception of development that maybe approved within Sub-Area Concepts 11-1 and 11-2, the balance of the Front Door Sub-Area should remain in a predominantly undeveloped, open space condition. The Front Door Sub-area includes two Sub-Area Concepts. Please refer to the Vail Village Master Plan Action Plan for a graphic depiction of these concepts. # 11-1 Lodge Exchange Parcel Limited development of this site provides an opportunity to consolidate and/or remove existing uses and in doing so improve the visual quality of this area. Medium density residential development and associated uses respecting and complimenting the adjacent Lodge at Vail, Lodge Tower, and Vista Bahn ski yard are appropriate. Most parking except temporary guest arrival spaces should be located below grade. Existing mountain and USFS access should be maintained and if feasible placed below grade throughout the parcel. To the extent feasible, service and delivery facilities, including existing service and delivery facilities for the Lodge Tower, the Lodge at Vail, and surrounding commercial uses should be located below grade. A pedestrian/bicycle connection between Willow Circle/Nail Road and the Vista Bahn ski yard should be retained. Development of this sub-area will attract additional traffic and population to this area and may have significant impacts on sub area 1- 12 (Willow Circle). # 11-2 The Vista Bahn Park Redevelopment of ski yard should improve and emphasize the connection between the Vista Bahn lift area (the mountain) and the lower skier plaza area (the village). Opportunities exist to re-grade the ski yard to improve access and usefulness of the site. Existing modular ski storage structures in the ski yard should be replaced with new skier/guest service facilities to improve year-round use of the area and to encourage summer season usage. If developed, the scale of a skier/guest service building should be limited to one-story as viewed from the skier plaza area. Vail Villaae Urban Desian Guide Plan This Guide Plan represents collective ideas about functional and aesthetic objectives for Vail Village. Diagrammatic in nature, the Guide Plan is intended to suggest the nature of improvements desired. It is based on a number of urban design criteria determined to be appropriate for guiding change in the Vail Village. The Guide plan is intended to be a guide for current planning in both the public and private sectors. Vail Village Design Considerations The Town of Vail adopted the Vail Village Design Considerations in 1980. The Design Considerations were revised in 1993. The Design Considerations are considered an integral part of the Vail Village Urban Design Plan. The Design Considerations are intended to: 24 guide growth and change in ways that will enhance and preserve the essential qualities of the Village; and • serve as design guidelines instead of rigid rules of development; and • help influence the form and design of buildings. The Vail Village Design Considerations are divided into two categories (urban design considerations and architectural/landscape considerations): URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS These considerations relate to general, large-scale land use planning issues, as well as form considerations which affect more than one property or even whole areas. These considerations are primarily the purview of the Planning and Environmental Commission. A. PEDESTRIANIZATION A major objective for Vail Village is to encourage pedestrian circulation through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways.. Many of the improvements recognized in the Urban Design Guide Plans, and accompanying Design Considerations, are to reinforce and expand the quality of pedestrian walkways throughout the Village. Since vehicular traffic cannot be removed from certain streets (bus routes, delivery access), a totally care-free pedestrian system is not achievable throughout the entire Village. Therefore, several levels of pedestrianization have been identified. B. VEHICLE PENETRATION To maximize to the extent possible, all non-resident traffic should be routed along the Frontage Road to Vail Village/Lionshead Parking Structures. In conjunction with pedestrianization objectives, major emphasis is focused upon reducing auto penetration into the center of the Village. Vail Road and Vail Valley Drive will continue to serve as major routes for service and resident access to the Village. Road constrictions, traffic circles, signage, and other measures are indicated in the Guide Plans to visually and physically discourage all but essential vehicle penetration upon the Frontage Road. Alternative access points and private parking relocation, where feasible, should be considered to further reduce traffic conflicts in the Village. C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWORK To improve the quality of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two 25 general types of improvements adjacent to the walkways are considered: 1. Open space and landscaping, berms, grass, flowers and tree planting as a soft, colorful framework linkage along pedestrian routes; and .plazas and park greenspaces as open nodes and focal points along those routes. 2. Infill commercial storefronts, expansion of existing buildings, or new infill development to create new commercial activity generators to give streetlife and visual interest, as attractions at key locations along pedestrian routes. It is not intended to enclose all Village streets with buildings as in the core areas. Nor is it desirable to leave pedestrian streets in the open in somewhat undefined condition evident in many other areas of Vail. Rather, it is desired to have a variety of open and enclosed spaces, both built and landscaped, which create a strong framework for pedestrian walks, as well as visual interest and activity. D. STREET ENCLOSURE While building facade heights should not be uniform from building to building, they should provide a "comfortable" enclosure for the street. Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms, whose walls are formed by the buildings. The shape and feel of these "rooms" are created by the variety of heights and massing (3-dimensional variations), which give much of the visual interest and pedestrian scale unique to Vail. Very general rules, about the perception of exterior spaces have been developed by designers, based on the characteristics of human vision. They suggest that: "an external enclosure is most comfortable when its walls are approximately 1/2 as high as the width of the space enclosed; if the ratio falls to 1/4 or less, the space seems unenclosed; and if the height is greater than the width it comes to resemble a canyon': In actual application, facades are seldom uniform in height on both sides of the street, nor is this desired. Thus, some latitude is appropriate in the application of this 1/2 to 1 ratio. Using the average facade height on both sides will generally still be a guide to the comfortableness of the enclosure being created. In some instances, the "canyon" effect is acceptable and even desirable. For example., as a short connecting linkage between larger spaces, to give variety to the walking experience. For sun/shade reasons it is often advantageous to orient any longer 26 segments in a north/south direction. Long canyon streets in an east/west direction should generally be discouraged. When exceptions to the general height criteria occur, special consideration should be given to create awell-defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcome the "canyon" effect. Canopies, awnings, arcades and building extensions can all create a pedestrian focus and divert attention from the upper building heights and "canyon" effect. E. STREET EDGE Buildings in the Village core should form a strong but irregular edge to the street. Unlike many American towns, there are no standard setback requirements for buildings in Vail Village. Consistent with the desire for intimate pedestrian scale, placement of portions of a building at or near the property line is allowed and encouraged to give strong definition to the pedestrian streets. This is not to imply continuous building frontage along the property line. A strong street edge is important for continuity, but perfectly aligned facades over too long a distance tends to be monotonous. With only a few exceptions in the Village, slightly irregular facade lines, building jogs, and landscaped areas, give the life to the street and visual interest for pedestrian travel. Where buildings jog to create activity pockets, other elements can be used to continue the street edge: low planter walls, tree planting, raised sidewalks, texture changes in ground surface, arcades, raised decks. Plazas, patios, and green areas are important focal points for gathering, resting, orienting and should be distributed throughout the Village with due consideration to spacing, sun access, opportunities for views and pedestrian activity. F. BUILDING HEIGHT Vail Village is perceived as a mix of two and three story facades, although there are also four and five story buildings. The mix of building heights gives variety to the street, which is desirable. The height criteria are intended to encourage height in massing variety and to discourage uniform building heights along the street. G. VIEWS AND FOCAL POINTS Vail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are reminders to our visitors of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are orientation reference points. Certain building features also provide important orientation 27 references and visual focal points. The most significant view corridors in the Village have been adopted as part of Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted should not be considered exhausted. When evaluating a development proposal, priority should be given to an analysis of the impacted project on public views. Views that should be preserved originate from either major pedestrian areas or public spaces, and include views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, the Clock Tower, the Rucksack Tower and other important man- made and natural elements that contribute to the sense of place associated with Vail. These views, which have been adopted by ordinance, were chosen due to their significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points for pedestrians. Development in Vail Village shall not encroach into any adopted view corridor, unless approved under Chapter 18.73. Adopted corridors are listed in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. Whether affecting adopted view corridors or not, the impact of proposed development on views from public ways and public spaces must be identified and considered where appropriate. H. SERVICE AND DELIVERY Any building expansion should preserve the functions of existing service alleys. The few service alleys that exist in the Village are extremely important to minimizing vehicle congestion on pedestrian ways. The use of, and vehicular access to, those alleys should not be eliminated except where functional alternatives are not provided. In all new and remodeled construction, delivery which avoids or reduces impacts on pedestrian ways should be explored; and adopted whenever practical, for immediate or future use. Rear access, basement and below ground delivery corridors reduce congestion. Weather protection increases delivery efficiency substantially. Below grade delivery corridors are found in a few buildings in Vail Village (Sitzmark/Gore Creek Plaza, Village Center, Vail Village Inn). Consideration should be given to extending these corridors, where feasible, and the creation of new ones. As buildings are constructed or remodeled, the opportunity may exist to develop segments of a future system. I. SUN /SHADE Due to Vail's alpine climate, sun is an important comfort factor, especially. in winter, fall and spring. Shade areas have ambient temperatures substantially below those of adjacent direct sunlight areas. On all but the warmest of summer days, shade can easily lower temperatures below comfortable levels and thereby, negatively impact use of those areas. 28 - All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring and fall shadow line (March 21 -September 23) on adjacent properties or the public right-of-way. In all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall height consideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shade considerations are not intended to restrict building height allowances, but rather to influence the massing of buildings. Limited height exceptions may be granted to meet this criteria. V. ZONING ANALYSIS Address: 145 Vail Road Legal Description: Lots 1 and 2, Mill Creek Subdivision, Tract E, Vail Village First Filing, and Unplatted Zoning: Commercial Core 1 and Ski Base Recreation - 2 zone districts Land Use Plan Designation: Ski Base and Vail Village Master Plan Hazards: Areas of 40% Slope Lot Area: 261,685 square feet/6.01 acres Development Standards Allowed Proposed Lot Area (min.): 10,000 sq. ft. of buildable area Setbacks: As indicated on the approved development plan Building Height (max.): Density Control: (du's/ac) (GRFA) 43' and as indicated on the approved development plan (Compliance with the Vail Village Master Plan is required) 48 du's or 8 du's/ac As indicated on the approved development plan Site Coverage: As indicated on the approved development plan 261,685 sq. ft. of buildable area > 20' and as indicated on the approved development plan Varies with all buildings <43' and as indicated on the approved development plan 13 du's or 2.2 du's/ac 36,500 sq. ft. As indicated on the approved development plan 29 VI. VII. Landscaping and Site Development Parking/Loading Plan and Program: As indicated on the approved development plan As indicated on the approved development plan SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING As indicated on the approved development plan See attached spreadsheet > 90% of the parking is enclosed per the Code requirements Land Use Zoning North: Mixed Use Commercial Core 1 South: Open Space Resource (Eagle County) East: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary West: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR REVIEW 1) Major Exterior Alteration or Modification in the Commercial Core I zone district According to Section 12-7B-7 (A)(6), Compliance With Comprehensive Applicable Plans, Vail Town Code, "It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission that the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CC 1 District as specified in Section i2-7B-1 of this Article; that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and the Vail Comprehensive Plan; and that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood. Further, that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to, the following urban design considerations: pedestrianization, vehicular penetration, streetscape framework, street enclosure, street edge, building height, views, service/delivery and sun/shade analysis; and that the proposal substantially complies with all other elements of the Vail comprehensive plan." The applicable elements of the comprehensive plans and the relevant planning documents have been summarized and outlined in Section IV of this memorandum. Upon review of the applicable elements of the comprehensive plans and the relevant planning documents of the Town of Vail, the staff has determined that the proposed major exterior alteration or modification to the Lodge at Vail is in substantial compliance with the purposes of the Commercial Core 1 zone district; that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and the Vail Comprehensive Plan; and that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood. 30 Specifically, staff finds that the proposed improvements maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The proposed improvements ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses in the vicinity. Further, through the removal of the existing surface parking lot and the incorporation of an underground loading and delivery facility, the proposed improvements further the goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and the Town of Vail Transportation Master Plan; each of which is an element of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the proposed improvements substantially comply with recommendations outlined in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to, the following urban design considerations: pedestrianization, vehicular penetration, streetscape framework, street enclosure, street edge, building .height, views, service/delivery and sun/shade analysis. Further assurance of such will result through the final review of the proposal by the Town of Vail Design Review Board. 2) Variance Section 12-17-6, Criteria and Findings, of the Vai! Town Code, prescribes the criteria to be used by the Planning and Environmental Commission when considering a request for a variance. According to Section 12-17-6, Criteria and Findings, Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. According to Section 12-21-1, Purpose, Hazard Regulations, Vail Town Code, the purpose of the hazard regulations is, "to help protect the inhabitants of the Town from dangers relating to development of flood plains, avalanche paths, steep slopes and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land areas which may be subject to flooding and avalanche or which may be geologically sensitive; and further to regulate development on steep slopes; to protect the economic and property values of the Town, to protect the aesthetic and recreational values and natural resources of the Town, which are sometimes associated with flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geological sensitivity and slopes; to minimize damage to public facilities and utilities and minimize the need for relief in cleanup operations; to give notice to the public of certain areas within the Town where flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity exist; and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare." The proposed development site contains isolated areas of slopes in excess of 40%. According to the stamped, topographic survey information submitted by the applicant and reviewed by staff, the areas of 40% slopes are located primarily in the center of the development site allocated to the 13 residential units. As 31 depicted on the topographic survey, the areas of 40% slope are randomly distributed about the development site and occupy approximately 4.6 percent, or 4,222 square feet of the total development site. If approved, the areas of 40% slope will be removed, or mitigated, resulting in no areas of 40% slope on the site upon completion of the construction. Upon review of the purpose statement of the hazard regulations, staff believes that the intent of the hazard regulations as they relate to steep slopes is to both protect the ,integrity of the resulting slopes after construction and to protect the inhabitants occupying the structures from the potential hazards of steep and unstable slopes. As a result of the development, the 40% slope areas will be completely removed and replaced by professionally designed residential structures. As such, staff believes that the development proposal complies with the intent of the hazard regulations and that any possible negative impacts of developing on steep slopes will have been successfully mitigated. Mitigation of geologic hazards is an accepted practice as documented in the Town of Vail Hazard Regulations (ie, debris flow, rock fall, snow avalanche). 2. The degree to which re{ief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. As previously stated above, the purpose. of the hazard regulations is to protect and presence the integrity of steep slopes and the inhabitants of the Town. Through the development of the site, the isolated areas of 40% slope will be completely removed and the hazard mitigated. Upon review of the Environmental Impact Report, submitted by the applicant, which contains geologic reports, prepared by licensed professionals, the design of the development will mitigate any resulting hazards associated with steep slopes as well as eliminate the possible negative aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed development. Staff believes that the proposed variance will allow the property owner to attain the development objectives and comply with the intent of the zoning regulations without resulting in a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the purposes of the hazard regulations. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes the variance request will, have little, if any, negative impacts on the criteria described above. The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 32 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 3) Approved Development Plan The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of a proposed development plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved: A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. The proposed redevelopment of Vail's Front Door has been redesigned to the highest quality of architecture drawing from Vail's architectural vernacular. Above grade structures have been designed to a bulk and mass consistent with neighboring properties and in compliance with the recommendations and requirements of the Town's master plans. The proposed skier services and ski club building have been designed as low-level structures to respect private agreements and covenants and in direct response to input from the Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board. The residential structures have been benched into the hillside in order to reduce perceived bulk and mass and oriented towards the views to the east. A buffer zone of more than fifty feet will be provided where the proposed development adjoins residential uses. All of the proposed parking and loading for the project has been provided in a sub-surface structure, thus reducing the visual impacts of these uses on the neighboring uses and the community as a whole. The Design Review Board has requested that the applicant retain a outdoor lighting consultant to design the exterior lighting on the buildings minimize the negative effects of nighttime lighting without compromising the necessary safety needs. 33 The proposed development is consistent in design, character, and mass with the Town's Design Guidelines and with neighboring uses and structures. A condition of approval requires that the Town of Vail Design Review Board approves the final plans which will ensure compliance with the applicable design guidelines and standards. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The proposed uses, activities, and densities create a compatible and efficient workable relationship with surrounding uses and activities. The Front Door area is surrounded by a mixture of uses including ski runs and skiing facilities, retail, lodging facilities, and multiple-family/single-family residential dwellings. The proposed development plan includes many of these same uses strategically located to create compatibility with the surrounding environment. A complete zoning analysis has been provided in Section V of this memorandum indicating compliance with the Town's prescribed development standards. C. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. The proposed development plan provides parking and loading facilities which meet or exceed the minimum requirements of Chapter 10 of the Zoning Regulations. The applicant has proposed to construct a centralized loading and delivery facility within the development to accommodate much of tehloading and delivery needs for those businesses and uses located in the southerly portion of Vail Village. A summary of the parking requirement prescribed for the development has been attached for reference. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. The proposed development plan complies with the Town's master planning documents as applicable to the site. The proposed development plan implements numerous Town policies and goals as described in Sections IV and VII of this memo. E. Natural And/Or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the development plan is proposed. As documented in the Environmental Impact Report for this project, there are no geologic or other natural hazards existing on the property. A variance is being sought from a Town standard that restricts development on areas of 40% slope or greater. The intent of the slope restrictions in the hazard regulations is to prevent development in areas that are potentially unstable and in areas that are of consistently steep slopes. The proposed development site contains isolated areas in excess of 40% slope that occur in the middle of the proposed development site which are areas clearly not intended to be restricted by the hazard regulation. These 40% sloped areas are not contiguous with other vast steep hillside areas. Geological reports submitted with the application indicate that the proposed development site is suitable for the type of development being proposed. The proposed variance will allow the owner to attain the objectives 34 and intent of the zoning regulations without a grant of special privilege. Mitigation measures recommended by the EIR, if any, will be implemented during the construction process. Staff believes that the proposed development complies with the intent of the prescribed hazard regulations. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The proposed development plan is designed to respond directly to the skier services and activities currently existing in the area and proposed for the site. The proposed plans are responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation, and the aesthetic qualities of the community. Vail's Front Door Project site is situated in an area where skiers, shoppers, and residents interface with the Vail Village and the ski mountain. The proposed design responds to this interface to provide order, interest, and vitality. The proposed uses are intended to provide essential services to residents and tourists while at the same time concealing back of house type uses and functions in asub-surface parking and loading area. The proposed residences are designed and located in an area that has little impact on adjoining residential uses and is responsive to the overall site. Open space areas are created and preserved as shown on the proposed development plan. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. The proposed development plan includes a circulation system designed with both vehicles and pedestrians in mind. The on-site circulation system provides for a mostly separated pedestrian and vehicular system. The bulk of cars and trucks enter the site through a subsurface tunnel to parking and loading areas. Pedestrians are provided pathways on the surface of the site in efficient and logical locations. While there is some intermingling of pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the surface of the site, the type of vehicular traffic in very minor and similar to that found in low-density residential areas throughout the Town of Vail. Off-site vehicular traffic is improved with enhancements to the adjoining street system making traffic flow more efficient and orderly. The proposed loading facility located on the site is intended to help reduce the impacts of delivery trucks on the existing pedestrianized areas of the Vail Village as part of a dispersed loading program. The applicant is also proposing significant enhancements to off-site pedestrian areas as part of a mitigation of development impacts and public improvement plan. These improvements will make the pedestrian experience in the Vail Village safer and more enjoyable. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. The proposed development plan includes significant open space areas and landscape treatment. The open space areas created will provide for and 35 maintain public views of the ski mountain as well as provide adequate open areas necessary for running a ski base facility and ski lift area. Landscaping and buffering have been generously planned throughout the site to create an aesthetically pleasing environment. The type of landscape materials proposed mirror that treatment found on adjacent lands. I. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the development plan. The development plan does not currently anticipate a phased development approach. The proposed development plan maintains a workable, functional, and efficient relationship among the planned uses. J.Annexed Lands: Conformity with the terms of an annexation agreement and demonstration of a compelling public benefit which furthers the public interest. The proposed development project includes lands anticipated to be annexed into the Town of Vail. All provisions of the approved development plan and conditions of approval will be incorporated into an annexation agreement with the Town. The proposed development plan provides a compelling public benefit and interest by: • Providing private land and constructing facilities for a public loading and delivery system for the Village Core area; • Providing pedestrian and streetscape improvements which enhance the citizen's and guest's experience; • Enhancing the overall aesthetics of the Town; • Reducing physical barriers for pedestrians and skiers; • Providing a skier club which includes parking spaces that will help reduce the public's reliance on the Town's public parking structures; and • Providing public and quasi-public facilities such as restrooms on private property. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves with conditions the request for a final review of an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; the request for a variance from Section 12-21-10, Development Restricted, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 17, Variances, Zoning Regulations, to allow for the construction of multiple-family dwelling units on slopes in excess of 40%; and the request for the establishment of an approved development plan to facilitate the construction of Vail's Front Door, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Staff's 36 - recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the evidence presented and the testimony provided at the public hearings on these requests. Should the Commission choose to approve the applicant's requests, staff recommends that the following findings of fact be made as part of the motion: 1) Major Exterior Alteration "That the applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence and testimony presented before the Planning and Environmental Commission at a public hearing, that the proposed exterior alteration to the Lodge at Vail is in compliance with the purposes of the CC1 District as specified in Section 12-7B-1 of the Zoning Regulations; that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and the Vail Comprehensive Plan; and that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood. Further, the .Commission finds that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to, the following urban design considerations: pedestrianization, vehicular penetration, streetscape framework, street enclosure, street edge, building height, views, service/delivery and sun/shade analysis; and that the proposal substantially complies with all other elements of the Vail comprehensive plan." 2) Variance "The Planning and Environmental Commission finds that based upon the evidence and testimony presented before the Commission at a public hearing, 1. That the granting of the variance to allow development on slopes in excess of 40% will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Ski Base Recreation -2 zone district as the development will mitigate the geologic hazard. 2. That the granting of the variance to allow development on slopes in excess of 40% will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity as design of the development mitigates the possible negative impacts associated with the geologic hazard. 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified hazard regulation restricting development on steep slopes would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Regulations. " 3) Approved Development Plan "That the applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence and testimony presented before the Planning and Environmental Commission at a public hearing, that the submittal material, as presented, and the development plan, as proposed, comply with each of the design criteria outlined in Section 12-8E-9 of the Zoning Regulations, or has demonstrated that one or more of the criteria is not applicable to 37 the proposed development, or has demonstrated that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved as a result of the proposed development plan. Furthermore, in keeping with the adopted purpose statement of the Ski Base Recreation - 2 zone district, as prescribed in Section 12-5E-1, of the Zoning Regulations, due to the likelihood of the district being located at the base of Vail Mountain, and upon some of the most critical and important lands to the future success and resort character of the Town, development within the district shall be evaluated based upon its ability to meet the specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations and to provide "compelling public benefits which further the public interests" that go beyond any economic benefits to the landowner, the Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission, that the proposed development plan for Vail's Front Door Project, will provide compelling public benefits which further the public interests. Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed development plan for Vail's Front Door Project furthers the development objectives of the Town as outlined in the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan and provides benefits and amenities that will serve the residents, guests ,and community at-large, both now and into the future. " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the three development review applications, as proposed, the staff recommends that the Commission make the following conditions part of the approval: 1. That the Developer provides a deed, at his sole expense, to the Town of Vail, legally transferring that portion of land under Pirate Ship Park, as generally described in Exhibit A (attached), to the Town of Vail, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of Vail's Front Door Project improvements. The terms and conditions of said transfer shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail. 2. That the Developer submits a complete application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the review and approval of a Comprehensive Sign Program by the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Approval for any of Vail's Front Door Project improvements. 3. That the Developer submits a complete application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the final review and approval of the proposed development plan by the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to making an application for the issuance of a building permit for any of Vail's Front Door Project improvements. 4. That the Developer submits a Construction Staging Plan to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the review and approval of the proposed staging plan by the Town of Vail, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Vail's Front Door Project improvements. 5. That the Developer provides deed-restricted employee housing that complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13) for a minimum of 9 employees, and that said restrictions shall be made available 38 for occupancy, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail's Front Door Project improvements. In addition, the deed- restrictions shall be legally executed by the Developer and duly recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail's Front Door Project improvements. 6. That the Developer prepares a Vail's Front Door Project Art in Public Places Plan, for review and comment by the Town of Vail Art in Public Places Board, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Vail's Front Door Project improvements. Said Plan shall including the funding for a minimum of $1,000,000 in public art improvements to be developed in conjunction with Vail's Front Door Project. The implementation of the Plan shall be completed within two years of the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail's Front Door Project improvements. 7. That the Developer prepares an easement agreement for the review and approval of the Town of Vail for public access through Tract E and the development site from Mill Creek Circle to Vail Road, and as generally depicted on the Approved Development Plan. The easement agreement shall be legally executed by the Developer and duly recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office, prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail's Front Door Project improvements. 8. That the Developer prepares a Developer Improvement Agreement for Off- Site Improvements, as depicted on the Approved Development Plan, for review and approval by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. Upon approval of the Agreement, the Developer and the Town of Vail shall legally execute the Agreement. Upon execution of the Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond as financial surety with the Town of Vail as the beneficiary in the amount of 125% of a bona fide contractor's estimate of the cost to complete the required off-site improvements. Said Agreement shall be in place, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Vail's Front Door Project improvements. 9. That the Developer submits a roof top mechanical plan to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the review and approval of the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Vail's Front Door Project improvements. 10. That the Developer executes a Memorandum of Understanding for the Operation, Maintenance, and Management of the Vail Village Loading and Delivery Facility, to be located on the Developer's property. The Memorandum shall be reviewed and approved by the Vail Town Council, prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy for Vail's Front Door Project improvements. ~' 11. That the Developer submits a complete set of civ? engineered drawings of the Approved Development Plans including the required off site improvements, to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval of the drawings, prior to making application for the 39 issuance of a building permit for Vail's Front Door Project improvements. It shall be noted that the review of the civil engineered drawing may take up to six months to review and approve. 12. That the Developer shall be assessed a transportation impact fee in the amount of $5,000 per increased vehicle trip in the peak hour generated as a result of the new development. The assessment of the impact fee will be offset and addressed by the Developer through the construction of four (4) additional loading berths and the replacement of 260 lineal of Hanson Ranch Road street improvements adjacent to Vail Park. 13. That the Developer agrees to construct the off site improvements, as generally .indicated on the Off Site Improvement, with the exception of the improvements to Checkpoint Charlie. Within one year from the date of the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for Vail's Front Door Project improvements, the Developer and the Town of Vail Public Works Department shall evaluate and determine the appropriate location for the Checkpoint Charlie improvements based upon traffic circulation and patterns. Upon determination of the appropriate location for Checkpoint Charlie, the Developer agrees to design, obtain approval, and construct the Checkpoint Charlie improvements. The Checkpoint Charlie improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Developer Improvement Agreement for Off Site Improvements. 14. That the Developer agrees to design and construct the required streetscape improvements, as generally depicted on the Off Site Improvements Plan and as stated in the Town of Vail streetscape Master Plan. The Developer acknowledges that the final design for the improvements may be subject to change. 15. That the Developer prepares a Vista Bahn Ski Yard Use Agreement outlining the terms and conditions allowing public use of the ski yard for special events. The Agreement shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the review and comment of the Town of Vail. Commission on Special Events. The Agreement shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail's Front Door Project improvements. ll 16. That the Developer submits a partial topographic map of the alleyway east of the Lodge at Vail to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The topographic information shall be used to determine the feasibility of providing handtruck delivery access to Gore Creek Drive from Founder's Plaza. The Developer agrees to evaluate the opportunity for reconstructing the alleyway to minimize the grade to provide improved handtruck delivery access to Gore Creek Drive. If it is determined by the Town of Vail to be both feasible and advantageous to provide handtruck delivery access to Gore Creek Drive via the Wildflower alleyway, the Developer shall submit a revised set of Off Site Improvements Plan to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval and further agrees to construct the improvements as approved. 40 17. That the Developer submits a development application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the operation fora "private and public club'; pursuant to Section 12-8E-3, Conditional Uses, of the Vail Town Code. The application for the conditional use permit shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of the Zoning Regulations, prior to making application for the issuance of a building permit for Vail's Front Door Project improvements. 18. That the Developer identifies a "No Build Area"on the Approved Development Plan indicating that no building or site disturbance shall occur within thirty feet (30') of the westernmost and southernmost property lines in the area of the residential unit construction. 19. That the Developer legally executes all necessary easements and agreements allowing for public roadway access, drainage, signs, utilities, etc. on and across the development site. Said easements and agreements shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval by the Town of Vail. All easements and agreements shall be duly recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail's Front Door Project improvements. 41 ~~ ~-n,~~ Amended gConditions of Approval (9/22/03) Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the three development review applications, as proposed, the staff recommends that the Commission make the following conditions part of the approval: 1. Standard conditions of approval applicable to all PEC development plan approvals: • That the Developer submits a complete application to the Town of V iJ,Community Development Department for the review and approval by the •. Tow'"h:~fi Vail Design Review Board of a Comprehensive Sign Program prior • to the:issu~ri~s~~a TE_~Ao[~Y G~~t~fjcate of Approval for any of Vail's Front •~,~ ° ~: ~,D~onr Project improvements. w..., ,.~. -. ±~ ,..h_ . :; ,~.~~-i-r,~:~r:~_~ ~v . • That the Developer 'submits a complete Oesign Review Board application, including details of all proposed roof top mechanical systems, to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval by the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to making an application for the issuance of a building permit for any of Vail's Front Door Project improvements. • That the Developer submits a Construction Staging Plan to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the review and approval of the proposed staging plan by the Town of Vail, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Vail's Front Door Project improvements. 2. The Developer provides deed-restricted employee housing that complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13) for a minimum of 9 employees, and that said housing shall be made available for occupancy, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail's Front Door Project improvements. In addition, the deed-restrictions shall be legally executed by the Developer and duly recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail's Front Door Project improvements. 3. That the Developer submits a complete set of.pKefi~~ipar~c civil engineered drawings of the Approved Development Plans including the required off site improvements, to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval of the drawings, prior to making application for the issuance of a building permit for Vail's Front Door Project improvements. 4. That the Developer submits a partial topographic map of the alleyway east of the Lodge at Vail to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The topographic information shall be used by the Town of Vail and the Developer to determine the feasibility of providing improved handtruck delivery access to Gore Creek Drive from Founder's Plaza. If it is determined by the Town of Vail and the Developer that proposed improvements are both feasible and advantageous for providing handtruck delivery access to Gore Creek Drive via the Wildflower alleyway, the Developer shall submit a revised set of Off Site Improvements Plan to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval and further agrees to construct the improvements as approved. ., 5. That the Developer submits a development application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the operation fora "private and public club", pursuant to Section 12-8E-3, Conditional Uses, of the Vail Town Code. The application for the conditional use permit shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of the Zoning Regulations, prior to making application for the issuance of a building permit for Vail's Front Door Project improvements. 6. That the Developer identifies a "No Build Area" on the Approved Development Plan indicating that no building or site disturbance shall occur within t i et (30') of the proposed westernmost and southernmost prope li a area of the residential unit construction. .~~~ liuc~ uy~;ii11..~~~~11 Sl.w~,~, 7. That th~Developer legally executes all- necessary easements an~agreements allowing for public pedestrian/bike access through Tract E and the development site from Mill Creek Circle to Vail Road, public roadway access, drainage, signs, utilities, etc. on and across the development site. Said easements and agreements shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval by the Town of Vail. Upon approval by the Town, said easements and agreements (if necessary) shall be legally executed by the Developer and duly recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office, prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail's Front Door Project improvements. 8. The Developer agrees to provide to the Town of Vail for review and approval by the Vail Town Council a comprehensive Development Agreement for Vail's Front Door Project improvements. Said Agreement shall be submitted to the Town by no later than October 31, 2003. The Development Agreement shall be a legally binding agreement between the Town of Vail and Vail Resorts. The purpose of this agreement is to document, among other things, the manner and timeframes within which the Town and the Developer will complete certain required aspects of the project. The Development Agreement will include, but may not be limited to, addressing the following aspect of the• project: • The. conveyance ofa deed..from the Developer to the Town for a parcel of land under Pirate Ship Park, as depicted in Exhibit A attached. • A written description of all off-site improvements to be provided by the Developer (as generally depicted on the approved development plans), providing additional details on the specific improvements to be provided, the manner in which developer assurances for completion of said improvements will be provided, acknowledgment that design details will conform to the Town's streetscape standards, schedules for completing said improvements, the manner in which the Developer and Town will coordinate streetscape improvement efforts and defining specific terms to determine when and where Checkpoint Charlie will be constructed by the Developer, as maybe amended • The legal mechanisms to be used wherein the Town of Vail will allow the Developer to construct a portion of the proposed parking structure at P3&J beneath the Town's road right-of-way (as depicted on approved plans for P3&J). • The legal mechanisms to be used wherein the Developer will allow the Town to utilize a portion of its parking and loading structure as a 14-bay public loading and delivery facility (as depicted on the approved development plans). • An agreement to be prepared which outlines the Developer's responsibilities for funding $1,000,000 in public art to be provided in conjunction with the Project. This agreement is to be prepared with input from the Town of Vail Art in Public Places Board. • A use agreement to be prepared which outlines the terms and conditions for public use of the Vista Bahn Ski Yard. This agreement is to be prepared with input from the Town of Vail Commission on Special Events. :.~ 1~-t_.~--- a. C vim- - v- _ /~ J CJ~V N . ~ G4',~i ~ i.JC7~T~+C~ f'O K ~~ ~~1 ~ c~.l Uh..lp 1/-! puT'... ~ ~1~i`o~Q ~ O ... . 1 ~~ , ~'(Zp ~Q.~r!'~"~ Tv ~l. L~O ~'1~t~ ,'~ptti r~t~ ~ . ,,y ~ ' ---~- . . , OirE 11 VAIL ~ ~' PLACE 0 LODGE - '' AT VAIL Q ~ 1~ ' z ~ o~ w a VAIL RESGA'tS OEVP~gPMkM COMPANY 42~ap . C.:.. ~~-•~ -Il(l1' ~k l "q°~ 0 c =, i __ ..._, l r--- ruauc - I1).fPROVGh(LN'IS PLAN ~---~%~ SD-1.12 (~ll_DADMG de Df_17VP_RY-IPWP.R I.EVEI. ~ r'1.~ o it » r ;,~R. RFSIDpNCpS Fi YAAlpS SKI CLUB P1. +81883 ~4~3l9PHSL•~1'"L BIB1 ,~ O ~ Q H O' ~~ w VNL RFSOAlS OL'VEILPM1IPM COMPANY i 42~a0 C :.~~ #~1 °~. RFJ~ERF~ICf. P[~1N5 RP 1.01 DPPFR IEV2L PARKIIJG F.L +8175 IA97C•R [.EVFL SIQ QA1B FL+8177.5 3 ,.. ~IID-LEVFl PAAKiNG/SpA 7Ap ATAffN1' FI +8169 U nWFR LF.VFI PAR3,'RJG/i tIADINC f +RIS1 N 1 j ~ 1, \/ L/ -~-~.~ ~i o , Q o~ ~~ w a VAIL AES>R75 DEVPLOPMENf COMPANI' i 4240 SRE REFERGNCI? SECfiONS RS 1.01 ,,>~R„~,,,~ 1 1 ~~ ~ 1 1 I.~ ti I i it ~ ;( i _ 1 ~ 1``~'"- ~1 ~ 1 ~ , / 1 J f _ _ -- / I 11 L--X J 1 `( - 11 , '~ r - - I f Il)OGB A7 VAd / I I ~ 'I ~~ I / ~ J 1 1 ~1 ~c I I / I eeove I 1 i snaue -~ ~ ~ 5 1 JnaRS tEw~. r - - cRE,/cwl ~' ~-------~--'L-----r--Z-------~ II 1 I ~~~--__-1`~~~ II ' - .. - .. -IxlaTlxo anxlxc-cnxYl.xn_i. coxN.!- . ~J _ .. L - - - -.__ L _. 4a_ _ ,~ nr-r--va ~ _ _ J o~ H .I z~~ ~~ N I VAIL RFSOR'IS OEVElAf'AII+M ~ ~.w r~a•~ jl C]I40 IriCNli NOTi: GICNIC4 111NHINC IJxNTR ANA R~ INR xY.Y.Yin c~NY ~ITII INf UT iPOY TIIC 1'UBIJfCRnpKi fpNNTN1111RInIN TpXIRINI.~F~nU NH PYOMGi.R Rni'INf.-GKI IIRRC/RL'C: 11 \ /' PROPOSPD PROJECT ROUNUARY / SUeJNXT TO~AIlROYALOi USJT j lANU EX6IANGE 1'NnIplNl:x ]nNINt: Nil xi%1: N '. 11. uPARKING A. 1l1 ~DfN(:/LnWER J FVEI . EI R1$] .~ v Ir u ~ k vw ._... _.__.+AN Iii i 1~~~~i~~~~~ C 1 ,~1~1 a.yQ: y N Ins t 1.-lln~ -Y PARKING k I~Af)RJG fXJCK ID1VFJl LEVF1 PL1 P 1.01 i l / 1 / • ~ ( i / ' / ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ _~i ~ ~ ,_ Ensrwc -__-~ _ tooceATVAn. PAfIIITII'3 _-----. A~~ ~ - ~; EYISITNG IDDGE AT i./ ~•~ VAll.CONPERENCO Fl-1 I~ -~ C@TI'PA o O ~ ~ ~ 9~ y.: yyP: ~ '~ rj . ,F~. 1 H 1~ _~~ `~ ~ ASP ~ ~ P` v~Ja I' _ I FyF ~ t i 'a'rt o~ ~~ Z / / I= a,1 ~ y~w+Mq p tls~P tiT ~', O ~ I I11fT X ~P t,`: +w, ~~ ~ 1 ~ LnocESOVre ~:~ . s ~ -e @ . ~ g F ~ ,,~ ~ ~ i coxDOnlwnul rARm+c »» ~.. /' _ ~ ..~. 1, ~ 1 ~1 ~~ vAai . w ( ~ If ~ 1 ~ ~ I ~' r tL J rJ~ l S7r ri //i r/?/rii, ;/r%r /iii /~'£ .._..- -' - - -.._ _ .-.._.._.._. __._._ ---- r ,4 IADGE AT v •.\\\\ \\ : \~ C' 1. ~ r . .. __ VNLRYSDRTS I _ ~\~\\ ~ ~~~~ _ ~' 4 n~- -SPA ADDIII~ DFVEIDPIAF?l~ 11U (RE I/S LOU ~.wm..~..„ A\IN'IINf. [uNIN~.- / - P » ~I ~ 1 i i .> T 1,,~ .1x,1 • x~ / , ~tt.~~~, / UJADRJG ! _ __ _. DOQ ~ __ BELOW ___.__.___ . ~.. _.. _.. Pxul•nvY.n zoNlNC-sal uasE/xY:c.n.. _., _.. _.. _.._..~.. _.. _.._.. _.._ _.._.._~. _.._.. _.. ._.._.._.. _.. _(RPNI/PI.OQ.. _. ... _ . . _ .. - .. J -___-___ ' 111 // ~ f~-1 - PROPOSED PROJECT 00l1MlAAV - SUBJECf TO APPROVAL OP LISPS / CAND FSCfLWGE r t~xxlrl~l:» %»NINx-xxl xaNl: 111'.t:. 11. // / ~ NOTE? SIGNAGE WARNP7G LGFITS I ~,• AND h4RROR5 (AS DEF1dFD ~l ~~^ a, NECESSARY WITil INTITT - 1 IROD1771E PUBLIC VPORi:S DCPAATh1CNT) 70 BE +hiv t Irne» REfIF-~F~ ON CONS7RUC710NDMWBJGS .__ ..__-~_-. PARALNG 1 ._ hflD LEVEL. PLAN N P 1,02 Ir ,. ~• u,,l,•:1,1,•.1•.r ~~ I I Q z~ o w ~ a VNLAL+SOR'IS OEVEIOPMFM ; COMPANY 42~a0 wrccr . 1~J'~Iy~ 9~~ ~'~ `~ ~a~ 11_; '•.l~•~a • InMi~~l ~: .. _. .. _....:._I ..._..PARKING UPPfiR LLY!1. PUN P 1.03 ~:~~.• ~a tP:~`l;~i p ..J~. ~~Z~r 3 1 olun x4 10 11 ~u G 111 W. D [MMC IWPQ WIRW xlfr so x xcwol.R1 sna xn IUlD~NL w. uLSan TOTAL E%. SOUME f00TILE 1,701 50. fT Mvml a si.a11 r umxc Ia¢ac urt x[Iw.r,rx saa ILIDGE AT VAIL E71757JNG CONDf170N5 3 ,_,. CADGE AT VAIL EXISTING CONDT710N5 ~LLOTL:L LGVEL 2 ~ EL fi182 ui [ITxG a251x101 xCOxOURO x10 MIx 1 K~ICM[41NI [ITNG 11 ttySC xfolrorrtl Ina xn 1 ru rve tmnc ssur fmfMR IbwC xit N4 10 x IftaxPl~ Toyu Ez, sawxE fi,04 I;. ~ ~ ~ ~~ Q z~ o~ w' a it i VAL. RESORTS DR\tiDPMPNT comm~m az~~ao ~ __ I ~~ ''.~.~'.'.. I •^2 ~~ .rw... Iona d Rr1 e~wuuc .IU sl 1 Iasvt0l IL SID~I IM IU14 rlRi 1 ~I , , (~,~ ~, ~ __J .~~~ ar.? .~~ ` „ '1__ LADLE AT VA1L E7051'ING CONDIi70NS 1 1_R_ _ ~ 1-0DGE AT VAIL SPA ~.. BGUFST%OOM N Z.• l P ,T . OUSTWG EAMDmons S 1.OlA ~ I„1.. ,•P `~ I a ,~ y. Q Q z o~ w a vnn. Rr_cc]an DeveLOrmeBrr comm~r+r 4260 LODGE AT VAIL GUES7AOOMS rout oucvaoow coNSraucuoN s .aL fOOLABC: BOrN l[v[le ~.roo so. n. \.:l RFl.[ODEIS AND ADD1770NS/ 1DDGE AT VAIL SPA/ ] - r 7 ._ -NEw euesraoou sulrts, rws uvEt L]a] so. rt. -xe« cu[sraaou so. n.. ]Nis uvn Lew sa. rt. TOTAL MlW CONerauOrgN rN~e lMl: 1, 6] 30. R. -SR. (N C. CiaO.). INiS l CL 2.Je~ IOIAL EW [ONBIRU[IIONCIwS l[`~Ll: L.fll 50. R InDCe Ar VAIC srn/ r1H42F1,LEYF.Li - FI. 8169 ~~'-sRA, rws LnsL e,ne so. n. Nom B a.N.. Lo muz, NcusarLRUC, n i.uoN ~, ne zn. R. rmu NLw corsrmciciuu mis LCVEL ILSBI so. nac N iii,.: `~.. i ~eoo 0(7 ~ I tJ, - ~ IJl '~. L„~~~,. inoce.nr L~An, srn h GUpS1ROOM ADDr110N PIANS ~ S 1,01B x,Ir.II,.• ~ ~. II ~\ IOp~ ~~ ,,_ I~~ .,:Pa?rmn~r,~w F~DSfING IADGEAT YAR ~I~''~~Jj'IUI~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111111111111111111111f111 ®®®® ,M, , ~~ ~ LODGC AT VA7L SPA ac GUFSfROOhf ADDCDON/ /,150UfH FI T'VA770N Lf SPA YF_4fIBU1P DEOC LEYEL SPA pEMODF1FDk SPA PCENECf IDDGE A7 YALL ENTRANCE ESTPNDFD LEYEL LUPSTIOOM GUETTROOMS ~ ADOfDON I1IG7111 !~J 0 ^O^ I--~ z o~ w ~n a VNL RE500.75 DEVF.InPMFM COMPANY 97~dD .m - ~ ---------TT~6 IgDGE A7 VA1L SPA h l.~ r.l ~wn~i~. ' GUESIROOhf ADDIT70N/ EVAT70N /11C~FST I~f _ _ ~' J v+. .. _..___ -- ml[. un uu 1l ~~ ---- --- - - IDDGE AT VAD. SPA AGUFSIROOM F~ Hnnc .ecw rra ~ sD rniori _ _-___ 1 ADDtDON PIEV. r ~ s P ~r A S 2.01 wus ur. ro DER IF'Fl SPA RIT/F55 f31SITNG IDDGE A7VAD. SPA ENTRANCE LEl'FI. IADGEAT GUFST800M ..~i iri~w -. ~ OS~ ~~ tS6~~ o ~ l~""~~ ~ ~'._ NOl'E: U95 WPTFiIN THE Sp QUB BUUDlNG TO U:¢U0E PRIYAlEANU PUBUG QLaS, W W1DWG NSTOliAWLY Pl®EMAL ALlES50HY U4:5. >'" <$~ ~;u ~~~ ': UPPER 151'FJ. / PAA~lG / / / / ~// ~ / / 1/PLOT) ~.~~/~/. z- SKiEft SERVICES F(AP1 IEVEL (0.E: 1/VI.a2) i ~~~ w r ~~- ~x1 n uH/ xoor• rrsN ,,,,QR,E,A~p. \, 6'~i~ . _ - ~ ~,., ~.~r~ ~~ /- - ~-. - ~.. - ~N . _~n __ 11L14RTH ElEVAT10N n~ - .........~.. - _ -.~r~r- 0 L 64~ nsQttrx Er F.vnnoN 8 nWPSTy p'F`'"n°N r„~: «„ M ttriuirr~. n uR(i;l'S H~tfCt R~~ Q H ~ ~ w VN4 RESpRI~ UEVNIL1Pn1ENi cnmm~Hr aslao wrecr h ~, _~ ~;: ~~;~~~~=~ci .•~ vr: ~~~;1~~~~~1 SIO Ci.UB ELEVATIONS C-2.01 uvxalun ~mmw n vin Iwo u Rn.R mm4.Raww M9IF,LL1tl~m+f6t~~~fly fMWi6 W IO iF1. Nu]f 4i~tO..1mp MMi1 NA tR.'IO A[ _ ._ ,_.. I I ~~PROPOSP- Pa0JP1T eOUNUARY SUaJELTTO APPaOYAL OP USES - % LVJU E%LSiANGfi L_.._.._.._.._.._..~.._.._.._.._.,_.._.._.._.._.._.. _.. _.._.._.. _.._.._.._,.-.. _. r. _. _. •1.8190'P~ I-AN ' v Ir ~r^^ M. /^O H H ryQ 8 I""'1 w a VAIL RESORTS DEVFl-0Pn12M' co+m~~~ _ ~2~40 ..~z~d"~~~s` •^c~nu;oti~ i~ (~ ~ C i ! ~,9{ ~-~„ ~ =.. 1__ I RFSIDENCi?t I LCtiT]. - B I )0' GARAGE PLAN ~ ~ R 1.01 .. aL~npSn~pq,, ~tl' mmlua u~m~ o.LL ~ e»~ nm ~.a.mc uowuo+m+re.mvvro alo ~ imr vnx m iu~n um o,ro m Immuw~nwa ' A80VESHOY7J DASHED ~ T'Pd !- PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY ~ ~/ SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF USES L- .. _ .. _ .. _ taro ExcHANCe N y]iFSinFNCF_5-IFVF1 fl7LYY PIAN \~/ ~ti..l~~. -~_..i i~ Q O ~I w !I VAIL RL+500.TS II DEVEtAPMFNf COMPANY 4240 ..~. ~ II __ I W /~`___ ___ ~ 4~~,'zi~.:3 v. 5 '.i Ia.~n.w.. ...I RESIDENCES I£VEL-B2W PINJ ~ R 1.02 _ -1 „~~.,~ umiwlcnmrteH~urm: ~mo1merearnun .umiuxiuoa.~om ~irtu.~ ~oit _ .,_ . i i PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY i ~ SUefPl'f TO APPROVAL OP USES t.woExaw+ce ~`~RESIDgJCF3_T£`1F1._8210' P1.VJ__ N _ ~~~~ O O^ I-~-~ aaI O V d w ------~ VNL AE_SOAl3 Df.\'FI L)P~IPM !~ MM~WY a2~`0 _ ~~^~h li. n;? _ t`°,`~~. 0.FSIDI:NCES LEVEL. R21a PLAN R 1.03 PROPOSeO PBOJF.Cf 9OUNOAAY ~ ~ SUBJP.Cf TO APPROVAL OP USES ~.._.._.._. wmPxalwce ~~RPSIDFNCLS_ _Li?V[il. 8710'_PLAN... N - ` v .. F N Q F" ~ o~ x~ w VAIL RESORTS DEVEIDPAIFN~ COMPANY 4240 ~~nc~~ ~ ~'~ I 22i:~,tiy,~ IS ~°~~,~ RESI~eNCFS IJiITl,-8220' P/Nl R 1,04 SGtP. 1/le• • ,• ,~R~m~,~R,>~~~~ ~~ I ! ~SUBJEl,7 TO APP OPALO USFS ~ / LAND EYCNANGE L_..._.._.._. _ ._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._. _.._.._. _ ._,._.._.._.._.._..~.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..~ N ~`-~EPSmEr7CFS:LEVELella_YLAN- i 1' ~~ i I _~ O ~ I i Z ~ O ~ ~I w !~ .___~~I \'NLRFSORTS I DEVPt~PMFNf II vxmn»+ 4240 .,_y~r...,~a ~o~ 7 Y.r =~,ir `J EESIDENCES Lf:YGL • R170' R 1 05 I I I I I ! /PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY ~ % SURJECI7'O APPROVAL OF USES LWD EYOIANGE L_.._.._.._.._.. _.,_.. _.. _.._.._.. _.._.._.. _. ~, N ~ ~~ESSID~ces_Ia~RZya:PtiN_ ,,. ,: .~ I ~~ Q H ~ . ~ ~ . w VNL RE5O0.7S DE`/P_IpPA1FtJT COM-ANY `2Ea`O ~'~~~~°~A~~ _~ ---- --- ~ ~RESIDENCFS ~ I.L•'~'EL. 814tl PLAN R 1.06 I r,.~" ~ , -~u.~~» „;.e~I~n~pTry!w r,~~uu~m®cxn•u~ ~omewo.K nal Iva.~nsw ~w..r a x®x~ r ro rmnwn+n wn..~ umn~ ~u®iumwmwmuu ~ PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY i / SUBJECT TQ APPROVALOF USFS j IAl70 F](CriWGE L_.. _..-.._.._.._.. _.._.._.. _. / N ~~j~nF,sTA~r!c~s._r~.ezso~... ~--{~ z_I~__ l I O O i ;i i ~ $~ i~ li O I~ w ~ i ~~ a I VAII. PF'_Sn0.15 D~'F.IAI'MFNf ~wx'rc~.~un `~~aR _ It ~ y'Ya~ F 'O~~.U~.7,~J: lip. ~+fi I ~~C, ----_ _ - RFSIDENCFS 1fiVi1. - 8250' P V.N R 1.07 -l Q H z~ o¢ w a VAII. 0.ESO0.TS DNF.IgPTfP.NY COIIPAM' a2~10 ~ iaavsmnwrn cav~rvwurcrro ~ ~ ~movuaum unn aaiva L_.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..-.._..-.._.. _..~..-.._.. _.. _..._.._ ~ .\: ~ ~. i wrt ._ ______.--~ N (j'~RFSIDBN~S_R9RP P[J.N___ Lun~rwa.anoewm~nmmomnuaro ;}~ ~ w ~i•.~1n~ ~`cn~,~.1~ '~ ^4oa l I RESIDF_NCPS AOOP PLI.N - I R 1.08 .~~.~~ mm _~\ ~~`` A~ -- I - f l I I ~t°°s~!- - L 1 - - - - - a ~~~ ~` ~~'»~ . m wu _ - ~~ \ ~ r~ ~K~~ h..I i... ~_~..:o. a. .,. T ~ ~ __ ~N 'm ~ I I { ~ - , o.a 1 ~~.,~, ~~ ~~ ~;~p(Jp~FY I~PACT PI P VATI6NI~~ ~~~ - ~ ---I- , --.~:.,~~,. I. _ ._. _I . ..._I__ .. . I I I I I I 3 ~~-IJP,LFX L'3QUTIi F1~yATlOt~,~ _-~~i3ID'-3' """" - ~ mni, ~_ ..~ m...4 ~ I ---~--------'----'~ i~i~-=s 2 I @i ~Y 1 • N00.TH Pt P VATl01~ _ __ _J-~..~__-- ~l F ~~. ,. ~ ,- ~;l' ~' ~ - --;~: t----.~ ~~f I I 1 I I I I ~..u I ("~'~Dtll'LCX 1: V7FST L'LLVATION , O O ~---1 I E,.~ O i V AIL RFXIRTS OP.VlJAPMFM ~wrm~ azlno _ ~u:.~_ )'~>h~ 5~4~~1 .v ~r r. .t,, i , h s '~:` n~el.„.~ RPSIDFNCES CL(:VA'170N5 R 2.01 atlc vr.l• -$~,-,~. `- --. -'rte _.,~ ..~ :~- - . ~= _ f~ ~ ~ uvoa wet ~ ~ i .~~ __t.._L_._____..__. __~_ -$E~i,++-a' - -#~.: °. `- ~ ~ ~M 1 ~~DUP~.FX 2.EAST ELEVATION, __ i ~ i ~ i 1 i ~ I ~ ~ ~ L______l._____I...___~~~__._________________~. ~.}~t4jT~, (~ ID~i~ 25.OU'Di ELFVATION~_ ___ -----------= = =-_--- i =--_p ~. - I I - --~r~-:Ism ~- ~ ~--~~ r---T._..~.. _. ~._. _. _.T.-._ /, Y!?.~!~F.,~C 1 NORTH ELdAIlS~~. ------------------ ------------- -ram- ~ o A _ ~- __-:n:°.;-.: 11 i ~ Tu... u-a i i 1 Li 1 ~ I ~ 1 ~~ r ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~• I ~.__.__~___.. ... 1.. a ~~ ~ }:I~f~Cja. ~J- i i -' 1 ~ i ~ ~._____.... ~... .. _.. __.1 (~ DUPLEX L ¢'FST.EIEyAT10N,~r.s ~~nm~wrcmw~ V-~ Ir U I i 00 j ^ i II ~-~+ I Z 0 8 I', ~~I w ~ I ~ r, C' ~ f vu~xFSOxn DE~'PIANFM ~ f.OMPnNY P ,.rz~90 i~ ~i 'I Z~~Ii ~j``5~,`_'I AFSIDFJJCES ELEVA'170N5 R 2.02 i ... I ----~~_ I I h~~~- :~ ---- I- . I - - -- - - - -~~ . M,,, ~4- ---_ n n '~'F~ .<~ ,~~. L- - - - - ~- - -- -- 1- --I ----fit:': ~`w '4~'' , .!BI.~C~:£I]SZbI.kYAI7.QC1~,~ ~.,• _ - ~. -_- ~- -~-:~~I,~I ' ~ ~~iT wrw nvril , I I I II ~~~ t- .,~ .,,„,.. I I I ~ I I I I 1~-- -~n..,a IL~.I I I I I I L---1.--1----i--------I-__-'~cu' C~OMUp.IF][ 1:50U'7H Er rVA770N _ __ _ ~ ~~_ _- _ L__ j~p_-1-' I I I I I L---L----._. .... I.. .. ... I..._.. .. ~~C1~iegtii ~' DL';~..~~ Noaltll:t,EY_~T1QN~,- ~.~ , ' a q ~ /~Y'u"~~ ~, - ,~ .,a,.k.. I ~ , I I 1 i~ I I I I ~~ I I I I I ~ ~ ~.__.. l.- -...- - - I- - --- - -~ I l I ~Ol7PF~ 3; aVFST_E[.EVA770[J~_ 0 Q z$ OO~ w i v~ ~II ~J VAIL 0.F_S(1R75 oE~~rnlFSn' 42140 *tcnaR >>~~~° ~' ~I~._ I I ___:...._.-:..-...1 aE5mF1~1CES ._ ELEVA770N5 R 2.03 ,.~~ze7p+~RR~' i C~RFSJI~J:NCP~4: F.1S1' El.byA7IQLJ- ~rS. -~t~~ ,«~ m.,w. ~. .. .~,~ ~..,. . I I I it .~.., ,>.»~,,; ~. „ --__ ~RFSIDEJ'1CE ~~ Sp1T-I'FLP~YA710N .~ ~~W~Z =.~2~. I ~RFSIQFNCfl ~' NOAT(igj$y~pj.7 l -~ ® ~.^~ PR ~ I I~ I I ~~ i I I----~-----J-~ ~t~'S`~-~-------- - 1 I ~~~~!?r,[E7C~-a'-FS[EtEYAI7oy~ ~~,u.~m+m rt~wm ~-~ ~r n 0 Q Q o x~ w VAII. RESORTS DEVEIDPMEM Cw+apm~ azlao - _, ~~ ~~(, ~~ `~ `~ i .,~,~, RFCIDENCFS rrrVATIONS R 2.04 ~~„•.r ~! Tr.. ~f.~ a~ - _ ~ - . ; ___ I _~~ ~~ `;~rxm~~acs: ansrr~vnnary~~ --~~~ .. J __ _ ..a I I I I ~' 7'R]PAFXS:.SO.IT7fi.E.LhYAT10N__ l-= ~`_ --- -... ~-`a.n :uvi p..~r 11 __.~~.~~~_ -1===-- _r , I I ' I I _ , I I I . I I I _~"p~r -----1-----j I. -- ~.~ !l ! I I I -1~..,..., „III M1 1 I I I _. .- _ -.._ __ _.._ I M ~;~„_rl + -- -- ~ I' -- ~- I I 1 I I I I I I ~ TA] LEKS; WFSI'_FJF.VA710N, _,,_ I vrancw ~~ ~ v ~ u it I ~/ O '^O I~ o~~ ~ w ~I ~I VAIL 0.FS00.T5 pFVF.1~PAfFNT I COAIPANY 9290 ~, `. ~~;~ rx.''~tir RFSIDF1JCk5 FCL•\'ATIONS R 2.05 ~TRIp~}.~K 5' NORTH F(cVA'QpN,T ~~: .F.~;~ali~r. ~~ "P5:-~ T u- - - ~ ~ i ~ wn I I I ' ' .,, -~-~------1--JI I I I ~,-roM~~aw.. ~------I----~--I $~M, Opue,[rx a:~+sr_II.everloNl,.-_,z /- 4. -- ~ I -- ,.,,.. ..~I. -a- o-=a~ - - I .~.. ~.,. II' ..I ~• ~y .ro, .~ I I t I --1--.. ~2,Ipurl;e~c asourH ~tynnoN,~ --r.~;.-.~_ .ti~~: I I 1 I ---------, I I I I L--1-----J-~~~..~=e- I ~ C ~n~Lex a ~vesr r~_svnnoN,a. ran: I wrn<~m cum namc ~ v r la rr ..x ~„_'~~ l _ , '1 ~~.IIr-.'- - - - -~_~ art- Y i; Q ~~ o I H z~ °~.I ~ '~ _ . VAII_PFS(l0.'I$ nF.VFJnPTIFNf `maPtn n m u~o?PI90 ',~ ~m _ I :.~ i 15 ~4i `~?~'~ .'li, C~'~~,7Pa U ol. -_l L.__.... _...._...._ RPSIDP_NCTS F_i~v~770N5 i _ ~Ir.,,r.l.__ u i ~ ~tt>;tr,:xb:x~aTa ~ens~,,~ r IDDGE AT VAD.SPA ADDII70N (8E: t/5101) ~_ r ~ ~ ;,,. 1 ~ ~~ 1 ~0 ~ ~a' ~. k5' .fry I. ~~ ~' I , e ', .. .. _.. _.._..-I._.._... _.. _.. _.._ ..+. I ~~ SKI al10 \ /~I Q IDiCER fEIL,(nCG 1/CIAt) ~ _ ~ ^ Q ~ ~ X '/ /j PARLING \ / UPPFA I~l'Fl / / (HE 1/PI.0~ ' _____ ______ ~~~r_._.__-_. ~ii~ ~~~,._ ~. ii'~ 2 ~. \ 70 t ~ rW„ ,.,.a ,.~. ~ ~ •~ i 0 fi sYT , w ®SI'wG HILL ~~ ~ ~ Euunwc i ~\ ~ ~ ~ 1 `~, w ~ - ..{{yy' ` ~ ~j'!.n \ ~ E105TwC BRD)!IE (f] \ \ 'r ~ srRt~-r InDGE a s sS. uln pmN. 11 ~~ ~~ tea o ~ ~ L.._ / ~ ~ ~ vnu, aPSOn~s ~~t..~ - DFVF~DPnIENT k 42E40 Atl ua wL m~ wi0 "Slice vid G~cn Sv.im" u pc the SBA ~ euvkv ~, t ~1 nEXTSTTNG ONE VAH. PUCE- II]\i'FJi I.EVF1. E1 8170 N -%\~., _ ~%~ PI.1lA/ SF:IER SFI2VICFS P"'FA LVL PLAN _ ~ a ,r ~z ~~-~ a V 1.~1 suu. ine• ~/ .rasa+ss"!`1G+k~M O i Q ~~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~i, ~ ~I~ ~' ~ I~ ._-..1 '~ __~__ !~ VNL RFSORIS j DEVEIDPDIFl: ( i COMPANI 4240 .^_-~ . t .... i d~ __ .. ~...~, . _ ~i I T _ r ele~slee N -~~~ r w o~;-v,;~. ~~ i ,F,...~,„'~.,. VISfA NNW PLAZA/ Si~LH SGRVIQS MAIN LVL PI1.N V 1.02 _ '~~-~~ ~ ~~c~ .. ~ ... \. f..ryae~^mm^~,SY~Po . { 'Z ~y \/'J ~~ 3' / v~ i /~ ~.. ;. rye ~I ~ .~ I ~__ ___ ~ ~ / 1 ( , n: ~ ~ a 1 l .. •; .` . . . ~. ~. ~ ~ . \i ~;%. ~. i\ .. ,` i ~ '. jai I ~_ ~ ~~ _ /N~\ /O/-~ 1--I O w VAIL RESORTS DCVEIAI'MFN'f COMPANY 42~iO iy~ ~,k ~ ~ ~~~~I t95TA NAHN PLAZA/ slaea sr_avlcrs aoor•PLnr~ V 1.03 ~,~_,,,.•.,•Q ._.-'rmiSP5. II_ -_ (^O !'~ z ~i o w ~n a H (15Q1I'I'}{Lr1ST P.1!~~ATION oFVr~~ -r it 4290 ~ O$7f=rr ~~T Orn=n-- ~~~ a15iP.'9- stow[ uu -J warn antcxns urD I~OK ttP. UD •ww. 0 DCaeS BUD wiUCOwS iw waDD IMwCS. tw. (~1NORTHEAST EIFVATION .~.~ ~~ '~~`; v-- ~ a;, ~~'-dba i (~,x `,~_``~` i .. . . I _-_- _ VISTA flAliN P1.57~1/ ISI:I ER SERVICES EIFVATION w I r. .I , V2.01Q ~i A~7Fa^ ,.~... ..L.. Aw>u~- Aga;,- _ - - ~,YEEY A~iH'-~ -~~ I~ ~ I i ~ SiOU[ B~SC Ai83 L 1 - _ _ _ _ _ L. J rut vwcx' smnm i.~,~Y~~,Y.E~ra4, rnrowc.u uiPm sr~cnoN Qi3ar--a- ~ coricP[i[ M[ 400[ APSE!-- ~ -- - - .Riar~. ,,. 00045 Nr0 WwYG'~5 M 00p CMYES, TIP. ~~sr~r~tnnoN fr rim 0 ~oxntarnsT ELE\'A770tJ ^~ ~ LH L~' O W w ~ ~/ VNL RESORTS 1 OE~FIAPMFTCT i COI.fPnN'/ <7~a0 ~~ ~I . a ~, • ~'. r~: ~~VL5T.1 BAFW PIAL1/ SI~CR SF.RI'ICCS F_LEV~770N , ~ ®~Do PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ~1 PUBLIC MEETING 4 ;. S (, Monday, September 22, 2003 ., PROJECT ORIENTATION / -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOiV1E 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Doug Cahiil George Lamb Chas Bernhardt John Schofield Site Visits: MEMBERS ABSENT Gary Hartman Erickson Shirley Rollie Kjesbo 1. Pirateship Park- Tract E, Vail Village 5th 2. Lionshead Tennis Court Site- 615 West Forest Road 3. O'Dorisio - 4444 Streamside Circle Driver: George O NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a final review of an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-76-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; a request for a variance from Section 12-21-10, Development Restricted, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 17, Variances, Zoning Regulations, to allow for the construction of multiple-family dwelling units on slopes in excess of 40%; and a request for the establishment of an approved 'development plan to facilitate the construction of Vail's Front Door, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (A more complete metes and bounds legal description is available at the Town of Vail Community Development Department) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther Motion: Doug Cahill Second: George Lamb Vote: 4-0-0 APPROVED WITH CONDTIONS Conditions: 1. Standard conditions of approval applicable to all PEC development plan approvals: • That the Developer submits a complete application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the review and approval by the Town of Vail Design Review Board of a Comprehensive Sign Program prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Approval for any of Vail's Front ~, - ii Door Project improvements. That the Developer submits a complete Design Review Board application, including details of all proposed roof top mechanical systems, to the Town ofi Vail Community Development Department for review and approval by the Town of Vail Design Review Board, prior to making an application for the issuance of a building permit for any of Vail's Front Door Project improvements. That the Developer submits a Construction Staging Plan to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the review and approval of the proposed staging plan by the Town of Vail, prior to the issuance of a building permit fior the Vaii's Front Door Project improvements. 2. The Developer provides deed-restricted employee housing that complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13) for a minimum of 9 employees, and that said housing shall be made available for occupancy, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail's Front Door Project improvements. In addition, the deed-restrictions shall be legally executed by the Developer and duly recorded with the Eagle -- County Clerk & Recorder's Office, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Y Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail's Front Door Project improvements. 3. That the Developer submits a complete set of civil engineered drawings of the Approved Development Plans including the required off site improvements, to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval f., of the drawings, prior to making application for the issuance of a building permit for Vail's Front Door Project improvements. 4. That the Developer submits a partial topographic map of the alleyway east of the Lodge at Vail to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The topographic information shall be used by the Town of Vail and the Developer to determine the feasibility of providing improved handtruck delivery access to Gore Creek Drive from Founder's Plaza. If it is determined by the Town of Vail and the Developer that pro-posed improvements are both feasible and advantageous for providing handtruck delivery access to Gore Creek Drive via the Wildflower alleyway, 'the Developer shall submit a revised set of Off Site Improvements Plan to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval and further agrees to construct the improvements as approved. 5. That the Developer submits a development application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the operation fora "private and public club", pursuant to Section 12-8E-3, Conditional Uses, of the Vail Town Code. The application for the conditional use permit shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of the Zoning Regulations, prior to making application for the issuance of a building permit for Vail's Front Door Project improvements. 6. That the Developer identifies a "No Build Area" on the Approved Development Plan indicating that no building or site disturbance shall occur within thirty feet (30') of the proposed westernmost and southernmost property lines in the area of the residential unit construction. Subsurface soil nailing for slope stabilization shall be permitted in the "No Build Area". 7. That the Developer legally executes all necessary easements and agreements allowing for public pedestrian/bike access through Tract E and the development site from lUlill Creek Circle to Vail Road, public roadway access, drainage, signs, utilities, etc. on and across the development site. Said easements and agreements shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval by the Town of Vail. Upon approval by the Town, said easements and agreements (if necessary) shall be lega!)y execufied by the Developer and duly recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Offiice, prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy for the Vail's Front Door Project improvements. 8. The Developer agrees to provide to the Town of Vail for review and approval by the Vail Town Council a comprehensive Development Agreement for Vail's Front Door Project improvements. Said Agreement shall be submitted to the Town by no later than October 31, 2003. The Development Agreement shall be a legally binding agreement between the Town of Vail and Vail Resorts. The purpose of this agreement is to document, among other things, the manner and timefirames within which the Town and the Developer will complete certain required aspects of the project. The Development Agreement will include, but may not be limited to, addressing the following aspect of the project: • The conveyance of a deed from the Developer to the Town for a parcel of land under Pirate Ship Park, as depicted in Exhibit A attached. • A written description of all off-site improvements to be provided by the Developer (as generally depicted on the approved development plans), providing additional details on the specific improvements to be provided, the manner in which developer assurances for completion of said improvements will be provided, acknowledgment that design details will conform to the Town's streetscape standards, schedules for completing said improvements, the manner in which the Developer and Town will coordinate streetscape improvement efforts and defining specific terms to determine when and where Checkpoint Charlie will be constructed by the Developer, as maybe amended • The legal mechanisms to be used wherein the Town of Vail will allow the Developer to construct a portion of the proposed parking. structure at P3&J beneath the. Town's road right-of-way (as depicted on approved plans for P3&J). • The legal mechanisms to be used wherein the Developer will allow the Town to utilize a portion of its parking and loading structure as a 14-bay public loading and delivery facility (as depicted on the approved development plans). • An agreement to be prepared which outlines the Developer's responsibilities for funding $1,000,000 in public art to be provided in conjunction with the Project. This agreement is to be prepared with input from the Town of Vail Art in Public Places Board. • A use agreement to be prepared which outlines the terms and conditions for public use of the Vista Bahn Ski Yard. This agreement is to be prepared with input from the Town of Vail Commission on Special Events. 9. That the Developer submits a copy of the proposed plans and use agreements to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review by the Art in Public Places Board and the Town of Vail Commission on Special Events at a regularly scheduled meeting. Each of the respective meetings shall be duly noticed to the public, adjacent property owners, and potentially interested parties. Upon review of the proposed plans and use agreements, with input from the public, the Board and Commission shall forward a recommendation on the proposed plans and use agreement to the Vail Town Council. 2. A request for a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vail Town Code; a major exterior alteration pursuant to 12-7A-12, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the existing fractional fee club and a restaurant addition; and a request for a building height variance pursuant to Chapter 17, Vail Town Code, to allow for dormer additions, at the Vail Mountain Lodge and Spa, located at 352 E. Meadow Drive / Tract B, Vail Village 1S` Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain Lodge LLC, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther Motion: George Lamb Second: Doug Cahill Vote:4-0 TABLED TO OCTOBER 13, 2003 3. A request for a floodplain modification pursuant to Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of new bridge abutments in the Mi11 Creek floodplain at Pirate Ship Park located at Tract E, Vail Village 5`h Filing Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson Motion: Chas Bernhardt Second: George Lamb Vote: 4-0 APPROVED WITH COi~DIT1OtJS Conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit proof of t!S Army Corp of Engineers approval ofi a Nationwide Permit 18 -Minor Discharge to the Town of Vail Community Development Department prior to the issuance of building and grading permits. 2. The applicant shall submit a stamped Improvement Location Certificate and "as-built" topographic survey to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval, prior to Town of Vail final construction inspection. 4. A request for a major subdivision pursuant to Chapter 13-3; Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of four lots at the Lionshead tennis court site and a rezoning pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Administration, Vail Town Code, from Agriculture and Open Space zone district, Vail Town Code, to Primary/Secondary Two-Family Residential zone district, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of single-family homes on the four proposed lots, located at 615 West Forest Road/Unplatted (Amore complete metes and bounds legal description is available at the Town of Vail Community Development Department) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell Motion: Doug Cahill Second:. George Lamb Vote: 4-0 Tabled to October 13, 2003 5. A request for a variance from Section 12-14-17, Setback from Watercourse, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition in the Gore Creek setback, located at 4444 Streamside Circle /Lot 11, Bighorn 4th Addition. Applicant: Thomas O'Dorisio, represented by John Perkins. Planner: Warren Campbell Motion: Chas Bernhardt Second: George Lamb Vote: 4-0 APPROVED ~VITI-I ONE CONDITION: Condition: 1. That the applicant is not permitted to perform an interior conversion of this space at a later date as the dormer additions would not have been constructed prior to August 5, 1997, as required by Section 12-15-4, Interior Conversion, Vail Town Code. 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Warren Campbell Motion: John Schofield Second: Doug Cahill Vote: 4-0 RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVED TO COUNCIL WITH CONDITIONS Conditions: 1. That the applicant shall verify that all materials proposed for use in the Streetscape are low maintenance, have a long lifespan, and are durable so as to avoid costly maintenance and upkeep. 2. That the applicant shall explore funding options other than an impact fee such as the use of Tax Increment Financing. In addition, funding models should be explored which impact residential properties to a lesser extent than commercial properties and include a time frame for which the fee will be collected, such as a sunset provision. 7. A request for major exterior alteration pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of new dwelling units and accommodation units at Vail Marriott Mountain Resort, located at 715 West Lionshead Circle / Lots C and D, Morcus Subdivision, and Lot 7, Marriott Subdivision Applicant: Mountain Marriott Vail Resort, represented by Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz Architects Planner: George Ruther Motion: George Lamb Second: Doug Cahill Vote:4-0 TABLED TO OCTOBER 13, 2003 8. Approval of September 8`h meeting minutes Motion: George Lamb Second :Doug Cahill Vote:3-0-1 (Chas Bernhardt Abstained) APPROVI=D 9. Information Update: • GRFA • Four Seasons The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published September 19, 2003, in the Vail Daily. Building Summuy: I. Code~v_.nr~ ~ i.r o.a:,.~a:..irdi.,.: mel.A n.+:~:d ... M w].ly Md.: Tsf.1m1 1 Pvv t'mp..q O~YG.6a. ~m Z] ]. om.P... sin Pair. xa y. A P..a=o.+ n. 1W~ Y w! ss. L c.wam Am.i~ I.(rnouJb. O.unbilT: .. Ty]a IA (.al~iuf Im ao W b:Yry b14r e.a.1m) . 5:.: TIa+IA (u.Mnluf !wr ao.Y N:la'y. say.::rSk w1 nuvuan AddN~.: Go.p 0..1 4aw: ~vw w-1 ). 4>1r•r.lae i.mr. [i.w.mn AH~.b.: lm q n. pa ~r C ltl nob: I, [oe.mcYU n.wnr:.: T)'PP vA (I I•f0a rA W ] uoo h Wift~ iaak 50)] l Pt:cvy D.apuq n..Jfm'm:O.mp A-1 1. Gm~w lm P.c:. 1l q 0. ps p-egm P ReJmr¢ LC cb-^---v ___. c Pvths Days me u (VNh.IW ~ w .. Wl4tiry fade TYa. Smj i ]ter o~.] ^.do- . Pukha Dawes GaP N /`Ocz•QUl Lw1 Fmr. .fs.l o.•a. ]m q a r ma• e ssl. ca.l~vs.. su.. P.b: ]. r ,f. a..ar..at TTPe rv (H:14]CA yh W 1 usiu 6 W yal (M: l0ie q 0..d a ul. h sklNl r.u faf 1 Prlmvr Ompu ~ OuJ4W: dwp B L Uvy 11 1. [4y~a lm 1rw', lm Y. A IQ>=f.. Y n aayadr; ]0 q. 0. pc mvP.Y Y M or:+pcka NO mywcl KrroT `- )m.i.l llm.~ru.d Ilo' s] Nfar.tluJ IsunJLy w. (>amf ]1l.e.ulwl Hda~k.l Cde fAml al a. a_.~ Fbviol CoY (]m]I n I~uuxukn.l Pm ~.,. (]D]ll sl M1unul,n.l 4Nfonkl C'e.fv (Sall n Ona*oas.l Poe]y c.a.>.~~ rm. (mon q Ira.woJ Pvd G. Gh (]tall P) AnvF.~n at1J Dk.41i1.. AY (ADAI lal n]:sl Al1l.I. ss~vU::.Y aws,s llult;ky~ W faill'1o Aedibk b d UYEk h RY^.JII I W-fioPP^G Pa9k a. Au wl~n.o..f .mua.. J.n e. e:nr saak..i.fa w,ool._. , n. W ~.4. ,I.v~ er.eR Il 6w_Q[svaF.P toa~sn; ti Tw+y L Imps Dot .. r.a;.k: uACV q. L b.laaYy • Ikti•vY• ) fnd Isrd: >0..01 p. n. •Prtlry; b. Turl (ti CaW 6.dh1 tint ll.lggL Il,X1 q A 1.1~1...b ur]aq e. TNJ: 101111 q. A a IatF Y v.n q.4ls~ov.. Amin. 111N I 1~ . . m.u. ts..lsae Hb]): n tma,o~A 11d.a b - iW q A , ~ y i ca., ca.. ] ~1 tilt llw q a . •rvu iTIgL tsRl Int N.. Gsmn ALdum: 1,1n1 q A TaJ: n 6tl ~; Il.T1f a.0. 1. I.wn l~.d: 0.111 q L 14fid ls.d: Iyn q 0. Tow: b ' la,fll q. L . Ru mvc 1. G.a. l.rY: 14.10 q.0. 1 Ma)..kJ 45o.f. tml: I,HI q A 1. P`Jda.ra lA (1a YIL le (1.s1aJ IS)1gL .n.Jfo`n ]A NA1n LlA Myf4) I)rlg0. f. WiS.cv fA (.{l1)L l0 (4110) I,l].tq e. 6.4d• 1A (IAIn 4 18 (1}I6) 9,T11 q a >. ndaom fA (.pa1 f B If)MI L biYso lANaaIL W(f)~ b T W S 1.11Ig~ : . a (aufaao.•f0.RM,f T fIJ@q.l uW: (R..wr>•y.Rl.dvNly c...o.*1.01 NylegL e. ssf. s..a. I.Im L..d a 4eW.ld A.o (I v.n R..<4 I.uO q A nv t5wdb: I;aO q A •aaeWakdAm (1 VJ Pl.x~ iNC p.h • Nw na.a~da.: n,al q. h s Tow: 11,a1f q. L (I.rlub N.+G+evab N. R oaYl (M... aul N.vfsws 1 ll,lll q. M1 a PawkLd H R.l }a T.ul; ln)Yg4. Y~cc[ Teatn: bas Cl.v Pwv_ ]j, ~p Adlm: V AIL RPSOIm Isa]¢ IwamxloN DevesAralzPr C04lPANY w~"~'s"" .. Y..4IJ.. Yd ]OOY Pbo<11 LLf)UI A.na IH Trr naalJ7 ; )1 nme.a Io.a ~ ~'°°1'd P A.va- . Ilfl:l r ~ no.wsuls n: Wausau (b.m:1W am Ashu d P®d UCH kDI1R(N1l f1C r--~w.. n~ o-..I.-. UI IP]Pf fug Yls>/n Dm~a. C'ulp.b slm P"__nlmifW ~~ 4~,1 Y P'u4W1 IUIT N¢a'FATON IOIfooLy YLu NorLdd/b]adal /IYmMv ~ a €i~dnm s~r,...a.~, rur~L uI 11 i..: 11S 4f0.1N1 . _ _ L A4f mNnn.T.wrs, b1C. Core N•... LnJIO 1111 Auod. Rd..l. f.JY.m 11m.v. rdw~b xYN Is.m. Ylll]].4]00 r.. una:ssfu IldaWal Tmaa Nam ALk Pbm4J ('u+.s Tin Toa..+tl P®Sy ra.ua Ab VJb 5.~Te~, rrlw s.arm muslflrAxrs, sNc Imo tlmb W r.1ay vJl. ca.,.s, nal rn~.~ sm.nuaa Pv.'JN.116a10 tm.a n~..u nyaP ~. ~ 1 f' SKIER SERVICES & VISTA BAHN PARK VAIL, COLORADO Index of Drawings STTE DEVP-L,OPhfENI' DRAWfNGS SD 1.01 Ewing Topo Survep - Overall SD I.OIA Eadsling Tapo Survey-West SD LOIR Eaisti~g Topo SYrvry-F n SD 1.02 Illullndvc Sitc Plus SD 1.03 landsopc Sim Plan - Ovenli SD 1.03A Landscape Sim Plu] • V.'en SD 1.038 Candsupc Sim Plan • Cass SD 1.01A Landscape Smions SD 1.048 Landscape Sections SD I.OSA Landscape Sisc Lighting-Wyss SD 1.058 Lmdscape Sim Dghting • Ease SD 1.OGA Sim trading 4 Drainage clan -Weis SD 1.06B Slm Grading h Drainage Plan • Sass SD 1.060 Sim Gcnding do Drainage Phil • South SD 1.G7 Sun/Shade Malysif • Spring/Fall Equinos LSD 1.08 Sun/Shade AnalyTis • ~ to Solsdcc SD 1.fA Nos U4c! SD 1.10 Public Lnprov¢nent Plan • West SD 1.11 Puhlic tmpcov¢ncnt Plan - South SD 1.12 Public Lnpcov~mt Plan - Lowe Lcvd AACHTTFCRJRAI. ^RjW)NGS AP 1.01 Sim Reference Plans RS 1.01 Sim Re(eccnce Seedbns P 1.01 Puking h Loading Dock -Lows Lcvci Plan r l.oz Pafldng - hrd Lcvcl rlYl P 1.03 Puking -Upper Level Plea P 2.01 Pvktng & Road -Sections S i.0ii1 LAdge Ar Vail Sq de Cues¢]wm - Csisdng Cundidonl S 1.01 B Irdge AI Vail Spa & Gues¢rxlm Addition -Plana S 2.01 Indge Af Vail Spf h Gues¢oom Addition - Glrndoos C 1.01 Skl Club - Plus C 2.01 Ski Club - FJcvaoatu R 1.01 Reiidenees - Cnlage Plan R 1.02 Rcsidcncu • Lcvr! g200' Plan R 1.03 Residcnw - icvr! 6210' Plan R 1.01 Rcsldcbas - I.cvd g~?0' Ylan R 1.05 Rniden«. • I<vd 8230' Plan R I.OG Residences • Level R240' Plan R 1.07 Residenus • Level 8250' Plan R 7.08 Rcudmw • Roo(PLw R 201 Rcsidentxf • Etmdbnl R 2.02 Aeudeaces - FJrntions R 203 Residences - EJrntions R 2.04 Rcsidcoccs - Elrndonf A 2.05 Ruidrnw - Elrntiom R 2.0G Residences • Elmtionf V 1.01 Vista Balm Park/Skin Serviw - [nwa Les•d Plan V 1.02 Visn Kahn Palk/Skis Suvicu • plain LcvvJ Plan V 1.03 Visn Bahn Puk/Skin Services -Roof Plan V 2.01 Visn Bahn Puk/Skis Scnicu • Elcvadonc V 2.02 Visn Bahn Puk/Skier Service - Clwadons -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION- Submittal to the Town of Vail Submitted by: VAU. RESORTS DFVELOPhIENT CObII'ANY September 11, 2003 f1urllwuxnTON NoNROnL NLL¢Sfi A1PfNnrn]esMeruNe,IMe n.u/asnl]N ncsoanTglNc noura.m.a u wcwPnxF.e ~ cJ.,,a. e..:e. Iam cs.aa. vu.g ~, s:. csl Aoo-4 GuJu ]16ID s.:. n e. A.on CJa.da11.VD s o. w. n Nf]IO I4d ~wP1 Dal.fa slm u~,+, v,l.,. nl.a v.o.la. sse vbs.. sm.NSSS.I P.c P]uLafbll Ra. nos.ana raw •iN n re.,.a~, ~fa.do usa iT~.s TO.nbl>lf I:I.W.,fdant.naf .a+313]3 1t Co.~o¢ M..I N... [a~ Pw laove< P.s ero.lla)lfa ~ ~ rmav Gan TVme CA.ox T®Yau. VAIL'S FRONT DOOR RESIDENCES/SKI CLUB/ LODGE AT VAIL SPA & GUESTROOM ADDITION/ PARKING & LOADING DOCK/ ]-"1 O ^O^ i---i L ' C] w T'nIL RESORTS URVFJ-0P',fYNf conrrnrrv <2~40 rec]uas ~.~~~~ ~~ COVER sHCr_r A 000 A':s s...,uu~~.,. o O O p 7 w' H )'AII. RI .St1R'R UI:~'I~lDI'~I f.N'f rnmm~rrv rez~w nxnun<nne Mi=-.. -.~1 ~ ~~ °;o., v./i Mnin fA.n ~- sn-i,oi r:>asnNc CONDI770N5 PLAN er~=T~ ~ssl~~p° ~I o ~ ~: n./ O nO F~ w' a 0 cs.-uFx> ~~e~ ~~~ W O O I w' a H „Papm~pal° VAII. RFSORT5 O~VfIDrT(LNT con~rnNv 4240 cH~vnuan. ='C,it~TCOL~ 1~.:>r~ ~ ,1 ~~~. v.a, rw~~ n•- SD-1.0113 ea~srtr~c coNOmoNs riaN rnsr .._,~r., ~+ \ _ 5~~ ~-~-- ti. ~ _ \ rr`"~:k, ~~~9-r •, -~~ r~= Ilyn-1 111 fem. -, ~ I 1 t ~ kit./,- ~ LDPGF. AT. ~ ~ LUilf. t: PAIL "~~~ ~ 1 ~~ ~ 'r ~ 5o1ft11 ` ~.. __ ~t. v: - sr'At _~ 1 \ I ,. ~~ _ _' .___ _ _ ' 1 ~ ~ t. __ ~~ f ~ _ _ ~t rlegf ,~ (~ _ - - - ~ ~~_ ''~ - 1 ~ _ ~c _ _ - .: 1 ~ I . -_~ ~ -I_ ~ _ ~~ ~~ t g;:, poi ~ ~`~ \ / _ -_ ~- ~.~ ~ ' -L, ,_ _-, - - - - _--____-~ .-- - ~ - _ _ I 1 11,1 1111_ /T \ ~~ \~~~ ~~. ~~` ~ \ t 1 ~ ~~ -..I I j I - I I ~ ~' \ ~ \ ~ .. 1 \ '\ \ Zv , i , \ i \ i ~~ ~ \ / Y 1 ~ COM1~~ _~ ~-- , /' ~ . fir ~ ; i _\,1 ~ ~: ~ 1 '_ \ ; ONF. VAII. _ 1. ~ 1111.1. nllILDINf ~~~ ~_i ~ 1 \ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~1~~ ~ '~' , ~~ \~ S'I'Itl'I~'I' LOUI.Ii ~~ ~ ,-7or ! . ~.y ~~ _ _ ~ _ ~ _ / _t f _ . ~ ~~ -.[ ~ I~'`~ ~ I . .[ r ~r i . F~ / I _ ~ ' ''I ~ / ~ ~~ ur.TA nAli~1 ~ I Atli 1 ~ tl ~-1. r ,I r-- t . ~ ' r== r. /\\ t M~+ ' \ ~ ~ I ~1 WT1 ~ _ \ ~ ~ 1 . E t ; ~ . ,._, ~ ' , ~ ` 1~~ ~ / -. O Q O ~ w^ ~/ l H VAll. 0.F_'L)F'IS DEVF.IUPnI F?[f fDnfl'AN1' 42!40 ~rt~u~ ~ - •, i,~• _ _ ~I 9' ay ~ IIF.r, uy~ 1 I ~~ ! ~ ; t ~1 { ~ I Ti ;\ I ~ ~ ._ ~./'/~: ~~ ILLU.4I'RAT1Vf II 1: ~ ~l~~r l1 ~. SD-1.02 j x,,1,..14 ~q~egrpy~xBl ~. ~~ O O 6 ~ ' '~~ ~ I ,. i ' t?~ , '' ~ O ,~ ~_ I , ~'~. ~ _ ~~ ~~ I ~ ~ BRIDG~ > `. \ I ~ SfREEf •. I f 1DDG8 ~ ~ .. - i ___ -..-~ ' I I VAl1.RF_S~R73 ~~ DFVFJAPTfENI' mmm~n~v ~i%~ ' 42~40~ / u~irecnwe ). (J _ .-P 1 ~ 1 , T ~ ~, ~L. _ _. J. _~ ;, ,- ;,` I ~. ~~ _..T.._..~. \ ~~ ' ~~ I ~..~ ._ ._ •' I/i ~ ~ - ._ ul ~ ~ ~ ~ ------ ~` ~, _.. \\\ pia .: ._ .. ;, ,„ ~~ SRL PIhN . o-.m..o .~w ~m SD 1.03 ruu~~1••a /~,. ~7%~. ,~ r~~zro ~ ~n ~rF .. _ r... _ - s'. ;k:~ ~,s .q:s},r~.p. ~~ ~ J~~[-~i~ I I '1,1 (- - ` ODGE SOIfRI CONDOMItINMS LODGE AT VAII ~`1 %~~•1~ .:, ~ :1 i - C~~4a' k~~*~~ '4 i.~ m •z_.. _ „A....~ ~ ~R = SPA '. _ ~. _ ~_ ~ __- _. - _ _ ~ '~ I - -.; - _ ,. - - Y ~ l I Tj,_~ pr, ~.. .: .... f i _r ~....~,.. ® i. I\I ~ Y-~ 1 `UNIT ~ r? ., - ~~ _ '•~ ~_~~ ~.` I ~~` _____-___.. ,~ I ~~ " i '~~\ \ 7 _______ __ ___ ~ ~ ~ - 1\~"'. ,. .V ~ yRE510ENCE5 "~~. ~~ ~\ ~~\ ~ ~ - ~ r` I• V SKIER SER'IICES ~ _ _~ 7" 'A' ---,a.,,,,,- sa • / "u"Iti .. ~ °~- ~ sKYaue - ~ - - \ I -~ ---- ---_- ~~~-~..... w+rt, -!.~-,d„~ uNrt /~ ~~ utmd { -'~~ Nu rt T ~ ~~~ ~ I=7 - `I ~-__ P[AN,PK [[L[HD ~ __ __ _ ~J ')k ~C~\l~\\/ p~..,~nA~ ~ ~~ i m m ' ~ 1 i, :~ 'I. O z o~ w F--i VALL RF_SORTS DEVELAPMt7J1' n•w,M1wu.~in 42140 .nc~ `ne ` ~!~~,_ ----- ---- -- -_-. ~~. ~TIUG%'~ ~non~ iANDSG\PE SITF_ P[AN/ 1RRTGATION lC?ST SD 1.03A ~,>U ,•. m vqi E]rNp~Pl ' •1 I " 1.1 ~I ~ \ 1 I ®1 ~~ •4• i IY 1' 111 l\~ /~.\ •'\ ~-~~ -- r _ ~ _ ---- ~ gay •~ ~~Jil~ ~' ~, __._:~ ----- / ~~ ~ ~' -~ ~ ~ SKIER SERVICES ~ ~ 1 ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r _ _ _ ~j _ yt' ~ .1. ~Sj.. '1.~~ ~ I ~ d ~ ~r ~ ~~~~1 . SA•_ ~ ~ ~ •1 >>~l `~ \ ~ ~ \ ~ /// ...~~\~ 1. ~9 ~ ~i. ,-1' f ~_ n- "^~~ ~a~~~:. Q r ~". ~_._~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ Ewmse room 7 f ~ `T, I ~ ~ ~. ~ ' .. .1 O oma.,~R.... `~\ ~~~ `~ \\c~` ~-~:: ~ \~~• I ^~sS 1 / ~ ter`"' 0'il\ `\~` ~~~~: ~~~.`' : ~ I / r0 LL 11„Mxa~W`Inf•/•uN^m '~ ~ ~\~ ~ \ ixew+wu srsr[u .~ _ ;. \. \ '~ '_ - ~•~ `~~ ~ , \ ~' .. - \ ~ •: I \ ` .~\. \ ~~ \ ~.... -\ .... ~ t:,\ ~ .~.,... __ _.l III ! I . t ~ - o -~-•aL m .o m ~~ Q $ I rT~ d V-+~1 ' VAIL AFSOR75 ~ DEVF1OPt•Q:N! ~.~.~A,.~~R ,_ _ I 4240 YiCN iECiLRF .~ _.. ~ ___ ~ J`I~'f~:~`,:i w..5~ _ UNDSUPC STT£ PL1N/ 1RR1GA77ON LAST ~~ 1.03B ti~ ~_ ~ r )f~^ 1 I ^•.. ( ~ l ''~ UNIT 4 A-8 '~~• ~ ' I ry 1~ ~ ^~ UNIT3A-8 rJ ~ 1 ~ ~'Y. II uR II . ,.:: (~7 _ Exlstlng grade _-~ Elevator landing I end stairway Nallve Landscape SECTION !ELEVATION • RESIDENCES path lighting end A Unll N Idenldicallon 7"~ ID' Ovedook, Sitting area Rough hewn OrysWck welt STONE WALLS CREATE COLLECTION OF FORMS, EXAMPLE OF STAIRWAY 'TREE WELLS', PRESERVING MATERIALS, PATTERNS AND CNARACTER TYPICAL OF EXISTING TREES OR ADDING TEXTURES CONVEY A STAIRWAYS AT THE GNARACTER TO NEW SENSE OF TIME AND PLACE RESIDENCES PLANTINGS NOTE: IMAGERY FOR STYLISTIC IDEAS ONLY- MATERIALS AND QUANTITIES MAY VARY l/C' LANDSCAPE IMAGES `~-. Not b stela '- Nelive Landscape '~-~.. ~-" -~ Boulders Roadwa 1 - ri~ [17i~1 ~'_ `IU. I.ANDSUPE SLC770N5 SD 1.04A n~OSnry*PI` I I.I ~~ ~ SECTIONIELEVATION-POOL/SPA ~A Notb Swk I ;r ,Y,_;., `s. ,7 ~~ I J ~\ ~ (~ ~ t~'~ ~, .~Y ' ~~• Tl}~ %l~_N It `v //. ty ....f~iift2L US'~G ~sC~ ~.l'o.'..__~ i ~' ~.., ~ 1 ~~ i ~~ _~SZLctL• t~nn~.r~..._._18Sib::. ` SECTION / ELEVATION_SKI CLUB SOUTH SIDE TERRACE _CJ Not b Sola --~- ~--~---~ u+i1 fi+(~f A'+.c IMAGE OF WALL DETAIL ILLUSTRATING PROPOSED CHARACTER OF SITE FEATURES HISTORIC FIREPLACE AND HEARTH REPRESENTATIVE OF FIREPLACE PROPOSED FOR SKI CLUB - CHARACTER TYPICAL OF EDGE DETAIL AT INFINITY EDGE POOL NOTE: IMAGERY FOR STYLISTIC IDEAS ONLY - MATERIALS AND QUANTITIES MAY VARY ~'C~LANDSCAPE IMAGES Nol to Swlo __-___.__- __.._I O ~"'1 I" -1 O ~a? r^~ ~/ J i I V,V I. RPSOA7S OevFl.orraeNT COFRM'Y 42140 M1AfNrtECiUiF ~w~ ~I __ _-_-_ -__ -_-___ i __ I i.l ..~~~ iF•a o/; ~'y s ~n~, ~~ i ~`..v LINDSGI'E SECTIONS SD 1.04B IMAGE TYPICAL OF RUSTIC AND ORGANIC CHARACTER DESIRED IN THE POOL AND SPA AREA _ a WJI~ 'n._l.LLM4_R9f ___.__../t'.Oa.._ _.. 9 SECTION/ELEVATION •POOLlSPA Not b Scale September 22, 2003 Mr. George Ruher, Chief of Planning Department of Community Development Town of Vail Vail, CO 81632 RE: Front Door Update/September 22"d PEC Hearing Dear George: The purpose of this letter is to provide a brief summary of refinements that have been made to plans for the Front Door. These refinements are reflected on the plan set dated September 11, 2003 that was submitted to you last week. 1. A number of very minor refinements have been made (in response to your referral letter) in order to clarify "inconsistencies" in our previous plan set. 2. The proposed project site has been extended on the west and south sides of the residences. The proposed land exchange area is now 4.9 acres. As we discussed last week, this change was made due to the structural design of the residences. Underground soil nails will be used in the construction of a shoring wall. These nails will extend upwards of 60' horizontally into the ground on the west and south sides of the residences. The USFS has indicated that the nails cannot extend into their land. As a result, we have enlarged the proposed land exchange boundary such that the nails will be on private property. To ensure against future development extending further up the hillside, we have depicted a "no build zone" on the south and east sides of the residences as depicted on the Illustrative Site Plan (sheet SD 1.02) of our plan set. 3. A bike path extension has been added to the south end of the skier service building/skier plaza. This extension will provide a connection for bikes to access the plaza/bike path directly from the Vail Mountain access road. 4. A slight increase has been made to parking provide by the project. The upper level parking garage has been increased to 42 spaces. A detailed parking matrix is attached. This matrix outlines the total parking required as per the zoning code and the total parking required. The total number of parking spaces provided at the Front Door in excess of zoning requirements (not including the 95 spaces dedicated to the ski club) is now 56.81 spaces. We have also provided under separate cover detailed floor plans depicted square footage calculations of specific uses. Among other things, these floor plans identify the uses and square footage used to calculate parking requirements. A technical memo summarizing how these numbers relate to specific zoning standards is also attached (i.e. site coverage calc for the new building footprint at the Lodge at Vail). 5. The proposed site wall east of the Vista Bahn has been changed to a stone veneer wall. 6. More detailed grading and spot elevations are provided around the ski club and poll/spa area. 7. Elevations of the ski club and skier service building have been refined in response to preliminary comments of the DRB. 8. As we discussed at the DRB's conceptual review, Duplex 1 at the residences has been lowered by five feet. We look forward to our final review with the PEC on the 22"d. As you know, considerable time and effort has been put forth over the past nine months and this review process has resulted in a project that we believe will be an incredibly positive asset for Vail. You have had a significant role in this process and your efforts are very much appreciated. Sincerely, Thomas A. Braun Encl.: Detailed floor plans Existing site coverage calculation of the Lodge at Vail Technical memo, re: zoning standards Parking Matrix Cc: Jack Hunn Jay Peterson Bob Fitzgerald 'OWN OF VAIL Department of Public Works & Transportation 1309 Elkhorn Drive Yail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2158 Fax: 970-479-2166 www ci. vail. co. us To: George Rrther From: Greg Hall Date: September 19, 2003 Subject: Vail Front Door The Public Works Department has reviewed the submittal and has the following comments. The review of a development of this size and complexity requires an over all general agreement and understanding of the improvements being proposed and the related impacts of the development to approve or deny the project as presented at this time. However to say the plans and reports submitted are final approved documents at this time requires all involved to spend significant time to ensure every line dimension, and detail to be correct. As this project moves toward final approval and building permit approval, it is recognized by al] parties that finalization of the design, Design Review Board approval, Civil Engineering plan approval and Building permit plan approval will result in further and more detailed review of the project which may require changes and additions to the requirements of the plans. However the scope of the overall development and its impacts shall remain consistent with the project as presented and reviewed. Traffic Report The Trip Generation does not directly address the expansion of the spa and the additional employees who will work at the facility. In addition, for the Skiers Club the employees are not addressed. However the trips are accounted for in the employee parking lot which is to meet the increase in employees for the development. If this situation is deemed to be incorrect a correction of the traffic generation numbers will need to be addressed. ~. ~e Town of Vail assesses a transportation impact fee of $5000 per net increase in peak hour trips /generated. This fee can be offset by the developer constructing transportation improvements beyond what is required to mitigate any adjacent improvements. This development is providing 4 additional loading bays and, replacing 260 lineal feet of on street loading space displaced with P3&J project to underground bays. ~h regard to Checkpoint Charlie, the developer and the Town have agreed to construct the project as presented with the exception of a reconstructed Checkpoint Charlie. With in the first year of operation of the new project, traffic circulation will be evaluated to determine the extent the project has on reducing the number of trips which pass through Checkpoint Charlie. In addition tests will be conducted by temporarily moving the traffic management operation to the location as depicted in both the Transportation and Streetscape Master Plan which is the intersection of Vail Road and Willow Road, opposite the Lodge at Vail entrance. This is to determine if checkpoint functions at this location has an adverse impact on the traffic circulation patterns of the new development and surrounding properties. Based on these observations, the permanent location of Checkpoint Charlie will be determined and the developer will be required to design, obtain approval and construct the final Checkpoint Charlie. If the location is determined to be near its current location, not only is a building for traffic operation management to be constructed but incorporated within the design shall be public restrooms and an information booth. ~~~ RECYCLEDPAPER Drainage Report Over the last decade the Town has made significant improvements to the drainage system adjacent to the front door project to provide the necessary capacity to handle the 100 year storm and avoid overflow runoff from entering Vail Village below the front door /ski yard area. This includes new storm sewers down Vail Road from Forrest Road, Vail Road to the International Bridge and improvements to the ski yard drainage to Mill Creek. The Mill Creek basin preliminary drainage report was reviewed and the following comments apply. The Town's master drainage report prepared by Muller Engineering which included most of the Front Door Project incorporated a smaller drainage basin from the south than does the current report by Alpine Engineering. Even though the basin is larger, the overall flow is relative the same due to the time of concentration differences and the method used to calculate the flow based on the different sizes. Further investigation and discussion between Alpine Engineering, the Town and Muller Engineering will need to take place to ensure that the system designed can handle the 100 year run off from the offsite and developed basins or ensure any overflow has no adverse impacts on downstream properties. The overall preliminary drainage report was increasing the flow to the Wall Street storm sewer by 3 cfs. And states the pipe to founder's plaza will need to upsized to handle the flow. It states the new pipe will tie into the rebuilt storm sewer of the Town's streetscape project. There are two issues with this assumption which may cause concern. There is a limiting constraint of the capacity of the storm sewer where it passes through the Gasthoff Gramshimer. This section of pipe will not be upsized with any streetscape project. The second is assuming the Town will replace the pipe with the streetscape project. The project is budgeted to be constructed in 2004, however, until the project is actually completed, assuming increased capacity will be provided is unacceptable. The third item, is the if the size of the pipe up Wall Street needs to be upsized due to the increased developed flow the difference in the price of upsizing the replacement of the pipe should be the cost of the developer. The drainage system which currently is in place in the ski yard includes the drainage system from Mill Creek Circle. The future system shall be constructed to intercept this flow as well. The town still has an interest in a water feature/water conveyance using a diversion of water off of Mill Creek through Wall Street for aesthetic purposes. The developer will work with the Town as the Town further investigates the possibility of a diversion of flow of Mill Creek through Wall Street as a water feature for Founders Plaza and beyond. This includes coordination of installing the pipe from the Front Door/Pirate Ship Park to Founders Plaza. streetscape improvements. The developer has agreed to install the approved streetscape improvements for the area from Seibert Circle to Hanson Ranch Chute, the intersection of Hanson Ranch Chute/Hanson Ranch Road and Hanson Ranch Chute.. The streetscape improvements include all work necessary including hardscape and subsurface support, drainage, lighting, retaining, utility relocations and planters, landscaping, site furniture, public art, street support systems, snow melt systems with in the public right of way. In addition the developer has agreed install the streetscape improvements from Willow Road/Vail Road to Checkpoint Charlie and enhance the design to include snowmelt and full paver pavement treatment. In addition the incorporation on Willow Road of an eight foot paver band at grade as the road turns to the west and as far as is needed to finish the roadway transaction. Lodge at Vail entrance. The entrance is designed and operated to allow no stacking on the public roadway and will accommodate appropriate emergency vehicles as well as over the road coaches. Public Art the developer will need to incorporate Public Art into the project and at this time has committed $lmillion dollars to be used in integrated art. Pedestrian bicycle Path. The Gore Valley trail runs from Vail Road to the ski yard and past Pirate ship Park. An easement for the improvements from Vail Road to Mill Creek Circle and strong design intent that this is a public space from Pirate Ship Park to Vail Road which invites and encourages pedestrians and bicyclists to use the space. This should be designed for all seasons and both daytime as well as night time use The developer agrees to convey the eastern portion of Tract E to the Town of Vaii. Loading and delivery The developer is providing 14 truck bays designed for the following AASHTO design vehicles 3 WB-~0, 4 WB-40 and 7 SU-35. In addition, there are three van spaces provided for delivery use. This area in addition to the drive access and walkway/elevators out which all will be placed in a public access easement. The developer will work with the Town and provide if deemed feasible a ramp way form Founders Plaza to Gore Creek Drive via the Wildflower Alley to assist the delivery of goods to Gore Creek Drive. The Control of the dock area will be under the management of the Town of Vail. The developer will be required to provide the space which includes, design and construction along with lighting, and other utility costs, ongoing building repair and capital maintenance. The Town is responsible for ensuring use of the facility is maximized to provide the greatest public benefit and occasional cleaning and signing the area. The Town will be responsible for the elevator maintenance. Access and sight distance will be designed to provide a safe facility to meet the minimum or approved performance alternatives of the Town and the Professional Engineer stamping the plans. This includes not only stopping sight distances but access sight distances for all access points in the tunnel as well as the access to Vail Road. Ski Yard use for special event activity. The ski yard is available by public easement to use the yard for special events as determined with terms of the easement agreement. Public Restrooms. The developer is providing year-round access to the public restrooms for hours which match the demand of the public needs as determined by the Town of Vail. The developer is responsible for all costs of providing and running the restrooms. Public roadway easement for Forest Service Road Number All necessary easements for drainage, roadway, signs, utilities and pedestrian access. Grading /retaining walls the plans will conform to all Town Standards with regards to grading and retaining walls at design approval and as constructed in the field within the limits of disturbance approved at this time. All roads, driveways and bike paths will meet the Town's Standards with regards to grades, and horizontal and vertical alignment. All parking spaces throughout the development will meet the Town's standards, be independently accessible in a forward motion and will be exited in an appropriate motion; once the space is exited no reverse operation down drivelines will be permitted. Final approval of Civil Engineered Plans will be required prior to submitting for building permit. Allow up to 6 months of review and resubmission for this time in your design/construction schedule. The Vail Town Code identifies employee housing as an impact of development that must be mitigated by developers when proposing new development in the Ski Base Recreation-2 zone district. Historically, the Town of Vail has relied upon a study completed by Rosall, Remen, & Cares in 1991, on behalf of the Town, to be used in determining the number of new employees expected to be generated by a development. Additionally, the Town has used a multiplier of 15% as a factor for determining the total number of employees that will need to be provided deed-restricted housing as a result of the development. The table below summarizes the employee housing requirement for Vail's Front Door Project based upon the study prepared by Rosall, Remen, & Cares. Proposed New Development Use Skier Services-Commercial Skier Services-Office Spa use Ski Club Restaurant/Lounge Meeting rooms Lodging Multi-Family Existing Development Use Lodging Formula Emplov ees Generated = 4,775 sq. ft. @(5/1000 sq. ft.) = 23.87 = 1,575 sq. ft. @(5/1000 sq. ft.) = 7.87 = 11,554 sq. ft. @(1.25/1000 sq. ft.) = 14.44 = 2,263 sq. ft. @(1.25/1000 sq. ft.) = 2.83 = 293 @(5/1000 sq. ft.) = 1.47 = 0@(1/1000 sq. ft.) = 0 = 2 units @(.25/unit) = 0.5 = 13 units @(.4/unit) = 5.2 Total Employees Formula = 3 units @(.25/unit) Total Employees Removed = 56.18 or 57 Employees Emplovees Generated = 0.75 _ (0.75) or -1 Net Employees Generated = 56 Town's 15% factor = 8.4 or 9 New Employees ...,... ,.. .,7~wrapptl° Vails Front Door Parking Analysis - 09/22/2003 These hgures correspond to drawings entitled Area Calculations Front Door Net Parking Requirement New Develo ment Unit Counts/S . Ft. Parkin Ratios Parkin Re uired Residences 13 1.4 s ./unit 18.20 Hotel Rooms net decrease of 1 units 1 0.7 s ./unit 0.70 Ski Club 2,034 2.7 s ./1000 s£ 5.49 Coffee Sho /Great Room 1,933 1 s ./250 s£ 7.73 Skier Services service/retail oriented 4,775 2.3 s ./1000 sf. 10.98 Skier Services offices 1,573 2.7 s ./1000 s£ 4.25 Sub total 45.95 Lode at Vail Re lacement (ex surfaces aces) 30.00 Total Parking Requirenient~ 75.95 Front Door Parking Provided Location Parkin S aces Residences Gara e 26 Lower Level Gara e 98 Mid-Level Gara e 63 U er Level Garage 42 Total 2?~) Net Parking Summary Total Parkin Provided 229 Total Parkin Re uired 75.95 Parkin dedicated to ski club 95 Residence west arkin~ 7.8 ~-'R Pai{.iu~; ~ii~ e~ce,s of cc,cle re~lureiizenxj ~U.~S GE IG O~ ~~ ~P G~ ~~O ~ O~ :,, 8!'S6':,~J" ~G \ ~~~ •` j6~ ,. 3.'• ' 8 u G S c CS LOT b LOT a ~ 150'01'00" :'~765.00'~ OO.OO' DECK _ ~c~0 10 ~~ ! I . LIGHT POLE ~ -' ~ ~~ ELEC. M.H. j ---S ~ O i SEWER M:`~f. ~ ~ (T`(P:) . LOT d, f VAIL V FIRST x ~ FNC. P!N & CAP :.. S. ,20',0'00' ~~ , CATV. RISER -~ SIGN PAST ~-- ~ ~! ELEC. TF ~ `~ `~ MILL ~ ~ D CREE ~h ~~'~A},~j~\ ~~ k G TRACT E oV ~IL VILLAGE ~~~ ~ ~~~ BFI TH FILING ~~ 3.835 AC. ~rNO. PIN & u~lE WALK CAF L.S. 16827 ~~EL. M.H. - ..PIRATE I b ~--~.~ ;~ ~ 1 TY EAScMEN APPROX. SEWER LlNE~~ ' %~ p. ,~ 6 REBAR I WATER M.H. _ 4'40'00 ~~ ~ , t _ ~ ~ SPLIT KAI_ =ENCE 10 X LOT 1 . ~, ~~ f , ~, I~ ~ ,, 1.0 . s ~i-~a~ .~ 5..,' ~~- 12.C~' ~~ g?•3S'00` / ~LEC. BOX ;' .~ ~ L~ `N / 16' ELEC. SW!TCH 80X I 2~J~•~~ .PREMISES LEASED UNDER • PIRA7E SHIP PARK LEASE LOT 2 Lynn Frit;Jen, ~11:'~, ~',rchitc.ct ~`/iElian P. Pierce, Arc;hiYeac;t. I<<,ihy lieslinga, Bt,sirtess Ivtatta~er September 12, 2003 To: The Town of Vail Design Review Board From: Luanne Wells and the Wells Team Re: Front Door Project FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS VAIL, COLORADO Mrs. Wells and the Wells team have monitored the Front Door Project since its original unveiling. Luanne Wells is a long time Vail homeowner, residing at One Vail Place. Mrs. Wells is committed to making the Front Door Project the best possible development for the Town and the surrounding community. The Front Door has gone through many design iterations since its inception. The most recent submission to the Town of Vail Planning Commission is dated August 20, 2003. The Wells Team has attended public hearings on the projectfor over a year. As the project has been refined, we have provided specific comments on planning and design issues. Several of the comments and suggestions which we have presented in meetings with Vail Resorts, as well in front of the Planning Commission, have been incorporated in the design. The Wells Team values the opportunity to continue to be part of the review process of such an important development in the Town of Vail, and appreciate past considerations. The Wells team has provided verbal input during Planning and Environmental Commission hearings as well as submitting suggestions in a written and graphic format. The thrust of the Wells Team PEC comments have been focused on: 1. Overall integrity of the Front Door Project; to ensure that the Front Door development results with appropriate improvements and creates the formidable presence Vail deserves. 2. The appropriateness of locating the entirety of the truck delivery system in the Front Door location. 3. Integration of skiers/visitors/pedestrians/ with the truck loading and delivery system 4. Location and configuration of the hand truck portal. 5. The traffic impact of the loading and delivery system, including routing trucks on Gore Creek Drive. 6. The need for additional retail in the Skier Services building in light of the conversion of the first level of One Vail Place from VRI offices to retail and historical vacancy in Vail. 7. Preservation of the Wall Street View Corridor to the Mountain. 8. The size of the Vista Bahn Ski Yard, the configuration of the Skier's Services Building, and the relocation of the Vista Bahn Ski Lift. 9. Preservation of the alleyway between the Lodge at Vail and One Vail Place PEC Outstanding Issues - We continue to have concerns regarding the traffic impact of the loading and delivery facility on Vail Road as well on the Front Door neighboring properties. We are concerned that the assumptions used are not accurate. We do not to recreate the traffic problems at Gold Peak . Additionally, we do not believe that the hand truck delivery system has been adequately studied. We are awaiting the detailed management plan for the delivery system which should highlight the impact. It is our recommendation that these plans be thoroughly reviewed prior to finalizing the location of FRITZLEN lEiSO Ea~tVail Vallev Drive, Falrid~c C-1, PIERCE Val{. (~t:}iordcf0 £31(i_i:? f : 9?G.~4.'fi.-~t:~Cl"I E: infc~(ni~a,1art,:ItiCc:cas.corri -•_~~-•~,_ ~w~~~ev.~.aiiarchitects.c~orn FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS VAIL, COLORADO hand truck portals as well as determining the number of truck bays necessary to support a Front Door distribution Center. As the project moves through Design Review the Wells Team would appreciate the opportunity to provide input on design related issues. We share several of the same concerns that the DRB members voiced in the August 18, 2003 and the September 8, 2003 meetings. We are concerned that the analysis provided to the DRB to date is not commensurate with the magnitude of this project. Our preliminary comments are as follows: Village Character -Vail is known for its village atmosphere and web of pedestrian streets and alleys. The spaces between the buildings in Vail are as important or more important than the buildings themselves. The pedestrian circulation around and to the Front Door edifices is a key to the design success of this project. Relationships between the buildings facades and entrances should be studied carefully. The Wells team envisions sunny, intimately scaled spaces that invite strolling and casual conversation. We encourage the integration of alternate pedestrian pathways to reduce conflict at rush hour. 2. Building Elevations -Each facade of the building will be visible to the public and neighboring properties. Each elevation should be studied carefully and have equal visual appeal. Blank and unfenestrated walls should be avoided. There should be no back door to the Front Door development. 3. Rooftop Equipment -Mitigating noise and visual impacts from heating and ventilation equipment is important. Architectural screening of rooftop equipment and fan hoods is important for skiers returning to the Front Door and neighbors looking down on the buildings. 4. Pedestrian and Bikeways Connections - In the current plan pedestrian and bike path interconnections appear to be disjointed and discontinuous. Easy and safe pedestrian access from both the east and the west should be incorporated in the design. We would like to see skiers dispersed through a number of pedestrian pathways rather than funneled au masse down Bridge Street. Pedestrian and Bikeways Design -Attractively designed pedestrian and bike pathways that include landscape improvements, clear separation between vehicles and pedestrians and a predictable flow are important to the appeal of this key public area. In particular we would like to see landscape and low level lighting improvements throughout, including the alleyway between One Vail Place and the Lodge at Vail. These design goals are also consistent with other adopted Vail Design Guidelines. 6. Paving Materials - We encourage the use of durable attractive materials for the Vista Bahn Ski Yard. The existing pavers in the ski yard are showing wear. We encourage the use of materials that develop a patina with age rather than a look of disrepair. In addition we encourage the use of a wider palette of natural materials that introduce a variety of texture and coloration. 7. Landscaping -The August 20, 2003 Front Door plan does not indicate any significant landscaping in the plaza or in the Ski Yard. We recognize that balancing the need for FRITZLEN ~tE~SC; E.;:ts, ~4iil ~~aElcy Dri~~c, falirid~e f-'1, PIERCE \',Zi. Lo~r.~r,;td<~ $1 ii57 P: 9'0.=4 'ci.Ei3~12 E: i€~fc~<,<iv~~ilarchitect~.a;~>tn ^.°^~'•_~• ~a+bvV'V. V.;I~i]iC~lllE'.lI.CC; (Yl FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS VAIL, COLORADO hardscape for skier traffic and softscape is difficult. On the other hand the unique vegetation of our Alpine climate is a signature feature of Vail and should be incorporated in the exterior improvements. We encourage the applicant to incorporate additional landscaping into the design. 8. Site Walls - We encourage the integration of site walls and other features that encourage the passive use and enjoyment of the Vista Bahn Ski Yard. 9. Architectural Finishes -Attractive and durable materials for the building exteriors as well as the architectural finishes on the buildings. We encourage the use of stucco, wood, stone and low reflectivity roof shingles. We are not in favor of flat roofs with membrane or ballasted membrane finishes. 10. Clock Tower - We have concerns about the location and configuration of the clock tower on the Skier Services building. The proper location and configuration should be studied from the perspective of approach from all sides. We are in agreement with the DRB comments that a Ski School Bell or other low profile focal point be incorporated in the Vista Bahn Ski Yard. 11. Design Critique - At the PEC level, Vail Resorts resisted the concept of having their design reviewed and critiqued by an outside design consultant. Vail Resorts assumes the DRB will provide enough design critique. While we respect the DRB, this project can only become better if alternative design ideas are considered. This is the most prominent redevelopment project in Vail. We ask this board to not shut out other creative ideas. In order to enhance the review process, we would like to have the most recent submittal critiqued by an outside consultant. 12. Rooflines - We are in agreement with the DRB's assessment that the roof ridge of the Skier Services building should have more variation. We also are not in support of the flat roof area on the Skier Services building. We request that the flat roof be broken up by varying the roof heights or adding roof gardens or architectural features. This project will forever change Vail. This project has been called our Front Door with a goal of enhancing the experience of those visiting Vail. We believe that due to the long term significance of this project, we should ensure that the most creative and talented resources are available and utilized. Based on the status today, it is our opinion that this has not occurred. We believe that it is imperative that resources be made available to the DRB to ensure that the potential of the project is optimized. This could require the utilization of outside consultants with expertise in both building and landscape design. To date, we are not aware that these resources have been available to the DRB. In order to properly evaluate these items more detailed drawings and/or models will be required to be submitted. We request that these additional design documents be submitted in a timely fashion so that the public and the Wells team have adequate time to review and understand the content. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, FRITZLEN 16.50 EasrV'ail V~:IEIcv Dride, Fallrid<~e C-1, PIERCE 1'lil, LOIOflC~i) £i165' F: info{~)v~iilar€:I~)itcf~ts.cr~rn -.~-,r.=-= tvww.v;iilriri'hitects.c<xn FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS VAIL, COLORADO Luanne Wells and the Wells Team Andy Littman Karen Romeo Tom Boni, Knight Planning Lynn Fritzlen, Fritzlen Pierce Architects FRITZLEN 7f~(:~ f_ast Vail Valle Qrivc.~: Falridi;e~ (::-I; PIERCE Vaii. C~CtIGtgrl+~ 8lci ~' F: into>lwailarz:J~itect_.curi "^="~T~°.~* F4lV\h'.V33~di"Chllflia:i.CC}i'Yl FRONT DOOR -UNRESOLVED ISSUES 9/22/03 Cov+^P. ~aJ~i t.. ~tr.A''. ~A WORLD CLASS PROJECT? ~jE~. ~+~-~-L, '~EL,~rv~E.~.~c~„~.!<.,•oat~_, ~IS VAIL'S FRONT DOOR THE RIGHT LOCATION FOR BACKDOOR FUNCTIONS? \,~,5~, ASSURANCES OF OTHER SATELLITES? SEQ. til~'S' 4. ESCROW FUNDS TO ASSURE SATELLITES 5. IGNORING CONGESTION AND TRAFFIC FLOW ISSUES ~= j~V`~r.~ 6. REPEAT GOLD PEAK 'C~Lkt-c~:~ R~P~xtt (y},,,,~~~,, 7. NO ANALYSIS OF COST/BENEFIT TO TOV? ~~- ~~9~i~~, I NAIL IS NOT BEAVER CREEK ~t`{ Vs, '-1~ (r/'hio. ~1~.1 ~2 DRS, INCREASED COST OF LOADING AND DELIVERY? HAND TRUCK PORTAL NOT OPTIMALLY LOCATED LET irN~~' °,•! 11. 1 VAIL PLACE EASEMENT COMPROMISED 1.v1~wtE V1dlS, 12. OPTIMIZE PEDESTRIAN AND BIKEWAY ACCESS ®u T Dc~O'Q 5 P~4t~S . /~ V'CGIJ~'~ ~~45 13. CART BEFORE THE HORSE ~~~~~~'' • NO DELIVERY PLAN • NO MANAGEMENT PLAN • NO LAND EXCHANGE • NO ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT • NO COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS TO TOV • NO SATELLITES • NO ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY ~ uv~;~ p~~~ b~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Monday, September 22, 2003 ppppOd~D PROJECT ORIENTATION / -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Doug Cahill George Lamb Chas Bernhardt Site Visits: MEMBERS ABSENT Erickson Shirley Gary Hartmann Rollie Kjesbo 1. Pirateship Park- Tract E, Vail Village 5th 2. Lionshead Tennis Court Site- 615 West Forest Road 3. D'Orisio - 4444 Streamside Circle Driver: George ~o NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a final review of an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; a request for a variance from Section 12-21-10, Development Restricted, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 17, Variances, Zoning Regulations, to allow for the construction of multiple-family dwelling units on slopes in excess of 40%; and a request for the establishment of an approved development plan to facilitate the construction of Vail's Front Door, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (A more complete-metes and bounds legal description is available at the Town of Vail Community Development Department) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther George Ruther introduced the project according to the memorandum. The applicant, Jay Peterson, from Vail Resorts, mentioned that comment would be withheld until comments and questions were made by the public. John Schofield wanted to make sure that Lodge Tower information had been addressed. Ron Riley, from Los Amigos restaurant, mentioned that he was most concerned about the loading and delivery plan. He was curious about what the merchants knew about the loading and delivery. He wanted to make sure that the record reflected the lack of detail that was presented to the public, stating that he would not be surprised if the ~~ ` ~, ,ti T(}WN liF VA iI. ~ loading and delivery plan was not as efficient or workable as was currently hoped for. Being involved with Russell's restaurant, at the end of the street, he was skeptical as to how "the product" was transported from the dock to that location. He stated that some impairment may be caused through the relocation of the ski storage to the basement and wanted to make sure that the ordinance justifying that change was, indeed, sensible. He urged the PEC to be mindful of the things he had spoken about. John Schofield replied that the Town of Vail would be operating the .loading and delivery operations and that some details were still forthcoming. Sarah Baker, an attorney representing the residential owners of Bridge Street Lodge, stated that her clients supported the plan, but were primarily concerned about any future development that might occur as a result of the project. She also expressed concern about the future of Tract E. Andy Littman, representing Luanne Wells and the Wells Team, mentioned that Ms. Wells wanted the project to be a world-class project, since even the master plan dictated such types of development. He stated that the Wells Team felt the plan was not yet of "world-class" caliber. He wanted to make sure that sufficient public good would result from the project. The fourteen bays were being placed "in the middle of the town" and specific conditions should require satellite locations for loading and delivery operations. He wondered whether it was compatible to have "back-door functions" at this "front-door location", unless there was considerable public benefit that resulted. Were environmental impacts being addressed? He wondered, again, why aworld-class architect was not consulted about the plans as they were being shown today. Other issues unsolved to date included traffic flow and congestion issues, and he mentioned the lack of a cost/benefit analysis. Did the Town know that the project was a "safe and prudent" one? Vail was not Beaver Creek, he went on to say. Did Vail want the same amount of hardscape that existed at Beaver Creek? The landscaping plan was lacking and the areas within the project would not to be optimally maintained. The hand truck portal should be located in a place where it would impact residents to a lesser degree. The One Vail Place easement had been compromised, he added. He wanted to know if the spaces between the buildings would be as conducive as Bridge Street currently is for meeting, congregating and socializing. Gwen Scalpello mentioned the traffic impact study and her concern about the traffic generation at the four way stop at Vail Road and Meadow Drive. The time spent waiting for pedestrian and vehicular traffic was already notable, she said, and asked that the carrying capacity between the main roundabout and the stop sign be re-analyzed. Sybill Navas questioned condition number 15, now condition number 8. George Ruther explained that Vail Resorts would work with the Special Events Commission to use the Vista Bahn ski yard for special events. Sybill Navas commented that the condition did not imply that the result was going to be amenable to both sides. She wanted to see the space available for community use and was concerned that that Commission would be "handed a use agreement". John Schofield said that ski races, bike races, and other similar events were anticipated for the area. The area was well-suited for special events, and Mr. Schofield said that input from the SEC would definitely be solicited. George Ruther mentioned that if the agreement between the SEC (Town of Vail) and the applicant was not reached, then the condition had not been met. Jim Lamont expressed confusion about the condition. George Ruther said that October 31, 2003, was the deadline for submitting an agreement. Jim Lamont wanted to know what the process would be for solidifying special events. George Ruther stated that the process would be communicated to affected parties after it had been presented to the Town Council. Jim Lamont asked if there would be public hearings conducted in order for affected agencies to have discussions about special events issues. George Ruther replied that once the document had been through Council, a schedule to address these issues would be organized. Jim Lamont wanted to verify that certain covenants would be affected. He also asked about the "no build area": would it be inappropriate to designate in the development plan a "no build area" in the special event area? John Schofield said that the proposed condition number 6 already referenced a no build area. Mr. Lamont mentioned that the version he had received had probably already been reviewed by the Town Attorney, and others, but that many, besides himself, deemed the area appropriate fora "no build area". He then expressed mild concern about the wakefulness of the Commission and wondered if a management committee could be instituted to organize special events. George Ruther said that a balance of special events interests would be achieved. In regard to Gold Peak, Mr. Lamont clarified that adjacent property owners were not consulted about special events at that location, but instead had to be proactive to gain a voice. He was confused about where the loading and delivery bays were. He further questioned the importance of the bays' locations. He asked if there would be any problems with the location if the land was not brought into the Town of Vail. He felt it not in the purview of the PEC to require a design review consultant, as the Wells Team had suggested. He did assume that the Town staff was not "playing favorites" on the design review issues, however. Regarding Pirate Ship Park, he questioned the liquor license policies for that area. Furthermore, the large size of the tract did not seem proportional to what was being built. He asked that the TOV clarify what "recreational uses" are, since area homeowners would staunchly approach any dining deck extension. He also wondered about the "public access easement": why is there an interconnection with Mill Creek Circle? George Ruther answered that the connection would be made from Tract E, south of Los Amigos, a general east-west connection. Mr. Lamont requested further clarification about that connection in the form of a schematic. He asked about the draft of the master plan that was reference earlier in the meeting. Greg Hall stated that the plan was a 1997 plan referencing one facility for the entire Village, which would have definitely been impractical, and was therefore correct. Mr. Lamont finished by stating that plenty of room remained to fine-tune the details he had, and others had spoken about. Russ Forrest stated that he could not respond to the Pirate Ship Park issue. George Ruther said that the boundary line had been extended to 5 feet east of the creek so that maintenance to the stream banks could be done by the TOV. Jay Peterson stated that the connection was made to Tract H, and therefore a comprehensive ownership existed by the TOV. The biggest concern of merchants was to separate the trucks from the main pedestrian areas, he said. Regarding ski storage, it was located according to the customers, not the zoning regulations. If anything were to be changed, the PEC would be privy to those changes through an amendment, he added. Regarding special events, a ski park AND a summer recreation area had been designed that would hopefully work for everybody. Vail Resorts would not be making the decisions regarding the use of the space for special events: Town of Vail staff would be, however. He stated that the Wells Team had presented the same concerns for the past five months, each of which had been answered numerous times. The Town of Vail would be in charge of decisions regarding the project from this point out. A world-class architect, Planning Commission, Design Review Board, and Staff had given input, he pointed out. Many, many meetings and much collaboration had brought Vail Resorts to the place they stood at today, Mr. Peterson finished by saying. John Schofield asked when construction was slated to begin, assuming no major changes. Jay Peterson responded that P3 & J construction would begin next year and the Front Door aspect would begin in 2005, though the land exchange was still pending. The development plan was the only thing that assured the building process. Jim Lamont asked if the project would go to Council automatically or if the Council would have to call the project up. George Ruther responded that the Town had adopted a development review process in which the PEC was the final reviewing board. Mr. Lamont asked if the plan was able to be appealed by affected property owners to the Town Council and the related time table. George Ruther stated that twenty days existed during which an appeal could be made. The Council took afive-minute break. Doug Cahill stated that though the process had been long, it had been thorough. Public comment had been taken into consideration. He acknowledged that the loading and delivery plan would need to be discussed further. The project was already world-class, and the design would be privy to DRB approval and suggestions from here on. Regarding satellite delivery locations, those were being discussed. The Town of Vail would make sure that traffic flows and congestion were dealt with appropriately, he added. The "no build zone" would automatically be part of the development plan, pending no further changes. The development plan was contingent on the approval. of the land swap, he finished. Chas Bernhardt stated that he believed the project to be world-class, and in an appropriate location as well. The traffic consultants did not feel that traffic would be an issue, he continued. The .projects that Vail Resorts had completed in the past were beneficial to the community, though no plan is perfect the first time around. Certain adjustments would be made as the plan was implemented. Regarding agreements with groups for special events usage, he didn't think that would be a problem. The forty percent slope would likely not cause any problems in the future because that slope would be eliminated with project completion. George Lamb agreed with Mr. Cahill's comments about the efficacy of the methodical approach the applicant followed in getting the project approved. The loading and delivery issue was a "big piece" of the project, but not the most important aspect, and could be flexible in the creation of a special environment. The plan would be refined over time, he added. He felt it was appropriate that the DRB would have input on many of the remaining issues. He mentioned the importance of artwork in the project's completion, referencing the million dollars that had been allocated for creative usage of art. Doug Cahill asked about the location of the EHU's and stressed that the public access, from the west to the east of the project, be well-lighted and obviously open to the public. John Schofield stated that the Front Door project was the first major project that the Commission had considered in stages. The record reflected the expert reports and studies that had contributed to the project's review. Specifically, a condition of approval would be added that the various conditions of approval would be referred to the appropriate Town agencies for further review. Ski storage had always been an issue, he continued, and could be re-examined. The cost/benefit ratio would be astronomically in the Town's favor as the applicant was building and donating the project and its uses to the Town! Landscaping would be addressed by the DRB, who would critique it closely. The delineation of the bike path through the project was important, he continued. Traffic concerns and questions were shared by both the public and the Commission. Regarding Vail Road and Meadow Drive, traffic could be regulated before entering the Village by diversion to East Vail or other areas as deemed necessary. Regarding the "no build zone", any modifications proposed would return to the PEC, and therefore were not currently an issue. As for the annexation to the TOV, the PEC approval would be contingent on that annexation approval. Jay Peterson commented that a portion of the project could be built with a special use permit, if necessary. However, the project was planned on being built according to the development plan, though a different direction may need to be taken. John Schofield expressed concern that the PEC approval would be null and void if the land was under Eagle County jurisdiction. Jay Peterson stated that PEC approval and conditions would apply whether the land was annexed or not, according to his sources. John Schofield asked about the validation of certain zoning if the annexation was not carried out. George Ruther stated that the zoning under question would not apply if the annexation was not completed. Sybill Navas commented that the annexation or lack thereof would significantly affect special events. Exterior Alteration Vote, with conditions dated 9.22.03, 1)with the deletion of "preliminary" and 2)the addition of the "no build area" clause; also, 3)items be reviewed by appropriate reviewing boards with public notice. Motion: Doug Cahill Second: George Lamb Vote: 4-0-0 John Schofield clarified to George Ruther that the conditions would need to be referred to the appropriate reviewing boards. George Ruther clarified that the public notice, would include notice to the appropriate reviewing boards. Slope Variance Vote Motion: Doug Cahill Second: George Lamb Vote: 4-0-0 Final Development Plan Vote, with amended conditions Motion: Doug Cahill Second: George Lamb Vote: 4-0-0 John Schofield asked Jay Peterson for clarification of remaining issues, which Mr. Peterson replied affirmatively to. 2. A request for a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Vail Town Code; a major exterior alteration pursuant to 12-7A-12, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the existing fractional fee club and a restaurant addition; and a request for a building height variance pursuant to Chapter 17, Vail Town Code, to allow for dormer additions, at the Vail Mountain Lodge and Spa, located at 352 E. Meadow Drive / Tract B, Vail Village 1 sc Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain Lodge LLC, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther Motion: Second: Vote: TABLED TO OCTOBER 13, 2003 3. A request for a floodplain modification pursuant to Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of new bridge abutments in the Mill Creek floodplain at Pirate Ship Park located at Tract E, Vail Village 5~h Filing Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson Bill Gibson introduced the project according to the memorandum. No public input was offered. George Lamb, Doug Cahill, and Chas Bernhardt had no comment. John Schofield commented that constructing a project once, instead of twice, was always preferable (i.e. referring to the storm water sewer upgrade included with the bridge abutment replacement). Motion: Chas Bernhardt Second: George Lamb Vote: 4-0-0 John Schofield asked Greg Barrie, Public Works Department, when construction would begin, and Mr. Barrie replied that the planned start date is in October. 4. A request for a major subdivision pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the platting of four lots at the Lionshead tennis court site and a rezoning pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Administration, Vail Town Code, from Agriculture and Open Space zone district, Vail Town Code, to Primary/Secondary Two-Family Residential zone district, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of single-family homes on the four proposed lots, located at 615 West Forest Road/Unplatted (Amore complete metes and bounds legal description is available at the Town of Vail Community Development Department) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell Warren Campbell introduced the project according to the memorandum. Jay Peterson, the applicant's representative, mentioned that this session was slated for preliminary review and initial introduction to the entire Lionshead redevelopment proposal. He added that snowcat access was also a part of this proposal, as was a new skier bridge, the hotel component of the west day lot, the north day lot (with employee housing and VR offices), and the course site. Dominic Mauriello, the applicant's representative, presented a PowerPoint presentation which gave an overview of the project, which involved five separate areas: Lionshead tennis court redevelopment, west day lot -residences redevelopment, core site redevelopment, north day lot redevelopment, and west day lot -hotel redevelopment, each project which would be approximately two years in length. He then displayed several boards which represented the project and detailed such specifics as grading and access. He finished by saying that the snowcat access would be submitted in October and that a vote on the tennis court site would be welcome as soon as possible. John Schofield asked that the Staff give a review of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan at the next meeting. He continued by saying that the approval timeline seemed sensible. Art Abplanalp, representing several adjacent property owners, began by saying that Vail Resorts had been listening to the concerns of neighboring property owners: firstly, that the redevelopment be appropriate, and secondly, that the snowcats be placed elsewhere. He expressed some confusion about the zoning of the ski way. Dominic Mauriello assured him that that zoning would not change. Regarding chronology, Mr. Abplanalp commented that the relocation of the staging would have to be a prerequisite to any other work on the site; otherwise, congestion would occur. He also wanted to verify that single-family residential and not two-family zoning would result at that site. Fred Rumford, a homeowner near the site, wondered what would happen to the existing bike path that led to the ski bridge and then to Lionshead. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowner's Association, asked for clarification about the zoning that would be affected as a result of the redevelopment. He expressed concern about the use of the site as stated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Pfan. John Schofield answered that at the time the master plan was completed, the owners on Forest Road requested that the tennis court site not be included in the plan, which it was not. Jim Lamont continued by stating that concern remained about the parcel to the east of the tennis courts site (stream tract), which had transitioned from Vail Associates ownership to TOV ownership. He asked that, for any change of uses on the site under question (unlike that aforementioned site), proper public notice be given, etc. John Schofield asked if Mr. Lamont's group would oppose the proposed paths, etc. in the Town's stream tract. Mr. Lamont said that fisherman's paths and similar walkways would be more than appropriate, due to the wildlife that exists in the area. This area was an opportunity to care about the environment, he said. Jeff Wright, on behalf of the Landmark, stated that he considered this to be the first step in the redevelopment of Lionshead. Regarding the process, he mentioned that the Landmark had several concerns regarding height, the north day lot and proposed transit center, the employee housing on the north day lot, and other similar issues that would affect him. He looked forward to the process, however. Bob Lazier, a property owner in the Lionshead area, mentioned his support of the direction of the project. He thought that the idea to divide the project into varied parts was effective and efficient, allowing the "community to start blooming". Many of the buildings in the area were prepared to do necessary renovations once the new projects were begun in the surrounding area. He expressed his support again, stating that he was looking fonnrard to final results. Dominic Mauriello stated that the location of the bike path had been studied. In the winter, the path was not used much, and in the summer, alternative pathways existed already. He added that the path was presently very steep and likely did not meet pathway standards currently: therefore, the proposal did not include the path. Fred Rumford expressed further concern about the path's existence, on behalf of Forest Road homeowners. He was also concerned about the boundary line from the creek as it exists and as it is proposed. Jim Lamont mentioned that people on Forest Road would need access to Lionshead through the bridge. Would the bridge have ski and pedestrian access? John Schofield stated that there would be no change to the bike path on the North side of the creek. Dominic Mauriello stated that at a later date a proposal for the ski bridge would be submitted and that it would include a pedestrian portion. Jim Lamont then asked about the subdivision process. Russ Forrest clarified that no change or development was proposed on the wetland area that the Town owns. Mr. Rumford stated that there was still plenty of land on the north side of the site and that the bike path should be preserved. John Schofield asked for further public comment and then for general Commissioner comment. George Lamb wondered if any design guidelines would apply specifically to the four lots that would tie the homes together as one project. Dominic Mauriello commented that general guidelines would apply and had yet to be decided on. In general the Town's zoning and design guidelines would determine the appearance of the homes. George Lamb urged the applicant to consider continued use of the path under question near Forest Road. Doug Cahill commented that this plan was. much more detailed and thorough than the previous plan. He had concerns about the numbers and placement of parking spaces and asked about the zoning of the four lots. Dominic Mauriello responded that there was no single-family residential zoning in the Lionshead filing under question, which is why Vail Resorts decided to make it an extension of the Two-family Primary/Secondary zone district which currently exists on the neighboring properties. Doug Cahill clarified that spring of 2004 was when construction was slated to begin. He also asked about a gate for the residences. Regarding the path, he asked how the path was maintained in the winter. Chas Bernhardt commented that overall, he though the projects would provide great improvements to the area. He questioned the fact that the use of private property had become the right of area homeowners and asked that more research be done regarding the use. and .ownership of that path. Mr. Rumford commented that plenty of public property existed in the area he was concerned about using. John Schofield hoped that these projects would be catalysts for extensive Lionshead rejuvenation efforts. He thought the timeline for approval was appropriate and commented that each aspect of the project would likely move at a different pace. He urged Staff and Council to make speedy progress on the location of the Transportation Center. He asked that progress be made on the tract along the stream as well. Regarding the skier bridge, he requested that the design be effective year round and not just seasonal. He asked about access to the Kaltenberg and parking issues, which would need to be addressed sooner, rather than later, with special attention paid to phasing. As for the specifics of the tennis courts, the owners on Forest Road were adamant that the parcel in question was not included in the master plan. He thought that design regulations for the homes should be in accordance with the Town of Vail/Design Review Board regulations, and nothing else. He wanted to ensure that a distinct delineation between the ski hill and the residences was made via a gate, a fence, or by other means, and asked that the applicant address the path under question near Forest Road. He requested that Staff give an overview to the PEC on the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Russ Forrest commented that Staff would provide an overview and that an amendment to the master plan may eventually occur. John Schofield said that further changes to the four lots would likely be minor, but that the bigger projects would need more time as they were more complex. Motion: Doug Cahill Second: George Lamb Vote: 4-0-0 Tabled to October 13, 2003 5. A request for a variance from Section 12-14-17, Setback from Watercourse, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition in the Gore Creek setback, located at 4444 Streamside Circle /Lot 11, Bighorn 4th Addition. Applicant: Thomas O'Dorisio, represented by John Perkins. Planner: Warren Campbell Warren Campbell introduced the project according to the memorandum. Neither the applicant nor any members of the public had any comment. Doug Cahill, Chas Bernhardt, and George Lamb had no further comment. John Schofield mentioned that it would be interesting to know how the building was originally constructed in the setback (in the 1970's). Motion: Chas Bernhardt Second: George Lamb Vote: 4-0-0 APPROVED WITH ONE CONDITION: Condition: 1. That the applicant is not permitted to perform an interior conversion of this space at a later date as the dormer additions would not have been constructed prior to August 5, 1997, as required by Section 12-15-4, Interior Conversion, Vail Town Code. 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an amendment to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Warren Campbell Warren Campbell introduced the project according to the memorandum. No public input was given. Chas Bernhardt commented that the fee schedule did not seem fair to the homeowners that would be affected. Greg Hall replied that a formula could be reached that would differentiate between commercial and residential fee structures. s • Doug Cahill asked how the fees would apply. Greg Hall answered that, unless a major exterior alteration and/or an increase in square footage occurred, the fees would not be a concern. Russ Forrest commented that an impact fee needed to be based on the impact that was generated. Doug Cahill commented on the length of the impact. Would there be a sunset provision for when new development would not be assessed any fees as the development was complete. George Lamb added that the impact was his primary concern as well. He continued by saying that Design Review Board and Town of Vail issues were the only ones that seemed to remain. John Schofield said that the plan seemed great, except that ongoing maintenance was not addressed as thoroughly as he had hoped. He would recommend to Council that that information was obtained and clarified. The idea of residential assessment also struck him as being unfair. He thought that tax increment financing seemed a better way to do things and stressed that the Council needed to be expedient in making decisions! Furthermore, there would never be enough tax increments to do all projects. The Council should allocate a portion of tax increment funding to the streetscape plan, he recommended. The balance not covered by the developers could be covered in that way. Russ Forrest added that Staff looked hard at tax increment financing: however, private developers would move forward with their projects without the public developments being proposed. The question was how far the attorneys would go in letting the Town set up a tax increment district. John Schofield encouraged Staff to "screw the attorneys" and requested that he be quoted accordingly. Motion: John Schofield Second: poug Cahill Vote: 4-0 RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVED TO COUNCIL WITH CONDITIONS Recommendations: 1. That the applicant should verify that all materials proposed for use in the streetscape are low maintenance, have a long lifespan, and are durable so as to avoid costly maintenance and upkeep. 2. That the applicant. should explore funding options other than an impact fee such as the use of Tax Increment Financing. In addition, funding models should be explored which impact residential properties to a lesser extent than commercial properties and include a time frame for which the fee will be collected, such as a sunset provision. 7. A request for major exterior alteration pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of new dwelling units and accommodation units at Vail Marriott Mountain Resort, located at 715 West Lionshead Circle / Lots C and D, Morcus Subdivision, and Lot 7, Marriott Subdivision Applicant: Mountain Marriott Architects Planner: George Ruther Motion: George Lamb Vail Resort, represented by Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz TABLED TO OCTOBER 13, 2003 Second: Doug Cahill 8. Approval of September 8`h meeting minutes Motion: George Lamb abstained) Approved Second: Doug Cahill Vote: 4-0-0 Vote: 3-0-1 (CB John Schofield asked if GRFA information was going to Council, and if so, when. Russ Forrest said that the PEC recommendation was being forwarded to Council on October 7, 2003. At the following Council meeting, those persons instrumental in the GRFA discussions from the beginning would be invited to share comments, etc. He added that PEC participation would be helpful at that time. 9. Information Update: • GRFA -see above comments by Russ Forrest • Four Seasons Russ Forrest commented that parking issues still presided over the project, though the developer was ready and wanting to get on with the project. Four spaces (headed to DRB for review) and then six additional spaces remained the issue between the applicant and the property owners of Nine Vail Road. John Schofield asked about the presentation to the new council of the plans and schedule for Four Seasons. Russ Forrest commented that Mr. Schofield's idea was a good idea. Motion: George Lamb Second: Doug Cahill Vote: 4-0-0 Meeting adjourned at 6:17 p.m. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published September 19, 2003, in the Vail Daily. ATTACHMENT C • A copy of the Appeals Form and Supplement to Appeals `Form Exhibits "A" and "B", dated October 2, 2003. STEVENS, LITTMAN,BIDDISON MEMBERS VAIL LAW OFFICE ANDREW C. LITTMAN THARP & WEINBERG, L. L.C. CROSSROADS MALL MARK E. BIDDISON* A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 141 E. MEADOW DR, SUITE C-4 DENNIS J. THARP ` 250 ARAPAHOE, SUITE 301 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 CRAIG A. WEINBERG ~' BOULDER, COLORADO 80302 (970) 479-9989 Fax: (970)477-0850 ASSOCIATES LEE STRICKLER Telephone: (303) 443-6690 JESSICA CATLIN 1-800-273-1802 PARALEGALS KAREN ROMEO (Colorado Only) Patty Jansen KATIE CARTER Facsimile: (303) 449-9349 Lise Cordsen MICHAEL BELOCHI E-Mail: (Your email here) Patricia Celich Katherine Zeroll Of Counsel ROGER E. STEVENS, p.C. October 2, 2003 * Also Admitted in California Community Development Department George Ruther 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: FRONT DOOR PROJECT Dear George: Enclosed are pertinent documents constituted the appeal filed on behalf of Ms. Luanne Wells. We were advised that no filing fee was required with the Appeal so have not included same. Please advise of any applicable filing fee and we will promptly forward. Enclosed are required stamped and addressed envelopes to adjacent property owners. We look forward to working with you to shepherd this process through Town Council. Thank you. Sincerely, Karen Ann Romeo ,~ ~; ~~ x A'7 3# ~~~~`x, I -'~ i ?+'.~~+ :,. Po . a, ~~-t ,~' ,;~;; `}p ~ -n-~ c e~rF.~~k~l ~:~ Appeals Form Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail:co.us General information: This form is required for filing an appeal of a Staff, Design Review Board, or Planning and Environmental Commission action/decision. A complete form and associated requirements must be submitted to the Community Development Department within ten (10) business days of the disputed action/decision. Action/Decision being appealed: Planning and Environmental Commission approval of The Development Plan for the Front Door Project. Date of Action/Decision: Planning and Environmental Commission Hearing on September 22, 2003. Board or Staff person rendering action/decision: Planning and Environmental Commission. Does this appeal Involve a specific parcel of land? Yes. If yes, are you an adjacent property owner? Yes. ~F C~~ Name of Appellant: Mrs. Luanne Wells. C~ o? Mailing Address: Mrs. Luanne Wells ~' Q~ C/O Stevens, Littman, Biddison, Tharp and Weinberg, LLC 3 141 E. Meadow Drive Crossroads C-4 Vail, CO 81657 970-479-9989 Physical Address In Vail: One Vail Place, Units 4 and 5, Vail, Colorado 81657 Legal Description of Appellant(s) Property in Vail: Lot: 2, Block: SC, Subdivision: Vail Village First Filing Appellant Signature: See attached page. Submittal Requirements: 1. On a separate sheet or separate sheets of paper, provide a detailed explanation of how you are an 'aggrieved or adversely affected person". SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT `A'. 2, On a separate sheet or separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the appeal. Please cite specific code sections having relevance to the action being appealed. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT'S'. 3. Provide a list of names and addresses (both mailing and physical addresses in Vail) of all owners of property who are the subject of the appeal and all adjacent property owners (including owners whose properties are separated from the subject property by a right-of-way, stream, or other intervening barrier). SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 'C'. 4. Provide stamped, addressed envelopes for each property owner listed in (3.) PROVIDED. PLEASE SUBMIT THIS FORM AND ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS TO: TOWN OF VAIL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD, VAIL, COLORADO 81657. For Office Use Only: / DateReceived: /Ol D Activity No.: Planner: Project No.: Sent By;; HEESCHEN & ASSOCIATES; 9497217500; _` n~c O~c~t'V2~033J1 46P ca. rA9e image 1 /1 Oct 02 03 12:13p P•3 °-•• -.- ~•---• ~• VVVLhICJ~ boyizi/500j Oci;•2.03 10:59AM; Page 2/3 Appeals Farm Qspertrnrn) of oomne+Nbr Dwebpnenl 76 Bauf-Frgetsp. Ae~e, vsll. Cggrado i1fS3Y ~ p~ae»s»o rs, elrro.~-izrs¢ .tea www.dvafroo,us Gensril tnfa+niUen: This foam b reQUirod Ibr ~linp'n appsyl pl a f;hrl-, Deaipn Rsvlew Board. a PI•nnlhq qnd F,wMonnrsnl.l CernmlesJsn eclbNdiclslotw. A comObes tarot and aesodels0 tegy+Irimertf~ Weser r» subrtu'dd bo the Lbn+muntty Darbtopmort DepatOnani wlihin 6m (10) business days of the 40sCtxed adlcnAdpClslon. AcNanlDecblon ttdlinp sppsalod: Planning a»d F,rvirnrnnental Commis ion +~praval of The Dovslapmcatlt Plen for too Front Door Projoct, Date of AcdonlDechion: Plataaing sn,d Enviroumtntal Commission Hcarin$ an Septanber 22, 2003. Board or Staff potwotn trsnderinq actioft/declslon; Plwniag turd Enviroaoncnt~ C0~lmiision. Doss lhh sppsel Invoh-e a 6p~Ctflc parf,~l of lanltT Yea. If yes, are you ~In rwdjritcent property awned Yos. Name MAppelretn~ Mrs. Luuta3e We)!s. Mailing Address; Mru. Guume weIL1 C,JO 5tev+eoe, Littmf+n, Hiddicwt, 'Tha>ip aad Weiobag, LLC tai E. Meadow Daivo Cmssronda G4 Vail, CO $165? 970-479-99$9 PhySteal Addrvelts In VaIL Ono Vail Place, Unib 4 end 5, Vsil, Colorado 8165'/ ~.4gs1 pescrlptbn of Appollal-t(s) Prop•t1y Ih Vall: Lot: 2, Hlock: SC, Subdivision; Vail Village First Filing ` , Appellant 9lanalure: 8ubn111b1 ReptJnwnsnlo: 1. On a rrQernrae ahset or eepiflple •INets of piper, prorlds a deteiipd oxplanatton of taw you hie an apprbvea or adwrsetysilhscisdp.non'.BbEAI'TACHfDEXHIBf'r'A', ' 3, On a sipirtl~r sheet o- iipaW. sh.eea of pipes, ipscNy rho prec4s netunt Ot lhs sppeal. Please ctle epidtlC Done ssotbns hvNp wlsvinei to Ihi acMaa+ belnp spp~wlsd. SEE ATTACHED EI(WSfT'B'. 9. Provkls • Ilal d nernie end iddnsrei (both miAnp end phyekal arie-eedsi in Yail- of ill Ownan; a1 p~VperQr who ate if10 wb~ct of t+e ippeai ertl ell eQJecenl properly ewnOnl Myludfnp e+-nsn whoa proae-liaa o+ti appareled fmm ton wbJect prvppty by a Apfil•ofwey, itaern, or oN+ar InesrveMnp arrlir), SAE Al'rACHf:O EH111Br'C 'C'. v, f+rorWe alarnpee, ed0iesied envelopes for sash pmpeclp owoet NpIN to (a.). PROVIDED. PIEAbE rlU01d1'1.11118 fOR1A ANq ALL 8U8AMTTAL REOUIRHtIlIRKTS TO: TOWN OF VAIL, pEPAttTIEKT OF CONI~iUNITY pEVElOP1AENi, ,~ Z~d ner. e ve•e ~asiv:aoss~ : Nnwnssa-+ •• Invrre~gi Colt ro- ca•~T•OVy DQZE 13Cl18St!'1 dN NHLZ ~ t i EOOZ ZO 100 SUPPLEMENT TO APPEALS FORM EXHIBIT `A' 1. Please provide a detailed explanation of why the appellant, Mrs. Luanne Wells is an "aggrieved or adversely affected person. " Mrs. Wells has been anowner/resident at One Vail Place, Vail, Colorado for 20 plus years. The Front Door Project entails developing land that is located directly next to, in front of and beneath One Vail Place. According to the Vail Town Code, section 12-3-3, an "aggrieved or adversely affected person means any person who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by this Title (Vail Town Code)". Towards this end, the Vail Town Charter, Prefatory Synopsis, provides "the commission recognizes that the community of Vail is unique in that it places greater emphasis on aesthetic, environmental, promotional and recreational concerns than are traditional in most municipal governments. This Charter is intended to provide the enduring framework within which these concerns can best be implemented. This Charter is, therefore, fundamentally founded in the belief that the quality of life of the people of Yail shall continue and be enhanced through progressive municipal government." As approved, the Development Plan for the Front Door Project will adversely impact and negatively enhance the quality of life Mrs. Wells has maintained at One Vail Place over the last 20 years. Specifically, the Front Door Development Plan proposes building a 14 bay, loading and delivery facility next to One Vail Place. This facility will have a negative environmental impact on the surrounding area, including One Vail Place. The delivery facility will over burden Vail Road, the primary ingress and egress route to One Vail Place. There will be an increase in truck traffic and congestion on Vail Road as a result of the facility. The hand truck portal for the facility is poorly located. As proposed, deliverymen will conflict with skiers and pedestrians trying to access the mountain. Deliverymen will go between One Vail Place and the Lodge in order to deliver their goods. This will be very disruptive to Mrs. Wells and other residents of One Vail Place. Alternative locations for the entire loading and delivery facility and the hand truck portal need to be re-evaluated and closely studied. As approved, the Front Door Development Plan proposes building a very large Skier Service building in the Vista Bahn ski yard. As a result the ski yard will be reduced. The new skier services building negatively impacts Mrs. Wells' view line as well as the unofficial view corridor from Wall Street. The Skier Services building itself is not `world class' or aesthetically pleasing to the eye. The building design needs to be heavily scrutinized. The applicant should have the proposed design reviewed by an outside, reputable consultant. Further, the Skier Services building is slated to house additional unnecessary retail space. This area should remain open space and should not be utilized s -, for private development or retail shops. As a concerned community member, Mrs. Wells questions what the economic impacts will be of additional commercial uses in this area. As approved, the Front Door Development Plan did not include a detailed cost v. benefit analysis. Again, on behalf of the community Mrs. Wells questions the overall economic impact of this project to the Town. Finally, Mrs. Wells asserts this project does not increase the overall quality, integrity and ambiance of Vail Village. ~' ti ~~ SUPPLEMENT TO APPEALS FORM EXHIBIT `B' 2. Please specify the precise nature of the appeal. Please cite specific Code provisions having relevance to the action being appealed. According to the Town Code, section 12-6I-13, the Planning and Environmental Commission must apply the following criteria when considering a development plan: 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. (Ord. 19(2001) § 2: Ord. 3(2001) § 2) Mrs. Wells asserts the Planning Commission did not correctly apply the criteria set forth in 12-6I-13 when approving the Development Plan for the Front Door Project. Specifically, the Planning Commission failed to adequately scrutinize the design of the skier service building as required by 12-6I-13 (A), (B) and (C). The Planning Commission failed to adequately scrutinize how pedestrian and skier traffic will flow in the Village and in the Vista Bahn ski yard, given the location of the hand truck portal as well as the location of the new skier services building, as required by 12-6I-13 (C and D). The Planning Commission failed to fully consider an appropriate environmental impact report for the project as a whole. The Planning Commission failed to require the applicant to provide appropriate environmentally sound mitigating measures. As such, the Planing Commission failed to comply with 12-6I-11 and 12-6I-13 (E). .a'' r The Planning Commission failed to consider an appropriate economic cost v. ~~ benefit analysis for the entire project as well for the loading and delivery facility as required by 12-6I-13(F). The Planing Commission failed to give due consideration to a traffic study and management plan for the loading and delivery facility, as required by required by and 12-6I-12(14) and 12-6I-13(F). The Planning Commission otherwise failed to consider and properly apply applicable criteria such that the interests of Ms. Wells as a landowner and the citizens of the Town of Vail as a community are adversely impacted in a manner inconsistent with historical Town of Vail planning documents, applicable rules/ regulations, and a healthy sense of development for the future of the Town of Vail. ~- RESOLUTION No. 11 Series of 2003 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN, TO CLARIFY THE CONCEPTS PRESCRIBED BY THE PLAN, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, on November 20, 1991, the Vail Town Counci( adopted the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Implementation and Maintenance chapter of the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, provides a procedure for amending the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan; and WHEREAS, by their nature, master plan documents are intended to be evaluated and amended from time to time to respond to changes in conditions since the adoption of the plan or changes in community goals and objectives; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Public Works Department has submitted an application, pursuant to the Implementation and Maintenance chapter of the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the application to adopted an addendum to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan on September 22, 2003, and has forwarded its recommendation of approval of the addendum to the Vail Town Council; and WHEREAS, in forwarding a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission finds that the addendum is in the best interest of the Town of Vail as they further the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry ;and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the master plan addendum is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan and is in concert with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds a demonstrated need for the adoption of an addendum to provide great design detail for the implementation of guidelines found in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the master plan addendum furthers the development objectives of the Town and is in the best interest of the Town as it promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as the "Premier Resort Community. " NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: Section 1. The Vail Town Council approves by resolution the addendum to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan dated October 2003, which is attached to this document. Section 2. If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this resolution shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall in no manner affect any remaining provisions of this resolution, the intent being that the same are severable. Section 3. All resolutions or parts of resolutions inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revive any resolution or part of any resolution heretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of November, 2003. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor, Town of Vail Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk, Town of Vail ~'`~. TOWN OF VAIL ~~~~~ e,~„~ ;. STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN .~l,I~~1VD i,I • West Meadow Drive East Meadow Drive Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road • East Meadow Drive Willow Bridge Rd. to Vail. Valley Dr. • Village Core October 2003 Prepared by: Town of Vail, Otak Inc., Wenk Associates `y ~` ~ `~ ~~- ..~ ~-T ~ k C I..i # ,` ~,.. ``' ~~ _ w r ,, _~ .: ~. ~: } ~~ __ ~.~- } .t .'. - r~ :k~'r. f ~ 'yam `• r ~ ~_ ~~ rte ~ .4,~ir ` ...~ ~„-, ~ ~ +'h, Li"~ r'.lw - ,~ Q~ r^ti_a'~-,.. .r _.a,.t,..~Y ~'a ~L.'!~..rr r1'"; ~.° r How to use this document This document was prepared as an addendum to the 1991 Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. It does not replace any section of that document. The study area includes the two planning and design projects undertaken in recent years:: Meadow Drive Streetscape Design • West Meadow Drive • East Meadow Drive-Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road • East Meadow Drive-Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Drive Vail Village Streetscape Design • Village Core Within the study area: • Things that have not changed are not addressed within this document; • Things that have changed are itemized and described in detail; and • Additions are described separately. The "Guidelines for Paving, Public art, Site Furnishings and Lighting" are supplemented and include discussions on: • Snowmelting of pedestrian ways; and • Public restrooms. w€~r -~na:~w ~r<r~re E~;st -~w:;cna akin, - 4ru:;~nKrr_tr_a~~ia~vaucr27r,e '. - - , - s , H,.„v q ~. r . - :Q _ ~:.~ } - ,. ~ Ls ~ 1 ~-~ ~ _,'.~ ~ i ~i~.-.k ~..~, _ ~ i - ' ~,~ ~~~ ~ f_` r ~: ~_ ~~ A I" =~.+ ~. ~,~ .. ~ i ~ Lr~, ~ 'i r - ~"~F ~~` ~ •4 _ . - ~~ ~ f r l ~~~, ~~. ~ ~ .,_ .ct~xi=UtsiF~.,_,der:~ira~+., ~ A ~:` 1 @AFI LIiLd~ilE ~.. ~ _,y~.~ .rf ~ .~.~ ~- ~- _~ _,; _ __ _~ - ,~~ f ;iii ~ :•, jyt -,._ fTii;: ~,'T .~.~=~1,4 ., 7"EK ~'4~~i T,I~1~FMb~,I'a K (t;f.:'t .~,F:~k Figure. 1 Streetscape Master Plan Addendum Study Area A .discussion on the implementation and maintenance of the proposed improvements in the study area is provided for the direction and policy making for developments and redevelopments within the study area. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Acknowledgements This Streetscape Master Plan Addendum was prepared by the Town of Vail and would not have been possible without the cooperation and involvement of the citizens of the Town of Vail. Town Council Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Rod Slifer, Mayor Pro Tem Diana Donovan, Council Member Chuck Ogilby, Council Member Greg, Moffet, Council Member Bill Jewett, Council Member Dick Cleveland, Council Member Planning and Environmental Commission John Schofield, Chair person George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Doug Cahill Gary Hartman Chas Bernhart Erickson Shirley Design Review Board Clark Brittain C]Zarles S. Acevedo Bill Pierce Hans ~ti'oldrich R~Ia rgaret P.ogers Art in Public Places Board Jennifer 1\-lason Tracy Iti~Iorrison Gordon Barbie Christopher Alan Kosloff Gussie Ross Nancy Sweeny Kvle ~ti'ebb Robert It-Iatsuda Leslie Fickfing, AIPP Coordinator Town Manager Pamela Brandmeyer, Interim Town Manager Community Development Russell Forrest, Director of Comnumi ty Development George Ruther, Chief of I'la.nning ~4'arren Campbell, Plaruler Public Works and Transportation Greg Hall, Director of Public Works and Transportation Todd Oppenheimer, Capital Project Manager Larry Pardee, Maintenance Manager Mike Rose, Transportation Manger Design Team Otak Inc. Roger Millar, Principal John McCarty, Project Manager Alan Gray, Project Landscape Architect Wenk Associates: Bill Wenk, Principal Brent Lloyd, Project Manager Kracum Resources LLC: Joe Kracum, Principal Streetscape Artists: Barbara Baer Richard Hansen Pat Musick TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose of the Streetscape Addendum ............................................................................................ 1 Meadow Drive ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Village Core ............................................................................................................................... 4 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................................. 5 Meadow Drive ................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Village Core ............................................................................................................................... 9 WEST MEADOW DRIVE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 15 EAST MEADOW DRIVE -VAIL ROAD TO WILLOW BRIDGE ROAD DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ...................... 24 EAST MEADOW DRIVE -WILLOW BRIDGE ROAD TO VAIL VALLEY DRIVE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ......... 34 VILLAGE CORE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................. 40 GUIDELINES FOR PAVING, PUBLIC ART, SITE FURNISHINGS AND LIGHTING .......................................... 50 Paving Systems ........................................................................................................................... 50 Site Furnishings .......................................................................................................................... 53 Public Art .................................................................................................................................. 57 Lighting ..................................................................... ............................................................ 64 Mechanical & Electrical Systems ..................................................................................................... 67 RestY'ooms .................................................................................................................................. 69 STREETSCAPE DESIGNIMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE ............................................................ 70 Implementation ........................................................................................................................... 70 Maintenance ............................................................................................................................... 74 TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core List of Figures Figure 1: Streetscape Master Plan Study Area ............................................................................. 1 Figure 2: West Meadow Drive Plan View -West Section ............................................................... 16 Figure 3: West Meadow Drive Plan View -East Section ................................................................ 17 Figure 4: West Meadow Drive, Rumble Strip at Alphorn and Skall Haus parking .............................. 18 Figure 5: West Meadow Drive, Cross section .............................................................................. 19 Figure 6: West Meadow Drive, Library Area .............................................................................. 20 Figure 7: West Meadow Drive, Vail Valley Medical Center ............................................................. 21 Figure 8: West Meadow Drive, Vail Valley Medical Center -Mural Wall and Planter Bench ................ 22 Figure 9: East Meadow Drive Plan View -Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road .................................... 25 Figure 10: East Meadow Drive - Sonnenalp Redevelopment Area ............................................:............. 27 Figure 11: East Meadow Drive -Talisman Area .................................................................................. 28 Figure 12: Meadow Drive -Vail Road Intersection ............................................................................... 30 Figure 13: East Meadow Drive -Sonnenalp Redevelopment Cross Section, looking east ......................... 30 Figure 14: East Meadow Drive -Vail Village Inn Plaza .......................................................................... 31 Figure 15: East Meadow Drive -Swiss House Redevelopment ............................................................... 32 Figure 16: East Meadow Drive at Willow Bridge Road, looking west ........................................................ 33 Figure 17: East Meadow Drive Plan View -Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Drive ........................... 36 Figure 18: Crossroads Area ..................................................................................................... 38 Figure 19: Vail Valley Drive Area ....................................................... ................................... 38 Figure 20: Transportation Center Area ........................................................................................ 39 Figure 21: East Meadow Drive at Bridge Street Cross Section, looking east ........................................... 39 Figure 22: Village Core Plan View ............................................................................................. 41 Figure 23: Reconfigured Children s Plaza ................................................................................. 43 Figure 24: Cascading Fountain at Children's Plaza ....................................................................... 43 Figure 25: Relocated Checkpoint Charlie .................................................................................... 44 Figure 26: West Gore Creek Drive ............................................................................................ 44 Figure 27: Wall Street Water Feature ......................................................................................... 47 Figure 28: Wall Street ............................................................................................................. 47 TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Figure 29: Hanson Ranch Road Pedestrian Connections ................................................................ 48 Figure 30: West Gore Creek Drive Performance & Gathering .......................................................... 49 Figure 31: Field paver examples ............................................................................................... 51 Figure 32: Transit paver examples ............................................................................................ 52 Figure 33: Trash receptacle examples ......................................................................................... 53 Figure 34: Bench seating examples ............................................................................................ 54 Figure 35: Table and chairs examples ........................................................................................ 55 Figure 36: Example of site-integrated art ..................................................................... ............ 58 Figure 37: Incorporation of art in paving examples ....................................................................... 59 Figure 38: Creative seating examples ......................................................................................... 60 Figure 39: Existing Clock Tower in Lionshead ............................................................................. 61 Figure 40: Examples of temporary art ......................................................................................... 62 Figure 41: Restroom coverage diagram ...................................................................................... 69 Figure 42: Proposed streetscape phasing 2004 ............................................................................. 72 Figure 43: Proposed streetscape phasing 2005 ............................................................................. 73 List of Tables Table 1: Summary of Comments -Meadow Drive ..................................................................... 6 Table 2: Summary of Comments -Vail Village ............................................................................ 9 Table 3: Vail Village Level of Improvement Matrix ..................................................................... 12 Table 4: West Meadow Drive Master Plan Changes ..................................................................... 18 Table 5: East Meadow Drive -Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road Master Plan Changes ...................... 26 Table 6: East Meadow Drive -Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Drive Master Plan Changes ............. 37 Table 7: Village Core Master Plan Changes ................................................................................ 42 TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Addendum The Vail Village and Meadow Drive Streetscape projects represent the next steps of a 20 year planning effort to upgrade and enhance the physical character and pedestrian experience of Vail. The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, 1982, began the process of developing quality public/private improvements for the Vail Village. It's purpose was to give guidance to the overall physical development of the Vail Village and created the existing framework of plazas, landscape areas, building facades. With active community involvement, the planning efforts were refined through the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, 1991. The purpose of the Vail Streetscape Master Plan as a guiding document was to give the pedestrian environment the same comprehensive design and quality of materials that the Towri s architectural standards had achieved. It provided a comprehensive and coordinated conceptual design for streetscape improvements to enrich the aesthetic appearance of the Town with an emphasis on craftsmanship and creative design to create an excellent pedestrian experience. An objective of the Streetscape Master Plan included a conceptual design for streetscape improvements that could be used for phased implementation, privately sponsored improvements on public land associated with an adjacent building redevelopment, and special development districts and joint public/private projects. Winston and Associates, Inc. prepared the Tozan of Vail Streetscape Master Plan in 1991, as an outgrowth of the 1982 Vail Village Urban Design Guide. Winston and Associates and the Town of Vail municipal staff facilitated an extensive public process with residents, property owners, merchants and other interested citizens, which led to a successful and effective community-supported plan. _-- TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 1 As stated in the Master Plan, its purpose is "to provide a comprehensive and coordinated conceptual design for streetscape improvement tl2at: 1) is supported by the communihj; 2) enriches the aesthetic appearance of the Town; and 3) emphasizes the importance of craftsmanship and creative design in order to create an excellent pedestrian experience." streetscape recommendations are divided into six different chapters, based on proximity within the Village or specific to a particular segment of roadway. The plan emphasizes that the ideas presented are conceptual in nature and that necessary refinements will occur during final design when the Town or private development move forward to construct the planned improvements. The Master Plan has served as a guiding document for streetscape improvement and redevelopment over the past eleven years. The Vail Village and Meadow Drive streetscape Design projects, 2003, with additional public involvement, develop the concepts originating in the previous planning efforts into a comprehensive and complete streetscape design. The purposes and objectives of the planning effort have and will remain consistent throughout these projects. These include phased and cooperative implementation, high levels of quality and character, and beautiful and interesting public spaces, intersections, and focal points which enhance the pedestrian experience. The Town of Vail has undertaken extensive design and public processes to rehabilitate Vail Village and Meadow Drive. Driving the Vail Village project is the need to replace utilities and the desire to consolidate construction in the Village for minimal impact to businesses and residents. Meadow Drive rehabilitation is largely driven by the need for a good connection between the Village and Lionshead, needed improvements to the street infrastructure, upgrades and rehabilitation of public utilities, and the anticipated private redevelopment along the Drive. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 2 Meadow Drive Streetscape Design The Town of Vail contracted with Washington Infrastructure Services and Otak, Inc. to refine the Master Plan concepts and prepare final construction plans for the areas presented in the following chapters: • West Meadow Drive • East Meadow Drive -Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road • East Meadow Drive -Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Drive West Meadow Drive Streetscape serves as the primary connection between Vail Village and Lionshead. Land use along West Meadow Drive is a complex mix of residential, hotel, and general use properties. There exists the potential for several major redevelopments in the corridor over the several years. The West Meadow Drive Streetscape design embraces and strengthens the pedestrian connection between Vail Village and Lionshead while retaining the existing character of the street. Abroad pedestrian way along the sunny, north side of the street with appropriate lighting and landscape treatments provides a safe, comfortable, and enjoyable walking experience. Art features, public and private along the length of the street will be an interesting attraction encouraging pedestrian movement between the two commercial areas. East Meadow Drive, a unique portion of the Vail Village, is a mix of commercial and hotel properties as well as a public transit corridor. The Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road section of East Meadow Drive will potentially experience considerable redevelopment over the next several years while the Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Drive section is essentially developed to its full potential. The East Meadow Drive Streetscape design acknowledges the mix of pedestrian and transit traffic and separates them through the use of differing pavement materials. Pedestrians are provided ample circulation space along the various storefronts and can cross back and forth across the transit areas without physical barriers. Art elements, landscape and lighting treatments, and public gathering spaces provide a pleasing environment and encourage people to linger in the area. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 3 r Vail Village Streetscape Design The Vail Village Streetscape Design process evolved from the need to upgrade all municipal water mains within the Village core. With the streets excavated, there is an opportunity to enhance the Village and coordinate the work for minimal impact. In addition, an opportunity exists to address the issues of the various master plans: 1991 Streetscape, Transportation, Drainage, Loading and Delivery, and Art in Public Places. The Town of Vail contracted with Wenk Associates, Inc. to refine the master plan concepts and develop preliminary design documents for the areas presented in the Master Plari s chapters "Village Core". The Vail Village Streetscape Design process is timely in the midst of extensive redevelopment plans as part of the ongoing "Vail Renaissance". Vail Resorts has recently proposed extensive redevelopment of the Vista Bahn Base, "Front Door', and development of a parking structure and park, "P3&J", at the vacant parcel east of the Mill Creek Court building. The Town is currently engaged in streetscape design for East and West Meadow Drive and a number of other redevelopment opportunities are under consideration by property owners. The process, which began in late June 2002, has utilized extensive community input through community focus groups, biweekly community meetings, and one-on-one meetings. The consultant team, in conjunction with the Town of Vail staff and the Town Council, has developed preliminary design and snowmelt recommendations in response to the community input and Town needs. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 4 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Recognizing the importance of maintaining community involvement in the final design process, the design teams for both the Meadow Drive and Vail Village Streetscape Design launched the processes by inviting public participation in a series of design dialogues and focus group sessions. The input received was considered critical to the project's final design. The public process also tested the concepts reflected in the Master Plan, and established the criteria for the final design. The purpose of this document is to record the final design elements which deviate from the 1991 Master Plan recommendations. Meadow Drive Streetscape Design • West Meadow Drive • East Meadow Drive -Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road • East Meadow Drive -Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Drive To gain an understanding of community desires, issues, and concerns regarding Meadow Drive, the Project Team held a series of workshops with residents and other stakeholders during the week of February 26 through March 2, 2001. 21 two-hour sessions were scheduled for single and multi-family residents; bicycle and pedestrian advocates; business owners; resort representatives; private developers; members of the Vail Town Council, Art in Public Places Board, Design Review Board (DRB) and Planning & Environmental Commission (PEC); representatives from Vail Valley Medical Center and Eagle County Ambulance Service; and the Towri s Fire and Emergency, Streets and Roads, Police, and Transit departments. Individual comments were documented, and used as a basis for creating a series of conceptual designs for review and comment at two open houses held on Friday, March 2. Following is a summary of comments received during the week, and during earlier meetings with the DRB and PEC. The summary reviews major points of agreement (or disagreement). TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 5 ~~ m~ ~:u~~ , .. Table 1: Summary of Comments -Meadow Drive Character • A "stream' between Vail Village and Lionshead, with a series of Inconsistent, with poor signage and lighting, and too much "eddies" that draw people in for relaxation, inspiration, and fun. • Public and private spaces should melt together seamlessly in retail, traffic going too fast. lodging, and commercial areas. In residential areas, landscaping or - other visual diversions should enhance homeowner privacy. Pedestrian and Traffic Flow • Pedestrian areas are not clearly designated. • Provide clear separation of pedestrians and wheeled vehicles. • Pedestrians, vehicles, bicycles, and rollerblades are not • Accommodate new, larger fire equipment for neighborhood s~arated~~ ~~ protection • Emergency vehicles pose a hazard and make circulation The hospital should proceed with plans to move the ambulance difficult and erratic. entrance to the frontage road and create a pedestrian entrance on West Meadow Drive • Relocate the fire station as quickly as Deliver vehicles create additional traffic Divert delivery vehicles to the frontage road as redevelopment takes • Traffic control gates are ineffective, unattractive, and often Develop an effective solution for keeping unauthorized vehicles off broken. the pedestrian mall. • Develop effective signage and visual cues for wayfinding • Wayfinding is difficult for pedestrians and vehicles . Differentiate the entrance to Lionshead from private residences. • Crossing Vail Road is difficult for pedestrians • Provide an effective, safe pedestrian crossing • There is no turnaround area for vehicles that inadvertently • Apedestrian-friendly roundabout could help sort out traffic turn onto Meadow Drive. Transit • Consider buses powered by alternative technologies to reduce noise and emissions. Existing buses are noisy and smelly. • Consider moving and/or consolidating transit stops to reduce impacts • on La Bottega, Alpenrose, and other gathering places. • Consider smaller buses on Meadow Drive, with express buses on the frontage road running between Lionshead and Vail Village. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 6 • Bus stops should be well-lighted, have trash receptacles, and provide GPS information so that travelers know how long they must wait for the next bus Consider aone-way loop for buses. • The bus is a necessary convenience for tourists and locals. Consider removing buses from East Meadow Drive only. • Plan to accommodate a broad range of transit vehicles and types, in anticipation of future changes. Elevated monorail or underground transit could be possible. Drainage Severe drainage problems exist in several locations • Correct drainage at the Fire Station and entrances to various _ • ~_~_~__ condominium buildings and single fami~ homes. Design Approach and Design Elements • Integrate new and existing landscaping; green up the north side. • Existing landscaping is attractive, but more is needed. Permanent planters should contain interesting ve etation year around. • Provide consistent, attractive lighting for security and to create an inviting ambiance for pedestrians. • Lighting is poor or nonexistent Lighting should emphasize the pathway and not detract from the night sky. • Consider ~ecial holiday li hting for East Meadow Drive. • The corridor has no continuity. Spraddle Creek and Middle Creek cross the corridor, but are virtually invisible. • Incorporate places to hang banners that celebrate changes of season and special events. __ • Bring a portion of Spraddle Creek and/or Middle Creek into the design. • Provide a connection to Gore Creek ~____ • Water features should be interesting winter and summer. • Provide access and signage to public restrooms; make the Library • Public restrooms are lacking restrooms work better. There is no place to sit during parades and other spectator events TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core • Provide natural seating areas and gathering spaces Page 7 Conceptual Designs and Town Council Directions Options developed during Design Dialog Week were presented at two Open Houses on Friday, March 2. The Project Team reviewed comments received from staff and the public, and developed two viable conceptual designs: • The 20/6 Solution provided a 20 foot landscaped pedestrian area on the north side of West Meadow Drive, and a 6 foot sidewalk on the south, with two lanes for traffic and transit. • The Promenade Solution reclaimed the center of West Meadow Drive between Chateau Vail and the Vail Road intersection for pedestrian use, with a single lane for traffic and transit on either side. The two options were further developed over the next three months and presented to the community a second time in an open house forum over the week of July 4. Public comment was documented and presented to Town Council along with the revised options on July 17, 2002. Town Council selected the 20/6 Solution for final design. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 8 Vail Village Streetscape Design The design process began with a series of focus groups with business owners, residents, resort representatives, Town services (emergency and fire, police, and maintenance), homeowner's associations, Town Council members, Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission, Vail Valley Foundation, and Axt in Public Places Board. All comments were documented and complied and were presented to the community on June 28 and July 11, 2002. Based upon the initial comments, the project team developed program and concept alternatives presented to the community and the Town Council Design Committee during meeting and workshops on July 25, August 6 and 22, September 6, October 10 and 21, November 7 and 21, and December 12, 2002. Following is a summary of comments received during the community meetings, specifically the initial focus groups. Table 2: Summary of Comments -Vail Village Character • The Village Core looks tired and needs upgrading; the asphalt paving tends to detract from the pedestrian • The paving should be upgraded to cobbled stone or pavers. "village" experience. • The key areas within village core should have distinctive • The Village Core should celebrate its distinctions (ex. styles, paving, landscape, lighting, and special features that Wall Street vs. Bridge Street). relate but distinguish the areas of the Village, for example Wall Street, Bridge Street, Children s Fountain, etc. • Greater intensity of activity in the streets is desired, "Softer" street activities are preferred over larger events Performance spaces should be designed for small intimate events, for example string quartet or jazz ensemble. The larger concerts should use more appropriate venues at the Vista Bahn Skivard or Ford Park. • Safe and engaging children s play areas need to be provided. • Need more places that appeal to children Founders' Plaza and Children's Fountain are possible .__________ __ _____._ __~_ _._..__ _...._._ .._._.._._._ _......__.___ _.._~...._ ________ __ _._.___________.._opportunities for children.oriented play features. ~ ~.~. _ . ~._... _...._ ._._.. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 9 .: ,, -,,,~ _. Pedestrian and Traffic Flow • Provide a series of engaging focal points and gathering areas • An extended walking/retail experience is desired that link the Village Core and provide larger connections to the --------- Vail Community~_-...-...-_-------....____..---............___._-----.-...._ ____ ............ ...-- • Need improved signage directing pedestrians and traffic Develop effective signage and visual clues fro wayfinding. • Improve trash pick-up and service/ delivery systems • Divert loading and delivery vehicles to the proposed Vail Resorts' Front Door and P3&J redevelopments. Encourage delivery systems by alternatives means electric carts, tunnel svstems, etc. • Emergency access is difficult along key traffic routes in Village during special events • Shift larger venues to adjacent areas and provide multiple flexible opportunities for smaller venues within the Village Core Design Approach and Design Elements • Public restrooms are lacking • Limited seating opportunities • Provide additional public restroom within the Village Core. Improve signage to existing restrooms at the Transit Center and Vista Bann Base Area • Provide additional public seating and gathering opportunities. For example, picnic and cafe tables as well as benches. and seat walls. • Lighting is inconsistent • Limited snow storage is a concern • The Village needs additional landscape and snow pocket areas • Street furnishings are dated and inconsistent • Provide comprehensive lighting guidelines for both public and private areas. • Provide a snowmelt system in the core pedestrian areas • Upgrade existing landscape areas and add new landscape opportunities. Permanent planters should be snow pockets in winter and planting areas in summer. • Provide a comprehensive upgraded furnishings package including picnic tables, light standards, trash receptacles, and newspaper dispensers. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 10 Improvement Matrix As part of the community involvement process the matrix on the following pages was developed to assist is determining the degree of design intervention, cost and extent of change desired for the different areas of the Village Core Area. Four degrees of design and change were identified. • Essential Improvements. Make only required repairs and upgrades to existing materials and conditions. • Basic Enhancements. Make only minor upgrades to materials and conditions to improve character and aesthetics. • Activity Enhancing Improvements. Make moderate changes and upgrades to improve or increase the function of the area as well as improve the character and aesthetics. • Image and Identity Enhancement. Make extensive changes and upgrades to the area which will achieve a new look, increase and change the functions and improve the character and aesthetics. The shaded areas of the matrix, Table 4, on the following pages indicate the extent of the desired level of improvements. Conceptual Designs and Town Council Directions The project team worked closely with the Town of Vail staff and constituents through extensive public involvement to reach consensus for the final design. Input from the community and Town Council Design Committee meetings allowed the consultant team to develop and refine concepts presented to and approved by Town Council on May 20, 2003. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 11 .„ ~ r~;~.~a ... Table 3: Vail Village Level of Improvement Matrix d aECrteESOFO~stcx 'Children's Fountain _ ; Gore Creek Qr. (West} Gore Creek Dr. (East) tNreRVrNTtor~, cost: E"arI Eaton Plaza Wall SfPeEt from Bridge Street to from Bridge Street to exre~rioFCtiarrce Plaza ~ ~ ~ Checkpoint Charlie the Chute Re1wlB loin ~ ,. + ,o~ d .~ ~ rrx sw(ece dray e~n~C t s- o ,., g ~ inew wafer UrrE rsvnwte sad reNsL ~~ wwater Hne, repave uv as a... [ L] _,._ e .. ~ ~ ] l), ,1 i 1.. i C'F~ i Y , B d far; ~. S. F 1 h 1 _ ~ r .C ~l ~ l_ . ~ ,J 1~. ,- ry.: r.r M , 4~r ~.., 1 , nJ - . c~. ~ 1 r.. , ~ Yi Ess~ntiaC ~ a.a,k. {mproverrenfs 1. tt v ~:_ I n e 3;, ~ o ! .- ., f, tf ( ~. ,. ,'r i? ~ ,. .~, ~ !-, t~ ~ ~ n f '.. 1 1 t U ~ Il. v { v., I I i .r I. f 1 s ~'a$~(%. ~:c~r i ~, vi r -., r ..r .v i; v ~ ns I [ ~. <. i a sf v.:c I ~ .+f~~F~ Ee. ~~ _.i .,i~ o ~ ~ 3 _r~x,, .~, . ,. .,. - iz~ r _ ~ rha ....1 C ~~:! 'ray Entj anae-rs~nts i. i.. c, Jn J• ~t :. ,.~ ~ _ _. o, ,~.. ~~; w7~~ i,.,o n -.,.-iti f~~ _ ~ua ,,_~. ~; , . „t•tir.r ~ ~ r . ~., inrL~. ,n 1.,.L. •~. .. .,.:, ~, :ra r,, F_ ,, .i~ip., r, _. ,:,~1. ,~.~.;<, ~ N•r,n ~ ~,~~ d. ~,~ ~ S, ., _--.- ~ _ a.. ~.- - __ _ t l ~ Ud t i ~ ,~,o o _ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ - Ireotrmal n+gnage f0 cw ~rzr errs! spaces ACt1YIt~l ~ ~~~ 7 `~ ~ ~~ ~+L r.r~fa ~~ ,,r~ ~.~rrc-~,r ,. c , ~ l t ~ e i ~ estotpndgeSCendtoMillCreekPark, ng -,, c c c _ iM- .! hr i ~ t ~ a ~ es - ~ ~ w A. ~ ,~ r~w i 1GudU 8 wide walkway In Vai! Vahey Drive . ~. ,~. ~ .L, Improverrrenfs - ,` _ ° `,~. , -~ I. ~ ro . _ ~ ~ ~ e > ~~,1 i Redes+gn and iufocate lountain, wdh Add small landmark slemenls that onGCe Add wa(er teatur©, warming pre,canopynt Consider more slat>orat©pavrng dosgn (o. Cr©alespeciaFJaridmerk hr7dga at.Mtll Crr3ok scu(plui~e, to a7tow yreator intensity of trsa, pehpfe Into tAe reconfigured spscef such as overfieod banner cahfes and spNCisf !rghfs; counter the I neenty of tho street, albw fo marir the transition fo the adjacent ~Jtl'0~@ BIIY.~ jxuYida a rnorg IlexiWa v©nue /dfsnecial hrepPace. small wafer leafirre, sculptural. instal! unieuc paving rnatwlal and patfem; Lodpa to oxpand west store6onl to capture reslrten(iai no~gNtl'or7rood. (~@Il tlt ~ 9VCnts feature, in(erp~ettve gaiden area pOtenfiaRy allow the Arcade. Aui7dMgYO views aC Gore, atkrw Sweet Basil to expand ' ~f ondose ca+rersds paco on East sfdo, provida its fslTaCe; rolocate Silzmark Barking (o L_IlflaflCement stronger dsual and physical connect/on to crea!o gethenng spaco. Irivosfgato locnflgg _ Bd~e Street lhlnYgh alley putr(ic restrnwns andlrash storage bePow .. : glouod_ TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 12 DEGREES OF DE$fGN ~ Gore Creek Parkand ~NTER4ENT~oN, cosT, Willow BridgeRoad -. GheekpointCharile Seibert Circle ' Upper Bridge Street= EXTENT OF CHANGE . Promenade. . . . err::i~: ~.rr~ i':~•'~l it ~~:J i~fi:, f~VfJ ~.., %~n :: y. ~,~n~~i ;~~, (,rid ':ir, t; JJVIn /,; r.~'~.". I:v .:,,f .r~ ' rJ ~. ~ .~.. ,_ r.. ,..1 !+i •., .J. ~, ~. fry Essential Improvements _ ., s~.. ~,;. Li..;n, i~~ q r~~ _.. ka ~~ ~.,y>~- rr.~ .ax;~~.~<_~ ,w.xa .~.7,~G ~nJ .:~~ ,..._ ~r ,. w. _ ...,. ~,~ - ..~ _ ., ., ,o ~l;h „w &'~'Yyo ,~ l~~ .l ~_, w ~r ~ ..~ r-,4 r,X; x y -zas. ~-rep lei _„ C, .,~h ~'k ~4N i v; ~.~~ tics 11vi~.~ r ~ ~_. ~. ~ .r _,. a~i~ .,.ti3~.~, I ~ ~ya, a,:. -nn,a.. ,vim-rte,,, Enhancements I i ....: cu~,~ti ~.. i,s <n+~ ;.I,a .,e:~,n 6U.e 'rom>c.~_a d,,.H; .. r~~cr~,n introduce par~n plantlnysw+Hi info prebvo ~-~,+n.:e arva.~"e„,e~o tl~ec ~.=va !en e r,.si .u~ .. .. .. __ ~ rr:r -. ( 1-~~+r. .. label ih7, provide mole soa[~nq. Improva ~ ~ .AICtIV~ty -~~ .. JI Fa.-,~ ~~ ~ n of +x>lw.,. .y- . access Pram Childrert'S Pountaln Plaza by ..e r.- ~ ~, ..~ n .~,~, .,n. n yv. ~,pr ~ i„ri / ~ r...~ _ Enhancin ~.,, l i• 7 L - df.- ':r, seducing ohs(adesat axislirrg stairs. ( ~ -f ~ ~. ,~ . g .,, ~, ~.th ,«~.,, ~~.,, h~ , ~~~.,.,~ •~,Rr~ ~ ~~_, ~r_~~r,~ ~,~,., , ,~ _~.,.~ ~ , Improvements .. ~ ~.~ , ~,~.,~ ~ ~ ,~s . ,:n~;: , nr. ,: r , , , ~~..,, . .. .te ~ ~~, ~~ rf ~- -- - Dr~ ,,~ r,-rr-,u _~ ~,. ~a~h --- Crea(ealeafuie that coWd 6a usad asa ~~ .~ =; 1,; }. ..~ .-i r; cvnr?ec[ronmtfl Grossroaos ac mgnC Urea{e (IOUnfa,nrnrvuignt).anaer archftectmaf stegeWrocrec(nlpniporsry pavilion in the lhroughad the w~otel, caisider-dddiny~ cronrnunicate the town's history end -image and aspecial evonts lncaNon fW the Vai! [a(ure in lryo cirvlV to hrrmrna2o vK:wsaridto pack; ndd historicalnronunnmfa&cm along /innpweryeeawnul inf.. IJosk. lorresort. momonafirn locals. whn conhibufed fo ifs. FarntersMarAet< Ali Shows, and_possit~'y rnaf.e ftre,gtaxa more suilab7e /orslknal lne wNlkway_ Publir, Rast<wn-at stars to evrmis ' de~ekrpmeriC use spedal paving in Hie iaBflklt~/. seasonal Vendor carts BVdnts CNfdren's Fountain Paaza_ - larger sealing nwhe5 (pally 6rrnd, Red hrrn; Enkl ~t~cemeri~ bfcj, edd Special hgh[ing (o waste d stincl , ' f1ICf1e5310„gytrbBt, _... TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 13 ~~,~, 5~.a .. 2 Th "160°1 " Hanson RanCh Rpad - DEGREE90F OESIGN e ° . , .: tyiEaveNnoN,cosT, Lower Bridge Streef'? ~- .Intersection the Chute, P3&J Park Mill Greek Path- S[reet Elements Lighting EJCTEN70F CHANGE (Bridge and GorPl Entry -- ~ - ~ - - r ,.... _. ~ . ~.. ..ct <'.- PoPavo arm mart ir. vxis[r~ _ .. r -;;+nan attar womr ,.~o ~, ... ,.; .. ~ ~a. r, ~ ,_.., o-: tial ~ . ~' f w Essen ~ Improvements a ~:,~: ~ ; ..., ,;~ :, 605IG: ~ ....~ Enhancements ,,, ~ ) ~~ e ~,.., r ia., „ a i r,. 7 ~ J r - 'er p~*'prattr rmp•a ( mid co d~,P o s 4 allang pa h KmCe,T P k u ii ~ ,- ~ ACt{Vitt. ~_~~ n .n ~ _ ix_.. o ~ ~. a, ,> >pWNnAtOShxjralAefveyaGwcoS&(MJI G CleHkandtxrthbtllaUrkU)wth,e': I ~ ._ ~ ..~ . r _ Enhancing ~,~ke~wt~ta„~e, :,axcq„fie. Improvements ~ ,. ,. - ~. ~5.~, ~...~,r i .~F .. ,+~.„a, n! h &~tly C( i 1513R.H. 3. I A. S (9 dl rt BS 4. N~ ~' .. ~+ ~~p Ln~IVe H•,a~arkr k ~ 1.<l3~d~! 3 arq) hr S h lft~~ a da of ,o gvtl'~Nrn~ J}w.h~n~(M5 gkinp NJ' C~Bak r(li.s ~4i~, ,J ~ a h can uwcjapc F'a ON.u.iMn. (Jti ilua /a~re. WC ~'I r, J Y ti6"~ Image and. ~n_e( ,'(rode( Park on Hanson Rnm:h Rord ski ~vr0 Dike stora¢, landscape pets IipnGng comdrafion 10 ncfNe~.e e untgi.e Identity: vg~,,,~_«ma~ o ~r"~E~-~•att,~,.;,~. ~nds~a~ t;~,~~. ~ttw„u Enhancement` TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 14 WEST MEADOW DRIVE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT The Streetscape Master Plan describes West Meadow Drive as an opportunity for transforming asphalt street character into a safe "pedestrian street" that embodies an "exciting pedestrian experience" and encourages pedestrian traffic between Vail Village and Lionshead. This addendum proposes achieving the desired effect through integration of public art into the streetscape as an "artwalk" experience. It recommends a primary pedestrian walkway 15 to 20 feet wide on the north side of the street, and a secondary six foot walkway on the other. Pedestrian needs have been given strong emphasis in the design. Artists were selected by AIPP to work as part of the design team. The design team identified opportunities for public artwork which are integrated into the overall streetscape design concept. • Pavement features • Seating • Transit stops • Walls • Sculptural elements Additional art opportunities should be identified and implemented with final design development of public and private projects. Completed Components Mayor's Park, a component of this sub-area, was constructed as a public pocket park on the old Ski Museum site at the intersection of West Meadow Drive and Vail Road. Improvements Plan View The drawings on the following pages provide a plan view of the West Meadow Drive design development. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 15 ., .. VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER w'~ Q, 7 , k 1 { h?.G ~ k Y i d .__ _1.,~ ~ 1 gyn. )C~1 5 1.' 1 ~ I,d R I1 J [ dl _. F ~ ~~ .Xlh do Qt 5 ~Cb~ G G S o'~ G~ 5~ f t ~ 1 a'n ~~ ~s ~ r ~. o ~ n ~< ~ r ~ p ART ELEMEI - ~ _ _ ¢ nc es a-a wv~t.,_na t ans t ,rei~e~ n ~~ae a~ rK, ~ on oa~:•'o ~ <n.~~~ i ~`<... ~ { ~ 1 5 I p~. J t t ~ R P / "~. F 3'3_('~. o'. VAII VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER ~ ;s, S _ v;,... . ~` '~ 4~ ~. ~! ~ , - s y _ r,~ `~' ' ~1~ . s. ~ ~ __ a d ~ _ ~ ~ .rod z~.. ~ ~s, WEST MEADOW DRIVE TURN-AROUND < i -x ,e cea ~, iii .~n~o~ ~e o o~. c:,~.y s." ~~ l.~ I -J J. ~L~vis c~v~.nw;t UI e~'~ il°J I..iCn_<;~r,~u'e ~ _ ~~ rt. rL t 9 ~I. ~ N W Rye Y -.. .,[!Fr.-_2n'e~, ~OSn a`.CI. M f w„^F. !~h fb ~^ri. L SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES' A ~.x-1x1 C G P ~ 4 +rCrprC h ~fi0~ O-_ce55 Crt re_m_~~~4' s rssv.;< ~ w . ei ~ e spoce3 o~ n ~, ~ ~. ~;i<~m~~a,ee; Figure 2: West Meadow Drive Plan View -West Section TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 16 ART ELEMENTS rvi ~::~E~n..o.:vr~w~mexe,ir~~c-uoc.=o-;.e. e 1 ~ mF F~v~ng. ~. 3ia1~+ ~n~Uela~6. 'ham ~ ,~•ilc GK"flovar~ i rrl~r"r G~9 strp„ { `:~~y~' -~ r~ L L _ ~ } ... FOUR SEASONS REDEVELOPMENT --•.. ;~~....~ _;>,: 'k ~. ~.~ : ~ f,~....~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "~~'_ ~ VAIL ROAD INTERSECTION '„ w, ~~ ~ ir.e e c f f i r. J SI f pa ~~ « ~ 1 V 4 ...CPU. it I { F ~ Y ~L.~K~ ~ ~4..W ^J Po !n 11e Yw E Ye E( Y IYG B~~ '% ~ .:~ fl l~ Y ( I A Jc yJ ~ ~ ~ ~ C-~h~PS rnFrJ.~l1 P~~9.S I.~.J5 M9x..~w DrvBF ~i ~~ ~ ii , ~~ *\ ~M~ ~~~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES h I iN d G E t' 7 PS~~xd ~ ~. w Ivj.c "e~' ~ ~ UL'O BI i ~.e G»' ~ [: unxs, VAII FIRE °~" ~,~ . STATIONS ~ _ '~ "~f -~ ~ ~a• - ~ ~~; Figure 3: West Meadow Drive Plan View -East Section TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 17 Master Plan Design Changes While the objectives of the Master Plan have been sustained in Design, the manner in which they are achieved has changed. The areas that deviate from the Master Plan's directives are as follows: Table 4: West Meadow Drive Master Plan 1. Provide <~ primary 10-12 foot ~~~alk~ti~ay on the north side of the street ~ti~ith a priorit~~ raised cross-tivalk near the Holiday Inn (currently Chateau Vail), routing pedestrians to the sot_ith side at the street. 'Ihc primary pedestrian cti~alkwav returns to the north side near the Vail ~~allc~r 1~iedical Center. "hhe pril~~ai'}' ptarposc is to route. pedestrians atiea~ from the head-in parking located at the Al}?horn and Skaz~l i-iaus. I'roride aprimar~ walkwa~~ on ~hc North side of `the street only, Incrca~c the overall platform from~12 feet t ?0 feet, divided among lands~apc, pedestri~~n movement ~~rcas, seating pointsand art opportunities. ~iar~- the space dedicated to these .functions depending on the inierfacewithvarious land uses along dle~street. Install a safety "rumble strip" hettiveen the dedicated pedestrian areaand head-in;parkingin fi-ont of AlphernandSkaal Hausa: to draw. pedestrians a~~a~ i~rom the back end of parked vehicles. ':This provides a "safe :zone" and better sight distance for drivers backing out. (Figure 4) Parking 1' Skaal-Haas Rumble Strip Walkway ! ~~~~~ _ ~ Alphorn ~` ~~. ~ ~ ~~, ,~ ~ ~ Figure-4: West Meadow Drive, Rumble Strip at Alphorn and Skaal Haus parking TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 18 2. Prcn~idc a rive f~u~t ~ti~alk~ti~ay on the apposite side of the street. 3. tilaintain a sheet ~~idth of 26 feet curb to curb. Proeide ~ six foot 4~~alk~~~ay iii accord~u~ce ~~~ith the ~I'e~an standards. ho prwi~ie store pedestrian and landscape are~1, ~j~~;i~~n a street ~ti~idth~f 24 feet, cup°h to curb. (Figure 5) ~~ ;~ ~ r ,.y t~ ~ r ~ ` ` '~ >r.~~,tr _ ,~ ~f ',~ .~ - t J _~r-~ 3 l v~- ~' ~ ~` ~ ~ u 4 c «~}. ____.~ y,' "'~ i e r.!.' ,! -. ~ ~ ^ ~ ~,- r~ ~. ~s~A c-+i -.as '£1~Dsrswl.i3ti.~.'' ~,r [... ~~. ~ rte,. ~z3 ~a~csr .tC.o.w~ Figure 5: West Meadow Drive, Cross section ~. Prot°idi~ a "neighb~~rhood entry-" feature in the form of a small landscape median immediately ~oest of the Fire Station TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core This element was studied at the proposed location anda- ,location east of the Fire Station.` 'Both locations conflicted with turning movements a~~ocated with th~~ F,ire Station and intersection. T}~is elementhas br~~r~ excluded form t]icMasterPlan atthistiine. Page 19 ,,, , 5. Dc~~elop a pocket park ~~-ith public mstrooms on the north~vcst corner of 1~rest ~Teadc~~~~ Drive and ti'ail Poad (the location Iormerly occupied by° the Sl:i ~~luseum). G. The pedestrian walkway reverts to a shared use platlorm, allowing ~ehiclcs and transit service from the ~1-est end of the hospit~ll to the librar~~ and Dobson Arena. Mayor's Park did n~~t incorporate public restrooms. There is insufficient space to , incorpoJale ~~ public restr~r~m ~~s a feature of West Meado~;~Dri~~e. <~~dditioni~l' locatiol~s for _public restrooms are discussed in th~~ "Guidelines" section of this document. The separated pedestrian w~~lkn a~~ continues pastthe hospital; beyond the point where the transit service gate crosses MeadowDrive to thesouth, and connects to th~~ Gore Valley Trail. The Gore Valley Trail is reroutedto connect tothe sidewalki•atherthan directly to the street. .The. tl•ail that runs south from the Evergreen _Hotel is :rerouted by the DobsorArena across to the east`~side of. Middle Creek where it intersects with the Meadow Drive pedestrian walkway. From this poilztwest, the pedestrian walkway becomes shared use,with'~the transit service to the library. (Figure 6) Figure 6: West Meadow Drive, Library Area ~ e~ ~ r~A! r, Transit_ ' ~~^ ~ ~ Separated Vail Valley ~Nalkway Medical Gore ~ ie~ `~-:.• `. ~ 4' ~ ., , . y ~~~`. i, `~ i°MT; ~~ 3 TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 20 Additions to the streetscape Master Plan New opportunities for pedestrian and other streetscape character enhancements were discovered during the design dialogue process. Vail Valley Medical Center The Vail Valley Medical Center (WMC) was in the process of acquiring Town approval for facility expansion when the Meadow Drive public process began. WMC management and consultants participated in the streetscape design dialogue and subsequent public meetings. WMC was supportive of the concepts developed and agreed to allow the pedestrian space along the north side of the street to encroach in a seamless manner onto their south frontage property. This provides an opportunity for a pedestrian pause space along West Meadow Drive, accentuating the pedestrian experience. It also provides an opportunity for integrating public art in the form of benches, paving accents, transit stop, and a wall mural, as illustrated in the plan view in Figure 7 below. ~, ~~ Art bilurak ~t ° 1/A!L VACCEY lVIEDtCAI, C~NI"~R -~ 1® ° ;> Art Element -Pavement :~ a Tranci[ .~.~ ~ ,,. r . ~, ~,.. 1 °'% a c.ti r ~+%' ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~' l Figure 7: West Meadow Drive, Vail Valley Medical Center TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 21 `~~~ ,~ i ~ ,t „~ ~,~.E. _. ~,,, .,.rvL~fr v ,. ~.~ t ,y „ ~ ~~ ~~ t r> ~. nt _ ~.5~~ ~ ~ '~~ a ~~ a3v e n ~...a. ,N ~ d, ~ " ~ e~ ~~f F ~ ~.. yn l~ s!D n rf< w! pk'.:v4~ {..: n,. ~o~w a vy •~,E /rya w. ~x. c~ ~ Figure 8: West Meadow Drive -Vail Valley Medical Center -Mural Wall and Planter Bench The area between Dobson Arena and Vail Valley Medical Center, where Middle Creek flows toward Gore Creek is stream corridor dedicated to and owned by the Town of Vail. The parking lot that serves both Vail Valley Medical and the Town is located on the East side of Middle Creek. At present, this area serves as a connecting point to Lionshead, the Library, Gore Valley Trail and north past. Dobson Arena. However, it is not clearly marked. Preliminary plans for the Medical Center and Evergreen Lodge expansions suggest removing existing parking and eliminating vehicular access from Meadow Drive. These plans provide a great opportunity to transition the west end of the artwalk from an urban street experience into an open park setting. The Library, Dobson Arena, and WMC can be unified by the common open space created by the removal of the parking area. To enhance the park-like setting, stream access should be provided, along with natural form gardens, seating areas, and environmental interpretation/education opportunities. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 22 The pedestrian path bordering the west bank of Middle Creek is rerouted to the east bank as a part of the recent Dobson Arena improvements. In final design, this path intersects with the Meadow Drive walkway and extends across Meadow Drive. through the open space to the south, where it intersects with the Gore Valley Trail. The route is emphasized as the preferred pedestrian connection to Lionshead. Appropriate signing would inform and efficiently direct pedestrians to various destinations. Elements of this design include: • Relocating the walk bridge further up the creek to open up more park area, • Re-routing the path from the relocated bridge further to the east, toward the southwest entrance to the WMC, • Establishing a new trail/road intersection at or near the VVMC entrance, and • Creating an open area park setting and public gathering area at the west terminus of the Meadow Drive artwalk. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 23 EAST MEADOW DRIVE -VAIL ROAD TO WILLOW BRIDGE ROAD DESIGN DEVELOPMENT This segment of East Meadow Drive shares use among bicycles, and buses. While private vehicles are excluded beginning at the intersection of East Meadow Drive and Willow Bridge Road, the Talisman intends to exercise the right to use a pre- existing easement to access their property, although the issue remains open. This access is indicated in this addendum; however, it considerably compromises the pedestrian nature of the area. Alternative access solutions should continue to be studied and implemented. Concepts discussed during the design dialogue included creation of a streetscape experience that attracts and holds pedestrians within the space. At certain times of the year the street can be closed off to all motorized vehicles and serve as a venue for special events; for example, art fair, street concerts, farmers' market, and other forms of activities and entertainment. The public plaza space created by the intersection of East Meadow Drive and Willow Bridge Road is intended to function as a primary venue for larger size street concerts and other special events. Future redevelopment of the Crossroads commercial development should include an extension of this public space in the form of multi-purpose stage areas, art features, fountains, restrooms, and potentially an ice rink. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 24 ~. LA 6C3TTEGA ~sF ...~ 1^L/M't CI ~l 11I.;{ijfi?N(~,;':`i 1, ~~~ ALP '~ MENT ~~ ~ ~ r '.. '~~~ ~ raLiSMAN t~ 1 ~~ VAIL VILLAGE fNN .PLAZA improvements in Yfiis area anticipate the ilowi~ne faunta~n, DencF~es and planters. F'i'e ' CROSSRQAC ~~ ~ ~ , ,~' ' r-~: ~ ~ x , .tFj f t t. ~% ~ `~ ~- ~~, S~Ii1SS CHALET REDEVELUPMENT ~-`~~ _ ~. :r ~~~ ~'9 <~ ~~-~-~ ~~--SONNENALP/SWISSCHALET REDEVELOAMENT-- TY~ tit ad ~w 7n vrj Shee s ~ c rx:~ c osely i4~ dr tOtCif eft t1s weft 3f 5 r rrpt,~l Sn55 Ct,abtt ct~ eL o~:rneni 1r f~ ,i 11 Urpr;c7~ Pfd ud r~r~1~:~i ~+,t;~Slr4~ env a rr.~. 3 iha! in~(n~€Ft pn en5tc,ound ffi~n it Stogy R~,~pi} Sf.~rgfren 5 nlGr~~ .t ~ enGr~ s~.i~ih ta;1B e t .aese ciEVV~U{ rnents wdl serve to ccliY,~-c~ Ec st Mu~.~dcnv pre~e. ~~. ,L1 ..~- ~. ~ SONNEN REdEVELOP t ,~*t. +~ .. ... '~ ~~ ek Figure 9: East Meadow Drive Plan View -Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 25 Master Plan Design Changes While the objectives of the Master Plan have been sustained in Final Design, the manner in which they are achieved has changed. Design elements that are consistent with the Master Plan include maintaining a continuous horizontal platform through the street cross section with no curb and gutter separation of the pedestrians from the buses; differentiate the pedestrian areas from the bus travel lanes with distinctive paving patterns and colors; the north side of the street is emphasized for pedestrian use. Areas that deviate from the Master Plari s directives are as follows: Table 5: East Meadow Drive Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road Master Plan 1. Provide a single l~-foot travel lane for buses. 2. Maintain control gates as a streetscape element. 3. f _~~calc ~~ ~ac~i-bound bus sings in front of Vail Village hen on the north, and an e~~st-bound stop in front of the ~onnenalp on the south. Two-tip av bus mcwemeni is required on EastMeadow Drive using 12 font lanes.... As uggested- in the Master Plan,.. the lanPS are placed as far south as possible within the right-of-~ocw: the roadway :width is reduced to one 12 footlane at each end as a traffic control measure.: Replace control gate armswith lane restriction "neck- downs" titi~ith .special paving ,onboth ends of~ the street. This treatment: de-emphasizes. East Meadow Drive as ~a public road for .vehicles. `Pedestrian-style paving is drawn into the "neck=dotiti~n" zone t~~ emphasize the corridor as a pedestrian area. Move the west-bound bus stop at Vail Village Inn (presently La Bottega) approximately 50 feet further east Move the opposing'east-bound bus stop approximately 25 feet further west TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 26 ~. l~mphasize pedesh~ian areas io the north side of the street 4 Final design is consistent ~~-ith the Master Plan, except for the far end of the street. T11e prelnlilary Sc~nnenall~ redevelopment plans bring t11e newbuildiri~; to theedge. of the right-of-way, with store fronts along tine south side <,f t11e street. Final design ~ includes fan eight foo t pedestrian walkway ..along the srnzth side of the street. fl,he west end of the ~valkwa;r i~ located. tivthizl tl~e right- c~f way- and. on Sonnenalp property. As 'the walkway continues to the east, its transitions fully onto Sonnenalp propert~~. ~4 ~~ B~JTTEGA ~.~ ~.,` ,~~~~ ~+ ~`~{mot. ~ ~ ~~ ~ '~ r } _ _ _~ a ,.•. T .~*'~. -~~~, t' t ~, "~..- .:~~r ' .~, ~ ~`~~ ~CINNENALP REI?~VEIC~PMENT Figure 10: East Meadow Drive -Sonnenalp Redevelopment Area TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 27 ,.~, , , ~. I'rescr~~e the prominent landscaped. berm. ~~n the south side of the sU-ect. Should the Sonnenalp redevelop, this feature sh~nlld remain as a strong; character element along the street. Prelimin~u-~~ Sonnc:nalp rcdevelopnent plans shows the south landscape berm bcin~; rcm~wed and replaced with~~. the proposed buildixl~ tr~,i~t~~~;e and pedest; ian ~~~alkwa~~. ~l he Talisman parkin; access is shown but should be studied for alternate-~ arrangements which do ' not compromise the pedestrian area.. [~inal design extends the south`walkway to the'~e~i~t .across ~ the Talisman frontage connecting to ih~~ Swiss House redevelopment plaza area; to maintain a safe coruzection with the proposed flew uses along the south right-of-way edge. The removal of-the landscape berm 'is mitigated by adding landscaping to the Talisman frontage and creating ~p~ce for a landmark piece of public .art or fountain. '~ '~ _ -.'~~3i _ ~'#~.. ~ r _ r _ , " `~- Art Feature < ~~~ :: Fountain ~ "~ ,j i- r \ r'a ~~~ I a Art Feature _, Talisman Parking Talisman Park_ ing Access ~~ ~,~ x Figure 11: East Meadow Drive -Talisman Area TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 28 Additions to the Streetscape Master Plan Sonnenalp Redevelopment T'he Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus and Swiss House have started preparing redevelopment plans. The property owner and his respective architects and planners participated in the Meadow Drive design and public process, sharing their thoughts and conceptualizing opportunities for the interface between their proposed improvements and streetscape improvements in the right-of-way. The preliminary plans were shared with the Meadow Drive design team, and updated versions were submitted as available. While there is no guarantee of the final re-development layout until after development approval is granted by the Vail Town Council, the Meadow Drive design team has considered the plans in the context of the streetscape and public input. Vail Road Intersection With the Sonnenalp redevelopment at the edge of the right-of-way, the street corridor will have a narrow and much more European character. While the street will feel more enclosed, the new character creates an opportunity to erect landmark public art at the intersection with Vail Road, creating an inviting gateway statement and inviting pedestrians down East Meadow Drive, as illustrated in the plan view, Figure 12 and the cross-section, Figure 13, on the following page. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 29 ~. .> ~ E. ~ .~~~ tl~r;t~ _ ~' »~E f r ,,x- _~ :i :+ East Meadow Drive Paver Crosswalks ~ Gateway Art Feature: Across Intersection y7 Figure 12: Meadow Drive -Vail Road Intersection r~ ~,~ ,,. .lltil i ~" t~tl Right ofWay ~ , Wind Scul~rtures Gateway Sculptures ~ .-`4e`~-e~ ~ ~ i ~~~ ~ ; 1 ,_ .~; ~ ; ~l~ i ! .; "Meek ;Dowtj" r '` ~ ~ r ~ , . ~ , ~r. 1~ ~'~ I 1 ~ <~~ rul L ~ ; , #100 Vail RoatE ` ~La tte ~a 3tio ~' i ~" ~ ' '~T` „~~ ~ ~ ~'"I Vti °~~' ~... ~ e .~ ;, ,; ~~ ~' -~ _ F i {~ ~ r ~,~ ~fi? ., i % ~ _ __ ~ ~-g ~~ ~ ~ ~- ~~d ~a ~`~ I .~r,~ 'mob ---t¢- tiw-- --__~ ~, .i_ f ._ ~ ~, ~ n ',cif ~~;, ~ ~ ~ t -rf , ~ +_ East Meadow Drive ~ Propus~d~~onnenalp Expansion Fire Pit.. f --- TDV Light Standard w/.Hanging Easkets Proposed Garage Figure 13: East Meadow Drive - Sonnenalp Redevelopment Cross section; looking east TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 30 Vail Village Inn Plaza In the north central vicinity of East Meadow Drive, the Vail Village Inn Plaza buildings are recessed from the Meadow Drive right-of-way, forming a sun pocket plaza space. More businesses lie to the north of the mid-block opening, but appear to be hidden and unnoticed. The plaza area offers an opportunity to develop features that will draw pedestrians into the space which they presently tend to pass by, inviting them to explore other retail locations. A water feature provides amid- block destination focal point to complement the existing businesses, and takes advantage of one of the few open areas along East Meadow Drive. Strategic placement of benches within the space invites pedestrians to pause, linger, and enjoy the space. t i - ~.~ ' ~ r ~x i1L _ ;,~ <. iy f ~~ LL VAIL V[L.L.AGE INN PL.A~A PUbIiC ~ Private Plaza With t*[owline Fountain Art Future -Fountain ,: ~i . ~.~, ~ ~ ~~r, ~ ; ~~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ i~{~ _ ~~ ~ , J ~ /: _- ~' ~~ cs SW[S5 ~MALET ~EQEVELQPMENT __ Figure 14: East Meadow Drive -Vail Village Inn Plaza TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 31 Swiss House Redevelopment Redevelopment is planned for the Swiss House, located at the east end of the East Meadow Drive block between Vail Road and Willow Bridge Road. The property owner and his respective architects and planners participated in the Meadow Drive design and public process, sharing their thoughts and conceptualizing opportunities for the interface between the right-of-way streetscape improvements and their proposed improvements. The Swiss House will remain recessed from the southern edge of East Meadow Drive's right-of-way edge and will be reoriented parallel to East Meadow Drive. Vehicular access points are being relocated. The proposed design presents the opportunity for another open area interface between the right-of-way and private retail/hotel property, inviting pedestrians to linger and enjoy the space. Concepts VAIL'VILLAGE INN'PLAZr4 include benches, public art, and vegetation to soften the hardscape. These concepts F1owAne Fourdain were submitted to the development interests for consideration and incorporation ~~~~ , into their plans. ~~, ~ ' ~s~ - O[tOS5RC7ADS ~~ _ ~ _, , : , Art Feature ~ ~~,~~~ ~~LS r • s' { f .- --- ' ~ is , x. ~ ~' r. ,. _ ~ ~ .4 ~ . `~~ swiss CHALET ~'~ REDEVELOPMENT a:.r- -.......; --..v_ ` . ;~ i Pedestrian +°--~ Connection =' Figure 15: East Meadow Drive -Swiss House Redevelopment TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 32 ~~ `.: _~ _~~ __ , ' ° t ~6 -0 I ~'~ ~ ! Rightof'~5?ay .~~; - _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T~.; ~,. ~ ' ~ ~- •, "Jvxk-Dotiv~" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ L i it . l ~ r~ i y ~ <, - ~ :r, . ~ ~ ~ _E ~; ~.t, ~ C ~ ~ .d„ ~-i~ FJ" n E ~~~ ~ R k< ~ I L ~ ~ i M~ ~ ~S j'~ / t r Willow BridgeRaad ; Proposed Swiss IlvuseRedev~elapment ;' ~ ; _,.. Proposed'Garage Cirossrouds Center East 2vleadvly Drive. ~~ ~~ ~Poteatial PuhueIee Riiilc SpecialPaving at V,iillow Bridy;e Intersection TOV Light Standard w,'' Hanging Baskets Figure 16: East Meadow Drive at Willow Bridge Road, looking west TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 33 EAST MEADOW DRIVE -WILLOW BRIDGE ROAD TO VAIL VALLEY DRIVE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT This segment of East Meadow Drive is primarily open to all vehicular traffic. Only the section between Village Center Road and Slifer Plaza is restricted to buses and pedestrians. Several hotel, lodge, and commercial properties, including Talisman, Village Center, Sonnenalp Swiss Haus, and- Crossroads axe access through this segment of East Meadow Drive. The majority of these vehicles enter from Village Center Road off of the South Frontage Road. Two properties, Vail Mountain Lodge and Mountain Haus, are accessed from Vail Valley Drive. Many vehicles exiting the Checkpoint Charlie area use this segment of East Meadow Drive as access back to South Frontage Road. Pedestrian traffic on this segment of East Meadow Drive is directed toward the edges of the roadway because of the heavy vehicular traffic. Snowmelted walkways along the Village Center commercial area and Sonnenalp Austria Haus provide access along the street and to the majority of the shops and restaurants. Pedestrian crossings between commercial developments can occur at almost any point along Village Center Road, East Meadow Drive, and Willow Bridge Road. Different pavement material types are used to provide a visual indicator of the primary pedestrian crossings. These occur at the intersections of Village Center Road, Willow Bridge Road, and East Meadow Drive. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 34 Completed Components The following components of the Streetscape Master Plan have already been completed within this sub-area: • The control gate near the west portal of the parking structure has been moved further west. • One-way traffic designation has been moved north, just south of the Village Center Parking access. • A 14-foot asphalt bus travel lane, paralleled by a 12 to 15-foot pedestrian walkway surfaced in concrete unit pavers, extends from the west control gate at the parking structure east to Slifer Plaza. • Slifer Plaza has been enhanced as recommended in the Master Plan. • Screening of the Austria Haus parking lot has been achieved through redevelopment with the hotel, retail shops, and landscaping along the East Meadow Drive frontage. • Mountain Haus and Vail Mountain Lodge Streetscape components including snowmelted sidewalk, landscape terrace, and bus stop have been completed through redevelopment of those properties. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 35 6 ~~~ 6A'tTRANSPnnTKnUNCENrEF. ~" ~ ~~ ~~~ .- ,.,~+ TRANSPORTATION '~ CENTER zr1 ~f t"'~.,.,~ v ~~ fl ~ ~ CROSSROADS ~~ ~ ~ ~ l { ~ ~ `Ytf~ ~~~ ~-~ . ~~ ~~ e ,~ ~~ t ~ I ~~~. 1 y k VItIRGECENiER _ A{1STRIA HAU3 _ ~ ~ ~ `' ~~~ ~{~.r f ~ ~- ~ ~.- ~ ~~ ~? ~ ~' _ _ ~~ ~ ;, .,.. _ W1llOW BRIDGE ROACH "~~ l T~\ i ,~* s ~ ~ EAST MEADOW DRIVE sik~~rscA~EraASr~~ F~~ar~ Figure 17: East Meadow Drive Plan View -Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Drive TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 36 Master Plan Design Changes Table 6: East Meadow Drive -Willow Bridge Road to Vail ValleU Drive Master Plan 1'r~,vidc ~ single 7_~-f~>ut tr~i~-e1 lane for buses along; i~~leaduti~~ Drive to the cast of the intersectii~n i~~itlz ~1'illc~w 6ridgc Load. ?. Sep~lratc pedestrians from traffic along the north side of T~~s[ iA-leadow Dri~re, from the ~~Vill~~~~~ Bridge koad intersecti~~n to the c<~nir~~l gate at the parking structure, usin<n ~ln ~5 to 1l)-foot ~~•alktivav. ~. P~~hlace the triangular planter located in the center of the E~ISt .~leadoti~~ Driee~ lVillcnv Bridge intersection with a larger circultlr planter. Use a special treatment to have the intersection so it acts ~~~ a focal point. Two-way bus movement using two 12-foot lanes is required for East Meadow Drive, contradictory,: to the Master PIa11. These lanes continue to t11e East between'1lrillow~Bridgc Road and Vail Center Roadas illustrated"helo~~~. Provide a walk~~-av, restricted,to a narro~~~er width than recommendedin some isolated spots. ~I'h~~ maj<~rity of the ~~~alk~~~ay meets the recommendation cif the Master Plan. After considerable traffic movement analysis, it was determined that increasing the dimensions of the existing planter. will make it difficult to provide for large truck or emergency vehicle turn-around. The planter is removed in its entirety and replaced with a special paving treatment to create thefocal arearecommendedin the~Master Plan. The area is labeled to sere-e as a venue space for shecial events,' dw•izlg which buses and other vehicular trafti~ would be rerouted. Coordination and interface with the Crc>ssrc~~~ds redevelopment. will be critical to setting the stage for. this ~irea to serve as a special event venue. (Figure18) Reduce the width. of Village Center Poad'to 28 feet, :with the addition of a central landscape median to further discourage'., unnecessary traffic. Thelandscape median also responds,to the. Master Plan recommendation to add 1aildscaping along: Village `-Center Road near the South Fr~ntagc Po~,d intersection.: (Figure 19) ~. P.educe the width ~~E Village Center Road l0 28 feet, curb tc~ curb, ~~-ith five to six-foot concrete sidewalks un each side. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 37 ,~:.~ ,;:~~~~. ',., :A f ~ ~{,~ ~ ~ .~ .' ti ?~' ~ ~,,;, ti t r r ~, .q, PYIF{ ~ ,Ste?.y'c,~~~1{~''rT~'"~,~c~y--~~f7~~0.~`~~~ ,/~~ ~'^ !'~n ~ ~` ~~~~ ~ ~ '`3',.t ~ k YYg '1~S 3~ Y~ ~ _ S~~`'~ ~~~ ,o-~~,, c' y ~{~.a r. ~¢. yu. Figure 18: Crossroads Area ,z F~ s fey;, ~ ~,,~ i' ~ y - ~ ~, ~` ~ ~ '~ ~~ ;, ~~~.~ ~ C { ~. ; .. `'t rI`~ p . ~~ a~ ~ '" - ~, ~~ ~ L , ~.'~,. .. Figure 19: Vail Valley Drive Area TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 38 Additions to the Master Plan Street enhancements have been developed along the embankment slope that covers the south side of the parking structure from the Village Center Road/East Meadow Drive intersection to the central access stairs, across from Slifer Square. A retaining wall installed in the embankment creates a cavity that varies in depth from 10 to 20 feet, providing space for seasonal vending opportunities, a seating wall, water features, and public art. A pedestrian walkway will extend along the length, as well. These street enhancements are designed to generate points of interest and pedestrian activity to the west of the parking structure's central access. ~'~~~ ~ TRANSPORTATION ~: #~ CENTER: -` I ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~-:_ ..~ -- _ " ~- va~~TransponananCrnta i ,,~. ,. f --a-~= . f~ :: *` I_~ 1.1'I~ IIL JI3~iN1~P,11 C r ,,1 _ ~~„ ~ ~ _ ~-- TOV tiyta 3wJycd w; tcwemiia shag _ .:______ t.,~~; ~~ ------~I Figure 20: Transportation Center Area ~~:~ ~-; ; ' ~"__ _Lis~mR Slopod IIa~ •..•~~•. ~ - ~ /~ Aid's Clim~iny Yell wt Wnlf Bthtye.Rmd 8 YaU ~'il4igo 6` Hgt Tcrn~ W Ilt ~ ~ , -! s"~il~aII{l0 eLCY tiss,~ Afiadow Dive. ... Figure 21: East Meadow Drive at Bridge Street Cross Section -looking east TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 39 ,; ;,,„ VILLAGE CORE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT The Streetscape Master Plan describes the Village Core a one of "the premier pedestrian spaces in the country', yet the existing "streetscape treatment does not quite measure up" to its "unique setting'. The plan proposes achieving the desired effect by adding the detailing that extra level of finish that creates a statement of quality and distinctive character. The plan proposes highlighting key focal points and plazas with special paving and finishes. It recommends eliminating all loading and delivery functions from the Village Core enhancing pedestrian comfort and safety and Checkpoint Charlie is recommended to be relocated to the intersection of Willow and Vail Road. Driving the Vail Village project is the need to replace utilities and the desire to consolidate construction in the Village for minimal impact to businesses and residents. Completed Components The following components of the Streetscape Master Plan have already been completed within this sub-area: • Seibert Circle improvements. • Landscaping and walkways at Ted Kindel Park. • A stairway connecting Bridge Street to the pocket park and Gore Creek. • Gore Creek Promenade Landscape Improvements. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 40 V+Q~~ Y ~1~Q~cr J~~~~IJCdpc. ~,~.IS1~:1 ~i~A, ~: rCHILDRENSFOUNTAIN PLAZA hu PI f V ." J ~I t ' r t BRIDGESTFfEET I II Ir rd ~ II ,6 ~ -~ ! r r II Inr r '". IL_ ~ ~n Ira , K~ - I P I AI dl~,x __. ~.~ ~ I f6 t ft I: t t 1 i I I t / ( I I r~ j irI ~JI,.I t t. of C~~n (.a.x Dri~v. / t ~ r~ I 1 t 1 ~ ~.~~; ' ..~, !/ l 1 I Il car .~~~ c"' ~ S t Ito a r.^~' ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~i1 I ~~~ II [ [ IUt I Ir~ .~,' n~" w ~"> ii.Anq I t, J ~ JJ~~ ,, .~>A+` ~,~ ~, ~ ~ ~ G ~ >.r ! , ~ A I I I m..u,d ~unva,y 0 _ _ _ y„r,,... ~ 3 WEST GpRE CREEK DRIVE _I ~ ~~ tir"~ ~ ~ ~ 3 - EAST GORE CREEK Dg1YE t ! 1 I 4 I ! t ~ ~ 4 r~ ~ - ~ Clock ~ t t ~S I( k I I c l I t - c I. n .~~ ~ ~ Belt ~ "' ~ Tower ~ I I v I ~ Sitzrnark i 4 .Gr ! cl J~. ~ ,.~. '"~ ~ Lodge Tower ~ La 1 !1 ""__~ _ ~ 1 I . I I i ~ r t3 I ti I I t tit 1 i ll ~ 1~,,~ ~- ~l ?~" _ ` ~ 1 I I < < I I _ ,- 4 I I l s t 4[a ~~~-,,. ~ _.. yr rcn r ~ 4 _ r I t 1 1 .i ~..tF: ,. Ct+"~~ ~ __ .~, BWId-n3 ., ` ~ ~~ t' ~' _ ~' ; I l 4-1 Il,i.n~,.. ~. _. ~i _ _ W0.LL STREET - ._ P t ! -- ~ ~ ., MfIl Creek ~~,. ~_" ~ 4 ` ~• r s t I F I `~ l ""~~,,. ~ Cour uN In 3 .. •~ ~t~} ,..-- PI C11(r F u ~ 11 Th 'r„,~' ~ ~", ~ tB~ 9t ~ j Park !,~ I u II I ~c n v . ~ ~ Plaza "~ ./ ~' ~.~ = ~~ ~ Balld ng ~'' ~' ti,,'' y ~~ ~ , .,~ w, I S,~ _ :I ,~ ~. 6' ~ ~ r ~,~ I rt i ! v • ~~+. >. Sri ~- ~._(_ n If- It 1 'E tl ~ ~~ ~.~' ':J ~.~" i ~ . 1 l Cc1 1 i ~..' r - HANSON RANCH ROAD - ~~~" ~~ ~~dlu n.l 4ari ~~ ~ i1lwnu ntn .._y ~ ~ .. 1 _ • t _~~"~ --_-_ ~ ` ~ ~ f( t f I ( 4.17 t. ~ ~ REL(KATEO CHECKPOINT CHARLIE 1 '` !' '- ,r It, r [ r t ~4'Y/ ~~.,~. `~.-_- t_ ~ `, cn ti ~ v ill I I I n _ I •,. FOUNDERS PLAZA ~~ ' "` r f! AI It:'I tl I I1. tl.l.xJ~c 1, a (1 1 17 tl r t1 IIL~ at\ It I J I d I~ .v E ~i~ t [ u ._ _ ., r ..i F' - '~ l~ 1 t 1 it 1 ti 1 ~ J ~` I It ti t y Ipx ~1 I7. i'll I Cl i J ~:, ~,t~u~r I .,i„ lrl Ix,...l .~,InI~L „t.;-p..~r..i ~n Im~Iln lilt _. (..a ll. .t+I r,li Fit t f3~ ( f prl I f II ~ ~. -:: ~ ~~. . , i~_ F 4 Il t 1 ~ ~3i1 \ iftc.~ _ I ~ 71 t} f 11 Iil.. J I t I (` f II. I7 7 <r,.4~ (~/~( .- .~ .~ 'r 1 I cu~.,f r~, t'...I P~Iw<r~ ~t i,A«I~c.s:d u; .. it ,vi ~-.li 1 ir_~I .t~ . ~~,3 ~. ii r~u- Tr I u tl~, mm, ,d..ri! Ins Y~I ., _ u~ Fin. n I't.u.i ;1 ~"'~ qun t I •t~t of ~.. . - ''r ttLtwc~'.>n>. NOitTH - L~1WCU in4 ~cna .~3. uill l+~. .. Mf: x~~:~\l-qI( \I kM1 Figure 22: Village Core Plan View TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 41 Master Plan Design Changes While the objectives of the Master Plan have been sustained in Final Design, the manner in which they are achieved has changed. The areas that deviate from the Master Plari s directives are shown the Table 7. L Remo-ing the lo~~ding and deliverti~ zones from Gore Creek Drive and Liridge Street as recomnlendcd by the ~lastc:r Transportation 1'lai~. 2. The prinr~r~~ pa~~ing materiel Eor the right of ~~~ay° area is recomiizcndc~d to be eeet~u~guiar concrete unit pa~~ers ~~~ith a herringbi~nc pZtiern edged by a dinzi?le soldier course. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core The final design remo~~cs~ man>> cal the l~»ding. and dcli~-ery areas from the Village Core to Vail ReS~>rt's proposed ''Front Dour ['roject", but t~~ o areas 'will remain:. the existing deliti°~~ry, spaces on the west side of b1511o~~~~ Bridge Road across from the Sitzmark Lodgeand a 1 ? ~' delivery zone along theLodge at Vail promenade.- ..The final': design. proposes upgraded pavement treatments, tone and conc.=ete unit _pavers;~ in key pedestrian areas ~to crea~r a'cobbled'Buro~~ean styled" experience. T11e design intent is to usc~ lour to .five p<~.vement st~-Ies (rectangular and square), pattern, and colors to provide a range of'paIettes and subtly d~ velop distinctions between Village areas (i.e. Wall Street, Bridge Street, :.Gore Creek Drive). The color palettes would be consistent withthose recommended in` the Master Plan' including Charcoal, Arapahoe Blend, aild Brown. The concrete unit pavers would ve "tumbled° to reinforce the cobbled style at~d .add a character consistent with the "Tyrolean' t1-aditions of the Village Core. Page 42 ~. l~estc~ring the Children's Fountain to its original design b_a removing the stone 4>>alls to alloti4 access to the tivater. _~ ~~ __ ~ ., I ~i~ i ` w ~ ~ G f x ~~"'.~ 5« ~~• Y ~~ . ~ U ~ ~ ~~ ~ i I _ ~ ~ - ~h ~ ti. .. - , t ~ i :~. ~ y Figure 23: Reconfigured Children's Plaza The finaldesign; proposes reconfiguration of Children`s "Fountain Plaza to Ueconle, more interactive andengaging, and includes stone elements, cascading`waterfalls, and landscaped. seating areas while retaining the ..`original brim?e children s sculpture ana water jets. A fountain pool with 'a ne~~~ pumping s~~stcm ~~~i1I allow f~~r a children's pL~1y ,area safely removed from ~rehicular and pedestrian traf tic of Gore Creek Drive. The vehicular access to the~Gasthol (;r~mmshammcr parking garage ~~-ill be rerouted to the ~~eastern side of the pla~~~ to ~cc~~mmodafe addition~lse~ting and activity ~~rcz~s ~~~ithin the pl~iza. (Figu~~es23, 2~) t J ~ j. _ __ ~~ ._r~._ : )+ f - 1 .w ` I ~ .- -~~ Figure 24: Cascading Fountain at Children's Plaza TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 43 4. ~~long Gore Creek Drive in f=rout of the L,odgc at Fail, t}~e P1<Zn sucgests remo~ ing as much of the existing rock ~~~all that separates the side4>>alk from thy: street as possible, replacing it ~~~ith steps. 5. Planters have been suggested al the present Checkpoint Charii~=_ location_ The landscaping should be designed to allo~ti- for possible performances b} street musicians and other artists. /if J 1 .. ~y ~. ~ ~` Lodge ~~}}-- at Vat) f - ; .. ~ ~ / ~ r _ ~~ Figure 25: Relocated e kpoint Charlie 1 he im~~t ~1cs~gn propo~cs to remove the ctiisttng'steps, stone ~~~alls, and handrails along the Lodge at Vail Promenadeshops. The adjacent `section of Gore Creek i)rive :will be reconstz•uction aild graded to eliminate the n~~~~d for ste~~sand retaining walls. hutially, Checkpoint Charlie. Svill remain' as it is. Discussions ensued to relocate it td the intersection of Vail Roadand Willo~~>~'Bri.dge Road; however, the relocati~~n will largely depend on the design. of the Front Door project. If relocated, the. existing planter can be~removcd end replaced ~n~ith an ai:~chitectural landmark ..creating ~~ visual co7~nccton n~ith Bridge Street and' East.. Meado~~~ Drive and pro~-ide additional performance and display opportunities ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,a [ ~.: ~ ~$ Y -r., ~ ~~ .. ~' ~~ 1~ r ~ !~ Figure 26: West Gore Creek Drive TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 44 h. Public resirooms are needed in the Village Core As t}~~re ~~1•e no viable. l~~catioiis to construct a nc:w fac:ilil~°, ii mad- be possible to incorporate a public restroom into zu~ c~isiuZg building. l'he final design proposes two viable opprn•tunities for public restrooms ~~~ithin the Village Core: ~. a Freestanding public restroonn could be located' at ~hd,northeast earner of the International bridge':. on ~~ `1`own owned parcel Tlnis site would require an architecturally sensitive ~ solution that inc~~rporates elements ul the bridge dc~i~:;n inf~~ the tacility.''' b. ]~hc second location is near the intersection at tiiill Creek and Gore-Crcek Drip°e. 7. 1'he selection of ~~~ood benches has established a stele The final design propuse5replacemenl of the existing <and material that should be carried through to the other trash receplaclcs, bicycle racks, and. newspaper site furnishings. '1'rasll receptaclE~s, bicycle racks, and ~~-ispensers ~vitl-t more`.. update furnislurlgs that arc ne«~spaper c{ispcnsers should coordinate with the consistE~nt «~ith the zinal palette. of materials. The existing ~~~ood benches. benches would be retained and are incorporated~into .the existing design. ~5. "I'rec ~rates~n-c recommended For street trees ~ti~hen they are used in an urban. setting. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core The final design removes tree grates and guards iftroughout the Village Core. The mountain environment tends to present challenges to~maintainin;; healthy street trees in .more url7~n settings.'.. The project team has recommended ~~_ more flexible solution creating small planters at~the base of each street tree to allow better rout growth and pro~~ide additional landscape opportunities. Page 45 ~. The night Lighting for the. Village Core. should be ~~aried and carefully planned.. The master plan shows one possiU[e appr<rlch to creating the appropriate Level of lighting For the ViI(age core area using a variet~~ of light sources. 10. Per~z~anent planters, seasonal planters (soir~c u-ith street trees), and hanging baskets nn light poles are. recommended as ti~~~a~s to ai{d seasonal color in the landscape. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core The final design adjusts~~ the number of light fixtures rr many areas of the Vllage,Core to balance the light levels in the ~~cdestrian areas. The final design modifies Fi ~;ure ~ 25 from ilie Master k'lan .slightly to achieve this desired balance. In addition the consultant tc,i m 11as recommended comprehensi~~r lightin~;xguidelines for the VillageCore. The desig~l recoiitmends seasonal landscape. color be added t}irough additional permanent planters, mo~~eat~le cnntai~cr ptantin~s; and handing baskets. Page 46 Additions to the Master Plan New opportunities for pedestrian and other streetscape character enhancements were discovered during the design dialogue process. East Gore Creek Drive East of Mill Creek, a pedestrian walkway is proposed to Vail Valley Drive and creates safe pedestrian connections and improves the visibility and access to Ted Kindel Park. Gore Creek Promenade A visual stream connection from Children's Fountain Plaza, Wall Street, and Founders' Plaza is proposed. A potential connection could include Pirate Ship Park and Vail Resort's Front Door project. Natural water from Mill Creek was investigated and deemed not feasible. Wall Street Figure 27: Wall Street Water Feature The final design proposes a series of cascading water features connecting Founder's Plaza to Children's Fountain Plaza and potentially a connection through Gore Creek Promenade Park to Gore Creek. The water feature begins in Founder's Plaza proceeding north through Wall Street and connects to the Children s Fountain. The water feature includes a variety of stone pools and falls intended to mimic a mountain stream. In conjunction with the fountain, the Wall Street planters and steps are reconfigured to improve retail visibility and accessibility and encourage additional gathering opportunities. F~az~ B~il~iirg _: ~ ~ `~ YI/ x h.. 'L~zie~- . ~, ~krcatio "a ~,, _. ~; _ '.~ 6 ~~ ,>~ ~ ~ ~ ~, TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 47 Figure 28: Wall Street Founders' Plaza In addition to the water feature connecting to Wall Street, Founders' Plaza is reconfigured to expand landscape areas and provide additional gathering opportunities. A small sculpture playground is proposed within the landscape area and provides a safe opportunity for children to play. The sculptural play pieces will be coordinated with the Town of Vail AIPP Board. The final design recommends removal of the existing popcorn wagon and a permanent popcorn gazebo to be constructed. The new popcorn 'gazebo' will include an adjacent seating area and will incorporate the existing newspaper racks. Hanson Ranch Road A necessary culvert replacement at Mill Creek allows for the opportunity to create a celebrated entrance to the Village ~ ~' ~- .~ ,~. Core. Stone, ornamental railings, ~ L:-.`~.:~. landscape, and lighting features t ~ ~~~ ~ ` are used to highlight this ~""] - ~ ; ~ ,: important gateway to the Village. 4 .>r?%-r ~-.., The south terrace of Mill Creek ' ~`~ Court Building and entrance to i` Ted Kindel Park is reconfigured to ~~,' ; ~~ improve access and visibility. East ~ ~ , ~, of Mill Creek a pedestrian \ ~ '~ walkway is proposed to Vail ,-~' `~-~- Valley Drive creating safe ~,„, `~-' ~.~< <t pedestrian connections to and ~ r'~~ ~ ~ x ~`'r~;,l E Irv n from the Village Core. The improvements to the P3 & J chute ~ ~`.%;, , t~ `~~ z=: .~ include a pedestrian walkway and ~ rs ^~~ '~~ ~~~ paving upgrade aimed at providing safer pedestrian and. % `~ ~ vehicular connections. Figure 29: Hanson Ranch Road Pedestrian Connections TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 48 West Gore Creek Drive (Cicrrent Checkpoint Charlie) During the planning process, the relocation of Checkpoint Charlie was discussed at length. Relocation depends on the the roadway configuration at the Front Door project. If Checkpoint Charlie is relocated, the final design could be a performance and display opportunity at the west end of Gore Creek Drive. The plaza will be highlight by an architectural landmark or art component the will become a focal point for the Village Core and provides a great opportunity to create both visual and physical connections to Bridge Street and Meadow Drive. The landmark will be surrounding by a series of stone walls and steps, which create a performance and gathering spaces at this crucial juncture within the Village. +:rr ~ `f, ~f ! / ~ ' ~. ~~~ 'JJa r/4'11G ...r~ F~i~ ~ ?>_ ~ ~ ` f`~ `~' l• / ~ l ~ / 1 f~.R ~~ ,~~ .' ,' ~ ~ r -. ~ ~~ Figure 30: West Gore Creek Drive Performance £~ Gathering Willow Bridge Road Bicycle and pedestrian connections are proposed at the new checkpoint location connecting to the Vail Valley Trail and the remainder of the Village. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 49 ~ , ~~ - :~ ~,~ GUIDELINES FOR PAVING, PUBLIC ART, SITE FURNISHINGS, AND LIGHTING General Material Specifications All materials and equipment proposed for use in streetscape improvements should be of low maintenance, have a long lifespan, and are durable so as to avoid costly maintenance. Material and equipment specifications should be structured to assure that comparative analysis among choices includes initial cost, installation cost, operating and maintenance costs, and selection should be based upon the overall minimum cost. All materials and equipment should be accompanied with manufacturers' operating and maintenance information. Construction administration specifications should include both a quality control program administered by the installer and a quality assurance program administered by the Town. Installation of materials and equipment should follow all guidelines specified by the manufacturer. Paving Systems The 1991 Streetscape Master Plan references paving treatments in 3 categories: • Field pavements within the right-of-way • Accent pavement • Private area pavement Field pavement is recommended as a basic herringbone design with double soldier courses along right-of way lines and as perpendicular bands along the length of the street. The pavement material is recommended as rectangular concrete unit pavers on a gravel or concrete base. Colors are a mixture of gray, red, and brown. Accent pavement types referenced include granite sets or units, sandstone, other shapes of concrete unit pavers, and brick (clay) pavers. These pavement types are intended to be used on a limited basis at key intersections and plazas. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 50 Pavement within private areas (outside of right-of-way) is recommended as concrete unit pavers in rectangular or square shapes used individually or in combination. Changes to pavement types under Final Design include the addition of more variety into the pavement types recommended. The following pavement types are recommended to be included in addition to those referenced above. Field Pavers Concrete unit pavers with tumbled edges are recommended to create a softer, worn effect in the pavement. This cobbled European style is consistent with the Tyrolean traditions of the Vail Village. Four to five styles of rectangular and square patterns will help to develop subtle distinctions between various areas with the Village. The colors are recommended to be consistent with those referenced above. { ~ r - - . s ~ _ C ~ I ~ „ r-.. t . I ~.~ _ ~ ~ ,~ jJ r ~,,,- h... .. ~ ! .r fY/ J~ ~ ~ ..r_r r.}! -j~ Figure 31: Field paver examples TOWN OF VA1L STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 51 Transit Paving The specific material has not been identified. Considerations include a concrete slab, large size concrete or asphalt pavers.. ~,'-.;'• ~ ~ i x .53' ' Yom.... 'l~ r ^ ..... a. ~! ..,. ~> .».r c"?r rriW . ..5. .. s~,t. arr. a~.... Figure 32: Transit paver examples Ornamental Paving Detailed paving patterns of varying materials integrated into the field pavement as an art element. Rumble Strip Paving Square concrete unit pavers with a fractured surface (resembling granite sets) of a contracting color intended to direct pedestrians away from the back of head-in parking spaces. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 52 Site Furnishings The final design proposes replacement of the existing trash receptacles, bicycle racks, and newspaper dispensers with more update furnishings that are consistent with the Bavarian theme of the Village Core. The existing benches would be retained and are incorporated into the existing design. Trash receptacles Trash receptacle styles include bear-proof and non bear-proof. Cigarette disposal provided. ~_ ~~ i ~ r ~, F ~:,~~ . ; Bear-Proof Model Teak Wood with ash tray (Also available in solid color) Paintable aluminum (Disney World) Illlll~ Steel and resin Figure 33: Trash receptacle examples __ _ - TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 53 r,F, Benches The current streetscape design for those which are not integrated art elements remain unchanged. More benches should be out year-round in sun pockets and gathering spaces. ~ r~~ 4I L ,~ ~r~ `r~ ax :~- 1 ~ *''' !v , tit .. _ - __ T.-.---.~. -~..c„c ~„~,~ ~~ ~ _. ~ ~a~; r~ ~J ~~ ~, } ~ 1~ ~' i Conceptual Seating Figure 34: Bench seating examples TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 54 Current Village Benches Tables and chairs Add to public plaza spaces, some with umbrellas to encourage people to linger and provide additional informal outdoor dining opportunities. b~:' ~.:irx ~: ~~ ~,:.: ; 'r. ~ ~ .. ~» ~ x - ~ P ~ a;.r. ~' ~r» .. ~~...._~..~.Y. ... ..._.....~........_. ~_.~:. Bike racks { E ~ ~~~ 5 ~ ~~ ~X ~ i 4. ~.~ ~.~. ~ of ~ R y~ ~ 1 - _ ~ M i ~ x .. Figure 35: Table and chairs examples Combination bike/ski/snowboard racks similar to those in use in Beaver Creek are under investigation. Newspaper cabinets Retain the existing locations and management system to the fullest extent possible. Look for ways to improve design and durability of newspaper cabinets and clusters. Tree grates The final design removes tree grates and guards throughout the Village Core. The mountain environment tends to present challenges to maintaining healthy street trees in more urban settings. The project team has recommended a more flexible solution creating small planters at the base of each street tree to allow better root growth and provide additional landscape opportunities. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 55 .. ~;,~ :„ Miscellaneous • Entrance to East Meadow Drive. Create entrance statement to East Meadow Drive at Vail Road. Consideration should also be given to assuring a natural flow between East and West Meadow Drive, with the intent of providing a good connection between the Village area and Lionshead. • Bulletin board/kiosks -Provide bulletin boards and kiosks in accordance with the Wayfinding Plan • Banners and Flags -Add 1 to 2 additional special event banner locations within the Village Core and Meadow Drive areas. Selectively place banners on buildings and light poles to add color and movement to the streetscape. • Seasonal decor -Seasonal decor utilities are to be placed in strategic locations for special events and holiday decoration. • Audio equipment and wiring are to be placed in strategic locations for special events. • Security equipment will be added to assist the Vail Police Department. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 56 Public Art The following section contains excerpts from the 2001 Art in Public Places Strategic Plan which apply directly to streetscape projects. The AIPP Strategic Plan is included by reference in this addendum. The Town of Vail's Art In Public Places (AIPP) program was officially adopted in1992 to "promote and encourage the development and public awareness of fine arts." The ordinance adopting the AIPP program and establishing an AIPP Board was based on the Art in Public Places program Policies and Guidelines adopted in July of 1989. The AIPP Board and the AIPP program were further refined in1996 establishing the eleven-member AIPP Board, as it exists today. The AIPP program Policies and Guidelines describe the process and criteria to be used to evaluate potential public art pieces and projects. The current AIPP program focuses largely on commissioning art pieces for specific locations within the community and providing for the placement throughout the Town of temporary art sculptures on loan from galleries. Site-Integrated Art One of the major focal areas of the Plan is site-integrated art, which provides for the incorporation of public art in public and private areas throughout the Town. This plan is ultimately intended to promote public art in the Town of Vail. The aesthetic character of the built environment is largely shaped by necessity. Artistic elements incorporated in the design of public spaces gives the Town the opportunity to build whimsical streetscapes while at the same time making the spaces functional, otherwise known as "place-making." This approach, consistent with national trends in public art, is termed site-integrated public art, which is the creation of art through common everyday public improvements. Site-integrated art is the process of integrating creative and artful TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 57 ..r;,, . features into such things as paving, sidewalks, public benches, lampposts, gates, and landscape features. ~. n . e w ; ,~ ~~' ~~« ., ~, rk;?. :~'r~( ,. , , :3ti Figure 36: Example ofsite-integrated art The following is a broad list of places and ideas for integrating public art. This list emerged from,.. site visits, feedback-from the local focus groups and meetings with town staff, the Design Review Board, the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the Town Council. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 58 Paving The 1991 Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan recognizes and addresses the importance of quality hardscape in Vail. This plan calls for a continuity of surfaces throughout town. Exceptions to this standard paving are special areas designed to prevent monotony and create accent. These accent areas are where creative designers can best contribute. The introduction of artwork in the pavement, use of varied paving materials, color and texture are simple ways to create a special feeling about our environment without the vertical space commonly needed for art. Because the climate and snow removal are so destructive to hardscape surfacing integrated art paving requires rigorous material selection and thoughtful application. '" ~'~i~ ~ ,` ~ a s . ~ f f ~ w i f '~ ~n %* x* :^> `7 n~ ~-.« r .. ~'. .~ C]e 3r ~'_ t Figure 37: Incorporation of art in paving examples Possible areas of focus: • The pedestrian connection between Lionshead and Vail Village • Main core areas of the Town • Major intersections TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 59 Seating Seating plays an important role by providing places for people to pause, gather, rest and take in the view. As seating areas are created, the Town has the opportunity to provide artistically inspired seating that is compatible with the natural setting, unique, memorable, and even whimsical. Possible areas of focus: • Along major pedestrian corridors and activity areas within the Lionshead and Vail Village core areas • Public plazas • Bus stops • Pedestrian Bridges • Public parks • Along recreational paths and at trailheads TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 60 Figure 38: Creative seating examples Landmarks and Portals A landmark is a significant architectural element that visitors to Vail can identify and remember. Landmarks signify important points of entry, turning points, and critical intersections in the pedestrian network. Landmarks also identify destinations and serve as visual reference points. Landmarks and portals are integral to an overall wayfinding system. People tend to think of landmark features as buildings and structures, but they can also include plazas, intersections, fountains, works of art, and unique natural features. Site integrated art can help create landmark features by creating unique spaces and building improvements that people are able to easily identify and remember. Possible sites and opportunities for landmark improvements: • Intersection of Vail Road and Meadow Drive • Major entries to Lionshead pedestrian mall • Vista Bahn ski yard • Intersection of Willow Bridge Road and East Meadow Drive (Crossroad's area) • Highway exits • Fountains,. sculpture, and paving Figure 39: Existing Clock Tower in Lionshead Temporary Public Art At present, fourteen exterior sites are available within Vail Village and Lionshead for the temporary display of artwork. Each site was carefully selected for its visibility and access to both visitors and residents of the Vail Valley. This program is designed to enrich the community and provide exposure to artists working within the sculptural realm. The selected artwork must exemplify commitment to quality and innovation. The Temporary Art Program was designed to create a mutually beneficial partnership TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 61 ~,y~w ~. ~~ ~~ t z 1, Y R _(.. ~?.tp ~ ,~`~., Figure 40: Examples of temporary public art Private Development Projects Site-integrated art is not limited to public projects. The opportunity exists to have private landowners with proposed improvements adjacent to public spaces create unique and .memorable streetscape improvements, landmark features, or other opportunities to place art on private property. As private development and _---- WN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 62 between the Town of Vail and artists working both within and outside of the community. redevelopment in Vail continues, there is the potential for public art opportunities to evolve from a partnership between the AIPP Board and private entities. Visual enhancements or works of art that may emerge from these developments may. greatly contribute to our community's aesthetic and pedestrian experience and cultural awareness. When one considers the size and scale of the Town and its myriad of offerings, the boundary between public and private spaces is really a conceptual distinction not recognized by the typical observer. With this in mind, the Town and the AIPP Board should encourage developers and property owners to enhance private development with publicly viewed art in the form of site integration, landmark development, architectural enhancement, sculpture, and other techniques. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 63 Lighting Along with the Streetscape design, Vail Village has an opportunity to improve the nighttime atmosphere by providing uniform and less glaring lighting. This new lighting system is designed to achieve the following goals: • Improve quality and color of light. • Enrich the individual character of each area. • Respect the "Bavarian Village" of Vail. • Reduce maintenance costs by providing energy efficient equipment. By using white-light sources and minimizing glare, this lighting system will enhance visibility. Introducing a few different lighting styles, this lighting system creates subtle contrast and variety to provide identity for each area. Keeping Vail's stylistic vision the light poles recreate the "Bavarian Village" image. The most successful lighting will be a combination of the new public lighting system and private lighting that washes the building facades. This way, the lighted facades create aback-drop for the Village. The current design uses energy efficient lamps with long-life operation (10,OOOhrs or more). To further reduce maintenance costs, Vail may consider using induction and LED lamp sources that have an operational life up to 100,OOOhrs. The LED and induction lamp options are more expensive initially, but only require re-lamping every 10 to 20 years. __ TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM WestMeadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 64 Gore Creek Drive As the main thoroughfare for a mixture of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, Gore Creek Drive requires the highest light level and most uniform lighting distribution. The design of this area is very formal with Bavarian style lighting poles on both sides of the road. A luminous chimney within the luminaire emulates a traditional gas lantern with no additional lamps, therefore reducing maintenance and energy costs. Children's Fountain Plaza As a more dramatic and intimate area, this plaza has minimal lighting except within the fountain and at the entrances of the buildings in the plaza. Each water jet within the fountain is accented with a submerged up-light. The children s statues are set up on a pedestal above the water. Pedestal should include an internally illuminated lattice that will reflect light out to illuminate the fountain pool. Gore Creek Promenade Park From the Children's Fountain Plaza, a pathway descends a stairway to Gore Creek Promenade. This stairway is illuminated with step-lights, leading to the Promenade that is lit with the Bavarian style pole mounted luminaires. Upper and Lower Bridge Street Destination points along this narrow street are sited with pole mounted luminaires, and seating areas are illuminated with over-head string lighting for a more festive look. Lighting poles are intentionally minimized on this street because the narrow width will start to feel crowded. The close proximity of the lighted storefronts will provide ample lighting for amore intimate feeling than Gore Creek Drive. Enhancing the textured stone base of the seat walls, concealed lighting subtly grazes the stone and provides accent to help complete the composition. Wall Street and Founders' Plaza String lighting provides a soft ambient light for the lower end of WaII Street. The waterfalls are accented with low wattage submergible up-lights. Leading to Founders' Plaza, the landings of the stairway are illuminated with low wattage step- lights. Concealed lighting beneath the stone wall capping enhances the texture of the TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 65 stone and provides a soft, warm glow to the stairs. Within Founders' Plaza, a few lighting poles mark destination points, allowing the center of the square to have a subdued, calm ambience. Hanson Ranch Road and the Chute, Willow Creek, and the Relocated Checkpoint Charlie Lighting poles continue from Gore Creek Drive to provide illumination for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 66 Mechanical and Electrical Systems Proposed mechanical and electrical systems changes to the Village Core consist of adding a hydronic snowmelt system, re-circuiting/revising general use power receptacles, adding power accommodations for special events, utility accommodations for new and updated water features, and alterations to the existing street lighting. Where possible, provisions will be made to ease expansion of the system to include future areas indicated on the drawings. Mechanical Systems Overview Utility Services Upgraded domestic water services will be required for the public restroom on Wall Street and for new water feature(s). The existing domestic water service for the Children s fountain will be relocated to serve a new combined pump system for Wall Street and Children's Fountain water features. A new gas line, parallel to the existing line, will be routed from the existing service entry to the existing boiler room to accommodate the additional boiler(s). New gas services will be provided to new decorative gas features in the Village. Gas feature quantity, type and location are to be determined. These features will likely be few and of relatively small capacity. snowmelt System A gas fired hydronic snowmelting system will be installed in all areas of the Streetscape design. This system will be connected to and operated by the existing boiler plant located in the Village Parking Structure. This boiler plant will be modified and expanded with higher efficiency boilers to accommodate the increased demand and lower operating and maintenance costs. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 67 ~~~ -. , Electrical Services Existing electrical services will be consolidated and upgrade as necessary to accommodate new and relocated lighting fixtures and convenience outlets. Additional electrical service will be provided to accommodate special event requirements and for various holiday decor installations. This service will be located at several points within the Village and Meadow Drive including the following: • Existing Checkpoint Charlie • Gore Creek Promenade • Children's Fountain • Intersection of Gore Creek Road and Bridge Street • Earl Eaton Plaza • Seibert Circle • Slifer Plaza • Intersection of Willow Bridge Road and East Meadow Drive Communications Telephone service will be provided at the new Checkpoint Charlie location if necessary as well as the new Popcorn stand in Earl Eaton Plaza. Conduits and connections for the future installation of security system cameras will be provided at key locations throughout the Village and Meadow Drive. Final locations and equipment will be determined by the Vail Police Department. Conduits and connections for the future installation of an audio /visual system will be provided at key locations throughout the Village and Meadow Drive. Final locations and equipment will be determined by the Vail Public Works Department with applicable merchant group input. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 68 Restrooms Throughout the planning process, the need for additional restrooms was a continuing topic. The design team prepared a restroom location map (Figure 41) and showing that restrooms near the International Bridge and the intersection of Mill Creek and Gore Creek Drive provide the best options. Discussion with private developers is ongoing to determine the most appropriate implementation of restrooms. Cov~roge symbol has o~ opproximole radius of 300.8. ail vAfiage ~~~ a`~~ PUBLIC RESTROOM COVERAGE DIAGRAM.', Figure 41: Restroom Coverage Diagram TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core ~~ `~,. Page 69 STREETSCAPE DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE This section will address recommendations for phased implementation of the Streetscape Master Plan Design as well as recommendations far maintenance of streetscape improvements. Portions of the discussion included in the addendum are excerpts from the original Streetscape Master Plan as many of the issues and recommendations remain active topics of discussion and involved in the decision making process. Implementation Due to the scale of the Streetscape Master Plan, the proposed improvements will rieed to be implemented over a period of years. The Master Plan has been conceived with phased construction in mind and this will allow the public and private sectors, and public utility providers, flexibility in planning the phasing of streetscape construction. Several factors must be considered when determining the phasing sequence of construction. These include the following. • Public safety • Impacts to business and tourism • Construction access across completed sections • Needs for utility, storm water, and other infrastructure upgrades • .Timing and location of various private redevelopment initiatives • Achieving the greatest impact to aesthetics and character Coordination of utility and infrastructure upgrades as well as installation of snowmelt supply and return mainlines is one of the determining factors involved in the phasing decision. Upgrades to utility systems normally require apoint-to-point approach. Making the connections between electrical transformers, sewer manholes, and other utility boxes is necessary to maintain continuous service and avoid TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 70 reopening of completed sections of streetscape. Likewise, storm sewer lines and snowmelt system main lines are most efficiently installed from downstream to upstream for the same reasons. Private redevelopment initiatives are an important consideration for two reasons. First, they frequently require improvements for pedestrian circulation and vehicular access, and utility upgrades with the public right-of-way. These become triggers to initiate streetscape implementation. Secondly, private participation at various levels is necessary to provide the funding needed for implementation of the streetscape Master Plan in accordance with Town Council policy. Implementation of the streetscape Master Plan can not be accomplished without disruption and impact to businesses and residences in the area. Excavation and backfilling of deep and shallow utilities, stabilization of pavement uugrades, and construction of streetscape surfaces and features all require extensive use of equipment, materials, and labor to complete. The goal in implementing streetscape improvements is to minimize those construction impacts by balancing construction efficiency with public access needs during periods of higher business activity. The following construction sequence scenario is the recommended approach to streetscape implementation. • Begin construction preparation work such as utility locates, surveying, and equipment mobilization during the last 2 weeks of the ski season. • At the end of ski season begin as much subsurface utility and infrastructure work as can be completed prior to the middle of June. Install final sub-slab and temporary surface pavement. • Discontinue major construction activity between mid-June and mid-August. • Remobilizing in mid-August, remove temporary surface pavement and install snowmelt system tubing, and final streetscape improvements in areas where utility work was completed in the spring. Concurrently, on the next streetscape section, begin as much subsurface utility and infrastructure work as can be completed prior to the middle of November. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 71 .. gun ~;~~: Discontinue construction activity between mid-November and the end of the following ski season. • Restart the sequence of finish work and subsurface work the following the end of the ski season. The following figures represent the recommended streetscape implementation phases for -the first two years of construction. It will be necessary to review the process and make any necessary sequencing and phasing adjustments following the first year's construction activity. -~:.~- ,~ ~F ~, _ . y`)Pm.. rF'o ~- 1 ~ `~ ~ _ .; 1 ~ ~ ` -~ t l '~_. ~°ti .r 2 ~ ~ ~. a E~u~m_ .~ .M ~~ i `~~ ~s si~:i > s _, ~ ~., St. H,T cM _. _ ~'~. ~ ~cE E ~ r ~ ~~^t : ~ s FnNl: „_,, :iP 3i*cE iS=~'E ~ ~ t~ ~_-~4 ri ~ ~ _ w u racer evn .. f__R.JCR4'PIA.A ~~ , ~ i.: -_-,~. ~~ ~' ~ ` «~~~ SPRING 2004 CGNSTRUCT~ON __ s "/ l` ~. i ` t . .. - ~r = - w~F~s ~ _ ~o ~ ,~ .. i _ L J > > t t 1 ~ ,~ ~ ~' ~- 4~ 1 ~ /_ r lE6END~ f j ? ~ ~ ~ ~ :~`~ r 49 F.`fiM1 I.1l Y ~ . . ~ ~~ S F 1 '~~~ au.§ Q,r-. rn+ J l ~ ~i k ° ~a ~ t eEi a [ 7 I ~ i '~/ -! as ~ ?ti ? ... ~ i.. ~ ! ~ ~ ~.~^ _ ~, ~ ~ ~~ ~ - f St ~h1fi ~~ JA ~7F EE.S~r = I ~ , .C. ~. • • _.. _ ...J 4 4 ' ~I ~1 ----°~ GM ~/ott vile qe FALL 2004 CONST(~UGTIOhI_ Figure 42: Proposed Streetscape Phasing 2004 TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 72 y, l~YGT Lei ~,.tiZE lkSf?.Yc'AIXT.~'IJnr.'E ., 1 ~ i _ ,E ~. - ~. ,... ~._ ~ ~_ d '~ 5 ~'ri NA~_nF _ :FA~_ _..L.. 1 ~0 1 ,c .: E.: ~..., _ .. r Ku~._ ~u_C~'Lw u~r ,.., t'4 t .~a.~ - -'rT ~', t 4 ~ 5 r,~ ~ ` r y J f ~ F v _ ` 1' t e . r ..a T __ ~ ! , ~ 1 ~~~ f ~ z ~.7 ` ~ ~ y r~ ti LEGEND ' ' ~ ~ ' ~ i= ,~ , v E.ur~,r± ,~ t :.. ., . i•. .e ~ a ,c - ~,. ~ . • i " 1 .. Uta. _ ` ~ _ r', ~ ~el~ D .-. ~ ~ ~ i'-~~ ~~• -~ 3~1 ~ ~. R~ E ~ ~s _ r r;ti,_ „~, iF~~='~~~ ~~J_ ~~ .111'~f~e: FALL ZC95 CONSTF2UCTfON.. Figure 43: Proposed Streetscape Phasing 2005 TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 73 ~~~ ~5k'leo-,Wr ,-,. Streetscape Maintenance Snow and ice removal This Streetscape Master Plan Addendum strongly recommends installation of a mechanical snowmelt system in all pedestrian areas for the following reasons: • Increased pedestrian safety • Improved visitor experience • Reduction of noise • Reduction of required snow storage areas • Increase life expectancy of pavement surfaces The cost of operating and maintaining agas-fired snowmelt system is equivalent to the current cost of plowing and hauling snow in the Village Core area resulting in improved pedestrian area conditions without increased cost to the Town. Gas-fired boilers require routine, annual servicing by trained maintenance specialists. The Towri s building maintenance staff includes trained maintenance specialists at this time. As the quantity of boiler and mechanical systems increase maintenance managers should continue to assess and compare the cost of in-house and contracted maintenance services. The Town of Vail Snow and Ice Control Plan should be updated to include an emergency plan in the event of a full or partial snowmelt system failure. snowmelt system failure may result from a disruption of electrical or natural gas service to the mechanical system or physical damage to the snowmelt system itself. The Village Transportation Structure, which houses the mechanical system, has emergency backup electrical generators which are maintained and replaced at scheduled intervals. These generators will provide electrical service in the event of a power failure. In the event of a snowmelt system failure, an emergency plan will prepare managers u1 mobilizing staff, contractors, and implementing the incident command system already in place. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 74 Other electrical and mechanical systems The Streetscape Master Plan Addendum includes additional street lights and specialty lighting, audio-visual system wiring and equipment, and additional, fountains and water features. The Towri s building maintenance staff includes trained electricians and maintenance specialists at this time. As the quantity and types of electrical, communication, and plumbing systems increase maintenance managers should continue to assess and compare the cost of in-house and contracted maintenance services. Street Maintenance Sweeping and washing pavement surfaces Daily hand sweeping of streets and pedestrian areas and litter pick up will increase slightly in the winter months. Dirt and debris which was previously removed with regular snow plowing will remain on snowmelted streets. The additional staff time required to perform this work has been included in the snowmelt system operating cost evaluation. snowmelted surfaces will also allow year round operation of street sweeping equipment resulting in increased cleanliness and consistency. Cleaning spills Spills and staining of pavement surfaces is a frequent occurrence year round in the Village Core area. Delivery vehicles, trash trucks, and construction equipment often leak oil and other engine fluids on the pavement surface. Fluids which leak from trash dumpsters and unlined trash truck beds are a significant and smelly source of pavement spills and staining. Maintenance crews also encounter spilled body fluids and excrement on a regular basis. The first step in dealing with pavement spills and staining is prevention. Relocation of some or all of loading and delivery traffic in the Village Core area to the Vail Resorts Front Door Project will reduce the amount of engine oils and fluids leaked on to the pavement. It is recommended to initiate a requirement for all trash trucks and construction equipment entering the Village Core area to be equipped with leak containment devices. Disney Corporation has successfully implemented this requirement in all their theme parks. It is also TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 75 ,o Igs;~:-~, recommended that trash collection services be moved outside of the Village Core area or trash trucks and dumpsters be required to fully lined to prevent leakage. For those leaks and spills which can not be prevented, cleaning and materials and equipment should be placed in key locations around the Village Core area to be readily accessible to maintenance crews. Spills should be contained and cleaned as quickly as possible to minimize damage to pavement services and to not affect the visitor experience. Pavement surfaces should be sealed and protected on a regular basis according to pavement manufacture recommendations. Routine sealing will help prevent spills from soaking in and permanently damaging pavement surfaces. Protecting wood surfaces Wood surfaces such as benches, trash receptacles, newspaper cabinets and bike/ski racks should be maintained on a regular basis. Cleaning, sanding, and treating with a penetrating, waterproofing, and UV protecting material annually will increase the life and improve the appearance of wood surfaces. Landscape maintenance Currently the level of landscape treatment and maintenance in the Village Core area varies between one property owner and another. It is recommended the level of consistency in the landscape be increased to a level appropriate to the status of Vail Village. This may be accomplished in several ways. One way is to have the Town pr special district take over all planting and maintenance of landscape areas in the Village Core area. This would provide a high level of landscape treatment but would require financial participation from private property owners due to additional costs involved. A second way may be to provide assistance to private property owners in the form of uniform plant selection, maintenance tips and techniques, and professional advice. Encouragement and peer pressure from the Town and adjacent properties will help provide the impetus to maintain a high level of landscape treatment throughout Village Core area. Urban forestry has been an aspect of landscape maintenance that has not received as much attention as it possibly should have in the past. Recently, the Town has started TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 76 and inventory of significant trees on Town property. This is a good first step toward implementing an Urban Forestry program. Trees are an important element of the overall streetscape plan. They add character, provide shade, screen or frame views, and generally improve the aesthetics of the area. If not properly, selected, placed, and maintained they can also block shop windows and store fronts, impede traffic circulation, and create safety problems. There has been an increase in tree diseases and insect infestations in the Vail Valley over the past several years. An urban forestry program would help to identify and prepare for these problems before they can become a serious threat to Vail's tree population. TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive, & Village Core Page 77 MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 4, 2003 SUBJECT: A request for Vail Town Council approval to adopted Resolution 11, Series of 2003, for an addendum to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan and- setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall, Director of Public Works Planner: Warren Campbell I. SUMMARY OF REQUEST A proposal by the Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall, to adopt Resolution 11, Series of 2003, for an addendum to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan which elaborates in greater design detail the sub-areas concerning Vail Village and Meadow Drive streetscapes. The proposed addendum to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan will address the sub- areas identified in the Plan as "West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive -Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road, East Meadow Drive -Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Road, and the Village Core." The addendum is proposed to facilitate the culmination of ideas for updates and refinement which evolved from multiple meetings held over the past year by the streetscape committee, which included several members of the Town Council and business owners. II. BACKGROUND OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS The Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan was adopted on November 20, 1991. The purpose of the plan as stated within the document is to: "... provide a comprehensive and coordinated conceptual design for streetscape improvement that: 1) is supported by the community; 2) enriches the aesthetic appearance of the Town; and 3) emphasizes the importance of craftsmanship and creative design in order to create an excellent pedestrian experience." The Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide for developing detailed streetscape improvements. The Plan emphasizes that "the report and drawings outline conceptual design ideas. " In order to develop the conceptual design ideas the study area was divided into six sub-areas. Those sub-areas are East Lionshead Circle and Library/Ice Arena Plaza, West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive -Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road, East Meadow Drive -Willow Bridge Road to Slifer Plaza, East Village, and Village Core. Each sub-area of the plan focused on several aspects of streetscape design and was organized into sections which covered: • Existing Conditions • Character • Circulation -Vehicular/Pedestrian • Paving/Drainage • Site Amenities • Landscaping • Utilities/Lighting • Streetscape Improvements • Preliminary Concepts • The Preferred Streetscape Plan -Pedestrian circulation/landscaping and site amenities • .Costs In 1998, work began on the detail drawings for West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive- Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road, East Meadow Drive -Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Road sub-areas and ended in 1999 when the addendum was put on hold due to lack of resources to carry the project forward. In 2001, a focus group was assembled to begin the process of reexamining the detailed streetscape plans for West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive-Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road, East Meadow Drive- Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Road. It was also determined that the focus group should create detailed plans for The Village Core sub-area. Over the past year and a half the focus group has met extensively to develop the proposed addendum. On June 9, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession on the applicant's request. At that meeting the Commission responded to multiple questions regarding funding and construction of streetscape improvements and directed staff to establish scenarios of funding and construction so that they might react to the different funding and construction solutions. The Commission then tabled the item to a future meeting. On August 11, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission heard a second presentation on the applicant's request. At that meeting the Commission gave further direction to staff in developing funding solutions and requested that the Streetscape Maintenance portion of the document be completed. On September 22, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission heard a third presentation of the applicant's request. At that meeting the Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council with two recommendations. The two recommendations made were: 1. That the applicant should verify that all materials proposed for use in the streetscape are low maintenance, have a long lifespan, and are durable so as to avoid costly maintenance and upkeep. 2. That the applicant should explore funding options other than an impact fee such as the use of Tax Increment Financing. In addition, funding models should be explored which impact residential properties to a lesser extent than commercial properties and include a time frame for which the fee will be collected, such as a sunset provision. On October 1, 2003, the applicant went before the Design Review Board for a worksession to present several of the ideas and materials proposed to be used in Vail Village. The Board gave several comments on paver treatments, trash receptacles, benches and dining furniture. Currently the applicant plans to return to the Design Review Board on November 5, 2003, in order to receive more input. III. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Town of Vail Streetscage Master Plan The original Master Plan is an outgrowth of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The Guide Plan was created in 1982 to give guidance to the overall physical development forthe Village. In addition to providing broad design guidelines, the Guide Plan suggested specific physical improvements for the Village. Improvements such as new plazas, new landscape area, etc. Along with the construction of these public improvements included proposals to complete numerous private sector improvements. Improvements such as building additions outdoor deck expansions, and fagade improvements. The Streetscape Master Plan was written in part to provide clear design direction for coordinated public/private improvements. According to the Master Plan, the purpose of the plan is to provide a comprehensive and coordinated conceptual design for streetscape improvements that: 1. is supported by the community; 2. enriches the aesthetic appearance of the Town; and 3. emphasizes the importance of craftsmanship and creative design in order to create an excellent pedestrian experience. Vail Villaae Master Plan The Vail Village Master Plan is based on the premise that the Village can be planned and designed as a whole. It is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in Vail Village and in implementing community goals for public improvements. It is intended to result in ordinances and policies that will preserve and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village. Most importantly, this Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review boards, and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. Furthermore, the Master Plan provides a clearly stated set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village will grow in the future. Goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. While there is a certain amount of overlap between these six goals, each focuses on a particular aspect of the Village and the community as a whole. The goal statements are designed to establish a framework, or direction, for the future growth of the Village. A series of objectives outline specific steps that can betaken toward achieving each stated goal. Policy statements have been developed to guide the Town's decision-making in achieving each of the stated objectives, whether it be through the review of private sector development proposals or in implementing capital improvement projects. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide to the staff, review boards and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. The most significant elements of the Master Plan are the goals, objectives, policies and action steps. They are the working tools of the Master Plan. They establish the broad framework and vision, but also layout the specific policies and action steps that will be used to implement the Plan. The stated goals of the Vail Village Master Plan which are related to the Streetscape Master Plan are: Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. Objective 3.1: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. Objective 3.2: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible. Objective 3.4: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. Goal #4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. Objective 4.1: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with greenspaces and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type pf open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. Objective 5.1: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan This Guide Plan represents collective ideas about functional and aesthetic objectives for Vail Village. Diagrammatic in nature, the Guide Plan is intended to suggest the nature of improvements desired. It is based on a number of urban design criteria determined to be appropriate for guiding change in the Vail Village. The Guide plan is intended to be a guide for current planning in both the public and private sectors. 4 Vail Village Design Considerations (in part) The Town of Vail adopted the Vail Village Design Considerations in 1980. The Design Considerations were revised in 1993. The Design Considerations are considered an integral part of the Vail Village Urban Design Plan. The Design Considerations are intended to: guide growth and change in ways that will enhance and preserve the essential qualities of the Village; • serve as design guidelines instead of rigid rules of development; and • help influence the form and design of buildings. The Vail Village Design Considerations are divided into two categories (urban design considerations and architectural/landscape considerations): URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS These considerations relate to general, large-scale land use planning issues, as well as form considerations which affect more than one property or even whole areas. These considerations are primarily the purview of the Planning .and Environmental Commission. A. PEDESTRIANIZATION A major objective for Vail Village is to encourage pedestrian circulation through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. Many of the improvements recognized in the Urban Design Guide Plans, and accompanying Design Considerations, are to reinforce and expand the quality of pedestrian walkways throughout the Village. Since vehicular traffic cannot be removed from certain streets (bus routes, delivery access), a totally care-free pedestrian system is not achievable throughout the entire Village. Therefore, several levels of pedestrianization have been identified. C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWORK To improve the quality of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two general types of improvements adjacent to the walkways are considered: 1. Open space and landscaping, berms, grass, flowers and tree planting as a soft, colorful framework linkage along pedestrian routes; and plazas and park greenspaces as open nodes and focal points along those routes. 2. Infill commercial storefronts, expansion of existing buildings, or new infill development to create new commercial activity generators to give streetlife and visual interest, as attractions at key locations along pedestrian routes. It is not intended to enclose all Village streets with buildings as in the core areas. Nor is it desirable to leave pedestrian streets in the open in somewhat undefined condition evident in many other areas of Vail. Rather, it is desired to have a variety of open and enclosed spaces, both built and landscaped, which create a strong framework for pedestrian walks, as well as visual interest and activity. D. STREET ENCLOSURE While building facade heights should not be uniform from building to building, they should provide a "comfortable" enclosure for the street. Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms, whose walls are formed by the buildings. The shape and feel of these "rooms" are created by the variety of heights and massing (3-dimensional variations), which give much of the visual interest and pedestrian scale unique to Vail. Very general rules, about the perception of exterior spaces have been developed by designers, based on the characteristics of human vision. They suggest that: "an external enclosure is most comfortable when its walls are approximately 1/2 as high as the width of the space enclosed; if the ratio falls to 1/4 or less, the space seems unenclosed; and if the height is greater than the width it comes to resemble a canyon". In actual application, facades are seldom uniform in height on both sides of the street, nor is this desired. Thus, some latitude is appropriate in the application of this 1/2 to 1 ratio. Using the average facade height on both sides will generally still be a guide to the comfortableness of the enclosure being created. In some instances, the "canyon" effect is acceptable and even desirable. For example, as a short connecting linkage between larger spaces, to give variety to the walking experience. For sun/shade reasons it is often advantageous to orient any longer segments in anorth/south direction. Long canyon streets in an east/west direction should generally be discouraged. When exceptions to the general height criteria occur, special consideration should be given to create awell-defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcome the "canyon" effect. Canopies, awnings, arcades and building extensions can all create a pedestrian focus and divert attention from the upper building heights and "canyon" effect. E. STREET EDGE Buildings in the Village core should form a strong but irregular edge to the street. Unlike many American towns, there are no standard setback requirements for buildings in Vail Village. Consistent with the desire for intimate pedestrian scale, placement of portions of a building at or near the property line is allowed and encouraged to give strong definition to the pedestrian streets. This is not to imply continuous building frontage along the property line. A strong street edge is important for continuity, but perfectly aligned facades over too long a distance tends to be monotonous. With only a few exceptions in the Village, slightly irregular facade lines, building jogs, and landscaped areas, give the life to the street and visual interest for pedestrian travel. Where buildings jog to create activity pockets, other elements can be used to continue the street edge: low planter walls, tree planting, raised sidewalks, texture changes in ground surface, arcades, raised decks. Plazas, patios, and green areas are important focal points for gathering, resting, orienting and should be distributed throughout the Village with due consideration to spacing, sun access, opportunities for views and pedestrian activity. IV. PROPOSED TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN ADDENDUM The proposed addendum does not seek to change the intent or concepts presented in the adopted Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. The proposed addendum to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan will address the sub-areas identified in the Plan as "West Meadow Drive, East Meadow Drive -Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road, East Meadow Drive -Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Road, and the Village Core." The goal of the addendum is to develop the ideas set forth in the Plan in greater detail (ie., selecting locations for plantings, public art, and paver treatments). The list below does not include all the details found in the addendum for Meadow Drive and Vail Village streetscape improvements, but is intended to serve as a guide to the outline of the proposed draft. A draft copy of the addendum dated October, 2003 is attached for reference (Attachment A). The outline and the key elements of the proposed addendum include: • Introduction -Discusses the purpose of the addendum to take the existing Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan adopted in 1991 and develop the goals and ideas set forth in that document. • Community Development -Lists the groups involved in the development of the addendum and summarizes their comments in several tables which describe "Present Conditions" and "Desired Future Conditions". This section also includes an "Improvement Matrix" beginning on page 14 which identifies multiple areas of focus and then ranks improvements as "Essential, Basic, Activity Enhancing, and Image and Identity Enhancing". • West Meadow Drive Design Improvement - Identifies the Master Plan Recommendations and the "Change under Design" as proposed to be constructed under this proposed addendum. This sub-area plan details roadway/walkway design, location of a pocket park, creating a "neighborhood entry", and some new opportunities for public art. • East Meadow Drive: Vail Road to Willow Bridge Road -Identifies the Master Plan Recommendations and the "Change under Design" as proposed to be constructed under this proposed addendum. This sub-area plan details the travel lane for buses, the traffic control gate, bus stop locations, and new opportunities with the Sonnenalp/Swiss Chalet redevelopment, and the Vail Road intersection. East Meadow Drive: Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Drive- Identifies the Master Plan Recommendations and the "Change under Design" as proposed to be constructed under this proposed addendum. This sub-area plan details the travel lane for buses, pedestrian traffic, replacement of the triangular planter in front of Crossroads, and new opportunities with improvements to the south side of the parking structure. Village Core -Identifies the Master Plan Recommendations and the "Change under Design" as proposed to be constructed under. this proposed addendum. This sub- area plan details the removal of loading and delivery zones, paving material, Children's Fountain, improvements in front of the Lodge at Vail, public restrooms, permanent and seasonal planters, lighting, and additional opportunities with changes to Founder's Plaza, Wall Street, and Checkpoint Charlie. Guidelines for Paving, Public Art, Site Furnishing, And Lighting -Discusses more specifics regarding paving systems, site furnishing, Art in Public Places (AIPP), lighting systems, and mechanical and electrical systems. Streetscape Design Implementation and Maintenance- Discusses funding allocation scenarios for constructing streetscape improvements. V. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: There are several criteria which staff has found successful in reviewing amendments and addendums to existing Town of Vail Master Plans. The criteria provide a logical and rational set of standards for determining the validity and need for an amendment or addendum. The criteria are as follows: 1. Have conditions changed since the adoption of the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan? The Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan was adopted on November 20, 1991. Conditions have changed slightly as development has continued to occur and in many instances portions of the Plan have been implemented. The Plan was created to provide conceptual design ideas. Each time the elements were implemented either by the Town or private development the constructed elements do not always match identically what was called for in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan but meet the intent and follow the concepts of the plan. Some existing examples include Mayor's Park and the Vail Valley Drive reconstruction. 2. Is the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan in error? Neither the applicant nor staff believes any portion of the Town of Vail Streetscape Plan to be in error. Staff believes the concepts and ideas found in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan are still valid. The proposed addendum only expands on those concepts in detail and adapts them to the existing conditions. 3. Is the addition, deletion, or change to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan in concert with the Plan in general? The applicant and staff believe that the proposed addendum is in concert with the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. The addendum takes the existing conceptual ideas and drawings from the Plan and provides the necessary information need to create construction drawings. A complaint of private developers when asked to construct all or portions of their site according to the Plan is that there is not enough detail to estimate costs. Several times the Town has had problems providing a developer with the necessary information to develop construction drawings and cost estimates. This addendum and others to follow, will provide needed information to developers at the initial stages of design and provide a plan by which staff can give guidance to developers. Another purpose of the addendum is an improved and clarified implementation section. The goal being to provide language which better assists Town decision makers in dealing with private development. VI. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL The Town Council shall approve, approve with modification, or deny the applicant's request for approval of an addendum to the Vail Streetscape Master Plan VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council considers the evidence and testimony presented, provides direction to the applicant and staff, and then approve or approve with modifications, Resolution 11, Series of 2003, for the addendum to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan as outlined in Section IV of this memorandum. VIII. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft of Meadow Drive Addendum dated October 2003 ~f + MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 4, 2003 SUBJECT: Second reading of Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2003, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Title 11, Sign Regulations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: The Town of Vail Planners: Matt Gennett Elisabeth Eckel I. BACKGROUND At the first reading of Title 11, Sign Regulations, held by the Vail Town Council on October 21St, 2003, Staff was .directed to return for second reading having addressed several remaining issues. I I. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 19 A. Draft of the proposed, amended Title 11, Sign Regulations III. ADDRESSED ISSUES At the most recent work sessions held with the Town Council on September 2"d, September 16th, and October 7th, and the first reading, held on October 21St, 2003, a number of issues and concerns were raised by members of the Council in relation to the format and content of the new, proposed draft of Title 11, Sign Regulations. Following is a comprehensive list of the issues addressed in previous work sessions and their resolutions as formed by Council and Staff. The issues addressed at the first reading, on October 21St, and in more recent discussions, are listed in italics. • Issue: The location and proximity of signs to surrounding signs is an important issue. • Resolution.' The issue has now been addressed through an additional paragraph in Chapter 5, Design Guidelines and Standards, that emphasizes design review; • Issue: The text (numbers and letters) is currently the only aspect of a hanging/projecting business sign that is measured. 1 • Resolution: Language that references staff review of proximity, size, and location will now address any applications that may request signs that are too large or garish; • Issue: Window signs may become too large or pervasive if their size is not regulated by more than the percentage of the total window area of a business. • Resolution: Window signs will be allowed up to 15% of each window area (as defined by 12"mullions) and may not be larger than six square feet per sign, per window area; • Issue: The regulation of signage for second-floor businesses is unclear. • Resolution: The signage of second-floor businesses will be regulated in the same manner as the signage for first-floor businesses; • Issue: According to current wording, joint directory signs will be required to have one square foot of signage for each business that is represented. • Resolution: Joint directory signs will be allowed (not required) up to one square foot of signage per represented business; • Issue: The regulation of the color of Private No-parking signs seems superfluous. • Resolution: The color of Private No-parking signs will not be regulated strictly and will instead be regulated according to the Design Guidelines (natural colors); • Issue: According to the current charts, the size of a business sign could actually exceed that of a building identification sign. • Resolution: The allowed size of business signs no longer exceeds that of building signs and is limited to 5D cumulative square feet in Sign District 1; • Issue: A Temporary Site-Development sign is not necessary after a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. • Resolution: A Temporary Site-Development sign must be removed prior to the issuance of a TCO; • Issue: Regarding prohibited signs, a drastic difference exists between animation and natural movement. • Resolution: A distinction has been made between "wind-induced movement" and animation, in relation fo prohibited signs; • Issue: According to the language regarding non-conforming signs, their existence would be assured regardless of any change in the ownership of a business. • Resolution: Any change in the ownership of a business will require that non- conforming signs be brought into compliance. • Issue: Imperfect format • Resolution: The entire document has been reformatted, reviewed by a professional editor, and extensively critiqued by Staff. • Issue: Irregularity of window sign regulation 2 • Resolution: In both Sign District 1 and Sign District 2, the new draft proposes that all window signs placed within three feet of a window will be counted towards the total allowed sign area. • Issue: Enforcement of non-conforming signs • Resolution: The enforcement of non-conforming signs has been changed: the new draft proposes that non-conforming signs be allowed to continue indefinitely. • Issue: Regulation of sale signs • Resolution: The new draft proposes that a merchant may submit an application to display sale signs of up to seven square feet, as opposed to the usual 1.5 square feet, for two off-season periods per year of up to 15 days each. • Issue: Regulation of other signs • Resolution: Chapter 7, Other Signs, has been condensed to include only those aspects of non-Business and Building Identification Signage that are enforceable by the Town of Vail and integral to the simplified draft of Title 11, Sign Regulations. Flags, Pennants, Banners, and Bunting will continue to be allowed in the Town of Vail, subject to design review. • Issue: Format was not optimal -the Definitions section should have been placed toward the front of the document. • Resolution: The entire document was reformatted and the chapters reordered to reflect consistency with the other Titles of the Town of Vail Code and to offer a more intuitive, logical flow for readers. • Issue: Labels and captions under photographs and graphics were not consistent in placement, size, and font style. • Resolution: The draft was thoroughly reviewed and modified to ensure a uniform style and placement for labels and captions. • Issue: Transitions between sections and the different Sign Districts were unclear and awkward. • Resolution: The pertinent chapters were reviewed and edited to ensure clarity regarding which text goes with which section. • Issue: Proportionality versus a maximum, uniform sign size in Sign District 1 (SD1). • Resolution: Staff gave a presentation during one of the afternoon work session to compare different size frontages, in town and elsewhere, to the area of the sign mounted upon each frontage. After numerous meetings with the merchant community, the consensus seemed to be for a uniform six (6) square foot maximum sign area in SD1. • Issue: The maximum allowable area for Building Identification signs in Sign District 1 (SD1) seemed excessive. The maximum sign sizes for both Business and Building identification signage seemed too large in Sign District 2 (SD2). • Resolution: The maximum allowable area for the signage addressed above was reduced in each Sign District. T ORDINANCE NO. 19 Series of 2003 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING TITLE 11, SIGN REGULATIONS, VAIL TOWN CODE, TO ACCOMPLISH LONGSTANDING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ESTABLISHED BY THE TOWN, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARDS THERETO. WHEREAS, in recent years, the sign code has been identified as being too complicated to follow, difficult to enforce, and lacking a purpose statement; and WHEREAS, text amendments are permitted pursuant to parameters set forth for such in Section 12-3-7 of the Town Code of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board of the Town of Vail has held public hearings to review the proposed amendments and has recommended approval for their adoption; and WHEREAS, the staff of the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail has held focus group meetings with local merchants and sign contractors, who have responded favorably to the proposed text amendments; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has held public hearings on the proposed amendment in accordance with the provisions of the Town Code of the Town of Vail and finds that the amendment meets the following four goals: 1. Develop a clear purpose statement for the sign code. 2. Develop a new sign code, complete with graphics, for the Town of Vail that contributes to the Town's vision statement of being the "Premier Resort Community." Signage and display elements should add something to the Vail experience...notdetyact from it. 3. Make the code easier to understand and implement. 4. Make the code easier to enforce by the Town, and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds that the proposed amendments further the development objectives of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has recommended approval of this text amendment at its April 28, 2003, meeting, and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council of the Town of Vail; and Ordinance No. 19, Series 2003 WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Vail finds that the proposed text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Sign Regulations; implements and achieves the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and WHEREAS, the amendments demonstrate how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate; and provide a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds it in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to adopt this amendment to the Town Code. 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 repeal and reenact TITLE 11, SIGN REGULATIONS, VAIL TOWN CODE. TITLE 11, SIGN REGULATIONS, is hereby repealed and reenacted as follows in ATTACHMENT A (attached). Section 2. 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 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and prop-er for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Ordinance No. 19, Series 2003 2 Section 4. 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 shalt not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repeated 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. READ ON SECOND READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON SECOND READING this 4"'day of November, 2003 in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Ordinance No. 19, Series 2003 3 Attachment: A TOWN OF VAIL TITLE 11: SIGN REGULATIONS TITLE 11 SIGN REGULATIONS Subject Page Description, Purpose, and Applicability ....................................................................2 Definitions ......................................................................................................... 3 Administration ....................................................................................................9 Sign Application Procedures ................................................................................11 Design Guidelines and Standards .........................................................................13 Business and Building Identification Signs ...............................................................16 Other Signs ......................................................................................................25 Sign Programs ...................................................................................................29 Exempt, Prohibited, and Non-Conforming Signs .............................. .......................30 Variances and Appeals .......................................................................................32 Violations and Enforcement ..................................................................................33 CHAPTER 1 DESCRIPTION, PURPOSE, AND APPLICABILITY SECTION: environment that is aided by signs that identify, direct, and 11-1-1: Description inform. 11-1-2: Purpose 11-1-3: Applicability 4. To aid in providing for the growth of an orderly, safe, 11-1-1: DESCRIPTION beautiful, and viable community. This Title may be cited as the SIGN REGULATIONS for the Town, and shall be incorporated as Title 11 of the Vail Town Code. 11-1-2: PURPOSE A. GENERAL PURPOSE: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town of Vail and to promote the coordinated and harmonious design and placement of signs in the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. 11-1-3: APPLICABILITY Except as provided elsewhere in this Title, the design, placement, and use of any signs shall be in compliance with all of the regulations specified in this Title. All signs in the Town of Vail are subject to the Design Guidelines and Standards (Section 11-5-1) and review by the Design Review Board (DRB). B. SPECIFIC PURPOSE: These regulations are intended to achieve the following specific purposes: 1. To describe and enable the fair and consistent enforcement of signs in the Town of Vail. 2. To encourage the establishment of well- designed, creative signs that enhance the unique character of Vail's village atmosphere. 3. To preserve a successful and high-quality business 2 CHAPTER2 DEFINITIONS SECTION: 11-2-1: DEFINITIONS ABANDONED SIGN: A sign, and its supporting structure, that has ceased to be used for the display of sign copy. Sign area does not include support brackets, support posts, or the use of rock, stone, wood, meta, or other natural elements applied for aesthetic or structural purposes for either business or building identification sign area calculations. ADMINISTRATOR A member or members of the Town of Vail Staff appointed by the Town Manager and designated to administer and enforce the guidelines outlined in Title 11: Sign Regulations. AGGRIEVED PERSON Any person as defined in Section 12-3- 3-6-2 the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. ANIMATED SIGN Any sign or part of a sign that changes physical position by any movement or rotation or that gives the visual impression of such movement or rotation: prohibited in the Town of Vail. ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTION Any projection that is not intended for occupancy and that extends beyond the face of an exterior wall of a building, including roof overhangs, mansards, unenclosed exterior balconies, marquees, canopies, pilasters, fascias and the like, but not including signs. AREA, SIGN (SD 1) For Business Signs: the entire size of the surface to which graphic elements such as lettering, symbols, diagrams, or similar representations are applied. For Building Identification Signs: the entire size of the surface described by the smallest polygon that can surround the letters and graphics that comprise the sign. AREA, SIGN (SD 2) For Business and Building Identification Signs: the entire size of the surface described by the smallest polygon that can surround the letters and graphics that comprise the sign. Sign area does not include support brackets, support posts, or the use of rock, stone, wood, metal, or other natural elements applied for aesthetic or structural purposes for either business or building identification sign area calculations. AWNING For the purposes of this Title, the roof- like cover that is temporary in nature and .projects from the exterior of a building, typically over windows, walkways, doorways, or outdoor eating areas. BANNER, PENNANT, or BUNTING Any temporary decorative cloth or material that is related to the announcement or promotion of community events or activities or to the decoration of the Town for special holidays. BILLBOARD A permanent outdoor advertising sign that advertises goods, products, or services that are not related to the premises on which the sign is located: prohibited in the Town of Vail. 3 BUSINESS OPERATION SIGN A sign that conveys information about a business; this may include the hours of operation and the listings of accepted credit cards, organizational affiliations or slogans, and notable awards. BUSINESS SIGN Any sign that displays the name of the business upon which site it is located including any graphics and language that represent the business. BUILDING IDENTIFICATION SIGN Any sign that displays the name of the building upon which site it is located including any graphics and language that represent the building. CHANGEABLE COPY A manually operated sign that displays graphical or word content that can be easily changed or altered: prohibited in the Town of Vail. CLEARANCE The vertical distance from existing grade to the lowest-hanging point of any projecting/hanging sign or flag. CONSTRUCTION SIGN (see Temporary Site Development Sign) DESIGN Including but not limited to the location, shape, dimensions, color, symbols, letters, material, and luminosity that comprise a sign. DIRECTIONAL SIGN A sign that serves to direct pedestrian or vehicular traffic. DISPLAY BOARD (see Menu Box) ELECTRONIC DISPLAY TERMINAL Any monitor or electronic device used to provide public information or to promote a special event: allowed for Town of Vail public information purposes only. ERECT To build, construct, attach, hang, place, mount, suspend, or affix a sign: this also includes the painting of wall signs, murals or supergraphics. EVENT, SPECIAL A public event that is of interest to the community as a whole and has been approved and given a permit by the Town Manager. The .promotion of any product, political candidate, religious leader, or commercial goods or services secondary to the permitted event, shall be prohibited. FIBER OPTIC SIGN A sign of thin, transparent, homogeneous fiber of glass or plastic that is enclosed by material of a lower index of refraction that transmits light throughout its length through internal reflections: prohibited in the Town of Vail FINE ART Sculpture, fountains, or similar objects possessing form and beauty, including paintings or drawings. FLAG Any city, county, state, national, organizational, or institutional symbol or insignia applied to a piece of fabric. FLASHING SIGN Any directly or indirectly illuminated sign that exhibits changing natural or artificial light or color effects by any means whatsoever: prohibited in the Town of Vail. FREESTANDING SIGN A single or multi-faced sign that is detached from a building and is affixed to a supporting structure or imbedded in and extending from the ground. FRONTAGE, BUILDING The horizontal, lineal dimension of any side of a building that has a usable 4 public entrance upon a major vehicular or pedestrian way or other circulation area. Where more than one use occupies a building, each use having a public entrance for its exclusive utilization shall be considered to have its own business frontage. FRONTAGE, BUSINESS The horizontal, lineal dimension of any side of a first story, second story, or other above grade business that has a usable public entrance upon a major vehicular or pedestrian way or other major circulation area. Where more than one use occupies a building, each use having a public entrance for its exclusive utilization shall be considered to have its own business frontage. GRADE, EXISTING The existing level of a property after any development or construction activity and prior to the erection of a sign. HANGING SIGN (see Projecting/Hanging Sign) HEIGHT For the purposes of this Title, the height above existing grade to the highest part of a sign and its structures, unless otherwise noted or described. ILLUMINATED SIGN A sign emitting or reflecting a steady suffused or glowing light. ILLUMINATION, DIRECT Lighting by means of an unshielded light source whereby the light source is directly visible to the viewer. ILLUMINATION, INDIRECT A light source separated from the sign that illuminates the sign's surface by means of spotlights or similar fixtures with reflective housings that control and direct light onto the sign area; the indirect light source shall not be visible to the viewer. ILLUMINATION, INTERNAL Illumination by means of a light source that is within a sign that has a translucent background, silhouetting opaque letters or designs, or that is within letters or designs that are made of a translucent material: prohibited in the Town of Vail, excluding signs used by the Town of Vail for public information purposes. ILLUMINATION, NEON A light source in which a colorless, odorless, inert gaseous element known as neon is found: prohibited in the Town of Vail. ILLUMINATION, PAN-CHANNELED An indirect, concealed light source which is recessed into any element of a sign and is attached directly to the face of the sign: each element to be lit must have opaque surfaces. such that the light does not shine through the sides or backs of the elements but through the front face only. ILLUMINATION, RECESSED A source of light that is directed upon a sign and placed inside of an architectural element, such as an eaves a preferred type of sign lighting within the Town of Vail INSCRIPTION, MASONRY The name and/or date of a building etched into masonry. JOINT DIRECTORY SIGN A type of Building Identification and Business Sign that displays the name of a building, complex, or center and the names and addresses of two or more businesses within. KIOSK A small structure, typically located within a pedestrian walkway or similar circulation area that is used as a display space for posters, notices, exhibits, and 5 similar displays: for public information use by the Town of Vail. MAINTENANCE, SIGN The replacing, repairing or repainting of a sign and/or its structure due to ordinary wear and tear, weathering, or accident. MENU BOX (also known as a display board or display box) A freestanding or wall sign enclosed in glass for the express purpose of displaying menus, real estate listings, entertainment options, or items related to the advertised business: allowed at restaurants, real estate businesses and movie theaters only. MURAL A work of art or a painting that is applied to and made an integral part of an exterior wall and which shall receive approval either by the Town of Vail's Art in Public Places or Design Review Board prior to application. A mural shall be considered a wall sign, and regulated as such, if it contains words, logos, trademarks, or graphic representations of any person, product or service that identifies or advertises a business. Signatures shall be allowed but limited to a maximum of two square feet in size. NON-CONFORMING SIGN (may also be known as a legally non-conforming sign) Any advertising structure or sign that was approved by the Town of Vail, and erected and maintained prior to the enactment of this Title and any amendments thereto, but that fails to conform to all applicable regulations and restrictions of this Title. OFF-PREMISES SIGN Any sign that relates to or advertises products, services, or uses, or directs persons to a different premise than that upon which the sign is located. OPEN/CLOSED SIGN A type of window sign that may be two- sided and displays the words "open" or "closed" on one or both sides of the sign. OPEN HOUSE SIGN A temporary sign advertising areal- estate showing. PERSON For the purposes of this Title, any individual, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company, or organization of any kind. POLITICAL SIGN A temporary sign that announces, promotes, or draws attention to any candidate(s) seeking public office in an election; also any sign announcing political issues. PORTABLE SIGN A sign that is not attached to the ground, a building, or a structure: this does not include avehicle-mounted sign as defined in this Title. PREMISE Land and the buildings that are owned or rented thereupon. PROJECTING SIGN A sign that is attached to a building, extending horizontally beyond the surface of the building to which it is attached. PUBLIC ENTRANCE An entrance to a building or business that is customarily used or intended for use by the general public. Fire exits, employee entrances, loading dock entrances not generally used by the public, French doors that open onto a patio but are not used as a primary entrance, and other similar entrances shall not be considered public entrances. A double door shall be counted as one public entrance. 6 PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN An informational sign that relays directions to the .public regarding resources, restrooms, or any other similar public amenity. QUANTITY The number of signs allowed a business or building. REFLECTIVE SURFACE Any material or device that has the effect of intensifying reflected light, such as Scotchlite®, Day-glo®, glass and luminous paint: when pertaining to signage, prohibited in the Town of Vail. RESIDENTIAL NAMEPLATE SIGN A sign erected for the sole purpose of identifying the inhabitant(s) residing therein, and/or the house name or address, that shall not contain advertising of any kind. SIGN A surface or space as identified in these guidelines, whether continuous or not, that identifies a business, building, or any related products and services by means of letters, numbers, figures, or other symbols, devices, or representations. SIGN DISTRICT Any one of three areas designated by the Town of Vail in Title 11: Sign Regulations, each of which is subject to different standards. SIGN POSTS AND POLES Any vertical upright(s) that support a freestanding sign, that are not attached to or braced by any other structure. SIGN PROGRAM A master plan designed to show the number and relationship of signs for any building or cluster of buildings that houses multiple tenants and is therefore allowed multiple signs. SIGN STRUCTURE The supports, uprights, braces, hanging devices, and framework of a sign. SITE The property that .provides a location for and justifies the area of a sign. SIZE (see Area, Sign) STAFF A member or members of the Town of Vail Community Development Department, appointed by the Town Manager and designated to administer and enforce the guidelines outlined in Title 11: Sign Regulations. STAINED GLASS Multi-colored pieces of translucent material held together by foil or lead canes. with various joints soldered together. SUBDIVISION ENTRANCE SIGN A sign that identifies a subdivision or condominium complex or group of apartment buildings having at least one hundred lineal feet of frontage along a vehicular or pedestrian way. TEMPORARY SIGN A sign that is intended for a definite and limited period of display that is not permanently affixed to a structure or sign structure. TEMPORARY SITE-DEVELOPMENT SIGN A sign permitted to identify a project under construction and the associated hazardous conditions that may include the project name and address; a temporary site-development sign may not include the name of the general contractor, architect, real estate agent, or other persons inherently associated with the development. 7 TEXT Words and/or numbers, when used on a sign (as defined in this title) for the purpose of identifying or advertising a business or location. Corporately- registered trademarks shall count as text, regardless of their size, location, or any other variables. TRAFFIC-CONTROL SIGN (for private property) A sign permitted by the Town of Vail to identify private parking areas and to direct the flow of traffic on private property. VEHICLE SIGN Any temporary sign, logo, or advertisement that is placed, painted attached, or displayed on a vehicle. WALL SIGN A sign that is attached to, painted onto, or erected upon the wall of a building or structure, with the exposed face of the sign in a plane parallel to the face of the wall. WINDOW SIGN A sign installed upon or within three feet of a window, that is visible from the nearest pedestrian or vehicular way and is used for the purpose of display or advertising: this term does not include merchandise displays. YARD SALE SIGN (also known as a garage sale sign) A temporary sign that announces a garage sale, open house, or similar event. ZONE A zoning district as described in Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code (e.g., ABD or CC3). A "zone" is not the equivalent of a sign "district'; as described in this Title. 8 CHAPTER3 ADMINISTRATION SECTION: 11-3-1: Administration 11-3-2: Liability 11-3-1: ADMINISTRATION A. ADMINISTRATOR 1. Appointment The Town Manager shall appoint an Administrator, who shall administer and enforce this Title. This position .may be combined with another position in the Town of Vail. 2. Responsibilities The Administrator/Staff shall be responsible for the duties prescribed in this Title, which entail the enforcement of the sign regulations. 3. Enforcement The Administrator/Staff may serve notice of violation and carry out removal of any sign in violation of this Title. The Administrator/Staff may call upon the Town Attorney to institute necessary legal proceedings and the Chief of Police and/or authorized agents to assist in the enforcement of this Title. B. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1. Appointment The Design Review Board shall be appointed according to Title 4, Chapter 3 of the Vail Town Code. 2. Responsibilities The Design Review Board shall be responsible for the duties prescribed in this Title, which entail the review of sign applications. C. AMENDMENTS The regulations prescribed in this Title may be amended or repealed according to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, of the Vail Town Code. 11-3-2: LIABILITY The provisions of this Title shall not limit the liability of any person who erects or owns any sign from personal injury or property damage resulting from the placing of a sign, or resulting from the negligence or willful acts of such person or his/her agents, employees or workers, in the construction, maintenance, repair, or removal of any sign erected in accordance with a permit issued under the provisions of this Title. The provisions of this Title shall not impose upon the Town of Vail, its officers, employees, or the Design Review Board, any responsibility or liability by reason of the approval of any sign. 10 CHAPTER 4 SIGN APPLICATION PROCEDURES SECTION: 11-4-1: Submittal Requirements 11-4-2: Sign Application Review 11-4-1: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Staff Review: The Community Any sign erected within the Town of Vail Development Department of the shall be regulated by this Title and is subject Town of Vail shall accept for review to design review by the Staff and/or Design the properly completed sign Review Board of the Town of Vail. The application. following application requirements must be met for any sign that is to be erected within a. If the Staff determines that the the Town of Vail. sign application unquestionably meets the standards of this Title, A. SIGN APPLICATION: including the Design Guidelines A sign application for the erection of and Standards as they are an individual sign consists of an stated in Chapter 5 and the "Application for Design Review" technical requirements as they which must be obtained from the are stated in Chapter 6, Staff Town of Vail's Community shall then approve the Development Department, properly application. All applications completed per the instructions, and approved by the Staff shall be returned with the appropriate listed on the next publicly-posted materials to the Staff in order to agenda of the Design Review begin the two-phase review process Board. listed in Section 11-4-2 of this Chapter. b. If the Staff determines that the sign application meets the B. APPLICATION FEE: standards of this Title, but does A reasonable application filing fee not unquestionably meet the shall be set by the Vail Town Council Design Guidelines and to include the cost of the Town of Standards as they are stated in Vail administration time and other Chapter 5 and the technical expenses involved in the review of requirements as they are stated the application. The fee shall be in Chapter 6, Staff will schedule paid at the time that the application the application for review by the is submitted and shall not be Design Review Board at their refundable. next hearing, held the first and third Wednesdays of each 11-4-2: SIGN APPLICATION REVIEW month. A. CRITERIA FOR DECISION: c. If the Staff determines that the Each sign application is subject to sign application does not meet the following two levels of review: the standards outlined in this Staff review and Design Review Title, including the Design Board (DRB) review. Guidelines and Standards as they are stated in Chapter 5 and 11 the technical requirements of this Title as they are stated in Chapter 6, Staff shall deny the application. Upon denial of the application based on lack of compliance with any part of this Title, the applicant will be notified of the denial in writing and may submit a new application to the Staff, file an appeal of the Staff decision to the Design Review Board, or file an application for a variance in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title, Variances and Appeals. 2. Design Review Board review: The Design Review Board will review all sign applications scheduled on their agenda by Staff, in the required presence of the applicant or such applicant's representative, to ascertain the proposal's conformance with the Design Guidelines and Standards as listed in Chapter 5 and the technical requirements as listed in Chapter 6 of this Title. a. Upon determination of compliance with the Design Guidelines and Standards listed in Chapter 5 and the technical requirements as listed in Chapter 6 of this Title, the Design Review Board will approve, or approve with conditions, the applicant's sign proposal. The applicant will be notified in writing of the approval and any conditions placed on the approval, and may then erect the sign according to the approved application. b. Upon Design Review Board denial of the application based on the Design Guidelines and Standards listed in Chapter 5 and/or the technical requirements listed in Chapter 6 of this Title, the applicant will be notified in writing of the reasons for denial and may submit a new application to Staff according to the recommendations from the Design Review Board. The applicant may file an appeal to the Town Council if he/she chooses not to submit a new application to Staff (see chapter 10 of this Title, Variances and Appeals). 12 CHAPTER 5 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS SECTION: 11-5-1: Purpose 11-5-2: Design Guidelines 11-5-3: Design Standards 11-5-1: PURPOSE The Design Guidelines and Standards exist to provide direction for signs within the Town of Vail that enhance local streetscapes and provide aesthetic consistency with both the built and natural environment. The guidelines and standards are intended to encourage expression and creativity. The Design Guidelines make use of the word "should", to allow for subjectivity and creativity, whereas the Design Standards make use of the word "shall", signifying strict interpretation and enoforcement. 11-5-2: DESIGN GUIDELINES Any sign erected within the Town of Vail should: A. Be consistent with the scale and architecture already present in the Town: sign location, configuration, design, and size should be aesthetically harmonious with the mountain setting and the alpine village atmosphere of the Town. B. Be compatible with the placement of surrounding signs: similar signs should not be placed within close proximity of each other, but should instead incorporate variety and visual interest within the "view corridor" that they are placed. The Staff shall review all proposed signs in the context of adjacent signage to verify that the sign is appropriately-placed. C. Be composed of predominately natural materials which may include, but are not limited to: painted, stained, solid, or carved wood; brick; stone; wrought iron or metals such as copper or brass that have been treated to prevent reflective glare; non-reflective glass and stained glass; other naturally-textured building materials. Plastic and other synthetic materials that are not naturally-textured, such as sign foam, vinyl or Plexiglass® are discouraged. D. Use natural colors: earth tones: full spectrum of soil, clay, and metallic colors; neutrals: off-whites to deep browns and blacks; Bright colors should be used only as accents. 13 Attractive wooden sign E. Use creative graphics and lettering: the creative use of depth, relief, shading, and other pleasing textural qualities is generally encouraged. The guidelines that apply to general sign colors likewise apply to graphics and lettering. 1=. Be surrounded by landscaping: landscaping, when appropriate, should be designed in harmony with surrounding natural landforms and native plants (xeriscaping). l t~~Yk ~ V i x ~h~ J ~1F~, %7 i '-'tom 112.. 1r tW. ~ ~l+}S\, ', r r ti 1~ l L Y ' rr~ , ,% , ~ ' } ~ t ~. >~ f ~„ z n .` G I s ~.k~ f ~} ~t ti ~'2 ~ F °t ~~ 1 ~ ~ `;'; ~} ~ 4'~ ~ 4'A '~ kid` ~,~ s;. H }~ ~}~~~ ~}s, ,ru ' ~ '~ .Hx ~ ~ , I t (.f ~ f iii f ^F T ~ r ~ w.. ~~ Natural landscaping G. Use inconspicuous lighting: lighting should be integrated into the overall design of the sign, both in color and placement, and should be of no greater illumination than is necessary to make the sign visible at night. Recessed and indirect light sources are encouraged. . ~,,.,~K f~ ~ ,~, ~ ~ ~~ _ ,1~~+4i pt ~ M .i +p .a^„~ ~ 4 ~a "c~ r[ ~ c : ° f i,E~ s ~; A ~ , E(4`I 3; i s.R # 1 ~ c 'i} ~+~(' ~KH ~ - ~ t ~L .1.....~I~ 1 Inconspicuous light fixture 11-5-3: DESIGN STANDARDS Any sign erected within the Town of Vail shall conform to the following standards: A. Compatibility: signs shall be visually compatible with the size of surrounding. structures and other signage and shall not visually dominate the structure or business to which they belong. The Staff shall review all proposed signs in the context of adjacent signage to verify that the sign is appropriately-sized. ,~ ,~ ,_. ~" °~ ~ ~ ~. r z [ I ~ i ~ ~. K _ y a,. 2 ; ~' . ~~ ~~~ ~~ ., i 1 i; ~i t3 F '''tl!'! ~ ~ t ~~^ ~.: Appropriate sign size B. Colors: fluorescent, Day-glo® and neon colors are prohibited. 14 E Both of these signs portray the creative use of graphics C. Reflective surfaces: sign surfaces that reflect light are prohibited and shall instead be comprised of matte or flat finishes. D. Lighting fixtures: lighting shall be white in color. Lights shall not shine or reflect onto adjacent properties. Internal illumination and fluorescent/neon light sources are prohibited. All lighting shall be subject to design review. E. Sign maintenance: all signs, including their support structures or fixtures related thereto, shall be kept in good repair; this includes replacement of lighting, re- painting when appropriate, and other actions that contribute to attractive signage. The display surfaces and hard- ware of all signs shall be properly painted, finished, or posted at all times.The glass surfaces on which window signs are affixed shall be well-maintained. Attractive and well-maintained support system F. Eectrical wiring: electrical wiring shall be concealed. In addition, all signs that contain electrical wiring shall be subject to the provisions of the adopted electrical code of the Town and the electrical components shall bear the label of an approved testing agency. G. Wind pressure and dead load requirements: any sign, as defined throughout this Title, -shall be designed to withstand wind pressures and shall support dead loads as required at the time of construction in the most recent building code (IBC), as adopted by the Town of Vail and determined by the Chief Building Official H. Moving parts: signs that have, or appear to have, moving parts (aside from natural wind-induced movement) are prohibited. I. Placement on public property: signs shall be constructed on private property outside of the Town right-of-way and shall not project onto the Town right-of-way except when permitted under a licensing agreement or a revocable right-of-way permit issued from the Town of Vail. J. Sign inspection: each sign for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the Staff. 15 CHAPTER 6 BUSINESS & BUILDING IDENTIFICATION SIGNS SECTION: 11-6-1: Purpose and Description 11-6-2: Sign Districts 11-6-3: Business Signs 11-6-4: Building Identification Signs 11-6-1: PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION Business & Building Identification signs are meant to identify and inform through the display of the business and/or building name and any graphic symbols or language perti- nent to the- advertised enterprise. The follow- ing chapter covers all of the technical infor- mation related to Business and Building Identification Signs. All Business and Build- ing Identification Signs shall comply to the standards outlined in this chapter and shall be subject to design review. 11-6-2: SIGN DISTRICTS Sign District 1 (SD 1): All of Vail except for property zoned ABD and CC3 Sign District 2 (SD 2): All property zoned ABD and CC3 (West Vail and Cascade Crossing) Sign District 3 (SD 3): West Vail Interchange (CDOT right-of-way) 11-6-3: BUSINESS SIGNS Business Signs are those that display the name of the business and include any graph- ics or language that represent the business. z k '~ ~ ~"~ ~ k~., ~ r r r :~° ~ ~~ ~^ e .- t!_ .. w.- ~~ ~ '~ ~~ ~IN~.r w(.~ ~ 1 ~+ k ~ 1N r~ry ~~ ~3y~ ~ -, ~ ~ K 1. Sign District 1 (SD 1): Number, area, height, and special provisions of Business Signs a. Projecting/Hanging and Wall Signs ~ T. --__. ~.. .._.._ i ~,~~ _ ;-tb~ ~ r F.1~6~u~f~oa _TpUCN - ~~~ _ _ Attractive projecting/hanging sign Number -one sign per public entrance. Area -the allowable sign area of each allowed projecting/hanging and wall sign shall be up to six square feet and shall be measured according to the total area of the text (see Section 11-2, De>nitions), as described in Figure 1. Height -projecting/hanging signs shall have a minimum clearance of eight feet above pedestrian ways and a minimum clearance of 15 feet above vehicular ways. No part of any projecting/hanging or wall sign shall extend more than 25 feet above existing grade. Special provisions - an awning may substitute for one of the projecting/ hanging signs allowed a business, and is subject to the same requirements as all other projecting/hanging sings in SD 1. The size of the signage conveyed on the awning will be calculated according to the total area of the text (see Section 11-2, Definitions), as described in Figure 1. Business Sign 16 Figure 1 c. Sale Signs ~ ~ : < x~ ~ ~. fix. fiL i"~3 ~pun{ ' 3 } tf7, a 4~'kv~ `, ~~~ ~~ Si' ~ a'.~ ~K~ ~ . .~ x ~` l ` k .j t 1 3 j ~ _ M ~P Attractive sale signage 18" x 6" area of thick rectangle (108") (.75 square feet) 12" x 6" area of thin rectangle (72") (.5 square feet) 180" (1.25 square feet) b. Menu Boxes (also known as Display Boards, Display Boxes, or Special Boards Menu box displaying daily restaurant specials Number -one display box or special board per business. Area - the combined area shall not exceed six square feet (6 sq. ft. ). Height -the height of the highest part of the board or display box shall not extend more than six feet from existing grade. Special provisions -allowed at restaurants, real estate businesses, and movie theaters only: for the exclusive display of materials associated with such businesses. Number -one window sign per business placed inside OR one sign per business placed outside on a display rack only. Area -the area of the allowed sale sign shall not exceed 1.5 square feet. Height -the top of any sale sign shall not extend more than 10 feet above existing grade. Special provisions - if located outside, the sale sign shall be placed on a display rack only. Sale sign permits authorizing sale signs of up to seven square feet maybe obtained by completing an application from the Community Development Department. Sale sign permits authorize the use of larger sale signs between the dates of April 1st and December 1 sf for two periods of up to 15 days each. d. Window Si ns 17 Attractive window signage (window signs, cont.) Number -not regulated as long as area requirements are met. Area -the area of any window sign shall not exceed 15% of the area of the window in which it is placed, with a maximum size of six square feet (6 sq. ft. ). Mullions that are more than 12" wide shall be considered window separators, thereby signifying a separate "window area" . Height -the top of any window sign shall not extend more than 25 feet above existing grade. Special provisions -signs placed inside of a business, within three feet of a window and visible from the outside, shall be counted toward total window sign quantity and area. e. Business Operation Signs f. Open/Closed signs «, } ~ '{ f wy...."~..~""' # - ~~ ~`~~' ~~ ~` I ~: ~ ~ ~ - A discreet, two-sided open/closed sign Number -one sign per public entrance of a business. Area -each sign may contain up to 1.5 square feet of window signage only (for each public entrance). Height - the top of any business operation sign shall not exceed five feet from the floorplate of the business. Special provisions/purpose -business operation signs shall be allowed only at the public entrance of a business. Business operation signs are intended to provide information such as affiliations, hours of operation, and accepted credit cards or forms of payment. 18 Number -one sign per public entrance of a business. Area - each open/closed sign may con- tain up to 1.5 square feet of window signage only (per public entrance). Height -the top of any open/closed sign shall not exceed five feet from the floorplate of the business. Special provisions- the one open/closed sign allowed per public entrance may be two-sided for convenience. The area shall be calculated according to one side only. . Second-floor spaces, below-grade spaces, and spaces lacking frontage Second-floor businesses are subject to the same sign standards, zoning regulations, and property owner approval as all other business signs within Sign District 1. Businesses that are below-grade or are without a frontage shall be allowed one projecting/hanging or wall sign with a maximum of four square feet (4 sq. ft.). Business operation sign including hours of operation and accepted forms of payment 2. Sign District 2 (SD 2): Number, area, height, and special provisions of Business Signs a. Wall and Projecting/Hanging Signs Number - one per business frontage on a major pedestrian or vehicular way with a maximum of three per business. Area -the combined allowable sign area of projecting/hanging and wall signs shall be based on total lineal frontage as described in Section 11-6-3-3, Allowable Sign Area for Business Signs. Height -projecting/hanging signs shall have a minimum clearance of eight feet above pedestrian ways and a minimum clearance of 15 feet above vehicular ways. No part of a projecting/hanging or wall sign shall extend over 25 feet above existing grade. Special provisions - an awning may substitute for one of the three projecting/ hanging and wall signs allowed a business and shall be measured according to the total text area on the awning (as in Figure 2). Figure 2 18"x6" area of thick rectangle (108") (.75 square feet) 12"x6" area of thin rectangle (72") (.5 square feet) 180" (1.25 square feet) b. Menu Boxes (also known as Display Boards, Display Boxes, or Special Boards) Number -one display box or special board per business. Area - the combined area may not exceed six square feet (6 sq. ft. ). Height -the height of the highest part of the board or display box shall not extend more than six feet from existing grade. Special provisions -allowed at restaurants, real estate businesses and movie theaters only. c. Sale Signs Number -one window sign per business placed inside OR one sign per business placed outside on a display rack only. Area -shall not exceed 1.5 square feet. Height -the top of any sale sign shall not extend more than 25 feet above existing grade. Special provisions - if located outside, shall be placed on a display rack only. d. Window Signs Number- not regulated as long as area requirements are met. Area - the area of any window sign shall not exceed 15% of the area of the window in which it is placed, with a maximum size of six square feet (6 sq. ft.). Mullions that are more than 12" wide shall be considered window separators, thereby signifying a separate "window area" . Height -the top of any window sign shall not extend more than 25 feet above existing grade. Special provisions -Signs placed inside of a business, within three feet of a window and visible from the outside, shall be counted toward total window sign quantity and area. e. Business Operation Signs Number -one sign per public entrance of a business. Area -each sign may contain up to two square feet of window signage only. Height - the top of any business operation sign may not exceed five feet from the floorplate of the business. Special provisions -business operation signs shall be allowed only at the public entrance of a business. Business operation signs are intended to provide information such as affiliations, hours of operation, and accepted credit cards or forms of payment. f. Open/Closed signs Number -one sign per public entrance of a business. Area - each sign may contain up to 1.5 square feet of window signage only (per public entrance). Height -the top of any open/closed sign shall not exceed five feet from the floorplate of the business. Special provisions- the one open/closed sign allowed per public entrance may be two-sided for convenience. The area shall be calculated according to one side only. g. Second-floor spaces, below-grade spaces, and spaces lacking frontage Second-floor businesses with a frontage. are subject to the same sign standards, zoning regulations,-and property owner approval as all other business signs within Sign District 2. Businesses that are below-grade or are without a frontage shall be allowed one sign with a maximum of four square feet (4 sq. ft. ). 3. Sign District 2 (SD 2) Total allowable sign area for Business Signs The allowable sign area of any Business Sign in Sign District 2 shall be based upon the length of the linear frontage(s) of the space occupied by the business, as detailed in the following table; please note that "total sign area" includes the combined sign area of the total number of business signs (projecting/ hanging and wall signs) of any one business but does not include sale signs, open/closed signs, window signs, menu boxes, or business operation signs. Business Frontage Total Sign Area 0' -12.99' 10 sq. ft. 13' - 24.99' 14 sq. ft. 25' - 49.99' 20 sq. ft. 50' - 74.99' 30 sq. ft. 75' - 99.99' 40 sq. ft. 100' + 50 sq. ft. Business Sign area in Sign District 2 shall be calculated by adding the combined area of two imaginary rectangles placed over the form of the text only, as depicted in Figure 3. Curvilinear, circular, organic, and other unique shapes are encouraged and the text shall be measured in the same manner, as shown. Figure 3 18" x 6" area of thick rectangle (108") (.75 square feet) 12"x6" area of thin rectangle (72") (.5 square feet) 180" (1.25 square feet) 20 g. Second-floor and below-grade spaces Second-floor businesses shall be subject to the same lineal sign regulations, frontage standards, zoning regulations, and property owner approval as all other signs within Sign District 2. Businesses that are below-grade or are without a frontage (see Section 11-2, Definitions) shall be allowed one projecting/ hanging or wall sign with a maximum of four square feet (4 sq. ft.). 4. Sign District 2 (SD 2): measuring business frontage Figure 4 _._ _ .. _ ` , ~°` _. ~~ta~ , - ~ ~- ~~ J ~ ~i5t NHS _..-~ ~~ ~~` F !~ ~~ c~ .l-.1N ciTL ~G?~i~r~ ~ ~~--- for Business Signs Figure 4 illustrates how to measure the frontage of a business. Note: In order to be considered a frontage, that side of a building or business shall have a major public entrance that opens onto a major vehicular or pedestrian way. Figure 4 contains three separate businesses, each sharing portions of a frontage with one or more other businesses. Business A has one frontage upon which signs may be placed, frontage A, which is defined as a frontage because it parallels a major pedestrian/vehicular way and contains a public entrance. Business B also has only one frontage (B) upon which a sign may be placed. Though the other side of the business parallels a major pedestrian/vehicular way, only the side with an entrance may be considered a frontage. Business C has one frontage (C) upon which a sign may be placed. All three businesses share portions of frontage D, which parallels a major pedestrian/vehicular way. Lengths A, B, and C each contain an entrance, which qualifies them as frontages. 5. Sign District 3 (SD 3): Business Signs All Signs in Sign District 3 (SD 3) exist under the authority of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and are not regulated by the requirements set forth in Chapter 6 of this Title. 21 11-6-4:BUILDING IDENTIFICATION SIGNS Description: A Building Sign indicates the name of a building, which, in some cases, (such as a hotel or lodge) may be the same as the primary business and building owner. All Building Signs shall comply with the regulations listed herein and shall also be subject to review by the Design Review Board, which reviews signage based on the criteria in Chapter 5 of this Title. The total area allowed for Building ~ient~aticn si~nage inc3ides the total text and graphics of the total number of its building signs (see Figure 3, previously) and varies with each building frontage (see following tables). 1. Sign District 1 (SD 1): Allowable Build- ing Identification Sign area The linear frontage of a building shall be measured in the same manner as that of a business, except that frontages shall not be delineated by inner divisions between tenant spaces. Building Identification Signs, unlike Business Signs, shall be allowed on building frontages without entrances, as long as that frontage parallels a major pedestrian or vehicular way. Bldg. Frontage Allowed Total Sign Area 10' - 49.99' 20sq ft 50' - 74.99' 30sq ft 75' - 99.99' 40sq ft 100' -149.99' 50sq ft 150' -199.99' 50sq ft 200'+ 60sq ft 2. Sign District 2 (SD 2): Allowable Build- ing Identification Sign area The linear frontage of a building shall be measured in the same manner as that of a business, except that frontages shall not be delineated by inner divisions between tenant spaces. Building Identification signs, unlike Business Signs, shall be allowed on building frontages without entrances, as long as that frontage parallels a major pedestrian or vehicular way. Bldg. Frontage Allowed Total Sign Area 10' - 49.99' 20sq ft 50' - 74.99' 30sq ft 75' - 99.99' 40sq ft 100' - 149.99' 50sq ft 150' - 199.99' 50sq ft 200' - 249.99' 60sq ft 250' - 299.99' 60sq ft 300' - 399.99' 70sq ft 400+ 80sq ft 22 A Building Identification Sign using text only 3. Sign Districts 1 and 2: Types of Build- ing Identification Signs a. Freestanding Signs b. Wall-mounted Signs L~"x S4~ ~f~y:.~ z o F 3 .nom jY~~ t ~ »i.. '! j ~i ~' ~ I~' .. ® ~ ~,~~' ~. ' , s.. :' ~ ~ A ; i„~ a ~ T""^"'" 4~ r ~ ~~ ~'. ~~ Wall -mounted building identification sign Number-one freestanding sign per building frontage on a major pedestrian or vehicular way, with a maximum of two freestanding signs per building. Area -.freestanding Building Identification Signs shall be subject to the total sign area requirements of the Building Frontage charts listed previously. Height - no part of a freestanding Building Identification Sign shall be higher than eight feet above existing grade. Special provisions -Free-standing signs shall be placed on two separate building facades facing pedestrian and vehicular ways and shall be subject to design review. A joint directory sign, though a type of freestanding sign, shall not count toward the total quantity of freestanding signs allowed. Number -one sign per building frontage on a major pedestrian or vehicular way. A maximum of two wall-mounted Build- ing Identification signs shall be allowed if a building has two frontages as defined in these regulations. Area -wall-mounted Building Identifica- tion signs shall be subject to the total sign area requirements of the Building Frontage charts listed previously. Height - no part of awall-mounted building identification sign shall be higher than 25 feet above existing grade. Special provisions - if using two signs, signs shall be placed on two separate frontages: subject to design review. 23 Free-standing Building Identification Sign c. Joint Directory Signs Number- one joint directory sign per building unless the building has more than one frontage (see Chapter 2, Definitions) with a combined linear frontage that ex- ceeds 150 feet, in which case that building shall be entitled to two joint directory signs. No Building Identification Sign, other than a joint directory sign, shall be allowed for the side of a building that houses a joint direc- tory sign. Area -each joint directory sign may contain signage of up to one square foot per busi- ness tenant in a building, and up to three square feet for the name of the building, placed atop the joint directory sign. Height - no part of a joint directory sign shall be higher than eight feet above existing grade. Special Provisions - a joint directory sign, though a type of freestanding sign, shall not count toward the total quantity of free- standing signs allowed. All joint directory signs shall be kept current according to business turnover. 4. Sign District 3 (SD 3): Types of Building Identification signs All Signs in Sign District 3 (SD 3) exist under the authority of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and shall not be regulated by the requirements set forth in Chapter 6 of this Title. 24 Joint Directory Building Identification Sign CHAPTER 7 OTHER SIGNS 11-7-1: Flags, Pennants, Banners, and Bunting 11-7-2: Private No-Parking Signs 11-7-3: Public Information Signs 11-7-4: Residential Nameplate Signs 11-7-5:Subdivision Entrance Signs 11-7-6: Temporary Site-Deve{opment Signs 11-7-7:Traffic-Control Signs for Private Property 11-7-8: Entertainment Signs 11-7-9:Garage and Yard Safe Signs 11-7-10: Open House Signs 11-7-11: Balloons 11-7-12: Vehicular Signs a. Granting of a special events permit that involves signage sha{I be preceded by staff review. b. .Removal: in the event that pennants, banners, or bunting are not removed by the owner on the date specified on the special events .permit, written notice will be sent by certified mail to the owner and the item(s) will be removed by the Town of Vail at the owner's expense. 11-7-1: FLAGS, PENNANTS, BANNERS, AND BUNTING Description: flags, pennants, banners, and bunting shall be subject to design review and placed appropriately within the Town in order to add color and vitality to the Town of Vail. Clearance: flags, pennants, banners, and bunting shall have a minimum clearance of eight feet when projecting over public walkways and a minimum clearance of 15 feet when projecting over vehicular streets 2. Special Events: banners, pennants, bunting, or decorations of a temporary nature used for the purpose of promoting community activities or the sponsors thereof shall be exempt from the application procedure described in this Title and shall instead be subject to the requirements associated with acquiring a special events permit from the Town of Vail. 3. Pennants, banners, and bunting that are not associated with community events or activities but are for the purpose of advertising a business or product only are not allowed. 11-7-2: PRIVATE NO-PARKING SIGNS Size: Private No-Parking signs shall not exceed two square feet in size and shall be composed of natural colors according to Section 11-5-1-E, Design Guidelines and Standards. Private No Parking signs shall read as follows: PRIVATE PARKING UNAUTHORIZED VEHICLES WILL BE TOWED BY OWNER 11-7-3: PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGNS Description: all public information signs shall be subject to design review and include any display board or kiosk with the intended use of locating posters, handouts, and cards identifying community activities, special events, and personal information. All display 25 boards and kiosks shall be constructed, erected, and maintained by the Town of Vail or with the permission thereof. 11-7-4: RESIDENTIAL NAMEPLATE SIGNS Description: a residential nameplate sign identifies a house by displaying the family name and/or the home name and the address. 1. Size: size shall not exceed one- directory nameplate signs shall be kept current. 11-7-5: SUBDIVISION ENTRANCE SIGNS Description: a subdivision entrance sign identifies the entrance to a major subdivision, condominium complex, or group of apartment buildings that have at least 100 linear feet of frontage along a vehicular pedestrian-way. half square foot per single family 1. Size: combined size of all faces or duplex structure or one-half of a multi-sided sign may not square foot for each multi-family exceed 20 square feet. unit. 2. Height: no part of the sign shall 2. Height: no part of the sign shall extend more than eight feet from extend above eight feet from existing grade. existing grade. 3. Number: limited to a maximum 3. Number: one sign for each of one sign per major entry dwelling unit. providing access to a subdivision. Final decision as to 4. Location: subject to design the determination of a major review. entry shall be at the discretion of the Staff, subject to design 5. Design: wall-mounted or review. projecting/hanging, subject to design review. A freestanding 4. Design: subject to design sign may be used for asingle- review. family or duplex dwelling structure. 5. Lighting: indirect or pan- channeled. 6. Lighting: indirect. 6. Landscaping: subject to design 7. Landscaping: subject to design review review. 11-7-6: TEMPORARY SITE- 8. Special Provisions: DEVELOPMENT SIGNS nameplate signs in HDMF, Description: a Temporary Site- LDMF, MDMF zones shall be Development Sign includes any sign restricted to one wall-mounted that indicates or identifies development sign per living unit in structures of real property under construction. having two or more living units. Further, such structures may 1. Size: any site development sign have one exterior wall-mounted shall not exceed 20 square feet, nameplate directory, provided with a horizontal dimension no that the individual nameplates of greater than 10 feet. the directory are of a standard design and size. All joinf 26 2. Height: the top of a sign shall be 3. Number: subject to design no higher than eight feet from review. grade. 4. Location: location shall be 3. Number: one sign per site. subject to design review, with approval from the Town 4. Location: awall-mounted sign Engineer for any sign placed shall be placed parallel to the adjacent to a public street or exterior wall adjacent to the way. street or major pedestrian-way which the building abuts and 5. Design: subject to design shall be subject to design review. review. 5. Design: subject to design 6. Lighting: subject to design review. review. 6. Lighting: not permitted. 7. Landscaping: subject to design review. 7. Special Provisions: Temporary Site-Development Signs shall be removed at the time of issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. 8. Special provisions: a. may be either freestanding or wall-mounted, with same size requirements. 11-7-7: TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY Description: a Traffic Control Sign shall be placed in order to relieve vehicular and pedestrian traffic congestion and promote the safe and expedient flow and parking of traffic on private property Size: all vehicular traffic-control signs shall not exceed one square foot except for multi- purpose signs which shall not exceed four square feet and except for private parking signs which shall not exceed two square feet. All pedestrian traffic-control signs shall not exceed one square foot, except multi-purpose signs, which shall not exceed four square feet, subject to design review. 2. Height: no part of the sign shall extend above six feet from existing grade. b. No sign shall contain any advertising, but may identify the owner by name. 11-7-8: ENTERTAINMENT SIGNS Theatres and movie/media rental business will be allowed three poster images in the front window at any one time. 11-7-9: GARAGE AND YARD SALE SIGNS Garage Sale and Yard Sale Signs temporarily erected on residential property are subject to the following: a. Type: Garage and Yard Sale Signs may be freestanding or wall signs. b. Quantity: there shall be a maximum of one (1) sign upon the advertised property and one directional sign off-site. 27 c. Area: the maximum area of any single sign shall not exceed one and one-half (1'/2) square feet. d. Height: the height of the sign shall not exceed five feet from the grade at the base of the sign. e. The allowed signs shall only be displayed within twenty-four hours prior to the start of the sale and during the period of time that the garage or yard sale is in progress. 11-7-10: OPEN HOUSE SIGNS Open House Signs advertising an open house or a showing of the property upon which the sign is located will be subject to the following: a. Type: the sign may be freestanding or a wall sign. b. Quantity: there shall be a maximum of one sign on the property where the open house is being conducted and one directional sign off-site. c. Area: the maximum sign area of any single sign shall not exceed one and one-half (1'/z ) square feet. d. Height: the height of the sign shall not exceed five feet as measured from the grade at the base of the sign. e. The temporary sign shall be displayed only during the open house presentation or three days, whichever period of time is shorter. 11-7-11: BALLOONS All balloons, regardless of their size, shall be subject to a special events permit. 11-7-12: VEHICULAR SIGNAGE Any vehicles displaying the name of the business associated with said vehicle shall be used on a regular basis for service and delivery or other vehicular needs related to that business activity. Vehicular signs shall not be used for the sole purpose of advertising a business, as determined by the Administrator. 28 CHAPTER 8 SIGN PROGRAMS SECTION: 11-8-1: Sign Program Description 11-8-2: Criteria 11-8-3: Sign Program Review 11-8-1: DESCRIPTION: The purpose of the sign program is to encourage a comprehensive approach to the design, size, number, shape, color, and placement of all signs pertaining to a particular development or building containing a business or group of businesses. A sign program shall convey an organized, innovative, and unique approach to multiple signs. 11-8-2: CRITERIA: Sign programs shall be required for all new or demolished/rebuilt multi- family residential projects and for new or demolished/rebuilt commercial projects. Sign programs may be required for other significant new developments (e.g., subdivisions, ski base facilities) or for redevelopment projects at the discretion of the Staff. Existing multi-tenant commercial buildings shall be required to submit a sign program when applying for new signage. Sign programs shall be subject to the provisions, standards, and guidelines listed in this Title. 11-8-3: SIGN PROGRAM REVIEW: All sign programs shall be subject to the design review process detailed in Chapter 4, Sign Application Procedures of this Title. 29 CHAPTER 9 EXEMPT, PROHIBITED, AND NON-CONFORMING SIGNS SECTION: 11-9-1: Exempt Signs 11-9-2: Prohibited Signs 11-9-3: Nonconforming Signs 11-9-1: EXEMPT SIGNS The following signs are exempt from the requirements of this code, but remain subject to the Design Standards and Guidelines listed in Section 11-5-1 and the maintenance requirements listed in Section 11-11-3 of this Title: Memorial signs, dedication plaques, or tablets; 2. Notices posted by governmental officers in the performance of their official duties; 7. Signage and decorations related and subject to a Special Event permit through the Town of Vail; 8. The inscription of names (or dates) of buildings, when etched into masonry in one location on any business or premise, and in conformity with Chapter 6, Business and Building Identification Signs. Each letter of an inscription may not exceed two inches (2") in height and the total engraved area may not occupy more than three square feet of the surface of the building; 3. Government signs, including directional signs, to control traffic or for other regulatory purposes; 4. Works of "fine art", including murals, which do not advertise a product or business and which have been approved by the Town of Vail's Art in Public Places Board (AIPP); 5. Temporary decorations or displays, when they are commonly associated with any national, local or religious holiday: however, such holiday decorations shall be removed once their condition has deteriorated such that they are no longer attractive; 6. Temporary or permanent signs erected by public utility companies or construction companies to warn of dangerous or hazardous conditions; 9. Signs in the I-70 right-of-way, which are regulated by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT); and 10. All political signs, as defined in Chapter 2 of this Title. 11-9-2: PROHIBITED SIGNS The following signs are prohibited within the Town of Vail: Animated signs that incorporate the use of movement (aside from natural wind-induced movement) through revolving, rotating, or otherwise moving parts; 2. Signs with the illusion of movement or changeable copy; 3. Signs (or the illumination thereof), that flash, pulse, move, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, or vary in intensity and/or color; 30 annexed territory, shall be 4. Signs that incorporate projected designated as non-conforming. images, emit any sound which is intended to attract attention, or involve the use of live animals; 2. CONTINUATION OF A NON- CONFORMING SIGN 5. Any sign advertising a business or Any sign which has been determined service having been vacated for 90 to be non-conforming may continue or more days. This provision does in use and operation as a non- notapply to permanent signs conforming sign pending the accessory to seasonal businesses, following provisions: provided there is clear intent to continue operation of the business; a. Any non-conforming sign that is not maintained, at the discretion 6. Any sign or structure that is unsafe of the Administrator and or constitutes a hazard to safety far according to Section 11-2-1, any reason; shall be removed by the Administrator (Section 11-11-3- 7. Any gas-filled, illuminated or fiber 1,2) and shall be replaced as a optic sign that is visible from any conforming sign, in accordance part of any pedestrian or vehicle with the regulations in this Title. passageway or walkway; b. All non-conforming signs shall be 8. Any sign or structure that obstructs brought into conformance with ingress to or egress from a required the regulations in this Title at the exit way, that obstructs the view of time that the represented vehicular traffic entering or exiting a business changes ownership. public roadway, or that creates an unsafe distraction for motor vehicle operators; 9. Any sign that could be confused with an official government sign (such as a traffic sign) but is not; 10. Any off-premises sign that is not otherwise regulated by this Title; and 11. All billboards. 11-9-3: NONCONFORMING SIGNS DEFINITION: Any sign erected prior to the enactment of this Title and in accord with the Town of Vail approval process, that does not conform to the provisions set forth herein (as determined by the administrative procedure listed below), or is located in newly 31 CHAPTER 10 VARIANCES AND APPEALS 11-10-1: Variances 11-10-2: Appeal of a Variance 11-10-1: VARIANCES A. Purpose A variance from the Sign Regulations constitutes relief from the strict interpretation of the standards and may be granted by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) in cases where there exists a physical limitation that prevents the existence, placement, or operation of a sign in compliance with the standards of Title 11. B. Application Procedure An application for a variance from the Sign Regulations may be obtained from the Community Development Department. The variance application must include a sign permit application, the applicant's reasons for requesting a variance, and a nonrefundable fee determined by the Town Council as set forth by town ordinances. The Staff shall set a date for a hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission once the complete application has been received. C. Criteria for Approval 1. Special circumstances or conditions must exist that apply to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures, or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, that would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question. However, such circumstances must be unique to the subject site. 2. The applicant shall not have created the circumstances that have necessitated the variance request. 3. The applicant must demonstrate that the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this Title. 11-10-2: APPEAL OF A VARIANCE An appeal to the Town Council of a Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) decision on a sign variance application may be made in accordance with the appeal process (Section 12-3-3 of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code). 32 CHAPTER 11 VIOLATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT SECTION: 11-11-1: Violations 11-11-2: Procedure and Enforcement 11-11-3: Sign Maintenance and Repair Enforcement 11-11-1: VIOLATIONS Genera/° Violations: Any sign that is deemed by the Administrator to be erected, structurally altered, extended, moved, or otherwise utilized in violation of any provisions of this Title, is in violation of this Title and shall be subject to the procedure for removal as listed below. Any sign not maintained or kept in good repair, as determined by the Administrator, is in violation of this Chapter and shall also be subject to the Procedure listed in Section 11- 11-2 of this Title. 2. Sign Violations on Public Property It shall be unlawful to erect or maintain any sign in, on, over, or above any land or right-of-way or on any property belonging to the Town of Vail without the express permission of the Town. The Administrator may summarily abate a violation of this nature by removing and confiscating any unauthorized sign without prior notice and may recover the costs incurred in removing any unauthorized signs from any person who commits, takes part in, or who assists in any such violation. However, this shall not be deemed to apply to official government notices and notices posted by governmental officers in the performance of their duties, government signs to control traffic or for other regulatory purposes, or to identify streets or warn of danger. Any person who commits, takes part in, or who assists in any such violation, shall be guilty of a violation of the Vail Town Code and be subject to the provisions of the Penalty and Costs Sections (11-11- 2) of this Title. 11-11-2: PROCEDURE AND ENFORCEMENT Notice of Violation The Administrator shall give written notice of the violation to the owner, general agent, lessee, or tenant of the building or premise at which such violation has been committed or to any employee, contractor, or any other person who commits, takes part in, or assists in any such violation. The written notice shall include the reason for violation, the time frame in which the sign in violation must come into compliance, the possible costs associated with the sign repair or removal, and the procedure for compliance that applies to the sign in violation. In addition to physical delivery via the Administrator, the written notice shall also be mailed via certified mail to the business or owner at the address noted on the business license for that business or premise. 33 2. Penalty The business, building or premise at which such violation has been committed and which has been given written notice of the violation, or any person who commits, takes -part in, or who assists in any such violation, shall be subject to a minimum fine of $75.00 for each calendar day after written notice is received that such violation continues. This shall not preclude the imposition of any other civil or administrative action or sanction. The correction of a violation of any provision of this Title may not restrain imposition of these penalties. 3. Failure To Comply and Town Abatement If the person in receipt of said written notice fails to abate said violation so as to comply with the provisions of this Title within the time frame specified in the notice, the Administrator shall cause a sign in violation of the provisions of this Title to be altered or removed at the expense of the owner or person entitled to possession of the property or sign, and shall, upon the determination of the expenses, certify them to the Director of Finance of the Town of Vail. 4. Costs The amount certified by the Director of Finance to the County Treasurer for collection shall include the actual cost of repair or removal of the sign and the cost of collection plus fifteen percent (15%) of the sum of said costs, representing penalty. 11-11-3: SIGN MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ENFORCEMENT All signs in the Town shall be properly maintained (as defined in Section 11-2-1) at all times to the satisfaction of the Administrator or they will be repaired or removed (as defined in Section 11-2-1) by the Administrator. 2. The Administrator shall have the authority to order through written notice the repair or removal of a sign and accompanying landscaping when the said sign 1) has been found to constitute a violation of this Title; 2) is a hazard to the safety, health, or public welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, or abandonment; or 3) has been damaged beyond fifty percent of its total area and deemed poorly-maintained by the Administrator. The procedure for removal of a sign in violation is detailed in Section 11-11-2-3 of this Title. The Administrator's decision shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 12-3-3-B of this Code) and may be appealed by any "aggrieved or adversely affected person" (as defined in 12-3-3-B-2 of this Code). 34 4 I ORDINANCE 26 SERIES 2003 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 7, CHAPTER 3, INFRACTIONS,"; AND AMENDING CHAPTER 6 "TRANSPORTATION'CENTERG' OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Town. Council of the Town of Vait ("the Town") to increase parking fines for parking violations occurring within the Town; and WHEREAS, it is the Town Council's belief that certain "housekeeping" amendments are necessary in Title 7, Chapter 6, of the Vail Municipal Code to more effectively enforce the Town's parking regulations; and WHEREAS, it is the Town Council's opinion that the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Town of Vail would be enhanced and promoted by the adoption of this ordinance. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Title 7, Chapter 3, Article D, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended as follows: (deletions are shown in s#~ik~#reugq, additions are shown in bold) 7-3D-1: PENALTIES: Every person who is convicted of, who admits liability for, or against whom a judgment is entered for a parking violation, shall be fined or penalized up to one hundred dollars ($100), with a fee schedule set by the Town of Vail Municipal Court. ebµ~ ~~k 7-3D-2: LATE FEES: Whenever enforcement is initiated by the issuance of a parking ticket and a fine or a penalty is not received by the Municipal Court, or the owner or driver does not appear in the Municipal Court to set a hearing on the allegation within twenty one (21) days of the date of issue, the fine or penalty as set forth in Section 7-3D-1 of this Article shall be increased by a late fee of up to twenty-five dollars ($25.00). Ordinance 26, Series of 2003 i l 7-3D-3: TIME-LIMITED PARKING: It shall be unlawful for any person to park a vehicle in any time limited parking space for a consecutive period of time longer than that posted period of time for which parking is lawfully permitted, irrespective of the amount of money deposited into the parking management system. 7-3D-4: ABUSE OF PARKING FACILITIES: No person shall park a vehicle in a Town Parking Facility for a free period of time, exit the facility and re-enter the facility, and park for a second free period of time within three hours of the first entry into the facility. Section 2. Title 7, Chapter 6, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended as follows: (deletions are shown in ~±r:!;c •~ugq, additions are shown in bold) CHAPTER 6 IQD/'1DT~TIf1A1 /'`CAITCD PARKING FACILITIES 7-6-1: DEFINITIONS: When used in this Title 7, the words and phrases contained in this Chapter shall have the specific meanings as defined in this Chapter. PARKING FACILITY: Any structure or surface, owned and/or operated by the Town of Vail, excluding public roadways where parking is permitted, in or upon which vehicles are parked for a given duration of time. VEHICLE: " ~ , sShall be defined as provided in the Model Traffic Code for Colorado Municipalities as adopted by the Vail Town Council. 7-6-2: PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES: A. Seasonal Or Parking Pass: It is unlawful for any holder of a Town of Vail seasonal or other parking pass to: Ordinance 26, Series of 2003 1. Park or leave one or more vehicles in tlae a Town of Vail Parking Facility, and while said vehicle or vehicles are in the ser~ef facility, to use the same parking pass to park another vehicle in ~"° ~~~~~ +~~.,~.,,,.E +~.. ~~..+e, a parking Facility; 2. Lend or give a season parking pass or daily ticket to another person to use the same to remove the vehicle previously parked by that person in a Parking Facility; 3. Use a parking pass to remove the vehicle of another from #~ie~~ai~#a~spsr#atie~ sent a Parking Facility sr-paid-~ that was. previously parked in the seater facility er iet without use of a parking pass. B. Vehicle Used For Residential Purposes: No person may use a vehicle parked in a Parking Facility for residential purposes, including, but not limited to, cooking, sleeping, eating, or other similar activities. C. Vehicle Towing Trailer, Boat Or Other Vehicle: No vehicle towing a trailer of any size, other vehicle, or boat shall be parked in a Parking Facility.. ` D. Size Of Vehicle Limited: No vehicles exceeding seven feet four inches (7'4") in height or seven feet (7') in width or twenty feet (20') in length shall be parked in the a Parking Facility except in areas specifically designated therefor. E. Pressurized Tanks Prohibited; Exception: No vehicle carrying propane or other flammable material in pressurized tanks shall be parked in a Parking Facility except in areas designated therefor. 7-6-3: STORAGE PROHIBITED: It is unlawful for any owner, operator or other person having possession or control of a vehicle to store the same in a Parking Facility. Ordinance 26, Series of 2003 A. Continuous Parking Limited; Accrued Fees: A vehicle which has been parked for a continuous period in a Parking Facility without being removed from the Parking Facility for a period of more than fourteen (14) days shall be deemed to have been stored in the Parking Facility contrary to the provisions of this Section. Any person removing his or her vehicle from a Parking Facility shall pay all accrued fees for parking in the ^~ Facility, and failure to pay said fees shall be unlawful. B. Impoundment For Failure To Pay Accrued Fees: If a vehicle has been left in tqe a Parking Facility for a period in excess of fourteen (14) days without removal and payment of fees as required in subsection A above, then the Fail parking supervisor, or a police officer of the Town, upon his or her request, shall cause the vehicle to be impounded in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Model Traffic Code as adopted by the Town. C. Vehicle Reclaimed: Any vehicle impounded in accordance with subsection B above may be reclaimed by the owner thereof, upon payment of those costs imposed by the Model Traffic Code, and in addition thereto, the parking fees and charges incurred for parking in a Parking Facility. D. Impoundment Fee In Addition To Penalty: The impoundment of a vehicle shall not be deemed an exclusive penalty but shall be in addition to any penalties that may be imposed in accordance with Section 7-6-4 of this Chapter. 7-6-4: PENALTIES: A violation of this Chapter shall be punished by the revocation of the parking pass or the imposition of a fine not to exceed three hundred dollars ($300.00) or both such revocation and fine. 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 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 Ordinance 26, Series of 2003 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 21st day of October, 2003 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 4th day of November, 2003, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance 26, Series of 2003 READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 4th day of November, 2003. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance 26, Series of 2003 ORDINANCE NO.27 Series of 2003 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10, TITLE 14, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HANDBOOK; AND THE VAIL VILLAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS, VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN, TO ALLOW fOR THE USE OF TEMPORARY ENCLOSURES ON COVERED OUTDOOR DINING DECKS, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, text amendments are permitted pursuant to parameters set forth for such in Section 12-3-7 of the Town Code of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail held a public hearing on August 25, 2003, to consider the proposed amendment in accordance with the provisions of the Town Code of the Town of Vail and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Town Council of the Town of Vail based on the criteria and findings presented in the staff memorandum; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the proposed text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes flf the Zoning Regulations; implements and achieves the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and howthe existing regulation is no longer appropriate; and provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds it in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to adopt this amendment to the Town Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The following language, in bold, is to be added to: Ordinance No. 27, Series 2003 1 Town of Vail Development Standards, 10. C. Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, etc.: 7. Covered,- outdoor dining decks-and-patios__associated with. eating and drinking establishments may employ the temporary use of transparent, pliable sidewalls during inclement weather from April 1 through December 1, annuaNy. Section 2. The following language, in bold, is to be added to: Page 22, Vail Village Design Considerations, Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines: Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, bring people to the streets, opportunities to look and be looked at, and generally contribute to the liveliness of a busy street making a richer pedestrian experience than if those streets were empty. (...) Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due consideration to: - sun -views -precipitation - wind -pedestrian activity 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 thatthis 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 Ordinance No. 27, Series 2003 2 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 21St day of October, 2003 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 4th day of November, 2003, 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 4th day of November, 2003. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Ordinance No. 27, Series 2003 3 Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 27, Series 2003 t~ TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Stan Zemler, Town Manager RE: Town Manager's Report DATE: November 4, 2003 CO-GEN SNOW MELTING Town staff is investigating Co-Generation technology possibility. This technology involves creating a small power plant using natural gas and bio-solids to heat streetscape and generate additional electricity or hot water that can be used for other applications. This technology may have the potential to reduce C02 emissions as well as reduce operating costs. SALES TAX September sales tax collections were $666,954, which is $49,317 or 6.9% less than last year and $22,238 or 3.2% less than budget. By area, Vail Village was down 16.1 % ($49,768) for the month with shortfalls in all categories, while Lionshead was up 35.1% ($31,267) including a 70% increase ($16,612) in lodging. The retail sector was down 5.1% ($31,708) in total with food stores off $12,945 or 13.9%. The food and beverage sector was off $22,731 or 11.9% in total with smaller shortfalls occurring in lodging and utilities/other. The Vail Business Report, which provides more detail, is included in your packet. CHILDREN'S GARDEN OF LEARNING Staff will proceed with execution of the Children's Garden of Learning lease. UPCOMING ITEMS: NOVEMBER 18 COUNCIL AGENDAS Work Session Agenda ^ Executive Session ^ 5-Year Employee Anniversaries ^ Organizational Meeting --Swearing in ceremony --Selection of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem --Committee Appointments?? ^ Gross Residential Floor Area Discussion, Bill Gibson (45 min.) ^ DRB/PEC Update, George Ruther (10 min.) ^ Park User Fee (15 min.) ^ Information Update (10 min.) ^ Matters from Mayor/Council (10 min.) Evening Session Agenda ^ Citizen Participation (5 min.) ^ Park User Fee (10 min.) ^ First Reading of Mil Levy Certification Ordinance ^ First Reading of 2003 Supplemental Appropriation Budget Adjustments, Judy Camp (10 min.) • 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 28, Engine Brakes • Multi-purposed recreational facility" overview ^ Town Manager's Report (10 min.) ^ New Ordinances:........... a. Sales Tax b. Criminal Code c. Traffic SEPTEMBER 2003 VAIL BUSINESS REVIEW October 30, 2003 The September Vail Business Review breaks down the four percent sales tax collected for September and year to date through third quarter. Overall September sales tax decreased 6.9% with Retail decreasing 5.1 %, Lodging decreased 3.2%, Food and Beverage decreased 11.9% and Utilities/Other (which is mainly utilities but also includes taxable services and rentals) decreased 6.8%. The first nine months of-2003 resulted in a 4.9% decrease overall with Retail decreasing 3.5%, Lodging decreased 5.3%, Food and Beverage decreased 1.2% and Utilities/Other decreased 14.7%. Town of Vail sales tax forms and the Vail Business Review are available on the Internet at www.vailgov.com. Please remember when reading the Vail Business Review that it is produced from sales tax collections, as opposed to actual gross sales. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to call me at (970) 479-2125 or Judy Camp at (970) 479-2119. Sincerely, Sally Lorton Sales Tax Administrator September 2003 SALES TAX VAIL VILLAGE September September September 2002 2003 Collections -- Collections Change ~ ~~ Retail 120,333 104,750 -12.9% Lodging 61,471 48,074 -21.8% Food & Beverage 122,875 103,641 -15.7% Other 5,222 3,668 -29.8% Total 309,901 260,133 -16.1% LIONSHEAD September 2002 Collections Retail ~ 36,299 Lodging 23,664 Food & Beverage 25,230 Other 3,877 September September 2003 Collections Change 43,839 20.8% 40,276 70.2% 32,173 4,049 27.5% 4.4% Total 89,070 120,337 35.1 .~ - September 2003 SALES TAX CASCADE VILLAGE/EAST VAIUSANDSTONEM/EST VAIL Retail Lodging Food & '~ Beverage Other ~I September September September 2002 2003 Collections Collections Change 119,053 104,789 -12.0` 31,498 24,477 -22.3` 43,183 32,872 -23.9% 5,961 3,262 -45.3% 199,695 165,400 -17.2% Total i OUT OF TOWN Retail ~ Lodging Food & Beverage Utilities & Other Total 17,866 25,077 40.4` 881 891 1.1` 129 0 -100.0% 98,729 95,116 -3.7% 117,fi05 121,084 3.0% September September September 2002 2003 Collections Collections Change September 2003 SALES TAX TOTAL September 2002 Collections Reta i I Lodging Food & Beverage Utilities & Other Total September 2003 Collections September Change 293,551 278,455 -5.1 117, 514 113, 718 -3.2 191,417 168,686 -11.9% 113,789 106,095 -6.8% 716,271 666,954 -6.9% . . . f~ RETAIL SUMMARY September 2002 Collections September 2003 Collections September Chan e FOOD 93,021 80,076 -13.9% LIQUOR 13,526 13,939 3.1% APPAREL 34,676 34,438 -.7% SPORT 71,660 76,225 6.4% JEWELRY 20,831 14,626 -29.8% GIFT 9,808 6,086 -37.9% GALLERY 2,808 2,638 -6.1 OTHER 46,685 49,838 6.8% HOME 536 589 9.9% OCCUPATION TOTAL 293,551 278,455 -5.14% September YTD Sales Tax VAIL VILLAGE Reta i I Lodging Food & Beverage Other Total September YTD 02 Collections 1,859,077 1,769,585 1,823,104 66,041 5,517,807 September YTD 03 Collections 1,760,160 1,654,736 1,733,617 53,042 5,201,555 September Chanc,~_ -5.3% o -6.5 /° -4.9% -19.7% -5.7% LIONSHEAD September YTD 02 Collections Retail Lodging Food & Beverage Other 720,770 1,010,686 358,080 50,181 September YTD 03 Collections 681,869 1,005,23't 434,862 46,714 September Chan -5.4' -0.5` 21.4% -6.9% Total 2,139,717 2,168,676 1.4% E .~ ~ ~ September YTD Sales Tax CASCADE VILLAGE/EAST VAIUSANDSTONEM/EST VAIL September September September YTD 02 YTD 03 Collections Collections Change Retail Lodging Food & Beverage Other 1,421,524 1,348,616 -5.1' 785,070 719,252 -8.4` 475,321 67,403 461,380 48,181 -2.9% -28,5% Total 2,749,318 2,577,429 -6.3% OUT OF TOWN September September September YTD 02 YTD 03 .. ... Retail Lodging Food & Beverage Utilities & ~ Other Total ~.vneciwns t,.vneciwrls 176,425 239,161 32,787 28,191 9,791 1,231,335 4,931 1,058,788 1,450,338 1,331,071 ~r~arl e 35.6% -14.0°/a -49.6% -14.0% -8.2% September YTD Sales Tax TOTAL September YTD 02 Collections Reta i I ' Lodging Food & Beverage Utilities & Other Total 11,857,180 11,278,731 -4.9% September YTD 03 Collections September Change 4,177,796 4,029,806 -3.5% 3,59$,128 3,407,410 -5.3% 2,666,296 2,634,790 -1.2% 1,414,960 1,206,725 -14.7'/0 RETAIL SUMMARY September 2002 September 2003 September YTD Year To Date Year To Date Collections. Collections CHANGE FOOD 1,082,447 1,033,185 -4.6% LIQUOR 190,437 188,446 -1.0% APPAREL 507,585 511,010 0.7% SPORT 1,466,906 1,384,335 -5.6% JEWELRY 224,975 190,649 -15.3% GIFT 129,444 102,434 -20.9% GALLERY 31,398 48,667 55.0% OTHER 537,568 564,894 5.1% HOME 7,036 6,186 -12.1 OCCUPATION TOTAL 4,177,796 4,029,806 -3.5% t 2003 Project Matrix Today's Date: 10/30/03 No. of remaining VTC meeting days: This is it! A=The buck R= For moving C= Have info 1= Who else stops here forward responsible needs to people need know? to move forward PROJECT/ TARGETED CURRENT STATUS/ DIRECTION NEXT ACCOUNTABL RESPONSIBLE CONSULTED INFORME COMPLETION DATE REVIEW 2003 BALLOT Review of community survey findings Done Suzanne Suzanne Pam Community Review of 5-Year Capital Projects lists, Done VTC Greg, Judy Pam, dheads Community i.e election needs Election ballot go/no-go Review of 2 ballot options (mill levy Done; No-Go VTC Pam, Greg, Judy, Matt Community decision by 6/1103 transfer & GO bond) decided Suzanne, Matt Fire Service Consolidation Negotiate service contract with Eagle 11/4--Letter of TC Matt, Pam, Judy JP, John Community River Fire effective 1/1/04; plan for agreement consolidation election in 5/04 2004 BUDGET Council direction needed on Done VTC Pam Judy Community VCBANVCTB future funding Preparation of budget timetable Done Judy Judy Pam dheads BUSINESS Executive session discussion with town Done Matt Matt Pam, Judy VCBA IMPROVEMENT attorney DISTRICT Council direction on $15,000 funding Done VTC Matt Business business request community community Council direction on business license fee Done VTC Pam, Judy business community Council direction on Commission on Done TC Pam, Judy, CSE Community Special Events PROJECT/ TARGETED CURRENT STATUS/ DIRECTION NEXT ACCOUNTABL RESPONSIBLE CONSULTED INFORME COMPLETION DATE REVIEW CONFERENCE CENTER Need Council site selection Done VTC Pam, Russ, Greg Judy, Matt Community decision/direction; report-out on parking charette Appointment of Oversight Committee. Done VTC VTC Pam Community Need Council decision/direction on Recommend a VTC Oversight Russ, Greg, Community project manager the end of Committee, Pam Matt, Judy phase 1 Review RFP for business plan and Done VTC Russ Forrest Oversight update of market analysis (program Committee verification) Council review of recommended Done VTC Russ Forrest Oversight candidate to award a contract to for the Committee business plan Design-build RFP December, VTC Oversight Judy, Matt Community 2003 Committee, Pam, Russ, Greg DONOVAN PARK Approve contract for pavilion operation; Done VTC Greg Pam, Matt Community set rates Discussion of soccer field VTC-VRD scheduling/lawn care/ irrigation subcommittee TBD 9/1/03 Complete construction Done Greg Greg VTC Community EAGLE COUNTY Facilitate independent audit of county VTC Ludwig, Pam partner community CONSOLIDATION & and towns to identify areas of duplication agencies COST-SHARE and revenue sharing FIRE SERVICES Independent analysis of existing studies Done Pam Pam VTC Community 6/3/03 6/2/03 RFQ for architectural services Done Pam Pam John, Greg, Russ, Matt Council decision on fire service levels Done VTC Pam John, Greg Community and related facilities 6/17/03 RFP for architectural services On hold C Staff John, Greg Community PROJECTI TARGETED CURRENT STATUS/ DIRECTION NEXT ACCOUNTABL RESPONSIBLE CONSULTED INFORME COMPLETION DATE REVIEW FIREWISE CODE Determine how to integrate Firewise 1st quarter, VTC Russ Bill Carlson CHANGES principles into DRB regulations 2004 GRFA Proposal on reforms to GRFA 11/18/03 VTC Russ, PEC Bill Gibson Community regulations I-70 NOISE MITIGATION Completion of East Vail berms, 5-year Ongoing Greg Greg CDOT Community project Jersey barriers Greg Greg CDOT Community Noise wall demonstration Ongoing Greg Greg CDOT Community Lobby to reduce speed limit Ongoing VTC Stan, Greg, CDOT, FHW, Motor Dwight, VTC Motor Carriers, Carriers Assn Community Draft Ordinance on Engine Brake 2nd Reading, VTC Matt CDOT, FHW, Motor Restrictions 11 /18/03 Motor Carriers, Carriers Assn. Community Develop a pilot decibel reduction project Reviewed by Stan, Greg Stan, Dwight, Vail Town Motor with the Colorado Motor Carriers Assn. Council Fulton Greg Hall Council, Carriers, 11/18/03 Motor Community Carriers Speed/ noise enforcement State Patrol VTC Dwight Greg, CDOT Community, truck Motor inspections, Carriers August 4/5- Done New Signs on I-70-Done LIONSHEAD Community parking agreements To be VTC Pam, Greg, Russ Dwight Community REDEVELOPMENT negotiated Final recommendation from Task Force Done VTC Pam, Russ Judy, Greg, Community on a petition and creation of the Matt Authority PROJECT/ TARGETED CURRENT STATUS/ DIRECTION NEXT ACCOUNTABL RESPONSIBLE CONSULTED INFORME COMPLETION DATE REVIEW Review of public projects to include Done VTC Greg, Russ Judy, Pam Community transit center Formation of URA/Implementation of TIF 11/4/03 VTC Russ Pam, Matt, Community Greg, Judy CDOT cost-share agreement Greg Greg Pam, Russ, C Judy VRI/Com Dev Staffing agreements Prior to 1st Russ Russ, Greg, John Pam, Matt, VTC meeting with Judy, JP PEC MIDDLE CREEK Construction to begin 7/01/03 Construction Russ Nina . VTC, DEVELOPMENT underway Community PROJECT PARKING Review of 02-03 season; modifications Done VTC Greg, Parking Community Community for 03-04 - ~ Task Force Explore seasonal parking on Ford Park Done VTC Greg, Parking Community Community ball fields Task Force, Vail Resorts Expansion of community parking Done VTC Greg, Russ, Community Community capacity; parking charette report-out Parking Task Force RED SANDSTONE Cost-share request to Eagle County Underway VTC Pam VRD Community INDOOR MULTI- School District to augment $150K + in- PURPOSE REC. FACILITY kind from TOV, $400K from Water District, $250K from Vail Resorts, $600K rom RE50J Identify interim location options for Lease VTC Pam, Greg, Russ VRD Community gymnastics post 8-04 lease extended Determine if parking improvements at Underway Greg Greg, Russ, Pam VTC, RES, Community Red Sandstone School are needed VRD ROLE OF TOWN Recreation philosophy discussion, re: TOV-VRD TC Pam , dheads, VRD Community GOVERNMENT Ice Dome, Skate Park, Indoor subcommittee Recreation work PROJECTI TARGETED CURRENT STATUS/ DIRECTION NEXT ACCOUNTABL RESPONSIBLE CONSULTED INFORME COMPLETION DATE REVIEW (Recreation, Culture, What businesses are we in? VTC Pam dheads Community Education, Economic Development - as part of overall roles discussion for VRD) STEPHENS PARK PILOT Schedule review of pilot program and VTC, 2/17/04 PROGRAM (Dog Park) determine if off leash policy is to be .News release 2/18/04 allowed permanently 5/12/03 SIGN CODE REVISION Develop a revised sign code that is 1st Reading, VTC Russ DRB, Business easier to uriderstand and enforce 10/21/03 Business community Community TIMBER RIDGE Friendly condemnation action in District Done Pam, Russ Nina, Judy, Matt Steve Jeffers VTC, Court for acquisition Community TOWN MANAGER pplications due May 23 Done; 164 VTC Search firm JP Community SEARCH applicants Fall 2003 Candidate screening June 17 Done; 5 VTC Search firm JP Community , malists Final selection, Stan Zemler Starts VTC VTC JP Community 10/6/2003 VAIL ICE DOME Cost-share request to Eagle County Letter sent VTC Pam Vail Jr. user groups Commissioners for set-up/tear-down 5/9/03 Hockey, VRD Vail Jr. Hockey fund-raising campaign 0 raised Vail Jr. Hockey Vail Jr. Hockey VTC, VRD user groups Council decision to budget set-up and Done VTC Greg VRD user groups tear-down costs, $190,000 Recreation philosophy discussion Done VTC Pam VRD Community VAIL MEMORIAL PARK DRB Application Done 2004 Opening Development review process, DRB Done Task Force Russ dheads Community Creation of 501 c-3 Done VTC Task Force Matt Community PROJECT/ TARGETED COMPLETION DATE CURRENT STATUSI DIRECTION NEXT REVIEW ACCOUNTABL RESPONSIBLE CONSULTED INFORME Rezoning Done Task Force Russ Community VAIL VILLAGE STREETSCAPE Need Council direction on snowmelt Done C Greg Pam Community PEC review of Master Plan Done Preparation of phased construction schedule with input from Water District, adjacent property owners, business community Underway Greg Greg adjacent property owners, Water District, VCBA Community Exploration of Downtown Development Authority/TIF No followup scheduled VTC Russ Pam, Russ, Matt, Judy Community VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Loading and delivery Greg Greg Pam, Russ, Dwight, ,Matt ffected properties, Community VR integrating off-site streetscape into their plans Greg and George Greg and George Pam, Russ, Judy, Matt PERMANENT SKATEPARK Evaluate potential sites, potential fundin sponsors and design companies fora permanent skatepark to be built in Vail TBD VTC Greg, Todd O., VRD staff TOV, VRD Community Chris encl. Maly Ann Waiter 78 Old Connecticut Path Wayland, M8 OI778 508-358-8148 Oct. 18, X003 Town of Vail Attn: Members of Town Couxuafl 75 8. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81857 Dear Town Councff Members: It has come to our attention that there is a proposal for a trauosit seater an,d employee housing on the North Day Lot. We have been the owners of Landmark 103 for the peat 16 years, and have several concerns a~iut the pro~Ct. We love Doming to Vail to enjoy the natural Ueaut~p of the area, as do the many rental gusst$ who Stay in Onlr unit. We axis ve2'y wo7Pi'~ed about the noise+ odor Pram the diesel buses, foot trafPto, and the inevitable congestion that would result ilrom this type of facffi#~y. Our unit is on the flx'St floor, so we are p~ vulnerable- We are also uncoxafortable with the security risks that would Dome 13rom Iodating this transportation center so close to the Ls *~A~ bniilding. Another prolffem ti~at we s~ is ho~v will arriving guests access the $'ont desk when they check in. We are in favor of employee housing, but not plau3ing emptoy+ee housing so close to where people come to vacation and. get away from ft aIl. Presently, ws Iook out on ens of the existing employee housing units nit to the 6Mndola Building„ but we don't hear agyttiing. Being the parents of two aO year olds, I Dan asswre you that w+e axis weIl awaaie of the hours most of the people who will live in the employee hous#n$ units will keep. Their habits and nightlife activitfes are quite different than that of our guests. B`ven now, ft is not uncommon to be awaken around a am when the bare close byloud noises and scufltes from the North Day Lot. The cwhrent North Day Lot proposed transit Dealer and employes housing would have a huge i~oapact an the fluters of the Laxbdnnark. Property values wi11 drop and rentals wiIl de8nite>,y fall off P3ease consider another site, and use the North Day Lot for a pa~o~ect that wfll e~ahance not only the Landmark but also Lionshead. In closing, we would like to congratulate you and your oomaontttee on a wonderful demon for the core area. We look forward to its complat3on and a much improved Lionahead Plaza. Rsspe~ yAura, / /~l ~~ ~~ Ann Walter 103 Ms. Lois D. Rupert P.O. Box 7474 Dillon CO 80435-6716 October 21, 2003 The Summit Daily News carried sever- al articles about your plight with trucks on I-70. You - "we° - are not alone. F~.iverside and Saratoga, Wyoming are about 4 hours north of Dillon - very small towns. For your future planning, you must see the impact of trucks. on I-80 in the area of Highway 130 and I-80. It is a promise of what may be in store for "us". .w.~-% , ~~ ~' ~~ ~r- ,, ' ;~ - , e` ~,~ j[[ ~, j`' ~ry 1, ~~ ~. ~/ Vl_.- - ~~-~,.. 4' e ~~{,~ ~/~ //.'~~ U ~r~ , OR/G/NAL ART BY ER/N CALLAN These note cards have been illustrated by Summit High School students and are being sold as a fund raiser for POSH (Partners of Summit High. POSH consists of parents, high school staff, and community members and serves as a support group for Summit High staff and students. ~//~~ v Katie Arnot Vail RD, CDE Susan Marshall Valley Medical RN, BSN, CPAN Alicia Breslin BA RN, Center ment Education /Staff Develop Edwards Medical Center Edwards Pavilion 320 Beard Creek Road Edwards, CO 81632 Phone: 1970) 569 75007 Fax:1 education department @ wmc.com Mail: P.O. Box 40,000 Vail, Colorado 81658 `x+~x~c~fa~x ~~, .. October 14, 2003 Mayor Ludwig Kurz and Members of Town Council Mr. Stan Zemler, Town Manager Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 n ~ ~ w K,ucxc.. ~~ . `d Q ~. RE: Fire Services Agreement/Inclusion Dear Mayor Kurz, Town Council Members and Mr. Zemler: We are pleased. to be working cooperatively with you to the next step in providing the most .effective and efficient regional emergency response system possible in the Upper Eagle and Gore Valleys. The purpose of this letter is to memorialize our collective understandings at this point in time, so that our staffs can develop contracts and take the procedural steps necessary to implement this proposal. In summary, it is our understanding that Eagle River Fire Protection District will assist you in pursuing an ultimate goal of inclusion into the District, and construction of required fire protection facilities. In the interim, the Fire District would provide fire services through a separate agreement. This, then, leads us to the two proposed agreements listed below, with the general provisions as shown. Please let us know if this does not adequately reflect our mutual goals and understandings. We sincerely look forward to working with you. FIRE SERVICES AGREEMENT 1. Town leases all fire protection equipment and facilities to Fire District. POST OFFICE BOX 7980 • 0351 BENCHMARK ROAD • AVON, COLORA~}t'~'~{~"I~' 9~Q'`i~ Kurz ~unl Councit.doc PHONE: 970-748-9665 • FAX: 970-949-0310 • EMAIL: INFOC>ERFPD.ORG Mayor Ludwig Kurz and Members of Town Council Mr. Stan Zemler, Town Manager Town of Vail October 17, 2003 Page 2 2. Fire District assumes responsibility for all fire protection services in the entire Vail Valley, recognizing there are small areas, such as Highland Meadows, which lie outside of the Town, but within the Vail Valley. Any contractual fees from these areas will accrue to Fire District. 3. During the term of the Fire Services Agreement, Vail Firefighters shall be employees of Fire District; but shall retain the pay scales currently in effect, which pay scales shall not be decreased without Town approval. 4. Vail Firefighter job security during the term of the Fire Services Agreement shall continue pursuant to the current personnel rules of the Town. Benefits of Vail Firefighters during the term of the Fire Services Agreement shall continue to the level that is reasonably practicable, recognizing that Fire District shall not be required to change insurance carriers in order to accommodate differences. 5. It is the goal of the Parties that the level of service currently provided in Vail shall be continued on a comparable level as presently exists. Specific minimum service standards will be developed and attached to Fire Services Agreement. 6. Fire District assumes architectural responsibility for West Vail Fire Station with the ultimate presentation to Town Council of the final Plan for Town Council approval. Plans will include a police sub-station. 7. Services provided shall be at an amount equal to a 3.8 mill levy payable monthly in advance; plus any service related revenue. 8. Fire District will insure and assume maintenance responsibility for all facilities and equipment. 9. Fire District will assume responsibility for all Town fire hydrant maintenance agreements, mutual aid agreements, and other fire-related obligations, a list of which is to be attached to the Fire Service Agreement. Mayor Ludwig Kurz and Members of Town Council Mr. Stan Zemler, Town Manager Town of Vail October 17, 2003 Page 3 lO.Fire District will assume responsibility for all Fire Code review and inspection services required by the building permit and construction process, , and effect enforcement at the same standard as currently exists for existing buildings. Fire District shall be entitled to receive the fees associated therewith. INCLUSION AGREEMENT A. Fire District will take procedural steps to call an Inclusion Election for an area to include the entire Vail Valley. B. Fire District agrees to the redistricting of the five person Board of Directors to include representation from the Vail Valley as soon as possible following inclusion. C. Fire District agrees to finance out of the operational Mill Levy of 3.8 mills the construction of an agreed upon portion of West Vail Fire Station and remodel of the Main Station through the issuance of Certificates of Participation or alternative Lease Purchase financing. Fire District reserves the opportunity to place a G. O. Debt Question before the voters of the entire Fire District at a later date, and to roll this financing into that debt. D. Fire District will have electors in the Inclusion Election to acknowledge the current operating mill levy of 3.8 mills, but reserves the option at later dates to ask voters to adjust that tax, if determined to be necessary. The Fire District shall receive service-related revenue related to building permit .fees and other fees associated with Fire Code review and enforcement. E. Fire District and Town will incorporate an agreed upon financial pro forma to be produced by Stan Bernstein & Associates. F. Town will provide certain in-kind assistance for a period of 5 years including dispatch services for the Vail component, and mechanic services on Vail rolling stock. Details will be articulated in the Inclusion Agreement. Mayor Ludwig Kurz and Members of Town Council Mr. Stan Zemler, Town Manager Town of Vail October 17, 2003 Page 4 G. Town conveys all equipment, and provides a 49-year Lease to all real property and improvements, with a reverter should the Fire District cease to utilize the real property for fire protection purposes. H. Fire District agrees to treat Vail Valley Constituents equally in future financial and service level decisions. I. The Parties agree to work with the third parties involved with the redevelopment of the Lionshead area so as to avoid the negative fiscal impact on Fire District of tax increment financing. J. The Parties acknowledge that there are other issues which will arise and be incorporated into the Inclusion Agreement, and that all issues are subject to negotiation prior to final execution. Again, the Eagle River Fire Protection District Board of Directors and Staff look forward to working with you toward an improved and more efficient fire service for the Town. . Cordially, Charles A. Moore, General Manager, for Robert J. McIlveen, Chairman Agreed and Accepted for Further, Final Negotiation Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Town of Vail VAIL FIRE SERVICES CHRONOLOGY 3/18/03 Vail Town Council motion approved by a 6-1 vote to: • issue a request for proposals for architectural services to begin the planning and design of a new emergency services building to better serve the West Vail area and to determine the best funding mechanism available to build and equip that facility; • to direct the town manager to commission an impartial study to review the current management and staffing and procedures of the Vail Fire and Emergency Services to determine what is needed in the way of a new building, equipment and manpower to reflect the best interests of the town; • to direct the town manager to commence negotiations with the Eagle River Fire Protection District to determine if it is in the best interest of the citizens of the Town of Vail to consolidate fire services within that district; • to direct the town manager to begin these actions in the next 30 days. 6/2/03 • 16 architectural firms submit qualifications for fire station design. 6/3/03 Vail Town Council motion approved by a 6-0 vote to: • authorize the desi n of a fire station on the Hud Wirth site and to begin the process of creating a third fire company to staff the station in such a way as to accommodate combined emergency services functions and to direct staff to pursue merger discussions with the Eagle River Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Ambulance District; and • direct staff to provide the Town Council with an analysis of quick response vehicles with an eye toward inclusion in the 2004 budget and to direct staff to amend the false alarm ordinance, if an amendment is necessary to give the ordinance teeth, and/or to start enforcing it. 7/1 /03 Vail Town Council motion approved by a 5-2 vote to: • direct staff to prepare an ordinance for the November ballot that would contain a property tax of less than .81 mills which would be used to construct and equip a new fire station in West Vail and to rebuild the Main Vail fire station, to be sunset after the bonds are retired. (The motion reflected a reduction in the construction budget for the West Vail fire station from $4.2 million to $3.2 million) 7/15/03 • Proposal from Eagle River Fire Protection District to fund Vail capital improvements presented to Town Council in executive session for 3.8 mils for consolidation. • Council directs staff to prepare two November ballot auestions for consideration at the August 5 evening meeting. The first would transfer 3.8 mills from the town's current 4.69 mills to the Eagle River Fire Protection District for consolidated fire services. The second would be a $4.3 million general obligation bond issue that would be used to fund and equip a new West Vail fire station and renovate the Main Vail fire station. 7/21 /03 • In executive session, Town Attorney Matt Mire provides update on inability to meet Council's request to prepare two ballot ordinances, noting the consolidation issue is best sponsored by Eagle River Fire with an election in May. Council directs staff to explore a contract for services scenario with a target implementation date of Jan. 1, to be followed by a May consolidation election, so long as the financials show a benefit to the Vail taxpayers. Also, Council directs staff to remove November ballot ordinances from Aug. 5 agenda and add "Fire Services Update" in its place. A{so, fire station design work was put on hold. 7/21 /03 Meeting between TOV Staff and Eagle River Fire Representatives with next steps determined as follows: • Update Vail Fire and Emergency Service employees at August 1 meeting. • Explore contract for services with target start date of Jan. 1 (or earlier, if agreements in place). This will include the drafting of a letter of understanding for Council's initial review in executive session on Aug. 19. The letter of understanding would serve as the foundation for apre-inclusion agreement which would be adopted simultaneously with the service contract on or before Jan. 1. Also, Stan Bernstein will update a financial forecast that will include how and where the money would be spent. The intent is for the 3.8 .mils to be spent on services specific to Vail. These steps assume the financial analysis is favorable to Vail • May 04 election for consolidated services (only issue on Eagle River Fire ballot). • With approval. by electorate in May, Eagle River Board immediately issues certificates of participation (COP) to fund construction of the West Vail fire station and rebuild Main Vail (design of fire station will be done prior to May election). • Possible November 04 election for debt authorization for other district needs (Edwards, Walcott stations). 815/03 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting • Council updated community on direction to staff to explore consolidated fire services. • Council votes 6-0 to table to Aug. 19 a staff request to fund up to $10,000 to participate in a joint study to explore consolidated fire and emergency medical service. 8/19/03 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting • Council votes 7-0 to direct the interim town manager to decline participation ''~-J-~ '~ in a joint study to explore~cor~scCdafecti'ire acrd ~Eme~-ger}~y Medical Service. ~ LA U 1'~G i ~ ~v t'rY u+5 ~~f ~.G ITS ~ (/ (Y7,1 G'L'1C ~ Cir~c 12° tl+~- d T ~'y i.,'~7' ~ 1.1 Y~ Dr. David R. Basch, D.P.M., P. C. 39601 Van Dyke Sterling Heights, Michigan 48313 (586) 979-7502 Diplomate American Board of Podiatric Surgery Fellow International Society of Podiatric Laser Surgery October 16, 2003 Dear Members of Town Council, 486 W. Huron Pontiac, Michigan 48341 (248) 335-9970 I have been coming to Vail since I was a teenager, over thirty years ago. The big argument then was whether to allow Kentucky Fried Chicken to set up shop on Covered Bridge Street. Since that time, I have literally introduced hundreds of people to the Vail area. All my life I have saved to be able to have a place of my own in the Vail area. In October 1999, I bought a townhouse at the Landmark. It was in bad shape and I have spent close to $100,000 renovating it. I have sent many. of my friends and relatives there to get away from the noise and pollution off the city. Apparently now I will no longer be able to do this. I do not know how you could rezone a quiet parking lot into a major transportation center and employee housing area. I was under the assumption that it was Vail's primary objective to improve the Lions Head area. I personally do not see a need to improve the present bus system or to add another transportation center like the one in Vail. Any increase bus traffic and transportation needs should be more centered around the Lions's Head parking structure, not around the residential area. If you wanted to make Lions's Head more of a ,focal point a convention center would certainly be a wiser choice in the development of the North day lot. The project that you propose in this area would greatly depreciate the value of all landmark townhomes. Your proposal has the town shuttle busses passing within fifty feet of the townhomes. Under these circumstances the townhomes would become a very undesirable. piece of property to own or rent. The noise, pollution,. and increase of human traffic would be a total disaster for: the homeowners in this area. My son has asthma, and_if a bus terminal goes in the North day lot I do not see my family staying there any .longer soley because of the bus fumes. If this is your final intention I hope you intend to reimburse the property owners whose lives and wealth would be greatly affected. Dr. David R. Basch, D.P.M., P.C. 39601 Van Dyke Sterling Heights, Michigan 48313 (586) 979-7502 Diplomate American Board of Podiatric Surgery Fellow International Society of Podiatric Laser Surgery 486 W. Huron Pontiac, Michigan 48341 (248) 335-9970 I love Vail and I am hoping that the city planners can find a way to alter their plans so my feelings for Vail do .not change. Sincerely, _.,_~..__._.r.-~ David R. Baseh Landmark Townhome Owner. K Ellen Canan Grady and John H. Grady, Jr. 7700 St. AAartins Lane Phiiadeiphia, PA 19118 (215} 753-7076 October 21, 2003 Mr. Jack Hunn Vice President -Vail Resorts Development P.O. Box 7 Vail, CO 81658 Mr. Russell Forest Director of Community Development - Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81.657 Town of Vail Attn: Members of Town Council 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Ladies and Gentlemen: In March of this`year we purchased a town home in the Landmark Building, West- Lionshead Circle in Vail. As a family of five that has vacationed in Vail for over ten years and new homeowners in the Lionshead area, we have watched the development of and proposed development plans for the Vail Valley and Vail Ski Resort with interest. While we generally have been supportive of the development to date, and remain supportive of many of the plans for the Lionshead area, we must express our concems regarding the proposed development of the parking lot directly north of our building as a transit center, employee housing and administrative offices. The concerns that we have regarding the current proposed usage of the parking lot directly north of our condominium building (the "North Day Lot") can be summarized as follows: - Noise (both pedestrian, resident and vehicular); - Increased foot traffic; - Air pollution, noxious fumes and odor; - Security; Vaif Resorts Development Town of Vait, Members of Town Council Town of Vaif -Director of Community Development October 21, 2003 - tnabitity to access the front desk of our buitding; and - The potential conflict of the needs of employees after hours in their housing with that of high-end vacationers and families. As new owners of an investment condominium in the Vait Vatiey, we are concemed that the current proposed development of the North Day tot would seriously detract from the experience that our family and guests are expecting when visiting the Landmark. As you are aware, it is expensive for a family to choose a skiing vacation in Vaif. The buses and attendant traffic that the transportation center would generate would increase noise, Leave noxious and potentially dangerous fumes, increase foot and vehicular traffic in front of the Landmark buitding, and raise serious concerns about security. Moreover, given that it is proposed that the transportation center would operate until 2:00 a.m. in the winter, this could seriously and adversely affect the experience that all Landmark residents and guests have while at Vail. As frequent visitors to the Vail Vatiey, we are aware of and support the need for public transportation solutions. However, we believe that there must be a solution available which wilt not so directly detract from the experience of vacationers to a high-end, slope- side resort such as the Landmark in Lionshead. We also are concemed about the employee housing proposed to be built on this site. Again, as frequent visitors and avid skiers, we are committed to finding a viable, affordable housing solution for seasonal employees in the Vait Vatiey. However, we believe that the needs of seasonal employees and the needs of Vaif Vatiey guests in a high-end resort area such as Lionshead differ significantly. We believe that locating the employee housing in an area such as Lionshead wilt, inevitably, cause conflict between employees and guests because of these different housing needs. Obviously, these types of conflict do not benefit anyone and could negatively affect guests' experience at Vait. We respectfully suggest that there must be better alternatives available to provide adequate, affordable housing for the Vait Valley's seasonal employees. Finally, we are concerned that the current proposed usage of the North Day Lot does not provide for adequate parking near the front entrance of our buitding for our guests to use upon arrival. To date, the Landmark has had use of two parking spaces for use in the North Day Lot, which has provided our guests with the necessary access. As t am sure you are aware, the management of the Landmark and our Association Board are studying and considering all available altematives to provide adequate parking for our guests upon arrival. Nevertheless, the possible alternatives are limited and we remain concemed about resolving this issue for our guests. to short, we Love the Vait Valley. Alt three of our children have Learned to ski at Vail mountain (beginning at age three), and we recently enjoyed mountain biking Vail Resorts Development Town of Vail, Members of Town Council Town of Vait -Director of Community Development Qctober 21, 2003 and hiking as weft during a Lengthy su hat better serve heecommunity to ansider alternative uses for the North Day Lot t whole. We are happy to discuss our concerns further. tf you desire any additional input, please feet free to catt us or write us at our home address and telephone number fisted above. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Etten Can bra q. cc: Landmark Condominiums Report and Recommendations of the Economic Sustainability Committee A joint project of the Aspen Chamber Resort Association, the City of Aspen, and the Aspen Institute Community Forum September 2002 Background: Toward the end of 2001, Aspen was faced with several years of lowered economic activity attributable to a combination of several mediocre snow years, the Y2K business consumer travel slowdown, the terrorist events of 9/11, and the general slowdown of the U.S. and world economies following the sustained bull market of the 1990s. Since then, forest fires affecting Colorado tourism and a deepening of the recession have further hampered Aspen's business climate. Concurrently, the Aspen Chamber Resort Association, the City of Aspen, and the Aspen Institute Community Forum Board were all interested in gaining a perspective on our current situation. After individual efforts by each of these organizations were begun, it was decided to collaborate on a joint task force to assess. the situation and to make recommendations. Narrow Scope: Economic Sustainability can be a fuzzy term and implies a system analysis in which both short- and long-term factors of production are balanced in a manner so as not to permanently deplete resources. The size of the system can be small or large. For purposes of our committee, we focused on the Aspen community, i.e., Aspen and the upper portion of the Roaring Fork Valley. Some members of the committee were familiar with a particularly environmental approach to the issue of sustainability. Much discussion focused on issues of balance between the economy, the community, and the environment. Other members urged a "whole valley" approach, which would extend the geographic area of the committee's concerns. This committee has sought to incorporate these concepts in their information gathering and deliberations. However, it was determined that for purposes of the committee's primary area of concern, the focus would be on sustaining the Aspen resort economy. Recognizing the immediacy of many of the problems facing the Aspen business community, we also focused on those short- and long-term items that would have, in our opinion, a positive payback for the community. Quality of Life: Aspen's beauty, its rich cultural heritage, and the diversity of the community are its most sustainable competitive advantages. Our committee operated within the framework that these elements must not be compromised for short-term economic gain. Report and Recommendations of the Economic Sustainability Committee Sources: Our committee met approximately 18 times over the course of about 9 months. During this period we invited a number of guest speakers to inform the committee on their respective areas of expertise. Guest presenters included Ford Frick (BBC Research and Consulting, Denver) and Chris LeTourneur (Thomas Consultants, Vancouver), both of whom have expertise in the economics of resort area communities. Snowmass Village Mayor, T. Michael Manchester, spoke about the Base Village project and other issues facing Snowmass Village, including their own recent strategic planning efforts. In our discussion of commercial real estate we spoke to a prominent landlord as well as a commercial real estate broker. In looking at airport issues, we had discussions both with Bill Tomcich (Stay Aspen Snowmass) and Jim Elwood (Pitkin County Aviation Director). John Norton made a presentation on the marketing research conducted by the Aspen Skiing Company, along with their current marketing strategies. Don Roth (Aspen Music Festival & School) and Jim Baker (Anderson Ranch Arts Center) helped inform us of the importance of the cultural non-profits to the community and the various challenges they face. Bill Dinsmoor (Commercial Core and Lodging Commission) and Barry Gordon (Aspen Retail Association) informed our committee on certain lodging and retail issues. City of Aspen planner Chris Bendon participated not only in presenting the proposed City of Aspen Infill Project, but also informing us on general planning issues as they came up. Commissioner Mick Ireland presented us with County demographic data confirming the aging of our local population, as well as comments on the development of affordable housing and affordable commercial space. Commissioner Shellie Roy presented us with County budget and tax information revealing some of the fiscal challenges that the County faces. We also reviewed some existing sources, such as the Aspen Area Community Plan (2000) and the Downtown Enhancement and Pedestrian Plan (1998) for factors relevant to the work of our committee. Consensus Process and Disclaimer: The committee worked to establish consensus observations and recommendations. While the committee as a whole has determined that it supports the recommendations in this report, individual committee members may disagree with some of the consensus recommendations. The recommendations presented here do not necessarily represent positions taken by any of the sponsoring organizations and are not intended to reflect current policies of the City of Aspen, the Aspen Chamber Resort Association, or the Aspen Institute. Trends: While relatively simple and perhaps obvious to many, there are several major trends affecting Aspen, its competitive position, and the business climate. We believe that these 2 Report and Recommendations of the Economic Sustainability Committee trends need to be acknowledged and factored into Aspen's positioning as a resort/tourist community. Maturation of Ski Industrv (and its participantsZ With a tail wind boosting skier visits through the 1980s, the 1990s showed a significant slowing in the number of overall skiers. Concurrently, the economics of resort development brought keen competition to ski area operators as capital was freely spent on new or expanded area development and paid for by associated real estate sales. Aspen rode this trend to a degree, but in comparison with newer resort areas, Aspen lacked sufficient land to develop and also chose to restrict community growth. These factors had the effect of making additional ski area infrastructure investments economically unattractive. As a result, today's skier has many more developed areas from which to choose, and expects a consistently high quality of accommodations and infrastructure irrespective of location. • Shift from ski to real estate driven business community. Concurrent with the stock market boom of the 80s and 90s, Aspen's real estate market exploded. Millionaires bought out ordinary folk, followed in some areas by billionaires buying out the millionaires. Ownership shifted from full time residents to part time. Property management, construction, real estate sales, and associated legal and planning businesses surged. The latest phase is the increase in interval ownership projects that have compelling economics for many Aspen visitors-particularly given the current recession. General shift to upper end consumer. As the more wealthy bought into Aspen, there were fewer tourists, but the total dollars spent kept climbing. The Aspen Skiing Company upgraded its "value proposition" by significantly improving its quality of service-from lifts to snow grooming to restaurants and accommodations, all of which supported a more affluent consumer. Over the course of a decade, lodging facilities became bifurcated, either being on the upper end or through obsolescence, slipping to middle and lower levels of quality. Shift in retail climate. The types of stores supported by Aspen's shifting clientele also changed. Out went t-shirt shops; in came high-end boutiques. More and more service businesses and mom and pop stores shut down or moved down valley, leaving less shopping selection for the locals. Further, faced with a certain type of store willing to pay any price to be in Aspen, rents rose to the point of rendering the economics of most retail businesses to be marginal at best. General shift of residency for the "working class," and "Aspen locals" choosing to shop down valley. Particularly with the relatively affordable developments of Elk Run, Blue Lake, and other areas further down valley, many Aspen working families chose home ownership down valley in lieu of condominium living in Aspen. There is support for the theory that as the number of local purchasers has declined, the market has adjusted and expanded its focus to the higher-end purchaser. Additionally, and Report and Recommendations of the Economic Sustainability Committee particularly with the four-lane work on the highway near completion, an increasing number of Aspen locals shop down valley-whether for snow tires, groceries, lumber, or the typical Wal-Mart run. ~ Renewed vigor of the Aspen non-profit and cultural institutions Supported largely by Aspen's upper end clientele, Aspen's premier non-profit institutions (particularly those with entertainment/cultural offerings) benefited from the generosity of both locals and second homeowners. The strength of these organizations further attracted more people to our community who value these institutions. • Anew set of challenges for local governments Service demands grew as more workers required busing (BETA), transportation and parking facilities, and employee- housing capacity was strained and the demand for social services climbed. Concurrently, in the attempt to control and steer growth, planning and zoning activities mushroomed. These activities were adequately supported during a period of growth for sales tax revenues, but shrinking tax revenues in the current period may force difficult choices. • Ground and air transportation issues remain perplexing. While transportation to and from Denver via car improved by raising the speed limit back to 75 mph and with the near completion of the four-lane highway to Aspen, increased traffic along the I-70 corridor and placement of DIA further from Denver makes ground transportation more difficult. At the same time, with only one airline flying the main Aspen/Denver route, fares tend to be high and flight selections limited. What's more, transportation in Aspen is hampered by the constricted nature of the current entrance to Aspen and by a lack of adequate parking facilities downtown. Lack of coordination. In contrast to a "one-company town," such as Whistler Village, in which product offerings, prices, and service levels are thought of as a package, Aspen operates as a group of individuals subject to the competitive forces of the marketplace to dictate which businesses and products are successful. This lack of coordinated effort often manifests itself in a mix of products and services that do not optimally reflect the needs of the resort population and local community. • Aspen is affected by the overall economy. Just as Aspen was affected by the silver bust of the 1890s, today Aspen's economy is largely affected by the economic status of its full- and part-time residents and visitors. With over 8 trillion of "wealth" (at least in terms of pricing) knocked out of the stock market, Aspen's residents are also feeling the crunch. Committee Participants: ACRA Committee Co-Chair Stan Clauson and Community Forum Co-Chair Wally Obermeyer would like to thank the following individuals for their participation and contribution to our committee work: 4 Report and Recommendations of the Economic Sustainability Committee ACRA Jim Baker Molly Campbell David Fleisher Barry Gordon Ken Hammerle Rick Jones Jackie Kasabach John Norton Hanna Pevny Bill Tomcich Aspen Institute Community Forum Jeanette Darnauer Roy Davidson Tom Dunlop Marc Friedberg Michael Kinsley Howie Mallory Charlie Tarver City of Aspen Helen Klanderud Steve Barwick Julie Ann Woods Chris Bendon Pitkin County Shellie Roy We are grateful for staff support provided by Nell Arthur of AC1tA, Cristal Lee of the Aspen Institute, and Crissy DiAmato of the City of Aspen. Economic Sustainability Committee Recommendations: About mid-way through its schedule of meetings, The Economic Sustainability Committee undertook a group exercise to help define key issues with respect to the i economic sustainability of Aspen as a resort. The Committee identified a number of "stumbling blocks" to sustainability and then ranked these issues in importance. Much of the Committee's subsequent work has been to develop a better understanding of these issues, prior to offering recommendations. Following are the five most significant issues, ranked in order of importance as identified by the Committee in an early planning exercise. Each of these issues is associated with one or more recommendations for action. Issue #1 Aspen has a deteriorating lodging and tourist facilities inventory. This includes small lodges and condominiums that are placed in the rental pool. Not only has the number of available rooms decreased greatly, but also remaining facilities are not perceived by the visitor as offering appropriate value for their pricing. Lodging owners and potential developers do not perceive a sufficient return on investment to improve existing facilities and develop new ones. Recommendation #1 Support redevelopment of existing lodging facilities and the development of new lodging facilities. Report and Recommendations of the Economic Sustainability Committee Discussion Because new investment is needed in existing lodging facilities and some new development is needed to replace lodging units lost to conversion, Aspen should embark on amulti-faceted program to support lodging redevelopmentJrenovation in the current economic marketplace. One aspect of this should include supporting interval ownership programs, but only when combined with physical facilities making it possible and required to rent unused periods as short-term tourist accommodations. All boards and commissions involved in the review process should understand the importance of these development efforts and, consistent with their review responsibilities, not burden potential development with excessive requirements or protracted procedures. Community Development staff should be supportive of this redevelopment effort by reviewing current zoning regulations, including growth management restrictions, and recommending zoning changes that facilitate an appropriate amount of lodging development. A short study should be undertaken to determine the actual amount of lodging lost during recent years and an appropriate number of needed replacement lodging units. Community Development staff should also assist potential redevelopers of lodging and rental condominiums by mapping appropriate sites for lodging development and reinvestment, and by supporting a collaborative effort in the permitting process to improve the existing lodging base. Issue #2 The availability of air access is too limited to support an appropriate level of tourism. There is a lack of competition, caused in part by the inability of the airport to serve the current types of regional aircraft used by other potential carriers. Recommendation #2 Continue to upgrade the safety and ezpand the capability of Sardy Field. Discussion: Sardy Field should be improved to accommodate additional types of aircraft, which is a prerequisite to attracting additional air carriers to Aspen. These improvements include runway lengthening and improved guidance facilities. Rather than continue the debate on bringing in the Boeing 737 aircraft, current market studies show that improvements could be targeted to address a wider variety of smaller regional jets operated by other carriers. Moreover, the principal aircraft servicing Sardy Field, the BAE 146, is no longer in production and a program to provide a replacement aircraft has been cancelled by the manufacturer. It is therefore necessary to provide the runway length and other facility improvements that would safely support a wider variety of regional aircraft under a broad range of weather and temperature conditions. Bonding, as a financing mechanism, should be considered in order to accelerate these improvements by providing the local match to the Report and Recommendations of the Economic Sustainability Committee 90% FAA funding. At the same time, it is in Aspen's interest to explore an improved relationship with the Eagle County Airport, and possibly Rifle and Grand Junction airports as well, including transportation and welcome services. Issue #3 The Aspen (and Pitkin County) economy has a low multiplier effect, with income flowing out quickly because we lack abroad-based and complete range of economic sectors. Recommendation #3 Develop abroader-based economy by supporting commercial and affordable housing in-fill opportunities in the Commercial Core and Service/CommerciaU Industrial (S/C/I) zones of Aspen, as well as at the Aspen Business Center (ABC), and by supporting housing opportunities for a greater number of Aspen employees. Study measures to encourage locally owned and operated businesses. Ezplore ways to develop locally owned and local serving retail space. Discussion: There are several factors that cause leakage of sales out of our local market area and diminish the re-circulation of dollars spent in the community. These include the downvalley location of construction companies/contractors and consumer shopping opportunities, the fact that a significant number of employees do not live and spend money in Aspen, and the presence of corporate owned retail facilities whose profits are extracted from the local economy. A threefold approach to this problem includes ensuring that S/C/I facilities are retained and expanded through infill wherever possible, additional business facilities and housing should be provided in the Commercial Core through infill, and additional affordable housing opportunities should be developed generally within and adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary. The Committee reviewed trends showing the transition of housing occupancy from local residents to second homeowners, along with the general aging of the population and influx of older residents. These trends have exacerbated the problem of housing availability and affordability for local working residents. The absence of sufficient affordable housing in the metro area has been seen as impacting community-building and transportation, but it should also be seen for its impact 'on markets for affordable consumer opportunities. The Aspen Business Center should also be studied as a significant in-fill area that could support additional S/C/I and Neighborhood Commercial, as well as providing additional housing opportunities. ABC development could include a grocery store and other local- serving retail. 7 Report and Recommendations of the Economic Sustainability Committee Issue # 4 Land appreciation and unrealistic rents paid by certain tenants have created a situation of diminished retail possibilities and vacancies in the Commercial Core. Recommendation #4 Develop new regulations for the Commercial Core based on vertical zoning that generally requires retail at the ground floor level, while reserving professional office and housing opportunities for upper stories. Develop program recommendations for affordable retail and commercial start-up opportunities as part of the infill planning activity. Inventory and study measures from other communities that might further contribute to a vibrant retail environment as well as supporting local serving businesses. Review the Downtown Enhancement and Pedestrian Plan (DEPP) study for implementation, particularly with respect to mall improvements and wayfinding. Discussion: The current retail environment has often been characterized as one dominated by elite international chains and other uses that are capable of paying significantly higher rents than would be economically feasible for a broad range of retail activities. This displacement is in part a function of economic forces, but might be ameliorated by limiting the encroachment on the retail environment ofnon-retail uses, providing some additional affordable retail through infill, and reviewing measures taken in other communities to enhance the diversity of retail shopping opportunities. At the same time, it is recognized that there has been a lack of cooperative activities among retailers. Efforts to form a retail organization should be supported for the coordination of store hours, promotion of the retail environment, and the launch of a "buy Aspen" program. On a broader level of cooperation, initiate a "commercial core task force" made up of landlords, shop owners, and marketing experts to develop strategies to invigorate the shopping/entertainment experience on the malls and commercial core areas. Such a group, known as the Downtown Improvement .Group, has recently been organized by the City, with a mandate to provide recommendation for the malls and commercial core within six months. The Committee did review the current restrictions on store size and determined that store size alone does not seem to have an influence on whether a business is locally owned or local serving. The Committee has not recommended more stringent store size limitations as a means to achieving these goals. However, there may be other potentially useful code changes or creative measures that can be culled from various resort communities. The Downtown Improvement Group, with City staff support, should survey these measures as soon as possible. The Downtown Improvement Group should then recommend key measures for adoption. 8 Report and Recommendations of the Economic Sustainability Committee Issue #5 There is a diminished sense that Aspen is different. Recommendation #5 We need to take action to reinforce and enhance Aspen's uniqueness. We need to promote its virtues, which include many "firsts" for a resort community. At the same time, we need to act out our support for and belief in our community. Aspen's activities and the marketing of the resort should be a coordinated effort among the Chamber, the Aspen Skiing Company, and the cultural nonprofits. New parks and recreation facilities should be included in marketing and media relations. A vision of Aspen should be supported by the redevelopment of Aspen's infrastructure facilities and development of new facilities, including a performing arts/convention center. Discussion: We should re-affirm that, while other resort venues bring together an historic downtown, outdoor activities, and cultural elements in some measure, Aspen's history of blending these activities-Walter Paepcke's dream of nurturing the mind, body, and spirit- presents avery real marketing advantage. The community has moved forward to significant status in all of these areas, but cannot rest on its laurels. The new music tent and construction at the Anderson Ranch could be complemented by additional performance and arts venues. The community should study the need for a conference/convention/performing arts center capable of accommodating audiences larger than supported by current facilities and equipped for multi-purpose functions. The uniqueness and quality of existing cultural events and outdoor activities taking place in Aspen can and should be a marketing focus, but additional opportunities should be developed to meet the interests found among people at every age. Young people particularly are often excluded from popular performances because they occur in alcohol- restricted venues. More opportunities for youth recreation should be developed and promoted. With respect to marketing, additional tax sources should be studied to provide money for a coordinated Aspen marketing campaign. Particularly with the lack of state investment in tourism promotion, additional dollars spent on advertising and public relations could have a significant impact. Other efforts should include lobbying for a reinstatement of Colorado tourism promotion. Both the public and private sectors should be encouraged to continue to reinvest in Aspen's infrastructure. Over time the community has spent significant dollars in restoring the Wheeler Opera House, purchasing open space, creating affordable housing, developing bike trails, making additions to the hospital, and currently building a recreation center, a new golf club house and the major school improvements. Currently lacking are downtown parking facilities, an effective entrance to Aspen and an inter-mountain interconnect. 9 Report and Recommendations of the Economic Sustainahility Committee We encourage moving forward on the Entrance to Aspen as approved in the CDOT Record of Decision. Much public participation and reseazch was undertaken resulting in the decision to provide a new entrance to the community. The plan as approved provides a very high level of open space amenity, supports current and future forms of public transportation, and will help to eliminate congestion that negatively affects all members of the community. Opportunities for public/private partnerships should be explored to create additional and more convenient parking, as well as a gondola interconnect for the mountains. The present interconnection of the mountains by busses and cazs is inadequate, both from a functional and marketing perspective. Infrastructure development and renewal should be encouraged to continue at all of the four ski azeas. Other long-term recommendations: Do not over-react to exogenous economic variables. Just as the market boomed in the 1990s, there may be a slowdown, but things will surely rebound given time and patience. No "quick-fix" should denigrate from safeguazding Aspen's competitive advantages of beauty and cultural richness, whereas traditions of debate and thoughtful governance will payoff in the long term. Develop, track and monitor kev community economic variables as well as certain "intrinsic value" indicators that are more quality of life and aesthetically orientated. Trends in these indicators can then be used as feedback for both positive and negative impacts. The City and ACRA should jointly provide this data on a timely and regulaz basis to complement Healthy Mountain Communities' "County Profiles" and Regional Indicators." • Continue to have abusiness/government/non_profit forum as a means of collaboratively assessing and addressing community/business challenges and opportunities. This forum could meet quarterly. Action Item Summary 1. Support lodging renovation and redevelopment in the current mazketplace, including interval ownership, if combined with physical facilities that make it possible and required to rent unused occupancy periods as short-term accommodations. 2. Review current zoning regulations, particulazly growth management restrictions, to recommend changes that facilitate lodging development up to a revised level of replacement units. 10 Report and Recommendations of the Economic Sustainability Committee 3. Study and establish a new target level for replacement lodging units. This should supplant the current annual allocation and total build-out numbers in the current growth management portion of the land use code. 4. Identify and map potential redevelopment sites for lodging. 5. Provide runway lengthening and improved guidance facilities at Sardy Field to support a wider variety of regional aircraft and encourage new carriers to come into Aspen. 6. Explore improved transportation connections and welcome services at Eagle and Grand Junction airports, while maintaining and enhancing Aspen Airport visitor services. 7. Retain and expand through infill S/C/I facilities wherever possible to help counter downvalley economic leakage, and provide needed goods and services to Aspen residents and visitors. 8. Continue efforts to develop affordable housing within and adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary and, through infill, in the Commercial Core. 9. Study in-fill expansion possibilities within the Aspen Business Center (ABC) for S/C/I and Neighborhood Commercial, as well as additional housing opportunities. 10. Study code changes designed to limit the encroachment on the ground floor retail environment by non-retail uses. 11. Study mechanisms for affordable retail development. 12. Support the development of a retailers association for the coordination of store hours, promotion of the retail environment, and as a vehicle. to give the retailers voice on political and regulatory issues. 13. Support the activity of the newly-formed Downtown Improvement Group-a commercial core task force made up of landlords, shop owners, and marketing experts- to study ways to invigorate the shopping/entertainment experience on the malls and in the commercial core. 14. Empower the Downtown Improvement Group and provide staff support to communicate with other communities, and research and recommend code change and/or other creative measures that encourage a desirable downtown retail mix. 15. Study the possibility of developing aconference/performing arts center of sufficient size able to accommodate community cultural activities and provide conference-marketing opportunities. 11 Report and Recommendations of the Economic Sustainability Committee 16. Marketing efforts should provide a stronger relationship to the cultural activities available in Aspen. 17. Provide additional opportunities for evening recreation for young people to complement the extensive outdoor recreation available. 18. .Consider additional tax sources for marketing funds, including the possibility of a one-percent sales tax for marketing purposes, not only to promote winter skiing but also to highlight the summer season with its increased cultural and recreational activities. 19. Join with other communities in lobbying efforts for a reinstatement of state-level tourism promotion. 20. Continue to reinvest in Aspen's infrastructure through collaboratively exploring public/private and interagency partnerships for certain projects and moving forward on others that have already approved. These include: • The Entrance to Aspen as approved in the CDOT Record of Decision, • Possible additional and more convenient parking, and • A gondola interconnect for the four ski areas. Who is Responsible for Carrying Out these Recommendations? At first glance, it may seem that responsibility for carrying out these recommendations falls to government, both City and County. However, the concerted efforts of many organizations will be needed to brainstorm and determine the specifics of many of these recommendations, provide support for the recommendations in the political and review process, and organize non-governmental activities the complement the recommendations. The Aspen Chamber Resort Association Board should review and adopt recommendations that it believes will be effective in providing for resort sustainability. Then the Chamber should provide active support for its positions. Other associations, including the Aspen Lodging Association, the Aspen Retailers Association, SkiAspenSnowmass, and the Downtown Improvement Group, can have an important role in developing cooperative activities and influencing public policy development. The Aspen Skiing Company is an important private sector partner and should be represented as these recommendations are discussed. Their corporate planning for ski area development and transportation programs remains a key factor in implementing these recommendations. 12 Report and Recommendations of the Economic Sustainability Committee Governmental review boards, such as the Historic Preservation Commission and the City Planning & Zoning Commission, have a significant impact in their reviews of potential projects and code changes. It is important that they be made aware of the research and conclusions of this Committee. Finally, while a number of these recommendations are already being undertaken by study groups, such as the Airport Master Plan Process, that in itself does not ensure successful implementation of their recommendations. Concerned citizens and organizations need to monitor and participate in the political process relating to these recommendations in order to expand the dialogue about our efforts and improve chances for success. Adoption Notwithstanding the disclaimer regarding individual opinions and those of the organizations represented, this report and its recommendations were unanimously adopted by the Committee at its meeting of 25 September 2002. C:\Documents and Settings\Stan Clauson\Desktop\Final ESC Report.doc 13 1 t t, ~1~~ 2003 District Meetings Agenda / Welcome and introductions / Local issues update / Discussion of upcoming statewide ballot issues / State/local tax policy issues / CML member services review / Other items of interest Inside... • Members services summary • Statewide ballot issues memorandum • Tax policy memorandum • Campaign reform law memorandum • U.S. Communities Government Purchasing Alliance • Coming events • Sign-up sheet for CML committees • Sign-up sheet for Issues Update • Sign-up sheet for Elected Officials' Leadership Training • Training survey Member ~~~~ ~1 ~ Services Municipal Elected Officials' Training Program The Municipal Elected Officials' Leadership Training Program is recog- nized throughout Colorado as providing quality training for local government leaders. Since GO~TINUl~ 1991, ~jj, ~ hundreds of municipal elected officials 1,~, have enrolled in this successful program. The Leadership Training Program is built on basic principals such as educa- tion, training and networking. By attend- ing CML-sponsored workshops and conference sessions, elected officials accrue credits on their way to achieving leadership honors. The program is simple: ^ Any municipal elected official may participate. This includes mayors, councihnembers and trustees. ^ There is no cost to enroll and the program is administered by CML ^ There are no minimum requirements or required courses. The participant selects the training that fits their specific interests and needs. ^ Each participant has a total of six years to complete any or all levels of the training program. There are three levels of achievement in the Elected Officials Leadership Training Program: ^ Certificate Level - Once a participant has accumulated 30 credits by attend- ing accredited CML trainings he/she will receive a framed certificate of achievement. ^ Leadership Level -The second level in the program requires an accumu- lated total of 60 credits. Once coin pleted the participant will receive a specially designed CML Leadership Pin. ^ Century Level -The final level of the program requires an accumulated total of 100 credits. Participants com- pleting this level will receive a wall plaque. After each level is completed, Leadership Training Program partici- pants will be recognized in CML publications, and press releases will be provided to local media. Awazds are pre- sented at the recipient's district meeting or at the CML Annual Conference. U.S. Communities Govern- ment Purchasing Alliance CML is a sponsor of U.S. Communities for the State of Colorado. This cooperative purchasing program features competitively solicited contracts for: office/school supplies, office furni- ture, electrical and comm/data supplies, industrial supplies, and computers. Through U.S. Communities, CML has leveraged national purchasing volumes for the benefit of Colorado municipali- ties and other local governments. Deep discounting is available through a com- petitive solicitation process that resulted in contracts awarded to Office Depot, Graybaz, Grainger, Haworth, Herman Miller, Knoll and Steelcase. Computer products aze also available from nation- ally recognized manufacturers and vendors. Key Program Advantages are: 1. Competitively solicited contracts by a lead public agency 2. Most favorable public agency pricing 3. No cost to participate 4. Non-exclusive contracts For more information, please go to the U.S. Communities Web site (www.uscommunities.org) or check out the U.S. Communities page on the CML website, www.cml.org. Colorado Job Finder Colorado Job Finder, a bi-monthly government employment classified publication produced by CML, allows members to advertise employment opportunities free to subscribers who are interested in careers in local government. For information or to advertise in the Colorado Job Finder, contact Barb Major at CML, (303) 831-6411 or bmajor@cml.org. CML Publications In addition to providing a bi-weekly newsletter and a bi-monthly magazine, CML has more than 50 publications pro- duced by staff and experts in the field on a variety of topics and interests. Recent publications include 2002-2003 Directory of Municipal and County Off cials and Buyers Guide, 2003 Financial Condition Report, How to Hire a Municipal Manager, Paying for Growth: Impact Fees Under SB 1 S, Winning with Youth: Involving Youth in Municipal Government, and updates to The Handbookfor Municipal Elected Officials, Nuisance Control in Colorado Municipalities, and Open Meetings/Open Records: Colorados Sunshine Laws and Municipal Government. A complete list of CML publications is available on the League Web page, wwrv.cmLorg, or by contacting CML. For More Information Unless noted otherwise, contact CML Training and Outreach Coordinator Sara Reynolds, at (3U3) 831-6411 or by e-mail: sreynolds@cml.org. r~~~^ ~~ 111 1144 Sherman St. • Denver, CO 80203-2207 • Phone (303) 831-6411 • -FAX (303) 860-8175 • www.cml.org Among the three statewide mea- sures on the Nov. 4 ballot con- sidered by the League Executive Board, the Boazd has taken posi- tions on two and has deferred tak- ing aposition on the third one until October. On Referendum A, dealing with water-project financing, the League is neutral. On Initiative 32, the residential property tax rate amendment, the League's Boazd postponed taking a position until its Oct. 3 meeting in Stratton. On Initiative 33, dealing with video lottery ternunals (VLTs), the League is opposed. Referendum A -Water project financing In June, the CML Executive Board voted to take a neutral posi- tionbecause of conflicting regional water interests. It allows the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) to issue up to $2 billion of water infra- structure revenue bonds for projects reviewed by the Board and approved by the governor. Applicants can be either public or private entities. Project recommendations must include two projects in different river basins with start dates in 2005 and must contain detailed financial and other project-specific informa- tion. The referendum requires that a minimum of $100 million worth of bonds be available to finance all or part of approved projects that aug- ment or improve existing water infrastructure facilities or conserve existing water supplies without cre- ating new water-storage facilities. The governor must approve at least one project with a 2005 start date. Repayment is intended to be made from revenues derived from the projects themselves, and to not impose any obligation on the state itself. Here aze some issues worth assessing from a municipal perspec- tive relative to Referendum A: • Approval of the referendum has the prospect of providing an addi- tional funding source for increasing stored water supplies and rehabili- tating existing storage and transfer structures. • The mandate that two projects have to be approved by 2005 with- out further legislative approval has some areas of the state concerned about out-of--basin diversions with- out clear mitigation. • It is not cleaz how the process will advance if there aze no appli- cants for funding. Historically, the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority, which helps fmance many munici- pal projects around the state, has had project money to lend for stor- age facilities but rarely has had applicants for the funding. League staff contact is Kevin Bommer (kbommer@cml.org). Initiative 32 -Residential property tax rate The Executive Board has post- poned taking a position on this measure until its Oct. 3 meeting in Stratton. This measure freezes the residen- tial assessment ratio at 8 percent starting with property taxes paid in 2004. This initiative repeals the so- called Gallagher Amendment that established how residential property is valued for assessment purposes. Under Gallagher, when the value of all residential property statewide rises compazed to the value of all other property, the residential assessment rate decreases. Under Gallagher, residential property own- ers never pay more than approxi- mately 45 percent of all property taxes. It was adopted as part of a broader property tax constitutional amendment referred to the voters by the General Assembly in 1982. Since 1986, the residential rate has fallen from 21 percent to 7.96 percent in 2004. Projections antici- pate that this residential ratio will decrease to 7.25 percent by 2008. If Initiative 32 passes, the residential assessment rate will be set perma- nently at 8 percent. Here are some azguments both in favor of and against the measure from amunicipal-tax-policy stand- point: Pro • Freezing the residential rate prevents further erosion in the assessed valuation and resulting municipal property tax revenues. It will stabilize business property taxes, which bear a neazly four times greater burden in property tax payments when compared to the residential side. This has potential economic-development benefit. • Utilizing state General Fund moneys to backfill the School Finance Act will be minimized because of the freeze and its impact on school district property taxes. This frees up such revenue to be Building strong cities and towns through advocacy, information and training since 1923. available in the state budget for other purposes of potential benefit to municipal and other local gov- ernment interests. By fiscal year 2007-2008, it is estimated this will amount to $26.7 million in addi- tional state revenues that will not have to be earmarked for schools. • Fixing Gallagher takes care of one significant state-local problem that might not be able to be addressed in conjunction with TABOR and Amendment 23 issues. Con • Freezing the residential ratio will make it easier for the General Assembly to eliminate the business personal property tax, which now constitutes 13 percent of total prop- erty taxes, and to enact other prop- erty tax breaks for nonresidential taxpayers at the expense of munici- pal revenues. Gallagher acts as a deterrent because when such prefer- ences aze now granted, it further forces down the residential ratio and increases state appropriations required by the School Finance Act. • Holding down residential prop- erty taxes as Gallagher has done has helped greatly to avoid property tax revolts and made it easier to pass local bond issues and tax increases. A residential ratio freeze will shift more property taxes to homeowners and may increase voter discontent regarding future local finance ballot questions. • Changing Gallagher in isolation of other constitutional changes might make it more difficult to craft a comprehensive tax policy solu- tion. League staff contacts: Ken Bueche (kbueche@cml.org); Sam Mamet (smamet@cml.org); Mike Braaten (mbraaten@cml.org). Initiative 33 -Video Lottery The League opposes the Video Lottery Terminals proposal because, among other things, it will severely affect the three gaming Cities of Black Hawk, Central City and Cripple Creek; reduce revenues to the state historic preservation fund; and provide no protections (local voter approval) or revenue stream (no fees or taxes on VLTs) to Aurora, Colorado Springs, Commerce City, Loveland and Pueblo to offset service and other impacts. The proposal authorizes the state Lottery Commission to place a minimum of 500 VLTs at tracks located adjacent to Loveland and Aurora, and at tracks located in Commerce City, Colorado Springs, and Pueblo, as well as the limited gaming facilities in Black Hawk, Cripple Creek and Central City. Net proceeds accrue to the exist- ing lottery recipients (including Great Outdoors Colorado and local governments directly through the Conner- vation Trust Fund), and establish a funding stream of up to $25 million for state tourism pro- motion efforts. On the down side, gaming tax revenues will be reduced to the state historic preservation grants program and to Black Hawk,. Central City and Cripple Creek. VLTs will be located in affected communities without any local vote or express authority to impose fees or taxes on such gambling devices to mitigate community impacts. Here are some pro and con azgu- ments from a municipal perspec- tive: Pro • Generating $25 million for tourism promotion will be a signifi- cant economic shot in the ann for the state, which has lagged nation- ally in its commitment to tourism promotion. • Increasing revenues between $18.5 million and $34.5 million are expected for the Conservation Trust Fund during the next three fiscal years. In FY 2002-2003, the CTF received $41.9 million. Additional revenue is anticipated for GOCO and state parks. • Boosting new economic devel- opment opportunities to the cities with tracks adjacent to them or in their city proper could be signifi- cant. Con • Reducing revenues to the his- toric preservation grant program will have major impact on local governments statewide. There will be reduced revenues to Black Hawk, Central City and Cripple Creek because fewer people will visit the mountains and stay along the Front Range. • Increasing traffic and law- enforcement pressures will be placed upon the cities with VLTs. There is no specific authority to pay for these off-site impacts with fees and taxes much as there is now for casino gambling. Voting locally on whether to allow VLTs is not provided for as it is now for the expansion of casino gambling. League staff contact: Sam Mamet (smamet@cml. orgy. Web resources • Information on ballot measures (both analyses and texts) is avail- able online at the General Assembly Web site: www.state.co.us/gov_dir/stateleg.ht ml under Ballot Issues. • Municipal officials also need to be aware of the do's and don'ts of the state's Fair Campaign Practices Act as it relates to the expenditure of public funds and official munici- pal involvement. See either the Aug. 1 Newsletter, or go to www.cml.org and look in the What's New box. Questions on the act should be directed to your appropriate municipal legal coun- sel. League staff contact person on the FCPA is Geoff Wilson, gwil- son@cml.org. ^ C~_~!i ^ 1144 Sherman Street -Denver, CO - 80203-2207 - (303) 831-6411 5/5/03 Synopsis of Constitutional Amendments Affecting State and Local Finances and Services 1982 Referred Property Tax Amendment (commonly referred to as the Gallagher Amendment). This referred measure substantially revised property tax assessment and taxation laws with several objectives, probably foremost being to equalize and standardize property tax assessment practices throughout Colorado. The measure also exempted certain classes of business and agricultural property not previously exempted and set the assessment rate (formerly 30% for most. classes) at 21 % for residential property and 29% for most other classes. In order to obtain the necessary votes in the. Senate to refer the Amendment to voters, the General Assembly adopted an amendment offered by then Senator. Dennis Gallagher to ensure that property taxes would never be shifted from nonresidential properties to residential properties. This resulted in establishing a fixed ratio of 45% for residential. and 55% for all other classes. The Gallagher Amendment has had the unanticipated effect of reducing the assessment rate for residential property to its current level of 9.15% and to a further reduced level of 7.96% for 2004, since actual values of residential properties have increased much more rapidly than other properties. The almost continuous and precipitous drop in the residential assessment rate has substantially restricted property tax revenues for local governments, particularly since passage of the TABOR Amendment. It has also resulted in business paying a continuously increasing proportion of property taxes. The state budget has also been adversely affected because the School Finance Act requires the state General Fund to replace, or °back fill," school revenues when property tax revenues decline. A positive effect of the. Gallagher Amendment has been to discourage the General Assembly from exempting from taxation or redefining valuation and thereby reducing the assessed valuation of any nonresidential classes of property, because to do so would reduce the residential assessment rate and further shift taxes. to other nonresidential classes. The Amendment may also have improved the prospects for passage of property tax and debt issues since the preponderance of voters are property owners. -1- 1992 Initiated TABOR Amendment This initiative limited state and local taxes and revenues in multiple ways. Perhaps its most prominent features (1) required voter approval for any new tax or tax increase (apparently including any mill levy increase even if only to offset declining assessed valuations), and (2) limited growth in annual revenue to a formula of the past year's revenues adjusted for growth (for local governments other than schools net new construction of taxable real property improvements and net additions of taxable real property) and increases in the Consumer Price Index. The TABOR requirement for voter approval of tax rate increases has apparently prevented adjustment in mill levies even if only to offset declines in assessed valuation brought about by the Gallagher Amendment or economic factors. The TABOR revenue limits are particularly problematic in that they prevent a return to the prior revenue and spending base (and service levels) following a recession. The Amendment, approved before the single subject rule prohibited multiple subjects, contained a number of other restrictions, including (1) prohibiting new or increased real estate transfer taxes, a tax that had been utilized extensively in resort communities, and (2) converting statutory limits, such as the 6% state General Fund appropriation limit, into a constitutional limit. 2000 Initiated School Finance Amendment This initiated measure, commonly referred to as Amendment 23, required statewide per pupil funding for K-12 public schools to be increased by at least inflation plus 1 % for ten years and thereafter at the rate of inflation. In order to help fund the measure, a portion of the state's income tax revenue was set aside to establish a State Education Fund, with this amount exempted from the TABOR revenue limits and the spending exempted from the 6% statutory limit on General Fund appropriations. The measure also required the state General Fund contribution to the School Finance Act to increase by a minimum of 5% annually for 10 years. The Amendment passed when the Colorado economy was in a strong growth mode. Since K-12 represents about 40% of the state General Fund and state revenues have been declining substantially, Amendment 23 is forcing other programs funded by the state to be terminated or reduced to a much greater extent than would occur but for the Amendment. 2000 Referred Residential Property Tax Relief Program for Seniors This referred measure exempted from property taxes 50% of actual value, up to a legislatively determined amount, for persons 65 and older who have lived in their residence for at least ten years. The initial actual value to which the 50% reduction applied was $200,000, although the General Assembly retains discretion to raise or lower that amount. In order to avoid adversely affecting local government revenue and services, the measure required the state to replace, or "back fill," for local governments the property tax revenues which the measure reduces. The estimated cost in 2003 for the state to replace lost local revenues was about $60 million. Like Amendment 23, this measure was approved when Colorado's economy and revenues were in a strong growth mode. During the 2003 session the General Assembly exercised its discretion in -2- reducing from $200,000 to $0 the value to which the 50% reduction applies, thereby eliminating any negative fiscal effect at least for 1•iscal 2003-04. Interr9elationship of the Constifutional Amendments The existing depressed economy and the interaction of the amendments puts Colorado state and local finances and services in jeopardy. d State and local taxes can't be raised, even temporarily, without an election. ,~ If and when Colorado's economy turns around, state revenues and expenditures can't recover from the lower base, so a return to revenue and service levels prior to the recession is not possible without a statewide DeBrucing vote. d Local property tax rates apparently can't be increased without an election, even merely to offset reductions in assessed valuation brought about by the Gallagher Amendment or by reduced market values caused by a depressed economy. f Expenditures for K-12 schools must continue to grow, forcing deeper cuts in other state funded programs. The effects of these constitutional measures and the state's depressed economy have required a large reduction in state expenditures for fiscal 2002-03 and 2003-04 below the fiscal 2001-02 appropriation level. Since K-12 and Medicare appropriations, which collectively represent over 60% of the state budget, continue to grow, the reduction in other programs has been even more pronounced. Effects of Constitutional Amendments on Municipalities (and Generally on .Other Local Governments) The 1982 property tax amendment (Gallagher) has directly affected municipalities and other local governments through deep and almost continuous reductions in the residential assessment rate. While before TABOR municipalities and other local governments could offset a reduction in assessed valuation by an increased mill levy, TABOR generally has been interpreted to prevent such adjustments without an election. The various tax limits, revenue limits and miscellaneous features of TABOR have severely restricted municipal revenue and services. While the School Finance Amendment of 2000 did not directly affect municipalities, this amendment, along with the effects of Gallagher and TABOR on state government, has placed such severe restrictions on state finances that state budget decisions have adversely affected municipalities in a number of ways. For example: f State grants have been reduced, deferred or eliminated to make room for other state programs or simply to balance the budget (i.e., energy impact, police and fire pension, historic preservation, affordable housing, water and sewer, gaming, library, Tony Grampsas youth, juvenile diversion, noxious weed, heritage planning). -3- ,/~ Programs previously supported by the state General Fund rather than the Highway Users Tax Fund have been shifted to the HUTF, thus reducing funds available for state, municipal and county roads (i.e., vehicle license plate programs). f Other programs traditionally funded by the General Fund are being financed through increased fees imposed on local governments and the private sector (i.e., water and wastewater permitting fees). f State agency staffing levels of some agencies serving municipalities have been reduced to levels that are expected to adversely affect municipalities (i.e., Colorado Bureau of Investigation, Department of Local Affairs). -4- Campaign reform law Use of publ By Geoff Wilson, CML Genera! Counsel ~ allots in statewide or local elec- Btions often include issues of profound importance to Colorado municipalities. As community leaders, municipal officials can and should become actively involved in the public discussion of these issues. However, the state Fair Campaign Practices Act places significant restrictions on the use of public funds for advocacy pur- poses or for dispensing information in connection with local or statewide bal- lot issues (Section 1-45-117, C.R.S.). The FCPA restrictions apply once a statewide petition has been submitted for title setting, once a title has been set on a local initiative or referendum, and upon final action of the governing body placing a referred measure on the ballot. These guidelines are intended to provide municipal officials and employees with general guidance con- cerning what they may or may not do, consistent with the FCPA. However, the municipal attorney should be con- sultedbefore any action is taken that could be viewed as subject to the pub- lic-funds restrictions in the FCPA. Permissible activities It is permissible to do the following in campaigns in support of or in oppo- sition to a proposed measure: 1. The Iocal governing body may take a position of advocacy on the is- sue. The governing body may pass a resolution and take a public stand urg- ing the electorate to vote for or against any matter. Staff background research that leads to passage of a resolution is also permissible. Local governments may report the passage of or distribute such resolu- tions "through established, customary means, other than paid advertising, by which information about other pro- ceedings of [the governing body) is is funds restricted regularly provided to the public" (such as via a local government newsletter or cable television broadcast). 2. The act provides that any public official who has policy-making re- sponsibilities may spend up to $50 of public money on phone calls, letters or other activities "incidental to express- ing his or her opinion on any such issue." This provision is intended to help public officials avoid technical viola- tions of the act when they are other- wise endeavoring to avoid use of pub- lic funds in their advocacy activity; it should not be viewed as affirmative authority to spend public funds on advocacy. 3. Elected officials may speak out on the issues presented on the ballot. There is no limitation in the FCPA on the right of public officials to address any matter before the electorate; the limitation is on expenditure of public funds. 4. Public employees and paid elected officials may work on the cam- paign and speak out on the issues on their own time. Any public employee who becomes involved in the cam- paign should document that the effort is done on his or her own time. If the public employee is on a recorded-hour system, make sure the record reflects that the public em- ployee took time off from public du- ties to engage in campaign activities. 5. If the local government has a policy permitting public groups to use its facilities for community purposes, it may allow groups opposed to or supportive of the ballot proposition to use those facilities if the policy is applied in an evenhanded fashion. 6. Public employees may respond to unsolicited questions or requests for information about a ballot issue; how- ever, the local government should carefully avoid producing information for distribution that is designed to influence the passage or defeat of the issue. 7. The local governing body may use public funds to develop and dis- tribute afactual summary on any issue that will appear on a ballot in the juris- diction. The summary must include arguments for or against the proposal, but the summary itself may not con- tain aconclusion or opinion in favor of or against the proposal. Impermissible activities It is impermissible under the FCPA, except as indicated above, to do the following in campaigns in support of or in opposition to a proposed mea- sure: 1. use or expend public funds or supplies; 2. allow employees or paid officers to work on a campaign during their working hours or use any public facil- ity or equipment for the purposes of a campaign; 3. provide transportation or adver- tising using public property or funds to influence, directly or indirectly, the passage or defeat of any issue; or 4. grant an employee or officer leave from his job or office with the local government, with pay, to work on a campaign. For more information, contact Geoff Wilson at (303) 831-6411. ^ CML News/ester '] SAVING YOU MONEY! Over 5,000 public entities purchase quality products with the most favorable government pricing. YOU CAN TOO! PRODUCTS: ^ Office & School ' ^ Supplies ^ Office Furniture ^ Computers ^ Industrial ^ Supplies ^ Electrical & Communication Data Supplies CONTACT: 1.866.472.7467 www. uscommunities.org info@uscommunities.org ,~- ~~ ~, r. ~~ ~ - r i ~~+ y~ ~,:~ ,,~ :~~ . ~.: All contracts are competitively solicited, non-exclusive, and require no fee to participate. -=~. f rf' ~` ,~ '• Fnundint Ga-Spansars wwo..iuy..acx . 1, U.S. COMII~IUI+TITIES Government Purchasers SA~iNG SOU MQNEY auer`5040 pubtic emit purchases quality prod, witi~ tie most fau+araEiE goverrtmerrt pricing:. YQ:U SCAN TOOT. PRQDCJ~T$: ^ Ot~ics ancJ Sehoal Suppii+as ^ Office Furniture ^ Compu#ers.and: Peripfierais ^` fndu~#dat:SuPplies p 'Electricaat end Communication Data: Supplies ~~ ~;yR('7l,~,~r ~, ~' ~~ ~M 1Yfl>i~i ~~E:~?u~ ~-a ~ r,,;~ ys~ Alai ~cuadrng Co-Spona~or~ Corrtact: 1.98i3:A72:7467 ic-fo~usccsnmunities.o[g wiaW usaommunities.org. All.confracts sne compet-t-vely saifc-ted. not--exclusive-and repu~re no:fas ter pactlc-pate. Upcoming CML Events Friday -Saturday, October 10-11 Attorney's Fall Seminar Vail Marriott Friday, November 14 Workshop: The Municipal Grantmaker - Resource Development for Every Community CML Offices, Denver Wednesday, December 17 Workshop: Advocacy Skills for Municipal Officials CML Offices, Denver Saturday, January 24 Elected Officials Workshop CML Offices, Denver Thursday, February 5 Annual Legislative Workshop Brown Palace, Denver Saturday, February 28 Elected Officials Workshop Location TBD Friday, Apri12 Workshop: Topic TBD CML Offices, Denver Saturday, April 24 Elected Officials Workshop CML Offices, Denver Saturday, May 8 Elected Officials Workshop Location TBD CML Annual Conference June 22 - 26 Steamboat Springs CML 2003-04 COMMITTEE SIGN-UP FORM The CML Executive Boazd has voted to form study committees to prepare the League's 20041egislative program and to address other pertinent municipal issues. Service is open to all elected and appointed officials and staffs of member cities and towns. If you want to serve on a committee, contact Barb Major at the League office, Phone: 303-831-6411 or e-mail bmajor@cml.org. A description of each committee with staff contacts follows. The first name is the lead contact person. The Electric and Gas Utilities Committee will continue to address model franchising issues and also possibly other legislative issues related to electric and gas utilities. Staff Ken Bueche, Geoff Wilson. The General Municipal Issues Committee will continue to examine miscellaneous legislation and other issues that affect municipal operations. Staff Sam Mamet, other staff depending on topic. The Sales Tag Simplification Committee will continue to examine sales and use tax issues, including tax simplifications issues that affect home rule municipalities that collect sales taxes locally and taxation of remote sales. Staff: Geoff Wilson, Kevin Bommer, Ken Bueche. The State-Municipal Land Use Relations Committee will explore issues involved when state facilities are located within municipal boundaries. These issues range from traffic and parking, to land use and zoning. The Committee will consider specific issues and proposed solutions, and work with appropriate state agency representatives to try to solve identified issues. Although focused primarily on municipalities that have state facilities located within their boundaries, any municipal member is welcome to participate. Staff: Carolynne White. The TABOR Amendment Technical Committee will continue to monitor and develop policy on TABOR implementation issues, including litigation, legislation, legal interpretations, operational issues and local government implementation practices. Staff: Cazolynne White. The Tax Policy Committee will examine state and municipal tax policy issues and make recommendations on possible state constitutional and other policy changes affecting municipalities. Staff: Sam Mamet, Ken Bueche, Geoff Wilson, Mike Braaten. Additional committees maybe formed during the yeaz as needed. A sepazate notice will be mailed later this summer to mayors and managers (and clerks where there aze no managers) to request appointments to CML's Policy Committee. The Policy Committee will meet in the fall of 2003 and winter of 2004 to review recommendations of the standing committees and to screen other legislative proposals. The Committee may also meet in May 2004 to develop a proposed CML Policy Statement for 2004- 2005. CML Committee Sign-up Form (please type or print) Please use this form to sign up for any of the above committees. Committee membership is limited to municipal officials only. Please return the completed form by July 1 to Bazb Major, CML, 1144 Sherman St., Denver, CO 80203-2207, Fax: 303-860-8175; call her at 303-831-6411; or a-mail bmajor@cml.org. Name Title Municipality Phone Committee ~~~~ ~~~~ ~a ~~~ ~~~~ C/Ll~ ~ssu¢s Gf~~af¢. CML is sending selected information by a-mail, including the Statehouse Report, immediate-attention notices, legislative alerts and other pertinent communications. If you want to receive these communications, fill out the form below & return it to CML, or a-mail bmajor@cml.org. Name Title Municipality e-mail address Phone # Return form to: CML 1144 Sherman Street Denver, CO 80203 Fax: 303-860-8175 • Municipal Elected Officials Leadership Training Progra Attendance Certificate and Enrollment 2003 District Pre-Meeting By my signature on this form I certify that I attended the above CML session. I understand that I must be enrolled in the Municipal Elected Officials' Leadership Training Program in order to receive the assigned credit. If you are not signed-up for the training program and want to receive credit, please be sure to check the first box below. Please check the appropriate boxes below. ^ I am not presently enrolled in the Municipal Elected Officials' Leadership Training Program but wish to have my name enrolled at this time. ^ I have received my Training Certificate and wish to enroll in the continuing education program. ^ I attended the entire outreach meeting (1.0 credit). Name: (please print):, Signature: Title: Please complete and return this form to CML before you leave today, or mail it to: CML, 1144 Sherman Street, Denver, CO 80203 or fax it to: (303) 860-8175. You will not receive credit in the training program until this form is signed and returned. Thank you! 1 Municipality: CML Training Survey The following short survey will assist CML staff in developing and scheduling programs for CML training events throughout the year. 1. What day of the week would you prefer to attend a CML workshop? (circle all that apply) Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 2. If CML held ahalf--day workshop or seminaz, what time of day would you prefer? a. 9:00 am -12:00 pm b. 11:00 am - 2:00 pm c. 1:00 pm - 4:00 pm d. Would not be interested in a half- day session 3. How faz would you be willing to travel for ahalf-day workshop or seminar? 4. What topics would you like to see covered during CML workshops? 5. Can you recommend any speakers that you feel would be good presenters for CML workshops? 5. Any other comments about CML workshops? 6. Are you a municipal staff member or an elected official (circle one)? Staff Elected. Official 7. Have you attended a CML workshop in the past 12 months? Yes No 8. If an elected official, are you enrolled in the CML Elected Official Leadership Training Program? Yes No* *If no, would you like a brochure on the program? (if so, please fill out name and municipality information below) Yes No Thank you for your time in completing this survey! Member information (optional) Name: Title: Municipality: Please return this form to CML staff before you leave today or mail it to 1144 Sherman St., Denver, CO 80203 or fax it to (303) 860-8175. r ill'~f COLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE 1144 Sherman Street • Denver, Colorado 80203-2207 • Phone (303) 831-6411, FAX (303) 860-8175 TAX POLICYPRIMER FOR LOCAL OFFICIALS Ct1~L STAFF CONTAC"'lS: Ken Bueche (kbueche~7a cml org,) Sam Mamet (smamet car cml org) Mike Braaten (mbraatenna,cmLorg,~303-831-6411 C'CI Stuff Contucts: Lam Kallenberger (lkallenberger~a,ccionline.or~l, Chip Taylor ~jtaylor(u,ccionline.org), 303-861-4076 ~vERV~w TABOR STATE BUDGET (Material prepared by Jim Zelenski, Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute,. 303-573-3757, jamesmzelenskincclponline.org www.cclponline.org) I/~ d' ~1 January 2003 from the Colorado Fiscal Policy institute History and TABOR is an amendment to the Colorado Constitution approved by voters in 1992. The Background amendment requires voter approval for certain changes in tax policy and imposes limitations on the amount of revenue that government can collect and spend. TABOR applies to a111evels of state and local government and affects the state General Fund and Cash Fund. Revenue Year 1 allowable revenue x Population change + Inflation =Year 2 allowable revenue growth C TABOR limits state revenue growth to population change plus inflation. The formula is applied to General Fund and Cash Fund revenue. 1 In 2001 Population + Inflation = 5.1 I Local revenue is limited to local population change plus inflation. School District revenue is limited to change in student enrollment plus inflation 1 Excess revenue (revenue collected above the TABOR limit) must be refunded to the taxpay- ers. 1 Government may seek voter approval to retain and spend all or a portion of the TABOR surplus Takes 1 TABOR requires voter approval: To increase taxes or create new taxes, increase debt or create new debt To increase mill levies For any decision resulting in a net revenue increase 6 TABOR prohibits real estate transfer taxes. Spending 1 TABOR prohibits the "weakening" of any spending limitations already in place when TABOR was passed. For example, a statutory provision known as the Arveschoug-Bird limit, restricts the increase in General Fund appropriations each year to 6% over the previous year's appro- p~•iations. Under TABOR, the 6% General Fund appropriations limit cannot be increased to '~.:~.~. additional or increased appropriations because it tivould be interpreted as "weakening," Genera( 1 Requires an emergency reserve equal to 3% of fiscal year spending. This reserve can only be Provisions spent in a declared emergency such as a natural disaster; fiscal crises do not count as an emergency. 1 Enterprises are exempt from TABOR limitations. An enterprise is defined as a govemment- ownedbusiness approved to issue revenue bonds and receiving less than 10% of its revenue from state and local government. The Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute is a project of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy. 1490 Lafayette St., Suite 206 Denver, Colorado 80218 I (303) 573-5173 tel i (303) 573-4947 fax (cctponline.org Fact Sheet The Taxpayer Bitl of Rights (TABOR) TABOR Surplus I The state first generated a revenue surplus in Fl' 1996-97 and had increasing surpluses until 2000-01. In 2001-02, the economic downturn caused revenue shortfalls in excess of $1 billion. 2001-OZ. The shortfall continues in 2002-03. $9,000.00 58,877.10 II QTotal TABOR Revenue ~ $8,800.00 i n \ IfAlfowable TABOR Revenue 56,596.60 S8,BQ2.80 56,600.00 1 Surplus ~ 58,400.00 f 58,]17.70 / 0 58.200.00 ~ 58,128.00 ~- / / `o ~ / c 58,000.00 ~I 48.80 ~ ~ / ~ 57,920.0 -_ ~ ~ E $7,800.00 ~ 57,780.8 / 57,600.00 / $7,400.00 $7.200,00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Fiscal Year Source: Legislative Council, Focus Colorado: Economic and Revenue Forecast, 2002-2008, September 2002. Total TABOR Revenue is all General Fund and Cash Fund revenue. Allowable TABOR Revenue is the amount the state is allowed to keep after applying the population+inflation formuta to Total TABOR Revenue. A surplus exists when the state collects revenues in excess of the amount of revenue the TABOR limit allows the state to keep (shown in chart above for FY 2000-01). The chart above shows that the amount of allowable revenue in a given year is the base for calculating the next year's allowable revenue, except in years when the Total TABOR Revenue is less than Allow- ableTABOR revenue. 1 In 2001-2002 the state actually collected less money than the TABOR limit allowed the state to keep. Therefore, for FY 2002-03 the amount the state is allowed to keep was based on the amount of revenue the state actually collected in 2001-2002. (The arrows on the chart above represent the population +inflation formula and show to which revenue figures the formula is applied.) Methods of The state is not expected to generate a TtIBOR surplus until FY 2004-OS. dealing with the I Sales Tax Refund TABOR Surplus The legislature created a 6-tiered sales tax refund to refund excess revenue to taxpayers. The sales tax refund is a feature on the state income tax form and is available to all resident citizens over 1 S regardless of income tax liability. € Permanent tax cuts Among other permanent cuts, the legislature passed rivo income tax rate reductions in 1999 and 2000 and one sales tax rate reduction in 2000. The income tax rate dropped from 5% to 4.63% and the state sales tax rate dropped from 3% to 2.9%. Temporary refund mechanisms The legislature created 17 "triggered" TABOR refund mechanisms (tax credits and exemptions) in addition to the 6-tier sales tax refund. Refund mechanisms are tempo- rary as they exist only in years when there is a TABOR surplus. Each refund mecha- nism has a threshold trigger which the surplus must exceed for each mechanism to take effect. 1 Voter Approval of using surplus If the state, or local government, wants to retain and spend all, or a portion of the TABOR surplus, a proposal to do so must be presented to the voters. Jim Zelensl~i Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute (303) 573-5669 x304 j amesmzelenslci~cc(ponline.org www.cciponline.org Colorado's Budget: Challenge, Crisis or ?'rain Wreck? Gallagher Amendment Formula 45:55 Residential:Non-Resid. 29% Non-Resid. Prop. Assess. Rate Fixed Floating Residential Prop. Assess. Rate Residential Ratio falling Total Prop. Taxes Not Growing Schools Mill Levies Cannot Offset State Share of K-12 Rising Amendment 23 Minumnm K-12 Funding Requirements Payments into State Education Fund New Federalism Medicaid & Medical Inflation Welfare/TANF Devolution, Block Grant Capping Federal Commitment Next: Food Stamps, Housing Loss of Counter-Cyclical Fiscal Tool 2003 One-Time State Fiscal Aid TABOR Revenue Caps Spending Caps Ratcheting Certain Tax Prohibitions Election Requirements Colorado Budget rBe~i~a ~. F.. ~ 01.0;~: K 12 Education $2,314M Health Care $1,036M Higher Ed. $686M Human Services $468M Corrections $455M Judicial $201M Revenue $99M Treasury $92M Public Safety $54M GovernorlEc. Dev./Bud. $31M Legislature $29M Natural Resources $22M Public Health Environment $16M Personnel $12M Agriculture $8M Law $8M Local Affairs $7M Military/Veterans $4M Regulatory Agencies $1.5M Total G.F. $5.54B FY02-03 OrigS Budget: Fed. Funds $3B Cash Fds. $1.2B Cash Fds. Exempt $3.4B G.F. $b.1B May 27, 2003 The Economw 9/11/01 r National Recession Colorado Employment Mix Colorado Income Tax Mix War Uncertainties Oil Prices Federal Tax Legislation Estate tax Phase-out {$85M/yr.) Bonus Depreciation ($SOM/yr.) 2003 Extension of bonus deprec. Corrections Budget (+14.4°/~yrl Incr. Felony Sentencing Incr. Prison Population (2.sx per cap.) Mandatory Parole (1993) +12 Mos. (1998) Techn. Parole Revocations (27% of admiss.} Non-Violent Drug Offenses (4x) Minimal Substance Abuse Treatment/ Connection w/Dom. Violence (75% of cases) Incr. Use of Adm. Segregat. Unit Prisons Tax Cuts Income: 5.0-4.75-4.63 Sales: 3%-2.9% Reduced TABOR refunds; couldn't be reversed $550M/yr. 43% of the Revenue Drop ~.~.Issue Brief r _~ June 2003 Fre~m the Gsti®ra~et Fisca~i t~oli~y ir9~titute C~>iorad~'s ~ud~~l<: ~h~ll~>~~e, ~>~sis, ®r 1'rai~u ~r~e~`~ Thousands of words have been written about Colorado's fiscal situation, but no one source seems to have comprehensively set out the many forces that have led us to where we are today. This issue brief looks at a wide variet~~ of causal factors, and seeks to provide a description of each and discussion of th.e different ways in which they compound. As will be seen, it is the perverse interaction among many policy choices and events that have converged to create, in Colorado, the nation's most severe stato fiscal problem. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights -TABOR TABOR, approved by the voters in 1992, is 1,900 words long, by far the longest constitutional amendment ever approved. Its stated purpose was to limit the size and growth. of government. It contains at least four major categories of provisions, many of which were little understood by voters, if at all. Its first major provision was to require that voters approve any tax rate increases or the creation. of public debt. This was the most prominent feature, which voters generally understood. The second feature is the capping of revenues according to a formula that {for the State government) consists of population growth plus inflation. If the state receives more money than the formula allows, it must refund the difference. TABOR requires that each year the formula be applied to the revenue base from the i~aamediately prior year. Thus, if revenues fiom the prior year exceed the allowable base, then it is the lower, retained-revenue figure on which the formula is applied in the following year. If the state experiences a negative revenue growth year, or growth at a rate lower than the formula allows, then the next year's formula is applied to that lower figure. Since 1992, in only 5 years has the state enjoyed sufficient revenue growth to trigger the refund mechanism, and $3.2 billion that would otherwise have been available for state services and infrastructure, was returned to taxpayers. But in the other 6 years, the population plus inflation formula was not even reached. In those years, the formula was applied to a dollar amount that was lower than the official TABOR limit. In fiscal year {F~ 2001-02, the state received 15% less in revenue compared with the prior year, which meant that the new revenue base {for rY 2002-03 and beyond) was lower than the revenue base a year before. Any allowable growth in subsequent years had to build its base upon that actual revenue level, I S% down from the prior year. Significantly, Colorado's population and inflation formula has not_fallen at any time duriJZg this period. This is the "ratcheting" effect. Even. if Colorado's economy booms resulting in recovering revenues, the requirement to use the The Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute is a pro~ect of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy 1 1490 .~.afayettp St., Suite 206 * Denver, Colorado 80218 * 303-573-5669 tel * 303-573-4947 fax * cclponline.org "lower of 'actual or the formula means that refunds will begin to flow long before the state again reaches tfie level of FY 2001-02 revenues adjusted for inflation and population growth. TABOR also has a "weakening clause," tl.~at states that no pre-existing tax, debt, spending or revenue limitation, whether by state statute or local ordinance, may be weakened (made less restrictive} except by vote of tl~e people. Thus, TABOR automatically converted existing fiscal controls from merely law into provisions of the constitution. In the case of the State of Colorado, the Creneral Assembly had. adopted a statute that capped spending for general fund operations at 6% over the prior year. TABOR now locks this into place as a provision of the constitution. So state budget officials must follow two independent limits, one on revenue, another on spending, and the two are not related to each other. Even if the TABOR revenue Limits allow the state to retain a dollar, there is no assurance that the state will be able to spznd the money to keep state operations going. TABOR also de€ines revenue anal spending in odd ways, with the result that, for instance, ifthe state university system grows due to enrollment increases or a rise in the cost of maintaining campuses, it may not effectively raise tuition moneys sufficiently to cover these costs, because it would have to turn around and refund the tuition. money dollar far dollar in any year when the state exceeds its TABOR revenue cap. This has resulted in a decade-long reduction in Colorado's support for its instihitions of higher learning. TABOR prohibits a nufnber of policy actions that are available to most other states. For example, TABOR prohibits the state from adopting a progressive income tax, with the result tl'iat when combined with all other state and local taxes, the poor pay a significantly higher portion of their incomes to support government than the rich. Certain types of taxes are also banned by TABOR, including real estate transfer taxes (a potentially useful revenue source for many resort commL€nities). TABOR requires that any "tax policy change" that results in a net increase in revenues, must be voted on by the people. This means that even if the proposed action does not constitute a tax rate increase, but rather merely the retention of an existing revenue source, it cannot be done without an election. A recent opinion. paper by the Legislative Legal Services regarding the possibility of "de-coupling" Colorado from the federal estate tax phase-out, shows how conservative have become official interpretations of TABOR in this regard. As a result of TABOR's provisions, there are a number of fiscal solutions that are not available to Colorado. First, TABOR prohibits using any of the so-called surplus revenues in any year to be set aside fora "rainy day" fund for use in low- or negative growth years. Second, the "Iower- of'provision in the allowable growth formula results in a pernzanent ratcheting-down of the trend line in budget growth, below even the minimal trct.~d. of population plus inflation. In a majority of years since the adoption of TABOR, the budget trend line has fallen below the formula of population growth. and inflation. In one year (FY 2001.-02}, it actually entered negative territory, triggering a downward ratchet. This represents ground that can never be made up, regardless of how strongly the economy may rebound in the future. The result of these factors is that in just one decade, Colorado fell from 25`h among the states to 47`}1 instate & local spending as a percentage of private personal income. The portion fell from 9.8% to 8.4%, a 14% absolute decrease. TABOR has not merely restrained growth; it has caused government to shrink. The Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute is a project of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy 2 1490 Lafayette St., Suite 206 * llenver, Colorado 80218 * 303-573-5669 tel * 303-573-4947 fax * cclponline.org 'Fhe Gallaher Amendment Passed by the voters in 1982, this referred measure sought to limit the growth in property taxes, remove certain classes of business and agricultural property from the tax rolls, and particularly protect residential property owners from. i.nereases in their tax burden. Its provisions include setting an absolute statewide ratio between the total taxes derived from residential vs. non- residential (business) property. That ratio was set at 45°rh residential to 55°,%non-residential. Secondly, it set the assessment ratio for business property at 29%. The assessment ratio is the percentage figure applied by county assessors to a property's actual market value before applying local mill levies (the school district, county, special district and city tax rates). With the ratio of total property tax dollars mandated by the 45:55 ratio, and with business property set at a fixed 29% assessment ratio, this means that the residential assessment ratio must "float" each year to whatever ratio accomplishes the other two requirements. Over the past two decades, the market value of all residential property has systematically grown. faster that business property (due to the residential construction. boom). As a result, the residential. assessment ratio has fallen from 21% in 1982 to only 9. ] 5% today. This has caused a sharp imbalance in who bears property taxes in Colorado, with businesses taking on ever-larger portions. But Gallagher has had another effect. In Colorado, the property tax primarily supports school districts, with county governments corning in second (special districts and cities receiving only modest amounts). Since TABOR requires a vote of the people to raise any tax rate, the two amendments together require that citizens regularly vote to increase their property tax rates, in order for their school districts and counties just to stay even+. Needless to say, voters have not been so inclined.. Doing nothing results in an automatic shrinkage in the local tax base. The 1994 School Finance Act requires that the state fill in for a systematic decline in local dollars available for schools. Over the past two decades, school district share of school costs have fallen from 60% to 39%, with the state increasing its share from 40% to 61 %. In the P'Y 2002-03 state budget, K-12 education takes up over 40% of the state budget. [It should be pointed out that while this section focuses on school districts, county governments, which. are charged with. administering many programs in the safety net, are also affected in the same way by the Gallagher amendment. The major difference is that the state general fund does not makeup for the declining tax base the way that it does for schools] Gallagher has become unpopular with business owners, and. has certainly been a gift to residential homeowners, if one focuses just on taxes. But, to be clear about the school tax burden on real property, both the business and the residential sectors now bear a significantly lower tax burden than. they did in 1980.. Prior to Gallagher, both. sectors paid. 1.4% of actual value in. property taxes for K-12 education.:By 2002, business was paying l .0% of property value for IC- 12 (a 29% decrease), and residential property was paying 0.32% (a 77% decrease). Another way of looking at the data is to compare the assessed valuation of real property with the market value of property over the past two decades. In 1.983, assessed values were 25.8% of actual values, whereas by 2002 they were just 14.4%. 'Thus, a large portion of the growth in real estate value over the past generation (both from inflation and from new development) has escaped supporting schools through the property tax system. What the combination of Gallagher and TABOR have done, then, is to effectively defend schools at the local level, and force a significant shift of their financing into the state budget. But The Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute is a project of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy 3 1490 Lafayette St., Suite 206 * Denver, Colorado 8x218 * 303-573-5669 tel * 303-573-4847 fax * cclponline.org it has also placed Colorado's schools in a bind from. which. only the state was in a position. to extract it. Amendment 23 As various other forces impacted the Colorado state budget, the state was less and less able to supply sufficient funds to provide a strong K-12 education system. By 2000 Colorado's per pupil spending on b:-12 education had fallen. to 10.3°~o below the U.S. average, despite the requirements of the School Finance Act. In 2000, Colorado spent, for K-12 education, S6g6 per pupil below the average in the United States. These figures count both local and state funding (all sources). In I~dovember 2000 vaters approved a constitutional amendment that provides certain. miniz~um funding for K-12 public schools. The amendment provided that funding for categorical school programs grow annually by at least inflation plus 1%between FY 2001-OZ and FY 2010-11, and then by inflation thereafter. It created a state education fund, and exempted spending from the fund from TABOR limits. It requires that funds be deposited into the state education fund equal to one-third of one percent of Colorado taxable income, and that these deposited ievenues also be exempt from TAI3®.R limits. It requires that the state education fiord money only be used for the fallowing:. - Increase per pupil school funding - Categorical school programs se~rvin.g identified populations - Specified educational programs - Public school capital construction It prohibits using state'education funds to supplant the level of funding that was in place in 2001 (the effective date of the measure). Finally, it requires that appropriations to fund total program funding under tl~e School Finance Act increase by at least 5% in all years except when state personal income grows by less than four and a half percent. The overall effect of Amendment 23 has been to guarantee steadily increasing Y-I2 school funding regardless of the condition of the state's budget. bi FY 2001-02, the state had to refund S927M in "excess" TABEJR revenues (based on the FY 2000-OI foamula), in addztion to fully funding the state education fund. When state revenues began. to decline during 2001, tlae General Assembly and the Governor began reducing spending, mostly an planned capital projects, and. a conditional hiring freeze was also implemented. However, because prior year income growth had been high, the provisions of Amendment 23 still had. to be fulfilled. In FY 2003-04, K- I2 Education is expected to constitute 42.7% of general fund appropriations; it is now estimated that due to cutbacks in other areas, and the requirements of Amendment 23, Ii- I2 spending will rise to 47% in just a couple of years. Education .is crowding out all other state programs. State budget off cials have been proceeding on the assumption that the minimum funding requirements of the amendment have to be followed at this time. This means that an estimated 85% of the Education department's general fund budget is off-limits to budget cuts that are now underway. In January 2003, Legislative Legal Services issued a memorandum regarding the requirements of Amendment 23 in light of current economic and fiscal conditions. Without repeating the specific findings, the overall conclusion of the memorandum was that it appears to The Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute is a pro~ect of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy 4 1490 Lafayette St., Suite 206 * Denver, Colorado 80218 * 303-573-5669 tel * 303-573-4947 fax * cclponline.org be possible to reduce Iti-12 education appropriations slightly lower than previously thought. This is because prior-year education spending exceeded that required under the amendment, and personal income lass indeed fallen. below the 4.530 trigger. Given the proportion of the state general fund occupied by Education and the requirements of Amendment 23, cuts in other departments will be dramatic over the coming years. The New Federalism Most Americans have come to understand our form of government as a one of federalism, where various functions are carried out by the national, state, and local levels of government. The relationship aanong the Ievels has never been static, but a new phase began in the last third of th.e 20`" century in what has been called the "new federalism." Under the new federalism, signifacant responsibility for safety net programs has been. gradually moved from the national to the state government. Cost sharing among the national, state and local governments have become increasingly prevalent, and control -over the details of different programs have moved into state hands. As the federal governtasent sought to balance its awn budget, it began to cap its contribution to these; programs. This was done by reducing absolute funding levels, freezing funding levels so that federal appropriation amounts adjusted for inflation began. Yo shrink, and finally by weakening the extent of entitlement in formerly ; ategorical programs. In ] 996 the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWQRA) ended welfare as an entitlement and replaced Aid to Families with Dependant Children (.4;r17C) with Temporary Assistance for lsieedy Families (TANF). Pl2.W©RA placed a 60-m. oath lifetime Iirnit ota cash support, required increased work participation as a condition of receiving benefits, and placed many decisions regarding benelts anal. eligibility in the hands of states. Coloreds it7 particular moved many of these decisions to county social services departments. Medicaid, the health. insurance program for poor Americans, is part of Title 19 of the Social Security Act. The federal anal state governments share in the costs of Medicaid according to a formula that considers the Level of personal wealth of each state. Colorado, being one of the wealthiest states (on aper-capita basis), must contribute one dollar for each. federal dollar .in the program (poorer states may contribute as Tittle as $.25 per federal dollar). The program provides a certain list of medical benefits to eligible recipients that are mandated by Law. In addition, all states have added "optional" services such. a.s prescription drug coverage, anal long-tca-m care for persons at 300% of the SSI income eligibility level. Colorado's program is one of the leanest in the nation. In addition, the eligibility requirements in Colorado are among tlae toughest, in that the means-testing requirements here have among the lowest dollar limits. f3espite Colorado's relatively narrow program, Medicaid has been growing as a percentage of the state's budget. Between. FY 99-00 and FY OZ-03, spending has been rising at 9.8% per year. Medical inflation, efforts to increase the participation rate among eligible residents, especially children, and the economic recession have all contributed to this gro~rth. The state projects that 52.6% of its FY 2003-04 Medicaid caseload will be children. Colorado's Medicaid funds were spent in the following proportions: 41.9% elderly; 31.2°io disabled; 15.7% children; 8.3% adults; and 2.9% non-citizens (FY 2002-03). The Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute is a project of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy S 1490 Lafayette St., Suite 206 * Denver, Colorado 80218 * 303-573-5669 tel "` 303-573-4947. fax * cclponline.org Colorado contributes $1.? billion per year (Fl' 03-04) to the program, matched by ~ 1.4 billion. federal and X239 million in state cash funds. Health care is 21 % of Colorado's general fund. The size and growth rate of health. care, coupled. with a declining revenue base, are crowding out other state programs. The national administration has proposed a modification of Medicaid that would cap or essen. Bally block grant to the program while giving states additional flexibility to establish the parameters of the program. The proposal also sets each. state's block. grant allocation according to the Level of the prog:am at the time of tl7e federal Iaw's passage. Ifthis proves to be the case, as Colorado reduces the benefits and funding for its Medicaid program due to th.e current budget situation, the Colorado Ivledicaid program will be permanently ratcheted down to a recession level program. Thus, the TAf30R ratcheting effect would be magnified b}~ the additional loss oi' federal dollars. The national administration is also discussing converting food Stamps anal. housing assistance programs to block grants as well. Macroeconomic Stahili.ation and the Safet)~ Net -There are three fiscal tools that economists cite as "automatic stabilizers" in the economy. Economic stabilizers provide counter-cyclical benefits in that they restrain inflation when the economy heats up, and. dampen recessions. These tools operate automatically in that they do not require new legislation each time they are needed.. The first automatic stabilizer is the proSressive federal income tax systean. When the economy heats up and inflation threatens, more individuals move into higher tax brackets, taking relatively more m.ctney out of th.e spending stream. During recessions, more people drop to Iowcr tax brackets and they have more money from their paycheck to spend. The second automatic stabilizer is the unemployment insurance system. During boom times, fewer workers apply for benefits because the unemployment rate is low. During recessions, laid- off workers qualify for benefits that replace part of their Former wages. The third automatic stabilizer is the economic and social safety net (public assistance, child care subsidies, food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid, etc.}. When the economy is strong, fewer people qualify, so public spending on these programs slows. During recessions, more people qualify anal ~•eceive benefits, placing mare dollars into their pockets, thus bolstering national income. ECOnOFTiistS see these three foals as critical for smooth. management of t11e national economy. A ke}T reason that they work is that the federal goveniment uniquely has the power to deficit spend during recessions (and of course run surpluses during periods of rapid growth, averaging out aver the business cycle). States, to the contrary, are const7tutionally prohibited from deficit spending. As the third of these automatic stabilizers has changed to become state-centered programs, the economic stabilization effect is lost. In fact, states' budget growth typically.falls during recessions and accelerates during good times. Thus, states are not in a position to respond to the demands of the safety net just when that response is most needed. Colorado and other states across the nation are cutting back on the very programs that not only are needed by the most vulnerable residents, but serve to buoy the economy during recession. The Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute is a proieet of the Colorado Center. on Law and Policy 6 1490 Lafayette St., Suite 206 * Denver, Colorado 80218 * 303-573-5669 tel * 303-573-4947 fax * cclponline.org As a result of the new federalism and the severe constraints of TABOP., Colorado's budget is squeezed during recessions, it is incapable of responding to vital human needs, and it contributes to pYO-cyclical instability in the state and national economy. Tax Cuts When Colorado's economy boomed during the 1990's, state revenue increased, and the TABOR excess revenue provision kicked in. As a result, over five years, the state refunded $3.2 billion to taxpayers. Attempts to gain voter approval. to keep and spend. excess revenues, earmarked for. capital projects, failed. As the amount of the annual refunds rose, and people began to believe that the business cycle was, if not "dead," certainly no longer a feature of Colorado's economic future, the General Assembly and the Governor adopted three successive tax cuts during the years 1999 and 2000. They lowered the state income tax from 5% to 4.75% and then again to 4.63°:0. And the state sales tax was reduced from 3°:o to 2.9%. During the five years of excess revenues, these taxes would have been simply collected anal refunded to taxpayers. But in any year when the state did not reach its TABOR revenue limit, this lost revenue would have been available for st<Zte programs. According to a conservative estimate, as a result of these three talc cuts, the state now fails to receive $550 million per year. This amount is over half the annual budget deficit that the state is now dealing with.. The Bell Policy Center estimates that the tax outs account for 43 % of the amount of the revenue declzne that occurred in FY 01-d2 and FY U2-03. Proponents of th.e tax cuts contend that they would help the state economy grow, as this money v/as allowed to circulate in private hands. l-lowever, there is no evidence to support this, since the national recession began in March 2001.. I.t should be noted that Colorado already had an.e of the lowest state and local tax structures in the nation by the time the tax cuts were enacted (47`h out of 50); it is difficult to imagine how much more competitive the state supposedly is with yet lower taxes. This is especially so in light of Colorado's deteriorating relative position in such areas as h-12 and higher education, Medicaid, etc. In any case, today, were it not for the three tax cats, the state would. now be receiving an additional approximately half-billion dollars in revenue per year. Under TABOR, reversing any tax reduction adopted by statute, must be submitted to a vote of the people. The State Corrections Department Budeet Few Coloradoans are aware that the state's prison population has exploded beyond all historical trends over the past riuo decades. The state's incarceration rate grew from less than 100 people per 100,000 population, to almost 400 per 100,000 between. 1984 and 2002. For a century, Colorado's prison. population rarely gre~7 to the 2,000 mark. Then, beginning in 1.980, it took a dramatic leap to the point where it now stands at 18,696. Legislative staff expect it to reach 24,293 by 2008, or more than 7 times higher than in 1984. The greatest causal factors in the huge increase in the inmate population are significant changes in Colorado's criminal code. This has included both increasing sentencing duration, and. tightening parole rules. _The Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute is a project of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy 7 1490 Lafayette St., Suite 206 * Denver, Colorado 802.18 * 303-573-5669 tel * 303-573-4947 fax * cclponline.org Between 25-30% of prison admissions in the past three years have consisted of "technical parole violations," instances where a parolee slid not commit another crime, but rather failed to fiilfill some aspect of parale such as ehecl: in with a parole officer or leave the state. In 1993 the General Assembly instituted "mandatory parole," which an inmate serves after and in addition to completing prison time. With the resulting increase in the number of Colorado residents on parole, the number of parale violations has risen from 7% of prison admissions (1985), to 27% (2001). Since 1.985, the percentage of the inmate population whose most serious crime was anon-violent drub charge nearly quadrupled. Colorado has the fifth highest rate of drug dependence among the states. Yet Colorado provides minimal substance abuse treatment. Some 70,00(1 Coloradoans would benefit from, but are not receiving, substance abuse ireatment. The extent of substance addiction drives costs in other areas, including law enforcement, health care, and welfare. In one study, 75% of surviving female victims of domestic abuse reported that the abuser had been on drugs or alcolaol_ The human toll from. failing to confront the need for treatment is high. And it is reflected in an increasingly out of control corrections budget at the state level. In Colorado, $1,600 i.s spent on "collateral" costs (courts, public safet}r, etc.) for every dollar spent on treatment or prevention. This is the worst ratio in the nation. Most exports contend that treatment is the main. hope in controlling substance abuse. Yet Colorado devotes new corrections dollars to incarceration, not rehabilitation. Further, Colorado's increased use of "administrative segregation unit (Ad Seg}" prisons (23- hours in acell, one hour out but no human contact) will only make inmates more dysfunctional when they get out (and all but about 2% will eventually get out, in fact trends show that 90% will be out in 10 years). Another 2% of the corrections population. are sex offenders serving indeterminate sentences or are on Lifetime supervision. Violent prison incident rates began falling steadily beginning in 1983, well before the state began. to move towards increased use of more expensive maximum-security facilities, anal arc today 48% below th.e rate at that time. 1'et, Colorado continues to pour money into A.d Segs. Between 1986 and 1.998, the operating budget of the Department of Corrections grew by a compound average annual rate of 14.4%, faster than any other department. Between 1984 and 2001., adjusted for inflation, it grew by an annual 10.57%, compounded. Department of Corrections budget grew from $28.8 million (FY 1980) to $442.1 million (FY 2002). In that period, more than $3.8 billion general fund was spent on prisons, and $800 million on prison. capital construction. During the same period, Colora.do's prison population grew by 9.31%. `with state budget expenditures limited by 6% or actual, available funds, whichever is less (under Arveschoug-Bird and TABOR), corrections growth is clearly crowding out other state functions, primarily higher education. and human services. There is a certain irony in this. No one should be surprised if as a result of the state's withdrawing support from child care and college, disadvantaged youths tut7~z to crime. Not only are Colorado's corrections policies and practices unsustainable from a fiscal standpoint, they are perverse from the standpoint of public safety and human welfare. The Colorado Fiscal Policy institute is a project of the Colorado Center on Law and Polley 8 1490 Lafayette St., Suite 206 * Denver, Colorado 80218 * 303-573-5669 tel * 303-573-4947 fax * cclponline.org [The information in this section. is based on "lncarceration and Correctional Spending in Colorado," a publication of the Colorado Criminal Justice :Deform Coalition. (www.cc~rc.or~).] Federal Tax Legislation America's federal governmezztal system is a comply one. In many cases, especially in the area of taxation, states are dependant upon federal law and in fact often tie state taxes to federal tars. This can be a convenient relationship. For instance, Colorado's state income tax form. merely takes the adjusted gross income (AGI) from the federal tax return, and uses it as the basis for applying the state tax rate. During 2001 and 2002, Congress passed two significant tax bills that phased out or reduced certain categories of federal tax liability. In both of these instances, tax liability to the State of Colorado was significantly reduced as a result, through no action of Colorado elected officials. In 2001, Congress voted. to phase out the .federal estate tax. >~or those states (such as Colorado) whose state estate tax is tied to the federal tax, the "share-back." provision phases out in equal increments over five years. Colorado historically receives approximately $&5 million per year from this source. l~iany states in this situation voted to "de-couple" their estate taxes from the federal tax, thus avoiding the effects of the federal phase-out. In 2002 Colorado's Legislative Legal Services office issued an advisory opinion to the effect that Colorado could not decouple from the estate tax phase-out because .it would violate TABOR. The logic centered around TABOR's provision that any "tax policy change resulting in a net revenue increase" must be voted. on by the people. The attorneys reasoned that decoupling would result in greater state income than doing nothing (as the federal share-back. shrank to zero}, despite the fact that such action would merely enable the state to continue to receive exactly the sa~t7e revenue as it had prior to Congress' action. In 2002, Congress voted to give businesses a more aggressive tax write-off known as "bonus depreciation." This new provision enables firms to accelerate the depreciation, for tax purposes, of facilities and equipment acquired beginning in 2001 and beyond. Such favorable additional depreciation goes right to the bottom .line for the company's net income for tax purposes, thus reducing adjusted gross income. And since Colorado utilizes the federal AGI to apply its income tax, the state's income tax revenue is likewise reduced. Bonus depreciation costs the State of Colorado $SO million per year. It is assurrred that Legislative Legal Services would again rule that decoupling from federal bonus depreciation would violate TABOR as well. Finally, in 2003 the President signed. a tax reduction law that extends bonus depreciation and provides for additional corporate tax benefits that once again affect Colorado's revenue picture. The r~ew law is estimated to cost Colorado $70 million per year (this figure replaces the $SOM above, going forward). In summary, due to the nexus between the federal and. our state tax structures, and th.e restrictions under TABOR, Colorado is at the mercy of Congressional forces outside of its control. The result is clearly to reduce the resources available to resolve the state's frscal situation. The Colorado Fisca] Policy Institute is a project of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy _ 9 1490 Lafayette St., Suite 206 * Denver, Colorado 80218 * 303-573-56(9 tel * 303-573-4947 fax: * cclponline.org The Economy While many commentators place the responsibility for the state's current fiscal difficulties squarely on the economic recession, this paper leaves till last the discussion of the economy as a contributing factor. This is not in order to minimize the economy's effect, but to place it in proper context. Virtually all other stags are wrestling with budget shortfalls tied to economic effects. However, Colorado is clearly unique in not only the severity of its predicament, but in its inability to pull itself out of the dilemma and take control of its destiny. As one examines each of the contributing factors other than the economy, it is clear that it is governmental actions, governmental structures, and voters' decisions -that have pushed the state over the edge, not merely economic factors. Tlie stock market indexes peaked in March 2000 and have been on a steady downward trend. ever since. Economists believe that the country entered a recession in. IVlarch 2001. The attacks of September 11, 2001, served as a major external shock to the economy, negatively affecting both consumer confidence and business investment. In the time following 9/11, nothing has occurred to generate a clear turn-around. for the economy. legislative economists lzavc determined that among the 50 states, Colorado's income mix was the most vulnerable to the stock market crash, because more of our personal income was in the form. of capital gains anal dividends. State economists can only measure the role of capital gains after the fact, by reviewing state income tax retunis to determine the mix of income. The ratio between capital gains, on the one hand, and wage & salary income on the other, was higher in Colorado than for any other state. The stock market decline, thus translated into a more severe income tax revenue fall than in th.e rest of the nation. During the boom years of the 1 clSO's may of the new jobs created. in Colorado were high-tech, well-paid positions. From the states peak of employment in 2000, Colorado lost 72,000 jobs. The modest jab gains over the past few months have not followed the same pattern, centering primarily on lower-paid sen~ice-oriented jobs. This trend has serious implications for the speed and. strength of tlae recovery. Colorado's chief legislative economist believes that it could well be two years before the state's economy begins a recovery equal to the post-recession recoveries that occurred in the 1950's and early 1990's. tend it is unlikely to be as robust, given the patterns of job creation we now face. Two remaining uncertainties must be considered: oil prices and national security risks. Every recent oil price spike in modem history has been associated with a recession. This is because oil and its by-products are so central to almost every economic sector, and oil is part of the cost of doing business and running a household. It should be noted that the nation uses less oil per dollar of gross domestic product than it did in the early 1370's -- we have a more energy- cfficient economy than a generation. ago. Thus, any given oil price spike should have relatively less negative impact on economic growth today. It is not clear whether the nation is in for another increase in oil prices, but if it does occur, it will be on the heels of an already depressed economy. The timing would be indeed unfortunate. The national security landscape changed on 9/11 in ways that are still unfolding. Economic actors tend to respond to uncertainty and risk by spending less and investing less. Events that reduce entrepreneurial risk-taking tend to depress long-run economic growth. Events that The Colorado Fisca] Policy Institute is a project of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy 10 1.490 Lafayette St., Suite 206 * Denver, Colorado 80218 * 303-5'73-5669 tel. * 303-573-4947 fax * cclponline.org increase household saving at the expense of consumption spending, tend to depress the economy in the short run. Further, these two actions reinforce each other. If consumers do not spend, sales fall or stagnate, and firms reduce their investment in new plant, equipment, and inventory. As firms pull back on the investment front, employees are laid off, unemployment rises and weekly hours-worked falls, leaving less money in the pockets of workers and consumers. Conservative economic behavior by firms and consumers will impact Colorado's economy. And the tu~o primary revenue sources upon which the state depends, the personal income tax and the sales tax, will remain stagnant. Conclusion Those who take an in-depth look at causal. factors that have led. to the Mate of Colorado's fiscal situation can draw a number of canclusion.s. 1. The interaction of a series of approved ballot measures have led to a shrinking revenue base, inflexible laws governing state fiscal management, and a low probability of resolution anytime soon. TABOR in particular results in a built-in ratcheting down of the allowable base of revenues to fund state services regardless of economic fortunes; prohibition against the General Assembly and the Governor establishing a fiscal base independent of congressional actions; automatic shrinking of the size of government relative to the private economy over time; the illogical treatment of n.on-tax. revenue tuition fees, etc.) within mandated revenue limits; and the crowding out of vital state safety-net services in recessionary times. 2. Actions by the federal government, together with the inflexible state rules mentioned above, leave Colorado uniquely at the triercy of forces outside its control as it attempts to deal with. its budget. 3. Tire long-term trend in federalism in the United Mates, where the federal government shifts significant responsibility for the safety net but not concomitant resources, to the states, has affected Colorado. This suggests the need, not}ust in Colorado, but also in other states, for a reform of states' ability to respond to economic cycles. This could, far example, take the form of flexible .federal grants that grow during recessions; or a TABOR amendment that exempts from. revenue ar-d spending caps any state money used to match. federal. programs. Colorado's legislative reaction to issues of crime and substance abuse and dependency since the tnicl-1480's has clearly favored a punitive instead of a therapeutic approach. From a. fiscal standpoint, this approach has set the state on an unsustainable course, as the corrections budget is growing far faster than any possible future revenue scenarios. This approach will also likely worse the crime and substance dependency situation itself, as we fail to address the underlying problem and turn inmates into Less functional citizens once they make it to the end of the corrections pipeline. 4. Actions taken by elected officials during prosperous economic times to permanently lower Colorado's tax rate structure are essentially irreversible under TABOR. They account for a substantial portion of the budget shortfall the state now faces. 5. Multiple economic events, including the 9/l 1 attacks, the national recession, the stock market crash, Colorado's particular mix of employment and income, uncertainties surrounding The Colorado Fiscal Policy institute is a project of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy i l 1490 Lafayette St., Suite 206 * Denver, Colorado 8021$ ~` 303-573-5669 tel * 303-573-4947 fax * cclponline.org both national security and energy prices, h. avc contributed, and. continue to contribute to the state's budget situation. Looking forward, many of these conditions will continue to cause a drag on our economy and therefore the revenue outlook. Many Colorado citizens are unaware of both the magnitude of the state's budget problems, and of the services for which the state is responsible. The actions, events and treads described above portend a challenge facing policy makers and citizens alike, due to their impact on vital public services. Colorado's unique constitutional structure elevates this challenge to the Level of a crisis, because the tools available to policymakers are sa limited. Besides needing to resolve the immediate budget shortfall, which is a considerable challenge, there exists a need to radically refomr and strengthertthe tools available to elected officials to exercise the leadership expected of them by citizens. This paper has not described in detail the specific program areas that are affected by Colorado's budget crisis. It ltas referred to the substantially reduced capacity to act that now plagues public officials at the state level.. This combination of actions, events and txends must be fully understood before the tasks ahead cart be identified, and. their magnitude appreciated. .i•im Zelenski senior Fiscal Policy Analyst The Colorado Fiscal Policy lnstitute i~ a project of the Colorado Center ou Law and Policy 12 1490 Lafayette St., Suite 206 * .Denver, Colorado 80218 * 303-573-5669 tel * 303-573-4947 fax * cclponltne.org Q 1144 Sherman Street -Denver, Ca - 5Q2Q3-2207 - (3t~3~ 531-6411 5/5/C3 S~rnop~sis of Constitutia~nat ~mendrnents ~ffectiing State and Local Finances and Serdices X952 ,Referrerd P're~perrfyy Fax Amend'meraf (cammonly referred fo as flte Gallagher ~Erraendmenf) This referred measure substantially revised property tax assessment and taxation laws with several objectives, probably foremost being to equalize and standardize property tax assessment practices throughout Colorado. The measure else exempted certain classes of business and agricultural property not previously exempted and set the assessment rate (fcarmerly 30°!° for most classes} at 21 % for residential property and. 29% for most other classes. In order to obtain the necessary votes in the Senate to refer the Amendment to voters, the General Assembly adopted an amendment offered by then Senator Dennis Gallagher to ensure that propert} taxes would never be shifted from nonresidential properties to residential properties. This resulted bn establishing a fixed ratio of 45% for residential and 55% for all other classes. The Gallagher Amendment has had the unanticipated effect of reducing the assessment rate for residential property to its current level of 9.15% and to a further reduced level of 7.96% for 2004, since actual values of residential properties have increased much more rapidly than other properties. The almost continuous and precipitous drop in the residential assessment rate has substantially restricted property tax revenues for Ipca! governments, particularly since passage of the TABQR Amendment. It has also resulted in business paying a continuously increasing proportion of property taxes. The state budget has also been adversely affected because the School Finance Act requires the state General Fund to replace, or "back fill," school revenues when properly tax revenues decline. A positive effect of the Gallagher Amendment has been to discourage the General Assembly from exempting from taxation or redefining valuation and thereby reducing the assessed valuation of any nanresidential classes of property, because to do so would reduce the residential assessment rate and further shift taxes to other nonresidential classes. The Amendment may also have improved the prospects for passage of property tax and debt issues since the preponderance of voters are property owners. -1- ~9~2 fe*~itiateaf T,~~C?f~ ~4~aeno~rnent This initiative limited state and local taxes and revenues in multiple ways. Perhaps its most prominent features (1) required voter approval for any new tax or tax increase (apparently including any mill levy increase even if only to offset deciinir~g assessed valuations), and (2) limited growth in annual revenue to a formula of the past year's revenues adjusted for growth (for local governments other than schools net new construction of taxable real property improvements and net additions of taxable real Property) and increases in the Consumer Price index. The TABOR requirement for voter approval of tax rate increases has apparently prevented adjustment in milli levies even if only to offset declines in assessed valuation brought about by the Gallagher Amendment or economic factors. The TABOR revenue limits are particularly problematic in that they prevent a return to the prior revenue and spending base (and service levels) following a recession. The Amendment, approved before the single subject rule prohibited multiple subjects, contained a number of other restrictions, including (1) prohibiting new or increased real estate transfertaxes, a taxthat had been utilized extensively in resort communities, and (2} converting statutory limits, such as the 6% state General Fund appropriation limit, into a constitutional limit. 2QQQ initiated Sciaood Finance Amenc~sra®nt This initiated measure, commonly referred to as Amendment 23, required statewide per peapil funding for K-12 public schools to be increased by at least inflation plus 1 % for ten years and thereafter at the rate of inflation. In order to help fund the measure, a portion of the state's income tax revenue was set aside to establish a State Education Fund, with this amount exempted from the TABOR revenue limits and the spending exempted from the 6% statutory limit on General Fund appropriations. The measure also required the state Genera.! Fund contribution to the School. Finance Act to increase by a minimum of 5% annually for 10 years. The Amendment passed when the Colorado economy was in a strong growth mode. Since K-12 represents about 40% of the state General Fund and state revenues have been declining substantially, Amendment 23 is forcing other programs funded by the state to be terminated or reduced to a much greater extent than would occur but for the Amendment. ~pQO t~eferred f~esidentBad Aroperty Tax 6~eiief Program for Seniors This referred measure exempted from property taxes 50% of actual value, up to a legislatively determined amount, for persons 65 and older who have lived in their residence far at least ten years. The initial actual value to which the 50% reduction applied was $200,000, although the General Assembly retains discretion to raise or cower that amount. In order to avoid adversely affecting focal government revenue and services, the measure required the state to replace, or "back fill," for 4ocal governments the property tax revenues which the measure reduces.-The estimated cost in 2003 for the state to replace lost local revenues was about X60 million. Like Amendment 23, this measure was approved when Colorado's economy and revenues were in a strong growth mode. During the 2003 session the General Assembly exercised its discretion in -2- reducing from $200,000 to ~0 the value to which the 50% reduction applies, thereby eliminating any negative fiscal effect at least for fiscal 2003-04. Interrelationship of the Constitrrtfonal ~;mendments The existing depressed economy and the interaction of the amendments puts Co6orado state and local finances and services in jeopardy. Cl State. and local taxes can't be raised, even temporarily, without an election. Ll !f and when Colorado's economy turns around, state revenues and expenditures can't recover from the lower base, so a return to revenue and service levels prior to the recession is not possible without a statewide ®eBrucing vote. [7 Local property tax rates apparently can't be increased without an election, ®ven merely to offset reductions in assessed valuation brought about by the Gallagher Amendment ar by reduced market values caused by a depressed economy. C] Expenditures for K-12 schools must continue to grew, forcing deeper cuts in ether state funded programs. The effects of these. constitutional measures and the state's depressed economy have required a large reduction in state expenditures for fiscal 2002-03 and 2003-04 below the fisca6 2001-02 appropriation level. Since K-12 and Medicare appropriations, which collectively represent over 60% of the state budget, continue to grow, the reduction in other programs has been even more pronounced. Effects of Constitutional /~4mer-drraerets on ll~eenicipalities (and Generally on 4tlaer Local Governments) The 1932 property tax amendment (Gallagher) has directly affected municipalities and other local governments through deep and almost continuous reductions in the residential assessment rate. While before TABOR municipalities and ether local governments could offset a reduction in assessed valuation by an increased mill levy, TABOR generally has been interpreted to prevent such adjustments without an election. The various tax limits, revenue Nmits and miscellaneous features of TABOR have severely restricted municipal revenue and services. While the School Finance Amendment of 2000 did not d'orectiy affect municipalities, this amendment, along with the effects of Gallagher and TABOR on state government, has placed such severe restrictions on state finances that state budget decisions have adversely affected municipalities in a number of ways. Far example: f_l State grants have been reduced, deferred or eliminated to make roam for other state programs or simply to balance the budget (i.e., energy impact, police and fire pension, historic preservation, affordable housing, water and sewer, gaming, library, Tony Grampsas youth, juvenile diversion, noxious weed, heritage planning). -3- C~ Programs previously supported by the state Genera! Fund rather than the Flighway Users Tax Fund have been shifted to the HUTF, thus reducing funds available for state, municipal and county roads (i.e., vehicle license plate programs). C Other programs traditionally funded by the General Fund are being financed through increased fees imposed on local governments and the private sector (i.e., water and wastewater permitting fees). State agency staffing levels of some agencies serving municipalities have been reduced to levels that are expected to adversely affect municipalities (i.e., Colorado Bureau of Investigation, Department of Local Affairs}. -4- CDWRADO ~IAUNICIPALAt;UE; 1144 Shei-nlan Street ~ Denver, Colorado 80203-2307 ~ Phone (303)831-6411, Pax (303)860-817 lY~~+ 1~4 ~: Colorado State Treasurer Mile Coffman 1~]2.®M: Iien Bueche, Executive Director; alld Sazn h~lamet, Associate Director SI.iB~~C~: Recommendations Regarding Constitutional Amendments Affecting State and Local. Government Finance 1~A.TE: September 26, 2Q03 This memorandual~ constitutes the Colorado Municipal League's response to your invitation for comments anal. recommendations from members of the Treasurer's Advisory Group. ~~~e appreciate the opportunity to have attended and participated in th.e meetings of youz- Advisory Group. The information provided in the proceedings was ver~~ informative, particularly as TABOR, Gallagher anal Amendment 23 affect state goverzument. The Colorado Municipal League, which represents 264 of the 270 cities and towns thz-oughout Colorado, would emphasize that, while your proceedings have focused on state aovenln-zent, these constitutional. provisions and certain related statutory provisions are as pervasive and challenging for municipal government and. local. services as they are for the state. Attached to this memo is a white paper dated May 5, 2003, that describes local impacts in some detail. The League's initial position regarding possible modifications to these constitutional provisions can be described with. three general points: ~ Reform of constitutional provisions governing state and local finances is critical. The stresses on public services ~n=ill not be eliminated v~hen the econonry improves. Constitutional reform. is essential to the long range quality of Life in Colorado. ~ Solutions addressing state finance must also provide solutions .for municipalities and other local govenments. While restrictions on state finance have had and will continue to have adverse effects on local finances anal services (as noted in the attached. paper), local governments are also experiencing direct adverse effects that need to be addressed. ~ Establishment of a "Rainy Day" authorization, depending on details, would Ue beneficial during future periods of economic decline and, if adopted, should also be made available at ].Deal option. for local governments. We note, however, that establishment of "Rainy I}ay" fiuZds would be only a modest step fo~-~ward in addressing the fundamental and extensive problems affecting state and l.ocai ~~ovenunent finances anal sei~'ices. The League's development of more specific positions on refornz of these constitutional provisions is underway. V~~e also reco~~~ize that there are numerous alternative approaches to addressing the problems. ~~Te loo]; fo~'aa•d to working with you, other state officials, local officials and interested organizations in foizz7ulating appropriate solutions. F:\KrN\Memo to Mike Coffmssn.wpd The Co~ulty Persi?ecii~ e Property Tax Limits and County Fiscal Behavior June 20, 2003 john "Chip" Taylor Colorado Counties, Inc. 7.700 amudway, Suite 1610 Aenver, Colorado So?90 303.861-076 County Property Tax Revenue Limitations + TAI30R's Fiscal Yeai• Snendin~ Limit for local governments operates in the same manner as the state's fiscal yaar spending limit. + TABOR's Properri~ Tax Revenue I unit resu-icfs property lax revenue to the inflation plus local gro~~~th formula. + The statutory "5.5% Limit" (secs. 29-1-301 and -302, C.R.S.) restricts non-school. property tax revenues to no more than SS% over the prior year. Multiple Types of County Impacts • County revenues and property tax base. • Relative tax liability of individual property owners in a particular classification within a county. • County land use and other decision-making processes. Counties Depend. on Property Tax Revenue • On averaee, counties receive about one-fourth of property taxes paid. • However, this ponion constitutes 63% of county tax revenue (exclud:ing Denver). + In rural counties, wi~ere there is not a signif cant sales tax base, the level of dependence tends to be higher. • Over 90% of tax revenue in liowa County is PT, 82°ib in )rlberl County. Other Provisions That Affect Property Taxes ~ TABOR's Tax Increase Limitation applies to local government as well as the state and prohibits mill levy increases without a vote of the people. • The Gallaher Amendment residential assessment rate (RAR) adjustments have a direct effect on the property tax base. The Gallagher Amendment + The RAR is set to maintain the relative tax burden between residential and nonresidential property on a statewide basis. • By definition, it does not seek to maintain the relative tax burden in any single county or of any single taxpayer. ` County Revenues Are Directly Affected by Changes in RAR • The revenues of counties, as well as cities and special districts. are directly affected by the interaction of Gallagher and TABOR. • School districts, on the other hand, are backn""fled by the. state and see the effect in the portion of ti~eir budget that is funded by the state rather than in real district revenue decreases. The Resulting Shift of the Property Tax Burden * Downward adjustments to the RAR cause nonresidential properties to carry more of the tax burden. (Upward adjustments would reduce the nonresidential burden.) • Stated another way, every dollar of residential value represents less taxable value as a direct result of any reductions in the RAR. Pre-TABOR Considerations • It should also be noted that, prior to the adoption of TABOR, if residential values had gone down the RAR would have increased, effectively shifting more of the tax burden to residential property. • As a historical note, since the adoption of Gallagher, the only time this could have happened teas in 1998. `Not All Counties Are Affected Equally • Counties that are more heavily residential are affected to a greater degree by RAR changes. • Cheyenne County was 3.19°o residential in ?000, thz lowest in Colorado. • Elbert County had the highest percentage of residential property at G4.6S% A 1-point swing in the Rr1R will have an effect on ]r1Uert County's property tax base that is 20 times larger than the same change in Cheyemie County. Pre-TABOR Considerations • Prom the county revenue perspec#ive, before the adoption of TABOR counties could "float" their mill levies in order to offset taxable value reductions that result from reductions in the RAR. • This helped counties meet their budgeting needs but also accentuated the shift of property taxes to nonresidential propea-ty. = TABOR Requirements • TABOR requires votcrapproval in advance for - any "new tax, fax rate increase, [ar] mill le4y - above that for the prior year". This provision - prohibits the old practice of "floating" the mill levy. • TABOR also requires voter approval in advance for any "valuation for assessment ratio increase - for a property class", which appears to prohibit the RAR from going up even when economic - conditions indicate that if should. 2 Gallagher & TABOR Working Together • When assessed value decreases, whether due to economic conditions or reduction of the R.A.R or both, mill levies may not "float" to offset the reduction. + «'hen and if economic growth changes its pattern (when the housing bubble bursts), the RAR may not be Increased to ref]ect the new state~a~ide "balance". Temporary Credit Levies • Some counties have used these tools, also cailed refund levies, to return revenue in excess of the amount that they are allowed to keep under TABOR limitations or the statutory 5.5°•6 property tax revenue limit. • In the years that RAR adjustments occur; they may reduce the amount of these credit levies and partially offset the reduction in overall assessed value in the county. Reduce Dependence on Property Tax + One method of minimizing the tax shift and the overall impact of RAR adjustments is to try to rely less on property tax as a revenue source. + Many counties have asked their voters for sales tax increases to fund specific projects or services, ~'I7at Do Counties Do About This? • Temporary Credit Levies + TABOR Elections + Reduce Dependence on Property Tax + Consider Revenue and Service Effects in Land Use Decisions Going to the Voters + County commissioners have demonstrated a willin,ness to go to voters when permissible revenues are not expected to meet current budgetary needs. ~ This approach meets with varying levels of success in addressing the county revenue issue; however, it does not address the shift of property tax burden from. residential to nonresidential. property. 'Consider Revenue and Service .::Effects in Land Use Decisions + raced with applications for various kinds of land development and state-mandated spending requirements; counties have incentive to favor commercial development in unincorporated areas. + Perception is that residential development does not cant' its weight in property tax revenue. Other Options -Local • The one avenue available to counties to address the shift ofpmperty tax burden is a local decision to eliminate the business personal property tax. • For various reasons, this is a viable alternative in some. counties but not others. • h: addition. note that it creates a shift within the nonresidential classification by creating a bigger laenefii for businesses that are personal properly intensive. Other Options -State Amending TAIioR -Aside from the obvious, and unlikely, solutions related to voter approval. of tax increases, allowing real estate transfer taxes would ~~ive local govenunents a lroperty value-based revenue tool that is not affected by the PvAR calculations. Allowing the RAR to increase molten economic circumstances dictate -This option does not present an immediate solution to the current situation but would allow Gallaghea' to operate as intended. Other Options -State ~ t~ _ • Freezing the Gallagher assessment rate would stop furd7er erosion of the tax base and tl~e shift to nonresidential property. - • Titis option does not remedy the existing disparity = between residential and nonresidential assessment rates. • ]t could also lower the hurdles to astate-adopted - exemption for business personal. properly - a boon for some business but a revenue hit in many - counties. Where Do Counties Go Froi11. - Here? - • Continuing reductions in the RAR will erode the PT revenue Vase, with a signifcaut impact on the less urbanized, Waal counties and counties with - larger percentages of residential development. - • Absent changes, counties will continue to be = enticed by commercial and. industrial development -= in the unincorporated azeas. _ • The irony is that as residential development - becomes Less desirable for counties ('ram a revenue perspective, the more desirable if becomes - for the potential residential purchaserideveloper. 4 MEMORANDUM TO-. COLORADO STATE TREASURER NIIKE CYJFI7vSr1N FROM: COLORADO COUNTIES, ING TAXATION AI~TD FINANCE C~1`QItiII7TEE AND LONGTERI\4 'TAX REFORM SUI300M1`1IT"I~'.E SLBJECT: COUNTY CONCERNS AND RECYJMNIENDATIONS REGARDING THE CEZEATION OF A RAINY DAY Ft1ND. DATE: 9/9i 20^v3 Colorado Counties, Inc. commends you-- efforts to create a state rainy day fund that would be accessible in times of a fiscal crisis. In cr.3fting your referendum to accomplish this goal, we ask that you consider the follovring recommendations that would assist counties in dealing with economic emergencies. 1. Replace TABOR's Emergency Reserve Requirement with Rainy Day Fund. As you are well aware, the emergency reserve requirement set forth in TABOR locks up state and local resources in times of economic crisis. This is due to the fact that the defiution of "emergency" in Article X, Section 20, (2}(c~ specifically excludes economic emergencies, and moneys borrowed from the reserve must be repaid within one fiscal }'ear - an unrealistic requirement that effectively prohibits use of said reserves. By repeaIiig the emergency reserve language in 'PABOR and reenacting a clause that contains .the provisions governing your rainy day fund concept, you could build the basis for this fund with existing doll:vs already in reserve rather than having to wait for a TABOR surplus. In~other words, maintain the same 3% reserve requirement for the rainy day fund. This would be consistent with the general public's perception that state and local emergency reserves are actually accessible in tines of crisis. If you pursue this route, the tern "emergency" should be redefined to include fiscal crises as well as acts of God. Additionally, the repayment period for funds borrowed from such reserves m times of emergency should be set at three fiscal years rather than one. Finally, the language creating the rainy day fund in place of the current emergency reserve should be crafted to apply to all districts, not just the State. 2. If a Separate Rainy Day Fund is Established in Addition to the 'T'ABOR Eme bency Reserve, Allow Local Governments to Participate. If you do not attempt to replace the cun-ent TABOR emergency reserve fund with the r-~irty day fund, but rather create an altogether new fund with future stuplus revenue, it is advisable to draft the referendtun with permissive luiguage a~~.lozciruJ Uid nvt rrquinr~ districts other than the state to establish a sinvlar fund. Districts can alt-eady set up a rainy day fu<~d with TABOR surplus dollars if voters so approve at a local election. However, it would be helpful if this referendum were drafted to permit local governments to establish their own rainy day fund without any further voter approval beyond that attained in a statewide election in 2004 to ratify the original rainy day fund. 3. Prioritize Spending from the Rainy Day Fund on State Mandated Programs Other than ~- 12 Public School Finance. Reg:u-dIess of whether the Rainy Day Fund supplants the existing T.~1BOR Emergency Reserve Fund, its tLSe should be prioritized to first address nanu:tl disasters and existing state mandates other than K-12 public school finance. Unfunded mandates have a deleterious effect on all levels of goverrunent from the State down. State mandated programs that counties admuuster such as those in the area of human services are conswiung local budgets, much in the s:une way that federil Medicaid requirements are impacting the state budget. Since Amendment 23 aheady provides significant financial support to K-12 entities, the Raitry Day Fund ought to be available first and foremost to satisfy the finuicial burden of other unfunded mandates - particularh~ human service progr~rns. Coaiitior~ for a Corv~petitive Colorado Energ9zinq Colorado"s Economy BUS~TESS PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX I,EGI~LATIVE CAMPAIGN PR®POSAL THE OBJECTIVE In light of recent economic conditions, the objective is passage of meaningful and thoughtful legislation to alleviate the burden of the Business Personal Property Tax upon all Colorado businesses by building a strong coalition of legislators, business leaders and organizations while taking into consideration the impacts of such legislation upon the constituencies the BPPT funds. The Strategy to Achieve Objective To implement a widespread legislative campaign to draft a comprehensive proposal, build a strong coalition of support, enlist strong legislative support, secure editorial support, convey strong testimony in support of the legislation, and advocate effectively one-on-one with decision makers. THE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL 10 Year Future Purchase Exemption ® Exempt the difference between actual value of Business Personal Property Tax and the economic stimulus value. A Economic stimulus value shall be equal to the actual value multiplied by 90% with each subsequent year the percentage shall be reduced by 10% points. e For all tax years commencing on or after January I, 2014, the economic stimulus value shall be zero. ® Fiscal Impacts. Fiscal impacts to local governments including counties, cities and special districts will be alleviated with revenue generation from other sources created by the spending of BPPT savings. ® Fiscal impacts to school districts are proposed to be alleviated by the redirection of the $100 M second pool of CAPCO funds anticipated to be repealed. ® Although not proactively seeking CAPCO's repeal, CCC will make the case for BPPT reform as the appropriate TABOR offset for CAPCO fund repeal. $ l OM/year for 10 Years. Carry CAPCO fund balance forward until exhausted. ® Wean off school districts - 100% backfill year 1 to 0% baekfill in year 10. 1701 Wynkaop Street Suite 308 • Denver, CO 80202 (303) 837-1714 P~~one • (303) 831-Fi219 Fax Strong correlation for use of CAPCO funds for BPPT. Other Possible Aspects of Proposal Replace state depreciation schedule to the federal depreciation schedule. Increase existing BPPT exemption from $2,500 to $3000 and make full amount exempt. CURRENT SPONSORS ~~ Senator Bruce Cairns, Prime Sedate Sponsor Senate President John Andrews Senator Andy McElhany Senator Ed Jones Representative Tambor Williams, Prime House Sponsor Speaker of the House Lola Spradley Representative Dale Hall Representative Dave Schultheis The Goal: 33 Representatives and 18 Senators before start of 20041egislative session THE CAMPAIGN e Build a strong coalition Secure strong sponsors Engage the opposition Perform comprehensive research Develop the story and message Fundraising Strategic communications Work the bill through the legislative process CURRENT EFFORTS Economic analysis to assess direct and. indirect economic benefits of proposal District by district assessment Finalization of proposal Bill drafting hearing a Advisory/steering committee established Continued coalition building Continued sponsorship collection COALITION BUILDING -CURRENT PARTNERS Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance: Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce ® Loveland Greeley/Weld Pueblo Springs Chamber of Commerce Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce ® South Metro Chamber of Commerce Aurora Chamber of Commerce (In process) ® Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce (in process) National Federation of Independent Business WHAT THE COALITION ASKS OF ITS PARTNERS Use of organization name Letters of endorsement g Dear Colleague Letters Letters to and/or meetings with local Legislators Testimony Share the stories Member of coalition advisory committee to guide direction of proposal during session Grassroots mobilization Placement of newsletter articles point Loca)E ~ove~•nment >3ositions on State and Local finance Issues fog• Subrr~ission by ~'CI, SI3A, Or~S)B and CI«L Introduction The interaction of various constitutional and statutory provisions, exacerbated in recent years by a. declining economy, pose short and long tern problems to maintaining Colorado's quality of life and. se~~~ices. While there has been only limited focus on local ;overnment finances and services, these constitutional provisions anal certain statutory provisions are as pervasive and challenging for local govei~unent as they are for the state. ~~~e believe ally solutions addressing state finance issues should also address local govenunent finance issues. Effects of Galla.Rher,A.mendment The 1982 property tax amendment (Gallagher} has directly affected local governments through deep and almost continuous reductions in the residential assessment rate. While before TABOR Local govenui~ents could offset a reduction in assessed valuation by an increased mill Ievy, TABOR generally has been interpreted to prevent such. adjustments without an election. This I~as resulted. in absolute reductions in property tax revenues in some local jurisdictions aid prevented. property tax revenues in other jurisdictions from keeping up with inflation and gnowth. School districts have also felt Gallagher's effects in paying for new schools and other capital. needs. Effects of Amendment 23 Amendment 23 I~as protected and increased revenues available to finance IL-12 public education. However, because of Ga11ag11er, TABOR and a declining economy, other state programs have suffered, state revenues benefitting other local goven~ment programs have suffered, and the long term viability of funding for public schools is in doubt. Increasing the share of school funding provided by the state has the effect of reducing local authority to make decisions regarding the conduct and supervision of local public schools. Effects of TABOR TABOR has affected local governments in multiple ways. For simplicity purposes, these can be categorized as: 1. Requiring voter approval for any new or increased tax, even if such. tax does not yield higher revenues than. were received the previous yeas; 2. Requiring voter approval for retention of revenue greater than the previous year's revenue, adjusted for CPI and growth, even ~vhea~ the tax rate does i~ot change; and 3. Imposing a multiplicity of miscellaneous limitations, requirements and procedures. <4n extensive although not exhaustive list of effects or problems associated with TABOR and Local government operations follows: ,/• The revenue limit ratchets down the base on which future revenue limits are calculated w]Zenever the economy dips or revenues otherwise decrease, without offsetting decreases in mandated and essential services. F;1Finance_lssuesUO_9_2003 Joint Positions on Finance Issues.~a~age -1- ~ Tlae formula. for increases in allowable revenue growth is not reflective of actual grawtll in the economy. ~ State-to-Iocal and local-to-local ~ovel-Ialnent transfers are double counted against revenue limits, thus making `rants or other intergovenllaaental transfers difficult or impossible unless tl~e affected govenanlental entity loos received voter approval. ,~ Ne«~ and increased real estate transfer taxes are prohibited even if local voters prefer them to sales or property taa;es. ,~ Emergency resen~es can't be used to address needs during economic downturns and the oth°r linlitatians on usage are overly restrictive. ,~ Various state clad local. tax and spending Iimits in effect when TABOR passed cannot be repealed or nlodif ed ~-~ithaut an election. ,/• Voter approval is required for every new tax or tax increase, no matter 11ow small or temporary in nature, even to offset revenue losses by forces beyond the control of the local govel~anlent. ,r The n1i11 levy apparently can't be increased «~ithout all election even to simply offset a decline in assessed valuation caused either by the Gallagher aJnendment or by economic COI1dIt1aI1.S. ,/~ Revenue bonds and other multi-year financial. obligations not constituting debt cannot be issued without an election tulles issued by an entel-prise. ,~ Elections are restricted to Novelalber and to the regular election date of the local govel-Innellt if held other than during November. ~ Electi.on notice requirements are expensive and. cumbersome. ~ .!~.Inbiguities in TABOR preselat legal and administrative problems. }XJithout elaborating on all of these effects or problems, a few in particular deserve highlighting. The voter approval requirement for all tax increases has been especially problematic for property tax revenues because of reduced assessed valuation caused either by Gallagher or economic decline. Since TABOR became Iaw in 1992, mill levies caaanot be adjusted to offset reduced assessed. valuation. (While reduced assessed valuation was vat an apparent problem to solve local. govenalalents during floe 1990s because high growth at the local level offset much of the effect of the drop in. the residential assessment rate, this problem is expected to be greater this decade. Accol-ding to a December 2002 Legislative Council report, statewide assessed valuation is projected to grow ai an annual 2.8% rate unti12008 in comparison with a 10.2% rate experienced since 1996.) The state Government sornetinles imposes obligations for new prograaals or other requirements on local governments without providing the necessary funding far that new program or requirement. TABOR has, in a sense, encouraged this practice because the state often lacks the resources to fiend these programs out of state revenues. What. is less well acknowledged or understood is that obligations unposed by the state on local governments are often the most difficult obligations for local governlalents to obtain local approval for funding. Local constituents did not asks for these programs, alld are not supportive when a local govei-Ilment asks for funding at the ballot box for a program not specifically suppol-ted by local constituents. Page -2- The revenue .limit (previous year's actual revenues adjusted for CPI and gro~~lth) has caused im~umerable problems in sustaining loco] sez-~~ices. The revenue limit has been particularly difficult because of wide revenue fluctuations from. year to year. This problem will become much greater for local governments begizuling in 2004 because of reduced revenues experienced in X003 and the ratchet down effects of TABOR. (Even though local voters have approved. debz-ucing in numerous juz-isdictions, most debrucings have either been temporary or Iizr7ited in scope,) Another example of effects and problems of TABOR is the outright prohibition. on new or increased real estate transfer taxes, even with local voter approval. This tax had been used extensively to fund public services in tourist oriented communities; and numerous communities have desired to utilize this revenue source, subject to voter approval. TABOR absolutely Hiles out this revenue source. Effects of State Finances and State Actions on Local Govez-nment Finance Gallagher, Amendment 23 and TABOR's effects, coupled wide the economic decline, I~zave placed such severe restrictions on state finances that state budget decisions have also adversely affected. local govenuments in a number of ways. (These effects are in addition to the direct effects of these constitutional amendments on local goveznments.) For example: >( State grants have been reduced, defen-ed or eliminated to make room for other state programs and to balance the state budget (i.e., energy impact, police anal fire pension, affordable housing, water and sewer, gaming, Iibrazy, Tony Graznpsas youth, juvenile diversion, noxious weed, hez-itage planning). ,/- Programs previously supported by the state General Fund rather than the Highway Users Tax Fund have been shifted to the HUTF, thus reducing funds available for state, municipal and county roads (i.e., vehicle license plate programs). ~( Other programs traditionally funded b}r the General Fund are being financed through increased fees imposed on local goven~zzments and the pri~rate sector (i.e., water and `~~astewater permitting fees). ~ State agency staffing levels of agencies serving local govenunents have been reduced to levels that are expected to adversely affect local govenlments (i.e., Colorado Bureau of Investigation, Department of Local Affairs}. Particularly since state revenues for fisca12003-2004 have been. ratcheted. down deepl}!, it is doubtful that many of these adverse budget effects on local governments can be reversed in future years even when state. revenues recover. In fact, the combined effects of Gallaher, TABOR, Amendment 23 and the ratchet down. effects of TABOR are anticipated to have increasingly adverse effects on local govez-zunents in fiscal 2004-2005 and beyond. Establishment of a "Rainy Day" Fund State Treasurer Mike Coffman and others have advocated a constitutional amendment or partial debrucing to establish at the state (and perhaps local govenument) level rainy day funds. Page -3- Depending on the details, such authorization would be beneficial during future periods of economic decline. Any rainy day authority should be available to local govenul7ents as well as the state at local option without further voter approval. A repeal of the emergency reserve provision and applying the emergency resen~e balance to the rainy day fiu~d would enable e~~isting dollars to be applied to this fund rather than having to wait for a TABOR surplus to occur. P~ainy day autharizatio~i does not; however, address more fundamental. and extensive problems affecting state and local goverluZ~ent pro grains and. set-~=ices. State Actions Eroding .Local Ta.x Bases and Resulting Revenues Related to, but in addition to the effects of Gallagher, Amendment 23 and TABOP. are proposals by the General Assembly to grant tax breaks to special interests and others that reduce local governi;~ent tax bases and revenues. These most often reduce local property or sales taxes, without replacing the lost revenues. A recent example is the proposed elimination of business persona] property taxes - an impact that would. erase about 13% of the property tax base statewide and a much higher percenta~~e in some jurisdictions. Particularly given the existence of Gallagher anal. TABOR, Ioca1 goverrunents need protection from state action that reduces Local ta.x revenues except where the state has in-evocably provided for replacement of the Lost revetues. Local Govet-~iTnent Association Positions While it is not possible at this point to provide a comprehensive or specific List of positions, the following represents initial local government association consensus positions for one or more modifications to Gallagher, TABOR and Amendment 23: ~ Provide more flexibility to state govei-iunent through revenue retention options, since the current situation is severely reducing state financial assistance for local govenu~.~ents as well as shifting costs and imposing unfunded mandates on local governments. ~ Provide more flexibility to Local gover7unents tlu-ough revenue ei~llaalcement aiid retention options, including repeal or modification of the formula far allowable growth in local goven~i~~ent revenues. ~ Freeze the residential assessment rate coupled with safeguards against legislative discretion to gn-ant preferential benefits that reduce the local property base. ~ Prevent the state from reducing Local govenunent taxes or other revenues without providing replacement revenue. >( Adhere to the constitutional and statutory prohibitions on unfunded state mandates. Page -4- onth 882 983 994 995 998 997 Town of Vail Sales Tax Worksheet 10/28/03 1998 1999 2000 001 002 udget 003 Collectlons udget Varlanea Change from 2002 Change from Budget January 1,709,654 1,855,364 1,805,707 1,894,597 1,935,782 2,052,569 2,115,359 2,066,459 2,034,529 2,210,547 2,073,481 2,002,943 1,996,449 (6,494) -3.72% -0.32% February 1,780,568 .1,828,766 1,814,495 1,816,107 1,993,389 2,089,673 2,153,121 2,021,486 2,223,670 2,366,321 2,281,833 2,204,207 2,110,493 (93,714) -7.51% -4.25% March 1,977,995 1,988,090 2,250,656 2,139,298 2;240,865 2,580,992 2,368,077 2,415,202 2,545,573 2,568,871 2,699,664 2,607,824 2,372,300 (235,524) -12.13% -9.03% April 691,163 864,303 794,668 791,092 966,993 874,427 1,107,334 952,843 926,771 1,043,431 870,875 841,249 869,115 27,866 -0.20% 3.31% May 268,000 257,248 287,315 324,681 318,920 329,783 382,718 370,864 388,121 448,234 414,248 400,156 428,108 27,952 3.35% 6.99% June 468,598 475,161 548,820 590,685 594,907 630,366 633,400 692,811 721,774 751,439 657,707 635,332 741,445 106,113 12.73% 16.70% July 742,750 811,538 892,830 893,483 963,717 1,043,637 1,107,882 1,130,883 1,235,470 1,157,867 1,044,966 1,009,411 1,073,066 63,655 2.69% 6.31% August 767,257 825,954 891,566 867,125 990,650 1,073,430 1,183,926 1,050,004 1,038,516 1,124,275 .1,084,318 1,047,424 1,018,917 (28,507) -6.03% -2.72% September 485,954 560,535 725,205 645,902 630,453 637,831 735,608 806,600 817,313 747,766 713,574 689,292 666,751 (22,541) -6.56% -3.27% Total 8,891,539 9.465,959 1Q011,262 9,962,970 10,635,676 11,312,708 11,787,x25 11,507,152 11,931,737 12,418,751 11,840,666 11,437,838 11,276,644 -161,194 -4.76°/ -1.41% October 367,578 400,525 408,405 461,791 413,573 472,836 515,531 536,204 547,201 486,570 484,425 467,825 November 497,907 553,681 594,491 611,147 601,208 707,166 656,596 582,260 691,445 571,783 642,293 619,046 December 1,846,223 1,974,553 1,992,855 1,994,540 2,068,851 2.254,709 2,070,834 1,883,805 2,062,205 1,933,940 2,139,417 2,055,291 Total 11,603,647 12,395,718 13,007,013 13,030,448 13,719,308 14,747,419 15,030,386 14,509,421 15,232,588 15,411,044 15,106,801 14,580,000 MEMORANDUM October 28, 2003 To: Vail Town Council Stan Zemler Pam Brandmeyer Judy Camp Frorn: Sally Lorton Re: September Sales Tax On the reverse side, please find the latest sales tax worksheet. I estimate I'll collect another $10,000.00 in September sales tax to bring September collections to $676,751.00. If so, we will be down 1.82% or $12,541.00 from budget and down S.I6% or $36,823.00 from September 2002. A total of $2,571,443.32 has been collected for the conference center, $1,258,787.23 from lodging and $1,312,656.09 from retail sales. Lift tax is down 2.7% or $48,783.00 from the same period last year, January through September. VAIL VILLAGE ~IOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. President -Alan Kosloff Secretary -Ellie Caulkins Treasurer -Patrick Gramm Executive Director -Jim Lamont Directors: Judith Berkowitz -Dolph Bridgewater -Bob Galvin -Ron Langley -Bill Morton - Gretta Parks -Richard Conn To: Mayor and Town Council From: Jim Lamont Date: October 31, 2003 RE: Vail Front Door -Requested Additions to Conditions of Approval The Homeowners Association strongly favors the approval of the Vail Front Door Project as proposed for the Lodge at Vail Land Exchange Site and the Vail Village Ski Yazd. However, there are certain additional conditions of approval that the Association believes should to be appended to the Planning and Environmental Commission approval. The Association and its members have raised the subject of the proposed conditions during the deliberation of the Planning and Environmental Commission. The proposed conditions aze known to the applicant. The following conditions of approval address both off-site and on- site matters: I. Traffic: It is our concern is to insure that traffic circulation does not diminish the qualitative aspects of residential neighborhoods affected by the project. It is requested that the following condition of approval with supplemental guidelines be amended to the PEC approval. 1. A Traffic Advisory Committee, composed of representatives of the Town of Vail, Vail Resorts, and affected property owners, be established in the developer agreement that would be responsible for advising and making recommendation to the appropriate authorities or entities with respect to the management and operations of vehiculaz pazking/truck docking facilities and circulation routes in the azea affected by the development. Guidelines: A. Upon the completion of the loading and delivery facilities trucks conducting loading and delivery operations in residential neighborhood adjacent to the Vail Village Commercial Core I shall be directed to perform their operation from the Vail Front Door loading and delivery facility. B. The design of traffic circulation to the Vail Front Door Project and Vail Village provides that the volume of all forms of vehiculaz traffic is reduced to a minimum on Willow Road so as to negate noise and other environmental impacts upon this residential neighborhood. C. Prior to the commencement of construction that a baseline report documenting predevelopment traffic volumes, ambient noise and air quality levels is to be conducted and used to monitor the ongoing qualitative results of the management of traffic circulation and facilities. D. Existing traffic circulation routes such as Willow Bridge Road and Gore Creek Drive continue to be used in conjunction with the proposed dispersed loading and delivery system. E. The on-site loading and delivery facilities aze made a part of the comprehensive plan for the implementation of a Dispersed Loading and Delivery System for Vail Village being implemented by the Town of Vail F. Refine streetscape improvements, including those to be implemented through an approved streetscape plans, so as to accommodate vehicular circulation and functions. II. Facility Uses, Size, and Operations: It is our concern that the proposed facilities and the conduct of operations on the site are compatible with surrounding residential uses and neighborhoods. It is requested that the following conditions of approval be amended to the PEC approval. 1. A defined portion of the Vail Village Ski Yard adjacent to the proposed Skier Service Building is designated as a "No Build Area" on which would be allowed permanent and temporary appurtenances necessary for the operation of ski lifts, skiing related events, and approved special events. 2. Include in an approved developer agreement limitations that confine the intended uses and area to that which are specified in the original approved development plan, as well as conditions of operations, including but not limited to a dark after dark provision, quantitative controls over noise, back-of--the house, and special event operations. 3. Require the rezoning or the further refinement of covenant agreements to prohibit dining decks and any similar commercial use from Tract E and its resubdivided parcels. Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (970) 827-5680 Voice Mail/FAX: (970) 827-5856 e-mail: vvha(a~vail.net www.vailhomeowners.com VAIL VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. President -Alan Kosloff Secretary -Ellie Caulkins Treasurer -Patrick Gramm Executive Director -Jim Lamont Directors: Judith Berkowitz -Dolph Bridgewater -Bob Galvin -Ron Langley -Bill Morton - Gretta Parks -Richard Conn To: Mayor and Vail Town Council From: Jim Lamont Date: November 3, 2003 RE: Resolution establishing Urban Renewal Authority -Recommendation of Support with Qualifications: The Association's Board of Directors makes the following recommendation of support with qualifications regarding the Town Council's pending action to create an Urban Renewal Authority in order to implement Tax Increment Financing to aid in the funding of necessary public improvements. The Association desires to express its appreciation for the inclusion of those items that seek to protect private property rights and provide for the oversight of public spending. The Association notes that it may be necessary for property owners to further protect their property rights through adoption of an amendment to the Vail Town Charter that restricts government intervention, through an Urban Renewal Authority, to impede the exercise of private property rights. Recommendation of Support with Qualifications: • Support is recommended for using TIF as a viable public finance mechanism as one means of generating a portion of the revenues needed for public improvements required in downtown Vail. • Should TIF provide less than adequate revenues then a community wide property tax increase for specified public improvement projects should be placed before the voters. • To insure the intended consequence of using TIF to underwrite the stimulation of the community economy and the use of sales tax revenues to finance government services, then the Town of Vail will need to discipline its financial decisions to primarily focus its spending on improvement projects that stimulate the generation of sales tax revenues and the redevelopment of Vail and its downtown area as a destination resort community. • Qualified support is given for using a Urban Renewal Authority as a method of implementing TIF as proposed in the presented resolution. • Any use of a URA should be minimally applied using a primary circumstance of sufficient magnitude that protects the legal standing of TIF under all other methods of application. Once T1F is protected, its general application should be through a DDA, because it does not carry the threat of condemnation powers. • Any declaration of blight, necessary to establish an Urban Renewal Area or Downtown Development Authority, should only be applied to private property with the concurrence of the property owner. • URA condemnation powers should be limited to those circumstances where URA condemnation power is surgically applied, with the approval of the property owner, to specific parcels where the covenants are at variance with redevelopment projects and that have the support of a majority of adjacent property owners. This use of URA condemnation power is to be applied in a manner so as not to jeopardize the validity of any generally applied covenant protection. • If private property values are found through practice to be negatively affected by being included in an Urban Renewal Area, then these properties should be removed from the area and other means to finance public improvements put into effect. • Should there be abuse of private property rights by the URA, then the Association will support the adoption of an amendment to the Town Charter that would restrain URA powers. Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (970) 827-5680 Voice Mail/FAX: (970) 827-5856 e-mail: vvhana,vail.net www.vailhomeowners.com r SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM FRONT DOOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT -WELLS' APPEAL TO: Town of Vail -Town Council Community Development Dept.- George Ruttier, Russell Forrest Vail Resorts -Jay Peterson, Tom Braun, Jack Hunn FROM: Luanne Wells Andrew Littman Karen Romeo DATE:. October 31, 2003 RE: Front Door Project Development Plan -Wells Appeal I. INTRODUCTION: On September 22, 2003 the Planning Commission approved the Front Door Development Plan. On October 2, 2003 Mrs. Luanne Wells filed an appeal challenging that approval. Mrs. Wells asserts the PEC did not follow the criteria set forth under in the Town Code when they approved the Front Door Development Plan. This memorandum will serve as a supplement to materials previously submitted by the Wells team on October 2, 2003. The contents of this appeal include the following: this Supplemental Memo (Exhibit `A'); the appeal application submitted October 2, 2003 (Exhibit `B'), a letter from Gordon Pierce dated 10-29-03 (Exhibit `C'); a letter from Luanne Wells dated 10-30-03 sent to 300 various community members (Exhibit `D'). All other documents designated as the record by the Planning Department in this matter should also be considered. II. THE PEC DID NOT MEET STANDARDS, REQUIREMENTS OR CRITERIA AS SET FORTH IN THE TOWN CODE: The Town Code section 12-3-3 provides an applicant may appeal a Planning and Environmental Commission ("PEC") decision to the Town Council. When evaluating the appeal, Council must determine whether the PEC met standards, requirements and criteria imposed by the Town Code, when they took the action that is the basis of this appeal. According to the Town Code, section 12-6I-13, the PEC must apply the following criteria when considering a development plan: EXHIBIT ~A' 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 azeas. 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. (Ord. 19(2001) § 2: Ord. 3(2001) § 2) The PEC did not meet town code requirements when they evaluated and approved the Front Door Development Plan. Specifically the Planning Commission did not correctly apply the criteria set forth in 12-6I-13 when approving the Development Plan for the Front Door Project. In an effort to better organize the substance of this appeal, various components of the Front Door Development Plan will be discussed separately below. LOADING AND DELIVERY FACILITY: With regards to the loading and delivery facility the PEC failed to adequately scrutinize the design, massing and compatibility of the loading and delivery facility as required by 12-6I-13 (A), (B) and (C). . Vail Resorts suggests putting a major loading and delivery facility at the foot of the Vista Bahn. Traffic and delivery trucks would funnel up Vail Road and go into a 14 bay underground facility. The proposed loading and delivery facility is massive. Architect, Gordon Pierce, designer of the Sonnenalp, Vilar Center, Market Square and Ice Rink, among other prominent Valley Architecture, comments that, `the massive size of this facility drives the design, and negatively impacts the design for the rest of the project. Because of the massive size and cost of the proposed facility, the developer crammed in high density and monolithic structures.' Mr. Pierce questions whether the benefits of the enormity of this facility justify its negative design impacts and huge cost. The design and massing of this facility need to be re-evaluated. 2 Will this facility work in the heart of the Village? This question was never fully answered by the PEC. Vail Resorts points to Beaver Creek as an example of a centralized facility that works. However, Beaver Creek Village is a fraction of the size of VaiLVillage and has much. broader pedestrian comdors at the base of the mountain, Conversely, Vail Village naturally funnels into Bridge Street. The Frontage Road is the natural area for Village deliveries to emanate. Deliveries should not occur in the heart of the Village and at the fulcrum of skier and pedestrian traffic. The proposed facility is simply not compatible with the existing ski base area. In addition, delivery trucks using this facility will exit on Vail Road, then drive down Willow Road, Willow Bridge Road or Gore Creek Drive. The impact on Vail Road and surrounding residences will be significant and were not given much consideration at the PEC level. The PEC simply failed to adequately consider the negative impacts of building this facility in this area. The PEC failed to consider an appropriate economic cost v. benefit analysis, or operational cost summary for the loading and delivery facility as required by 12-6I-13(F). Vail Resorts is building the loading and delivery facility, however the Town and/or merchants will have to ultimately pay its operating costs. The estimated .operating costs for the loading/delivery facility have not been estimated much less publicized. Shouldn't the PEC, Council, and the public know what operating costs we are assuming for running this massive facility? The PEC did not consider potential operating costs of this facility. These costs should be carefully considered at this challenging time. The PEC failed to consider an appropriate traffic study, management plan and delivery plan for the loading and delivery facility as required by 12-6I-13(D). The traffic plan and management plan considered by the PEC were not comprehensive. An outside engineering firm, Shon, Elliott, Hendrickson, Inc, ("SHE)" reviewed the traffic study and management plan provided by Vail Resorts, and commented `enough detail has not been provided to demonstrate that one delivery/loading facility can reasonably and effectively serve the Village core. Documentation generated so far, seems to be at a general planning level.' SEH contacted a Budweiser distribution representative working in the VaiUBeaver Creek area. The "Bud Man" estimated that his delivery time would increase 5 fold by having a centralized facility, the number of delivery trucks will need to increase, and additional costs will likely be levied. Vail Resorts has not adequately studied the traffic impact of their proposed development. Vail Resorts is ignoring obvious congestion and traffic flow problems, another Gold Peak is inevitable. The PEC failed to adequately scrutinize how pedestrian and skier traffic will flow in the Village and in the Vista Bahn ski yard, given the location of the loading and delivery facility as well as its hand truck portal, as required by 12-61- 13 (C and D). Deliverymen exit the loading and delivery facility via a single hand truck portal near the heart of the Vista Bahn ski yard. This portal guides deliverymen onto Bridge Street and Wall Street. Once they reach Bridge Street or Wall Street, the deliverymen ultimately choose how they will disperse to locations around the Village. Some delivery destinations are more than 1,500 feet away with estimated delivery times varying from a few minutes to an hour per delivery. Deliverymen going down Bridge Street will most certainly conflict with skiers and pedestrian coming up Bridge Street. The PEC failed to fully examine these concerns. The PEC failed to comply with Town of Vail 's comprehensive plans as required by 12-6I-13(F). Specifically the PEC did not follow or comply with guidelines set forth in the Town of Vail's Master Plan Transportation Update. ~- The Town's Master Plan Transportation Update recommends satellite loading and unloading facilities in at least 4 corners of Town, not a single, massive facility at the foot of the Mountain. Mr. Pierce is correct when he states this plan does not comply with town master planning documents. The Master Plan Update clearly states, "the ultimate goal is to have loading bays in dispersed terminals used to their full potential." Gordon Pierce states "a centralized loading/delivery facility is inconsistent with my understanding of Town of Vail Master Plans and doesn't make sense at this highly visible, pedestrian oriented location. I understand the desire to eliminate trucks from the Village core. However we are doing just the opposite here: unnecessarily mixing delivery functions with pedestrian uses." There has not been any serious consideration of suggestions to reduce the size of this facility or to escrow funds and allocate these escrowed funds to assure that other satellite facilities are built. SKIER SERVICES BUILDING: With regards to the Skier Services Building, the PEC failed to adequately scrutinize the design, massing and compatibility of this building as required by 12-6I-13 (A), (B) and (C). The design of the Skier Services building could be and should be improved. Ron Byrn commented, "this is the most prestigious property in the Valley". Why should a world class resort such as Vail settle for a sub par design? According to Gordon Pierce, "the one story skier services building presents a weak image. The building is too large and out of scale to its neighbors 4 and looks more like a standard strip mall than an extension of the architectural fabric of the Village." By reducing the size of the loading and unloading facility, alternative positive design changes can occur with regards to the Skier Service Building. By reducing. the delivery facility, a higher percentage of the unbuilt site area can be used to integrate natural landscaping solutions, view corridors, and pedestrian/skier friendly connections. Vail Resorts and the PEC have refused the suggestion of engaging top notch, outside architectural and planning consultants to address these issues. Curiously, Jeff Winston, frequently used as a consultant for the Town of Vail Urban Design, has not been engaged to provide comments or suggestions regarding the final plans approved last month by PEC. Gordon Pierce's comments have likewise not been considered to date. Vail Resorts should engage a planner and architect with experience and expertise to review architecture, circulation, and overall integrity of the project to maximize opportunity to make this a one of a kind proj ect, a source of deep pride for the entire community. The PEC ignored this request. By doing so they failed to adequately ensure the best design possible for this prestigious and highly visible area. The PEC failed to adequately scrutinize how pedestrian and skier traff c will flow in the Village and in the Vista Bahn ski yard, given the location of the location of the new skier services building, as required by 12-6I-13 (C and D). The Skier Services building remains a contiguous mass and uncharacteristically boring. As a result of the mass of the Skier Services building, the bicycle and pedestrian connectors are disjointed. The building also impedes view corridors from Wall Street and Bridge Street. The PEC failed to give this `ICON' building deserved consideration. The PEC failed to consider the economic impact to Vail Village merchants due to increased Vail Resort retail in the Skier Services building as required by 12-6I-13(F). The Skier Services building is approximately 19,000 square feet. Of this square footage, 5,000 square feet is designated to be new retail space for Vail Resorts. The PEC did not consider the impact these new retail shops will have on existing and already struggling Vail Village shops. The PEC failed to adequately consider what impact on open space the Skier Services building will have, as required by 12-6I-13(C). As proposed, the Front Door development plan reduces the Vista Bahn ski yard to make room for a Skier Services building that will contain Vail Resort retail shops. Why is this current and historical open space area being allowed to be privately developed? The PEC never fully contemplated or answered this question. VISTA BARN SKI YARD: The PEC failed to adequately scrutinize how world class ski races can be staged given the Vista Bahn ski yard is reduced in size, as required by required by and 12-6I-13(F). As a result of the massive Skier Services building the ski yard is constricted. Town Council has made it clear they would like their town to host the World Alpine Ski Championships in 2009. Will Vail be able to accommodate such a world class ski race given the relatively small ski yard? The PEC failed to sufficiently ponder this important question. Vail Village is a unique, special place for Valley residents and visitors alike. Vail Resorts' Front Door project will shape the character of the Village for generations to come. How many of us know what is planned? Do we like it? Is it World Class? What will the project do to our economic vitality? What do prominent Architects and Planners think of the Project? What will it cost the Town? At the end of the PEC process, these important questions remain unanswered. By filing this appeal, Luanne Wells hopes to have these important questions answered. Overall the PEC failed to give due consideration to this enormous undertaking called the Front Door Project. As a result Mrs. Wells, the Vail Village community, an the Town as a whole are adversely impacted in a manner inconsistent with historical Town of Vail planning documents, and other applicable rules/ regulations. III. TOWN COUNCIL FUNCTION/ COMMUNITY GOALS: Each Councilman takes an oath or affirmation that he or she will support the charter and the ordinances as set forth in the Town of Vail Town Code. Yail Town Code Section 1-5-10. The Town Code states, "the community of Vail is unique in that it places greater emphasis on aesthetic, environmental, promotional and recreational concerns than are tradition in most municipal governments." Town Code Prefatory Synopsis. We urge this Council to heavily scrutinize the Front Door Project. We urge this Council to vote on the front Door Project with said aesthetic, environmental, promotional and recreational concerns foremost in mind. Stated goals of this Council include distributing town money in a safe and prudent manner. Former Town Manager Bob McLaurin told this Council, "safety, liquidity, return, this is how we should spend $23 million dollars." We ask this Council to follow this philosophy, especially when considering the economic impact of the loading and delivery facility, additional retail shops in the Skier Services building and the Front Door development overall. 6 Other Council goals include, retaining the character of existing parks and the village overall. When discussing revisions to Pirate Ship Park, many councilmen opined they wanted Pirate Ship Park to essentially stay the same. Along these lines, we ask this Council to give the Vista Bahr. ski yard. the same consideration. Don't destroy village ambiance by allowing open space to be overly developed, or by allowing a massive loading and delivery facility to interfere with visitor enjoyment, or by allowing a poorly designed building to be built in this premier location. Not long ago, Steve Rosenthal told this Council a recent survey indicated the number one concern of the community is the economic vitality of Vail. We ask Council to make the economic vitality a major concern. Don't jeopardize existing merchant viability by allowing Vail Resorts to monopolize retail at the base of the mountain. Don't put already struggling businesses out of business by passing loading and delivery operational costs onto them. Mrs. Wells concerns about the Front Door project are clearly in sync with stated Council goals and community concerns. This appeal was filed in an effort to make the Front Door project and Vail Village the best they can possibly be. IV. REMEDY: Vail's Front Door needs to serve the Town, community, ski company, and visitors alike, not just Vail Resorts. To date, Vail Resorts has myopically pushed for approval of its own plan supported by self-directed, incomplete studies: Despite the fact the land exchange necessary for this development is stalled, the Front Door project was rushed through the planning process. To improve Village vibrancy and economics; to honor our precious natural beauty; to create World Class architecture; and, to integrate the character of the new project seamlessly into existing character of Vail Village; to make this project better for all, we encourage Council to take appropriate, not necessarily swift action. Council has the following three options available to them: 1) they may uphold the PEC decision, 2)-they may overturn it, and 3) or they may uphold the decision but add conditions. We are asking that Council overturn the PEC approval of the Front Door Development plan. Before further consideration or approval, the Town of Vail should provide a comprehensive delivery plan, management plan, operating cost analysis, and economic impact study for the loading and delivery facility. Council should implement assurances of satellite delivery facilities visa vie an escrow account. Council should demand consultation with the best available planners and architects. Council should require all these things before approval. Doing so will make Vail's Front Door more. beautiful, more functional, and more economically vibrant. Alternatively we ask Council to uphold the PEC decision but require the Town to meet the above-mentioned conditions. 7 MEMBERS ANDREW C. LITTMAN MARK E. BIDDISON' DENNIS J. THARP CRAIG A. WEINBERG ASSOCIATES LEE. STRICKLER JESSICA CATLIN KAREN ROMEO KATIE CARTER MICHAEL BELOCHI Of Counsel ROGER E. STEVENS, P.C. ~ Also Admitted in California STEVENS, LITTMAN, BIDDISON T~iARP & WEINBERG, L. L.C. A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 250 ARAPAHOE, SUITE 301 BOULDER, COLORADO 80302 Telephone: (303) 443-6690 1-800-273-1802 (Colorado Only) Facsimile: (303)449-9349 E-Maii: (Yow erraul hen;) October 2, 2003 Community Development Department George Ruther 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear George: PARALEGALS Patty Jansen Lise Cordsen Patricia Celich Katherine Zeroll Enclosed are pertinent documents constituting the appeal filed on behalf of Ms. Luanne Wells. We were advised that no filing fee was required with the Appeal, so we have not included same. Please advise of any applicable filing fee and we will promptly forward. Enclosed are required stamped and addressed envelopes to adjacent property owners. We look forward to working with you to shepherd this process through Town Council. Thank you. Sincerely Karen Ann Romeo VAIL LAW OFFICE CROSSROADS MALL 141 E. MEADOW DR, SUITE C-0 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 (970)479-9989 Fax:(970~t77-0850 ~fHIBIT 1 ~~ ' Appeals Form Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Val, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.d.vail:co.us General information This form is required for filing an appeal of a StafF, Design Review Board, or Planning and Environmental Commission action/decision. Acomplete form and associated requirements must be submitted to the Community Development Department within ten (10) business days of the disputed acgon/decision. ActionlDecision being appealed: Planning and Environmental Commission approval of The Development Plan for the Front Door Project. Date of ActionlDecision: Planning and Environmental Commission Hearing on September 22, 2003. Board or Staff person rendering actionldecision: Planning and Environmental Commission. Does this appeal Involve a specific parcel of land? Yes. If yes, are you an adjacent property owner? Yes. Name of Appellant: Mrs. Luanne Wells. Mailing Address: Mrs. Luanne Wells and Weinberg, LLC C/O Stevens, Littman, Biddison, Tharp 141 E. Meadow Drive Crossroads C-4 Vail, CO 81657 970-479-9989 Physical Address In Vail: One Vail Place, Units 4 and 5, Vail, Colorado 81657 Legal Description of Appellant(s) Property in Vail: Lot: 2, Block: SC, Subdivision: Vail Village First Filing Appellant Signature: See attached page. Submittal Requirements: Waved or 1. On a separate sheet or separate sheets of paper, provide a detailed explanation of how you are an 'agg ' adversey affected Person". SEE ATTACHED EXHSBIT 'A,the recise nature of the appeal. Please cite specific code 2, On a separate. sheet or separate sheets of papa , pacify P sections having relevance to the action being appealed. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT'S'. who are the 3. Provide a list of names and addresses (both mailing and physical addresses in Vail) of all owners of ProP61'tY subject of the appeal and all adjacent property owners (including owners whose Properties are separated from the subject property by a right-of-way, stream, or other intervening barrier). SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT `C'. 4. Provide stamped, addressed envelopes for each property owner listed in (3.) PROVIDED. PLEASE SUBMIT THIS FORM AND ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS TO: TOW 6 SO~TM'FROPNTAGE ROAD, VAIL COLORADO 8165MENT, No.. LJdIC Rat.c~ ~ ~.,. - - ~~rj,~ ~ Project No.: .Planner: ,6en~ 8~: HEESCHfN.~` ASSOCIAitS; ~y/G1D""- ,, • Oct 02 03 12s,i3p ~~~«tc~. yqy/-117500• -~ .+ccovr+crv s r~aav,.~~+~ntfi. t'HQ• s p.3 oct•a-oa ~o:68AMC; Pega 2/3 Appeals Form o•vrA+t.d et oonrntrtM~- D~v.bomenl re e~teFt~ttcti. new, v.K cvlaraeo e/asr ~ ~-aerr.~ao a.: ~ro~-rzr~s wk www.drarzoatr reu cenn isrre ~ Ibr IMinp rn appeN o1 ~ MS, DedOn icrrMw Bewd. or Pbri+tll~ end F,wr.~t«~w CrntntlMlrn ~iiatedecabn. A oortpMle /errs end aetodrere /egd~rpienk nniat be atbnr'~.d b M Oenrnuetler DwNspmwe DgeAnsd wlMtin rrr (~0) bu.ln.rf tlrp of ele Nrputrd edon~dK.~iron. ActlonlD+cblon 6rlnp ~pp~al~d: Planning ald Fmico~~cenis~l Canlmasion a~rolrsl of The DevslopmeM Plan Ibr tse Franc door Projo~t. Doc1~ of AcHoND~chion: Pleoning ead Enriroocaentel Conorsissioa Hearing on Scpfoobor 22, 2003. @osmd or Std Pow nnds~in~ aetioMdselslsn: Pleating ucd FA~-iraaomnf~l Coencnietiaa. Doss !hh sppsel involve a tpgClAc psr~gl otlsnd? Yes, if yss. sre You sa nt~Dannt praPsrlY owner? Yes. Natns o/ AppoHen~ Mrs. Lueiale ~Vdle. M~np AAdnss: Mro. Lvarene We1U C/O 5teveor, LiN»en. Hiddieou, 'Y'hacp eod Weiaberg~ LLC tai E. Masdow Drive Cro~sraede G4 v,i!„ cu a16s7 970-~IT9-99p9 PhyMucl Address In Volh Ono Veil Place, Unib a end S, Yac1, Colorado 61657 ~.sgill OMCrlptlon of Appelhfrt(s~ Properly th VsA: Lot: 2, 81ock: SC, Subdivision: Veil Village First Filicg ~~, ~' Appsllaat 9lpnsluh: 8~bniMW Rep-Nwnerllr i. On s rrprYlle eAeet or elO~elb ehesu of O'epN, provide a de%ewod a~leneprn~ d f ww rou ae an'epp~Mrb a edrKreyectedbdp.neK. QbEATTACCCED EXFNPR'A'. . 2. Oe s lrprrtice ehlec a seprrW elves of peps. sP~l- the prlclre ~ M the eppeN. Pl.sw oils rDeWIC eooe sroYens hrre~ ~.Ievrnee a, the aCIN~D eeM-0 evPMbd. SEE ATTAiCIf D El[WSIT'B'. ~. Piorfde • Net ei nouns eM sOd~rrw (b0e+ nfeMnO rnd pA-~ sde-rwe in Wi- of eM awnos o1 prooeb who ere uie ,ubNta at ~ sOpw rnd ~ ~e^~ p"o•M eaten Mow~+O ownae wlwp oAperlies ari. ^~de c~le tnw .ubJea 1. Prla-eV~~ enVebOtM for a ~p~idj- o1N1K NrIN bl (~. ~PtaOVIDEO• 'Ct. /WO ALL BU9NM1'T/1L peONIREMEUirS TO: rENT OF COCN~IUNRY D_6VELOPI,~Ni. Mr .~.~.~~ - . Z -d DgZE 13!'i13Sk11 dH NHLZ % t 1 EOOZ t0 130 E ~Optl ~!l1~I;70SltI ~ NDNti!!JM s• ItgmOttAt CO/S /~- tp~wjl~~d o ~ ' .i SUPPLEMENT TO APPEALS FORM .EXHIBIT `A' 1. Please provide a detailed explanation of why the appellant, Mrs. Luanne Wells is an "aggrieved or adversely affected person. " Mrs. Wells has been anowner/resident at One Vail Place, Vail, Colorado for 20 plus years. The Front Door Project entails developing land that is located directly next to, in front of and beneath One Vail Place. According to the Vail Town Code, section 12-3-3, an "aggrieved or adversely affected person means any person who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by this Title (Vail Town Code)". Towards this end, the Vail Town Charter, Prefatory Synopsis, provides "the commission recognizes that the community of Vail is unique in that it places greater emp nal in mo t mnnic'paljgovernmentsrThis Tonal and recreational concerns than are tradrtio Charter is intended to provide the enduring framework within which these concerns can best be implemented. This Charter is, therefore, fundamentally founded in the belief that the quality of life of the people of Vail shall continue and be enhanced through progressive municipal government " As approved, the Development Plan for the Front Door Project will adversely impact and negatively enhance the..quality of life Mrs. Wells has maintained at One Vail Place over the last 20 years. Specifically, the Front Door Development Plan proposes building a 14 bay, loading and delivery facility next to One Vail Place. This facility will have a negative environmental impact on the surrounding area, including One Vail Place. The delivery facility will over burden Vail Road, the primary ingress and egress route to One Vail Place. There will be an increase in truck traffic and congestion on Vail Road as a result of the facility. The hand truck portal for the facility is poorly located. As proposed, deliverymen will conflict with skiers and pedestrians trying to access the mountain. Deliverymen will go between One Vail Placekand the Lodge in order to deliver their goods. This will be very disruptive to Mrs. Wells and other residents of One Vail Place. Alternative locations for the entire loading and delivery facility and the hand truck portal need to be re-evaluated and closely studied. As approved, the Front Door Development Plan proposes building a very large Skier Service building in the Vista Bann ski yard. As a result the ski yard will be reduced. The new skier services building negatively impacts Mrs. Wells' view line as well as the unofficial view corridor from Wall Street. The Skier Services building itself is not `world class' or aesthetically pleasing.. to the eye. The building design needs to be heavily scrutinized. The applicant should have the proposed design reviewed by an outside, reputable consultant. Further, the Skier Services building is slated to house additional unnecessary retail space. This area should remain open space and should not be utilized for private development or retail shops. As a concerned community member, Mrs. Wells questions what the economic impacts will be of additional commercial uses in this area. As approved, the Front Door Development Plan did not include a detailed cost v. benefit analysis. Again, on behalf of the community Mrs• Wells questions the overall economic impact of this project to the Town. Finally, Mrs. Wells asserts this project does not increase the overall quality, integrity and ambiance of Vail Village. SUPPLEMENT TO APPEALS FORM EX~IIBIT `B' 2. Please specify the precise nature of the appeal. Please cite specific Code provisions having relevance to the action being appealed. According to the Towri Code, section 12-6I-13, the Planning and Environmental Commission must apply the following criteria when considering a development plan: 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. (Ord. 19(2001) § 2: Ord. 3(2001) § 2) Mrs. Wells asserts the Planning Commission did not correctly apply the criteria set forth in 12-6I-13 when approving the Development Plan for the Front Door Project. Specifically, the Planning Commission failed to adequately scrutinize the design of the skier service building as required by 12-61-13 (A), (B) and (C). The Planning Commission failed to adequately scrutinize how pedestrian and skier traffic will flow in the Village and in the Vista Bahn ski yard, given the location of the hand truck portal as well as the location of the new skier services building, as required by 12-6I-13 (C and D). The Planning Commission failed to fully consider an appropriate environmental impact report for the project as a whole. The Planning Commission failed to require the applicant to provide appropriate environme 1~6I-1 and 1216It 3 (E) ~~es. As such, the Planing Commission faded to comply with The Planning Commission failed to consider an appropriate economic cost v. benefit analysis for the entire project as well for the loading and delivery facility as required by 12-6I-13(F). The Planing. Commission failed to give due consideration to a traffic study and management plan for the loading and delivery facility, as required by required by and 12-6I-12(14) and 12-6I-13(F). The Planning Commission otherwise failed to consider and properly apply applicable criteria such that the interests of Ms. Wells as a landowner and the citizens of the Town of Vail as a community are adversely impacted in a manner inconsistent with .historical Town of Vail planning documents, applicable rules/ regulations, and a healthy sense of development for the future of the Town of Vail. MEMBERS ANDREW G LITTMAN MARK E. BIDDISON* DENI3IS J. THARP CRAIG A. WEINBERG ASSOCIATES LEE STRICKLER KAREN ROMEO JESSICA CATLIN MICHAEL BELLOCHI OF COUNSEL ROGER E. STEVENS, P.C. *Also admitted in California Town Council Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Telephone: (303) 443-6690 1-800-273-1802 (Colorado Only) Facsimile: (303) 449-9349 Web Page: wwwslblaw.com E-Maii: littman@slb-ilc.com October 29, 2003 Re: Front Door Project -Wells Appeal Council Members; VAIL LAW OFFICE 141 E. Meadow Dr. Crossroads Mall C-4 Vail, CO 81657 (970)479-9989 (800) 273-1802 As indicated on October 21, 2003, we have asked Gordon Pierce, an accomplished. architect with a long history of work in the Vail Valley, to review the Front Door Project drawings. For those of you who may not be familiaz with his work, I would like to briefly give you a description of his background. Gordon began his career in Milwaukee working with Fitzhugh Scott, one of the original "founders" of Vail. Gordon came to Vail in May of 1962 to oversee the first phase of construction of what would eventually become Vail Village. Over the next ten years, Gordon continued to work from the Milwaukee office, making frequent trips to Vail to oversee their design projects. Ultimately, he moved his family to Vail, permanently, and opened his own office, which remained in the Town until 1996. During that time, Gordon not only provided azchitectural and planning services for anever-increasing portfolio of work, but also served as a member of the Design Review Board, the Vail Planning Commission and as a member of the Town Council. STEVENS, LITTMAN, BIDDISON, THARP, & WEINBERG, L.L.C. A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 250 ARAPAHOS, SUITE 301 BOULDER, COLORADO 80302 EXHIBIT tC ~ PARALEGALS Patty Jansen Lise Cordson Patricia Ceiich Katherine Z.eroll Projects in Vail Valley completed by Gordon's Firm include the following: • Sonnenalp Hotel • Austria Haus Club & Hotel • Vail Athletic Club -Vail Mountain Lodge • Golden Peak Base Facilities • Bishop Park • 44 Willow • North Woods • Many prominent residences in Vail and Beaver Creek • The Chateau in Beaver Creek • The Pines Lodge • The Villar Center • Market Square and Ice Rink In 1996, Gordon moved to San Francisco. Albeit his main office is no longer in Vail, his firm continues to design many important projects in the Valley. These include on-going work with the Faessler family on a major addition to the Sonnenalp Hotel, the development of the new Tivoli Lodge, the recently completed Vail Mountain Lodge and several large private residences. Despite the fact he now lives in San Francisco, Gordon tells me that he "left his heart in the Vail Valley". I am confident, based upon his many years as a resort architect and long-time citizen of this community, that his comments will be constructive and useful. Sincerely, STEVENS, LITTMAN, BIDDISON, THARP & WEINBERG, LLC ./~~~ Andrew C. Littman Attorney. for Mrs. Wells /~ BE548T DESIGN ASSOCIATES October 28, 2003 Town Council Town of Vail Vail, Colorado Deaz Members of the Vail Town Council, Andy Littman, on behalf of Mrs. Luanne Wells, has asked me to review the proposed plans for the Front Door prof ect that is now before the Town Council and DRB for consideration. I would like to thank the members in advance for reviewing my comments regarding this ambitious project. It is cleaz that a great deal of thought has already gone into the design of this development. It is equally cleaz that it is a very complicated undertaking. In generating my own comments, I have reviewed the architectural drawings, the Planning Department Memo to the PEC, as well as participated~in telephone and personal meetings with the Wells team. I am awaze that I have not had the benefit of following this project from its inception and may not know some of the many issues that were addressed in the development of the Front Door development. However, I do feel I have a fairly good grasp of this proposal and the importance of the project, especially in light of my 40 plus yeazs working with many of you in our wonderful Vail Valley. I have outlined my remazks below, addressing the program, the site plan, general building massing and architectural chazacter. Project Program: My first concern with the Front Door program is with the validity of the size, location and function of the proposed loading dock area. The number of loading bays for large trucks surprises me; I have rarely seen anything larger than aten-wheel truck in Town. In cases where. a sixteen-wheel truck is used, such as at the grocery store at Crossroads, a forklift is often employed to quickly remove the cazgo. Although a forklift could be used to unload a shipment in the loading dock area, the proposed scheme would require more time and labor to transport a shipment to its final destination in the Village since the elevator precludes access by such equipment. I believe the number of sixteen wheelers, as well. as their frequency in the village should be weighed against the enormous cost and negative design impacts of creating a lazge underground facility for these particular trucks. Moreover, a centralized loading and unloading facility is inconsistent with my understanding of Town of Vail Master Plans and doesn't make sense at this highly visible, pedestrian oriented location. It appears that the proposed, centralized loading area has only one elevator to access the Village, more than thirty feet above. I believe that the one, fairly slow hydraulic elevator would certainly create a bottleneck, both above and below, especially if more than two deliveries are made at the same. time.. The time and effort required to make deliveries utilizing the one elevator also presents headaches for that unfortunate delivery person who forgets something in the truck or is asked for additional quantities of an item, such as an extra keg of beer or carton of paper goods. Of course, if the elevator is out of service, for maintenance or if broken, then the only alternative for deliveries would be to share the one remaining passenger elevator, which would be very inconvenient, if not dangerous. Adding trash removal services to the scheme would only add another layer of inconvenience. I am also concerned with the circulation patterns that would result by locating the elevator where it is proposed; ail deliveries, whether a single Fed Ex envelope or a large shipment of restaurant supplies, all would need to pass through a very active and prominent pedestrian zone. In the winter, large deliveries would be almost impossible, especially with the large numbers of skiers moving through that space, unless, perhaps, all delivery surfaces throughout town would be constructed with snow melt technology. Even if such a large investment in that technology were made, I believe that the distances required to service the entire village from the loading area would be unacceptable to the unions who represent the various shipping companies. Even the venerable popcorn wagon is more than 150 feet away from the proposed service elevator. I understand the desire to eliminate trucks from the Village core. I was part of the original design team that wished to minimize the mix o~vehicles and pedestrians. We are doing just the opposite here: unnecessarily mixing delivery functions, with pedestrian uses. I have to question whether the enormous expense and logistics required to underground all deliveries is practicable. As a policy matter, if it is deemed practicable then the Master Plan satellite system seems preferable to what may end of being a de facto centralized facility if built to this magnitude. I have considered my own feelings on the matter and have asked both locals and visitors what they think about this issue. On the whole, the only negative comments I heard had to do with the noise made by early morning trash pick-ups and- commercial deliveries. I have heard many more complaints about the noise created by idling Town of Vail buses and the audible signals from the snow removal tractors. Perhaps people have grown accustomed to the sight of service vehicles in the Village core, as well as in their own hometowns. I find it hard to reconcile the trade-offs of constructing such an expensive solution to a problem that, I feel, is not really that egregious. The deep hillside cuts and tall retaining walls required in the proposed development force the developers to offset the cost of such an undertaking by building a' dense collection of revenue- generating buildings above. I feel that the proposed density is out of character with the overall master plan of the Village and believe that there are much less costly and simple regulatory methods available to address the issue of trucks in town. I urge the Council to consider scaling back the centralized loading dock area in favor of the not-so-perfect but simple manner in which businesses have been serviced since Vail's inception. The reduction. in construction costs should allow the developers to make corresponding reductions in density, to the benefit of the immediate neighborhood. The program outlines additional commercial space in the development. I worry that Vail's existing commercial spaces are already suffering, with many vacant stores azound town. The proposed 3,000 square foot commercial spaces in the development are also at odds with the scale of the existing, smaller boutique stores. Although a very successful concept used elsewhere in the ski resort industry, I feel that the proposed Ski Club with sepazate, paid parking spaces in the development could also adversely affect the retail stores in the Village by circumventing a number of potential customers away from the center of town. Hopefully, the club members would continue to patronize the shops and restaurants in the village. The Site Plan: If this project is to be the "Front Door" to the Mountain, it needs to portray the image of an important portal. The one story ski services building presents a weak image. I would prefer a grand open and more sophisticated landscape plan centered on a grassy amphitheater, in which public events, in summer or winter, could be held. Such a space would be Vail's "Central Park," expressing and integration of nature, recreation and community at the foot of the resort's signature mountain. Moving the Vista Bahn lift further from the top of Bridge Street, I believe, undermines the ski yard atmosphere. The heated sidewalks and patios that seem to dominate the plan may detract from the special, natural essence of Vail's winters. Although it is important to keep up with the competition, I would not want to lose the ambiance that is currently present on a typical ski day. The proposed landscaping, too, seems too urban and out of character with the adjacent natural environment. Amore natural, well-designed landscape plan would be preferable. The townhomes are packed tightly on the hillside and present very repetitive, static elevations. I suggest that these buildings should not be a series of duplicate structures, but a mix of units of varying elevations, heights and sepazations. This would make for a much more interesting composition in keeping with the village core. The site plan, in general, has been handicapped by a program that "asks too much." I believe that the present plan reflects a design that has been engineered to fit a pm forma. The result is a program that does allow the designers much flexibility to pursue those architectural or planning qualities that would elevate this to a much more notable project. Building Massing: As noted above, I feel that the buildings that contain the residential units would be better served if there were more variety in their scale. Perhaps one building could have four units, another two or three, and yet another, a single, freestanding unit. My design of the Bishop Park project, just down the road, was organized this way and presents a very pleasing composition. The Skier Services building is too large and out of scale to its neighbors. Although it is only one story tall, it is spread out and, to my eye, looks more Like a standard strip mall than an extension of the architectural fabric of the village. If all those program elements must be located here, I would suggest that they be broken down into multiple buildings and integrated with the amphitheater/park suggestion above. For example, they could form an edge along one side of the park, giving definition to the open space. .Architectural Character: Most successful architecture is founded on the adage of "form follows function." Efficient, thoughtful designs usually result in financially and artistically viable structures. This does not mean that all design must strictly adhere to this formula; Vail has several notable buildings that achieve their charming appearance through a conscious disregazd of that maxim. However, in any case, the architectural chazacter of a project does influence its overall plan. The proposed residential units present a character that is in keeping with the "Vail look." The building materials, roof forms, windows, overhangs, etc. are appropriate. However, as noted, the repetitive nature and tight, regimented alignment of the buildings as a group results in a static composition; although the chazacter may be compatible, the overall layout is unsuccessful. The Skier Services Building and Club Building do not relate well to the residential units. It would be my preference to tie the entire project together more, along an architectural theme, to achieve a more powerful and appropriate result. As the "Front Door," the final work must reflect its important location and intended function as a gateway to the mountain. If the program must contain all of its original elements, I would suggest that the developer allow the architect the freedom to rearrange the massing of the various components and search for an effective way to unify the azchitectural character of the whole project. Summary: 1. Perform a careful study of the truck loading area. Consider the size of the trucks to be ~ accommodated, the distances required to service the village, the circulation of trash and delivery routes and the potential for bottlenecks at the elevator. Honor the Master Plan requiring a satellite system by reducing the size of this facility. 2. Consider reducing the overall program by 15 to 25% by eliminating some of the retail, some of the loading docks and, possibly, a portion of the hillside residential product. 3. Leave more open space at the base of the mountain to accommodate a special, outdoor feature that can serve as a focal point for the project and the village. 4. Create a variety of residential units to avoid the repetitive appeazance in the currant proposal. Allow the architects the freedom to be more creative with their solutions to this ambitious (too ambitious) program. ., 5. Engage a planner with experience and expertise who can roview the circulation and overall urtegrity of project so to maximize the opportunity to make this one of a kind prof ect a source of deep pride for the entire conun-uiity. L~~--' Gordon R. Piercc, A.I.A. Architect Luanne C. Wells 244 Wall Street Unit #4 Vail, CO 81658 Phone (970) 476-6892 October 30, 2003 Greetings: Vail Village needs a facelift, not just any facelift but one consistent with our town's unique character, quality and ambiance. As you may be aware, I have been providing comments and suggestions to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) of the Town of Vail regarding the "Vail Front Door Project" (located at the plaza area contiguous to the Vista Bahn ski lift). This project is the most significant proposed development in Vail in recent history. This project includes building 13 residential units, a private Ski club, a centralized loading and delivery facility (complete with 229 underground parking spaces and 14 truck bays), a new 19,000 sq. ft. Skier Service Building (includes 5,000 sq. ft. of new retail space) and relocating the Vista Bahn ski lift. The massive loading and distribution center is designed to consolidate all Village deliveries in one primary location, including utilizing only one hand trolley porthole located in the new skier service .building. All of this proposed development is condescended in one central location ... at the front door of Vail Clearly, a thoughtful development incorporating, many of the proposed elements is appropriate and will enhance the quality of everyone's experience at Vail. My primary concern from the beginning is that a thorough, objective assessment and creative design input be administered with this project. Unfortunately that has not occurred. The Town has not chosen to utilize the planning experts which they historically engage, traffic studies are inadequate and incomplete, economic assessments regarding costs have not been prepared, management reports are in draft form. The .PEC has approved the project and absent Town Council intervention, the project in its current form will likely be approved.. That is why I have appealed the PEC findings, which is scheduled to be heard by the City Council at their next meeting on November 4. As that is the same date of the City elections, I timely requested a one month continuance. This request has been denied by the City Council The reason to rush the approve of this project is not known to me. Aland exchange between Vail Associates and the Forest Service is required for the development. This exchs-n~ has. not. occurred,. and-based upon statements by the Forest Service representatives, it is Clearly not. imminent. I do not know why a project of this magnitude with ~ such long .term impact has to be rushed. particularly with so many unanswered questions. I have attached for your review, a letter from Gordon Pierce outlining some of his concerns regarding the Front Door Project. Gordon is an accomplished architect who has served as a member of the Design Review Board, The Planning Commission and of the Town Council. l am writing to you to ask you to voice your opinion regarding this proposed project. You may Email your Town Council members at towncouncil[a~vailgov com or telephone them at 970 479 1860. My hope is that the Vail Town Council and its powers that be, ensure this project receive the appropriate attention which it deserves. Sincerely, '~~ .~ Luanne C. Wells ~~LJ 'l \ L.\, October 27, 2003 Town of Vail Members of Town Council 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Subject: Lionshead Redevelopment -North Day Lot Dear Council Members, I am an owner of a townhome (#5) at the Landmark in Lionshead. The redevelopment plans that have been proposed by Vail Resorts for the core site, West Day lot, and the tennis court site are great improvements for the Lionshead area. Your efforts in making this development a reality are very much appreciated. My only concern is the North Day lot with the proposed transportation center and employee housing. My concerns are as follows: 1) Environmental impacts that need to be adequately addressed -noise and odor from bus traffic and people passing within 50 feet of the front of the Landmark townhomes during the day & evening ti112AM. This will be a significant impact with the current facility design. 2) Access to our front desk -the current plan does not adequately provide drive up arrival parking. 3) Employee housing that conflicts with the resort guest experience -locating employee housing so close to guest activity will likely result in peace & quiet conflicts which currently take place in the North Day lot and the driveway to the south of the townhomes on a frequent basis after midnight. I recognize and support the need for employee housing in the valley but do not feel a core site location is appropriate and will likely result increased conflicts. I would greatly appreciate your input in addressing these concerns so the redevelopment of Lionshead can be a positive experience for everyone. Thank you. Sincerely, `~G~ Richard Russ J~ 6567 N. Surry Place Parker, CO 80134 303-841-6618 ~~ ~~.n~:~ I /s~~c~- Lcv~.~ E ~i{- O '-~ i~E i v ~',u S ~- (~~ « c~ C~ ~-UL 'VY~ c~ v 1v i ,q i U S ~ Qa~IS.~P.~U ~~~ ~ ~ ~avT~ ~J~ `Wtc~v~v L,4;•v ~SfQS ~ti~ ~~,a~PYs ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ , SPc~ /~- ~ ~ OJ ~-~Q- ,~~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~"" SQ.~ ~ ,5~,~ ~~ ~~~ ,arm ~~ ~ ,~v~~~ ~ ~'~~,~ ~~ 11~~oiS w ~`l `~cM t ~.o~ ~cMA-~Ce ~t~,2 ~~~z.~ ~e~xP~ ~Q~A~~~ _. _ . .., . ~~ 1 ~ ~~ ~~~~ r~~R C~j 1 t, 6 ~ ~ ~62~~ 9 ~~~ ., ~ C~ ~~ ~~~ 1J ~' ( L ~~ ~~ V~ i ~i~~L ~~ Lv ~,Q. t~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~. =~ ..'. _~•~~`. ~1=,i,~,,lf~l1,~,1,i,1,~,1,l~1~~1-s,l,l,~tf1,,,,ll,l X ~: L~ U.,uu:Q~ .. M VAIL VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. President -Alan Kosloff Secretary -Ellie Caulkins Treasurer -Patrick Gramm Executive Director -Jim Lamont Directors: Judith Berkowitz -Dolph Bridgewater -Bob Galvin -Ron Langley -Bill Morton - Gretta Parks -Richard Conn To: Mayor and Vail Town Council From: Jim Lamont Date: November 3, 2003 RE: Resolution establishing Urban Renewal Authority -Recommendation of Support with Qualifications: The Association's Board of Directors makes the following recommendation of support with qualifications regarding the Town Council's pending action to create an Urban Renewal Authority in order to implement Tax Increment Financing to aid in the funding of necessary public improvements. The Association desires to express its appreciation for the inclusion of those items that seek to protect private property rights and provide for the oversight of public spending. The Association notes that it maybe necessary for property owners to further protect their property rights through adoption of an amendment to the Vail Town Charter that restricts government intervention, through an Urban Renewal Authority, to impede the exercise of private property rights. Recommendation of Support with Qualifications: • Support is recommended for using TIF as a viable public finance mechanism as one means of generating a portion of the revenues needed for public improvements required in downtown Vail. • Should TIF provide less than adequate revenues then a community wide property tax increase for specified public improvement projects should be placed before the voters. • To insure the intended consequence of using TIF to underwrite the stimulation of the community economy and the use of sales tax revenues to finance government services, then the Town of Vail will need to discipline its financial decisions to primarily focus its spending on improvement projects that stimulate the generation of sales tax revenues and the redevelopment of Vail and its downtown area as a destination resort community. • Qualified support is given for using a Urban Renewal Authority as a method of implementing TIF as proposed in the presented resolution • Any use of a URA should be minimally applied using a primary circumstance of sufficient magnitude that protects the legal standing of TIF under all other methods of application Once TIF is protected, its general application should be through a DDA, because it does not carry the threat of condemnation powers. • Any declaration of blight, necessary to establish an Urban Renewal Area or Downtown Development Authority, should only be applied to private property with the concurrence of the property owner. • URA condemnation powers should be limited to those circumstances where URA condemnation power is surgically applied, with the approval of the property owner, to specific parcels where the covenants are at variance with redevelopment projects and that have the support of a majority of adjacent property owners. This use of URA condemnation power is to be applied in a manner so as not to jeopardize the validity of any generally applied covenant protection. • If private property values are found through practice to be negatively affected by being included in an Urban Renewal Area, then these properties should be removed from the area and other means to finance public improvements put into effect. • Should there be abuse of private property rights by the URA, then the Association will support the adoption of an amendment to the Town Charter that would restrain URA powers. Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (970) 827-5680 Voice Mail/FAX: (970) 827-5856 e-mail: vvha(aivail.net www.vailhomeowners.com ~,. -- -~- xc.: Cw,u.~A. EAGLE COUNTY SCHOO~ IS~TAICT AE 50J P.O. BOX 740 • EAGLE, COLORADO 81631 • (970) 328-6321 • FAX (970) 328-1024 October 27, 2003 Town Council Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: GYMNASTICS CENTER AT RED SANDSTONE ELEMENTARY Dear Town Council, On Wednesday, October 22, 2003, the Board of Education discussed the proposed Gymnastics Center to be constructed to the east of Red Sandstone Elementary School. Mayor Kurz introduced Lynn Fritzlen who provided the Board of Education with an updated sketch of the project and answered several questions the Board expressed at the September 24th Board of Education work session. The Board of Education is generally in favor of contributing $150,000 towards the Gymnastics Center together with an approved Joint Use Agreement. The Board of Education directed staff to work on a Joint Use Agreement with the Town of Vail and the Vail Recreation District to determine the future shared uses of the facility. It is our hope that individuals from the Town of Avon and the Vail Recreation District will be identified by each organization to work on this Joint Use Agreement. The Board appointed a subcommittee of Connie Kincaid-Strahan, Karen Strakbein and Nancy Ricci from the school district. Please contact me to let me know when the individuals from the Town and Recreation District have been identified and the date, time and location of the first meeting. We look forward to working with you on this j oint project. Sincerely, Karen Strakbein Assistant Superintendent Cc: Board of Education Vail Recreation District Lynn Fritzlen, Fritzlen Pierce Architects VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Evening Meeting Tuesday, September 16, 2003 The regularly scheduled Vail Town Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. on Tuesday September 16, 2003 by Mayor Ludwig Kurz. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ludwig Kurz Rod Slifer, Mayor Pro-Tem Dick Cleveland Diana Donovan Bill Jewitt Greg Moffet Chuck Ogilby STAFF PRESENT: Pamela Brandmeyer, Interim Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. There was no citizen participation. The second item on the agenda was approval of the August 5t" and August 19t"~ 2003 evening minutes. Greg Moffet moved to approve the minutes. Rod Slifer seconded the motion. The Council voted 7-0 to approve the meeting minutes as presented. The third item on the agenda was a Design Review Board Appointment. Greg Moffet moved to appoint Scott Proper to the Design Review Board. Rod Slifer seconded. the motion. The Council voted 7-0 in favor. The appointment will fill a vacated term to run from Oct. 1 through March 31, 2004. Mayor Ludwig Kurz thanked Proper and a second applicant for their interest in serving the town. The fourth item on the agenda was an Update on U.S. Forest Service Fuel Mitigation Efforts. Greg Moffet moved to enter into an agreement with the U.S. Forest Service, allowing the Forest Service to proceed with wildfire mitigation efforts in the Booth Creek prescribed burn area, known as unit six. Rod Slifer seconded the motion. The Council voted 7-0 to approve. During discussion, Phil Bowden, Forest Service Fire Management Officer and member of the Bureau of Land Management Interagency Fire Management Team, explained the Forest Service has set aside $20,000 to be used until September 2004 for hiring personnel to cut and pile. logs for burning in the Booth Creek prescribed burn area. During the past year, the Forest Service, with help from Vail Fire Department student firefighters, has proceeded with a cut and pile defensible space project on 30 acres of town-owned land and 15 acres of Forest Service land, located behind the Falls Condominium Complex in East Vail. Bowden explained the piles are ready to be burned when conditions become optimal either during the fall or early next spring. Because mitigation will be taking place on town-owned land, Bowden requested a signed participation agreement between the town and the Forest Service. In addition, Bowden requested Council approval for a broadcast burn on approximately 30 acres in the unit six area, 15 of which are on town-owned land. Bowden said the low-intensity broadcast burn would take approximately 45 minutes and improve the soil, wildlife habitat and will promote new vegetation growth in the area while reducing wildfire fuels. During the discussion, Chuck Ogilby asked. for clarification on how the Booth Creek area mitigation efforts began. According to Bowden, mitigation efforts started as a wildlife project in 1998 to improve vegetation for area bighorn sheep. The focus then shifted to forest health issues and the need to reduce ire fuel in the area. Then, in 1999, an agreement was made between the Forest Service and the town, in which, Council approval was needed for any burning on private or town-owned land for wildfire mitigation. Diana Donovan expressed support for the cut, pile and burn projects, as well as the broadcast burn when conditions are favorable. Additionally, Vail Fire Chief John Gulick informed Council that property owners in the Vail Valley have been working with the Forest Service and town staff to improve .defensible space around their properties. Donovan suggested the town. create a policy for property owners, especially those who live in duplexes or condominiums; so that all parties are informed when trees are being removed to create defensible space. Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Village Homeowners Association, agreed with Donovan and expressed a need for the community at-large to be notified when mitigation efforts such as cutting or burning of wood piles, are taking place on private property. Additionally, Dick Cleveland directed Bowden and staff to research whether the $20,000 could be used to repay the town for use of Vail's student firefighters who worked for minimum wage on the mitigation efforts.. In addition, Bowden said the Forest Service will continue to move forward with wildfire mitigation efforts on Forest Service lands surrounding Vail to include cut, pile and burn projects and broadcast burns. The fifth item on the agenda was Approval of Off-Season Hours and Signage for Vail Visitor Centers. Greg Moffet moved and Bill Jewitt seconded to approve a reduction in hours during the off-season at the Vail Visitor Centers, as well as a $200 funding expense for the production of associated information signs. The Council voted 6-1 in favor (Donovan against) of the motion. The reduced hours will be effective September 22 to November 26 and will run from 9 a.m. to'2 p.m. daily in the Vail Village Visitor Center and 12 noon to 5 p.m. daily in the Lionshead Visitor Center. In voting against the motion, Councilmember Diana Donovan said the town should not be responsible for the $200 sign cost. Also during the discussion, Greg Moffet moved to fund lighted, permanent exterior signs for the Visitor Centers. Chuck Ogilby seconded the motion. The Council voted 6-1 to approve with Jewitt against. Kelli McDonald with the Vail Valley Chamber and Tourism Bureau informed Council that a bid for $8,000 had been received to install the signs. Councilmembers encouraged McDonald to solicit further bids, including use of town staff, prior to purchasing and installing the signs. Council requested bids be no higher than $8,000. The sixth item on the agenda was I-70 Noise Mitigation. Greg Moffet. moved and Chuck Ogilby seconded to direct the town staff to draft an ordinance to prohibit the use of truck engine brakes on I-70 from mile marker 181.5 in East Vail to 172 in Dowd Junction with penalties of $1,000 or more and to authorize associated expenditures for enforcement and equipment. The Council voted 6-1 (Donovan against) to approve the motion. A second motion was made by Chuck Ogilby and seconded by Greg Moffet to direct staff to explore construction of a pilot noise wall project to be built as soon as possible with a budget allocation of $500,000 to be used to leverage federal and state monies. The motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 7-0. In addition, the Council directed town staff to pursue reducing the speed limit for trucks on I-70 through Vail. The direction from Council followed an overview of Vail's I-70 noise issues presented by Public Works Director Greg Hall. During the discussion, Hall said the decibel level must be above 67 for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to pay for noise. mitigation along the interstate. In Vail's case, however, the FHWA only pays for mitigation when new highway improvements are constructed, according to Hall. Because Vail was mostly built-out before the FHWA noise standards were approved, the FHWA is not responsible for mitigating interstate noise issues within the majority of Vail, he said. In addition, the town is not allowed to construct noise berms or barriers on FHWA right-of-way without approval. According to Hall, interstate noise studies report 25 percent of Vail's parcels are located where noise levels exceed 67 decibels. The remaining areas are at 66 decibels or less. Examples of areas with noise levels above 67 decibels include elevated neighborhoods such as Red Sandstone and the Timber Ridge area, plus areas west of East Vail where a noise berm is currently being built. Hall also presented the possible actions for I-70 noise mitigation in Vail, which include: 1) mitigate a 10-mile stretch on 1-70 with noise berms or walls at a cost of $750,000 per 1,000 ft. of wall; 2) draft an ordinance restricting the use of engine brakes, making it illegal for trucks to apply engine brakes from East Vail to West Vail and include enforcement signage on the interstate; and 3) authorize $46,000 to hire an additional police officer or contract with the Colorado State Patrol to enforce the noise control. Vail Police Commander Steve Wright stated the department prefers adding an additional officer, which would allow the town more control over the officer's enforcement, plus the town would keep revenues from noise enforcement fines. Councilmember Diana Donovan requested town staff provide Council with maps containing information where noise berms or barriers could be built. In making the motion to enact the engine brake restriction, Councilman Greg Moffet noted the need for Vail to look at "self help" solutions to get the attention of state and federal transportation agencies as well as the Colorado Motor Carriers Association. In voting against the first motion, Diana Donovan said she'd prefer to work to lower the speed limit on I-70 through Vail, saying an engine brake ordinance would be ineffective in reducing noise due to enforcement difficulties and its harsh approach. Councilmember Rod Slifer agreed the town should continue to pursue lowering the speed limit in addition to the other initiatives. In making the motion for a noise wall demonstration project, Councilman Chuck Ogilby said he hoped the town would be able to replicate glass noise walls that are in use in Switzerland. Ogilby stressed the urgency in getting the project underway, noting that two of his friends have left the valley due to the disturbances caused by the highway noise. Public_Works Director Greg Hall said approval of a noise wall project could be delayed by the state until the I-70 Programmatic Environmental Impact Study (PETS) is complete and preferred alternatives have been adopted. Mayor Ludwig. Kurz described the philosophical challenges in balancing noise issues with aesthetic issues. In Europe, he said, communities have learned to tolerate the loss of views in exchange for noise reduction, saying it has become the lesser of two evils. During public discussion, Jim Lamont of the Vail Village Homeowners Association urged the Council to keep the dialogue alive, saying the issue of I-70 noise has been a consistent complaint from his organization's constituents. Lastly, Greg Moffet explained the town was also exploring possible legal action against the state and federal highway agencies for noise violations. Town Attorney Matt Mire acknowledged similar efforts underway in Golden. The seventh item on the agenda was a Vail Ice Dome Funding Request. Greg Moffet moved to include the costs for set-up and tear-down of the Vail Ice Dome, estimated at $190,000, to be allocated from the town's 2003 and 2004 budgets. Chuck Ogilby seconded the motion. The Council voted 6-1 (Cleveland against) in favor. The authorization will enable the bubble to be put into use for its fourth winter season at the Vail Golf Course driving range. In voting to approve the funding, Councilmembers did so reluctantly, expressing frustration with the lack of cost-share participation by the Vail Recreation District (VRD), Eagle County, Vail Junior Hockey and other skating groups. During the discussion, Peter Cook, a VRD board member, reminded Councilmembers of a meeting in April in which the VRD informed the town that it would not have funds to assist with set-up and tear-down, although VRD indicated it would absorb as much as a $30,000 loss in its operation. Cook went on to say the bubble had excess ice time last season with its use continuing to decline as the new ice rink in Eagle comes on line. In lieu of funding the bubble's annual construction costs, Cook proposed reducing the amount of concerts at Dobson Ice Arena during the hockey season to add more ice time for the facility. He also suggested the town donate some of its free ice days at Dobson to add additional flexibility. Cook said it was important for the Town Council to make a decision as soon as possible, given pressing deadlines. He also said that more than half of the Vail Junior Hockey participants live outside the Town of Vail. In response, Councilman Greg Moffet said Cook's proposal to expand use of Dobson would be ineffective in addressing community skating needs, noting there is a limited number of hours in the day when children should be skating. For example, 5:30 a.m. on a school day is unacceptable, he said. Councilmember Diana Donovan noted that guests, through the payment of sales taxes, make it possible for residents to have amenities, such as Dobson Arena. She said a desire to host hockey tournaments and other recreational activities that draw visitors to Vail should be embraced by the VRD. Cook responded that VRD shares in that philosophy. Donovan went on to say that she hoped the pending arrival of a new VRD director would help improve the district's ice programs, which she said have been poorly managed. Councilman Bill Jewitt, noting that the issue had become polarized, said it comes down to whether or not the Council is willing to fund the bubble. Councilman Rod Slifer inquired if use of the bubble would enable additional public skating opportunities to be programmed at Dobson Arena. He also suggested a discussion about who would operate the bubble. During the public comment period, the Council heard from Dawn Ristow, the skating director at Dobson, who noted the need for more ice time, saying that for every special event programmed at Dobson, the skating program loses 9 of 22 hours of dedicated ice time a week. Holly Domke, an 11-year-old skating club member, also spoke about the need for a second sheet of ice in Vail as she described a typical week, which includes 6 a.m. practices at Dobson, or being driven to Breckenridge to skate when Dobson is programmed for special events. She said she also practices in Denver twice a month. Next, Nino Licciardi, VRD chairman, noted that turndown times at Dobson will be quicker this season to get skaters back on the ice. Licciardi also expressed frustration upon hearing criticism of VRD programming by several members of the Town Council, suggesting the board should "educate before you evaluate." Other speakers included Amy Domke, president of the Skating Club of Vail, who urged the Council to retain the bubble, saying the group has a waiting list for skating lessons and a growing program. She also suggested the need for additional marketing of the skating programs. Next to speak was Lanie Coffey, who read a list of the names of the local businesses who have helped to support the Vail Junior Hockey programs. Saying she was stunned by the many skeletons in the closet and the deep scars associated with the recreational issues, she suggested the need for a matching grant from the sponsoring businesses to help move the issue forward. Louise Funk, also of the Vail Junior Hockey organization, suggested the need to organize a task force to work on the issue for the long-term. In making the motion to fund the bubble's construction costs, Councilman Greg Moffet suggested the mayor make another effort to contact Eagle County about a cost-share arrangement, noting the county's earlier interest was tied to a condition that the bubble be placed at amid-valley location. Councilman Chuck Ogilby noted the need to develop afive-year plan. In voting against the funding, Councilman Dick Cleveland said the allocation is not a good way to do business and that taxpayers have a right to expect better from the town. He said the town can no longer be everyone's savior. The eighth item on the agenda was the 2004 Budget. Dick Cleveland moved to approve first reading of the 2004 budget. Bill Jewitt seconded the motion. The Council voted 6-1 (Moffet against) in favor. It was noted that a super majority vote (5 or more) was required due to an imbalance in the sales tax allocation to the general fund versus the capital fund. The Town Charter requires a 50-50 split unless approved by a super majority. As approved, the budget includes net revenue of $36.4 million and net expenditures of $37 million, which represents a 7.8 percent decrease in revenue from 2003 and an 11.1 percent decrease in expenditures. The split for the town's four percent sales tax is 60 percent of projected revenues to the general fund and 40 percent to the capital projects fund. During discussion, Councilman Greg Moffet reiterated comments made during the work session in which he said he objected to a line item expense in the capital budget for the Village streetscape project in which the town would fund 100 percent of the cost of snowmelt in selected areas in the public right-of-way. Moffet said he preferred those costs be shared proportionally, with adjacent property owners picking uptwo-thirds of the cost. In response, Councilman Dick Cleveland said he supported the town's budgeted expenditure, noting the opportunity for the Council to take a leadership position in setting the tone for others to upgrade their properties. In voting to approve the budget, Councilman Bill Jewitt said that while his opposition to snowmelt is well known, he didn't think it would be wise to hold up the budget for one item. Jewitt expressed his hope that in the future, the town could return to a 50-50 split in its allocation of sales tax revenues to the general fund and the capital fund. This, he said, would force the Council to make tough decisions in the operating budget. In response, Councilmember Diana Donovan said the 50-50 split required in the Town Charter was initiated at a time when Vail was being built. Today, she said, the needs have shifted somewhat. Donovan also said the proposed snowmelt plan will leave large areas of undisturbed snow pockets in selected spots, resulting in more snow than what exists today under the town's snow removal program. Donovan suggested discussing creation of a Business Improvement District for operation of the snowmelt system, while Greg Moffet noted that a town analysis shows operation of snowmelt to break even when compared to existing snow removal costs. Mayor Ludwig Kurz expressed his support for the Village snowmelt plan, noting that as Lionshead redevelops with its snowmelt areas, Vail Village could be at a disadvantage without it. Councilman Chuck Ogilby requested that second reading of the budget be modified to carry forward unspent monies from the 2003 budgets for key projects to include improvements to the whitewater park and replacement of the pedestrian bridge at the promenade; I-70 noise mitigation; streetscape; and monies toward an indoor recreation-gymnastics center. The ninth item on the agenda was Supplemental Appropriation to 2003 Budget. Greg Moffet moved to approve first reading of a supplemental budget ordinance authorizing the expenditure of an additional $2.9 million for 2003. Dick Cleveland seconded the motion. The Council voted 7-0 in favor. The expenditures will be offset by additional revenues of over $2.6 million. During discussion, Councilmember Diana Donovan suggested waiting until funds are committed from other agencies to proceed with the countywide computer-aided dispatch and records management system. Finance Director Judy Camp pointed out that funding for the 2003 appropriation was in place although completion of the project in 2004 is dependent upon appropriation of funds in the Eagle County capital budget. Other appropriations include $122,185 in additional expenses related to the Donovan Pavilion, costs associated with the I-70 sinkhole incident in June, renovations to the town manager's residence and a relocation loan to the Children's Garden of Learning. Councilmembers noted the lack of public comment for the 2003 and 2004 budget actions. The tenth item on the agenda was Vail Memorial Park. Greg Moffet moved to approve first reading of an ordinance to rezone a portion of town-owned open space to allow for construction of a memorial park. Rod Slifer seconded the motion. The Council voted 7-0 in favor. The land, an 11-acre portion of the Katsos Ranch property near the Golf Course in East Vail, is being rezoned from Natural Area Preservation District to Outdoor Recreation. After noting the irony of cemeteries as an approved use in the outdoor recreation zone district, Councilmembers, led by Rod Slifer, used the opportunity to thank Diana Donovan, Daphne Slevin and other members of a citizen task force for their perseverance in getting the project underway. Slifer said the cemetery issue had been the subject of discussion and debate in the community for decades. In describing the design of the memorial park, Daphne Slevin noted that only natural materials will be used with the ability to place inscriptions on stone benches and boulders. No casket burials will be allowed; however,. the burial or scattering of ashes will be permitted, she said. The eleventh item on the agenda was Outdoor Display of Goods. Bill Dewitt moved to approve first reading of an ordinance that defines and limits the outdoor display of goods in the commercial areas of Vail Village and Lionshead to an eight month period from April 1 to December 1, annually. Rod Slifer seconded the motion. The Council voted 4-3 to approve. Moffet, Ogilby and Cleveland voted against the motion. During the public comment period, Bob Walsh of Vail Resortwear and Charlie's T-shirts, expressed opposition to the ordinance, noting that 15 percent of his business is derived by people who are drawn into the stores by the outdoor displays. Walsh estimated a loss of $25,000 in annual sales taxes to the town if the displays are unable to be used during the peak season. Kaye Ferry of the Vail Chamber and Business Association provided an overview of the issue, which served as a catalyst in forming the Vail Village Merchants Association a decade ago. Ferry said the association decided it would self-regulate outdoor displays with a 6-month in, 6-month out schedule. However, because the agreements were, voluntary, Ferry said enforcement became a problem which is why the town became involved. She said a survey of the business community showed support for continuing to regulate the outdoor displays. Jim Lamont of the Vail Village Homeowners Association suggested consideration of a sunset provision so the ordinance could be revisited once the Village streetscape improvements are completed. Michael Cacioppo suggested it was time for the town to deregulate and "let merchants be merchants," noting the need to produce sales tax revenues. In voting against the ordinance, Councilman Dick Cleveland said he questioned whether the regulation was a function of town government, especially in light of a changing retail atmosphere. Cleveland said he preferred to let business owners decide. Councilmember Diana Donovan suggested the need to brainstorm additional ideas between first and second reading to determine if guidelines for outdoor displays contained within the sign code would be more appropriate, noting that attractive outdoor displays are good for Vail. Councilman Rod Slifer suggested the need to have more merchants involved in the next discussion. The twelfth item on the agenda was Four Seasons Resort Special Development District. At the staffs request, Greg Moffet moved to table the second reading of an ordinance to allow for the redevelopment of the Chateau at Vail and the Vail Amoco site. Dick Cleveland seconded the motion. The Council voted 7-0 to table. The ordinance was tabled to October 7, 2003 to finalize an agreement regarding additional parking spaces requested by 9 Vail Road to satisfy an arrangement that occurred when the two properties were built. The applicant, Nicollet Island Development, Inc., proposes to tear down the existing Chateau property and construct a Four Seasons Resort to include 118 accommodation units, 22 condominiums, 34 employee housing units, retail and restaurant uses, conference and meeting rooms and a spa and health club. The ordinance was approved on first reading May 6. Prior to the vote to table the matter for the fourth time, Councilman Dick Cleveland expressed his continued frustration and said he would not vote again to table the ordinance, saying it's time for the project to live or die. During public discussion, Richard Kent, president of the Scorpio Condominium Association, expressed concerns about the project's impacts to one of the residences, in particular, due to additional massing on the building's. west side as required by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Also, Gwen Scalpello, representing 9 Vail Road, said it was not her intention to see the project tabled. But rather, the postponement was suggested by a group of attorneys who have been working to finalize a resolution. The thirteenth item on the agenda was Rezoning of Vail Amoco Property. Greg Moffet moved to table. second reading of an ordinance to rezone the Vail Amoco site from the Heavy Service zone district to the Public Accommodations zone district. Dick Cleveland seconded the motion. The Council voted 7-0 to table. The ordinance was tabled to October 7, 2003 to accompany other approvals necessary for construction of the Four Seasons Resorts which will replace the Vail Amoco station and the Chateau at Vail near the Main Vail roundabout. The fourteenth item on the agenda was a Second Reading, Rezoning Ordinance for Vail's Front Door Project. Greg Moffet moved and Dick Cleveland seconded to approve second reading of an ordinance to rezone lots 1 and 2 in the MiII Creek Subdivision from Natural Area Preservation District to Ski Base Recreation-2 District and to rezone lots P3 and J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing, from Public Accommodation District to Parking District. The Council voted 6-0-1 in favor, Slifer recused himself. The rezoning is one of 14 approvals necessary to complete the development review process for Vail's Front Door project submitted by Vail Resorts. Included in the application is a request to construct a Vail Park and a new 134-space private underground parking structure on Vail Resorts. property north of the Christiania Lodge. Also, requests for improvements to the Vista Bahn ski yard, a new underground skier services area, construction of a new ski club, fractional fee units and a spa also are pending review by the town. The fifteenth item on the agenda was. the Town Manager's Report After reviewing the town manager's report, Councilmembers agreed to authorize the acquisition of seven Ford Explorers for $183,400 which will be used to replace Saab leased patrol cars. The leases expire January 31, 2004 and will mark the end of a long era that began in the early 1970s when the department began leasing Saab police vehicles. Through the years, the low cost leases had been a cost saver for the town while serving as a valuable promotional tool for the company. The town was forced to look elsewhere, however, when Saab announced earlier in the summer that it was discontinuing the program. A subsequent proposal to increase the Saab lease from the current payment of $319 per month to $350 per month for the patrol cars was rejected by the town. Attempts to partner with other vehicle manufacturers, including VW, BMW and Land Rover, were unsuccessful in that the vehicles either did not meet patrol officer requirements or were too costly. Following aside-by-side analysis, the cost of the Ford Explorer was determined to be significantly less than the Saab 9.5 model. In addition to the new patrol cars, Councilmembers directed the town staff to continue researching the most cost-effective options in the replacement of five additional Saab vehicles currently used for administrative use. A sixth Saab lease will be replaced with an automobile allowance for the new town manager. On another matter, Councilman Dick Cleveland inquired about the status of a new sound system for the Town Council Chambers. Interim Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer said she'll provide an update at the October 7, 2003 meeting. Councilman Chuck Ogilby complimented Police Chief Dwight Henninger and his staff for preparing a comprehensive annual report for 2002 which details police activities and crime statistics. A motion was made by Greg Moffet to forgive $80,000 of a $317,000 loan awarded to the Vail Local Marketing District. The $80,000 will be used to market the Pro Cycling Tour and will reduce the balance of the loan. Dick Cleveland seconded the motion. The Council voted 7-0 in favor. Also, Interim Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer noted that a discussion on criteria for free use of the Donovan Pavilion had been scheduled for the October 7, 2003 meeting. !n the interim, she inquired about use of the Pavilion for a Town Council candidate forum on October 20, 2003 to be sponsored by the Vail Chamber and Business Association. Councilmembers suggested use of the Council Chambers instead. Lastly, in reviewing terms of a draft lease with the Children's Garden of Learning, Councilmember Diana Donovan suggested adding an annual inspection by the town. The lease will be reviewed more fully at the October 7, 2003 meeting. As there was no further business, Greg Moffet moved and Bill Jewitt seconded to adjourn. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Respectfully submitted, Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Evening Meeting Tuesday, October 7, 2003 The regularly scheduled Vail Town Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. on Tuesday October 7, 2003 by Mayor Ludwig Kurz. In calling the meeting to order, Mayor Ludwig Kurz offered condolences to Mary Caster and her family upon the recent death of Sonny Caster. Mary Caster is a longtime employee of the town. Mayor Kurz also officially welcomed Stan Zemler as the new town manager and congratulated Pam Brandmeyer and the entire town staff for their hard work during the search process. In return, Brandmeyer extended her appreciation to the department directors and other members of the staff while serving as interim town manager during the transition. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ludwig Kurz Rod Slifer, Mayor Pro-Tem Dick Cleveland Diana Donovan Bill Jewitt Greg Moffet Chuck Ogilby STAFF PRESENT: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Pamela Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. There was no citizen participation. The second item on the agenda was Appointment of November 4, 2003 Election Judges. Greg Moffet moved and Diana Donovan seconded to appoint four election judges who will serve during the Regular Municipal Election on November 4. The Council passed the motion 7-0. The judges are Mary Jo Allen, Vi Brown, Holiday (Holly) Cole and Summer Holm. Mayor Ludwig Kurz thanked the judges in advance for their service to the community. The third item on the agenda was Conference Center Oversight Committee Update. Mayor Pro-Tem Rod Slifer, who serves as chairman of the Conference Center Oversight Committee, provided a progress report on work currently underway to develop a conference center following voter approval last November. Slifer reported that focus groups have been held with meeting planners in Denver and Chicago as part of an information gathering process by the consulting firm HVS. The town has hired HVS to complete three objectives, Slifer explained. First, to determine the s feasibility of a conference center; second, to determine the size and programming of a faci{ity; and third, to develop a business plan. The town's contract with HVS calls for completion of the analysis in early December with an update presented to the Oversight Committee and the Town Council later in the month. In concluding the update, Slifer acknowledged Councilman Bill Jewitt and other members of the committee: Stan Cope and Dave Pease, from the lodging community; Frank Johnson and Merv Lapin from the business community; Scott Proper and Rick Scalpello from the community at large; and Bill Jensen from Vail Resorts. The fourth item on the agenda was the Animal Control. Services Intergovernmental Agreement. Greg Moffet moved to approve a resolution authorizing the town manager to sign an intergovernmental agreement with Eagle County for 2004 animal control services. Bill Jewitt seconded the motion. The Council voted to approve 7-0. The agreement includes a monthly payment of $3,250 by the town for estimated patrols and sheltering requirements. The fifth item on the agenda was the Sonnenalp Resort Encroachment Easement. A motion was made by Greg Moffet to authorize the town manager to enter into an encroachment agreement with the Sonnenalp Resort to address a three foot surveying error contained in the original plat. Chuck Ogilby seconded and the Council voted 7-0 in favor. The encroachments include two portions of the Sonnenalp Resort building at 20 Vail Road, a small retaining wall and a small portion of a hot tub for a total area of 57 sq. ft. During discussion, Councilmember Diana Donovan asked if the town should consider receiving a payment from the Sonnenalp, noting the town's deck lease arrangements. Councilmembers Chuck Ogifby and Rod Slifer said the situation was different than a deck lease, noting the surveying error was an innocent mistake. Both recommended the town accept the encroachment as presented, which was approved unanimously. Also during the discussion, Councilman Dick Cleveland received clarification that the encroachment would revert back to the town once the improvements are removed. The sixth item on the agenda was Lionshead Landscaping Development Review Process Request. Dick Cleveland moved and Bill Jewitt seconded to approve a request by Robert Lazier, owner of the Lazier Arcade building and owner of commercial spaces in the Lifthouse Lodge, to proceed through the development review process with a proposal to construct several landscaping projects in the town's right-of-way. The Council voted 7-0 to approve the motion. Staff noted that Lazier has proposed the addition of landscape planter beds, removal of several trees .and a reduction in the size of a planter behind the skier sculpture at the entrance to Lionshead. With Town Council authorization in place, the applicant must now proceed with an application to the Design Review Board (DRB). Councilmember Diana Donovan urged the DRB to review the application carefully. The seventh item on the agenda was Village Center Condominium Sidewalk Request. Greg Moffet moved to approve a request by the Village Center Condominium Homeowners' Association to proceed through the development review process with a h proposal to heat a portion of sidewalk that encroaches onto town stream tract property. Dick Cleveland seconded the motion and the Council voted in favor, 7-0. During discussion, Councilmembers received clarification that the stream tract and sidewalk will continue to remain accessible to the public. Also, it was noted that staff is unaware of any new issues by the homeowner's association regarding the adjacent whitewater park. Councilman Rod Slifer complimented the Village Center for making substantial improvements to the property over the past two years. He said the remodel is a good example of what needs to happen with older condominium properties elsewhere in the community. The eighth item on the agenda was a Request to Improve a Portion of Town of Vail land adjacent to 2039 Sunburst Drive. Chuck Ogilby moved to deny a request to proceed through the Town of Vail development review process with a proposal for proposed improvements on town-owned land adjacent to a home at 2039 Sunburst Drive. Diana Donovan seconded the motion. The Council voted 6-1, Rod Slifer opposed the denial. The homeowner, represented by NEDBO Construction, had proposed building a set of stone steps across a strip of town land between the golf course and recreation path, noting that a neighbor had made similar improvements on town land. During discussion, Diana Donovan urged fellow councilmembers to deny the request, noting that the steps would create the perception the land is private rather than public, and that it would trigger similar requests from other properties in the neighborhood. While NEDBO Construction representative Rollie Kjesbo noted an existing precedent with installation of steps by a neighboring property owner, several councilmembers suggested checking files from the Community Development Department to verify authorization. The ninth item on the agenda was a First Reading, Sign Code. A motion was made by Dick Cleveland to table first reading of an ordinance to update and modify the town's sign code. Rod Slifer seconded and the Council voted 7-0 to table the ordinance to the October 21St, 2003, meeting to allow time for various formatting updates suggested by the Council The tenth item on the agenda was a Second Reading, Type II Employee Housing Unit Revisions. Greg Moffet moved to table second reading of an ordinance to allow a Type II employee housing unit as a permitted use and to eliminate a Type II employee housing unit as a conditional use in the town's residential zone districts. Diana Donovan seconded the motion. Councilmember Diana Donovan suggested tabling the ordinance to January 20, 2004, to allow time for completion of Council deliberations on a Planning and Environmental Commission recommendation to modify the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) calculation and to evaluate housing occupancy enforcement efforts. In the interim, staff was directed to provide a schedule on a housing enforcement plan. The Council voted 7-0 to table second reading to January 20, 2004. The ordinance was originally drafted to improve efficiency of the development review process, causing several Councilmembers to question the rationale and the overall effectiveness of the Type II units in contributing to employee housing. The eleventh item on the agenda was a Second Reading, Four Seasons Resort. Following a motion by Councilman Greg Moffet in which findings of fact were read into the record, Bill Dewitt seconded and the Council voted 7-0 to approve second reading of an ordinance to allow for the- redevelopment of the Chateau at Vail and the Vail Amoco site. While first reading approval for the Four Seasons Resort had been granted by the Council on .May 6, it was- noted that final approval had been delayed to resolve several conditions required during first reading, including a request by 9 Vail Road for additional parking spaces to satisfy an arrangement that occurred when the two properties were built. The applicant, Nicollet Island Development, Inc., proposes to tear down the existing Chateau property and construct a Four Seasons Resort to include 118 accommodation units, 22 condominiums, 34 employee housing units, retail and restaurant uses, conference and meeting rooms and a spa and health club. During the staff presentation, Chief Planner George Ruther highlighted several changes in the ordinance from first reading to second reading and noted the effective date of the ordinance would be February 1, 2004, to allow for the purchase of the property by Nicollet Island Development. It was also noted that if the purchase is revoked, development rights would be transferred to the current property owner. The development approval is good for a three year period beginning October 7t", 2003. During the public comment period, Richard Kent, president of the Scorpio Condominium Association, expressed concerns about the project's bulk and mass on the west end of the building, saying it dwarfs other properties. Jim Lamont of the Vail Village Homeowners Association complimented the developer and adjacent property owners for their cooperation in working to address numerous issues. Lamont suggested the need for the parties to continue those discussions to help refine the architecture. His suggestion prompted a brief presentation by the architectural. team in which building height and mass comparisons were shown based on the current design versus a previous development approval. While voting to approve the development and calling it a good project, Councilmember Diana Donovan reiterated her opposition to the Public Accommodation zone district. She said the town needs to be sensitive in protecting views from existing properties as it considers future redevelopment. The twelfth item on the agenda was a Second Reading, Vail Amoco Rezoning. Greg Moffet moved to approve second reading of an ordinance to rezone the Vail Amoco site from the Heavy Service zone district to the Public Accommodations zone district. Bill Dewitt seconded and the Council voted in favor, 7-0. The ordinance accompanies other approvals necessary for construction of the Four Seasons Resort which will replace the Vail Amoco station and the Chateau at Vail near the Main Vail roundabout. During discussion, Councilmembers received clarification on the effective date of the ordinance, which is February 1, 2004. Also, it was noted the zoning will revert back to the.Heavy Service zone district if the development is not implemented. Town Manager Stan Zemler complimented the town staff, the applicant and the adjacent neighbors for resolving the issues that had caused the action to be tabled previously. Diana Donovan also acknowledged the staff's work and the overall review process. Councilman Dick Cleveland said the approval represents a major step forward in Vail's revitalization. The thirteenth item on the agenda was a Second Reading, Outdoor Display of Goods. An ordinance that would have regulated the outdoor display of goods in the commercial areas of Vail Village and Lionshead failed to win approval on second reading due to lack of a second following a motion to approve offered by Bill Jewitt. The ordinance, which was drafted to define and limit the outdoor display of goods to an eight month period from April 1 to December 1, had been approved on first reading by a 4-3 vote on Sept: 16. This time, at the suggestion of Councilmember Diana Donovan, who suggested the issue is more about "tacky" outdoor displays than anything else,. the Council directed staff to draft specific guidelines to help control the quality of outdoor displays. Councilman Dick Cleveland also expressed opposition to the ordinance, noting the need for businesses to have flexibility in adapting to a constantly changing retail climate. At the September 16th meeting, Bob Walsh of Vail Resortwear and Charlie's T-shirts had urged the Council to vote against the ordinance, noting that 15 percent of his business is derived by people who are drawn into the stores by the outdoor displays. It was noted that Walsh had repeated his concerns in a recent voice mail message to the Council. Tom Higgins of American Ski Exchange was present at the meeting and volunteered to serve on a committee, if needed, to help draft guidelines which would allow for displays year-round. Michael Cacioppo applauded the Council for what he called a "great decision." The fourteenth item on the agenda was a Second Reading, Vail Memorial Park Rezoning. Following a motion by Chuck Ogilby and seconded by Diana Donovan the Council voted 7-0 to approve second reading of an ordinance to rezone a portion of town-owned open space to allow for construction of a memorial park. The land, an 11- acre portion of the Katsos Ranch property near the Golf Course in East Vail, is being rezoned from Natural Area Preservation District to Outdoor Recreation. Councilmember Diana Donovan, who helped facilitate the memorial park, said the group is "now taking reservations" and that anyone interested in learning more about the effort should contact her for details. Rod Slifer complimented the project, noting the lack of opposition. In the past, he said, the cemetery issue had been the subject of much discussion and debate The fifteenth item on the agenda was a Second Reading, Supplemental Appropriation. Greg Moffet moved and Rod Slifer seconded to approve second reading of an ordinance authorizing the expenditure of an additional $2.6 million for 2003. The Council voted 7-0 in favor. The expenditures will be offset by additional revenues of over $2.7 million. During the discussion, Finance Director Judy Camp explained several modifications to the ordinance that had occurred after first reading, including the addition of costs for setting up the Vail Ice Dome, signage for the visitor centers, settlement costs associated with a lawsuit filed by the Roost Lodge and purchase of seven replacement vehicles for the Police Department. Councilmembers asked for clarification regarding a $90,000 expenditure shown for a countywide computer-aided dispatch and records management system. It was explained that $90,000 is the portion of the project to be funded in 2003 from the Dispatch Services Fund capital reserve, which includes contributions from all. user agencies based on a r call-load cost share formula. Upon learning the Town of Vail's call-load has been calculated at approximately 40 percent, Councilmember Diana Donovan questioned the accuracy of the calculation, saying it doesn't make sense. However, Dick Cleveland noted that staffing levels for emergency services personnel are higher than elsewhere in the county, which could account for the 40 percent call-load. The sixteenth item on the agenda was a Second Reading, 2004 .Budget. Chuck Ogilby moved and Dick Cleveland seconded to approve second reading of the 2004 budget. The Council voted 6-1 to approve, Moffet against. It was noted that a super majority vote (5 or more) is required due to an imbalance in the sales tax allocation to the general fund versus the capital fund. The Town Charter requires a 50-50-split unless approved by a super majority. As approved, the budget includes net revenue of $36.4 million and net. expenditures of $37.7 million, which represents a 7.8 percent decrease in revenue from 2003 and a 10.1 percent decrease in expenditures. The split for the town's four percent sales tax is 60 percent of projected revenues to the general fund and 40 percent to the capital projects fund. During the discussion, Councilman Chuck Ogilby asked Finance Director Judy Camp to explain how revenues are derived from a federal grant to purchase new buses for the town. The grant requires a 20 percent match at the local level. Public Works Director Greg Hall then described the process the town uses to apply for the bus grants, which includes a collaborative effort by Colorado transit providers to forward a joint recommendation to Colorado's Congressional delegation. Eight new buses have been ordered for the outlying routes and will be delivered in February. Councilman Dick Cleveland inquired about alternative fuel sources, to which Greg Hall indicated the town would be purchasing an electric-diesel hybrid within the next two years to evaluate performance prior to replacement of the in-town fleet in 2008. In making the motion to approve the budget, Ogilby said when he arrived on the Town Council four~years ago, the general fund was being supplemented by the capital budget at the rate of $1 million a year. Ogilby credited former Town Manager Bob McLaurin and Interim Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer for their efforts in working to cut the general fund budget by another $1 million in 2003. Noting the 2004 budget has reserves, he called the process a great accomplishment. Councilman Greg Moffet said that while he didn't want to detract from the staffs hard work in cutting the operational budget, he reiterated comments made previously in which he said he objected to a line item expense in the capital budget for the Village streetscape project in which the town would fund 100 percent of the cost of snowmelt in selected areas in the public right-of--way. Moffet had said he preferred those costs be shared proportionally, with adjacent property owners picking up two-thirds of the cost. Councilman Bill Jewitt said that while he, too, objected to funding 100 percent of the snowmelt cost, his vote would be in support of the budget to make sure a super majority is met. However, Jewitt said he hoped the town would soon return to the 50-50 budgeting allocation. Councilmember Diana Donovan noted the Town Charter allows for an uneven split in sales tax allocation. The seventeenth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. During a review of the town manager's report, Greg Moffet moved and Bill Dewitt seconded to authorize the town manager to sign an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District for a contribution of $100,000 to be used for the Vail Pass sediment control project during the next two years. In voting to approve the IGA, Councilmember Diana Donovan asked that a portion of the funding be returned to the Eagle River Watershed Council. The Council voted 7-0 to approve. Noting the watershed's success in working with multiple agencies and generating results, Councilman Rod Slifer suggested involving its director, Caroline Bradford, in future discussions on the I-70 noise issues. Also during the review, the Council agreed to include up to $17,000 in the next 2003 supplemental budget for a new sound system for the Council Chambers. In addition, the Council agreed to nominate Andy Wiessner of Vail as a candidate for the Eagle County Citizens Open Space Advisory Committee. Wiessner's name will be forwarded to the Eagle County Commissioners for consideration. Following an update by Public Works Director Greg Hall on a proposed intergovernmental agreement with the Vail Recreation District (VRD) regarding use of the Ford Park athletic fields for temporary parking (200 spaces) during the ski season, Chuck Ogilby moved, Bill Jewitt seconded, and the Council voted 6-1 (Kurz against) to approve a motion by Chuck Ogilby to remove the town's financial support from the project, retaining the town's offer to operate the facility. The vote leaves the Vail Recreation District and Vail Resorts to work out a possible agreement without the town's involvement. Councilmembers took the vote after learning of $150,000 to $200,000 in additional financial risks associated with restoration of the softball field following the end of ski season. Those risks include the possibility of a full re-sod, full reconstruction of the irrigation system and loss of net revenue. Councilman Greg Moffet said that while nothing the VRD has asked for is unreasonable, the unlimited exposure to the town on the back end is too great. Councilman Dick Cleveland agreed, saying the costs have now become "beyond reasonable." Greg Hall noted that 160 spaces at the West Day Lo# will be added to the public parking inventory this season and it could be possible to add 200 spaces from the Chateau Vail site beginning in January. Councilman Cleveland suggested contacting the current owner of the Chateau to inquire about the possibility of using the lot sooner as well as the feasibility of using the Old Town Shops site, while Councilman Rod Slifer suggested inquiring about using the Vail Village Inn site. In voting against the motion, Mayor Ludwig Kurz said that in principle, "we're not getting anywhere." After reviewing an item in the town manager's report on the temporary skatepark, which costs the town approximately $19,000 for set-up and tear-down annually, Councilman Greg Moffet suggested it is time to direct staff to look at a permanent facility. Councilman Dick Cleveland said the project would be well suited for other fundraising mechanisms, such as sponsorships. As there was no further business, Greg Moffet moved and Bill Jewitt seconded to adjourn. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Respectfully submitted, ATTEST: Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk a ~ VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Evening Meeting Tuesday, October 21, 2003 The regularly scheduled Vail Town Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. on Tuesday October 21, 2003 by Mayor Ludwig Kurz. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ludwig Kurz Rod Slifer, Mayor Pro-Tem Dick Cleveland Diana Donovan Bill Jewitt Greg Moffet Chuck Ogilby STAFF PRESENT: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Pamela Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. There was no citizen participation. The second item on the agenda was September Meeting Minutes. Greg Moffet moved to approve the meeting minutes for September 2, 2003. Diana Donovan seconded the motion. The Council voted 7-0 to approve the motion. Greg Moffet then moved and Diana Donovan seconded to table approval of the September 16, 2003 minutes to November 4, 2003 a# the suggestion of Councilman Dick Cleveland to clarify a motion regarding enforcement costs associated with a proposed engine brake restriction ordinance for trucks. The Council voted 7-0 to table. The third item on the agenda was Appointments to Vail Commission on Special Events. Greg Moffet moved to appoint Stephen Connolly to serve on the Vail Commission on Special Events as the at-large/retail representative. Dick Cleveland seconded and the Council voted 7-0 in favor of the appointment.Forthe at-large term, Greg Moffet moved and Dick Cleveland seconded to appoint Ian Anderson. The Council voted 7-0 to approve. Both terms expire in December 2003. Mayor Ludwig Kurz thanked the remaining applicants and encouraged them to apply for other board openings in the future. The fourth item on the agenda was a Floodplain Update Overview. The Council heard an overview on the town's involvement in a floodplain mapping update as required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Project manager Gregg Barrie said the new floodplain map is an update from the current 1983 version and will be used to determine:who is required to carry flood insurance as well as rates for flood insurance. Affected property owners have the ability to work with the town in filing an appeal, Barrie said. Notification letters have been sent to property owners along Gore h Creek and other tributaries inviting residents to attend informational workshops or to schedule one-on-one meetings for assistance. The information also has been posted on the town's web site at www.vailgov.com. In response to a question from Councilman Dick Cleveland, Barrie said the update will not significantly impact Town of Vail property. Barrie acknowledged that some private properties will be impacted, which prompted Councilman Greg Moffet to inquire about the town's role in assisting homeowners with their concerns. Public Works Director Greg Hall noted that in the past, some properties have used mitigation, such as berms, to remove their properties from the floodplain. The fifth item on the agenda was a Conference Center Committee Update. Scott Proper, a member of the Conference Center Oversight Committee, presented an update on research conducted by HVS International, a Chicago consulting firm, which has been hired by the town to conduct a market analysis and develop a business plan for the facility. Proper reported that two focus groups have been held, one for national event planners and .another for state event planners. While Vail was rated high by both groups as an appealing venue, the national event planners raised concerns about transportation and access, he said, while the state meeting planners expressed concerns about the cost of a Vail convention. Proper said a third focus group has been scheduled for Oct. 26 with professional meeting planners who will be in the area attending a conference at Beaver Creek. HVS also has been asked to recommend a concept plan for the facility's size. The current thinking, according to Proper, is a 25,000 sq. ft. ballroom/exhibit space and meeting rooms totaling 20,000 sq. ft. Rod Slifer, who chairs the committee, said the group has been meeting regularly. A final report from the consultant is anticipated in mid-November. The sixth item on the agenda was an Overview of the Lionshead Submittal by Vail Resorts. With Rod Slifer recusing himself, the remaining members of the Town Council heard an overview of the Lionshead redevelopment projects proposed for four properties owned by Vail Resorts. The properties include: 1) the tennis court site on Forest Road, which would be used to build four ski-in, ski-out homes, along with a proposal to remove snowcats from Forest Road and relocating them to a direct route to Vail Mountain across water district property to the west; 2) the West Day Lot next to the Marriott, which would house ahotel/condo development, plus 12single-family/duplex residences; 3) the Core Site (currently housing the Kaltenberg Castle and Sunbird Lodge), which would include a 5-star Rock Resorts Hotel, plus retail and restaurant space, condominium units, a new skier services facility, underground loading and delivery and a public ice rink; and 4) North Day Lot (next to the pedestrian overpass), to be used to construct 144 employee housing beds, office space for Vail Resorts, improved pedestrian access, plus a potential site for atown-operated transit center. Noting that a preliminary application has been submitted to the town for development review, project spokesman Dominic Mauriello of Braun and Associates outlined a proposed review schedule that would separate the redevelopment into five projects. As proposed, the tennis court property would be reviewed by town boards in September and October, 2003; the West Day Lot residences. in October and November, 2003; the core site in December, 2003 through February 2004; the North Day Lot in February 2004 through April 2004; and the West Day Lot Hotel in April 2004 through July 2004. A companion, tentative construction schedule also was presented which includes construction of the homes on the tennis court site in Spring 2004; the West Day Lot residences in Fall 2004; the core site in Spring 2004; the North Day Lot in Fall 2005; and the West Day Lot Hotel in Spring 2006. During his presentation, Mauriello called Council's attention to the proposed ice rink which has been added to the plan. Councilman Dick Cleveland inquired about snowmelt provisions, noting artist renderings that show a fresh dusting of snow in the pedestrian areas. Attorney Jay Peterson, representing Vail Resorts, said the company was waiting to follow the town's lead in establishing guidelines for snowmelt. Noting a question raised earlier by Councilmember Diana Donovan, Councilman Greg Moffet asked how the town could be ensured that Vail Resorts would follow through wi#h all of the projects. Community Development Director Russell Forrest noted the need to clarify developer agreements with the company. He also said the town would need a legally binding agreement from Vail Resorts before Tax Increment Financing bonds can be issued to fund the town's share of public improvements. In addition, Peterson assured the Council that Vail Resorts will be spending dollars as they're coming in and that it wouldn't be feasible for the company to "cut and run." Councilmembers Bill Jewitt and Ludwig Kurz inquired about the timing of the projects. For Jewitt, the possible disruption of sales tax in Vail Village and Lionshead was a concern, while Kurz wondered if the projects would be ready should Vail win the bid for the 2009 World Alpine Ski Championships. In both cases, Peterson assured them that construction could be completed in time and with minimal disruption. Councilmember Diana Donovan expressed a preference for reviewing the projects simultaneously, also noting the need to address the town's build- to lines. She questioned whether the company should be granted development rights on the tennis court site without an appropriate level of public improvements. In response, Peterson said the new snowcat access route would be tied to the approval, representing $2 to $3 million in additional costs. Donovan expressed concerns about the aesthetics of the snowcat access route. She also suggested doing more to address adjacent property owner impacts as they relate to the core site and the North Day Lot. The seventh item on the agenda was a Request for Continuance on the Front Door Project Appeal. Greg Moffet moved to deny a request to continue an appeal hearing for the Vail Resorts' Front Door project. Chuck Ogilby seconded and the Council voted 6-0- 1, Rod Slifer recusing himself. The hearing, to determine the outcome of an appeal of the project's approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission, had been scheduled to be heard by the Town Council on November 4th. However, the appellant had filed a request to reschedule the hearing to December 2, noting the need for more time to gather additional information. Attorney Karen Romeo said her client, Luanne Wells, needed time to consult with two experts prior to the hearing. Objecting to the continuance request was Jay Peterson, an attorney for Vail Resorts, who said the appellant has had ample opportunities to review the project. Also speaking was Tom Braun of Braun and Associates, who said asix-week delay could cause the loss of a construction season on the P3&J component of the development. In voting to deny the request, Councilmembers said the appellant had not presented evidence that a continuance was necessary beyond the 43 days the appellant will have already had. The eighth item on the agenda was First Reading of Ordinance Number 19, Sign Code. Dick Cleveland moved and Greg Moffet seconded to approve first reading of an ordinance amending the town's sign code. The Council voted 7-0 in favor of the motion. In presenting the ordinance for first reading, Community Development Director Russell Forrest noted several changes to the document as requested previously by the Town Council. Those changes include additional reformatting and editing and an acknowledgment that non-conforming signs will be grandfathered. In addition, Forrest said the document establishes atwice-a-year permit process for sale signs. During discussion, Councilman Dick Cleveland complimented the staff for the additional formatting work. He also asked for clarification about joint directory signs. The discussion was then turned over to Councilmember Diana Donovan who outlined a list of recommended changes, many of which were incorporated into the ordinance for first reading. During public discussion, Kaye Ferry of the Vail Chamber and Business Association said she had been waiting 15 years for the document, with work underway for the last two-and-a-half years. She said the 34-page document was still cumbersome, but much improved from what it was. Councilman Dick Cleveland noted the town of Breckenridge is going through an overhaul process with similar challenges. The ninth item on the agenda was First Reading of Ordinance Number 26, Amendment to the Parking Fine Regulations. Greg Moffet moved to approve an ordinance on first reading to amend the town. code as it relates to the town's parking regulations. Bill Jewitt seconded and the Council voted 6-1 in favor of the motion, with Donovan against. Police Commander Joe Russell. explained key provisions of the amendment, which includes an increase in the penalty for parking violations to up to $100 with a fee schedule set by the Town of Vail Municipal Court. In addition, the ordinance creates penalties for abuses at the parking structure caused by "turners," or those who exit the facility after the 90-minute free parking period and re-enter the facility for a second free period of time within three hours of the first entry into the facility. A third change is a vehicle length restriction in the parking structures. After noting a proposed length restriction of 15 ft. may be too short to accommodate the largest production vehicles, Councilmembers amended the ordinance to restrict vehicles to 20 ft. or larger. Other amendments included the addition of late. fee payments of up to $25, excluding town roadways from the definition of parking facilities and striking the word "limit" under a description of time-limited parking. During discussion, Municipal Judge Buck Allen asked for the Council's input in establishing a higher fine for violators of the short-term, three-hour parking spaces. The cun'ent fine is $26. Councilman Bill Jewitt suggested beginning with a $50 fine and possibly raising it to $60, while Councilman Greg Moffet said the fine needs to be much more expensive than valet parking. Judge Allen also inquired about fines for handicap parking violations, suggesting the fines should be the highest violation in the community. Currently $50, Judge Allen suggested raising the fines to $75 to $80. Also during the discussion, Councilmembers inquired about adequate signage to deter parking violations and the protocol that will be used to alert oversized vehicles as they approach the parking structures. In voting against the ordinance, Councilmember Diana Donovan said the ordinance was too unfriendly, especially as it relates to recreational vehicles. The tenth item on the agenda was First Reading of Ordinance Number 27, Outdoor. Dining Deck Enclosures. Greg Moffet moved and Diana Donovan seconded to approve first reading of an ordinance to allow the temporary use of pliable sidewall enclosures for covered outdoor dining decks associated with eating and drinking establishments annually from April 1 to December 1, during inclement weather. The Council voted 7-0 to approve. In presenting the ordinance to Council, Community Development Director Russell Forrest said the legislation codifies an issue that surfaced in July when the Town Council overturned Design Review Board denial of a temporary enclosure application submitted by the Ore House. In making the motion to approve the ordinance, Councilmembers made several wording changes for added clarification. The eleventh item on the agenda was First Reading Ordinance Number 28, Engine Brake Restriction. Greg Moffet moved and Chuck Ogilby seconded to approve first reading of an ordinance restricting the use of compressed engine brakes on trucks between milepost 181.5 and 173 along I-70 in Vail, except for the aversion of immediate . X and imminent danger. Violators would face a fine of up to $999. The Council voted 4-3 to approve with Donovan, Cleveland and Jewitt against. The motion to approve first reading of the ordinance also included a provision to table second reading to November 18, 2003 to allow time for Town Manager Stan Zemler to present details of a proposed pilot program as an alternative to the engine brake restriction. Zemler has offered to help facilitate a series of noise reduction measures with the help of the Colorado Motor Carriers Association. However, some Councilmembers, led by Greg Moffet, suggested the offer was a deliberate delay tactic by the industry that would accomplish nothing. An earlier motion offered by Moffet to approve the ordinance on first reading, minus the imminent danger provision, did not receive a second. In proposing the motion, Moffet reasoned that truckers driving responsibly don't need to use their "jake" brake, and if they do, they would be driving in such a way that would warrant a ticket for careless and reckless driving. In voting against the second motion to approve the ordinance as written, Diana Donovan said it would be irresponsible to approve it because it would be unenforceable. Bill Jewitt agreed, saying the options presented by Zemler present better opportunities in addressing overall noise. Joining Donovan and Jewitt was Dick Cleveland, who said the legislation wasn't an empty gesture, but rather, it got the attention of the Motor Carriers Association and the Colorado Department of Transportation. Cleveland said he'd rather work to slow the trucks down and address overall decibel levels as proposed by Zemler. Mayor Ludwig Kurz described a recent meeting he attended with representatives from town staff and the Motor Carriers Association, saying he had a sense the town is making inroads into the process to address the noise issue. Zemler then presented a series of cooperative actions that could be pursued with the trucking industry through a letter of agreement. Those actions include a pilot decibel reduction project, tightening the engine brake muffler requirement, use of an infrared device that could be used on Vail Pass to detect brake use, an education program aimed at voluntary engine brake restrictions, a federal lobbying effort for noise wall funding, an exploration of Vail's cut and cover opportunities, additional enforcement at the ports of entry, and a Council ride-along program. Zemler suggested the Council could direct him to pursue the measures, using the engine brake restriction ordinance as a secondary option. Zemler said he also intended to work on reducing traffic speeds for all vehicles, which does not have support of the trucking industry. Moffet said he was unwilling to support the collaborative approach, noting that muffled jake brakes would still be too loud. Chuck Ogilby agreed, saying the industry is run by "people who enjoy the noise." During the public comment period, the Council heard from Ed Havener, owner of an Edwards trucking firm, who said a ban on the use of engine brakes through Vail would jeopardize his safety. Havener also objected to a proposal to slow trucks down, noting the loss of productivity. Instead, he suggested more aggressive enforcement of existing speed limits and the engine brake muffler requirement. The Council also heard from Patti Olsgard, director of safety, training and research for the Colorado Motor Carriers Association, who offered to work with the town to address the noise issues. When asked if engine brake mufflers could be reduced to 50 decibels, she said she would need to research the question. She said she also took objection to some comments by Councilmembers that the industry doesn't care about Vail. Jim Lamont of the Vail Village Homeowners Association applauded the most recent efforts, noting that this is the first responsiveness he's seen from higher authorities. Lamont also suggested the need for higher standards to use the I-70 corridor, given environmental issues. He said truckers should also consider using an alternative route through Wyoming which is long, straight and flat.- In addition, Lamont suggested finding technology that would measure decibel levels through a signage system that could be placed on town right-of- way. Following the vote, Councilmembers clarified that Zemler should pursue any and all options discussed, including those offered earlier during the work session by Owen Leonard of the Colorado Department of Transportation. The twelfth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. During a review of the town manager's report, Councilmembers directed the staff to continue to investigate the possible use of bio-diesel fuel for town buses and other vehicles as a follow-up to a pilot project in 1994 involving six buses. On another topic,, Councilmembers reviewed draft criteria for complimentary use of the Donovan Pavilion. The proposal includes 10 complimentary uses during the high season and 20 complimentary uses during low season with approval by the Town Council and the Donovan Pavilion committee. Requests would be reviewed on a case by case basis based on pre-established criteria. Assistant Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer asked for clarification about the need to facilitate community use of the pavilion while recovering hard costs associated with the use, including cleaning, staffing and utilities. Rod Slifer suggested being generous with the free use policy for the first year or so to help build exposure for the building. Greg Moffet agreed, noting his frustration in learning that a Brownie Troop had been turned away due to the cost. Moffet suggested using the pavilion as a venue to provide activities, such as dances, for people under 21, as well as other community uses. Noting the need to clarify whether the pavilion should be booked to break even or accept a large loss, Diana Donovan suggested that a more appropriate venue for some of the smaller groups is the library community room. Bill Jewitt suggested the need to review the building's performa and associated assumptions, while Dick Cleveland said the town should do all it can to recover cleaning costs, saying the facility is not appropriate for every group. Ludwig Kurz suggested the town should try to break-even on the facility, but to accept the alternative if it isn't possible. Chuck Ogilby predicted the pavilion will become a popular meeting venue once paid parking begins in the structures. In completing the town manager report, Stan Zemler recognized Police Commander Joe Russell, who has recently returned from the FBI Training Academy, where he completed a 10-week professional development program. Lastly, Mayor Ludwig Kurz invited the community to join the Town Council at a welcome reception for new Town Manager Stan Zemler and his family on Oct. 23 at the Donovan Pavilion. As there was no further business, Greg Moffet moved and Bill Jewitt seconded to adjourn. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Respectfully submitted, Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk NuV-1~-~b1~s :11:83 FROM FRED & THEA RUMFORD ~• VAIL TOWN a r 0 r NDV-12-2003 11 03 FROM FRED & THEA RUMFORD TO '97947921'57 November 12, 2003 Dear Members of the Vail town council: Vail Resorts is planning to replace the existing ski bridge at the bottom ofthe horn ski run by one which will accommodate both pedestrians and skiers. We welcome ~i~ new ski bridge. ~lowever, at the same time, the existing pedestr~an/bike path giving access~to the bridge will be eliminated as part of their plan to d~welop the te~uis Goutt lar~~immediately to the west of the ski run. If the path is eliminated the only way fRl' those of us to the west of the ski run to access the ski bridge, as pedestrians, will ~., ., ~: , climb to the top of west Forest Road and then walk down the ski run to the bridge, thus mixing pedestrians and slaers. Accidents will certainly follow. We have attached a copy of a letter we sent to the Vail Trail and the Vail Daily in attempt to get the issue before the public and hopefully to catch the attentiart of Vail Resorts and the City planning department. Please see this letter as it describes the problem in gxeater detail. !t seems to us that access to the new pedestrian bridge ~1: been thought through. Creating a pedestrian bridge and then eliminating pedestrian access makes no sense at all. Last gear we along with other home owners at the west end of Forest It4ad were invited by Vail Resorts to an update of their plans for the developnae~nt of the tennis court lots. They carefully explained what they had in mind. While we would prefer that the land remain "Open Space" we were pleased to learn that the area would remain rESidential ~d conform with the homes aUready there. There had been talk ol` a hotel on the pxop~ty and it was a irelief to learn that was not going to happen. We were also pleased to learn that the snow cats world no longer be using ottr mad, something we have been fighting for years. We also discussed the path in question and pointed out its importance. Vl~e alt came away pleased with developments and it was our understanding that we wets agreement that the path should remain. It was quite a shock when we learned three weeks ago that the path would be eliminated. Our hope is that Vail Resorts can be persuaded that they are making a terrible zest if they eliminate the path. This Friday we (rhea and Fred) are. meeting with l3iU Jensen a.t:td Brian McCarine~+ to discuss the issue. Hopefully there position is rat set in stone. If you have questions that we can be helpful with please give us a call at (~7Q) 476-51 l2 We appreciate your consideration of this issue. Sincerely, ~.. Fred and They .Rumford 675 Forest Road Vail, CO $165? a P . D2 ' '` NOU-12-2903 11 03 FROM FRED & THEA RUMFORD TO 97~4792~;57 P.03 0 PEDES'~'RLAN ACCESS TO LIONSHEA,D ACRQSS SKI BRIDGE +, This past week I learned some very good news concernuig the ski bridge uI .~iQa~~:.: ,: Vail Resorts plans to replace the existing bridge with one which accommodates both ~~ skiers and pedestrians. No Ionger will walking across the bridge during the ski day ~~ such a frightening adventure. Unfortunately, at the saute time VR will be ~~ ~~ , '~ safe access to the bridge. They are planning development of the tennis caurt lots, ~~ >~ tennis Lots just south and west of the ski bridge, into fourprimary/secondary buildi~ sites, They feel to make the lots more valuable the existing bike/pedestrian path should be eliminated. If this path is eliminated then the only access from the west to the ski bridge will be down the ski run fronn the top of west Forest. Road to the ski bridge. This completely negates the advantage of separation of skiers and pedestrians ors the bridge. itself. To get to the bridge skiers and pedestrians are mixed and only. separated upon reaching the bridge. Beaz in mind that there are a lot of people from west of the tort walking across that bridge every day, and there will be even more with, the flew bridge ixt. place., o _. The existing pedestrian path is the best way to provide complete separation pf skiexs~.. pedestrians all the way through to Lionshead. If that is not the solution, wl~t is? Il: there is another solution I would Like to know what it is. _If the problem is ignored it will ~~ 1~e long before demands are made to find some way to separate skiers and pedestrians. It `. will only take one serious accident to bring on such demands, and serious accidents. tt~re will be. Then pressure will be on either VR or the town of Vail to do something. Some have suggested that one such fix might be to build a tunnel under the ski run so that those to the west of the ski run could access the route used by those east of tJae ski run. I suppose that might be a solution provided a path for pedestrians is provided for tlwsc to the east of the nin. However, that and any other suggestion I have heard of would be very expensive. The reasonable solution is to keep the existing path. It would need to be fined up a l7it it has been in disrepair since the tennis courts were closed. It would be an easy fix up could be landscaped to be very attractive. Something along the lines Qf the little paths wandering thmugh the residential areas of the ski resorts in Switzerland. Wha would be damaged by this plan? The foux property owners who buy the proposed tentlisrcourt lots would not receive quite as much land. If the extra land were never offered they would have no reason to be upset. Even with the land dedicated to a pedestrian path not included the lots would be in excess of one/half acre each, which is more than the othez lots to the west of them. VR might feel they are losing out on s~;e immediate income. The amount might be very little in that, no matter what, these ,wig, very valuable properties. Figure in what it is likely to cost down fife ,road when d~a~~~ ; are nnade to do something about the mix of skiers and pedestrians axtd it could easily: be a wash. NOU-12-2003 11 04 FROM FRED & THEA RUMFDRD TD 97Q4792157 P.04. l1/Iy wife and i live west of the ski run in a house we built in 1966. Access to Liaashead via the ski bridge along the path in question has been available to us, and its use encouraged, since the day the first gandala opened. We are well aware of haw important pedestrian access to Lionshead, at all times of the day, is to those of us living in tb.is little. enclave. There are more of us than VR seems to think. VR has agreed to make a cunt this winter of usage of the bridge from our side and we appreciate that offer, however if the lots are sold, as now planned, it would be too late to do any goad. Tlae count should be made before deciding to close down the existing pedestrian access. We have many letters from our neighbors supporting our position and only one who is nw#. The ane wlao is opposed has the path going along the east side of his property, not on the property, aad he sees this as chance to get rid of the path. Never nand that he knew it was there wl, he bought it and that it has been there for more than 30 years. if care were taken the pY~h.' could be discretel~r landscaped so that one would hardly know it was there. I would like to invite those of you who are interested to take a walk along the path ~d see for your selves the issue involved. You should note, if you do, how far the proposed lots encroach on Gore Creek. Flags are up showing the corners and you. will see haw close the boundary is to the creek. Compare these boundaries to the lots to tie west that the rest of us have. If you think access to the creek is important you will be shocked to see where these bouadaries are. Also think about what the attempt to placate four property owners, who are not even identified yet, would be doing to tk~e rest of us. In no way am I trying to make light of the efforts by the town plannixig s1;aff, the P1aRn~~og and Environmental Commission, and VR. It is probably very' d#Ficult for those who dc~. not live west of the ski run to understand our passion concerning a safe walking path over the ski bridge to Lionshead. The Planning and Environrnerital Commission has approved the rezoning of the te~is court 16ts from Open Space district to Two-Family Primary/Secondary district, They also approve of eliminating the pedestrian path in question. The proposal ztow goes to ~e Town of Vail City Council. The question will be debated at that time before the ccun.~~. The above sets forth my opinion that a terrible mistake will be made l~t}ae only truly safe pedestrian access, across the ski bridge, to Lionshead is eliminated. 1' hope othezs couet~t'. Fred Ruimford, Sr. 675 Forest Road 0 Vail Chamber & Business Association Business Plan „ {~ ~.~,~~ ~~ . Vail ~~:~~. ~ ~ '° ~ r* -'--cA t x^ ,~ ~,~~ f`~ Chamber & :r ~; - Business ... L . ~; Association 241 S. Frontage Road E., Suite 2 Vail, Colorado 81657 Phone: 970.477.0075 FAX: 970.477.0079 E-mail: info@vailchamber.org BUSINESS PLAN Vail Chamber & Business Association Business Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Pagel : Title Page Page 2: Table of Contents Page 3: Board of Directors Page 4: History Mission Statement Benefits to the Community Page 5: Benefits to the Membership Page 6: I. Goals Page 7: Budget Page 8: Budget (continued) 2 Vail Chamber & Business Association Business Plan BOARD OF DIRECTORS Dan Barry Dick Cleveland* Kaye Ferry Ghiqui Hoffinan Nicole Hoffman Ewing Bill Jensen* Steve Rosenthal Bob Walsh Ron Weinstein Eye Pieces Town of Vail K. Ferry, Inc. Laughing Monkey General Store/Rucksack Vail Resorts Colorado Footwear Charlie's T-Shirts Roxy *Advisory Members Vail Chamber & Business Association Business Plan HISTORY The VCBA was formed through the union of the Vail Community Chamber, Vail Village Merchants' Association and the LionsHead Merchants' Association. Its legal name is the Vail Community Chamber dba Vail Chamber and Business Association. All of the proper papers have been filed with the State of Colorado by Wendell Porterfield, our legal counsel, of Otto, Porterfield and Post. The Vail Community Chamber operates under an approved set of bylaws. These three organizations had each filled a particular need in the community when they were formed and appealed to different segments. However, with the growth of Vail and particularly the growth of areas surrounding Vail, it was decided that one larger association would better serve the purposes of the business community and the town, as well. It was also apparent that the work load could no longer be handled in a professional manner by a volunteer committee. With this in mind, the groups joined together to form the VCBA. MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Vail Chamber and Business Association is to promote and support commerce and enterprise in the Town of Vail. The VCBA shall be a strong advocate and speak with a unified voice for the business interests of its members while remaining mindful of the interests of the community at large. It will work with the Town of Vail and Vail Resorts to make Vail the premier mountain resort community. BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY A healthy, dynamic commercial economy is vital to the Town of Vail's prosperity. Strong business translates to strong sales tax revenues. Upscale, prestigious businesses enhance Vail's image and supports TOV's mission statement of being the premier mountain resort community. 4 Vail Chamber & Business Association Business Plan BENEFITS TO THE MEMBERSHIP • Unified voice of all Vail Businesses from east to west with an ability to focus on Vail and the ability to decide when to move beyond those boundaries • To have representation on all boards in the Valley • Ability to network with other members • Free Internet listing • Free Vail Guide listing • Direct link for lodges thereby facilitating reservations • Discounted advertising rates in the Guide • Free Guide web page listing (vailguide.com) • Discounted ski pass through Merchant Pass Program • Miscellaneous membership benefits with outside organizations and vendors 5 Vail Chamber & Business Association Business Plan I. Goals 1. Act in any way possible to facilitate the following: a. The Town of Vail's civic leadership. b. Vail Resorts stewardship of the mountain c. VCBA's investment in creating an exciting economic environment 2. To promote and support commerce in Vail Chamber & Business Association 3. To speak with a unified voice for the business community 4. To create an "intent to return" atmosphere for our guests by providing the following: a. Premier Impressions b. Turn It Up! c. The Vail Guide d. Special Events e. www.vailchamber.or~ 5. Continue to develop communication systems with the organization and between the organization, guests, and community that are most effective in the exchange of information i.e. a. Monthly Newsletter b. Business to Business c. www.vailchamber.or~ 6. To work to insure that Vail is prioritized in the Information Centers 7. To act as a conduit between the TOV, VA, and the business community 8. Maintain our relationship with various organizations and boards in the community 9. Acknowledge the business community as the primary source of revenue for the Town of Vail and work to insure a spirit of cooperation and independence 10. To continue to encourage all members of the organization to participate in monthly meetings and the TOV decision making process 6 Vail Chamber & Business Association Business Plan Ex enses Bud et 2004 Fixtures and Equipment Com uter $ 2,000.00 Co ier & Fax $ 2,500.00 Office E ui ment $ 2,000.00 Misc. ~. $ 1,000.00 w. ~. Information Services Advertisin $ 8,000.00 Internet/website $ 4,000.00 Or anization Dues $ 750.00 Newsletter $ 5,000.00 The Vail Guide $ 10,000.00 Misc. $ 1,500.00 _ _ r Fob , . .. Operating Expenses Rent $ 12,000.00 Remodel/Maintenance $ 2,000.00 Phone $ 10,000.00 Posta e $ 2,000.00 Office Su lies $ 5,000.00 Travel & Entertainment $ 2,500.00 Insurance $ 8,000.00 Accountin , Le al & Audit $ 15,000.00 Misc. $ 3.000.00 Srab Total $ ~+ Personnel Salaries $ 85,000.00 Part Time Staff $ 29,000.00 P/R Taxes $ 16,500.00 Health Insurance $ 4,500.00 Workman's Com $ 2,000.00 SkilParkin Pass $ 200.00 Se1b Total >~ t3T Member Services Trainin S Bakers $ 4,000.00 Monthl Meetin s $ 4,500.00 Communit Mixer $ 2,000.00 Communit Meetin s $ 4,000.00 Org. Sponsorship/Member Benefits $ 11,000.00 Premier Im ressions $ 10,000.00 Misc. ,_ $ 5,000.00 ..,~, Contingency $ 10,000.00 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 283,950.Q0 Vai[ Chamber & Business Association Business Plan Income Bud et 2004 Town of Vail $ 200,000.00 Beginning Bal. Jan. 1, 2004 $ 64,000.00 Membership Dues ~ ..- --r - $ 20,000.00 ~ , .. ~ 1.. Y ~~ TOTAL EXPENSES $ 20$,080x10 TOTAL INCOME S 284 000.00. f r .- TOWN OF VAIN Department of Public Works & Transportation 1309 Elkhorn Drive Yail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2158 Fax: 970-479-2166 www. vailgou com November 12, 2003 Owen Leonard Regional Transportation Director Colorado Department of Transportation, Region 3 222 S. 6th St., RM 317 Grand Junction, CO 81501-2769 Owen: Thank for you taking the time to share your insights with the Vail Town Council as they relate to the numerous transportation issues within Region 3. We found the discussion to be beneficial in understanding the options available to us. In addition, your invitation to forward our concerns to you directly was very much appreciated. Here is a summary of the actions and options we discussed on October 21. VAIL FRONTAGE ROADS Parking We would like pursue the possible option to manage our parking needs more proactively with a new parking policy for the South Frontage Road. Rather than activating a parking emergency during overflow situations, we may want to include the South Frontage Road in the mix of our overall parking options on a daily basis during ski season. You had mentioned the need to investigate the category of roadway and whether the category would need to be changed for such use. Also, we would need to understand what improvements would be required for a change in this use. The rationale for our request is to proactively and safely accommodate the current parking demand in Vail. As such, we would like to work with CDOT to explore the feasibility in creating an estimated 500 dedicated parking spaces along the South Frontage Road from Elkhorn Drive mm177 west to the Vail Cascade mm175. Speed Limit On October 23, we sent correspondence to Jim Nall, asking to approve our request to temporarily reduce the speed limit on South Frontage Road from mm177.5 west to mm 174, to 25 mph during peak parking situations. We await CDOT's confirmation. The Town will be responsible for the sign change. Frontage Road Imorovements RECTCLEDP.IPER 7 s We mentioned our interest in immediately taking over the Frontage Roads in Vail once CDOT completes the frontage road improvements in the 20 year priority regional projects. We would like to request in the CDOT STIPP the placement of the design of the frontage roads. This would be 100% locally funded. If we are able to advance the design we would then in the future request an advancement of the project with a delayed repayment schedule which could be arranged similar to the West Vail roundabout project. We feel this is a great opportunity to have the frontage roads become the responsibility of the Town. STATE FUNDING ASSISTANCE Vail Intermodal SiteNail Park `n Ride The Vail Intermodal Site has been identified by the Transportation Planning Region (TPR) during the last 20 year plan update as a highly ranked project. It was placed at that time in the I-70 MIS category. Since then CDOT has undertaken the I-70 PETS. The intermodel site in Vail is still a highly desirable project in the PETS. We anticipate approval of $5 million in FTA 5309 dollars in 2007. We are partnering with the private sector to provide land and additional dollars for the project. The site not only serves Vail Transit but ECO Transit and all shuttles and charters using the 1-70 Corridor. As such, we are seeking your support for authorization of the Vail Intermodel site as an early action project from the I-70 PETS. VAIL PASS SAND MITIGATION Black Gore and Gore Creek Sand Clean Up We look forward to receiving your a-mail update on this topic, which includes funding increases in the maintenance budget to help clean out the basins. We also are interested in knowing what additional steps are being taken to minimize the amount of sand that is now beginning to show up in Gore Creek. Please e- mail these updates to g_hall(c~vailgov.com and they will be forwarded to the appropriate parties at the Town of Vail. I-70 NOISE Nov. 19 Study Session of Transportation Commissioners We have reviewed a copy of the draft Policy and Procedural Directive for Local Noise Mitigation Actions and will respond to it prior to the Nov. 19 study session. Vail is preparing to send a delegation to this meeting for public comment and will coordinate with Jennifer Webster. Thank you for chairing the task group to bring these noise issues to the attention of the Commissioners and for your acknowledgement that these issues are of great concern across the Region 3 communities, including Vail. Reinstatement of Tvoe II Noise Abatement Program. We continue to request reinstatement of this program and are prepared to offer matching dollars at the local level to help restore the state match portion of the funding. We look forward to working with the Region 3 office to develop a noise wall program that will address shading and safety issues and will not conflict with future transportation plans. Declaring a Noise Emergency on 1-70 through Vail Although the question was addressed to you in a rhetorical way, it appeared the topic might merit some exploration on CDOT's part. Please let us know if there's a role we can play in this research. Demonstration Noise Mitigation Project with CDOT Using European Technology We are extremely interested in pursuing a demonstration noise mitigation project with CDOT that would use European technology. In the short term we are partnering with the Colorado Motor Carriers Association to provide a full size demonstration model using the #ractor trailers similar to T-Rex to determine the viabilitiy and resulting conclusions of noise mitigation in mountainous communities. We feel this would be very useful information as CDOT moves forward with the I-70 PETS and noise mitigation effectiveness in this corridor. We request your department's assistance in allowing this work to proceed in a way similar to any construction project. We would place all the necessary signing and safety devices, but allow use of selected and agreed upon segments of the I-70 and frontage road shoulders. We also look to the department for technical assistance with regard to noise analysis. Vail would help cost-share this project and assist with the research. Short and Long Term Efforts We ask that you assist in offering support for such short term actions as use of quiet rubberized asphalt, elimination of rumble strips and the continued construction of berms, wherever possible. In addition, we ask that you insist that environmental mitigation of pre-NEPA stretches of I-70 be included in early action before only highway improvements are completed. Air Rights Leasing We would like to enter into a memorandum of understanding with FHWA and CDOT on the market lease rate of the air rights of I-70 right-of--way. We would like a ruling of no net increase to either entity in operating and/or capital expenditures minus any capital investments saved long term as the actual rate applied to any- air right use leased/created with a cut and cover project. Special Appropriations We request your support and assistance in lobbying Congress for an earmark in the next Transportation Authorization Bill with regard to a noise mitigation demonstration project using European technology Reducing the Speed Limit for All Vehicles on I-70 through Vail . We ask that a speed study be conducted by your department to determine if our request to reduce the overall speed limit of I-70 through Vail is appropriate. A reduction in speed would reduce the number of accidents in Vail and would reduce overall noise as a secondary benefit. Signaqe for Engine Brake Restriction on I-70 through Vail We ask that you reconsider your determination on engine brake restriction signs, should the Vail Town Council approve legislation banning the use of "jake" brakes on I-70 through Vail (scheduled for final action on Nov. 18). We want truckers to know what our local ordinances are to ensure voluntary compliance as a first step. Signaqe for Local Decibel Level Please consider CDOT signage for local decibel levels. If it is determined this is a viable Enforcement of Existing Laws Please support additional enforcement of engine muffler violations and speeding along the I-70 corridor. VMS Radar Display Convert the two westbound VMS mm177 and 174 to display radar speed readings of passing vehicles. National Noise Level Research Your willingness to contact CDOT's research department to explore how other states are addressing noise level enforcement is very much appreciated. Owen, on behalf of the Vail Town Council and staff, we again thank you for your time and consideration and your service to this region and wish you the best in your retirement. If you could have the appropriate staff get back to us with our concerns it is greatly appreciated. Obviously some of our issues are more long term than immediate while others are issues which Region 3 contro{s over additional input from others. We would like a response with timelines so we may report back to our community. We look forward to meeting with CDOT again for an update on these projects. Sincere) ; NOF AL Greg Hall Public Works Director cc: Vail Town Council MEMORANDUM To: Town Council From: Judy Camp Date: November 13, 2003 Subject: Supplemental Appropriation #3 of 2003 I am attaching detail for the third supplemental appropriation of 2003 that you will be asked to approve on first reading on Tuesday. Most of the expenditures are funded from unbudgeted revenue or expenditure reductions in other areas. Overall the revenue budget is increased by $328,768 and the expenditures budget is increased by $437,529. The four items without other funding are 1.) new Ford Explorers for the Police Chief and Town Attorney to replace the existing leased SAAB's (police patrol vehicles were included in the second supplemental); 2.) new vehicles for admin and community development to replace existing SAAB's; 3.) the assessment for capital repairs and improvements on town-owned office space at Village Inn Condominiums; and 4.) the renovation of the Council Chamber Sound System. Sales from Resale Fees In the 2°d supplemental, funds were reduced in the Buy Down program to fund Middle Creek plan review fees. These funds have been returned to the Buy Down program by recognizing the collections of Resale Fees. These fees also offset additional Middle Creek plan review fees and design fees for the temporary facility for the Children's Garden of Learning. Vail Resorts Development Review Process Agreement This agreement provides funding for additional resources during the high-volume time period of the Lionshead redevelopment. Two employees, a partially funded project engineer in the Capital Projects Fund and a Community Development Intern in the General Fund, have been hired to date and will be funded from this agreement in 2003. Upon approval of this supplemental, we will sign this agreement. Console Equipment and Furniture for 911 Upgrade This item was included in the Dispatch Services Fund in the second supplemental. It has now been moved to the Capital Projects Fund because it is an improvement to a TOV- owned facility for which the Dispatch Services user agencies pay rent.. The salary and benefits budget for the Police Department has been reduced by a corresponding amount, which will be realized from keeping budgeted positions open during the year. These positions were kept o en for cadets attending the Police Corps Academy in Golden, which is paid for by the Federal Government. Finally, the salaries and benefits line in Dispatch Services has been restored to the amount. that should have been budgeted originally to include the systems engineer that is fully-funded by the E-911 Authority Board. The net impact on the supplemental appropriation is zero, but funds have been shifted from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund to support this expenditure. Police Department Grants Grant revenue and related expenditures for four police department grants are recognized. They include a Drug Task Force Grant that was renewed for an additional year in July; a pass-through grant for a TOV officer who is currently providing training at the Police Academy in Golden; the 2003 portion of the CDOT Underage Drinking Grant; and the 2003 portion of a $2,000 grant for youth activities. Police Volunteer Program The Vail Police Department has a long history of using volunteers who are considered to be either episodic, e.g., available for only a certain time of the year or a certain event, or long-term. Long-term volunteers contribute 20 hours or more a month on a regular basis. It is difficult to recruit and retain volunteers to this program when we compete directly with other organizations that are able to provide volunteer incentives. Joe Russell, Administrative Commander of the Vail Police Department, would like to formalize a program to provide recognition, professional development, uniforms, etc. for the Vail Police Volunteer Program. Funding of approximately $3,000 is available from the proceeds of the annual police auction, which is organized by the volunteers to dispose of unclaimed lost and stolen goods. Since the volunteers have taken over the annual police auction, revenues from the auction have increased significantly. Auction revenue and volunteer program expenditures are included in the supplemental appropriation. Manhole Covers Neither the revenue nor costs associated with the sale of Vail's signature manhole covers has been included in the budget previously. This supplemental recognizes both with the net amount budgeted as an expenditure for the Art in Public Places Program. Staff Version 7 Proposed Supplemental Appropriations and Budget Adjustments #3 of 2003 Revenue Expenditure Increase Increase Description (Decrease) (Decrease) Reason Capital Projects Fund Project Budgets Amended 2003 Shared Project Reimbursements Professional fees Shared Project Reimbursements Streetscape Salaries & Benefits Sales-Resale Fees Buy-Down Program Middle Creek Plan Reviews Childrens Garden of Learning Communications Equipment Building Repairs & Maintenance Capital Outlay-vehicles Captial Outlay-vehicles Captial Outlay-equipment Subtotal Capital Projects Fund RETT Projects Fund Manhole Cover Sales Shipping Revenue Shipping Expenses Manhole Cover Expenses AIPP Special Programs & Events .Subtotal RETT Projects Fund General Fund Shared Project Reimbursements Com Dev Salary & Benefits 51,787 Timber Ridge costs reimbursed from bond proceeds 36,787 Timber Ridge costs reimbursed from bond proceeds - $15K budgeted 7,425 Reimbursement from VRI for redevelopment project resources 7,425 Project Engineer position to relieve Greg Hall for redevelopment activities 35,500 27,000 Return funds from Supp #2 to fund Middle Creek Plan Review Fees 3,500 Add'1 charges for Middle Creek Plan Review Fees 5,000 Design fees for temporary facility 69,500 Console equipment for 911 upgrade 10,200 Capital improvement assessment on Village Inn Condo 45,300 Replace Police Chief & Town Attorney SAAB's with Ford Explorers 45,300 Replace Admin &Com Dev SAAB's 17,000 Council Chamber Sound System Renovation 94,712 267,012 45,000 Record revenue of manhole cover sales in'03 1,700 Record revenue of manhole cover shipments 1,700 Cost s to send out manhole covers 18,000 Costs for manhole covers, special petinas, and ebay sales 27,000 for additional AIPP programs, pieces & events 46,700 46,700 10,000 Reimbursement from VRI for redevelopment project resources 10,294 Intern position to relieve other staff from redevelopment projects Supp 3 of2003 031118 S-1 11/13/03 1:40 PM Staff Version 1 Proposed Supplemental Appropriations and Budget Adjustments #3 of 2003 Description Revenue Increase (Decrease) Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Reason Reimbursed Shared Costs Planning Reimburseable Fees Plan Check Fees Professional Fees Intergovt Revenue -Fed Grants Police Investigations Salaries & Benefits Intergovt Revenue -Fed Grants CDOT Underage Program Costs Project Reimbursement Patrol salaries and benefits Police Auction Revenue Police Volunteer Program Police Salary Savings Project reimbusrements/shared Costs Contributions Subtotal General Fund Dispatch Service Fund Salaries and Benefits Capital Outlay Subtotal Dispatch Service Fund Total All Funds 27,674 Collections of outsourcing project reviews 27,674 Outsourcing Project Reviews 36,933 Plan Review FeesVail Mtn school 36,933 Hougland & Assoc, plan review Vail Mtn School 18,000. Funded position for Drug Task Force -second half of year 18,000 Funded position for Drug Task Force -second half of year 12,554 CDOT Underage Drinking Program 12,554 75,745 Robyn Sedersen -Fetterolf funded position at Police Academy 75,745 Robyn Sedersen -Fetterolf funded position at Police Academy 3,000 Revenue from auction to fund volunteer program expenses 3,000 Revenue from auction to fund volunteer program expenses (69,500) Salary savings from open positions to fund console equipment 3,450 VRD fund raising for Skate Park 9,117 Skate Park set up and tear down 187,356 123,817 69,500 Correct budget error (69,500) Correct budget error 0 0 328,768 437,529 Supp 3 of 2003 031118 S-2 1 1 /13/03 1:40 PM TOWN OF vAIL Office of the Town Manager 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157 October 29, 2003 RE: Fire Services discussion between the Town of Vail (TOV) and the Eagle River Fire Protection District (ERFPD) To Whom It May Concern: The purpose of this letter is to confirm that the Town. of Vail (TOV) and the Eagle River Fire Protection District (ERFPD) agree to begin discussions concerning the viability of working cooperatively to determine if consolidating into a single fire district is mutually beneficial to both entities and worthy of a future public vote for such authorization.. As such, the first task before the two entities will be to provide a service level model. with cost estimates and performance standards. Specifically, the TOV and ERFPD will establish a process to draft and consider adoption of a fire services agreement. This agreement would create a specific time period in which consolidated fire services would be provided to the TOV contractually on a trial basis. This "pilot" project would then be evaluated and both parties would determine whether to move forward with the next step, the development of an Inclusion Agreement. Or, concurrently, the Inclusion Agreement could be in process throughout this "pilot" project, thus allowing the TOV and ERFPD the time and. resources to explore thoroughly all aspects for consideration. The TOV and ERFPD agree to begin immediately discussions to determine the economic viability, level of service provided to TOV, and other pertinent issues related to this proposal Upon completion of these discussions, each entity shall. return to its respective boards to determine whether the Fire Service Agreement should be implemented. We look forward to working cooperatively on an effort to determine the most effective and efficient manner to provide emergency response in the upper Eagle and Gore Valleys. Sincerely, TOWN OF VAIL Rod Slifer Mayor Stan Zemler Town Manager If the ERFPD agrees to the terms of this agreement, please acknowledge by signing below: Bob McIlveen Charlie Moore Chairman, ERFPD Chief, ERFPD ~~a RECYCLED PAPER TM Owner-Operator Independent DriversA-~~so--ciation Inc. National Headquarters: OOIDA Building • I-70 at Grain Valley Exit 1 NW OOIDA Drive • P 0 Box 1000 • Grain Valley, Missouri 64029 Tel: (816) 229-5791 • Fax: (816) 229-0518 e-mail: ooida@ooida.com • web site: www.ooida.com October 30, 2003 Mayor Ludwig Kurz Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 n~:~ Dear Mayor Kurz, Mayor Pro-Tem Slifer and Members of the City Council, Several members of our Association have made us aware of your interest in commercial trucks traveling on I-70 and your consideration of enacting a city ordinance prohibiting the use of engine brakes on those vehicles. I'm writing today to urge you to reject such an ordinance. Tl~e Uwner-Operator Independent-Drivers Association (OOIDA) is the. national trade association representing the views and interests of this nation's small business truckers. The OOIDA has over 1750 members in Colorado and tens of thousands additional members that travel I-70 and other Colorado highways regularly delivering virtually everything that sustains life in your community and throughout the United States. Engine brakes were developed for large trucks many years ago as an aid to a truck's primary braking system specifically needed when trucks are descending steep grades. These devices multiply the braking power of truck brake systems while helping to keep brake drums cooler resulting in fewer instances of overheated brakes and runaway truck,. Engine brakes are an important safety device on trucks that have resulted in saving many. lives particularly on mountain grades. It is inconceivable that city officials could act to compromise highway safety over truck exhaust noise. It is also inconceivable that city officials would consider such an ordinance when the appropriate remedy has already been provided for by state lawmakers. Currently, all commercial vehicles with engine brakes are required to have mufflers. Such vehicles without mufflers are in violation of state law and subject to a $500 fine. Legislative action beyond that. already taken by the state legislature is unneeded. r` ~: _;. ~~ ~. ^' ~:.r: -7~!'T'tia%-r~S~~ ,~ .~ ~ a~ <fa~ s ,v~ t }a ~~v`~4 ~ m~, . Lsr,~ . ~~} ~t r ~. * s;~.y ~, ~~ E~ f ~' 3v-; ..t. .,rf `:f ~ r ~,~v 7'~ ~ S". ~b '~ i~~. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, November 5, 2003 3:00 P.M. PUBLIC MEETING PUBLIC WELCOME PROJECT ORIENTATION /LUNCH -Community Development Department MEMBERS PRESENT Bill Pierce Scott Proper David Viele Hans Woldrich SITE VISITS 1. Schmid/Hubbard residence - 2683 Cortina Lane 2. Lazier Lionshead Landscaping Improvements-2683 Cortina Lane 3. Hughes Residence-303 Gore Creek Drive 4. Snowcat Access- Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision 5. Vail Mountain Lodge - 352 East Meadow Drive 6. Brooktree Condominiums - 980 Vail View Drive 7. Eye Pieces Shop -122 East Meadow Drive 12:00 pm 2:00 pm Driver: Warren PUBLIC HEARING -TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:00 pm 1. Vail Mountain Lodge DRB03-0361 Russ A request for a conceptual review of a major exterior alteration and changes to approved plans 352 East Meadow Drive/Tract B, Vail Village 1St Filing Applicant: VML, L.L.C., represented by Braun Associates. CONCEPTUAL REVIEW, NO VOTE 2. Baltz Residence DRB03-0331 Warren Final review of a new single-family home 3786 Lupine Drive/Lot 6, Bighorn 2"d Addition Applicant: Baltz Family Partners II, LLC, represented by Ruggles and Associates MOTION: Viele SECOND: Woldrich VOTE: 4-0-0 TABLED TO NOVEMBER 19, 2003 3. Schmid/Hubbard Residence DRB03-0465 Bill Conceptual review of proposed primary/secondary residence and Type II EHU 2683 Cortina Lane/Lot 7, Block A, Vail Ridge Applicant: Stefan Schmid, represented by Larry Benway CONCEPTUAL REVIEW, NO VOTE ~, ~~~ 1 TDtVN OF VAIL ~ MEMBERS ABSENT Margaret Rogers ~~ r rt E ~~ ~ 1 t ~ ' ~ . , P'1 - .. .~ ~,., i 'C,' .,{ ,~~ f~~~~~ I~i~ .S~'4'~~~"L ,S~ t~~ "fil ~~~f S .`4 ~~Y'~ .:~kt F~~ ; $ ~• ai "~'_d. y. 4. .Brooktree Condominiums DR603-0480 Final review of proposed landscape plan 980 Vail View DrivelLot B6, Lions Ridge 1St Filing Applicant: Cynthia Kruse, Brooktree Board of Directors MOTION: Viele SECOND: Woldrich TABLED TO NOVEMBER 19, 2003 Bill VOTE: 4-0-0 5. Thoma Residence DRB03-0459 Elisabeth Final review of proposed tree removal 1220 Ptarmigan /Lots 2 & 3, Block 8, Vail Village 7th Filing Applicant: Marilynn Thoma, represented by Morten Architects MOTION: Woldrich SECOND: Viele VOTE: 4-0-0 APPROVED, WITH 2 CONDITIONS: 1) The applicant must replace the 40' spruce with three (3) shubert choke cherry trees, each at least 8' in height, before completion of the final inspection. 2) Prior to the placement of the new trees, the applicant must re-grade the existing slope to the north of the entry wall to be at least 12-18" higher in order to increase the height of the replacement plantings and provide additional screening to the north wall of the home. 6. Lazier Lionshead Landscaping Improvements DRB03-0296 Warren Final review of proposed landscaping improvements. Several locations in the vicinity of the Lifthouse Lodge and the Lazier Arcade Condominiums Applicant: Robert Lazier, represented by Mike Black MOTION: Viele SECOND: Proper VOTE: 3-0 (Pierce recused) APPROVED, WITH 3 CONDITIONS: 1) The applicant shall address all Public Works concerns regarding the proposed landscaping improvements prior to beginning any construction. Those concerns include coordinating the location of irrigation lines and electric lines. in the landscaping beds with staff, posting a bond for ali work to be done in the public right-of-way, obtaining apublic-way permit, completing a revocable right-of-way permit, returning all unused brick pavers and stone caps to Public Works, and pouring a larger concrete slab in the area remaining after the planter on the east side of the Lazier Arcade is reduced. 2) The applicant shall utilize Option "B" for the planter which will be reduced in size on the west side of the Lazier Arcade. 3) That the applicant will not pursue any action with the existing tree located in the patio of the Montauk. 7. Hughes Residence DRB03-0458 Warren Conceptual review of proposed addition and exterior alteration 303 Gore Creek Drive/Lot7, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Ron Hughes, represented by Shepherd Resources, Inc. CONCEPTUAL REVIEW, NO VOTE 8. Snowcat Access DRB03-0476 Bill Conceptual review of proposed snowcat access road and bridge Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision Applicant: Vail Resorts, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. CONCEPTUAL REVIEW, NO VOTE 2 ' - - _, T~ ~ 9. Eye Pieces Sign DRB03-0479 Final review of proposed projecting/hanging sign 122 E. Meadow Drive/Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 St filing Applicant: Daniel Barry STAFF APPROVED PRIOR TO MEETING Elisabeth 10. O'Dorisio Residence DRB03-0312 Final review of a proposed addition and exterior changes 4444 Streamside Circle/Lot 11, Bighorn 4th Addition Applicant: Tom and Sue O'Dorisio, represented by John Perkins MOTION: Viele SEI~OND: Woldrich VOTE: 4-0-0 TABLED TO NOVEMBER 19, 2003 11. West Vail Lodge DRB03-0152 Final review of proposed addition and exterior alterations 2211 North Frontage Road/Lot 1, Vail Das Schone 3`~ Filing Applicant: Raj Bhakta MOTION: Viele SEI~OND: Woldrich VOTE: 4-0-0 TABLED TO NOVEMBER 19, 2003 12. Ellefson Residence DRB03-0482 Final review of door replacement 2607A Arosa Drive/Lot 12, Block E, Vail das Schone 1St f=iling Applicant: Tashina Ellefson MOTION: Viele SEt;OIVD: Woldrich VOTE: 4-0-0 WITHDRAWN 13. Scott Building - DRB03-0317 Final review of proposed addition 288 Bridge Street/ Lots C and D ,Block 5A, Vail Village F=irst Filing Applicant: Otto Stork, represented by Michael Sanner MOTION: Viele SEI~OIVD: Woldrich VOTE: 4-0-0 WITHDRAWN Staff Approvals Warren Matt Elisabeth Matt Mountain Haus Condominiums DRB03-0427 Elisabeth Exterior changes; window and door replacements 292 East Meadow Drive, Units #336 and #687/Block 5, Vail Village 1St Filing Applicant: Robert Sinclair and Arthur Morris, represented by Casabonne Enterprises Lodge at Vail, Wildflower Restaurant DRB03-0461 Elisabeth Re-roof with cedar shake, same-for-same 174 East Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block .5-C, Vail Village 1St Filing Applicant: Lodge Properties Inc., represented by Douglas Roofiing Vorlaufer Condominiums DR603-0462 Elisabeth Re-roof, same-for-same cedar shakes 385 East Gore Creek Drive/Vorlaufer Condominiums Applicant: Vorlaufer Homeowner's Association, represented by Plath Construction 3 9 ~ _ `s `~11 '4.7 'Tk' - r ~"~" JC'~.G _ 0. ~Ir i~~ ~f, ^T~';ry +"'T}y .nflj~ v s r t , ~ y~..~.1 ~'~ 4' 1 '~ , - .1 ` West Day Lot DRB03-0454 Elisabeth Installation of sidewalk in TOV right-of-way 715 W Lionshead Circle/Lot C&D, Morcus Subdivision Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Byrne Residence DR603-0456 Elisabeth Exterior changes; new boiler and stamped-concrete heated driveway 2520 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 15, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing Applicant: Ron Byrne Mendik Residence DRB03-0471 Re-Roof, same-for-same 265 Beaver Dam Road/Lot 21, Block 7, Vail Village 1St Filing Applicant: Snowcap Roofing Bill Casa Del Sol DRB03-0470 Bill Re-roof, same-for-same (finishing last 2 buildings from last year) 2065 W Gore Creek Drive/Unplatted Applicant: Turner Morris Company Haley Residence DR603-0401 Exterior door and windows 3988 Lupine Drive/Lot 2A, Block 2, Bighorn 1St Addition Applicant: Hill Construction Inc. Bill Lionshead III Condominiums DRB03-0420 Bill Paver patio and rain directors 360 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2"d Filing Applicant: K.C. Company Cisneros Residence DRB03-0464 Warren Revisions to previously approved plans fora 96 square foot addition. 2855 Aspen Lane/Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Village 11th Filing Applicant: Gerardo Cisneros Scott Building DRB03-0472 Warren Replace store front window system with aluminum window system to match existing 288 Bridge Street/ Lots C and D ,Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing Applicant: Otto Stork Aalta Sports DRB03-0466 Warren New hanging sign to replace sign over main entry on Hanson Ranch Road 333 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1St Filing Applicant: Darwin McCutcheon Solar Vail Condominiums (Nextel Cellular) DRB03-0353 Warren Replacement and upgrade of cellular equipment and antennas 501 North Frontage Road West/Lot 8B, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch 2"d Filing Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, represented by Glen Klocke of Nextel 4 .. :o- r ~.:_ .r: ,~... ~1 'i;w''g"~`~1., ~: `1~3~h~?y ~~ .;A ~:n}.: e'~-r~r"~e:~ At -`=1?Md°~Ii°t',-~r~c ,~ !~}~T,';y."{P .r *,.` r ~~°k; i` 1'~ Red Sandstone: Elementary School (AT&T) DRB03-0473 Replacement and upgrade of cellular equipment and antennas 545 North Frontage Road/Lot 8A, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch 2"`~ Filing Applicant: AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. Hoffman Residence DRB03-0468 Change to approved plans (i.e. front site wall) 2665 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 9, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing Applicant: Scott Hoffman Warren Bill Alpen Chalets Townhomes DRB03-0474 Elisabeth Re-roof from tar and gravel to 50-year Prestique asphalt shingles in "weathered wood" 2388 Garmisch Drive/Lot 9, Block A, Vail das Schone 2"d Filing Applicant: Peter Heller, represented by Horizon Roofing Connors Residence DRB03-0486 Installation of Jacuzzi in side yard 2427 Garmisch Drive/Lot 13, Block A, Vail das Schone 2"d Filinl~ Applicant: Thomas Conners Thoma Residence DRB03-0485 Interior conversion of crawl space to boiler room, wine room, and storage space 1220 Ptarmigan Road/Lots 2 & 3, Block 8, Vail Village 7th Filing Applicant: Marilynn Thoma, represented by Morter Architects Smith Residence DRB03-0477 Exterior changes; replacement of window with door, new planter box 83 Willow Place/Lot 3, Block 6, Vail Village 1St Filing Applicant: Mark Smith, represented by Slifer Designs Lazier Residence DRB03-0300 Change to approved plans (i.e. exterior lighting plan) 1290 Westhaven Circle/Lot 26, Glen Lyon Subdivision Applicant: Clear Lighting and Electrical Design Elisabeth Elisabeth Elisabeth Bill The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the: Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356,Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. 5 ;• .., s ,. _ ~ , ~~ ,. - ~ ~~~4 r \ .\ - - • L' }1. -0 ?y$~ ~t WOLQ FRDA1. PAGE i E vise new a~ if the asmd say sabae9uenf mold gable. sag ~ some ~ b~ `. hygienists owners of `> dderr aedet~ <' said -b~ h ~-~ hired' to eradi~ste mc-ld i$ homes" ~ P Joe Haveg, support services firnl and commercial buildings presidem ~ Deaver Building Own- vironomics. ., .:"Pipes leak and burst here, too," ers and Managers A.gsocia#ron. "Tenants eaa't adjt~: thernsv~ Jeff Potliast, . a certified hy- block: air ducts or stare ;~ gist for Iadnsttial Hygiene Re- " . °`M4ld ~ S , btd the ia~ ' sources in.Goidea °Anywhereyou , surance suir• vi, it. is,' said: Havey, Water-stained: ceilinL Pte. .standing wateu for, WbQ also levies resident for open- ~ weeps before sapif~ sa+ ita~e ~ you. ~. . _ Nassof said .~ ~t temp is w~tl; have.mold. Colorado ~n't i~ atm~, at ~ Keatty !Ilan- ~S ~ ~ for c ~~ ~ ~~ .,. . , agemept Cut; which owns a~ man- " ~". Pothast , .concedes that, :; ins .ages t.5 miIliae~ sgaare feet of lem; vvhg Place the,bardea baeiir~t downto~ space.., °BQM4 stresses the owner!", ~ - h mold~revemiou services. aren't.. ,` clieaP - bvE kbat they: stir coef . education atal.,due diligence: Pea- Tlie revamped teases Pretni~`~' less than Woid-insurancx semi ." Pig wha dolt take thalt _ serioesly new wave of litlgatS: as Q uauf, whic~-, by some estimates are asEing far trouble." and tenants fight aver ~vhn's Tangs from 2 gercent,to 10 percent Ta brace for potential lawsuits,, sponsible~ fon dama~ N of a coverag@ :: many banding o ar+e recon- ~ ~ ~`j A teit of eieanaP could be avoid' st~ctin~ teases tii holg tenants re- "That's America. far yon,' "hd ed it hygienists vv~re hired to super-' sponsible for some damages - said. f o~._ _ ~~~ar~c~ __ 2 fe~era.~ sums ~°~ ~ P mol4i-t~eail n s closer watc~ect "People start worrying about mold at home, and before too long, By Christine Tatum D~nrer POSt Busk18s8 Writer Concerns about mold in the of- fice haoe spread well beyond the employee refrigerator. Bfjt in tl~ late '90s with a, rash of multimillion-dollar lawsuits by homeowners with mold. trouble and-a sub~ent serge in mold-re- laced claims, the nation's largest.. insurers have excluded fungal from .standard homeowner poll= ciea. Now, building owners atid'i~nr ers sag, coverage of aaoId=reIafed problems is drying uP for a mem and ofSce boil hotels a~ an array of other and theg're worrying, about it is the workplace, too,• sa~&1 Loretta WOT- nj B~p~7,r~ n~ decdnse people ht<ve gm, bl$ dollar sagas in their epee and tri lawyers egging them. an to go after the deepest Pockets they'caa fmd." Insurers and uuyy budding own- ersare closely wmat~ching.two feder- al lawsuits: filed in ,thee past:.. lr months,., including one. of the. first cases fee a Colora~ building owe er imrolving workplace mold. to July, two United Airlines e;ogt- ployees filed aclass-action syit against the city of liver, alley be~alth thaaard ~ become a sev~te Den~2nterna- t1Qnal Airport's COnt'tlllr8e B. Also un~ close; eaamiuatioa is a. against IBM f' is North Cara~ui, where several employees sap they eat mold-related sick: cress after theiroffiae flooded: ; "Budding owners are going to haQe to self-i~ure~ PaY a-ere for coverage yr be proactive at ensar- ing.that mold doesn't ggrnrnw m be- gia wi~,° said: John F~nani~. the Denver .attorney representing the United workers. "This is: an issue fat cannot be iguared." ; Thai even goes f~ busine~ea in lry climates such` as Colorado's, mtmiclpai facilities. Insurance companies have tight- seed or eLminated the coverage af- ter triple-digit increases m mold-reIa#ed claims againsE build ~g.l~elRer's t?,a8a .: "1'he4e cases. are very difficult' to investigate and settle because .there is a lot"of bad ~scieu~ medts~ sgnsati an _ fraud, _ vut there,"lltrje ~, deputll commissioner o~ regale- tion for the Colorad~t Divisia~ of Insurance: "3ome cases, may be' valid;. but it's. very difficult to know:" When available, mold policies of- ten are eapen.~ge, leaving bail owners with increasibgly choices about how to protect theme SEE ~AOLD ON 2E ORDINANCE NO. 30 SERIES OF 2003 AN ORDINANCE MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO THE TOWN OF VAIL GENERAL FUND, CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND, RETT PROJECTS FUND, AND DISPATCH SERVICES FUND OF THE 2003 BUDGET FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURES OF SAID APPROPRIATIONS AS SET FORTH HEREIN; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, contingencies have arisen during the fiscal year 2003 which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated by the Town Council at the time it enacted Ordinance No.30, Series of 2002, adopting the 2003 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Town Manager has certified to the Town Council that sufficient funds are available to discharge the appropriations referred to herein, not otherwise reflected in the Budget, in accordance with Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail; and, WHEREAS, in order to accomplish the foregoing, the Town Council finds that it should make certain supplemental appropriations and budget adjustments as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO that: Pursuant to Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado, the Town Council hereby makes the following supplemental appropriations and budget adjustments for the 2003 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado, and authorizes the expenditure or (reduction) of said appropriations as follows: General Fund $ 123,817 Capital Projects Fund 267,012 RETT Projects Fund 46,700 Dispatch Service Fund 0 Total $ 437,529 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any Ordinance 30, Series of 2003 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 18th day of November, 2003, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 2nd day of December, 2003, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the town. Rod Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED AS AMENDED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED in full this 2nd day of December, 2003. Rod Slifer, Mayor Ordinance 30, Series of 2003 ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance 30, Series of 2003 ` tl~~{~C73 ~~~ Vail's Front Door Applicant's Response to Wells' Appeal of PEC Decision November 4, 2003 On September 22, 2003, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission ("PEC") unanimously approved three separate applications related to Vail's Front Door which were submitted by Vail Resorts Development Company as the Applicant. These approvals were 1) an exterior alteration for improvements to the Lodge at Vail, 2) a variance to the Hazard Regulations, and 3) a development plan pursuant to Chapter 8, Article E (Ski Base/Recreation 2 Zone District) of the Zoning Regulations within the Town Code (the "Code"). The Wells appeal challenges only the "Planning and Environmental Commission's approval of The Development Plan for the Front Door Project." It does not challenge the approvals for the exterior alteration or the variance. In challenging the development plan approval, Mrs. Wells' appeal incorrectly states that the PEC was required to apply the criteria set forth in Code Section 12-6I-13. Those criteria apply to the Housing (H) Zone District, and are inapplicable to the development plan for Vail's Front Door. Therefore, Mrs. Wells' appeal, which is based entirely on the application of incorrect criteria, is without legal basis. For that reason alone, Town Council should deny the appeal and uphold the PEC's approval without modification. The correct criteria are set forth in Code Section 12-8E-9, which applies to development plans for projects within the Ski Base/Recreation 2 (SBR 2) district. Section 12-8E-9 establishes ten criteria that an applicant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence have been met in any development plan application for property within the SBR 2 district. This means that an applicant is legally entitled to approval of the development plan application, and it would be an abuse of discretion for the PEC or Town Council to deny the application, if the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the application complies with the .applicable criteria. In this case, there is a well developed record, built up through the eight-month application and review process and a dozen PEC public hearings and work sessions, demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the development plan for Vail's Front Door satisfies the applicable criteria. The September 22, 2003, staff report of the Town's Community Development Department sets out a thorough and cogent analysis of how the development plan for Vail's Front Door satisfies each of the applicable criteria. It also includes proposed findings of fact, adopted by the PEC, that the applicant had demonstrated satisfaction of the applicable criteria by a preponderance of the evidence developed over the eight-month review process. A copy of the relevant portions of the staff report is attached as Appendix 1. In point of fact, Mrs. Wells' appeal is not based on any legal defect in the PEC's approval, but is instead an attempt to re-assert her subjective disagreements with certain design elements inherent in the Front Door development plan. The PEC has heard these and other points of view in hours of public testimony, has reviewed voluminous staff and technical reports, and has reached a different conclusion based on application of the correct evaluation criteria. The PEC decision was well supported and in compliance with the standards for PEC approval under Code Section 12-8E-9. Appellant does not (and cannot) present any basis for overturning that approval. Because the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Vail's Front Door Vail's Front Door Response to Wells' Appeal 601720.2 RCFISH application satisfies each of the applicable criteria for approval, overturning the PEC's approval would constitute an abuse of discretion. Even if Town Council were inclined to revisit the substance of Mrs. Wells' subjective disagreement with the PEC decision, neither the record nor the facts support her appeal. This is clear from a thorough review of the points raised in the appeal, which is set forth below. Italicized passages below are excerpts taken directly from the Appellant's written statements. Standard text is the applicant's response to claims made by the Appellant. From Exhibit A of the Appeal Form. Most of the substantive claims and assertions made on Appellant's Exhibit A can be viewed as gratuitous and extraneous, because the Exhibit A content is only supposed to establish the Appellant's standing to appeal as an aggrieved party. Nonetheless, we will still address the substance of those arguments to show their lack of merit. 1. Please provide a detailed explanation of why the appellant, Mrs. Luanne Wells is an "aggrieved or adversely affected person" Excerpt # 1 According to the Vail Town Code, section 12-3-3, an "aggrieved or adversely affected person means any person who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by this Title (Vail Town Code) ". Towards this end, the Vail Town Charter, Prefatory Synopsis, provides "the commission recognizes that the community of Vail is unique in that it places greater emphasis on aesthetic, environmental, promotional and recreational concerns than are traditional in most municipal governments. This Charter is intended to provide the enduring framework within which these concerns can best be implemented. This Charter is, therefore, fundamentally founded in the belief that the quality of life of the people of Vail shall continue and be enhanced through progressive municipal government. " As approved, the Development Plan for the Front Door Project will adversely impact and negatively enhance the quality of life Mrs. Wells has maintained at One Vail Place over the last 20 years. Applicant Response The key phase in the excerpt above is that the "quality of life of the people of Vail shall continue and be enhanced through progressive municipal government". The purpose statement of the applicable SBR 2 Zone District furthers this "fundamental belief' by requiring that "to ensure compatibility with adjacent Land uses, all permitted uses, development and activity within the District shall be subject to approval of a comprehensive development plan in accordance with the provisions of this article. Furthermore, .... development within this District shall be evaluated based on its ability to meet the specific purposes of this title and to provide "compelling public benefits which further the public interests" that go beyond any economic benefits to the owner." There is a clear linkage between the charter and the purpose of the zone district. The requirement for a development plan (as a requisite for any and all development activity) and the criteria used by the PEC to evaluate such development plan ensure that Vail's Front Door 2 Response to Wells' Appeal 601720.2 RCFISH development will not only "enhance the quality of life of the people of Vail", but will also ensure "compatibility with adjacent land uses" and ensure the development plan provide "compelling public benefits which further the public interests." This does not mean that every person is entitled to enhancement of his or her quality of life. It does mean, however, that all affected individuals will have an opportunity to provide input on the development plan so that the PEC can effectively evaluate whether the project enhances the quality of life for the common benefit of the people of Vail, as it has done for the Front Door project. Mrs. Wells' individual concerns have been heard, addressed, accommodated where possible, and in other instances have been determined by the PEC to be subordinate to the greater public good. The unanimous approval and the positive findings made by the PEC serve as a clear declaration that the project as approved will enhance the quality of life for the common good of Vail's citizenry and will be compatible with adjacent land uses. The PEC expressly held that the project "will provide compelling public benefits which further the public interests. Specifically, the [project]...provides benefits and amenities that will serve the residents, guests and community-at-large, both now and in the future." Public benefits acknowledged to be provided by the project include a public loading facility, a re-designed ski yard, a new skier services building and streetscape improvements. Excerpt #2 Specifically, the Front Door Development Plan proposes building a 14 bay, loading and delivery facility next to One Vail Place. This facility will have a negative environmental impact on the surrounding area, including One Vail Place. Applicant Response The loading facility is located proximate to One Vail Place; however, as designed the facility will be located two levels below grade. Vehicular access to the facility is from Vail Road and via a subterranean portal located approximately 600' west of One Vail Place, and has no meaningful effect on the Village core. Simply put, the delivery trucks that currently service the Village by parking on Gore Creek Drive, Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road will be re-routed to an underground loading facility and a subterranean entry road for that facility that is accessed on the Village periphery. A comprehensive environmental impact report (EIR) for the Front Door and the project as a whole, including the loading and delivery facility, was submitted to the Town. This report was presented to the PEC, the contents of which were discussed and deliberated by the PEC during their consideration of the application. The EIR was submitted on January 6, 2003. In part in response to questions from representatives of the appellant, addendums to the EIR specifically addressing traffic, air quality, odor and noise were prepared (dated July 2003) and submitted to the PEC, the contents of which were deliberated during public hearings. Vail's Front Door 3 Response to Wells' Appeal 601720.2 RCFISH Excerpt #3 The delivery facility will over burden Vail Road, the primary ingress and egress route to One Vail Place. There will be an increase in truck traffic and congestion on Vail Road as a result of the facility. Applicant Response The required submission materials for the development plan included a traffic study, prepared by professional traffic engineers, which specifically addressed the traffic impacts of the proposed delivery facility. That study was augmented on three different occasions at the behest of the PEC to address its stated concerns. The study determined that the delivery facility will not cause undue congestion on Vail Road, or otherwise have a material adverse impact on Village traffic. Those determinations are subsumed within the following description of the traffic routing for the new facility and the Village core. Vail Road, which will provide access to the proposed loading facility, currently provides access to the majority of all on-street loading spaces within Vail Village located south of Gore Creek. The proposed loading facility is intended to serve uses in the Village located south of Gore Creek. The same trucks that today enter Vail Village via Vail Road will continue to enter the proposed loading facility via Vail Road. As an element of this project, on-street loading will be eliminated at P3&J. These loading spaces will be replaced at the loading facility proposed for the Front Door. This will result in a small increase in trucks using Vail Road (trucks that previously utilized Vail Valley Drive to access P3&J). On a peak day, a maximum of 32 trucks that previously utilized P3&J are projected to utilize Vail Road to access the new loading facility. This incremental truck traffic will not have a significant impact on the use or capacities of Vail Road. In any event the PEC generally viewed Vail Road as the preferable truck delivery route, in order to reduce vehicular pressure on streets within the Village Core than are more commonly frequented by and better suited to pedestrians (including the access ways surrounding P3&J). This aspect alone was considered a very positive benefit to the public. In addition, for exiting purposes the design of the loading facility affords flexibility by offering the delivery drivers the option of four different exit routes -Vail Road, Willow Circle to Vail Road, International Bridge or Gore Creek Drive. This design preserves the existing exit routes and will assist in preventing any material effects on Vail Road. As part of the traffic study, capacity analysis of Vail Road was completed and presented to the PEC for consideration. This analysis and subsequent reports were considered and discussed on no fewer than three PEC meetings. The conclusion of this analysis is that with all proposed development of the Front Door (car and truck traffic) Vail Road will function at a level of service "A" south of Meadow Drive and level of service "C" north of Meadow Drive. This level of service is well within acceptable standards. The findings of this analysis have been accepted by the Town's Director of Public Works. Vail's Front Door 4 Response to Wells' Appeal 60120.2 RCFISH It should also be noted that the Town will be able to influence the management of the delivery facility. The Town will benefit from public access rights to use a substantial number of the loading bays. The conditions of the PEC's development plan approval require the establishment of legal mechanisms for the enjoyment of those rights, which are contemplated by the parties to include a management and operations plan. That plan should serve as a further means to address any traffic routing issues that may evolve. Contrary to recent assertions by the Appellant, management of the loading facility has been addressed in this instance by virtue of that approval condition. In conclusion, the loading facility may result in a small increase in traffic on Vail Road in return for the community benefit of removing truck traffic from Vail Valley Drive and loading activity from Hanson Ranch Road and Gore Creek Drive, i. e., streets serving as pedestrian ways. In effect delivery truck traffic will be largely relegated to the westerly periphery of the Village core, with a corresponding reduction of traffic activity in the heart of the Village. In any event Vail Road has the capacity to accommodate traffic from the project. Recently Appellant also made supplemental assertions that the Front Door loading facility is a "centralized" loading facility and thereby contravenes a satellite loading and delivery system as contemplated by the Town's Master Plan Transportation Update. This assertion effectively assumes that there are and will be no other meaningful loading and delivery facilities serving the Village. This is not reflective of reality or the attitude of the Town. In the PEC hearings Town Staff stated that they have and will continue to watch for and take advantage of other opportunities to develop other delivery and loading sites for the benefit of the Village, including areas south of Gore Creek. Larger Village projects often include (and may be required to include) their own self-contained facilities. Staff does not view the Front Door as the "be-all and end-all" for loading and delivery functions. While the Front Door facility may be relatively large, the Front Door is the logical site for a relatively large facility, given its location on the southerly periphery of the Village. Appellant's own traffic consultant has opined that the Village needs an aggregate of 40-50 loading bays, and that the Front Door facility can furnish only '/4 to of the requisite capacity. The satellite system by necessity must and will continue to evolve over time. Excerpt #4 The hand truck portal for the facility is poorly located. As proposed, deliverymen will conflict with skiers and pedestrians trying to access the mountain. Deliverymen will go between One Vail Place and the Lodge in order to deliver their goods. This will be very disruptive to Mrs. Wells and other residents of One Vail Place. Alternative locations for the entire loading and delivery facility and the hand truck portal need to be re-evaluated and closely studied. Applicant Response The location for the loading facility was identified with direct input from Town Staff. The proposed site is widely recognized as the only viable location to provide alarge-scale loading facility for portions of Vail Village south of Gore Creek. The traffic study included with the application evaluated the adequacy of the loading facility to serve the Vail's Front Door 5 Response to Wells' Appeal 601720.2 RCFISH hand truck traffic. The location for the hand truck outlet was studied extensively and numerous alternatives were considered and discussed with the PEC during public hearings. The design of the outlet was modified in direct response to input from the PEC. As originally proposed, the design sent all hand trucks through a proposed enclosed corridor between One Vail Place and the Lodge at Vail. In accordance with PEC recommendations, this corridor has been re-designed to be unenclosed and will allow hand carts the option of leaving the. outlet and flowing into the Village via the corridor between One Vail Place and the Lodge, the corridor between One Vail Place and Hill Building, or at the top of Bridge Street between the Hill Building and the Bridge Street Lodge. This design change allows for three potential dispersal points from which all hand carts will travel down hill to their destination. Appellant also recently asserted that there is only one freight elevator in the loading facility servicing the hand truck portal, while in fact the approved design calls for two. Potential conflicts between hand carts and pedestrians was discussed with the PEC, but were generally acknowledged to be a "non-issue". Hand carts have been used extensively throughout the Village for the past 20-30 years, commonly mixing with pedestrian traffic, and must realistically be viewed as a constant. Seldom, if ever, have concerns been raised regarding their conflict with pedestrians. In reality, hand carts take up no more room on the street than a baby carriage and in many respects take up less room than a careless skier carrying their skis "perpendicular to their route". The direction from which the hand carts will emanate does not pose a material concern. With regard to One Vail Place, it should be noted that a representative from the two other residential owners in One Vail Place participated in discussions during PEC hearings. This representative expressed no concerns with the hand cart outlet. Excerpt #5 As approved, the Front Door Development Plan proposes building a very large Skier Services building in the Vista Bahn ski yard. As a result the ski yard will be reduced. Applicant Response As approved the skier services building is approximately 27,000 square feet in size, of which approximately 15,000 square feet is situated above-grade (based on assertions recently made, Appellant apparently believes mistakenly that the above-grade facility includes approximately 19,000 square feet). During the PEC review of the Front Door, the size of the skier services building was reduced from the original proposal of approximately 43,000 square feet. These reductions were made, in part, to increase the size of the ski yard. As approved, the usable portion of the ski yard will in fact not be reduced. In fact, coupled with the re-location of the base of the Vista Bahn (moved 90' to the south), the proposed ski yard will provide an increase in usable area, i.e. more room for skiers to "stage" when going up the lift and when coming down the mountain. The PEC's concerns regarding the ski yard and skier services building were much more focused on preserving the size of the ski yard than on the size of the skier services Vail's Front Door 6 Response to Wells' Appeal 601720.2 RCFISH building. In fact, on a number of occasions PEC members cautioned against making the skier services building too small. Nonetheless, ultimately the building was significantly downsized, in part to accommodate Mrs. Wells' concerns. The size of the ski yard and it's ability to handle skier traffic and to be used for international ski races and other special events were discussed extensively during at least three different public hearings. Using illustrative materials, the Applicant demonstrated to the PEC's expressed satisfaction that the ski yard would be readily adequate for these purposes. Also, on at least two occasions it was suggested by the PEC that in lieu of reducing the size of the skier services building the applicant consider shifting the building further to the west. This alternative was actually considered by the Applicant prior to formally submitting development applications. However, this alternative was rejected by Luanne Wells as being unacceptable prior to application and again during PEC deliberations, apparently because it would involve putting the One Vail Place access drive underground. Excerpt #6 The new skier services building negatively impacts Mrs. Wells' view line as well as the unoff cial view corridor from Wall Street. Applicant Response Cross-sections through the skier services building were prepared and presented to the PEC at public hearings. The proposed roof ridge of the skier services building varies throughout the building so as to provide a breaking down of the massing of the building and to enhance its architectural variety. The maximum ridge elevation is at the far south of the building, as it begins to rise slightly with the grade of the hill. It is set at 8206'-6". The ridges closest to One Vail Place have been held to the very minimum of constructability throughout the design process in deference to the residents of this structure. The roof ridges closest to One Vail Place are set at 8197'-5", 8197'-9" and 8199'-10". The floor elevation of the Wells' unit is 8201'-6". As such, it is hard to imagine how the skier services building could adversely affect views from this unit given that the proposed ridges are lower than the Wells' unit. It should also be noted that there are two other residential condominiums in One Vail Place. Both of these owners have been involved in the review of the Front Door. Neither of these owners has voiced opposition the final design of the project. The skier services building does not encroach into any recognized Town of Vail view corridor. This has been substantiated by a photo overlay of the proposed building as viewed from the Bridge Street view corridor. These overlays were presented to the PEC during public hearings. The view from Wall Street is irrelevant in that it has never been designated an official view corridor by the town. That said, in response to this question a photo overlay of the view from this corridor was prepared. This overlay demonstrated that the proposed building will have no impact on views from the Wall Street corridor. Vail's Front Door 7 Response to Wells' Appeal 6017202 RCFISH Excerpt #7 The building design needs to be heavily scrutinized. The applicant should have the proposed design reviewed by an outside, reputable consultant. Applicant Response Jeff Winston, the town's urban design consultant has been involved in the review of the project. Given the twelve PEC meetings and two DRB meetings (with final design review yet to come), it would seem quite evident that the design has been and will continue to be heavily scrutinized.. The DRB has already weighed in with initial input that is being addressed. The determination of whether and to what extent to employ outside design review services properly falls within the expertise of the PEC and DRB. Massing and compatibility issues have also been given due consideration by the PEC in the course of its deliberations. Excerpt #8 Further, the Skier Services building is slated to house additional unnecessary retail space. This area should remain open space and should not be utilized for private development or retail shops. Applicant Response Again, the total amount of square .footage within the skier services building is approximately 27,000. Retail space within the building consists of a coffee/beverage bar, a small space for an on-mountain photography operation and a rental shop. The total square footage of these retail uses is approximately 4,400, or only 16% of the entire building. Materials recently submitted by Appellant imply that the building will have multiple retail facilities each in excess of 3,000 square feet; nothing could be further from the truth. This limited amount of space is considered essential to the operation of the building and the services it will provide to skiers and guests. All uses conform to the zoning regulations of the SBR 2 zone district. The skier services building is located on land that for the past 15 years has been designated by Town of Vail master plans as "ski base/recreation" and as a "ski portal". Since the beginning of Vail uses and activities on this land have included lifts and tows, special events, buildings for restrooms and mountain operations, overnight ski storage, roads and parking facilities. The area is not open space and is not designated as open space under the Town's Comprehensive Plan or the applicable zoning. Appellant has recently expressed concerns that the additional retail space in the skier services building will hurt the business of existing Village retailers. While Mrs. Wells' concerns for the Vail retailers may be well intended, they are misplaced. In the course of the hearing process, the PEC did not encounter substantial opposition from the retail community. Applicant met with the Vail Chamber and Business Association and received no material negative imput on the retail uses. Without noticeable public outcry, the Sonnenalp expansion was recently approved with the inclusion of retail space of a size approximately 3 times that proposed for the skier services building, and the percentage of retail permitted in lodging projects was recently liberalized under a new Vail's Front Door 8 Response to Wells' Appeal 601720.2 RCFISH zoning amendment. There is no evident public groundswell against the addition of retail space in the Village. Mrs. Wells' express desire to preserve the Front Door as open space may be the most telling statement in her appeal materials. Rather than promoting safeguards to assure beneficial development, she wishes to preclude Front Door development. Her wishes in this regard are directly at odds with the public policies and purposes embodied in the Town's Comprehensive Plan and the applicable SBR 2 zoning to employ and develop the Front Door effectively as a ski base area with related uses, including appropriate retail. Mrs. Wells' personal desires should not be allowed to trump the public welfare. Excerpt #9 As approved, the Front Door Development Plan did not include a detailed cost v. benefit analysis. Again, on behalf of the community Mrs. Wells questions the overall economic impact of this project to the Town. Applicant Response The Town's development review process outlines explicit submittal requirements to be provided by an applicant. Under Town regulations, a detailed cost/benefit analysis is not a submittal requirement for this project. In response to questions by the Appellant regarding acost/benefit analysis, the PEC determined that such an analysis was not necessary. It is again worth noting that while it was not characterized as a "cost-benefit analysis," the PEC did specifically find that the Front Door project carries with it compelling public benefits that support its approval. In this vein the loading and delivery facility especially merits consideration. In recent allegations Appellant contends specifically that acost-benefit analysis should be provided to evaluate costs associated with the loading and delivery facility. However, in the course of its deliberations, the PEC acknowledged that the Applicant is bestowing a tremendous public benefit upon the Town by absorbing the capital costs for developing and by allocating to public use a number of loading bays that is far in excess of the Code requirements for the Front Door project. This benefit was viewed as dramatically outweighing whatever ordinary operating expenses the Town may ultimately bear pursuant to a sharing agreement to be made with the Applicant. Excerpt # 10 Finally, Mrs. Wells asserts this project does not increase the overall quality, integrity and ambiance of Vail Village. Applicant Response The PEC reviewed the Front Door project on twelve different occasions. Seven of these PEC hearings took place between June and September and were devoted to evaluating the design aspects of the project. During the course of these meetings numerous people provided input on the project and the vast majority of this input was positive. In addition to these individuals, representatives from the Lodge South Condominiums, the Bridge Street Lodge Association and the Vail Village Homeowners Association all voiced Vail's Front Door 9 Response to Wells' Appeal 601'720.2 RCFISH support for the project. The PEC's unanimous vote of approval speaks for itself -after exhaustive review the PEC determined that the project not only complies with all applicable review criteria but also provides "compelling public benefits which further the public interests". From Exhibit B of the Aupeals Form 1. Please specify the precise nature of the appeal. Please cite specific Code provisions having relevance to the action being appealed. Excerpt # 11 According to the Town Code, section 12-61-13, the Planning and Environmental Commission must apply the following criteria when considering a development plan: 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, ej~cient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identifted 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. (Ord. 19(2001) ~ 2: Ord. 3(2001) ~ 2) Mrs. Wells asserts the Planning Commission did not correctly apply the criteria set forth in 12-6I-13 when approving the Development Plan for the Front Door Project. Applicant Response The appellant is correct in stating the. PEC did not apply criteria set forth in Code Section 12-6I-13, again because it is wholly inapplicable. As stated previously, and as a result, Mrs. Wells' appeal has no legal basis and should be dismissed. However, again Applicant will respond to her substantive Exhibit B allegations to show that they would not support her appeal even if they were properly made. This will be done in large part by reference to the Exhibit A responses set forth above, since Appellant's Exhibit B allegations are generally repetitive of those in Exhibit A. Vail's Front Door 10 Response to Wells' Appeal 601720.2 RCFISH Excerpt # 12 Specifically, the Planning Commission failed to adequately scrutinize the design of the skier service building as required by 12-6I-13 (A), (B) and (C). Applicant Response See the above response to Excerpt #7. Excerpt # 13 The Planning Commission failed to adequately scrutinize how pedestrian and skier traffic will jlow in the Village and in the Vista Bahn ski yard, given the location of the hand truck portal as well as the location of the new skier services building, as required by 12-61-13 (C and D). Applicant Response See the above responses to Excerpt #'s 4 and 5. Excerpt # 14 The Planning Commission failed to fully consider an appropriate environmental impact report for the project as a whole. The Planning Commission failed to require the applicant to provide appropriate environmentally sound mitigating measures. As such, the Planing (sic) Commission failed to comply with 12-6I-11 and 12-61-13 (E). Applicant Response See the above response to Excerpt #2. Excerpt # 15 The Planning Commission failed to consider an appropriate economic cost v. benefit analysis for the entire project as well for the loading and delivery facility as required by 12-61- 13 (F). Applicant Response See the above response to Excerpt #9. In addition, Appellant's allegation here indicates that acost-benefit analysis is mandated by the Town's Comprehensive Plan. There is no such express mandate. Excerpt # 16 The Planing(sic) Commission failed to give due consideration to a traffic study and management plan for the loading and delivery facility, as required by required by (sic) and 12- 61-12(14) and 12-6I-13(F). Applicant Response See the above response to Excerpt #3. Excerpt # 17 The Planning Commission otherwise failed to consider and properly apply applicable criteria such that the interests of Ms. Wells as a landowner and the citizens of the Town of Vail as a community are adversely impacted in a manner inconsistent with historical Town of Vail Vail's Front Door 11 Response to Wells' Appeal 601920.2 RCFiSH planning documents, applicable rules/ regulations, and a healthy sense of development for the future of the Town of Vail. Applicant Response See the above responses for Excerpt #'s 1 and 10. For that matter, virtually all of the foregoing responses probably have relevant bearing on this generalized and obtuse allegation. Subsequent Allegations. Following the filing of the original appeal, Appellant has submitted certain other claims and allegations. Applicant is of the position that those claims and allegations have not been timely made and cannot act as a basis of appeal. Vail's Front Door 12 Response to Wells' Appeal 601720.2 RCFISH 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 3) Approved Development Plan The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of a proposed development plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved: A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. The proposed redevelopment of Vail's Front Door has been redesigned to the highest quality of architecture drawing from Vail's architectural vernacular. Above grade structures have been designed to a bulk and mass consistent with neighboring properties and in compliance with the recommendations and requirements of the Town's master plans. The proposed skier services and ski club building have been designed as low-level structures to respect private agreements and covenants and indirect response to input from the Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board. The residential structures have been benched into the hillside in order to reduce perceived bulk and mass and oriented towards the views to the east. A buffer zone of more than fifty feet will be provided where the proposed development adjoins residential uses. All of the proposed parking and loading for the project has been provided in a sub-surface structure, thus reducing the visual impacts of these uses on the neighboring uses and the community as a whole. The Design Review Board has requested that the applicant retain a outdoor lighting consultant to design the exterior lighting on the buildings minimize the negative effects of nighttime lighting without compromising the necessary safety needs. 33 The proposed development is consistent in design, character, and mass with the Town's Design Guidelines and with neighboring uses and structures. A condition of approval requires that the Town of Vail Design Review Board approves the final plans which will ensure compliance with the applicable design guidelines and standards. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The proposed uses, activities, and densities create a compatible and efficient workable relationship with surrounding uses and activities. The Front Door area is surrounded by a mixture of uses including ski runs and skiing facilities, retail, lodging facilities, and multiple-family/single-family residential dwellings. The proposed development plan includes many of these same uses strategically located to create compatibility with the surrounding environment. A complete zoning analysis has been provided in Section V of this memorandum indicating compliance with the Town's prescribed development standards. C. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. The proposed development plan provides parking and loading facilities which meet or exceed the minimum requirements of Chapter 10 of the Zoning Regulations. The applicant has proposed to construct a centralized loading and delivery facility within the development to accommodate much of tehloading and delivery needs for those businesses and uses located in the southerly portion of Vail Village. A summary of the parking requirement prescribed for the development has been attached for reference. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. The proposed development plan complies with the Town's master planning documents as applicable to the site. The proposed development plan implements numerous Town policies and goals as described in Sections IV and VII of this memo. E. Natural And/Or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the development plan is proposed. As documented in the Environmental Impact Report for this project, there are no geologic or other natural hazards. existing on the property. A variance is being sought from a Town standard that restricts development on areas of 40% slope or greater. The intent of the slope restrictions in the hazard regulations is to prevent development in areas that are potentially unstable and in areas that are of consistently steep slopes. The proposed development site contains isolated areas in excess of 40% slope that occur in the middle of the proposed development site which are areas clearly not intended to be restricted by the hazard regulation. These 40% sloped areas are not contiguous with other vast steep hillside areas. Geological reports submitted with the application indicate that the proposed development site is suitable for the type of development being proposed. The proposed variance will allow the owner to attain the objectives 34 and intent of the zoning regulations without a grant of special privilege. Mitigation measures recommended by the EIR, if any, will be implemented during the construction process. Staff believes that the proposed development complies with the intent of the prescribed hazard regulations. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The proposed development plan is designed to respond directly to the skier services and activities currently existing in the area and proposed for the site. The proposed plans are responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation, and the aesthetic qualities of the community. Vail's Front Door Project site is situated in an area where skiers, shoppers, and residents interface with the Vail Village and the ski mountain. The proposed design responds to this interface to provide order, interest, and vitality. The proposed uses are intended to provide essential services to residents and tourists while at the same time concealing back of house type uses and functions in asub-surface parking and loading area. The proposed residences are designed and located in an area that has little impact on adjoining residential uses and is responsive to the overall site. Open space areas are created and preserved as shown on the proposed development plan. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. The proposed development plan includes a circulation system designed with both vehicles and pedestrians in mind. The on-site circulation system provides for a mostly separated pedestrian and vehicular system. The bulk of cars and trucks enter the site through a subsurface tunnel to parking and loading areas. Pedestrians are provided pathways on the surface of the site in efficient and logical locations. While there is some intermingling of pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the surface of the site, the type of vehicular traffic in very minor and similar to that found in low-density residential areas throughout the Town of Vail. Off-site vehicular traffic is improved with enhancements to the adjoining street system making traffic flow more efficient and orderly. The proposed loading facility located on the site is intended to help reduce the impacts of delivery trucks on the existing pedestrianized areas of the Vail Village as part of a dispersed loading program. The applicant is also proposing significant enhancements to off-site pedestrian areas as part of a mitigation of development impacts and public improvement plan. These improvements will make the pedestrian experience in the Vail Village safer and more enjoyable. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. The proposed development plan includes significant open space areas and landscape treatment. The open space areas created will provide for and 35 maintain public views of the ski mountain as well as provide adequate open areas necessary for running a ski base facility and ski lift area. Landscaping and buffering have been generously planned throughout the site to create an aesthetically pleasing environment. The type of landscape materials proposed mirror that treatment found on adjacent lands. 1. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the development plan. The development plan does not currently anticipate a phased development approach. The proposed development plan maintains a workable, functional, and efficient relationship among the planned uses. J.Annexed Lands: Conformity with the terms of an annexation agreement and demonstration of a compelling public benefit which furthers the public interest. The proposed development project includes lands anticipated to be annexed into the Town of Vail. All provisions of the approved development plan and conditions of approval will be incorporated into an annexation agreement with the Town. The proposed development plan provides a compelling public benefit and interest by: • Providing private land and constructing facilities for a public loading and delivery system for the Village Core area; • Providing pedestrian and streetscape improvements which enhance the citizen's and guest's experience; • Enhancing the overall aesthetics of the Town; • Reducing physical barriers for pedestrians and skiers; • Providing a skier club which includes parking spaces that will help reduce the public's reliance on the Town's public parking structures; and • Providing public and quasi-public facilities such as restrooms on private property. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves with conditions the request for a final review of an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to the Lodge at Vail; the request for a variance from Section 12-21-10, Development Restricted, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 17, Variances, Zoning Regulations, to allow for the _ construction of multiple-family dwelling units on slopes in excess of 40%; and the request for the establishment of an approved development plan to facilitate the ` construction of Vail's Front Door, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Staff's 36 recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the evidence presented and the testimony provided at the public hearings on these requests. Should the Commission choose to approve the applicant's requests, staff recommends that the following findings of fact be made as part of the motion: 1) Major Exterior Alteration "That the applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence and testimony presented before the Planning and Environmental Commission at a public hearing, that the proposed exterior alteration to the Lodge at Vail is in compliance with the purposes ,of the CC1 District as specified in Section 12-7B-1 of the Zoning Regulations; that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vai! Village Master Plan, the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and the Vail Comprehensive Plan; and that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood. Further, the Commission finds that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Design Considerations, to include, but not be limited to, the following urban design considerations: pedestrianization, vehicular penetration, streetscape framework, street enclosure, street edge, building height, views, service/delivery and sunshade analysis; and that the proposal substantially complies with all other elements of the Vail comprehensive plan." 2) Variance "The Planning and Environmental Commission finds that based upon the evidence and testimony presented before the Commission at a public hearing, 1. That the granting of the variance to allow development on slopes in excess of 40% will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Ski Base Recreation -2 zone district as the development will mitigate the geologic hazard. 2. That the granting of the variance to allow development on slopes in excess of 40% will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity as design of the development mitigates the possible negative impacts associated with the geologic hazard. 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified hazard regulation restricting development on steep slopes would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Regulations. " 3) Approved Development Plan "That the applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence and testimony presented before the Planning and Environmental Commission at a public hearing, that the submittal material, as presented, and the development plan, as proposed, comply with each of the design criteria outlined in Section 12-8E-9 of the Zoning Regulations, or has demonstrated that one or more of the criteria is not applicable to 37 the proposed development, or has demonstrated that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved as a result of the proposed development plan. Furthermore, in keeping with the adopted purpose statement of the Ski Base Recreation - 2 zone district, as prescribed in Section 12-8E-1, of the Zoning Regulations, due to the likelihood of the district being located at the base of Vail Mountain, and upon some of the most critical and important lands to the future success and resort character of the Town, development within the district shall be evaluated based upon its ability to meet the specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations and to provide °compelling public benefits which further the public interests" that go beyond any economic benefits to the landowner, the Commission finds that the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission, that the proposed development plan for Vai!'s Front Door Project, will provide compelling public benefits which further the public interests. Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed development plan for Vail's Front Door Project furthers the development objectives of the Town as outlined in the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan and provides benefits and amenities that will serve the residents, guests ,and community at-large, both now and into the future. " .Nov-04-03 02:38P xssu~rr n~vxc~~ ~xsoc^aartrs October 28, 2003 Town Council Town of Vail Vail,. Colorado Dear Members of the Vail Tawn Council, ~ ~~.,, ,T,,f ~ a~ ~~~UL ~~~~/~ ~ ~ P _ 04 l L~ ~~,/i 6'tp,t.t~oL Andy Littman, on behalf of Mrs. Luanne Wells, has asked me to review the proposed plans far the Front Daor project that is now before the Tawn Council and 17iRI3 far consideration, I would like to thank the members in advance for reviewing my comments regarding this amhitious project. it is clear that a great deal of thought has already gone into the design of this development. It is equally clear that it is a very complicated undertaking. In generating my own comments, I have reviewed the architectural drawings, the Planning Department Memo to the PEC;, as well as participated in telephone and personal meetings with the Wells team. I am aware that I have not had the benefit of fallowing this project from its inception and may not know some ofthe many issues that were addressed in the development of the Front Door development. However, T do feel I have a fairly good grasp of this proposal and the importanbe of the project, especially in light of my 40 plus years working with many of you in our wonderful Vail Valley. 1. have outlined my remarks below, addressing the program, the site plan, general building massing and architectural character. Project Program: My first concern with the }~ront Door program is with the validity of the size, location and function of the proposed leading dock area. The number of loading bays for large trucks surprises me; T have rarely seen anything larger than aten-wheel truck in Town. In cases where a sixteen-wheel truck is used, such as at the grocery store at Crossroads, a forklift is often employed to quickly remove the cargp, Although a forklift could be used to unload a shipment in the loading deck area, the proposed scheme would require more time and labor to transport a shipment to its fine! destination in the Village since the elevator precludes access by such equipment. I believe the number of sixteen wheelers, as well as their frequency in the village should be weighed against the enormpus cost and negative design i~npacts afcreating a large underground facility for these particular trucks. Moreover, a centralized loading and unloading facility is inconsistent with my understanding of Town of Vail Master Plans and doesn't make sense at this highly visible, pedestrian oriented location. Nov-04-03 O2:38P P_O5 .~ It appears that the proposed, centralized loading area has only one elevator to access the Village, more than thirty feet above. I beiieve that the one, fairly slew hydraulic elevator would certainly create a bottleneck, both above and below, especially ifmarethan two deliveries are-made at the same time. The time and effort required to make deliveries utilizing the one elevator also presents headaches for that unfortunate delivery person who forgets something in the truck or is asked for additional quantities of an item, such as an extra keg of beer or carton of paper goods. Of course, if the elevator is out of service, for maintenance or if broken, then the only alternative for deliveries would be to share the one remaining passenger elevator, which would ba very inconvenient, if not dangerous. Adding trash removal services to the scheme would only add another layer of inconvenience. I am also concerned with the circulation patterns that would result by locating the elevator where it is proposed; all deliveries, whether a single Fed Ex envelope or a large shipment of restaurant supplies, all would need to pass through a very active and prominent pedestrian zone. In the winter, large deliveries would be almost impossible, especially with the largo numbers of skiers moving through that space, unless, perhaps, all delivery surfaces throughout town would be constructed with snow melt technology. Even if such s large investment in that technology were made, I believe that the distances required to service the entire village from the loading area would be unacceptable to the unions who represent the various shipping companies. Even the venerable popcorn wagon is more than 150 feet away from the proposed service elevator. I understand the desire to eliminate tn,cks from the Village core. I was part of the original design team that wished to minimize the mix of vehicles and pedestrians. We are doing just the apposite here: unnecessarily mixing delivery functions with pedestrian uses. I have to question whether the enormous expense and logistics required to underground all deliveries is practicable. As a policy matter, if it is deemed practicable then the Master Plan satellite system seems preferable to what may end of being a de facto centralized facility if built to this magnitude. 1 have considered my awn feelings on the matter and have asked both locals and visitors what they think about this issue. Qn the whale, the only negative comments I heard had to do with the noise made by early morning trash pick-ups and commercial deliveries. I have heard many more complaints about the noise created by idling Town aF Vail buses and the audible signals from the snow removal tractors. Perhaps people have grown accustomed to the sight of service vehicles in the'Village core, as well as in their awn hometowns. I find it hard td reconcile the trade-offs of constructing such an expensive solution to a problem that, I feel, is not really that egregious. The deep hillside cuts and tall retaining walls required in the proposed development force the developers to offset .the cost of such an undertaking by building a dense collection of revenue- generating buildutgs above. I feel that the proposed density is out afcharacter with the overall master plan of the Village and beiieve that there are much less costly and simple regulatory methods available to address the issue of trucks in town. I urge the Council to constider scaling back the centralized loading dock area in favor of the not-so-perfect but simple manner in which businesses have been serviced since Vail's inception. The reduction in construction costs should allow the developers to make corresponding reductions in density, to the benefit of the immediate neighborhood. r' Nov-04-03 O2:39P P.O6 The program outlines additional commercial space in the development. I worry that Vail's existing commercial spaces are already suffering, with many vacant stores around town. The proposed 3,000 square foot commercial spaces in the development are also at odds with the scale of the existing, smaller boutique stores. Although a very successful concept used elsewhere in the ski resort industry, l feel that the proposed Ski. Club with separate, paid parking spaces in the development could also adversely affect the retail stores in the Village by circumventing a number of potential customers away from the center of town. Hopefully, the club members would continue to patronize the shops and restaurants in the village. The Slte Plan: If this project is to be the "Front Door" to the Mountain, it needs to portray the image of an important portal, The one story ski services building presents a weak image. I would prefer a grand open and more sophisticated landscape plan centered on a grassy amphitheater, in which public events, in summer or winter, could be held. Such a space would be Vail's "central Park," expressing and integration of nature, recreation and community at the foot of the resort's signature mountain. Moving the Vista Bahn lift Further from the tap of Bridge Street, I believe, undermines the ski yard atmosphere. The heated sidewalks and patios that seem to dominate the plan may detract from the special, natural essence of Vail's winters. Although it is important to keep up with the competition,l would not want to lose the ambiance that is currently present on a typical ski day. The proposed landscaping, too, seems too urban and out of character with the adjacent natural environment. Amore natural, well-designed landscape plan would be preferable. : The townhomes are packed tightly on the hillside and present very repetitive, static elevations. I suggest that these buildings should not be a series of duplicate structures, but a rnix ofunits of varying elevations, heights and separations. This would make for a much more interesting composition in keeping with the village core. The site plan, in general, has been handicapped by a program that "asks toa much," I believe that the present plan reflects a design that has been engineered to fit a pro forma. 'the result is a program that does allow the designers much flexibility to pursue those architectural or planning qualities that would elevate this to a much more notable project. Buiiding Massing; As noted above, I feel that the buildings that contain the residential units would be better served if there were more variety in their scale. Perhaps one building could have four units, another two or three, and yet another, a single, freestanding unit. My design of the Bishop Park project, just dawn the road, was organized this way and presents a very pleasing composition. The Skier Services building is too large and out of scale to its neighbors. Although it is only one